,4. .4” 4.: .. .4 .5 .. 3;,“ mn§;a:u“'-‘_ ._,. ...._. Y _ 421:; "a. 5..- i ..4, u .. . 4 . 4 .54 . . 4. 3.. n.” fiv. 4 . 4. .44.“... 4- 4” w“ 4.4. I“. n . 4 ‘ ' :Fétzkxs ' $51492“; Z’. 7- - . 0 ‘ I v a... 4. _ "m p 4 . c.“ . . \r . . m... 'mwi‘c“ 4 ~ ,9 - .I a: =4 4 3. ~ 7:1":— 4 ‘TE: . .- _. ... 5.12.. 4 .. h . . .. . .. . ..H . . m I .. fa...” m. r. .. 1.3.4 . .. . .. . . . . . .. 4 .. .. . ... ..4. N .. . . 1:90.14} 4 . . 4 4 v .. .. _ _ . . .w. . 4 a.- . . “.44. M.- a was _. 442mm .. 4.. 4 .. mummy. .4 ' ‘:31: géfifi . ‘ »- $32-13‘ P} . . 4 H .. . - . . 1. 4 .. . I -. ..wi . . I... 44 .4. w \ . . . . . r . . 4 I .. . 4 . . . . .. . 4 4 4 . . . 4 ¢ . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . _ .. . 4 . .. . .. 4 m4 .4 .. . . .. . . . 4.. . . 4 ‘hwLwflUnmnw-f. 1 ¢ . . . 4 . . 4 . ... . . . . . . . . 4 . 4. . . . . .. . . . . . . . .Jql1WlXetvt4f1 n :11- . . , . . . 4 . 4 . » 4 4 . . . 4 4 . . t . . . .. . . 4 .. 4 . . . ... .. . .. . . . . _ ..4 . . .4 . .. . ~_ 4 4 . . . . . . : . . . . .. . . .. . . 4 .4 . . . .. . .. W14. 4 4 .. n .. _ - . . - . . . . . . . . . .. . - u ‘ . .4 .. L»... . ..4 .4 . 4 . . .4 . 4 . . . . l . t 4 _ . . . . .. 4 . . . . . . 4. . ._ . . 4 ~ A I w» . .. ..444 _ ma. 4 ' l 3153-: . a... J“ u 1.- 3mm ‘3% f-l'fixfi‘gzgi“; .vfifatéf. '- inn...“ :;3" '“T . 4 ...4 4. .. Tu$m444m14v6¥+4 . .4 . 4 4“ .. . . .. . . . .4 .. . 4 . .4 .. . .4. . . . ..... 1.. 2. . .. . . . .4 . . .1. .. 4 .4145. .4444?» .: 4 . . 4 . .. . . 4 . . . .4 4. .. . .. 2 ... .4.. 4 ... . . 4 . 4. . 4. . . 4 4 .. . . . . .. .. ..44 . . . i mt? % ..4 .. . . ..~ . 4. . 1.. . MMNWPZ. 4%. .i . 4.» . 44. .4 4 . .... ..4. . .4 . 44 . . .... . F . 3+4 . . . 4 4 .4251} . . V 3 »~ 1. ‘£8 . . 4 4 . 4 . .Krzhvzzqmfl . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . .4 .4 .. . . . w. .11 . . “4&2 . . .. 4 4. .. . 5444 PM“? . . . 4 . ..4. . 4 4 . .4 ..~ . . 4 1 ._r4 w .. . .. . . . 4 4 4. 4 . . . . 4 . 4. up} “Mu-B z . . . . . . 4. . . w .. 4 ..~ . . u . . . . f. . 4 4 W. .. 4 . 4. .. . .. .4... ... a. 4 “Ikvwzr . ... . 4 . . 4. . . .. . . . . .. 4 w. . .... . 4 . .. n. M -..@.- l a; . u mm< “Zr-(5.4‘; .iznfiélimqq. J4 ‘Rafa: 53%. r .2241} u“: .-wpggp mafia; 4. 4 4 .u . .u. 4.. ‘ r r . . . . nrfi .5: . 34¢. .. .iviifil‘v ... . .4 . 4.4.4 “05.3. 31' 4 .21- ---~.& "474.g I‘. I .4 "4 4. - . . 'isaanwn _ 6‘5 . 4'4... . . tr... . ..4mw...~...“m4. -f~ .n.FU. ‘I >.‘4 . .. ufi. . . 44 . . 4 ..414..._..4...5.4§£4 . 4 . 4. . 4 . . . {v.14 4 4 . 4 ..4......4~t...._..t .. . 4 4 .. . . .4 .4".£,...i:1. 3Q illifi 324244.43. 4 4 .. 43.4.: ..4. . M .. . 4 .. . ; 4. .. . 4 4 4. . 4 friw8§ilulhvltw$fii Azfluaimfg . 4 H 4 ,4 “2% r . .<..4 .4 .4 . .. 4. . 4 I . .. 4 .. . . . . . 4. .w. vi... .. .. 11f. .. . . . . ..4-"$421,534.11: .42 T .. . 4 4 4 iii... . . 4 4:4 . .1... . .4. 4 ..4... 4.4.4.. 4.44.4. . 4. 4 . ..fi....4.4_..z..4444.£. "J .. . .44 . . 0 4 .. 4“!- ...-Yro.n. - .. "4 .. .Ol . 4 .4 . 4 .4 l 4 4 . l | 4.. \ q. 4 I I n pl‘. 4 . . . 4 .. ..4 w. 4 . . 4 . 1101;410:154“ 1f | .1..\ 4 4 :fzuln. .0344 .. . .4 6mm 44......” 2&5 4.45%.... 4 - .uefimmww m L'921'2v200;940 4 .4 E41‘ wt; 3.51. . .. .. .u. .414? 4.5.1.3.! » L4“. Wag +1.31 Lcfgz. Flrllalvllu. . .ntafimmiwrwvmwfliww .4 “my?” ...4;...‘.. ..4! .41.. iv: £14“. n UHflE .. . . .19.’. 4 4 44.. ‘ .?§. 4 4 44.. 4 4 . 4. . . . 4. .. . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. 4 .. k... . ¢ mu; I3 L 91 . ..i‘a: 4 .4 . 4 .. 4. . . .. .4 . 44 . . 4 .4 4 .H...... . . . . .44. .4 4 .4 .. 4;.4 .. 4 {Jul-IL Pal-Q . H. .. . 4 . 84 (4,3 . 4.: ..J. L . . . . 24.,r44w44ix1444i1l4 14$... 4 . 44 4h. 4. . .élil 4.4.4.... 4 . 4 . .. 4. .ézg. ... ififiwflfiii. 4. 4.. 4. . . ._.P_.F\.rz}!.i.§.. 4 _ .. 4. . ¢§£¥P$¢3i$¥fi 4 ‘..4. 7:41.; 444$; $4.113... fit...‘ ..h 11.111“! . . . 4 . 4 4 . "aw 44.4 . 4x. 4 3mm... $4. Afiwgiiiwfiguiii. . 44 4 . 4. 4 .. .. 4 .fi . .4 ..Q t .4 .4 . rri. 215.. 4 .. . . .4 . 4 _ 4 4 r: . 4 . 22.344. .. . . Litiliilbfu ...mr1.:..|.,.w_ flniiuuii $3.1. kuhrt . l‘. . 'i‘gia 5‘ 4 T“ f 4* . .. cl . .. ¢ . . . . 4 . . 4 . ‘~42 vi; . 4 . hvw‘oaluqlllsl. . 4 4 .. . 4.111.815 pilfiitrzilitlfitfl . . viktfirflitiwflfz 4 4 . . r . wril’hzfslnflw 4 .....i.£.i. 1 V‘ “W . ..m..._...§¢ “4.1.4.44 Jvlmr ..4. WW . £94.“? .44 ... 4 . Ila-Lilli!‘ 3.1.144!‘ .. ... 44 1 1 $4,113?!‘ +4.35% 4 All. “Iron-lot‘ ‘I.’ I v #4 w» -=' ‘ ' 2M2: '41 " '_ gig?‘- . .. g!‘ 2 r5“? 1.; 4 2; l4 ‘ ..x 1 F ‘i .5. .. t ‘u 4. .44 . .. . . 44 4 ‘. 4 4. ‘I201 . H .. . 4 4 .......vr.....w4vm.=k_ w . . 4 . Kwuafiqaffi . . a . .. 4 4 i .- r21 4 4 . . 4 143.45%: .1 . uni‘; .4. “In? t. . i‘; 4 4 . 4 .4-mfllqvi1ltlllt!,mlvt- .4 4. . 11 w’. . .. . aw 4.... 4.44.9 . . .4 . 4. . . .. M4T . . .. .4'1 ..4 . If; a“? _- . .. urn "4 . “PM. . i“ a??? .. ‘.4 . l 5mm ..2 < 4r. 4 . . . . 4 . . . . 4 1:11.13 . . .ufiuwawwkff. .4 T. ;.. .4 . . . . . 4 Qurznww 4. if“ ..u . ... . 4 44.. . . . 4. . 44 . . .4 4 .4 4 .4. . 44 .. 4. .. .Wmmum. 4 . .4 .4 .. .4 4 . . 4 44 #4.. H .4. .. . ..~ . 44. 41%...“ 4 ..4 .4 n 4. . . . .H 4.. .. . .. ..4 44 44 4“. .. .. ..4 . 4 4 4 “4.4... ..iswufi ...4a.. 4. . H . .‘wiwwuwinvl... 4 4.... ~ “v.30. . .JMW“ .3 7 "m - ' " “ 1mg”. - . ... 4 . .. . . . 4 4 4 4. ._ . . 4. 4 4. . . 4 .. .44.} . . 4 4 . 4 ... $4.35....” .4 .. .. . J4... . . 4 . 035.4 . .. 'i. . . .. .4 4. 1.5». H. . .4 .. 4 4 . . 4 .4.. . 4. . .. . . . 4 .fi 4 .. ..~ . . imam». 4 . 4..fi._..m4..lr.4 . .1714“; . . .. 4 q. . v1 4 .. . I“; WW. .I.. ..4.“ ..Lnwbt- A..s...h!3 . . . . ..Luurrf... “a... . .4 .. ..u. 4“: 4 1.3.. 4. .. . .. . . 4 . .. . 4x .wfimnr. M 4 .4 .9- . 4. .rflmfi . ._ .. . a. . . . . . .4 . . .. 4 . .. . . ... .4. . .. .. 4 4 4N . .. . .;4P.2. . ... 4 44. .. 4... 444,..44144 4. 4... .. ...4 . .. .. ... .. 1.... f. .. ..4 .. .Imi...’ . .4 j 1 744 .. . 4.. .. . . . .2 ..44.4 4 . 44 .H . ..... . .4 .1 . .4 . . ,. .. ...._4. . 4 4.. . 4 . 4 4. 4. .. ... 44 _ . . . H......._ . t h .. . ... € . ..4 . .- .4. 0.. .rl.n¢ 1.4. w 4. . 44 44 ..,;1I..wq~rrl£...... 4 a“ .4...» . .. 4 .. 4 . . . . 4 . 4 .. . H 4 . .. .. .. .4 . ..... . .. . .. 4. . . . .. .4....: . ..wuw. .vafirl‘ .. Lmmra . .4 .. 4 . 4 . . . . .4 .. 4. . . 4 . .. 4 _. . .4.. 4 4. .4 . . ..5.w,4w.4%w._4.44..4.%....4.4.. .. 44 4 . 1,; .444; ¢ 4 4 4... .. ‘. .. ...1¢<... . ; . .4..... 4'1 4.. 4.4-,.< .4 4 .-,4-.1..r.444&%%m . .4 L a"! 4. . 4 .4 4.. 32-4 . .. . 4 . . I . 4. . . 4 4. 4 .4 . .. . . .4 u. . ... .. ..4. . . ... . .h . . ..4 .4 . .. .. ....4.4 ... ....4\ 4 . 4 .2. .4 4 . . . .4 . 44 .. 2.. .. . .. L .4 4. .H. . .. A 1.. L. . . . . .. . 4 4.4V. .. l M. . v1 11 |r.1.|111|4!.r1I-11.1.1.1(1|1111.|1|.1\4.11l1r111111111121. 1|12r11111p11LU11v11111114.l 3 1| .Pflkrlawxm 31mm 1. ..1 1 .1 1 .1 )1 . 1 1 . 1.11.11 1. 1 U1 1 14114 1 1. 1 11 1 1 1 111 1 I. 1111111111! 1. 1 1 1.1 11 1.- 1.11 1 1 . 111 ._ . .. 1 11 1 1 . . . 11 1 1 1 1 1. . 1 _H . 1 1. 1H1 1. 1. 1.1..11. _1._H11_1.< 1T1+_M11T31:1.w.1wiw :11 1 .1 .11 . 1 11 .1 d 1 1 1. .> .11.! 1" 11 n 1.. 1 1 1 11. .. 1 1 1" 1.1.1 .1 u _ - 1 1.1 1 . N 1 n 1... _1 11. .“1 1 n L 1 L 1. 1w 1. “1 m1. 1 1 .1 1 “1 1 1.... .11 1 1- w .11 11 . . .1111 1 Hvfllw. 1 n l 11. ZfimWmmmnJ14~ .1 11 mum-aw 1.;351y1111 _ M o E. 1 11 hfiU1mW-wfid-Nsnnii? .111 1. h . 1 . 13:; 1 1.1‘. 1mg :..1>1.M..-1>11n.. 1 1 L“1 1.1.31.1... .111..1~m1.."1."11.1 1 1.1 '_| llfifl‘rv, . r . 1 I. 1 ._1t!-n1wv.ud|: 11 1 10 l . _ l 1 1.1%“ vv 9-. .1 11 1 \1. 1 Lahzli 11 .. "13111.5 1 11 1 I 1. PM? . . .1 111. 1 . lair-‘Hm? l _. .1 n. 1 : mwamwuménd 1 1m 11 “$31 1|} 1 wflmtv 1 . .1 Q” 1.1 1 . . 1 1 1 . rizwvmm .r 1 . 1 11 1 . . 1. . 1. 1H 1 1. 1 . L 11 . 11 1 . . . 11 11 1 111“1.~1ww £11.“? .1 11. n1 1 HLEM“. “1. ,1. 111. . . 1 1 1 . 1 11 1 1 W. 1 1 .1 11H 1 1 11m 1 .1011 .. 1 .H1 .1 .1 . 1 1 . 11.1.1 . . . . 1T . 11.13.111.111 x 1. 1 . 1 . 111 1 A11 1 . .111 1 1. ".1, 1 u 11 1 11 11 1 1 . 1 "\kiIJrH“ .1 1 n11 1 111 1 14111 1 1, 11.1 1.1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11a 1 ff 1,1. 11 . 1 _ L111... 1 1 1.1 111 h _ 1 11" 11 1 11 . C 1 1.1. 1. 1. 1 1 1 . 1 . 1 . - l1 . 1. 1 1111 .. 1 1 1 1 1 “1 if’)? ‘.1 1-1. 11 L 1. .1. . 1_. 111 1 . F 4.? "1.111. vhu. . 1 11 1 1. . 1 1 . M 1 A 1116 ‘a...’ I. ‘ Minhflua' \ HLMIHWNMIIUIHMHLA ‘[ 1 l 1 1 .IJL ‘1:11 ~1 1 v 1113§1§1B 1111mm“ 1111 1.111151%111111111 1 1. .1 Tin’fl]. 1 n v. ‘iv .. . 1111111111111...“ .1 1 1 1:1» 1 .15..» m.“ .1 1 irnk... a” .11 ~ \ 11.-ll PM?! - 1 1 14‘ Ljlifmuolh :% Jkififluflwwlol‘» 11 1 . haw?!’ villi m1111~111mm1r1. Kid...‘ 1%.? 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 11 1 11 1 . 11 . 1 . . 1 1 1 . . . 1 .1 1 1 . 1 . 1 .111 1 Fmrmbwnugma :éfiwmzwnifir 1.1.1.1 . 1 1 . 11 . 1 . 11 .1 .1 .1 1 11 1 .. 1 .1 1 . 1 1 1 1 1“ naxisagz 1.1 T? 1. . . 1 .1 1 . 1 1 11 . 1 W 11.11%». ._ 3 r1” . . .1 1 .1 1 1. 11 . 1 11 1. 11 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11. 1 1 11 . 1 1 1 1 11 . 1 1 .1 1 11 . 1 :JrxrJurir-iLQ} . 2L H v 1.1. “Eran »; p- . 1 .1 ¢ 1 1’ ' $ 1 $111111? 1. 11 1 11: 1 if "5W \sx ."BQB \WEQ ‘ _ 1 4! *- / , ~ . I‘ -‘ ‘I j ‘P , ; 1' r : a I ‘fr’ I r‘ I‘ if y), L.’ ORIGINES ECCLESIASTIOZE, F/flm THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. WITH TWO SERMONS AND TWO LETTERS ON THE NATURE AND NECESSITY OF ABSOLUTION. BY JOSEPH _BINGHAM, HECTOR OF HAVANT. BEPRINTED FROM THE ORIGINAL EDITION, MDCCVIIL-MDCCXXII. _WITH AN ENLARGED ANALYTICAL INDEX. VOL. I. LONDON : HENRY G. BOHN, YORK STREET, COVENT GARDEN. MDCCCLVI. JOHN CHILDS AND SON. U \ajgjkfil‘t-Lef 6113.114 , [idléflé-V, 171*" ~ 5‘5“ H251 THE AUTHOR’S DEDIGATIONS. TO THE RIGHT REVEREND FATHER IN GOD, JONATHAN, LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER, AND PBELATE OF THE MOST NOBLE ORDER OF THE GAB-TEE. [PUBLISHED WITH VOL. 1. OF THE ORIGINAL EDITIONZ] MY Loan, HAVING once determined with myself to make these collections public, I needed no long time to consider to whom I should first address and present them. They are, my Lord, the first-fruits of my labour under your Lordship’s government and inspection; and I was willing to think, and do presume I did not think amiss, that your Lordship had a sort of title to the first-fruits of any of your clergy’s labour ; especially if the subject, on which they were employed, was suitable to their calling, and had any direct tendency to promote Christian knowledge in the world. The subject of the present discourse, being an essay upon the ancient usages and customs of the primitive church, and a particular account of the state of her clergy, is such as, being considered barely in its own nature, I know cannot but be approved by a person of your Lordship’s character; whose care is concerned not only in preserving the purity of the primitive faith, but also in reviving the spirit of the ancient discipline and primitive practice: and were the man- agement any ways answerable to the greatness of the subject, that would doubly recommend it to your Lordship’s favour; since apples of gold are something the more beautiful for being set in pictures of silver. But I am sensible the subject is too sublime and copious, too nice and difficult, to have justice done it from any single hand, much less from mine: all, therefore, I can pretend to hope for from your Lordship is, that your candour and goodness will make just allowances for the failings, which your sagacity and quickness will easily perceive to be in this performance. I am not, I confess, without hopes, that as well the ab- struseness and difficulty of the subject itself, as my own difficult circumstances, under which I was forced to labour, for want of proper assistance of abundance of books, may be some apology for the defects of the work: and if I can but so far obtain your Lordship’s good opinion, as to be thought to have designed well; as I am already conscious of my own good intentions to consecrate all my labours to the public service of the church; that will inspire me with fresh vigour, notwithstanding these difliculties, to proceed with cheerfulness and alacrity in the remaining parts of this work, which are yet behind, and which I shall be the more willing to set about, if I can perceive that it has your Lordship’s approbation. The countenance and encouragement of such a judge may perhaps have a more universal influence, to excite the zeal of many others, who have greater abilities to serve the church: and I know not how better to congratulate your Lordship upon your happy accession to the episcopal throne of this diocese, than by wishing you the blessing and satisfaction of such a clergy; whose learning and industry, and piety and religion, influenced by the wisdom of your conduct, and animated by the example of your zeal and perseverance, even to im- prisonment in times of greatest difliculty, may so qualify them to discharge every oflice of their function, as may make your diocese one of the shining glories of the present church, and a provoking example to the future: which is the hearty prayer and desire of, My Lord, Your Lordship’s faithful and obedient Servant, J. BINGHAM. iv THE AUTHOR’S DEDIC ATION S. TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE AND RIGHT REVEREND FATHER IN GOD, JONATHAN, LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER, AND PRELATE OF THE MOST NOBLE ORDER OF THE GARTER. [PUBLISHED WITH VOL. II. OF THE ORIGINAL EDITIONJ \ MY LORD, As the kind entertainment which your Lordship and the world have been pleased to give to the first part of this work, has encouraged me to go on in hopes of doing public service to the church; so the nature of the subject contained in this second volume, being but a continuation of the former account of the primi- tive clergy, obliges me again with all submission to present this second part to your Lordship, in hopes of no less kind acceptance and approbation. The matters here treated of are many of them things of the greatest importance, which when plainly set in 'order and presented to public view, may perhaps excite the zeal of many in the present age, to copy out those necessary duties, by the practice of which the pri- ‘ mitive church attained to great perfection and glory; and, as I may say, still provokes and calls us to the same attainments by so many excellent rules and noble examples. In the fourth and sixth of these Books I have endeavoured to draw up something of the general character of the primitive clergy, by showing what qualifications were required in them before their ordination, and what sort of laws they were to be governed by afterwards, respecting both their lives and labours, in the continual exercise of the duties of their function. Many of them, I must own, have been very affecting to myself in the consideration of them; and I was willing to hope they might prove so to such others as would be at the pains to read them. For here are both directions and provocations of the best sort, to excite our industry, and inflame our zeal, and to make us eager and restless in copying out the pattern set before us. If any shall think I have collected these things together to reflect upon any persons in the present age, I shall only say, with one of the ancients in a like case,*‘ they mistake my design; which was not to reproach any man’s person, who bears the sacred character of a priest, but to write what might be for the public benefit of the church. For as when orators and philosophers describe the qualities, which are required to make a complete orator or philosopher, they do no injury to Demosthenes or Plato, but only describe things nakedly in themselves without any personal applications ; so in the description of a bishop or priest, and explication of ancient rules, nothing more is intended but to propose a ‘mirror of the priesthood, in which it will be in every man’s power and conscience to take a view of himself, so as either to grieve at the sight of his own deformity, or rejoice when he beholds his own beauty in the glass. Nothing is here proposed but rules and examples of the noblest virtues; probity and integrity of life ; studies and labours becoming the clerical function; piety and devotion in our constant addresses to God; fidelity, diligence, and prudence in preaching his word to men; carefulness and exactness, joined with discretion and charity, in the administration of public and private discipline; candour and ingenuity in composing needless disputes among good men; and zeal in opposing and confronting the powerful and wily designs of heretics and wicked men; together with resolution and patience in suffering persecutions, calumnies, and reproaches, both from professed enemies and pretended friends; with many other instances of the like commendable virtues, which shined in the lives and adorned the profession of the'primitive clergy ; whose rules and actions, I almost promise myself, your Lordship and all good men will read with pleasure, because they will but see their own beauty represented in the glass; and they that fall short * Hieron. Ep. 83. ad Ocean. 1:. 2. p. 323. Ne quis me in sugillationem istius temporis sacerdotum scripsisse, quae scripsi, existimet, sed in ecclesiac utilitatem. Ut enim oratores et philosophi, describentes qualem velint esse perfectum oratorem et philosophum, non faciunt injuriam Demostheni et Platoni, sed res ipsas absque personis definiunt. Sic in descriptione episcopi, et in eorum expositione quae scripta sunt, quasi speculum sacerdotii proponitur. Jam in potestate et conscientia singulorum est, quales se ibi aspiciant: ut vel dolere ad deformitatem, vol gaudere ad pulchritudinem possint. THE AUTHOR’S DEDICATIONS. v of the character here given, will find it a ~entle admonition and spur to set in order the things that are Wanting in their conduct, and to labour with more zeal to bring themselves a little nearer to the primitive standard. Your Lordship is enabled, by your high station and calling, to revive the exercise of ancient discipline among your clergy in a more powerful way; and you have given us already some convincing proofs, that it is your settled resolution and intention so to do: as the thoughts of this is a real pleasure to the diligent and virtuous, so ‘it is to be hoped it will prove a just terror to those of the contrary character; and, by introducing a strict discipline among the clergy, make way for the easier introduction of ‘it among the laity also; the revival of which has long been desired, though but slow steps are made toward the restora- tion of it. In the mean time it becomes every man, according to his ability, though in a lower station, to contribute his endeavours toward the promoting these good ends: to which purpose I have collected and digested these observations upon the laws and discipline of the ancient clergy, that such as are willing to be influenced by their practice, may have great and good examples set before them; whilst they whom examples cannot move, may be influenced another way, by the authority which your Lordship, and others in the same station, are invested with, for the benefit and edification of the church: the promoting of which is, and ever will be, the hearty endeavour of him, who is, .My Lord, - Your Lordship’s most dutiful and obedient Servant, JOSEPH BINGHAM. TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE AND RIGHT REVEREND FATHER IN GOD, JONATHAN, LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER, AND PRELATE OF THE MOST NOBLE ORDER OF THE GARTER, THIS THIRD VOLUME or THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, Is humbly submitted and inscribed by the Author, His Lordship’s Most dutiful and obedient Servant, JOSEPH BINGHAM. [PUBLISHED WITH VOL. III. OF THE ORIGINAL EDITION] TO HIS MosT SACRED MAJESTY, GEORGE, BY THE GRACE OF GOD KING or GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE, AND IRELAND, DEFENDER or THE FAITH, 8w. [PUBLISHED WITH VOLS. IV. V. VIL VIII. OF THE ORIGINAL EDITION] MosT GRAoIoUs SOVEREIGN, I HUMBLY beg leave to lay at your Majesty’s feet a part of a larger work, which was at first designed to promote those great and worthy ends, which your Majesty, in your princely wisdom, by your royal de- clarations has lately thought fit to recommend to your universities and clergy :_ that is, the promotion of vi THE AUTHOR’S DEDICATIONS. Christian piety and knowledge, and such useful learning as may instil good principles into the minds of younger students; upon which the prosperity of church and state will in this, and all succeeding ages, so ' much depend. The practice of the primitive ages of the church, when reduced into one view, seems to be one of the most proper means to effect these honourable designs; and with that consideration I have hitherto proceeded in this laborious work, not without the countenance and approbation of many worthy men, and now hope to finish it under your Majesty’s favour and protection: humbly beseeching Almighty God to bless your Majesty’s great designs for the good of this church and nation, and the protestant in- terest abroad: which is, and ever shall be, the hearty prayer of Your Majesty’s Most loyal and obedient Subject, JOSEPH BINGHAM. TO THE RIGHT HONOUBABLB AND RIGHT RBVEREND FATHER IN 601)» CHARLES, LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER, AND PRELATE or THE MOST NOBLE ORDER or THE GARTEB. [PUBLISHED WITH THE CONCLUDING TWO VOLUMESJ MY LORD, IT was one of those ancient rules, many of which I have had occasion to speak of in this’ work, That presbyters should do nothing d'vsv yw’mng roi': émmcén-ov, or sine conscientia episcopz', without the consent or knowledge of the bishop: which though it extend not to all private, domestical, and secular afi'airs, yet doubtless it was intended to keep a good harmony and subordination between them, in all matters of a public nature relating to the affairs and welfare of the church. And therefore, with a view to this rule, as I first presented the beginning of this work to your predecessor, my then diocesan, so now I lay this last and finishing part of it at your Lordship’s feet; not doubting but that your Lordship, who is an encourager of good literature and ancient learning, will give it your favourable acceptance and approba- tion. I have the more reason to hope for this, because, out of your great good nature and condescension, your Lordship has always been an encourager of the undertaking, as I have been made sensible by happy experiment, in many years’ distant correspondence with you. The work, I hope, is of general use, and will meet with a general acceptance among all those who are, without prejudice, true lovers of ancient learning. A noble lord was once pleased to tell me, he had sent it into Scotland by the hands of a great man of the assembly: though what appprobation it meets with there, I cannot say. But I can speak it with more satisfaction, that our worthy primate was once pleased to acquaint me in private conversation, that he himself had sent it to the professors of Geneva, who returned him their thanks together with their approbation. And if it be well accepted there, there is some reason to hope it may be accepted in most other protestant churches, and be a little means to bring them to a nearer union to the church of England in some points, for which some parts of the work are particularly designed. A late author has thought fit to epitomise some part of it, for the service (as he says) of his poor brethren of the clergy: though I fear, for the reasons I have been forced to give against his undertaking, it will prove of no service, but rather hurtful to them. But if he, or any other person of ability, would undertake to translate the whole into Latin, now that it is finished and completed, that might perhaps be of more general use to all the protestant churches. And in the mean time our poor brethren, if it please God to bless me with health, shall not want such an epitome, it it be needful, as is proper for their information. And now, my Lord, that I have made mention of my own health, I cannot but with hearty prayers to God most sincerely wish yours, for the good things you have already done to this diocese, and more that may be expected, if it shall please God to confirm your health in such a state, as may enable you to go through the great work you want no will to perform: The reducing the exorbitant fees of this diocese - THE AUTHOR’S DEDICATIONS. vii to a proper standard, is a thing that will never be forgotten by your poor brethren, who will always feel the sweet effect of it. Your encouragement given to the meanest clergymen to write to yourself in person, and not to any oflicers, upon business relating to the church, is a singular instance of your good nature and condescension; and also a sure method to prevent corruption. Your care to inform yourself of the character and worth of your clergy, with a view to the promotion of such as have long laboured diligently in great cures, or small livings, is a method that cannot fail of giving a new life and spirit to all such, as may reasonably hope that their merits and labours will not always be overlooked and despised; but that they may in due time find their reward, both in ease and advancement, from so kind an inspector. That you may have health and long life to proceed in such good acts, and all other oflices of your function, I believe is the wish of all your clergy : I am sure it is the hearty prayer of him who is, My Lord, Your most dutiful and obedient servant, JOSEPH BINGHAM. THE PREFACE. [PUBLISHED WITH VOL. I. OF THE ORIGINAL EDITION] THIS volume, which is now published, being only a part of a larger work, the reader, I presume, will ex- pect I should give him some little account of the whole design, and the reasons which engaged me upon this undertaking. The design which I have formed to myself, is to give such a methodical account of the Antiquities of the Christian Church, as others have done of the Greek, and Roman, and Jewish antiqui- ties; not by writing an historical or continued chronological account of all transactions as they happened in the church, (of which kind of books there is no great want,) but by reducing the ancient customs, usages, and practices of the church under certain proper heads, whereby the reader ,may take a view at once of any particular usage or custom of Christians, for four or five of the first centuries, to which I have gener- ally confined my inquiries in this discourse. I cannot but own, I was moved with a sort of emulation (not an unholy one, I hope) to see so many learned men with so much zeal employed in collecting and publishing the antiquities of Greece and Rome; whilst in the mean time we had nothing (so far as I was able to learn) that could be called a complete collection of the antiquities of the church, in the method that is now proposed. The compilers of church history indeed have taken notice of many things of this kind, as they pass along in the course of their history, as Baronius, and the Centuriators, and several others : but then the things lie scattered in so many places in large volumes, that there are few readers of those few that enter upon reading those books, that will be at the pains to collect their accounts of things into one view, or digest and methodise their scattered observations. There are a great many other authors, who have written several excellent discourses upon particular subjects of church antiquity, out of which, perhaps, a Gronovius or a Graevius might make a more noble collection of antiquities than any yet extant in the world: but as no one has yet attempted such a work, so neither. when it was effected, would it be for the purchase or perusal of every ordinary reader, for whose use chiefly my own collections are intended. There are a third sort of writers, who have also done very good service, in explaining and ‘illustrating several parts of church antiquity in their occasional notes and observations upon many of the ancient writers; of which kind are the curious observations of Albaspiny, Justellus, Petavius, Valesius, Cotelel rius, Baluzius, Sirmondus, Gothofred, Fabrotus, Bishop Beveridge, and many others, who have published the works of the ancient fathers and canons of the councils, with very excellent and judicious remarks upon them. But these, again, lie scattered in so many and so large volumes, without any other order, than as the authors on whom they commented would admit of, that they are not to be reckoned upon, or used as any methodised or digested collection of church antiquities, even by those who have ability to purchase, or opportunity to read them. Besides these, there are another sort of writers, who have purposely under- taken to give an account of the ancient usages of the church, in treatises written particularly upon that subject, such as Gavantus, Casalius, Durantus, and several others of the Roman communion; but these writers do by no means satisfy a judicious and inquisitive reader, for several reasons: 1. Because their accounts are very imperfect, being confined chiefly to the liturgical part of church antiquity, beside which, there are a great many other things necessary to be explained, which they do not so much as touch upon, or once mention. 2. Because, in treating of that part, they build much upon the collections of Gra- tian, and such modern writers, and use the authority of the spurious epistles of the ancient popes, which have been exploded long ago, as having no pretence to antiquity in the judgment of all candid and judicious writers. But chiefly their accounts are unsatisfactory, because, 3. Their whole design is to THE PREFACE. Ix varnish over the novel practices of the Romish church, and put a face of antiquity upon them: to which purpose, they many times represent ancient customs in disguise, to make them look like the prac- tices of the present age, and offer them to the reader’s view, not in their own native dress, but in the similitude and resemblance of modern customs. Cardinal Bona himself could not forbear making this reflection upon some such writers as these, whom he justly censurcs, as deserving very ill * of the sacred rites of the church, and their venerable antiquity; who measure all ancient customs by the practice of the present times, and judge of the primitive discipline only by the rule and customs of the age they live in; being deceived by a false persuasion, that‘the practice of the church never differed in any point from the customs which they learned from their forefathers and teachers, and which they have been inured to from their tender years: whereas we retain many words in common with the ancient fathers, but in a sense as different from theirs, as our times are remote from the first ages after Christ; as will appear (says he) when we come to discourse of the oblation, communion, and other parts of Divine service. This is an ingenuous confession, and withal a just reflection upon the partiality of the writers of his own church ; and a good reason, in my opinion, why we are not to expect any exact accounts of antiquity from any Writers of that communion; though some are less tainted with her errors than others, and can allow them- selves to be a little more liberal and free upon some occasions than the rest of their brethren : yet even Rona himself, after the reflection he has made upon others, runs into the very same error, and falls under his own censure; and Habertus, though otherwise a very learned and ingenuous person, who has written about the Greek liturgics, as Bona has of the Latin, is often through prejudice carried away with the common failing of the writers of that side, whose talents are chiefly employed in palliating the faults of the communion and cause they are engaged in. So that if we are to expect any exact accounts of church antiquities, it must be from some protestant authors, who can Write with greater freedom and less prejudice concerning the usages and customs of the primitive church. But among these there are very that have travelled very far in this way; the generality of our writers contenting themselves to collect and explain so much of church antiquity, as was necessary to show the errors and novelties of popery ; but not de— scending to any more minute and particular consideration of things, which did not come within the com- pass of the controversy they had with the Romish church. Hospinian indeed, in the beginning of the Reformation, wrote several large volumes of the origin of temples, festivals, monachism, with the history of the eucharist; but as these take in but a very few subjects, so they are too full of modern relations; which make them something tedious to an ordinary reader, and no complete account of primitive customs neither. Spalatensis, in his books de Republica Ecclesiastica, has gone a little further; yet he generally confines himself to the popish controversy, and has much out of Gratian and the canon law; which in- deed served him as good arguments ad hominem against those whom he had to deal with, but it will not pass for authentic history in other cases. Suicerus’s Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus is abundantly more particular, and indeed the best treasure of this sort of learning that has yet been publishedfibut his col- lections are chiefly out of the Greek fathers; and only in the method of a Vocabulary or Lexicon, ex- plaining words and things precisely in the order of the alphabet. The most methodical account of things of this kind that I have yet seen, is that of our learned countryman Dr. Cave, in his excellent book of Primitive Christianity ; wherein he has given a succinct, but clear account of many ancient customs and practices, not ordinarily to be met with elsewhere. But his design being chiefly to recommend the moral part of primitive Christianity to the observation and practice of men, he was not obliged to be very parti- cular in explaining many other things, which, though useful in themselves, yet might be looked upon as foreign to his design; and for that reason, I presume, he industriously omitted them. There are some other books, which I have not yet seen, but only guess by the titles that they may be of this kind; such as Bebelius’s Antiquitates Ecclesiastica, Martinay de Ritibus Ecclesiae, Hendecius de Antiquitatibus Ecclesiasticis, Quenstedt Antiquitates Biblicae et Ecclesiasticae: but I presume, whatever they are, they will not forestall my design, which is chiefly to gratify the English reader with an entire collection of church antiquities in our own language, of which this volume is published as a specimen. And if this proves useful to the public, and finds a favourable acceptance, it will be followed with the remaining parts of the work, (as my time and occasions will give me leave,) according to the scheme here laid down, or with as little variation as may be. I shall next treat of the inferior orders of the clergy, as I have done here of the superior: then of the elections and ordinations of the clergy, and the several qualifications of those that were to be ordained: of the privileges, immunities, and revenues of the clergy, and the several * Bona, Rerum Liturgic. lib. l. c. 18. n. l. b '2. X 'Il-IE PREFACE. laws and rules which particularly respected their function. To which I shall subjoin an account of the ancient ascetics, monks, virgins, and widows, who were a sort of retainers to the church. After this shall follow an account of the ancient churches, and their several parts, utensils, consecrations, immunities, together with a Notz'tz'a of the ancient division of the church into provinces, dioceses, parishes, and the original of these. After which I shall speak of the service of the church, beginning with the institution or instruction of the catechumens, and describing their several stages before baptism; then speak of bap- tism itself, and its ordinary concomitant, confirmation. Then proceed to the other solemn services of psalmody, reading of the Scripture, and preaching, which were the first part of the ancient church service. Then speak of their prayers, and the several rites and customs observed therein; where of the use of litur- gies and the Lord’s prayer; and of the prayers of catechumens, energumens, and penitents; all which part of the service thus far was commonly called by the name of the missa catechumenorum : then of the missa fidelz'um, or communion service; where of the manner of their oblations and celebration of the eucharist, which was always the close of the ordinary church service. After this I shall proceed to give a par— ticular account of their fasts and festivals, their marriage rites and funeral rites, and the exercise of ancient church discipline; their manner of holding councils and synods, provincial, patriarchal, cecumeni- cal; the power of Christian princes in councils and out of them; the manner and use of their Zz'teme for- matm, and the several sorts of them; their different ways of computation of time: to which I shall add an account of their schools, libraries, and methods of educating and training up persons for the ministry, and say something of the several translations of the Bible in use among them, and several other miscellaneous rites and things, which would properly come under none of the forementioned heads; such as their man- ner of taking oaths, their abstinence from blood, their frequent use of the sign of the cross, their several sorts of public charities, the honours which they paid to their martyrs, together with an account of their sufferings, and the several instruments of cruelty used by the heathen to harass and torment them. In treating of all which, or any other such like matters as shall offer themselves, I shall observe the same method that I have done in this volume, illustrating the ancient customs from the original records of an- tiquity, and joining the opinions. of the best modern authors that I can have opportunity to peruse, for unfolding points of greatest difficulty. I confess, indeed, this work will suffer something in my hands, for want of several books, which I have no opportunity to see, nor ability to purchase; but that perhaps may tempt some others, who are at the fountains of learning, and have all manner of books at command, to add to my labours, and improve this essay to a much greater perfection, since it is a subject that will neverbe exhausted, but still be capable of additions and improvement. The chief assistance I have hitherto had is from the noble benefaction of one, who, “ being dead, yet speaketh ;” I mean the renowned Bishop Morley, whose memory will for ever remain fresh in the hearts of the learned and the good; who, among many other eminent works of charity and generosity, becoming his great soul and high station in the church, such as the augmentation of several small benefices, and provision of a decent habitation and maintenance for the widows of poor clergymen in his diocese, &c., has also bequeathed a very valuable collection of books to the church of Winchester, for the advancement of learning among the parochial clergy; and I reckon it none of the least part of my happiness, that Providence, removing me early from the university, (where the best supplies of learning are to be had,) placed me by the hands of a generous benefactor)‘ without any importunity or seeking of my own, in such a station, as gives me liberty and opportunity to make use of so good a library, though not so perfect as I could wish. But the very men- tioning this, as it is but a just debt to the memory of that great prelate, so perhaps it may provoke ‘some other generous spirit, of like abilities and fortune with him, to add new supplies of modern books published since his death, to augment and complete his benefaction: which would be an addition of new succours and auxiliaries to myself, and others in my circumstances, and better enable us to serve the public. In the mean time, the reader may with ease enjoy, what with no small pains and industry I have collected and put together; and he may make additions from his own reading and observation, as I have done upon several authors, whom I have had occasion to peruse and mention: from some of which, and those of great fame and learning, I have sometimes thought myself obliged to dissent, upon some nice and peculiar questions; but I have never done it without giving my reasons, and treating them with that decency and respect which is due to their great learning and character. If in any thing I have made mistakes of my own, (as I cannot be so vain as to think I have made none,) every intelligent reader may make himself judge, and correct them with ingenuity and candour. All I can say is, that I have been as careful to * Dr. Radcliffe. THE PREFACE. xi avoid mistakes as I could in so critical and curious a subject; and I hope there will notbe found so many, but that this essay may prove useful both to the learned and unlearned, to instruct the one, who cannot read these things in their originals, and refresh the memories of the other, who may know many things that they cannot always readily have recourse to. Or, if it be of no use to greater proficients, it may at least be some help to young students and new beginners, and both provoke them to the study of ancient learning, and a little prepare them for their entrance upon it. Besides, I considered there were some who might have a good inclination toward the study of these things, who yet have neither ability to purchase, nor time and opportunity to read over many ancient fathers and councils; and to such, a work of this nature, composed ready to their hands, might be of considerable use, to acquaint them with the state and practice of the primitive church, when they have no better opportunities to be informed about it. If, in any of these respects, these collections (which were designed for the honour of the ancient church, and the benefit of the present) may prove serviceable toward those ends, I shall not think my time and pains ill bestowed. THE PREFACE. [PUBLISHED WITH VOLS. IX. X. OF THE ORIGINAL EDITION.) WHEN I had finished these two volumes, and completed the whole work that I intended, and sent it to the press, hoping to give myself a little rest and vacation from hard labour; I was immediately called to a new work by a book that was sent me, bearing the title of Ecclesiae Primitives Notitia, or a Summary of Christian Antiquities. To which is prefixed, an Index Haereticus, containing a short account of all the principal heresies since the rise of Christianity; and subjoined, A Brief Account of the Eight first General Councils, dedicated to the venerable Society for Propagating the Gospel in Foreign Parts, by A. Black- amore, in two volumes, 8V0. Lond. 1722. I confess, I was very much surprised at first with the title and epistle dedicatory, thinking it to be some new work, that had done some mighty thing, either in correct- ing my mistakes, or supplying my deficiencies, after twenty years’ hard labour in compiling my Origines for the use of the church. But as soon as I looked into the preface, and a little into the book itself, I found it to be only a transcript of some part of my Origines, under the notion of an epitome, though no such thing is said in the title-page. This seems to be an art of the gentleman, and the ten booksellers that are in combination with him, to render my books unuseful, and his own more valuable, as contain- ing all I have said and something more at a less price; which, he says, will be of use to those poor cler- gymen and others Whose genius and inclination lies towards antiquity, but are not able to purchase my books for the dearness of them. But the gentleman imposes very much upon poor readers in saying this, upon two accounts: first, In pretending that he gives them an epitome of my whole work, when yet there were two volumes still behind, which he could have no opportunity to epitomize, because they were not printed. He says indeed in his preface, that I had happily completed my whole work in eight volumes, and gives it a higher commendation and elogz'um, than perhaps it really deserves: but where he learned that I had finished my work in eight volumes, I cannot understand: I am sure I had advertised the readers, and him among the rest, that I intended two volumes more, which now I give them to complete my design. So that this gentleman deceives his poor brethren, when he pretends to give them an epitome of the whole, when it is only in part; and he must put them to the charge of another volume to make even his epitome complete. But secondly, If this gentleman was so concerned for his poor brethren, why did he make his epitome so large? The substance of my books for the use of such men might be brought into much less compass : there needed no authorities to have been cited for their use, who have no books to examine and compare them; but they might have rested upon the authority of the compiler ; whose authority they may more decently and honestly use upon any occasion, than the authority of fathers and xii THE PREFACE. councils, which our author, with me, very well supposes they have no opportunity to see. And further, if our author meant to gratify his poor brethren at an easy rate, why did he clog his epitome, both before and behind, with two long discourses of his own? Sure this was not to make it cheaper, but to put them to more expense, in being obliged to buy his discourses, if they were minded to read any thing of mine. The fair way of epitomizing, had been to have given an abstract of my books by themselves, and printed his own separate from them: this had been more for the interest of his indigent readers, and I believe he will find it would have been more for the interest of his booksellers. I know not what authority he or his booksellers had to reprint my books in effect, which are my property by law. But I argue not with him at present upon that point. If he had done it in a genteel way, by asking leave, and under direction, he should have had my leave and encouragement also. Or if he had done it usefully, so as truly to answer the end he pretends, even without leave, he should have had my pardon. But now he has defeated his own design, both by unnecessary and hurtful additions of his own, which will not only incommode and encumber his books, but render them dangerous and pernicious to unwary readers, unless timely antidoted and corrected by some more skilful hand. For which reason, since they are sent into the world together With an abstract of my Antiquities, I have thought it just both to the world and myself to make some proper animadversions on them. I freely own, that a just and authentic account of ancient and modern sects and heresies, done by a learned and judicious hand, would be a very useful work: and it is what has been long wanted, and long desired by many learned men, who observe the failings of the common heresi- ologists on all sides: but I cannot see what an account of modern heresies has to do with the antiquities of the church, or how the knowledge of modern sectaries can help to explain the ancient usages and prac- tices of the catholics in former ages. For which reason, our author might have dropped that part of his work without any detriment, to have made his book the cheaper. But whether it was proper or improper to clog his work with any account of heresies ancient or modern, what had been done in either kind, should have been done with care and judgment, and something of exactness, which, after all the compli- ments he passes on my work, I cannot say of his, and I am heartily sorry that in justice to the world I cannot do it. For some of his accounts are very trifling and jejune, and such as give no light or information to a reader: others are very false and injurious to great men, whom he makes heretics, when they were really the great defenders of the catholic ‘faith: and his whole account is very imperfect, omitting some of the most considerable sects and errors, whilst his title-page pretends to be an account of all the principal heresies since the rise of Christianity. I love not to censure any man without reason, and therefore I will give some evident proof of each particular I lay to his charge; only premising one thing, which I believe will make the grammarians smile: the running title of his treatise is, Index Haereticus, which in English is not what he calls it, An Account of Heresies; but, An heretical Index: which, I believe, he did not intend should be its character. But if we soften the meaning of the word heretical, and take it only for erroneous; however ominous it be, it is a very just character indeed. For, besides its other faults, it is very erroneous in the characters he gives of very great, and orthodox, and eminent saints of God, who in his account are some of the worst of heretics. I will make good in order the several charges I bring against him. 1. Some of his accounts are very trifling and jejune, and such as give no light or information to a reader. In speaking of the Hypsistarians, all that he says of them is only this, “ That they were maintainers of a heresy in the fourth century, made up of Judaism and paganism.” Now, what is a reader the wiser for all this? This character, being in such general terms only, would serve at least twenty heresies, and a ' reader would not know how to distinguish them, seeing no particular opinions or practices of Jews or Gentiles are here ascribed to the Hypsistarians, whereby to discern them from other heretics that mixed Judaism and paganism in one common religion. He says in his preface, one of the chief reasons for drawing up his Index Haereticus was, because in my books I had only touched lightly and in transitu upon heresies, as they made for my purpose, without giving‘ any perfect description of them. Which is very true. But why then did not he give a perfect description of those Hypsistarians, or at least a more perfect one than I had done? He could not be ignorant, whilst he was epitomizing my books, that I had given a pretty good description of them, Book XVI. chap. 6. sect. 2. p. 306. vol. vii., where I say, They called themselves Hypsistarians, that is, worshippers of the most high God, whom they worshipped, as the Jews did, only in one person; and they observed their sabbaths, and used distinction of meats, clean and un- clean, though they did not regard circumcision, as Gregory Nazianzen, whose father was once of this sect, gives the account of them. This is some account of them, if it be not a perfect one. Why then did he not give the same or a better account of them, or at least refer his reader to my book, or his own epitome, THE PREFACE. p. 335, where he transcribes my account of them? The gentleman was in haste when he. wrote his In- dex, and could not stand to do justice neither to me nor his readers. I could add something more con- cerning these Hypsistarians out of Gregory Nyssen, Hesychius, and Suidas; but it will be time enough to do that, if I live to give the reader an epitome of my own with some additions. I only remark here, that there is no notice taken of these Hypsistarians in Epiphanius, Theodoret, Philastrius, or St. Austin, or any other of the common heresiologists; and that they who speak of them say nothing of their paganism, however our author came to blunder upon it. His account of the Cwlz'colce is much such another as the former: “ Ctclz'colte, or worshippers of heaven, an heretical sect in the fifth century; at which time they were condemned by the Rescripts of Honorius the emperor.” It is hard, again, that he could not have referred his readers to the same place of my book, or his own epitome, where they might have found a much better account of them. But this gentleman was to magnify his own Index, and make his readers believe, that he had done great feats and wonders in discovering the tenets of ancient’ heretics, where I had been silent, or but lightly touched upon them; though by these instances the reader will now be able to judge of the perfection and excellency of his performance. I will give but one instance more of this kind out of many that might be added. In speaking of the Ethnophrones, he says, “They were heretics of the seventh century, who taught that some pagan super- stitions were to be retained together with Christianity.” But why did he not inform his reader what these pagan superstitions were? Is there no author that speaks particularly of them? The learned reader may please to take this account from me in the words of Damascen. de Haeresibus, p. 585. Ethnophrones cum gentz'um institute: sequantm', in (:(eterz's sunt Christz'anz'. lYz' natales dieafortunam, fatmn, omnem astronomz'am, et astrologiam, omnemque divinationem et auspz'cia probant : augurz'a, expz'atz'ones, etplacatz'ones, sortes, pro- digiorum et portentorum inspectiones, veneficz'a, alz'asque ejusdem generz's impz'asfabulas adhibent : z'isdemgue qm'bus gentes, ntuntur instz'tutz's. Dies etiam festos quosdam Grcecor-um probant : dies denz'que, et menses, et annos, et tempora observant et notant. In short, they were the same with those superstitious Christians, who followed the forbidden heathen arts of divination, magic, and enchantment, judicial astrology, calcu- lation of nativities, augury, soothsaying, divination by lots, observation of days and accidents, and the ob- servation of heathen festivals, of whom I have so largely and particularly treated in two whole chapters, Book XVI. chap. 4 and 5, where I speak of the discipline and laws of the church made against them. And yet this gentleman will hear his readers in hand, that he has given a perfect account of those ancient sects and heresies, which I only occasionally and lightly touch upon. 2. The second charge I have against his Index is more weighty, that many of his accounts of heresies and heretics are very false, and highly injurious to the character and memory of great, and good, and ex- cellent men, whom he makes heretics, when they were really noble confessors and brave defenders of the catholic faith. For proof of this I will not insist upon the characters he gives of Melito, bishop of Sardes, or of Nicholas the deacon; but only observe, that a prudent writer might have softened his character of each. For though Valesius* bears hard upon Melito, and says, with our author, That he asserted God to be corporeal, in a book which he wrote, 'mpi 95m”: é'uo'wpci'rov, which Valesius translates, De Deo corporeo : yet other learned persons 1- think this to be a mistake; since sag évmbparog does not signify a corporeal God, but God incarnate, or made flesh, or dwelling in the body; which is a quite different thing from God’s being corporeal in his Divine nature. And therefore, since thus much might justly have been said, by way of apology, for Melito, our author should not have been so severe upon him, as to style him a heretic of the first ages, who held, that God was corporeal; but have alleged in his favour what so many learned men have said in justification of him; especially considering'what both PolycratesI in Eusebius, and Ter— tullian§ in St. J erom, say of him, That he was a man filled with the Holy Ghost, and generally believed to be a prophet among Christians. ' The same apology might have been made, and in justice should have been made, for Nicholas, one of the seven deacons. For though some of the ancients lay the doctrine of the Nicolaitans to his charge; yet, as I show in one of the preceding Books," a great many others, particularly Clemens Alexandrinus, Euse- bius, Theodoret, and St. Austin, excuse him, and say, The doctrine was none of his, but only taken up by those who pretended to be his followers, grounded upon some mistaken words of his, which had no such meaning. " Vales. Not. in Euseb. lib. 4. cap. 26. T Cave, Histor. Literar. v01. 1. p. 43. Du Pin, in the Life of Melito. Suicer. Thesaur. Eccles. voce ’Evcwp.o'z~rwaw. i Ap. Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 24. § Tertul. ap. Hieron. de Scriptor. cap. 24. || Book XXII. chap. 1. sect. 2. xiv THE PREFACE. But I pass over this to our author’s account of the Acephalz ; “ Who,” he says, “ were a headless kind of heretics, who owned neither bishop, priest, nor sacrament, like our modern Quakers.” I know not what grounds our author had for this, for he never cites any particular writer throughout his whole Index; but I know Alexander Rosse said the same before him, and he is one of this gentleman’s learned authors. I know also that some popish writers* object it to the Lutherans, that they are like the old Acephalz', because they have no bishops for their leaders; and I am apt to think Alexander Rosse took it, right or wrong, from some of those popish writers. But Alexander has the misfortune to contradict himself; for he says in the very same breath, That Severus, bishop of Alexandria, (he meant Antioch,) was author of this sect of Acephalz', under Anastasius the emperor, anno 462. And that they were called also Theodo- sians, from Theodosius their chief patron, and bishop of Alexandria. Strange indeed! that they should have bishops for their authors and patrons, and yet be without bishop, priest, or sacrament among them! Our author was aware of this rock, and had the wit to avoid it; and therefore here he fairly and wisely dropped his guide, and left him to shift for himself with his contradictions ; telling us the first part of the story, but not the latter, which would have spoiled his parallel between the Acephalz' and the Quakers. But how would he make out, if he was pressed hard to it, that the Acephalz' had no bishops, or were named Headless, from the, want of such heads among them? For my part, I never met with any ancient writer that gave this account of them. Liberatus saysfir They were called Acephalz', because they would not receive the doctrine of Cyril of Alexandria, nor follow him as their head, nor yet any other. But these were bishops, who would neither take Cyril patriarch of Alexandria, nor John patriarch of Antioch, for their head, and were therefore called Acephalz', because they would follow neither patriarch as their leader. For as those bishops were called Autocephali, who had no patriarch above them, but were a sort of patriarchs themselves, and independent of any other; so those bishops who were subject to patriarchs, and withdrew their obedience from them, were called Acephalz', because they were no heads or patriarchs themselves, and yet refused to be subject to any other. Patriarchs were then heads of the bishops, as bishops were heads of the people; ‘and these are quite different things; for bishops to be called Acephali, because they rejected their patriarch, and people to be called Acephali, because they had neither bishop, nor priest, nor sacrament among them. I am not fond of defending ancient heretics, but I think all men ought to have justice done them, and not be charged with more heresies than they were really guilty of. It is allowed on all sides, that these Acephalz' were Eutychians, and enemies of the council of Chalcedon ; and as such, Leontiusi also writes against them; but he says not a word of their being without bishops, priests, or sacraments; and therefore it lies upon our author to produce some ancient voucher, better than Alexander Rosse, for the charge he brings against them. I insist not on his little grammatical error in his account of the Saccophori, “Who,” he says, “ were a branch of the Encratites, so called because they carried a long bag, to make the people believe they led a penitent life.” They were‘ indeed a particular sect of the Manichees, who are condemned under that name in several laws of the Theodosian Code,§ where the several branches of the Manichees are proscribed under the distinguishing names of Solitam'z', Encratitw, Apotactz'tw, Hydroparastatce, and Saccophorz', which names they assumed to shelter themselves against the severity of former laws made against the Manichees under the name of Manichees only. But now these Manichean Saccophorz' were not so called from car- rying a long bag, but from wearing sackcloth, and affecting to appear with it in public. Saccus indeed will signify a sack or a bag, as well as sackcloth; but what has a long bag to do with a penitent life? It is fitter to describe a philosopher than a penitent: but sackcloth and a penitent life will consist very well together. However, the church did not allow any to affect this garb, though some monks, like the Manichees, were very fond of it, and loved to appear publicly with chains or crosses about their necks, and walked bare- foot, and wore sackcloth out of mere singularity and affectation: who are therefore often severely cen- sured for these things by the ancients, Epiphanius, St. Austin, St. J erom, Palladius, and Cassian, as I have showed more fully in another place : I] but I never heard of any, either monks or heretics, censured for carrying a long bag, as an indication of a penitent life; and I am of opinion, this gentleman, when he considers it again, will reckon this such another slip as Index Haeretz'cus ; which are but small failings in comparison of What I have now further to object against his Index, which turns catholics into heretics in several instances both of former and later ages. * See Mason’s Defence of the Ordination of Ministers beyond Seas, p. 129. Oxon. 1641. 1~ Liberat. Breviar. cap. 9. Hos esse puto authores Acephalorum, qui neque Cyrillum habent caput, neque quem se- quantur ostendunt. ' I Leont. de Sectis. Action. 7. Bibl. Patr. Gr. Lat. t. l. p. 522. § Cod. Theod. Lib. 16. Tit. 5. de Haereticis, Leg. 7, 9, 11. || Book'VII. chap. 3. sect. 6. THE PREFACE. - xv Among the ancients, he does great injustice to Eustathius, the famous bishop of Antioch. For in giving an account of the Eustathian heretics, he says, “The Eustathians were the spawn of the Sabellian heresy, and had their name from Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, who was deposed in a council held in his own city, about the middle of the fourth century, for holding those principles.” I take no notice of his para- chronism, in saying that he was deposed in the council of Antioch about the middle of the fourth century; for though we cannot well call the year 327, or 329, when that council was held, the middle of the fourth century; yet this is but a small mistake, into which he might easily be led by Baronius, or the corrupt copies of Athanasius and St. J erom, which place that council in the reign of Constantius, instead of Constantine, as the best critics, Valesiusf Gothofred,j' Pag'hi and Dr. Cave,§ are fully agreed; and as appears plainly from all the historians, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Philostorgius. But the thing I complain of is this, that he makes this Eustathius a Sabellian, and his followers a spawn of the Sabellian heresy. Whereas, in truth, he was the great defender of the catholic faith against the Arian heresy in the council of Nice: the council itself translated him from Beraea to Antioch; and he was the first man that opened the council, with a panegyrical oration to Constantine: as this author, forgetting himself, fairly owns in his Account of‘ the Eight General Councils, p. 476. Athanasius gives him this character, That he was a noble confessor, and orthodox in the faith, fljv wiam/ ez’mfifig, and exceeding zealous for the truth." How then could he be a Sabellian, unless Sabellianism was the true faith, and Athanasius a Sabellian also? To open this matter a little further, and undeceive this gentleman, and his readers also: this Eustathius was only abused in his character out of spite and malice by the Arians, who were his im- placable enemies, because he was a resolute defender of the Nicene faith against them. They therefore endeavoured to make him odious, by falsely charging him with Sabellianism, and several other crimes, upon the strength of which calumnies they deposed him in one of their own councils at Antioch. Socratesfif and Sozomen ** say expressly, that this council of Antioch was an Arian council that deposed Eustathius, upon a pretence, that he was more a defender of the Sabellian doctrine than of the Nicene faith: which was a usual trick of the Arians, whereby they endeavoured to undermine Athanasius also. Now, this being only a mere calumny and slander of so great a man, imposed upon him by his professed enemies, the Arians, it does not become any one, who takes upon him to give unlearned readers an account of the ancient heresies, to fix this character upon him, without giving some authority, or at least an intimation, that he was deposed only in an Arian council. I do not suppose this gentleman had any ill design in what he wrote about this matter; but he was either imposed upon by some modern historian, or did not sufficiently consider what he found delivered by ancient writers: which should make him the more cautious for the future what guides he follows, and learn to write with judgment, when he takes upon him the office of an historian for such as cannot contradict him. He commits the same fault in giving an account of the Essenes, “ Who,” he says, “were a sect of Chris- tian heretics at Alexandria, in the time of St. Mark.” Now, there seems to be a little more of wilful mistake in this; for he could not be ignorant, whilst he was transcribing my Origines, that I had alleged the authority of Epiphanius, Eusebius, and St. J erom, to show that they believed them to be the orthodox church, and not a sect of Christian heretics, at Alexandria, in the time of St. Mark; and he himself, in his epitome, refers his readers to these authorities also. I said, further, (which he leaves out,) that some learned modern writers, such as Valesius, Scaliger, and Dallaeus, question whether they were Christians; whilst Bishop Beveridge and others maintain the common opinion. But all agree that they were not a sect of Christian heretics; however this author came to despise all authority, both ancient and modern, in fixing that character upon them; for if they were heretics, they belonged to the Jews, and not to the Christians. In his accounts of modern heretics (which he might have spared in a book of Ecclesiastical Antiquities) he is much more injurious to the reader, as well as to the pious memory of great numbers of many excel- lent men, and to the protestant cause in general, when he puts the Albigenses, the Hussites or Bohemians, the Lollards, the Waldenses, and the Wicklevites, all into his black list of heretics; ascribing to them such monstrous opinions as they were certainly never guilty of, but only stood falsely charged with them by the implacable malice of their Romish adversaries, who treated them just as the Arians did Athanasius and Eustathius in former ages. It might have become a protestant heresiologist and historian, either to have omitted these names, or at least to have told his readers what excellent vindications and apologies ‘E Vales. Annot. ad Euseb. de Vit. Const. lib. 3. cap. 59. 1: Gothofred. Dissert. in Philostorg. lib. 2. cap. 7. 1 Pagi, Critic. in Baron. an. 327. n. 3. et 340. n. 18. § Cave, Histor. Literar. vol. i. p. 139. || Athanas. Epist. ad Solitarios, t. l. p. 812. TI Socrat. lib. 1. cap. 24. ‘" Sozom. lib. 2. cap. 19. xvi I . THE PREFACE. have been written by the most learned protestant authors of the two last ages, to clear their character of those black and odious imputations, which their adversaries falsely and industriously threw upon them. If he knew nothing of these vindications, he was very ill qualified to act the part of an historian in this case: if he did know them, he was more unpardonable still, in concealing from his readers what in all justice both to them, and the church, and the memory of the saints, who were so traduced, he ought'care- fully to have laid before them. If he had thought fit to have looked into my Scholastical History of Baptism, as carefully as he has done into the Origines, he might there have found the venerable names of some of those worthy men, who have done justice to the protestant cause, in vindicating those witnesses of the truth from the false aspersions that are cast upon them. For his and the truth’s sake, I will once more transcribe them, with a little addition, and more particular reference to the books and places containing those vindications. Crankanthorp, Defensio Ecclesiae Anglicanae contra Spalatensem, cap. 18. p. 100. Usserius de Christianarum Ecclesiarum Successione et Statu, cap. 10. quae. est de Albigensium et aliorum qui Ecclesiae Pontificiae adversati sunt, Historia. Albertinus de Eucharistia, lib. 3. p. 976. ubi agit de Wicklevistis, Waldensibus, Lollardis', Taboritis sive Bohemis. Sir Samuel Morland, History of the Evangelical Churches of the Valleys of Piedmont. Lond. 1658. F01. Dr. Allix, History of the Albigenses. Lond. 1692. 4to. 2 vols. ' Joachim Hesterberg de Ecclesia Waldensium. Argent. 1668. 4to. Paul Perrin, History of the Albigeois and Vaudois. Lond. 1624. 4to. Balthasar Lydius, Waldensia, sive Conservatio Vera Ecclesiaa demonstrata ex Confessionibus Tabori- tarum et Bohemorum, 2 vols. Roterod. 1616. 8vo. Cave, Historia Literaria. In Conspectu saeculi Waldensis sive Duodecimi. Dr. Tho. J ames’s Apology for John Wicklifl'e, showing his Conformity with the now Church of Eng- land. Oxon. 1608. 4to. ‘ Dr. Henry Maurice’s Vindication of the Prim. Church, p. 374. Ratio Disciplinae Frat‘rum Bohemorum. Hagaa. 1660. Hen. Wharton, Appendix ad Cave Hist. Literar. p. 50. in Vita Joan. Wicklef. p. 50. The Life of Wicklifi'e, by a late author. Lond. 8vo. Comenii Historia Persecutionum Ecclesiae Bohemicac. Lug. Bat. 1647. 8vo. It. Historia Ecclesia Slavonic. &c. Anton. Leger, Histoire Vaudois des Eglises des Vallées de Piedmont. Lug. Bat. 1669. F01. Waldensium Confessio contra claudicantes Hussitas. Basil. 1566. 8V0. See also in the Fasciculus Rerum, &c. tom. 1. Conrad. Danhauerus, Ecclesia Waldensium Orthodoxiae Lutheranw Testis et Socia. Argent. 1659. 4to. Sam. Maresius, Dissertatio Historico-Theologica de Waldensibus. Groning. 1660. 4to. ZEgid. Stauchius, Historico-Theologica Disquisitio de Waldensibus. Witenberg. 1675. 4to. Pet. Wesenbeccius, De Waldensibus et Principum Protestantium Epistolis huc pertinent-ibus. 1603. 4to. Joan. Lasicius, Vera Religionis Apologia. Spires. 1582. Now, is it possible, among such a number of fine discourses and elaborate pieces upon this subject, a per- son who writes the account of heresies, should never have met with or heard of any apologies that were made in the behalf of these men; but he must needs take his accounts crudely, as delivered by their professed enemies? If the account of Rainerius, their adversary, but an ingenuous popish writer, be taken, it does them abundantly more justice than this author. For though he calls them a sect, yet he says, it was an ancient sect; for some said, it had continued from the time of Pope Sylvester; and others, from the time of the apostles : and whereas all other sects were accompanied with horrible blasphemies against God, which would make a man tremble; this of the Leonists had a great show of piety; they lived uprightly before men, and believed all things aright of God, and all the articles contained in the creed : only they blasphemed and hated the church of Rome. Were these the Waldenses, “ That rejected episcopacy, and the Apostles’ Creed, and all holy orders, and the power of the magistrate, and approved of adulterous embraces, and practised promiscuous copulation,” as our author represents them, styling them, by way of contempt, “the religion-mongers, and pious reformers of the twelfth century?” If our author were put to apologize for himself, he would lay all the blame upon Alexander Rosse: for he is his learned author from whom he THE PREFACE. xvii transcribed. And Alexander tells us ingenuously, he had his accounts from Baronius, Genehrard, San- ders, Gualterus, Bellarmine, Viegas, Florimundus Raimundus, Prateolus, Gregory de Valentia, and such other writers, who were noted papists, and inveterate enemies of the \Valdensian and protestant religion. And should an author, who writes about heresies, have given his accounts, designed for the use of pro- testant readers, out of such authors, when he might have had recourse to one or more of such a number of excellent protestant writers, who have cleared up the character of the Waldenses, and vindicated their memory out of their own writings and confessions of faith, which are the most certain evidences of their religion ? It is amazing to think how any ingenuous writer, who pretends to the least knowledge of books and learning, should give such a black character of those excellent confessors and witnesses of the truth, without suggesting the least tittle of what so many learned men have said, or what may be said, in their vindication. I will not suspect our author of any sinister designs of advancing popery; but I will be bold to say, he could hardly have taken a more effectual way, had he designed to do it, than by instilling into the minds of those who can look no further than his accounts, such an odious character of those men, of whom so many thousands laid down their lives for the cause of true religion, in those very points where- in protestants stand distinguished from papists at this day. I had once an occasion to make this same reflection in a former book * on another writer, who is much superior to our author in learning and in- genuity; and I never heard that he took it unkindly at my hands for so doing; for an historian’s business is only to find out truth as well as he can, and then deliver it to others fairly without disguise, or any false colours put’ upon it. And therefore I hope our author will take occasion to amend this grand error, whenever he has opportunity to write any thing further upon this subject. His time would be much better employed in reading and considering the books of some of those excellent writers I have referred him to, than in collecting a heap of rubbish from Alexander Rosse or any other such injudicious writers. 3. But there is one thing more I must put this author and his readers in mind of: That whilst he bears so hard upon the poor Waldenses, and Albigenses, and Wicklevists, and Hussites, and Lollards, he has not one syllable in all his Index of the grand errors of the Romanists or papists, under any title or deno- mination whatsoever. He cannot pretend they fell not directly in his way; for he treats of modern sects and heterodoxies as well as ancient. Neither did he want his guide here; for Alexander Rosse has a whole section of fifty pages in his book upon the subject. Or if he had said nothing upon it, yet it might have become a new heresiologist to have taken notice of the errors of the Romanists upon some title or other. Their errors are as considerable and dangerous as most other modern sects ; why then have they no place in the Index? Is transubstantiation no error? Is idolatry, in its various species of worshipping saints, angels, images, relics, the host, and the cross, no crime? Is not the Hildebrandine heresy, as our writers style it, that is, the doctrine of deposing kings, an error worth mentioning? nor the pope’s pre- tence to infallibility and universal power over the church, worthy of a protestant’s censure? Is it no crime to exempt the clergy from the power of the civil magistrate? nor any wrong done them to impose celibacy upon them? Have the people no injury done them in keeping the Scriptures locked up in an unknown tongue? or being obliged to have Divine service in a language they do not understand? or in being deprived sacrilegiously of one half of the communion? or in having the absolute necessity of auricular confession imposed upon them? Is there no harm in the use of interdicts and indulgences? Are private and solitary masses, and the doctrine of purgatory, with many other errors, such innocent things, that it was not worth an historian’s while to give his readers any notice of them, or caution against them? Our author knows, I have fairly combated most of these things, and showed them to be novelties and great corruptions, in the several parts of my Origines, as I had occasion to meet with them. There- fore the least he could have done, had been to refer his readers to those parts of his own epitome, or my Origines, where these things are treated, if he was not minded to give them in one view in his own col- lections. , But he is as favourable to the anti-episcopal men, or presbyterians, as he is to the papists; for he gives them no place in his catalogue neither. I suppose he was in haste for the press, and considered not that he had made such an omission. But he should now consider, that he who falsely objects it to the Wal- denses, that they rejected episcopacy, (which they always carefully maintained,) should not. have passed over in silence those men who oppose episcopacy, when he might with justice and truth have charged them with it as their proper heterodoxy, from which their denomination of anti-episcopal, or Presbyterian, is taken. But this is not all the defect of his Index. ‘* Scholiast. Hist. of Baptism, Part I. chap. 1. p. 97. xviii THE PREFACE. If this author would have given a perfect catalogue of all the original heresies from the first ages of Christianity, together with the more remarkable heterodoxies which appeared in these later times, he should have inserted many other names, both ancient and modern, which are now omitted in his catalogue. In the first century, the Thebulians, Cleobians, Dositheans, Gorthaeans, Merinthians; not to mention Demas, Hermogenes, Hymenaeus and Philetus, Alexander the coppersmith, Diotrephes, and the doctrine of Jezebel, which are noted in Scripture. In the second century, Bassus, a new disciple of Valentinus. In the third century, the Discalceatz', Apocarz'taz, Dicartz'tw, and Solitarz'i, which were new branches of the Manichees. In the fourth century, the M'z'nwz', Adelphians, Psathyrians, and Lucianists, two new branches of the Arians, Adelophagz', Theopom'tw, Triscz'lz'dw or Trq'formz'am', Hydrothez'tve, C'yrthz'am', and Pythecz'an», new sects of Arians, Gyrovagz', Hommzcz'om'tw, Ametritaa, Psychopneumones, Adecerditre, Sarabaz'tw or .Remboth, Passiom'staz, Nyctages, Theophronians, Metagenetae, Sabbatians or Protopaschites. In the fifth century, the Vigilantians and Massz'lz'enses. In the sixth century, the Marcianists, or followers of Marcianus Trapezita, the Tetradz'tre, and Severians, with the several branches that sprung from them, the Contobabditw, Paulians, Theodosians, Damianists, Petrites, Cononites, Cbrruptz'coke ; together with the errors of Peter Moggus and Peter Gnapheus or Fullo, which made a great noise in the history of this age; as did also the practices of Zeno with his Henoticon, and Anastasius against the council of Chalcedon. In the seventh century, J oannes Philoponus and Ethicoproscoptw. The eighth century was famous for the disputes between the Iconoclasts and the Iconolatrw, image-worshippers and image-breakers: and the errors of the second council of Nice might have been set forth in a much more advantageous view, had our author been pleased to have acquainted his reader with the brave opposition that was made against it by the council of Frankfort, and other councils and writers of that and the following ages, in his History of the General Councils. The ninth and the tenth ages, Prateolus is pleased to say, was a perfect interregnum of heretics, a cessation and rest of the church for two hundred years and more from all heretical infestation. ~ Others more properly call these the dark and ignorant ages, when the enemy sowed his tares, whilst men were asleep. And Baronius himself cannot forbear upon some accounts to call them infelz'cissz'ma Romanw ecclesiaz tempom et omm'um Zuctuosz'ssz'ma, the most unhappy and deplorable times of the Roman church, when weak men were in danger of being scandalized by seeing the abomina- tion of desolation set in the temple. If our author had been as inquisitive as it became him, he might have found the great idol of transubstantiation begun to be formed in the errors of Paschasius Rathbertus in these ages, though not fully completed till some ages after in the council of Lateran; and the seeds of the Hildebrandine heresy springing up in the bold attempts of the popes of these ages against the power of princes, till it came to its full maturity under Hildebrand himself, called Gregory VII. ; to mention no more of the popish errors, which our author thought fit wholly to pass over. In the twelfth century he might have found the errors of Durandus de Waldach, and Petrus Abeelardus, and Gilbertus Porretanus, and the Coterellz', and the Populicans, to have added to his Index. But above all, the thirteenth and four- teenth centuries would have furnished him with great abundance of more remarkable errors to have filled up his catalogue, instead of the Wicklevites and Hussites, and Waldenses and Albigenses. For now ap- peared in the thirteenth century the errors of‘ Abbot Joachim, and Petrus J oannes de Oliva, and John de Parma, the author of the infamous book, called Evangelium ZEternum, The Everlasting Gospel, which was to supersede and set aside the gospel of Christ, under pretence of introducing the more spiritual gospel of the Holy Ghost. Eimericus has noted seven and twenty errors and blasphemies contained in this book, which the Mendicant friars in those days highly magnified. But our author needed not to have gone so high as Eimericus for them; for Bishop Stillingfleet gives an ample account of them in his Fanaticism of the Church of Rome. As he does also of the errors of Gerardus Segarelli, and the Dulcin- ists, and Herman of Ferraria, and the book called The Flowers of St. Francis, and another, The Confor- mities of St. Francis and Christ. ‘ To which may be added the errors of Raymundus Lullius, and David Dinantius, and Bugaurius de Monte Falcone, together with the errors of J oannes Guion, and J oannes de Mercuria, and Nicolas de Ultricuria, and Dionysius Soulechat, a Franciscan, and J oannes de Calore, and one Ludovicus, and Guido, an Austin hermit, with some others that were condemned in these ages by Gulielmus Parisiensis and Stephanus Parisiensis, with the concurrence of the university of Paris, and are to be found at the end of some editions of Peter Lombard, with the errors of Peter Lombard himself, under this title, Articuli in quibus Magister Sententiarum communiter non tenetur. Lombard. Sentent. Lugd. 1594. 8vo. Spondanus adds to these, the C’omlormz'entes, and Pastorellz', and Guido de Lacha, and the Humiliatz', and the Ordo Apostolorum ; all which appeared within the compass of the thirteenth century; besides the famous disputes between the Guelphs and Gibelines, which continued in the follow- THE PREFACE. xix ing ages. In the fourteenth century, there are the errors of Arnaldus Montanerius, and Arnaldus de Villa Nova, Bertoldus de Roback, Martinus Gonsalvus Conchensis, Nicolaus Calaber, Bartholomaeus J anovesius, the Bizochz', and Frat-res dc Paupere Vita, the Pseudapostoli, J oannes de Latone, J oannes Hato, the sect of the Impw'z', Raimundus de Terraga, Amadeus Lusitanus; the Albatz', who travelled with great admiration for their sanctity over all parts of Europe; the Templars, whose order was extinguished in the council of Vienna; the New Sabellians of Spain, who maintained upon the hypothesis of transubstan- tiation, that the eucharist was both Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; the errors of Franciscus Ceccus, an Italian astrologer; the wild disputes between the Palamites and J oannes Cantacuzenus on the one side, and Barlaam and Acyndinus on the other, concerning the light of Mount Tabor; the revelations of St. Bridget and St. Catherine for and against the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary; the disputes about the same matter between the Dominicans and the Franciscans; and the more fierce disputes of those orders concerning the poverty of Jesus Christ; of which Bishop Stillingfieet gives an ample account in his Fanaticism of the Church of Rome, and the author of The Mystery of J esuitism an account no less entertaining: add to these, the errors of Pope John XXIL, ninety of which are laid to his charge by our countryman Gulielmus Ockam, for which he himself, with his friends J oannes Parisiensis, J oannes de Poliaco, Petrus de Vineis, J oannes de J anduno, and Marsilius de Padua, with many others, are charged with heresy, being in reality firm to the defence of the imperial power against the papal. A collection of whose tracts may be found together in Goldastus Monarchia Imperii Romani, seu de J urisdictione et Potestate Imperatoris et Papas, per varios Auetores. 3 vol. Hanov. 1612. F01. In the fifteenth century there are the famous disputes between the councils of Constance and Basil on the one side, and the council of Florence on the other, concerning the infallibility and supremacy of the pope above general councils; the error of the council of Constance in taking away the cup from the peo- ple; the error of the council of Basil in determining for the immaculate conception. There are also the errors of Augustinus de Roma, J oannes Parvi, Franciscus Georgius Venetus, Laurentius Valla, a reviver of Sabellianism, Nicholas Machiavel, Matthaeus Palmerius, Petrus de Aranda, Fanatici Suevenses, Mat- thias Tiburtinus a Franciscan enthusiast, Tympanista Germanus, and a sect called Opinionists ; not to mention Henricus Harphius, whose errors, because they are censured and expurged only by the order of the Roman Index, are of a more doubtful nature. There was also in the beginning of this age, one Vin- centius Ferrerius, a Catalonian preacher, who is now cried up as a great saint by Spondanus and Baronius, and other writers of the Roman church: but there was a time when he was condemned as a heretic by Eimericus the inquisitor, for asserting, among other things, that Judas repented unto salvation. To which may be added the errors of Quadrigarius and Munerius, censured by the Sorbonne, anno 1442, and 1470. The sixteenth century had but a little time before the Reformation was begun by Zuinglius and Luther: yet in this short interval our author might have noted Hermannus Rissuick, and the Fossarz'z' in Bohemia, and Petrus Pomponatius in Italy, who read public lectures against the immortality of the soul. And if he had added, Thomas de Vio, commonly called Cardinal Cajetan, he would have had the authority of Prate- olus and Ambrosius Catharin also, who wrote a book particularly against Cajetan, wherein he objects to him above two hundred errors, an extract of which may be found in Flaccius Illyricus de Controversiis Religionis Papisticae, p. 138. Basil. 1565. 4to. We are now come to the age of the Reformation, where our author has noted many sects and hetero- doxies, but omitted abundance more, that were very considerable. Catharin, who condemned Cajetan, had also his errors noted by others. Sotomajor, in his Index, prohibits some of his books to be read, and orders others to be expurged: but one may question whether that was done for his real errors, or only for his opinions inclining to the protestant side. But his opinion of an intermediate state after the end of this world, in a new earth between heaven and hell, for those who are neither so good as to be admitted into heaven, nor so bad as to be condemned to hell, is an error that might have been worthy our author’s ob- servation. He speaks of the Anabaptists, but with a great deal of confusion, whereas others distinguish them into at least fourteen sects, according to their peculiar tenets: the Muncerians, the Apostolic-i, the Separati, the Cathari, the Silentes, the Enthusiasts, the Liberz', the Adamz'tte, the Hutz'tw, the Augustinians, Beuckeldians, the Melchiorites, the Georgians, and the Mennonists. Some add to these the .Pastorz'cidre, the Nudipedes, the Mangfestarz'i, the Clancularz'z', the Baculares, the Batemburgz'cz', the Pacg'ficz', the Sangui- nariz'. Our author mentions some of these under their proper titles, but he omits the greatest part of them. And he ought to have distinguished our English Anabaptists from those of other countries, because they abhor many of their opinions. In giving an account of the Anti-trinitarians, he says, they are the spawn of the old Arians and Samosatenians, grafted upon their stock by Michael Servetus. Whereas Servetus xx THE PREFACE. was no Arian, nor Samosatenian, but a reviver of Sabellianism, in which he was followed by Keckerman and many others, who never met with so severe a censure. The authors of modern Arianism were Valen— tinus Gentilis, and Georgius Blandrata, and Gregorius Pauli, and Matthaeus Gribaldus, and Franciscus David, and J oannes Paulus Alciat, and J oannes Campanus, and Laelius Socinus, uncle to Faustus Socinus, of whom our author should have given a particular account under their several titles. He should also have given some account of the errors of Julius Caesar Vaninus, and Andreas Caesalpinus, and Hobbes, who were in the same class with Spinosa. It had also been worth his while to have told his reader what were the singular opinions or heterodoxies of Archer, who, among other blasphemies, maintained publicly in print, That God was the author of sin; for which he was censured by the assembly of divines, and his book burnt by the common hangman, anno 1645. He should also have noted the errors of Jacob Behmen, and Antonietta Bourignon, (against whom Dr. Cockburn wrote,) and Hieronymus Cardanus, and Curcellaaus, and Episcopius, and Arminius; and the errors of Grotius, after he fell into his designs of comprehension, and favourable interpretations both of the popish and Socinian tenets, which plainly appear in his later writings: the errors also of the Lord Herbert of Cherbury; the new heresy of the Jesuits, as the J ansen- ists themselves call it, which asserts the pope to be infallible, not only in matters of faith, but matters of fact; and gives him power to dethrone princes, and absolve subjects from their oaths of allegiance to them: which doctrine every where occurs in the writings of Bellarmine against Barclay and Widdrinton, under the name of Sculkenius, and in Becanus, and Mariana, and Suarez, and Lessius, and Azorius, and Emanuel Sa, and hundreds of others, some of whose books together with Baronius have been publicly burnt at Paris and Madrid by the hands of the common hangman. To these might have been added the new doc— trine of the Jesuits in morality, largely set forth in the books called, Provincial Letters, and the Jesuits’ Morals; chiefly taken out of Escobar, Filliucius, and such other writers. As also the doctrine of proba- bility, taught by Caramuel, which opens a way to licentiousness; for which he stands condemned and branded, even in the Roman Index, under this title, Joanm's Caramuelz's Apologema pro Antiquz'ssz'ma et UniversaZz'ss-ima Doctrina de Probabilitate, prorsus prohibetur. There are also no less than forty-five pro- positions of the Jesuits’ casuistical divinity, whereof this doctrine of probability is one, condemned by two bulls of Alexander VII. at the end of the Roman Index, which would have appeared well in our author’s collection. As also the censures of the parliament of Paris and the Sorbonne, upon the Propositions of Santarellus, anno 1626, wherein he asserted the pope’s deposing power; the censure of the Sorbonne upon the Jesuits, anno 1661, for asserting, That the pope has the same infallibility as Jesus Christ in matters of fact, as well as right; and the censure of the Sorbonne, anno 1561, upon another author, for asserting, That the pope has power to dispose of the dominions of heretical princes, and absolve their subjects from their oath of allegiance and fidelity. All which may be found in the book called The pernicious Conse- quences of the New Heresy of the Jesuits. Richerius also gives us the censures of the Sorbonne, upon one Ludovicus Coubont, for asserting, That bishops have not their authority immediately from Jesus Christ, but from the pope; and another upon Ludovicus Cellotius, for maintaining, That general councils have their authority only from the pope; and another upon Francis Guillou, and a fourth upon J acobus Vernant, for the same assertions; besides the censure of Sanctarellus the Jesuit, which is also there re- lated. Richer. Vz'ndz'c. Doctrinw Sckolw. Paris. In another book of Richerius, De Potestatae Papae in Temporalibus, we have the arrests of the parliament of Paris against Tanquerel, and Cardinal Perron, and Bernardinus Castorius, for publishing the infamous bull De C(ena Domini; and against J oannes Castellus, and Florentinus Jacob, and Ravaillac, who murdered Henry IV. of France, upon the deposing principles‘; as also the arrests against Bellarmine, and Martin Becanus, and Sculkenius, that is, Bellarmine himself again, and Suarez, for their several pernicious books upon the same subject. An account of which would have been a grace to our author’s catalogue of modern heterodoxies. Further yet; if he had looked into Bishop Stillingfleet’s book of the Divisions of the Roman Clergy, he might there have. found, besides the schisms of the popes in former ages, and their contentions with the emperors for temporal power, and the feuds of the monastic orders one with another, a particular account of the Jesuits’ opposition to episcopal power and jurisdiction, in the books of Nicholas Smith and Thomas a J esu; which books were censured, first, by the archbishop of Paris, then by the Sorbonne, and at last by the bishops of France in an assembly of them at Paris. To these he might have added the books which the Jesuits published under the feigned names of Hermannus Loemelius, and Edmundus Ursulanus, and the Jesuits’ Censure of the Apostolical Creed, to ridicule the censures of Paris ; and 110w these again were answered by Hallier, and Le Maistre, and Petrus Aurelius, who showed that these doctrines were maintained by the Jesuits: “ That the episco_ pal order was not necessary to the being of a particular church; that episcopacy was not by Divine right; THE PREFACE. XXI that confirmation might be given without bishops; that the monastical order was more perfect than the episcopal; and that regulars were exempt from the jurisdiction of bishops. And all that was done at Rome against these doctrines, was only to suppress the books on both sides; which the Parisian doctors highly complained of, that such scandalous and seditious books as those of the Jesuits should meet with the same favour at Rome, as the censure of the bishops of France; that their profane and atheistical censure of the Apostles’ Creed must have no mark of disgrace put upon it, nor such sayings of theirs,‘ wherein they call the bishops and divines of France by most contumelious names, and say they are the enemies of truth and piety.” If our author had looked a little further into Bishop Stillingfleet, he might have found how barbarously they used Don Arnando Guerrero, bishop of the Philippine Islands, because he condemned them in a synod for acting independent of his jurisdiction; and the like usage of the bishop of Angelopolis in America, for the very same reason; and what horrible things are contained in their cate- chisms which they gave to their new converts in China, which the congregation cle Propaganda Fz'de condemned in seventeen decrees at Rome, anno 1645. The short of their instructions was this: “ To speak little of Christ crucified, but to conceal that small and inconsiderable circumstance of the Christian doctrine as much as may be; to use all the same customs that idolaters did, only directing all their worship to Christ and the saints; not to trouble themselves about fasting, penance, confession, and participation of the eucharist, or the severity of repentance and mortification.” Are not these as pernicious errors as any that have appeared in these later ages, and were they not fit to be mentioned in an account of modern heterodoxies? Alphonsus de Vargas, a Spaniard, has four books under these titles against them: Re- latio ad Principes Christianos de Stratagematis et Sophismis Politicis Societatis Jesu ad Monarchiam Orbis terrarum sibi conficiendam.—Sedis Apostolicae Censura adversus Novam, Falsam, Impiam, et Haareticam Societatis J esu Doctrinam nuper in Hispania publicata.—Jesuitarum Fidei Symbolum velut Canticum novum.—-Actio Haeresis in Societatem J esu. But our author has passed over many other modern heterodoxies worthy of a reader’s information: such as the errors of Dr. John Dee and Kelley concerning conversation with angels, published by Meric Casaubon. Lond. 1659. The errors of Thomas Monetarius and Christophorus Schaplerus; the Nico- demitae, written against by Calvin; Nicholas Drabicius, a German enthusiast ; James Brocard, an apocalyptical prophet censured in the protestant synod of Rochelle, 1581; Paul Grebner, a Swedish prophet; J oannes Franciscus Borri; Bernardinus Ochin, Theophilus Aletheus, and the book called Polygamia Triumphatrix, John Milton, Cornelius Vythagius, and other defenders of polygamy and divorces; Paionism, censured by Spanheim in his Elenchus; the errors of Gulielmus Postellus, Pere Simon, the Suenckfeldians, Vincentius Viviani, an Italian fatalist, Conradus Vorstius, and the Weigelians and Paracelsians, called the new prophets of Germany, an account of whose blasphemies may be found in Wendelin’s Epistle Dedicatory to his Theology, and in Hoornbeck, Thummius, and Beckman, who have written particular books against them. To these might have been added very properly an account of our late new prophets in England, who made such a stir not many years ago ; and the Masonites, a little before them ; together with the Ration- alists, Latitudinarians, Freethinkers; and Unionists, who pretend that the doctrine of papists and pro- testants rightly represented are in a manner all one: such were Father Davenport, otherwise called Sancta Clara, and Mr. de Meaux, bishop of Condome, and such other reconcilers and expositors of the faith. The errors also of Toland and Asgil, and the book called The Rights of the Christian Church, might justly enough have found a place in our author’s Index. So might also several sects of fanatics in the late confusions between 1640 and 1660: the Vanists, or disciples of Sir Henry Vane; the new Bemenists, headed by ‘Dr. Pordage; the followers of Dr. Gell, Parker, and Gibbon ; Lewis du Moulin, the Levellers, and many others who are described in Edward’s Gangraena, and Reliquia Baxterianae, and other the like accounts of those times. Our author, perhaps, will now begin to think himself a little short and deficient in his short account of all the principal heresies since the rise of Christianity; there being so many, both ancient and modern, of which he has given no account, nor so much as named or mentioned. If he says, it was needless; I say so too, with respect to the work he was about: but when he had undertaken it, he should have made good his pretence, and taken care that the book should have answered his title. But perhaps this could not have been done without writing a large volume upon the subject. Then he should have let it all alone, and his epitome would have been both the cheaper and the better for it. His indigent readers might have known what ancient heresies were from St. Austin de Haaresibus more authentically, and also at an easier rate; for it is but a sixpenny book printed by itself at Oxford; and for modern xxii THE PREFACE. sects, they are nothing to the purpose of antiquity, and therefore might have been omitted upon this occaslon. As to his History of the Eight first General Councils, which runs to a great length, I think that as need- less as the other; for the late worthy author of the Clergyman’s Vade Mecum, in his second volume, has given all such readers a perfect account of the canons both of the Universal Code, and the Roman Code, and the African Code, down to the year 787; which I dare say is in the hands of most poor clergyman, before our author in his great compassion thought fit to take pity on them. If he would have done any thing to the purpose, it should not have been actum agere, but to have given them a short account of those Latin councils which the foresaid author does not concern himself with, but are frequently used in my Origines. For which reason I have given an alphabetical and chronological index of them, being about a hundred and twenty in all, together with the number of canons contained in them; which is enough to answer the end of my undertaking. I have supplied the whole also with a general index of matter, referring distinctly to every particular volume, book, chapter, section, and page, throughout the whole ; and added a catalogue of such authors as I have made use of in compiling the work from first to last. I had also some thoughts of adding an- other index of such authors as I have had no opportunity to see or use, which yet may be of great use to those who are minded to improve this study of church antiquities further; but because this gentleman calls me to a repetition of my labours, and obliges me to be my own epitomiser, (donatum rude reposcz't, Atgue iterum antiquo tentat me includere lud0,) I will reserve this for a more proper occasion; wishing the reader in the mean time as much pleasure, satisfaction, and advantage in reading without labour, as I have had with a mixture of great labour in compiling and digesting, these collections. POSTSCRIPT. FoR the further improvement of ecclesiastical antiquity, if any vigorous young men, of learning, applica- tion, and good judgment, are minded to employ themselves that way, these following works may be pro- per to be undertaken by such as have opportunity of books and leisure, especially in the universities. l. A supplement to my Origines, in a book of miscellaneous rites: which, if God should be pleased to give me better health, I should be glad to pursue myself, though I think it now the least part of what is wanting. 2. A catholic comment upon the Scriptures, which is already begun, and carried on by a learned and diligent writer. 3. A body of catholic divinity in the words of the ancient writers ; such as the Theologica Dogmata of Petavius the Jesuit, and Thomasin the oratorian among the Romanists. 4. A body of practical or moral and casuistical divinity: of which I have had occasion to do a little, so far as relates to the great crimes against the ten commandments, which fell under the discipline of the church. But a complete work in this kind, extending to all virtues and vices, and practical cases of all sorts, would be much more diffusive, and of excellent use for direction of preachers and casiuists upon all moral questions. 5. An authentic edition of the Canons of the Councils, Greek and Latin, in their originals. For translations and epitomes, though they are of some use to the unlearned, are not satisfactory to men of true learning and judgment, who will always have recourse to originals. Dr. Allix once undertook this work, and had very particular favour showed him by the parliament, in granting him foreign paper with- out duty, as I have been informed, and yet the design by some means or other proved abortive. The Acts of the Councils, which are different from the Canons, are much too long to be inserted in such an edition: but the Canons themselves may be comprised, in the original Greek and Latin, in two moderate volumes in quarto. Which would be exceeding useful to scholars of a moderate fortune, to have the valuable part of the voluminous tomes of the Councils, twenty or thirty in number, brought to their hand in an au- thentic manner, and at a very easy rate: whereas, now, such editions of the Councils as Labbé’s, are scarce to be found throughout a, whole diocese, except in the cathedral libraries, or some collegiate church, where few, that have inclination, can have access to them without both labour and expense, except such as are placed conveniently in the next neighbourhood, as it pleased Providence to place me; without which THE PREFACE. xxiii "'5 1+ TI 3 O *1 q‘ 'E'; happiness I had never had ability to have gone through any part 0 of God, I have lived to finish. 6. The history of the persecutions and sufferings of the primitive martyrs, extracted out of their au- thentic Acts and approved historians, without the spurious additions of nauseous legendary writers, and the uncertain martyrologists of later ages. I once made some attempt toward this myself, and read many parts of it for a year or two, as useful afternoon exhortations to zeal and constancy in religion, in my parish church. But other employments made me lay it aside, and leave it imperfect. Mr. Ruinart’s Acta Martyrum sincera, and Pagi’s Critic upon Baronius, will be of particular use to any one who is minded to set about such a work afresh, and bring it to perfection. So will also the book of Meisner, Kortholt, and Gallonius, which Dr. Cave (in his Prolegomena, p. 27. vol. i. Hist. Liter.) recommends to men’s use upon this subject. Mr. Dodwell’s twelfth Dissertation upon St. Cyprian, is an excellent dis- course to set forth the courage of the primitive martyrs: but the eleventh Dissertation, de Paucitate Martyrum, serves for no other end, but only to show what a great man can say upon a bad cause, and argue plausibly upon a very slender and false foundation, which the undertaker of this work is to beware of, and consider well what Ruinart has said against it. 7. The history of heresies, heterodoxies, and schisms; which, after all the attempts that have been made upon it, has never been done to any tolerable satisfaction or perfection. Dr. Cave tells his reader the names of the common authors that have written upon it: but he concludes, after all, in these remark- able words: Liz's tamen alz'z'sque plurz'mz's, quz' addz' poterant, non obstantz'bus, opus accuratum ale hwretz'cz's, prazcipue antiquz's, deque eorum ortu, progressu, ajim'tate, dogmat'fbus, dw'atz'one, merito adhuc inter desz'derata habenclum est. And I believe the remarks I have now made upon one of the last authors of this kind, is a pretty good evidence of the truth of his observation. I could say a great deal more upon this subject, but what I have already hinted is sufficient to a wise undertaker. 8. And lastly, A supplement to those two great and incomparable writers, Dr. Cave and Du Pin, who have given the world such an excellent account of ecclesiastical writers. Nothing, hardly, can be so perfectly done in this kind, but that still considerable additions may be made to it. The world has ex- pected for some time a third volume of Dr. Cave’s, and that, perhaps, might supersede all other men’s labours: but till that appears, I can be bold to say, there are many authors lie hid from ordinary view; and that is enough to hint this as a subject capable of further improvement: but there would be another use also in it, to bring to light the knowledge of several historians and other writers, whose testimony would give confirmation to the protestant cause, against the corruptions of the Romish church in later ages. And now that I have mentioned this, I will add two or three things more, that would be of great ad- vantage to the church, if they were done by persons of care and judgment, though they have no relation to antiquity. 1. An account of the Roman Indexes of prohibited and expurged books, showing the reasons for which the inquisitors so carefully prohibit or expurge them. I am sure by this means a good collection or catalogue of witnesses for the truth against the manifest corruptions of the Romish church might be ex- tracted out of the confessions of our own writers. 2. A new work of short marginal annotations on the Bible, explaining only the most obvious difficul- ties, that seem to puzzle ordinary readers. The learned have annotations abundantly enough to serve their turn; but there seems still to be something wanting of this kind for ordinary readers. I have sometimes put learned friends upon this work, who perhaps were otherwise usefully employed: and if I myself had not had the same plea, I would have attempted something of this nature for the benefit of in- ferior people, who are allowed to read the Scriptures, and yet many times want proper helps to under- stand them; which would be remedied very often, either by giving a little turn and light to the translation, or explaining some obscure phrase, or some ancient custom, upon which the understanding of the text many times depends, with other such ways of accommodating the Scripture to the capacities of the vulgar. 3. Till this were efi'ected, a short exposition of those chapters only which are read as proper lessons out of the Old Testament, might be a proper help to vulgar capacities and ordinary readers, to employ their meditations upon those parts of Scripture, which the church has chosen for their edification and in- struction, and seem most to want some light and guide, to make them answer that end to them. If I am not mistaken, I have seen such a work of Bishop Cooper’s in former times; but be it his or any other’s, I believe a thing of this kind‘, judiciously done, would generally be allowed to be a useful work, for the end it is proposed and intended. We abound indeed with posthils, or expositions on the Epistles and c .hich now, by the blessing ___w ~ xxiv» THE PREFACE. Gospels, and large annotations on the Old and New Testament: but these short expositions I have men- tioned are much more needed; and that is enough to recommend the work to a pious undertaker. The great objection against all these things is, that each of them is too great an undertaking for any single man. I rememberI to have heard of the same objection made by some against me and my Origines, upon publishing the first volume of them. I bless God, I have lived to confute the objection, and give the world a proof that great and laborious works are not always so frightful as sometimes they are imagined. I have given a little specimen of what the industry of a single person may do, in whom there is neither the greatest capacity _nor the strongest constitution. And having made the experiment myself, I can with more decency and freedom recommend these things to others, who are qualified to undertake them. But in saying this, I would not encourage every bold empiric in divinity or history, to set about such works, which they are not any ways qualified for, either for want of knowledge or want of judgment. To all such the poet’s direction is much more proper: Sumz'te materiam vestrz's, qui scribz'tt's, wquam Vzrz'bus, et cersate dz'u quidferre recusent, Quid oaleant humeral The want of observing which rule does abundantly more harm than good. For such men’s writings only serve to confound learning, and leave things in a much worse state than they found them. The world has daily experiment of this, to the prejudice both of good literature and religion. Therefore what I have said by way of encouragement is not to these, but to the truly judicious, the inquisitive, the modest, and the learned, who want nothing but courage proportionable to their understanding, to make them become great instruments of God’s glory in doing useful things for the service of his church. This church has never wanted such brave spirits, and I hope never will, to set forth truth with all the advantages of learning, and confound the opposition that is made to it by all the enemies of religion, whether they be the more professed attackers, or the secret un- derminers of its foundation. The blessing of God be upon all those, who have ability and will to under- take great and useful works for the promotion of piety and religion, and to stand in the gap against all the enemies of truth. CONTENTS. BOOK I. OF THE SEVERAL NAMES AND ORDERS OF MEN IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. CHAPTER I. Of those titles and appellations which Christians own- ed, and distinguished themselves by. SECT. 1. Christians at first called J esseans, Therapeutic, Electi, &e. —2. Christ called by a technical name, IXGTE; and Christians, Pisciculi, from that. —-3. Christians, why called Gnostici by some authors—4. Theophori, and Christophori.—5. Sometimes, but very rarely, Christi. ——6. Christians great enemies to all party names and human appellations. Christian, the name they chiefly gloried in.——7. Of the name catholic, and its antiquity—8. In what sense the name ecclesi- astics given to all Christians.-—-9. The Christian religion called AIi'y/Aa, and Christians oi. "r05 Ari'yua'roa—IO. Christians called Jews by the heathen—11. Christ commonly called Chrestus by the heathen; and Chris- tians, Chrestians. . . . . . . . . . . 1 CHAPTER II. Of those names of reproach, which Jews, infidels, and heretics cast upon the Christians. SECT. 1. Christians commonly called Nazarens by Jews and heathens.——2. And Galilaeans—Ii. And atheists.— 4. Greeks and impostors.——5. Magicians—6. The new superstition.-7. Slbyllists.-8. Biothanati.—9. Para- bolarii, and Desperati.—-10. Sarmentitii, and Semaxii. —11. Lucifugaa: natio.——l2. Plautina prosapia.—13. Christians called Capitolins, Synedrians, and Aposta- tics, by the Novatians.—14. Psychioi, by the Montan- ists and Valentinians._15. Allegorists, by the Mille- naries.—16. Chronitae, by the Aetians; Simplioes, by the Manichees; Anthropolatrae, by the Apollinarians.— 17. Philosarcw, and Pilosiotw,* by the Origenians.—— 18. The synagogue of Satan and antichrist, by the Luciferians. . . . . . .. 5 0 a o O 0 0 CHAPTER III. 0f the several orders of men in the Christian church. SECT. 1. Three sorts of members of the Christian church, the iryobpeuot, 1no'1'oi, 311d Ica'rnxofiusuot; rulers, be- lievers, and catechumens.—2. The name believers strictly taken for the baptized laity, in opposition to the catechumens.—3. Catechumens owned as imper- fect members of the church—4. Heretics not reputed Christians—5. Penitents and energumens ranked in the same class with catechumens. . . . CHAPTER IV. A more particular account of the 7H0‘TOl, or believers, and their several titles of honour, and privileges above the catechumens. SECT. l. Believers otherwise called (parrtgo'psvol, the illuminate.—2. And 02 peuunnéuot, the initiated—3. And 'I'éAiLOL, the perfect—4. Chari Dei, (27101, &c.—- 5. The privileges of believers. First, To partake of the eucharist.-—-6. Secondly, To stay and join in all the prayers of the churCh.——7. Thirdly, Their sole prerogative to use the Lord’s prayer. Whence that prayer was Called sbxij 'n'Io'Tibv, the prayer of believers. —8. Fourthly, They were admitted to hear discourses upon the most profound mysteries of religion. All which privileges were denied to the catechumens. 11 CHAPTER V. Of the distinction of believers from the rulers. Where, of the distinction observed in the names and ofices of laity and clergy ; and of the antiquity of these distinctions. SECT. 1. Believers otherwise called Zaici, laymen, to dis- tinguish them from the clergy.——-2. The antiquity of this distinction in the names proved against Rigaltius, Salmasius, and Seldom—3. The objection from 1 Pet. v. 3, answered—4. A distinction in the offices of laity and clergy always observed—5. Laymen otherwise called Btw'rucoi, seculars.-—6. AlSO idtdrrat, private men.—7. What persons properly called clerici.-—8. The name clerici sometimes appropriated to the in- ferior orders—9. The reason of the name cleriei- 10. All the clergy anciently called canonici; and the reason of it.—-11. Also 'réELs 'roi': Bhua'roc, the order of the sanctuary. . . . . . . . 13 ‘1* See a note on this word at the end of the Contents. 02 xxvi CONTENTS. BOOK II. OF THE SEVERAL SUPERIOR ORDERS OF THE CLERGY IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. CHAPTER I. Of the original of bishops ; and that they were a dis- tinct order from presbyters in the primitive church. SE01‘. 1. What the ancients mean by different orders of bishops and presbyters—2. The order of bishops al- ways owned to be superior to that of presbyters.—-—3. The order of bishops reckoned by all ancient writers to be of apostolical and Divine institution.——4. A list or catalogue of bishops ordained by the apostles. 17 CHAPTER II. Of the several titles of honour given to bishops in the primitive church. Snc'r. I. All bishops at first called apostles.-—2. After that, successors of the apostles—3. Whence every bishop’s see called sedes apostolica.—4. Bishops called princes Of the people—5.. Pr‘wpositi, 'n'posqéb'res, 'lrpd- sdpot, tampon—6. Principes sacerdotum, summi sacer- dotes, pontifices maa'imi, &c.-——-7. Every bishop an- ciently called papa, father, or pope.—8. Pater patrum, and episcopus episcoporum, a title given to others be- side the bishop of Roma—9. Bishops sometimes call- ed patriarchs-10. All bishops styled vicars of Christ. —11. And angels of the churches. . . . . . 21 CHAPTER III. Of the ojices of bishops, as distinct from presbyters. SE01‘. 1. A threefold difference between bishops and presbyters, in the discharge of their office and function. ——2. First, In the common offices that might be per- formed by both; the bishop acted by an independent power, but presbyters in dependence upon, and subor- dination to him.—3. This specified in the ofiices of baptism and the Lord’s supper.-—4. And in the office of preaching—5. Secondly, Some offices never in- trusted in the hands of presbyters; such as the office and power of ordination.~—6. Instances of ordinations by presbyters disannulled by the church—7. Some allegations to the contrary examined. Where, of the difference made between the ordinations of schismati- cal bishops, and those of mere presbyters.,-—8. A third difference between bishops and presbyters was, that presbyters were always accountable to their bishops, not bishops to their presbyters. -—9. Yet bishops’ power not arbitrary, but limited by canon in various respects..............25 CHAPTER IV. Of the power of bishops over the laity, monks, subor- dinate magistrates, and all persons within their dio- cese ; and of their ofllce in disposing of the revenues of the church. SECT. 1. No exemption from the jurisdiction of the bi- shop in the primitive church—2. All monks subject to the bishop of the diocese where they lived—3. As also all subordinate magistrates in matters of spiritual jurisdiction—4. Of the distinction between temporal and spiritual jurisdiction. Bishops’ power wholly con- fined to the latter.-—5. The bishop’s prerogative in granting the litera formatre to all persons. — 6. Of the bishop’s power in disposing of the revenues of the church. 30 0 CHAPTER V. Of the Qfice of bishops, in relation to the whole catholic church. Sncr. 1. In what sense every bishop supposed to be bi- shop of the whole catholic church—2. In what re- spect the whole world but one diocese, and but one bishopric in the church—3. Some particular instances of private bishops acting as bishops of the whole uni- versalchurch. . . . . . . . . . . . 33 CHAPTER VI. Of the independency of bishops ; especially in the Cyprianic age, and in the African churches. SECT. 1. What meant by the independency of bishops one of another, and their absolute power in their own church—2. All bishops had liberty to form their own liturgies.——3. And to express the same catholic creed in different forms, as to what concerned method or ex- pression.—4. And to appoint particular days of fast- ing in their own churches—5. The independency of bishops most conspicuous in the African churches; proved by several instances out of Cyprian. 5 CHAPTER VII. Of the power of bishops in hearing and determining secular causes. Seer. l. Bishops commonly chosen arbitrators of men’s differences in the primitive church—2. The original of this custom. Where, of the true meaning of those words in St. Paul, "robs éfaeevnuévas s’v 'rfi émchnoia, I Cor. vi. 4-3. This power of bishops confirmed by the imperial laws—4. Yet not allowed in capital or criminal causes; nor in any causes, but when the litigants both agreed to take them for arbitrators—5. Bishops sometimes made their presbyters and dea- cons, and sometimes laymen, their substitutes in this affair. A conjecture about the original of lay cha - cellors...............37 CHAPTER VIII. Of the privilege of bishops to intercede for criminals. SECT. 1. Several instances of bishops 'interceding for criminals to the secular magistrate—2. The reasons why they interceded for some criminals, and not others.~—-3. That they never interceded in civil mat- ters, and pecuniary cases. . . .- . . . . 39 CHAPTER IX. Of some particular honours and instances of respect, showed to bishops by all persons in general. SECT. 1. Of the ancient custom of bowing the head, to receive the benediction of bishops.- 2. Of kissing their hand. --3. The custom of singing hosannas to them sometimes used, but not approved—4. What meant by the corona sacerdotalis, and the form of sa- luting bishops per coronam.-—5. Whether bishops an- cientlywore a mitre ?—6. Of the titles d'yia'm-w-rm, beatissimi, &c., most holy and most blessed fathers, common to all bishops—7. Bishops distinguished by their throne in the church. . . . . . . . 40 CONTENTS. xxvii CHAPTER X. Of the age, and some other particular qualifications required in such as were to be ordained bishops. 81201". 1. Bishops not to be ordained under thirty years of age, except they were men of extraordinary worth. ——2. To be chosen out of the clergy of the same church, or diocese, to which they were to be ordained. -—3. Some exceptions to this rule, in three special cases.—-4. Bishops ordinarily to be such as had re- gularly gone through the inferior orders of the church. -—5. This to be understood of the orders below that of deacon; for deacons were qualified to be ordained bishops, without being made presbyters.—6. In cases of necessity, bishops chosen out of the inferior or- ders.—-7. And in some extraordinary cases, ordain- ed immediately from laymen. The custom of going through all the orders of the church in five or six days’ time, a novel practice never used in the primi- tive ages. . . . . 4 CHAPTER XI. Of some particular laws and customs observed about the ordination of bishops. Seer. l. Bishoprics not to remain void above three months.--2. In some places, a new bishop was al- ways chosen before the old was interred.——3. Some instances of longer vacancies, in times of difiiculty and persecution—4. Three bishops ordinarily required to a canonical ordination of a bishop—5. Yet ordi- ‘nations by one bishop allowed to be valid, though not canonicaL—fi. The bishop of Rome not privileged to ordain alone, any more than any other single bishop. ——7. Every bishop to be ordained in his own church. -—8. The ancient manner of ordaining bishops.—9. One of the forms of prayer used at their consecration. --—10. Of their enthronement; their homiliaz enthra- m'sticce, and litera enthronisticw, otherwise called syL nodicaz, and communicatoria. . CHAPTER XII. Of the rule which prohibits bishops to be ordained in small cities. Seer. l. The reason of the law against placing bishops in small cities—2. Some exceptions to this rule in Egypt, Libya, Cyprus, Arabia, and especially in the provinces of Asia Minor.-—-3. Reasons which engaged the ancients sometimes to erect bishoprics in small places...............51 CHAPTER XIII. Of the rule which forbids two bishops to be ordained in one city. SE01‘. 1. The general rule and practice of the church to have but one bishop in any city.—-2. Yet two bishops sometimes allowed by compromise to end a dispute, or cure an inveterate schism. Where of the famous offer made by the catholic bishops to the Donatists in the collation of Carthage.-—3. The opinions of learned men concerning two bishops in a city in the apostoli- cal age, one of the Jews, and the other of the Gentiles. -—4. The case of coadjutors. . . . . . . . 52 CHAPTER XIV. Of the chorepiscopi, mpwdwrai, and sufl‘ragan bishops .- and how these difi'ered from one another. SECT. 1. Of the reason of the name ehorepiscopi, and the mistake of some about it.—2. Three different opinions about the nature of this order. The first opinion, that they were mere presbyters,—3. The second opinion, that some of them were presbyters, and some bishops. ——4. The third opinion most pro- bable, that they were all bishops. -—5. Some objec- tions against this answered—6. Of the ofiices of the chorepiscopi. First, they were allowed to ordain the inferior clergy, subdeacons, readers, 820., but not pres- byters or deacons, without special licence from the city bishop—7. Secondly, they had power to minis- ter confirmation.--8. Thirdly, power to grant letters dimissory to the country clergy.-—9. Fourthly, they might officiate in the presence of the city bishop. -——lO. Fifthly, they might sit as bishops and vote in councils.—ll. The power of the chorepiscopi not the same in all times and places—12. Their power first struck at by the council of Laodicea, which set up 'n'spwdevrai, or visiting presbyters, in their room. Their power wholly taken away in the Western church in the ninth century—13. Of the attempt made in England to restore this order under the name of suf- fragan bishops—14. That sufi‘ragan bishops in the primitive church were not the chorepiscopi, but all the bishops in any province under a metropolitan. -—l5. Why the suifragan bishops of the Roman pro- vince were particularly called by the technical name, libra................56 CHAPTER XV. Of the intercessores and interventores in the African churches. SE01‘. 1. The reason why some bishops were called by these names in the African church, and what their oflice was.—-2. Their office not to last above one year. —3. No intercessor to be made bishop of the place where he was constituted intercessor. . . . . 59 CHAPTER XVI. Of primates or metropolitans. SE01". 1. The original of metropolitans, by some derived from apostolical constitution.—2. By others, from the age next after the apostles.—3. Confessed by all to have been long before the council of Nice—4. Proofs of metropolitans in the second century—5. By what names metropolitans were anciently called. —6. In Africa they were commonly called senes, because the oldest bishop of the province (excepting the province where Carthage stood) was always the metropolitan by virtue of his seniority—7. How the African bishops might forfeit their title to the primacy, and lose their right of seniority.——8. A register of or- dinations to be kept in the primate’s church, and all bishops to take place by seniority, that there might be no disputes about the primacy.-—9. Three sorts of honorary metropolitans beside the metropolitans in power. First, the primates wed—10. Secondly, titu- lar metropolitans—ll. Thirdly, the bishops of some mother churches, which were honoured by ancient custom.-—l2. The offices of metropolitans. First, to ordain their sufi‘ragan bishops.—-l3. This power con- tinued to them after the setting up of patriarchs in all places, except in the patriarchate of Alexandria. —14. The power of metropolitans not arbitrary in this respect, but to be concluded by the major vote of a provincial council.—l5. Metropolitans themselves to be chosen and ordained by their own provincial synod, and not obliged to go to Rome for ordination—16. The second office of metropolitans, to decide con- troversies arising among their provincial bishops, and to take appeals from them.--l7. Their third office was to call provincial synods, which all their suf- fragans were obliged to attend—18. Fourthly, they were to publish such imperial laws as concerned the church, together with the canons that were made in councils, and to see them executed; for which end xxviii CON TENTS. they were to visit any dioceses, and correct abuses, as occasion required. -— 19. Fifthly, All bishops were obliged to have recourse to the metropolitan, and take his formatw, or letters of commendation, whenever they travelled into a foreign country.—20. Sixthly, It belonged to metropolitans to take care of vacant sees within their province.-—2l. Lastly, They were to cal- culate the time of Easter, and give notice of it to the whole province.——22. How the power of metropolitans grew in after ages.—23. The metropolitan of Alex- andria had the greatest power of any other in the wor1d.-—24. All metropolitans called apostolicz', and their sees sedes apostolz'oae. . . . . . . . . 60 CHAPTER XVII. Of patriarchs. SECT. l. Patriarchs anciently called archbishops.-—2. And exarchs of the diocese—3. Salmasius’s mistake about the first use of the name patriarch.—4. Of the Jewish patriarchs, their first rise, duration, and ex- tinction—5. Of the patriarchs among the Montanists. ——6. The name patriarch first used in the proper sense by Socrates and the council of Chalcedon.--7. Four different opinions concerning the first rise of patri- archal power.——-8. The opinion of Spalatensis and St. J erom preferred. Some probable proofs of patriarchal power before the council of Nice, offered to consider- ation—9. Patriarchal power confirmed in three ge- neral councils successively after the council of Nice.— 10. The power of patriarchs not exactly the same in all churches. The patriarch of Constantinople had some peculiar privileges—ll. As also the patriarch of Alexandria had his; wherein they both exceeded the bishop of Roma—12. The powers and privileges of patriarchs. First, they were to ordain all the me- tropolitans of the whole diocese, and to receive their own ordination from a diocesan synod—13. Secondly, They were to call diocesan synods, and preside in them.—l4. Thirdly, They might receive appeals from metropolitans and provincial synods.—-15. Fourthly, They might censure metropolitans, and their sufl'ragan bishops, if metropolitans were remiss in censuring them.—-16. Fifthly, They had power to delegate me- tropolitans, as their commissioners, to hear ecclesias- tical causes in any part of the diocese.-—l7. Sixthly, They were to be consulted by their metropolitans in all matters of moment. A remarkable instance in the Egyptian bishops—18. Seventhly, They were to notify and communicate to their metropolitans such imperial laws as concerned the church, in like manner as the metropolitans were to notify to the provincial bishops—19. Lastly, The absolution of greater crimi- nals was reserved to them. —— 20. The number of patriarchs throughout the world reckoned to be about fourteen, answerable to the number of capital cities in the several dioceses of the Roman empire; all which at first were absolute and independent of one another, till Rome by usurpation, and Constantinople by law, got some of their neighbours to be subject to them—21. The patriarch of Constantinople commonly dignified with the title of (ecumenical, and his church called the head of all churches; and that he was equal in all re- spects to the bishop of Rome—22. What figure the subordinate patriarchs of Ephesus and Caesarea made in the church; and that they were not mere titular patriarchs, as some in after ages. . . . . . 67 CHAPTER XVIII. Of the az’rroxéqmkor, or independent bishops. SECT. 1. All metropolitans anciently styled ab'roxéqbakat. *2. Some metropolitans independent after the setting up of patriarchal power, as those of Cyprus, Iberia, Armenia, and the Britannic church—3. A third sort of all‘TOK€’¢a>\0t, such bishops as were subject to no metropolitan, but only to the patriarch of the diocese. These in the Greek Notz'tt'as dignified with the title, though they had not the power of archbishops and metropolitans—4. Valesius’s mistake corrected. 74 CHAPTER XIX. Of presbyters. SECT. l. The meaning of the name presbyter.——2- APOS- tles and bishops sometimes called presbyters—3. The original of presbyters, as taken more strictly for the second order in the church.——4. The powers and privileges of presbyters.--5. Presbyters allowed to sit with the bishop on thrones in the church. Whence a six 'roi) dav'répov S‘po'vov, denotes a presbyter, one that sits on the second throne—6. The form of their sit- ting in a semicircle, whence they were called, corona presbyterz'z'.—7. Presbyters esteemed a sort of eccle- siastical senate, or council of the church, whom the bishop consulted and advised with upon all occasions. —-8. Evidences of this prerogative, out of Ignatius, Cyprian, and others.——9. The power of presbyters thought by some to be a little restrained in the fourth century, and not so great in some places as in the second—10. Yet still they were admitted to join with the bishop in the imposition of hands upon those that were ordained to their own order.—ll. And allowed to sit in consistory with their bishops—l2. As also in provincial councils—13. And in general councils like- wise—14. An account of the titles of honour given to presbyters, and how they differed from the same titles as applied to bishops—15. In what sense bi- shops, presbyters, and deacons called priests—16. Why priests called mediators between God and men. —17. The ancient form and manner of ordaining presbyters—18. Of the archipresbytem'. That these were more ancient than the cardinales presbytem', which some erroneously confound with them.-—l9. Of the senio'res ecclesz're. That these were not lay elders in the modern acceptation. . . . . . 76 CHAPTER XX. Of deacons. SECT. l. Deacons always reckoned one of the sacred orders of theH_church.——2. Yet not generally called priests, but ministers and Lovites.—3. And for this reason the bishop was not tied to have the assistance of any presbyters to ordain them.~—4. The first office of deacons, to take care of the vessels and utensils of the altar.-—5. Secondly, To receive the oblations of the people, and present them to the priest, and recite publicly the names of those that offered—6. Thirdly, To read the Gospel in some churches—7. Fourthly, To minister the cup to the people—8. But not to con- secrate the elements at the altar.—-9. Fifthly, Deacons allowed to baptize in some places 'by the bishop’s authority—10. Sixthly, Deacons to bid prayer in the congregation—ll. Seventhly, Allowed to preach upon some occasions—12. Eighthly, And to reconcile peni- tents in cases of extreme necessity.——l3. Ninthly, To attend their bishops in councils, and sometimes repre- sent them as their proxies.-—l4. Tenthly, Deacons empowered to correct men that behaved themselves irregularly in the church—l5. Eleventhly, Deacons anciently performed the offices of all the inferior orders of the church—16. Twelfthly, Deacons the bishop’s sub-almoners.—-l7. Deacons to inform the bishop of the misdemeanors of the people—18. Hence deacons commonly called the bishop’s eyes and ears, his mouth, his angels and prophets.--l9. Deacons to be multi- plied according to the necessities of the church. The Roman church precise to the number of seven—~20. Of the age at which deacons might be ordained—~21. Of the respect which deacons paid to presbyters, and received from the inferior orders. . . . . . 85 CONTENTS. xxix CHAPTER XXI. Of archdeacons. SECT. 1. Archdeacons anciently of the same order with deacons.—2. Elected by the bishop, and not made by seniority-3. Commonly persons of such interest in the church, that they were often chosen the bishops’ successors—4. The archdeacon’s oflices ; first, To as- sist the bishop at the altar, and order the other deacons and inferior clergy to their several stations and ser- vices in the church.—5. Secondly, To assist the bishop in managing the church’s revenues—6. Thirdly, To assist him in preaching—7. Fourthly, In ordaining the inferior clergy.-—8. Fifthly, The archdeacon had power to censure the other deacons, but not presby- ters, much less the archpresbyter of the church, as some mistake—9. What meant by the name apan- tita, and whether it denotes the archdeacon’s power over the whole diocese.-—lO. Why the archdeacon called cor-episcopi.—ll. The opinions of learned men concerning the first institution of this ofiice and dignity inthechurch. ..HAPTER XXII. Of deaconesses. SE01‘. 1. The ancient names of deaconesses, dtélcovoi, wpwpaflaag, viduce, ministrre. — 2. Deaconesses by some laws required to be widows—3. And such widows as had children—4. To be sixty years of age. ——5. And such as had been only the wives of one man. —6. Deaconesses always ordained by imposition of hands—7. Yet not consecrated to any otfice of the priesthood.——-8. Their offices: 1. To assist at the bap- tism of women—9. 2. To be a sort of private cate- chists to the women-catechumens.——lO. 3. To visit and attend women in sickness and distress—11. 4. To minister to the martyrs in prison—12. 5. To keep the women’s gate in the church—13. Lastly, To pre- side over the widows, &c.—-l4. How long this order continued both in the Eastern and Western church.— 15. Another notion of the name diaconissa, in the middle ages of the church, in which it signifies a dea- con’s wife, as presbg/tera does a presbyter’s wife, and episcopa a bishop’s wife. The contrary errors of Gen- tilletus and Baronius about these corrected. . 99 BOOK III. OF THE INFERIOR ORDERS OF THE CLERGY IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. CHAPTER I. Of the first original of the inferior orders, and the number and use of‘ them : and how they difi'ered from the superior orders of bishops, presbyters, and deacons. SECT. 1. The inferior orders not of apostolical, but only ecclesiastical institution, proved against Baronius and the council of Trent—2. No certain number of them in the primitive church—3. Not instituted in all churches at the same time—4. The principal use of them in the primitive church, to be a sort of nursery for the hierarchy.—5. None of these allowed to for- sake their service, and return to a mere secular life again.——6. How they differed from the superior orders in name, in office, and manner of ordination. 105 CHAPTER II. Of subdeacons. SE01‘. 1. No mention of subdeacons till the third cen- tury.—2. Their ordination performed without imposi- tion of hands in the Latin church.—-3. A brief account of their ofiices.—4. What offices they might not perform. —5. The singularity of the church of Rome in keep- ing to the precise number of seven subdeacons. 108 CHAPTER III. Of acolythists. ‘ SECT. 1. Acolythists, an order peculiar to the Latin church, and never mentioned by any Greek writer for four centuries—2. Their ordination and office—3. The origination of the name.—4. Whether acolythists be the same with the deputati and ceroferarii of later ages? ......... 109 CHAPTER IV. Of exorcists. Snc'r. 1. Exorcists at first no peculiar order of the clergy.—2. Bishops and presbyters, for the three first l centuries, the usual exorcists of the church—3. In what sense every man his own exorcist.—-4. Exorcists constituted into an order in the latter end of the third century—5. Their ordination and oflice._6. A short account of the energumens, their names, and station in the church.—7. The exorcists chiefly concerned in the care of them.——8. The duty of exorcists in reference to the catechumens. . . . . . . 110 CHAPTER V. Of Zectors or readers. SE01‘. 1. The order of readers not instituted till the third century—2. By whom the Scriptures were read in the church before the institution of that order.—-3. The manner of ordaining readers—4. Their station and ofiice in the church—5. The age at which they mightbe ordained . . . . . . . . . . 113 CHAPTER VI. Of the ostiarii or door-keepers. Snow. 1. No mention of this order till the third or fourth century—2. The manner of their ordination in the Latin church.-—3. Their office and function. 115 CHAPTER VII. Of the psalmistw or singers. SECT. 1. The singers a distinct order from readers in the primitive church—2. Their institution and ofiice. —3. Why called inroflohsis.—4. What sort of ordm- ation they had. . . . . . . 116 O C O . CHAPTER VIII. Of the copiatce or fossarii. SECT. 1. The copiatce or fossarii reckoned among the clerici of the primitive church—2. First instituted in the time of Constantine—3. Why called decani and collegiati.—4. Their office and privilegcs. . . 117 XXX CONTENTS. CHAPTER IX. Of the parabolani. SE01‘. 1. The parabolani ranked by some among the ' clerici.-—2. Their institution and office.—3. The rea- son of the name parabolani.——4. Some laws and rules relating to their behaviour. . . 118 CHAPTER X. Of the catechists. Seer. l. Catechists no distinct order of the clergy, but chosen out of any other order.—-2. Readers some- times made catechists.—3. Why called vav'roké'yor by some Greek writers—4. Whether all catechists taught publicly in the church ?—5. Of the succession in the catechetic school at Alexandria. 120 CHAPTER XI. Of the defensores or syndics of the church. SECT. 1. Five sorts of defensores noted, whereof two only belonged to the church—2. Of the defensores pauperum.-3. Of the defensores eoclesiaz, their office and function.-—4. Of their quality. Whether they were clergymen or laymen—5. The é’lcdmor and timbr- o-Lélcducol. among the Greeks the same with the defen- sores of the Latin church—6. Chancellors and defen- sors not the same in the primitive church.—7. Whe- ther the defensor’s office was the same with that of our modern chancellors ? . . . . - 122 CHAPTER XII. Of the oeconomi, or stewards and guardians of the church. Ssc'r. l. The aeconomi instituted in the fourth century. The reasons of their institution—2. These always to be chosen out of the clergy—3. Their office to take care of the revenues of the church, especially in the vacancy of the bishopric. —-4. The consent of the clergy required in the choice of them. . 125 CHAPTER XIII. A brief account of some other inferior qfiicers in the church. Seer. 1. Of the 'n'apauovdpwz or mansionarii.—2. Of the custodes ecclesiarum, and custodes locorum sancto- rum : and how these differed from each other.—3. Of the sceuophylaces or ceimeliarchze.-4. Of the herme- neutce or interpreters—5. Of the notarii.-——6. Of the apocrisarii or responsales. 126 BOOK IV. OF THE ELECTIONS AND ORDINATIONS OF THE CLERGY, AND THE PARTICULAR QUALI- FICATIONS OF SUCH AS WERE TO BE ORDAINED. CHAPTER I. Of the several ways of designing persons to the minis- try, in the apostolical and primitive ages of the church. Sncr. 1. Four several ways of designing persons to the ministry. Of the first way, by casting lots. -—2. The second way, by making choice of the first-fruits of the Gentile converts.—3. The third way, by particular di- rection of the Holy Ghost.—4. The fourth way, by common suffrage and election. . . . . . . 129 CHAPTER II. A more particular account of the ancient manner and method of elections of the clergy. SECT. l. The different opinions of learned men concern- ing the people’s power anciently in elections—2. The power of the people equal to that of inferior clergy in the election of a bishop-3. This power not barely testimonial, but elective.—4. Evidences of this power from some ancient rules and customs of the church. As, first, that no bishop was ordinarily to be obtruded on an orthodox people without their consent—5. Se- condly, This further confirmed from examples of the bishops complying with the voice of the people against their own inclination—6. Thirdly, From the manner of the people’s voting at elections—7. Fourthly, From the use and office of interventors.—8. Fifthly, From the custom of the people’s taking persons and having them ordained by force.—9. Sixthly, From the title of fathers, which some bishops upon this account by way of compliment gave to their people—10. What power the people had in the designation of presby- ters.——ll. Whether the council of Nice made any alteration in these matters—12. Some exceptions to the general rule. First, In case the greatest part of the church were heretics or schismatics.-—- 13. Se- condly, In case of ordaining bishops to far distant churches, or barbarous nations—14. Thirdly, In case an interventor or any other bishop intruded himself into any see without the consent of a provincial sy- nod.—l5. Fourthly, In case of factions and divisions among the people—~16. Fifthly, The emperors some- times interposed their authority, to prevent tumults in the like cases.—l7. Sixthly, The people sometimes restrained to the choice of one out of three, that were nominated by the bishops—~18. Lastly, By J ustinian’s laws, the power of electing was confined to the opti- matcs, and the inferior people wholly excluded—19. How and when princes and patrons came to have the chief power of elections. . . . . . . 132 CHAPTER III. Of the examination and quah'fications of persons to be ordained in the primitive church. And first, of their faith and morals. Ssor. 1. Three inquiries made about persons to be or- dained, respecting, 1. Their faith and learning. 2. Their morals. 3. Their outward quality and condi- tion in the world—2. The rule and method of ex- amining their faith and learning—3. The irregular ordination of Synesius considered—4. A strict in- quiry made into the morals of such as were to be or- dained—5. For which reason no stranger to be or- dained in a foreign church—6. Nor any one who had done public penance in the church—7. No murderer, nor adulterer, nor one that had lapsed in time of per- secution—8. No usurer or seditious person-—9- N01‘ one who had voluntarily dismembered his own body. —10. Men only accountable for crimes committed after baptism, as to what concerned their ordination. —ll. Except any great irregularity happened in their CONTENTS. xxxi baptism itself. As in clinic baptism—12. And here- tical baptism ; both which unqualified men for ordina- tion.-—l3. No man to be ordained who had not first made all his family catholic Christians—l4. What methods were anciently taken to prevent simoniacal promotions. . . . . . . . . . . . 140 CHAPTER IV. Of the qualifications qf persons to be ordained, re- specting their outward state and condition in the world. Snc'r. 1. No soldier to be ordained presbyter or deacon. -—2. Nor any slave or freed-man without the consent of his patron.——3. Nor any member of a civil society, or company of tradesmen, who were tied to the ser- vice of the commonwealth—4. Nor any of the curiales or decuriones of the Roman government.—5. Nor any proctor or guardian, till his office was expired.—6. Pleaders at law denied ordination in the Roman church—7. And energumens, actors, and stage-play- ers in all churches. . . . . . . . 146 CHAPTER V. Of the state of digamy and celibacy in particular: and of the laws of the church about these, in reference to the ancient clergy. SECT. 1. No digamist to be ordained, by the rule of the apostle—2. Three different opinions among the an- cients about digamy. First, That all persons were to be refused orders as digamists, who were twice married after baptism.-—3. Secondly, Others extended the rule to all persons twice married before baptism.-—4. Thirdly, The most probable opinion of those, who thought the apostle by digamists meant polygamists, and such as married after divorce.-—-5. No vow of celibacy required of the clergy, as a condition of their ordination, for the three first ages .—6. The vanity of the contrary pretences.—7. The clergy left to their liberty by the Nicene council.—8. And other coun- cils ofthat age. . . . . . . . 149 CHAPTER VI. Of the ordinations of the primitive clergy, and the laws and customs generally observed therein. SECT. l. The canons of the church to be read to the clerk, before the bishop ordained him. The reason of making this law.-—2. No clerk to be ordained a'rrokshunéuwc, without being fixed to some church.— 3. Exceptions to this rule very rare.—4. No bishop to ordain another man’s clerk without his consent.— 5. No bishop to ordain in another man’s diocese.——6. The original of the four solemn times of ordination.— 7. Ordinations indifferently given on any day of the week for the three first centuries.—8. Usually per- formed in the time of the oblation at morning service. —9. The church the only regular place of ordination. —lO. Ordinations received kneeling at the altar.—-ll. Given by imposition of hands and prayer.-_12. The sign of the cross used in ordination—~13. But no unc- tion, nor the ceremony of delivering vessels into the hands of presbyters and deacons—~14. Ordinations concluded with the kiss of peace.-l5. The anniver- sary day of a bishop’s ordination kept a festival. 153 CHAPTER VII. The case qf forced ordinations and re-ordinations considered. SECT. l. Forced ordinations very frequent in the pri- mitive church—2. No excuse admitted in that case, except a man protested upon oath that he would not be ordained—3. This practice afterward prohibited by the imperial laws and canons of the church—4. Yet a bishop ordained against his will had not the privilege to relinquish. — 5. Re-ordinations generally condemned—6. The proposal made by Cecilian, bishop of Carthage, to the 'Donatists, examined.'-—7. Schis- matics sometimes re-ordained._8. And heretics also upon their return to the church, in some places. 159 BOOK V. OF THE PRIVILEGES, IMM'UNITIES, AND REVENUES OF THE CLERGY IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. CHAPTER I. Some instances Qf respect which the clergy paid mu- tually to one another. SE01‘. 1. The clergy obliged to give entertainment to their brethren, travelling upon necessary occasions.— 2. And to give them the honorary privilege of con- secrating the eucharist in the church—3. The use of the litera formatw, or commendatory letters, upon this occasion.—4. The clergy obliged to end all their own controversies among themselves—5. What care was taken in receiving accusations against the bishops and clergy of the church. . . . . . . 163 CHAPTER II. Instances Qf respect showed to the clergy by the civil government. Where particularly qf their exemption from the cognizance of the secular courts in ecclesi- astical causes. Seer. l. Bishops not to be called into any secular court to give their testimony—2. Nor obliged to give their testimony upon oath, by the laws of Justinian.-—3. Whether the single evidence of one bishop was good in law against the testimony of many others—4. Pres- byters privileged against being questioned by torture, as other witnesses were—5. The clergy exempt from the ordinary cognizance of the secular courts in all ecclesiastical causes—6. This evidenced from the laws of Constantius.—7. And those of Valentinian and Gra- tian.—-8. And Theodosius the Great.—9. And Area- dius and Honorius.—-10. And Valentinian III. and Justinian.—ll. The clergy also exempt in lesser cri- minal causes—12. But not in greater criminal causes. —13. Nor in pecuniary causes with laymen.—l4. Of the necessary distinction between the supreme and subordinate magistrates in this business of exemp- tions...............166 CHAPTER III. Of the immunities of the clergy in reference to taxes, and ciril qfm'ces, and other burdensome employments in the Roman empire. SE01‘. 1. No Divine right pleaded by the ancient clergy to exempt themselves from taxes. ——- 2. Yet generally xxxii ‘CONTENTS. excused from personal taxes, or head-money.—3. But not excused for their lands and possessions—4. Of the tribute called aurum tyronicum, equi canonici, &c., and the clergy’s exemption from it.——5. The church obliged to such burdens as lands were tied to before their donation. —-6. Of the chrysargyrum or lustral tax, and the clergy’s exemption from it.—-7. Of the metatum. What meant thereby, and of the clergy’s exemption from it.—8. Of the superindieta and ea:- traordinaria. The clergy exempt from them.—-9. The clergy sometimes exempt from contributing to the reparation of highways and bridges—10. Also from the duty called angariae and parangariae, &c.—ll. Of the tribute called denarismus, unciw, and descriptio lucrativorum : and the church’s exemption from it.— 12. The'clergy exempt from all civil personal ofl‘ices. —13. And from sordid oflices both predial and per- sonal.—14. Also from curial or municipal oflices.—15. This last privilege confined to such of the clergy as had no estates but what belonged to the church, by the laws of Constantine—16. Constantine’s laws a little altered by the succeeding emperors in favour of thechurch.............l7l CHAPTER IV. Of the revenues of the ancient clergy. Sam. 1. Several ways of providing a fund for the main- tenance of the clergy. First, By oblations; some of which were weekly.—2. And others monthly—3. Whence came the custom of a monthly division among the clergy—4. Secondly, Other revenues arising from the lands and possessions of the church—5. These very much augmented by the laws of Constantine—6. \Vhose laws were confirmed, and not revoked, by the succeeding emperors, as some mistake.—7. Thirdly, Another part of church revenues raised by allowances out of the emperor’s exchequer.—8. Fourthly, The estates of martyrs and confessors, dying without heirs, ' settled upon the church by Constantine.-—9. Fifthly, The estates of clergymen dying without heirs and will, settled in like manner.—10. Sixthly, Heathen temples and their revenues sometimes given to the church.— 11. As also, seventhly, Heretical conventicles and their revenues—12. Lastly, The estates of clerks deserting the church to be forfeited to the church—13. No dis- reputable ways of augmenting church revenues en- couraged. Fathers not to disinherit their children, to make the church their heirs—l4. Nothing to be de- manded for administeringthe sacraments of the church, nor for confirmation, nor for consecrating of churches, nor for interment of the dead—~15. The oblations of the people anciently esteemed one of the most valuable parts of church revenues. . . . . . . . 182 CHAPTER V. Of tithes and firstfruits in particular. SE01‘. 1. Tithes anciently reckoned to be due by Divine right—2. Why not exacted, then, in the apostolical age and those that followed—3. In what age they were first generally settled upon the church—4. The origin- al of first-fruits, and manner of offering them. 189 CHAPTER VI. Of the management and distribution qf the revenues of the ancient clergy. Sam‘. 1. The revenues of the whole diocese anciently in the hands of the v'bishop.----2. And by his care dis- tributed among the clergy—3. Rules about the divi- sion of church revenues—4. In some churches the clergy lived all in common—5. Alterations made in these matters by the endowment of parochial churches. —6. No alienations to be made of the goods or revenues of the church but upon extraordinaiy occasions—7. And that by the joint consent of the bishop and his clergy, with the approbation of the metropolitan or some provincial bishops. . . . . . . . . 191 BOOK VI. AN ACCOUNT OF SEVERAL LAWS AND RULES, RELATING TO THE EMPLOYMENT, LIFE, AND CONVERSATION OF THE PRIMITIVE CLERGY. CHAPTER I. Of the excellency of these rules in general, and the exemplariness of the clergy in conforming to them. SE01‘. 1. The excellency of the Christian rules attested and envied by the heathens.-—2. The character of the clergy, from Christian writers—3. Particular excep- tions no derogation to their general good character.— 4. An account of some ancient writers, which treat of the duties of the clergy. . . . 195 CHAPTER II. Of the laws relating to the life and conversation of the primitive clergy. SE01". 1. Exemplary purity required in the clergy above other men. Reasons for it.-2. Church censures more severe against them than any others—3. What crimes punished with degradation, viz. theft, murder, perjury, fraud, sacrilege, fornication, and adultery—4. Also lapsi‘ng in time of persecution—5. And drinking and gaming-6. And negociating upon usury. The nature of this crime inquired into.—-7. Of the hospitality of the clergy—8. Of their frugality, and contempt of the world—9. Whether the clergy were anciently obliged by any law to part with their temporal possessions-— 10. Of their great care to be inoffensive with their tongues.—] 1. Of their care to guard against suspicion of evil.—l2. Laws relating to this matter.—l3. An account of the agapetce and o'vvsio'alc'rot, and the laws of the church made against them.—l4. Malevolent and unavoidable suspicions to be contemned. . 197 CHAPTER III. Of laws more particularly relating to the exercise of the duties and ofiices of their function. SEcr. l. The clergy obliged to lead a studious life.--2. No pleas allowed as just apologies for the contrary.— 3. Their chief studies to be the Holy Scriptures, and the approved writers and canons of the church.—-4. How far the study of heathen or heretical books al- lowed.-5.- Of their piety and devotion in their public addresses to God—6. The censure of such as neglect- ed the daily service of the church—7. Their rules about preaching to edification.--8. Of their fidelity, diligence, and prudence in their private addresses and CONTENTS. xxxiii applications—9. Of their prudence and candour in composing unnecessary controversies in the church.— 10. Of their zeal and courage in defending the truth. —11. Of their obligations to maintain the unity of the church; and of the censure of such as fell into heresy orschism.. . . . . . . . . . . 208 CHAPTER IV. An account of some other laws and rules, which were a sort of out-guards and fences to the former. SECT. 1. No clergyman allowed to desert or relinquish his station without just grounds and leave—2. Yet in some cases a resignation was allowed oil—3. And ca- nonical pensions sometimes granted upon such occa- sions—4. No clergyman to remove from one diocese to another without the consent and letters dimissory of his own bishop.——5. Laws against the ,Baxc'zm-rfiot, or wandering clergy-6. Laws against the translations of bishops from one see to another, how to be limited and understood—7. Laws concerning the residence of the clergy.—8. Of pluralities, and the laws made about them.—9. Laws prohibiting the clergy to take upon them secular business and civil offices—10. Laws prohibiting the clergy to be tutors and guardians, how far extended.-—11. Laws against their being sureties, and pleading causes at the bar in behalf of themselves or their churches—~12. Laws against their following secular trades and merchandise.—— 13. What limit- ations and exceptions these laws admitted of. —— 14. Laws respecting their outward conversation. —- 15. Laws relating to their habit.— 16. The tonsure of the ancients very different from that of the Romish church. — 17. Of the corona clericalis, and why the clergy called coronatz'.—18. Whether the clergy were distinguished in their apparel from laymen. ~—19. A particular account of the birrus and paltium.——2(). Of the collobium, dalmatica, caracalla, hemiphorium, and linea. . . . CHAPTER V. Some reflections on the foregoing discourse, concluding with an address to the clergy of the present church. Seer. l. Reflect. 1. All laws and rules of the ancient church not necessary to be observed by the present church and clergy.—2. Reflect. ‘2. Some ancient rules would be of excellent use, if revived by just authority. —3. Reflect. 3. Some ancient laws may be complied with, though not laws of the present church—4. Re- fleet. 4. Of the influence of great examples, and laws of perpetual obligation—5. Some particular rulcs re- commended to observation: first, Relating to the an- cient method of training up persons for the ministry. -—6. Secondly, Their rules for examining the qualifi- cations of candidates for the ministry.—-7. Thirdly, Their rules about private address, and the exercise of private discipline—8. Lastly, Their rules for exercising public discipline upon delinquent clergymen, who were convict of scandalous offences—9. J ulian’s design to reform the heathen priests by the rules of the primi- tive clergy, an argument to provoke our zeal in the present age—~10. The conclusion, by way of address to the clergy of the present church. . . . 232 BOOK VII. OF THE ASCETICS IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. CHAPTER 1. Of the difi‘erence between the first ascetics and monhs ,- and of the first original of the monastic li e. SE01‘. 1. Ascetics always in the church; monks not so. —2. This difference acknowledged by some ingenuous writers in the Romish church.—3. What the primitive ascetics were—4. When the monastic life first began. —5. In what the ancient ascetics differ from monks. -—-6. What other names they were called by. . 239 CHAPTER II. Of the several sorts of monks, and their difl'erent ways of living in the church. Ssc'r. 1. Several sorts of monks distinguished by their different ways of living—2. Some called ’AuaXwpn-rai, Anchorets.--3. Others, Cmnobites or Synodites.—~4. Others, Saraibaitaz and Remboth.—5. A fourth sort, Stylitce, or Pillarists.—-6. Of secular monks—7. All monks originally no more than laymen—8. In what cases the clerical and monastic life might be conjoined together.~—-9. The original of canons regular.—lO. Of the monks called Acoemetae, or Watchers—11. Of those called Bomcoi, or Grazers.—12. Of the Bencdictines and Ggrovagi in Italy.—l3. Of the Apostolics in Bri- tain and Ireland—~14. Of some uncommon names of monks in the ancient church, Hesychastze, Continentes, Silentiarii, Renunciantes, Philothei, Therapeutce, Cel- lulani, and such like. . . . . . . . . 242 CHAPTER III. An account of such ancient laws and rules, as relate to the monastic life, and chiefly that of the C'cenobites. SECT. 1. The curiales not allowed to turn monks—2. Nor servants without their master’s consent—3. Nor husbands and wives without mutual consent of each otlier.——4. Nor children without the consent of their parents—5. Children, though offered by their parents, not to be retained against their own consent.—-6. Of the tonsure and habit of monks—7. No solemn vow or profession required of them.——8. WVhat meant by their renunciation of the world—9. Of the difference between the renunciative and the communicative life. 10. All monks anciently maintained by their own la- bour.—-11. Proper officers appointed in monasteries for this purpose, viz. decani, centenarii, patres, &c.-— 12. The power of the abbots or fathers very great in point of discipline over the rest.—-13. Allowed also some peculiar privileges in the church.—14. Yet al- ways subordinate to the power of bishops—15. The spiritual exercises of monks: first, Perpetual repent- ance. —16. Secondly, Extraordinary fasti11g.-—- 17. Thirdly, Extraordinary devotions—718. Of laws ex- cluding monks from ofiices both ecclesiastical and civil.-—19. No monks anciently encroaching on the duties or rights of the secular clergy.—-20. Not al- lowed at first to dwell in cities, but confined to the wildemess.—2l. What exceptions that rule admitted of.-—‘22. Whether monks might betake themselves to a secular life again ?-23. Marriage of monks an- ciently not annulled—24. What punishments ordi- narily inflicted on deserters. . . . . . . . 249 xxxiv CONTENTS. CHAPTER IV. The case and state of virgins and widows in the an- cient church. SE01‘. 1. Of the distinction between ecclesiastical and monastical virgins—2. Whether they were under any profession of perpetual virginity—3. When first made liable to the censures of the church for marrying against their profession. -— 4. The marriage of pro- fessed virgins never declared null.——5. Liberty grant- ed by some laws to marry, if they were. consecrated before the age of forty—6. Of their habit, and form, and manner of consecration.——7. Of some privileges bestowed on them by the imperial laws and custom of the church. —8. Of the name vol/is, and nonnce, and its signification.—9. Some particular observations re- lating to the widows of the church. . . 264 BOOK VIII. AN ACCOUNT OF THE ANCIENT CHURCHES, THEIR ORIGINAL, NAMES, PARTS, UTENSILS, CONSECRATIONS, IMMUNITIES, 8w. CHAPTER I. Of the several names and first original of churches among Christians. SECT. 1. Of the names ecclesia and s’KKMe-iaenpwu, and the difference between them.—-2. Of the names dominicum, whence comes dohm ; and xvpzamiu, whence kirk and church; and domus columbx.-—3. Of the distinction between domus Dei, domus Divina, and domus ecclesiee. —-4. Churches called oratories and houses of prayer.-—5. Why called basilica? and chain. '1'0pa.—6. When first called temples—7. Sometimes called synodi, concilia, conciliabula, and conventicula.—— 8. Why some churches called martyria, memories, apos- tolcea, and propheteia.——9. Why called ccemiteria, men- saz, and aT€w.—10. Why casee, trophwa, and tituli.—ll. Of tabernacles and minsters, and some other less usual names of churches—l2. Of the distinction between ecclesia matrix and diocesana.—l3. Proofs of churches in the first century, collected by Mr. Mede.—-l4. Proofs in the second century—15. Proofs in the third cen- tury.—l6. The objection from Arnobius and Lactan- tius answered. —— 17. Some additional collections on this head, out of Lactantius de Mortibus Persecuto- rum, and others. . . . . . . . . 269 CHAPTER II. Of the difl'erence between churches in the first ages and those that followed; and of heathen temples and Jewish synagogues turned into Christian churches. Seer. l. The first churches very simple and plain.—-2. Reasons for altering the state of ecclesiastical struc- tures—3. The munificence particularly of Christian emperors contributed much toward this—4. As also their orders for converting heathen temples and pub- lic halls into churches. . . . . . . . . 282 CHAPTER III. Of the difl'erent forms and parts of the ancient churches ; and first, of the exterior narthex, or out— ward ante-temple. SE01‘. 1. Churches anciently of different forms—2. And different situation from one another.—3. Commonly divided into three parts, and sometimes four or five in a large acceptation.—-4. Each of these subdivided into other parts. The exterior narthex, or ante-temple, included, first, The 1rpo'1rvhov, or vestibulum magnum, the high porch—5. Secondly, The ,uscmtluov, atrium or area, the court before the church surrounded with porticos or cloisters. -—-6. Thirdly, The cantharus or phiala, the fountain in the middle of this court, for washing as they went into the church—7. Whether the superstitious use of holy water he not a corruption of this ancient custom.-—-8. The atrium and porticos in the ante-temple made use of for burying the dead, before they were admitted into churches. . . 285 CHAPTER IV. Of the interior narthex, and the parts and uses of it. SEc'r. 1. Of the lesser vrpé'lrvha, or porches before the doors of the church-2. Of the narthex, pronaos, or ferula.—3. The use of it for the catechumens, energumens, and penitents of the second order.—4. Also for Jews, heathens, heretics, and schismatics to hear in.-5. This not the place of the font or baptist- ery, as in our .modern churches—6. Why it was called narthex, and of the different sorts of nartheces in several churches. 290 CHAPTER V. Of the naos, or nave and body of the church, and its parts and uses. SE01‘. 1. Of the beautiful and royal gates: why so called—2. The nave of the church usually a square building, called by some the oratory of laymen—3. In the lowest part of this stood the substrati, or peni- tents of the third order.—-4. And the ambo, or reading desk—5. Above these the fideles, or communicants, and the fourth order of penitents, called consistentes, had their places—6. The places of men and women usually separate from each other.—7. Why the places of the women called Ka'rnxégsua and {Magda—8, Private cells for meditation, reading, and prayer on the back of these—9. The place of the virgins and wi- dows distinguished from others—10. The solea or o'wks’iov, the magistrate’s throne in this part of the church. What meant by the senatorium in some mo- dern churches. . . . . . . . . . . . 292 CHAPTER VI. Of the bema, or third part of the temple, called the altar part, or sanctuary, and the parts and uses of it. Snc'r. l. The chancel, anciently called bema, or tribunal. —-2. Also d'ywv, ispa'rs'lov, and sacrarium, the holy, or the sanctuary.—-3. And 3'UGLd‘I'1jjOlOV, the altar part. —4. And presbyterium and diaconum.—-5- Also chorus, or quire.——6. This place separated from the rest by rails, called cancelli, whence comes chancel.—7. And kept inacessible to the multitude, whence called adyta. CONTENTS. XXXV ——8. The holy gates, and veils or hangings dividing the chancel from the rest of the church—9. The up- per end of the chancel called apsis, exedra, and con- chula bematis. The reason of these names—IO. This anciently the place of the thrones of the bishops and presbyters —11. And of the altar, or communion table, encompassed with the thrones in a semicircle.—— 12. The names altar and table indifferently used in the primitive church.—13. In what sense the ancients say, they had no altars—~14. Of the names, holy table, mystical table, &c.—-15. Altars generally made of wood till the time of Constantine—16. But one altar anciently in a church—~17. And sometimes but one in a city, though several churches, according to some authors—~18. Of the ciborium, or canopy of the altar. -—19. Of the first use of the peristerion, or silver doves over the altar.—20. WVhen first the figure of the cross set upon the altar.—21. Of the coverings and vessels of the altar. The first original of lamps and tapers burning by day at the altar. The original of incense and censers. The altare portatz'le and antimensia, modern inventions of later ages. The ,dmiota, or flabella, as old as the author of the Constitutions—22. Of the ob- lationarium, paratorium, or prothesis. -—23. Of the sceuophylacium, 0r diaconicum bematis. . . . 296 CHAPTER VII. Of the baptisteries, and other outer buildings, called the exedrw of the church. Snc'r. l. Baptisteries anciently buildings distinct from the church—2. These very capacious, and the reasons of it.—3. Why called ¢wTLGTTlpLa, places of illumina- tion.-—4. Of the difi"erence between a baptistery and a font. And why the font called piscina and Kokv/a- Bhflpa. —- 5. How fonts and baptisteries anciently adorned—6. Baptisteries anciently more peculiar to the mother church.-—7. Of the secretarium, or diaconi- cum magnum, the vestry of the church—8. Why this otherwise called receptorium and salutatorium, the greeting-house.——9. Of the decanica, or prisons of the church.—lO. Of the mitatorium, or mesatorium.—-11. Of the gazophylacium and pastophoria. —- 12. Of the schools and libraries of the church.—13. In what sense dwelling-houses, gardens, and baths, reckoned to be parts of the church—14. Of the original of organs, and when they first came to be used in the church.— 15. Of the original of bells, and how church assem— blies were called before their invention. . . . 308 CHAPTER VIII. Of the donaria and anathemata, and other ornaments of the ancient churches. SEcT. 1. What the ancients meant by their anathemata in churches—2. Why one particular kind of these called ém-vvru’mm-a, and when brought first into churches—3. Churches anciently adorned with por- tions of Scripture written upon the walls.—-4. And with other inscriptions of human composition. -—5. Gilding and Mosaic work used in the ancient churches. -—-6. No pictures or images allowed in churches for the first 300 years—7. First brought in by Paulinus and his contemporaries, privately and by degrees, in the latter end of the fourth century.——-8. The pictures of kings and bishops brought into the church about the same time.—-9. But neither the pictures of the living nor the dead designed for worship.—-10. No images of God, or the Trinity, allowed in churches till after the second Nicene council.-— ll. Nor usually statues or massy images, but only paintings and pic- tures, and those rather symbolical, than any other. —12. Of adorning the churches with flowers and branches..............3l7 CHAPTER IX. Of the consecration of churches. SECT. 1. What the ancients meant by consecration of churches—2. The first authentic accounts of this to be fetched from the fourth century.-—3. The bishop of every diocese the ordinary minister of these conse- crations. —4. No church to be built without the bishop’s leave—5. Nor till the bishop had first made a solemn prayer, and fixed the sign of the cross in the place where it was to be built, by the laws of J ustini- an.-—-6. No bishop to consecrate a church in another man’s diocese, except necessity required it.—7. No necessity of a licence from the bishop of Rome in former ages, for a bishop to consecrate churches in his own diocese—8. Churches always dedicated to God, and not to saints, though sometimes distinguished by their names for a memorial of them—9. Churches sometimes named from their founders, or other cir- cumstances in their building—10. When altars first began to have a particular consecration with new cere- monies distinct from churches—ll. No church to be built or consecrated before it was endowed.—l‘2. Yet bishops not to demand any thing for consecration.— l3. Consecrations performed indifferently upon any day.-14. The day of consecration usually celebrated among their anniversary festivals. .. . . . . 324 CHAPTER x. ' Of the respect and reverence which the primitive Christians paid to their churches. Sncr. 1. Churches never put to any profane use, but only sacred and religious service—2. The like caution observed about the sacred vessels and utensils of the church.—3. What difference made between churches and private houses—4. How some chose rather to die than deliver up churches to be profaned by here- tics.—-5. The ceremony of washing their hands when they went into the church.-—6. The ceremony of put- ting ofi‘ their shoes, used by some, but this no general custom.—-7. Whether the ancients used the ceremony of bowing toward the altar at their entrance into the church.——8. Kings laid aside their crowns, and arms, and guards, when they went into the house of the King of kings.— 9. The doors and pillars of the church and altar often kissed and embraced in token of love and respect to them.——10. Churches used for private meditation and prayer, as well as public—~11. Their public behaviour in the church expressive of great reverence-12. Churches the safest repository for things of any value, and the securest retreat for men in times of great distress. . . . . . . 330 CHAPTER XI. Of the first original of asglums, or places of sanctuary and refuge, with the laws relating to them, in Chris— tian churches. SECT. l. The original of this privilege to be deduced from the time of Constantine, but not from his laws.— 2. At first only the altar and inner fabric of the church the place of refuge; but afterwards any outer build- ings or precincts of the church invested with the same privilege—3. What persons allowed to take sanc- tuary.-—-4. What persons and criminals denied this privilege. First, Public debtors—5. Secondly, Jews that pretended to turn Christians only to avoid paying their debts, or suffering legal punishment for their crimes. —6. Thirdly, Heretics and apostates.—7. Fourthly, Slaves that fled from their masters.—8. Fifthly, Robbers, murderers, conspirators, ravishers of virgins, adulterers, and other criminals of the like nature.——9. A just reflection upon the great abuse of modern sanctuaries, in exempting men from legal xxxvi CONTENTS. punishment, and enervating the force of civil laws. —10. Conditions anciently to be observed by such as fled for sanctuary to the church, otherwise they were not to have the benefit of it. First, No one to fly with arms into the church.—-ll. Secondly, No one to raise a seditious clamour or tumult as he fled thither.—l2. Thirdly, No one to eat or sleep in the church, because of the sacredness of the place, but to have his enter- tainment in some outward building. . . . . 335 a BOOK IX. A GEOGRAPHICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE DISTRICTS OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH, OR AN ACCOUNT OF ITS DIVISION INTO PROVINCES, DIOCESES, AND PARISHES: AND OF THE FIRST ORIGINAL OF THESE. CHAPTER I. or India Orientalis, to be had out of the monuments of the ancient church. . . . . 352 Of the state and division of the Roman empire, and of the church’s conformity to that in modelling her own external polity and government. CHAPTER III. A continuation of this account of. dioceses in the pro- Sscr. l. The state of the Roman empire in the days of vinces of Asia Minor. the apostles._-2. The state of the church made con- SECT. 1. Of the extent of Asia Minor, and the number , formable to it.-—3. The division of the Roman empire into provinces and dioceses—4. The same model fol- lowed by the church.—5. This evidenced by the civil Notitia of the empire.—6. Compared with the most ancient accounts of the division of provinces in the church.—-7. This evidenced further from the rules and canons of the church.—8. Yet the church not tied precisely to use this model, but used her liberty some- times in varying from it.——9. An account of the eccle- sire suburbicarice in the districts of the Roman church. —10. This most probably the true ancient limits of the bishop of Rome’s both metropolitical and patri- archal jurisdiction—11. Some evident proofs of this, showing the churches of Milan, Africa, Spain, France, and Britain, to be independent of the pope’s patriarchal power.—-l2. The contrary exceptions of Schelstrate, relating particularly to the Britannia church, examined andrefuted. ...........34l CHAPTER II. A more particular account of the number, nature, and extent of dioceses, or episcopal churches, in Africa, Eqypt, Arabia, Palestine, Syria, Phoenicia, and other eastern provinces. SECT. 1. Dioceses anciently called 'n'apouciat, parcechiw. ~2. When the name diocese began first to be used.— 3. What meant by the 'n'poo'zo'a'ua, 0r suburbs of a city, which were reckoned part of the city diocese-4. Dioceses not generally so large in nations of the first ages conversion, as in those converted in the middle ages of the church—5. A particular account of the extent of dioceses in the African provinces—6. Of the dioceses of Libya, Pentapolis, and Egyptus.——7. Of the dioceses of Arabia. And why these more fre- quently in villages than in other places—8. Of the dioceses in Palestine, or the patriarchate of J erusa- lem.—9. A catalogue of the provinces and dioceses under the patriarch of Antioch—10. Observations on the dioceses of Cyprus.-—ll. Of the dioceses of Syria Prima and Secunda.—-l_2. Of the province of Phmnicia Prima and Secunda.—13. Of the province of Theodo- rias.——l4. Of Euphratesia or Comagene.—-l5. Of Os- rhoena and Mesopotamia, or Armenia Quarta.—16. Of Armenia Persica, otherwise called Magma—17. Of Assyria, Adiabene, and Chaldaea.-—18. Of the Imme- rini in Persia, and the Homeritw in Arabia Felix.— 19. Of bishops among the Saracens in Arabia—20. Of bishops of the Axumites, or Indians beyond Egypt. No particular account of dioceses in Iberia, Parthia, of dioceses contained therein—2. Of Cappadocia and Armenia Minor.—3. Of Pontus Polemoniacus.—4. Of Helenopontus.—5. Of Paphlagonia and Galatia.—-6. Of Honorias.-—7. Of Bithynia.—8. Of Hellespontus. -——9. Of Asia and Lydia Proconsularis.—10. Of Caria. ——11. Of Lycia.—-l2. Of Pamphylia Prima and Se- cunda.——13. Of Lycaonia.—14. Of Pisidia.—l5. Of Phrygia Pacatiana and Salutaris.—-16. Of Isauria and Cilicia.—17. Of Lazica, or Colchis.—18. Of the isle of Lesbos and the Cyclades . . . . . . . 371 CHAPTER IV. A continuation of the former account in the European provinces of Thracia, Macedonia, Greece, Illyri- cum, &c. SE01‘. 1. Of the six provinces of Thrace. First, of Scy- thia.—2. Of Europa. Where particularly of the dio- cese of Constantinople in this province.—3. Of Thracia, properly so called.-—4. Of H2emimontis.—-5. Of Rho- dope—6. Of Mdasia Secunda.——7. Of the seven pro- vinces of Macedonia and Greece. Of Macedonia Prima and Secunda.—-8. Of Thessalia.-9. Of Achaia, or Attica, Peloponnesus, and the isle of Euboea.—lO. Of Epirus Vetus and Epirus Nova—ll. Of the isle of Crete—12. Of the five provinces in the diocese of Dacia. Of Prevalitana.--13. Of Moesia Superior.- 14. Of Dacia Mediterranea and Dacia Ripensis.——15. Of Dardania and Gothia.—16. Of the six provinces in the diocese of Illyricum Occidentale. Of Dalmatia.— 17. Of Savia.—18. Of Pannonia Superior and Inferior. —-19. Of Noricum Mediterraneum and Noricum Ri- pense..............380 CHAPTER V. A particular account of the seventeen provinces of the Roman and Italic dioceses, and of the episcopal dig- ceses contained in them. SEc'r. 1. Of the extent of the diocese of the bishop of Rome—2. Of dioceses in Tuscia and Umbria.—3. Of the province of Valeria.—-4. Of Picenum Suburbica- rium.——5. Of Latium and Campania.—6. Of Sam- nium.——7. Of Apulia and Galabria.—8. Of Lucania and Brutia.—--9. Of the isles of Sicily, Melita, and Li- para.-—-lO. Of Sardinia and Corsica—1L Of Picenum Annonarium and Flaminia.—-l2. Of 2Emy1ia.——13. Of Alpes Coma—14. Of Liguria.—15. Of Rhaetia. Prima - and Secunda.—16. OfVenetia and Histria. . 385 CONTENTS. XXXVII |--t . CHAPTER v Of the dioceses in France, Spain, and the British isles. SE01‘. 1. Of the ancient bounds and division of Gallia into seventeen provinces. Of Gallia and Septem Pro- vinciae—Z. Of thedioceses in the province of Alpes Maritimae—B. Of Alpes Graiae, or Penninae.——4. Of Viennensis Prima and Secunda.—-5. Of Narbonensis Prima and Secunda.——6. Of Novempopulania.—7. Of Aquitania Prima and Secunda.—-8. Of Lugdunensis Prima, Secunda, Tertia, Quarta, and Maxima Sequa- norum.—9. Of Belgica Prima and Secunda.——l(). Of Germanica Prima and Secunda.——ll. The ancient di- vision of the Spanish provinces—12. 0f Tarraconen- sis.—-—13. Of Carthaginensis.—14. Of Bcetica.—15. Of Lusitania-16. Of Gallecia.——l7. Of the islands of Majorica, Minorica, &c.—18. The state of the Spanish church evidenced from some of her most ancient coun- cils.—l9. Of Ireland and Scotland—20. Of the Brit- ish church in England and Wales—21. This whole account confirmed from some ancient canons of the church—~22. And from the bishop’s obligation to visit their dioceses once a year, and confirm children in the country region. . . . . . . . . . . . 396 CHAPTER VII. The N otitia, or geographical description of the bishoprics of the ancient church, as first made by the order of Leo Sapiens in the ninth century, compared with some others. . . . . . . . . . . . 408 CHAPTER VIII. Of the division of the dioceses into parishes, and the first original of them. SECT. 1. Of the ancient names of parish churches, pa- rochice, dioceses, ecclesize dicecesanae, tituli, &c.——2. The original of parish churches owing to necessity, and founded upon the apostolical rules of Christian com- munion. —3. Some of them probably as ancient as the times of the apostles, in the greater cities of the Roman empire.——4. Lesser cities had country parishes even in times of persecution. The original of country parishes in England—5. The city parishes not always assigned to particular presbyters, but served in common by the clergy of the bishop’s church. This otherwise in country parishes which had fixed pres- byters from their first institution—6. Settled reve- nues not immediately fixed upon parishes at their first division, but paid into the common stock of the bishop’s church. When first appropriated revenues began to be settled upon parish churches in the East, in Spain, France, Germany, and the English church. 416 THE CONCLUSION. Wherein is proposed an easy and honourable method for establishing a primitive diocesan episcopacy, con- formable to the model of the smaller sort of ancient dioceses, in all the protestant churches. . . . 420 APPENmx..............422 BOOK X. OF THE INSTITUTION OF THE CATECHUMENS, AND THE FIRST USE OF THE CREEDS IN THE CHURCH. CHAPTER I. Of the several names of the catechumens, and the so- lemnity that was used in admitting them to that state in the church. Also of catechising, and the time of their continuance in that exercise. SEcT. 1. The reason of the names, Ka'rnxotnsvot, novi- tioli, tyrones, &c.——2. Imposition of hands and prayer used in the first admission of catechumens.—3. And consignation with the sign of the cross—4. At what age persons were admitted to be catechumens.—5. How long they continued in that state.—6. The sub- stance of the ancient catechisms, and method of in- struction.-—-7. The catechumens allowed to read the Scriptures.............439 CHAPTER II. Of the several classes or degrees of catechumens, and the gradual exercises and discipline of every order. SEc'r. 1. Four orders or degrees of catechumens among the ancients—2. First, The égwfiotaauot, or catechu- mens privately instructed without the church—3. Secondly, The (iKPOohIuUIOL, audientes, or hearers—4. Thirdly, The 'yéuv-KMr/ou'rss, or genu-flectentes and sub- strati, the kneelers.—5. Fourthly, the competentes or electi, the immediate candidates of baptism.——6. How this last order were particularly disciplined and pre- pared for baptism.—-7. Partly by frequent examin- ations, from which such as approved themselves had the name of electi, the chosen.—8. Partly by exorcism, accompanied with imposition of hands and the sign of the cross, and insufliation.—9. Partly by the exercises of fasting and abstinence, and confession and repent- ance, &c.-—10. Partly by learning the words of the creed and Lord’s prayer. —— 11. And the form of re- nunciation of the devil, and covenanting with Christ, with other responses relating to their baptism.—12. What meant by the competentes going veiled before baptism.——13. Of the ceremony called Ephphata, or opening of the ears of the catechumens.—14.~ Of put- ting clay upon their eyes. What meant by it.—-15. Whether the catechumens held a lighted taper in their hands in the time of exorcism.—16. What meant by the sacrament of the catechumens.—17. How the catechumens were punished, if they fell into gross sins. —-1.8. How they were treated by the church, if they died without baptism. — 19. What opinion the ancients had of the necessity of baptism. ——-20. The want of baptism supplied by martyrdom.—21. And by faith and repentance, in such catechumens as were piously preparing for baptism—22. The case of here- tics returning to the unity of the church: how far charity in that case was thought to supply the want of baptism.—-23. The case of persons communicating for a long time without baptism: how far that was thought to supply the want of baptism.——-24. The case of infants dying unbaptized: the opinion of the an- cients concerning it. . . . . . . . . 443 CHAPTER III. Of the original, nature, and names of the ancient creeds of the church. SECT. 1. Why the creed called symbolum.——2. Why called canon and regulafidei.-—3. Why called matkema. ——4. Why called 'ypaqtn‘; and 'ypémua. — 5. Whether that which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, was xxxviii CONTENTS. composed by the apostles in the present form of words. -—-6. That probably the apostles used several creeds, differing in form, not in substance.—7. What articles were contained in the apostolical creeds. 458 CHAPTER IV. . A collection of several ancient forms of the creed out of the primitive records of the church. SE01‘. 1. The fragments of the creed in Irenaeus.—-2. The creed of Origen.—3. The fragments of the creed in Tertullian.——-4. The fragments of the creed in Cy- prian.—5. The creed of Gregory Thaumaturgus.——6. The creed of Lucian the martyr.—-7. The creed of the Apostolical Constitutions—8. The creed of J erusa- lem.—9. The creed of Caesarea in Palestine—~10. The creed of Alexandria.—ll. The creed of Antioch.— 12. The Roman creed, commonly called the Apostles’ Creed—13. The creed of Aquileia.—-l4. The Nicene creed, as first published by the council of Nice—~15. The creeds in Epiphanius, completing the Nicene creed.——16. The Nicene creed was completed by the council of Constantinople, anno 38l.-—17. Of the use of the Nicene creed in the ancient service of the church: and when it was first taken in to be a part of the liturgy in the communion office.-18. Of the Atha- nasian creed. . . . . . . . . 464 CHAPTER v. Of the original, nature, and reasons of that ancient discipline of concealing the sacred mysteries of the church from the sight and knowledge of the cate- chumens. Seer. l. The errors and pretences of the Romanists upon this point.——2. This discipline not strictly ob- served in the very first ages of the church—3. But introduced about the time of Tertullian, for other rea- sons than what the Romanists pretend—4. This proved from a particular account of the things which they concealed from the catechumens. Which were, First, The manner of administering baptism.--5. Secondly, The manner of administering the holy unction, or con- firmation—6. Thirdly, The ordination of priests—7. Fourthly, The liturgy, or public prayers of the church, such as the prayers for the energumens, penitents, and the faithfu1.—8. Fifthly, The manner of celebrating the eucharist.—~9. Sixthly, The mystery of the Trinity, the creed, and the Lord’s prayer, from the first sort of catechumens.—10. Reasons for concealing these things from the catechumens. First, That the plainness and simplicity of them might not be contemned. — 11. Secondly, To conciliate a reverence for them.—l2. Thirdly, To make the catechumens more desirous to knowthem.......... 477 BOOK XI. OF THE RITES AND CUSTOMS OBSERVED IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF BAPTISM IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. CHAPTER I. Of the several names and appellations of baptism in the primitive church. SECT. 1. The names of baptism most commonly taken from the spiritual effects of it.-—-2. Hence baptism called indulgentia, indulgence or absolution.-—-3. And arahuy'yeuso'ia, regeneration ; and Xpio'pa, the unction. —4. And (barricade, illumination—5. And salus, sal- vation.—6. From the nature and substance of it, it was called mysterium, sacramentum, and o'¢pa'yis.-—7, And character Dominicus, the mark or character of the Lord.-—8. Why called the sacrament of faith and re- pentance.——9. The notation of the names, baptism, tinction, laver. That they do not universally denote immersion.—l(). Of some other names given to bap- tism. The great circumcision, dd'ipov and Xc'tplo'pa, the gift of the Lord. Viaticum, and phylacterium, Tchai- wo'w, III-611019, and symbola. . . . . . . . 483 CHAPTER II. Of the matter of baptism ; with an account of such heretics as rejected or corrupted baptism by water. SECT. l. Baptism wholly rejected by the heretics called Ascodrutx, and Marcosians, and Valentinians, and Quintillians-—-—2. And by the Archontici.—3. And the Seleucians and Hermians.—-4. And Manichdes and Paulicians.-—5. What opinion the Messalians, or Eu- chites, had of baptism. . . . . . . . 488 CHAPTER III. Of the ancient form of baptism ; and of such heretics as altered or corrupted it. Sec'r. l. The usual form of baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.—2. This form of words generally thought necessary to be used in bap- tism.——3. Whether baptism in the name of Christ alone was ever allowed in the church.—4. Of alterations made in the form of baptism. First, By the Tritheists and Priscillianists.——5. Secondly, By the Menandrians. 6. Thirdly, By the Elceseans.-—7. Fourthly, By the Sabellians and Montanists.—8. Fifthly, By the Mar- cosians.—9. Sixthly, By the Paulianists.—lO. Se- venthly, By the Eunomians, and others who baptized into the death of Christ—ll. Whether all the Arians were guilty of the same innovation.-12. Whether any additions were made to the form of baptism in the catholic church. . . . . . . . . . . . 491 CHAPTER IV. Of the subjects of baptism, or an account of what per- sons were anciently allowed to be baptized. Where particularly ry‘ infant baptism. Sncr. 1. Why the question about the administrators of baptism is here omitted. ——2. Who were anciently reckoned the proper subjects of baptism. Whore of the corrupt custom of baptizing inanimate things, as bells, in the Roman church.——3. Baptism not to be given to the dead.—-4. Nor to the living for the dead. Where of the apostle’s meaning, of being “baptized for the dead,” I Cor. xv. 29.-—5. Proofs of infant _ baptism from the ancient records of the church—6. From Clemens Romanus and Hermes Pastor.——7. From Just-in Martyn—8. And the author of the Re- cognitions, contemporary with Justin Martyn—9. From Irenmus—IO. And Tertullian.—11. And Origen.—- 12. And Cyprian, with the council of Carthage under him.——13. Infant baptism not to be delayed to the eighth day, after the example of circumcision. Nor till three years, as Gregory Nazianzen would have had it.——l4. Yet in some churches it was deferred to the time of an approaching festival.-—l5. A resolution of CONTENTS. xxxix some questions concerning infant baptism. Whether children might be baptized when only one parent was Christian ?—16. Whether the children of excommu- nicated parents might be baptized ?——17. Whether ex- posed children, whose parents were unknown, might be baptized ?-—18. Whether the children of Jews or heathens might be baptized in any case whatsoever ?—- 19. Whether children born while their parents were heathen might be baptized ? . . . . . . 498 CHAPTER V. Of the baptism of adult persons. SE01‘. 1. No adult persons to be baptized without pre- vious instruction, to qualify them to answer for them- selves—2. Yet dumb persons allowed to be baptized in some certain cases—3. And energumens in cases of extremity.—4. No slave to be baptized without the testimony of his master.—5. Yet baptism to be a voluntary act, and no one to be compelled to receive it by force—6. What persons were rejected from bap- tism ; with a particular account of some certain trades and vocations, which kept men from it. Such were image-making and stage-playing.—7. Gladiators, cha- rioteers, and other gamesters.-—8. Astrologers and practisers of such other curious arts—9. Frequenters of the public games and theatre—10. In what case the military life might unqualify men for baptism.— ll. Whether persons might be baptized who lived in the state of .concubinage. —12. The peculiar error of the Marcionites in rejecting all married persons from baptism........... 509 CHAPTER VI. Of the time and place of baptism. Seer. 1. Why adult persons sometimes delayed baptism by order of the church—2. Private reasons for de- ferring baptism against the rules of the church. First, Supinity and negligence of salvation—3. Secondly, An unwillingness to renounce the world, and submit to the severities of religion—4. Thirdly, A fear of fall- ing after baptism—5. Fourthly, Superstitions fancies in reference to the time, and place, and ministers of baptism.—-6. Fifthly, A pretence of following the ex- ample of Christ, who was baptized at thirty years of age.——7. The ‘solemn times appointed for baptism by the church, were Easter, Pentecost, and Epiphany.— 8. And in some places the festivals of the apostles and martyrs, and the anniversary days of the dedication of churches prevailed also.-—9. No such stated times in the days of the apostles—10. How far these rules obliging in future ages—~11. Baptism not confined to any place in the apostolical ages—12. But in after ages confined to the baptisteries of the church.--l3. Except in the case of sickness, or with the bishop’s licence to the contrary, upon some special occasions. 517 CHAPTER VII. Of the renunciations and professions made by all per- sons immediately before their baptism. SE01‘. 1. Three things required of all persons at their baptism. First, to renounce the devil.—-2. The form of this renunciation, and the import of it.—3. The antiquity of this renunciation. By some derived from the apostles-4. This renunciation made by persons standing with their face toward the west. The reason of this practice, with some other ceremonies—5. Why this renunciation made three times.—6. The second thing required of men at their baptism, was a vow or covenant of obedience to Christ.-—7. This vow of obe- dience made by turning to the east. And why.—-8. The third thing required of the party to be baptized, d was a profession of faith in the usual words of the creed—9. This confession made in the most solemn and public manner.—lO. With hands and eyes lifted up to heaven.-——ll. Repeated three times—l2. And sub- scribed with their own hands in the books of the church, as some think—13. The use of all these ceremonies and engagements, to make men sensible of their obligation, and stedfast to their profession.—l4. Whether public and particular confession of sins was required of men at their baptism. . . . . . . . . 525 CHAPTER VIII. Of the use of sponsors or sureties in baptism. Snc'r. 1. Three sorts of sponsors in the primitive church. First, for children—2. Parents commonly sponsors for their own children—3. Other sureties not bound to maintain the children for whom they were sponsors.— 4. But only to answer for them to the several interro- gatories in baptism.——5. And to be guardians of their spiritual life for the future—6. The second sort of sponsors, for such adult persons as could not answer for themselves.—7. The third sort of sponsors, for all adult persons in general.—8. Whose duty was, not to answer in their names, but only to admonish and in- struct them before and after baptism—9. This office chiefly imposed upon deacons and deaconesses.—]0. What persons prohibited from being sponsors—11. But one sponsor required, and that a man for a man, and awoman for a woman—12. When first it be- came a law that sponsors might not marry a spiritual relation—13. Why the names of the sponsors ordered to be registered in the books of the church. 533 CHAPTER IX. Of the unction and the sign of the cross in baptism. Snc'r. 1. Of the first original of unction in baptism.—2. Of the difference between this and chrism in confirm- ation—3. ,The design of this unction, and the reason of it.—4. The sign of the cross frequently used in the ceremonies of baptism. First, in the admission of catechumens; and, secondly, in the time of exorcism. 5. Thirdly, in this unction before baptism. —— 6. Fourthly, in the unction of confirmation. . . 539 CHAPTER X. Of the consecration of the water in baptism. SECT. l. The consecration of the water made by prayer. ——2. An ancient form of this prayer in the Constitu- tions.-—3. The sign of the cross used in this consecra- tion.—4. The effects and change wrought by this con- secration, the same as in the bread and wine in the eucharist—5. How far these prayers of consecration reckoned necessary in the church. . . . . 542 CHAPTER XI. I Of the difi‘erent ways of baptizing, by immersion, trine immersion, and aspersion in the case of clinic baptism. SE01‘. 1. All persons anciently divested in order to be baptized—2. No exception in this case, either with respect to women or children.—3. Yet matters were so ordered, as that no indecency might be committed. —4. Baptism usually performed by immersion.——5. Yet aspersion allowed in some extraordinary cases.— -—6. Trine immersion the general practice for several ages. The reasons of this.'—-7. The original of this practice—8. When first the church allowed of any alteration in it. . . . . . . . 546 xl CONTENTS. BOOK XII. OF CONFIRMATION, AND OTHER CEREMONIES FOLLOWING BAPTISM, BEFORE MEN WERE MADE PARTAKERS OF THE EUCHARIST. CHAPTER‘ I. Of the time when, and the persons to whom, con- I firmation was administered. Seen 1. Confirmation anciently given immediately after baptism, if the bishop were present—2. And this as well to infants as adult persons. Which is evidenced, first, from some plain testimonies—3. And, secondly, from the custom of giving the eucharist to infants for many ages—4. Whence it appears that confirmation was not esteemed a proper sacrament distinct from baptism.-—-5. No, not when it was separate from bap- tism, as in the case of heretics who were baptized out of the church.—6. No necessity of giving confirmation to infants now, any more than the eucharist, from the example of the primitive church. . . . . . 553 CHAPTER II. Of the minister of confirmation. SECT. 1. The consecration of chrism reserved only to the ofi‘ice of bishops by the canons—2. The use of the chrism divided between the office of bishops and pres- byters—3. The other ceremony of imposition of hands reserved more strictly to the office of bishops—4. Yet in some special cases presbyters by commission al- lowed to minister it also. As, first, when bishops particularly required their presbyters to do it to such as were baptized in the church—5. Secondly, presby- ters might administer it to the energumens who were baptized at a distance from the bishop’s church.—6. And, thirdly, to such as were baptized in heresy or schism, in case they were in danger of death. . 557 CHAPTER III. Of the manner of administering confirmation, and the ceremonies used in the celebration of it. SECT. l. The first ceremony of confirmation was the unction of chrism.-2. The original of this unction.— 3. The form and manner of administering it, together with the effects of it.--4. The second ceremony of confirmation was the sign of the cross.—5. The third and most noted ceremony of confirmation, was im- position of hands; and the fourth, prayer joined therewith—6. The original of the ceremony of im- position of hands—7. What opinion the ancients had of the necessity of confirmation.—8. How they pun- ished those that neglected it. . . . . . . 562 CHAPTER IV. Of the remaining ceremonies of baptism following confirmation. _ SE61‘. 1. Persons newly baptized, clothed in white gar- ments—2. These sometimes delivered to them with a solemn form of words—3. Worn eight days, and then laid up in the church—4. The ceremony of lights and tapers. What intended by it. And at whose charge both these were provided—5. The kiss of peace given to persons newly baptized—6. And a taste of honey and milk, in token of their new birth.-—7. Then they were required to repeat the Lord’s prayer.-8. And received into the church with psalmody.-—~9. And ad- mitted immediately to the communion ,of the altar.— 10. Of the ceremony of washing the feet, retained in some churches—11. A general reflection upon the whole preceding discourse, with relation to the prac- tice of the present church. . . . . . . . 567 CHAPTER V. Of the laws against rebaptization both in church and state. SECT. 1. But one baptism, properly so called, allowed by the church. -2. Only the Marcionites allowed baptism to be thrice repeated—3. What the church did in doubtful cases, not reckoned a rebaptization.-- 4. Nor when she baptized those who‘ had been unduly baptized before in heresy or schism.—5. Apostates never rebaptized in the catholic church—6. What heretics rebaptized the catholics.—7. What punish- ments were inflicted on rebaptizers by the laws of churchandstate. . . . . . . . . . . 573 BOOK XIII. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS RELATING TO DIVINE WORSHIP IN THE ANCIENT CHURCH. CHAPTER I. Some necessary remarks upon the ancient names of Divine service, which modern corruptions have ren- dered ambiguous. SEcr. l. The partition of this work—2. Of the missa catechumenorum, or ante-communion service, to which all orders of men were admitted—3. Of the missa fidelium, or communion service, peculiar to communi- cants only.—-4. The true original and meaning of the ancient name missa, the mass, which in its primitive use denotes every part of Divine service; but no where an expiatory sacrifice for the quick and the dead.—5. In what sense Divine service anciently call- ed sacrifice, sacrificium—fi. And sacramenta.—7. And cursus ecclesiasticus. -—8. The names Aeu'rovp'yia, Zspovp'yla, iepd, and pvcr'ra'yw'yia, most usual in the Greek church.—9. Liturgies sometimes taken for set forms of prayer.-—10. Of litanies. This at first a general name of prayers. How and when it came to be appropriated to certain particular forms of worship, called rogations.—ll. Of the distinction between great- er and lesser litanies.--12. Of their processions. 57 7 CONTENTS. xli CHAPTER II. That the devotions of the ancient church were paid to every person of the blessed Trinity. SECT. 1. Proofs of the worship of Christ, as the Son of God, or second person of the blessed Trinity, in the first century-2. Proofs of the same in the second century, from the testimony of Pliny, Ignatius, Poly- carp, and the Acts of Polycarp, the epistle of the church of Smyrna, Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Lucian, Ire- nmus, Theophilus Antiochenus, Clemens of Alexan- dria, Athenogenes, the Acts of Andronicus, Tertullian. -—3. Proofs of the worship of Christ in the third cen- tury, out of Caius Romanus, the council of Antioch, Dionysius of Alexandria, Origen, Novatian, Cyprian, Arnobius, Lactantius, the Acts of the Martyrs in Euse- bius, the Acts of Felix, Thelica, Emeritus, Glycerius, Olympius, and many others. The force of this argu- ment to prove the Divinity of Christ upon this Chris- tian principle, That Divine honour was to be given to none but God only—4. The proofs of the worship of the Holy Ghost, from the testimony of Polycarp, J us- tin Martyr, Lucian, Theophilus, Clemens of Alexan- dria, Athenogenes, Origen, the author of the Recog- nitions, under the name of Clemens Romanus. The ancients charged with tritheism by Praxeas and the Sabellians, upon the account of their worshipping the Holy Trinity. The worship of the Holy Ghost proved further from the testimony of Cyprian, Firmilian, and Gregory Thaumaturgus.-5. In what sense all prayers are ordered to be directed to the Father. . . 586 CHAPTER III. That in the ancient church religious worship was given to no creature, saint or angel, cross, image, or relic, but to God alone. SECT. 1. This position proved, first, from their general declarations against giving religious worship to any creature—2. Secondly, from their denying the wor- ship of saints and angels in particular, and condemn- ing it as idolatry.—3. Thirdly, from their charging the practice of it upon heretics and heathens only . 599 CHAPTER IV. That anciently Divine service was always performed in the vulgar tongue, understood by the people. S1201‘. 1. This proved, first, From plain testimonies of the ancients asserting it.——2. Secondly, From the people’s joining in psalmody and prayer, and making their proper responses in the liturgy—3. Thirdly, From the frequent exhortations of the fathers to the people, to hear, and read, and pray with understand- ing.--4. Fourthly, From the references made by the fathers in their sermons to the prayers and lessons in the service of the church.—-5. Fifthly, From the Scriptures being translated into all languages from the first foundation of churches—6. Sixthly, From the use of the order of interpreters in the church._7. Seventhly, From the custom of having Bibles laid in churches, for the people to read in private. —-8. Eighthly, From the general allowance granted to all men to have, and read the Scriptures in their mother tongue. Which privilege was never infringed by any but the heathen persecutors. -—9. From the liberty granted to children and catechumens to join in the public prayers and read the Scriptures—~10. From the form and tenor of the ordination of readers in the church. CHAPTER V. Of the original and use of liturgies, in stated and set forms of prayer, in the primitive church. Seer. 1. Every bishop at liberty in the first ages to or- der the form of Divine service in his own church-42. In after ages the churches of a whole province by con- sent conformed to the liturgy of the metropolitical church.-—3. Why none of the ancient liturgies are now remaining perfect and entire as they were in their first original.—4. What forms were used in the apos- tles’ days. Where of the ancient forms used by the Jews in their temple worship and synagogue service. How our Saviour and his apostles complied with the use of them. What new forms were introduced by the apostles into the Christian service—5. What evi- dence there is of the use of set forms in the second century, from the testimony of Pliny, Ignatius, Lu~ cian, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clemens of Alexandria, Tertullian, and the Acts of St. Perpetua and Felicitas. ——6. Evidence of set forms in the third century, from the testimony of Hippolytus, Origen, Cyprian, Fir- milian, Gregory Thaumaturgus, the council of An- tioch, Caius Romanus, N epos, Dionysius of Alexan~ dria, Athenogenes, and Cornelius bishop of Rome. 7. Evidences of set forms in the fourth century, from the testimony of Arnobius, Lactantius, Eusebius, the forms of Licinius, and Constantine, Athanasius, J u- vencus, Pachomius, Flavian bishop of Antioch, Cyril of Jerusalem, Hilary of Poictiers, the council of Lao- dicea, Epiphanius, Optatus, Basil, Ephrem Syrus, the practice of Arius and Eunomius, St. Ambrose, St. Jerom and St. Austin, the council of Carthage and Milevis. CHAPTER VI. An extract of the several parts of the ancient liturgy out of the genuine writings of St. Ohrysostom, fol~ lowing the order of his works. SECT. 1. Parts of the liturgy in the first tome—2. Parts of the liturgy in the second tome of St. Chrysostom’s works.——3. Part of the ancient liturgy in the third tome—4. Parts of the ancient liturgy in the fourth tome of St. Chrysostom’s works.--5. In the fifth tome. ——6. In the sixth tome—7. In the seventh tome of his Homilies on St. Matthew.—8. In the eighth tome on St. John and the Acts of the Apostles—9. In the ninth tome on Romans, on the First and Second to the Corinthians—10. In the tenth tome. . . . . 638 CHAPTER VII. Of the use of the Lord’s prayer in the liturgy of the ancient church. SECT. 1. The Lord’s prayer esteemed by all the ancients a form given by Christ to be used by all his disciples. —2. Accordingly it was used by the primitive church in all her public offices: particularly in the adminis- tration of baptism.—3. And in the celebration of the eucharist.——4. And in their morning and evening pray- ers.—-5. And in their private devotions—6. Whence it had the name of oratio guotidiana, the Christian’s daily prayer.—7. And was used by all heretics and schismatics as well as catholics.—-8. That it was es- teemed a Divine and spiritual form of prayer.-—9. And the use of it esteemed a peculiar privilege, allowed only to communicants and perfect Christians. . 649 CHAPTER VIII. Of the use of habits, and gesture, and other rites and ceremonies in the ancient church. S1201‘. 1. No certain evidences for the use of_ distinct habits in the apostolical age, or the two following ages. --2. What evidence there is for them in the fourth century.-3. Four postures of devotion spoken of by the ancients. First, Standing, which was particularly enjoined on the Lord’s day, and all the time between Easter and Pentecost—4. Secondly, Kneeling at all d 2 xlii CONTENTS. other times, especially on the stationary days, and other times of devotion—5. Thirdly, Bowing down the head, or inclination of the body. —-6. Fourthly, Prostration.—7. Sitting not an allowed posture of devotion.—8. Some superstitious practices in devo- tion noted by Tertullian, as bathing the body, and putting off their cloaks when they went to prayer.——9. That the ancients always prayed uncovered—10. And lifted up their hands toward heaven, sometimes in the form of a cross—ll. But yet were great enemies to all theatrical gestures—l2. What ceremonies they used at their entrance into the church—13. That the bishop saluted the people with the form, Pam vobis, at his entrance into the church—~14. And the people gave alms to the poor, who stood before the gates of the church for this purpose—l5. That they worship- ped toward the east, with the reasons for this prac- tice...............655 CHAPTER IX. Of the times of their religious assemblies, and the se- veral parts of Divine service performed in them. SECT. 1. No certain rule for meeting in public, except upon the Lord’s day, in times of persecution, for the two first ages—2. The original of the stationary days, or church assemblies on Wednesdays and Fridays, and what Divine service was performed on those days—3. Saturday or the sabbath anciently observed with great solemnity, as a day of public devotion—4. How they observed the vigils of the sabbath and Lord’s day, and other incidental festivals of martyrs.-—5. Of the festi- vals of martyrs, their original, and what Divine ser- vice was performed on those days—6. Solemn assem- blies for preaching and other acts of Divine worship, held every day during the whole forty days of Lent, and the fifty days between Easter and Pentecost._7. Public prayer morning and evening every day in the third century—8. The original of the canonical hours of prayer. No notice of them for public prayer, but only for private, in the three first ages—9. What ser- vice was allotted to these canonical hours by the church in the fourth century—10. Of the matntina, or prima, called the new~morning service.—ll. Of the tertia, or third hour of prayer.———l‘2. Of the sixth hour, or noon-day service-13. Of the ninth hour, or three in the afternoon. . . . . . . . . 664 CHAPTER X. The order of their daily morning service. Snor. 1. The order'of morning service, as described in the Constitutions. This began with the 63rd Psalm. —2. What notice there is of this morning psalm in other writers. —-3. Next to the psalm followed the prayers for the catechumens, energumens, competents, and penitents—4. Then the prayers for the faithful, the peace of the world, and the whole state of Christ’s church—5. What notice we have of these prayers in other writers. -—- 6. After the general prayer for the whole state of the church, followed a short bidding prayer for preservation in the ensuing day.-—7. Then the bishop’s commendation or thanksgiving—8. And his imposition of hands or benediction, with the dea- con’s dismission of the assembly—9. Whether the morning hymn was part of the public service every day.—lO. Whether the psalms and lessons were read at the daily morning service—11. The original of the ante-lucan or night assemblies in time of persecution. -—-12. These continued when the persecutions were oven—13. The order of Divine service, which was performed in them, as described by St. Basil. -— 14. The account of them out of Cassian.—l 5. This morn- ing service much frequented by the laity as well as theclergy. . . . . . . . . . 675 CHAPTER XI. The order of their daily, evening service. SE01‘. 1. The evening service in most things conformed to that of the morning—2. But they differed, first, in that a proper psalm (the 141st) was appointed for the evening service. This psalm called the evening psalm by the author of the Constitutions—3. This psalm mentioned by Chrysostom and other writers under the same denomination—4. Secondly, they had proper prayers for the evening service. — 5. The evening hymn.—6. Whether there were any hymns, or psalms, or lessons read in the evening service, be- side the 141st Psalm.—7. The Lord’s prayer used in many churches, as the conclusion of the daily morn- ing and evening service. . . . . . . . . 682 BOOK XIV. OF THAT PART OF DIVINE SERVICE WHICH THE ANCIENTS COMPRISED UNDER THE GENERAL NAME OF MISSA CATECHUMENORUM, THE SERVICE OF THE CATECHUMENS, OR ANTE-COMMUNION SERVICE ON THE LORD’S DAY. CHAPTER I. Of the psalmody of the ancient church. SE01‘. 1. That the service of the ancient church on the Lord’s day usually began with psalmody.——2. The psalms intermixed with lessons and prayers in some churches. — 3. These psalms called by a peculiar name, psalmi responsorii.——4. Some psalms appropri- ated to particular services—5. Others sung in the ordinary course as they lay in order, without being appropriated to any time or day—6. And some ap- pointed occasionally, at the discretion of the bishop or precentor.—7. Prayers in some places between every psalm instead of alesson.—8. The Gloria Patri added at the end of every psalm in the 'Western church, but not in the Greek or Oriental church.—9. The psalms sometimes sung by one person only.——10. Sometimes by the whole assembly joining all together.—ll. Some- times alternately by the congregation divided into two parts, and answering verse for verse to one another.-— 12. Sometimes by a single precentor, repeating the first part of the verse, and the people all joining with him in the close. This was called z‘nrnxe'iu, and inm- Kmizw. What meant by diapsalms, acroteleutics, and acrostics in psalmody.—13. An answer to a popish objection against the people’s bearing a part in psalm- ody.—14. Psalmody always performed in the standing posture—15. Of the use of plain song, and its com- mendation among the ancients. - 16. Artificial and melodious tuning of the voice allowed in singing, when managed with sobriety and discretion.——17. No ob- jection made against psalms or hymns of human com- position, barely as such.-—l8. But two corruptions severely inveighed against. First, Over-great nice- CONTENTS. xliii ness and curiosity in singing, in imitation of the modes and music of the theatre.——l9. And secondly, Pleas- ing the ear without raising the affections of the soul. CHAPTER II. A particular account of some of the most noted hymns used in the service of the ancient church. Snc'r. 1. Of the lesser doxology, or hymn, “ Glory be to the Father,” &c.-2. Of the great doxology, “ Glory be to God on high,” &c.——3. Of the Trisagion, or cherubical hymn, “ Holy, holy, holy,” &c.——4. Of the Hallelujah, and Halleluiatic psalms—5. Of the Ho- sanna, and Evening Hymn, and Nunc Dimittis, or the Song of Simeon.-6. Of the Benedicite, or Song of the three Children—7. Of the Magnificat, or Song of the Holy Virgin.—8. \Vhen first the creed began to be sung as a hymn in the church.—9. Of the author and original of the hymn, Te Deum.—10. Of the hymns of St. Ambrose—11. Of the hymns of St. Hilary, Claudianus Mamercus, and others. . . 695 CHAPTER III. Of the manner of reading the Scriptures in the public service of the church. SE01". 1. Lessons of the Scripture sometimes mixed with psalms and hymns, and sometimes read after them.--2. Lessons read both out of the Old and New Testament, except in the church of Rome, where only Epistle and Gospel were read.-3. Proper lessons for certain times and festivals—4. By whom the Scrip- tures were anciently read in the church.——5. Whether the Epistle and Gospel were read twice, first to the catechumens, and then to the faithful at the altar.--6. The solemnity and ceremony of reading the lessons. Where first of the salutation, Paw oobis, before read- ing—7. This salutation sometimes used by the bishop immediately before the reader began to read.—8. The deacon enjoined silence before the reader began, and required attention : as the reader also did before every lesson, saying, “Thus saith the Lord.”—9. At the naming of the Prophet or Epistle the people in some places said, Deo Gratias, and Amen at the end of it.— 10. At the reading of the Gospel, all stood up, and said, “ Glory be to Thee, O Lord.”—11. Lights car- ried before the Gospel in the Eastern churches.-—l2. Three or four lessons read out of the Gospels some- ' times on the same day.—- 13. Of longer and shorter lessons, and their distinct use, according to Durantus. -_14. What might or might not be read by way of lessons in the church—l5. Those which we now call apocryphal books, were anciently read in some churches, but not in all.—-16. And in some churches under the title of canonical Scripture, taking that word in a larger sense-17. A short account of the trans- lations of Scripture used in the ancient church. 703 CHAPTER IV. Of preaching, and the usages relating to it in the an- cient church. Seer. 1. All sermons anciently called homilies, disputa- ' tions, allocutions, tractatus, &e. ~2. Preaching the proper office of bishops and presbyters in ordinary cases, and not of deacons—3. The singular practice of the church of Rome, in having no sermons for several ages, noted out of Sozomen, and Cassiodore, and Va- lesius. —- 4. Whether laymen were ever allowed to preach in the ancient church—5. Women never al- lowed to preach—6. Two or three sermons sometimes in the same assembly—7. Sermons every day in some times and places—8. Sermons twice a day in many places—9. Not so frequent in country villages—10. Of their different ways of preaching. A character of St. Chrysostom and some other preachers—ll. EX- tempore discourses frequent among the ancients—l2. What meant by preaching by the Spirit.—13. \Vhat sort of prayers they used before, and in, and after sermons—14. The salutation, Pazc oobis, The Lord be with you, commonly used before sermons—15. But the use of Ace Marias before sermons unknown to the ancients—~16. Sometimes their sermons were prefaced with a benediction.—17. Sometimes preached without any text, and sometimes upon more texts than one.— 18. Their sermons always upon important subjects. Compared with some of those in the church of Rome. —19. Delivered in a way most affecting and suitable to the capacities of their hearers, with perspicuity, pleasure, and force of argument. This is largely de- monstrated out of St. Austin’s rules about preaching. —20. That it was no part of the ancient oratory to move the passions by gesticulations and vain images of things, so common in the church of Rome—21. Of the length of their sermons-22. Whether every man was obliged to preach his own compositions, or might preach homilies and sermons composed by others—‘23 Their sermons commonly concluded with a doxology to the holy Trinity.—24. Their sermons for the most part delivered by the preacher sitting—25. And heard by the auditors standing in most churches, but not in all.—26. A peculiar custom in the African church, that when the preacher cited any remarkable text, the people repeated it with him, to show that they were attentive, and read and remembered the Scriptures.— 27. How the people were used to give public ap- plauses and acclamations to the preacher in the church. —28. And, more Christian-like, express their appro- bation by tears, and groans, and compunction, and obedience. Which is the best commendation of a preacher and his sermon—29. Sermons anciently pen- ned by the hearers—30. Two reflections made by the ancients upon some of their corrupt hearers. First, upon the negligent and profane—31. And secondly, the intemperate zealots, who placed all religion in a sermon—32. With what candour they treated those who thought their sermons too long. . . . . 715 CHAPTER V. Of the prayers for the catechumens, energumens, competentes, or candidates of baptism, and the penitents. Sncr. 1. That prayers in the ancient church were not before, but after the sermon.—2. Who might, or might not, be present at these prayers. Infidels and mere hearers obliged to withdraw—3. Of the prayers for the catechumens. The genuine forms of them out of St. Chrysostom and the Constitutions—4. \Vhat meant by their praying for the angel of peace in this form of prayer.—5. Children in some churches appointed to say this prayer with the rest of the people—6. What notice we have of this prayer in other ancient writings. --7. Of the prayers for the energumens, or persons possessed by evil spirits. The forms of these prayers out of the Constitutions—8. An account of them out of St. Chrysostom and other writers—9. Of _ the prayers for the competentes, or candidates of baptism. —1(). Of the prayers for the pemtents—ll. What notice we have of these prayers in St. Chrysostom and other writers—12. In what part of the church these prayers were made.-l3. Whether there were any such distinct prayers for the catechumens and pemtents in the Latin church. . . . . . . . . . . 746 xliv CONTENTS. BOOK XV. OF THE MISSA FIDELIUM, OR COMMUNION SERVICE. CHAPTER I. Of the prayers preceding the oblation. SECT. 1. Of the prayer called 8rd o-rwvrfis, or silent prayer. -—2. Of the prayers called 6rd orpompwmiaewg, or bid- ding prayers—3. The form of this sort of bidding prayers in the Constitutions, compared with the frag- ments that occur in Chrysostom, and other writers.— , 4. Of the invocation, or collect, following the common prayers of the people. . . . . . . . . . 754 CHAPTER II. Of the oblations of the people, and other things intro- ductory to the consecration of the eucharist. SE01‘. 1. Of the customary oblations which the people made at the altar.—2. What persons were allowed to make them, and what not.—-3. What oblations might be received at the altar, and what not.—4. The names of such as made oblations of any considerable value rehearsed at the altar.-—-5. The eucharistical elements usually taken out of the people’s oblations: and, con- sequently, no use of wafers or unleavened bread.—6. The use of wafers instead of bread condemned in their first original.-—7. Wine mixed with water commonly used in the ancient church—8. Of some heretics who made alterations or additions to the elements in the eucharist.-—-9. And of others who rejected the use of the sacrament altogether. . . . . . . . . 762 CHAPTER III. Of the ablation or consecration prayers, and the several parts of them. SE01‘. 1. The form of thanksgiving and consecration prayers described out of the Constitutions—2. This account compared with what is said in other authors. First, as to the form of Salutation, “ Peace be with you,” &c.—3. Of the kiss of peace—4. Washing the hands before consecration.——5. The deacon’s admoni- tion to all non-communicants to withdraw; and to all communicants to come with charity and sincerity—6. Of the amine, or fans to drive away insects—7. Of the use of the sign of the cross at the Lord’s table.— 8. Of the usual preface, called Sursum corda, Lift up your hearts, or preparation to the great thanksgiving. ——9. Of the el’lxapw'rl'a, or great thanksgiving, pro- perly so called—10. Of the use of the hymn Trisagion, or seraphical hymn, “ Holy, holy, holy,” in this thanks- giving—ll . A particular thanksgiving for the mercies of God in the redemption of mankind by Christ—12. The form of consecration always composed of a re- petition of the words of institution, and prayer to God to sanctity the gifts by his Holy Spirit—13. After this followed prayer for the whole catholic church.— 14. More particularly for the bishops and clergy.——l5. For kings and magistrates—16. For the dead in gene- ral. -— 17. Upon what grounds the ancient church prayed for the dead, saints, martyrs, confessors, as well as all others—18. A short account of the diptychs, and their use in the ancient church.—-l9. Next to the dead, prayer made for the living members of that par- ticular church, and every order in it.——20. For those that were in sickness, slavery, banishment, proscrip- tion, and all that travelled by sea or land—21. For enemies and persecutors, heretics and unbelievers.— 22. For the catechumens, energumens, and penitents. —23. For healthful and fruitful seasons—24. For all their absent brethren—25. Concluding with a doxo- logy to the whole Trinity—26. To which the people with one voice answered, Amen.-—27. Then followed the creed in such churches as had made it a part of their liturgy.-—28. And the Lord’s prayer.——29. Ab- solution of penitents immediately before the Lord’s prayer, with occasional benedictions.—30. Benedic- tion after the Lord’s prayer.—3l. The deacon’s bid- ding prayer after the consecration.——32. Of the form, Sancta Sanctis, and the hymn, Glory be to God on high, hosanna, &c.—~33. Of the invitatory psalm sung before the communion.——34. That the consecration anciently was always performed with an audible voice. -—35. And with the ceremony of breaking of bread to represent our Saviour’s passion. . . . . 771 CHAPTER IV. Of communicants, or persons who were allowed to receive this sacrament, and the manner of receiv- mg it. SE01‘. 1. All persons, except catechumens and penitents, obliged to receive the eucharist—2. When and how this discipline began first to relax.—-3. When first the use of eulogice came in, instead of the eucharist, for such as would not communicate—4. The corruption of private and solitary mass unknown to former ages. —5. Other corruptions countenanced in the Roman church, such as the missa sicca, and nautica, and those called bifaciata and trifaciata, &c.—6. The commu- nion not given to heretics and schismatics, without confession and reconciliation.——7. Yet given to infants and children for several ages.—8. And sent to the absent members of their own and other churches.—9. And to those that were sick, or in prison, or under any confinement, or in penance at the point of death. —10. The eucharist sometimes consecrated in private houses for these purposes.—ll. And commonly re- served in the church for the same uses—l2. And also for public use upon some days, when they made no new consecration. This called missa prwsanctificato- rum. Its use and original.~—l3. The eucharist some- times reserved in private by private men, for daily participation.——14. Yet this never allowed in the pub- lic service.—-l5. A novel custom noted, of reserving the eucharist for forty days, and the inconveniencies attending it.-—16. The eucharist sometimes given to the energumens in the interval of their distemper.——17. All men debarred from it that were guilty of any great or notorious crime, of what rank or degree soever. —18. The question of digamy or second marriage stated. Whether it debarred men at any time from the communion.—l9. The corrupt custom of some, who gave the eucharist to the dead, censured by the ancients—20. Parallel to which is the abuse of burying the eucharist with the dead—21. The order of communicating—22. Some rules observed for dis- tinction of places in communicating. . . . . 801 CHAPTER V. A resolution of several questions relating further to the manner of communicating in the ancient church. SECT. 1. That the people were always admitted to re- ceive the communion in both kinda—2. That in re- ceiving in both kinds they always received the elements distinctly, and not the one dipped in the other.—3. CONTENTS. xlv That the ancients receiv d sometimes standing, some- times kneeling, but never sitting—4. No elevation of the host for Divine adoration in the ancient church for many ages, till the rise of transubstantiation—5. No adoration of the hostbefore the twelfth or thirteenth cen- tury.——6. The people allowed to receive the eucharist into their own hands—7. The same custom observed in delivering it to women and children.-—8. The eu~ charist usually delivered to the people with a certain form of words, to which they answered, Amen.—9. How Novatian and others abused the communion to wicked purposes—~10. Proper psalms for the oc- casion usually sung while the people were communi- cating...............818 CHAPTER VI. Of their post-communion service. Seer. 1. The communion service closed with several sorts of thanksgiving. The deacon’s bidding prayer or thanksgiving—2. The bishop’s thanksgiving, or commendation of the people to God.—-3. The bishop’s benediction—4. The deacon’s form of dismissing the people with the short prayer, Go in peace.—5. What account we have of these prayers in other writers be- sides the Constitutions.'——6. These thanksgivings al- ways made in the plural number by and for the whole body of communicants. And so they are still remain- ing in the Roman mass-book, to the reproach of the great abuse of private and solitary mass. . . 836 CHAPTER VII. How the remains of the eucharist were disposed of: and (y' their common entertainment, called agape, or feast of charity. Seer. 1. Part of the eucharist anciently reserved for particular uses—2. The rest divided among thecom- municants.——3. This division of the consecrated ele- ments a distinct thing from the division of the other oblations.-—4. The remains of the eucharist some- times given to irmocent children—5. And sometimes burnt in the fire.-—6. Some part of the other oblations disposed of in a feast of charity, which all the ancients reckon an apostolical rite accompanying the commu- nion.—-7. Whether this feast was before or after the communion in the apostles’ days.--8. How observed in the following ages; when the eucharist was com- monly received fasting, and before this feast, except upon some particular occasions—9. These love-feasts at first held in the church; but afterward forbidden to be kept in the church by orders of councils—~10. How the Christians were at first abused and calumni- ated by some of the heathen, but admired and envied by others, upon the account of these feasts of cha- rity...............839 Of the preparation which the ancients required as necessary in communicants, to qualify them for a worthy reception. SECT. 1. A general answer to this‘question, by referring to the professions of repentance, faith, and holy obe- dience, made by every Christian in baptism; in the observation of which professions every one was pre- sumed to be qualified for the communion—2. What failings were deemed consistent with these professions, and a state of grace, and a continual preparation for the communion—3. What repentance required for such failings.-—4. What crimes unqualified men ab- solutely for the communion, and what sort of repent- ance was required for them.—5. Ministers not to ad- mit scandalous and notorious sinners to the communion, without satisfactory evidences of their repentance, in such cases as subjected them to the public discipline; in other cases, where the public discipline was not concerned, they were only to admonish them to abstain from communion, but not obliged absolutely to repel them from it.-—6. Auricular confession of private sins not necessary to be made to the priest, as an indis- pensable qualification for the communion—7. That preparation consists not in coming to communion at certain holy seasons, Easter, Christmas, &0., but in sanctity and purity at all times—8. What faith they required in communicants.—9. What purity of soul by repentance and obedience. How far fasting useful or necessary to this purpose.-— 10. The necessity of justice and restitution in a worthy communicant.——ll. The necessity of peace and unity—12. The necessity of charity to the poor.—l3. The necessity of forgiving enemies, and pardoning offences—14. What behaviour required in the act of communicating; and what de- portment afterwards. . . . . . . . . . 845 CHAPTER IX. Of frequent communion, and the times of celebrating it in the ancient church. 81201‘. 1. All persons, except penitents under censure, obliged anciently to receive the communion every Lord’s day, by the canons of the church .——2. This showed to be the constant practice for the three first. ages—3. The eucharist celebrated on other days he- side the Lord’s day in many churches—4. And in some places every day.——5. When first it came to be settled to three times a year.—~6. And afterwards to once a year by the council of Lateran.——7. What at- tempt was made to restore frequent and full commu- nions at the Reformation.—-8. Wherein this is still deficient; and what seems yet necessary to be done in order to reduce communion to the primitive standard.............859 BOOK XVI. OF THE UNITY AND DISCIPLINE OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH. CHAPTER I. Of the union and communion observed among catho- lics in the ancient church. SECT. 1. Of the fundamental unity of faith and obedi- ence to the laws of Christ.-2. Of the unity of love and charity, as an essential part of Christian obedi- ence.—-3. Other sorts of unity necessary to the well- being of the church.—-4. Among these was reckoned, first, The necessary use of one baptism, ordinarily to be administered by the hands of a regular ministry. —-5. Secondly, Unity of worship, in joining with the church in prayers, and administration of the word and sacraments. —— 6. Thirdly, The unity of subjection of presbyters and people to their bishop, and obedience to all public orders of the church in matters of an in- different nature—7. Fourthly, The unity of submis- xlvi CONTENTS. sion to the discipline of the church—8. How different churches maintained communion with one another. First, In the common faith.-9. Secondly, In mutual assistance of each other for defence of the common faith—~10. Thirdly, In joining in communion with each other in all holy ofiices, as occasion required.— 11. Fourthly, In mutual consent to ratify all legal acts of discipline, regularly exercised in any church what- soever.—-12. Fifthly, In receiving unanimously the customs of the universal church, and submitting to the decrees of general councils—13. Sixthly, In sub- mitting to the decrees of national councils—~14. No necessity of a visible head to unite all parts of the catholic church into one communion.-l5. Nor any necessity that the whole church should agree in the same rites and ceremonies, which were things of an indifferent nature—~16. What allowance was made for men, who, out of simple ignorance, brake commu- nion with one another.—-l7. Of different degrees of unity; and that no one was esteemed to be in the per- fect unity of the church, who was not in full com- munionwithher. . . . . . . . . . . 867 CHAPTER II. Of the discipline of the church, and the various kinds of it; together with the various methods observed in the administration of it. Sect. 1. That the discipline of the church did not con- sist in cancelling or disannulling any man’s baptism. —-2. But in excluding men from the common benefits and privileges consequent to baptism.—3. This power originally a mere spiritual power, though in some cases the secular arm was called in to give its assist- ance.—4. This assistance never required to proceed so far, as for mere error to take away life, or shed blood. -—5. The discipline of the church deprived no man of his natural or civil rights; much less the magistrate of his power, or allegiance due to him.—6. But con- sisted, first, In admonition of the ofl'ender.—7. Second- ly, In suspension from the communion, called the lesser excommunication—8. Thirdly, In expulsion from the church, called the greater excommunica- tion, total separation, anathema, and the like—9. This sort of excommunication commonly notified to other churches—10. After which he thatwas excom— municated in one church, was heldvexcommunicate in all churches—ll. And avoided also in civil commerce and outward conversation; and allowed no memorial after death—12. The grounds and reasons of this practice—13. No donations or oblations allowed to be received from excommunicate persons—14. No one to marry with excommunicate heretics, or receive their eulogia, or read their books, but burn them.— 15. What meant by delivering unto Satan—16. What by anathema maranatha. And whether any such forms were in use in the ancient church—l7 . Whether excommunication was ever pronounced with execra- tion, or devoting the sinner to temporal destruc- tion. . .890 CHAPTER III. Of the objects of ecclesiastical censures, or the persons on whom they might be inflicted : with a general account of the crimes for which they might be in- fiicted. SE01‘. 1. All members of the church, falling into great and scandalous crimes, made liable to ecclesiastical censures without exception.--2. Women as well as men.— 3. The rich as well as the poor. No com- mutation of penance allowed, nor friendship, nor favour.-—4. What privilege some claimed upon the intercession of the martyrs in prison for them; and how this was answered by Cyprian—5. Magistrates and princes subject to ecclesiastical censures as well as any others—'6. In what cases the greater excom- munication was forborne for the good of the church.— 7. The innocent never involved among the guilty in ecclesiastical censures. The original and novelty of popish interdicts.—8. The danger of excommunicating innocent persons—9. No one to be excommunicated without being first heard, and allowed to speak for himself.—IO. Nor without legal conviction, either by his own confession, or credible evidence of witnesses, against whom there was no just exception; or such notoriety of the fact as made a man liable to excom- munication ipso facto, without any formal denuncia- tion.——ll. Excommunication not ordinarily inflicted on minors, or children under age—12. How persons were sometimes excommunicated after death—13. The censures of the church not to be inflicted for small offences—14. What the ancients meant by small offences in this matter, and how they distin- guished them from the greater._15. Excommunica- tion not inflicted for temporal causes—16. No bishop allowed to use it to avenge any private injury done to himself—l7. No man to be excommunicated for sins only in design and intention.-—18. Nor for forced or involuntary actions. . . . . . . . . . 911 CHAPTER IV. A particular account of those called great crimes. Of transgressions of the first and second commandment. Of the principal of these, viz. idolatry. Of the several species of idolatry, and degrees of punishment allotted to them according to the proportion and quality of the ofl'ences. Snctr. 1. The mistake of some about the number of great crimes, in confining them to idolatry, adultery, and murder.—2. The account given of great crimes in the civil law extended much further.-—3. In the ecclesi- astical law, the account of great crimes extended to the whole decalogue.——-4. A particular enumeration of the great crimes against the first and second com- mandments. Of idolatry, and the several species or branches of it.-—5. Of the sacrificati and thurificati, or such as fell into idolatry by offering incense to idols, or partaking of the sacrifices-6. Of the libellatici. Wherein their idolatry consisted—7. Of those who feigned themselves mad to avoid sacrificing—8. Of contributers to idolatry. Of the fiam-ines, munerarii, and coronati. What they were, and how guilty of idolatry—9. How the oflice of the duumvirate made men guilty of idolatry, and how it was punished—10. How actors, and stage-players, and charioteers, and other gamesters, and frequenters of the theatre and the cirque, were charged with idolatry, and punished for it.—ll. Idol-makers, their crime and punishment. --12. The idolatry of building heathen temples and altars—13. Of merchants selling frankincense to the idol temples ; and the buyers and sellers of the pub lic victims—l4. Of eating things offered to idols. How and when it stood chargeable with idolatry—15. Whether a Christian out of curiosity might be present at an idol sacrifice, not joining in the service—16. Whether he might eat his own meat in an idol temple. ——17. Or feast with the heathen on their idol festivals. ~—18. Of the idolatry of worshipping angels, saints, mar- tyrs, images, &c.—19. Of encouragers of idolatry and connivers at it. And of the contrary extreme in demol- ishing idols without suflicient authority to do it. 934 CHAPTER V. Of _the practice of curious and forbidden arts, divina- tion, magic, and enchantment : and qf the laws qf . the church made for the punishment of them. Snc'r. 1. Of several sorts of divination. Particularly of judicial astrology—2. Of augury and soothsaying.—- 3. Of divination by lots.—4. Of divination by express CONTENTS. xlvii compact with Satan.—-5. Of magical enchantment an sorcery.——6. Of amulets, charms, and spells, to cure vain and common swearing—6. And swearing bv the creatures—7. And by the emperor’s genius, and diseases.—7. Of the prcestigiaz, or false miracles wrought by the power of Satan.—8. Of the observa- tion of days and accidents, and making presages and omens upon them. . . . . . . . . . . 948 saints, and angels, &c.——8. Of perjury, and its punish- ment.—9. Of breach of vows. . . . . . . 978 CHAPTER VIII. Of sins against the fourth commandment, or violations of the law enjoining the religious observation of the Lord’s day. 8801‘. l. Absenting from religious assemblies on the Lord’s day, how punished by the laws of the church. CHAPTER VI. Of apostacy to Judaism, and paganism ; of heresy and schism ; and of sacrilege and simony. SE01‘. 1. Of such as apostatized totally from Christianity to Judaism.—‘.?.. Of such as mingled the Jewish re- ligion and the Christian together.—3. Of such as com- municated with the Jews in their unlawful rites and practices—4. Of such as apostatized voluntarily into heathenism. -— 5. Of heretics and schismatics, and their punishments both ecclesiastical and civil.—~6. A particular account of the civil punishments inflicted on them by the laws of the state—7. How heretics were treated by the discipline of the church. First, they were anathematized, and cast out of the church.--8. Secondly, Debarred from entering the church by some canons, though not by all.—9. Thirdly, No one to en- courage heretics and schismatics by frequenting their assemblies.—10. Fourthly, No one to eat or converse with heretics, or receive their presents, or retain their writings, or make marriages with them, &c.—-—ll. Fifthly, Heretics not allowed to be evidence in any ecclesiastical cause against a catholic—12. Sixthly, Heretics not allowed to succeed to any paternal in- heritance—13. No heretic to have promotion among the clergy after his return to the church—14. No one to be ordained, who kept any in his family that were not of the catholic faith—15. No one to bring his cause before an heretical judge under pain of excom- munication.—16. WVhat term of penance imposed upon relenting heretics—17. How this varied according to the age, and state, and condition of several sorts of heretics—18. Heresiarchs more severely treated than their followers.— 19. And voluntary deserters more severely than they who complied only out of fear.—2(). A difference made between such heretics as retained the form of baptism, and such as rejected or corrupted it.—2l. No one to be reputed a formal heretic, before he contumaciously resisted the admonition of the church—22. The like distinctions observed in inflict- ing the censures of the church upon schismatics, ac- cording to the different nature and various degrees of their schism.—23. Of sacrilege. Particularly of di- verting things appropriated to sacred uses, to other purposes. —24. Of sacrilege committed in robbing graves—25. The sacrilege of the ancient traditors, who delivered up their Bibles and sacred utensils to the heathen to be burnt—26. The sacrilege of pro- faning the sacraments, and churches, and altars, and the Holy Scriptures, &c.—‘27. The sacrilege of de- priving men of the use of the Scripture, and the word of God, and the sacraments, particularly the cup in the Lord’s supper.—28. Of simony in buying and selling spiritual gifts—29. Of simony in purchasing spiritual preferments.—30. Of simony in ambitious usurpation of holy oflices, and intrusion into other men’s places and preferments. . . . . . . . . . . 959 CHAPTER VII. Of sins against the third commandment, blasphemy, profane swearing, perjury, and breach of vows. Seer. l. The blasphemy of apostates.—2. The blas— phemy of heretics and profane Christians—3. The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. Where is par- ticularly inquired, What notion the ancients had of it ;. in what sense they believed it unpardonable ; and what censures they inflicted on it.—4. Of profane swearing. All oaths not forbidden.—5. But only the custom of -—2. Of frequenting some part of the Lord’s day ser- vice, and neglecting the rest.—3. Fasting on the Lord’s day prohibited under pain of excommunication.—4. Frequenting the theatres and other shows and pastimes on this day, how punished. . . . . . . . 991 CHAPTER IX. Of great transgressions against the fifth command- ment, viz. disobedience to parents and masters ,- treason and rebellion against princes ; and contempt of the laws of the church. SEc'r. 1. Children not to desert their parents under pre- tence of religion. The censure of such as taught otherwise—2. Children not to marry without the con- sent of their parents—3. Nor slaves without the con- sent of their masters—4. The punishment of treason, and disrespect to princes—5. Contemners of the laws of the church, how censured. . . . . . . 993 CHAPTER X. Of great transgressions against the sixth command- ment ; of murder and manslaughter, parricide, self- murder, dismembering the body, exposing of infants, causing of abortion, 5c SECT. 1. Murder ever reckoned a capital and unpardon- able crime by the laws of the state.—-2. How pun- ished by the laws of the church—3. The heinousness of murder when joined with other crimes, as idolatry, adultery, and magical practices—4. Causing of abor- tion condemned and punished as murder.—-5. The punishment of parricide.—6. Of self-murder.—7. Of dismembering the body.--8. Of involuntary murder by chance, or manslaughter.—-9. False witness against any man’s life reputed murder.—10. Informers against the brethren in time of persecution, treated as mur- derers—11. Exposing of infants reputed murder.——l2. If a virgin defloured by a rape kills herself for grief, the corrupter is reputed guilty of the murder.-—13. The lanistce, or fencing-masters, reputed accessaries to murder, and their calling condemned—l4. Spectators of the murders committed on the stage, accounted ac- cessaries to murder also—15. Famishers of the poor and indigent reputed guilty of murder.—l6. And all they by whose authority murder was committed.—l7. Enmity, and strife, and quarrelling, punished as lower degrees of murder. . . . . . . . . 997 CHAPTER XI. Of great transgressions against the seventh command- ment; fornication, adultery, incest, polygamy, @c. SECT. l. The punishment of fornication—2. Of adul- tery—3. Of incest—4. Whether the marriage of cousin-germans was reckoned incest.——5. Of polygamy and concubinage.—6. Of marrying after unlawful divorce—7. Of second, third, and fourth marriages. —8. Of ravishment.—9. Of unnatural impurities.— 10. Of maintaining and allowing harlots.——ll. Of writing and reading lascivious books—~12. Frequent- ing the theatre and stage-plays forbidden upon this xlviii CONTENTS. >ofdevotion.. . . . . . . . . ‘Court. a o O 0 O O O o o 0 o o account—13. As also all excess of riot and intemper- ance for the same reason.——l4. And promiscuous bathing of men and women together.—15. And pro- miscuous and lascivious dancing, wanton songs, &c. -—16. As also promiscuous clothing, or men and W0- men interchanging apparel.—l7. And suspected vigils, or pernoctations of women in churches under pretegce . . . 1 04 CHAPTER XII. Of great transgressions of the eighth commandment, theft, oppression, fraud, &c. SECT. 1. The censure of those heretics who taught the doctrine of renunciation, or necessity of having all things common.—2. Of plagiary or man-stealing.—3. Of malicious injustice—4. Of simple theft—5. Of de- taining lost goods from the true owner.~—-6. Of refusing to pay just debts.j—7 . And what men are bound to by the obligation of promise and contract—8. Of remov- ing bounds and landmarks—9. Of oppression—10. Of the exactions and bribery of judges—ll. Of the exactions of publicans, nd collectors of the public re- venues, and other ofiicers of the Roman empire—~12. Of the exactions of advocates and lawyers, and appa- ritors of judges—13. Of griping usury and extortion. —-14. Of forgery.—- 15. Of calumny with regard to men’s estates and fortunes: and the reverse of it, the fraud of adulation and flattery—16. Of deceitfulness in trust—17. Of deceitfulness in traffic—18. Of abet- ting and concealing of robbers; buying stolen goods, &c.—19. Idleness censured as the mother of robbery. ——20. And gaming as an occasion of fraud, and ruin of many poor families, who by this means were reduced to the greatest exigence. . . . . . . . 1018 CHAPTER XIII. Of great transgressions against the ninth command- ment, false accusation, libelling, informing, calumny and slander, railing and reviling. SE01‘. 1. Of false witness—2. Of libelling.——-3. Of de- traction, whispering, and ba0kbiting.—4. Of railing and reviling, or scurrilous and abusive language, and of revealing secrets—5. Of lying. How far it brought men under the discipline of the church. . . 1032 CHAPTER XIV. Of great transgressions against the tenth command- ment, envy, covetousness, &c. SE01‘. 1. Whether envy brought men under the disci- pline of the church—2. Of pride, ambition, and vain- glory.—-3. Of covetousness.—4. Of carnal lusts. 1036 BOOK XVII. OF THE EXERCISE OF DISCIPLINE UPON THE CLERGY IN THE ANCIENT CHURCH. CHAPTER I. Of the difi'erence of ecclesiastical censures inflicted on clergymen and laymen. SE01‘. 1. The peculiar notion of communion ecclesiasti- cal, and excommunication ecclesiastical, as applied to the clergy—2. The clergy usually punished by a removal from their office, but not always subjected to public penance, as men wholly cast out of the com- munion of the church.——3. Yet in some special cases both penalties inflicted—4. Of suspension from their revenues.—5. Of suspension from their office.——6. Of deposition or degradation. . . 1038 CHAPTER II. Of reducing the clergy to the state and communion of laymen, as a punishment for great ofl'ences. SE01‘. 1. Lay communion not the same as communion in one kind only.——2. Neither does it signify barely communicating among laymen without the rails of the chancel.—3. But a total degradation, or deprivation of orders, and reduction to the state and condition of laymen.—--4. Clergymen thus reduced, seldom allowed to recover their ancient station.—5. Notwithstanding the indelible character of ordination.—6. But some- times excommunicated, as well as deposed, and denied the communion of laymen.—7. Sometimes removed and corrected by the assistance and authority of the secular power.—-8. What meant by the punishment called curiw tradi, or delivering up to the secllalag . . 4 CHAPTER III. Of the punishment called peregrina communio, or re- ducing clergymen to the communion of strangers. SE01‘. 1. The several canons wherein this punishment is mentioned.--2. The communion of strangers not the same as lay communion.—3. Nor communion in one kind—4. Nor communion at the hour of death.—5. Nor the communion of such as were enjoined to go on pilgrimage on earth, which was a piece of discipline unknown to the ancients—6. Nor any private and pe- culiar oblation for strangers—7. But communicating only as strangers travelling without commendatory let- ters, who might partake of the church’s charity, but not of the communion of the altar.-—-8. This notion con- firmed from several parts of ancient history.——9. What sort of penance was necessary to restore such delin- quent clergymen to their oflice and station again. 1044 CHAPTER IV. Of some other special and peculiar ways of inflicting punishment on the clergy. SE01‘. 1. Sometimes the clergy perpetually suspended from their oflice, yet allowed to retain their title and dignity—2. Sometimes degraded not totally, but par- tially, from one order to another.—3. Sometimes de- prived of a part of their ofn‘ce, but allowed to exercise the rest—,4. Sometimes deprived of their power over a part of their flock, but allowed it over the rest.—-5. Bishops in Africa punished by depriving them of their seniority, and right of succeeding to the primacy, or metropolitical power.—6. Also by confining them to the communion of their own church.-——7. Or by re- moving them from a greater diocese to a lessen—8. The clergy in general punished by a loss of their seniority among those of their own order.-—-9. The inferior clergy punished by rendering them incapable of being promoted to any higher order.—10. The clergy sometimes punished by denying them the public exercise of . their office, whilst they were allowed to ofiiciate in private.—11. Of intrusion of offenders into CONTENTS. xlix a monastery to do penance in private—l2. Of corporal punishment. How far used as a piece of discipline upon the inferior clergy. . . . . . . . 1048 CHAPTER V. A particular account of the crimes for which clergy- men were liable to be punished with any of the fore- mentioned kinds of censure. SECT. 1. All crimes that were punished with excommu- nication in a layman, punished with suspension or de- privation in the clergy.--2. Some crimes rendered an ordination originally void : and for such crimes the clergy were immediately liable to be degraded, from the very moment of their ordination. As, first, for ignorance or heterodoxy in religion—3. Secondly, for great immorality before their ordination : and for being ordained against any of the known rules of ordination. As, if he were a digamist, or married to awidow, or to one that had been divorced from another man. If he were ordained d'lrohshvpéuws, without being fixed to some particular diocese. If he were ordained without letters dimissory against the consent of his own bishop; or without the consent of any of the parties that had a right to vote in his election. If any bishop was or- dained, who had before been degraded from his orders. Or if he was ordained into a full see, where another was regularly ordained before him. If any was an energumen, or under the agitation of an evil spirit, when he was ordained. If any had voluntarily mangled his own body. If any one was ordained, who had never been baptized, or not baptized in due form, or was baptized by heretics, or rebaptized by them. If any made use of the secular powers to gain a promotion in the church. If a bishop ordained any of his own un- worthy kindred. If a bishop clandestinely ordained his own successor without the consent of the metropolitan or a provincial council ; or if two bishops clandestinely ordained a bishop without the consent of their fellow bishops and the metropolitan: in all these cases the clergy so ordained were liable to be deposed for trans- gressing the rules of ordination.—-4. No remedy al- lowed in this case by doing public penance for offences. For all public penitents were for ever incapable of ordination. And if any such were ordained, they were immediately liable to be deposed and degraded—5. Some impediments of ordination arising from men’s out- ward state and condition in the world, were also some- times occasions of deprivation. As if any soldier was ordained; or any slave or vassal, without the consent of his master; or any member of a civil corporation, or any of the curiales in the Roman government.——6. What crimes might occasion the deprivation of the clergy, or other censures to befall them, in the performance of their ofiice, or rather non-performance of it after ordination. Clergymen to be censured for contempt of the canons in general.—-7. More particularly for negligence in their duty.—8. For neglecting to use the public liturgy, Lord’s prayer, hymns, &c.— 9. For making any alteration in the form of baptism.—10. For not frequenting Divine service daily.——l 1. For meddling with secular offices. — 12. For deserting their own church without licence, to go to another.-—l3. For ofliciating after the condemnation of a synod—~14. For appealing from the censure of a provincial synod to any foreign churches—15. For refusing to end contro- versies before bishops, and flying to a secular tribunal. ——16. For suffering themselves to be rebaptized, or reordained.—l7. For denying themselves to be clergy- men.——l8. For publishing apocryphal books—19. For superstitious abstinence from flesh, wine, &c.—20. For eating of blood.—-21. For contemning the fasts or fes- tivals of the church—22. For not observing the rule about Easter.—23. For wearing an indecent habit—— 24. For keeping hawks or hounds, and following any unlawful diversions—25. For suspicious cohabitation with strange women.——26. For marrying after ordina- tion.—27. For retaining an adulterous wife—28. For non-residence.——29. For attempting to hold preferment in two dioceses—30. For needless frequenting of pub- lic inns and taverns—31. For conversing familiarly with Jews, heretics, or Gentile philosophers—32. For using over-rigorous severity toward lapsers.—33. For want of charity to indigent clergymen in their necessity. —--34. For judging in cases of blood-35. Crimes for which bishops in particular might be suspended or de- graded. For giving ordinations contrary to the canons. —-36. For neglecting to put the laws of discipline in execution—37. For dividing their diocese, and erect- ing new bishoprics without leave: or for extending their claim to other men’s rights beyond their own limits and jurisdiction—38. For not attending pro- vincial councils-39. For oppressing the people with unjust exactions.-40. For harbouring such as fled from another diocese without leave-41. Chorepiscopi might be censured for acting beyond their commission.-—-42. And presbyters for usurping upon the episcopal office. ——43. And deacons for assuming offices and privileges above their order and station. . . . . . . 1053 BOOK XVIII. OF THE SEVERAL ORDERS OF PENITENTS, AND THE METHOD OF PERFORMING PUBLIC PENANCE‘ IN THE CHURCH, BY GOING THROUGH THE SEVERAL STAGES OF RE- PEN TANCE. CHAPTER I. A particular account of the several orders of peni- tents in the church. 81301‘. 1. Penitents divided into four distinct orders, or Stations-“2- The first Original of this distinction.—3. Of the first order, called flentes, or mourners—4. Of the second order, called audientes, or hearers—4). Of the third order, called prostrators, or kneelers, and penitents in the strictest sense.—-6. Of the fourth or- der, called consistentes, or co-standers. . . . 1068 CHAPTER II. Of the ceremonies used in admitting penitents to do public penance, and the manner of performing pub- lic penance in the church. . Seer. 1. Penitents first admitted to penance by imposi- tion of hands—2. At which time they were obliged to appear before the bishop with sackcloth and ashes upon their head. This ceremony anciently not con- fined to Ash-Wednesday, or the beginning of Lent, but persons were admitted to penance at any time, as the bishop judged most proper in his own discretion—3. Penitents obliged to cut off their hair, or go veiled, as CONTENTS. another token of sorrow and mourning—4. Penitents to abstain from bathing and feasting, and other inno- cent diversions of life—5. Penitents to observe all the public fasts of the church—6. Penitents to re- strain themselves in the use of the conjugal state—7. For which reason no married persons were admitted to penance, but by consent of both parties—8. Peni- tents not allowed to marry in the time of their penance. -—9. Penitents obliged to pray kneeling, whilst others prayed standing, on all festivals and days of relaxation. —10. Penitents obliged to show great liberality to the poor.-—ll. And to minister and serve the church in burying the dead. . . . . . . . . . 1071 CHAPTER III. A particular account of the exomologesis, or peniten- tial confession of the ancient church ; showing it to be a dijferent thing from the private or auricular confession introduced by the church of Rome. SECT.1. The gross mistake of those, who make the exomologesis of the ancient church to signify auricular confession—2. No necessity of auricular confession ever urged by the ancient church.-—3. This proved further from the practice of the ancients in denying all manner of absolution to some relapsing sinners, without excluding them from the mercy and pardon of God, upon' confession to him alone—4. And from above twenty considerations of the lkie nature—5. Yet private confession allowed and encouraged in some cases. As, first, For lesser sins, men were ad- vised mutually to confess to one another, to have each other’s prayers and assistance—6. Secondly, In case of injuries done to private persons, men were obliged to confess and ask pardon of the injured party—7. Thirdly, When they were under any troubles of con- science, they were advised to make private confession to a minister, to have his counsel and direction.—8. Fourthly, To take his advice also, whether it was proper to do public penance for private offences—9. Fifthly, When there was any danger of death arising from the laws of the state against certain offences.— 10. Sixthly, Private confession was also required in case of private admonition for offences—ll. The of- fice of the penitentiary priest set up in many churches to receive and regulate such private confessions—~12. This oflice was afterwards abrogated in the East by Nectarius, and men were left to their liberty as to what concerned private confession. . . . . . 1074 CHAPTER IV. Of the great rigour, strictness, and severity of the discipline and penance of the ancient church. Sncr. 1. Public penance ordinarily allowed but once to any sort of sinners—2. Some sinners held under a strict penance all their lives to the very hour of death. ——3. Such as were absolved upon a death-bed, were obliged to perform their ordinary penance, if they re- covered. —4. Some sinners were denied commimion at their last hour. ——-5. How this may be vindicated and cleared from the charge of Novatianism.-—6. This rigour abated in after ages, without any reflection on the preceding practice.—7. What liberty was allowed to bishops in imposing of penance, and exacting pro- per satisfaction of sinners. Some sinners allowed to do penance twice.-——8. Bishops had also power to moderate the term of penance upon just occasion.— 9. And this was the true ancient notion of an indul- gence.—lO. Which was sometimes granted at the in- tercession of the martyrs, or the instance of the civil magistrate—ll. Bishops had also a power to alter the nature of the penalty in some measure, as well as the term of it.—12. ‘What the ancients mean by the term, legitima poenitentia. ——13. What meant by the phrase, inter hyemantes orare. . 1084 BOOK XIX. OF ABSOLUTION, OR THE MANNER OF READMITTING PENITENTS INTO THE COMMUNION OF THE CHURCH AGAIN. CHAPTER I. Of the nature ofabsolution, and the several sorts of it ,- more particularly of such as relate to the penitential discipline of the church. SECT. I. All church absolution only ministerial, not ab- solute—2. Of the grand absolution of baptism. That this was of no use in penitential discipline to persons once baptized.——~3. Of the absolution granted by the eucharist.—4. Of absolution declaratory and effective by the administration of the word and doctrine.—5. Of the precatory absolution given by imposition of hands and prayer.—6. Of the judicial absolution of penitents, by restoring them to the peace and full com- munion of the church. . . . . 1095 CHAPTER II. Of the circumstances, rites, and customs anciently ob- served in the public absolution of sinners. Seer. 1. No sinners anciently absolved, till they had performed their regular penance, except in case of im- minent death.-—2. Penitents publicly reconciled in sackcloth at the altar.—-3. Sometimes more publicly before the apsis or reading-desk. -- 4. Absolution at the altar always given in a supplicatory form by im- position of hands and prayer. —5. Absolution in the indicative form, Ego te absolvo, not used till the twelfth century.-——6. In what sense that form may be allowed. ——7. Why chrism or unction was sometimes added to imposition of hands in the reconciliation of certain heretics and schismatics to the church.—-8. Why some heretics could be reconciled no other way but by a new baptism.-—9. What conditions were required of those, who fell from the church into any heresy or schism, when they were reconciled to the church again.—10. Of the time of absolution-11. How the church absolved some penitents, and received them into communion after death. . . 1101 CHAPTER III. Of the minister of ecclesiastical discipline, and par- ticularly of the minister of absolution. SECT. 1. All the power of discipline primarily lodged in the hands of the bishop—2. This in many cases com- mitted to presbyters, either by a general or particular commission—3. And to deacons also.—-4. How far, and in what sense, absolution might be said to be given byalayman. . . . . . . . . . . 1108 CUNTENTS. 1i APPENDIX. Containing two Sermons and two Letters to the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of Winchester, concern- ing the nature and necessity of the several sorts of absoluticn ; shoun'ng how far that necessity extends, and where it ceases. SERMON I. . 1112 SERMON II. 1118 LETTER 1. 1125 LETTER II. . 1128 BOOK XX. OF THE FESTIVALS OBSERVED IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. CHAPTER I. Of the distinction to be made between civil and ecclesiastical festivals. Seer. 1. What meant by the civil festivals—2. Of the feriaz cesti’vce, or thirty days of vacation in the harvest month, and the ferice autumnales.—-3. Of the calends of J anuary.——-4. Of the emperors’ birthdays.-—5. Of the natales urbium, or the two feriw in memory of the foundation of Rome and Constantinople. . 1132 CHAPTER II. Of the original and observation of the Lord’s day among Christians. Snc'r. l. The Lord’s day of continued observation in the church from the days of the apostles, under the names of Sunday, the Lord’s day, the first day of the week, and the day of breaking bread, &c.—2. All proceedings at law forbidden and suspended on this day, except such as were of absolute necessity or great charity; as manumission of slaves, &c.—3. All secular business forbidden, except such as necessity or charity compelled men to, as gathering of their fruits in harvest, by some laws.--4. No public games, or shows, or ludicrous recreations on this day.—-5. All fasting prohibited on this day, even in the time of Lent.— 6. And all prayers offered in the standing posture on the Lord’s day, in memory of our Saviour’s resurrection.—7. The great care and concern of the primitive Christians in the religious observation of the Lord’s day. This demonstrated, first, From their constant attendance upon all the solemnities of public worship—8. Secondly, From their zeal in frequenting religious assemblies even in times of persecution—9. Thirdly, From their studious observation of the vigils or nocturnal assemblies preceding the Lord’s day.— 10. Fourthly, From their attendance upon sermons in many places twice on this day—11. Fifthly, From their attendance on evening prayers where there was no sermon—12. Sixthly, From the censures inflicted on those who violated the laws concerning the re- ligious observation of the Lord’s day. 1135 CHAPTER III. Of the observation qf the sabbath, or Saturday, as a weekly festival. SE01‘. 1. The Saturday, or sabbath, always observed in the Eastern church as a festival. -2. Observed with the same religious solemnities as the Lord’s day.—-3. But in some other respects the preference was given to the Lord’s day.—4. Why the ancient church con- tinued the observation of the Jewish sabbath. -5. Why it was kept as a festival in the Oriental church. —6. And why a fast in the Roman, and some other of the Latin churches. . . . . 1147 CHAPTER IV. Of the festival of Christ’s Nativity and Epiphany. SECT. 1. The nativity of Christ anciently by some said to be in May.——2. By others, fixed to the day of Epiphany, or sixth of January.-—3. In the Latin church always observed on the twenty-fifth of Decem- ber.-—4. The original of this festival derived from the apostolical age by some ancient writers—5. This festival observed with the same religious veneration as the Lord’s day.——-6. Of Epiphany as a distinct festi- val._7. Why this day called by some the second Epiphany, and dies luminum, the day of lights—8. Celebrated as all other great festivals, and in one respect more noted, as being in the Greek church one of the three solemn times of baptism—9. Notice usually given on Epiphany concerning the time of Easter in the ensuing year. . . . . . . 1151 CHAPTER V. Of ‘Easter, or the Paschal festival. SE01‘. 1. The Paschal solemnity anciently reckoned fifteen days, the whole week before and the week after Easter Sunday.—2. Great disputes in the church concerning this festival, some observing it on a fixed day every year.-—3. Others observing it, with the ‘ \ J ews, on the fourteenth day of the moon, whatever day of the week that happened upon—4. They who kept it on the Lord’s day did not always agree to fix it on the same Lord’s day, by reason of their different calculations—5. But they all agreed to pay a great respect and honour to it, as to the day of our Lord’s resurrection.——6. On this day the emperors granted a general release to the prison's, and pardoned all criminals, except some few that were guilty of crimes of a more unpardonable nature.——-7. At this time also it was usual more than ordinary for men to show their charity to slaves by granting them their freedom.——8. And to the poor by liberal donations—9. The whole week after Easter-day celebrated with sermons, com- munions, &c., as part of the same festival—10. All public games prohibited during this whole season.— 11. And all proceedings at law, except in some special and extraordinary cases—12. The Sunday after Easter, commonly called Dominica nova, and Dominica in albis, observed with great solemnity as the conclusion of the Paschal festival. . . . 1157 CHAPTER VI. _ Of Pentecost, or Whitsuntide. Sner. 1. Pentecost taken in a double sense among the ancients. First, For the fifty days between Easter and Whitsuntide; and, secondly, For the single day of Pentecost. —2. During which time the church chiefly exercised herself in reading and meditating upon the Acts of the Apostles, as the great confirma- lii CONTENTS. tion of our Lord’s resurrection.-—3. All fasting and kneeling at prayers prohibited at this season, as on the Lord’s day.—4. And all public games and stage- plays; but not pleading at law forbidden, or bodily labour.—5. Of Ascension-day, its antiquity and'ob- servation.—6. Of Pentecost in the stricter sense, as denoting the festival of the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the apostles. . . . . . . . . . 1167 CHAPTER VII. Of the festivals of the apostles and martyrs. Snc'r. 1.-The original of the festivals of martyrs—2. Why called their natalitia or birthdays—3. These festivals usually kept at the graves of the martyrs—4. And mostly confined to those particular churches where the martyrs suffered and lay buried—5. Usual to read the acts or passions of the martyrs on their proper festivals—6. And to make panegyrical orations upon them.—-7. The communion always administered upon these days—8. And herein a particular com- memoration of the martyrs was made, called the obla- tion or sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving to God for them, and prayer for a general consummation and happy resurrection—9. The night preceding any of these festivals commonly observed as a vigil, with psalmody and prayers.-—-10. Common entertainments made by the rich for the use of the poor upon these festivals at the graves of the martyrs, till abuses caused them to be laid aside.——ll. What festivals observed in memory of the apostles.-—l2. The festival of the Holy Innocents—I3. The festival of the Maccabees.— 14. Of the general festival of all the martyrs. . ll71 CHAPTER VIII. Of some other festivals of a later date and lesser ob- servation. Snc'r. I.—Of the enewnize, or feasts of dedications of churches.—2. Of the anniversary festivals of bishops’ ordinations.—3. Of festivals kept in memory of any great deliverances or signal mercies vouchsafed by God to his church.—-4. Of the feast of the Annunciation. -—5. Of the festival called Hypapante, afterward Puri- fication, and Candlemas-day.-6. The original of festi- vals in honour of confessors and other holy men. 1179 BOOK XXI. OF THE FASTS IN USE IN THE ANCIENT CHURCH. CHAPTER I. Of the guadragesimal or Lent fast. Sam". 1. What this fast was originally, forty days or forty hours—2. Some probability that at first it was only a fast of forty hours, or the two days from the passion to the resurrection—3. Great variety in point of time observable in the celebration of this fast in many churches—4. Lent consisted not of above thirty- six fasting days in any church till the time of Gregory the Great, because all Sundays were universally ex- cepted out of the fast, and all Saturdays except one in all the Eastern churches—5. Who first added Ash Wednesday and the other three days in the Roman church to the beginning of Lent. —6. Whether the ancients reputed Lent to be an apostolical institution. —7. In what sense some of them say it is a Divine institution.—8. How far allowed to be a tradition or canon apostolical—9. What were the causes or rea- sons of instituting the Lent fast. First, The apostles’ sorrow for the loss of their Master.-—10. Secondly, The declension of Christian piety from its first and primitive fervour.—ll. Thirdly, That men might pre- pare themselves for a worthy participation of the com- munion at Easter.—-l2. Fourthly, That catechumens might prepare themselves for baptism.—13. And peni- tents for absolution at Easter. -—14. Lent generally observed by all Christians, though with a great liberty and just allowance to men’s infirmities, being in a great measure left to their own discretion.-—l5. How the Montanists differed from the church about the im- position of fasts.-—16. The Lent fast kept with a per- fect abstinence from all food every day till evening.— 17. Change of diet not accounted a proper fast for Lent, without perfect abstinence till evening.—-18. What they spared in a dinner, not spent in evening luxury, but bestowed on the poor.—-l9. All corporeal punishments forbidden by the imperial laws in Lent.— 20. Religious assemblies and sermons every day in Lent—21. And frequent communions, especially on the sabbath and the Lord’s day.—-22. All public games and stage-plays prohibited at this season.--23. As also the celebration of all festivals, birthdays, and mar- riages, as unsuitable to the present occasion.——24. The great week before Easter observed with greater strict- ness and solemnity.--25. What meant by the fasts, called tvrspfiéaus, and superpositiones, superpository or additional fasts in this week—26. Christians more liberal in their alms and charity this week above others—27. This week a week of rest and liberty for servants—28. A general release granted at this time by the emperors to all prisoners, both debtors and criminals, some particular cases of criminals only ex- cepted—29. All processes at law, as well civil as cri- minal, suspended this whole week before Easter.—30. The Thursday in this week, how observed—31. Of the Passion day, or the Pasch of our Lord’s crucifixion—~32. Of the Saturday, or great sabbath, before Easter. 1183 CHAPTER II. Of the fasts of the . four seasons ,- of‘ monthly fasts, and the original of Ember weeks and Rogation days. Snc'r. l. The fast of March, or the first month, the same with the Lent fast—2. The fast of Pentecost.—3. The fast of the seventh month, or the autumnal fast—4. The Advent or Nativity fast, called the fast of Decem- ber, or the tenth month—5. The fast at Epiphany. -6. Of monthly fasts.-—7. The original of the four Ember weeks, or ordination fasts—8. The original of the Rogation fast. . . . . . . . . . I200 CHAPTER III. Of the weekly fasts of Wednesdays and Fridays, or the stationary days of the ancient church. $1201‘. 1. The original of these fasts—2. The reasons of their institution.—3. How they differed from the Lent fasts and all others in point of duration.-—4. With what solemnity they were observed—5. How the ca- tholics and Montanists disputed about the observation of them—6. How the Wednesday fast came to be changed to Saturday in the Western churches. 1203 CONTENTS. liii BOOKQXXH. OF THE MARRIAGE RITES OBSERVED IN THE ANCIENT CHURCH. CHAPTER I. A short account of the heretics who condemned or vilified marriage anciently, under pretence cg“ greater purity and perfection ,- and of such also as gave licence to community qf wives and fornication. SE01‘. 1. Community of wives first taught by Simon Magus—2. Afterward by Saturnilus, and the Nico- laitans, and many others. — 3. Hence arose the ca- lumny of the Gentiles against the Christians in general, ' that they practised impurity in their religious assem- blies—4. These doctrines being fetched from the very dregs of Gentilism, and scandalous in the eyes of sober heathens.—5. Marriage condemned as unlawful by Tatian and the Encratites._6. Also by the Apos- tolici or Apotactici.-7. By the Manichees, Severians, and Archontici. —8. By the Hieracians, and Eusta- thians.-—9. Who were condemned in the council of Gangra, and those called the Apostolical Canons—10. The error of the Montanists about second marriages; and of the N ovatians also. CHAPTER II. Of the just impediments of marriage in particular cases, showing, what persons might or might not be lawfully joined together ; and qf‘ the times and sea- sons when the celebration Qf marriage was for- bidden. SECT. 1. Christians not to marry with infidels, or Jews, or heretics, or any of a different religion. —— 2. All Christians obliged to acquaint the church with their designs of marriage before they completed it.——3. Not to marry with persons of near alliance, either by con- sanguinity or affinity, to avoid suspicion of incest.— 4. Children under age not to marry without the consent of their parents, or guardians, or next relations. —— 5. Slaves not to marry without consent of their masters. -—6. Persons of superior rank not to marry slaves.— 7. Judges of provinces not to marry any provincial woman, during the year of their administration—8. Widows not to marry again till twelve months after their husband’s death—9. Women not to marry in the absence of their husbands, till they were certified of their death—10. Guardians not to marry orphans in their minority, till their guardianship was ended-11. When first the prohibition of spiritual relations marry- ing one with another came in.—-12. Whether a man might marry after a lawful divorce—13. Whether an adulterer might marry an adulteress, whom he had de- filed, after the death of her husband—l4. The cele- bration of marriage forbidden in Lent. . 1211 CHAPTER III. Of the manner of making espousals preceding mar- riage in the ancient church. SECT. 1. How the sponsalia or espousals differed from marriage-2. Free consent of parties necessary in espousals—3. The contract of espousals usually testi- fied by gifts, called arrae, or donationes sponsalitize, which were sometimes mutually given and received both by the man and woman—4. These donations to be entered into public acts, and set upon record—5. The contract further testified by giving and receiving of a ring—6. And by a solemn kiss, and joining of hands—7. And by settling of a dowry in writing—8. And by transacting the whole affair before a compe- tent number of witnesses—9. How far the obligation of espousals extended—10. Whether they were simply and absolutely necessary to precede a just and legal marriage.............l223 CHAPTER IV. Of the manner of celebrating marriage in the ancient church. SE01‘. 1. The solemnities of marriage between Chris- tians usually celebrated by the ministers of the church from the beginning—2. In what cases it might happen to be otherwise—3. How the primitive practice was revived when it came to be neglected—4. Other cere- monies used in marriage, as joining of hands and veil- ing—5. Untying the woman’s hair.—6. Crowning the new-married couple with crowns or garlands—7. Car- rying the bride home to the bridegroom’s house; how far necessary in some cases of law.—8. How far the marriage pomp was allowed or disallowed by the an- cient fathers. . . . . . . . . . . . 1229 CHAPTER V. Of divorces : how far they were allowed or disallowed by the ancient Christians. SEc'r. 1. The ancients divided about the sense of forni- cation. Some taking it only for carnal fornication, and making it the only just cause of divorce.-—2. Others took it to imply spiritual fornication, that is, idolatry and apostacy from God, and other crimes of the like nature—3. This later opinion from the time of Constantine much countenanced by the laws of the state. First, By Constantine himself. _4. Then by Honorius. —- 5. And Theodosius junior. — 6. And, Valentinian III. —— 7. And Anastasius. —— 8. And J us- tinian.............1235 BOOK XXHL OF FUNERAL RITES, OR THE CUSTOM AND MANNER OF BURYING THE DEAD, OBSERVED IN THE ANCIENT CHURCH. CHAPTER I. Of cemeteries, or burying-places ; with an inquiry, how and when the custom of burying in churches first came in. SE01‘. 1. A cemetery a common name for a burying- place and a church. How this came to pass—2. No burying-places in cities or churches for the first three hundred years—3. But either in monuments erected by the public ways, or in vaults and catacombs in the Hv CONTENTS. fields under-ground.—4. Burying in cities and churches prohibited by Christian emperors for several ages after. —5. The first step made toward burying in churches, was the building of churches over the graves of the martyrs in the country, or else translating their relics into the city churches. —6. The next was, allowing kings and emperors to be buried in the atrium, or porch, or outer buildings of the church.—-7. Then the people in the sixth century began to be admitted into the church-yards, but not into the church—8. And in this period of time, kings, bishops, founders of churches, and other eminent persons were by some laws allowed to be buried in churches—9. The matter at last left to the discretion of bishops and presbyters, who should or should not be buried in churches. Hereditary sepulchres not allowed in the ninth century, but brought in by the pope’s decretals. The complaints of the learned against this new custom of burying in churches. ............l240 CHAPTER II. Some further observations concerning the place, and manner, and time of burial. Ssc'r. 1. Consecration of cemeteries not very ancient.— 2. The sacredness of them arising from another reason, and not from their formal consecration.-—3. The way of adorning graves different among heathens and Chris- tians.——4. They differed also in the manner of burying : the heathens commonly burning the body, and put- ting the bones and ashes in urns; but the Christians buried the body whole in the earth, abhorring the hea- then custom.—-—5. Anointing and embalming of bodies much used by Christians: and why more by them than by the heathens—6. The Christians usually buried by day, the heathens by night. . . . 1247 CHAPTER III. How they prepared the body for the funeral, and with what religious ceremonies and solemnities they interred it. ' Seer. 1. Christians always careful to bury the dead, even with the hazard of their lives—2. How they prepared the body for burial. First, Closing its eyes and mouth: a decent circumstance observed by all nations. — 3. Then washing the body in water.—4. Dressing it in funeral robes, and these sometimes rich and splendid—5. Watching and attending it in its cofiin till the time of the funeral.——6. The exportation of the body performed by near relations, or persons of dignity, or any charitable persons, as the case and circumstances of the party required—7. Particular orders of men appointed in some great churches, un- der the names of copiataz and parabolani, to take care of the sick, and perform all these offices for the dead. cessions of funerals among Christians, in opposition to the heathen piping and funeral song—9. Crowning the coifin with garlands not allowed among Chris- tians, though they scrupled not to carry lights before them.—10. Funeral orations made in the praise of eminent persons—ll. Together with psalmody and the usual service of the church—12. And sometimes the oblation of the eucharist.—l3. With particular prayers for the dead—l4. A corrupt custom of giv- ing the kiss of peace and the euoharist to the dead, corrected by the ancient canons—~15. Almsdeeds com- monly added to prayers for the dead—l6. And re- peated yearly upon the anniversary days of comme- moration of the dead.—-17. But this often degenerated into great excesses and abuses, which are complained of as no better than the parentalia of the Gentiles.— 18. Decent expressions of moderate sorrow at funer- als not disallowed ; ‘but the heathenish custom of hir- ing praaficce, or mourning women, sharply reproved by the ancients.—l9. The novendial of the heathen re- jected as a superstitious practice—‘20. The custom of strewing flowers upon the graves of the dead retained without offence—21. As also wearing a mourning habit for some time, though thought more commend- able to omit it altogether.—22. Some other rites not allowed by the church, as pouring oil upon the dead, and offering a sacrifice of oil and wax as a burnt-offer- ing to God—23. What sort of persons were denied the privilege of being buried with these solemnities; viz. catechumens dying in neglect or contempt of bap- tism; self-murderers; criminals executed for their villanies; excommunicated persons, heretics, schis- matics,&c.. . . . . . . . . . . .1253 CHAPTER IV. An account of the laws made to secure the bodies and graves of the dead from the violence of robbers and sacrilegious invaders, and buyers and sellers ofrelics, and their worshippers. SECT. 1. The old Roman laws very severe against rob- bers of graves, and all abuses and injuries done to the bodies of the dead—2. This severity continued for the most part under the Christian emperors, with some additional circumstances—3. No indulgence allowed to robbers of graves by the emperors at the Easter festival.——4. For this crime a woman was allowed by the laws to give a bill of divorce to her husband—5. One reason tempting men to commit this crime, was the rich adorning of the heathen sepulchres.—6. A more plausible pretence was taken up from the laws, that ordered all heathen altars and images to be de- - stroyed.——7. A third reason was, to get the relics of martyrs to sell and make gain of them.—-8. A peculiar custom in Egypt of keeping the bodies embalmed and unburied in their houses above-ground, much reproved by St. Anthony—9. N 0 religious worship allowed to be given to relics in the ancient church, till after the —-—8. Psalmody the great ceremony used in all pro- time of St. Austin. . . . . . . . . . 1266 AFTER these collections were printed off, I had occasion to make one remark upon a word used in the first Book, chap. 2. sect. 17, which because I have no opportunity to mention elsewhere, the reader may please to take it in this place. The name pilosiotce, which I say the Origenians used as a term of reproach for the catholics, ought rather to be read pelusiotaa, from 'n'rihos, lutum ,- in which sense it signifies earthly, sensual, carnally-minded men, which were the names the Origenians bestowed upon the orthodox, because they had not the same apprehensions of spiritual and heavenly bodies as they had. St. J erom gives this explication in express terms, in a passage which has lately occurred to my observation, where he uses * the Greek word vrnltovrnu’m-as, which explains his meaning in other places, and puts the matter beyond all dispute. So that though Baronius from some copies reads it pilo- siotae, yet the true reading is pelusiotaa, as the passage cited in the margin does evince. *_Hieron. Com. in Jerem. nix. p. 407. Quin cum _audiunt discipuli ejus (Origenis) et Grunnianaa families stercora, putant se Divina audire mysterra: nosque quod ista contemmmus, quasi pro brutis habent animantibus, et vocant Trnhovmu'nar, eo quod in luto istius cor- pc 1'15 consntuti, non possimus sentire coelestia. THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. BOOK 1. OF THE SEVERAL NAMES AND ORDERS OF MEN IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. CHAPTER 1. OF THE SEVERAL TITLES AND APPELLATIONS OF CHRISTIANS, WHICH THEY OWNED, AND DISTINGUISHED THEMSELVES BY. Seem WHEN Christianity was first planted mgpgijpgg 863s; in the World, they who embraced it fgggKgmTg-c. were commonly known among them- selves by the names of disciples, be- lievers, elect, saints, and brethren, before they assumed the title and appellation of Christians. EpiphaniusI says they were also called 'Iwaaiot, J esseans; either from Jesse the father of David, or, which is more probable, from the name of the Lord Jesus. He adds, that Philo speaks of them under this appellation, in his book Uspi 'Ieo'o'aiwv, which he aflirms to be no other but Christians, who went by that name in Egypt, Whilst St. Mark preached the gospel at Alexandria. This book of Philo’s is now extant under another title, Hepi Biov Gswpn'rucoii, Of the Contemplative Life; and so it is cited by Eusebius,2 who is also of opinion that it is nothing but a description of the Christians in Egypt, whom he calls Therapeutw, which signifies either worship- pers of the true God, or spiritual physicians, who undertook to cure men’s minds of all vicious and corrupt affections. But whether this name was in- vented by Philo, as most proper to express their way of living, or was then the common name of believers in Egypt, before the name Christian was spread over all the world, Eusebius does not under- take to determine: however, he concludes it was a name given to the Christians; and St. J eroma is so positive in it, that for this reason he gives Philo a place in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, telling us that he wrote a book concerning the first church of St. Mark at Alexandria. Some learned critics of the last age call this whole matter‘ into question: but their arguments are answered by others5 as learned; and therefore I shall enter no further into this dispute, but refer the reader, that is curious, thither for satisfaction. That which I here take notice of further, is only this ; that these names, Therapeutae and Jesseei, were scarce ever used in after ages; but the other names, ('iyiot, mar-bi, txhexrbt, saints, believers, elect, 850., occur frequently in ecclesiastical writers; and sig- nify not any select number of Christians, (as now the words, saints and elect, are often used to signify only the predestinate,) but all Christians in general, who were entered into the communion of the church by the waters of baptism. For so Theodoret‘ and others explain the word li-yiot, saints, to be such as were vouchsafed the honour and privilege of baptism. ' Epiphan. Haer. 39. n. 4. 2 Euseb. Hist. lib. 2. c. 17. 8 Hieron. de Scriptor. c. 11. 4 Scaliger et Valesius in Euseb. lib. 2. 0.17. Dallaeus B \ de Jejun. et Quadrages. lib. 2. c. 4. 5 Bevereg. God. Can. Vind. lib. 3. c. 5. n. 4. 8 Theodor. Com. in Philip. i. 1. 2 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. BOOK 1. And upon this account, because the Christian life took its original from the waters of baptism, and depended upon the observance of the covenant made there- in, the Christians were wont to please themselves with the artificial name piscicali, fishes ; to de- note, as Tertullian" words it, that they were re- generate, or born again into Christ’s religion by water, and could not be saved but by continuing therein. And this name was the rather chosen by them, because the initial letters of our Saviour’s names and titles in Greek, 'Ino'oilg Xpw'rog, 6605 ‘neg, Ewrfip, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, our Saviour, technically put together, make up the name IXOYE, which signifies a fish, and is alluded to both by Tertullian and Optatus.8 Sometimes Christians also style themselves by the name of Gnostics, PvwO'flKbl, men of understanding and knowledge; because the Christian religion was the truest wisdom, and the knowledge of the most Divine and heavenly things. This name was aped and abused by a perverse sort of heretics, who are com- monly known and distinguished by the name of Gnostics, because of their great pretences to know- ledge and science, falsely so called. Yet this did not hinder, but that the Christians sometimes laid claim to it, as having indeed the only just and proper right to make use of it. For which reason Clemens Alex- andrinus,9 in all his writings, gives the Christian phi- losopher the appellation of I‘zlwo'rucég. Athanasius 1° calls the ascetics of Egypt, who were of the con- templative life, by the same name, PVwO'TlKbt. And Socrates tells us, Evagrius Ponticus wrote a book for the use of these ascetics, which he entitled, The Gnostic, i. e. , Rules for the Contemplative Life; some fragments of which are yet extant in Socrates,ll and some others published by Cotelerius, in his Monu- ments of the Greek Church. In one of these frag- ments there is mention made of a monk, who is styled Movaxog 'rfig Ilapepfiohfig, 'nIm I‘vwo'rucfiiv 6 dompu'rra'rog ; which the first translators of Socrates, not under- standing,_render, A monk of great renown, of the sect of the Gnostics, as if he had been one of the Gnostic heretics; whereas, it means no more than a monk of the contemplative life, who inhabited in a village called the Parembole, not far from Alexan- dria; being one of those ascetics, whom Evagrius and all the rest call by the then known name of Sect. 2. Of the technical names, may; and pisciculi. Sect. 8. Christians why called Gnostici. Christian Gnostics. crates. See Valesius’s note upon So- Another name, which frequently Sec, 4_ occurs in the writings of the ancients, 113325;}? Zlianed is that of eeooépoi; which signifies, Chmtophm' temples of God, and is as old as Ignatius, who usually gave himself this title; as appears, both from the inscriptions of his epistles, each of which begins, 'Iyvdnog 5 xc'u Oeoqiépog, as also from the an— cient acts of his martyrdom, where ‘2 the reason of the name is explained in his dialogue with Trajan; who, hearing him style himself Theophoras, asked what that name meant? To which Ignatius replied, that it meant one that carried Christ in his heart. Dost thou, then, said Trajan, carry him that was crucified in thy heart? Ignatius answered, Yes: for it is written, “ I will dwell in them, and walk in them.” Anastasius Bibliothecarius indeed gives an- other reason why Ignatius was called Theophoras ,- because he was the child whom our Saviour took and set in the midst of his disciples, laying his hands upon him; and therefore the apostles would never presume to ordain him again by imposition of hands after Christ. But, as Bishop Pearson ‘3 and others have observed, this was a mere invention of the modern Greeks, from whom Anastasius took it with- out further inquiry. Much more ridiculous and ab- surd is the reason which is assigned by Vincentius 1‘ Bellovacensis, and some others; that Ignatius was so called, because the name of Jesus Christ was found written in golden letters in his heart. Both these fancies are sufliciently refelled by the genuine acts of his martyrdom; which give a more rational account of the name, and such as plainly intimates that it was no peculiar title of Ignatius, but com~ mon to him with all other Christians: as, indeed, Bishop Pearson does abundantly prove from several passages of Clemens Alexandrinus, Gregory Na— zianzen, Palladius, Eulogius, Theodoret, Cyril of Alexandria, Photius, Maximus, and others. Par- ticularly, Clemens ‘5 assigns the same reason of the name as Ignatius does; that the Christian is there- fore called Oisorpopdiv and Oeo¢opof1psvog, because, as the apostle says, he is “the temple of God.” We sometimes also meet with the name Christophori in the same sense; as in the Epistle of Phileas, bishop of Thmuis, recorded by Eusebius; where, speaking of the martyrs of his own time, he gives them the title of Xpw'rogbdpol. ndprvpsg,“ because " Tertul. de Bapt. c. 1. Nos pisciculi secundum ixfifiu nostrum Jesum Christum in aqua nascimur; nec aliter quam in aqua permanendo salvi sumus. 8 Optat. cont. Parmen. lib. 3. p. 62. Hic est piscis qui in baptismate per invocationem fontalibus undis inseritur, ut quae aqua fuerat, a pisce etiam piscina vocitetur. Cujus piscis nomen, secundum appellationem Graecam, in uno nomine per singulas literas turbam sanctorum nominum continet ixfiiis, quod. est latine, Jesus Christus, Dei Filius, Salvator. 9 Clem. Alex. Strom. 1. p. 294. Strom. 2. p. 383. Strom. 6. p. 665. Strom. 7. p. 748. 1° Athan. ap. Socrat. Hist. Eccl. lib. 4. c. 23. ‘1 Socrat. ibid. '2 Acta Ignat. ap. Grabe Spicil. t. 2. p. 10. ‘3 Pearson Vind. Ignat. par. 2. 0.12. p. 397. Cave’s Life of Ignatius. Grabe Spicil. t. 2. p. 2. 14 Vincent. Specul. lib. 10. c. 7. ‘5 Clem. Strom. lib. 7. p. 748. ‘6 Euseb. lib. 8. c. 10. CnAP. 1. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 3 they were temples of Christ, and acted by his Holy Spirit. St. Ambrose, in one place, gives them the name of Christi, in a qualified sense; alluding to the signification of the word Christus in Scripture, where it sometimes signifies any one that is anointed with oil, or receives any commission from God by a spiritual unction; in which sense every Christian is the Lord’s anointed. And therefore he says, it is no injury 1’ for the serv- ant to bear the character of his lord, nor for the soldier to be called by the name of his general; forasmuch as God himself hath said, “ Touch not mine anointed,” or my Christs, Christos meos, as now the Vulgar translation reads it, Psal. cv. 15. And St. Jerom also, who, in his notes upon the place,“ observes, that all men are called Christs who are anointed with the Holy Ghost; as the ancient patriarchs before the law, who had no other unction. Yet we do not find that the Christians generally took this name upon them, but rather reserved it to their Lord, as his peculiar name and title. Yet it is veiy observable, that in Chriigfigitdzsi-lgreat all the names they chose, there was Ziggjrggfigs‘higifi still some peculiar relation to Christ and God, from whom they would be named, and not from any mortal man, how great or eminent soever. Party names, and human ap- pellations, they ever professed to abhor. We take not our denomination from men, says Chrysos- tom;‘° we have no leaders, as the followers of Sect. 5. And sometimes, but very rarely, Christi. ‘Marcion, or Manichaeus, or Arius. No, says Epi- phanius,20 the church was never called so much as by the name of any apostle: we never heard of Petrians, or Paulians, or Bartholomaeans, or Thaddaeans; but only of Christians, from Christ. I honour Peter, says another father,“ but I am not called a Petrian ; I honour Paul, but I am not called a Paulian: I cannot bear to be named from any man, who am the creature of God. They observe, that this was only the property of sects and heresies, to take party names, and denominate themselves from their leaders. The great and venerable name of Christians was neglected by them, whilst they pro- fanely divided themselves into human appellations; as Gregory Nyssen “2 and Nazianzen complain. Thus Basil observes28 how the Marcionites and Valentini- ans rejected the name of Christians, to be called after the names of Marcion and Valentinus, their leaders. Optatus“ and St. Austin25 bring the same charge against the Donatists. Optatus says, it was the usual question of Donatus to all foreigners, Quid apud vos agitur de parte mea .‘3 How go the affairs of my party among you? And the bishops who were his followers, were used to subscribe themselves, Ex parte Donati. Epiphanius observes the same of the Audians,26 Colluthians, and Arians: and he tells us more particularly of Meletius and his followers,27 that having formed a schism, they left the old name of the catholic church, and styled themselves by a distinguishing character, The church of the martyrs, with an invidious design, to cast a reproach upon all others that were not of their party: in like manner, as the Arians style themselves Lucianists28 and C on- lucianists, pretending to follow the doctrine of Lu- cian the martyr. ' But the church of Christ still kept to the name of Christian. This was the name they gloried in as most expressive of their unity and relation to Christ. Eusebius29 records a memorable story out of the Epistle of the Churches of Lyons and Vienna, in France, concerning one Sanctus, a deacon of the church of Vienna, who suffered in the persecution under Antonino; that being put to the rack, and examined by the magistrates concerning his name, his country, his city, his quality, whether he were bond or free, his answer to all their questions was, I am a Christian: this, he said, was to him both name, and city, and kindred, and every thing. Nor could the heathen, with all their skill, extort any other answer from him. St. Chrysostom8° gives the like account of the behaviour of Lucian the martyr before his persecutors; and there are some other in- stances of the same nature, by which we may judge how great a veneration they had for the name Christian. The irnportunity of heretics made them add another name to this, viz. Qfthesrisdhgbatho- that of catholic; which was as it hc’andus antiquity’ were their surname, or characteristic, to distinguish them from all sects, who, though they had party names, yet sometimes sheltered themselves under the common name of Christians. This we learn from Pacian’s Epistle81 to Sempronian the Novatian heretic, who demanding of him the reason why Christians called themselves catholics, he answers, 1" Ambros. de Obit. Valentin. t. 3. p. 12. Nee injuriam putes, characteri domini inscribuntur et servuli, et nomine imperatoris signantur milites. Denique et ipse Dominus dixit, Nolite tangere Christos meos. '8 Hieron. Com. in Psal. civ. Ecce ante legem patriarchae non uncti regali unguento, Christi dicuntur. Christi autem sunt, qui Spiritu Sancto unguntur 1° Chrysost. Horn. 23. in Act. 2° Epiphan. Haer. 42. Marcionit. Item Haer. 10. 2' Greg. Naz. Orat. 31. p. 506. See also Athan. Orat. 2. contra Arian. Greg. Nyss. de Perfect. Christ. t. 3. p. 276. 22 Nyss. contra Apollin. t. 3. p. 261. Naz. Orat. ad Episcop. ~ 21* Basil Com. in Psal. xlviii. p. 245. 2‘ Optat. lib. 3. p. 68. 25 Aug. Ep. 68. ad Januar. 2“ Epiph. Haer. 70. Audianor. Id. Haer. 69. Arian. . 2’ Epiphan. Hear. 68. Meletian. 2* Theodor. Hist. Eccl. lib. 1. c. 4. 69. Arian. 2” Euseb. lib. 5. c. 1. 9° Chrysost. Homil. 46. in Lucian. t. I. p. 602. 8' Pacian. Ep. 1. ad Sempronian. Christianus mihi nomen Epiphan. Haer. B 2 4 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Boox I. that it was to discern them from heretics, who went by the name of Christians. Christian is my name, says he, and catholic my surname; the one is my title, the other my character or mark of distinction. Heretics commonly confined religion, either to a particular region, or some select party of men, and therefore had no pretence to style themselves catholics: but the church of Christ had a just title to this name, being called catholic (as ()ptatus82 ob- serves) because it was universally diffused over all the world. And in this sense the name is as ancient almost as the church itself. For we meet with it in the Passion of Polycarp” in‘Eusebius, in Cle- mens Alexandrinusf"l and Ignatius.85 And so great a regard had they for this name, that they would own none to be Christians, who did not profess themselves to be of the catholic church. As we may see in the Acts of Pionius the martyr,36 who being asked by Polemo the judge, of what church he was? answered, I am of the catholic church: for Christ has no other. Sect. 8 I must here observe further, that Mrggvhgztcfgsr'ilggtgse the name of ecclesiastics was some- to all 6hr“: times attributed to all Christians in general. For though this was a pecu- liar name of the clergy, as contradistinct from the laity in the Christian church, yet when Christians in general are spoken of in opposition to Jews, in- fidels, and heretics, then they have all the name of ecclesiastics, or men of the church; as being neither of the Jewish synagogues, nor of the heathen tem- ples, nor heretical conventicles, but members of the church Of Christ. In this sense (ivdpég élcxhnmao'rucbt is often used by Eusebius37 and Cyril of J erusalem.” And Valesius89 observes the same in Origen, Epi- phanius, St. J erom, and others. Sect 9 Sometimes also we find the word _'I‘hechristielnreli- Adypa put absolutely to signify the gum calledAo'yua, _ _ , , 40 2mm. Chnstian religlon ; as Chrysostom and Theodoret‘l say St. Paul himself uses the word in his Epistle to the Ephesians, 15. And Estius ‘2 assures us it was the common interpret- ation of all ancient expositors, both Greek and Latin, upon that place. And hence it was that Christians were called sometimes 0i roil Aéynarog, men of the faith; meaning the faith of Christ. As in the re- script of Aurelian the emperor against Paulus Samosatensis, recorded by Eusebius,“ the bishops of Italy and Rome are styled tvrio'xovrot roii dbyyarog, bishops of the faith, that is, the Christian faith. The heathens also were used to con- found the names of Jews and Chris- tians together; whence, in heathen authors, the name of Jews by mistake is often given to the Christians. Thus Dio, in the Life of Domi- tian,“ speaking of Acilius Glabrio, a man of consular dignity, says he was accused of atheism, and put to death for turning to the Jews’ religion; which, as Baronius45 and others observe, must mean the Chris- tian religion, for which he was a martyr. So when Suetonius ‘6 says, that Claudius expelled the J cws from Rome, because they grew tumultuous by the instigations of Chrestus; it is generally concluded by learned men,"7 that under the name of Jews, he also comprehends the Christians. In like manner when Spartian48 says of Caracalla’s play-fellow, that he was of the Jewish religion, he doubtless means the Christian; forasmuch as Tertullian“9 tells us that Caracalla himself was nursed by a Christian. The heathens committed another mistake in the pronunciation of our ,hemcommom, Saviour’s name, whom they generally Eiilrigcggsrfsélff-gif‘d called Chrestus, instead of Christus ; Mm’ and his followers, Chrestians, for Christians: which is taken notice of by Justin Martyr,5o Tertullian,51 Lactantius,52 and some others; who correct their mistake, though they have no great quarrel with them upon this account; for both names are of good signification. C'hristus is the same with the He- brew Messias, and signifies a person anointed to be a priest or king; and Chrestus being the same with the Greek Xpno'rbg, implies sweetness and goodness. Whence Tertullian58 tells them, that they were un— pardonable for prosecuting Christians merely for their name, because both names were innocent, and of excellent signification. The Christians therefore did not wholly reject this name, though it was none of their own im- Sect. 10. Christians called Jews by the heathen. Sect. ll. Christ by the hea- est, catholicus cognomen. tendit. 82 Optat. lib. 2. p. 46. Cum inde dicta sit catholica, quod sit rationalis et ubique diffusa. 33 Euseb. lib. 4. c. 15. 3‘ Clem. Alex. Strom. lib. 7. 85 Ignat. Ep. ad Smyrn. n. 8. - 86 Act. Pionii ap. Baron. an. 254. n. 9. Cujus, inquit Po- lemo, es ecclesiae? Respondit Pionius, Catholicae: nulla. enim est alia apud Christum. 3"‘ Euseb. lib. 4. cap. 7. lib. 5. cap. 27. ‘*8 Cyril Catech. 15. n. 4. “9 Vales. Not. in Euseb. lib. 2. cap. 25. 4° Chrys. Horn. 5. in Ephes. “1 Theod. Com. in Ephes. ii. 15. ‘2 Est. Com. in Ephes. ii. 14. Illud me nuncupat, istud 0s- “ Euseb. lib. 7. c. 30. 4‘*‘Dio in Domit. ‘5 Baron. an. 94. n. 1. ‘6 Sueton. Claud. c. 26. J udaeos impulsore Chresto as- sidue tumultuantes Roma expulit. 4’ Hotting. Hist. Eccl. t. l. p. 37. Basnag. Exerc. in Baron. p. 139. Selden. de Synedr. lib. I. c. 8. who cites Lipsius, Petavius, and many others. ‘*8 Spar-tian. in Caracal. c. 1. ‘9 Tertul. ad Scapul. c. 4. Lacte Christiano educatus. 5° Just. M. Apol. 2. 5‘ Tertul. Apol. c. 3. 52 ‘Lact. lib. 4. c. 7. 53 Tertul. ibid. Christianus quantum interpretatio est, de unctione deducitur. Sed et cum perperam Chrestianus pro- nunciatur a vobis (nam nec nominis certa est notitia penes vos) de suavitate vel benignitate compositum est. Oditur ergo in hominibus innocuis etiam nomen innocuum. CHAP. II. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 5 nnl'lafl posing. As neither did they refuse to be can“. Jews, in that sense as the Scripture uses the word, to distinguish the people of God from “the syna- gogue of Satan,” Rev. ii. 9. Though, to avoid the subtleties of the Ebionites and Nazarens, who were for blending the ceremonies of the law with the faith of the gospel, they rather chose to avoid that name, and stuck to the name of Christians. CHAPTER 11. OF THE NAMES OF REPROACH WHICH THE JEWS, INFIDELS, AND HERETICS, CAST UPON THE CHRIS- TIANS. BESIDES the names already spoken of, there were some other reproachful names cast upon them by their adver- saries, which it will not be improper here to men- tion. The first of these was Nazarens, a name of reproach given them first by the Jews, by whom they are styled the sect of the Nazarens, Acts xxiv. 5. There was, indeed, a particular heresy, who called themselves NaZwpaIoi: and Epiphaniusl thinks the Jews had a more especial spite at them, because they were a sort of Jewish apostates, who kept cir- cumcision and the Mosaical rites together with the Christian religion: and therefore, he says, they were used to curse and anathematize them three times a day, morning, noon, and evening, when they met in their synagogues to pray, in this direful form of Sect. 1. Christians called Nazarens by the Jews and heathens. execration, ‘Errmarapiz'oaa b Bzbg robe Nazwpc'aovg, Send thy curse, O God, upon the Nazarens. But St. J erom2 says this was levelled at Christians in general, who they thus anathematized under the name of Nazarens. And this seems most probable, because, as both St. J erom8 and Epiphanius him- self‘ observes, the Jews termed all Christians, by way of reproach, Nazarens. And the Gentiles took it from the Jews, as appears from that of Datianus the preetor in Prudentiusf’ where, speaking to the Christians, he gives them the name of Nazarens. Some6 tlmik the Christians at first were very free to own this name, and esteemed it no reproach, till such time as the heresy of the Nazarens broke out, and then, in detestation of that heresy, they forsook that name, and called themselves Christians, Acts xi. 26. But whether this be said according to the exact rules of chronology, I leave those that are better skilled to determine. Another name of reproach was that of Galileeans, which was J ulian’s ordi- nary style, whenever he spake of Christ or Chris- tians. Thus in his dialogue with old Maris, a blind Christian bishop, mentioned by Sozomen,7 he told him by way of scoff, Thy Galilaean God will not cure thee. And again, in his epistle8 to Arsacius, high priest of Galatia, The Galilaeans maintain their own poor, and ours also. The like may be observed in Socrates,9 Theodoret,X0 Chrysostom,ll and Gregory Nazianzen,l2 who adds, that he not only called them Galilmans himself, but made a law that no one should call them by any other name, thinking thereby to abolish the name of Christians. They also called them atheists, and their religion, the atheism or impiety, because they derided the worship of the heathen gods. Dio13 says, Acilius Glabrio was put to death for atheism, meaning the Christian religion. And the Christian apologists, Athenagoras,“ Justin Mar- tyr,15 Arnobius,16 and others, reckon this among the crimes which the heathens usually lay to their charge. Eusebius says,17 the name was become so common, that when the persecuting magistrates would oblige a Christian to renounce his religion, they bade him abjure it in this form, by saying, among other things, Alps roilg &Qéovg, Confusion to the atheists, Away with the impious, meaning the Christians. To this they added the name of Sect 4 Greeks and impostors, which is noted Arid Grieké and impostors. by St. J erom,18 who says, wheresoever they saw a Christian, they would presently cry out, ‘0 7paucbg émbémg, Behold a Grecian impostor ! This was the character which the Jews gave our Saviour, b whciv 0g, that deceiver, Matt. xxvii. 63. And Justin Martyr says,19 they endeavoured to propagate it to posterity, sending their apostles or emissaries Sect. 2. And Galilazans. Sect. 3. Also atheists. 1 Epiphan. Hair. 29. n. 9. 2 Hieron. Com. in Esa. xlix. t. 5. p. 178. Ter per sin- gulos dies sub nomine Nazarenorum maledicunt in syna- gogis suis. 3 1d. de Loc. Hebr. t. 3. p. 289. Nos apud veteres, quasi _ opprobrio Nazaraei dicebamur, quos nunc Christianos vocant. 4 Epiphan. ibid. 5 Prudent. 'lrspi o~rs¢av5w. Vos Nazareni assistite, Itudemque ritum spernite. Id. Hymno 9. de Rom. Mart. 6 Junius Parallel. lib. 1. c. 8. Goodwyn Jew. Rites, lib. l. c. 8. Carm. 5. de S. Vincent. " Sozom. lib. 5. c. 4. 9 Socrat. lib. 3. c. 12. 1° Theodor. lib. 3. c. 7 et 21. 1' Chrys. Horn. 63. t. 5. ‘3 Dio in Domitian. '4 Athen. Legat. pro Christ. 15 Just. Apol. 1. p. 47. 17 Euseb. lib. 4. c. 15. ‘8 Hierou. Ep. 10. ad Furiam. Ubicunque viderint Chris- tianum, statim illud de Trivio, ‘O 7pamos e’vrtfié'rns, vocant impostorem. '9 Justin Dial. c. Tryph. p. 335. 8 Ap. Sozom. lib. 5. c. 16. 12 Naz. l. Invectiv. '6 Arnob. lib. 1. 6 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Boon I. from Jerusalem to all the synagogues in the world, to bid them beware of a certain impious, lawless sect, lately risen up under one Jesus, a Galilaean impostor. Hence Lucian” took occasion in his blasphemous raillery to style him the crucified so- phister. And Celsus 2‘ commonly gives him and his followers the name of yom'ai, deceivers. So Ascle- piades, the judge in Prudentius,22 compliments them with the appellation of sophisters; and Ulpian 23 proscribes them in a law by the name of impostors. The reason why they added the name of Greeks to that of impostors, was (as learned men” conjec- ture) because many of I the Christian philosophers took upon them the Grecian or philosophic habit, which was the Weplfidhawv, or palliam : whence the Greeks were called palliati, as the Romans were called togati, or gens togata, from their proper habit, which was the toga. Now, it being some offence to the Romans, to see the Christians quit the Roman gown to wear the Grecian cloak, they thence took occasion to mock and deride them with the scurrilous names of Greeks, and Grecian impos- tors. Tertullian’s book de Pallio was written to show the spiteful malice of this foolish objection. But the heathens went one step further in their malice; and because our Saviour and his followers did many miracles, which they imputed to evil arts and the power of magic, they therefore generally declaimed against them as magicians, and under that character ex- posed them to the fury of the vulgar. Celsus25 and others pretended that our Saviour studied magic in Egypt: and St. Austin26 says, it was generally be— lieved among the heathen, that he wrote some books about magic too, which he delivered to Peter and Paul for the use of his disciples. Hence it was that Suetonius,27 speaking in the language of his party, calls the Christians, genus hominam superstitionis maleficaz, the men of the magical superstition. As Asclepiades, the judge in Prudentius,28 styles St. Ro- manus the martyr, arch-magicg‘ian. And St. Am- brose observes, in the passion of St. Agnes,29 how the people cried out against her, Away with the sor- ceress ! away with the enchanter! Nothing being Sect. 5. Magicians. more common than to term all Christians, especially such as wrought miracles,” by the odious name of sorcerers and magicians. The new superstition was another name of reproach for the Christian religion. Suetonius gives it that title,31 and Pliny and Tacitus add to it32 the opprobrious terms of wicked and unreasonable superstition. By which name also Nero triumphed over it, in his trophies which he set up at Rome, when he had harassed the Christians with a most severe persecution. He gloried that he had purged the country of robbers, and those that obtruded and inculcated the new superstition 8’ upon mankind. By this, there can be no doubt, he meant the Christians, whose religion is called the superstition in other inscriptions of the like nature. See that of Diocletian cited in Baronius, anno 304, from Occo. Superstitione Christianarum abiqae deleta, &c. Not much unlike this was that other name which Porphyry 8* and some others give it, when they call it the barbarous, new, and strange religion. In the acts of the famous martyrs of Lyons, who suffered Sect. 6. The new super- stition. under Antoninus Pius, the heathens scornfully in- sult it with this character. For having burnt the martyrs to ashes, and scattered their remains into the river Rhone, they said they did it to cut off their hopes of a resurrection, upon the strength of which they sought to obtrude "5 the new and strange re- ligion upon mankind. But now let us see whether they will rise again, and whether their God can help and deliver them out of our hands. Celsus gives them the name of Si— byllists,86 because the Christians in their disputes with the heathens sometimes made use of the authority of Sibylla, their own prophetess, against them; whose writings they urged with so much advantage to the Christian cause, and preju- dice to the heathen, that Justin Martyr 3’ says, the Roman governors made it death for any one to read them, or Hystaspes, or the writings of the prophets. They also reproached them with the appellation of ,BaaQdvarm, self-murder- ers, because they readily ofi’ered themselves up to Sect. 7. Christians why called Sibyllists. Sect. 8. Biathanati. 2° Lucian. Peregrin. 2' Cels. ap. Orig. lib. l. p. 20. 22 Prudent. 'n'spi. and). Carrn. 10. de Romano Mart. Quis hos sophistas error invexit novus, &c. 23 Digest. lib. 50. tit. 13. c. 1. Si incantavit, si imprecatus est, si (ut vulgari verbo impostorum utar) si exorcizavit. 2* Kortholt de Morib. Christian. c. 3. p. 23. Baron. an. 56. n. 11. 25 Origen. cont. Cels. lib. 1. Arnobius, lib. l. p. 36. 28 Aug. de Consensu Evang. lib. 1. c. 9. 2’ Suetou. Neron. c. 16. 28 Prudent. 7r£pi and). Hymn. 10. de S. Romano. Quo- usque tandem summus hic nobis magus illudit. 9° Ambr. Serm. 90. in S. Agnen. Tolle magam! Tolle maleficam! 8° See Kortholt de Morib. Christ. c. 4. 3‘ Suetou. Nero. 0. 16. ‘'2 Plin. lib. 10. Ep. 97. N ihil aliud inveni, quam super- stitionem pravam et immodicam. Tacit. Annal. 15. c. 44. Exitiabilis superstitio. *3 Inscript. Antiq. ad Calcem Suetou. Oxon. N ERON I. CLAUD. CAIS. AUG. PONT. MAX. OB. PROVINC. LATRONIB. ET. HIS. QUI. NOVAM. GENERI. HUM. SUPERSTITION. INCULCAB. PURGAT. 3‘ Ap. Euseb. Hist. Ecol. lib. 6. c. 19. Bo’zpflapou 'ro'A/anna. 35Act. Mart. Lugd. ap. Euseb. lib. 5. c. l. Gpncnca’tav fs'vnv Kai Icawml. 8“ Origen. cont. Cels. lib. 5. p. 272. 8" Just. Apol. 2. p. 82. CHAP. II. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 7 martyrdom, and cheerfully underwent any violent death, which the heathens could inflict upon them. With what eagerness they courted death, we learn not only from the Christian writers88 themselves, but from the testimonies of the heathens 8’ concern-- ing them. Lucian” says, they not only despised death, but many of them voluntarily offered them- selves to it, out of a persuasion that they should be made immortal and live for ever. This he reckons folly, and therefore gives them the name of Icalco- 6aipovsg, the miserable wretches that threw away their lives. In which sense Porphyry41 also styles the Christian religion, Bdpfiapov rékpqpa, the barbar- ous boldness. As Arrius Antoninus‘12 terms the professors of it, :6‘ aura, the stupid wretches, that had such a mind to die; and the heathen in Mi- nucius,“ homines deploratw ac desperatw factiom's, the men of the forlorn and desperate faction. All which agrees with the name bz'othanatz', or bz'azo- thanati, as Baronius“ understands it. Though it may signify not only self-murderers, but (as a learn- ed critic “5 notes) men that expect to live after death. In which sense the heathens probably might use it likewise, to ridicule the Christian doctrine of the resurrection; on which, they knew, all their fearless and undaunted courage was founded. For so the same heathen in Minucius endeavours to expose at once both their resolution and their belief: O strange folly, and incredible madness I says he; they despise all present torments, and yet fear those that are future and uncertain: they are afraid of dying after death, but in the mean time do not fear to die. So vainly do they flatter themselves, and allay their fears, with the hopes of some reviving comforts after death. For one of these reasons, then, they gave them the name of biothanatz', which word ex- pressly occurs in some of the Acts of the ancient Martyrs. Baronius observes,46 out of Bede’s Mar- tyrology, that when the seven sons of Symphorosa were martyred under Hadrian, their bodies were all cast into one pit together, which the temple-priests named from them, Ad Septem biothanatos, The grave of the seven biotkanatz'. For the same reasons they gave them the names of parabolarz'z' and desperatz', the bold and desperate men. The para- b'olarz'z' or parabolam' among the Romans, were those bold, adventurous men, who hired out themselves to Sect. 9. i .Pm'abolarii, and espemti. fight with wild beasts upon the stage or amphi- theatre, whence they had also the name of bestiarz'z', and confectores. Now, because the Christians were put to fight for their lives in the same manner, and they rather chose to do it than deny their religion, they therefore got the name of parabola, and para- bolam' ; which, though it was intended as a name of reproach and mockery, yet the Christians were not unwilling to take it to themselves, being one of the truest characters that the heathens ever gave them. And therefore they sometimes gave themselves this name, by way of allusion to the Roman parabolz'. As in the passion ‘7 of Abdo and Senne in the time of Valerian, the martyrs who were exposed to be devoured by wild beasts in the amphitheatre, are said to enter, at audacz'ssz'mi parabolani, as most resolute champions, that despised their own lives for their religion’s sake. But the other name of desperatz' they rejected as a calumny, retorting it back upon their adversaries, who more justly de- served it. Those, says Lactantius,48 who set a value upon their faith, and will not deny their God, they first torment and butcher them with all their might, and then call them desperados, because they will not spare their own bodies; as if any thing could be more desperate, than to torture and tear in pieces those whom you cannot but know to be innocent. Tertullian mentions another name, which was likewise occasioned by their sarmseifiaig'and sufferings. The martyrs which were mam burnt alive, were usually tied to a board, or stake, of about six foot long, which the Romans called semazm's ; and then they were surrounded or covered ' With faggots of small wood, which they called sarmenta. From this their punishment, the hea- then, who turned every thing into mockery, gave all Christians the despiteful name of sarmentz'tz'z' and semaxiz'." The heathen in Minucius 5° takes occasion also to reproach them under the name of the skulking generation, or the men that loved to prate in corners and the dark. The ground of which scurrilous reflection was only this, that they were forced to hold their religious assemblies in the night to avoid the fury of the per- secutions. Which Celsus51 himself owns, though otherwise prone enough to load them with hard names and odious reflections. Sect. 11. Lucifugax natio. 38 See these collected in Pearson, Vind. Ignat. par. 2. c. 9. p. 384. *9 Arrius Antonin. ap. Tertul. ad Scap. c. 4. Tiberian. in J oh. Malela Chronic. 4° Lucian. de Mort. Peregrin. ‘“ Porphyr. ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 1. 6. c. 19. ‘2 Tertul. ibid. ‘3 Minuc. Octav. p. 25. 4"‘ Baron. an. 138. n. 5. "5 Suicer. Thesaur. Ecclesiast. t. 1. p. 690. ‘6 Baron. an. 138. n. 5. 4’ Acta Abdon. et Sennes ap. Suicer. ‘8 Lact. Instit. lib. 5. c. 9. Desperatos vocant, quia cor- pori suo minime parcunt, &c. ‘9 Tertul. Apol. c. 50. Licet nunc sarmentitios et semax- ios appelletis, quia ad stipitem dimidii axis revincti, sar- mentorum ambitu exurimur. 5° Minuc. Octav. p. 25. Latebrosa. et lucifugax natio, in publicum muta, in angulis garrula. 5' Origen. cont. Cel. lib. l. p. 5. 8 ANTIQUITIESOF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Boox I. Sect 12. The same heathen in Minucius gives Pllgnwygmfigia. them one scurrilous name more, which it is not very easy to guess the meaning of. He calls them Plautinians,52 homines plautinw prosapiw. Rigaltius53 takes it for a ridicule upon the poverty and simplicity of the Christians, whom the heathens commonly represented as a company of poor ignorant mechanics, bakers, tailors, and‘the like; men of the same quality with Plautus, who, as St. J erom“ observes, was so poor, that in a time of famine he was forced to hire out himself to a baker to grind at his mill, during which time he wrote three of his plays in the intervals of his la- bour. Such sort of men Caecilius says the Chris- tians were ; and therefore he styles Octavius in the dialogue, homo Plautinw prosapiw, et pistorum pree- cipuus, a Plautinian, a chief man among the illiterate bakers, but no philosopher. The same reflection is often made by Celsus. You shall see, says he,55 weavers, tailors, fullers, and the most illiterate and rustic fellows, who dare not speak a word before wise men, when they can get a company of chil- dren and silly women together, set up to teach strange paradoxes ‘amongst them. This is one of their rules, says he again,56 Let no man that is learn- ed, wise, or prudent come among us; but if any be unlearned, or a child, or an idiot, let him freely come. So they openly declare, that none but fools, and sots, and such as want sense, slaves, women, and children, are fit disciples for the God they worship. Sect 13 Nor was it only the heathens that th'zi’liltéirgilgtiames thus reviled them, but commonly every 553811;; a; sgrthr perverse sect among the Christians had some reproachful name to cast upon them. The Novatian party called them Corne- lians,57 because they communicated with Cornelius, bishop of Rome, rather than with Novatianus, his antagonist. They also termed them apostatics,capi- tolins, synedrians, because58 they charitably decreed in their synods to receive apostates, and such as went to the capitol to sacrifice, into their communion again upon their sincere repentance. The Nestori- ans 5” termed the orthodox Cyrillians; and the Ari- ans60 called them Eustathians and Paulinians, from Eustathius and Paulinus, bishops of Antioch. As also homoousians, because they kept to the doctrine of the ojioobcwv, which declared the Son of God to 52 Minuc. p. 37. Quid ad haec audet Octavius homo Plau- tinae prosapiaz, ut pistorum praecipuus ita postremus philo- sophorum ? ‘*3 Rigalt. in 100. 5‘ Hieron. Chronic. an. 1. Olymp. 145. 55 Origen. cont. Cels. lib. 3. p. 144. 5’ Eulog. ap. Phot. Cod. 280. 58 Pacian. Ep. 2. ad Sympronian. 5° Ep. Legat. Schismat. ad suos in Epheso in Act. Con. Ephes. Con. t. 3. p. 746. 6° Sozom. lib. 6. c. 21. .58 Ibid. p. 137. 6' Opus Imperf. Horn. 48'- be of the same substance with the Father. The author of the Opus Imperfectum on St. Matthew, under the name of Chrysostom,61 styles them ex- pressly, Hceresis homoousianorum, The heresy of -the homoousians. And so Serapion in his conflict with Arnobius ‘2 calls them homousianates, which the printed copy reads corruptly homuncionates, which was a name for the Nestorians. The Cataphrygians, or Montanists, Sect ,,_ commonly called the orthodox, wllv- ,,_,_f,’,h,f§ZI-_i§§‘s,§§“°d xucobg, carnal; because they rejected Mmmmsts' the prophecies and pretended inspirations of Mon- tanus, and would not receive his rigid laws about fasting, nor abstain from second marriages, and ob- serve four lents in a year, &c. This was Tertul- lian’s ordinary compliment to the Christians in all his books53 written after he was fallen into the errors of Montanus. He calls his own party the spiritual, and the orthodox, the carnal. And some of his books“ are expressly entitled, Adversus Psychicos. Clemens Alexandrinus65 observes, the same reproach was also used by other heretics be- side the Montanists. And it appears from Irenmus, that this was an ancient calumny of the Valen- tinians, who styled themselves the spiritual and the perfect, and the orthodox, the secular and carnal,66 who had need of abstinence and good works, which were not necessary for them that were perfect. The Millenaries styled them alle- . Sect. 15. gorists, because they expounded the Anefimpgsihe prophecy of the saints reigning a thousand years with Christ, Rev. xx. 4, to a mys- tical and allegorical sense. Whence Eusebius67 ob- serves of Nepos the Egyptian bishop, who wrote for the millennium, that he entitled his book, 'Eheyxog 'AMgyopwré‘w, A Confutation of the Alle- gorists. ‘ Aetius the Arian gives them the Sect. 16. abusive name of xpovirai; by which A,“g?,f,§’§f‘,‘?;,,,‘jZ-Cf.§f by e Manichees; anthropolatrrc, by the Apollinarians. he seems to intimate, that their re- ligion was but temporary, and would shortly have an end; whenas the character was much more applicable to the Arians themselves, whose faith was so lately sprung up in the world; as the author of the dialogues dc Trinitate, under the name of Athanasius, who confutes Aetius,68 justly retorts upon him. The Manichees, as they gave themselves the ‘2 Conflict. Arnob. et Scrap. ad calcem Irenaei, p. 519. 6‘ Tertul. adv. Prax. c. 1. Nos quidem agnitio Paracleti disjunxit a psychicis. Id. de Monogam. c. 1. Haeretici nuptias auferunt, psychici ingerunt. See also all and 16. 6* De J ejuniis adv. Psychicos. De Pudicitia, 8w. “5 Clem. Alex. Strom. lib. 4. p. 511. 6“ Iren. lib. 1. c. p.29. Nobis quidem, quos psychicos vocant, et de 'saeculo esse dicunt, necessariam continen- tiam, &c. 6" Euseb. lib. 7. c. 24. 6‘ Athan. Dial. 2. de Trinit. t. 2. p. 193. CHAP. III. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 9 most glorious names of electz', macwrz‘i, catharistae, mentioned by St. Austin ;°° so they reproached the catholics with the most contemptible name of sim- plices, idiots; which is the term that Manichaeus himself used in his dispute70 with Archelaus the Mesopotamian bishop, styling the Christian teachers, simplicz'orum magistros, guides of the simple, be- cause they could not relish his execrable doctrine concerning two principles of good and evil. The Apollinarians were no less injurious to the catholics, in fixing on them the odious name of anthropolat-rw, man-worshippers ; because they main- tained that Christ was a perfect man, and had a reasonable soul and body, of the same nature with ours; which Apollinarius denied. Gregory Nazi- anzen" takes notice of this abuse, and sharply re- plies to it; telling the Apollinarians, that they themselves much better deserved the name of sar- colatrae, flesh-worshippers; for if Christ had no human soul, they must be concluded to worship his flesh only. The Origenians, who denied the truth of the resurrection, and asserted that men should have only aerial and spiritual bodies in the next world, made jests upon the catholics, because they maintained the con- trary, that our bodies should be the same individual bodies, and of the same nature that they are now, with flesh and bones, and all the members in the same form and structure, only altered in quality, not in substance. For this they gave them the opprobrious names of simplz'oes and philosarcae," idiots and lovers of the flesh; carnez', animales, jumenta, carnal, sensual, animals; lutez', earthy; pilosiotce,73 which Erasmus’s edition reads corruptly pelusz'otae, instead of pilosiotae; which seems to be a name formed from 10272, hair; because the catholics as- serted, that the body would rise perfect in all its parts, even with the hair itself to beautify and adorn it. Sect. [7. Philosarcw and pilosiotaa, arc. by the Origenians. Th Sect. 18. f But of all others, the Luciferians anac§riZi’§%§g§§-° gave the church the rudest language; tan, by the Luci- _ styhng her the brothel-house, and ferians. synagogue of antichrist and Satan; because she al- lowed those bishops to retain their honour and places, who were cajoled by the Arians to subscribe the fraudulent confession of the council of Ariminum. The Luciferian in St. J erom runs out in this man- ner against the church; and St. J erom says, he spake but the sense of the whole party, for this was the ordinary style 7‘ and language of all the rest. These are some of those reproachful names, which heretics, concurring with Jews and infidels, endea- voured to fasten upon the Christian church; which I should not so much as have mentioned, but that they serve to give some light to antiquity, and there- fore were not wholly to be passed over in a treatise of this nature. CHAPTER III. OF THE SEVERAL ORDERS OF MEN :IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. HAVING given an account of the se- T} Sect. 1. “'88 sorts of veral names of Christians, I proceed glflfpslzgz 2;; £31, now to speak of the persons, and se- 5223265221? veral orders of men, in the Christian xvéwivm- church. Some divide them into three ranks, others into four, others into five; which yet come much to the same account, when they are compared together. Eusebius reckons but three orders, viz. the fi'yol'lpsvot, was-oz, and ica-rnxoz'ipwm; rulers, believers, and catechu- mens. There are in every church, says he, three orders of men,1 one of the rulers or guides, and two of those that are subject to them; for the people are divided into two classes, the ans-rot, believers, and the unbaptized, by whom he means the cate- chumens. St. Jeromz makes five orders; but then he divides the clergy into three orders, to make up the number; reckoning them thus, bishops, pres- byters, deacons, believers, and catechumens. In which account he follows Origen,8 who makes five degrees subordinate to one another in the church; “9 Aug. de Hear. 0. 46. 7° Archel. Disp. adv. Manichaeum ad calcem Sozomen. Ed. Vales. p. 197. 7‘ Naz. Ep. 1. ad Cledon. '2 Hieron. Ep. 61. ad Pammach. t. 2. p. 171. Nos sim- plices et philosarcas dicere, quod eadem ossa, et sanguis, et caro, id est, vultus et membra, totiusque compago corporis resurgat in novissima die. 73 1d. Ep. 65. ad Pam. et Ocean. de Error. Orig. p. 192. Pelusiotas (leg. pilosiotas) nos appellant, et luteos, anima- lesque, et cameos, quod non recipiamus ea quae Spiritus sunt. 7‘ Hieron. Dial. adv. Lucifer. t. 2. p. 135.’ Asserebat universum mundum esse diaboli: et, ut jam familiar-e est eis dicere, factum de ecclesia lupanar. ——- Quod anti- christi magis synagoga, quam ecclesia Christi debeat nun- cupari. 1 Euseb. Demonst. Evang. lib. 7. c. 2. p. 323. Tpz'a a t r I I r n I \ I‘ 1 ' Kae EKaqnll &KKXT'O'UIU 'ra'ypa'ra, EU [LEV To ‘Twp "you/Lilla)”, 660 as 'rc‘c 'riBu fivrofisgnxd'rwv. 2 Hieron. Com. in Esai. xix. p. 64. Quinque ecclesiae or- dines, episcopos, presbyteros, diaconos, fideles, catechu- menos. 3 Origen. Hom. 5. in Ezek. Pro modo gradllllm 1111118- quisque torquebitur. Majorem poenam habet, qui 96019989 praesidet et delinquit. Annon magis misericordiam pro- meretur ad comparationem fidelis, catechumenus? Non magis venia dignus est laicus, si ad diaconum conferatur? Et rursus comparatione presbyteri diaconus veniam plus meretur. 10 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. BOOK 1. saying, Every one shall be punished according to the difference of his degree. If a bishop or presi- dent of the church sins, he shall have the greater punishment. A catechumen will deserve mercy, in comparison of a believer; and a layman, in com- parison of a deacon; and a deacon, in comparison of a presbyter. Here are plainly St. J erom’s five orders; first bishops, under the name of presidents of the church, then presbyters, after them deacons, then believers or laymen, and last of all the catechumens. In all which accounts, these four saiiglszim-e things are proper to be remarked: 1. iiiéciiiéaliigiifor That the name, believers, 'll'w'Tbt and were bapuze ' fideles, is here taken in a more strict sense only for one order of Christians, the believing or baptized laity, in contradistinction to the clergy and the catechumens, the two other orders of men in the church. And in this sense the words ‘Il’lO'T'bL and fideles are commonly used in the ancient litur- gies“ and canons, to distinguish those that were baptized, and allowed to partake of the holy mys- teries, from the catechumens. "Whence came that ancient distinction of the service of the church, in- to the missa catechamenoram, and missa fidelium ;5 of which more in its proper place. 2. We may hence observe, that the catechumens, though but imper- fect Christians, were in some measure owned to be within the pale of ‘the church. Forasmuch as Eusebius, Origen, and St. J c- rom reckon them one of the three orders of the church. And the councils of Eliberissand Constantinople7 give them expressly the name of Christians. Though, as St. Austin8 says, they were not yet sons, but servants: they belonged to the house of God, but were not yet admitted to all the privileges of it; be- ing only Christians at large, and not in the most strict and proper acceptation. And yet this is more than can be said of heretics properly so called. For we may observe, 3. That in the forementioned division, heretics come into no ac- count among Christians. They were not esteemed of, either as catechumens, or believers, but as mere Sect. 3. Catechumens owned as imper- fect members of the church. Sect. 4. Heretics not reckoned among Christians. Jews, or pagans; neither having the true faith, nor being willing to learn it. Tertullian9 says in general, If they be heretics, they cannot be Christians. And St. J erom,lo disputing with a Luciferian, says the same in express terms, that heretics are no Chris- tians; nor to be spoken of, but as we would do of heathens. Lactantius 1‘ specifies in the Montanists, Novatians, Valentinians, Marcionites, Anthropians, Arians, saying, that they are no Christians, who, for- saking the name of Christ, call themselves by other denominations. Athanasius12 and Hilary13 say the same of the Arians, that they are not Christians. Constantine ‘4 therefore enacted it into a law, that they should not be called Christians, but Porphyrians; from Porphyry, that infamous heathen, whose prac- tice they so much resembled in their impious blas- phemies and reproaches of Christ and the Christian religion. And in imitation of this, Theodosius ju- nior15 made another law to the same effect, against Nestorius and his followers; that they should not abuse the name of Christians, but be called Simoni- ans, from Simon Magus, the arch-heretic. To which we may add that decree of the general council of S ardica, in their synodical epistle ‘6 against the Arians ; where they require all catholics, not only to deny the Arian bishops the title of bishops, but even that of Christians. All which evidently proves, that the ancients put a manifest difi'erence betwixt those who were apostates from the faith, and those who as yet had never made any solemn profession of their faith in baptism: they allowed the catechumens the name of Christians, because they were candidates of heaven; but they judged heretics unworthy of that name, because they corrupted the common faith of Christians, and denied the Lord, by whose name they were called. 4. We may observe in the last place, that there were no Christians, but Penistgnts and what might be reduced to some one or other of the three forementioned orders: for the penitents, and energumens, as they called those that were possessed with evil spirits, may be ranked among the catechumens, being com- monly treated and disciplined by the church in the ct5 4 See Con. Nic. Can. 11. Con. Eliber. c. 12, 46, 51. Constit. Apost. lib. 8. 0.34. Cyril. Hierosol. Praef. Ca- tech. n. 2. 5 Con. Carth. 4. c. 84. Con. Valent. Hispan. c. l. 6 Con. Elib. Can. 39. 7 Con. Const. 1. Can. 7. 8 Aug. Tract. 11. in J oh. t. 9. p. 41. Quod signum crucis in fronte habent catechumeni, jam de domo magna sunt, sed fiant ex servis filii. Non enim nihil sunt, quia ad mag- nam domum pertinent. 9 Tertul. de Praescript. c. 37. tiani esse non possunt. . 1° Hieron. Dial. c. Lucif. t. 2. p. 135. Haeretici Chris- tiani non sunt.—-—Igitur praefixum inter nos habemus, de haaretico sic loquendum sicut de Gentili. '1 Lact. Instit. lib. 4. c. 30. Si haeretici sunt, Chris- 12 Athan. Orat. 2. adv. Arian. t. 1. p. 316. due-es, éic eio'i. Xpw'riavdt. 13 Hilar. ad Const. Lib. 1. p. 98. Christianus sum, non Arianus. ‘4 Const. Imp. Ep. ad Episc. ap. Socrat. lib. 1. c. 9. 15 Cod. Theod. lib. 16. Tit. 5. de Haeret. c. 66. Damnato portentosae superstitiouis auctore Nestorio, nota congrui nominis ejus inuratur gregalibus, ne Christianorum appel- latione abutantur: sed quemadmodum Ariani lege divae memoriae Constantini ob similitudinem impietatis Porphy- riani a Porphyrio nuncupantur; sic ubique participes ne- fariae sectae Nestorii Simoniani vocentur. See' the same in the Acts of the General Council of Ephesus, part 3. ‘c. 45. Con. t. 3. p. 1209. 16 Con. Sardic. Ep. Synod. ap. Theod. lib. 2. c. 6. ’Apstavdt C HAP. IV. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 11 same manner as they were, and placed in the same class with them; and the monks and other ascetics may be ranked under the common head of believers, though they had some peculiar marks of distinc- tion in the church. Yet I shall not confine myself to speak of all those precisely in this order, and under these heads, but give each a distinct and pro- per place in this discourse; speaking here only of believers in general, as they stood distinguished from the catechumens and the clergy of the church, and treating of the rest as occasion shall require in the following parts of this discourse. CHAPTER IV. A MORE PARTICULAR ACCOUNT OF THE IIIETOI, OR. BELIEVERS; THEIR TITLES OF HONOUR AND PRI- VILEGES ABOVE THE CATECHUMENS. THE meet, or fideles, being such as were baptized, and thereby made com- plete and perfect Christians, werc upon that account dignified with several titles of honour and marks of distinction above the catechumens. They were hence called qsmrCéywm, the illuminate. So the council of Lao~ dicea1 terms those that were newly baptized, 1rpoo'- ¢0irwg ¢wrw9évrag. And Jobiusz in Photius, o't gluon- Zépevot. As St. Paul himself in the Epistle to the Hebrews twice uses the word illuminate, for bap- tized, in the opinion of most interpreters.8 The reason of the name is given by Justin Martyr, who says‘ they were so called, because their under- standings were enlightened by the knowledge that was consequent to baptism. For all the mysteries of religion were unveiled to the baptized, which were kept secret from the catechumens. And some— times also baptism was attended with extraordinary illuminations of the Holy Ghost, as in those whom St. Paul caused to be baptized at Ephesus: Acts xix. 6, “ They spake with tongues, and prophesied.” 2. They were hence also styled, Sect. 2- . . Andoiu-eqqml-é‘ oi pspvnpéuoc, which the Latms call vouthell'lmated- - . . . . . . mztzatz, the initiated, that IS, admitted to the use of the sacred oifices, and knowledge of the sacred mysteries of the Christian religion. Hence came that form of speaking, so frequently Sect. 1. Believers other- wise called (on- Céuevol, the illu- minate. used by St. Chrysostom and other ancient writers,5 when they touched upon any doctrines or mys- teries which the catechumens understood not, ioao'w oi pepvnpévot, the initiated know what iS spoken. St. Ambrose writes a book to these initi- atz'.6 Isidore of Pelusium" and Hesychius8 call them pus-dz, and others pus-(1105711701: whence the catechu- mens have the contrary names, d'pvqol, [1411511701, and dpvqayu'lynrot, the uninitiated, or unbaptized. 3. Believers were otherwise called rékszot, and rskstoduwm, the perfect; because they were consummate Chris- tians, who had a right to participate of the holy eucharist; the Tb 'réhswv, as it is frequently called in the canons9 of the ancient councils; where évri To 'réketov éXSe'iv, and T05 rskeia psréxsw, always Sig- nify participation of the holy eucharist, that sacred mystery that unites us to Christ, and gives us the most consummate perfection that we are capable of in this world. 4. Tertullian adds to these the name of charz' Den’, the favourites of Heaven ; because their prayers and interces- sions were powerful with God, to obtain pardon for others, that should address Heaven by them. There- fore, in his instructions to the penitents, he bids them, charz's Dez' adgem'cularz', fall down at the feet of those favourites, and commend their suit to all the brethren, desiring them to intercede with God for them.—Tertul. de Paem't. c. 9. All these names (and many others that might be added, which are obvious to every reader, such as saints, and sons of God, &c.) were peculiar titles of Sect. 3. And -ré)\_ezou the pertect. Sect. 3. Chan’ 1m, filii Dei, 6710;, &c. honour and respect given only to those who were ' ms-bt, or believers. And hence it was, that, correspond- ent to these names, the fideles had The 3555.21... of . . . . . thejulcles. 1. To their peculiar privlleges 1n the church, 85123;: of the eu- above the catechumens. For, first, it was their sole prerogative to partake of the Lord’s table, and communicate with one another in the symbols of Christ’s body and blood at the altar. Hither none came, but such as were first initiated by baptism. Whence the custom was, before they went to celebrate the eucharist, for a deacon to pro— claim "A'yla dyiozg‘, Holy things for holy men: Ye cate- chumens, go forth,10 as the author of the Constitu- tions, and St. Chrysostom and some others, word it. 2. Another of their prerogatives sect, 6, above catechumens, was, to stay and P323212? the w church. Join with the minister in all the prayers 1 Con. Laodic. Can. 3. 2 Phot. Cod. 222. p. 595 st 598. a See Grot. Hamond. Estius in Heb. vi. 4. at x. 32. ‘ Justin. Apol. 2. p. 94. 5 Casaubon, Exerc. 16. in Baron. p. 399, observes this phrase to occur no less than fifty times in St. Chrysostom and St. Austin. 6 Ambros. De his qu1 initiantur mysteriis. '' Isidor. lib. 4. Ep. 162. io'ao'w oi )uvorrc‘u. 1'0‘ Xe'yépsuov. 6 Hesych. voce plum-dz. 9 Con. Ancyran. Can. 4, 5, 6, &c. 1° Constit. Apost. lib. 8. c. 8 et 12. Chrysost.‘ Hom. in Parab. de Filio Prodig. t. 6. mi "I'LS‘ rz-ilm Ka'rnx0vu€~ vwv, &c. 12 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. BOOK I. of the church; which the catechumens were not allowed to do. For in the ancient service of the church, there were no prayers preceding the com- munion oflice; but only such as particularly related, either to the several classes of penitents, or the energumem', that is, persons possessed with evil spirits, or the catechumens themselves. When these prayers were ended, the catechumens and all others were commanded to withdraw, and then be- gan the communion service at the altar; where none were admitted so much as to be spectators, save those who were to communicate in the eucha- rist. For to join in prayers and participation of the eucharist were then privileges of the same persons; and no one was qualified for the prayers of the church, that was not qualified for the communion. 3. More particularly, the use of the Lord’s prayer was the sole preroga- tive of the mqét, or believers. For then it was no crime, or argument of weakness, or want of the Spirit, to use it; but an honour and privilege of the most con- summate and perfect Christians. The catechumens were not allowed to say, “ Our Father,” till they had first made themselves sons by regeneration in the waters of baptism. This is expressly said by St. Chrysostom, ‘1 St. Austin,12 Theodoret,18 and several others. And for this reason, Chrysostom 1‘ calls it mix?) art-517w; and St. Austin,15 oratz'o fidelz'um, the prayer of the regenerate, or believers; because it was their privilege and birthright: it was given to them as their property, he says,16 and therefore they made Sect. '1. 8. The use of the Lord's prayer an- other prerogative of the 7110-1-61: whence it was called 63x); ‘mow-Em the Prayer of believers. _ use of it; having a right to say, “ Our Father, which art in heaven,” who were born again to such a Fa- ther, by water and the Holy Ghost. Sect. 8' 4. Lastly, they were admitted to be m‘i‘t-te'ghtgyggjfdfigj auditors of all discourses made in the f§§§§§r§f§3§§§ys_ church, even those that treated of Mes “heugm the most abstruse points and profound mysteries of the Christian religion; which the catechumens were strictly prohibited from hearing. The catechumens were allowed to hear the Scrip- tures, and the ordinary popular discourses that were made upon them; which was no more than what some councils ‘7 allow even to Jews and Gentiles; for in those discourses they never treated plainly of their mysteries, but in such a covert way, as the catechumens could not understand them. But when the catechumens were dismissed, then they discoursed more openly of their mysteries before the fideles, whose privilege it was to be the sole audi- tors of such discourses. This we learn from St. Ambrose; ‘8 who says, his common discourses to the unbaptized were only upon points of morality; but when they were baptized, then was the time to open to them the mysteries and sacraments of religion : to have discoursed to them of those things before, had been more like exposing mysteries than explaining them. St. Austin speaks to the same purpose, in one of his sermons ‘9 to the newly baptized: Having now dismissed the catechumens, says he, we have retained you only to be our hearers, because, beside those things which belong to all Christians in common, we are now to discourse more particularly of the heavenly mysteries, or sacraments; which none are qualified to hear, but such as by God’s are made partakers of them. And therefore ye ought to hear them with the greater reverence, by how much more sublime those doctrines are, which are com- mitted only to the baptized and believing auditors, than those which the catechumens also are wont to hear. Theodoret20 takes notice of the same dis- tinction made in their discourses, according to the difference of their auditors; saying, We discourse obscurely of Divine mysteries before the unbaptized, but when they are departed, we speak plainly to the baptized. From all which it is evident, that the fideles were singled out, as the only proper au- ditors fit to hear discourses upon the sublime doc.— trines and mysteries of religion. And in these and the like privileges, consisted their prerogative above the catechumens. 11 Chrysost. Horn. 2. in 2 Cor. p. 740. 12 Aug. Horn. 29. de Verb. Apost. 13 Theodor. Epit. Div. Dogm. c. 28. 14 Chrysost. Horn. 10. in Colos. p. 1385. 15 Aug. Enchirid. c. 71. 16 Aug. Com. in Psal. cxlii. Orabant utique jam fideles, jam apostoli. Nam ista oratio Dominica magis fidelibus datur. Id. Enchirid. ad Laurent. 0. 71. De quotidianis, brevi- bus, levibusque peccatis ———- quotidiana oratio fideliurn satisfacit. Eorum est enim dicere, Pater noster, qui es in coelis; qui jam Patri tali regenerati sunt, ex aqua et Spi- ritu Sancto. 17 Con. Carthag. 4. Can. 81. Ut episcopus nullum pro- hibeat ingredi ecclesiam, et audire verbum Dei, sive Gen- tilem, sive haereticum, sive J udaeum, usque ad missam catechumenorum. 18 Ambros. de his qui mysteriis initiantur, c. 1. De mo- ralibus quotidianum sermonem habuimus. -—Nunc de mysteriis dicere tempus admonet, atque ipsam Sacramento- rum rationem edere, quam ante baptismum si putassemus insinuandam nondum initiatis, prodidisse potius quain edi- disse aestimaremur. 1” Aug. Serm. 1. ad Neophytos in Append. t. 10. p. 845. Dimissis jam catechumenis, vos tantum ad audiendum re- tinuimus: quia praeter illa, quae omnes Christianos conve- nit in commune servare, specialiter de coelestibus mysteriis locuturi sumus, quae audire non possum, nisi qui ea donante jam Domino perceperunt. Tanto ergo majore reverentia debetis audire quae dicimus, quanto majora ista sunt, quae solis baptizatis et fidelibus auditoribus committuntur ; quam illa quae etiam catechumeni audire consueverunt. 2° Theod. Quaest. 15. in Num. CHAP. V. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. ' 13 CHAPTER V. OF THE DISTINCTION BETWIXT THE LAITY AND CLERGY; AND OF THE ANTIQUITY OF THAT DIS- TINCTION. WE have hitherto considered the great pmsifii'zel'pgher- body of the Christian church, the was called Iain, to grigfrilnézfigsctietrgfn fideles, as opposed to the catechu- mens: we are now to view them in another relation, as contradistinct to the clergy: in which relation they went by other names, such as those of Zaz'cz', laymen; fiiwrucbt, seculars; 1,5167%", private men. The most common and ancient name was that of Zaz'cz', which every where occurs in the writings of Origen, Cyprian, and Tertullian, and others of the third century: which is a thing so evident, that the greatest enemies of this distinc- tion, Rigaltius,1 Salinasius, and Selden, do not pre- ' tend to dispute it, but only say, there was originally no such distinction in the church, but that it is a novelty, and owing to the ambition of the clergy of the third century, in which Cyprian and Tertul- lian lived. This accusation reflects highly upon St. Cyprian, and other holy martyrs his contemporaries, who were as far from the ambition that is charged upon them, as the authors are from truth that bring the charge. For indeed the distinction was none of their inventing; but derived from the Jewish church, and adopted into the Christian by the apos- tles themselves. Clemens Alexandrinus,2 speaking of St. John, says, that, after his return from banish- ment in the isle of Patmos, he settled at Ephesus; whence being often invited to visit the neighbour- ing regions, he ordained them bishops, and set apart such men for the clergy, as were signified to him by the Holy Ghost. Whence it appears, that the name xxfipog, clergy, was always a peculiar title of those that were set apart for the ministry and service of God. And that this distinction came from the Jewish church, is evident from what Clemens Ro- manus3 says of the Jewish economy; that as the high priest had his office assigned him, and the priests also their proper station, and the Levites their peculiar service; so laymen in like manner were under the obligation of precepts proper for laymen. These instances evidently prove, that a distinction was always observed in these names, laity and clergy, from the first foundation of the Christian church. Sect. 2. The antiquity of this distinction proved against Rigaltius. Salma- sius, and Selden. 1 Rigalt. Not. in Cypr. Ep. 3. 2 Clem. Alexand. Quis Dives salvetur, ap. Combefis. Auctar. Noviss. p. 185. et ap. Euseb. lib. 3. c. 23. Kitfipq; w 0 \ I 'e'ua ‘ye "rwa Kltnpu'io'wv 'rwv u'rro 'n'uevjua'ros o'muawope'uwu. There is but one objection of any Seem. moment against this, which is taken 1A1}; glzifstm‘frsrig from the words of St. Peter, where he bids the elders of the church not lord it over God’s heritage. The original is, #115’ (iJQ icaraicvptafiovrsg 115v xita’qpwv ; which (as some learned critics‘ observe) may as well signify the possessions of the church, as the people. But admit that it means the people; this is no more than is said of the people of Israel, who are called GOd’S Ickfipog, and Ruby Eylchnpog, his inheritance, or his clergy, Deut. iv. 20; ix. 29; as both the Jews and Christians were, in opposition to the heathen: notwithstanding which, God had his peculiar ickfipog among his own people, who were his lot or inheritance, and distinguished by that name from the laz'cz', or remaining body of the peo- ple. As we have observed before in the name must, fideles, or believers; all persons within the pale of the church were called believers, in opposi- tion to infidels and pagans; but when they would distinguish one order of men in the church from another, then the name believers was given pecu- liarly to such as were baptized, and the rest were called catechumens: so here, all Christian people are God’s Kh'fipog, his lot, his inheritance, or his clergy; but when his ministers are to be distin- guished from the rest of the people in the church, then the name clerici, or clergy, was their appropri- ate title, and the name of the other, laymen. And this observation will help to set another sort of persons right, who confound not only the names, but the ofiices of laity and clergy together; and plead, that originally there was no distinction between them. The name of priesthood, indeed, is sometimes given in common to the whole body of Christian people, 1 Pet. 9; Rev. i. 6; but so it was to the Jewish people, Exod. xix. 6, “ Ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy na- tion.” Yet every one knows, that the offices of the priests and Levites among the Jews were very dis- tinct from those of the common people, not by usurpation, but by God’s appointment. And so it was among Christians, from the first foundation of the church. Wherever any number of converts were made, as soon as they were capable of being formed into an organical church, a bishop, or a presbyter, with a deacon, was ordained to minister to them, as Epiphanius5 delivers from the ancient histories of the church. The same may be observed in the forementioned passage of Clemens Alexan- drinus, where he says St. John ordained bishops and other clergy, in the churches which he regu- lated, by the direction of the Holy Ghost. Hence Sect. 4. A distinction in thei offices of laity an c ervy alwa 5 observed‘., . y 8 Clem. Rom. Ep. 1. ad Corinth. n. 40. 6 )ta'imis c'ivflpw- qros 'ro'is ha'ilco'is 1rpoo'q'o'z'yiiao'w ds'de'rat. 4 Dodwel. Dissert. l. in Cyprian. 5 Epiphan. Haer. 75. Aerian. n. 5. 14 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. BOOK I. it is that Ignatius so frequently in all his epistles charges the people to do nothing without the bishops,6 presbyters, and deacons. Tertullian7 says it was customary among heretics to confound the offices of clergy and laity together: they made one a bishop to-day, and another to-morrow; to-day a deacon, and to-morrow a reader; to-day a presby- ter, and to-morrow a layman. For laymen among them performed the ofiices of the priesthood. But this was not the custom of the catholic church. For, as St. J erom8 observes, they reckoned that to be no church which had no priests. They were of no esteem with them, who were both laymen and bishops together. And by this we may judge how ingenuously they deal with St. J erom and Tertul- lian, who allege their authorities to prove that every Christian is as much a priest as another. St. J e- rom indeed says,9 there is a laical priesthood; but then he explains himself to mean no more by that than Christian baptism, whereby we are made kings and priests to God. And Tertullian10 grants no other priesthood to laymen, save that they may bap- tize in case of absolute necessity, when none of the ecclesiastical order can be had; which was accord- ing to the principles and practice of the primitive church; but does by no means confound the oflices of laity and clergy together, unless any one can think cases ordinary and extraordinary all one. The ancient historians, Socrates and Rufi’in,u tell us, that Frumentius and ZEdesius, two young men, who had no external call or commission to preach the gospel, being carried captive into India, con- verted the nation, and settled several churches among them. And the same Socrates ‘2 and The- odoret say, that the Iberians were first converted by a captive woman, who made the king and queen of the nation preachers of the gospel to their people. Yet a man would argue very weakly, that should hence conclude, that therefore there was no dis- tinction betwixt clergy and laity in the primitive church, or that laymen might preach without a call, and women ordain ministers of the gospel. The author of the Comments upon St. Paul’s Epis- tles, under the name of St. Ambrose,“ seems to say indeed, that at first all Christ’s disciples were clergy, and had all a general commission to preach the gospel and baptize: but that was in order to con- vert the world, and before any multitude of people were gathered, or churches founded, wherein to make a distinction. But as soon as the church be- gan to spread itself over the world, and suflicient numbers were converted to form themselves into a regular society; then rulers and other ecclesiastical ofiicers were appointed among them, and a dis- tinction made, that no one, no, not of the clergy themselves, might presume to meddle with any oflice not committed to him, and to which he knew himself not ordained. So that, for aught that ap- pears to the contrary, we may conclude, that the names and offices of laymen and clergy were always distinct from one another from the first foundation of Christian churches. The laymen were distinguished also Sect 5_ by the name of Btwfmbl, seculars, “fig/‘51223123,, from Bing, which signifies a secular mums‘ life. And by this title they are discerned not only from the clergy, but also from the ascetics, and those of a more retired life, who bid adieu to the ,world, and disburdened themselves of all secular cares and business. Thus St. Chrysostom,“ exhort- ing all men to read the Scriptures, says, Let no man think to excuse himself by saying, I am a secular, dwip fltwrucog, it belongs not to me to read the Scriptures, but to those that have retired from the world, and have taken up their abode in the tops of the mountains. And in another place, com- menting on those words of St. Paul, “Let every soul be subject to the higher powers,” he says, This command is given to the clergy, and to the monks, and not to the seculars only.“ And so they are styled in the author 1‘ who goes under the name of Justin Martyr, and others. In some writers they are termed idiom», private men, as being only in a private capacity, and not acting as public ministers. So it was another name to dis- Sect. 6. Arid idu'i'rral, private men. 6 Ignat. Ep. ad Magnes. n. 6 et 7. Ep. ad Trall. n. 2. Ep. ad. Philad. n. 7. 7 Tertul. de Praescript. c. 41. Alius hodie episcopus, cras alius: hodie diaconus, qui cras lectorz hodie presby- ter, qui cras laicus. Nam et laicis sacerdotalia munera in- jungunh 8 Hieron. Dial. c. Lucifer. t. 2. p. 145. Ecclesia non est quae non habet sacerdotes. Ibid. Omissis paucis ho- munculis, qui ipsi sibi et laici sunt et episcopi. 9 Hieron. ibid. p. 136. Sacerdotium laici, id est, bap- tisma. Scriptum est enim, Regnum et sacerdotes nos fe- cit, &c. 1° Tertul. Exhort. ad Cast. 0. 7. Nonne et laici sacer- dotes sumus? Scriptum est, Regnum quoque nos et sacer- dotes Deo et Patri suo fecit. Ubi ecclesiastici ordinis est consessus, etioffert et tinguit sacerdos, qui est ibi, solus. Sed ubi tres, ecclesia est; licet laici. 11 Rufiin. lib. 1. c. 9. Socrat. lib. l. c. 19. 12 Socrat. lib. 1. c. 20. 'Aprpo'q'spot mipwces Prof} Xpw'roii, &c. Theodor. lib. l. c. 23. 13 Ambros. sive Hilar. Diacon. Com. in Eph. iv. p. 948. Ut cresceret plebs et multiplicaretur, omnibus inter initia concessum est et evangelizare, et baptizare, et Scripturas in ecclesia explanare. At ubi autem omnia loco circumplexa est ecclesia, conventicula constituta sunt, et rectores et caetera ofiicia in ecclesiis sunt ordinata, ut nullus de clero auderet, qui ordinatus non esset, praesumere oflicium quod sciret non sibi creditum. 1‘ Chrys. Horn. 3. in Laz. t. 5. 15 Chrys. Hom. 23. in Rom. 'raii'ra dza'rérr'ra'ral. ispsiim, Kai pouaxo'is, oilxi 'Ifo'is Bram-mole #611011. '6 Just. M. Resp. ad. Quest. 19- W47 Blw'rmqi &v9pu31rq'. 310- CHAP. V. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 15 ANTIQUITIES OF THE tinguish them from the clergy, who were in the public office and employment of the church. St. Chrysostom17 and Theodoret‘8 say the word iduiirrlg is so used by St. Paul himself, 1 Cor. xiv. 16, which we translate “ unlearned;” but they say it signifies no more than a layman, or one in a private capacity, whether learned or unlearned, who is not a public minister of the church. And so Origen also uses the name idtd'lral, not for persons unlearned, but for laymen, who had power, as well as other Christians, to cast out devils in the name of Christ.l9 And Synesius opposes the names idiom‘. and ispag to one another, making20 the one to denote those who ministered in the sacred service of the church, and the other, those who had no such office, but served God only in a private capacity, as laymen. Whence also, speaking of some clergymen who deserved to be degraded, he says 2‘ they were to be treated pub- licly by all, (Lg d’vrucpvg idtdl'fal, as mere private men, that is, no longer as clergymen, but laymen. Whence we may collect, that this was a common name for all such as had no public oflice or ministry in the church. Sect 7_ On the other hand, all persons who mycgfiffilsegcgt had any public employment in the church were called by the common name of clerici ; which name at first was given only to the three superior orders of bishops, priests, and deacons, because there were then no other orders in the church. But in the third century many in- ferior orders were appointed, as subservient to the deacon’s ofi‘ice, such as sub-deacons, acolythists, readers, &c. And then those also had the common name of clerici too, having no further concern with secular affairs, but wholly attending the service of the church. St. Cyprian always gives these the name of clerici ;22 as, where he speaks of Optatus a sub-deacon, and Saturus a reader, he styles them both clerici. The ordinations of such he23 calls or- dinatz'ones clerz'ow. And hence the letters which he had occasion to send to foreign parts by their hands had the name of Zz'teme clericae?“ Lucian the martyr, and Cyprian’s contemporary, speaks in the same style concerning exorcists and readers.25 The council of Nice itself 2“ gives the appellation of xAfipog to others besides bishops, presbyters, and deacons. And the third council of Carthage made a canon 2’ on purpose to confirm the title to them. Yea, the same councilzs seems rather to appropriate the name clerici to the sogéijritirggggfs inferior orders, by way of distinction gailltriwtheinferior from the superior, first naming bishops, presbyters, and deacons, and then the clerici, or clerks; that is, the inferior orders. And the same is done by St. Ambrose,29 and Hilary8° under his name, more expressly, who speak of the clerici as distinct from the deacons. As also Epiphanius,$1 who, speaking of those that lapsed in Egypt in the Diocletian persecution, he says, some of them were soldiers, some clerks of divers orders, some pres- byters, and some deacons. Where the cleric/J are spoken of as distinct from presbyters and deacons. And-so in the council of Laodicea,32 and many other places. As to the reason of the name clerici and clams, St. J erom83 rightly ob~ The rseiililnébfthe serves, that it comes from the Greek namecmm' xAfipog, which signifies, a lot; and thence, he says, God’s ministers were called clerici, either because they are the lot and portion of the Lord, or because the Lord is their lot, that is, their inheritance. Others 8‘ think some regard was had to the ancient custom of choosing persons into sacred ofiices by lot, both among Jews and Gentiles; which is not improbable, though that custom never generally prevailed among Christians, as shall be showed hereafter. There is another name for the cler~ gy, very commonly to be met with in the ancient councils, which is that of canom'oz', a name derived from the Greek word mw‘m, which signifies, among other things, the roll or cata- logue of every church, wherein the names of all the ecclesiastics were written, and which was as it were the rule of knowing to what church they belonged. In this sense the word minim is often used by the council of Nice.35 The council of Antioch 3“ calls it c't'ytog xavu‘w, the sacred roll; the Apostolical Canons, t.8 Sect. 10. All the clergy called canonzci. 1'' Chrys. Hom.35. in I Cor. xiv. idzér'rnv 8s Xa'ircdu Aé'ysz. 18 Theod. Com. in 1 Cor. xiv. 16. Zdm'rrnu Kahei' 'rdv év 'rq'i ha'ircq? 'ré'ypw'rl. 're'ra'yne'uou. ‘9 Orig. cont. Cels. lib. 7. p. 334. 2° Synes. Ep. 54. ad. Theoph. p. 144. 2‘ Synes. Ep. 67. p. 259. 22 Cypr. Ep. 24. al. 29. ed. Ox. Quoniam oportuit me per clericos scribere, &c., fecisse me sciatis lectorem Saturum, et hypodiaconum Optatum. 23 Id. Ep. 33. a1. 38. 2‘ See Fell. Not. in Cypr. Ep. 23. 25 Lucian. Ep. 17. a1. 23. ap. Cypr. Praesente de clero, et exorcista, et lectore, Lucianus scripsit. 26 Con. Nic. can. 3. 2" Con. Carth.3. can. 21. Clericorum nomen etiam lec- tores, et psalmistae, et ostiarii retineant. 28 Con. Carth. 3. c. 15. Placuit ut episcopi, et presbyteri, et diaconi, vel clerici non sint conductores. 2’ Ambr. de Dignit. Sacerd. c. 3. Aliud est quod ah episcopo requirit Deus, aliud quod a presbytero, et aliud quod a diacono, et aliud quod a clerico, ct aliud quod a 1aico. 3° Pseud.-Ambr. in Eph. iv. Nunc neque diaconi in po- pulo praedicant, neque clerici vel 1aici baptizant. 31 Epiphan. Haer. 68. Melet. 32 Con. Laodic. can. 20. ‘'3 Hieron. Ep. 2. ad Nepot. Cleros graece, sors latiné appellatur: propterea vocantur clerici, vel quia de sorte sunt Domini, vel quia ipse Dominus sors, id est, pars cleri- corum est. 3* Dodwel. Dissert. 1. in Cypr. § 15. 35 Con. Nic. can. 16, 17, 19. 36 Con. Antioch. c. 1. 16 ANTIQUITIES THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. BOOK 1 Ica'ra'zko'yog isparmbg," the catalogue of the clergy. Which is the same that Sidonius Apollinaris38 calls albus; and the council of Agde,39 by the name of matricula ; and St. Austin,40 tabula clericorum. Now because the names ‘of all the clergy were en- rolled in this catalogue, or canon, they were hence called canonical AS in St. Cyril,“ Icavovucd'm 776198- o-ia signifies the presence of the clergy. And rear/om- nc‘n zllakrai, in the council of Laodicea,“2 signifies such of the clergy as were ordered to sing in the church. And so generally in the councils of Nice ‘8 and Antioch, oi év Tq'i' Kai/(sill, is put to denote the clergy of the chm'ch. And upon the same account all others, whose names were set down in the church’s books, to entitle them to receive maintenance from .. the church, were called by the same name, canom'oz', such as the monks, virgins, widows, &c. whom St. Basil“ speaks of under this name, as Balsamon and Zonaras understand him. I pass over many other names of Sect 1,_ the clergy, which are obvious to every flifggfft‘fle’gge, reader; such as vthat of ecclesiastics, “the “mum and iaparucbl, or rt'zZcg ieparucfi, the holy order, &c.; and shall but take notice of one more, which rarely occurs any where but in Gregory Nazianzen, who gives the clergy, especially the superior clergy, the name of ra'Zlg roii fiw'marog, the order of the sanc- tuary.45 Which name was given them from their privilege of entering into that part of the church where the altar stood, which (as we shall see when we come to speak of churches) was called Bfipa or iepa'rs'iov, the sanctuary. Hither none might come but the clergy, who were therefore called the order of the sanctuary. Whence, in the same author,"6 'rqi ,Bi'wan 1rpoaéyew, signifies to give a man ordina- tion, or make him a clergyman. And 6 dub ,Bi'ypa— Tog, is one of the sacred order," or one of the clergy. 8" Can. Apostol. c. 13, l4, 15, 50, &c. as Sidon. lib. 6. Ep. 8. N omen lectorum albus nuper excepit. 3” Con. Agathens. can. 2. Rescripti in matricula gradum suum dignitatemque suscipiant. I 4° Aug. Horn. 50. de Diversis, t. 10. p. 525. Delebo eum de tabula clericorum. ‘*1 Cyril. Praef. Catech. n. 3. 42 Con. Laodic. can. 15. *9 Con. Antioch. can. 2 et 6. Con. Nic. can. 16 et 17. 4" Basil. Ep. Canonic. c. 6. ' ‘5 Naz. Orat. 20. in Land. Basil. p. 336. 46 Id. Orat. 19. de Fun. Patr. ‘7 Naz. Orat. 19. p. 310 et 311. Orat. 20. p. 351. BOOK 11. OF THE SEVERAL ORDERS OF THE CLERGY IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. CHAPTER I. OF THE ORIGINAL OF BISHOPS; AND THAT THEY WERE A DISTINCT ORDER FROM PRESBYTERS IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. WE have hitherto considered the cler- Whastefli'eiihcients gy in general,‘ as distinct from the 3:32:13 magi)? laity, and come now to examine by and presbyters. _ what names or offices they were dis- tinguished from one another. And here the most ancient distinction that occurs, is that of the superior clergy into the three distinct orders of bishops, pres- byters, and deacons. That there were no other orders in the church but these three at first, will be evi- denced in its proper place, when I come to give an account of ‘the first rise and original of the in- ferior orders ; and that deacons were always a sacred and standing order, will be proved likewise when I speak particularly of them. Here then it remains, that our inquiry be made only into the distinction betwixt the orders of bishops and presbyters. And this, so far as concerns matter of fact and the prac- tice of the church, (which is the thing I have under- taken to give an account of,) will be most fairly and fully resolved, by considering only these three things : 1. That the ancient writers of the church always speak of these as distinct orders. 2. That they de- rive the original of bishops from Divine authority and apostolical constitution. 3. That they give us par- ticular accounts and catalogues of such bishops as were first settled and consecrated, in the new-founded churches, by the hands of the apostles. But before I proceed to the proof of these things, I must premise one particular, to avoid all ambiguity; that I take the word order in that sense as the an- cients use it, and not as many of the schoolmen do, who, for reasons of their own, distinguish between order and jurisdiction, and make bishops and pres- ‘ Hieron. cont. J ovin. lib. 2. p. 89. In Veteri Testamento et in Novo alium ordinem pontifex tenet, alium sacerdotes, alium Levitac. 2 Id. Ep. ad Rustic. t. 1. p. 46. Singuli ecclesiarum episcopi, singuli archipresbyteri, singuli archidiaconi, et omnis ordo ecclesiasticus suis rectoribus nititur. 3 Id. ad Fabiol. de 42. Mansion. Israel. t. 3. p. 44. Ip- sos secundi ordinis intelligimus praeceptores, Luca evan- gelista. testante, duodecirn fuisse apostolos, et septuaginta discipulos minoris gradus. 4 Ep. 27. ad Eustoch. Aderant Hierosolymarum et ali- C byters to be one and the same order, only differing in power and jurisdiction. This distinction was un- known to the ancients; among whom the words, order, degree, oflice, power, and juiisdiction, when they speak of the superiority of bishops above pres- byters, mean but one and the same thing, viz. the power of the supreme governors of the church, con- ferred upon them in their ordination, over presbyters, who are to do nothing but in subordination to them. St. J erom, who will be allowed to speak the sense of the ancients, makes no difference in these words, ordo, gradus, Qfiicz'um, but uses them promiscuously, to signify the power and jurisdiction of bishops above presbyters and the whole church, which is, properly speaking, the very essence of their order. There- fore sometimes he calls them difl'erent orders, as in his book against J ovinian,l where he says, that both in the Old and New Testament the high priests are one order, the priests another, and the Levites ano— ther. So in his Epistles to Rusticus,” and Fabiola,8 where he joins ordo and gradus together. In other places he uses the word gradu-s only. As in his Epistle to Eustochium,‘ he calls presbyters priests of the inferior degree ; and in his Epistle to Heliodore,5 deacons the third degree ; and in his Comment upon Micah,6 bishops, priests, and deacons, the degrees in the church. At other times he expresses his mean— ing by the word oflices. As where he says,7 that bishop, presbyter, and deacon, are not names of men’s merits, but of their offices. So that it is all one, according to St. J erom, whether we say the order, or the degree, or the oflice, or the power and jurisdiction of a bishop: for all these are intended arum urbium episcopi, et sacerdotum inferioris gradus, et Levitarum innumerabilis multitudo. 5 Ep. 1. ad Heliodor. Non minorem in tertio gradu ad- hibuit diligentiam, &c. 6 Com. in Mic. vii. p. 162. Non hoc dico, quod istiusmodi gradibus in ecclesia non debeatis esse subjecti. "' Cont. Jovin. lib. l. p. 41. Episcopus, presbyter, et dia- conus non sunt meritorum nomina, sed oificioruin.——-—- Si diaconus sanctior episcopo suo fuerit, non ex eo quod in- ferior gradu est, apud Christum deterior est. 18 ANTIQUITIES'OF CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Boox II. to express the same thing, viz. the authority of bishops over their presbyters and the whole church. And in this sense I use the word order, in this dis- course, to express the opinion of the ancients, con- cerning the different powers of bishops and pres- byters in the church. Now that there was such a distinc- tion always observed in the church, is evident, lst, From the testimony of the most ancient writers, who speak of bishops, presbyters, and deacons, as distinct de- grees in the church, and the two latter as subordinate to the first. The testimonies of Ignatius to this purpose8 are so full and evident, that nothing was ever pretended to be said against them, save only that they are not the genuine remains of that ancient author; which has been so often considered and re- plied to by learned men,9 that there is no pretence left to favour such an imagination. The citations are too numerous to be here inserted at large, and therefore I shall only give the reader a specimen in one single testimony, by which he may judge of all the rest. In his Epistle to the Magnesians, he ex- horts them ‘° to do all things in unity, under the bishop presiding in the place of God, and the pres- byters in the place of the apostolical senate, and the deacons to whom is committed the ministry and service of Jesus Christ. The author of the Acts of the Martyrdom of Ignatius,ll lately published from an ancient Greek copy, speaks exactly in the same manner of these three orders, when he says, that as Ignatius was on his journey to Rome, all the cities and churches of Asia sent to salute him by their bishops, presby- ters, and deacons. Not long after these authors lived Pius, bishop of Rome, whose authority I cite, because Blondel12 allows it to be genuine. This author, in his epistle to Justus of Vienna, gives him the title of bishop,18 and speaks of presbyters and deacons under him. In the beginning of the next age we have the testimonies of Clemens Alex- andrinus, Origen, and Tertullian, all agreeing in the same thing, that there were then in their own times the different orders of bishops and presbyters in the Sect. 2. The order of bi- shops always owne to be superior to that of presbyters. church. There are here, in the church, says Cle- mens,“ the different degrees or progressions of bishops, presbyters, and deacons, in imitation of the angelical glory. Origen takes notice of this dis- tinction above ten times 1‘ in his works, which those that please may read at large in Bishop Pearson. I shall only recite two passages, one out of his Homi- lies upon St. Luke, written whilst he was a layman, where he says,16 that digamy excludes men from all ecclesiastical dignities; for one that is twice married can neither be made bishop, presbyter, nor deacon. Here he calls them different dignities; in the other place ‘7 he calls them different degrees, saying, Every one shall be punished according to his degree: if the supreme governor of the church offends, he shall have the greater punishment. A layman will deserve mercy in comparison of a deacon, and a deacon in comparison of a presbyter. So that bishops, in his opinion, were then a degree above presbyters and deacons. Tertullian frequentlyla men- tions the same distinction, but more especially in his book de Baptismo, where he says,19 The right of baptizing belongs to the chief priest, who is the bishop; and after him, to presbyters and deacons, yet not without the authority of the bishop, for the honour of the church, in the preservation of which consists the church’s peace. These allegations are sufficient evidences, as to matter of fact, and the practice of the church in the three first ages, that there was then an order of chief priests, or bishops, superior to presbyters, settled and allowed in the Christian church. If we proceed a little further into SM 3_' this inquiry, and examine from what b;§,}l,f,§.flfe§.§.fstoli. original this appointment came, whe- cal inshmmn' ther from ecclesiastical or apostolical institution; which is another question concerning matter of fact, that will in some measure determine the right also; the same authors, with the unanimous con- sent of all others, declare, that it was no human invention, but an original settlement of the apostles themselves, which they made by Divine appoint- ment. The order of bishops, says Tertullian,20 when it is traced up to its original, will be found to have 8 Ignat. Ep. ad Ephes. n. 2, 3, 4. Ep. ad Philad. n. 4, 7, 10. Ep. ad Smyrn. n. 8 et 12. Ep. ad Trall. n. 2, 7, 12, 13. Ep. ad Polycarp. n. 6. 9 Pearson, Vind. Ignat. Usser. de Epist. Iguat. Voss. Epist. ad Rivet. Coteler. Praef. at Not. in Ignat. Bull, De- fens. Fid. Nic. sect. 3. n. 6. p. 290, &c. 1° Ignat. Ep. ad Magnes. n. 6. ‘1 Martyr. Ignat. ap. Grabe Spicil. Saecul. 2. t. l. p. 12. ‘2 Blondel. Apol. p. 18. ‘3 Pius. Ep. 2. ad Just. Vien. Tu vero apud senatoriam Viennam. Colobio episcoporum vestitus, &c. Pres- byteri et diaconi te observent. 14 Clem. Alex. Strom. lib. 6. p. 667. 'rv‘qv émckno'iav 7rpoKo'lrai éqrto'lcé'rrwv, 'n'pso’flv'rs'pwv, 6H1- xo'uwu, &c. [(1. Pzndag. lib. 3. c. 12. p. 264. ‘5 Origen. Hom.2.inNum. Hom.2. in Cantic. Horn. 6. in ’Ev'1'a56a Ka'rt‘z Esai. Horn. 5 et 16. in Ezek. Com. in Matt. xix. et xxi. De Orat. ap. Pearson. Vindic. Iguat. par. 1. c. 11. p. 320. ‘6 Orig. Horn. 17. in Luc. Ab ecclesiasticis dignitatibus non solum fornicatio sed et nuptiae repellunt. Neque enim episcopus, nec presbyter, nec diaconus, nec vidua possunt esse digami. ' ‘7 Orig. Horn. 5. in Ezek. Pro modo graduum unusquis- que torquebitur, &c. ‘8 Tertul. do Monogam. c. 11. De Fuga, c. 11. De Pres- script. c. 41. 1” Tertul. de Bapt. c. 17. Dandi quidem jus habet sum- mus sacerdos, qui est episcopus: dehinc presbyteri et dia- coni, non tamen sine episcopi auctoritate, propter ecclesiae honorem; quo salvo salva pax est. 2° Tertul. adv. Marcion. lib. 4. c. 5. Ordo episcoporum ad originem recensus, in J oannem stabit auctorem. CHAP. I. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 19 St. John for one of its authors. This agrees ex- actly with what Clemens Alexandrinus21 has re- corded of him, that when he was settled at Ephesus, he went about the neighbouring regions, ordaining bishops, and setting apart such men for the clergy as were signified to him by the Holy Ghost. These were those Asiatic bishops that St. J erom22 speaks of, who says, that at their request St. John wrote his Gospel against the heresies of Ebion and Cerin- thus. Whence it follows, that, according to this account, the order of bishops was settled before the canon of Scripture was concluded. \Vhence Clemens of Alexandria23 further observes, that there are many precepts in Scripture appertaining to parti- cular sorts of persons, some to presbyters, some to deacons, and some to bishops also. Irenmus de- clares himself of the same opinion, that there were bishops as well as presbyters in the apostles’ days. For the assembly of Miletus, he says,” was com- posed of bishops and presbyters, that were of Ephe- sus and the neighbouring cities of Asia. And therefore, agreeably to that hypothesis, he always derives the succession of bishops and their original from the apostles. As where he says,25 that Hyginus, bishop of Rome, was the ninth in order of episco- pal succession from the apostles?" And in another place,27 giving an exact catalogue of the twelve bishops of Rome that governed successively in that see to his own time, he says of Linus, the first of them, that he was ordained bishop immediately by the apostles, upon the first foundation of the church; and of Eleutherius, the last of them, that he was the twelfth bishop from the apostles. Tertullianz8 insists much upon the same argument, and makes a challenge to all sorts of heretics upon it: Let them show us the original of their churches, and give us a catalogue of their bishops in an exact suc- cession from first to last, whereby it may appear, that their first bishop had either some apostle, or some apostolical man, living in the time of the apostles, for his author or immediate predecessor. For thus it I 2‘ Clem. Alex. Quis dives salvetur. ap. Combefis. Auctar. Novissim. p. 185. et ap. Euseb. lib. 3. c. 23. 22 Hieron. Catal. Scriptor. Eccles. in Joanne. Novissimus omnium scripsit evangelium, rogatus ab Asise episcopis. 23 Clem. Alex. Paedag. lib. 3. c. 12. p. 264. 7”’ Iren. lib. 3. c. 14. In Mileto convocatis episcopis et presbyteris, qui erant ab Epheso et a reliquis proximis ci- vitatibus. 25 Id. lib. 1. c. 28. Hyginus nonum locum episcopatus per successionem ab apostolis habuit. 26 Euseb. lib. 4. c. 11, cites the same out of Irenaeus. 2’ Iren. lib. 3. c. 3. Fundantes et instruentes beati apos- toli ecclesiam, Lino episcopatum administrandac ecclesiae tradiderunt. Cited also by Euseb. lib. 5. c. 6. 2” Tertul. de Praescript. c. 32. Edant origines ecclesiarum suarum: evolvant ordinem episcoporum suorum, ita per suc- cessiones ab initio decurrentem, ut primus ille episcopus aliquem ex apostolis, vel apostolicis viris, qui tamen cum ap ostolis perseveraverint, habuerit auctorem et antecessorem. is that apostolical churches make their reckoning. The church of Smyrna counts up to Polycarp, or- dained by St. John; the church of Rome, to Cle- mens, ordained by St. Peter; and so all other churches in like manner exhibit their first bishops ordained by the apostles, by whom the apostolical seed was propagated and conveyed to others. This implies that the apostles, as they founded churches, settled bishops in them; and that. this might be proved from the records and archives of every church, the most of which were probably then remaining, when Tertullian made this challenge to all heretics, and appealed to these original records in behalf of the catholic church. An exact and authentic catalogue gm 4 of these first foundations, would be a of: fislflfglgiue very useful and entertaining thing: 8593112228533?“ but at this distance of time, it is im- possible to gratify the world with any such curiosity, whatever pains should be taken about it. Yet there are some scattered remains and fragments to be collected out of the ancient writers, which will sufficiently answer our present design; which is, to evidence that the apostles settled bishops in all churches upon their first plantation. To begin with the church of Rome: we have already heard Irenaeus and Tertullian declaring, that the apostles ordained a bishop there. And the same is asserted by St. Chrysostom,29 and Eusebius,$0 and Ruflin,31 and St. J erom,82 and Optatus,83 and Epiphanius,“ and St. Austin; who says,85 If the or- der of the bishops succeeding one another he of any consideration, we take the surest and soundest way, who begin to number from St. Peter: for Linus succeeded Peter; and Clemens, Linus; and Ana- cletus, Clemens, &c. It is true, there is a little difference in the account which these authors give of the succession; for some reckon Linus first, then Anacletus, then Clemens: others begin with Clemens, and reckon him the first in order from St. Peter. But this is easily recon- Hoc enim modo ecclesia: apostolicae census suos deferunt: sicut Smyrnaeorum ecclesia Polycarpum ab Joanne conlo- catum refert : sicut Romanorum Clementem a Petro ordi- natum edit: proinde utique et caaterae exhibent, quos ab apostolis in episcopatum constitutos, apostolici seminis tra- duces habent. See also c. 36. ibid. Polycrat. Epist. ap. Euseb. lib. 5. c. 24. Cyprian. Ep. 52. a1. 55. ad Antonian. p. 104. Cum Fabiani locus, id est, locus Petri, et gradus cathedrae sacerdotalis vaearet. Id. Ep. 27. a1. 33. ed. Oxon. 29 Chrys. Horn. 10. in 2 Tim. 3° Euseb. lib. 3. c. 4. 3‘ Rufiin. ap. Hieron. Apol. 2. p. 219. 32 Hieron. Catal. Script. in Clemen. 9'3 Optat. lib. 2. p. 48. 8‘ Epiph. Heat. 27. 35 Aug. Ep. 165. Si ordo episcoporum sibi succedentium considerandus est; quanto certius et vere salubriter ab ipso Petro numeramus? Petro enim successit Linus, Lino Clemens, Clementi Anacletus, &c. o2 20 - ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. BooK II. ciled by learned men,88 who make it appear that Linus and Anacletus died whilst St. Peter lived, and that Clemens was ordained their successor by St. Peter also. So that we have two or three per- sons, by this account, ordained successively bishops of Rome by the hands of the apostles. Next, for the church of Jerusalem: it is unani- mously delivered by all ancient writers, that James, the Lord’s brother, was the first bishop thereof. St. Jerom" says, he was ordained by the apostles immediately after our Lord’s crucifixion. Epipha- nius$8 calls him, therefore, the first bishop; the first who had an episcopal chair, the first to whom Christ committed his own throne upon earth. Chrysos- tom89 says, he was made bishop by Christ himself: the author“ of the Apostolical Constitutions, both by Christ and the apostles. In like manner, Eu- sebius‘l always speaks of him under that character, as first bishop of Jerusalem, ordained by the apos- tles. So Hegesippus,“2 Clemens Alexandrinus,“ and Dionysius,M bishop of Corinth, all cited by Eusebius. To whom we may add St. Austin,‘15 who styles John, bishop of Jerusalem, St. J ames’s successor, and pos- sessor of the chair wherein he sat as first bishop of the place. And it is remarkable, what Clemens, one of the ancientest of these writers, says, that this was designed as a peculiar honour to St. James, in regard that he was the brother of Christ: for though our Saviour usually gave the preference to Peter and John, and James his brother, yet none of those con- tended about this honour, but chose this James, sur- named Justus, to be bishop of the place; where he lived a saint, and died a martyr. Some time after his death, as Eusebius‘16 relates from ancient tradition, the apostles and‘ disciples of our Lord, as many as were yet in being, met to- gether with our Saviour’s kinsmen (several of which were then alive) to consult about choosing a suc- cessor in St. J ames’s room; and they unanimously agreed upon Simeon, son of Cleopas, our Saviour’s cousin according to the flesh ; thinking him the most fit and worthy person to sit upon the episcopal throne. The same is asserted by Eusebius in other places," and the author“ of the Constitutions under the name of Clemens Romanus. From Jerusalem, if we pass to Antioch, there again we find Euodius first, and after him Ignatius, ordained bishops by the hands of the apostles. Baronius49 and some others fancy, that they sat both at the same time, the one as bishop of. the Jews, and the other of the Gentiles; but Eusebius50 says expressly, that Euodius was the first, and Ignatius the second, after Euodius was dead. And it is agreed by all ancient writers, that they were both conse- crated before St. Peter’s death. Of Euodius there can be no question made, if it appears that Ignatius was ordained by the apostles in his room. Now this is most expressly said by Theodoretfl that he received the gift of the high priesthood, a'pxlepwo'z'wng Xa'zpw, from the hand of the great Peter. In like manner, Chrysostom, in his encomium52 upon him, says, he does not only admire him, because he was thought worthy of so high a degree ; but that he was ordained to it by those holy men, and had the hands of the blessed apostles laid upon his sacred head. The same is said in effect by Athanasiusf3 when he calls him the first bishop of Antioch after the apostles; and Origen,“ who calls him the second after St. Peter; and J erom,55 the third: for though they count differently, yet they mean the same thing; that Ig- natius was ordained successor to Euodius while the apostles lived, and so might be called either second or third after the apostles, according as St. Peter and Euodius were included, or excluded out of the number. From Antioch let us go to Smyrna; where we shall find Polycarp, another apostolical bishop, ordained by the apostles. St. J erom ascribes his ordination 5“ to St. John, whose disciple he was. lrenaeus says, he himself knew him; and therefore could not mistake in what he relates of him; which is, that he was ordained bishop by the apostles.57 Tertul- 36 Cotel. Not. in Const. Apost. lib. 7. c. 46. Pearson, de Success. Rom. Pontif. Dissert. 2. c. 2. Gave, Hist. Lit. vol. 1. in Clem. 3’ Hieron. Catal. Script. c. 3. Post passionem Domini, statirn ab apostolis Hierosolyinorum episcopus ordinatus. Id. Com. in Gal. i. p. 165. Hic Jacobus primus Hierosoly- morum episcopus fuit. 38 Epiphan. Haer. 78. Antidicomar. n. 7. Nazor. n. 3. Haer. 66. Manich. n. 19. 89 Chrys. Horn. 38. in 1 Cor. xv. 4° Const. Apost. lib. 8. c. 35. 41 Euseb. lib. 2. c. 23. lib. 3. c. 5 et 7. 11b. 7. c. 19. ‘*2 Hegesip. ap. Euseb. lib. 2. c. 23. ‘*3 Clem. Hypotypos. lib. 6. ap. Euseb. lib. 2. c. l. ‘4 Dionys. ap. ad Atheniens. ap. Euseb. lib. 4. c. 23. ‘5 Aug. contra Crescon. lib. 2. c. 37. Hierosolyrnitanam ecclesiam primus apostolus J acobus episcopatu suo rexit. Id. cont. Liter. Petil. lib. 2.,c. 51. Cathedra ecclesiae Hierosolymitanae, in qua Jacobus sedit, et in qua hodie Id. Haer. 29. Johannes sedet. See also Cyril. Catechism. 4. n. 17. Ca- tech. 14. n. 13. ‘6 Euseb. lib. 3. c. 11. “8 Constit. Apost. lib. 7. c. 46. "9 Baron. an. 45. n. 14. an. 71. n. 11. Halloix Vit. Ignat. c. 2. p. 394. 5° Euseb. lib. 3. c. 22. 5‘ Theod. Dial. l. t. 4. p. 33. 52 Chrysost. Horn. 42. in Ignat. t. l. p. 501. Ed. Front. Duc. ' 53 Athan. de Synod. Arim. t. l. p. 922. 5‘ Orig. Horn. 6. in Luc. Ignatiurn dico episcopum An- tiochiae post Petrurn secundum. 55 Hieron. Catal. Scriptor. in Ignat. trum apostolum episcopus. 5“ Hieron. Catal. Script. c. 17. Polycarpus Joannis apostoli discipulus, ab eo Smyrnae episcopus ordinatus. 5" Iren. lib. 3. c. 3. Ab apostolis in Asia, in ea quae est Smyrnis-ecclesia, constitutus episcopus, quem et nos vidi- mus in prime. nostra aetate. ‘7 Idem Chronic. Tertius post Pe- CHAP. II. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 21 lian58 and Eusebius ""9 witness the same; the one say- ing, that he was ordained by St. John; and the other, by those that had seen the Lord. Papias was another disciple of St. J ohn,60 as both Irenaeus and St. J erom witness’; and he was con- temporary with Ignatius and Polycarp, and bishop of Hierapolis about the same time; that is, in the beginning of the second century. So that it is pro- bable, he was another of those bishops which St. John ordained in Asia, though we have no express testimony to prove it. But it is asserted by all ancient writers, that Timothy was ordained bishop of Ephesus by St. Paul. Eusebius,61 Chrysostom,62 Epiphanius,63 J c- rom,“ Hilary the deacon,65 and the author of the Passion of Timothy in Photius,66 unanimously attest it. And Theodoret “1 afiirms, moreover, that he was bishop, under the title of an apostle. Most of the same authors agree in the same evi- dence for Titusfs that he was made bishop of Crete by St. Paul also. And Chrysostom,69 with Euse- bius, seems to give both him and Timothy the power of metropolitans; of which more hereafter. Others say, that Dionysius the Areopagite was made first bishop of Athens. Eusebius 7° more than once mentions an epistle of Dionysius bishop of Corinth, a very ancient writer of the second century, wherein this is expressly asserted. So that he must be ordained, either by St. Paul himself, as Suidas and others71 think, or by some other apostle. It is generally agreed, that this Dionysius died some time before St. John, and was succeeded in his bishopric by Publius, and he by Quadratus, whom St. J erom72 calls a disciple of the apostles; which, in all probability, refers to his being tutored by St. John. Now, if Quadratus himself was St. J ohn’s disciple, (as he might be, who was bishop in the time of the emperor Hadrian, to whom he presentl ed his apology,) then there might be three bishops successively at Athens, all trained up by the apos- tles, and two of them consecrated by their hands, or at least with their consent and approbation. I shall end this catalogue of primitive bishops with what Theodoret73 says of Epaphroditus, that as Timothy and Titus were bishops of Ephesus and Crete under the name of apostles, so Epaphroditus was bishop of Philippi under the same title, which was then the common name of all that were properly bishops: of which I say no more in this place, because I give a more particular account of it in the following chapter. CHAPTER II. OF THE SEVERAL TITLES OF HONOUR GIVEN TO BISHOPS IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. FOR further confirmation of what has been asserted in the foregoing chap- aliaifiigiiiggilltcgm ter, it will not be amiss here to sub- ‘ ' join next a short account of the several titles of honour which were given to bishops in the primi- tive church. The most ancient of these, is the title of apostles, which, in a large and secondary sense, is thought by many to have been the original name for bishops, before the name bishop was ap- propriated to their order. For at first they suppose the names bishop and presbyter to have been com- mon names for all of the first and second order; during which time, the appropriate name for bi- shops, to distinguish them from mere presbyters, was that of apostles. Thus Theodoretl says ex- pressly, The same persons were anciently called promiscuously both bishops and presbyters, whilst those who are now called bishops were called apos- tles. But shortly after, the name of apostles was appropriated to such only as were apostles indeed; and then the name bishop was given to those who before were called apostles. Thus, he says, Epa- phroditus was the apostle of the Philippians, and Titus the apostle of the Cretians, and Timothy the apostle of the Asiatics. And this he repeats2 in several other places of his writings. . The author under the name of St. Ambrose3 as- serts the same thing, that all bishops were called apostles at first. And therefore, he says,4 that St. Paul, to distinguish himself from such apostles, calls himself an apostle, not of man, nor sent by man to preach, as those others were, who were chosen and sent by the apostles to confirm the 58 Tertul. de Praescrip. c. 32. 59 Euseb. lib. 3. c. 36. et lib. 4. c. 14. 6° Iren. lib. 5. c. 33. Papias J oannis auditor, Polycarpi contubemalis. Hieron. Ep. 29. ad Theodor. It. de Scriptor. 6‘ Euseb. lib. 3. c. 4. 6'2 Chrys. Hom. 1. in Philip. 63 Epiph. Haer. 75. Aerian. 6‘ l'lieron. Catal. Scriptor. in Timotheo. “5 Pseudo-Ambros. Praef. in Tim. It. Com. in lTim. iii. 6“ Phot. Cod. 254. 6’ Theodor. Corn. in 1 Tim. iii. 1. “3 Euseb. et Chrysost. loc. cit. Hieron. do Scriptor. in Tito. Pseudo-Ambros. Pres-f. in Tit. Theodor. loc. cit. 6’ Chrys. Horn. 1. in Tit. It. Horn. 15. in 1 Tim. 7° Euseb. lib. 3. c. 4. It. lib. 4. c. 23. "1 Suidas in Voce Dionys. Maxim. Prolog. ad Oper. Dionysii. 72 Hieron. de Scriptor. c. 19. Quadratus apostolorum discipulus, Publio Athenarum episcopo ob Christi fidem martyrio coronato, in locum ejus substituitur. 73 Theodor. Com. in 1 Tim. iii. 1. ITheodor. Ibid. 2 Theodor. Com. in Phil. i. 1. 3 Ambros. Com. in Eph. iv. "1d. Com. in Cal. i. 1. It. in Phil. ii. 25. Apostoli episcopi sunt. 22 BooK II. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. churches. Amalarius5 cites another passage out of this same author, which speaks more fully to the purpose: They, says he, who are now called bi- shops, were originally called apostles: but the holy apostles being dead, they who were ordained after them to govern the churches, could not arrive to the excellency of those first; nor had they the testimony of miracles, but were in many other respects inferior to them: therefore they thought it not decent to assume to themselves the name of apostles; but, dividing the names, they left to presbyters the name of the pres- bytery, and they themselves were called bishops. This is what those authors infer from the identity of the names, bishop and presbyter, in the first age. They do not thence argue, (as some who abuse their authority have done since,) that therefore bishops and presbyters were all one; but they think that bishops were then distinguished by a more appro- priate name, and more expressive of their superiority, which was that of secondary apostles. Afterward bishops thought it hon- our enough for them to be styled the apostles’ successors. As Cyprian,6 and Firmilian,’ and the bishops in the council of Car- thage8 call themselves and others. And St. J erom9 speaks of them in the same style, saying, Whereso- ever a bishop is, whether at Rome, or Eugubium at Constantinople, or at Rhegium; at Alexandrla, or at Tanis; they are all of equal merit, their priest- hood is the same; they are all successors to the apostles. And both he and St. Austin ‘° draw that of the psalmist to this sense; “Instead of thy fa- thers thou shalt have children, whom thou mayest make princes in all lands :” they say, bishops are the sons of the apostles, and princes and fathers in the church. Sect 3_ And hence it was that anciently \ ' ' I c ' bis-Xggfiefili'gned every bishop’s see was dignified with sed“ "WWW" the title of sedes apostolica, an apostoli- cal see; which in those days was no peculiar title Sect. 2. After that, successors of the apostles. L of the bishop of Rome, but given to all bishops in general, as deriving their original and counting their succession from the apostles. The catholic church, says St. Austin,11 is propagated and diffused over all the world by the apostolical sees, and the succession of bishops in them. It is plain, this is not spoken only of the bishop of Rome, but of all other bishops whatsoever. Sidonius Apollinaris12 uses the same expression, in speaking of a private French bishop, who sat'five and forty years, he says, in his apostolical see. And Paulinus“ makes no more but the usual compliment to Alypius, when he tells him, that God had deservedly placed him in an apostolical see with the princes of his people. Where we must also note, that Pau- linus speaks in the usual phrase and style of those ancient times, when he calls bishops princes of the people. For that was another usual title that was given them; as appears from Optatus,H and several passages in St. J erom;15 who, to distinguish them from secular princes, usually styles them principes ecclesz'az,16 princes of the church; applying to them that prophecy of Isa. lx. 17, which, according to his translation, is, “ I will make thy princes peace, and thy bishops righteousness.” Upon which he has this note ;‘7 That the majesty of the Holy Scripture is to be ad- mired, in that it calls those who were to be bishops in future ages, by the name of princes. In the Greek writers they are styled ci'pxovreg tmcMauJv, governors and princes likewise; as frequently in Eusebius,18 Origen,19 Chrysostom,20 and many others. In the same sense Cyprian” and Tertullian22 commonly call them pre- ,iffi’i‘fiiifzattil sidents, or provosts of the church; 颰P°" which Eusebius28 and Justin Martyr24 call n'poso'rd'ireg, and sometimes 7rp6edpoc,25 and others €¢0pOl,261nSp€Cl}- ors; all which areproper characters of bishops, who have the care, presidency, and inspection of the church. Sect. 4. Bishops called princes of the people. Sect. 5. 5 Amalar. de Ofiic. Eccles. lib. 2. c. 13. Qui nunc epis- copi nominantur, illi tunc apostoli dicebantur, &c. 6 Cypr. Ep. 69. al. 66. ad Florent. Qui apostolis vicaria ordinatione succedunt. Id. Ep. 42. al. 45. ad Cornel. Labor-are debemus, ut unitatem a Domino, et per apostolos nobis successoribus traditam, obtinere curemus. '' Firmil. Ep. 55. ap. Cypr. p. 225. 8 Con. Carthag. ap. Cypr. in Sufi’ragio Clari a Mascula. 9 Hieron. Epist. 85. ad Evagr. It. in Psal. xliv. 16. 1° Aug. Com. in Psal. xliv. 16. p. 169. Pro apostolis nati sunt filii tibi, constituti sunt episcopi,—— Ipsa ecclesia patres illos appellat. 1‘ Aug. Ep. 42. ad Fratres Madaurens. Christiana so- cietas per sedes apostolorum et successiones episcoporum certa per orbem propagatione difi'unditur. ‘2 Sidon. lib. 6. Ep. 1. ad Lup. Tricassin. sede novem jam decursa quinquennia. 18 Paulin. Ep. 45. ad Alypium. Cum principibus populi sui sede apostolica merit?) collocavit Dominus. See also Tertul. de Praescrip. c. 36. Ipsae adhuc cathedrae apos- tolorum suis locis praesidentur.--- Habes Corinthum.— In apostolica Habes Philippos, &c. 1‘ Optat. lib. l. p. 39. Ipsi apices et principes omnium episcopi. *5 Hieron. Com. in Esa. iii. 16 Hieron. Com. in Psal. xliv. Principes ecclesiae, id est, episcopi. Id. Com. in Esa. v. et Tit. i. 1’ Hieron. Com. in Esa. lx. Scripturae S. admiranda majestas, quod principes futuros ecclesiae episcopos nomi- navit. ‘8 Euseb. Hist. lib. 6. c. 28. lib. 8. c. 1 et 3. Martyr. Palaest. c. l. '9 Origen. Horn. 11. in Jerem. Cont. Cels. lib. 3. p. 129. 2" Chrys.de Sacerdot. lib. 3. c. 15. Id. Hom. 3. ad. Pop. Antioch. t. l. p. 48. 2‘ Cypr. Ep. 3, 9, 13, 27, 81. Ed. Oxon. Prazpositi. 22 Tertul. Apol. c. 39. Ad Uxor. lib. l. c. 7. De Cor. Mil. c. 3. 23 Euseb. lib. 6. c. 3, 8, 10. lib. 7. c. 13. lib. 8. c. 6. 24 Just. Apol. 2. Chrysost. Hom. 3. in Colos. 25 Euseb. lib. 8. c. 2. It. de Martyr. Palaest. c. 2. 2“ Philostorg. Hist. lib. 3. c. 6. It. de CHAP. II. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. I 23 And because this presidency was not only over the people, but also over the clergy, they were dignified upon that account with the distinguishing characters of summi sacerdotes, pontg'fices maximz', and principes sacerdot-um, chief priests, and princes of the clergy. The author under the name of St. Ambrose,27 gives the bishop expressly the title of chief priest, and prince of the priests. And so, frequently, the name summus sacerdos is used by St. J erom: as, where speaking of himself, he says, In the opinion of all men he was thought worthy of the high priesthood; he explains28 himself to mean a bishopric. And in another place,29 the pros- perity of the church depends upon the honour of the chief priest. The same title is given to all bishops, by the authors“ of the Questions upon the Old and New Testament under the name of St. Austin. Sidonius 3‘ calls them summi ponztz'fices ,- where he speaks only of the bishops of France. And therefore, when Tertullian32 gives the title of pontzfex maximus to the bishop of Rome, he does him no greater honour than, in those days, was done to every bishop in the world; and some think he meant not the bishop of Rome in particular, but compre- hended all others under that title. As it is certain the council of Agde does, when it orders83 every metro- politan to call his suffragans, ad ordinationem summi pontg'ficz's ; which means not, to the ordination of the pope of Rome, but to the ordination of any French bishop within the metropolitan’s province or jurisdic- tion. For then, as we have seen, summaspontgfex was the ordinary title of every bishop whatsoever. And so was the name papa, though now it is become the pretended pre- rogative and sole privilege of the bishop of Rome. Some historians34 indeed are so vain as to assert confidently, that Cyril of Alexan- dria was the first bishop in those parts who had the honour of being called papa, and that because he was Pope Celestine’s legate in the council of Ephe- sus. The Arabic writers, Homaidius, and Abubacrus Sect. 6. Principes sacer~ dotum, pontilfices mruimi, summi saoerdotcs, dgc. Sect. 7. Every bishop aq- ciently Called papa, father, or pope. Habasides, cited by Echellensis and Bishop Pear- son,”5 deliver a quite contrary story, that the name was first given to the patriarch of Alexandria, and thence carried to Rome: which seems to be said in answer to the Romish pretences. But the truth of the matter is, that it was no peculiar privilege of one patriarch or other, but the common title of all bishops, who were called fathers36 of the church, and fathers37 of the clergy; and papa means no more. Therefore Tertullian, in his book de Pudici- tia, c. 13, speaking indefinitely of any Christian bishop who absolves penitents, gives him the name of Benedz'ctu-s papa. Or if we suppose, as some do, that he speaks particularly of the bishop of Rome, yet there is nothing singular in it; for, at the same time, Dionysius, presbyter of Alexandria, speaking of Heraclas his bishop, gives him the very same title,“8 The blessed pope Heraclas. And Arius him- self,39 in one of his Epistles, speaks of his bishop Alexander in the same style. St. J erom gives the title 4° to Athanasius, Epiphanius, and Paulinus ; and writing often to St. Austin, he always inscribes‘" his Epistles Beatz'ssz'mo papce Aagustz'no. So among Cy- prian’s Epistles, those that are written to him are usually inscribed42 in the same manner, Cyprz'ano papa. And the clergy of Rome themselves43 give him the title of Benedz'ctas papa, and Beatissz'mus and Gloriossimas papa Cyprianas. It were easy to add many other testimonies out of Epiphanius, and Constantine’s Epistles, and the Theodosian Code, and especially Sidonius Apollinaris,“ who always gives the French bishops the style of Dominus papa. But in so plain a case I need not insist any longer, especially since a learned Romanist45 has undertaken to prove, out of authors as late as Photius and Gre- gory of Tours, that papa was the common name of all bishops for several ages: who also notes out of Balsamon, that this name was sometimes given to the inferior clergy; who were called papce pzisz'nm', little fathers; and their tonsure, or crown, thence called warrah’yrpa, the tonsure of the fathers. In comparison of whom, Balsamon46 calls presbyters 2’ Ambros. Com. in Ephes. iv. In episcopo omnes ordines sunt, quia primus sacerdos est, hoc est, princeps sacerdotum. 28 Hieron. Ep. 99. ad Asellam. Omnium pene judicio dignus summo sacerdotio decernebar. 2’9 Id. Dial. c. Lucifer. p. 139. Ecclesiae salus in summi sacerdotis dignitate pendet. 8° Aug. Quaest. Vet. et N. Test. 0. 101. Quid est episco- pus nisi primus presbyter, id est, summus sacerdos ? 3‘ Sidon. lib. 4. Ep. 11. lib. 7. Ep. 5. 82 T ertul. de Pudicit. c. 1. 88 Con. Agathens. c. 35. 3‘ Nicephorus is cited and chastised by Savaro for this. Vid. Savaro, Not. in Sidon. lib. 6. Ep. 1. 35 Pearson, Vind. Ignat. part 1. c. 11. p. 330. 36 Aug. Com. in Psal. xliv. p. 169. Ipsa ecclesia patres illos appellat. Chrysost. Horn. 3. ad Popul. Antioch, t. 1. p. 43. 3’ Hieron. Ep. 62. ad Theoph. Episcopi contenti sint honore suo: patres se sciant csse, non dominos. Id. Ep. 2 et 3. ad Nepotian. Com. in Psal. xliv. &c. 38 Dionys. Ep. ad Philemon. ap. Euseb. lib. 7. c. 7. Hapd 'roii ,uaicapz'ov 'n'civra find'iu ‘Hpaxhr'z'. 39 Arius Ep. ad. Euseb. Nicom. ap. 'l‘heod. lib. 1. c. 5. et ap. Epiphan. Hzer. 69. Arian. 4° Hieron. Ep. 61. ad Pammach. p. 163. "- Iii; Ep. 17, 18, 25, 30. inter Epist. Augustini. ‘3 Cypr. Ep. 39, 31, 36. Edit. Oxon. ‘3 Ep. 8. Cleri Rom. ad Cler. Carthag. ibid. Didicimus secessisse Benedictum papam Cyprianum. Ep. 30. Cler. ’ Rom. ad Cypr. Beatissime ac gloriosissime papa. 4‘ Sidon. lib. 6. Epist. 1. Domino papae Lupo. Lib. 6. Ep. 2. Papa pragmatio. Lib. 6. Ep. 3. Domino papae Leontio. And so for twelve Epistles together. ‘5 Savaro, Comment. in Sidon. lib. 6. Ep. 1. p. 379. ‘5 Balsam. Corn. in Can. Apost. c. 59. It. in Con. An- tioch. can. 10. 24 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Boox IL and the clz-orepz'scopz', protopapw, and protopapades, chief fathers; speaking in the language of his own times, when the chorepz'scopi and presbyters were become all one. But bishops had still a more hon- ourable title than that of papa ; for they were commonly called patres pa- trum, and episcopz' episcoporum, fathers of fathers, and bishops of bishops. The first that had this title was James, bishop of Jerusalem; which made the counterfeit author under the name of Clemens Ro- manus,‘7 inscribe an epistle (as directed to him) with this title, Clemens Jacobo domino, episcopo episcopo- rum, &c. To which Sidonius Apollinaris‘18 alludes plainly, when, writing to Lupus, an eminent French bishop, he tells him, he was father of fathers, and bishop of bishops, and another James of his age. By this we understand what Tertullian49 means, when, speaking ironically of the catholic bishops, who admitted adulterers into communion again upon their repentance, he says, I hear there is a decree published, and that a peremptory one; the chief pontiff, the bishop of bishops, saith, I forgive the sins of adultery and fornication to all those that repent of them. Some50 take this for a peculiar character of the bishop of Rome, and I will not deny, but that Tertullian might intend more espe- cially to reflect upon him: but yet there is nothing singular in the title, which did not belong to other bishops as well as him; as appears from what has been already cited out of Sidonius. To which we may add the testimony of Athanasius,51 who styles Hosius, The father of bishops. And Gregory Na- zianzen52 gives the same title to his own father, as St. J erom” does to Epiphanius, styling him the father of all bishops. Cotelerius“ observes, that Gregory Nyssen is called arm-rip warispwv, father of fathers, by the second council of Nice; and others55 say, Theodosius the emperor gave Chrysostom the same honourable title after death. As to the reason of these names, it is probable some bishops might have them upon the account of personal merit; and others, from the eminency of their sees; as the bishop of Alexandria, to whom Balsamon “6 gives the Sect. 8. Pater patrum, and episcmg wig. coporum. title of pater patr-am, many ages after. But there was a more general reason why all bishops should be called so, as may be collected from Epiphanius ;5" who says, that the order of bishops was an order that begat fathers to the church; that is, bishops made bishops by ordination; whereas presbyters could only beget sons, by the power which they had of baptizing. And therefore, though we sometimes find presbyters called fathers, yet we no where find the title of pater patrum given to any of their order. Yet I must here also observe, that several of these titles were never kindly received among the African fathers ; because the bishops of Rome began to abuse them, to establish a usurped authority over their neighbours. Therefore, in two African coun- cils held at Carthage, the one58 under Cyprian, the other59 in St. Austin’s time, these titles, episcopus episcoporum, princeps sacerdotum, and summus sacer- dos, were discountenanced and forbid, insomuch that the primates themselves were not allowed to use them. But of this more hereafter, when we come to speak of metropolitans. Gregory Nazianzen in his rhetorical way usually gives bishops the title of Bsshogeggniésmes called patriarchs. patriarchs; by which he means not patriarchs in the proper sense, as the word came afterward to be used in the church, to signify bishops of the larger sees, who had primates and metropoli- tans under them; but any bishops whatsoever, that were heads of their own family, that is, the church subject to them. Thus he styles his own father patriarch,6° though he was but bishop of Nazianzum, a very small city in Cappadocia, under Caasarea the metropolis. And in his oration61 before the council of Constantinople, he gives .the same title to all other bishops, complaining of the Arian cruelties against them. Have we not had, says he, our an- cient bishops, or, to speak more properly, our patri- archs, publicly murdered by them? In another place, complaining of the corrupt promotions and practices of some bishops of his age, he thus takes his leave of them,62 Valete ; z'nsolentes estate .- patri- archatas per sortes inter '00s distribuz'te. ‘Farewell: go on in your insolence: divide the patriarchal dig- ‘*7 Pseudo-Clem. Ep. 1. ad Jacob. “8 Sidon. lib. 6. Ep. 1. Tu pater patrum, et episcopus episcoporum, et alter saeculi tui J acobus. 49. Tertul. de Pudicit. c. 1. Audio etiam edictum esse propositum, et quidem peremptorium, pontifex scilicet maximus, episcopus episcoporum dicit, ego et mechiae et fornicationis delicta poenitentia defunctis dimitto. 5° Baron. an. 142. n. 4. an. 216. n. 4. Georg. Ambianas Observ. in Tertul. t. 3. p. 633. 5‘ Athan. Epist. ad solit. vit. agentes, t. l. p. 837. 52 Naz. Orat. 19. de Fun. Patr. p. 314. 53 Hieron. Ep. 61. p. 167. 5‘ Coteler. Not. in Ep. Clem. p. 605. 55 Nicephor. lib. 14. c. 43. 56 Balsam. Resp. ad Interrogat. Marci ap. Leunclav. J us Gr. Rom. t. 1. lib. 5. p. 362. Kl'iptos Mo'zpKos wa'répwu wa'rfip l'nrtipxwv, &c. 57 Epiphan. Haer. 75. Ael'ian. Ilacrépwv 'ysvun'rmi) 'ruigzs. Ha'répas 'ydp 'ysvvq'i 'nj émchno'iq. 5'8 Con. Carthag. ap. Cypr. p. 229. Neque enim quis- quam nostrum episcopum se episcoporum constituit, aut tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem collegas suos adigit. 5'9 Con. Carth. 3. c. 26. Ut primae sedis episcopus non appelletur princeps sacerdotum, aut summus sacerdos, aut aliquid hujusmodi, sed tantum primae sedis episcopus. 6° Naz. Orat. 19. p. 312. Orat. 20. de Laud. Basil. p. 342, Orat. 41. p. 675. 5‘ Orat. 22. p. 525. 62 Naz. Cygn. Carm. de Episcopis, t. 2. p. 308. CHAP. II. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 25 ANTIQUITIES OF THE nities among you: translate yourselves from see to see: set up some, pull down others. \Vhere it is evident, he speaks not of patriarchs properly so call— ed, but only of some ambitious spirits among the bishops, who turned all things into confusion, and did what they pleased with the preferments of the church. Gregory Nyssen uses the same term for bishops, in his funeral oration upon Meletius, which he made in the council of Constantinople, where he gives all the bishops then in council the title of patriarchs. Behold63 these patriarchs: all these are the sons of our Jacob; meaning Meletius, whom he calls Jacob for his age, and the rest patriarchs, in allusion to the twelve patriarchs who were J acob’s children. Thus bishops were commonly styled, till such times as the name patriarch became the appro- priate title of the most eminent bishops, such as Rome, Constantinople, &c. And even some ages after that, De Marca“ observes, that Athalaricus and the rest of the Gothish kings in Italy gave the name of patriarchs to all bishops within their do- minions. It must not here be forgotten, that all bishops anciently were styled also vicars of Christ, and had as much in- terest in that name as he that has since laid so much claim to the title. The author of the Ques- tions“ under the name of St. Austin, says expressly, that every bishop is the vicar of God. Cyprian says the same in several of his Epistles,66 that every bishop is vice Christa’, Christ’s vicar, or vicegerent. And this is his meaning in that noted passage to Cornelius, where he says,67 All heresies and schisms take their original from hence, that men do not sub- mit to God’s priest, and consider that there ought to be but one bishop in a church at a time, and one judge as the vicar of Christ. This is spoken of every individual bishop throughout the world, as Rigaltius‘>8 freely owns; and they grossly mistake Cyprian’s meaning, and abuse his autholity, who apply it only to the bishop of Rome. St. Basil69 extends the title to all bishops; and so does the author under the name of St. Ambrose,70 who is sup- posed to be Hilary, a deacon of the church of Sect. 10. And vicars of Christ. Rome; which would have been an unpardonable oversight in him, had it not been then the custom of the world to give all others this title as well as the bishop of Rome. I shall but take notice of one title more given to bishops, which is that Andgaiggif the of angels of the churches; a name which some authors71 suppose to be used by St. Paul, 1 Cor. xi. 10, where he says, women ought to be covered in the church because of the angels; that is, bishops, says Hilary the deacon, in the place last mentioned. And so the same author un- derstands that of St. John, Rev. i. 20, “the seven stars are the angels 72 of the seven churches.” Which is also the interpretation of St. Austin 73 and Epipha- nius," who say, that by angels we are not there to understand the celestial angels, (as Origen thought, who assigns a guardian angel75 to every church,) but the bishops or governors of those seven churches. Hence, in after ages, bishops were called angels of the churches: as Socrates76 terms Serapion, who was bishop of Thmuis, the angel of the church of Thmuis: and the author of the Short Notes77 upon Timothy, under the name of St. J erom, says of every bishop, that he is the angel of God Almighty. In this sense Dr. Hammond78 observes out of a Saxon MS., that in our own language anciently bishops were called God’s bydels, that is, messengers or officers, as he explains it from Sir Henry Spel- man’s Glossary, in the word bedellus. And thus much of those ancient titles of honour, which were given to all bishops indifi‘erently in the primitive church. CHAPTER III. OF THE OFFICES OF BISHOPS AS DISTINCT FROM PRESBYTERS. I COME now to consider the episco- Sect. 1. _ . , A threefold dif- pal office and funct10n Itself: where, ference between 63 Greg. Nyss. Orat. de Fun. Melet. t. 3. p. 589. 6* Marca Dissert. de Primatib. n. 20. p. 112. 65 Aug. Quaest. Vet. et Nov. Test. c. 127. Antistitem Dei puriorem caeteris esse oportet.—-—Est enim vicarius ejus. “8 Cypr. Ep. 63. ad Caecil. Ille sacerdos vice Christi vere fungitur, qui id quod Christus fecit imitatur. 6’ Ep. 55. al. 59. ad Cornel. p. 129. Neque enim aliunde haereses obortae sunt, aut nata sunt schismata, quam inde quod sacerdoti Dei non obtemperatur, nec unus in ecclesia. ad tempus sacerdos, et ad tempus judex vice Christi cogi- tatur. 68 Rigalt. in 100. Ecce autem episcopos aevo jam Cypriani vicarios Christi. 69 Basil. Constit. Monach. c. 22. t. 2. p. 792. 7° Ambr. Com. in 1 Cor. xi. 10. Episcopus personain habet Christi.—-—-Vicarius Domini est, &c. The author of the Constitutions, lib. 2. c. 26, styles the bishop Bed» é'n'i'yuov. 71 Ambrosiaster, ibid. Angelos episcopos dicit, sicut do- cetur in Apocalypsi Joannis. "2 Pseudo-Ambros. in 1 Cor. xi. 10. 73 Aug. Ep. 162. Divina voce laudatur sub angeli no- mine praepositus ecclesiae. 7‘ Epiph. Hacr. 25. N icolait. 75 Orig. Horn. 20. in Num. t. 1. p. 251. So also Andreas Caesariens. "Aw/shot (jJfihtlKsQ. Com. in Apoc. l. 20. 76 Socrat. lib. 4. c. 23. 7’ Hieron. Com. in ] Tim. iii. "5 Ham. Annot. on Rev. i. 20. 26 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. BOOK II. bishops,“ pm to do justice to antiquity, it is neces- Btgfge‘gftligfijgfice sary for me to observe a threefold and mum“ distinction between bishops and pres- byters in the discharge of ecclesiastical ofi’ices. For, lst, In the common offices, which were ordi- narily intrusted in the hands of presbyters, such as preaching, baptizing, administering the eucharist, &c., there was this obvious difference betwixt a bishop and a presbyter, that the one acted by an absolute and independent power; the other, in de- pendence upon, and subordination to his bishop, by whose authority and directions, under God, he was to be governed, and do nothing without his consent, or against it: so that though there was no differ- ence in the things that were done, yet there was an essential difference in the power of doing them. This is an observation not commonly made, but it is of very great use, both for establishing the just bounds of episcopal and presbyterial power, and clearing the practice of the primitive church. 2dly, Some ofi’ices were never intrusted in the hands of presbyters, nor allowed, if performed by them, such as the ordination of bishops, presbyters, &c. 3dly, Bishops always retained the power of calling their presbyters to an account, and censuring them for their misdemeanours in the discharge of their oflice ; which presbyters could not do by their bishop, being always subject and subordinate to him as their superior. These things cleared and set in a fair light, will give us a just account of the office of a bishop, as distinct from that of a presbyter, in the primitive church. First, then, we are to observe, that in such ordinary and common ofiices as might be performed by both, bishops and presbyters acted by a different 53335331 Eggntiomd power; the bishop was the absolute, him- independent minister of the church, and did whatever he did by his own authority, solely inherent in himself; but the presbyters were only his assistants, authorized to perform such ofiices as he intrusted them with, or gave them commission and directions to perform, which they still did by his authority, and in dependence upon, and subor- dination to him as their superior, and might do nothing against his will, or independent of him. This is clear from many passages in Ignatius, Cy- Sect. 2. 1. In the common offices which might be performed by both, the bisho acted by an in e- pendent power, but presbyters in de- prian, and the canons of the ancient councils, which all agree in this, that nothing is to be done without the bishop; that is, without his knowledge, without his consent, directions, or approbation. Thus Ig- natius,‘ in his Epistle to the church of Smyrna; Let no one perform any ecclesiastical oflice without the bishop. which he explains both there and else- where 2 to mean, without his authority and permis- sion. So in the council of Laodicea8 it is expressed the same way; The presbyters shall do nothing without the consent of the bishop. The councils of Arles ‘ and Toledo“ say, without his privity or knowledge. And the Apostolical Canons6 give a reason for all this; Because the bishop is the man to whom the Lord’s people are committed, and he must give an account of their souls. This rule they particularly apply to the oflices of baptism and the Lord’s Thissggizbiafied in . . . the offices of bap— supper. A presbyter might ordinarily tism and the Lord's administer both these sacraments; but supper. not against the will of his bishop, or in opposition and contradiction to him, but by his consent and author- ity, in a due subordination to him as his superior. It is not lawful, says Ignatius,7 either to baptize or celebrate the eucharist without the bishop; but that which he allows, is well-pleasing to God. He does not say, that none but a bishop might administer these sacraments, but that none was to do it with- out his allowance and approbation. And that is plainly the meaning of Tertullian 8 and St. J erom,9 when they say, that presbyters and deacons have no power to baptize, without the command and authority of the bishop or chief priest; and that this is for the honour of the church, and the pre- servation of peace and unity. St. Ambrose 1° asserts the same, that though presbyters do baptize, yet they derive their authorityd'rom their superior. The like observation may be made upon the oflice of preaching. This 1‘ was in the first place the bishops’ ofiice, which they commonly discharged themselves, especially in the African churches. Which is the reason we so often meet with the phrase, tractante episcopo, the bishops preaching, in the writings ‘2 of St. Cyprian: for then it was so much the office and custom of bishops to preach, that no presbyter was permitted to preach in their presence, till the time Sect. 4. And in the oflice of preaching. l Ignat. Ep. ad Smyrn. n. 8. Mndsis Xwpis 'rov e'mcr- xo'vrov TL 7rpao'o'é'rw 'rr'iiv a’zmjxéu'rwv sis 'r1‘1u émckncn'av. 2 Id. Ep. ad Polycarp. n. 4. Mndév (iii/av 'ymbjunc o'ov 'ywa'ozs'w. 3 Con. Laodic. can. 56. ' Avsv 'yva'iluns ‘1'05 é'n'w'lcd'rrov. ‘ Con. Arelat. I. can. 19. Ut presbyteri sine conscientia episcoporum nihil faciant. 5 Con. Tolet. 1. can. 20. Sine conscientia episcopi nihil penitus presbyteri agere praesumant. 6 Can. Apost. c. 39. 7 Ignat. Ep. ad Smyrn. n. 8. 8 Tertul. de Bapt. c. 17. Dandi jus quidem habet sum- mus sacerdos, qui est episcopus: dehinc presbyteri et dia. coni; non tamen sine episcopi auctoritate, propter ecclesiae honorem, quo salvo salva pax est. 9 Hieron. Dial. cont. Lucifer. p. 139. Inde venit, ut sine jussione episcopi, neque presbyter neque diaconus jus habeant baptizandi. 1° Ambros. de Sacram. lib. 3. c. 1. Licet presbyteri fe- cerint, tamen exordium ministerii a summo est sacer- dote. 1' Vid. Can. Apost. c. 58. ‘2 Cypr. Ep. 52, 56, 83. Ed. Oxon. It. Pontius Vit. Cypr. ibid. CHAP. III. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 27 of St. Austin, who whilst he was a presbyter was au- thorized by Valerius his bishop to preach before him: but that, as Possidius,‘8 the writer of his Life, ob- serves, was so contrary to the use and custom of the African churches, that many bishops were highly offended at it, and spake against it; till the conse- quence proved, that such a permission was of good use and service to the church; and then several other bishops granted their presbyters power and privilege to preach before them. So that it was then a favour for presbyters to preach in the pre- sence of their bishops, and wholly at the bishops’ discretion whether they would permit them or not; and when they did preach, it was potestate accepta, by the power and authority of the bishops that ap- pointed them. In the Eastern churches presbyters were more commonly employed to preach, as Pos- sidius 1* observes, when he says Valerius brought the custom into Africa from their example. And St. J erom intimates as much, when he complains ‘5 of it as an ill custom only in some churches to for- bid presbyters to preach. Chrysostom preached several of his elaborate discourses at Antioch whilst he was but a presbyter, and so did Atticus ‘6 at C on- stantinople. And the same is observed to have been granted to the presbyters ‘7 of Alexandria, and Caesarea, in Cappadocia,18 and Cyprus, and other places. But still it was but a grant of the bishops, and presbyters did it by their authority and com- mission. And whenever bishops saw just reason to forbid them, they had power to limit or withdraw their commission again; as both Socrates '9 and So- zomen 2° testify, who say, that at Alexandria presby- ters were forbidden to preach, from the time that Arius raised a disturbance in the church. Thus we see what power bishops anciently challenged and exercised over presbyters in the common and ordi- nary offices of the church; particularly for preach- ing, bishops always esteemed it their ofiice, as much as any other. Such a vast difference was there be- tween the practice of the primitive church and the bishops of Rome in after ages; when, as Blondel observes out of Surius, there was a time when the bishops of Rome were not known to preach for five hundred years together! Insomuch, that when Pius Quintus made a sermon, it was looked upon as a prodigy, and was indeed a greater rarity than the Saeculares Ludz' were in old Rome. See Blondel, Apolog. p. 58, and Surius, Comment, Rer. in Orbe gestar. But to return to the bishops of the mt primitive church. There were other pof;,e'f1§<§:;3§l:ggn offices, which they very rarely intrust- ‘,flfigfiflgfigsuggegrieg ed in the hands of presbyters; and if him‘ ever they granted them commission to perform them, it was only in cases of great necessity: such were the ofiices of reconciling penitents, confirma- tion of neophites, consecration of churches, virgins and widows, with some others of the like nature ; of which I shall speak nothing more particularly here now, because they will come more properly under consideration in other places. But there was one office which they never intrusted in the hands of presbyters, nor ever gave them any commission to perform; which was the ofiice of ordaining the su- perior clergy, bishops, presbyters, and deacons. The utmost that presbyters could pretend to in this mat- ter, was to lay on their hands together with the bishop in the ordination of a presbyter, whilst the bishop by his prayer performed the office of consecration. Thus much is allowed them by one of the councils of Carthage,21 which yet expressly reserves the bene- diction or ordination prayer to the bishop only. In the ordination of bishops they had no concern at all; which was always performed by a synod of bishops, as shall he showed more particularly when we come to speak of the rites and customs observed in their ordinations. Here in this place it will be sufficient to prove in general, that the power of ordinations was the prerogative of bishops, and that they never communicated this privilege to any presbyters. St. J erom’s22 testimony is irrefragable evidence in this case. For in the same place where he sets off the office of presbyters to the best advantage, he still ex- cepts the power of ordination. What is it, says he, that a bishop does more than a presbyter, setting aside the business of ordination? St. Chrysostom"’3 speaks much after the same manner, where he ad- vances the power of presbyters to the highest. Bishops and presbyters, says he, differ not much from one an- other. For presbyters are admitted to preach and govern the church; and the same qualifications that the apostle requires in bishops, are required in pres- byters also. For bishops are superior to them only in the power of ordination, and have that one thing more than they. In another place 2‘ he proves that ‘3 Possid. Vit. Aug. c. 5. Eidem presbytero potestatem dedit coram se in ecclesia evangelium pracdicandi, ac fre- quentissime tractandi, contra usum quidem ac consuetudi- nem Africanarum ecclesiarum. Unde etiam ei nonnulli episcopi detrahebant.—— Postea bono praacedente ex- emplo, accepta ab episcopis potestate, presbyter-i nonnulli coram episcopis populo tractare coeperunt verbum Dei. 1‘ Ille in Orientalibus ecclesiis id ex more fieri sciens, obtrectantium non curabat linguas, &c. Possid. ibid. ‘5 Pessimae consuetudinis est in quibusdam ecclesiis tacere prebyteros, et praesentibus episcopis non loqui, &c. 1’ Theodor. lib. i. c. 2. '9 Socrat. ibid. 1“ Socrat. lib. 7. c. 2. ‘8 Socrat. lib. 5. c. 22. 2° Sozom. lib. 7. c. 17. 2' Con. Carth. 4. can. 3. Presbyter cum ordinatur, epis- copo cum benedicente, et manum super caput ej us tenente, etiam omnes presbyteri, qui praesentes sunt, manus suas juxta manum episcopi super caput illius teneant. 22 Hieron. Ep. 85. ad Evagr. Quid enim facit, excepta ordinatione, episcopus, quod presbyter non facit? 2“ Chrys. Hom. 11. in 1 Tim. iii. 8. 2* Id. Horn. 1. in Philip. i. 28 ANTIQUITIES or THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. B001; 11. Timothy was a bishop, because the apostle speaks of his power to ordain, bidding him lay hands sud- denly on no man. And he adds both there and else- Where,25 that the presbytery which ordained Timothy was a synod of bishops, because mere presbyters had 110 power to ordain abishop. I might here produce all those canons of the ancient councils, which speak of bishops ordaining,26 but never of presbyters; which rule was so precisely observed in the primitive church, that Novatian himself would not presume to break it, but sent for three bishops27 from the farthest cor- ners of Italy, rather than want a canonical number of bishops to ordain him. I only add that observa- tion of Epiphanius,28 grounded upon the general practice of the church, that the order of bishops begets fathers to the church, which the order of presbyters cannot do, but only beget sons by the regeneration of baptism. I know some urge the authority of St. J erom,29 to prove that the presbyters of Alexandria ordain- ed their own bishop, from the days of St. Mark to the time of Heraclas and Dionysius; and others think the same words prove that he had no new ordination at all: but they both mistake St. J e- rom’s meaning, who speaks not of the ordination of the bishop,’ but of his election; who was chosen by the presbyters out of their own body, and by them placed upon the bishop’s throne; which in those days was no more than a token of his election, and was sometimes done by the people; but the or- dination came after that, and was always reserved for the provincial bishops to perform, as shall be showed hereafter. But it may be inquired, what was S (3.6. . . orainiliom by the practice of the church in case any presb ters 'san- . ggllxlrch by the presbyters took upon them to ordain? Were their ordinations allowed to stand good, or not? I answer, they were commonly reversed and disannulled. As in the known case of Ischyras,so who was deposed by the synod of Alex- andria, because Colluthus, who ordained him, was no more than a presbyter, though pretending to be a bishop: and in the case of those presbyters who were reduced to the quality of laymen by the coun- cil of Sardica,31 because Eutychianus and Musaeus, who ordained them, were only pretended bishops. The council of Seville in Spain82 went a little fur- ther; they deposed a presbyter and two deacons, because the bishop only laid his hands upon them, whilst a presbyter pronounced the blessing or con- secration prayer over them. And some other in- stances might be added of the like nature, which show that then they did not allow bishops so much as to delegate or commission presbyters to ordain in their name, but reserved this entirely to the episco- pal function. The common pleas which some urge Sect .,_ to the contrary, derogate nothing from tosfiffiecofilfffyfifif the truth of this observation. For ammcd' whereas it is said, 1. That the chorepiscopi were only presbyters, and yet had power to ordain ; that seems to be a plain mistake; for all the chorepz's- copi of the ancient church were real bishops, though subordinate to other bishops; as I shall show more particularly hereafter, when I come to speak of their order. 2. It is said, that the city presbyters had power to ordain by the bishop’s licence; and that this was established by canon in the council of Ancyra.33 But this is grounded only upon a very ambiguous sense, if not a corrupt reading of that canon. For all the old translators render it much otherwise, that the city presbyters shall do nothing“ without the licence and authority of the bishop, in any part of the parish or diocese belonging to his. jurisdiction. Which agrees with what I have cited before out of the council of Laodicea; and several other canons, which make presbyters dependent upon their bishops in the ordinary exercise of their function. (See before, Sect. 2. of this chapter.) And some Greek copies as read it, iv érépqr wapomiqr, which seems to signify that presbyters shall not ofliciate in another diocese without letters dimissory from their own bishop. 3. It is urged further, that Novatus, a presbyter of Carthage, ordained Felicissimus a deacon. But this seems to be no more than procuring him to be ordained by some bishop. For Cyprian says he made Novatian36 bishop of Rome after the same 25 Horn. 13. in 1 Tim. iv. 14. .i'rrio'rco'n'ov éxztpo'rtivovv. 26 See Con. Nic. c. 19. Con. Antioch. c. 9. Con. Chal- ced. c. 2 et 6. Con. Carth. 3. c. 45. Can. Apost. c. l. 2’ Cornel. Ep. ad Fabium, ap. Euseb. lib. 6. c. 43. ” Epiph. Haer. 75. Aerian. 2’9 Hieron. Ep. 85. ad Evagr. Alexandriae a Marco even.- gelista usque ad Heraclam et Dionysium episcopos, pres- byteri semper unum ex se electum, in excelsiori gradu col- locatum episcopum nominabant; quomodo si exercitus imperatorem faciat. 3° Athan. Apol. 2. p. 732. Epist. Cler. Mareot. ibid. p. 784. 31 Con. Sard. can. 20. 32 Con. Hispal. 2. can. 5. Relatum est nobis'de quibus- dam clericis, quorum dum unus ad presbyterum, duo ad 01’; 702p d1‘; 'rz'peo'fidr'spot Levitarum ministerium sacrarentur, episcopus oculorum dolore detentus fertur manum suam super eos tantum im- posuisse, et presbyter quidam illis contra ecclesiasticuin or- dinem benedictionem dedisse, &c. Hi gradum sacerdotii vel Levitici ordinis, quem perverse adepti sunt, amittunt. 83 Con. Ancyr. can. 13. 34 Id. ex versione Dionysii exigui: Sed nec presbyteris civitatis, sinepraecepto episcopi, amplius aliquid imperare, nec sine authoritate literarum ej us in unaquaque parochia aliquid agere. 35 Cod. Can. edit. Ehinger. 96 Cypr. Ep. 49. all 52. ad Cornel. p. 97. ed. Oxon. Quo- niam pro magnitudine sua debeat Carthaginem Roma prai- cedere, illic major-a et graviora commisit. Qui istic ad- versus ecclesiam diaconum fecerat, illic episcopum fecit. CHAP. lII. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 29 ANTIQUITIES OF THE manner as he had done Felicissimus, deacon at Carthage. But now it is certain he did not ordain Novatian, but only was instrumental in procuring three obscure Italian bishops to come and ordain him. And in that sense he might ordain Felicissi- mus too. But admit it were otherwise, it was only a schismatical act, condemned by Cyprian and the whole church. 4. It is pleaded out of Cassian, that Paphnutius, an Egyptian abbot, ordained one Daniel a presbyter. But if Cassian’s words he rightly considered, he says no such thing, but only37 that Paphnutius first promoted him to be made a deacon before several of his seniors, and then, intending to make him his successor, he also preferred him to the dignity of a presbyter. Which preference, or promotion, does not at all exclude the bishop’s ordination. It may reasonably signify the abbot’s choice, which he had power to make; but it cannot so reasonably be in- terpreted that he ordained him, since this was con- trary to the rules and practice of the church. And considering where and when Paphnutius lived, in the midst of Egypt, among a hundred bishops, in the fifth century, it is not likely he would transgress the canons in so plain a_ case. Therefore I cannot subscribe to a learned man,38 who says, Nothing is more plain and evident, than that here a presbyter ordained a presbyter, which we no where read was pronounced null by Theophilus, then bishop of Alexandria, nor any others at that time. I con- ceive, the contrary was rather evident to them, and therefore they had no reason to pronounce it null, knowing it to be a just and regular ordination. 5. I remember but one instance more in ancient church history (for modern instances I wholly pass by) that seems to make any thing for the ordination of presbyters; and that is in the answer given by Pope Leo to a question put to him by Rusticus Nar- bonensis, whether the ordination of certain persons might stand good, who were only ordained by some pseudo-episcopi, false bishops, who had no legal and canonical right to their places? To this he answers,39 ‘ that if the lawful bishops of those churches gave their consent to their ordination, it might be esteem- ed valid and allowed; otherwise to be disannulled. But here it is to be considered, that these pseudo- epz'scopz' were in some sense bishops, as being or- dained, though illegally, to their places: for they seem to be such as had schismatically intruded themselves into other men’s sees, or at least obtain- ed them by some corrupt and irregular practices. Now, the church did not always rescind and cancel the acts of such bishops, but used a liberty either to reverse and disannul the ordinations made by them, or otherwise to confirm and ratify them, as she saw occasion. Therefore, though the general council“ of Constantinople deposed all such as were ordain- ed by Maximus, who had simoniacally intruded himself into Gregory Nazianzen’s see at Constan- tinople; yet the Novatian clergy were admitted by the council of Nice,41 though ordained by schis- matical bishops ; and the African councils ‘2 allowed the ordinations of the Donatist bishops, though they had long continued in schism, and given schis- matical orders to others also. Which shows that the primitive church made some difference between orders conferred by schismatical bishops, and those conferred by mere presbyters. I inquire not now into the grounds and reasons of this, but only relate the church’s practice. From which upon the whole matter it appears, that this was another difference betwixt bishops and presbyters, that the one had power to ordain, but the other were never authorized or commissioned to do it. Besides this, there was a third difference between bishops and pres- byters in point of jurisdiction : bi- shops always retained to themselves the power of calling presbyters to an account, and censuring them for their miscarriages in the discharge of their oflice; but presbyters had no power to censure their bishops, or set up an in- dependent power in opposition to their authority and jurisdiction. When Felicissimus and Augen- dus set up a separate communion at Carthage against C ypiian, threatening to excommunicate all that com- municated with him, Cyprian gave orders to his de- puties (being himself then in banishment) to execute first their own sentence upon them, and let them, for their contempt of him and the church,“3 feel the power of excommunication; which was accordingly done by his delegates, as appears from their an- swer to him.‘M In another place, writing to Roga- tian, a bishop who made complaint to Cyprian and the synod, of an unruly deacon, he tells him, it was his singular modesty to refer the case to them, when he might by virtue of his own episcopal au- thority himself have punished the delinquent ;*5 Sect. 8. A third difference between bishops and presbyters: presbyters account- able to their bi- sho s, not bishops to t eir presbyters. 8" Cassian. Collat. 4. c. l. A beato Paphnutio solitudinis ejusdem presbytero, et quidem cum multis junior esset aetate, ad diaconii est praelatus officium. Optansque sibimet successorem dignissimum providere, superstes eum presbyterii honore provexit. 38 Stilling. Irenic. par. 2. c. 7. n. 8. p. 380. 39 Leo, Ep. 92. ad Rustic. c. 1. Si qui autem clerici ab istis pseudo-episcopis in eis ecclesiis ordinati sunt, quae ad proprios episcopos pertinebaut, et ordinatio eorum cum consensu ct judicio praesidentium facta est, potest rata haberi, &c. 4° Con. Constant. can. 4. 4‘ Con. Nic. c. 8. ‘2 Collat. Carthag. 1. Die, c. 16. ‘3 CyprfEp. 38. al. 41. p. 80. Cum Felicissimus commi- natus sit, non communicat-uros in monte (al. morte) secum, qui nobis communicarent: accipiat sententiam quam prior dixit; ut absentum a se nobis sciat. ‘4 Ep. 39. al. 42. ad Cypr. Abstinuimus communicatione Felicissimum et Augendum, &c. ‘5 Cypr. Ep. 65. al. 3. ad Rogatian. Tu quidem pro solita tua humilitate fecisti, ut malles de eo nobis conqueri, cum pro 30 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Book II. against whom, if he persisted in his contempt, he should use the power which belonged to his order, and either depose or suspend him. Nothing can be more plain and evident, than that in Cyprian’s time all bishops were invested with this power of censuring delinquents among the clergy. And any one that looks into the councils of the following age, will find nothing more common, than canons which both suppose and confirm this power. As when the Apostolical Canons say,46 That no presby— ter, or deacon, excommunicated by his own bishop, should be received by any other; that supposes all bishops to have power to inflict ecclesiastical cen- sures upon their clergy. The like may be seen in the canons of the council of N ice,“7 which allows an appeal in such a case to a provincial synod; and the council of Sardica,48 which orders the metropoli- tan to hear and redress the grievance: so also in the councils of Antioch,‘19 Chalcedon,5o and many others. Yet it must be owned, that accord- ing to the discipline and custom of those times, bishops seldom did any thing of this nature, without the ad- vice and consent of their presbyters, who were their assessors, and (as it were) the ecclesiastical senate and council of the church: of which I shall give a more particular account, when I come to speak of the honour and privileges of the order of presbyters. And here it is to be further noted out of the pre- ceding canons, That if any clergyman thought him- self injured by his bishop, he had liberty to appeal 5‘ either to the metropolitan, or a provincial synod: and in some places, the better to avoid arbitrary power, the canons provided, That no bishop should proceed to censure a presbyter, or deacon, without the concurrence of some neighbouring bishops to join with him in the sentence. The first council of Carthage52 requires three to censure a deacon, and six to censure a presbyter. The second council of Carthage53 requires the same number, according to all correct editions of it: for Crab’s edition is pal- pably false; and yet Blondel54 lays hold of that cor- ruption, to prove that presbyters and deacons were to be judges of their own bishop; which makes the canon speak mere nonsense, and appoints the bi- Sect. 9. Yet bishops’ ower not arbitra , ut limited bycanon in various respects. shop to judge himself also. The true reading of the canon is this: The criminal cause of a bishop shall be heard by twelve bishops; the cause of a presbyter, by six; the cause of a deacon, by three joined with his own bishop. This obliges every bishop to take other bishops into commission with him in criminal causes, but does not authorize pres- byters and deacons to sit as judges upon their own bishop. \Vhich may be further evidenced from another canon55 of the next council of Carthage; which speaks of a legal number of bishops to judge a presbyter, or deacon; and assigns six for a pres- byter, and three for a deacon, as the former canons appointed. But for the inferior clergy, there was no such restraint laid upon the bishop, that I can find; but he alone, by the same canon,56 is allowed to hear their causes, and end them. Only they had liberty to appeal, as all others, in case of injury done them, to the metropolitan, or a provincial synod; which the Nicene council,57 and many others, ap- point to be held once or twice a year for that very purpose; That if any clergyman chanced to be un- justly censured by the passion of his bishop, he might have recourse to a superior court, and there have justice done him. This is the true state and account of the power of bishops over their clergy, as near as I can collect it out of the genuine records of the ancient church. CHAPTER IV. OF THE POWER OF BISHOPS OVER THE LAITY, MONKS, SUBORDINATE MAGISTRATES, AND ALL PERSONS WITHIN THEIR DIOCESEI AND OF THEIR OFFICE IN DISPOSING OF THE REVENUES OF THE CHURCH. THE next thing to be considered is, the power of bishops over the people; which, upon inquiry, will be found to extend itself over all persons, of what rank or quality soever, within their diocese, or the Sect. 1. No exemptions rom the jurisdiction of the bishop in the primitive church. episcopatus vigore et cathedrae auctoritate haberes potesta- tem, qua posses de illo statim vindicari. Quod si ultra te contumeliis Suis provocaverit, fungeris circa eum potestate honoris tui, ut eum vel deponas vel abstineas. See also Cypr. Ep. 10. al. 16. ed. Oxon. *6 Canon. Apost. o. 31. 48 Con. Sard. can. 13, 14. 49 Con. Antioc. can. 3 et 4. 5° Chalced. can. 9. 5‘ See for the liberty of appeals: Con. Carthag. 2. c. 8. Carthag. 4. c. 29 et 66. Antioch. c. 12. Vasion. c. 5. Venetic. can. 9. 52 Con. Carthag. 1. can. 11. Si quis aliquam causam habuerit, a tribus vicinis episcop is, si diaconus est, arguatur: presbyter a sex. 47 Con. Nic. can. 5. 53 Con. Carth. 2. can. 10. Placet ut causa criminalis episcopi a duodecim episcopis audiatur; causa presbyteri a sex; causa vero diaconi a tribus cum proprio episcopo. 5‘ Blondel, Apol. p. 137. And Crab thus reads it cor- ruptly: Episcopus a duodecim episcopis audiatur, et a sex presbyteris, et a tribus diaconibus cum proprio suo episcopo. 55 Con. Carth. 3. c. 8. Si presbyteri vel diaconi fuerint accusati, adjuncto sibi ex vicinis locis legitimo numero col- egarum—--in presbyteri nomine sex, in diaconi tribus, ip- sorum causas discutiant. 56 Ibid. c. 8. Reliquorum clericorum eausas solus episco- pus loci agnoscat et finiat. 5’ Con. Nic. can. 5. CHAP. IV. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 31 bounds and limits of their jurisdiction. The extent of dioceses themselves, and the reasons why some were much greater than others, I do not here con- sider; but reserve that for a more proper place, to be treated of when we come to speak of churches. What I observe in this place is, that all orders of men within the diocese were subject to the bishop; for privileges to exempt men from the jurisdiction of their diocesan, were things unknown to former ages. Ignatius makes bold to say,1 that as he that honours his bishop is honoured of God; so he that does any thing covertly in opposition to him, is the servant of Satan. And Cyprian defines the church2 to be a people united to its bishop, a flock adhering to its pastor. Whence the church may be said to be in the bishop, and the bishop in the church; and if any are not with their bishop, they are not in the church. Particularly, we may observe of all All rigiiig'sutiea ascetics, and monks, and hermits; giicgzebijfiggecdgie that the laws, both ecclesiastical and ' civil, subjected them to the bishop of the place where they lived. For ecclesiastical laws, we have two canons in the council of Chalcedon3 to this purpose; the first of which prescribes, that all monks, whether in city or country, shall be subject to the bishop, and concern themselves in no business (sacred or civil) out of their own monastery; except they have his licence and permission, upon urgent occasion, so to do. And if any withdraw themselves from his obedience, the other canon pronounces ex- communication against them. The same injunctions may be read in the councils of Orleans,4 Agde,5 Le- rida,6 and others; which subject the abbots as well as monks to the bishop’s care and correction. J us- tinian confirms all this by a law in the Code; which says,7 all monasteries are to be reckoned under the jurisdiction of the bishop of the territories where they are; and that the abbots themselves are part of their care. In one of his Novels,8 the election of abbots is put into the bishop’s hands. And by other laws,9 no new cells, or monasteries, were to be erected, but by the consent and licence of the bishop, to whose jurisdiction they belonged. It is therefore a very just reflection, which Bede, and some others 1° from him, make upon the state of the Scottish church; that things were in a veryr unusual and preposterous order, when, instead of abbots being subject to the bishops, the bishops were subject to a single abbot. This was ordine inusz'tato, as Bedell rightly observes ; for there was no such practice al- lowed in the primitive church. . In those days, the authority of _ bishops was so highly esteemed, and d$§t§sg>azgil;ts;;lti:: venerable in the eyes of all men, that iratfiftjtgigifcstgé-n. even the subordinate magistrates them- selves were subject to their spiritual discipline and correction. The prefects and governors of cities and provinces were obliged to take their communicatory letters along with them to the bishop of the place, whither the government sent them; and whilst they continued in their ofiice there, they were to be under the bishop’s care; who, if they transgressed against the public discipline of the church, was authorized by the imperial laws to punish them with excom- munication. This we learn from a canon of the first council of Arles ;'2 which was called by Constantine himself, who ratified its canons, and gave them, as it were, the force of imperial sanctions. And by virtue of this power, they sometimes unsheathed the spiritual. sword against impious and profane magistrates, and cut them ofl' from all communion with the church. Of which we have an instance in Synesius, bishop of Ptolemais,la excommunicating Andronicus the go- vernor, for his cruelties and blasphemies ; and many other such examples, which will be mentioned when we come to treat particularly of the discipline of the church. As to what concerns the bishop’s power to inspect and examine the acts and decrees of subor- dinate magistrates; Socrates“ assures us it was prac- tised by Cyril of Alexandria, in reference to Orestes, the prwfectus Augustah's of Egypt; though, as he intimates, it was some grievance to him to be under his inspection. But it must be owned and spoken to Sect 4, _ the glory of those primitive bishops, “232582353222? and spiritual juris- that they challenged no power, as of ggfgn‘ihlzifimgi right belonging to them, but only that fined t° the latter- which was spiritual. They did not as yet lay claim to both swords, much less endeavour to wrest the temporal sword out of the magistrate’s hand, and dethrone princes under pretence of excommunica- ct3 1Ignat. Ep. ad Smyrn. n. 9. 6 M2690; éancncévrov Fri 'n'pa'zo'o'wu, 'rq'i &aBo'Np Aa'rpsosz. . 2 Cypr. Epist. 69. a1. 66. ad Papian. p. 168. Ecclesia plebs sacerdoti unita, et pastori suo grex adhaerens. Unde scire debes episcopum in ecclesia esse, et ecclesiam in episcopo; et si qui cum episcopo non sint, in ecclesia. non esse, &c. ' 3 Con. Chalced. can. 4 et 8. 4 Con. Aurel. l. c. 19. 5 Agathens. can. 38. 6 Ilerdens. c. 3. 7 Cod. Just. lib. l. tit. 3. de Episcop. Leg. 40, 8 Justin. Novel. 5. c. 9. 9 Con. Chalced. can. 4. Con. Agath. c. 58. 1° Pearson, Vind. Ignat. part 1. 0.11. p.333. _, 1‘ Bed. Hist. Gent. Anglor. lib. 3. c. 4. Cujus juri et omnis provincia, et ipsi etiam episcopi ordine inusitato de- beant esse subjecti. _ 12 Con. Arelat. 2. c. 7. De praesidibus--—-ita placuit, ut cum promoti fuerint, literas accipiant ecclesiasticas com- municatorias: ita. tamen ut in quibuscunque locis gesserint, ab episcopo ejusdem loci cura de illis agatur; at cum coe- perint contra disciplinam publicam agere, tunc demurn a communione excludantur. Similiter et de his flat, qui rem- publicam agere volunt. ‘3 Synes. Ep. 58. ad Episcopos, p. 198. ‘4 Socrat. lib. 7. c. 13. 32 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Boox II. tion. The ancient bishops of Rome themselves always professed obedience and subjection to the emperor’s laws; which I shall not stand here to prove, since it has so frequently and so substantially been done by several of our learned'writers :15 and it is confessed by the more ingenuous of the Romish writers16 themselves, that Gregory VII. was the first pope that pretended to depose Christian princes. The ancient bishops of the church laid no claim to a coercive power over the bodies or estates of men; but if ever they had occasion to make use of it, they applied themselves to the secular magistrate, for his assistance. As in the case of Paulus Samosatensis, who kept possession of the bishop’s house, after he was deposed from his bishopric by the council of Antioch. The fathers in that council having no power to remove him, petitioned the emperor Aure- lian against him ;I7 who, though a heathen, gave judgment on their side, and ordered his oflicers to see his sentence put in execution. And thus the case stood, as to the power of bishops, for some ages after under Christian emperors: insomuch that So- crates ‘8 notes it as a very singular thing in Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, that he undertook by his own power to shut up the Novatian churches, seizing upon their plate and sacred utensils, and depriving their bishop Theopemptus of his substance. This was done wapd rfig ispa'rucijg 'rdZswg, beyond any ordi- nary power that bishops were then invested with; and though in after ages they attained to this power, yet it was not by any inherent right of their order, but by the favour and indulgence of secular princes. It must here also be further noted, that it was ever esteemed dishonourable for bishops, so much as to petition the secular power against the life of any man, whom they had condemned by spiritual cen- sures. And therefore, when Ithacius and some other Spanish bishops prevailed with Maximus to slay the heretic Priscillian, St. Martin and many other pious bishops petitioned against it, saying, It was enough to expel heretics from the churches :19 and when they could not prevail, they showed their resentments of the fact against the author of it, refusing to admit Ithacius, the sanguinary bishop, to their commu- nion. So great a concern had those holy men to keep within the bounds of their spiritual jurisdiction! Sect. 5. And it may be observed, that the A“ a°°°““t°f the authority of bishops was never greater liters?’ jlllzrngatze, and $02,155,823 2,1112% 1n the world, than when they con- tl to 11 ersons. . . ‘em a p cerned themselves only in the exercise of their own proper spiritual power. For then they had a universal respect paid them by all sorts of men; insomuch that no Christian would pretend to travel, without taking letters of credence with him from his own bishop, if he meant to communicate with the Christian church in a foreign country. Such was the admirable unity of the church catho- lic in those days, and the blessed harmony and consent of her bishops among one another! These letters were of divers sorts, according to the different occasions or quality of the persons that carried them. They are generally reduced to three kinds; the epistolae commendatorz'aa, communicatorz'aa, and dimis- sorz'w. The first were such as were granted only to persons of quality, or else persons whose reputation had been called in question, or to the clergy who had occasion to travel into foreign countries. The second sort were granted to all who were in the peace and communion of the church; whence they were also called pacg'ficw, and ecclesiasticaa, and some- times canom'cw. The third sort were such as were only given to the clergy, when they were to remove from their own diocese, and settle in another; and they were to testify that they had their bishop’s leave to depart; whence they were called dimissorire, and sometimes pac‘z'ficw likewise. All these went under the general name of formatw ; because they were written in a peculiar form, with some particu- lar marks and characters, which served as special signatm'es to distinguish them from counterfeits. I shall not stand now to give any further account of them here, but only observe, that it was the bishop’s sole prerogative to grant them; and none might presume to do it, at least, without his authority and commission. The council of Antioch20 allows coun- try bishops to write them; but expressly forbids presbyters the privilege. And whereas, in times of persecution, some confessors, who were of great esteem in the church, would take upon them to grant such letters by their own authority, and in their own names; the councils of Arles21 and Eliberis22 for- bade them to do it; and ordered all persons who had such letters, to take new communicatory letters from the bishop. Baronius,23 and the common editors of the councils who follow him, mistake these letters for the libels which the confessors were used to grant to the largest, to have them admitted into the com- munion of the church again: but Albaspiny 2" cor- rects this mistake; and rightly observes, that those councils speak not of such libels as were given to 15 See Bishop Morton’s Grand Impost. of the Church of Rome, c. 11. J oh. Rofi'ens. de Potest. Papae in Temporal. lib. 2. c. 2. ‘6 Otho Frisingens. Chron. lib. 6. c. 35. Greg. Tholosan. de Repub. lib. 26. c. 5. 1’ Euseb. lib. 7. c. 30. ‘8 Socrat. lib. 7. c. 7. 19 Sulp. Sever. lib. 2. p. 119. Maximum orare, ut san- guine infelicium abstineret : satis superque sufficere, ut epis- copali sententia haeretici judicati ecclesiis pellerentur. 2° Con. Antioch. can. 8. 21 Con. Arelat. 1. c. 9. De his, qui confessorurn literas oiferunt, placuit, ut sublatis eis literis, alias accipiant com- municatorias. 22 Con. Elib. c. 25. 23 Baron. an. 142. Loaysa Not. in Con. Elib. c. 25. 2‘ Albasp. Not. in Con. Elib. c. 25. CHAP. V. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 33 ANTIQUITIES OF THE the lapsi, but of such as were given to all Christians who had occasion to travel into foreign countries; which it belonged to the bishops to grant, and not to the confessors, whatever authority they might otherwise have obtained by their honourable con- fession of Christ in time of persecution. The council of Eliberis25 takes notice of another abuse of this nature, and corrects it; which was, that some wo- men of famous renown in the church, clergymen’s wives, as Albaspiny thinks, or rather the wives of bishops, would presume both to grant and receive such letters by their own authority; all which the council orders to be sunk, as being dangerous to the discipline and communion of the church, and an encroachment upon the bishop’s power, to whom alone it belonged to grant them. For by all ancient canons, this privilege is reserved entirely to bishops, and this set their authority very high in the church, for no one, either clergy or laity, could communi- cate in any church beside his own without these testimonials from his bishop; as may be seen in the councils of Carthage,26 and Agde,” and many others. ct I have but one thing more to ob- P03119251 15:22:: serve concerning the power of bishops gfleflgfigfg'gfmes of over the church, and ‘that is, their authority and concern in disposing of the revenues of the church. I intend not here to enter upon the discourse of ecclesiastical revenues, (which has its proper place in this work hereafter,) but only to suggest now, that it was part of the bishop’s office and care to see them managed and disposed of to the best advantage. The councils of Antioch28 and Gangra29 have several canons to this purpose, that all the incomes and oblations of the church shall be dispensed at the will and discretion of the bishop, to whom the people, and the souls of men, are committed. Those called the Apostolical 3° Canons, and Constitutions 3‘ speak of the same power. And Cyprian32 notes, that all who received main- tenance from the church had it episcopo dispensante, by the order and appointment of the bishop. He did not indeed always dispense with his own hands, but by proper assistants, such as his archdeacon, and the wconomus, which some canonsi’a order to be one of the clergy of every church; but these ofiicers were only stewards under him, both of his appoint- ing, as St. J erom“ observes, and also accountable to him as the supreme governor of the church. Whence Possidius takes notice of the practice of $0.6 St. Austin; that though neither seal nor key was ever seen in his hand, but some of his clergy were always his administrators, yet he had his certain times to audit their accounts; so that all was still his act, though administered and dispensed by the hands of others. And this was agreeable to the primitive rule and practice of the apostles, to whose care and custody the peoples’ oblations, and things consecrated to God, were committed: they chose deacons to be their assistants, as bishops did after- wards, still retaining vpower in their own hands to direct and regulate them in the disposal of the public charity, as prime stewards of God’s revenue, and chief masters of his household. CHAPTER V. OF THE OFFICE OF BISHOPS, IN RELATION TO THE WHOLE CATHOLIC CHURCH. WE have hitherto considered the of- fice and power of bishops over the clergy and people of their own par- ticular churches: but there is yet a more eminent branch of their pastoral oflice and care behind, which is, their superintendency over the whole catholic church; in which every bishop was supposed to have an equal share, not as to what concerned external polity and government, but the prime, essential part of religion, the preservation of the Christian faith. Whenever the faith was in danger of being subverted by heresy, or destroyed by persecution, then every bishop thought it part of his duty and oflice to put to his helping hand, and labour as much for any other diocese as his ovin. Dioceses were but limits of convenience, for the preservation of order in times of peace; but the faith was a more universal thing, and when war was made upon that, then the whole world was but one diocese, and the whole church but one flock, and every pastor thought himself obliged to feed his great Master’s sheep according to his power, what- ever part of the world they were scattered in. In this sense, every bishop was a universal pastor and bishop of the whole world, as having a common care and concern for the whole church of Christ. This is what St. Austin told Boniface,l bishop of Sect. 1. In what sense every bishop sup- posed to be bishop of the whole ca- tholic church. 25 Con. Elib. c. 81. 26 Con. Carth. 1. can. 7. Clericus vel laicus non com- municet in aliena plebe sine literis episcopi sui. 2" Agath. can. 52. Epaun. c. 6. Laod‘ic. c. 41. Milevit. c. 20. Con. Antioch. c. 7. 28 Con. Antioch. c. 24 et 25. 3° Canon. Apost. c. 31 et 34. 3‘ Constit. Apostol. lib. 2. c. 25. ‘2 Cypr. Ep. 38. al. 41. Just. Mart. Apol. 2. D 29 Con. Gangr. c. 7 et 8. 93 Con. Chalced. c. 26. 34 Hieron. Ep. 1. ad Nepotian. Sciat episcopus, cul commissa est ecclesia, quem dispensationi pauperum, cu- raeque praeficiat. 1 Aug. cont. Epist. Pelag. in Praefat. ad Bonifac. Com- munis est nobis omnibus, qui fungimur episcopatus oflicio (quamvis ipse in co celsiore fastigio praemineas) specula pastoralis. 34 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Boox II. Rome, that the pastoral care was common to all those who had the office of bishop; and though he was a little higher advanced toward the top of Christ’s watch-tower, yet all others had an equal concern in it. St. Cyprian testifies,2 for the prac- tice of his own time, that all bishops were so united in one body, that if any of the body broached any heresy, or began to lay waste and tear the flock of Christ, all the rest immediately came in to its rescue; for though they were many pastors, yet they had but one flock to feed, and every one was obliged to take care of all the sheep of Christ, which he had purchased with his blood. In this sense Gregory Nazianzen8 says of Cyprian, that he was a universal bishop, that he presided not only over the church‘of Carthage and Africa, but over all the regions of the west, and over the east, and south, and northern parts of the world also. He says the same of Athanasius ;‘ that in being made bishop of Alexandria, he was made bishop of the whole world. Which agrees with St. Basil’s observation‘5 con- cerning him; that he had the care of all churches, as much as that which was peculiarly committed to him. Chrysostom6 in like manner styles Timothy, bishop of the universe: and in compliance with this customary character, the author under the name of Clemens Romanus,’ gives St. James bishop of Jerusalem the title of governor of all churches, as well as that of Jerusalem. Chrysostom8 says, St. Paul had the whole world committed to his care, and every city under the sun; that he was the teacher9 of the universe, and presided10 over all churches: which he repeats in many places of his writings. Nor was this prerogative so peculiar to the apostles, but that every bishop (in some measure) had a right and title to the same character. Seem. Hence came that current notion, so thLnWhZlIeaivQi'filPISEtt; frequently to be met with in Cyprian, 32$ diiiiiicitfigd iii“ of but one bishopric in the church; thechmh' wherein every single bishop had his share in such a manner, as to have an equal concern in the whole: Episcopatus zm'us est, cujus a singulz's in solz'dum pars tenetur :1‘ There is but one bishopric in the church, and every bishop has an undivided portion in it. He does not say, it was a monarchy, in the hands of any single bishop; but a diffusive power, that lay in the whole college of bishops,12 every one of which had a title to feed the whole church of God, and drive away heresy out of any part of it. In this sense, the bishop of Eugubium’s power extended as far as the bishop of Rome’s; the bishop of Rhegium was as much bishop of the whole church, as Constantinople; and Tanis equal to Alex- andria: for in St. J erom’s language,13 they were all ejusdem meriti, and ejusdem sacerdotz'i ; of the. same merit, and equal in their priesthood, which was but one. In things that did not appertain to the faith, they were not to meddle with other men’s dioceses, but only to mind the business of their own: but when the faith or welfare of the church lay at stake, and religion was manifestly invaded; then, by this rule of there being but one episcopacy, every other bishopric was as much their diocese as their own; and no human laws or canons could tie up their hands from performing such acts of their episcopal oflice in any part of the world, as they thought neces- sary for the preservation of religion. For the better understanding the church’s practice in this point, I shall ,n§,‘,’,‘§§e§‘§§‘§§}{?;,e illustrate it in two or three particular 2223332 Siiiiliéiiae instances. It was a rule in the primi- universal chmh' tive church, that no bishop should ordain in another’s diocese, without his leave: and though this was a sort of confinement of the episcopal power to a single diocese, yet for order’s sake it was generally observed. But then it might happen, that in some cases there might be a necessity to do otherwise: as in case the bishop of any diocese was turned heretic, and would ordain none but heretical clergy, and persecute and drive away the orthodox; in that case, any catholic bishop, as being a bishop of the universal church, Sect. 3. was authorized to ordain orthodox men in such a ' diocese, though contrary to the common rule; be- cause this was evidently for the preservation of the faith, which is the supreme rule of all, and therefore that other rule must give way to this superior obli- gation. Upon this account, when the church was in danger of being overrun with Arianism, the great 2 Cypr. Ep. 68. al. 67. ad Steph. p. 178. Idcirco copi- osum corpus est sacerdotum, concordiae mutuae glutino atque unitatis vinculo copulatum, ut si quis ex collegio nostro haeresin facere, et gregem Christi lacerare et vastare tenta~ verit, subveniant caeteri.———N am etsi pastores multi sumus, unum tamen gregem pascimus, et oves universas, quas Christus sanguine suo et passione quacsivit, colligere et fovere debemus. 3 Greg. Naz. Orat. 18. in Laud. Cypr. 4 Naz. in Laud. Athan. Or. 21. p. 377. 71120119 érw'rao'iav 'TI'IO'TEUE'TGL. 5 Basil. Ep. 52. ad Athanas. 6 Chrys. Hom. 6. adv. Jud. t. l. p. 542. 'Tr‘jv 'riis olrcou- Iii"??? 'irpoo-Tao-iau é'ylcexstpwhévos. " Pseudo-Clem. Ep. ad Jacob. ap. Coteler. Patr. Apost. 'riis oircoupéuns t. l. p. 611. Clemens Jacobo—Regenti Hebraeorum sanc- tam ecclesiam in Hierosolymis; sed et omnes ecclesias, quae ubique Dei providentia fundatae sunt. 8 Chrys. Hom. 17. in illud, Salutate Priscillam. t. 5. p. 241. "rip; oircovjuévnu él'n'ao'av 67K£X£LpLO"U.€UOS, &c. 9 Id. Hom. 6. in Terraemotum et Lazar. t. 5. p. 107. 'rijs oircovnéuns dtdc'wicahos. 1° Id. Hom. 17. in Priscillam. p. 248. 1‘ Cypr. de Unit. Eccl. p. 108. 12 Id. Ep. 52. al. 55. ad Antouian. p. 112. Episcopatus unus, episcoporum multorum concordi numerositate dif- fusus, &c. In the same Epistle he often mentions the col- legium sacerdotale. It. Epist. 59 et 68. '3 Hieron. Ep. 85. ad Evagr. CHAP. VI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 35 Athanasius, as he returned from his exile, made no scruple to ordain in several cities 1‘ as he went along, though they were not in his own diocese. And the famous Eusebius of Samosata, did the like in the times of the Arian persecution under Valens. Theo- doret“ says, he went about all Syria, Phoenicia, and Palestine, in a soldier’s habit; ordaining presbyters and deacons, and setting in order whatever he found wanting in the churches. He ordained bishops also in Syria and Cilicia, and other places; whose names Theodoret16 has recorded. Now all this was contrary to the common rules, but the necessities of the church required it; and that gave them authority in such a case to exert their power, and act as bishops of the whole catholic church. Epiphanius made use of the same power and privilege in a like case; ordain- ing Paulinianus, St. J erom’s brother, first deacon, and then presbyter, in a monastery out of his own diocese in Palestine; against which, when some of his adversaries objected, that it was done contrary to canon, he vindicatedl7 his practice upon the strength of this principle; that in cases of pressing necessity, such as this was, where the interest of God was to be served, every bishop had power to act in any part of the church: for though all bishops had their particular churches to officiate in, and were not ordinarily to exceed their own bounds; yet the love of Christ was a rule above all: and therefore men were not barely to consider the thing that was done, but the circumstances of the action, the time, the manner, the persons for whose sake, and the end for which it was done. Thus Epiphanius apologizes for the exercise of his episcopal power in the diocese of another man. Now, from all this it appears, that every bishop was as much a universal bishop, and had as much the care of the whole church, as the bishop of Rome himself; there being no acts of the episcopal office, which they could not perform in any part of the world, when need required, without a dispensation, as well as he. All that he enjoyed above others, was only the rights of a metropolitan, or a patriarch, and those confined by the canons to a certain district; of which more hereafter in their proper place. 1‘ Socrat. lib. 2. c. 24. ‘5 Theod. lib. 4. c. 13. ‘6 Theod. lib. 5. c. 4. _ 1’ Epiphan. Ep. ad Joan. Hierosol. Ob Dei timorem hoc sumus facere compulsi: maximé cum nulla sit diver- sitas in sacerdotio Dei, et ubi utilitati Dei providetur, Nam etsi singuli ecclesiarum episcopi habent sub se eccle- sias, quibus curam videntur impendere, ct nemo super CHAPTER VI. OF THE INDEPENDENCY OF BISHOPS, ESPECIALLY IN THE CYPRIANIC AGE, AND IN THE AFRICAN CHURCHES. Sect. 1. THERE is one thing more must be What meant by the independency of taken notice of, whilst we are con- sidering the proper office of bishops, Etiiigpznalnfhzriragiy which is, the absolute power of every zgilrlfihplfriggfimheir bishop in his own church, independent of all others. For the right understanding the just limits of this power, we are to distinguish be- tween the substantial and the ritual part of religion. For it was in the latter chiefly that bishops had an absolute power in their own church, being at liberty to use what indifferent rites they thought fit in their own church, without being accountable for their practice to any other. In matters of faith, indeed, when they corrupted the truth by heretical doc- trines, or introduced any rituals that were destruc- tive of it, there they were obnoxious to the censure of all other bishops; and every individual of the whole catholic college of bishops (as has been noted in the last chapter) was authorized to oppose them: but in such indifferent rites as were lawful to be used in the church, every bishop was allowed to choose for himself, and his own church, such as he thought fit and expedient in his own wisdom and discretion. Thus, for instance, though there sect 2_ was but one form of worship through- libfilltybijl’fifjjnl’tifeir out the whole church, as to what con- W“ litu'gies' cerned the substance of Christian worship; yet every bishop was at liberty to form his own liturgy in what method and words he thought proper, only keeping to the analogy of faith and sound doctrine. Thus Gregory Nazianzen observes of St. Basil, that among other good services which he did for the church of Caesarea, whilst he was but a presbyter in it, one was1 the composing of forms of prayer, which by the consent and authority of his bishop Eusebius were used by the church. And this is thought not improbably by some2 to be the first draught of that liturgy, which bears his name to this day. The church of Neo-Caesarea in Pontus, where St. Basil was-born, had a liturgy peculiar to themselves, which St. Basil3 speaks of in one of his Epistles. Chrysostom’s liturgy, which he composed alienam mensuram extenditur; tamen praeponitur omnibus charitas Christi, in qua nulla simulatio est: nec consideran- dum quid factum sit, sed quo tempore, et quo modo, et in quibus, et quare factum sit. 1 Naz. ()rat. 20. in Laud. Basil. p. 340. abxciiu dLG’HiEELQ, Kai EIIIKOO'fLiCtS‘ '1'5 firijua'ros. 2 Billius, Not. in loc. Cave, Hist. Liter. vol- 1 o. 194. 3 Basil, Ep. 63. ad Neocaesar. 02 36 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN, CHURCH. BOOK II. for the church of Constantinople, ‘differed from these. The Ambrosian form differed from the R0- man, and the Roman from others. The Africans had peculiar forms of their own, differing from the Roman, as appears from some passages cited by Victorinus Afer and Fulgentius, out of the African liturgies, which Cardinal Bona4 owns are not to be found in the Roman. Sect 3_ The like observation may be made mitigate; 32f‘? upon the creeds usedin divers churches. ferentfmms' There was but one rule of faith, as Tertullian5 calls it, and that fixed and unalterable, as to the substance, throughout the whole church. Yet there were different ways of expressing it, as appears from the several forms still extant, which differ something from one another. Those in Ire— neeus,6 in Cyprian,7 and Tertullianf' are not exactly in the same method nor form of words. The creed of Eusebius 9 and his church of Caesarea differed from that of Jerusalem, upon which Cyril 1° comments; and that of C yril’s, from that in St. J ames’s 1‘ liturgy. And to omit abundance more that might here be mentioned, the creed of Aquileia recited by Ruffin12 differs from the Roman creed, which is that we commonly call the Apostles’ creed. Now, the reason of all this difference could be no other but this, that all bishops had power to frame the creeds of their own churches, and express them in such terms as suited best their own convenience, and to meet with the heresies they were most in danger from: as Ruffin observes that the words, invisible and im- passible, were added to the first article in the creed of Aquileia, in opposition to the Patripassian or Sabellian heretics, who asserted that the Father was visible and passible in human flesh, as well as the Son. And it is evident the bishops of other churches used the same liberty, as they saw occasion. It were easy to confirm this observ- ,Andsitt‘ofa par- ation by many other instances of the ticular days of fast- , ‘122.11 rigélgfir own like nature; but I shall only name one more, which is the power every bishop had to appoint particular days of fasting in his own church. This we learn from St. Austin’s answer to Casulanus about the Saturday fast. Ca- sulanus was very much troubled and perplexed about 4 Bona, Rer. Liturgic. lib. l. c. 7. n. 3. 5 Tertul. de veland. Virg. c. l. Regula fidei una omnino est, sola immobilis et irreformabilis, &c. 6 Iren. lib. l. c. 2. " Cypr. Ep. 70. ad Episc. Numid. p. 190. It. Ep. 76. a1. 69. ad Magnum. p. 183. ed. Oxon. 8 Tertul. ibid. 9 Euseb. Ep. ad Caesariens. ap. Socrat. lib. l. c. 8. 1° Cyril. Hierosol. Catech. 4. 1‘ Liturg. Jacobi. Bibl. Patr. Gr. Lat. t. 2. p. 7. ‘2 Ruffin. in Symbol. Credo in Deum Patrem omnipo- tentem, invisibilem, et impassibilem. ‘3 Aug. Ep. 86. ad Casulan. Mos eorum mihi sequendus videtur, quibus eorum populorum congregatio regenda com- missa est. Quaproptersi consilio meo acquiescis: episcopo it, because he observed in Africa some churches keep it a fast, and others a festival; nay, sometimes in the same church men were divided in their prac- tice, and one part dined on that day, Whilst another fasted. Now, to remove Casulanus his scruple, St. Austin gives him this answer :‘3 That the best way in this case was, to follow those who were the rulers of every church. Therefore, if he would take his advice, he should never resist his bishop in this matter, but do as he did without doubt or scruple. Which plainly implies, that it was then in every bishop’s power to order or not order this fast in his own church, as he saw most convenient. And indeed these privileges of hi- shops, and their absolute and inde- pendent power in all such matters, were no where more fully reserved to them, than in the African churches, from the time of Cyprian, who frequently makes mention of this independent power; which extended not only to mere rituals, but to several momentous points of discipline; such as the case of rebaptizing heretics, admitting adulterers to the communion of the church again, and the question about the validity of clinic baptism. In these points Cyprian’s opinion and practice differed from others of his fellow bishops: but yet he assumed no power of censuring those that acted differently from what he did, nor separ- ated from their communion upon it; but left every one to give an account of his own practice to God the Judge of all. For the case of rebaptizing such as were baptized by heretics, he was entirely for it, as is sufficiently known to all; but he was not so zealous for it, as to exercise any judicial power of deposing or excommunicating those who practised otherwise; but declares he left every bishop to his liberty, to act according to his judgment, and an- swer for what he did to God alone. To this pur- pose he expresses himself in his letter to Pope Stephen,14 and that to J ubaianus,15 but most fully in his speech delivered at the opening of the great council of Carthage, which met to consider this very question. Let us every one now, says he, give our opinion of this matter; ‘6 judging no man, nor repelling any from our communion, that shall Sect. 5. The independency of bishops most conspicuous in the African churches. tuo in hac re noli resistere, et quod facit ipse, sine ullo scru- pulo vel disceptatione sectare. 14 Cypr. Ep. 72. ad Steph. p. 197. Qua in re nec nos vim cuiquam facimus, aut legem damus, cu-m habeat in ecclesiae administratione voluntatis suae arbitrium liberum unusquis- que praepositus, rationem actus sui Domino redditurus. ‘5 Ep. 73. ad Jubaian. p. 210. 16 Con. Carth. ap. Cypr. p. 229. Superest ut de hac ipsa re singuli quid sentiamus, proferamus; neminem judican- tes, aut a jure communionis aliquem, si diversum senserit, amoventes. Neque enim quisquam nostrum episcopum se episcoporum constituit, aut tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem collegas suos adigit; quando habeat omnis episcopus pro licentia libertatis et potestatis suae, arbitrium proprium; tamque judicari ab alio non possit, quam nee CHAP. VII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 37 think otherwise. For no one of us makes himself bishop of bishops, or compels his colleagues by tyrannical terror to a necessity of complying; for- asmuch as every bishop, according to the liberty and power that is granted him, is free to act as he sees fit; and can no more be judged by others, than he can judge them. But let us all expect the judg- ment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who only hath power both to invest us with the government of his church, and to pass sentence upon our actions. Thus far Cyprian, in full and open council, declares for the independent power of every bishop, tacitly reflecting upon the bishop of Rome, who pretended to excommunicate those who differed in opinion and practice from him, which Cyprian condemns as a tyrannical way of proceeding. For the next point, that is, the case of admitting adulterers to communion again, Cyprian says his predecessors in Africa were divided upon the ques- tion; but they did not divide communion upon it: for though some bishops admitted adulterers to penance, and others refused to do it, yet they did not censure each other’s practice, but preserved peace and concord among themselves,17 leaving every one to answer to God for his actions. I know indeed some learned persons ‘8 interpret this liberty of the African bishops so, as to make it mean no more than a liberty to follow their own judgment, till such times as the church should determine the matter in dispute, by making some public decree about it. But I must own, I cannot but think Cyprian meant something more, because he pleads for the same liberty even after the decrees of a plenary council; as we have seen in his preface to the council of Carthage. As to the third question, about the validity of clinic baptism, that is, whether persons who were only sprinkled with water in their beds in time of sickness, and not immersed or washed all over the body in baptism, were to be looked upon as com- plete Christians ; Cyprian for his own part resolves it in the aflirmative. But yet, if any bishops were otherwise persuaded, that it was not lawful baptism, and upon that ground gave such persons a new immersion, he professes ‘9 that he prescribes to none, but leaves every one to act according to his own judgment and discretion. This was that ancient liberty of the Cyprianic age, of which I have dis- coursed a little more particularly in this place, be- cause it shows us what was then the uncontested power and privilege of every bishop in the African church, which is not so commonly understood in these latter ages. CHAPTER VII. OF THE POWER OF BISHOPS IN HEARING AND DE- TERMINING SECULAR CAUSES. WE have hitherto considered such Sec,‘ L offices of the episcopal function, as ,ygflsggggsaggggitgp; belonged to all bishops by the laws of 2132395112232?” God and the canons of the church. church‘ Besides these there was one office more, imposed upon them by custom, and the laws of the state; which was the hearing and determining secular causes, upon the continual applications and ad- dresses that people made to them. For such was the singular character and repute of bishops, and such the entire confidence men generally reposed in them for their integrity and justice, that they were commonly appealed to, as the best arbitrators of men’s differences, and the most impartial judges of the common disputes that happened among them. Sidonius Apollinarisl often refers to this custom: and Synesius calls it2 part of his own episcopal ofiice and function. St. Ambrose .testifies for him- self3 that he was used to be appealed to upon such occasions; and St. Austin4 says of him, that he was often so much employed in hearing causes, that he had scarce time for other business. And this was St. Austin’s case also, who frequently complains of the burden5 that lay upon him in this respect. For not only Christians, but men of all sects applied to him: insomuch that, as Possidius6 notes in his Life, he often spent all the morning, and sometimes the whole day, fasting and hearing their causes ; which, though it was a great fatigue to him, yet he was willing to bear it, because it gave him frequent op- portunities of instilling the principles of truth and virtue into the minds of the parties that applied themselves to him. And it is to be observed, that though Sm 2' there be no express text in the New thghgugggfmlsfm Testament, that commands bishops to mean‘ by "fwd ashram“. be judges 111 secular causes, yet St. ' ‘m’ ' ' ipse potest judicare. Sed exspectemus universi judicium Domini nostri J esu Christi, qui unus et solus habet potesta- tern et praeponendi nos in ecclesiae suae gubernatione, et de actu nostro judicandi. 1’ Cypr. Ep. 52. al. 55. ad Antonian. p. 110. '8 Bishop Fell, Not. in 100. citat. ‘9 Cypr. Ep. 76. al. 69. ad Magnum. p. 186. Qua in parte nemini verecundia et modestia nostra praejudicat, quo minus unusquisque quod putat, sentiat, et quod senserit, faciat. It. p. 188. Nemini pracscribentes, quo minus statuat quod putat unusquisque praepositus : actus sui ratio- nem Domino redditurus. 1 Sidon. lib. 3. Ep. 12. lib. 6. Ep. 2 et 4. 2 Synes. Ep. 105. p. 399. 3 Ambros. Ep. 24. ad Marcellum. 4 Aug. Confess. lib. 6. c. 3. 5 Aug. Ep. 110 et 147. It. de Opere Monach. c. 29. 6 Possid. Vit. Aug. c. 19. 38 BooK II. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Austin was of opinion, that St. Paul, in prohibiting men to go to law before the unbelievers, did virtu- ally lay this obligation upon them. For he says once and again,7 that it was the apostle that insti- tuted ecclesiastical judges, and laid the burden of secular causes upon them. By which he means, that the apostle gave a general direction to Chris- tians to choose arbitrators among themselves; and that custom determined this office particularly to the bishops, as the best qualified by their wisdom and probity to discharge it. And this is very agreeable to St. Paul’s meaning, I Cor. vi. 4, as some very learned and judicious critics8 understand him. For though all the common translations render the WOI‘dS, éilovsevnpévovg 52/ 1'15 techno-fa, persons that are least esteemed in the church; yet Dr. Lightfoot observes, that they may as well signify persons of the greatest esteem. For the original word, éZovSs- vnpévor, signifies only private judges, or arbitrators of men’s own choosing; such as were in use among the Jews, who called them iduJTaL, and non-authentici, not because they were of the meanest and most con- temptible of the people, but because they were the lowest rank of judges, and not settled as a standing court by the sanhedrim, but chosen by the litigants themselves to arbitrate their causes. Such private judges the apostle directs the Christians to choose in the church, and refer their controversies to them: which is not any injunction to choose judges out of the poorest, and meanest, and most ignorant of the people, but rather the contrary, persons that were well qualified by their wisdom and authority to take upon them to be judges, and end controversies among their brethren. Now because none were thought better qualified in these respects than bishops, the office of judging upon that account was commonly imposed upon them, and they in decency and charity could not well refuse it. This seems to be the true ori- ginal of this part of the episcopal office and function. But what was thus begun by cus- tom, while the civil governors were heathens, was afterward confirmed and established by law, when the emperors became Christians. Eusebius9 says, Constantine made a law to confirm all such decisions of bishops in their consistories, and that no secular judges should have any power to reverse or disannul them; forasmuch Sect. 3. This power of bi- shops confirmed by the imperial laws. as the priests of God were to be preferred before any ‘other judge. And Sozomen 1° adds, that he gave leave to all litigants to refer their causes to the de- termination of bishops, whose sentence should stand good, and be as authentic as if it had ‘been the de- cision of the emperor himself: and that the govern- - ors of every province and their ofiicers should be obliged to put their decrees in execution. There is a law now added at the end of the Theodosian Code, which some take for this very law of Constantine men- tioned by these authors. Selden himself reckons 1‘ it a genuine piece; but I think Gothofred’s argu- ments are stronger to prove it spurious. For it grants bishops such a power, as neither Eusebius nor Sozomen mention, and all other laws contradict : viz. That if either of the contending parties, the possessor,12 or the plaintiff, was minded to bring the cause before a bishop, either when it was before a secular court, or when it was determined, he might do it, though the other party was against it. Whereas all laws and history are against this practice: for no cause was to be brought before a bishop, except both parties agreed by way of compromise to take him for their arbitrator. In this case the bishop’s sentence was valid, and to be executed by the secu- lar power, but not otherwise. So that either this was not the genuine law of Constantine, to which Eusebius and Sozomen refer, or else it was revoked and contradicted by all others. Gothofred produces a great many contrary laws. I shall content myself with a single instance. In the Justinian Code ‘3 we have two laws of the emperors Arcadius and HOIIOI'lllS about the same matter, which may serve to explain the law of Constantine. For there any bi- shops are allowed to judge, and their judgment is ordered to be final, so as no appeal should be made from it; and the officers of the secular judges are appointed to execute the bishop’s sentence. But then there are these two limitations expressly put in : first, that they shall only have power to judge, when both parties agree by consent to refer their causes to their arbitration. And, secondly, where the causes are purely civil, and not criminal causes, where perhaps life and death might be concerned. For in such causes, the clergy were prohibited by Sect. 4. Yet not allowed in cpiminal causes; nor m any causes, but when the liti- gants both agreed to take them for arbitrators. 7 Aug. Ser. 24. in Psal. cxviii. Constituit talibus causis ecclesiasticos apostolus cognitores, in foro prohibens jurgare Christianos. Id. de Oper. Monach. c. 29. Quibus nos mo- lestiis affixit apostolus, &c. 8 Lightfoot, et Lud. de Dieu, in 1 Cor. vi. 4. 9 Euseb. de Vit. Constant. lib. 4. c. 27. 1° Sozom. lib. l. c. 9. ‘1 Selden, Uxor Hebr. lib. 3. c. 28. p. 564. ‘7 Extravag. de Elect. J udicii Episcop. ad Calcem Cod. Theod. t. 4. p. 303. Quicunque litem habens, sive posses- sor, sive petitor erit, inter initia litis, vel decursis temporum curriculis, sive cum negotium peroratur, sive cum jam coe- perit promi sententia, judicium eligit sacrosanctae legis an- tistitis, ilico sine aliqua dubitatione, etiamsi alia pars re- fragatnr, ad episcopum cum sermone litigantium dirigatur. Vid. Gothofred. Comment. in 100. 13 God. Justin. lib. l. Tit. 4. Leg. 7. Si qui ex consensu apud sacrae legis antistitem litigare voluerint, non vetabun- tur. Sed experientur illius in civili duntaxat negotio, more arbitri sponte residentis judicium. Ibid. Leg. 8. Episco- pale judicium ratum sit omnibus, qui se audiri a sacerdoti- bus elegerint; eamque eorum judicationi adhibendam esse reverentiam jubemus, quam vestris deferri necesse est po- testatibus, a quibus non licet provocare, &c. CHAP. VIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 39 the canons of the church,“ as well as the laws of the state, from being concerned as judges. There- fore bishops never suffered any criminal causes to come before them, except such as were to be pun- ished with ecclesiastical censures. - But they had commonly civil causes more than enough flowing in upon them. So that they were forced some- times to let part of this care devolve upon some other person, whose integrity and pru- dence they could confide in. This was commonly one of their clergy, a presbyter or a principal dea- con. St. Austin, when he found the burden of this affair begin to press too hard upon him, substituted Eradius his presbyter15 in his room. And the coun- oil of Taragone speaks not only of presbyters, but deacons also,‘6 who were deputed to hear secular causes. And Socrates says,l7 Sylvanus, bishop of Troas, took the power wholly out of the hands of his clergy, because he had found some of them faulty in making an unlawful gain of the causes that were brought before them; for which reason he never deputed any one of them to be judge, but made some layman his delegate, whom he knew to be a man of integrity, and strict lover of justice. I leave the learned to inquire, whether lay chancellors in the church had not their first rise and original from some such occasion as this, whilst bishops deputed laymen to hear secular causes in their name, still reserving the proper spiritual and ecclesiastical power entirely to themselves. Sect. 5. Bishops sometimes made their presby- ters, and sometimes laymen, their substi- tutes in this affair. CHAPTER VIII. OF THE PRIVILEGE OF BISHOPS TO INTERCEDE FOR CRIMINALS. I HAVE observed in the foregoing chapter, that bishops were never al- lowed to be judges in capital or cri- minal causes, because they were not to be concerned in blood: they were to be so far from having any thing to do in the death of any man, that custom made it almost a piece of their office and duty to save men from death, by inter- ceding to the secular magistrates for criminals that were condemned to die. St. Ambrose often made Sect. 1. 0f the great power and intere of bishops in interced- ing to the secular magistrates. use of this privilege, as the author of his Life ob- serves; frequently addressing himself to Macedo- nius,l and Stilico,2 and other great ministers of the age, in behalf of poor delinquents, to obtain pardon for them. St. Austin did the same for the Circum- cellions, when they were convicted and condemned for murdering some of the catholic clergy: he wrote two pathetic letters3 to the African magistrates, Marcellinus Comes, and Apringius, desiring that their lives might be spared, and that they might only be punished with close custody and confine- ment, where they might be set to work, and have time allowed them for repentance. The council of Sardica4 seems to speak of it as the duty of all bishops, to intercede for such as implored the mercy of the church, when they were condemned to be transported or banished, or any the like punish- ment. And the custom was become so general, that it began to be considered as a condition in the elec- tion of a bishop, whether he were qualified to dis- charge this part of his office as well as others. Si- donius Apollinaris5 instances in such a case, where it was made an objection by the people against the election of a certain bishop, that being a man of a monkish and retired life, he was fitter to be an ab- bot than a bishop: he might intercede, they said, indeed with the heavenly Judge for their souls, but he was not qualified to intercede with the earthly judges for their bodies. He was not a man of ad- dress, which they then thought necessary to dis- charge this part of the oflice of a bishop. They might perhaps judge wrong, as those in St. J erom6 did, who pretended that clergymen ought to give splendid entertainments to the secular judges, that they might gain an interest in them; whom St. Je- rom justly reproves, telling them, that any judge would pay a greater reverence to a pious and sober clergyman, than to a wealthy one, and would re- spect him more for his holiness than his riches. However, this shows what was then the common custom, and how great an interest bishops generally had in the secular magistrate, who seldom rejected any petitions of this nature. Socrates notes, that even some of the Novatian bishops enjoyed this privilege, as Paulus7 of Constantinople, and Leon- tins8 of Rome, at whose intercession Theodosius the emperor pardoned Symmachus, who had been guilty of treason, in making a panegyric upon Maximus the tyrant, but was, after his death, fled for sanctuary to a Christian church. *4 Concil. Tarracon. can. 4. Habeant licentiam judi- candi, exceptis criminalibus negotiis. ‘5 Aug. Ep. 110. ‘6 Con. Tarracon. c. 4. Nullus episcoporum, presbyter- orum, vel Clericorum, die Dominico propositum cujus- cunque, causes negotium audeat judicare. 1’ Socrat. lib. 7. c. 37. 1 Paulin. Vit. Ambros. p. 8. 3 Aug. Ep. 159 et 160. 2 Ibid. p. 12. 4 Con. Sardic. can. 7. 5 Sidon. lib. 7. Ep. 9. p. 443. Hic qui nominatur, inqui- unt, non episcopi, sed potius abbatis complet officium: et intercedere magis pro animabus apud cualestem, quam pro corporibus apud terrenum judicem potest. 6 Hieron. Ep. 2. ad Novatian. p. 15. Quod si obtenderis te facere heec, ut roges pro miseris atque subjectis: judex saeculi plus deferet clerico continenti, quam diviti, et magis sanctitatem tuam venerabitur quam opes. 7 Socrat. lib. 7. c. 17. 8 Id. lib. 5. cap. 14. 40 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Boox II. Sect 2 _ We may here observe, that crimes bgrgpgefiéerigig in themselves of a very heinous na- igrdsgrgeogfgsifwls ture, such as treason and murder, were sometimes pardoned at their re- quest. But we are not to imagine that bishops at any time turned patrons for criminals, to the obstruc- tion of public justice, (which would have been to have cut the sinews of government,) but only in such cases, where pardon would manifestly be for the benefit and honour both of the church and com- monwealth; or else where the crimes themselves had some such alleviating circumstances, as might incline a compassionate judge to grant a pardon. As when St. Ambrose interceded with Stilico for the pardon of some poor deluded Wretches, whom Stilico’s own servant by forgery had drawn into an error: their ignorance might reasonably be plead- ed in their behalf. And when St. Austin petitioned for favour to be showed to the Circumcellions, it was, he thought, for the honour of the church, to free her from the suspicion and charge of revenge and cruelty, which the Donatists were so ready to cast upon her. And therefore he desired Aprin- gius9 the proconsul to spare them for the sake of Christ and his church, as well as to give them time to see their error and repent of it. It must further be noted from St. ceggzleynncefi iplgcr- Ambrose, that bishops, though they Egrsignd pecuniary themselves were sometimes chosen judges in civil causes, yet never in- terceded for any man in such causes to the secular judges. And he gives a very good reason ‘° for it: Because, in pecuniary causes, where two parties are concerned, a bishop could not intercede for one party, but the other would be injured, and have reason to think he lost his cause by the interest and favour of the intercessor inclining to the ad- verse party. For which reason, there are no ex- amples of their interceding in such cases. Sect. 3. CHAPTER IX. OF SOME PARTICULAR HONOURS AND INSTANCES OF RESPECT SHOWED TO BISHOPS BY ALL PER- SONS IN GENERAL. Sect. 1. Of the ancient custom of bowing THERE are several other privileges belonging to bishops in common with the rest of the clergy; such as their 3:: gsggaiiégigicegge exemption from burdensome oflices, bishops- and some sort of taxes, and the cognizance of the secular courts in some cases; of which I shall say nothing particularly here, because they will be con- sidered when we treat of the privileges of the clergy in general. But there are two or three customs, which argued a particular respect paid to bishops, and therefore I must not here wholly pass them over. One of these was the ancient custom of how- ing the head before them, to receive their blessing; a custom so universally prevailing, that the em- perors themselves did not refuse to comply with it. As may appear from that discourse of Hilary 1 to Constantius; where he tells him, he entertained the bishops with a kiss, with which Christ was be- trayed; and bowed his head to receive their bene- diction, whilst he trampled on their faith. This plainly refers to the custom we are speaking of. And by it we may understand the meaning of'The- odoret, when he says,2 the emperor Valentinian gave orders to the bishops, who were met to make choice of a bishop of Milan, that they should place such a one on the bishop’s throne, of that eminency for life and doctrine, that the emperors themselves might not be ashamed to bow their heads to him. The same custom is more plainly hinted at by St. Chrysostom, in one of his Homi- lies 3 to the people of Antioch; where speaking of Flavian their bishop, who was gone to the emperor to procure a pardon for them, he says, Flavian was a prince, and a more honourable prince than the other; forasmuch as the sacred laws made the emperor submit his head to the hands of the bishop. He speaks of no other submission, but only this, in receiving the bishop’s benediction: for in other respects, the priests in those days were always subject to the emperors. He that would see more proofs of this custom, may consult Valesius, who4 has collected a great many passages out of other authors relating to it. I shall only add here that rescript of Honorius and Valentinian, which says, Bishops were the persons to whom all the World bowed the head; Quibus omnis term caput inch'na-t. Such another customary respect was paid them, by kissing their hand; which seems to have accompanied the former ceremony. For St. Ambrose joins them both together,5 saying, that kings and princes did not disdain to bend and how their necks to the Sect. 2. Of kissing their hand. 9Aug. Ep. 160. Illi impio ferro fuderunt sanguinem Christianum: tu ab eorum sanguine etiam juridicum gladi- um cohibe propter Christum.-————Tu inimicis ecclesiae viventibus relaxa spatium poenitendi. 1° Ambros. de 0630. lib. 3. c. 9. In causis pecuniariisin- tervenire non est sacerdotis, &c. l Hilar. adv. Constant. p. 95. Osculo sacerdotes excipis, quo et Christus est proditus: caput benedictioni summittis, ut fidem calces. 2 Theod. lib. 4. c. 6. ii'n'ws aria-q? 'rds fijus'répas {ml-orchi- vwpev xsdmhds. 3 Chrys. Horn. 3. ad Pop. Antioch. t. l. p. 48. 4 Vales. Not. in Theod. lib. 4. c. 6. 5 Ambros. de Dignit. Sacerd. c. 2. Quippe cum videas CHAP. IX. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 41 knees of the priests, and kiss their hands; think- ing themselves protected by their prayers. Pauli- nus says,6 the people paid this respect commonly to St. Ambrose. And Chrysostom, speaking of Mele- tius, bishop of Antioch, says,7 At his first coming to the city, the whole multitude went out to meet him, and as many as could come near him, laid hold on his feet, and kissed his hands. They that please to see more of this custom, may con- sult Sidonius Apollinaris,8 and Savaro’s learned Notes 9 upon him; who cites Ennodius, and several other authors to the same purpose. qect 3 St. J erom ‘° mentions another cus- The custom of singing hosannas to them sometimes used, but not ap- proved. great an honour to mere mortal men; which was, the people’s singing hosan- nas to their bishops, as the multitude did to our Saviour at his entrance into Jerusalem. Valesius 1‘ cites a passage out of Antoninus’s Itinerary, to the same purpose; where the form of words is, Blessed be ye of the Lord, and blessed be your coming; hosanna in the highest. Some also understand Hegesippus12 in the same sense; where, speaking of the preaching of James, bishop of Jerusalem, he says, The people that were converted by his dis- course cried out, “ Hosanna to the Son of David.” Scaliger understands this as spoken to James him- self: but others ‘3 take it for a doxology, or acclama- tion to Christ, whom they glorified upon the testi- mony that James had given him: and this seems to be the truer sense of that place; however, in the other acceptation, there is nothing contrary to cus- tom in it, as appears from what has been said. I do not insist upon what St. J erom, in another place,“ says further of this bishop of Jerusalem; that he was a man of such celebrated fame among the people, for his great sanctity, that they ambitiously strove to touch the hem of his garment: for this honour was not paid him as a bishop, but as a most holy man; who was, indeed, according to the cha- racter given him by Hegesippus and Epiphanius, a tom, which he condemns as doing too _ man of singular abstinence and piety, and one of the miracles of the age he lived in. So that this was a singular honour done to him, for his singular holiness and virtue. But to proceed with the common honours paid to bishops. Another the com“ WWW instance of respect may be observed f,‘§"'§f;,fi§,‘,‘,§h§,§{j§$, in the usual forms of addressing them: per “'mm' for when men spake to them, they commonly pre- faced their discourse with some title of honour, such as that of Precor coronam, and Per coronam vest-ram ,- which we may English, Your honour and dignity; literally, Your crown. This form often occurs in Sidonius Apollinaris, Ennodius, St. J erom,15 and others. St. Austin says, both the catholics16 and Donatists used it, when they spake to the bishops of either party; giving them very respectful titles, and entreating, or rather adjuring, them, per coronam, that they would hear and determine their secular causes. The use of this form of speech then Sect 5 is plain, but the reason of it is not so anicii'ggégeigizhgps evident. Savaro,17 and some others, gjetrghgxgggtghe fancy it respected the ancient figure of the clerical tonsure; by which the hair was cut into a round from the crown of the head down- wards. Others think it came from the ornament which bishops wore upon their head; and that they will needs have to be a crown or mitre. Whereas, it does not appear that bishops had any such orna- ment in those days. I know, indeed, both Valesius '8 and Petavius19 are very confident that all bishops (from the very first) had an appendant badge of honour in their foreheads, which they say was the same with the petalum, or golden plate, which the Jewish high priests wore: and it cannot be denied, but that as ancient an author as Polycrates,20 men- tioned both by Eusebius and St. J erom, says, that St. John was a priest, wearing a petalum : and Epi- phanius21 says the same of James, bishop of J crusa- lem. But this was not spoken of them as Christian . 4. “'hat meant by regum colla et principum submitti genibus sacerdotum, et exosculatis eorum dexteris, orationibus eorum credant se communiri. 6 Paulin. Vit. Ambros. p. 2 et 3. 1 Chrys. Hom. 45. in Melet. t. l. p. 593. 8 Sidon. lib. 8. Ep. 11. Sancti Gallicini manu osculata. Id. lib. 7. Ep. 11. 9 Savaro, Not. in Sidon. lib. 8. Epist. 11. p. 532. 1° Hieron. in Matt. xxi. t. 9. p. 62. Videant ergo epis- copi, et quantumlibet sancti homines, cum quanto periculo dici ista sibi patiantur, &c. 1‘ Vales. Not. in Euseb. lib. 2. c. 23. 12 Hegesip. ap. Euseb. lib. 2. c. 23. Holtltz'bu aoga‘gam-wv €1ri¢fi ,uap'rvpiq 'roii Iarcdiflov, Kai. As'yo'u'rwv, Ibo-amid 'rq'i t'nq'i Ala/316. ‘3 Grabe, Spicileg. Saec. 2. p. 207, translates it thus: Multi hoe Jacobi testimonio confirmati glorificabant (J esum) di- centes, Hosanna Filio David. 1* Hieron. Com. in Gal. i. J acobus episcopus Hieroso- lymorum primus fuit, cognomento Justus; vir tantze sancti- tatis et rumoris in populo, ut fimbriam vestimenti ejus certatim cuperent attingere. ‘5 Sidon. lib. 6. Ep. 3. Auctoritas coronac tuae, &c. Id. lib. 7. Ep. 8. ad Euphron. De miniinis rebus coronam tuam maximisque consulerem. Ennod. lib. 4. Ep. 29. ad Symmac. Lib. 5. Ep. 17. ad Marcellinum. Lib. 9. Ep. 27. ad Aurelian. Hieron. Ep. 26. ad August. inter Ep. Aug. Precor coronam tuam. ‘6 Aug. Ep. 147. ad Proculeian. Episc. partis Donati. Honorant nos vestri, honorant vos nostri. Per coronam nostram nos adjurant vestri ; per coronam vestram vos ad- jurant nostri. 1’ Savaro, Not. in Sidon. lib. 6. Ep. 3. Baron. an. 58. n. 134. ‘8 Vales. Not. in Euseb. lib. 5. c. 24. ‘9 Petav. Not. in Epiph. Hacr. 78. n. 14. 2° Polycrat. ap. Euseb. lib. 5. c. 24. 2' Epiphan. Hair. 29. n. I. It. Haer. 78. n. 14. 42 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Boox II. bishops, but on presumption of their having been J ewish priests, and of the family of Aaron. Valesius himself cites a MS. Passion of St. Mark, which sets the same ornament on his head, and gives this very reason for it: It is reported, says he, that St. Mark, according to the rites of the carnal sacrifice, wore the chief priest’s petalum among the Jews: which gives us plainly to understand,22 says that author, that he was one of the tribe of Levi, and of the family of Aaron. So he did not take this for the ornament of a Christian bishop, but a Jewish priest; and that opens the way for us to understand what the other authors meant by it, however Vale- sius chanced not to observe it. Now, if it cannot be proved, that bishops anciently wore any such ornament as this, it will much less follow that they wore a royal crown, or mitre, as Spondanus23 asserts they did, and thence deduces the custom of address— ing them Per coronam ; therein deserting his great master Baronius, who assigns another reason for it. After all, it seems most probable that it was no more than a metaphorical expression, used to denote the honour and dignity of the episcopal order: though I do not deny that the clerical tonsure was some- times called corona ; but that was not peculiar to bishops, but common to all the clergy. It will not be improper to add, while we are upon this point, that it was usual in men’s addresses to bi- shops, or in speaking of them, to mention their names with some additional titles of respect, such as Qeogbrhéo'rarot, and dylu'rrarot, most dear 120 God, and most holy fathers : which titles occur frequently in the emperor’s rescripts in the civil law,24 and were of such common use in those times, that Socrates (when he comes to the sixth book of his history, which treats of his own times) thinks him- self obliged to make some apology25 for not giving the bishops that were then living these titles. Which I the rather note, because of the vanity of some, who reckon the title, most holy father, the pope’s sole prerogative; and to correct the malice of others, who will not allow a protestant bishop to receive that title, without the suspicion and im- putation of popery. As if. St. Austin and St. J erom had been to blame, because the one wrote, and the other received, epistles always thus inscribed, D0- Sect. 6. Of the titles (£7;- cirraror, sanctz'ssi- mi, &c. mz'no oere sancto, et beatz'ssimo papa Augustine. See St. Austin’s Epist. ll, l3, l4, 17, 18, 21, where St. J erom and others give him those honourable titles. There is one thing more that must Sect 7 not be omitted, because it was the gglilégpgyéitsgp; common honour and privilege of all 21115213311 the bishops, to be distinguished in the church by a chair, or seat, which was commonly called their throne. Thus Eusebius26 calls the bishop of J erusalem’s seat, Qpévov a'rroo'rohucov, the apostolical throne, because St. James, bishop of Jerusalem, first sat in it. And for the same reason Gregory Nazianzen27 calls the bishop of Alex- andria’s seat, the throne of St. Mark. It was other— wise called Bfipta, and Qpdvog til/"Mg, the high throne, because it was exalted something higher than the seats of the presbyters, which were on each side of it, and were called the second thrones, as we shall see hereafter, when we come to speak of presbyters. All that I shall observe further here concerning this throne of the bishops is, that though it be sometimes called the high and lofty throne, espe- cially by those writers“ who speak in a rhetorical strain, yet that is only meant comparatively in re- spect of the lower seats of presbyters; for other- wise, it was a fault in any bishop to build himself a pompous and splendid throne in imitation of the state and grandeur of the secular magistrates. This was one of the crimes which the council of An- tioch,29 in their Synodical Epistle against Paulus Samosatensis, laid to his charge, that he built him- self a high and stately tribunal, not as a disciple of Christ, but as one of the rulers of the world, making a secretum to it, in imitation of the secular magis- trates, whose tribunals had a place railed out from the rest, and separated by a veil, which they called the secret/um, and the ambitious bishop gave his the same name, by which, and some other such like practices, he raised the envy and hatred of the heathens against the Christians, as they there com~ plain of It was then the great care of the Christian church, to observe a decorum in the honours which she bestowed upon her bishops, that they might be such as might set them above contempt, but keep them below envy; make them venerable, but not minister to vanity, or the out- ward pomp and ostentation of secular greatness. 72 Auctor. MS. Passion. S. Marc. ap. Vales. ibid. B. Marcum juxta ritum carnalis sacrifieii, pontificalis apicis petalum in populo gestasse J udaeorum, illustrium virorum Syngrapliae declarant: ex quo manifesté datur intelligi, de stirpe eum Levitiea, imo pontificis Aaron sacrae successionis, originem habuisse. 28 Spondan. Epitom. Baron. an. 58. n. 54. 24 Justin. Novel. 8, 40, 42, 67, 86, &c. Concil. Chalced. Act. 10. 25 Socrat. Prooem. ad lib. 6. 2*’ Euseb. lib. 7. c. 19 et 32. 27 Naz. Orat. 21. in Land. Athanas. t. l. p. 377. 28 N az. Somnium de Eccl. Anastas. Sublimi throno in- sidere mihi videbar. Id. Orat. 20. in Laud. Basil. p- 342 é’lri. *rdu inhnhou "rile .irrto'rcmrijs 6po'uov, &c. 79 Ap. Euseb. lib. 7. c. 30. CHAP. X. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 43 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHAPTER X. OF THE AGE, AND SOME PARTICULAR QUALIFICA- TIONS REQUIRED IN SUCH AS WERE TO BE OR- DAINED BISHOPS. THOSE qualifications of bishops, which were common to them with the rest of the clergy, shall be spoken of here- after: here I shall only take notice of a few that were more peculiar to them. Such as, first, their age; which, by the canons, was required to be at least thirty years. The council of Neo- cassareal requires thirty in presbyters, which is a certain argument that the same age was requisite in a bishop. The council of Agde2 more expressly limits their age to that time, requiring all metropoli- tans to insist upon it in their ordination. The reasons given by these councils are, because our Saviour himself did not begin to teach before he was thirty years old, and because that is the perfect age of man. Therefore, though a man was other- wise never so well qualified, the council of Neo- ceesarea says, he shall wait, and not be ordained so much as presbyter before that time. But whether this rule was always observed from the days of the apostles ‘may be questioned, for there is no such rule given by the apostles in Scripture. That which goes under their name in the Constitutions,8 requires a bishop to be fifty years old before he is ordained, except he be a man of singular merit and worth, which may compensate for the want of years. This shows, that the custom of the church varied in this matter, and that persons of extraordinary quali- fications were not always tied to be of such an age. Timothy was ordained young, as may be collected from what the apostle says to him, 1 Tim. iv. 12, “Let no man despise thy youth.” The history of the church afi'ords many other such instances. Eusebius4 says, Gregory Thaumaturgus, and his brother Athenodorus, were both ordained bishops very young; é'n véovg cippw. St. Ambrose5 says the same of Acholius, bishop of Thessalonica; that he was young in years, but of mature age in respect of his virtues. And Socrates6 gives the like account of Paulus, bishop of Constantinople. Theodoret7 observes also of Athanasius, that he was but young when he attended his bishop Alexander at the council of Nice; and yet within five months after, Sect. 1. Bishops not to be ordained under thirty years of age, except they were men of extraordi- nary worth. he was chosen his successor at Alexandria. \Vhich probably was before he was thirty years old; for the council of Nice was not above twenty years after the persecution under Maximian; and yet Athanasius was so young, as not to remember the beginning of that persecution, anno 303, but only as he heard it from his fathers. For when he speaks of it, he says,8 he learned of his parents, that the persecution was raised by Maximian, grandfather to Constantius. So that if we compute from that time, we can hardly suppose him to be thirty years old, when he was ordained bishop, anno 326. It is agreed by all authors,9 that Remigius, bishop of Rhemes, was but twenty-two years old when he was ordained, anno 471. And Cotelerius,lo after Nice- phorus, says, St. Eleutherius, an Illyrican bishop, was consecrated at twenty. Ignatius gives a plain intimation, that Damas, bishop of the Magnesians, was but a very young bishop; though he does not expressly mention his age. He calls his ordina- tion,11 vewrsptmiv ra’éw, a youthful ordination; and therefore cautions the people not to despise him for his age, but to reverence and give place to him in the Lord. Salmasius12 and Ludovicus Capellus miserably pervert this passage, and force a sense upon it, which the author never so much as dreamt of: they will needs have it, that by the words 'usw'rspuc'hv 'rciZzv, Ignatius means the novelty of episcopacy in general, that it was but a new 'and late institution: which is not only contrary to the whole tenor and design of all Ignatius’s epistles, but to the plain sense of this passage in particular; which speaks nothing of the institution of episco- pacy, but of the age of this bishop, who was but young when he was ordained. Now, from all this it appears, that though there was a rule in the church, requiring bishops to be thirty years old when they were ordained; yet it was frequently dispensed with, either in cases of necessity, or in order to promote persons of more extraordinary worth and singular qualifications: Yet such dispensations, as qualify boys of eleven or twelve years old to be made bishops, are no where to be met with in the primitive church; though the history of the papacy affords frequent instances of such promotions ; as those that please may see in a catalogue of them, collected by Dr. Reynolds and Mr. Mason,“ two learned writers of our church. 1 Con. Neocacs. can. 11. 2 Concil. Agathen. c. 17. Presbyterum vel episcopum ante triginta annos, id est, antequam ad viri perfecti aeta- tem perveniat, nullus metropolitanorum ordinare praesumat. See also Con. Tolet. 4. c. 18 et 19. 3 Constit. Apost. lib. 2. c. l. 4 Euseb. lib. 6. c. 30. 5 Ambr. Ep. 60. ad Anysium. Benedictus processus ju' ventutis ipsius, in qua ad summum electus est sacerdotium, maturo jam probatus virtutum stipendio. 6 Socrat. lib. 2. C. 6. 'Audpa va'ou at” Thu 1'1/\uciau, 'n'po- fisflmco'q'a as 'ra'is ¢psaiv. 7 Theod. lib. l. c. 25. véos as» (by 'n‘w iikuriau. 8 Athan. Ep. ad Solitar. t. l. p. 853. 9 Hincmar. Vit. Remig. Baron. an. 471. p. 298. 1° Coteler. Not. in Const. Apost. lib. 2. c. l. lib. 3. c. 29. 1‘ Ignat. Ep. ad Magnes. n. 3. ‘'1 Vid. Pearson, Vindic. Ignat. Praef. ad Lector. ‘3 Vid. Rainoldi Apolog. Thes. n. 26. Mason of the Con- secrat. of Bishops, lib. l. c. 5. Niceph. 44 ' ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. BOOK II. 'to which they were But to return to the bishops of the primitive church: another qualifica- tion in a bishop, anciently very much insisted on, was, that he should be one of the clergy of the same church over which he was to be made bishop. For strangers, who were unknown to the people, were not reckoned qualified by the canons. This is plainly implied by Cyprian,“ when he says, the bishop was to be chosen in the presence of the people; who had per- fect knowledge of every man’s life and actions, by their conversation among them. St. J erom ob- serves, that this was the constant custom of Alex- andria,15 from St. Mark, to Dionysius and Heraclas, for the presbyters of the church to choose a bi- shop out of their own body. And therefore Julius ‘6 makes it a strong objection against Gregory, whom the Arians obtruded on the church of Alexandria in the room of Athanasius; that he was a perfect stranger to the place; neither baptized there, nor known to any: whereas, the ordination of a bishop ought not to be so uncanonical; but he should be ordained by the bishops of the province in his own church, and be t’ur' az’rroii ‘r017 ispa'reiov, drr’ ain'oii roii nkr'jpov, one of the clergy of the church to which he was ordained. The ancient bishops of Rome were all of the same mind, so long as they thought them- selves obliged to walk by the laws of the church: for Celestine,17 and Hilary,18 and Leo,‘9 insist upon the same thing, as the common rule and canon of the church. And we find a law as late as Charles the Great, and Ludovicus Pius, to the same pur- pose. For in one of their Capitulars 2° it is ordered, that bishops shall be chosen out of their own dio- cese, by the election of the clergy and the people. Though, as Baluzius21 notes, this law did not ex- tend to very many dioceses: for by this time, the French kings had the disposal of all bishoprics in their dominions, (except some few churches, which by special privilege retained the old way of electing,) and they did not bind themselves to nominate bi- shops always out of the clergy of that church which was vacant, but used their liberty to choose them out of any other; as now it is become the privilege and custom of kings and princes almost in all nations: which is the occasion of the difference betwixt the ancient and modern practice in this particular. For while the ancient way of elections continued, the general rule was for every church to make choice Sect. 2. Bishops to be chosen out of the clergy of the church ordained. of one of her own clergy to be her bishop, and not a stranger. Yet in some extraordinary cases this sect 3 rule admitted of legal exceptions ; Sogetfigégglrégns particularly in these three cases: 1. When it was found for the benefit of the church to translate bishops from one see to another. In this case, though the bishop was a stranger, yet his trans- lation being canonical, was reckoned no violation of this law. 2. When the church could not unani- mously agree upon one in their own body, then, to pacify their heats and end their controversies, the emperor or a council proposed one of another church to their choice, or promoted him by their own au- thority. Upon this ground Nectarius, Chrysostom, and Nestorius, all strangers, were made bishops of Constantinople. It was to end'the disputes that arose in the church, which was divided in their elections, as Socrates and Sozomen22 give an ac- count of them. 3. Sometimes men’s extraordinary merit gave them preference, though strangers, be- fore all the members of the church to which they were chosen. As St. Ambrose28 observes of Eu- sebius Vercellensis, that he was chosen, posthabz'tz's eivibusfbefore all that were citizens or bred in the place, though none of the electors had ever seen him before, but only heard of his fame and character: and there are many other instances of the like nature. But excepting some such cases as these, the rule was generally observed, to choose no one bishop of any place, who was not known to the people, and a member of the same church before. Another qualification required in a bishop was, that he should arise gra- Bishfiligéztbgp _ dually to his honour, and not come to glrggisiivf tiuiu mm the throne per saltum ; but first pass ' through some, if not all, the inferior orders of the church. The council of Sardica has a canon 2‘ very fiill to this purpose: If any rich man, or pleader at the law, desire to be made a bishop, he shall not be ordained, till he has first gone through the offices of reader, deacon, and presbyter; that behaving himself worthily in each of these ofiices, he may ascend gradually to the height of the episcopal func- tion: and in every one of these degrees he shall continue some considerable time, that his faith, and good conversation, and. constancy, and moderation may be known. The same rule is prescribed by the ‘4 Cypr. Ep. 68. al. 67. ad Fratr. Hispan. p. 172. Epis- copus deligatur plebe prazsente, quae singulorum vitam plenissime novit, et uniuscujusque actum de ejus conver- satione perspexit. 15 Hieron. Epist. 85. ad Evagr. Alexandriae a Marco evangelista. usque ad Heraclam et Dionysium episcopos, presbyteri semper unum ex se electum, in excelsiori gradu collocatum episcopum nominabant. 1° Jul. Ep. ad Oriental. ap. Athan. Apol. 2. t. l. p. 749. ‘7 Caelestin. Ep. 2. ad Episc. Narbon. c. 4 et 5. 18 Hilar. Pap. Epist. 1. ad Ascan. Tarracon. c. 3. 19 Leo, Ep. 84. ad Anastas. c. 6. 2° Capitular. Karoli et Ludov. lib. i. c. 18. Episcopi per electionem cleri et populi, secundum statuta canonum, de propria dioecesi eligantur. 2‘ Baluz. Not. ad Concilia Gall. Narbon. p. 34. It. Not. ad Gratian. Dist. 63. c. 34. p. 467. 22 Socrat. lib. 6. c. 2. lib. 7. c. 29. Sozom. lib. 8. c. 2. 23 Ambros. Ep. 82. ad Eccl. Vercel. 2‘ Concil. Sardic. can. 10. CHAP. X. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 45 council of Bracara25 and some others. And that it was the ancient practice of the church, appears from what Cyprian says 26 of Cornelius, that he was not made bishop of Rome all of a sudden, but went gra- dually through all the oflices of the church, till his merits advanced him to the episcopal throne. The- odoret27 commends Athanasius upon the same ac- count: and Gregory Nazianzen28 speaks it to the honour of St. Basil, with some reflection on several bishops of his age, that he did not as soon as he was baptized leap into a bishopric, as some other ambi- tious persons did, but rise to his honour by degrees. He adds, that in military affairs this rule was gener- ally observed; every great general is first a common soldier, then a captain, then a commander: and it would be happy for the church, says he, if matters were always so ordered in it. By this time it seems this rule was frequently transgressed, without any reason or necessity; but only by the ambition of some who affected the oflice of bishop, yet were not willing to undergo the inferior offices that were pre- parative to it. S But I must observe, that it was not ct. 5. . . ' Deacons _might be always necessarily required that aman ordained bishops, though never or- dained presbyters. should be ordained presbyter first in order to be made a bishop: for dea- cons were as commonly made bishops as any other. Caecilian was no more than archdeacon of Carthage,29 when he was ordained bishop, as we learn from Op- tatus. And both Theodoret 3° and Epiphanius81 say, that Athanasius was but a deacon, when he was made bishop of Alexandria. Liberatus observes the same32 of Peter Moggus and Esaias, two other bi- shops of Alexandria: as also of Agapetus33 and Vi- gilius, bishops of Rome. Socrates 3‘ and,Theodoret35 relate the same of Felix, bishop of Rome, who was ordained in the place of Liberius. Eusebius36 takes notice of one of his own name, a deacon of Alex- andria, who was made bishop of Laodicea. And Socrates 8’ says, Chrysostom made Heraclides, one of his own deacons, bishop of Ephesus, and Serapion bishop of Heraclea. And that this was a general practice, and agreeable to canon, appears also from a letter of Pope Leo, where, speaking of the election of a metropolitan, he says38 he ought to be chosen either out of the presbyters, or out of the deacons of the church. Sometimes in cases of necessity bi- shops were chosen out of the inferior orders, subdeacons, readers, &c. Li— beratus says, Silverius, who was com- petitor with Vigilius for the bishopric of Rome, was but a subdeacon.” And St. Austin himself, when he erected his new bishopric at Fussala, being disappointed of the person whom he intended to have had consecrated bishop, offered one Antonius a reader to the primate to be ordained bishop in his room; and the primate without any scruple imme- diately ordained him; though, as St. Austin“0 testi- fies, he was but a young man, who had never showed himself in any other ofiice of the church beside that of reader. There want not also several in- stances of persons, who were ordained t 111132130253... .5- bishops immediately of laymen, when £58225; God by his particular providence seemed to point them out as the fittest men, in some certain junctures, to be employed in his service. Thus it was in the known case of St. Ambrose, who was but newly baptized when he was ordained bi- shop, as both Paulinus‘“ and all the historians tes- tify. When the people of Milan were so divided in the election of a bishop, that the whole city was in an uproar, he, being praetor of the place, came in upon them to appease the tumult, as by virtue of his office he thought himself obliged to do; and making an eloquent speech to them, it had a sort of mira- culous effect upon them; for they all immediately left off their dispute, and unanimously cried out, they would have Ambrose to be their bishop. Which the emperor understanding, and looking upon it as a providential call, he ordered him to be baptized, (for he was yet but a catechurnen,) and in a few days after to be ordained their bishop. St. Cyprian was another instance of the like pro- vidential dispensation. For Pontius42 says in his Life, that he was chosen bishop by the judgment of God and the favour of the people, though he was but a neophite, or newly baptized. Socrates ‘3 and and Sozomen “4 say the same of Nectarius, Gregory _ Sect. 6. Bishops in cases of necessity chosen out of the inferior orders. 25 Concil. Bracar. 1. c. 39. Per singulos gradus eruditus, ad sacerdotium veniat. 26 Cypr. Ep. 52. al. 55. ad Antonian. p. 103. Non iste ad episcopatum subito pervenit, sed per omnia ecclesiastica oflicia promotus, et in divinis administrationibus Dominum saepe promeritus, ad sacerdotii sublime fastigium cunctis re- ligionis gradibus ascendit. 2’ Theod. lib. 1. c. 25. 28 Naz. Orat. 20. in Laud. Basil. p. 335. 29 Optat. lib. l. p. 41. 2° Theodor. lib. l. c. 25. 9‘ Epiphan. Haer. 69. Arian. 32 Liberat. Breviar. c. 16 et 18. 35 Theod. lib. 2. c. 17. 36 Euseb. lib. 7. c. 11. 2’ Socrat. lib. 6. c. 11. lib. 98 Leo, Ep. 84. c. 6. Ex presbyteris ejusdem ecclesiae, vel ex diaconibus eligatur. 39 Liberat. Brev. c. 22. 4° Aug. Ep. 261. ad qCaelestin. 41 Paulin. Vit. Ambros. p. 3. Ruffin. lib. 2. c. 11. Theod. lib. 4. c. 6 et 7. Socrat. lib. 4. c. 30. Sozom. lib. 6. c. 24. "2 Pont. Vit. Cypr. p. 2. J udicio Dei et plebis favore ad oflicium sacerdotii et episcopatus gradum adhuc neophytus, et ut putabatur novellus electus est. ‘3 Socrat. lib. 5. c. 8. 83 Liberat. ibid. c. 21 et 22. 3‘ Socrat. lib. 2. c. 37. 4" Sozom. lib. 7. c. 8. 'rilv ,uvqua‘jv 50617111 57!. 1’7,u¢tso'- ,us'uos, &c. 46 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. BooK II. Nazianzen’s successor at Constantinople, that he was chosen bishop by the second general council, whilst he had his mystical garments on him, mean- ing those white garments, which the newly baptized were used to wear. Eusebius, bishop of Ceesarea in Pontus, St. Basil’s predecessor, was not baptized, but only a catechumen, when he was chosen bi- shop, as Nazianzen himself45 informs us. And Eu- cherius was but a monk, that is, a layman, when he was chosen and ordained bishop of Lyons, as Baronius46 says, from Hilarius Arelatensis in the Life of Honoratus. Chrysostom “7 seems to say the same of Philogonius, bishop of Antioch, when he reports of him, that he was taken from the court of judicature, and carried from the judge’s bench to the biShOp’S throne, rim) ,Bi'marog ducao'rucoii 5m‘. Bfilua Zepbv. In all these instances there seems to have been the hand of God and the direction of Provi- dence, which supersedes all ordinary rules and ca- nons: and therefore these ordinations were never censured as uncanonical or irregular, though con- trary to the letter of a common rule; because the rule itself was to be understood with this limitation and exception, as one of the ancient canons “8 ex- plains itself, and all others that relate to this matter; saying, One that is newly converted from Gentilism, or a vicious life, ought not presently to be advanced to a bishopiic: for it is not fit, that he who has yet given no proof of himself, should be made a teacher of others; unless it be so ordered by the grace and appointment of God himself, at W) 7rov card Qetav Xdpw Tofu-o yévmro. For in this case there could be no dispute; the will of God being superior to all hu- man canons whatsoever. And therefore, though the same limitation be not expressed in other ca- nons, yet it is evident that they are always to be understood with this exception. Upon which ac- count, it was not reckoned any breach of canon to make a layman bishop, when Providence seemed first to grant a dispensation, by directing the church to be unanimous in the choice of such a person. They did not in such cases make a layman receive one order one day, and another the next, and so go through the several orders in the compass of a week, but made him bishop at once, when need required, without any other ordination. The con- trary custom is a modern practice, scarce ever heard of till the time of Photius, anno 858, who, to avoid the imputation of not coming gradually to his bi- shopric, was on the first day made a monk, on the second a reader, on the third a subdeacon, on the fourth a deacon, on the fifth a presbyter, and on the sixth a. patriarch, as Nicetas David,49 a writer of that age, informs us in the Life of Ignatius. Spala- tensis50 observes the same practice to be continued in the Romish church, under pretence of complying with the ancient canons; though nothing can be more contrary to the true intent and meaning of them; which was, that men should continue some years in every order, to give some proof of their be- haviour to the church, and not pass cursorily through all orders in five or six days’ time; which practice, as it does not answer the end of the canons, so it is altogether Without precedent in the primitive church. CHAPTER XI. OF SOME PARTICULAR LAWS AND CUSTOMS, OB- SERVED ABOUT THE ORDINATION OF BISHOPS. WHEN any bishopric became void sec, 1, Bishoprics not to by the death or cession of its bishop, hem, above three then, forasmuch as bishops were look- months‘ ed upon as a necessary constituent part of the church, all imaginable care was taken to fill up the vacancy with all convenient speed. In the African churches a year was the utmost limits that was al- lowed for a vacancy; for if within that time a new election was not made, he that was appointed ad- ministrator of the church during the vacancy, whose business it was to procure and hasten the election, was to be turned out of his office, and a new one put in his room, by a canon of the fifth council1 of Carthage, which is also confirmed in the African Code.2 But in other places this was limited to a much shorter time. For by a canon of the ge— neral council of Chalcedon,8 every metropolitan is obliged to ordain a new bishop in the vacant see within the space of three months, under pain of ecclesiastical censure, unless some unavoidable ne- cessity forced him to defer it longer. At Alexandria the custom was to proceed immediately to election as nel‘n gags places .1 soon as the bishop was dead, and be- chdselisbgioiiafse _ _ _ one was buried. fore he was interred. Epiphanius4 hints at this custom, when he says, they were used to make no delay after the decease of a bishop, but chose one presently, to preserve peace among the people, that they might not run into factions about the choice of a successor. But Liberatus is a little more particular in describing the circumstances of it. He says,5 it was customary for the successor to Sect. 2. 45 Naz. Orat. 19. de Laud. Patr. t. 1. p. 308. 46 Baron. an. 441. p. 9. “7 Chrys. Hom. 31. de S. Philogon. t. 1. p. 397. 48 Canon. Apost. c. 80. i 49 Nicet. Vit. Ignat. Concil. t. 8. p. 1199. 5” Spalat. de Repub. lib. 3. c. 4. n. 19. p. 430. 1 Con. Carth. 5. can. 8. 2 Cod. Can. Eccl. Afric. can. 75. 3 Con. Chalced. can. 25. 4 Epiphan. Haar. 69. Arian. n. 11. W‘) Xpouigew ps'rd 'rehev'fl‘w "r5 é'lrro'rco'qrs, &c. 5 Liberat. Breviar. c. 20. Consuetudo quidem est Alex- CHAP. XI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 47 watch over the body of the deceased bishop, and to lay his right hand upon his head, and to bury him with his own hands, and then take the pall of St. Mark, and put it upon himself, and so sit in his throne. To these authorities we may add that of Socrates, who says,6 that Cyril of Alexandria was enthroned the third day after the death of Theo- philus: and he intimates, that the same thing was practised in other places; for Proclus, bishop of Constantinople,7 was enthroned before Maximian his predecessor was interred, and after his enthrone- ment he performed the funeral office for him. And this was done at the instance and command of the emperor Theodosius, that there might be no dispute or tumult raised in the church about the election of a bishop. gm 3 Yet, notwithstanding this care and loggggh‘igicétfiicliiessfif diligence of the church in filling up glgegegcggfiigilty vacant sees, it sometimes happened, that the election of bishops was de- ferred to a much longer season. For in Africa, at the time of the collation of Carthage, there were no less than threescore bishoprics void at once, which was above an eighth part of the whole. For the whole number of bishops was but four hundred and sixty-six, whereof two hundred and eighty-six were then present at the conference, and one hundred and twenty were absent by reason of sickness or old age; besides which, there were sixty vacant sees, which were unprovided of bishops at that time, as the catholics told the Donatists,8 who pretended to vie numbers with them, though they were but two hundred and seventy-nine. What was the particular reason of so many vacancies at that juncture, is not said; but probably it might be the difliculty of the times, that catholic bishops could not there be placed, where the Donatists had gotten full posses- sion. Or, perhaps it might be the negligence of the people, who contented themselves with ad- ministrators during the vacancy, and would not ad— mit of a new bishop. The council of Macriana, mentioned by Fulgentius Ferrandus,9 takes notice of this dilatory practice in some churches, and cen- sures it by a canon, which orders the administra- tors, who were always some neighbouring bishops, to be removed; and condemns such churches to continue without administrators, till they sought for a bishop of their own. Another reason of long vacancies in some times and places, was the difli- cult circumstances the churches lay under in time of persecution. For the bishops were the men chiefly aimed at by the persecutors. And there- fore, when one bishop was martyred, the church sometimes was forced to defer the ordination of another, either because it was scarce possible to go about it in such times of exigency, or because she was unwilling to expose another bishop immedi- ately to the implacable fury of a raging adversary, and bring upon herself a more violent storm of per- secution. The Roman clergy10 give this for their reason to Cyprian, why, after the martyrdom of Fabian, they did not immediately proceed to a new election. The state of affairs, and the difliculty of the times, was such as would not permit it. Ba- roniusll reckons the time of this vacancy a year and three months, but others,12 who are more exact in the calculation, make it a year and five months; by either of which accounts, it was above a year beyond the time limited by the canons. But this was nothing in comparison of that long vacancy of the bishopric of Carthage, in the time of the Arian. persecution under Gensericus and Hunericus, two heretical kings of the Vandals, which Victor Uti- censisl3 says was no less than twenty-four years, during all which time the church of Carthage had no bishop. But these were difiiculties upon the church, and matters of force, not her choice : for in times of peace she always acted otherwise, and did not think such extraordinary instances fit pre- cedents to be drawn into example; much less to be drawn into consequence and argued upon, as some ‘4 have done, that therefore the church may be with- out bishops, because she subsisted in some extraor- dinary vacancies without them, when she could not have them: which argument would hold as well against any other order as that of bishops, did but they who urge this argument rightly consider it. But to return to the ordination of Sec, 4. bishops: at the time appointed for qugl‘éefobgilffifidifij ordination, the metropolitan was used “ion “a bishop‘ to send forth his circular letters, and summon all the bishops of the province to meet at the place where the new bishop was to be ordained, and as- sist at his consecration. The presence of them all was required, if they could conveniently attend; if not, they were to send their consent in writing: in andriae, illum, qui defuncto succedit, excubias super de- functi corpus agere, manumque dexteram ejus capiti suo imponere, et sepulto manibus suis, accipere collo suo beati Marci pallium, et tune legitime sedere. 6 Socrat. lib. 7. c. 7. " Id. lib. 7. c. 40. 8 Aug. Brevic. Collat. primae Diei. c. 14. Sane propter catbedras, quas episcopis vacuas apud se esse dixerunt, re- sponsum est a catholicis, sexaginta esse quibus successores episcopi nondum fuerant ordinati. 9 Ferrand. Brev. Can. 0. 23. ap. Justel. t. I. p. 449. Ut interventores episcopi conveniant plebis quae episcopum non habent, ut episcopum accipiant; quod si accipere neg- lexerint, remoto interventore sic remaneant, quam diu sibi episcopum quaerant. 1° Ep. 31. al. 3(). ap. Cyprian. p. 58. Post excessum no- bilissimae memorize viri Fabiani, nondum est episcopus prop- ter rerum et temporum diflicultates constitutus. 1‘ Baron. an. 253. n. 6. an. 254. n. 46. '2 Pearson, Annal. Cypr. an. ‘250. n. 3. et an. 251. n. 6. ‘3 Victor. de Persecut. Vandal. lib. 2. ‘4 Blondel. Apol. 48 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. B001: 11. which case three bishops, with the assistance or consent of the metropolitan, were reckoned a suf- ficient canonical number to perform the ceremony of consecration. St. Cyprian ‘5 speaks of it as the general practice of the church in his time, to have all the bishops of the province present at any such ordination. And Eusebiusl6 particularly takes no- tice of the ordination of Alexander, bishop of J eru- salem, who succeeded Narcissus, that he was or- dained per-d icon/fig n52) émo'lcdirwv yva'rpng, With the common consent of the bishops of his province. The council of Chalcedon 1’ calls this a canonical ordination, when the metropolitan, with all or most of his provincial bishops, ordain the bishops of their own province, as the canons have appointed. And the general council of Constantinople ‘8 justified the ordinations of Flavian bishop of Antioch, and Cyril of Jerusalem, as canonical in this respect, because they were ordained by the bishops of their pro- vinces synodically met together. This was the an- cient rule of the council of Nice, which requires the assistance of all the bishops of the province, if they could conveniently attend the ordination : ‘9 but forasmuch as that, either through urgent necessity, or by reason of their great distance, it might happen that all of them could not be present, it is added, that in that case three bishops should be sufficient to ordain, provided the metropolitan and the rest sent their consent in writing. But under three the canons did not generally allow of. The first coun- cil of Arles 2° and the third of Carthage21 require three besides the metropolitan. And the second council of Arles22 does not allow the metropolitan to be one of the three, but saith expressly, that he shall take the assistance of three provincial bishops beside himself, and not presume to ordain a bishop without them.‘ It is true, those called the Apostoli- cal Canons23 and Constitutions24 allow the ordina- tion that is performed by two bishops only: but this is contrary to all other canons; which are ' so far from allowing two bishops to ordain by them- selves, that the council of Orange25 orders both the ordaining bishops and the ordained to be deposed; and the council of Riez26 actually deposed Armen- tarius for this very thing, because he had not three bishops to ordain him. All churches indeed did not punish such ordinations with the same severity, but in all places they were reckoned uncanonical. When Paulinus ordained Evagrius, bishop of An- tioch, Theodoret27 takes notice that this was done against the laws of the church, because he was or- dained by a single person, and without the consent of the provincial bishops. And Synesius28 says the same of the ordination of Siderius, bishop of Pa- laebisca, that it was irregular, because he neither had the consent of the bishop of Alexandria, his metropolitan, nor three bishops to ordain him. It was to avoid this censure of irregularity, that Nova- tian, when he set himself up to be bishop of Rome against Cornelius, sent for three bishops out of the farthest corner of Italy to come and ordain him,” lest it should be objected against him, that he had not a canonical ordination. And upon this account, when Pelagius the First was to be ordained bishop of Rome, because three bishops could not be pro- cured, a presbyter8° was taken in to make up the number. In all which the general practice of the church is very clearly seen and descried. Yet it must be observed, that though Sect 5_ this was the common rule and prac- bYY‘QEQYdQfifQgMaL tice of the church, yet it was not 1333320233833}: simply and absolutely of the essence cal‘ of ordination. For the church many times ad- mitted of the ordinations of bishops that were con- secrated only by one or two bishops. The council of Orange,31 which orders both the ordaining bi- shops and the ordained to be deposed, in case two bishops only ordained a bishop with his consent, decrees notwithstanding, that if a bishop was or- dained by any sort of violence against his will, though only by two bishops, in that case his or- dination should.stand good, because he was passive in the thing, and not consenting to the breach of the canons. And without this passivity there are several instances of ordinations by two bishops only, the validity of which we do not find disputed. Pe- 15 Cypr. Ep. 68. al. 67. ad Fratr. Hispan. p. 172. Quod apud nos quoque et fere per provincias universas tenetur, ut ad ordinationes rite celebrandas, ad eam plebem, cui pree- positus ordinatur, episcgpi ej usdem provinciae proximi quique conveniant, et episcopus deligatur plebe praesente, &c. 1“ Euseb. lib. 6. c. 11. 17 Con. Chalced. Act. 16. C. t. 4. p. 817. ‘8 Ep. Synod. ap. Theodor. lib. 5. c. 9. '9 Con. Nic. can. 4. ’E1rio'K0'n'ou moon-fixer lua'zAtsa p.81) z'm'o‘ 'n-c'w'rwv "r1311 év Ti} €1rapxiqz Kaeis-aaeat. 2° Con. Arelat. l. c. 20. Si non potuerint septem, sine tribus fratribus non praesuinant ordinare. 21 Con. Carth. 3. can. 19. Forma antiqua servabitur, ut non minus quam tres sufficient, qui fuerint a metropolitano directi ad ordinandum episcopum. See also Con. Garth. 6. c. 4. 22 Con. Arelat. 2. c. 5. Nec episcopus metropolitanus sine tribus episcopis comprovincialibus praesumat episco- pum ordinare. 23 Can. Apost. c. 1. 'Evrimcorros Xszporrouaiafiw z'mrd e’vrw- rco'rrwv 660 i) 'rpu'Iw. 2‘ Constit. Apost. lib. 8. c. 27. 25 Con. Arausic. 1. can. 21. 26 Con. Reiens. can. 2. Ordinationem quam canones ir- ritam definiunt, nos quoque vacuandam esse censuimus : in qua praetermissa trium praesentia, nec expetitis compro- vincialium literis, metropolitani quoque voluntate neglecta, prorsus nihil quod episcopum faceret ostensum est. 2’ Theod. lib. 5. c. 23. 23 Synes. Ep. 67. 29 Euseb. lib. 6. c. 43. ex Epist. Cornel. 3° Lib. Pontifical. Vit. Pelag. Dum non essent episcopi, qui eum ordinarent, inventi sunt duo episcopi, J oannes de Perusio, et Bonus de Ferentino, et Andreas presbyter de Ostia, et ordinaverunt eum. ' 81 Con. Arausic. l. c. 21. CRAP. XI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 49 lagius, bishop of Rome, was reckoned a true bishop, though, as we have just now heard, he had but two bishops and a presbyter to ordain him. Dioscorus of Alexandria was consecrated likewise by two bi- shops only, and those under ecclesiastical censure; as We learn from an epistle of the bishops of Pontus32 at the end of the council of Chalcedon; yet neither that council, nor any others, ever questioned the validity of his ordination, unless perhaps those Pontic bishops did, who call it nefandam atque ima- ginariam ordinationem. Siderius, bishop of Palae- ‘Jisca, was ordained by one bishop ; yet Athanasius not only allowed his ordination and confirmed it, but finding him to be a useflil man, he afterward advanced him, as Synesius says,83 to the metro- political see of Ptolemais. Paulinus, bishop of An- tioch, ordained Evagrius his successor, without any other bishop to assist him: which, though it was done against canon, yet Theodoret assures us,“ that both the bishops of Rome and Alexandria owned Evagrius for a true bishop, and never in the least questioned the validity of his ordination. And though they afterwards consented to acknowledge Flavian, at the instance of Theodosius, to put an end to the schism; yet they did it upon this con- dition, that the ordinations of such as had been ordained by Evagrius, should be reputed valid also: as we learn from the letters of Pope Innocent,“ who lived not long after this matter was transacted. sect 6. Hence it appears, that the ordina- Rgrrggfglgygvelflged tion of a bishop made by any single Lio‘ilg‘l‘iftfi‘iifaét‘t’; bishop was valid, if the church thought single bishop’ fit to allow it. Nor had the bishop of Rome any peculiar privilege in this matter above other men, though some pretend to make a distinc- tion. There is indeed an ancient canon alleged in the collection of Fulgentius Ferrandus, out of the council of Zella and the letters of Siricius, which seems to make a reserve in behalf of the bishop of Rome: for it says,36 One bishop shall not ordain a bishop, the Roman church excepted. But Cote- lerius 3’ ingenuously owns this to be a corruption in the text of Ferrandus, foisted in by the ignorance or fraud of some modern transcriber, who confound- ed two decrees of Siricius into one, and changed the words series apostolz'ca primates into sedes apos— tolz'ca Romano. For in the words of Siricius38 there is no mention made at all of the Roman church, but it is said, that no one shall ordain without the consent of the apostolical see ; that is, the primate or metropolitan of the province; and that one bishop alone shall not ordain a bishop, because that is arrogant and assuming, and looks like giving an ordination by stealth, and is expressly forbidden by the Nicene council. So that in these times the bishops of Rome were under the direction of the canons, and did not presume to think they had any privilege of ordaining singly, above what was com- mon to the rest of their order. The next thing to be taken notice sect‘ 7. of in this affair is, that every bishop, befijggggghggg by the laws and custom of the church, °"“ chm“ was to be ordained in his own church, in the pre- sence of his own people. Which is plainly inti- mated by Cyprian,89 when he says, that to celebrate ordinations aright, the neighbouring bishops of the province were used to meet at the church where the new bishop was to be ordained, and there proceed to his election and ordination. And this was so generally the practice of the whole church, that Pope Julius 4° made it an objection against Gregory of Alexandria, who was obtruded on the church by the Eusebian party in the room of Athanasius, that he was ordained at Antioch, and not in his own church, but sent thither with a band of soldiers; whereas, by the ecclesiastical canon, he ought to have been ordained, é1r’ aim-fig rfig émdtnm'ag, in the church of Alexandria itself, and that by the bishops of his own province. This rule was very nicely observed in the African churches, where it was the constant custom for the primate (whose office it was to ordain bishops) to go to the church where the new bishop was to be settled, and ordain him there. Of this we have several instances in St. Austin, who himself was ordained in his own church at Hippo‘l by the primate of Numidia: and having divided his diocese, and erected a new bishopric at Fussala, and elected a bishop, he sent for the pri- mate, though living“2 at a great distance, to come to the place and ordain him there. *2 Concil. tom. 4. p. 960. Ordinationem suam a dam- natis episcopis, et hoc duobus, accepit, cum regulae patrum ---—vel trcs episcopos corporaliter adesse in hujusmodi dispensationibus omnino prospiciant. 9“ Synes. Ep. 67. 3‘ Theod. lib. 5. c. 23. ‘*5 Innoc. Ep. 14. ad Bonifac. Ecclesia Antiochena ita pacem postulavit et meruit, ut et Evagriauos suis ordiuibus ac locis, inteinerata ordinatione, quam acceperant a memo~ rato, susciperet. 36 Ferrand. Brev. Canon. 0. 6. Ut unus episcopus epis- copum non ordinet, excepta ecclesia Romana. Concilio Zellensi. Ex Epistola Papae Siricii. 3'’ Cotcler. Not. in Constit. Apost. lib. 3. c. 20. ‘*8 Siric. Ep. 4. c. l. Ut extra couscientiam sedis apos- E tolicaz, hoc est, primatis, nemo audeat ordinare. It. 0. 2. Ne unus episcopus episcopum ordinare praesumat propter arrogantiam, ne furtivuin praestitum beneficium videatur. Hoc enim et a synodo Nicaena constitutum est atque de- finitum. , 39 Cypr. Ep. 68. al. 67. ad Fratr. Hispan. p. 172. Ad ordinationes rite celebrandas, ad eam plebem, cui praaposi- tus ordinatur, episcopi ejusdem provinciae proximi quique conveniant, &c. 4° Jul. Ep. ad Oriental. ap. Athanas. Apol. 2. t. 1. p. 749. "1 Possid. Vit. Aug. 0. 8. ‘2 Aug. Ep. 261. Propter quem ordinandum, sanctum senem, qui tunc primatum Nnmidiae gerebat, de longinquo ut veniret rogans, literis impetravi. 50 ANTIQUITIES or THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Boax II. Sm 8_ As to the manner and form of or- of'1:,',‘§,j‘,§f§§§,“°§°m daining a bishop, it is thus briefly de- bisiwps' scribed by one of the councils ‘8 of Carthage: when a bishop is ordained, two bishops shall hold the book of the Gospels over his head, _ and whilst one pronounces the blessing or conse- cration prayer, all the rest of the bishops that are present shall lay their hands upon his head. The ceremony of laying the Gospels upon his head, seems to have been in use in all churches. For the au- thor of the Apostolical Constitutions“ (a Greek writer, who is supposed to relate the customs of the third century) makes mention of it, only with this difference, that instead of two bishops, there two deacons are appointed to hold the Gospels open over his head, whilst the senior bishop, or primate, with two other bishops ‘assisting him, pronounces the prayer of consecration. This ceremony of holding the Gospels over his head, is also mentioned by St. Chrysostom,“5 and the author of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, under the name of Dionysius, who says it was a peculiar ceremony, used only in the ordin- ation of a bishop. The author . of the Constitutions recites one of the ancient forms of prayer, the close of which is in these words :46 “ Grant to him, 0 Lord Almighty, by thy Christ, the communication of the Holy Spirit; that he may have power to remit sins according to thy commandment, and to confer orders according to thy appointment, and to loose every bond according to the power which thou gavest to the apostles; that he may please thee in meekness and a pure heart, constantly, blameless, and without rebuke; and may offer unto thee that pure unbloody sacri- fice, which thou, by Christ, hast appointed to be the mystery or sacrament of the new covenant, for a sweet-smelling savour, through Jesus Christ thy holy Son, our God and Saviour, by whom be glory, honour, and worship to thee, in the Holy Spirit, now and for ever. Amen.” It is not to be imagined that one and the same form was used in all churches: for every bishop having liberty to frame his own liturgy, as there were different liturgies in different churches, so it is most reasonable to suppose the primates or metropolitans had different forms of consecration, though there are now no remains of them in being, to give us any further information. Sect. 9. A form of prayer used at their conse- oration. The consecration being ended, the bishops that were present conducted mpfttfiglif'algtmm- the new-ordained bishop to his chair 2?’: or throne, and there placing him, they all saluted him with a holy kiss in the Lord. Then the Scriptures being read, (according to cus~ tom, as part of the daily service,) the new bishop made a discourse or exposition upon them, which was usually called sermo enthrom'stz'cus, from the time and circumstances in which it was spoken. Such was that famous homily of Meletius, bishop of Antioch, mentioned by Epiphanius‘" and Sozo~ men, for which he was immediately sent into ban- ishment by Constantius. Socrates frequently takes notice of such homilies made by bishops“ at their instalment; and Liberatus,“9 speaking of Severus of Antioch, mentions his exposition made upon that occasion, calling it, expositz'o in entkrom'smo. It was usual also for bishops, immediately after their instalment, to send letters to foreign bishops to give them an account of their faith and ortho— doxy, that they might receive letters of peace and communion again from them; which letters were therefore called literw enthrom'stz'cw, or ovMaBai évQpoMs-ucai, as Evagrius 5° terms them, speaking of the circular letters which Severus, bishop of An- tioch, wrote to the rest of the patriarchs upon that occasion. These were otherwise called communi- catory letters, Icowwvucd ovyypdppara, as the council of Antioch, that deposed Paulus Samosatensis, terms them: for the fathers in that council having ordained Domnus in the room of Paul, gave notice thereof to all churches, telling them that they sig- nified it to them for this reason, that they might write to Domnus, and receive Icowwvucd avyypdppam,“ communicatory letters from him: which, as Vale- sius52 rightly notes, do not mean there those letters of communion which bishops were used to grant to persons travelling into foreign countries; but such letters as they wrote to each other upon their own ordination, to testify their communion mutually with one another. These letters are also called synodz'cw by Liberatus,53 who says, this custom (if every new bishop’s giving intimation of his own promotion to those of his own order, was so necessary, that the omission of it was interpreted a sort of refusal to hold communion with the rest of the world, and a virtual charge of heresy upon them. ‘3 Con. Carth. 4. c. 2. Episcopus cum ordinatur, duo episcopi ponant ct teneant evangeliorum codicem super caput et vertieem ejus, et uno super eum fundente benedic- tionem, reliqui omnes episcopi qui adsunt, manibus suis caput ejus tangant. ‘“ Constit. Apost. lib. 8. c. 4. ‘5 Chrys. de Laudib. Evang. cited by Habertus, p. 79. Dionys. Eccles. Hierarch. c. 5. par. 3. sect. 1. p. 364. ‘7 Constit. lib. 8. c. 5. 4’ Epiphan. Haer. 73. Sozom. lib. 4. c. 28. ‘8 Socrat. lib. 2. c. 43. lib. 7. c. 29. ‘9 Liberat. Breviar. c. 19. 5° Evagr. lib. 4. c. 4. 5‘ Euseb. lib. 7. c. 30. -"8 Liberat. Breviar. c. 17. direxisset, &c. 52 Vales. Not. in 100. Quia literas synodicas non CHAP. XII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 51 CHAPTER XII. OF THE RULE WHICH PROHIBITS BISHOPS TO BE ORDAINED IN SMALL CITIES. BEFORE I end this discourse about Sect. 1. . . ‘33225223, bishops, I must give-an account—of git-tips in small two rules more res pectlng their ordin- ation. The first of which was, That bishops should not be placed in small cities or vil- lages: which law was firstmade by the council of Sar- dica, with a design to keep up the honour and dig- nity of the episcopal order; as the reason is given in the canon made about it; which says, It shall not be lawful to place a bishop in a village, or small city,1 where a single presbyter will be sufficient: for in such places, there is no need to set a bishop; lest the name and authority of bishops be brought into contempt. Some add to this the fifty-seventh canon of the council of Laodicea, which forbids the placing of bishops in villages, and in the coun- try,2 appointing visitors to be constituted in their room: but this canon speaks not of absolute bishops, but of the chorepz'scopz', who were subject to other bishops, of which I shall treat particularly hereafter. However, there is no dispute about the Sardican canon; for the reason annexed explains its mean- ing, that it prohibits universally the ordination of bishops in small cities and country places. But it may be observed, that this rule did never generally obtain: for both before and after the council of Sardica, there were bishops both in small cities and villages. Nazianzum was but a very small city; Socrates3 calls it miMg ein'slhjg, a little one: and upon the same account Gregory Nazianzen“ styles his own father, who was bishop of it, pucpo'n'ohirng, a little bishop, and one of the second order. Yet he was no chorepz'scopus, but as absolute a bishop in his own diocese, as the bi- shop of Rome or Alexandria. Gerae, near Pelusium, was but a small city, as Sozomen notes ;5 yet it was a bishop’s see. Theodoret observes the same of Dolicha, where Maris was bishop,6 that it was but a very little city, mum, o'pucpd, he calls it: and he says the like of Cucusus7 in Armenia, the place whither Chrysostom was banished: yet as small a city as it was, Chrysos tom8 found a bishop there, who treated him very civilly and respectfully in his exile. Synesius makes mention of the bi— Sect. 2. Some exceptions to this rule in Egypt, Libya, Cy- prus, Arabia, Asia Minor, &c. . shop of Olbize in one of his epistlesf’ and at the same time tells us the place was but a village ; for he calls the people dfipog Kwpr’lmg, a country people. So he says in another epistle,lo that Hydrax and Palae- bisca had for some time each of them their own bi- shop; though they were but villages of Pentapolis, formerly belonging to the diocese of Erythra, to which they were some time after annexed again. In Sozomen’s time, among the Arabians and Cypri- ans, it was a usual thing to ordain bishops not only in cities but villages, as also among the Novatians “ and Montanists in Phrygia, all which he aflirms11 upon his own knowledge. Some think Dracontius was such a bishop, because Athanasius12 styles his bishopric Xépag émmcomjv: but whether this means that he was an absolute bishop, or only a chorepz's- copus, as others think, is not very easy to determine. As neither what kind of bishops those were which the council of Antioch,‘3 in their Synodical Epistle against Paulus Samosatensis, calls country bishops, for perhaps they might be only chorepz'scopz', or de- pendent bishops, as Valesius conjectures. But this cannot be said of those mentioned by Sozomen, nor of the other instances I have given out of Synesius, and the rest of the forecited authors, from whose tes- timonies it plainly appears that there were bishops in very small cities, and sometimes in villages, not- withstanding the contrary decree of the Sardican council. It is also very observable, that in Asia Mi- nor, a tract of land not much larger than the isle of Great Britain, (including but two dioceses of the Roman empire,) there were almost four hundred bishops, as appears from the ancient Notitz'a’s of the church. Whence it may be collected, that Cucusus and Nazianzum were not the only small cities in those parts, but that there were many other cities and dioceses of no very great extent in such a number. One thing that contributed much Sect-a to the multiplication of bishoprics, ing‘igggggrflggiffd' and that caused them to be erected Smaup "88' sometimes in small places, was, that in the primitive church every bishop, with the consent of his me- tropolitan, or the approbation of a provincial coun- cil, had power to divide his own diocese, and ordain a new bishop in some convenient part of it, for the good of the church, whenever he found his diocese too large, or the places to lie at too great a distance, or the multitude of converts to increase, and make the care and encumbrance of his diocese become too great a burden for him. This was the reason why St. Austin 1‘ erected a new bishopric at Fussala, ' Con. Sardic. Can. 6. M1‘; éza'iuat 6E (imam Ka-S'ter'iu e’vrio'xo'rroil KLL’I/JJU Twi, h fipaxsiq woken. 2 Concil. Laodic. c. 57. 3 Socrat. lib. 4. c. 11 et 26. ‘ Naz. Orat. 19. de Laud. Parr. t. l. p.310. 5 Sozom. lib. 8. c. 19. 'n'o'Ms ,umpci. 6 Theod. lib. 5. c. 4. " Theod. lib. 2. c. 5. et lib.5. c. 34. 8 Chrys. Ep. 125. ad Cyriacum. 9 Synes. Ep. 76. 1"1d. Ep. 67. KZB/uat 6t aim-at weu'ra-n'o'kews. ‘1 Sozom. lib. 7. C. 19. ’Eo"riu 311-1; Kai év Keir/rats trio'- KO'II'OL iEPOi-IU'TCLL, u‘is 'n'apt‘z ’Apafiiots Kai Kv'n'piots ii'yuwu, &c. '2 Athanas. Epist. ad Dracont. t. l. p. 954. ‘3 Ap. Enseb. lib. 7. c. 30. ’E1rto"1c61r0us 'riiw djio'pwu d'ypdw 're Kai cn'o'hswv. ‘4 Augustin. Epist. 261. ad Caelestin. Quod ab Hippone memoratum castellum millibus quadraginta sej ungitur, cum in eis regendis, et eorum reliquiis licet exiguis colligendis E2 52 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. BooK II. a town in his own diocese, about forty miles from Hippo. It was a place where great numbers had been converted from the schism of the Donatists, and some remained to be converted still; but the place lying at so great a distance, he could not bestow that care and diligence, either in ruling the one, or re- gaining the other, which he thought necessary; and therefore he prevailed with the primate of Numidia, to come and ordain one Antonius to be bishop there. And this was consonant to the rules of the African church, which allowed new bishoprics to be erect- ed '5 in any diocese where there was need, if the bi- shop of the diocese and the primate gave their con- sent to it; or, as Ferrandus16 has it in his collection, if the bishop, the primate, and a provincial council, by their joint consent and authority, gave way to it. By virtue of these canons, during the time of the schism of the Donatists, many new bishoprics were erected in very small towns in Africa; as ap- pears from the Acts of the Collation of Carthage, where the catholics and Donatists mutually charge each other with this practice; that they divided single bishoprics sometimes into three or four, and made bishops in country towns and villages to augment the numbers of their parties. Thus, in one place, we find Petilian the Donatist 1’ com- plaining, that the catholics had made four bishops in the diocese of J anuarius, a Donatist bishop, to outdo them with numbers. And in another place, Alypius the catholic orders it to be entered ‘8 upon record, that a great many Donatist bishops there mentioned, were not ordained in cities, but only in country towns, or villages. To which Pe- tilian19 replies, that the catholics did the same; ordaining bishops in country towns, and some- times in such places where they had no people: his meaning is, that in those places all the people were turned Donatists, and for that very reason the catholic bishops thought themselves obliged to di- vide their dioceses, and ordain new bishops in small towns; that they might outdo the Donatists, both in number and zeal, and more effectually labour in re- ducing the straying people back again to their an- cient communion with the catholic church. This was the practice of Africa, and this their reason for erecting so many small bishoprics in those times of exigency: they had always an eye to the benefit and edification of the church. Gregory Nazianzen highly commends St. Basil’s piety and prudence for the like practice. It hap- pened in his time, that Cappadocia was divided into two provinces, and Tyana made the metropolis of the second province, in the civil account: this gave occasion to Anthimus, bishop of Tyana, to lay claim to the rights of a metropolitan in the church ; which St. Basil opposed, as injurious to his own church of Caesarea, which, by ancient custom and prescription, had been the metropolis of the whole province. But Anthimus proving a very contentious adversary, and raising great disturbance and commotions about it, St. Basil was willing to buy the peace of the church with the loss of his own rights; so he vo- luntarily relinquished his jurisdiction over that part of Cappadocia, which Anthimus laid claim to : and, to compensate his own loss in some measure, he erected several new bishoprics in his own province ; as, at Sasima, and some other such obscure places of that region. Now, though this was done con- trary to the letter of a canon, yet Nazianzen extols the fact upon three accounts. First, because hereby a greater care was taken of men’s souls.” Secondly, by this means every city had its own revenues. - And lastly, the war between the two metropolitans was ended. This, he says, was an admirable policy, worthy the great and noble soul of St. Basil, who could turn a dispute so to the benefit of the church, and draw a considerable advantage out of a calamity, by making it an occasion to guard and defend his country with more bishops. Whence we may col- lect, that in Nazianzen’s opinion, it is an advantage to the church to be well stocked with bishops; and that it is no dishonour to her to have bishops in small towns, when necessity and reason require it. CHAPTER XIII. OF THE RULE WHICH FORBIDS TWO BISHOPS TO BE ORDAINED IN ONE CITY. ANOTHER rule generally observed in . . S ct. 'l. the church, was, that in one city there The gsncral rule and practice of the should be but one bishop, though it clmrcnw harebut one bishop in acity. was large enough to admit of many me viderem latius quam oportebat extendi, nec adbi- bendae suflicerem diligentiae, quam certissima ratione adbi- beri debere cernebam, episcopum ibi ordinandum constitu- endumque curavi. 15 Concil. Carth. 2. c. 5. Si accedente tempore, crescente fide, Dei populus multiplicatus desideravit proprium lia- bere rectorem, ejus videlicet voluntate, in cujus potestate est dioecesis constituta, habeat episcopum. It. Con. Cartb. 3. c. 42. ‘6 Ferrand. Breviar. Canon. 0. 13. Ut episcopus non or- dinetur in dioecesi, quae episcopum nunquam habuit, nisi . cum voluntate episcopi ad quem ipsa dioecesis pertinet, ex concilio tamen plenario et primatis auctoritate. 1’ Collat. Cartb. l. c. 117. Petilianus episcopus dixit, In una plebe J anuarii collegae nostri pracsentis, in una dioecesi, quatuor sunt constituti contra ipsum; ut nuinerus scilicet augeretur. ‘8 Ibid. c. 181. Alypius dixit, Scriptum sit istos omnes in villis vel in fundis esse episcopos ordinatos, non in aliquibus civitatibus. ‘9 Ibid. c.‘ 182. Petilianus episcopus dixit: Sic etiam tu multos babes per omnes agros dispersos}: imo crebros ubi babes, sane et sine populis babes. 2° Naz. Orat. 20. de Laud. Basil. t. l. p. 356. CHAP. XIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 53 ' shop over all these. presbyters. In the time of Cornelius, there were forty-six presbytersl in the church of Rome, seven deacons, as many sub-deacons, and ninety-four of the inferior orders of the clergy: and the body of the people, at a moderate computation, are reckoned by some2 to be about fifty thousand; by others,3 to be a far greater number; yet there was but one bi- So that when Novatian got himself ordained bishop of Rome, in opposition to Cornelius, he was generally condemned over all the world, as transgressing the rule of the catholic church. Cyprian‘ delivers it as a maxim upon this occasion ; that there ought to be but one bishop in a church at a time, and one judge as the vicegerent of Christ. Therefore he says5 Novatian was no bi- shop, since there could not bea second after the first; but he was an adulterer,“ and a foreigner, and ambitious usurper of another man’s church, who had been regularly ordained before him. And so he was told not only by Cyprian,’ but a whole African coun- cil at once; who, in return to Novatian’s communi- catory letter, which (according to custom) he wrote to them upon his ordination, sent him this plain and positive answer: That he was an alien; and that none of them could communicate with him, who had attempted to erect a profane altar, and set up an adulterous chair, and offer sacrilegious sacrifice against Cornelius the true bishop; who had been ordained by the approbation of God, and the suf- frage of the clergy and people. There were, in- deed, some confessors at Rome, who at first sided with Novatian: but Cyprian8 wrote a remonstrat- ing letter to them, wherein he soberly laid before them the sinfulness of their practice. And his admonition wrought so effectually on some of the chief of them, that not long after they returned to Cornelius, and publicly confessed their fault in these words: We acknowledge our error; we have been imposed upon and deluded by treacherous and deceitful words; for though we seemed to commu- nicate with a schismatical and heretical man, yet our mind was always sincerely in the church. For we are not ignorant,” that as there is but one God, one Christ the Lord, and one Holy Spirit; so there ought to be but one bishop in a catholic church. Pamelius ‘° and others, who take this for a confes- sion of the bishop of Rome’s supremacy, betray either gross ignorance, or great partiality for a cause: for though this was spoken of a bishop of Rome, yet it was not peculiar to him, but the com- mon case of bishops in all churches. Ignatius, and all the writers after him, who have said any thing of bishops, always speak of a single bishop in every church. And though Origenll seems to say other- wise, that there were two bishops in every church; yet, as he explains his own notion, his meaning is the same with all the rest: for he says, the one was visible, the other invisible; the one an angel, the other a man. So that his testimony (though there be something peculiar in his notion) is a fur- ther confirmation of the church’s practice. The writers of the following ages do so frequent- ly mention the same thing, that it would be as te- dious as it is needless to recite their testimonies.‘2 Therefore I shall only add these two things : First, That the council of Nice repeats and confirms this ancient rule. For in the eighth canon, which speaks of the Novatian bishops that return to the catholic church, it is said, that any bishop may admit them to officiate as presbyters in the city, or as chorepiscopi in the country, but not as city bishops, for this reason, ‘[1101 p1‘; év rg" an... 61'10 trrio'lco- m1: Jmv, that there may not be two bishops in one city. Secondly, That in fact the people were gener- ally possessed with the opinion of the absolute un- lawfulness of having two bishops sit together: in- somuch that Theodoret tells us,13 when Constantius proposed to the Roman people to have Liberius and Felix sit as copartners, and govern the church in common, they unanimously agreed to reject the motion, crying out, One God, one Christ, one bishop_ Yet it must be observed, that as the great end and design of this rule Yaiiii'tiéh... was to prevent schism, and preserve iiniiiiiiiiznaiiggig’ _ end a dispute. or the peace and unity of the church; guisanmvetemte chism. so, on the other hand, when it mani- 1 Cornel. Ep. ad Fabium. ap. Euseb. lib. 6. c. 43. 2 Bishop Burnet, Letter 4. p. 207. 8 Basnag. Exerc. ad Annal. Baron. an. 44. p. 532. 4 Cypr. Epist. 55. al. 59. ad Cornel. p. 129. Unus in ec~ clesia ad tempus sacerdos, et ad tempus judex vice Christi. 5 Id. Epist. 52. al. 55. ad Antonian. p. 104. Cum post pri- mum secundus esse non possit, quisquis post unum, qui solus esse debeat, factus est, non jam secundus ille, sed nullus est. 6 Ibid. p.112. Nisi si episcopus tibi videtur, qui epis- copo in ecclesia a sedecim coepiscopis facto, adulter atque extraneus, episcopus fieri a desertoribus per ambitum nititur. 7 Cypr.‘ Ep. 67. al. 68. ad Steph. p. 177. Se foris esse coepisse, nec posse a quoquam nostrum sibi communicari; qui, episcopo Cornelio in catholica ecclesia de Dei judicio, et cleri ac plebis suffragio ordinato, profanum altare erigere, adulteram cathedram collocare, et sacrilega contra verum sacerdotem sacrificia offerre tentaverit. 8 Cypr. Ep. 44. al. 46. ad Nicostrat. et Maxim. 9 Cornel. Ep. 46. al. 49. ad Cyprian. Nee enim ignora- mus unum Deum esse, unum Christum Dominum, quem confessi sumus, unum Spiritum Sanctum, unum episcopum in catholica ecclesia esse debere. 1° Pamel. Not. in loc. 1' Orig. Hom. 13. in Luc. Per singulas ecclesias bini sunt episcopi, alius visibilis, alius invisibilis.—-—-—Ego puto inveniri simul posse et angelum ct hominem bonos (leg. binos) ecclesiae episcopos. 1'2 See Chrysost. Epist. 125. ad Cyriac. et Hom. l. in Philip. Jerom. Epist. 4. ad Rustic. Ep. 85. ad Evagr. Com. in Tit. ii. Pseudo-Hieron. Com. in 1 Tim. iii. Hilar. Diac. Com. in Phil. i. 1. It. in 1 Cor. xii. 28. et in lTim. iii. 12. Pacian. Ep. 3. ad Sempronian. Socrat. lib. 6. c. 22. Sozom. lib. 4. c. 14 et 15. Theod. lib. 3. c. 4. ‘3 Theod. lib. 2. c. 14. 54 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. B001: 11. festly appeared, that the allowing of two bishops in one city, in some certain circumstances and critical junctures, was the only way to put an end to some long and inveterate schism, in that case there were some catholic bishops, who were willing to take a partner into their throne, and share the episcopal power and dignity between them. Thus Meletius, bishop of Antioch, made the proposal to Paulinus his antagonist, who, though he was of the same faith, yet kept up a church divided in com- munion from him. I shall relate the proposal in the words of Theodoret.“ Meletius, says he, the meekest of men, thus friendly and mildly addressed himself to Paulinus: Forasmuch as the Lord hath committed to me the care of these sheep, and thou hast received the care of others, and all the sheep agree in one common faith, let us join our flocks, my friend, and dispute no longer about primacy and government: but let us feed the sheep in common, and bestow a common care upon them.15 And if it be the throne that creates the dispute, I will try to take away this cause also. We will lay the holy Gospel upon the seat, and then each of us take his place on either side of it. And if I die first, you shall take the government of the flock alone: but if it be your fate to die before me, then I will feed them according to my power. Thus spake the divine Meletius, says our author, lovingly and meekly; but Paulinus would not acquiesce, nor hearken to him. We meet with another such proposal made to the Donatist bishops, by all the catholic bishops of Africa assembled together, at the opening of the fa- mous conference of Carthage. There they offered them freely before the conference began, that if they would return to the unity and communion of the church, upon due conviction, they should retain their episcopal honour and dignity still:“ and be- cause this could not be done, as the circumstances and case of the church then were, without allowing two bishops for some time to be in the same city, it was further proposed, that every catholic bishop should take the other to be his copartner, and share the honour with him; allowing him to sit with him in his own chair, as was usual for bishops to treat their fellow bishops that were strangers; and also granting him a church of his own, where he might be capable of returning him the like civility: that so they might pay mutual respect and honour to each other, and take their turns to sit highest in the church, till such times as one of them should die; and then the right of succession should be always in a single bishop, as it was before. And this, they say, was no new thing in Africa: for, from the be- ginning of the schism, they that would recant their error, and condemn their separation, and return to the unity of the church, were by the charity of catholics always treated in the same courteous man- ner. From hence it is plain, that this had been the practice of Africa for above one whole century; and the present bishops proposed to follow the example of their predecessors, in making this concession to the Donatists, in order to close up and heal the di- visions of the church. But they add, that forasmuch as this method might not be acceptable to all Chris- tian people, who would be much better pleased to see only a single bishop in every church, and, per- haps, would not endure the partnership of two, which was an unusual thing; they therefore pro- posed, in this case, that both the bishops should freely resign, and suffer a single bishop to be chosen by such bishops as were singly possessed of other churches. So that at once they testify both what was the usual and ordinary rule of the church, to have but one bishop in a city, and also how far they were willing to have receded, in order to establish the peace and unity of the church in that extraor- dinary juncture. I have been the more easily tempted to recite this passage at large, not only because it is a full proof of all that has been as- serted in this chapter, but because it gives us such an instance of a noble, self-denying zeal and charity, as is scarce to be paralleled in any history; and shows us the admirable‘ spirit of those holy bishops, among whom St. Austin was a leader. Some very learned persons ‘7 are further of opinion, that this rule about 163}: dmgfeignjofi one bishop in a city, did not take place $52125). 33,1333: , . ' i. l" ’ l‘ l in the apostolical age: for they think J‘lifeuaiiéiiififinikls that, before the perfect incorporation omwcenmes' and coalition of the Jews and Gentiles into one body, there were two bishops in many cities, one of Sect. 3. 14 Theod. lib. 5. c. 3. 15 El 5% 5 prices diimos "rfiv Epw 'ysuug'i', é'ydi Kai 'rari'rnv s’Eeho'zo'a: qrstpcio'opat‘ éu 'ydp Tonia-(p 'rd 657011 qrpo'rsdeucdis sba'y'yéhtou, érca'répweev 77/159 Kadfio-eat araps'y'yz'lw. ‘6 Collat. Cart-h. 1. die, 0. l6. Sic nobiscum teneant uni- tatem, ut non solum viam salutis inveniant, sed nec honorem episcopatus amittant.—--—-—Poterit quippe unusquisque nos- trum, honoris sibi socio copulato, vieissim sedere eminen- tius, sicut peregrino episcopo juxta considente collega. Hoc cum alternis Basilicis utrisque conceditur, uterque ab alter- utro honore mutuo praevenitur: quia ubi prseceptio charitatis dilataverit corda, possessio pacis non fit angusta, ut uno eorum defuncto, deinceps jam singulis singuli, pristino more, succedant. Nee novum aliquid fiet: nam hoc ab ipsius separationis exordio, in eis qui damnato nefariac discessionis errore, unitatis dulcedinem vel sero sapuerunt, catholica dilectio custodivit. Aut si forte Christiani populi singulis delectantur episcopis, et duorum consortium, inusitata rerum facie, tolerare non possunt: utrique de medio secedamus; et ecclesiis in singulis, damnata schismatis causa, in unitate pacifica constitutis, ab his qui singuli in ecclesiis singulis invenientur, unitati factae per longa necessaria singuli con- stituautur episcopi. . 17 Pearson, Vind. Ignat. par. 2. c.13. p. 414. Hammond, Dissert. 5. adv. Blondel, c. l. CHAP. XlIl. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 55 the Jews, and another of the Gentiles. Thus they think it was at Antioch, where Euodius and Ignatius are said to be bishops ordained by the apostles; as also Linus and Clemens at Rome, the one ordained by St. Peter bishop of the Jews, and the other by St. Paul bishop of the Gentiles. Epiphanius seems to have been of this opinion; for he says,18 Peter and Paul where the first bishops of Rome: and he makes it a question whether they did not ordain two other bishops to supply their places in their absence. In another place‘9 he takes occasion to say, that Alexandria never had two bishops, as other churches had: which observation, Bishop Pearson thinks, ought to be extended to the apostolical ages; as im- plying that St. Mark, being the only preacher of the gospel at Alexandria, left but one bishop his suc- cessor, but in other churchessometimes two apostles gathered churches, and each of them left a bishop in his place. Yet this does not satisfy other learned persons,20 who are of a different judgment, and think that though the apostles had occasion to ordain two bishops in some cities, yet it was not'upon the ac- count of different churches of Jews and Gentiles, but in the ordinary way of succession: as Ignatius was ordained at Antioch after the death of Euodius, and Clemens at Rome after the death of Linus. I shall not pretend to determine on which side the right lies in so nice a dispute,2| but leave it to the judicious reader, and only say, that if the former opinion prevails, it proves another exception to the common rule of having but one bishop in a city; or rather shows what was the practice of the church before the rule was made. To these we may add a third excep- The cf‘siciri'coad- tion in a case that is more plain, which Jam‘ was that of the coadjutors. These were such bishops as were ordained to assist some other bishops in case of infirmity or old age, and were to be subordinate to them as long as they lived, and succeed them when they died. Thus, when Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem, was disabled by rea- son of his great age, (being a hundred and twenty years old,) Alexander was made his coadjutor. Eu- sebius22 and St. J erom both say it was done by revelation; but they do not mean, that Narcissus needed a revelation to authorize him to take a co- adjutor, but only to point out to him that particular man: for Alexander was a stranger, and a bishop already in another country, so that Without a re- velation he could not have been judged qualified for this office; but being once declared to be so, there was no scruple upon any other account, but by the unanimous consent23 of all the bishops in Palestine, he was chosen to take part with Narcissus in the care and government of the church. Vale- sius 2* reckons this the first instance of any coadjutor to be met with in ancient history, but there are several examples in the following ages. Theotec- nus, bishop of Caesarea, made Anatolius his coad- jutor, designing him to be his successor, so that for some time they25 both governed the same church together. Maximus26 is said by Sozomen to be bi- shop of Jerusalem together with Macarius. Orion, bishop of Paleebisca, being grown old, ordained Si- derius his coadjutor and successor, as Synesius” informs us. So Theodoret28 takes notice that John, bishop of Apamea, had one Stephen for his colleague. And St. Ambrose29 mentions one Senecio, who was coadjutor to Bassus. In the same manner Gregory Nazianzen was bishop of Nazianzum together with his aged father. Baronius indeed30 denies that ever he was bishop of Nazianzum, but St. J erom‘“ and all the ancient historians, Socrates,32 Sozomen,33 Ruflin,84 and Theodoret85 expressly assert it; though some of them mistake in calling him his father’s successor: for he was no otherwise bishop of Nazi- anzum, but only as his father’s coadjutor. He en- tered upon the office with this protestation, that he would not be obliged to continue bishop there any longer than his father lived, as he himself acquaints us in his own Life,36 and other places ; so that after his father’s death he actually resigned, and getting Eulalius to be ordained in his room, he betook him- self to a private life.” All which evidently proves that he was not his father’s successor, but only his coadjutor. I will but add one instance more of this nature, which is the known case of St. Austin, who was ordained bishop of Hippo whilst Valerius was living, and sat with him38 for some time as his coad- jutor; which he did by the consent of the primate '8 Epiphan. Haer. 27. Carpocrat. n. 6. ‘9 Idem, Haer. 68. Meletian. n. 6. 2° Coteler. Not. in Constitut. Apost. lib. 7. c. 46. 2‘ Bishop Pearson himself altered his opinion. Dissert. 2. de Successione Rom. Pontif. c. 3. 22 Euseb. lib. 6. c. 11. 23 Hieron. de Script. Eccl. in Alexandro. Cunctis in Pa- lacstina episcopis in unum congregatis, adnitente quoque ip- so vel maxime Narcisso. Hierosolymitanae ecclesiac cum e0 gubernaculum suscepit. 2* Vales. Not. in Euseb. lib. 6. c. 11. 25 Euseb. lib. 7. C. 32. c’i/Mfiw 759 (16759 7rpofia'rno'av imckno'ias. 2“ Sozom. lib. 2. c. 20. See his 2’ Synes. Ep. 67. 29 Theod. lib. 5. c. 4. 29 Ambr. 79. ad Theophil. Fratri nosiro et coepiscopo Basso in consortium regendae ecclesiae datus est Senecio. 3° Baron. an. 371. n. 106. 8‘ Hieron. de Script. Eccl. Gregorius primum Sasimo- rum, deinde Nazianzenus episcopus, &c. 82 Socrat. lib. 4. c. 26. 33 Sozom. lib. 6. c. 8. 8‘ Rufiin. lib. 2. c. 9. 35 Theodor. lib. 5. c. 8. 3“ Naz. Carm. de Vita sua. It. Orat. 8. ad Patr. 9’ Naz. Ep. 42. ad Greg. Nyss. 38 Possid. Vit. Aug. 0. 8. Paulin. Ep. 46. ad Roman. Aug. Ep. 34 et 110. 56 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Boox II. of Carthage, and the primate of Numidia, who or- dained him. Possidius says, he had some scruple upon him at first, because he looked upon it as con- trary to the custom of the church; but being told that it was a thing commonly practised both in the Afi'ican and transmarine churches, he yielded with some reluctancy to be ordained. These instances are evident proof, that it was not thought contrary to the true sense of the canon, in case of infirmity or old age, to have coadjutors in the church : though, it is true, St. Austin was of opinion that his own ordination was not regular, when afterward he came to know the Nicene canon, which he did not know before; and for this reason he would not ordain “9 Eradius bishop whilst he himself lived, though he had nominated him with the consent of the church to be his successor. But all men did not understand the canon in this strict and rigorous sense that St. Austin did, as absolutely forbidding two bishops to be in a church at the same time in all cases whatsoever, but only when there was no just reason, and the necessities of the church did not require it: but if there was a reasonable cause to have more bishops than one, as when a bishop was unable to execute his oflice, or in any the like case, the canon did not oblige, as appears from the instances that have been mentioned, and several others that might be added to them. CHAPTER XIV. OF THE CHOREPISCOPI, HEPIOAEYTAI, AND SUF- FRAGAN BISHOPS: AND HOW THESE DIFFERED FROM ONE ANOTHER. As the bishops, when they were dis- abled by old age or infirmity, ordained themselves coadjutors in the city; so, when their dioceses were enlarged by the conversion of pagans in the country and villages at a great distance from the city church, they cre— ated themselves another sort of assistants in the country, whom they called chorepiscopi ,- who were so named, not because they were ex chore sacerdo- tam, as a Latin writer‘ by mistake derives the word, Of the reason of the name chorepis- copi, and the mis- ta e of some about it. but because they were rijg Xoiipag s’n'imco'rrot, country bishops, as the word properly signifies, and not presbyters of the city regions, as Salmasius under~ stands it. Now, though the name does in some Sect- 2. measure determine their quality, yet opgggsdgfgggfhe great dispute has been among learned 11:5”{t2iittft‘iit‘ men concerning the nature of this mere Presbl'tm' order. Among the schoolmen and canonists, it is a received opinion, that they were only presbyters ; as may be seen in Turrian,2 Estius,8 Antonius Au- gustinus,‘ and Gratian,5 who are followed not only by Salmasius,6 but by Spalatensis,7 Dr. Field,8 and Dr. Forbes,9 the last of which brings several argu- ments to prove that they were mere presbyters, and never had any episcopal ordination. Others think there were two sorts Sm 3_ of chorepz'scopz', some that had epis- thigtiggtgpgrirgh, copal ordination, and others that were Zriiesgiiiibdiiiiém simple presbyters: which is the opi- ops' nion of Cabassutius,lo Peter de Marcall and Bcllar- min.12 They allow that in some cases it happened that the chorepz'scopi were bishops, ' because they were ordained bishops before they were made chor- epz'scopz'. And thus much is certainly true: for in the primitive church, sometimes bishops were or- dained to a place, but not received, either through the perverseness of the people, or by reason of per- secution, or the like cause: and such bishops (whom the ancient writers ‘8 and canons term O’xoAa'i'Ot and axoldlovreg e'lriorco'n'oi, vacant bishops) not being per- mitted to ofliciate in their own church, were admit— ted to act as chorepz'scopi under any other bishop that would entertain them. The council of Nice 1* made the like provision for such of the Novatian bishops as would return to the catholic church; that the bishop of the place should admit‘ them either to the office of a city presbyter, or a chor- epz'scopus ; that there might not be two bishops in one city. And so it was determined likewise by the same council15 in the case of the Meletian bishops, that upon their return to the unity of the church, they should be allowed to ofliciate in subordination to the bishops of the catholic church. Now, it is plain that all such chorepiscopz' as these were pro- perly bishops, because they were originally ordained bishops before they came to act in the quality of country bishops under others. But for all the rest, De Marco. thinks they were only presbyters. 89 Aug. Ep. 110. Quod reprehensum est in me, nolo re- prebendi in filio meo. Erit presbyter ut est, quando Deus voluerit futurus episcopus. 1 Raban. Maui‘. de Instit. Sacerd. lib. 1. c. 5. Salinas. de Primat. c. l. 2 Turrian. Not. in can. 54. Con. Nic. Arabic. 8 Est. in 4. Sent. dist. 24. sect. 30. 4 Ant. August. Epit. J ur. Can. lib. 6. tit. l. c. 8, ll, 13. 5 Grat. Dist. 6. c. 4, 5. 6 Walo Messalin. c. 5. p. 315. "' Spalat. de Repub. par. 1. lib. 2. c. 9. n. 17, 18, 19. 8 Field, of the Church, lib. 5. c. 29. 9 Forb. Iren. lib. 2. c. 11. prop. 14. p. 249. 1° Cabassut. Notit. Concil. c. 8. p. 45. 11 Pet. de Marca, de Concord. lib. 2. c. 13. 12 Bellarm. de Cleric. lib. l. c. 17. 13 Socrat. H. E. lib. 4. c. 7. Cone. Antioch. can. 16. 14 Cone. Nic. can. 8. 15 Cone. Nic. Ep. Synod. ap. Socrat. H. E. lib. l. c. 9. CHAP. XIV. vANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 57 Both these opinions (which differ 'Fhesfieriit'giiinion,~ little from one another) are rejected that they were all $213133 fhe most by Bishop Barlow,16 Dr. Hammond,l7 Dr. Beverege,18 Dr. Cave,19 and even by Mr. :Blondel20 himself, who, though by some reckoned among those of the contrary opinion, has a long dissertation against De Marca, to prove that all the chorepz'scopz' mentioned in the ancient coun- cils were properly bishops. And there needs no fuller proof of this than what Athanasius says in his Second Apology, where he puts a manifest dis- tinction betwixt presbyters and the chorepz'scopz'. For speaking of the irregular promotion of Ischyras, who was made bishop of the region of Mareotis by the Eusebian faction, he says, Mareotis was only a region of Alexandria, and that all the churches of that precinct were immediately subject to the bishop of Alexandria, and never had either bishop or chorejm'scopus21 among them, but only presbyters fixed each in their respective villages or churches. This, as Blondel22 well observes, shows evidently that the chorepz'scopi were not the same with pres- byters, however the forger of the Decretal Epistles, under the name of Pope Leo and Damasus, would have persuaded the world to believe so. But why then does the council of against thisanmp Neocaesarea23 say that the chorepz'scopz' e ' were only an imitation of the seventy? I answer, because they were subject to the city bishops, as the seventy elders were subject to Moses, or the seventy disciples to the apostles. For what- ever the council means by the seventy, it cannot be proved thence that the chorepz'scopi were mere presbyters. But it is said, that they could not be bishops, be- cause the ordination of bishops was to be performed by three bishops, with the consent of the metro- politan and the provincial bishops; whereas the council of Antioch“ says, that a ckorepz'scopus was ordained by one bishop only, the bishop of the city to whose jurisdiction he belonged. To this the reply is easy, that this was one principal difi‘erence between the city bishops and country bishops, who difi'ered both in the manner of their ordination, and in their power; for the one was subordinate to the other. Therefore, those canons which require three bishops to impose hands in the ordination of a bishop, speak only of such bishops as were to be absolute and supreme governors of their own dio- cese, and not of such who were subordinate to them, Sect. 5. Some objections whom the city bishops might ordain at their own discretion, yet so as to stand accountable to a pro- vincial synod. The office of these chorepz'scopz' was, to preside over the country clergy, and an'gflfeg'gggigfgfée inquire into their behaviour, and Qtfflgi’isbcjiggtrm make report thereof to the city bishop; 2153321115232 uriom _ the city bishop. as also to provide fit persons for the inferior service and ministry of the church. And to give them some authority, they had certain pri- vileges conferred on them. As, 1. They might or- dain readers, subdeacons, and exorcists for the use of the country churches. St. Basil 25 requires of his chorepiscopz', that they should first acquaint him with the qualification of such persons, and take his li— cence to ordain them. But the council of Antioch26 gives them a general commission to ordain all under presbyters and deacons, without consulting the city bishop upon every such promotion. And for pres- byters and deacons, they might ordain them too, but not dixa 1'05 521 1'3)” mike; émmcovre, Without the special leave of the city bishop, under whose juris- diction both they and the country were. And this is the meaning of the council of Ancyra,27 which says, the chorepz'scopi shall not have power to ordain presbyters or deacons : which we must interpret by the explication given in the council of Antioch, that they should not be authorized to do it Without the particular direction of the city bishop, but by his leave they might. 2. They had power to minister con— sect 7 firmation to such as were newly bap— Theyclgicggiver to tized in country churches. This is expressly provided by the council of Riez28 in the case of Armentarius, whom they reduced to the quality of a ckorepz'scopus, but still allowed him Sect. 6. _ the privilege of confirming neophites; which ar- gues that confirmation might then be adminis- tered by the hands of the chorepz'scopz' in country churches. 3. They had power to grant letters dimissory, or, as they were otherwise called, canonical and irenical letters, to the country clergy, who desired to remove from one diocese to another. Thus I understand that canon of the council of Antioch 29 which says, Coun- try presbyters shall not grant canonical letters, Icavovmt‘zg éarwrokdg, or send letters to any neighbour- ing bishop ; but the chorepz'scopi may grant ez’pnvucdg, letters dimissory, or letters of peace. Sect. 8. And power to grant letters dimis- sory to the clergy. 16 Barlow’s Letter to Bishop Usher, in Ush. Let. 222. p. 520. 1’ Ham. Dissert. 3. cont. Blondel, c. 8. 1'3 Bevereg. Pandect. t. 2. Not. in Conc. Ancyr. can. 13. ‘9 Cave, Prim. Christ. par. 1. c. 8. p. 224. 2° Blondel, Apol. p. 95, &c. 2' Athan. Apol. 2. t. l. p. 802. 22 Blondel, Apol. p. 127. Non unum cum presbyteri chorepiscopus fuisse, aut eandem formam gestasse, prout decretalium suppositori somniare visum est. 23 Cone. Neocaesar. can. 14. Xwpsvria-Kovroi aim ,uéu eis '1'611'011 'rdw éfidojufixov'ra. 2* Concil. Antioch. can. 10. 26 Cone. Antioch. can. 10. 28 Cone. Reiens. c. 3. 2? Cone. Antioch. can. 8. 25 Basil. Epist. 181. 2’ Cone. Ancyr. can. 13. 58 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Boox II. sect‘ 9. 4. They had liberty to ofiiciate in 0 £213??? Egg/gr? the city church, in the presence of the gem of the city bishop and presbyters of the city, which country presbyters had not. For so the council of Neocmsarea determined in two canons to this purpose :30 “ The country presbyters shall not offer the oblation, nor distribute the bread and wine in time of prayer in the city church, when the bishop and presbyters are present: but the country bishops, being in imitation of the se- venty, as fellow labourers, for their care of the poor, are admitted to offer.” 5. They had the privilege of sitting and voting in synods and councils: of which there are several instances still remaining in the acts of the ancient councils. In the first Nicene council81 Palladius and Seleucius subscribe themselves chorepiscopz' of the province of Coelosyria: Eudsemon, chorepiscopus of the pro- vince of Cilicia: Gorgonius, Stephanus, Euphro- nius, Rhodon, Theophanes, chorepiscopi of the province of Cappadocia: Hesychius, Theodore, Anatolius, Quintus, Aquila, chorepiscopi of the province of Isauria: Theustinus and Eulalius, of the province of Bithynia. So again in the council of Neocaasarea,82 Stephanus and Rudus, or Rhodon, two of the same that were in the council of ‘Nice, subscribed themselves chorepiscopz' of the province of Cappadocia. And in the council of Ephesus,$3 Ceesarius, chorepiscopal-s of Alce. But here I must observe, that the Sect. ll. . . . ch'gggigggrngft 3;: power and privileges of the chorepis- ijlgwpilgcgllatimes copz' varied much, according to the difference of times and places. For when the synod of Riez, in France, anno 439, had deposed Armentarius from his bishopric, because he was uncanonically ordained, they allowed him the Sect. 10. And to sit and vote in councils. privilege of being a chorepiscopus, after the example ' of the Nicene fathers, but limited him as to the exercise of his power. For though they gave him authority to confirm neophites, and consecrate vir- gins, and celebrate the eucharist in any country church with preference to any presbyter of the region; yet, first, They denied him the privilege of consecrating the eucharist in the city church,“ which, by the thirteenth canon of the council of Neocaesarea, was allowed to other chorepiscopi. Se- condly, They confined him to a single church in the exercise of his chorepiscopal power; whereas others had power over a whole region. Thirdly, They for- bade him to ordain any of the inferior clergy even in his own church, which other chorepiscopi were al- lowed to do by the thirteenth canon of the council of Ancyra. And hence it appears, that, as their power was precarious, and depending upon the will of councils and city bishops, from whom they re- ceived it; so by this time their authority began to sink apace in the church. The council of Laodicea gave them Sect. 12. the first blow, anno 360. For there tr'l‘hfirtppwg first a 8 U0’ 3. - c It Was decreed,” that for the future council of Eaodicea, _ _ which set up 1re'pzo- no blshops should be placed in coun- éevmmthw try villages, but only mapwdevrai, itiner- mm. ant or visiting presbyters; and for such bishops as were already constituted, they should do nothing without the consent and direction of the city bishop. In the council of Chalcedon we meet with some such presbyters expressly styled 'n'spzodevrai, as Alex- andera“ and Valentinus,s7 each of which has the title of presbyter and mpwdsm'fig. And so in the fifth general council at Constantinople,88 one Ser- gius, a presbyter, has the same title of wepwdwrfig’ curator or visitor of the Syrian churches: yet still the order of the chorepz'scopz' was preserved in many places. For not only mention is made of them by Gregory Nazianzen and St. Basil 3” in the fourth century, but also by Theodoret,4° who speaks of Hypatius and Abramius, his own chorepiscopz' ,: and in the council of Chalcedon, in the fifth century, we find the chorepiscopi sitting and subscribing in the name of the bishops that sent them. But this was some diminution of their power; for in former councils they subscribed in their own names, as learned men “1 agree: but now their power was sink- ing, and it went on to decay and dvvindle by de- grees, till at last, in the ninth century, when the forged Decretals were set on foot, it was pretended that they were not true bishops, and so the order, by the pope’s tyranny, came to be laid aside in the western church. ~ Some attempt was made in Eng- Sect" 13_ land, at the beginning of the Reform- ,eggrghghgtgggegggi ation, to restore these under the name EZTJQEZEEHQJQL‘E of sufli'agan bishops. For as our mg“ News‘ Histories inform us,‘12 by an act of the 26th of Henry VIII., anno 1534, several towns were ap- pointed for suffragan sees, viz. Thetford, Ipswich, Colchester, Dover, Guildford, Southampton, Taun- ton, Shaftesbury, Molton, Marlborough, Bedford, Leicester, Gloucester, Shrewsbury, Bristol, Penrith, Bridgewater, Nottingham, Grantham, Hull, Hun- tingdon, Cambridge, Penreth, Berwick, St. Germains in Cornwall, and the Isle of Wight. These suf- fragans were to be consecrated by the archbishop 3° Con. Neocaes. can. 13 et 14. 31 Con. Nic. 1. in Subscription. 32 Con. Neocaes. in Subscription. 33 Con. Ephes. Act. 1. 34 Cone. Reiens. can. 3. 55 Con. Laod. can. 57. 36 Con. Chalced. Act. 4. 37 Ibid. Act. 10. 88 Con. GP. sub Menna, Act. 1. p. 563. 99 Nazian. Ep. 88. Theodore. Basil. Ep. 18].. 4° Theod. Ep. 113. ad Leon. 41 Blondel, Apol. p. 113. Bevereg. Not. in Con. Ancyr. c. 13. ‘7 Burnet, Hist. of Refor. vol. 1. p. 157. CHAP. XV. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 59 and two other bishops, and by the act to have the same episcopal power as suffragans formerly had within this realm: but none of them either to have or act any thing properly episcopal, without the consent and permission of the bishop of the city, in whose diocese he was placed and constituted. Now, any one that compares this with the account that I have given of the ancient chorepz'scopi, will easily per- ceive that these suffragans were much of the same nature with them. But then I must observe, that this was a new name for them: for anciently suffra- gan bishops were all the city bishops sueriigiiriiii'shops of any province under a metropolitan, different from the _ girlgxrfifggogguigfire who were called his suifragans, be- cause they met at his command to give their suffrage, counsel, or advice in a provincial synod. And in this sense the word was used in England at the time when Linwood wrote his Pro- vinciale, which was not above a hundred years before the Reformation, anno 1430. In his comment upon one of the constitutions of John Peckham, archbishop of Canterbury, which begins with these words, Omnibus et singulz's coepiscopz's sufl'raga-nez's nostrils, To all and singular our fellow bishops and suffragans, upon the word suffragans he has this note :43 “They were called sufl'ragans, because they were bound to give their suffrage and assistance to the archbishop, being summoned to take part in his care, though not in the plenitude of his power.” Whence it is plain, that in his time suffragan bi- shops did not signify chorepz'scopz', or rural bishops, but all the bishops of England, under their archbi- shops or metropolitans. Thus it was also in other churches: the seventy bishops who were immedi- ately subject to the bishop of Rome, as their pri- mate or metropolitan, were called his suifragans, because they were frequently called to his synods; as the reason of the name is given in an ancient Vatican MS. cited by Baronius.“ And here it will not be amiss to ob- sh'ggjjglffj $3,121,; serve, whilst we are speaking of suf- Q'i’g'ificzff‘lfingy fragan bishops, that these seventy ‘bm' bishops, who were sufi'ragans to the bishop of Rome, were by a peculiar technical name called libra; which name was given them for no other reason, but because of their number seventy. For the Roman Zz'bra, as antiquaries“ note, consist- ed of seventy solidi, or so many parts; and there- fore the number seventy in any other things, or persons, thence took the name of Zz'bra: as the seventy witnesses which are introduced deposing Sect. 15. against Marcellinus, in the council of Sinuessa, that they saw him sacrifice, are by the author of those acts ‘'6 termed Zz'bra occidua, for no other reason, as Baronius“7 conceives, but because they were seventy in number. And Grotius48 gives the same reason for aflixing this title on the seventy bishops, who were assessors or suffragans to the bishop of Rome; they were, as one might say, his libm, or ordinary provincial council. CHAPTER XV. OF THE INTERCESSORES AND INTERVENTORES IN THE AFRICAN CHURCHES. THERE is one appellation more given to some bishops in the African coun- cils, which must here be taken notice of, whilst we are speaking of bishops; which is the name intercessor and interventor; a title given to some bishops upon the account of a pro-tempore office which was sometimes committed to them. In the African churches, and perhaps in others also, upon the vacancy of a bishopric, it was usual for the primate to appoint one of the provin- cial bishops to be a sort of procuratoriof the diocese, partly to take care of the vacant see, and partly to promote and procure the speedy election of a new bishop. And from this he had the name of inter- cessor and interventor. The design of this oflice was mani- festly to promote the good of the ,ngyggggengiag church; but it was liable to be abused 1mm” a "a" two ways. For the intercessor by this means had a fair opportunity given to ingratiate himself with the people, and promote his own interest among them, instead of that of the church; either by keeping the see void longer than was necessary; or, if it was a wealthier or more honourable place than his own, by getting himself chosen into it. To obviate any Sect. 1. Whysomebishops called intercessors in the African churches. Sect. 2. _ such designs, the African fathers in the fifth council of Carthage made a decree, that no intercessor should continue in his ofiice for above a year; but if he did not procure a new bishop to be chosen within that time, another intercessor should be sent in his room: and the more effectually to cut off all abuses, and prevent corruption, they enacted it also ‘3 Linwood, Provinc. lib. l. tit. 2. c. 1. Suffraganeis. Sic dictis, quia. archiepiscopo sufi'ragari et assistere tenentur, &c. 4‘ Baron. an. 1057. n. 23. Praeter septem collaterales episcopos erant alii episcopi, qui dicuntur sufl'raganei Ro- mani pontificis, nulli alii primati vel archiepiscopo subjecti, qui, frequenter ad synodos vocarentur. ‘5 Brerewood de Ponder. et Pret. c. 15. ‘6 Concil. Sinuess. ap. Crab. t. 1. p. 190. Hi omnes electi sunt viri, libra occidua, qui testimonium perhibent, viden- tes M arcellinum thurifieasse. 4’ Baron. an. 302. n. 92. ‘8 Grotfv in Luc. x. l. Romanis episcopis jam olim 70 episcopi adsessores libra dieti, quod libra Romana tot solidos contineret. 60 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Boon II. into a law,“9 that no intercessor should be capable of succeeding himself in the vacant see, whatever motions or solicitations were made by the people in his behalf. So extremely cautious were these holy African fathers to prevent abuses in matters of this nature. Sect. 3. N0 intercessor to be made bishop of the place where he was constituted in- tel-cessor. CHAPTER XVI. OF PRIMATES, OR METROPOLITANS. THE same reasons which first brought in chorepz'scopi and coadjutors, as sub- ordinate to bishops in every city church, made the bishops of every province think it necessary to make one of them- selves superior to all the rest, and invest him with certain powers and privileges for the good of the whole, whom they therefore named their primate, or metropolitan, that is, the principal bishop of the province. Bishop Usher1 derives the origin of this settlement from apostolical constitution. So also Bishop Beverege,2 Dr. Hammond,8 Peter de Marca, and some others. And there are several passages in Eusebius and Chrysostom which seem to favour this. For Eusebius says,‘ Titus had the superin- tendency of all the churches in Crete: and Chry- sostom in like manner,5 that the apostle committed to him the whole island, and gave him power to censure all the bishops therein. He says the same of Timothy,6 that he was intrusted with the go— vernment of the church in the whole region or pro- vince of Asia. And it is certain the Cyprian bishops, in the council of Ephesus,7 pleaded the privileges of their metropolitan to be as ancient as the apostles. Sect. 1. Some derive the original of metro- politans from apos- tolical constitution. But it may be doubted, whether the apostles made any such general settlement of metropolitans in every province; and the records of the original of most churches being lost, it cannot be certainly proved they did. De Marca,8 thinks, that though the apostles gave a model or specimen in Timothy and Titus, yet they left it to following ages to finish and complete it. Dr. Cave says9 it commenced Sect. 2. Others, from the age next after the apostles. not long after the apostolic age, when sects and schisms began to break in apace, and controversies multiplying between particular bishops, it was found necessary to pitch upon one in every pro- vince, to whom the umpirage of cases might be referred, and by whom all common and public affairs might be directed. Perhaps it took its rise from that common respect and deference, which was usually paid by the rest of the bishops, to the bishop of the civil metropolis in every province; which advancing into a custom, was afterward made into a canon by the council of Nice. This is certain, that the Nicene council speaks of metropolitans as tocglijégggjtmu settled by ancient custom long be- Bfeflgriiet'hecounc fore, 'when it ushers in the canon about them With, 'Apxa'ia {91) icparsi'rw, Let ancient customs be continued,‘° and then goes on to speak of the custom in Egypt, which was for the bishop of Alexandria to have power over all the churches of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis; which was me- tropolitical, if not patriarchal, power. Epipha- niusn mentions the same: speaking of Alexander and Peter, bishops of Alexandria, before the coun- Cil Of Nice, he says, they had iicickno'morucfiv dcoiicmnv, the administration of ecclesiastical affairs through- out all Egypt, Thebais, Mareotes, Libya, Ammoni- aca, Mareotis, and Pentapolis. And Athanasius,l2 speaking of Dionysius, who was bishop of Alex- andria above sixty years before this council, says, he also enjoyed this power, having the care of the churches of Pentapolis and Libya, when Sabellius broached his heresy, and that he wrote letters of admonition to several bishops of those parts, who began to be infected with his heresy. These are undeniable evidences that the bishops of Alexan- dria were not first invested with metropolitical power by the council of Nice, but only confirmed in those rights which, by ancient custom and pre- scription, they had long enjoyed. And this was also the case of other churches. The council of Eliberis in Spain '3 speaks of a primae cathedrce episcopus, a. primate or bishop of the first see; and those called the Apostles’ Canons (which were the Canons of the Greek church in the third century) mention a mating, or chief bishop, in every province, whom the rest were to look upon as their head,“ and do nothing without him. And it appears from several of Cyprian’s epistles,15 that 49 Con. Garth. 5. can. 8. Placuit, ut nulli intercessori li- citum sit, cathedram cui intercessor datus est, quibuslibet populorum studiis, vel seditionibus retinere: sed dare ope- ram, ut intra annum eisdem episcopum provideat. Quod si neglexerit, anno expleto, interventor alius tribuatur. 1 Usser. de Orig. Episc. et Metrop. 2 Bevereg. God. Can. Vind. lib. 2. c. 5. n. 12. _ 3 Ham. Pref. to Titus. It. Dissert. 4. cont. Blondel, c. 5. 4 Euseb. H. E. lib. 3. c. 4. 'rdw e'vri Kpfirrns Emchnc'tdw i'rrm'rco'm‘lu eihnxa'uat. 5 Chrys. Horn. 1. in Tit. mio'ov 6X0'KXnpov—Kai '2'00'06- 'rwv é'lrtcmé'rrwu Kpio'w é'rré'rpatbeu. 6 Id. Hom. 15. in 1 Tim. 7 Con. Ephes. Act. 7. 8 Marca de Concord. lib. 6. c. l. n. 9. 9 Gave, Anc. Ch. Gov. p. 92. 1° Con. Nicen. can. 6. 11 Epiphan. Haer. 68. n. I. et Haer. 69. n. 3. 12 Athan. de Sentent. Dionys. t. l. p. 552. 13 Con. Eliber. an. 305. can. 58. 14 Can. Apost. c. 23. ‘5 Cypr. Ep. 42. ad Cornel. Per provinciam nostram CHAP. XVI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 61 the bishop of Carthage had a presidency over all the other African bishops, and power to send his mandates among them. And St. Austin speaks of the primate of Numidia, as well as the primate of Carthage, before the schism of the Donatists, and says, they gave that for one reason of their schism,16 that the primate of Numidia was not called to elect and consecrate the primate of Carthage. And therefore, as both the same St. Austin ‘7 and Opta- tus18 take notice, the Donatists pretending that the ordination of Caecilian, bishop of Carthage, was not valid, because not performed by a primate, sent for Secundus Tigisitanus, who was then primate of Numidia, to ordain Majorinus in his room. Now, as all this was transacted several years before the. council of Nice, so it proves that primates were in Africa antecedent to the establishment of that council. Sect‘ 4_ If we ascend higher yet, and look 1,5531’; ggglggggg- into the second century, there are some “mum footsteps of the same power, though not so evident as the former. Lyons, in France, was a metropolis in the civil account, and Irenaeus, who was bishop of it, is said to have the superintendency of the Gallican paraeciae, or dioceses, as Eusebiusm words it. Philip, bishop of Gortyna, in Crete, is styled, by Dionysius20 of Corinth, bishop of all the Cretian churches. Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, presided in council over all the bishops of Asia f‘ Palmas, bishop of Amastris, over the bishops of Pontus, and Theophilus,22 of Cmsarea, with Nar- cissus, of Jerusalem, over the rest of the bishops of Palestine. These are the common proofs, which are ordi- narily alleged in this case. Yet I shall freely own, that the three last of them do not cogently prove the thing in dispute. For presiding in council does not necessarily infer metropolitical power; because they might preside as senior bishops, as Eusebius says expressly one of them did, viz. Palmas, bishop of Amastris, (bQ a'pxauira'rog apovréraxro, he presided as the most ancient bishop among them. Which seems to be noted by Eusebius not without good reason; for Heraclea, and not Amastris, was the civil me- tropolis of Pontus. Blondel, from this passage, con- cludes, that at this time the senior bishops in all places were the metropolitans. But this does not sufficiently appear to have been the custom any where else but in the African churches, of which I shall presently give an account: for the other in- stances that have been given, seem rather to make it evident, that the bishops of the civil metropoles were generally the primates or metropolitans in the church also. It is true, indeed, none of these are Sect 5_ expressly called metropolitans; for mgigggggggei; that name scarcely occurs in any an- amemlycaned' cient record before the council of Nice: but they were at first termed fl'pd'n'ot, and Kezpahai, chief bi— shops, and heads of the province, as the Apostolical Canon styles them.” After ages gave them other names, as that of archbishops, at Alexandria24 and other places, till that name became appropriate to the patriarchs. The council of Sardicaz5 styles them, é'Eapxot 717g Evmpxiag, exarchs of the province. St Austin sometimes calls them principes,” princes: and Pope Hilary,27 monarchs. But these being titles of secular grandeur, and savouring too much of absolute sovereignty and dominion, were expressly prohibited by the third council of Carthage, which ordered that no superior bishop should be called high priest,”3 or prince of the priests, but only prime sedz's episcopus, primate, or senior bishop. Hence it was that those bishops, who, in other parts of the world, were called metropolitans, in Africa had com- monly the name of primates; though we sometimes meet with the name metropolitan29 in the African councils also. But these primates, in Africa, are frequently called patres and senes. As, in the African code, Xantippus, pri- mate of Numidia, is once and again styled senex Xantz'ppus.” And St. Austin, writing to him, inscribes his epistle Pam’ et consacerdotz' sem' Xamfzlvpo.81 And thus in many other epistles,32 writing to the primates, or speaking of them, he gives them the name of senes. And there was a pc- culiar reason for giving them this name in Africa. For here the primacy was not fixed, as in other places, to the civil metropolis, but always went along with the oldest bishop of the province, who succeeded to this dignity by virtue of his seniority, whatever place he lived in. In other parts of the world, the bishop of the civil metropolis was com- Sect. 6. Primates in Africa called scm's, because the oldest bishop was always metro- politan. haec eadem collegis singulis in notitiam perferentes, ab his quoque fratres nostros cum literis dirigendos esse mandavi- mus. See also Ep. 40. ad Pleb. Carthag. Ep. 45. ad Cornel. ‘6 Aug. Brevic. Collat. tert. die, c. 16. 1’ Aug. Cont. Parmen. lib. l. c. 3. Venientes cum pri- mate suo tunc Secundo Tigisitano, &c. '8 Optat. lib. 1. p. 41. '9 Euseb. H. E. lib. 5. C. 23. Tim Ka'rr‘z Pahht'av 'n'a- poucu'lw, c'z's Eipnva'los é'n'to'lcd'lrsl. 2° Dionys. Ep. ap. Euseb. lib. 4. c. 23. 2' Euseb. lib. 5. c. 24. 22 Euseb. lib. 5. c. 23. 23 Canon. Apost. e. 37. 25 Con. Sard. can. 6. 26 Aug. Brevic. Collat. tert. die, c. 16. Non exspectavit Caecilianus, ut princeps a principe ordinaretur. 2’ Hilar. Ep. ad Leont. Arelatens. ap. Baron. an. 462. In provincia quae ad monarchiam tuam spectat, &c. 28 Con. Carth. 3. can. 26. Ut primae sedis episcopus non appelletur princeps sacerdotum, aut summus sacerdos, aut aliquid hujusmodi, sed tantum primae sedis episcopus. 29 Con. Car. 3. can. 39. Garth. 4. can. 1. 3“ Cod. Can. Eccl. Afr. c. 91 et 101. 32 Aug. Ep. 149, 152, 235, 261, &c. 2‘ Epiphan. Haer. 68 et 69. 3‘ Aug. Ep. 236 62 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. BOOK II. monly metropolitan in the church also: and so it was ordered to be by several canons both of the eastern and western churches. The council of An- tioch33 bids all bishops observe, that the bishop of the metropolis has the care of the whole province, because all men that have business or controversies to be decided, resort from all parts to the metropo- lis. And the council of Turin84 upon this foot de- termined a dispute about primacy betwixt the two bishops of Arles and Vienna; decreeing that he that could prove his city to be the metropolis, should be the primate of the whole province. The council of Chalcedon has two canons,85 appointing those cities to be metropoles in the church, which were so in the civil division of the empire. And the council of Trullo36 has one to the same purpose. But in the African churches it was otherwise: for they were governed by rules and canons of their own; and their rule was, to let the primacy remove from city to city, and still go along with the senior bishop, without any regard to the civil metropolis, except only at Carthage, where the bishop was a fixed and standing metropolitan for the province of Africa, properly so called. But in Numidia and Mauritania this honour was movable; as may ap- pear from this one instance. Constantina was the civil metropolis of Numidia, as we learn both from the ancient notz'tz'a of the empire, and one of the canons37 of the African code, which expressly styles it so: yet the primacy was so far from being settled here, that we never so much as find that the bishop of Constantina was at any time the primate; but in Constantine’s time, Secundus Tigisitanus88 was pri- mate of Numidia; in St. Austin’s time, Megalius bishop of Calama was primate, who by virtue of his office39 ordained St. Austin bishop; afterwards Xantippus of Tagasta“o succeeded by virtue of his seniority, whence he is always styled in St. Austin 4' and the African councils,“ senex Xantippus. This is sufiicient to show, that the primacy in Africa was not confined to the civil metropolis, but was always conferred upon the senior bishop, whose seniority was reckoned from the time of his consecration. Some there are who pretend to say, that these African primates, notwithstanding this, were subject to the bishops of the civil metropoles, who were properly the metropolitans. But there is no ground for this opinion, and it is justly exploded by De Marca43 and others, who have occasionally touched upon this subject. It is true indeed, by the Afi'ican dis- cipline, a bishop might lose his pri- bigliggslxggigpfop mogeniture, and so forfeit his title to $325; *metothe the primacy; as is evident from a passage in St. Austin,“ which speaks of such a punishment inflicted upon one Priscus, a Maurita- nian bishop, who for some misdemeanor was denied this privilege, though he still kept his bishopric: but in such cases, the primacy did not devolve to the‘ bishop of the civil metropolis, but to the next in order, who could prove himself senior by conse- cration. And because disputes sometimes arose about seniority ; to prevent these, several good orders were made by the African fathers relating to this matter. As, first, that a matricula, or archz'vus, as they called it, should be kept both in the primate’s church,45 and in the metropolis of the province, for bishops to prove the time of their ordination by. _ Then, secondly, every bishop was to have his let- ters of ordination subscribed by his ordainers, and dated with the year and day of his consecration.“6 Thirdly, all bishops were to take place according to seniority, and so sit and vote, and have their names subscribed in council; which was a rule not only in Africa,“7 but in all other churches, being enacted by several councils,”8 and inserted into the civil law49 by Justinian the emperor. But they were the more nice in observing this in Africa, where the primacy went by seniority, lest the neglect of it should have bred confusion among them. Insomuch that St. Austin50 blames Victorinus, (who pretended to be primate of Numidia,) only because in his tractorz'a, or letter of summons to a provincial council, he wrote the names of the Numidian bishops in a con- fused order, and put Austin’s name before many of Sect. 7 Sect. 8. A register of or- dinations to be kept in the primate’s church. And all bishops to take place by seniority, 3* Con. Antioch. can. 9. 34 Con. 'l‘aurin. can. 2. Qui ex iis comprobaverit suam civitatem esse metropolim, is totius provinciae honorem pri- matus obtineat. 35 Con. Chalced. can. 12 et 17. 36 Con. Trull. can. 38. 3’ God. Can. Eccl. Afr. c. 86. 98 Aug. cont. Parmen. lib. 1. c. 3. Ep. (-38. ad Januar. “9 Possid. Vit. Aug. c. 8. Adveniente ad ecclesiam Hippo- nensem tunc primate Numidian Megalio Calamensi episcopo. 4° Con. Milev. l. in God. Afr. can. 84. Xantippus primae sedis Numidiae episcopns. Aug. Ep. 217. College. noster Xantippus Tagastensis dicit, quod eum primatus ipse con- tingat, &c. 4‘ Aug. Ep. 236. ‘*2 God. Can. Afr. c. 91, 101. ‘8 Mai-ca, Dissert. de Primat. n. 3. Albaspin. Not. in Op- tat. lib. 1. p. 121. Stillingfleet, Hist. of Separ. par. 3. sect. 9. p. 253. Fell, Not. in Con. Garth. ap. Cypr. p. 230. 4" Aug. Ep. 261. 45 Con. Milev. in Cod. Can. Afr. c. 86. 46 Con. Milev. can. 14. Placuit ut quicunque ab episco- pis ordinantur, literas accipiant ab ordinatoribus suis, manu eorum subscriptas, continentes consulem et diem, ut nulla altercatio de posterioribus vel anterioribus oriatur. 4’ Con. Milev. c. 13. Posteriores anterioribus deferant, &c. Vit. Fulgentii, cap. 20. Inter episcopos, tempore or- dinationis inferior, ultimus sedebat. ‘8 Con. Bracar. 1. can. 24. Con. Tolet. 4. can. 4. Secun- dum ordinationis suae tempora resideant. ‘9 Cod. Justin. lib. 1. tit. 4. c. 29. Episcopi tempore ordinationis praelati, &c. 5° Aug. Ep. 217. ad Victorin. CHAP. XVI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 63 his seniors: which was a thing, he says, equally injurious to them, and invidious to himself. So cautious was he of doing any thing that might seem to intrench upon this rule, for fear of breeding con- fusion in the government of their churches. I must here take notice further, that besides the primacy of power, there was in most provinces also a primacy of honour; whence some bishops had the name and title of primates, who had not the jurisdiction. And these were of three sorts: l. The primates woo, the oldest bishop in each province next to the metropolitan. These had no power above others, except when the metropolitan was some way disabled, or unqualified for discharging his office by irregularity or suspension: then his power of course devolved to the senior bishop of the province. And this, I conceive, was the reason why the bishop of Amastris51 presided in council over the bishops of Pontus, when yet Heraclea, and not Amastris, was the metropolis :of the pro- Vince. Sect. 9. h Three sorts of onorary primates, besides the primate in power. I. Primates¢vo. The second sort of honorary pri- mates were the titular metropolitans, which were the bishops of such cities as had the name and title of civil metropoles bestowed on them by some emperor, without the power and privileges, which were still retained to the ancient metropolis of the province. Thus Marcian the emperor dignified the city Chalcedon with the title of a metropolis, and the honour was confirmed to the bishop by the council of Chalcedon 52 itself, only with a salvo jure to the rights of Nicomedia the old metropolis : from that time therefore the bishop of Chalcedon styled him- self metropolitan of Bithynia, as maybe seen in the Acts?” of the Sixth General Council. The same honour was done to the city and bishop of Nice, in the council of Chalcedon 5‘ likewise. So that here were three metropolitans in one province, but one only had the power; the privileges of the other two were only honorary, to sit and vote in council next to their metropolitan. Yet this gave such bishops an opportunity to exalt themselves, and sometimes they so far encroached upon the rights of the first metropolitan, as to draw off his suffragans, and divide the province with him. Thus it was with the bishop of Nice, who before ,the time of the sixth general council, had got a synod of suffra- gans under him. For so Photius subscribed him- self in that council 5‘ bishop of Nice, and metropo- Sect. 10. 2. Titular metro— politans. litan of Bithynia for himself and the synod. that was under him. Besides these there were a third sort of primates, who, though they were neither bishops of titular metropoles, nor the oldest bishops of the province, yet took place of all the rest, by a general deference that was paid to them, out of regard to the eminency of their see, being some mother church, or particu- larly honoured by ancient prescription. This was the case of the bishop of Jerusalem. That city was no metropolis of the empire, but subject to Czesarea, the metropolis of Palestine; yet, in regard that it was the mother church of the world, this peculiar honour was paid to it, that the bishop thereof was always next in dignity to the metropo- litan of Caesarea, and took place of all the other bishops of the province. And this privilege was confirmed to him by the Nicene council,56 which made a canon to this purpose: That whereas, by ancient custom and tradition, the bishop of fElia had a particular honour paid him, the same should be continued to him, still reserving to the metropo- lis the dignity and privilege which belonged to it. Some fondly imagine 5’ that ‘this canon gave the bishop of Jerusalem patriarchal power; whereas it does not so much as make him a metropolitan, but leaves him subject to the metropolis of Palestine, which was Caesarea, as St. J erom58 informs us, whose words clear the sense of this canon, and prove that the bishop of Jerusalem was no metro- politan, nor independent of his metropolitan, as Valesius ""9 imagines, but had only the second place of honour assigned him next to his metropolitan, which was that honorary primacy which the bishops of Jerusalem had always enjoyed, because, as the council of Constantinople words it,°° Jerusalem was the mother of all other churches. But leaving these honorary pri- mates, who had little more than a Thestififcelsgofme- tropohtans. 1. To name, I am here to show what were gfsigisgggsfuffw- the offices and privileges of those who were properly metropolitans; and they were these that follow. First, They were to regulate the elec- tions of all their provincial bishops, and either or- dain, or authorize the ordination of them. No bishop was to be elected or ordained without their consent and approbation : otherwise the canons pronounce both the election and the ordination null. The xfipog, or ratification of all that is done, says the council of Nice,“ belongs to the metropolitan in Sect. ll. 3. The bishops of some mother churches, which were honoured by ancient custom, 5‘ Euseb. lib. 5. c. 23, says he presided as the senior bi- shop, (59 cipxauicra'ros wpov're'q-ax'ro. 52 Con. Chalced. Act. 6. t. 4. p. 612. 53 Con. 6. Gen. Act. 18. 5‘ Con. Chalced. Act. 13. p. 716. 55 Con. 6. Gen. Act. 18. p. 1080. 56 Con. Nic. can. 7. xixr'rw 'riw u’h-ohoufn'rw 'rijc ‘TLIITIS‘, 'rz'i pncrpo'n'dhel. o'w'gojue'uov Pro; oirceiov dgtu'wa'ros. 5" Sylvius Addit. ad Caranz. summ. Concil. ‘*8 Jerom. Ep. 6]. ad Pammach. Hoc ibi decernitur nt Palaestinae metropolis Caesarea sit. 59 Vales. Not. in Euseb. 5. 23. 6°’ Con. Constant. Ep. Synod. ad Damas. 6' Con. Nic. can. 4. 64 ANTIQUITIES 0F THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Boon II. every province. And again, If any bishop is made without the consent of the metropolitan, this great synod62 pronounces such a one to be no bishop. The same rule is repeated in the councils of Anti- och,“8 Laodicea,“ Arles,65 Turin,66 Sardica,“ Ephe- sus,“ and Chalcedon.69 And whereas some pretend that the African primates had not this power, the contrary appears evidently from several canons of their councils. The second council of Carthage 7° says, No one shall presume to ordain abishop with- out consulting the primate of the province, and taking his precept, though many other bishops should join with him. The third council of Car- thage requires but three bishops to the ordination of a bishop, but then71 they must be such as are expressly authorized by the metropolitan. And the fourth council72 requires either his presence, or at least his authority and commission. Here a primate and a metropolitan are the same thing, viz. the senior bishop of the province, who usually went to the church, where the new bishop was to be placed, and consecrated him with his own hands, as St. Austin and Possidius73 testify, who are good Witnesses of their practice. sect-13 Nor was this power at all infringed mggiiopggggcggg; by setting up of patriarchs above gigfgfgns “P of Pa- them. For though the metropolitans were then to be ordained by the patri- archs, and obliged to attend on them for it, who before were ordained by their own provincial sy- nod; yet still the right of ordaining their own suf- fragans was all along preserved to them, and ex- pressly confirmed by the council of Chalcedon {4 nor do we ever find any patriarch assuming this power, except the bishop of Alexandria, for a par- ticular reason, of which I shall give an account in the following chapter, sect. ll. Sect. 1,, But here I must observe, that this $3233? $333? power of metropolitans was not arbi- l'tt'éetrbg $3.222; trary: for though no bishop was to Bynod' be elected or ordained without their consent, yet they had no negative voice in the mat- ter, but were to be determined and concluded by the major part of a provincial synod. For so the coun- cil of Arles” decreed, that if there arose any doubt or hesitation betwixt the parties, the metropolitan should side with the greater number. And the council of Nice76 to the same purpose: If two or three out of a contentious humour shall oppose the common election, duly and regularly made accord- ing to the canons of the church, in this case let the majority of voices prevail. And the same rule was to be ob- served in the ordination of metropoli- beMgmzflitggg tgr_ tans themselves,who were tobe chosen 33331,‘) 3131?“ and consecrated by their own pro- vincial bishops ; who were not obliged to send for a metropolitan out of another province to do it, but they had power to do it in their own provincial sy- nod among themselves. This, St. Austin says, was the custom of the catholic church, both in Africa and at Rome. And therefore, when the Donatists objected against Caecilian, primate of Carthage, that his ordination was uncanonical, because he had not sent for the neighbouring primate of Numidia to come and ordain him: his answer was,” that Cae- cilian had no need of this; since the custom of the catholic church was otherwise, which was not to have the Numidian bishops to ordain the bishop of Carthage, but the neighbouring bishops of the province of Carthage : as it was not the custom at Rome to send for a metropolitan out of another province, to ordain the bishop of Rome, but he was always ordained by the bishop of Ostia, a neighbouring bishop of the same pro- vince. It is true there is a canon in the council of Sar- dica,78 which orders the bishops of the next province, as some interpret it, to be called in to the ordination of a metropolitan, 'roz‘ig aim‘: rfig wkncioxu'ipov trrapxiag But this perhaps may as well be ren- dered, the neighbouring. bishops of the same pro- vince ,79 and since custom and the practice of the church, which is the best interpreter of doubtful canons, does manifestly favour this sense, there is some reason so to understand it. But however it be, here is no mention of one metropolitan having a right to ordain another. From which it appears, Sect. 15. trrw'ico'n'ovg. 62 Con. Nic. can. 6. 59 Con. Antioch. can. 19. 65 Con. Arelat. 2. can. 5 et 6. 6" Con. Sardic. can. 6. 68 Con. Ephes. Decret. de Episc. Cypr. 69 Con. Chalced. Act. 13. It. can. 25. "0 Con. Carth. 2. c. 12. Inconsulto primate cujuslibet provinciaz nemo praesumat, licet cum multis episcopis, sine ejus praecepto, episcopum ordinare. "1 Con. Garth. 3. c. 39. Non minus quam tres sufiiciant, qui fuerint a metropolitano directi ad ordinandum epis- copum. 72 Con. Carth. 4. c. 1. Conventu totius provinciae epis- coporum, maximeque metropolitani vel praasentia, vel auc- toritate ordinetur episcopus. "'3 Aug. Ep. 261. Possid. Vit. Aug. 0. 8. 64 Con. Laodic. can. 12. 66 Con. Taurin. can. 1. "4 Con. Chalced. Act. 16. in fin. 75 Con. Arelat. 2. can. 5. Si inter partes aliqua natafuerit dubitatio, majori numero metropolitanus in electione con— sentiat. - "6 Con. Nic. can. 6. "7 Aug. Brevic. Collat. tert. die, 0. 16. Non exspectavit Ceecilianus ut princeps a principe ordinaretur; cum aliud habeat ecclesiae catholicae consuetudo, ut non N umidiae, sed propinquiores episcopi episcopum ecclesiac Carthaginis ordi- nent : sicut nec Romanes- ecclesiae ordinat aliquis episcopus metropolitanus, sed de proximo Ostiensis episcopus. 78 Con. Sard. can. 6. 79 Harmenopulus so understood it ; for in his Epitome he thus Words it: Oi. wkno-Lo'xwpot T179 éimpxias, 'mlpé‘a'w' o'av. Vid. Hal-men. Epit. Canon. ap. Leunclav. Jur. Gr. Rom. t. l. p. 2. CHAP. XVI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 65 that in these times no metropolitan was obliged to go or send out of his own province, much less to Rome, for his ordination; but all was to be done by his suffragans in his own church. Nor was any bishop obliged to go for ordination to his metro- politan’s church, but ordinarily the metropolitan and the rest of the bishops met synodically in the vacant church, and there elected and consecrated a new bishop in the presence of the people for whom they ordained him. This was the first part of the metropolitan’s office. sect. m Their next ofl’ice was, to preside over $3,333,131?‘ their provincial bishops, and if any ghcsiiiieg‘iiiiiiiri "51?: controversies arose among them, to Ziiiiviliig 1.25.328’ interpose their authority to end and fmmthem' decide them: as also to hear the ac- cusations of others, who complained of injury done them by their own bishops, from whom there was liberty always to appeal to their metropolitan. Thus in Africa it was ordained by the council of Milevis,”o that if two bishops disputed about the bounds of their dioceses, the metropolitan should appoint a committee of bishops to hear and determine their controversy. If a presbyter or deacon was excom- municated by his own bishop, the council of Sar- dica“l allows him liberty to appeal to the metropoli- tan of his province; or if he were absent, to the metropolitan of the next province, to desire a new hearing of his cause. In such cases as these the metropolitan had three ways of proceeding: either, first, he was to appoint a select number of bishops to be judges; which was the practice of Afrlca, where such judges were therefore called$2 judices electz', and their number assigned to be twelve,88 if a bishop’s cause was to be tried before them. Or, se- condly, he was to refer the matter to a provincial synod, which seems to have been the general prac- tice, when those called the Apostolical Canons were made; one of which orders,84 that when a bishop is accused, he shall be convened before a synod of bishops. Another says,85 The primate shall do no- thing without the consent of all the other bishops; so concord will be preserved, and God will be glo- rified. And another, Twice a year let there be a synod of bishops 8“ to examine doctrines of religion, and terminate all ecclesiastical controversies that may happen. But, thirdly, by J ustinian’s law87 the metropolitan has power to hear causes upon appeal himself without a synod: yet whether he could pro- ceed so far as to depose a bishop by his sole au- thority, is questioned. Spalatensis$8 gives some instances of bishops that were deposed by their metropolitans, but for aught that appears it was done in synod: but whether it was, or was not, matters not much ; for still in all cases, by the same law of Justinian 8” and the Canons, there lay an ap- peal from the metropolitan to a provincial synod, of which he was only the president, or moderator and director of business in it. And this leads us to a third office of the metropolitans, which was, to ca'fih;f,f)f{,§‘c§’§§§1‘° call provincial synods, and preside in ggggn‘giigpeaggggg, them. For since the Canons9° ap- to attend‘ pointed two synods to be held ordinarily every year Sect. 17. in each province, (besides such as might be called’ upon extraordinary occasions,) it was necessary some one should be appointed to give notice of the time and place, and have authority both to convocate and preside in them. All things therefore relating to this matter, were by common consent put into the pri- mate’s power, whose circular letters (which some- times are called synodicce and tractorz'w,“ as the em- peror’s were called sacrve) were a legal summons, which no bishop of the province might disobey un- der pain of suspension, or some such canonical censure, which is left to the discretion92 of the me- tropolitan and the council. 4. It belonged to metropolitans to publish and disperse such imperial togggggfggggggl laws and canons, as were either by 152$? Sgiecjgg‘f’fig councils or emperors made for the correctabuses' common good of the church. This they are re- quired to do by several laws93 both of the church and state, the better to diffuse the knowledge and enforce the practice of them. Nor were they only to disperse the canons that were made, but to see that they were observed: which gave them right to visit and inquire into neglects, abuses, and dis- orders committed by any bishop throughout the whole province. The metropolitan in this respect is said to have the care of the whole province, by the council of Antioch.“ Not that this gave him power to ofliciate in any other bishop’s church, or perform such acts as the bishop himself might per- form alone, such as the ordaining of presbyters and deacons, and the like; which are specialties of every bishop, reserved to them by the same council: but in case of omission or scandalous neglect, the bishop Sect. 18. 8° Con. Milev. can. 21. Per episcopos judices causa finiatur, sive quos eis primates dederint, sive quos ipsi vici- nos ex consultu primatis delegerint. 81 Con. Sard. can. 14. 82 Con. Carth. 3. can. 7. 83 Con. Carth. 1. can. 11. Episcopus a duodecim consa- cerdotibus audiatur. 8*‘ Can. Apost. c. 74. Con. Constant. 2 Gen. can. 6. 85 Ibid. 0. 35. Con. Antioch. can. 9. 86 Ibid, c, 38, 8’ Cod. Just. lib. l. tit. 4. c. 29. 88 Spalat. de Repub. Eccl. par. 1. lib. 3. c. 7. n. 19. F 89 God. Just. ibid. 9° Con. Nic. can. 5. Antioch. c. 20. Agathen. c. 35. Are- lat. 2. c. 18. Can. Apost. c. 38. 9‘ Aug. Ep. 217. ad Victorin. idus Novembris venit, &c. 92 Con. Chalced. can. 19. Con. Garth. 4. can. 21. Theo- doret, Ep. 81. 93 Justin. Novel. 6 et 42. 9* Con. Antioch. can. 9. Tip! ¢powrida &vadéxso'eat qro'z- o'ns 'rfis évrapxias. Tractoria ad me quinto 66 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Boox II. of the metropolis was to manifest his care with the advice of the rest of his brethren. 5. In Africa all bishops paid a pe- Sect. 19. . . . trggiifiltolpsurtmtfitlg cuhar deference to the primate, 1n fig'ggfitgflfheir me- taking his licence to travel, when- ever they were called into a foreign country upon extraordinary occasions. This was expressly provided by a canon of the third council of Carthage,95 that no bishop should go beyond sea without consulting his primate, and taking his for- matae', or letters of commendation. Nor was this so peculiar to Africa, but that we may meet with the same rule and practice in other places, even as low as the time of Gregory the Great, who in one of his V epistles96 gives the same direction to some bishops in reference to their metropolitan, that they should not travel upon urgent occasion without his letters of concession. sect 20 6. It belonged to metropolitans to s. Metropolitansto take care of all vacant sees within take care of vacant , , , _ gefigictgin their their province; to administer the af- fairs of the church during the vacancy, to secure the revenues of the bishopric, and pro- cure a speedy election of a new bishop. In Africa the primate commonly appointed one of the neigh- bouring bishops to be his vicegerent in such a case, whom therefore the canons (as have been observed before) call an interventor.” The council of Riez98 in France in like manner puts the administration of a vacant see into the hands of a neighbouring bishop, under the inspection of the metropolitan. And the council of Valentia” in Spain authorizes the metropolitan to punish purloiners of the re- venues in the vacancy, and to send an administrator till a new bishop is chosen. By a canon of the council of Chalcedon,loo the care of the revenues of the church is committed to the steward of the church, the aaconomus ; but the care of supplying the vacant see with a new bishop within three months, is the business of the metropolitan. Sect ,,_ 7. It belonged to the metropolitan caiffimgdtififihfig yearly to review the calculation of “mm the time of Easter, and give notice to his suffragans of it. The care of composing the cycle indeed was by the Nicene fathers particularly ‘ committed to the bishop of Alexandria,‘01 as Pope Leo and others inform us; and he was to give no- tice to other churches: but due care was not al- ways taken in this matter, and therefore the metro- politan in every province was concerned to settle the time, and acquaint the whole province with it. As we find St. Ambrose ‘"2 did for the province of Milan; and the bishop of Carthage,108 for the pro- vince of Africa: and the Spanish councils 1"‘ order their metropolitans first to concert the matter among themselves, and then communicate it to their com- provincials. Some later canons "5 make it the Sec, 22. privilege of metropolitans to conse- mlmitgz‘g‘vge‘zi crate all churches throughout the in after ages‘ province. But I have showed before, that this was originally the privilege of every bishop in his own diocese; and being a private act, which only con- cerned his own church, and not the whole pro- vince, the metropolitan was to have no hand in it, no more than in the consecration of presbyters and deacons, by the ninth canon of the council of An- tioch. Other canons ‘°6 bind the whole province to follow the forms and rites of Divine service used in the metropolitan church: but I have observed be- fore, that anciently every bishop had liberty to pre- scribe for his own diocese, and was under no limit- ation as to this matter, unless it were the order of a provincial council. By this we see that the power of . . 7 Scot 23. metropolitans in some places exceeded Agiiaengrrigmggfihe others. And I must here observe, fiagiitegower of that the primate of Alexandria was the greatest metropolitan in the world, both for the absoluteness of his power, and the extent of his jurisdiction. For he was not metropolitan of a single province, but of all the provinces of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, in which there were at least six large provinces, out of which sometimes above a hundred bishops were called to a provincial council. Alexander summoned near that number to the condemnation of Arius ‘°’ before the council of Nice. And Athanasius108 speaks of the same number meeting at other times: particularly the council of Alexandria, anno 339, which heard and justified the cause of Athanasius after his return from his banishment, had almost a hundred bishops in it; which was above thirty more than the bishop of Rome’s lz’bra, which was but sixty-nine. Nor was the primate of Alexandria’s power less than the extent of his jurisdiction; for he not only ordained all his sufi'ragan bishops, but had liberty to ordain presbyters and deacons in all churches throughout the whole district. Mr. Basnage and Launoy109 will have it that he had the sole power of ordaining, "5 Con. Garth. 3. can. 28. Ut episcopi trans mare non proficiscantur, nisi consulto prim'ae sedis episcopo, &c. 96 Greg. M. Ep. 8. lib. 7. 9’ Con. Carth. 5. can. 8. 98 Con. Reiens. can. 5 et 6. ‘°° Con. Chalced. c. 25. {"1 Leo, Ep. 72. al. 70. ad Marcian Imper. 1°’ Ambros. Ep. 83. ad Episc. per Emyliam. “9 Con. Carth. 3. can. 1 et 41. 99 Con. Valent. can. 2. ‘"4 Con. Bracar. 2. can. 9. Con. Tolet. 4. can. 5. 1°5 Gelas. Ep. 1. c. 4. Montan. Tolet. Ep. ad Palentinos ap. Blondel, Apol. p. 150. "'6 Concil. Gerundens. can. 1. Con. Epaun. can. 27. Con. Tolet. 11. can. 3. 1°’ Alexand. Ep. Encycl. ap. Socrat. lib. 1. c. 6. 1°8 Athan. Apol. 2. p. 720. Con. Alexandr. Ep. Encycl. Con. t. 2. p. 533. 1°” Basnag. Exerc. in Baron. p. 307. ct Launoy, ibid. CHAP. XVII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 67 and that not so much as a presbyter or deacon could be ordained without him. Valesiusllo thinks his privilege was rather that he might ordain if he pleased, but not that he had the sole power of or- daining presbyters and deacons. But either way it was a great privilege, and peculiar to the bishop of Alexandria; for no other metropolitan pretended to the like power besides himself. I have but one thing more to ob- Sect. 24. . . . cafipd $523582?“ serve concernmg metropolitans, which 322182215326. We 1s, that they were anciently all dig— nified with the name apostolic-i; which was then no peculiar title of the bishop of Rome. For Pope Siricius himself gives all primates “1 this appellation: and it continued to be their title to the days of Alcuin, who, speaking of the election of bishops, says,112 when the clergy and people have chosen one, they draw up an instrument, and go with their elect to the apostolz'cus : by whom he means not the pope, but the primate or metropolitan of every province, who had the right and power of consecration. CHAPTER XVII. 0F PATRIARCHS. NEx'r in order to the metropolitans or primates, were the patriarchs; or, as they were at first called, arch- bishops and exarchs of the diocese. For though now an archbishop and a metropolitan be gener- ally taken for the same, to wit, the primate of a single province; yet anciently the name arch- bishop was a more extensive title, and scarce given to any but those whose jurisdiction extended over a whole imperial diocese, as the bishops of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, &c. That this was so, appears evidently from one of J ustinian’s Novels, where erecting the bishopric of J ustiniana Prima into a patriarchal see, he says, Our pleasure is, that the bishop of J ustiniana shall not only be a metro- politan, but an archbishop.l Here the names are clearly distinguished, and an archbishop reckoned superior to a metropolitan. And hence it was, that after the setting up of patriarchal power, the name archbishop was appropriated to the patriarchs. ' Sect. 1. Patriarchs an- ciently called arch- bishops. Liberatus2 gives all the patriarchs this title of arehbishops. So does the council of Chalcedon frequently, speaking of the patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople 3 under the name of archbishops also. These were otherwise called é'Eapxor 'rfig (houcr'lo'ewg, exarchs 0f the (liOCQSté, And ‘of the . . . diocese. to distinguish them from the é'Zapxm 'rfig én-apxiag, the exarchs of a single province, which were only metropolitans. Thus Domnus, bishop of Antioch, is styled exarch of the eastern diocese,4 by the councils of Antioch and Chalcedon. And in the subscriptions of the sixth general council at Constantinople, Theodore, bishop of Ephesus, sub- scribes himself both metropolitan of Ephesus,5 and exarch of the Asiatic diocese. As also Philalethes, bishop of Ceesarea in Cappadocia, styles himself exarch of the Pontic diocese. Which shows, that as the exarch of a province is a metropolitan, so the exarch of a diocese is a patriarch in the ancient language of the church. And by this we under- stand the meaning of the ninth and seventeenth canons of the council of Chalcedon, which allow of appeals from the metropolitan to the exarch of the diocese. As to the name patriarch, there is some dispute among learned men, when first it began to be used as an 333; 211: name appropriate title of any Christian bi- shops. Salmasius6 and some others are of opinion, that the bishop of Alexandria had this title from the time of the emperor Hadrian, which was in the be- ginning of' the second century. Their reason is, because that emperor, in an epistle mentioned by Vopiscus, speaks of a patriarch at Alexandria. But the patriarch there spoken of, was not any Chris- tian, but a Jewish patriarch; as may appear from Hadrian’s words, and the character which he gives - of him.7 For he says, he was one who was com- pelled to worship both Christ and Serapis: which agrees very well to the character of a Jewish patri- arch, who neither acknowledged the hcathen nor the Christian religion, and therefore needed as much compulsion to bring him to worship Christ, as Se- rapis; but it does not at all agree to the character of a Christian bishop, who, however he might need force to compel him to worship Serapis, yet must be supposed willing of his own accord to worship Christ. Besides, the patriarch which the emperor speaks of was one who came only occasionally into 1" Vales. Observ. in Socrat. lib. 3. c. 5. "1 Siric. Ep. 4. c. l. Ut extra conscientiam sedis apos- tolicae, id est, primatis, nemo audeat ordinare. ‘'2 Alcuin. de Div. Oflic. c. 36. Cum episcopus civitatis fuerit defunctus, eligitur alius a clero seu populo, fitque (1e- eretum ab illis, et veniunt ad apostolicum cum suo electo. 1 Justin. Novel. ll. Volumus, ut non solum metropoli- tanus, sed etiam archiepiscopus flat. 2 Liberat. Breviar. c. 17. 3 Con. Chalced. Act. 16. It. Act. 4. et can. 30. 4 Con. Antioch. in Act. 14. Con. Chalced. 5 Con. 6. Gen. Act. 18. Con. t. 6 p. 1077 at 1080. 6 Salmas. de Primat. e. 4. p. 44. It. not. in Vopiscum. " Hadrian. Epist. ap. Vopiscum Vit. Saturnin. Illi qui Serapin colunt, Christiani sunt: et devotisunt Serapi, qui se Christi episcopos dicunt. N emo illic archisynagogus J udaeorum, nemo Samarites, nemo Christianorum presby- ter, non mathematicus, non aruspex, non aliptes. Ille ipsc patriarchal, quum Egyptum venerit, ab aliis Serapidem adorare, ab aliis cogitur Christum. F 2 68 BOOK II. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH._ Egypt out of another country; which cannot be said of the bishop of Alexandria, who had his fixed and continual residence there: but it suits exactly the state and condition of the Jewish patriarch, who resided at Tiberias in Palestine, and came but accidentally, or at some certain times, into Egypt. These, and the like reasons, make others conclude against Salmasius, that whoever is meant, it is not any Christian patriarch that is here spoken of. Ba- ronius8 fancies it was the heathen pontifex, or high priest of Egypt: but the same reasons will hold against his opinion as against the other; for the high priest of Egypt lived in Egypt, and needed no compulsion to worship Serapis, as this patriarch did : so that it must be the Jewish patriarch, and no other, which Hadrian speaks of, as Mr. Basnage and Bishop Pearson,9 with some others, have observed. These Jewish patriarchs, from as is generally agreed, the Christian patriarchs borrowed their names, were a sort of governors among the Jews set up upon the destruction of J e- rusalem; one of which had his residence at Tiberias, and another at Babylon, who were the heads of the Jews dispersed throughout the Roman and the Per- sian empire. Of these there is frequent mention made in the ancient writers of the church, Origen,lo Epiphanius,u Cyril of J erusalem,12 Theodoret,la and many others. They continued in great power and Sect. 4. or the Jewish pa- whom, t'riarchs, their first rise, duration, and extinction. _ dignity till the latter end of the fourth century, about which time their order ceased. For Theodoret says expressly, that long before his time their go- vernment was wholly abolished: and one of the laws of the younger Theodosius, anno 429,“ speaks of them as then extinct. Much about the same time the Montanists, or Cataphrygian heretics, had an- order of men among them, which they called patriarchs, and another which they called cenones, both which were superior to their bishops, and, as it should seem, distinct orders from them. For St. Jerom15 charges it on them as a crime, that they thrust down the order of the bi- shops, who were the apostles’ successors, and set up Sect. 5. Of the patriarchs among the Monta- nists. an order of patriarchs and an order of cenones among them: which makes some learned men‘6 think, that when St. J erom wrote that against the Montanists, the name patriarch was not as yet adopted into the church, though the power was under another name. Indeed, the first time we meet with the name patriarch given to any bi- shop by any public authority of the figiiiiqciisoibiliilcl church, is in the council of Chalcedon, d which mentions 1’ the most holy patriarchs of every diocese, and particularly Leo patriarch ‘8 of great Rome. Richerius, who has written accurately about the councils, can trace the name no higher.18 Among private authors, the first that mentions pa- triarchs by name is Socrates,20 who wrote his history about the year 440, eleven years before the council of Chalcedon. By what he says, it appears that during the interval between the general council of Constantinople, anno 381, and that of Chalcedon, the name patriarch began to be an appropriate title of some eminent bishops in the church. For speak- ing of the fathers at Constantinople, he says, They constituted patriarchs, dividing the provinces among them. Valesius21 and Dr. Cave22 think Socrates speaks not of true and proper patriarchs, but only of extraordinary legates, or pro-tempura commission- ers, appointed by the council to judge who were fit to be received to catholic communion in the several dioceses that were allotted them. But all others understand him in the proper sense, because by this time patriarchal power was settled in all the dioceses of the Roman empire. But though the name of patriarchs came not into the church till about Ifoursdciftfezent the time of Socrates, yet the power ‘- gigmiiigsfii-gil signer _ , patriarchal power. itself, as is agreed on all hands, was much earlier; though where precisely to fix the epocha, and date its rise, is not so easy to deter- mine. Some carry it ‘as high as the apostles, and derive it, as they do the pope’s supremacy, from St. Peter. So Baronius,” who is followed by the most eminent writers of his own communion, De Marca, Valesius, Richerius, Pagius, and Schelstrate. Others Sect. 6. The name patri- arch first used by 8 Baron. Annal. tom. 2. an. 112. 9 Basnag. Exercit. Histor. p. 284. Pearson, Vindic. Ig- nat. par. 1. c. 11. p. 328. Suicer. Thesaur. Eccles. Verbo 'n'a'rpw'zpxns. Cave, Anc. Chur. GOV. p. 153. 1° Orig. 'rrepi. &pxdw, lib. 4. c. l. 1' Epiphan. H331‘. 30. 12 Cyr. Catech. 12. n. 7. 1* Theodor. Dial. 1. 1‘ Cod. T heod. lib. 16. tit. 8. de Jud. lib. 29. '5 J erom. Ep. 54. ad Marcel. adv. Montan. t. 2. p. 128. Apud nos apostolorum locum episcopi tenent: apud eos episcopus tertius est. Habent enim primos de Pepuza Phrygiae patriarchas: secundos quos appellant cenones' atque ita in tertium, id est, pene ultimum locum, episcopi devolvuntur. 1“ Basnag. Exercit. Histor. p. 285. Hinc colligi possit, priscis temporibus nondum episcopis insignioribus afiixum fuisse nomen patriarchae. 17 Con. Chalced. Act. 2. p. 338. detain-arm qrwrpw'zpxai. dioucfio-ews émiqns. ‘8 Act. 3. p. 395. 19 Rich. Hist. Concil. tom. 1. c. 2. n. 11. Nomen patri- archarum primum quod sciam usurpatum in synodo Chalce- donensi. 2° Socrat. H. E. lib.5. c. 8. 2‘ Vales. Annot. in Socrat. 22 A110. Ch. Gov. p. 147. “3 Baron. Annal. t. 1. an. 39. n. 16. Pet.'de Marca, de Concord. 1:. l. lib. l. c. 3. n. 5. Vales. Observ. Eccles. lib. 3. Richer. Hist. Concil. t. l. c.,1. n. 14. Ant. Peg. Critic. an. 37. n. 9. CuAP. XVII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 69 justly reject this, as founded upon no good author- ity, nor evidenced by any genuine records of the ancient church, but only the spurious epistles of the first popes; and reckon the first rise of patriarchs to have been after the apostolical age, and some time before the council of Nice. This is the opinion of Spalatensis 2‘ and Mr. Brerewood. The third opinion is that of Balzamon,25 and other modern Greeks, that patriarchs were first instituted by the council of Nice: and this seems to be favoured by St. J erom : for in his epistle to Pammachius, writing against the errors of John of Jerusalem, he says, it was decreed in the council of Nice,26 that Casarea should be the metropolis of Palestine, and Antioch the metropolis of the whole East. Therefore the bishop of Jerusalem must either appeal to the bishop of Caesarea, as his immediate metropolitan, ' or to the bishop of Antioch, as metropolitan of the East. But if I rightly understand St. Jerom, he does not mean (as some mistake him) that patriarchs were first set up by the council of Nice: for then metropolitans must be so too; since he says the same of them, which yet every one knows were in the church long before the council of Nice. His meaning then must be, that both metropolitans of provinces and metropolitans of dioceses were in being before the council of Nice, and only received confirmation, or a canonical establishment, from it. And indeed it is evident, that the Nicene fathers made no alteration in these matters, but only con- firmed the ancient rights of the bishops of principal cities, as they found them authorized by custom be- fore. For the words 2’ they use are, Td tipxa'ia £91; Icpareirw, “ Let ancient customs still take place; so as in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, the bishop of Alexandria shall have power over all ; because such also is the custom of the bishop of Rome. And accordingly in Antioch, and in other provinces, let the piivileges be preserved to the churches.” Here it is plain, that no new power is given to any bishops, but only what ancient custom and practice had assigned them. So that either patri- archs were set up by custom before the council of Nice,28 and confirmed by the council, as St. J erom thinks; or else not introduced till afterwards. This last opinion (notwithstanding what St. J erom says) is embraced by the famous Mr. Launoy,29 Mr. Bas- nage,” Dr. BeVerege,81 and Dr. Cave,92 who think that patriarchal power was not confirmed by the Nicene canon, nor known in the church till about the time of the second general council of Constanti- nople, anno 381. In a matter so obscure, and so vaiiously controverted among learned men, it is not easy to determine where the right lies. Patriarchal power was not set up at one and the same time in all places. Alexandria and Antioch were as early as any, and the bishop of Alexandria before the council of Nice had all Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis under his jurisdiction, as appears from the Nicene canons. This was the diaecesis l/Egyptiaca, which consisted of six large provinces, four in Egypt, viz. Thebais, Arcadia, Augustanica, and XEgyptus properly so called, Li- bya Inferior, and Libya Superior, which is Penta- polis. As all these were subject to the prwfectus Augustalz's of Egypt, so they were likewise under the jurisdiction of the bishop of Alexandria. So that he was not only a metropolitan of a single province, but of six provinces joined in one diocese. But now the question is, whether at this time he had any metropolitans under him? For if he had, then he was properly a patriarch at the time of the Nicene council. As to this, I can only say, that Epiphanius and Synesius do expressly mention archbishops and metropolitans under the archbishop of Alexandria, in the time of Athanasius, and Alex- ander his predecessor, who were both present in the council of Nice. But whether they mean metro- politans in the proper sense, or only coadjutors to the archbishop of Alexandria, I cannot yet deter- mine. I will recite the passages, and leave the curious and the learned to make further inquiry. Synesius says, The great Athanasius seeing the church of Ptolemais had need of a bishop that was able to cherish and augment the small sparks of true religion, which was then in a dwindling con- dition there; and finding Siderius, bishop of Palae- bisca, a man fit for great business; he commanded him to remove thence to Ptolemais,33 to govern the metropolitical church there. And Epiphanius,34 speaking of Meletius,_the author of the Meletian schism before the council of Nice, says expressly, “He was an archbishop in Egypt, under Alexander, archbishop of Alexandria, to whom he gave the first information against Arius.” This agrees with Sect. 8. The opinion of Spalatensia and St. Jerom pr eferred. 2‘ Spalat. de Repub. par. 1. l. 3. c. 12. n. 21. Brere- wood of Patriar. Gov. q. l. 25 Balzam. in can. 6. Con. Nic. 2“ Hieron. Ep. 61. t. 2. p. 178. Ad Alexandrinum epis- copum Palaestina quid pertinet 2’ Ni fallor, hocibi decerni- tur, ut Palaestinae metropolis Caesarea sit, et totius Orientis Antiochia. Aut igitur ad Caesariensem episcopum referre debueras; Aut si procul expetendum judicium erat, Antiochiam potius literae dirigendae. 2’ Con. Nic. can. 6. 28 So Du Pin, Bibliothec. vol. 2. p. 252 It. de Antiq. Eccl. Disciplin. Dissert. l. sect. 11. p. 37. 29 Launoy, de Rect. Interpr. Can. 6. Con. Nic. 8° Basnag. Exercit. Histor. p. 307. 3‘ Bevereg. Not. in Can. 2. Con. Constant. 32 Cave, Anc. Ch. Gov. c. 2 et 4. as Synes. Ep. 67. ad Theoph. p. 231. Héyus'yau ’A6a- lléd'lOU,-—'TO‘U dudpa eroz'i'rov, tbs psizoo'l. 1rpc'z'yjuao'w é'rrc- rrridewu, ilca'i Stagiiucu KEAfl-iO'al, 'rfiu ,un'rpo'lroxi'rnu e’KKAn- o'iav s’vrt'rpo'rrsi'm-ov'ra. *4 Epiphan. Haer. 69. n. 3. '0 dpxwlrl'dwvros Melt- 1109 5 Ka'ro‘z 'rr‘lu Ai'yv'rr'rou, inn) 6% xs'ipa ’A>\sfdudpov. 7O ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Boox II. what he says of him in another place,”5 “ That he was chief of the Egyptian bishops, and next in order to Peter in the archbishopric, being his assistant, and administering ecclesiastical afl'airs under him. For there the custom is, for the arch- bishop of Alexandria to have the ordering of eccle- siastical matters throughout all Egypt, Thebais, Mareotes, Libya, Ammoniaca, Mareotis, and Penta- polis.” So that as the bishop of Alexandria had six provinces under him, he seems also to have had subordinate metropolitans or archbishops under him likewise, as the archbishop of Lycopolis in Thebais, the metropolitan of Ptolemais in Penta- polis. And if these were properly metropolitans, he must be a patriarch, under the name of metro- politan of the whole Egyptian diocese, as they were metropolitans of their respective provinces: which is the thing that St. J erom asserts in reference to Caesarea and Antioch, that the one was the metro- polis of Palestine, and the other the metropolis of the Oriental diocese; and this from ancient custom, ratified and confirmed by the council of Nice. But however this be, (for I deter- Sect. 9. . . . . . . esgfiimfi Emir mine nothing positively 1n this matter,) gggsfiygovflcgiiqc- the next age affords us very pregnant jfglgggvgfifgggm proofs of the establishment and growth of patriarchal power. The general council of Constantinople,86 anno 381, has a canon to fix the limits of the several dioceses: so that the bishop of Alexandria should only administer the affairs of the Egyptian diocese: the bishops of the East, the Eastern diocese, reserving the privileges granted by the council of Nice to the church of Antioch: the bishops of the Asiatic diocese, the Asiatic churches only: those of the Pontic diocese, the Pontic churches: and those of the Thracian diocese, the Thracian churches only. Theodoret,87 speaking of this council, says, they divided the dioceses, and assigned every diocese its proper limits and jurisdiction. And Socrates,88 more expressly, “that they constituted patriarchs, and distributed the provinces, so that no bishops should meddle with the affairs of another diocese, as was used to be done in times of persecution. Nec- tarius was allotted Constantinople and Thrace; Hel- ladius, St. Basil’s successor, the Pontic diocese,” &c. About fifty years after this, anno 431, the third general council was held at Ephesus, where we find the bishop of Antioch laying claim to the power of ordinations in the province of Cyprus: but this proving to be an unjust claim, the council made a decree in favour of the Cyprian bishops, exempting them from the jurisdiction of Antioch, because by ancient custom they always were exempt: and it is added,89 “that the same rule should be observed in all dioceses and provinces, that no bishop should seize upon any province, which did not anciently belong to his jurisdiction.” This plainly implies, that the bishop of Antioch had then several pro- vinces, or a whole diocese, under his power; which was confirmed to him by the council, and he was only denied jurisdiction over the province of Cyprus, because of ancient right it did not belong to him. About eighteen years after this, Theodosius, junior, and Valentinian, called the second council of Ephesus, anno 449. And in the letter of sum- mons to Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria, they give him orders to bring ten metropolitans“o of his diocese with him. This is noted by Liberatus in his Breviary, and the letter is still extant in the council of Chalcedon,‘l by which it appears, that at this time the archbishop of Alexandria had a great number of metropolitans within the Egyptian dio~ cese, under his jurisdiction. So that though there be some dispute concerning the first rise and original of patriarchal power, yet there remains no manner of doubt, but that it was come to its full height and establishment in the time of the general councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. Therefore the next inquiry is into the rights and privileges of these pa- triarchs. And here it is to be nicely observed, that the power of patriarchs Céglslfagatgggghhgfi was not one and the same precisely fgéggpmlmvrivi' in all churches, but differed according to the different customs of places and countries, or according as it was the pleasure of kings and councils to bestow greater privileges on them. The patri- arch of Constantinople, when he was first advanced by the second general council, had only the single diocese of Thrace assigned him42 for the exercise of his jurisdiction; but in the next age he was grown to be a sort of patriarch over the patriarchs of Ephesus and Caesarea in the Asiatic and Pontic dioceses, by the voluntary consent of those two ex- archs (no doubt) at first, paying a deference to the exarch of the royal city, which, advancing into a custom, was afterwards confirmed by canon in the council of Chalcedon. In the sixteenth. session of that council, there is along debate about this mat- ter, the pope’s legates warmly stickling against it; but all the metropolitans of the two dioceses of Asia Sect. 10. The power of pa- triarchs not exactly the same in churches. 35 Haer. 68. Meletian. n. 1. '0 Mslui'ros 'rdw Ka'ro‘z 'rfiu Al'yvvr'rou 7rporircuv, Kai. dsv'rspstiwv 'rq'i l'Ié'rpap, Ka'ro‘z *rr‘ju lipxts'lrw'lcovrfiv, obs 6!.’ du'nhridrsws ac’rroi'i Xépw, &c. 3“ Con. C. Pol. can. 2. 8’ Theod. Ep. 86. ad Flav. t. 3. p 963. *8 Socrat. H. E. lib. 5. c. 8. wa'rpuipxas Kafiéa'rn- o'av, &c. 89 Con. Ephes. 1. Act. 7. Decret. (le Episc. Cypr. 4° Liberat. Breviar. c. 12. Imperator dirigens sacram Dioscoro in Alexandriam, praecepit, ut cum decem metro- politanis episcopis, quos voluisset, ipse eligeret, et veniret Ephesum. 4‘ Con. Chalced. Act. 1. C. t. 4. p. 100. ‘2 Con. Const. 1. can. 2. CHAP. XVII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 71 and Pontus then in council, together with Thalas- sius, bishop of Caesarea, and exarch of the Pontic diocese, with one voice declaring, that the bishop of Constantinople had, by long custom and pre- scription, enjoyed the privilege of ordaining metro- politans in those two dioceses, as well as that of Thrace; it was decreed, that this privilege should be continued to him, notwithstanding the bishop of Rome’s intercession against it.“8 Also by two canons of that council he is allowed to receive appeals“ from the exarchs of those dioceses, because his throne was in the royal city. And in such parts of those dioceses, as were chiefly in the hands of bar- barians, he is authorized by another canon45 to or- dain all the bishops, which in other parts was the sole privilege of the metropolitans. Theodoret“6 observes even of Chrysostom himself, before the council of Chalcedon, that he exercised this power over all the three dioceses. For he says, “ His care extended not only over Constantinople and Thrace, which consisted of six provinces, but over Asia and Pontus, each of which had eleven civil przetors in them.” We are not therefore to take an estimate of patriarchal power from the growing greatness of Constantinople, but to distinguish the peculiar privileges of some patriarchs above others, which is the only way to understand the power of each. For the patriarch of Alexandria Thesgii'aiir'ch of had also some prerogatives, which Alexandria had also , gilvliilggsgifrewliar no other patriarch besldes himself en- joyed. Such was the right of conse- crating and approving every single bishop through- out all the provinces of his diocese. This privilege was not allowed even to the patriarch of Constan- tinople; for the council of Chalcedon, in the very same place where they give him power to conse- crate the metropolitans of three whole dioceses, deny him the privilege of consecrating the sufl'ragan bishops of those metropolitans; and reserve it as an ancient right of each metropolitan, with a synod of his provincial bishops, to consecrate all the bishops within his province, the archbishops of Constanti- nople neither being consulted, nor having" any hand in those ordinations. But it was otherwise at Alexandria. For the bishop of Alexandria, whilst he was only a metropolitan, had the ordina- tion of all the bishops of the six provinces of the Egyptian diocese, being the sole and only metropo- litan in all those provinces: and having but the same diocese when he came to be a patriarch, he continued his ancient custom of ordaining all the bishops throughout the six provinces, notwith- standing that new metropolitans were set up in them. And in this the patriarch of Alexandria differed from all others: for in all other dioceses the metropolitans had the right of ordaining their suf‘fi'agan bishops, which here the patriarch retain- ed to himself, as an ancient branch of his metropo- litical power. I know indeed a very learned ‘8 per- son is of a different opinion : he says, “ The bishop of Alexandria was rather a loser by being made a patriarch: for now, according to the constitution of church policy, the ordination of suffragan bishops, which before belonged entirely to him, was devolved upon the several metropolitans under him.” But this assertion proceeds upon a supposition, that patriarchal rights were exactly the same in all places; which, from the instance I have given of Constantinople, appears to be otherwise; for the patriarchs of Ephesus and Caesarea had not the ordination of their own metropolitans, but they were all subject to the bishop of Constantinople. And as to the case of Alexandria, it appears from Synesius, who was himself metropolitan of Ptole- mais, that the ordination not only of the metropoli- tans, but of all the suffragan bishops throughout the whole district of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, be- longed still to the patriarch of Alexandria. For in a letter to Theophilus, acquainting him how he and two other bishops had met at Olbiae to make choice of a bishop, and that one Antonius was unani- mously chosen by the people; he adds,49 that yet there was one thing wanting, which was more necessary than all, viz. his sacred hand to consecrate him. Which shows, that the bishop of Alexandria still retained his ancient right of consecrating all the bishops of the Egyptian diocese. In other dioceses, the patriarch’s power was chiefly seen in the ordina- tion or confirmation of all the metro- politans that were under him. This giigcceigi 3316329339 appears from the forecited canons50 of gag; diocesan the council of Chalcedon, and several of J ustinian’s Novels; one of which51 takes notice of the bishop of Constantinople’s ordaining all the metropolitans under him; and another gives the same power to the patriarch of J ustiniana Prima,52 then newly advanced to patriarchal dignity by J us- tinian, because it was the place of his nativity. Sect. 12. The 1st privilege of patriarc is was, to ordain all the me- tropolitans of the 43 Con. Chalced. can. 28. et Act. 16. per tot. ‘4 Ibid. can. 9 et 17. 45 Con. Chal, can, 28, ‘6 Theod. Hist. Eccl. lib. 5. c. 28. 47 Con. Chalced. Act. 16. in fin. Etiam nihil communi- cante in illorum ordinationibus archiepiscopo regiae Con- stantinopolis. ‘8 Dr. Cave, Anc. Ch. Gov. c. 4. p. 159. ‘9 Synes. Ep. 76. ad Theoph. évds Z'ri 6&1’, 'roi'i rcupzorci- 'mv ,uéu 'TOL, 'rfis iepd's o'ov Xerpés. 5° Con. Chalc. can. 28. et Act. 16. 5‘ Justin. Novel. 7. c. l. 52 Justin. Nov. 131. c. 3. Per tempus beatissimum Jus- tinianaa Primae patriae nostrae archiepiscopum habere sem- per sub sua jurisdictione episcopos provinciarum Dacia; Mediterraneae, et Dacia: Ripensis, et Privalis, (a1. Tribal- liae,) et Dardaniae, et Mysiae superioris, et Pannoniae: et ah eo hos ordinari, ipsum vero a proprio ordinari concilio. 72 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. B001: II. And that this was a peculiar privilege of patriarchs, appears further from one of the Arabic canons pub- lished by Turrian, under the name of the Nicene Canons, which were invented after the name of patriarchs was well known in the church. The 36th of these canons, speaking of the catholic of Ethiopia,58 who was no patriarch, but subject to the patriarch of Alexandria, says, He shall not have power to ordain archbishops, as patriarchs have; because he hath not the power or honour of a patriarch. It was therefore the prerogative of patriarchs (those of Ephesus and Caesarea only excepted) to ordain the metropolitans under them: but they themselves were to be ordained by a diocesan sy- nod, as J ustinian’s forecited Novel“ informs us. And this was called the canonical ordination of a patriarch. For so the council of Constantinople, in their synodical epistle to the western bishops, prove the ordination of Flavian, bishop of Antioch, (who presided over all the Eastern diocese,55 as The- odoret says,) to be canonical, because he was or- dained not only by the bishops of the province, but rfjg 'Avarohucfig duouca'gaewg, the bishops of the whole Eastern diocese 5“ synodically met together. 2. The next privilege of patriarchs A 2nd privilege was, the power of convening their was, to call diocesan . ' ' isgntfihaud preside metropohtans and all the provlncial bishops to a diocesan synod; which privilege was founded upon the same canons that granted metropolitans authority to summon provin- cial synods, and preside in them. For by just analogy, the patriarch was to have the same power over the metropolitans, that they had over their provincial bishops. And therefore Theodoret,57 speaking of his own attendance at the synods of his patriarch at Antioch, says, he did it in obedience to the ecclesiastical canons, which make him a cri- minal that is summoned to a synod, and refuses to pay his attendance at it. 3. Another privilege of patriarchs iafieiiivlii'egato was, the power of receiving appeals from metropolitans and provincial ' synods, and reversing their decrees, if they were found faulty. If any bishop or clergy- man have a controversy with the metropolitan of his province, let him have recourse to the exarch of the diocese, says the council of Chalcedon,“ in one canon: and in another,59 If any man is injured by his own bishop, or metropolitan, let him bring his cause before the exarch of the diocese, or the throne of Constantinople. These canons are adopted into the civil law, and confirmed by imperial edicts. For by one of J ustinian’s constitutions,60 the patriarch is to receive appeals fi‘om a provincial synod, and give a final determination to all causes that are re- gularly brought before him: and the regular way of proceeding is there specified, which is, that no man shall bring his cause first before the patriarch, but first before his own bishop, then before the me- " tropolitan, after that before a provincial synod, and last of all before the patriarch, from whose judg- ment there lay no appeal. ,The same is repeated and confirmed by other laws ‘I of that emperor, which need not here be recited. 4. As patriarchs might receive ap- peals from metropolitans, so they had mtjgufjgggi power to inquire into their administra- rgggag‘gkg‘gaggr tion, and correct and ‘censure them, 32;“33222‘2‘31‘2128. in case of heresy, or misdemeanor, or “mg them’ any mal-administration, which made them liable by the canons to ecclesiastical censure. Justinian made an express law to this purpose,82 That if any clergyman was accused in point of faith, or morals, or transgression of the sacred canons ; if he was a bishop, he should be examined before his metropo- litan; but if he was a metropolitan, then before the archbishop, that is, the patriarch to whom he was subject. By virtue of this power Chrysostom de- posed Gerontius,68 metropolitan of Nicomedia: and Atticus decided a controversy between Theodosius and Agapetus,“ who contended about the throne of Synada, the metropolis of Phrygia Pacatiana: and it were easy to add many other instances of the like nature out of the ancient councils, which concurred with the patriarchs in the exercise of this power. Nor did this power extend only over metropoli- tans, but over their suffragan bishops also. For though every provincial bishop was to be tried by his own metropolitan and a provincial synod, yet in case they were negligent and remiss in executing the canons against delinquents, the patriarch had power to take the matter into his own cognizance, and censure any bishop within the limits of his ju- risdiction. Thus Sozomen85 observes of Chrysos- tom, that at one visitation at Ephesus he deposed thirteen bishops of Asia, Lycia, and Phrygia, for simony, and such other corrupt practices. This Sect. 15. Sect. 18 53 Con. Nicen. Arab. (3. 36. Non tamen jus habeat con- stituendi archiepiscopos, ut habet patriarcha; siquidem non habet patriarchae honorem et potestatem. 5‘ Novel. I31. Ipsum vero (patriarcham) a proprio ordi- nari concilio. 55 Theod. H. E. lib. 5. c. 23. 56 Con. Constant. Ep. ad Occident. ap. Theod. H. E. lib, 5. c. 9. 57 'l‘heod. Ep. 81. 59 Ibid. can. 17. 58 Con. Chalced. can. 9. 6° Cod. Just. lib. l. tit. 4. c. 29. 6‘ Just. Novel. 123. c. 22. Phot. Nomocan. tit. 9. c. l. ‘2 Novel. 37. c. 5. Quoties quidam sacerdotum accusa- bnntur vel de fide, aut turpi vita, aut ob aliquid aliud con- tra sacros canones admissnm; si quidem episcopus est is qui accusatus est, ejus metropolitanus examinet ea quae dicta sunt: si vero metropolitanus sit, ejus beatissimus archiepis- copus sub quo degit. 6-3 Sozom. H. E. lib. 8. c. 6. 6‘ Socrat. H. E. lib. 7. c. 3. ‘5 Sozom. H. E. lib. 8. c. 6 CHAP. XVII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 73 was done in a synod of seventy bishops held at Ephesus, anno 401, as Valesius66 and Du Pin ob- serve out of Palladius, who mentions the same thing, though he speaks but of six bishops then deposed. 5. The patriarch had power to de- Patggggiglfg ,- legate or send a metropolitan into 32883513211231“ any part of his diocese, as his com- em’ missioner, to hear and determine ec- clesiastical causes in his name. At least it was so in the diocese of Egypt, where Synesius was bi- shop. For in one of his epistles,67 writing to Theo- philus, patriarch of Alexandria, he tells him what a diflicult task he had put upon him, when he sent him through an enemy’s country, to Hydrax and Palaebisca, two villages in the confines of Libya, to determine a dispute that was risen there about erect- ing those places into bishops’ sees: But, says he, there lies a necessity upon me, vdpov rj'yel'o'a'at, to take every thing for a law that is enjoined me by the throne of Alexandria. 6. And as the metropolitans did every thing that was canonically en- joined them by the patriarch, so they did nothing of any great moment without him; paying the same de- ference to him, that the canons obliged their suf- fragans to pay to them. This at least was the cus- tom of Egypt, as appears from a noted passage related in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon,68 where we find, that when Pope Leo’s epistle against Eutyches was subscribed by all the bishops in council, the Egyptian bishops then present refused to do it, because they had then no patriarch, and it was not lawful for them to do it without the con- sent of a patriarch, by the rule of the council of Nice, which orders all the bishops of the Egyptian diocese to follow the archbishop of Alexandria, and do nothing without him. This they pleaded in council, and their plea was accepted, and a decree69 passed in their favour upon it, That since this was Sect 16. Sect. 17. A 6th privilege. The patriarch to be consulted by his metropolitans in matters of any great moment. ' the custom of the Egyptian diocese, to do nothing of this nature without the consent and authority of their archbishop, they should not be compelled to subscribe till a new archbishop was chosen. 7. It was the patriarch’s oflice to 1. Slfailiihigchstql publish both ecclesiastical and civil giiiiigiliggtiidi laws, which concerned the church, and ggrlil'iggzegctfw to take care for the dispersion and publication of them in all churches of their diocese. The method is prescribed by J usti- nian in the Epilogue to the sixth Novel: “The patriarchs of every diocese shall publish these our laws in their respective churches, and notify them to the metropolitans under them. The metropoli- ‘56 Vales. Not. in 100. Du Pin, Biblioth. vol. 3. Vit. Chrys. 5’ Synes. Ep. 67. p. 208. 68 Cone. Chalced. Act. 4. p. 512, 513. tans likewise shall publish them in their metropo- litical churches, and make them known to the bi- shops under them; that so they may publish them in their respective churches, and no one be left ignorant in our whole empire of what we have enacted for the glory of the great God and our Sa~ viour Jesus Christ.” See also Novel 42, directed to Menas, patriarch of Constantinople, concluding in the same tenor. 8. Synesius observes another privi- lege in the diocese of Alexandria, The ssh privilege. which was, that in the exercise of dis- Sei-iglciiliiijgaiii- cipline upon great criminals and scan- m m s on‘ dalous offenders, a peculiar deference was paid to the patriarch, by reserving their absolution to his wisdom and discretion. As he gives an instance in one Lamponianus a presbyter, whom he had ex- communicated for abusing Jason his fellow pres- byter. “ Though,” says he,70 “ he expressed his re- pentance with tears, and the people interceded for him, yet I refused to absolve him, but remitted him over for that to the sacred see : only assuming this to myself, that if the man should happen to be in manifest danger of death, any presbyter that was present should receive him into communion by my order. For no man shall go excommunicate out of the world by me. But in case he recovered, he should still be liable to the former penalty, and ex- pect the ratification of his pardon from your divine and courteous soul.” But whether this respect was paid by all metropolitans to their patriarch in every diocese, I have not yet observed. 9. The last privilege of patriarchs was, that they were originally all 00- argglseaggsegtsg'egatai— ordinate and independent of one an- Lug-giggles“ one other. I speak now of them as they were at their first institution: for after ages, and councils, and emperors, made great alteration in this matter. At first learned men" reckon there were about thirteen or fourteen patriarchs in the church, that is, one in every capital city of each dio- cese of the Roman empire; the patriarch of Alex- andria over the Egyptian diocese, the patriarch of Antioch over the Eastern diocese, the patriarch of Ephesus over the Asiatic diocese, the patriarch of Czesarea in Cappadocia over the Pontic diocese; Thessalonica in Macedon or Illyricum Orientale, Sirmium in Illyiicum Occidentale, Rome in the Roman preefecture, Milan in the Italian diocese, Carthage in Africa, Lyons in France, Toledo in Spain, and York in the diocese of Britain. The greatest part of these, if not all, were real patriarchs, and independent of one another, till Rome by en- croachment, and Constantinople by law, got them- Sect. 19. Sect. 20. 69 Cone. Chalced. can. 30. ex Act. 4. 7° Synes. Ep. 67. p. 215. "1 Brerewood, Patriarch. Gov. qu. 1. 74 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Boox II. selves made superior to some of their neighbours, who became subordinate and subject unto them. The ancient liberties of the Britannia churches, as also the African and Italian diocese, and their long contests with Rome, before they could be brought to yield obedience to her, are largely set forth by several of our learned writers"2 in particular dis- courses on this subject. I only here note, that the Eastern patriarchs, Alexandria, Antioch, Ephesus, Caesarea, and Constantinople, were never subject to Rome, but maintained the ancient liberty which the canons gave them. For though Caasarea and Ephe- sus were made subordinate to the patriarch of Con- stantinople, and any one might appeal from them to him; yet the appeal was to be carried no further,73 unless it were to a general council. Which shows the independency of the greater patriarchs one of another. The patriarch of Constantinople Corl§:§%§§'rf:dr_ had also the honourable title of oecu- $113333" {685 gig? menical, or universal patriarch, given Eff $321; 28113 of him; probably in regard of the great extent of his jurisdiction. Thus J us- tinian styles Menas, Epiphanius, and Anthemius, archbishops and oecumenical patriarchs, in several of his rescripts ;74 and Leo gives the same title to Stephen, archbishop and universal patriarch, in ‘ten laws 75 one after another. So that it was no such new thing as Pope Gregory made it, for the "patriarch of Constantinople to be styled oecumenical bishop: for that title was given him by law many years before, even from the time of Justinian; and it ‘is a vulgar error in history to date the original of that title from the time of Gregory I. which was in use at least a whole century before. But Justinian in another rescript goes a little‘ further, and76 says expressly, that Constantinople was the head of all churches. Which is as much as ever any council allowed ‘to Rome, that is, a supremacy in its own ‘diocese, and a precedency of honour in regard that it was the capital city of the empire. Equal privi- leges are granted to Constantinople upon the same ground, because it was New Rome, and the royal seat, as the councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon,77 with some others, word it. So that they had privi- leges of honour, and privileges of power; the first of which were peculiar to those two sees; the other, in a great measure common to them and all other patriarchal churches, except those of Ephesus and Caesarea, which, as I have often observed, were le- gally made subordinate to that of Constantinople. Some here may be desirous to know, what authority those patriarchs had CfsfilFiidiiiite in the church after their subordination to the other. There are who tell us ggm'ggggggfe that they were sunk down to the con- dition of metropolitans again by the council of Chal- cedon: but that is a mistake: for, first, They retained the name of exarchs of the diocese still, and so sub- scribed themselves in all councils. As in the sixth general council, Theodoret subscribes himself metro- politan of Ephesus and exarch of the Asiatic dio- cese;78 and Philalethes, metropolitan of Caasarea and exarch of the Pontic diocese. Secondly, They al- ways sat and voted in general councils next imme- diately after the five great patriarchs, Rome, Con- stantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, who by the canons79 had precedence of all the rest. Next to these, before all the metropolitans, the bi- shops of Ephesus and Ceesarea took place, as may be seen in the subscriptions of the fourth and sixth general counci .8° Thirdly, They had power to receive appeals from metropolitans, which is evident from the same canons of Chalcedon, which give‘n the patriarch of Constantinople power to take ap- peals from them. So that they were not mere titu- lar patriarchs, as some in after ages, but had the power as well as the name ; the right of ordaining metropolitans and receiving ultimate appeals only excepted. But how long they or any others retained their power, is not my business here any further to inquire. CHAPTER XVIII. OF THE ’AYTOKE-AAOI. AMONG other titles which were an- Sect 1. ciently given to some certain bishops, “$155,133,513?” we frequently meet with the name “6T°"颓"°" acroxégbakot, absolute and independent bishops; which was not the name of any one sort of bishops, but given to several upon different reasons. For first, before the setting up of patriarchs, all metro- politans were atroxégbakor, ordering the affairs of their own province with their provincial bishops, and being accountable to no superior but a synod, and that in case of heresy, or some great crime committed against religion and the rules of the church. ’2 Brerewood, Patr. Gov. qu. 2 et 3. Gave, Anc, Ch, Gov. c. 5. 73 See the authorities cited before, sect. l4. "4 See Justin. Novel. 7. 16.42. 75 Leo, Imp. Constit. Novel. 2, 3, &c. "8 Just. Cod. lib. 1. tit. 2. c. 24. Constantinopolitana ec- clesia omnium aliarum est caput. 7’ Con. Const. can. 3. Con. Chalced. can. 28. Con. Trull. can. 36. Justin. Novel. 131. c. 2. '8 Con. 6. Gen. Act. 18. "9 See Cone. Trull. can. 36. et Justin. Novel. 131. c. 2. 8° Con. Chalced. Act. 1 et 3. Con. 6. Gen. Act. 18. 81 Con. Chalc. can. 9 et 17. CHAP. XVIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 75 And even after the advancement of Sect. 2. Some metropoli- patriarchs, several metropolitans con- griigdiieggiltiifigtup tinned thus independent; receiving ggigfgziggifiegrf their ordination from their own pro- gpgritggm vincial synod, and not from any pa- triarch; terminating all controversies in their own synods, from which there was no ap- peal to any superior, except a general council. Bal- samon reckons among this sort of abroxégbakor the metropolitans of Bulgaria,1 Cyprus, and Iberia. And his observation is certainly true of the two last, who were only metropolitans, yet independent of any pa- triarchal or superior power. For though the bishop of Antioch laid claim to the ordination of the Cy- prian bishops in the council of Ephesus, yet the council, upon hearing the case, determined against him, making a decree,2 That whereas it never had been the custom for the bishop of Antioch to ordain bishops in Cyprus, the Cyprian bishops should retain their rights inviolable, and according to canon and ancient custom ordain bishops among themselves. And this was again repeated and confirmed by the council of Trullo,“ even after the Cypriots were driven into another country by the incursions of the barbarians. Others ‘L observe the same privilege in the Iberian churches, now commonly called Georgians; that they never were subject either to the patriarch of Constantinople, or any other; but all their bishops, being eighteen in number, profess absolute obe- dience to their own metropolitan, without any other higher dependence or relation. And this was the case of the Armenian churches in the time of Photius, as appears from an ancient Greek notz'tz'a episcopatuum, cited by Peter de Marca,5 which says it was an al'Jrolcétpahog, and not subject to the throne of Constantinople, but honoured with independence in respect to St. Gregory of Armenia, their first apostle. And this was also the ancient liberty of the Bri- tannic church, before the coming of Austin the monk, when the seven British bishops, which were all that were then remaining, paid obedience to the archbishop of Caer-Leon, and acknowledged no superior in spirituals above him. As Dinothus, the learned abbot of Bangor, told Austin“ in the name of all the Britannic churches, that they owed no other obedience to the pope of Rome, than they did to every godly Christian, to love every one in his degree in perfect charity: other obedience than this they knew none due to him whom he named pope, &c. But they were under the government of the bishop of Caer-Leon upon Uske, who was their overseer under God. Besides all these, there was yet a third sort of aurolcérpahot, which were such bishops as were subject to no were subject to no metropolitan, but immediately under L‘I,‘I“°p°““‘“’ but Sect. 3. A third sort of af/roxe'cpahou such bishops as to the patri- the patriarch of the diocese, who was m “the ‘mm- to them instead of a metropolitan. Thus for instance, in the patriarchate or large diocese of Constantinople, the ancient Notz'tia, published by Leunclavius,7 reckons thirty-nine such bishops throughout the several provinces: that published by Dr. Beverege8 counts them forty-one, and the Notz'tz'a in Carolus a Sancto Paulo9 augments the number to forty-six. The bishop of Jerusalem is said‘0 to have had twenty-five such bishoprics in his Patriarchate, and the bishop of Antioch sixteen, as Nilus Doxopatrius, a writer of the eleventh cen- tury, in his book of the patriarchal sees, informs us. But what time this sort of independent bishoprics were first set up in the church, is not certain : for the earliest account we have of them is in the No- tz'tz'a of the emperor Leo Sapiens, written in the ninth century, where they are called archbishoprics, as in some other Notz'tz'a’s they are called metropo- litical sees; though both these names were but titular, for they had no suffragan bishops under them. Valesius mentions another sort of az'lrolcégbahoz, which were such bishops as were wholly independent of all others: as they had no sufi‘ragans under them, so neither did they acknowledge any superior above them, whether metropolitan, or patriarch, or any other whatsoever. Of this sort he reckons the bi- shops of Jerusalem“ before they were advanced to patriarchal dignity: but in this instance he plainly mistakes, and contradicts St. J erom, who says ex- pressly, that the bishop of Jerusalem was subject to the bishop of C aasarea, as the metropolitan of all Palestine, and to the bishop of Antioch, as metro- politan of the whole East, as has been noted in the last chapter. If there were any such bishops as he speaks of, they must be such as the bishop of Tomis in Scythia, who, as Sozomen‘2 notes, was the only bishop of all the cities of that province: so that he could neither have any suffragans under him, nor metropolitan above him. But such instances are very rare, and we scarce meet with such an- other example in all the history of the church. I have now completed the account of primitive bi- shops, and showed the distinctions which were Sect. 4. A fourth sort of adroKé¢aAon W 1 Balsam. in Con. Constan. 1. can. 2. 2 Con. Ephes. Act. 7. Decret. de Cypr. Epis. 8 Con. Trull. can. 39. 4 Brerewood, Enquir. c. 18. Chytraeus de Statu Eccles. &c. 5 Mai-ca, de Primat. n. 27. p. 122. 8 Spelman. Con. Brit. an. 601. t. 1. p. 108. " Leunclav. Jus. Gr. Rom. t. l. lib. 2. p. 88. *3 Bevereg. Pandect. t. 2. Not. in can. 36. Concil. Trull. 9 Car. a S. Paulo, Append. ad Geogr. Sacr. p. 10. 1° Nilus Doxopatr. ap. 1e Moyne Varia Sacra, t. l. ‘1 Vales. Not. in Euseb. lib. 5. c. 23. See chap. l7.sect.7 ‘2 Sozom. lib. 6. c. 21. lib. 7. c. 19. 76 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. BooK II. among them in the external polity of the church: I proceed in the next place therefore to consider the second order of the clergy, which is that of presbyters. CHAPTER XIX. 0F PRESBYTERS. THE name, wpwflz'irepoi, presbyters or elders, is a word borrowed from the Greek translation of the Old Testa- ment, where it commonly signifies rulers and go- vernors, being (as St. Jeroml notes) a name of ofiice and dignity, and not a mere indication of men’s age : for elders were chosen, not by their age, but by their merits and wisdom. So that, as a senator among the Romans, and an alderman in our own language, signifies a person of such an order and station, without any regard to his age; in like manner, a presbyter or elder in the Christian church, is one who is ordained to a certain ofiice, and authorized by his quality, not by his age, to discharge the several duties of that oflice and sta- tion wherein he is placed. And in this large, extensive sense, it is readily granted by all, that bi- shops are sometimes called presbyters in the New Testament; for the apostles themselves do not refuse the title. On the other hand, it is the opinion of many learned men, both ancient2 and modern,3 that presbyters were sometimes called bishops, whilst the bishops that were properly such were distinguished by other titles, as that of chief priests and apostles, &c., of which I have given a particular account in one of the preceding chapters, and there evinced that they who maintained this identity of names, did not thence infer an identity of ofiices, but always esteemed bishops and pres- byters to be distinct orders. ~ Thesegggsihal of Here then, taking presbyters in the Presbytm properly strictest sense, for those only of the 8° called‘ second order, we must first inquire into their original. The learned Dr. Hammond4 ad- vances an opinion about this matter, which is some- thing singular: he asserts, that in Scripture times the name of presbyters belonged principally, if not ect. . The meaning of the name presbyter. Sect. 2. Apostles and bi- shops sometimes called presbyters. alone, to bishops; and that there is no evidence, that any of this second order were then instituted, though soon after, he thinks, before the writing of Ignatius’s Epistles, there were such instituted in all churches. The authorities he builds upon are Clemens Romanus and Epiphanius, who say, that in some churches at first there were bishops and deacons, without any presbyters. But I conceive it will not hence follow, that it was so in all churches: nor does Epiphanius maintain that, but the contrary, that as in some churches 5 there were only bishops and deacons, so in others there were only presbyters and deacons; and that in large and populous churches the apostles settled both bishops, presbyters, and deacons ; as at Ephesus, where Timothy was bishop, and had presbyters subject to him; which Epiphanius proves from Scripture: That a bishop and presbyter, says be, are not the same, the apostle informs us, when writing to Timo- thy, who was a bishop, he bids him not rebuke an elder, but entreat him as a father. How comes the bishop to be concerned not to rebuke an elder, if he had no power over an elder? In like manner the apostle says, Against an elder receive not an ac- cusation, but before two or three witnesses : but he never said to any presbyter, Receive not an accus- ation against a bishop; nor did he ever write to any presbyter, not to rebuke a bishop. This plainly implies, that in all such large and populous churches as that of Ephesus, according to Epiphanius, all the three orders of bishops, presbyters, and deacons were settled by the apostles; though the smaller churches were differently supplied at first, some only with presbyters and deacons, before bishops were constituted in them, and others only with bishops and deacons without any presbyters. For all churches had not immediately all the same church officers upon their first foundation, but time was required to complete their constitution, as Bishop Pearson6 has observed on this very passage of Epiphanius. Admitting then that presbyters, as well as bishops, were originally set- P33585333; 33gb, tled in the church by the apostles, “'8' we are next to inquire into the power and privileges that were proper to their order. And here I shall have occasion to say the less, having already showed7 what offices they might perform by virtue of their ordinary power, only acting in dependence on and subordination to their bishop, as the supreme minis- ter of the church : they might baptize, preach, con- Sect. 4. ‘ Hieron. in Esai. iii. t. 5. p. 16. in Scripturis Sanctis presbyteros merito et sapientia eligi, non aetate. 2 Chrysost. Hom. l. in Phil. i. It. Hom. ll. in lTim. iii. Theodoret, Com. in Phil. i. 1. It. in Phil. ii. 25. et in I Tim. iii. 1. Ambrosiaster, in Eph. iv. 11. Hieron. Com. in Tit. i. Ep. 83. ad Ocean. et 85. ad Evagr. 3 Usser. Dissert. in Ignat. c. 18. p. 232. It. Orig. of Bish. et Metrop. p. 55. Coteler. Not. in Ignat. Ep. ad Magnes. n. I. 4 Ham. Annot. on Acts xi. 30. 5 Epiph. Haer. 75. Aerian. n. 5. 6 Pearson, Vind. Ignat. par. 2. c. 13. p. 412. In aliquibus ecelesiis ab origine fuisse presbyteros, nondurn constitutis episcopis; in aliquibus episcopos, nondum constitutis pres- byteris. ’ See before, chap. 3. CHAP. XIX. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 77 secrate and administer the eucharist, &c. in the bishop’s absence, or in his presence, if he authorized and deputed them, as has been noted before : they might also reconcile penitents, and grant them ab- solution in the bishop’s absence: and some think they had power likewise to confirm in cases of ne- cessity by special licence and delegation. But these two things will be considered and discussed more particularly hereafter, when we come to treat of discipline and confirmation. \Vhat is further to be noted in this place, is the honour and respect that was paid to them, acting in conjunction with their bishop, who scarce did any thing in the adminis- tration and government of the church, without the advice, consent, and amicable concurrence of his presbyters. Hence it was that presbyters were milzgs‘iéjigrgiugted allowed to sit together with the bi- Zggllggrtcliioflesin shop in the church (which privilege was never allowed to deacons) : and their seats were dignified with the name of thrones, as the bishop’s was, only with this difference, that his was the high throne, and theirs the second thrones. In allusion to this, Gregory Nazianzen,8 speaking of his own ordination to the degree of presbyter, says, his father who ordained him, brought him by violence to the second thrones. And in his ' vision concerning the church of Anastasia,9 he thus represents the several orders of the church: Me- thought I saw myself (the bishop) sitting on the high throne, and the presbyters, that is, the guides of the Christian flock, sitting on both sides by me on lower thrones, and the deacons standing by them. By this we may understand what Constan- tine meant in his letter to Chrestus bishop of Syra- cuse,10 when giving him a summons to the council of Arles, he bids him also bring with him two of the second throne, that is, two presbyters. And what Eusebius means by those words in his pane- gyric 1‘ upon the temple of Paulinus, where he says, he beautified and adorned the structure with thrones set up on high for the honour of the presidents or rulers. By which it is plain he means the thrones of the presbyters, as well as the bishop: for they were both exalted above the seats of the common people. Nay, both the name and thing was then so usual, that Aerius drew it into an argument,12 to prove the identity and parity of bishops and presby- ters: a bishop sits upon a throne, and so does a presbyter likewise. Which though it be but a very lame and foolish argument to prove what he intend- ed, yet it is a plain intimation of what has here been noted to have been the then known custom and practice of the church. And little regard is to be had to those modern authors, who pretend to say, that presbyters had not power to sit in the presence of their bishops; which is confuted by the acts and canons ‘3 almost of every council, and the writ- ings of every ancient author, in which nothing more commonly occurs than the phrases, consessus presbyterorum, and sedere in presbyterz'o, importing the custom and privilege whereof we are now speaking. Sect. 6. There is one thing further to be The form of their sitting in a semicir- noted concerning the manner of their sitting, which was on each hand of 32.2 ‘iiiigi 86021;?!‘ the bishop, in the form or figure of a presbyter" semicircle; which is described by the author ‘4 of the Constitutions under the name of Clemens Romanus, and Gregory Nazianzen, and others. Whence, as the bishop’s throne is called the middle throne, or the middle seat, by Theodoretl5 and the Constitu- tions; so for the same reason Ignatiusl6 and the Constitutions ‘7 term the presbyters the spiritual crown or circle of the presbytery, and the crown of the church: unless we will take this for a meta- phorical expression, to denote only that presby- ters, united with their bishop, were the glory of the church. This honour was done them in re-. gard to their authority in the church, wherein they were considered as a sort of ecclesiastical senate, or council to the bishop, who scarce did any thing of great weight and moment without asking their advice, and taking their consent, to give the greater force and authority to all public acts done in the name of the church. Upon which account, St. Chrysostoml8 and Synesius19 style them the court or sanhedrim of the presbyters; and Cyprian,” the sacred and venerable bench of the clergy; St. J eromz‘ and others,22 the church’s senate, and the Sect. 7. Presbyters the ec- clesiastical senate, or council of the church, whom the bishop consulted and advised ‘with upon all occasions. 8 Naz. Garm. de Vita, Kc'zwlr'ru Btaiwc eis dsu'répous 5100'- wave. 9 Id. Somn. de Ecclesia Anastasiae. Basil. p. 4. dsfi'repa 'rfis Icase'dpas. 1° Ap. Euseb. lib. 10. C. 5. 660 ‘yr: 'TLl/(IS‘ 'rwu 5K ‘1'05 dev- Tépov S'pévov. 1‘ Euseb. lib. 10. c. 4. ‘2 Epiphan. Heat. 75. Aerian. ‘3 Con. Garthag. 4. c. 35, 36. Euseb. lib. 5. c. 20. Origen. Horn. 2. in 'Gantic. Gou. Laodic. c. 56. Gonstit. Apost. lib. 2. c. 57. Con. Ancyr. c. 18. 1* Constit. Apost. lib. 2. C. 57 Kst'o's'w 8% peace 6 1'05 é'rrwlcd'lrov S'po’uos, &c. '5 Theod. Hist. lib. 5. C. 3- Orat. 20. de Laud. ‘O ne'o'os 663x09. 1“ Ignat. Ep. ad Magnes. n. 13. wuevjua'rucdu qz'rpavov "r5 7rpeo'fiv'rspiov. '7 Gonstitut. lib. 2. C. 28. =re¢audu émcltno'ias. ‘8 Ghrys. de Sacerdot. lib. 3. c. 15. 'rd "rim 1rpw€v¢£pwu o'vvédptov. '9 Synes. Ep. 67. ad Theoph. 2° Gypr. Ep. 55. al. 59. ad Cornel. Gleri sacrum veneran- dumque consessum. Goncil. Garth. 4. c. 35. - Episcopus in consessu presbyterorum sublimior sedeat, &c. 2' Hieron. in Esai. iii. tom. 5. p. 17. Et nos habemus in ecclesia senatum nostrum, coetum presbyterorum. 22 Pius, Ep. 2. ad Just. Vien. Salutat te senatus pauper Christi apud Romam constitutus. 78 CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Boox II. ANTIQUITIES OF THE senate of Christ; Origen23 and the author of the Constitutions,“ the bishop’s counsellors, and the council of the church : because though the bishop was prince and head of this ecclesiastical senate, and nothing could regularly be done without him; yet neither did he ordinarily do any public act, re- lating to the government or discipline of the church, without their advice and assistance. The first ages afford the most preg- nant proofs of this Divine harmony between the bishop and his presby- ters. For any one that ever looked into the writings of Cyprian, must ac- knowledge, that at Rome and Carthage, the two great churches of the West, all things were thus transacted by joint consent: the bishop with his clergy did commum' consilio pandemic,” weigh things by common advice and deliberation; whether it was in the ordinations of the clergy, (for Cyprian would not so much as ordain a subdeacon or a reader without their consent,) or whether it was in the exercise of discipline and reconciliation of penitents, Cyprian declares” his resolution to do all by com- mon consent. And so Cornelius at the same time acted at Rome: for when Maximus and the rest of the confessors, who had sided with Novatian, came afterward and made confession of their error, and desired to be admitted again into the communion of the church, Cornelius would do nothing in it, till he had first called a presbytery, and taken both their advice and consent27 in the affair, that he might proceed according to their unanimous resolution. Cyprian, in several other of his epistles,”8 speaks of the same deference paid to his presbytery, and in one place he more particularly tells them, that it was a law and a rule29 that he had laid down to him- :self, from the first entrance on his bishopric, that he "would do nothing without their advice, and the ‘consent of the people. Epiphanius observes the same practice at Ephesus in the condemnation of Noétus : for first, he says, he was convened before the presbytery,80 and then again upon a relapse by them expelled the church. Which at least must Sect. 8. Some evidences out of Ignatius and Cyprian, of the power and preroga- tives of presbyters in conjunction with the bishop. mean, that the bishop and his presbyters joined to- gether in this ecclesiastical censure. In like man- ner, speaking of the first condemnation of Arius, he says, Alexander, bishop of Alexandria,81 called a presbytery against him, before whom, and some bi- shops then present, he examined him, and expelled him. Cotelerius, in his Notes upon the Constitutions, has published, from an ancient manuscript, one of the forms of Arius’s deposition,82 which may give some light to this matter. For thereby it appears, that when Alexander sent forth his circular letters to all other bishops against Arius, he first summoned all the presbyters and deacons of Alexandria, and region of Mareotes, not only to hear what he had written, but also to testify their consent to it, and declare that they agreed with him in the condemna- tion of Arius. From whence we learn, that though the deposition was properly the bishop’s act, yet, to have it done with the greater solemnity, the consent both of the presbyters and deacons was required to it. And thus it was also in the condemnation of Origen: the council of Alexandria, which expelled him the city, was composed both of bishops and presbyters, who decreed that he should remove from Alexandria, and neither teach nor inhabit there, as Pamphilus$3 relates in the second book of his Apo- logy for Origen, some fragments of which are pre- served in Photius. The council of Rome, that was gathered against Novatian, consisted of sixty bi- shops, and many more 8‘ presbyters and deacons. The first council of Antioch, that was held against Paulus Samosatensis, had also” presbyters and dea- cons in it; the name of one of them, Malchion, a presbyter of Antioch, is still remaining in the syno- dical epistle among the bishops in the inscription. From all which it appears, that this was an an- cient privilege of presbyters, to sit and deliberate with bishops both in their consistorial and provincial councils. And if we ascend yet higher, we shall find matters always thus transacted in the church ab omit/inc ; as appears from Ignatius, whose Writings (as a learned man observesf“) speak as much for the honour of the presbytery, as they do for the superi- 23 Orig. Com. in Mat. 6011M; élclchno'ias. Pearson, Vind. ignat. par. 1. c. 1]. p. 321. Hi autem ‘gouhav'rai. Chris- itiani sane fuerunt presbyteri. 2* Const. Apost. lib. 2. c. 28. o'iilugovhot *roi'i Evrw'rccivrov, o'vvédpwv Kai €ovM7 'rijs Emchno'ias. 25 Cypr. Ep. 33. al 38. ad Cler. In ordinationibus cleri- cis solemus vos ante consulere, et mores ac merita singulo- rum communi consilio ponderare. 2“ Id. Ep. 6. al. 14. ad Cler. Ut ea quae circa ecclesiae gubernaculum utilitas communis exposcit, tractare simul, et plurimorum consilio examinata limare possemus. 2’ Cornel. Ep. 46. al. 49. ad Cypr. p. 92. Oxnni actu ad me perlato, placuit contrahi presbyterium—ut firmato con~ silio, quid circa personam eorum observari deberet, con- sensu omnium statueretur. 2‘ Cypr. Ep. 24. al. 29. ad Cler. Ep. 32. ad Cler. 29 Cypr. Ep. 6. al. 14. Quando a primordio episcopatus i l mei statuerim, nihil sine consilio vestro, et sine consensu plebis, mea privata sententia gerere: sed cum ad vos per Dei gratiam venero—in commune tractabimus. 3° Epiph. Haer. 57. n. l. s’vri. 1rpso-‘8u1-spiou ci'yri/Lsvos. Ibid. oi aim-oi. 'n'pso'fiz'n-spot zizéwo'av air-rd); 'r'fis émchno'ias. 3‘ Epiph. H631‘. 69. Arian. n. 3. crv'yKaAs'Z'raL 'rd 7rpeo'6u- 'rs'prov, Kai. dAAovs 'rwds é'lrw'lcé'rrovs 'n'apdv'ras, &c. 3’ Depositio Arii ap. Coteler. Not. in Constit. Apost. lib. 8. c. 28. "Iva Kai "rc‘z v5!) 'ypaqréprsva 'ym'b'rs, 'rhv “rs iv TOI'I'TOIQ avy¢wviav éav'rd'w é'vrtdsigno'es, Kai. "rfi Kaflatps'o'su 'rdw 'n'epi 'Apstou mind/"(pot 'ys'uno'es. ' 33 Pampbil. Apol. ap. Phot. Cod. 118, p. 298. 2611060: o’zfipoigsq-a: E'rrwxdvrwu Kai ‘TU/(7)11 7rpeo'flm's'pwv Ka'r’ ’Qp&- 'ye'uovs. 3‘ Euseb. lib. 6. c. 43. 35 Euseb. lib. 7. c. 28. 3“ Pearson, Vind. Ignat. par. 2. c. 16. p. 428. Si quid ego in has re intelligo, quicunque presbyterali dignitati CHAP. XIX. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 79 ority of episcopacy; no ancient author having given so many great and noble characters of the presby- tery, as he does. For which reason it concerns those, who are most zealous for the honour and au- thority of presbyters, to look upon Ignatius as one of the best asserters and defenders of their power and reputation. For he always joins the bishops and presbyters together, as presiding over the church, the one in the place of God and Jesus Christ, and the other as the great council of God in the room of the apostles. Thus in his epistle37 to the Ephesians, he bids them be subject to the bishop and the pres- bytery: and in his epistle to the Magnesians,38 he commends Sotion the deacon, because he was sub- ject to the bishop, as the gift of God, and to the presbytery, as the law of Christ. And a little after in the same epistle, he speaks of the bishop as pre- siding$9 in the place of God, and the presbyters in the place of the council of apostles. So in his epistle to the Trallians,4o he bids them be subject to the presbytery, as to the apostles of Jesus Christ. And again, Reverence the presbyters,41 as the council of God, and the united company of apostles. Without which no church is called a church. Several other passages of the same importance may be seen in his epistles to Polycarp and the church of Smyrna.“2 Sect. 9_ _ And indeed all his epistles are so grgggggiwgggghgt full of great eulogiums of the presby- uf. f1‘§§,’,'§,i;},.dei§th; tery, as acting in the nature of an ec- fmmh century‘ clesiastical senate together with the bi- shop, that our late learned defender of those epistles thence concludes, that the power and privileges of presbyteries was greater in the second century, when Ignatius lived, than in the fourth age of the church, when he thinks the power and authority of presby- teries was a little sunk and diminished over all the world, and even at Alexandria itself, where it had most of all flourished. And this he makes an argu- ment of the antiquity of those epistles, that they were the genuine product of Ignatius, because no one of the fourth age would have given such enco— miurns of the presbytery, or armed“ them with so great authority and power. I shall not dispute this matter, nor enter upon any nice comparison of the different powers of presbyters in these two ages, but only represent to the reader what privileges still re- mained to them in the fourth century. And here it cannot be denied, but that in this age, in the ordination of ad‘gfitjseiilcll: :vere a presbyter, all the presbyters that Ighlfogitsilggrioifn were present were allowed, nay, even ggggsoitz‘lfggbojfggj required, to join with the bishop in imposition of hands upon the party to be ordained. That it was so in the African churches is beyond all dispute; for in the fourth council of Carthage,“ there is a canon expressly enjoining it: When a presbyter is ordained, while the bishop pronounces the benediction, and lays his hand upon his head, all the presbyters that are present shall lay their hands by the bishop’s hand upon his head also. And this in all likelihood was the universal practice of the church. For in the Constitutions of the Church of Alexandria,45 there is a rule to the same purpose. In the Latin church the decree of the council of Carthage seems also to have prevailed, because it is inserted into their canon law by Gra- tian'16 and other collectors, from whence it became the common practice of our own church, which is continued to this day. Some ancient canons "7 in- deed say, that one bishop alone shall ordain a pres- byter; but that is not said to exclude presbyters from assisting, but only to put a difference between the ordination of a bishop and a presbyter; for the ordination of a bishop could not regularly be per- formed without the concurrence of three bishops with the metropolitan; but a presbyter might be ordained by a single bishop, without any other as- sistance, save that of his presbyters joining with him. And this plainly appears to have been the practice of the fourth century. It is further evident from the re- sec,’ 1,’ cords of the same age, that presbyters Sig‘gdcgiiggrgiy had still the privilege of sitting in “'“h ‘hei‘bis‘wps- consistory with their bishops. For Pope Siricius, in the latter end of this century, acted as Cornelius had done before him. When he went about to con- demn the errors of J ovinian, he first called‘8 a pres- bytery, and with their advice censured his doctrines, auctoritatique maxime student, non habent suae existima- tionis firmius aut solidius fundamentum, quam epistolas sancti Ignatii nostri: neque enim in ullo vere antiquo Scriptore extra has epistolas tot ac tanta presbyteratus praeconia invenient, neque illius Ordinis honorem sine epis- copatus praerogativa ullibi constitutum reperient. 3’ Ignat. Ep. ad Ephes. n. 2. xé'rrqi Kai 'n'pao'fiv'repiqa. 3“ Ep. ad. Magnes. n. 2. 39 Ep. ad Magnes. n. 6. Hpolcaenpe'uou évno'xéqrov sis To'wov 6205, Kai q-(Iw 1rpeo'fiu'rs'pwu sis *ro'vrov o'vuso‘piov Fribu b'rro'rao'o'dfisuol 'ruji é'rrw- d'rroa'ro'hwv. 4° Ep. ad Trall. n. 2. 'Tclro'ro'w'a'eo'es *rq'a' 7rpacrflu1’epiop a3;- 7029 d'rroo'cro'hors. 4‘ Ibid. n. 3. ‘Q9 o'uuédpwv 9e05, Kai dis o'évdeo'juou a’vroa'ro'lywu. Xwpis Tofi'rwv Emchno'ia or’) KG)\€Z'T(ZL. ‘2 Ep. ad Polycarp. n. 6. Ep. ad Smyrn. n. 8. “3 Pearson, Vindic. Ignat. par. 2. (1.16. p. 428. Nemo tam seris ecclesiee temporibus—Presbyterium tot laudibns cumulasset, tanta auctoritate armasset, cujus potestas ea tempestate, etiam Alexandriae, ubi maxime floruerat, tan- topere imminuta est. 4‘ Con. Carth. 4. c. 3. Presbyter cum ordinatur, epis- copo eum benedicente, et manum super caput ejus tenente, etiam omnes presbyteri, qui praesentes sunt, manus suas juxta manum episcopi super caput illius teneant. 45 E001. Alex. Constit. c. 6. ap. Bevereg. Not. in Canon. Apost. c. 2. Cum vult episcopus ordinare presbyterum, manum suam capiti ejus imponat, simulque omnes presby- teri istud tangant. ‘6 Grat. Dist. 23. c. 8. Ivo Part. 6. c. 12. 4’ Can. Apost. c. 2. Con. Carthag. 3. c. 45. ‘8 Siric. Ep. 2. ad Eccles. Mediolan. Facto presbyterio, constitit doctrine: nostrae, id est, Christianae, legi esse con- 80 CHRISTIAN CHURCH. BOOK II. ANTIQUITIES OF THE and then, with the consent of the deacons also and the rest of the clergy, expelled him the church. And so likewise Synesius, bishop of Ptolemais, pro- ceeded against Andronicus, the impious and blas- pheming prefect of Pentapolis; he first laid open his horrible crimes before the consistory of his church, and then, with their consent, pronounced the sentence of excommunication against him; which he therefore calls the act of the consistory,49 or sanhedrim of Ptolemais, in the circular letters which he wrote to give notice of his excommunica- tion to other churches. Baronius indeed, and the common editors of the councils, reckon this by mis- take among the provincial synods; but it appears evidently from Synesius, that it was only the private consistory of the church of Ptolemais; for he says expressly,50 The church of Ptolemais gave notice of this excommunication to all her sister churches throughout the world, requiring them to hold An- dronicus excommunicated, and not to despise her act, as being only a poor church in a small city. Which agrees very well with the state of a private consistory, but is not spoken in the style of a pro- vincial council. Yet this is not said with any design to deny that presbyters were allowed to sit in provincial synods; for there are undeniable evidences of their enjoying this privilege within the compass of the fourth century, and after ages also. In the council of Eliberis, which was held in the beginning of the fourth age, there were no less than thirty-six presbyters“ sit- ting together with the bishops, as is expressly said in the acts of the council. The first council of Arles, called by Constantine, had also several pres- byters in it, the names of many of which are lost, as are also the names of most of the bishops, who were two hundred, yet the names of fifteen presby- ters 52 are still remaining. And it is observable, that in Constantine’s tractorz'ae, or letters of summons, the presbyters, as well as bishops, were called by imperial edict to attend at that council; if we may judge of all the rest by that one example, which re- Sect. 12. As also in pro- vincial councils. mains upon record in Eusebius; for there, in the letter sent to summon Chrestus, bishop of Syracuse, orders are given him58 to bring along with him two of the second throne; which phrase, as has been observed before, denotes two presbyters. So that from hence it is clear, that presbyters were then privileged to sit in council with their bishops, and that by imperial edict. ‘ In J ustellus’s Bibliotheca J uris Canonici, there are three or four Roman councils, where the presbyters are particularly men- tioned as sitting, and sometimes voting with the bishops. In the council under Hilarius, anno 461, the presbyters of Rome all sat54 together with the bishops, and the deacons stood by them. So again in the council under Felix, anno 487 ,55 the names of seventy-six presbyters are mentioned that sat to- gether with the bishops in council, the deacons as before standing by them. And in the council un- der Symmachus, anno 499, sixty-seven presbyters and six deacons subscribed in the very same form of words 56 as the bishops did. In another council under the same Symmachus, anno 502, thirty-six presbyters are named,57 who sat therein. And in the council under Gregory II., anno 715, the b1- shops, presbyters, and deacons all subscribe in the same form58 to the decrees then published by them all together. The like instances may be seen in the first coun- cils of Toledo,59 and Bracara,“ where we may also observe the difference made between presbyters and deacons; that the presbyters are always represent- ed as sitting together with their bishops, but the deacons only standing by to attend them. All which notwithstanding, Cellotius the Jesuit, and some others of that strain, have the confidence to assert, that presbyters were never allowed to sit with bi- shops in their councils. Bellarminm does not go so far, but only denies them a decisive voice there: in which assertion he is opposed, not only by the generality of protestant writers,62 but also by Ha- bertus68 and other learned defenders 6* of the Galli- can liberties in his own communion. So that it is agreed on all hands by unprejudiced writers, and traria——-—Unde omnium nostrorum tam presbyterorum et diaconorum, quam totius cleri unam scitote fuisse senten- tiam, at J ovinianus, Auxentius, &c., in perpetuum damnati, extra ecclesiam remanerent. “9 Synes. Ep. 57. p. 190. Nvui. 5%. 01's 'TO‘ o-vuédpwu ,us'r- fihfie 'rijv ’Av6poui1\axeg, keepers of the mpfixm, that is, the sacred vessels, utensils, and such pre- cious things as were laid up in the sacred repository of the church. This was commonly some presby- ter: for Theodorus Lector9 says, Macedonius was both presbyter and sceuophylax of the church of Constantinople; and SozomenIo before him, speak- ing of the famous Theodore, presbyter of Antioch, who suffered martyrdom in the days of Julian, styles him ¢z'1)\arca ni'w munxiwv, keeper of the sacred utensils, and says, he was put to death because he would not deliver up what he had under his custo- dy to the persecutors. It will not be improper to give this officer also the name of clza'rtophylaa: and custos archivorum, because the rolls and archives are reckoned part of the sacred repository of the church. Whence Suicerusll observes, that in Pho- tius the names sceuopkylax and chartophylax are given to the same person. But I must note, that the modern Greeks have a little changed this ofiice, and added a power to it which did not belong to it in the primitive church. For now, as Balsamon12 informs us, the clzartophylax acts as the patriarch’s substitute, excommunicating, censuring, and licens— ing the ordinations of presbyters and deacons, and sits as supreme ecclesiastical judge under the patri- arch in many other cases relating to the church, which are things we do not find belonging to the office of a sceuophylax in the primitive ages. Epiphanius takes notice of another sort of ofi‘icers in the church, to whom he gives the name ‘3 of ép/tmvevmi, in- terpreters, and says, their oflice was to render one language into another as there was occasion, both in reading the Scriptures, and in the homilies that were made to the people. That there was such an office in the church appears further from the Passion of Procopius the martyr, published by Valesius,“ where it is said, that Procopius had three ofi'ices in the church of Scythopolis, he was reader, exorcist, I conceive Sect. 4. Of the herme- neutze, or interpret- ers. the office was chiefly in such churches where the people spake different languages, as in the churches of Palestine, where probably some spoke Syriac and others Greek, and in the churches of Africa, where some spake Latin and others Punic. In such churches there was occasion for an interpreter, that those who understood not the language in which the Scriptures were read, or the homilies preached, might receive edification by having them imme- diately rendered into a tongue which they did un- derstand. So far was the primitive church from encouraging ignorance, by locking up the Scrip- tures in an unknown tongue, that she not only translated them into all languages, but also ap- pointed a standing oflice of interpreters, who were viva voce to make men understand what was read, and not suffer them to be barbarians in the service of God, which is a tyranny that was unknown to former ages ! Another office, that must not wholly be passed over whilst we are upon this‘ head, is that of the notar-z'z', or exceptores, as the Latins called them; who are the same that the Greeks call 6£vypd¢ot, or mxvypa'qsot, from their writ- ing short-hand by characters, which was necessary in the service they were chiefly employed in. For the first use of them was to take in writing the whole process of the heathen judges against the Christian martyrs, and minutely to describe the several cir- cumstances of their examination and passion; what questions were put to them; what answers they made; and whatever passed during the time of their trial and suffering. Whence such descriptions were called gesta martyrmn, the Acts and Monu- ments of the Martyrs; which were the original ac- counts which every church preserved of her own martyrs. The first institution of these notariz' into a standing oflice at Rome, Bishop Pearson ‘5 and some other learned persons think, was under Fabian in the time of the Decian persecution. For in one of the most ancient catalogues ‘6 of the bishops of Rome, Fabian is said to have appointed seven sub- deacons to inspect the seven notaries, and see that they faithfully collected the acts of the martyrs. But though it was no standing office before, yet the thing itself was always done by some persons fitly qualified for the work; as appears from the ancient acts of Ignatius and Polycarp, and several others, which were written before Fabian is said to Sect. 5. Of the notarii. 8 Th. 2. d8 EpISC. Leg. Universos quos constituerit custodes ecclesiarum esse, vel sanctorum locorum, ac religiosis obsequiis deservire, nullius adtentati- onis molestiam sustinere decernimus. Quis enim eos capite censos patiatur esse devinctos, quos necessario intelligit - supra memorato obsequio mancipatos? 9 Theodor. Lector. lib. 2. “ Suicer. Thesaur. t. 2. p. 971. ‘2 Balsam. Not. ad. can. 9. Concil. Nic. 2. '3 Epiph. Expos. Fid. n. 2]. e'ppnuev'rai 'yXéo'o'ns eis 1° Sozom. lib. 5. c. 8. 7A660'0'au, i) in 'ra'is &ua'yudm'eo'w, ii Ev 'raTs 'n'poo'ojutht'als. 14 Acta Procop. ap. Vales. Not. in Euseb. de Martyr. Pa- laestin. c. I. Ibi ecclesiae tria ministeria praebebat: unum in legendi officio, alterum in Syri interpretatione sermonis, et tertium adversus daemones manus impositione consummans. '5 Pearson. de Succession. Episc. Rom. Dissert. 1. c. 4. n. 3. Fell, Not. in Cypr. Ep. 12. ‘5 Catalog. Rom. Pontif. in Fabian. Hie fecit sex vel septem subdiaconos. qui septem notariis imminerent, ut gesta martyrum tideliter colligerent. 1213 Boox III. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. have instituted public and standing notaries at Rome. In after ages these notaries were also em- ployed in writing the acts of the councils, and taking speeches and disputations, and whatever else passed in synod. Thus Eusebiusl7 notes that Mal- chion’s dispute with Paulus Samosatensis in the council of Antioch was recorded as it was spoken, by the notaries who took it from their mouths: and Socrates says the same ‘8 of the disputation be- tween Basilius Ancyranus and Photinus in the council of Sirmium. \Ve read also of a sort of no- taries in councils, whose office was to recite all in- struments, allegations, petitions, or whatever else of the like nature was to be offered or read in council. And these were commonly deacons, and sometimes a presbyter was the chief of them, and thereupon styled primz'cem'us notarz'orum ; as in the acts of the general councils of Ephesus and Chal- cedon19 there is frequent mention of Aetius, dea- con and notary, and Peter, presbyter of Alexan- dria and chief of the notaries,prz'micerz'us notarz'orum. There were also notaries that were employed to take the discourses of famous and eloquent preach- ers from their mouths : by which means, Socrates 2° observes, many of St. Chrysostom’s sermons were preserved, and some of Atticus his successor. Bi- shops also had their private z'nroypaqas'lg, which some call notaries: but Valesius21 reckons them in the quality of readers. Whatever they were, Athanasius served in this office, as Q'm'oyparpsi‘rg, under Alexander, and Proclus under Atticus, as Socrates 22 informs us. The curious reader perhaps will find several other of these lesser ofi‘ices, which he will think might come into this catalogue: but, that I may not seem too minute in small matters, I will only add one oflice more, which is that of the apocm'sarz'i, or responsales. These were a sort of residents in the imperial city in the name of foreign churches and bishops, whose oflice was to negociate as proctors at the emperor’s court, in all ecclesiastical causes wherein their principals might be concerned. The institution of the office seems to have been in the time of Con- stantine, or not long after, when the emperors being become Christians, foreign churches had more oc- casion to promote their suits at the imperial court than formerly: however, we find it established by law in the time of Justinian; 'for in one of his Sect. 6. _0f the apocn'sa- ru', or responsales. Novels it is ordered,23 that forasmuch as no bishop was to be long absent from his church without special command from the emperor, if therefore any one had occasion to negociate any ecclesiastical cause at court, he should prefer his petition either by the apocrz'sarz'us of his church, whose business was to act in behalf of the church, and prosecute her afi'airs ; or else by the oeconomus, or some other of his clergy sent on purpose to signify his request. It does not indeed appear from that law, that these apocrz'sarz'z' were of the clergy, but from other Writ- ers we may easily collect it. For Liberatus says,“ Anatolius, a deacon of Alexandria, was apocrz'sarz'us or resident for Dioscorus his bishop at Constan- tinople, by which means he gained a favourable opportunity of being chosen bishop of Constanti- nople upon the death of Flavian. And Evagrius” observes the same of Eutychius, that from being apocrz'sarz'us to the bishop of Amasia, he was imme- diately advanced to be bishop of the royal city after Mennas. Which seems plainly to imply, that he was one of the clergy before, since it does not appear that he was promoted per saltum. I must further observe, that in imitation of these apocrz'sarz'z' in the church, almost every monastery had their apocrz'sarz'z' like- wise, whose business was not to reside in the royal city, as the former did, but to act as proctors for their monastery, or any member of it, when they had occasion to give any appearance at law before the bishop under whose jm'isdiction they were. This is clear from another of J ustinian’s Novels, which requires the Ascetics in such cases to an- swer by their apocrz'sam'z' or responsales.26 And‘ these were sometimes also of the clergy, as appears from the acts of the fifth general council, where one Theonas 2’ styles himself presbyter and apocrz'sarz'us of the monastery of Mount Sinai. The Latin trans- lator calls him ambasz'ator, which is not so very proper, yet in some measure expresses the thing: for, as Suicerus28 observes, in process of time the emperors also gave the name of apocrz'sarz'i to their own ambassadors, and it became the common title of every legate whatsoever. Which I the rather note, that the reader may distinguish these things, and not confound the civil and ecclesiastical sense of the name apocrz'sarius together. And thus much of the inferior orders and oflices of the clergy in the primitive church. 1’ Euseb. lib. 7. c. 29. ‘8 Socrat. lib. 2. c. 30. ypa¢6wrwm '9 Concil. E phes. Act. I. in Actione 1. Concil. Chalced. t. 4. p. 292. 2° Socrat. lib. 6. c. 4. It. lib. 7. c. 2. 2' Vales. Not. in Socr. lib. 5. c. 22. 22 Socrat. lib. 7. c. 17 et 41. 23 Justin. Novel. 6. c. 2. Sancimus, si quando propter ecclesiasticam occasionem inciderit necessitas, hanc aut per_eos qui res agunt sanctarum ecclesiarum (quos apocri- sarios vocant) aut per aliquos clericos huc destinat-os, aut é'rrto'nluswvpz'vwu 'raxv'ypo'zdawu. ’ I \ \ a " ofu'ypacpwu "ras cpwuas au'rwu oeconomos suos notam imperio facere, &c. 24 Liberat. Breviar. c. 12. Ordinatus est pro e0 (Fla- viano) Anatolius diaconus, qui fuit Constantinopoli apocri- sarius Dioscori. 25 Evagr. lib. 4. C. 38. 'ra'is a'qrorcpio'so'w 'Apao'slas i'lrur- K6'7I'OU &mcovs'i'ro, &c. 26 Justin. Novel. 79. c. l. 2" Concil. 5. General. Act. 1. in Libello Monachor. Syriae Secundae. t. 5. p. 116. Gswvds 'n'pso'fld'rapos, Kai. d'lroxpt- o'éptoe 'roii d'yiov 5pous 21115. 23 Suicer. Thesaur. t. l. p. 456. BOOK IV. OF THE ELECTIONS AND ORDINATIONS OF THE CLERGY, AND THE PARTICULAR QUALIFICATIONS OF SUCH AS WERE TO BE ORDAINED. CHAPTER I. OF THE SEVERAL WAYS OF DESIGNING PERSONS TO THE MINISTRY, IN THE APOSTOLICAL AND PRIMITIVE AGES OF THE CHURCH. Sec, ,_ HAVING thus far given an account of Four several ways “designing persons all the orders of the clergy in the pri- thliitiiifsirii-iiiyitliy of mitive church, both superior and in- castmg lots‘ ferior, together with the several oflices and functions that were annexed to them, I now proceed to consider the rules and methods that were observed in setting apart fit persons for the minis— try, especially for the three superior orders, which were always of principal concern. And here in the first place it will be proper to observe, that in the apostolical and following ages, there were four several ways of designing persons for the ministry, or discovering who were most fit to be ordained: the first of which was by casting lots ; the second, by making choice of the first-fruits of the Gentile converts; the third, by particular direction and in- spiration of the Holy Ghost; and the last, in the common and ordinary way of examination and elec- tion. The first method was observed in the de- signation of Matthias to be an apostle, as we read, Acts i. 23, 26, where it is said, that the disciples themselves first appointed two, Joseph called Bar- sabas, and Matthias ; and then praying to God, that he would show whether of those two he had chosen, they gave forth their lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias. St. Chrysostom1 says, they used this method because as yet the Holy Ghost was not descended on them, and they had not at this time the power of choosing by inspiration; and therefore they committed the business to prayer, and left the determination to God. The author of the Ecclesi- astical Hierarchy under the name of Dionysius,2 fancies that God answered their prayer by some visible token: but if so, this had not been choosing by lot, as the Scripture says it was, but a quite dif- ferent method of election. However, interpreters generally agree, that there was something extraor- dinary in it: Dr. Lightfoot3 thinks Matthias had no other ordination to his apostleship ; for the apos- tles did not give him any ordination by imposition of hands after this, as they did to presbyters after- wards: and that, if true, was extraordinary indeed. Others reckon the extraordinariness of it to consist in the singular way of electing and designing him to that oifice by lot: for they say‘ all ecclesiastical history scarce aifords such another instance: and I confess there are not very many, but some few there are, which show that that method of electing was not altogether so singular as is commonly imagined. For in Spain, it was once the common practice, as may be concluded from a canon5 of the council of Barcelona, anno 599, which orders, that when a vacant bishopric is to be filled, two or three shall be elected by the consent of the clergy and people, who shall present them to the metropolitan and his fellow bishops, and they, having first fasted, shall cast lots, leaving the determination to Christ the Lord: then he on whom the lot shall fall, shall be consummated by the blessing of consecration. There is nothing different in this from the first example, save only that in this there is express mention of a consecration afterward, which is not in the history of Matthias; and yet, perhaps, there might be a consecration in his case too, though not expressly mentioned: but I leave this to further inquiry. The second way of designation was, Sec, ._,_ by making choice of the first-fruits of by'r,l,‘,§§§§§“§,.‘§§?;’ the Gentile converts to be ordained to iiiiiiiegiiiéfigii-s of the ministry. For these expressing “mg a greater zeal than others, by their readiness and ' Chrys. Hom. 5. in I Tim. 2 Dionys. Eccl. Hier. c. 5. p. 367. 3 Lightfoot, in Acts i. 21. 4 Dodwel, Dissert. l. in Cypr. n. 17. 5 Concil. Barcinou. c. 3. tom. 5. p. 1606. Duobus aut K tribus, quos ante consensus cleri et plebis elegerit, metro- politani judicio ejusque coepiscopis praesentatis, quem sors, praeeunte jejunio, Christo Domino terminante, monstrave- rit, benedictio consecrationis accumulet. 130 Boox IV. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. forwardness to embrace the gospel, were generally pitched upon by the apostles, as best qualified for propagating the Christian religion in the world. Clemens Romanus, in his epistle to the Corinthi- ans,6 says, the apostles in all countries and cities where they preached, ordained their first converts bishops and deacons, for the conversion of others ; and that they had the direction of the Spirit for doing this. And hence the author that personates the same Clemens, in his pretended epistle to James, bishop of Jerusalem, giving him an account of the reasons that moved St. Peter to ordain him, says,’ it was because he was chief of the first-fruits of his converts among the Gentiles. Some com- pare this to the right of primogeniture among the ancient patriarchs, which entitled the first-born to the priesthood; and I will not deny'but there might be something of allusion in it : but then the parallel will not hold throughout; for in the latter case it was not any natural right, but personal merit attending their primogeniture, that entitled the first converts to the Christian priesthood. sect 3. Which will appear further by con- pa'fggggirddgjggggg sidering, that many of them were or- mbe my Glwst” dained by the particular direction of the Holy Ghost. F01‘ SO the Words, dompa'zovrsg 'rq'i l'h/ez'man, in Clemens Romanus, may be understood, to signify the Spirit’s pointing out the particular persons whom he would have to be ordained; which I observed to be the third way of designation of persons to the ministry, very usual in those pri- mitive times of the church. Thus Timothy was chosen and ordained, according to the prophecies that went before of him, I Tim. i. 18. Whence his ordination is also called the gift that was given him by prophecy, 1 Tim. iv. 14. In regard to which the ancient interpreters, Chrysostom8 and Theo- doret, say, he had not any human vocation, but was chosen by Divine revelation, and ordained by the direction of the Spirit. Clemens Alexandrinus, in his famous homily, entitled, Quis Dives salvetm', observes the same of the clergy of the Asiatic churches, whom St. John ordained after his return from the isle of Patmos: he says, they were such as were signified or pointed outQ to him by the Spirit. I know indeed Combefis‘” puts a difi‘erent sense upon these words, and says, the designation here spoken of, means not any new or distinct re- velation, but I know not what Divine predestination of the persons ; or else their ordination itself, which was the seal or consignation of the Spirit; and that there is no authority for the common sense which interpreters put upon this passage. But as he owns his notion to be singular, and contrary to the sense of all other learned men ; so it is evidently against matter of fact and ancient history, which afi'ords several other instances of the like designations in the following ages. I will give an instance or two out of many. Eusebius 1‘ says, Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, was chosen Ica'rd {mammal/w, by reve- lation, and an oracular voice, which signified to some Ascetics of the church, that they should go forth out of the gates of the city, and there meet him whom God had appointed to be their bishop; which was this Alexander, a stranger from Cap- padocia, coming upon other business to Jerusalem. He was indeed bishop of another place before, but his translation to the see of Jerusalem was wholly by Divine direction, which is the thing I allege it for. \Ve have another such instance in the election of Alexander, surnamed Carbonarius, bishop of Coma- na, mentioned by Gregory Nyssen in the Life of Gre- gory Thaumaturgus. This Alexander was a Gentile philosopher, and verylearned man, who upon his con- version to Christianity, that he might avoid observa- tion, and follow his philosophical studies with the greater privacy, in his great humility betook himself to the trade of a collier, whence he had the name of Carbonarius. Now it happened upon the vacancy of the bishopric of Comana, that the citizens sent to Gregory Thaumaturgus to desire him to come and ordain them a bishop; but they not agreeing in their choice, one by way of jest and ridicule proposed Alexander the collier; who being discovered12 by special revelation to Gregory Thaumaturgus to be a man of extraordinary virtues and Worth, who had submitted to that contemptible calling only to avoid being taken notice of; and being found upon a due inquiry to be the man he was represented to be, he was thereupon unanimously chosen by all the church to be their bishop, and immediately ordained by St. Gregory.’ Cyprian often speaks of this Di- vine designation in the case of Celerinus,18 and Au- relius," when they were but to be ordained readers: 6 Clem. Rom. Ep. 1. n. 42. Ka'ro‘z Xdrpas Kai wo'hsts Knpfio'o'ov'res, xafiisauou 'rds a’qrapxds 0:61-5:11, doraludgou'res "rd: Hvsfipa'n sis é'lrto'xo'vrovs Kai dzalccivovs r5111 pshho'u'rwv 'n'tqsiiaw. 7 Pseudo-Clem. Ep. ad Jacob. ap. Coteler. t. l. p. 606. 0'1‘! 76:9 6!.’ époii 'rd'w o'wgolus'vwv és'udw at rcpsi'r'rwu a’vrapx'ri. 8 Chrys. et Theod. in Tim. i. 18. 9 Clem. Alex. ap. Euseb. lib. 3. c. 23. et ap. Combefis. Auctar. Noviss. p. 185. Khfiprp Ie'ua'ys 'rwa Khnpéw-wu T6511 67rd ‘1'05 IIusfiyua'z-os o'npawolre'uwu. 1° Combefis. Not. in loc. p. 192. Quos Spiritus designasset Divine. potins praedestinatione, quam nova aliqua et dis- tincta revelatione, quam nec Clemens significavit, nec ulla probat auctoritas, &c. 1‘ Euseb. lib. 6. c. 11. ‘2 Nyssen. t. 3. p. 562. 13 Cypr. Ep. 34. al. 39. ad Cler. Carthag. Referimus ad vos Celerinum fratrem nostrum—Clem nostro non humana sufl'ragatione, sed Divina dignatione conjunctum. Qui cum consentire dubitaret, ecclesiae ipsius admonitu et hortatu in visione per noctem compulsus est, ne negaret nobis suaden- tibus, &c. 14 Id. Ep. 33. al. 38. Exspectanda non sunt testimonia humana, cum praecedunt Divine. sufi’ragia. CHAP. I. 131 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. and he says also, he had a Divine direction15 to translate Numidicus from another church to the church of Carthage. And Sozomen ‘6 tells us from Apollinarius, that Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, appointed Athanasius his successor by Divine com- mand. For some time before his death it was sig- nified to him by Divine revelation, that no one should succeed him but Athanasius: and therefore, when he lay upon his death-bed, he called Atha- nasius by name, who was then absent and fled for fear of being made bishop; and another of the same name, who was present, answering to the call, he said nothing to him, but called Athanasius again: which he did several times, whereby it was at last understood, that he meant the Athanasius that was fled; to whom, though absent, he then prophetieally said, Thinkest thou that thou art escaped, Atha- nasius? No: thou art not escaped. It were easy to add many other instances of the like nature, but these are sufficient to show against Combefis, that in those early ages men were sometimes designed to the ministry by particular Divine revelation and prophecy, or else the ancients themselves were won- derfully deceived. Whilst I am upon this head, I must suggest two things further : First, that a dove’s lighting upon the head of any man at an election was usually taken for a Divine omen; and com- monly the person who had that sign, was looked upon as pointed out by the Spirit, and accordingly chosen before all others, as having a sort of emblem of the Holy Ghost. Eusebius observes,l7 it was this that turned the election upon Fabian, bishop of Rome, and gave him the preference before all others, though he was a stranger. No one at first thought of choosing him: but a dove being observed by the people to settle upon his head, they took it for an emblem of the Holy Ghost, which heretofore de- scended upon our Saviour in the form of a dove; and thereupon with one consent, as if they had been moved themselves by the Holy Ghost, they cried out/A5101), he was worthy; which was the word then used to signify their consent; and so without more ado they took him and set him upon the bishop’s throne. The election of Severus, bishop of Ra- venna, and that of Euortius, bishop of Orleans, was determined the same way, as Blondel18 has observed out of their lives in Surius ; and the inquisitive reader may furnish himself with other instances from his own observation. The other thing I would suggest is, that sometimes an accidental circum- stance was so providentially disposed, as to be taken for an indication of the Divine will, and approba- tion of an election. Sulpicius Severus makes this observation particularly upon a circumstance that happened in the election of St. Martin, bishop of Tours. Some of the provincial bishops, who were met at the place, for very unjust reasons opposed his election; and more especially one, whose name was Defensor, was a violent stickler against him. Now it happened, that the reader who was to have read that day, not being able to get in due time to his place, by reason of the press and crowding of the people; and the rest being in a little confusion upon that account; one of those that stood by, taking up a book, read the first verse that he lighted upon, which happened to be those words of the 8th Psalm, “ Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise, because of thine enemies, that thou mightest destroy the enemy and defensor.” For so it seems the vulgar Gallican translation then read it, at destruas inimicum et defensorem. These words were no sooner read, but the people gave a shout, and the adverse party were confounded. And so, says our author,19 it was generally believed that this Psalm was read by Divine appointment, that Defensor the bishop might hear his own work con- demned, whilst the praises of God were perfected in St. Martin out of the mouth of babes and suck- lings, and the enemy was at once both discovered and destroyed. By what has been said, the reader now will be able to judge of the meaning of the an- cients, when they speak of particular Divine de- signations of persons to the ministry of the church. The fourth and last way of design- ation, was by the ordinary course of suffrage and election of the church: the method of which in general was so accurate and highly approved, that one of the Roman emperors, though a heathen, thought fit to give a great cha- racter and encomium of it, and propose it to himself as an example proper to be imitated in the designa- tion and choice of civil officers for the service of the empire. For so Lampridius20 represents the prac- tice of Alexander Severus: whenever he was about to constitute any governors of provinces, or receiv- ers of the public revenues, he first proposed their names, desiring the people to make evidence against them, if any one could prove them guilty of any crime: but if they accused them falsely, it should be at the peril of their own lives: saying, it was unreasonable, that when the Christians and Jews did this in propounding those whom they ordained Sect. 4. The fourth way, hyeommon suffrage and election. ‘5 Cypr. Ep. 35. al. 40. Admonitos nos et instructos sciatis dignatione Divina, ut Numidicus presbyter adscribatur pres- byterorum Carthaginiensium numero. 16 Sozom. lib. 2. C. 17. Ahe'gaudpos dtcidoxov aim-Q Ka- Téhnrsv Afi'avn'w'tov Gsiats 7rpocr'rdzeo'w é'rr’ an’rrov d'ywyd'w 'n‘lv d/ijdwv, &c. ‘7 Euseb. lib. 6. c. 29. 1‘ Blond. Apol. p. 426. Surius,Vit. Sanct. Feb. I. et Sep.7, *9 Sever. Vit. S. Martin. 0. 7. p. 225. Ita habitum est, Divino nutu Psalmum hunc lectum fuisse, ut testimonium operis sui Defensor audiret, quia ex ore infantium atque lactantium in Martino Domini laude perfecta, et ostensus pariter et destructus est inimicus. 2° Lamprid. Vit. Alex. Sever. c. 45. K 2 132 BOOK 1V. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. their priests and ministers, the same should not be done in the appointment of governors of provinces, in whose hands the lives and fortunes of men were intrusted. This argues, that all imaginable care was taken in the election of Christian ministers, since their practice in this respect has such ample testimony from the heathens. And indeed all mo- dern writers agree upon the matter in general, that anciently elections were made with a great deal of caution and exactness: but as to the particular methods that were used, men are strangely divided in their accounts of them; by which means there is no one subject has been rendered more intricate and perplexed than this of elections, which has even frighted some from attempting to give an ac- count of it: but I must not wholly disappoint my readers through such fears, and therefore I shall briefly acquaint them with the different sentiments of modern authors who have handled this subject, and then clear what I take to be the true state of the case, from evident proofs of ancient history, which shall be the business of the next chapter. CHAPTER II. A MORE PARTICULAR ACCOUNT OF THE ANCIENT METHOD AND MANNER OF ELECTIONS OF THE CLERGY. sect L THE grand question in this afi'alr, The different opinions onemed upon which learned men are so much ggglsg‘ggrgliifie divided, is concerning the persons who cient!’ i“ electim‘s' had a right to vote in the elections of the clergy. Some think the people were never al- lowed any other power, save only to give their tes- timonials to the party elected, or to make objections, if they had any just and reasonable exceptions, against him. So Habertus,‘ and Sixtus Senensis,2 and BelIarmine.8 Others say the people were abso- lute and proper electors, and that from apostolical right, which they always enjoyed for a succession of many ages. This opinion is advanced, and with great show of learning asserted, by Blondel,4 against Sancta Clara, and the rest of the other opinion. De Marca.5 takes a middle way between those two ex- tremes. He says the people had as much power anciently, as any of the clergy below bishops; that is, their consent was required in the promotion of a bishop, as well as their testimony : yet he will not allow this to be called electing; for the designation, election, or judgment, he says, still belonged only to the metropolitan, together with the synod of pro- vincial bishops. And though we read sometimes of their giving their vote or suffrage, yet that, he says, is only to be understood of suffrage of consent, not the suffrage of election. But Mr. Mason, in answer to Pamelius, who had advanced something of this notion before De Marca, rejects this as a deluding distinction, and asserts, that the people had pro- perly a voice or sufl'rage of election, and he quotes6 Bishop Andrews7 for the same opinion. Yet he does not carry the point so high, as to maintain with Blondel, that it was of unalterable right, but left by God as a thing indifi'erent, to be ordered by the discretion of the church, so all things be done honestly and in order. And this seems to have been the opinion of Spalatensis,8 Richerius,9 J ustel- lus,‘° Suicerus, and some other learned men of both churches. Others there are, who distinguish be- tween the times preceding the council of Nice, and those that followed after: for they think whatever power was allowed the people in the three first ages, was taken away by that council, and the councils of Antioch and Laodicea, that followed not long after. So Schelstrate,ll in his dissertations upon the council of Antioch, where he quotes Christianus Lupus and Sirmond for the same opinion. But this is exploded as a groundless fiction, not only by Spalatensis,12 and Bishop Pearson,” but also by Richerius,l4 Cabassutius,15 Valesius,16 Petavius,l7 De Marca,la and other learned persons of the Roman communion, who think the fathers of the Nicene council made no alteration in this matter, but left all things as they found them. Some, again, distin- guish between the election of bishops and the other clergy, and say, the people’s consent was only re— quired in the election of bishops, but not in the promotion of the inferior clergy. So Cabassutiuis,‘9 and Bishop Beverege,20 who reckons this so clear a point, that there is no dispute to be made of it. Yet Valesius disputes it, and asserts the contrary,21 1 Habert. Arehieratic. p. 436. 2 Sixt. Biblioth. lib. 5. Annot. 118. 9 Bellarm. de Clericis, lib. l. c. 7 4 Blondel, Apol. p. 379, &c. 5 Marca, de Concord. lib. 8. cap. 2. n. 2. 6 Mason, Consecrat. of Bishops, lib. 4. c. 4. p. 159, 160. " Andrews, Resp. ad Apol. Bell. 0. 13. p. 313. Praesen- tia plebis apud Cyprianum incluilit testimonium de vita, nee excludit sufi'ragium de persona. 8 Spalat. de Repub. lib. 3. c. 3. n. 42. 9 Richer. Hist. Concil. lib. l. c. 12. n. 18. p. 389. 1° Justel. Not. in Can. 6. Cone. Chalced. 1' Schelstr. Not. in Can. 19. Cone. Antioch. ‘2 Spalat. de Repub. lib. 3. c. 3. n. 12. 13 Pearson, Vind. Ignat. par. 1. c. 11. p.324. 1‘ Richer. Hist. Concil. t. l. c. 2. n. 7. '5 Cabassut. Notit. Concil. c. 17. p. 83. 16 Vales. Not. in Euseb. lib. 6. c. 43. ‘1 Petav. Not. in Synes. p. 56. 18 Marca, de Concord. lib. 8. c. 3. n. 4. ‘9 Cabassut. Notit. Concil. c. 36. p. 196. 2° Bevereg. Not. in Can. 6. Cone. Chalced. 2‘ Vales. in Euseb. lib. 6. c. 43. Presbyteri olim ab epis. copo ordinari non poterant sine consensu cleri et populi. CHAP. II. ‘133 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. that anciently presbyters were not to be ordained by the bishop without the consent of the clergy and people. Bishop Stillingfieet, who is one of the last that has considered this matter, gives us his sense in these following observations. First, That the main ground of the people’s interest was founded upon the apostles’ canon,22 that a bishop must be blameless and of good report. And therefore, he says,23 the people’s share and concern in elections, even in Cyprian’s time, was not to give their votes, but only their testimony concerning the good or ill behaviour of the person. Secondly, That yet upon this the people assumed the power of elections, and thereby caused great disturbances and disorders in the church. Thirdly, That to prevent these, many bishops were appointed without their choice, and canons made for the better regulating of them. Fourthly, That when there were Christian magis- trates, they did interpose as they thought fit, not- withstanding the popular claim, in a matter of so great consequence to the peace of church and state. Fifthly, That upon the alteration of the government of Christendom, the interest of the people was se- cured by their consent in parliaments, and that by such consent the nomination of bishops was re- served to princes, and the patronage of livings to particular persons. In this great variety of judg- ments and opinions of learned men, it will be no crime to dissent from any of them, and therefore I shall take the liberty to review their opinions, and express impartially what I take to be agreeable or disagreeable in any of them to ancient history, and- the rules and practice of the church. . Sect. 2. And here, first of all, it will be pro- per to observe, that there was no one i, the election of’, un1versal,unalterable rule observed in blshop' all times and places about this mat- ter, but the practice varied according to the different ' exigences and circumstances of the church; as will evidently appear in the sequel of this history. In the mean time, I conceive the observation made by De Marca, thus far to be very true, That whatever power the inferior clergy enjoyed in the election of their bishop, the same was generally allowed to the people, or whole body of the church, under the re- gulation and conduct of the metropolitan and synod of provincial bishops. For their power, whatever it was, is spoken of in the very same terms, and expressed in the same words. Some call it consent, others suffrage or vote, others election or choice; but all agree in this, that it was equally the con- sent, suffrage, vote, election, and choice, both of clergy and people. Thus Cyprian observes of Cor- nelius,24 that he was made bishop by the testimony of the clergy and suffrage of the people. Where it is evident the words, testimony and suffrage, are equally ascribed both to clergy and people. So- crates,25 speaking of the election of Chrysostom, says he was chosen by the common vote of all, both clergy and people. And Theodoret describes the election of Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, after the same manner, when he tells us 2“ he was compelled to take the bishopric by the common vote of the bishops and clergy, and all the people. Siricius” styles this the election of the clergy and people; and Celestinfs, the consent and desire of the clergy and people; and Leo,29 both the consent, and elec- tion, and suffrage or votes of the people; who adds also, that in case the parties were divided in their votes, then the decision should be referred to the judgment of the metropolitan, who should choose him who had most votes and greatest merit to re- commend him. From all which, and many other passages that might be alleged to the same purpose, it is very evident, that the power of the clergy and people was equal in this matter, and that nothing was challenged by the one, that was not allowed to the other also. And hence it appears further, that this conjunctive power of clergy and bapgisilffitiiei'nqtl people was not barely testimonial, 21:2 tjiégidzilmaorilia’ but, as Bishop Andrews and Mr. Mason assert, a judicial and effective power, by way of proper suffrage and election; and that as well in the time of Cyprian, as afterwards: for Cyprian speaks both of testimony and suffrage belonging to both clergy and people: and says further,80 that that is a just and legitimate ordination, which is ex- amined by the sufl‘rage and judgment of all, both clergy and people. So that they were then present at the choice of their bishop,‘not merely to give tes- timony concerning his life, but, as Bishop Andrews words it, to give their vote and suffrage in reference to his person. Which observation will be further 22 Stillingfleet, Unreason. of Separat. par. 3. n. 25. p. 312. 23 Ibid. p. 316, 317. 2‘ Cypr. Ep. 52. al 55. ad Antonian. p. 104. Factus est Cornelius episcopus—dc clericorum pene omnium testimo- nio, de plebis quae tum adfuit suffragio. '55 Socrat. lib. 6. C. 2. ‘FUCIJiU/LG'TL Kori/q; djuoii 'rrciu'rwv, Kkiipov 'rs Kai Aaoii. 2“ Theod. lib. l. c. 7. ‘Piirpcp Kowz'i Ka'rnua'z'yrcao'au a’p- Xrspeis 1's Kai ispe'ls Kai. c'z'vras 5 )U-ILiJS‘. 2’ Siric. Ep. 1. ad Himerium Tarracon. c. 10. Presby- terio vel episcopatui, si eum cleri ac plebis evocavcrit electio, non immerito societur. 25 Celestin. Ep. 2. c. 5. Nullus invitis detur episcopus. Cleri, plebis, et ordinis consensus et desialerium requiratur. 29 Leo, M. Ep. 81. ad Anastas. c. 5. Cum dc summi sa- eerdotis electione tractabitur, ille omnibus praeponatur, quem cleri plebisque consensus concorditer postularit; ita ut si in aliam forte personam partium se vota diviserint, metropolitani judicio is altcri praeferatur, qui maj oribus et studiisjuvatur ct meritis, &c. 3° Cypr. Ep. 68. al. 67. ad Fratr. Hispan. p. 172. Ordi- natio just-a ct legitima, quae omnium sutfragio et judicio fuerit examinata. 134 BooK IV. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. evidenced and confirmed, by proceeding with the account of several rules and customs generally ob- served in these elections. One of these was, that no bishop pfv‘jfggfgssgrgtehgi was to be obtruded on any orthodox ffiggglfgjgifrfi; people against their consent. I say, figfitita's'ltg‘ifig." an orthodox people, for in case the 2:15; E‘iogieaigiiiiiiii majority of them were heretics or m consent schismatics, the practice was differ- ent, as will be showed hereafter: but Where they were all catholics, and could agree upon a catholic and deserving bishop, they were usually gratified in their choice, and no person was to be put upon them against their inclination. Sometimes the bi- shops in synod proposed a person, and the people accepted him: sometimes, again, the people proposed and the bishops consented; and where they were unanimous in a worthy choice, we scarce ever find they were rejected. If they were divided, it was the metropolitan’s care to unite and fix them in their choice, but not to obtrude upon them an un- chosen person. This we learn from one of Leo’s epistles,81 where he gives us at once both the church’s rule and practice, and the reasons of it. In the choice of a bishop, says he, let him be pre- ferred, whom the clergy and people do unanimously agree upon and require: if they be divided in their choice, then let the metropolitan give preference to him, who has most'votes and most merits: always provided, that no one be ordained against the will and desire of the people, lest they contemn or hate their bishop, and become irreligious or disrespectful, when they cannot have him Whom they desired. The transgression of this rule was objected as a great crime to Hilarius Arelatensis by the emperor Valentinian III., that82 he ordained bishops in se- veral places against the will and consent of the people, whom when they would not admit of, be- cause they had not chosen them, he used armed force to settle them in their sees, introducing the preachers of peace by the violence of war. Leo objects33 the same thing to him, saying, that he ought to have proceeded by another rule, and first to have required the votes of the citizens, the tes- timonies of the people, the will of the gentry, and the election of the clergy : for he that was to pre- side over all, was to be chosen by all. This evi- Sect. 4. dently shows, that the sufii'age of the people was then something more than barely testimonial. Secondly, Another argument is, Sm 5. that in many cases the voices of the coffgprfagisrjgfléif people prevailed against the bishops ggg‘gscgggyegg themselves, when they happened to be Sét‘gthig'iifiitafi‘fi divided in their first proposals. Thus own mclmatwn' it happened in the famous election of St. Martin, bishop of Tours, which has been mentioned in the last chapter, sect. 3. The people were unanimously for him; Defensor with a great party of bishops at first were against him; but the voice of the people prevailed, and the bishops complied and ordained him. Philostorgius gives us such another instance. Demophilus, bishop of Constantinople, with some other bishops suspected of Arianism, meeting at Cyzicum to ordain a bishop there, the people first made a protestation against them, that unless they would anathematize publicly Aetius and Eunomius both in word and writing, they should ordain no bishop there: and when they had complied to do this, they still insisted on their privilege, that no one should be ordained but one of their own choos- ing.“ Which was one, who, as soon as he was or- dained, preached the catholic doctrine of the 611001’!— 01011, that the Son was of the same substance with the Father. Ancient history will furnish the reader with many other instances of the like nature. Thirdly, Another evidence of the people’s power in elections is the sapfiiihi'm manner of their voting, or the way of Ziiiggi'edddstgi 2163;- giving their assent or dissent to the ordination of any person : which was threefold: for either, first, they were unanimous in their vote for or against a man, and then their way was to express their mind by a general acclamation, crying out with one voice, ‘AZwg, or 'Avdiwg, dignus, or in- dz'gnus, as the word then was, He is worthy, or un- worthy. Instances of which form the reader may find in St. Ambrose,35 St. Austin,36 Eusebius,” Phi- lostorgius,88 Photius,39 the author of the Constitu- tions,“ and several others. Or else, secondly, they were divided in their choice, and then they ex- pressed their dissent in particular accusations of the parties proposed, and sidings, and sometimes outrageous tumults. St. Chrysostom,“l reflects upon this way in his books of the priesthood, when he a‘ Leo, Ep. 84. c. 5. Si in aliam forte personam partium se vota diviserint, metropolitani judicio is alteri praeferatur, qui majoribus et studiis juvatur et meritis: tantrum ut nul- ‘ lus invitis et non petentibus ordinetur, ne plebs invita epis- copum non optatum aut contemnat aut oderit, et fiat minus religiosa quam convenit, cui non licuerit habere quem voluit. 32 Novel. 24. ad calcem Cod. Theod. Indecenter alios invitis et repugnantibus civibus ordinavit. Qui quidem, quoniam non facile ab his qui non elegerant, recipiebantur, manum sibi contrahebat armatam—Et ad sedem quietis pacem praedieaturos per bella ducebat. *3 Leo, Ep. 89. ad Episc. Vien. Expectarentur certe vota civium, testimonia populorum, quaereretur honorato- rum arbitrium, electio clericorum.—-Qui praefuturus est om- nibus, ab omnibus eligatur. 3* Philostorg. lib. 9. c. 13. 3:1 ai’rriim at ilnicpol. 1170005- 70770". 85 Ambr. de Dignit. Sacerd. c. 5. In ordinationibus eorum clamant et dicunt, Dignus es, et justus es. 36 Aug. Ep. 110. Dignus et justus est, dictum est vicies. 3'' Euseb. lib. 6. c. 29. Tlil/Ta hadu "AELou é'mfiofio'az. 38 Philostorg. lib. 9. c. 10. 39 Phot. Cod. 256. p. 1414. 4° Constit. Apost. lib. 8. c. 4. 4' Chrys. de Sacerdot. lib. 3. c. 15. CHAP. II. 135 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. tells us, that in those popular solemnities, which were then customarily held for the choice of ec- clesiastial rulers, one might see a bishop exposed to as many accusations, as there were heads among the people. And the account that is given not only by Ammianus Marcellinus,‘2 but by Socrates,43 and the other historians, of the tumult raised at Rome in the election of Damasus, shows that the people were indulged in something more than barely giving testimony, else they had hardly run into so great a heat and ungovernable tumult. There was also a third way of expressing their consent, which was by subscribing the decree of election for greater security, that no party might pretend afterward that they had not given assent to it. Thus it was in the election of .Meletius, bi- shop of Antioch, who was chosen by common con- sent both of catholics and Arians, each party pre- suming him to be of their own opinion. The election-paper was subscribed by all, Theodoret“ says, and put into the hands of Eusebius Samosa- tensis, which Constantius, when Meletius proved a catholic, demanded to have had it destroyed, but with all his menaces he could not extort it from him. St. Austin gives the like account45 of the election of Eradius his successor at Hippo, which for some reasons he got done in his own life-time. He first ordered the notaries of the church to take the acclamations of the people in writing, and then required all that could write, to subscribe the in- strument themselves. And this was the common way, whenever the metropolitan could not be pre- sent at the election; then the decree of the whole church was drawn up in writing, and carried to him for his consent and approbation. The remains of which custom may still be seen in the ancient Ordo Romanus,46 where there is a form of a decree, which the clergy and people were to sign upon their choice of a bishop, and present it to the metro- politan and the synod, in order to his consecration. In which case, if the metropolitan found him upon examination to be a person every way qualified, as they represented him, he then confirmed-and ratified their choice, and so proceeded immediately to his ordination. All which argues that the people had something of a decisive power in elections, and that ' their suffrage was not merely testimonial. Fourthly, This is further evident from the use and ofl‘ice of interventors in the Latin church, whose business was to promote and procure a speedy election of a new bishop in any vacant see, as I have had occa- sion to show in another place.47 For in the Roman and African churches, upon the vacancy of a bi- shopric, it was usual for the metropolitan to grant a commission to some of his provincial bishops to go to the vacant church, and dispose the clergy and people to be unanimous in the choice of a new bi- shop ; and when they were agreed, they petitioned the metropolitan by the interventor to confirm their choice, and with a synod of provincial bishops to come and ordain him whom they had elected. Or else they drew up an instrument in writing, sub- scribed both by the interventor and themselves, and presented the new elect bishop to the metropolitan, who ordained him in his own church. This was the practice of the Roman province in the time of Symmachus and Gregory the Great, as appears from their epistles, which gave directions to the in- terventors, or visitors, as they call them, concern- ing their behaviour in the present case. Let no one, says Symmachus,4S draw up an instrument of election without the presence of the visitor, by whose testimony the agreement of the clergy and people may be declared. And Gregory, writing to Barbarus, bishop of Beneventum, and visitor of the church of Palermo, bids him endeavour to make the clergy and people unanimous in their present- ation of a worthy person to be their bishop, who could not49 be rejected by the canons; and then drawing up their petition in form of a decree signed with all their hands, and the letters testimonial of the visitor, they should send him to Rome for con- secration. Nothing can be plainer, than that here the clergy and people made the choice of their bishop with the assistance of a visitor or interventor, and then presented him to the metropolitan, who, if he had no canonical exception against him, con- firmed their choice, and proceeded to his ordination. Fifthly, As a further evidence of see, a this power and privilege indulged to 0,53,13,53,’: 3.13. the people, it may be observed like- Zifiiifiiiiflggiiiiiioo'lf wise, that it was customary in those Sect. 7. 4thly, From the use and office of in- terventors. dained b 5 force. days for the people in many places to lay violent I *2 Ammian. lib. 27. c. 3. 4“ Socrat. lib. 4. c. 29. ‘4 Theod. lib. 2. c. 31. 45 Aug. Ep. 110. A notariis ecclesiae, sicut cernitis, exci- piuntur quae dicimus, excipiuntur quae dicitis, et meus ser- mo, et vestrae acclamationes in terram non cadunt. Hoc ad ultimum rogo, ut gestis istis dignemini subscribere qui potestis. "6 Ordo Rom. Biblioth. Patr. t. 10. p. 104. Decretum quod clerus et populus firmare (al. formare) debet de electo episcopo.--Ut omuium nostrorum vota in hanc electionem convenire noscatis, huic decreto canonico promptissima voluntate singuli manibus propriis roborantes subscripsimus. "1 Book II. chap. 15. ‘8 Symmach. Ep. 5. c. 6. Decretum sine visitatoris pree- sentia nemo conficiat, cu j us testimonio clericorum, ac civium possit unanimitas declarari. “9 Greg. lib. ll. Ep. 16. Dilectio tua clerum plebemque ejusdem ecclesiae admonere festinet, ut remoto studio, uno eodemque consensu talem sibi praeficiendum expetant sacer- dotem, qui et tanto ministerio dignus ‘valeat reperiri, ct venerandis canonibus nullatenus respuatur. Qui dum fuerit postulatus cum solemnitate decreti omnium subscriptioni- bus roborati, et dilectionis tuae testimonio literarum, ad nos sacrandus occurrat. 136 Boox IV. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. hands upon persons, and bring them by force to the bishop to be ordained. Thus Possidius5° tells us it was in the ordination of St. Austin, the peo- ple seized him and brought him to the bishop, re- quiring with one voice that he would ordain him pres- byter, whilst he in the mean time wept abundantly for the force that was put upon him. Paulinus51 says the same of himself, that he was ordained pres- byter by force and the irresistible violence of an inflamed and zealous people. And there are many other instances of the like nature. Sixthly, I observe but one thing Isrmysleiibiii a“; more relating to this matter, which titleoffatherswhlch , , 53223313333133: was the compliment that some bishops gfl‘jffgffiigfg'gople. passed upon their people upon this account, styling them fathers, in re- gard to the share and influence they had in their designation and election. St. Ambrose himself speaking to his people, addresses himself to them in this style: Ye are 52 my fathers, who chose me to be bishop: ye, I say, are both my children and fathers; children in particular, fathers altogether. In which words he plainly refers to that providential consent of the people of Milan, who, when they were divided before into several factions, as soon as Ambrose was named, all unanimously conspired together in his election. These are some of those collateral evi- dences, that may be brought to prove that anciently the clergy and people joined in a common vote in the election of their bishop, and that their suffrage was something more than testimonial, especially in the fourth and fifth ages, in the Latin church, where, as De Marca owns, the people’s request was chiefly considered. Sect. w Nor was this privilege only indulg- P3315; Egvirgrtpée ed them in the election of their bishop, ggggafion ofpres- but sometimes in the deslgnation of presbyters also. For St. Austin and Paulinus were but to be ordained presbyters, when that forcible constraint, just now spoken of, was laid upon them by the people. Besides, St. J erom 5'8 says expressly, that presbyters and the other clergy were as much chosen by the people, as the bishops were. And Possidius“ notes this to have been both the custom of the church and St. Austin’s practice, in the ordinations of priests and clerks, to have re- gard to the majority or general consent of Christian people. And Siricius, who speaks the sense and practice of the Roman church, says,55 that when a deacon was to be ordained. either presbyter or bishop, he was first to be chosen both by the clergy and people. And therefore I cannot so readily sub- scribe to the assertion of those learned men, who say that bishops before their ordination were pro- pounded to the people, but not presbyters or any other of the inferior clergy. As to those who assert, that the people were anciently indulged in Whasrieciiiii'coun- ‘ cilof Nicernade any these matters before the (founcll of iltcrationui these Nice, but that their power was abridg- mum ed by a new decree of that council, they are evi— dently under a mistake; for it is certain the Ni- cene fathers made no alteration in this affair, but left the whole matter as they found it. For though in one of their canons 5“ it is said, that the presence, or at least the consent, of all the provincial bishops, and the confirmation or ratification of the metro- politan, shall be necessary to the election and ordin- ation of a bishop; yet that is not said to exclude any ancient privilege that the people enjoyed, but only to establish the rights of metropolitans and provincial bishops, which Meletius, the schismatical Egyptian bishop, had particularly invaded, by pre- suming to ordain bishops without the authority of his metropolitan, or consent of his fellow bishops in the provinces .of Egypt. That nothing else was designed by that canon is evident from this, that the same council, in the synodical epistle written to the church of Alexandria, expressly mentions the choice of the people, and requires it as a condition of a canonical election. For speaking of such Me- letian bishops as would return to the unity of the catholic church, it says, that when any catholic bi- shop died, Meletian bishops might succeed in their room, provided they were worthy, and that the people57 chose them, and the bishop of Alexandria ratified and confirmed their choice. Our learned Bishop Pearson has rightly observed, that Atha- nasius58 himself was thus chosen after the Nicene council was ended; which is a certain argument 5° Possid. Vit. Aug. 0. 4. Euin tenuerunt, et at in talibus consueturn est, episcopo ordinandum intulerunt, omnibus id uno consensu et desiderio fieri perficique petentibus, mag- noque studio et clamore flagitantibus, ubertim eo flente. 5‘ Paulin. Ep. 35. inter Epist. August. A Lampio apud Barcilnonam in Hispania, per vim inflammatae subito plebis sacratus sum. Vid. Paulin. Ep. 6. ad Severum, p. 101. 5'3 Ambr. Com. in Luc. lib. 8. c. 17. Vos enim mihi estis parentes, qui sacerdotium detulistis: vos, inquam, filii vel parent-es, filii singuli, universi parentes. 5’ Hieron. Ep. 4. ad Rustic. Cum te vel populus vel pon- tifex civitatis in clerum elegerit, agito quae clerici sunt. Id. in Ezek. lib. 10. c. 33. p. 609. Speculator ecclesiae, vel epis- copus vel presbyter, qui a populo electus est. 5* Possid. Vit. Aug. ‘0. 21. In ordinandis sacerdotibns et clericis consensum majorem Christianorum et consuetudi- nem ecclesiae sequendam esse arbitrabatur. 55 Siric. Ep. 1. ad Himer. Tarracon. c. 10. Exinde jam accessu temporum, presbyterium vel episcoparum, si cum cleri ac plebis evocaverit electio, non iinmerito sortietur. 56 Conc. Nic. can. 4. 5’ Conc. Nic. Ep. Synod. ap. Theod. lib. l. c. 9. et So- crat. lib. l. C. 9. at &ZLOL (paivow'ro, Kai. 6 Aads aipo'i'cro, o'vve'lrulmdiio'ou'ros aim-q’; Kai Evrf\77Pq1. 7° Cod. Can. Afric. c. 48. al. 47. 7‘ Ibid. c. 58. al. 57. 72 Conc. Nic. C. 19. duaga’zr'rto's'e'm'es Xe Lpo'rouaio'swo'au. 73 Conc. Carth. 3. c. 18. Ut episcopi, presbyter-i, et dia- coni non ordinentnr, priusqualn omnes qui sunt in domo eorum C-hristianos catholicos fecerint. 7‘ Julian. Ep. ad Arsac. ap. Sozomen. lib. 5. c. 16. 146 Boox IV. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. in the idol temples. It had been a great omission and oversight in the governors of the Christian church, had they not been as careful to secure the interest of the true religion in the families of their ministers, as that pagan prince was to secure a false religion among his idol priests: and there- fore, had there been nothing more than emulation in the case, yet that had been a suflicient reason to have laid this injunction upon all the candidates of the Christian priesthood. There is but one qualification more I shall mention under this head, which was, that men should come honestly and legally to their prefer- ment, and use no indirect or sinister arts to procure themselves an ordination. Merit, and not bribery, was to be their advocate, and the only thing to be considered in all elections. In the three first ages, whilst the preferments were small, and the perse- cutions great, there was no great danger of ambi- tious spirits, nor any great occasion to make laws against simoniacal promotions. For then martyr- dom was as it were a thing annexed to a bishopric ; and the first persons that were conmionly aimed and struck at, were the rulers and governors of the church. But in after ages, ambition and bribery crept in among other vices, and then severe laws were made both in church and state to check and prevent them. Sulpitius Severus takes notice of this differ- ence betwixt the ages of persecution and those that followed, when he says,75 that in the former, men strove who should run fastest to those glorious com- bats, and more greedily sought for martyrdom by honourable deaths, than in after times by wicked ambitions they sought for the bishoprics of the church. This implies, that in the age when Sulpi- tius lived, in the fifth century, some irregular arts were used by particular men to advance themselves to the preferments of the church. To correct whose ambition and ill designs, the church inflicted very severe censures upon all such as were found guilty of simony, or, as some then76 called it, xpwr- spn-opsiav, the selling of Christ. The council of Chalcedon decreed,77 that if any bishop gave ordin- ation, or an ecclesiastical ofi’ice or preferment of any kind, for money, he himself should lose his office, and the party so preferred be deposed. And the reader may find several other constitutions of Sect. 14. What methods were anciently taken to prevent simo- niacal promotions. the same import in those called the Apostolical Canons,78 the council of Constantinople79 under Gennadius, anno 459, the second council of Or- leans,80 Bracara,81 and many others. The imperial laws also were very properly contrived to prevent this abuse. For by one of J ustinian’s laws it was enacted,82 that whenever a bishop was to be chosen, the electors themselves should take an oath, and insert it into the'election paper, that they did not choose him for any gift, or promise, or friendship, or any other cause, but only because they knew him to be a man of the true catholic faith, and an unblamable life, and good learning. And in an- other of his laws, where this same injunction is re- peated, it is further provided, that the party elected shall also at the time of his ordination take an oath, upon the holy Gospels, that he neither gave nor promised,” by himself or other, nor hereafter will give to his ordainer, or to his electors, or any other person, any thing to procure him an ordina- tion. And for any bishop to ordain another with- out observing the rule prescribed, is deposition by the same law, both for himself and the other whom he ordained. These were some of those ancient rules to be observed in the examination of men’s lives and morals, before they were consecrated to the sacred function, or admitted to serve in any of the chief offices of the church. CHAPTER IV. OF THE QUALIFICATIONS OF PERSONS TO BE OR- DAINED, RESPECTING THEIR OUTWARD STATE AND CONDITION IN THE WORLD. A THIRD inquiry was made into men’s outward state and condition in the No Sigriiérlgo be world. For there were some callings or me ' and states of life, which debarred men from the privilege of ordination, not because they were esteemed absolutely sinful vocations, but because the duties attending them were commonly incom- patible and inconsistent with the offices of the clergy. Of this nature were all those callings, which come under the general name of militia R0- "5 Sever. Hist. lib. 2. p. 99. Certatim in gloriosa certa- mina ruebatur, multoque avidius tum martyria gloriosis mortibus quaerebantur, quam nunc episcopatus pravis am- bitionibns appetuntur. "'6 Vid. Epist. Alexandri Alexandrini ap. Theodor. lib. I. c. 4. 77 Cone. Chalced. c. 2. 78 Canon. Apost. c. 29. "9 Conc. CP. Epist. Synod. Con. t. 4. p. 1025. 8° Conc. Aurel. 2. c. 3 et 4. 8‘ Bracar. 3. c. 3. 82 Justin. Novel. 123. c. 1. Propositis eis sacrosanctis evangeliis, periculo suarum animarum dicentes in ipsis de- cretis, quia neque propter aliquam donationem, nec pro- missionem, aut amicitiam, aut aliam quamlibet causam, sed scientes eos rectae et catholicae fidei, et honestae esse vitae, et literas nosse, hos elegerunt. 83 Novel. 137. c. 2. J usjurandum autem suscipere eum qui ordinatur, per Divinas Scripturas, quod neque per se ipsum neque per aliam personam dedit quid, aut promisit, neque posthac dabit, vel ordinanti ipsum, vel his qui sacra pro eo sufl'ragia fecerunt, vel alii cuiquam ordinationis de ipso faciendae nomine, &c. CHAP. IV. 147 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. mana, which we cannot so properly English, the military life, as, the service of the empire. For it includes several ofl‘ices, as well civil as military: the Romans, as Gothofred and other learned per- sons have observed,1 calling all inferior offices by the name of militia: so there were three sorts of it, militia palatina, militia cast-rensis or armata, and militia pmzsidialis or cohortalis: the first including the officers of the emperor’s palace; the second, the armed soldiery of the camp; and the third, the apparitors and officials of judges and governors of provinces; all which were so tied to their service, that they could not forsake their station: and for that reason the laws of the state forbade any of them to be entertained as ecclesiastics, or ordained among the clergy. Honorius2 the emperor particularly made a law to this purpose, That no one who was originally tied to the military life, as some were even by birth, should, either before or after they vere entered upon that life, take upon them any clerical oflice, or think to excuse themselves from their service under the notion of becoming ecclesias- tical persons. The canons of the church seem to have carried the matter a little further; for they forbade the ordination of any who had been soldiers after baptism, because they might perhaps have imbrued their hands in blood. This appears from the letters of Innocent I., who blames the Spanish churches3 for admitting such persons into orders, alleging the canons of the church against it. The first council‘ of Toledo forbids any such to be or- dained deacons, though they had never been concern- ed in shedding of blood; because, though they had not actually shed blood,‘ yet by entering upon the military life they had obliged themselves, if occa- sion had so required, to have done it. Which seems to import, that soldiers might be allowed in the inferior services, but were not to be admitted to the sacred and superior orders of the church. Another state of life, which debar- frggflzl'jgisiigfguqr red men from the privilege of ordina- ggirggesenwf his tion, was that of slaves or vassals in the Roman empire; who, being ori- ginally tied by birth or purchase to their patron’s or master’s service, could not legally be ordained, be- cause the service of the church was incompatible with their other duties, and no man was to be defrauded of his right under pretence of an or- dination. In this case therefore the patron was always to be consulted before the servant was or- dained. Thus in one of those called the Apos- tolical Canons5 we find a decree, that no servants should be admitted among the clergy without the consent of their masters, to the grievance of the owners, and subversion of their families. But if a servant be found worthy of an ecclesiastical promotion, as Onesimus was, and his master give his consent, and grant him his freedom, and let him go forth from his house, he may be ordained. The council of Toledo6 has a canon to the same purpose. And the council of Eliberis’ goes a little further, and says, though a secular master, that is, a heathen, as Albaspinaeus interprets it, had made his servant a freeman, he should not be ordained. The reason of which is conceived to be, that such masters gave them only a conditional freedom, and still retained a right to exact certain services and manual labours of them, which would not consist with the service of the church. The imperial laws also8 made provision in this case, that no persons under such obligations should be admitted to any office of the clergy, or if they were admitted, merely to evade their obligations, their masters should have power to recall them to their service, unless they were bishops or presbyters, or had continued thirty years in some other oflice of the church. By which it appears, that the ordination of such per- sons was prohibited only upon a civil account, not because that state of life was sinful, or that it was any undervaluing or disgrace to the function to have such persons ordained, but because the duties of the civil and ecclesiastical state would not well con- sist together. For the same reason, the laws for- bade the ordination of any persons, who were incorporated into any socie- ty for the service of the common- wealth, unless they had first obtained the leave of the society and prince under whom they served. This is the meaning of that law of Sect. 3. Nor any member of a civil company, or society of trades- men, who were tied to the service of the commonwealth. 1 Gothofred. Com. in Cod. Th. lib. 12. Tit. I. de Decu- rion. Leg. 63. Vales. Not. in Sozomen. lib. 5. c. 4. Pagi Critic. in Baron. an. 375. n. 12. 2 Cod. Th. lib. 7. Tit. 20. de Veteranis Leg. l2. Quoniam plurimos vel ante militiam, vel post inchoatam, nec per- actam, latere objectu piae religionis agnovimus, dum se quidam vocabulo clericorum—defendunt, nulli omnino tali excusari objectione permittimus, &c. 3 Innoc. Ep. 22. c. 4. Quantos ex militia, qui cum po- testatibus obedierunt, severa necessario praecepta sunt exe- cuti, Ibid, c. 6, Ne quispiam qui post baptismum milita- verit, ad ordinem debeat clericatus admitti. Vid. Ep. 2. ad Victricium Rothomagens. c. 2. 4 Cone. Tolet. l. c. 8. Si quis post baptismum militaverit, et chlamydem sumpserit, aut ciugulum ad necandos fideles, etiamsi graviora non admiserit, si ad clerum admissus fuerit, diaconii non accipiat dignitatem. 5 Canon. Apost. c. 82. 6 Cone. Tolet. l. c. 10. Clericos, si quidem obligati sint vel pro aequatione, vel de genere alicujus domus, non ordinandos, nisi probatae vitae fuerint, et patroni consensus accesserit. ’ Conc. Eliber. c. 80. Prohibendum est, ut liberti, quo- rum patroni in saeculo fuerint, ad clerum provehantur. 8 Valent. 3. Novel. 12. ad calcem Cod. Th. N ullus ori- ginarius, inquilinus, servus, vel colonus ad clericale munus accedat—ut vinculum debitae conditionis evadat.—-—Ori- ginarii sane vel servi, qui jugum natalium declinantes, ad ecclesiasticum se ordinem transtulerunt, exceptis episcopis et presbyteris, ad dominorum jura recedant, si non in eodem officio annum tricesimum compleverunt. L2 148 Boox IV'. ANTIQIJITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. J ustinian,9 which forbids any of those called raZedi- Tar, or cohortales, that is, the oflicers or apparitors of judges, to be ordained, unless they had first spent fifteen years in a monastic life. And the first coun- cil of Orleans ‘° requires expressly either the com- mand of the prince, or the consent of the judge, before any such secular officer be ordained. By the laws of Theodosius junior,11 and Valentinian III.,12 all corporation men are forbidden to be ordained; and if any such were ordained among the inferior clergy, they were to be reclaimed by their respective companies; if among the superior, bishops, presby- ters, or deacons, they must provide a proper substi- tute, qualified with their estate to serve in the com- pany from whence they were taken. The reader, that is curious in this matter, may find several other laws in the Theodosian Code,18 made by the elder Valentinian and Theodosius the Great, with respect to particular civil societies so incorporated for the use of the public, no member of which might be ordained, but either they must quit their estates, or be liable to be recalled to the service, which they had unwarrantably forsaken. For reasons of the same nature, the canons were precise in forbidding the ordination of any of those who are commonly known by the name of curiales, or deeurz'ones, in the Roman government; that is, such as were members of the atria, the court, or common council of every city. These were men who, by virtue of their estates, were tied to bear the oflices of their country; so that out of their body were chosen all civil oflicers, the magistrates of every city, the collectors of the public revenue, the overseers of all public works, the pont'j‘ices or flamens, who exhibited the public games and shows to the people, with abundance of others, whose offices are specified by Gothofred,“ to the number of twenty-two, which I need not here recite. These were always men of estates, whose substance amount~ ed to the value of three hundred solids; which is the sum that is specified by Theodosius junior,15 as. qualifying a man to be a member of the curia; and Sect. 4. Nor any of the mtriales, or decwri- ones, of the Roman government. both they and their estates were so tied to civil oflices, that no member of that body was to be ad- mitted into any ecclesiastical oflice, till he had first discharged all the offices of his country, or else pro- vided a proper substitute, one of his relations quali- fied with his estate to bear oflices in his room: otherwise the person so ordained was liable, by the laws of the empire, (of which I give a more particu- lar account hereafter ‘6 in the next book,) to be call- ed back by the curia from an ecclesiastical to a secular life again. Which was such an inconveni- ence to the church, that she herself made laws to prohibit the ordination of any of these curz'ales, to avoid the trouble and molestation, which was com- monly the consequent of their ordination. St. Am- brose17 assures us, that sometimes presbyters and deacons, who were thus ordained out of the curz'ales, were fetched back to serve in curial oflices, after they had been thirty years and more in the service of the church. And therefore, to prevent this ca- lamity, the council of Illyricum, mentioned by The- odoret,18 made a decree, that presbyters and deacons should always be chosen out of the inferior clergy, and not out of these curiales, or any other oflicers of the civil government. Innocent, bishop of Rome, frequently refers to this rule of the church ‘9 in his epistles, where he gives two reasons against their ordination: first, that they were often recalled by the curz'a to serve in civil oflices, which brought some tribulation upon the church. Secondly, be- cause many of them had served in the oflice of fiamens20 after baptism, and were crowned as the heathen high priests were used to be, while they exhibited the public games and shows to the people. Which, though it was indulged by the civil law in Christian magistrates, yet the church reckoned it a crime, for which men were sometimes obliged to do public penance, as appears from the canons21 of the council of Eliberis: and consequently such a crime, as made men irregular and incapable of ordination. So that upon both accounts, these curiales were to be excluded from the orders of the church. And though this rule by the importunity of men was 9 Justin. Novel. 123. c. 15. Sed neque cohortales, neque deeuriones clerici fiunto.—-—Dempto si monachicam aliquis ex ipsis vitam non minus quindecim annis transegerit. 1° Conc. Aurel. l. c. 4. N ullus saecularium ad clericattis officium praesumatur, nisi aut cum regis jussione, aut cum judicis voluntate. 11Theodos. Novel. 26. de Corporatis Urbis Romae, ad calcem Cod. Th. 12 Valentin. Novel. l2. ibid. ‘3 Cod. Th. lib. l4. Tit. 4. de Suariis Leg. 8. Eos qui ad elericatns se privilegia contulerunt, aut agnoseere opor- tet propriam functionem, aut ei corpori, quod declinant, proprii patrimonii facere cessionem. Vid. ibid. 1. l4. Tit. de Pistoribus Leg. 11. It. lib. 8. Tit. 5. de Cursu Pub- lico Leg. 46. 1'‘ Gothofred. Paratitlon. Cod. Th. lib. l2. Tit. 1. de De- curionibus, t. 4. p. 339. 15 Theod. Novel. 38. ad calcem Cod. Th. 15 See Book V. chap. 3. sect. 15. 1’ Ambr. Ep. 29. Per triginta et innumeros annos pres- byteri quidam gradu functi, vel ministri ecclesiae retrahun- tur a munere sacro, et curiae deputantur. 18 Ap. Theodor. lib. 4. c. 9. arc "roii iepa'rucofi Tci'yjua'ros, Kai p1‘) o’mrd 1'05 flovhev'rnpiov Kai o'fl'pa'nw'nxijs a'pxfis. ‘9 Innoc. Ep. 4. c. 3. De curialibus manifesta ratio est, quoniam etsi inveniantur hujusmodi viri qui debeant clerici fieri, tamen quoniam saepius ad curiam repetuntur, caven- dum ab his est propter tribulationem, quae saepe de his ec- clesiae provenit. 2° Innoc. Ep. 23. c. 6. Neque de curialibus aliquem ad ecclesiasticum ordinem venire posse, qui post baptismum vel coronati fuerint, vel sacerdotium, quod dicitur, sustinu- erint, et editiones publicas celebraverint, &c. 2' Conc. Eliber. c. 3. CHAP. IV. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 149 sometimes transgressed, yet the laws both of church and state always stood in force against such ordin- ations ; and sometimes the ordainers themselves were punished with ecclesiastical censures. Of which there is a famous instance related by Sozo- men,22 who says the council of Constantinople, anno 360, deposed Neonas from his bishopric for ordain- ing some of these cm'z'ales bishops. Sozomen indeed calls them wakwevépevoz; but that iS but another name for curz'ales, whom the Greeks otherwise term fiovxwmi, counsellors; and the Latins, municipes, burghers, or corporation men; and minor senatus,23 the little senate of every city, in opposition to the great senate of Constantinople and Rome. These persons, whatever denomination they went by,'were so entirely devoted to the service of the common- wealth, that till they had some way or other dis- charged that duty, they might not (as appears) be admitted to serve in any ofi‘ice of the church.- Sect 5_ Indeed it was a general rule in this mliflfaigégf‘fififim matter, as we learn from one of the “ma‘pmd' councils“ of Carthage, that no one was to be ordained, who was bound to any secular service. And for that reason it was decreed by the same council, at least for the churches of Africa, that no agent or factor in other men’s business, nor any guardian of orphans, should be ordained, till his ofiice and administration was perfectly expired; because the ordination of such25 would otherwise turn to the reproach and defamation of the church. But if I mistake not, this prohibition did not extend to the inferior orders, but only to those whose ofiice was to serve at the altar. In some churches there seems also demggilgggigitlg to have been an absolute prohibition imlrfhfwmw and rule against ordaining advocates or pleaders at law, not only whilst they continued in their profession, but for ever after. This seems to have been the custom of the Roman and Spanish churches. For Innocent, bishop of Rome, in a letter28 to the council of Toledo, complains of an abuse then crept into the Spanish church, which was, that many who were exercised in pleading at the bar, were called to the priesthood. To correct which abuse, as he deemed it, he proposed this rule to them to be observed, that no one who had pleaded causes after baptism,27 should be admitted to any order of the clergy. What particular reasons the church of Rome might 22 Sozom. lib. 4. c. 24. 2* Majorian. Novel. 1. ad calcem Cod. Theod. Curiales servos esse reipublicae ac viscera civitatum nullus ignorat, quorum coetum recte appellavitantiquitas minorem senatum. 2‘ Conc. Carth. 1. c. 9. Obnoxii alienis negotiis non ordinentur. ‘5 Ibid. c. 8. ' Procuratores et actores, etiam tutores pn- pillorum—si ante libertatem negotiorum vel officiorum, ab aliquo sine consideratione fuerint ordinati,ecclesia infamatnr. 2“ Innoc. Ep. 23. ad Concil. Tolet. c. 2. Quantos ex eis, then have for this prohibition, I cannot say; but it does not appear, that this was the general rule of the whole catholic church. For the council of Sardica28 allows a lawyer even to be ordained bi- shop, if he first went regularly through the offices of reader, deacon, and presbyter. Which shows, that the custom, as to this particular, was not one and the same in all churches. The reader may find several other sect‘, cautions given by Grennadius,29 against “as: 55553123533; ordaining any who had been actors or &c' i“ an church“ stage-players; or energumens, during the time of their being possessed; or such as had married con- cubines, that is, wives without formality of law; or that had married harlots, or wives divorced from a former husband. But I need not insist upon these, since the very naming them shows all such persons to have been in such a state of life, as might reason- ably be accounted a just impediment of ordination. It will be more material to inquire, what the an- cients meant by digamy, which after the apostle they always reckoned an objection against a man’s or- dination? And whether any vow of perpetual celi- bacy was exacted of the ancient clergy, when they were admitted to the orders of the church? Which because they are questions that come properly under this head, it will not be amiss to resolve them Q distinctly, but briefly, in the following chapter. CHAPTER V. OF THE STATE OF DIGAMY AND CELIBACY IN PAR- TICULARI AND OF THE LAWS OF THE CHURCH ABOUT THESE, IN REFERENCE TO THE ANCIENT CLERGY. As to what concerns digamy, it was Sect. ,_ a primitive apostolical rule, that a mg‘gggggaggiiggggg bishop or a deacon should be one who “the almsfle' was the husband of one wife only: on which rule all the laws against digamy in the primitive church were founded. But then we are to observe, that the ancients were not exactly agreed about the sense of that apostolical rule; and that occasioned differ- ent notions and different practices among them in‘ reference to the ordination of digamists. qui post acceptam baptismi gratiarn, in forensi exercitatione versati sunt, et obtinendi pertinaciam susceperunt, accitos ad sacerdotium esse comperimus ? 2’ Ibid. c. 4. Ne quispiam ad ordinem debeat clericatfis admitti, qui eausas post acceptum baptismum egerint. 29 Conc. Sardic. c. 10. éév TL? o'XoAas-mds a’qrd 'rfis ci'yo- pd's a'gio'i'ro é'rrio'rco'n'os 'yiueo-Bat, in‘) 'n'pd'repov Kaeie'ao'eat, Edu ,un‘) Kai dua'yudiqov Kai. dzaicduov Kai 7rpea'fiv'répov inn}- pso'fav elm-sherry. 29 Gennad. de Eccles. Dogm. c. 73. i1 150 Boox IV, ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. One very common and prevailing notion was, that all persons were to be refused orders, as digamists, who were twice married after baptism, though legally and successively to two wives one after another. For though they did not condemn second marriages, as sinful and unlawful, with the Novatians and Mon- tanists; yet, upon presumption that the apostle had forbidden persons twice married to be ordained bi- shops, they repelled such from the superior orders of the church. That this was the practice of some churches in the time of Origen, may appear from what he says in his Comments upon St. Luke, that not only‘ fornication, but marriages excluded men from the dignities of the church: for no digamist could be either bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or deaconess in the church. Tertullian, when he be- came a Montanist, laid hold of this argument, and urged it to decry second marriages in all persons ; pleading2 that a layman could not in decency desire licence of the ecclesiastics to be married a second time, seeing the ecclesiastics themselves, bishops, presbyters, and deacons, were but once married. Which he repeats frequently8 in several parts of his writings. And it cannot be denied but that many other ancient writers, ‘St. Ambrose,4 St. J erom,5 Gennadius,6 Epiphanius,7 and the councils of Agde8 and Carthage,” put the same sense upon the words of the apostle. Only Epiphanius puts a distinction between the superior and inferior orders, making the rule in this sense obligatory to the former, but not to the latter. Sect 3. Some there are again, who gave ed‘i-hgggfgogggi; the rule a stricter exposition, making fl‘fijtfi‘elkfie‘ggrlid’ it a prohibition not only of ordaining afterbapfism' persons twice married after baptism, but also such as were twice married before it, or once before and once after; as many Gentiles and catechumens happened to be in those times, when baptism was administered to adult persons. St. Ambrose 1° was of opinion, that even these were to be excluded from ordination: and so it was decreed by Innocent, bishop of Rome,11 and the council of Valencia‘'3 in France. But this opinion was gener- Sect. 2. Three different opinions amon the ancients about di a.- my. First, that persons were tobe refus orders, as digamists, who were twice married after aptrsm. ally rejected by others, as furthest from the sense of the apostle. The most probable opinion is that q t 4 of those ancient writers, who interpret 3. Tiiicino'a pro- bable opinion of the apostle’s rule as a prohibition of zggsfégvsgg gquieht ordaining polygamists, or such as had sysgmggtgrgfg 5381‘ married many wives at the same time ; 3331:?“ ‘me’ and such as had causelessly put away their wives, and married others after divorcing of the former; which were then very common prac- tices both among Jews and‘ Gentiles, but scandal- ous in themselves, and such as the apostles would have to be accounted just impediments of ordina- tion. This is the sense which Chrysostom“ and Theodoret“ propose and defend, as most agreeable to the mind of the apostle. And it is certain, that second marriages in any other sense were not al— ways an insuperable objection against men’s ordin- ation in the Christian church. For Tertullian owns 1"‘ that there were bishops among the catholics who had been twice married; though, in his style, that was an affront to the apostle. And it appears from the letters of Siricius,16 and Innocent,‘7 that the bishops of Spain and Greece made no scruple to ordain such generally among the clergy; for they take upon them to reprove them for it. Theo- doret, agreeably to his own notion, ordained one Ireneeus bishop, who was twice married: and when some objected against the legality of the ordination upon that account, he defended it by the common practice of other churches. Herein, says he,18 I followed the example of my predecessors. Alex- ander, bishop of the apostolical see of Antioch, with Acacius of Beraza, ordained Diogenes, a digamist; and Praylius ordained Domninus of Caesarea, a di- gamist likewise. Proclus, bishop of Constantinople, received and approved the ordination of many such; and so do the bishops of Pontus and Palestine, among whom no controversy is made about it. From hence it appears, that the practice of the church varied in this matter; and that therefore Bellarmine and other Romanists very much abuse their readers, when they pretend that the ordin- ation of digamists, meaning persons twice law- fully married, is both against the rule of the apos- 1 Orig. Horn. 17. in Luc. p. 228. Ab ecclesiasticis dig- nitatibus non solum fornicatio, sed et nuptiae repellunt; neque e'nim episcopus, nec presbyter, nec diaconus, nec vidua, possunt esse digami. 2 Tertul. de Monogam. c. 11. Qualis es id'rnatrimonium postulans, quod eis, a quibus postulas, non licet habere 3’ ab episcopo monogamo, a presbyteris et diacouis ejusdem sa- cramenti, &c. 3 Vid. Tertul. de Poenitentc. 9. De Exhort. Castitat. c. 7. Ad Uxor. lib. 1. c. 7. ‘ Ambros. de Ofiic. lib. I. c. 50. 5 Hieron. Ep. 2. ad Nepotian. Ep. 11. ad Geront. Ep. 83. ad Ocean. 6 Gennad. de Eccles. Dogm. c. 72. '7 Epiphan. Expos. Fid. n. 21. 8 Cone. Agathen. c. 1. 9 Cone. Garth. 4. c. 69. 1° Ambros. 82. ad Vercellenses. ‘1 Innoc. Ep. 2. c. 6. Ep. 22. c. 2. Ep.24. c. 6. 12 Cone. Valentin. c. l. '3 Chrysost. Hom. 10. in 1 Tim. iii. 2. Horn. 2. in Tit. i. 6. 14 Theod. Com. in 1 Tim. iii. 2. 15 Tertul. de Monogam. c. 12. Quot enim et digami prac- sident apad vos, insuttantes utique apostolo? 1“ Siric. Ep. 1. ad Himer. Tarracon. c. 8. ‘7 Innoc. Ep. 22. ad Episc. Maced. c. 1. ‘8 Theod. Ep. 110. ad Domnum. CHAP. V. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 151 tle, and the universal consent and practice of the church. Sect 5_ They still more abuse their readers, N°"°“’ °f “libs-CY in pretending that a vow of perpetual required of the cler- . . ' gr as amn'll’m "f celibacy, or abstinence from conjugal their or ina ion or them“: fi’i‘agés' society, was required of the clergy, as a condition of their ordination, even from the apos- tolical ages. For the contrary is very evident from innumerable examples of bishops and presbyters, who lived in a state of matrimony without any pre- judice to their ordination or function. It is gener- ally agreed by ancient writers, that most of the apostles were married. Some say, all of them ex- cept19 St. Paul and St. John: others say, St. Paul was married also, because he writes to his yoke- fellow, whom they interpret his wife, Phil. iv. 3. This was the opinion of Clemens Alexandrinus,20 wherein he seems to be followed by Eusebius,21 and Origen,22 and the author of the interpolated Epistle’!3 to the Church of Philadelphia, under the name of Ignatius; whom some modern Romanists, mistak- ing him for the true Ignatius, have most disingenu- ously mangled, by erasing the name of Paul out of the text; which foul dealing Bishop Usher24 has exposed, and Cotelerius25 does in effect confess it, when he owns that the author himself wrote it, and that he therein followed the authority of Clemens, Origen, and Eusebius. But passing by this about St. Paul, (which is a matter of dispute among learned men, the major part inclining to think that he always lived a single life,) it cannot be denied that others of the apostles were married: and in the next ages after them we have accounts of married bishops, presbyters, and deacons, without any re- proof or mark of dishonour set upon them. As to instance in a few, Valens, presbyter of Philippi, men- tioned by Polycarp ;26 Cheeremon, bishop of Nilus, an exceeding old man, who fled with his wife to Mount Arabion in time of persecution, where they both perished together, as Eusebius informs us.27 Novatus was a married presbyter of Carthage, as we learn from Cyprian’s epistles.28 Cyprian himself was also a married man, as Mr. Pagi29 confesses. And so was Cmcilius,” the presbyter that converted him. As also Numidicus, another presbyter of Carthage, of whom Cyprian31 tells us this remark- able story, That in the Decian persecution he saw his own wife with many other martyrs burned by his side; whilst he himself lying half burnt, and covered with stones, and left for dead, was found expiring by his own daughter, who drew him out of the rubbish, and brought him to life again. Eu- sebius assures us, that Phileas,82 bishop of Thmuis, and Philoromus, had bothlwife and children: for they were urged with that argument by the heathen magistrate to deny their religion in the Diocletian persecution; but they generously contemned his ar- gument, and gave preference to the laws of Christ. Epiphanius” says, Marcion the heretic was the son of a bishop, and that he was excommunicated by his own father for his lewdness. Domnus also, bi- shop of Antioch}4 is said to be son to Demetrian, who was bishop of the same place before him. It were easy to add abundance more such instances; but these are sufficient to show, that men of all states were admitted to be bishops and presbyters in the primitive ages of the church. The most learned advocates of the Roman communion have never found The ‘@5321? 6r the any other reply to all this, save only contrary pretences' a groundless pretence of their own imagination, that all married persons when they came to be or- dained, promised to live separate from their wives by consent, which answered the vow of celibacy in other persons. This is all that Pagi85 or Schel- strate36 have to say in the case, after all the writers that have gone before them : which is said not only without proof, but against the clearest evidences of ancient history, which manifestly prove the con- trary. For Novatus, presbyter of Carthage, whose case Pagi had under consideration, was certainly allowed to cohabit with his wife after ordination: as appears from the charge that Cyprian brings against him, that he had struck and abused his wife,” and thereby caused her to miscarry; for which crime he had certainly been thrust out not only from the presbytery, but the church also, had not the persecution coming on so suddenly pre- vented his trial and condemnation. Cyprian does not accuse him for cohabiting with his wife, or be- " Ambros. ad Hilar. in 2 Cor. xi. Omnes apostoli, ex- ceptis J ohanne et Paulo, uxores habuerunt. Vid. Epiphan. Haer. 78. Antidicomarianit. n. 10. Cotelerius cites Euse- bius, Basil, and some others for the same opinion. Not. in Ignat. Ep. ad Philadelph. Interpolat. n. 4. 2° Clem. Alex. Strom. 3. p. 448. 2‘ Euseb. lib. 3. c. 30. 22 Orig. Com. in Rom. i. p. 459. Paulus ergo (sicut qui- dam tradunt) cum uxore vocatus est: de qua dicit, ad Phi- lippenses scribens: Rogo te etiam germana compar, 8:0. 23 Pseudo-Ignat. Ep. ad Philadelph. n. 4. 2‘ Usser. Dissert. in Ignat. c. 17. 25 Coteler. Not. in 100. 2“ Polycarp. Ep. ad Philip. n. 11. 2" Euseb. lib. 6. c. 42. 28 Cypr. Ep. 49. a1. 52. ad Cornel. 29 Pagi. Crit. in Baron. ad an. 248. n. 4. 3° Pontius Vit. Cyprian. 3‘ Cypr. Ep. 35. a1. 40. Numidicus presbyter uxorem ad- haerentem lateri suo, concrematam simul cum caeteris, vel conservatam magis dixerim, laatus aspexit, &c. ‘*2 Euseb. lib. 8. c. 9. 33 Epiphan. Haer. 42. 3‘ Euseb. lib. 7. c. 30. 35 Pagi, Critic. in Baron. an. 248. n. 6. 86 Schelstrat. Eccles. Afric. Dissert. 3. c. 4. ap. Pagi, ibid, 3’ Cypr. Ep. 52. al. 49. p. 97. Uterus uxoris calce per- cussus, et abortione properante in parricidium partus ex- pressus, &c. 152 Boox IV. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. getting children after ordination; but for murder- ing his children which he had begotten; which was indeed a crime that made him liable both to deposition and excommunication: but the other was no crime at all by any law then in force in the African, or in the universal church. There seems indeed in some places to have been a little ten- dency towards introducing such a law by one or two zealous spirits ; but the motion was no sooner made, but it was quashed immediately by the pru- dence and authority of wiser men. Thus Eusebius observes, that Pinytus, bishop of Gnossus in Crete, was for laying the law of celibacy upon his bre- thren: but Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, wrote to him, that he should consider the weakness of men, and not impose88 that heavy burden upon them. And thus matters continued for three centuries, without any law that we read of, requiring celibacy of the clergy at the time of their ordination. seem. In the council of Nice, anno 325, “Image; gaff; the motion was again renewed, that Nicene mm‘ a law might pass to oblige the clergy to abstain from all conjugal society with their wives, which they had married before their ordination. But the proposal was no sooner made, but Paphnu- tius, a famous Egyptian bishop, and one himself never married, vigorously declaimed against it; saying, So heavy a burden was not to be laid upon the clergy; that the marriage bed was honourable, and that they should not by too great severity bring detriment on the church; for all men could not bear so severe an exercise, and the chastity of the wives so separated would be endangered also. Conjugal society, he said, was chastity; and it was enough, that such of the clergy as were not married before their ordination, should continue unmarried, according to the ancient tradition of the church; but it was not proper to separate any one from his wife, which he had married whilst he was a layman. This said, the whole council agreed to stifle the motion that had been made, and left every man to his liberty as before. So Socrates89 and Sozomen tell the story. ‘To which all that Vale- sius‘o after Bellarmine has to say, is, that he sus- pects the truth of the thing, and desires leave to dissent from his historians. Which is but a poor evasion, in the judgment of Du Pin himself, who thus41 reflects upon them for it: Some question the truth of this story, says he, but I believe they do it for fear the story might prejudice the present dis- cipline, rather than from any solid proof they have for it. But they should consider, that this canon is purely a matter of discipline, and that the disci- pline of the church may change according to the times, and that it is not necessary for the defence of it, to prove that it was always uniform in all places. So that in the judgment of that learned Romanist there is no question to be made, but that the council of Nice decreed in favour of the mar- ried clergy, as the historians relate it did; and that then the practice was different from that of the present church of Rome, which others are so un- willing to have the world believe. It is as evident from other councils Sect 8 of the same age, that the married Angptgercaigwils clergy were allowed to continue in the service of the church, and no vow of abstinence required of them at their ordination. Socrates ob- serves, that the council of Gangra anathematized Eustathius the heretic, because he taught men to separate42 from such presbyters as retained their wives, which they married while they were laymen, saying, their communion and oblations were abo- minable. The decree is still extant among the canons of that council,‘3 and runs in these words: If any one separate from a married presbyter, as if it were unlawful to participate of the eucharist when such a one ministers, let him be anathema. The council of Ancyra gives leave to deacons to marry after ordination; if they protested,“ at their ordination, that they could not continue in an un- married state, they might marry, and yet continue in their office, having, in that case, the bishop’s licence and permission to do it. And though the council of Neocaesarea in one canon forbids un- married presbyters to marry after ordination ;“5 yet such as were married before ordination, are allowed by another canon to continue without any cen- sure,"6 being only obliged to separate from their wives in case of fornication. The council of Eli- beris,‘7 indeed, and some others in this age, began to be a little more rigorous toward the married clergy: but it does not appear that their laws were of any great force. For Socrates "8 says, even in his time, in the Eastern churches, many eminent bishops begat children of their lawful wives; and such as abstained, did it not by obligation of any law, but their own voluntary choice. Only in Thessaly, Macedonia, and Hellas, the clergy were obliged to abstain under pain of ecclesiastical cen- 38 Dionys. Ep. ad Pinytum, ap. Euseb. lib. 4. c. 23. Mr‘) fiapl‘i (papa-1'01) "rd 'n'spi. o'z'yveias é'n'aua'ylcis 'ro'Zs ddehqbo'is s’vrt'rtfi'e'uat. ‘*9 Socrat. lib. 1. c. 11. Sozom. lib. l. c. 23. 4° Vales. Not. in Socrat. lib. l. c. 11. ‘1 Du Pin, Bibliotheque, vol. 2. p. 253. Edit. Anglic. ‘2 Socrat. lib. 2. c. 43. I'Ipeo'fiv'répov 'yvuailca iixov'ros, fill vémp Aa'ilco‘s d‘w 1’7'yc'z'ys'ro 1'1‘10 si’iko'yiav Kai 'T‘l‘lll Koww- viau als uilcos émchiusw éxe'have. ‘3 Conc. Grangr. c. 4. El’ 'ris dtalcpt'uowo wapr‘z qrpsa- flu'répou ye'yanmcd'ros, dis ,u1‘) Xpijuru Asurovp'yfio'au'ros ail- Tofi 7rpoo¢opiis pe'rahajuflo'wsw, a’uo'zs'sua ia'a'rw. ‘4 Conc. Ancyr. c. 10. El éluaprriipawro Kai. iz'dmo'au XPfival 'Yaflild'at, in‘) dvuépeuot oii'rws ,ue'z/sw, 0570:. new‘: 'raii'ra 'yapnio'am'es i-z'o'rwo'au 2’11 71'} i'm'npeo'iq, &C. ‘5 Conc. Neocaes. c. l. ‘6 Ibid. c. 8. 4" Conc. Elib. c. 33. Cone. Arelat. 2. c. 2- 48 Socrat. lib. 5. c. 22. CHAP. VI. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 153 ANTIQUITIES OF THE sure, which, he says, was occasioned by Bishop Heliodore’s writing his book called his Ethiopics. So that as yet there was no universal decree against married bishops in the Greek church, much less against presbyters and deacons. But the council of Trullo, anno 692, made a difference between bi- shops and presbyters; allowing presbyters, deacons, and all the inferior orders, to cohabit with their wives after ordination ;49 and giving the Roman church a smart rebuke for the contrary prohibition: but yet laying an injunction upon bishops to live separate from their wives,50 and appointing the wives to betake themselves to a monastic life,51 or become deaconesses in the church. And so the matter was altered in the Greek church, as to bi- shops, but not any others. In the Latin church also the alteration was made but by slow steps in many places. For in Africa even bishops them- selves cohabited with their wives at the time of the council of Trullo, as appears from one of the fore- mentioned canons of that council.52 But it is be- yond my design to carry this inquiry any further; what has been already said, being sufiicient to show, that the married clergy were allowed to ofiiciate in the first and primitive ages; and that celibacy in those times was no necessary condition of their ordination, as is falsely pretended by the polemical writers of the present church of Rome. I have now gone through the several qualifications of the ancient clergy, concerning which inquiry was made before their ordination. I come now, in the next place, to consider the solemnity of the thing itself, together with the laws and customs which were generally observed at the time of ordination. CHAPTER VI. OF THE ORDINATIONS OF THE PRIMITIVE CLERGY, AND THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS GENERALLY OB- SERVED THEREIN. WHEN the election of a person duly qualified according to the foremen- tioned rules was made, then it was the bishop’s ofiice, or the metropoli- tan’s, if the party elect was himself a bishop, to ordain him. But before they proceeded to ordina- Sect. 1. The canons of the church to be read to the clerk, before the bishop ordained him. tion, there were some other laws and rules to be observed. For not to mention here again the oath against simony, and the subscriptions, which, I have showed before,1 were anciently required of per- sons to be ordained; I must not forget to note, that in the African church a rule was made in the third council of Carthage," and thence transferred into the African Code,8 that before any bishop, or other clergyman, was ordained, the ordainers should cause the canons of the church to be read in his hearing; that they might not have cause to repent after~ ward, that they had transgressed any of them. This rule was made at the instance and request of St. Austin, as Possidius notes in his Life,4 who says, that because he was ordained bishop of Hippo while Valerius was alive, which was contrary to the rule of the council of Nice, which he was ignorant of at the time of his ordination, he there- fore prevailed with the African fathers to make a decree, that the canons of the church should be read at every man’s ordination. This rule implied a tacit promise, that the party ordained would ob— serve the canons that were read to him: but for greater security, it was afterward improved into an explicit promise by a law of J ustinian,5 which re- quires every clerk after the reading of the canons to profess, that as far as it was possible for man to do, he would fulfil what was contained in them. Whence, no doubt, came those later forms of pro- fessing obedience to the canons of the seven ge- neral councils in the Greek church, and the oath to St. Peter taken by the bishops of Rome in the Latin church, that they would observe the decrees of the eight general councils. The first of which forms may be seen at length in Habertus,“ and the other in Baronius,7 and the book called Liber Di- urnus, by the reader that is curious to consult them. Secondly,Another rule to be observed Sect 2. in this case was, that every man should M53135‘; be fixed to some church at his ordina- Awe/w" tion, and not be left at liberty to minister wherever he would, because of several inconveniences that attended that practice. This rule concerned bishops as well as the inferior clergy; for the nullatenenses of later ages, as Panormitan calls titular and Uto- pian bishops, were rarely known in the primitive church. For though every bishop was in some sense ordained bishop of the catholic church, as I have showed before, yet, for order’s sake, he was always confined to a certain district in the ordinary ‘9 Conc. Trull. c. 13. 5° Ibid. 0. 12. 5' Ibid. c. 48. 52 Ibid. 0. 12. - 1 See chap. 3. sect. 2 and 14. 2 Cone. Garth. 3. c. 3. Placuit, ut ordinandis episcopis vel clericis prius ab ordinatoribus suis decreta conciliorum auribus eorum inculcentur; ne se aliquid contra statuta concilii fecisse poeniteat. 3 God. Eccles. Afr. c. 18. 4 Possid. Vit. Aug. c. 8. Quod in seipso fieri non debuisse, ut vivo suo episcopo ordinaretur, postea et dixit et scripsit, propter concilii universalis vetitum, quod jam ordinatus didicit: nec quod sibi factum esse doluit, aliis fieri voluit. Unde etiam sategit, ut conciliis constitueretur episcoporum, ab ordinatoribus deberi ordinandis, vel ordinatis, omnium statuta sacerdotum in notitiam esse deferenda. 5 Justin. Novel. 6. c. l. n. 8. 6 Habert. Archieratic. p. 496. "' Baron. an. 869. t. 10. p. 433. 154 Boox IV ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. exercise of his power. And so presbyters and all other inferior clergy were confined to the diocese of their own bishop, and might not be ordained unless they had some place wherein to exercise their function. This was the ancient custom of the church, which the council of Chalcedon confirmed by a canon, that no presbyter, or deacon, or any other ecclesiastic, should be ordained8 at large, but be as- signed either to the city church, or some church or oratory in the country, or a monastery ; otherwise his ordination to be null and void. This the Latins called, ordinat-z'o localis, and the persons so ordained, locales, from their being fixed to a certain place. As in the council of Valentia9 in Spain we find a canon, that obliges every priest before his ordination to give a promise, that he will be localz's ; to the in- tent that no one should be permitted to transgress the rules and discipline of the church with impuni- ty; which they might easily do, if they were allowed to rove about from one place to another. This, in the style of Leo, bishop of Rome, is, ordination 1° founded upon a place, or, as we would say now, a title; without which, he says, the ordination was not to be looked upon as authentic. But it must be observed, that a title then did not always signify a parochial church, or distinct cure; for this was a rule before dioceses were divided into parishes: but the confinement laid upon men at their ordination was, that they should be fixed to their own bishop’s diocese, and ofi‘iciate in the place where he ap- pointed them. There were indeed some few ex- Sect. 3. . . Emgtiggggr ceptions to this rule, but very rare, and upon extraordinary occasions. Paulinus and St. J erom seem to have had the privilege granted them of being ordained without affixing to any church. Paulinus says ‘1' expressly of himself, that he was ordained presbyter at Barce- lona with this condition, that he should not be con- fined to that church, but remain a priest at large. And St. J erom gives the same account ‘2 of his own ordination at Antioch, that he was consecrated presbyter, with licence to continue a monk, and re- turn to his monastery again. Sozomen18 relates the like of Barses and Eulogius, two monks of Edessa, that they were both ordained bishops, not of any city, but only honorary bishops within their own monasteries, out of respect to their eminent virtues. And it was such a sort of ordination that, Theodoret“ says, Flavian, bishop of Antioch, gave to Macedonius, the famous Syrian anchoret, whom he drew from his cell in the desert, only to ordain him presbyter, and so let him return to the desert again. These are all the instances of this kind which I remember in ancient history. It was not as yet the custom to ordain bishops partz'bus z'igfi- delium, that never meant to see their bishoprics. Though after ages despised this rule, as Zonaras15 complains of the Greek church, and Habertus16 can- not but lament it in the Latin; yet the ancient church was more punctual in observing the laws, scarce ever ordaining either bishop or inferior clerk without fixing them to a certain diocese, from which, without the consent of their superiors, they were not to remove to any other. Thirdly, And from hence arose a third rule about ordinations, That no No bsisefii'ft'o or- am another man’s bishop should ordain, or admit into 3152;152:3110“ his his church, any clerk belonging to another church, without the consent of the bishop to whom he formerly belonged. The councils 1’ are very peremptory in this decree; particularly the great council of Nice,18 and that of Sardica,19 and the second of Arles,2° declare all such ordinations null and void. The first council of Carthage 2‘ ex- tends the prohibition even to laymen belonging to another diocese: for it decrees, that as no clerk shall be received by another bishop without the letters dimissory of his own bishop; so neither shall any bishop take a layman out of another peo- ple, and ordain him, without the consent of that bishop out of whose people he is taken. The rea- son of which laws was, that every bishop was sup- posed to have a peculiar right in all the clergy and people of his own diocese; and it was very con- ducive to the peace and good order of the church to have such rules maintained and observed. Only in the African church the bishop of Carthage was allowed a privilege in this case, as he was exarch or primate of all the African provinces. For by 8 Cone. Chalced. c. 6. ttndéva a’vroXeAv/uévws Xstpo'rovsi- cr9aL-—-—ei In‘) lducc'bs éu émckno'iq 'mihsws, i‘) Kliifms, f7 ,uap- 'rupiup f1 povarrrnpicp é'rrucnpfi'r'rot'ro. ' 9 Cone. Valentin. c. 6. Nec ullum sacerdotem quispiam ordinet, qui localem se futurum primitus non spoponderit: ut per hoc nullus a regula vel disciplina ecclesiae deviare permittatur impune. 1° Leo, Ep. 92. ad Rustic. c. l. Vana est habenda or- dinatio, quae nec loco fundata est, nec auctoritate mu- nita. ' 11 Paulin. Ep. 6. ad. Sever. p. 101. Ea conditione in Barcinonensi ecclesia consecrari adductus sum, ut ipsi ec- clesiae non alligarer; in sacerdotium tantum Domini, non in locum ecclesiae dedicatus. ‘2 Hieron. Ep. 61. ad. Pammach. t. 2. p. 181. 13 Sozom. lib. 6. c. 34. ‘4 Theod. Histor. Relig. e. 13. t. 3. ‘5 Zonar. Not. in Conc. Chalced. c. 6. 16 Habert. Archieratic. p. 351. 1’ Vid. Conc. Carthag. 3. c. 21. Cone. Chalced. c. 20. Arausican. 1. e. 8, 9. '8 Conc. Nic. c. 16. t'iicvpos Eon-5: 1'1 Xstpoerovia. 19 Conc. Sardie. c. 15. 2° Conc. Arelat. 2. c. 13. Si aliquis, invito episcopo suo, in aliena ecclesia habitans, ab episcopo loci clericus fuerit ordinatus, hujusmodi ordinatio irrita habeatur. 21 Cone. Carth. 1. c. 5. Non licere clericum alienum ab aliquo suscipi sine literis episcopi sui, neque apud se reti- nere, nec laicum usurpare sibi de plebe aliena, ut eum ordi- net sine conscientia ejus episcopi, de cujus plebe est. CHAP. VI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 155 ancient custom, confirmed by a canon in the third council of Carthage,22 which is also inserted into the African Code,23 the bishop of Carthage is allowed to take a clerk out of another church, and ordain him for the service of any church under his jurisdiction. But an exception in his particular case confirms the rule in all the rest. - Sect 5. Fourthly, Another rule for the pre- dalg’fgsfrfahtgf" servation of order in this afi'air was, man's dbme' that every bishop should confine him- self to his own church, and not assume to himself the power of ordaining in the diocese of another man. So the council of Antioch,"4 and those called the Apostolical Canons25 determined, that a bishop should not presume to ordain out of his own bounds, in cities or countries not subject to him. St. Austin had occasion to insist upon this rule in the case of Pinianus, when the people of Hippo required him to ordain him presbyter against his will, and threat- ened that, if he would not, they would have another bishop to ordain him: St. Austin told26 them, that no bishop could ordain him in his church without first asking his leave and permission; and that having given him a promise, that he would not or- dain him against his will, he could not in honour consent that any other bishop should come and ordain him. Socrates27 says, Epiphanius took upon him to ordain a deacon in the diocese of Chrysos- tom at Constantinople: but Chrysostom told him, that he acted contrary to canon, in ordaining in churches that were not under his jurisdiction. Which shows, that this was a universal law, pre- vailing both in the Eastern and Western churches. And by the same rule, all metropolitans with their provincial bishops were confined to their own pro- vince, and might not ordain any bishop in another province, except they were invited by the bishops of that province to come and give them their assist- ance. Which rule was made in the general coun- cil28 of Constantinople, and confirmed in the council of Ephesus,29 upon the controversy that arose be- tween the churches of Cyprus and the patriarch of Antioch, who laid claim to the power of ordinations in those churches, but was rejected in his claim, because they were out of his district, and under another jurisdiction. But it is to be observed, that these rules were only made for ordinary cases, to preserve peace and a good understanding among the bishops of the church, whilst every one acted in his proper sphere, and kept to those bounds and limits which the laws appointed. For otherwise, as I have showed heretofore,“0 every bishop was a bishop of the whole catholic church, and in that capacity authorized to ordain, or perform any other acts of the episcopal of‘fice, in any part of the world, upon urgent necessity and extraordinary occasions. As Athanasius and Eusebius Samosatensis did in the times of the great prevalency of the Arian he- resy; ordaining bishops and presbyters in any pro- vince or diocese, (though contrary to the letter of this law,) in order to preserve the catholic faith, and a succession of orthodox men in the service of the church. So that this was only a rule for com- mon and ordinary cases. And in Cyprus, Epi— phanius“1 says, they did not insist upon the rule at all one among another, but any bishop ordained in any other man’s diocese, as occasion required, with- out breach of charity; for they gave a sort of general leave to one another, as finding it most expedient for the church in that province to use such at liberty among themselves ; though they stifliy maintained their privilege against the encroachments of all foreign sees, and more especially that of Antioch. The next things to be noted in this sec, 6_ affair, are such as concern the time th'fzgg'si'gglg" and place of ordination. Concerning time“ “man” the time, there may several inquiries be made. 1. Whether they had ‘originally any set and constant times of ordination, as the church now has four times a year? 2. Whether Sunday was always the day of ordinationiJ 3. Whether ordinations were always confined to morning service? As to the first inquiry, it does not certainly appear, that the church had any constant annual times of ordination before the fourth century. For Habertus truly ob- serves)‘2 that then it was more usual to ordain men singly, as the present occasions of every church re- quired. Pope Leo indeed83 derives the jejum'a qua- tuor temporum, the fasts of the four seasons of the year, which are now commonly called ember-weeks, from apostolical tradition. But, as Mr. Pagi,84 and Quesnel,35 in their censures of that author, observe, 22 Concil. Garth. 3. c. 45. 23 God. Can. Afric. c. 44. Hapl 'roii éfa'iua'i 'rq'i' e’arw- Ké'rrw Kapxndéuos, 66w Ge'hez, Khrjpucov xezpocroue'iv. 2‘ Cone. Antioch. c. 22. 25 Canon. Apost. c. 35. ’E1rimn§€$iggng§ party could make, that would prevent ceptamwprotested upon oath that he his ordination in such cases, except :g‘ggdfm be Or- he chanced to protest solemnly upon oath against ordination. For in that case he was to be set at liberty, and not to be ordained against so solemn a protestation. This is evident, from one of the canons of St. Basil, which says, that they who swear they will not be ordained,11 are not to be compelled to forswear themselves by being ordain- ed. And this, I think, also may be collected from the account which Epiphanius gives of his own transaction with Paulinianus, St. J erom’s brother, upon such an occasion. Paulinianus, he says, was one of those who fled from their bishop for fear of ordination, but providentially comingl2 where Epi- phanius was, he caused him to be seized by his dea- cons, not dreaming or suspecting any thing of or- dination; and when he came to it, he caused them to hold his mouth, for fear he should have abjured him by the name of Christ to set him free. Thus he ordained him deacon first, and presbyter some time after in the very same manner. Which seems to imply, that if he had suffered him to have made his protestation in the name of Christ, he could not 1 See before, chap. 2. sect. 8. 2 Pontius, Vit. Cypr. 3 Greg. Nyssen. Vita Greg. Thaumaturg. 4 Sozomen. lib. 2. c. 17. 5 Socrat. lib. 4. c.23. 6 Paulin. Vit. Ambros. " Hieron. Ep. 3. Epitaph. Nepotian. Presbyter ordinatur. J esu bone, qui gemitus, qui ejulatus, qua: cibi interdictio, quae fuga oculorum omnium? T unc primum et solum avun- culo iratus est. 8 Sulp. Sever. Vit. St. Martin. lib. l. p. 224. Dispositis in itinere civium turbis, sub quadam custodia ad civitatem usque deducitur, &c. 9 Theod. Hist. Relig. c. 13. 1° Epiph. Ep. ad Johan. Hierosol. Multi episcoporum communionis nostrae et presbyteros in nostra ordinaverunt provincia, quos nos comprehendere non poteramus, et mi- serunt ad nos diaconos et hypodiaconos, quos suscepimus cum gratia. 1‘ Basil. Ep. Canon. ad Amphiloch. c. 10. Oi o’pwfiou-ras m‘; Ka'radéxacrtiat '1-1‘111 Xupo'rovfav, éfopufiyavot in‘) dva'yKa- Za'o'ewo'au é'n'ropKs'Zv. ‘2 Epiphan. ibid. Ignorantem cum, et nullam penitus ha- bentem suspicionem, per multos diaconos apprehendi jussi- mus, et teneri os ejus, ne forte liberari se cnpiens, adjuraret nos per nomen Christi, &c. 160 CHRISTIAN CHURCH. ' Boox IV. ANTIQUITIES or THE have proceeded to his ordination. But it seems nothing else but such an adjuration was available to set him free: and that is a further argument, that in those times men might be ordained against their wills, and yet their ordination stand good, and be accounted as valid as any others. But in the next age this practice was prohibited, because of several in- conveniences that were found to at- tend it. The emperors Leo and Ma- jorian made a law with sanctions and penalties to prevent it. For they decreed, that no one should be ordained13 against his will. And whereas some bishops did impose the burden of orders upon men against their consent, they granted liberty in that case, either to the party himself, or any other accuser, to bring an action at law against the archdeacon, who was liable to be fined ten pounds of gold, to be paid to the injured party, or to the informers, or to the states of the city; the bishop also was to be censuredby his superiors, and the party ordained to be set at liberty, as if he had never been ordained. Pursuant to this law, John, bishop of Ravenna, for a transgression of this kind, was threatened to be deprived of the power of or- dination by Simplicius,“ bishop of Rome, anno 482. And the third council of Orleans,15 anno 538, made a decree for the French churches, that if any bishop ordained a clerk against his will, he should do pe- nance for the fact a whole year, and remain sus- pended from his office till that term was expired. So great an alteration was there made in one age in the rules and practice of the church, from what they had been in the former. But I must note, that after this cor- rection was made, there was still some difference to be observed between the forced ordination of a bishop, and that of an inferior clerk, presbyter, deacon, or any other. For though the forementioned imperial law gave liberty to all inferiors so ordained, to relinquish their ofiice that was forced upon them, if they pleased, and betake themselves to a secular life again, yet it peremptorily denied ‘6 this privilege to bishops, de- creeing that their ordination should stand good, Sect. 3. This practice at‘- terward prohibited by the imperial laws, and canons of the church. Sect. 4. Yet a bishop or- dained against his will, had not the privilege to relin— quish. and that no action brought against their ordainers should be of force to evacuate or disannul their consecration. Which seems to be grounded upon that ancient rule of the church mentioned in the council of Antioch,17 and confirmed in the council of Chalcedon,ls that if any bishop was ordained to a church to which he refused to go, he should be excommunicated till he complied, or something were determined in his case by a provincial synod. Which seems to authorize the using a sort of vio- lence in compelling men to undergo the burden of the episcopal function; agreeably to that other law of Leo and Anthemius, in the Justinian Code," which puts this among other qualifications of a bishop, that he shall be so far from ambition, as to be one rather that must be sought for and com- pelled to take a bishopric. Such were anciently the laws of church and state relating to forced ordinations. As to re-ordinations, before we can Sect 5. answer to the question about them, 58113259223?“ we must distinguish between the or- mud‘ ders that were given regularly and canonically by persons rightly qualified in the church, and such as were given irregularly by persons unqualified, or by heretics and schismatics out of the church. As to such orders as were given regularly in the church, they were supposed, like baptism, to im- press a sort of indelible character, so as that there was no necessity upon any occasion to repeat them, but on the contrary, it was deemed a criminal act so to do. The third council of Carthage, following the steps of the plenary council of Capua, or Capsa, decreed, that it was equally unlawful20 to re-bap- tize and re-ordain. And those called the Apostoli- cal Canons21 make it deposition both for the or- dainer and ordained to give or receive a second ordination. St. Austin22 says it was not the custom of the catholic church to repeat either orders or baptism. For men did not lose their orders,” as to the internal character and virtue, though they were suspended from the execution of their office for some misdemeanor. Optatus testifies the same, telling us, that Donatus was condemned in the '8 Leo. Novel. 2. in Append. Cod. Theod. Nonnullorum persuasio sacerdotum reluctantibus onus istud imponit, &c. Eo ergo licentiam hujus praesumptionis excludimus, ut si quispiam probatus fuerit vi coactus sub contumelia publiea clericatus ofliciis successisse, spontaneis accusatoribus, vel si ipse voluerit allegare perpessam licentiam, commodemus apud judices competentes hujusmodi admissa damnare, ut si inter leges obj ecta constiterint, decem libras auri archi- diaconus cogatur inferre ei qui pertulerit exsolvendas: de- hinc si ille desistit, accusatoris censibus et civitatis ordini profuturas: illo suae reddito voluntati, qui coactus non po- tuit consecrari, &c. 1* Simplic. Ep. 2. ad Johan. Ravennatens. ‘5 Con. Aurelian. 3. c. 7. Episcopus qui invitum vel re- clamantem praesumpserit ordinare, annuali poenitentiae sub- ditus missas facere non praesumat. 1“ Leo, Novel. 2. ibid. Si qui sane episcopus invitus fuerit ordinatus, hanc consecrationem nulla violari accusa- tione permittimus. , 1’ Conc. Antioch. c. 17. '8 Conc. Chalced. Act. 11. ‘9 Cod. Justin. lib. 1. Tit. 3. de Episc. Leg. 31. Tantum ab ambitu debet esse sepositus, ut quaeratur cogendus, &c. 2° Conc. Carth. 3. c. 38. In Capsensi plenaria synodo statutum, quod non liceat fieri rebaptizationes, et reordina- tiones, vel translationes episcoporum. 2‘ Canon. Apost. c. 67. 22 Aug. cont. Parmen. lib. 2. c. 13. In catholica utrum- que non licet iterari. 23 Id. de Bona Conjugal. c. 24. t. 6. Manet in illis ordi- natis sacramentum ordinationis; et si aliqua culpa quis- quam ab ofiicio removeatur, sacramento Domini semel im- posito non carebit, &c. CHAP. VII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 161 council of Rome under Melchiades, for re-ordaining such bishops as had lapsed in time of persecution ; 2* which was contrary to the custom of the catholic church. And others25 accuse the Arians upon the same account, for re-ordaining such of the catholic clergy as went over to their party. There is indeed a passage in Opta- tus concerning Ceecilian, bishop of Carthage, which at first view seems to import as if Czecilian had been willing to have submitted to a re-ordination. For Optatusz" says, Ceecilian sent this message to the Donatist bishops, That if Felix had given him no true ordination, as they pretended, they should or- dain him again, as if he were still only a deacon. But St. Austin, who perhaps best understood Cae- cilian’s meaning, says27 he only spoke this ironically to deride them, not that he intended to submit to a second ordination, but because he was certain that Felix and the rest of his ordainers were no tradi- tors, as they accused them. So that we have no instances of re-ordaining such as were regularly ordained in the catholic church: it being esteem- ed unlawful, as Theodoret28 words it, to give any man the same ordination twice. Whence neither in the translation of bishops from one church to another do we ever read of a new ordination, but only of an enthronization or instalment; as of a new matriculation of presbyters and deacons, when they were taken out of one church to be settled in another. Cyprian, speaking of his admission of Numidicus into his own church from another, where he was presbyter before, does not say, he gave him a new ordination, but only29 a name and a seat among the presbyters of Carthage. And this was the constant practice of the church in all such cases, for any thing that appears to the contrary. Sect 7 As to such as were ordained out of sfgéirirrgg'ggz'fglrgg the church by schismatical or hereti- cal bishops, the case was a little dif- ferent. For the church did not always allow of their ordinations, but sometimes, for discipline’s sake, and to put a mark of infamy upon their errors, made them take a new ordination. This was de- Sect. 6. The proposal made b ‘ Caeeilian to the natists examined. creed by the great council of Nice in the case of those bishops and presbyters, whom Meletius the schismatic ordained in Egypt, after he had been deposed by his metropolitan of Alexandria. They were not to be admitted to serve in the catholic church, till they were first authorized by a more sacred ordination,80 as that council words ‘it in her synodical epistle or directions to the church of Alexandria. In pursuance of this decree, Theodore, bishop of Oxyrinchus, re-ordained the Meletian presbyters upon their return to the church; as Valesius“ shows out of Marcellinus and Faustinus’s petition to the emperor T heodosius; and other learned men32 are of the same opinion. Yet in some cases the church consented to receive schis- matical bishops and presbyters without obliging them to take a new ordination. As in Africa, St. Austin33 assures us, it was the custom to allow of the ordinations of the Donatists, and to admit them to officiate in whatever station they served before their return to the unity of the church, With— out repeating their ordination any more than their baptism. He repeats this in several places of his writings. And that it was so, appears‘both from the canons of the African councils,“ and the con- cessions made in the collation of Carthage,35 where the proposal was, that the Donatist bishops should enjoy their honours and dignities, if they would re- turn to the unity of the catholic church. This had before been determined in the Roman council un- der Melchiades, where the Donatists had their first hearing. For there, St. Austin informs us,86 it was also decreed, that only Donatus the author of the schism should be cashiered; but for all the rest, though they were ordained out of the church, they should be received upon their repentance, in the very same offices and quality, which they enjoyed before. So that the rigour of church discipline was quicken- ed or abated in this respect, according as the benefit or necessities of the church seemed to require. And the treatment of persons or- dained by heretics was much of the same nature. Some canons require all such without exception to be re- 2‘ Optat. lib. 1. p. 44. In Donatum sunt hae sententiae latae : quod confessus sit se rebaptizasse, et episcopis lapsis manum imposuisse : quod ab ecclesia alienum est. ’ 25 Vid. Vales. Not. in Sozom. lib. 6. c. 26. ex Marcellin. Libel. Precum. 25 Optat. lib. 1. p. 41. A Caeciliano mandatum est, ut si Felix in se, sicut illi arbitrabantur, nihil contulisset, ipsi tanquam adhuc diaconum ordinarent Caecilianum. 2’ Aug. Brevic. Collat. Die 3. c. 16. Quod quidem si dic- tum est, ideo dici potuit ad illos deridendos, 'quibus hoc mandasse perhibetur, quoniam certus erat ordinatores suos non esse traditores. 28 Theod. Histor. Relig. c. 13. OZ: duvwrdu dis 'rr‘w ab'rv‘lv E'n'vres'a'iuaz xstpo'roviau. 29 Cypr. Ep. 35. al. 40. Admonitos nos et instructos sci- atis dignatione divina, ut Numidicus presbyter adscribatur M Sect. 8. And heretics also upon their return to the church, in some aces. presbyterorum Cathaginiensiurn numero, et nobiscum sedeat in clero. 3° Ep. Synod. ap. Socrat. lib. l. c. 9. et Theodor. lib. l. C. 9. Mus-ucw'ra'pq xezpoq'ouiq Befiatwfie'rras, &c. 3‘ Vales. Not. in Socrat. lib. l. c. 9. 32 Du Pin, Biblioth. Cent. 4. p. 251. 33 Aug. cont. Parmen. lib. 2. c. 13. Si visum est opus esse, ut eadem officia gererent quae gerebant, non sunt rur- sus ordinati, sed sicut baptismus in eis, ita ordinatio mansit integra, &c. Vid. cont. Crescon. lib. 2. c. 11. It. Ep. 50. p. 87. Ep. 162. p. 279. 3* Cod. Can. Afr. c. 69 et 70. 35 Coll. Carth. Die 1. c. 16. 36 Aug. Ep. 50. ad Bonifac. p. 87. Damnato uno quodam Donato, qui author schismatis fuisse manifestatus est, cae- teros correctos, etiamsi extra ecclesiam ordinati essent, in suis honoribus rccipiendos esse ccnsuerunt. 162 BooK IV. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. ordained. It was so in the Greek church, at the time when those called the Apostolical Canons were made. For the same canons’I that condemns re- ordinations in the church, makes an exception in the case of such as were ordained by heretics; pro- nouncing their ordination void, and requiring them to be ordained again. And this was generally the practice of all those churches in the third century, which denied the validity of heretical baptism; for by much stronger reason they denied their ordina- tions. Therefore Firmilian, who was of this opinion, tells us also, that the council "8 of Iconium, anno 256, decreed, that heretics had no power to minister either baptism, or confirmation, or ordination. Nay, some of those who allowed the baptism of heretics, yet still continued to condemn their ordinations. As Innocent, bishop of Rome, who determines against such as” were ordained by the Arians and such other heretics, that they were not to be ad- mitted with their honours in the catholic church; though their baptism might stand good, being ad- ministered in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. In another place‘0 he says, it was the ancient rule of the church of Rome to cancel and disannul all such ordinations; though in some places, he owns, they were allowed: for Anisius, bishop of Thessalonica, with a council of his provincial bishops, agreed to receive those whom Bonosus, an heretical bishop of Macedonia, had ordained ; that they might not continue to strengthen his party, and thereby bring no small damage upon the church. Liberius not only admit- ted the Macedonian'bishops to communion, but also allowed them to continue in their ofiice, upon their subscription to the Nicene creed, and abjuration of their former heresy; as Socrates,“ and Sozomen,42 and St. Basil,48 and others testify. In France, the custom was in the time of Clodoveus to give a new imposition of hands to the Arian clergy that return- ed to the catholic faith; as appears from the first council of Orleans, which made a decree “ about it: but that, perhaps, does not mean a new ordination, but only such a reconciliatory imposition of hands, as was used to be given to penitents in absolution. But if otherwise, it proves that the church had dif- ferent methods of proceeding in this case, as she judged it most expedient and beneficial for her ser- vice ; sometimes reversing and disannulling the or- dinations of heretics for discipline’s sake, and to show her resentments of their errors; and sometimes al- lowing them to stand good for her own sake, to pre— vent greater scandals, and to encourage the straying people to return with their leaders to the unity of the catholic faith. Upon which account the general council of Ephesus‘5 made an order concerning the Messalian heretics, otherwise called Euchites and Enthusiasts, that if any of their clergy would re- turn to the church, and in writing anathematize their former errors, they should continue in the same station they were in before; otherwise they should be degraded, and enjoy neither clerical promotion nor communion in the church. The council of Nice is thought to have made the like decree ‘6 in favour of the Novatian clergy, only giving them a recon- ciliatory imposition of hands by way of absolution, not re-ordination. And there is nothing more cer- tain than that the African fathers so treated the Donatists; particularly St. Austin in all his writings pleads as much for the validity of heretical ordina~ tions, as heretical baptism; and says further, that when the church47 judged it expedient not to suffer the Donatist bishops to ofiiciate upon their return to the church, she did not thereby intend to deny the reality or validity of their ordination, but sup- posed that to remain still perfect and entire in them. And this is what St. Austin meant by the sacrament of ordination, as he words it, or the indelible charac- ter which was thereby imprinted; that though a man turned apostate, or was suspended or deprived for any crime, yet if upon his repentance and satisfac- tion the church thought fit to admit him to ofiiciate again, there was no necessity of giving him a new ordination, no more than a new baptism; for the character of both remained entire. This was the doctrine and practice of the African church, and most others, in the time of St. Austin. 3’ Canon. Apost. c. 67. 88 Firmil. Ep. 75. ap. Cyprian. p. 221. Haeretico sicut or- dinare non licet, nec manum imponere, ita nec baptizare. 39 Innoc. Ep. 18. ad Alexand. c. 3. Non videtur clericos eorum cum sacerdotii aut ministerii euj uspiam susci pi debere dignitate; quoniam iis solum baptisma ratum esse permitti- mus, &c. 4° Id. Ep. 22. ad Episc. Macedon. c. 5. Anisii quondam fratris nostri, aliorumque consacerdotum summa deliberatio haec fuit, ut quos Bonosus ordinaverat, ne cum eodem rema- nerent, ac ne fieret mediocre scandalum, ordinati reciperen- tur.-——J am ergo quod pro remedio ac necessitate temporis statutum est, constat primitus non fuisse. ‘" Socrat. lib. 4. c. 12. ‘2 Sozom. lib. 6. c. 10. ‘3 Basil. Ep. 74. ad Episcopos Occident. ‘4 Cone. Aurel. l. e. 12. De haereticis clericis, qui ad fidem catholicam plena fide et voluntate venerint, id censu- imus observarii—-—ut officium, quo eos episcopus dignos esse censuerit, cum impositae manus benedietione suscipiant. ‘5 Conc. Ephes. Act. 7. Decret. cont. Messalian. t. 3. p. 809. Si clerici fuerint, maneant clerici. Quod si renu- erint anathematizare, si presbyteri vel diaconi fuerint, vel in alio quopiam gradu ecclesiae, excidant et a clero et a gradu et a communione. “6 Conc. Nic. c. 8. ‘7 Aug. cont. Parmen. lib. 2. c. 13. Cum expedire hoc judicatur ecclesiae, ut praepositi eorum venientes ad catholi- cam societatem, honores suos ibi non administrent; non eis tamen ipsa ordinationis sacrament-a detrahuntur, sed manent super eos. ' BOOK V. OF THE PRIVILEGES, IMMUNITIES, AND REVENUES OF THE CLERGY IN ‘THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. CHAPTER 1. SOME INSTANCES OF RESPECT WHICH THE CLERGY PAID MUTUALLY TO ONE ANOTHER. HAVING thus far discoursed of the Sect 1. . . to'l‘llii‘eecigggblliged necessary qualifications of the clergy, {pliiggtprgviglifige— and the several customs observed in Egggrlpeceswi’ 00- the designation of them to the minis- terial oflice; it will be proper, in the next place, to speak of the respect and honour that was generally paid them upon the account of their oflice. Under which head I shall comprise what- ever relates to the privileges, exemptions, immuni- ties, and revenues of the ancient clergy. Some particular marks of honour, as they were peculiar to this or that order, have already been mentioned in speaking of those orders: but now I shall treat of those which were more universal, and common to all orders. And here it will not be amiss, in the first place, to say something of that courteous treat- ment and friendship, wherewith the clergy of the ancient church were obliged to receive and embrace one another. Two or three instances of which it will be sufiicient to observe at present. First, That wherever they travelled upon necessary occasions, they were to be entertained by their brethren of the clergy in all places, out of the public revenues of the church: and it was a sort of crime for a bishop or other clerk to refuse the hospitality of the church, and take it ‘from any other. The historians, Socrates and Sozomen,‘ tacitly reflect upon Epi- phanius for an action of this nature, that when he came to Constantinople, where Chrysostom showed him all imaginable respect and honour, sending his clergy out to meet him, and inviting him to an apartment, according to' custom, in his house, he re- fused the civility, and took up his habitation in a separate mansion. This was interpreted the same thing as breaking catholic communion with him; as it proved in effect; for he came on purpose, by the instigations of Theophilus, bishop of Alexan- dria, to form an accusation against him. On the other hand, to deny any of the clergy the hospi- tality of the church upon such occasions was a more unpardonable crime, and looked upon as the rudest way of denying communion. Therefore Fir~ milian2 smartly reproves the behaviour of Pope Stephen, both as insolent and unchristian, towards the African bishops, who were sent as legates from their churches to him, that he neither admitted them to audience himself, nor suffered any of the bre- thren to receive them to his house; so not only de- nying them the peace and communion of the church, but the civility of Christian entertainment also. Which was so much the greater despite and affront to them, because every private Christian travelling with letters of credence from his own church, might have challenged that privilege upon the contessera- tion of hospitality, as Tertullian3 words it; and much more the bishops and clergy from one an- other. By the laws of the African church, every bishop that went as legate of a provincial synod to that which they called a general or plenary synod, was to be provided of all things necessary in his travels from this liberality of the church: as ap- pears from a canon in the third council of Carthage, which orders,4 that no province should send above two or three legates; that so they might appear with less pomp and envy, and be less charge to their entertainers. This implies that every church was obliged, by custom at least, to give them en- tertainment in their passage. Another instance of customary re- spect, which the clergy were obliged thgggntgggepfi‘gr to show to one another, was, that It‘ifife‘ifcfil'lfiififidi when any bishop or presbyter came chm to a foreign church, they were to be complimented with the honorary privilege of performing Divine offices, and consecrating the eucharist in the church. This was a very ancient custom, as appears from Sect. 2. 1 Socrat. lib. 6. c. 12. Sozom. lib. 8. c. 14. 2 Fil‘mil. Ep.75. ap. Cypr. p. 228. Ut venientibus non so- lum pax et communio, sed et tectum et hospitium negaretur. 3 Tertnl. de Praescript. c. 20. 4 Cone. Carth. 3. c. 2. Ut et minus invidiosi, minusque hospitibus sumptuosi existant. M 2 164 Boox V. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. what Irenaeus says of Anicetus, bishop of Rome, that when Polycarp came to settle the paschal con— troversy With him, wapexu'rpnow rfiv sz’ixapw'riav Tlf; Hollwca'rpmpf which does not barely signify, he gave him the eucharist, as the first translators of Eusebius render it; but, he gave place to him, or liberty to consecrate the eucharist in his church. The coun- cil of Arles, which turned this custom into a law, uses the very same expression about it, that in every church they should give place6 to the bishop that was a stranger, to offer the oblation or sacrifice. And the fourth council of Carthage more plainly, that a bishop or presbyter7 visiting another church, shall be received each in their own degree, and be invited to preach, and consecrate the oblation. So they were to be admitted to all the honours which the church could show them; the bishop was to seat his fellow bishop in the same throne with him- self, and the presbyters to' do the same by their fellow presbyter. For that the canon means by re- ceiving them in their own degree. Which custom is referred to by the catholic bishops in the collation of Carthage,8 where they promise the Donatist bi- shops, that if they would return to the church, they should be treated by them as fellow bishops, and sit upon the same thrones with them, as strangers were used to do. The author of the Constitutions joins all these things together, saying, Let the bishop that is a stranger sit with the bishop, and be invited to preach; let him also be permitted to ofl‘er the eucharist; or if in modesty he refuses it, let him at least be constrained to give the blessing to the people. But then it is to be observed, that these honours were not to be showed to strangers, as mere strangers, but as they could someways give proof of their orthodoxy and catholicism to the church to which they came. And in this respect the literm systatz'cw, or commendatory letters, as they called them, were of great use and service in the church. For no strange clergyman was to be admitted so much as to communicate, much less to officiate, without these letters of his bishop, in any church where he was a perfect stranger, for fear of surrep- titious or passive communion, as the canons9 call it. And bishops were under the same obligations to take the letters of their metropolitan, if they had occasion to travel into a foreign country, where Sect. 3. The use of the Zz'tera»: formmfw, or commendatory let- ters in this respect. they could not otherwise be known. The third council of Carthage has a canon 1° to this purpose, that no bishop should go beyond sea without con- sulting the primate of his province, that he might have his formatw, or letters of commendation. And that the same discipline was observed in all churches, seems clear from one of those canons of the Greek church, among those which go by the name of Apostolical, which says, no strange bishops,n presbyters, or deacons shall be received d'vev o'vo'ra- rucdm, unless they bring commendatory letters with them: but without them they shall only be pro- vided of necessaries, and not be admitted to commu- nicate, because many things are surreptitiously obtained. The translation of Dionysius Exiguus indeed denies them necessaries also: but that is a manifest corruption of the Greek text, which allows them to communicate in outward good things, but not in the communion of the church. And this is what some think the ancients meant by commum'o peregrina, the communion of strangers, when such as travelled without letters of credence, were hos- pitably entertained, and provided of sustenance, but not admitted to participate of the eucharist, be- cause they had no testimonials of their life and conversation. But others give a different account of this, which I shall more nicely examine, when I come to speak of the discipline of the church, under which head the commum'o peregrina will come to be considered, as a species of ecclesiastical censure. A third instance, of respect which the clergy showed to one another, was, 'rheiiggfbtngsd that if any controversies happened cggeirglrigsiifiinmg among themselves, they freely con- sented to have them determined by their bishops and councils, without having recourse to the secular magistrate for justice. Bishops, as I have had oc- casion to show before,12 were anciently authorized by the imperial laws to hear and determine secular pecuniary causes even among laymen, when both the litigants would agree upon compromise to take them for arbitrators: but among the clergy there needed no such particular compromise, but by the rules and canons of the church they were brought under a general obligation not to molest one an- other before a secular magistrate, but to end all their controversies under the cognizance of an ce- clesiastical tribunal. The case was somewhat dif- ferent when a layman and a clergyman had occa- 5 Iren. Ep. ad Victor. ap. Euseb. lib. 5. c. 24. 6 Cone. Arelat. l. c. 20. Ut peregrine episcopo locus sacrificandi detur. 7Conc. Carth. 4. c. 33. Ut episcopi vel presbyteri, si Causa visendae ecelesiae alterius episcopi, ad ecclesiam vene— rint, et in gradu suo suscipiantur, et tam ad verbum facien- dum, quam ad oblationem consecrandam invitentnr. 8 Collat. Carthag. Die 1. e. 16. Sicut peregrine episcopo juxta considente collega. 9Conc. Carthag. l. c. 7. Clericus vel laicus non com- municet in aliena plebe sine literis episcopi sui. Nisi hoc observatum fuerit, communio fiet passiva. Vid. Conc. Lao- dicen. c. 41. Cone. Antioch. c. 7. Agathens. c. 38. Chalce- don. c. 11. 1° Conc. Carth. 3. c. 28. Ut episcopi trans mare non proficiscantur, nisi consulto primaa sedis episcopo, ut ab episcopo preecipue (leg. praecipuo) possint sumere forma- tam vel commendationem. 1‘ Canon. Apost. c. 11. 12 Book II. chap. 7. CHAP. I. 165 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. sion to go to law together : for then the layman was at liberty to choose his court, and was not obliged to refer his cause to any ecclesiastical judge, unless by compromise he brought himself under such an obligation. For so the imperial laws ‘3 in this case had provided. Though in France in the time of the Gothic kings it was otherwise: for lay- men there were not to sue a clerk in a secular court Without the bishop’s permission; as appears from a canon of the council ‘4 of Agde, made under Alaric, anno 506, which equally forbids a clergyman to sue a layman in a secular court, or to answer to any ac- tion brought against him there, without the bishop’s permission. But whatever difference there was be- twixt the Roman and Gothic laws in this particular, it is evident, that as to any controversies arising among the clergy themselves, they were to be de- termined before ecclesiastical judges; as appears from a canon of the council of Chalcedon, which is in these words : If any clergyman hath a controversy with another, he shall not leave his own bishop, and betake himself ‘5 to any secular court, but first have a hearing before his own bishop, or such arbi- trators as both parties should choose with the bishop’s approbation. Otherwise he should be lia- ble to canonical censure. Which censure in the African church was the loss of his place, whether he were bishop, presbyter, or deacon, or any other inferior clerk, that declined the sentence of an ec- clesiastical court, either in a civil or criminal cause, and betook himself to a secular court for justice: though he carried his cause, and sentence were given on his side, in a criminal action, yet he was to be deposed; or if it was a civil cause, he must lose whatever advantage he gained by the action, as the third council of Carthage ‘6 in this case deter- mined, because he despised the whole church, in that he could not confide in any ecclesiastical per- sons to be his judges. Many other councils deter- mined the same thing, as that of Vannes,17 Chalons,l8 and Mascon.19 And the council of Milevis20 decreed, that no one should petition the emperor to assign him secular judges, but only ecclesiastical}l under pain of deprivation. So great confidence did the clergy generally place in one another, and pay such’ a deference to the wisdom, integrity, and judgment of their brethren, that it was then thought they had no need to have recourse to secular courts for justice, but they were willing to determine all con- troversies of their own among themselves: and as the imperial laws did not hinder this, but encourage it; so we seldom find any ecclesiastics inclined to oppose it, but either some factions and turbulent men, or such whose crimes had made them so ob- noxious, that they had reason to dread an eccle- siastical censure. I shall but observe one thing more Sect 5_ upon this head, which is, the great tamfitncfgge‘iiffig care the clergy had of the reputation irigisigifgxaiifiaciiéli and character of one another; which gy whechmch' being a sacred and necessary thing in persons of their function, they did not think fit to let it be exposed to the malicious calumnies and slanders of every base and false accuser. But first, in all accus- ations, especially against bishops, the testimony of two or three witnesses was required, according to the rule of the apostle. Therefore when the synod of Antioch proceeded to condemn Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, upon a single testimony, the historian censures it22 as an arbitrary proceeding in them against that apostolical canon, “Receive not an ac- cusation against an elder, but before two or three witnesses.” nesses was to be examined, before their testimony was to be allowed of. A heretic was not to give evidence against a bishop, as may be collected from those canons which bear the name of the Apostles’, one of which joins these two things together: Re- ceive23 not a heretic to testify against a bishop; nor a single witness, though he be one of the faith- ful: for the law saith, “ In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” Athana- sius pleaded the privilege of this law, when he was accused for sufi'ering Macarius his presbyter to break the communion cup; he urged,24 that his accusers were Meletians, who ought not to be credited, being schismatics, and enemies of the church. By the second council of Carthage, not only heretics, but any others that were known to be guilty25 of scan- dalous crimes, were to be rejected from giving tes- ‘3 Valentin. Novel. 12. ad calcem Cod. Th. In clerico petitore consequens erit, ut secundum leges pulsati forum sequatur, si adversarius suus ad episcopi vel presbyteri au- dientiam non przestat adsensum. '4 Conc. Agathens. c. 32. Clericus nec quenquam prac- sumat apud saecularem judicem, episcopo non permittente, pulsare. Sed si pulsatus fuerit, non respondeat, nec pro- ponat, nec audeat criminale negotiuin in judicio scculari proponere. ‘5 Conc. Chalced. c. 9. El’ rrLs Khnpucds 'n'po‘s Khnpucou wpfiyjua é’xu, n1‘; é'ylca'rahtn'rraué'rw 'rdu oilce'Zou évrio'Ko- 7r0u, Kai. é'n'l Koo'puco't ducad'rripta Ka'ra'rpexé'rw, &c. '6 Conc. Carth. 3. c. 9. Quisquis episcoporum, presbyte- rorum, et diaconorum seu clericorum, cum in ecclesia ei eriinen fuerit intentatum, vel civilis causa fuerit commota, si derelicto ecclesiastico judicio publicis judiciis purgari volnerit, etiamsi pro ipso prolata fuerit sententia, locum suum amittat, et hoc in criminali actione. In civili vero perdat quod evicerit, si locum suum obtinere maluerit, &c. 1’ Conc. Venetic. c. 9. ‘8 Conc. Cabillon. c. 11. 19 Cone. Matiscon. c. 8. 2° Conc. Milev. c. 19. 21Conc. Milev. c. 19. Quicunque ab imperatore cogni- tionem judiciorum publicorum petierit, honore proprio pri- vetur: si autem episoopale judicium ab imperatore postu- laverit, nihil ei obsit. 1'2 Theod. Hist. lib. l. c. 20. 23 Canon. Apost. c. 75. 24 Athan. Apol. ad Constant. t. l. p. 731. 25 Cone. Carth. 2. c. 6. Qui aliquibus sceleribus irretitus est, vocem adversus majores natu non habeat. accusandi. Vid. Cod. Can. Afric. c. 8. Secondly, The character of the wit- - 166 Boox V. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. timony against any elder of the church. The first general council of Constantinople distinguishes the causes, upon which an accusation might be brought against a bishop: for a man might have a private cause of complaint against him, as that he was de- frauded in his property, or in any the like case in- jured by him; in which case his accusation was to be heard, without considering at all the quality of the person or his religion. For a bishop was to keep a good conscience, and any man that com- plained of being injured by him, was to have justice done him, whatever religion he was of. But if the crime was purely ecclesiastical that was alleged against him, then the personal qualities of the ac- cusers were to be examined; so that no heretics should be allowed to accuse26 orthodox bishops in causes ecclesiastical; nor any excommunicate per- sons, before they had first made satisfaction for their own crimes ; nor any who were impeached of crimes, of which they had not proved themselves innocent. The council of Chalcedon27 adds, that no clergyman or layman should be admitted to im- peach a bishop or a clerk, till his own reputation and character were first inquired into and fully ex- amined. So careful were they in this matter not to expose the credit of the clergy to the malicious designs or wicked conspiracies of any profligate wretches, whom malice or bribery might induce to accuse them. Thirdly, In case of false accusation, whether public or private, the penalty against the offender was very severe. If any clergyman, says one28 of the Apostolical Canons, unjustly reproach a bishop, he shall be deposed: for it is written, “Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.” And by a canon29 of the council of Eliberis, for any man to charge a bishop, presbyter, or deacon with a false crime, which he could not make good against them, was excommunication, without hopes of reconcilia- tion at the hour of death. Which was the usual penalty that was inflicted by that council upon very great and notorious offenders; for which some have censured the Spanish church as guilty of Novatian- ism, but without reason, as I shall show when I come to discourse of the discipline of the church. Here it may be sufficient to observe, that they thought this crime one of the first magnitude, since they refused to give the external peace of the church to such offenders, even at their last hour. Many other instances of the like respect might here be added, but by these few the reader will be able to judge, with what candour and civility the clergy of the primitive church were obliged to receive and treat one another. And it would have been happy for all ages, had they walked in the same steps, and copied after so good an example. CHAPTER II. INSTANCES OF RESPECT SHOWED TO THE CLERGY BY THE CIVIL GOVERNMENT. WHERE PARTICU— LARLY OF THEIR EXEMPTION FROM THE COGNI— ZANCE OF THE SECULAR COURTS IN ECCLESIAS- TICAL CAUSES. NEXT to the respect which the clergy s t 1 showed to one another, it will be pro- cfilishqig rim} to be into an y per to speak of the honours which 3311;: ggggligsive were done them by the civil magis- trates, which were more or less, according as either the inclination and piety of the emperors led them, or as the state of the times required. These honours chiefly consisted in exempting them from some sort of obligations to which others were liable, and in granting them certain privileges and immunities which others did not enjoy. Of this kind was that instance of respect, which by the laws of Justinian was granted to all bishops, that no secular judge should compel1 them to appear in a public court to give their testimony before him, but he should send one of his ofi‘icers to take it from their mouth in private. This law is also repeated in the Justinian Code,2 and there said to be enacted first by Theodo- sius the Great, a law of whose is still extant in the same words in the Theodosian Code.3 But Gotho- fred will have it, that this law, as first enacted by Theodosius, meant no more than to exempt the clergy from being bound to give an account to the civil magistrates, of what judgments or sentences they passed upon any secular causes that were re- ferred to their arbitration. And indeed it is evident, that the law terms, ad testimom'um clevoca-rz', and u’g paprvpiav s'7rucalte'io'9at, are taken in this sense by the African fathers in the fifth council of Carthage, where it was agreed4 to petition the emperors to make a decree, that if any persons referred a civil cause to the arbitration of the church, and one of the parties chanced to be displeased with the de- 2“ Conc. Constant. Gen. 1. c. 6. 2" Conc. Chalced. c. 21. 28 Canon. Apost. c. 47. 2’ Conc. Eliber. c. 75. Si quis episcopum, presbyterum, vel diaconum falsis criminibus appetierit, et probare non potuerit, nee in fine dandam ei communionem. 1 Justin. Novel. 123. c. 7. Nulli judicum licebit Deo amabiles episcopos cogere ad judicium venire pro exhibendo testimonio; sed judex mittat ad eos quosdam ex personis ministrantium sibi, &c. 2 Cod. .lust. lib. l. Tit. 3. de Episc. Leg. 7. Imperator Theodosius dixit, N ec honore nec legibus episcopus ad tes- timonium dicendum flagitetur. 3 Cod. Th. lib. ll. Tit. 39. de Fide Testium, Leg. 8. 4 Cone. Carth. 5. c. 1. It. God. Can. Afr. c. 59. Et Conc. vulgo dict. Africanum. c. 26. Petendum ut statuere dignentur, ut si qui forte in ecclesia quamlibet causam, jure apostolico ecclesiis imposito, agere voluerint, et fortasse decisio clericorum uni parti displicuerit; non liceat cleri- CHAP. II. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 167 ANTIQUITIES OF THE cision or sentence that was given against him; it should not be lawful to draw the clergyman, who was judge in the cause, into any secular court, to make him give any testimony or account of his de- termination. This was not intended to exempt clergymen in general from being called to be wit- nesses in a secular court, but only to free them from the prosecutions of vexatious and troublesome men, who, when they had chosen them for their arbi- trators, would not stand to their arbitration, but prosecuted them in the civil courts, as if they had given a partial sentence against them: and though it was contrary to the law to give them any such trouble ; because, as I have showed5 in another place, all such determinations were to be absolutely decisive and final without appeal; yet it is probable some secular judges in Africa might give encourage- ment to such prosecutions : which made the African fathers complain of the grievance, and desire to have it redressed, in the forementioned canon, to which Gothofred thinks the law of Theodosius refers. But whether the law of Theodosius be thus to be limited, is a matter that may admit of further inquiry. Gothofred himself confesses that J usti- nian took it in a larger sense; and that is enough for me to found this privilege of bishops upon, that they were not to be called into a secular court, to give their testimony there in any case whatsoever. Another privilege of this kind, which also argued great respect paid to bishops, was, that when their testi- mony was taken in private, they were not obliged to give it upon oath, as other witnesses were, but only upon their word, as became the priests of God, laying the holy Gospels before them. For the same law of J ustinian6 which grants them the former privilege, enacted this in their favour and behalf also. And in pursuance of that law probably the council of Tribur some ages after7 de- creed, that no presbyter should be questioned upon oath, but instead of that only be interrogated upon his consecration; because it did not become a priest to swear upon a light cause. But it does not ap- pear, that this indulgence was granted to bishops before the time of Justinian. For the council of Chalcedon8 exacted an oath in a certain case of Sect. 2. Nor obliged to give their testimony upon oath, by the laws of J ustiuian. L the Egyptian bishops; and the council of Tyre9 required the same of Ibas, bishop of Edessa. And there are many other instances of the like nature. Constantine the Great granted many privileges to the clergy; but there whesrifstr'iire are some that go under his name, which were certainly never granted by ffitggmly Ofma'liy him: as his famed donation to the bishops of Rome, which Baronius‘° himself gives up for a forgery, and De Marcall and Pagi" prove it to be a spurious fiction of the ninth century, in- vented most probably by the same Isidore Mercator, who forged the decretal epistles of the ancient bi— shops of Rome. There are other privileges fathered upon Constantine, which though not such manifest forgeries as the former, are yet by learned men re- puted of a doubtful nature; such as that which is comprised in a law under the name of Constantine ‘8 at the end of the Theodosian Code, where all judges are commanded to take the single evidence of one bishop as good in law, against all others whatso- ever. Gothofred is of opinion, that this whole title in the Theodosian Code is spurious; and for this law in particular, there are two arguments that seem to prove it not genuine. First, Because Con- stantine himself in another law says,14 the testimony of a single witness shall not be heard in any case, no, not though the witness be a senator. Secondly, Because the ecclesiastical laws, as well as the civil, require two witnesses, as has been noted in the last chapter. Which, I think, are sufficient arguments to prove, that no such extravagant privilege could be granted to bishops by Constantine: but I leave the reader to judge for himself, if he can find better arguments to the contrary. We have better proof for another privilege that we find granted to pres- byters, which was, that if any of them were called to give testimony in a public court, they should not be examined by scourging or torture, as the law directed in other cases. For by the Roman laws witnesses might be examined upon the rack in some cases, to make them declare the whole truth: as we learn not only from the laws ‘5 themselves, but from St. Austin,“ and Synesius,l7 who mentions several new sorts of Sect. 4. Presbyters privi- leged against being questioned by tor- ture, as other wit- nesses were. cum in judicium ad testimonium devocari cum, qui cognitor vel praesens (forsan presses) fuel-it. Et nulla ad testimo- nium dicendum ecclesiastici cujuslibet persona pulsetur. 5 Book II. chap. 7. sect. 3 and 4. 6 Justin. Novel. 123. c. 7. Propositis SS. evangeliis, se- cundum quod decet sacerdotes, dicant quod noverint, non tamen jurent. 7 Conc. Tribur. c. 21. Presbyter vice juramenti per sanctam consecrationem interrogetur; quia sacerdotes ex levi causa jurare non debent, &c. 8 Cone. Chalced. Act. 4. t. 4. p. 518. 9 Cone. Tyr. in Act. 9. Concil. Chalced. p. 629. 1° Baron. an. 324. n. 118. 1‘ Marca, de Concord. lib. 6. c. 6. n. 6. '2 Pagi, Critic. in Baron. an. 324. n. 13. '3 Cod. Th. lib. 16. Tit. 12. de Episc. Audient. Leg. 1. Testimonium etiam ab uno licet episcopo perhibitum, om- nes judices indubitanter accipiant, nec alins audiatur, cum testimonium episcopi a qualibet parte fuerit repromissum. 1" Cod. Th. lib. ll. Tit. 39. de Fide Testium, Leg. 3. Sancimus, ut unius omnino testis responsio non audiatur, etiamsi praeclarae curiae honore praefulgeat. '5 Vid. Cod. Justin. lib. 9. Tit. 41. de Quaestionibus. It. Cod. Theod. lib. l3. Tit. 9. de Naufragiis, Leg. 2. 16 Aug. Serm. 49. de Divers. t. 10. p. 520. ‘7 Synes. Ep. 58. 168 BooK V. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. torture, which Andronicus, the tyrannical prefect of Ptolemais, invented, beyond what the law directed. But now nothing of this kind could be imposed upon any presbyter of the church: for they were exempted from it by a law of Theodosius the Great, which is still extant in both the Codes,18 by which it also appears that it was a peculiar privilege granted to bishops and presbyters, but to none be- low them: for the rest of the clergy are excepted, and left to the common way of examination, which in other cases the law directed to be used. But the next privilege I am to The clergy ex- mention, was a more universal one, that extended to all the clergy; which icggggcclesiasfical was their exemption from the ordi- nary cognizance of the secular courts in several sorts of causes. To understand this matter aright, we must carefully distinguish two things. First, The different kinds of causes in which the clergy might be concerned; and, second- ly, The different powers of the inferior courts from that of the supreme magistrate, who was invested with a peculiar prerogative power above them. The want of attending to which distinctions is the thing that has bred so much confusion in modern authors upon this subject, and especially in the Romish writers, many of which are intolerably partial in their accounts, and highly injurious to the civil magistrates, under pretence of asserting and maintaining the rights and liberties of the church. In the first place, therefore, to have a right understanding in'this matter, we must dis- tinguish the several sorts of causes in which eccle- siastical persons might be concerned. Now these were of four kinds. First, Such as related to mat- Sect. 5. ters purely eccclesiastical, as crimes committed against the faith, or canons, and discipline, and good order of the church, which were to be punish- ed with ecclesiastical censures. Secondly, Such as related to mere civil and pecuniary matters between a clergyman and a layman. Thirdly, Such as re- lated to political matters, as gross and scandalous crimes committed against the laws, and to the detri- ment of the commonwealth, as treason, rebellion, robbery, murder, and the like, which in the laws are called atrocz'a delicta. Fourthly, Such as related to lesser crimes of the same nature, which the law calls levz'a delicta, small or petty offences. Now, according to this distinction of causes, the clergy were, or were not, exempt from the cognizance of the civil courts by the laws of the Roman empire. In all matters that were purely ecclesiastical they were absolutely exempt, as Gothofred,19 the great civilian, scruples not to own. For all causes of that nature were reserved to the hearing of bishops and their councils, not only by the canons of the church, but the laws of the state also. This may be evidenced from the Sec,’ 6_ rescripts of several emperors succes- ,mlfiiiht‘iimi sively one after another, most of which Cmtanfius: are extant in both the Codes. Constantius, anno 355, published alaw,20 wherein he prohibited any accusation to be brought against a bishop before a secular magistrate; but if any one had any com- plaint against him, his cause should be heard and tried by a synod of bishops. This at least must signify in ecclesiastical causes; though Gothofred and some others say, it extended also to civil and criminal causes; and that though it looked like a privilege, yet it was intended as a snare to the catholic bishops, to oppress them by his Arian synods, in those times when the majority of bishops in any synod were commonly such as favoured the Arian party; and a catholic bishop might expect' more favour and justice from a secular court than from them. But whether ‘this law extended to all civil and criminal causes is not very easy to deter- mine : thus much is certain, that if it did, it was not long after in that part revoked, whilst in the other part it stood good, and was confirmed by the laws of the succeeding emperors. For Valentinian granted the clergy Sect. ,_ the same immunity in all ecclesiasti— vfigfflfl‘fiffid cal causes. As appears from what Gram“: St. Ambrose writes to the younger Valentinian con- cerning his father, saying, Your father, of august memory,” did not only say it in words, but enacted it into a law, that in matters of faith and ecclesias- tical order they ought to judge who were qualified by their office, and of the same order. For those are the words of his rescript. That is, he would have priests to judge of priests. This law is not now extant in the Code, but there is another of Valen- tinian and Gratian to the same purpose; wherein it is decreed,22 that the same custom should be ob- served in ecclesiastical business, as was in civil 18 Cod. Th. lib. ll. Tit. 39. de Fide Testium, Leg. 10. Presbyteri citra injuriam quaestionis testimonium dicant; ita tamen ut falsa non simulent. Caeteri vero clerici, qui eorumgradum vel ordinem subsequuntur, si ad testimonium dicendum petiti fuerint, prout leges praecipiunt, aucdiantur. Vid. Cod. Justin. lib. l. Tit. 3. Leg. 8. ‘9 Gothofr. Comment. in Cod. Th. lib. l6. Tit. 2. Leg. 23. 2° Cod. Th. lib. l6. Tit. 2. de Episc. Leg. l2. Mansuetu- dinis nostrae lege prohibemus in judiciis episcopos accusari. Si quid est igitur querelarum, quod quispiam defert, apud alios potissimum episeopos convenit explorari, &c. 2‘ Ambros. Ep. 32. Augustae memorize pater tuus non soluin sermone respondit, sed etiam legibus suis sanxit, in causa fidei, vel ecclesiastici alicujus ordinis cum judicare debere, qui nec munere impar, nec jure dissimilis. Haec enim verba rescripti sunt. Hoe est, sacerdotes de sacerdo- tibus voluit judicare. 22 God. Th. lib. l6. Tit. 2. de Episc. Leg. 23. Qui mos est causarum civilium, iidem in negotiis ecclesiasticis obtinendi sunt: ut siqua sunt ex quibusdam dissensionibus, levi- busque delictis, ad religionis observantiam pertiuentia, locis suis, eta suae dioeceseos synodis audiantur: exceptis quae CHAP. 11. 169 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. causes: that if there arose any controversies about matters of religion, either from the dissensions of men, or other small offences, they should be heard and determined in the places where they arose, or in the synod of the whole diocese, except only such criminal actions as were reserved to the hearing of the ordinary judges, the proconsuls and prefects of every province, or the extraordinary judges of the emperor’s own appointing, or the illustrious powers, viz. the prwfectuseprcetorio of the diocese. Here it is plain, that though criminal actions against the state-laws are excepted, yet all matters ecclesiasti— cal were to be heard by ecclesiastical judges, and no other. In the last title of the Theodosian Code, there is a law under the name of Theodosius the Great to the same purpose, wherein it is decreed, that no bishop,23 or any other minister of the church, shall be drawn into the civil courts of any ordinary or extraordi- nary judges, about matters or causes of an ecclesi- astical nature; because they have judges of their own, and laws distinct from those of the state. This law is cited in Gratian’s decree, but the words, Sect. 8. And Theodosius the Great: quantum ad eausas ecclesz'asticas tamen pertz'net, are. there 2* fraudulently left out, to serve the current doctrine and hypothesis of his own times, and make the reader believe, that the clergy anciently enjoyed an exemption not only in ecclesiastical causes, but all others. I the rather mention this corruption, because none of the correctors of Gratian have taken any notice of it. The Roman censors silently pass it over, and it has escaped the diligence of Antonius Augustinus and Baluzius also. Gothofred indeed questions the authority of the law itself; butI shall not stand to dispute that, since there is nothing in it contrary to the preceding laws, or those that fol- lowed after. _ For Arcadius and Honorius con- Anclligiiéggiiiszand tinued the same privilege to the cler- gy, confirming the ancient laws, that whenever any cause relating to religion was debated, the bishops25 were to be judges; but other causes, belonging to the cognizance of the ordinary judges, and the use of the common laws, were to be heard by them only. Theodosius junior and Valentinian III. refer to this law of Honorius, as the standing law then in force con- cerning the immunities and liberties of the clergy, saying in one of their decrees, that26 bishops and presbyters had no court of secular laws, nor any power to judge of other causes, except such as re- lated to religion, according to the constitutions of Arcadius and Honorius inserted into the Theodosian Code. So that all the same laws which. denied them power in secular causes, allowed them the pri- vilege of judging in ecclesiastical causes; and the very excepting of other causes is a manifest proof, that there was no contest made about these to the time of Justinian, who confirmed the privilege which so many of his predecessors had granted before him. For in one of his Novels27 we find it enacted, That all ecclesiastical crimes, which were to be punished with ecclesiastical penalties and censures, should be judged by the bishop ; the provincial judges not intermeddling with them. For, saith he, it is our pleasure that such matters shall not be heard by the civil judges. Gothofred is also of opinion,28 that see,‘ u_ some of the lesser criminal causes of ,,E.’;.‘;,,°,‘.i’s¥,,§s§.,- ecclesiastics were to be determined by mm‘ muses’ the bishops and their synods likewise. For in the forementioned law of Gratian, (see before, sect. 7,) the Zevz'a delz‘cta, or lesser crimes, are reserved to the hearing of bishops. And St. Ambrose having spoken of the decree of Valentinian, that orders all eccle- siastical causes to be judged by bishops only, adds also, that if in other respects a bishop was to be cen- sured, and his morals29 came under examination, such causes as those likewise should appertain to the episcopal judgment. Which seems to put some dis— tinction between ecclesiastical and civil criminal causes, and reserve both to the hearing of bishops and their synods. But then, as Gothofred rightly observes, this must only be understood of lesser cri- minal causes: for in greater criminal actions the clergy were liable to the cognizance of the secular judges as well as all others. \Vhich is freely owned by De Marca, and some other ingenuous writers of the Romish church. For De Marca30 quits the po- sitions of Baronius and the canonists, and confesses, Sect. 10. And Valentinian III. and Justinian. actio criminalis ab ordinariis extraordinariisque judieibus, aut illustribus potestatibus audicntia (leg. audienda) con- stituit. 23 God. Th. lib. 16. Tit. 12. de Episc. Judicio. Leg. 3. Continua lege sancimus, ut nullus episcoporum, vel eorum qui ecelesiae necessitatibus serviunt, ad judicia sive ordina- riorum sive extraordinariorum judicum (quantum tamen ad eausas ecclesiasticas pertinet) pertrahatur, &c. 2‘ Gratian. Caus. ll. Quaest. l. c. 5. 25 Cod. Th. lib. 16. Tit. 11. de Religions, Leg. 1. Quotiens dc religione agitur, episcopos convenit judicare: caeteras vero eausas, quae ad ordinarios cognitores, vel ad usurn publici juris pertinent, legibus oportet audiri. 2“ Valentin. Novel. 12 ad calcem Cod. Theod. Constat episcopos et presbyteros forum legibus non habere: nec de aliis causis, secundum Arcadii et Honorii divalia constituta, qua: Theodosianum corpus ostendit, praeter religionem posse cognoscere. 27 Justin. Novel. 83. Si vero ecclesiasticum sit delictum, egens castigatione ecclesiastica et multa, Deo amabilis episcopus hoc discernat, nihil communicantibus clarissimis provinciee judicibus. Neque enim volumus talia negotia omnino scire civiles judices. 28 Gothofred. Com. in Cod. Th. lib. 16. 'l‘it. 2. Leg. 23. 29 Ambr. Ep. 32. Quinetiam si alias quoque argueretur episcopus, et morum esset examinanda causa, etiam hanc voluit ad episcopale judicium pertinere. 3° Marca, Dissert. in Cap. Clericus, ad calcem Antonii Au- 170 CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Boox V. ANTIQUITIES OF THE that as it appears from the Theodosian Code, that the ecclesiastical crimes, and lesser civil crimes of the clergy, were left to the hearing of bishops, and the synods of every diocese or province; so the greater civil crimes of the clergy, which he reckons five in number, were reserved to the hearing of the public courts and civil judges; which, he says, ap- pears from the laws published by Sirmondus in his Appendix to the Theodosian Code. Some reckon those laws to be of Buthscitcijlilgreater no very great authority, and therefore cm cases‘ I shall rather choose to confirm this position from the undoubted laws which occur in the body of the Theodosian Code. Such as that of Theodosius and Gratian, which particularly excepts these greater criminal actions,81 and reserves them to the hearing of the ordinary or extraordinary judges, or the prafectus-prwtorz'o of the diocese; and those other laws of Theodosius, and Arcadius, and Honorius, and Valentinian III., which have been cited in the foregoing sections,82 and need not here be repeated. To which we may add that law of the elder Valentinian, which orders 83 all such ec- clesiastics to be prosecuted in the civil courts, that were found guilty of creeping into the houses of widows and orphans, and so insinuating into their affections, as to prevail upon them to disinherit their relations, and make them their heirs. And that other law of the emperor Marcian, which in criminal causes exempts the clergy of Constanti- nople84 from the cognizance of all inferior courts, but not from the high court of the praifectus-prce- torio of the royal city. Which appears also to have been the practice at Rome. For Socrates 85 ob- serves, that when, in the conflict which happened at the election of Pope Damasus, some persons were slain, many both of the laity and clergy upon ‘that account were punished by Maximinus, who was then prafectus-prwtorz'o at Rome. It appears fur- ther from the Novels36 of Valentinian III., that in such criminal actions as those of murder, robbing of graves, or the like, bishops, as well as any other clerks, were bound to answer before the civil magis- trate by their proctors. But Justinian a little en- larged the privilege with respect to bishops, making a decree,37 that no one should draw a bishop in any pecuniary or criminal cause before a secular magis- trate against his will, unless the emperor gave par- ticular order to do it. This was the plain state of the matter, as to what concerned the exemption of the clergy in this sort of criminal causes, notwith- standing what Baronius or any others of that strain have said to the contrary. Nay, some ages after, such crimes as murder, theft, and witchcraft were brought before the secular judges in France, as ap- pears from the council of Mascon,88 anno 581. The case was much the same in all civil pecuniary controversies which the clergy had with laymen. For though they might end all such causes which they had one with another, in their own courts, or be- fore a synod of bishops; and the canons obliged them so to do, as has been noted in the last chap- ter f’9 yet if their controversy happened to be with a layman, the layman was not bound to refer the hearing of his cause to an ecclesiastical court, un- less he voluntarily consented by way of compromise to take some ecclesiastical persons for his arbitra- tors. This is evident from one of the Constitutions of Valentinian III., which says, That if the plain- tiff was a layman, he might compel any clergyman, with whom he had a civil contest, to answer in a civil court, if he“0 rather chose it. And the council of Epone,“ according to the reading of Sirmond’s edition, says the same, that the clergy, if they were sued in a secular court, should make no scruple to follow the plaintiff thither. But Justinian, at the instance of Mennas, patriarch of Constantinople, eat. 13. Nor in pecuniary causes with laymen. gustini de Emendat. Gratiani, p. 577. In Codice Theodo- siano controversies quae ad religionem pertinent, in quibus sunt crimina ecclesiastica, et minora delicta e civilium nu- mero, episcopis et cujusque dioeceseos sive provinciae sy- nodis relinquuntur: servata judiciis publicis atrocium cri- minum, quae numero quinque, adversus clericos cognitione; ut docent leges aliquot editae cura Sirmondi in Appendice Codicis Theodosiani. 31 God. Th. lib. 16. Tit. 2. de Episc. Leg. 23. Exceptis quae actio criminalis ab ordinariis extraordinariisque judici- bus, aut illustribus potestatibus audienda constituit. 32 See sect. 8, 9, 10. 3'3 Cod. Th. lib. l6. Tit. 2. Leg. 20. Ecclesiastici—vidu- arum ac pupillarum domos non adeant: sed publicis exter- minentur judiciis, si posthac eos aflines earum vel propin- qui putaverint deferendos. 8‘ Cod. Justin. lib. 1. Tit. 3. de Episc. Leg. 25. Actor in nullo alio foro, vel apud quenquam alterum judicem eosdem clericos litibus irretire, et civilibus vel criminalibus negotiis tentet innectere. 35 So'erat. lib. 4. C. 29. And 'roiiro 'n'ohkobs Aa'ixoils Te Kai. Khnpucoils 51rd T05 'rd'rs é'rrc'zpxov Magtpivov q-zjuwpns'fpuaz. 36 Valent. Novel. 5. de Sepulcr. Violat. ad calcem Cod. Theod. It. Novel. 12. Quam formam etiam circa episcopo- rum personam observari oportere censemus. Ut si in hu- jusmodi ordinis homines actionem pervasionis et atrocium injuriarum dirigi necesse fuerit, per procuratorem solemni- ter ordinatum, apud judicem publicum inter leges et jura confligant. 3’ Justin. Novel. 123. n. 8. Sed neque ut episcopus pro pecuniaria aliqua aut criminali causa ad civilem milita- remve magistratum invitus perducatur, sistaturve sine im- periali jussione concedimus. 38 Conc. Matiscon. 1. can. 7. 39 Chap. 1. sect. 4. 4° Valent. Novel. l2. Petitor laicus, seu in civili seu in criminali causa, cujuslibet loci clericum adversarium suum, si id magis eligat, per auctoritatem legitimam in publico judicio respondere compellat. 41 Cone. Epaunens. c. 11. Si pulsati fuel-int, sequi ad se- culare judicium non lnorentur. Yet note that other edi~ tions, as that of Crab and Binius, read it to a contrary sense sequi ad secular-e judicium non praesumant. CHAP. III. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 171 ANTIQUITIES OF THE granted the clergy of the royal city a peculiar pri- vilege, that in all pecuniary matters ‘2 their cause should first be brought before the bishop; and if the nature of the cause happened to be such that he could not determine it, then recourse might be had to the civil judges, but not otherwise. From all which it appears, that anciently exemptions of this nature were not challenged as matters of Di- vine right, but depended wholly upon the will and pleasure of Christian princes, however after ages came to put another kind of gloss upon them. Nay, it must be observed, that even in ecclesiastical causes, a great differ- ence was always observed between the power of the prince or supreme magistrate, and that of the subordin- ate and inferior judges. For though the ordinary judges were bound by the laws not to intermeddle with ecclesiastical causes; yet in some cases, the prince himself interposed and appointed extraordi- nary judges, and sometimes heard and decided the causes himself, or reversed the decisions of ecclesi- astics by his sovereign power, which no ordinary judges were qualified to do. But this belongs to another subject, that will have a more proper place in this work, when we come to speak of the power of Christian princes. Sect. 14. Of the necessary distinction between the supreme and subordinate magis— trates in this busi- ness of exemptions. CHAPTER III. OF THE IMMUNITIES OF THE CLERGY 1N REFER- ENCE TO TAXES AND CIVIL OFFICES, AND OTHER BURDENSOME EMPLOYMENTS IN THE ROMAN EM- PIRE. ANOTHER privilege which the clergy enjoyed by the favour of Christian princes, was, that in some certain cases, according to the exigence of times and places, they were exempt from some of the taxes that were laid upon the rest of the Roman empire. But whatever they enjoyed of this kind, they did not pretend to as matter of Divine right, but freely acknowledged it to be owing to the pi- ous munificence and favour of Christian emperors. Thereforel Baronius does them great injustice, and is guilty of very great prevarication, in pretending that they claimed a freedom from tribute by the law Sect. 1. No Divine right pleaded by the am cient clergy to ex— empt themselves from taxes. of Christ; and that no emperor ever imposed any tax upon them, except only Julian the apostate, and Valens the Arian, and the younger Valentinian, who was wholly governed by his mother Justina, an Arian empress; that when St. Ambrose paid tribute under this Valentinian, he did it only out of his Christian meekness, not that he was otherwise un- der any obligation to have done it. How true this representation is, the reader may judge in part from the words of St. Ambrose, which are these :2 If the emperor demands tribute of us, we do not deny it: the lands of the church pay tribute. \Ve pay to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. Tribute is Caasar’s, and therefore we do not refuse to pay it. This is so far from challenging any exemption by Divine right, that it plainly asserts the contrary. As in another place he argues, that all men are under an obliga- tion to pay tribute, because3 the Son of God him- self paid it, Matt. xvii. 27. And yet Baronius cites‘ that very passage of the evangelist to prove that the clergy are jure Divino exempt, because our Sa- viour says, “ Then are the children free.” For if, says he, the children be free, much more so are the fathers, that is, the pastors, under whose care princes are. Bellarmine is much more ingenuous in handling this question; for he asserts5 against the canonists, (whose opinion Baronius labours to main- tain,) that the exemption of the clergy in political matters, whether relating to their persons or their. goods, was introduced by human right only, and not Divine: and that, in fact, they were never ex- empted from any other but personal tribute, till the time of Justinian, when they were freed from taxes upon their estates and possessions also. So little agreement is there betwixt these two great cardinals of the Romish church in their accounts of this matter, either as to fact or right, that in every thing their assertions are point blank contrary to one another. To set the matter in a clear light, it will be necessary for me to give the reader a distinct account of the $333:- Orhwd- several sorts of tribute that were im- y. posed upon subjects in the Roman empire, and to show how far the clergy were concerned in each of them; which will be best done by having recourse to the Theodosian Code, where most of the laws re- lating to this affair are still extant. And this I shall the rather do, because Baronius makes use of the same authority, but with great partiality, dis- Sect. 2. Yet generally ex- cused from personal 42 Justin. Novel. 83. 1 Baron. an. 387. t. 4. p. 538. 2 Ambr. Orat. cont. Auxent. de tradend. basilicis post Ep. 32. Si tributum petit imperator, non negamus; agri ecclesiee solvunt tributum. Solvimus qua: sunt Caesaris Caesar-i, et qua: sunt Dei Deo. Tributum Caesaris est, non negatur. 3 Ambr. lib. 4. in Luc. v. et ap. Gratian. Cans. ll. qu. l. c. 28. Si censum filius Dei solvit, quis tu tantus es, qui non putes esse solvendum? 4 Baron. an. 387. n. 12. p. 538. 5 Bellarm. de Clericis, lib. l. c. 28. Exceptio clericorum in rebus politicis, tarn quoad personas, quam quoad bona, jure humano introducta est, non Divino. Haec propositio est contra canonistas. 172 Boox V. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. sembling every thing that would not serve the hy- pothesis he had undertaken to maintain. Now, the first sort of tribute I shall take notice of, is that which is commonly called census capitum, or personal tribute, to distinguish it from the census agrorum, or tribute arising from men’s estates and possessions. That the clergy were generally freed from this sort of tribute is agreed on all hands, only Gothofred has a very singular notion about it. For he asserts6 that under the Christian emperors there was no such tribute as this paid by any men; so that the exemption of the clergy in this case was no peculiar privilege belonging to them, but only what they enjoyed in common with all other sub- jects of the Roman empire. But in this that learn- ed man seems evidently to be mistaken. For, first, he owns there was such a tribute under the heathen emperors, from which, as Ulpian7 relates, none were I excused, save only minors under fourteen, and per- ? plainly refers to some immunity from tribute, which i the imperial laws granted particularly to the sons superannuated, that is, above sixty-five: nor does he produce any law to show when or by whom that tribute was ordered to be laid aside. Secondly, Theodosius junior, the author of the Theodosian Code, makes express mention of it, when, in one of his Novels,8 he distinguishes betwixt the census capitum and census agrorum. Thirdly, there are several laws in the Theodosian Code, exempting the clergy from tribute, which cannot fairly be under- stood of any other tribute but this sort of capitatidn. As when Constantius grants the clergy the same immunity from tribute as minors had, he plainly re- fers to the old law about minors mentioned by Ul- pian, and puts the clergy upon the same foot with them, granting them this privilege, that not only they themselves, but9 their wives and children, their men-servants and their maid-servants, should, all be free from tribute; meaning personal tribute, or that sort of capitation called capitis‘ census. After the same manner we are to understand those two laws of Valentinian,lo where he grants to devoted virgins, and widows, and orphans under twenty years of age, the same immunity from tribute, or, as it is there called, the capitation of the vulgar. As also that other law‘1 of his, where he grants the like privilege to painters, together with their wives and children. From all which we may very reasonably conclude, that this exemption from personal taxes was not a thing then common to all, but apeculiar privilege of some certain arts and professions, among which the most honourable was that of the clergy. This may be further confirmed from an observ- ation or two out of Gregory Nazianzen and Basil. Nazianzen, in one of his epistles12 to Amphilochius, complains, that the officers of the government had made an illegal attempt upon one Euthalius a dea- con, to oblige him to pay taxes: therefore he desires Amphilochius not to permit this injury to be done him; since otherwise '8 he would suffer a hardship above other men, not being allowed to enjoy the favour of the times, and the honour which the emperors had granted to the clergy. Here he clergy; which could not be any exemption of their estates from tribute, for there was no such law then in force to be appealed to: it must therefore mean their exemption from personal taxes, from which they were freed by the laws of Valentinian and Constantius already mentioned. This will still re- ceive greater light and confirmation from the testi- mony of St. Basil, who had occasion to make a like complaint to Modestus, (who was prcefectus-praetorio Orz'entz's under Valens,) of some who had infringed the privilege of the clergy in exacting tribute of them against the laws. The ancient way of taxing, says he, excused such as were consecrated to God,M presbyters and deacons, from paying tribute : but now they who are set over this affair, pretending to have no warrant from your Eminency to excuse them, have taxed them all, except such as could claim a privilege from their age. Therefore his request to him was, o'vyxwprfifimu rcard rz‘w 'II'CZAGtfJV 216,102! 'rfig o'vvrekeiag mtg tepam’mvrag, that the clergy might be exempt from tribute according to the ancient laws. St. 6 Gothofred. Com. in Cod. Th. lib. ll. Tit. 1. de Annon. et Tribut. Leg. 155. It. Corn. in lib. l3. Tit. 10. de Censu, Leg. 4. 7 Digest. lib. 50. Tit. 15. de Censibus, Leg. 3. Quibus- darn aetas tribuit, ne tributo onerentur. Veluti in Syriis a quatuordecim annis masculi, a duodecim foeminse usque ad sexagesimum quintum annum tributo capitis onerentur. 8 Theodos. Novel. 21. 9 Cod. Th. lib. 16. Tit. 2. de Episc. et Cler. Leg. 10 et 14. Clericis ac juvenibus praebeatur immunitas—Quod et con- jugibus et liberis eorum et ministeriis majoribus pariter ac foeminis indulgemus; quos a censibus etiam jubemus per- severare immunes. 1° Cod. Th. lib. l3. Tit. 10. de Censu, Leg. 4. In vir- ginitate perpetua viventes, et eam viduam de qua ipsa ma- turitas pollicetur aetatis nulli jam earn esse nupturam, a plebeiae capitationis injuria vindicandas esse decernimus: item pupillos in virili sexu usque ad vigiuti annos ab istius» modi functions immunes esse debere ; mulieres autem donec virum unaquaeque sortitur. Ibid. Leg. 6. Nulla vidua, nemo pupillus exactionem plebis agnoscat, &c. “ Cod. Th. lib. l3. Tit. 4. de Excusat. Artific. Leg. 4. Pictures professores, si modo ingenui sunt, placuit, neque sui capitis censione, neque uxorum, aut etiam liberorum nomine, tributis esse munificos. 12 Naz. Ep. 159. Ata'ypciq‘iew i'mxerpoiio't Xpuadu oi 'rfis . flyenovucijs 'rcigsws. ‘3 Ibid. Asworra'ra c’iv 'rrds'ot, ,uo'uoe dufi'pdnrwu ,ur‘y 'ruy- Xc'zvou 'rije *rdiu Katpdw (pthavs'pw'rrias, Kai 'rfis dado/ism)‘: Profs iepa'rucois 'lrapd 'rcilv Bao'rhs'wu 'rtufis. ‘4 Basil. Ep. 279. ad. Modest. Tolls 'rq'i 95a’; Zepwnéuous, 'n-pso'fivq-s'povs Kai. drcucovovs 5 wahatde m'jvo'os o’t'rshs'is a’gbv’jlcev' at 5%. viiv a’vro'ypaillélusuol, (be or’) AaBo'r/Tss Tapli, 'rfis i'm'spcpvofic o'ou agave-{as 'n'pdo'q'a'y/La, a’vrs'yprirlrau'ro, whim at in? wov "nuts ci'X/ ws elxou inro‘ "ri'js ilAuu'as 'rfiu ci'qieo'w. CHAP. III. 173 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Basil in this passage refers to two sorts of laws ex- empting persons from tribute; the one, those an- cient laws of the heathen emperors, which only excused minors and superannuates from personal tribute; the other, those laws of Constantius and Valentinian, which exempted the clergy also, grant- ing them that immunity which only minors enjoyed before. And this is the thing he complains of, that the clergy were not allowed the benefit of Christian laws, but only those laws of the heathen emperors, whereby, if they chanced to be minors or super- annuated, that is, under twenty, or above sixty-five, they were excused, but not otherwise. From all which it evidently appears, that the clergy might claim a peculiar privilege by the laws to be ex- empted from personal tribute, and that this was not common to all the subjects of the empire, whatever Gothofred and Pagi15 from him have suggested to the contrary. Sm, The next sort of tribute was that ,ffit.§°t,;g;“;g§ which was exacted of men for their Wssessim' lands and possessions, which goes by several names in the civil law and ancient writers. Sometimes it is called ear/div, as by Athanasius,16 where he complains how he was unjustly accused of imposing a tax upon Egypt for the use of the church of Alexandria. So in the Theodosian Code ‘7 there is a whole title, De canone frumentarz'o u'rbz's Romre, which signifies the tribute of corn that was exacted of the African provinces for the use of the city of Rome. It is otherwise called jugatio, from juga, which, as Gothofred notes,18 signifies as much land as a yoke of oxen could plough in a year : and, be- cause the taxation was made according to that rate, it had, therefore, the name of jugatio and juga. It has also frequently the name of capitatio and capital .- and because men’s servants and cattle were reckon- ed into their taxable possessions as well as their lands, therefore, in some laws‘9 the one is called capitatio terrena, and the other capitatz'o hwnana et amlrnalium, or animarmn descriptz'o. These taxes were usually paid three times a year, once every four months; whence Sidonius Apollinaris20 styles them trz'a capita, or the monster with three heads, which he desired the emperor Majorianus to free him from, that he might live and subsist the bet- ter: for thus he addresses himself to him in his poetical way : Geryones nos esse puta, monstrumque tributum: Hie capita, ut vivam, tu inihi tolle tria. In which words, which none of the commentators rightly understood, he refers to a law?‘ of Valen- tinian’s, and several others in the Theodosian Code, where this sort of tribute is required to be paid by three certain portions in a year, or once in four months, which, in his phrase, is the trier capz'ta, or monster with three heads. The collectors of this tax were also hence called cephaleotre, collectors of the capitation,‘22 in some laws of the Theodosian Code. And because this tribute was commonly paid in specie, as in corn, wine, oil, iron, brass, &c., for the emperor’s service, therefore it is often called specz'erum collatio. And, being the ordinary stand- ing tax of the empire, it is no less frequently styled indz'ctz'o canonical,” in opposition to the superz'nclz'cta et ezrtraordinarz'a, that is, such taxes as were levied upon extraordinary occasions. I have noted these things here all together, that I may not be put to explain the terms at every turn hereafter, as I have occasion to make use of them, which are indeed a little uncommon, and not easily understood, but by such as are conversant in the civil law. Now to the question in hand, whether the clergy in general were exempt from this ordinary canoni- cal tribute laid upon men’s goods and possessions? I answer in the negative, against Baronius, who asserts the contrary. Some particular churches, in- deed, had special favours granted them by indulgent princes, to exempt them from all tribute of this kind: but those very exceptions prove, that what was matter of grace to some particular churches, could not be the common privilege of all churches. Theodosius junior granted a special exemption to the church of Thessalonica, that she should pay no capitation for her own estate,24 provided she did not take other lands into her protection, to the detriment of the commonwealth, under the pretence of an ecclesiastical title. He also allowed the churches of Constantinople and Alexandria the same privilege,25 upon the like condition, that they should not take any villages, great or small, into '5 Pagi, Crit. in Baron. an. 353. n. 10. ‘6 Athan. Apol. 2. p. 778. ‘99 ép.§ Kauo'va 'ro'Zs A1'yU7TTf0L9 érriflc'zkkou'ros, &c. '7 Cod. Th. lib. 14. Tit. 15. 1“ Gothofred. Com. in God. Theod. lib. 13. Tit. 10. de Censu, Leg. ‘2. p. 118. Ego juga putem dicta terrzn modum, cui colendo per aunum jugo boum opus est. ‘9 Cod. Th. lib. ll. Tit. 20. de Conlat. Donat. Leg. 6. '-"’ Sidon. Carm. 13. ad Majorian. 2‘ Cod. Th. lib. ll. Tit. 1. de Aunoua et Tribut. Leg. 15. Unusquisque annonarias species, pro modo capitationis et sortium, praebiturus, per quaternos menses anni curriculo distributo, tribus vicibus summam conlationis implebit. '~"-’,Cod. Th. lib. 11. Tit. 24. de Patrocin. Vicor. Leg. 5. 23God. Th. lib. 6. 'l‘it. 26. de Proximis Comitib. &c. Leg. 14. 2“ Cod. Th. lib. 11. Tit. 1. de Annona et 'I‘ribut. Leg. 33. Sacrosancta Thessalonicensis ecclesia civitatis excepta: ita tamen ut aperte sciat, propriae tautummodo capitationis mo- dum beneficio mei numinis sublevandum: nec externorum gravamine tributorum rempublicam ecelesiastici nominis abusione laedendam. 25 Cod. Th. lib. ll. Tit. 21. de Patrocin. Vicorum, Leg. 5. Quicquid ecclesia: venerabiles, (id est, Constantinopolitaua et Alexandr-mm) possedisse deteguntur, id pro intuitu re- ligionis ab his PI'tDClDllRUS firmiter retineri: sub ea videlicet 17-1 Boox V. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. their patronage, to excuse them from paying their ancient capitation. Gothofred is also of opinion, that in the beginning of Constantine’s reign, while the church was poor, and her standing revenues but small, her estates and possessions were universally excused from tribute: for there is a law in the Theodosian Code which may be interpreted to this purpose; though the words are so obscure,26 that, without the help of so wise an interpreter, one would hardly find out the sense of them. However, admitting them to signify such a privilege, it is cer- tain it lasted not many years: for in the next reign, under Constantius, when the church was grown pretty wealthy, all the clergy that were possessed of lands, were obliged to pay tribute, in the same manner as all others did: as appears from a law of Constantius, directed to Taurus, prwfectus-pmtorz'o, which is still extant in both the Codes.27 This is further evident from the testimony of Valentinian, who, in an epistle to the bishops of Asia, recorded by Theodoret,28 says, all good bishops thought them- selves obliged to pay tribute, and did not resist the imperial power. And thus matters continued to the time of Honorius, and Theodosius junior, in one of whose laws29 the church lands are still made liable to this ordinary or canonical tribute, as it is there worded, though excused from all other. So little reason had Baronius to assert with that confidence, that no prince, except Julian the apostate, and Valens the Arian, and the younger Valentinian, who was under the conduct of an Arian woman, ever exacted any tribute of the clergy; whenas it appears, that every emperor after Constantine did exact it; and Baronius could not be ignorant of this, having viewed and perused the Theodosian Code, where these things are recorded. If in any thing of this tribute they were exempt, it must be from the obligation some provinces lay under to furnish the emperors with new soldiers, called tirones, and fresh horses for the wars, which, because they were exhibited by way of tribute, they are called in the law eqm' canon/fez’, from the civil law term canon, and canom'ca, which, as I observed before, signifies the tribute that was laid upon men’s lands and possessions. Sometimes this tribute was exacted in money instead of horses, and then it was called?’0 equoram canonz'comm adre- ratz'o, horse-money: in like manner as the sum that was paid instead of the tirones was called aurum tirom'cam, ct stratz'otz'czcm, soldiers’ money, which we find mentioned in Synesius, where, speaking81 of Andronicus, governor of Ptolemais, he says, He set one Thoas to collect this auram tirom'cum, which the editor by mistake says was so called, quia solvebatar t'ironz'bas, because it was paid to the tirones, whereas indeed it was the money that was paid instead of the tirones by way of tribute into the treasury of the empire. Now, that some bishops, at least in Africa, were excused from this tribute, is concluded by some learned men from a law32 of Theodosius junior, which excuses certain persons from it under the title of sacerdotales in the procon- sular Africa, and that because they were otherwise obliged to be at great expenses in that province. But now the question is, who are meant by the name sacerdotalcs. The learned Petit” says it de- notes Christian bishops; and if so, the case would be clear as to their exemption: but Gothofred rather inclines 8‘ to think it means the high priests among the heathens, who were still in being, and obliged by their ofiice to be at great expenses in ex- hibiting the ludz' sacerdotales to the people. I will not venture to decide so nice a dispute betwixt two such learned men, but think, however, I may safely infer even from Gothofred’s notion, that if the Christian emperors were so liberal to the heathen high priests, they would at least be as liberal to their own bishops, and grant them the same immu- nity. But I leave this matter to further inquiry. One thing is more certain, that sect 5. whatever burdens any lands were ob'fiiigdclfiifgh originally encumbered with, they were ivléigi'isdaiolifeigm liable to the same even after their do- their mam“ ‘19 Cod. Th. lib. l6. Tit. 2. de Episc. et Cler. Leg. 40. Nihil praeter canonicam inlationem——ejus functionibus adscribatur. Sect. 4. 0f the tribute called, aumm tira- m‘cum, eqm' cano- nici, dgc. sorte, ut in futurum functiones omnes quae metrocomiae de- bent, et publici vici pro antiques capitationis professione debent, sciant subeundas. 2“ Cod. Th. lib. ll. Tit. 1. de Annon. et Tribut. Leg. 1. Praeter privatas res nostras, et eoclesias catholicas, et domum clarissimae memorize Eusebii ex-consule, et Arsacis regis Armeniorum, nemo ‘ex nostra jussione praecipuis emolu- mentis familiaris juvetur substantiae. 27 Cod. Th. lib. 16. Tit. 2. de Episc. et Cler. Leg. 15. De his sane clericis qui praedia possident, sublimis auctoritas tua non solum eos aliena juga nequaquam statuet excusare, sed etiam his quae ipsi possident eosdem ad pensitanda fis- calia perurgeri: universos namque clericos possessores duntaxat provinciales pensitationes recognoscere jubemus. Vid. Cod. Justin. lib. l. Tit. Leg. 3. 28 Theod. lib. 4. c. 8. To‘: 811/.16010. Ka'rd ruinous sio'xo. pigew i’o'ao't, Kai aim civrrthé'yovo-L 'ri'] froii rcparroiivrros e’Eovo'iq. 8" Cod. Th. lib. 11. Tit. 17. de Equor. Conlat. Leg. 3. Equos canonicos militaris dioeceseos Africanae—jussimus adaerari, &c. 3‘ Synes. Ep. 79. ad Anastas. p. 293. Ta'is d'n'at'rfio'so-w {rage 1'05 or'rparrtwrrucoii Xpvo-Zov *roii Kakovirévou Ttpw- vucofi. 32 Cod. Th. lib. 7. Tit. 13. de Tironibus, Leg. 22. Prae- cipimus proconsularis provinciae non eandem sacerdotalium, quae est de caeteris, in praebendis tironibus habendam esse rationem: non inique siquidem ea potissimum ab hoe officio provincia videtur excepta, quae omnium intra Africam pro- vinciarum obtinet principatum, cuj usque maj oribus fatigan- tur expensis. 33 Petit. Variar. Lection. lib. 3. c. l. p. 28. 3* Gothofred. Com. in Cod. Th. 7. Tit. 13. Leg. 22. CHAP. III. 175 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. nation to the church, unless discharged of them by some particular grant and favour of the emperors. This we learn fi'om a memorable instance in a par- ticular case wherein St. Austin was concerned, the account of which we have from his own relation. For the right understanding of which I must first acquaint the reader, that by the laws of the Roman polity many times a company of tradesmen were so incorporated into a society for the service of the empire, that their estates were tied to that oflice and duty, so that whoever had the propriety of them, he was bound to the duty annexed to them. Thus it was particularly with the incorporated company of the navz'cuZar-iz' of Africa and Egypt, who were con- cerned in transporting the yearly tribute of corn from those provinces to Rome and Constantinople. Their estates were tied to the performance of this service, as appears from a title in the Theodosian Code,35 which is De prazdiz's navz'cular'iorum : and they were so tied, that if any ship chanced to be lost in the passage, the whole body was obliged to make good the effects to the emperor’s coffers; and the master of the ship was obliged”6 to give up his men that escaped the shipwreck, to be examined by tor- ture afterwards; otherwise he must have borne the whole burden himself alone, on presumption that he was guilty of some fraud in the matter against the rest of his society. Now it happened while St. Austin was bishop of Hippo, that one of these navi- cularii, Boniface, a master of a ship, left his whole estate to the church; which yet St. Austin refused to receive, because of these burdens that lay upon it. For, says he,” I was not willing to have the church of Christ concerned in the business of trans- portation. It is true indeed there are many who get estates by shipping: yet there is one tempta- tion in it, if a ship should chance to go and be lost, then we should be required to give up our men to the rack, to be examined by torture according to law about the drowning of the ship, and the poor wretches that had escaped the waves must undergo a new severity from the hands of the judge: but we could not thus deliver them up; for it would not become the church so to do. Therefore she must answer the whole debt to the exchequer. But whence should she do this? For our circum- stances do not allow us to keep a treasury. A bi- shop ought not to lay up gold in bank, and mean- while refuse to relieve the poor. These words of St. Austin do plainly evince what has been observed, that the donation of an estate to the church did not ordinarily free it from the tribute or duty, that the public otherwise demanded of it; but if the church would receive it, she must take it with the usual burdens that lay upon it. I confess, indeed, the sense of the passage, as it lies in St. Austin without a comment, is not very easy to be understood; nor have any of his editors, no, not the last Benedictins, thought fit to expound it; but for that reason, as well as to make good my own observation, I have recited it in this place, and explained it from those laws and customs of the empire, to which it mani- festly refers. And such a digression, if it were a digression, I presume would not be unacceptable to the curious reader. But now to proceed. Another sort of tribute, in which the clergy had npnr glizféigjfnt'gg- some concern, was the tax upon trade gprtih’plleergeggiggé and commerce. This in ancient writ- ers38 is known by the name of Xpvocipyvpov, chrysar- gyrum, the silver and gold tax, because it was paid in those coins. Zosimus39 indeed makes the chry~ sargyrum another thing, viz. a scandalous tax ex- acted of lewd men and women; and in his spite to Christianity he represents Constantine as the au- thor of it; in which his groundless calumny he is abundantly refuted by Baronius,4° and more espe- cially by the learned Gothofred, and Pagi,“ whom the curious reader may consult. Here I take the chrysargyrum in the common notion only, for the tax upon lawful trade and commerce, which St. Basil calls ‘2 'n'pay/La'revnxov Xpvaiov, commerce-money. In the civil law it is known by the name of lus- tralz's collatio, the lustral tax, because it was ex- acted at the return of every lustrum, or four years’ end. It was indeed a very grievous tax, especially upon the poor; for not the meanest tradesman was exempted from it. Evagrius48 says it was exacted even of those who made begging their trade, £5 épdvov njv rpogbfiv wopiZovo'L. whence Libanius 4" calls it the intolerable tax of silver and gold, that made men dread the terrible pentaeterz's, or return of every fifth year. And for the same reason, as the author under the name of St. Austin takes notice, it 35 God. Th. lib. 13. Tit. 6. - 3“ Cod. Th. lib. l3. Tit. 9. de Naufragiis, Leg. 2. Si quando causatio est de impetu procellarurn, medium ex his nautis numerum navicularius exhibeat quaestioni-—Quo eorum tormentis plenior veritas possit inq uiri. 37 Aug. Serm. 49. de Diversis. t. 10. p. 5%). Bonifacii haereditatem suscipere nolui; non misericordia, sed timore. Navicularium nolui esse ecclesiam Christi. Multi sunt quidem qui etiam de navibus acquirunt: tamen una ten- tatio est, si iret navis et naufragaret, homines ad tormenta daturi eramus, et de submersione navis secundum consue- tudinern quaereretur: et torquerentur a judice qui essent a fluctibus liberati: sed non eos daremus: nullo enim pacto hoe facere deceret ecclesiam. Onus ergo fiscale persol- veret. Sed unde persolveret? Enthecam nobis habere non licet, &c. 38 Evagr. Hist. Eccles. lib. 3. c. 39. 4° Baron. an. n. 36. 4‘ Gothofred. Com. in God. Th. lib. l3. Tit. 1. dc lustrali Collatione, Leg. 1. Pagi, Critic. in Baron. an. 330. n. 6. ‘2 Basil. Ep. 243. “3 Evagr. lib. 3. c. 39. ‘4 Liban. Orat. l4. cont. Florent. t. 2. p. 427. @6909 o’upo'pn'ros, ci'p'yupos Kai Xpvo'ds, (ppf'r'rew 7rpocnodo'as ‘H'Oh (by rats den/(‘ts 'n'svra'rnpt'das. 39 Zosim. lib. 2. 176 BooK V. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. was commonly called, aurum pannosum,“ the poor man’s tax, or, as some editions read it, aurum primo- sum, the cruel tax, because it was exacted of the poor. But now a particular respect was paid to the church in this matter; for when her revenues were scanty, and not suflicient to give all the clergy a de- cent maintenance, the inferior orders, the clerici, were allowed to traflic to support themselves, with- out paying any tribute of this nature. This in- dulgence was first granted by Constantius without any restriction, That if any of them46 was minded to follow a calling to maintain themselves, they should be freed from custom. But, that none of them might abuse this privilege to covetousness, they were confined afterwards by several laws to trade within a certain sum, which if they exceeded, they were to pay custom for it. This appears from a second law of the same Constantius,47 and another of Gratian’s,48 where the Italian and Illyrican clerici are confined to the sum of ten solids, and the Gal- lican to fifteen. Yet if any would trade further, only with a charitable design, to raise funds and llfonte-Pio’s for the use of the poor, they were al- lowed by two "9 other laws of Constantius to employ what sums they pleased, and pay none of this tri- bute for them. It is to be noted further, that this immunity was granted by Honorius to the catholic clergy only,50 and to no others. And the privilege was esteemed so great, that some covetous trades— men would use means to get themselves admitted to a titular oflice among the inferior clergy of the church, with no other design but to enjoy this im- munity, and to follow their trade without paying the lustral duty. Against whose fraudulency and corruptions the emperor Arcadius made a severe law,“ commanding all such, if they followed their merchandise, to be deprived of this immunity of the clergy; or if they would devote themselves to the sacred service, then they should abstain from all such fraudulent and crafty ways of gain: for, saith he, the wages of religion and craft are very different from one another. And for this reason, probably, when the revenues of the church were become suf- ficient to maintain all the clergy, Valentinian III.52 .enacted a law, that none of the clergy should nego- ciate as formerly; otherwise they should come un- der the cognizance of the secular judges, and not enjoy the privilege of the clergy. Evagrius” adds, that the emperor Anastasius quite abolished the chrysargyrum, or lustral tax, itself; and that is the reason why there is no mention at all made of it afterward in the Justinian Code. Another sort of duty incumbent on the subjects of the empire, was the burden and charge of giving enter- tainment to the emperor’s court and retinue, when they had occasion to travel; or to the judges, or soldiers, as they passed from one place to another. This the civil law calls metatum,“ and the Greeks pu'c'lrov, from the word, metatores, which signifies the emperor’s harbingers or forerunners, which were sent before to provide lodging and en- tertainment for them. In allusion to which, Cy- prian,55 speaking of Rogatian, an eminent presbyter of Carthage, who was the first martyr that was sent to prison in the Decian persecution, says, he was metator to the rest, their harbinger, that went before them to prepare a place in prison for them. And in the same sense Lucian, the martyr in Cyprian, elegantly styles Decius himself 5“ metatorem anti- christ'i, the harbinger of antichrist, who by that terrible persecution made preparation for his coming into the world. From this notion of the word, me- tater, that duty of yielding entertainment to the emperor’s retinue, &c. has the name of metatum in the two Codes of the civil law. . But the clergy were Sect. 7. Of the metatmn. What meant there- by, and the ex- emption of the clergy from it. “5 Aug. Quaest. Vet. et Nov. Test. c. 75. Didrachma ca- pitum vel tributi exactio intelligitur; quod nunc pannosum aurum appellatur, quia et pauperes exiguntur. 4‘? Cod. Th. lib. l6. Tit. 2. de Episc. et Cler. Leg. 8. Si qui de vobis alimoniae causa negotiationem exercere volunt, immunitate potientur. It. Cod. lib. 13. Tit. 1. de lustrali Collatione, Leg. 1. Negotiatores omnes protinus convenit aurum argentumque praebere: clericos excipi tantum, (et) qui copiatae appellantur, nec alium quenquam esse im- munern. “7 Ibid. lib. l6. Tit. 2. de Episc. Leg. l5. Clerici vero, vel hi quos copiatas recens usus instituit nuneupari, ita a sor- didis muneribus debent immunes atque a conlatione pree- stari, si exiguis admodum mercimoniis tenuem sibi victum vcstitumque conquireut. ‘8 Cod. Th. lib. l3. Tit. I. de lustrali Collat. Leg. 11. Etsi omnes mercatores spectat lustralis auri depensio, clerici tamen intra Illyricum et Italiam in denis solidis; intra Gal- liam in quinis denis solidis immunem usum conversationis excrceant. Quicquid autem supra hunc moduin negotia- tionis versabitur, id oportet ad functionem aurariam de- vocari. ‘9 Cod. Th. lib. l6. Tit. 2. dc Episc. et Cler. Log. 10 Negotiatorum dispendiis minime obligentur (clerici), cum certum sit, quaestus quos ex tabernaculis (leg. tabernis) atque ergasteriis colligunt, pauperibus profuturos. Ibid. Leg. 14. Si quid mercatura congesserint, in usum pau- perum atque egentium ministrari, oportet, &c. 5° Cod. Th. lib. l6. Tit. 2. Leg. 36. Catholicae religionis clerici,——-——ab auraria pensione habeantur immunes. 51Ibid. lib. l3. Tit. 1. de lustrali Collat. Leg. l6. Om- nes corporatos—praecipimus conveniri, ut aut commoda ne- gotiatorum sequentes, a clericorum excusatione discedant: aut sacratissimo numini servientes, versutis quaestibus absti- neant; distincta enim stipendia sunt religionis et calliditatis. 52 Valentin. Novel. 12. ad calcem Cod. Theod. Jubemus ut clerici nihil prorsus negotiationis exerceant. Si velint negotiari, sciant se judicibus subditos, clericorum privilegio non muniti. 53 Evagr. lib. 3. c. 39. 5" Cod. Th. lib. 7. Tit. 8. de Onere Metati. Cod. Justin. lib. l2. Tit. 41. de Metatis. 55 Cypr. Ep. 81. al. 6. edit. Oxon. Primum hospitium vo- bis in carcere praeparavit, et metator quodammodo vester nunc quoque vos antecedit. 55 Lucian. up. Cypr. Ep. 20. al. 22. CHAP. III. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 177 excused from this by a law of Constantius,“ where he says they should not be obliged to entertain strangers; by which he cannot be supposed to ex- cuse them from the Christian duty of hospitality to the indigent, but from this civil duty of the Roman state, to which other subjects were obliged. Whence Gothofred58 very truly observes, that the clergy in this respect had equal privileges with senators’ houses, and Jewish synagogues, and Christian churches; all which were exempt from this duty of entertaining. And if the Greek collector of the ecclesiastical constitutions out of the Code, pub- lished by Fabrottus, mistake not, this immunity extended to their servants also. For he says59 nei— ther the clergy nor their servants were subject to any new impositions, or to this burden called the metatum. ' sect‘ 8. And hence it appears further, that Of the wrerin- they were freed from all exactions dicta ‘and ‘ertrnor- . dlmv'm- 'lheglfrsr which went by the name of super- exempt from em- z'nclz'cta, and extraordinaria, that is, such impositions as the emperors thought necessary to lay upon the empire, or any part of it, beyond the ordinary canonical taxes, upon great exigences and extraordinary occasions. For as the ordinary taxes were called indictions, so these extraordinary were called superindictions.00 From these the cler— gy were universally exempted by several laws of Christian emperors. As by that of Constantius61 in the Theodosian Code, where he refers to a pre- ceding law to the same purpose. According to the decree, says he, which you are said to have obtained heretofore, no one shall impose any new taxes upon you or your servants, but you shall enjoy a perfect immunity in that respect. Gothofred upon the place says, by this law they were freed from all ex- traordinary tribute, and only bound to the ordinary and canonical taxes. And so it was in the time of Honorius and Theodosius junior, anno 412, when by a law granting many other privileges to the church relating to her possessions, they insert this among the rest, that no extraordinary tribute or superindiction, but only the common62 canonical tax, should be required of her. Which was finally confirmed by Justinian,63 and made the standing law of the Roman empire. As to some other duties and bur— dens, the laws a little varied: for sometimes the clergy were exempted, and sometimes not; as particularly in the case of contributing to the maintenance and reparation of public ways and bridges. By the forementioned law of Honorius, anno 412, all church lands are excused“ from those duties, and it is call- ed an injury to bind them to any contribution to- ward them. Yet not long after, anno 423, Theodo- sius junior made a law for the Eastern empire, which excepts no order of men from bearing a share in this matter, but obliges as well his own posses- sions (called domus divines, in the style and lan- guage of those times) as churches65 to take their proportion in it. And about the same time Valen- tinian 111. made a law66 to the same effect in the ‘West. ustinian confirmed the law of Theodo- sius, by inserting it 6’ into his Code, and added an- other law of his own among his Novels, where,68 though he grants the clergy an immunity from ex- traordinary taxes, yet he adds, that if there was oc- casion to make a way, or build or repair a bridge, then churches as well as other possessors should contribute to those works, if they had possessions in any city where such works were to be done. The laws varied likewise in another instance of duty required of the sub- A8 Sieskt‘rigin the , , , duty called angu- jects, which was to furnish out horses 2;, 52d pm-anga- and carriages for conveying of corn ’ for the soldiers, and such other things as belonged to the emperor’s exchequer. This duty in the civil law‘59 goes by the name of cursus pu-blz'cus, and an~ garz'ae, and parangarz'ae, and translatz'o, and evectio; Sect. 9. The clergy some‘ times exempt from contributing to the reparation of high ways and bridges. 5’ Cod. Th. lib. 16. Tit. 2. de Episc. Leg. 8. Praeterea neque hospites suscipietis. 58 Gothofred. Paratitlon ad Cod. Th. lib. 7. Tit. 8. de Onere Metati, t. 2. p. 264. Immunes erant a metato clerici, scnatorum domus, synagogac J udaeorurn, et religionum loca. ‘'9 Collat. Constit. Eccles. ex Cod. lib. I. Tit. 3. sect. 1. Of KAnptKoi. Kai 'rc‘z dvdpd'rroda aim-div 06X frn'oxsw'ral. Kawa'ic sio'cpopa'is i‘; ns'ro'z'row. 6° Vid. Cod. Theod. lib. ll. Tit. 6. de Superindicto, et Cod. Justin. lib. 10. Tit. 18. de eodem. 6' Cod. Th. lib. 16. Tit. 2. de Episc. et Cler. Leg. 8. Juxta sanctionem quam dudum meruisse perhibemini, et vos et mancipia vestra nullus novis collationibus obligavit. (id est, obligabit,) sed vacations gaudebitis. Gothofred. in Ice. Ab extraordinariis collationibus immunes facti fuerunt, at nnndum ab ordiuariis et canonicis. ‘2 Cod. Th. lib. l6. Tit.2. de Episc. et Cler. Leg.40. Nihil ertraordinarium ab hac superindictitiurnve flagitetur.-Nihil prreter canonicam inlationem ejus functionibus ascribatur. 6‘ Justin, Novel, 131,0, 5. Sancimus omnium sanctarum N ecclesiarum possessiones, neque sordidas functiones, neque extraordinarias descriptiones sustinere. 6‘ Cod. Th. lib. l6. Tit. 2. de Episc. et Cler. Leg. 40. Nullam jugationem, quae talium privilegiorum sorte gratu- latur, muniendi itineris constringat injuria.-Nulla pon- tium instauratio: nulla translationum sollicitudo gignatur ‘5 Cod. Tb. lib. l5. Tit. 3. De Itin. muniendo, Leg. 6. Ad instructiones reparationesque itinerum pontiumque nul- lum genus hominum—cessare oportet. Domos etiam divi- nas, ac venerandas ecclesias tam laudabili titulo libenter adscribirnus. ‘*6 Valentin. Novel. 21. ad calcem Cod. Th. 6’ Cod. Just. lib. I. Tit. 2. Leg. 7. 68 Just. Novel. 131. c. 5. Si tamen itineris sternendi ant pontium zedificii vel reparationis opus fuerit, ad instar ali- orum possessorum, hujusmodi opus et sanctas ecclesias et venerabiles domos complex-e, dum sub illa possident civitate, sub qua tale fit opus. “9 Cod. Th. lib. 8. Tit. 5. de Cursu Publico, Angariis, et Parangariis. Cod. Justin. lib. l2. Tit. 51. 178 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Boox V. and the horses used in this service are particularly called paraveredz', and equz' cursuales. Now, the clergy at first were exempt from this service by two laws of ‘Constantius,7° made in the former part of his reign, which expressly excuse both their persons and their estates from the duty of the parangarz'w. But by another law made in the last year of his reign, anno 360, he revoked this privilege, obliging the clergy to the duty of translation, as it is there worded,71 by which he means this duty of furnishing horses and carriages for the emperor’s service. And this he did, notwithstanding that the council of Ariminum had petitioned for an immunity, being at a time when Constantius was displeased with them. However, this law continued in force, not only un- der Julian, but under Valentinian and Theodosius, till by a contrary "2 law about twenty years after, anno 382, they restored the clergy to their ancient privilege. Which was further confirmed to them by Honorius, anno 412, whose law is still extant78 in both the Codes. Yet Theodosius junior and Valentinian III., anno 440, took away their privi- lege again, and by two laws" made church lands liable to these burdens of the angarz'ce, paran- garz'w, &c., (whenever the emperor should be upon any march or expedition,) as well as all others. From all which it appears, that there was no cer- tain rule observed in this matter, but the clergy had or had not this privilege, according as the state of affairs would bear, or as the emperors were in- clined to grant it. Sect n _ Besides these public taxes and du- “our? ‘3111223335: 033: ties, there was also one private tax, gig,aztrlrzt(lwgziqr,igtio from which all lands given to the church, or to any charitable use, were exempt by the laws of the empire. the church’s exemp— tion from it. This, in the civil law, is called clena'rz'smus, or ancz'w, and descriptio lucratz'corum. The reason of which names will be understood by explaining the nature of the tribute. It was a sort of tax paid, not to the emperors, but to the curz'a or curialcs of every city, that is, to that body of men who were obliged, by virtue of their estates, to be members of the court or common council, and bear the ofllces of their country. Now, it sometimes happened, that one of these cm'z'ales left his estate to another that was not of the curz'a ; and an estate so descending was said to come to him ea‘ causa lucrativa, which being op- posed to causa onerosa, is when a man enjoys an estate by gift or legacy, and not by purchase. But now, lest in this case the giving away an estate from the curz'a might have brought a greater burden upon the remaining part of the curiales, the person so enjoying it was obliged to pay an annual tribute to the curz'a of the city, which, from the nature of his tenure, was called descrt'ptz'o lucratz'corum, the lucra- tive tax. And because every head of land, every jugam or caput, as the law terms it, was obliged to pay annually a denarz'us, or ounce of silver, there- fore the tax itself was called ancz've, and denarz'smus: as in the laws of Theodosius M.,"’5 cited in the margin. Theodosius junior and Valentinian III. made this tax double, laying four .sz'lz'qace,76 which is two ounces of silver, upon every head of land. Ac- cording to which rate, every possessor who held any estate by the aforesaid tenure, was obliged to pay tribute out of it to the atria of the city to which it belonged. But if any such estate was given to the church, it was exempt from this tri- bute, if not before, yet. at least in the time of J us- tinian. For there are two laws of his to this pur- pose,” the one in his Code, the other in his Novels, in both which such lands as any of the curiales gave to a church, or a monastery, or hospital of any kind, 7° Cod. Th. lib. 16. Tit. 2. de Episc. et Cler. Leg. 10_ Parangariarum quoque parili modo (a clericis) cesset ex- actio. lbid. Leg. 14. Ad parangariarum quoque praesta- tionem non vocentur, nec eorundem facultates atque sub- stantlae. 7‘ Cod. Th. ibid. Leg. l5. Ut praeterea ad universa mu- nia sustinenda, translationesque faciendas, omnes clerici debeant adtineri. 72 Cod. Theod. lib. 11. Tit. 16. de Extraord. et Sordidis Muner. Leg. Circa ecclesias, rhetores, atque gram- maticos eruditionis utriusque, vetusto more durante.—-Ne paraveredorum hujusmodi viris aut parangariarum praebitio mandetur, &c. "'8 Cod. Th. lib. 16. Tit. 2. de Epis. et Cler. Leg. 40. Nulla translationum sollicitudo gignatur, &c. al. ‘signetur, as it is in the Justin. Code, lib. 1. Tit. 2. de Sacrosanct. Eccl. Leg. 5. "4 Cod. Justin. lib. 1. Tit. 2. Leg. ll. Neminem ab an- gariis, vel parangariis, vel plaustris, vel quolibet munere excusari praecipimus, cum ad felicissimam expeditionem nostri numinis, omnium provincialium per loca, qua iter arripimus, debeant solita nobis ministeria exhiberi: licet ad sacrosanctas ecclesias possessiones pertineant. It. lib. 12. Tit. 51. de Cursu Publico, Leg. 21. Nullus penitus cujus- libet ordinis seu dignitatis, vel sacrosancta ecclesia, vel do- mus regia tempore expeditionis excusationem angariarum seu parangariarum habeat. 75 Cod. Th. lib. 12. Tit. 1. de Decurionibus, Leg. 107. Quicunque haeres curiali—vel si quem liberalitas locuple- taverit forte viventis, quos a curiae nexu conditio solet diri- mere, sciant, pecuniariis descriptionibus—ad denarismum sive uncias, sese auctoris sui nomine retinendum. It. Leg. 123. ibid. 76 Cod. Th. lib. l2. Tit. 4. dc Imponenda Lucrativis Descriptions, Leg. unic. Hi qui ex lucrative. causa posses- siones detinent, quae aliquando curialium fuerint, pro singu- lis earum jugis et capitibus quaternas siliquas annuae (leg. annuas) ordinibus nomine descriptionis exsolvant. "7 Cod. Justin. lib. 1. Tit. 2. de Sacrosanct. Eccles. Leg. 22. Sancimus res ad venerabiles ecclesias, vel xenones, vel monasteria, vel orphanotrophia, vel gerontocomia, vel pto- chotrophia, &c., descendentes ex qualicunque curiali libe- ralitate—a lucrativorum inscriptionibus liberas immunesque esse—Cur enim non faciamus discrimen inter res Divinas et bumanas? Id. Novel. 131. c. 5. Si quae vero res ex curialium substantiis ad quamlibet sacrosanctam ecclesiam, aut aliam venerabilem domum secundum leges venerunt, aut postea ve- nerint, liberas eas esse sancimus descriptions lucrativorum. CHAP. III. 179 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. are particularly excepted from this lucrative tax; and that pz'etatis intuz'tu, as it is there worded, in regard to religion, and because it was fit to put some difference between things human and Divine. But whether the church enjoyed this immunity un- der any other prince before Justinian, is what I leave the curious to make the subject of a further inquiry; whilst I proceed to consider another sort of immunity of the clergy, which was their exemp- tion from civil offices in the Roman empire. Sect 1,, Of these offices some were personal, ,K'Jgeg‘firgggfepgf and others predial, that is, such as mmmm' were tied to men’s estates and pos- sessions: some, again, were called honor-es, honour- able ofi’ices; and others, munera sordz'da, mean and sordid oflices. Now, from all these, as well patri- monial as personal, honourable as well as sordid, by the first laws of Constantine the clergy were universally and entirely exempt: but after ages made a little distinction as to such of the clergy who enjoyed patrimonial secular estates of their own, distinct from those of the church: for such of the clergy were sometimes forced to leave their ecclesiastical employment, and bear the civil offices of the empire; of which more by and by. But as to offices which were purely personal, the clergy were entirely exempt from them; as appears from a law of Valentinian and Gratian,78 still extant in both the Codes, where every order of the clergy, not only presbyters and deacons, but subdeacons, exor- cists, readers, door-keepers, and acolythists, are specified as exempt from personal oflices. And that is the meaning of that law of Constantius, men- tioned both by Athanasius,79 and Socrates,80 and Sozomen,81 where they say he granted the clergy of Egypt dXecrovp-yno'iav, and a'réllerav Aurovpynpa'rwv, exemption from such oflices as had been forced upon them in the Arian persecution. Sect. ,3. Again, for those called sordid offices, 0&2‘; £1’? 1,112,111 not only the persons of the clergy, but and fem“ the estates of the church, were dis- charged of all burdens of that nature. Constantius made two laws 82 to this purpose, which Valentinian and Theodosius confirmed, granting the clergy, and some other orders of men, the same immunity in this respect, as they did to the chief ofiicers and dignitaries of the empire : and they intimate83 also, that this was no new privilege, but what by ancient custom they had always enjoyed. The same is said by Honorius, that this was an ancient privilege of the church, conferred upon her by his royal an- cestors, and that it ought not to be diminished: therefore he made two laws particularly in behalf134 of the bishop of Rome, that no extraordinary ofl‘ice or sordid function ~should be imposed upon him. Nor do we ever find the clergy called to bear any such ofiice in the empire. For though Gothofred, in his notes upon the forementioned law85 of Theo- dosius, where several of these offices are specified, reckons the angarz'ce, and building and repairing of ways and bridges, among sordid oflices; yet I have showed before, that what was exacted of the clergy in reference to those two things, was under the no- tion of a tribute, and not an office: and the laws which require the clergy to contribute toward them say expressly,86 that they are not to be looked upon as sordid ofiices, nor any duty to be exacted under that notion. As to the other sort of oflices, called honores, honourable or municipal of- Also 105's“: or fices, which are otherwise termed cu- municipal offices’ rial offices, because they who bare them were called curiales et decurz'ones, men of the court or cw'z'a of every city ; all the clergy, who had no lands of their own, but lived upon the revenues and possessions of the church, were entirely exempt from them; be- cause the duties of the church and state were not thought well consistent in one and the same per- son; and it was deemed unreasonable to burden the lands of the church with the civil duties of the empire. When Constantine was first quietly set— tled in his government, immediately after the great decennial, commonly called the Diocletian perse- cution, he seems to have granted a full and un- limited immunity in this respect to all the clergy, as well those who had lands or patrimony of their own, as those who lived wholly upon the revenues of the church. For thus he expresses himself in a law directed to Anulinus, proconsul of Africa, recorded by Eusebius, which bears date anno 312, or 313: Our pleasure is, that all those in your province, who minister in the catholic church, over which "'8 Cod. Th. lib. 16. Tit. 2. de Episc. et Cler. Leg. 24. Presbyteros, diaconos, subdiaconos, exorcistas, lectores, os- tiarios etiam, et omnes perinde qui primi sunt, personalium munerum expertes esse praecipimus. The Justinian Code, lib. l. Tit. 3. Leg. 6, has the same, only instead of the words, omnes qui primi sunt, it reads acolythos. "'9 Athan. Apol. 2. t. 1. p. 772. 3° Socrat. lib. 2. c. 23. 8‘ Sozom. lib. 3. c. 21. ‘*2 Cod. Th. lib. l6. Tit. 2. de Episc. Leg. 10 et 14. Re- pellatur ab his exactio munerum sordidorum. 83 Ibid. lib. ll. Tit. 16. de Extraord. et Sordid. Muner. Leg. l5. Maximarum culmina dignitatum—ab omnibus sor- didis muneribus vindicentur.—Circa ecclesias, rhetores, atque grammaticos eruditionis utriusque vetusto more du- rante, &c. 8‘ Ibid. Leg. 21 et 22. Privilegia venerabilis ecclesiae, quae divi principes contulerunt, imminui non oportet: pro- inde etiam qua: circa urbis Romeo episcopum, observatio in- temerata custodiet: ita ut nihil extraordinarii muneris vel sordidae functionis agnoscat. ‘*5 Gothofred. in Cod. Th. lib. ll. Tit. 16. Leg. 15. 8“ Cod. Th. lib. l5. Tit. 3. de Itin. muniendo, Leg. 6. Ho- nor. et Theodos. jun. Absit ut nos instructionem via: pub- licae, et pontium, stratarumque operam—inter sordida mu- nera numeremus, &c. Vid. Cod. Justin. lib. 1. Tit. 2. (18 SS. Eccles. Leg. 7. Ejusdem Honorii et Theodos. N2 180 CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Boox V. ANTIQUITIES OF THE Caecilian presides, who are commonly called the clergy, be exempted87 from all public oflices what- soever, that they may not be let or hindered in the performance of Divine service by any sacrilegious distraction. Anulinus has also an epistle still ex- tant in St. Austin,88 Written to Constantine not long after, wherein he mentions this grant as sent to him, to be intimated to Caecilian and the catholic clergy, viz. That by the kind indulgence of his Ma- jesty they were exempt from all manner of offices, that they might with due reverence attend Divine service. And this epistle of Anulinus is also re- lated, but not so correctly, in the collation89 of Car- thage. In this grant it is very observable, that this privilege was only allowed to the catholic clergy: which made the Donatists very uneasy, because they could not enjoy the same favour: and upon this they became tumultuous and troublesome to the catholics, procuring the clergy in some places to be nominated to public oflices, and to be made re- ceivers of the public revenues, 8:0. But complaint hereof being made to Constantine, it occasioned the publishing of a new order in Africa, pursuant to the former, that whereas he was given to understand, that the clergy of the catholic church were 9° molest- ed by the heretical faction, and by their procure- ment nominated to public oflices, and made suscep- tors or receivers of tribute, in derogation of the privileges which he had formerly granted them; he now signified his pleasure again, that if the magis- trates found any persons so aggrieved, they should substitute another in his room, and take care for the future that no such injuries should be offered to the men of that profession. This law was pub- lished anno 313, and it is the first of this kind that is extant in the Theodosian Code. About six years after, anno 319, he put forth another, upon a like complaint made in Italy, that the clergy were called away from their proper function to serve in public oflices; and in this he grants them the same9| gene- ral immunity as before. So again, anno 330, a com- plaint being made against the Donatists in Numi- dia, that when they could not have their will upon the superior clergy by reason of the former immu- nity that was granted them, they, notwithstanding, forced the inferior clergy to bear oflices in curz'a, upon pretence that the exemption did not extend to them: Constantine, to cut off all dispute, pub- lished another law, wherein92 he particularly ex- empts the inferior clergy, readers, subdeacons, and the rest, from hearing oflices in curia; and orders, that they should enjoy in Africa the same perfect immunity as they did in the Oriental churches. Now, this immunity was so great a privilege, that it not only became the envy of heretics, but also pro- voked some catholic laymen (who were possessed of estates qualifying them to bear the oflices of their coun- try) to get a sort of titular ordination to some of the inferior oflices of the church, on purpose to en- joy this immunity, when yet they neither designed to do the duty of that office, nor to arise to any higher order in the church. Which being inter- preted a mere fraudulent collusion to deprive the state of fit men to serve the commonwealth, and no ways benefit the church, it was presently re— sented by Constantine as an abuse, and various laws were made both by him and his successors, as occasion required, to restrain and correct it. Con- stantine at first, as I observed before, granted this immunity inditferently to all the clergy, as well possessors as not possessors of private estates, whom he found actually engaged in the service of the church when he came to the quiet possession of the empire; nor did he for some years after perhaps restrain any sorts of men from taking orders in the church: but when he found this indulgence to the church, by the artifice of cunning men, only turned to the detriment of the state, and that rich men sheltered themselves under an ecclesiastical title, only to avoid the oflices of their country, he then made a law, that no rich plebeian who was qualified by his estate to serve in cur-fa, and bear civil oflices in any city, should become an ecclesiastic; or if he did, he should be liable from the time that law was made to be fetched back and returned in curiam, to bear the offices of his country as a layman. What year that law was made is not very certain, save only that it was before anno 320, when a ‘7 Const. Ep. ad Anulin. ap. Euseb. lib. 10. c. 7. Oil'd'fl'i-Ip Khnpmés éwovquéKsw &ldJ-S'GO'LU, c’mro 'rrciu'rwu d'rrafavrhdls n31: Xu'rap-ytiiw fiéholual. dhu'rspyviras dtacpvhaxfi'fi- var, &C. 88 Anulin. Ep. ad Constant. ap. Aug. Ep. 68. Scripta cmlestia maj estatis vestrae accepta atque adorata, Caeeiliano et his qui sub eodem agunt, quique clerici appellantur, de- votio parvitatis meae insinuare curavit, eosdernque hortata est, ut unitate consensu omnium facta, cum omni omnino munere indulgen tia maj estatis vestra: liberati esse videantur catholici, custodita sanctitate legis, debita reverentia Divi- nis rebus inserviant. 89 Collat. Carth. Die 3. c. 216 et 220. 9° Cod. Th. lib. 16. Tit. 2. de Episc. Leg. 1. Haeretico- rum factione comperimus ecclesiae catholicae clericos ita Sect. 1.5. But this last pri- vilege confined to such of the clergy as had no estates but what belonged to the church, by the laws of Constantine. vexari, ut nominationibus seu susceptionibus aliquibus, quas publicus mos exposcit, contra indulta sibi privilegia, pree- graventur. ldeoque placet, si quem tua gravitas invenerit ita vexatum, eidem alium subrogari, et deinceps a supra- dictae religionis hominibus hujusmodi injurias prohiberi. 9‘ Cod. Th. ibid. Leg. 2. Qui divino cultui ministeria religionis impendunt, id est, hi qui clerici appellantur, ab omnibus omnino muneribus excusentur: ne sacrilego livore quorundam a (1ivinis obsequiis avocentur. 92 God. Th. lib. 16. 'l'it. 2. Leg. 7. Lectores divinorum apicum, et hypodiaconi, caeterique clerici, qui per injuriam haereticorum ad curiam devocati sunt, absolvantur: et de caetero ad similitudinem Orientis minime ad curias devo- centur, sed immunitate plenissima potiantur. CHAP. III. 181 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. second law was made upon the same subject, re- ferring to the first. And from this we learn what was the import of both; that it was Constantine’s design to put a distinction betwixt such of the clergy as were ordained before that first law, and such as were ordained afterward; the former he exempted from civil ofiices, though they were pos- sessed of estates, but not the latter; which plainly appears from the words of the second law, which are these :93 Whereas by a former law we ordained, that from henceforward no counsellor, or counsel- lor’s son, or any one who by his estate was suffi- ciently qualified to bear public offices, should take upon him the name or function of the clergy, but only such whose fortune is small, and they not tied to any civil ofiices; we are now given to under- stand, that such of the clergy who were ordained be- fore the promulgation of that law, are molested upon that account: wherefore our command is, that those be discharged of all further trouble; and that such only as entered themselves among the clergy since the law was made, with intention to decline public offices, shall be returned to the c-urz'a and states of their city, to serve in the civil ofiices of their country. There is another law of Constan- tine’s published after this,” anno 326, a year after the council of Nice, which speaks to the same effect, and shows that this was the standing rule of the latter part of Constantine’s reign, to exempt none among the clergy, who‘ were qualified by estates of their own, from bearing personally the public offices of the empire. Sec," m But however this might be well de— , fia'fjfi‘lgfflfjffifij signed at first by him to prevent some :ggciidlgfog‘githe abuses, yet in process of time it be- chm'h' came very prejudicial to the church. For by this means sometimes presbyters and dea- cons, after they had been twenty or thirty years in the church’s service, were called upon by litigious men to bear civil offices inconsistent with the spi- ritual, and thereupon they were forced to forsake their ecclesiastical function. This was so great an inconvenience, that it well became the wisdom of the following emperors to find out some suitable remedy for it: which they did by new~modifying Constantine’s law, and abating something of the rigour of it. For they did not lay the burden of civil ofi’ices upon the persons of the clergy, but only upon their patrimonial estates, not belonging to the church, and in some cases they excused those also. Constantius acquitted all bishops of this burden both as to their estates and persons; for by his laws 95 they might keep their estates to themselves, and neither be obliged to bear civil offices in person, nor substitute any other in their room. And he allowed the same privilege to presbyters and deacons and all others, provided they were ordained by the consent of the civil court or carrier, and the general request of the people. But if they were not so or- dained, all that they were obliged to do was only to part with two-thirds of their estate to their children or next relations, and substitute them in their room : or, in defect of such relations, to give up two parts of their estate to the atria, and retain the third to themselves. Valentinian, in the first year of his reign, anno 364, made the law a little stricter, that such persons,96 when they were ordained, should give all their estate to one of their relations, and substi- tute him as a czm'alz's in their room, or else give it up to the cur'z'a itself: otherwise they should be liable to be called back to serve in civil oflices as laymen. But he extended this obligation no fur- ther than to the beginning of his own reign ; for by another law made seven years after, anno 371, be exempted all such as were in the service of the church 9’ when he came to the crown, though they had estates of their own qualifying them to bear civil offices. Valens exempted all such as had been ten years 98 in the church’s service; so that if they were not called upon by the civil courts within that term, they were for ever after to be excused. Valentinian II. exempted them,99 provided they put a substitute in their room. Theodosius ex- empted all that were ordained ‘°° before the year 388, 93 Cod. Th. lib. 16. Tit. 2. de Episc. Leg. 3. Cum con- stitutio emissa praecipiat, nullum deinceps decurionem, vel ex decurione progenitum, vel etiam instructum idoneis fa- eultatibus, atque obeundis publicis muneribus opportunum, ad clericorum nomen obsequiumque confugere; sed eos— qui fortune. tenues, neque muneribus civilibus teneantur obstricti: cognovimus illos etiam inquietari, qui ante legis promulgationem clericorum se consortio sociaverint: ideo- que praecipimus, his ab omni molestia liberatis, illos qui post legem 1atam obsequia publica declinantes, ad clerico- rum numerum confugerunt, curiae ordinibusque restitui, et c'ivilibus obsequiis inservire. 9* Ibid. Leg. 6. Si inter civitatem et clericos super ali- cujus nomine dubitetur, si eum aequitas ad publica trahat munera, et progenie munieeps, vel patrimonio idoneus dig- noscetur, exemptus clericis civitati tradatur: opulentos enim saeculi subire necessitates oportet, pauperes ecelesiarum di- vitiis sustentari. 9’ Cod. Th. lib. l2. Tit. I. de Decurion. Leg. 49. Epis- copum facultates suas curiae, sicut ante fuerat constitutum, nullus adigat mancipare, sed antistes maneat, nec faciat sub- stantiae cessionem, &c. 96 Cod. Th. lib. 12. Tit. I. de Decurion. Leg. 59. Qui partes eligit ecclesiae, not in propinquum bona propria con- ferendo eum pro se faciet curialem, aut faeultatibus curiae cedat, quam reliquit; ex necessitate revocaudo eo qui neu- trum fecit, cum clericus esse coepisset, &c. 9"’ Cod. Th. lib. l6. 'l‘it. 2. de Episc. Leg. 21. Qui eccle- siac juge obsequium deputarunt, euriis habeanturimmunes, si tamen ante ortum imperii nostri ad cultum se legis nostra contulisse constiterit. 98 Cod. Th. lib. 16. Tit. 2. Leg. 19. Si in consortio cle- ricatus deeennium quietis impleverit, cum patrimonio suo habeatur immunis: si vero intra. finitos annos fuerit a curia revoeatus, cum substantia sua functionibus subjaceat ci- vitatis. 99 God. Tb. lib; 12. Tit. 1.. de Decurion. Leg. 99. 1°" Ibid. Leg. 121. et 123. 182 BooK V. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIANCHURCH. which was the tenth year of his reign: and of those that were ordained afterward he only required ‘°‘ the aforesaid conditions, that they should either provide a proper substitute, or give up their estates to the court at their ordination. Which is also taken notice of by St. Ambrose in his answer to Symmachus, where he shows ‘"2 how unreasonable it was for him to plead for the exemption of the heathen priests in this respect, when the laws did not grant it to the Christian clergy but upon such conditions. Arcadius indeed, by the instigation of Eutropius, anno 398, cancelled all these favourable laws, and brought the clergy again to the hard rule of Constantine, that if any ‘"3 of the carz'ales were or- dained in the church, they should by force be re- turned to the civil courts again in person, and not enjoy the benefit of those laws, which allowed them to take orders, provided they disposed of their estates to proper substitutes, who might bear offices in their stead. But this law was but very short-lived; for Chrysostom and some others very justly declaim- ing against it, Arcadius disannulled it the year fol- lowing by a new law, wherein 1°‘ he granted such of the clergy as were taken and ordained out of the body of the curia-lcs, the same privilege that they had under his father Theodosius, which was, That all that were ordained before the second consulship of Theodosius, anno 388, should enjoy a perfect im- munity without any molestation: and such as were ordained after that term, if they were of the superior clergy, bishops, presbyters, or deacons, they might continue in the church’s service, either providing a substitute to bear the offices of the curz'a for them, or giving up their estates to the cur-5a, as former laws in that case had directed. Only it was required that the inferior clergy, readers, subdeacons, &c., should be returned to the curz'a again, and obliged to bear offices in person. And the same was‘ determined by Theodosius junior,“5 and Valentinian 111.,106 and Majorian,‘°"' whose laws are extant at the end of the Theodosian Code. Justinian also has a Novel to the same purpose, wherein108 he orders such of the inferior clergy, as were taken out of any curia, to be returned thither again, unless they had lived fifteen years a monastic life ; and then they were to give three parts of their patrimony to the curia, and retain one for themselves: but he allowed bishops to put in a substitute, and be free from hearing civil oflices in person, as J ulianus Antecessor 1°” in his Epitome of the Authentics understands him. Though I confess there is something to incline a man to think Justinian at first was a little more severe to such bishops, because he revived that antiquated law of Arcadius110 in his Code. But however this be, upon the whole matter it appears, that the Chris- tian princes from first to last always made a wide difference between the public patrimony of the church, which was properly ecclesiastical, and the private estates of such of the clergy as had lands of a civil or secular tenure; for the one the clergy were obliged to no duty or burden of civil ofi’ices, but , for the other they were, and could not be excused from them, but either by parting with some portion of their estates, or providing proper substitutes to ofliciate for them. The reason of which was, that such of the clergy were looked upon as irregularly promoted; it being as much against the rules of the church, as the laws of the state, to admit any of the curiales to an ecclesiastical function, without first giving satisfaction to the curz'a whence they were taken, as has been showed in another place. I have been the more curious in searching to the bottom this business about tribute and civil ofiices, and given a particular and distinct account of them from the grounds of the civil law, because but few men have recourse to those fountains, whence this matter is to be cleared ; and the reader will scarce find this subject handled, but either very imperfect- ly, or with some partiality, or some confusion. in modern authors. CHAPTER IV. OF THE REVENUES OF THE ANCIENT CLERGY. Sect. 1. Several ways of THE next thing that comes in order to be considered, is the maintenance _ of the ancient clergy. Where it will ggvgéigiteangldlcifgl be proper first to inquire into the gtgféliloiimweem ways and methods that were taken for raising of funds for their subsistence. And here, to set aside a little the consideration of tithes, which will be spoken of in the next chapter, we find other 1°‘ Cod. Th. lib. l2. Tit. 1. de Decurion. Leg. 104 et 115. 102 Ambros. cont. Symmach. ‘"8 Cod. Th. lib. 9. Tit. 45. de his qui ad Eccles. confug. Leg. 3. Deeuriones manu mox injecta revocentur: quibus ulterius legem prodesse non patimur, quae cessione patri- monii subsecuta, decuriones esse clericos non vetabat. 1°‘ Cod. Th. lib. l2. Tit. 1. de Decurion. Leg. 163. Si qui ex secundo divi patris nostri consulatu curiam relinquentes, clericorum se consortio manciparunt, si jam episcopi, vel presbyteri, vel diaconi esse meruerunt, in sacris quidem et secretioribus Dei mysteriis perseverent, sed aut substitutum pro se curiae offerre cogantur, aut juxta legem dudum 1atum tradant curiae facultates. ni, vel hi clerici quibus clericorum privilegia non debentur, debitis mox patriae muneribus praesententur. ‘"5 Theod. Novel. 26 et 38. 106 Valentin. Novel. 12. 1°’ Majorian. Novel. 1. ' 103 Justin. Novel. 123. 0.15. Ex. Epitom. Julian. Antecess. 1°” Vid. Julian. Epit. Novel. 123. c. 4. post Leg. 38. Cod. de Episc. Episcopalis ordo liberat a fortuna servili, sed non a curiali sive ofiiciali; nam et post ordinationem durat; ita ut per subjectam vel interpositam personam- oificium ad- impleatur, &c. 11° Cod. Just. lib. l. Tit. 3. de Episc. Leg. l2. Residui omnes, lectores, subdiaco- ‘ CnAP. IV. 183 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. ways, by which in ancient times a decent provision was made for them. As, first, by the voluntary oblations of the people, of which some learned per- sons think there were two sorts; l. The weekly or daily oblations that were made at the altar; 2. The monthly oblations that were cast into the treasury of the church. The first sort of oblations were such as every rich and able communicant made at his coming to partake of the eucharist; where they offered not only bread and wine, out of which the eucharist was taken, but also other necessaries, and sometimes sums of money for the maintenance of the church and relief of the poor. As is evident from those words of St. J erom in his Comments upon Ezekiel,‘ where he tells us, that thieves and oppressors made their oblations among others, out of their ill-gotten goods, that they might glory in their wickedness, while the deacon in the church publicly recited the names of those that offered: Such a one offers so much, such a one hath pro- mised so much : and so they please themselves with the applause of the people, while their own con- science lashes and torments them. Those called the Apostolical Canons2 speak also of the oblation of fruits, and fowls, and beasts, but order such to be sent home to the bishop and presbyters, who were to divide them with the deacons and the rest of the clergy. _ Another sort of oblations were made monthly, when it was usual for per- sons that were able and willing, to give as they thought fit something to the ark or treasury of the church. Which sort of collation is particularly taken notice of by Tertullian,a who says, it was made menstrua die, once a month, or when every one pleased, and as they pleased; for no man was compelled to it: it was not any stated sum, but a voluntary oblation. Baronius‘ thinks this ark or treasury was called the corban of the church, be- cause Cyprian5 uses that word when he speaks of the offerings of the people; rebuking a rich and wealthy matron for coming to celebrate the eu- charist without any regard to the corban, and par- taking of the Lord’s supper without any sacrifice of her own. Others6 conceive, that corban is not a Sect. 2. And others monthly. name for the treasury, but signifies the gift or obla- tion itself; and that Cyprian so uses it, making it the same with the sacrifices or offerings of the peo- ple. But the evangelist, Matt. xxvii. 6, seems ra- ther to favour the opinion of Baronius: for when he says the chief priests did not think it lawful to put Judas his money eig row Icopliaviiv, it iS evident, he there by corban means the treasury, as most translators render it. But however this be, it is very pro- bable, that hence came the custom of wifeeriiéséame dividing these oblations once a month glgniiiisiimiivflimi among the clergy. For as Tertullian amongtheclergy' speaks of a monthly collation, so Cyprian frequent- ly mentions7 a monthly division, in which the pres- byters had their shares by equal portions, and other orders after the same manner. Whence the clergy are also styled in his language,‘3 sportulantesfratres, partakers of the distribution ; and what we now call, suspensz'o a beng‘icio, is in his style,9 suspensz'o a divisione mensurna, suspension from the monthly division. Which plainly implies, that this sort of church revenues was usually divided once a month among the clergy. And perhaps in conformity to this custom it was, that the Theodotian heretics having persuaded one Natalius,aconfessor, to be ordained a bishop among them, promised him a monthly salary of one hundred and fifty (Zena-mi, pm/La'ia dvvcipta e'Ica-rov wwnjrcovrabas Eusebius ‘words it,‘° referring to the usual way of distribution once a month among the clergy. Another sort of revenues which the clergy enjoyed, were such as arose an- nually from the lands and possessions which were given to the church. These, indeed, at first were but small, by reason of the continual vexations and persecutions which the church underwent for the three first ages, when immovable goods were always most exposed to danger. It was the custom of the church of Rome therefore never to keep any immovable possessions, no, not for many ages, if we may credit Theodorus Lector,“ who speaks of it as customary in his own time, anno 520. But if any such were given to the church, they immediately sold them, and divided Sect. 4. 2dly, Other reve nues arising from . elandsand osses- sions ofthe c urch. ‘ Hieron. Corn. in Ezek. xviii. p. 537. Multos conspici- mus, qui opprimunt per potentiam, vel furta committunt, ut de multis parva pauperibus tribuant, et in suis sceleribus glorientur, publiceque (liaconus in ecclesia recitet offerentium nornina: tautum offert ille, tantpm ille pollicitus est; pla- centque sibi ad plausum populi, torqueute conscientia. 2 Canon. Apost. c. 3, 21, 5. ? Tertul. Apol. c. 39. Si quod arose genus est, non de or- dinaria summa, quasi redemptae religionis congregatur: modicam unusquisque stipem menstrua die, vel quum velit, et si modo velit, et si modo possit, apponit: nam nemo compellitur, sed sponte confert. 4 Baron. an. 44. n. 69. 5 Cypr. de Oper. et Eleemos. p. 203. Locuples et dives es, et Dominicum celebrare te credis, quae corbonam omnino non respicis; quae in Dominicum sine sacrificio venis; quae partem de sacrificio, quod pauper obtulit, sumis? 6 Basnag. Exercit. in Baron. p. 597. 7 Cypr. Ep. al. 39. UL et sportulis iisdem cum pres- byteris honorentur, et divisioues mensurnas aequatis quanti- tatibus partiantur. ‘3 Id. Ep. 66. al. 1. Sportulantes fratres, tanquam deci- mas ex fructibus accipientes. 9 Id. Ep. 28. al. 34. Interim se a divisione mensurna tantum contineant, &c. 1° Euseb. lib. 5. c. 28. 1‘ Theodor. Lect. Collectan. lib. 2. p. 567. "ES'os 7;? 5K. rcknaiq 'rijs 'Pa'ipnjs &Kiun'ra in‘) Kpa'rs'iu dircata, &c. 184 Bow V. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. the price into three parts, giving one to the church, another to the bishop, and the third to the rest of the clergy. And Valesius finds no exception to this till near the time of Gregory the Great. But if this was the custom of the church of Rome, it was a very singular one. For other churches had their immovables, both houses and lands, even in the times of persecution: as appears from the edicts of Maximinus, wherein he revoked his former decrees that had raised the persecution, and in these latter edicts granted the Christians liberty not only to re- build their churches, but also ordered, that if any houses or lands belonging to them had been confis- cated, or sold, or given away,12 they should be re— stored to them again. That this was meant of houses and lands belonging to the church, as well as private Christians, is evident from the decree of Constantine and Licinius published the same year, anno 313. Wherein they give orders, that whereas the Christians were known to have not only places of assembly, but also other places belonging not to any private man, but to the whole body, all such places ‘3 should be restored to the body and to every particular assembly among them. Which is re- peated again in Constantine’s letter to Anulinus,H and other public acts of his recorded by Eusebius '5 in his Life, where he makes mention of houses, gar- dens, lands, and other possessions belonging to the church, of which she had been plundered and de- spoiled in the late persecutions. These are undeni- able eiddences, that some part of the ecclesiastical revenues were anciently raised from houses and lands settled upon the church, even before any Christian emperors could give encouragement to them. Sect‘ 5. But when Constantine was quietly au'pgxtg-srgsmzfilei settled upon the throne, the church also of Consiw- revenues received great augmentations in this kind. For he enacted a law at Rome, which is still extant in both the Codes,16 that any one whatsoever should have liberty at his death to bequeath by will what part of his goods he pleased to the holy catholic church. By which means, the liberality of pious persons was very much encouraged, and great additions were made to the standing revenues of the church. Therefore. Baronius is very injurious ‘7 to the memory of Con- stantine, and justly corrected by Gothofred‘a and Mr. Pagi19 for it, in that he insinuates as if Con- stantine had relapsed toward heathenism at this very time, anno 321, when he published this law so much in favour of the church. Others are no less injurious to some sec, 6. of his successors, when they represent Coffggygggdfaggyjigg them as injurious to the church, in iii-xiii; $525021” forbidding widows and orphans to assume mmke' leave any legacies to the church. Baronius cannot help complaining also upon this point, though he contradicts himself about it. For in one place 2" he says, the foresaid law of Constantine did so aug- ment the church’s wealth, that the following em- perors began to dread the consequences of it, that it would turn to the detriment and poverty of the commonwealth; and therefore they made laws to restrain the faithful from being so profuse in their donations to the church. Yet when he comes to speak particularly of those laws, he owns they were not designed” against the church, but only to cor- rect the scandalous practices of some sordid monks and ecclesiastics, who being of an avaricious and parasitical temper, made a gain of godliness, and under pretence of religion, so screwed themselves into the favour and affections of some rich widows and orphans, that they prevailed upon them to leave them great legacies, and sometimes their whole estates, to the prejudice of the right heirs and next relations. Which was so dishonest and unbecoming a practice in such persons, that Valentinian made a law to prevent it; decreeing, that22 no ecclesi- astics, or any that professed the monastic life, should frequent the houses of widows or orphans; nor be qualified to receive any gift or legacy from the do- nation or last will of any such persons. Which law, as Gothofred‘23 rightly observes, did not pro- hibit them from leaving any thing to the church; though some learned men so misunderstand it; but only tended to correct this unworthy practice of some particular persons, which is equally complain- ed of by the ancient writers of the church. St. Ambrose, and St. Jerom, and others mention this law, but they do not at all inveigh against it, but against those vices that occasioned it. I do not‘ complain of the law, says St. J erom,“ but am grieved that we should deserve such a law; that when idol- " Euseb. lib. 9. c. 10. ‘3 Ap. Euseb. lib. 10. c. 5. 1* Constant. Ep. ad Anulin. ap. Euseb. ibid. ‘5 Euseb. Vit. Const. lib. 2. c. 37 et 39. '5 Cod. Th. lib. 16. Tit. 2. de Episc. Leg. 4. It. Cod. Justin. lib. 1. Tit. 2. de Sacrosanct. Eccles. Leg. 1. Haheat unusquisque licentiam sanctissimo catholico venerabilique concilio, decedens bonorum quod optaverit relinquere. 1’ Baron. an. 321. n. 18. ‘8 Gothofred. Com. in God. Th. lib. 16. Tit. 10. de Paga- nis, Leg. 1. ‘9 Pagi, Critic. in Baron. an. 321. n. 4 et 5. 2" Baron. an. 321. n. 17. 2' Baron. an. 37]. t. 4. p. 270. Qua quidem sanetioue nequaquarn prohibentur ecclesiae haereditates accipere vel 1egata, sed ecclesiasticaa personae, sive clerici, sive monachi. —ut plane intelligas hosce nebulones, tanquam harpyas quasdam inhiantes matronarum divitiis, &c. 7 22 Cod. Tb. lib. 16. Tit. 2. de Episc. Leg. 20. Ecclesi- astici, vel qui continentiurn se volunt nomiue nuneupari, viduarurn aut pupillarum domos non adeant.—Censemus etiam, ut memorati nihil de ejus mulieris liberalitate qua- cunque vel extrerno judicio possint adipisci. 23 Gothofred. in 10c. 2‘ Hieron. Ep. 2. ad Nepotian. sacerdotes, dicere pudet, CHAP. IV. 185 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. priests, and stage-players, and carters, and harlots may inherit, only clerks and monks are prohibited; and that not by persecuting emperors, but Christian princes. He adds, that it was a very prudent cau- tion in the law, but yet it did not restrain the ava- rice of such persons, who found out an artifice to elude the law, per fidei-commz'ssa, by getting others to receive in trust for them. Which shows us the sense St. J erom had of this matter, that he did not think the emperors were injurious to the church in making such a law, but those persons were only to be blamed, whose avarice and sordid flatteries com- pelled them to make it. And any one that will consult St. Ambrose,” or the author under his name,” will find that they give the same account of it. Theodosius indeed some years after made a law, relating particularly to such deaconesses of the church as were of noble families, that they should not"’7 dispose of their jewels, or plate, or furniture, or any other such things as were the ancient marks of honour in their families, under pretence of re- ligion, while they lived; nor make any church, or clerk, or poor, their heirs when they died. But as this law was made upon some particular reasons of state, so it did no harm to the church; for within two months the same emperor recalled ” it by a con- trary law, which granted liberty to such deacon- esses to dispose of their goods in their life-time to any church or clerk whatsoever. And Marcian made the law a little more extensive, allowing29 deaconesses and all other religious women, to dis- pose of any part of their estate, by will or codicil, to any church, or oratory, or clerk, or monk, or poor whatsoever. \Vhich law Justinian also confirmed and inserted it into his Code.30 So that Constantine’s law continued always in its full force, and the suc- ceeding princes did not derogate from the privilege which he had granted the church in this respect, for fear (as Baronius pretends) lest the liberality of the subject to the church should impoverish the com- monwealth. Men were very liberal indeed in their gifts and donations to the church in this age, but yet not so profuse as to need statutes of mortmain to restrain them. found it necessary to make the clergy nues raised by allow _ ances out ofthe em‘ an allowance out of the public reve- Pemr'sexchequer- nues of the empire; which was another way of providing a maintenance for them. Constantine both gave the clergy particular largesses, as their occasions required, and also settled upon them a standing allowance out of the exchequer. In one of his epistles to Caecilian, bishop of Carthage, re- corded by Eusebius,31 he acquaints Caeeilian with his orders which he had given to Ursus, his general receiver in Africa, to pay him three thousand polles, rpto'xtkieq polkkug, to be divided at hiS discretion among the clergy of the provinces of Africa, Nu- midia, and the two Mauritanias. And if this sum would not answer all their present necessities, he gave him further orders to demand of his procurator Heraclides whatever he desired more. I need not stand here to inquire critically what this sum of three thousand polles was, (though it may be com- puted above twenty thousand pounds,) since Con- stantine gave the bishop unlimited orders, to de- mand as much as the needs of the clergy should require. But he not only supplied their present necessities, but also gave orders for a standing al- lowance to be made them out of the public treasury. For Theodoret "2 and Sozomenas say, he made a law requiring the chief magistrates in every province to grant the clergy, and virgins, and widows of the church, an annual allowance of corn, s’n'qma mmpéata, out of the yearly tribute of every city. And thus it continued to the time of Julian, who withdrew the whole allowance. But Jovian restored it again in some measure, granting them a third part of the former allowance only, because at that time the public income was very low, by reason of a severe famine; but he promised them the whole, so soon as the famine was ended, and the public storehouses were better replenished. But either J ovian’s death prevented his design, or the necessities of the clergy did not. afterward require it. For though Sozomen seems to say the whole was restored; yet Theo- doret, who is more accurate, afiirms, that it was only 'rprrnpopmv, a third part; and that so it con- tinued to his own times. In this sense therefore we are to understand that law of the emperor Marcian, which Justinian has inserted into his gm‘fegtfigéher For besides the liberality of the parw'f'chuwhreve- subjects, the emperors in these ages idolorum, mimi, et aurigae, et scorta haereditates capiunt; solis clericis et monacbis prohibetur: et prohibetur non a persecutoribus, sed a principibus Christianis. Nec de lege conqueror, sed doleo cur meruimus hanc legem, &c. '35 Ambros. Ep. 3l. ad Valentin. p. 145. 2“ Idem, Homil. 7. 2’ Cod. Th. lib. l6. Tit. 2. de Episc. Leg. 27. Nihil de monilibus et supellectili, nihil de auro, argento, cscterisque claran domus insignibus, sub religionis defensione consumat. __A(¢ Si quando diem obierit, nullam ecclesiam, nullum cleric-um, nullum pauper-em scribat haeredes, &c. 28 Ibid. Leg. 28. Legem, quae diaconissis vel viduis nuper est promulgate, ne quis videlicet clericus. neve sub ecclesiae nomine, mancipia, praedam, velut infirmi sexus despoliator, et remotis adfinibus et propinquis, ipse sub praetextu catho- licaz disciplinaa se ageret viventis haeredem, eatenus ani- madvertat esse revoeatam. 29 Marcian. Novel. 5. ad calcem Cod. Th. Generali lege sancimus, sive vidua, sive diaconissa, sive vii-go Deo dicata, vel sanctimonialis mulier, sive quoeunque alio nomine re- ligiosi honoris vel dignitatis fcemiua nuncupetur, testamento vel codicillo suo—ecclesia. vel martyrio, vel clerico, vel monacho, vel pauperibus aliquid vel ex integro vel ex parte, in quacunque re vel specie credidit relinquendum, id modis omnibus ratum firmumque constet. 8° Cod. Justin. lib. l. Tit. 2. de Sacrosanct. Eccl. Leg. l3. 9‘ Euseb. lib. 10. c. 6. ‘2 Theod. lib. 1. c. 11. 33 Sozomen, lib. 5. c. 5. 186 Boox V. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Code,34 decreeing, that the salaries which had been always given to the churches in divers sorts of grain out of the public treasures, should be allowed them, without any diminution. This did not entitle them to the Whole allowance first made them by Constan- tine, (as some may be apt to imagine from the ge- neral words of the law,) but only to the third part, which had been the customary allowance from the time of Jovian. '- Another way by which some small oégfiieiitgfgtgfi addition was made to the revenues of gesgmrérgztesvfih: the church, was from a law of Con- génggfnticggwh gr stantine mentioned by Eusebius85 in his Life, where he tells us, that as he ordered all the estates of martyrs and confessors, and whoever had suffered in time of persecution, to be restored to their next relations; so if any of them died without relations, the church should become their heir, and in every place where they lived, suc- ceeded to their inheritance. Theodosius junior and Valentinian ofcmgymen dyin III. made such another law in re- ll'lfitms‘fiflffi‘if, ‘file ference to the temporal possessions of manner‘ the clergy: That if any presbyter, or deaconf‘6 or deaconess, or subdeacon, or other clerk, or any man or woman professing a monastic life, died without will and without heirs, the estates and goods they were possessed of should fall to the church or monastery to which they belonged, un- less they were antecedently tied to some civil ser- vice. This implies that the clergy were at liberty to dispose of their own temporal estates as they pleased; and they fell to the church only in case they died intestate. But the council of Agde, in France, under Alaric the Goth, anno 506, went a little further, and decreed, that every bishop,87 who had no children or nephews, should make the church his heir, and no other: as Caranza’s edition, and Gratian, and some others, read it. And the council of Seville88 made a like decree for the Spanish churches; upon which Caranza$9 makes this remark, That the canon was fit to be renewed in council, that the church should be the bishop’s heir, and not the pope. And that it was against the mind of those fathers, that bishops should set up primogenitures, or enrich their kindred out of the Sect. 9. 5thly, The estates revenues of the church. Which reflection, among other things, might perhaps contribute towards his being brought into the Spanish inquisition, though he was archbishop of Toledo; after which he un- derwent a ten years’ imprisonment at Rome, and had some of his books prohibited in the Roman Index, of which Spondanus,40 in his Annals, will give the reader a further account. But I return to the primitive church. ' Where we may observe another ad— Sect m dition made to the revenues of the tegfgllgé 3525123631? clergy, by the donation of heathen 33333121321533? temples, and sometimes the revenues that were settled upon them. For though the greatest part of these‘ went commonly to the em- peror’s coffers, or to favourites that begged them, upon the demolishing of the temples; as appears from the laws of Honorius41 and Gratian, and several others in the Theodosian Code; yet some of them were given to the church: for Honorius‘2 takes notice of several orders and decrees of his own, whereby such settlements had been made up- on the church, which were to continue the church’s property and patrimony for ever. And it is pro- bable some other emperors might convert the re- venues of the temples to the same use. At least the fabrics themselves, and the silver and golden statues that were in them, were sometimes so dis- posed of. For Sozomen43 says, the pieptov, or temple of the sun at Alexandria, was given to the church by Constantius. And we learn from Socrates,44 that in the time of Theodosius, the statues of Serapis, and many other idols at Alexandria, were melted down for the use of the church ; the emperor giving orders that the gods should help to maintain the poor. Honorius made a like decree, anno SM 11_ 412, in reference to all the revenues ,egg‘yly’gggvzlggctg belonging to heretical conventicles, andtheirrmnues' that both the churches or conventicles themselves, and all the lands “5 that were settled upon them, should be forfeited, and become the possession and property of the catholic church, as by former de- crees he had appointed. And I suppose it was by virtue of these laws, that Cyril, bishop of Alexan- dria, shut up all the Novatian churches, and seized 3‘ Cod. Justin. lib. l. Tit. 2. de SS. Eccles. Leg. 12. Sa- laria quae sacrosanctis ecclesiis in diversis speciebus de pub- lico hactenus ministrata sunt, jubemus nunc quoque incon- cussa, et a nullo prorsus imminuta praestari. 35 Euseb. Vit. Const. lib. 2. c. 36. 8“ Cod. Th. lib. 5. Tit. 3. de Bonis Clericor. Leg. 1. God. Just. lib. l. Tit. 3. de Episc. Leg. 20. 8’ Conc. Agathen. c. 24. al. 33. ap. Gratian. Caus. l2. qu. 2. c. 34. Episcopus qui filios autnepotes non habuerit, alium quam ecclesiam non relinquat haeredem. 38 Cone. Hispalens. l. c. 1. 8’ Caranz. in 100. Hic canon erat renovandus in concilio, ut haeres defuncti episcopi esset ecclesia, non tamen papa. Secundo alienum est a sententia horum patrum licere epis- copo instituere primogenituras, vel locupletare consan- guineos. 4° Spondan. Annal. Eccl. an. 1559. n. 29. “1 Cod. Th. lib. 16. Tit. 10. de Paganis, Leg. 19 et 20. ‘2 Ihid. Leg. 20. Ea. autem qua: multiplicibus constitutis ad venerabilem ecclesiam voluimus pertinere, Christiana. sibi merito religio vindicavit, id est, vindicabit. “3 Sozom. lib. 5. c. 7. 4‘ Socrat. lib. 5. c. 16. ‘5 Cod. Th. lib. 16. Tit. 5. de Hacret. Leg. 52. Ecclesiis eorum vel conventiculis, praediisque, siqua in eorum ec- clesias hznreticorum largitas prava contulit, proprietati po- testatique catholicae, sicut jamdudum statuimus, vindicatis. CHAP. IV. 187 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. upon all their revenues, and deprived Theonas, their bishop, of his substance; though Socrates,‘6 in tell- ing the story, represents the matter a little more invidiously, as if Cyril had done all this by his own private usurped authority and arbitrary power: which will hardly gain credit with any one that considers, that those laws of Honorius were pub- lished before Cyril came to the episcopal throne, which was not till the year 412, when those laws were re-enforced by the imperial power. While I am upon this head, it will Sect. 12. . ofstchlieyrghgeggrg not be improper to observe further, 'f-éxfiglgctlgggfirfcog that, by J ustinian’s laws,47 if any clergymen or monks, who were pos- sessed of temporal estates, forsook their church or monastery, and turned seculars again, all their sub- stance was forfeited to the church or monastery to which they belonged. These were the several me- thods that were anciently taken for augmenting and improving the revenues of the church, besides those of first-fruits and tithes, of which more hereafter. But I must observe, that as these wggtqifipgmfn methods were generally reputed legal Egggigléaagmgifié and allowable, so there were some gfetijocgiifgggfrtig other as generally disallowed and con- ;‘Qfiffifgfihmh demned. Particularly we find in St. Austin’s time, that it was become a rule in the African church, to receive no estates that were given to the church to the great detri- ment and prejudice of the common rights of any others. As if a father disinherited his children to make the church his heir, in that case no bishop would receive his donation. Possidius tells48 us St. Austin refused some estates so given, because he thought it more just and equal, that they should he possessed by the children, or parents, or next kindred of the deceased persons. And that he did Sect. 13. so, is evident from his own words in his discourse- de Vita Clericorum,49 where he says he had return- ed an estate to a son, which an angry father at his death had taken from him: and he thought he did well in it; professing for his own part, that if any disinherited his son, to make the church his heir, he should seek some one else to receive his donation, and not Austin; and he hoped by the grace of God there would be none that would receive it. He adds in the same place a very remarkable and laud— able instance of great generosity and equity in Au- relius, bishop of Carthage, in a case of the like na- ture. A certain mans’o having no children, nor hopes of any, gave away his whole estate to the church, only reserving to himself the use of it for life. Now it happened afterwards, that he had children born to him; upon which the bishop generously returned him his estate, when he did not at all expect it. The bishop indeed, says St. Austin, had it in his power to have kept it, sedjm'e forz', non jure polz', only by the laws of man, but not by the laws of Heaven. And therefore he thought himself obliged in conscience to return it. This shows how tender they were of augmenting the revenues of the church by any methods that might be thought unequitable, or such as were not reputable, honest, or of good report; herein observ- ing the apostle’s rule, to let their moderation, n‘. émemég, their equity, be known to all men; not do- ing any hard thing for lucre’s sake, nor taking ad— vantages by rigour of law, when conscience and charity were against them. To avoid scandal also, and to pro- Sect. 14. vide things honest in the sight of all mgfélgrlil'lsoiqdgfnglg: men, they forbade any thing to be de- ,ffjgil‘gon‘gfcfififgi' manded for administering the sacra- fififlfffijg‘jgffifigé ments of the church. The council of memmhe dead‘ Eliberis seems to intimate, that it was customary with some persons at their baptism to cast money into abason, by way of gratuity to the minister; but even this is there forbidden by the canon, lest the priest“ should seem to sell what he freely re- ceived. Whence we may conclude, that if the peo- ple might not offer, the priest might much less exact or demand any thing for administering the sacrament of baptism. In other churches a volun- tary oblation was allowed of, from persons that were able and willing to make it; but all exactions of that nature from the poor were still prohibited, for fear of discouraging them from offering themselves or their children to baptism. Thus it was in the Roman church in the time of Gelasius, as we learn from his epistles ;52 and in the Greek church in the time of Gregory Nazianzen, who takes occasion to answer this objection which poor men made against ‘6 Socrat. lib. 7. c. 7. ‘7 Cod. Justin. lib. 1. Tit. 3. de Episc. Leg. 53. Si illi monasteria aut ecclesias relinquant, atque mundani fiant; omne ipsorum jus ad monasterium aut ecclesiam pertinet. Vid. Novel. 5. c. 4 et 6. It. Novel. 123. c. 42. ‘8 Possid. Vit. Aug. 0. 24. 49 Aug. Serm. 49. de Diversis, t. 10. p. 520. Quando donavi filio, quod iratus pater moriens abstulit, bene feci. —Quid plura, fratres mei ? Quicunque vult exhaeredato filio hzeredem facere ecclesiam, quaerat alter-um qui suscipiat, non Augustinum; imo Deo propitio neminem inveniat. 5° Id. ibid. Quidam cum filios non haberet, neque spera- ret, res suas omnes, retento sibi usufructu, donavit eccle- siae. Nati sunt illi filii, et reddidit episcopus nec opinanti quae ille donaverat. In potestate habebat episcopus non reddere ; sed jure fori, non jure poli. 5‘ Conc. Eliber. c. 48. Emendari placuit, ut hi qui bapti- zantur (ut fieri solebat) nummos in concham non mittant; ne sacerdos, quod gratis accepit, pretio distrahere videatur. 5’ Gelas. Ep. 1. a1. 9. ad Episc. Lucaniae, c. 5. Bapti- zaudis consignandisque fidelibus pretia nulla presbyteri praefigant, nec illationibus quibusdam impositis exagitare cupiant renascentes; quoniam quod gratis accipimus, gra- tis dare mandamur. Et ideo nihil a praedictis exigere mo- liantur, quo vel paupertate cogente deterriti, ‘vel indigna~ tione revocati, redemptionis suae causas adire despiciant 188 Boox V. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. coming immediately to baptism,“a because they had not wherewith to make the usual present that was then to be offered, or to purchase the splendid robe that Was then to be worn, or to provide a treat for the minister that baptized them. He tells them, no such things would be expected or exacted of them: they need only make a present of themselves to Christ, and entertain the minister with their own good life and conversation, which would be more acceptable to him than any other offerings. This implies, that it was then the custom for the people to make a voluntary oblation at their baptism ; but not the custom for ministers to demand it, as a matter of right, for fear of giving scandal. Some editions of Gratian“ and Vicecomess5 allege a canon of the third or fourth council of Carthage to the same purpose; which, if the allegation were true, would prove that the same custom obtained in the African church. But, as Antonius Augustinus 5“ and the Roman correctors of Grratian57 have ob- served, there is no such canon to be found in any African council; but it is a canon of the second council of Bracara in Spain, which finding a cor- rupt practice crept in among the clergy, (notwith- standing the former prohibition of the Eliberitan council,) that ministers did exact pledges of the poor, who had not ability to make any offering, en- deavoured to redress this corruption, by passing a new order, that though58 voluntary oblations might be received, yet no pledge should be extorted from the poor who were not able to offer, because many of the poor for fear of this kept back their children from baptism. The same council of Bracara made a decree, that no bishop should exact59 any thing as a due of any founders of churches for their con- secration; but if any thing was voluntarily offered, he might receive it. And so in like manner for confirmation,60 and administering the eucharist,“ all bishops and presbyters are strictly enjoined not to exact any thing of the receivers, because the grace of God was not to be set to sale, nor the sanctifica- tion of the Spirit to be imparted for money. St. Jerom assures us further, that it was not very hon- ourable in his time to exact any thing for the bury- ing-places of the dead, for he censures those that practised it, as falling short‘?2 of the merit of Ephron the Hittite, whom Abraham forced to receive money for the burying-place which he bought of him: but now, says he, there are some who sell burying- places and take money for them, not by compulsion, as Ephron did, but by extortion rather from those that were unwilling to pay. By which we may understand, that in his time it was hardly allowable to demand any thing for the use of a public or pri- vate cemetery: nor was this any part of the church revenues in those days, when as yet the custom of burying in churches was not generallybrought in, but Was the practice of later ages; of which more when we come to speak of the funeral rites of the church. If any one is desirous to know what part of the church revenues was an- ,hjpgogtgyg'jggggfl, ciently most serviceable and benefi— fittufitsim'ilisfir cial to the church, he may be informed church revenues’ from St. Chrysostom and St. Austin, who give the greatest commendations to the offerings and obla— tions of the people, and seem to say, that the church was never better provided than when her mainte- nance was raised chiefly from them. For then men’s zeal prompted them to be very liberal in their Sect. 15. daily offerings; but as lands and possessions were' settled upon the church, this zeal sensibly abated; and so the church came to be worse provided for under the notion of growing richer. \Vhich is the thing that St. Chrysostom complains of in his own times, when the ancient revenue arising from obla- tions was in a great measure sunk, and the church, with all her lands, left in a worse condition than she was before. For now her ministers were forced to submit to secular cares, to the management of lands and houses, and the business of buying and selling, for fear the orphans, and virgins, and widows of the church should starve. He exhorts the people therefore to return to their ancient liberality of oblations, which would at once ease the ministry of all such cares, and make a good provision for the poor, and take off all the little scoffs and ob- jections that some were so ready to make and cast upon the clergy, that they were too much given to secular cares and employments, when indeed it was not choice, but necessity, that forced them to it. There are, says he, in this place, (at Antioch he means,) by the grace of God a hundred thou- sand persons that come to church. Now, if every one63 of these would but give one loaf of bread. 53 Naz. Orat. 40. de Bapt. t. l. p. 655. 5* Gratian. Cams. 1. qu. l. c. 108. ‘*5 Vicecom. de Ritib. Bapt. lib. 4. c. 2. 56 Anton. Aug. de Emeud. Gratiani, lib. 1. Dial. 14. 5’ Gratian. ibid. Edit. Rom. an. 1582. 59 Cone. Bracar. 2. c. 7. edit. Crab. al. 3. Bracar. Ed. Labbe. Qui infantes suos ad baptismum offer-nut, si quid voluntarie pro suo offerunt voto, suscipiatur ab eis; si vero per necessitatem paupertatis aliquid non habent quod ofl'e- rant, nullum illis pignus violenter tollatur a clericis. Nam multi pauperes hoc timentes, filios suos a baptismo retra- hunt 59 lbid. can. 5. 6° Gelas. Ep. 1. al. 9. ad Episc. Lucan. c. 10. 6‘ Conc. Trul. c. 23. “2 Hieron. Quaest. Hebraic. in Gen. xxiii. t. 3. p. 214. Postquam pretio victus est, ut sepulcrum venderet, &c., appellatus est Ephran: significante scriptura, non enrn fuisse consummata: perfectaeque virtutis, qui potuerit me- morias vendere mortuorum. Sciant igitur qui sepulcra venditant, et non coguntur ut accipiant pretium, sed a no- lentibus etiam extorquent, immutari nomen suum, et perire quid de merito eorum, &c. 6‘ Chrys. Horn. 86. in Mattlr. \ CIIAP. V. 189 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. daily to the poor, the poor would live in plenty. If every one would contribute but one halfpenny, no man would want; neither should we undergo so many reproaches and derisions, as if we were too intent upon our possessions. By this discourse of Chrysostom’s it plainly appears, that he thought the oblations of the people in populous cities, when men were acted with their primitive zeal, was a better provision for the clergy than even the lands and possessions of the church. And St. Austin seems to have had the same sense of this matter. For Possidius“ tells us in his Life, that when he found the possessions of the church were become a little invidious, he was used to tell the laity, that he had rather live upon the oblations of the people of God than undergo the care and trouble of those pos- sessions ; and that he was ready to part with them, provided all the servants and ministers of God might live as they did under the Old Testament, when, as we read, they that served at the altar were made partakers of the altar. But though he made this proposal to the people, they would never accept of it. Which is an argument, that the peo- ple also thought, that the reducing the clergy’s maintenance to the precise model of the Old Testa- ment would have been a more chargeable way to them than the other; since the oblations of the Old Testament included tithes and first-fruits; concern- ing the state and original of which, as to what con- cerns the Christian church, I come now to make a more particular inquiry. CHAPTER V. or TITHES AND FIRST-FRUITS IN PARTICULAR. CONCERNING tithes, so far as relates to the ancient church, it will be pro- per to make three inquiries. First, Sect. 1. Tithes anciently reckoned to be due by Divine right. Whether the primitive fathers esteemed them to be due by Divine right ? Secondly, If they did, why they were not always strictly demanded? Thirdly, In what age they were first generally settled upon the church? As to the first inquiry, it is generally agreed by learned men, that the ancients accounted tithes to be due by Divine right. Bellarmine indeed,1 and Rivet,2 and Mr. Selden,8 place them upon an- other foot: but our learned Bishop Andrews‘ and Bishop Carleton,5 who wrote before Mr. Selden, and Bishop Montague6 and Tillesly,7 who wrote in answer to him, (not to mention many others who have written since,) have clearly proved, that the ancients believed the law about tithes not to be merely a ceremonial or political command, but of moral and perpetual obligation. It will be sufiicient for me in this place to present the reader with two or three of their allegations. Origen, in one of his homilies8 on Numbers, thus delivers his opinion about it: How does our righteousness exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, if they dare not taste of the fruits of the earth, before they offer the first-fruits to the priests, and separate the tithes for the Levites? Whilst I do nothing of this, but only so abuse the fruits of the earth, that nei- ther the priest, nor the Levite, nor the altar of God shall see any of them? St. J erom9 ‘says expressly, that the law about tithes and first-fruits was to be understood to continue in its full force in the Chris- tian church; where men were commanded not only to give tithes, but to sell all that they had, and give to the poor. But, says he, if we will not proceed so far, let us at least imitate the Jewish practice, and give part of the whole to the poor, and the honour that is due to the priests and Levites. Which he that does not, defrauds God, and makes himself liable to a curse. St. Austin as plainly fa- vours the same opinion, telling men,10 that they ought to separate something out of their yearly fruits, or daily income; and that a tenth to a Christian was but a small proportion. Because it 6* Possid. Vit. Aug. 0. 23. Dum forte (ut adsolet) de pos- sessionibus ipsis invidia clericis fieret, alloquebatur plebem Dei, malle se ex collationibus plebis Dei vivere quam illarum possessionum curam vel gubernationem pati; et paratum se illis cedere, ut e0 modo omnes Dei servi et ministri vive- rent, quo in Veteri Testamento leguntur altari deservientes de eodem comparticipari. Sed nunquam id laici suscipere voluerunt. ‘ Bellarmin. de Clericis, lib. l. c. 25. 2'Rivet, E'xerc. 80. in Gen. xiv. p. 386. 3 Selden, Hist. of Tithes, c. 4. ‘ Andrews, de Decimis, inter Opuscula. 5 Carleton, Divine Right of Tithes, c. 4. 6 Montague, Diatribae, &c. " Tillesly, Answ. to Selden. 8 Orig. Hom. 11. in Num. xviii. t. l. p. 2l0. Quomodo ergo abundatjustitia nostra plusquam scribarum et Pharisaeorum, si illi de fructibus terrae suae gustare non audent, priusquarn primitiassuas sacerdotibus ofl'erant etLevitis decimaeseparen- tnr? Et ego nihil horum faciens, fructibus terrae ita abutar, ut sacerdos uesciat, Levites ignoret, Divinum altare non sentiat? ” Hieron. Com. in Mal. iii. Quod de decimis primitiisque diximus, quaa olim dabantur a populo sacerdotibus ac Le- vitis, in ecclesiae quoque populis intelligite: Quibus prae- ceptum est, non solum decimas dare et primitias, sed et vendere omnia quae habent et dare pauperibus, et sequi Do- minum salvatorem. Quod si facere nolumus, saltem J udaz- orum imitemur exordia, ut pauperibus partem demus ex toto, et sacerdotibus et Levitis honorem debitum deferamus. Quod qui non fecerit, Deum fraudare et supplantare con- vincitur, &c. 1° Aug. Com. in Psal. cxlvi. t. 8. p. 698. Praecidite ergo aliquid, et deputate aliquid fixum vel ex annuis fructibus, vel ex quotidianis quaestibus vestris.--Decirnas vis? De- cimas exime, quanquam parum sit. Dictum est enim, quia. Pharisaei decimas dabant, &c. Et quid ait Dominus? Nisi abuudaverit justitia vestra plusquain scribarnm et Phari- sacorum, non intrabitis in regnum coelorum. Et ille, super quem debet abundare justitia tua, dccimas dat: tu autem nec millesimam (las. Quomodo superabis eum, cui non znquaris I’ 190 Boox V. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. is said, the Pharisees gave tithes: “ I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.” And our Lord saith, “ Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” But if he, whose righteousness you are to exceed, give tithes; and you give not a thousandth part; how can you be said to exceed him, whom you do not so much as equal? By these few allegations the reader may be able to judge, what notion the an- cients had of tithes, as due by Divine right under the gospel, as well as under the law; and that the precept concerning them was not a mere ceremonial or political command given to the Jews only. Sect. 2_ But why, then, it may be said, were inllm “gages-‘3&1 not tithes exacted by the apostles at i‘gfm'illilat'él‘ffitmat first, or by the fathers in the ages lowed' immediately following? For it is generally believed that tithes were not the original maintenance of ministers under the gospel. To this Bishop Carletonll has returned several very satis- factory answers, which the reader may take in his own Words. First, That tithes were paid to the priests and Levites in the time of Christ and his apostles: now, the synagogue must first be buried, before these things could be orderly brought into use in the church. Secondly, In the times of the New Testament, and somewhat after, there was an extraordinary maintenance by a community of all things, which supplied the want of tithes: but this community was extraordinary, and not to last al- ways. Thirdly, The use of paying tithes, as the church then stood, was so incommodious and cum- bersome, that it could not well be practised. And therefore, as circumcision was laid aside for a time, Whilst Israel travelled through the wilderness, not because the people of right ought not then also to have used it, but because it was so incommodious for that estate and time of the church, that it could not without great trouble be practised; even so the use of tithes in the time of Christ and his apostles was laid aside, not because it ought not, but because it could not, without great encumbrance, be done. And as circumcision was resumed, as soon as the estate of the church could bear it; so tithes were re-establi'shed, as soon as the condition of the church could suffer it. For tithes cannot well be paid, but where some Whole state or kingdom re- ceiveth Christianity, and where the magistrate doth favour the church, which was not in the time of the apostles. To these reasons some other learned persons ‘2 have added a fourth, which is also worth noting, That the tithes of fruits were not so early paid to Christian priests, because the inhabitants of the country were the latest converts; whence also the name pagans stuck by the heathens, because the greatest relics of them were in country villages. As to the last inquiry, when tithes began first to be generally settled up- In “phat age they were irst generally on the church? the common opinion Zggffhflpon the is, that it was in the fourth century, when magistrates began to favour the church, and the world was generally converted from heathenism. Some think ‘3 Constantine settled them by law upon the church: so Alsted, who cites Hermannus Gigas for the same opinion. But there is no law of Con- stantine’s now extant that makes express mention of any such thing. That which comes the nearest to it, seems to be the law about an annual allow- ance of corn to the clergy in all cities out of the public treasuries, which has been spoken of in the last chapter: but this was not so much as a tenth of the yearly product; for the whole tribute itself seems to have been no more: for in some laws of the Theodosian Code ‘4 the emperor’s tribute is call- ed decimaz, tithes; and the publicans, who collected it, are, upon that account, by Tully15 called deca- mam' ; and in Hesychius, the word délta'rfl‘iéw, to tithe, is explained by 'rekwvs'iv and deicd'rnv siarrpar- Tso'Qal, to pay tribute, or pay their tithes to the col- lectors of the tribute. Unless, therefore, we can suppose that Constantine settled the whole tribute of the empire upon the church, (which it is evident he did not,) we cannot take that law for a settlement of tithes upon the clergy. Yet it might be a step towards it: for before the end of the fourth cen- tury, as Mr. Selden16 himself not only confesses, but proves out of Cassian, Eugippius, and others, tithes were paid to the church. St. Austin lived in this age, and he says, tithes were paid before his time, and much better than they were in his own time, for he makes a great complaint of the non- payment of them. Cur forefathers, says he,17 abound- ed in all things, because they gave tithes to God, and tribute to Caesar. But now, because our devo- tion to God is‘ sunk, the taxes of the state are raised upon us. We would not give God his part in the tithes, and therefore the whole is taken away from Sect. 3. us. The exchequer devours what we would not ' give to Christ. St. Chrysostom,18 and the author of the Opus Imperfectum19 on St. Matthew, that goes under his name, testify for the practice of other 11 Carlton, Div. Right of Tithes, cap. 4. p 21. 1'1 Bishop Fell, Not. in Cypr. Ep. 66. al. I. ‘3 Alsted, Supplement. Chamier de Membris Eccles. c. 10. " Cod. Th. lib. 10. Tit. 19. de Metallis, Leg. 10 et 11. ‘5 Vid. Cicer. Orat. 3. in Ver. n. 21 et 22. ‘6 Selden, Hist. of Titb. c. 5. p. 47, &c. _ ‘7 Aug. Hom. 48. ex 50. t. 10. p. 201. Majores nostri ideo copiis omnibus abundabant, quia Deo decimas dabant, Modo autem quia decessit Nolumus partiri cum Hoc tollit fiscus, quod et Caesari censum reddebant. devotio Dei, accessit indictio fisci. Deo decimas, modo totum tollitur. non accipit Christus. ‘8 Chyrs. Hom. 4. in Ephes. p. 1058. ‘9 Opus Imperf. in Matt. Hom. 44. Si populus decimas non obtulerit, murmurant omnes: at si peccantem populum viderint, nemo murmurat contra eum. CHAP. VI. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 191 ANTIQUITIES OF THE .the enjoyment of all the rest. churches about the same time. And it were easy to add a list of many other fathers and councils of the next age, which speak of tithes20 as then actu- ally settled upon the church: but since they who dispute most against the Divine right of them, do not deny this as to fact, it is needless to prosecute this matter any further; which they that please may see historically deduced through many centuries by Mr. Selden.” There is one part more of church revenues, whose original remains to be inquired into, and that is first- fruits, which are frequently mention- ed in the primitive writers. For not only those called the Apostolical Canons22 and Constitutions23 speak of them as part of the maintenance of the clergy; but writers more ancient and more au- thentic, as Origen and Irenaeus, mention them also as oblations made to God. Celsus, says Ori— gen,24 would have us dedicate first-fruits to demons; but we dedicate them to him, who said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind.” To whom we give our first-fruits, to him also we send up our prayers, having a great High Priest that is entered into heaven, &c. In like manner Irenaeus says,25 Christ taught his disciples to offer the first- fruits of the creatures to God, and that this was the church’s continual oblation with thanksgiving for Which implies, either that they had a particular form of thanks- giving, as there is in both the Greek and Latin rituals; or else that these first-fruits were offered with other oblations at the time of the eucharist. However this be, it is evident, that as they were principally designed for agnizing the Creator, so they were secondarily intended for the use of his servants. And therefore we find the Eustathian heretics censured by the synod of Gangra, anno 3241, for that they took the first-fruits, which were anciently given to the church, and divided them among the saints of their own party;'26 in opposition to which practice there are two canons made by that council,27 forbidding any one to receive or dis- tribute such oblations out of the church, otherwise than by the directions of the bishop, under pain of excommunication. Some other rules are also given by one of the councils?B of Carthage, inserted into the African Code, concerning these first-fruits, that they should be only of grapes and corn; which shows that it was also the practice of the African Sect. 4. The original of first-fruits, and the manner of offering them. church. Nazianzen likewise mentions the first- fruits of the winepress and the floor, which were to be dedicated to God.29 And the author of the Con- stitutions has a form of prayer,80 ém’nknctg évrt d1raQ~ Xd'w, an invocation upon the first-fruits, to be used at their dedication. So that it seems very clear, that the offering of first-fruits was a very ancient and general custom in the Christian church, and that this also contributed something toward the maintenance of the clergy; whose revenues I have now considered so far as concerns the several kinds and first original of them. CHAPTER VI. OF THE MANAGEMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE REVENUES OF THE ANCIENT CLERGY. THE next thing to be considered is, the ancient way of managing and The igsztahiies of distributing these revenues among the clergy, and such others as were depen- ' dants upon the church. Which being a little dif- ferent from the ways of later ages, since settlements were made upon parochial churches ; for the right understanding of it we are in the first place to ob- serve, that anciently the revenues of the whole dio- cese were all in the hands of the bishop ; who, with the advice and consent of his senate of presbyters, distributed them as the occasions of the church re- quired. This will appear evident to any one that will consider these two things (which will hereafter be proved, when we come to speak of parochial churches and their original): first, That there were anciently no presbyters or other clergy fixed upon particular churches or congregations in the same city or diocese; but they were served indifferently by any presbyter from the ecclesia matrix, the mo- ther or cathedral church, to which all the clergy of the city or diocese belonged, and not to any par- ticular congregation. Secondly, That when pres- byters were fixed to particular churches or assem- blies in some cities, yet still those churches had no separate revenues; but the maintenance of the clergy ofliciating in them was from the common stock of the mother church, into which all the ob- lations of particular churches were put, as into a common fund, that from thence there might be 2° Conc. Aurelian. I. an. 511. can. 17. 2. an. 588. c. 5. 2' Selden, Hist. ofTithes, c. 5, &c. '12 Canon. Apost. c. 4. 23 Constit. lib. 2. c. 25. lib. 8. c. 30. 2‘ Orig. cont. Cels. lib. 8. p. 400. 25 Iran. lib. 4. c. 32. Sed et suis discipulis dans consilium primitias Deo oiferre ex suis creaturis, &c. Ibid. 0. 34. Of- Conc. M atiscou. ferre igitur oportet Deo primitias ejus creatures, &c. '35 Conc. Gangr. in Pracfat. Kap'rrodmpias 're *ra‘s émckn- a'tao'q'ucds 'rc‘zs duz'lcafi'su dtdoye'uas 'rfi émdtno'ir‘z, éau'ro'ig Kai. 'ro'is (rim at’x'ro'is, a'is d'yt'ots, 'rds dtaddo'ets 'R'OLOL'IfLEUOL. 2’ Ibid. can. 7 et 8. 28 Cod. Can. Afr. c. 37. al. 40. Conc. African. c. 4, 29 Naz. Ep. 80. 3° Constit. lib. 8. c. 40. 192 Boox V. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. made a general distribution. That thus it was at Constantinople till the middle of the fifth century, is evident from what we find in Theodorus Lector, who says,‘ that Marcian, the oeconomus or guardian of that church under Gennadius, anno 460, was the first that ordered the clergy of every particular church to receive the offerings of their own church, whereas before the great church received them all. Now, this being the ancient custom, it gives us a clear account how all the revenues of the church came to be in the hands of the bishop, and how it was made one part of his office and duty by the canons to concern himself in the care and distribution of them. Of which because I have already spoken elsewhere,2 I shall say no more in this place, save only that the bishop himself, to avoid suspicion and prevent mis- management, was obliged to give an account of his administration in a provincial synod ;8 as also at his election to exhibit a list of his own goods and estate, that such things as belonged to him‘ might be dis- tinguished from those that belonged to God and the church. And for the same reason the great council of Chalcedon5 ordered, that every bishop should have an ceconomus, or guardian of the church, and he to be chosen by the vote of all the clergy, as has been noted in another place. See Book III. chap. l2. sect. 4. As to the distribution itself, in the most primitive ages we find no certain rules about it; but as it was in the apostles’ days, so it continued for some time after: what was collected, was usually deposited with the bishop, and distribution was made to every man according as he had need. But the following ages brought the matter to some certain rules, and then the revenues were divided into certain portions, monthly or yearly, according as occasion required, and these proportioned to the state or needs of every order. In the \Vestern church, the division was usually into three or four parts; whereof one fell to the bishop; a second to the rest of the clergy; a third to the poor; and the fourth was applied to the maintenance of the fabric and other necessary uses of the church. The council of Bracara6 makes but three parts, one for the bishop, another for the Sect. 2. And by his care distributed among the clergy. Sect. 3. Rules about the division or‘ church revenues. clergy, and the third for the fabric and lights of the church. But then it was supposed, that the bishop’s hospitality should out of such a proportion provide for the necessities of the poor. By other rules the poor, that is, all distressed people, the virgins and widows of the church, together with the martyrs and confessors in prison, the sick and strangers, have one fourth’ in the dividend expressly allotted them. For all these had relief (though not a per- fect maintenance) from the charity of the church. At Rome there were fifteen hundred such persons, besides the clergy,8 provided for this way in the time of Cornelius; and above three thousand at Antioch9 in the time of Chrysostom: by which we may make an estimate of the revenues and charities of those populous churches. In some churches they made no Sm 4. such division, but lived all in common, ml,“ :33}; ‘13.13% the clergy with the bishop, as it were in °°mm‘m' in one mansion, and at one table. But this they did not by any general canon, but only upon choice, or particular combination and agreement in some particular churches. As Sozomen” notes it to have been the custom at Rinocurura in Egypt, and Possidius affirms11 the same of the church of St. Austin. What was the practice of St. Austin and his clergy we cannot better learn than from St. Austin himself, who tells us, that all his clergy ‘2 laid themselves voluntarily under an obligation to have all things in common; and therefore none of them could have any property, or any thing to dis- pose of by will; or, if they had, they were liable to be turned out, and have their names expunged out of the roll of the clergy: which he resolved to do, though they appealed to Rome, or to a thousand councils, against him; by the help of God, they should not be clerks where he was bishop. For his own part, he tells us, he was so punctual to this rule, that if any one presented him with a robe finer than ordinary, he was used to sell it; that since his clergy could not wear the same in kind, they might at least‘3 partake of the benefit, when it was sold and made common. But as this way of living would not comport with the state of all churches, so there were but few that embraced it; and those that did, were not compelled to it by any ‘ Theod. Lect. lib. l. p. 553. 2 Book II. chap. 4. sect. 6. 4 Canon. Apost. c. 39. al. 40. 1‘ Conc. Chalced. c. 25. 8 Cone. Bracar. l. c. 25. Placuit, ut de rebus ecclesias- ticis fiant tres aequae portiones, id est, una episcopi, alia clericorum, tertia in reparatione vel in luminariis ecclesiae. 7 Gelas. Ep. 1. al. 9. ad Episc. Lucaniae, c. 27. Quatuor tam de redditu quam de oblatione fidelium—convenit fieri portiones: quarum sit una pontificis, altera clericorum tertia pauperum, quarta fabricis applicanda. Vid. Sim- plicii Ep. 3. ad Florent. Gregor. Magn. lib. 3. Ep. 11. 8 Cornel. Ep. ad Fab. ap. Euseb. lib. 6. c. 43. 3 Conc. Antioch. c. 25. 9 Chrys. Horn. 67. in Matth. ' 1' Possid. Vit. Aug. c. 25. ‘2 Aug. Ser. 50. de Diversis sive de Communi Vita Cleri- corum, t. 10. p.523. Quia placuit illis socialis haec vita, quisquis cum hypocrisi vixerit, quisquis inventus fuerit ha- bens proprium, non illi permitto ut inde faciat testamentum, sed delebo eum de tabula clericorum. lnterpellet contra me mille concilia, naviget contra me quo voluerit, sit certe ubi potuerit, adj uvabit me Deus, ut ubi ego‘ episcopus sum, illic clericus esse non possit. '3 Ibid. Si quis meliorem dederit, vendo, quod et facere soleo, ut quando non potest vcstis esse communis, pretimn vestis sit commune. '° Sozom. lib. 6. c. 31. CHAP. VI. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 193 ANTIQUITIES OF THE general law, but only by local statutes of their own appointment. Yet in one of these two ways the clergy were commonly provided for out of the revenues of the great church, till such times as endowments and settlements began to be made upon parochial churches ; which was not done in all places at the same time, nor in one and the same way: but it seems to have had its rise from particular founders of churches, who settled manse and glebe upon the churches which they builded, and upon that score were allowed a right of patronage, to present their own clerk, and invest him with the revenues of the church, wherewith they had endowed it. This practice was begun in the time of Justinian, anno 500, if not before, for there are two of his laws whichH authorize and confirm it. About the same time, a settlement of other revenues, as oblations, &c., was also made in some places upon parochial churches, as has been observed before out of The- odorus Lector’s accounts of the churches of Con- stantinople. Yet the change is thought by some I‘ to be much later in England: for they collect out of Bede,16 that the ancient course of the clergy’s officiating only pro tempore in parochial churches, whilst they received maintenance from the cathedral church, continued in England more than a hun- dred years after the coming of Austin into England, that is, till about the year 700. For Bede plainly intimates, that at that time the bishop and his clergy lived together, and had all things common, as they had in the primitive church in the days of the apostles. Sect. 5. Alterations made in these matters b the endowment of parochial churches. I have but one thing more to ob- serve upon this head, which is, that such goods or revenues as were once given to the church, were always esteemed devoted to God; and therefore were only to be employed in his service, and not to be diverted to any other use, except some extraordinary case of charity absolutely required it. As if it was to re- deem captives, or relieve the poor in time of famine, when no other succours could be afforded them: in that case, it was usual to sell even the sacred vessels and utensils of the church, to make provision for the living temples of God, which were to be prefer- red before the ornaments of the material buildings. Thus St. Ambrose melted down the communion- plate of the church of Milan to redeem some cap- tives, which otherwise must have continued in slavery: and when the Arians objected this to him Sect. 6. No alienations to be made of church revenues or goods, but upon extraordi- nary occasions. invidiously as a crime, he wrote a most elegant apology and vindication for himself, where, among other things worthy the reader’s perusal, he pleads his own cause after this manner: Is it not better that the bishop 1’ should melt the plate to sustain the poor, when other sustenance cannot be had, than that some sacrilegious enemy should carry it off by spoil and plunder? Will not our Lord ex- postulate with us upon this account? Why did you suffer so many helpless persons to die with famine, when you had gold to provide them sustenance? Why were so many captives carried away and sold without redemption? Why were so many suffered to be slain by the enemy? It had been better to have preserved the vessels of living men, than life- . less metals. What answer can be returned to this? For what shall a man say? I was afraid lest the temple of God should want its ornaments. But Christ will answer, My sacraments do not require gold, nor please me the more for being ministered in gold, which are not bought with gold. The or- nament of my sacraments is the redemption of cap- tives: and those are truly precious vessels, which redeem souls from death. Thus that holy father goes on to justify the fact, which the Arians called sacrilege, but he by a truer name, charity and mercy; for the sake of which he concludes, it was no crime for a man to break, to melt, to sell the mystical vessels of the church, though it were a very great offence for any man to convert them to his own private use. After the same example, we find“ St. Austin disposed of the plate of his church for the redemption of captives. Acacius, bishop of Amida, did the same for the redemption of seven thousand Persian slaves from the hands of the Roman soldiers, as Socrates ‘9 informs us. From whence we also learn, that in such cases they did not consider what religion men were of, but only whether they were indigent and necessitous men, and such as stood in need of their assistance. We have the like instances in the practice of Cyril of Jerusalem, mentioned by Theodoret2° and Sozomen, ' and in Deogratias, bishop of Carthage, whose cha- rity is extolled by Victor Uticensis” upon the same occasion. For he sold the communion-plate to re- deem the Roman soldiers, that were taken captives in their wars with the Vandals. This was so far from being esteemed sacrilege, or unjust alienation, that the laws against sacrilege excepted this case, though they did no other whatsoever. As may be seen in the law of Justinian, which”2 forbids the selling or pawning the church plate, or vestments, '4 Justin. Novel. 57. c. 2. Novel. 123. c. 18. ‘5 Cawdrey, Disc. of Patronage, c. 2. p. 8. Selden, of Tithes, c. 9. p. 255. '6 Bede, Hist. Gentis Anglor. lib. 4. c. 27. '7 Ambros. de Ofiic. lib. 2. c. 28. '8 Possid. Vit. Aug. c. 24. '9 Socrat. lib. 7. c. 21. 2° Theod. lib. 2. c. 27. Sozom. lib. 4. c. 25. 2' Victor. de Persec. Vandal. lib. l. Bibl. Patr. t. 7. p. 591. 22 God. Just. lib. l. Tit. 2. de Sacrosanct. Eccles. Leg. 21. Sancimus, nemini licere sacratissima atque arcana vasa, vel vestes, caeteraque donaria, quae ad Divinam religionem ne- 0 \ 194 Boox V. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. or any other gifts, except in case of captivity or famine, to redeem slaves, or relieve the poor; be- cause in such cases the lives or souls of men were to be preferred before ‘any vessels or vestments whatsoever. The poverty of the clergy was a piti- abl'e, case of the same nature: and therefore, if the annual income of the church would not maintain them, and there was no other way to provide them of necessaries; in that case some canons23 allowed the bishop to alienate or sell certain goods of the church, to raise a present maintenance. Sect 7. But that no fraud might be com- “d "‘atwith "he mitted in any such cases, the same 'oint consent_of the “h” and h“ ck" canons did specially provide, that y, with the appro- ation of the metro- ' politan or some pro- when any urgent necessity compelled vincial bishops. the bishop to take this extraordinary course, he should first consult his clergy, and also the metropolitan, and others his comprovincial bi- shops, that they might judge of the necessity, and whether it were a reasonable ground for such a pro- ceeding. The fourth council of Carthage 2‘ disannuls all such acts of the bishop, whereby he either gives away, or sells, or commutes any goods of the church, without the consent and subscription of his clergy. And the fifth council of Carthage25 requires him to intimate the case and necessity of his church first to the primate of the province, that he with a cer- tain number of bishops may judge whether it be fitting to be done. The council of Agde”6 says, he should first consult two or three of his neighbouring bishops, and take their approbation. Thus stood the laws of the church, so long as the bishop and his clergy had a common right in the dividend of ecclesiastical revenues: nothing could be alienated without the consent of both parties, and the cog- nizance and ratification of the metropolitan or pro- vincial synod. So that the utmost precaution was taken in this affair, lest, under the pretence of ne- cessity or charity, any spoil or devastation should be made of the goods and revenues of the church. cessaria sunt—vel ad venditionem vel ad hypothecam vel ad pignus trahere—excepta causa captivitatis et famis in locis quibus hoc contigerit. Nam si necessitas fuerit in re- demptione captivorum, tunc et venditionem praefatarum rerum divinarum, et hypothecam et pignorationes fieri con- cedimus; quoni‘am non absurdum est, animas hominum qui- buscunque vasis vel vestimentis praeferri. 23 Conc. Carthag. 5. c. 4. Cone. Agathen. c. 7. 2‘ Conc. Garth. 4. c. 32. Irrita erit donatio episcoporum, vel venditio vel commutatio rei ecclesiasticae, absque con- niventia ct subscriptione clericorum. 25 Cone. Garth. 5. c. 4. Si aliqua necessitas cogit, hanc insinuandam esse primati provinciw ipsius, ut cum statuto numero episcoporum, utrum faciendum sit, arbitretur. 26 Cone. Agathen. c. 7. Apud duos vel tres comprovin- ciales vel vicinos episcopos, causa qua necesse sit vendi, primitus comprobetur. BOOK VI. AN ACCOUNT OF SEVERAL LAWS AND RULES, RELATING TO THE EMPLOYMENT, LIFE, AND CONVERSATION OF THE PRIMITIVE CLERGY. CHAPTER I. OF THE EXCELLENCY OF THESE EULEs IN GENERAL, AND THE EXEMPLARINESS or THE CLERGY I'N CONFORMING TO THEM. Sect-L I HAVE in the two foregoing Books th'el‘hghifiialgnglgi given an account of the great care of wfggdhefigeipsfied the primitive church in providing and training up fit persons for the minis- try, and of the great encouragements that were given them by the state, as well to honour and distinguish their calling, as to excite and provoke them to be sedulous in the discharge of their several offices and functions. There is one thing more remains, which is, to give an account also of the church’s care in making necessary laws and canons, obliging every member of the ecclesiastic body to live conformable to his profession, and exercise himself in the duties of his station and calling. These rules were many of them so excellent in their own nature, and so strictly and carefully observed by those who had a concern in them, that some of the chief adversaries of the Christian religion could not but take notice of them, and with a sort of envy and emulation bear testimony to them. Among the works of .Iu- lian there is a famous epistle of his to Arsacius, high priest of Galatia, (which is recorded alsol by Sozomen,) wherein he takes occasion to tell him, that it was very visible that the causes of the great increase of Christianity were chiefly their professed hospitality toward strangers, and their great care in burying the dead, joined with a pretended sanctity and holiness of life. Therefore he bids him, as high priest of Galatia, to take care that all the priests of that region that were under him, should be made to answer the same character; and that he should either by his threatenings or persuasions bring them to be diligent and sober men, or else remove them from the ofiice of priesthood: that he should ad- monish the priests, neither to appear at the theatre, nor frequent the tavern, nor follow any calling or employment that was dishonourable and scandal- ous; and such as were observant of his directions he should honour and promote them, but discard and expel the refractory and contumacious. This is plainly to say, (and it is so much the more re- markable for its coming from the mouth of an ad- versary,) that the Christian clergy of those times‘ were men that lived by excellent rules, diligent in their employment, grave and sober in their deport-' ment, charitable to the indigent, and cautious and reserved in their whole conversation and behaviour toward all men. Which, as it tended mightily to propagate and advance Christianity in the world, so it was what Julian upon that account could not but look upon with an envious eye, and desire that his idol-priests might gain the same character; . thereby to eclipse the envied reputation of the other, and reflect honour and lustre upon his beloved hea- then religion. We have the like testimonies in Ammianus Marcellinus2 and others, concerning the frugality, temperance, modesty, and humility of Christian bishops in their own times; which com— . ing from the pens of professed heathens, and such as did neither spare the emperors themselves, nor the bishops of Rome, who lived in greater state and afi'iu- ence, may well be thought authentic relations, and just accounts of those holy men, whose commenda- tions and characters so ample nothing but truth could have extortcd from the adversaries of their religion. This being so, we may the more easily give credit to those noble pane- gyrics and encomiums, which some ancient Christian writers make upon the clergy, Sect. 2. The character of the clergy from Christian writers. and their virtues and discipline in general. Origen- says,8 it was the business of their life to traverse every corner of the world, and make converts and proselytes to godliness both in cities and villages‘: and they were so far from making a gain hereof, that many of them took nothing for their service ; and those that did, took only what was necessary for their present subsistence, though there wanted not persons enough, who in their liberality were 1 Sozom. lib, 5. c, 16, 2 Ammian. Marcel. lib. 27. 3 Origen. cont. Cels. lib. 3. p. 116. 02 196 Boox VI: ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. ready to have communicated much more to them. St. Austin‘ gives the like good character of the bi- shops and presbyters of his own time, making them the chief ornament of the catholic church, and ex— tolling their virtues above those of a monastic life, because their province was more difficult, having to converse with all sorts of men, and being forced to bear with their distempers in order to cure them. He that would see more of this general character, must consult the ancient apologists, where he will find it interwoven with the character of Christians in general; whose innocence, and patience, and charity, and universal goodness was owing partly to the institutions,’ and partly to the provoking ex- amples of their guides and leaders; who lived as they spake, and first trod the path themselves, which they required others to walk in. Which was the thing that set the Christian teachers so much above the philosophers of the Gentiles. For the philosophers indeed discoursed and wrote very finely about virtue in the theory, but they undid all they said in their own practice. Their discourses, as Minucius 5 observes, were only eloquent ha- rangues against their own vices ; whereas the Chris- tian philosophers expressed their profession not in their words or habit, but in the real virtues of the soul: they did not talk great, but live well; and so attained to that glory, which the philosophers pre- tended always to be offering at, but could never happily arrive to. Lactantius6 triumphs over the Gentile philosophers upon the same topic : and so Gregory Nazianzen,7 Tertullian,8 Cyprian,9 and many others ; whose arguments had been easily retorted, had not the Christian teachers been ge- nerally men of a better character, and free from i those imputations which they cast upon the ad- verse party. Some few instances indeed, it can- tioljlgrtgtgliigiriiztépga not be denied, are to be found of per- zgggicrtggnerflgwd sons, who in these best ages were scandals and reproaches to their pro- fession. The complaints that are made by good men will not suffer us to believe otherwise. Cy- prianlo and Eusebiusn lament the vices of some among the clergy, as well as laity, and reckon them among the causes that moved the Divine Provi- dence to send those two great fiery trials upon the church, the Decian and the Diocletian persecutions; thereby to purge the tares from the wheat, and correct those enormities and abuses, which the or- dinary remedy of ecclesiastical discipline, through the iniquity of the times, was not able to redress. The like complaints are made by Chrysostom,12 Gregory Nazianzen,‘3 and St. J erom,“ of some ec- clesiastics in their own times, whose practices were corrupt, and dishonourable to their profession. And indeed it were a wonder if all ages should not afford some such instances of unsound members in so great a body of men, since there was a Judas even among the apostles. But then it is to be con- sidered, that a few such exceptions did not derogate from the good character, which the primitive clergy did generally deserve : and the faults of those very men were the occasion of many good laws and rules of discipline, which the provincial synods of those times enacted; out of which I have chiefly. collected the following account, which concerns the lives and labours of the ancient clergy. To these the reader may join those Sm 4. excellent tracts of the ancients, which 80$‘; ,fi-ZQZ‘EWQS purposely handle this subject; such it: liillciieistlftuig as St. Chrysostom’s six books de Sa- .clergy' cerdotz'o ; St. Jerom’s second epistle to Nepotian. which is called, De Vita Clericorum ; and Gregory Nazianzen’s apology for his flying from the priest- hood; in all which the duties of the clergy are ex- cellently described. Or if any one desires rather to see them exemplified in some living instances and great patterns of perfection, which commonly make deeper impressions than bare rules, he must consult those excellent characters of the most emi- nent primitive bishops, which are drawn to the life by the best pens of the age; such as the Life of Ignatius by Chrysostom ; the Life of St. Basil and Athanasius by Gregory Nazianzen; the Life of St. Austin by Possidius ; the Life of Gregory Thau- maturgus and Meletius by Gregory Nyssen; in all which the true character and idea of a Christian bishop is set forth and described with this advan- tage, that a man does not barely read of rules, but sees them, as it were, exemplified in practice. The chief of these discourses in both kinds are already translated into our own language by other pens,‘5 and they are too prolix to be inserted into a discourse of this nature, which proceeds in a different method from them. I shall therefore only extract such ob~ servations from‘them, as fall in with the public and general laws of the church, (of which I give an ac- count in the following chapters,) and leave the rest to the curious diligence of the inquisitive reader. Aug. de Moribus Eccles. Cathol. c. 32. t. l. p. 330. Minna. Octav. p. 110. Lact. lib. 4. c. 23. lib. 3. c. 15. Naz. Invect. l. in Julian. 8 Tertul. Apol. c. 46. Cyprian. de Bono Patient. p. 210. ‘° Cypr. de Lapsis, p. 124. QQ‘IQOIO ‘1 Euseb. lib. 8. c. l. ‘2 Chrys. Horn. 30. in Act. ‘3 Naz.'Carm. Cygn. de Episcopis, t. 2. 1‘ Hieron. Ep. 2. ad Nepotian. 15 See Bishop Burnet’s Pastoral Care, c. 4. and Seller’s Remarks on the Lives of the Primitive Fathers. CHAP. II. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 197 CHAPTER II. OF LAWS RELATING TO THE LIFE AND CONVERSA- TION OF THE PRIMITIVE CLERGY. THE laws of the church which con- Se t. 1. Exemplary purity required in the deb cerned the clergy, I shall, for dis- fiiggg: grhfémen- tinction’s sake, consider under three heads; speaking, first, Of such laws as concerned their life and conversation. Secondly, Of such as more particularly related to the exercise of the several ofi‘ices and duties of their function. Thirdly, Of such as were a sort of outguards or fences to both the former. The laws which related to their life and conversation, were such as tended to create in them a sublimity of virtiie above other men; forasmuch as they were to be examples and patterns to them; which, if good, would be both a light and a spur to others; but if bad, the very pests and banes of the church. It is Gregory Nazianzen’s reflectionl upon the different sorts of guides which he had observed then in the church. Some, he com- plains, did with unwashed hands and profane minds press to handle the holy mysteries, and affect to be at the altar, before they were fit to be initiated to any sacred service. They looked upon the holy order and function, not as designed for an example of virtue, but only as a way of subsisting them- selves; not as a trust, of which they were to give an account, but a state of absolute authority and exemption. And these men’s examples corrupted the people’s morals, faster than any cloth can im- bibe a colour, or a plague infect the air; since men were more disposed to receive the tincture of vice than virtue from the example of their rulers. In opposition to such he lays down this as the first thing to be aimed at by all spiritual physicians, that they should draw the picture of all manner of vir- tues in their own lives, and set themselves as ex- amples to the people ; that it might not be proverbi- ally said of them, that they set about curing others, while they themselves were full of sores and ulcers. Nor were they to draw this image of virtue slightly and to a faint degree, but accurately and to the highest perfection: since nothing less than such degrees and measures of virtue were expected by God from the rulers and governors of his people: and then there would be hopes, that such heights and eminences would draw the multitude at least to a mediocrity in virtue, and allure them to embrace that voluntarily by gentle persuasions, which they would not be brought to so effectually and lastingly by force and compulsion. He urges further2 the necessity of such a purity, from the consideration of the sacredness and majesty of the function itself. A minister’s ofiice sets him in the same rank and order with angels themselves ; he celebrates God with archangels; transmits the church’s sacrifices to the altar in heaven, and performs the priest’s of- fice with Christ himself; he reforms the work of God’s hands, and presents the image to his Maker; his workmanship is for the world above : and there- fore he should be exalted to a divine and heavenly nature, whose business is to be as a god himself, and make others gods also. St. Chrysostom3 makes use of the same argument: That the priesthood, though it be exercised upon earth, is occupied wholly about heavenly things ; that it is the minis- try of angels put by the Holy Ghost into the hands of mortal men; and therefore a priest ought to be pure and holy, as being placed in heaven itself in the midst of those heavenly powers. He presses likewise the danger and prevalency of a bad ex- ample.‘ Subjects commonly form their manners by the pattern of their princes. How then should a proud man be able to assuage the swelling tumours of others? or an angry ruler hope to make his peo- ple in love with moderation and meekness? Bi- shops are exposed, like combatants in the theatre, to the view and observation of all men; and their faults, though never so small, cannot be hid: and therefore, as their virtuous actions profit many, by provoking them to the like zeal; so their vices will render others unfit to attempt or prosecute any thing that is noble and good. For which reason their souls ought to shine all over with the purest brightness, that they may both enlighten and extimulate the souls of others, who have their eyes upon them. A priest should arm himself all over with purity of life, as with adamantine armour : for if he leave any part naked and unguarded, he is surrounded both with open enemies and pretended friends, who will be ready to wound and supplant him. So long as his life is all of a piece, he needs not fear their assaults; but if he be overseen in a fault, though but a small one, it will be laid hold of and improved to the pre- judice of all his former virtues. For all men are most severe judges in his case, and treat him not with any allowance for being encompassed with flesh, or as having a human nature; but expect he should be an angel, and free from all infirmities. He can- not indeed (as the same father argues5 in another place) with any tolerable decency and freedom dis- charge his office in punishing and reproving others, unless he himself be blameless and without rebuke. The priest’s ofiice is a more difficult province“ than that of leading an army, or governing a kingdom, and requires an angelic virtue. His soul ought to be purer than the rays of the sun, that the Holy i 1 Naz. Orat. l. Apologet. de Fuga, t. l. p. 5. 2 Naz. ibid. p. 31. 3 Chrys. de Sacerdot. lib. 3. c. 4. ‘ Chrys. de Sacerd. lib. 3. c. 14. 5 Ibid. lib. 5. c. 3. 6 Chrys. ibid. lib. 6. c. 2. 198 Boox VI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Spirit may never leave him desolate; but that he may be always able to say, “ I live, yet not I, but Christ that liveth in me.” He there goes on to draw the comparison7 at large between the clerical and the monastic life, and shows how much more diffi- cult it is to take care of a multitude of men immers- ed in secular business, than of a single person, that lives retired and free from temptation. And upon the whole matter he concludes,8 that as God requires greater purity in those that serve at his altar, so he will exact a more ample account of them, and more severely punish their offences. By these and many other such like arguments did those holy fathers try to raise both in themselves and others a just sense of that universal purity, which becomes the sacred function. Sect 2 And to the strength of these argu- mggugceijépggrggz ments the church added the authority gizgglrsfhan Mir of her sanctions, inflicting severer penalties upon offending clergymen than any others. For whereas all other offenders were allowed, by the benefit of public penance, to regain the privileges of their order; this favour was commonly denied by the church to such of her sons among the clergy as were notorious for any scan- dalous crimes, whereby they became a reproach to their profession. For such delinquents were usually deposed from their office, and sometimes excommu- nicated also, and obliged to do penance among the laymen; but with this difference, that though re- pentance would restore them to the peace of the church, yet it would not qualify them to act in their oflice and station again; but they must be content thenceforth to communicate only as laymen. Some canons indeed did not oblige them to do public penance in the church, because they thought it punishment enough to degrade them; others requir- ed them to submit to that part of discipline also. But still the result and consequence of both was the same, that such persons for ever after were only to be treated in the quality of laymen. Those called the Apostolical Canons are sometimes for the for- mer way; for one of them9 says, If a bishop, pres- byter, or deacon is taken in fornication, perjury, or theft, he shall be deposed, but not excommunicated; for the scripture saith, Thou shalt not punish twice for the same crime. I do not now stand to inquire whether there be any such scripture as these canons refer to, but only observe what was the practice of " Chrys. de Sacerd. lib. 6. c. 3. 8 Ibid. lib. 6. c. 10 et 11. 1° Basil. Ep. Canon. 0. 3, 32, 5I. ‘1 Pet. Alex. Ep. Canon. c. 10. ap. Bevereg. Pandeet. t. 2. ‘2 Canon. Apost. c. 28. ‘3 Ibid. e. 29 et 50. 1‘ Cypr. Ep. 49. al. 52. p. 97. Propter hoc se non de pres- byterio tantum, sed et communications prohiberi pro certo tenebat, &c. '5 Aug. Tract. 41. in J oh. t. 9. p. 126. Apostolus Paulus, 9 Canon. Apost. c. 24. the Greek church when these canons were made; which is also taken notice of in St. Basil’s‘° canons, and those of Peter of Alexandria,11 and some others, which show it to have been the customary practice of their churches. Yet for simony,12 and some other '8 crimes, the same Apostolical Canons order both deposition and excommunication. And in the African church both punishments were inflicted also for one and the same crime, in the time of Cyprian, as appears from his epistle“ to Cornelius, where speaking of Novatus, who was guilty of murder, in causing his own wife, by a blow, to mis- carry, he says, For this crime he was not only to be degraded, or expelled the presbytery, but to be de- prived of the communion of the church also. From whence we may collect the severity of the ancient canons against such crimes of the clergy in general, as were committed to the flagrant scandal of the church. Hence also we may observe in par- ticular, what sort of crimes were islgihavtiprrlirptegsgiég: thought worthy to be punished with gig: gfiififggwr- degradation, namely, such as theft, murder, perjury, fraud, sacrilege, fornication and adultery, and such like gross and scandalous of- fences. For in this case they distinguished between peccatum and c-rimen, little faults and crimes of a more heinous nature. For St. Austin observes,‘5 it was not all manner of failings that hindered men’s ordination at first; for if the apostle had required that as a qualification in persons to be ordained, that they should be without sin, all men must have been rejected, and none ordained, since no man lives without sin; but he only requires that they should be blameless in respect to criminal and scandalous offences. And this was the rule the church observed in canvassing the lives of he: clergy after ordination, when they were actually engaged in her service. It was not every lesser failing or infirmity that was punished with degrada- tion; but only crimes of a deeper dye, such as theft, murder, fraud, perjury, sacrilege, fornication, and adultery. Concerning the last of which there are these two things further observable in some of the ancient canons. First, That if any clergyman’s wife was convicted of adultery, he himself was obliged to show his resentment and detestation of the fact by putting her away, under pain of deposition, if he continued to live with her. For so the council '6 Sect. 3. quando elegit ordinandos vel presbyteros vel diaconos, et quicunqne. ordinandus est ad praeposituram ecclesias, non ait, si quis sine peccato est; hoe enim si diceret, omnis homo reprobaretur, nullus ordinaretur; sed ait, si quis sine crimine est, sicut est homicidium, adulterium, aliqua im— munditia fornicationis, t'urtum, fraus, sacrilegium, ct cactera hujusmodi. '6 Conc. Neocaes. c. 8. 'En‘w nerd err‘yv XEIPOTOUZCUI ,LLOL— Xauefi, O’dJsiAeL c’mrokfiaal. aim-1511‘ e'r‘w 6t o'uzg'i, or’: dfiua'rat é'xso'tiat 'rv'js é'yxetpwdsio'ns ai’rrq'i im'npso'ias. CHAP. II. 199 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. of Neoceesarea words it: A man whose wife is evidently convicted of adultery While he is a lay- man, shall not be ordained: but if she commit adul- tery after his ordination, he ought to put her away; and if he cohabit with her, he may not retain her and his ministry together. The council of Eliberis17 is still more severe in the case, denying communion to such persons even at their last hour, who retain- ed wives guilty of adultery; because, says the canon, they who ought to be examples of good conversa- tion to others, do by this means teach others the way to sin. Secondly, The other thing to be ob- served is, that if a bishop neglected to inflict the censures of the church upon any of his clergy, who were guilty of fornication, he made himself liable to be deposed: as Socrates '8 observes the Arians themselves deposed Macedonius, bishop of Con- stantinople, for this reason among others, that he had admitted a deacon to communion, who had been taken in fornication. Sect. 4. Another crime, which brought many Aligfkyéigzzuitriloflifne clerks under this kind of ecclesiastical censure, was that of lapsing in time of persecution. In which case repentance was al- lowed to restore them to the peace of the church as laymen, if they pleased, but not to officiate or communicate as ecclesiastics any longer. Thus Trophimus was treated in the time of Cornelius and Cyprian; he was admitted to communicate as a layman,l9 but not to retain his ofiice of priest- hood. And this, Cyprian says,"‘0 was then the rule at Rome and over all the world, if bishops or any other lapsed in time of persecution, to admit them to do penance in the church, but, withal, to remove them from the function of the clergy and honour of the priesthood: as the African synod, in whose name he writes to the Spanish churches, deter- mined, in the case of Basilides and Martial, two Spanish bishops, who, when they had lapsed, thought to qualify themselves by repentance to retain their bishoprics; but this, he tells them, was contrary to the rule and practice of the universal church. He repeats this in several other epistles,21 where he has occasion to speak of persons in the same unhappy circumstances with them. We find the same order in the canons of Peter,” bishop of Alexandlia, and the first council of Arles,23 where not only such as fell by sacrificing, or open denial of their faith, but also all traditors are included in the number of lapsers, that is, all such as either gave up their Bibles, or the holy vessels of the church, or the names of their brethren to the persecutors; and all such who were of the clergy, are for ever excluded from the exercise and benefit of their order and function. Such was the discipline of the ancient church in reference to those guides, who set their people an ill example by their apostacy in time of persecution: it was not thought fit to trust them to be guides and leaders for the future. Though I do not deny, but that some exceptions may be found to this general rule, either when the discipline of the church was not so strict, or when it was other- wise found more for the benefit of the church to restore lapsers to their honours, than to degrade and remove them wholly from them. For I have noted before, that both lapsers, and heretics, and schismatics, were sometimes more favourably treat- ed, when the church thought she might find her account in showing favour to them. But to proceed with the laws of the church relating to other misdeamean- And Sficriiiig and ors: as the life of a clergyman was gaming’ a continual attendance upon the altar, and con- stantly to be employed in the exercise of Divine and heavenly things; so upon that account the ut- most sobriety was required of him, together with a strict care to spend his time might, and lay it out usefully; so as might best answer the ends of his calling, and those spiritual employments he was daily to be engaged in. And for this reason drink- ing and gaming, those two great consumers of time, and enemies of all noble undertakings and gener- ous services, were strictly prohibited the clergy un- der the same penalty of deprivation. For so the Apostolical Canons word it,“ A bishop, presbyter, or deacon, that spends time in drinking or playing at dice, shall either reform, or be deposed. Where we may observe this difference between this and the former laws, that it does not make every single act of these crimes, z'psofacto, deprivation, but only con- tinuance therein without reforming. And by J us- tinian’s law,25 the penalty for playing at tables is changed from deprivation to a triennial suspension, and intrusion into a monastery for the performance Of repentance. Some perhaps will wonder at the severity of these laws, in prohibiting the exercise 1’ Conc. Eliber. c. 65. Si cujus clerici uxor fuerit moc- chata, et sciat eam maritus suus moachari, et eam non statim projecerit, nec in fine accipiat communionem: ne ab his qui exemplum bonae conversationis esse debent, videantur magisteria. seelerum procedere. ‘8 Socrat. lib. 2. c. 42. ‘9 Cypr. Ep. 52. al. 55. ad Antonian. p. 106. Sic tamen admissus est Trophimus, ut laicns communicet—non quasi locum sacerdotis usurpet. '-’° Id. Ep. 68. al. 67. ad Pleb. Hispan. p. 174. Frustra tales episcopatum sibi usnrpare conantur, &c. 2‘ Cypr. Ep. 55. a1. 59. ad Cornel. p. 133. It. Ep. 64. al. 65. ad Epictet. 22 Petr. Alex. Ep. Canon. c. 10. "01's 8%. g'rr'raw'av, oi'm .if'rl. dlivav'ral. Au'wvp'ye'iu. 23 Cone. Arelat. 1. c. 13. De his qui Scriptures Sanctas tradidisse dicuntur, vel vasa Dominica, vel nomina fratrum suorum, placuit nobis, ut quicunqne eorum ex actis publicis fnerit detectus, non verbis nudis, ab ordine cleri amoveatur. 2‘ Can. Apost. 41. Kai/ion o-xokégwu Kai péfiats, a wav- o'a'wew, '77 Kaealpéo'ew. 25 Justin. Novel. 123. c. 10. 200 ANTI'QUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Boox VI. of tables under such a penalty: but their wonder will cease, when they are told, that it was equally ' prohibited to the laity under pain of excommunica- tion. For the council of Eliberis "'6 orders, that a Christian playing at dice or tables shall not be ad- mitted to the holy communion, but after a year’s penance and abstinence, and his total amendment. And there was good reason for the church to make such a law in those times, because this kind of gaming was prohibited both by the old and new civil law 2’ among the Romans, and many other na- tions, of which the reader may find a particular ac- count in our learned Bishop Taylor,28 together with the reasons of the prohibition, viz. the evils that commonly attended this sort of play, blasphemies, and swearing, and passion, and lying, and cursing, and covetousness’, and fraud, and quarrels, and in- temperance of all sorts, the consumption of time, and ruin of many families ; which excesses had made it infamous and scandalous among all nations. So that what was so universally prohibited at that time by the laws of all nations, the church could not but in decency prohibit by her own laws to the laity, and more especially to the clergy, to pre- vent scandal, and obviate those objections, which might otherwise have justly been raised against her. Not that the thing was simply unlawful in itself, when used only as an innocent recreation; but the many evil appendages that commonly attended the use of it, had made it scandalous, and consequently inexpedient; and the spending of time upon it did much alter the natrn'e of it, and make it so much the more unlawful. Another crime for which a clergy- man was liable to be deposed, was the taking of usury, which by the ancient canons is frequently condemned as a species of covetousness and cruelty, and upon that score so strictly prohibited to the clergy, who were rather to study to excel in the practice of the con- trary virtues, charity, mercifulness, and contempt of the world and all filthy lucre. The laws con- demning this vice are too many to be here tran- scribed: it will be sufficient to repeat the canon of the council of Nice, which contains the sum, and speaks the sense of all the rest. Now the words of Sect. 6. And negociating upon usury. ‘ e nature of this crime inquir into. that canon are these: Forasmuch29 as many clerks, following covetousness and filthy lucre, and forget- ting the Holy Scriptures, (which speak of the right- eous man as one that hath not given his money upon usury,) have let forth their money upon usury, and taken the usual monthly increase: it seemed good to this great and holy synod, that if any one after this decree shall be found to take usury, or de- mand the principal with half the increase of the whole, or shall invent any other such methods for filthy lucre’s sake, he shall be degraded from his order, and have his name struck out of the roll of the church. The reader will find the same practice censured by those called the Apostolical Canons,80 the council of Eliberis,“l the first and second of Arles,82 the first and third of Carthage,88 the council of Laodicea,34 and Trullo,“ not to mention private writers, Cyprian,86 Sidonius Apollinarius,” St. J e- rom,‘’'8 and many others. Nor need this seem strange to any one, that usury should be so generally con- demned in the clergy; since it is apparent, that the practice of it was no less disallowed in the laity: for the first council of Carthage89 condemns it in them both, but only makes it a more aggravating crime in the clergy. The council of Eliberis also,"0 that orders clergymen to be degraded for it, makes it a high misdemeanor in laymen; which, if they persisted in the practice of it after admonition, was to be punished with excommunication. We are here therefore in the next place to inquire into the nature of this practice, and the grounds and reasons upon which it was so generally condemned both in clergymen and laymen. As to the nature of the thing, we are to observe, that among the ancient Romans there were several sorts or de- grees of usury. The most common was that which they called centesz'mce: the council of Nice41 calls it c'rca'roo'rai, and the council of Trullo42 uses the same word, which signifies the hundredth part of the principal paid every month, and answers to twelve in the hundred by the‘ year. For the Ro~ mans received usury by the month, that is, at the kalends or first day of every month. Whence St. Basil “3 calls the months the parents of usury. And St. Ambrose“ says, the Greeks gave usury the name of flilcog, upon this account, because the 26 Conc. Eliber. c. 79. Si quis fidelis alea, id est, tabula luserit, placuit eum abstinere: et si emendatus cessaverit, poterit post annum communione reconciliari. 2’ Digest. lib. ll. Tit. 5. de Aleator. It. Cod. Justin. lib. 3. Tit. 43. de Aleator. 28 Taylor, Duct. Dubitant. lib. 4. c. l. p. 776. 29 Conc. Nic. c. 17. 3° Can. Apost. c. 43. 3‘ Conc. Eliber. c. 20. 32 Conc. Arelat. l. c. 12. .Arelat. 2. c. 14. 88 Cone. Carthag. l. c. 13. Carthag. 3. c. 16. 8* Conc. Laodic. c. 4. 85 Cone. Trull. c. 10. 3‘ Cypr. de Lapsis, p. 124. 9" Sidon. lib. 1. Ep. 8. 3‘ Hieron. in Ezek. cap. 18. 39 Conc. Carth. l. c. 13. Quod in laicis reprehenditur, id multo magis in clericis oportet praedamnari. 4° Conc. Eliber. c. 20. Si quis etiam laicus accepisse probatur usuras—si in ea iniquitate duraverit, ab ecclesia sciat se esse projiciendum. Vid. Chrysost. Horn. 56. in Mat. 4' Conc. Nic. c. 17. ‘2 Conc. Trull. c. 10. Chrysost. Horn. 56. in Mat. ‘8 Basil. in Psalm xiv. t. 3. p. 137. @ofle'irar Fror‘rs nfiuas dis TOIKwU wa're’pas. 4‘ Ambr. de Tobia, c. 12. To'Kovc Graeci appellaverunt usuras, eo quod dolores partus animae debitoris excitare vi- deantur. Veniunt kalendee, parit sors centesimam. Veni- unt menses singuli, generantur usurae. CHAP. II. 201 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. kalends bring forth one in the hundred, and every month begets new usury. And hence, as the poet acquaints us,‘5 it became a proverb among the R0- mans, to say, A man trembles like a debtor, when the kalends are a coming; because that was the time of paying interest. Now this sort of usury is generally proscribed by the laws of the church, be- cause it was esteemed great oppression. Though the civil law allowed the practice of it: for Con- stantine, anno 325, the same year that the council of Nice was held, published a law, stating the rules and measures of usury, wherein“ the creditor is allowed to take this centesimal usury, or one in the hundred every month, and no more. For it seems the old Roman laws granted a greater liberty be- fore this regulation of Constantine. Afterward a new regulation was made, and it was only allowed in some certain cases, as where the creditor seemed to run some hazard, as appears from the laws of J ustinian,“7 where he settles the business of interest and usury in his Code. For in trajectitious con- tracts, as the law terms them, that is, when a cre- ditor lent money, suppose at Rome, to receive in- terest for it only upon condition of the debtor’s safe arrival with it at Constantinople; because in that case the creditor ran a great hazard, he was allowed to receive a centesimal interest upon that account. Secondly, Another sort of usury was that which the canons call fmwxiai, or sescuplum, the whole and half as much more. St. J erom takes notice48 of this kind of usury, and condemns it. For men, he says, were used to exact usury for the loan of corn, wine, oil, millet, and other fruits of the ground; lending ten bushels in winter, on con- dition to receive fifteen in harvest, that is, the whole and half as much more. \Vhich sort of usury, being a very grievous extortion and great oppres- sion, is condemned not only in the clergy by the councils of Nice49 and Laodiceafo under the name of r‘HrwMat ;- but also in laymen by the law of J us- tinian,“ which allows nothing above centesimal in- terest to be taken by any person in any case what- soever. Though Justinian intimates that formerly “5 Horat. lib. 1. Sat. 3. Odisti et fugis, ut Drusonem de- bitor aeris—quum tristes misero venere kalendae. “6 Cod. Th. lib. 2. Tit. 33. de Usuris, Leg. 1. Pro pecunia ultra singulas centesimas creditor vetatur accipere. 4’ Cod. Just. lib. 4. Tit. 32. de Usuris, Leg. 26. In trajecti- tiis autem contractibus, vel specierum foenori dationibus, usque ad centesimam tantummodo licere stipulari, nec eam excedere, licet veteribus legibus hoc erat concessum. ‘8 Hieron. Corn. in Ezek. xviii. p. 537. Solent in agris frumenti et milii, vini et olei, caeterarumque specierum usurae exigi.-Verbi gratia, ut hyemis tempore demus decem modios, et in messe recipiamus quindecim, hoc est, amplius partem mediam. ‘9 Conc. Nic. c. 17. 5° Conc. Laod. c. 4. 5‘ Cod. Just. ubi supra. It. Novel. 32, 33, 34. 52 God. T h. lib. 2. Tit. 33. Leg. 1. Quicunque fruges, the laws allowed it. And it is evident from the law of Constantine still extant in the Theodosian Code, which determined, That if any creditor lent to the indigent any fruits of the earth,"''2 whether wet or dry, he might demand again the principal, and half as much more by way of usury: as, if he lent two bushels, he might require three. T hirdly, Another sort of usury is called by the civil law, bessz's cente- simae, which is two-thirds of centesimal interest, and the same as eight in the hundred. And this the law allowed masters53 of workhouses and other tradesmen to take in their negociations with others. Fourthly, All other persons were only. allowed to receive half the centesimal interest by the same law of Justinian :54 which is the same as six in the hundred. Fifthly, Persons of quality were bound to take no more but a third part of the cenzfesz'ma,55 which is only four in the hundred. Sixthly, and lastly, Interest upon interest was absolutely forbid- den56 by the Roman laws to all persons in any case whatsoever, as is evident from an edict of J ustini- an’s, which both mentions and confirms the ancient prohibition of it by the laws of the emperors that were before him. So that several of these kinds of usury being prohibited to the laity in general by the laws of the state, it was no wonder that they should be more severely forbidden to the clergy by the laws of the church. Then for the other sorts of usury, which the state allowed, the church had two reasons for discouraging the prac- tice of them in the clergy. First, Because usury was most commonly exacted of the poor, which the church reckoned an oppression of them, who were rather to be relieved by the charity of lending without usury, as the gospel requires. Secondly, The clergy could not take usury of the rich and trading part of the world, but that must needs en- gage them in secular business and worldly con- cerns, more than the wisdom of the church in those times thought fit to allow. And this I take to be the true state of the case, and the sum of the rea- sons for prohibiting the clergy the practice of usury in the primitive church. Usury was generally a aridas vel humidas, indigentibus mutuas dederint, usurae nomine tertiain partem superfluam consequantur : Id est, ut si summa crediti in duobus modiis fuerit, tertium modiuin am plius consequantur. ' 53 God. Just. lib. 4. Tit. 32. de Usuris, Leg. 26. Illos, qui ergasteriis praesunt, vel aliquam licitam negotiationem ge- run't, usque ad bessem centesimas, usurarum nomine, in quo- cunque contractu suam stipulationem moderari. 5‘ Cod. Just. ibid. Caeteros omnes homines dimidiam tan- tummodo centesimas usurarum nomlne posse stipulari. 55 Ibid. J 'ubemus illustribus quidem personis, sive eas pree- cedentibus, minime licere ultra tertiam partem centesimas in quocunque contractu stipulari. 5“ Cod. Just. lib. 4. Tit. 32. Leg. 28. Ut nullo modo usurae usurarum a debitoribus exigantur, veteribus quidem legibus constitutum fuerat, &c. 202 CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Boox VI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE great oppression to the poor, as the ancient writers who speak against it 5’ commonly complain: or else it was thought to argue, and proceed from, a covet- ous and worldly mind; which made men forsake their proper employment, and betake themselves to other business, which was beside their calling, and could not then be followed without some reproach and dishonour to it. Therefore Cyprian, speaking of some bishops who were the reproach of his age, in enumerating their miscarriages, joins all these things together; That they who ought to have been examples and encouragers to the rest, had cast off the care of Divine service58 to manage secular affairs; and leaving their sees, and deserting their people, they rambled into other provinces, to catch at busi- ness that would bring them in gain: meanwhile the poor brethren of the church were suffered to starve without relief, whilst their minds were set upon hoarding up silver in abundance, and getting estates by fraudulent arts, and exercising usury to augment their own treasures. When usury was ordinarily attended with such concomitants as these, it was no wonder it should be utterly proscribed by the holy fathers of the church. Besides, St. Chrysostom59 plainly intimates, that in his time all senators and persons of quality were absolutely forbidden to take usury by the laws of the commonwealth. And that consideration probably so much the more inclined the fathers of the church to forbid it to the clergy, lest they should seem to be outdone by men of a secular life; and it might be objected to them, that the laws of the church in this respect were more remiss than the laws of the state. Semi,‘ Indeed the necessities of the poor or the iéocslgigyuty of and fatherless, and strangers and W1- ° dows, in those early times, were so importunate and craving in every church, that their revenues would seldom answer all their demands. The church, as St. Austin says,60 had very rarely any thing to lay up in bank. And then it did not be- come a bishop to hoard up gold, and turn away the poor empty from him. They had daily so many poor petitioners, so many in distress and want con- tinually applying to them, that they were forced to leave some in their sorrows, because they had not wherewith to relieve them all. Now, in this case, where there was need of greater charities than they had funds or abilities to bestow, there could be no room for usury, but with great neglect and un- charitableness to the poor. And therefore, instead of lending upon usury, they were obliged to be ex- emplary in the practice of the contrary virtues, hospitality and charity ; which the ancients call lending upon Divine usury, not to receive61 one in the hundred, but a hundred for one from the hands of God. It was then one of the glories of a bishop, St. Jerom tells us,62 to be a provedore for the poor; but a disgrace to the holy function, to seek only to enrich himself. And therefore he gives this direc- tion to Nepotian, among other good rules which he prescribes him, that his table should be free to the poor and strangers, that with them he might have Christ for his guest. St. Chrysostom speaks nobly“ of his bishop Flavian upon the account of this vir- tue : he says, his house was always open to strangers, and such as were forced to fly for the sake of re- ligion; where they were received and entertained with that freedom and humanity, that his house might as properly be called, the house of strangers, as the house of Flavian. Yea, it was so much the more his own, for being common to strangers; for whatever we possess, is so much the more our pro- perty for being communicated to our poor brethren: there being no place where we may so safely lay up our treasure, as in the hands and bellies of the poor. Now, the better to qualify them to perform this duty, every clergyman was required to lead a frugal life; that is, to avoid profuseness, as well in their own private concerns, as in giving great entertainments to the rich; which is but a false-named hospitality, and a great usurper upon the rights and revenues of the poor. We may judge of the simplicity of those times by the character which Ammianus Marcellinus,“ Sect. 8. Of their frugality and contempt of the world. 5’ Vide Chrysost. Horn. 56. in Mat. Basil. Hom. in Psal. xiv. p. 136, &c. 58 Cypr. de Lapsis, p. 123. Episcopi plurimi, quos et hortamento esse oportet caeteris et exemplo, Divina pro- curatione contempta, procuratores rerurn saecularium fieri, derelicta cathedra, plebe deserta, per alienas provincias oberrantes, negotiationis quaestuosae nundinas aucupari, esu- rientibus in ecclesia fratribus non subvenire, habere argen- tum largiter velle, fundos insidiosis fraudibus rapere, usuris multiplicantibus foenns augere. 59 Chrys. Hom. 56. in Mat. Tabs 7051/ £11 a’ELu'i/iao'w 6117119, Kai. sis Thu jue'ydhnv T€>xOUIITGS Bovhrjv, 'r’7u o'v'ylchirrou Kahoiio'w, or’) S's/us 'rotofirots Képdso'w Ka'rato-Xuvao-S'at. Honorius, an. 397, published a law which implies the same. Cod. Theod. lib. 2. 'l‘it. 33. de Usuris, Leg. 3. though by a following law, an. 405, he allowed senators half the cen- tesimal interest. 6° Aug. Serm. 49. de Diversis sive de Vita Clericor. t. 10. n. 520. Enthecam nobis habere non licet. Non enim est episcopi servare aurum, et revocare a se mendicantis ma- num. Quotidie tam multi petunt, tam multi gemunt, tam multi nos inopes interpellant ; ut plures tristes relinquamus, quia quod possimus dare omnibus, non habemus. 6‘ Pet. Chrysolog. Serm. 25. p. 269. Usura mundi cen- tum ad unum, Deus unum acci pit ad centum. Vid. Chry- sost. Horn. 56. in Mat. xvii. p. 507. ed. Commelin. 62 Hieron. Ep. 2. ad Nepotian. Gloria episcopi est pau- perum opibus providers: ignominia omnium sacerdotum est propriis studere divitiis. 63 Chrys. Ser. 1. in Gen. t. 2. p. 886. ed. Front. Ducaei. 64 Ammian. lib. 27. p. 458. Antistites qnosdam provin- ciales tenuitas edendi potandique parcissime. Vilitas etiam indumentorum, et supercilia humum spectantia, perpetuo numini verisque ejus cultoribus, ut puros commendant et verecundos. ‘ \ CHAP. II. 203 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. the heathen historian, gives of the Italian bishops, as it is probable, from his own observation: he says, their spare diet and frugal way of living, their cheap clothing and grave deportment, did recommend them to God and his true worshippers, as persons of pure and modest souls. This made those country bishops more honourable, in his opinion, than if they had lived in the riches, and state, and splendour of the bishops of Rome. By a canon of the fourth council of Carthage,“ all the African bishops were obliged to live after this man- ner; not to affect rich furniture, or sumptuous en- tertainments, or a splendid way of living, but to seek to advance the dignity and authority of their order by their faith and holy living. Some indeed were for that other sort of hospitality, for enter- taining the rich, and especially the magistrates, on pretence that they might keep an interest in them, and be able to intercede with them for poor crimi- nals when they were condemned. But St. J erom particularly considers and answers this pretence in his instructions to Nepotian. You must avoid, says he,66 giving great entertainments to secular men, and especially those that are in great offices. For it is not very reputable to have the lictors and guards of a consul stand waiting at the doors of a priest of Christ, who himself was crucified and poor; nor that the judge of a province should dine more sumptuously with you than in the palace. If it be pretended, that you do this only to be able to intercede with him for poor criminals, there is no judge but will pay a greater deference and respect to a frugal clergyman than a rich one, and show greater reverence to your sanctity than your riches. Or if he be such a one as will not hear a clergy- man’s intercessions but only among his cups, I should freely be without this benefit, and rather beseech Christ for the judge himself, who can more speedily and powerfully help than any judge. St. J erom, in the same place,67 advises his clerk not to be over-free in receiving other men’s entertainments neither. For the laity, says he, should rather find us to be comforters in their mournings than com- panions in their feasts. That clerk will quickly be contemned, that never refuses any entertain- ments, when he is frequently invited to them. Such were the ordinary rules and directions given by the ancients for regulating the hospitality and frugality of the clergy. But many bishops and others far exceeded these rules in transcendent heights of ab- stinence, and acts of self-denial, freely chosen and imposed upon themselves, that they might have greater plenty and superfluities to bestow upon others. Gregory Nazianzen68 gives us this account of St. Basil, that his riches was to possess nothing; to live content with that little which nature requires; to despise delicacies and pleasures, and set himself above the slavery of that cruel and sordid tyrant the belly: his most delicious and constant food was bread, and salt, and water; his clothing but one coat and one gown; his lodging upon the ground; not for want of better accommodations, for he was metropolitan of Caesarea, and had considerable re- venues belonging to his church; but he submitted to this way of living in imitation of his Saviour, who became poor for our sakes, that we through his poverty might be made rich. And therefore both the same author,“9 and the church historians also," tell us, that when in the time of the Arian per- secution under Valens he was threatened by one of the emperor’s agents, that unless he would com- ply, he should have all his goods confiscated; his answer was, that no such punishment could reach him, for he was possessed of nothing, unless the emperor wanted his threadbare clothes, or a few books, which was all the substance he was master of. St. J erom gives the like character of Exuperius, bishop of Thoolouse, who made other men’s wants always his own; and, like the widow of Sarepta, pinched and denied himself to feed the poor, be- stowing all his substance upon the bowels of Christ. Nay, such was his frugality, that he ministered the body of Christ in a basket of osiers, and the blood in a glass cup : but nothing, says our author,71 could be more rich or glorious than such a poverty as this. It were easy to give a thousand instances of the same nature in the Cyprians, the Austins, the Nazi- anzens, the Paulinuses, and other such like generous spirits of the age they lived in, who contemned the world with greater pleasure than others could ad- mire or enjoy it. But as such heights of heroic virtues exceeded the common rule, they are not pro- posed as the strict measures of every man’s duty, but only to excite the zeal of the forward and the good. It may be said of this, as our Saviour says of a parallel case, “ All men cannot receive this say- ing, save they to whom it is given; but he that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” Some indeed would fain turn this prudential advice into a law, and VVheSlIiccif the clelr- attempt to prove that anciently the clergy were under an obligation to quit their temporal possessions, when they betook themselves to the service of the church. But this is to outface the sun at noon-day. For as there is no just ground for this assertion, so there 65 Cone. Carth. 4. c. 15. Ut episcopus vilem supellectilem et mensam ac victum pauperem habeat, et dignitatis suas auetoritatem fide et meritis vitae quaerat. “6 Hieron. Ep. 2. ad Nepotian. "'7 Ibid. Facile contemnitur clericus, qui, saepe vocatus ad temporal posses- sions. prandium, ire non recusat. 53 Naz. Orat. 20. de Laud. Basil. p. 357. “9 Naz. ibid. p. 7° Sozom. lib. 6. c. 16. 7' Hieron. Ep. 4. ad Rustic. Nihil illo ditius, qui corpus Domini canistro viniineo, sanguinem portat in vitro. 204 BooK VI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. are the plainest evidences to the contrary. Among those called the Apostolical Canons,72 there is one‘ to this purpose: Let the goods of the bishop, if he has any of his own, he kept distinct from those of the church; that when he dies he may have power to dispose of them to whom he pleases, and as he pleases, and not receive damage in his private efi‘ects upon pretence that they were the goods of the church. For perhaps he has a wife, or children, or relations, or servants: and it is but just both before God and man, that neither the church should suffer for want of knowing what belonged to the bishop, nor the bishop’s relations be damaged by the church, or come into trouble upon that account, which would be to the scandal and reproach of the de- ceased bishop. Many other canons both of the Greek and Latin church” are to the same effect. Nor can it be pretended, that this is to be under- stood only of such estates as they got in the service of the church. For St. Ambrose plainly intimates, that the law left the clergy in the full possession of their patrimony, or temporal estates, which they had before. For he brings in some malcontents among the clergy thus complaining: What advantage" is it to me to be of the clergy, to suffer injuries, and undergo hard labour, as if my own estate would not maintain me? were then among the clergy. And, indeed, there was but one case, in which any clerk could be compelled to quit his possessions, and that was when his estate was originally tied to the service of the empire, of which I have given a full ac— count before. In all other cases it was matter of free choice, and left to his liberty, whether he would dispose of his estate to any pious use or not. Only if he did not, it was expected he should be more generous in his charities, and less burdensome to the church, his needs being supplied another way. Though neither was this forced upon him by any law, but only urged upon reasons of charity ;75 leav- ing him judge of his own necessities, and not for- bidding him to have his dividend in the church, if in his own prudence he thought fit to require it. Socrates 7“ commends Chrysanthus, a Novatian bi- shop, upon this account, that, having an estate of his own, he never took any thing of the church, save two loaves of the eulogz'ce, or offerings on Sun- This implies, that men of estates day; though he does not once intimate, that there was any law to compel him to do so. As neither does Prosper, who speaks most of any other against rich men’s taking their portion in the charities of the church. He reckons it, indeed,’7 a dishonour- able act and a sin in them, because it was to deprive others of the church’s charity, who stood more in need of it: and he thinks, though a rich clergyman might keep his own estate without sin, because there was no law but the law of perfection to oblige- him to renounce it; yet it must be upon condition that he required none of the maintenance of the church :"8 but he only delivers this as his own pri— vate opinion, and does not signify that there was then any such standing law in the church. In Africa they had a peculiar law against covetousness in the time of St. Austin, which was, that if any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, or any other clerk, who had no estate when they were ordained, did afterward79 purchase lands in their own name, they should be impleaded as guilty of invading the Lord’s revenue, unless upon admonition they conferred the same upon the church. For in those times the church-revenues being small, no one’s dividend was more than a competent maintenance: and therefore it was presumed, that he who could purchase lands in such circumstances, must have been some way injurious to the public revenues of the church. But in the same law it was provided, that if any estate was left them by donation or inheritance, they might dispose of it as they pleased themselves : for the church made no rules, but only gave her advice, in such cases as these; exhorting her wealthy clergy to greater degrees of liberality, but not demanding their estates to have them at her own disposal. On the other hand, when clergymen, who had no visible estates of their own, and were single men, and had no poor families to provide for, were busily intent upon growing rich out of the revenues of the church; this was always esteemed a scandalous covetousness, and accordingly prosecuted with sharp invectives by St. J erom8° and others of the ancient writers. So much of the laws of charity, which concerned the ancient clergy. I might here give a character of . _ their meekness, modesty, gravity, hu- .0°§;~h§,§g§;‘;;';§$g’e mility, and several other virtues, which with we“ mngues' Sect 10 '72 Can. APOSt. c. 40. ”Eo"r'w (par/spa‘: ‘rd 'ié‘ta T05 é'rrto'xé- 'II'OU 1rpo'uyua'ra (a’i'ys Kai. 15m é'xu) Kai. (par/spa‘: Pro‘: xv- puxm‘z, 866. "8 Conc. Antioch. c. 24. Cone. Agathen. c. 48. Cone. Garth. 3. c. 49. 7* Ambr. Ep. 17. Quid mihi prodest in clero manere, subire injurias, labores perpeti, quasi non possit ager meus ma pascere. "5 Vide Can. Apost. c. 41. "6 Socrat. lib. 7. c. 12. 7’ Prosper. de Vit. Contempl. lib. 2. c. 12. Noverint esse deformius, possessores de eleemosynis pauperum pasci. Cone. Antioch. c. 25. 78 Ibid. Illi qui tam infirmi sunt, ut possessionibus suis renunciare non possint; si ea quae accepturi erant, dispensa- tori relinquant, nihil habentibus conferenda, sine peccato possident sua. "9 Cone. Carthag. 3. c. 49. Placuit, ut episcopi, presby- teri, (liaconi, vel quicunque clerici, qui nihil habentes ordi- nantur, et tempore episcopatus vel clerioatus sui, agros vel quaecunque praedia nomine suo comparant, tanquam rerum divinarum invasionis crimine teneantur obnoxii, nisi admo- niti ecclesiae eadern ipsa contulerint. 8° Hieron. Ep. 2. ad Nepotian. Nonnulli sunt ditiores monachi, quam fuerant saeculares : et clerici qui possideant CHAP. II. 205 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Nazianzen describes in the person of his own fa- ther: but I shall but take notice of two things more which concerned the conduct of their lives, and those are the laws relating, first, to their words, and secondly, to their fame and reputation. For their words, they who were to teach others the most difiicult part of human conduct, the government of the tongue, were highly concerned to be examples to the people as well in word as action. And to this purpose the laws were very severe against all manner of licentious discourse in their conversation. The fourth council of Carthage has three canons together upon this head; one of which forbids scur- rility,“ and bufi'oonery, or that foolish talking and jesting with obscenity, which the apostle calls, Bwnokoyia, under the penalty of deprivation. An- other threatens such with excommunication,82 as use to swear by the name of any creature. And a third canon83 menaces the same punishment to such as sing at any public entertainments. St. J erom particularly cautions his clerk against detraction, because of the temptation he may lie under either to commit the sin himself, or give way to it in others, by hearkening to and reporting false sugges- tions after them. Which is much the same thing; for no slanderer tells his story to one that is not willing to hear him.’34 An arrow, says he, never fixes upon a stone, but often recoils back, and wounds him that shoots it. Therefore let the de- tractor learn to be less forward and busy, by your unwillingness to hear his detraction. St. Chrysos- tom85 takes notice of this vice, as most incident to inferiors, whom envy and emulation too often prompt to detract from the authority and virtues of their bishop; especially when they are grown popular, and admired for their own eloquent preaching; then, if they be of a bold and arrogant and vain-glorious temper, their business is to deride him in private, and detract from his authority, and make them- selves every thing by lessening his just character and power- Upon this hint our author also takes occasion to show, what an extraordinary courage and spirit, and how divine and even a temper a bishop ought to have, that by such temptations, and a thousand others of the like nature, he be not overwhelmed either with anger or envy on the one hand, or insuperable sorrow and dejection of mind on the other. St. J erom recommends another virtue of the tongue to his clerk, which is of great use in conversation; and that is, the keeping of secrets, and knowing when to be silent, especially about the l affairs of great men. Your oifice, says he, requires you to visit the sick, and thereby you become ac- quainted with the families of matrons and their children,86 and are intrusted with the secrets of noble men. You ought therefore to keep not only a chaste eye, but also a chaste tongue. And as it is not your business to be talking of the beauties of women, so neither to let one house know from you what was done in another. For if Hippocrates ad- jured his disciples, before he taught them, and made them take an oath of silence; if he formed them in their discourse, their gait, their meekness and modesty, their habit, and their whole morals ; how much more ought we, who have the care of souls committed to us, to love the houses of all Christians as if they were our own! He means, that the clergy should be formed to the art of silence, as carefully as Hippocrates taught his scholars; that the peace and unity of Christian families might not be dis- turbed or discomposed by revealing the secrets of one to another; which it is certain no one will do, that has the property which St. J erom requires, of loving every Christian family as his own. Secondly, As they were thus taught to be inoffensive both in word and deed, and thereby secure a good name and reputation among men; which was necessary for the due exercise of their function: so, because it was possible their credit might be impaired not only by the commission of real evil, but by the very appearance and suspicion of it; the laws of the church upon this account were very exact in requiring them to set a guard upon their whole de— portment, and avoid all suspicious actions, that might give the least umbrage or handle to an ad- versary to reproach them. It was not enough in this case, that a man kept a good conscience in the sight of God, but he must provide or forecast for honest things in the sight of men. And this was the more diflicult, because men are apt to be que— rulous against the clergy, as St. Chrysostom ob- serves, some through weakness and imprudence, others through malice, easily raising complaints and accusations without any just ground, and diflicultly hearkening to any reasons or apologies that they can offer in their own defence. But the more que- rulous and suspicious men are, the more watchful it becomes the clergy to be against unjust surmises, that they may cut off occasion from them that de- sire occasion to accuse or reproach them. To this end they are to use the utmost diligence and pre- Sect. 11. Of their care to guard against sus- picion of evil. opes sub Christo paupere, quas sub locuplete et fallace dia- bolo non habuerant: ut suspiret eos ecclesia divites, quos mundus tenuit ante mendicos. 8' Conc. Carth. 4. c. 60. Clericum scurrilem, et verbis tur- pibus joculatorem, ab ofiicio detrahendum. 82 Ibid. 0. 61. Clericum per creaturas jurantem acerrime objurgandum. Si perstiterit in vitio, excommunicandum. 83 Ibid. c. 62. Clericum inter epulas cantantem supra- dictae sententiae severitate coercendum. 8* Hieron. Ep. 2. ad Nepot. Neque vero illa justa est excusatio, referentibus aliis, injuriam facere non possum. Nemo invito auditori libenter refert, &c. 85 Chrys. de Sacerd. lib. 5. c. 8. ‘36 Hieron. Ep. 2. ad Nepotian. 236 BOOK VI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. caution to guard against the ill opinions of men, by avoiding all actions that are of a doubtful or sus- picious nature. For, says St. Chrysostom,87 if the holy apostle St. Paul was afraid lest he should have been suspected of theft by the Corinthians; and upon that account took others into the administra- tion of their charity with himself, that no one might have the least pretence to blame him; how much more careful should we be to cut off all occasions of sinister opinions and suspicions, however false or unreasonable they may be, or disagreeable to our character! For none of us can be so far removed from any sin, as St. Paul was from theft: yet he did not think fit to contemn the suspicions of the vulgar: he did not trust to the reputation, which both his miracles and the integrity of his life had generally gained him: but, on the contrary, he ima- gined such suspicions and jealousies might arise .in the hearts of some men, and therefore he took care to prevent them; not suffering them to arise at all, but timely foreseeing, and prudently forestalling them: providing, as he says, for honest things not only in the sight of God, but also in the sight of men. The same care and much greater should we take, not only to dissipate and destroy the ill opi- nions men may have entertained of us, but to foresee afar off from what causes they may spring, and to cut off beforehand the very occasions and pretences from whence they may grow: which is much easier to be done, than to extinguish them when they are risen, which will then be very diflicult, perhaps im- possible: besides that their being raised will give great scandal and offence, and wound the consci- ences of many. Thus that holy father argues upon this point, according to his wonted manner, nerv- ously and strenuously, to show the clergy their obligations to use their utmost prudence to foresee and prevent scandal, by avoiding all actions of a doubtful and suspicious nature. St. J erom88 gives his clerk the same instructions, to guard against suspicions, and take care beforehand to minister no probable grounds for raising any feigned stories concerning him. If his oflice required him to visit the widows or virgins of the church, he should never go to them alone, but always take some other persons of known probity and gravity with him, from whose company he would receive no defa- mation. Nor was this only the private direc- Sm 12 tion of St. .Ierom, but a public rule of Laglsis 21:52‘??? to‘ the church. For in the third council of Carthage this canon was enacted, that neither bishop,89 nor presbyter, nor any other clerk should visit the widows and virgins alone, but in the com— pany and presence of some other of the clergy, or some grave Christians. And in the first council of Carthage90 and the council of Epone9| there are canons to the same purpose. The great council of Nice made another order upon the same grounds, to prevent all sinister opinions, that none of the unmarried clergy, bishop, presbyter, deacon, or any other,92 should have any woman that was a stranger, and not one of their kindred, to dwell with them; save only a mother, a sister, or an aunt, or some such persons, with whom they might live without suspi- cion. They who hence conclude, that the clergy were forbidden to cohabit with their wives, which they had married before ordination, are sufficiently exposed by Gothofred,93 as ignorant of the true im- port of the original word, avvsiaaicrog, which never denotes a wife, but always a stranger, in opposition to those of one’s kindred: and it is evident, the canon was made not upon the account of the mar- ried clergy, but the unmarried, to prevent suspicion and evil reports, that might easily arise from their familiar conversation with women that were not of their kindred or near relations. We may be satis- fied of this from a law of Honorius and Theodosius junior, which was made in pursuance of the Nicene canon, and is still extant in both the Codes,“ where first having forbidden the clergy to cohabit with any strange women, who by some were taken in under the title and appellation of sisters ; and having named what persons they might lawfully entertain in their houses, viz. mothers, daughters, and sisters, because natural consanguinity would prevent all suspicion of these: lest the not excepting of wives might seem to exclude them also, a parti- cular clause is added concerning them, that such as were married before their husbands were ordained, Sect. 13. An account of the agapetw, and ouveia'ax'roz an the laws of the ch urch made against them. 8’ Chrys. de Sacerd. lib. 6. c. 9. 88 Hieron. Ep. 2. ad Nepot. Gaveto omnes suspiciones; et quicquid probabiliter fingi potest, ne fingatur, ante de- vita, &c. 89 Gone. Garth. 3. c. 25. Nec episcopi aut presbyteri soli habeant accessum ad hujusmodi foeminas, nisi aut clerici praesentes sint, aut graves aliqui Ghristiani. 9° Conc. Garth. l. c. 3. 9‘ Conc. Epaunens. c. 20. 92 Cone. Nicen. c. 3. M1‘) égs'iuat crvvsio'alc'rov iixsw, 7r7\1‘)u ii mi 490: ,un'répa, a seam», a saw), &c. 93 Gothofred. Not. in God. Theodos. lib. 16. Tit. 2. de Episc. Leg. 94 God. Th. lib. 16. Tit. 2. de Episc. Leg. 44. It. God- Just. lib. l. Tit. 3. Leg. l9. Eum qui probabilem seculo dis- ciplinam agit, decolorari consortio sororiae appellationis non decet. Quicunque igitur cujuscunque gradus sacerdotio ful- ciuntur, vel clericatus honore censentur, extranearum sibi mulierum interdicta consortia. cognoscant: hac eis tantum facultate concessa, ut matres, filias, atque germanas intra domorum suarum septa contineant. In his enim nihil sasvi criminis existimari foedus naturale permittit. Illas etiam non relinqui castitatis hortatur aifectio, quae ante sacerdotium maritorum legitimum meruere conjugium. Neque enim clericis incompetenter adjnnctae sunt, quae dignos sacerdotio viros sua conversations fecerunt. CHAP. II. 207 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. should not be relinquished upon pretence of chas- tity, but rather be retained upon that account; it being but reasonable that they should be joined to their husbands, who by their conversation made their husbands worthy of the priesthood. The o'vvsio'an-rot then, or strangers, who in these laws are forbidden to cohabit with the clergy, are not their lawful wives, but others who were taken in under the name of sisters, as that law of Honorius, and other ancient writers,95 intimate they were called by those that entertained them. St. J erom96 and Epi- phanius 9’ tell us, they were also known by the name of agapetre, dyarrrjrai, that is, beloved. So that all these several names signify but that one sort of per- sons, most commonly called strangers, extranew, and o'vveio'alcroc, whose conversation was suspicious, and therefore so often prohibited by the laws of the church. They were commonly some of the virgins belonging to the church, whom they that entertained pretended only to love as sisters with a chaste love. But their manner of conversing was sometimes so very scandalous, that it justly gave great offence to all sober and modest persons; and had not the church always interposed with her severest cen- sures, it must have made her liable to as great re- proach. For it appears from the complaints of St. Cyprian,98 St. J erorn,99 and others, that the practice of some was very intolerable: for they not only dwelt together in the same house, but lodged in the same room, and sometimes in the same bed; and yet would be thought innocent, and called others uncharitable and suspicious, that entertained any hard thoughts of them. But the church did not regard vain words, but treated them as they justly deserved, as persons that used a scandalous and in- decent liberty, and who were the very pests and plagues of the church. Cyprian ‘°° commends Pom- ponius for excommunicating a deacon, who had been found guilty in this kind. And the council of An- tioch101 alleged this among other reasons for their deposing Paulus Samosatensis from his bishopric. In the following ages, besides the councils of Nice and Ancyra already mentioned, we meet with many other canons made upon this account, as in the se- cond council of Arles,m2 the first, third, and fourth councils of Carthage,108 the council of Eliberis,104 and Lerida,105 and many others, prohibiting the _ clergy to entertain any women, who were strangers, and not of their near relations, under pain of de- privation. The intent of all which canons was to oblige the clergy not only to live innocently in the sight of God, but also unblamably, and without suspi- cion and censure, in the sight of men. It being more especially necessary for men of their function to main- tain not only a good conscience, but a good name; the one for their own sake, the other for the sake of their neighbours:106 that men might neither be tempted to blaspheme the ways of God, by suspect- ing the actions of holy men to be impure, when they were not so; nor be induced to imitate such prac- tices, as they at least imagined to be evil: either of which would turn to the destruction of their souls. So that it was cruelty and inhumanity, as St. Aus- tin concludes, for a man in such circumstances to neglect and disregard his own reputation. But it might happen, that a man, after the utmost human caution and Maisgsgiérli' and prudence that could be used, might géiiigggabliesidiii: not be able to avoid the malevolent suspicions of ill-disposed men: for our blessed Lord, whose innocence and conduct were both equally Divine, could not in his converse with men wholly escape them. Now, in this case the church could prescribe no other rule, but that of patience and Christian consolation given by our Saviour to his apostles: “Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad; for great is your reward in hea- ven.” "7 When we have done, says St. Austin,108 all that in justice and prudence we could to preserve our good name; if after that some men notwith- standing will endeavour to blemish our reputation, and blacken our character, either by false sugges- tions or unreasonable suspicions; let conscience be our comfort, nay, plainly our joy, that great is our reward in heaven. For this reward is the wages of our warfare, whilst we behave ourselves as good soldiers of Christ, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, by honour and dis- honour, by evil report and good report. So much of the laws of the church, relating to the life and conversation of the ancient clergy. 95 Vid. Conc. Ancyr. c. 19. 9“ Hieron. Ep. 22. ad Eustoch. p. 138. 9’ Epiphan. Haer. 63. Origen. n. 2. 98 Cypr. Ep. 6. a1. 14. Ep. 7. al. 13. Ep. 62. al. 4. 99 Hieron. Ep. 22. ad Eustoch. de Virgin. Servand. Uncle in ecclesias agapetarum pestis introiit? Uncle sine nuptiis aliud nomen uxorum? Imo uncle novum concubinarum genus? Plus inferam: unde meretrices univirae? Qua: eadem domo, uno cubiculo, saepe uno tenentur et lectulo; et suspiciosos nos vocant, si aliquid existimamus. 1°” Cypr. Ep. 62. al. 4. ad Pompon. 1°‘ Epist. Synod. ap. Euseb. lib. 7. c. 30. “2 Conc. Arelat. 2. c. 3. "’3 Conc. Garth. l. c. 3 et 4. Carth. c. 17. e. 46. 1°‘ Conc. Eliber. c. 27. ‘"5 Conc. Ilerdens. c. 15. 1°“ Aug. de Bono Viduitat. c. 22. t. 4. Nobis ‘necessaria est vita nostra, aliis fama nostra, &c. 1°’ Matt. v. 1], l2. Carth. 4. “9 Aug. ibid. 203 BOOK VI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. CHAPTER III. OF LAWS MORE PARTICULARLY RELATING TO THE EXERCISE OF THE DUTIES AND OFFICES OF THEIR FUNCTION. Sect. L I COME now to speak of such laws as .Jt’gieggegiru‘g‘gljg; more immediately ‘related to their me‘ function, and the several offices and duties belonging to it. In speaking of which, be- cause many of these oflices will come more fully to be considered hereafter, when we treat of the liturgy and service of the church, I shall here speak chiefly of such duties as were required of them by way of general qualification, to enable them the better to go through the particular duties of their function. Such was, in the first place, their obligation to lead a studious life. For since, as Gregory Nazianzenl observes, the meanest arts could not be obtained without much time, and labour, and toil spent there- in; it were absurd to think, that the art of wisdom, which comprehends the knowledge of things human and Divine, and comprises every thing that is noble and excellent, was so light and vulgar a thing, as _ that a man needed no more but a wish or a will to obtain it. Some indeed, he complains,2 were of this fond opinion, and therefore, before they had well passed the time of their childhood, or knew the names of the books of the Old and New Testament, or how well to read them, if they had but got two or three pious words by heart, or had read a few of the Psalms of David, and put on a grave habit, which made some outward show of piety, they had the vanity to think, they were qualified for the go- vernment of the church. They then talked nothing but of Samuel’s sanctification from his cradle, and thought themselves profound scribes, and great rab- bies and teachers, sublime in the knowledge of Di- vine things, and were for interpreting the Scripture not by the letter, but after a spiritual way, pro- pounding their own dreams and fancies, instead of the Divine oracles to the people. This, he com- plains, was for want of that study and labour, which ought to be the continual employment of persons who take upon them the ofiices of the sacred func- tion. St. Chrysostom pursues this matter a little further, and shows the necessity of continual labour and study in a clergyman, from the work and busi- ness he has upon his hand, each part of which re- quires great sedulity and application. For, first, he ought to be qualified to minister suitable remedies to the several maladies and distemperss of men’s souls; the cure of which requires greater skill and labour, than the cure of their bodily distempers: and this is only to be done by the doctrine of the gospel, which therefore required that he should be inti- mately acquainted with every part of it. Then, again, he must be able to stop the mouths of all gainsayers,4 Jews, Gentiles, and heretics, who had different arts and different weapons to assault the truth by; and unless he exactly understood all their fallacies and sophisms, and knew the true art of making a proper defence, he would be in danger not only of suffering each of them to make spoil and devastation of the church, but of encouraging one error, whilst he was opposing another. For nothing was more common, than for ignorant and unskilful disputants to run from one extreme to another; as he shows in the controversies which the church had with the Marcionites and Valentinians on the one hand, and the Jews on the other, about the law of Moses ; and the dispute about the Trinity between the Arians and Sabellians. Now, unless a man was well skilled and exercised in the word of God, and the true art and rules of disputation, which could not be attained without continual study and labour, he concludes, it would be impossible for him to maintain his ground, and the truth, as he ought, against so many subtle and wily opposers. Upon this he inculcates5 that direction of St. Paul to Timothy, 1 Tim. iv. 13, “ Give attendance to read- ing, to exhortation, to doctrine: meditate upon these things ; give thyself wholly to them; that thy pro- fiting may appear to all men.” Thirdly, he shows6 how difficult and laborious a work it was to make continual homilies and set discourses to the people, who were become very severe judges of the preach- er’s composures, and would not allow him to rehearse any part of another man’s work, nor so much as to repeat his own upon a second occasion. Here his task was something the more diflicult, because men had generally nice and delicate palates, and were inclined to hear sermons as they heard plays, more for pleasure than profit: which added to the preach- er’s study and labour; who though he was to con- temn both popular applause and censure, yet was he also to have such a regard to his auditory, as that they might hear him with pleasure to their edification and advantage. And the more famed and eloquent the preacher was, so much the more careful7 and studious ought he to be, that he may always answer his character, and not expose himself to the censures and accusations of the people. These and the like arguments does that holy father urge, to show how much it concerns men of the sa- cred calling to devote themselves to a studious and laborious life, that they may be the better qualified thereby to answer the several indispensable duties of their functions. 1 Naz. Orat. I. de Fuga. t. I. p. 22. ’ Chrys. de Sacerd. lib. 4. c. 3. 2 Ibid. p. 21. 4 Ibid. lib. 4. c. 4. 5 Chrys. ibid. lib. 4. c. 8. 5 Ibid. lib. 5. c. l. 7 Ibid. lib. 5. c. 5.‘ CHAP. III. 209 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. gm, 2, Some indeed, St. Chrysostom says, NO pleas allowed as ,1... apologies,“ were ready to plead even the apos- the Contrary‘ tle’s authority for their ignorance, and almost value themselves for want of learning, be- cause the apostle says of himself, that he was rude in speech. But to this the holy father justly re- plies, that this was a misrepresentation of the great apostle, and vainly urged to excuse any man’s sloth and negligence8 in not attaining to those necessary parts of knowledge which the clerical life required. If the utmost heights and perfections of exotic elo- quence had been rigidly exacted of the clergy; if they had been to speak always with the smoothness of Isocrates, or the loftiness of Demosthenes, or the majesty of Thucydides, or the sublimity of Plato; then indeed it might be pertinent to allege this testimony of the apostle: but rudeness of style, in comparison of such eloquence, may be allowed, provided men be otherwise qualified with know- ledge, and ability to preach and dispute accurately concerning the doctrines of faith and religion; as St. Paul was, whose talents in that kind have made him the wonder and admiration of the whole world; and it would be unjust to accuse him of rudeness of speech, who, by his discourses, confounded both Jews and Greeks, and wrought many into the opinion that he was the Mercury of the Gentiles. Such proofs of his power of ‘persuasion were suf- ficient evidence that he had spent some pains in this way, and therefore his authority was fondly abused to patronize ignorance and sloth, whose ex- ample was so great a reproach to them. Others, again, there were who placed the whole of a minis- ter in a good life, and that was made another excuse for the want of knowledge, and study, and the art of preaching and disputing. But to this St. Chry- sostom9 also replies, that both these qualifications were required in a priest; he must not only do, but teach the commands of Christ, and guide others by his word and doctrine, as well as his practice: each of these had their part in his office, and were neces- sary to assist one another in order to consummate men’s edification. For otherwise, when any con- troversy should arise about the doctrines of religion, and Scripture was pleaded in behalf of error, what would a good life avail in this case? What would it signify to have been diligent in the practice of vir- tue, if, after all, a man, through gross ignorance and unskilfulness in the word of truth, fell into heresy, and cut himself off from the body of the church? as he knew many that had done so. But admit a man should stand firm himself, and not be drawn away by the adversaries, yet when the plain and simple people, who are under his care, shall observe their leader to be bafiled, and that he has nothing to say to the arguments of a subtle opposer, they will be ready to impute this not so much to the weakness of the advocate, as the badness of his cause: and so by one man’s ignorance a whole people shall be carried headlong to utter destruction, or at least be so shaken in their faith, that they shall not stand firm for the future. St. J erom gives also a smart rebuke to this plea, telling his clerk,lo that the plain and rustic brother should not value himself upon his sanctity, and despise knowledge; as neither should the artful and eloquent speaker measure his holiness by his tongue. For though, of two imperfections, it was better to have a holy ignorance than a vicious eloquence; yet, to con- summate a priest, both qualifications were neces- sary, and he must have knowledge as well as sanctity to fit him for the several duties of his function. Thus did those holy instructors ‘plead against ignorance in the clergy, and urge them with proper arguments to engage them upon a studious life, which was the only way to furnish them with sufiicient abilities to discharge many weighty duties of their function. But it was not all sorts of studies that they equally recommended, but to'igiéetggiggi'sggiigf chiefly the study of the Holy Scrip- tures, and t. e ap- proved writers and tures, as being the fountains of that 32232;“ the learning which was most proper for their calling, and which upon all occasions they were to make use of. For, as St. Chrysostom ob- serves,n in the way of administering spiritual physio to the souls of men, the word of God was instead of every thing that was used in the cure of bodily dis- tempers. It was instrument, and diet, and air; it was instead of medicine, and fire, and knife; if caustics or incisions were necessary, they were to be done by this; and if this did not succeed, it would be in vain to try other means. This was it that was to raise and comfort the dejected soul, and take down and assuage the swelling tumours and presumptions of the confident. By this they were both to cut off what was superfluous, and supply what was wanting, and do every thing that was necessary to be done in the cure of souls. By this all heretics and aliens were to be convinced, and all the plots of Satan to be countermined; and therefore it was necessary that the ministers of God should be very diligent in studying the Scriptures, that the word of Christ might dwell richly in them. This was necessary to qualify them especially for preaching; since, as St. J erom rightly notes,12 the 8 Chrys. de Sacerd. lib. 4. c. 6. 9 Ibid. lib. 4. c. 8 et 9. 1° Hieron. Ep. 2. ad Nepotian. Nec rusticus et tamen simplex frater ideo se sanctum putet, si nihil noverit: nec peritus et eloquens in lingua aestimet sanctitatem. Mul- P toque melius est e duobus imperfectis rusticitatem sanctam habere, quam eloquentiam peccatricem. 1‘ Chrys. de Sacerd. lib. 4. c. 3 et 4. ‘2 Hieron. Ep. 2. ad N epot. Sermo presbyteri Scriptu- rarum lectione conditus sit. Nolo te declamatorem esse, 210 BooK VI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. best commendation of a sermon was to have it sea- soned well with Scripture rightly applied. Besides, the custom of expounding the Scripture occasion- ally many times as it was read, required a man to be well acquainted with all the parts of it, and to understand both the phrase, and sense, and doc- trines and mysteries of it, that he might be ready, upon all occasions, to discourse pertinently and usefully upon them. And to this purpose some canons ‘3 appointed, that their most vacant hours, the times of eating and drinking, should not pass without some portion of Scripture read to them; partly to exclude all other trifling and unnecessary discourse, and partly to afford them proper themes and subjects to exercise themselves upon to edifica- tion and advantage. St. J erom commends his friend Nepotian for this, that at all feasts ‘4 he was used to propound something ‘out of the Holy Scripture, and entertain the company with some useful dis- quisition upon it. And next to the Scriptures, he employed his time upon the study of the best eccle- siastical authors, whom, by continual reading and frequent meditations, he had so treasured up in the library of his heart, that he could repeat their words upon any proper occasion, saying, Thus spake Ter- tullian, thus Cyprian, so Lactantius, after this man- ner Hilary, so Minucius Felix, so Victorinus, these were the words of Arnobius, and the like.‘ But among ecclesiastical writings, the canons of the church were always reckoned of greatest use; as containing a summary account, not only of the church’s discipline, and doctrine, and government, but also rules of life and moral virtues: upon which account, as some laws directed that the canons should be read over at every man’s ordination; so others required the clergy ‘5 afterward to make them part of their constant study, together with the Holy Scripture. For the canons were then a sort of di- rections for the pastoral care, and they had this advantage of any private directions, that they were the public voice and rubrics of the church, and so much the more carefully to be read upon that ac- count. In after ages, in the time of Charles the Great, we find some laws obliging the clergy ‘6 to read together with the canons, Gregory’s book cZe Cum Pastoralz'. Sm 4' As to other books and writings, MHQQKU‘ZZ ‘123,’: they were more cautious and sparing in the study and use of them. Some rigid books was al— canons 1’ forbade a bishop to read hea- ' then authors: nor would they allow him to read heretical books, but only upon necessity, that is, when there was occasion to confute them, or to caution others against the poison of them. But the prohibition of heathen learning, though it seem to be more peremptory, was to be understood likewise with a little qualification. For men might have very different views and designs in reading heathen authors. Some might read them only for pleasure, and make a business of that pleasure, to the neglect of Scripture and more useful learning: and all such were highly to be condemned. St. Jerom‘s says of these, that when the priests of God read plays in- stead of the Gospels, and wanton bucolics instead of the prophets, and loved to have Virgil in their hands rather than the Bible; they made a crime of pleasure, and turned the necessity of youthful exer- cise into a voluntary sin. Others could not relish the plain and unaffected style of Scriptures, but conversed with heathen orators to bring their lan- guage to a more polite or Attic dialect. And these also came under the censures of the church. It is remarkable what Sozomen19 tells us of Triphyllius, a Cyprian bishop, (who was one of these nice and delicate men, who thought the style of Scripture not so elegant as it might be made,) that having oc- casion in a discourse before Spiridion, and some other Cyprian bishops, to cite those words of our Saviour, dpov 006 To icpdfifiarov lcai mpmo'zrst, “ Take up thy bed and walk,” he would not use the word xpdfifiarov, but instead of it put o'm'n'n'oda, as being a more elegant word in his opinion. To whom Spi- ridion with a holy indignation and zeal replied, Art thou better than Him that said lcpdfifiarov, that thou shouldst be ashamed to use his words? There- by admonishing him to be a little more modest, and not give human eloquence the preference before the Holy Scriptures. Another sort of men conversed with heathen authors rather than the Scriptures, because they thought them more for their turn, to arm them with sophistry to impose their errors upon the simplicity of others. As the anonymous author in Eusebius,20 who writes against the Theo— dotian heretics, observes of the leading men of that party, that leaving the Holy Scriptures, they gener- ally spent their time in Euclid and Aristotle, Theo- et rabulam, garrulumque sine ratione, sed mysteriorum pe- ritum, &c. ‘3 Conc. Tolet. 3. c. 7. Quia solent crebro mensis otiosae fabulae interponi, in omni sacerdotali convivio lectio Scrip- turarum Divinarum misceatur : per hoc enim et animae aedi- ficantur in bonum, et fabulae non necessariae prohibentur. 1* Hieron. Epitaph. Nepot. Ep. 3. ad Heliodor. Sermo ejus et (leg. per) omne convivium dc Scriptnris aliquid proponere, &c. ‘5 Conc. Tolet. 4. c. 25. Sciant sacerdotes Scripturas Sanctas, et canones meditentur—ut aedificent cunctos tam fidei scientia, quam operum discipline. ‘ ‘6 Goncil. Turon. 3. c. 3. Goncil. Cabillon. 2. c. l. 1’ Conc. Garth. 4. c. 16. Ut episcopus Gentilium libros non legat; haereticorum autem pro necessitate et tempore. ‘8 Hieron. Ep. 146. ad Damasum dc Filio Prodigo. t. 3. p. 129. sacerdotes Dei omissis evangeliis ct prophetis, vide- mus comoedias legere, amatoria bucolicorum versuum verba canere, Virgilium tenere; et id quod in pueris nccessitatis est, crimen in se facere voluptatis. 19 Sozom. lib. l. c. 11. 2° Euseb. lib. 5. c. 28. CHAP. III. 211 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. phrastus and Galen; using the quirks and sophisms of infidel writers to palliate their heresy, and cor- rupt the simplicity of the Christian faith. Now, in all these cases, the reading of heathen authors for such unworthy ends was very disallowable, because it was always done with a manifest neglect and con- tempt 'of the Holy Scriptures, and therefore upon such grounds deservedly forbidden by the canons of the church. But then, on the other hand, there were some cases, in which it was very allowable to read Gentile authors, and the church’s prohibition did not extend to these. For sometimes it was ne- cessary to read them, in order to confute and expose their errors, that others might not be infected there- by. Thus St. Jerom observes of Daniel,21 that he was taught in the knowledge of the Chaldeans; and Moses, in all the wisdom of the Egyptians: which it was no sin to learn, so long as they did not learn it to follow it, but to censure and refute it. St. Am- brose22 says, he read some books that others might not read them ; he read them to know their errors, and caution others against them. This was one reason why sometimes heathen writers might be read by men of learning, in order to set a mark upon them. Another reason was, that many of them were useful and subservient to the cause of religion, either for confirming the truth of the Scriptures, and the doctrines of Christianity, or for exposing and refuting the errors and vanities of the heathen themselves. Thus St. Jerom observes,” that both the Greek and Latin historians, such as Diodorus Siculus, Polybius, Trogus Pompeius, and Livy, are of great use as well to explain as confirm the truth of Daniel’s prophecies. And St. Austin” says the same of the writings of Orpheus and the Sibyls, and Hermes, and other heathen philosophers, that as they said many things that were true, both con- cerning God and the Son of God, they were in that respect very serviceable in refuting the vanities of the Gentiles. Upon which account not only St. Austin and St. Jerom, but most of the ancient writers of the church, were usually well versed in the learning of the Gentiles, as every one knows that knows any thing of them. St. J erom in one short epistle25 mentions the greatest part of those that lived before his own time, both Greeks and Latins, and says of them all in general, that their books are so filled with the sentences and opinions of philosophers, that it is hard to say which is most to be admired, their secular learning, or their know- ledge in the Scriptures. And herein is comprised the plain state of this matter: the clergy were obliged in the first place to be very diligent in stu- dying the Scriptures, and after them the canons, and approved writers of the church, according to men’s abilities, capacities, and opportunities: for the same measures could not be exacted of all. Beyond this, as there was no obligation on them to read human learning, so there was no absolute prohibition of it; but where it could be made to minister as a hand- maid to divinity, and not usurp or encroach upon it, there it was not only allowed, but commended and encouraged; and it must be owned, that though the abuse of secular learning does sometimes great harm, yet the study of it rightly applied did very great service to religion in the primitive ages of the church. From their private studies pass we on next to view them in their more pub- degfngggiti'glisérylgirrid lic capacities, as the people’s orators gages addresses to to God, and God’s ambassadors to the people: in regard to which offices and character, I have showed before26 they were esteemed a sort of mediators in a qualified sense between God and men. In all their addresses to God as the people’s orators, their great care was to offer all their sacri- fices and oblations of prayer and thanksgiving in such a rational, decent, and becoming way, as best suited the nature of the action; that is, with all that gravity and seriousness, that humility and re- verence, that application of mind and intenseness and fervency of devotion, as both became the great- ness of that Majesty to whom they addressed, and was proper for raising suitable affections in the people. This is the true meaning of that famous controverted passage in Justin Martyr’s Second Apology, where describing the service of the church, and the manner of celebrating the eucharist, he says, The bishop sent up prayers and praises, 6m) dzivaprg,” with the utmost of his abilities to God. Some mis- construe this passage, and interpret the abilities of the minister officiating so as if they meant no more but his invention, expression, or the like ; making it by such a gloss to become an argument 2‘ Hieron. Com. in Dan. 0. l. Nunquam acquiescerent discere quod non licebat. Discunt autem non ut sequantur, sed ut judicent atque conviucant. 22 Ambros. Prooem. in Luc. Evang. Legimus aliqua, ne legantur; legimus, ne ignoremus; legimus, non ut teneamus, sed ut repudiemus. 23 Hieron. Prolog. in Daniel. Ad intelligendas extremas partes Danielis, multiplex Grazeorum historia necessaria est, &c. Et si quando cogimur literarum saecularium re- cordari, et aliqua ex his discere quee olim omisimus; non nostrae est voluntatis, sed ut ita dicam, gravissimae necessi- tatis: ut probemus ea quae a sanctis prophetis ante multa. saecula praedicta sunt, tam Graecorum quam Latinorum et aliarum Gentium literis contineri. 2‘ Aug. cont. Faust. lib. 13. c. 15. Sibyllae et Orpheus, et nescio quis Hermes, et si qui alii Vates, vel theologi, vel sapientes, vel philosophi Gentium, de Filio Dei, aut de Patre Deo vera praedixisse seu dixisse perhibentur; valet quidem aliquid ad paganorum vanitatem revincendam. % Hieron. Ep. 84. ad Magnum. In tantum philosophornm doctrinis atque sententiis suos referciunt libros, ut nescias quid in illis primum admirari debeas, eruditionem sacculi, an scientiam Scripturarum. 2“ Book 11. chap. l9. sect. l6. 2’ Justin. Apol. 2. p. 98. ' P 2 212 CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Boox V1. ANTIQUITIES OF THE against the antiquity of public liturgies, or set forms of prayer; whereas, indeed, it signifies here a quite different thing, viz. that spiritual vigour, or intense— ness and ardency of devotion, with which the min- ister offered up the sacrifices of the church to God; being such qualifications as are necessary to make our prayers and praises acceptable unto Him, who requires them to be presented with all our soul and might; which may be done in set forms, as Well as any other way: and so Gregory Nazianzen and Justin Martyr himself use the phrase, 81m dr'wapzg, where they speak of set forms of praising and serving God; of which more hereafter in its proper place. St. Chrysostom is very earnest23 in recom- mending this same duty to the priests of God, un- der the name of arrows?) and ea’rkdfiua, care and re- verence. With what exact care, says he, ought he to behave himself, who goes in the name of a whole city, nay, in the name of the whole world, as their orator and ambassador to intercede with God for the sins of all! But especially when he invocates the Holy Ghost, and offers up fljv ¢pucwdeqdnlv Svm'av, the tremendous sacrifice of the altar: with what purity, with what reverence and piety should his tongue utter forth those words ! whilst the an- gels stand by him, and the whole order of the hea- venly powers cries aloud, and fills the sanctuary in honour of Him, who is represented as dead and lying upon the altar. Thus that holy father argues with a warmth and zeal suitable to the subject, and such as is proper to raise our devotion, and kindle our affections into a holy flame, whenever we pre- sent the supplications of the church on earth to the sacred Majesty of heaven. And this ardency of devotion was mgpeizggkghgctg continually to be cherished and pre- 3: glirggcgergice of served. To which purpose the church had her daily sacrifices, wherever it was possible to have them; and on these every clergyman was indispensably obliged to attend; and that under pain of suspension and deprivation, whether it was his duty to ofliciate or not. For so the first council of Toledo determined for the Spanish churches, that if any presbyter, or deacon, or other clerk, should be in any city or country where there was a church, and did not come to church to the daily sacrifice or service,29 he should no longer be reputed one of the sacred function. The council of Agde orders such to be reduced to the communion of strangers,30 which at least implies suspension from their ofiice. And the law of J us- tinian punishes them with degradation,all because of the scandal they giveto the laity by such neg- lects or contempts of Divine service. So careful were the ancient lawgivers of the church to cut off all indecencies and abuses of this nature, and make the clergy provoking examples of piety to the people. Next to their ofiice in addressing M 7 God as the people’s orators, we are Rigesabogitcrigteiggu- to view them as God’s ambassadors, g addressing themselves in his name to the people. Which they did by public preaching and private application ; in both which their great care was to perform the duty of watchmen over God’s flock, and of good stewards over his household. In their preaching their only aim was to be, the edifi- cation of the people. To which purpose the great masters of rules in this kind, Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostom, and St. J erom, lay down these few di- rections. First, That the preacher be careful to make choice of a useful subject. Gregory Nazian- zen32 specifies the rule in some particular instances, such as the doctrine of the world’s creation, and the soul of man; the doctrine of providence, and the restoration of man; the two covenants; the first and second coming of Christ, his incarnation, suf- ferings, and death; the resurrection, and end of the world, and future judgment, and different rewards of heaven and hell; together with the doctrine of the blessed Trinity, which is the principal article of the Christian faith. Such subjects as these are proper for edification, to build up men in faith and holiness, and the practice of all piety and virtue. But then, secondly, They must be treated on in a suitable way; not with too much art or loftiness of style, but with great condescension to men’s ca- pacities, who must be fed with the word as they are able to bear it. This is what Gregory Nazian- zen so much commends in Athanasius,83 when he says, he condescended and stooped himself to the mean capacities, whilst to the acute his notions and words were more sublime. St. J erom also observes“ upon this head, that a preacher’s discourse should always be plain, intelligible, and affecting; and rather adapted to excite men’s groans and tears by a sense of their sins, than their admiration and applause, by speaking to them what neither they, nor he himself perhaps, do truly understand. 28 Chrys. de Sacerd. lib. 6. c. 4. 29 Conc.Tolet. 1. c. 5. Presbyter, diaconus, &c. qui intra civitatern fuerit, vel in loco in quo ecclesia est, si in eccle- siam ad sacrificium quotidianum non venerit, clericus non habeatur. 8° Conc. Agathens. c. 2. Clericis qui ecclesiam frequen- tal‘e, vel oi’ficium suum implere neglexerint, peregrina com- munio tribuatur. 3' Cod. Just. lib. l. Tit. 3. dc Episc. Leg. 42. n. 10. 32 Naz. Orat. 1. de Fuga, t. 1. p. 15. 33 Naz. Orat. 21. de Laud. Athau. t. l. p. 396. 3‘ Hierou. Ep. 2. ad Nepotian. Docente te in ecclesia, non clamor populi, sed gemitus suscitetur; lachrymaa audi- torurn laudes tuae sint.—Celeritate dicendi apud imperitum vulgus admirationem sui facere indoctorum hominum est. Attrita frons interpretatur sazpe quod nescit; et cum aliis persuaserit, sibi quoque usurpat scientiam. CHAP. III. 213 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. For it is ignorant and unlearned men chiefly, that af- fect to be admired for their speaking above the capa- cities of the vulgar. A bold forehead often inter- prets what he himself does not understand; and yet he has no sooner persuaded others to they know not what, but he assumes to himself the title of learn- ing upon it : when yet there is nothing so easy as to deceive the ignorant multitude, who are always most prone to admire what they do not understand. Upon this account St. Chrysostom spends almost a whole book in cautioning the Christian orator against this failing; that he should not be intent on popular applause, but with a generous mind raise himself above it f5 seeking chiefly to advantage his hearers, and not barely to delight and please them. To this purpose, he concludes, it would be neces- sary for him to despise both the applauses and censures of men, and all other things that might tempt him rather to flatter his hearers, than edify them. In a word, his chief end,36 in all his com- posures, should be to please God: and then if he also gained the praise of men, he might receive it; if not, he needed not to court it, nor torment him- self that it was denied him. For it would be con- solation enough for all his labours, that in adapting his doctrine and eloquence he had always sought to please his God. Thirdly, A third rule given in this case was, that men should apply their doctrine and spiritual medicines according to the emergent and most urgent necessities of their hearers. Which was the most proper duty of a watchman, to per- ceive with a quick eye where the greatest danger lay; which was men’s weakest and most unguarded side; and then apply suitable remedies to their maladies and distempers. St. Chrysostom, in speak- .ng of this part of a minister’s duty, says, he should be vnqsdlkwg Kai diopa-rucbg, watchful and perspicaci- ous,37 and have a thousand eyes about him, as living not for himself alone, but for a multitude of people. To live retired in a cell is the business of a monk; but the duty of a watchman is to converse among men of all degrees and callings; to take care of the body of Christ, the church, and have regard both to its health and beauty; curiously observing, lest any spot or wrinkle or other defilement should sully the grace and comeliness of it. Now, this obliged spiritual physicians to apply their medicines, that is, their doctrines, as the maladies of their patients chiefly required; to be most earnest and frequent in encountering those errors and vices which were most reigning, or which men were most in danger of being infected by. And this is the reason why, in the homilies of the ancients, we so often meet with discourses against such heresies, as the world now knows nothing of; such as those of the Mar- cionites, and Manichees, and many others, which it would be absurd to combat now in popular dis- courses; but then it was necessary to be done, be- cause they were the prevailing heresies of the age, and men were in danger of being subverted by them. And it is further observable, that the most formidable heresies, and prevailing factions, such as that of the Arians, when armed with secular power, could never either force or court the catholic preachers into silence, to let the wolves devour the sheep by such a tame and base compliance. In this case no worldly motives could prevail with them, when they saw the danger, not to give warn- ing of it. They thought they could not otherwise answer the character of watchmen, and stewards of the mysteries of God, since it was required in stewards that a man be found faithful. But their fidelity was not only ex- Sect 8 pressed in their public discourses, but 22g Zigiigimélxixlcié also in their private addresses and ap- $1 qgggcgggg-sfses plications to men, who had either cut themselves off from the body of Christ by heresies and schisms, or by their sins made themselves un- sound members of the body, whilst they seemed to continue of it. With what fidelity, and meekness, and diligence they addressed themselves to the for- mer sort, we may learn from the good effects which their applications often had upon them. Theodoret38 tells us of himself, in one place, that he had con- verted a thousand souls from the heresy of the Marcionites, and many others from the heresies of Arius and Eunomius, in his own diocese. And in another place89 he augments the number of con- verted Marcionites to ten thousand, whom, with in- defatigable industry, in a diocese of forty miles in length and breadth, containing eight hundred churches in it, he had reduced from their strayings to the unity of the catholic church. What wonders also St. Austin wrought in Africa upon the Donat- ists and others in the same way, by private letters and conferences and collations with them, the reader may learn from Possidius,"0 the author of his Life, who frequently mentions his labours in this kind, and the great advantage that'accrued to the church by this means. For he lived to see the greatest part of the Manichees, Donatists, Pelagians, and pagans, converted to the catholic church. They were no less careful to apply themselves in private to persons within the church, as occasion required. And here great art and prudence, as well as fidelity and diligence, was necessary to give success to their endeavours. For mankind, as Nazianzen‘I observes, is so various and uncertain a sort of creature, that it requires the greatest art and skill to manage him. For the tempers of men’s minds differ more than a Chrys. db Sacerd. lib. 5. c. 1. 36 Ibid. c. 7. v Chrys. ibid. lib. a c. 12. lib. 4. C. 2 a a 88 Theod. Ep. 113. ad Leon. 39 Id. Ep. 145. p. 1026. 4° Possid. Vit. Aug. c. 9, 13, 18. 4' Naz. Orat. 1. de Fuga, p. 14 214 BooK VI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. O the features and lineaments of their bodies : and as all meats and medicines are not proper for all bodies, so neither is the same treatment and discipline pro- per for all souls. Some are best moved by words, others by examples; some are of a dull and heavy temper, and so have need of the spur to extimulate them; others, that are brisk and fiery, have more need of the curb to restrain them. Praise works best upon some, and vreproof upon others, provided each of them be ministered in a suitable and seasonable way; otherwise they do more harm than good. Some men are drawn by gentle exhortations to their duty; others by rebukes and hard words must be driven to it. And even in the business of reproof, some are affected most with open rebuke, others with private. For some men never regard a secret reproof, who yet are easily corrected if chastised in public. Others, again, cannot hear a public disgrace, but grow either morose, or impudent and implacable upon it; who perhaps would have hearkened to a secret admonition, and repaid their monitor with their conversion, as presuming him to have accosted them out of mere pity and love. Some men are to be so nicely watched and observed, that not the least of their faults are to be dissembled; because they seek to hide their sins from men, and arrogate to themselves thereupon the praise of being politic and crafty: in others it is better to wink at some faults, so that seeing we will not see, and hearing we will not hear, lest by too frequent chiding we bring them to despair, and so make them cast off modesty, and grow holder in their sins. To some men we must put on an angry countenance, and seem to contemn them, and despair of them as lost and deplorable wretches, when their nature so re- quires it: others, again, must be treated with meek- ness and humility, and be recovered to a better hope by more promising and encouraging prospects. Some men must be always conquered, and never yielded to, whilst to others it will be better some- times to concede a little. For all men’s distempers are not to be cured the same way, but proper medi- cines are to be applied, as the matter itself, or occa- sion, or the temper of the patient, will admit of. And this is the most difficult part of the pastoral oflice, to know how to distinguish these things nicely with an exact judgment, and with as exact a hand to minister suitable remedies to every dis- temper. It is a masterpiece of art, which is not to be perfectly attained but by good observation, joined with experience and practice. What our author thus here at large discourses by way of rule and theory, he in another place sums up more briefly in the example of the great Athanasius, whose pattern he proposes to men’s imitation, as a living image of this admirable prudence and dexterity in dealing with men according to this great variety of tem- pers; telling us,42 that his design was always one and the same, but his methods various; praising some, moderately correcting others; using the spur to some dull tempers, and the reins to others of a more hot and zealous spirit; in his conversation master of the greatest simplicity, but in his govern- ment master of the greatest artifice and variety of skill; wise in his discourses, but much wiser in his understanding, to adapt himself according to the different capacities and tempers of men. Now, the design of all this was not to give any latitude or licence to sin, but by all prudent and honest arts to discourage and destroy it. It was not to teach the clergy the base and servile arts of flattery and com- pliance; to become time-servers and men-pleasers, and soothe the powerful or the rich in their errors and vices; but only to instruct them in the different methods of opposing sin, and how, by joining pru- _ dence to their zeal, they might make their own au- thority most venerable, and most effectually promote the true ends of religion. St. Chrysostom puts in this caution, in describing this part of a bishop’s character : He ought to be wise, as well as holy; a man of great experience, and one that understands the world: and because his business is with all sorts of men, he should be 7roucil\og, one that can appear with different aspects, and act with great variety of skill. But when I say this, I do not mean, says he,“8 that he should be a man of craft, or servile flattery, or a dissembling hypocrite; but a man of great free- dom and boldness, who knows notwithstanding how to condescend and stoop himself for men’s advan- tage, when occasion requires, and can be as well mild as austere: for all men are not to be treated in the same way: no physician uses the same method with all his patients. The true mean and decorum, he thinks, which a bishop should observe in his converse and applications to men, is to keep between too much stiffness and abjectness. He must be grave without pride ;“ awful, but courteous; ma- jestic, as a man of authority and power, yet affable and communicative to all: of an integrity that can- not be corrupted, yet ofiicious and ready to serve every man; humble, but not servile; sharp and re- solute, but yet gentle and mild. By such prudence he will maintain his authority, and carry any point with men, whilst he studies to do every thing with- out hatred or favour, only for the benefit and edi- fication of the church. We must reduce to this head of prudence in making proper address arid ap- plication to offenders, that direction given by St. Paul, and repeated in several ancient canons, that a bishop be no smiter, pfi wltfiicmv, which the twenty- 4'3 Naz. Orat. 21. de Laud. Athan. p. 396. ‘3 Chrys. de Sacerd. lib. 6. 0.4. IIoudAov aim-(iv alum 6&7, Q woucihov 6t Xéym, éx iivreltov, é mihouca, ex v'rroxpt'rr‘jv, &c. 4" Chrys. de Sacerd. lib. 3. c. 16. CHAP. III. 215 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. seventh of those called the Apostolical Canons thus paraphrases: If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon smite either an offending Christian, or an injurious heathen, we order him to be deposed. For our Lord did not teach us this discipline, but the con- trary; for he was smitten, but did not smite any; when he was reviled, he reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not. Justinian forbids“ the same in one of his Novels, as a thing unbe- coming the priests of God, to smite any man with their own hands. The word wkfiqauv signifies also smiting with the tongue, by reproachful, bitter, and c‘ontumelious language, as St. Chrysostom, St. J e- rom, and others understand it. In which sense also it was forbidden, as a thing indecent, and unbecom- ing the gravity and prudence of the Christian clergy. sect, St. Chrysostom enlarges upon se- caffgogrdgrcecggi veral other parts of prudence, which Egfiggg'vgggffgsih'i I need not here insist upon, because church’ they have either already been men- tioned, or will hereafter be considered in other places; such as prudence“6 in opposing heresies; prudence‘7 in managing the virgins and widows, and the revenues of the church; prudence“8 in hearing and determining secular causes; and pru- dence ‘9 in the exercise of discipline and church cen- sures, which last will be spoken to under another head. I shall here therefore only add one instance more of their prudence in allaying unnecessary dis- putes, which rose among catholics and men of the same opinion in the church. Which indeed was rather a complication of many noble virtues, pru- dence, candour, ingenuity, moderation, peaceable- ness, and charity, joined together, which, like a con- stellation of the brightest qualities, always shined with the greatest lustre. This is what Gregory Nazianzen chiefly admired in the conduct of Atha- nasius, and therefore he gives it the highest com- mendation, and preference before all his other vir- tues, as thinking there was no one thing whereby he did greater service to the church of God. It happened in the time of Athanasius, that the catho- lics were like ‘to be divided about mere words; a warm dispute arising about what names the three Divine Persons were to be called by: some were for calling them only rpia 1rpcio'w1ra, three persons, to avoid Arianism; others called them 'rpel'g bn'oardo'stg’ three hypostases, to avoid Sabellianism. Now they all meant the same thing, but not understand- ing each other’s terms, they mutually charged one another with the heresies of Arius and Sabellius. The one party, in the heat of disputation, could un- derstand nothing by three. hypostases but three substances or essences, in the Arian sense; for they made no distinction between hypostasis and es- sence, and therefore charged their opposites with Arianism. The other party were afraid that rpia wpéo-wn-a signified no more than nominal persons, in the sense of Sabellius, (who himself had used those very terms in an equivocal sense to impose upon the vulgar,) and therefore they inveighed against their adversaries as designing to promote Sabellian- ism. And so, says Nazianzen,“ this little difference in words making a noise as if there had been differ- ence in opinion, the love of quarrelling and con- tention fomenting the dispute, the ends of the earth were in danger of being divided by a few syllables. Which, when Athanasius, the true man of God, and great guide of souls, both saw and heard, he could not endure to think of so absurd and unreasonable a division among the professors of the same faith, but immediately applied a remedy to the distemper. And how did he make his application? Having con- vened both parties with all meekness and humility, and accurately weighed the intention and meaning of the words on both sides, after he found them agreeing in the things themselves, and not in the least differing in point of doctrine, he ended their dispute, allowing the use of both names, and tying them to unity of opinion. This, says our author, was a more advantageous act of charity to the church, than all his other daily labours and dis- courses : it was more honourable than all his watch- ings and humicubations, and not inferior to his ap- plauded flights and exiles. And therefore he tells his readers in ushering in the discourse, that he could not omit the relation without injuring them, espe- cially at a time when contentious and divisions were in the church; for this action of his would be an instruction to them that were then alive, and of great advantage if they would propound it to their own imitation; since men were prone to di- vide not only from the impious, but from the ortho- dox and pious, and that not only about little and contemptible opinions, (which ought to make no difl'erence,) but about words that tended to one and the same sense. The caution is of use in all ages, and had it always been strictly observed it would have prevented many wild disputes and fierce con- tentions about words in the Christian church. But now we are to observe, on the Sec,’ ,0, other hand, that as they were emi- Cofifaggeigzgi‘fgt‘l nent for their candour and prudence mg we truth‘ in composing unnecessary and verbal disputes; so where the cause was weighty, and any material point of religion concerned, they were no less famous for their zeal and courage in standing up in the defence of truth against all opposers. It was neither the artifice and subtlety, nor the power and malice of their enemies could make them yield, "5 Just. Novel. 123. c. 11. Sed neque propriis manibus liceat episcopo quenquam percutere: hoc enim alienum est a sacerclotibus. ‘6 Chrys. de Sacerd. lib. 4. c. 4. 4’ Ibid. lib. 3. c. 16. 48 Ibid. lib. 3. c. 18. 4” Ibid. lib. 3. c. 18. 5“ Naz. Orat. 21. de Laud Athan. t. l p. 396. 216 Boox VI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. where they thought the faith was in danger to be destroyed. In other cases, says Nazianzen,51 there is nothing so peaceable, so moderate as Christian bishops; but in this case they cannot hear the name of moderation, to betray their God by silence and sitting still; but here they are exceeding eager Warriors, and fighting champions that are not to be overcome. He does not mean that the weapons of their warfare were carnal, that they used any pious frauds, or plotted treasons, or rebellions, or took up arms in defence of religion; but that with an un- daunted courage and brave resolution they stood up firm in defence of truth, and mattered not what names they were called by, (contentious, unpeace- able, immoderate, factions, turbulent, incendiaries, or any thing of the like nature,) nor yet what they suffered in any kind, whilst they contended for that faith which was once delivered to the saints. Church history abounds with instances of this na- ture; but it will be suflicient to exemplify the prac- tice of this virtue in a single instance, which Gre- gory Nazianzen52 gives us in the Life of St. Basil, where he relates a famous dialogue that passed be- tween Modestus, the Arian governor under Valens, and that holy man. Modestus tried all arts to bring him over to the party, but finding all in vain, he at last threatened him with severity. What, said he, dost thou not fear this power which I am armed with? Why should I fear? said Basil; what canst thou do, or what can I suffer? What canst thou suffer? said the other; many things that are in my power: confiscation of thy goods, banishment, tor- ment, and death. But thou must threaten me with something else, said Basil, if thou canst, for none of these things can touch me. As for confiscation of goods, I am not liable to it; for I have nothing to lose, unless thou wantest these tattered and thread- bare garments, and a few books, which is all the estate I am possessed of. ‘For banishment, I know not what it means, for I am tied to no place; I shall esteem every country as much my own, as that where I now dwell; for the whole earth is the Lord’s, and I am only a pilgrim and a stranger in it. As for torments, what can they do to him, who has not a body that can hold out beyond the first stroke? And for death, it will be a kindness to me, for it will but so much the sooner send me unto God, to whom I live and do the duty of my station; being in a great measure already dead, and now of a long time hastening unto him. The governor was strangely surprised at this discourse, and said, No man ever talked at this free and bold rate to Modestus before. Perhaps, said Basil, thou didst never meet with a bishop before : for if thou hadst, he would have talked just as I do, when he was put to contend about such matters as these. In other things we are mild and yielding, and the humblest men on earth, as our laws oblige us to be; we are so far from showing ourselves supercilious or haughty to magistrates in power, that we do not do it to per- sons of the meanest rank and condition. But when the cause of God is concerned, or in danger, then indeed we esteem all other things as nothing, and fix our eyes only upon him. Then fire and sword, wild beasts and instruments of torture to tear off our flesh, are so far from being a terror, that they are rather a pleasure and recreation to us. There- fore reproach and threaten us, do your pleasure, use your power to the utmost, and let the emperor know all this: yet you shall never conquer us, or bring us to assent to your impious doctrine, though you threaten us ten thousand times more than all this. The governor hearing this, and finding him to be a man of invincible and inflexible courage, dismissed him now not with threatenings, but with a sort of reverence and submission, and went and told the emperor, that the bishop of that church was too hard for them all; for his courage was so great, his resolution so firm, that neither promises nor threatenings could move him from his purpose. Nor was it only open violence they thus bravely resisted, but also the more crafty attempts of the enemies of truth, who many times went artificially to work against it ; partly by blackening the cha- racters of its champions and defenders, and repre- senting them as base and intolerable men; and partly by smoothing their own character, and pre- tending unity in faith with the orthodox, and that their designs were only designs of peace, to remove unscriptural words and novel terms out of the way, that all men might be of the same opinion. These were the two grand artifices of the Arian party, whereby the leading and politic men among them, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Valens, Ursacius, and others, always laboured to overthrow the truth. Upon this account Athanasius was forced to un- dergo a thousand calumnies and slanderous re- proaches. He was accused to Constantine, as one that assumed to himself imperial authority to impose a tax upon Egypt: as one guilty of murder, in cutting off the hand of Arsenius, a Meletian bishop; as guilty of treason, in siding with Philumenus the rebel, and furnishing him with money; as an enemy to the public, for attempting to hinder the transport- ation of corn from Egypt to Constantinople: which accusation so far prevailed upon the emperor, that he banished him to Triers upon it. In the next reign he was accused again of repeated murders; and of sacrilege, in diverting Constantine’s 1iberality to the widows of Egypt and Libya, to other uses; 5‘ ‘Naz. Orat. 21. de Laud. Athau. p. 388. Oi xrr‘v 'rdAAa (Bo-w sip'nvucoi 'rs Kai. jué'rptor, Proii'ro ya 01’) qbe'povo'w ’ u \ 1 r- C . z'n'teucus &IIICZL, Beau 1400315011111. 5w‘: 'rns no'vxias &Ahc‘c Kai Afar! sic-iv év'raiifla 'rrokauucoi 1's Kai dfio'paxot. 52 N az. Orat. 20. de Laud. Basil. p. 349. CHAP. III. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 217 ANTIQUITIES OF THE of treason, in joining interest with Magnentius the tyrant; and many other such charges were spite- fully and diabolically levelled against him. St. Basil was likewise variously accused both by pro- fessed enemies and pretended friends; who, as is usual in such cases, brought charges against him directly contrary to one another. Some accused him of Tritheism, for defending the doctrine of three by- postases against the Sabellians ; others, of Semi- arianism, or heterodoxy in the article about the Di- vinity of the Holy Ghost, because in his church he sometimes used a different form of doxology from what was used in other churches. Some, again, ac- cused him of Arianism, because he had received Eustathius of Sebastia into communion upon his professing the catholic faith; others said he com- municated with Apollinaris the heretic, because upon some occasions he wrote letters to him. Thus were two of the greatest and best of men maliciously traduced and wounded in their reputation; both in- deed for the same cause, but with this difference, that the one was prosecuted by open enemies with- out the church, the other chiefly by secret enemies within; of whom therefore he had reason to take up the prophet’s complaint, and say, “These are the wounds with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.” And these were such temptations as might have unsettled any weak and wavering minds, and made them turn their backs upon religion: but true zeal is above temptation, and can equally de- spise the wounds of the sword and the wounds of the tongue; having always the consolation, which Christ gives in his gospel, ready at hand to support it; “ Blessed are ye when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake: rejoice, and be ex- ceeding glad; for great is your reward in heaven.” Such examples show us, that innocence itself cannot always exempt men from calumny, but sometimes is accidentally the occasion of it: but then it has this advantage, that being joined with a suitable zeal, it never sinks under the weight and pressure of its burden, but always comes off conqueror at the last, as we see in the instances now before us. The other artifice, which I said the Arians used to destroy the faith, was the specious pretence of peace and unity. The politic and crafty men among them in the time of Constantius, pretended that they had no quarrel with the catholic doctrine of the Trinity itself, but only were aggrieved at the novel and unscriptural words, such as the 6;;omiawv, con- substantial, &c., which the council of Nice had used , of base and evil men. to express it by: these, they said, were dividing terms, and the cause of all the quarreland combus- tion: and therefore they still urged the removing these terms, as the great stumblingblock, out of the way, that the peace and unity of the church might follow upon it. But Athanasius and other wise catholics easily perceived whither this sly stratagem tended; being very sensible that their design was not against the bare terms, but the faith itself, and therefore they always stoutly and zealously opposed it. Nor could the Arians ever gain this point upon the catholics, till at last in the council of Ariminum, anno 359, by great importunity, and clamours for unity and peace, they were prevailed upon to sink the word consubstantial, and draw up a new creed without it, yet, as they thought, containing the very same doctrine, and in as full terms as could be ex- pressed, save that the word consubstantial was not in it. But here it must be owned, these catholic bishops were wanting in their zeal, as they them- selves were quickly after convinced. For no sooner was this concession made, but the Arians immedi- ately gave out and boasted over all the world, that the Nicene faith was condemned, and Arianism established in a general council, though nothing was less intended by the catholic bishops that were pre- sent at it. But now they were sensible they had made a false step, by suffering themselves thus to be imposed upon by designing men: they now saw that they ought to have stuck to the Nicene terms, as well as the faith, since the faith itself so much de- pended on them. They now began to complain of the fraud, and asked pardon of their brethren for their want of foresight and caution in a case so tender and material. St. J erom, who gives us this account of the whole transaction, from the acts of the synod and other records extant in his time, brings them in making this apology for themselves: The bishops, says he,53 who had been imposed upon by fraud at Ariminum, and who were reputed here- tics without being conscious to themselves of any heresy, went about every where protesting by the body of Christ, and all that is sacred in the church, that they suspected no evil in their creed : they thought the sense had agreed with the words, and that men had not meant one thing in their hearts, and uttered another thing with their lips. They were deceived by entertaining too good an opinion They did not suppose the priests of Christ could so treacherously have fought against Christ. In short, they lamented their mis- take now with tears, and offered to condemn as well 53 Hieron. Dial. cont. Lucif. t. 2. p. 143. Concurrebant episcopi, qui Ariminensibus dolis irretiti, sine conscientia haeretici ferebantur, contestantes corpus Domini, et qui(;_ quid in ecclesia sanctum est, se nihil mali in sua fide suspi- catos. Putavimus, aiebant, sensum congruere cum verbis; nec in ecclesiis ubi simplicitas, ubi pura confessio est, aliud in corde clausum esse, aliud in labiis proferri timuimus. Decepit nos bona de malis existimatio. Non sumus arbi- trati sacerdotes Christi adversus Christum pugnare multaque alia quae brevitatis studio praetereo, flentes asserebant, pa- rati et subscriptionem pristiuam et omnes Arianorum blas- phemias condemnare. 218 ' BOOK VI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. their own subscription, as all the Arian blasphemies. Any one that reads St. J erom carefully, will easily perceive, that these bishops were no Arians, nor ever intended to subscribe an Arian creed; but their fault was want of zeal in parting with the Ni- cene creed, to take another instead of it without the word consubstantial; which though they subscribed in the simplicity of their hearts as an orthodox creed, (and indeed the words, as J erom describes them, in their plain sense are sound and orthodox, as St. J erom says in their excuse,) yet the Arians put an equivocal and poisonous sense upon them; giving out after the council was ended, that they had not only abolished the word consubstantial, but with it condemned the Nicene faith also. Which was strange, surprising news to the bishops that had been at Ariminum. Then, says St. Jerom, Ingemuz't totus orbz's, et Arianum se esse mirat-us est, The whole world groaned, and was amazed to think she should be reputed Arian. That is, the catholic bishops of the whole world (for there were three hundred of them present at that council) were amazed to find themselves so abused, and repre- sented as Arians, when they never intended in the least to confirm the Arian doctrine. But now by this the reader will be able to judge, what kind of zeal the catholic church required then in her clergy, viz. that they should not only contend for the faith itself, but also for those catholic forms and ways of expressing it, which had been prudently composed and settled in general councils, as a bar- rier against heretics; the giving up of which to sub— tle and dangerous adversaries, would always give them advantage to make fiercer attacks upon the faith itself, and prove destructive to the catholic cause ; as those bishops found by woeful experience, who were concerned in the concession made at Ari- minum. It is candour indeed, when good catholics are divided only about words, to bring them to a right understanding of one another, which will set them at peace and unity again: but it is tameness to give up the main bulwarks of the faith to fallacious ad- versaries and designing men, whose arts and aims, however disguised, are always known to strike at the foundation of religion. And therefore, though no man was ever more candid than Athanasius to- ward mistaken catholics, yet neither was any more zealous in opposing the arts and stratagems of the Arian party; always sticking close to the defini- tion of the Nicene council, and never yielding that any tittle or syllable of that creed should be erased or altered. Sect. H. Whilst I am upon this head, I can- not but take notice of‘ the obligations _or their obli a. . . tronstomamtaint e the clergy lay under to maintain the Zgfitgfghtglceecrhsulztéhoé unity of the church, both in faith igfyhoissgilismfo he and discipline, and what penalties were inflicted on such as made a breach therein, whether by falling into heresy or schism themselves, or giving encouragement to them in others. I shall not need to state the nature of church unity and communion in this place any further, than by say- ing, that to maintain the purity of the catholic faith, and live under the discipline and government of a catholic bishop, who himself lived in communion with the catholic church, were then, as it were, the two characteristic notes of any man’s being in the communion of the church: and therefore, as every member was obliged to maintain the unity of the church in both these parts; so much more the clergy, who were to be the chief guardians of it: and if they failed in either kind, that is, if they lapsed either into heresy or schism, by the laws of the church they were to be deposed from their ofiice; and though they repented and returned to the unity of the church again, yet they were not to act in their former station, but to be admitted to communicate only in the quality of laymen. This was the rule of the African church in the time of Cyprian, as appears from the synodical epistle“ of the council of Carthage, to which his name is pre- fixed. For, writing to Pope Stephen, they tell him, their custom was to treat such of the clergy as were ordained in the catholic church, and afterward stood up perfidiously and rebelliously against the church, in the same manner as they did those that were first ordained by heretics; that is, they admitted them to the peace of the church, and allowed them the communion of laymen, but did not permit them to‘ ofliciate again in any order of the clergy. And this, he says, they did to put a mark of distinction between those that always stood true to the church, and those that deserted it. Yet if any considerable advantage accrued to the church by the return of such a heretic or schismatic; as if he brought over any considerable part of the deluded people with him, or if he was generally chosen by the church, or the like; in such cases the rule was so far dispensed with, that the deserter might be ad- mitted to his pristine dignity, and be allowed to . officiate in his own order again. Upon this account, Cornelius, bishop of Rome, received Maximus the presbyter to his former honour upon his return from the Novatian schism.“ And in after ages both the 5‘ Cypr. Ep. 62. p. 197. Si qui presbyteri aut diaconi qui vel in ecclesia catholica prius ordinati fuerint, et postmodum perfidi ac‘rebelles contra ecclesiam steterint, vel apud haere- ticos a pseudo-episcopis et antichristis contra Christi (lis- positionem profana ordinatione promoti sunt—eos quoque hac conditione suscipi cum revertuntur, ut communicent laici, et satis habeant quod admittuntur ad pacem, qui hostes pacis extiterint, &c. 55 Cornel. Ep. 46. al. 49. ad Cypr. p. 93. Maximum pres- byterum locum suum agnoscere jussimus. See other instances in Socrates, lib. 7. c. 3. CHAP. IV. 219 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Novatians and Meletians were particularly favour- ed with this privilege by the council of Nice, and the Donatists by the African fathers in the time of St. Austin, as I had occasion to note more than once before.56 But if they continued obstinate in their heresy or schism, then many times an ana- thema was pronounced against them, as in the second council of Carthage. If a presbyter, says the canon,57 that is reproved or excommunicated by his bishop, being puffed up with pride, shall pre- sume to offer the oblation in a separate assembly, or set up another altar against him, let him be anathema. The council of Antioch,58 and those called the Apostolical Canons,59 have several decrees of the like nature. Yea, so careful were the clergy to be of the unity of the church, that they were not to give any encouragement to heretics or schismatics, or excommunicated persons, by communicating with them in prayer or other holy offices of the church, or so much as frequenting their society, feasting with them, or the like. But I do not enlarge upon these things here, because, being matters of disci- pline, they will come again to be considered under that head in another place. i I have now gone through some of the chief ge- neral duties, which more immediately concerned the office and function of the clergy; and by mixing public rules with private directions and great ex- amples, have made such an essay towards the idea and character of a primitive clerk, as may (I hope) in some things excite both the emulation and curi- osity of many of my readers, who may be concern- ed to imitate the pattern I have been describing. If here it be not drawn so full, or so exactly to the life in all its beauties, as they could wish, they will find their account in satisfying their curiosity, by having recourse to the fountains themselves, from whence these materials were taken. For many things, that might here have been added, were pur- posely omitted, for fear of drawing out this part of the discourse to a greater length than would consist with the design and measures of the present under- taking: and I had rather be thought to have said too little, than too much, upon this head, that I might not cloy, but leave an edge upon the appetite of the inquisitive reader. 55 Book IV. chap. 7. sect. 7 and 8. 5" Conc. Carth. 2. c. 8. Si quis forte presbyter ab epis- copo suo correptus vel excommunicatus, tumore vel superbia inflatus, putaverit separatim Deo sacrificia ofi'erenda, vel aliud erigendum altare—anathema sit. 5” Conc. Antioch. c. 4 et 5. 59 Canon. Apost. c. 32. 1 Book III. chap. 1. sect. 5. 2 Harmenopul. Epit. Can. ap. Leunclav. Jus Grace. Rom. t. l. p. 11. Hapo‘: 'roi‘rs e’KKAno'mc’r-mobs Sermons, 'rd )ufiéA- have wapaurvio'ewu 7rpoo'd'yew 'rwc‘zs 76w ispovp'ycbv, &c. CHAPTER IV. AN ACCOUNT OF SOME OTHER LAws AND RULES, WHICH WERE A solar OF OUT-GUARDS AND FENCES TO THE FORMER. HAVING thus far discoursed both of Sm ,_ such laws as related to the life and 1.5; 2.855.533; 3:1 conversation of the primitive clergy, iiiiiliiiilijgsiigigliiiiii and of those that more immediately andleave' concerned the duties and offices of their function; I come now to speak of a third sort of laws, which were like the Jews’ sepz'menta Zegz's, a sort of by-laws and rules, made for the defence and guard of the two former. Among these we may reckon such laws as were made to fix the clergy to their proper business and calling; such as that which forbade any clergy- man to desert or relinquish his station, without just grounds or leave granted by his superiors. In the African church, as has been showed before,I from the time that any man was made a reader, or en- tered in any of the lower orders of the church, he was presumed to be dedicated to the service of God, so as thenceforth not to be at liberty to turn secular again at his own pleasure. And much more did this rule hold for bishops, presbyters, and deacons. Therefore Cyril of Alexandria, as he is cited by Harmenopulus,2 says in one of his canons, that it was contrary to the laws of the church for any priest to give in a libel of resignation: for if he be worthy, he ought to continue in his ministry; if he be unworthy, he should not have the privilege of resigning, but be condemned and ejected. The council of Chalcedon orders8 all such to be ana- thematized, as forsook their orders to take upon them any military oflice or secular dignity, unless they repented and returned to the employment, which for God’s sake they had first chosen. The council of Tours4 in like manner decrees, that who- ever of the clergy desert their order and office, to follow a secular life and calling again, shall be punished with excommunication. The civil law was also very severe upon such deserters. By an order of Arcadius and Honorius,5 they are condemn- ed to serve in curia all their lives, that they might never have the privilege of resuming the' clerical life again. And by a law of J ustinian’s,6 both monks and clerks so deserting, were to forfeit whatever 3 Cone. Chalced. C. 7. Tons (Yr-as eulchrjpqu 'Te'ra'ypévovs, ,wi're eqri o'q-pa'rsfau pfi're e'n'i &Eiau Koo'puci‘jv e'pxeo's'az, &c. 4Conc. Turon. c. 5. Si quis clericus, relicto officii sui ordine, laicam voluerit agere vitam, vel se militiae tradiderit, excommunieationis poena feriatur. 5 Cod. Th. lib. l6. tit. 2. de Episc. Leg. 39. Si qui pro- fessum sacrae religionis sponte dereliquerit, continue sibi eurn curia Vindicet: ut liber illi ultra ad ecclesiam recursus esse non possit. ° Cod. Justin. lib. 1. Tit. 3. de Episc. Leg. 55. Quod si 220 Boox VI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. estate they were possessed of, to the church or monastery to which they belonged. Sec, 2_ But this rule, as it was intended for 213%?“ if‘ifificfff: the benefit of the church, to keep 8 0' the clergy to their duty; so when the benefit of the church, or any other reasonable cause, required the contrary, might be dispensed with: and we find many such resignations or renuncia- tions practised, and some allowed by general coun- cils. For not to mention the case of disability by reason of old age, sickness, or other infirmity, in which it was usual for bishops to turn over their business to a coadjutor; of which I have given a full account in a former book ;7 there were two other cases, which come nearer to the matter in hand. One was, when a bishop, through the obstinacy, hatred, or disgust of any people, found himself in- capable of doing them any service, and that the burden was an intolerable oppression to him; in that case, if he desired to renounce, his resigna- tion was accepted. Thus Gregory Nazianzen re- nounced the see of Constantinople, and betook him- self to a private life, because the people grew factions, and murmured at him, as being a stranger. And this he did with the consent and approbation of the general council of Constantinople, as not only the historians, Theodoret8 and Socrates,9 but he him- self'testifies '° in many places of his writings. After the same manner, Theodoret says,n Meletius, the famous bishop of Antioch, when he was bishop of Sebastia in Armenia, was so offended with the re- bellious temper and contumacy of a perverse and froward people, that he abandoned them, and retired likewise to a private life. So Theodorus Lector tells us,12 how Martyrius, bishop of Antioch, being offend— ed at the factiousness of his people and clergy, upon the intrusion of Peter Fullo, renounced his church with these words: “ A contumacious clergy, a re- bellious people, a profane church, I bid adieu to them all, reserving to myself the dignity of priest- hood.” Another case was, when in charity a bishop resigned, or showed himself willing to resign, to cure some inveterate schism. Thus Chrysostoml3 told his people, that if they had any suspicion of him, as if he were a usurper, he was ready to quit his government when they pleased, if that was necessary to preserve the unity of the church. And so Theodoret“ tells us, that in the dispute between Flavian and Evagrius, the two bishops of Antioch, when Theodosius the emperor sent for Flavian, and ordered him to go and have his cause decided at Rome; he bravely answered, “ Great sir, if any accuse my faith as erroneous, or my life as unquali- fying me for a bishopric, I will freely let my ac- cusers be my judges, and stand to their sentence, whatever it be: but if the dispute be only about the throne, and government of the church, I shall not stay for judgment, nor contend with any that has a mind to it, but freely recede, and abdicate the throne of my own accord. And you, sir, may commit the see of Antioch to whom you please.” The emperor looked upon this as a noble and generous answer, and was so affected with it, that instead of obliging him to go to Rome, he sent him home again, and bade him go feed the church committed to his care: nor would he ever after hearken to the bishops of Rome, though they often solicited him to- expel him. There is one instance more of this nature which I cannot omit, because it is such an example of self-denial, and despising of private interest for the public good and peace and unity of the church, as deserves to be transmitted to posterity, and to be spoken of with the highest commendations. It was the proposal which Aurelius, bishop of Carthage, and St. Austin, with the rest of the African bishops, made to the Donatists at the opening of the confer- ence of Carthage; that to put an end to the schism, wherever there was a catholic and a Donatist bishop in the same city, they should both of them‘5 resign, and suffer a new one to be chosen. For why, say they, should we scruple to offer the sacrifice of such an humility to our Redeemer? Did he descend from heaven to assume our nature, and make us his members? And shall we make any doubt to de- scend from our chairs, to prevent his members be- ing torn to pieces by a cruel schism? We bishops are ordained for the people of Christ. What there- fore is most conducive to the peace of Christian people, we ought to do in reference to our episco- pacy. If we be profitable servants, why should we envy the eternal gain of our Lord for our own tem- poral honoursiJ Our episcopal dignity will be so much the more advantageous to us, if by laying it aside we gather together the flock of Christ, than if we disperse his flock by retaining it. And with what face can we hope for the honour which Christ has promised us in the world to come, if our honours in this world hinder the unity of his church? By this we see there were some cases, in which it was lawful for men to renounce even the episcopal office, and betake themselves to a private life ; the grand rule being, in these and all other cases, to do illi monasteria aut ecclcsias relinquaut, atque mundani fiant: omne ipsorum jus ad monasterium ant ecclesiam pertinet. 7 Book II. chap. 13. sect. 4. 8 Theod. lib. 5. c. 8. 9 Soc. lib. 5. c. 7. 1° Naz. Orat. 32. it. Carm. de Vita Sua. 1' Theod. lib. 2. c. 31. 12 Theodor. Lect. lib. 1. p. 555. '8 Chrys. Horn. 1]. in Ephes. p. 1110. "E-roqror. 'n'apaxw- n! ,. F, P001" ‘"29 lipxns heir/oz: élcxhno't'a é'o'rw jur'a. ‘4 Theod. lib. 5. c. ‘23. ‘5 Collat. Carthag. Die 1. c. 16. Utrique de medio sece- damus—Quid enim dubitemus redemptori nostro sacrificium istius humilitatis ofi'erre ? An vero ille dc coelis in membra humane. descendit, ut membra ejus essemus? Et nos, ne ipsa ejus membra crndeli divisione lanientnr, de cathedris descendere formidamus? &c. CHAP. IV. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 221 what was most for the benefit and edification of the church, and sacrifice private interest to the advan- tage of the public. In these cases, a bishop, after he had renounced, was not to intermed- dle with the affairs of the church, to ordain, or perform any ofiices of the like nature, unless he was called to assist by some other bishop, or was commissioned by him as his delegate: yet he was allowed the title and honour and communion of a bishop, as the general council of Ephesus ‘6 determined it should be, in the case of Eustathius, bishop of Perga, and metropolitan of Pamphylia, who had renounced his bishopric, be- ing an aged man, and thinking himself unable to discharge the duties of it. In such cases likewise, when anyone receded with the approbation of a council, he was sometimes allowed to receive a moderate pension out of the bishopric for his main- tenance. As it was in the case of Domnus, bishop of Antioch, who having been ejected, though un- justly, by Dioscorus in the second synod of Ephesus, yet quietly resigned the bishopric to Maximus : upon which account, Maximus desired leave of the council of Chalcedon, that he might allow him an annual pension out of the revenues of the church, which the council of Chalcedonl7 readily complied with. And this, as Richerius18 ingenuously owns, was the ancient design and meaning of canonical pensions, which were not used to be granted but by the authority or approbation of a synod, and only to such as, having spent the greatest part of their life in the service of the church, desired to be dis- burdened of their office by reason of their age. For the reserving a pension out of a bishopric, which a man only resigns to take another, was a practice wholly unknown to former ages. Secondly, Another rule, designed No gieecrgyiban go to keep all clergymen strictly to their remove from one dio- ggstetpéiggltlmygg duty, was, That no one should re- ‘,fitstegfmdggtgzfy of move from his own church or diocese, without the consent of the bishop to whose diocese he belonged. For as no one at first could be ordained dwoAeAvpéi/wg, but must be fixed to some church at his first ordination; so neither, by the rules and discipline of the church then prevailing, might he exchange his station at pleasure, but must have his own bishop’s licence, or letters dimissory, And canonical pensions sometimes granted in such cases. to qualify him to remove from one diocese to an- other. For this was the ancient right, which every bishop had in the clergy of his own church, that he could not be deprived of them without his own consent; but as well the party that deserted him, as the bishop that received him, were liable to be censured upon such a transgression. If any pres- byter, deacon, or other clerk, say the Apostolical Canons,‘9 forsake his own diocese to go to another, and there continue without the consent of his own bishop : we decree, that such a one shall no longer minister as a clerk, (especially if after admonition he refuse to return,) but only be admitted to com- municate as a layman. And if the bishop, to whom they repair, still entertain them in the quality of clergymen, he shall be excommunicated as a mas- ter of disorder. The same rule is frequently re- peated in the ancient councils, as that of Antioch,20 the first and second of Arles,21 the first and fourth of Carthage,22 the first of Toledo,23 and the council of Tours,24 and Turin,25 and the great council of Nice,26 to whose canons it may be sufficient to refer ‘the reader. I only observe, that this was the an- cient use of letters dimissory, or, as they were then called, a'vrokvrucai, sipnvucai, ovsarucai, and 0012.66880- rz're, which were letters of licence granted by a bi- shop, for a clergyman to remove from his diocese to another; though we now take letters dimissory in another sense: but the old canons call those dimissory letters, which were given upon the occa- sion that I have mentioned. The council of Car- thage gives them only the name of the bishop’s letters,27 but the council of Trullo28 styles them ex- pressly, dimissory; when, reinforcing all the an- cient canons, it says, No clergyman of what degree soever shall be entertained in another church, a’vcrog rfig r05 oi'lcsiov Errto'rcdwov iyypérpov a’rrokvrucfig, without the dimissory letters of his own bishop; which he might grant or refuse as he saw proper occasion for it. For there was no law to compel him to grant it, whatever arts any clerk might use to gain a dismission any other way. St. Austin mentions a pretty strange case of this nature, that happened in his own diocese. One Timotheus, a subdeacon of his church, being desirous to leave his post under St. Austin, and go to Severus, a neighbouring bi- shop, protests upon oath to Severus that he would be no longer of St. Austin’s church : upon this '5 Conc. Ephes. Act.. 7. in Epist. ad Synod. Pamphy- liae. Habeat episcopi nomen et honorem ac communionem, sic quidem ut neque ipse ordinet, neque in ecclesiam pro- pria auctoritate ordinaturus veniat, nisi forte coassuma- tur, &c. ‘7 Conc. Chalced. Act. 7. al. Act. 10. edit. Labbe. t. 4. p. 681. 18 Richer. Hist. Concil. par. 1. c. 8. n. 30. p. 218. Nihil antiquitus consuctum fieri nisi synodice comprobatum; hincque jus pensionum canonicarum potest confirmari; quae iis tantum tribui consueverant, qui magnam vitae partem in ministerio consumserant, et propter aetatem se exonerabant episcopatu. 19 Canon. Apost. c. 15 et 16. Vid. Conc. Chalced. can. 20. 2° Conc. Antioch. c. 3. '11 Arelat. 1. c. 21. Arelat. 2. c. 13. 22 Cone. Carth. 1. c. 5. Garth. 4. c. 27. 23 Cone. Tolet. l. c. 12. 2* Conc. Turon. c. 11. 25 Cone. Taurin. c. 7. 2“ Conc. Nic. c. 16. 2’ Conc. Carth. l. c. 5. Non licere clericum alienum ab aliquo suscipi sine literis episcopi sui, neque apud se re- tinere. 1’? Conc. Trull. c. 17. 222 CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Boox VI. ANTIQUITIES or THE Severus, pretending a reverence for his oath, writes to St. Austin, and tells him he~could not return him his clerk for fear of making him guilty of per- jury. To which St. Austin replied, That this opened away to licentiousness, and there was an end 29 of all ecclesiastical order and discipline, if a bishop would pretend to keep another man’s clerk upon such a scruple, for fear of being accessory to his perjury. This evidently implies, that there was no law then to compel a bishop to grant letters di- missory to his clerk; for if there had been any such, Timotheus needed not to have used the stra- tagem of an oath, but might have compelled St. Austin to have granted them. But the church then did not think fit to put it in every man’s power to remove from one diocese to another at his own pleasure, but left every bishop sole judge in this case, as best knowing the necessities and circum- stances of his own church, and whether it were ex— pedient to part with the clergy which were ordained for her service. The laws were no less severe against Sect. 5. Laws against the Krivjn/S’ou or wandering clergy. of the ancients call fiaxa'wnfioaa" or cacanta'vz', by way of reproach. They were a sort of idle persons, who having deserted the service of their own church, would fix in no other, but went roving from place to place, as their fancy and their humour led them. Now, by the laws of the church no bishop was to permit any such to ofiiciate in his diocese, nor indeed so much as to communicate in his church; because, having neither letters dimis- sory nor letters commendatory from their own bi- shop, (which every one ought to have that travel- led,) they were to be suspected either as deserters, or as persons guilty of some misdemeanor, who fled from ecclesiastical censure. Therefore the laws forbade the admitting of such either to ecclesiastical or lay-communion. A~ presbyter or deacon, says the council of Agde,En that rambles about without the letters of his bishop, shall not be admitted to communion by any other. The council of Epone32 repeats the decree in the same words. And the council of Valentia38 in Spain orders such wander- ing and roving clerks, as will not settle to the con- stant performance and attendance of divine offices in the church, whereto they were deputed by the bishop that ordained them, to be deprived both of all wandering clergymen, whom some ' the communion and the honour of their order, if they persisted in their obstinacy and rebellion. So strict were the laws of the ancient church in tying the inferior clergy to the service of that church to which they were first appointed, that they might not upon any account move thence, but at the dis- cretion of the bishop that ordained them. Nor were the bishops so arbitrary in this matter, but that they them— Lawgiigaiiia the . . translations of bl- selves were under a 11ke regulation, $205332; 3238:; and liable to laws of the same nature. Egrgtiénofd’and "n- For as no clerk could remove from his own church without the licence of his bishop, so neither might any bishop pretend to translate or move himself to another see without the consent and approbation of a provincial council. Some few there were who thought it absolutely unlawful for a bishop to forsake his first see and betake him- self to any other, because they looked upon his con- secration to be a sort of marriage to his church, from which he could not divorce himself, nor take another. without incurring the crime of spiritual adultery. To this purpose they wrested that passage of St. Paul, “ A bishop must be the husband of one wife,” taking it in a mystical and figurative sense, as St. J erom“ informs us. But this was but the private opinion of one or two authors, which never prevailed in the catholic church; whose prohibition of the translation of bishops was not founded upon any such reasons, but was only intended as a cau- tionary provision to prevent the ambition of aspiring men, that they might not run from lesser bishop- rics to greater, without the authority of a provincial synod, which was the proper judge in such cases. Some canons indeed seem to forbid it absolutely and universally, as a thing not to be allowed in any case. The council of Nice,35 and Sardica,36 and some others, prohibit it without any exception or limitation. But other canons restrain it to the case of a bishop’s intruding himself into another see by some sinister arts, without any legal authority from a provincial synod. So those called the Apos- tolical Canons87 distinguish upon the matter: It shall not be lawful for a bishop to leave his diocese, and invade another, though many of the people would compel him to it; unless there be a reasonable cause, as that he may the more advantage the church by his preaching; and then he shall not do 29 Aug. Ep. 240. ad Severum. Aditus aperitur ad dissol- vendum ordinem ecclesiasticee disciplinae, si alterius eccle- siae clericus cuicunque juraverit, quod ab ipso non sit reces- surus, eum secum esse permittat: ideo se facere afl'irmans, ne author sit ejus perjurii, &c. 3“ Synes. Ep. 67. 31Conc. Agathen. c. 52. Presbytero sive diacono sine antistitis sui epistolis ambulanti communionem nullus im- pendaL 32 Conc. Epaunens. c. 6. “3 Conc. Valentin. c. 5. Vagus atque instabilis clericus, si episcopi, a quo ordinatus est, ppaeceptis non obedierit, ut in delegata sibi ecclesia officium dependat assid-uum, quousque in vitio permanserit, et communione et honore pri- vetur. 34 Hieron. Ep. 83. ad Oceanum. t. 2. p. 321. Quidam coacte interpretantur uxores pro ecclesiis, viros pro episco- pis debere accipi, &c. 35 Cone. Nic. c. 15. 86 Cone. Sardie. c. 1 et 2. Conc. Antioch. can. 21. Cone. Carthag. 3. c. 38. 3’ Canon. Apost. c. 14. CHAP. IV. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 223 ANTIQUITIES OF THE it of his own head, but by the judgment and en- treaty of many bishops, that is, a provincial synod. The fourth council of Carthage distinguishes38 much after the same manner: A bishop shall not remove himself from an obscure to a more honour- able place out of ambition, but if the advantage of the church require it, he may be translated by the order and decree of a provincial synod. Schel- strate39 and some other learned persons think, that these canons were a correction of the former, the one allowing what the other had positively forbidden. But this is not at all probable: it is ‘more reason- able to think, that though, in the Nicene and Sar- dican canons, these exceptions are not expressed, yet they are to be understood: because the council of Nice itself translated Eustathius, bishop of Be- raea, to Antioch, as Mr. Pagi40 rightly observes out of Sozomen,‘u and other historians of the church; which had been to break and affront their own rule at the very first, had it meant, that it should not be ‘lawful in any case to translate a bishop from one see to another. We must conclude, then, that the design of all these canons was the same, to prevent covetousness, ambition, and love of pre-eminence in aspiring men, who thrust themselves into other sees by irregular means, by a faction, or the mere favour of the people, without staying for the choice or consent of a synod; which was the common practice of the Arian party in the time of Constan- tine and Constantius, and occasioned so many laws to be made against it. But when a synod of bishops in their judgment and discretion thought it necessary to translate a bishop from a lesser to a greater see for the benefit and advantage of the church, there was no law to prohibit this, but there are a thousand instances of such promotions to be met with in an- cient history, as Socrates42 has observed long ago, who has collected a great many instances to this purpose. Those that please may see more in Cote- 1erius“3 and Bishop Beveridge,‘H for in so plain a case I do not think it necessary to be more particular in my account of them, but proceed with other laws of the church which concerned the clergy. Sm .,_ The next laws of this nature were mkgaggggrrirg such as concerned the residence of the clergy‘ clergy; the design of which was the same as all the former, to bind them to constant attendance upon their duty. And these laws equal- ly concerned bishops and all the inferior clergy. The council of Sardica has several canons relating to this matter. The seventh decrees, that no bi- shop should go efg s-parémdov, to the emperor’s court, unless the emperor by letter called him thither. The next canon ‘5 provides, that whereas there might be several cases, which might require a bishop to make some application to the emperor in behalf of the poor, or widows, or such as fled for sanctuary to the church, and condemned criminals, and the like: in such cases the deacons or subdeacons of the church were to be employed to go in his name, that the bishop might fall under no censure at court, as neglecting the business of his church. J ustinian“3 has a law of the same import with these canons, That no bishop should appear at court upon any business of his church without the command of the prince: but if any petition was to be preferred to the emperor, relating to any civil contest, the bishop should depute his apocrz'sarius, or resident at court, to act for him, or send his (economus, or some other of his clergy, to solicit the cause in his name; that the church might neither receive damage by his ab- sence, nor be put to unnecessary expenses. Another canon“7 of the council of Sardica limits the absence of a bishop from his church to three weeks, un- less it were upon some very weighty and urgent oc- casion. And another canon"8 allows the same time for a bishop, who is possessed of an estate in another diocese, to go and collect his revenues, provided he celebrate Divine service every Lord’s day in the country church where his estate lies. And by two other canons “9 of that council, presbyters and dea- cons are limited to the same term of absence, and tied to the forementioned rules in the same manner as bishops were. The council of Agde50 made the like order for the French churches, decreeing, That a presbyter or deacon, who was absent from his church for three weeks, should be three years suspended from the communion. In the African churches, upon the account of this residence, every bishop’s house was to be near the church,51 by a rule of the fourth council of Carthage. And in the fifth coun- cil there is another rule,52 That every bishop shall have his residence at his principal or cathedral church, which he shall not leave, to betake himself 38 Cone. Garth. 4. c. 27. Ut episcopus de loco ignobili ad nobilem per ambitionem non transeat.-—Sane si id utilitas ecclesiae fiendum poposcerit, decreto pro eo clericorum et laicorum episcopis porrecto, per sententiam synodi trans- feratur. 39 Schelstrat. de Concil. Antioch. can. 21. p. 614. 4° Pagi, Critic. in Baron. an. 321. n. 22. 4' Sozom. lib. l. c. 2. ‘2 Socrat. lib. 7. c. 36. ‘3 Coteler. Not. in Can. Apost. c. 14. 4‘ Bevereg. Not. in eundem Canon. ‘*5 Conc. Sardic. c. 8. "6 Just. Novel. 6. c. 2. 4’ Conc. Sardic. c. 11. 48 Ibid. c. 12. ‘9 Ibid. 0. 16 et 17. 5° Conc. Agathen. c. 64. Diaconus vel presbyter, si per tres hebdomadas ab ecclesia sua defuerit triennio a com- munione suspendatur. 5‘ Conc. Carthag. 4. c. 14. Ut episcopus non longe ab ecclesia hospitiolum habeat. 52 Conc. Carthag. 5. c. 5. Placuit ut nemini sit facultas, relicta principali cathedra, ad aliquam ecclesiam in dioecesi constitutam se conferre: vel intro propria diutius quam oportet constitutuni, curam vel frequentationem propriae cathedrae negligere. ' 224 BooK VI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. to any other church in his diocese; nor continue upon his private concerns, to the neglect of his cure, and hinderance of his frequenting the cathedral church. From this it appears, that the city church was to be the chief place of the bishop’s residence and cure: and Cabassutius,53 in his remarks upon this canon, reflects upon the French bishops, as transgressing the ancient rule, in spending the greatest part of the year upon their pleasure in the country. Yet there is one thing that seems a diffi- culty in this matter ; for J ustinian54 says, no bishop shall be absent from his church above a whole year, unless he has the emperor’s command for it. Which implies, that a bishop might be absent from his bi- shopric a year in ordinary cases, and more in ex- traordinary. But I conceive the meaning of this is, that he might be absent a year dining his whole life; not year after year; for that would amount to a perpetual absence, which it was not the intent of the law to grant, but to tie them up to the direct contrary, except the prince, upon some extraordi- nary affair, thought fit to grant them a particular dispensation. sect. 8. Another rule, grounded upon the .,.2{.e‘;;;;1§§:;§,“;1 same reasons with the former, was the them‘ inhibition of pluralities; which con- cerned both bishops and the inferior clergy. As to bishops, it appears plainly from St. Ambrose, that it was not thought lawful for a bishop to have two churches. For speaking of those words of the apostle, “A bishop must be the husband of one wife,” he says, If we look 55 only to the superficies of the letter, it forbids a digamist to be ordained bi- shop; but if we penetrate a little deeper to the pro- founder sense, it prohibits a bishop to have two churches. That is; wherever there were two dio- ceses before, it was not lawful for one bishop to usurp them both, except where the wisdom of the church and state thought it most convenient to join them into one. And it is remarkable, that though there be many instances of bishops removing from lesser sees to greater, yet there is no example in all ancient history, that I remember, of any such bi— shops holding both together; no, not among the Arians themselves, who were the least concerned in observing rules of any other. As to the case of the inferior clergy, we must distinguish betwixt diocesan and parochial churches, and between the office and the benefit in parochial churches. The circum- stances and necessities of the church might some- times require a presbyter or deacon to officiate in more than one parochial church, when there was a scarcity of ministers; but the revenues of such churches did not thereupon belong to him, because they were paid into the common stock of the city or cathedral church, from whence he had his monthly or yearly portion in the division of the whole, as has been noted before. And this makes it further evident, that in those early ages there could be no such thing as plurality of benefices, but only a plurality of offices in the same diocese, within such a district, as that a man might person- ally attend and ofliciate in two parochial churches. But then, as to different dioceses, it being ordinarily impossible that a man should attend a cure in two dioceses, the canons are very express in prohibiting any one from having a name in two churches, or partaking of the revenues of both. The council of Chalcedon 5“ has a peremptory canon to this pur- pose: It shall not be lawful for any clergyman to have his name in the church roll or catalogue of two cities at the same time, that is, in the church where he was first ordained, and any other to which he flies out of ambition as to a greater church; but all such shall be returned to their own church, where they were first ordained, and only minister there. But if any one is regularly removed from one church to another, he shall not partake of the revenues of the former church, or of any oratory, hospital, or alms-house, belonging to it. And such as shall presume, after this definition of this great and oecumenical council, to transgress in this mat- ter, are condemned to be degraded by the holy synod. And that none might pretend, under any other no- tion, to evade this law, the same rule was made for monasteries, that one abbot should not preside over two monasteries at the same time. Which provi- sion is made by the council of Agde“7 and Epone, and confirmed by the imperial laws of Justinian,58 who inserted it into his Code. Now, the design of all these laws was to oblige ‘the clergy to constant attendance upon their duty in the church where they were first ordained; from which if they once removed, whether with licence or without, to any other diocese, they were no longer to enjoy any dividend in the church or diocese to which they first belonged. And this rule continued for several ages after the council of Chalcedon, being renewed in the second council of Nice,59 and other later councils. 53 Cabassut. Notit. Concil. c. 44. Huic canoni contra- veniunt episcopi, qui magna parte anni rure versantur et deliciantur. 5‘ Just. Novel. 6. c. 2. Et illud etiam definimus, ut ne- mo Deo amabilium episcoporum foris a sua ecclesia plus- quam per totum annum abesse audeat, nisi ,hoc per imperi- alem fiat jussionem. , . 55 Ambros. de Dignit. Sacerd. c. 4. Si ad superficiem tanturn literae respiciamus, prohibet bigamum' episcopum ordinari : si vero ad altiorem sensum conscendimus, inhibet episcopum duas usurpare ecclesias. 5‘f Cone. Chalced. C. 10. M1‘) égs'iuat Khnpucdu £11 560 7m’- Aewu Ica'T’ air-roll Kafrahé'yao'flal. Eiclchno'iazs, &c. 5’ Conc. Agathen. c. 57. Uuum abbatem duobus monas- teriis interdicirnus praesidere. Vid. Cone. Epaunens. c. 9. 58 Cod. Just. lib. 1. Tit. 3. de Episc. Leg. 40. Non sit vero abbas dnorum monastcriorum. 5" Cone. Nic. 2. c. 15. CHAP. IV. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 225 sect. 9. In pursuance of the same design, meLmciiirgoltigbiggg to keep the clergy strict and constant Eggirllldfgzlg to their duty, laws were also made to prohibit them from following any secular employment, which might divert them too much from their proper business and calling. Among those called the Apostolical Canons, there are three to this purpose. One of which says,60 No bishop, presbyter, or deacon, shall take upon him any worldly cares, under pain of degradation. Another says,81 No bishop or presbyter shall concern himself in any secular ofiices or administrations, that he may have more time to attend the needs and busi- ness of the church; and this under the same penalty of degradation. The last says,62 A bishop, presby- ter, or deacon, that busies himself in any secular ofifice, and is minded to hold both a place in the Roman government and an office in the church, shall be deposed. For the things .of Caesar belong to Caesar, and the things of God to God. Balsamon and Zonaras take this canon to mean only the pro- hibition of holding military offices, because it uses the word arparsiat but I have showed before, out of Gothofred and others, that the word o'rpareia and militia are used by the Romans in a larger signifi- cation, to denote all kinds of secular offices, as well civil as military: and therefore they more rightly interpret this canon,63 who understand it as a pro— hibition of holding any secular office, civil as well as military, with an ecclesiastical one, as things in- compatible and inconsistent with one another. Eu- sebius "" informs us, from the epistle of the council of Antioch that deposed Paulus Samosatensis, that among other crimes alleged against him, this was one, that he took upon him secular places, and pre- ferred the title of ducenarz'us before that of bishop. The ducenarz'i, among the Romans, were a sort of civil oflicers, so called from their receiving a salary of two hundred sestertz'a from the emperor, as Vale- sius observes “5 out of Dio. And this makes it plain, that the intent of the canons was to prohibit the clergy from meddling with civil oflices, as well as military. Only in some extraordinary cases, where the matter was a business of great necessity or charity, we meet with an instance or two of a bishop’s joining an ecclesiastical and civil office together without any censure. As Theodoret66 notes of the famous J acobus Nisibensis, that he was both bishop and prince, or governor, of Nisibis, or Antioch in Mygdonia, a city in the confines of the Persian and Roman empires. Theodoret represents him as a man of great fame in his country for his miracles, by which he sometimes relieved the city when be- sieged by the Persians. And it is probable, in re- gard to this, the emperors Constantine and Con- stantius pitched upon him, as the properest person to take the government of the city upon him, being a place in great danger, and very much exposed to the incursions of the Persians. But such instances are but rarely met with in ancient history. In some times and places the laws of the church were so strict about raise prohibiting _ the clergy to be tu- this matter, that they would not suffer (110;: aflprdekstiggggfw, a bishop or presbyter to be left trustee to any man’s will, or a tutor or guardian in pursu- ance of it: because it was thought this would be too great an avocation from his other business. There is a famous case in Cyprian relating to this matter. He tells us, it had been determined by an African synod, that no one should appoint any of God’s ministers a curator or guardian by his will, because they were to give themselves to supplica- tions and prayer, and to attend only upon the sacri- fice and service of the altar. And therefore, when one Geminius Victor had made Geminius Faustinus, a presbyter of the church of Furni, guardian or trustee by his last will and testament, contrary to the decree of the foresaid council; Cyprian67 wrote to the church of Furni, that they should execute the sentence of the council against Victor, which was, That no annual commemoration should be made of him in the church, nor any prayer be offer- ed in his name (according to the custom of the church in those times) in the sacrifice of the altar. This was a sort of excommunication after death, by denying to receive such a person’s oblations, and refusing to name him at the altar among others that made their offerings, and neither honouring him with the common prayers or praises that were then put up to God for all the faithful that were dead in the Lord. This was the punishment of such as transgressed this rule in the days of Cy- prian. And in the following ages the canon was renewed, but with a little difference. For though bishops were absolutely and universally forbidden68 to take this office upon them, both by the ecclesi- ct. 10. 6° Can. Apost. C. 7. Koo'juuco‘rs ¢powri8as p1‘; duaAap- ,Bave'crw, side pi), Kaeatpe'o'flw. 61Ibid. 0. 81. "On in‘) X521‘; é'rrt'a'xovrov 1'5 'n'pso'Bt'i'rspou Kaetévat eau-rdu sis dimoo'ias dtoucrio'us, &c. 62 Ibid. 0. 83. Z'rpa'rsiq dxokégwv, Kai ,Bovko'usvos &ncpdq'epa Ka'réxsw, 'Pwpatm‘jv dpxr‘w Kai. iepa'rucr‘ju dwi- Icno'w, Kaeatpe'o'fiw. “3 Bevereg. Not. in Can. Apost. c. 83. 6‘ Euseb. lib. 7. c. 30. Koo'juucd a’ELé‘ua'ra z'mrodvo'peuos, Kai. douxnucipws ,ud'AAOU ii é'ITZO’KO‘ITOS‘ eékwv Kakeio'flab. 65 Valesius in 100. Ducenarii dicebantur procuratores, Q qui ducenta sestertia annui salarii nomine accipiebant a principe. Ex Dione, lib. 53. 66 Theod. lib. 2. c. 30. 6" Cypr. Ep. 66. al. 1. ad Cler. Furnitan. p. 3. Ideo Vic- tor cum contra formam nuper in concilio a. sacerdotibus datam, Geminium Faustinum pnesbyterum ausus sit tutorem constituere, non est quod pro dormitione ejus apud vos fiat oblatio, aut deprecatio aliqua nomine ejus in ecclesia fre- quentetur. 68 Cone. Carthag. 4. c. 18. Ht episcopus tuitionem testa- mentorum non suscipiat. 226 Boox VI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. astical and civil law; yet presbyters and deacons, and all the inferior clergy, were allowed to be tutors and guardians to such persons as by right of kin- dred69 might claim this as a duty from them. But still the prohibition stood in force against their being concerned in that ofiice for any other, that were not of their relations, as appears from one of Justinian’s Novels, which was made to settle this matter in the church. By other laws they were prohibited Lawsseafgtailrlsttheir from taking upon them the oflice of fit‘; insguriiifiiésmlci pleaders at the bar in any civil con- atlliei: test, though it were in their own case, or the concerns of the church: nei- ther might they be bondsmen or sureties for any other man’s appearance in such causes : because it was thought, that such sort of encumbrances might bring detriment to the church, in distracting her ministers from constant attendance upon Divine service, as appears both from the foresaid Novel70 of Justinian, and some ancient canons,71 which forbid a clergyman to become a sponsor in any such cause under the penalty of deprivation. Now, as all these offices and em- fopgxgigfigigen ployments were forbidden the clergy grfslgfwidmerchan- upon the account of being consumers of their time, and hinderances of Di- vine service ; so there were some others prohibited, not only upon this account, but also upon the no- tion of their being generally attended with covet- ousness and filthy lucre. Thus, in the first council of Carthage 72 we find several prohibitions of clergy- men’s becoming stewards or accountants to laymen. The third council 7’ forbids both that, and also their taking any houses or lands to farm, and generally all business that was disreputable and unbecoming their calling. The second council of Arles" like- wise forbids their farming other men’s estates, or following any trade or merchandise for filthy lucre’s sake, under the penalty of deprivation. The general council of Chalcedon75 has a canon to the same purpose, That no monk or clergyman shall rent any estate, or take upon him the management of any secular business, except the law called him to be * guardian to orphans, (in the case that has been spoken of before, as being their next relation,) or else the bishop made him steward of the church revenues, or overseer of the widows, orphans, and such others as stood in need of the church’s care and assistance. And here the reason given for making this canon is, that some of the clergy were found to neglect the service of God, and live in lay- men’s houses as their stewards, for covetousness and filthy lucre’s sake. Which was an old complaint made by Cyprian 7‘ in that sharp invective of his against some of the bishops of his own age, who were so far gone in this vice of covetousness, as to neglect the service of God to follow worldly busi- ness; leaving their sees, and deserting their people, to ramble about in quest of gainful trades in other countries, to the provocation of the Divine venge- ance, and flagrant scandal of the church. So that these being the reasons of making such laws, we are to judge of the nature of the laws themselves by the intent and design of them; which was to correct such manifest abuses, as covetousness and neglect of Divine service, which either as cause or effect too often attended the clergy’ s engagement of themselves in secular business. But in some cases it was reasonable to presume, that their engagements of this nature were separate from these vices. For in some times and places, where the revenues of the church were very small, and not a competent maintenance for all the clergy, some of them, especially among the inferior orders, were obliged to divide themselves between the service of the church and some secular calling. Others, who found they had time enough to spare, negociated out of charity, to bestow their gains in the relief of the poor, and other pious uses. And some, who, before their entrance into orders, had been brought up to an ascetic and philosophic life, wherein they wrought at some honest manual calling with their own hands, continued to work in the same manner, though not in the same measure, even after they were made presbyters and bishops in the church, for the exercise of their humility, or to answer some other end of a Christian life. Now, in all these cases, the vices complained of in the forementioned Sect. 13. What limitations and exceptions these laws admitted of. 69 Just. Novel. 123. c. 5. Episcopos et monachos ex nulla lege tutores aut curatores cujuscunque personae fieri con- cedimus. Presbyteros autem et diaconos et subdiaconos, si jure ac lege cognationis ad tutelam aut curam vocentur, ej us- modi munus suscipere concedimus. Vid. Concil. Chalced. c. 3. "° Just. Novel. 123. c. 6. Sed neque procuratorem litis, aut fidejussorem pro talibus causis episcopum, aut alium clericum, proprio nomine, aut ecclesias sinimus: ne per hanc occasionem sacra ministeria impediantur. "1 Canon. Apost. c. 20. Khnpucds é'y'yl'HZQ dtdoils Kasai- ps'aS'w. Vid. Constitut. Apost. lib. 2. c. 6. "2 Conc. Garth. 1. c. 6. Qui serviunt Deo, et annexi sunt clero, non accedant ad actus seu administrationem vel pro- curationem domorum. Ibid. c. 9. Laicis non liceat cleri- cos nostros eligere apothecarios vel ratiocinatores. 73 Conc. Carth. 3. c. 15. Clerici non sint conductores, neque procuratores, neque ullo turpi vel inhonesto negotio victum quaerant. 7‘ Conc. Arelat. 1. al. 2. c. 14. Siquis clericus conductor alienae rei voluerit esse aut turpis lucri gratia aliquod genus negotiationis exercuerit, depositus a clero, a. communione alienus habeatur. "5 Conc. Chalced. c. 3. "'6 Cypr. de Lapsis, p. 123. Episcopi plurimi Divina pro- curatione contempta, procuratores rerum saecularium fieri, derelicta cathedra, glebe deserta, per alienas provincias oberrantes, negotiationis quaestuosae nundinas aucupari, &c. CHAP. 1V. 227 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. laws, as the reasons of the prohibition, had no share or concern: for such men’s negociations were neither the effects of covetousness, nor attended properly with any neglect of Divine service; and consequently not within the prohibition and censure of the laws. For first, both the laws of church and state allowed the in- ferior clergy to work at an honest calling in cases of necessity, to provide themselves of a liberal mainten- ance, when the revenues of the church could not do it. In the fourth council of Carthage 7’ there are three canons immediately following one another to this purpose, that they should provide themselves of food and raiment at some honest trade or husbandry, without hindering the duties of their office in the church: and such of them as were able to labour, should be taught some trade and letters together. And the laws of the state were so far from hinder- ing this, that they encouraged such of the clergy to follow an honest calling, by granting them a special immunity from the chrysargymm, or lustral tax, which was exacted of all other tradesmen, as I have showed more at large in another place.78 Secondly, It was lawful also to spend their leisure hours upon any manual trade or calling, when it was to answer some good end of charity thereby: as that they might not be overburdensome to the church; or might have some superfluities to bestow upon the indigent and needy ; or even that they might set the laity a provoking example of industry and diligence in their callings. Which were those worthy ends, which the holy apostle St. Paul proposed to himself in labouring with his own hands at the trade of tent-making: after whose example many eminent bishops of the ancient church were not ashamed to employ their spare hours in some honest labour, to promote the same ends of charity, which the apos- tle so frequently inculcates. Thus Sozomen ob- serves79 of Zeno, bishop of Maiuma in Palestine, that he lived to be a hundred years old, all which time he constantly attended both morning and evening the service of the church, and yet found time to work at the trade of a linen weaver, by which he not only subsisted himself, but relieved others, though he lived in a rich and wealthy church. Epiphanius makes a more general observation against the Massalian heretics, (who were great en- couragers of idlcness,) that not only all those of a monastic life, but also many of the priests of God,“ imitating their holy father in Christ St. Paul, wrought with their own hands at some honest trade, that was no dishonour to their dignity, and con- sistent with their constant attendance upon their ecclesiastical duties; by which means they had both what was necessary for their own subsistence, and to give to others that stood in need of their relief. The author of the Apostolical Constitutions “1 brings in the apostles recommending industry in every man’s calling from their own example, that they might have wherewith to sustain themselves, and supply the needs of others. Which though it be not an exact representation of the apostles’ practice, (for we do not read of any other apostle’s labouring with his own hands, except St. Paul, whilst he preached the gospel,) yet it serves to show what sense that author had of this matter; that he did not think it simply unlawful for a clergyman to labour at some secular employment, when the end ‘ was charity, and not filthy lucre. And it is ob- servable, that the imperial laws for some time grant- ed the same immunity from the lustral tax to the inferior clergy, that traded with a charitable design to relieve others, as to those that traded out of ne- cessity for their own maintenance; of both which I have given an account in another place. Thirdly, We have some instances of very eminent bishops, who, out of humility and love of a philosophical and laborious life, spent their vacant hours in some honest business, to which they had been accustomed in their former days. Thus Ruflin,82 and Socrates,” and Sozomen“ tell us of Spiridion, bishop of Tri- mithus in Cyprus, one of the most eminent bishops in the council of Nice, a man famous for the gift of prophecy and miracles, that having been a shepherd before, he continued to employ himself in that call- ing, out of his great humility, all his life. But then he made his actions and the whole tenor of his life demonstrate, that he did it not out of covetousness. For Sozomen particularly notes, that whatever his product was, he either distributed it among the poor; or lent it without usury to such as needed to borrow, whom he trusted to take out of his storehouse what they pleased, and return what they pleased, without ever examining or taking any account of them. Fourthly, I observe, that those laws which were most severe against the superior clergy’s negociating in any secular business, in cases of necessity allowed them a privilege, which was equivalent to it: that is, that they might employ others to factor for them, so long as they were not concerned in their own persons. For so the council of Eliberis85 words it: 7" Conc. Garth. 4. c. 51. Clericus quantumlibet verbo Dei eruditus, artificio victum quaerat. Ibid. c. 52. Glerieus victum et vestimentum sibi, artificiolo vel agricultura, absque ofiicii sui duntaxat detrimento, praeparet. Ibid. 0. 53. Om- nes clerici, qui ad operandum validi sunt, et artificiola et literas discant. 7” Book V. chap. 3. sect. 6. 79 Sozom. lib. 7. c. 28. 8° Epiphan. Haer. 80. Massalian. n. 6. 8' Gonstit. Apost. lib. 2. c. 63. “2 Ruffin. lib. l. c. 5. Hic pastor ovium etiam in episco- patu positus permansit. 83 Socrat. lib. 1. c. 12. Am‘: 5%. aH-vcpfav 'rrohhiw, extinc- vos "r719 iqrw'lcow'ijs é'rrot'piaws Kai "rd: 1rpcifla'ra. 8‘ Sozom. lib. l. c. 11. “5 Conc. Eliber. c. 19. Episcopi, presbyteri, et diaconi, de locis suis negotiandi causa non discedant, nec circumeuntes provincias, quaestuosas nundinas sectentur. Sane ad victum sibi conquirendnm, aut filium, aut libertum, aut mercena- Q 2 228 Boox VI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Bishops, presbyters, and deacons shall not leave their station to follow a secular calling, nor rove into other provinces after fairs and markets. But yet, to provide themselves a livelihood, they may employ a son, or a freeman, or a hired servant, or a friend, or any other; and if they negociate, let them negociate within their own province. So that all these laws were justly tempered with great wisdom and prudence; that as, on the one hand, the service of God and the needs of his ministers and servants might be supplied together; so, on the other, no en— couragement should be given to covetousness in the clergy, nor any one be countenanced in the neglect of his proper business, by a licence to lead a wan- dering, busy, distracted life, which did not become those that were dedicated to the sacred function. It is against these only, that all the severe invectives of St. J erom,86 and others of the ancients,87 are le- velled, which the reader must interpret with the same limitations, and distinction of cases, as we have done the public laws: the design of both be- ing only to censure the vices of the rich, who, with- out any just reason or necessity, immersed them- selves in the cares of a secular life, contrary to the rules and tenor of their profession. Another sort of laws were made re- specting their outward behaviour, to guard them equally against scandal in their character, and danger in their conversation. Such were the laws against corresponding and con- versing too familiarly with Jews and Gentile phi- losophers. The council of Eliberis88 forbids them to eat with the Jews under pain of suspension. The council of Agde89 has a canon to the same pur- pose, forbidding them to give, as well as receive, an entertainment from the Jews. And those called the Apostolical Canons,90 not only prohibit them to Sect.]4. Laws respecting their outward con- versation. fast or feast with the Jews, but to receive 'rfig éopn'ig Eéma, any of those portions or presents, which they were used to send to one another upon their festi- vals. And the laws against conversing with Gen- tile philosophers were much of the same nature. For Sozomen91 says, Theodotus, bishop of Laodicea in Syria, excommunicated the two Apollinarii, fa- ther and son, because they went to hear Epiphanius the sophist speak his hymn in the praise of Bac- chus; which was not so agreeable to their charac- ter, the one being a presbyter, the other a deacon rium, ant amicurn, aut quemlibet mittant: et si voluerint negotiari, intra provinciam negotientur. 86 Hieron. Ep. 2. ad Nepotiau. Negotiatorem clericum quasi pestem fuge, &c. 8’ Sulpic. Sever. Hist. lib. 1. p. 30. Tanta hoc tempore animos eorum habendi cupido veluti tabes incessit: inhiant possessionibus, praedia excolunt, auro incubant, emunt, ven- duntque quaestui, per omnia student, &c. 88 Cone. Eliber. c. 50. Clericus qui cum Judaeis cibum sumpserit, placuit eum a communione abstinere, ut debeat emendari. in the Christian church. It was in regard to their character likewise, that ’ other canons restrained them from eating or drinking in a tavern, except they were upon a. journey, or some such necessary occasion required them to do it. For among those called the Apostolical Canons,92 and the decrees of the councils of Laodicea98 and Carthage,94 there are several rules to this purpose; the strictness of which is not much to be wondered at, since Julian re- quired the same caution in his heathen priests, that they should neither appear at the public theatres, nor in any taverns, under pain of deposition from their office of priesthood, as may be seen in his let- ter to Arsacius, high priest of Galatia, which Sozo- meng“ records, and other fragments of his writings. To this sort of laws we may reduce those ancient rules, which concerned Luigi to the garb and habit of the ancient clergy; in which such a decent mean was to be ob- served, as might keep them from obloquy and cen- sure on both hands, either as too nice and critical, or too slovenly and careless in their dress: their habit being generally to be such, as might express the gravity of their minds without any superstitious singularities, and their modesty and humility with- out affectation. In this matter, therefore, their rules were formed according to the customs and opinions of the age, which are commonly the stand- ard and measure of decency and indecency in things of this nature. Thus, for instance, long hair, and baldness by shaving the head or heard, being then generally reputed indecencies in contrary extremes, the clergy were obliged to observe a becoming me- diocrity between them. This is the meaning of that controverted canon of the fourth council of Carthage, according to its true reading, that a cler- gyman shall neither indulge long hair, nor shave his beard: Cleric-us nee comam matriatf96 nec barbam radat. The contrary custom being now in vogue in the church of Rome, Bellarmine97 and many other writers of that side, who will have all their ceremo- nies to be apostolical, and to contain some great mystery in them, pretend, that the word radat should be left out of that ancient canon, to make it agreeable to the present practice. But the learned Savaro98 proves the other to be the true reading, as well from the Vatican, as many other manuscripts. And even Spondanus himself99 confesses as much, 89 Cone. Agathen. c. 40. Omnes clerici J udaeorum con- N ec eos ad convivia quisquam excipiat. 9‘ Sozom. lib. 6. c. 25. 93 Cone. Laodic. c. 24. vivia evitent. 9° Canon. Apost. c. 70. 92 Canon. Apost. c. 53. 9* Cone. Carth. 3. c. 27. 95 Sozom. lib. 5. c. 16. Vid. Julian. Fragment. Epist. p. 547. 96 Cone. Carth. 4. c. 44. 9" Bellarm. de Monach. lib. 2. c. 40. 9*’ Savaro, Not. in Sidonium, lib. 4. Ep. 24. p. 306. 9“ Spondan. Epit. Baron. an. 58. n. 58. CHAP. IV. 229 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. and thereupon takes occasion to correct Baronius for asserting, that in the time of Sidonius Apolli- naris it was the custom of the French bishops to shave their beards: whereas the contrary appears from one of Sidonius his epistles,loo that their custom then was to wear short hair and long beards, as he describes his friend Maximus Palatinus, who of a secular was become a clergyman: he says, his habit, his gait, his modesty, his countenance, his dis- course were all religious; and agreeably to these, his hair was short, and his beard long. Custom, it seems, had then made it decent and becoming; and upon that ground the ancients are sometimes pretty severe against such of the clergy as transgressed in this point, as guilty of an indecency in going con- trary to the rules and customs of the church, which were to be observed, though the thing was other- wise in itself of an indifferent nature. The Romanists are generally as anribbséiifb‘iii'grébe much to blame in their accounts of gifipcgiéfcgige the ancient tonsure of the clergy; which they describe in such a man- ner, as to make parallel to that shaving of the crown of the head by way of mystical rite, which is now the modern custom. Whereas this was so far from being required as a matter of decency among the ancients, that it was condemned and prohibited by them. Which may appear from that question, which Optatus puts to the Donatists, when he asks them, where they had a commandw' to shave the heads of the priests? as they had done by the catholic clergy in order to bring them to do public penance in the church. In which case, as Albaspinaeus rightly notes,102 it was customary to use shaving to baldness, and sprinkling the head with ashes, as signs of sorrow and repentance. But the priests of God were not to be thus treated. Which shows, that the ancients then knew nothing of this, as a ceremony belonging to the ordination or life of the clergy. Which is still more evident from what St. J erom says upon those words of Ezekiel xliv. 20, “Neither shall they shave their heads, nor suffer their locks to grow long; they shall only poll their heads.” This, says he,103 evidently demonstrates, that we ought neither to have our heads shaved, as the priests and votaries of Isis and Serapis; nor yet to suffer our hair to grow long, after the luxurious manner of barbarians and sol- diers ; but that priests should appear with a vener- able and grave countenance: neither are they to make themselves bald with a razor, nor poll their heads so close, that they may look as if they were shaven ; but they are to let their hair grow so long, that it may cover their skin. It is impossible now for any rational man to imagine, that Christian priests had shaven crowns in the time of St. J erom, when he so expressly says they had not, and that none but the priests of Isis and Serapis had so. But the custom was to poll their heads, and cut their hair to a moderate degree; not for any mys- tery that was in it, but for the sake of decency and gravity : that they might neither affect the manners of the luxurious part of the world, which prided itself in long hair; nor fall under contempt and obloquy by an indecent baldness ; but express a sort of venerable modesty in their looks and aspects, which is the rea- son that St. J erom assigns for the ancient tonsure. From hence we may further con— clude, that the ancient clergy were _Of_tSbe:tc01iZiiacle- . . means, and why the not called coronatz from their shaven crowns, as some would have it, since it is evident there was no such thing among them : but it seems rather a name given them, as Gotho- fred‘°‘l and Savaro105 conjecture, from the form of the ancient tonsure; which was made in a circular figure, by cutting away the hair a little from the crown of the head, and leaving a round or circle hanging downwards. This in some councils 1°“ is called circulz' corona, and ordered to be used in op- position to some heretics, who it seems prided them- selves in long hair and the contrary custom. But I am not confident that this was the reason of the name, coronati ; it might be given the clergy in general out of respect to their oflice and character, which was always of great honour and esteem: for corona signifies honour and dignity in a figurative sense, and it is not improbable but that the word was sometimes so used in this case, as has been noted before107 in speaking of the form of saluting bishops, per coronam. As to the kind or fashion of their . Sect. 18. apparel, it does not appear for several gywfplfeuéeigéggucilgz ages, that there was any other distinc- Ifijoggiarlygierxrel tion observed therein between them clergy called coro- natz. 1°° Sidon. lib. 4. Ep. 24. Habitus viro, gradus, pudor, color, sermo religiosus : tum coma brevis, barba prolixa, &c. 1°‘ Optat. cont. Parmen. lib. 2. p. 58. Docete, ubi vo- bis mandatum est radere capita sacerdotum, cum e contra- rio sint tot exempla proposita, fieri non debere.—Qui parare debebas aures ad audiendum, parasti novaculam ad delin- quendum. ‘"2 Albasp. in loc. p. 141. 1°? Hieron. lib. 13. in Ezek. cap. 44. p. 668. Quod autem sequitur, capita sua non radent, &c. perspicue demonstra- tur, nec rasis capitibus, sicut sacerdotes, cultoresque Isidis atque Serapis, nos esse debere; nec rursum comam demit- tere, quod proprie luxuriosum est, barbarorumque et mili- tantium; sed ut honestus habitus sacerdotum facie demon- stretur; nec calvitium novacula esse faciendum, nec ita ad pressum tondendum caput, ut rasorum similes esse videa- mur; sed in tantum capillos esse demittendos, ut operta sit cutis. 1°‘ Gothofred. Com. in Cod. Theod. lib. 16. Tit. 2. de Episc. Leg. 38. 1°?’ Savaro, Not. in Sidon. lib. 6. Ep. 3. 1°“ Conc. Tolet. 4. c. 41. Omnes clerici, detonso superius capite toto, inferius solam circuli coronam relinquant, &c. 1°’ Book II. chap. 9. sect. 5. 230 Boox VI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. and the laity, save that they were more confined to wear that which was modest and grave, and becom- in g their profession, without being tied to any certain garb or form of clothing. Several councils require the clergy to wear apparel suitable to their profession, but they do not express any kind, or describe it other- wise, than that it should not border upon luxury or any affected neatness, but rather keep a medium be- tween finery and slovenliness. This was St. J erom‘s direction to Nepotian,108 that he should neither wear black nor white clothing; for gaiety and slovenliness were equally to be avoided, the one savouring of niceness and delicacy, and the other of vain-glory. Yet in different places different customs seem to have prevailed, as to the colour of their clothing. For, at Constantinople, in the time of Chrysostom and Arsacius, the clergy commonly went in black, as the Novatians did in white. Which appears from the dispute which Socrates speaks of109 be- tween Sisinnius, the Novatian bishop, and one of Arsacius’s clergy: for he says, Sisinnius going one day to visit Arsacius, the clergyman asked him, why he wore a garment which did not become a bishop? And where it was written, that a priest ought to be clothed in white? To whom he re- plied, You first show me where it is written that a bishop ought to be clothed in black? From this it is easy to collect, that by this time it was become the custom at Constantinople for the clergy to wear black, and that perhaps to distinguish themselves from the Novatians, who affected, it seems, to ap- pear in white. But we do not find these matters as yet so particularly determined or prescribed in any councils. For the fourth council of Carthage110 requires the clergy to wear such apparel as was suitable ‘to their profession, but does not particu- larize any further about it, save that they should not affect any finery or gaiety in their shoes or clothing. And the council of Agdem gives the very same direction. Baronius,n2 indeed, is very earnest to persuade his reader, that bishops, in the time of Cyprian, wore the same habit that is now worn by cardinals in the church of Rome, and such bishops as are advanced from a monastery to the episcopal throne. As if Cyprian had been a monk or a cardinal of the church of Rome. But as the learned editor“3 of Cyprian’s Works observes, there is scarce any thing so absurd, that a man who is engaged in a party cause cannot persuade himself to believe, and hope to persuade others also. For is it likely that bishops and presbyters should make their appearance in public in a distinct habit, at a time when tyrants and persecutors made a most diligent search after them to put them to death P Do the clergy of the present church of Rome use to ap- pear so in countries where they live in danger of being discovered and taken? But what shall we say to the writer of Cyprian’s Passion, who mentions Cyprian’s ‘“ Zacerna or birrus, and after that his tu- m'ca or dalmatica, and last of all his Zinea, in which he suffered? of which Baronius makes the lz'nea ‘to be the bishop’s rochet; and the dalmatz'ca or tum'oa, that which they now call the loose tunicle; and the lacerna or birrus, the red silken vestment that covers the shoulders. Why, to all this it may be said, that these are only old names for new things. For besides the absurdity of thinking that Cyprian should go to his martyrdom in his sacred and pon- tifical robes, (which were not to be worn out of the church,) it is evident these were but the names of those common garments which many Christians then used without distinction. As to the birrus, it is evident that Sect. m it was no peculiar habit of bishops, Cogntpgrggglgngg; no, nor yet of the clergy. That it and Paum’n' was not peculiar to bishops, appears from what St. Austin says of it, that it was the common garment which all his clergy wore, as well as himself. And therefore if any one presented him with a richer birrus than ordinary, he would not wear it. For,“5 though it might become another bishop, it would not become him, who was a poor man, and born of poor parents. He must have such a one as a pres- byter could have, or a deacon, or a subdeacon. If any one gave him a better, he was used to sell it; that since the garment itself could not be used in common, the price of it at least might be common. This shows plainly that the birrus was not the bi- shop’s peculiar habit, but the common garment of all St. Austin’s clergy. And that this was no more than the common tum'ca, or coat worn generally by Christians in Africa and other places, may appear from a canon of the council of Gangra, made against Eustathius the heretic, and his followers, 1°‘; Hieron. Ep. 2. ad Nepot. Vestes pullas aeque devita, ut candidas. Ornatus et sordes pari modo fugiendae sunt; quia alterum delicias, alterum gloriam redolet, &c. ‘"9 Socrat. lib. 6. c. 22. 1"’ Conc. Garth. 4. c. 45. Clericus professionem suam et in habitu et in incessu probet: et ideo nec vestibus nec calceamentis decorem quaerat. "I Conc. Agathen. c. 20. Vestimenta vel calceamenta etiam eis, nisi quae religionem deceant, uti aut habere non liceat. "2 Baron. an. 261. n. 44. ' "3 Vide Fell, Not. in Vit. Cypr. p. 13. “4 Passio Cypr. p. 13. Cyprianus in agrum sexti pro- ductus est, et ibi se lacerna birro expoliavit. Et cum se dalmatica (a1. tunica) expoliasset, et diaconibus tradidis- set, in linea stetit, et ccepit spiculatorem sustinere. "5 Aug. Serm. 50. de Diversis. t. 10. p. 523. Offeratur mihi birrum pretiosum, forte decet episcopum, quamvis nonv deceat Augustinum, id est, hominem pauperem, de paupe- ribus natum.--—Talem debeo habere, qualem potest habere presbyter, qualem potest habere diaconus et subdiaconus. Si quis meliorem dederit, vendo, quod et facere soleo, ut quando non potest vestis esse communis, pretium vestis sit commune. CHAP. IV. 231 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. who condemned the common habit,"6 and brought in the use of a strange habit in its room. Now this common habit was the birrus, or Bfipog, as they call it in the canon made against them, which runs in these words: If any man uses the pallz'um,117 or cloak, upon the account of an ascetic life, and, as if there were some holiness in that, condemns those that with reverence use the birrus, and other gar- ments that are commonly worn, let him be ana— thema. The bz'rrus, then, was the common and ordinary coat, which the Christians of Paphlagonia and those parts generally wore: and though the ascetics used the weplfddhalov, the philosophic palh'um, or cloak, yet the clergy of that country used the common bz'rrus, or coat. For Sozomen,“8 in relating this same history, instead of Bfjpog, uses the word xirwv, which is a more known name for the Latin tunz'ca, or coat: and he also adds, that Eustathius himself, after the synod had condemned him, changed his philosophic habit, and used the same garb that the secular presbyters wore. Which plainly evinces, that as yet the clergy in those parts did not dis~ tinguish themselves by their habit from other Chris- tians, though the ascetics generally did. In the French churches, several years after this, we find the clergy still using the same secular habit with other Christians: and when some endeavoured to alter it, and introduce the ascetic or philosophic habit among them; Celestine, bishop of Rome, wrote a reprimanding letter to them, asking, Why that habit, the cloak, was used‘ in the French churches,” when it had been the custom of so many bishops for so many years to use the common habit of the people? From whom the clergy were to be distinguished by their doctrine, and not by their garb; by their conversation, not their habit; by the purity of their souls, rather than their dress. But yet I must observe, that in some places the ascetics, when they were taken into the ministry of the church, were allowed to retain their ancient philosophic habit without any censure. Thus St. J erom ‘2° observes of his friend Nepotian, that he kept to his philosophic habit, the palh'um, after he was ordained presbyter, and wore it to the day of his death. He says the same of Heraclas,I21 presby- ter of Alexandria, that he continued to use his phi- losophic habit when he was presbyter. Which is noted also by Eusebius out of Origen, who says, that when Heraclas entered himself in the school of philosophy under Ammonius, he then laid aside the common garb, and took the philosophic habit)” with which he sat in the presbytery of Alexandria. Upon which Valesius123 very rightly observes, that there was then no peculiar habit of the clergy, for- , asmuch as Heraclas always retained his philosophic palh'um ; which was the known habit of the ascetics, but as yet was very rarely used among the clergy, who wore generally the common habit, except when some such philosophers and ascetics came among them. For here we see it was noted as something rare and singular in Heraclas: but in after ages, when the clergy were chiefly chosen out of the monks and ascetics, the philosophic habit came in by degrees with them, and was encouraged, till at last it became the most usual habit of the clergy of all sorts: but this was not till the fifth or sixth century, as may be collected from what has been said before on this subject. But some, perhaps, may think the wt 20 clergy had always a distinct habit, be- dagfzirtigaéoégiggfi, cause some ancient authors take no- dhfgllzgfivrium, tice of the collobz'um, as a garment worn by bishops and presbyters in the primitive ages. For Epiphanius)“ speaking of Arius, while he was presbyter of Alexandria, says, he always wore the collobz'um or hemz'phorz'um. And Pius, bishop of Rome, in his epistle to Justus, bishop of Vienna, (which by many is reckoned genuine,) speaks of Justus ‘25 as wearing a collobz'um also. But this was no more than the tunica, of which there were two sorts, the dalmatz'ca and collobium, which differed only in this respect, that the collobz'um was the short coat without long sleeves, so called from KOAOCCQ, curt-us ; but the dalmatz'ca was the tzmz'ca mam'cata et talarz's, the long coat with sleeves. Both which were used by the Romans, though the collobi-um was the more common, ancient, and honourable garment. As appears from Tully, who derides Catiline’s128 soldiers, because they had their tunz'caz manicatce et talares ; whereas the ancient Romans were used “6 Conc. Gangr. in Praefat. Eel/a a'jucpw'wyuaq'a é'n'i Ka- Tavr'roim'el. "rfis Icowé'rirros "r5621 a’pqbcao'pci'rwv o'uué'you'res. “7 Conc. Gangr. c. 12. El’ 'ns a’udpdm did uoptzopce'unu d'o'Kno'w 1rsplflohac'w Xpii'rac, Kai (59 d1: ex 'rod'rou 'ri‘ju ducal.— oo'ziunu e'xwu Ka'rad/ncpicrowo 'rc'lm p.51" silhafiet'as 'rol‘rs ,Bri- povs (1)0906u'rwu, Kai 'rz'i 6AA!) Icowz'i Kai e11 o'vuneaiqz 0:70p éadii'rc Kexpnpéuwv, duo'zdepa Ea'rw. ‘'5 Sozom. lib. 3. c. 14. “9 Celestin. Ep. 2. ad. Episc. Gall. c. 1. Unde hic ha- bitus in ecclesiis Gallicanis, ut tot annorum, tantorumque pontificum in alterum habitum consuetudo vertatur? Dis- cernendi a plebe vel caeteris sumus doctrina, non veste; con- versatione, non habitu; mentis puritate, non cultu. 12° Hieron. Epitaph. Nepotian. 121Hieron. de Scriptor. c. 54. Heraclam presbyterum, qui sub habitu philosophi perseverabat, &c. m Orig. ap. Euseb. Lib. 6. c. 19. Hpci'repou Kowfi £66611. Xpu'ijusuos, d'rrodvo'auauos Kai duho'o'oqfiou a’vahaflu‘w a-X'Fma jusxpi 'roii davpo 'r'nps'i. ‘23 Vales. Not. in 100. Ex his apparet, nullurn etiam tum peculiarem fuisse vestitum clericorum, quandoquidem Heraclas philosophicum pallium semper retinuit. ‘24 Epiph. Haer. 69. Arian. n. 3. ‘H/iucpcipwu 'ydp 6 'TOLOUTOQ a’si, Kai KoAoBiwx/a éudtdvo'lco'psuos. '25 Pius, Ep. 4. ad Just. Vien. Tu vero apud senatoriam Viennam—collobio episcoporum vestitus, &c. ‘25 Cicero, Orat. 2. in Catilin. n. 22. 232 BooK VI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. to wear the collobia, or short ‘ coats without long sleeves: as Servius127 and St. J erom128 after him ob- serve from this place of Tully. So that a bishop or a presbyter’s wearing a collobz'um means no more (when the hard name is explained) but their wear- ing a common Roman garment. Which is evident from one of the laws of Theodosius the Great, made about the habits which senators were allowed to use within the walls of Constantinople, where they are forbidden to wear the soldier’s coat, the chlamys, but allowed to use the collobz'um and penulmm be- cause these were civil habits, and vestments of ' peace. The dalmatz'ca, or as it was otherwise called, xstpodorog, or tunica mam'oata, because it had sleeves down to the hands, was seldom used among the Romans: for Lampridius130 notes it as a singular thing in the Life of C ommodus the emperor, that he wore a dalmatz'ca in public, which he also ‘31 cen- sures in Heliogabalus, as Tully had done before in Catiline. And that is a good argument to prove, that the clergy of this age did not wear the dalma- tz'ca in public, since it was not then the common garment of the Romans. And the conjecture of a learned man ‘82 is well grounded, who thinks that in the Life of St. Cyprian, where the ancient copies have, tunicam tulz't, some ofiicious modern tran- scribers changed the word tunica into dalmatz'ca, as being more agreeable to the language and custom of their own time, when the dalmate'ca was reckoned among the sacred vestments of the church, though we never find it mentioned as such in any ancient author. The caracalla, which some now call the cassock, was originally a Gallic habit, which Anto- ninus Bassianus, who was born at Lyons in France, first brought into use among the Roman people, whence he had the name of Caracalla, as Aurelius Victor '33 informs us. It was a long garment, reach- ing down to the heels, which Victor says the Roman people put on, when they went to salute the empe- ror: but whether it was also a clerical habit in those days, may be questioned, since no ancient author speaks of it as such: but if it was, it was not any peculiar habit of the clergy ; since Spartian,134 who lived in the time of Constantine, says, they were then used by the common people of Rome, who called them caracallre Antom'm'anw, from their author. The 1'7pl¢6plov, which Epiphanius joins with the collobz'um, was either but another name for the same garment, or one like it: for it signifies a short cloak or coat, as Petavius185 and other critics explain it: fipwv i/rareiag, or dimz'dz'um pallz'um, which answers to the description of the collobz'um given before. As for the linea, mentioned in the Life of Cyprian, which Baronius calls the bishop’s rochet, it seems to have been no more than some common garment made of linen, though we know not what other name to give it. Baronius says pleasantly, it was not his shirt, and therefore concludes it must be his rochet: which is an argument to make a reader smile, but carries no great conviction in it. And yet it is as good as any that he produces to prove, that bishops in Cy- pl'ian’s time appeared in public differently habited from other men. That the clergy had their par— ticular habits for ministering in Divine service, at least in the beginning of the fourth century, is not denied, but will be proved and evidenced in its pro- per place: but that any such distinction was ge- nerally observed extra mom in their other habits in that age, is what does not appear, but the contrary from what has been discoursed. It was necessary for me to give the reader this caution, because some unwarily confound these things together, and al- lege the proofs or disproofs of the one for the other, which yet are of very different consideration. CHAPTER V. SOME REFLECTIONS UPON THE FOREGOING DIS- COURSE, CONCLUDING WITH AN ADDRESS TO THE CLERGY OF THE PRESENT CHURCH. HAVING thus far gone over, and as it ed: 1 ' ' ' R r" '1. All were brought into one view, the chief laws‘efgg meson“ of those ancient laws and rules, which “mm mm" m necessary to be ob- served by the pre- concerned the elections, qualifications, Sen, chum}, and duties, and general offices of the pri- clergy‘ mitive clergy; reserving the consideration of par- ticular offices to their proper places, I shall close this part of the discourse with a few necessary re- 12’ Servius in Virgil. 9. Eneid. vers. 616. Ht tunicae ma- nicas, et habeut redimicula mitrae. 128 Hieron. Quaest. Hebraic. in Genes. xxxvii. 32. t. 3. p. 222. Pro varia tunica S ymmachus interpretatus est tunicam manicatam; sive quod ad talos usque descenderet, sive quod haberet manicas; antiqui enim magis collobiis utebantur. ‘29 Cod. 'l‘beodos. lib. l4. Tit. 10. de Habitu quo uti opor- tet intra Urbern, Leg. 1. Nullus senatorum habitum sibi vindicet militarem, sed chlamydis terrore deposito, quieta colloborum ac penularum induat vestimenta, &c. ‘3° Lamprid. Vit. Commodi, p. 139. Dalmaticatus in pub- lico processit. ‘31 Id. Vit. Heliogab. p. 317, Dalmaticatns in puhlico post cmnam saepe visus est. '32 Bp. Fell, Not. in Vit. Cypr. p. 13. ‘33 Victor. Epit. Vit. Caracallae. Cum e Gallia vestem plurimam devexisset, talaresque caracallas fecisset, coegis- setque plebem ad se salutandum indutarn talibus introire, de nomine hujus vestis, Caracalla cognominatus est. ‘34 Spartian. Vit. Caracal. p. 251. Ipse Caracalli nomen accepit a vestimento, quod populo dederat, demisso usque ad talos, quod ante non fuerat; unde hodieque Antoninianae dicuntur caracallae hujusmodi, in usu maxime Romanae ple~ bis frequentatae. ‘35 Petav. Not. in Epiphan. l~laer.69.n. 3. Suicer. Thesaur. Eccles. t. l. p. 1334. CHAP. V. 233 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. flections upon it, in reference to the practice of the clergy of the present church. And here first of all it will be proper to observe, that all the laws and rules of - the primitive church are not obligatory to the present clergy, save only so far as they either contain matters necessary in themselves, or are adopted into the body of rules and canons, which are authorized and received by the present church. For some laws were made upon particular reasons, peculiar to the state and circumstances of the church in those times: and it would neither be reasonable nor possible to reduce men to the observance of all such laws, when the reasons of them are ceased, and the state of affairs and circumstances of the church are so much altered. Other laws were made by par- ticular churches for themselves only, and these never could oblige other churches, till they were received by their ownvconsent, or bound upon them by the authority of a general council, where they them- selves were represented, and their consent virtually taken: much less can they oblige absolute and in- dependent churches at the distance of so many ages; since every such church has power to make laws and rules about things of an alterable nature for herself, and is not tied to the laws of any other. Nor, con- sequently, are any of the members of such a church bound to observe those rules, unless they be revived and put in force by the church whereof they are members. As this is agreeable to the sense and practice of the catholic church ; so it was neces- sary here to be observed, that no one might mis- take the design of this discourse, as if it tended to make every rule, that has been mentioned therein, become necessary and obligatory; or designed to reflect upon the present church, because in all things she does not conform to the primitive prac- tice : which it is not possible to do, without making all cases and circumstances exactly the same in all ages. Sect 2 But, 2. Notwithstanding this, I mlfjfifiuis 33:33 may, I presume, without offence take gfivificfilyljfil‘tffii leave to observe in the next place, that 3" some ancient rules would be of excel- lent use, if they were revived by just authority in the present church. What if we had a law agree- able to that of J ustinian’s in the civil law, that every patron or elector, who presents a clerk, should de- ' pose upon oath, that he chose him neither for any gift, or promise, or friendship, or any other cause, but because he knew him to be a man of the true catholic faith, and good life, and good learning? Might not this be a good addition to the present laws against simoniacal contracts? What if the order of the ancient chorepz'scopz' were reduced and settled in large dioceses? And coadjutors in case of infirmity and old age? Might not these be of great use, as for many other ends, so particularly for the exercise of discipline, and the easier and constant discharge of that most excellent oflice of confirmation? The judicious reader will be able to carry this reflection through abundance of other instances, which I need not here suggest: and I for- bear the rather, because I am only acting the part of an historian for the ancient church; leaving others, whose province it is, to make laws for the present church, if any things are here suggested, which their wisdom and prudence may think fit to make the matter of laws for the greater benefit and ad- vantage of it. 3. It may be observed further, that Sect 3_ there were some laws in the ancient ,nfififfifgssfii; church, which, though they be not iiiobcgoiiniiiidiaiiitfii established laws of the present church, the present church‘ may yet innocently be complied with; and perhaps it would be for the honour and advantage of the clergy voluntarily to comply with them, since there is no law to prohibit that. I will instance in one case of this nature. It was a law in the ancient church, as I have showed,1 that the clergy should end all their civil controversies, which they had one with another, among themselves, and not go to law in a secular court, unless they had a controversy with a layman. Now, though there be no such law in the present church, yet there is nothing to hinder clergymen from choosing bishops to be their arbi- ' trators, and voluntarily referring all their causes to them, or any other judges whom they shall agree upon among themselves; which must be owned to be the most Christian way of ending controversies: whence, as I have showed, it was many times prac- tised by the laity in the primitive church, who took bishops for their arbitrators by voluntary compro- mise, obliging themselves to stand to their arbitra- tion. And what was so commendable in the laity, must needs be more reputable in the clergy, and more becoming their gravity and character; not to mention other advantages, that might arise from this way of ending disputes, rather than any other. From this one instance it will be easy to judge, how far it may be both lawful and honourable, for the clergy to imitate the practice of the ancients in other cases of the like nature. 4. The last observation I have to Sec," 4_ make upon the foregoing discourse, is ,ngifgfgg-ot-ggfflt in reference to such laws of the an- 322532526332.“ cient church, as must be owned to be mm of necessary and eternal obligation. Such are most of those that have been mentioned in the second- and third chapters of this book, relating to the life and duties of the clergy: in which the clergy of all churches will for ever be concerned, the matter of those laws being in itself of absolute and indispens- ‘ Book V. chap. 1. sect. 4. 234 CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Boox VI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE able obligation. The practice of the ancients, there- fore, in compliance with such laws, will be a con- tinual admonition, and their examples a noble provo- cation to the clergy of all ages. There is nothing that commonly moves or affects us more than great and good examples‘: they at once both pleasantly instruct, and powerfully excite us to the practice of our duty; they show us that rules are practicable, as having already been observed by men of like passions with ourselves; they are apt to inflame our courage by a holy contagion, and raise us to noble acts by provoking our emulation; they, as it were, shame us into laudable works, by upbraiding and reproaching our defects in falling short of the pat- terns set before us; they work upon our modesty, and turn it into zeal; they raise our several useful passions, and set us to work by exciting those in- bred sparks of emulation, and principles of activity, that are lodged within us. And for this reason, whilst others have done good service by writing of the pastoral office and care in plain rules and direc- tions, I have added the examples of the ancients to their rules; the better to excite us to tread those paths which are chalked out to us, by the encou- ragement of such instructive and provoking exam- ples. Who can read that brave defence and an- swer2 which St. Basil made to the Arian prefect, without being warmed with something of his zeal I for truth upon any the like occasion? How resolute and courageous will it make a man, even against the calumnies of spite and malice, to contend for the faith, when he reads3 what base slanders and reproaches were cast upon the greatest luminaries of the church, and the best of men, Athanasius and Basil, for standing up in the cause of religion against the Arian heresy! Again, how peaceable, how can- did, how ingenuous and prudent will it make a man in composing unnecessary disputes that arise among catholics in the church, always to have be- fore his eyes that great example of candour and peaceableness, which Nazianzen describes in the person of Athanasius,‘ who by his prudence recon- ciled two contending parties, that for a few sylla- bles, and a dispute about mere words, had like to have torn the church in pieces? To instance but once more, who that reads that great example. of charity and self-denial in the African fathers at the collation of Carthage,5 and considers with what a brave and public spirit they despised their own pri- vate interest for the good, and peace, and unity of the church, will not be inspired with something of the same noble temper, and ardent love of Christ; which will make him willing to do or suffer any thing for the benefit of his church, and sacrifice 2 See Book VI. chap. 3. sect. lO. 3 Ibid. 4 See chap. 3. sect. 9. 5 See chap. 4. sect. 2. his own private interest to the advantage of the public ; whilst he persuades himself, with those holy fathers, that he was made for the church of Christ, and not the church for him? As it is of the utmost consequence to the welfare of the church, to have these and the like virtues and graces planted in the hearts of her clergy; so, among other means that - may be used for the promoting this end, there is none perhaps more likely to take effect, than the recommending such virtues by the powerful provo- cation of such noble examples. And he that offers such images of virtue to public view, may at least be allowed to make the apology, which Sulpicius Severus6 makes for his writing the Life of St. Mar- tin : Etsi' ipsi non m'wz'mus, ut alz'z's exemplo esse pos- sz'mus .- dedz'mus tamen operam, ne z'llz' Zaterent, qui as- sent imitandz'. But whilst I am so earnest in re- commending the examples of the an- cients, I must not forget to inculcate §§’,‘,’,1’§ffg"a§§,°{‘;,e 13,‘: some of their excellent rules. Such iiiiifiggetfifdpito... . . . rthe ministry. as their laws about training up young men for the ministry under the magister disczplz'nw, whose business was to form their morals, and inure them to such studies, exercises, and practices, as would best qualify them for higher offices and ser- vices in the church. This method of education be- ing now changed into that of universities and schools of learning, it highly concerns them on whom this care is devolved, to see that the same ends however be answered, that is, that all young men who aspire to the sacred profession, be rightly formed both in their studies and morals, to qualify them for their great work and the several duties of their calling. And they are the more concerned to be careful in this matter, because bishops now can- not have that personal knowledge of the morals of such persons, as they had formerly, when they were trained up under their eye, and liable to their in- spection: but now, as to this part of their qualifica- tion, they must depend first upon the care, and then upon the testimony, of those who are intrusted with their education. Besides, a late eminent writer,7 who inquires into the causes of the present corrup- tion of Christians, where he has occasion to speak of the pastoral oflice, and the ordinary methods now used for training up persons to it, makes a double complaint of the way of education in several of the universities of Europe. As to manners, be com- plains that young people live there licentiously, and are left to their own conduct, and make public pro- fession of dissoluteness: nay, that they not 01:‘ live there irregularly, but have privileges, which g"T \ them a right to commit with impunity all mamn Sect. 5. Some particular rules recommended 6 Sever. de Vita S. Martin. in Prologo. q. " Ostervald’s Causes of the Corruption of Christians, part 2. c. 3. p. 333. C HAP. V. 235 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. of insolencies, brutalities, and scandals, and which exempt them from the magistrate’s jurisdiction. Now, such universities as are concerned in this ac- cusation, (which by the blessing of God those of our land are not,) have great reason to consider how far they are fallen from the primitive standard, and what a difference there is between the ancient way of educating under the inspection of a bishop, and the conduct of a master of discipline in every church, and the way of such academies, where, if that learn- ed person say true, “ the care of masters and pro- fessors does not extend to the regulating of the manners of their disciples.” The other complaint he makes, is in reference to the studies which are pursued at universities, in which he observes two faults. One in reference to the method of teaching. “Divinity is treated there, and the Holy Scripture explained, altogether in a scholastical and specu- lative manner. Common places are read, which are full of school terms, and of questions not very material. This makes young men resolve all reli- gion into controversies, and gives them intricate and false notions of divinity.” The other fault, he thinks, is more essential: “Little or no care is taken, to teach those who dedicate themselves to the ser- vice of the church, several things, the knowledge of which would be very necessary to them. The study of history and of church antiquity is neglected: mo- rality is not taught in divinity schools, but in a su- perficial and scholastic manner; and in many aca- demies it is not taught at all. They seldom speak there of discipline, they give few or no instructions concerning the manner of exercising the pastoral care, or of governing the church. So that the greater part of those who are admitted into this oflice, enter into it without knowing wherein it con- sists; all the notion they have of it is, that it is a profession which obliges them to preach and to explain texts.” I cannot think all universities are equally concerned in this charge, nor shall I inquire how far any are, but only say, that the faults here complained of were rarely to be met with in the methods of education in the primitive church; where, as I have showed, the chief studies of men devoted to the service of the church, both before and after their ordinations, were such as directly tended to instruct them in the necessary duties and ofiices of their function. The great care then was to oblige men carefully to study the Scriptures in a practical way, and to acquaint themselves with the history and laws and discipline of the church, by the knowledge and exercise of which they became expert in all the arts of curing souls and making pious and holy men, which is the business of spi- ritual physicians, and the whole of the pastoral office: in which therefore their rules and examples are proper to be proposed to all churches for their imitation. Sect. 6 Another sort of rules worthy our most serious thoughts and consider~ fofdiryzagihrfggwxz ation, were those which concerned gafiifigsgeggggg; the examination of the candidates for my‘ the ministry. For by these such methods were pre- scribed, and such caution used, that it was scarce possible for an unfit or immoral man to be admitted to an ecclesiastical office, unless a bishop and the whole church combined as it were to choose unwor- thy men, which was a case that very rarely happened. It was a peculiar advantage in the primitive church, that by her laws ordinarily none were to be ordained but in the church where they were personally known ; so that their manners and way of living might be most strictly canvassed and examined; and a vi- cious man could not be ordained, if either the bishop or the church had the courage to reject him. Now, though this rule cannot be practised in the present state of the church, yet the main intent of it is of absolute necessity to be answered and provided for some other way; else the church must needs suffer greatly, and infinitely fall short of the purity of the primitive church, by conferring the most sacred of all characters upon immoral and unworthy men. The only way which our present circumstances will admit of, to answer the caution that was used in former days, is to certify the bishop concerning the candidates’ known probity and integrity of life, by such testimonials as he may safely depend upon. Here therefore every one sees, without my observing it to him, that to advance the present church to the purity and excellency of the primitive church, there is need of the utmost caution in this matter; that testimonials in so weighty an affair be not promis- cuously granted unto all; nor to any but upon rea- sonable evidence and assurance of the things testified therein: otherwise we partake in other men’s sins, and are far from consulting truly the glory of God and the good of his church, whilst we deviate so much from the exactness and caution that is showed us in the primitive pattern. The other part of the examination of candidates, which related to their abilities and talents, was made with no less diligence and exactness. The chief inquiry was, whether they were well versed in the sense and knowledge of the Holy Scriptures; whether they rightly understood the fundamentals of religion, the necessary doctrines of the gospel, and the rules of morality as delivered in the law of God; whether they had been conversant in the his- tory of the church, and understood her laws and discipline; and were men of prudence to govern, as well as of ability to teach, the people committed to their charge. These were things of great import- ance, because most of them were of daily use in the exercise of the ministry and pastoral care ; and therefore proper to he insisted on in examinations of this nature. These were the qualifications, which, 236 BOOK VI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE' CHRISTIAN CHURCH. joined with the burning and shining light of a pious life, raised the primitive church and clergy to that height of glory, which we all profess to admire in them: and the very naming that is a suflicient pro- * vocation to such as are concerned in this matter, to express their zeal for the welfare and glory of the present church, by keeping strictly to the measures, which were so successfully observed in the ancient church; and without which the ends of the ministry cannot be fully attained in any church, whilst per- sons are ordained that want proper qualifications. I shall not now stand to inculcate about mm, ,d_ any other rules about particular du- itjgiwgfltiaergi ties, studying, preaching, or the like, mplme' but only beg leave to recommend the primitive pattern in two things more. The one concerns private pastors, the other is humbly offer- ed to the governors of the church. That which concerns private pastors, is the duty of private ad- dress, and the exercise of private discipline toward the people committed to their charge. Some emi- nent persons,8 who have lately considered the duties of the pastoral office, reckon this one of the prin- cipal and most necessary functions of it; which consists in inspecting the lives of private persons, in visiting families, in exhortations, warnings, re- proofs, instructions, reconciliations, and in all those other cares, which a pastor ought to take of those over whom he is constituted. “ For,” as they rightly observe, “ neither general exhortations nor public discipline can answer all the occasions of the church. There are certain disorders, which pastors neither can nor ought to repress openly, and which yet ought to be remedied by them. In such cases, pri- vate admonitions are to be used. The concern of men’s salvation requires this, and it becomes the pastoral carefulness to seek the straying sheep, and not to let the wicked perish for want of warning.” But now, because this is a nice and difficult work, and requires not only great diligence and applica- tion, but also great art and prudence, with a pro- portionable share of meekness, moderation, and temper, to perform it aright ; it is often either wholly neglected, or very ill performed; whilst some think it enough to admonish sinners from the pul- pit, and others admonish them indiscreetly, which tends more to provoke than reclaim them. To re- medy both these evils, it will be useful to reflect upon that excellent discourse of Gregory Nazianzen, which has been suggested in the third chapter of this book,9 where he considers that great variety of tempers that is in men, and the nicety of all matters and occasions, that a skilful pastor ought to con- sider, in order to apply suitable remedies to every distemper. And there the reader will also find Sect. 7. 3rdly, Their rules 8 Ostervald’s Causes of the Corrupt. of Christians, p. 318. See also Bishop Bunnet’s Pastoral Care, 0. 8. p. 96. some other excellent cautious and directions given by Chrysostom and others upon this head, with ex- amples proper to excite him to the performance of this necessary duty. The other thing I would humbly offer to the consideration of our supe- “$322523: $11,‘: riors, who are the guardians of public Egiagéiiiiiinfieilgpfin discipline, and inspectors of the be- i'xigil’dfhgdiihldeaigss. haviour of private pastors, is the ex- ofiences' ercise of discipline in the ancient church. By which I .do not now mean that general discipline, which was exercised toward all offenders in the church; but the particular discipline that was used among the clergy; by virtue of which, every clerk convict of immorality, or other scandalous offence, was liable to be deposed, and punished with other ecclesiastical censures; of which, both crimes and punishments, I have given a particular account in the three foregoing chapters of this book. It is a thing generally acknowledged by all, that the glory of the ancient church’ was her discipline; and it is as general a complaint of the misfortune of the pre- sent church, that corruptions abound for want of reviving and restoring the ancient discipline. Now, if there be any truth in either of these observations, it ought to be a quickening argument to all that sit at the helm of government in the church, to bestir themselves with their utmost zeal, that discipline, where it is wanting, may at least be restored among the clergy; that no scandals or offences may be tolerated among them, whose lives and practices ought to be a light and a guide to others. As there is nothing to hinder the free exercise of it here, so it is but fitting it should be exemplified in them; as for many other reasons, so particularly for this: that the laity may not think they are to be tied to any discipline, which the clergy have not first ex- ercised upon themselves with greater severity of ecclesiastical censures. And if either rules or ex- amples can encourage this, those of the primitive church are most provoking: her rules of discipline were most excellent and exact in themselves, and for the most part as exactly managed by persons intrusted with the execution of them. After these reflections made upon the laws and practice of the primitive reform the heathen clergy, it will be needless to make $8521 bgfi'fitflifle“ any long address to any orders of the itetgéiitiieatfinlegii clergy of the present age. I will m the present age' therefore only observe one thing more, that J nlian’s design to bring the laws of the primitive clergy into use among the heathen priests, in order to reform them, as it was then a plain testimony of their ex- cellency, so it is now a proper argument to provoke the zeal of the present clergy, to be more forward Sect. 8. Julian's ‘design to 9 See Book VI. chap. 3. sect. 8. CHAP. V. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 237 and ambitions in their imitation. I have already, in part, recited J ulian’s testimony and design, out of his letter to Arsacius, high priest of Galatia: I shall here subjoin a more ample testimony from a fragment of one of his epistles10 printed among his works, where, speaking of the Gentile priests, he says, It was reasonable they should be honoured, as the ministers and servants of the gods, by whose mediation many blessings were derived from hea- ven upon the world: and so long as they retained this character, they were to be honoured and re- spected by all, but if wicked and vicious, they should be deposed from their office,11 as unworthy of their function. Their lives were to be so regu- lated, as that they might be a copy and pattern of what they were to preach to men. To this pur- pose they should be careful in all their addresses to the gods, to express all imaginable reverence and piety,” as being in their presence and under their inspection. They should neither speak a filthy word, nor hear one; but abstain as well from all impure discourse, as vile and wicked actions, and not let a scurrilous or abusive jest come from their mouths. They should read no books tending this way, such as Archilochus and Hipponax, and the writers of loose, wanton comedies; but apply themselves to the study of such philosophers as Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, Chrysippus, and Zeno, whose writings were most likely to create piety in men’s minds. For all sorts of books were not fit to be read by the priests: even among philosophers, those of Pyrrho and Epicurus were wholly to be re- jected by them; and instead of these they ‘8 should learn such divine hymns, as were to be sung in honour of the gods, to whom they should make their supplications publicly and privately thrice a day, if it might be; however, twice at least, mom- ing and evening. In the course of their public ministrations in the temples,“ which at Rome commonly held for thirty days, they were to reside all the time in the temples, and give themselves to philosophic thoughts, and neither go to their own houses, nor into the forum, nor see any magistrate but in the temple. When their term of waiting was expired, and they were returned home, they might not converse or feast promiscuously with all, but only with their friends and the best of men; they were but rarely then to appear in the forum, and not to visit the magistrates and rulers, except it were in order to be helpful to some that needed their assistance. While they ministered in the temple, they were to be arrayed with a magnificent garment; but out of it, they must wear common apparel, and that not very costly, or in the least savouring of pride and vain-glory. They were in no case15 to go to see the obscene and wanton shows of the public theatres, nor to bring them into their own houses, nor to converse familiarly with any charioteer, or player, or dancer belonging to the theatre. After this he signifies, out of what sort of men the priests should be chosen. They should be the best that could be found in every city, persons that had true love for God and man, and then it mattered not whether they were rich or poor; there being no difference to be made be- tween noble and ignoble in this case: no one was to be rejected upon other accounts, who was endued with those two qualities, piety to God and humanity to men. Whereof the former might be evidenced by their care to make all their domestics as devout as themselves ; and the latter, by their readiness to distribute liberally to the poor, out of that little they had, and extending their charity to as many as was possible. And there was the more reason to be careful in this matter, because it was mani- festly the neglect of this humanity in the priests, which had given occasion to the impious Galileans (by whom he means the Christians) to strengthen their party by the practice of that humanity, which the others neglected. For as kidnappers steal away children, whom they first allure with a cake; so these begin first to work upon honest-hearted Gen- tiles with their love-feasts, and entertainments, and ministering of tables, as they call them, till at last they pervert them to atheism and impiety against the gods. Now from this discourse of Julian, I think, it is very evident,that he had observed what laws and practices had chiefly contributed to the advance- ment of the character and credit of the Christian clergy, and of the Christian religion by their means : and therefore he laboured to introduce the like rules and discipline among the idol-priests, and intended to have made many other alterations in the heathen customs, in compliance with the en- vied rites and usages of the Christian religion, as is observed both by Gregory Nazianzen16 and Sozo— men,‘7 who give us a particular account of his in- tended emendations. The very mentioning which, if I mistake not, is a loud call to us, to be at least as zealous as Julian was, in copying out such excel— lencies of the primitive clergy, as are proper for our imitation. It is the argument which the apostle makes use of in a like case: “ I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, by a foolish nation will I anger you,” Rom. x. 19. I must needs say, it will be but a melancholy consideration for any man, to find hereafter, that the zeal of an apostate heathen shall rise up in judgment against him and condemn him. 11 Ibid. p. 543. 13 Ibid. p. 551. 1° Julian. Fragment. Epist. p. 542. 12 Ibid. p. 547. 15 Ibid. p. 555. ‘7 Sozom. lib. 5. c. 16. 14 Ibid. p. 553. ‘6 Naz. Invect. l. in Julian. 238 Boox VI. ANTIQUITIES or‘ THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. We all profess (as it is our duty to Sect. 10. wghggoqglgfégptg do) a great zeal for the honour and gfigseflfrc Yurgfl the welfare of the present church. Now, if indeed we have that zeal which we profess, we shall be careful to demonstrate it in all our actions; observing those necessary rules and measures which raised the primitive church to its glory. We are obliged, in this respect, first to be strict and exemplary in our lives; to set others a pattern of sobriety, humility, meekness, charity, self-denial, and contempt of the world, and all such common graces as are required of Christians in general to adorn their profession: and then to add to these the peculiar graces and ornaments of our ‘ function, diligence, prudence, fidelity, and piety in the whole course of our ministry; imitating those excellencies of the ancients which have been de- scribed; confining ourselves to the proper business of our calling, and not intermeddling or distracting ourselves with other cares ; employing our thoughts and time in useful studies, and directing them to their proper end, the edification of the church; performing all divine offices with assiduity and con- stancy, and in that rational, decent, and becoming way, as suits the ‘nature of the action; making our addresses to God with a serious reverence, and an affecting fervency of devotion; and in our discourses to men, speaking always as the oracles of God, with Scripture eloquence, which is the most persuasive: in our doctrine showing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity, sound speech that cannot be condemned: in our reproofs, and the exercise of public and pri- vate discipline, using great wisdom and prudence, both to discern the tempers of men, and to time the application to its proper season, mixing charity and compassion with a just severity, and endea- vouring to restore fallen brethren in the spirit of meekness; showing gentleness and patience to them that are in error, and giving them good arguments with good usage in order to regain them; avoiding all bitter and contumelious language, and never bringing against any man a railing accusation; treating those of our own order, whether superiors, ' inferiors, or equals, with all the decency and respect that is due to them, since nothing is more scandal- ous among clergymen, than the abuses and con- tempt of one another; endeavouring here, as well as in all other cases, to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace; showing ourselves candid and ingenuous in moderating disputes among good catholics, as well as resolute and prudent in oppos- ing the malicious designs of the professed enemies of truth; briefly, employing our thoughts day and night upon these things, turning our designs this way, and always acting with a pure intention for the benefit and edification of the church; even neg- lecting our own honours, and despising our own interest, when it is needful, for the advantage of the public. Such actions will proclaim our zeal indeed, and draw every eye to take notice of it. Such qualities, joined with probity and integrity of life, will equal our character to that of the primi- tive saints; and either give happy success to our labours, or at least crown our endeavours with the comfort and satisfaction of having discharged a good conscience in the sight of God. The best designs indeed may be frustrated, and the most pious and zealous endeavours be disappointed. It was so with our Lord and Master himself, and no one of his household then is to think it strange if it happen to be his own case. For though he spake as never man spake, though he had done so many miracles among the Jews, yet they believed not on him. This seems to be written for our comfort, that we ‘should not be wholly dejected, though our endeavours fail of success, since our Lord himself was first pleased to take his share in the disappoint- ment. It will still be our comfort, that we can be able to say with the prophet '8 in this case, Though we have laboured in vain, and spent our strength for nought, yet surely our judgment is with the Lord, and our work with our God: and then, though Israel be not gathered, yet shall we be glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and our God shall be our strength. *8 1sa. xlix. 4, 5. BOOK VII. OF THE ASCETICS IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. CHAPTER I. OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FIRST ASCETICS AND MONKS, AND OF THE FIRST ORIGINAL OF THE MONASTIC LIFE. Sec“ THEY who are conversant in the Ascetics always in theshurch; monks writings of the ancients, will very “otso' often meet with the name, a’mcnmi, ascetics, applied to some Christians by Way of distinction from others. The generality of writers in -the Romish church, wherever they meet with this word, lay hold of it as an argument to prove the antiquity of monks in the church; whereas, in- deed, there was a very wide difference between them: for though, in the writers of the fourth and fifth ages, when the monastic life was fully established, ascetics and monks often signify the same persons; yet for the greatest part of the three first centuries, it was otherwise: for there were always ascetics in the church, but not always monks retiring to the deserts and mountains, or living in monasteries and cells, as in after ages. This difference is freely confessed Sect. 2. _ This difference ac- by some of the more frank and ingenu- knowledged by some tggeggglgfivgfflma ous writers of the Romish church; as Valesiusl and Mr. Pagi,2 who correct the mistakes of Baronius, Christopherson, and others in this matter. Eusebius, speaking of Philo J udaaus his description of the Egyptian therapeutce, says, he therein exactly described the life of the Chris- tian ascetics8 that lived in those times. Where, by ascetics, Christopherson and Baronius under- stand monks and religious, as they speak in the modern style: but Valesius rightly observes, that there were no monks in the time of Philo, but both the name and institution of them was of much later date. Ascetic was a more general name than that of monk: for though every monk was an ascetic, yet every ascetic was not a monk; but anciently every Christian that made profession of a more strict and austere life, was dignified with the name of ascetic; which is a name borrowed by the Chris- tians from the ancient philosophers, as Valesius shows out of Arian, Artemidorus, and Philo; and signifies, as the word imports, any one that exer- cises himself by the severe rules of abstinence and virtue; of which kind there were always ascetics, without being monks, from the first foundation of the church by the apostles. Such were all those that inured themselves to greater degrees of ab- stinence and fasting than other men. As those mentioned by Origen,‘ who abstained from flesh and living creatures, as well as the Pythago- reans, but upon very different principles and de- signs: the Pythagoreans abstained upon the fond imagination of the transmigration of souls, lest a father should kill and eat his own son in the body of a living creature; but the ascetics, says he, among us do it only to keep under the body, and bring it into subjection; to mortify their members upon earth, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, and all inordinate passions and affections. Such absti- nence the Apostolical Canons call d'mmmgf the ex- ercise of an ascetic life, saying, If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, or any other of the clergy, abstain from marriage, flesh, or wine, m’) 6w‘: dimen- aw, dMd 81:2 Brlskvpiav, not for exercise’ sake, but as abominating the good creatures of God, &c., let him either reform himself, or be deposed and cast out of the church. So that all who exercised themselves with abstinence from flesh, only for mortification, and not out of an opinion of its un- cleanness, (as some heretics did,) were reckoned as- cetics, whether they were of the laity or clergy. Some of these not only abstained from flesh, but often continued their fasts for two or three days Sect. 3. ‘What the primi- tive ascetics were. 1 Vales. Not. in Euseb. lib. 2. c. 17. 2 Pagi, Critic. in Baron. an. 62. n. 4. 3 Euseb. lib. 2. C. 17. T1511 Biol; 'n'bu wap' {will do'Kn'nl'w the gill. lut'zkta'ra a'lcptfiéo'q'a'ra io'v'opc'bv, &c. 4 Orig. cont. Cels. lib. 5. p. 264. "Opa 'rr‘w 5La¢0p£w 1'5 a’rriov 'rfis énrlléxwv a’qroxfis, 75w dw'd 1'05 Hvea'yo'pov, Kai 'rilw éu {will do'Kn'rZZw. 5 Canon. Apost. c. 51. 240 Boox VII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. together without taking any food at all; of which there are frequent instances in Ireneeus,8 and Dio- nysius of Alexandria,7 and Epiphanius,’3 and others : and such again were called ascetics9 from the severe exercise of fasting, to which they accustomed them- selves. Secondly, In like manner, they who were more than ordinary intent upon the exercise of prayer, and spent their time in devotion, were justly thought to deserve the name of ascetics. Whence Cyril of J erusalem,lo speaking of Anna the pro- phetess, (who departed not from the temple, but served God with fasting and prayer, night and day,) styles hel‘ a'o'm'yrpta ebkafieqdrn, the religious ascetic, which the common translations, not so correctly, render, mom'alz's, as if she had been confined to a monastery or a cloister, of which we read nothing in those times in Jerusalem. Thirdly, The exercise of charity and contempt of the world in any extra- ordinary degree, as when men gave up their whole estate to the service of God or use of the poor, was another thing that gave men the denomination and title of ascetics. In this respect St. J erom calls Pierius 1‘ a wonderful ascetic, because, among other things, he embraced a voluntary poverty, and lived an austere and philosophic life. And perhaps, for the same reason, he gives Serapion, bishop of Anti- och, the same title,12 as having freely given up his whole estate to the service of the church upon his ordination; which was a practice very common in those days, as appears from the examples of Cy- prian, Paulinus, Gregory Nazianzen, and many others. Fourthly, The widows and virgins of the church, and all such as confined themselves to a single life, and made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake, were reckoned into the number of ascetics, though there was then neither cloister nor vow to keep them under this obliga- tion. Thus Epiphanius13 observes of Marcion, that before he fell into his heresy he lived an ascetic life, professing celibacy under his father, who was bishop of Sinope in Pontus, by whom he was excommuni- cated for corrupting one of the virgins of the church. Origen, in like manner, alludes to this name, when he says, the number of those who exercised them- selves in perpetual“ virginity among the Christians, was great in comparison of those few who did it among the Gentiles. And hence, in after ages, the word ascetriw, in the civil law,15 is commonly put to signify the widows and virgins of the church. Lastly, All such as exercised themselves with un- common hardships or austerities for the greater promotion of piety and religion, as in frequent watchings, humicubations, and the like, bad the name of ascetics also. In allusion to which Atha- nasius, or whoever is the author of the Synopsis Scripturae among his works, styles Lucian the mar- tyr, ,uéyav dmeqrfiv,“ the great ascetic, because of the hardships he endured in prison; being forced to lodge on sharp potsherds for twelve days together, with his feet and hands so bound in the stocks that he could not move ; and being denied all sustenance, except he would eat things sacrificed to idols ; rather than pollute himself with which he chose to die with famine, as the acts of his martyrdom relate the story. Now, from this account that has been given of the primitive ascetics, it plainly appears, that originally they were not monks, but men of all orders, that freely chose such a way of living as en- gaged them upon some austerities, without desert- ing their station or business in the world, whether it were ecclesiastical or secular, that they were otherwise engaged in: and therefore, wherever we read of ascetics in the writers of the three first ages, we must not with Baronius dream of monks and regulars, but take them for persons of another cha- racter, agreeable to this description. Valesiusl7 makes this observation upon several passages in Eusebius his book of the martyrs of Palestine, who suffered in the beginning of the fourth century in the Diocletian persecution. There he terms one of them Peter the ascetic,18 and another called Seleucus, a follower of the religious ascetics,19 whose chief ex- ercise was to take care of the fatherless and widows, and minister to the sick and the poor. These were no monks, as Valesius rightly observes: for St. J erom says, there were no monks in Palestine be- fore Hilarion, who brought the monastic life into use in that country, not till about fifty years after the death of those martyrs. Cotelerius2° makes the like remark upon the author of the Apostolical Constitutions, who speaks 2‘ of ascetics among other orders of Christians, but never of monks: whence he concludes, not without some proba- bility, that that author wrote before the monastic life was settled in the church; else it is hardly to be imagined that he should not some where in his collections have taken notice of monks as well as others. 6 Iren. ap. Euseb. lib. 5. c. 24. 7 Dionys. Ep. Canon. ap. Bevereg. Pandect. t. 2. 8 Epiphan. Expos. Fid. n. 22. 9 Antioch. Homil. 7. in Bibl. Patr. Gr. Lat. t. 2. p. 1037. 1° Cyril. Catech. 10. u. 9. 1' Hieron. de Script. Eccles. c. 76. Constat hunc mirae &amio-swe appetitorem et voluntariae paupertatis. ‘2 Ibid. c. 41. Leguntur ejus breves epistolae, auctoris sui (in-mice: et vitae congruentes. ‘3 Epiphan. Haer. 42. n. l. T611 6% 'n'piirrov aim-oi; fliov 'n-apfleufau 656511 iio'lcst, pouo'zzwu 'yo‘zp imijpxe, &c. “ Origen. cont. Cels. lib. 7. p. 365. ’Am\110'L6)V 'rrau'raxofi 'yemiaou'rat. '4‘ Vid. Combefis. Auctuar. Novissim. p. 57. _ “5 Lamprid. Vit. Alex. 0. 49. Cum Christiani quendam locum, qui publicus fuerat, occupassent, contra popinarii di- cerent, sibi eum debe-ri; reseripsit imperator, Melius esse ut quomodocunque illic Deus colatur, quam popinariis dedatur. “6 Greg. Nyss. Vit. Greg. Thaumatur. t. 3. p. 567. "7 Gregor. Thaumaturg. Epist. Canon. c. 11. "9 Cy pr. de Oper. et Eleemos. See sect. 2. "9 Cypr. Ep. 55. al. 59. ad Cornel. Quid super-est, quam ut ecclesia capitolio ccdat, et recedentibus sacerdotibus ac Domini altare removentibus, in cleri nostri sacrum veneran- dumque consessum simulacra atque idola cum aris suis trans~ cant? 15° Dionys. Ep. Canon. c. 2. '51 Euseb. lib. 7. c. 13. "'2 See before, sect. 1. Ex Vopisco Vit. Aurelian. '53 Euseb. lib. 7. c. 30. cited sect. 3. 230 CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Boox VIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE serves, that the number of Christians so grew and multiplied in that fifty years, that their ancient churches were not large enough to receive them, and therefore they erected from the foundations 15‘ more ample and spacious ones in every city. The only objection against all this, made with any colour, is drawn from some of the ancient apologists, Ori- gen,155 Minucius Felix,156 Arnobius,157 and Lactan- tius,158 who seem to say that the Christians in their time had no temples nor altars, nor ought to have any. But, as Mr. Mede shows at large, this is only spoken against such temples as the heathens plead- ed for, in the notion of encloistering the Deity by an idol. For otherwise the very authors from whom the objection is drawn must strangely con- tradict themselves. For Arnobius159 owns they had their conccnticula, houses of assembly, which he complains were barbarously destroyed in the last persecution. And Lactantius ‘6° says the same, giv- ing them also the name of the temples of God, which Diocletian ordered to be demolished, when he taught oratory in Bithynia. And Origen him- self speaks ‘6* of adorning the Christian churches and altars, in one of his homilies upon Joshua, translated literally by Rufiin. Thus far Mr. Mede goes in his col- lections and answer to this objection; to which I shall add a few things which he has not observed. Lactantius, in another place of his Institutions,162 speaks of one of the Christian convcntz'cula in a town in Phrygia, which the heathen burnt with the whole assembly in it. And in his book de Mortibus Persecutorum, pub- lished since Mr. Mede’s death, he gives a more particular account of the destruction of churches throughout the world. For he not only mentions the demolishing the stately church of Nicomedia,“ but intimates that the same fate ‘attended the churches over all the world. For even in France, where the mild Constantius ruled, the persecution went so far as to pull down the churches,164 though Sect. 16. The objection from Lactantius and Arnobius answered. Sect. 17. Some additional collections upon this head. the men, the true temples of God, were spared, and sheltered under his gentle government. Lactantius lived in France at this time, being tutor to Crispus, the son of Constantine, and grandson of Constan- tius, and therefore he could not be mistaken in his relation. So that we must interpret Eusebius by him, when he says,‘65 Constantius destroyed no churches: that is, he gave no positive orders, as the other emperors did, to destroy them, but he con- nived at such as pulled them down, in policy to satisfy the other emperors, and make the walls com- pound for the life and safety of the persons. How- ever it was, both Eusebius and Lactantius agree in this, that there were churches in France before the last persecution. We have the like account of the churches of Britain given by Gildas, who says '66 in general of the last persecution, that it occasioned churches all over the world to be destroyed, and particularly in Britain ; for the Christians built them new again from the ground when the persecution was over,167 and founded others beside them, to be as so many Public monuments and trophies of their martyrs. Optatus168 takes notice of forty churches in Rome before the last persecution, which being taken from the‘Christians, were afterward restored to them by the order of Maxentius, as St. Austin ‘69 more than once informs us. In Africa we read of some churches that were demolished in this per- secution, as at Zama and Furni, mentioned in the Gesta Purgationis"o of Cecilian and Felix. Others were taken away, and in the mean time, till they were restored again, both councils and church as- semblies were held in private houses, as Optatus ‘" observes of the council of Cirta, and St. Austin after him, who says, It was not to be wondered at, that a few bishops should hold a council "2 in a pri- vate house in the heat of persecution, when the martyrs made no scruple in the like case to be bap- tized in prison, and Christians met in prison to celebrate the sacrament with the martyrs. But not to multiply instances of this nature, the very tenor of the imperial edicts, which raised the last per— “4 Euseb. lib. 8. c.1. ‘55 Origen. cont. Cels. lib. 8. p. 389. 15“ Minuc. Octav. p. 29. ‘57 Arnob. adv. Gent. lib. 6. ‘58 Lactant. lib. 2. c. 2. ‘59 Arnob. lib. 4. p. 152. cited before, sect. 7. 16" Lactant. lib. 5. c. 2. cited sect. 6. 16‘ Origen. Homil. 10. in J osua. “33 Lact. de Mort. Persecut. c. 12. paucis horis solo adaequarunt. 164 Ibid. 0. l5. Constantius, ne dissentire videretur a majoribus praeceptis, conventicula, id est, parietes, qui re- stitui poterant, dirui passus est, verum autem Dei templum, quod 'est in hominibus, incolume servavit. “"5 Euseb. lib. 8. c. 13. Mfi'ra 'roiis oi'xovs 'ribv éxxkno-u'iiu Kas'shdw. ‘66 Gildas de Excid. Britan. in initio. Ad persecutionem Diocletiani tyranni novennem, in qua subversae per totum mundum sunt ecclesiae, &c. "*7 Ibid. Renovant ecclesias ad solum usque destructas, m Lact. l. 5. c. 11. Illud editissimum basilicas sanctorum martyrum fundant, construunt, perti- ciunt, ac veluti victricia signa passim propalant. Vide Bedae Hist. Eccl. lib. l. c. 6 et 8, who speaks almost in the words of Gildas. 168 Optat. lib. 2. p. 49. Quadraginta basilicas. ‘69 Aug. Brevic. Collat. die 3. c. 18. It. lib. post Collatio- nem, c. 13. ‘7° Gesta Purgat. p. 276. Et Zamae et Furnis dirui basili- cas et uri Scripturas vidi. "1 Optat. lib. l. p. 39. Apud Cirtam civitatem, quia ba- silicae necdum fuerant restitutzn, in domum Urbani Charisi consederunt, &c. "2 Aug. Brevic. Collat. die 3. c. 17. Non esse incredibile’ quod in privatam domum pauci illi episcopi persecutionis tempore convenerunt, ut fervente persecutione etiam in car- cere doceantur baptizati martyres, et illic a Christianis ce- lebrata sacramenta, ubi Christiani propter eadem sacra- menta tenebantur inclusi. CriAP. I. 231 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. secution, is undeniable evidence, that the Christians in all parts of the world had then their public churches, to which they resorted so long as they had opportunity to frequent them. For Eusebiusm3 says, The edicts were sent over all the world, com- manding the churches to be levelled with the ground, and the Bibles to be burnt. Which is also noted by Theodoret)“ St. J erom,175 and the Acts of Purgation of Cecilian and Felix "6 at the end of Op- tatus. So that a man might as well question whe- ther the Christians had Bibles, as whether they had churches before the last persecution. The defend- ers of the ‘contrary opinion here always give up the cause, and contradict themselves: for when they have urged the authority of Arnobius and Lactan- tius, against Christians having any temples, they are forced to confess from the foresaid evidences, that they had churches whilst Arnobius and Lao- tantius lived, that is, within the third century; which is to grant and deny the same thing, and load both themselves and those ancient authors with a manifest contradiction. To the testimonies cited by Mr. Mede in the middle of the third cen- tury, the reader may add that remarkable story told by Eusebius, concerning the martyr Marinus, anno 259, in the time of Gallienus. Marinus being a candidate for a Roman oflice at Caesarea, was in- formed against as a Christian by an antagonist, who pleaded, that he ought not to have the ofiice upon that score: the judge upon examination finding it to be so, gives him three hours’ time to consider, whether he would quit his religion, or his life. During this space, Theotecnus, bishop of Ceesarea, meets with him, and taking him by the hand, car- ries him to the church,177 and sets him by the holy table, then offers him a Bible and a sword, and bids him take his choice. He readily, without any de- mur, lays his hand upon the Bible ; whereupon the bishop thus bespake him : Adhere, says he, adhere ‘to God, and in his strength enjoy what thou hast chosen, and go in peace. With this he immediately returns from the church to the judge, makes his confession, receives his sentence, and dies a martyr. 'Who that reads this story can question, whether the worshipping-places which Gallienus is said a little before "8 to have restored to the Christians, were properly churches, with holy tables, or altars, in them? To the testimonies cited from Tertullian may be added one more, where he plainly distin- guishes the parts of their churches, as the discipline of their penitents then required. For, speaking of the unnatural sins of uncleanness, he says, All such monsters were excluded,179 not only from the nave or body of the church, but from every part of it: they were obliged to stand without-door in the open air, and not allowed to come under the roof of it. This discipline was in the church of Antioch. in the time of Babylas, anno 247, when, according to the account given by St. Chrysostom‘8° and En- sebius,‘81 Babylas excluded the emperor Philip from the church, with all his guards about him, on Easter eve, and would not suffer him to pray with the faithful, till he had set himself in the place of the penitents, peravoiag Xu'ipa, Eusebius calls it, and there made confession of his crimes. I stand not now critically to inquire into the truth of this his- tory, which some learned men '82 question, and others defend :183 it is suflicient to our present purpose, that both Eusebius and St. Chrysostom give us such an account of the ancient churches, ‘as necessarily sup- poses them distinct from common habitations in the middle of the third century. Nay, St. Austin,"H and the author of the Comments under the name of St. Ambrose,“ say expressly, that as soon as the re- ligion of Christ was planted in the world, churches were built, to pray for kings, and all that are in au- thority, &c., according to the apostle’s direction, 1 Tim. ii. l;upon which St. Austin founds the use and building of churches. I lay no stress upon the Martyrologies, nor such writers as Abdias Baby- lonius and Anacletus, which speak of churches built in Persia by Simon and Jude, and at Alex- andria by St. Mark, and at Rome by St. Peter, be- cause these are late and spurious writings: but yet, if we may judge of the first conversions by those that happened in the time of Constantine, we may conclude, that as soon as any people were convert- ed, they provided themselves churches for Divine service. As when Frumentius had converted the Indians, Socrates ‘86 says, he immediately built churches among them; which is confirmed by Ruflin, who not only takes notice of that, but says further, that before he had converted them, meeting with some Roman merchants that were Christians, he encouraged them to build themselves oratories in all places, whither they might resort for prayer, after "3 Euseb. lib. 8. c. 2. 17‘ Theodor. lib. 5. c. 39. "5 Hieron. Com. in Zecha. cap. 8. "6 Gesta. Purgat. p. 277. Ubi Scripturee inveniuntur, ipsa doinus diruitur. "7 Euseb. lib. 7. c. 15. 'Erri 'ri'w érclchno'iau qrpoo'r'yst, ei’o'w 'rs 'n'po‘s al'l'rq'i 'rrio'as‘ 'rq'i (i'yrcio'uaq-r, &c. '7” Ibid. 0. l3. "9 Reliquas autem libidinum furias impias, et in corpora et in sexus, ultra jura naturae, non modo limine, verum omni ecclesiae tecto submovemus, quia non sunt delicta, sed mon- stra. Tertul. de Pudicit. c. 4. ‘8° Chrysost. cont. Gentil. t. l. p. 741. Tow Bao-tkéa 75w 'ri'js .imchno't'as 'rrpofi'iipwu égiihao'e, &c. Vid. p. 741. 18‘ Euseb. lib. 6. c. 34. '82 Cave, Prim. Christ. p. 46. ‘83 Pagi, Critic. in Baron. an. 247. n. 6. Huetius Orige- nian. lib. l. c. 3. n. 12. '84 Aug. cont. Faust. lib. 12. c. 36. Ex hoc quippe illis credentibus constructa sunt domicilia pacis, basilicae Chris- tianarum congregationum. '85 Ambros. in Ephes. iv. Ubi omnialocacircumplexa est ecclesia, eonventicula constitute. sunt, &c. ‘36 Socrat. lib. l. c. 19. Eiim'ripra mam idpriat, &c. 282 ANTIQUITIES OF THE BOOK VIII. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. the custom of the Romans)" Theodoret,18s and So- crates, and Ruffin observe the same in the conver- sion of the nation of the Iberians by a captive woman, who taught them to build churches after the Roman form; which they did, and then sent ambassadors to Constantine (in whose time both these conversions happened) to desire him to send them priests, to carry on the work they had thus begun, and to minister in their churches. Now, we may reasonably conclude, that some such thing was observed in all conversions from the very first, al- lowing for the difference betwixt times of persecu- tion and times of peace. For though they had not such public and stately edifices at some times, as they had at others; yet they always had places pe- culiarly set apart for Divine worship, before the peaceable reign of Constantine, as the evidences produced above do undeniably prove. CHAPTER II. OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CHURCHES IN THE FIRST AGES AND THOSE THAT FOLLOWED: AND OF HEATHEN TEMPLES AND JEWISH SYNAGOGUES CONVERTED INTO CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. THE only remaining objection against what has been advanced in the last chapter, is taken from a passage or two of the ancients, which seem to imply, that there was a great difference between the apostolical age and those that followed, in reference to this business of churches. Isidore of Pelusium, treating of this matter, says, In the apostles’ days there were1 no churches, that is, buildings or temples, when spi- ritual gifts abounded, and a holy conversation was the bright ornament of the church: but in our days the buildings are adorned more than is neces— sary, whilst the church is fallen into disgrace. And therefore, were I at liberty to choose, I should rather have wished to have lived in those days, when there were no such beautified temples, but yet the church was crowned with Divine and heavenly graces; than in these days, when temples are adorned with all kinds of marble, but the church is deprived of all those spiritual gifts. These words, if they be Sect. 1. The first churches very simple and plain. taken in the strictest sense, may seem to import, that in the age of the apostles there were no churches builded; for beyond the apostolical age he carries not the comparison: but I rather take him to mean, that the apostles had not such churches as they had in his time, that is, so stately and magnificent, so rich and beautiful, as many in after ages. Which is certainly true: for in the first conversion of any nation the churches were always answerable to the state and condition the converts were in, which was commonly a state of persecution, when not many rich, not many noble were called. Nay, even in those places, where kings gave encouragement to the propagation of the faith, churches were another thing from what they are now, as we may learn from the history of our own nation. There was a time, Bede tells us, when there was not a stone church in all the land, but the custom was to build them all of wood: and therefore, when Bishop Ninyas built a church of stone, it was such2 a rarity and unusual thing among the Britons, that they called the place Candida Casa, Whitern, or Whit- church, upon it. The same author tells us,3 that Finan, the second bishop of Lindisfarne or Holy Island, since called the bishopric of Durham, built a church in the island fit for a cathedral see, which yet was not of stone, but only timber sawed, and covered with reed; and so it continued, till Eadbert, the seventh bishop, took away the reed, and covered it all over, both roof and sides, with sheets of lead. No one after this will wonder at the account which Sulpicius Severus‘ gives of the churches of Cyrene in the deserts of Libya, when he tells us, he went with a presbyter into one of them, which was made of small rods interwoven one with another, and not much more stately and ambitious than his own house, in which a man could hardly stand upright. But the men who frequented these churches, were men of the golden age and purest morals: they neither bought nor sold any thing; they knew not what fraud or theft was ; they neither had, nor de- sired to have, silver or gold, which other mortals set such a value upon. For, says he, when I ofi'ered the presbyter ten pieces of gold, he refused them, telling me with some greatness of mind, that the church was not built with gold, but rather unbuilt by it, Ecelesiam aaro non struz', sed potius clestrai, alti- ore consz'Z-z'oprotestatas. These instances may serve to explain Isidore’s meaning, when he says, The 18’ Ruffin. lib. l. c. 9. Moncre coepit, ut conventicula per loca singula facerent, ad quae Romano ritu orationis causa confluerent. 1” Theod. lib. 1. c. 24. Socrat. lib. 1. c. 20. Ruflin. lib. l. c. l(). ‘ Isidor. Pelus. lib. 2. Ep. 246. ’E1ri piu 'réiw c’wroorrékwv éicxhno'tao'rfipta 06K 17]”, &c. 2 Bede, Hist. lib. 3._c. 4. Vulgo vocatur, ad candidam casam, eo quod ibi ecclesiam de lapide, insolito Britonibus more, fecerit. 8 Bede, lib. 3. c. 25. Finan in insula Lindist'arnensi fecit ecclesiam episcopali sedi congruam. Quam tamen more Scotorum, non de lapide, sed de roborc secto, totam compo- suit atque arundine texit.-——Sed episcopus loci illius Ead- bert, ablata arundine, eam totam, hoc est, et tectum et ipsos quoque parietes ejus plumbi laminis co-operire curavit. 4 Sulpit. Sever. Dial. l. c. 2. Erat vilibus contexta vir- gultis, non multo ambitiosior quam nostri hospitis taberna- culum, in quo nisi incurvus quis non poterat consistere, &c. CHAP. II. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 283 ANTIQUITIES OF THE apostolical age had no churches, or not such rich and noble structures, as the peace, and afiiuence, and emulation of after ages commonly produced. Indeed there were many visible rea- Rsagfiii" ii“ en- sons, why the state of the structures larguig and altering . . igficsélaiirsgtaicelses- must needs alter 1n proportlon to the advancement of the state of religion itself. For times of peace and persecution looked with a very different aspect, and had a very different influence upon the affairs of the church. Persecu- tion was always attended with poverty, paucity of believers, and unsettled hopes: so that either they needed not stately and sumptuous buildings, or they were not able to erect them; or at least they had no invitation and encouragement to do it, whilst they were under daily apprehensions of seeing them plundered or demolished almost as soon as they had erected them. But in times of peace great multi- tudes of converts forsook the temples, and came over to the church, and those many times persons of fortune and quality; and in some of the heathen reigns the church enjoyed a more serene and unin- terrupted gale of tranquillity, as in that happy in- terval of near fifty years, between the death of St. Cyprian and the last persecution: and then there was a necessity to build more ample and stately churches, and they had ability to do it, and were not without hopes of continuing to enjoy their works of piety in a settled and lasting peace. So that then, in that promising interval, as Eusebius5 ob- serves, when Diocletian’s court and family were al- most all become Christians, and great multitudes of believers in all cities came over daily to the faith; their ancient fabrics could not contain them, but they built them more ample and spacious churches in every city from the foundation. And when many of these had been destroyed in the long decennial persecution, they were again rebuilt from the ground more lofty and beautiful than they were before, as the same Eusebius words it,6 as soon as Constantine had revived the Christians’ hopes, by publishing his edicts in favour of their religion. But now there were two other rea- sons concurred, after the emperors were become Christians, which contri- buted much toward the state and mag- mficence of Christian churches. Which were, first, the great liberality and munificence of the emperors themselves, who were at great expense in erecting many noble fabrics in several cities to the honour of Christ; and, secondly, their orders for converting heathen temples into churches. Constantine spared no charge to erect, beautify, and adorn churches in Sect. 3. Particularly the munificence of Christian emperors contributed toward this. all parts of the East, as at Jerusalem, Antioch, Ni- comedia, Mambre, Heliopolis in Phoenicia, and many other places, of which the reader that pleases may find a particular account in Eusebius and So- crates :1 but especially at Constantinople, where among others he built the beautiful church called ecclesia Constantim'ana, to the memory of the twelve apostles; which, as Eusebius describes it,8 was vastly high, and yet had all its walls covered with marble, its roof overlaid with gold, and the outside, instead of tiles, covered with gilded brass. He also laid the foundation of the famous temple called Sancta So- phia, and Magna, which was finished and dedicated thirty-four years after by his son Constantius, anno 360, who joined the temple of Peace to it, (which was another church built by Constantine,) including them both in one, as Socrates9 and the author of the Chronicon Alexandrinum inform us.‘° Con- stantine’s example was followed by the succeeding emperors, but more especially by Justinian, who, among many other works of this nature, rebuilt the church of S. Sophia, which had been burnt down in the time of Anastasius. And now it became the glory of the world for its greatness, curious archi- tecture, richness, and beauty; insomuch that J usti- nian himself, having finished it, was heard to say, Nevimpca' 0's, Eokoptbv, I have outdone thee, Solomon. They who are desirous to read the particular descrip- tion of this church, may find it briefly delineated in Evagrius,n Procopius,12 and Agathius,13 but more fully and exactly by Paulus Silentiarius, and his learned commentator Du Fresne, whose accurate knowledge in these matters exceeds all that ever came before him. I have extracted out of him such observations as I thought necessary to my own de- sign, but they that please to peruse the whole may find it at the end of Johannes Cinnamus, among the Byzantine historians, published at Paris, 1670. The other reason, which I said con- tributed toward the magnificence of ‘is git ‘omnino Christian churches, was the orders of Ligitrlmfmplesima several emperors for converting hea- then temples into churches. At first indeed, whilst the reformation from heathenism was in its infancy, no idol-temples were made use of as churches, but they were either permitted to the heathen for some time, or else shut up, or demolished. Till the 25th year of Constantine, i. e. anno 333, the temples were in a great measure tolerated; but in that year he published his laws, commanding temples, altars, and images to be destroyed, which laws are sometimes referred to in the Theodosian Code.“ And pursu- ant to these laws, a great many temples were defaced ect. 4. so their or- 5 Euseb. lib. 8. c. l. 6 Ibid. lib. 10. c. 2. 7 Euseb. de Vita Constant. lib. 3. c. 50 et 51. lib. l. c. 16, 17, 18. s Euseb. de Vit. Const. lib. 4. c. 58. Socrat. 9 Socrat. lib. 2. c. 16. 1° Chronic. Alex. an. 360. p.685. 1‘ Evagr. lib.4. c. 31. "~’ Procop.de .IEdific. Justin. lib. l. c. l. ‘3 Agath. lib.5. “ Cod. 'l‘h. Mb. 9. Tit. 17. de Sepulchris violatis, Leg. 2. 294 Boon VIII. .ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. in all parts of the world, and their revenues confis— cated, as appears not only from the Christian writers, St. J erom," and Eusebius,16 and others, but also from the complaints of the heathen writers, Eunas pins,l7 Libanius,18 and J ulian.19 In some of the fol- lowing reigns also the same method was taken, to shut up or to deface the temples, as is evident from the account which Rufiinm gives of the general de- struction of them in Egypt by the order of Valen- tinian. But in the next reign, in the time of Theo— dosius, another method was taken with some of them. For as Gothofred observes 2‘ out of the Chronicon Alexandrinum, anno 379, Theodosius turned the famous temple of Heliopolis, called Balanium, into a Christian church, én'ol'nae at’lroiéicxlmaiav xpw'naz/Gm. And about the same time, Socrates tells us, that when Valens had banished the two Macarii, the heads of the Egyptian monks, into a pagan island, they converted all the inhabitants, and turned22 their temple into the form of a church. The like was done by the famous temple of the dea cee- Zestz's at Carthage, by Aurelius the bishop, in the time of Honorius, anno 399, which the author of the book de Praedictionibus, under the name of Pros- per,23 tells with this remarkable circumstance, that it had been dedicated before by one Aurelius, a heathen high priest, with this inscription, Aurelius pontgfex dedicacz't, which our author says was left in the frontispiece, to be read by all the people, because by God’s providence it was fulfilled again in Aurelius the bishop, for whom it served as well as the former Aurelius, when he had once dedicated it to the use and service of the Christian religion, and set his chair in the place of the goddess. Not long after this, Honorius, anno 408, published two laws in the Western empire, forbidding the destruction of any more temples in cities, because they might serve for ornament or public use,24 being once purged of all unlawful furniture, idols, and altars, which he or- dered to be destroyed wherever they were found. These laws, as Gothofred rightly observes, seem to have been published at the instance of the African fathers, who, as appears from one of the canons” of the African Code, petitioned the emperor, that such temples as were in the country only and private places, not serving for any ornament, might be de- stroyed. Arcadius published such another law for the Eastern empire, which relates only to the de- struction of temples in country places,“ and not in cities, where now there was no such danger of su- perstition, since they might be converted to a better use. And upon this ground the author under the name of Prosper27 commends Honorius for his piety and devotion, because he gave all the temples with their adjacent places to the church, only requiring the idols to be destroyed. It is true, indeed, after this we find a law of Theodosius junior,28 command- ing all temples to be destroyed. But, as Gothofred seems rightly to interpret it, the word destroying in that law is to be understood only of despoiling them of their superstition, because it follows in the same law, that they were to be expiated by placing the sign of the cross upon them, which was a token of their being turned into churches. And his observ- ation may be confirmed further from what Evagrius29 reports of Theodosius, that he turned the Tychaeum, or temple of Fortune, at Antioch, into a church, called by the name of Ignatius. The like was done by a great temple at Tanis in Egypt, as Valesius8° has observed out of the Itinerary of Antoninus the martyr. Cluver, also, in his description of Italy, takes notice of a place in the Jerusalem Itinerary, called Sacraria, betwixt Fulginum and Spoletum, near the head of the river Clitumnus, which he thinks3| was originally no other than the temple of Jupiter Clitumnus; though another learned an— tiquary82 makes it something doubtful as to the pre- sent church now standing there. However, we '5 Hieron. Chronic. an. 332. '8 Euseb. dc Vit. Const. lib. 3. c. 54. ‘7 Eunap. Vit. Edesii. '8 Liban. Orat. pro 'I‘emplis, p. 9. Et Orat. Apologetic. 26. p. 59L '9 Julian. Orat. 7. p. 424. 2° Rufiin. lib. 2. c. 28. 21 Gothofred. Com. in Cod. Th. lib. 16. Tit. 10. de Pagan. Leg. 25. 22 Socrat. lib. 4. c. 24. To‘ 5%. o'xiipa 'roii vaofi sis e'mckn- crias 'rii'lrou pe'ra'n'ouio'au'rss, &c. ‘13 Prosper. de Promission. lib. 3. c. 38. Antistes Aurelius, coelestis jam patriae civis, cathedram illic loco cuelestis et habuit, et sedit. I pse tune aderam cum sociis et amicis, atquc (ut se adolescentium sat-as impatiens circumquaque vertebat) dum curiosi singula quae pro magnitudine inspici- mus, mirum quoddam et incredibile nostro se ingessit aspec- tui, ti tulus aeneis grandioribusque literis in frontispicio templi conscriptus, Aurelius pontifex dedicavit. Hunc legentes populi mirabantur. Praesago tunc spiritu acta, qua: pree- scius Dei ordo certo isto fine concluserat. 2' Cod. Th. lib. 16. Tit. 10. de Pagan. Leg. 18. .ZEdes inlicitis rebus vacuas, ne quis conetur evertere. Decernimus enim, ut aedificiorum quidem sit integer status. It. Leg. l9. ZEdificia ipsa templorum, quae in civitatibus vel oppidis, vel extra oppida sunt, ad usum publicum vindiceutur: arae locis omnibus destruantur. ‘5 Cod. Afric. can. 58. I 2“ Cod. Th. lib. l6. Tit. 10. de Pagan. Leg. 16. Si qua in agris templa sunt, sine turba et tumultu diruantur. His enim dejectis, omnis superstitionis materia consumetur. 2’ Prosper. de Promiss. lib. 3. c. 38. Honorius Christiana religione ac devotione prazditus. 'l‘empla omnia cum suis adjacentibus spatiis, ecclesiis contulit: simulque eorum si- mulacra eonfringenda in potestatem dedit. '18 Cod. Th. ibid. Leg. 25. Cuncta eorum fana, templa, delubra, si qua nunc etiam restant integra, praecepto magis- tratuum destrui, conlocationeque venerandae Christiana: re- ligionis signi expiari praecipimus. 29 Evagl'. lib. I. 0. l6. Zmcds ei’za'yr‘gs Kai fréusuos zii'ytou ere-5' I'yva'ritp 'rd 'rrc'rhaz 'rvxai'ou 'yé'youe. 3° Vales. Not. in Sozomen. lib. 5. c. 21. ibi templum, quod modo est ecclesia. 3' Cluver. Ital. Vetus, p. 702. *2 Holsten. Annot. in Cluver. p. 121. Immensum fnit CIIAP. III. 285 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. have seen instances enough of this practice; and Bede 3“ tells us, That Gregory the Great gave Austin the monk instructions of the same nature, about the temples here among the Saxons in Britain, that if they were well built, they should not be destroyed, but only be converted from the worship of devils to the service of the true God; and so he observes it was done at Rome, where, not long after, Boniface IV. turned the heathen temple, called the Pantheon, into the church of All Saints,“ in the time of the emperor Phocas. Sometimes the temples were pulled down, and the materials were given to the church, out of which new edifices were erected for the service of religion, as Sozomen35 and Rufl‘in$6 particularly observe of the temples of Bacchus and Serapis at Alexandria. I have already showed37 out of Ausonius, that the Roman halls, or basilica, were likewise turned into churches. The like is re— ported of some Jewish synagogues by the author of the Chronicon Alexandrinum, who takes notice par- ticularly38 of a synagogue of the Samaritans in a place called Gargarida, which Zeno the emperor converted into a large Christian church. And though it is not agreed by learned men, whether the temples said to be built by Hadrian were intended for the worship of himself, or the worship of Christ; for Casaubon39 and Pagi40 think he designed them for himself, whilst Huetius‘“ de- fends Lampridius his relation, who says he designed them for the honour of Christ; yet it is certain, that after they had been used to other purposes, they were at last some of them turned into Christian churches. For Epiphanius says,42 there was a great temple at Tiberias, called the Hadrianum, which the Jews made use of for a bath, but Josephus Comes, the converted Jew, in the time of Constan- tine, turned it into a church. And the like was done by another of them by Athanasius at Alexan- dria, having before been the hall or palace of Lici- nius, as the same Epiphanius43 informs us. So that now, partly by the munificence of the emperors, building churches at their own charge, and partly by their orders for converting heathen temples into churches, and partly by the great liberality and zeal of private Christians in times of peace, churches became another thing from what they were in former ages, that is, more noble and stately edifices, more rich and beautiful, under which advantage we are next to take a view of them in the following part of this book. CHAPTER III. \ OF THE DIFFERENT FORMS AND PARTS OF THE ANCIENT CHURCHES: AND FIRST, or‘ THE EX— TERIOR NARTHEX, on ANTE-TEMPLE. IT may easily be collected from what has been discoursed in the former chapter, that anciently churches were not all built precisely in one form or figure. For since both heathen temples and public halls were turned into churches, it can hardly be imagined, that all these should happen to be built exactly in the same form. Nor indeed was there any uni- versal rule among Christians about this matter. The author of the Constitutions seems to intimate, that they were generally oblong, in the figure of a ship.1 This figure was otherwise called dromical, dpopucov, because, as Leo Allatius2 and Suicerus” after him conjecture, churches built in this form had void spaces for deambulation. And this is said to be the figure of the famous church of Sancta Sophia at Constantinople, by Paulus Silentiarius and other writers. But this figure was not so general but that we meet with churches in other forms. For the church which Constantine built over our Saviour’s sepulchre at Mount Golgotha, was round, as we learn from Eusebius,4 and W alafridus Strabo.5 That which he built at Antioch, Eusebius6 says, was an octagon: and such was the church of Na- zianzum, built by Gregory the father of Gregory Nazianzen, as we find in the son’s funeral oration 7 upon his father, who describes it as having eight sides equal to one another. Other churches were built in the form of a cross, as that of Simeon Sty- lites, mentioned by Evagrius.” And the church of the apostles built by Constantine at Constantinople, was in this form likewise, as we learn from Gregory Nazianzen in his Somnium Anastasiae, who thus describes it: Carm. 9. tom. 2. p. 7 9. Sect. 1. Churches ancient- ly of different forms. Eim "roi's' Kai. us'yéhauxou E809 Xprso'io #0131175», I'Iltavpa'is qaupo'rti-lrots 're'rpaxd 'rstwziusuou. 33 Bede, lib. l. c. 30. 3*’ Sozomen. lib. 7. c. 15. 3“ Ruttln. lib. 2. c. 23. 3’ See chap. 1. n. 5. 38 Chron. Alex. an. 10. Zenon. p. 757. 'E'n'ot'na's "rim crux/- a'yw'yhu ai’rrdw, 'rfiu SOT“! sis 'rd Kahoiipauou 'yap'yapidnu, eim'rriptou oilcou ué'yau, &c. 3” Casaubon. Not. in Lamprid. Vit. Alex. Severi, p. 170. 4° Pagi, Critic. in Baron. an. 134. n. 4. ‘‘ Huet. Demonstrat. Evangel. Propos. 3. p. 65. ‘2 Epiphan. Haer. 30. Ebionit. n. 12. 34 Ibid. lib. 2. c. 4. ‘3 Epiphan. Haer. 69. Arian. n. 2. 1 Constit. Apost. lib. 2. c. 57. ‘0 ohms Eqw é'rrlmiKns, fists iouce uni. 2 Allatius, de T emplis Graecorum. 3 Suicer. Thesaur. Eccles. voce Nao's. 4 Euseb. Vit. Const. lib. 3. c. 38. 5 Strabo de Rebus Eccl. c. 4. 8 Euseb. Vit. Constant. lib. 3. C. 50. 'Eu (ilcrat'dpa 0X15‘ yarn " Naz. Orat. 19. de Laud. Patr. p. 313. 8 Evagr. lib. l. c. 14. 286 BOOK VIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. _~\\ .-\~ _\~\ .\" .\.\ .\.\ ~\-\ '~.\ .\_. .\.- .~.. .n- ... _.\. _..‘ ,.-. .\. ... ‘,- n. ‘.\ ,\.\ \\\ a\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\s\\\n -- _ -_ ~ .- ~\ ~ \ § _ a _ _ \ .;’1 . _ I >> ICHNOGRAPHIA TEMPLORUM ORIENTALI UM. Ichnographia Templorum Beveregii. Ichnographia Leom's AIIatii. Locus Fidelium et Consistentium 1 D [I] K [ll 1:] Locus Substratorum L Locus Audientium M O P Locus Lugentium P Bf-l if‘ Icknographia Jacobi Goar. %‘ \ .\ \'.\\§\ \ '/ \al\vdl\\\\\s\urrili\\\\\n\\1\\> \ \ \ml\\\~\ . N‘ f\\ O \ V///////A (s \ // new.“ (s30 ‘» B Z *h Z B \ \; [an (\(t Z W D .\\\\\\\m\ 1' . . . . c __ . \‘ _ . _ f - _ _ - _ .. \~.._.._~_-.- ~- __..~‘_ \ ~ ~ . . a . . - _ c _ _ a - . . .. \- _ . - \ - - - ~ - ‘ ~ ~ ~ ~ q "' -. -‘ - .. . .....................“‘.';.I n. a H’; j .. N.,”... -.._.......... .... ' h . . .... .. . . ,.,.,,,,,,.,.-,..,,... .._...,..,. \\\\\\\\ \\\““\\\\k\\\\\“ -\I\\\\ \\ \\\\\\ \n“ \ afl/WW/WWW . smsmmssn. o / \ Q a“ % ®\\ \\\X\ B B i \\ ° § a\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\% Q jDDDUDDDIT HUD FUD Iclmographia part-is interioris IS. Sophiee. [U "L |____|-\__r\_r'\_l‘ l § \ 5'! l6§2fl w i . I I \,\\'\\ \ 77",," ‘\\\\\\\ "'-'"|mmm\\“‘\\ .I_'~m\\\w\ . _ \\\\\\ ‘- ‘ \ x \\ l'orta Uccideutalis A Synthronus. B S. Bema. C Altare. D Portze sanctze. E Cancelli hema- tis. F Prothesis. G Diaconicum. H Solea. I N aos. K Ambo. L Portarspeciosre. M Narthex. N Baptisterium. O Magus: portze. P Porticus. Q Circuitus. B Locus episcopi extra S. bcma. S Locus diacono- rum. T Locus lecto- rum. V Pulpitum. X Sedes imperia- lis. Y Locus mulie- rum. Z Ciborium. CIIAP. III. AN'I‘IQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 287 Among these stood the stately church of the Apostles of Christ, dividing itself into four wings in the form of a cross. These were sometimes made so by the addition of a wing of building on each side, (which wings the Greeks call apsidea) as Ce- drenus9 and Zonaras observe in the Life of Justin junior, who added two of these apsz'des to the church of Blachernze, and so made it resemble the form of a cross. Valesius has also observed 1° out of the Itinerary of Antoninus the martyr, that the church which Constantine built at Mambre, was in a qua~ drangular or square figure, with an open court in the middle, so as one part of it was made use of by the Jews, and the other by the Christians. Some churches were also called octachora, but, as Vale- sius rightly observes, those were the same with the octagones, as appears from this ancient inscription in Gruter :11 ' Octacborum sanctos templum surrexit in usus, Octagonus fons est munere dignus eo. Suicerus and Allatius take notice also of another form of churches, which they call rpaMwi-d, xvlkw- (ipwrd, Sokwrd, and xvxkoadfi, that is, round, in the figure of an arch, or sphere, or a cylinder, or a shield, or a circle, as the Pantheon at Rome was said to be. But this, properly speaking, was not so much the form of a church, as the figure of one part of some churches, as particularly that of Sancta So- phia, the body of which was built in the form of a t-ruZla, that is, a great round arch or sphere, but yet the whole was oblong, resembling the form of other churches, as the reader may judge by comparing the several figures in the following table, whereof one is that of Sancta Sophia, taken from Du Fresne’s Constantinopolis Christiana, another from Dr. Be- verege in his Pandects, a third from Leo Allatius, and a fourth from Goar; all which being contracted and put together by Schelstrate in his Concilium Antiochenum, are here represented from his copy, with the proper names referring to each part of them. To these I have added another figure re- presenting the stately church of Tyre, built by Paulinus, and described by Eusebiusl2 in his pane- gyrical oration upon the church and the founder of it, which the curious reader may see at large in the tenth book of his Ecclesiastical History. I shall here in a great measure follow his description, as one of the most ancient and authentic that we have, only intermixing such other things as are necessary to explain the forms and parts of other churches, since, as I have observed, they were not all alike, but differed in form, in site, and in several parts from one another. To begin with their situation or Sm 2_ posture: they were commonly so ,uggfindtfffiii' placed, as that the front or chief en- Mme" trances were toward the west, and the sanctuary or altar part toward the east: yet in some churches it was otherwise, as is evident from the observ— ation made by Socrates ‘3 upon the church of An— tioch, that it stood in a different posture from other churches; for the altar did not look toward the east, but toward the west. Which observation is also made by Paulinus Nolanus 1‘ upon one of his own structures. And the temple of the other Pau- linus at Tyre seems to have stood the same way. For Eusebius describes the entrance to it, and not the altar part, as fronting the rising sun. So that though the author of the Constitutions,15 among other rules of this nature, gives directions for build- ing churches toward the east, yet it appears from these instances, that the practice was not so univers- al, but that it admitted of exceptions, as necessity or expediency required. Which observation has been made not only by Bishop Usher,16 and Cardinal Bona,l7 but long before them by Walafridus Strabo, who says,18 The ancients were not nicely curious which way their churches stood, but yet the most usual custom was for Christians to pray toward the east, and therefore the greatest part of the churches were built with a respect to that custom. But St. Patrick in Ireland, as Bishop Usher observes ‘9 out of J ocelin, the writer of his Life, varied from all others: for he built a church in Sabul, hard by Down in Ulster, which fronted neither east nor west, but stood from north to south, ab aquz'lonah' part0 versus meridz'anam plagam. So that ecclesias- tical history affords us instances, if we make a cu- rious inquiry, of churches standing in all postures. Next, to consider the several parts of the ancient churches, we are to ob- . C0m§nediily3divided ' into three parts, and serve, that as 1n the temple of God at sfiggctimes four or Jerusalem, not only the holy and the most holy were reckoned parts of the temple, but also the outward courts, and even the court of the Gentiles, which is expressly called the house of God, and the house of prayer; so in Christian churches, which were built with some regard to the Jewish temple, the whole ambz'tus or circumference about 9 Cedren. Vit. Justin. in Compend. Hist. p. 390. ’° Antonin. ap. Vales. Not. in Euseb. de Vit. Const. lib. 3. c. 53. Est ibi basilica aedificata per quadrum, et atrium in medio discoopertum, &c. '1 Gruter. T hesaur. p. 1166. '2 Euseb. lib. 10. c. 4. ‘3 Socrat. lib. 5. 0. ‘22. ‘H émihno'ia liv'rz's'podmv E'Xst Thu S'a'aa-w' é 'yr‘zp 7rpds (tum-akin: 1'6 S'uo'ias-riptou, oihld 'n'pds di'ro-w opg'z'. 1‘ Paulin. Ep. 12. ad Sever. Prospectus basilicae non, ut usitatior mos est, orientem spectat, sed ad Dominimei beati felicis basilicam pertinet, memoriain ejus aspiciens. '5 Constit. Apost. lib. 2. c. 57. ‘6 Usher. Letter. 49. ad Selden. 1’ Bona, Rer. Liturg. lib. l. c. 20. n. 4. ‘8 Strabo de Rebus Ecol. c. 4. ‘9 Usher’s Letters, Ep. 49. 288 Boon: VIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 0@0®6@®@@ THE PLAN OF AN ANCIENT CHURCH, WITH ITS EXEDRIE, AS DESCRIBED BY EUSEBIUS AND OTHER WRITERS. . 15 .. ausanunmss . ° Loci Fidelium ct Q Consistentium in Nao. D D 0 Q 8 14 a, 13 g 0 o D Q a U :n q 6 5 h _\ Locus 4 Lugentium 9 9 s a a o 0 0 9 Q 0 O s e PR . - PA Locus Hyemantium jg; c Q o a 4 e, 2 z a 4 O Q e . i it e 2 é a Q a 0 a Q o .\\ r‘. k I l5 ' U I H B a W m ;-._;.':. 1.1.. “ 1 Propylwum, or oestz'bulum magnum, the great porch, or first entrance into the area before the church. 2 The ueo'miMov. atrium, or area, leading from the porch to the church. 3 C'antkarus, or pllz‘ala, the fountain of wa- ter in the middle of the square. 4 The porticos or cloisters about the area, otherwise called the exterior nartlzea: of the church, and place of mourners. 5 The great gate into the church._ 6 The two lesser gates on each side of the other. 7 The northern and southern gates. 8 The cloisters on the north and south side of the church. 9 The jerula, or inner narlhcr, where the catechumens and hearers stood with Jews and Gentiles. 10 The place of the substrati, or third degree of penitents, behind the ambon. II The ambon, or reading desk. 12 The ascent on both sides the ambon. 13 The inner porticos, or cloisters, for men below. 14 The catecllumem'a, or byperoa, upper galleries for women, above the porticos of the men, upon pillars. - l5 Cancelli bcmatz's, the rails of the chan- ce . 16 The beam, or chancel. 17 The altar, or communion table. 18 The pyrgus, or cyborium, the arched canopy built round the altar. .__ .N,_..., ..~ . . “a. “3:1. "Tia....:.v-'~I‘lz,~\~- :_§"§_?3R~:.\110’il19 Kafiaofi'éwrwu 'rd'w (i'ytw'rc'z'rwv é'lrto'lcziqrwu. 1” Book I. chap. 4. sect. 1. 2° Ambros. Ep. 33. ad Marcellin. Post lectiones atque tractatum, dimissis catechumenis, Symbolum aliquibus com- petentibus in baptisteriis tradebam basilicae. 310 Boon VIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. baptized. This in the Greek writers is commonly called21 Icohvpfir'yspa, and by the Latins,22 piscz'na, and is sometimes expressly distinguished from the baptistery, as a part from the whole. For Socrates” expressly styles it :cohvpfifiSpav roii flarrflqnpiov, the pool of the baptistery. Which name Dr. Beve- regez‘ thinks was given to the font by way of allu- sion to the pool of Bethesda. But Optatus” has a more mystical reason for it: he says, it was called pz'scz'na, in allusion to our Saviour’s technical name, ix-Srtg, which was an acrostic composed of the initial letters of our Saviour’s several titles, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, our Saviour, of which I have given an account"‘6 in another place. But whether either of these reasons be true, or whether the font was not rather so called, because piscz'na and lcokvpfii'fipa are common names of fountains, and baths, and pools in Greek and Latin writers, I leave to the de- termination of the judicious reader. Du Fresne has observed several other names,” such as iurovottog, laoacrum, natatorz'a, and cloaca, a term peculiar to Gregory the Great: but these are modern names, and so I pass them over, only remarking one thing out of him, that whereas Procopius, in his Historia Arcana, gives it the name of deEapew), the recep- tacle, Suidas mistakes it for the communion table; which I note, only because it is easy for any one to be led into the like mistake by the authority of that celebrated writer. What form the ancient baptisteries Sect. 5. mantra... were bunt 111.1 find no Where men- rad°med~ tioned in any ancient writer; and almost as little of their ornament, that may be de- pended on as genuine. Durantus indeed has a very formal story out of the Pontifical, under the name of Damasus, how Constantine gave a rich font to the church, wherein he himself was baptized; it was made,28 the author says, of porphyretic marble, overlaid with silver ; in the middle of it was a marble pillar, and on it a vial of pure gold, filled with balsam to burn as in a lamp. On the brim of the font was a lamp of pure gold pouring out water. On the right hand of that a silver image of Christ, and on the left hand a silver image of St. John Baptist, holding a label with this inscription, “ Be- hold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world.” Besides all these, there were seven silver harts pouring out water into the fountain. But now all this is a mere fabulous legend, and has just as much truth in it as the story of Constantine’s leprosy, and his being cured by Pope Sylvester’s baptizing him in this font at Rome. And I only mention it to show what sort of tales are urged by the Romish ritualists many times for ancient his- tory. For every one now knows this mock-Dama- sus to be a spurious author. Perhaps in the sixth or seventh century, such sort of ornaments might be set up in the baptisteries of the church: for in the acts of the council of Constantinople29 under Mennas, anno 536, there is mention made of silver and gold doves hanging in the baptistery, as well as at the altar. But as no pictures or images were set up in churches in the time of Constantine, so we cannot suppose any Roman baptisteries to be adorn- ed by him according to the foresaid pretended de-‘ scription: but if the garments of the ministers bap- tizing, or the white robes of persons newly baptized, which were reserved in these baptisteries as monu- ments and tokens of their profession, or the vessels of chrism used for unction in baptism, may be reckoned ornaments of these places; the baptisteries had always these things from their first erection, as will be showed more particularly when we come to treat of the rites of baptism in its proper place. All that I have further to add about baptisteries here, is an observation in tsfifiiagé an- made by some learned men, that an- figniidgrhiliiél ciently there was but one baptistery c m in a city, and that at the bishop’s church. Vice~ comes80 thinks it was so even at Rome itself for many ages. Dr. Maurice“ says no city had more, unless where the magnificence of emperors or bi~ shops made, as it were, many cathedrals. And therefore, when the author 32 of the Pontifical under the name of Damasus says of Pope Marcellus, that he made twenty-five titles in Rome, as so many dioceses, for baptism and penance; that learned person thinks it imports, that those services indeed belonged only to a cathedral; and therefore the granting of those privileges to parishes made them seem like dioceses. Some remains of this ancient custom are yet to be observed in several great cities - of Italy. For both Durantus” and Vicecomes" tell us, that at Pisa, Bononia, Orvieto, Parma, and even at Florence itself, they have but one font or baptis- tery for a whole city at this day. Which is also noted by Onuphrius” and Du Fresne,86 and by Dr. Maurice out of Leander Alberti, Mercator, Lassels, 2‘ Vid. Cyril. Catech. Mystag. 2. n. 4. Catech. 3. n. l. Chrysost. Horn. 64. t. 5. p. 970. 22 Optat. lib. 3. p. 62. 23 Socrat. lib. 7. c. 17. 2* Bevereg. Pandect. Not. in Concil. N icen. c. 11. 25 Optat. lib. 3. p. 62. Hic est piscis qui in baptismate per invocationem fontalibus undis inseritur, ut quae aqua fuerat, a pisce etiam piscina vocitetur. 2‘ Book I. chap. 1. sect. 2. 2"’ Du Fresne, Com. in Paul. Silentiar. p.593. 28 Damas. Pontifical. Vit. Sylvestri. 29 Conc. Constant. Act. 5. t. 5. p. 159. 3“ Vicecom. de Ritib. Bapt. lib. l. c. 8. 3' Maurice, Dioces. Episc. p. 41 et 43. 32 Pontifical. Vit. Marcelli. Viginti quinque titulos in urbe Roma constituit, quasi dioeceses, propter baptismum et poeniteutiam multorum, &c. 33 Durant. de Ritib. Eccles. lib. l. c. 19. n. 3. 8* Vicecornes de Ritib. Bapt. lib. l. c. 8. 3‘ Onuphr. de Ecclesiis Urb. Romae. *6 Du Fresno, Glossar. voce Baptisterium. CHAP. VII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 311 and some other modern writers. I have observed87 before, that this distinction was anciently made be- tween a catholic church and a private oratory, that the one was a place of public baptism, and the other not; which argues that every church had not a dis- tinct baptistery, but only such as were called bap- tismal churches. And this is the reason why an- ciently men commonly resorted for baptism to the bishop’s church, at the two great festivals, Easter and Pentecost, which were the two solemn times of its administration. In after ages, baptisteries were set up in country parishes: for the council of Aux- erre88 speaks of baptizing in villages at Easter by allowance; but this privilege was not granted to every place, but only to such as the bishop appoint- ed, except in cases of necessity, as Vicecomes89 has observed out of the synod of Meaux,“ and the coun- oil in Verno Palatio.‘l Whence probably these got the name of mother churches also, in respect of such others as depended on them for the adminis- tration of baptism, as anciently all churches did on the bishop’s church. Thus much of the baptisteries of the ancient church. Sect 7 Another noted building, commonly or the Sarita, reckoned among the exedrw of the num, or dtacom- _ _ geigryeagnum. the church, was that which 1s usually called secretarium or diaconicum, con- cerning which learned men are not exactly agreed. For Valesius takes it ‘2 for a place within the church; Gothofred“8 and others, for a place with- out; but Du Fresne“ seems more justly to deter- mine the controversy between them, by distinguish- ing the diaconicum bematis within the chancel, which we have spoken of before, from the diaconicum mag- man without the church, which is to be considered here. It is of this Philostorgius is to be understood, when he says, The Christians of Paneas, or C eesarea- Philippi, translated the statue of our Saviour, erect- ed by the woman whom be cured of an issue of blood, into the diaconicum45 of the church, that is, into the vestry or repository of the church. It was so named, because all things here reposited were under the care of the deacons, part of whose ofiice was to look after the vestments, vessels, and utensils belonging to the altar, and all things of value given to the church; the chief overseer of which seems generally to have been a presbyter, dignified with the title of ceimeliarchcs, or sceuophylax, as I have showed before‘6 in another place. And hence the diaconicum, or rather, as Du Fresne‘7 observes out of an ancient Greek writer, the innermost part of it, was the ceimeliarchium, or sceuophylacium, of the church, the repository of the sacred vessels, and such anathemata or presents, as were reputed among the chiefest treasures of the church. It was other- wise called secretarium, as Du Fresne“ conjectures, because the consistory or tribunal of the church was here kept; the secretum or secretarium being a known name for the courts of the civil ‘magistrate, whence this perhaps might take its denomination. The whole building was large and capacious enough to receive not only a private consistory, but a pro- vincial or general council, many of which we find have been held in this apartment of the church, as the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth councils of Car- thage are said to be kept in secretario basilicce resti- tutre, with a great many others collected by Du Fresne, who observes the sessions of councils to be called secretariat upon this account, from the place of their session or convention. It was otherwise called receptorium Sect, 8_ and salutatorium, as we find in Sido- ,olfjgfgllgjgfgg nius Apollinaris,49 Sulpicius Severus,” mm‘ the first council of Masconf'l Theodoret, and many others. Particularly Theodoret,52 speaking of The- odosius coming to St. Ambrose to petition for abso- lution, says, he found him sitting év 'rq'i oilcqi a’mrac- TUCQJ, in the saluting house; which Scaliger mistakes for the bishop’s house, where strangers were enter- tained; whereas it was a place adjoining to the church, where the bishop and presbyters sat to re- ceive the Salutations of the people, as they came to desire their blessing or prayers, or consult them about important business. As appears from Sul- picius Severus, who, speaking of St. Martin, says, He sat in one secretarium, and the presbyters53 in another, receiving the people’s salutes, and hearing their causes. Du Fresne thinks these secretaria, or at least some part of them, were also used as ecclesiastical prisons, or places of confinement sometimes for delinquent clergymen; and that then they were called decaneta, or decanica ; which is a term used in both the Codes and some councils, as Gothofred54 and some others explain it, for a prison belonging to the church. In the Theodosian Code there is a law of Arcadius, which orders heretics to be expelled from all places‘ Sect. 9. Of the decanica, or prisons of the church. 8’ Book VIII. chap. 1. sect. 4. *8 Conc. Antissiodor. an. 578. can. 18. 89 Vicecom. de Ritib. Eccles. 1. l. c. 9. 4° Conc. Meldens. can. 48. “ Conc. in Verno Palatio, c. 7. ‘2 Vales. Not. in Philostorg. lib. 7. c. 3. ‘3 Gothofred. ibid. ‘4 Du Fresne, Com. in Paul. Silentiar. p. 593. ‘5 Philostorg. lib. 7. c. 3. ‘6 Book III. chap. l3. sect. 3. ‘7 Passio SS. Patrum Sabaitarum ap. Du Fresne, Com. in Paulum Silentiar. p. 597. ’Eo'a'rrspou 6%. 701) dtaxovucoii Ksqiehtapxeiou ii'rol. o'rcsvoqbukéicwu. ‘8 Du Fresne, ibid. p. 594. ex Gestis de nomine Acacii. ‘9 Sidon. lib. 5. Ep. 17. 5° Sulpic. Dialog. 2. c. l. 5' Concil. Matiscon. 1. can. 2. 52 Theodor. lib. 5. 0.18. "3 Sulpic. Dial. 2. c. l. Cumin alio secretario presbyteri sederent, vel salutationibus vacantes, vel audiendis negotiis occupati, &c. 5* Gothofred. Com. in Cod. Th. lib. l6. Tit. 5. de Haer- Leg. 3U. 312 Boox VIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. which they possessed,55 whether under the name of churches, or diaconica, or decanica. Now, that the decanica here means a place of custody or restraint for delinquents belonging to the church, Gothofred proves from another law among J ustinian’s Novels,56 which orders such delinquents to be shut up in the decanica of the church, there to suffer condign pun- ishment. And by this we are led to understand what is meant by the decam'ca spoken of in the Acts of the Council 5’ of Ephesus, which the Latin trans- lator by mistake renders tribunal, whereas it should be the prison of the church. Some take it to be no more but another name for the diaconicum, or a cor- ruption of it; others derive it from dim), and so make it denote a tribunal: which are errors both alike. For it seems to have been a more general name than the diaconz'cum, including all such places of the church, as were made use of to put ofi'end- ing clerks into a more decent confinement, which was not any one place, but several that were made use of to that purpose, such as the catechumem'a, as well as the diacom'ca, or secretaria, in which respect they had all the name of decam'ca, or career-es, the prisons of the church. Which seems pretty evident from what Du Fresne58 has observed out of an epis- tle of Pope Gregory II. to the emperor Leo Isaurus, where he says, When any one had ofi'ended, the bi- shops were used to confine him as in a prison in one of the secretam'a,59 or dz'acom'a, or catechumena of the church. Which implies, that all these places were made use of upon occasion for the con- finement and punishment of delinquents, and then they had peculiarly the name of decam'ca, or prisons of the church. Sect 10. There is another name for a place oahszgmtrzgggn, belonging to the church in Theodorus Lector,60 which has as much puzzled interpreters as the former. That is pu-arépwv, or psranbprov, as the modern Greeks call it. Goar, in his Notes upon the Euchologium, thinks it should be minsatorz'um, from pivaog, a dish, or mensa, a table; and so he expounds it, a place of refreshment for the singers, where they might have bread and wine to recreate them after service. Du Fresne 6‘ deduces it from metat-um, which is a term of frequent use in the civil law, and signifies a station in the cursus publicus, where entertainment was given to those that travelled upon public business. Suicerus makes it62 to be the same with the diacom'cum, or salutato- rz'um, the saluting house, and thinks with Goar it should be read minsatorz'um, from mensa, because here was a table erected, not for entertainment, but for receiving such things as were brought and laid upon it. But I like best the conjecture of Musculus, who renders it mutatorz'um, as supposing it to be a corruption of that Latin word, which signifies what we call an apodyterz'um, or vestry, where the minis- ters change their habit: and so it is agreed on all hands, that it was a part of the diacom'cum, or but another name for it, though men differso much in their sentiments, when they come to account for the reason of it. The author of the Constitutions, in his description of the church, men- tions also certain placesm called pas- tophorz'a, which, according to his account, were buildings on each side of the church, toward the east end of it. But what use they were put to we can learn no further from that author, save only that he tells us in another place, the deacons64 were used to carry the remains of the eucharist thither when all had communicated. Whence Durantus, measuring ancient customs by the practice of his own times, absurdly concludes, that the pastophorz'a was the ark where the pyx and wafer were laid,65 as if there was any similitude betwixt a pyx and a building on each side of the temple. Bona,66 with a little more reason, thinks the pastopkorz'um was only another name for sceuophylacz'mn, or diacom'cum. But, indeed, it seems to have been a more general name, including not only the diacom'cum, but also the gazophg/Zacium, or treasury, and the habitations Sect. ll. Of the (pamphyla- ctum an pastopho- rm. - of the ministers, and custodes ecclesia, or, as some think they are otherwise called, paramonarz'z', mans-2'- onarz'z', and martymrz'z', the mansionaries or keepers of the church. For the word pastophorium is a name taken from the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, Ezek. x1. 17, where it is used for the chambers in the outward court of the temple. And St. J erom, in his comment67 upon the place, ob- “ Cod. Th. lib. 16. Tit. 5. Leg. 30. Cuncti haeretici pro- culdubio noverint, omnia sibi loca huj us urbis adimenda esse, sive sub ecclesiarum nomine teneautur, sive quae diaconica appellantur, vel etiam decanica. 56 Justin. Novel. 79. c. 3. Ka-S'stp‘yéo's'wo-au e’u 7079 K0:- Aovuéuots deKaurKo'Zs, 'n'owds 'rc‘zs Kafi'nxooo'ae bqJI-ffov'res. 5’ Libell. Basilii Diaconi ad Theodos. in Conc. Ephes. par. 1. C. 30. Cone. t. 3. p. 427. 'Eu 'rq'i ducavucq'i 'TOU Aaoii 'ru'rr'rns'éu'ros dtacpopws, &C. i 58 Du Fresne, Com. in Paul. Silentiar. p. 594. 59 Greg. Ep. 2. ad Leon. Isaur. Concil. t. 7. p.26. Pon- titiees ubi quis peccarit, eum tanquam in carcerem, in se_ cretaria, sacrorumque vasorum aeraria conjiciunt, in ecclesiae diaconia. et in catechumena ablegant. 6° Theodor. Lector. lib. 2. p. 559. 61 Du Fresne, Com. in Paul. Silentiar. p. 595. 6’ Suicer. Thesaur. voce Mf’l'a'l'ullpwll. 68 Constit.. Apost. lib. 2. c. 57. To‘: '7l'a0'1'0¢6pta 'rrpds duarrokriu. 6* Ibid. lib. 8. C. 13. Aafio'u'rss oi. dtc'ucouot 'rc‘z rapto- o'el'mvq-a, eio'qbepé'rwo'av sis 'rd wao'rorpopta. 65 Durant. de Ritib. Eccles. lib. 1. c. 16. n. 8. “6 Bona, Rer. Liturg. lib. l. c. 24. n. 2. 6’ Hieron. Com. in Ezek. x1. 17. p. 640. Pro thalainis tri- ginta quos vertere Septuaginta, sive gazophylaciis atque cel- lariis, ut interpretatus est Aquila, Symmachus posuit éEé- dpas quae habitationi Levitarum atque sacerdotum erant praeparatae. Id. Com. in Ezek. xlii. 1. p. 652. Eductus est 'EE érca'répwv 'riim ,uspd'm CHAP. VII. 313 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. serves, that what the Septuagint call pastophoria, and the Latins from them cubicula, is in the translations of Aquila and Symmachus rendered gagzophylacium and exedra ; and he tells us they were chambers of the treasury, and habitations for the priests and Levites round about that court of the temple. Therefore I think there is no question to be made, but that the pastophorz'a in the Christian church were places put to the same use as in the Jewish temple, from which the name is borrowed. For the church had her gazophylacia, or treasuries, as well as the temple; which appears from a canon of the fourth council of Carthage,68 which forbids the offerings of persons at variance one with an- other to be received either in the treasury or the sanctuary. So that the treasury was a distinct place from the corban in the sanctuary, and there- fore most probably to be reckoned among the pas- tophorz'a of the church. Here all such offerings of the people were laid up, as were not thought proper to be brought to the altar, but rather to be sent to the bishop’s house, as some ancient canons give direction in the case. Particularly, among those called the Canons of the Apostles, we find two to this purpose: That beside bread and wine, nothing69 should be brought to the altar, save only new ears of corn, and grapes, and oil for the lamps, and in— cense for the time of the oblation: but all other fruits should be sent eig olicov, to the repository, or treasury, it may be, as first-fruits for the bishop and presbyters, and not be brought to the altar, but be by them divided among the deacons and other clergy. The pastophorz'a were also habitations for .the bishop and clergy, and the guardians or keepers of the church, as Schelstrate 7° rightly concludes from another passage in St. J erom,"'l where he ex- plains pastophom'um to be the chamber, or habitation, where the ruler of the temple dwelt. So that it seems to have been almost as general a name as that of the 021m, or exedrw of the church. Whether the libraries belonging to churches were any part of these pas- tophorz'a, is not easy to determine, but thus much we are certain of, that there were such places anciently adjoining to many churches, from the time that churches began to be erected among Sect. 12. Of the schools and libraries of the church. Christians. Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, in the third century, built a library for the service of that church, where, Eusebius tells us,72 he found the best part of his materials to compose his Ecclesiastical History. Julius Africanus founded such another library at Caesarea in Palestine, which Pamphilus and Eusebius much augmented. St. J erom says,73 Pamphilus wrote out almost all Origen’s works for the use of this library, which were reserved there in his time. And he often mentions "4 his own con- sulting it upon necessary occasions in his emenda- tions of the text of the Holy Scriptures ; telling us further,75 that there was a copy of St. Matthew’s Gospel in the original Hebrew, as it was first written by him, extant in his time. Another of these libraries we find mentioned in the Acts of Purga- tion of Ceecilian and Felix, belonging to the church of Cirta Julia, or Constantina, in Numidia,76 where Paulus the bishop is accused as a traditor, for de- livering up the goods of the church in the time of the Diocletian persecution. These were all founded before the church had any settled times of peace. In- the following ages we find St. Austin making mention of the library77 of the church of Hippo, and St. J erom78 commending Euzoius, the Arian bishop of Caesarea, for his care in repairing the li- brary of Pamphilus, which Was fallen to decay. St. Basil ’9 speaks of the Roman libraries, or archives at least. And the author of the Pontifical,80 if any credit may be given to him, ascribes the building of two to Pope Hilary, near the baptistery of the Lateran church. But that which exceeded all the rest, was the famous library of the church of S. Sophia, which Hospinian81 thinks was first begun by Constantine, but was afterward vastly augmented by Theodosius junior, who was another Ptolemy, in whose time there were no less than a hundred thousand in ‘books in it, and a hundred and twenty thousand in the reign of Basiliscus and Zeno, when both the building and its furniture were all unhappily consumed together by the firing of the city in a popular tumult. He that would see a more ample account of these foundations in other ages, must consult Lomeier’s Discourse de Bibliothecis, where he pursues the history of libraries 82 from first to last, as well among Jews and heathens, as every in gazophylacium, sive ut Symmachus et LXX. transtule- runt exedram, vel ut Theodotio wam-rocpo'pwu, quod in tha- lamum vertitur. 63 Cone. Carthag. 4. can. 93. Oblationes dissidentium fra- trum, neque in sacrario, neque in gazophylacio recipiantur. "*3 Canon. Apost. c. 4 et 5. 7° Schelstrat. Concil. Antiochen. p. 186. 7‘ Hieron. Corn. in Esai. 72 Euseb. lib. 6. c. 20. "3 Hieron. Catalog. Scriptor. Eccles. c. 75. 7‘ Id. Ep. ad Marcel. t. 3. p. 113. It. Com. in Tit. c. 3. 75 Id. de Scriptor. c. 3. Ipsum Hebraicum habetur usque hodie in Caesariensi bibliotheca, quam Pamphilus martyr studiosissime confecit. ‘ 76 Gesta Purgat. Czeciliani ad calcem Optati, p. 267. Postea quam perventum est in bibliothecam, inventa sunt armaria inania, &c. "7 Aug. de Haeres. c. 80. Audivi de haeresibus scripsisse sanctum Hieronymum, sed ipsum ej us opusculum in nostra bibliotheca invenire non potuimus. "8 Hieron. Catal. Scriptor. c. 113. Plurimo labor-e co'r- ruptam bibliothecam Origenis et Pamphili in membranis instaurare conatus est. "9 Basil. Ep. 82. t. 3. p. 152. 8° Pontifical. Vit. Hilarii. Fecit oratorium S. Stephani in baptisterio Lateranensi. Fecit autem et bibliothecas duas in eodem loco. 8‘ Hospin. de Templis, lib. 3. c. 7. p. 101. "2 Lomeier. de Bibliothecis, Ultrajecti, 1680. 8V0. 314 Boox VIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. age of Christians. It is sufi‘lcient to my present purpose to have hinted here, briefly, a succinct ac- count of such of them as were anciently reckoned parts or appendants of the Christian churches. And for the same reason I take notice of schools in this place, because we find them sometimes kept in the churches, or buildings adjoining to the church: which is evident from the observation which So- crates makes upon the education of Julian the apos- tate, that in his youth he frequented the church,83 where, in those days, the schools were kept. He speaks of the schools of grammar and rhetoric, which, it seems, were then taught at Constantinople in some apartment belonging to the church. Here‘ also it is probable those famous catechetic schools of Alexandria and Caesarea were kept. For Deme- trius, bishop of Alexandria, is said by Ruflin“ to have authorized Origen to teach as catechist in the church. Which, as I have noted in another place,“5 cannot be understood of preaching publicly in the church; for Origen was then but eighteen years old, and not in orders, when he first entered upon the catechetic school; but it must mean his private teaching in the school of the church. Which, whe- ther it was in the catechamenia within the church, or in the baptisteria or pastophoria without the church, is not very easy nor very material to be de- termined, since it appears to have been in some place belonging to the church, but not precisely de- termined by any ancient writers. Whilst I am upon this head, I cannot but take notice of a canon attri- buted to the sixth general council of Constantinople, which promotes the setting up of charity schools in all country churches. For among those nine canons which are ascribed to this council in some ancient collections, and published by Crab, there is one to this purpose,“ that presbyters in country towns and villages should have schools to teach all such children as were sent to them, for which they should exact no reward, nor take any thing, except the parents of the children thought fit to make them any charitable present by way of voluntary oblation. And another of those canons" speaks of schools in churches and monasteries subject to the bishop’s care and direction. From which we may conclude, that schools were anciently very common appen- dants both of cathedral and country churches; and therefore it was not improper to hint thus much of them here, though a more full account of other things relating to them will make a part in this work hereafter in its proper place. Eusebius, in his description of the Sect. m church of the twelve apostles, built diagram; by Constaptine at Constantinople, ii'ftfriesaiinagallaiiifé takes notice of some other buildings c m ' and places belonging to the church. For that church, he says, was surrounded with a large atrium, or area, on each side of which were porticos or cloisters, and along by them88 first aim stream», which Valesius renders basilica, but I think Mus- culus something better, domus basilica; for they seem not to mean royal palaces, but the houses of the clergy adjoining to the church. Then he adds Aovrpd, which in this place neither signifies the bap- tistery, nor the fountain before the church, but baths belonging to the church, which, in a law of Theodosius,89 that speaks also of the several parts of the church, where men should be allowed to take sanctuary, is called more plainly balnea, and in the Greek copy Mvrpd, as well in the Code as in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus, where the same law is recited. Eusebius adds to these dvaicawrrfipta, which Musculus translates deambulatorii recessus, taking them, I presume, for walks about the church: but Valesius more properly renders them diversa- ria ; for they seem to mean the little hospitals, or houses of entertainment for the poor and strangers; which are the cell-aka, the little cells or lodgings, if I mistake not, spoken of in the foresaid law of the Theodosian Code. And perhaps they might serve as lodgings also for such as fled to take sanctuary in the church. For these might neither eat nor lodge within the church, but only in some of these out- ward buildings, which, upon that account, were made as safe a retreat as the very altar itself, by the fore- mentioned law of Theodosius. And so were the mmyéyta, as Eusebius calls them, the habitations of the porters, or keepers of the church; and like- wise the gardens, and area, and cloisters enjoyed the same privilege, being within the bounds of the mpifloxog, or outward enclosure of the church. And so far, as to what concerns the privilege of yielding sanctuary, all these places were reckoned as parts of the church. But of this, more in the last chap- 83 Socrat. lib. 3. c. l. dev'rfipta i111, &c. 8‘ Rufiin. lib. 6. Hist. Eusebnc. 3. Demetrius catechi- zandi ei, id est, docendi magisterium in ecclesia tribuit. 85 Book III. chap. 10. sect. 4. 86 Gone. 6. General. can. 5. ap. Crab. t. 2. p. 415. Pres- byteri per villas et vicos scholas habeant. Et si quis fide- lium suos parvulos ad discendas literas eis commendare vult, eos non renuant suscipere, &c. Nihil autem ab eis pretii exigant, nec aliquid ab eis accipiant, excepto quod eis pa, rentes eorum charitatis studio sua voluntate obtulerint. 3’ Ibid. can. 4. Si quis ex presbyteris voluerit uepotem Els Buozhuciw, 3116a 'ré'rs 'rd 'n'at- suum aut aliquem consanguineum ad scholas mittere in ec- clesiis sanctorum, aut in coenobiis, quae nobis ad regendum cornmissa sunt, licentiam id faciendi concedimus. 88 Euseb. Vit. Constant. lib. 4. c. 59. Oilcoi 're Bao'iketot 'ra't's a'roa'is, Aov'rpc'z ‘7'8, Kai. dualcapt'zr'rripra 1rapegs'rsiue'ro, &Ahai 're wke'io'q'a Kw'ra'ydipta 'roi's Prof: 'rci'rrou ¢povpois, &c. 89 God. Th. lib. 9. Tit. 45. De his qui ad ecclesias con- fugiunt, Leg. 4. Ut inter templum quod parietum descrip- simus cinctu, et januas primas ecclesias, quicquid fuerit interjacens sive in cellulis, sive in domibus, hortulis, bal- neis, areis atque porticibus, confugas interioris templi vice tueatur. CHAP. VII. 315 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. the ancient churches for many ages. ter, which treats particularly of the laws relating to the asyla, and the privilege of taking sanctuary in the church. Sec, M I should here have put an end to Cami‘; ‘g'giggdfirg this chapter, but that some readers the church‘ would be apt to reckon it an omission, that I have taken no notice of organs and bells among the utensils of the church. But the true reason is, that there were no such things in use in Music in churches is as ancient as the apostles, but instru- mental music not so: for it is now generally agreed by learned men, that the use of organs came into the church since the time of Thomas Aquinas, anno 1250. For he in his Sums has these words, Our church does90 not use musical instruments, as harps and psalteries, to praise God withal, that she may not seem to judaize. From which our learned Mr. Gregory, in a peculiar Dissertation91 that he has upon this subject, concludes, That there was no ecclesiastical use of organs in his time. And the same inference is made by Cajetan92 and Na~ varre93 among the Romish writers. Mr. Wharton94 also has observed, that Marinus Sanutus, who lived about the year 1290, was the first that brought the use of wind organs into churches, whence he was sur- named Torcellus, which is the name for an organ in the Italian tongue. And about this time Durandus, in his Rationale,95 takes notice of them as received in the church, and he is the first author, Mr. Gregory thinks, that so takes notice of them. The use of the instrument indeed is much ancienter, but not in church service; the not attending to which dis— tinction is the thing that imposes upon many writers. In the East, the instrument was always in use in the emperors’ courts, perhaps from the time of Julian, who has an epigram“ giving a handsome description of it. But in the Western parts the instrument was not so much as known till the eighth century. For the first organ that was ever seen in France, was one sent as a present to King Pepin by Constantinus Copronymus, the Greek emperor, anno 766, as Bona himself97 shows out of SigebertHa and the ancient Annals of France,99 and Mr. Gregory adds Marianus Scotus, Martin Polonus, Aventine, Platina, and the Pontifical, for the same opinion. But now it was only used in princes’ courts, and not yet brought into churches. Nor was it ever received into the Greek churches, there being no mention of an organ in all their litur- gies, ancient or modern, if Mr. Gregory’s judgment may be taken. But Durantus, however, contends for their antiquity both in the Greek and Western churches, and offers '°° to prove it, but with ill suc-' cess. First from J ulianus Halicarnassensis, a Greek writer, anno 510, whom he makes to say, that organs were used in the church in his time. But he mistakes the sense of his author, who speaks not of his own times, but of the times of Job and the Jewish temple. For commenting upon those Words of Job xxx. 31, “My harp is turned to mourning, and my organ into the voice of them that weep ;” he says, There was no prohibition to use musical instruments, or organs,101 if it was done with piety, because they were used in the temple. By which it is plain, he speaks of the Jewish temple in the singular, and not of Chris- tian temples or churches in the plural, as Duran- tus mistakes him. Next, for the Latin church he urges the common opinion, which ascribes the in- vention of them to Pope Vitalian, anno 660. But his authorities for this are no better than Platina and the Pontifical, which are little to be regarded against clear evidences to the contrary. That which some urge out of Clemens Alexandrinus,102 I shall not answer as Suicerus108 does, (who, with Hos~ pinian1M and some others, wholly decrying the use ' of instrumental music in Christian churches, says, it is an interpolation and corruption of that ancient author,) but only observe, that he speaks not of what was then in use in Christian churches, but of what might lawfully be used by any private Christians, if they were disposed to use it. Which rather ar- gues, that instrumental music, the lute and harp, of which he speaks, was not in use in the public churches. The same may be gathered from the words of St. Chrysostom, who says "5 it was only permitted to the Jews as sacrifice was, for the heaviness and grossness of their souls: God condescended to their weakness, because they were lately drawn ofl from idols. But now, instead of organs,106 we may use our own bodies to praise him withal. Theodoret107 has 9° Aquin. 2da 2dae Quaest. 91. Artic. 2. Ecclesia nostra non assumit instrumenta musica, sicut citharas et psalteria in Divinas laudes, ne videatur judaizare. 9' Gregory, Discour. of the Singing of the Nicene Creed, Inter Oper. Posthuma, p. 51. 92 Cajetan. in Loc. Aquin. et in summula. ‘*3 Navar. de Orat. et Horis Canonicis, cap. 16. 9‘ Wharton, Append. ad Cave, Histor. Literar. p. 13. Marinus Sanutus, cognomento Torcellus, Germani cujus- dam artificis opera usus, organa illa pneumatica, quae hodie usurpantur, Italice Torcellos dicta, primus omnium in ec- clesiam induxit: inde datum ei T orcelli nomen. 95 Durand. Rational. lib. 4. c. 34. lib. 5. c. 2. \ 9‘ Vide Vitam J uliani per Morentinum, p. 11. 9’ Bona, Rer. Liturg. lib. 1. c. 25. n. 19. 9‘ Sigebert. an. 766. 99 Annales Metenses, an. 757. l°° Durant. de Ritib. lib. I. c. 13. n. 2. 1°‘ Julian. Catena in Job xxx. p. 465. 065k Ksxpfia-Gat 6417611019 a'qreipn'ro, um" sbo'efieias 'ywouéuou, 57r0v'ys Ev 'rq'i' vaq'i 'rot'l'rots s'lcéxpnu'ro. "2 Clem. Alex. Paedag. lib. 2. c. 4. “3 Suicer. Thesaur. voce ‘Opyauou, p. 501. ‘°‘ Hospin. de Templis, lib. 2. c. 11. p. 74. "5 Chrysost. in Psal. cxlix. t. 3. p. 634. 1°“ Id. in Psal. cxliv. 1°’ Theod. in Psal. xxxii. et cl. 316. BOOK VIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. many the like expressions, in his comments upon the Psalms and other places. But the author under the name of Justin Martyr is more express in his determination, as to matter of fact, telling us plain- ly, that the use 1°“ of singing with instrumental music was not received in the Christian churches, as it was among the Jews in their infant state, but only the use of plain song. So that there being no use of organs till the twelfth century, I could not speak of them as utensils of the ancient churches. Sect 15. For the same reason I reckon not befisffl‘rfffigfvnel °f bells among the ancient utensils, be- $3.‘;gd‘cgiggmgggie cause they are known to be a modern their immfi'm' invention. For the first three hun- dred years it is certain the primitive Christians did not meet in their assemblies by the notice of any public signal: though Amalarius109 fancies they had some sounding instruments of wood for this pur- pose. But this is so absurd a fancy, and altogether groundless dream, to imagine that in an age of per- secutions, when they met privately in the night, they should betray themselves, as it were, and provoke their enemies to destroy them, that neither Bonano nor Baronius 1" himself could digest it. But Baronius has another fancy, which is not much better ground- ed. He supposes there was an order of men ap- pointed on purpose to give private notice to every member, when and where the assembly was to be held; and these, he says,” are called cursores, or Qeddpopor, couriers, in the ancient language of the church. His sole authority for this is Ignatius “3 in his epistle to Polycarp, where he has indeed the name, but in a quite difl'erent sense from what Ba- ronius explains it to be. For he speaks not of per- sons employed in calling together religious assem- blies, but of messengers to be sent from one country to another upon the important afi'airs of the church, as any one that looks carefully into Ignatius will easily discern. These he in another place1M calls Qeorrpeo'fiz'rrag, divine ambassadors, as all learned men agree that it ought to be read; and so the old Latin translation has it, sacros legatos, and Polycarp115 uses the same name when he speaks of those mes- sengers of the churches. These were commonly some deacons, or others of the inferior clergy, whom the bishop thought fit to send upon the embassies of the church. But as to calling of religious assem— blies, we are not sure how it was then performed, save only that it was done in a private way: and perhaps the deaconesses were the fittest persons to be employed therein, as being least known or sus- pected by the heathen; but for want of light we can determine nothing about it. In the following ages we find several other inventions before bells to call religious assemblies together. In Egypt they seem to have used trumpets, after the manner of the Jews. Whence Pachomius,“6 the father of the‘ Egyptian monks, makes it one article of his Rule, that every monk should leave his cell, as soon as he heard the sound of the trumpet calling to church. And the same custom is mentioned by Johannes Cli- macus,n7 who was abbot of Mount Sinai in the sixth century; whence we may conjecture, that the old usage continued till that time in Palestine also. But in some monasteries they took the ofiice by turns of going about to every one’s cell, and with the knock of a hammer calling the monks to church, which custom is often mentioned by Cassian,118 and Palladius,119 and Moschus,120 as used chiefly for their night assemblies, whence the instrument is termed by them the night signal, and the wakening mallet. In the monastery of virgins, which Paula, the fa- mous Roman lady, set up and governed at J crusa- lem, the signal was used to be given by one going about and singing halleluj ah: for that word was their call to church, as St. J erom ”‘ informs us. In other parts of the East they had their sounding in- struments of wood, as Bona122 shows at large out of the Acts of the second Council of Nice, and Theo- dorus Studita, and Nicephorus Blemides, and se- veral other writers. And the use of bells was not known among them, as he observes out of Baro- nius,123 till the year 865, when Ursus Patriciacus, duke of Venice, made a present of some to Michael the Greek emperor, who first built a tower to the church of Sancta Sophia to hang them in. But Whether it be that this custom never generally pre- vailed among the Greeks, or whether it be that the Turks will not permit them to use any bells, so it is at present that they have none, but follow their old custom of using wooden boards or iron plates full of holes, which they call m'uravrpa, and xstpoofi- pav'rpa, because they hold them in their hands, and knock them with a hammer or mallet to call the people together to church, as we are informed by ‘"8 Justin. Quaest. et Respons. ad Orthodox. qu. 107. ’Eu 'ra'is éICKATIO’iULS "ll‘pOdipi‘Tdl. aloe-(‘Bu &o'ua't'rwu 1'1 Xpi'lo-Ls "rim 'roté'rwu o’p'yo'wwv, Kai 'ribu oi'hkwv 'riiw vi'rn'iors du'rwu tippe- diam, Kai inrokéksmr'rat ‘To rim-at der-Mire. 1°” Amalar. de Ofiiciis, lib. 4. c. 21. m Bona, Rer. Liturg. lib. l. c. 22. n. 1. 1“ Baron. an. 58. n. 108. "2 Ibid. n. 102. “8 lgnat. Ep. ad Polycarp, n. 7. 1“ Ignat. Ep. ad Smyrn. n. 11. "5 Polycarp. Ep. ad Philip. n. 13. "6 Paehom. Regula, c. 3. Bibl. Patr. t. 15. p. 629. Cum audierit vocem tubae ad collectam vocantis, statim egrediatur. 1" Climac. Scala Paradisi, Gradu 19. Bibl. Patr. t. 5. p. 244. "8 Cassian. Institut. lib. 2. c. 17. lib. 4. c. 12. “9 Pallad. Hist. Lausiac. c. 104. ’EEv'1rutas-1ipwv adavpr’ov. 1”’ Moschus, Prat. Spirit. Nocturnum pulsare signum, &c. 12‘ Hieron. Ep. 27. Epitaph. Paular, p. 178. Post alle- luya cantatum, quo signo vocabantur ad collectam, nulli residere licitum erat. "2 Bona, Rer. Liturg. lib. l. c. 22. n. 2. "3 Baron. an. 865. t. 10. p. 310. CHAP. VIII. 317 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Allatius, and a late learned writer 1% 6f our own, who has been an eye-witness of their customs. Who first brought bells into use in the Latin church, is a thing yet undetermined; some ascribing them to Pope Sabinianus, St. Gregory’s successor, anno 604, and others to Paulinus, bishop of Nola, con- temporary with St. J erom. This last is certainly a vulgar error, and seems to owe its rise to no other foundation, but only that he was bishop of Nola in Campania, (where bells, perhaps, were first invented, and thence called nolce and campama) and some bold modern writer thence concluded that he was therefore the author of them. And it might make the story look a little more plausible, because that he also founded a church in Nola. But then it happened unluckily for this fiction, that he him- self describes his church, and that very minutely, in his twelfth epistle to Severus, but takes no no- tice of tower or bells, though he is exact in recount- ing all other lesser edifices belonging to his church. Which, as Bona truly observes, is a shrewd argu- ment, joined with the silence of all other ancient writers, to prove that he was not the inventor of them. Yet Bona after all would have it thought, that they began to be used in the Latin church im- mediately upon the conversion of Christian empe- rors, because the tintinnabula, or lesser sort of bells, had been used before by the heathens to the like purpose. Which is an argument, I think, that has very little weight in it, since there is no ancient author that countenances his conjecture. For he produces none before Audoenus Rothomagensis, that mentions the use of the tintinnabula, nor any before Bede, that uses the name campana .- both which authors lived in the seventh century, and that is an argument that these thingswere not come into use among Christians long before, else we might have heard of them in writers before them, as we frequently do in those that follow after. I need not now tell any reader, that the popish cus- tom of consecrating, and anointing, and baptizing of bells, and giving them the name of some saint, is a very modern invention. Baronius carries it no higher than the time of John XIIL, anno 968, who consecrated the great bell of the Lateran church, and gave it the name of John,125 from whence he thinks the custom was authorized in the church. Menardus128 and Bona127 would have it thought a little more ancient, but yet they do not pretend to carry it higher than one age more, to the time of Charles the Great, in whose time some rituals, Me- nardus says, had a form of blessing and anointing bells, under this title or rubric, Ad sz'gnum ecclesz'w benedz'cendum, A form for blessing of bells. And it is not improbable but that such a corruption might creep into the rituals of those times, because we find among the Capitulars of Charles the Great, a censure and prohibition of that practice, at clocas non bajm‘zkent,128 that they should not baptize clocks, which is the old German name for a bell. But what was then prohibited, has since been stiffiy avowed and practised, and augmented also with some ad- ditional rites, to make bells a sort of charm against storms and thunder, and the assaults of Satan, as the reader that pleases may see the ceremony de- scribed by Sleidan129 and Hospinian180 out of the old Pontificals of the Romish church. But I fear my readers will begin to accuse me now, instead of an omission, of making too long a digression upon this subject, and therefore I return to the business of ancient churches. CHAPTER VIII. OF THE ANATHEMATA, AND OTHER ORNAMENTS OF THE ANCIENT CHURCHES. AFTER having taken a distinct sur- Sm 1 vey of the chief parts and buildings, mli‘lrilzttlfyhéhaeépitrxztls and common utensils, of the ancient Qift'ggflzsfn churches, it will not be amiss to cast our eyes upon the ornamental parts thereof, and consider a little after what manner the first Chris- tians beautified their houses of prayer. The rich- ness and splendour of some of their fabrics, and the value of their utensils belonging to the altar, many of which were of silver and gold, I have already taken notice of: what therefore I shall further add in this place, concerns only the remaining orna- ments of the church,some of which were a little uncommon, and but rarely mentioned by modern Writers. The general name for all sorts of orna- ments in churches, whether in the structure itself, or in the vessels and utensils belonging to it,‘was anciently anathemata ; which though it most com- monly signifies persons devoted or accursed by ex- communication or separation from the church, yet it sometimes also denotes things given to God, and devoted to his honour and service. In which sense all the sacred vessels and utensils of the church, and all gifts and ornaments belonging to it, were called anathemata, because they were set apart from common use to God’s honour and service. Some of the Greeks distinguish thus between duaQr'ymra and a’vaséyara, as Suicerus has 01)- 124 Dr. Smith’s Account of the Greek Church, p. 70. "35 Baron. an. 968. t. 10. p. 810. 1'16 Menard. Not. in Sacramental. Gregor. p. 207. 12’ Bona, Rer. Liturg. lib. l. c. 22. n. 7. '28 Capitular. Caroli Magni, cited by Durantus de Riti- bus, lib. l. c. 22. n. 2. ‘29 Sleidan. Commentar. lib. 21. p. 388. ‘3° Hospin. de Templis, lib. 4. c. 9. p. 113. 318 Boox VIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. served‘ out of Chrysostom,’ and Hesychius,8 and Bal- zamon,‘ and Zonaras, making the first to signify or- naments of the church, or things devoted to God’s honour; and the other, things accursed, or devoted to destruction. But others of them do not so nicely observe this distinction, but use the same word to signify both things devoted to God’s use, and things devoted to destruction, as Suicerus shows in the same place out of Theodoret, Cyril of Alexandria, the author of the questions ad Orthodoxos under the name of Justin Martyr, and some others. Here I take both words only as signifying gifts or orna- ments of churches. In which sense dvaSa'ypai-a is used by St. Luke, xxi. 5, for the gifts and orna- ments of the temple. And so Eusebius, describing the hemisphere or altar part of the church of J eru- salem, and the twelve pillars which supported and surrounded it, says, The heads of the pillars were adorned with silver bowls, which Constantine set up as his beautiful a’wdsmia, that is, his gift or of- fering5 to his God. And a little after he says again, He adorned it8 with innumerable gifts of silver and gold and precious stones. So that all the rich vessels and utensils of the altar, the rich vestment which the bishop put on when be ad- ministered the sacrament of baptism, which was in- terwoven with gold, and which, as Theodoret7 and Sozomen8 tell us, was one of Constantine’s gifts to the church of Jerusalem; these, I say, and all other such like ornaments belonging to the church, as well as what contributed to the beauty and splen- dour of the fabric itself, were all reckoned among the anathemata of the church. But in a more re— strained sense, the anatkemata sometimes denote more particularly those gifts, which were hanged upon pillars and set in public view, as memorials of some great mercy which men had received from God. In allusion to which Socrates9 thinks the term anathema is used for excommunication, be- cause thereby a man’s condemnation is published and proclaimed, as if it were banged up upon a pillar. St. Jerom also had his eye plainly upon this custom, when he speaks of men’s gifts 1° hang- ing in the church upon golden cords, or being set in golden sockets or sconces. For the word fanale signifies both. And though he rather advises men to offer their gifts to the true temples of Christ, meaning the bodies and souls of the poor; yet that implies another way of offering their gifts to be in common use, that is, hanging up their anathemata, or donaria, (as he with other Latin writers calls them,) in the material temples. Vide Sidon. Apol- linar. lib. 4. Ep. 18. et Paulin. Natali 6. Felicis. Among these there was one par- Sect 2_ ticular kind of gifts, which they call- kigglgrggggfgned ed éic'rvflu'lpa'ra, because they were a itgflgg'ggugm sort of symbolical memorials, or hiero- in“ chmhes' glyphical representations of the kindness and favour’ which in any kind they had received. When first they began to be offered and set up in churches, is not very easy to determine: but I think Bochart’s conjecture is very probable,11 that it was about the middle of the fifth age, because Theodoret is one of the first Writers that takes notice of them. He tells us in one of his Therapeutics, or Discourses to the Gentiles,,2 that when any one obtained the be- nefit of a signal cure from God in any member of his body, as his eyes, or hands, or feet, &c., he then brought his fixfl'nrwpa, the eifigies or figure of that part in silver or gold, to be hanged up in the church to God, as a memorial of his favour. This, Bochart thinks, was done by way of emulation of the Gen- tiles, among whom it was customary for such as had escaped any great peril or disaster, to consecrate some monument of their by-past evils to their gods that delivered them. As they that had escaped a shipwreck, dedicated a tablet to Neptune or Isis, representing the manner of their shipwreck. So gladiators banged up their arms to Hercules; and slaves and captives, when they got their liberty and were made free, offered a chain to the lares. And so we read, 1 Sam. vi. 4, that the Philistines sent their golden emerods and mice, figures of the things by which they had suffered, as an offering to the God of Israel. I shall make no further observation upon this practice, but only remark how far the Romish church is degenerate in this matter from the ancient, who offer now to men more than they do to God, and fill their churches with gifts, ac~ knowledging some tutelar saints as their chief pa- trons and benefactors. But to proceed with the ancient churches: another ornament, which 1? 3313;353:3553: served for use as well as beauty, was $2,128,,“ usfin'ip‘fiffi their comely and pertinent inscrip- “118 tions, many of which are preserved and still to be read in ancient authors. These were of two sorts, some taken out of Scripture; others, useful compo- sitions of men’s own inventing. The walls of the church seem commonly to have had some select Sect. 3. 1 Suicer. T hesaur. voce ’Aua3'1i,ua. 2 Chrysost. Hom. 16. in Rom. 3 Hesych. Lexicon. ‘ Balzamon et Zonar. in Can. 3. Goncil. in Templo‘ Sophiae. 5 Euseb. de Vita Constant. lib. 3. c. 38. 'Avc'zfimra mik- Ate'ov é'n'otei'ro *rqS' airroii 9&5. 8 Ibid. 0. 40. ’Emio',u.at 6’ airrdu ddm'yrirrots Kahlua-t dua- s'mlé'rwv Xpvo'oii, &c. ’ Theodor. lib. 2. c. 27. 8 Sozom. lib. 4. c. 25. 9 Socrat. lib. 7. c. 34. 1° Hieron. Ep. 27. ad Eustoch. in Epitaphio Paulae. J ac- tent alii pecunias et in corbonarn Dei aera congesta, funali- busque aureis dona pendentia, &c. Id. Ep. 13. ad Paulin. Verum Christi templum anima credentis est.—-—Illi ofi'er donaria. 11 Bochart. Hierozoic. part. 1. lib. 2. cap. 36. p. 368. 12 Theodor. Serm. 8. de Martyr. t. 4. p. 606. CHAP. VIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 319 portions of Scripture written upon them, containing some proper admonition and instruction for all in general, or else more peculiar to that order of per- sons who had their station in such a particular part or division of the church. Thus I have observed before,13 out of St. Ambrose,“ that the place of the virgins had that text of St. Paul sometimes written by it on the walls, “There is difference between a Wife and a virgin; the unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, how she may please the Lord,” &c. And by this one place we may judge how other parts of the church were embellished and adorned with proper instructions out of the Holy Scripture. But beside these lessons out of the inspired writings, it was very usual to have other inscriptions of human composure written on the several parts and utensils of many churches. Of which I have already given some instances out of Paulinus, speaking of the catechumenia and secretariat ‘5 of the church. And the curious reader may find abundance more of the same nature, upon the baptistery, and the altar, and the frontispiece,m too long to be here inserted. I shall only here repeat two short distichs written over the doors of the church, one on the outside, exhorting men to enter the church with pure and peaceable hearts, on this wise: Sect. 4. And with other in- scriptions of human composition. Pax tibi sit, quicunque Dei penetralia Christi Pectore pacifico candidus ingrederis. And the other on the inner side of the doors, re- quiring men, when they go out of the church with their bodies, to leave at least their hearts behind them. Quisquis ab aede Dei perfectis ordine votis Egrederis, remea corpore, corde mane. Many other the like inscriptions may be seen in Sidonius Apollinaris,17 and other writers of that age; but I will only add one more, which, for the curiosity of it, may deserve to be here inserted. It is the inscription which the emperor Justinian is said to have written round about the altar of the church of Sancta Sophia. The altar itself, Cedrenus tells us, was a most inimitable work: for it was artificially composed of all sorts of materials that either the earth or the sea could afford, gold, silver, and all kinds of stones, wood, metals, and other things. Which being melted and mixed together, a most curious table was framed out of this univer- sal mass; and about it was this inscription: “We thy servants,“ Justinian and Theodora, ofl‘er unto thee, O Christ, thy own gifts out of thy own, which we beseech thee favourably to accept, 0 Son and Word of God, who wast made flesh and crucified for our sakes. Keep us in the true orthodox faith; and this empire which thou hast committed to our trust, augment and preserve it to thy own glory, wgwfieiarg 'rfig dyiag Gso'roscov, by the intercessions of the holy mother of God and Virgin Mary.” The reader will not wonder at this last part of this inscription in the sixth age, when the prayers of saints in hea- ven were thought available without directly praying to them. Another considerable part of the ornament of churches was the beauti- fying of the roof, or camera, as they then called it. This was done two ways, either by Mosaic work, which they call musivum ,- or by la- cunary work, dividing the roof into several pannels, by architects termed laquearz'a, or lacunarz'a, from lacus, some of which were round, and some square, (as Valesius observes out of Isidore,‘°) and divided either with wood, or plaster, or colours, from each other, and then either gilded or painted, as men’s fancies led them. Both these were used to adorn the ancient churches. The temple of Sancta Sophia was curiously wrought in Mosaic or chequer work, as Procopius"m relates; and Constantine’s church at Jerusalem was lacunary: for Eusebius“ says, the whole roof was divided into certain carved tables or panels, and all laid over with shining gold. And this he calls a little before Icapépav Aaxwvapiav, a lacunary roof adorned with gold. Some churches, as that of Paulinus"’2 of Nola, were beautified both ways. For Paulinus says, the roof of his apsis, or altar part, was Mosaic work; but the body of the church, and the galleries on both sides the church, were lacunary, that is, divided into panels, as we see in many of our modern churches. The reader that pleases may see a great deal more of this matter in St. J erom, who often speaks of their lacunary 23 golden roofs, and walls adorned with crust of mar- Sect. 5. Gilding and M0- saic work used in the ancient churches. '8 Book VIII. chap. 5. sect. 9. 1‘ Ambros. ad Virgin. Lapsam. 1‘ Chap. 6. sect. 22. 1‘ Paulin. Ep. 12. ad. Sever. 1' Sidon. lib. 4. Ep. 18. 18 Cedren. Hist. Compend. an. 32. Justin. p. 386. Td ad: in 'rc'bv 01311 (70! 'n'poa'cpe'popw 07. dofihai o'ov Xpw'ré, &c. 1*’ Isidor. Origen. lib. 19. Laquearia sunt qua: cameram subtegunt et ornant: quaa et lacunaria dicuntur, quod lacus quosdam quadratos vel rotundos, ligno vel gypso vel colori- bus habeant pictos, cum signis intermicantibus. 2° Procop. de ZEdificiis Justin. lib. l. cited by Valesius, Not. in Euseb. de Vit. Const. lib. 3. c. 36. 2‘ Euseb. lib. 3. de Vit. Const. c. 36 Ta 6% "rfis si'o'w a'ré'yns 7hv¢aic (PdTl/tdftd’flol! cirrnp'rume'ua, &c. Vid. c. 32. 22 Paulin. Ep. 12. ad Sever. p. 150 et 151. Apsidem solo et parietibus marmoratam camera musivo illusa clarificat. -Totum vero extra concham basilicae spatium alto et lacu- nato culmine geminis utrinque porticibus dilatatur. 23 Hieron. lib. 2. in Zechar. viii. Non solum laquearia et tecta fulgentia auro, sed parietes diversi marmoris crustis vestiti. Id. Ep. 2. ad Nepotian. Marmora nitent auro, splendent laquearia, gemmis altare distinguitur, &c. It. Ep. 30. Epitaph. Fabiolae, c. 4. Sonabant psalmi, et aurata templorum tecta reboans in sublime quatiebat Alleluya. It. 320 Boox VIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. ble; and pillars with their chapiters of shining gold; and gates inlaid with ivory and silver; and altars distinguished and beset with precious stones and gold. Though he was no great admirer of these things himself, but a greater friend to charity. They of the Romish church, when they are describing the ancient churches, commonly add to these other ornaments that of pictures and images, according to the modern custom: and no- thing will content them, but to have them as an- cient as churches themselves, that is, to be derived from apostolical practice. To this purpose, they have invented an apostolical council at Antioch, wherein not only the use, but the worship of images is pretended to be authorized by the apostles. And the credit of this council is stifily defended by Ba- ronius,” and Turrian, and Binius, and many such over-zealous writers. But Petavius,25 and Pagi,26 and other writers of candour'and judgment, give it up as a mere forgery, and freely confess it to be a fiction of the modern Greeks. Petavius also”7 owns, that for three or four of the first ages, there was little or no use of images in churches. And indeed the evidences are so plain, that none but they who resolve to wink hard can deny them. The'silence of all ancient authors is good evidence in this case. The silence of the heathen is further confirmation. For they never recriminated, or charged the use of images upon them. Nay, in the last persecution, when they often plundered and pillaged their churches, we never read of any images seized in them, though we have several particular catalogues or inventories of what they found there, left upon record by the heathen. It is a very full one which Baronius":8 first published, and is since inserted among the Collections29 at the end of Optatus. There is a particular breviat of all things found by the persecutors in the church of Paul, bishop of Sect. 6. No pictures or images allowed in churches for the first three hundred years. Cirta in Numidia, where we find mention made of cups, and flagons, and bowls, and water-pots, and lamps, and candlesticks, and torches, and coats, and other clothing for men and women, which in those days seem to be laid up in store, either for the poor or the ascetics of the church: but of images or pic- tures there is not a syllable, which is at least a good negative argument that there was no such thing then in their churches. Nay, there are positive proofs in the fourth age, that in some places they were not then allowed to be set up in churches. As in Spain, in the time of the council of Eliberis, anno 305, there was a positive decree against them. For one of the canons of that council runs in these words: We decree30 that pictures ought not to be in churches, lest that which is worshipped and adored be paint- ed upon the walls. And it was certainly so in Cy- prus to the end of this century, as appears from that famous epistle of Epiphanius to John, bishop of J e- rusalem, translated by St. Jerom, where, speaking of his passage through Anablatha, a village of Pales- tine, he says, he found there a veil hanging before the doors of the church, wherein was painted81 the image of Christ, or some saint; for he did not well remember whether it was: but seeing, however, the image of a man hanging in the church against the authority of Scripture, he tore it in pieces, and ad- vised the guardians of the church rather to make a winding-sheet of it, to bury some poor man in. Some storm against this passage, as an interpolation of some modern Greek iconoclast; which is the common evasion of Bellarmine 3’ and Baronius,33 and the rest that follow them. But Petavius“ owns it to be genuine, and says, images were not allowed in the time of Epiphanius in the Cyprian churches: which is certainly the truth of the matter, when men have used all their arts and shifts to persuade the contrary. The common writers of the Romish church are as uneasy about the council of Eliberis. Ep. 8. ad Demetriad. Virgin. Alii aedificent ecclesias; vestiant palietes marmorum crustis; columnarum moles ad- vehant, earumque deaurent capita, pretiosum ornaturn non sentientia; ebore argentoque valvas, et gemmis aurata dis- tinguant altaria. Non reprehendo, non abnuo. Uuusquis- que in sensu suo abundet. Mcliusque est hoc facere, quam repositis opibus incubare. Sed tibi aliud propositum est, Christum vestire in pauperibus, &c. 2‘ Baron. an. 102. n. 19 et 20. Binius, Not. in Conc. An- tioch. Conc. t. l. p. 62. 25 Petav. Dogmat. Theol. de Incarnat. lib. 15. c. 14. n. 5. Quod ad illum canonem apostolicum attinet, qucm pri- mus edidit in lucem Franciscus '1‘ urrianus, eum puto suppo- sititium esse, &c. 26 Pagi, Critic. in Baron. an. 56. n. 3. 2" Petav. ibid. c. 13. n. 3. Pagi, ibid. Certum est, ima- gines Christi, et maxime statuas, primis ecclesiae sacculis non fuisse substitutas loco idolorum, nec fidelium venerationi expositas. ” Baron. an. 303. n. 12. 29 Gesta Purgation. Caecilian. ad calcem Optati, p. 266. In brevi, sic: calices duo aurei: item calices sex argentci: urceola sex argentea: cucumellum argenteum: lucernae argenteac septem: cereofala duo: candelae breves aeneae cum lucernis suis septem: Item lucernae acneae undecim cum catenis suis. Tunicae muliebres 82: mafortea 38: tu- nicae viriles 16: caligae viriles paria l3: caligae muliebres paria 47: coplae rusticanae 19. 8° Conc. Eliber. c. 36. Placuit picturas in ecclesia esse non debere, ne quod colitur aut adoratur, in parietibus de- pingatur. 3‘ Epiphan. Ep. ad Johan. Hierosol. Inveni ibi velum pendens in foribus ej usdem ecclesia: tinctum atque depictum, et habens imaginem quasi Christi vel sancti cujusdam. Non enim satis memini cujus imago fuerit. Cum ergo hoc vi- dissem in ecclesia Christi contra. autoritatem Scriptural-um hominis pendere imaginem, scidi illud, et magis dedi con- silium custodibus ejusdern loci, ut pauperem mortuum e0 obvolverent et eiferrent. 32 Bellarmin. de Imagin. lib. 2. c. 9. 33 Baron. an. 392. p. 668. 3* Petav. de lncarnat. lib. 15. c. 14. n. 8. CHAP. VIII. 321 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Baronius flies to the old refuge of imposture in that single canon; others say, they are all of the same stamp. Others, who think this a little too crude and bold, soften the matter by saying, images were only prohibited for fear the Gentiles should think Chris- tians worshipped stocks and stones; or it was only images painted upon the walls that were prohibited, because these were liable to be abused by the per- secutors, which others, that might be removed, were not liable to. So Sylvius, in his notes upon this canon. Others fly to the new notion of discz'plz'na aroma, and tell us it was only the images of God and the Trinity that are here prohibited, (not the images of saints and martyrs,) and that only for fear the catechumens and Gentiles should be let into the secrets of their religion, and understand the mystery of the Trinity before their time. Which pleasant notion was first invented by Mendoza,85 approved by Cardinal Bona,36 and highly magnified by Schelstrate,s7 and Pagi,38 as a clear solution to the protestants’ argument against the Worship of images drawn from this canon. But yet this does not satisfy either Albaspiny or Petavius. For Al- baspiny thinks the images 39 of God and the Trinity were prohibited for fear the catechumens and new converts should entertain wrong notions and dis- honourable thoughts of the majesty of God, when they saw him, whom they were first taught to be- lieve invisible, and immaterial, and incomprehensi- ble, afterward circumscribed in visible lines and colours. Which is a reason that will always hold against making images of the Deity, though it does not give the full sense of this canon, which cer- tainly prohibits the use of images in general, and not only those of the Trinity, in churches. And therefore Petavius“o gives a more general reason for the prohibition of all images whatsoever at that time, because the remembrance of idolatry was yet fresh in men’s minds, and therefore it was not ex- pedient to set up images in the oratories and tem- ples of Christians. So that, in fact, now the case is clear, that Christians for near four hundred years did not allow of images in churches. Tertullian‘l indeed once mentions the picture of a shepherd bringing home his lost sheep, upon a communion cup in some of the catholic churches. But as this is a singular instance only of a symbolical represent- ation, or emblem, so it is the only instance Petavius pretends to find in all the three first ages. In the middle of the fourth age, the Christians of Paneas, or Caesarea-Philippi, showed a little respect to the statue of Christ, which the Syrophoenician woman, who had been cured of an issue of blood, was sup- posed to have erected in honour of our Saviour. For when Julian had removed it, to set his own in the room, and the heathen out of hatred to Christ had used it contumeliously, and broken it in pieces by dragging it about the streets; Sozomen42 tells us, the Christians gathered the fragments together, and laid them up in the church, where they were kept to his own time. Philostorgius,43 in telling the same story, adds one circumstance, which well ex- plains Sozomen’s meaning: ‘for he says, they were laid up in the diaconicum or vestry of the church, and there carefully kept indeed, but by no means worshipped or adored. So that it was not a statue set up in a church, but only the fragments of it laid up in the repository of the church; and there not to be worshipped, but only to be kept from violence, and that the heathen might offer no more such barbarous indignities to it. Which was so far a commendable act, but yet no proof of images being set up publicly in churches. Yet it is not denied, but that in sect‘ 7_ some places, about the latter end of Jim b'm'gl“ l" y Paulinus and his the fourth century, pictures of saints ggrgfymgggrgivgg: 0 ' t tit and martyrs began to creep into gii‘desbfmthgefilaiirfli churches. Paulinus, bishop of Nola, century to keep the country people employed, and prevent their running into riot and excess, when they met together to celebrate the anniversary festival of the dedication of the church of St. Felix, ordered the church to be painted with the images of saints and Scripture histories, such as those of Esther, and Job, and Tobit, and Judith, as he himself “4 ac- quaints us in his writings. And some intimations are given of the beginnings of the same practice in other places by St. Austin, who often speaks of the pictures ‘5 of Abraham sacrificing his son, and of the pictures48 of Peter and Paul, and of some wor- shippers of pictures47 too, but they have not his approbation. Nor had they the approbation of the catholic church: for he says, the church con- demned them, as ignorant, and superstitious, and “5 Mendoza, Not. in Cone. Eliber. c. 36. Cone. t. 1. p. 1249. 8“ Bona, Rer. Liturg. lib. I. c. 16. n. 2. 8" Schelstrat. Discipline. Arcani, c. 6. art. 3. “8 Pagi, Critic. in Baron. an. 55. n. 5. *9 Albaspin. Not. in can. 36. Concil. Eliber. 4° Petav. de Incarnat. lib. 15. c. 14. n. 8. Recentem ad- huc idololatriae memoriam fuisse: ob idque nondum expe- disse Christianorum in oratoriis ac templis imagines statui. ‘1 Tertul. de Pudicit. c. 10. Si forte patrocinabitur pas- tor, quem in calice depingis—At ego ejus pastoris Scrip- turam haurio, qui non potest frangi. ‘2 Sozom. lib. 5. c. 21. Y ‘3 Philostorg. lib. 7. C. 3. T611 a'vdptciv'ra pe'rac'rncré- ,usuol. éu 'rq'i 'rr'js e’mchno’i'as &mcomxqi, To‘: 7rpé'1rou'ra a'espd- vrsvov, o'éfiov'res héu f1 7rpoo'lcuvofiu'res obdapiiis. 4‘ Paulin. Natal. 9. Felicis, p. 615. Propterea visum nobis opus utile, totis Felicis domibus pictura illudere sancta. Id. Natal. 10. p. 617. Martyribus mediam pictis pia nomina signant, &c. 45 Aug. cont. Faust. lib. 22. c. 73. t. 6. ‘6 Id. de Consensu Evangel. lib. l. c. 10. .4’ Id. de Morib. Eccl. Cathol. lib. l. c. 34. Novi multos esse sepulchrorum et picturarum adoratores—quos et ipsa ecclesia condemnat, et tanquam malos filios corrigere studet. 322 BooK VIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. self-willed persons, and daily endeavoured to correct them, as untoward children. See, 8_ From which any rational and un- a}; grass; prejudiced person will easily conclude, itiiigiit $331 3;: that the first design of bringing pic— Samefime' tures into churches, was only for or- nament or history, and not for worship and adora- tion, as St. Austin and Philostorgius have declared. And this may be further confirmed from what Pau- linus himself and other writers assure us of, that at first the pictures of the living had their place in the church, as well as the dead, and bishops and kings were joined with the saints and martyrs. Paulinus his own picture was set with St. Martin’s in the baptistery of the church built by Severus, and Pau- linus himself ‘8 wrote two epigrams by way of in- scription to be set by them, to teach men not to worship, but to imitate them, the one as a saint, the other as a penitent sinner. Baronius thinks "9 Acacius, bishop of Constantinople, was the first that had this honour done him, anno 488. But Valesius5° judiciously corrects his error, and observes it to have been customary long before. And the instance I have given in Paulinus sufiiciently confirms his ob- servation. Theodorus Lector51 speaks of the same honour done to Macedonius, bishop of Constantino- ple, in the remark that he makes upon Timotheus his successor, that whatever church he went into, he would never begin Divine service, till the images of Macedonius were first pulled down. Suidas takes notice of the picture of Gennadius, patriarch of Constantinople, being joined with that of Christ,52 and Christ speaking to him in these words, “De- stroy this temple, and in thy successor’s days I will raise it up again.” Damascen, a great advocate for images,53 pretends to carry this practice as high as Constantine, telling us from Socrates, that Con- stantine ordered his own images to be set up in temples: but, as Mr. Spanheim 5‘ has observed, there is something of fraud in the relation : for Socrates speaks not of Christian churches, but of heathen55 temples, in which having demolished their idols, he caused his own images to be placed in their room. But admitting it had been as Damascen pretends, it makes nothing to the purpose for which he alleges it, which was to prove the worship of images in churches. For now, I presume, no one will suspect that the pictures of bishops and kings were set up in churches to be worshipped, while they were living among other men, but only designed to be an orna- ment to the church, or a civil honour to the per- sons. And the same must be concluded of the pic- tures of the dead, since the first introducers of them intermixed their own pictures with them. But it must be owned, that this superstition presently fol- lowed upon the setting up of pictures in churches : yet it was never approved, till the second council of Nice, anno 787, made a decree in favour of it. Se- renus, bishop of Marseilles, ordered all images to be defaced, and cast out of all the churches of his dio- cese: and though Gregory the Great blamed him for this, and defended the use of pictures in churches as innocent, and useful for instruction of the vul- gar,56 yet he equally condemns the worship and adoration of them. And when the council of Nice had established it, in opposition to the council of Constantinople of three hundred and thirty-eight bishops, held anno 754, who had before condemned it, the decrees of Nice were rejected by all the Western world, the popes of Rome only excepted. The council of Frankfort in Germany, the council of Paris in France, and some other councils in Bri- tain, agreed unanimously to condemn them, and for some hundred years after the worship of images was not received in any of the three foresaid na- tions. But it is as much beyond my design to pur- sue this history any further, as it is needless, there being so many excellent discourses on this particu- lar subject, especially those of Mr. Daille,57 Bishop Stillingfieet,58 and Spanheim,59 who have omitted nothing on this head that was necessary to answer the cavils of their Romish antagonists, or give sa- tisfaction to a curious reader. All I shall add further, therefore, upon this subject, is only two observa~ tions, which Petavius himself 6° has made for us. The first is, that the an~ cients never allowed any pictures of God the Father, or the Trinity, to be set up in their churches. For this he produces the testimonies of Origen,“ St. Ambrose,62 and St. Austin,63 who particularly pro- nounces it to be an impious thing for any Christian Sect. 9. But neither pic- tures of the living or dead designed for worship. Sect. 10. No images of God or the Trinit ' allow- ed in churc es till after the second Ni- cene council. ‘8 Paulin. Ep. 12. ad Sever. p. 142. Adstat perfectae Mar- tinus regula vitae: Paulinus veniam quo mereare docet- Hunc peccatores, illum spectate beati: exemplar sanctis ille sit, iste reis. “9 Baron. an. 488. p. 438. Ex Suida, voce Acacius. 5° Vales. Not. in Theodor. Lector. lib. 2. p. 167. 5‘ Theodor. Lector. lib. 2. p. 563. 52 Suidas Lexicon. voce Acacius. 53 Damascen. Orat. 3. de Imagin. 5‘ Spanheim. Histor. Imagin. sect. I. p. 14. 55 Socrat. lib. I. c. 19. Eirco'uas 6:‘: 'ras ldias in 7019 uao't's (i'n'a'S'a'ro. 5“ Gregor. lib. 9. Ep. 9. Quia sanctorum imagines ado- rari vetuisses, omnino laudavimus: fregisse vero reprehendi- mus, &c. Vid. lib. 7. Ep. 110. 57 Dallaeus de Imaginibus. 59 Stillingfl. Defence of the Discourse of Idolatry, &c. 59 Spanheim. Historia Imaginum, Lugdun. Bat. 1686. 8vo. 6° Petav. de Incarnat. lib. 15. c. 14. n. l. 61 Origen. cont. Cels. lib. 6. “2 Ambros. in Psal. cxviii. Octonar. 12. 63 Aug. de Fide et Symbolo, c. 7. Tale simulachrum nefas est Christiano in templo collocare, multo magis in corde nefarium est. CHAP. VIII. 323 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. to set up any such image in the church, and much more to do it in his heart. Nay, Pope Gregory II., who was otherwise a great stickler for images, in that very epistle“ which he wrote to the emperor Leo to defend the worship of them, denies it to be lawful to make any image of the Divine nature. And the second council of Nice itself was against it, as is evident from the epistles of Germanus, bishop of Constantinople,85 and John, bishop of Thessalonica, which are recited with approbation in the Acts of that council. And Damascen, following the doctrine of the same council, says, It is as great impiety as it is folly,“ to make any image of the Divine nature, which is invisible, incorporeal, in- circumscriptible, and not to be figured by the art of man. And therefore in all ancient history we never meet with any one instance of picturing God the Father, because it was supposed he never appeared in any visible shape, but only by a voice from hea- ven. Upon this account Paulinus, where he de- scribes a symbolical representation of the three Di- vine Persons, made in the painting of a church, makes a lamb to be the symbol of Christ, and a dove the symbol of the Holy Ghost, but for God the Father 6’ nothing but a voice from heaven. And this they did in compliance with that text in Deut. iv. 12. “ The Lord spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of his words, but saw no similitude, only ye heard a voice.” By which we see how much the present church of Rome has outgone the first patrons even of image worship it- self, by allowing pictures of the Deity commonly in their temples, which the ancients reckoned to be impious and absurd, and is acknowledged to be an abuse fit to be corrected by Cassander,68 though Petavius, after all his concessions and acknowledg- ments of the novelty of the thing, and its contrariety to ancient custom, endeavours to find out some colour for the present practice. His other acknowledgment of a dif- Norusuallystatues ference between the practice of the ‘is Igggsgmgigliiilg ancient church, and that of his own at Eggfifiggggcghgj this day, is, that the ancients did not approve of massy images, or statues of wood, or metal, or stone, but only pictures or paint- ings to be used in churches. This he proves from the testimonies of Germanus, bishop of Constantinople,69 and Stephanus Bostrensis, both alleged in the Acts Sect. 11. of the second Council of Nice: which shows, that massy images or statues were thought to look too much like idols even by that worst of councils. But some plead the authority of Gregory Nazianzen"o for statues in churches, to whom Petavius answers, that he speaks not of statues in temples, but of profane statues in other places. Which is a very just and true observation. For it is most certain from the writings of St. Austin 7‘ and Optatus,"2 that there were no statues in that age in their churches, or upon their altars, because they reckon both those to be mere heathenish customs. And Cas- sander observes ’3 the same out of the writings of Gregory the Great. He also notes, that till the time of the sixth general council, the images of Christ were not usually in the efiigies or figure of a man, but only symbolically represented under the type of a lamb : and so the Holy Ghost was repre- sented under the type or symbol of a dove: but that council forbade 7‘ the picturing of Christ any more in the symbol of a lamb, and ordered it only to be drawn in the efligies of a man. I presume, by this time the worship of images was begun, anno 692. And it was now thought indecent to pay their de- votions to the picture of a lamb, and therefore they would no longer endure it to be seen in the church. I have been the more particular in recounting and explaining these things distinctly, that the reader might have in one short view the rise and progress of that grand superstition, which has so overspread the church and defaced its worship in the matter of images, which were introduced at first only for his- torical use, to be laymen’s books, and a sort of orna- ments for the church, though, as the event proved, the most dangerous of any other. There was one way more of adorn- Sm ,2 ing churches, which I should not chfiiflcggggiggggg have thought worth mentioning, but and branches‘ for its innocency and natural simplicity; that is, the custom of garnishing and decking them with flowers and branches. Which was not done at any certain times for any pretended mystery, but only to make them more decent and fit for a body of men to meet in. St. Austin takes notice of the custom, speaking of one75 who carried away with him some flowers from off the altar. And Paulinus, in his poetical way, refers to it likewise.76 But St. J erom does it the greatest honour, to give it a place 64 Gregor. 2. Ep. 1. ad Leon. in Act. 4. Cone. Nicen. 2. 65 German. Ep. ad Leon. Act. 4. Conc. Nic. 2. 66 Damascen. de Fide Orthodox. lib. 4. c. 17. Harper- qbpoo'duns ci'xpas Kai do'efiet'as To o'xnpa'rigew 'rd 6.21011, &C. Id. Orat. 1 et 2. de Imagiu. passim. 6’ Paulin. Ep. 12. ad Sever. p. 150. Pleno coruscat Trinitas mysterio; stat Cbristus agno; vox Patris coelo to- nat: et per columbam Spiritus Sanctus fluit. ‘8 Cassand. Consultat. Sect. de Imagin. p. 179. Illud quoque inter abusus ponendum est, quod etiam Divinitati in Trinitatis deformatione simulachrum efiingitur, quod veteres absurdum et nefarium judicassent. “9 German. Ep. ad Thom. Claudiopol. in Act. 4. Conc. Nic. 2. Stephan. Bostren. ibid. Act. 2. 7° Nazian. Ep.49. '" Aug. in Psal. cxiii. 7'2 Optat.lib. 2. 73 Cassand. Consult. de Imagin. p. 165. "4 Conc. Trull. c. 83. 75 Aug. de Civ. Dei, lib. 22. c. 8. Abscedens aliquid de altari fiorum, quod occurrit, tulit, &c. "6 Paulin. Natal. 3. Felicis, p. 541. Ferte Deo pueri laudem, pia solvite vota: spargite flore solum, praetexite limina sertis. Y2 324 Boox VIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. in his panegyric upon his friend Nepotian, making it a part 7’ of his commendable character, that he took care to have every thing neat and clean about the church, the altar bright, the walls whited, the pavement swept, the gates veiled, the vestry clean, and the vessels shining; and so far did his pious solicitude about these matters extend, that he made flowers, and leaves, and branches of trees contribute to the beauty and ornament of the churches. These were but small things in themselves, St. J erom says, but a pious mind devoted to Christ is intent upon things great and small, and neglects nothing that may deserve the name of the very meanest of- fice in the church. And it is plain St. J erom had a greater value for such sort of natural beauty and comeliness in churches, than for rich ornaments of costly pictures and paintings, and silver, and gold, and precious stones. And therefore, as I observed before,78 he rather advised his rich friends to lay out their wealth upon the living temples of God, the backs and bellies of the poor, and commended the rich lady Paula for so doing,79 rather than for hanging up needless and superfluous gifts, as others did, upon the pillars of the temple. And it is no wonder then he should commend Nepotian’s frugal care, who had divested himself of all his estate to relieve the poor, and left himself no ability to adorn the church any other way, but that which was most to St. J erom’s liking and approbation. CHAPTER IX. OF THE CONSECRATION OF CHURCHES. sec, L ANCIENTLY, when churches were fin- What the ancients membythe com- ished and adorned, it was then usual “ation of churches’ to proceed to a dedication or consecra- tion of them; which was a thing that was some- times performed with a great deal of pious solemnity, and therefore it will be proper in the next place to make a little inquiry into the nature and circum- stances of it. Now, I must observe first of all, that by the consecration of the church, the ancients al- ways mean the devoting or setting it apart peculiarly for Divine service : but the manner and ceremony of doing this was not always exactly one and the same; therefore we are chiefly to regard the sub- stance of the thing, which was the separation of any building from common use to a religious service. Whatever ceremony this was performed with, the first act of initiating and appropriating it to a Di- vine use was its consecration. And therefore, in allusion to this, the first beginning of any thing is many times called its dedication. As when Cyprian, speaking of Aurelius the confessor, whom he had ordained a reader, says, he dedicated1 his reading, he means no more but that he performed the first act of his oflice in the church, which, in his phrase, was its dedication. Whether churches had any other ceremony besides this in their dedication for the three first ages, is not certain; though it is highly probable they might have a solemn thanks- giving and prayer for a sanctified use of them also, over and besides the usual liturgy of the church, because this was in use among the Jews; who thus dedicated not only their temple, 1 Kings viii., but also their private houses and walls of their cities, when they were finished, as appears from the title of the 30th Psalm, which is inscribed, “A Psalm or Song at the dedication of the house of David ;” and from the account which is given by Nehemiah, xii. 27, of the dedication of the walls of Jerusalem. It is further probable, from the constant practice of Christians in consecrating their ordinary meat by thanksgiving and prayer, before they begin to use it; and from the manner of consecrating churches in the following ages after the time of Constantine: all which make it highly probable, that the Chris- tians of the three first ages used the same ceremony of particular prayers and thanksgiving to God in the dedication of their churches. But having no express testimonies for this, I will not pretend posi- tively to assert it. Durantus2 and Bona8 are in- deed very confident it was always so from the time of the apostles: but they build upon no better found- ation than the feigned epistles of Clemens Romanus, Evaristus, and Hyginus, and the Acts of St. Caecilia in Simeon Metaphrastes, which are writings of no authority, when the question is about matters of fact in the first and apostolical ages. Therefore leaving this matter, for want of better evidence, as a thing _Thesflircstt Euthan- trc accounts of this only probable, but not certain, I pro- 318b,; “$6322.; trig? ceed to consider it as practised in the next age, when, in the peaceable reign of Constan- tine, churches were rebuilt over all the world, and dedicated with great solemnity. Then it was a de- sirable sight, as Eusebius‘ words it, to behold how "7 Hieron. Ep. 3. Epitaph. Nepotian. Erat sollicitus si niteret altare, si parietes absque fuligine, si pavimenta tersa, si janitor creber in portis, vela semper in ostiis, si sacrarium mundum, si vasa luculenta, et. in omnes ceremo- nias pia sollicitudo disposita.—Basilicas ecclesiae et mar- tyrum conciliabula diversis floribus et arborum comis, vi- tiumque pampinis adumbravit. ‘8 See before, sect. 5. 79 Hieron. Ep. 27. Epitaph. Paulae. Nolebat in his lapi- dibus pecuniarn effundere, qui cum terra et saeculo transituri sunt: sed in vivis lapidibus, qui volvuntur super terram.— 1 Cyprian. Ep.37. al. 38. ad Cler. Carthag. Dorninico le- git interim nobis, id est, auspicatus est pacem, dum dedicat lectionem. 2 Durant. de Ritib. Eccles. lib. 1. c. 24. n. 1. 3 Bona, Rer. Liturg. lib. l. c. 20. n. 3. 4 Euseb. lib. 10. c. 3. To m'r'io'w sr’m'ra'iov S'éajua, é'yrcat- viwv éop'rai. Ka'rd wo'ksts Kai "rim (i'p'rt uso'lra'ydw qrpoo'svlc- 'rnpiwv d¢tepoiicrsts. Vide Euseb. de Laud. Constant. c. 17. CHAP. IX. 325 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. the consecrations of the new-built churches and the feasts of the dedications were solemnized in every city. That which made these solemnities the more august and venerable, was, that commonly a whole synod of the neighbouring or provincial bishops met at the dedication. The church of Jerusalem which Constantine built over our Saviour’s sepulchre, was consecrated in a full synod of all the bishops of the East, whom Constantine called first to Tyre, and then to Jerusalem, anno 335, for this very pur- pose, as Eusebius5 and all the other historians in- form us. In like manner Socrates observes,6 that the council of Antioch, anno 341, was summoned on purpose to dedicate the famous church there, called Dominicum aureum, which was begun by Con- stantine and finished by Constantius. And there are many examples of the like nature to be met with in ancient history. Now, the solemnity was usually begun with a panegyrical oration or sermon, consisting chiefly of praise and thanksgiving to God, and sometimes expatiating upon the com— mendation of the founder, or the glory of the new- built church. Such as that oration in Eusebius,7 made at the dedication of the church of Paulinus at Tyre, and others8 in Gaudentius and St. Am- brose upon the like occasion. Sometimes they had more than one discourse upon it: for Eusebius, speaking of the dedication of churches in the time of Constantine, says, Every bishop that was pre- sent9 made a speech in praise of the convention; so that the panegyric which he there records, was but one of many that were spoken. In another place, describing the dedication of the church of J eru- salem, he says, Some made speeches by way of panegyric ‘° upon the emperor and the magnificence of his building; others handled a common place in divinity adapted to the present occasion; and others discoursed upon the lessons of Scripture that were read, expounding the mystical sense of them: and he bore a part in each of these himself, being pre- sent at that solemnity. When this part of the ceremony was over, they then proceeded to the mys- tical service, or the offering of the unbloody sacri- fice, as he there terms it, to God ; praying for the peace of the world, the prosperity of the church, and a blessing upon the emperor and his children. Among these prayers they seem to have had a par- ticular prayer for the church then dedicated, as some understand St. Ambrose, who is thought‘h to have a form upon such an occasion; which, be~ cause we have not many such in the writings of the ancients, I will here insert in his own words: “ I beseech thee now, 0 Lord, let thine eye be con- tinually upon this house, upon this altar, which is now dedicated unto thee, upon these spiritual stones, in every one of which a sensible temple is consecrated unto thee: let the prayers of thy serv- ants, which are poured out in this place, be always accepted of thy Divine mercy. Let every sacrifice, that is offered in this temple with a pure faith and a pious zeal, be unto thee a sweet-smelling savour of sanctification. And when thou lookest upon that sacrifice of salvation, which taketh away the sins of the world, have respect to these oblations of chastity, and defend them by thy continual help, that they may be sweet and acceptable ofi‘erings unto thee, and pleasing unto Christ the Lord : vouchsafe to keep their whole spirit, soul, and body, without blame, unto the day of thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.” I do not deny, but that this prayer, in some parts of it, may seem to look more like a consecration of virgins than a consecration of churches: perhaps it might serve for both, the spiritual and the material temples of God together; but if any thinks it means only the former, I will not contend about it, seeing it is already proved out of Eusebius, that at least panegyrical orations, and praises of God, and prayers for the church, were al- ways part of the solemnity and ceremony of these dedications. And till a solemn day was appointed for the performance of these, it was not according to rule for any one to use a new-built church as a place of worship, unless a great necessity compelled him to it. \Vhich is evident from the apology that Athanasius makes for himself to Constantius, for using the great church of Alexandria on the Easter festival, before it was finished and dedicated by the emperor its founder. He says,12 the multitude was so great, that the lesser churches would not con- tain them without hazard of their lives, and there- fore they importuned the bishop that they might assemble in the great church, otherwise threaten- ing that they would meet in the open fields : upon which he consented to have prayers in this church; but this did not go for its dedication; for he tells the emperor, they still expected a day, when he 5 Euseb. lib. 4. de Vit. Const. c. 43. Socrat. lib. 1. c. 28. Sozomen. lib. 2. c. 26. Theodor. lib. 1. c. 31. 6 Socrat. lib. 2. c. 8. " Euseb. lib. 10. c. 4. B Gaudent. Serm. 17. in Dedicat. Basilicae. Ambros. Serm. 89. 9 Euseb. lib. 10. c. 3. 1° Euseb. de. Vit. Constant. lib. 4. c. 45. 1‘ Ambros. Exhort. ad Virgines, in fine. Te nunc, Do- mine, precor, 'ut supra hanc domum tuam, supra haec altaria quae hodie dedicantur, supra hos lapides spirituales, quibus sensibile tibi in singulis templum sacratur, quotidianus prac- sul intendas, orationesque servorum tuorum, quae in hoc loco funduntur, Divina tua suscipias misericordia. Fiat tibi in odorem sanctificationis omne sacrificium, quod in 1100 templo tide integra, pia sedulitate otfertur. Et cum ad il- lam respicis hostiam salutarem, per quam peccatum mundi hujus aboletur, respicias etiam ad has piae hostias castitatis, et (liuturno eas tuearis auxilio, ut fiant tibi in odorem sua- vitatis hostiae acceptabiles, Christo Domino plaeentes, et in- tegrum spiritum eoruin, animam et corpus, sine querelae loco usque in diam Domini J esu Christi Filii tui servare digneris. Amen. '2 Athan. Apol. 1. ad Constant. t. l. p. 682 et 684. 326 BooK VIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. himself should give the orders for its encamia, or feast of dedication, and then solemnly give his thanks to God for the finishing of it, as had been done in the time of his predecessor Alexander, when the church of Theonas was building, and as he had seen it done at Triers, and Aquileia, and other places, where churches were sometimes used for prayer upon such urgent and pressing necessities before they were finished ; but the using them for Divine service upon such occasions was not their dedication; but that always came after, and was a proper and solemn eucharistical service, or thanks- giving to God for the accomplishment of the holy structure. So that this evidently makes out the observation that has been made out of Eusebius before, That the common prayers of the church were not looked upon as a formal dedication, with- out special panegyrical orations, and forms of adora- tion and praise more peculiar to that occasion. And this also confutes the opinion of those, who think the setting up the sign of a cross, or placing a communion table in a church, was its dedication. For these things might be done without any dedica- tion. Which appears not only from this discourse of Athanasius, but from a case related in Synesius, where some pretended that a certain place was conse- crated into a church, because it had been used for prayer and administration of the sacrament in a time of hostile invasion ; against which Synesius positive- ly determines,18 that such a use in time of necessity was no consecration; for otherwise mountains, and valleys, and private houses would be churches. It is evident from what has been ev'ggedlzitégg'tipeob already said, that these consecrations flilléggrcogégigfizngf being generally performed in a synod of bishops, the" bishops were the min- isters always employed in this service. But it might happen that none but the bishop of the diocese could be there, and then it was his business peculiarly to perform the ofiice of consecration, which, by some ancient canons, is so specially re— served to the oflice of bishops, that presbyters are not allowed to perform it. The first council of Bracara, anno 563, makes it deprivation“ for any presbyter to consecrate an altar or a church, and Set.3 says the canons of old forbade it likewise. Among our British councils collected by Sir Henry Spel- man, there is one under St. Patrick, anno 450, where we have a canon to this very purpose, That a presbyter,l5 though he builds a church, shall not offer the oblation in it, before he brings his bishop to consecrate it, because this was regular and de- cent. And ancient history affords no approved ex- amples to the contrary. This will receive a little further Sec,’ ,. confirmation from our observing two bu1§§..,‘§il§'§§i‘ti§. iii or three other things, which have a Shwsleave' near relation to this matter. As, first, that no church regularly could be builded without the licence or consent of the bishop in whose diocese it was erected. This is expressly provided in one of the canons of the council of Chalcedon, which subjects both monasteries and churches so to the bishop’s care, that neither of them might16 be founded without his consent and approbation. And by the laws of Justinian no Sect 5_ church was to be begun, before the halfirgtug‘aedlgijhg bishop had first made a solemn prayer, ‘3;’; fig? iii‘ ,2; and fixed the sign of the cross in the t° be b‘mded‘ place where a new church was to be erected. Which we have over and over again repeated in that em— peror’s Novels, both with relation to monasteries and churches.17 And Gothofred, not without rea- son, thinks the same custom was observed in expi- ating the temples of the heathen, when they were to be consecrated into Christian churches. For so he understands that law ‘8 of Theodosius, which orders the temples to be expiated by placing in them the sign of the Christian religion, that is, the sign of the cross. And whereas some monks, and other orders of men, would sometimes presume to set up the sign of the cross in public buildings, and other places erected for the divertisement of the people; which was, in effect, a pretending to make them churches without the bishop’s leave ; therefore the emperor Leo made a decree,19 that nothing of this nature should be done by usurpation for the future, but whether it was to erect a cross, or bring the relics of a martyr into any place, both these should be done by the direction of the bishops, and not ‘8 Synes. Ep. 67. p. 238. EiiEao-Qar. 'ra’va'yrca'la, '1'06'1'0 'rov 'ro'qrov oi’) Kaetspo'i, &c. 1”‘ Conc. Bracar. l. c. 37. Si quis presbyter post hoc in- terdictum ausus fuerit chrisma benedicere, aut ecclesiam aut altarium consecrare, a suo oflicio deponatur. Nam et antiqui canones hoc vetuerunt. ‘5 Conc. Hibernicum, Conc. t. l. p. 1480. can. 23. Si quis presbyterorum ecclesiam aadificaverit, non offerat ante- quam adducat suum pontificem, ut eum consecret, quia sic decet. ‘6 Conc. Chalced. can. 4. "E6052 jundéva ptv panda/mi} oircodoue'i'u, pride o'vuto'a'r‘iv frouacr'rriptov, ii eim'rfiptov oircov, 'Tl'apd 'yudmns '1'06 "rile rn'o'ltews é'rrto'lcd'n'ov. ‘7 Justin. Novel. 131. c. 7. Si quis voluerit fabricare vene- rabile oratorium aut monasteriurn, pracipimus non aliter in— choandam fabricam, nisi locorum episcopus orationem ibi fecerit et venerabilem fixerit crucem. Vid. Novel. 67. c. 1. Novel. 5. c. l. ‘8 Cod. Theod. lib. I. Tit. de Paganis, Leg. 25. Con- locatione venerandae Christianae religionis signi expiari praecipimus. ‘9 Cod. Justin. lib. l. Tit. 3. de Episc. Leg. 26. Decerni- mus, ut posthac neque monachi, neque quicunque alii in aedes publicas, vel in quaecunque loca populi voluptatibus fabricata, venerabilem crucem et sanctorum martyrum reli- quias illicite inferre conentur, vel occupare audeant ea, quae vel ad publicas causas, vel ad populi oblectamenta, constructa. sunt, &c; CHAP. IX. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 327 otherwise. And hence it is probably conjectured, both by Suicerus and Meursius, that a bishop’s dio- cese is sometimes called qavpowr'jytov, that is, the dis- trict wherein he had power to fix the cross within his own bounds for the building of churches. So the word will signify both the act of making a cross, and the limits wherein he had power to make it. Sect. 6. For it is to be observed further, that Seggtgiihggjfcf‘i‘; though bishops had the power of con- ::;;§“°,§;13§g§gse§§; secrating churches, yet that was li- qui'ed i'" mited to their own diocese, and they might not exceed their own bounds, unless called to assist another, or to minister in the vacancy of an- other bishopric. Which is so strictly insisted on by the council of Orange, that it forbids a bishop, who builds a church himself at his own expence, in another man’s diocese, to assume to himself the consecration” of it, but to leave that to the bishop in whose territory the church is erected. The third council21 of Orleans and others have decrees of the like nature. But in case a church was built in a vacant diocese, then any neighbouring bishop might be called to consecrate ,jt, as Sidonius Apollinaris was called to consecrate the church of Ruteni, or Rhodez, in France, though he was bishop of another diocese: but the reason22 was, as Savaro rightly observes, because Rhodez at that time had no bishop of its own to officiate in the consecration. Now, all these things show, that the bishop in every diocese was the proper minister of this service; for he was to be consulted before the work was begun, he was to come also and pray at the place before the foundation was laid, and when the building was finished, he was to be called to consecrate it, or else some other bishop in his stead. But if presbyters could regularly have done it, there had been no need to have sent for a bishop out of another diocese to perform it. But perhaps it will be asked, What if a presbyter did take upon him to do the thing, did his act stand good, or did the bishop proceed to a new consecration? To which I answer, this being a thing reserved to bishops only by ecclesiastical law and custom, (for the Scripture has nothing about it,) we do not find any new consecrations practised in such cases; but because it was a schis- matical act in a presbyter so to go against rule and canon in contempt of his bishop, therefore he was to be punished23 with deposition or degradation, as ap- pears from the forecited canon of the council of Bracara. And even a bishop that pretended to consecrate a church in another man’s diocese, was for his offence to be suspended a year from his oflice24 as a transgressor of the canons, in the French churches. Sect. 7. N0 necessit ofa Some pretend, that a bishop in his own diocese could not, according to licence from, 8 bi_ ancient canons, consecrate a church ttétofiio‘itttifité without the bishop of Rome’s licence 1“ former ages‘ to authorize him to do it. This is one of Gratian’s doctrines to magnify the pope’s power25 in the canon law. Which the new Roman correctors are so far from altering or censuring, that they bring Socrates in as a further evidence to vouch for it. Socrates indeed, speaking of the council of Antioch, which Constantius summoned under pretence of dedicating his new church there, (though the true design was to have Athanasius condemned in a general council,) excepts against it upon this ground, because the bishop of Rome was not there, whose consent was necessary, by the ecclesiastical canon, to make laws or rules for the church.26 Which was a privilege equally belonging to all patriarchs, that no general council should be held, nor general rules made for the whole church, without their presence and ad- vice first taken in such public deliberations. But this has nothing to do with the consecration of churches in every private bishop’s diocese, of which there is no instance in all ancient history, of any . bishop’s being obliged to send to the bishop of Rome for his licence to consecrate a church within his own diocese. But that which seems to have im- posed upon these censors, was their misunderstand- ing those Greek words, xavoviZew rd; ilcxhnoiag, which does not signify dedicating of churches, (though Musculus so translates it, and Hospinian follows him in the same error,) but the church’s making laws or canons for her own government: in which the bishop of Rome was allowed to have a patriarchal privilege, but not in the consecration of churches, though that now he insisted on by some, who would have every thing flow from the immense plenitude of power in the bishops of Rome. Next to the minister consecrating, Sect. 8. it will be proper to say something of 68321338131325? the object, to whom churches were :‘ggugrytsrmggigfg dedicated; which anciently was solely attests: ii. a to God and his service. Of which memorial 0mm custom St. Austin is a most irrefragable witness, who, disputing with Maximinus, the Arian bishop, uses this argument to prove the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, That he must be God, because temples were builded and dedicated to him, which it would be sacrilege to do to any creature. If, says he, we 2° Conc. Arausican. can. 10. Si quis episcoporum in alienae civitatis territorio ecclesiam aedificare disponit permissa licentia aedificandi, non praesumat dedicationem, quae illi omnimodo reservatur, in cuj us territorio ecclesia assurgit. 2' Conc. Aurelian. 3. c. 15. 22 Sidon. lib. 4. Ep. 15. et Savaro in locum. 23 ConcfBracar. l. c. 37. 2‘ Conc. Aurelian. 3. c. 15. 25 Gratian. de Consecrat. Dist. 1.,c. 6 et 27. Edit. Romae Jussu Gregor. 13. 1582. 26 Socrat. lib. 2. c. 8. Kai/duos éxxhno'tao'enlwfi Kshsdou- Pros, m‘; dzi'u 'n'apc'z 'yvdiunu 'rofi e’rrto'Ko'vrov Tijs ‘Pub/ans KGUOUIZELU 'rc‘zs éxlchno'ias. 323 Boox VIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. should make a temple of wood and stone to any holy angel, though never so excellent, should we not be anathematized by the truth of Christ and the church of God, for exhibiting to the creature that service which is only due to the Creator? Since, therefore, we should be sacrilegious in building a temple to any creature,27 how can he be otherwise than the true God, to whom we not only build tem- ples, but are ourselves his temples? In another place, he rejects with scorn the false imputation of Faustus the Manichee, who charged the catholics with erecting temples to their martyrs, and offering sacrifice and other acts of worship to them therein. To this he replies, That they never ofl‘ered sacrifice to any martyr, but only to the God of the martyrs, though they erected altars in the memorials of the martyrs.28 For what bishop, when he stands by the altar in any place where the holy bodies lie, ever says, We offer unto thee, Peter, or Paul, or Cyprian? But what is offered, is offered unto God, (who crowns the martyrs,) in the memorials of the martyrs who are crowned by him. He often repeats it in other places,29 that they did not so honour their martyrs, by erecting temples or altars to them, but only unto God. The same place, indeed, was often a monu- mentor memorial of a martyr, and a temple of God, because churches were commonly built over the sepulchres of the martyrs, or in the places where they suffered, or else the relics of the martyrs were translated into them: and hence they were called by the martyrs’ name, because they were memorials of them. The church and the altar that was built at Carthage, in the place where St. Cyprian suf- fered martyrdom, was, upon that account, called Jllensa Cypriani, Cyprian’s Altar, not because it was built or dedicated to him or his worship, (for St. Austin says30 it was erected only to God and his service,) but because it was a memorial of his mar- tyrdom, being built in the place where Cyprian himself was offered a sacrifice unto God. Sect. 9. Churches some— And from hence it is very plain, that the naminga church by the name time, named from of a saint or martyr was far from gas. 5333333,; dedicating it to that saint or martyr, m theirb‘mding' though it served for a memorial of him among the living, and so far was an honour to his me- mory, though dedicated only to God and his ser- vice. And this is further evident from this con- sideration, that churches were sometimes named ‘ from their founders, who certainly did not intend to dedicate churches to themselves. Thus Sir- mond81 has observed three churches in Carthage to be so denominated from their founders, Basilica Fausti, Florentii, and Leontii. And Sozomen82 tells us, that the temple of Serapis, when it was turned into a church, was called by the name of Arcadius. As some in Rome and Antioch bare the name of Constantine and Justinian. Sometimes they had their name from a particular circumstance of time, or place, or other accident in the building of them. The church of Jerusalem was called Anastasis and Crux, not because it was dedicated to any St. Anas— tasis or cross, but because it was by Constantine built in the place of our Saviour’s crucifixion and resurrection, as Valesius"'s and others have rightly observed. So the church of Anastasia at Constan- tinople was so termed, not from any saint of the same name, but because it was the church where Gregory Nazianzen by his preaching gave a sort of new life or resurrection to the catholic doctrine of the Trinity, after it had been long oppressed by the Arian faction, as he himself 3‘ accounts for the rea- son of the name in several places of his writings. And upon the like ground one of the churches of Carthage was called Basilica Restituta, from its be- ing rescued out of the hands of the Arians. One of the churches of Alexandria was commonly called Caesaream,85 which Valesius“6 thinks was for no other reason but because the place before had been called Cazsareum, or the temple of the Caesars. As a 2" Aug. cont. Maximin. lib. l. t. 6. p. 288. Nonne si templum alicui sancto angelo excellentissimo de lignis et lapidibus faceremus, anathematizaremur a veritate Christi et ah ecclesia Dei, quoniam creaturae exhiberemus eam ser- vitutem, quae uni tantum deberetur Deo ? Si ergo sacrilegi essemus faciendo templum cuicunque creaturae, quomodo non est Deus verus, cui non templum facimus, sed nos ipsi templum sumus? 28 Aug. cont. Faust. lib. 20. c. 21. Nulli martyrum, sed ipsi Deo martyrum sacrificamus, quamvis in memoriis mar- tyrum constituamus altaria. Quis enim antistitum in locis sanctorum corporum assistens altari, aliquando dixit, Offeri- mus tibi Petre, aut Paule, aut Cypriane; sed quod ofl'ertur, ofl‘ertur Deo, qui martyres coronavit, apud memorias eorum quos coronavit. _ 29 Aug. de Vera Relig. c. 55. Honoramus eos charitate, non servitute. Nec eis templa construimus. Nolunt enim sic se honorari a nobis, &c. It. de Civit. Dei, lib. 22. c. 10. 111i (ethnici) talibus diis suis et templa aedificaverunt, et statuerunt aras, et sacerdotes instituerunt, et sacrificia fece- runt. Nos autem martyribus nostris non templa sicut diis, sed memorias sicut hominibus mortuis fabricamus: nec ibi erigimus altaria, in quibus sacrificemus martyribus, sed uni Deo et martyrum et nostro. 9° Aug. Ser. 63. de Diversis, t. 10. p. 592. Ut mensa illa quae Dei est, etiam Cypriani vocetur, haec causa est: quia. ut illa modo cingitur ab obsequentibus, ibi Cyprianus cinge~ batur a persequentibus, &c. Item. Mensa Deo constructa est, tamen mensa dicitur Cypriani—quia ibi est immolatus, et quia ipsa immolatione sua paravit hanc mensam, non in qua pascat sive pascatur, sed in qua sacrificium Deo, cui et ipse oblatus est, ofl‘eratur. 3‘ Sirmond. Not. in Aug. Serm. 37. a se Edit. t. 10. p. 753. 82 Sozom. lib. 7. c. 15. *3 Vid. Vales. Epist. de Anastas. ad Calcem Eusebii. 3‘ Naz. Orat. 32. ad 150 Episcopos, t. l. p. 527. It. Carrn. 9. de Somnio Anastasiae, t. 2. p. 78. ‘*5 Socrat. lib. 7. c. 15. Liberat. Breviar. c. 18. 8“ Vales. Not. in Evagr. lib. 2. c. 8. CHAP. IX. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 329 church of Antioch was called Palwa, because built in that part of the city which they termed wakatdv, or the old city. So St. Peter’s at Rome was an- ciently called Triumpl’zalis, because it stood in Via Triumphalz', or the triumphal way leading to the capitol. And we are assured from St. J erom,” that the Lateran church had its name from Lateranus the heathen, who was slain by Nero, because it had formerly been that nobleman’s palace in Rome. A thousand observations of the like nature might be made; but these few are suflicient to show, that there were different reasons for giving names‘ to churches; and that it was no argument of churches being dedicated to saints, because they bare the names of saints; it being otherwise ap- parent, that they were consecrated only to God, and not to any creature. What has been observed of churches begiggggégi 3;? is equally true of altars, that they gmarnigvisigéma were always dedicated to God alone, glifgrcgfgfnct from and not to any other being whatever, even after they began to have a par- ticular consecration with some new ceremonies dis- tinct from churches : which seems to have begun first of all in the sixth century. For the council of Agde, anno 506, is the first public record that we meet with, giving any account of a distinct con- secration of altars: and there we find the new ceremony of chrism?‘8 added to the sacerdotal bene- diction. And not long after we find a like decree in the council of Epone, anno 517, That no altars but such as were made of stone, should be con- secrated wit a” the infusion of chrism upon them. Which implies, that at least some altars, if not all, had then the ceremony of chrism in their con- secration. But as this ceremony was new, so was the consecration of altars, as distinct from churches, a new thing also; and much more the consecra- tion of communion cloths, and cups, and images, and crosses, and paschal tapers, and holy water, and beads, and bells, of which the reader may find a particular account in Hospinian,“o with all the new rites of consecrating churches in the Romish rituals, which it is none of my business here fur- ther to pursue. ' Sect. n. Concerning the ancient consecra- 1\o church to be , built or consecrated tions we have further to observe, that by the laws of Justinian no man was M0,, it m, e,,_ to begin to build a church, before he awed‘ had given security to the bishop of a maintenance for the ministry“ and the repairs of the church, and Whatever was otherwise necessary to uphold Divine service in it. And by a rule of one of the Spanish councils,42 a bishop was not to consecrate a church, before the donation of its maintenance was delivered to him in writing confirmed by law. Which were necessary rules to preserve churches from falling to ruin, and their ministry and service from contempt and disgrace. But beyond this suitable provision SM n and settlement for the service of the dkfxfggjshglrf; ‘22%;; church, the bishop was not to exact f“ °°n‘e°’a“°"' or demand any thing further of the founder; but it being part of his ordinary office to consecrate churches, he was obliged to do it without requiring any reward for his service; unless the founder thought fit to make him any voluntary oblation, in which case he was at liberty to receive it. So it is determined in the foresaid Spanish council of Bra- cara,48 and for the French churches in the second council of Chalons,“ and others in the time of Charles the Great. As to the time of consecration, they Sect ,3_ did not anciently confine themselves ,Ofg‘ggegifigg‘fegif; to perform it only upon Sundays, but up“ any day‘ all days were at first indifferent both for this and the ordinations of the clergy likewise. Which is an observation frequently made by the learned Pagi‘5 in his critical remarks on the chronology of the an- cient church. Particularly he observes, that Con- stantine’s famous dedication of the church of J eru- salem in a full synod of bishops, anno 335, must needs have been upon a Saturday: for all writers agree, that it was upon the ides of September, that is, upon the 13th day of September, which, accord- ing to the exact rules and method of the cycle, must fall upon a Saturday that year. Whence P-agi rightly concludes, that the custom had not yet pre- vailed, which confined consecration of churches to the Lord’s day. I have nothing further to remark Sect ,4“ upon this head, save only that the day mgglgndgg'ugigi‘grg: of consecration was in many churches igiisigrg’iattd' solemnly kept and observed among “18' 3’ Hieron. Ep. 30. Epitaph. Fabiolae. Ut ante diem paschae in basilica quondam Laterani, qui Caesariano trun- catus est gladio, staret in ordine poenitentium. Speaking of Fabiola doing penance there. 38 Cone. Agathen. can. 14. Altaria placuit non solum unc- tione chrismatis, sed etiam sacerdotali benedictione sacrari. 3” Cone. Epaunens. c. 26. Altaria nisi lapidea infusione chrismatis non sacrentur. 4° Hospin. de Templis, lib. 4. c. 2, &c. 4' Justin. Novel. 67. c. 2. Non aliter quempiam eccle- siam de novo exaedificare, priusquam loquatur ad Deo ama- bilem episcopum, et definiat mensuram quam deputat ad luminaria, et ad sacrum ministerium, et ad domus custo- diam, et ad alimenta ministrantium, &c. 42Cone. Bracarens. 3. c. 5. Unusquisque episcoporum meminerit, ut non prius dedieet ecclesiam, nisi antea dotem basilicaa et obsequium ipsius per donationem chartulae cou- firmatum accipiat. Vid. Cone. Tolet. 3. c. 15. ‘3 Conc. Bracar. 3. c. 5. Quoties ab aliquo fidelium ad consecrandas ecelesias episcopi invitantur, non quasi ex debito munus aliquod a fundatore requirant; sed si ipse quidem aliquid ex suo voto obtulerit, non respuatur. ‘4 Conc. Cabillon. 2. c. 16. ‘5 Pagi, Critic. in Baron. an. 335. n. 4. 330 BooK VIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. their anniversary festivals. For Sozomen gives us this account of the dedication of the church of J eru- salem,46 that in the memory of it they held a year- ly festival, which lasted for eight days together, during which time both they of the church, and all strangers, which flocked thither in abundance, held ecclesiastical assemblies and met together for Divine service. To this Gregory the Great seems to have added a new custom here in England, which was, that on the annual feast of the dedication the peo- ple might build themselves booths round about the church, and there feast and entertain themselves with eating and drinking, in lieu of their ancient sacrifices while they were heathens: which is re- lated by Bede,‘7 out of Gregory’s letters to Austin, and Mellitus, the first bishop of the Saxons. And from this custom, it is more than probable, came our wakes, which are still observed in some places, as the remains of those feasts of dedication of par- ticular churches. CHAPTER X. OF THE RESPECT AND REVERENCE WHICH THE PRI- MITIVE CHRISTIANS PAID TO THEIR CHURCHES. NEXT to their adorning and conse- Sect. 1. . . . pupitlgrggp P213358 oration of churches, it will be proper Zflgrgfigg‘illsi'sggirgg to examine what respect and rever- ence they paid to consecrated places, after they were once set apart for Divine service. They then used them only as the houses of God, for acts of devotion and religion, and did not allow of any thing to be done there, that had not some tendency towards piety, or immediate relation to it. They might be used for religious assemblies, for the elections of the bishops and clergy, for the sitting of councils, for catechetic schools, for conferences and collations about religion; but not be put to the use of common houses, to eat, or drink, or lodge in. And therefore, though the law allowed men to take sanctuary in the church, as we shall see in the next chapter, yet it did not allow them to have their meat and lodging there. When some abused the catechu- menia, (which I have showed before to be places within the church for men and women to hear Di- vine service in,) and turned them into rooms to lodge in, the emperor Leo made a decree, that all such should be expelled from their habitations in the church. The case was different when men spent whole nights in the church in watching and prayer; as they did frequently both in their public and pri— vate vigils; such pernoctations in the church were allowed, because they were but necessary circum- stances of Divine service: only women were forbid- den by the council of Eliberis ‘ to keep private 'vigils in the church, because many times, under pre- tence of prayer, secret wickedness was committed. And for the like reason their agapre, or feasts of charity, which were originally an apostolical prac- tice, and kept in the church, were afterwards pro- hibited, or at least discouraged, for the excess and consequent profaneness that attended them. The council of Laodicea2 peremptorily forbids them under that name of charity feasts, and commands that no one should eat, or prepare beds or tables for that purpose, in the house of God. And the third council of Carthage forbids all feasting in the church3 in general to the clergy, except in case of necessity, when they were upon a journey, and could not otherwise be entertained; and orders, that the custom should be discountenanced as much as pos- sible also in the laity: for though they were forced to tolerate it for some time, yet they did not approve of it, as St. Austin tells Faustus4 the Manichee, but endeavoured to correct both the excess that many ran into upon such occasions, and the very custom itself of feasting in the church, or at the graves of the martyrs, because two errors crept into the church by that means, intolerable excess, and a heathenish superstition therewith: for men began, as he5 com- plains, in these riots to worship pictures and tomb- stones, and reckoned their feasts a sort of sacrifice to the dead, placing even their voracities and drunk- enness to the account of religion; so that it was high time to lay aside all manner of banquetings in the church, that the house of God might not be profaned with such excesses of riot as were not to be endured in private houses. And this was their general rule in all cases, to lay aside all customs that were not‘ absolutely necessary, though innocent and useful in their original, rather than suffer the abuses and corruptions of them to end in the pro- fanation of churches. “6 Sozom. lib. 2. c. 26. 4’ Bede, Hist. lib. l. c. 30. 1 Cone. Eliber. c. 35. Placuit prohiberi, ne foeminae in coemeterio pervigilent, eo quod saepe sub obtentu religionis scelera latent-er committant. 2 Conc. Laodic. c. 28. "On or’: ds'Z 51) T0719 :cvptaIco'Zs i) 511 'ra'i's émckno't'are, 'rds Ae'yopévas c’z'yé'rras qroreiu, Kai. éu 'Tq'i o’L'Krp "r06 9805 to-B’Zaw Kai o’ucofiBvra qpwvvfiew. .3 Cone. Carthag. 3. c. 30. Ut nulli episcopi vel clerici in ec- clesia conviventur, nisi forte transeuntes hospitiorum neces- sitate illic reficiantur. Populi etiam, quantum fieri potest, ab hujusmodi conviviis prohibeantur. Vid. Cod. Afric. can. 42. 4 Aug. cont. Faust. lib. 20. c. 21. Qui se in memoriis martyrurn inebriant, quomodo a nobis approbari possunt, cum eos, etiam si in domibus suis id faciant, sana doctrina condemnet? Sed aliud est quod docemus, aliud quod sustine- mus: aliud quod praecipere jubemur, aliud quod emendare praecipimur, et donec emendemus, tolerare compellimur. 5 Aug. de Morib. Eccles. lib. l. c. Novi multos esse sepulchrorum et picturarum adoratores: novi multos esse, qui luxuriosissime super mortuos bibant, et epulas cadaveri- bus exhibentes, super sepultos seipsos sepeliant, et voraci- tates ebrietatesque suas deputent religioni. CHAP. X. 331 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. The like reverence and respect was also showed to every sacred vessel and utensil belonging to the administra- tion of the sacraments and Divine service: they might not be employed to any other use, but only what was sacred, and answerable to the designation and appointment of them. Upon this account, they were kept in the sceuophylacz'um of the church, and never removed thence, but when the service of the altar required them. This cus- tom was so nicely observed, that when Athanasius was accused for breaking the mystical cup, he clears himself of the accusation by saying, That in the place where it was pretended that he had broken it, there was neither church nor minister,‘ nor was it the time of celebrating the eucharist: therefore, since the cup was never in the custody of any but the ministers of the church, nor ever used but in the church in time of Divine service, he could not be guilty of the crime laid against him, seeing there were none but private men, in whose keeping the cup could not be in that place. The vessels were usually kept by the deacon; and the subdeacons and other inferior orders are by the councils of La- odicea7 and Agde8 forbidden to touch them. There was but one case in which it was lawful to put these things to common use, and that was the case of ab- solute necessity, when no other method could be found out to redeem captives, or relieve the poor in times of extreme exigence: then it was thought that mercy was to be preferred before sacrifice, and that the living and spiritual temples of God were to be preserved at the expense of the material ones; and they never made any scruple to melt down their communion plate or part with their ornaments upon such occasions, of which I have given full proof heretofore from the examples of St. Ambrose, St. Austin, Cyril of Jerusalem, Acacius bishop of Amida, Exuperius of Tholouse, and the laws9 of Justinian, which need not be repeated in this place. But excepting this one extraordinary case, it was esteemed the highest profanation and sacrilege, to divert any thing to any other use which was given to God’s service: and there are some instances of very remarkable judgments that befell such profan- ers, one or two of which it may not be amiss to mention. Theodoretlo tells us, Julian the apostate sent two of his officers, Felix and his uncle Julian, to plunder the church of Antioch, called the golden church, and bring the rich vessels, which Constan- tine and Constantius had dedicated, into his own Sect. 2. The like caution observed about the sacred vessels and utensils of the church. coffers. But they were not content barely to com- mit sacrilege, unless they could vent their spite also in some unmannerly and profane abuses: therefore Julian pissed upon the holy table, and Felix, seeing the holy vessels, broke out into this rude expression, Behold what fine vessels Mary’s Son is served in! But the impious wretches did not long go unpun- ished: for Julian was immediately seized with an ulcer, which turned all his bowels into putrefaction, and he died voiding his own excrements at his blas- phemous mouth; and Felix, by the same Divine vengeance, voided blood at his month, without in- termission, day and night until he died. Victor Uticensisll gives us a like account of one Proculus, an agent of one of the kings of the Vandals, who, having ravaged and plundered the catholic churches, made himself a shirt and breeches of the palls or coverings of the altar. But not long after he fell into a frenzy, which made him eat off his own tongue, piece by piece, and so he breathed out his last in a most ignominious death. It is no less re- markable, what Optatus reports of some Donatist bishops, who, in their mad zeal against the catholics, ordered the eucharist which the catholics had con- secrated to be thrown to their dogs; but not with- out an immediate sign of Divine vengeance ‘2 upon them: for the dogs, instead of devouring the ele- ments, fell upon their masters, as if they had never known them, and tore them to pieces, as robbers and profaners of the holy body of Christ. Which makes Optatus put them in mind of that admoni- tion of our Saviour, Matt. 6, “ Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.” Other instances might be added of the same nature, but I choose rather to go on with the account of their reverence, than to dwell any longer upon the pun- ishments of the profaners. Let us next, then, observe the differ- ence that was made between churches whiiiiirgr'ence and private houses. Some heretics made very light of this distinction, as the Eustathians, Massalians, and others. Against the Eustathians we have two canons made in the council of Gangra, from which we may learn their errors, and ,what were the catholic tenets in oppo- sition to them. The first is, If any one ‘3 teach, that the house of God, and the assemblies held therein, are to be despised, let him be anathema. And the other, If any one '4 hold assemblies privately 6 Athan. Apol. 2. t. l. p. 732. 7 Conc. Laodic. c. 21. 8 Conc. Agathen. c. 66. 9 Book V. chap‘. 6. sect. 6. 1° Theodor. lib. 3. c. 12. ‘1 Victor de Persecut. Vandal. lib. 1. p. 593. ‘2 Optat. lib. 2. p. 55. Ut omnia sacrosancta supra me- morati vestri episcopi violarent, jusserunt eucharistiam canibus fundi: non sine signo Divini judicii. Nam iidem canes accensi rabie, ipsos dominos suos, quasi latrones, sancti corporis reos, dente vindice, tanquam ignotos et ini- micos laniaverunt. '8 Conc. Gangren. c. 5. E1 ‘1'19 &dcio'xot 'rdv ollcou 1'05 .- , I 1- \ \ i 9 H I s I Gee evxwra¢pomyrou swat, Kat "rac av au'rqi a'vuagsts, ava- eepa i'qw. ‘4 Ibid. c. 6. E1 'rtc rape‘: 'rizv imckno't'av idiq: tic/(knowi- 332 Boox VIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. out of the church, and, despising the church, chooses to perform ecclesiastical ofiices where there is no presbyter appointed by the bishop, let him be ana- thema. These heretics seem to have contemned both a regular ministry and the public churches, and to have made no difference between the house of God and other houses, but to have taught that ecclesiastical ofiic'es might as well be performed at- home as in the church. Against which errors this council rising up so severely, gives us to under- stand, that according to the sentiments of the catho- lic church, the public oflices of the church were to be performed in public, and not in private houses, and that it was a contempt of the house of God to perform them otherwise. At present I do not re- member any one allowed instance of the contrary practice in all ancient history, except in cases of necessity, which are above all laws. And therefore I could not but reckon this difference, which was so universally put between the house of God and private houses, amongst the instances of respect and reverence, which the ancients paid to their churches. Sect. 4_ It will deserve here also to be re- “35;: tifmdfe “21$ membered, particularly to the praise €§”{,Z"p‘l’°f§‘,‘f§§°h§§ of St. Ambrose, how he acted with heretics’ the courage and resolution of a mar- tyr in defence of the churches, that they might not be delivered up to the profanation of the Arians. For when the younger Valentinian had, by the in- stigation of his mother Justina, an Arian empress, first published a law, now extant in the Theodo- sian Code,‘5 allowing the Arians liberty to hold as- semblies; and afterwards sent his commands to Ambrose to deliver up to them one of the churches of Milan; he returned him this brave and generous answer: “If the emperor asks of meIany thing16 that is my own, my estates, my money, I shall freely recede from my right, though all that I have belongs to the poor. But those things which are God’s, are not subject to the emperor’s power. If my patrimony is demanded, you may invade it; if my body, I will offer it of my own accord. Will you carry me into prison, or unto death? I will voluntarily submit to it. I will not guard myself with an army of my people about me; I will not lay hold of the altar, and supplicate for life, but 'more joyfully be sacrificed myself for the altar.” He thought it absolutely unlawful for the emperor to grant to the Arians, the enemies of Christ, those temples which had been dedicated to the service of Christ; and that it did much less become a bishop, the minister of Christ, to be accessory to so foul a dishonour to his Lord: and therefore he rather re- solved to die at the altar, if it must be so, than give his consent to so great a profanation. By this one instance we may easily judge, what opinion the ancients had of the sacredness of churches, as God’s propriety; and that they would as soon de- liver up their Bibles to be burnt by the heathen, as their churches to be profaned by heretical assem- blies, where impiety would be taught for true religion, and blasphemy offered to God instead of adoration. As to the ceremonies of respect used by them when they entered into the waggiensdegiitégiotngngsf church, we find one of pretty general ghailetdfgrgfht in- observation, which was the custom of washing their hands and their face, in token of innocency and purity, when they went to worship God at the holy altar. Which seems to be taken from that of the psalmist, “ I will wash my hands in innocency, and so will I compass thy altar.” This custom is frequently mentioned by Chrysos- tom, Eusebius, Tertullian, Synesius, Paulinus, and others, whose testimonies have been already alleged in the former part ‘7 of this book, where I had also occasion to show, that fountains and cisterns of water were commonly set in the atrium or court before the church for this very purpose. Another ceremony used by some few, (for it was no general custom,) was putting off their shoes when they went into the house of God. Cassian observes of the Egyptian monks, that they always wore sandals instead of shoes, and those they also put ofi‘ whenever they went ‘a to celebrate or receive the holy mysteries, thinking themselves obliged to do so, by interpreting literally that intimation of reverence which was given to Moses and Joshua, “ Put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.” But others did not understand this as an absolute command, obliging all men precisely to use this ceremony of respect, but only where the custom of any nation had made it an indication of reverence, as it was among the Eastern nations in the time of Moses and Joshua. Whence we do not find it mentioned as any general custom prevailing among the primi- tive Christians; unless perhaps it may be thought Sect. 6. The ceremony of putting off their shoes used by some but this no general custom. got, Kai xama¢pou5>v 'n’is 6KK>\116lC19, 'rd 'rfis éxxkncrias e’S'é- Aot 'n'pa'er'rew, p31 o'vvo'u'ros T5 '1rpso'fiv'ripou Ica'rd 'yua'runu 'rQ é'n'to'rcévrou, dud-Sena iis'w. 15 Cod. Th. lib. 16. Tit. 1. de Fid. Cathol. Leg. 4. '6 Ambros. Ep. 33. ad Marcel. de Tradendis Basilicis. Si a me peteret quod meum esset, id est, fundurn meum, argen- tirm meum, jus hujusmodi meum me non refragaturum, quanquam omnia. quae mea sunt essent pauperum. Verum ea quae Divina, imperatoriae potestati non esse subjecta, &c. 1" Chap. 3. sect. 6. ‘8 Cassian. Institut. lib. l. e. 10. Nequaquam tamen caligas pedibus inhserere permittunt, cum accedunt ad cele- branda vel percipienda sacrosancta mysteria, illud aesti- mantes etiam secundum literam custodiri debere, quod dici- tur ad Moysen vel ad J esum filium Nave: solve corrigiam calceamenti tui, locus enim in quo stas terra sancta est. CHAP. X. 333 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. to have been so in the Ethiopian or Abyssin churches, because, as Mr. Mede has observed19 out of Zaga Zabo’s account of them in Damianus a Goes, the same custom continues still among them at this day. Which, whether it be derived from ancient tradition of their churches, or be a practice lately taken up among them, is not now very easy to be determined. And I think the same resolution cigfiifiglheecgg must be given to the question about ‘my gfwboggxs lg bowing toward the altar at their first $212,321?“ in“ entrance into churches. Mr. Mede thinks there is no plain demonstration of it in the ancient writers, but some probability of such a custom derived from the Jews. For he says, \Vhat reverential guise, ceremony, or wor- ship,“>0 they used at their ingress into God’s house in the ages next to the apostles, (and some I believe they did,) is wholly buried in silence and oblivion. The Jews before them, from whom the Christian religion sprang, used to bow themselves down to- wards the mercy-seat. The Christians after them, in the Greek and Oriental churches, have, time out of mind, and without any known beginning there- of, used to bow in like manner, with their posture toward the altar, or holy table, saying that of the publican in the Gospel, “God be merciful to me a sinner ;” as appears by the liturgies of St. Chrysos- tom and St. Basil, and as they are still known to do at this day. Which custom of theirs, not being found to have been ordained or established by any decree or canon of any council, and being so agree- able to the use of God’s people of the Old Testa- ment, may therefore seem to have been derived to them from very remote and ancient tradition. Nothing therefore can be known of the use of those first ages of the church, further than it shall seem probable they might imitate the Jews. _ This is spoken according to the wonted ingenuity of that learned person, who never advances a probability into a demonstration. I shall only add one thing out of Chrysostom, to make his opinion seem the more probable, which I note from the observation of Mr. Aubertin,"’l who, among some other instances of reverence paid to God, at the reading of the Gospel and reception of baptism, takes notice of this, that when the candidates of baptism came near the baptistery, which, in Chrysostom’s lan- guage,22 is the bride-chamber of the Spirit and the port of grace, they were then as captives to fall down before their King, and all to cast themselves together upon their knees. Now, if such an act of reverence was performed to God at their entrance into the baptistery, it is not improbable but that some such reverence might also be used at their en- trance into the temple. But in matters which have not a clear light and proof, it is not prudent to be over-bold in our determinations. It is more certain, that when kings sect 8_ and emperors went into the house of mginggggig 333* God, they paid this respect to the .g:;:;d.i;.,“3;",g?gg place, that they left not only their Whemgl’fkings' arms and their guards, but also their crowns behind them; as thinking it indecent to appear in their regalia in the presence of the King of kings, or to seem to want arms and guards when they were un- der the peaceable roof of the Prince of peace. St. Chrysostom often spends his eloquence23 upon this custom, and uses it as an argument to persuade all inferiors to a profound reverence, humility, and peace, when they came into the courts of God, be- cause they had such examples of their kings before them. The emperor Theodosius junior also makes use of the same topic in one of his laws,” which was made to regulate the abuses of some who fled for sanctuary in the church with their arms about them: which profanation was not to be endured in any, since he himself always left his arms with- out doors, and first laid aside his diadem, the badge of imperial majesty, before he went into the church. Nay, Julian himself had regard to this custom, as Sozomen truly observes25 out of his epistle to Ama- cius, high priest of Galatia, where one of the things he would have them imitate the Christians in, was this, that when they went into the temples of their gods, no man of arms should appear among them- And I have already” noted out of Leo Gramma- ticus, how Michael, the Greek emperor, in latter ages, was censured for presuming to pass the beau— tiful or royal gates crowned, at which gates it had ever been customary for his predecessors to lay aside their crowns, when they went into the church. Another very usual piece of respect paid to the altar and the church, was Theideddi-sgan‘dupglt; men’s embracing, saluting, and kissing Z‘rgiaééaggrgiéegrg them, or any part of them, the doors, £31232 gfzgzfnfndre' threshold, pillars, in token of their great love and affection for them. St. Ambrose takes notice of this in the account he gives of the great consternation they were in at Milan, when the '9 Mede, Disc. on Eccl. v. 1. p. 348. 2° Id. on Psal. cxxxii. 7. p. 397. 2‘ Albertin. de Eucbar. lib. 2. p. 432. 2’ Chrysost. in illud, Simile est Regnum Coelor. &c. 'E’n'etdc‘w sio'dpc'qun'ra 'rr'w waa'ra'oa 'rfis Xa'pt'ros, fivrazddu 'zrluyo'iou 'yr'mpcrea 'rfis (#065959 6,1105 Kai 1r09ewi'79 icohupfifi- 69m, (.59 aiXJudkw'rot 'n'poo'vre'o'n're 'rq'i Bao'ths'i, [iidra're qra'u'res tijuoiws érri 'yiiva'ra. 23 Chrysost. Orat. post Redit. ab Exilio, t. 4. p. 971. It. Horn. in Psal. xlviii. t. 3. p. 812. 2‘ Edict. Theodos. ad calcem Cone. Ephes. et in God. Th. lib. 9. Tit. 45. Leg. 4. Nos qui legitimis imperii armis semper circundamur—---Dei templum ingressuri, foris arma relinquimus, et ipsum etiam diadema, regiae majestatis in- signe, deponimus. "'5 Sozom. lib. 5. c. 16. 2‘ See chap. 5. sect. l. 334 BOOK VIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. emperor’s orders came for delivering up the churches to the Arians. The soldiers were the men who first brought the welcome news into the church, that the emperor had revoked his fatal sentence: and they strove who should first get to the altar and kiss it,27 to signify, that all things now were in peace and safety. He alludes, no doubt, to the oscalam pacis, the solemn kiss of peace,which the faithful anciently were used to give mutually to each other in the communion service, as a testimony of their cordial love and affection for one another. And therefore it cannot be supposed that such Salutations of the church or altar were intended as acts of religious worship, but only as civil indications of their love and respect for them. And by this rule we are to interpret all other places of ancient authors, which frequently speak of this custom, as Sidonius Apol- linaris,28 Paulinus,29 PrudentiusfmChrysostom,31 Atha- nasius,82 Cassiodore,” and the author of the Eccle- siastical Hierarchy,“ under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite, and several others, who wrote before the superstitious adoration of images had gained any credit in the church: the like respect to this having been also showed to the book of the Gos- pels, without any suspicion of adoring the materials of it. I think it not improper also to ob- ChuFc‘l‘ieEsiiLed 20!: serve under this head, that churches private meditati and Prayer. as Well were many times chosen as the pro- as public. perest places for private devotion and prayer upon extraordinary occasions. Theodoret85 observes of Theodosius the emperor, that the night before he was to engage Eugenius the tyrant, was by him wholly spent in an oratory, which happened to be in the place where he had pitched his camp. Andin like manner both Athanasius,36 and Socrates?‘7 and the other historians, tell us of Alexander, bishop of Constantinople, that when the faction of Euse- bius had threatened to oblige him upon a certain day to receive Arius into communion, he betook himself the night before to the church, and there, prostrating himself before the altar, continued all night in prayer, begging of God, that if the faith which he held was truth, and the opinion of Arius false, he would punish Arius as his impiety justly deserved. Which was accordingly fulfilled: for the the next day Arius, as he was going triumphantly to church, having occasion to turn aside to go to stool, voided his entrails with his excrements, and so perished by a most ignominious death. I men- tion these things only to show, that the ancients paid such a respect to their churches, that upon special occasions they thought them the properest places as well for private devotion as for public. And I have already noted38 that many of their churches were so framed, as to have private cells or recesses for men to retire to, and exercise themselves at leisure times in private reading of the Scriptures, and meditation and prayer. As to their public behaviour in the church, it was generally such as ex- Theisreiiiibiilc' be arrow in the pressed great reverence for it, as the ggégflriegfggfeifeof sanctuary of God, and the place of his immediate presence. They entered it as the palace of the Great King, where the angels attended, and heaven opened itself, and Christ sat upon his throne, and all was filled with incorporeal powers, as Chrysostom words it89 in some of his elegant descriptions. It is particularly remarked by Gre- gory Nazianzen,4o of his own mother Nonna, that the zeal of her devotion was always so flaming and fervent, that she never spake a word in the church, but what was necessary to be done in joining in the sacred service; she never turned her back upon the altar, nor ever allowed herself to spit upon the pavement of the church. But I cannot say these were necessary laws for all to observe; for Nazianzen intimates she did something above the common pitch, and consequently that it was choice and zeal, and not any binding rules of the church, that obliged her to it. \Ve might here have considered further their reverent postures of devotion, standing, kneel- ing, and prostration; and have exposed the practice of sitting at prayers and at the communion service, which Perron and some others, for different reasons, contend for, as a posture of devotion used in the ancient church; but I shall have a more proper oc- casion to speak of these things hereafter, when we come to the particular oflices and services of the church. The last instance of their reverence for churches which I shall take notice ,agggeggggfgfy ,0, of, is, that the sacredness of them &fiié’tififli‘lfif; made them commonly the safest re- intimesofdimss' pository for things of value, and the best security and retreat in times of common calamity and dis- tress. The church had not only her own private archives, her treasury, and her cemcliarchium, for Sect. 12. 2’ Ambros. Ep. 33. Certatim hoc nunciare milites, ir- ruentes in altaria, osculis significare pacis insigne. 28 Sidon. Lib. 1. Ep. 5. Triumphalibus apostolorum 1i- minibus afl'usus, &c. 29 Paulin. Natal. 6. Felicis, p. 569. Sternitur ante fores, et postibus oscula figit. 3° Prudent. Hymn. 11. in S. Laurent. Apostolorum ac martyrum exosculantur limina. 31 Chrysost. Hom. 29. in2 Cor. Hpcis'vpa (lithépteu 'rfi vaé. ‘*2 Athanas. Homil. adv. eos qui in homine spem fi'gunt, t. 2. p. 304. Hpoo'uiu'res 'rq'i ti'yiqu S'vo'taqnpitp, Kai pea-d: (po'Be Kai Xapds do'n'agtipeuot. *3 Cassiodor. Hist. Tripart. lib. 9. c. 30. 3* Dionys. Ecol. Hier. c. 2. 85 Theodor. lib. 5. c. 24. 9“ Athanas. Epist. ad Serapion. p. 671. 3’ Socrat. lib. 1. c.37. Ruflimlib. l. c. 12. 38 See chap. 5. sect. 8. 39 Chrysost. Horn. 3. in Ephes. et Horn. 15. in Hebr. 4° N az. Orat. 19. in Fun. Patris, t. 1. p. 292. CHAP. XI. 335 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. preserving her own writings, her utensils, and her treasures, but was a place of common tuition and defence, both for things and persons, in many other cases. Thus it is noted by Ruflin,‘l and Socrates,42 and Sozomen, that the cubit wherewith they were used to measure the increase of the waters of Nile, when it overflowed, having been before usually kept in the temple of Serapis, was by the order of Con- stantine laid up in the Christian church, where it continued till Julian the apostate caused it to be removed to the temple of Serapis again. But per- sons, as well as things, found a safe retreat and se— curity in the sacredness of churches, when many times in barbarous invasions no other places would protect them against the insolence and fury of a conquering enemy. Nay, the very heathens them- selves often found their account in flying to the Christian churches, as St. Austin glories over them, beginning his famous book against the pagans, De Civitate Dei, with this observation. There he tells them what ungrateful wretches they were to the re- ligion of Christ, to clamour and inveigh so bitterly against it, when yet, had it not been for the protec- tion of their lives in places dedicated to Christ, whi- ther they‘8 fled fi'om the swords of their enemies, they had never been able at that day to have moved their tongues against it. For when Alaric the Goth took and sacked Rome, he gave orders that all the churches should be inviolable, and whoever fled thither should be spared; the sanctity of the place should be their protection: by which means the heathens escaped as well as the Christians. For the soldiers inviolably observed their general’s com- mands, and when they had barbarously plundered and murdered in all other places, they did not pre- tend to meddle with churches, or offer the least vio- lence to any who betook themselves thither for safety and protection. Nay, they carried some into churches themselves, whom they intended to spare, and so secured them from the violence of others that might have assaulted them. So great a vener- ation had even the barbarous Arian Goths for churches, in the midst of all their anger and fury against the Romans, as not only St. Austin, but Orosius,“ and St. J erom,“ and Cassiodore,46 and Sozomen," with other ancient writers, relate the story. And it can hardly be doubted, then, but that the catholics had the same veneration for churches; especially when it is considered also, how both by general custom and law under the Christian empe- rors, every church was invested with the privilege of an asylum, or place of sanctuary and refuge, in certain cases; of the original of which, and the an- cient laws relating to it, (because some abuses have been added in after ages by the canon law,) I will give a particular account in the following chapter. CHAPTER XI. OF THE FIRST ORIGINAL OF ASYLUMS, OR PLACES OF SANCTUARY AND REFUGE, WITH THE LAWS RELATING TO THEM, IN CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. ALL that is necessary to be known of this privilege, so far as concerns the msffiiigha of _ _ _ s privilege to be use of it in the anclent church, e1- gelggggdcogggmigz ther relates to the original of the custom, or the place itself where sanctuary might be had, or the persons who were entitled to the be- nefit, or, lastly, the conditions they were to observe in order to obtain and enjoy it. And therefore under these four heads we will briefly consider it. As-to the original of it, there is no dispute made by any author, but that it began to be a privilege of churches from the time of Constantine, though there are no laws about it older than Theodosius, either in the Justinian or the Theodosian Code. But the law of Theodosius is sufficient evidence itself, that it was the custom or practice of the church before; for his law was not made to authorize the thing itself, but to regulate some points relating to it, which supposes the thing to be in use before. But whether Con- stantine made any law to establish it, is very much doubted by learned men. Baronius ‘ aflirms it upon the credit of the acts of Pope Sylvester: but those are known to be spurious and forged writings, no older than the ninth or tenth age, by the acknow- ledgment of Papebrochius and Pagi,2 who have ac- curately examined and refuted Baronius’s vindica- tion of them. However, Gothofred allows what seems to be the truth of the case, that practice and custom established this privilege by degrees even from the time of Constantine ; for before T heodosius made any law about it, the thing was certainly in use in the church, as appears from the account which Gregory Nazianzen gives of it in the Life of Basil,3 where he tells us how St. Basil protected a widow, who fled to the altar, against the violence that was offered to her by the governor of Pontus. The like is reported of St. Ambrose in his Life,‘ writ- ten by Paulinus; and St. Ambrose himself speaks ‘1 Ruflin. lib. 2. c. 30. ‘2 Socrat. lib. 1. c. 18. Sozom. lib. l. c. 8. ‘3 Aug. de Civ. Dei, lib. l. c. 1. Hodie contra eam lin- guas non moverent, nisi ferrum hostile fugientes, in sacratis ejus locis vitam, de qua superbiunt, invenirent, &c, ‘4 Oros. lib. 7. c. 39. ‘5 Hieron. Epist. 16. ad Principiam. 46 Cassiodor. Variar. lib. 12. c. 20. 4" Sozom. lib. 9. cap. 10. 1 Baron. an. 324. n. 61. 2 Papebroch. Conatus Chronico-Histor. p. 49. Pagi, Critic. in Baron. an. 315. n. 4. 8 Naz. Orat. 20. de Laud. Basil. t. l. p. 353. 4 Paulin. Vit. Ambros. p. 9. 336 Boox VIIl. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. of the custom in one of his epistles, where, in answer to the emperor Valentinian junior, who had com- manded him to deliver up one of the churches of Milan to the Arians, he tells him, that was a thing he could never obey him in; but if he commanded him to be carried to prison or to death, that he would voluntarily submit to, and neither use force to de- fend himself, nor fly to the altar to supplicate for his life.5 These and some other such like instances show, that the churches enjoyed this privilege by ancient custom, before Theodosius made any law about it; which he did first, anno 392, not to autho- rize the thing, but to explain and regulate some things relating to it, of which more by and by in their proper place. Here we are next to examine what aut: giit'ialggr the part of the church was more peculiarly Pgicpegceflgg 1933;: assigned to be the place of sanctuary Eggeralfigh’girggsag and refuge. Gothofred thinks, that gggeggsnggjgg at first only the inner buildings and 3216;“ same P'i' apartments of the church, ‘and espe- cially the altar, were the places of re- fuge : whence in Synesius6 and other ancient writ- ers the altar is so frequently called ci'o'vltog rpo'zmZa, the table from which no one could be ravished or taken away. But whether this was originally so or not, it is certain that in the time of Theodosius junior these limits for taking sanctuary were en- larged. For in one of his laws now extant in both the Codes,7 not only the altar and the body of the church, but all between the church and outward walls, that is, houses and lodgings of the bishop and clergy, gardens, baths, courts, cloisters, are ap- pointed to enjoy the same privilege of being a sane- tuary to such as fled for refuge, as well as the innermost part of the temple. Particularly the baptisteries, which, as I have showed before, were places without the church, were invested with this privilege equally with the altar: for Proterius, bi- shop of Alexandria, as Liberatus” and Evagrius9 re- port, took sanctuary in the baptistery of the church, to avoid the fury of the Eutychian faction headed by Timotheus ZElurus ; and though that was a place which even the barbarians themselves had some reverence for, yet, as the Egyptian bishops ‘° complain in their letter to the emperor Leo, the ma- lice of the Eutychians pursued him thither, and there slew him, mangled his body, dragged it about the streets, and at last burnt it to ashes, and scattered his ashes in the wind; for which unparalleled bar- barity committed against the laws of religion, the emperor Leo deposed Timotheus ZElurus, and sent him into banishment all his life. There were a great many other places, which had this privilege of sanctuary ‘also beside churches, as the statues of the emperors, of which there is a particular title in the Theodosian Code ;11 also the emperor’s standard in the camp, the bishop’s house, the graves and sepulchres of the dead, together with the cross, schools, monasteries, and hospitals in after ages, of which, being all foreign to the business of churches, I say nothing further, but refer the curious reader to the elaborate treatise of Rittershusius‘z upon this subject among the London critics, where each of these and some other privileged places are particu- larly considered. Next to the places of refuge, we are See, 3. to consider the persons to whom this 10339332113; benefit extended, and in what cases man" they were allowed to take sanctuary in their churches. For this privilege anciently was not in- tended to patronize wickedness, or shelter men from the due execution of justice, or the force of the laws in ordinary cases; but chiefly to be a refuge for the innocent, the injured, and oppressed: or in doubt- ful causes, whether criminal or civil, only to‘ give men protection so long, till they might have an equitable and fair hearing of the judges, and not he proceeded against barbarously and rigorously, un- der pretence and colour of justice; or at most, only to give bishops opportunity to intercede for crimi- nals and delinquents in such cases, as it was both becoming and lawful for bishops to turn interces- sors. These were the sanctuaries which Basil ‘3 pleaded for against the governor of Pontus, and Synesius“ against Andronicus, governor of Ptole- mais, and Chrysostom against Eutropius, who had prevailed with Arcadius to abrogate by law all privileges ‘5 of this nature belonging to the church; but by God’s providence, he was the first man that wanted this privilege, being fallen under the em- peror’s displeasure, and forced to fly to the altar for that refuge which he had denied to others. This gave Chrysostom occasion to make that eloquent and curious oration upon his case, whereby he art- fully wrought the people into a tender compassion for their bitterest enemy, that they might go and supplicate the emperor for him, who now lay pros- trate at the altar, and by their supplications they obtained his life, for the sentence of death was mi- 5 Ambros. Ep. 33. ad Marcellin. Nee altaria tenebo vitam obsecrans, &c. 6 Synes. Ep. 58. p. 193. " Cod. Th. lib. 9. Tit. 45. de his qui ad Ecclesias confu- giunt. Leg. 4. Inter templum, quod parietum descripsimus cinctu, et post loca publica et januas primes ecclesiae, quic- quid fuerit interjacens, sive in cellulis, sive in domibus, hor- tulis, balneis, areis atque porticibns, confugas interioris tem- pli vice tueatur, &c. Vid. Cod. Justin. lib. l. Tit. 12. Leg. 3. 8 Liberat. Breviar. c. 15. 9 Evagr. lib. 2. c. 8. 1° Epist. Episcoporum Egypt. ad calcem Concil. Chal- ced. n. 32. p. 894. ‘1 Cod. Th. lib. 9. Tit. 44. de his qui ad statuas Imperato- rum confugiunt. ‘2 Rittershus. de Asylis, c. 3. ‘3 Naz. Orat. 20. de Laud. Basil. ‘4 Synes. Ep. 58. ‘5 Cod. Th. lib. 9. Tit. 45. de his qui ad Ecol. confug. Leg. 3. CHAP. XI. 337 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. tigated, and turned into confiscation and banish- ment only,“ though afterward by treachery he lost his life. These were chiefly the cases which the ancient privilege of sanctuary respected, and com- monly thirty days’ protection was granted to men in such pitiable circumstances, which term was thought sufficient‘7 by the law to end any contro- versies that such men might have before the civil judges. Though the Saxon law of King Alfred allowed but three days’ time for this, as both Ritter- shusius and Gothofred have observed out of Lam— bard’s account of our ancient ‘8 English and Saxon laws. During this time they were maintained by the church, if they were poor, out of the revenues of the poor; but if they were able to subsist them- selves, it was sufficient for the church to grant them her protection, and that only in the forementioned cases, and no other. Sect 4 Therefore, that no one might pre- soglltllltdsgiirlliglzjeel': sume upon indemnity by virtue of giggmgtignyggglgsg this privilege, who had not a just and legal title to it, several crimes and cases were specified by the law, as excepted, for which the church could grant no protection. As, first, Public debtors, who either embezzled or kept back by fraud the public revenues of the state. By a law of Theodosius the Great, now extant in both the Codes, such debtors, though they fled to the church for sanctuary, were to reap no benefit by it, but immediately to be taken thence by force :'9 or if they were concealed by the clergy, the bishop and church in that case were liable to be called upon, and made to answer the debt to the public. And Baronius 2° is of opinion, that it was by virtue of this law that St. Austin was obliged to pay the debt of one Fastius, who fled to the church for refuge, not being able to answer the pressing demands of the public exactors; and therefore St. Austin made a public collection for him in his church, because he would not deliver him up to be tortured by his creditors, as he himself informs us in one of his epis- tles.2| This was the reason, as I have observed in another place,22 why St. Austin refused to accept the donation of a man’s estate, which was originally tied to certain public service in the corporation of the navz'cularz'z', or those who were bound to trans- port the public corn from Africa to Rome. For it might happen, that the men whom the church was to employ in this service, might, by mischance of shipwreck, or other means, become obnoxious to the public: and then the church must either deliver up her servants to be tortured, or else pay the debt; for there was no refuge or sanctuary allowed in this case but upon that condition. And therefore St. Austin23 himself tells us, he refused such an estate, because one way or other it might have involved the church in great trouble. In private cases, Gotho- fred seems to think that the benefit of sanctuary was allowed to poor debtors, that they might have a little respite from torture, and either compound with their creditors, or find some other method to discharge their debt, whilst they were under the shelter and protection of the church. But then even this benefit was not universal; for the Jewish converts were particularly excepted from it. tomid payimhei, For by a law of Arcadius and Hono- ileiiiii’pgilsiiin§iiilg rius, extant in both the Codes, it was r the“ mines’ provided, That all Jews, who, being either in debt, or under prosecution as criminals, pretended to unite themselves to the Christian religion, that thereby they might have the privilege of taking sanctuary in the church, and avoid the punishment of their crimes” or burden of their debts, should be reject- ed, and not received till they had discharged their debts, or proved themselves innocent of the crimes laid against them. Yet, in other cases, the Jews were not denied this benefit, but had the common privilege of sanctuary with other men, if Gotho- fred25 judge right, who cites Julius Clarus and Pe- trus Sarpus 2“ for the same opinion. Rittershusius27 thinks the case of heretics and apostates was something worse in this respect than that of Jews, because they who deserted the church were wholly excluded from having any benefit of sanc- tuary in it. Covarruvias, and Panormitan, and Sar- pus collect the same before him, but not from any express law about this matter, but only from a general law of Theodosius and Valentinian, which excludes apostates and heretics from all society, and many other common privileges allowed to other men?8 From whence they conclude, by parity of reason, that they could lay no claim to the benefit Sect. 5. Secondly, Jews that pretended to turn Christians only Sect. 6. Thirdly, Heretics and apostates. '6 Vid. Cod. Th. lib. 9. Tit. 40. de Poenis, Leg. l7. 1" Vid. Justin. Novel. 1?. c. 6. '9 Lambard. de Legibus Angliae, p. 28. ‘9 Cod. Th. lib. 9. Tit. 45. de his qui ad Eccles. confug. Leg. 1. Publicos debitores, si confugiendum ad ecclesias crediderint; aut illico extrahi de latebris oportebit, aut pro his ipsos, qui eos occultare probantur episcopos exigi, &c. 2° Baron. an. 392, p. 661. 2' Aug. Ep. 215. Ne corporalem pateretur injuriam, ad auxilium sanctae ecclesias convolavit, &c. 22 Book V. chap. 3. sect. 5. 2"’ Aug. Horn. 49. de Diversis, t. 10. p. 520. Naviculariam Z nolui esse ecclesiam Christi, &c. 2* Cod. Th. lib. 9. Tit. 45. Leg. 2. Cod. Justin. lib. 1. Tit. 12. Leg. 1. J udaei, qui reatu aliquo vel debitis fatigati, si- mulant se Christianae legi velle conjungi, ut ad ecclesias confugientes evitare possint crimina, vel pondera debito- rum, arceantur, nec ante suscipiantur, quam debita universa. reddiderint. 25 Gothofred, t. 3. p. 361. 2“ Sarpus de jure Asyli, c. 5. p. 58. 2’ Rittershusius de Asylis, cap. 6. 2*‘ Cod. Th. lib. 16. Tit. 7. de Apostat. Leg. 4. Hi qui sanctam fidem prodiderunt, et sanctum baptisma haeretica 338 Boox VIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. of sanctuary in any case, because deserters of reli- gion, which they had once owned in baptism, were reckoned worse than Jews, who had never made Drofession of it. And therefore, by another law of Theodosius, their slaves were entitled to the favour which the masters themselves were denied: for if the slave of an apostate or a heretic"’9 fled from his master, and took sanctuary in the church, he was not only to be protected, but to have his manumis- sion, or freedom, granted him likewise. There being an equal design in the law to encourage orthodoxy, and discourage heresy and apostacy, by respective rewards and punishments allotted to them. See“. This was particularly determined ,hfg’rgg‘eogtrfg in the case of the Donatists for re- mastem' baptizing their slaves, to initiate them into their own religion. But in other cases the slaves of orthodox masters had not so large a privi- lege. For by a law of Arcadius and Honorius, anno 398, slaves are put in the same condition with public debtors, and the curiales, and other public officers, whom no privilege of sanctuaryso was to excuse from the proper duties of their station. And therefore, though any such one fled to the church for refuge, or was ordained a clerk in the church, there was no legal protection allowed him, but he might be reclaimed and fetched thence immediately to his proper servitude or station again, by the au- thority of the civil judges. I know, indeed, Gotho- fred takes this to be that law of Arcadius, procured by the instigation of Eutropius against the immuni- ties of the church, which is so much reflected on by St. Chrysostom,81 and Prosper,82 and Socrates,$3 and Sozomen,“ and some other ancient writers of the church, and which Arcadius himself thought fit to revoke within a year after, when Eutropius was fallen under his displeasure: which, whether it be that very law or not, is a thing I shall not now nicely dispute; for, admitting it to be so, I observe, that it was never wholly revoked and disannulled, but only in some particular instances. For that part about the illegal ordination of the cariales was left in a great measure in its full force, as has been clearly demonstrated in another place : 35 and that part which concerns slaves taking sanctuary in the church, was with a very small variation renewed and reinforced by Theodosius junior, son of Area- dius, and compiler of the Theodosian Code. For by one of his laws,36 which is the last upon this head in that Code, No slave is allowed to have sanc- tuary or entertainment in any church above one day, when notice was to be given to his master from whom he fled for fear of punishment, that he might reclaim him and carry him back to his own posses- sion, only giving a promise of indemnity and par- don for his faults, if they were not very great and heinous. And Rittershusius 3’ cites a law of Theo- doric, king of the Goths, and some others, to the same purpose. But in case men were guilty of crimes of a more heinous nature, such as theft Fifthlifcbitgbbers, and robbery, or treason and conspiracy 26:3 .erigsiisiiirrlsspgt vir ins adult erers, against the government, or murder gpthgtfiilfz 31231;?“ and bloodshed, or ravishing of vir- gins, or adultery, or any crimes of the like nature; then it mattered not whether the criminals were bond or free, there was not an hour’s respite allowed to such men, but they were to be taken immediately by force of the civil magistrate, if need required, even from the very altar; or if they pretended to make any resistance with arms, they might with in- demnity be slain there. This is undeniably evident from the laws of Justinian, which specify these and all such criminals as excepted universally from all benefit of sanctuary; it being88 wholly against the intent and design of that privilege to give any protection to murderers, adulterers, ravishers of vir- gins, or any the like, but rather to the innocent and injured parties, who were exposed to their violence and abuses: temples were never designed by law to give sanctuary both to the passive and the aggress- ors: and therefore if any that were guilty of such crimes fled to the altar for refuge, they should be drawn thence, and punished according to law with superstitione profanarunt, a consortio omnium segregati sint, &c. 29 God. Th. lib. l6. Tit. 6. Ne sanctum baptisma iteretur. Leg. 4. His qui fortisan ad rebaptizanduin cogentur, refu- giendi ad ecclesiam catholicam sit facultas, ut ejus praesidio ad versus hujus criminis auctores attributes libertatis praesidio defendantur. 8° Cod. Th. lib. 9. Tit. 45. Leg. 3. Si quis in posterum servus, ancilla, curialis, debitor publicus, procurator, muri- 1egulus, quilibet postremo publicis privatisve rationibus in- volutus, ad ecclesiam eonfugiens, vel clericus ordinatus, vel quocunque modo fuerit a clericis defensatus, nec statim con— ventione praemissa pristinae conditioni reddatur, decuriones quidem, et omnes, quos solita ad debituin munus functio vocat, vigore et solertia judicantum ad pristinam sortein revocentur. 3‘ Chrysost. Horn. in Eutrop. t. 4. ‘*2 Prosper de Praedict. lib. 3. c. 38. 33 Socrat. lib. 6. c. 5. 35 Book IV. chap. 4. sect. 4. 8“ Cod. Th. lib. 9. Tit. 45. de his qui ad Eccles. confug. Leg. 5. Si quidem servus cujusquain ecclesiam, altariave, loci tantum veneratione confisus, sine ullo telo petierit, is non plus uno die ibidem dimittatur, quin domino ejus, vel cujus metu poenam imminentem visus est declinasse, a cleri- cis, quorum interest, nuntietur. 'Isque euin, impertita in- dulgentia peccatorum, abducat. 3’ Rittershus. de Asylis, c. 8. p. 284. 88 Justin. Novel. 17. c. 7. Neque autem homicidis, neque adulteris, neque virginurn raptoribus, vel talia delinquenti- bus, terminoruin custodies cautelam: sed etiam inde extra- hes, et supplicium eis inferes. Non enim talia delinquentibus parcere competit, sed hoc patientibus, ut non talia a prae. sumptoribus patiantur. Deinde templorum cautela non no- centibus, sed laasis datur a lege, et non erit possibile utrumque tueri cautela sacrorum locorum, et laedentern et laesiun. 8‘ Sozom. lib. 8. c. 7. CHAP. XI. 339 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. punishments suitable to their offences. This one law of J ustinian’s shows us plainly the true intent and meaning of all other ancient laws relating to this privilege of sanctuary, that the design of them, as I observed before, was chiefly to protect the in- nocent, the injured, and oppressed from violence, and in some hard or dubious cases to grant a little respite, till a fair hearing might be procured, or some intercession made to the judges, by the bishop or clergy, for such persons as might seem to want it. And so Gothofred89 upon the whole matter deter- mines, that anciently legal refuge was no more but the clergy’s deprecation or intercession for men in distress. And such as they might laudably and decently intercede for, they might for some time legally protect from violence and torture in the church; but not obstruct the due execution of jus- tice upon other sort of criminals, for which it was scandalous to intercede. In which respect most of the mo- A jisiiit'rgsecaon dern sanctuaries have been complain- giigiie ribeiim ed of by considering men, as guilty of great abuses, in giving protection al- gorgggggggqgvgy most to all sorts of criminals, and so encouraging the practice of villany, by exempting men from legal punishment, and enervating the force of civil laws. For the canon law of Gratian, and the pope’s Decretals, grant pro- tection to all criminals, except night robbers, and robbers on the highway, and such as commit enor- mous crimes in the church itself upon presumption of its protection. But all other criminals have liberty of taking sanctuary, and it is reckoned a violation of the immunities of the church to take them thence, unless a promise or an oath be first given, that neither death,“ nor any other corporal punishment, but only a pecuniary mulct, shall be inflicted on them, as Pope Innocent III. determined in one of his letters to the king of Scots, which Gregory IX. inserted into the body of his Decretals. The council of Orleans“ has some canons to the same purpose, which, though contrary to all other ancient laws, Gratian42 thought fit to adopt into his own Collections. And so the modern canon law, under pretence of ecclesiastical immunities, opened a wide gap to licentiousness, by taking off those re- straints which the ancient laws had justly set upon this matter, when they granted refuge to innocent and injured men, but not to notorious criminals. Which difference is not only noted and complained of by all protestant writers, but also by some of the Romish church. Polydore Virgi "3 makes no scruple to condemn them all over the Christian world, but more especially here in England, where protection was given, not to the innocent and oppressed, but to all sorts of criminals, such as were guilty of trea— son and rebellion not excepted. Whence he thinks it very apparent, that the thing, as then practised, was not to be derived from Moses, who allowed re- fuge to none but such as killed a man unawares and against their will, but from Romulus: which was the cause that so many villains took heart and en- couragement to practise wickedness, there being churches every where ready to receive and protect them; though nothing was more directly contrary to the establishment of Moses, whose law was guarded with this sanction, Exod. xxi. l4, “ If a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile, thou shalt take him from my altar, that he may die.” This was the difference, in the opinion of that author, between the modern sanctuaries and those of Moses and the ancient church. There is one thing more to be ob- served concerning the privilege of ciggi‘fittfg‘jgg'm sanctuary in the laws of the ancient $2, 135532;? $883 church, which is, that such persons Signing liliewith as were allowed this benefit, were church‘ obliged to observe certain conditions in taking re- fuge, otherwise they forfeited all their right and title to it. As, first, They were not to fly with arms into the church, nor into any place or building adjoining to it, as the gardens, houses, courts, cloisters, to which the privilege of sanctuary was annexed. This is particularly specified and provided by a law 4‘ of Theodosius junior, which has this sanction added to it, That if any one pretended to act otherwise, and, being admonished by the church, refused to lay aside his arms, that then it should be lawful for the magistrate, by the consent of the bishop, to send his officers with arms into the church upon such an exigence, and take him thence by force; and if the Sect. 10. ‘'9 Gothofred. Com. in Cod. Th. lib. 9. Tit. 45. Leg. 5. p. 373. Nihil ad ecclesiam perfugium erat, quam clericorum deprecatio seu iutercessio. 4° Decretal. Gregor. lib. 3. Tit. 49. de Immunit. Eccles. c, 6. Quantumcunque gravia maleficia perpetraverit, non est violenter ab ecclesia extrahendus: nec inde damnari debet ad mortem vel ad poenam, sed rectores ecclesiarum sibi obtinere debent membra et vitam. Super hoc tamen quod inique fecit, est alias legitime puniendus. 4' Conc. Aurelian. 1. can. 3 et 4. “2 Gratian. Cans. l7. qu. 4. c. 36. c. 3. ‘8 Polydor. Virgil. de Inventor. Rerum, lib. 3. c. 12. Sunt It. Cans. 36. qu. l. hodie in orbe nostro Christiano, pracsertim apud Anglos, passim asyla, quae non modo insidias timeutibus, sed qui- busvis sontibus, etiam majestatis reis patent: quod facit ut manifeste appareat, nos id institutum non a Mose, qui illis duntaxat qui nolentes hominem occidissent, asylum posuit, sed a Romulo esse mutuatos. Quae nempe res baud dubie in causa est, cur beue multi a maleticiis minus abstineant manus, &c. 4‘ Cod. Th. lib. 9. Tit. 45. de his qui ad Eccles. confug. Leg. 4. Si ecclesiac voce moniti, noluerint arma relinquere -—armatis, si ita res exegerit, intromissis, trahendos se ab- strihendosque esse cognoscant, et omnibus casibus esse sub- dendos, &c. z 2 340 Boox VIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. refugee still persisted in his opposition, and chanced to be slain in the engagement, it was to be reckoned purely his own fault, and no violation of the church’s privilege in that case, because he refused to observe this necessary condition of safety. The emperors themselves laid aside their arms and crowns when they entered into the church, and therefore Theo- dosius argues,‘5 that it was but reasonable all re- fugees should do the same, and trust only to the laws and sacredness of the place for their protection. A second condition to be observed gndisylcitiléne to in this case was, That men should raise a seditious cla- _ my; oghitggflt *8 betake themselves s11ently and mo- destly to the church, and not by any rude and indecent clamours endeavour to raise any popular tumult. Learned men collect this from a law in the Greek Constitutions, and the Justinian Code,‘8 which forbids refugees to make any clamor- ous petitions to the emperor on such festivals as he came to the great church, but if they had any re- quest to be preferred, they should do it privately by the archbishop or defensors of the church: other- wise they should forfeit their privilege, and be cast out of the church, and be delivered over to the city magistrate to be punished. ' Thirdly, Though refugees might fly Sec, 1, to the church, and even to the very egrggyiogg 233,3; altar; yet they were neither to eat $33.15’ "if? 2.6.5,‘: IlOll' lodge there; but the clergy were “mm building‘ obliged to prohibit them from doing either of these by an express law of Theodosius junior,47 who, to cut off all pretences for the contrary practices, as if men could not be safe but within the walls of the church, made not only the church and the altar places of refuge, but all other buildings and places belonging to the church; giving this reason for al- lowing such an ample space for the benefit of sanc- tuary, that men might not have the excuse of fear to make them eat or lodge in the church, which he thought to be things not so decent in their own na- ture, nor agreeable to the state of religion, and the respect and reverence that was due to churches, as places appropriated to God, and set apart for his service. ‘5 Edict. Theodos. ad calcem Concil. Ephesin. cited be- fore, chap. 10. n. 8. ‘6 Cod. Justin. lib. 1. Tit. 12. de his qui ad Eccles. confug. Leg. 8. Qui imperatore ad magnam ecclesiam in festo pro- cedente, exclamatione usus fuerit, excidet re sperata, et per prazfectum ejectus castigabitur, &c. 4’ Cod. Th. lib. 9. Tit. 45. de his qui ad Eccles. confug. Leg. 4. Hanc autem spatii latitudinem ideo indulgemus, ne in ipso Dei templo et sacrosanctis altaribus confugientium quenquam mane vel vespere cubare vel pernoctare liceat; ipsis hoc clericis religionis causa vetantibus, &c. BOOK IX. A GEOGRAPHICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH, OR AN ACCOUNT OF ITS DIVISION INTO PROVINCES, DIOCESES, AND PARISHES: AND OF THE FIRST ORIGINAL OF THESE. CHAPTER I. ‘OF THE STATE AND DIVISION OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, AND OF THE CHURCH’S CON‘FORMING TO THAT IN MODELLING HER OWN EXTERNAL POLITY AND GOVERNMENT. HAVING thus far spoken of churches, Rgltgjifgfgl'ate as; as they signify the material buildings, the-daysoftheapos- or places of convention set apart for es‘ Christian worship, I come now to consider them in another notion, as they are put to signify any number of Christian people within a certain district, as in a parish, diocese, province, patriarchate; which are names that we frequently meet with in ancient writers, though they are not all equally of the same antiquity: and therefore I shall here inquire both into the nature and original of them. Something has already been said upon this head, in speaking of the several officers of the church that were placed in those districts, as patriarchs, metropolitans, bishops, and presbyters, so far as was necessary to explain the powers and duties of those ministers in the church : yet there are many things to be noted further, which could not then come under consideration; for which rea- son I now make them the subject of a peculiar in- quiry. And here, to understand the state and di- vision of the church aright, it will be proper to take a short view of the state and division of the Roman empire: for it is generally thought by learned men, that the church held some conformity to that in her external policy and government, both at her first settlement, and in the changes and variations that were made in after ages. In the time of the apostles, every city among the Greeks and Romans was under the immediate government of certain magistrates within its own body, commonly known by the name of can.) or senatus, its common council or senate, otherwise called ordo and curia, the states and court of the city: among which there was usually one chief or principal above the rest, whom some call the dictator, and others, the defensor civi— tatz's ; whose power extended not only over the city, but all the adjacent territory, commonly called the wpodqtwt, the suburbs, or lesser towns, belonging to its jurisdiction. This was a city in the civil account, a place Where the civil magistrate and a sort of lesser senate was fixed, to order the affairs of that community, and govern within such a pre- cinct. Now, much after the same manner, the apostles in first planting and establishing the church, wherever they found a civil magistracy settled in any place, there they endeavoured to settle an ecclesiastical one, consisting of a senate or presbytery, a common council of presbyters, and one chief president above the rest, commonly called the at-potqdlg, or the apostle, or bishop, or angel of the church ; whose jurisdic- tion was not confined to a single congregation, but extended to the whole region or district belonging to the city, which was the vrpoés'fla, or 1rapoucia, or, as we now call it, the diocese of the church. Accord- ing to this model, most probably, St. Paul directed Titus to ordain elders in Crete, lca‘rd mihw, in every city, that is, to settle an ecclesiastical senate and government in every place where there was before a civil one : which, from the subsequent history of the church, we learn, was a bishop and his pres- bytery, who were conjunctly called the elders and senate of the church. The cities of the empire had also their magistrates in the territory or country round them; but these were subordinate to the magistrates of the city, and generally chosen by them, as learned men1 have observed out of Fron- tinus de Limitibus Agrariis, and other Roman anti- quaries. In like manner, every city church had spiritual officers in all towns and villages belong- ing to the city region; and these depending on the mother church both for the exercise of their power and their institution; they being both subordinate and accountable to the city church, Sect. 2. The state of the church conformable to it. 1 See Dr. Maurice, Dioces. Episc. p. 390. 342 Boox IX. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. as the subordinate magistrates were in the civil disposition. _ Sect 3 Another division of the Roman em- 'l'hedivisitiii ofthe pire was into provinces and dioceses. Roman empire into . - - pgpg'inces and dio- A province was the cities of a whole region subjected to the authority of one chief magistrate, who resided in the metropolis, or chief city of the province. This was commonly a praetor, or a proconsul, or some magistrate of the like eminence and dignity. A diocese was still a larger district, containing several provinces within the compass of it: in the capital city of which dis- trict a more general magistrate had his residence, whose power extended over the whole diocese, to receive appeals, and determine all causes that were referred to‘ him for a new hearing from any city within the district. And this magistrate was some- times called an eparckas, or vicarias of the R0- man empire, and particularly a prwfectas Augusta- Zis at Alexandria. When first this division was made, it is not so certainly agreed among learned men ; but it is generally owned, that the division of provinces is more ancient than that of dioceses. For the division into dioceses began only about the time of Constantine. But the cantonizing of the empire into provinces was long before; by some re- ferred to Vespasian, by others reckoned still more ancient, and coeval to the first establishment of the Christian church. Sec,‘ 4_ However this was, it is very plain, ,oflff‘fefg‘§ih?°del that the church took her model, in °hur° setting up metropolitical and patri- archal power, from this plan of the state. For as in every metropolis, or chief city of each province, there was a superior magistrate above the magis- trates of every single city; so likewise in the same metropolis there was a bishop, whose power ex- tended over the whole province, whence he was called the metropolitan, or primate, as being the principal bishop of the province. And in all places therefore the see of the bishop was fixed to the civil metropolis, except in Africa, where the primate was commonly the senior bishop of the province, as has been showed in another place. In like manner as the state had a vicarias in every capital city of each civil diocese ; so the church in process of time came to have her exarchs, or patriarchs, in many, if not in all the capital cities of the empire. Sec,‘ 5. This will appear plainly from the ,mLhifh§"ic‘§$3°f§,,,-_ civil notitia of the empire, when com- ti“ “thump” pared with the ecclesiastical; which, because it not only gives light in this matter, but is of singular use in many other respects to all that study ecclesiastical history, I will here insert it out of the book called Notitia Imperii, said to be writ- ten about the‘ time of Arcadius and Honorius, where the whole empire is divided into thirteen dioceses, under four W'fiféCti-jtt‘fidOTiO. ; and about a hundred and twenty provinces contained in them, in the manner and form following. The prwfectas-przetorio Orientis, and under him five dioceses, viz. The Oriental, Egyptian, Asiatic, Pontic, and Thracian dioceses. I. In the Oriental diocese are contained fifteen pro- vinces. l. Paleestina. 2. Phoenice. 3. Syria. 4. Cilicia. 5. Cyprus. 6. Arabia. 7. Isauria. 8. Palaestina Salutaris. 9. Palaestina Secunda. IO. Phoenice Libani. ll. Euphratensis. 12. Syria Salutaris. l3. Osrhoena. l4. Mesopota- mia. l5. Cilicia Secunda. II. In the diocese of Egypt six provinces. 1. Li- bya Superior. 2. Libya Inferior. 3. Thebais. 4. ZEgyptus. 5. Arcadia. 6. Augustanica. III. In the Asiatic diocese ten provinces. l. Pam- phylia. 2. Hellespontus. 3. Lydia. 4. Pisidia. 5. Lycaonia. 6. Phrygia Pacatiana. 7. Phry- gia Salutaris. 8. Lycia. 9. Caria. IO. Insulae Cyclades. IV. In the Pontic diocese eleven provinces. 1. Ga- latia. 2. Bithynia. 3. Honorias. 4. Cappadocia Prima. 5. Paphlagonia. 6. Pontus Polemonia- cus. 7. Hellenopontus. 8. Armenia Prima. 9. Armenia Secunda. 10. Galatia Salutaris. ll. Cappadocia Secunda. V. In the diocese of Thrace six provinces. 1. Eu- ropa. 2. Thracia. 3. Haemimontis. 4. Rho- dope. 5. Maesia Secunda. 6. Scythia. The priefectas-prwtorio of Illyricum, and under him two dioceses, Macedonia and Dacia. VI. In the diocese of Macedonia six provinces. l. Achaia. 2. Macedonia. 3. Creta. 4. Thessa- lia. 5. Epirus Vetus. 6. Epirus Nova, and pars Macedoniae Salutaris. VII. In the diocese of Dacia five provinces. l. Dacia Mediterranea. 2. Dacia Ripensis. 3. Maesia Prima. 4. Dardania. 5. Pars Macedo- nim Salutaris, and Prmvalitana. The prwfectus-prretorio of Italy, and under him three dioceses, viz. Italy or the Italic diocese, Illyricum, and Africa. VIII. In the Italic diocese are contained seventeen provinces. l. Venetiae. 2. ZEmylia. 3. Ligu- ria. 4. Flaminia and Picenum Annonarium. 5. Tuscia and Umbiia. 6. Picenum Suburbicarium. 7. Campania. 8. Sicilia. 9. Apulia and Cala- bria. lO. Lucania and Brutii. ll. Alpes Cot- tiae. l2. Rhaetia Prima. 13. Rhaetia Secunda. l4. Samnium. l5. Valeria. 16. Sardinia. l7. Corsica. CHAP. I. 343 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. IX. In the diocese of Illyricum six provinces. l. Pannonia Secunda. 2. Savia. 3. Dalmatia. 4. Pannonia Prima. 5. Noricum Mediterraneum. 6. N oricum Ripense. X. In the diocese of Africa six provinces. I. By- zacium. 2. Numidia. 3. Mauritania Sitifensls. 4. Mauritania Caesariensis. 5. Tripolis. 6. Afri- ca Proconsularis. The præfectus-prætorio Galliarum, and under him three dioceses, viz. Hispania, Gallia, Britannia. XI. In the Spanish diocese seven provinces. l. Boetica. 2. Lusitania. 3. Gallaecia. 4. Tarra- conensis. 4. Carthaginensis. 6. Tingitania. 7. Baleares. XII. In the Gallican diocese seventeen provinces. l. Viennensis. 2. Lugdunensis Prima. 3. Ger- mania Prima. 4. Germania Secunda. 5. Bel- gica Prima. 6. Belgica Secunda. 7. Alpes Ma- ritimaz. 8. Alpes Penninae et Graiae. 9. Max- ima Sequanorum. lO. Aquitania Prima. ll. Aquitania Secunda. m Novem Populi. l3. Narbonensis Prima. l4. Narbonensis Secunda. l5 Lugdunensis Secunda. 16. Lugdunensis Ter- tia. l7. Lugdunensis Senonia. XIII. In the Britannic diocese five provinces. l. Maxima Casariensis. 2. Valentia. 3. Bri- tannia Prima. 4. Britannia Secunda. 5. Flavia Caesariensis. Thus far the notation of the empire. Sm 6- Now, though we have no notz'tia of n§3(f;§’pfifi;;i§h at the church so ancient as this; (for igins giofjfcfsivifg that of Leo Sapiens, which is exhibit- the °h“‘°h' ed hereafter, is of later date ;) yet by comparing the broken fragments that remain in the acts and subscriptions of the ancient councils, with this notz'tz'a of the empire, and conferring both with the later notz'tz'as of the church, it plainly ap- pears that the church was divided into dioceses and provinces much after the same manner as the em» pire; having an exarch, or patriarch, in almost every diocese, and a metropolitan, or primate, in every province. The most probable account of which, conformed to the foresaid civil notz'tia, is presented in the following Table, according as the division of the church seems to have stood in the latter end of the fourth century. I. In the Oriental diocese. ‘Patriarch of Antioch. PROVINCES. METROPOLES. l. Palæstina Prima. l. caesarea 2. Phoenice. 2. Tyrus. 3. Syria. 3. Antiochia. 4. Cilicia Prima. 4. Tarsus. 5. Cyprus. 5. Constantia. 6 Arabia. 6. Bostra. PROVINCES. METROPOLES. 7. Isauria. 7. Seleucia. 8. Palaestina Salutaris. 8. Jerusalem, or filiam 9. Palaestina Secunda. 9. Scythopolis. 10. Phoenice Libani. 10. Emissa. ll. Euphratensis. ll. Hierapolis. m Syria Salutaris. m Apamea. l3. Osrhoene. 13. Edessa. 14. Mesopotamia. l4. Amida. li Cilicia Secunda. lii Anazarbus. II. In the diocese of Egypt. Patriarch of Alexandria. PROVINCES. METROPOLES. 1. Libya Superior. 1. Ptolemais. 2. Libya Inferior. 2. Dranieon. 3. Thebais. 3. Antinoe, or Lycopolis. 4. ZEgyptus. 4. Alexandria. 5. Arcadia. 5. OXirinchus. 6. Augustanica. 6. Pelusium. III. In the diocese of Asia. Exarch of Ephesus. PROVINCES. METROPOLES. l. Pamphylia. l. Perga, or Sida. 2. Hellespont. 2. Cyzicus. 3. Lydia. 3. Sardes. 4. Pisidia. 4. Antiochia. 5. Lycaonia. 5. Iconium. 6. Phrygia Pacatiana. 6. Laodicea. 7. Phrygia Salutaris. 7. Synada. 8. Lycia. 8. Myra. 9. Caria. 9. Amphrodisias, or Stauropolis. IO. Insulae Cyclades. 10. Rhodus. )— p-s . Asia Proconsularis. ll. Ephesus. IV. Diocese of Pontus. Exarch of caesarea PROVINCES. METROPOLES. l. Galatia. l. Ancyra. 2. Bithynia. 2. Nicomedia. 3. Cappadocia Prima. 3. caesarea 4. Cappadocia Secunda. 4. Tyana. 5. Honorias. 5. Claudiopolis. 6. Paphlagonia. 6. Gangra. 7. PontusPolemoniacus. 7. Neocaesarea. 8. Helenopontus. 8. Amasea. 9. Armenia Prima. 9. Sebastia. 10. Armenia Secunda. 10. Melitine. ll. Galatia Salutaris. ll. Pessinus al. J ustinian- opolis. V. Diocese of Thrace. Exarch of Heraclea first, af- terward Constantinople. PROVINCES. METROPOLES. l. Europa. 1. Heraclea. 2. Thracia. 2. Philippopolis. ‘I 344 BOOK IX. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. PROVINCES. 3. Haemi montis. 4. Rhodope. 5. Mæsia Secunda. 6. Scythia. VI. In the diocese of Macedonia. PROVINCES. . Achaia. . Macedonia. Creta. . Thessalia. . Epirus Vetus. . Epirus Nova. munus-anou- VII. Diocese of Dacia. PROVINCES. . Dacia Mediterranea. . Dacia Ripensis. . Maesia Prima. . Dardania. . Praevalitana. manentem- METROPOLES. 3. Adrianople. 4. Trajanople. 5. Marcianople. 6. Tomi. But the bishop of Tomi is rather to be reckoned an autoce- phalus than a metro- politan, because he had no sufl'ragan bi- shops under him. The exarch of Thessa- lonica. METROPOLES. . Corinthus. . Thessalonica. Gortyna. Larissa. . Nicopolis. Dyrrachium. mvæwww Exarch perhaps first at Sardica, afterwards at A- crida, or Justiniana Pri- ma, erected by Justinian. METROPOLES. l. Sardica. 2. The same. 3. The same. 4. Scupi. 5. Acrida. VIII. The diocese of Italy is by some reckoned but one diocese, by others divided into two, the diocese of Italy, and prefecture of Rome. In the Italic diocese. PROVINCES. l. Flaminia andPicenum Annon. . Venetia and Histria. familia . Liguria. . Alpes Cottize. . Rhaetia Prima. . Rhaetia Secunda. “moms-paw In the Roman prefecture. PROVINCES. l. Picenum Suburbica- rium. 2. Campania. Exarch of Milan. METROPOLES. l. Ravenna. 2. Aquileia. 3. Ravenna. 4. Mediolanum, Milan. 5. Milan. 6. Milan. 7. Milan,others Rheetio- polis, called Augusta Tiberii, now Ratis- bon. Patriarch of Rome. METROPOLES. 1. Rome. 2. Rome, others Capua. pu onogoyrgnovmoa PROVINCES. . Tuscia and Umbria. . Apulia and. Oalabria. 4. . Brutii and Lucania. Samnium. Valeria. Sicilia. . Sardinia. . Corsica. 3. 5. osoooxrgn METROPOLIS. Rome. Rome. Rome. Rome. . Rome. . Syracuse. Calaris. . Uncertain. Others say Rome. IX. Diocese of Illyricum Exarch of Sirmium. Occidentale. PROVINCES. . Pannonia Prima, or Superior. . Pannonia Secunda. . Salvia. . Dalmatia. . Noricum Mediterra- neum. . Noricum Ripense. X. Diocese of Africa. I. 2. CDC-"bk PROVINCES. Africa Proconsularis. Byzacium. . Numidia. . Tripolis. . Mauritania Sitifensis. . Mauritania caesari- ensis. XI. Diocese of Spain. \rcopvnscogov— PROVINCES. . Bmtica. Lusitania. . Gallicia. . Tarraconensis. Carthaginensis. . Tingitana. . lnsulæ Baleares. XII. Diocese of Gallia. 1'. PROVINCES. Viennensis. 2. Lugdunensis Prima. l. l. 2. 6. monumentum-u pura . Arelate. METROPOLES. Laureacum. . Sirmium. . Sirmium. Others Vindomana. . Salona. . Some say, Saltzburg. . Some say, Laureacum. Others leave these two uncertain. Exarch of Carthage. METROPOLES. Carthago. Civil metropolis,Adru- metum. Butthe eccle- siastical followed the see of the senior bi- shop. Soin all the rest. Cirta Julia, or Con- stantina. Tripolis. Sitifi. caesarea Exarch uncertain. METROPOLES. . Hispalis. . Emerita Augusta. . Bracara. . Tarraco. . Carthago Hispanica. . Sec of the sen. bishop. . Uncertain; some say Palma. Exarch uncertain. METROPOLES. Others say Vienna. . Lugdunum. CHAP. I. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 345 PROVINCES. METROPOLES. 3. Germania Prima. 3. Treviris. Since Mentz. 4. Germania Secunda. 4. Treveris. Since Colen. 5. Belgica Prima. 5. Treveris. 6. Belgica Secunda. 6. Rhemi. 7. Alpes Maritimae. 7. Ebrodunum. 8. Alpes Penninae and 8. Vienna. Graize. 9. MaximaSequanorum. 9. 10. Aquitania Prima. 10. ll. Aquitania Secunda. 11. 12. Novem Populorum. I2. Vesontio. Besancon. Bituriges. Bourges. Burdigala. Elusa, or Augusta Au- sciorum. Narbonensis Prima. 13. Narbo. Narbonensis Secunda.l4. Aqute Sextiae. Aix. Lugdunensis Secunda.15. Rothomagus. Rouen. Lugdunensis Tertia. l6. Turones. Tours. Lugdunensis Senoniae. l7. Senonm. Sens. 13. l4. l5. 16. 16. XIII. Diocese of Britain. Exarch of York, if any. PROVINCES. METROPOLES. l. Maxima Ctesariensis, 1. Eboracum. York. which was at the first all from the Thames to the northern borders. 2. FlaviaCtesariensis,ta- 2. York. ken out of the form- er, and containing all from the Thames to the Humber. 3. BritanniaPrima,allon 3. London. the south of Thames. 4. Britannia Secunda, or 4. Caerleon. all beyond Severn. 5. Valentia, beyond the 5. York. Picts’ wall. This, in the main, was the state and division of the church into provinces, and exarchates, or me- tropolitical and patriarchal dioceses, in the latter end of the fourth century; from which it appears, that a very near correspondence was observed be- tween the church and state in this matter both in the Western and Eastern empire. And this may be evidenced further msgiiiitlétarts- both from the rules and canons, and ther from e rules _ zfigéapons of the the known practice of the church in this case. For when any provinces were divided in the state, there commonly fol- lowed a division in the church also: and when any city was advanced to a greater dignity in the civil account, it usually obtained a like promotion in the ecclesiastical: so when controversies arose about primacy between two churches in the same pro- vince or district, the way to end the dispute was to inquire, which of them was the metropolis in the state, and order the same to be the metropolis in the church. Of all which there are manifest proofs in ancient history. It was by this rule that the bishop of Constantinople was advanced to patri- archal power in the church, who before was not so much as a metropolitan, but subject to the primate of Heraclea in Thrace. And this very reason is given by two general councils, which confirmed him in the possession of this new-acquired power. The first of Constantinople decreed,2 That he should have the next place of honour after the bishop of Rome, because Constantinople was New Rome. Which was thus again confirmed and ratified in the council of Chalcedon, which says, Forasmuch as we think it proper to follow the decrees of the holy fathers, and allow the canon made by those hun- dred and fifty bishops assembled under the emperor Theodosius in the royal city Constantinople, we ourselves order3 and decree the same concerning the privileges of the most holy church of the said city, which is New Rome. For our forefathers gave Old Rome her privileges in regard that she was the royal city: and those hundred and fifty bishops were moved with the same consideration to grant equal privileges to the episcopal throne of New Rome; judging it but reasonable, that the city which was honoured with the royal seat of the empire and senate, and enjoyed the same privileges with Old Rome in all matters of a civil nature, should also be advanced to the same dignity in ec- clesiastical affairs, and be accounted the second in order after her. Accordingly they determined now, that the three whole dioceses of Asia, Pontus, and Thrace, should be settled under the jurisdiction of this new patriarch of Constantinople. Which plainly shows, they had a particular regard to the model of the state in settling the bounds and limits of juris- diction in the church. The council of Antioch assigns this for the reason of paying deference to metropolitan bishops in general, because they were placed in the metropolis of the province,‘ whither all men that had business or controversies had recourse. And therefore if any dispute happened, as sometimes there did, between two bishops in the same province about metropolitical power, each laying a claim to it; the way to end this contro- versy was to inquire, which of their sees was the true metropolis in the state? and adjudge the same to have the true legal right and privilege in the church. By this rule the council of Turin5 deter- 2 Concil. Constant. c. 3. T611 Kwua'rau'rwomro'ltews s'rrioworrou Exam To‘: 1rpso'fie'ia 'rfis 'npjis #876‘! 7611 'rr'js Pill/ans ti'rrimco'lrou, did 115 slum. ail'n‘ju va'au Pu'iimu. 8 Concil. Chalced. c. 28. 4 Concil. Antioch. c. 9. 5 Concil. 'l‘aurin. c. 2. ‘Illud inter episcopos urbium Arelatensis et Viennensis, qui de primatus apud nos honore certabant, a sancta synodo definitum est, ut qui ex eis com- probaverit suam civitatem esse metropolim, is totius pro- vinciae honorem primatus obtineat, et ipse juxta praeceptuln canonum, ordinationum habeat potestateln. 346 Boon IX. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. mined the controversy about presidency betwixt the two churches of Arles and Vienna, decreeing, That that bishop should be the primate, who could prove his city to be the metropolis of the province. It sometimes happened that an ambitious spirit would petition the emperor to grant him the honour and power of a metropolitan in the church, when yet the province to which he belonged had but one metropolis in the state; which was so contrary to the foresaid rule of the church, that the great coun- cil of Chalcedon6 made it deposition for any bishop to attempt it. But on the other hand, if the em- peror thought fit to divide a province into two, and erect a new metropolis in the second part; then the church many times allowed the bishop of the new metropolis to become a metropolitan in the church also. By this means Tyana, in Cappadocia, came to be a metropolitical see, as well as Caesarea, because the province was divided into two by imperial edict. And the like happened upon the division of many other provinces, Galatia, Pamphylia, &c. As may be seen in the notitia of the church, which follows - in the end of this book. The canons of the church were made to favour this practice in the erection of new bishoprics also. For the council of Chalcedon7 has another canon, which says, That if the imperial power made any innovation in the precincts or parishes belonging to any city, then the state of the church-precincts might be altered in conformity to the alterations that were made in the political and civil state. Which canon is repeated and confirmed in the council8 of Trullo. So that if any place was advanced to the privilege of a city, and governed by a civil magistracy of its own, which was not so be- fore, it might then also be freed from the eccle- siastical jurisdiction of its former bishop, and be governed by one of its own. Thus when Maiuma in Palestine, a dependant on Gaza, was advanced by Constantine to the privilege of a city, and governed by a magistracy of its own; that was presently followed with the erection of a new bi- shop’s see, which continued ever after, notwith- standing that Julian, in spite to Christianity, dis- franchised the city, and annexed it to Gaza again. Sozomen is our author for this, and he adds fur- ther,9 that in his time the bishop of Gaza, upon a vacancy of Maiuma, laying claim to it as only an appendage of his own city; and pleading, that one city ought not to have two bishops; the cause came to a hearing before a provincial synod, which deter- mined in favour of the Maiumitans, and ordained them another bishop. For they thought it not pro- per, that they who for their piety had obtained the privilege of being made a city, and were only de- prived of their right by the envy of a pagan prince, should lose their other rights, which concerned the priesthood and the church. So it always continued an episcopal see, and has its place among the rest in the notitia of the church. The like may be ob- served of Emmaus, which at first was but a village belonging to the diocese and city of Jerusalem. But being afterward rebuilt by the Romans, and called Nicopolis, from their great victories over the Jews, it became a city and a bishop’s see, under which character the reader may also find it in the notitia of the church. These are evident proofs, that in settling the limits of dioceses and other dis- tricts, and modelling the external polity of the church, a great regard was had to the rules of the state, and many things ordered in conformity to the measure observed in the Roman empire. Yet these being matters only of See, 8. conveniency and outward order, the nofihdtg‘jecfsfl‘fii,‘ church did not tie herself absolutely fffiietiidtliét‘té‘fit to follow that model, but only so far m varymgfmmm as she judged it expedient and conducive to the ends of her own spiritual government and disci- pline. And therefore she did not imitate the state model in all things: she never had one universal bishop, in imitation of a universal emperor; nor an Eastern and a Western pontificate, in imitation of an Eastern and Western empire; nor four grand spiritual administrators, answering to the four great ministers of state, the prwfecti-prwtorio, in the civil government; not to mention any other forms or ministers of state affairs, multitudes of which may be seen in the notitia of the empire. Nay, in those things wherein she followed the civil form, her li- berty seems to have been preserved both by the laws of church and state; and nothing of this nature was forced upon her, but as she thought fit to order it in her own wisdom and discretion. This maybe collected from one of J ustinian’s Novels, where hav- ing divided the two Armenias into four provinces, he adds,10 That as to what concerned the state of the church, his intent was to leave every thing in its ancient form, and make no alterations in the rights of the old metropolitans, or their power of ordaining their suffragans, &c. And this appears further from the answer of Pope Innocent, bishop of Rome, or one under his name, given to Alexander of Antioch, who had put the questionfll'Whether 6 Concil. Chalced. c. 1.2. " Concil. Chalced. c. 17. ET 11.9 are BGO'L>\£_K779 e’Eovo-iag éicawio'en 'll’O’AlS’, 'roi's qrohm-uco'is Kai dimoo'i'ots 'rti'lrots Kai 'rd'w s’KKXno-zao-Tucdw wapouttiim 1'1 'rc'cgts a’Kohovtiei'z-w. 8 Goncil. Trul. c. 38, which instead of 'n'apotmfiw, reads, 7rpa'yuc'c'rwv. 9 Sozom. lib. 5. c. 3. 1° Justin. Novel. 31. Quae vero ad sacerdotia spectant, ea volumus in pristina manere forma, ut neque circa jus metropoliticum, neque circa ordinationes quicquam inno- vetur. Vid. 28. c. 2. 1‘ Innocent. Ep. 18. ad Alex. Antioch. Quod sciscitaris, utrum divisis imperiali judicio‘ provinciis, ut duae metro- poles fiant, sic duo metropolitani episcopi debeant nomi- CHAP. I. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 347 ANTIQUITIES OF THE upon the division of a province, and the erection of two civil metropoles in it by a royal decree, there ought also to be two metropolitan bishops in the church? To this he answers, That there was no rea- son the church should undergo alterations upon every necessary change that was made in the civil state, or have her honours and dignitaries multiplied or divided according to what the em- peror thought fit to do in his own affairs. This shows, that the church was at liberty in this mat- ter, to follow the model and divisions of the civil state or not, as she judged most expedient for herself: and when any alterations of this nature were made, they were generally done by the di- rection or consent of a provincial or general coun- oil, or the tacit consent and approbation of the church. Sect. 9. An account of the ecclesiaa suburbica- riat> in the district of the Roman church. Whilst we are upon this head re- lating to the ancient division of the church, it comes properly to be in- quired, what the primitive writers mean by the term ecclesz'w suburbicarz'ce, suburbicary churches, in the district of the Roman church. Ruffinus, in his translation and abstract of the Ni- cene canons, gives us the sixth of them in these words,‘2 “The ancient custom of Alexandria and Rome shall still be observed, that the one shall have the care or government of the Egyptian, and the other that of the suburbicary churches.” A great many questions have been raised by learned men in the last age concerning this, which I shall not clog this discourse with, but only resolve two ques- tions, which are most material for a reader to know. 1. What was the extent of this district? 2. Whe- ther it was the limits of his metropolitical or patri- archal power? To know what was the extent of this district, we cannot take a surer way, than to consider what is meant by the suburbicary regions in other places. For this is a term that often occurs in the Theodosian Code,I8 where Gothofred,“ and our learned Dr. Cave,15 and many others take it to signify the district of the prwfect'us urbz's, or juris- diction of the provost of Rome, which was a circuit of about a hundred miles next to Rome ; as is evi- dent from the ancient law, which says, his govern- ment extended not only to Rome, but to a hundred miles round it,“ where the limits of his jurisdiction ceased. Which is noted also by Cassiodore," and Dio,“ who instead of centesz'mus Zapis, uses the phrase of seven hundred and fifty stadia, or furlongs, which is not much short of the legal computation. Others reckon the regiones suburbicarz'w to be the same ten provinces of the Italic diocese which were under the vicarz'us urbicus, who with the other rz'cam'us of Italy divided the Italic diocese between them: so that _ the Roman vicarius had seven provinces in Italy, (mentioned before in the notz'tz'a,) and the three islands of Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica, under his jurisdiction; which they reckon the suburbicary provinces of Rome. So our learned Mr. Brerewood,19 and Sirmond,“0 and Du Pin, and some others, who extend the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome to all those ten provinces under the inspec- tion of the cicarius urb-z's. Either of these opinions may be admitted, as having at least their arguments of probability to defend them: whereas they who confine the suburbicary churches to a single diocese, or extend them so far as to include all the provinces of the Western empire, run into contrary extremes, for which there is no ground either in the Nicene canon itself, or any other part of the history of the church in that age. For it is evident the canon speaks of the power of the three great bishops, Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, as extending further than a single diocese: but that the authority of the bi- shop of Rome in those days extended over the whole Western empire, is not once so much as hinted in the Nicene canon, but is contrary to all the com- mon senses of suburbicary churches, and refuted by the known distinction between Italic and Roman churches or provinces, and the constant opposition that was made by the African churches, and those of Britain, Milan, and others, to the least pretences of patriarchal power over them. From which it is rational to conclude, that the notion of suburbicary churches ought not to be extended beyond the limits either of the praefectus urbis, which was a hundred miles about Rome ; and, as Dr. Cave and some others think, was also the limits of the pope’s me- tropolitical power; or at most not beyond the limits of those ten provinces, which were immediately subjected to the civil disposition and jurisdiction of the vicarz'us urbz's : viz. l. Campania. 2. Tuscia and Umbria. 3. Picenum Suburbicarium. 4. Va- leria. 5. Samnium. 6. Apulia and Calabria. 7. Lucania and Brutii. 8. Sicilia. 9. Sardinia. 10. Corsica. Which Dr. Cave2i supposes to have been the exact and proper limits of the pope’s patriarchal power, as he thinks the other were the bounds of his metropolitical jurisdiction. nari: non visum est ad mobilitatem necessitatum munda- narum Dei ecclesiam commutari, honoresque aut divisiones perpeti, quas pro suis causis faciendas duxerit imperator. ‘2 Ruflin. Hist. lib. l. c. 6. Ut apud Alexandriam, et in urbe Roma, vetusta consuetudo servetur, ut vel ille Egypti, vel hic suburbicariarum ecclesiarum sollicitudinem gerat. ‘3 Cod. Th. lib. ll. Tit. I. de Annona. Leg. 9. Vid. plura apud Gothofred. in locum. '4 Gothofred. in loc. ‘5 Cave, Anc. Church Gov. c. 3. p. 115. 16 Digest. lib. l. Tit. 12. Leg. 1. Si quid intra centesi- mum milliarium admissum sit, ad praefectum urbi per- tinet, 8w. ‘7 Cassiodor. Form. lib. 6. p. 207. ‘8 Dio, lib. 52. p. 548. '9 Brerewood of Patriarch. Gov. qu. l. p. 99. 2° Sirmond. Censur. Conjectur. lib. l. c. 4. 2' Cave, Anc. Church Gov. c. 5. p. 256. 348 Boox IX. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. But it matters not much I think, Th-Sect. 10. ’ 1 t b ' ' ' my“: '33: timer‘; whether we call thls district of these W1?“ "$318M ten provinces the bishop of Rome’s o ome’s 0 me- tro 0H’ 1 d . . . . . p ‘m a“ "a metropolltical or patriarchal dioceses :r'archal jurisdic- IOIL o ' or provinces. For after all the dls- putes that have been raised about this matter, these seem to have been in a great measure the true an- cient limits both of his metropolitical and patri- archal power. Many, I know, will take this for a paradox: but I have showed it to be true22 in the case of the bishop of Alexandria, the bounds of whose jurisdiction were the same, viz. the six pro- vinces of the Egyptian diocese, both when he was a metropolitan and patriarch: and why then might not the case be the same with the bishop of Rome, whose privileges are prescribed as a model for the bishop of Alexandria by the council of Nice, whose words are these :m Let ancient customs prevail; in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, let the bishop of Alexandria have authority over all, because the same is customary with the bishop of Rome: in like manner at Antioch, and in other provinces, let the privileges be secured to the churches. Some think the bishop of Rome was only a metropolitan when this canon was made, as Launoy, Bishop Beveridge, Bishop stilling-fleet, Dr. Cave; accord- ing to whose sentiments it must follow, that the suburbicary churches were the district or subject of his‘ metropolitical power. Mr. Brerewoodz"1 and Spalatensis, after St. Jerom, think he was properly a patriarch; and I have showed elsewhere,25 that there are some reasons to countenance their opinion: but then the limits of his patriarchal power were still the same, (according as it was at Alexandria,) and the ten provinces of the Roman diocese were the legal bounds of his jurisdiction. And so Du Pin26 amongst the Romanists makes no scruple in- genuously to confess; exempting Germany, Spain, France, Britain, Africa, Illyricum, and seven of the Italic provinces, from any subjection to the juris- diction of the Roman patriarch in those first and primitive ages‘. This is contrary to the general stream and current of the Romish writers, one of which is so angry with Du Pin upon this account, that he treats him with all the scorn and bitterness imaginable for making such a bold concession, and endeavours to answer27 both what he and Bishop Stillingfleet had advanced against the pope’s pretence to patriarchal power Sect. 1]. Some eviden proofs of this. over the whole Western empire: but with what suc- cess, the reader may easily judge from these few in- stances, which are evident proofs of the sense that has been given of the extent and limits of the pope’s patriarchal jurisdiction. 1. Ruflinus, who was an Italian, and presbyter of Aquileia, and therefore could not be ignorant of the bounds of the pope’s patriarchal power, in interpreting the sixth canon of the council of Nice, confines his jurisdiction to the suburbicary provinces :28 and other ancient ver- sions, published by Sirmondus and J ustellus, agree with his interpretation. 2. The other seven pro- vinces of Italy, which properly constituted the Italic diocese, as distinct from the Roman pro- vinces, with Milan their metropolis at the head of them, were not anciently subject to the jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome. For Milan is frequently styled the metropolis of Italy by Athanasius 29 and Theodoret,80 taking Italy in its strict and peculiar notion, as distinct from the provinces subject to Rome. The bishop of Milan was never ordained by the bishop of Rome, (which yet he must have been, had he been subject to his patriarchal power,) but by the bishop of Aquileia, as the bishop of Aquileia and other places were ordained by Milan, which is evident from the epistle of Pope Pelagius,81 and De Marca32 does not pretend to deny it. The like has been observed by learned men concerning Ravenna, and other places in Italy, which fre- quently contested the point of superiority and sub- jection with the bishops of Rome, of which Dr. Cave$8 gives the reader a particular historical ac- count for many ages successively, too long to be here inserted. 3. For the African provinces (which are pretended to be part of the pope’s patriarchal dominions) they had always an exarch or patriarch of their own, the primate of Carthage, who was ab- solute and independent“ of any other, as Justinian declares in one of his Novels. And it is plain the African councils always thought so: for as they never sent to Rome for ordinations, so they pro- hibited all appeals thither upon any account what- soever. Which is evident beyond all contradiction from the council of Milevis,85 which orders every African clerk, that appeals from the sentence of his own bishop, or a synod of select judges, to appeal to none but African synods, or the primates of the provinces. And if any presumed to appeal beyond seas, meaning to Rome, he should be excluded from all communion in the African churches. This de- 22 Book II. chap. l7. sect. ll. 28 Cone. Nic. c. 6. 2* Brerewood of Patriarchal Power, qu. 1, 25 Book II. chap. l7. sect. 8. ' 26 Du Pin de Disciplin. Eccles. Dissert. l. n. 14. p. 92. 2’ Schelstrate’s Dissertation of Metropolitical and Patri- archal Power against Stillingfleet, Lond. 1688. 28 Rut‘fin. Hist. lib. l. c. 6. See before, sect. 9. 29 Athanas. Ep. ad Solitar. t. l. p. 831. 8° Theod. lib. 2. c. 15. 31 Pelag. Ep. 17. Cone. t. 5. p. 805. 32 Marca de Concord. Sacerdot. lib. 6. c. 4. n. 7, 8. 33 Cave, Anc. Church Gov. c. 5. 34 Justin. Novel. 131. c. 4. 35 Cone. Milevit. c. 22. Quod si et ab eis appellandum putaverint, non provocent nisI ad Africana consilia, vel ad primates provinciarum suarum. Ad transmarina autem qui putaverit appellandum, a nullo intra Africam in commu- nione suscipiatur. ‘ CHAP. I. 349 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. cree was further confirmed by several acts of their general synods, made upon the famous case and appeal of Apiarius, an African presbyter, whom Zo- simus, bishop of Rome, pretended to restore to com- munion, after he had been deposed by an African council. Zosimus alleged for himself a pretended decree of the council of Nice, giving him authority to receive appeals: but this the African fathers proved to be a forgery, by sending for authentic copies of the Nicene decrees from Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria, where no such thing ap- peared. Upon this the African fathers Write a very sharp letter to Pope Celestine; (for Zosimus and Boniface his successor were both dead whilst this controversy was depending ;) where among other things they desire him, that he would not for the future give ear to any that came from Africa, nor admit those to communion whom they had excom- municated, which he might easily perceive to be prohibited by the council of Nice, according to whose decrees both the inferior clergy and the bishops themselves were committed to the judgment of their own metropolitans: for the Nicene fathers very justly and wisely conceived, that all controver- sies ought to be ended in the places where they arose. And it was very unreasonable in itself to think, that God should enable a single person to examine the justice of a cause, and deny his grace to a vast number of persons assembled in council. Therefore, upon the whole matter, they desire him henceforth to forbear sending any of his clerks into Africa, to execute his sentence there, lest they should seem to introduce the smoky pride of the world into the church of Christ. With abundance more to the same purpose, which the reader may find at large inserted 3“ among the ca- nons of the African Code. From which it is as plain as the sun at noon-day, that in the time of St. Austin the pope could lay no just claim to pa- triarchal power over any of the African churches. 4. Baluzius has further demonstrated for the Gal- lican churches, (in his excellent preface to Antonius Augustinus’s book De Emendatione Gratiani,) that for eight hundred years the French synods never allowed of any appeals from their own determin- ations to the pope. They always ordained their own metropolitans, as is evident from the second synod of Orleans,” anno 533. And many times stoutly resisted the encroachments of the popes, for which I refer the reader to the foresaid Baluzius and Dr. Cave,as the particulars being too long to be inserted here. 5. Lastly, For the Blitannic churches, it is evident, that for six hundred years they never acknowledged any dependence upon Rome. When Austin the monk came into England, and pleaded with the British bishops (seven in number) for sub- jection to the bishop of Rome, and conformity to the Roman rites in the observation of Easter, and some other things; he was answered positively,89 That they owed no obedience to the pope of Rome, but were under the government of the bishop of Caerleon upon Uske, who was their overseer under God. And for the business of the paschal contro- versy, they were so far from paying any deference to the Roman custom, that they continued their ancient practice of observing Easter on a different Sunday from Rome for some ages after, notwith- standing all the arguments that the pope or his party could urge against them. For which reasons they were treated as schismatics by the agents and emissaries of Rome; which is an evident demon- stration, that they did not then acknowledge any thing of the pope’s patriarchal power over them. All this is clear from Bede,“o who repeats it in several places. And \Villiam of Malmsbury,41 and Stephen Heddius,42 and Eadmerus,43 and other writers of the Life of Wilfrid, archbishop of York, (a great zealot for the Romish cause against the British customs,) tell us the very same story. For they say, Wilfrid refused to receive ordination from the Scottish or British bishops, or from any or- dained by them, because the apostolical see had rejected their communion. So that, as Bishop Stillingfieet has observed44 out of these authors, it is plain, the British and Scottish churches stood excommunicate at that time by the church of Rome, because they would not submit to her rites and customs about Easter, and her pretended power over them. A great deal more has been alleged by our learned antiquaries, Mr. Brerewood,45 Mr. Wat- son,46 Dr. Cave,47 and Bishop Stillingfleet,48 to show the ancient liberty and independency of the Britan- nic churches, which I shall not here repeat, but only consider an exception or two, which are made by Schelstrate in his Dissertation concerning the patriarchal power of the bishop of Rome, in answer to Bishop Stillingfleet’s Antiquities of the British Church. He says,‘9 the manuscript set out by Sir H. Spelman, containing the answer of Dinothus to Austin, is spurious and forged; for the style Sect. 12. The contrary ex- ceptions of Schel- strate, relating to the Britannic church, considered. 3“ Cod. Can. Afric. a cap. 135. ad cap. 138. 8’ Conc. Aurel. 2. c. 7. 38 Cave, Anc. Church Gov. c. 5. p. 220. 3” Spelman. Concil. Britan. an. 601. t. l. p. 108. 4° Bede, Hist. lib. 2. c. 2 et 19. lib. 3. e. 25. lib. 5. c. 16 et 22. 4' Malmsbur. de Gestis Pontific. Angler. lib. 3. ‘2 Steph. Heddius, Vit. Wilfrid. c. 12. ‘3 Eadmer. Vit. Wilfrid. ‘4 Stillingfleet’s Answer to Cressy, p. 300. ‘5 Brerewood of Patriarch. Gov. qu. 3. ‘6 \Vatson De Eccles. Britan. Antiqua Libertate, Thes. 2. ‘7 Cave, Anc. Church Gov. c. 5. p. 244. ‘8 Stilling. Origin. Britan. c. 5. ‘9 Schelstrat. Dissert. c. 6. p. 130. 350 Boon IX. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. manifestly discovers it to be modern. Which is a weighty argument indeed from a person who was so competent a judge of the British style, in which that manuscript was written, that he professes he did not understand even the English tongue with- out the help of an interpreter. And how then should he be able to judge of a British writing by its style, without knowing a syllable of the language ? But, he adds, the matter of it also discovers it to be a forgery: for it is manifest there was no arch- bishop of Caerleon upon Usk at that time, as the writing pretends; but that the metropolitan juris~ diction had for above a hundred years before been transferred to Menevia. As if it was not as manifest to all the world, that the archbishop of Menevia or St. David’s might retain the title of Caerleon, though the see was removed, because Caerleon was the original seat; as well as the bishop of the Isle of Man now retains the title of episcopus Sodorensis, because Sodora and all the Hebrides, or islands on the west of Scotland, were once part of his diocese, though now for many ages they have been separated from it. Or to give an instance nearer Rome, we are told by geographers,50 that Ostia and Porto still give title to two bishops, one whereof is always a senior cardinal, and the other dean of the college of cardi~ nals, though both places are now in such ruins, that there is scarce an inhabitant in either. We shall see hereafter, in the fifth chapter of this book, that many times three or four ancient Italian bishoprics were united into one, as Holsteniuss‘ has observed of Tarquina, Cornetum, and Gravisca; in which case no absurdity is committed, whichever of the titles the bishop of the united diocese was called by. Why then must it be an objection against the validity of this testimony, that it calls the bishop of Menevia by the title of Caerleon, when that was the original title? But, secondly, he says, It appears from Bede, that the question was not concerning the pri— macy of the Roman bishop, but about Austin’s me- tropolitical jurisdiction over them. But how then came the British bishops to be reckoned schismatics, if the pope’s authority was no ways concerned in the dispute? \Vould they be schismatics for reject- ing Austin’s metropolitical jurisdiction, had he unwarrantably usurped that power of his own head, and without a legal commission from some superior obtruded himself upon them? Itis plain, therefore, the one was included in the other, and the rejecting Austin was rejecting the power that sent him. But they also contested the pope’s supremacy in another respect, refusing to comply with the Romish rites and usages in the observation of Easter, the administration of baptism, St. Peter’s tonsure, and some other customs; which was an argument, that as they had no dependence upon the church of Rome heretofore, nor much communication with her, but rather with the Eastern churches ; so now they in- tended not to submit to her dictates, but to follow their own ancient customs as a free church, and in- dependent of her. Can any one suppose, that had the British bishops looked upon the pope as invest- ed with a legal supremacy over them, they would have scrupled complying with directions‘ in such matters, as the observation of Easter and the like, when such things were but the smallest part of pa- triarchal jurisdiction? Even our author himself, when he comes to consider the matter a little fur- ther, is not so hardy as to stand by his own asser- tion, but comes to call them names at last, with Baronius and others of his own party, telling iis,"’2 that after the Saxons had broken in upon them, they deserted the doctrines and rites of the catho- lic church, and receded as schismatics from the centre of ecclesiastical communion: and that it ought to be concluded, that God was willing to show the falsehood of the schismatical church of Britain, by the miracle which he wrought upon Austin’s intercession. This is home to our point, and gives up the cause in question, which is, whe- ther the British church owned the pope’s supremacy at the coming of Austin hither? \Vhich our author, after some small bickerings with his learned adver- sary, is forced to deny, and join issue with him, and then betakes himself to their last and common re- fuge, ill names and miracles; which being no argu- ments in this case, I shall not stand to give them any answer; but only inquire into one thing more, how it appears, that the Britons had deserted any ancient doctrine relating to the pope’s patriarchal power, upon the coming of the Saxons? To evi- dence this, our author must give us very plain proofs, that before that time the British church al- ways owned the bishop of Rome’s patriarchal juris- diction over them. And this, indeed, is the pretend- ed design of his whole Dissertation: but his proofs amount to no more than a few slight conjectures, by which he would be thought to have demon- strated these four things: 1. That St. Peter was the founder of the British churchf'3 which any one that reads Bishop Usher de Primordiis,54 will as readily attribute to St. Paul, or twenty others: so little reason is there for grounding the pope’s patri- archal power upon the first conversion of the Brit- ish church. 2. He argues from ancient tradition, that patriarchal power is an apostolical institution, and that thereby55 the British church was made subject to the Roman, whoever was the first con- verter of it. But this tradition is involved in greater obscurity, and proceeds upon more precarious 5° Ferrar. Lexicon. Geogr. voce Ostia, et Portus Au- gusti. 5‘ l-Iolsten. Annot. in Geograph. Carol. a S. Paulo, p. 8. 5” Schelstrat. Dissert. c. 6. p. 106. 53 Ibid. 0. 1 et 2. 5* Usser. de Antiquit. Eccles. Brit. 0. l. 55 Schelstrat. Dissert. c. 3. CHAP. I. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 351 ANTIQUITIES OF THE proofs, than the former. 3. He says, The British bishops in the council of Arles owned the pope’s 5° patriarchal power over them, and all the Western World. 4. And lastly, That this power, in this full extent and latitude, is both acknowledged and con- firmed57 by the sixth canon of the council of Nice. How far the council of Nice allowed, or confirmed, this power, has been already showed, in discoursing of the suburbicary churches. So that the only thing remaining, is to examine what weight there is in his argument from the council of Arles. This council was summoned by Constantine, and not by the pope, against the Donatists, anno 314. Here were present three British bishops, Eborius, from York, Restitutus, from London, and Adelphius, from Lincoln, (Colonia Lindi,) as I shall show here- after it probably ought to be read. Now, in their synodical epistle to Pope Sylvester, there is a pas- sage (but by all acknowledged to be a very corrupt one) which speaks something of his holding the greater dioceses.58 Which our author interprets to mean his having a patriarchal power over all the great dioceses of the western empire, Macedonia, Dacia, Illyricum, Italy, Africa, Spain, France, and Britain. But one question may be here asked, which will spoil all this flourish of a comment. Did the African fathers, many of which were present at this council, so understand the words, greater dioceses ? If they did, how came it to pass, that within an age after they so stifily opposed three popes suc- cessively, and vindicated their own liberties in this very point, (as we have seen before59 they did,) de- nying them absolutely all power of receiving ap- peals from any of the African churches ? Had St. Austin, and all the rest of them, forgot what their forefathers had so lately subscribed at Arles, that Africa was one of the pope’s larger dioceses? Or had they been harassed out of their senses, like the poor Britons, by some Saxon invasion, and were now run into schism, as the other are reproachfully and falsely said to have done? Nothing of all this can be pretended in the present case: and therefore that is demonstration to me, that neither the African fathers, nor the Britons, nor any others then pre- sent in council, took the words, greater dioceses, in the sense which this author puts upon them. So that whatever meaning they must have, it is plain this cannot be their meaning: and then all the ar- gument, which our author has built upon this sup- position, in order to subject the Britons to the pope, at once falls to the ground. I will not now stand disputing with him, whether the word diocese was never about this time taken in any author for one of the great dioceses of the Roman empire. He says Constantine60 so uses it in one place, speaking of the Asiatic and Pontic dioceses : and if that will do him any service, I can help him to another; for Constantine also speaks of a civil ofiicer, called, Icasokucog dioucfio'swg, 01‘ rationalz's Of the diocese," Where I agree with Valesius, we are to understand one of the great dioceses of the Roman empire. Nay, I have said before, that I think there were pa- triarchs too in the church at that time, and that they had the great dioceses of the Roman empire divided among them. But does it hence follow, that because the word diocese is sometimes so used, that therefore it must needs signify so in this place, when there is plain demonstration to the contrary? All the world knows, that about the same time the name diocese was given to single episcopal churches also, and they too were called greater dioceses, in opposition to the titulz' or parishes, which were quasi dz'ceceses, the lesser dioceses under them, as the Pon- tifical words it62 in the Life of Pope Marcellus, who was one of Sylvester’s predecessors. So that Syl- vester’s holding greater dioceses, may mean no more than his being a metropolitan, or having several episcopal dioceses under his jurisdiction, to whom he was to signify, according to custom, the time of keeping Easter, and other things decreed in the council. Or if we suppose him to have been a pa- triarch at that time, then his greater dioceses may signify those ten suburbicary provinces, which were the ancient bounds of his patriarchal jurisdiction. But whatever meaning they have, it is certain they cannot be understood in our author’s sense, of the great dioceses of the Roman empire : because it were absurd to think, that Africa should acknow— ledge itself to be one of the pope’s dioceses, which never was reckoned among the suburbicary pro- vinces, and what is more, always resolutely opposed the pope’s pretences to the least shadow of power over it, claiming an absolute and independent power within itself in all matters of ecclesiastical cogni- zance and jurisdiction. And the case of the Britan- nic church being the same with that of Africa, it follows, that it was as independent of ‘Rome as the other was, notwithstanding any pretended confes- sion of subjection made by its bishops in the coun- cil of Arles, upon which our author lays the main strength of his cause, though there is nothing in it when fairly canvassed and examined, as I doubt not ' I have made it appear to every unprejudiced reader. I was the more willing to consider here some of the 56 Schelstrat. Dissert. c. 4. 57 Ibid. 0. 5. 58 Conc. Arelat. 1. Epist. Synod. Conc. t. l. p. 1426. Placuit etiam antequam ate, qui majores dioeceses tenes, per te potissimum omnibus insinuari. Schelstrate and Per- ron correct it thus: Placuit etiam haec juxta antiquam con- suetudinem a te, qui majores dioeceses tenes, et per te potis- simum omnibus insinuari. "*9 See 8901;. 11- 6° Constant. Ep. ad omnes Ecclesias, ap. Euseb. de Vit. Const. lib. 3. c. 19. 6‘ Ibid. lib. 4. c. 36. “2 Pontifical. Vit. Marcelli. Viginti quinque titulos in urbe Roma constituit, quasi dioeceses, &c. 352 Boox IX. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. chief exceptions of this celebrated writer against the liberties of the Britannic church, because I know not whether any one else has made a reply to them; and these strictures will serve to suggest at once‘ to the reader the true grounds upon which our ancient liberties were founded, and the contrary pretences, which would subject us to the power of the bishop of Rome, as patriarch of the Western empire, though the Britannic diocese had as just title to be inde- pendent at that time as Rome itself, or Africa, or any other diocese in the empire. I make no further inquiry here into the bounds of other patriarchs or metropolitans, or their dioceses, because no such momentous disputes have been raised about them, and they may be easily learned from the notz'tz'a of the church here subjoined in the latter part of this book. Therefore I proceed in the next place to ex- amine the ordinary extent of the ancient episcopal dioceses, or, as we now call them, diocesan churches. CHAPTER II. A MORE PARTICULAR ACCOUNT OF THE NUMBER, NATURE, AND EXTENT OF DIOCESES, OR EPISCO- PAL CHURCHES, IN AFRICA, EGYPT, AND OTHER EASTERN PROVINCES. IT is evident from what has been dis- coursed in the last chapter, that the most ancient and apostolical division of the church was into dioceses, or episcopal churches ; that is, such precincts or districts‘, as single bishops governed with the assistance of their presbyters. But yet we are to make a little further inquiry into the nature and extent of these, because great errors have been committed by some late writers about them. There are who pretend, that a diocese for the three first ages was never more than such a number of people as could meet, and ordi- narily did meet, in a single congregation. Others extend the limits of ancient dioceses further than this at first, to include a city and the whole region about it: but then they reckon, that upon the general conversion of heathens to Christianity, such dioceses ought to have been divided into single con- gregations, and a new bishop and clergy set over every one. There is no difference betwixt these two opinions save only this, that the one wholly mistakes the church’s first and primitive model, and the other quarrels with her practice. But the truth Sect. 1. Dioceses anciently Called qrapouu'az, parzecluw. of the matter was, that the church, in settling the bounds of dioceses, went by another rule, not that of single assemblies or congregations, but the rule of government in every city, including not only the city itself, but the suburbs, or region lying round about it, within the verge of its jurisdiction. Which seems to be the plain reason of that great and visible difference which we find in the extent of dioceses; some being very large, others very small, according as the civil government of each city hap- pened to have a larger or lesser jurisdiction. There are two things, indeed, that commonly impose upon unwary readers in this matter. One is, that the an- cient name of an episcopal diocese for three hun- dred years is commonly 'n'apoucia, which they mis- take for a parish church, or single congregation: whereas, as learned menll have rightly observed, it signified then not the places or habitations near a church, but the towns or villages near a city, which, together with the city, was the bishop’s 1rapoucia, or, as we now call it, his diocese, the bounds of his or- dinary care and jurisdiction. That thus it was appears evidently from this, that the largest dio- ceses, such as those of Rome, Antioch, and Alex- andria, which had many particular churches in them, were called by the same name, as the reader may find a hundred passages in Eusebius,2 where he uses the word mzpoucia, when he speaks of those large and populous cities, which had many particu- lar churches in them. . The city of Alexandria, in the time of Alexander and Athanasius, was divided into several districts, called laura, in every one of which there was a church, with a presbyter fixed upon it: and yet all these were but one‘ 'n'apoucia, as Alexander calls it in his circular epistle8 against Arius. The reader may see the word so used by Epiphanius,4 St. J erom," the councils of Antioch,‘ Ancyra,7 and many others in after ages, when it is certain episcopal dioceses were something larger than parish churches, as those are taken to signify single congregations. So that nothing can be plainer than the use of the word wapoucia for a dioa cese to the fourth century. And now about this time the name Sec," 2_ diocese began to be used likewise. (1,332“ ,tggnmfiigg For the council of Arles, which was t° be used‘ held in the beginning of the fourth century, writing to the bishop of Rome, says, that he did m'ry'ores dioeceses tcnere,8 possess greater dioceses; which though Schelstrate and other Romish writers inter— pret patriarchal dioceses, to aggrandize the pope’s jurisdiction; yet it is more probable, as Dr. Cave9 observes, that it means only single bishoprics; ‘ Brerewood of Patriarch. Gov. qu. l. p. 102. 2 Euseb. lib. l. c. l. lib. 2. c. 24. 3 Alex. Ep. Encycl. ap. Socrat. lib. l. c. 6. ‘‘ Epiph. Ep. ad J oh. Hierosol. Ad meae parochiae vide- bantur ecclesiam pertinere, 8:0. 5 Hieron. Ep. 53. ad Ripar. Miror sanctum episcopum, in cujus parochia esse presbyter dicitur Vigilantius, acqui- escere furori ejus, 8m. 6 Concil. Antioch. c. 9. 7 Concil. Ancyr. o. 18. August. Epist. 241. Basil, Ep. 264. 8 Concil. t. l. p. 1429. 9 Cave’s Anc. Ch. Gov. c. 3. p. 130. CHAP. II. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 353 though I grant Constantine might have made the division of the empire into civil ‘dioceses, from whence patriarchal dioceses took their name in the following ages. The word is used frequently for a single diocese in the African councils, as where it is said,10 A bishop shall not leave his principal seat, and betake himself to any other church in the dio- cese: so likewise often in the African Code, and the Collation of Carthage. From which it appears, that the words paroclz-z'a and dz'aecesz's were of the same import in those times, and the calling of a diocese by the name of parochz'a does not make it a single congregation. Another thing that imposes upon men in this matter, is the ambiguity of the names, zl'podo'raa and suburbia, the suburbs of a city; which, in the modern ac- ceptation, signifies no more than the houses or habitations next adjoining without the walls of a city; but anciently it denoted all the towns or vil- lages which lay round the city in a certain district, which were therefore reckoned as belonging to that city, though many times at several miles’ distance from it. Thus, Canopus was twelve miles distant from Alexandria, and yet, in the Acts of the Coun- cil of Chalcedon, we find it called by one Athana- sius,ll the 7rpoa'o'ruov, or suburbs of that city. So Sozomen12 calls Daphne the suburbs of Antioch, though it was forty furlongs’ or five miles’ distance from it. And Pancirol ‘3 notes of the famous sub- urbs of Constantinople, called "Efidopov, or Septimum, that it was so denominated from its being seven miles off from the city at first, though afterward, by the strange growth and increase of that city, it came to be reckoned a more immediate part of it. So there was in the suburbs of Carthage a place call- ed Decimum, because it was ten miles distant from the city, as Procopius informs us.“ And some think the Ager Sexti, in which Cyprian s uffered martyrdom, was so named from its being six miles off from the city; for the Roman martyrology puts Sextum Milliare instead of Ager Sexti. Now, in all such suburbs as these there were particular assemblies, distinct from those of the city churches; as appears from what Eusebius15 observes out of the epistle of Dionysius of Alexandria, who says, when he was banished to Collutbion, a place in the region of Mareotes, that he should still hold particular as- semblies, as they were used to do in those suburbs that were something more remote from the city. So that these ancient words, wapoucia and rz'podqaa, when taken in their true ancient and primitive S ct. 3. What meant by the 7r ooiarrem, 0!‘ subur s of a city. sense, do not make a bishop’s diocese to be only a single parish in the modern sense, but a city with all the towns or villages within the region or dis- trict to which the city magistrate extended his ju- risdiction. For that Justellus16 has showed, out of good authors, is the difference between 7l’6hlg and ica'ljun, a city and a village : a city is a place that is governed by a magistracy and laws of its own, and exercises authority over the region or territory that lies about it; but a village is a dependant only on a city, and has no magistrates of its own, but such as belong to the city whereof it is a dependant. According to which notion, an episcopal church was generally a city and a whole region, of the very same extent with the power of the civil magistrate, whose bounds for the most part were the bounds of the bishop’s diocese; though the rule was not. so universal, but that it admitted of some particular exceptions. And from hence it will appear, that though there was great difference in the extent of dioceses, as there was in city regions and districts, and many of them were but small in comparison of others; yet they were generally so large as to ad- mit both of a bishop and a presbytery in the city church, and presbyters and deacons in the country regions. To clear this whole matter, (which is of great use upon several accounts towards understanding rightly the state of the ancient church,) I will here make a particular inquiry into the extent both of the largest and narrowest dioceses, and distinctly consider the state of each. For though they differed much in extent, yet they all agreed in the same species of government; the essence of which consisted not in being confined precisely to such or such limits; for that was but accidental to the constitution: the same species of government is still preserved in most parts of the church, and yet any one that will allow himself the liberty of making just observations, may easily discern a dif- ference between some of the first conversions, and those that followed in the middle ages of the church: for in the former, it is evident, dioceses were ge- nerally more numerous, and not so large as in the latter. The whole extent of Asia Minor, from the Hellespont to the river Euphrates, is estimated by the best geographers at 630 miles ; the breadth from Sinus Issicus in Cilicia to Trabezond at 210: yet there were almost four hundred dioceses in this tract of land, as the reader may satisfy himself from the notz'tz'a of the church in the end of this book. Sect. 4. Dioceses not ge- nerally so large in nations of the first conversion, as in those converted in the middle ages of the church. 1° Concil. Carthag. 5. c. 5. Nemini sit facultas, relicta principali cathedra, ad aliquam ecclesiam in dioecesi con- stitutam se conferre. Vid. Con. Can. Afric. 0. 117,118, 119, I23. 1' Concil. Chalced. Act. 3. t. 4. p. 408. ‘2 Sozom. lib. 5. c. 19. 13 Pancirol. Com. in Notit. Imper. lib. 1. c. 72. 1* Procop. Vandalic. lib. l. c. 17. 15 Euseb. lib. 7. c. 11. '99 in qr'poaqeiots aroppwcra'pw Kupéuots, KaTf‘l ,uépos é'o'ov'ral. o'uva'yw'yai. 1“ J ustel. Not. in God. Canon. &c. Concil. Antioch. c. 9. 2 A 354 BooK IX. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. But now, if we look into any middle age conver- sions, we shall find the number of dioceses very small in comparison of these, and their extent very great. For in Germany, which is computed above twice as large as Asia Minor, (being 840 miles in length, and 740 in breadth,) there are but forty bi- shoprics; in all Belgium but eighteen; in Den- mark but fifteen; in Swedeland but ten; in Russia twenty-one ; in Poland thirty; as Dr. Heylin and other geographers have computed them. And our number in England, being also a later conversion, bears no proportion to those of Asia Minor, though the isle of Great Britain is not much inferior to it in big- ness. I leave the curious and the learned to in- quire into the reasons of this difference, whilst I go on to show the different extent of dioceses in the primitive church, where we shall meet with some very large, others very narrow, but the same species of episcopacy preserved in all, and none confined absolutely to a single congregation. Sec," 5_ I shall begin with the dioceses of ,.,'§ng’§;{g“;5?;c;g; Africa, which some by mistake have “mm reckoned the least bishoprics in the world; whereas upon a just computation they will appear to be far larger than many others. The whole extent of Africa (comprehending the six Roman provinces, Tripolis, Byzacena, Africa Pro- consularis, Numidia, and the two Mauritanias) is computed by Procopius ‘7 to be ninety days’ journey in length: which, reckoning as he does, that a day’s journey was 210 stadia, or twenty-six miles and a quarter, amounts to above 2360 miles: the breadth was in some places 200, and in others 500 miles: which makes it by computation twice as big as Germany or France. Now there were in this compass, in St. Austin’s time, about four hundred and sixty-six bishoprics, as appears both from the Collation of Carthage,18 and the Abstract of St. Austin,” and the notitia of the African church, made about fifty years after St. Austin’s death, and pub- lished by Sirmondus.20 The present dioceses in France, if compared with these, will appear to be as large again, and those of Germany much larger: yet the African bishoprics, as a learned man 21iight- ly calculates, might one with another, notwithstand- ing, be reckoned to contain each of them threescore or fourscore towns and villages. It is certain, at least, that many of them were of a very large extent. St. Austin’s diocese of Hippo was above forty miles long: for he himself tells us,22 that Fussala, a place in his diocese, which he erected into a new bishop- ric, was forty miles distant from him. Some other churches in his diocese are also mentioned in his epistles,23 and other writings, which Bishop Stilling- fleet“ has collected together: to which the reader may add other epistles,25 where he mentions the churches of Subsana, Turres, Ciza, Verbalis, Fun- dus Strabonianensis, and Gippitanus, as parts of his episcopal care also. In Hippo itself there were several churches, three of which are occasionally mentioned by St. Austin, one called Ecclesia Pacis,26 another, Basilica Leonzfii,27 and a third, Ad ciginti Martyr-es, The Church of the twenty Martyrs,28 whose memory was famous at Hippo,29 as being, in all probability, African martyrs, and of that particular church whereof St. Austin was bishop. In the other Hippo, called Hippo Diaretorum for distinction sake, the African canons80 speak of several churches- And in the Collation of Carthage we often meet with complaints of the catholic bishops, that ‘the Donatists had set up anti-bishops, not only in their cities, but in other places of their dioceses :81 and the Donatist bishops return the charge, telling the catholics particularly, that at Constantina82 they had not only set up a bishop in the city, but another in the middle of the diocese: and that at Milevis they had done the same, making one bishop in the place, another at Tunca, a city in the same diocese, and a third at Ceramussa. From which it is easy to conclude, that those dioceses were then so large, as not only to have a country region, but sometimes more cities than one within their district. The like may be inferred from that canon of the Afri- can councils, which says,33 No bishop shall leave his principal cathedral, and reside in any other church of his diocese. That manifestly implies, that their dioceses had other churches in the country, beside the city cathedral in them. And, indeed, in- stances of this kind would arise without number, to any one that would make a curious search into the history and antiquities of the African church. I shall only add two things more relating to it. 1. 1’ Procop. Vandalic. lib. l. c. 2. p. 177. 19 Collat. Carthag. Die 1. 19 Aug. Brevic. Collat. Die 1. c. 14. 2° Notit. Afric. ap. Sirmond. Miscellan. 21 Maurice’s Defence of Dioces. Episc. p. 163. 22 Aug. Ep. 262. ad Caelestin. 23 Id. Ep. 74, 203, 212, 236. It. de Cura pro Mortuis, c. 12, 2‘ Stillingfleet’s Unreasonableness of Separat. part 3, n_ 9. p. 251. 25 Aug. Ep. 236, 240. 2" Ser. 11. de Divers. 29 Id. de Civ. Dei, lib. 22. c. 8. 26 Aug. Ep. 110. 28 Ser. 10. de Divers. 3° God. Can. Afric. c. 78. 3‘ Collat. Garth. Die 1. c. 181. Alypius dixit, Scriptum - sit istos omnes in villis vel in fundis esse episcopos ordinatos, non in aliquibus civitatibus. 32 Collat. Garth. ibid. c. 65. Petilianus dixit, In plebe mea, id est, civitate Constantinensi, adversarium habeo For- tunatum. In medio autem ditecesis meae nunc institutuin habeo, imo ipsi habent nomine Delphinnm—etiain in plebe fratris mei Adeodati, id est in civitate Milevitana, ita com- missa res est, ut unum ibidem habeat adversarium, alteruin in Tuncensi civitate, qui ad huj us plebem antiquitus perti- net.—Tertius vero sit in loco qui dicitur Ceramussa. 98 Concil. Carth. 5. c. 5. Nemini sit facultas, relicta prin- cipali cathedra, ad aliquam ecclesiam in dioecesi constitutam se conferre. ' CHAP. II. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 355 ANTIQUITIES OF THE That Carthage is well known to have had a great number of churches belonging to its diocese in the fourth century. Mr. Sirmond,“ in his Notes upon St. Austin’s Sermons, gives us the names of seven of them, which are mentioned in the titles of his sermons, viz. the cathedral church, called Basilica Major et Restituta, Basilica Fa-ust'i, Basilica Leon- tiana, Basilica Celcrinw, Basilica JVovarum, Basilica Pctri, in the third region, and Basilica Pauli, in the sixth region. To which Bishop Stillingfleet35 adds two churches without the city, one where St. Cyprian suffered martyrdom, and another where his body was buried, at a place called Mappalia, both which are mentioned by Victor Uticensis. Dr. Maurice,36 who examined a little further, adds still to those within the city, the church called Florentia, and Ba- silica Gratiani, and Theodosiana, and Honoriana, and Tricillarum: and, doubtless, there were many others not mentioned, since Victor"7 reckons about five hundred clergy belonging to the church of Carthage. The other thing I would note concerning the Afri- can church is, that in Tripolis, one of the six pro- vinces of the Roman Africa, there were but five bishops, which we learn both from the canons of the African councils,38 and the ancient notitia of that church, which names their'sees, Leptis Magna, CEea, Tacapa, Sabrata, and Girberis; from three of which there were bishops in the council under Cyprian at Carthage: and the presence of no more was required, because of the paucity of them. But now this was a large tract of ground, as Blondel39 himself proves out of Ptolemy, who names many other cities, Chuzis, Sumucis, Pisinda, Sydedenis, Azuis, Gerisa, Iscina, Amuncla, Butta, and others. So that whether we compare the whole extent and dimensions of Afi'ica with the number of dioceses contained therein, or consider any particular pro- vince or diocese by itself, it plainly appears, that every bishop had a city, and a region or large terri- tory for his diocese; some, two cities or more; and none so small a people, as to deserve the name that some have bestowed upon them, of country parishes or single congregations. Sect 6' Out of the African provinces let us Eg2fpéh1§§§§fs°§§§ pass into those of the Egyptian dio- Pentapdis' cese, as it is called in the civil account of the Roman empire, under which are comprehend- ed all the regions of Libya, Pentapolis, and Egypt, from Tripolis to the Red Sea. These countries all together are justly computed by a learned man ‘° to be three times as great as England; yet they never had above a hundred bishops in them all. For Alexander and Athanasius, who were very compe- tent judges, reckon scarce so many. Athanasius‘u says, there was éyyz‘ig éicarbv, near a hundred in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis; and Alexander“ uses the same expression in his circular epistle against Arius, saying, That he and the rest of the bishops of Egypt and Libya, being near a hundred met together in council, had condemned Arius and his followers. And after this the notitias of the church reckon no more. That which the reader will find at the end of this book, has but ninety- seven, excluding those of Tripoli, which have been spoken of before: and others in Carolus a Sancto Paulo never exceed a hundred and one. So that the number of dioceses seems to have continued near the same without alteration for several ages. Carolus a Sancto Paulo has collected their names out of the ancient writers, and subscriptions of councils, and other monuments of the church, which I shall here subjoin, as I shall for all other countries as we pass on, that such readers as please to compare the names with the maps of ecclesiasti- cal geography, may the better understand the ex- tent of dioceses, and the true ancient state and geography of the church. The Egyptian patri- archate was sometimes divided into three provinces, sometimes into six, sometimes into nine, but the limits of the whole were the same, including Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis: Carolus a Sancto Paulo follows the largest division, and so makes seven provinces in Egypt, reckoning the dioceses in this order. In E gyptus Prima. 1. Alexandria. 2. Her'mopolis Parva. 3. Me- telis. 4. Coprithis. 5. Sais. 6. Letus, al. Lato- polis. 7. Naucratia. 8. Andromena, or Andropolis. 9. Nicium. lO. Onuphis. ll. Taua. l2. Cleopa- tris. l3. Mareotis. l4. Schedia and Menelaites. l5. Phthenegus, al. Phthenoti Nomus. l6. Nitria. In Augustamnica Prima. l. Pelusium. 2. Heraclca in Sethreete Nomo. 3. Tanis. 4. Rhinocurura. 5. Thmuis. 6. Os- tracina. 7. Phacusa. 8. Cassium. 9. Aphneeum, which he thinks Antonine’s Itinerary calls Daph— nis. lO. Hephaestus. ll. Paneephysus. 12. Ge- rus. l3. Thennesus. l4. Sela. In Augustamnica Secunda. 2. Atribis. 5. Bubastus. 3. Onium, al. Ili- 6. Pharbeethus. l. Leontopolis. um. 4. Babylon. 3* Sirmond. Not. in Ser. 14. a se edit. t. 10. p. 851. 35 Stillingfleet’s Unreasonableness of Separation, p. 219. 36 Maurice’s Defence of Dioces. Episc. p. 51. 3’ Victor. de Persec. Vandal. lib. 5. Bibl. Patr. t. 7- p. 613. 38 Concil. Carth. 3. c. 39. In Tripoli, ut asseritur, epis- copi sunt quinque tantummodo. Vid. Cod. Can. Afric. c. 49. al. 50. 39 Blondel. Apol. p. 185. ex Ptolern. lib. 4. c. 3. 4° Maurice’s Defence of Dioces. Episc. p. 71. ‘1 Athan. Apol. 2. p. 778. ‘2 Alex. Ep. Encycl. ap. Socrat. lib. l. c. 6. 2A2 356 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Boox IX. 7. Heliopolis. 10. Antithou. 8. Scenaa Mandrorum. 9. Thou. In Egyptus Secunda. 3. Pachneumonis. 6. Sebennythus. 7. 9. Paralus. 10. l. Cabasa. 2. Phragonea. 4. Elearchia. 5. Diospolis. Cynopolis Inferior. 8. Busiris. Xoes. ll. Butus. In Arcadia. 1. Oxyrinchus. 2. Heraclea Superior. 3. Ar- sinoe, al. Civitas Crocodilorum. 4. Theodosiopolis. 5. Aphroditopolis. 6. Memphis. 7. Clysma. 8. Nilopolis. 9. Parallus. 10. Thamiate, now called Damiata. ll. Cynopolis Superior; which, as Hol- stenius observes, is in the notitia of Hierocles made the metropolis of this province. In Thebais Prima. 2. Hermopolis Magna. 3. Cusa. 5. Oasis Magna. 6. Hypsele. 7. 8. Antaeum. 9. Pano- l. Antinoe. 4. Lycopolis. Apollinis Civitas Parva. polis. In Thebais Secunda. l. Ptolemais. 2. Thinis. 3. Coptus. 4. Ten_ tyra. Holstenius corrects it, Teuchira, from the Greek. 5. Maximianopolis. 6. Latopolis. 7. Hermetes, al. Hermonthes. 8. Diospolis Magna, al. Thebais Magna. 9. Therenunthis. lO. Phylae. ll. Thoi. l2. Ombi. l3. Tathyris. l4. Diospo- lis Parva. In Libya Cyrenaica, otherwise called Pentapolis. l. Ptolemais, where ‘Synesius was bishop. 2. Sozusa. 3. Lemandus. 4. Cyrene. 5. Teuchira. 6. Berenice. 7. Ticelia, al. Pisila. 8. Aptuchi Fanum. 9. Erythra. 10. Barca. ll. Hydrax. l2. Disthis. l3. Palaebisca. l4. Olbia. To which Holstenius adds Boraeum. In Libya Marmarica, al. Libya Secunda. l. Darnis. 2. Paraetonium. 3. Antipyrgus. 4. Antiphra. 5. Marmarica. 6. Zagula; which Hol- stenius observes to be sometimes corruptly read Ga- zula. 7. Zygris. ~ Beside these, Carolus a S. Paulo reckons seven others in Egypt of uncertain position. Vantena, Gauoea, Flagonita, Cotenopolis, Gazula, Elesma, and Psynchus: but Holstenius rightly observes, that five of these are but corruptions of others named before. Vantena is put for Antinoe; Flagonita for Fragonita; Elesma for Clysma; Gazula for Zagula; and Psynchus for Oxyrinchus. And I observe, that Paralus, and perhaps one or two more, seem to be named twice. So that we cannot reckon the whole number of dioceses much above a hundred in these nine provinces. Now, to make a tolerable estimate of the largeness and extent of these dioceses, we must consider a little the state of these countries, together with the extent of them. And by this means we shall find this observation to be true, (which I am also to make upon Palestine, Asia Mi- nor, and Italy,) that here were some of the largest and some of the smallest dioceses in the world un- der the same form of episcopal government. In Libya and Pentapolis, the dioceses seem to have been very large; for the whole number in both pro- vinces was but twenty-two: and yet these provinces were of great extent, as appears from what Pliny "8 delivers out of Eratosthenes, that from Alexandria in Egypt to Cyrene in Pentapolis was five hundred and twenty-five miles, the greatest part of which must be divided among these bishoprics; which is some ground to conjecture that they were of the largest size. Beronice was the most western border of Pentapolis, from whence to Arsinoe or Teuchira, the next neighbouring seat, Pliny“ reckons forty- three miles, and from Arsinoe to Ptolemais twenty- two. And it is certain several others lay at greater distances from each other. But some may fancy, perhaps, they were small, inconsiderable dioceses for all this, because Synesius,45 speaking of his own city Ptolemais, the metropolis of Pentapolis, says it was but a small city. To obviate this, I will note a few things out of Synesius, concerning the cities and dioceses of this region. That Ptolemais, where Synesius was bishop, had a territory and country churches in its diocese, is evident from Synesius himself, who, writing to his presbyters upon his first consecration, desires them to pray for him, and enjoin the people, both in the city and country churches,46 both publicly and privately, to pray for him likewise. This is evident proof, that though Ptolemais itself might not be a very large city, yet it had a diocese of some extent, and village churches in the circuit of it. In another place he complains, that all the churches “7 of Ampelitis that were under him, were burned down and destroyed. There were two regions of this name in Pentapolis, one belong- ing to Cyrene, the other to Ptolemais: and it is probable there were in both of them towns and villages depending respectively upon those mother churches. Indeed Carolus a Sancto Paulo, out of Synesius, speaks of one or two dioceses in this pro- vince, which seem to be less. For Hydrax and Palaabisca were but villages, once belonging to the diocese of Erythros, from which they were separated in the time of the emperor Valens, and had a dis- “8 Plin. lib. 5. c. 6. 4‘ Ibid. 0. 5. ‘5 Synes. Ep. 58. ‘6 Synes. Ep. 11. Tq'i '1': iv ('io'q'ez drifter, Kai {500: Km" d'ypoils, 4'1 Kwlm'rucds firclchno'ias abhigov'rat, &c. ‘7 Synes. Catastas. p. 301. Cmrr. II. 357 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. tinct bishop of their own. But there was none be- fore him, nor any after; for it was united by The- ophilus, bishop of Alexandria,48 to Erythros again. So that it rather proves the largeness of the dioceses, that they were of such an extent as to admit of others being taken out of them. In another place, Synesius“9 speaks of the Olbiatae, whom he styles diipog Kwpv'j'rng, a country people, and says they had a bishop. But a learned man observes50 rightly, that this may signify a people or nation living in many villages, of which sort there were several in the region of Pentapolis and other parts of Africa, where there were but few cities: for, as he shows out of Pomponius Mela and Pliny, these country people generally inhabited in great numbers toge- ther, and were under the denomination of little na- tions, though they dwelt in cottages, or mapalz'a, as they called them in the language of those countries. So that though a bishop’s seat was in a village, he might have a large region for his diocese, as we shall find in pursuing the history of other nations. In the neighbouring province of Libya, Zygus was a village, and a bishop’s seat: yet, as the same learn- ed person 5‘ observes out of Ptolemy,52 it was such a village as had a territory along the sea-side; and the whole sea-coast of Libya was divided between that and two or three other such villages or cities, call them which you please. For there were but seven dioceses in all this Libya, which extended three hundred miles along the sea-shore, so that the bishop’s sees were at least fifty miles from each other. And yet'perhaps, being a desert country, and in- habited by very barbarous people, the dioceses might be less than many others, if computed by the num- ber of Christians, rather than the extent of ground; as if we compare them with some in Egypt, their next neighbours. In Egypt, the dioceses cannot be reckoned so large as those of Libya and Pentapolis, because here were eighty bishoprics; and yet the extent of Egypt was not more than the other two, ‘ but the country was infinitely more populous, and so capable of more bishoprics in a less compass. Dr. Heylin computes the length of it to be only five hundred and sixty-two miles, and the breadth one hundred and sixty: which comes pretty near the computation of Pliny,53 who reckons it five hundred and eighty-six miles long, and one hundred and seventy broad from Pelusi um to Canopus. This divided into eighty dioceses, will allow above thirty miles length and breadth to every diocese; which is a competent space for an episcopal diocese con- sisting of many towns or parishes, but too large for any single congregation. We may judge of the ex- tent of some of these dioceses by that of Alexandria, which had first a great many churches with pres- byters fixed upon them in the city itself, in the time of Alexander and Athanasius, as Epiphaniu's“ more than once informs us, naming beside the great church, commonly called Caesarea, those of Diony- sius, Theonas, Pierius, Serapion, Dizyas, Mendidius, Annianus, Abias, and Baucalis, where Arius was presbyter. Then again it had the large region of Mareotes belonging to it. For Athanasius55 says, there never had been either bishop or chorepz'scopus in all that region, but only presbyters under the bishop of Alexandria; and that they were fourteen in number, (besides thirteen deacons,) some of which had two villages, and others more, within their re- spective parishes. Canopus also was once in this diocese,being reckoned one of the suburbs of Alexan~ dria, (as has been noted before,) though a large place, and twelve miles distant from it. Nicopolis also was in this diocese, which Strabo equals 56 to a city, So that there must be particular assemblies in the remoter suburbs of this diocese, which could not possibly meet with the mother-church. We have not so particular an account of any other diocese in Egypt, but from this we may make some estimate of the rest, since it appears that a competent terri- tory of twenty or thirty miles might be allowed to every diocese upon a rational computation. Nor is it any just exception to this, that here were sometimes bishops’ seats in villages as well as cities. For many villages were equal to cities, and had also large territories belonging to them. As Strabo particu- larly notes of Schmdia, which was but a village in his time,57 yet such a one as might compare with a city; and in Athanasius’s time it seems to have been advanced into a city, or was at least the head of a nomus, or region, called Menelaites: for Athanasius styles Agathodtemon,58 bishop of Schaedia and Me- nelaites together. So that though we find in the Greek notz'tz'a of this province several bishoprics de- nominated from villages, as Vicus Psaneos, and Co- trideos, Rhicomerium, Pariana, and Anassa ; yet we are not to imagine the bishops of these places were pastors only of a private village, but that they had each a larger territory, after the example of Schaadia, for their jurisdiction. In the diocese of Arsinoe, it is plain, there were country parishes in the middle of the third century: for Dionysius, bishop of Alex- andria, speaks of them in one of his epistles, where he discourses of Nepos the Millenary,who was bishop of the place. After his death, he says, he went into the region of Arsinoe, and having called together the presbyters and teachers of the country villages,59 ‘8 Synes. Ep. 67. ‘9 Id. Ep. 76. 5° Maurice’s Defence of Dioc. Episc. p. 60. 51 Maurice, ibid. p. 61. 52 Ptolcm. lib. 4. ‘3 Pliu. lib. 5. c. 9. 5" Epipb. Beer. 68. Melet. n. 4. Haeret. 69. Arian. n. 2. 55 Athan. Apol. 2. p. 802. 56 Strabo, lib. 17. 51 Strabo, 1ib_ 17, 58 Athan. Ep. ad Antioch. p. 580. 5'9 Dionys. Ep. ap. Euseb. lib. 7. c. 24. Euyxakéaas 'robs 'n-peo'fiu'répovs Kai. dtdao'rco'zkovs 'ré'w £11 11219 Ku'mars ddskcpfiw. 358 Boox IX. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. he held a conference with them for three days to- gether about Nepos’s opinions, which it seems had infected some of their churches, and drawn them into factions and schisms. The like observation is made by Cassian60 upon Paneephysus, in the pro- vince of Augustamnica Prima, that it had many towns and villages under it, till they were swallowed up with the inundation of the sea and an earth- quake. And Carolus a Sancto Paulo rightly ob- serves out of Athanasius,“ that Phragonea in [Egyp- tus Secunda had the whole nomas of Elearchia for its diocese. And excepting Thennesus, in the pro- vince of Augustamnica, which Cassian62 seems to make an island, without any territory about it, it may be generally afiirmed of all the Egyptian cities, that they had their 7rpodqua, or country towns and villages about them, some more, some less, where, as Dionysius bishop of Alexandria words it,63 they had their holy assemblies distinct from those of the mother-churches. Yet, not to put a fallacy upon my readers, I must observe one thing, which will much diminish the largeness of those dioceses in one part of Egypt; that is, that as it was the most populous countiy in the world in some parts of it, so was absolutely desert and uninhabited in others. . The cities were generally placed pretty near the banks of the Nile, but on both sides, within ten or twenty miles from them, were vast mountains and deserts, where no mortal dwelt, till, as Orosius observes,“ the monks first took up their abode there, leaving the cities, to inhabit those vast tracts of wildernesses and sands, which for their barrenness and want of water, and multitudes of serpents, had never before seen any thing of human conversation. This account of the Egyptian deserts is confirmed by J osephus,65 where he speaks of Moses making an incredible expedition with an army through them, to surprise and come unexpectedly upon the Ethiopians. And the Chris- tian writers, who treat of the monastic life, give a more particular description of them. Sulpicius Se- verus makes the entrance on these deserts in The- bais66 to be only twelve miles from the river Nile. But the deserts themselves were vastly greater. For Cassian, speaking of the wilderness of Scethis, where Paphnutius was abbot, says, there was one of the monks who had his cell 6’ eighteen miles from church. But the desert of Porphyiion, he says, was abundantly larger than this : for a inan might ‘ travel seven or eight days’ journey in it‘,8 without coming near any house, or town, before he came to the cells of the monks, which had their habitation therein. So that by this account, it is probable almost one half of Egypt was cut off in sands and deserts, which could not be cultivated, and therefore were not inhabited, till the monks, who found out a new way of living, left the cities, to become here and there scattered inhabitants of the wilderness. And by this means the dioceses of Egypt, if we speak properly of the habitable part of them, will be reduced to a much narrower compass, and fifteen miles may perhaps pass for a general measure of their extent in this sense one with another. But as Alexandria and others might be larger, so it is cer- tain-Thennesus, and Panaaphysus, and others, were much less: which makes good the observation and reflection I at first passed upon them, that here were some of the largest and some of the smallest dioa ceses in the world, under the same species and form of episcopal government, for any thing that we find to the contrary. _ Out of the patiiarchate of Alex- Sect. .,_ andria, we should next have gone Agggeégqggfligg; into that of Jerusalem, but Arabia 5;“?3‘3332252‘3325; coming between, we will take a view in otherplacea' of it here, though it belonged to the patriarch of Antioch. Carolus a Sancto Paulo calls it by mis- take Arabia Petreea, which, as Holstenius observes, was a distinct province under the patriarch of J e- rusalem, and commonly known in ancient church records by the name of Palmstina Tertia. But Arabia here is taken only for that part which was under the metropolis of Bostra, and sometimes called Philadelphia in ancient writers. In this province we have accounts of twenty-one ancient dioceses, whereof eighteen are recounted by Car. a S. Paulo. l. Bosti'a. 2. Adra. 3. Medaba. 4. Gerasa. 5. Nibe or Nive. 6. Philadelphia, whence in Epiphanius and others the region is called Arabia Philadelphiae. 7. Esbus. 8. Neapolis. 9. Philippopolis. 10. Constantine. '11. Dionysias. l2. Maximianopolis. l3. Avara. 14. Elana, al. Neela. l5. Zerabena. 16. Erie. l7. Anitha, or, as Holstenius reads it, Eutimia. 18. Parembola. To which Holstenius adds three more, Canotha, PhzBIlO, and Bacatha, mentioned by Epiphanius 6° Cassian. Collat. 11. c. 3. 6' Athan. Ep. ad Antiochenos. 62 Cassian. Collat. 11. c. l. Thennesi accolae ita vel mari vel stagnis salsis undique circumluuntur, ut solis, quia terra deest, negociationibus dediti, &c. ‘3 Dionys. ap. Euseb. lib. 7. c. 11. 6‘ Oros. Hist. lib. 7. c. 33. Vastas illas tunc ZEgypti soli- tudines, arenasque diffuses, quas propter sitim ac sterilita- tem, periculosamque serpentum abundantiam conversatio humana non nosset; magna habitautium monachorum mul- titudo compleverat. 65 Joseph. Antiquit. lib. 2. c. 5. 6'6 Sulpic. Dial. l. c. 7. Ubi prima eremi ingressus sum, duodecim fere a Nilo millibus, &c. 6’ Cassian. Institut. lib. 5. c. 40. Decem et octo millibus longe ab ecclesia commanebat. 68 Id. Collat. 24. c. 4. Calami et Porphyritnis eremus longioris solitudinis intervallo ab universis urbibus et habi- taculis hominum, quam eremus Scythii dividitur: septem siquidem vel octo mansionibus vastissimae solitudinis deserta penetrantes, vix ad cellularum suarum secreta perveniunt, &c. Vid. Instit.1ib. 10. c. 24. CHAP. II. 359 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. and Eusebius. In after-ages, when the notitia was made which is published in the seventh chapter of this book, the number of dioceses was augmented to thirty-four, whereof twelve are called villages. And it appears from Sozomen‘” that this was no new thing in this country; for he takes notice that it was usual in some provinces to consecrate bishops in villages, and he particularly specifies Arabia and Cyprus for it. But then we are not to imagine that these dioceses were confined to a single village, as some have vainly concluded, to favour the hypo- thesis of congregational episcopacy. For these villages were what the ancients commonly called metrocomice, mother-villages, which had many other villages depending on them, so that they were the chief villages of a certain district. This is evident from Epiphanius,70 who, speaking of Bacathus, one of the village bishoprics, styles it pn'rpolcwpiav 'Apa- Biag, a mother-village in Arabia, which implies, that there were others depending on it. So that these dioceses might be as large as any other, having not only that village, but whole tracts and regions sometimes depending on them, as may be seen in the foresaid notitia, where some of them are called clima orientaliam, and clima occidentaliam, denoting not only a particular village, but a little people or nation of such a combination or district, under a mother-village, from which the whole diocese or circuit had its denomination. The Arabians were a people that chose rather to live in villages, and had but few cities in comparison of others; and that seems to be the reason why village bishops were allowed in this country, which otherwise were forbidden by the canons of the church, as has been showed in another place. 7‘ Out of Arabia, our next step is into Ppgstiiigilgéfifgigf Palestine, or the patriarchate of Jeru- gifigl'mé of Jew- salem, which, being taken out of the Patriarchate of Antioch, had three provinces assigned for the limits of its jurisdiction, which, in the ancient monuments of the church, are commonly called Paleestina Prima, Secunda, and Tertia, following the civil account of the R0- man empire. In these three provinces (comprised within the borders of the land of Canaan and Arabia Petraea) Carolus a Sancto Paulo reckons about forty—seven ancient dioceses. In Paleestina Prima. l. Hierusalem. 2. Ceesarea. 3. Dora. 4. An- tipatris. 6. Jamnia. 7. Nicopolis, which is Emmaus. 8. Sozusa. 9. Maiuma. 10. .Ioppa. ll. Ascalon. l2. Gaza. l3. Raphia. l4. Anthedon. l5. Eleu- 5. Diospolis, in Scripture called Lydda. ' theropolis, anciently some place about Hebron. 16. Neapolis, or Sichem. l7. Elia. 18. Sebaste, or Samaria. l9. Petra. 20. Jericho. 21. Libias. 22. Azotus. 23. Zabulon. 24. Araclia, al. He- raclea. 25. Baschat. 26. Archelais. In Palaestina Secunda. 1. Scythopolis. 2. Pella. 3. Caparcotia, or Ca- pernaum. 4. Gadara. 5. Capitolias. 6. Maxi- mianopolis. 7. Tiberias. 8. Mennith. 9. Hippus. 10. Amathus. In Palaestina T ertia. 1. Petra. 2. Augustopolis. 3. Arindela. 4. Arad. 5. Areopolis. 6. Elusa. 7. Zoara. 8. Sodoma. 9. Phenon. 10. Pharan. ll. Aila. Holstenius, in his corrections upon this catalogue, strikes two out of the number, viz. Baschat, which he reckons to be the same with Bacatha in Arabia Philadelphiae, and Phenon, which he assigns to the same province. But instead of these two, he has found out three more in Palaestina Prima, viz. Sycamazon, Gerara, and another Lydda, distinct from Diospolis afore— mentioned. So that the whole number of known dioceses was forty-eight. Now, if we look upon all these together, and com- pare them with the forty dioceses in Germany at this day, they will appear very small indeed in compari- son of them. For whereas Germany is computed eight hundred and forty miles in length, and seven hundred and forty in breadth; the whole extent of these three provinces will not amount to a square of one hundred and sixty miles’. For the length of all Palestine, or the land of Canaan, taking in part of Phoenicia as far as Tyre and Sidon, which yet is excluded from these provinces, is computed by St. J erom,72 Cotovicus,73 Masius,74 and others, to be but a hundred and sixty miles; and the breadth from J oppa to Jordan not above sixty: to which if we add about sixty more beyond Jordan, for the breadth of Palaestina Tertia, to the borders of Ara- bia Philadelphiae and Bostra, we have then the com- plete dimensions of the three provinces together. . By which it appears, that two German dioceses of one hundred miles length, are as large as all those forty-eight dioceses put together. Yet there were some dioceses among them of a competent bigness. Eleutheropolis, a city much spoken of by St. Jerom, not far from the place where Hebron stood, in the borders of Dan and Judah, seems to have had a pretty large territory. For St. J erom speaks of vil- lages belonging to it at seventeen miles’75 distance from it, and mentions a great many other villages in the same territory, though he does not so exactly 59 Sozom. lib. 7. c. 19. 7° Epiphan. Epitom. Panarii. 7‘ Book II. chap. l2. sect. l. "2 Hieron. Ep. ad Dardan. 73 Cotovic. Itinerar. Hierosol. lib. l. c. 1. p. 327. "4 Masius, Comment. in J oshuam xii. ‘24. 75 Hieron. de Locis Hebra. voce Duma. Duma vicus grandis in finibus Eleutheropoleos, decem et septem ab ea milliaribus distans. 360 Boox IX. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. tell us their distance from the city. Sozomen names some others, as Besanduca,"6 where he says Epipha- nius was born : and Ceila and Berathsatia,” where the bones of the prophets Micah and Habakkuk were found. Near Besanduca Epiphanius built his monastery, and the village had a church in it, where Epiphanius ordained a deacon, as he himself in- forms us.78 From all which it is very evident this city had a large territory and considerable diocese, with many country towns and churches belonging to them. And there were several others, especially in Palaestina Secunda and Tertia, equal in extent to the diocese of Eleutheropolis. But a judicious reader will easily conclude from the largeness of these, that some others must needs therefore be very small, since there were so great a number in so short a compass. If we cast our eye upon the sea-coast of Palestine, and reckon Tyre, and Sidon, and Ptole- mais, and Sycaminum, and Porphyria into the ac- count, (as being within the ancient bounds of the land of Canaan, though they now belong to the province of Phoenice and the patriarch of Antioch,) we shall find seventeen or eighteen cities in a line of one hundred and sixty miles, and some very near neighbours to one another. Cotovicus79 reckons it but four miles from Ptolemais to Porphyria; and Sycaminum and Zabulon were not further removed from it. But Ferrarius reckons it twenty or twenty- four; so that the position of the two first is a little doubtful, but the other three may be reckoned with- in five or six miles of one another. Baudrand ob- serves80 the like of Dora and Caasarea the metropo- lis, that they were but five miles distant from each other. So Ferrarius computes Antipatris ten miles from Cmsarea, and Diospolis ten more from Anti- patris. Diospolis is in the Scripture called Lydda, and said to be nigh unto J oppa. Baudrand reckons it but six miles, correcting Ferrarius, who computes it ten. J amnia was also about ten miles from J op- pa, and but twelve from Lydda, as is collected out of Antonine’s Itinerary. So that these three cities were not above twelve miles distant from each other. But Gaza, Maiuma, and Anthedon were still nearer neighbours, not above twenty furlongs or three miles from each other, as Sozomen particularly81 remarks their distance. Maiuma, he tells us, was once only a village belonging to Gaza, to which it was the sea- port, seated nearer the sea upon the river Besor: but when Constantine, for its merit in readily em- bracing Christianity, had granted it the privilege of a city, it presently, according to the ancient rule, became a bishop’s seat, and continued ever after so to be, notwithstanding some attempts made against it, of which I have given an account in the forego- ing chapter. But though these cities lay so near together, we are not to think they were of the con- gregational way, or their bishops only parish pastors. While Maiuma was joined to Gaza, the church was doubtless more than a single congregation. For Eusebius, speaking of Silvanus, bishop of Gaza, who suffered martyrdom in the time of the Diocletian persecution, styles him82 bishop of the churches in and about Gaza. Which implies that his diocese was more than a single congregation. Nay, after Maiuma was taken from it, Gaza had still many other villages and a populous territory belonging to it. Sozomen88 mentions three villages, one called Thabaca, where Hilarion was born; another So- pharconbra, where Ammonius was born; and a third named Bethelia, which he calls wohvdvspmrov mbpnv I‘uZaIav, a most populous village under the jurisdic- tion of Gaza; which was also famous for the hea- then pantheon, beside other temples that were in it; whence he conjectures it had the name of Bethelia, which in the Syrian tongue is the same as domicilz'um deorum, or the house of the gods. Now, a village that had several heathen temples in it, had no doubt upon its conversion some Christian churches also, where they had presbyters to celebrate holy ofiices, though in dependence on the church of Gaza. And for Maiuma, when it became a distinct diocese, its bishop was not a single parish pastor, but he had a clergy under him, and all other things that the epis- copal church of Gaza had; as Sozomen 8‘ particularly notes in the case, saying, Each city had their own bishop and clergy, and their own proper festivals for then‘ martyrs, and commemorations of the bi- shops and priests that had lived among them, and their prop er bounds of the country lying round about them. And that we may not wonder that there should be such villages as these, it will not be amiss to observe what Josephus reports of two villages of Idumea not far from these, Begabri and Caphartophan, where he says 85 Vespasian slew above ten thousand people, took a thousand cap- tives, and forced many others to fly away. He also says 86 in another place, there were many villages in Galilee so populous, that the least of them had above fifteen thousand inhabitants in them. Now, a few such villages as these, united under a metro- comz'a, or mother-village, might quickly arise into numbers enough to become a diocese, and have a bishop and clergy of their own, which it would be absurd to mistake for the pastor of a single congre- 7“ Sozom. lib. 6. c. 32. 77 Ibid. lib. 7. c. 29. 7“ Epiphan. Ep. ad Johan. Hierosol. Ecclesia villae quae est juxta monasterium nostrum, &c. "'9 Cotovic. Itiner. lib. l. c. 20. 8° Baudrand. Lexie. Geogr. voce Dora. 8‘ Sozom. lib. 5. c. 3 et 9. 82 Euseb. lib. 8. C. 13. 'Eariovcovros 'rdiv awn '1'1‘111 Ilégav émchno'rdw. 93 Sozom. lib. 3. c. 14. lib. 5. o. 15. lib. 6. c. 32. 8‘ Id. lib. 5. C. 3. 85 Joseph. de Bello Jud. lib. 5. c. 4. 86 Idem, de Bell. Jud. lib. 3. c. 2. CHAP lI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 361 gation. And this was evidently the case of the smallest dioceses in this part of Palestine, where, notwithstanding the narrowness of their limits, they were under the same species of episcopal go- vernment with other churches. The inland dioceses of Palestine were generally larger; yet some of them were small. For Emmaus was but sixty furlongs, or seven miles and a half, from Jerusalem, as both the Scripture and travellers inform us :87 yet when of a village it became a city, being rebuilt by the Romans in the time of Adrian, and by them called Nicopolis, in memory of their victories over Jerusalem, as Sozomen,“ and Euse- sebius,89 and St. J erom90 inform us, it then also ad- vanced itself to an episcopal see, and according to the rule of the church had the city territory for its diocese; under which denomination and quality we find it afterwards in the notz'tias of the church. This perhaps brings the diocese of Jerusalem into nar- rower bounds one way than is commonly imagined; but still it was of sufficient extent to have many particular churches in it. For the Jewish antiqua- ries commonly tell us, there were above four hun- dred synagogues in the city itself. Dr. Lightfoot91 reckons four hundred and fifty. Others,92 four hundred and sixty; and some say,93 there were four hundred and eighty for Jews and strangers there. Optatus says, there were seven in a very small plain upon the top of Mount Sion, where the Jews 9* were used to meet and hear the law of Moses read. And Epiphanius95 mentions the same, which he says were also left standing after the destruction of Jerusalem to the time of Adrian, and one of them to the time of Constantine. Now, it would be very strange, that a city which had so many synagogues, should not afford above one church, after it was made Christian, and so many thousand converts were in it even in the time of the apostles. But it had also a territory without the city, and churches at some distance from it. For Bethlehem was in the diocese of J erusalem, six miles from the mother-church ; upon which account it had a church and presbyters of its own, but those subject to the bishop of Jerusalem, as St. Jerom96 informs. us, who charges John, bishop of Jerusalem, for an extravagant abuse of his power, in laying his injunctions on his presbyters at Beth- lehem, that they should not baptize the catechu- mens of the monastery, who stood candidates at Easter, upon which they were sent to Diospolis for baptism. St. J erom mentions the church of Thiria 9’ in the same place, where the bishop of Jerusalem ordained presbyters and deacons: and there is no doubt but there were many other such parishes within the precincts of his diocese, acknowledging his jurisdiction. We cannot give so particular an account of all the dioceses of Palestine ; but those which some have thought the least, Lydda and J amnia, appear to have been cities, and to have had their dependences in the neighbouring country round them. So that except Maiuma, which was disfranchised by Julian, there was no village in Palestine that had a bishop of its own ; but the vil- lages were all as so many parishes to the neighbour- ing city in whose territory they lay: which made these diocesan churches still of the same species with the rest, that had a larger extent of jurisdic- tion. Josephus indeed calls Lydda a village, but he says, it was a village not inferior to a city; and afterward it was made a city, and called Diospolis, when it was a bishop’s see: and though its diocese could not extend very far one way, being it was but six miles from Joppa toward the sea; yet other ways it extended further, for St. J erom98 speaks of Bethsarissa, a village belonging to it, though it was near fifteen miles’ distance from it, in the region called Regio Tamnitica, which seems to have been the territory belonging to this city. I have been the more particular in describing the dioceses of Palestine, because here Christianity was first planted, and the true model of ancient episco- pacy may best be collected from them. They who reckon these bishoprics no. larger than country parishes, are strangely mistaken on the one hand; and they who extend their bounds as wide as Ger- man dioceses, are no less extravagant on the other. To make the right estimate, the reader must remem- ber that there were never quite fifty bishops in all the three Palestines. In the middle of the sixth century there were but forty-five, who subscribed in the council of Jerusalem, anno 536. And we do not find, upon the nicest inquiry, they ever exceeded forty-eight. So that it were the absurdest thing in the world to suppose, as some have done, that these dioceses were but parish churches, or single congre- gations. On the other hand, when it is remembered, that the extent of the whole country was not above 8’ Cotovic. Itiner. lib. 2. c. 19. 88 Sozom. lib. 5. c. 21. ‘*9 Euseb. Chron. an. 2237. 9° Hieron. de Locis Hebr. voce Emmaus. 9‘ Lightfoot, Horae Hebr. in Matth. Prooem. 92 Otho, Lexic. Rabbin. p. 627. 93 Sigon. de Republic. Hebr. lib. 2. c. 8. Goodwin, Moss. et Aaron. lib. 2. c. 2. 9‘ Optat. lib. 3. p. 62. In cujus vertice est non magna planities, in qua fuerant septem synagogae, ubi Judaeorum populus conveniens, legem per Moysem datam discere po- tuisset. 95 Epiph. de Mensur. et Ponder. 9“ Hieron. Ep. 61. ad Pammach. c. 16. Tu potius scindis ecclesiam qui praecepisti Bethleem presbyteris tuis, ne com- petentibus nostris in pascha baptismurn traderent. Vid. Sulpic. Sever. Dial. l. c. 4. Parochia. est episcopi qui Hierosolymam tenet. 9’ Ibid. Theosobium Thiriae ecclesias diaconum facis pres- byterum, et contra nos armas. 9'3 Hieron. Loc. Hebr. voce Bethsarissa. Est in finibus Diospoleos villa, quindecim ferme ab ea. millibus distans con~ tra septentrionem in regione Tamnitica. 362 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. BooK IX. a hundred and sixty miles, it is as evident these dioceses could not be of the largest size, and, if compared with some others, scarce be found to have the proportion of ‘one to twenty, which needs no further demonstration. Sect 9 The next patriarchate is that of An- A catalogue-of the tioch, to which Carolus a Sancto Paulo provinces and (110 ffiiiscfilgggnggcgg assigns these thirteen provinces: Syria Prima. Syria Secunda. Theodorias. Cilicia Prima. Cilicia Secunda. Isauria. Eu- phratensis. Osrhoena. Mesopotamia. Phoenicia Prima. Phoenicia Secunda. Arabia, and the isle of Cyprus. One of these, Arabia Philadelphiaa, has been already spoken of; and three others, Isauria and Cilicia Prima and Secunda, lying in Asia Minor, shall be considered in the next chapter, among the provinces of that country. For the rest, I will here give first a particular catalogue of the dioceses in each province, and then make a few remarks upon them and some other Eastern provinces not men- tioned by that writer. In Syria Prima. l. Antiochia. 2. Seleucia Pieria. 3. Berraaa, by some called Aleppo. 4. Chalcis. 5. Onosarta, or rather Anasarta. 6. Gabbus. To which Holstenius adds another, called Paltus, which he thinks wrong placed in Theodorias. In Syria Secunda. l. Apamea, upon the river Orontes. 2. Arethusa. 3. Epiphania. 4. Larissa. 5. Mariama, or Ms- riamne. 6. Raphansea. 7. Seleucia juxta Belum, al. Seleucobelus. To these also Holstenius trans- fers another, named Balanea, out of the province of Theodorias, where he thinks it was wrong placed; but he is mistaken. In Theodorias. l. Laodicea. 2. Gabala. 3. Paltos. 4. Balanaea. In Euphratesia, or Comagene. l. Hieropolis. 2. Cyrus. 3. Samosata. 4. Do- liche. 5. Germanicia. 6. Zeugma. 7. Perre, by some corruptly read Perga, and Pella, and Peria, as Holstenius observes. 8. Europus, al. Amphipolis and Thapsacum. 9. Urima. 10. Caesarea, other- wise called Neocaesarea Euphratensis. 11. Sergio- polis. l2. Sura. l3. Marianopolis, which some place in Syria Secunda. In Osrhoena, or Mesopotamia Inferior. 1. Edessa. 2. Carrm. 3. Circesium. 4. Nice- phorium. 5. Batnae. 6. Callinicus, al. Leontopolis. 7. Marcopolis. 8. Himeria. 9. Dausara. In Mesopotamia Superior. 1. Amida, now called Caramit. 2. Nisibis. 3. Rh‘esina. 4. Martyropolis. 5. Caschara. To these Holstenius adds two more, Cepha, and Mnisus or Miniza. In Phoenicia Prima. l. Tyrus. 2. Sidon. 3. Ptolemais, or Acon. 4. Berytus. 5. Byblus. 6. Tripolis. 7. Area. 8. Orthosias. 9. Botrus. 10. Aradus. ll. Antaradus. 12. Porphyrium. I3. Paneas, or C aesarea Philippi. l4. Sycaminum, now called Capo Carmelo. In Phoenicia Libani. l. Damascus. 2. Laodicea Scabiosa. 3. Abyla. 4. Heliopolis. 5. J abruda. 6. Palmyra. 7. Emesa. 8. Danaba. 9. Evaria, al. Euroia, al. J ustinianopolis. 10. Comoara. 11. Corada. l2. Saracenoram Ci- vitas, which rather belongs to Arabia. Holstenius adds one more, called Arlana. In Cyprus. 1. Constantia. 2. Citium. 3. Amathus. 4. Cu- rium. 5. Paphos. 6. Arsinoe. 7. Lapithus. 8. Thamassus. 9. Chytrus. 10. Tremithus. ll. Soli. l2. Ledra. l3. Tiberiopolis. Holstenius adds Car- teriopolis and Carpasia, where Philo was bishop, who commonly, by a vulgar error, is called Carpa- thius, as if he had been bishop of Carpathus, an island in the Mediterranean Sea, whereas he was bishop of this Carpasia, in the isle of Cyprus, as Holstenius and Dr. Cave have both observed. Now, to make some few remarks upon these dioceses distinctly, I ob- serve, that by the same reason that Carolus a Sancto Paulo places Cyprus under the patriarch of Antioch, he might have brought As- syria, Persia, Babylonia, Adiabene, India, and the nation of the Homerites in Arabia Felix, under Antioch also. For there were bishops in all these places, as I shall show, but independent of any patiiarch except their own metropolitans. And so Cyprus was declared to be by the council of Ephe- sus; whence it was always reckoned an aatocepha- las, or independent province, as has been more fully proved in another place.99 All I have further to observe of it here, is in reference to those fifteen dioceses that we have found there, that they were large ones, if compared with those of Palestine: for Cyprus is computed by Ferrarius l70_miles long, and by others 200; which is more than Palestine. Baudrand reckons it 500 miles in compass; which, without inquiring any further into the particular distance of places, or largeness of the cities or vil- Sect. 10. Observations on the dioceses of Cy- prus. "9 Book II. chap. 18. sect. 2. CHAP. II. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 363 ANTIQUITIES OF THE lages, is sufficient to show, that those dioceses were none of the least size, though short of some that we shall meet with in the continent, as we take a view of the other provinces. Sect 1L That which lay next to Cyprus was Sy€jgth§§§f§e§jfd°f Syria, which anciently comprehended Secunda’ all the country betwixt the Mediter— ranean and Euphrates; but the Romans divided it into six provinces, Syria Prima and Secunda, Phoe- nicia Prima and Secunda, Theodorias, and Euphra- tensis, otherwise called Hagiopolis and Comagene. The six provinces together are computed by geo- graphers to be between three and four hundred miles in length, and two hundred broad from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates. And the whole number of dioceses in all the provinces was about fifty-six, that is, but eight more than we found in Palestine. By which the reader may easily make a general estimate of the largeness of these in com- parison of the other in Palestine, by considering the dimensions of each country, and comparing them together. But I will speak a little more particularly of a few dioceses in these provinces. Syria Prima had anciently but six dioceses, and in the later no- titias we find only five. The metropolis was Anti- och, one of the largest cities in the world. Chry- sostom, who may be supposed to be a competent judge of its greatness, speaks sometimes of ten or twenty myriads,‘°° that is, a hundred or two hun- dred thousand people in it. And he makes this a part of his panegyric upon Ignatius, that whereas it is a diflicult matter sometimes to govern a hun- dred or fifty men; yet such was his wisdom and virtue, that St. Peter doubted not to commit to his care a city, which had two hundred thousand people in it. The territory without the city was answer- able to its greatness within: for one way it reached two days’ journey, or fifty miles, to the territory of Cyrus, where Theodoret was bishop: for Strabo says,‘°‘ these two territories joined one to another. There were many great villages like cities in this compass; as Daphne, in the suburbs of Antioch; Gindarus, in the borders of the diocese toward Cy- rus : in Strabo’s time it was a city “2 belonging. to Cyrus, or Cyrrestica. But I must note, that there seem to have been two places of that name, the one a city, the other a village. For Strabo speaks of a Gindarus in the Regio Cyrrestica, which he calls a city: and we find one Petrus Gindarensis sub- scribing among the bishops of Syria in the council of Nice; who was also among the bishops of the council of Antioch which condemned Athanasius, as Holsteniusm3 and Schelstrate have observed out of the subscriptions of these councils. Whence we may conclude, that Gindarus mentioned by Strabo, was probably the same city whereof this Peter was bishop, and that there was another Gindarus, a vil- lage, in the time of Theodoret, belonging to Antioch, where Asterius the monk lived, of whom Theodoret ‘°‘ speaks in his Religious History; where he also men- tions other villages "5 near mount Amanus in the territory of Antioch; which must be at a great dis- tance from Antioch; for Mount Amanus was the northern limit of Syria. Berraea and Chalcis were large cities, twenty miles from one another. In the same province lay Selecia Pieria, sixteen miles from Antioch down the river Orontes, and five miles from sea; which was compass enough to make a large diocese, though much inferior to the former. In Syria Secunda there were anciently seven bi- shoprics, and we find the same number in the later notitias of the church. Of these Apamea was the metropolis, a city which Theodoret106 makes to be seventy-five miles from Antioch: and that it had a large territory and many villages, we learn from Strabo107 and other ancient writers. Larissa in this province is computed by Ferrarius to be fourteen miles from Apamea ; Arethusa, sixteen from Epi- phania; Epiphania, eighteen from Larissa. So that at least twenty miles will be allotted to every diocese in the province. In Phoenicia Prima some few cities, SM ,2_ as I have observed before in speaking "35353113558335, of Palestine, lay very near together, as Secunda‘ Sycaminum and Porphyrium, whose dioceses could not be very large upon that account. But Tyre and Sidon and Berytus were both large cities and at a greater distance. For Tyre was twenty~five miles distant from Sidon on the one side, and as much or more from Ptolemais on the other side. Cotovicus108 reckons it but twenty, but Ferrarius says it was two and thirty. And the city itself was very large, if we take Strabo’s account, for he says)”9 it filled an island that was nineteen miles in com- pass. Pliny “0 agrees as to the bigness of the island, but makes the city only two and twenty furlongs. Sidon was also a large city, and not within twenty- five miles of any other. Baudrand makes it twenty- five from Tyre, and thirty-five from Berytus. Be- rytus was famous for the study of the civil law, and reckoned among the great and flourishing cities of the East, and it had no nearer neighbours than Sidon on the south, and Byblus on the north, which Ferrarius sets at thirty-four miles’ distance from it. The dioceses in the other Phoenicia, to- ward Mount Libanus, were greater than the former. 1°“ Chrys. Horn. 86. in Matth. It. Horn. 42. in Ignat. t. l. p. 567. 1°‘ Strabo, lib. 16. p. 751. 1°? Id. ibid. “*3 Holsten. Annotat. Geograph. p. 206. Schelstrat. de Concil. Antioch. p. 93. 1°‘ Theod. Hist. Relig. Vit. Julian. p. 777. 1°? Ibid. Vit. Simeon. c. 6. p. 808. 1°“ Theod. Ep. 113. 1°’ Strabo, lib. 16. 1°? Strabo, lib. 16. 108 Cotovic. Itinerar. lib. l. c. 20. 11° Plin. lib. 5. c. 19. 364 Boox IX. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. For here were some larger cities and at a greater distance from one another. Among these was the great city Damascus, once the metropolis of the province, the largeness of which may be collected from what Josephus relates,“1 how that the Damas- cenes slew there ten thousand Jews in one day. Emissa, the new metropolis,is accounted also a large city by Ammianus Marcellinus,112 who equals it to Tyre and Sidon and Berytus. And for their terri- tories, we must judge of them by their distance from other places. Laodicea and Arethusa were the nearest neighbours to Emissa, and Ferrarius makes them sixteen miles distant from it. And we do not find Damascus pent up in narrower bounds: for it was surrounded with Abyla, and J abruda, and Cze- sarea Philippi, the last of which Ferrarius reckons twenty-six miles from it. Abyla was the head of a region, thence called Abylene, which gave the de- nomination of a tetrarch to Lysanias, as St. Luke informs us: whence we may collect there was a considerable territory belonging to it. Here was also the great city Palmyra, the head of another region, thence called Palmyrene, of which it is rea- sonable to make the same conclusion ; though I have nothing more particular to remark of the extent of these regions, save that Abyla. is reckoned thirty- two miles from Heliopolis, another noted city in this province, and one of its nearest neighbours, as Ferrarius out of Antonine’s Itinerary computes their distance. Viol. Ferrar. ooce Heliopolis. Sect], In the provincenof Theodorias, be- Of Theodorias. tween Syria Prima and Phoenicia on the sea-coast, there were but three dioceses, Lao- dicea the metropolis, Balanea, and Gabala; and the same are mentioned in Goar’s notz‘t-ia and others. Now, the distance of these places may be seen in Antonine’s Itinerary. Balanea was twenty-four miles from Antaradus in Phoenicia; Gabala, twenty-seven miles from Balanea, which Ferrarius calls twenty- four, according to modern accounts ; and Laodicea the metropolis was eighteen from Balanea. And their territories extended further other ways. In the province of Euphratesia, or Comagene, there were anciently thir- teen dioceses, and but one more in later notitz'as. Here were several large cities, as Hierapolis the metropolis of the province, and Sa- mosata on the Euphrates, which both Josephus “3 and Ammianus Marcellinus“4 describe as a great and magnificent city. But the largest diocese for extent of territory in these parts was that of Cyrus, where Theodoret was bishop, who gives a most par- ticular account of it. He says in one place,115 it Sect. 14. Of Euphratesia, or Comagene. was forty miles in length and forty in breadth; and that there were above six myriads, or threescore thousand Zz'lya or juga of land in it. Now a jugum of land was not a single acre, as some learned men mistake; but as much land as a yoke of oxen could plough in a year ; and the Roman taxes were raised by such proportions of land, whence the ordinary tax upon land was styled jugatz'o in the civil law, as I have had occasion to note “6 in another place. So that threescore thousand juga, according to this ac- count, will make a far greater diocese, than if we should understand it of single acres only. And that we may not think this was barren and unoccupied land, Theodoret in another place specifies what number of churches and parishes he had in his dio- cese, which he says “7 were eight hundred: some of which were overrun with the heresies of Marcion, Arius, and Eunomius, when he came to the diocese ; but he converted above ten thousand of one sect only, viz. Marcionites,118 to the catholic faith, and of others some thousands more. All which argu- ments agree to make it one of the largest dioceses of the East, as Blondel119 ingenuously confesses it to be, though some others would fain insinuate the whole story to be a fiction, when yet all circum- stances concur to give it the clearest evidences of truth. They who would see objections answered, may consult Bishop Stillingfleet120 or Dr. Maurice,I21 who have particularly considered the exceptions that have been raised against it. As to the other cities of this province, Doliche, Germanicia, Nico- polis, Zeugma, Caesarea, &c., some of them were but small cities, as Doliche, which Theodoret speaks of122 with the diminutive title of 'n'oMxm] apucpc‘z, a very small city: but they might have large dioceses, as Cyrus had, which itself was neither a great city nor very well inhabited, but had a diocese larger than many other cities which were ten times the bigness of it. In the Roman provinces beyond the Euphrates (which some call by Oggsilfieégiznd the general name of Mesopotamia, ' because it lay between the two rivers Tigris and Euphrates; but the Romans divided it into two provinces, Osrhoena on the banks of Euphrates, and Mesopotamia toward the Tigris) there are so few dioceses to be found in ancient records, that to me it seems probable that our accounts are very im- perfect: for the whole number in both provinces is but sixteen ; whereas in the later notitz'as there are sixteen in Osrhoena alone, and in the other pro- vince thirty-five more; which makes it probable that ancient accounts are here defective. Other- “1 Joseph. de Bell. lib. 2. c. 25. "2 Ammian-lib- 14- C- 8- 1'3 Joseph. de Bell. lib. 7. c. 27. 1“ Ammian- lib- 14- c- 8- "5 Theodor. Ep. 42 et 47. 116 See Book V. c. 3. sect. 3. “7 Theod. Ep. 113. ad Leon. ’Eu o’m'alcoo'iats ércxhndiars ghaxov woruaivaw. 706116709 'yc‘zp 5 Klijdfios 'lrapoucias é'xet. “8 Id. Ep. 145. p. 1026. Hhez'ovs 1’) ,rvpiovs, 8w. “9 Blondel. Apol. p. 185. 12° Stillingfl. of Separat. p. 258. . 12‘ Maurice’s Defence of Dioc. Episc. p. 396. "2 Theod. lib. 5. o. 4. CHAP. II. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 365 ANTIQUITIES OF THE wise we must say, that these dioceses were ex- tremely large. For Baudrand makes the country four hundred and twenty miles long, and two hun- dred and seventy broad. Which divided into six- teen dioceses would make them all of great extent. But the country seems not to have been all con— verted, for the Roman cities were only such as lay by the banks of the rivers, and chiefly upon the Euphrates. I shall therefore make no other esti- mate of them, than by the certain light we have of them in ancient history. From which it is clear, that some of them were at least such episcopal dio- ceses as were in all other parts of the world, that is, cities with country regions and village churches. This is evident from what Epiphanius observes of Chascara, one of the cities of Mesopotamia, that beside the bishop’s see it had village churches, and presbyters incumbent on them, in the third century. For speaking‘” of Manes the heretic, the first founder of the Manichees, he says, When he had been bafi‘led at a public disputation by Archelaus, bishop of Chascara, and had like to have been stoned by the people, he fled to Diodoris, a village belong- ing to Chascara, where one Tryphon was presbyter, whom he challenged to a new disputation. And if the lesser cities had such kind of dioceses, we may readily conclude the same of Nisibis the metropolis, which was so large a city as to be able to defend it- self sometimes against all the power of the Persian empire ; being, as Sozomen observes of it)“ in a manner all Christian in the time of the emperor Julian. Edessa, the metropolis of the other pro- vince of Osrhoena, was also a very large city, and the royal seat of Agbarus, who lived in our Sa- viour’s time, and by whose means it is generally thought to be converted very early to Christianity; and so it might perhaps from the very first have several churches in it. However, in after ages we are sure it had: for Sozomen, speaking of the per- secution under Valens the Arian emperor, says, He took away all the churches within the city, among . which125 that of St. Thomas was one, so that the people were forced to assemble in gardens without the city for Divine service. Sect. m. Beside these provinces mentioned orb-ragga Per- by Carolus a Sancto Paulo, there were some other countries out of the bounds of the Roman empire, which had the same form of episcopal government; upon which there- fore it will not be amiss to make a few strictures, whilst we are speaking of the Eastern provinces. That which we now call Armenia Magna, was an- ciently called Armenia Persica, because it belonged not to the Roman, but to the Persian empire. Here were also bishops in the time of Theodoret, as appears from some of his epistles. For writing to one Eulalius a bishop, he styles him,126 for distinc- tion sake, rfig Ilspo'ucfig ’A9,uwiag, bishop of the Per- sian Armenia. And another epistle127 is directed to one Eusebius, a bishop of the same region. By which it is plain there were bishops in that coun- try in Theodoret’s time; but how many we cannot learn from him or any other ancient writer. Otho Frisingensis,” and Baronius,129 and some other mo- dern writers, talk much of the catholic of Armenia that sent to submit himself to the pope in the twelfth century, having a thousand bishops under him. But, as Mr. Brerewood‘30 rightly observes, if the whole story be not a fiction, Otho must needs mistake obedience for communion: for the catholic of Armenia might have a great number of the J a- cobite bishops in his communion, but there could not be so many in Armenia under his jurisdiction. For the modern notz'tia mentions but nineteen bi- shops in this Armenia, as the reader will find in the seventh chapter of this book. And it is not pro- bable they should multiply from twenty to a thou- sand in an age or two. However, this'story has no relation to the state of the church in the primitive ages, about which the present inquiry is only con- cerned. We have some further account of the churches in other parts also of the Persian dominions, beyond the river Tigris, in Adiabene, which is a region of Assyria, and in Babylonia or Chaldaea, in which we find two large cities, Seleucia and Ctesiphon, under one bishop. These were the royal seats of the Persian kings, and but three miles from each other, as Pliny131 and Ferrarius after him compute, though others place them at a greater distance. Seleucia is by some said to be the same as Mosul, the pre- sent seat of the patriarch of the Nestorians. But anciently they were both but one diocese, as we learn from Sozomen,132 who styles Simeon arch- bishop of Ctesiphon and Seleucia, under Sapores king of Persia, who lived in the time of Constan- tine. There were other bishops also in these parts at the same time, some of which suffered martyrdom together with Simeon, as the same author informs us.I33 He also mentions one Acepsimas, a bishop in the region of Adiabene, and twenty-three more, whose names are there recorded, as suffering mar- tyrdom about the same time ‘8* in several parts of the Persian empire. And what sort of dioceses they had, we may conjecture from what Sozomen135 says Sect. 17. Of Assyria, or Adi abenc, and Chal- daea. '23 Epiph. Haer. 66. Manichae. n. 11. 12‘ Sozom. lib. 5. c. 3. “5 Sozom. lib. 6. c. 18. 12“ Theodor. Ep. 77. ad Eulal. 12'’ Theod. Ep‘ 78, ‘28 Otto Frising. lib. 7. c. 32. '29 Baron. an. 1195. 13° Brerewood, Inquir. c. 24. 13‘ Plin. lib. 6. c. 26. ‘33 Ibid. c. 10. '35 Ibid. 0. 13. "2 Sozom. lib. 2. c. 9. “4 Ibid. 0. l3. 366 Boox 1X. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. of one of them, named Bichor, that he suffered mar- tyrdom together with Maureandus his chorepiscopus, and two hundred and fifty more of the clergy that were under him. Such a number of clergy, and a chorepiscopus among them, seem to bespeak a pretty large diocese; and if the rest were answerable to this, we may conclude the bishops were all of the same species as we have seen in all the Eastern nations. Theodorus Lector136 speaks of an- inorpgig'iiiizgreni other nation converted to Christianity p‘ggfriw’in Arabia in the time of Anastasius the emperor, whom he names Immireni, and says, they were subjects of the Persian empire, and dwelt in the most southern parts of their dominions. Whether they had above one bishop is not certain; for only one is mentioned as set over them upon their conversion. And it might be with them, as it was with some other barbarous people, Goths, Sa- racens, &c., that one bishop served the whole na- tion. Valesius confounds this people with the Ho- meritae, whom Bochart and others more truly place in Arabia Felix toward the South Sea. Baronius137 supposes the Homerites first converted to the Chris- tian faith about the year 354, at the same time that the Indians or Ethiopians were converted in the reign of Constantius. But we have no account then of what bishops were settled among them: but in the beginning of the sixth age, we find the Chris- tian religion in a flourishing condition there, till one Dunaan, an apostate Jew, having gotten the kingdom, raised a great persecution against the church, especially at Nargan, where one Arethas was a petty king, subject, as many other small re— guli were, to the kingdom of the Homerites, whom he barbarously destroyed with all his people. But this cloud quickly blowing over by the assistance of Justin the Roman emperor, and Elesban king of Ethiopia, who conquered Dunaan,188 the government fell again into the hands of a Christian king, in whose time Gregentius, archbishop of Tephra, the royal city, is said to have had that famous disputa- tion with Herbanus the Jew, the result of which was the conversion of an incredible number of Jews in that region. Here I chiefly observe, that Gre- gentius is styled archbishop of Tephra, which im- plies, that he had suffragan bishops under him: and in the relation of his death at the end ‘39 of the dispute, it is added, that both bishops, priests, and deacons were gathered together to attend his fu- neral. By which it appears, that the state of that church, so far as we have any account of it, was conformable to other churches. We have some few intimations also Sect ,9‘ given us of churches planted anciently m2’ $313558?“ among the Saracens in Arabia, which Amb‘a' were never under the Roman empire. Hilarion is said by some ‘4° to have begun the conversion of this nation, but it was not completed till Mauvia, queen of the Saracens, made it a condition of her making peace with the Romans in the time of Valentinian, that they should send her one Moses, a famous monk, to be the bishop of her nation; which was accord- ingly done, and so he became the first bishop of that region of the Saracens, as Ruffin,Ml and So- crates,142 and the other historians inform us. Sozo- men also adds, that one Zocomos, another regulars or petty prince of another region of the Saracens, being converted by a monk, brought over all his subjects to the Christian faith. Theodorus Lec- tor “8 likewise mentions another of these Saracen princes, named Alamundarus, who embraced the faith in the reign of the emperor Anastasius, anno 513. And Cyril of Scythopolis, who wrote the Lives of Euthymius and Sabas, takes notice also of a plantation of Saracens under the Roman govern- ment in Palestine,M4 over whom one Peter, a convert— ed Saracen, who had before been their captain, was made the first bishop by Juvenal, bishop of J c- rusalem, about the middle of the fifth century. Now, we are to observe, that as these Saracens were thus divided into little nations, (after the man- ner of the Arabians,) and had each their regulars, or petty prince; so they seem each to have had their proper bishop, one to a nation, and no more. And therefore in councils we find them usually subscrib- ing themselves rather by the title of their nation, Episeopus Gentis Saracenoram, than any other way. Which I take to be an indication, not that all the Saracens in the world had but one bishop, but that every petty nation had a bishop of its own, though it is hard to distinguish sometimes which family or tribe of them is meant by that general title. In the second council of Ephesus,145 one Auxilaus is styled Episcopus Saracenoram Fmderatorum, among the bishops of Palestine, whence it is easy to con- clude, there is meant the same Saracens that Cyril speaks of, who were confederate with the Romans, or under the Roman government. But in other places we are left to guess what Saracens may be meant, since they were divided into several petty nations, and more than one nation of them, as we have seen, were converted to the Christian faith. There is one Eastern country more, See, 20_ famous for its conversion by ZEdesius .nffiifllf’pfiffigfii'lfi; and Frumentius, in the time of Atha- helm‘! Egypt 18“ Theodor. Lect. lib. 2. p. 567. 13’ Baron. an. 354. n. 14. “8 Acta Martyr. Homeritar. ap. Baron. an. 522 et 523. ‘39 Gregeut. Disput. cum Herban. Bibl. Patr. Gr. Lat. t. l. p. 272. ‘‘° Baron. an. 372. p. 344. “1 Ruffin. lib. 2. c. 6. “2 Socrat. lib. 4. c. 36. Theodor. lib. 4. c. 23. Sozom. lib. 6. c. 38. “3 Theodor. Lector. lib. 2. 1“ Cyril. Vit. Euthym. ap. Baron. an. 420. p. 481. “5 Conc. Ephes. 2. in Act. 1. Cone. Chalcedon. t. 4. p. 118. CHAP. III. 367 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH." nasius, but yet learned men are not agreed where to place it. The ancient historians, Rufl‘in,H5 So- crates,“7 and the rest that relate the story, commonly call it India Ulterior, the Inner India: whence Ca- rolus a Sancto Paulo,H8 and Baronius,M9 and many others take it for granted, that they mean India within Ganges, the other part without Ganges hav- ing been converted before (as they think) by the apostle St. Bartholomew. But Holstenius150 and Valesius“l correct this mistake, and Bishop Pear- son ‘52 has more fully proved that the India they speak of was no part of the East Indies, but India beyond Egypt, which was part of Ethiopia, whereof Axumis was the metropolis. This lay not far from the mouth of the Red Sea, over against the country of the Homerites in Arabia, whence Constantius, in one of his laws,153 joins these two nations together. From which, and many other authorities, Bishop Pearson unanswerably proves, that this India can be understood of no other but the Ethiopic India, whereof Axumis was the metropolis. This the ancients called India as well as the other : for Vir- gil says, the Nile flowed from the Blackamore Indians 9“ and Procopius Gazensis styles the Red Sea, the Indian Sea, because it bordered upon this India beyond Egypt. Now, in this country Fru- mentius was the first bishop that we read of, being ordained bishop of Axumis by Athanasius and a synod of Egyptian bishops, and sent thither to con- vert the country and settle churches among them: which therefore, we need not doubt, were of the same species with those in Egypt and the rest of the world. For Axumis was not the only place that had a bishop. For Palladius mentions one Moses,155 bishop of Adulis, which was another city of Ethiopia. And in his Life of St. Chrysostom,156 he also speaks of one of his own name, Palladius, bishop of the Blemyes, which were a people of Ethiopia, adjoining to Egypt, as Strabo, and Pliny, and other geographers inform us. Bishop Pearson gives some other proofs, out of Cedrenus and the Arabic canons of the Nicene council, and their an- cient liturgies, that they had bishops in that coun- try ever since this their first conversion. But no- thing more particular occurring concerning their dioceses, for want of better light we can give no further account of them. And for the same reason I must omit several other Eastern nations, as the Parthians, and Indians about Ganges, which were converted by St. Thomas the apostle; and the Iberians and other nations lying upon the Caspian Sea, w'hich Ruffin157 says were converted first by a captive Woman in the time of Constantine. Ancient history affords us but slender accounts of the original of these churches, and less of the constitution and settlement of them. So that, taking our leave of these far-distant regions, we will come next to a part of the world which is better known, which is the Patriarchate of Constantinople, under which were anciently comprehended all the provinces of Thrace and Asia Minor, except Isauria and Cilicia, which always belonged to the patriarch of Antioch. I shall first speak of Asia Minor, and then proceed to the European provinces, taking each country as they lie in their natural order. CHAPTER III. A CONTINUATION OF THIS ACCOUNT IN THE PRO- VINCES OF ASIA MINOR. To understand the state of diocesan S. t. 1. Of mic extent of churches in Asia Minor, it will be , Asia Minor and the proper, before we descend to part1- gélnrpahifxrepggirzcigfw culars, to examine the extent of the country in gross, and see how many dioceses are to be found in the whole: for by this we may make an estimate of them in general, allowing each dio- cese its proportion upon an equal distribution of the country into so many parts as there were dioceses in it. Not that they were really so equally divided; (for in summing up the particulars we shall find here were some of the largest and some of the small- est dioceses in the world ;) but we may conceive them as equal, in order to make a division of the whole country at once among them. Now, Dr. Heylin in his Geographyl reckons the length of Asia Minor from the Hellespont to the river Euphrates to be 630 miles ; and the breadth from Sinus Issicus in Cilicia to Trabezond in Pontus to be 210 miles, The ancient geographers, Strabo2 and Pliny,3 make it almost 200 miles more in length. But then their accounts are taken from some ancient pcriplus or sea voyage, which never proceeds in a direct line, but takes in the bendings and windings of the sea, which may easily stretch 600 to 800 miles : so that the accounts may be the same, when allowance is “6 Ruflin. lib. l. c. 9. “7 Socrat. lib. 1. c. 19. “3 Carol. a S. Paulo. Geogr. Sacr. p. 268. “9 Baron. Not. in Martyrol. Die 27. Octob. ‘5° Holsten. Not. in Carol. a S. Paulo. Geogr. p. 17], ceptus, ultra annui temporis spatia debet Alexandria: de caetero commorari. 15* Virgil. Georg. 4. ver. 291. vexus ab Indis. 155 Pallad. de Gentibus Indiae. ‘56 Pallad. Vit. Chrysost. c. 20. 1 Heylin, Cosmngr. lib. 3. p. 3. 2 Strabo, lib. 12. p. 547 et 548. Usque coloratis amnis de- 15‘ Vales. Not. in Socrat. lib. 1. c. 19. '52 Pearson, Vind. Ignat. par. 2. c. 1]. p. 332. ‘53 Nullus ad gentem Auxumitaruin et Homeritas ire pree- 15’ Ruflin. lib. 1. c. 10. 3 Plin. lib. 6. c. 2 368 ANTIQUITIES ‘OF THE BOOK 1X. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. made for the excesses of one way of measuring above the other. As to the breadth, Pliny’s account is rather less: for he makes it but bare 200 miles‘ from Sinus Issicus to the Euxine Sea. But then he says, this was the narrowest part of it, where the two seas almost made it a peninsula. And it is certain in other parts it was much broader. For Strabo5 reckons the breadth of Cappadocia only from Pontus to Mount Taurus 1800 stadia, which is above 200 miles: and yet- Casaubon6 supposes, that by Pontus he does not mean the Pontus Euxinus, but the province of Pontus, which was to be added to the breadth of Asia on one side of Cappadocia, as Cilicia was on the other. So that we can hardly suppose the breadth of Asia, taking one part with another, to be less than 300 miles. Now, this was divided by the Romans into two large civil dioceses, the Asiatic and Pontic, each of which had ten or eleven provinces in them, and every province se- veral cities and episcopal dioceses, beside those of Isauria and Cilicia, which are reckoned to the Ori- ental diocese, and were under the patriarch of Anti- och. Christopherson, in his translation of Theodoret, makes a strange mistake concerning these bishop- rics. For whereas Theodoret says, that Asia, or the Asiatic diocese, was inrb 's'vdelca dpxdvrwv, under eleven civil prefects,7 he translates it, undecz'm antis- tz'tes, as if there had been but eleven bishops in all the Asiatic diocese; and only as many in the Pontic diocese, because Theodoret says, it had io'apiepovg zjyovpévovg, the same number of governors: whereas Theodoret is not speaking of ecclesiastical governors, but civil governors of provinces; whereof there was the number Theodoret speaks of in each of those dioceses: but bishoprics were abundantly more numerous; for some single provinces had above forty, and in the whole number they were, according to Carolus a Sancto Paulo’s reckoning, three hun- dred and eighty-eight, viz. in Asia forty-two, Helles- pont nineteen, Phrygia Pacatian a Prima twenty-nine, Pacatiana Altera five, Phrygia Salutaris twenty, Lydia twenty-four, Caria twenty-five, Lycia twenty- eight, Pamphylia Prima twelve, Pamphylia Secunda twenty-four, Pisidia nineteen, ‘ Lycaonia nineteen, Cappadocia Prima six, Cappadocia Secunda six, Cappadocia Tertia five, Armenia Prima five, Arme- nia Secunda ten, Galatia Prima seven, Galatia Se- cunda four, Pontus Polemoniacus six, Elenopontus six, Paphlagonia five, Honorias five, Bithynia Prima fourteen, Bithynia Secunda four, Cilicia Prima seven, Cilicia Secunda nine, Isauria twenty-three. In the latter notz'tz'a, which the reader will find at the end of this book, the number is a little increased to four hundred and three. For though some pro- vinces decreased, yet others increased in their num- bers, so that in the eighth century we find fifteen dioceses more than were in former ages, which is , no great alteration in such a multitude, considering what great additions have been made in some other countries in comparison of this. Now then, sup- posing 400 dioceses to have been in a country. 600 miles in length and 300 in breadth, let us examine how much upon an equal distribution will fall to every diocese. And it appears upon an exact com- putation, that supposing there had been 450 dio- ceses, there would have been 20 miles to each dio- cese ;_and consequently, there being not so many by 50, every diocese must have so much the more upon an equal distribution. But then it must be owned, that the distribution was generally unequal in this country; for the bishoprics of the Pontic provinces were for the most part very large, and those of the Asiatic provinces consequently the smaller upon that account, and abundantly more numerous: so that here the reader may view the largest and smallest dioceses in the world together, and yet the same species of episcopacy maintained in all without distinction. To begin with the Pontic provinces: Cappadocia was a very large country, and had but few bishoprics. Strabo 8 reckons it 3000 stadia in length, that is, 375 miles: but then he takes it in a larger sense than we do now, as including all from the provinces of Lycaonia and Phrygia to the Euphrates ; which takes in Ar- menia Minor as well as Cappadocia: for anciently they were all one kingdom, though afterwards di- vided into five provinces, three Cappadocias, and Armenia Prima and Secunda. But now in all these five provinces there were not thirty dioceses at first, and some of those were new erected in the fourth century, as Sasima, where Gregory Nazianzen was made bishop, which before belonged either to Cae- sarea, the metropolis of Cappadocia Prima, from which it was 100 miles distant; or to Tyana, the metropolis of Cappadocia Secunda, from which it lay 32 miles,9 as Ferrarius computes. This shows that these dioceses were of great extent: but we have still more certain evidence of the thing; for Gregory Nazianzen 1° says, that St. Basil, who was bishop of Caesarea, had fifty chorepz'scopi under him; and Basil himself often speaks of his ckorepiscopi," and country presbyters and deacons under them : ‘2 which argues his diocese to be of great extent, though we cannot precisely fix the limits of it. And the paucity of dioceses in this province argues the same. For by Carolus a Sancto Paulo’s account, beside Caasarea, the metropolis of the first Cappa- Sect. 2. Of Cappadocia and Armenia Minor. 4 Plin. lib. 6. c. 2. 8 Casaub. in loo. 8 Strabo, lib. 12. p. 539. 5 Strabo, lib. 12. p. 539. " Theod. lib. 5. c. ‘28. 9 Ferrar. Lexie. Geograph. voce Sasima. l° Naz. Carm. de Vita Sua. 1‘ Basil, Ep. 181. ‘2 Ibid. Ep. 412. CHAP. III. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 369 ANTIQUITIES OF THE docia, there were but five bishoprics more in that province, Nyssa, where Gregory Nyssen was bishop, Thermze Regiae, Camuliana or J ustinianopolis Nova, Ciscissa, and T heodosiopolis, at the time of the sixth general council; which are the same that are men- tioned in the later notitz'as, only Methodiopolis is put for Theodosiopolis Armenias, to which province the council of Chalcedon ascribes it. So that there were really never above five dioceses in this pro- vince, and two of those, Camuliana and Ciscissa, erected after the council of Chalcedon. For in the synodical epistle of this province to the emperor Leo at the end of that council, there are but two bishops subscribe beside the metropolitan of Cae- sarea, viz. the bishops of Nyssa and Thermaa. So- zomen13 speaks of one Prapidius, governor of St. Basil’s hospital, (called Basilias from its founder,) who was likewise a bishop that had several villages under his jurisdiction. But whether his diocese was in this Cappadocia is uncertain. The second Cappadocia, which was made by a division of the province in the time of St. Basil, had, according to Carolus a Sancto Paulo’s account, six dioceses, Tyana the metropolis, Sasima, J ustiniano- polis, Asuna, Faustinopolis, and Cybistra. But as Holsteniusl4 has observed, two of these are mis- taken. For there never was any such city as Asuna, which is only a corruption in the Latin editions of the councils for Sasima; it being in the Greek, é-n-imco'rrog Zao'ipwv, bishop of Sasima. And J ustinianopolis was only another name for Moeissus, which Justinian having advanced to be a metro-- polis in the third Cappadocia, styled it by his own name, J ustinianople. So that there were really no more than four dioceses in this province, and one of them, Sasima, but of late erection. This was also but an obscure village, arévov xwpzidptov, Nazi- anzen15 himself calls it. So that the three ancient dioceses must be of very large extent, though we have no further account of them, save that Pasa, a village twelve miles distant from Tyana, is said to be in that diocese ‘6 by one Euphrantas in the fifth general council, and Sasima was originally part of the same diocese, though thirty-two miles distant from the cathedral. Which sufiiciently demon- strates the largeness of dioceses in this province. The third Cappadocia had never above five bishoprics, Moeissus, Nazianzum, Colonia, Par- nassus, and Doara. Of these Mocissus was the metropolis, which owed its honour to Justinian, who dignified it with the title of a metropolis, and, as Procopiusl7 informs us, gave it his own name, J ustinianople ; by which title Peter, bishop of the place, subscribes himself ‘8 in the council under Mennas. Doara was but a village, as Holstenius“ observes out of St. Basil, who styles it20 Icu'ipnv And Nazianzus was but a small city, as Gregory Nazianzen himself 2‘ styles it: but they must have large dioceses, else the other three must be so much the larger for it. For geographers place them at a considerable distance from one an- other. Nazianzus had its chorepiscopz', sometimes mentioned in Gregory Nazianzen’s epistles,22 which is an argument that it had a large country region. In Armenia Prima, Carolus a Sancto Paulo could find but five bishoprics, Sebastea the metro- polis, Sebastopolis, Nicopolis, Satala, and Berisse. And the later notz'tz'as add but one more, Colonia, which is also reckoned to Cappadocia Tertia, unless there were two of the same name in those provinces. In the Second Armenia he augments the number to ten, Melitene the metropolis, Area, Comana, Arabissus, Cucusus, Ariarathia, Amasa, Zelona, Sophene, Diospontum. But Holstenius, in his ani- madversions upon the place,23 observes, that four of these are to be struck out of the account: for Amasa, or Amasia, belonged to Hellenopontus; and Zelona was no other than Zela in the same pro- vince; Sophene belonged to Armenia Major; and Diospontum was not the name of a bishopric, but only an old name for the province of Hellenopontus. And his conjecture is confirmed by the later no- titz'as, which name the six first of these dioceses, but none of those four, under the title of Armenia Minor. So that in all these five provinces, upon an exact computation, there were not above twenty- four dioceses in the whole : some of them, therefore, must be very large in a country of three hundred miles extent. The next province to these upon . the Euxine Sea, was Pontus Polemo- niacus, so called from Polemonium, a chief city in the province ; beside which and Neo- caasarea the metropolis, there were but three other bishoprics, Trapezus, Cerasus, and Comana: all which lay at a great distance from one another. Polemonium, Cerasus, and Trapezus, lay in a line on the sea-coast: and by Pliny’s reckoning,” Polemo- nium and Trapezus were one hundred and fifty-five miles distant from each other, and Cerasus lay in the middle between them. Neoczesarea was a hundred miles within land, and Comana sixty from Au'iapa. Sect. 3. Of Pontus Pole- moniacus. 13 Sozom. lib. 6. c. 34. 1‘ Holsten. Annot. Geograph. p. 157. ‘5 Naz. Carm. de Vita Sua. '6 Cone. Genet. 5. Collat. 5. Cone. t. 5. p. 478. 1’ Procop. de ZEdific. Justin. lib. 5. p. 48. '8 Concil. sub Menna. Act. 2. '9 Holsten. Annot. Geograph. p. 159. 2° Basil. Ep. 10. 21 N az. Orat. 19. de Laud. Patris, t. 1. p. 310. 22 Naz. Ep. 88. *3 Holsten. Annot. Geograph. p. 161. Id. Annot. in Or~ teliurn, p. 1.72, observes out of Antonine’s Itinerary, that Sebastea and Sebastopolis were thirty~six miles distant from each other. 2‘ Plin. lib. 6. c. 4. 2 B 370 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Boon 1X. it. J ustinian25 mentions these five cities in one of his Novels, and says, there were no more in the province. For Pitius and Sebastopolis were not cities, he says, but only castles: and, as Holstenius26 observes, they were not properly of this province, but lay in Solo Barbarico, and were only appendages to this province, because they could not constitute a province of themselves. So that though Carolus a Sancto Paulo make Pitius a sixth bishopric of this province, yet the later notitias leave it out of the number, and only retain the five first mentioned. Which shows, that for eight hundred years there never was any alteration made in this province, nor more episcopal dioceses erected than there were imperial cities, though they lay at so great a dis- tance from one another. The next province to this on the sea-coast, was Helenopontus, which had only ‘six bishoprics at the time of the council of Chalcedon, Amasea the metropolis, Amisus, Si- nope, Iborea, Zela, and Andrapa, as appears from the synodical epistle of the bishops of this province27 to the emperor Leo; and there was but one more added in after ages. Of these Amisus and Sinope lay upon the sea-coast, at a great distance from one another. For Pliny says, Amisus lay in the way between Polemonium and Sinope, one hundred and twenty miles from Polemonium,28 and one hundred and thirty from Sinope.29 Which comes pretty near the account of Strabo, who reckons it nine hundred stadia, or one hundred and twelve miles, from Ami- sus80 to Sinope. He also speaks of Armena, a vil- lage of Sinope,“ fifty stadia from it. And of Ama- sea, the place of his nativity, he gives a more particular account, telling us, that it had a very large territory one way, which for the number of villages in it was called xtxtérwpov radical,” the country of a thousand villages. This was an inland city, reckon- ed by some 'a hundred miles from the sea. Zela was as far from Amasea. So that without all doubt these were dioceses of the largest size, since the cities lay so remote from one another. Next to Helenopontus on the sea- Ogfgéilggpania coast lay the province of Paphlagonia: ' in which Carolus a Sancto Paulo reckons five bishoprics, Gangra the metropolis, Sora, J unopolis, Pompeiopolis, and Amastris. To which Holstenius has added Dadibra, whose bishop Poly- chronius subscribed in the council of Chalcedon,83 by Peter the metropolitan of Gangra. In the fol- lowing ages the number decreased; for there is no mention of Pompeiopolis or Amastris in the later notitias of the church. Among these Gangra is Sect. 4. Of Helenopontus. noted by St. Basil?‘ as a place that had several churches and altars in it. Amastris was a large city, which grew out of four others adjoining to it, Sesamus, Cytorus, Cromna, and Teius, as Ferrarius observes, who“5 makes it to be sixty-eight miles from Heraclea in the next province of Honorias. And all the rest seem to have been at as great dis- tances from each other. On the south of Paphlagonia lay Galatia, an in- land country, having Cappadocia on the east, and Phrygia on the west. This by the Romans was divided into two provinces, Galatia Prima, and Se— cunda, or Salutaris. In the first there were seven bishoprics, Ancyra the metropolis, Tabia, Heliopo- lis, or J uliopolis, Aspona, Cinna, Berinopolis, and Anastasiopolis. The last of which seems to be erected in the latter end of the seventh century only: for there is no mention of it till the sixth general council of Constantinople, anno 681. The Greek notitias add but one more, Mizzi, retaining all the other old names; which shows, that little alteration was made in this province for the space of eight ages in the church. The other Galatia had originally but four dioceses, Pissinus, Orcistus, Petenessus, and Trochmada, or Trochmi: but the number was doubled in after ages, as appears from the notitia at the end of this book, which adds, Eu- doxias, Mericium, and Therma, or Germocolonia, and J ustinianopolis, otherwise called Spalea. Now, Galatia was a large country, and the dioceses (even when these four last mentioned were added) were still of great extent. For Baudrand36 observes that Pessinus was fifty miles from Ancyra, and thirty from Therma, by which we may guess at the dis- tance of other places. Carolus a Sancto Paulo places Cinna pretty near Ancyra ; but Baudrand re- moves it to the southern borders of Galatia, nearer Synada in Phrygia.87 And Ferrarius computes As- pona to be sixty-four miles from Ancyra eastward. Berinopolis and J uliopolis seem to have been almost as much to the west. Which leaves room for the territory of Ancyra to be sufi‘iciently large, though I find no particular account given of it, nor of some other places in these two provinces of Galatia. Next to Paphlagonia, on the sea- coast, lay the province of Honorias, or Pontus Honorii, so called by Theodosius the em- peror in honour of his son Honorius. This was divided from Bithynia by the river Sangarius, and from Paphlagonia by the river Parthenius. Here were anciently five bishoprics, and the later n0- titias have but six, Claudiopolis, Heraclea, Prusias, Tium, Cratea, Adrianopolis, which last is not to be 2" Justin. Novel. 28. in Praefat. 2“ Holsten. Annot. Geograph. p. 164. 2" Append. Concil. Chalced. cap. 53. Cone. t. 4. p. 963. 28 Plin. lib. 6. c. 4. 29 Ibid- 0- 2. 3° Strabo, lib. 12. p. 547. 31 Ibid. p. 545. Sect. 6. Of Honorias. 32 Ibid. p. 561. 33 Concil. Chalced. Act. 6. 34 Basil. Ep. 73. 35 Ferrar. voce Amastris. 35 Baudrand. Lexie. voce Pessinus. 8’ Baudrand. voce Cinna. CuAP. Ill. 371 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. met with in the subscriptions of any ancient coun- cil. Of these, Tium and Heraclea lay upon the Euxine Sea, thirty-eight miles distant from each other, as Pliny38 informs us. Claudiopolis was at as great distance from them in the middle of the province; Baudrand89 says it was above thirty miles from Heraclea. So that we may judge of Cratia, otherwise called Flaviopolis, and of Prusias, by what we have discovered of the former. All these cities are sometimes reckoned to Bithynia, because Honorias was anciently part of Bithynia, till Theo- dosius made a distinct province of it. But after the separation was made, Sect. 7. . . . . . . orasjiihsgxnglima Bithynia was again divided 1nto two provinces. In the first of which Ca- rolus a Sancto Paulo reckons fourteen dioceses. 1. Nicomedia, the metropolis. 2. Chalcedon. 3. Prusa ad Olympum. 4. Praenetum. 5. Helenopolis. 6. Basilinopolis. 7. Apollonias. 8. Hadriana. 9. Cae- sarea, al. Smyrdiana. 10. Arista. ll. Patavium. l2. Dablis. 13. Neoczesarea. 14. Cius. In the other Bithynia only four. 1. Nicaea, where the fa- mous council of Nice was held, the metropolis of this province. 2. Apamea. 3. Linoe. 4. Gordus. And the later notitia of Leo Sapiens makes but one more in both provinces, though some new names of places are inserted. Among these I observe the city of Nice had a large diocese: for several regions belonging to it are mentioned in the council of Chalcedon, in a famous dispute between the two metropolitans of N icodemia and Nice, both laying claim to the diocese of Basilinopolis, as one of their suli'ragans. Anastasius, bishop of Nice, pleaded, that Basilinopolis“0 was once but a region belonging to Nice, as Tacteus and Doris then were, till Julian, or some other emperor, made it a city, setting up a curia or civil magistracy therein, upon which it be- came also a bishop’s see, according to the known rule and practice of the church. So that the diocese of Nice was once so large, as to have another diocese taken out of it, and yet there remained several re- gions belonging to it. The like may be collected from its distance from other places. Pliny“l says, it was twenty-five miles from Prusa, and Ferrarius reckons forty-four miles from Nicodemia, but sets Helenopolis, or Drepanum, in the middle way be- tween them.42 Basilinopolis, by mistake, is set by Carolus a. Sancto Paulo at a greater distance from it, between Nicodemia and Chalcedon; but it must be nearer, having been once a part of its diocese, as was observed before. For other places, I find little account of them in particular, save only that Strabo makes it three hundred furlongs, or thirty-seven miles, from Nicodemia to the mouth of the river Sangarius, whereabout Cius stood; and Ferrarius computes sixty from Nicodemia to Chalcedon, in all which tract there were but these three dioceses, and one more, called Praenetum; so that if we had a par- ticular account of Nicodemia and Chalcedon, we might perhaps find them to have had dioceses of as great extent as any other. But Apamea and Prusias, Baudrand48 says, were but nine miles distant from one another. For these lay in the southern parts of Bithynia, and were some of the last in the Pontic civil diocese toward the Asiatic diocese, where, as I observed before, the cities were more numerous and thicker set together, and, consequently, the episco- pal dioceses were generally less than in the other provinces, as will appear by taking a distinct view of them in order as they lay. In the Asiatic diocese, the first pro- Sect. 8_ vince next adjoining to Bithynia was Agi’ggvcigfggegf lfile‘f’; Hellespontus, so called from the straits 185mm‘ of the sea named Hellespont, which was its western border. It was anciently part of Mysia and Phry- gia Minor, bordering on Phrygia Major eastward, and Asia to the south. In this province Carolus a Sancto Paulo has observed nineteen dioceses in the ancient councils. 1. Cyzicus, the metropolis. 2. Germa. 3. Poemanium. 4. Occa. 5. Bares. 6. Adrianotherae. 7. Lampsacus. 8. Abydus. 9. Dar- danum. 10. Ilium. ll. Troas. 12. Melitopolis. l3. Adriana. l4. Scepsis. l5. Pionia. l6. Prae- conesus. l7. Ceramus. 18. Parium. l9. Ther- mze Regize. But the last of them Holstenius thinks is mistaken for Germa, by a corrupt reading of the ancient subscriptions. The notitia of Leo Sapiens has but thirteen of these, so that five of them were sunk and united to others in the eighth century. The greatest distance, that I can find, of any of these cities, was not above twenty miles from one another. Which was the distance between Cyzicus and Parium, and Lampsacus and Abydus. But then, Dardanum was but seventy furlongs, or eight miles, from Abydus; Ilium but thirteen miles from Darda- num; Troas but twenty-seven miles from Abydus, though Pionia, Ilium, Bares, and Dardanum lay be- tween them. So Praeconnesus was but a very small island, and Poemanium a castle once belonging to the territory of Cyzicus, as Ferrarius has noted out of Strabo, Stephanus, and other ancient writers. The two next provinces I join to- gether, because we sometimes find them under the common name of Asia Lydiana, or Proconsularis, under which title Bishop Usher has a most accurate dissertation“ . . 9. Asia Lydiana, or Proconsularis. 38 Plin. lib. 6. c. 1. 39 Baudrand. voce Claudiopolis. 4° Conc. Chalced. Act. 13. ap. Crab. p. 918. Sicut Tac- teus et Doris regiones sunt sub Nicaea, sic fuit ante hoc Basilinopolis sub Nicaea, &e. 4' Plin. lib. 5. c. 32. ‘2 Ferrar. Lexie. voce Nicaea, et Drepanum. ‘3 Baudrand. Lexie. voce Apamea. ‘4 Usser. Disquisitio Geographica (le Asia Lydiana sive Proconsulari. 2 B 2 372 Boox 1X. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. upon them, where he distinguishes the several ac- ceptations of the name Asia, either for the greater Asia, or Asia Minor, or Asia proprie dicta; which was the Romans’ first conquests in Asia, containing the provinces of Phrygia, Mysia, Caria, and Lydia; or lastly, for Asia Lydiana or Proconsularis, which was those two provinces which in Constantine’s di- vision are called distinctly Asia and Lydia, as we here now take them. In this sense we may call the former, Asia maxime proprz'e dicta, which is bounded on the north by the province of Hellespontus, on the east by Phrygia and Lydia, on the south by the river Meeander, which separates it from Caria, and on the west by the ZEgean Sea. In it Carolus a Sancto Paulo has found forty-two ancient dioceses. l. Ephesus, the metropolis. 2. Hypaepa. 3. Trallis. 4. Magnesia ad Meeandrum. 5. Elaea. 6. Adra- myttium. 7. Assus. 8. Gargara. 9. Mastaura. 10. Brullena, al. Priulla. ll. Pitane. 12. Myr- rina. l3. Aureliopolis. l4. Nyssa. 15. Metro- polis. 16. Valentinianopolis. l7. Aninetum. 18. Pergamus. l9. Anaa. 20. Priene. 21. Arcadi- opolis. 22. Nova Aula. 23. Hlgea. 24. Andera. 25. Sion. 26. Fanum J ovis. 27. Colophon. 28. Lebedus. 29. Teos. 30. Erytrae. 31. Antandrus. 32. Pepere or Perpere. 33. Cuma or Cyme. 34. Aulium, al. Aulii Come vel Vicus. 35. Naulochus. 36. Palaeopolis. 37. ,Phocaea. 38. Bargaza, al. Baretta. 39. Thymbria. 40. Clazomenee. 41. Magnesia. 42. Smyrna. To these Holstenius adds four more, Evaza, Areopolis, Temnus, and Argiza. And thirty-eight of these are the same that are men- tioned in the notz'tz'a of Leo Sapiens, in the seventh chapter of this book. Now, this was but a very small province for so many dioceses, if we examine either the whole extent of it, or some particular dioceses therein. The extent of it in length was from Assus near Troas, to the river Maeander, or the cities Bargasa and Sion. Which was anciently the country of Ionia, ZEolis, and part of Mysia, about two hundred miles in length upon the ZEgean Sea. But the breadth was nothing answerable to its length, being not above fifty miles, taking one part with another. As to particular distances of places, I find some of them thus noted by Ferrarius and Baudrand. Assus in the ‘most northern border was fifteen miles from Gargara, and thirty from Antandrus; but Anaea and Andera lay between, or near unto them. From Antandrus to Adramyttium is also reckoned thirty miles, but then Tremenothyra in Phrygia, and Nova Aula in this province, come between them. On the same shore we find Naulo- chus and Pitane, and then Elea, Myrina, and Cyme, whereof Myrina was but seven or eight miles from Elea, and Cyme the same distance, sixty furlongs, from Myrina. Between Pergamus and Cyme is reckoned twenty-six miles, but the fore-mentioned cities Myrina and Elea, with Aminetum and Hiero- caesarea, lay between them. On the south of Cyme lay Phocaea, ten miles from the mouth of the river Hermus, and about the same distance from Cyme. From Phocaea to Smyrna is computed twenty-five miles, and hem Smyrna to Colophon, twenty miles, but Lebedus lay in the middle way between them. Colophon and Metropolis upon the Caystrus were each of them twenty miles from Ephesus, and Ephesus seems not to have had any nearer neigh- bour, unless it was Priene, towards the river Mm- ander, from whence we may conclude, that Ephesus was the largest diocese in all this province. And by these few hints we may judge of the general extent of them. In the other province of Lydia, Carolus a Sancto Paulo reckons twenty-six dioceses. l. Sardis, the metropolis. 2. Philadelphia. 3. Tripolis. 4. Thyatira. 5. Septe. 6. Gordus. 7. Trallis. 8. Silandus. 9. Maonia. 10. Fanum Apollinis. ll. Mostena. 12. Apollonia. l3. Attalia. 14. Bana. l5.‘ Balandus. 16. Hieroceesarea. l7. Acrassus. 18. Daldus. l9. Stratonicia. 20. Satala. 21. Gabala. 22. Heraclea. 23. Areopolis. 24. Hel- lene. 25. Sena, al. Setta. 26. Civitas Standitana. To which Holstenius adds three more, Mastaura, Cerasa, and Orcanis, or Hircani, which Tristan and Carolus a Sancto Paulo both mistake for a city some where among the Hircanians, but Holstenius shows it belonged to Asia Minor and this province of Lydia. I will not stand to examine the parti— cular bounds and extent of dioceses throughout this province; it being suflicient to observe in general, that both it and Asia put together were not larger than the provinces of Pontus Polemoniacus and Helenopontus; and yet there were not above ten or eleven dioceses in those two provinces, whereas we have discovered in these above seventy-five, which is almost the disproportion of eight to one, and fully makes out the observation I at first made of Asia Minor, that it had some of the greatest and some of the smallest dioceses, quietly enjoying the same form of government together. The next province on the south of Asia and Lydia, is Caria, bounded on the east with Lycia, and on the south and west with the ZEgean Sea, having the rivers Maeander and Calbis for its inland bounds. Here Carolus a Sancto Paulo has found twenty—five dioceses. l. Aphrodisias, the metropolis. 2. Stauropolis. 3. Cybira. 4. Heraclea Salbaci. 5. Apollonias. 6. Heraclea Latmi. 7. Tabae. 8. Antiochia ad Mae- andrum. 9. Neapolis. 10. Orthosias. ll. Har- pasa. l2. Alabanda. l3. Stratonice._ 14. Alinda. l5. Amyzon. 16. Jassus. l7. Bargyla. 18. Ha- licarnassus. l9. Larima, al. Halarima. 20. Cni- dus. 21. Myndus. 22. Ceramus. 23. Anastasi- opolis. 24. Erisa. 25. Miletus. The notz'tia of Leo Sapiens increases the number to thirty-one. Sect. 10. Of Caria. CHAP. III. 373 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Miletus was the place whither St. Paul called the elders of Ephesus, which was about forty miles dis— tant from it. But several dioceses lay between them, as Heraclea, near Mount Lathmus, which Ferrarius computes but twelve miles from Miletus; so also Briullium, Sion, and Arpasa in the same coast toward Ephesus. On the south of Miletus the other way, we have J assus, fifteen miles from it, and Tabae, placed between them. From J assus to Halicarnassus is computed fifty-five miles, but Bar- gillia and Myndus stand between them. From Halicarnassus to Gnidus is thirty miles, but Cera- mus is an intervening diocese. And so the reader may find all the dioceses of this province scarce ex- ceeding the compass of ten or fifteen miles through- out. But this was territory sufiicient to make them exceed single congregations, and we need not ques- tion but it was true of them all, what Sozomen (lib. 5. c. 20.) particularly observes of Miletus, that in the time of Julian it had several Christian oratories in its neighbourhood. For he says, Julian sent orders to the governor of Caria, That whereas there were several oratories or churches built in honour of the martyrs near the‘ temple of Didymeeum, (so the temple of Apollo was called, that stood before Miletus,) he should, if they were covered and had communion tables in them, burn them with fire; dr, if they were half decayed of themselves, he should take care utterly to demolish and destroy them. There were, it seems, churches then in the suburbs or country region of Miletus, which Julian, remembering what had lately happened to the temple of Apollo at Daphne in the suburbs of An- tioch, was so careful to have destroyed, because they were an annoyance to his god. The next province to Caria on the sea-coast is Lycia, where Carolus a Sancto Paulo reckons twenty-eight dioceses. l. Myra, the metropolis. 2. Mastaura. 3. Telmes- sus. 4. Limyra. 5. Araxa. 6. Podalaea. 7. Si- dyma, al. Diduma. 8. Olympus. 9. Zenopolis. lO. Tlos. ll. Corydalla. l2. Caunus, al. Aca- leia. 13. Acarassus. l4. Xanthus. l5. Marci- ana. l6. Choma. l7. Phellus. l8. Antiphellus. l9. Phaselis. 20. Aucanda. 21. Eudoxias. 22. Patara. 23. Nysa, vel Nesus. 24. Balbura. 25. (Eneanda. 26. Bubon, al. Bunum. 27. Calinda. 28. Rhodia. The notz'tz'a of Leo Sapiens has most of the same names, and eight more, for it makes the whole nnmber of dioceses thirty-six. But the lesser number in so small a province is sulficient to show the narrow extent of its dioceses in comparison of those of the Pontic provinces. For this province was not above eighty or a hundred miles square, and the cities therefore, one may easily conclude, lay pretty close together. Phellus is reckoned but Sect. 11. Of Lycia. six miles fi'om Antiphellus one way, and ten from Myra, the metropolis, another way. Antiphellus was nine from Patara, and Telmessus and Patara, scarce so much from Xanthus; for Baudrand reckons but seventy furlongs. By which it is easy to make an estimate of the remaining cities of this province, which lay about equal distances from one another. The next province on the same Sect 12. shore is Pamphylia, divided by the Orial’ztrgpgzéigngf Romans into two, called Pamphylia Prima and Secunda. In the second of them, which bordered upon Lycia, Carolus a San cto Paulo reckons twenty-six dioceses. l. Perga, the metropolis. 2. Termessus. 3. Eudoxias. 4. Maximianopolis. 5. Palaeopolis. 6. Pentenessus. 7. Diciozanabrus, al. Zenopolis. 8. Ariassus. 9. Pugla. 10. Adri- ana. ll. Attalia. l2. Magidis. l3. Olbia. l4. Corbasa. l5. Lysinia. l6. Cordylus. 17. La- gania. 18. Panemoticus. 19. Geone. 20. Com- machum. 21. Silvium. 22. Pisinda, al. Sinda vel Isinda. 23. Talbonda. 24. Unzela. 25. Gilsata. 26. Pella. To which Holstenius adds five more, Co- lobrassus, Coracesium, Senna, Primopolis, and Se- leucia. But three of these are by Carolus a Sancto Paulo set in the other Pamphylia, with nine more, in this order: 1. Sida, the metropolis. 2. Aspendus. 3. Etene. 4. Erymne. 5. Cassus. 6. Semneam, which is the same with Senna before mentioned. 7. Carallus. 8. Coracesium, mentioned before. 9. Sysdra. 10. Lyrbaa. ll. Colibrassus. l2. Selga. To which Holstenius adds Cotana, which makes the whole number in these two provinces forty-one. And the number is some evidence that they were comparatively but small. Sometimes, as Holstenius has observed, two of them were united together. For in the council of Constantinople, under Flavian, one Sabinianus subscribes himself bishop of Eudo- cias, Termessus, and J obia.45 Which we find in the first session of the council of Chalcedon. And in the time of Leo Sapiens some more of them were united together; for his notz'tz'a has but thirty-six dioceses in both the provinces. Yet any of them single were of a competent extent to confute the notion of those who make episcopal dioceses only parish churches. On the north of Pamphylia, more within land, lay the province of Ly- ofwmnia' caonia, where we find nineteen dioceses. l. Ico- nium, the metropolis. 2. Lystra. 3. Derbe: all mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles. 4. Onosada, al. Usada. 5. Amblada. 6. Honomada. 7. La- randa. 8. Baratta. 9. Hyda. 10. Sabatra. ll. Canna. l2. Berinopolis. l3. Ilistra. l4. Perte. l5. Arana, al. Baratta. 16. Isaura. l7. Misthi- um. 18. Corna. l9. Pappa. To which Holste- Sect. 13. ‘5 Cone. Chalced. Act. 1. t. 4. p. 230. 374 Boot; IX. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. nius adds another, called Hydmautus, or Gadamau- tus, in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon. But the notitia of Leo Sapiens has but fifteen. In the next province of Pisidia, Sect._14. . ofp's‘dm' Carolus a Sancto Paulo finds twenty dioceses. l. Antiochia, the metropolis. 2. Sa- galassus. 3. Sozopolis. 4. Apamea. 5. Tityassus. 6. Baris. 7. Adrianopolis. 8. Limenopolis. 9. Laodicea Combusta. 10. Seleucia. ll. Adada. 12. Mallus. 13. Siniandus. l4. Metropolis. l5. Paralaus. 16. Bindeum. l7. Philomelium, which some place in Phrygia. 18. Prostama. 19. Gor- tena. 20. Theodosiopolis. The notitia of Leo Sa- piens augments the number to twenty-three. I stand not to make any particular remarks upon these dioceses, because any reader that knows these two provinces, will easily imagine they are not to be compared with the other dioceses in the northern parts of Pontus. Sect. 15. The last provinces in the Asiatic tiagilltlilfirgflftm: diocese, are those which the old Greeks and Romans called by one common name, Phrygia Major, but the Roman emperors divided it at first into two, and then into three pro- vinces, one called Phrygia Salutaris, from the medi- cinal waters found there, another Phrygia Pacati- ana, or, as some books read it corruptly, Capatiana, and a third, Pacatiana Secunda. In Phrygia Salu- taris, Carolus a Sancto Paulo reckons up twenty dioceses. l. Synnada, the metropolis. 2. Dory- laeum. 3. Polybotus. 4. Nacolia. 5. Midaium. 6. Hipsus. 7. Prymnesia. 8. Myrum, or rather Merum. 9. Eucarpia. 10. Lysias. 11. August- opolis. l2. Brysum. l3. Otrum. 14. Stectorium. l5. Cinnaborium. 16. Amadassa. l7. Cotyaium. (18. Prapenissus. l9. Docimaeum. 20. Amorium. In Phrygia Pacatiana Prima he recounts twenty- nine. 1. Laodicea, the metropolis. 2. Tiberiopo- lis. 3. Azana. 4. Itoana, or Bitoana. 5. Ancyra Ferrea, which Holstenius observes to be sometimes attributed to the province of Lydia adjoining. 6. Cidissus. 7. Egara, which Holstenius corrects into Aliana. 8. Pelte. 9. Apira. 10. Cadi. ll. Tra- nopolis vel Trajanopolis. l2. Sebasta. l3. Eume- nia. l4. Temenothyrae. l5. Aliona. 16. Trape- zopolis. l7. Silbium. 18. Ilusa. l9. Nea. 20. Chaeretapa. 21. Colossa, now called Chone. 22. Sinaus. 23. Philippopolis. 24. Themisonium. 25. Sanis. 26. Acmonia. 27. Theodosiopolis. 28. Bleandrus. 29. Atanassus. Holstenius strikes out one of the number, for Nea is but a corruption of the Greek for Sanaea or Sanans, as he shows, but he finds out another, called Dioclia, to supply its room. In Pacatiana Secunda there were but five dio- ceses, being by much the least of all the provinces. l. Hierapolis, the metropolis. 2. Dionysiopolis. 3. Anastasiopolis. 4. Mosynus. 5. Attudi. But this province being of later erection, these dioceses are more commonly attributed to Phrygia Pacatiana without any distinction. Now, I observe of Phrygia in general, that some of its dioceses bordering upon Galatia were, like those of Galatia and the other Pontic provinces, of a larger extent than the rest about Hierapolis and Laodicea, which two metro- political sees were not at a very great distance from one another. Ferrarius in one place says, but six miles; but it seems to be a typographical error, for in another place he makes Colossae‘6 to be between Hierapolis and Laodicea, upon the confluence of the rivers Lyons and Maaander, at twenty miles’ distance from them both. So that there must be a mistake one way or other. Pliny is very exact in describing the situation of Laodicea,‘7 for he says, it stood upon the Lycus, and had its walls washed also with the Asopus and the Caprus: but yet he does not tell us how far the confluence of these rivers was from the confluence of the Lycus with the Maeander, where Colossae stood. But it may be concluded, it was at no great distance from it, since all authors agree, that Laodicea stood near the Maeander; and these three cities, Colossae, Hierapolis, and Laodicea, which St. Paul joins together, are said by Chrysos- tom, Theodoret, and others, to be very near each other. They who have opportunity to consult An- tonine’s Itinerary, which at present I have not, may perhaps find them more exactly described, and limit- ed with more certain bounds than I can pretend to assign them. If the first opinion of Ferrarius be true, and agreeable to Antonine, that they lay but six miles asunder; then it will readily be concluded, that the dioceses in this part of Phrygia were com- paratively very small, since by Carolus a Sancto Paulo’s description, Itoana, Trapezopolis, Attudi, Mosynus, and Antioch upon the Maeander in Caria, seem not to have been at much greater distances from one another. Beside these several provinces of Sec‘: 16 the Asiatic and Pontic dioceses in 0f Isifiiriiz-and Asia Minor, there were also three pro- vinces in it which were reckoned to the eastern dio- cese and the patriarchate of Antioch, viz. Isauria, Cilicia Prima, and Cilicia Secunda, which must be spoken of in this place. Isauria was, anciently reckoned only a part of Cilicia, but from the time of Constantine, both in the civil and ecclesiastical ac- count, it was esteemed a distinct province. Carolus a Sancto Paulo mentions twenty-two dioceses. l. Seleucia, the metropolis. 2. Celenderis. 3. Ane- murium. 4. Lamus. 5. Antiochia ad Tragum. “6 Ferrar. Lexie. voce Colossae. ‘7 Plin. lib. 5. c. 29. Celeberrima urbs Laodicea im- posita est Lyco flumini, latera alluentibus Asopo et Capro. CHAP. III. 375 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 6. Selinus, al. Trajanopolis. 7. J otape. 8. Dio- caesarea. 9. Philadelphia. 10. Domitiopolis. ll. Titopolis. l2. Hierapolis. l3. Nephelis. 14. Da- lisandus. l5. Claudiopolis, al. Isaura. 16. Ger- manicopolis. 17. Sbide,al. Isis. l8. Cestrus. l9. Olbus. 20. Lybias. 21. Hermopolis. 22. Iren- opolis. To which Holstenius adds two more, Cha- radra and Lauzada, which is sometimes written corruptly, Vasada and Nauzada. In Cilicia Prima there were eight dioceses. l. Tarsus, the metropolis. 2. Pompeiopolis. 3. Se- baste. 4. Coricus. 5. Adana. 6. Mallus. 7. Ze- phyrium. And, 8. Augusta, added by Holstenius, who shows it to be a distinct place from Sebaste. In the other Cilicia there are reckoned nine. 1. Anazarbus, the metropolis. 2. Mopsuestia. 3. .lEgze. 4. Epiphania. 5. Irenopolis. 6. Flavi- opolis. 7. Castabala. 8. Alexandria, now called Scanderon. 9. Rossus, in the confines of Syria. The greatest part of these were large dioceses, like those of Syria, as any one that computes the dis- tance between Epiphania, Alexandria, Rossus, 850. will easily imagine. Some reckon Lazica, which was Sect. l7. , . . 0f Lazicclfé’or Col- anciently called Colchls, an appendix to Asia Minor, and therefore I men- tion it in this place. It is all the country on the Euxine Sea from Trabezond in Pontus to Phasis, which Strabo reckons near 200 miles. The mo- dern notitias speak but of five dioceses, but that of Leo Sapiens in Leunclavius has fifteen. It was first made a Roman province in the time of J usti- nian, who mentions the cities48 that were in it, Pe- tra and Justiniana; with four castles, Pitius, Se- bastopolis, Archmopolis and Rhodopolis, which had anciently been in the hands of the Romans; and four other castles, Scandias, Sarapenes, Murisios, and Lusieros, which he had lately taken out of the hands of the Persians. Of these one is as ancient as the council of Nice : for Stratophilus, bishop of Ptyusium, or Pitius, subscribes there among the bishops of Pontus Polemoniacus, to which province it was then annexed, as lying in Solo Barbarico, and not constituting any other province. In the sixth general council there is mention of Petra and Pha- sis, the metropolis. And that is all the account we have of them in the ancient councils. Sect 1,, Another appendix to Asia Minor bogfairlici iiifégl'ciil are the lesser islands of the lEgean des' _ Sea, which constituted a province by themselves. Carolus a Sancto Paulo reckons four dioceses in Lesbos itself, Mytelene, Methymna, Te- nedos, and Poroselene. But Poroselene and Tene- dos were distinct islands by themselves, which sometimes had bishops of their own, and sometimes were united to Lesbos. In the council of Sardica, Dioscorus subscribes himself bishop of the isle of Tenedos alone : but in the second council of Ephe- sus, and in the council, of Chalcedon, Florentius subscribes himself bishop of Lesbos and Tenedos together. Now as we must say, that Tenedos was but a small diocese by itself; for it was but 10: miles in compass, as Ferrarius computes ; so when Lesbos was joined with it, it was a large one. For Pliny says, Lesbos alone had nine famous towns, and Strabo makes it 1100 stadia, or 140 miles in compass. The other islands, called Cyclades, were divided into eleven distinct dioceses. l. Rhodus, the me- tropolis. 2. Samos. 3. Chios. 4. Coos. 5. Nax-' us. 6. Paros. , 7. Thera. 8. Delos. 9. Tenus. 10. Melos. ll. Carpathus. Now the largest of these, Rhodes, Samos, and Chios, were about 100 or 120 miles in compass, as Pliny informs us.49 But the lesser sort of them, Tenos and Thera, were not above 14 or 15 miles long, or 40 in compass. So that among these we find dioceses of different ex- tent, as in the rest of Asia, but all agreeing in the same species of episcopal government; and some of them, as Lesbos, having their chorepiscopi, but none so small as to be confined to a single congregation. And so we have gone over all the provinces of the East under the civil government of the prcefcc- tas-pmtorio Orient-is, except the six provinces of the Thracian diocese, which .because they are Eu- ropean provinces, we will consider them as such among the provinces of Europe, and give them the first place in the following chapter. CHAPTER IV. A CONTINUATION OF THE FORMER ACCOUNT IN THE EUROPEAN PROVINCES. IN pursuance of the former inquiry, Sect. L we are led out of Asia Minor into the ..2§.;1;§T;§§,.£{°' provinces of Europe, where the six And firstc’fscytma" provinces of the Thracian diocese, Europa, Thracia, Heemimontis, Rhodope, Moesia Secunda, and Scy- thia, first offer themselves to consideration. This was all the country from Macedonia and the river Strymon to the Danube, which is now Romania and Bulgaria. A country extending from Constanti- nople to Sardica above 300 miles one way, and from the Egean Sea to the Danube almost as much the other. In all these provinces the dioceses were very large. For in Scythia, the most northern pro- vince, there was but one bishopric, though there were many cities. For the bishop of Tomi was the 48 Justin. Novel. 28. ‘9 Plin. lib. 5. c. 31. 376 Boox IX. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. sole bishop of this whole region, as is noted by So- zomen,l and Theodoret,2 and other ancient writers, by whom he is sometimes called the bishop of Tomi, and sometimes the bishop of Scythia, as being the only superintendent of all the churches in that Scy- thia, which was made a province of the Roman empire. The province of Europa had also large dioceses. For several cities were under one bishop. We find in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus8 a petition offered to that council by the bishops of this province, wherein they pray, That an immemorial custom of their country might be continued, whereby the bishop of Heraclea had also Panium in his_ diocese, the bi- shop of Bizya had Arcadiopolis, the bishop of Coele had Callipolis, the bishop of Subsadia had Aphro- disias: to which petition the council agreed, and ordered, that no innovation should be made in the matter. Nor was there any alteration in the time of the council of Chalcedon : for there we find one Lucian4 styled bishop of Bizya and Arcadiopolis still. But in the council of Constantinople under Mennas5 we meet with some alterations; for there Panium had a distinct bishop from Heraclea, and Callipolis from Coele. And in the notation of Leo Sapiens in Leunclavius, Bizya and Arcadiapolis are not only distinct bishoprics, but both of them ad- vanced to the honour, of autocephalz', or titular me- tropolitans in the church. In this province stood also Byzantium, once subject to Heraclea, the me- tropolis, till it was rebuilt, and advanced to be the royal city by Constantine, after which it grew so great and populous, as to equal old Rome. Sozo- men says,6 Constantine adorned it with many noble oratories ; and it appears from one of J ustinian’s Novels,7 that in his time four of these churches had no less than five hundred clergy of all sorts be- longing to them. The Novatians themselves, as Socrates observes,8 had three churches within the city: and in the suburbs, or region belonging to the city, the catholics had many parishes and churches at a considerable distance, as Hebdomum, Sycae, Marianas, Hieron, Elaea, Therapea, and Hes- tiae, otherwise called Michaelium, which Sozomen says’ was thirty-five furlongs from the city by water, and seventy by land. I think it needless to be more particular in the description of this diocese, since these are sufficient indications of the large- ness of it. I shall only add concerning this pro- vince of Europa, that though Carolus a Sancto Paulo reckons thirteen dioceses in it, Heraclea, Pa- nium, Caelos, Callipolis, Cyla, Aphrodisias, Theo- dosiopolis, Chersonesus, Drusipara, Lysimachia, Sect. 2. Of Europa. Bizya, Selymbria, and Arcadiopolis; yet really there were but nine: for Calos and Cyla, as Holstenius has observed,‘0 were two names for the same city, and Callipolis was joined in the same diocese with it; in like manner as Panium was annexed to Hera- clea, and Arcadiopolis to Bizya. So that these were anciently dioceses of great extent. In the province of Thracia properly so called there were but four dioceses, Philippopolis, Diocletianopolis, Nicopolis, and Di- ospolis. And the modern notz'tz'as, that of Leun- clavius only excepted, have but three: for Nicopo- lis is not mentioned in them. In the province of Haemimontis there were anciently six dioceses, Adrianopolis, Mesembria, Sozopolis, Plutinopolis, Develtus, and Anchialus. The latter notz't'ias reckon but the four first, and Zoida instead of the two last, which are omitted, as being sunk or united into one. In the province of Rhodope Caro- lus a Sancto Paulo finds six dioceses, Trajanopolis, Maximianopolis,. Abdera, Maronia, JEnus, and Cypsela. To which Holstenius adds, Topirus, which the other by mistake places in Ma- cedonia. But these were so far from increasing in later ages, that they sunk into three, Trajanopole, Anastasiopole, and Perus, which are all that the modern notz'tz'as mention. In Muesia Inferior, or Secunda, the last of the six Thracian provinces, or Se- which is now much the same with ' Bulgaria, Carolus a Sancto Paulo reckons nine dioceses, Marcianopolis, Nicopolis, Novas, Abritum, Durostorum, Dionysiopolis, Odessus, Apiaria, Co- mma; to which Holstenius adds another, called Trista, or Prista, by Socrates, and Nicephorus Calistus oefiavrdnprea. But whether increased or diminished, we know not, for there is no account of them in the notz'tz'as of later ages. I make no fur- ther remark upon these dioceses, save that they were generally large ones, as any one that will cast his eye upon a map, or examine particular dis- tances of cities, will easily be convinced. And we may make the same general observation upon most of the dioceses of the European provinces in Mace- donia, Dacia, and Illyricum, till we come as far as Italy. For which reason, it will be sufiicient to give the reader only a catalogue of the names of dioceses in every province of those regions, accord- ing to the order and distribution of them in the church, following the model of the civil government, which divided these countries into three great dio- ceses, and seventeen or eighteen provinces, under Sect. 3. Of Thracia. Sect. 4. Of Hemimontis. Sect. 5. 0f Rhodope. 1 Sozom. lib. 6. c. 21. lib. 7. c. 19. 2 Theodor. lib. 4. c. 35. --3 Concil. Ephes. par. 2. Act. 7. 4 Concil. Chalced. Act. 16. t. 4. p. 800. 5 Concil. sub Men. Act. 3 et 4. 6 Sozom. lib. 2. c. 3. 7 Justin. Novel- 3- 8 Socrat. lib. 2. c. 38. 9 Sozom. lib. 2. c. 3. 1° Holsten. Annot. Geograph. p. 131. CHAP. IV. 377 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. the general name of Illyricum Orientale and Occi- dentale. The first of these are the provinces .Rroiéreiiie'silin the of Greece, which by the Romans are Egiiriiiicfiipiiciili all comprehended under one common dioceses m Macedo- . . . gaggle and name, of the civil dioceses of Mace- donia, which with the diocese of Da— cia was anciently the district of the prwfectus-prw- torz'o Illirici Orientalis. In the diocese of Mace- donia were anciently six provinces, or according to Hierocles’s account, seven : Macedonia Prima and Secunda, Epirus Vetus and Epirus Nova, Thessa- lia, Achaia, and the isle of Crete. Carolus a Sancto Paulo confounds the two Macedonias to- gether, and reckons seventeen dioceses in both. 1. Thessalonica, the metropolis of the first Mace- donia. 2. Philippi, the metropolis of the second. 3. Stobi, the old metropolis of the second province. 4. Berrhoea. 5. Dium. 6. Particopolis. 7. Do- berus. 8. Cassandria. 9. Neapolis. 10. Heraclea Pelagoniee. ll. Torone. 12. Lete. l3. Topiris. l4. Serre. l5. Heraclea Strymonis. 16. Isle of Thassus. l7. Hephmstia in the isle of Lemnos. To which Holsteniusll adds Primula and Zapara, but rejects Topiris, as belonging to Rhodope, a pro~ vince in the Thracian diocese, and observes of Serre, that it was but another name for Philippi. Sect 8. The next province upon the ZEgean ofThessaua' Sea is Thessalia, where Carolus a Sancto Paulo finds but eight dioceses: Larissa the metropolis, Demetrias, Echinus, Cypera, Metro- polis, Lamia, Triccaa, and Thebze Pthioticae. But Holstenius‘2 adds three more, Dieaesarea, Gomphi, and Scarphia, the last of which Carolus a Sancto Paulo confounds with Echinus. The notitz'a in Leunclavius calls this province Hellas Secunda, and names eleven dioceses in it, four of which re- tain their old names, by which it is reasonable to conjecture, that Hellas Secunda and Thessalia were but two names for the same province; and the num- ber of dioceses agreeing exactly in both accounts, we may conclude there never were above eleven dio- ceses in all this province. sect‘, The next province to Thessaly is Eoggegggegdfgg Achaia, which was a very large pro- ‘28* vince, including not only what the ancients called Attica and Achaia, but also all Pe- loponnesus, and the isle of Euboea. Here Carolus a Sancto Paulo finds twenty-six dioceses, four of which were in the isle of Euboaa. l. Chalcis, now called Negroponte. 2. Oreum. 3. Porthmus. 4. Caristus. Nine in Peloponnesus. l. Corinthus, the metropolis of the whole province. 2. Argos. 3. Tegea. 4. Megalopolis. 5. Lacedaemon. 6. Messena. 7. Corone. 8. Petrae. 9. Helice. Thir- teen in the other part of Achaia. l. Athenae. 2. Megara. 3. Thespiae. 4. Naupactus. 5. Secorus. 6. Elatea. 7. Opus. 8. Strategis. 9. Thebes. 10. Platea. ll. Tanagra. 12. Marathon. 13. Car- sia, al. Corissia. Holstenius adds another Corone, or Coronia, in Boeotia, beside the Corone that was in Peloponnesus. The notz'tz'a of Leo Sapiens, in Leunclavius and the seventh chapter of this Book, makes three provinces of this, calling them Hellas Prima, and Peloponnesus Prima and Secunda, and the number of dioceses is pretty near the same, by which we may guess no great alteration was made in them for several ages. The largeness of these dioceses may easily be concluded from the greatness of many of the cities and their large territories, which the reader may find already demonstrated by Dr. Mau- rice, in his discourse of Diocesan Episcopacy, p. 380, concerning Thebes, Athens, Lacedaamon, Megal- opolis, and other cities of this province in particular. The next region is Epirus, separated from Achaia by the river Achelous. gdéiigggl'fgtvf This was anciently one kingdom, but the Romans divided it into two provinces, Epirus Vetus and Epirus Nova. In the former Carolus a Sancto Paulo reckons ten dioceses. l. Nicopolis, the metropolis. 2. Anchiasmus. 3. Phoenicia. 4. Dodone. 5. Adrianopolis. 6. Buthrotum. 7. Eu- ria. 8. Photica. 9. Isle of Cephalenia. lO. Isle of Corcyra. In the new Epirus, only eight. 1. Dyrraehium, or Doraeium, the metropolis. 2. Scampes. 3. Apollonia. 4. Aulon. 5. Amantia. 6. Lychnidus. 7. Bullidum, or Bulis. 8. Prina, or Prisna. To which Holstenius adds Listra, or Helistra, but with some doubting, whether it do not rather belong to Lycaonia. These were very large dioceses, above forty or fifty miles long; notwith- standing which, two of them were sometimes united together: for in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus, as Holstenius has observed, one Felix is called‘3 bishop of Bulis and Apollonia together. In the Greek notz'tz'a of Leo Sapiens, old Epirus goes by the name of ZEtolia, and has the same number of ten dioceses only, though not the same names. The other Epirus has sixteen, but then the province of Preevalitana is joined to it, and most of its dioceses taken in to make up the number. Whence I con- clude, that the dioceses in these provinces have been of great extent in all ages; the isle of Corcyra it- self being reckoned by some geographers forty-five miles long, and by Pliny 1‘ no less than ninety- seven. In the isle of Crete, which was the last of the Macedonian provinces, Carolus a Sancto Paulo names eleven dioceses. l. Gortyna, the metropolis. 2. Gnossus. 3. Hiera- petra. 4. Lappa. 5. Subrita. 6. Eleuthera. 7. Cherronesus. 8. Cydonia. 9. Cysamus. lO. Ci- Sect. 11. 0f the isle of Crete. “ Holsten. Annot. Geograph. p. 114. 12 Ibid. p. 115. '8 Cone. Ephes. Act. 1. '4 Plin. lib. 4. c. 12. 378 Boox IX. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. tium. 11. Cantanum. The notitia of Leo Sapiens in Leunclavius makes them twelve, but Hierapetra is there by mistake of some transcriber divided into two, which being corrected reduces them to the same number. Whence I conclude, this was pretty near the standing number for several ages. Now, Crete is reckoned by Ferrarius and others out of Pliny and Strabo, two hundred and seventy or three hundred miles long, and fifty broad. Which makes these twelve dioceses equal to the rest of the Macedonian provinces, all which appear visibly to be dioceses of great extent, without descending any further to give a more particular account of them. Sect 12. The other civil diocese of Illyiicum vipcresmi; {my} p8: Orientale went by the common name gjigvgfitagifie of of Dacia, consisting of five provinces, Przevalitana, Moesia Superior, Dacia Mediterranea, Dacia Ripensis, and Dardania. Pree~ valitana lies on the north of Epirus to the Adriatic Sea, being part of that country which is now called Albania. Carolus a Sancto Paulo names but two dioceses in it, Scodra, the old metropolis of the province, and Achrida, which was anciently called Praevalis, but afterwards Justinian honoured it with his own name, J ustiniana Prima, and advanced it to patriarchal dignity, assigning it all the five pro~ vinces15 of the Dacian diocese, and the two Panno- nias in the diocese of Illyricum Occidentale, for the limits of its jurisdiction. Besides these two bishop- rics, Holstenius has found out two more in this pro- vince, Rhizinium and Lissus, now called Alessio, on the Adriatic Sea; Carolus a Sancto Paulo also by mistake places Scodra in the province of Dalmatia, making J ustiniana Prima a metropolitan see, with- out any suffragans under it. See, ,3. On the north of Praevalitana to the of ms“ superb" Danube lay Moesia Superior, between Pannonia on the west and Dacia on the east. Carolus a Sancto Paulo confounds the episcopal dioceses of this province and the Dacias together, making Sardica the metropolis of them all, and calling them from that by the common name of Provincia Sardicensis; and, beside Sardica, he finds but three more dioceses in the three provinces, Re- messiana, Aquae, and Castrum Martis. But Hol- stenius is a little more accurate, and treats distinctly of them. He assigns to Moesia Supeiior, Castrum Martis, and another called Margus, seated on the confluence of the river Margus and the Danube. Sect 1,“ To Dacia Mediterranea he assigns ,aggfeggdMegifg-g Sardica, the metropolis, and Roma- Ripens‘s‘ tiana and Naissus, which he and Pagi make to be the birth-place of Constantine the Great. In the other Dacia, called Ripensis, from its run- ning along the banks of the Danube between Moesia Prima and Secunda, he places Aqute, which is men- tioned in the council of Sardica, in St. Hilary’s Fragments, and Iscus, or Iscopolis, another city, whose bishop subscribed out of the same province in the foresaid council. In his Annotations also upon Ortelius,16 he observes two other episcopal cities in this province, one called Martis by Hiero- cles, or Stramartis by Procopius, and another called Budine, now Bodine, in Bulgaria, upon the Danube: but perhaps these are both modern sees, for he cites no other authority but that of the notitias for them, and Stramartis seems to be a corruption of Castra Martis. On the south of Dacia, between it _ and Macedonia, was the province of or and Dardania, divided from Macedonia by ' Mount Scardus, and from Thracia by part of Mount Hoemus. It is now part of Servia, and was an- ciently a part of Moesia, as Dacia also was, till the Daci, passing over the Danube, got themselves plant- ed in the middle of Moesia, which, from that time, was called Dacia Nova, as the other beyond the Danube was called Dacia Antiqua, and Gothia. In this province of Dardania, Carolus a Sancto Paulo finds four dioceses. 1. Scupi, the metropolis. 2. Ulpianum, otherwise called J ustiniana Secunda. 3. Diocletiana, which, at the time of the council of Sardica, was reckoned a city of Macedonia. 4. Nes- syna, or Nessus. Holstenius adds another, called Pautalia, which Hierocles, in his notitia, reckons among the cities of Dacia Mediterranea, and Ste- phanus and Ptolemy among the cities of Thracia, as lying in the confines of those provinces. Besides these five provinces of the Dacian diocese, on the south side of the Danube, there was another on the north side out of the bounds of the Roman empire, called Dacia Antiqua, and Gothia, from the time that the Goths seated themselves in it. Epiphanius speaks of one Silvanus, bishop of Gothia beyond Scythia, taking Scythia for the Roman Scythia on this side the Danube, whereof Tomi was the me- tropolis. Whence Holstenius rightly concludes, that Gothia was that region which is now called Tran- sylvania, or Wallachia. But what episcopal sees they had, or whether they had in all this region any more than one bishop, as the Scythians, and Saracens, and some other such barbarous nations, is uncer- tain. Carolus a Sancto Paulo thinks Zarmizege- thusa was the seat of their bishop, because Ptolemy makes it the royal seat and metropolis of the king- dom. And this he supposes to be the same with Gothia, mentioned in the notitia of Leo Sapiens, among the autocephali, or such bishops as had no sufi'ragans under them. But these being matters involved in obscurity, I leave them to further in- quiry. 15 Justin. Novel. 131. c. 3. 16 Holsten. Annot. in Ortel. p. 116. CHAP. V. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 379 Out of Illyricum Orientale we pass next into the civil diocese of Illyri- cum Occidentale, which was under the government of the prcefcctus-prwtorio of Italy. In this diocese were six provinces, Dal- matia, Savia, Pannonia Superior, Pannonia In- ferior, Noricum Mediterraneum, and Noricum Ripense. In Dalmatia Carolus a Sancto Paulo reckons four episcopal dioceses. l. Salona, the metropolis. 2. Jadera, now called Zara. 3. Epi- daurus, now Ragusa. 4. Scodra, or Scutari. But Scodra is wrong placed in Dalmatia, for, as has been noted before, it was rather the metropolis of Pree- valitana. But Holstenius adds two more in the room of it, Doclea and Senia, now called Segna, a city upon the Liburnian shore. The next province to this was Sa- via, which seems to be so named from the river Savus running through the middle of it. It is sometimes called Pannonia Sava, being part of Pannonia on the Savia, and sometimes Pannonia Sirmiensis and Cibaliensis, from the cities Sirmium and Cibalis, which lay in this part of it. But here we consider it as a distinct province from Pannonia, from which it was separated by the river Dravus, and is what we now call Slavonia, and part of Bos- nia and Servia. In this province were six episco- pal dioceses. 1. Sirmium, the metropolis, near the confluence of the Savus and the Danube. 2. Sin- gidunum. 3. Mursa, now called Essek. 4. Cibalis. 5. Noviodunum. 6. Siscia. Sect. 18 Between the river Dravus and the orfigragggnlalrlif'epiige- Danube lay the two Pannonias, Su- perior and Inferior, which are now the southern part of Hungary. In the former of these Carolus a Sancto Paulo out of Lazius speaks of four dioceses: Vindobona or Vienna, Sabaria, Scarabantia, and Celia. To which Holstenius adds Petavia, now called Petow, which the other con- founds with Patavia, or Batavia C astra, in N oricum, now called Passaw in Bavaria. Victorinus Martyr was bishop of this city, though Baronius and many others commonly style him Pictaviensem, as if he had been bishop of Poictiers in France; whereas he was bishop of this city in Pannonia Prima, called Petavia, or Petow, as is observed by Spondanus, and Pagi, and Du Pin, in their critical remarks upon the Life of that ancient writer. In the lower Pannonia there were but three dioceses, Curta, Car- pis, and Stridonium, the birth-place of St. J erom. More westward from Pannonia was the province of Noricum, confined on the north with the Danube, and on the south and west with Venetia and Rhaetia, two Italic provinces. This the Romans divided into two, Noricum Mediterraneum and Ripense, in both Sect. 16. Of the six pro- vinces in the diocese of l‘ilyrieum (leci- ctientale. Of Dalma- 1a. Sect. 17. Of Savia. Sect. 19. Of Noricum Me- diterranean: and Ri- pense. which Lazius mentions but four dioceses, Laurea— cum, now called Lork, J uvavia or Saltsburg, Ovila- bis, and Solva. Carolus a Sancto Paulo by mistake adds a fifth, Petavio, Petow ; but that, as was said before, belongs to another province. And the rest were not erected till the sixth century, when that part of Germany was first converted, which is now Carniola and Carinthia, with part of Bavaria, Stiria, Tirol, and Austria. By which it is easy to judge of what vast extent those dioceses anciently were, as they are now at this day ; two of them, as I observed, being as large as ten or twenty in some other parts of the world, particularly in Palestine and Asia Minor, which have been already consider- ed; and the observation will be more fully verified by taking a particular view of Italy, whose episco- pal dioceses come now in order in the next place to be considered. CHAPTER V. A PARTICULAR ACCOUNT OF THE DIOCESES or ITALY. ITALY, in the sense we are now to Sect‘, speak of it, as it was taken for the ,he°‘d§§§,$“§?*uf§ whole jurisdiction of the prafectus “sh” °fR°me' w'bis ct vicarius Italics under the Roman emperors, was of somewhat larger extent than now it is : for not only the islands of Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica were taken into the account, but also Rhaetia Se- cunda, which is that part of Germany that lies from the Alps to the Danube. In this extent it was divided into two large civil dioceses, containing seventeen provinces of the Roman empire, as has been showed before ;1 and in these provinces there were about three hundred episcopal dioceses, the names of which are still remaining, but the places- themselves many of them demolished or sunk into villages, and other new bishoprics set up in their room. I shall not concern myself with the num- ber or extent of the modern dioceses, but only those that were ancient, and erected within the first six hundred years; of which I am to make the same observation in general, as I have done upon those of Palestine and Asia Minor, that here were some of the largest and some of the smallest dioceses, for extent of ground, of any in the world, and yet the same species of episcopacy retained in all with- out any variety or distinction. The dioceses of the suburbicary provinces that lay next to Rome were generally small, in comparison of those that lay further to the north and west in the Italic provinces. For about Rome the country was extremely popu- 1 See chap. 1. sect. 5. of this Book. 380 Boox IX. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. lous, and cities much thicker spread, which occa- sioned so many more episcopal sees to be erected in those provinces above the other. This will plainly appear by taking a view of each particular province, and comparing the dioceses one with another: of which we shall be able to give a more exact ac- count, because so much pains has been taken by learned men in all ages, especially Cluver and H01- stenius, Ferrarius and Baudrand, in the last age, to describe minutely and exactly the several places of this country, and their distance from Rome and one another. To begin with Rome itself: this was a very large diocese in one respect, and very small in another. In respect of the city itself, and the num- ber of people that were therein, it might be called one of the greatest dioceses in the world. For Plinyz speaks of it as the most populous city in the universe, in the time of Vespasian, when it was but thirteen miles about. But Lipsius,3 in his book de Magnitudine Romana, and Mr. Mede,‘ and some others think, that is meant only of the city within the walls ; for otherwise it was but forty-two miles in compass when St. John wrote his Revelation, in the time of Domitian. And afterward it received considerable additions; for in the days of Aurelian, the historian5 speaks of it as no less than fifty miles in circumference. And before this time the Chris- tians made a considerable figure in it: for Cornelius, who lived in the middle of the third century, speaks of forty-six presbyters,6 beside deacons, sub-deacons, and other inferior clergy, belonging to the church in his time. And within half an age more we find an account of above forty churches in it. For so many Optatus7 says ‘there were, when Victor Gar- biensis, the Donatist bishop, was sent from Africa to be the anti-bishop there: though there were forty churches and more in the city, yet he could not ob- tain one of them, to make his handful of sectaries look like a Christian congregation. This, as Baro- nius and Valesius have rightly observed, was spoken by Optatus not of his own times, but of the time when Victor Garbiensis came to Rome, which was in the beginning of the Diocletian persecution. Whence it may be rationally inferred, that if there were above forty churches in Rome before the last persecution, there would be abundance more in the following ages, when the whole city was become Christian. But as by the vast increase of this city the diocese was very large within, so for the same reason it became very small without. For that which was at first the territory of Rome, seems afterward to have been swallowed up in the city itself by the prodigious increase of it. Insomuch that some have thought, that in the time of Innocent I. the diocese of Rome had no country parishes be- longing to it, but that they were all within the city; because in his epistle to Decentius, bishop of Eugu- bium,8 he seems to make this difference between other dioceses and that of Rome, that in the Roman diocese the custom was to send the sacrament from the mother-church to the presbyters ofiiciating in other churches, because all their churches lay within the city; but this was not proper to be done in other places, which had country parishes,’ because the sacraments were not to be carried to places at too great a distance. But however this was, (for learned men are not exactly agreed upon it, and I conceive it to be a mistake,) this is certain, that the diocese of Rome could not extend very far any way into the country region; because it was bounded on all sides with neighbouring cities, which lay close round it. On the north it had Fidenae, a bishop’s see in those times, though, as Cluver 1° and Ferrarius 1‘ show out of Dionysius Halicarnasseus, it lay but forty stadia, or five miles, distant from it. On the cast it was bounded with the diocese of Gabii, which some by mistake place seventy miles from Rome, but Hol- stenius12 and Cluver, who are more accurate, tell us, it lay in the middle way between Rome and Praeneste, about twelve or thirteen miles from each. In the same coast lay Tusculum, but twelve miles from Rome. A little inclining to the south lay the diocese of Subaugusta, close by Rome. Here Helena, the mother of Constantine, was buried, whence it was called Subaugusta Helena. Holstenius13 says, the remains of it are still visible at the place called Turris Pignatara. It was so near Rome, that the writers which speak of Helena’s interment, com- monly say she was buried at Rome in the church of St. Marcelline in Via Lavicana; which is to be understood of St. Marcelline’s church in Subaugusta, which lay in the way betwixt Rome and Lavici, whence the way was called Via Lavicana. If we look to the south of Rome down the river Tiber to- ward the sea, there we find three dioceses in three cities, none of them above three miles from each other, nor above sixteen miles from Rome. These were Ostia, Portus Augusti, and Sylva Candida. The first and second of which lay within two miles of each other, Ostia on the east side, and Portus on 2 Plin. l. 3. c. 5. 3 Lipsius de Magnitud. Roman. l. 3. c. 2. p. 111. 4 Mede, Commentat. Apocalypt. p. 488. 5 Vopisc. Vit. Aurel. p. 645. 6 Cornel. Ep. ad Fab. Euseb. lib. 6. c. 43. 7 Optat. lib. 2. p. 49. Non enim grex aut populus appel- landi fuerant pauci, qui inter quadraginta et quod excurrit basilicas, locum ubi colligerent non habebant. 8 Innocent. Ep. 1. ad Decent. c. 5. De fermento autem quod die Dominico per titulos mittimus superfine nos consu- lere voluisti, cum omnes ecclesiae nostrae intra civitatem sunt constitutes, &c. 9 Ibid. Quod per parochias fieri debere non puto, quia non longe portanda sunt sacrameuta. 1° Cluver. Ital. lib. 2. p. 654. " Ferrar. Lexie. Geogr. voce Fidenae. 12 Holsten. Annot. in Ortel. p. 85. Cluver. Ital. p. 955. ‘3 Holsten. Annot. Geogr. in Car. a Sancto Paulo, p. 11. CHAP. V. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 381 ANTIQUITIES OF THE the west side of the river Tiber; and Sylva Candida a little more west from Portus. The site and dis- tance of Ostia and Portus from Rome we have ex- actly delivered both from ancient and modern geo- graphers. In Antonine’s Itinerary it is called eighteen; but Holstenius " observes that the ancient miles were shorter than the modern, and therefore both he, and Ferrarius, and others, reckon these places precisely but sixteen miles from Rome. Now these being sea-ports, had probably the chief extent of their dioceses toward Rome, which takes off from the largeness of the former. On the west it was bounded with the diocese of Lorium, which lay in Tuscia in the Via Aurelia betwixt Rome and Turres, which Holstenius says,15 was but twelve miles from Rome, and ten from Turres. And many other dioceses lay in the same circle about Rome, not at much further distance. For Nepe in Tuscia was but twenty miles from Rome, and Sutrium but four from Nepe. Nomentum, among the Sabines in Valeria, was but twelve miles from Rome, and Tibur in the same tract about sixteen. Lavici in Campania, or Latium, was but fifteen, and Tres Ta— bernte, according to some accounts, but twenty-one, and Velitrae so near that, that Gregory the Great united them together. But we shall see more of this in specifying the dioceses of each particular province, and assigning the bounds of such as were most remarkable for their nearness one to another. I shall begin with those provinces Sect. 2. . . or Tuscgpiaand Um- whlch are properly called Roman, 1n contradistinction to the rest of the Italic dioceses; and in each of these assign both the names and number of the ancient episcopal dio- ceses, that the reader who is curious in this matter, may exercise his geographical knowledge in a more particular search into the state of them. The first of these in order is Tuscia and Umbria, which the - civil and ecclesiastical account always joins toge- ther as one province, though they had distinct bounds upon other occasions. Tuscia was the same that was anciently called Etruria, bounded with the Tiber on the east, and the river Macra on the west, the Apennine hills on the north, and the Tuscan Sea on the south; and includes now St. Peter’s patrimony in the eastern part, and the dukedom of Florence, or Tuscany, in the west. In this province Carolus a Sancto Paulo finds thirty- five ancient dioceses. l. Portus Augusti, now call- ed Porto. 2. Sylva Candida, now Sancta Ruflina. 3. Nepe, vulgo Nepi. 4. Aqua Viva, al. Carpena- tum Urbs. 5. Phalaris, now Citta Castellana. 6. ~ leria lay between them. Ferentium, Ferento. 7. Polymartium, Bomarso. 8. Hortanum, Horti. 9. Blera, now Bieda. lO. Sutrium. ll. Tarquina. l2. Salpis. But Hol- stenius thinks this is mistaken for Saepinum, in the province of Samnium. l3. Tuscania, Tuscanello. l4. Balneum Regis, Bagnarea. l5. Perusia, now Perugia. 16. Urbs Vetus, Orvieto. l7. Clusium, Chiusa. 18. Cortona. l9. Aretium, Arezzo. 20. Volsinium, Bolsena. 21. Centumcellae, now Civita Vecchia. 22. Gravisca, now Montalto. 23. Cor- netum. 24. Forum Claudii, now Oriolo. 25. Pisa. 26. Lucca. 27. Luna. 28. Sena. 29. Florentia. 30. Fesulae, now Fiezoli. 31. Suana. 32. Man- turanum. 33. Rusella, Rosella. 34. Populonia, Porto Baratto. 35. Volaterrae. To which Hol- stenius adds Volscee, or Civitas Buleentina, Cas- trum Valentini, and Lorium. Now some of these, as has been already observed, were very near neigh- bours to Rome, and they were yet nearer to one another. N epi was but four miles from Sutrium, as Ferrarius computes,16 and so they were after- ward united together, as the same author informs us. Portus Augusti was bounded on one side with Ostia, which was but two miles from it, as Ferra- rius" and Cluver inform us; and on the other side with Sylva Candida, which Carolus a Sancto Paulo places about the same distance from it. Faleria, or Phalaris, is reckoned by Cluver18 about five or six miles from Nepe, and four miles from Hortanum by Ferrarius,‘9 who says, Hortanum lay upon the Tiber, opposite to the Ocriculi in Umbria, and not above four miles to the west of it. Holstenius20 shows out of the Jerusalem Itinerary, that Aqua Viva was but twelve miles from Ocriculi, and Pha- Polymartium was but five miles west from Hortanum, as Ferrarius com- putes,21 and Ferentium about the same distance from Polymartium; which two last were united in- to one, before the council of Rome under Martin, anno 649, as Carolus a Sancto Paulo collects from the subscriptions of that council. Blera was but nine miles from Forum Claudii, as Holstenius22 shows from the old Itineraries; and Forum Claudii not above five from Sutrium, according to Cluver’s reckoning. Lorium was but twelve miles from Rome in the way to Civita Vecchia, as has been showed before. Tarquina is reckoned by Ferra- rius23 about five miles from Cornetum, and about the same distance from Gravisca, by C luver’s Ta- bles. Which is the more probable, because Hol- stenius observes,“ that these three dioceses were at last united into one. C entumcellm, or Civita Vecchia, ‘4 Holsten. Annot. in Cluver. Ital. p. 79. Others reckon but twelve modern miles. So Lipsius out of A ppian. '5 Holsten. in Cluver. Ital. p. 43. '6 Ferrar. Lexic. Geogr. voce Nepe et Sutrium. 1" Ibid. voce Ostia et Portus. 18 Cluver. Ital. lib. 2. p. 537. 19 Ferrar. Lexie. voce Hortanum. 9° Holsten. Annot. in Cluver. p. 80. 21 Ferrar, voce Polymartium. 2'2 Holsten. in Cluver. p. 47. 23 Ferrar. Lexie. voce Tarquinia. 2‘ Holsten. Annot. in Carol. a Sancto Paulo, p. 8. 382 Boon IX. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. lay upon the sea, twelve miles from Gravisca, as appears from the Jerusalem Itinerary in Hol- stenius.25 Tuscania and Volsinium, and Urbs Ve- tus, now called Orvieto, and Balneum Regis, had much about the same distances from one another. And all these lay within that little compass of land, which is now called St. Peter’s patrimony, hemmed in on the east and north with the river Tiber, on the west with the river Marta, and on the south with the Tuscan Sea. A country that is not much above fifty miles square, as Cluver rightly describes it. For from Rome to Centumcellae, or Civita Vec- chia, which lies but ten miles from the river Marta, which now divides St. Peter’s patrimony from Cas- tro Ducato, Cluver and Holstenius,26 out of Anto- nine’s Itinerary, in the direct course of the Via Aurelia, reckon but forty-seven miles, which do not exceed forty miles according to the present estima- tion. So that there being in this compass twenty bishoprics, including Rome in the number, if we will suppose all the dioceses to be equal, each dio- cese will be about ten or twelve miles square, which confirms the account that has been given of the distance of the several cities from each other. And hence it appears, that as in some parts of the king- dom of Naples, dioceses have been multiplied above what they were in former ages, so in this and other parts of the pope’s dominions, they have as strangely decreased. For now there are not near half the number, there being sometimes two, or three, or four united into one. For. Ferrarius informs us, that Viterbo was raised, anno 1074, out of the ruins of three old ones, Ferentum, Tuscania, and Polymar- tium. So Citta Castellana arose from the decay of Faleria and Hortanum. Sutrium was united to Nepe; Tarquina and Gravisca to Cornetum; not to mention any more of this kind, which concern not the present inquiry. As to those dioceses which lay in the western part of Tuscia, now called the dukedom of Tuscany, they were much larger in proportion than the former, for excepting Fesulae, which lay but three miles27 from Florence, all the other dioceses were of greater extent. Of which i need only give this evidence, that this part of Tus- cia is reckoned28 above two hundred miles in length, and near a hundred in breadth, excluding the pope’s dominions. Which being divided among fifteen or sixteen dioceses, will afford a large territory to every one : so that it is needless to look further for a par- ticular account of them. But if we return back again into Umbria, nearer Rome, there we shall find dioceses of the same size, and as thick as in the patrimony of St. Peter. For it was but a little tract of ground, bounded with the rivers Nar and Tiber, and the Apennine hills, and only a part of the old Umbria, which reached be- yond the Apennine to the Adriatic sea. In the present Umbria, Carolus a Sancto Paulo reckons eighteen bishoprics. l. ()criculum. 2. Narnia. 3. Tuder, now Todi. 4. Mevania, now Bevagna. 5. Tifernum Tiberinum, now Citta di Castello. 6. Interamnia, now Terni. 7. Ameria, Amelia. 8. Trebia, Trebi. 9. Spoletum, Spoleto. lO. Fulgi- num, Fulgino. ll. Camerinum. 12. Hispellum. l3. Assisium. 14. Forum Novum, now Vescovio. 15. Forum Flaminii, now For-fiammo. 16. Vetto- nium, Bittona. l7. Nuceria, Nocera. 18. Eugu- bium, Gubbio. To which Holstenius adds Tadi- num‘~’9 and Martula. Now five of these, Fulginum, Hispellum, Assisium, Forum Flaminii, and Meva- nia, lay so close together, that none of them was above ten miles’ distance from any of the other. Fulginum had on the north towards Nuceria, Fo- rum Flaminii to bound it, which Ferrarius30 says, was but three miles removed from it. Hispellum was but the same distance in the way to Assisium. Trebia on the east was but six miles from Fulgi- num, and nine from Spoletum, as Ferrarius also informs us,31 who says also it was but fifteen miles from Fulginum to Spoletum; so that Trebia must lie exactly in the way betwixt them. On the south, Fulginum was bounded again with Mevania, which was but six miles from it.32 On the west lay As- sisium, famous in modern stories for the birth of St. Francis, the father of the Franciscans; and this, Ferrarius says, was but ten miles83 from Fulginum, and about twelve from Perusia in Tuscia. If we look a little more northward, from Forum Flaminii to Nuceria is computed nine miles84 by Ferrarius. From Nuceria to Tadinum (the remains of which, Holstenius35 says, are yet to be seen in the Via Fla- minia, near Gualdo, on the top of the Apennine) is computed no more than eight miles by Holstenius36 and Baudrand. And from Tadinum to Eugubium must be about thirteen. But here the dioceses be- gan to enlarge toward the western parts of this pro- vince, as was observed before of Tuscia. For west- ward of Eugubium, there was no city betwixt it and Tifernum T iberinum, which was twenty miles from it. Nor had Tifernum Tiberinum any nearer neigh- bours than Aretium, which is reckoned eighteen, and Callium‘ twenty-two, and Perusia twenty-four 25 Holsten. in Cluver. p. 80. 26 Ibid. p. 78. Procop. de Bell. Goth. lib. 2. p. 405, reckons it 280 stadia, or 35 miles. 2’ Cluver. Ital. lib. 2. p. 452. 2“ Ferrar. Lexic. Geogr. voce Tuscia. 29 Holsten. Annot. in Carol. 8. S. Paulo, p. 9, et in Cluver. '0. 98. 9° Ferrar. Lexic. voce Forum Flaminii. 3‘ Ibid. voce Trebia, et Fulginum, et Hispellum 32 Ibid. voce Mevania. 33 Baudrand. voce Fulginum et Perusia. 8* Ferrar. voce Nuceria. 35 Holsten. Annot. in Carol. a S. Paulo, p. 9. 36 Holsten. Annot. in Ital. Cluver. p. 86. CHAP. V. 383 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. miles from it, as Baudrand and Ferrarius37 have computed. But then if we look towards Rome again, and descend from the Apennine to the south- ern parts of this province toward the rivers Nar and Tiber, we there first meet with Martula on the river Nar, which Holstenius38 assures us was but six miles to the east of Spoleto. Down the same river lay Interamnia, about the same distance from Mar- tula. And below that was Narnia, which Cluver,39 from the Jerusalem Itinerary, reckons to be nine miles from Interamnia; but Holstenius, who was at the pains to measure it, says “° it was but five miles and two-thirds from the gate of the one city to the gate of the other. A little to the west of Narnia lay Ameria, which Ferrarius‘l says was not quite six miles from it. And to the south of Narnia, more down the river Nar toward Rome, there was Ocriculum, which the Jerusalem Itinerary in Clu- ver“2 makes to be twelve miles from Narnia; but Ferrarius, by the modern account, reckons but eight, and four from Hortanum in Umbria, as has been noted before in speaking of Hortanum. In the middle of this province, upon the confluence of the rivers Tinia and Asius, between Mevania and Pe- rusia, lay Vettonium, which Ferrarius43 accounts six miles from Mevania, and eight from Perusia in Tuscia. So that all the dioceses of this province, except two or three, were very small, and one with another not to be reckoned above eight or ten miles in length, since there was scarce so much distance from one city to another. And upon this account, as the cities decayed, several of these dioceses were united together in after ages. For Tadinum is joined to Nuceria, as Holstenius44 informs us. Hispellum and Forum Flaminii are swallowed up in Fulgino. So Mevania, and Trebia, and Martula are sunk and united to other dioceses, and in all this province, that I can learn, there is not one new see erected. Out of Umbria our next step toward ect. 3. . . . mgaceor the east is 1nto the province of Va- leria, so called, Holstenius thinks, from the Via Valeria, which ran directly through it. It was bounded on the north with the Apennine, on the west with the river Nar, which divided it from Umbria, on the south with the Tiber and the Anio, which divided it from Latium, or that which is now called Campagna di Roma. On the cast it border- ed upon Samnium, from which it was divided by a line drawn from the river Aternus to the head of S Of the V Anio. It was anciently the country of the Sabines andMarsi, and part of Old Latium, and is now call- ed Sabina in that part which runs toward Rome, the rest being now part of the dukedom of Spoleto and Abrusso. In this province Carolus a Sancto Paulo reckons eleven dioceses. l. Fidenm, now called Castel J ubileo. 2. Nomentum, now Lamen~ tana. 3. Tibur, Tivoli. 4. Nursia, Norza. 5. Marsi, al. Marruvium, and Valeria. 6. Praeneste, now Palestrina. 7. Furconium, Forconio. 8. Ami- ternum, now S. Vittorino. 9. Reate, Rieti. lO. Cures, Curese. 11. Lista. But Holstenius45 ob- serves, that the last of these is mistaken for Lissum, or Alessio, as it is now called, in Praevalitana on the other side of the Adriatic Sea; and Preeneste be- longs to Latium: instead of which he substitutes two others, Pitinum and Forum Novum, or Sabi- num, now Vescovio, once a chief city among the Sabines. Now, of these, Fidenae was but five miles from the gates of Rome, as has been noted before. Nomentum was about eight from Fidenae, and twelve from Rome, as Baudrand‘6 shows out of Sanson and Brietius; though others place it be- yond Tibur ten miles, and twenty-six from Rome. Tibur itself was but sixteen miles “7 from Rome, and twelve from Przeneste. But it was a pretty large diocese for all that. For Holstenius48 observes, that Sublaqueum was a dependant on it, till it be- came a monastery exempt from all episcopal juris- diction; and Ferrarius“9 says, that abbey had four- teen villages belonging to it. Prwueste was thirteen miles from Gabii, and fourteen from Anagnia, and not so much from Nomentum. Cures, now called St. Anthimo, was only ten miles from Reate, accord- ing to Ferrarius,50 and probably something nearer to Nomentum, because Carolus a Sancto Paulo51 observes out of an epistle of Gregory52 the Great, that it was united in his time to Nomentum. Some confound Cures with Sabinum, or Forum Novum; but Holstenius 5‘3 shows, that Sabinum was a distinct city, and stood in the place which is now called Vescovio, where the ruins of the cathedral church are still remaining: which Baudrand says 5‘ was but three miles from Reate, and eleven from Inter- amnia; but the site of this place may be passed over as a little uncertain. The ruins of Amiternum are still to be seen, Cluver says,55 near where Aquila now stands. Ferrarius56 thinks it was only five miles from it. Pitinum was but two miles from 8’ Ferrar. Lexie. voce Tifernum. *8 Hblsten. Annot. in Ital. Cluver. p. 98. 89 Cluver. Ital. p. 526. 4° Holsten. Annot. in Cluver. p. 95. Sunt a Narnieusi porta ad portam lnteramnii cannae Romanae 3760, quae sunt 5 mil. pass. 4' Ferrar. Lexie. voce Ameria. 4"’ Cluver. Ital. p. 526. "3 Ferrar. Lexie. voce Vettonium. ‘4 Holsten. in Ital. Cluver. p; 86. ‘5 Holsten. Annot. in Carol. a S. Paulo, p. 16. ‘6 Baudr. voce Nomentum. ‘7 Ferrar. voce Tibur. ‘8 Holsten. in Ital. Cluver. p. 147. ‘9 Ferrar. voce Sublaqueum. 5° Ibid. voce Cures. 5‘ Carol. a S. Paulo, Geogr. Sacra. p. 58. 52 Greg. lib. 2. Ep. 20. 53 Holsten. Annot. in Carol. a S. Paulo, p. 9. 5* Baudr. voce Cures. 55 Cluver. Ital. lib. 2. p. 686. 5“ Ferrar. voce Amiternum. 384 Boox 1X. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Aquila, and consequently, as Holstenius observes,57 must be near Amiternum. Furconium was another see in that neighbourhood, but eight miles from Aquila, as Ferrarius58 acquaints us. So that these three dioceses lay in a small compass, and are now swallowed up in the new diocese of Aquila, which arose out of the ruins of them all united together. The largest of these dioceses in this tract, were Reate, Nursia, and Marruvium or Marsi. For from Reate to Nursia, Baudrand 5” calls it thirteen miles, Ferrarius, twenty: to Aquila twenty-five miles, and as much to Narnia. But Interamnia and Furco- nium were something nearer to Reate. Marruvium or Marsi, on the lake Fucinus, was at a consider- able distance from Furconium and Sulmo, which cities lay the nearest to it. But the exact distance is not so certain,"because it is not agreed on which side the lake Fucinus Marruvium was. Out of Valeria and Umbria cross Sect. 4. . . ormréggrrirpmsub- the Apenmne we come 1nto the pro- vince of Picenum Suburbicarium, so called to distinguish it from Picenum Annonarium, which belonged to the Italic diocese. This lay be- twixt the Apennine on the south and the Adriatic Sea on the north, and was divided from Picenum Annonarium by the river ZEsis on the west, and from Samnium by the river Aternus, now called Pescara, on the east; and it is now the provinces of Marca di Ancona and Abrusso Ultra. In this province Carolus a Sancto Paulo reckons fourteen dioceses. l. Pinna, now Penna. 2. Interamnia, now Teramo. 3. Asculum, Ascoli. 4. Firmum, Fermo. 5. Tolentinum, Tolentino. 6. Septempeda,_ now S. Severino. 7. Matelica. 8. Cingulum,Cin- gulo. 9. Auximum, Osmo. 10. Potentia. ll. Nu- mana, now Humana. l2. Ancona. l3. Hadria,Adri. l4. Aternum, now Pescara. To which Holstenius60 adds five more; Truentum, Aufinia, Faleronia, Urbs Salvia, now called Urbisaglia, and Pausola, or Pausulaa, as Ferrarius calls it, which now goes by the name of Monte del Olmo. The most eastern city of this province was Aternum, on the mouth of the river Aternus or Pescara, which (as Ferrarius61 and Baudrand compute) was but eight miles from Teate, and eleven from Ortona, two cities in the province of Samnium, and not above eleven from Adria, and twelve from Pinna. Pinna was the same distance from Teate and Adria. Interamnia is reckoned by Ferrarius twenty miles from Asculum; Lut Baudrand says only thirteen. In the western parts of the province, Matelica is computed but nine miles from Septempeda; and Septempeda six from To- lentinum, and ten from Camerinum, and twelve from Cingulum; Cingulum is reckoned but eight from 5’ Holsten. Annot. in Carol. a S. Paulo, p. 16. Pitinum non longe fuit ab Amiterno, duobus mil. pass. ab Aquila. 58 Ferrar. voce Furconium. ‘9 Ferrar. et Baudrand. voce Nursia, et Reate. EEsium in Picenum Annonarium, and twelve from Auximum; Auximum twelve from ZEsium, and the same from Ancona: Ancona twelve from Numana ; Numana twelve from Potentia; the remains of which last, Holstenius says,62 are still to be seen, not far from Portus Ricanaticus and Laureto. Urbs Sal- via, according to Ferrarius’s account, was but ten miles from Tolentinum, and by Baudrand’s but six. Firmum, Truentum, and Asculum lay at a greater distance; for Ferrarius reckons them near twenty miles from each other: but then he says, that Pau- sulae was in Comitatu Firmano, and therefore not far from Firmum ; and if Faleronia and Aufinia (whose situation is uncertain) lay in those parts also, they might bring the dioceses of Asculum and Truentum to the same pitch with the rest of the province. So that few dioceses in this province could be much above ten miles in extent, and the largest not above twenty, as appears from Ferrarius and other geogra- phers’ computation. From the Adriatic Sea we must again cross the Apennine to take a view of Latium and Campania, the ancient glory of Italy, along the Tuscan Sea east- ward to the river Silarus from the Tiber and the gates of Rome. This in the civil and ecclesiastical account is reckoned but one province; but since Latium is commonly distinguished from Campania, I will speak first of the dioceses that were in that, as being the nearest neighbours to Rome. This country was anciently bounded with the rivers Tiber, Anio, and Liris, which last divided it from Campa- nia properly so called. It now contains Campagna di Roma, and part of Lavoro in the realm of Na- . set. 5. Of Latium and umpania. ples. It had anciently twenty-three dioceses, as Carolus a Sancto Paulo and Holstenius have com- puted. l. Subaugusta. 2. Ostia. 3. Gabii. 4. Albanum. 5. Alba. 6. Antium. 7. Tres Taber- nee. 8. Velitrm. 9. Tusculum. 10. Lavici. ll. Praeneste. 12. Signia. 13.Anagnia. 14.Feren- tinum. 15. Aletrium. l6. Verulm. l7. Tarra- cina. 18. Fundi. l9. Formiae. 20. Aquinum. 21. Cassinum. 22. Atina. 23. Sora. Of these, as has been observed before, Subaugusta lay close by Rome ; Ostia sixteen miles from Rome and two fi'om Porto; Gabii thirteen from Rome and as many from Praeneste. Tusculum, which some mistake for Tusculanum, where Cicero wrote his Tusculan Questions, was a city now called Frescati, and Fer- rarius says but twelve miles from Rome. Signia, now called Segni, lay between Tusculum and Anag- nia, six miles from each, nine from Praeneste, and thirty from Rome, as Baudrand informs“ us from Holstenius. The same author says,“ Ferentinum 6° Holsten. Annot. Geogr. in Carol. a S. Paulo, p. 14. 6' Ferrar. Lexie. Geogr. voce Aternum. ‘2 Holsten. ibid. “3 Lexie. Geogr. voce Signia. 6‘ Ibid. voce Ferentinum. CHAP. V. 385 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. was but five miles from Anagnia and four from Ale- trium; and Ferrarius“ places Verulae between Anag- nia and Sora, nine or ten miles from each. Lavici is reckoned by Holsteniusssbut fifteen miles from Rome, and yet the diocese of Subaugusta came be- tween them: for it was in the Via Lavicana, the direct way that leads from Rome to Lavici. Alba- num and Alba are by some authors confounded to- gether, but Holstenius 6’ reckons them distinct cities, and Ferrarius says68 the one was fourteen, and the other sixteen miles from Rome. But perhaps the one might only arise out of the ruins of the other, for they were not above two miles from each other. Velitrae was but four miles from Alba, and twenty from Rome; Antium on the Tuscan shore fourteen from Velitrze and twenty from Ostia, as the same Fer- rarius69 informs us. Between Antium and Velitras lay T res Tabernae, the place whither the Christians came to meet St. Paul from Rome. Carolus a Sancto Paulo thinks it is the same which is now called Cisterna, but Holstenius says 7° it was at some distance from it in the Via Appia, so near Velitrae that Gregory the Great united these two dioceses together. Ferrarius says71 it was but five miles from Velitrze, and twenty- six (or, as Baudrand computes, twenty-one) from Rome, five from Aricia, and twenty-two from Appii Forum, the other place whither the brethren came to meet St. Paul. Indeed neither Aricia nor Appii Forum are mentioned as episcopal sees by any an- cient writer: but Ferrarius72 seems to make them both so; for he says Aricia was a famous city and a Roman colony, which, by the common rule of the church, had thereby a title to an episcopal see: nor is it any objection against it that it was but sixteen miles from Rome, and four or five from Alba, Tres Tabernae, and Velitrae; for we have seen already that many cities in this tract were at no greater dis- tance from one another. Of Appii Forum he speaks more positively, and says it was anciently an epis- copal see,78 though from what authority he tells us not: but there is some reason to believe it, because it was a city at a good distance from any other. For Tarracina on the cast was near twelve miles from it, and Tres Tabernae westward above twenty; so that either Tres Tabernaa and Tarracina must have dio- ceses of more than ordinary extent in these parts, or else Appii Forum must come between them. But I let this pass, because in matters of doubtful nature, where we are destitute of ancient authorities, nothing can certainly be determined. I go on therefore with those that are more certain. From Tarracina to Fundi the modern accounts 7‘ reckon but ten miles, 65 Lexie. Geogr. voce Verula. 66 Holsten. Annot. in Ital. Cluver. p. 194. 6’ Holsten. ibid. p. 183. “8 Ferrar. voce Alba longa. 69 Ferrar. voce Velitrae, et Antium. 7° Holsten. Annot. in Carol. a S. Paulo, p. 9. 7‘ Ferrar. voce Tres Tabernae. "'2 Ibid. voce Aricia. though the Jerusalem Itinerary" calls it thirteen, and Antonine’s Itinerary sixteen. From Fundi to Formiae the same Itineraries reckon twelve and thir- teen, which Ferrarius, from the modern geographers, esteems but ten; cautioning his reader here "6 against a great error in Strabo, who makes it four hundred stadia, that is, fifty miles, from Tarracina to Formica, when indeed it was not half the distance. If we look a little upward from the sea to the north-eastern part of Latium, there we find Aquinum and Cas- sinum but five miles from one another, and Atina the same distance from Cassinum, and Sora twelve miles from Atina, twelve from Ferentinum, sixteen from Cassinum, and sixty from Rome. So that in the compass of seventy old Italian miles, which are not quite sixty of the modern, there were betwixt twenty and thirty bishoprics, answerable to the number of cities in Latium, in the most flourishing times of the Roman empire. From Latium we must pass into C ampan-ia, where we first meet with Minturnae, now called Scaffa del Garigliano, not far from the mouth of the river Liris, which Ferrarius77 computes nine miles from Formize, and as many from Sinuessa. A little above these lay Teanum, now called Tiano, eight miles from Suessa, twelve from Capua; and Calenum was the same distance from Capua, and but six from Suessa, and six from Sinuessa, as Ferrarius "8 reckons. Carolus a Sancto Paulo takes Calenum ‘for Cagli, and others for Cales; but Holstenius79 shows it to be ‘the same with Carinola, which is now a bishop’s seat, and, as Baudrand computes, but four miles from Suessa, and as many from the Tuscan shore. Next beyond these lay Vulturnum, now called Castel di Bitorno, at the mouth of the river Vulturnus, eight miles from Sinuessa, and nine from Linternum, and ten from Capua. Five miles beyond Linternum, on the same shore, was Cumae, and three miles below that Misenum, from whence to Puteoli was but three miles likewise, and from Puteoli to Naples six, ac- cording to Ferrarius’s computation. About eighteen miles beyond Naples was Stabiae, and six from that Surrentum, on the same shore, beyond which was Amalphia and Salernum, the last of which is reckon- ed by Ferrarius but twenty-four miles from Naples. On the north and east of Naples lay Nola, which could not be above twelve miles from it: for Hol- stenius observes,80 that Octavianum, the village where Octavius Augustus died, under Mount Vesu- vius, was in the way between them, five miles from Naples, and seven from Nola. Between Nola and Capua lay Aeerra, six miles from Nola, and eight v "3 Ferrar. voce Forum Appii. 7‘ Ibid. voce Fundi. "5 Ap. Holsten. Annot. in Ital. Cluver. p. 218. "6 Ferrar. voce Formiae. 7’ Ibid. voce Minturnac. 78 Ibid. voce Teanum, et Calenum. "9 Holsten. Annot. in Cluver. Ital. p. 258. 8° Holsten. Annot. in Ortel. p. 133. 2c 386 Boon IX. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. from Naples, and ten from Capua: for from Nola to Capua was but twenty old Italian miles, as we learn from Paulinus, bishop of Nola,81 who could not be mistaken. Naples and Capua were but sixteen miles asunder, and yet Atella, now called S. Arpino, or S. Elpidio, lay between them, which, Ferrarius82 says, was eight miles from each. Calatia was but the same distance to the north of Capua; Venafrum but ten miles from Cassinum; Abellinum was the largest diocese in all Campania, sixteen miles from Beneventum, and as much from Nola, Salernum, and Frequentum, in the province of Samnium, to which, Baudrand83 says, it was afterward united. If now we put all these Italian dioceses hitherto enumerated together, they amount to above one hundred and ten, whereof twenty were in that little part of Tuscia, which is now called St. Peter’s patrimony, twenty in Umbria, eleven in Valeria, nineteen in Picenum Suburbicarium, and forty-three in Latium and Cam- pania. And yet all this country put together was not, in the longest part of it, above two hufidred miles on the Tuscan shore: for from the river Marta, on which lay Tarquina and Gravisca, to Rome is reckoned fifty modern miles; from Rome to Naples one hundred and twenty-five; and from Naples to Salernum, the utmost diocese in Campania, but twenty-four, according to the computations of Fer- rarius. On the Adriatic shore it was only the length of Picenum Suburbicarium between the rivers ZEsis and Aternus, which was not above one hundred and twenty miles. The breadth of it‘ in the widest part of it, from Ancona on the Adriatic Sea to Ostia on the Tuscan Sea, was but one hun- dred and sixty-four miles, and in the narrower parts, from the mouth of the river Aternus to the mouth of the Liris, not above one hundred and twenty miles. Which the curious may divide among one hundred and ten dioceses, and then examine whe- ther they exceed the proportions which I have be- fore assigned them. I will not stand so nicely to exa- mine the re'st of the Italian dioceses, but only recount the number in each province, and make a few remarks upon the largest, as I have hitherto done upon the smallest; that the reader may pursue this inquiry further at his own pleasure, and see that the greatness or smallness of a diocese anciently ,bred no division or disturbance in the catholic church. The next province then in order to be spoken of is Samnium, which lay on the coast of the Adriatic Sea, between Picenum Suburbica- rium on the west, from which it was divided by the river Aternus, or Pescara, and Apulia'on the east, from which it was separated by the river Frenta. In this province Carolus a Sancto Paulo reckons Sect. 6. Of Samnium. but ten dioceses. l. Beneventum. 2. Saepinum. 3. Sulmo. 4. Bovianum, now called Boiano. 5. Theatea, now Chieti. 6. Ortona. 7. Frequentum, Fricenti. 8. Alipha. 9. Samnium. 10. Corfinium, or Valva. To which Holstenius adds Istonium and ZEclanum, but Baudrand thinks ZEclanum was the same with Frequentum. However it was, Holste- nius observes,84 that it had the name of Decimum Quintum, because it was fifteen miles from Bene- ventum. Corfinium and Sulmo were nearer to one another, and were afterward united together. Or- tona, T heatea, Smpinum, Bovianum, and Istonium, were some ten, some twelve miles from one another. So that these dioceses were neither so little as those about Rome, nor so large as those of the western provinces in the Italic diocese. Next to Samnium lay Apulia, and Sect 7 beyond that Calabria, in the utmost Ofésgg'gind corner of Italy to the Adriatic Sea. These two regions made but one province in the civil and ecclesiastical account, and therefore I join them together. In Apulia Carolus a Sancto Paulo reckons twelve dioceses. l. Ignatia, now called Ig- nazzo. 2. Barium, Barri. 3. Tranum,Trani. 4. Cu- persanum,Conversano. 5. Canusium,Canosa. 6. Si- pontum, Siponto. 7. Arpi, now Sarpi. 8. Melphia, Melfi. 9. Venusia, Venosa. 10. Acherontia, Ace- renza. ll. Vigiliae, Biseglm. l2. Cannw. To which the diligence of Holstenius has added five more- 13. Bivinum, Bovino. l4. Herdona, Ardona. 15. Rubisium, Ruvo. 16. Salapia, Salpe. l7. ZEcae, or ZEquana, since called Troja. In Calabria Caro- lus a Sancto Paulo found but seven dioceses, but Holstenius makes them ten. 1. Brundisium, Brin- disi. 2. Aletium, Lecci. 3. Hydruntum, Otranto. 4. Callipolis, Gallipoli. 5. Tarentum, Taranto. 6. Uria, Oira. 7. Lypia, or Luspiee. 8. Neritum, Nardo. 9. Uxentum, Ugento. lO. Alexanum, be- fore called Leuce, now Alessano. Next to these, toward the lower sea, lay the regions of Lucania and Brutia, or and which are reckoned together likewise m‘ as one province. In Lucania Carolus a Sancto Paulo could find but five bishoprics, but Holstenius augments them to eight. 1. Potentia, Potenza. 2. Buxentum, which Carolus aSancto Paulo takes to be Pisciota, but Holstenius and others Polycastro. 3. Paestum, Pesto. 4. Acropolis, Agropoli. 5. Blanda, which some take for Belvedere, but Holstenius calls it Porto di Sapri. 6. Grumentum, Agrimonte. 7. Velia. 8. Cocilianum, the bishop of which is some- times styled also Marcillianensis, as Holstenius“ ob- serves, from Marcillianum, a seat or suburbs belong~ ing to the diocese of Cocilianum. In Brutia Carolus a Sancto Paulo reckons up sixteen dioceses. l. Rhe- 8‘ Paulin. ad Cyther. Carm. 13. p. 492. 82 Ferrar. voce Atella. ‘33 Baudrand. voce Abellinum. 8‘ H olsten. Annot. in Carol. a S. Paulo, p. 18. 85 Ibid.. Not. in Ital. Cluver. p. 299. CHAP. V. 387 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. .13. Muranum, Morano. gium, now Rezo. 2. Taurianum, Seminara. 3. Vibo Valentia, now called Bivona. Out of these two dioceses, Holstenius“ observes, that Roger earl of Calabria raised the new diocese of Mileto, anno 1087. 4. Tropaea. 5. Nicotera, Nicodro. 6. Temesa, now S. Marco. 7. Thurium, Terra Nova, al. Buffalora. 8. Cerillus,Cerilla. 9. Consentia,Cosenza. 10. Cro- tona. ll. Scyllatium, Squillaei. l2. Locri, Gieraci. l4. Portus Orestis, Porto Ravaglioso. 15. Carina, united to Rhegium by Gregory the Great. 16. Bova. To these Holstenius adds two more, Paternum and T urres; the first of which sees, he says,87 was translated to Umbriatico, and the other united to Taurianum. So that the new diocese of Mileto, which was made out of Tau- rianum and Vibo, must be at least three old dioceses united into one. Whence we may conclude, that though some of the dioceses in this part of Italy are less than they were anciently, yet others are larger by being united: and the same observation may be made upon Campania, where the dioceses are now more numerous than in any other part of Italy; though some of them are now so small, as not to extend beyond the walls of their cities, yet others are larger than formerly for the reason mentioned, because they were made up of two or three old dioceses put together, as has been noted in its pro- per place. sect 9_ To these seven provinces which lay Sigfyflgfegigjggf, in Italy, we must add the islands of L‘Pm' Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica, with the lesser islands that lay about them, which make up the ten provinces of the Roman diocese, or city prefecture. In Sicily Carolus a Sancto Paulo counts thirteen dioceses. l. Syracusm. 2. Tinda- rium, Tindaro. 3. Leontini, Lentini. 4. Lilybae- um, now called Marsala. 5. Tauromenium, Taor- mina. 6. Messana. 7. Thermae. 8. Catana. 9. Trocala. 10. Agrigentum, Grigenti. ll. Panor- mus, Palermo. l2. Alzesa, now Caronia. 13. Ca- marina, Camarana. To which are added the two islands of Lipara, and Melita or Malta, which had each their bishop in the time of Gregory the Great. The later notit-ias speak of seven more in Sicily, and Baudrand takes notice of others, which he says were old episcopal sees, as Charinum, Drepanum, Gela Nova, Myle, now called Melazzo, and Trojan- opolis, or Troyna; but where he found those names he does not inform us. However, these must be large dioceses; for this was the greatest island in all the Mediterranean Sea: Baudrand says, Cluver was at the pains to measure it, and his account is,88 that it is six hundred miles in compass. Which being divided between thirteen or eighteen bishop- rics, will easily prove them to be large dioceses, without standing to examine the distances of par- ticular places. The isle of Malta, Ferrarius89 says, was twenty miles long, and eleven broad; but Bau- drand makes it twenty-five one way, and fifteen another: by either of which accounts, it was larger than some four or five Italian dioceses. Lipara, the chief of the seven Vulcanian or .lEolian islands, was not so large; for it was but eighteen miles in compass: but here was a city, and several append- ant villages, which, with the lesser islands, were enough to make a considerable diocese, larger than many of those about Rome. Sardinia is sometimes reckoned to the African diocese, and sometimes to the Roman. In the notitia of the African church published by Sirmondus, there are said to be five dioceses, and Carolus a Sancto Paulo speaks but of six. 1. Caralis. 2. Sulchi. 3. Te- gula. 4. Turris Libisonis, now called Porto di Torre. 5. Forum Trajani. 6. Phausania, now Terra Nova. For Sanafer he makes to be a little uncertain. Baudrand90 says they were once aug- mentcd to eighteen, but now they are again reduced to seven. However, the country appears to be large enough for eighteen: for Ferrarius” reckons it two hundred miles long, and one hundred and seventy broad: Baudrand brings it into a little narrower bounds, making it only one hundred and seventy miles in length, and eighty in breadth, and four hundred and fifty in circumference: which will make five or six large dioceses, and eighteen much greater than those which lay in the neighbourhood of Rome. In Corsica Carolus a Sancto Paulo finds four ancient dioceses; Holstenius, five. 1. Aleria. 2. Urcinium, al. Adiacium. 3. Nebium. 4. T amita. 5. Mariana. Now this island, by the lowest compu- tation of Baudrand, was one hundred and six miles in length, and fifty in breadth, which will allow forty miles to every diocese. So that these may be reckoned the largest dioceses of all the ten pro- vinces which belonged to the prefecture of Rome. We are now to return into Italy Sm“ again, and to take a short view of the “(32.539213 {3121 seven provinces, which made up that mini‘ which is properly called the Italic diocese in ‘con- tradistinction to that of Rome. The first of these which lay nearest to Rome, was Picenum Annona— rium, divided from Picenum Suburbicarium by the river ZEsis. Carolus a Sancto Paulo by mistake makes it a province of the Roman diocese, but in the old notitia of the empire, it is joined with Fla- minia, and both together make but one province of the Italic diocese. In this Picenum there were anciently but nine dioceses. l. ZEsis, now called Sect. 10. Of Sardinia and orsica. “5 Holsten. Annot. in Ital. Cluver. p. 300. 8’ Id. ibid. p. 294 et 306. 88 Baud. Lex. Geog. voce Sicilia. 89 Ferrar. voce M elita. 9° Baudrand. voce Sardinia. 9‘ Ferrar. voce Sardinia. 2 c 2 338 Boox IX. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Giesi. 2. Senogallia, Sinigaglia. 3. Fanum For- tunae, now Fano. 4. Pisaurum, Pesaro. 5. Ari- minum, Rimini. 6. Urbinum. 7. Tifernum Me- taurense, so called to distinguish it from the other Tifernum upon the Tiber, from which it was sixteen . miles’ distance. It is now called St. Angelo in Vado, and is only a part of another diocese called Urbanea, from its founder Pope Urban VIII. 8. Forum Sempronii, Fossembruno. 9. Callium, Cagli. In Flaminia, which lay westward of Picenum, between the Rubicon and the Padus, or Po, Carolus a Sancto Paulo names eleven dioceses. l. Ravenna. 2. Sarsina. 3. Czesena. 4. Forum Popilii. 5. Fi- coclae, now called Cervia. 6. Forum Livii, Forli. 7. Faventia, Faenza. 8. Forum Cornelii, now Imola. 9. Vicohabentia, Vicovenza. 10. Hadria, Adri. ll. Comacula, Comacchio. Of all which dioceses I shall stand to make no other observation but this, that they were larger than those about Rome, and less than many others in the western provinces, which lay at a greater distance from it. Ferraria was as yet no diocese of itself, but first made one by Pope Vitalian in the latter end of the seventh century, as Ferrarius 9’ informs us. The second of these seven pro- vinces was ZEmylia, divided on the east from Flaminia by the river Idex, on the north from Liguria by the Po, on the west from Alpes Cottize by the river Trebia, and on the south from Tuscia by the Apennine. Carolus a Sancto Paulo reckons here but six dioceses. l. Bononia, Bo- logna.‘ 2. Mutina, Modena. 3. Brixellum, Bres- sello. 4. Regium Lepidi, Reggio. 5. Parma. 6. Placentia, Piacenza. These were all very large dio- ceses. For Bononia, the most eastern in situation, is reckoned twenty miles from Mutina, and as much from Forum Cornelii in Flaminia, twenty-eight from Ferraria, which was in the next diocese north— ward, and on the south it had no nearer neighbour than Fesulaa beyond the Apennine, within three miles of Florence. Mutina was fifteen miles from Regium Lepidi, and Regium as much from Parma, and Parma thirty-five from Placentia, according to Ferrarius’s computation. Brixellum on the P0 was but eight miles from Parma, but on other sides it might have a larger diocese. For Ferrarius says, it was twenty-four miles from Regium Lepidi, and thirty from Cremona. So that these six dioceses were larger than twenty of those about Rome. Outof ZEmylia we pass over the river Trebiainto one of the Alpine provinces, called Alpes Cottiae, which was divided also from Liguria by the Po, from which it extended to the Tuscan Sea, including part of Piedmont and Mont- Sect. 12. Of JEmylia. Sect. 13. Of Alpes Cottiae. 92 Ferrar. voce Ferraria. 93 Holsten. Annot. in Cluver. Ital. p. 4. 9‘ Ferrar. voce Bobium. ferrat, and the whole republic of Genua, and part of the duchy of Milan on this side the P0. In this province Carolus a Sancto Paulo finds ten dioceses. 1. Augusta Taminorum, Turin. 2. Asta, Asti. 3. Dertona, T ortona. 4. Alba Pompeia, Alba. 5. Aquae Statiellae, Acqui. 6. Albingaunum, Albenga. 7. Vigintimilium, Vintimiglia. 8. Bobium, Bobio. 9. Genua. 10. Savona. To which Holstenius93 adds Nieaea, Nizza. These were large dioceses, for Bobi- um had no nearer neighbour than Placentia, which Ferrarius reckons twenty-five miles from it,“ and Genua and Dertona thirty-five. Savona was twenty- six miles from Genua, according to the most accu— rate computation of Holstenius? Ferrarius96 says, it lay in the middle way between Genua and Albin- gaunum, at thirty miles’ distance. Aquee Statiellae was also twenty—two miles from Savona, as Bau- drand computes ; but not so far from Asta and Alba Pompeia ; for Alba was but eight miles to the north of Aquae, and Asta twelve more beyond that: but east and west these dioceses might extend very wide; for Turin, the nearest neighbour westward, was twenty miles from Asta and twenty-eight from Alba, and Dertona as much to the east, according to Fer- rarius’s computation. Vigintimilium was twenty miles from Niceea, and Albingaunum forty from Vigintimilium, and Savona between twenty and thirty from Albingaunum. The whole province was one hundred and fifty miles in length, and half as much in breadth, which made those eleven dioceses equal to fifty of those about Rome and Naples. Out of this province, passing over the Po, we come into Liguria, the pro- vince whereof Milan was the metropolis; though Sect. 14. Of Liguria. ' the reader must note, that the last-mentioned pro- vince in the Roman historians is more commonly called Liguria, and this Insubria; but we now speak of them as they stood divided under the Christian emperors. This was a large province, in- cluding all that lay between the fountain of the Addua and the Po, and the Alps and the Athesis, which divided it from Venetia. Yet here were but ten dioceses to be discovered by Carolus a Sancto Paulo, and the inquisitive diligence of Holstenius after him. 1. Mediolanum, Milan. 2. Eporedia, J urea. 3. Vercellae, Vercelli. 4. Novaria. 5, Ticinum, Pavia. 6. Laus Pompeia,Lodi. 7. Cre- mona. 8. Brixia, Brescia. 9. Bergomum, Ber- gamo. 10. Comum, Como. Of these Milan was reckoned the largest city in Italy next after Rome. Ferrarius says, it is now computed to have three hundred thousand people in it; but that is much short of its ancient greatness : for Procopius says,97 In J ustinian’s time, when it was taken by the Goths, 95 Holsten. Annot. in Cluver. Ital. p. 9. 9“ Ferrar. voce Savona. V 9"’ Procop. de Bell. Gothic. lib. 2. c. 21. p. 439. CHAP. V. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 389 there were three hundred thousand men put to the sword. When St. Ambrose was bishop there, it had several Christian churches, some of which are named by him in his epistles, as the Basilica Por- tiana98 without the walls, and the Basilica Major or Nova within the city, the Basilica Faustae,99 and Basilica Ambrosiana: and when it was all become Christian, we must suppose a great many churches more under one bishop; for it never had two ex- cept in the times of the Arian persecution. With- out the walls it might also have a large diocese: for no other city among those forementioned was within less than twenty miles of it; and there were some thirty, and some forty miles removed from one another, only Novaria and Vercellaa were but ten miles asunder, being nearer neighbours than any other in this province. Cremona was eighteen miles from Placentia, thirty from Brixia, forty from Ticinum, and, if Ferrarius compute right, no less from Mantua ; and yet the territories of Cremona and Mantua joined together, as we may guess from that complaint of Virgil, Mantua cce mz'serw cz'cz'na Cremonce, that Mantua was a little too near to Cremona, because when Augustus sent his colony of veterans to settle at Cfemona, and the territory of Cremona proved too little for them, he ordered fifteen miles to be taken from the territory of Man- tua, to make up the deficiency of the former. Whence it is easy to infer, that the dioceses of this province were exceeding large, since the cities were so far removed from one another. _ In the two next provinces, Rhoetia Sect. 1:). , . Maggi-231:3? Prima and Secunda, the dioceses were yet larger: for in the former, which lay next to Liguria in the middle of the Alps, and is now the country of the Grisons, Carolus a Sancto Paulo could find but one diocese, which was Curia, now called Coire; and in the other, but three. 1. Augusta Vindelicorum, Ausburg. 2. Quintanee, or Colonia Augusta Quintanorum, now Kyntzen, in Bavaria on the Danube. 3. Ratispona, or Regium, and Castra Regina, now Regenspurg, or Ratisbone : to which Holstenius adds, Augusta Praetoria, now called Aosta, which is reckoned to Piedmont; and Brixino, now Brixen, in the county of Tirol: for, as I observed before, all that part of Germany which reaches from the Alps to the Danube, was an- ciently called Rhoetia, and reckoned among the provinces of Italy, and the dioceses therein were so large, that these five or six were equal for extent of ground, though not for number of people, to thirty or forty of those near Rome. The last of these seven Italic pro- . vinces, was Venetia and Histria, which were always joined together as one province. Venetia was divided from Rhoetia Sect. 16. Of Venetia and Histria. and Liguria by the river Athesis, from ZEmylia and Flaminia by the Po, and from Norieum Mediterra- lneum by a line drawn from the fountain of the river Athesis to the rise of the Savus, where Istria was joined to it, lying between the Sinus Tergestinus on the west, and Sinus Flanaticus on the east, which is the utmost bounds of the north-east part of Italy. In Histria Carolus a Sancto Paulo reckons but five dioceses. 1. Forum J ulii, now Friuli. 2. Terges- tum, Trieste. 3. Parennium,Parenzo. 4. Pola. 5. ZEmonia, which he takes to be the same that is now called Citta Nova, but Holstenius says it is Lu- biana, or Labach, on the Save. In Venetia he re- counts eighteen dioceses. l. Aquileia. 2. Pata- vium, Padua. 3. Torcellum. 4. Altinum, Altino. 5. Acelum, Asolo. 6. T arvisium, Treviso. 7. Ma- rianum. 8. Verona. 9. Gradus, Grado. 10. Nova. 11. Caprulla, Cahorla. l2. Ceneta, Ceneda. l3. Tridentum, Trent. l4. Feltria, Feltri. l5. Bellu- num, Belluno. l6. Sabiona, Siben. l7. Opitergium, Oderzo. l8. Celina, Celine. Some of these were very large dioceses: Trent was above thirty miles from Verona; and Sabiona, and Forum J ulii, and ZEmonia, and Tergestum Parentium, and Pola were no less from one another. The rest were ten or twenty miles removed from any other neighbouring city; only Altinum and Torcellum, Ferrarius'°° says, were but five miles apart, lut he questions whether they were both bishops’ sees at the same time, and thinks rather that Toreellum came only in the room of Altinum, when that was destroyed by Attila toward the middle of the fifth century. How- ever, the greatest part of these dioceses were, one way or other, of large extent, as most of the north- ern dioceses in Italy were in comparison of those which lay round about Rome. And now, I think, the observation made in the beginning of this chap- ter has been fully verified, that in Italy there were anciently some of the smallest and some of the largest dioceses in the world; and yet the same species of episcopacy preserved in them all: the bishop of Eugubium, as St. J erom words it, being qjusdem meritz', and cjusdem sac erdotz'z', of the same merit, and equal as to his priesthood with the bishop of Rome. A larger or smaller diocese made no di- vision in the unity of the catholic church. CHAPTER VI. OF THE DIOCESES IN FRANCE, SPAIN, AND THE BRITISH ISLES. I HAVE now gone through all parts of Sect. 1. the ancient the Christian world, except France, boundsanddivisions 9” Ambros. Ep. 33. ad Marcel. Sororem. 9” Id. Ep. 85. ad Soror. '°° Ferrar. voce Altinum. 390 Boox IX. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. of Gallia into se- venteen provinces. Spain, and Britain, which made up three civil'dioceses, and twenty-nine or thirty provinces of the Roman empire: but I shall not need to be so nice and particular in in- quiring into the bounds and extent of episcopal dioceses in these countries, because their number being but small in proportion to the largeness of the countries, it will easily appear to any man, that the dioceses were large, as they continue to be at this day, though some alterations have been made in their bounds since the original settlement of them. France, as it now stands, is but a part of old Gallia, which included also some of the Belgic, Helvetic, and German provinces. It was at first di- vided by Augustus into four parts, Narbonensis, Aquitanica, Lugdunensis, and Belgica. Afterwards, about the time of Adrian, or Antoninus, as De Marca thinks, these four were made fourteen: Narbonen- sis was divided into four, Narbonensis, Viennensis, Alpes Maritimae, and Alpes Graiae, or Penninae; Aquitanica was made three, two Aquitains and Novempopulania; Lugdunensis likewise three, Lug- dunensis Prima and Secunda, and Maxima Sequa- norum; and Belgica was turned into four, Belgica Prima and Secunda, and Germania Prima and Se- cunda. Last of all, about the time of the emperor Gratian, three more provinces were made out of these. For Lugdunensis Tertia, otherwise called Turonia, was taken out of Lugdunensis Secunda, and Lugdunensis Quarta, or Senonia, out of Lug- dunensis Prima, and the new province of Narbo- nensis Secunda out of the province of Vienna. And about this time, or a little after, Viennensis Secun- da, otherwise called Arelatensis, was made a pro- vince also. Some think also that Gallia had once the name of Septem Provinciae, The Seven Pro- vinces, because it was divided into so many: but De Marca1 proves this to be a vulgar error; for it never was divided into seven provinces, but some- times we meet with the distinction of Gallia and the five provinces, and Gallia and the seven provinces; and in the notz'tz'a of the empire, the word seven pro- vinces is once put for seventeen, which occasioned the mistake. Now the five provinces were either nothing but so many parts of the old Gallia Nar- bonensis, - viz. Narbonensis Prima and Secunda, Viennensis, Alpes Maritimae, and Alpes G-raiae, as Berterius, and De Marca, and Quesnellus account them; or else the four first of those mentioned with the province of Novempopulania or Aquitania Prima, instead of Alpes Graiae, which Mr. Pagi2 shows to be the more probable opinion. So that when the council of Valence, anno 374, inscribe their synodi- cal epistle, Episcopz's per Gallz'as et quinque provin- cias, these five provinces are to be understood. As also in Philastrius,3 where he speaks of the Priscil- lianists, the remains of the Manichees, sculking in Spain and the five provinces. The like distinction occurs in the letter of the emperor Maximus to Pope Siricius, and some of Symmachus’s epistles, which De Marca mentions. Afterward we meet with the distinction of Gallia and the seven pro- vinces, which occurs in the letters of Pope Zosimus and Boniface, and is thought to owe its name to the emperor Honorius, who ordered seven provinces to meet in the convention of Arles, viz. Narbonensis Prima and Secunda, Viennensis, Alpes Maritimae, Aquitania Prima and Secunda, and Novempopu- lania. These are sometimes distinguished from Gallia by the name of Septem Provincia, which occa- sioned the mistake of those who take Gallia in the largest extent and the seven provinces to be the same; whereas it appears, that there were not only seven, but seventeen or eighteen provinces in it. The names of the bishoprics in each province, be- cause they occur not in any modern notz'tz'a, I will here sub'join out of Carolus a Sancto Paulo, who has collected them out of the Acts of the ancient councils. The first of these pr'ovinces was Sm 2. that of the Maritime Alps, next to ,HQQJhiJEQgZSgS; Italy, which had seven dioceses. l. Alpes ‘mum’ Ebrodunum, Ambrun, made the metropolis of this province in the fifth century, for before it was not so, when it was laid to the charge of Armentarius, bishop of this see, that he was ordained without the consent of the metropolitan,4 which had been a frivolous accusation, had he himself then been me- tropolitan of the province. 2. Dinia, Digne. 3. Nicaea, Nice. 4. Cemelene, Cimies, which was afterwards united to Nice; for in the fifth council of Orleans, Magnus subscribes himself bishop of both churches. Some say it was only six, others thirty miles from Nice. 5. Sanicium, Senez. 6. Glandata, Glandeve, which Baudrand says is now translated to Intervallium, Entrevaux. 7. Ventio, Vence. In the second province, called Alpes sect 3 Graiaz, or Penninae, were but three Alpgiriéfigf or bishoprics. l. Tarantasia, the me- tropolis, which see is now translated to Monaste- rium, or Moutiers en Tarantaise. 2. Octodurum, Martenach. 3. Sedunum, Syon en Valez, the bi- shop of which place is now prince of the city, as Baudrand informs us. The next province westward was Viennensis, divided into Prima and Secunda. In the first were six dio- ceses. 1. Vienna, the metropolis. 2. Geneva. 3. Gratianopolis, Grenoble. 4. Civitas Albensium, al. . 4. Viennensis Prima and Secunda. 1 Marca de Primatu Lugdun. n. 66, &c. ‘2 Pagi, Critic. in Baron. an. 374. n. 18. 3 Philastr. Haer. 62. Manichw. Qui et in Hispania et- quinque proviuciis latere dicuntur. 4 Conc. Reiens. c. 2. CHAP. VI. 391 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Vivaria and Alba Augusta, Viviers. 5. Mauriana, St. Jean de Maurienne. 6. Valentia, Valence. In the second, called also Provincia Arelatensis, were ten dioceses. 1. Arelate, Arles, the metropolis. 2. Massilia, Marseilles. 3. Avenio, Avignon. 4. Ca- bellio, Cavaillon. 5. Carpentoracte, Carpentras. 6. Tolonium, al. Telonium, Toulon. 7. Arausio, Orange. 8. Vasio, Vaison. 9. Dia, or Dea Vo- contiorum, Die. 10. Tricastini, or Augusta Tri- castinorum, now called St. Paul de Trois Chasteaux, which Baudrand reckons three leagues from Avig- non, and four from Vaison. Sect“ 5_ Out of the province of Vienna Napgiesgscignggma eastward was also taken another pro- vince, called Narbonensis Secunda, or Aquensis, from the metropolis of it, Aquaa Sextiae, Aix; beside which there were six other dioceses in the province. 2. Apta Julia, Apt. 3. Reii, Riez. 4. Forum J ulii, Frejuz. 5. Vapincum, Gap. 6. Segestero, Cisteron. 7. Antipolis, Antibe, since translated to Grassa in Provence. On the west of Viennensis Secunda, lay the province of Narbo- nensis Prima, which had ten dioceses. l. Narbo. 2. Tolosa. 3. Beetirae, Beziers. 4. Nemausum, Nismes. 5. Luteva, Lodeue. 6. Ucetia, Uzes. 7. Carcaso, Carcassone. 8. Agatha, Agde. 9. Helena, Elna. 10. Magalona, an island of the Mediterra- nean, which see is since translated to Mons Pes- sulanus, or Montpellier. Westward of Narbonensis Prima Sect. 6. , , OfNglfigpopu- lay the province of Novempopulania, along the Pyrenaean mountains to the Aquitanic ocean, wherein were eleven dioceses. l. Elusa, Eause, the metropolis, whence the province was styled Elusana. The see is since translated and joined to Augusta Ausciorum, which was a second see, now called Aux. 3. Lactoratium, Lec- toure. 4. Convenae, Cominges. 5. Consoranni, Conserans. 6. Vasatae, Basas. 7. Tarba,Tarbes. 8. Aturum, al. Vico-Julia, Aire. 9. Laseara, Les- car. 10. Olero, Oleron. ll. Aquae, Acs. Northward of these provinces, from Sect. 7. . . ofargléliéizgfilggma the Garumna to the Ligerls, lay the two provinces of Aquitania Prima and Secunda, the latter of which, bordering upon the ocean, had six very large dioceses. 1. Burdigala, Bourdeaux, the metropolis. 2. Aginnum, Agen. 3. Engolisma, Angoulesme. 4. Santones, al. Medio- lanum Santonum, Saintes. 5. Pictavi, Poitiers, where St. Hilary was bishop. 6. Petrocorium, Peri- gueux. In the other province, which lay eastward from this, were nine as large dioceses. 1. Biturigae, the metropolis, now called Bourges. 2. Arverni, Clermont. 3. Rutena, Rhodes. 4. Arisita. 5. Ca— durcum, Cahors. 6. Lemovica, Limoges. 7. Gaba- lum, al. Mimate, now Maude. 8. Vellava, al. Anicium, now 1e Puy en Vellay. 9. Albiga, or Alba Helviorum, Alby, whence the Albigenses, who flourished in these parts, had their denomination. North and east of Aquitain, lay Gallia Lugdunensis, divided into five P35356313?“ provinces, whereof the first had five Qiifaamsigrggt dioceses. 1. Lugdunum, Lyon, the rum’ metropolis. 2. Matisco, Mascon. 3. Cabillonum, Chalons on the Saone. 4. Lingones,Langres. 5. Augustodunum, Autun. The second, called Lug- dunensis Secunda, had eight dioceses. l. Rotho- magum, Rouen in Normandy. 2. Ebroica, Eureux. 3. Lexovium, Lisieux. 4. Baioca, Baieux. 5. Con- stantia, Coutance. 6. Abrinca, Auranches. 7. Sa- gium, Siez. 8. Oximum, Hiesmes, since united to Sagium, from whence it is four leagues’ distance. Lugdunensis Tertia, otherwise called Turonensis, had seven dioceses. l. Turones, Tours. 2. Ande- gavum, Angiers. 3. Cenomanum, Le Mans. 4. Redones, Renes. 5. Namnetes, Nantes. 6. Venetia, Venues. 7. Aletium, Alet, since translated to Mac- lovium, anno 1140. Five others are added by some French writers, viz. Briocum, Dola, Trecora, Ossisma, Corisopitum: but Carolus a Sancto Paulo makes some question about their antiquity, because in the time of Carolus Calvus Brittany had but four bishop- rics in the whole. Lugdunensis Quarta was that part of France where Paris stands, the metropolis whereof was Senones, Sens. Next to that, 2. Car- nutum, Chartres. 3. Antissiodorum, Auxerre. 4. Trecae, Troyes in Champagne. 5. Aurelia, Orleans. 6. Parisii, Paris. 7. Melda, Meaux. 8. Nivernum, Nevers. Lugdunensis Quinta was otherwise called Maxima Sequanorum; not from Maximus the tyrant, as Carolus a Sancto Paulo and many others think ; for it was called so long before, in the time of Dio- cletian, as De Marca5 shows from an ancient inscrip- tion in Gruter. The ancient metropolis of it was Vesontio, or Bisuntio, Besancon. 2. Aventicum, Avenche, which see was since translated to Lausan- na. 3. Augusta Rauracorum, Angst, translated to Basil. 4. Vindonissa, Winich, since translated to Constance. 5. Bollica, Belley, which, De Marca says, arose out of the ruins of a more ancient one, which was Noiodunum, Nion, formerly called Co- lonia Equestris. The most northern provinces of Gallia were Belgica Prima and Se- cunda, and Germania Prima and Se- cunda, which was all the country lying north of the river Matrona from near Paris and Meaux to the Rhine. Belgica Prima had but four dioceses. 1. Au- gusta Trevirorum, Treves, or Triers, the metropolis. 2. Mediomatricum, Metz. 3. Tullum, Toul. 4. Vero- dunum, Verdun in Lorrain. In the other Belgica there were ten dioceses. l. Remi, Rheims. 2. Au- Sect. 8. Sect. 9. Of Belgica Pnm' a, and Secunda. 5 Marco. dc I’riinat. Lugdun. n. 61. 392 Boox IX. ANTIQUITIES of" THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. gusta Suessionum, Soissons. 3. Catalaunum, Cha- lons in Champagne. 4. Laudunum, Leon. 5. Augusta Veromanduorum, Vermand; which being destroyed by the Huns, the see'was translated to Neomagus, or Noviodunum, now called Noyon. 6. Cameracum, Cambray. 7. Tornacum, Tournay. 8. Sylvanectum, Senlis. 9. Bellovacum, Beauvais. 10. Ambianum, Amiens. Some add two more, Teruana, Therouenne, and Bononia, Boulogne. But Carolus a Sancto Paulo thinks these were not very ancient; for he finds no mention of the former before the time of Pope Za— chary, anno 750. And the latter was made out of the former a great many centuries after, in the time of Charles V., anno 1350, when the see of Taruanna was divided into three, and translated to Bononia for that part of the diocese which is in France, and to Audomaropolis, or St. Omers, for that part which is in Artois, and to Ipres for the third part in Flanders. Germanica Prima had but four dio- Oi'GeifgaiiiizgPrima ceses. l. Moguntiacum, Mayence, or a" 8mm ' Ments. 2. Argentoratum, Strasburgh. 3. Spira Nemetum, Spire. 4. Wormacia Vangio- num, Worms. And Germanica Secunda had but two. 1. Colonia Agrippina, Colen. 2. Tungri, or Aduatuca Tungrorum, Tongres in Brabant: which see was first translated to Trajectum ad Mosam, Mastricht, and from thence to Leodium, or Liege, where it now continues, having the temporal juris- diction joined to the spiritual, and twenty-four towns or cities subject to its command. Now, I suppose any one that knows any thing of the state of these countries, will easily conclude, that the greatest part of these dioceses were large, as they are at this day: the whole number being but one hundred and twenty-two, when the bounds of France extended much further than they do at present, including some parts of Helvetia, Germany, and Belgium, which are now reckoned distinct countries of themselves. “88:32 elf}; M. P Out of France,_passing over ‘the sioupfthe Spanish yrenman mountains, we come into Pm'mes‘ Spain, which with the province of Tingitana in Africa, and the islands called Ba- leares, made up another great civil diocese of the Roman empire, under the prwfectus-prwtorz'o Galli- arum. The whole country of Spain then was di- vided only into five provinces, Tarraconensis, Car- thaginensis, Boetica, Lusitania, and Gallaacia, and in these provinces there were never above seventy- four or seventy-six episcopal dioceses, when they were most numerous, and they are almost as many at this day. Sect 1, In the large province of Tarraco- 0’ Tmmmi‘ nensis, which lay next to France, there were only sixteen dioceses. l. Tarracona, now Tarragona, the metropolis. 2. Dertosa, Tor- tosa. 3. Caesaraugusta, Saragossa. 4. Tyrassona, al. Turiasso, now Tarazona. 5. Calagurris, Cala- horra. 6. Auca,Oca. 7. Osca, Huesca. 8. Pam- pelona. 9. Ilerda, Lerida. 10. Barcino, Barge- lona. ll. Egara,Tarrassa, a place near Barcelona, about four or six leagues from it, and now united to it. 12. Ausona, al. Ausa, Vich de Ausona. l3. Gerunda, Girone. l4. Emporiae, Empurias. l5. Orgellum, Urgel. l6. Velia, now Veleia. Next to this, on the coast of the Mediterranean, lay the province call— ed Carthaginensis, from the chief city, Carthago, Carthagena, which was the ancient metropolis of the province, though Toledo afterward gained the privilege of being a new metropolis, and at last succeeded to the dignity of the whole province. Beside these two, Carolus a Sancto Paulo reckons twenty-two more dioceses in this province. 1. Com- plutum, now Alcala de Henares. 2. Oxoma, Osma. 3. Pallentia. 4. Voleria, now Valera la Vieja. 5. Saguntum, al. Segontia, Siguenza. 6. Secobia, Segovia. 7. Arcabrica, Areas. 8. Oretum, Oreto. 9. Valentia, Valencia. 10. Dianium, Denia. ll. Setabis, Xativa. l2. Basti, Baza. l3. Mentesa, Mentexa. l4. Salaria. l5. Acci, now Guadix. l6. Segobriga, Segorbe. l7. Castulo, Gazlona. 18. Bigastrum. l9. Illicias, which some make the same as Alicante, others Origuela, or Elche. 20. Ergavica, a place of more doubtful situation, some taking it for Alcaniz near Toledo, others for Penna Escritta, or Santaver. 21. Eliocrota, now Lorca. 22. Urci, al. Virgi, now Orce. The next province of Boetica had but eleven dioceses. l. Hispalis, Se- of B‘Btica' ville. 2. Italica, now Sevilla la Vieja. 3. Ilipa, Niebla. 4. Astygis, now Ecija. 5. Corduba, Cor- doua. 6. Egabrum, Cabra. 7. Eliberis, Elvira. 8. Malaca, Malaga. 9. Asinda, al. Assidonia, now Medina Sidonia. 10. Tucci, now Martos. 11. Ah- dara, Adra. In the province of Lusitania there were but nine dioceses. l. Emerita, Merida, the metropolis. 2. Abula, Avila. 3. Sal- mantica, Salamanca. 4. Ebora,Evora. 5. Cauria. Coria. 6. Pax Julia, now Beja, which some by mistake confound with Pax Augusta, now called Sect. 13. Of Carthaginensis. Sect. l4. Sect. 15. Of Lusitania. Badajoz, which is but a modern bishopric. 7.‘ Os- sonaba, Estoy. 8. Olysippo, Lisbon. 9. Egita, Eidania. Gallecia was a large province, and sec, ,6. Of Gallecia. yet never had above thirteen or four- teen dioceses. In the council of Lucus Augusti, or Lugo, under King Theodimir, anno 569, a com- plaint was made that the dioceses here were so large, that the bishops could scarce visit them in a year. Upon which an order was made, that several new bishoprics, and one new metropolis, should be erected: which was accordingly done by the bishops then in council, who made Lugo to be the new me- tropolis, and raised several other episcopal sees out CHAP. VI. 393 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. of the old ones, as is declared6 in the Acts of that council. Bracara, now called Braga, was the old metropolis, which after the division had no more than seven dioceses subject to it. 1. Dumium. 2. Portus Calensis, now called El Puerto. 3. Conim- brica, Coymbra. 4. Viseum,Viseo. 5. Lamecum, Lamego. 6. Valentia ad Minium, Valenzia, al. Menno. 7. Legio, Leon. The other metropolis, Lucus Augusti, had but five sutfragans. l. Iria Flavia, El Padron. 2. Auria, Orense. 3. Tude, Tuy. 4. Asturica, Astorga. 5. Brittonia,Bretagna. Of these, Legio and Asturica are thought by many learned men to have been but one diocese in the time of Cyprian, because he joins them together in the same epistle,7 writing to the church in both places : but I think the argument is hardly cogent, because he joins Emerita with them in the same in- scription. There is another place, which some say had no diocese but a monastery, that is, Dumium near Braga. But this is a great mistake. For though there be an instance or two in ancient his- tory8 of bishops being ordained in monasteries with- out any diocese at all, yet we no where read that their monastery was their diocese; and in the pre- sent case it was far otherwise. For, as a learned man has showed,9 Dumium had another diocese beside the monastery: in the Acts of the Council of Lugo it is said to have familiar magic, the king’s court, belonging to it. For Martin Braccarensis, commonly called the apostle of Gallecia, having converted Theodimir, king of the Suevi, from the Arian heresy, was created bishop in the monastery of Dumium, (which he had built,) not for the service of the monastery, but the king’s court, till he was translated to Braccara, or Braga, the metropolis of the province. And further, in the distribution of dioceses made by King Wamba, the bounds of this diocese are marked, from Duma to Albia, and from Rianteca to Adasa: which though they be such obscure places, as geographers take no notice of, yet they argue the diocese to be larger than the monas- tery; or at least this monastery, like that of Sub- la rpieum in the diocese of Tibur in Italy, had several villages under its jurisdiction. And so it might have a sufficient diocese, though not so large as the rest of the province of Gallecia, which were so vastly great as to need the wisdom and consideration of a council to contract them. To these Spanish provinces we must join the Spanish islands, Majo- rica, Minorica, and Ebusus, which Ca- Sect. 17. Of the islands Majorica, Minorica, &c. rolus a Sancto Paulo by mistake places with Sar- dinia, as appendants of the Roman diocese. Majo- rica, the largest of the Baleares, was one hundred and ten miles in circuit, yet it never had above one episcopal diocese, whose chief seat was Palma, now called Mallorca, which is the name that the inha- bitants at present give to the whole island, by others called Majorca. Minorica, Minorque, is sixty miles in compass, and anciently enjoyed a bishop of its own, whose see was J amna, now called Citadella, the capital city of the island. Ebusus, now called Yvica, was less than these, yet large enough to make a distinct diocese, being forty-two miles in compass, having a city of the same name, with several villages under its jurisdiction. So that in all the Spanish provinces the dioceses were gener- ally very large, and not one among them whose bounds did not far exceed the limits of a single congregation. ' And that this was the true state of Sect 1,, the Spanish church in ancient times, ST“ We "f “w panish church evi - denced from some appears from some of her most early of he, mostanciwt councils. The council of Eliberis, commas‘ which was held anno 305, in the beginning of the Diocletian persecution, has a canon, which plainly supposes the dioceses to have country parishes, when it says,10 If any deacon who has the care of a people, shall baptize any one without a bishop or presbyter, the bishop shall consummate him by his benediction. The same is more plainly intimated by a canon of the first council of Toledo, anno 400, which directs the presbyters of every churchH throughout each diocese to send to the bishop be- fore Easter for chrism, to be used in baptism at Easter, and other solemn times when baptism was to be administered. This supposes the Spanish dioceses to have country parishes, where presbyters and deacons resided without the bishop, and it serves to confirm the account that has been given of the original state and division of those churches. Out of Spain, we come at last to the SM 19 British Isles, part of which only was 0r Sizglggrllu'lsnd under the Roman government, and ' called the Britannic diocese; for Ireland and the greatest part of Scotland never came under that de- nomination : yet in our passage it will not be amiss to say something of them, as well as England, if it were for no other reason but to set aside and cen- sure some fabulous reports that are made of them. When Ireland was first converted, or by whom, is not very mateiial here to be inquired, since before 6 Concil. Lucens. Conc. t. 5. p. 874. 7 Cypr. Ep. 68. a1. 67. Plebibus consistentibus ad Le- gionem et Asturicaz. 8 See Book IV. chap. 6. sect. 3. 9 Maurice, Defenc. of Dioc. Episc. p.149. 1° Concil. Eliber. c. 77. Si quis diaconus regens plebem, sine episcopo vel presbytero aliquos baptisaverit, episcopus eos per benedictionem perficere debebit. 1' Cone. Tolet. l. c. 20. Placuit, ex hac die nullum alium nisi episcopum chrisma conficere, et per dioecesim des- tinare, ita ut de singulis ecclesiis ad episcopum ante diem Paschae diaconi destinentur, qui confectum chrisma ab episcopo destinatum, ad diem Paschae possint ad tempus deferre. 394 CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Boon IX. ANTIQUITIES OF THE the time of St. Patrick, anno 433, there is little men- tion of bishops or dioceses in this kingdom, and after him the accounts of them are so uncertain and dark, that Carolus a S. Paulo does not pretend to give any other catalogue of them, but what he has from Camden and the Provinciale Romanum, both of which are modern accounts: for they make mention of the diocese of Waterford, which, as Dr. Cave and other learned men have observed out of Eadmerus,12 was not erected till the year 1097, when King Murchertacus and the clergy of his kingdom petitioned Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury, who was then primate of that part of Ireland, to let Wa- terford be made a bishop’s see; to which petition he consented, and ordained one Malchus, whom they had elected, first bishop of the place. Nay, both these catalogues also take notice of four archbishoprics in Ireland, which number of metropolitans was first introduced by Pope Eugenius, anno 1151, as Baro- nius has observed out of Roger Hoveden ; and the same thing is noted by Matthew Paris, Simeon Du- nelmensis, Gervasius Chronicon, and others of our English writers. Yet because we have no cata- logues of Irish dioceses older or more authentic than these, it will not be amiss to insert them in this place. That in Camden has the four arch- bishoprics and their sufi'ragans in this order. Archiepiscopo Armachano subsunt l. Midensis, vel Elnamirand. 2. Dunensis, al. Dundalethglas. 3. Colchorensis, al. Lugundunen- sis. 4. Connerensis. 5. Ardachadensis. 6. Rath- botensis. 7. Rathlucensis. 8. Daln-liguirensis. 9. Dearrihensis. Sub archiepiscopo Dublinensi. l. Glendelacensis. 2. Fernensis. 3. Osseriensis, al. De Canic. 4. Lechlinensis. 5. Kildarensis. Sub archiepiscopo Cassiliensi. l. Laoniensis de Kendalnam. 2. Limricensis. 3. De Insula Gathay. 4. De Cellumabrath. 5. Me- licensis, al. de Emeleth. 6. Rossiensis, al. Ros- creensis. 7. Waterfordiensis, al. de Batilfordian. 8. Lismorensis. 9. Clonensis, al. de Cluanania. lO. Corcagiensis. 11. De Rosalither. l2. Arde- fertensis. Sub archiepiscopo Tuamensi. l. Duatensis, al. Killmacduoc. 2. De Mageo. 3. Enachdunensis. 4. De Cellaiaro. 5. De Ros- comon. 6. Clonfertensis. 7. Achadensis. 8. La- densis, al. Killaleth. 9. De Conany. 10. De Kill- munduach. ll. Elphinensis. The other catalogue in the Provinciale Romanum, published by Carolus a S. Paulo in the Appendix to his Geography, advances the number of suffra- gans to fifty-three, in the following order. Sub archiepiscopo Armachano. l. Connerinensis. 2. Deconnannas. 3. Dedam- lialiagg. 4. Dedundaleglas. 5. Deardarchad. 6. Dedarrich. 7. Ingundunum. 8. Deralhboth. 9. Dunensis, al. Drumorensis. 10. Elualnirand, al- Midensis. ll. Derathlurig. l2. Renensis, al. Reu- elensis, al. Crocorensis. l3. Cluanensis, al. Clua- nerdensis. l4. Rochinosensis, al. Rathbotensis. l5. Artagadonensis, al. Ardocadensis. 16. Cone- rensis. l7. Heugamensis. Sub archiepiscopo Dublinensi. l. Glendelacensis. 2. Caldetensis, al. Kiscaren- sis. 3. Glensis, al. Gluisonensis. 4. Ossinensis. 5. Darensis. 6. Gaininch. 7. Licelinensis. Sub archiepiscopo Cassellensi. l. Decendaluensis, al. Laonensis. 2. Derostreen- sis, al. Wldifordianus. 3. Deartefertensis. 4. Lunech. 5. Lismorensis. 6. Firmaberensis, al. Fymbarrensis. 7. De Insula. 8. Deduanamensis, al. Cluanensis. 9. Laudensis. lO. Carthax. ll. Tubricensis. l2. Decellininabrach. l3. Deconeagia, vel Corcagen- sis. l4. Artfertelensis. l5. Denulech, al. Umbli- censis. 16. Derosailitchir. l7. Waterfordensis. Sub archiepiscopo Tuamensi. l. Demageonensis. 2. Achadensis. 3. Nelfinen-. sis. 4. Decellaid. 5. Deconairi. 6. Eacdunensis. 7. Roscomon. 8. Decelmundaiach. 9. Cluartifer- tensis. lO. Deculuanferd. ll. Duacensis. l2. Bladensis. This seems to have been the greatest number of bishops that ever Ireland had since it was a Chris- tian nation. For as to the pretence of some modern writers, that there were at one time no less than three hundred and sixty-five bishops, ordained by St. Patrick, it is solidly refuted by Dr. Maurice, who shows plainly," that the story is not to be un- derstood of so many bishops at once, but of that number in the reign of four kings successively, and in the compass of a hundred years : which any one that carefully reads Bishop Usher’s Antiquities,H whence the ground of the story is fetched, will easily discern. And it is no hard matter to conceive then, how there might be three hundred and fifty, or, as Nennius tells the story, three hundred and sixty-five bishops in the compass of a whole cen- tury, though there were not above fifty or threescore '2 Eadmer. Hist. lib. 2. p. 36. Vid. Cave, Hist. Literar. vol. 2. p. 373. '3 Maurice, Defence of Dioces. Episcop. p. 155. “ Usser. Antiquit. Eccl. Brit. p. 490. Cuxr. VI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 395 at any one time living together. Another error committed by Carolus a Sancto Paulo in reference to the bishops of this nation, which makes the whole number of them subject to a single abbot, has been already rectified in speaking of the asce- tics, where I have showed,15 he mistakes Hibernia for the little isle of Huy in the north of Scotland, where a monastery was founded by Columbanus, the abbots of which by an unusual custom, as Bede calls it, had some sort of superiority over the pro— vince of the northern Picts, and the provincial bi- shops too; but this has no relation to Ireland, nor any other part of Scotland than what has been now mentioned. As to the original state of dioceses in Scotland, Carolus a Sancto Paulo, for want of light from an- cient history, could give no account of them, and therefore he only sets down the modern names. Under the archbishop of St. Andrews eight dioceses : l. Dunkeld. 2. Brechin. 3. Aberdeen. 4. Rosse. 5. Moravia, or Muray. 6. Caithness. 7. Dumblain. 8. The islands called Orchades. Under the arch- bishop of Glasgow three: Candida Casa, or VVhitern', Lismore, and the Islands, that is, the Hebrides, or Western Islands, whereof Iona was one of the chief. The principal town of this island, called Sodora, was made a bishop’s see by Gregory IV., anno 840, whence the bishop of all those forty-four islands, together with the Isle of Man, which then was but a part of that diocese, had the name of Episcopus Sodorensis. But when the Isle of Man fell into the hands of the English, the Western Islands withdrew their obedience from their ancient bishop, who commonly lived in this island, and set up another bishop of their own, who for a long time retained the title of Sodorensis, but at last he relinquished that title to the bishop of the Isle of Man, and took the name of Insulanus, bishop of the Isles, which he still retains. The Provinciale Romanum makes no mention either of this diocese of these islands, or that other of the Orchades; but speaks of one called Dearegarchel, belonging to the pope, and makes Glasgow only. a suffragan to St. Andrews. By which it appears that it is not many ages since Glasgow was made an archbishopric, the bishop of St. Andrews being then the only metropolitan among them. But about ancient dioceses we must not be very solicitous: for whatever fabulous writers afl'irm, it is certain from Bede, that no part of this nation possessed by the Picts, was converted till the fifth century, when first, in the time of Ar- cadius and Honorius, the southern Picts were con- verted by Ninias, a Briton, who built a church at Candida Casa, which was the first cathedral in that part of Scotland, and which gave denomination of Whitern to the place, as Bede observes,l6 because the church was built of stone, which was not a very usual thing among the Britons in those days. The northern Picts were not converted till above a hun— dred and fifty years after this. For their apostle was Columbanus, the famous monk, who came out of Ireland in the time of Justin junior, anno 565, to preach the gospel to them, as Bede informs us in the same place. So that it would be in vain to search after episcopal dioceses before we have any certainty that Christianity was planted among them. In the following ages we have no particular account of any other diocese, save this of Candida Casa, in Bede, or any other authentic writer. For though they speak of bishops both among the southern and the northern Picts, yet they take no notice of the names of their sees. \Vhence some have concluded, that the Scottish bishops had no proper sees, but were ordained at large for the whole country; and others, that‘ there was but one bishop for all the region. The first of which opinions is incredible, because it is against the known rule of the catholic church, which forbade any bishop to be ordained at large : and the other is expressly refuted by Bede,l1 who speaks of several bishops in the province of the northern Picts; and by the writer of the Life of Ninias, in Bishop Usher’s Antiquities, who says,18 that Ninias, having converted the southern Picts, ordained them prcsbyters, and consecrated them bishops, and divided the whole region into certain parochiw, or dioceses, and so returned to his own church again, meaning Candida Casa, before men- tioned. Whence it is evident, there were bishops both among the northern and southern Picts, though the names of their dioceses be not mentioned. As for the diocese of Candida Casa, Bishop Usher truly observes, that it was not properly in any part of the Picts’ dominions, but in that part or province of the Romish Britain, which was called Valentia, and afterwards Bernicia, by Bede, when it was under the dominion of the Saxons. Bishop Usher ‘9 thinks it was also sometimes called the kingdom of Cumbria or Cumberland; and that the diocese of Casa Can- dida was sometimes of equal extent with that king- dom, reaching from Glasgow on the river Clota or Cluyd to Stanemore-cross in the borders of West- moreland; and that in the time of Kentigern the see was removed to Glasgow. But when the Irish Scots had seized this country, and given it the name of Galloway, this and the neighbouring regions were all subjected to the bishop of Sodora, whose resi- dence was in the Isle of Man, till Malcolm 111., king of Scots, made Candida Casa a bishop’s see again, and assigned it the country of Galloway for its diocese, which continues to be so to this day. I '5 See Book VII. chap. 3. sect. l4. ‘5 Bede, lib. 3. c. 4. '7 Ibid. 18 Vit. Ninias, ap. Usser. Antiq. p. 350. Ordinavit pres- bytcros, episeopos consecravit, et totam terram per certas parochias divisit: confirmatisque in fide omnibus, ad eccle- siam suam est regressus. ‘9 Usser. Antiq. p. 319, 396 CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Boox IX. ANTIQUITIES OF THE cannot give any such particular account of any other diocese in the kingdom of Scotland for want of certain records ; but this is certain, that from the first conversion of it, first by Ninias, and then by Columbanus, they had several bishops among the Picts; part of whose country being made tributary, as well as Valentia, to the Saxon kings of N orthum- berland, their bishops consequently became subject to the metropolitan of York, from whose hands they sometimes had their ordination. Sm m There remains only one country chifch‘l‘fi more to be examined, which is our “a Wales‘ own part of the British nation; a country that embraced the Christian faith as early as any of the western parts of the world, and there— fore may be presumed to have received the same form of government that we have found in all other churches. It has been noted before, that the Bri- tannic diocese was divided by the Romans at first ' into three provinces, and then into five ;' but by the injury of time, we have no complete account of what bishoprics were erected in every province. They who speak of a precise number of flamens and arch- fiamens turned into so many archbishops and bi- shops, seem rather to deliver their own fancies than relate true history. That which is certain in the case, is this: there were here in the beginning of the fourth century such episcopal churches as were in all other nations ; for the bishops of these churches were summoned to councils as others were. There were British bishops in the council of Arles, Eborius2° de civitate Eboracensi, Restitutus de civitate Londinensi, Adelphus dc civitate Colo- nia Londinensium. The last of which Holstenius,21 following Camden, and Selden in his Notes upon Eutychius, thinks ought rather to be read Colonia Camalodunensium; which some take to be Col- chester, others Maldon, others \Valden, in Essex. But a late learned antiquary,” in his posthumous observations upon Antonine’s Itinerary of Britain, has happily discovered that the true reading should in all probability be Colonia Lindi, which is the old Roman name for Lincoln, as he shows not only out of Antonine and Ptolemy, who call it Lindum, but out of the anonymous geographer of Ravenna, who more expressly styles it Lindum Colonia; which with a little variation is the name that is given it also by Bede,” who calls it Lindocolina, and the re- gion thereabout Provincia Lindisi, whence, I pre- sume, comes the name of Lindsey'Coast, which is the name of one part of that province to this day. But to return to the ancient bishops of this nation. Some authors say there were British bishops in the council of Nice; but that does not so evidently ap- pear from ancient history. It is more certain there were three bishops from Britain in the council of Ariminum, as Sulpicius Severus24 informs us. And Athanasius also25 takes notice of British bishops in the council of Sardica, anno 347. And Hilary in- scribes his book, de Synodis, to the bishops 2“ of the British provinces, among many others. Yet none of these authors tell us precisely the number of the whole college, and therefore we can only conjecture from the remains of those British bishops which con- tinued in Wales after the Saxon conquests, and were there at the coming of Austin into England. Bede takes notice of seven of those,27 which came to the synod of Worcester, or Austin’s oak, to confer with Austin about the settlement of the church- And over these there was also a metropolitan, to whom they professed subjection in the council’ which was the archbishop of Menevia, or St. Da- vid’s, or, as they term him, the archbishop of Caer— Leon upon Uske, because that was the ancient metropolitical see, before it was translated to St, David’s. The names of the other sufi'ragans, as some of the British historians28 record them in Latin, were then Herefordensis, T avensis, Pater- nensis, Banchorensis, Elviensis, Vicciensis, Mor- ganensis; that is, Hereford, Landaff, Lan-Patern, Bangor, St. Asaph, Worcester, and Morgan. Now, if the number of bishops in other provinces was an— swerable to this, we may conclude, there were more bishops before the invasion of the Saxons than there are at this day. But when Austin came into England, he found none except the forementioned, However, Gregory the Great gave him orders to settle twenty-six bishops, twelve bishops sufi'ragans to the bishop of London, and as many subject to the metropolitan of York, and reserve to himself the primacy over the whole nation.29 Yet this was rather a scheme laid for future ages, when the whole nation should be converted, than any pre- sent settlement or constitution of the church. For above fifty years after this, there were not above seven bishops in all the heptarchy, or seven Saxon kingdoms, as appears from the account which Bede gives of the council of Herudford, anno 673, where were present Theodore, archbishop of Dorovernia or Canterbury,’30 Bisi, bishop of the East Angles, Wil- frid, bishop of the Northumbrians, Putta, bishop of Rochester, Leutherius, bishop of the West Saxons, and Winfrid, bishop of the whole province of the Mercians. In which council81 a canon was made, 2° Concil. Are-lat. 1. an. 314. 2‘ Holsten. Annot. in Carol. a S. Paulo, p. 108. 22 Dr. Gale, Not. in Antonin. lter. Britan. p. 96. 23 Bede, lib. 2. c. 16. 2‘ Sulpic. lib. 2. p. 109. 25 Athan. Apol. 2. p. 720. 26 Hilar. de Synod. Provinciarum Britanniarum Episcopis. 2" Bed. Hist. Gent. Anglor. lib. 2. c. 2. 28 Galfrid. Monumeth. Hist. lib. 8. c. 4. Vid. Powel. Not_ in Girald. Cambrens. Itinerar. Cambriaa, lib. 2. p. 170. 29 Bed. Hist. Gent. Anglor. lib. 1. c. 29. 3° Bed. lib. 4. c. 5. 3‘ Concil. Herudford. c. 9. ap. Bed. ibid. In commune CHAP. VI. 397 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. That the number of bishops should be augmented, as the number of converts should increase. But nothing was done for the present, save that Bisi or Bifus, bishop of the East-Angles, being grown old, two others, ZEcca and Badwin, were consecrated in his room : and from that time to the age in which Bede lived, that province had two bishops, as our author notes in the same place. These were the bishops of Elmham and Dunwich, which were afterward united, and the see removed to Thetford, and from thence to Norwich, whose bishops suc- ceed to the whole kingdom of the East-Angles. So that in that age a kingdom and a diocese were al- most commensurate. In the kingdom of Northum- berland there were at first but two bishops, whose sees were York and Lindisfarne. But not long after, anno 678, Ecgfiid, king of Northumberland, having expelled Wilfrid, bishop of York, from his see, four or five bishops were ordained in his room; one in the province of Deira ; another in the pro- vince of Bernicia; a third at Haguls tade, or Hexam, in Northumberland ; a fourth in the province of the Picts, which was then subject to the English ; and a fifth in the province of Lindissi, as Bede32 calls it, which was latelytaken out of the diocese and kingdom of Mercia, and not long after laid to it again. The great kingdom of Mercia, (compre— hending the counties of Gloucester, Hereford, Wor- cester, \Varwick, Leicester, Cambridge, Rutland, Northampton, Lincoln, Nottingham, Bedford, Buck- ingham, Oxford, Derby, Stafford, Shropshire, Che- shire, and part of Hertfordshire,) was at first but the diocese of one bishop, whom Bede commonly calls the bishop of the Angli-Mediterranei, or Mer- cians, whose see was Lichfield, the royal seat and metropolis of the kingdom of Mercia; till about the year 678, a new see was erected at Sidnacester in Lincolnshire, and some time after another at Dor- chester in Oxfordshire, which were afterward united and removed to Lincoln. Out of this large diocese also the sees of Worcester and Hereford were taken, as Ely was out of that part which fell to Lincoln : not to mention the dioceses of Chester, Peter- borough, Oxford, and Gloucester, which had their rise out of the same at the Reformation. The dio- cese of 'Winchester was also very large at first, con- taining all the kingdoms of the West Saxons, till it was divided by King Ina between Winchester and Sherborn, anno 705. The latter of which was after- ward subdivided into the dioceses of Cornwall, De- vonshire, Somersetshire, Wiltshire, and Dorsetshire, some of which being united again, made up the dio- ceses of Exeter, Wells, Salisbury, and Bristol, as they now stand in the present frame and constitu- tion of the church. I think it needless to carry this inquiry any further, since what has been already suggested sufliciently shows, that the dioceses in England were anciently much larger than they are now, and that it has ever been the wisdom of the church to multiply and contract them. Though many of them still remain so large, that if they be compared with some of the ancient italian dioceses, one of them will be found to be equal to ten or twenty of those which lay round about Rome. I shall conclude this chapter with a few ancient canons, which confirm Thesiiihiilegziccount the account that has been given of grziiiinifiriitgiiiiilnisq episcopal dioceses throughout the n m o e L mu ' world, as supposing them generally to have country regions and country parishes belonging to them. The council of Neocaesarea, which was held some years before the council of Nice, makes express mention33 of rpsofitirepoa. Emxtbpwr, country presbyters, who are forbidden to officiate in the city church, save only in the absence of the bishop or city pres- byters. The council of Antioch has two canons of the same import. The one describes a bishop’s di- ocesc‘“ to be a city and all the region that was sub- ject to it, wherein he might ordain presbyters and deacons, and order all things according to his own judgment, without consulting his metropolitan. The other is a provision concerning the clzorepz'scopa',35 who were seated in the villages and regions about the city, that they should govern the churches com- mitted to them, and content themselves with that care, ordaining readers, subdeacons, and exorcists; but not presbyters or deacons, unless commissioned to it by the city bishop, to whom both they and their region were subject. A like provision is made by the council of Nice,$6 in case a Novatian bishop should return to the unity of the catholic church, that then the catholic bishop might provide him the place of a chorepiscopus in some part of his diocese, that there might not be two bishops in one city. And indeed all the canons that mention the chore- ‘pz'scopz', are full proof that a diocese was not only a city, but a country region, over which those chore- pz'scopz presided, under the inspection of the city bishop, to whom they were accountable. The ca- nons of Sardica87 and Laodicea,38 do plainly suppose the same thing, when they prohibit bishops to be ordained in small cities or villages, because a pres- byter or itinerant visitor might be sufficient to take care of them. So in the African canons, one orders the same as the council of Toledo, That every pres- byter89 throughout the diocese, who has the care of a church, shall have recourse to his own bishop for chrism to be used at Easter. And another‘0 says, No bishop shall leave his principal church, to go to reside upon any other church in the diocese. Which tractatum est, ut plures episcopi crescente numero fidelium augerentur, sed de hac re ad praesens silemus. “2 Bed. lib. 4. c. 12. “8 Concil. Neocaesar. c. 13. 3‘ Conc. Antioch. c. 9. 85 Ibid. C- 10. 86 (30110. Nic- c. 8. 3’ Concil. Sardic. c. 6. ‘*8 Concil. Lamlic. c. 57. 39 Concil. Carthag. 4. c. 36. *0 Ibid. 5. c. 5. 398 Boox IX. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. canons speak plain nonsense, unless it be supposed that there were then other churches in the diocese beside the mother-church. The bishop’s obligation to visit his diocese, is a further proof of the same thing. For this was a necessary con- sequent of having several churches at a distance under his jurisdiction: such as he could not personally attend himself, he was obliged to visit, and see that they were provided of a proper incumbent, and that every thing was performed in due order. St. Austin and St. Basil,“u who had pretty large dioceses, speak often upon this account of their being employed in their visitations. And the rule in some places was to visit ordinarily once a year, as appears from the council of Tarraco in Spain, which lays this injunction on bishops,‘12 Be- cause it was found by experience, that many churches in their dioceses were left destitute and neglected, therefore they were obliged to visit them once a year. And if a diocese was so large, that a bishop could not perform this duty annually, that was thought a reasonable cause to divide the diocese, and lay some part of the burden upon a new bishop; which was the reason assigned in the council of Lugo for dividing the large diocese of Gallecia, as has been observed before "3 in speaking of the Span- ish churches. St. Jerom has a remark upon the exercise of confirmation, which also mightily con- firms this notion of ancient episcopal dioceses. He says,44 it was the custom of the churches, when any persons were baptized by presbyters or deacons in villages, castles, or other remote places, for the bi- shop to go to them and give them imposition of hands, in order to receive the Holy Ghost; and that many places lay at so great a distance, that the parties baptized died before the bishop could come Sect. 22. ‘And from the bishop’s obligation to visit his diocese once a year, and confirm. ’ to visit them. Which is a plain description of such dioceses as we have generally found in every part of the catholic church, some few provinces except- ed, where the number of cities and populousness of the country made dioceses more numerous and of less extent than in other places. ‘" Basil. Ep. 264. ‘2 Coucil. T arracon. c. 8. Reperimus nonnullas dioece- sanas ecclesias esse destitutas. Ob quam rem'hac constitu- tione decrevimus, ut annuis vicibus episcopo dioeceses visi- tentur, &c. ‘3 See sect. 14. of this chapter. “Hieron. Dial. cont. Lucifer. c. 4. Non abnuo hanc esse ecclesiarum consuetudinem, ut ad eos qui longe in mi— noribus urbibus per presbyteros et diaconos baptizati sunt, episcopus ad invocationem Sancti Spiritus manum impositu- CHAPTER VII. THE NOTITIA, OR GEOGRAPHICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE BISHOPRICS OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH, AS FIRST MADE BY THE ORDER OF LEO SAPIENS, COMPARED WITH SOME OTHERS. FOR the fuller proof of what has been asserted in the last chapters, and to give the reader a clear view of the state of the ancient church, I shall here sub- join one of the notz'tz'as, or catalogues of bishoprics contained in the five greater patriarchates, Constan- tinople, Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria, according to the account that was taken first by the order of the emperor Leo Sapiens about the year 891. For though this does not come up to the an- tiquity of those other records, which I have gener- ally made use of in this work; yet, being the most ancient and perfect account we have in the kind, and agreeing with the scattered remains of antiquity of this nature, it will be useful as a collateral evi- dence, to corroborate the account that has been given of the division and extent of dioceses in the primitive church. And I the rather choose to insert it here, to satisfy the curiosity of many of my readers, to whose view perhaps this notation may not otherwise come, being scarce to be met with but in books of great rarity or great price, which fall not into the hands of every ordinary reader. The first of this kind was published by Leunclavius, in his J us Graeco-Romanum,l anno 1596, in Greek and Latin, under the name of Leo Sapiens, the reputed author of it. After which some others, but imperfect, were set forth by Carolus a Sancto Paulo,2 in his Geo- graphy of the Ancient Church. The defects of which were supplied by Jacobus Goar, from a MS. in the French king’s library, which he published at the end of Codinus,3 among the Byzantine historians, anno 1648; and by Bishop Beverege, from a MS. in the Bodleian library, published in his Notes‘ upon the Pandects, anno 1672. The last of which being ac- knowledged to be the most perfect in the kind, has been since reprinted by the learned Schelstrate,5 with some notes and observations upon the defects and variations of all the former; which, having revised and compared them together, I shall here present to the curious reader, that he may have them all together in one view. rus excurrat. And a little after, Alioquin si episcopi tan- tum imprecatione Spiritus Sanctus defluit, lugendi sunt qui in villulis, aut in castellis, aut in remotioribus locis per presbyteros aut diaconos baptizati, ante dormierunt, quam ab episcopis inviserentur. 1 Leunclav. Jus. Gr. Rom. t. 2. p. 88. 2 Carol. a S. Paulo, Append. ad Geograph. Sacr. 3 Codin. de Offic. Constant. in Append. p. 337. 4 Bevereg. Not. in Can. 36. Concil. Troll. 5 Schelstrat. dc Concil. Antioch. Dissert. 4. cap. 13. p. 425, CHAP. VII. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 399 ANTIQUITIES OF THE The order of presidency of the most holy patri- archs. 1. Of Rome. 2. Constantinople. 3. Alexan— dria. 4. Antioch. 5. ZElia, or Jerusalem. The order of presidency of the metropolitans, and autocephali, and bishops, subject to the apostolical throne of this divinely preserved and imperial city, viz. Constantinople. PROVINCES. METROPOLITANS. l. Cappadocia. l. Caesarea. 2. Asia. 2. Ephesus. 3. Europa. 3. Heraclea in Thrace. 4. Galatia. 4. Ancyras ' 5. Hellespontus. 5. Cyzicum. 6. Lydia. 6. Sardes. 7. Bithynia. 7. Nicomedia. 8. The same. 8. Nice. 9. The same. 9. Chalcedon. 10. Pamphylia. 10. Sida. 11. Armenia. 11. Sebastea. l2. Elenopontus. l2. Amasea. 13. Armenia. I3. Melitine. l4. Cappadocia. l4. Tyana. l5. Paphlagonia. l5. Gangra. l6. Honorias. 16. Claudiopolis. l7. Pontus Polemoniacus. l7. Neocaasarea. 18. Galatia. 18. Pissinus, or J ustini- anople. l9. Lycia. l9. Myra. 20. Caria. 20. Stauropolis. 21. Phrygia Cappatiana. 21. Laodicea. 22. Phrygia Salutaris. 22. Synada. 23. Lycaonia. 23. Iconium. 24. Pisidia. 24. Antioch. 25. Pamphylia. 25. Perga, or Sileum. 26. Cappadocia. 26. Mocessus. 27. Lazica. 27. Phasis. 28. Thracia. 28. Philippopolis. 29. Rhodope. 29. Trajanople. 30. Insulaa Cyclades. 30. Rhodes. 31. ZEmimontus. 31. Adrianople. 32. ZEmimontus. 32. Martianople. 33. Phrygia Pacatiana. 33. Hierapolis. Here ends the account of provinces and metropo- litans in the not'it'ia of Bishop Beverege and Goar, but in Leunclavius these other metropolitans are added without any mention of provinces at all. 34. Thessalonica. 35. Corinth. 36. Crete. 37. Athens. 38. Seleucia. 39. Fame. 40. Trapezus. 41. Ca- labria. 42. Larissa. 43. Naupactus. 44. Philippi. 45. Dyrrachium. 46. Smyrna. 47. 'Catana. 48. Ammorium. 49. Camachus. 50. Cotyaium. 51. Severiana. 52. Mitylene. 53. Nova: Patraz. 54. Euchaita. 55. Amastris. 56. Chonae. 57. Hydrus. 58. Kelzene. 59. Colonia. 60. Thebae. 61. Serrae. 62. Pompeiopolis. 63. Rossia. 64. Alania. 65. fEnus. 66. Tiberiopolis. 67. Achaia. 68. Cerasus. 69. Nacolia. 70. Germania. 7l. Madyta. 72. Apa- mea. 73. Basileum. 74. Drystra. 75. Nazianzus. 76. Corcyra. 77. Abydus. 78. Methymna. 79. Christianopolis. 80. Rusium. 81. Lacedaemonia. 82. Naxia. 83. Attalia. To which the scholiast adds three more, Sebastopolis, Euripus, and Cybistis Herculis. After the metropolitans, follow the autoceplzali, or independent bishops, which the not-itz'a in Leun- clavius calls archbishops: they were such as had neither metropolitans above them, nor suffragans under them, being immediately subject to the pa- triarch only, as Goar’s notz'tz'a informs us. In Bishop Beverege’s notz'tz'a they are as follows. PROVINCES. AUTOCEPHALI. l. Mysia. l. Odyssus. 2. Scythia. 2. Tomi. 3. Europa. 3. Bizya. 4. Paphlagonia. 4. Pompeiopolis. 5. Asia. 5. Smyrna. 6. Isauria. 6. Leontopolis. 7. Rhodope. 7. Maroneea. 8. Bithynia. 8. Apamea. 9. Rhodope. 9. Maximinianopolis. lO. Galatia. IO. Germia. ll. Europa. ll. Arcadiopolis. 12. Thracia. l2. Beraea. 13. Lesbus. I3. Mitylene. l4. Hellespont. l4. Parium. l5. Caria. l5. Melitus, al. Miletus. l6. Thracia. 16. Nicopolis. l7. Insulae. l7. Proconesus. 18. Rhodope. 18. Anchialus. l9. Europa. l9. Selymbria. 20. Lesbus. 20. Methymne. 21. Bithynia. 21. Cius. 22. Europa. 22. Aprus. 23. Rhodope. 23. Cypsala. 24. Zicchia. 24. Cherson. 25. Zicchia. 25. Bosphori. 26. Zicchia. 26. Nicopsis. 27. Isauria. 27. Cotrada. 28. Elenopontus,a1. He- 28. Euchetae. lenopontus. 29. Cyclades Insulae. 29. Carpathus. 30. Rhodope. 30. ZEnus. 31. Europa. 31. Drizapara,al.Mesena. 32. Hemimontus. 32. Mesembria. 33. Armenia. 33. Heracliopolis,al.Phy- lactoe. 34. Abasgia. 34. Scbastopolis. 35. Pontus Polemoni- 35. Trapezus. acus. 36. Paphlagonia. 36. Amastris. 37. Lycaonia. 37. Misthia. '38. Pisidia. 38. Neapolis. 400 BOOK IX ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. PROVINCES. AUTOCEPHALI. 39. Marc ZEgeum. 39. l-Egene. 40. Phrygia Salutaris. 40. Cotyaium. 41. Pamphylia. 41. Selga. To these, in Goar’s notitz'a, are added two more, Dclca, or Derce, and Reni in Armenia. But that in Leunclavius has but thirty-nine, whereof sixteen are different names, viz. Nice, Messana, Garella, Brisis, Carabyzia, Lemnus, Leuc'as, Cudraa, Sotero- polis, Pedachthoa, Eroina, Gotthia, Sugdaia, Phullaa, Pharsala, and Matracha. And several of those which in the Bodleian notitz'a are called autocephalz', are in Leunclavius reckoned among the metropo- litans, as Trapezus, Smyrna, Cotyaium, Mitylene, Amastris, Pompeiopolis, ZEnus, and Apamea. Whence it is easy to conclude, that archbishops and autocephali were then a sort of titular metropoli- tans, who had the privilege of being independent, though they had no sufi'ragan bishops under them. NOW FOLLOW THE PARTICULAR PROVINCES, WITH THE NUMBER OF BISHOPRICS CONTAINED IN EACH OF THEM. Province of Cappadocia. l. Caesarea, the metropolis. 2. Thermae Regiee. 3. Nyssa. 4. Methodiopolis Armeniae. 5. Camuli- ana. 6. Ciscissus, or Cissus: ‘to which are added in Leunclavius. 7. Euaissa. 8. Serias. 9. Ara— thia. 10. ZEpolia. Province of Asia. 1. Ephesus, the metropolis. 2. Hypepm. 3. Tralles. 4. Magnesia ad Maeandrum. 5. Elea. 6. Adramyttium. 7. Assus. 8. Gargara. 9. Mas- taura. 10. Caloe. ll. Bryulla. l2. Pittamne. l3. Myrine. l4. Phocia. 15. Aurjllopolis, al. Au- reliopolis. 16. Nisa,al. Nyssa. l7. Maschacoma. 18. Metropolis. l9. Baretti. 20. Magnesia. 21. Aninates. 22. Pergamus. 23. Anea. 24. Priene. 25. Arcadiopolis. 26. Novas Aula. 27. Templum Jovis. 28. Augaza. 29. Sion. 30. Colophon. 31. Levedus, al. Lebedus. 32. Teus. 33. Erythrae. 34. Clazomente. 35. Attadri, al. Antandri. 36. Theodosiopolis, al. Peperine. 37. Cymae. 38. Paleeopolis: to which are added in Leunclavius, Thyraea in Chliara; but Phocia, Magnesia, and Cla- zomenae are wanting. Here the province of Thracia and Macedonia is in- terposed in Leunclavius. l. Heraclea, the metropolis. 2. Theodoropolis. 3. Rhoedestus. 4. Panium. 5. Hexamilium. 6. Calliopolis. 7. Peristasis. 8. Chariopolis. 9. Chalcis. 10. Daoneum. ll. Madyta. 12. Pam- philus. 13. Medea. l4. Lizicus. l5. Sergentza. 16. Metra. l7. Tzurolloe. 18. Athyra. In the other notz'tz'as the last province is called the province of Europa; but it has but six bishoprics assigned to it, viz. 1. Heraclea. 2. Panium. 3. Callipolis. 4, Cherronesus. 5. Cylee. 6. Redestus. Province of Galatia. l. Ancyra, the metropolis. 2. Tabia, al. Atta- bia. 3. Heliopolis. 4. Aspona. 5. Berinopolis. 6. Mizzus. 7. Cina. 8. Anastasiopolis. Province of Hellespont. 1. Cyzicum, the metropolis. 2. Germe. 3. Pos- manium. 4. Oce. 5. Baris. 6. Adrianotherm. 7. Lampsacus. 8. Abydus. 9. Dardanus. 10. Ilium. ll. Troas. l2. Paeonia. l3. Melitopolis. Province of Lydia. l. Sardes, the metropolis. 2. Philadelphia. 3. Tripolis. 4. Thyatira. 5. Seta. 6. Arilliapolis, al. Aureliopolis. 7. Gordi. 8. Troalli. 9. Sala. 10. Silandus. ll. Moeonia. 12.Fanum Apollinis. l3. Hyrcanis. l4. Mustina. l5. Arcastus, al. Acarasus. l6. Apollonias. l7. Attalia. 18. Baga. l9. Balandus. 20. Mesotymolus. 21. Hierocee- sarea. 22. Dale. 23. Stratonicea. 24. Cerasia. 25. Sattala. 26. Gabbala. 27. Hermocapelia. Province of Bithynia. l. Nicomedia. 2. Prusa, or Theopolis. 3. Prae- netus. 4. Helenopolis. 5. Basilinopolis. 6. Das- chylium. 7. Apollonias. 8. Adriana. 9. Caesarea. 10. Gallus, or Lophi. ll. Daphnusia. 12. Eriste. The same Province. 1. Nice. 2. Modrina, al. Mela, or Melina. 3. Linoe. 4. Taius. 5. Gerduservee. 6. Numericae. 7. Maximianm. It is added in Leunclavius, that Chalcedon in the same province had no sees under it, as being only an autocephalus, or honorary me- tropolis. Province of Pamphylia. 1. Side. 2. Aspendus. 3. Ettena. 4. Orymna. 5. Cassa. 6. Semnea. 7. Corallia. 8. Coracissius. 9. Syethra, al. Synedra. 10. Mylone, or Justini- anople. ll. Anamanda. l2. Dalisandus, al. Dul- dasus. 13. Isbi. l4. Lybra. l5. Colybrassus. 16. Manaea. Province of Armenia. 1. Sebastea. 2. Sebastopolis. 3. Nicopolis. 4. Satala. 5. Colonia. 6. Berissa. Province of Helenopontus. l. Amasea. 2. Amissus. 3. Sinope. 4. Ibora, al. Pimolissa. 5. Andropa. 6. Zalichus, al. Leon- topolis. 7. Zela. CHAP. VII. 401 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Province of Armenia Secunda. l. Melitene. 2. Arcs. 3. Cucusus. 4. Arabis- sus. 5. Ariaratha. 6. Ceomanee, al. Comana. Province of Cappadocia Secunda. l. Tyana, or Christopolis. 2. Cybistra. 3. Fans- tinopolis. 4. Sasima. Province of Paphlagonia. l. Gangra. 3. Da- dybra. 2. J unopolis, al. Innopolis. 4. Sorae. Here follows next the province of Thessalia in Leunclavius, which is omitted in others. 1. Thessalonica. 2. Citria. 3. Berrhoea. 4. Dru- gubitia. 5. Servia. 6. Casandria. 7- Campania, al. Castrium. 8. Petra. 9. Herculia, al. Arda- meria. 10. Hierissus. ll. Lita: ac Rentenae. l2. Bardariotse. Province of Honorias. l. Claudiopolis. 2. Heraclea Ponti. 3. Prusias. 4. Tius. 5. Cratea. 6. Hadrianopolis. Province of Pontus Polemoniacus. l. Neocaasarea. 2. Trapezus. 3. Cerosantes. 4. Polemoneum. 5. Comana. To these are added in Leunclavius, 6. Halyseum. 7. Rhizwum. 8. Coccus. 9. Eunicus. And the scholiast adds three more, Aradase, Myrtyropolis, and Hypsela. Province of Galatia Secunda. l. Pisinus. 2. Mericium. 3. Eudoxias. 4. Pi- tanissus. 5. Trochnada. 6. Germocolonia. 7. Spa- lea, al. J ustinianopolis. 8. Orcistus. Province of Lycia. 1. Myra. 2. Mastaera. 3. Telmessus. 4. Limyra. 5. Araxe. 6. Aprilla. 7. Tatla. 8. Arnea. 9. Si- dyma. 10. Zenopolis. 11. Olympus. l2. Otla. l3. Corydala. l4. Cannus. l5. Xanthus. l6. Acrassus. l7. Marciana. 18. Bobus, al. Sophianopolis. l9. Chomas. 20. Onunda. 21. Phellus. 22. Can- dana. 23. Phaselis. 24. Antiphellus. 25. Aca- lissus. 26. Rhodiapolis. 27. Acanda. 28. Lebissus. 29. Eudocias. 30. Paliotae. 31. Combi. 32. Patara. 33. Barbura. 34. Nessus. 35. Cianea. 36. Melata. Province of Caria. l. Stauropolis. 2. Cibyra. 3. Siza. 4. Heraclea Salbaci. 5. Apollonias. 6. Heraclea. 7. Lacyma (which Leunclavius makes but one, Heraclea La- cymorum). 8. Tabi. 9. Larba. 10. Antiochia Maeandri. ll. Tarpassse. l2. Harpassse. 13, Ne- apolis. l4. Orthysias. l5. Anotetarta. 16. Ala- bandi. 17. Stratonicea. 18. Alinda. l9. Mylassae. 20. Mezus, al. Amezon. 21. J assus. 22. Barbilius. 23. Halicarnassus. 24. Hylarima. 25. Cnidus. 26. Metaba. 27 . Mindus. 28. Hieron. 29. Cindrama. 30. Cerama. 31. Promissus. Province of Phrygia Cappatiana, al. Pacatiana. l. Laodicea. 2. Tiberiopolis. 3. Azana. 4. An- cyrosuna. 5. Pelta. 6. Appia. 7. Icria. 8. Iluza. 9. Acada. 10.'1‘ranopolis. ll. Sebasta. l2. Eu- menia. l3. Timenus Therarum. l4. Agatha Coma. l5. Alina. 16. Tripolis. l7. Attanassus. 18. 'I‘ra- pezopolis. l9. Siblia. Note, In Leunclavius there are twenty-one cities, whereof many go by different names in this province; as Acmonea, Chaerotopa, Forium Posmami, Cidissus, Lunde, Helaza, Synseum, Thampsiopolis, J ustinianopolis, Dioclea and Aristea. Province of Phrygia Salutaris. l. Synada. 2. Dorylaeum. 3. Nacolea. 4. Me- dzeum. 5. Hipsus. 6. Promissus. 7. Merus. 8. Sibindus. 9. Phytia. 10. Hierapolis. ll. Encar- pia. l2. Lysias. l3. Augustopolis. l4. Bryzus. l5. Otrus. 16. Lycaon. l7. Stectorium. l8. Cin- naborium. 19. Cone. 20. Scordapia. 21. Nico- polis. 22. ZErocla. Here Leunclavius has but twenty cities, and some of those under other names, but Goar’s notz'tia adds two more, Alopex and Cadenna. Province of Lycaonia. 1. Iconium. 2. Lystra. 3. Vasada. 4. Ambada, al. Amblada. 5. Vomanoda. 6. Laranda. 7. Bereta. 8. Derbe. 9. Hyda. 10. Savatra. 11. Canus. l2. Berinopolis. l3. Galbana, al. Eudocias. l4. Ilistra. l5. Perta. Leunclavius has the same number, but some names different from these. Province of Pisidia. l. Antiochia. 2. Sagalassus. 3. Sozopolis. 4. Apamea. 5. Cibus. 6. Tyrmnus. 7. Baris. 8. Adrianopolis. 9. Portus Limenorum. 10. Laodicea Combusta. ll. Seleucia Ferrea. l2. Dada, al. Ada- da. 13. Zarzela. l4. Timbrias,al. Timomarias. l5. Timandus. l6. Conane. l7. Malus. 18. Sitrian- dus. 19. Tityassus. 20. Metropolis. 21. Pappa. 22. Parallae. 23. Mindevus, a1. Bindaeus. Province of Pamphylia Secunda. l. Perga, al. Sileum. 2. Attalia. 3. Magydus. al. Mandus. 4. Telimisus. 5. Isindus. 6. Eudo- cias. 7. Maximianopolis. 8. Lagiiia. 9. Palaeo- polis. 10. Cremnus. ll. Corydala. l2. Peltinissus. l3. Dicytanmra. l4. Ariassus. l5. Pugla. 16. Adri- ana. l7. Sandida. l8. Barba. l9. Perbaena. 20. Cone. Note, The fourteen following provinces are in Leunclavius, but no other notz'tia. Province of Peloponnesus. l. Corinthus. 2. Damala. 3. Argos. 4. Monem- 2 D 402 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. BooK IX. him. 5. Perperine. basia. 5. Cephalenia. 6. Zacynthus. 7. Zemena. . 8. Maina. Province of Hellas. 1. Athens. 2. Euripus. 3. Diaulia. 4. Coronea. 5. Andrus. 6. Oreus. 7. Scyrus. 8. Charystus. 9. Porthmus. 10. Aulon. ll. Syra. Province of Crete. l. Gortyna. 2. Gnossus. 3. Arcadia. 4. Cherrone- sus. 5. Aulopotamus. 6. Agrius. 7. Lampe. 8. Cydo- nia. 9. Hiera. 10. Petra. ll. Sitea. 12. Cissamus. Province of Peloponnesus. l. Patra. 2. Lacedaemonia. 3. Methone. 4. Co- rone. 5. Helus. 6. Boloena. Province of Hellas Secunda. l. Larissa. 2. Demetrias. 3. Pharsalus. 4. Do- mocus. 5. Zetonium. 6. Ezerus. 7. Laedoricium. 8. Trica. 9. Echinus. 10. Colydrus. ll. Stages. Province of JEtolia. l. Naupactus. 2. Bunditza. 3. Aquila. 4. Ache- lous. 5. Rhegae. 6. Joannina. 7. Photica. 8. Ha- drianopolis. 9. Buthrotus. 10. Chimaera. Province of Macedonia. 1. Philippi. 2. Theoria. 3. Polystylum. 4. Be- licea. 5. Christopolis. 6. Smolaena. 7. Caesaropolis. 8. Alectryopolis. Province of Epirus. l. Dyrrachium. 2. Stephaniaca. 3. Chunobia. 4. Coria. 5. Elissus. 6. Dioclea. 7. Scodra. 8. Drivas- tus. 9. Polatha. 10. Glabinitza, al. Acroceraunia. ll. Aulonaea. l2. Licinida. 13. Antibaris. l4. Tze- rinicum. 15. Polycheropolis. 16. Graditzium. In Asia under Smyrna the metropolis. l. Phocaea. 2. Magnesia. 3. Anelium. 4. Cla- zomenae. 5. Sosandrus. 6. Archangelus. 7. Petra. In Armenia under Camachus. l. Kelz'ene. 2. Arabraca. 3. Barzanissa. 4. Melus. 5. Melus alter. 6. Romanopolis. 7. Tutileum. In Phrygia under Cotyaium. l. Spora. 2. Cone. 3. Gaiocomis. In Lesbus under Mitylene. 1. Erissus. 2. Strongyla. 3. Tenedus. 4. Ber- 6. Marmaritza. In Hellas under Novas Patrae. 1. Gazala. 2. Cutzagron. 3. Sibictus. 4. Bariana. Under Keltzene. 1. Tomus. 2. Chatzoun. 3. Lycopotamia. 4. Cortzene. 5. Mastrabatz. 6. Chuit. 7. Toparchus_ 8. Ambra. 9. Tutara. 10. Marmentitzur. ll. Mat- - zierte. 12. S. Nicholai. 13. Eva Deiparae. 14. Art. zesius. l5. Artzica. 16. Amucium. 17- Percin. 18. S. Georgii. l9. Ostan. 20. S. Elissaei. 21. Sedrac Deiparw. These fourteen metropolitical sees, with their suffragans, are in Leunclavius only: after which the other notitias now proceed again. Province of C appadocia. l. Mocessus. 2. Nazianzus. 3. Colonia. 4. Par- nassus. 5. Doara: ‘to which Leunclavius adds Metiana. Province of Lazica. l. Phasis. 2. Rhodopolis. 3. Petra. 4. Ecclesia Abissenorum. 5. Ecclesia Ziganeorum. But in Leun— clavius there are reckoned sixteen in this province. 1. Trapezus, the metropolis. 2. Cheriana. 3. Chamuzur. 4. Chacheeum. 5. Paiper. 6. Ceramea. 7. Tochatzitzi. 8. Bizana. 9. Sacabus. 10. Phasi- ana. ll. Tochantierz. l2. Toulnutus. l3. Lerium. 14. Tosermatzus. l5. Andacta. 16. Zarima. e Province of Thrace. l. Philippopolis. 2. Diocletianopolis. 3. Diospolis. But Leunclavius reckons eleven. 1. Philippopolis. 2. Agathonicma. 3. Liotitza. 4. Scutarium. 5. Leuca. 6. Bleptus. 7. Dramitza. 8. Joannitza. 9. Constantia. 10. Belicea. ll. Bucuba. Province of the islands Cyclades. l. Rhodus, the metropolis. 2. Samus. 3. Chius. 4. Cous. 5. Naxia. 6. Thera. 7. Parus. 8. Le- thrus. 9. Andrus. 10. Tenus. ll. Melus. l2. Pissina: to which Leunclavius adds, Icaria, Le rna, Ostypalia, Trachaa, and Nasura. Province of Haamimontus. 1. Adrianopolis. 2. Mesembria. 3. Sozopolis. 4. Plutinopolis. 5. Zoida: to which Leunclavius adds, 6. Agathopolis. 7. Debeltus. 8. Trabyzia. 9. Carabus. 10. Bucellus. ll. Probatus. l2. Sco- pelus. l3. Brisis. 14. Bulgarophugus. The same Province. 1. Marcianopolis. 2. Rhodostolus. 3. Trama- riscus. 4. Nobi. 5. Zecedopa. 6. Sarcara. The same Province; which is otherwise called Rhodope in Leunclavius. I. Trajanopolis. 2. Perus. 3. Anastasiopolis: to which Leunclavius adds, 4. Didymot'ichus. 5. Macra. 6. Misinopolis. Peritheorium. 10. Theodorium. Province of Phrygia Cappatiana. l. Hierapolis. 2. Metellopolis. 3. Dionysopo- 7. Pora. 8. Xantha. 9. - CHAP. VII. 403 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. . 5. Garanta. 6. Vintimilium. 7. Genues. lie. 4. Anastasiopolis. 5. Antaeda. 6. Mosyna: with six others, which are inserted by mistake from the province of Hamimontus. But Leunclavius adds, Autuda, Phobi, Ancyra, Synaus, Tiberiopolis, Cana, and Zana. Province of Galatia Secunda. l. -Amorium. 2. Philomelium. 3. Docimeum. 4. Claneus. 5. Polybotus. 6. Pissia. Note, This province is called Phrygia in Leunclavius ; but the cities are the same. Here it is remarked in all the notz'tias, that the following metropolitans and their suffragans were taken from the Roman diocese, and added to Con- stantinople: viz. 1. Thessalonica. 2. Syracuse. 3. Corinth. 4. Rhegium. 5. Nicopolis. 6. Athens. 7. Patraa. 8. Novae Patrae. As also the metropo- litan of Seleucia in Isauria, or, as Leunclavius calls it, Pamphylia, with twenty-three bishops under him. Which conclude the notz'tz'a in Leunclavius: for it only contains the account of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Carolus a Sancto Paulo also wholly omits the Roman Patriarchate, because his manuscript here, he says, was so corrupt that there was no sense to be made of it: but this defect is supplied by Goar and Bishop Beverege, in whose notita'as the following account is given :— The Province under the most glorious Eparch of Rome, or Italy. Province of Rome, called Urbicaria. 1. Brittium. 2. Macaeria. 3. Luna. 4. Neapolis. 8. Si- pontus. 9. Ponturoma. 10. Insula: Centumcellaa. ll. CastrumEuoria. 12. Castrum Amalphes. 13. Castrum Getteon. 14. Castrum Tiberias. 15. Cas- trum Nepes. 16. Insula Comaniciae. l7. Castrum Mulium. 18. Castrum Campsas. l9. Castrum Sor- cum. 20. Castrum Susas. Castrum Anagnia. Province of Campania. l. Neapolis. 2. Brettania. 3. Pannonia. 4. Calabria. 5. Venetia. 6. Messina. 7. Vicovarina. 8. Taurata. 9. Apulia. 10. Castrum Opiterbetos. ll. Castrum Samnios. 12. Castrum Susias. l3. Castrum Regium. l4. Castrum Taurata. l5. Castrum Sygnias. 16. Castrum Gradum. 17. Castrum Patriarchias. 18. Castrum Scylaceum. l9. Castrum Martyrium. 20. Castrum Ormuvera. 21. Castrum Ortonos. 22. Castrum Oppiterbitum. Isle of Sicily. 1. Syracuse. 2. Catana. 3. Taerebenium, a1. Tauromenium. 4. Sesena, al. Messana. 5. Cepha- ludium. 6. Thermum. 7. Panormus. 8. Lily- baeum. 9. Trocalis. 10. Acragantus,al. Agrigen- 21. Castrum Ilbas. 22. tum. ll. Tindarium. 12. Carine, al. Camarina. 13. Leontina. 14. Abeusis, al. Alesa. 15., Gaudus. l6. Melita. 17.Liparis. 18. Burcausus. 19. Di- dymi. 20. Urica. 21. Onarea. 22. Basiludin. Province of Calabria. l. Rhegium. 2. Locris. 3. Scylacias. 4. Co- tronum,a1. Croton. 5. Constantia. 6. Tropaeum. 7. Tauriana. 8. Bibonum, al. Cibonum. Provincia Annonaria. 1. Ravenna. 2. Phanus. 3. Olcusa, al. Ascu- lum. 4. Polus, a1. Fulginum. 5. Pecinus, al. Pi- cenum. 6. Pisaurum. 7. Tergetra. 8. Augusto- polis. 9. Talbitau. 10. Castrum Ferentinum. ll. Castrum Solernos. l2. Tulericum. 13. Cas- trum Zanga. 14. Castrum Nobo. l5. Castrum Eurinica. l6. Castrum Semania. l7. Vicomanto. 18. Castrum Vereles. 19. Castrum Tamia. 20. Castrum Varectelia. 21. Castrum Samugia. 22. Castrum Sora. 23. Castrum Suagallia. 24. Cas- trum Cisines. Province of fEmia, leg. ZEmilia. l. Castrum Foropompus. 2. Castrum Brizilium. 3. Castrum Brinti. Under the most glorious Eparch of Africa. Province of Bizacia. l. Carthago Proconsularis. 2. Sybiba. 3. Campsia. 4. Cileos. 5. Junce. 6. Talepte. 7. Cascala. 8. Castellae. 9. Pezana. 10. Mamida. ll. Madasuba. 12. Colule. l3. Capse. 14. Adramytto. Province of Numidia. 1. Calama. 2. Tebete. 3. Hippo Regius. 4. Nuzidias. 5. Castamagaa. 6. Bade. 7. Meleum. 8. Leradus. 9. Castrum Bedere, al. Castra Vetera. 10. Scele. ll. Egerinesium. 12. Titessin, a1. Tidi- dita. 13. Bage. l4. Constantina. l5. Sitiphi. Province of Mauritania Prima. 1. Rhinocururum. Province of Mauritania Secunda. l. Septum. 2. Septum ad partem Tenessi. 3. Spanias. 4. Mesopot. ad partem Spania. 5. Ma- jurica, al. Majorica Insula. 6. Menyca, al. Mino- rica Insula. 7. Insula Sardon, vel Sardinia. 8. Carallus Metropolis. 9. Tures. 10. Sanaphas. ll. Sines. l2. Sulces. 13. Phoesiana. 14. Chry- sopolis. l5. Aristiane. l6. Limne. 17. Cas- trum Tutar. Note, Goar’s notitz'a reads most of these names differently, and makes but two of these three last, Chn'stianae Lacus and Tucca. Herc Carolus a S. Paulo begins again. 2 D 2 404 Boox IX. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 1 In the Diocese of Egypt. Province of Augustamnica Prima. 1. Pelusium, the metropolis. 2. Sethroetes. 3. Tanes. 4. Thmues. 5. Rhinocurura. 6. Ostra- cine. 7. Pentaschanon. 8. Casium. 9. Aph- theum. 10. Hiphestus. ll. Panephusus. l2. Geros. l3. Itageros. l4. Thenesus. Province of Augustamnica Secunda. ‘ l. Leonto Metropolis. 2. Athrabes. 3. Helius. 4. Bubastus. 5. Carbethus. 6. Arabius. Province of Egyptus Prima. 1. Alexandria sub duce et Augustali. 2. Her- mopolis. 3. Milleos. 4. Costus. 5. Vicus Psa- neos. 6. Vicus Cotrideos. 7. Sais. 8. Leonto- polis. 9. Naucratia. 10. Andronicius. ll. Ze- nonopolis. l2. Paphna. 13. Onuphis. 14.Tava. 15. Cleopatris. l6. Mareotes. l7. Manelaitaa. 18. Sehedia. l9. Ternuthes. 20. Sondra. Province of ZEgyptus Secunda. l. Cabasa. 2. Phragon. Diospolis. 5. Sebennytus. 8. Elearchia. 9. Regeon Paralus. 10. Vicus Pa- rianae. ll. Vicus Rhicomerium. l2. Xois: to which Goar’s notz't-ia adds Cyma, and makes Regeon 3. Pachnemon. 4. 6. Caano. 7. Busiris. _ and Paralus two distinct places. Province of Arcadia. 1. Oxyrynchus. 2. Heracleus. 3. Coeno. 4. Nilopolis. 5. Arsinoetes. 6. Memphilitus, al. Memphis. Goar adds, Clisma, Theodosiopolis, Aphroditon, and Latopolis. Province of Thebais Prima. I. Antinous. 2. Hermopolis. 3. Theodosio- polis. 4. Polyco. 5. Hypsele. 6. Apollonias. 7. Anteios. 8. Panos. Goar adds Casus. Province of Thebais Secunda. 1. Ptolemais. 2. Conto, al. J ustinianopolis. 3. Diocletianopolis. '4. Diospolis. 5. Tentyra. 6. Maximianopolis. 7. Thebais. 8. Lato. 9. 1am- bon. 10. Hermonthon. ll. Apollonos. 12.Vi- cus Anassee Magnae. l3. Thebais Magna. l4. Ibis. l5. Mathon. 16. Trimunthon. l7. Erbon, al. Hermon. Province of Libya. 1. Dranicon. 2. Paratonium. 3. Tranzala. 4. Ammoniaca. 5. Antipyrgus. 6. Antiphron. 7. .lEdonias. 8. Marmarice. Province of Libya Pentapolis. l. Sozusa. 2. Cyrine. 3. Ptolemais. 4. Teu- chera. 5. Adriane. 6. Beronica. Province of Tripoli. 1. Tosibon. 2. Leptis. 3. Hyon. In the Oriental Diocese. Province of Cilicia. l. Tarsus. 2. Pompeiopolis. 3. Sebaste.‘ 4. Coricus. 5. Adana. ,6. Augustopolis. 7. Mallos. 8. Zephurium. Province of Cilicia Secunda. l. Anazarbus. 2. Mopsuestia. 3. Ageia. 4. Epiphania. 5. Eirenopolis. 6. Flavias. 7. Alex- andria. 8. Cabissus. 9. Castabala. 10. Rhossus. Province of Isauria. l. Seleucia. 2. Cilendre. 3. Anemorius. 4. Titiopolis. 5. Lamus. 6. Antiochia. 7. Heliu- Sebaste, al. Julio-Sebaste. 8. Cestra. 9. Seli- nuntes. 10. Jostape. ll. Diocaesarea. l2. Olya. l3. Hierapolis. l4. Dalisandus. l5. Claudiopolis. l6. Eirenopolis. l7. Germanicopolis. l8. Nea- polis. 19. Zenonopolis. 20. Sbidae. 21. Phila- delphia. 22. Adrassus. 23. Meloe. 24. Domiti- opolis. 25. Climata Nauzadeaa. 26. Cassorum. 27. Benmorum. 28. Golgosi. 29. Costradis. Province of Syria Prima. l. Antiochia ad Daphnen. 2. Paltus. cia. 4. Berrhoea. 5. Chalcis. 3. Seleu- Province of Syria Secunda. 2. Arethusa- 3. Epiphania. 4. 6. Seleucobelus. 7. Ra- l. Apamea. Larissa. 5. Mariamne. phanaea. Province of Euphratisia or Hagiopolis. l. Hierapolis. 2. Cyrus, al. Hagiopolis. 3. Sa- mosata. 4. Doliche. 5. Germanicia. 6. Zeugma. _7. Perrhe. 8. Europus. 9. Nicopolis. 10. Sche- narchia. ll. Caesaria. l2. Sergiopolis. l3. Ori- mon. 14. Santon. Province of Theodorias. l. Laodicea. 2. Balanea. 3. Gabala. Goar adds Paltus. Province of Osdroene. l. Edessa. 2. Carrae. 3. Constantia. 4.'Theo- dosiopolis. 5. Batnae. 6. Callinicus, al. Leon- topolis. 7. Nova Valentia. 8. Birthon. 9. Mo- nithilla. 10. Therimachon. ll. Moniauga. l2. Macarta. 13. Marcopolis. l4. Anastasia. l5. Hemerius. 16. Circisia. Province of Mesopotamia Superior, or Armenia Quarta. 1. Amida. 2. Martyropolis. 3. Darus. 4. C HAP. VII. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 405 ANTIQUITIES OF THE Castrum Ricephas. 5. Castrum Turandios. 6. Castrum Mardes. 7. Castrum Lornes. 8. Cas- trum Riphton. 9. Castrum Isphrios. 10. Castrum Tzauras. ll. Castrum Audasson. l2. Castrum Amarmes. 13. Castrum Tzinobias. l4. Castrum Banabelorum. 15. Castrum Intzietorum. 16. Castrum Chaddorum. Castrum Masphronas. l7. Castrum ZEsudios. 18. 19. Castrum Basilicum. 20. Castrum Spelon et Odelorum. 21. Castrum Bijubaithas. 22. Castrum Manassarorum. 23. Castrum Phirtachabras. 24. Castrum Siteon Chi- phas. 25. Castrum Calonos. 26. Castrum Biba- sarorum. 27. Castrum Tzauras. 28. Castrum Birthas. 29. Castrum Attachas. 30. Castrum Aphuborum. 31. Castrum Florianarum. 32. Cas- trum Arimachorum. 33. Castrum Baluos. 34. Castrum Daphnudin. 35. Castrum Samocharto- rum. The other Armenia. 1. Dademon. 2. Arsamusaton. 3. Polichne. 4. Chosana. 5. Chosomacha. 6. Cithariza. 7. Castrum Marticertum. 8. Castrum Baiulaos. 9. Castrum Polios. 10. Castrum Ardon. ll. Clima Sophines. l2. Regio J alimbana, where Basilius was born, who wrote the present account. 13. Clima Anzetines. l4. Clima Digesines. l5. Clima Garines. 16. Clima Orziacines. l7. Clima Bila- bitenes. 18. Clima. Astianices. l9. Clima Ma- muzurarum. Province of Phoenicia Maritima. l. Tyrus. 2. Sidon. 3. Ptolemais. 4. Beritus. 5. Biblus. 6. Tripolis. 7. Area. 8. Orthosias. 9. Botrys. 10. Vicus Gegarta. ll. Arados. l2. Antarados. l3. Paneas. 14. Gonasitii Saltus. 15. Vicus Politianus. 16. Vicus Trieris. Province of Phoenicia Libani. 1. Emissa. 2. Laodicea. 3. Heliopolis. 4. Abilla. 5. Damascus. 6. Clima J abrudorum. 7. Evarius, al. J ustinianopolis. 8. Talmyra: in Goar it is Palmyra. 9. Clima Maglydorum. 10. Sal- tum Gonaticum. 11. Salamias. 12. Clima Ori- entale. Province of Palestina‘ Prima. l. Elia, or Jerusalem. 2. Casarea. 3. Dora. 4. Antipatris. 5. Diospolis, al. Georgiopolis. 6. Jamnia. 7. Nicopolis. 8. Onus. 9. Sozusa. 10. J oppa. ll. Ascalon. l2. Gaza. 13. Raphia. l4. Anthedon. 15. Diocletianopolis. 16. Eleuther- opolis. l7. Neapolis. 18. ~Sebaste. 19. Regio Apathus. 20. Regio Jericho. 21. Regio Libya. 22. Regio Gadara. 23. Azotus Maritima. 24. Azotus Hippinis. 25. Acomazon. 26.‘ Bittymos. 28. Toxus. 29. Saltum Constan- 30. Saltum Geraiticum, al. Barsamon. 27 . Tricomias. tiniani. Province of Palestina Secunda. l. Scythopolis. 2. Gadara. 3. Pella. 4. Abila. 5. Capetomas. 6. Diocasarea. 7. Maximianopolis. 8. Gaba. 9. Tiberias. 10. Hippos. 11. Helen- opolis. l2. Clima Galanes. l3. Tetracomia. 14. Comenais. Province of Palestina Tertia. 1. Petra. 2. Augustopolis. 3. Arindela. 4. Charagmuda. 5. Areopolis. 6. Mapsis. 7. Elusa. 8. Zoara. 9. Birosabon. 10. Elas. ll. Penta- comia. l2. Mamopsora. l3. Metrocomia. 14. Saltum Hieraticum. Goar divides two of these into four, reading them thus, Salton, Mamo, Psora, Hieraticon. Province of Arabia. 1. Bostra. 2. Adrasus. 3. Dia. 4. Medaba. 5. Gerassa. 6. Neva. 7. Philadelphia. 8. Esbus. 9. Neapolis. 10. Philippopolis. ll. Phenutus. 12. Constantina. l3. Dionysias. l4. Pentacomia. 15. Tricomia. 16. Canothas. l7. Saltum. l8. Bataneos. l9. Exacomia. 20. Enacomia. 21. Vicus Gonias. 22. Vicus Cherus. 23. Vicus Stanes. 24. Vicus Cabera. 25. Vicus Coreatha. 26. Vicus Bilbanus. 27. Vicus Caprorum. 28. Vicus Pyrgoaretarum. 29. Vicus Setnes. 30. Vicus Ariacharum. 31. Neotes. 32. Clima Ori— entalium ct Occidentalium. 33. Vicus Ariatha Saxosa. 34. Vicus Bebdamus. Province of Armenia Magna. Concerning this the author only remarks, that it is an autocephalus, or independent country, not subject to any apostolical throne, but honoured in respect to St. Gregory of Armenia, having two hun- dred cities and castles. Province of Cyprus. The author makes the same observation upon this country, that it is an independent also, in honour of St. Barnabas the apostle, who was found here, having the Gospel of St. Mark laid upon his breast. The cities in this province are, l. Constantia, the metropolis. 2. Citium. 3.-Ama- thus. 4. Curium. 5. Paphus. 6. Arsena. 7. Soli. 8. Lapithus, the birth-place of Georgius Cyprius, who wrote the book out of which these were taken. 9. Cyrenia. 10. Tamasus. 11. Cythri. 12. Tri- mithus. 13. Carpasin. There is added at the end of Goar’s notz'tz'a .- This account was taken anno 6391, in the reign of the 6 Note, This province and the next are wanting both in Carolus a Sancto Paulo and Goar. 406 Boox IX. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. emperor Leo Sapiens, and under the patriarch Pho- tius, that is, anno 891. In this description of the church, the reader may observe, that the author being a Greek, is much more accurate in his account of the Greek and Eastern churches, than of the Western and Latin : for here is no account of France, Spain, Britain, Illyricum; and such confused and imperfect ac- counts of the provinces of Italy and Africa, as show plainly, that the author was not rightly acquainted with the state of the church in those countries; at least not in Italy; for in all Italy and Sicily here are not mentioned above a hundred dioceses, and yet it is clear from the accounts that have been given before out of the subscriptions of ancient councils, that there were nearer three hundred dio- ceses in those regions. Above one hundred and fifty Italian bishops of distinct sees are found sub- scribed in one age in the Roman councils held under Hilary, Felix, and Symmachus, and there were al- most as many more not mentioned in those councils, but to be found in other councils and ancient re- cords. And though when these notz'tz'as were made, several of the ancient dioceses might be united to- gether, yet it appears from the subscriptions of the Roman councils under Eugenius II. and Leo IV. in the ninth century, that there were above double the number to what the notz'tz'as mention. So that it must be owned, that they give but an im- perfect account of the Latin or Western church. But the account of the Greek and Eastern churches is more complete, and agrees very well with the subscriptions collected out of the ancient councils. And so they one confirm another, and both together fully make out the account that has been given both of the number and extent of dioceses in the ancient church. CHAPTER VIII. OF THE DIVISION OF DIOCESES INTO PARISHES, AND THE FIRST ORIGINAL OF THEM. THERE remains but one thing more to be inquired into on this head, which is the division of dioceses into such lesser precincts as we now call parishes and parish Sect. 1. Of the ancient names of parish churches. churches. . Concerning which I shall here need to ‘say the less, because so much has already been said incidentally in speaking of the extent of ancient dioceses, which we have generally found too large to be confined to a single congregation. All that I shall add upon this subject, therefore, in this place, is only to make a few remarks upon the ancient names of parishes, (because some of them are a little ambiguous,) and show when, and upon what ac- count, and by what degrees dioceses were divided into parishes, to bring them to the present state and form of the church. As to the ancient names, I have had occasion to show before, that the words wapoucia, and (itoixmng, for the three first ages were of the same importance, denoting not what we now call a parish church, but a city with its adjacent towns or country region. But in the fourth and fifth ages we find both names promiscuously given as well to country parishes, as episcopal or city churches. For now these lesser divisions of dio- ceses began to be called parochz'w, as may be seen in the council of Chalcedon,l which ordered, That in every church such country parishes as belonged of old time to any bishop, should continue in his possession without any molestation. And in the council of Vaison, anno 442, a decree was made,2 That country parishes should have presbyters to preach in them, as well as the city churches. And so the word parochia is often used by St. J erom,3 Sulpicius Severus,‘ Theodoret,5 Innocentius,6 and other writers of those ages. Though still the name parochz'a continued to signify properly an episcopal diocese, from which it was transferred to denote those lesser parochire, because they were a sort of imitation of the former. Which is the account that Socrates7 seems to give of them, when, speaking of the villages of the region of Mareotes that were subject to the bishop of Alexandria, he says, they were as so many 1rapouct'at, or lesser dioceses under his city. And upon the same reason the name - diocesz's was sometimes given to a parish church also, though it most properly belongs to an episcopal diocese. Thus Sidonius Apollinarius8 speaks of his own visiting his dioceses, meaning only the parish churches under his episcopal jurisdiction. And so in the Collation of Carthage, it is said9 of one place, that there was perfect unity not only in the city, but in all the dioceses, that is, the country parishes or villages belonging to it. Baluzius has observed the same ‘° in Ruricius Lemovicensis,n and Gregory of ' Concil. Chalced. can. 17. Tris KaB” ends-nu ércxhno'iau d'ypotowcds 'n'apoua'as, f) é'yxwpt'ous [rel/aw d'rrapao'ahefi'rws 'ro'is Ka're'xovo'w aim-(‘ls é'rrto'lcovrots. 2’ Concil. Vaisionen. 1,. c. 2. Placuit ut non solum in ci- vitatibus, sed etiam in omnibus parochiis, verbum faciendi daremus presbyteris potestatem. 8 Hieron. cont. Vigilant. cap. 2. 4 Sulpic. Sever. Dial. I. c. 4. 5 Theodor. Ep. 113. 6 Innoc. Ep. ad Decent. c. 5. 7 Socrat. lib. l. c. 27. 'rrapouu'aL. 8 Sidon. lib. 9. Ep. 16. p. 611. Peragratis forte diocesi- bus cum domum veni, &c. 9 Collat. Carthag. Die 1. 0.176. Unitas illic perfecta est non solum‘ in ipsa civitate, verum etiam in omnibus dio- cesibus. ' 1° Baluz. Not. ad Gratian. p. 510. 1' Ruricius Lemovic. lib. 2. Ep. 6. M ! Eio'iu fmrd Tip) ai’J-rou qrdhw we CHAP. VIII. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 497 ‘ANTIQUITIES OF THE Tours,‘2 and some other writers. The reason of this appellation being, as I said before, for that these churches, whereupon single presbyters were fixed, were a sort of lesser dioceses, as the author of the Pontifical" under the name of Damasus terms them; and some canons give them I‘ the name of ecclesice diwcesance, diocesan churches; and others, country or village churches, whence the presbyters residing on them were termed é‘ll'lxtbpwt wpwfiérspor, country presbyters, by the council of Neocaesarea,15 in opposition to the city presbyters in the cathedral or mother church. Parish churches were also pe- culiarly called tz'tulz', as has been noted before,16 in contradistinction to the bishop’s church; being such churches as had particular presbyters and deacons assigned to them, who upon that account are said to have a title. And some learned persons ‘7 are of opinion, that cardinal presbyters and deacons, at first, were no more but presbyters and deacons so deputed and atfixed to the service of particular parish churches, and that as well at Rome as other places. As to the original of parish churches, there is no doubt but it was necessity, and the conveniences of celebrating Christian offices and holding Chris- tian communion with greater ease, that first gave occasion to them. For when the multitude of believers increased so in large and populous cities, that one church could not contain them, there was a necessity of dividing the assem- bly, and erecting other churches, where all the so- lemnities of the Christian worship and the usual oflices of Divine service might be performed, as well as in the mother church, to answer the apostolical Sect. . The original of parish churches ow- ing to necessity, and founded upon the apostol cal rules of Christian com- munion. ' ordinance of holding Christian communion one with another; which was according to what we read, Acts ii. 42, that men should continue “ sted- fastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.” The author of the Pontifical under the name of Damasus, in the Life of Marcellus, seems to say, that several of the Roman tz'tulz', or parish churches, were erected18 for the convenience of baptizing great multitudes that were converted from paganism, and for burying the martyrs. But if there was any necessity upon that account, there was doubtless a greater neces- sity upon another. For in those days, the whole body of the Christian church was used to communi- cate weekly at the Lord’s table; and it being im- possible that one church should sufiice in large cities for this purpose, there was an absolute neces- sity of building more, that Christians might live in communion one with another. And so parish churches must be as ancient as the necessities of the church; and he that knows how to date the one, may easily date the original of the other for any particular city or diocese in the universe. But as cities and their appendant dioceses difi'ered very much in their somséegi'tiim size and extent, so it is reasonable to ggigigigisagiliiii believe, that some of them were obliged p i to build parish churches much sooner than others. And in such places as Jerusalem and Rome, there is great probability, from several passages in the Acts and St. Paul’s Epistles, that there were more churches than one from the days of the apostles. However, it is undeniably evident from Optatus, as I have showed before, that Rome had above forty churches in it before the end of the third century, or in the beginning of the Diocletian persecution. As for the lesser cities, it will be no wonder to find some of them which had but one church whilst the persecution lasted; such as that city in Phrygia, which Lactantius speaks of, where he says, the church and all the people were burnt ‘9 together by one of the barbarous prefects in the last persecution. Valesius thinks Eusebius speaks of the same city, who says,20 it was all Christian at that time, both magistrates and people, and therefore an army was sent against them, which burnt them all together, men, women, and children, as they were making their supplications to Christ their God. From which it may be concluded, that there were some cities, which were but what Eusebius calls this, W'Ohixval, so very small, as to need no other church beside the bishop’s cathedral, even when all the members of them were become universally Chris- tian. And this may seem an argument to some, that there were anciently many episcopal dioceses that never had any parish churches. But here it must be remembered, what has been abundantly proved be- hasdogfmnvgarciitggz fore, that generally the ancient cities gggtiignt‘iniesofper- had their suburbs or country region belonging to them ; and some that were very small cities, as Cyrus in Comagene, where Theodoret was bishop, had upon this account very large territories under their jurisdiction. And we find a great many instances of such country regions having country parishes, and country presbyters and deacons re- siding on them, even in the hottest times of perse- Sect. 4. less '2 Greg. Turon. Hist. lib. 4. c. 13. lib. 6. c. 38. '3 Pontifical. Vit. Marcelli. Viginti quinque titulos in urbe Roma constituit, quasi dioeceses, propter baptismum et pmnitentiam multorum. 1‘ Concil. Tarracon. can. 8. '5 Concil. Neocaesar. can. 13. 16 Book V111. chap. 1. sect. 10. 1’ Vid. Joh. Fronto. Epist. de Canonicis Cardinalibus, Par. 1661. '8 Pontifical. Vit. Marcelli. '9 Lactant. Instit. lib. 5. 0.11. Aliqui ad occidendum praecipites extiterunt, sicut unus in Phrygia, qui universum populum cum ipso pariter conventiculo concremavit. 2” Euseb. lib. 8. c. 11. 408 Boox IX. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. cution; as appears from the canons of the council of Eliberiusj"l and those of Neoceesarea,22 the former of which was held while the Diocletian persecution lasted, and the latter immediately after it was over, and yet both of them speak of cpuntry presbyters and deacons, to whom the care of Christian assem- blies was committed. Epiphanius also” speaks of village presbyters belonging to the city Caschara in Mesopotamia in the middle of the third century, and Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, about the same time frequently mentions such in the regions of Arsinoe, Alexandria, and other cities of Egypt and Libya, in several fragments of his epistles, re- corded in Eusebius, which have already been al- leged, and need not here be repeated. From these and many other such instances it is evident, that as soon as the Christian religion began to spread itself from the cities into the country regions in any con- siderable manner, village churches were erected, and country presbyters fixed on them; the neces- sities and convenience of the church requiring it so to be for the greater benefit and edification of the whole community. Thus parish churches had their original both in city and country, not all at one time, nor by any general decree, but as the exi- gences of every diocese required, the bishop of which was always the properest judge, how many assistants he needed to help him to discharge the several ofiices belonging to him as chief superin- tendent of the city and territory under his jurisdic- tion. In France the council of Vaison speaks of country parishes in the beginning of the fifth cen— tury, as I have noted before in the first section of this chapter. But in England we have not so early an account of them, because the records we have remaining of the ancient British church, make no mention of parishes: and after the Saxon con— versions were begun, it was some time before our dioceses were divided into parishes, and longer be- fore they had appropriated revenues settled upon them. Some think Honorius, the fifth archbishop of Canterbury, divided so much of the nation as was converted, into parishes about the year 640. So Bishop Godwyn and Dugdale. But others think this division is rather to be understood of dioceses than parishes : for parochz'a in Bede commonly de- notes a bishop’s diocese, according to the ancient style and language of the church; as is evident from that canon of the council of Herudford men- tioned in Bede,“ which was held above thirty years after this supposed division of Honorius, in the time of Archbishop Theodore, anno 673, where it is decreed, That no bishop shall invade another’s parochial, or diocese, but be content with the govern- ment of the people committed to him. Bishop An- drews25 indeed brings this very canon for a proof of parishes being now settled all over the nation : but I conceive the other sense of the word parochz'a to be more proper to that place. Though I will not deny but that toward the latter end of this archbishop’s time, who lived to the year 690, the division of parishes might be made. For Bede observes,“ that religion and the affairs of the church made a greater pro- gress in his time than ever they had done before. And Mr. Wheelock,27 in his observations upon the place, cites an ancient manuscript, which speaks of the division of parishes as made under him. Now Christianity had spread itself into the country, and churches were built, and presbyters fixed upon them, and first-fruits and other revenues were set- tled by King Ina” among the West Saxons, and by Withred, king of Kent, in the council of Becon- celd, anno 694, and patrons, when they founded churches, endowed them with lands for proper maintenance: all which seem to imply, that the original of country parishes was about the latter end of the seventh century in this nation, and in the next age they were fully settled. But to return to the former times: it is further to be noted concerning the ancient manner of serving the city parish churches, that they were not usually committed to any particu- lar presbyters, as those in the country regions were, but were served in common by the Sect. 5. The city parishes not always assigned to particular pres- _ rs, but served in common b the clergyofthebis op’s church. Thisother- wise in country pa- rashes. clergy of the bishop’s church. Learned men con- _ elude this from a passage in Epiphanius, who seems to note it as a particular custom at Alexan- dria, that all the churches there had their own par- ticular presbyters assigned them, who dwelt near their own churches, every one in their own streets or divisions,’9 which the Alexandrians, in their own language, called 'laura. Petavius indeedso thinks Epiphanius was mistaken, and that it was not the peculiar custom of Alexandria, but common to all great cities, to have presbyters fixed upon all their churches. But Valesius8| and other learned men defend Epiphanius against his censure, and show this to have been so singular a custom at Alexan- dria, that perhaps no other city in the world in that age, no, not Rome itself, which had above forty churches, had any one church appropriated to any 2‘ Cone. Eliber. c. 77. 23 Epiph. Haar. 66. 2‘ Bede, lib. 4. c. 5. Cone. Herudford. c. 2. Ut nullus episcoporum parochiam alterius invadat, sed contentus sit gubernatione creditae sibi plebis. 25 Andrews de Decimis, inter Opuscula, p. 152. 28 Bede, lib. 5. c. 8. 2’ \Vheelock in 10c. 22 Cone. Neocaesar. c. 13. 2“ Inae Leges Eccles. c. 4. Primitiae seminum ad festum S. Martini redduntor, &c. ap. Spelman. p. 183. Gone. Be- conceld. c. 1. Ibid. p. 191. 2” Epiph. Haer. 69. Arian. c. 1. 9° Petav. Annot. in Ice. 8' Vales. Not. in Sozomen. lib. 1. c. 15. Vindic. of the Prim. Ch. p. 65. M aurice’s CHAP. VIII. 409 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. particular presbyter, but they were all served in common by the clergy of the bishop’s church. Valesius observes, that it was so at Rome to the time of Innocent 1., who speaks of his sending the bread of the consecrated eueharist to the presbyters ministering in the parish churches on the Lord’s day, that they might not on that day think them- selves” separated from his communion. So that they seem to have been the clergy of the great church, sent forth by turns only, to minister in the several titulz' on the Lord’s day; and then their having a title, or the care of a church, must mean no more but their being deputed in common to the service of the tituli, or parish churches, in contra- distinction to the cathedral church. Something of this custom continued at Constantinople to the time of Justinian. For in one of his Novels83 he takes notice of three churches, St. Mary’s, Theo- dore’s, and Irene’s, which had no appropriated clergy belonging to them, but were served by the ministers of the great church, who officiated in them according to their courses. It is observed also by some, that a peculiar custom prevailed at Rome, to have two presbyters officiate in every church, whereas in other places there was but one. Dr. Maurice“ infers this from a passage in the Comments of Hilary, the Roman deacon, who com- monly goes under the name of St. Ambrose, who says, that though there were but seven deacons in all Rome, yet there was such a number of presby- ters as to have two to ofiiciate in every church,$5 because the inhabitants communicated twice a week, and there were sick persons to be baptized almost every day. But whether this custom was so pecu- liar to Rome, as to belong to no other church, is what I had rather the reader should believe upon that learned man’s judgment, than my own as- sertion. As to country churches, the case is very plain, that presbyters were more early fixed and appropriated peculiarly to them, there being not the same convenience of serving them in common by the presbyters of the city church. Therefore we may observe, that the council of Neocasarea88 makes a distinction between the émxc'ipwt wpw- Bzirepor, the country presbyters, and those of the city, forbidding the former to ofiiciate in the city church, except in the absence of the bishop and city presbyters : which plainly implies, that country parishes were then served by fixed presbyters of their own, who had nothing to do with the service of the city church. And the same appears from the ac- count which Athanasius gives of the presbyters of the villages of Mareotis under Alexandria, and many other passages of the ancient writers. But we are to observe, that the be- ing settled in a parish-cure, whether in city or country, did not immedi- ed 51PM parishes at _ their first division, ately entitle a man to the revenue Bgémizgriiistgép the arising from that cure, whether in tithes or oblations, or any other kind. For, an- ciently, all church revenues were delivered into the common stock of the bishop’s church, whence, by the direction and approbation of the bishop, who was the chief administrator of the revenues of his diocese, a monthly or an annual division was made among the clergy under his jurisdiction, as has been showed before, in giving an account of ecclesiastical revenues,87 and their distribution. Where, among other things, it has been observed out of Theodorus ector,88 that at Constantinople no parish church had any appropriated revenues till the time of Gen- nadius, in the middle of the fifth century, anno 460, when Marcian’s oeconomus first ordered the clergy of every church to receive the offerings of their own church, whereas before the great church received them all. In the Western church, particularly in Spain, in the middle of the sixth century, it appears from the first council of Bracara, that the bishop and city clergy had still all their revenues in a com- mon fund, which was divided into four parts, one for the bishop,39 another for the clergy, a third for the fabric and lights of the church, and a fourth for the relief of the poor, to be dispensed by the hands of the archpresbyter or archdeacon, with the bishop’s approbation. But the country clergy, as to their revenues, were now, or shortly after, upon a different foot: for in the second council of Bracara, which was held but nine years after the first, anno 572, we find a canon‘0 forbidding bishops to have any share in the oblations of the parochial churches’ Sect. 6. Settled revenues not immediately fix- *2 Innoc. Ep. 1. ad Decent. c. 5. Quarum presbyteri, quia die ipso propter plebem sibi creditam nobiscum con- venire non possunt, idcirco fermentum a nobis confectum per acolythos accipiunt, ut se a nostra communione maxime illa die non judicent separatos. 8*‘ Justin. Novel. 3. c. 1. 8* Maurice of Dioces. Episcop. p. 47. $5 Ambros. Com. in 1 Tim. iii. N unc autem septem dia- conos esse oportct, et- aliquantos presbyteros, ut bini sint per ecclesias, et unus in civitate episcopus.—Omni enim heb- domada ofi‘erendum est, etsi non quotidie peregrinis, iucolis tamen vel his in hebdomada, etsi non desint qui prope quo- tidie baptizentur agri. 86 Cone. Neocasar. c. 13. 3’ Book V. chap. 6. sect. 1. ‘*1 Theodor. Lecto'r. lib. l. p. 553. 89 Cone. Bracar. 1. 0.25. Placuit ut de rebus eeclesiasticis tres aqua fiant portiones, id est, una episcopi, alia clerico- rum, tertia in reparatione vel in luminariis ecelesia. De quarta parte sive archipresbyter sive archidiaconus illam admiuistrans, episcopo faciat rationem. 4° Conc. Bracar. 2. c. 2. Placuit ut nullus episcoporum per suas diaceses ambulans, prater honorem cathedra sua, id est, solidos duos, aliquid aliud per ecclesias tollat. Neque tertiam partem ex quacunque oblatione populi in ecclesiis parochialibus requirat, sed illa tertia pars pro luminaribus ecclesia vel recuperatione servetur, et per singulos annos episcopo inde ratio fiat. '410 Boox IX. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. and assigning that third part to maintain the fabric and lights of the church; only allowing them to receive two solidi by way of honorary acknowledg- ment, (honor cathedrw, the canon terms it,)_ in their parochial visitations. So that at least from this time we may date the appropriation of revenues in Spain to the country parochial churches. In the same council there is another canon which corrects an abuse, that plainly implies such an appropriate settlement upon country churches. For some pa- trons,‘l it seems, would build churches on their own lands, not for piety, but for lucre’s sake, that they might. go halves with the clergy in whatever was collected of the oblations of the people. To remedy which inconvenience the council orders, That no bishop should consecrate any church for the future, that was built upon such abominable contract and tributary condition. This is a further evidence, that the revenues of country churches were then ap- propriated to them, else such abuses as these could not have had any foundation. But in Germany and France the revenues of the parochial churches seem to have continued in the hands of the bishop, at least he had his dividend of a fourth part, for some ages longer. For there are rules in the Capitulars of Baluzius and Goldastus’s editions, which order42 tithes and oblations to be divided into four parts, according to ancient canon, and one-fourth to be given to the bishop. And some learned persons,“ who have narrowly examined our English constitu- tion, seem to be of opinion, that the bishops had their portion of the ecclesiastical revenues with the parochial clergy for some considerable time after the first designation and settlement of parish churches. For they suppose, that originally the bishop’s cathe- dral was the only church in a diocese, from whence itinerant or occasional preachers were sent to con- vert the country people, who for some time resorted to the cathedral for solemn Divine worship. After- wards, by degrees, some other churches were built among them: first private oratories, or chapels, with- out any parish bounds, for the convenience of such as, being at too great distance from the cathedral, might more easily resort to them. Then parish churches with certain limits were erected, some by the liberality of the people themselves in more populous and wealthy places, others by the bishops, and others by the Saxon kings ; but chiefly the lords of manors, the thanes, as they then called them, were the great instruments in this work of found- ing parish churches. 'Whence it was that parish bounds were conformed to the limits and extent of a manor, as I have showed that the bounds of an ancient diocese were to the territory ’of a city: and hence the lord of a manor had his original right of patronage and presentation. Yet this did not destroy the bishop’s right to‘ a share in the revenue of his whole diocese. But time made an alteration in this matter: for our bishops seem voluntarily to have relinquished their title to paro- chial revenues, as the Spanish bishops had done before them; though whether they made any canon about it, as the other did, I am not able to inform the reader. But Dr. Kennet has observed“4 out of Dugdale,“5 that notwithstanding the alteration that was made in this matter, the bishops of the Isle of Man continued to have their tertz'ana, or third part of all church revenues in that island. Which, I suppose, was because they were not liable to any alterations made here, as not being then of the English jurisdiction. Thus I have given a short account of the original and ancient state of paro- chial churches, but it is beyond my design to carry this inquiry any further. They who would know by what steps and encroachments parish churches lost their revenues again, first by the confusion of parish bounds, and a liberty granted to men to pay their tithes and oblations where they pleased, and then by appropriations to monasteries, and impro- priations granted to laymen, may find these things handled at large in Dr. Kennet’s elaborate Discourse of Impropriations and Augmentation of Vicarages, to which I refer the inquisitive reader. THE CONCLUSION. WHEREIN IS PROPOSED AN EASY AND HONOURABLE METHOD FOR ESTABLISHING A PRIMITIVE DIO- CESAN EPISCOPACY (CONFORMABLE TO THE MODEL OF THE SMALLER SORT OF ANCIENT DIOCESES) IN ALL THE PROTESTANT CHURCHES. ALL I have further to add upon this subject, is only to make one seasonable and useful reflection upon what has been discoursed in this last Book, with relation to the long wished—for union of all the churches of the Reformation in the same form of episcopal government, agreeable to the model and practice of the primitive church. One great ob- "1 Conc. Bracar. 2. c. 6. Si quis basilicam non pro devotione fidei, sed pro quaestu cupiditatis aedificat, ut quicquid ibi de oblations populi colligitur, medium cum clericis dividat, eo quod basilicam in terra sua quaestus causa condiderit, quod 'in aliquibus locis usque modo dicitur fieri. Hoc ergo dc cetero observari debet, ut nullus cpiscoporum tam abomi- nabili voto consentiat, &c. ‘2 Capitular. lib. 7. c. 375. Quatuor partes ex omnibus (decimis et oblationibus) fiant. Qnarta episcopo refe- renda. Vid. Goldast. Constitut. Imper. t.3. cap. 23. p. 158. 43 See Dr. Kennet’s Case of lmpropriations, p. 9, 820. Mr. Wharton’s Defence of Pluralities, chap. 2. p. 85. ‘4 Case of Impropriations, p. 28. ' ‘*5 Dugdal. Monastic. Angl. t. 1. p. 718. \ CHAP. VIII. 411 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. jection against the present diocesan episcopacy, and that which to many may look the most plausible, is drawn from the vast extent and greatness of most of the northern dioceses of the world, which makes it so extremely difiicult for one man to discharge all the offices of the episcopal function. To take off the main force of which objection, I have been at some pains to show, that for the preservation of episcopacy, there is no necessity that all dioceses should be of the same extent, since there was so great difference in the bounds and limits of the ancient dioceses, but not the least difference about the forms or species of episcopal government, for all that, in any part of the primitive church. And therefore, if ever it shall please God to dispose the hearts of our brethren, in the churches of the Re- formation, to receive again the primitive form of episcopacy, (which is much to be wished, and there seems in some of them to be a good inclination and tendency toward it,) there needs be no difficulty from this objection to hinder so useful and peaceable a design; because every church is at liberty to con- tract her own dioceses, and limit them with such bounds, as she judges most expedient for the edifi- cation and benefit of the whole community; there being no certain geometrical rule prescribed us about this, either in the writings of the apostles, or in the laws and practice of the primitive church, any further than that every city, or place of civil jurisdiction, should be the seat of an ecclesiastical magistracy, a bishop with his presbytery, to order the spiritual concerns of men, as the other does the temporal. That this was the general rule observed in the primitive church, I think, I have made it ap- pear beyond all dispute, and that upon this ground there was so great a difference in the extent of dio- ceses sometimes in the same countries, as in Pales- tine, Asia Minor, and Italy, especially, because the cities difi‘ered so much in the extent of their terri- tories, and the bounds and limits of their jurisdic- tion. Now, it is not very material in itself whether of these models be followed, since they are both primitive, and allowed in ancient practice. The Church of England has usually followed the larger model, and had very great and extensive dioceses: for at first she had but seven bishoprics in the whole nation, and those commensurate in a manner to the seven Saxon kingdoms. Since that time she has thought it a point of wisdom to contract her dioceses, and multiply them into above twenty; and if she should think fit to add forty or a hundred more, she would not be without precedent in the practice of the primitive church. Archbishop Cran- mer was very well apprized of this, and therefore he advised King‘ Henry VIII. to erect several new bishoprics, as a great means among other things for reforming the church. In pursuance of which ad- vice the king himself drew up a list of near twenty new bishoprics which he intended to make, and a bill was passed in parliament, anno 1539, to em- power the king to do this by his letters patent. The whole transaction and the names of the in- tended sees may be read at large in Bishop Burnet’s History of the Reformation, vol. i. p. 262. The thing indeed miscarried afterward, and by some ac- cident was never effected; but notwithstanding it shows us the sense of the leading men in the Reform- ation. What therefore has been and still is allow- able in this church, is allowable in others; that is, to multiply dioceses as necessity requires, and divide the great care and burden of the episcopal func- tion into more hands for the greater benefit and advantage of the church. Whenever, therefore, any of the foreign churches of the protestant communion shall think fit to reassume again the ancient episco- pal form of government among them, they may both with honour and ease frame to themselves such a model of small dioceses, as will not much exceed the extent of one of their classes, nor much alter its form, and yet be agreeable to the model of the lesser sort of dioceses in the primitive church. A temporary moderator, or a superintendent of a small district, such as are our rural deaneries, will easily be made a bishop, by giving him a solemn ordination to the perpetual ofiice of governing the churches of such a district, as chief pastor, under whom all other inferior pastors of the same district must act in subordination to him, deriving their authority from his imposition of hands, and doing nothing without his consent and approbation. As this will secure the just authority and veneration of episcopal superintendency, whilst, according to the rule of Ignatius, nothing is done without the bishop in the church; so will it be agreeable to the model of the ancient church, which had many small dio- ceses as well as large ones, particularly in Italy, where many episcopal sees were not above five or six miles from one another, and their dioceses not above ten or twelve miles in extent, such as Narnia and Interamnia, Fidenze, Fulginum, Hispellum, Forum Flaminii, and many others, that have been particularly spoken of in the foregoing Book. There are now a great many such dioceses in Italy in the realm of Naples, where the whole number is a hundred and forty-seven, twenty of which are archbishoprics; and some of them so small as not to have any diocese beyond the walls of the city, as is particularly noted by Dr. Mauricel and others, of Campana and Vesta, out of Ughellus’s Italia Sacra, whence it is observed also, that Cava in the same kingdom had but five hundred communicants belonging to it. And there are some dioceses at 1 Maurice, Diocesan Episc. p. 132. _ 412 Boox IX. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. present in the southern parts of France, which I am told do not very much exceed that proportion. The bishopric of the Isle of Man has now but seventeen parishes, and in Bede’s time’ the whole island had but the measure of three or four hundred families, according to what was then the English way of computation, though the Isle of Anglesea had thrice that number. So that though dioceses in the protestant churches should be thus contract- ed, yet no other church, where episcopacy is already settled, can have any just reason to complain of such an episcopacy as this, so long as it appears to be agreeable to the original state, and exactly con- formable to ancient practice. Nor can any churches then have ground for dispute with one another about external polity and government, though the dioceses of one church happen to be larger or smaller than those of another; so long as they have each their precedents in the ancient church, they may treat one another with the same catholic charity as the ancient churches did, among whom we never find the least footstep of a dispute upon this found- ation. Nor is there now any dispute between the two sister churches of England and Ireland upon this head, though the one has enlarged and the other contracted her dioceses since the Reformation. For '‘in Ireland there are not now above half the number of dioceses that there were before, and con- sequently they must needs be larger by uniting them together. In England there are more in number than formerly, some new ones being erected out of the old ones, and at present the whole number aug- mented to three times as many as they were for some ages after the first conversion. Beside that we have another way of contracting dioceses in ef- fect here in England, appointed by law, which law was never yet repealed, which is by devolving part of the bishop’s care upon the chorepz'scopi, or suffra- gan bishops, as the law calls them: a method com- monly practised in the ancient church in such large dioceses as those of St. Basil and Theodoret, one of which had no less than fifty chorepz'scopi under him, if Nazianzen rightly informs us; and it is a practice that was continued here all the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and even to the end of King James; and is what may be revived again when- ever any bishop thinks his diocese too large, or his burden too great to be sustained by himself alone. From hence I conclude, that the multiplying bi- shops and contracting of dioceses in the protestant churches, can give no just offence to any other episcopal churches, since it was ever practised in the ancient church, and is now practised in some of the churches of the Reformation, where still the dioceses remain so great, as to be capable of being divided each into ten, without altering the species of episcopacy, or infringing any rule of the catholic church. If this consideration may contribute any- thing toward the settlement of a primitive episco- pacy in such churches of the Reformation as are still without it, (which may be done by ordaining a su- preme pastor in every great town, where there is a civil magistracy, with lesser towns and villages in its dependence, which was the ancient notion of a city when episcopacy was first settled by the apos- tles,) I shall then think my pains and labour, which have not been small, in discovering the extent and measure of so many ancient dioceses, to be still so much the more useful, not only as opening a way to a clear understanding of the state of the ancient church, but as promoting the unity and firmer set- tlement of the present church, whose general in- terest, and not that of any particular church or party interfering with it, I have proposed to my- self in this whole work to prosecute and serve. The God of peace and truth prosper the endeavours of all those who have no other design. APPENDIX. HAVING given no particular catalogue of the'an- cient dioceses in the six African provinces, in the foregoing Book, as of all other provinces in the world; lest it should be thought an omission, I have here subjoined an account of them, as col- lected by Carolus a Sancto Paulo and Holstenius, out of the ancient councils, and the Collation of Carthage, and the notitz'a of Africa, published by Sirmondus, among his Miscellanies, and the works of St. Austin, and Victor Vitensis, who speaks of one hundred and sixty-four bishops in the first of these provinces, called Zeugitana, or the Procon- sular Africa; though Car. a Sancto Paulo could find the names only of one hundred and two dioceses, and some of these named twice or‘ thrice over. For Bolita, and Vallis, and Vol, are but three names for '-' Bede, lib. 2. c. 9. APPENDIX. 413 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. the same city. So Abdera, and Abbirita, and Abbir Germaniciorum, are the same. As also Sicca and Zigga. Duassedemsai and Duaasenepsalitina, two corrupt names for the city Selemsal, as Holstenius observes in his remarks upon them. In Provincia Zeugitana, otherwise called Africa Proconsularis. 1. Carthago. 2. Sicilibra. 3. Maxula. 4. Val- lis. 5. Uthina. 6. Tuburbo. 7. Abdera. 8. As- surus. 9. Tucabor, a1. Tucca Terebinthina. 10. Altibura. 11. Vazua. 12. Ammedera. 13. Sicca Venerea. 14. Thinnissa. 15. Tuburbo Minus. 16. Membresa. l7. Melzita. 18. Utica. 19. Theu- dalis. 20. Hippozaritus, a1. Hippo-Diarritorum. 21. Membro. 22. Lapda. 23. Bulla Regia. 24. Tennona, a1. Tunnona. 25. Beneventum. 26. Simithu. 27. Thele. 28. Carpis. 29. Utimmira. 30. Misua. 31. Duassedemsai. 32. Migripa. 33. Puppiana. 34. Puppita. 35. Urcita, forsan Uci. 36. Gisipa. 37. Uzita, Uci. 38. Bonusta. 39. Cicsita. 40. Neapolis. 41. Culcita. 42. Curubis. 43. Coefala. 44. Bulla. 45. Clypea. 46. Megla- polis. 47. Timida Regia. 48. Zigga. 49. Semina. 50. Parisium, forsan Pertusa. 51. Rucuma. 52. Talbora. 53. Tagarata. 54. Cellae. 55. Uzippare. 56. Abbir Germanicia. 57. Ausana, a1. Ausapha. 58. Tabuca. 59. Maraggarita, a1. Naraggarita. 60. Muzua. 61. Abitina. 62. Tituli. 63. Eudala. 64. Casula. 65. Tulana. 66. Vina, a1. Viva. 67. Volita, a1. Bolita. 68. Tunes. 69. Mattiana. 70. Hilta. 71. Zarna. 72. Cubdis. 73. Municipitogia. 74. Elibia. 75. Pia. 76. Tadua. 77. Uzala. 78. Tizzica. 79. Abora. 80. Libertina. 81. Scilita. 82. Absasalla. 83. Aradita. 84. Veri. 85. Cium- tuburbo, which :Holstenius takes to be a corrupt reading for Civ. M. Tuburbo. 86. Ofita. 87. Mu— nicipium Canapium. 88. Nummula. 89. Taura- cina. 90. Ucala. 91. Sinuara. 92. Succuba. 93. Horta, vel Horrea. 94. Trisipellis. 95. Giutram- bacaria. 96. Villa Magna. 97. Tigimma. 98. Bolita. 99. Aga. 100. Caecirita. 101. Tatia Mon- tanensis. 102. Mullita. 103. Duw Senepsalitinaa, a1. Selemsilita. 104. Eguge. Holstenius adds, Furni, Simingita, Aptunga, and Simidita. In Numidia. l. Cirta, al. Constantina, the civil metropolis of this province. 2. Cullu. 3. Rusicade. 4. Vaga, a1. Bagaia. 5. Lares. 6. Mileum, rectius Mile- vum. 7. Idicra. 8. Cuiculum. 9. Nobas Parsa. 10. Diana. 11. Gemellae. 12. Cullicitanis. Hol- stenius reckons it the same with Culcita. 13. Zama Regia, the royal seat of King J uba. 14. Lambiri. l5. Sinitu. 16. Aqua: Tibilitanae. 17. Hippo Begins. 18. Tubursica. 19. Calama. 20. Ga- sauphala, a1. Gazophyla. 21. Tigillaba. 22. R0- taria. 23. Tipasa. 24. Tagaste. 25. Thagura, a1. Tagora. 26. Altaba. 27. Vegesela. 28. Mas- cula. 29. Macomades. 30. Tamugada. 31. Lam- baesa. 32. Tabuda. 33. Bercera. 34. Municipi- um, a1. Municipium Tullense. 35. Burca. 36. Vada. 37. Centenaria. 38. Niba. 39. Amphora. 40. Buconia. 41. Sugita, a1. Siguita. 42. Putea. 43. Ausucurro. 44. Fussala. 45. Noba Barbara. 46. Idassa. 47. Monte. 48. Lamsorte. 49. Ti- didita. 50. Casa Medianae. 51. Cethaquensusca, al. Cathaquensa. 52. Centuzia. 53. Noba Ger- mania. 54. Susicasia. 55. Noba Caesaris. 56. Vazarita, a1. Bazarita. 57. Ressana. 58. Augu- rium. 59. Octabum. 60. Gilba. 61. Mathara. 62. Midila. 63. Punentiana. 64. Metaa. 65. Cze- sarea. 66. Nobasina. 67. Coelia. 68. Zattara. 69. Tarassa. 70. Castellum Titulianum. 71. Gi- rus Marcelli. 72. Sillita, a1. Sillilita. 73. Hizir- zada. 74. Rusticiana. 75. Madaurus. 76. Buf- fada. 77. Sistroniana. 78. Regium. 79. Tegla. 80. Casa Nigrae. 81. Tubunia. 82. Tigisi. 83. Zabi. 84. Narangara. 85. Musti. 86. Centurio. 87. Aqua: Novae. 88. Tebeste. 89. Babra. 90. Moxorita. 91. Tamogazia. 92. Respecta. 93. Legise. 94. Mazaca. 95. Lugura. 96. Turres Concordiae. 97. Belesase. 98. Gaudiabe. 99. Garbis. 100. Marculita. 101. Suaba. 102. Ger- mania. 103. Vadesita. 104. Naratcata. 105. La- miggiza. 106. Lamiggiga. 107. Vagarmilita, a1. Magarmelita, et Aquae. 108. Turres Ammeniarum. 109. Mulia. 110. Ospitum. 111. Vagada, a1. Vaga, Vaiana, et Bagaia. 112. Lamasua. 113. Tacarata. 114. Ullita, a1. Vallita. 115. Seleucia, a1. Solentiana. 116. Vada. 117. Maximiana. 118. Zaradta. 119. Girus Tarasi. 120. Vicus Pacis. 121. Tabraca. 122. Tucca. 123. Quidia. 124. Castellum. 125. Milevi. 126. Gira. 127. Fesseita. 128. Damatcore. 129. Mada. 130. Casae Calaneae. 131. Arsicarita. 132. Vesili, rectius Vegesela. 133. Villa Regia. 134. Legee. 135. Lamfua. 136. Va- grava. 137. Gilba. 138. Sile. 139. Gauriana. 140. Forme. 141. Forme altera. 142. Fatum. Holstenius adds nine more—Vicus Nigras, Dru- siliana, Zuma, or Summa, Constantia, Limata, Mu- tugenna, Zerta, Sululitta, Centuria; but then he thinks some others are twice repeated, as Mileum and Milevis, Zabi and Zama, Vaga and Vagada, Veseli and Vegesela, Tamagazia and Tamaguda, Culsita and Cullisitanis, Germania and Nova Germania: and Quida belongs to Mauritania Caasariensis. In Byzacena. 1. Adrumetum, the civil metropolis. 2. Horrea Cmliar 3. Tagasa. 4. Turreblandis. 5. Media- num. 6. Sufes. 7. Afufenia. 8. Cillita. 9. Vi- cus Ateriae. 10. Mibiarcesis. 11. Segermis. 12. Miriciana. l3. Gatiana, a1. Garriana, et Gratiana. 14. Sufi‘etula. 15. Dicea. 16. Tices. 17. An- cusa. 18. Mascliana. l9. Vadentiniana, a1. Va- 414 Boox IX. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. lentiniana. 20. Nara. 21. Seberiana. 22. Tu— bulbaca. 23. Midita. 24. Tambaia. 25. J ube- clidia. 26. Neptita. 27. Bubelia. 28. Cellm. 29. Decoriana. 30. Putea. 31. Theuzita. 32. Mac- taris, al. Matiris. 33. Thagamuta. 34. Autentum. 35. Abaradira. 36. Bana. 37. Octabium. 38. Octabum. 39. Aquiaba. 40. Hermiana. 41. Pa- radamium, a1. Feradi Minor. 42. Turris. 43. Ta- raza. 44. Crepedula. 45. Trofiniana. 46. Leptis Minor. 47. Feradimaia, a1. Feradi Major. 48. Te- muniana,vel Temoniara. 49. Unizibira. 50. Ta- malluma. 51. Muzuca. 52. Massimana. 53. Ser- batiana. 54. Marazana. 55. Pederodiana. 56. Tuzurita. 57. Matarita. 58. Usula. 59.1rpiniana, al. Hierpiniana. 60. Aquee Albenses. 61. Mene- phessa. 62. Capse. 63. Acola, a1. Aquila. 64. Tasbalte. 65. Municipia, et Geruisiae. 66. Tizia. 67. Ruspe. 68. Vararita. 69. Febianum. 70. Ce- baradefa. 71. Foratiana. 72. Boana. 73. Mi- miana. 74. Telepte. 75. Preesidium. 76. Natio. 77. Maraguia. 78. Tetcitana. 79. Macriana. 80. Gurgaita. 81. Cululi. 82. Arsurita, a1. Sarsurita. 85. Queestori- 87. Victoriana. 88. Mate- 90. Gummi. 91. Morotheo- 93. Auzegera. 94. Gawarita. 96. Talapte. 97. Limica. 98. Junca. 99. Thenee. 100. Jubaltiana. 101. Tamaza. 102. Unuricopolis. 103. Aggir, al. Aggarita. 104. Bi- zacium. 105. Tapsus. 106. Madassumma. 107. Tysurus. 108. Septimunicia. 109. Amurdasa. 110. Abidus, al. Aviduvicus. 111. Benefensis. 112. Dura. 113. Rufiniana. 114. Forontoniana. 115. Egnatia. 116. Frontoniana. 117. Tegariata. 118. Aggarita. 119. Garriana. 120. Castrum. 121. Vite, where Victor Vitensis was bishop, who wrote the History of the Vandalic Persecution. 122. Circina. 123. Preecausa. 124. Cufruta. 125. Fi- lace. 126. Oppenua. 127. Sublecte. 128. Cen- culiana. 129. Suluiana. 130. Vassinassa. 131. Aquaa. Holstenius 'adds to these eight more, Ta- phrura, Tiella, or Zella, Cabarsussis, Tysurus, Tys- dros, Casulee Cariunae, Dionysiaua, Aquee. But then he reckons some names unnecessarily repeated, as Miriciana and Maracia, which are but two names for the same city; so Boana and Bana; and Gur- gaita the same with Gurges in Mauritania Cae- sariensis. 83. Tagarbala. 84. Aqua: Regina. ana. 86. Carcabia. riana. 89. Hirina. rita. 92. Ticualta. 95. Helia. In Mauritania Sitifensis. 1. Sitifi. 2. Tamalluma. 3. Acufida. 4. Ficus. 5. Lemfocta. 6. Perdices. 7. Tubusuptus. 8. Tucca. 9. Lesuita. 10. FlumenPiscis. 11. Privatum. 12. Gegita. 13. Satafa. l4. Cellaa. l5. Gadamusa. 16. Zabi. l7. Assapha. 18. Vamalla. 19. Su- rista. 20. Saldae. 21. Horrea. 22. Aqua: Albee. 23. Igilgili, al. Eguilguili. 24. Zarai. 25. Par- thenium. 26. Marovana. 27. Cidamus. 28. Maori. 29. Tamagrista. 30. Arae. 31. Mozota, al. Mopta. 32. Hippa. 33. Tamascania. 34. Vescetra. 35. Assuoremita. 36. Serteita. 37. Melicbuza. 38. Covium. 39. Oliva. 40. Equizotum. 41. Castel- lum. 42. Eminentiana. 43. Nobalicia. 44. Le- melcfi, a1. Lemellense Castellum. 45. Socia. 46. Zallata. Holstenius adds three more, Zabunia, or Medianae Zabuniorum, Vamaccora, or Bamaccora, and Macriana; but rejects Satafa, as belonging rather to Caesariensis, where it is also repeated. In Mauritania Caesariensisand T ingitana. 2. Ala Miliarensis. 3. Bilta. 4. Bacanaria. 5. Caputcillanum, al. Caputcellee. 6. Cissae. 7. Castellum Medianum. 8. Gurgites. 9. Columnze. 10. Icosium. 11.Florianum. 12.Minna. 1. Caesarea. 13. Obba. 14. Maturbum. 15. Reperitanum. 16. Rusubicari. 17. Suffara, a1. Sufi'asar. 18. Rusto- nium. 19. Tigis. 20. Aquze. 21. Tabora. 22. Mamilla. 23. Sumula, al. Subbula. 24. Ubaba. 25. Tadama. 26. Zuchabaii. 27. Tipasa. 28. Ida. 29. Timisi. 30. Tasacora. 31. Vagal. 32. Car- tenna. 33. Gratianopolis. 34. Masucaba. 35. Pa- maria. 36. Lapidia. 37. Bulturia. 38. Malliana. 39. Castellum Tetraportiense. 40. Bapara. 41. Tamazuca. 42. Quidium. 43. Serta. 44.1ta. 45. Girumons. 46. Panatoria. 47. Sucarda. 48. Fi- doloma. 49. Novie. 50. Usunada. 51. Flumenze- rita. 52. Amaura. 53. Sestum. 54. Taranamusa. 55. Nasbinca. 56. Villanoba. 57. Vardimissa. 5S. Catula. 59. Regium. 60. Vaudinum. 61. Capra. 62. Rusucurrum. 63. Sfasteria. 64. Timida. 65. Tabla. 66. Rusgonia. 67. Leosita. 68. Oppidum Novum. 69. Aquisira. 70. Tigava. 71. Rusadir. 72. Castellum. 73. Mutecita. 74. Albula. 75. Bita. 76. Mauiiana. 77. Baliana. 78. Arsenaria. 79. Oborita. 80. Labdia. 81. Tenissa. 82. Catabita. 83. Herpis. 84. Voncaria. 85. Gypsaria. 86. Ta- madempsis. 87. Vagae. 88. Tabadcara. 89. Catra, vel Castra. 90. Elephantaria. 91. Garra. 92. Murconium. 93. Ida. 94. Thubunae. 95. Oppi- num. 96. Tuscamia. 97. Gunagita. 98. Maxita. 99. Satafa. 100. Vissalsa. 101. Adsinuada. 102. Castellum Ripense. 103. Numidia. 104. Tamuda. 105. Caltadria. 106. Subur. 107. Ambia. 108. Murustaga. 109. Fallaba. 110. Bida. 111. Man- accenseri. 112. Tifilta, a1. Tisilta. 113. Castellum Minus. 114. Tigamibena. 115. Junca. 116. Cor- niculana. 117. Nobica. 118. Frontae. 119. Cas- tellum .1 abaritanum. 120. Sereddeli. 121. Agna. 122. Macania. 123. Sites. 124. Altaba. 125. Bene- pota. 126. Castra Seberiani. 127. Siccesa. 128. Flenucletu. 129. Metagonium. 130. Voncariana. 131. Maiuca. 132. Nabala. 133. Maura. 134. Tingaria. But Holstenius observes seven of these to be supernumerary; for Zuchabar and Subur are but two names for the same city. So Rustonium and Rusgonia differ only in the manner of pro- APPENDIX. 415 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. nunciation. Timida belongs to the Proconsular Africa; and Labdia is the same as Lapda in the said province. Herpis is put for Irpiniana in Byzacena; Metagonium for Mutugenna in Numidia ; and Ma- cania for Macriana in Byzacena. 1. Leptis Magna. Oea. In Tripolis. 5. Tacape. 2. Sabrata. 3. Girba. 4. Beside these sees, which are thus assigned to their respective provinces, Carolus a Sancto Paulo ex- hibits an alphabetical list of several others, which he could not certainly fix in any province. But Holstenius, in his critical remarks upon them, ob- serves, that a great many of these are only corrup- tions of the forementioned names; and therefore I shall here give them with his corrections, and some additions that he has made to them from his own observations. 1. 2. 3. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. fififi‘é’. Aurusuliana. Advocata. Asenemsala, which Holstenius takes to be the same with Senemsala, in Africa Proconsularis. Ausugabra. Acemerina. Ambura; the same with Amphora in Numidia. . Abbeza. . Azuga; a mistake for Vaga. . Anguia. 10. 1 l. 12. 13. Abissa. Apissana Assaba. Aptuca, a city in A- frica Proconsularis. Amaccura, leg. Ab Accura. Aquitana. Ausuagiga. Abbir, the same with Abbarita in Africa. Aniusa, added by Holstenius. Arena, idem. . Bellulita. . Bazita. . Botriana. . Bamacora, the same with Vamacora in Mauritania Sitifensis. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 3 l . 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37 . 38. 39. 40. 41 . 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. Burugia. Bauzara. Bofeta, the same with Bufl‘ada in Nu- midia. Bazarididaca. Bosuta. Bencenna. Bartinifia. Betagbara. Bucara; the same with Boncara in Mauritania. Buslacena. Bagai, the same with Vagada, or Vaiana in Numidia. Badi, Holstenius adds three more. Bladia. Burita. Buronita. Castrum Galbae. Cedias. Chullabi. Cibaliana. Casae Silvanae. Cemerinianu. Clia. A corruption of Elia, or Helia, in Byzacena. Cathaugura. Cena. Caviopitavora. Cincarita. Catagna ; the same 51 . 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61 . 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. . Ensis; the same with 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 7 7- . Givirta, or Girbis. 79. with Cataquensa in Numidia. Celerina. Cenesta ; the same with Tevesta in Nu- midia. Casaa Bastalenses. Casee Favenses. Cilibia. Cebarsussa. To these Holstenius adds, Cancopita. Ceramussa. Caesariana. Dydarita. Drusiliana; a city of Numidia, 12 miles from Lares. Drusita. Drua. Dusa. Diaba; the same with Zaba in Mauritania Sitifensis. Evera ; the same with Vera, or Veri, in Africa Proconsula- ris. Edistiana. Oea in Tripoli. Feradi Major ; the same with Feradi- rnaia in Byzacena. Furvi; the same with Furni in Africa Pro- consularis. Fissana ; perhaps Fussala in Numidia. A Furnis; the same with Furni. Feliciana, added by Holstenius. Gitti. Municipium Antonino. Gazabeta. Gazabiana. To which Holstenius adds, Ginesita. Guira; if it be not the same with Gira in Numidia mentioned before. 82. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 1 O4. 105. 106. . Haba. 81. Hospitia; the same with Ospitum in N umidia. Horrea sis. Avicinen- . Haram Celtena; the same as Horrea Ce- lia in Byzacena. . Iziriana. . Jucundiana. . Idura. Holstenius adds two more : . Jacubaza. . Infita. Limata. Larita. Lambia; the same with Lambesa in '‘ Numidia. Lucimagna. Lelalita. Liberalia. Lacus Dulcis. Luperciana, men- tioned in the coun- cil under Cyprian, which Bishop Fell thinks is the same with Lupertina in the Collation of Carthage. Magarmela ; the same with Vagar- mela in Numidia. Medefessita; the same as Menefessa in Byzacena. Mesarfelta. Merferobita. Munavilita. Musertita. Mopta; a city of Mauritania Sitifen- sis. Holstenius adds to these two more: Munaciana, and Marcelliana and Bazita, whereof one Lucidus is named bishop in the Col- lation of Carthage. Niciba. 416 Boox IX. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. ' 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. I23. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. Nignenses Maj ores; the same as Ni- grenses, or Vicus Nigrasin Numidia. Nurcona; the same with Murconium in Mauritania Cae- sariensis. Nasaita. Nova Petra. Nebbita. Nizugubita. Novasumma; the same with Noba- sina, in Numidia. Onza. Oria. Putzia. Pauzera. Pista. To which Holstenius adds three others: Pisita. Pisidia, a city of Tripolis. Pertusa, a city in Antonine’s Itiner- ary near Carthage. Refala; the same as Cephala in Africa Proconsularis. Sinuara, named be- fore in Africa Pro- consularis Serteita, named be- fore in Caesarea Si- tifensis. Selemsila, named a- bove in Africa. Summa, Zuma in Numidia. Sena. Saya. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. 151. 152. 153. 154. 155. Simungita, Simin- gita, . or Simina, in Africa. Sinnipsa. Suboabbirita; the same as Zuchabari in Mauritania. Simidica,a city of A- fricaProconsularis. Siguita; the same as Sugita in Nu- midia. Signi. Sibida. Holstenius adds two more: Saturnica. Salicina. Tibuzabete. Turuda. Tunugaba. Tignica. Tabaicaria ; the same as Tabadcara in Mauritania C ee- sariensis. Taprura, Taphrura, near the isle of Cer- cina in Byzacena. Turris Alba. Tala. Tubursus, Tubursi- ca in Numidia. Tzella; the same as Zella in Byzacena. Tibazabula. Tabazaga. Truvascanina. Tuzumma; the same as Zumma in Nu- midia. Tunusuda. Tesaniana. Tusdrus; the same as Tysdros in By- zacena. Tuzurita; a city of 156. 157. 158. 159. 160. 161. 162. 163. 164. 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 172. 173. 174. 175. Mauritania Caesa- riensis. Tisedita. Thybae. Holstenius adds eight more : Tibari. Talabrica. Tubia. Timitica. Tisilita. Thasbalte. Turuda. Turuzi. Vamaius, Uci Ma- jus in Africa Pro- consularis. Vinariona. Urugita. Vartana. Visa. Vaturba. Verrono. Vensana. Voseta, al. Visica, a city of Mauri- tania. Vinda. 176. 177. 178. 179. 180. 181. 182. 183. 184. 185. 186. 187. 188. 189. Vuazia. Utumma. Victoriana, named before in Byzacena. Vicus Caesaris. Hol- stenius adds five more: ' Vallita, al. Ullita. Vina; the same as Vica, or Vina Vi- cus, in Africa. Undesia. Uzittara. Utinuna, al. Ucimi- na in Africa. Zura. Zella, named before in Byzacena. Zelta. Holstenius thinks it should be Zerta in Numidia. Zica. Zabunia; the same as Medianae Zabu- niorum, a place near Sitifi in Mau- ritania. Holstenius adds one more, called Zenita or Zemta in the Collation of Carthage, from whence the great- est part of the forementioned names are taken. But the reader must not imagine, that so many bishop- rics, as have been specified in all the six African pro- vinces, and among these of uncertain position, were all extant at one and the same time. For there never was quite five hundred at one time in Africa, as has been showed before from St. Austin and the notz'tz'a published by Sirmondus; and yet here are above six hundred and eighty recounted by Carolus a Sancto Paulo and Holstenius, after sixty are re- jected, which are named twice over. So that from first to last there was a change of almost two hun- dred dioceses in Africa, or at least a change in their names; which I note, lest any should think there were more dioceses than St. Austin mentions. INDEX. dli ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. AN INDEX OF THE PROVINCES. A ACHAIA, 383 Adiabene Assyriae, 369 rZEgyptus Prima, 357 Egyptus Sccunda, 358 Emilia, 395 Africa Proconsularis, 355 Alpes oottiæa 395 Alpcs Graim, 398 Alpes Maritimae, ibid. Apulia, 393 Aquensis, vide Narbonensis Secunda Aquileiensis, vide Venetia Aquitauia Prima, 399 Aquitania Secunda, ibidl Arabia Petraea, al. Palæs- tina Tertia, 362 Arabia Philadelphiaea 360 Arcadia, 358 Arelatensis, vide v iennen- sis Secunda Armenia Prima, 374 Armenia Secunda, ibid. Armenia Magnzip al. Persi- ca,369 Asia Proconsularis, 376 Assyria, 369 Augustamnica Prima, 357 Augustamnica Secunda, ib. Axumitis, vide India Axumitica, 370 B Belgica Prima, 399 Belgica Seounda, ibid. Bithynia Prima, 376 Bithynia Secunda, ibid. Bituricensis, vide Aquitania Prima Blemyes in Ethiopia, 371 liceticaj 400 Bracarensis, vide Gallecia Pflma Britannia, 405 Brutia, 393 Burzligalensis, vide Aquita- nia Secunda' Byzacena, 355 C Calabria, 393 Campania, 392 Cappadocia Prima, 373 Cappadocia Secunda, 374 Cappadocia Tertia, ibid. Caria, 377 Carthaginensis 400 Chaldaea, 369 Cilicia Prima, 380 Cilicia Secunda, ibid. Comagene, vide Euphraten- sis, 365 Corsica Insula, 394 Creta Insula, 383 Cyclades Insula, 380 Cyprus Insula, 365 D Dacia Mediterranea, 384 Dacia Ripensis, ibid. Dacia Antiqua, sive Gothia, 384 Dalmatia, 385 Dardania, 384 Diospontum, vide Heleno- pontus Hispaniae, E Ebrodunensis, vide Alpes Maritimæ Elusana, vide Novempopu- lania Emeritensis, vide Lusitania Epirus Vetus, 383 Epirus Nova, ibid. Ethiopia, 371 Eubrea Insula, vide Achaia Euphratesia, 365 Europa Thraciae, 382 F Flaminia, 395 Flavia britanniae G Galatia Prima, 375 Galatia Secunda, ibid. Gallecia Prima, 401 Gallecia Secunda, ibid. Germanica Prima, 400 Germanica Secunda, ibid. Gothia, al. Dacia Antiqua, 384 H Mæmimontisa 382 i Hagiopolitana, vide Euphra- tensis Helenopontus, 375 Hellespontus, 376 Hellas, vide Achai'a and Thessalia Hibernia, 402 Plistriap 396 Hispalensis, vide Bcetica Homeritarum Regio, 370 Honorias, 375 I Iberia, 371 Illyricum Occidentale. 385 Illyricum Orientale, 383 Immerinorum Regio, 370 India Axumitica sub 2E- gypto, ibid. Isauria, 379 L Larissena, vide Thessalia Latium, 391 Lazica, 380 Lesbus Insula, ibid. Liguria, 395 Libya Marmarica, sive Se- cunda, 358 Libya Pentapolis, sive Cy- renaica, ibid. Lucania, 393 Lugdunensis Prima, 399 Lugdunensis Secunda, ibid. Lugdunensis Tertia, ibid. Lugdunensis Quarta, ibid. Lugdunensis Quinta, vide Maxima Sequanorum Lusitania, quo Lycaonia, 378 Lycia, ibid. Lydia, 377 M Macedonia Prima, 383 Macedonia Secunda, ibid. Mauritania oæsariensisa 355, 424 Mauritania Sitifensis, ibid. Mauritania Tingitana, illd Maxima Cmsariensis Bri- tanniæ Maxima Sequanorum, 399 Mediolanensis, vide Liguria Mesopotamia, 365 Mæsia Prima, sive Supe- rior, 384 Moesia Secunda, sive In- ferior, 382 N Narbonensis Prima, 399 Narbonensis Secunda, ibid. Nicopolitana, vide EpiruS vetus Noricum Mediterraneum, 385 Noricum Ripense, ibid. Notitia Imperii, 342 Notitia Ecclesiee, 343 Novempopulania, 399 Numidia, 355, dis o Osrhoena, 365 P Palaestina Prima, al. Salu- taris, 361 Palæstina Secunda, ibid. Palæstina Tertia, al. Arabia Petraea, ibid. Pamphylia Prima, 378 Pamphylia Secunda, ibid. Pannonia Superior, 385 Pannonia Inferior, ibid. Paphlagonia, 375 Peloponnesus, vide Achaia. Persia, 370 Phoenicia Prima, 365 Phoenicia Libani, ibid. 2E 418 Boox IX. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Phrygia Pacatiana Prima, 379 Phrygia Salutaris, Phrygia Pacatania Secun- da, ibid. Picenum Annonarium, 394 Picenum Suburbicarium, 391 Pisidia, 379 Pontus Polemoniacus, 374 Preevalitana, 384 R Ravennensis, vide Flaminia Remensis, m'de Belgica Se- cunda A Abaradira, in Byzacena Abdara, in Bmtica, 400 Abdera, in Rhodope, 382 Abdia, vel Ada, incertae po- sit. in Hispania Abellinum, in Campania., 393 Abrinca, Auranches, in Lugdunensis Secunda, 399 Abritum, in Moesia Secun- da, 382 Abula, in Lusitania, 400 Abydus, in Hellespontus, 376 Abyla, in Phoenicia Libani, 365 Acarassus, in Lycia, 378 Acelum, in Venetia, 396 Acci, Guadix, in Carthagi- nensis Hispania, 400 Acerraa, in Campania., 392 Acherontia, Acerenza, in Apulia, 393 Achrida, in Praevalitana, 384 Acmonia., in Phrygia Paca- tiana, 379 Acrassus, in Lydia, 377 Acropolis, in Lucania, 393 Adada, in Pisidia, 379 Adana, in Cilicia Prima, 380 . Adra., in Arabia Philadel- phiaa, 360 Adramyttium, in Asia, 37 7 Rhoetia. Prima and Secun- da, 396 Rhothomagensis, vide Lug- dunensis Secunda Rhodope, 382 S Samnium, 393 Sardinia, 394 Saracenorum Regio, 370 Savia, 385 Scotia, 404 Scythia cis Danubium in Thracia, 380 Scythia trans Danubium, 384 Senonensis, vide Lugdu- nensis Quarta Sicilia, 394 Syria Prima, 365 Syria Secunda, ibid. T Tarraconensis, 400 Thebais Prima, 358 Thebais Secunda, ibid. Theodorias, 365 Thessalia, 383 Thessalonicensis, m'de Ma- cedonia Thracia, 382 Tripolitana, 356 Adriana, in Hellespontus, 376 Adriana, in Pamphylia Se- cunda, 378 Adrianopolis, in Epirus Ve- tus, 383 Adrianopolis, in Honorias, 375 Adrianopolis, in Pisidia, 379 ' Adrianopolis, in Haemimon- tis, 382 Adrianotheree, in Helles- pontus, 376 Adulis, in Ethiopia, 371 2Ecee, in Apulia, 393 ZEclanum, in Samnium, ibid. Egee, in Cilicia Secunda, 380 Egea, in Asia, 377 JElia, 'vz'de Hierusalem, 361 Emi, idem cum Eno Emonia, in Histria, 396 Enus, in Rhodope, 382 Esis, in Picenum Anno- narium, 394 Agatha, Agde, in Narbo- nensis Prima, 399 Agdamia, incertee posit. in Phrygia Aginnum, Agen, in Aqui- tania Secunda, 399 Agrigentum, in Sicily, 394 Agrippina, in Germanica Secunda, 400 Agraga, incertw Provinciae, in Hispania AN INDEX OF EPISCOPAL SEES. Aila, in Palaestina Tertia, 361 . Alabanda, in Caria, 377 Alaasa, in Sicily, 394 Alba Pompeia, in Alpes Cottiee, 395 Albanum, in Latium, 391 Alba, in Latium, ibid. Albensium Civitas, Vivaria, in Viennensis, 398 Albiga, Alby, in Aquitania Prima, 399 Albingaimum, Albenga, in Alpes Cottiee, 395 Aleria, in Corsica, 394 Aletium, in Calabria, 393 Aletium, Alet, in Lugdu- nensis Prima, 399 Aletrium, in Latium, 391 Alexandria, in Egyptus Prima, 356, 359 Alexandria, Scanderon, in Cilicia Secunda, 380 Alexanum, Alessano, in Ca- labria, 393 Algiza, ride Argiza, in Asia Alinda, in Caria, 377 Aliona, in Phrygia Pacati- ana, 379 Alipha, in Samnium, 393 Altinum, in Venetia, 396 Amadassa, in Phrygia Sa- lutaris, 379 Amalphia, in Campania., 392 Amantia, in Epirus Nova, 383 Amasea, in Helenopontus, 375 Trevirensis, ride Belgica Prima Turonensis, m'de Lugdu- nensis Tertia Tuscia, 388 U Valeria, 390 Venetia, 396 Viennensis Prima, 398 Viennensis Secunda, ibid. Umbria, 388 Z Zeugitana, ride Africa Pro- consularis Amastris, in Paphlagonia, 375 Amathus, in Cyprus, 365 Amathus. in Palaastina Se- cunda, 361 Ambianum, Amiens, in Bel- gica Secunda. 400 Amblada, in Lycaonia, 378 Ambura, m'de Amphora Ameria, in Umbria, 389 Amida, in Mesopotamia, 365 Amisus, in Helenopontus, 375 Amiternum, in Valeria, 390 Amorium, in Phrygia Salu- taris, 379 Amyzon, in Caria, 377 Anagnia, in Campania. 391 Anapolis, incertm posit. ex Goncil. Sardicensi Anastasiopolis, in Caria, 377 Anastasiopolis, in Galatia Prima, 375 Anastasiopolis, in Phrygia Pacatiana, 379 Anazarbus, in Cilicia Se- cunda, 380 Anchialus, in Haemimontis, 382 Anchiasmus, in Epirus Ve- tus, 383 Ancona, in Picenum Sub- urbicarium, 391 Ancyra, in Phrygia Pacati- ana, 379 Ancyra, in Galatia Prima, 375 innax. 419 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Andera, in Asia, 377 Andegavum, Angiers, in Lugdunensis Tertia, 399 Andrapa, in Helenopontus, 375 Andropolis, in Egyptus Prima, 356 Anaaa, in Asia, 377 Anemurium, in Isauria, 379 Anenysia, forsan Anaea Anitha, in Arabia, 360 Anicium, 'm'de Vellava Aninetum, in Asia, 377 Antaradus, in Phcenicia Prima, 365 Antmum, in Thebais Pri- ma, 358 Anthedon, in Palaestina Prima, 361 Anthysa, urbs incertee posit. Antinoe, in Thebais Prima, 358 Antiochia ad Mwandrium, in Caria, 377 Antiochia Mygdoniae, m'de Nisibis, in Mesopotamia Antiochia, in Pisidia, 378 Antiochia, in Syria Prima, 365, 367 Antiochia ad Tragum, in Isauria, 379 Antipatris, in Palwstina Prima, 361 Antiphellus, in Lycia, 378 Antiphra, in Libya, 358 Antipolis, Antibe, in Nar- bonensis Secunda, 399 Antipyrgns, in Libya, 358 Antissiodorum, Auxerre, in Lugdunensis Quarta, 399 Antithou, in Augustamnica Secunda, 358 Antium, in Latium, 391 Antrum, incertee positionis, in Thessalia vel Samo- thracia Apamea, in Pisidia, 379 Apamea, in Bithynia Se- cunda, 376 Apamea, in Syria Secunda, 365 Aphnaeum, in Augustam- nica Prima, 356 Aphrodisias, in Caria, 377 Aphroditopolis, in Arcadia, 358 Apiaria, in Maasia Secunda, 382 Apira, in Phrygia Pacati- ana, 379 Apollinis Civitas Parva, in Thebais Prima, 358 Apollinis Fanum, in Lydia, 377 Apollonia, in Epirus Nova, 383 Apollonia, in Lydia, 377 Apollonias, in Caria, ibid. Apollonias, in Bithynia, 376 Apta Julia, Apt, in Narbo- nensis Secunda, 399 Aptuchi Fanum, in Penta- polis, 358 Aqua Viva, in Tuscia, 388 Aquae,inDaciaRipensis,384 Aquae, Acs, in Novempo- pulania, 399 Aqua Sextiae, Aix, in Nar- bonensis Secunda, z'bz'd. Aqua: Statiellae, Acqui, in Alpes Cottiae, 395 Aquileia, in Venetia, 396 Aquinum, in Latium, 391 Aquitana, incertae provin- cia in Africa Arabyssus, in Armenia Se- cunda, 374 Araclia, in Palaastina Pri- ma, 361 Arad, in Palaestina Tertia,ib. Aradus, in Phoenicia Pri- ma, 365 Arana, in Lycaonia, 378 Arausio, Orange, in Vien- nensis Secunda, 399 Araxa, in Lycia, 378 Area, in Armenia Secunda, 374 Area, in Phoenicia Prima, 365 Arcabrica, Areas, in Car- thaginensis Hispania, 400 Arcadiopolis, in Asia, 377 Arcadiopolis, in Europa, 382 Archelais, in Palaestina Pri- ma, 361 Ardona, in Apulia, 393 Arelate, Arles, in Viennen- sis Secunda, 399 Areopolis, in Lydia and Asia, 377 Areopolis, in Palwstina Tertia, 361 Arethusa, in Syria Secun- da, 365 Aretium, in Tuscia, 388 Argentoratum, Strasburg, in Germanica Prima, 400 Argiza, in Asia, 377 Argos, in Achaia, 383 Ariarathia, in Armenia Se- cunda. 374 Ariassus, in Pamphylia Secunda, 378 Ariminum, in Picenum An- nonarium, 395 Arindela. in Palaestina Ter- tia, 362 Arisita, in Aquitania Prima, 399 Arista, in Bithynia, 376 Arlana, in Phoenicia Liba- ni, 365 Armaquetius, urbs incertw posit. ex Concil. Sardi- censi Arpi, in Apulia, 393 Arsinoe, in Arcadia, 358, 359 Arsinoe, in Cyprus, 365 Arverni, Clermont, in A- quitania Prima, 399 Ascalon, in Palaastina Pri- ma, 361 Asculum, in Picenum Sub- urbicarium, 391 Asenemsala, vide Senem- sala Asinda, Medina Sidonia, in Boetica, 400 Aspendus, in Pamphylia Prima, 378 Aspona, in Galatia Prima, 375 Assisium, in Umbria, 389 Assus, in Asia, 377 Asta, Asti, in Alpes Cottiae, 395 Asturica, Astorga, in Gal- laecia, 402 Astygis, Ecija, in Bcetica, 400 Asuna, 'vz'de Sasima, 374 Atanassus, in Phrygia Pa- catiana, 379 Atella, in Campania, 393 Aternum, Pescara, in Pice- num Suburbicarium, 391 Athenze, in Achaia, 383 Atina, in Campania, 391 Atribis, in Augustamnica Secunda, 356 Attalia, in Lydia, 377 Attalia, in Pamphylia Se- cunda, 378 Attudi, in Phrygia Paca- tiana, 379 Aturum, Aire, in Novem- populania, 399 Avara, in Arabia, 360 Auca, in Tarraconensis,400 Aucanda, in Lycia, 378 Avenio, Avignon, in Vien- nensis Secunda, 399 Aventicum, Avenche, in Maxima Sequanorum, 399 Aufinia, in Picenum Sub- urbicarium, 391 Augusta Rauracorum, Angst, in Maxima Sequa- norum, ibid. Augusta Suessionum, Sois- sons, in Belgica Secunda, 399, 400 Augusta, in Cilicia Prima, 380 Augusta Ausciorum, Aux, in Novempopulania, 399 Augusta Taurinorum, Tu- rin, in Alpes Cottiaa, 395 Augusta Trevirorum, Tri- ers, in Belgica Prima, 399 Augusta Veromanduorum, 400 Augusta Vindelicorum, Ausburg, in Rhoetia Se- cunda, 396 Augustodunum, Autun, in Lugdunensis Prima, 399 Augustopolis, in Paleestina Tertia, 361 Augustopolis, in Phrygia Salutaris, 379 Aulium, in Asia, 377 Aulon, in Epirus Nova, 383 Aurelia, Orleans, in Lugdu- nensis Quarta, 399 Aureliopolis, in Asia, 377 Auria, Orense, in Gallaacia, 402 Ausona, Vich de Ausona, in Tarraconensis, 400 Auximum, Osmo, in Pice- num Suburbicarium, 391 Axumis, in Ethiopia, 371 Azana, in Phrygia Pacati- ana, 379 Azotus,in Palaestina Prima, 361 Azuga, m'de Vaga B Babylon, in Augustamnica Secunda, 356 Bactra, eadem cum Bacha- tha, in Palaestina Tertia, or in Arabia, 360, 361 Baetirw, Beziers, in Nar- bonensis Prima, 399 Baioca, Baieux, in Lugdu- nensis Secunda, ibid. Balanaaa, in Theodorias,365 Balandus, in Lydia, 377 Balbura, in Lycia, 378 Balcea, urbs incertae posit. Balia, urbs incertae posit. Balneum Regis, Bagnarea, in Tuscia, 388 Bana, in Lydia, 377 Bapara, in Mauritania Cze- sariensis Baptinum,urbs incertae pos. Baratta, in Lycaonia, 378 Barca, in Pentapolis, 358 Barcino, Barcelona, in Tar. raconensis, 400 Barcusa,urbs incertee posit. 2122 420 Boox IX. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Bares, in Hellespontus, 376 Bargaza, al. Baretta, in Asia, 377 Bargyla, in Caria, ibid. Barissara, forsan Berissa., in Armenia Prima Baris, in Pisidia, 379 ' Barium, in Apulia, 393 Baschat, m'de Bacatha, 361 Basilinopolis, in Bithynia, 376 Basti, Baza, in Carthagi- nensis, 400 Batava Castra, side Pata- via, in Noricum, 385 Batnae, in Osrhoena, 365 Bellovacum, Beauvais, in Belgica Secunda, 400 Bellunum, Belluno, in Ve- netia, 396 Beneventum, in Samnio, 393 Berenice, in Pentapolis, 358 Bergomum, in Liguria, 395 Berinopolis, in Galatia Pri- ma, 375 Berinopolis, in Lycaonia, 378 Berisse, in Armenia Prima, 374 Berrzea, in Syria Prima,365 Berrhma, in Macedonia,383 Berytus, in Phoenicia Pri- ma, 365 Bethauna, urbs incertae po- sitionis, in Syria Bigastrum, in Carthaginen- sis, 400 Bindeum, in Pisidia, 379 Bisuntio, Besanson, 399 Biturigse, Bourges, in Aqui- tania Prima, ibid. Bivinum, al. Vibinum, Bo- vino, in Apulia, 393 Bizya, in Europa Thracia, 382 Blacena, al. Blatea, urbs incertae posit. in Dacia vel Achaia Blanda, in Lucania, 393 Bleandrus, in Phrygia Pa- catiana, 379 Blera, Bieda, in Tuscia, 388 Bobium, in Alpes Cottiae, 395 Bollica, Belley, in Maxima Sequanorum, 399 Bononia, in Emylia, 395 Bononia, Bolougne, in Bel- gica Secunda, 400 Bormum, in Pentapolis, 358 Bosporus, in Scythia trans Danube Bossa, urbs incertee posit. Bostra, in Arabia, 360 Botolium, urbs incertae posit. Botrus, in Phoenicia Prima, 365 ' Bova, in Brutia, 394 Bovianum, Boiano, in Sam- nium, 393 Bracara, in Gallecia, 402 Briocum, in Lugdunensis Tertia, 399 Brittonia, in Gallecia, 402 Brixellum, Bressello, in Emylia, 395 Brixia, Brescia, in Liguria, ibid. Brixino, Brixen, in Rhtetia Secunda, 396 Brullena, in Asia, 377 Brundusium, Brindisi, in Calabria, 393 Brysum, in Phrygia Salu- taris, 379 Bubastus, in Augustamnica Secunda, 356 Bubon, al. Bunum, in Ly- cia, 378 Budine, in Dacia, 384 Bullidum, in Epirus Nova, 383 Buna, incertae posit. in Ly- cia Bura, forsan in Achaia Burdigala, Bourdeaux, in Aquitania Secunda, 399 Busiris, in Egyptus Se- cunda, 358 Buthrotum, in Epirus Ve- tus, 383 Butus, in [Egyptus Secun- da, 358 Buxentum, in Lucania, 393 Byblus, in Phmnicia Prima, 365 Byzacium, in Byzacena. Byzantium, in Europa, 382 C Cabasa, in ZEgyptus Se— cunda, 358 Cabellio, Cavaillon, in Vi- ennensis Secunda, 399 Cabillonum, Chalons sur Saone, in Lugdunensis Prima, ibid. Cabula, urbs incertm posit. Cadi, in Phrygia Pacatiana, 379 Cadurcum,Cahors, in Aqui- tania Prima, 399 Caena, urbs incertee posit. Caerleon, in Britannia Se- cunda, 405 Caesaraugusta, Saragossa, in Tarraconensis, 400 Caesarea, in Bithynia, 376 Caesarea, in Cappadocia Prima, 373 Caesarea,inEuphratesia,365 Caesarea, in Palzestina Pri- ma, 361 Caesarea Philippi, ride Pa- neas, in Phoenicia Prima, 365 Caesena, in Flaminia, 395 Calagurris, Calahorra, in Tarraconensis, 400 Calatia, in Campania, 393 Calenum, Cagli, in Campa- nia, ibid. Calinda, in Lycia, 378 Callinicus, in Osrhoena, 365 Callipolis, in Calabria, 393 Callipolis, in Europa Thra- cia, 382 Callium, Cagli, in Picenum Annonarium, 395 Camarina, in Sicilia, 394 Cameracum, Cambray, in Belgica Secunda, 400 Camerinum, in Umbria, 389 Camuliana, in Cappadocia Secunda, 374 Candas, urbs incertm posit. Candida Casa, Whitern, in Valentia Britanniaa, 404 Canna, in Lycaonia, 378 Cannes, in Apulia, 393 Canotha, in Arabia, 360 Cantanum, in Creta, 384 Canusium, in Apulia, 393 Caparcotia, in Palaestina Secunda, 361 Capitolias, in Palwstina Secunda, ibid. Caprulla, in Venetia, 396 Capua, in Campania, 392 Caput Cillanum, in Mauri- tania Caesariensis Caradea, aide Corada Caralis, in Sardinia, 394 Carallus, in Pamphylia Prima, 378 Carcaso,in Narbonensis,399 Carina, in Brutia, 394 Carissa, in Paphlagonia, incert. positionis Caristus, in Achaia, 383 Carnutum, Chartres, in Lugdunensis Quarta, 399 Caropti, forsan Carothus, in Cyrenaica Carpasia, in Cyprus, 365 Carpathus, in Insulw Cy- clades, 380 Carpentoracte, Carpentras, in Viennensis Secunda, 399 Carpis, in Pannonia Infe- rior, 385 Came, in Osrhoena, 365 Carsia, in Achaia, 383 Carteriopolis, in Cyprus, 365 Carthage, in Africa Pro- consularis, 356 Carthago,in C arthaginensis, 400 Casatana, urbs incertaa po- sit. Caschara, in Mesopotamia, 365, 369 Cassandria, in Macedonia, 383 Cassinum, in Latium, 391 Cassium, in Augustamnica Prima, 356 Cassus, in Pamphylia Pri- ma, 378 Castabala, in Cilicia Se- cunda, 380 Castrum Martis, in Mrrsia Prima, 384 Castrum Valentini, in Tus- cia, 388 Castrum Uceciense, Uzes, in Narbonensis Prima, 399 Castulo, Gazlona, in Car- thaginensis, 400 Casulae Carianenses, in By-. zacena Catana, in Sicilia, 394 Cathaquensa, in Numidia Catuellaunorum Civitas, Chalons, in Champagne, in Belgica Secunda, 400 Caunus, in Lycia, 378 Cauria, Coria, in Lusitania, 400 Celenderis, in Isauria, 379 Celia, in Pannonia Inferior, 385 Celina, in Venetia, 396 Cemelene, Cimies, in Alpes Maritimae, 398 Ceneta, Ceneda, in Venetia, 396 Cenomanum, Le Mans. in Lugdunensis Tertia, 399 Centumcellae, Civita Vecf chia, in Tuscia, 388 Cepha, in Mesopotamia, 365 Cephalenia Insula, 383 Ceramus, in Hellespontus, 376 Ceramus, in Caria, 377 Cerasa, in Lydia, ibid. Cerasus, in Pontus Pole- moniacus, 374 Cerillus, in Brutia, 394 Cestrus, in Isauria, 380 Cetharquensusca, m'de Ca-V thaquensa. INDEX. 421 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Chaeretapa, in Phrygia Pa- catiana, 379 Chalcedon, in Bithynia, 376 Chalcis, in Achaia, 383 Chalcis, in Syria Prima,365 Charadra, in Isauria, 380 Chatimwa, urbs incertae po- sitionis, ex Cone. Sard. Cherronesus, in Crete, 383 Chersonesus, in Europa Thraciae, 382 Chios, Insula Cyclades, 380 Choma, in Lycia, 378 Chonochara, m'de Comoara Chytrus, in Cyprus, 365 Cibalis, in Savia, 385 Cidissus, in Phrygia Paca- tiana, 379 Cilina, urbs incertaa posit. ex Conc. Ephes. Cingulum, in Picenum Suburbicarium, 391 Cinna, in Galatia Prima, 375 Cinnaborium, in Phrygia Salutaris, 379 Circesium, in Osrhoena,365 Ciscissa,in Cappadocia Pri- ma, 374 Citium, in Crete, 383 Citium, in Cyprus, 365 Civitas Albensium, 398 Cius, in Bithynia, 376 Claudiopolis, in Honorias, 375 ' Claudiopolis, in Isauria,380 Clazomenae, in Asia, 377 Cleopatris, in Egyptus Pri- ma, 356 Clusium, in Tuscia, 388 Clypea, in Africa Procon- sularis Clysma, in Arcadia, 358 Cocilianum, in Lucania,393 Coelos, in Europa, 382 Colobrassus, in Pamphylia Secunda, 378 C olonia Londinensium, m'de Colonia Lindi, in Britan- nia, 405 Colonia, in Cappadocia Ter- tia, 374 Colonia Agrippina, in Ger- manica Secunda, 400 Colophon, in Asia, 377 Colossa, Chone, in Phrygia Pacatiana, 379 Comacula, Comacchio, in Flaminia, 395 Comeea, in Mcesia Secunda, 382 Comana, in Armenia Se- cunda, 374 Comana, in Pontus Pole- moniacus, ibid. Commachum, in Pamphy- lia Secunda, 378 Comoara, in Phoenicia Li- bani, 365 Complutum, Alcala de He- nares, in Carthaginensis, 400 Comum, Como, in Liguria, 395 Gone, in Phrygia Salutaris, 41 1 Conimbrica, Coymbra, in Gallecia, 402 Consentia, Cosenza, in Bru- tia, 394 Consoranni, Conserans, in Novempopulania, 399 Constantia, Coutance, in Lugdunensis Secunda, z'bz'd. Constantia, Constance, in Maxima Sequanorum, vide Vindonissa Constantia, in Cyprus, 365 Constantia, al. Cirta, in Numidia, 355 Constantine, in Arabia, 360 Convenae, Cominges, in N ovempopulania, 399 Coos, in Insulee Cyclades, 380 Coprithis, in Egyptus Pri- ma, 356 Coptus, in Thebais Secun- da, 358 Coracesium, in Pamphylia. Secunda, 378 Corada, in Phoanicia Li- bani, 365 Corbasa, in Pamphylia Se- cunda, 378 Corcyra, Corfu, in Epirus Vetus, 383 Corduba, Cordova, in Boe- tica, 400 Cordylus, in Pamphylia Se- cunda, 378 Corfinium, or Valva, 393 Coricus, in Cilicia Prima, 380 Corinthus, in Achaia, 383 Corisopitum, in Lugdunen- sis Tertia, 399 Corissia, in Achaia, 383 Corna, in Lycaonia, 37 8 Cornetum, in Tuscia, 388 Corniculana, in Mauritania Caesariensis Corone, in Achaia, 383 Corona, in Boaotia, ibz'd. Cortona, in Tuscia, 388 Corydalla, in Lycia, 378 Cotana, in Pamphylia Pri— ma, ibz'd Cotenopolis, incertae posit. in Egypt-us, 357 Cotyaium, in Phrygia Sa- lutaris, 379 Cratia, a1. Flaviopolis, in Honorias, 376 Cremona, in Lig'uria, 395 Crotona, in Brutia, 394 Crusa, Insula Doridis, in Sinu Ceramico Ctesiphon and Seleucia, in Assyria, 369 Cucusus, in Armenia Se- cunda, 374 Cuma, al. Cyme, in Asia, 377 Cumze, in Campania, 392 Cupersanum, Conversano, in Apulia, 393 Cures, St. Anthimo, in.Va- leria, 390 Curia, Coire, in Rhoatia Prima, 396 Curiurn, in Cyprus, 365 Curta, in Pannonia Infe- rior, 385 Cusa, in Thebais Prima, 358 Cybira, in Caria, 377 Cybistra; in Cappadocia Secunda, 374 Cydonia, in Crete, 383 Cyla, al. C(BlOS, in Europa, 382 Cynopolis Superior, in Ar- cadia, 356 Cynopolis Inferior, in E- gyptus Secunda, 358 Cypera, in Thessalia, 383 Cypsela, in Rhodope, 382 Cyrene, in Pentapolis, 358 Cyrus, in Comagene, 365, 368 Cysamus, in Crete, 383 Cyzicus, in Hellespontus, 376 D Dablis, in Bithynia, 376 Dadibra, in Paphlagonia, 375 Daldus, in Lydia, 377 Dalisandus, in Isauria, 380 Damascus, in Phoenicia. 'Libani, 365 Danaba, in Phoenicia Li- bani, z'bz'd. Dardanum, in Hellespon- his, 376 Damis, in Libya, 358 Dausara, in Osrhoena, 365 Delos Insula, 380 Demetrias, in Thessalia, 383 Derbe, in Lycaonia, 378 Dertona, Tortona, in Alpes Cottiee, 395 Dertosa, Tortosa, in Tarra- conensis, 400 Develtus, in Haemimontis, 382 Dia, or Dea Vocontiorum, Die, in Viennensis Se- cunda, 399 Dianium, Denia, in Car- thaginensis, 400 Dicaasarea, in Thessa1ia,383 Diciozanabrus, a1. Zenopo- lis, in Pamphylia, 378 Dinia, Digne, in Alpes Ma- ritimae, 398 Diocaesarea, in Isauria, 380 Diocletiana, in Dardania, 384 Diocletianopolis, in Thra- cia, 382 Dioclia, in Phrygia Paca- tiana, 379 Dionysias, in Arabia, 360 Dionysiopolis, in Moasia Secunda, 382 Dionysiopolis, in Phrygia Pacatiana, 379 Diospolis, in Thracia, 382 Diospolis, in ZEgyptus Se- cunda, 358 Diospolis Magna, al. The- bais Magna, in Thebais Secunda, ibz'd. Diospolis Parva, in Thebais Secunda, ibid. Diospolis, a1. Lydda, in Paleestina Prima, 361 Diospontum, name of a pro- Vince, not of a city, 374 Disthis, in Pentapolis, 358 Dium, in Macedonia, 383 Doara, in Cappadocia Ter- tia, 374 Doberus, 383 Docimaeum, in Phrygia Sa- lutaris, 379 Doclea, in Dalmatia, 385 Dodonc, in Epirus Vetus, 383 Dola, in Lugdunensis Ter- ' tia, 399 Doliche, in Comagene, 365 Domitiopolis, in Isauria, 380 Dora, in Palaastina Prima, 361 Dor1anis,urbs incertae posit. ex Conc. Sardic. Dorovernia, in Britannia Prima, 405 Dorylaeum, in Phrygia Sa- lutaris, 379 Drusipara, in Europa, 382 in Macedonia, 422 R001: IX. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Duassedemsai, vide Selem- sal Dumium, in Gallecia, 402 Durostorum, in Moesia Se- cunda, 382 Dyrrachium, Doracium, in Epirus Nova, 383 E Ebora, Evora, in Lusitania, 400 Eboracum,in Britannia,405 Ebrodunum, Ambrun, in Alpes Maritimee, 398 Ebroica, Eureux, in Lug- dunensis Secunda, 399 Ebusus, Insula, 402 Echinus, in Thessalia, 383 Echineota, incertaa posit. in IEg'yptus Edessa, in Osrhoena, 365, 369 Egabrum, Cabra, in Boati- ca, 400 - Egara, Tarrassa, in Tarra- conensis, ibid. Egara, in Phrygia Pacati- ana, 379 Egita, Eidania, in Lusita- nia, 400 Egnatia, in Byzacena Elana, al. Neela, in Arabia, 360 Elatea, in Achaia, 383 Elaaa, in Asia, 377 Elearchia, in ZEgyptus Se- cunda, 358, 360 Elesma, ride Clysma, in Arcadia, 358 Eleuthera, in Crete, 383 Eleutheropolis, in Paleesti- na Prima, 361, 363 Elia, in Palaestina Prima., 361 Eliberis, Elvira, in Boatica, 400 Eliocrota, Lorca, in Car- thaginensis Hispanias, ibid. Elusa, Eause, in Novem- populania, 399 Elusa, in Paleestina Tertia, 361 Emerita, Merida, in Lusi- tania, 400 Emesa, inPhoenicia Libani, 365 Eminium, incerta posit. in Hispania Emmaus, vide Nicopolis, 361 ' Emporiaa, Empurias, in Tarracouensis, 400 Engolisma, Angoulesme, in Aquitania Secunda, 399 Epala, a1. Epula, urbs in- certae posit. Ephesus, in Asia, 377 Epidaurus, Ragusa, in Dal- matia, 385 Epiphania, in Syria Secun- da, 365 Epiphania, in Cilicia Se- cunda, 380 Eporedia, J urea, in Ligu- ria, 395 Ergavica, Alcaniz, in Car- thagiuensis, 400 Erisa, in Caria, 377 Erra, in Arabia, 360 Erymne, in Pamphylia Pri- ma, 378 Erythra, in Pentapolis, 358 Erytrw, in Asia, 377 Esbus, in Arabia, 360 Etene, in Pamphylia Pri- ma, 378 Evaria, al. Euroia, al. J us- tinianopolis, in Phoeni- cia Libani, 365 Evaza, in Asia, 377 Eucarpia, in Phrygia Salu- taris, 379 Eudoxias, in Lycia, 378 Eudoxias, in Pamphylia Se- cunda, ibid. Eugubium, Gubbio, inUm- bria, 389 Eulandra, urbs incertae po- sitionis Eumenia, in Phrygia Pa- catiana, 379 Euria, in Epirus Vetus, 383 Europus, al. Amphipolis and Thapsacum, in Eu- phratesia, 365 Euusum, aide Ebusus In- sula F Faleronia, Faleroni, in Pi- cenum Suburbicarium, 391 Fauum Jovis, in Asia, 377 Fanum Fortunes, Fano, in Picenum Annonarium, 395 Faventia, Faenza, in Fla- minia, ibid. Faustinopolis, in Cappado- cia Secunda, 374 Feltria, Feltri, in Venetia, 396 Ferentinum, in Latium, 391 Ferentium, Fercnto, in Tuscia, 388 Fesulee, Fiezoli, in Tuscia, ibid. Ficoclae, Cervia, in Flami- nia, 395 Fidenee, in Valeria, 390 Firmum, Firmo, in Pice- num Suburbicarium, 391 Flagonea, 'vz'de Phragonea, in Egyptus Secunda, 358 Flaviopolis, in Cilicia Se- cunda, 380 Florentia, Florence, in Tus- cia, 388 Formiae, in Latium, 391 Forontoniana, in Bizacena. Forum Flaminii, For-flam- mo, in Umbria, 389 Forum Claudii, Oriolo, in Tuscia, 388 Forum Novum, Vescovio, in Umbria, 389 Forum Sempronii, in Pi- cenum Annonarium, 395 Forum Cornelii, Imola, in Flaminia, ibid. Forum Livii, Forli, in Fla- minia, ibid. Forum Popilii, in Flami- nia, ibid. Forum J ulii, Friuli, in His- tria, 396 Forum Trajani, in Sardi- nia, 394 Forum J ulii, Frejuz, in Narbonensis Secunda, 399 Fragonia, in Egyptus Se- cunda, 358 Frequentum, Fricenti, in Samnium, 393 Fulginum, Fulgino, in Um- bria, 389 Fundi, in Latium, 391 Furconium, Forconio, in Valeria, 390 G Gabala, in Lydia, 37 7 Gabala, in Theodorias, 365 Gabalum, Maude, in Aqui- tania Prima, 399 Gabbus, in Syria Prima, 365 Gabii, in Latium, 391 Gadamautusmide Hydmau- tus, in Lycaonia, 379 Gadamusa, in Mauritania Sitifensis Gadara, in Palmstina Se- cunda, 361 Gaiopolis, forsan Gaeapolis, in Arabia Gangra, in Paphlagonia,375 Gargara, in Asia, 377 Gaveea, inccrt-ee posit. in Egyptus, 358 ' Gaza, in Paleestina Prima, 361, 363 Gazula, iucertee posit. in zEgyptus, 358 Gegita, in Mauritania Sitif- ensis Geneva, in Viennensis Pri- ma, 398 Genua,in Alpes Cottiee, 395 Geone, in Pamphylia Se- cunda, 378 Gerara, in Paleestina Pri- ma, 361 Gerasa, in Arabia, 360 Germa, in Hellespontus, 376 Germanicia, in Euphrate- sia, 365 Germanicopolis, in Isauria, 380 ‘ Geronta, vel Gerus,vel Ge- ranus Locus, urbs in- certae posit. in Armenia, vel Macedonia Gerunda, Girone, in Tar- raconensis, 400 Gerus, in Augustamnica Prima, 356 Gilsata, in Pamphylia Se- cunda, 378 Gindarus, in Syria Prima, 367 Girberis, in Tripolis, 356 Glandata, Glandeve, in A1- pes Maritimee, 398 Gnidus, in Caria, 378 Gnossus, in Crete, 383 Gomphi, in Thessalia, ibid. Gordus, in Lydia, 377 Gordus, in Bithynia, 376 Gortena, in Pisidia., 379 Gortyna, in Crete, 383 Gradus, Grado, in Venetia, 396 Gratianopolis, Grenoble, in Viennensis, 398 Gravisca, Montalto, in Tus- cia, 388 Grumentum, Agrimonte, in Lucania, 393 H Hadria, Adri, in Picenum Suburbicarium, 391 Hadria, Adri, in Flaminia, 395 Hadriana, in Bithynia, 37 6 Hadrianopolis, in Haemi- montis, 382 Hagulstade, in Britannia, 407 Halicarnassus, in Caria,377 Harpasa, in Caria, ibid. Hebrides Insulee Helena, Elna, in Narbon- ensis, 399 Helice, in Achaia, 383 INDEX. 423 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Heliopolis, in Augustamni- ca Secunda, 358 Heliopolis, in Phoenicia Li- bani, 365 Hellene, in Lydia, 37 7 Hellenopolis, in Bithynia, 376 Helmham, or Elmham, in Britannia, 407 Hephaestia, in Macedonia, 383 Hephaestus, in Augustam- nica Prima, 356 Heraclea, in Augustamni- ca Prima, ibid. Heraclea, in Macedonia, 383 Heraclea, in Europa Thra- C133, 382 Heraclea, in Lydia, 377 Heraclea Latmi, in Caria, ibid. Heraclea Ponti, in Hono- rias, 37 5 Heraclea Salbaci, in Caria, 377 Heraclea Superior, in Ar- cadia, 358 Herdona, Ardona, in Apu- lia, 393 Herefordia, in Britannia, 405 Hermonthes, in Thebais Secunda, 358 Hermopolis Parva, in A5‘.- gyptus Prima, 356 Hermopolis Magna, inThe- bais Prima, 357 Hermopolis, in Isauria, 380 Hierapetra, in Crete, 383 Hierapolis. in Phrygia Pa- catiana, 379 Hierapolis, in Isauria, 380 Hierocwsarea, in Lydia, 377 Hieropolis, in Euphratesia, 365 Hierusalem, in Palwstina Prima, 361, 364 Himeria, in Osrhoena, 365 Hippo Diaretorum, in A- frica Proconsularis, 355 Hippo Begins, in Numidia, ibid. Hippus, in Palaestina Se- cunda, 361 Hipsele, in Thebais Prima, 358 Hipsus, in Phrygia Saluta- ris, 379 Hircani, in Lydia, 377 Hispalis, Seville, in Bceti- ca, 400 Hispellum, in Umbria, 389 Honomada, in Lycaonia, 37 8 Hortanum, Horti, in Tus- cia, 388 Hyda, in Lycaonia, 378 Hydmautus, in Lycaonia, 379 Hydrax, in Pentapolis, 358 Hydruntum, Otranto, in Calabria, 393 Hypaepa, in Asia, 377 I J abruda, in Phoenicia Li- bani, 365 J adera, in Dalmatia, 385 J amna, in Minorica, 402 J amnia, in Paleestina Pri- ma, 364 J assus, in Caria, 377 Ibonium, 'm'de Bivinum Iborea, in Helenopontus, 375 Iconium, in Lycaonia, 378 Jericho, in Palaestina Pri- ma, 361 Ignatia, in Apulia, 393 Ilerda, Lerida, in Tarra- conensis, 400 Ilipa, al. Ilipla, Niebla, in Bmtica, ibid. Ilistra, in Lycaonia, 378 Ilium, in Hellespontus, 37 6 Illicias Alicante, in Cartha- ginensis, 40) Illiturgis, incertae posit. in Hispania Ilusa, in Phrygia Pacati- ana, 379 Ingilon, urbs incertaa posit. Insulae, m'a’e Hebrides Interamnia, Terni, in Um- bria, 389 Interamnia, Teramo, in Pi- cenum Suburbicarium, 391 J onopolis, vide J unopolis, in Paphlagonia, 375 J oppa, in Paleestina Prima, 361 J otape, in Isauria, 380 Irenopolis, in Cilicia Se- cunda, ibid. Iria Flavia, El Padron, in Gallecia, 402 Isaura, in Lycaonia, 378 Iscus, in Dacia Ripensis, 384 Isinda, in Pamphylia Se- cunda, 378 ' Istonium, in Samnium Italica, Sevilla la Vieja, in Boatica, 400 Itoana, Bitoana, in Phry- gia Pacatiana, 379 J uliopolis,in Galatia Prima, 375 J unopolis, in Paphlagonia, 37 5 J uritum, urbs incertaa posit. Jnstiniana Prima, in Prae- valitana, 384 Justinianopole, al. Mocis- sus, in Cappadocia Ter- tia, 374 Juvavia, in Noricum, 385 L Labdia, vel Lapda Lacedaemon, in Achaia. 383 Lacobriga, incertw posit. in Hispania Lactoratium, Lectoure, in Novempopulania, 399 Laerus, urbs vel insula in- certae posit. in Egaeo Mari Lagania, in Pamphylia Se- cunda,378 Lamecum, Lamego, in Gal- lecia, 402 Lamia, in Thessalia, 383 Lamphania, urbs incertae posit. Lampsacus, in Hellespon- tus, 376 Lamus, in Isauria, 379 Landava, Landafi', in Bri- tannia Secunda, 405 Laniobra, incertae posit. in Hispania Laodicea, in Phrygia Pa- catiana, 379 Laodicea, in Pisidia, ibid. Laodicea, in Theodorias, 365 4 Laodicea, in Phoenicia Li- bani, ibid. Lapithus, in Cyprus, ibid. Lappa, i Crete, 383 Laranda, in Lycaonia, 378 Larima, in Caria, 377 Larissa, in Thessalia, 383 Larissa, in Syria Secunda, 365 Laseara, Lescar, in Novem- populania, 399 Latopolis, in Thebais Se- cunda, 358 Laudunum, Leon, in Bel- gica Secunda, 400 Laverica, incertae. posit. in Hispania Lavici, in Latium, 391 Laureacum, Lork, in No- ricum, 385 Laus Pompeia, Lodi, in Liguria, 395 Lauzada, in Isauria, 380 Lebedus, in Asia, 377 Ledra, in Cyprus, 365 Legio,Leon, in Gallecia,402 Lemandus, in Pentapolis, 358 Lemovica, Limoges, in A- quitania Prima, 399 Leontini, Lentini, in Sicilia, 394 Leontopolis, in Augustam- nica Secunda, 356 Leptis Magna, in Tripolis, ibid. Late, in Macedonia, 383 Letus, in Egyptus Prima, 356 Lexovium, Lisieux, in Lug- dunensis Secunda, 399 Libias, in Palaestina Prima, 361 Lichfield, in Britannia, 407 Lilybaeum, Marsala, in Si- cilia, 394 Limenopolis, in Pisidia,379 Limyra, in Lycia, 378 Lindisfame, in Britannia, 407 Lindocolina, al. Lindum Colonia, Lincoln, in Bri- tannia, 405 Lingones, Langres, in Lug- dunensis Prima, 399 Linoe,inBithynia Secunda, 376 Linternum, in Campania, 392 Lipara Insula, 394 Lisia, urbs incertae posit. Lisinia, in Pisidia Lissns, Alessio, in Praeva- litana, 384 Lista, in Valeria, 390 Locri,Gieraci, in Brutia,393 Londinum, in Britannia,405 Lorium, in Tuscia, 388 Luca, in Tuscia, ibid. Lucus Augusti, in Gallecia, 402 Luetum, urbs incertae posit. Lugdunum, Lyons, in Lug- dunensis Prima, 399 Luna, in Tuscia, 388 Luteva, Lodeue, in Narbo- nensis Prima, 399 Lybias, in Isauria, 380 Lycopolis, in Thebais Pri- ma, 358 Lychnidus, in Epirus Nova, 383 Lydda, aide Diospolis, 361 Lydda, in Palaestina Pri- ma, ibid. Lypia, Luspiae, in Calabria, 393 Lyrbw, in Pamphylia Pri- ma, 378 Lysias, in Phrygia Saluta- ris, 379 424 BOOK IX. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Lysimachia, in Europa, 382 Lysinia, in Pamphylia Se- cunda, 378 Lystra, in Lycaonia, ibid. M Macedonopolis, urbs incer- tm posit. in Mesopotamia Mmonia, in Lydia, 377 Magalona,1sle of Magalone, in Narbonensis Secunda, 399 Magidis, in Pamphylia Se- cunda, 37 8 Magnesia Maaandri, in A- sia, 377 Magnesia Sipyli, in Asia, z'bz'd. Magnetum, incertaa posit. in Hispania Majorica Insula, 402 Maiuma, in Palaestina Pri- ma, 361, 363 Malaca, Malaga, in Btetica, 400 Malleotana, urbs incertae posit. forsan Malliattha, in Arabia Mallus,in Cilicia Prima,380 Mallus, in Pisidia, 379 M anturanum, in T uscia,388 Marathon, in Achaia, 383 Marcelilanum, m'de Cosilia- num Marciana, in Lycia, 378 Marcianopolis, in Mcesia Secunda, 382 Marcopolis, in Osrhoena, 365 Mareotis, in Egyptus Pri- ma, 356 Margus, in Mcesia Prima, 384 Mariama, Mariamne, in Sy- ria Secunda, 365 Mariana, in Corsica, 394 Marianopolis, in Euphra- tesia, 365 Marianum, in Venetia, 396 Marmarica, in Libya, 358 Maronia, in Rhodope, 382 Marruvium, al. Marsi, in Valeria, 390 Martyropolis, in Mesopo- tamia Prima, 365 Massilia, Marseilles, in Vi- ennensis Secunda, 399 Mastaura, in Lydia, 377 Matelica, in Picenum Sub- urbicarium, 391 Matisco, Mascon, in Lug- dunensis Prima, 399 Mauriana, St. Jean de Man- rienne, in Viennensis,399 Maustaura, in Lycia, 378 Maximianopolis, in Arabia, 360 Maximianopolis, in Rho- dope, 382 Maximianopolis, in Pam- ' phylia Secunda, 378 Maximianopolis, in Palaes- tina Secunda, 361 Maximianopolis, in The- bais Secunda, 358 Medaba, in Arabia, 360 Mediolanum, Milan, in Li- guria, 395 Mediomatricum, Metz, in Belgica Prima, 399 Megalopolis, in Achaia, 383 Megara, in Achaia, z'bz'tl. Melda, Meaux, 399 Melita Insula, 394 Melitene, in Armenia Se- cunda,.374 Melitopolis, in Hellespon- tus, 376 Melos Insula, 380 Melphia, Melfi, in Apulia, 393 Memphis, in Arcadia, 358 Menelaites, in - ZEgyptus Prima, 356 Menevia, St. David’s, in Britannia, 405 Mennith, in Palaestina Se- cunda, 361 Mentesa, Mentexa, in Car- thaginensis, 400 Mesembria,in Haemimontis, 382 Messana, in Sicilia, 394 Messene, in Achaia, 383 Metelis, in [Egyptus Pri- ma, 356 Methymna, in Lesbos, 380 Metrocomia, aide Bacatha, in Paleestina Tertia Metropolis, in Asia, 377 Metropolis, in Thessalia, 383 Metropolis, in Pisidia, 379 Mevania, Bevagna, in Um- bria, 389 Midaium, in Phrygia Salu- taris, 379 Migirpa, in Africa Procon- sularis Mignenia, urbs incertae po- sit. forsan Magniana, in Illyricum Occidentale Miletus, in Caria, 377 Miléum, al. Milevis, in Nu- midia, 355 Miniza, al. Mnisus, in Me- sopotamia, 365 Minoida, al. Mennith, in Palwstina Secunda, 361 Minorica Insula, 402 ?. Minturnee, in Campania, 392 Misenum,in Campania,z'bid. Misthium, in Lycaonia, 378 Mocissus, vide J ustinopolis, in Cappadocia Tertia,374 Mocta, side Mopta vel Mo- zota Moguntiacum, Ments, in Germanica Prima, 400 Molitianum, urbs incertae posit. Mopsuestia, in Cilicia Se- cunda, 380 M orea, al. Famagorea, urbs incertae positionis Mostena, in Lydia, 377 Mosynus, in Phrygia Paca- tiana, 379 Muranum, Morano, in Bru- tia, 394 Mursa, in Savia, 385 Mutina, Modena, in ZEmy- lia, 395 Myndus, in Caria, 377 ‘Myra, in Lycia, 37 8 Myrrina, in Asia, 377 Myriangelus, urbs incertaa positionis Myrum,al.Merum,in Phry- gia Salutaris, 379 Mytelene, in Lesbos, 380 N Nacolia, in Phrygia Salu- taris, 379 Naissus, in Dacia Ripensis, 384 Namnetes, Nantes, in Lug- dunensis Tertia, 399 Narbo, in Narbonensis Pri- ma, 399 Narnia, Narni, in Umbria, 389 Naucratia, Prima, 356 Naulochus, in Asia, 377 Naupactus, Lepanto, in A- chaia, 383 Naxus Insula, 380 Nazianzum, in Cappadocia Tertia, 374 Nea, m'de Sanaea, in Phry- gia Pacatiana, 379 Neapolis, Naples, in Cam- pania, 392 Neapolis, . in Macedonia, 383 Neapolis, in Caria, 37 7 Neapolis, in Arabia, 360 Neapolis, Sichem, in Pa- laestina Prima, 361 Nebium, in Corsica, 394 Ncela, aide Elana, in Ara- bia, 360 in Egyptus Nemausmn, Nismes, in Narbonensis, 399 Neocaasarea, in Pontus Po- lemoniacus, 374 Neoczesarea, in Bithynia, 376 Neocaasarea, aide Caesarea, in Euphratensis Nepe, vulgo Nepi, in Tus- cia, 388 Nephelis, in Isauria, 380 Neritum, Nardo, in Cala- bria, 393 Nessyna, Nessus, in Dar- dania, 384 Nibe, Nive, in Arabia, 360 Nicaea, Nice, in Alpes Ma- ritimae, 398 Nicaea, Nice, in Bithynia, 376 Nicephorium, in Osrhoena, 365 Nicium, in Egyptus Pri- ma, 356 Nicomedia., in Bithynia,376 Nicopolis, in Epirus Vetus, 383 Nicopolis, in Moesia Se- cunda, 382 Nicopolis, in Thracia, ibid. Nicopolis, in Armenia Pri- ma, 374 Nicopolis, Emmaus, in Pa- leestina Prima, 361, 364 Nicotera, Nicodro, in Bru- tia, 394 Nilopolis, in Arcadia, 358 Nisibis, in Mesopotamia, 365, 369 Nisilectum, posit. Nitria, in Egyptus Prima, 356 . Nivemum, Nevers, in Lug- dunensis Quarta, 399 Nola, in Campania, 392 Nomentum, Lamentana, in Valeria, 390 Nosalena, urbs incertae pos. forsan in Armenia Minor Nova, in Venetia, 396 Nova Aula, in Asia, 377 Novas, in Moasia Secunda, 382 Novaria, in Liguria, 395 Noviodunum, in Savia, 385 Noviodunum, Noyon, in Belgica Secunda, 400 Nuceria, Nocera, in Um- bria, 389 Numana, Humana, in Pi- cenum Suburbicarium, 391 Nursia, Norza, in Valeria, 390 urbs incertse INDEX. 425 ANTIQUITIES or THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Nysa, vel Nesus, in Lycia, 378 N yssa, in Asia, 377 Nyssa, in Cappadocia Se- cunda, 374 0 Oasis Magna, in T hebais Prima, 358 Occa, in Hellespontus, 376 Ocriculum, in Umbria, 389 Octodurum, Martenach, in Alpes Graiw, 398 Odessus, in Moesia Secun- da, 382 GZea, in T ripolis, 356 (Eneanda, in Lycia, 378 Olbia, in Pamphylia Se- cunda, z'bz'd. Olbia, in Pentapolis, 358, 359 Olbus, in Isauria, 380 Olero, Oleron, in Novem- populania, 399 Oliva, in Mauritania Sitif- ensis Olympus, in Lycia, 378 Olysippo, Lisbone, in Lu- sitania, 400 Onosada, al. Usada, in Ly- caonia, 378 Onosarta, in Syria Prima, 365 Onium, a1. Ilium, in Au- gustamnica Secunda, 356 Onupliis, in Egyptus Pri- ma, ibz'd. Opita, urbs incertae posit. Optergium, Oderzo, in Ve- netia, 396 Opus, in Achaia, 383 OrchadeS, in Britannia, 404 Orcistus, in Galatia Secun- da,375 Orestis, in Brutia, 394 Oretum, Oreto, in Cartha- ginensis, 400 Oreum, in Achaia, 383 Orgellum,in Tarraconensis, 400 Orthosias, in Phmnicia Pri- ma, 365 Orthosias, in Caria, 37 7 Ortona, in Samnium, 393 Osca, in Tarraconensis, 400 Ossismorum, in Lugdunen- sis Tertia Ossonaba, Estoy, in Lusi- tania, 400 Ostia, in Latium, 387, 391 Ostracina, in Augustam- nica Prima, 356 Otrum, in Phrygia Salu- taris, 379 Ovilabis, in Noricum, 385 O Oximum, Hiesmes, in Lug- dunensis Secunda, 399 Oxoma, al. Uxama, Osma, in Carthaginensis, 400 Oxyrinchus, in Arcadia,358 P Pachneumonis, in Egyp- tus Secunda, 358 Paemanium, in Hellespon- tus, 376 Paestum, Pesto, in Luca- nia, 393 Palaabisca, in Pentapolis, 358 Palaeopolis, in Asia, 377 Palwopolis, in Pamphylia Secunda, 378 Palladianum, urbs incertas posit. Pallentia, in Carthaginen- sis, 400 Palma, in Majorica, 402 Palmyra, in Phoenicia Li- bani, 365 Paltus, in Theodorias, a1. Syria Prima, ibz'd. Pampelona, in Tarraconen- sis, 400 Panaephysus, in Augustam- nica Prima, 356, 360 Paneas, a1. Caasarea Phi- lippi, in Phoenicia Pri- ma, 365 Panemoticus, in Pamphylia Secunda, 378 Panium, in Europa,‘ 382 Panopolis, in Thebais Pri- ma, 358 Panormus, Palermo, in Si- cilia, 394 Paphos, in Cyprus, 365 Pappa, in Lycaonia, 378 Parmtonium, in Libya, 358 Paralaus, in Pisidia, 37 9 Parallus, in Arcadia, 358 Paralus, in Egyptus Se- cunda, iba'd. Paraxia, urbs incertae posit. in Macedonia Parembola, in Arabia, 360 Parentium, in Histria, 396 Parisii, Paris, in Lugdun- ensis Quarta, 399 Parium,inHellespontus,376 Parma, in ZEmylia, 395 Parnassus, in Cappadocia Tertia, 374 Paros Insula, 380 Parosithus, urbs incertae positionis Partenium, in Mauritania Sitifensis Particopolis, in Macedonia, 383 Parus, urbs incertee posit. in Pisidia Patara, in Lycia, 378 Patavia, al. Batava Castra, Passaw, in Noricum, 385 Patavium, Padua, in Vene- tia, 396 Patavium, in Bithynia, 376 Paternum, urbs incertee po- sit. in Cappadocia Se- cunda, forsan Parnassus Pausola, in Picenuln Sub- urbicarium, 391 Pautalia, in Dardania, 384 Pella, in Pamphylia Se- cunda, 378 Pella, in Palaestina Secun- da, 361 Pelte, in Phrygia Pacati- ana, 379 Pelusium, in Augustamnica Prima, 356 Pentenessus, al. Pednelis- sus, in Pamphylia Se- cunda, 378 Pepere, vel Perpere, in A- sia, 37 7 Perga, in Pamphylia Se- cunda,378 Pergamus, in Asia, 377 Periorcis, urbs incertae po- sit. in Libya vel ZEgypto Perre, in Euphratesia, 365 Pe-rte, in Lycaonia, 378 Perusia, in Tuscia, 388 Pessinus, in Galatia Se- cunda, 375 Petavia, Petow, in Panno- nia, 385 Petenessus, in Galatia Se- cunda, 375 Petra, in Lazica, 380 Petra, in Palwstina Prima, 361 Petra, in Palwstina Tertia, z'bz'd. Petrze, in Achaia, 383 Petrocorium, Perig'ueux, in Aquitania Secunda, 399 Phacusa, in Augustamnica Prima, 356 Phalaris, in Tuscia, 388 Pharan, in Palwstina Ter- tia, 361 Pharbaethus, in Augustam- nica Secunda, 356 Pharnacea, urbs incertae po- sit. in Pontus, a1. Cilicia Phaselis, in Lycia, 378 Phasis, in Lazica, 380 Phansania, in Sardinia, 394 Phellus, in Lycia, 37 8 Phenon, in Palazstina Ter- tia, 361 Philadelphia, in Lydia, 377 Philadelphia, in Isauria,380 Philadelphia, in Arabia,360 Philippi, in Macedonia Se- cunda,383 Philippopolis, in Phrygia Pacatiana, 379 Philippopolis, in Thracia, 382 Philipp0polis,in Arabia,360 Philomelium,in Pisidia,379 Phocaea, in Asia, 377 Phoenicia, in Epirus Vetus, 383 Photica,in Epirus Vetus,z'b. Phragonea, in ZEgyptus Se- cunda, 358, 360 Phthenoti Nomus, in E- gyptus Prima, 356 Phuphena, urbs incertae po- sitionis, in Isauria vel Armenia Minor Phylae, in Thebais Secun- da, 358 Pictavi, Poictiers, in Aqui- tania Secunda, 399 Pinna, Penna, in Picenum Suburbicarium, 391 Pionia, in Hellespontus,376 Pisa, in Tuscia, 388 Pisaurum, Pesaro, in Pice- num Annonarium, 395 Pisinda, in Pamphylia Se- cunda, 378 Pitane, in Asia, 377 Pitinum, in Valeria, 390 Pitius, in Pontus, 375, 380 Placentia, in ZEmylia, 395 Placia, urbs incertae posit. in Galatia vel Bithynia Platanus,urbs incertse posit. in Syria vel Phaanicia Platea, in Achaia, 383 Plutinopolis, in Haemimon- tis, 382 Podalaea, in Lycia, 378 Pola, in Histria, 396 Polemoninm, in Pontus Po- lemoniacus, 374 Polybotus, in Phrygia Sa- lutaris, 37 9 Polymartium, Bomarso, in Tuscia, 388 Pompeiopolis, in Paphla- -g0nia, 375 Pompeiopolis, in Cilicia Prima, 380 Populonia, in Tuscia, 388 Poroselene Insula, 380 Porphyrium, in Phoenicia Prima, 365 Porthmus, in Achaia, 383 Portus Orestis, in Brutia, 394 Portus Calensis, El Puerto in Gallecia, 402 426 Boox IX. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Portus Augusti, Porto, in Tuscia, 388 Potentia, in Picenum Sub- urbicarium, 391 Potentia, Potenza, in Lu- cania, 393 Praconesus, in Hellespon- tus, 376 Praneste, Palestrina, in Valeria, 390 Praneste, in Latium, 391 Pranetum, in Bithynia, 376 Prapenissus, in Phrygia Salutaris, 379 Priene, in Asia, 377 Primopolis, in Pamphylia Secunda, 378 Primula, in Macedonia, 383 Prina, in Epirus Nova, ibid. Prista, a1. Tristra and Sex- antaprista, in Moesia Se- cunda, 382 Privatum, in Mauritania Sitifensis Prosolene Insula, m'de Po- roselene Prostama, in Pisidia, 379 Prusa, in Bithynia, 376 Prusias, in Honorias, 375 Prymnesia, in Phrygia Sa- lutaris, 379 Psynchus, vide Oxyrinchus, 358 Ptolemais, in Thebais Se- cunda, ibid. Ptolemais, Acon, in Pha- nicia Prima, 365 Ptolemais, in Pentapolis, 358 Ptyusium, in Lazica vel Pontus Polemoniacus, 380 Pugla, in Pamphylia Se- cunda, 378 Puteoli, Puzzolo, in Cam- pania, 392 Q Quintana, in Rhatia Se- cunda, 396 R Rabba, vide Petra, 361 Rachlana, urbs incerta po- sitionis, in Phoenicia Raphanaa, in Syria Se- cunda,365 Raphia, in Palastina Pri- ma, 361 Rapta, urbs incerta posit. in Africa Ratispona, in Rhostia Se- cunda, 396 Ravenna, in Flaminia, 395 Reate, Rieti, in Valeria, 390 Redones, Renes, in Lug- dunensis Tertia, 399 Regium Lepidi, Reggio, in Emylia, 395 Regium, or Reii, Riez, in Narbonensis Secunda, 399 Remessiana, in Dacia, 384 Remi, Reims, in Belgica. Secunda, 399 Rhegium, Rezo, in Brutia, 393, 394 Rhesina, in Mesopotamia, 365 Rhinocurura, in Augustam- nica Prima, 356 Rhizinium, in Pravalitana, 384 Rhodia, in Lycia, 378 Rhodus Insula, 380 Rhofi, Rochester, in Bri- tannia, 405 Rocus, urbs incerta posit. Roma, in Latium and Tus- cia, 387 Romatiana, vide Remessi- ana Rossus, in Cilicia Secunda, 380 Rothomagum, Rouen, in Lugdunensis Secunda, 399 Rubisium, Ruvo, in Apulia, 393 Rusella, in Tuscia, 388 Rutena, Rhodes, in Aqui- tania Prima, 399 S Sabaria, in Pannonia Pri- ma, 385 Sabatra, in Lycaonia, 378 Sabiona, in Venetia, 396 Sabrata, in Tripolis, 356 Sapinum, in Samnium, 393 Sagalassus, in Pisidia, 379 Sagium, Siez, in Lugdun- ensis Secunda, 399 Sais,in Egyptus Prima,356 Salamis, m'de Constantia Salapia, Salpe, in Apulia, 393 Salaria, in Carthaginensis, 400 Salernum, in Campania, 392 Salmantica, Salamanca, in Lusitania, 400 Salona, in Dalmatia, 385 Salpis, in Tuscia, 388 Samnium, in Samnium, 393 Samos Insula, 380 Samosata, in Euphratesia, 365 Sanafer, in Sardinia, 394 Sanicium, Senez, in Alpes Maritima, 398 Sanis, in Phrygia Pacatiana, 379 Santones, Saintes, in Aqui- tania Secunda, 399 Saracene, incerta posit. in Arabia, 365 Sardica, in Dacia, 384 Sardis, in Lydia, 377 Sarsina, in Flaminia, 395 Sarta, urbs incerta posit. Sasima, in Cappadocia Se- cunda, 373 Satala, in Lydia, 377 Satala, in Armenia Prima, 374 Savona, in Alpes Cottia, 395 Sbide, in Isauria, 380 Scampes, in Epirus Nova, 383 Scarabantia, in Pannonia, 385 Scarphia, in Thessalia, 383 Scena Mandrorum, in Au- gustamnica Secunda, 358 S cepsis,in H ellespontus,37 6 Schedia, in Egyptus Pri- ma, 356, 359 Scodra, in Pravalitana, 384 Scupi, in Dardania, ibid. Scyllatium, in Brutia, 394 Scythopolis, in Palastina Secunda, 361 Sebasta, in Phrygia Paca- tiana, 379 Sebaste, in Cilicia Prima, 380 Sebaste, Samaria, in Palas- tina Prima, 361 Sebastea, in Armenia Pri- ma, 374 Sebastopolis, in Armenia Prima, 374 Sebennythus, in Egyptus Secunda, 358 Secobia, Segovia, in Car- thaginensis, 400 Secorus, in Achaia, 383 Sedunum, Syon en Valez, in Alpes Graia, 398 Segestero, Cisteron, in Nar- bonensis Secunda, 399 Segobriga, Segorbe, in Car- thaginensis, 400 Segontia, al. Saguntum, Si- guenza, in Carthaginen- sis, ibid. Sela, in Augustamnica Pri- ma, 356 Seleucia and Ctesiphon, in Assyria, 369 Seleucia, in Pisidia, 379 Seleucia, in Pamphylia Se- cunda, 378 Seleucia. Pieria, in Syria Prima, 365 Seleucia. Belum, in Syria. Secunda, Seleucia, in Isauria, 37 9 Selga, in Pamphylia Prima, 378 Selinus, in Isauria, 380 Sella, urbs incerta posit. Selymbria, in Europa, 382 Semneam, in Pamphylia Prima, 378 Sena, in Tuscia, 388 Sena, in Augustamnica Se- cunda Senia, Segna, in Dalmatia, 385 Senna, in Pamphylia Se- cunda, 378 Senogallia,Senegaglia,in Pi- cenum Annonarium, 394 Senones, Sens, in Lugdun~ ensis Quarta, 399 Septe, in Lydia, 377 Septempeda, S. Severino, in Picenum Suburbicarium, 391 Sergiopolis, in Euphratesia, 365 Serre, al. Philippi, in Me.- cedonia, 383 Sestus, in Hellespontus. Setabis, Xativa, in Cartha- ginensis, 400 Sethrate, in Augustamnica Prima, 356 Setta, in Lydia, 377 Sexantaprista, in Masia Se- cunda, 382 Sichem, 'vz'de Neapolis, 361 Sida, in Pamphylia, 378 Sidnacester, in Britannia, 407 Sidon, in Phoenicia Prima, 365, 367 Sidyma, in Lycia, 378 Sig-nia, Segni, in Campania, 391 Silandus, in Lydia, 377 Silbium, in Phrygia Paca- tiana, 379 Simidica, in Africa Procon- sularis Sinaus, in Phrygia Pacati- ana, 379 Siniandus, in Pisidia, ibid. Sinna Municipium, in Afri- ca. Proconsularis, incerta posit. Sinope, in Helenopontus, 375 Sion, in Asia, 37 7 Sipontum, in Apulia, 393 Sirmium, in Pannonia In- ferior, 385 INDEX. 427 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Sisoia, in Pannonia Inferior, 385 Siteum, vide Citium, in Crete, 383 Smyrna, in Asia, 377 Sodera, in Iona Insula Sodoma, in Palaestina Ter- tia, 361 Soli, in Cyprus, 365 Solva, in Noricum, 385 Sophene, in Armenia Mag- na, 374 Sora, in Latium, 391 Sora, in Paphlagonia, 375 Sozopolis, in Haemimontis, 382 Sozopolis, in Pisidia, 379 Sozusa, in Pentapolis, 358 Sozusa, in Palaestina Pri- ma, 361 Spira Nemetum, in Ger- manica Prima, 400 Spoletum, Spoleto, in Um- bria, 389 Stabiae, in Campania, 392 Standitana, in Lydia, 377 Stauropolis, in Caria, ibid. Stectorium, in Phrygia Sa- lutaris, 379 Stephane, urbs incertae ‘po- sit. in Phocide vel Galatia Stobi, in Macedonia, 383 Strategis, in Achaia, ibid. Stratonice, in Caria, 377 Stratonicia, in Lydia, ibid. Stridonium, in Pannonia Inferior, 385 Suana, in Tuscia, 388 Subaugusta Helena, in La- tium, 387, 391 Subrita, in Crete, 383 Subsadia, in Europa, 382 Suessa, in Campania, 392 Sulchi, in Sardinia, 394 Sulmo, in Samnium, 393 Sura, in Euphratesia, 365 Surrentum, in Campania, 392 Sutrium, in Tuscia, 388 Sycamazon, in Palmstina Prima, 361 Sycaminum, in Phoenicia Prima, 365 Sylva Candida, Sancta Ruf- fina, in Tuscia, 388 Sylvanectum, Senlis, in Belgica Secunda, 400 Synnada, in Phrygia Salu- taris, 379 Syracusae, in Sicilia, 394 Sysdra, in Pamphylia Pri- ma, 378 T Tabae, in Caria, 377 Tabia, in Galatia Prima, 375 Tacapa, in Tripolis, 356 Tadinum, in Umbria, 389 Talbonda, in Pamphylia Secunda, 378 Tamita. in Corsica, 394 Tanagra, in Achaia, 383 Tanis, in Augustamnica Prima, 356 Tarantasia, in Alpes Graiee, 398 Tarba, a1. Bigorra, Tarbes, in Novempopulania, 399 Tarentum, Taranto, in Ca- labria, 393 Tarquina, in Tuscia, 388 Tarracina, in Latium, 391 T arracona, in Tarraconen- sis, 400 Tarsus, in Cilicia Prima, 380 Tarvisium, Treviso, in Vee netia, 396 Tathyris, in Thebais Se- cunda, 358 Tana, in ZEgyptus Prima, 356 Taurianum, Seminara, in Brutia, 394 Tauromenium, in Sicilia, 394 Teanum, in Campania, 392 Tegea, in Achaia, 383 Tegula, in Sardinia, 394 Telmessus, in Lycia, 378 Temenothyrae, in Phrygia Pacatiana, 379 Temesa, in Brutia, 394 Temnus, in Asia, 377 Tenedos Insula, 380 Tentyra, al. Teuchira, in Thebais Secunda, 358 Tenus Insula, 380 Teos, in Asia, 377 Tephra, in Homeritarum Regione Arabica, 370 Tergestum, Trieste, in His- tria, 396 Termessus, in Pamphylia Secunda, 378 Teruanna, Therouenne, in Belgica Secunda, 400 Teuchira, in Pentapolis, 358 Teuchira, in Thebais Se- cunda, ibid. Thamassus, in Cyprus, 365 Thamiate, in Arcadia, 358 Thassus, in Macedonia, 383 Theatea, in Samnium, 393 Thebae Pthioticaa, in Thes- salia, 383 Thebes, in Achaia, ibid. Thebais, in Thebais Secun- da, 358 Taormina, Themisonium, in Phrygia Pacatiana, 379 Thennesus, in Augustamni- ca Prima, 356, 360 Theodosiopolis Nova, in Europa, 382 Theodosiopolis, in Cappa- docia Prima, 374 Theodosiopolis, in Arcadia, 358 Theodosiopolis, in Pisidia, 379 Thera Insula, 380 Therenunthis, in T hebais Secunda, 358 T hermae, in Sicilia, 394 Thermae Regiae, in Helles- pontus, vide Germa, 376 Thermae, in Cappadocia Prima, 374 Thespiae, in Achaia, 383 ‘ Thessalonica, in Macedonia Prima, ibid. Thinis, in Thebais Secun- da, 358 Thmuis, in Augustamnica Prima, 356 Thoi, in Thebais Secunda, 358 Thou, in Augustamnica Se- cunda, ibid. Thurium, in Brutia, 394 Thyatira, in Lydia, 377 Thymbria, in Asia, ibid. Tiberias, in Palaestina Se- cunda, 361 Tiberiopolis, in Pacatiana, 379 Tiberiopolis, in Cyprus, 365 Tibur, Tivoli, in Valeria, 390 Ticelia, in Pentapolis, 358 Ticinum, Pavia, in Liguria, 395 Tiella, vide Zella, in Biza- cena Tifernum Tiberinum, Citta di Castello, in Umbria, 389 Tifernum Metaurense, in Picenum Annonarium, 395 Tindarium, in Sicilia, 394 Titopolis, in Isauria, 380 Tium, in Honorias, 376 Tlos, in Lycia, 378 Tolentinum, in Picenum Suburbicarium, 391 Toletum, Toledo, in Car- thaginensis, 400 Tolonium, Toulon, in Vi- ennensis, 399 Tolosa, Thoulouse, in Nar- bonensis, ibid. Tomi, in Scythia., 380 Phrygia Topirus, in Rhodope, 382 Torcellum, in Venetia, 396 Torone, in Macedonia, 383 Tournacum, Tournay, in Belgica Secunda, 400 Trajanopolis, in Rhodope, 382 Trallis, in Asia, 377 Trallis, in Lydia, ibid. Tranopolis, in Phrygia Pa- catiana, 379 Tranum, in Apulia, 393 Trapezopolis, in Phrygia Pacatiana, 379 Trapezus, in Pontus Pole- moniacus, 374 Trebia, in Umbria, 389 Trecae, Troyes, in Lugdu- nensis Quarta, 399 Tremenothyri, in Phrygia Pacatiana, 'vide Temeno- thyrw, 379 Tremithus, in Cyprus, 365 Tres Tabernae, Cisterna, in Latium, 391 Tricastini, or Augusta Tri- castinorum, St. Paul des Trois Chasteaux, in Vi- ennensis Secunda, 399 Tricca, in Thessalia, 383 Tridentum, Trent, in Ve- netia, 396 Tripolis, in Phoenicia Pri- ma, 365 Tripolis, in Lydia, 377 Troas, in Hellespontus, 376 Trocala, in Sicilia, 394 Trochmi, in Galatia Se- cunda, 375 Tropaea, in Brutia, 394 Truentum, in Picenum Sub- urbicarium, 391 Tucci, Martos, in Boetica, 400 Tude, Tuy, in Gallecia, 402 Tuder, Todi, in Umbria, 389 Tullum, T oul, in Belgica Prima, 399 Tungri, Tongres, in Ger- manica Secunda, 400 Turones, Tours, in Lug- dunensis Tertia, 399 Turre Blandis, in Bizacena Turris Libisonis, in Sar~ dinia, 394 Tuscania, in Tuscia, 388 Tusculum, Frescati, in La- tium, 387, 391 Tyana, in Cappadocia Se- cunda, 374 Tyrassona, Tarazona, in Tarraconensis, 400 Tyrus, in Phoenicia Prima, 365, 367 428 BOOK IX. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. V Valentia, Valence, in Vien- nensis Prima, 399 Valentia, Valencia, in Car- thaginensis, 400 Valentia ad Minium, Va- lenzia, al. Menno, in Gal- lecia, 402 Valentinianopolis, in Asia, 377 Valva, in Samnium, 393 Vantena, vide Antinoe, in Thebais Prima, 358 Vapincum, Gap, in Nar- bonensis Secunda, 399 Vasada, vz'cle Lauzada, in Cilicia Secunda Vasatae, Basas, in Novem- populania, 399 Vasio, Vaison, in Viennen- sis Secunda, ibid. Ucetia, Uzes, in Narbonen- sis Prima, ibid. Velia, in Lucania, 393 Velia, Veleia, in Tarraco- nensis, 400 Velitrae, in Latium, 391 Vellava, al. Anicium,1e Puy en Vellay, in Aquitania Prima, 399 Venafrum, in Campania, 393 Venetia, Venues, in Lug- dunensis Tertia, 399 Venta, Winchester, in Bri- tannia, 407 Ventio, Vence, in Alpes Maritimw, 398 Venusia, in Apulia, 393 Vercellae, Vercelli, in Li- guria, 395 Verodunum, Verdun, in Belgica Prima, 399 Verona, in Venetia, 396 Verulae, Veroli, in Latium, 392 Vesontio, Bezanson, in Maxima Sequanorum, 399 Vettonium, Bittona,in Um- bria, 389 Vibo-Valentia, Bivona, in Brutia, 394 Vicentia, Vicenza, in Ve- ' netia Vicohabentia, Vicovenza, in Flaminia, 395 Vienna, in Viennensis Pri- ma, 398 Vigiliae, in Apulia, 393 Vigintimilium, Vintimiglia., in Alpes Cottiae, 395 Vindobona, Vienna, in Pan- nonia Superior, 385 Vindonissa, Winich, in Maxima Sequanorum, 399 Viseum, Viseo, in Gallecia, 402 Ulpianum, in Dardania, 384 Unnogorita, urbs incertee positionis Unzela, in Pamphylia Se- cunda, 378 Volatcrrae, in Tuscia, 388 Voleria, Valera la Vieja, in Carthaginensis, 400 Volscae, al. Vulci, in Tus- cia, z'bz'd. Volsinium, Bolsena, in Tus- cia, 388 Urbinum, in Picenum An- nonarium, 395 Urbs Salvia, Urbisaglia, in Picenum Suburbicarium, 391 Urbs Vetus, Orvieto, in Tuscia, 388 Urci, Orce, in Carthaginen- sis, 400 Urcinium, in Corsica, 394 Uria, in Calabria, 393 Urima, in Euphratesia, 365 Vulturnum, in Campania, 392 Uxentum, Ugento, in Ca- labria, 393 W Winchester, in Britannia, 407 Wormacia Vangionum, Worms, in Germanica Prima, 400 Worcester, inBritannia, 407 X Xanthus, in Lycia, 378 Xoes, in ‘Egyptus Secun- da, 358. Z Zabulon, in Palazstina Pri- ma, 361 Zagula, in Libya, 358 Zapara, in Macedonia, 383 Zarmizegethusa, in Gothia, 384 Zela, in Helenopontus, 375 Zelona, 37 4 Zena, forsan Zenopolis Zenopolis, in Lycia, 37 8 Zephyrium, in Cilicia Pri~ ma, 380 Zerabena, in Arabia, 360 Zerta, in Numidia Zeugma, in Euphratesia, 365 Zicchia, in Scythia Zichna, urbs incertaa posit. in Macedonia Zigga, vide Sicca Venerea Zoara, in Palacstina Tertia, 361 Zoropassa, urbs incertaa po- sit. in Cilicia vel Isauria Zuchabari, in Mauritania Ceesariensis Zygris, in Libya, 358 BOOK X. OF THE INSTITUTION OF THE CATECHUMENS, AND THE FIRST USE OF THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. CHAPTER I. OF THE SEVERAL NAMES OF CATECHUMENS, AND THE SOLEMNITY THAT WAS USED IN ADMIT- TING THEM TO THAT STATE IN THE CHURCH. THEIR CONTINUANCE IN THAT EXERCISE. HAVING hitherto discoursed of the Sect. 1. . . The reason otthe several orders of men WhlCl'l made up Egzgjsiégdpoigwi; the great body of the Christian church, i’ ' and of churches themselves, or places of worship, and of the several districts into which the body difi'usive was divided, I come now to con- sider the service of the church, or its public oflices and exercises, by which men were disciplined and trained up to the kingdom of heaven. And to speak of these in their most natural order, it will be neces- sary to begin with the institution of the catechu- mens, who were the lowest order of men that had any title to the common name of Christians, and their instruction was the first part of the church’s service. Some things relating to these have been already touched upon in speaking of the difference between them and the maroi, or perfect Christians, in the first Book.1 The ofiice of the catechist has also been considered in speaking of the inferior or- ders2 of the clergy: and the places of instruction, or catechetic schools, have been treated of in the account8 that has been given of the ancient churches. So that, omitting these things, I shall only speak in this place of such rites and customs as were observed in the practice of the church in training up the catechumens, and preparing them for baptism; pre- mising something concerning the several names that were given them. They were called catechumens from the Greek words xa-rnxéw and m-n'pxnmg, which signify in general the instruction that is given in the first elements or rudiments of any art or science; but in a more restrained ecclesiastical sense, the in- struction of men in the first principles of the Chris- tian religion. Hence they had also the names of ALSO OF CATECHISING, AND THE TIME OF novz'tz'olz', and tyrones .Dez', new soldiers of God, as we find in Tertullian‘ and St. Austin,5 because they were just entering'upon that state, which made them soldiers of God and candidates of eternal life. They are sometimes also called audientes, hearers, from their instruction: though that name more commonly denotes one particular sort of them, such as were allowed to hear sermons only, but not to partake in any of the prayers of the church; of which more hereafter in the following chapter. I have already observed in another place,6 that the catechumens, by vir- igrme tue of their admission into that state, $26,183,323?“ of had some title to the common name of Christians also; being a degree higher than either heathens or heretics, though not yet consummated by the waters of baptism. And upon this account, they were admitted to this state not without some ceremony and solemnity of imposition of hands and prayer. Which appears evidently from what Sulpicius Severus7 says of St. Martin, That pass- ing through a town, where they were all Gentiles, and preaching Christ unto them, and working some miracles, the whole multitude professed to believe in Christ, and desired him to make them Chris- tians: upon which, he immediately, as he was in the field, laid his hands upon them, and made them catechumens, saying to those that were about him, that it was not unreasonable to make catechumens in the open field, where martyrs were used to be consecrated unto God. Where we may observe, that to make Christians, and to make catechumens, is the same thing, and that this was done by im- position of hands and prayer. Which observation ‘2. ‘ Book I. chap. 4. sect. 5. a Book VIII. chap. 7. sect. I2. 4 Tertul. (1e Poanitent. cap. 6. 5 August. de Fide ad Catechumen. lib. 2. cap. 1. 8 Book I. chap. 3. sect. 3. 7 Sulpic. Vit. Martin. Dialog. 2. cap. 5. p. 294. Cuncti 2 Book III. chap. 10. catervatim ad genua b. viri mere coeperunt, fideliter postu~ lantes, ut eos faceret Christianos. Nec cunctatus, in medic ut erat campo, cunctos, imposita universis manu, catechu- menos fecit; cum quidem ad nos conversus diceret, Non irrationabiliter in campo catechumenos fieri, ubi solerent martyres consecrari. 430 BOOK X. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. will help us to the right understanding of some obscure canons and difiicult passages in ancient writers, which many learned men have mistaken. In the first council of Arles8 there is a canon, which orders imposition of hands to be given to such Gen- tiles as in time of sickness express an inclination to ‘receive the Christian faith. And in the council of Eliberis9 there is another canon to the same purpose, which says, That if any Gentiles, who have led a tolerable moral life, desire imposition of hands, they should have it allowed them, and be made Christians. Now the question is, what is here meant by imposition of hands, and being made Christians? Mendozalo and Vossius‘u take it for imposition of hands in baptism; and Al- baspiny,l2 for imposition of hands in confirmation. But the true sense is no more than this imposition of hands used in making catechumens, which in some sort gave Gentile converts an immediate title to be called Christians. And so I find Valesius,13 and Basnage,“ and Cotelerius,15 understand it. And this must be the meaning of that passage in Euse- bius,16 where, speaking of Constantine’s prayers in the church of Helenopolis a little before his death, he says, It was the same church where he had first been admitted to imposition of hands and prayer; that is, had been made a catechumen with those ceremonies: for no other imposition of hands can here he meant, since it is now agreed on all hands, that Constantine was not baptized till he had left Helenopolis, and was come to Nicomedia, a little before his death. By this also we may understand the meaning of those canons of the first general council of Constantinople,'7 and the council of Trullo,"I where, speaking of the reception of .such heretics as the Eunomians, and Montanists, and Sabellians, who had not been truly baptized, they say, They should be received only as heathens, viz. the first day be made Christians, the second day catechumens, the third day be exorcised, then in- structed for a considerable time in the church, and at last baptized. Here being made Christians, evi- dently signifies no more than their being admitted to the lowest degree of catechumens, by imposition of hands and prayer; after which came many in- termediate ceremonies of exorcising, catechising, &c., before they were made complete Christians by baptism. So that, as Theodosius observes ‘9 in one of his laws, there were two sorts of men that went by the name of Christians, one called Christiam' ac fideles, Christians and believers, and the other, Chris- tz'am' et catechumem' tantum, Christians and catechu- mens only: the former whereof were made so by baptism, and the other by imposition of hands and prayer. Which was a ceremony used in most of the ofiices of religion, in baptism, confirmation, or- dination, reconciling of penitents, consecration of virgins, curing the sick, and, as we have now seen, particularly in the first admission of new converts to the state of catechumens. Here also, as in most other offices Sect 3_ of the church, they used the sign of mglnfhgfisgigmg'; the cross. St. Austin joins all these cm‘ ceremonies together, when he says, That catechu-. mens20 were in some sort sanctified by the sign of Christ, and imposition of hands and prayer; mean- ing, that these ceremonies were used as indications of their forsaking the Gentile state, and becoming retainers to the Christian church. The same rite is mentioned also by St. Austin in his Confessions,” as used upon himself during his being a catechu- men; but whether he means there his first admis- sion, or his continuance in that state, is not certain. But in the Life of Porphyrius, bishop of Gaza, writ- ten by his disciple Marcus, it is more plainly ex- pressed; for that author, speaking of some new converts, says, They fell down at the bishop’s feet and desired the sign of Christ. Upon which, he signed them with the sign22 of the cross, and- made them catechumens; commanding them to attend the church. And so in a short time after, having first instructed them in the catechism, he baptized them. The circumstance of time here men- Sect 4_ tioned, may lead us in the next place 50;}: 112;‘ Z ,i,,',’f,§5 to inquire, at what age persons were t° be °“‘e°h“me“s' admitted catechumens? And how long they con- tinued in that state before they were baptized? The 8 Conc. Arelat. 1. cap. 6. De his qui in infirmitate cre- dere volunt, placuit debere eis manum imponi. 9 Conc. Eliber. c. 39. Gentiles si in infirmitate desidera- verint sibi manum imponi, si fuerit eorum ex aliqua parte vita honesta, placuit eis manum imponi et fieri Christianos. 1° Mendoza, Not. in Conc. Eliber. c. 39. 1‘ Voss. de Baptismo, Disp. 12. Thes. 5. p. 164. ‘2 Albaspin. Not. in Conc. Eliber. c. 39. 1* Vales. Not. in Euseb. de Vit. Constant. lib. 4. c. 61. 1‘ Basnag. Critic. in Baron. an. 44. p. 482. is Coteler. Not. in Constitut. Apostol. lib. 7. c. 39. 1‘ Euseb. de Vit. Const. lib. 4. c. 61. ‘Euda 61‘1 Kai wpib- Frov 'ré'w 61¢‘: Xstpoeeo'iac ebxiév b80570. ‘7 Conc. Constant. l. c. 7. 'Qe"EM\nuas dsxé/isea, Kai 'n‘w “915"?” fmtpav 'n'oLofi/iau aim-ous Xpw'rmuobs, ‘1'1‘11! dé dev're'pav Ica'rnxovpévous, si'ra 'rg'i 'rpi'ry éfopxilopsu air- Tm‘Jc—Kai '1'0'1'2 ar’i'robs Bavr'rigolueu. '8 Conc. Trull. c. 95. Vide etiam Anonymi Epist. ad Martyrium Antiocbenum, ap. Beveregii Pandect. t. 2. p. 100. ‘9 Cod. Tb. lib. 16. Tit. 7. de Apostat. Leg. 2. 2° Aug. de Peccator. Meritis, lib. 2. c. 26. Catechumenos secundum quendam modum suum per signum Christi et orationem, mantis impositione puto sanctificari. 21 Aug. Confess. lib. 1. c. 11. 2’ Marcus, Vit. Porphyr. Prociderunt ad ejus pedes petentes Christi signaculum. Beatus vero cum eos signas- set, et fecisset catechumenos, dimisit illos in pace, pree- cipiens eis ut vacarent sanctaa ecclesias. Et paulo post, cum eos catechesi instituisset, baptizavit. CHAP. I. 431 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. first question concerns only heathen converts: for, as for the children of believing parents, it is certain, that as they were baptized in infancy, so they were admitted catechumens as soon as they were capable of learning. But the question is more difficult about heathens. Yet I find in one of the Resolutions of Timothy, bishop of Alexandria, that children, be- fore they were seven years old, might be catechu- mens. For he puts the question thus: Suppose a child of seven years old,23 or a man that is a cate- chnmen, be present at the oblation, and eat of the eucharist; what shall be done in this case? And the answer is, Let him be baptized. By which it is plain, he speaks of heathen children, and not of Christians, who received not only baptism, but the eucharist, in their infancy, by the rule and custom of the church then prevailing, as will he showed in their proper place. As to the other point, how long they were to continue catechumens, there was no certain general rule fixed about that; but the practice varied according to the difference of times and places, or the readiness and proficiency of the catechumens themselves. In the apos tolical age, and the first plantation of the church, we never read of any long interval between men’s first conversion and their baptism. The history of Cornelius, and the Ethiopian eunuch, and Lydia, and the jailer of Philippi, in the Acts of the Apos- tles, to mention no more, are suflicient evidence, that in those days catechising and baptism imme- diately accompanied one another. And there were good reasons for it: the infant state of the church, and the zeal of the converts, both required it. But in after ages, the church found it necessary to lengthen this term of probation,‘ lest an over-hasty admission of persons to baptism, should either fill the church with vicious men, or make greater num- bers of renegadoes and apostates in time of persecu- tion. For this reason, the council of Eliberis24 ap- pointed two years’ trial for new converts, that if in that time they appeared to be men of a good con- versation, they might then be allowed the favour of baptism. Justinian, in one of his Novels,25 ap- pointed the same term for Samaritans, because it was found by experience, that they were wont fre- quently to relapse to their old religion again. The Sect. 5. How long they continued in that state. Apostolical Constitutions26 lengthen the term to three years, but with this limitation, that if men were very diligent and zealous, they might be ad- mitted sooner; because it was not length of time, but men’s conversation and behaviour, that was to be regarded in this case. The council of Agde, anno 506, reduced the time for Jewish converts27 to eight months, giving the same reason why they made the time of probation so long, because they are often found to be perfidious, and returned to their own vomit again. In other places, the time is thought by some to be limited to the forty days of Lent; for so some learned men conjecture from a passage or two in St. J erom, and Cyril’s Catechetic Discourses. St. J eromi8 says, it was customary in his time to spend forty days in teaching catechu- mens the doctrine of the blessed Trinity. And St. Cyril seems to imply as much, when he asks the catechumens, why they should not think it reason- able29 to spend forty days upon their souls, who had spent so many years upon thair own vanities and the world? The time of Lent is not expressly men- tioned in either place, but it seems to be intended, because in those ages, Easter was the general time of baptizing over all the world. But I understand this only of the strict and concluding part of this exercise. In some cases, the term of catechising was reduced to a yet much shorter compass, as in case of extreme sickness, or the general conversion of whole nations. Socrates observes, that in the conversion of the Burgundians, the French bishop that converted them, only took seven days’ time to catechise them,80 and on the eighth day baptized them. So in case of desperate sickness, the cate- chumens were immediately baptized with clinic baptism; as appears from the forementioned council of Agde, which, though it prescribes eight months’ time for the catechising of Jews, yet in case of ex- treme danger,“ if their life was despaired of, it al- lows them to be baptized at any time within the term prescribed. Cyril of Alexandria,82 in one of his canonical epistles, gives the same orders con- cerning catechumens who had lapsed, and were for their crimes expelled the church, that notwithstand— ing this, they should be baptized at the hour of death. St. Basil takes notice, that Arintheus, the Roman consul,33 being converted by his wife, and 2* Timoth. Alex. Resp. Canon. qu. l. 2‘ Conc. Eliber. c. 42. Eos qui ad fidem primam credu- litatis accedunt, si bonae fuerint conversationis, intra bien- nium placuit ad baptismi gratiam admitti. 25 Justin. Novel. 144. Per duos primurn annos in fide instituantur, et pro viribus Scripturas ediscant, tuncque de- mum sacro redemptionis ofi'erantur baptismati. 2‘ Constit. Apost. lib. 8. c. 32. '0 ne’lOtwv Ka'rflxi'zd’eat, 'rpia £71’) Ka'rnxeio'fiw, &c. 2" Conc. Agathen. c. 34. Judaei, quorum perfidia fre- quenter ad vomitum redit, si ad legem catholicam venire voluerint, octo menses inter catecbumenos ecclesiae limen introeant, &c. 2’ Hieron. Ep. 61. ad Pammach. c. 4. Consuetudo apud nos ejusmodi est, ut iis qui baptizandi sunt per qnadraginta dies publice tradamus sanctam et adorandarn Trinitatem. 2° Cyril. Catech. l. n. 5. p. 18. 3° Socrat. lib. 7. c. 30. *1 Conc. Agathen. c. 34. Quod si casu aliquo periculum infirmitatis intra praescriptum tempus incurrerint, et despe- rati fuerint, baptizentur. ‘*2 Cyril. Ep. Canon. ad Episc. Libya: et Pentapul. ap. Bevereg. Pandect. t. '2. p. 178. *8 Basil. Ep. 186. 432 BOOK X. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. in danger of death, was immediately baptized. And there are infinite numbers of such examples to be met with in ecclesiastical history, to verify the ge- neral observation which Epiphanius“ makes upon the practice of the church, that such catechumens as were at the point to die, were always, in hopes of the resurrection, admitted to baptism before their death. But excepting these cases, a longer th'gheaggigtghggtgf time was generally thought necessary glgiisrftsgtfélgoglethod to discipline and train men up gradu- ally for baptism; partly for the reason already mentioned, that some just experiment might be made of their conversation during that time; and partly to instruct them by degrees, first in the more common principles of religion, to wean them from their former errors, and then in the more re- condite and mysterious articles of the Christian faith: upon which account they usually began their discourses with the doctrine of repentance and re- mission of sins, and the necessity of good works, and the nature ‘and use of baptism, by which the catechumens were taught, how they were to re‘— nounce the devil and his works, and enter into a new covenant with God. Then followed the expli- cation of the several articles of the Creed, to which some added the nature and immortality of the soul, and an account of the canonical books of Scripture; which is the substance and method of St. Cyril’s eighteen famous discourses to the catechumens. The author of the Apostolical Constitutions 35 prescribes these several heads of instruction: Let the catechu- men be taught before baptism the knowledge of the Father unbegotten, the knowledge of his only be- gotten Son, and Holy Spirit; let him learn the order of the world’s creation, and series of Divine provi- dence, and the different sorts of legislation ; let him be taught, why the world, and man, the citizen of the world, were made; let him be instructed about his own nature, to understand for what end he him- self was made; let him be informed how God pun- ished the wicked with water and fire, and crowned his saints with glory in every generation, viz. Seth, Enos, Enoch, Noah, Abraham and his posterity, Melchisedeck, Job, Moses, Joshua, Caleb, and Phi- neas the priest, and the saints of every age; let him also be taught, how the providence of God never for- sook mankind, but called them at sundry times, from error and vanity to the knowledge of the truth, reducing them from slavery and impiety to liberty and godliness, from iniquity to righteousness, and from everlasting death to eternal life. After these, he must learn the doctrine of Christ’s incarnation, his passion, his resurrection, and assumption; and what it is to renounce the devil, and enter into cove- nant with Christ. These were the chief heads of the ancient catechisms before baptism: in which it is observable, there is no mention made of the doc- trine of the eucharist, or confirmation, because these were not allowed to catechumens till after baptism; and the instruction upon the former points was not given all at once, but by certain degrees, as the dis- cipline of the church then required, which divided the catechumens into several distinct orders or classes, and exercised them gradually, according to the difference of their stations: of which I shall give a more particular account in the following chapter. Here I shall only remark further, sect, that they allowed them to read some ,ul‘tidagei‘ggrzgg portions of the Scripture; for the mo- my Scriptures’ ral and historical books were thought most proper at first for their instruction; and the chief use of those which are now called apocryphal books, was then to instil moral precepts into the catechumens. Upon this account Athanasius says,36 Though they were not canonical books, as the rest of the books of the Old and New Testament ; yet they were such as were appointed to be read by those who were new proselytes, and desirous to be instructed in the ways of godliness: such were The Wisdom of Solomon, The Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit; to which he also adds, the book called, The Doctrine of the Apostles, and the Shepherd, that is, Hermes Pastor. The author” of the Synopsis of the Holy Scripture also, under the name of Athanasius, has much the same observation, That besides the canoni- cal books, there were other books of the Old Testa- ment, which were not in the canon, but only read to or by the catechumens. But this was not allowed in all churches; for it seems to have been other- wise in the church of Jerusalem, at the time when Cyril38 wrote his Catechetical Discourses; for he forbids his catechumens to read all apocryphal books whatsoever, and charges them to read those books only which were securely read in the church, viz. those books which the apostles and ancient bishops (who were wiser than the catechumens) had handed down to them. Then he specifies particu- larly the canonical books of the Cld and New Tes- tament, all the same as are now in our Bibles, ex- cept the Revelation, because I presume it was not 3‘ Epiphan. Haer. 28. Cerinthian. n. 6. ‘*5 Constit. Apost. lib. 7. c. 39. 3° Athan. Ep. Heortastic. t. 2. p. 39. "Ea-w Kai. it'd-spa Bafikia 'rofi'rwu E'Ewfi'ev‘ é [cal/ovi'go'paua [1511, Te'ru'rrwnc'ua dé 1rapa‘z T6511 '1ra1'e'pwv c’wa'ywdio'xeo'eai 'ro'is r'ip'n 'n'poo'spxo- peyote, Kai Bouhonéuots Ka'rnxe'io'fial. 'rdv 'rfis si’Jo'eBeIas X6700‘ Eocpt'a Eohopdwos, 8:0. Kai dzdaxip Kahovfié'lm, ‘7'5"’ ’A'1ros'6)\wv, Kai 6 'n'oriuiv. 8’ Athan. Synops. Scriptur. t. 2. p. 55. uoutgoyue'vwu Era-spa Btfihia 'rfis wahauiis dtafi'filrns, é Kavom- 16mm ,uév, dua'ywmoxo'lueva 6% luéuov 'ro'is Ka'rnxapa'uois. 38 Cyril. Catech. 4. n. 22. p. 66. Hpds Pro‘: ri‘n'o'a'pvrpa pndéu i'xs Kowov, 8E0. Ibid. p. 67."Oo'a Eu Exxhno'iats p11‘) dilaywdw- Karat, 'rai'm-a pmdé Ka'rd o'av'rdu c’wa'yivwo'rce. 'Emrds erEm Ka- CHAP. II. 433 -ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. then read in the church: and at last concludes with this charge to the catechumens, that they should not read any other books privately by themselves, which were not read publicly in the church. From whence I conclude, that as the books which we now call apocryphal, were not then read in the church of Jerusalem, so neither were they allowed to be read by the catechumens, though they were read both publicly and privately in many other churches. I know some learned persons are of a different opinion, and think that Cyril, by apocryphal books, means not those which we now call apocryphal, viz. Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, &c., but other pernicious and heretical books, which were absolutely repro- bated and forbidden to all Christians. But if that had been his meaning, he would not have said, that the canonical books were the only books that were read in the church of Jerusalem, but would have distinguished, as other writers in other churches do, between canonical, ecclesiastical, and apocryphal books, and have intimated that the ecclesiastical books were such as were allowed to be read in the church, as well as the canonical, for moral instruc- tion, though not to confirm articles of faith. Where- as he says nothing of this, but the express contrary, that none but the canonical books were read pub- licly in the church, nor were any other to be read privately by the catechumens. Which, at least, must mean thus much, that in the church of J eru- salem there was a different custom from some other churches; and that though in some churches the catechumens were allowed to read both the canoni- cal books and the apocryphal, or, as others call them, the ecclesiastical; yet in the church of Jerusalem they were allowed to read only the canonical Scrip- tures, and no other. However, it is observable, that no church anciently denied any order of Christians the use of the Holy Scriptures in the vulgar tongue, since even the catechumens themselves, who were but an imperfect sort of Christians, were exhorted and commanded to read the canonical books in all churches, and the apocryphal books in some churches for moral instruction. Nay, if we may be- lieve Bede, they were obliged to get some of the Holy Scriptures by heart, as a part of their exercise and discipline, before they were baptized. For he commends it as a laudable custom in the ancient church,‘’'9 that such as were to be catechised and baptized, were taught the beginnings of the four Gospels, and the intent and order of them, at the time when the ceremony of opening their ears was solemnly used; that they might know and remem- her, what, and how many, those books were, from whence they were to be instructed in the true faith. So far were they from locking up the Scriptures from any order of men in an unknown tongue, that they thought them useful and instructive to the meanest capacities ; according to that of the psalm- ist, “ Thy word giveth light and understanding to the simple.” And therefore they allowed them to be vulgarly read, not only by the more perfect and com- plete Christians, but even by the very catechumens; among whom, as St. Austin and others have ob- served, those were commonly the most tractable and the best proficients, who were the most con~ versant in the Holy Scriptures. For which reason they made it one part of the catechumens’ care, to exercise themselves in the knowledge of them, and did not then fear that men should turn heretics by being acquainted with the word of truth. CHAPTER II. OF THE SEVERAL CLASSES OR DEGREES OF CATE- CHUMENS, AND THE GRADUAL EXERCISES AND DISCIPLINE OF EVERY ORDER. THAT there were different orders or S t. 1. Four Hider-s or de- degrees of catechumens in all such churches as kept to the term of cate- izigngmocrigcilié chising for two or three years together, ' is acknowledged on all hands by learned men ; but what was the precise number of these orders, is not so certainly agreed. The Greek expositors of the ancient canons usually make but two sorts, the (i'rshéqepot and the 'rehua'rrspot, the imperfect and the perfect, the beginners and the proficients, who were the immediate candidates of baptism. So Balzamon,‘ and Zonaras,2 Alexius Aristenus,a and Blastares. And in this opinion they are followed by many modern writers. Dr. Cave4 makes no other distinction but this of the perfect and imper- fect, and says of the imperfect, that they were as yet accounted heathens ; which, for the reasons given in the foregoing chapter, I cannot subscribe to: for I have showed, that from the time that they received imposition of hands to make them catechumens, they were always both called and ac- counted Christians, though but in an imperfect state, till they were completed by baptism. Bishop Beverege5 makes but two sorts of catechumens like- wise, the a'lcpoa'ipwot, and the H’Jxépfllol, OI‘ yovvxhivov- ‘*9 Bed. de Tabernac. lib. 2. c.13. t. 4. p. 887. Pulcher in ipsa ecclesia mos antiquitus inolevit, ut his qui catechizandi, et Christianis sunt sacramentis initiandi, quatuor Evangeli- orum principia recitentur, ac dc figuris et ordine eorum in apertione aurium suarum solenniter erudirentur: quo sciant exinde ac meminerint, qui-et quot sint libri, quorum verbis maxime in fide veritatis debeant erudiri. 1 Balzam. Not. in Conc. Neocaesar. c. 5. '-’ Zonaras, ibid. 3 Alex. Aristen. in Como. Ancyr. c. 14. 4 Cave, Prim. Christ. lib. 1. c. 8. p. 211. ‘ Bevereg. Not. in Conc. Nicen. c. 14. 2F 434 CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Boox X. ANTIQUITIES OF THE reg, that is, the hearers, who only stayed to hear the sermon and the Scriptures read, and the kneel- ers or substrators, who stayed to receive the minis- ter’s prayers and benediction also. Suicerus" and Basnage7 go much the same way,idividing them into two classes, the audientes and competentes. Maldonate8 adds to these a third class, which he calls catechumem' paem'tentes, such catechumens as were under the discipline and censures of the church. Cardinal Bona9 augments the number to four kinds, viz. the audientes, gem/‘zflectentes, competentes, and electz'. And indeed it appears, that there were four kinds of them; yet not ex- actly the same as Bona mentions; for the com- petentes and electz' were but one and the same order. But there was another order antecedent to all these, which none of these writers mention, which we may call the éé'wSm'rpevm, that is, such catechumens as were instructed privately, and with- out-doors, before they were allowed to enter the church. That there was such an order or degree of catechumens as this, is evi- dently deduced from one of the ca- nons of the council of Neocaasarea, which speaks of several sorts of catechumens, and this among the rest, in these words: If any catechu- men,10 who enters the church, and stands amongst any order of catechumens there, be found guilty of sin; if he be a kneeler, let him become a hearer, provided he sin no more; but if he sin while he is a hearer, let him be cast out of the church. Here it seems pretty evident, that there was an order of catechumens not allowed to enter the church, to which such of the superior orders as had offended, were to be degraded by way of punishment, which the canon calls expulsion from the church. Which does not mean, utterly casting them off as heathens again, but only reducing them to that state in which they were before, when they first received imposi- tion of hands to make them catechumens; which was a state of private instruction, before they were allowed to enter the church. Maldonate calls these, The order of penitents among the catechumens; and Balzamon and Zonaras, on this canon, style them mourners ; which expresses something of this order, but not the whole: for there were catechu- mens privately instructed out of the church, who were not properly mourners or penitents, as per- sons cast out of the church by any censure, but they were such as never had yet been in the church, but were kept at a distance for some time from that Sect. 2. Firstthe 55,0901? “fvah or catechu- mens instructed pri- vately without the church. privilege, to make them the more eager and de- sirous of it. And till we can find a better name for these, I call them from this canon, the é’éwGoélm/m, which is a general name, that will comprehend both this lowest order of catechumens privately instruct- ed out of the church, and also such delinquents of the superior orders as were reduced back again to it by way of punishment for their faults. The next degree above these, were sec,‘ 3_ the hearers, which the Greeks call dzejgzdgfihadi a’xpodmsvoz, and the Latins, audientes. mm’ or hearm' Who were so called from their being admitted to hear sermons and the Scriptures read in the church, but they were not allowed to stay any of . the pray- ers, no, not so much as those that were made over the rest of the catechumens, or energumens, or penitents ; but before those began, immediately after sermon, at the word of command then solemnly used, Ne quis audz'entz'um, Let none of the hearers be present, they were to depart the church. As appears from the author of the Apostolical Consti- tutions,ll who orders the deacon to dismiss the hearers and unbelievers with that solemn form of words, before the liturgy or prayers of the church began. Upon which account the council of Nice12 calls them, dlcpowpévovg povov, hearers only, to dis- tinguish them from such catechumens as might not only hear sermons, but also attend some particular prayers of the church, that were especially offered up for them, whilst they were kneeling upon their knees, and waiting for imposition of hands, and the minister’s benediction. Hence arose a third sort of cate- chumens, which the Greeks call 10- vvxhivovrsg, and the Latins, gemgflec- tentes and prostratz', that is, kneelers or prostrators. These sometimes have the name of catechumens more especially appropriated to them, as in the forementioned canon of the council of Nice, which runs in these terms, “ It is decreed by the great and holy synod, concerning the catechumens that have lapsed, That they for three years shall be hearers only; and after that, pray with the cate- chumens again.” Hence that part of the liturgy which respected them, was particularly called Ka- 'rnxovpévwv so'zxfi, The prayer of the catechumens, which came immediately after the bishop’s sermon, together with the prayers of the energumens and penitents, as we learn from the council of Laodicea,la which orders the method of them; and the forms of these prayers are recited both in the Apostolical Constitutions“ and St. Chrysostom,15 which I do Sect. 4. The 70p”- Khl'vov'ret" 0' 99‘ nuflectentes, the kneelers. 8 Suicer. Thesaur. t. 2. p. 72. '’ Basnag. Critic. in Baron. p. 484- B Maldonat. de Baptism. c. 1. p. 79. 9 Bona, Rer. Liturg. lib. l. c. 16. n. 4. 1° Conc. Neocaes. c. 5. Ka'rnxot'luevos, e'du elo'apxousuos eis Kupcaxdu Ev 'rfi 'ré'm Ka'rnxoupe'vwv 'ro'zgu erilcp, @709 (ii dpap'révwv, Ec‘zv ,uéu 'ycivv Khiuwv, a’xpocio'ew, pmcé'rl. (inap- erc'umvu' Edi: 6E drcpou'mevos g'n dpap'révy, e’Eweeio'ew. 1‘ Constit. Apost. lib. 8. c. 5. *2 Conc. N icen. can. 14. 1* Conc. Laod. c. 19. 1‘ Constit. Apost. lib. 8. c. 6. ‘5 Chrysost. Hom. 2. in 2 Cor. CHAP. II. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 435 ANTIQUITIES OF THE not here insert, because they will have a more proper place in the liturgy of the church. Together with these prayers they always received imposition of hands, kneeling upon their knees: whence the council of Neocmsarea,16 and others, distinguish them by the name of yovvxkivovrsg, the kneelers; the prayer is called orat'io impositiom's manfis, the prayer of imposition of hands, which was frequently repeated both in the public and private exercises of the catechumens. Sm 5 Above these was a fourth order, pgg’qmiga'giieggmag which the Greeks call ,Bam-tzénevor glilgaitemsrgtsiiggiscge- and gownlépsvor; and the Latins, com- petentes and electz' .- all which words are used among the ancients to denote the imme- diate candidates of baptism, or such as gave in their names to the bishop, signifying their desire to be baptized the next approaching festival. Their pe- titioning for this favour gave them the name of competentes ; and from the bishop’s examination and approbation or choice of them, they were styled electz'. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Catechetic Discourses,l7 always terms them ¢wn§6pwoc which though it frequently signifies persons already bap- tized, or illuminated by the sacrament of baptism, yet in his style, it denotes persons yet to be bap- tized, or such as had only the illumination of cate- chetical instruction antecedent to baptism. And so the name ,Gmmt'épwm, in the author of the Apostolical Constitutions,l8 is taken, not for persons actually baptized, but for those catechumens who were desirous to be baptized. Whence, in the same author, the prayer that is said over the catechu- mens in the church is called ,Ga-zmzopévwv and (poun- Zopévwv sing), the prayer for those that went about to be illuminated and baptized. Which also shows, that the substratz' and competentes were different or- ders or degrees of the catechumens, (contrary to what Mr. Basnage and some others have asserted,) since different prayers, at different times in the church, were offered up for them. These competentes, as I said, Were so called from their petitioning for the sacrament of baptism, as we learn from St. Austin, who often gives this reason '9 for it, telling us, that upon the approach of the Easter festival, it was usual for the cate- chumens to give in their names in order to be Sect. 6. How this last or- der were articular’ 1y disc?) ined and prepare for bap- tism. baptized, whence they were called competentes, pe- titioners or candidates for baptism. When their names were given in, and their petition accepted, then both they and their sponsors were registered in the books of the church; as is noted by the author under the name of Dionysius'i0 the Areopa- gite, who brings in the bishop commanding the priests to register both the catechumen and his sponsor or susceptor together. And in the council of Constantinople, under Mennas,21 there is mention made of an oflicer in the church, particularly ap- pointed to this business, one whose appropriated ofiice it was to register the names of those who offered and presented themselves to baptism. These registers were called their diptychs; but as they had several sorts of diptychs, some for the dead and some for the living, these were particularly called din'rvxa Zdwrwv, the diptychs or books of the living, as is observed by Pachymeres,22 in his comment upon the foresaid place of Dionysius. When their names were thus regis- tered, then followed a scrutiny or ex- Pmtifiji ii'eqqen; amination of their proficiency under the preceding stages of the cateche- egclhfhe name tical exercises. And this was often repeated before baptism, according to the direction given in this case by the fourth council28 of Carthage. They that were approved upon such examination, were sometimes called electz', the chosen, as we find in the decrees of Pope Leo Magnus, who speaks of them under this appellation,24 because they were now accepted and chosen as persons qualified for baptism at the next approaching festivals of Easter or Whitsuntide, which were the usual times of bap- tizing. Cardinal Bona makes these electz' a distinct order from the competentes ; but there seems to be no ground for such a distinction, because their ex- ercises were all the same henceforward till they arrived at baptism. For as they were all examined, so they were all exorcised alike for _Part18;ctb?. exor. twenty days before baptism. This custom is often mentioned by the an- 3'18 531% time. and cient writers, both of the Greek and Latin church. St. Austin, more than once, speaks 01 it as the common practice of the African church; joining examination,25 catechising, and exorcism to- gether, and telling us that the fire of exorcism, as 1‘ Conc. Neocaesar. c. 5. ‘8 Constit. Apost. lib. 8. c. 8. 19 Aug. de Fide et Oper. c. 6. Cum fontis illius sacra- menta peteremus, atque ab hoc competentes etiam vocare- mur, &c. Id. de Cura pro Mortuis, c. 12. Pascha appro- pinquante dedit nomen inter alios competentes. 3° Dionys. Hierarch. Eccles. c. 2. n. 4. p. 216. "Ispa'zpxns dvro'ypc'nlraa'fi'at, Keharisr 'ro'ls lspeiio't 'rdv &udpa Kai 'rdu dvc'zdoxov. 2' Conc. Constant. sub Menna. Act. 5. t. 5. p. 224. ‘O 'rfis qrpoo'n'yopias T5111 sis 'ro‘ flérr'rw'pa 1rpoa'r'ov'rwu E'y'ypdqaew 1’ Cyril. Catech. 1, 2, &c. 'rs'ra'ype'vos. 22 Pachymer. in Dionys. p. 234. 23 Conc. Carthag. 4. can. 84. Crebra examinatione bap- tismum percipiant. 2* Leo, Ep. 4. ad Episc. Siculos, c. 5. In baptizandis in ecclesia electis, hzec duo tempora, de quibus locuti sumus, esse legitima, &c. 25 Aug. in Psal. lxv. Post ignem exorcismi venitur ad baptismum. Id. de Fide et Oper. c. 6. Suis nominibus datis, abstinentia, jejuniis, exorcismisque purgantur.—-+ Ipsis diebus quibus catechizantur, exorcizantur, scrutantur. 2P2 436 BooK X. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. his phrase is, always preceded baptism. We learn the same from Cyprian, and the council of Car— thage, held under him, about the validity of he- retical baptism: for there it is often said, that he— retics26 and schismatics were first to be exorcised with imposition of hands, and then baptized, before they could be admitted as true members of the ca- tholic church. And we learn from thence also, that the practice was so universal, that the here- tics themselves did not omit it, though it was esteemed of no effect by the catholics when done by them, but looked upon only as a mock-practice, where one demoniac 2’ exorcised another, as Caecilius a Bilta phrases it in the same council. Ferrandus Diaconus28 also speaks of this exorcism, which im- mediately followed the scrutiny or examination of the competentes. And the like testimonies may be seen in Petrus Chrysologus,29 and the second council of Bracara,80 for the practice of the Italic and Spanish churches. . In the last of which, it is particularly specified that these exorcisms shall continue for twenty days before baptism. Gennadius of Mar- seilles$1 testifies not only for the French church, but the universal church throughout the whole world, that exorcisms and exsufHations were uniformly used both to infants and adult persons, before they were admitted to the sacrament of regeneration and fountain of life. And for the Greek church in par- ticular, (though the author of the Apostolical Con- stitutions, for a peculiar reason, makes no mention of this ceremony, because he represents the busi- ness of an exorcist not as a standing and ordinary ofiice in the church, but as an extraordinary and miraculous gift of God,32 as it was in the age of the apostles,) yet Gregory Nazianzen, and Cyril of J c- rusalem, are undeniable evidences of the practice: for Nazianzen, in his Oration upon Baptism,” thus bespeaks his catechumen: Despise not thou the medicinal ofiice of exorcism, neither grow weary of the length or continuance of it; for it is a proper trial of a man’s sincerity in coming to the grace of baptism. Cyril, in like manner,84 bids his catechu- men to receive exorcism with diligence in the time of catechizing. For whether it was insufflation or ex- orcism, it was to be esteemed salutary to the soul; for as mixed metals could not be purged without fire, so neither could the soul be purged without ex- orcisms, which were Divine, and gathered out of the Holy Scriptures. He adds a little after, that the exorcists did thus, by the power of the Holy Spirit, cast a terror upon the evil spirit, and make him fly from the soul, and leave it in a salutary state and hope of eternal life; where we may observe two things that give great light in this matter : 1. Why it is so often called by the ancients the “fire of exorcism ;” because it purges the soul, and as it were fires the evil spirit from it. 2. That these exorcisms were nothing but prayers, collected and composed out of the words of the Holy Scriptures, to beseech God to break the dominion and power of Satan in new converts, and to deliver them from his slavery by expelling the spirit of error and wick- edness from them. Therefore Cyril85 in another place calls them A670: U’Jxfig, the words of prayer, by which a devil, or a demoniac, who could not be held in chains of iron by many, was often held by one, through the power of the Holy Ghost-working in him; and the bare insufilation of an exorcist, was a fire of sufl‘icient force to expel the invisible spirits. So that the whole business of exorcism, and the power of it, is to be resolved into prayer, some forms of which are now extant in the Eucho- logium,86 or Rituals of the Greek Church, published by Goar, and the Rituals of the Ancient Gallican Church, published by Mabillon.“7 From whence also it appears, that the insufiiation, and imposition of hands, and the sign of the cross, [which was used at the same time, as‘ we find in the writings of St. Austin83 and St. Ambrose,”] were only looked upon as decent ceremonies or concomitants of prayer; to whose energy, and not to the bare cere- monies, the whole efiicacy and benefit of this part of the catechumens’ discipline is to be attributed. For though the ceremonies he sometimes only men- 26 Cone. Carthag. ap. Cyprian. p. 232. Censeo omnes haereticos et schismaticos, qui ad catholicam ecclesiam vo- luerint venire, non ante ingredi, nisi exorcizati et baptizati prius fuerint. Ibid. p. 237. Primo per mantis impositionem in exorcismo, secundo per baptismi regenerationem, tunc possunt ad Christi pollicitationem venire. 2" Ibid. p. 230. Apud haereticos omnia per mendacium aguntur, ubi exorcizat daemoniacus, &c. 2“ Fer-rand. Ep. ad Fulgent. de Catechizando ZEthiope, inter Fulgentii Opera, p. 606. Celebrato solenniter scru- tinio, per exorcismum contra diabolum vindicatur. 2” Pet. Chrysolog. Serm. 52. Hinc est quod veniens ex gentibus impositione mantis et exorcismis ante a daemone purgatur. Vid. Serm. 105. 8° Conc. Bracar. 2. c. 1. Ante viginti dies baptismi ad purgationem exorcismi concurrant catechumeni, 8m. ‘1 Gennad. de Dogmat. Eccles. 0.31. Illud etiam quod circa baptizandos in universo mundo sancta ecclesia uni- formiter agit, non otioso contemplamur intuitu: cum sive parvuli sive juvenes ad regenerationis veniunt sacramentum, non prius fontem vitae adeant, quam exorcismis et exsuflia- tionibus clericorum spiritus ab eis immundus abigatur. *2 Constit. Apost. lib. 8. c. 26. 83 Naz. Orat. 40. de Bapt. p. 657. M1‘; dta'rr'rfio'yc 550p- mogufi Sepa'n'siav, ,undiz 'Jrpds "rd pfilcos 76167119 d-n-a'yo- psr'm'ns. Béo'avo's e’o'q'i Kai aii'rn 'rfis qrepi 'rd xépto'pa 'yvno-Léq-n'ros. 8* Cyril. Praefat. ad Catech. n. 5. p. 7. TA; atropine-[4&9 déxa pea-d o'vrsdfis' Kd‘v eyr¢van6fis Kc'iu e’vropxio'fh'is, o'w'rn- pia O'OL 'rd wpdi'ypa vo'pwou eiuat, 8:0. Vid. Catech. l. n. 5. p. 18. 35 Cyril. Catech. 16. n. 9. p. 234. 8° Eucholog. p. 335. 8' Mabillon. Musaeum Italic. t. l. p. 323. 38 Aug. Confes. lib. l. 0. ll. '9 Ambros. de iis qui initiantur, c. 4. CHAP. II. 437 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. tioned, yet prayer is always to be understood, and to be taken for the substance of the action, whilst the other were only the circumstances of it. Sm 9' During this same term of twenty “my 5 ‘he 5*“ days the catechumens were also ex- ercises o fasting and abstinence, an confession, and. re- ercised with abstinence and fasting, penance’ as a suitable preparation for their en- suing baptism. The fourth council of Carthage has a canon which joins all these things together : Let such as give in their names to be baptized,‘0 be ex- ercised a long time with abstinence from wine and flesh, and with imposition of hands, and frequent examination, and so let them receive their baptism. In like manner St. Austin puts abstinence,41 fast- ings, and exorcism together, and particularly men- tions abstinence from the marriage bed, during this time of preparation for baptism. So Socrates tells us,‘2 when the Burgundians desired baptism of a French bishop, he first made them fast seven days. And when a certain Jewish impostor, who had been baptized by the Arians and Macedonians, came at last to Paul, the Novatian bishop, to desire the like favour of him, the same author observes,“ That Paul would not admit him, till he had first exercised him with fasting many days, and taught him the rudi- ments of the Christian faith. These fastings are also mentioned by Justin Martyr and Tertullian, where they speak of men’s preparation for baptism. As many, says Justin Martyr,“ as believe the things to be true which we teach, and promise to conform their lives to the laws of our religion, they first of all learn to ask pardon of their by-past sins of God by prayers and fastings, we joining our prayers and fastings with theirs. So Tertullian,‘5 They that are about to receive baptism, must first use frequent prayers and fastings, and geniculations and watch- ings, and make confession of all their former sins, in imitation of J ohn’s baptism, taking it for a favour, that they are not obliged to make public confession of their fiagitious crimes and offences. Whence we may conclude, that these confessions were sometimes public, and sometimes private, as directed by the wisdom of the church. They who would see more of this matter, may consult St. Cy- ril’s Catechetic Discourses,46 and Gregory Nazianzen’s Oration about Baptism,47 who, to confession, and prayers, and fasting, add humicubations, and groans and tears, and forgiving of enemies, as properindi- cations of a penitent mind, before men came to re- ceive the seal of forgiveness at God’s hand by the ministry of his church. At this time also the competentes were taught the words of the Creed, Pmgifyiiig'miag , , e words of tne whlch they were obliged to get by Sggfndthemrd’: heart, in order to repeat it before the bishop at their last examination before baptism. This part of catechising was often performed by the bishop himself, as we may learn from those words of St. Ambrose,“ where he thus ‘distinguishes the competentes from the other catechumens : \Vhen the catechumens were dismissed, I recited the Creed to the competentes in the baptisteries of the church. This was done in some churches twenty days before baptism; for so the second council of Bracara or- dered49 for the Spanish churches. But the council of Agde in France50 speaks only of eight days be- fore Easter, appointing Palm Sunday to be the day when the Creed should be publicly taught the compe- tentes in all their churches. But perhaps we are to distinguish betwixt the public and private teaching of the Creed; and so one might be done privately twenty days before by the catechists in the baptis- teries or catechetic schools, and the other publicly, eight days before, by the ministers of the church. However this was, there was a certain day appoint- ed for these catechumens to give an account of their Creed, and that was the parasceue, or day before our Saviour’s passion, which the council of Laodicea51 calls the fifth day of the great and solemn week, when such as were to be baptized, having learnt their Creed, were to repeat it before the bishop or presbyters in the church. And this was the only day, for several ages, that ever the Creed was publicly repeated in the Greek churches, as Theodorus Lec- tor52 informs us, who says, It was used to be recited only once a year, and that was on the parasceue, or ‘° Cone. Carthag. 4. c. 84. Bap tizandi nomen suum dent, et diu sub abstinentia vini et carnium, ac mantis imposi- tione, crebra examinatione baptismum percipiant. 4' Aug. de Fide et Oper. c. 6. Sine dubio non admit- terentur, si per ipsos dies quibus eandem gratiam percep- turi, suis‘nominibus datis, abstinentia, jejuniis, exorcismis- que purgantur, cum suis legitimis et veris uxoribus se concubituros profiterentur, atque hujus rei, quamvis alio tempore licitaa, paucis ipsis solennibus diebus nullam con- tinen tiam servaturos. ‘2 Socrat. lib. 7. p. 30. ‘4 Justin. Apol. 2. p. 93. ‘5 'l‘ertul. de Bapt. 0.20. Ingressuros baptismum, ora- tionibus crebris, jejuniis et geniculationibus et pervigiliis orare oportet, et cum confessione omnium retro delictorum, ut exponant etiam baptismum Johannis. Tingebantur, inquit, confitentes delicta sua. Nobis gratulandum est, si *8 Ibid. c. 17. non publice confitemur iniquitates aut turpitudines nostras. Vid. Tertul. de Poenitent. c. 6. 4“ Cyril. Catech. l. n. 5 et 6. p. 18 et 19. 4’ Naz. Orat. 40. de Bapt. ‘3 Ambros. Ep. 33. ad Marcellinam sororem, p. 158. Di- missis catechumenis, symbolum aliquibus competentibus tradebam in baptisteriis basilicae. ‘9 Conc. Bracar. 2. c. l. Ante viginti dies baptismi, ca- techumeni symbolum, quod est, Credo in Deum Patrem Om- nipotentem, specialiter doceantur. 5° Conc. Agathen. c. 9. Symbolum etiam placuit ab om- nibus ecclesiis una die, id est, ante octo dies Dominicaa re- surrectionis, publice in ecclesia. competentibus praedicari. 5‘ Conc. Laodic. c. 46. "01-1. b‘e'Z ‘robs ¢wnzoluiuous 'n‘w 'n'ia'rw e'rcnaufi'éusw, Kai. 'rfi 'lrs'p'rr'ry 'rfis éfidopédos d'rra'y- 'ya'kksw 'rqi évrto'xo'rrcp ii 'ro'is 7rpso'fiv're'pots ‘2 Theodor. Lector. lib. 2. p. 563. 438 Boox X. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. day of preparation to our Saviour’s passion, now called Holy Thursday; at which time, the bishop was always wont to catechise the competentes in the church. When they had learned the Creed, they were also taught the Lord’s prayer, which was not allowed ordinarily to the catechumens till imme- diately before their baptism. For this prayer was usually called, nix’) maré‘w, the prayer of the faith- ful, as being peculiarly used only by persons bap— tized, who were made sons of God by regeneration, and had a title, as such, to address God under the denomination of their Father which is in heaven: which catechumens, at least-those of the first orders, could not so properly do; but when they arrived at this last degree of competentes, and stood as imme- diate candidates of baptism, then this form was part of their instruction, and not before. As we learn from Ferrandus Diaconus, who speaks first of their repeating the Creed, and then learning53 the Lord’s prayer. And the same is evident from Chrysos- tom, Austin, and Theodoret, of whom I shall have occasion to speak more particularly in chap. v. sect. 9, where I treat of the ancient discipline in conceal- ing the sacred mysteries from the catechumens. Together with the Creed, they were Sect. ll. . "min 021;; fgfindgf also taught how to make thelr proper pilignélhcrgsifinggins responses 1n baptism; particularly the gghjgéfimigjfsgm form of renouncing the devil and his works, his pomps, his worship, his angels, his inventions, and all things belonging to him; and the contrary form of covenanting with Christ, and engaging themselves in his service: for though these acts in their highest solemnity did properly appertain to the substance of baptism it- self; yet it was necessary to instruct the catechu- mens beforehand, how they were to behave them- selves in these matters, that they might not, through ignorance, be at a loss when they came to baptism. And therefore the author of the Apostolical Con- stitutions“ orders it to be one special part of the catechumens’ instruction, just before their baptism, that they should learn what related to the renunci- ation of the devil, and covenanting with Christ. And these engagements they actually entered into, not only at their baptism, but before it, as a just preparation for it: for, says that author, they ought first to abstain from the contraries, and then come to the holy mysteries, having ‘purged their hearts beforehand of all spot and wrinkle, and habits of sin.‘ And the same thing is intimated by Tertul- lian, and Ferrandus the deacon of Carthage; for Ferrandus says expressly,55 that the catechumens, at the same time that they were exorcised, made their actual renunciation of the devil, and then were taught the Creed. And Tertullian means the same thing, when he says, that this renunciation was made twice; first in the church,56 under the hands of the bishop, and then again when they came to the water to be baptized. And hence it became one part of the ancient oflice of deaconesses, to instruct the more ignorant and rustic sort of women, how they were to make their‘ responses at the time of baptism to such interrogatories as the minister should then put to them, as I have had occasion to show from a canon of the fourth council of Car- thage,57 in discoursing of the office of deaconesses in another58 place. Beside these parts of useful disci- pline and instruction, there were some Whatgrircetaritzbythe other ceremonies of less note used to- iflgggégiiigrmiglgg ward the catechumens, which I must ' not wholly pass over. Among these was the cere- mony of the competentes going veiled, or with their faces covered, for some days before baptism: which custom is taken notice of by Cyril of J erusalem,” together with the reason of it: Your face, says he to the catechumens, was covered, that your mind might be more at liberty, and that the wandering of your eyes might not distract your soul. For when the eyes are covered, the ears are not diverted by any impediments from hearing and receiving the saving truths. St. Austin and J unilius give a more mystical reason for it. For they suppose the cate- chumens went veiled in public, as bearing the image of Adam’s slavery after his expulsion out of Para- dise; and that these veils, being taken away after baptism,60 were an indication of the liberty of the spiritual life, which they obtained by the sacrament 53 Ferrand. Ep. ad Fulgent. de Catechizando jEthiope. Ipsa insuper sancti symboli verba memoriter in conspectu fidelis populi clara voce pronuncians, piam regulam Do- minicae orationis accepit. 5‘ Constit. Apost. lib. 7. C. 39 et 40. Maus'ave'fl'w "rc'z crept‘. 'riis dqro'ra'yfis 'roii drafléhov, Kai 'rd 'mspi. 'rfis o-vu-ra'yfic q-é' Xptc'roi'i, &c. 55 Ferrand. Ep. ad Fulgent. inter Opera Fulgentii, p. 606. Per exorcismum contra diabolum vindicatur: cui se renun- ciare constanter, sicut hic consuetudo poscebat, auditurus symbolum, profitetur. 5‘ Tertul. de Coron. Mil. c. 3. Aquam adituri, ibidem, sed et aliquanto prius in ecclesia sub antistitis manu con- testamur nos renunciare diabolo, et pompae et angelis ejus. 5' Conc. Carthag. 4. c. 12. Viduae vel sanctimoniales, quae ad ministerium baptizandarum mulierum eliguntur, tam instructae sint ad officium, ut possint apto et sano ser- mone docere imperitas et rusticas mulieres, tempore quo baptizandae sunt, qualiter baptizatori interrogates responde- ant, et qualiter accepto baptismate vivant. 58 Book II. chap. 22. sect. 9. 59 Cyril. Praefat. ad Catech. n. 5. p. 7. 'Emcévraeai can To 7r960w1r0u, 'lua o'xohc'ro'y horn-6v 1‘1 duiuoia. 6° Aug. Ser. 4. in Dominic. Octav. Paschae, 155. de Tem- pore. Hodie octavae dicuntur infantium: revelanda sunt capita eorum, quod est indicium libertatis. Habet enim libertatem ista spiritalis nativitas. J unil. de Partibus Di- vinae Legis, lib. 2. 0.16. Bibl. Patr. t. 1. p. 15. Typum gerunt Adee Paradiso exclusi——-propter quod et per publi- cum capitibus tectis incedunt. CHAP. II. 439 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. of regeneration. However it be, the evidences are plain, that there was such a ceremony used to the catechumens: but, as Valesius61 rightly observes, it did not respect them all, but only that order of them that were peculiarly called the competentes. Another ceremony of this nature, of tirictieiinony was the custom of touching the ears called Ephphata, or . 323215 a; menial; of the catechumens, and saying unto them, Ephphata, Be opened: which Petrus Chrysologus “2 joins with imposition of hands and exorcism ; making it to have something of mys- tical signification in it, to denote the opening of the understanding to receive the instructions of faith. And St. Ambrose,‘53 or an author under his name, de- scribes the same custom, deriving the original of it from our Saviour’s example, in saying, Ephphata, Be opened, when he cured the deaf and the blind. But this custom seems not to have gained any great credit in the practice of the church; for besides these two authors, there is scarce any other that so much as mentions it; and whether it was used to the first or last order of the catechumens, is not very easy to determine. Sect “a The like may be said of another on‘itgi‘fg’giflttflg’; ceremony which is mentioned in St. meantby it’ Ambrose, which was the custom of anointing the eyes with clay, in imitation of our Sa- viour’s practice, when he cured the blind man by making clay of his spittle, and anointing his eyes with it, John ix. 6. The design of this ceremony, as that author explains it,“ was to teach the cate- chumens to confess their sins, and to review their consciences, and repent of their errors, that is, to acknowledge what state and condition they were in by their first birth. St. Austin seems also65 to refer to this practice in his discourse upon the blind man cured by our Saviour, where he says, The catechu- mens were anointed before baptism, as the blind man was by Christ, who was thereby perhaps made a catechumen. Sect. 15. Vicecomes“ and Mr. Basnage67 Whether the ca.- techumens held a mention another custom, which was ' t (it ' t1’! ' e - u o u e iiiiidesinaiiii'iimeii peculiar in their opinion to the Afri- ‘am. . - “M can church, VIZ. the use of a hghted taper put into the hands of the catechumens in time of exorcism, to signify (as Mr. Basnage ex- plains it) the illustration of the Holy Ghost; or, as Vicecomes would have it, the power of exorcism in expelling Satan. But their observation, I think, is grounded upon a mere mistake, interpreting some words of St. Cyprian and St. Austin in a literal sense, which are only figurative and metaphorical. Cyprian, speaking of the power of Christians over unclean spirits, says,‘is among many other things, that they could oblige them by their powerful stripes to forsake the persons they had possessed; that they could put them to the rack, and make them confess, and cry out, and groan; that they could scourge them with their whips, and burn them with their fire. Where it is plain enough to any unpre- judiced reader, that the fire of exorcism here spoken of, is of the same kind with the whips, and stripes, and rack; that is, the spiritual and invisible power of the Holy Ghost, as Cyprian himself immediately explains them, when he says, All this was done, but not seen; the stroke was invisible, and the effect of it only appeared to men. So that it was not a ma- terial fire, or a lighted taper in the hands of the catechumens, that Cyprian speaks of, as Vicecomes fancies, but the invisible fire or power of the Holy Ghost. And it is the same fire that St. Austin means,whose authority onlyis urged by Mr. Basnage to found this custom on. He speaks of a fire in- deed in the sacraments,69 and in catechising, and in exorcising. For whence otherwise should it he, says he, that the unclean spirits so often cry out, I burn, if there be not a fire that burns them? From the fire of exorcism we pass to baptism, as from fire to water, and from water to a place of rest. There is nothing in all this that can signify a light- ed taper in the hands of the catechumens, which certainly has no power to burn an unclean spirit: but the fire of exorcism is the invisible fire of the Holy Ghost, that is, the energy and powerful opera- tion of God’s Spirit, which casts out devils with a word, and makes Satan fall like lightning from heaven. Though I deny not but that this custom might come into the church in after ages; for Albi- 61 Vales. Not. in Euseb. de Vit. Constant. lib. 4. c. 62. ‘2 Chrysolog. Serm. 52. p. 286. Hinc est quod veniens ex gentibus impositione mantis et exorcismis ante a daemone purgatur; et apertionem aurium percipit, ut fidei capere possit auditum. “3 Ambros. de iis qui initiantur, c. 1. Quod vobis signifi- cavimus, cum apertionis celebrantes mysterium, diceremus, Eifeta, quod est, aperire. Hoc mysterium celebravit Christus in evangelio, cum mutum curaret et surdum. Id. de Sacramentis, lib. 1. c. 1. Mysteria celebrata sunt aper- tionis, quando tibi aures tetigit sacerdcs et nares. 6‘ Ambros. de Sacram. lib. 3. c. 2. Ergo quando dedisti nomen tuum, tulit lutum et linivit super oculos tuos. Quod significat ut peccatum tuum fatereris, ut conscieutiam tuam recognosceres, ut pmnitentiam ageres delictorum, hoc est, sortem humanae generationis agnosceres. “5 Aug. Tract. 44. in Johan. t. 9. p. 133. Catecbumenus inunctus est nondum lotus. 6“ Vicecomes de Ritib. Bapt. lib. 2. c. 32. 6" Basnag. Critic. in Baron. p. 488. “8 Cypr. ad Donatum. p. 4. Facultas datur, immundos et erraticos spiritus ad confessionem minis increpantibus co- gere; ut recedant duris verberibus urgere; conflictantes, ejulantes, gementes, incremento poenae propagantis exten- dere; flagris caedere, igne torrere. Res illic geritur, nec videtur; occulta plaga, et poena manifesta. ‘9 Aug. Enarrat. in Psal. lxv. p. 277. In sacramentis et in catechizando et in exorcizando adhibetur prius ignis. Nam unde immundi spiritus plerumque clamant, Ardeo, si ille ignis non est? Post ignem autem exorcismi venitur ad baptismum, &c. "440 BOOK X. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. nus Flaccus, a ritualist of the eighth century, speaks of a custom like to it,70 as used at least the night before the catechumens were to be baptized. For, describing the ceremonies of the vigil of the great sabbath before Easter, he says, A wax taper was used to be carried before the catechumens, which signified the illumination wherewith Christ enlight- ened that night by the grace of his resurrection, and the catechumens coming to baptism. And this was it that deceived Vicecomes, who would have all modern customs appear with a face of antiquity, and therefore wrested the words of St. Cyprian and St. Austin, to patronize a novel ceremony, which in their days was not so much as thought of. Sect. 16. There is another mistake which “1233533133: runs through the writings of many mechumens' modern authors, concerning what the ancients call the sacrament of the catechumens. They suppose, that though the catechumens were not allowed to participate of the eucharist, yet they had something like it, which vthey call eulogz'ze, or Pam's benedictus, consecrated bread, taken out of the same oblations, out of which anciently the eucharist itself was taken. :Baronius71 was the first that maintained this opinion, and after him Bellarmine,72 and Vicecomes,73 Albaspiny,74 Petavius,75 Bishop Be’ verege,76 Estius, Maldonate, and many others follow him in the same assertion. But the opinion is Wholly grounded upon a mistaken passage in St. Austin, who speaks indeed of something that, according to the language of his age, was then called the sacra- ment of the catechumens; but he does not say, that it was consecrated bread, or part of the same eulogz'ce out of which the eucharist was taken. His words are these a" That which the catechumens receive, though it be not the body of Christ, is yet a holy thing, and more holy than the common meat which sustains us, because it is a sacrament. He gives it the name of sacrament, according to the custom of that age, which was, to call every thing a sacrament, that had either any thing of mystery or of spiritual signification in it. But that this sacrament was not the consecrated bread, but only a little taste of salt, we may learn from the same St. Austin, who, speak- ing of himself as a catechumen, says, At that time78 he was often signed with the cross of Christ, and seasoned with his salt. ‘no more, appears further from a canon of the third And that it ‘was this, and council of Carthage, at which St. Austin was pre- sent, which orders,79 That no other sacrament should be given to the catechumens on the most solemn days of the paschal festival, except their usual salt; giving this reason for it, That forasmuch as the faithful did not change their sacraments on those days, neither ought the catechumens to change theirs. From whence it is easy to be inferred, that the sacrament of the catechumens means no more than this ceremony of giving them a little taste of the salt, like milk and honey that was given after baptism, as Cardinal Bona,” and Mr. Aubertine,81 and Basnage,82 have rightly concluded: the design of the thing being not to give them any thing in imitation of the eucharist, or introductory to that, which they always kept hid as a secret from them; but that by this symbol they might learn to purge and cleanse their souls from sin; salt being the emblem of purity and incorruption. I have but two things more to ob- - . . . Sect. l7. serve concerning the discipline used mieilosw‘igfecgfifgg: towards the catechumens. The one grlbsig 8222i fell into relates to those ecclesiastical censures and punishments, which were usually inflicted on them, in case they were found to have lapsed into any gross and scandalous offences. These being not yet admitted into full communion with the church, could not be punished as other ofi‘enders, by being subjected to those several rules of penance as other offenders were; nor did the church think fit to be so severe upon them, as upon other peni- tents that lapsed after baptism: but their punish- ment was commonly no more but a degradation of them from one degree of catechumenship to another, or at most a prorogation of their baptism to the hour of death. This appears plainly from the fifth canon of the council of Neoceesarea, which speaks thus of the several degrees of catechumens and their punishment: If any catechumen, who comes to church, and stands in any order of catechumens there, be found guilty of sin; if he be a kneeler or prostrator, let him become a bearer, if he sins no more; but if he sin while he is a bearer, let him be cast out of the church. After the same manner it 7° Albin. al. Alcuin. dc Divin. Otiic. c. 19. Cereus prac- cedit catechumenos nostros; lumen ipsius Christum signifi- cat, quo praesens nox illumiiietur, gratia scilicet resurrec- tionis, et catechumeni ad baptismum venturi. 7‘ Baron. an. 313. n. 55. "2 Bellarm. de Sacram. lib. 2. c. 25. "3 Vicecom. de Ritib. Bapt. lib. 2. c. 9. p. 259. 7‘ Albaspin. Observat. lib. 2. c. 36. ~ "5 Petav. Animadvers. in Epiphan. Exposit. Fidei, p. 366. '8 Bevereg. Not. in Can. 2. Cone. Antioch. Estius in Sentent. lib. 4. Dist. 10. sect. 5. "7 Aug. de Peccator. Meritis, lib. 2. c. 26. Quod acci- piunt catechumeni, quamvis non sit corpus Christi, sanctum est tamen, et sanctius quam cibi quibus alirnur, quoniam sacramentum est. "'9 Aug. Confess. lib. l. c. ll. Audieram ego adhuc puer de vita aeterna nobis promissa per humilitatem Filii tui Do- mini Dei nostri, et signabar jam signo crucis, et condiebar ej us sale. 79 Cone. Carthag. 3. can. 5. Placuit ut per solemnissimos paschales dies sacramentum catechumenis non detur, nisi solitum sal: quia si fideles per illos dies sacramenta non mutant, non catechumenis oportet mutari. 8° Bona, Rer. Liturg. lib. l. c. 16. n. 3. 8‘ Albertinus de Eucharist. lib. 2. p. 650 et 711. 82 Basnag. Exercit. Critic. in Baron. p. {187. CHAP. II. 441 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. was decreed by the great council of Nice, That if any of the catechumens (by whom they more espe- cially mean the kneelers) were found guilty of sin, they should be degraded to the classz's of the hear- ers for three years, and after that be admitted to pray with the catechumens again. In the council of Eliberis there are several canons to this purpose. For whereas the ordinary time of continuing cate- chumens was but two years, as appointed by that84 council; yet in case of 1apsing, they were obliged to continue catechumens sometimes three years, some- times five, and sometimes to the hour of death, be- fore they were baptized, according to the nature and quality of their offences. If a catechumen took upon him the oflice of a heathen flamen, and did not sacrifice,” but only exhibit the usual games, he was to be punished with the prorogation of his bap- tism for three years from the time of his lapsing. If a woman who was a catechumen divorced herself from her husband,86 her punishment Was-five years’ prorogation. But if she committed adultery, and after conception used any arts to destroy her infant in the womb, then her baptism was to be deferred to the hour87 of death. And this was the highest punishment that ever was inflicted upon catechu- mens. For though in this council many times communion, even at the hour of death, he denied to believers that had lapsed after baptism; yet we meet with no instance or command, in this or any other place, prohibiting catechumens to be baptized at their last hour. The sixty-seventh canon of this council88 orders them for some crimes to be cast out of communion; which is the same as the council of Neocaesarea calls casting out of the church, or re- ducing them back to the lowest rank of private cate- chumens, who were not allowed to enter the church: but when this was done, if ever after89 they showed true signs of repentance, and a desire to be baptized, they were admitted to this privilege at the hour of death, if not before: and this council gives a reason for this moderation toward them in comparison of others, because their sins were committed whilst they were unregenerate in the old man, and there- fore were more easily pardoned than crimes com- mitted by believers after baptism. This was the distinction universally observed between the pun- ishments of the catechumens, and those that had arrived to greater perfections in the church. But in case the catechumens died without baptism, by neglect or their trgpiigéythiém own default, then they were punished 5:33:53, {gagged as other malefactors, who unqualified themselves for'the solemnities of a Christian burial. They were put into the same rank as those who laid violent hands on themselves, or were publicly exe- cuted for their crimes. The first council of Bracara joins all these90 together, as persons unworthy to be interred with the usual solemnities of singing of psalms, or to be commemorated amongst the faith- ful in the oblations and prayers of the church. For in ancient times, prayers, and oblations, and thanks- givings were solemnly made in the communion ser- vice, for all that died in the faith of Christ, and in full communion with the church: but such as neg- lected their baptism, were none of this number; and therefore they were buried in silence, and no men- tion was ever after made of them among others in the prayers of the church. Chrysostom91 says ex- pressly, This was the peculiar privilege of those that died in the faith, but catechumens were excluded from this benefit and all other helps, except that of alms and oblations for them. This discipline plainly respected those who put a contempt upon the holy ordinance of baptism, and neg- lected to receive it, when the time of their catechu- menship perhaps was expired, and they were under an obligation by the laws of the church to have re- ceived it. But in case there was no contempt, but only an unforeseen and unavoidable necessity hin- dered their baptism, whilst they were diligently pre- paring for it; in that case, they were treated a little more favourably by the ancients, who did not ge- nerally think the mere want of baptism in such cir- cumstances to be such a piacular crime, as to ex- clude men absolutely from the benefit of church communion, or the hopes of eternal salvation. Some few of them indeed are pretty severe upon Sect. 19. What opinion the ancients had of the necessityof baptism. 83 Cone. Nicen. c. 14. Hspi 'rd'iu Ka'rnxa/ie'uwu Kai 'n'a- pa'n'ao'o'u'rwu 5802s 'rfi zi'ylq Kai lue'yéhy o'uuddtp, dies "rptd'w i'rd'iv adv-oils a’xpowpa'uous po'uou, nerd 'raii'ra H’IXSO'S'QL ,ue'rc‘x 'riiw Ka'rnxanéuwu. 8‘ Conc. Eliber. c. 42. 85 Ibid. c. 4. Item flamines, si fuerint eatechumeni, et se a sacrificiis abstinuerunt, post triennii tempera, placuit ad baptismum admitti debere. 8‘ Ibid. 0. 10 et 11. Intra quinquennii autem tem- pora, catechumena si graviter fuerit infirmata, dandum ei baptismum placuit non denegari. Vid. can. 73. de Dela- toribus. 8’ Ibid. can. 68. Catechumena, si per adulterium conce- perit, et eonceptum necaverit, placuit cam in fine baptizari. Vid. can. 73. ibid. 88 Cone. Eliber. can. 67. Prohibendum ne qua fidelis vel catechumena aut comicos aut viros cinerarios (al. scenicos) habeat; qusecunque hoc fecerit a communione arceatur. 8*’ Ibid. 0. 45. Qui aliquando fuerit catechumenus, et per infinita tempora nunquam ad ecclesiam accesserit, si eum de clero quisquam cognoverit esse (al. voluisse esse) Christianum, aut testes aliqui extiterint fideles, placuit, ei baptismum non negari, eo quod in veterem hominem deli- quisse videatur. 9° Cone. Bracar. l. c. 35. Catechumenis sine redemp- tioue baptismi defunctis, simili modo, non oblationis sanctea' commemoratio, neque psallendi impendatur oficium. 9' Chrysost. Horn. 3. in Phil. p. 1225. 01 as Ka'rnxofi. penal 056i 'raé-rns a’fwiiu'rat 1'77: wapanus'ias, &c. 442 Boox X. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. infants dying without baptism, and some others seem also, in general terms, to deny eternal life to adult persons dying without it: but yet, when they interpret themselves, and speak more distinctly, they make some allowance, and except several cases, in which the want of baptism may be sup- plied by other means, when the want of it proceeded not from contempt, but from some great necessity and disability to receive it. They generally ground the necessity of baptism upon those two sayings of our Saviour, “ He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved ;” and, “ Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” But then, in their exposition of these texts, they limit the sense to the ordinary me- thod of salvation, and such cases wherein baptism may be had. And as for extraordinary cases, wherein baptism could not be had, though men were desir- ous of it, they made several exceptions in behalf of other things, which, in such circumstances, were thought sufiicient to supply the want of it. The chief of these excepted cases was martyrdom, which commonly goes by the name of second baptism, or, baptism in men’s own blood, in the writings of the ancients, because of the power and efficacy it was thought to have, to save men by the invisible bap~ tism of the Spirit, without the external element of water. Tertullian,92 upon this account, not only dignifies it with the title of second baptism, but says, it was that which men desired to suffer, as that which procured the grace of God and pardon93 of all sins by the compensation of their own blood; for by this act all sins were pardoned. This was that second baptism94 in men’s own blood, with which our Lord himself was baptized after he had been baptized in water. This baptism was of force both to compensate for want of baptism, and to restore it when men had lost it. Cyprian treads in the steps of his master Tertullian; for speaking of the catechumens, who were apprehended and slain for the name of Christ, before they could be baptized in the church, he says, These were not deprived95 of Sect. 20. The want of bap- tism supplied by martyrdom. the sacrament of baptism, seeing they were baptized in the most glorious and celebrated baptism of their own blood; to which our Lord had reference, when he said, “ I have another baptism to be baptized with.” And, says he, that they who are thus bap- tized in blood, are also sanctified and consummated by their passion, and made partakers of the grace which God hath promised, is further declared by our Saviour in his Gospel, in that he said to the thief, who believed and confessed him upon the cross, “ To-day thou shalt be with me in paradise.” Cyprian has many other noble encomiums and flights upon this second baptism, and he excepts no sort of men from the benefit of it, but only one, that is, heretics and schismatics, because they wanted the grace of charity, and died out of the communion of the church without repentance; in which case he thought martyrdom itself not sufii- cient” to expiate their crimes, though it was avail- able to purge away any others. Origen was wont to speak of this kind of baptism, under the name of baptism by fire, as that which often translated even catechumens to heaven, though they wanted bap- tism by water. For so Eusebius represents both Origen’s sense and his own, when, speaking of the martyrs that suffered out of the school of Origen, he says, Two of them were only catechumens ; He- raclides among the men, and Herais among the W0- men,97 were in this class only, when they died, but they received baptism by fire, as Origen was used to phrase it. And that this baptism did purge away sins, as well as baptism by water, Origen himself declares : for he argues thus, That martyr- dom98 is rightly called baptism, because it procures remission of sins, as baptism by water and the Spirit doth; and that by virtue of Christ’s promise, who ascertains pardon of sins to all that suffer mar- tyrdom, saying, “ Whosoever shall confess me be- fore men, him will I confess before my Father which is in heaven.” And that this was then the general doctrine of the Christians in that age, appears fur- ther from this, that it was so common and Well known, that the heathens themselves were not 92 Tertul. de Patient. 0. 13. Quum vero producitur ad experimentum felicitatis, ad occasionem secundae intincti- onis, &c. 93 Tertul. Apol. c. 50. Quis non ubi requisivit accedit? ubi accessit, pati exoptat? ut totam Dei gratiam redimat, ut omnem veniam de e0 compensations sanguinis sui expe- diat P Omnia enim huic operi delicta donantur. 9‘ Tertul. de Bapt. c. 16. Est quidem nobis etiam secun- dum lavacrum, unum et ipsum, sanguinis scilicet: de quo Dominus, Habeo, inquit, baptismo tingui, quum jam tinctus fuisset.—Hic est baptismus, qui lavacrum et non acceptum repraesentat, et perditum reddit. "5 Cypr. Ep. 73. ad Jubaian. p. 208. Deinde nec privari baptismi sacramento, utpote qui baptizentur gloriosissimo et maximo sanguinis baptismo, de quo et Dominus dicebat, habere se aliud baptisma baptizari, &c. 9‘ Cvpr. de Orat. Domin. p. 150. Quale delictum est, quod nec baptismo sanguinis potest ablui? Quale crimen est, quod martyrio non potest expiari? Vid. Cypr. de Unit. Eccl. p. 113. It. Ep. 55. ad Antonian. p. 108. Ep. 57 et 60. ad Cornel. Ep. 73. ad Stephan. p. 207. 9’ Euseb. Hist. lib. 6. c. 4. 'Hpa'tc g'rt Karrnxeue'un, 'rd Bcivr'no'ua, 669 are qbno'iu ab'rds, 'ro 6L0‘: wvpds hafiéo'a, 'rdv fliou égeluihvs'eu. 93 Orig. Tract. 12. in Matth. p. 85. Si baptismus indul- gentiam peccatorum promittit, sicut accepimus de baptis- mo aquae et Spiritfis: remissionem autem accepit peccatorum et qui martyrii suscipit baptismum: sine dubio ipsum mar- tyrium rationabiliter baptismus appellatur.. Quoniam au- tem remissio fit peccatorum omni martyrium sustinenti, manifestum est ex e0 quod ait, Omnis qui confessus fuerit in me coram hominibus, et ego confitebor in i110 coram Patre meo qui est in coelis. CHAP. II. 443 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. ignorant of it. For in the Acts of the Martyrdom of St. Felicitas and Perpetua, who suffered about the time of Origen and Tertullian, one Saturus a catechumen99 is spoken of as being thrown to a leopard, who by the first bite of the wild beast was so washed all over in blood, that the people, as he returned, gave him the testimony of the second baptism, crying out, Salvum lotum. ; salvum lutum ,- Baptized and saved; baptized and saved. This they said only by way of ridicule of the Christian doctrine of martyrdom’s being esteemed a second baptism, and a means of salvation: but the author of the Acts rightly observes, that he was saved in- deed, who was so baptized. N or was this only the doctrine of the more an- cient writers, who lived in the times of persecution and martyrdom, but of those that followed after, and who are commonly imagined more rigid de- fenders of the necessity of baptism. For even St. Austin and all his contemporaries, who were en- gaged against Pelagius, made the same allowance in the case of martyrdom. St. Austin declares him- self ‘°° wholly of Cyprian’s opinion, that martyrdom does many times supply the room of baptism ; and he thinks Cyprian argued well from the instance of the thief upon the cross, to whom it was said, though he was not baptized, “ To-day thou shalt be with me in paradise.” St. Austin often argues from the same '°‘ example of the thief in other places, telling us, That by the ineffable power and justice of God, baptism was imputed to the thief upon his faith, and it was accounted to him as if he had re- ceived it, because he had a good mind and will to- ward it, though he could not actually receive it in his body by reason of his crucifixion. Therefore he reckons him “2 among those who are sanctified by the invisible grace without the visible sacrament, as he thinks many were both under the Old and New Testament: from whence yet it does not fol- low, that the visible sacrament may be contemned by any; for the contemner of it cannot by any means he sanctified by the invisible grace thereof. In his book De Civitate Dei, he speaks more ge- nerally'” of all those that suffer martyrdom, that though they have not been washed in the laver of regeneration, yet their dying for the confession of Christ avails as much toward the remission of sins, as if they had been washed in the holy fountain of baptism. For which he alleges those sayings of our Saviour, “ He that loses his life for my sake, shall find it;” and, “ He that confesses me before men, him will I confess before my Father which is in heaven.” This passage is repeated and approved by Prosper, in his Collection of Sentences 1°‘ out of St. Austin’s works : to which he adds an epigram of his own, expressing his sense to this purpose : They are not “'5 deprived of the holy baptism of Christ, who, instead of a font, are washed in their own blood; for what- ever benefit accrues to any by the ,mystical rite of the sacred laver, is all fulfilled by the glory of mar- tyrdom. Fulgentius is as severe as any man, yet he allows martyrdom 1°“ to compensate for the want of baptism. Though he pronounces peremptorily of all others, that die without the sacrament of faith and repentance, which is baptism, that they shall not inherit eternal life; yet he excepts those that are baptized in their own blood for the name of Christ. And Gennadius, after he has said, that none but persons “*7 baptized are in the way of sal- vation; and that no catechumen, though he die in good works, can have eternal life; yet he excepts the case of martyrdom, because in that all the mys- teries of baptism are fulfilled. A martyr, as the author of the Apostolical Constitutions “8 expresses 99 Acta Perpetuae et Felicit. ad calcem Lactantii de Mort. Persecutor. p. 34. Statim in fine spectaculi 1eopardo ejecto, de uno morsu tanto perfusus est sanguine, ut populus rever- tenti illi secundi baptismatis testimonium reclamaverit: Salvum lotum: salvum lotum. Plane utique salvus erat, qui hoc modo laverat. 1°° Aug. de Bapt. lib. 4. c. 22. Baptismi sane vicem ali- quando implere passionem, de latrone illo, cui non baptizato dictum est, Hodie mecum eris in paradiso, non leve docu- mentum B. Cyprianus assumit. 1°‘ Aug. Octogint. Quaest. lib. qu. 62. t. 4. Inetfabili p0- testate dominantis Dei atque justitia deputatum est etiam baptismum credenti latroni, et pro accepto habitum in animo libero, quod in corpore crucifixo accipi non po- terat. "2 \ug. Quaest. in Levit. qu. 84. t. 4. Hoc et de latrone illo, cui secum crucifixo Dominus ait, Hodie mecum eris in paradiso. N eque enim sine sanctificatione invisibili tanta felicitate donatus est. Proinde colligitur invisibilem sancti- ficationem quibusdam affuisse atque profuisse sine visibili- bus sacramentis.-Nec tamen ideo sacramentum visibile contemnendum est; nam contemptor ejus sanctificari nullo modo potest. ~ ‘"3 Aug. de Civ. Dei, lib. 13. c. 7. Quicunque etiam non percepto regenerationis lavacro, pro Christi confessions moriuntur, tantum eis valet ad dimittenda peccata quantum si abluerentur sacro fonte baptismatis. It. Ep. 108. ad Se- leucian. Ipsa passio pro baptismo deputata est. It. de Orig. Animae, lib. 1. c. 9. 1°‘ Prosper. Sentent. 149. “5 1d. Epigram. 88. Fraudati non sunt sacro baptismate Christi, Fons quibus ipsa sui sanguinis unda fuit Et quicquid sacri fert mystica forma lavacri, Id totum implevit gloria martyrii. "18 Fulgent. de Eide ad Petmm, c. 30. Firmissime tene et nullatenus dubites, exceptis illis qui pro nomine Christi suo sanguine baptizantur, nullum hominem accepturum vitam aeternam, qui non hic a malis suis fuerit per pceni- tentiam fidemque conversus, et per sacramentum fidei et pcenitentiae, id est, per baptismum liberatus. Vid. Fulgent_ de Baptismo Ethiopis, 0.8. 1°’ Gennad. de Eccles. Dogmat. c. 74. Baptizatis tan- tum iter esse salutis credimus ; nullum catechumenum, quamvis in bonis operibus defunctum, vitam aeternam ha- bere credimus, excepto martyrio, ubi tota baptismi sacra- menta complentur. we Constit. Apost. lib. 5. c. 6. ‘444 Boox X. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. it, may rejoice in the Lord, and leave this life with- out sorrow, though he be but a catechumen; be- cause his passion for Christ is a more genuine bap- tism: he really and experimentally dies with his Lord, whilst others only do it in figure. It were easy to add many other such testimonies out of St. Chrysostom,109 and St. J erom,“° St. Basil,‘“ Gregory Nazianzen,112 Cyril of J erusalem,n8 and St. Am- brose z'“ but enough has been already said to show this to be the general sense of the ancients, that catechumens were not to be despaired of, though they died without baptism, if they were baptized in their own blood. Sect 2L Nor was it only the case of martyrs ,eggggcjdgghsggg they speak so favourably of, but of all ititgirgggggggg: other catechumens, who, whilst they aptlsm' were preparing for baptism by the exercises of faith, and repentance, and a pious life, were suddenly cutoff, before they could have oppor- tunity to put their desires in execution. St. Ambrose joins these two cases together, and makes them in a manner parallel. For in his funeral oration upon the younger Valentinian, who was thus snatched away before he could attain to his desired baptism, he thus makes apology for him: If any one“ is concerned that the holy rites of baptism were not solemnly administered to him, he may as well say, that the martyrs are not crowned, if they happen to die whilst they are only catechumens: but if the martyrs are washed in their own blood, then this man also was washed by his piety and desire of baptism. St. Austin was entirely of the same opi- nion, that not only martyrdom,116 but faith and re- pentance joined with a desire of baptism, was sufii- cient to save a man in the article of necessity, when there was otherwise no opportunity to receive it. Considering, says he, over and over again the case. of the thief upon the cross, I find that not only suffering for the name of Christ may supply that which was wanting of baptism, but also faith and true conversion of heart, if want of time in extreme necessity would not suffer the sacrament of baptism to be administered. For that thief was not cruci- fied for the name of Christ, but for the merit of his own crimes; nor did he suffer because he was a believer, but he became a believer whilst he was a suffering. Therefore his case declares how far that saying of the apostle avails, without the visible sa- crament of baptism, “ With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation :” but then only this invisible operation is performed, when the ministry of bap- tism is excluded purely by the article of necessity, and not any contempt of religion. Therefore when these writers speak in general terms of the absolute necessity of baptism, they must be allowed to in- terpret themselves with these two limitations and restrictions. As when St. Ambrose says,"7 No man ascends into the kingdom of heaven, but by the sa- crament of baptism, he must be understood to ex- cept martyrs, and such catechumens as were desirous of baptism, but could not have it by reason of some pressing necessity intervening to hinder it: ‘such as was the case of Valentinian, who was slain sud- denly before he had opportunity to receive it. The like interpretation must be put upon all such pas— sages in St. Austin,118 Chrysostom,“9 Cyril of J eru- Salem)” or any others, who speak in general terms of the absolute necessity of baptism for catechu- mens or adult persons. Cyprian also had a very charitable opinion concerning all such heretics ,icffigtfjfirf’gftmfé and schismatics, as forsook their err- ‘£111’ ?,f,“;§,§f‘;,‘;°?; ors, and returned to the unity of the ihziigiiitsettivazupply catholic church. For though accord— thewantofbapmm' ing to his principles [who denied the validity of their baptism] none of these could be really and truly baptized, unless they were rebaptized upon their return to the church; yet if any such died in the unity of the church without being rebaptized, he did not think their condition deplorable, [though in his opinion they died without baptism,] but cha- ritably hoped they might find mercy and favour with the Lord. For he thus answers the objection that was made against his own opinion about rebap- Sect. 22. tization : Some man will say,121 What then becomes‘ "9 Chrys. Horn. 11. in Ephes. p. 1107. 1"’ Hieron. Com. in Rom. vi. t. 9. p. 277. m Basil. de Spir. Sanct. c. 15. t. 2. p. 323. "2 Nazianzen. Orat. 39. in S. Lumina. t. l. p. 634. “3 Cyril. Catech. 3. n. 7. _ 1“ Ambros. de Virginib. lib. 3. p. 118. "5 Ambros. de Obitu Valentin. p. 12. Si quia solenniter non sunt celebrata mysteria, hoc movet: ergo nec mar- tyres, si catechumeni fuerint, coronant-ur. Quod si suo ab- luuntur sanguine, et hunc sua pietas abluit et voluntas. "6 Aug. de Bapt. lib. 4. c. 22. Etiam atque etiam con- siderans, invenio non tantum passionern pro nomine Christi id quod ex baptismo deerat, posse sup plere, sed etiam fidem conversionemque cordis, si forte ad celebrandum mysterium baptismi in angustiis temporum succurri non potest. Ne- que enim latro ille pro nomine Christi crucifixus est, sed pro meritis facinorum suorum; nec quia credidit passus est, sed dum patitur credidit. Quantum igitur valeat etiam sine visibili sacramento baptismi quod ait apostolus, corde cre- ditur ad justitiam, ore autem confessio fit ad salutem, in illo latrone declaratum est: sed tunc impletur invisibiliter, cum ministerium baptismi non contemptus religionis, sed arti- culus necessitatis excludit. "7 Ambros. de Abrah. Patriarch. lib. 2. c. 10. Nemo asccndit in regnum cmlorum, nisi per sacramentum bap- tismatis. “8 Aug. de Bapt. lib. 4. c. 21. "9 Chrys. de Sacerdot. lib. 3. c. 5. lip. p. 1224. Horn. 3. in 1 Cor. p. 347. 1” Cyril. Catech. 3. n. 7. "1 Cypr. Ep. 73. ad Jubaian. p. 208. Sed dicet aliquis : Quid ergo fiet de his qui in praeteritum de haeresi ad eccle- siam venientes, sine baptismo admissi sunt? Potens est Dominus misericordia sue. indulgentiam dare, et eos qui ad It. Horn. 3. in Phi- CHAP. II. 445 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. of all those, who in times past came over from he- resy to the church, and were admitted without bap- tism? The Lord, says he, is able of his mercy to grant them indulgence, and not exclude them from the gifts of his church, who are simply admitted into the church, and die in the communion of it. Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea, delivers himself much after the same manner in answer to the same ob- jection: What shall become of thosem who, return- ing from heretics, are admitted without the baptism of the church? If they depart out of the world, says he, in that condition, we reckon them in the number of such catechumens among us as die before they are baptized. So that in his opinion two sorts of persons might be saved without baptism, that is, catechumens in the church, and such heretics as returned to the peace and unity of the church, though, according to his sentiments, they were not baptized. St. Austin often mentions and approves this opinion of Cyprian ;128 nay, and urges it in fa- vour of the church against the Donatists: for sup- posing the catholics did err in admitting heretics without baptism, yet they were in the number of those, whom Cyprian presumed capable of pardon for the sake of unity and charity, which covers a multitude of sins. St. Basil also, as Vossius124 has rightly observed, seems to have been of Cyprian’s opinion, that God in his mercy was able to save such schismatics as returned to the peace and unity of the church, even without baptism. For though he thought their baptism null and void, as Cyprian did, yet he advises men to comply with the custom of receiving ‘25 such to communion in those churches which received their baptism, rather than break the peace and unity of the church upon it. Which ad- vice he would hardly have given, had he not thought such men in such circumstances capable of salva- tion by God’s mercy without baptism. I find one case more in which 11188232823 per- some of the ancients made an allow- sons communicat- iqswiththeqhurch ance for the want of baptism; and without baptism. EEK 55:11:52??? :rlllat was, when the church, presum: mm. g a person to have been truly bap tized, (he himself bonafide presuming so too,) admitted him to communicate constantly at the altar for many years, though it appeared at last that either he had not been baptized at all, or at least with a very doubtful and suspicious bap- tism; yet in this case constant communicating with the church was thought to supply this defect or want of baptism. A single act of communicating, indeed, in a child, or a catechumen, happening only by some surprise or mistake, was not deemed suf- ficient to compensate for baptism; for in that case the canons provided, that whenever any such thing happened the party should be immediately bap- tized. Thus in the canonical determinations of Timothy, bishop of Alexandria, the question being put, What should be done in case a youth of seven years old, or a man that was only a catechumen, being present at the oblation, had communicated through ignorance or mistake? the answer ‘26 is, Let him be baptized. And so the author of the Apostolical Constitutions brings in the apostles making this decree)” That if any unbaptized person should, through ignorance, partake of the eucharist, they should immediately instruct and baptize him, that he might not go away a despiser. But in case a man, upon presumption of his being truly bap- tized, when he was not so, had been allowed to communicate with the church for many years, his communicating at the altar was thought to super- sede the necessity of baptism, and such a one was allowed to continue in the church without rebap- tizing. There is a famous instance in Eusebius of such a case that happened at Alexandria in the time of Dionysius, which Eusebius relates out of an epistle of Dionysius to Xystus, bishop of Rome, where he asks the bishop of Rome’s advice upon it. A certain person, who for many years had assem- bled and communicated ‘28 with the church, both in his own time, and in the time of his predecessor, Heraclas, happening to be present at the baptism of some who were lately baptized, upon hearing the interrogatories and answers that are usually made in that solemnity, came to me weeping and lament- ing himself, and falling down at my feet, confessed, with a most solemn protestation, that the baptism which he had received among heretics, was not like this, nor had any thing common with it, for it was full of blasphemy and impiety; and therefore he said his soul was full of trouble, and he had not confidence to lift up his eyes unto God, being ini- tiated with such impious words and ceremonies. He prayed, therefore, that I would give him our sin- cere baptism, and admit him to the adoption and ecclesiam simpliciter admissi, in ecclesia dormierunt, ab ecclesiae suae muneribus non separare. ‘22 Firmjl. Ep. 75. ap. Cyprian. p. 226. Quid ergo, in- quiunt, fiet do his qui ab haereticis venientes, si-ne ecclesiaa baptismo admissi sunt? Si de saeculo excesserunt, in eorum numero, qui apud nos catechizati quidem, sed priusquam baptizarentur obierunt, habentur. 12’ Aug. de Bapt. lib. 2. c. 13. Cum arbitraretur eos qui extra ecclesiae communionem baptizarentur, baptismum non habere, credidit eos tamen in ecclesiam simpliciter ad- missos, propter ipsius unitatis vinculum posse ad veniam pervenire. It. lib. 5. c. 2. Bene quidem praasumpsit, quod charitas unitatis possit cooperire multitudinem peccato- rum.—Nos autem si ad ecclesiam sine baptismo admittimus, in eo numero surnus quibus Cyprianus propter unitatis cus~ todiam ignosci posse praesumpsit. It. lib. 5. c. 28. It. cont. Creseon. lib. 2. c. 33 8t 35- 12‘ Voss. de Baptismo, Disput. II. p. 156. ‘25 Basil. Can. Epist. c. l. 12‘ Timoth. Respons. Canon. qu. 1. ap. Bevereg. Pan- dect. t. 2. ‘2" Constit. Apost. lib. 7. c. 25. '28 Dionys. Epist. ad Xystum, ap. Euseb. lib. 7. c. 9. 446 Boox X. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. grace of the church. Which thing I durst not do, but told him, his communicating for so long time at the altar was sufiicient to this purpose. For I durst not rebaptize one who had so often heard the solemn thanksgiving, and joined with the rest in saying Amen to it; who had stood at the Lord’s table, and stretched forth his hand to receive the holy food; who had taken it and been so long used to participate of the body and blood of Christ. But I bid him be of good courage, and with a firm belief, and a good conscience, continue to partake of the holy mysteries. This was a nice resolution of a rare and singular case, and we scarce meet with such another instance in ancient history; but I have mentioned this and all the preceding cases, to show, that the ancients had not generally that rigid opinion of the absolute necessity of baptism (barring the neglect and contempt of the sacred in- stitution) which some would father upon them ; since they thought the bare want of it might be dis- pensed with and supplied so many several ways; either, 1. By martyrdom; or, 2. By faith and true conversion; or, 3. By an immense charity, and love of unity and peace; or, 4. By a constant partaking of the eucharist in the bosom of the church. Sect ,4. But it is to be observed, that these “$3,218; $1,321 allowances were chiefly made to adult 3%., $53,332:: persons, who could exhibit faith and cemmg it‘ repentance, the essential parts of re- ligion, to make some compensation for the want of the external ceremony of baptism; but as to in- fants, the case was thought more diflicult, because there was no personal faith or repentance could be pleaded in their behalf, so that they were destitute both of the outward visible sign, and the inward spiritual grace, of baptism. Upon this account, they who spoke the most favourably of them, would only venture to assign them a middle state, neither in heaven nor hell. As Gregory Nazianzen,129 who says, That such children as die unbaptized with- out their own fault, shall neither be glorified nor punished by the righteous Judge, as having done no wickedness, though they die unbaptized, and as rather suffering loss than being the authors of it. Severus, bishop of Antioch, follows Nazianzen in this opinion; for, first, he says,mo That if children die unbaptized, without partaking of the laver of regeneration, they are certainly excluded from the , kingdom of heaven ; but then he adds, that foras- much as they have committed no sin, they shall not undergo any punishment or torment, but be con- signed to a sort of middle state, which he describes as a state betwixt the glory of the saints and the punishment of the damned. But this opinion of a middle state never found any acceptance among the Latins. For they make but two places to receive men after the day of judgment, heaven and hell; and concluded, that since children, for want of washing away original sin, could not be admitted into heaven, they must of necessity be in hell, there being no third place between them. St. Austin fre- quently insists upon this against the Pelagians, who distinguish between the kingdom of God and eter- nal life, asserting, that children dying unbaptized might be admitted to eternal life and salvation, though not to the kingdom of God: whom he op- poses after this manner in his books about the Me- rits and Remission of Sin: Though, he says, the condemnation 18' of those shall be greater, who to original sin add actual sins of their own; and every man’s condemnation so much the greater, by how much greater sin he commits; yet original sin alone does not only separate from the kingdom of God, whither children, dying without the grace of Christ, cannot enter, as the Pelagians themselves confess; but also it excludes them from eternal life and sal- vation, which can be no other than the kingdom of God, into which our communion with Christ alone can introduce us. A little after ‘32 he says plainly, that children dying without baptism are under con- demnation, though theirs be the mildest of any other. But he is very much deceived, and deceives others, who teaches that they are in no condemna- tion at all, whilst the apostle declares, that “judg- ment was by one offence to condemnation.” And again, that “by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation.” He tells us,188 upon this account the Punic Christians were used to call baptism by the name of salvation, and the sacrament of the body of Christ, life. And therefore, since no one could hope for salvation and eternal life without baptism and the body and blood of the Lord, it was in vain to promise children sal- vation without them. In the same book ‘a’ he de- "9 Naz. Orat. 40. t. i. p. 653. 18° Sever. Catena in J oh. iii. p. 83. 131 Aug. de Peccat. Meritis, lib. l. c. 12. Quamvis con- demnatio gravior sit eorum, qui originali delicto etiam pro- pria conjunxerunt, et tanto singulis gravior, quanto gravius quisque peccavit: tamen etiam illud solum quod originaliter tractum est, non tantum a regno Dei separat, quo parvulos sine accepta gratia Christi intrare non posse, ipsi etiam con- fitentur; verum et a salute ac vita seterna facit alienos, quae nulla alia esse potest prazter regnum Dei, quo sola Christi societas introducit. 132Ibid. c. 16. Potest proinde recte dici, parvulos sine baptismo de corpore exeuntes in damnatione omnium mitis- sima futuros. Multum autem et fallit et fallitur, qui eos in damnatione praedicat non futuros, dicente apostolo, J udicium ex uno delicto in condemnationem. Et paulo post? Per unius delictum in omnes homines ad condemnationem. '33 Ibid. c. 24. Cptime Punici Christiani baptismum ipsum nihil aliud quam salutem, et sacramentum corporis Christi, nihil aliud quam vitam vocant.--Si ergo nec salus, nec vita acterna sine baptismo, et corpore et sanguine Do- mini cuiquam speranda est, frustra sine his promittitur parvulis. 18‘ Ibid. 0. 28. Nec est ullus-ulli medius locus, ut possit can». II. 447 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. clares peremptorily against the doctrine of a middle state for infants or any other. There is no middle place for any, says he; he must be with the devil, who is not with Christ. For our Lord himself, in- tending to take away this opinion of a middle state, which some erroneously endeavour to assign to chil- dren dying unbaptized, as if by virtue of their in- nocence they might be in eternal life, though not with Christ in his kingdom, so long as they wanted baptism, pronounced this definitive sentence to stop the mouths of these men, saying, “He that is not with me, is against me.” He argues against this middle state in many other places "5 against the Pe- lagians, and urges the necessity of baptism to take away original sin in children, and bring them by regeneration to eternal life: Therefore, he says, men ran with their children to be baptized, because they verily believed they could not otherwise be made alive in Christ. Fulgentius186 is rather more pe- remptory and severe than St. Austin: he says, It is to be believed, without all doubt, that not only men, who are come to the use of reason, but infants, whether they die in their mother’s womb, or after they are born, without baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are punished with everlasting punishment in eternal fire, because though they have no actual sin of their own, yet they carry along with them the condemnation of original sin from their first conception and birth. The author under the name of Justin Martyr,187 also speaking of infants, says, There is this dif- ference between those that die baptized, and those that die unbaptized, that the one obtain the benefits that come by baptism, which the other do not obtain. And the author of the Hypognostics,188 under the name of St. Austin, who is supposed by learned men to be either Marius Mercator, or Sixtus, bishop of Rome, disputing against the Pelagians, treads ex- actly in the steps of St. Austin; for he says, There is no middle state between heaven and hell; a third place for unbaptized infants is no where mentioned in Scripture. This was only an invention forged in the shop of the Pelagians, to find out a place where infants might have rest and glory without the grace of Christ. These are pretty severe expressions, and yet, considering the state of the controversy be- tween the catholics and Pelagians, there seems to have been pretty good reason for them. For Pela- gius said, There was no original sin, nor any need of baptism to wash away the guilt of it, but chil- dren might obtain salvation and eternal life, dis- tinct from the kingdom of God, without it. In opposition to this, the catholics maintained the ne- cessity of baptism for infants, as well as adult per- sons, to purge away original sin, and procure eternal life for them. But they have not so plainly told us, whether there be any excepted cases as to what concerns infants, as they have concerning adult per- sons ; whether a bare want of baptism in the child, when there was no contempt or neglect of baptism in the parent, but an unavoidable necessity and sudden death intervening, debars the child from the kingdom of heaven? Among all the ancients, only Fulgentius has declared absolutely against the sal~ vation of infants dying before the birth in the mother’s womb. But others seem to speak more favourably, except where the parents were guilty of a contempt or neglect of baptism, in not bringing their children to be baptized when they had time and opportunity to do it, in which case the child might fail of salvation for the parents’ fault, and there be no impeachment of God’s justice or mercy in the punishment. This seems to have been the judgment of that excellent author, who wrote the book De Vocatione Gentium, which goes under the name of Prosper or St. Ambrose. For he gives this reason, why this doctrine about the necessity of baptism for the salvation of infants was so earnestly pressed upon men, That parents might not be re- miss or negligent in bringing their children to baptism; which they certainly would be, if they were once possessed with an opinion that there was no necessity of baptism to salvation. We ought not to believe, says he,189 in general terms, that they who obtain not the sacrament of regeneration, can appertain to the society of the blessed. For every esse, nisi cum diabolo, qui non est cum Christo. Hinc et ipse Dominus volens auferre de cordibus male credentium istam nescio quam medietatem, quam conantur quidam parvulis non baptizatis tribuere, ut quasi merito innocentiae sint in vi- ta aterna, sed quia non sunt baptizati, non sint cum Christo in regno ejus, definitivam protulit ad haec ora obstruenda sententiam, ubi ait, Qui mecum non est, adversum me est. “5 Aug. de Anima, lib. 1. c. 9. lib. 2. c. 12. lib. 3. c. 13. It. Epist. 28. ad Hieron. '86 Fulgent. de Fide ad Petr-um, c. 27. Firmissime tene et nullatenus dubites, non solum homines jam ratione uten- tes, verum etiam parvulos, qui sive in uteris matrum vivere incipiunt et ibi moriuntur, sive cum de matribus nati, sine sacramento sancti baptismatis, quod datur in nomine Patris, Filii, et Spiritus Sancti, de hoc saeculo transeunt, ignis aeterni sempiterno supplicio puniendos: quia etsi propriae actionis peccatum nullum habuerunt, originalis tamen pec- cati damnationem carnali conceptione et nativitate traxe- runt. Vid. Fulgent. de Baptismo IEthiopis, c. 8. 137 Justin. Quaest. et Respons. ad Orthodox. qu. 56. ‘38 Aug. Hypognostic. lib. 5. c. 5. Primum locum fides catholicorum divina authoritate regnum credidit esse coelo- rum, unde, ut dixi, non baptizatus excipitur; secundum, Ge- hennam, ubi omnis apostata, vel a Christi fide alienus, aeterna supplicia experietur. Tertium penitus ignoramus, imo nec esse in Scripturis Sanctis invenimus. Finge, Pelagiane, lo- cum ex officina perversi dogmatis tui, ubi alieni a. Christi gratia vitam requiei et gloriae possidere parvuli possint. ‘39 Prosper. de Vocat. Gentium, lib. 2. c. 8. N eque credi fas est, eos qui regenerationis non adepti sunt sacramentum, ad ullum beatorum pertinere consortium.——-N on latet quan- tum cordibus fidelium desidiae gigneretur, si in baptizandis parvulis nihil de cujusquam negligentia, nihil de ipsorurn esset mortalitate metuendum. 448 Boox X. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. one must be sensible, how easily sloth and negli- gence would creep into the hearts of the faithful, if in the business of baptizing infants nothing was to be feared from the parents’ carelessness, or the mor- tality of their children. This author presses the necessity of baptizing infants, as all good Christians do, upon supposition of some benefit which the pa-- rents’ care may bring to the child ; and contrariwise, an irreparable damage and loss which the child may sustain by the parents’ default and negligence. And this is sufiicient to quicken the care and watchful- ness of parents, though it be allowed, that in cases of extreme necessity children may be saved without baptism. Nor is it improbable, that the ancients intended no more, though their expressions run in severe and general terms, without standing precisely to make exceptions. For it cannot be denied but that infants may be martyrs as well as adult per- sons; such were the children which Herod slew at Bethlehem: parents may likewise desire baptism for their children, vowing faith and repentance in their name, when some extreme necessity only, and not any culpable neglect, hinders the obtaining of it. And in such cases, if adult persons may be saved without baptism, [as all the ancients agree,] there seems to be a parity of reason to extend the same charity and indulgence to little children. Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims, a man of great reputation and learning in his time, and one well versed in the writings of the ancients, gives this solution of the whole matter upon a remarkable case that happened in his time. A certain bishop of the same country, Hincmar, bishop of Leon, had for some unjust cause hindered the baptism of infants in his diocese, when their parents or godfathers desired they might be baptized; by which means many children died with- out baptism. Now, the question was concerning the future state of these infants, whether the parents’ desire and presenting them to baptism was sufiicient for the salvation of their children? This, without any scruple, HincmarHo resolves in the afiirmative, That as children, who are subject to original sin, which is the sin of other men, are saved by the faith of others, that is, their godfathers, answering for them in baptism; so those infants, who, by the command of that perverse bishop, were denied bap- tism, might be saved by the faith and faithful desire of their parents or godfathers, who had required both in heart and words that their children might be baptized; and this by the gift of him, whose Spi- rit, that is the author of regeneration, bloweth where it listeth. If we thus interpret the sense of the ancients with Hincmar, then all those passages which condemn infants dying without baptism, must be understood not of the bare want of baptism, when it could not be had, but of the parents’ con- tempt or neglect in not desiring or procuring bfip- tism for their children, when it was in their power to do it. I have been the longer in explaining and confirming the truth of these points concerning the necessity of baptism both for infants and adult per- sons, because the ancients are mistaken by some, and accused by others, as too severe in urging the necessity of baptism; when yet it appears their sentiments about it were exact enough as to what concerned the case of catechumens, and also capa- ble of a favourable interpretation in the case of in- fants, if we do not over-rigidly force their general expressions beyond the true design and intentions of the authors. ' Ishould here have put an end to this discourse concerning the institution and discipline of the cate- chumens, but only that there are two things that may seem to require a little more distinct handling than has been allowed them above: I.' Concerning the original, nature, and use of the ancient creeds of the church, which were chiefly drawn up for the institution and service of the catechumens, and therefore are most proper to be considered in this place. 2. Concerning that part of their discipline, which consisted in concealing from them for some time the distinct and full knowledge of some of the higher doctrines and mysterious rites of the church. The consideration of which things shall be the sub- ject of the following chapters. CHAPTER III. OF THE ORIGINAL, NATURE, AND NAMES OF THE ANCIENT CREEDS OF THE CHURCH IN speaking of the creed, it will be proper to say something, in the first place, of its several ancient names, and the reasons of them, because some of them are a little obscure, and liable to be mistaken. The most usual name of the creed was symbolum ,- but why it was called so, is not agreed among learned men. Baronius1 assigns three reasons of the name: 1. He supposes every apostle cast in his symbola, his article or part, to the composition of it; and therefore it might be called their symbol or colla- tion. But if the foundation of this supposition be Sect. 1. _ Why the creed 15 called symbolum. m Hincmar. Opusc. 55. Capit. c. 48. Sicut parvulis na- turali, id est, alieno peccato, obnoxiis, aliorum, id est, patro- norum fides pro eis respondentium in baptismate sit ad salutem: ita parvulis, quibus baptismum denegari jussisti, parentum vel patronorum corde credentium, et pro parvulis suis fideli verbo baptisma expetentium, sed non impetran- tium, fides et fidelis postulatio prodesse potuerunt, dono ejus cujus Spiritus, quo regeneratio fit, ubi vult spirat. 1 Baron. an. 44. n. 15. CHAP. III. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 449 ANTIQUITIES OF THE uncertain, (as we shall see hereafter that it is,) this could not be the reason of the name. 2. He thinks it might be so called, because it was like the tessera milz'tarz's among the Roman soldiers, a sort of mark or badge, by which true Christians might be dis- tinguished from infidels, or heretics. 3. Because it was a collation or epitome of the Christian doctrine. Suicerus2 adds to these a fourth reason of the name. It might be so called, he thinks, not from the military badge, but the military oath or contract, which soldiers made with the emperor, when they entered into his service. For the creed is a token of the contract which we make with God at our baptism. For this he alleges the testimony of St. Ambrose,8 who calls the creed, the oath or bond of our warfare; and Petrus Chrysologus,‘ who says, an agreement or covenant is called symbolum both in human and Divine contracts. This last signifi- cation is not improbable; but the second is more generally received .and approved by modern5 au- thors, and has also the countenance of some ancient writers. For Maximus Taurinensis6 supposes it to be called the symbol, because it is a sign or mark by which believers are distinguished from unbelievers and renegadoes. And Ruflinus 7 allows this signification, when he says, It was therefore called the sign or mark, because at that time (when, according to his opinion, it was made by the apos- tles) many of the circumcised Jews, as is related both by St. Paul, and in the Acts of the Apos- tles, did feign themselves to be the apostles of Christ; and to serve their own lucre or their belly, went forth to preach; naming indeed the name of Christ, but not preaching him according to the true lines of tradition. Therefore the apostles laid down this mark or test, whereby to discern him who preached Christ truly, according to the apostolical rules. It is further reported to be a customary thing in civil wars, that because their arms, language, me- thods, and manner of fighting are the same, there- fore every general, to prevent fraud, should give his soldiers a distinct symbol, which in Latin is called a sign or token; that if one met another, of whom he had reason to doubt, by asking him the symbol, he might discover whether he was friend or foe. But this does not satisfy a late learned writer,8 who thinks, “ That this name was not derived from any military custom, but rather to be fetched from the scam, or religious services of the heathens, where those who were initiated in their mysteries, and admitted to the knowledge of their peculiar services, which were hidden and concealed from the greatest part of the idolatrous multitude, had certain signs or marks, called symbola, delivered unto them, by which they mutually knew each other, and upon the declaring of them, were without scruple ad- mitted in any temple to the secret worship and rites of that god whose symbols they had received.” The use of these symbols among the heathens is abundantly proved by that learned author, both from heathen and Christian writers; but then he alleges no authority to prove that the Christians called their creed by the name of symbol, in imita- tion of that heathen practice: and it is some preju- dice against it, that no such thing is said or hinted by any ancient writer. Neither is it very likely that the Christians would have so nice a regard to the abominable and filthy mysteries of the heathen, as to choose that signification of the name symbol for their creed, when with much more decency it might be fetched from the innocent and ordinary customs used in military affairs or civil contracts, from which it is with greater probability derived, both by an- cient and modern writers. Another usual name of the creed was icava‘w, the rule, so called because it was the known standard or rule of faith, by which orthodoxy and heresy were ex- amined and judged. As when the council of An- tioch9 says of Paulus Samosatensis, that he was an apostate from the rule, it is plain the meaning is, he had deviated in his doctrine from the creed, the rule of faith. Agreeably to this, it is commonly styled among the Greeks,10 iipog and é'miomg 'n'io'rswg, the determination or exposition of the faith; and sometimes simply m'ang, the faith;ll which answers to the Latin name, regulafidei, the rule of faith, the common appellation of it in lrenseus,12 Tertul- 2 Suicer. Thesaur. Eccles. voce Ei'infiokou. 8 Ambros. de Vcland. Virgin. lib. 3. Symbolum _cordis signaculum, et nostrae militiae sacramentum. 4 Chrysolog. Horn. 62. Placitum vel pactum, quod lucrl spes venientis continet, vel futuri, symbolum nuncupari, coutractu etiam docemur humano, &c. 5 Forbes, Instruct. Histor. Theolog. lib. l. c. I. n. 2. 6 Maxim. Taurin. Homil. in Symbol. p. 239. Signacu- lum symboli inter fideles pertidosque discernit. "' Ruffin. Expos. Symboli ad calcem Cypriani, p. 17. In- dicium autem vel signum idcirco dicitur, quia illo tempore, sicut et Paulus apostolus dicit, et in Actis Apostolorum re- fertur, multi ex circumcisis J udaeis simulabant se esse apos- tolos Christi, et lucri alicujus vel ventris gratia ad praedi- candum proficiscebantur; nominantes quidem Christum, sed ect. 2. Why called canon, and regulafidei. non integris traditionum lineis nunciantes. Idcirco ergo istud indicium posuere, per quod agnosceretur is, qui Chris- tum vere secundum apostolicas regulas praedicaret. De- nique et in bellis civilibus hoc observari ferunt: quonialn et armorum habitus par, et sonus vocis idem, et mos unus est, atque eadem instituta bellandi, ne qua doli subreptio fiat, symbola discreta unusquisque dux suis militibus tradit; qua latine vel signa vel indicia nominantur: ut si forte occurrerit quis de quo dubitetur, interrogatus symbolum, prodat si sit hostis, an socius. 8 Critical History of the Creed, p. 11. 9 Epist. Conc. Antioch. ap. Euseb. lib. 7. c. 30. o'q'c‘zs *roii Kavo'vos. 1° Socrat. lib. 2. c. 39 et 40. lib. 5. c. 4. . 1‘ Theodoret. Hist. lib. l. c. 7. ‘2 Iren. lib. l. c. 19. 'A'n'o- 2o 450 Boox X. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. lian,18 Novatian,l4 and St. J erom,15 where they speak of heretics, and their deviations from the common articles of the Christian faith contained in the creeds of the church. Another ordinary appellation of the creed in the ancient Greek writers is pdemua, the lesson, so called from the obligation the catechumens were under to learn it. This may easily be mistaken by an unwary reader for a lesson in the Bible, unless where some note of distinction is added to it. Therefore when we read in the council of Constantinople, under Mennas, that after the reading of the Gospel, in time of the communion service, the holy lesson ‘6 was read according to custom, we are not to under- stand it of any other lesson out of the Bible, but of the creed, which was then made part of the com- munion service. And so Socrates ‘7 sometimes uses the word: and Valesius18 has observed, that in two manuscripts of that author, where the Nicene Creed is recited, the title of mathema is set before it. But Leontius Byzantinus19 speaks more ex- plicitly, and calls it by way of distinction, the de- cree or lesson of faith, speaking of the creed which the fathers of the council of Chalcedon were about to make. Sect. 3. Why called mathema. sect. 4. Valesius”0 has also observed out of Why called 'yptr'u- Socrates, that it is sometimes styled “a and Wm’m' simply and absolutely ypagbfi and ypdp- 1.4a‘ which words, though they are usually taken to signify the Holy Scripture, yet here they must have another meaning; for the creed, properly speaking, is not an inspired writing, unless in that sense as it may be said to be collected out of the inspired writings: but here those words signify only, in a common sense, letters or learning, and so are used, as the foregoing word, mathema, with a peculiar reference to the learning of the catechu- mens. Some also allege Cyprian for another name, as if he called the creed peculiarly the sacrament of faith.21 But I am not satisfied that Cyprian’s meaning is so to be restrained. For he is rather speaking in general against profaning the mysteries of religion, which include the sacraments, or any other religious rites, as well as the creed; applying that text of Scripture to his purpose, “ Give not that which is holy unto dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they tread them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.” Or if it be limited to any particular mystery, it should rather signify baptism than the creed: for baptism is sometimes called the sacrament of faith by St. Austin,22 and the sacrament of faith and repentance, by Fulgentius” and others, as I shall more particu- larly show, when I come to treat of baptism. For which reason, I do not take this to be any particu- lar name given to the creed by any ancient writer; but the creed is the faith itself, (the credulitas, as some middle-age writers“ call it,) and the sacra- ment of faith is baptism. The next inquiry is into the original and nature of the ancient creeds ; which will admit of three questions: ‘3122;233:3388’ 1. Whether that which is commonly tigieiiil 33,5123? called the Apostles’ Creed, was com- form 0mm“? posed by the apostles in the same form of words as now it is used in the church? 2. Whether the apostles made or used any creeds at all for the in- stitution of catechumens, or the administration of baptism? 3. If they did, what articles were con- tained in them? The first question is now generally resolved in the negative by learned men, though many both of the ancients and moderns have been of a different opinion. Some have thought that the twelve apostles in a full meeting composed the creed in the very same form of words as now it is used in the church; and others have gone so far as. to pretend to tell what article was composed by every particular apostle. Dr. Comber is so positive in the matter, as to say, “We have no better medium to prove the booksz” were written by those authors whose names they bear, than the unanimous testi- mony of antiquity; and by that we can abundantly prove the apostles were the authors of this creed.” For this he cites Clemens Romanus, Irenaeus, Ori- gen, Tertullian, Ruffinus, Ambrose, Austin, Jerom, Pope Leo, Maximus Taurinensis, Cassian, and Isi- dore. But none of these writers, except Rufiinus, Sect. 5. Whether that which is commonly 13 Tertul. de Praescript. c. 13. Regula est autem fidei, qua creditur unum omnino Deum esse, &c. It. de Veland. Virgin. c. l. Regula autem fidei una omnino est, sola im- mobilis et irreformabilis, credendi scilicet in unicum Deum omnipotentem, &c. '4 Novatian. de Trinit. c. 1 et 9. Regula veritatis. ‘5 Hieron. Ep. 54. ad Marcellam, cont. Errores Montani. Primum in fidei regula discrepamus, &c. ‘6 Conc. C. P. sub Menna, Act. 5. t. 5. p. 181. T05 oi'yiov Maerilua'ros Ka'rd To‘ o'l'wntlec hexee'u'ros. '7 Socrat. Hist. lib. 3. C. 25. Tri Ronni: 'roi'i jua-S'fipta'ros. Usser. de Symbolis, p. 20, shows the same out of Justinian, Maxentius, and Photius. ‘8 Vales. Not. in Socrat. lib. 1. c. 8. ‘9 Leont. de Sectis. Act. 6. p. 515. "B50521: aim-ole {6072 3pm! 'rric'rews Kai luc'zfimua qrotfio'at. 2° Vales. Not. in Theodor. Hist. lib. l. c. 8. 2‘ Cypr. Testim. ad Quirin. lib. 3. c. 50. Sacramentum fidei non esse prophanandum.—-—N e dederitis sanctum ca- nibus, &c. 22 Aug. Ep. 23. ad Bonifac. Sicut secundum quendam modum Sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est, Sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi est, ita sa- cramentum fidei tides est. 23 Fulgent. de Fide ad Petrum, c. 30. Per sacramentum fidei et poenitentiae, id est, per baptismum liberatus. 2‘ Vid. Herardi Turonensis Capitul. 140. ap. Wharton. Auctarium Historiae Dogmaticae Usserii, p. 368. Gloria Patri, ac sanctus, atque credulitas, et Kyrie Eleison a ounc- tis reverenter canatur. It. Edictum Reccaredi Regis ad cal, cem Concilii Toletani tertii. 25 Comber’s Companion to the Temple, p. 132. CHAP. III. 451 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. speak home to his purpose; but only say, the creeds in general are of apostolical institution: which, for the substance, no one denies; for they speak of several forms, and yet ascribe them all to the apos- tles; which is an argument they did not mean this particular form any more than others. For the Nicene Creed is often called the Apostles’ Creed; and yet no one believes that that Creed was com- posed totz'dem oer-bis by the apostles. Ruffinus in- deed seems to say, there was an ancient tradition, that the apostles, being about to depart from J eru- salemf"6 first settled a rule for their future preach-. ing; lest, after they ‘were separated from one an- other, they should expound different doctrines to those whom they invited to the Christian faith. Wherefore being all assembled together, and filled with the Holy Ghost, they composed this short rule of their preaching, each one contributing his sen- tence, and left it as a rule to be given to all believ- ers. And for this reason, he thinks, it might be called the symbol, because that word in Greek sig- nifies both a test and a collation of opinions toge- ther. The author27 under the name of St. Austin is a little more particular in the story ; for he pre- tends to tell us what article was put in by each par- ticular apostle: Peter said, “ I believe in God, the Father Almighty.” John, “ Maker of heaven and earth.” James, “ and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.” Andrew added, “ who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary.” Philip said, “ suffered under Pontius Pilate, vtas crucified, dead, and buried.” Thomas, “ He de- scended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead.” Bartholomew, “ He ascended into hea- ven, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.” Matthew, “From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.” James, the son of Alpheeus, added, “ I believe in the Holy Ghost, the holy catholic church.” Simon Zelotes, “the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins.” Jude, the brother of James, “ the resurrection of the body.” Matthias, “ life everlasting.” But now there is an insuperable difficulty lies against this tradition, which is this, that there are two or three articles here mentioned, which are known not to have been in this Creed for three or four ages at least. For Rufiinus himself tells us, The descent into hell was neither in the Roman28 Creed, which is that we call the Apostles’ Creed, nor yet in any creed of the Eastern churches; only the sense of it might be said to be couched in that other expression, he was buried. Bishop Usher and Bishop Pearson have demonstrated the truth of this observation by a particular induction from all the ancient creeds, and showed this article to be want- ing in them all for four hundred years, except the Creed of Aquileia, which Ruffinus expounds, and the Creed of the council of Ariminum, mentioned in Socrates.”9 Others have made the same observa- tion upon the article concerning the communion of saints, which is not to be found either in the Creed of Aquileia, or any ancient Greek or Latin creed for above the space of four hundred years. Nor is the article of “ the life everlasting” expressly men- tioned in many creeds, but only inclusively contain- ed in “ the resurrection of the body ;” which is the concluding article in many ancient creeds. These are plain demonstrations, without any other argument, that the creed, as it stands in the present form, could not be composed in the manner as is pretended by the apostles. The silence of The Acts of the Apos- tles about any such composition, is a collateral evi- dence against it. The silence of ecclesiastical writers for above three whole centuries, is a further con- firmation. The variety of creeds, in so many dif- ferent forms, used by the ancients, yet extant in their writings, some with omissions, others with additions, and all in a different phrase, are no less evident proofs, that one universal form had not been pitched upon and prescribed to the whole church by the apostles. For then it is scarce to be imagined, that any church should have received any other form in the least tittle varying from it. These rea- sons do now generally satisfy learned men, that no such precise form was composed, according to that pretended tradition, by all the apostles. The reader may find dissertations in Vossius,30 Bishop Usher,‘n Hammond L’Estrange,82 Basnagius,” Suicerus,” and the learned author of the late Critical History of the Creed,85 to this purpose. And it is much to be 2“ Rufiin. Expos. Symboli, ad calcem Cypriani, p. 17. Discessuri itaque ab invicem, normam prius futuraa sibi pracdicationis in commune constituunt: ne forte alius ab alio abducti, diversum aliquid his qui ad fidem Christi invi- tabantur, exponerent. Omnes ergo in uno positi, et Spiritu Sancto repleti, breve istud futures sibi, ut diximus, prsedica- tionis indicium, conferendo in unum quod sentiebat unus- quisque, componunt; atque hanc credentibus dandam esse regulam statuunt. Symbolum autem hoc multis et justissi- .mis caussis appellare voluerunt. Symbolum enim Greece et indicium dici potest, et collatio, hoc est, quod plures in unum conferunt. 2" Aug. de Tempore, Ser. 115. al. 92. in Append. t. 10. p. 675. 23 Ruffin. Expos. Symboli, p. 22. Sciendum sane est, quod in ecclesiae Romanae symbolo non habetur additum, Descendit ad inferna, sed neque in Orientis ecclesiis habetur hic sermo; vis tamen verbi eadem videtur esse in e0 quod sepultus dicitur. 29 Socrat. lib. 2. c. 37. 8° Voss. de tribus Symbolis. 3' Usser. de Symbolo Romano. 32 L’Estrange, Alliance of Divin. Offic. chap. 3. p. 8). 93 Basnag. Critic. in Baron. p. 471. 3‘ Suicer. Thesaur. Eccles. voce Eénfiokov. t. 2. p. 1092. 85 Critical Hist. of‘ the Creed, chap. 1. p. 27. See also Bishop Bull’s Judicium Ecclesiae Cathol. &c. cap. 5. n. 3, where he refers to Vossius as having abundantly proved this thesis. 2 c 2 452 Boox X. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. wondered at, that any knowing person, against such convincing evidence, should labour to maintain the contrary, upon no better grounds than only this, that the ancients agree in calling the creed apostoli- cal. For they do not always intend this particular form, but call all other forms apostolical, the Nicene Creed, the Constantinopolitan Creed, the Eastern Creeds, the Western Creeds, and all others which agree with this in substance, though not in method or expression, and are all equally apostolical, as being all derived from the apostles’ preaching, and for substance composed by them, and some of them perhaps left in the churches where they preached, as the first rudiments of this creed seem to have been in the Roman church. - So far all the ancient catholic creeds may be said to be apostolical, as being in substance the same with the creeds used in baptism by the apostles. ' Sec," 6. By all, then, that has hitherto been Thatpwbablythe said, I intend not to insinuate, that apostles used several $33118 flirting“? the apostles used no creeds at all, but stance' rather that they used many, differing in form, but not in substance, from one another. All that I contend for, is only this, that none of the present forms are exactly the same in expression with those of the apostles, which is demonstrated from the variety of creeds used in several churches, and from the addition of some words to that creed which pretends most to be apostolical. But though the apostles composed no one creed to be of per- petual and universal use for the whole church, yet it is not to be doubted but that they used some forms in admitting catechumens to baptism. There are many expressions in Scripture that favour this, par- ticularly Philip’s questions to the eunuch before he baptized him, and St. Peter’s interrogatories, or the answer of a good conscience towards God, which was used in baptism: and the constant practice of the church, in imitation of the apostles, admitting none to baptism but by answer to such interroga- tories, is a sufiicient demonstration of the apostolical practice. But then, as the church used a liberty of expression in her several creeds, so it is not im- probable the apostles did the same, without tying themselves to any one form, who had less need to do it, being all guided by inspiration. And hence it came to pass, that there being no one certain form of a creed prescribed universally to all churches, every church had liberty to frame their own creeds, as they did their own liturgies, without being tied precisely to any one form of words, so long as they kept to the analogy of faith and doctrine at first delivered by the apostles :‘ which seems to be the true reason of so many ancient forms, differing in words, not in substance. k 3° Episcop. Institut. lib. 4. sect. 2. cap. 34. ‘7 Bull. J udic. Eccles. Cathol. &c. cap. 6. But now the grand question still Sect .,_ What articles were remains, concerning the nature, sub- Comained in the a_ stance, and extent of the apostolical pmmucalcreed" creeds, that is, what articles were contained in them? Some there are who would confine these to very narrow bounds, making them at first to be no more than what is contained expressly in the form of baptism, “ I believe in God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.” So Episcopius86 and his followers, who would persuade the world, that for the three first ages, the doctrine of our Saviour’s Divinity was no necessary article of the Christian faith. But the learned Bishop Bull,” and Dr. Grabe,88 have judi- ciously refuted these pretences; the one, by showing from all the ancient creeds, that this doctrine was a necessary article before the Nicene council; and the other, by evincing from Scripture, that the linea- ments of the Apostles’ Creed used in the administra- tion of baptism, were at the first much larger than what Episcopius pretended; and that in the apos- tles’ age, either by their authority or permission, the creed consisted of all the present articles, except only those two, of the descent into hell, and the communion of saints, which are owned to be of later admission. Mr. Basnage39 indeed has a peculiar opinion, that the creed was composed and the chief articles inserted only in the second century, in op- position to several heresies, which then began to infest the church. The Gnostics brought in the doctrine of a two-fold deity, the one good, the other evil: against this pestilent heresy, the church put that article into her creed, “ I believe in God,” or, in one God. Menander, the disciple of Simon Ma- gus, asserted, that the world was not created by God, but by angels : this occasioned the church to insert those words, “Maker of heaven and earth.” Carpocrates taught, that Jesus was a mere man, and begotten of both sexes, as other men: in op- position to whom, it was inserted, that Christ was “ conceived by the Holy Ghost.” The Basilidians did not believe Jesus was crucified by the Jews, but only Simon of Cyrene : to confute whom, they put in those words, “ He was dead and buried.” Carpo- crates rejected the resurrection of the flesh: and upon that, “ I believe the resurrection of the flesh,” was added to the creed. Thus, if we will hearken to this learned person, there was no creed at all made by the apostles, but it was composed entirely by the church, and gradually augmented, only as the rise of sects and heresies required some opposi- tion to be made to them. The learned author of the late Critical History of the Creed goes the same way, only with this difference, that he supposes (what Mr. Basnage does not) that some articles were inserted by the apostles themselves, and others su- ' ‘ 88 Grabe, Annotata ad cap. 5, 6, et 7. ejusd. p. 61. 39 Basnag. Exercitat. in Baron. p. 476. CHAP. III. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 453 ANTIQUITIES OF THE peradded by the church, as the occasion of heresies required. But when he speaks of the particular articles, he falls in with Mr. Basnage’s notion about the chiefest; for he supposes the first article, “I- believe in one God,” not to be made against the po- lytheism of the Gentiles by the apostles, but only by the church, upon the rise of the heresies of the Valentinians, Cerdonians, Marcionites, and others in after ages. Which in effect is to say, the creed was made, and not made by the apostles; for if the principal articles were not composed by them, I see not what else can entitle them to have been the au- thors of it. And therefore I much more readily subscribe to the opinion of the learned Dr. Grabe, which he maintains against this learned person, that the article of “one God the Father, Maker of heaven and earth,” was originally inserted into the creed by the apostles, against the capital error of the Gentiles, who made one god to have power over heaven, another over the earth, another over the sea, &c., and divided the divine honour among them. For so the vulgar among the heathen practised their idolatry; however, the philosophers among them might be a little more refined in their theology, and have more agreeable notions of the unity of the supreme God. Therefore it is reasonable to believe this first article was inserted, to make men renounce in their baptism this erroneous opinion of the Gentiles. The opinion of Episcopius, that nothing more was originally in the creed about our Saviour, but only the bare title of the Son, is solidly refuted by Dr. Grabe, who proves from Scripture, that he had always this title with the addition of his being the Son of God: and that those other articles, “ He was crucified, dead, and buried; that he rose again, and ascended into heaven, and sat at the right hand of God, and from thence should come to judge the quick and dead,” were all original articles of the creed; being such doctrines as the apostles chiefly taught their catechumens, and such as the Jews and Gentiles either denied or ridiculed: and there- fore it was proper to make all new converts, at their entrance on‘Christianity, make a particular profes- sion of such articles, in opposition to their former errors, whether they came over from the Jews or Gentiles. Upon this account he also rejects the opinion of the author of the Critical History, who supposes the article of the ascension of Christ into heaven, to have been added to the creed only in the second century, and that in opposition to Apelles, one of Marcion’s disciples, who denied the ascen- sion of Christ’s flesh into heaven. But if it had been designed against him, it would no doubt have been more particularly expressed, that his flesh 4° Tertul. de Bapt. cap. 6. Cum sub tribus et testatio fidei et sponsio salutis pignorentur necessario adjicitur ec- ascended into heaven, as Dr. Grabe observes it is in Irenaeus, and not barely that Christ ascended into heaven. For the same reason he concludes, that the following articles, of his session at God’s right hand, and his coming to judge the quick and the dead, could not be inserted into the creed in opposition to the Marcionites and Gnostics, as the foremen- tioned author supposes; for then they would have been more precisely worded against their reigning tenets, which were, that Christ’s flesh was void of sense in heaven, and that Christ was not the Son of that God who is the Judge of the world: where- fore it is more reasonable to suppose those articles were originally inserted by the apostles, to correct the ignorance and errors of the Jews and Gentiles. As to those two articles, “He was conceived by the Holy Ghost, and born of the Virgin Mary,” Dr. Grabe makes some question whether they were as ancient as the former, because they do not appear in the common catechetical discourses of the apos- tles, but he thinks, before St. J ohn’s death they were inserted against the heresies of Carpocrates, Ebion, and Cerinthus, who denied both articles, and asserted, that Christ was born of Joseph and Mary, after the common way of mankind. The article of the Holy Ghost was always a part of the Apostles’ Creed, by the confession of Episco- pius himself. And therefore the opinion of those who maintain, that nothing more was required of catechumens before baptism, but only the profession of their faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, is wholly to be rejected. The article of “remission of sins” was also origin- ally in the apostolical creeds, because it always appears to have been one principal point of their catechetical institutions. And therefore the opinion of the learned author of the Critical History, that it was only in some creeds, but not in all, till the rise of the Novatian heresy, is also to be rejected; because it appears from Cyprian, that it was in the creed which the Novatians themselves made use of _ in baptism. The articles of “the resurrection of the dead, and life everlasting,” are also concluded to have been in the Apostles’ Creed, if not from the very first, yet at least when St. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Hebrews, because he there mentions “the resurrection of the dead,” and “eternal judgment,” among the funda- mental doctrines of the Christian faith, Heb. vi. 2. The article of “ the church,” Dr. Grabe thinks, was not originally in the creed, but added in the latter end of the first century, or beginning of the second, upon occasion of heretics and schismatics separating from the church. At least it appears from Tertul- lian’s book De Baptismo,"o that the profession of it clesiae mentio; quoniam ubi tres, id est, Pater, Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus, ibi ecclesia, quae trium corpus est. 454 Boox X. ANTIQUITIES or THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. was required 'in his time, of catechumens at their baptism. For he says, after they had testified their faith in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, they also added the church, because where those three were, there was the church, and it was the body of the three. The article of “the communion of saints,” he readily acknowledges, was never in any creed before the fourth century. And that concerning the de- scent into hell, was not originally in the creed, but added upon occasion of heretics in after ages. But the precise time of its addition is not exactly agreed upon between the author of the Critical History and Dr. Grabe. The former (who is allowed to have explained the genuine sense of this article with as great exactness as the most consummate di- vine) supposes it to have been added against the Arians and Apollinarians, (who denied the soul or spirit of Christ,) because the fathers argued thus against them : Christ descended into hell either in his Divinity, or his soul, or his body: but it is ab- surd to ascribe the descent into hell either to his Divinity or his body; and therefore it must be his soul that descended; which proves the reality of his soul. But Dr. Grabe thinks this article was of earlier date, because it is to be found in some of the Arian creeds themselves, and others, more ancient than the Apollinarians: and that if it had been in- serted against the Apollinarian doctrine, it would not have been barely said, “he descended into hell ;” but rather, he descended by his soul into hell; which had been directly against that heresy. There- fore he rather supposes it to have been added to the creed in opposition to the Valentinians and Marcion- ites, who, according to the account given by Ire- naeus41 and Tertullian,42 pretended, that the souls of all that died of their sects went immediately to hea- ven ; when yet Christ himself went into the state and place of separate souls for three days before his resurrection and ascension. Upon the whole matter, Dr. Grabe concludes, that all the articles of the creed, except these three, the communion of saints, the church, and the de- scent of Christ into hell, were solemnly professed by the first Christians, in their confessions of faith in the apostles’ days, by their authority, or at least, their approbation; for which reason, the creed, as to those parts of it, may properly be called apos- tolical. And it could hardly be, that all churches in the world should so unanimously agree in the common confession of so many articles of it, unless it had proceeded from some such authority as they all acknowledged. But the reason why the con- fessions of particular churches differed in words and phrases, he thinks was from hence, that the creed which the apostles delivered, was not writ- ten with paper and ink, but in the fleshy tables of the heart, as St. J erom words it.43 Whence every church was at liberty to express their sense in their own terms. But he will not undertake to vindicate the common tradition of Ruffinus, that it was made by joint consent of all the apostles, when they were about to separate from one another ; and much less, that every one of the twelve apostles cast in his symbol to complete the number of twelve articles, as the other story is told by the author un- der the name of St. Austin, which he thinks is not in the least to be regarded. I have been a little more particular in representing the sense of this great man upon this point, both because his account of the original of the several articles of the creed seems to be most exact, and because the discourse where he delivers his opinion may not yet be fallen into the hands of every ordinary reader. CHAPTER IV. A COLLECTION OF SEVERAL ANCIENT FORMS OF THE CREED OUT OF THE PRIMITIVE RECORDS OF THE CHURCH. I SHALL now in the next place present Sect ,_ The fragments of the reader with several of the ancient the med m he- forms of the creed, as we find them mus‘ preserved in the most ancient writers, and the most authentic primitive records of the church. The use of these will be, not only to illustrate and confirm what has been said in the last chapter, but also to declare what was the ancient faith of the church, and show the vanity of modern heretics, especially the Arians, who pretend that the doctrine of our Saviour’s Divinity was no necessary article of faith before the council of Nice. Bishop Usher, in his curious tract De Symbolo Romano, has already collected a great many of these ancient forms; but because that piece is written in Latin, and become very scarce, and some things more may be added to it, I will here oblige the English reader with a new account of them, beginning with the fragments of the creed which we have in Ireneeus, Origen, Cy- prian, Tertullian, and other private writers, which Bishop Usher gives no account of. Some fancy the creed may be found in the writings of Ignatius, Clemens Romanus, Polycarp, and Justin Martyr: but Bishop Pearsonl has rightly observed, That these writers, however they may incidentally men- tion some articles of faith, do not formally deliver any rule of faith used in their own times. The 4‘ Irenaeus, lib. 5. c. 31. ‘2 Tertul. de Anima, cap. 55. ‘3 Hieron. Ep. 61. ad Pammach. c. 9. I Pearson.’s Exposition of the Creed, Article 5. Initio. CHAP. IV. 455 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. first that speaks of this is Irenseus, who calls it the unalterable canon2 or rule of truth, which every man received at his baptism. And he immediately declares what it was in these words: The church, though it be dispersed over all the world,3 from one end of the earth to the other, received from the apostles and their disciples the belief in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and sea, and all things in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Ghost, who preached by the prophets the dispensations [of God], and the advent, and nativity of a virgin, and passion, and resurrection from the dead, and bodily ascension of the flesh of his beloved Son Christ Jesus our Lord into heaven, and his coming again from heaven in the glory of the Father, to recapitulate all things, and raise the flesh of all mankind; that, according to the will of the invisible Father, every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in the earth, and things under the earth, to Jesus Christ, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, and that every tongue should confess to him; and that he may exercise just judgment upon all, and send spi- ritual wickednesses, and the transgressing and apos- tate angels, with all ungodly, unrighteous, lawless, and blaspheming men, into everlasting fire; but grant life to all righteous and holy men, that keep his commandments and persevere in his love, some from the beginning, others after repentance, on whom he confers immortality, and invests them with eternal glory. This faith, he says, was the same in all the world; men professed it with one heart and one soul: for though there were different dialects in the world, yet the power of the faith was one‘ and the same. The churches in Germany had no other faith or tradition than those in Iberia or Spain, or those among the Celtae, that is, France, or in the East, or in Egypt, or in Libya, or in the middle parts of the world, by which he means J e— rusalem and the adjacent churches, which were reckoned to be in the midst of the earth. But as one and the same sun enlightened all the world; so the preaching of this truth shined all over, and en- lightened all men that were willing to come to the knowledge of truth. Nor did the most eloquent ruler of the church say any more than this, [for no one was above his Master,] nor the weakest di- minish any thing of this tradition. For the faith being one and the same, he that said most of it, could not enlarge it, nor he that said least, take any thing from it. The reader will easily perceive, that Irenmus, by this one faith, did not mean the express form of words now used in the Apostles’ Creed; for his words differ much in expression from that, though in sense and substance it be the same faith, and that which was then preached and taught over all the churches. There is another such form of apos- tolical doctrine collected by Origen in The csri-(éii (2.} Ori~ his books of Christian Principles,5 gen- where he thus delivers the rule of faith : The things which are manifestly handed down by the apos- tolical preaching, are these: first, That there is one God, who created and made all things, and caused the whole universe to exist out of nothing; the God of all the just that ever were from the first creation and foundation of all; the God of Adam, Abel, Seth, Enos, Enoch, Noe, Sem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the twelve patriarchs, Moses and the prophets: and that this God, in the last days, as he had promised before by his prophets, sent our Lord Jesus Christ, first to call Israel, and then the Gentiles, after the infidelity of his people Israel. This just and good God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, gave both the law and the prophets, and the Gospels, be- ing the God of the apostles, and of the Old and New Testament. The next article is, That Jesus Christ, who came into the world, was begotten of the Fa- ther before every creature, who, ministering to his Father in the creation of all things, [“ for by him all things were made,”] in the last times made himself of no reputation, and became man: he who was God, was made flesh; and when he was man, he continued the same God that he was before. He assumed a body in all things like ours, save only that it was born of a virgin by the Holy Ghost. 2 Iren. lib. 1. c. 1. p. 44. 3 1bid. cap. 2. p. 45. 4 Ibid. c. 3. 5 Origen. 'n'epi a’pxr'év, in Praefat. t. 1. p. 665. Species vero eorum, quae per praedicationem apostolicam manifeste traduntur, istae sunt. Primo quod unus Deus est, qui omnia creavit atque composuit, quique ex nullis fecit esse universa; Deus a prima creatura et conditions mundi omnium justo- rum, Deus Adam, Abel, Seth, Enos, Enoch, Noe, Sem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, 12 patriarcharum, Moysi et pro- phetarum: et quod hic Deus in novissimis diebus, sicut per prophetas suos ante promiserat, misit Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, primo quidem vocaturum Israel, secundo etiam Gentes post perfidiam populi Israel. Hic Deus jus- tus et bonus, Pater Domini nostri Jesu Christi, legem et prophetas et Evangelia dedit, qui et apostolorum Deus est, et Veteris et Novi Testamenti. Tum deinde quia Jesus Christus ipse qui venit, ante omnem creaturam natus ex Patre est. Qui cum in omnium conditione Patri ministras- set (per ipsum enim omnia facta sunt) novissimis tempori- bus seipsum exinaniens homo factus est: incarnatus est cum Deus esset, et homo mansit quod Deus erat, Corpus assumpsit nostro corpori simile, eo solo differens quod na.. tum ex Virgine de Spiritu Sancto est. Et quoniam hic Jesus Christus natus, et passus est in veritate et non per imaginem communem hanc mortem, vere mortuus est; vere enim a mortuis resurrexit, et post resurrectionem converse- tus cum discipulis suis, assumptus est. Tum deinde honore ac dignitate Patri et F ilio sociatum tradiderunt Spiritum Sanctum, &c. 456 BOOK X. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. And because this Jesus Christ was born, and suffer- ed death, common to all, in truth, and not only in appearance, he was truly dead; for he rose again truly from the dead, and after his resurrection con- versed with his disciples, and was taken up into heaven. They also delivered unto us, that the Holy Ghost was joined in the same honour and dig- nity with the Father and the Son. Thus far Origen speaks of the principal articles of the Christian faith, as handed down by the church from the preaching of the apostles. And there goes another book under his name, written by way of dialogue against the Marcionites, where he more succinctly delivers the catholic faith, in opposition to the false principles of those heretics: “ I believe there is one God,6 the Creator and Maker of all things; and one that is from him, God the Word, who is consubstantial with him and co-eternal, who in the last times took human nature upon him of the [Virgin] Mary, and was crucified, and raised again from the dead. I believe also the Holy Ghost, who exists to all eternity.” It is true, learned men are not certainly agreed who was the true author of those dialogues : Westenius, who first published them in Greek, ascribes them to Origen; but Hue- tius makes one Maximus the author, who lived, as he conjectures, in the time of Constantine. But whoever was the author, they contain a form of a very orthodox creed, for which reason I have given it a'place in this collection. sec," 3. Next after Origen, we find some qg‘fgfegrg'gggg parts of the ancient creed in Tertul— an‘ lian, who speaks of it as the rule of faith common to all Christians. There is, says he, one rule7 of faith only, which admits of no change or alteration; that which teaches us to believe in one God Almighty, the Maker of the world, and in Jesus Christ his Son, who was born of the Virgin Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate, the third day l arose again from the dead, received into heaven, and sitteth now at the right hand of God; who shall come again to judge both the quick and the dead, by the resurrection of the flesh. In his book of Prescriptions8 against Heretics he has another form not much unlike this: The rule of faith is that whereby we believe one God only, and no other beside, the Maker of the world, who produced all things out of nothing, by his Word which he sent forth before all things. This Word was called his Son, who at sundry times appeared to the patriarchs, and always spake by the pro- phets, and at last descended into the Virgin Mary by the power and Spirit of God the Father, and was made flesh in her womb, and born of her a man, Jesus Christ; who preached a new law, and a new promise of the kingdom of heaven; who wrought miracles, and was crucified, and the third day arose again, and was taken into. heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father; whence he sent the power of the Holy Ghost in his stead, to guide them that believe: who shall come again with glory, to take the saints into the possession and fruition of eternal life and the heavenly pro- mises, and to condemn the profane to everlasting fire, having first raised both the one and the other by the resurrection of the flesh. This rule, he says, was instituted by Christ himself,9 and there were no disputes in the church about it, but such as heresies brought in, or such as made heretics. To know nothing beyond this, was to know all things. In his book against Praxeas he repeats the same creed, with a little variation of expression: We be- lieve in one God,‘0 yet under this dispensation, which we call the economy, That that one‘ God hath a Son, which is his Word, who proceeded from him, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. We believe that he was 8 Origen, Cont. Marc. Dial. 1. p. 815. t. 2. Edit. Latin. Basil. 1571. " Tertul. de Veland. Virgin. cap. I. Regula quidem fidei una omnino est, sola immobilis et irreformabilis, cre- dendi scilicet in unicum Deum Omnipotentem, mundi Con- ditorem, et Filium ejus Jesum Christum, uatum ex Virgine Maria, crucifixum sub Pontio Pilato, tertia die resuscitatum a mortuis, receptum in ccelis, sedentem nunc ad dexteram Patris, venturum judicare vivos et mortuos, per carnis etiam resuirectionem. 8 Id. de Praescript. advers. Haereticos, cap. 13. Regula est autem fidei, illa scilicet qua creditur, unum omnino Deum esse, nee alium praeter mundi conditorem, qui uni- versa de nihilo produxerit, per Verbum suum primo omnium emissum. Id Verbum Filium ejus appellatum, in nomine Dei varie visum patriarchis, in prophetis semper auditum, postremo delatum ex Spiritu Dei vPatris et virtute in Vir- ginem Mariam, carnem factum in utero ejus, et ex ea na- tum hominem et esse J esum Christum: exinde praedicasse novam legem, et novam promissionem regni coalorum, vir- tutes fecisse: fixum cruci: tertia die resurrexisse : in 003108 ereptum sedere ad dexteram Patris: .misisse vicariam vim Spiritfis Sancti, qui credentes agat: venturum cum claritate ad sumendos sanctos in vitae aeternae et promissorum coales- tium fructuin, et ad prophanos judicandos igni perpetuo, utriusque partis resuscitatione cum carnis resurrectione. 9 Ibid. cap. 14. Hacc regula a Christo instituta, nullas habet apud nos quaestiones, nisi quas haereses inferunt et quae haereticos faciunt.-—-Nihil ultra scire, omnia scire est. 1" T ertul. advers. Prax. cap. 2. Unicum quidem Deum credimus, sub hac tainen dispensatione, quam oircouopu'au dicimus, ut unici Dei sit et Filius Sermo ipsius, qui ex ipso processerit, per quem omnia facta sunt, et sine quo facturn est nihil. Hunc missum a Patre in virginem, et ex ea na- tum hominem et Deum, Filium homiuis et Filium Dei, et cognominatum J esum Cliristum. 'Hunc passuni, hunc mor- tuum, et sepultum secundum Scripturas, resuscitatum a. Patre, et in ccelos resuinptum, sedere ad dexteram Patris, venturum judicare vivos et mortuos. Qui exinde miserit secundum promissionem suam a Patre Spiritum Sanctum Paracletum, sauctificatorem fidei eorum qui credunt in Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum. Hanc regulam ab initio evangelii decucurrisse, &c. Confer. Tertul. de Bapt. cap. 6 et 11. CHAP. IV. 457 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. sent by the Father to be born of a virgin, both man and God, the Son of man and the Son of God, and that he was called Jesus Christ. That he suffered, and was dead and buried according to the Scrip- tures ; that he was raised again by the Father, and taken up again into heaven, where he sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again to judge the quick and dead. From whence also he sent from his Father, according to his promise, the Holy Ghost the Comforter, who sanctifies the faith of those that believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This faith, he says, was the rule of be- lieving from the beginning of the gospel, and the antiquity of it was sufficiently demonstrated from the novelty of heresies, which were but of yester- day’s standing in comparison of it. Now, it is easy to observe, that Tertullian here speaks not of any certain form of words, but of the substance of the faith: for some articles, as the descent into hell, and the communion of saints, are not here expressly mentioned, though they may be implied; but the articles of the Trinity, the in- carnation, &c., are both expressed and carefully ex- plained in such a manner, as shows the necessity of an explicit faith in those points, and how the doctrine of our Saviour’s Divinity was a prime ar- ticle of the creed from the very foundation of the church. sect 4_ Next after Tertullian we have some .hPgigg’ggsegtpzf remains of the use of the creed in an‘ Cyprian: he says, Both the catholics and Novatians agreed in the same form of inter- rogatories, which they always proposed to cate- chumens at their baptism; some of which were these questions in particular, Whether they believed in Godll the Father, and in Christ his Son, and in the Holy Ghost? And, whether they believed the remission of sins and life eternal was to be obtained by the holy church? For though, as he observes, the Novatians did but falsify and prevaricate, as it were, in these questions; there being no true church among them to grant remission of sins; yet, how- ever, they observed the same form of words as the church did in her creed, and put the same questions to all that came to them for baptism. Cyprian re- peats this in another epistle, which is written in the name of the council of Carthage ‘2 to the bishops of Numidia, where mention is made of the same inter- rogatories, as generally used in the administration of baptism. From whence it appears, that not only the articles of the Trinity, but those other which relate to the church, and remission of sins, and eternal life, were parts of the creed used in Cyprian’s time in all the African churches. And except the descent into hell, and the communion of saints, (which are of later date in the creed than the times of Cyprian or Tertullian,) all the other articles are taken notice of by these two primitive writers. Not long after Cyprian lived Grego- ry, bishop of Neocaesarea, commonly gory Thaumamp called Thaumaturgus. Among his gus' works, published by Gerhard Vossius of Tongres, we have a creed which he composed for the use of his own church, or rather, as Gregory Nyssen re- ports in his Life, a creed which he received in the entrance on his ministry by a vision from heaven. The form is in these13 words: “There is one God, the Father of the living Word, the subsisting Wis- dom and Power, the eternal express image of God, who is a perfect begetter of a perfect, a Father of an only begotten Son. And one Lord, One of One, God of God, the character and image of the God- head, the Word of power, the Wisdom that compre— hends the whole system of the world, the Power that made every creature. The true Son of the true Father, invisible of invisible, incorruptible of incor- ruptible, immortal of immortal, eternal of eternal. And one Holy Ghost, who has his existence from God, who was manifested to men by the Son, the perfect image of the perfect Son, the living Cause of all living, the Fountain of holiness, essential sanctity, who is the Author of holiness in all others. In whom God the Father is manifested, who is above all and in all, and God the Son, whose power runs through all things. A perfect Trinity, whose glory, eternity, and dominion is no Way divided or separated from each other. In this Trinity, there- fore, there is nothing created or servile, nothing ad- ventitious or extraneous, that did not exist before, but afterward came into it. The Father was never without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit, but- the Trinity abides the same, unchangeable and invariable for ever.” This creed is not a complete summary of the faith, but only so far as relates to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, of which it is one of the most convincing Sect. 5. The creed of Gre- 1' Cypr. Ep. 69.’ al. 76. ad Magnum, p. 183. Quad si aliquis illud opponat, ut dicat, eandem Novatianum legem tenere, quam catholica ecclesia teneat, eodem symbolo quo of nos baptizare; eundem nosse Deum Patrem, eundem Filium Christum, eundem Spiritum Sanctum, ac propter hoc usurpare eum potestatem baptizandi posse, quod videatur in interrogatione baptismi anobis non discrepare: sciat, quisquis hoc opponendum putat, primum non esse unam nobis et schismaticis symboli legem, neque eandem inter- rogationem : nam cum dicunt, Credis remissionem'peccato- rum et vitam aeternam per sanctam ecclesiam, mentiuutur in interrogatione, quando non habeant ecclesiam. ‘2 Cypr. Ep. 70. ad Episc. Numid. p. 190. Sed et ipsa interrogatio quae fit in baptismo, testis est veritatis. Nam cum dicimus, Credis in vitam aeternam, et remissiouem pec- catorum per sanctam ecclesiam? Intelligimus remissione'm peccatorum non nisi in ecclesia dari, &c. ‘3 Gregor. Neocaesar. Oper. p. 1. et ap. Greg. Nyss. t. 3. p. 546. Eis 9869, 'Il'a'l'flp 1167021 {5111709, rrorpias litpsqdio'ns, Kai. duudnewe Kai Xaparc'rfipos d'idt'ov, *rs'huos 'rshsiou 'yau- mi'rwp, Ha'rr‘jp ‘Trot? povo'ysvofis' sis Ktiptos, #6110: £1: #6- vov, 986; it: 9505, &c. 458 Boox X. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. testimonies that is to be met with in any of the ante-Nicene fathers; it being particularly designed against the two opposite heresies of the Samosateni- ans and Sabellians, the one of which denied the Divinity of our Saviour, and the other his personal subsistence. Some modern Arians, following San- dius, have objected against it, as not genuine; but the learned Bishop Bull has abundantly vindicated the credit of it '4 from the undeniable evidences of Gregory Nyssen and St. Basil, to whose excellent Dissertation I refer the reader. In the same age with Gregory Thaumaturgus lived Lucian the mar- tyr, who suffered in the last persecu- tion under Diocletian. He was presbyter of the church of Antioch, where he wrote a confession of faith in opposition to the Sabellians. The form is recorded both by Athanasius,15 and Socrates,“ and Hilary, who comments upon it, and vindicates it from the objections which some made against it, because it was produced by the Arians, in the council of Antioch, under Constantius, anno 341, as if it had favoured their opinion, which Hilary shows it did not, though there were some expressions in it against the Sabellians, that might be wrested to an heretical sense, [as any catholic words may be,] contrary to the mind of the author. The form, as delivered by St. Hilary, runs thus: “We believe,17 according to the tradition of the Gospels and apos- tles, in one God the Father Almighty, Creator, and Maker, and Governor of all things, of whom are all things: and in one Lord Jesus Christ, his only be- gotten Son, who is God, by whom are all things, who was begotten of the Father, God of God, Whole of Whole, One of One, Perfect of Perfect, King of King, Lord of Lord, the Word, the Wisdom, the Life, the true Light, the true Way, the Resurrec- tion, the Shepherd, the Gate, the incommutable and unchangeable image of the Divine essence, power, and glory, the First-born of every creature, who was always from the beginning God the Word with Sect. 6. The creed of Lu- cian the martyr. God, according to what is said in the Gospel, ‘ And the Word was God, by whom all things were made, and in whom all things subsist;’ who, in the last days, descended from on high, and was born of a virgin, according to the Scriptures, and being the Lamb of God, he was made the Mediator between God and men, being fore-ordained to be the Author of our faith and life: for he said, ‘ I come not from heaven to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me.’ Who suffered and rose again for us the third day, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father, and he shall come again with glory to judge the quick and the dead. And we believe in the Holy Ghost, which is given to believers for their consolation, and sanctification, and consummation, according to what our Lord Jesus Christ appointed his disciples, saying, ‘Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’ Whence the properties of the Father are manifest, denoting him to be truly a Father, and the pro- perties of the Son, denoting him to be truly a Son, and the properties of the Holy Spirit, denoting him to be truly the Holy Ghost: these names not being simply put and to no purpose, but to express the particular subsistence, or hypostatic substance, as the Greeks term it, of each person named, so as to denote them to be three in hypostasis, and one by consonance.” This creed was anciently suspected by some as an Arian creed, because of the term three hypos- tases, or three substances, in Hilary’s translation. But Hilary abundantly clears it from this suspicion, by showing, that these terms were only used to op- pose the Sabellians, who made the three persons no more than three names; and that all other ex- pressions in it are very full and significant against the Arian heresy. And therefore neither does he censure the council of Antioch as Arians, who only repeated and adopted this creed from Lucian, but he calls them a synod of ninety-five holy bishops, 1‘ Bull. Defens. Fid. Nic. sect. 2. cap. 12. n. 2. 15 Athan. de Synod. Arimin. et Seleuc. t. l. p. 892. '6 Socrat. lib. 2. c. 10. 1’ Hilar. de Synodis, p. 107. Consequenter evangelicae et apostolicee traditioni credimus in unum Deum Patrem Omnipotentem, cunctorum quae sunt aedificatorem et facto- rem et provisorem, ex quo omnia: et in unum Dominum J esum Christum, F ilium ipsius unigenitum, Deum per quem omnia, qui generatus est ex Patre, Deum ex Deo, Totum ex Toto, Unum ex Uno, Perfectum de Perfecto, Regen: de Re- ge, Dominum de Domino, Verbum, Sapientiam, Vitam, Lu- men verum, Viam veram, Resurrectionem, Pastorem, Ja- nuam, inconvertibilem et incommutabilem, Divinitatis es- sentiaeque et virtutis et gloriae incommutabilem imaginem, primum editum totius creaturse, qui semper fuit in principio apud Deum Verbum Deus, juxta quod dictum est in evan- gelio: et Deus erat Verbum, per quem omnia facta sunt, et in quo omnia constant, qui in novissimis diebus descendit de summis, et natus est ex virgine secundum Scriptures, et Agnus factus est Mediator Dei et hominum, prsedestinatus fidei nostrae et dux vitae; dixit quippe, Non enim descendi de coelo, ut facerem voluntatem meam, sed voluntatem ej us qui me misit. Qui passus est, et resurrexit pro nobis tertia die, et ascendit in coelos, et sedet in dextera Patris, et iterum venturus cum gloria judicare vivos et mortuos. Et in Sanc- tum Spiritum, qui in paraclesin et sanctificationem et con- summationem credentibus datus est, juxta quod et Dominus Jesus Christus ordinavit discipulis, dicens, Pergite et do- cete universes gentes, baptizantes eas in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Manifesta utique Patris, vere Patris, certaque Filii, vere Filii, notaque Spiritus Sancti, vere Spiritfis Sancti; hisque noininibus non simpliciter, neque otiose propositis, sed significantibus diligenter pro- priam uniuscujusque nominatorum substantiam et ordinem et gloriam, ut sint quidem per substantiam tria, per conso- nantiam'vero unum. T17 {nroe-o'zo'el. 'rpt'a, 1'?) 5i ovu¢wviq '2'». So the Creek in Socrates and Athanasius. CHAP. IV. 459 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. who intended thereby to establish the catholic faith against the Sabellians chiefly, though not without a sufficient guard against the Anomoeans, or Arians. His words are these:‘8 The holy synod intending to destroy the impiety of those heretics, who eluded the true faith of a Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, by the equivocation of three names only, that by a tri- ple appellation, without any real subsistence be- longing to each name, they might, under the false shadow of three names, introduce such a unity, as that the Father alone, though but one and the same, should have the name of the Holy Spirit and of the Son also: therefore the synod used the term, three substances or hypostases, meaning by substances, subsisting persons, and not intending to introduce such a division of substance in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as implies a dissimilitude and di- versity of essence: [which was the heresy of the Arians, who made the Father only God, and the other two persons only creatures, so dividing the substance by a diversity of nature or essence : which this council did not :1 and therefore Hilary says, They were not to be blamed, though they spake of the Divine persons as of three substances or hypos- tases, and one by consent, because they meant no more than real subsisting persons, in opposition to the Sabellians. Yet notwithstanding this just de- fence and apology made by St. Hilary for this council, it is condemned by Baronius, Binnius, Hermantius, and many other modern writers, as an Arian council. But the learned Schelstrate has Written an accurate dissertation in favour of this council, wherein he answers ‘9 all the objections made by Baronius and his followers, either against this council or the creed of Lucian the martyr; which is also done by our learned Bishop Bull}0 to whose Dissertations I refer the curious reader. sec, ,_ About the time of Lucian the mar- ,Qygfogggfdggngtg tyr, in the latter end of the third cen- “mm‘ tury, Cotelerius supposes the author or compiler of the book called, The Apostolical Constitutions, to have lived; which I think more probable than either the opinion of those, who thrust him down to the fifth century, or the opinion of Mr. Whiston, who will needs have this book not only to be the genuine work of Clemens Romanus, but the work of a Divine and inspired writer. For this reason I speak of him in this place next after Lucian, as one that has left us the form of an an- cient creed, then most probably used in some of the Eastern or Greek churches. For he brings in the catechumen making his profession in these words: “I believe” and am baptized in one Unbegotten, the only true God Almighty, the Father'hf Christ, the Creator and Maker of all things, of whom are all things: and in one Lord Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, the First-born of every creature, who before all ages was begotten, not made, by the good will of the Father, by whom all things were made in heaven and in earth, visible and invisible, who in the last times came down from heaven, and taking flesh upon him, was born of the holy Virgin Mary, and lived a holy life according to the laws of God his Father, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and died for us, and the third day after he had suf- fered, rose again from the dead and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory in the end of the world, to judge both the quick and dead, of whose kingdom there shall be no end. And I am baptized into the Holy Ghost, that is to say, the Comforter, which wrought effectually in all the saints from the beginning of the world, and was afterward sent to the apostles by the Father, according to the promise of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and after the apostles to all others, who, in the holy catholic church, believe the resurrection of the flesh, the re- mission of sins, the kingdom of heaven, and the life of the world to come.” Some have suspected this author of Arianism, but there is nothing of it appears in this creed: for though he gives the title of a’yévvnrov only to the Father, yet that is no more than what Alexander and Athanasius, and all the opposers of Arius, al- ways did, who never asserted 51'10 dyéwnra, as those words signify, two absolute, co-ordinate, unbegotten principles, which is the proper notion of two Gods; but always reserved the title of a'yéwmrov, unbegot- ten, to the Father only, as the eternal principle and fountain of the Deity, and styled the Son povoywfi Oeov, the only begotten God, which is the proper notion of the Son of God, who is neither created nor unbegotten, but eternally begotten of the sub- stance of the Father, and this title of povoyemjg stag, the only begotten God, is the same as this very author of the Constitutions elsewhere ascribes to '8 Hilar. de Synodis, p. 108. Volens igitur congregate. sanctorum synodus impietatem earn perimere, quae verita— tatem Patris, Filii, et Spiritus Sancti nominum numero eluderet, ut non subsistente causa uniuscujusque nominis, triplex nuncupatio obtineret sub falsitate nominum unionem, ut Pater solus atque unus idem atque ipse haberet et Spiri- tus Sancti nomen et Filii: idcirco tres substantias esse dix- erunt, subsistentium personas per substantias edocentes, non substantiam Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti diversi- tate dissimilis essentiae separantes. Quod autem dictum est, ut sint quidem per substantiam tria, per consonantiam vero unum, non habet calumniam, &c. ‘9 Schelstrat. Sacrum Concilium Antiochenum restitutum, Dissert. 3. c. 2. p. 109. 2° Bull. Defens. Fid. Nic. sect. 2. c. 13. n. 6. 2' Constit. Apost. lib. 7. c. 41. Hum-enim Kai Barr-(zonal. eis ie'ua a’yévun'rou, p.0'uou a'hnfiwdu Oedu 'rrau'rolcpé'ropa, 'rdu IIa'répa 'rofi Xpw'roi'i, K'rto'q'fjv Kai. dnpwvp'ydu 'rrIw oi'n'a'w'rwv, £5 05 "rd vrdu'ra, Kai. eis 'rdu Kriptou ’Iqo'oi}u 'rdu Xpur'rdu, Tou nor/07211?) air-r05 Tio‘v, 'rriu 'lrpw'ro'roxou 'rra'w'ne K'TiO'EwS‘, warps aléwwv er’idoxiqt 1'05 Ha'rpds 'yevvneéu'ra, or’: m'to'eéu'ra, &c. - 460 Boox X ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. the Son,22 whom he makes to be no creature, but God, in this only differing from the Father, that he is not unbegotten; which is necessary to the notion of a Son; for it were a contradiction to say, he is the Son of God, and yet unbegotten also. I observe this, to Show how little advantage the modern Arians have from this author, if we allow him but that favourable interpretation, which in justice ought to be allowed to all ancient catholic writers. We may further observe, that though this creed . be the same in substance with the Roman Creed, which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, yet it differs from it very much in phrase and expression, and comes nearer the creeds of the Eastern church; and though it be as perfect as any of that age, yet it has neither the article of the descent into hell, nor the communion of saints, expressly mentioned in it; which shows that these articles were not totz'dem verbis inserted into the first creeds of the church. Sect 8_ Thus far I have collected the seat- The cfiggriew- tered remains of the ancient creeds, which were composed before the Ni- cene Creed, for the use of several churches, as they are still upon record in private writers. But we have some more perfect forms also remaining, as those of Jerusalem, Caesarea, Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome, by comparing which together, the reader may easily perceive, how the unity of the faith was exactly agreed upon, and preserved, with some va- riety of expression. The Creed of the church of Jerusalem we have imperfectly in St. J amcs’s Li- turgy, and more perfect in the Catechetical Dis- courses of Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, which are an exposition upon it. In St. J ames’s Liturgy we have only the beginning of the creed: “ I believe in one God the Father Almighty,23 Maker of heaven and earth, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” But the remaining articles are not inserted, as being vulgarly known without reciting. How- ever, in Cyril’s catechisms the articles are rehearsed at full length, and when collected together they run in this form: “I believe in one God" the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible: and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages, the true God, by whom all things were made, who was incarnate and made man, who was crucified and buried, and the third day he rose again from the dead, and ascended into ‘heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father, and shall come to judge the quick and dead, of whose king- dom there shall be no end. And in the Holy Ghost the Comforter, who spake by the prophets. In one baptism of repentance, in the remission of sins, in one catholic church, in the resurrection of the flesh, and in life everlasting.” That this creed was neither the Nicene Creed, nor the Constantinopolitan, is evident, because it wants the word consubstantial, and other titles, which are given to the Son in the Nicene Creed: nor has it the full explication of the character of the Holy Ghost, which was afterward made in the Constantinopolitan Creed: which is not to be won- dered at, because Cyril’s catechisms were written some years before the council of Constantinople was held. Therefore it must be the ancient Creed of Jerusalem, as learned men25 have rightly concluded, and hence also observed, that the Oriental creeds had originally the articles that follow the Holy Ghost, viz. the catholic church, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the flesh, and eternal life. Only the communion of saints, and descent into hell, are wanting in it. And so we find in the Creed of Cae- sarea in Palestine, in the profession of which Eusebius says he was bap- tized, and catechised; the descent into hell is not mentioned in it. But it differs in expression from the Jerusalem Creed, and comes up the nearest to the Nicene Creed of any other. The form, as it was proposed by Eusebius himself to the council of Nice, is in these words: “_ We believe in one God the Father” Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible: and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God of God, Light of Light, Life of Life, his only begotten Son, the First-born of every creature, begotten of the Father before all ages, by whom all things were made ; who for our salvation was incarnate, and conversed among men, and suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended unto the Father, and shall come again to judge the quick and the dead. We believe also in one Holy Spirit. Every one of these we believe to be and exist; we confess the Father to be truly a Sect. 9. The Creed of Ca- sarea in Palestine. Father, the Son truly a Son, the Holy Ghost truly’ a Holy Ghost, according to what our Lord, when he sent his disciples to preach, said, ‘ Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’ ” The articles that follow the Holy Ghost, are here omitted only for the same reason, as I shall show hereafter, they were omitted in the Nicene Creed, because then no dispute was made about them, and only so much of the Creed was now produced as was necessary to be mentioned in opposition to the Arian heresy. The Creed of Alexandria was some- Sect. 10. what shorter than this, and is sup— Thegmgafwex- posed by learned men to be that which 22 Constit. Apost. lib. 7. cap. 43. lib. 8. c. 7, ll, l2, 17. 23 Jacobi Liturg. in Bib]. Patr. Gr. Lat. t. 2. p. 7. 2‘ Cyril. Cateches. 6, &c. ' 25 Bull. Judie. Eccles. Cathol. &c. cap. 6. n. 5. 2“ Euseb. Epist. ad Ecclesiam Caesar. ap. Socrat. lib. 1. cap. 8. CHAP. IV. 461 AN'IIQUITIES OF THE'CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Arius and Euzoius delivered in to Constantine, when they made a sort of feigned recantation before him. The form is recorded in Socrates27 in these words : “ \Ve believe in one God the Father Al- mighty, and in Jesus Christ his Son our Lord, God the Word begotten of him before all ages, by whom all things were made that are in heaven and in earth; who came down from heaven, and was in- carnate, and suffered and rose again, and ascend- ed into heaven, and shall come again to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost, and in the resurrection of the flesh, and in the life of the world to come, and in the kingdom of heaven, and in one catholic church of God extended from one end of the earth to the other.” Sect. n The Creed of the church of Anti- The 32114 éIAn- och seems to be that which is re- corded in Cassian, who delivers it as it was probably received in that church from the time of the apostles, only with the addition of the word consubstantial, inserted from the time of the council of Nice. “ The text and faith of the Creed of Antioch,” says he, “is this :28 I believe in one only true God the Father Almighty, Maker of all crea- tures visible and invisible : and in Jesus Christ our Lord, his only begotten Son, the First-born of every creature, born of him before all ages, and not made, very God of very God, consubstantial with the Father, by whom the world was framed and all things made. Who for our sakes came and was born of the Virgin Mary, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and buried, and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and shall come again to judge the quick and the dead.” Cassian here repeats not the whole creed, but only those articles that were proper to be urged against Nestorius, who had been baptized into this faith, and by this creed, at Antioch, from which he shows his prevarications, and how he had started from the profession which he himself had made in the words of this creed both at his baptism and or- dination, leaving the remaining articles unrecited. Sec," 1,. The reader may easily perceive, by ,O'fgigmeggfggeggé comparing the forementioned creeds, ‘miles’ C'eed' that the articles of the communion of saints, and the descent into hell, are not expressly mentioned in any of them. Nor were they origin- ally in the Roman Creed, which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, as appears not only from the testimony of Ruflin, but from some ancient copies of this creed still remaining. Bishop Usher29 met with two copies here in England, which Wanted these additions, and also that of life everlasting. The one was in Greek, though written in Saxon characters, at the end of King Athelstan’s Psalter, about the year 703; and the other in Latin; but both exactly in the same form of words: “I believe in God the Father Almighty; and in Jesus Christ his only begotten Son our Lord, who was born of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, and was cru- cified under Pontius Pilate, and was buried, and the third day rose again from the dead, ascended into heaven, sitteth on the right hand of the Father, whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost, the holy church, the remission of sins, and the resurrection of the flesh. Amen.” The variations of these ancient forms from the present form of the Apostles’ Creed, in the want of several words that have since been added, are noted by Bishop Usher, who also observes, that this creed is delivered by several ancient authors with some variety of expression. For in some authors, which use this creed, life everlasting is added after the re- surrectidn of the flesh. As in the homilies of Petrus Chrysologus,80 bishop of Ravenna, where he ex- pounds this creed. And in the author of the book de Symbolo ad Catechumenos, in the ninth tome of St. 'Austin’s works. And in the creed which Mar- cellus, bishop of Ancyra, presented to Pope Julius, which is recorded in Epiphanius.31 But others con- clude this creed with the resurrection of the flesh, and make no express mention of life everlasting; not that they supposed it to be no article of faith, but because it was included in the other article of the resurrection, as they rightly expound it. St. J erom says plainly,82 that the creed was concluded with the resurrection of the flesh. And Maximus Taurinensis,” who expounds every article of it dis- tinctly, says the same. And St. Austin also a‘ con- cludes the creed with the resurrection of the flesh, but then he includes eternal life in the exposition 2' Socrat. lib. l. c. 26. 28 Cassian. de Incarnat. lib. 6. p. 1272. Textus ergo et fides Antiocheni Symboli haec est: Credo in unum et so- lum verum Deum-Patrem Omnipotentem, Creatorem omni- um visibilium et invisibilium creaturarum. Et in Dominum nostrum J esum Christum, Filium ej us unigenitum, et primo- genitum totius creatures, ex eo natum ante omnia saecula, et non factum, Deum verum ex Deo vero, homousion Patri, per quem et saecula compaginata sunt et omnia facta. Qui propter nos venit et natus est ex Maria Virgine, et crucifix- us sub Pontio Pilato, et sepultus, et tertia die resurrexit se- cundum Scripturas, et in coelos ascendit, et iterum veniet judicare vivos et mortuos. Et reliqua. 29 Usser. de Symbolis, p. 6. 3° Petrus Chrysol. Homil. 57, &c.‘ 9" Epiph. Haer. 72. Marcel. n. 3. ‘*2 Hieron. Ep. 61. ad Pammach. In symbolo fidei—post confessionem Trinitatis et unitatem ecclesiae, omne Chris-- tiani dogmatis sacramentum carnis resurrectione con- cluditur. *3 Maxim. Taurin. Horn. 1. de Diversis, p.239. Hic re- ligionis nostrae finis, haec summa credendi est. 3* Aug. de Fide et Symbolo, t. 3. p. 66. Qua corporis resurrectione facta, a temporis conditione liberati, aeterna vita ineffabili charitate et stabilitate sine corruptione per- fruemur. 462 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. BooK X. of it. For, says he, when the resurrection of the body is effected, we shall be freed from the condi- tions of time, and enjoy eternal life with ineffable charity and stability without corruption. And so the author of the sermons De Tempore 8" under his name: The resurrection of the flesh is the end of all, but it is an end without end. For there is no death after that. Therefore they made it the conclusion of the creed, because it was the conclusion of all things in this world. And thus it was in the Creed of the church of Aquileia, which differed in other points both from the Roman and Oriental creeds. For Ruflinus, who wrote an exposition upon it, concludes it with the article of the resurrection, and neither mentions nor expounds the article of eternal life, but only tacitly, as it is implied in the resurrection. In other articles some additions were made to this creed, which were not in the Roman: for here the descent into hell is particularly mentioned; and not only the resurrec- tion of the flesh in general, but the resurrection of this flesh in particular; and in the first article, after the word Almighty, were added, impassible and invisible, as peculiar appellations of God the Father. For it was thus conceived: “I believe in God the Father Almighty, invisible and impassi- ble;36 and in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, who was born by the Holy Ghost of the‘ Virgin Mary, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and bu- ried; he descended into hell, and the third day rose again from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father, whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost, the holy catholic church, the remission of sins, and the resurrection of this flesh.” The reason of adding the words “invisible and impassible” to this creed, which were not in the R0- man, was to obviate the Sabellian or Patlipassian heresy, which asserted that God the Father was born of the virgin, and so made visible and passi- ble in the flesh. In opposition to which impiety, Rufiinus says,87 their forefathers seem to have added those words, professing the Father to be invisible and impassible, that is, that he never was incarnate, as the Son only was, and not the Father. The de- scent into hell is also almost peculiar to this creed: for excepting this and the creed of the council of Sirmium or Ariminum, mentioned by Socrates,38 this Sect.l3. The Creed of Aquileia. article was not expressly mentioned in any other creed of this age; though Ruflinus thinks it was always implied in the word “buried,” which he reck- ons of the same importance. When it first came into the Roman Creed, the reader may find a par- ticular account in Bishop Pearson, who speaks of it as done about the year 600. I have hitherto given an account _ of all such creeds as might be reck- as'gtggigggfiggeg; oned of use in the church before the ‘hm‘mn °f Me‘ time of the Nicene council. I shall now give the like account of the first forming of the Nicene Creed, and how it was afterward completed, and put into a new form, by the council of Constantino- ple. The Creed, as first published by the council of Nice, was in these words: “We believe in one God Almighty,89 Maker of all things visible and in- visible: and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, the only begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, by whom all things both in heaven and earth were made. Who for us men and our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate and made man, and suffered, and the third day rose again, and ascended into heaven, and shall come again to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. And those who say, there was a time when the Son of God was not, or that he did not exist be- fore he was made, because he was made out of no- thing, or of another substance or essence, or that he was created or mutable, the catholic and apostolic church anathematizes them.” This Creed often occurs in the writings of the ancient fathers and councils in this very form; as in Athanasius, Epist. ad Jovian. t. l. p. 247; Hi- lar. de Synodis, p. 114; Leo, Ep. 95, ad Leonem Imperat; the Council of Rome, under Julius, an. 337; the Council of Ephesus, Epist. ad Nestor.; the Council of Chalcedon, Act. 2; the Council of Hippo; the sixth Council of Carthage; the Pre- face to the African Code; the third Council of Bra- cara; the third and thirteenth of Toledo ; the fifth General Council of Constantinople, Act. 17; and many others. Now, some learned persons have been of opinion, that the ancient creeds before the council of Nice, had none of the articles which follow after the Holy Sect. 14 85 Aug. Serm. 119. De Tempore, t. 10. p. 306. Iste jam finis est. Sed finis erit sine fine resurrectio carnis, &c. *6 Ruflin. Expos. Symboli ad calcem Cypriani, p. 19. Credo in Deum Patrem Omnipotentem, invisibilem et im- passibilem. Et in Christum J esum unicum Filium ejus, Dominum nostrum, qui natus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Ma- ria Virgine, crucifixus sub Pontio Pilato, et sepultus, de- scendit ad inferna: tertia die resurrexit a mortuis, ascendit in coslos, sedet ad dexteram Patris: inde venturus est judi- care'vivos et mortuos. Et in Spiritum Sanctum, sanctam ecclesiam catholicam, remissionem peccatorum, huj us carnis resurrectionem. 8’ Ruffin. ibid. p. 19. Sciendum quod duo isti sermones in ecclesiae Romanae symbolo non habentur: constat autem apud nos additos haereseos causa Sabellii, illius profecto quaa a nostris Patripassiana appellatur; id est, quae Patrem ip- sum vel ex virgine natum dicit, et visibilem factum, vel pas- sum afiirmat in came. 88 Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 37. ‘9 Ap. Socrat. lib. l. c. 8. CHAP. IV. 463 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Ghost, but all ended as that does, with those words, “and in the Holy Ghost.” This was the opinion of Vossius and Erasmus; and Bishop Usher says, he was once inclined to think so himself, but upon better consideration, he professes 4° he found it ne- cessary to alter his judgment. For it plainly ap- pears from most of the forms before recited, that several of the articles which follow after the Holy Ghost, were always a part of the creed: and the reason why the council of Nice repeated them not, Was only because there was then no dispute about them, and they only rehearsed so much of the for- mer creeds as there was then occasion for, to oppose the heresy of the Arians, leaving the rest to be sup- plied from the former creeds, then generally re- ceived in the church. This is evident, both from the creeds used by the Arians, and those that were used by the church, before the council of Constan- tinople had settled and new-modelled the form of the Nicene Creed that was afterwards generally re- ceived in the church. Thus in the creed of the se- parating bishops in the council of Sardica, related by St. Hilary41 and others, after the article of the Holy Ghost there follows, “We believe in the holy church, and in remission of sins, and eternal life ;” or, as it is more perfectly in his Fragments,‘2 “the holy church, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the flesh, and eternal life.” So again, the Euse- bians in their first creed, which they published in the council of Antioch, mentioned both by Athana- sius and Socrates,43 after the article of the Holy Ghost, add, “We believe the resurrection of the flesh, and eternal life.” Now, it were absurd to think the Arians should retain these articles in their creeds, and in the mean time the church reject or neglect them. Therefore it is plain the Nicene Creed was only one part of the ancient creed, that was used at full length in baptism, though not here so re- cited. And what has been observed before out- of Cyril’s catechisms, is a manifest proof of it. This is further evident from the two creeds, a shorter and a longer, re- cited in Epiphanius, who wrote his Anchorate some years before the council of Con- stantinople. The shorter creed, which he says every catechumen repeated at his baptism from the time of the council of Nice to the tenth year of Valentinian and Valens, anno 373, was in these words: “ We believe“ in one God the Father Al- mighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages, that is, of the substance of his Father, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, Sect. 15. The creeds of Epiphanius. 4° Usser. de Symbolis, p. 17. ‘1 Hilar. de Synodis, p. 108. ‘2 Hilar. Fragmenta, p. 140. by whom all things were made which are in heaven and in earth. \Vho for us men and our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified for us under Pontius Pi- late, and suffered and was buried, and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, of whose king- dom there shall be no end. And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the pro- phets. And in one catholic and apostolic church. We confess one baptism for the remission of sins, and we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. But they who say, there was a time when the Son of God was not, or that he was not before he was begotten, or that he was made out of nothing, or of any other substance or essence, or that he is mutable or changeable, those the catholic and apostolic church anathematizes.” This, says Epiphanius, is the faith which was de- livered by the holy apostles, and received by the church in the council of Nice, where three hundred and eighteen fathers were present. By which he does not mean that these articles were delivered in this very form either by the apostles or the council of Nice, but that the church agreed upon this form to be used at baptism, in pursuance of the doctrine delivered by the apostles and the Nicene fathers. And afterwards, upon occasion of the Apollinarians and other heretics, which infested the church about the tenth‘year of Valentinian and Valens, and the sixth of Gratian, and the ninetieth year of the Dio- cletian account, that is, anno 373, she enlarged her creed with a more particular explication of some certain articles in opposition to those heresies. And then the form appointed to be used in baptism was in these terms, as he informs us in the same place: “ We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of God the Father, the only begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made, as well in heaven as in earth, visible and invisible. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incar- nate, that is, was born in perfect manner of the holy Virgin Mary, by the Holy Ghost, and was made man, that is, took upon him perfect man, soul and body and mind, and whatsoever is in man, .sin only ‘3 Socrat. lib. 2. c. 10. Athanas. De Synod. Arim. et Se- ‘ leuc. t. 1. p. 892. 4‘ Epiphan. Anchorat. n. 120. t. 2. p. 122. 464 CHRISTIAN CHURCH. BOOK X. ANTIQUITIES OF THE excepted; not by the seed of man, nor merely by existing in man, but by framing flesh to himself into one holy unity; not after the manner as he inspired the prophets, and spake and wrought in them, but by being perfectly made man. For the Word was made flesh, not by undergoing any change, or transforming the Godhead into manhood, but by making one perfect and Divine union. For there is but one Lord Jesus Christ, not two, the same God, the same Lord, the same King. Who suffered in the flesh and rose again, and ascended with his body into heaven, and sitteth in glory at the right hand of the Father; whence he shall come with glory in the same body to judge the quick and dead, of whose kingdom there shall be no end. We be- lieve in the Holy Ghost, who spake in the law, and preached by the prophets, and descended at Jordan ; who spake by the apostles, and dwells in the saints : and thus we believe of him, that he is the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, the perfect Spirit, the Com- forter, uncreated, proceeding from the Father, re- ceiving from the Son, in whom we believe. \Ve believe in one catholic and apostolic church, in one baptism of repentance, in the resurrection of the dead, in the just judgment of body and soul, in the kingdom of heaven, and life everlasting. And those that say, there was a time when the Son or the Holy Ghost was not, or that they were made out of nothing, or of another substance or essence; that say, the Son of God, or the Holy Ghost, are muta- ble or changeable; those the catholic and apostolic church, the mother of us and you, anathematizes. And again, we anathematize those that confess not the resurrection of the dead, and all heresies which accord not to this holy faith.” Now, if these creeds were in use in the church at the time which Epiphanius mentions, then it is certain the Nicene Creed was completed by the church for the use of her catechumens long before the general council of Constantinople: and what was done by that council, was rather to contract the form, than to augment or lengthen it, as any one may easily perceive, that will compare the Con- stantinopolitan Creed with either of those that have now been recited out of Epiphanius. For the creed that was drawn up Sect. 16. . . “123213233: spade, in the second general council of Con- fggggg grfx‘gogssifn- stantinople, is no other but the Ni- cene Creed, with the addition of such articles as were always used by the church in the interrogatories of baptism, though not inserted in the particular form used by the Nicene council. I need not here repeat the form, because it is the same with that which is commonly called the Ni- cene Creed in our liturgy. Only the word Fz'lioque, expressing the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and Son together, was added afterward by the Latin church. For the first copies of this Creed in the council of Constantinople,45 and the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon,“6 have it only, proceeding from the Father, 6K 1'05 Harpbg émopsvé- pevov, without any mention of the Son : but in the Latin councils, the word Ft'lz'ogue is commonly added, as in the first council of Bracara, anno 411, and the third council of Toledo,47 anno 589, where the Con- stantinopolitan Creed is recited. As to the use of the Nicene Creed, it is certain, it was used in the Greek Nginghgrgzg 3;: church much after the same manner iggiegguffgicemfj as the Apostolical and other creeds gig; 258353;“; were used in the Latin church; first iifhgfcihlfmiiiitiiii in the oflice of baptism; afterward it office‘ was taken in to be a part of the liturgy in the com- munion service. Some learned persons, I know, are of opinion, that the Nicene Creed was never used in the administration of baptism, but only 'the Apos- tolical Creed still throughout the whole church. But this is a very plain mistake. 1. Because it does not appear, that the Apostolical Creed, which is the Roman Creed, was ever used in the Greek church, even before the Nicene Creed was made: for they had several creeds of their own, agreeing indeed with the Roman Creed in substance, but differing from it in words and expression ; and those creeds were used by the Greek or Eastern church in the administration of baptism. 2. When the Nicene Creed was formed, it is very evident, that very form was used by many churches in the East as the creed of baptism. For the fathers of the council of Constantinople under Mennas, anno 536, do fre- quently call it the creed in which both they them- selves were baptized,48 and also baptized others. And so it is said in the synodical epistles of the councils of Tyre and Jerusalem, which are related“9 in the acts of the same council. As also in the acts of the general councils of Ephesus50 and Chalce- don,“ in the former of which an order was made that catechumens should be taught the Nicene Creed, and no other. The like may be observed in the edict of the emperor Basiliscus mentioned by Evagrius,52 who, speaking of the Nicene Creed, calls it the creed in which both he and all his ancestors were baptized. And it is remarked by Epipha- nius,53 of the two creeds which he recites, that they were the creeds which every catechumen repeated at his baptism; which were nothing but the Nicene Sect. 17 ‘5 Conc. Constantin. Cone. t. 2. p. 953. ‘6 Conc. Chalcedon. Act. 2. t. 4. p. 341. 4’ Cone. t. 5. p. 1001. *8 Vid. Corn. 0. P. sub 'Menna, Act. 5. Con. t. 5. p. 166, 171, 179. ‘9 Ibid. p. 190 et 199. 5° Conc. Ephes. Act. 6. t. 3. p. 690. 5‘ C‘onc. Chalced. Act. 2. t. 4. p. 341. 52 Evagr. lib. 3. c. 4 et 7. 5'3 Epiphan. Anchorat. n. 120. t. 2. p. 120. CHAP. IV. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 465 ANTIQUITIES OF THE Creed, with the addition of such articles as the church supplied, to make it a complete summary of the faith. So that nothing can be more evident, than that the Nicene Creed was the creed then generally made use of in all the Eastern churches for the instruction of catechumens at their baptism. But as yet it was not made a part of the common liturgy of the church, to be repeated daily in Divine ‘service. St. Ambrose“ indeed speaks of it as used in private devotion, and gives directions to the holy virgins so to use it in their morning retirements, and upon other proper occasions. And Habertus55 thinks it was also required of bishops at their ordin- ation; which is not improbable, because they were obliged to make a profession of their faith. But all this did not yet make it a part of the daily liturgy of the church. For it is agreed among learned men, both of the Romish and protestant communion, that the creed was not used to be repeated in the daily service till about the middle of the fifth century in the Greek church, and not till some time after in the Latin church. So Valesiusf6 Cardinal Bona,57 Schelstrate,‘58 Pagi,$9 Christianus Lupus,60 Hamond L’Estrange,"ll and Vossius.‘32 Theodorus Lector‘is observes, that Peter Fullo, who was bishop of An- tioch about the year 471, was the first that ordered the creed to be repeated in that church, év 'rra'o'g avuc’zEu, in every church assembly. And the-same author reports,“ that Timotheus, bishop of C onstan- tinople, anno 511, was the first that brought in this custom into that church; which he did in hatred to his predecessor Macedonius, and with an intent to represent him as disaffected to the Nicene Creed, which before that time was used to be rehearsed in the church only once a year, on the parasceue, or great day of preparation before the pass'over, now called Maundy Thursday, when the bishop was wont to catechise such as were to be baptized at Easter. From the Oriental churches, the custom was brought into the West, first in Spain and Gal- licia, at the petition of King Recaredus, by the order of the third council"5 of Toledo, about the year 589, when those churches were newly recovered from the inundation of the Arian heresy, this practice was then thought a proper antidote to preserve them from relapsing into their ancient error. Lupus 5‘ Ambros. de Virgin. lib. 3. p. 115. Symbolum quoque specialiter debemus, tanquam nostri signaculum cordis, an- telucanis horis quotidie recensere. ' Quod etiam, cum horre- mus aliquid, animo recurrendum est. 55 Habert. Archieratic. p. 499. 56 Vales. Not. in Theodor. Lector. lib. 2. p. 566. 5" Bona, Rer. Liturgic. lib. 2. c. 8. n. 2. 58 Schelstrat. Concil. Antiochen. cap. 6. p. 210. 59 Pagi, Critic. in Baron. an. 325. n. 18. 6° Lupus, Scholia in Concil. t. 1. cap. 4. p. 13. 6‘ Alliance of Divine Offices, chap. 3. p. 79. chap. 6. p. 170. 6’ Vossius de Symbolis. ' “3 Theodor. Lector. Hist. lib. 2. p. 566. and Pagi say, it was not brought into the French churches till the time of Charles the Great, and then Pope Leo III. advised them to lay it aside again, because it was not yet the custom of the Roman church. They concluded yet further, that in the time of Pope John VIII., anno 870, it was not yet the practice of the Roman church. But at last, in the days of Benedict VIII., anno 1014, as is collected from Berno Augiensis, the custom was admitted into the Roman church; for this reason, to give it in the words of Lupus, since the Roman church could not bring over the French and Spanish churches to her own way, she resolved at last to comply with their custom, that there might be no disagreement among them; and so the Nicene Creed came to be universally read throughout the whole church. There is but one creed more, which I need to stand to give any account orthgégghiiiaaan of, and that is the creed which is commonly received under the name of the Athana- sian Creed. Baronius"6 is of opinion, that it was composed by Athanasius when he was at Rome, and offered to Pope Julius as a confession of his faith. Which circumstance is not at all likely, for Julius never questioned the faith of Athanasius. However, a great many learned men have so far embraced the opinion of Baronius, as to believe this creed to be of Athanasius’s composing; as Cardi- nal Bona,“ and Petavius,68 and Bellarmine,69 and Rivet,” with many others of both communions. Scultetus leaves the matter in doubt. But the best and latest critics, who have examined the thing most exactly, make no question, but that it is to be ascribed to a Latin author, Vigilius Tapsensis, an African bishop, who lived in the latter end of the fifth century, in the time of the Vandalic Arian persecution. The learned Vossius71 and Quesnel72 have written particular dissertations upon this sub- ject. Their arguments are, 1. Because this creed is wanting in almost all the manuscripts of Athana- sius’s works. 2. Because the style and contexture of it does not bespeak a Greek, but a Latin author. 3. Because neither Cyril of Alexandria, nor the council of Ephesus, nor Pope Leo, nor the council of Chalcedon, have ever so much as mentioned it 6‘ Ibid. p. 563. 65 Cone. Tolet. 3. c. 2. Petitione Reccaredi regis consti- tuit synodus, ut per omnes ecclesias Hispaniae et Galliciae, secundum formam Orientalium ecclesiarum, concilii Con‘ stantinopolitani symbolum fidei recitetur: et priusquam Do- minica dicatur oratio, voce clara populo praedicetur, &c. 6“ Baron. an. 340. n. 11. 6’ Bone de Psalmodia. . 68 Pet-av. Not. in Epiphan. Haer. 72. 69 Bellarmin. de Scriptor. Eccles. p. 81. 7° Rivet, Critic. Sacr. lib. 3. c. 4. p. 240. 7‘ Voss. de Symbolis, Dissert. 2. 72 Quesnel. Dissert. de variis Fidei Symbolis in antiquo codice Romano. 2 H 466 Boox X. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. in all that they say against the Nestorian or Eutychian heresies. 4. Because this Vigilius Tap- sensis is known to have published several others of his writings under the borrowed name of Athanasius, with which this creed is commonly joined. These reasons have persuaded such men as Bishop Pear- son," Archbishop Usher," Hamond L’Estrange,75 Dr. Cave,“ Schelstrate,77 Pagi," and Du Pin, critics of the best rank, to come in to this opinion, that this creed was not composed by Athanasius, but by a later and a Latin writer. Dr. Cave thinks, the first that mentions it under the name of Athanasius, is Theodulphus Aurelianensis, who lived about the year 794, in the reign of Charles the Great: but in this he is a little mistaken; for the council of Autun, which was held above a hundred years before, anno 670, not only mentioned it under that name, but ordered every presbyter, deacon, subdeacon, &c., to read it together with the Apostles’ Creed,79 or be liable to the bishop’s censure for his omission; which implies, that it was then esteemed the genuine ' work of Athanasius, and as such had for some time been received in the church. But whoever was the author of it, there never was any question made of its orthodoxy, except by the Samosatenians and Arians in these later ages of the church. Only, as Bishop Usher and others have observed, the modern Greeks now use it with some additions and altera- tions. For, whereas it is said in the Latin copies, that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father and the Son; the Greeks now read it, from the Father, or the Father only; as Parmus80 has re- marked in his exposition of this creed. And in the Greek copy lately brought out of the East, and published by Bishop Usher, there is a long inter- polation by way of addition and explication of those words, “ He was man of the substance of his mother, perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.” With some other ad- ditions of lesser note, which the curious reader may find marked out in the fore-mentioned tract‘“ of that learned author. To all the creeds that have been related in this chapter, I think it not improper to add the short account which Eusebius gives of the first preaching 4 of St. Thaddaeus to King Agbarus and the people of Edessa, which I had from the information of my learned and judicious friend Mr. Lowth, to whose useful conversation I owe many other curious re- marks and observations, that lie scattered through- out the Antiquities of the Church. This is not in- deed properly a creed, but a summary of his first sermon, or the heads of his first catechetical insti- tution to the people. “Concerning the coming of Jesus into the world, after what manner it was; and concerning his mission, for what reason he was sent by the Father; concerning his power, and the mysteries which he spake in the world, and by what power he did these; then of his new way of preach- ing; of his meanness and abject estate, and the humility of his outward appearance as a man; after what manner he humbled himself, and submitted to death, and made a diminutive82 appearance of his Divine nature ; what things he suffered of the Jews, and how he was crucified, and descended into hell, and brake down the partition that had been kept up in former ages; how he arose from the dead, and raised with himself those that slept in preceding generations; how he descended [from heaven] alone, but ascended with a mighty com- pany to his Father; how he sits at the right hand of God the Father, and shall come again with glory and power to judge both the quick and the dead.” Here are two things very remarkable in this ancient account of the first principles of Chris- tian doctrine, viz. the Divinity of our Saviour, and the descent into hell, both which are here expressed in terms, for which reason I thought it might de- serve a place among the creeds of the church. Eu- sebius says, he had the account in the Syriac tongue, as it was preserved in the archives of the church of Edessa, signed in the year 340, which (according to the computation of time then used by the Syrians of Edessa, reckoning fi'om the first year that Seleucus began to reign in Asia) falls in with the same year that Christ suffered and arose from the dead, as Valesius, and Pagi‘f' after him, have rightly computed in their observations upon this passage of Eusebius. 78 Pearson. in Symbol. Artic. 8. p. 570. Edit. Lat. ‘ '4 Usser. de Symbol. Rom. p. l. 75 L’Estrange’s Alliance of Divine Ofiices, chap. 4. p. 99. "6 Cave, Hist. Literar. vol. 1. p. 146. "7 Schelstrat. Conc. Antioch. Dissert. 3. c. 2. p. 109. "'8 Pagi, Critic. in Baron. an. 340. n. 6. Du Pin, vol. 2. p. 35. 79 Conc. Augustodun. Can. ult. Con. t. 6. p. 536. Si quis presbyter, diaconus, subdiaconus, vel clericus, symbolum, quod inspirante Sancto Spiritu apostoli tradiderunt, vel fidem sancti Athanasii praesulis irreprehensibiliter non re- censuerit, ab episcopo condemnetur 8° Paraeus, Not. in Symbol. Athanas. ad calcem Ursin. Catech. p. 124. 8‘ Usser. de Symbolis, p. 29. 82 Euseb. lib. 1. cap. 13, ‘Eo'nixpvusu airrfi 'rr‘pu fleé'rm-a. “Kan-{fin eis 'rdv didnu, Kai dtéo'xto's cppa'yudu, &c. It is worth our observation to compare the apostle’s expression, Phil. ii. 7, éavrrou é/ce'uwcrs, “ He made himself of no reput- ation,” or, be emptied himself, with this expression of Thad- daeus, éa'fiixpuuev aim-5 'rhu 6e6'r17'ra, He lessened, or made a diminutive show and appearance of his Godhead. For these places mutually explain one another, and are a solid proof that the divinity of Christ in the apostolical age was one of the principal articles of the Christian faith. 8* Pagi, Critic. in Baron. an. 41. n. 3. CHAP. V. 467 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. CHAPTER V. OF THE ORIGINAL, NATURE, AND REASONS OF THE ANCIENT DISCIPLINE, IN CONCEALING THE SA— CRED MYSTERIES OF THE CHURCH FROM THE CATECHUMENS. THAT which makes this inquiry a lit- tle more necessary, is the several vain pretences of the Romanists concern- ing the original and reasons of this discipline. Bellarmine and others urge it as a mighty argument for transubstantiation in particular, as if the concealing the mystery of the eucharist from the catechumens, was an indication of the belief of the church concerning the real presence of Christ’s body and blood, which they were so studiously care- ful to hide from the knowledge of the catechumens. But this is abundantly refuted by a more accurate observation of Albaspinaeus, a learned bishop of the same communion, who in his book of the Ancient Polity of the Church relating to the Eucharist,1 as Sect. 1. The errors and retences of the omanists upon this point. .I find him cited by others,2 rejects this as an in- competent proof of the Romish doctrine of the real presence. For he rightly observes, that the ancients concealed not only the mystery of the eucharist, but also the sacrament of baptism from the cate- chumens; yea, and almost all other their sacred rites and ceremonies, which in a large sense are called sacraments, as the oil of chrism or confirm- ation, and the ordination of priests, which were as studiously concealed from the knowledge or in- spection of the uniniated, as the elements of the holy eucharist were. So that the bare concealing that mystery from the catechumens, could no more be an argument of transubstantiation in the bread and wine in the eucharist, than it was in the waters of baptism, or any other ceremony where the same silence and caution was used. The learned Schelstrate, with a subtle invention, has made a more general use of this ancient prac- tice, to palliate and excuse all the novel doctrines and practices of his own church. He wrote a book which he entitled Disciplina Arcani, a book highly magnified by Pagi and others of his own commu- nion,a as stopping the mouths of the protestants, when they ask the Romanists, why no footsteps of their modern doctrines and practices appear in the earliest writers of the church; the answer is ready upon all occasions, from this Disciplina Arcani, that it was because these doctrines and practices were kept secret, and only handed down by tradi- tion, not committed to writing, lest they should come to the knowledge of the uninitiated Jews and Gentiles, and the catechumens of the church. This is the reason, he tells us, why there is no account of the seven sacraments, nor of the worship of saints or images, in the first writers of the church. The things were really believed and practised from the days of the apostles, as he will have it, but kept secret, as the hidden mysteries of religion, which were not to be divulged to any but such as were initiated and prepared to know them. This is an artifice that would justify as many errors and vanities as any church could be guilty of: it is but working a little with this admirable instrument and tool, called discipline: arcam', and then all the seeming contradictions between the ancient doctrines and practices of the church uni- versal, and the novel corruptions of the modern church of Rome, will presently vanish and disap- pear. So that we need not wonder, why men, whose interest it serves so much, should magnify this as a noble invention. When yet in truth it is onlya veil and a mist cast before the reader’s eyes, which may be easily dispelled by giving a true account of that ancient piece of discipline and practice, first in its original, and then in the nature, use, and rea- sons of it. . As' to its original, the learned Al- baspinaeus has rightly observed, That rhissdiiiiifimenpr in the apostolical age, and some time Zigécvlizzfgrliiriigsgi after, they were not so very strict in this discipline of concealing their sacred mysteries from the knowledge of the catechumens. For he thus argues against the antiquity of the book called the Apostolical Constitutions : The last words, says he,‘ which forbid the publication of those eight books, do plainly show, that they were not written in the first age; for the Christians of the first age did never make any scruple of publishing their mysteries, as appears from the writings of Justin Martyr. Mr. Aubertine observes5 the same out of Athenagoras and Tatian. And Daille6 joins in opinion with Albaspineeus, and cites his authority with approbation. And Basnage is7 so far from thinking, that the apostles concealed their mys- teries from the catechumens, that he rather sup- poses they administered the sacraments in their presence. Upon which supposition, the whole ‘ Albaspin. Police de l’ ancienne Eglise, &c. lib. 1. c. 2. . 47. p 2 Albertin. de Eucharist. lib. 2. p. 703. 3 Pagi, Critic. in Baron. an. 118. n. 4. ‘ AlbaspinQObservat. lib. 1. c. 13. p. 38. Postrema verba, quibus cavetur, ne oc'to libri Constitutionum Apostolicarum publicentur, aperte indicant, eas primis saeculis factas non esse, cum primi sacculi Christiani sua lubentes mysteria, ut vel ex J ustino constat, enuntiarent. 5 Albertin. de Eucharist. lib. 2. p. 709. 6 Dallaeus de Scriptis Ignatii, lib. 1. c. 22. p. 142. 7 Basnag. Exercitat. in Baron. p. 419. Alta de mysteriis silentia non agebant apostoli, nec catechumenos arcebant a sacramentorum conspectu. 1~ 2H2 468 BOOK X. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. fabric which Schelstrate builds upon the discipline: arcam', is ruined at once. For then it is certain, the apostles had no such fear or caution upon them, lest the catechumens should come to the know- ledge of the Christian rites or doctrines, as is pre- tended. And indeed any one that looks into the writings of the‘ apostles, may perceive with half an eye, that they were far enough from concealing their opinion about the worship of angels, saints, and images; for they expressly write against it. And when they speak of the mysteries of baptism and the eucharist, they do it with the greatest free- dom, without any fear or apprehension of giving offence to the catechumens. Nay, and when this discipline was Butseciiigtaucea first introduced into the Christian about _the time of . . . . Tertullian fol-other church, it is very evident, it was done Egft'gmiiligaiiiif for different reasons than those which the Romanists pretend. The first be— ginning of it seems to have been about the time of Tertullian; for he is the first writer that makes any mention of it. He says,‘3 There was a secrecy and silence observed in all mysteries. And he blames the heretics of his own times for not re- garding something of this discipline. They made no distinction, he says,9 between believers and cate- chumens; they all met together, they all heard to- gether, they all prayed together. And if heathens chanced to come in upon them, they gave that which was holy to dogs, and cast their pearls, such as they were, before swine. Here it is plain, the church now made several distinctions between cate- chumens and believers, which heretics did not. The place of the catechumens was now in a separate part of the church; they heard sermons, but not all that believers were allowed to hear; they had prayers for themselves, but were not admitted to hear the prayers of the faithful, which were pecu- liar to the celebration of the eucharist, from which catechumens were excluded. But all this was, and might be done, without favouring in the least the vain pretences of the modern Arcanists ; for in all this there was no design to conceal such mysteries as the worship of saints, and angels, and images, from the knowledge of the catechumens; but on the contrary, Tertullian speaks openly of these kinds of worship, and with indignation condemns them as superstitious practices, belonging only to heathens or heretics, and not to the mysteries of the church. And in the following ages, no writer o c o O I s t. 4. that mentions this discipline, among This firmed from . . a particular account all those that give us a more particu- of the things which they concealed from . - lar &CCOllIlt Of What thmgs were con Which were, 1. The cealed from the knowledge or inspec- 12328555333?“— tion of the catechumens, ever so much as intimates, that the worship of saints and images was in the number of the mysteries of the church which they concealed from them. But the myste- ries which they were so careful in some measure to hide from them, were, I. The manner of administer- ing baptism. 2. The unction of chrism or confirm- ation. 3. The ordination of priests. 4. The man- ner of celebrating the eucharist. 5. The liturgy or Divine service of the church. 6. And for some time, the mystery of the Trinity, the creed, and the Lord’s prayer, till they became greater proficients, and were ready for baptism. In the first place, that they were careful to conceal from them the manner of administering baptism, appears from this, that catechumens were never so much as suffered to en- terlo or look into the baptistery, or place where baptism was administered, according to the order of the first council of Orange. St. Basil therefore says,ll Baptism, the eucharist, and the oil of chrism, were things that the uninitiated were not allowed to look upon. And St. Austin,‘2 putting the ques- tion, What things were kept secret, and not made public in the church? answers, The sacrament of baptism, and the sacrament of the eucharist. For even pagans may see our good works, but the sacra- ments are kept hidden from them. And as they did not admit catechumens to see baptism adminis- tered, so neither did they ordinarily discourse of it before them in plain terms, but in a mystical way, or else wholly excluded them from such discourses, as incompetent hearers. We do not speak openly, says St. Cyril,“ of the sacraments before the cate- chumens, but deliver many things covertly, that the faithful who know them, may understand us, and they who know them not, may receive no harm. So Theodoret,“ We discourse of mysteries obscurely because of the unbaptized; but when they are gone, we speak plainly before the initiated. In like man- ner Nazianzen,15 speaking of baptism, You have heard, says he, so much of the mystery as we are allowed to speak publicly in the ears of all, and the rest you shall hear privately, which you must retain secret within yourself, and keep under the seal of baptism. A great many other passages may be read catechumens. 8 Tertul. Apol. c. 7. Ex forma omnibus mysteriis silentii fides adhibetur. 9 Tertul. de Praescript. advers. Haeretic. cap. 41. In primis quis catechumenus, quis fidelis, incertum est: pariter adeunt, pariter audiunt, pariter orant: etiam ethnici si supervenerint, sanctum canibus, et porcis margaritas, licet non veras, jactabunt. ‘” Cone. Arausican. can. 19. Ad baptisterium catechu- meni nunquam admittendi. 1' Basil. de Spiritu Sancto, c. 27. “A 056%. é'n-oqr'rsuaw é'Ess-L 'ro'Zs d/wfi'rois, t. 2. p. 352. 12 Aug. Com. in Psal. ciii. Concio. l. t. 8. p. 484. Quid est quod occultum est, et non publicum in ecclesia? Sacra- mentum baptismi, sacramentum eucharistiae. Opera nostra bona vident et pagani, sacramenta vero occultantur illis. ‘8 Cyril. Catech. 6. n. 16. 1" Theodor. Quaest. 15. in Numer. t. l. p. 149. ‘5 Naz. Orat. 40. de Bapt. t. I. p. 672. CHAP. V. 469 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. in Chrysostom,“ Theodoret,‘7 Cyril of Alexandria,18 the author under the name of Dionysius the Areo- pagite," and the Apostolical Canons,” with many others to the same purpose. From all which we learn, that though the ancients acquainted the cate- chumens with the doctrine of baptism so far as to make them understand the spiritual nature and de- sign of it, yet they never admitted them to the sight of the outward ceremony, nor so much as to hear any plain discourse about the manner of its administra- tion, till they were fitted and prepared for the actual reception of it. And they observed the same disci- sewfifiitl 5th, _ pline in reference to the holy unction manner 0 admims- . . . . $311153; $212333: or chrlsm, whlch the Latins call 1m- position of hands, or confirmation. St. Basil,21 speaking of the oil which was used to be consecrated and used in this ceremony, says, It was one of those things which the uninitiated were not allowed to look upon. And Pope Innocent 1., writing to another bishop about confirmation, and the form of words used in the administration of it, says, He could22 not repeat the words, lest he should seem to disclose the mystery, rather than answer the question proposed. A third thing which they concealed Sect. 6. na'triigagugggesgfdi- from ‘the catechumens, was the. or- dination of priests. The council of Laodicea23 has a canon to this purpose, That ordin- ations shall not be performed in the presence of the hearers, that is, the catechumens. And Chry- sostom, speaking of this oflice, and the solemn prayers used at the consecration, delivers himself in an obscure and covert way, because of the cate- chumens. He that ordains, says he, requires the prayers of the church,24 and they then join their suffrage, and echo forth those words which the in- itiated know. For we may not speak them openly before the uninitiated catechumens. A fourth thing which they con- mg or public cealed from the catechumens, was the giliiriii, diet}: the Public liturgy or solemn prayers of piiiiiiiistoiiiiiifigj the church. For one rank of the ca- and the faimm techumens, the audientes or hearers, were only permitted to stay and hear the sermon, but not any prayers of the church. Another sort, called kneelers or prostrators, had the prayers of the church particularly for themselves, but no Sect. 7. Fourthly, The 1i- others. And the competentes stayed only to hear the prayers offered up for themselves and the ener- gumens, and then were dismissed. They might not stay to hear so much as the prayers for the peni- tents, much less the prayers for the church militant, or any others preceding the communion. But be- fore all these, the usual word of command was given by the deacons, or sacred heralds of the church, Ne quis audzent'ium, or, Ite, missa est, Catechumens, de- part. From whence it is easy to collect further, that the solemn office of the absolution of penitents was never performed in the presence of the cate- chumens. For the time of absolution was not till all others were dismissed, except the penitents them- selves who were to be absolved, which was imme- diately before their going to the altar to begin the communion service. As seems to be clear from those words of Optatus, where he speaks of it as the common custom, both in the church and among the Donatists,” to give imposition of hands for absolution, immediately before their going to saythe Lord’s prayer at the altar. All these things therefore were kept se- cret from the catechumens; for they were never suf- fered to be hearers or spectators of any part of them. But as the eucharist was the high- See," 8 est mystery in the Christian service, $323,315,535“- so they were most careful to conceal themha'ist' the manner of its celebration from the catechumens. And in this they made a difference between one sort of penitents and the catechumens. For the highest class of penitents, called consistentes or co-standers, were allowed to be present at the communion pray- ers, and see the oblation offered and received by the faithful, though they might not partake with them. But catechumens of all ranks were wholly excluded from all this. They were always dismissed before these prayers began, and the doors of the church were locked and guarded by proper officers, to the intent that no uninitiated person should indiscreetly rush in upon them. We shut the doors, says Chry- sostom,26 when we celebrate the holy mysteries, and drive away all uninitiated persons. This was one of the secrets of the church, as we heard St. Austin before27 speak of it; one of the things which a catechumen might not look upon, according to St. Basil.28 Therefore the author of the Apostolical ‘Constitutions29 makes it part of the deacon’s office, not only to command their absence, but also to keep '6 Chrys. Horn. 40. in 1 Cor. p. 688. Horn. 46. in Act. p. 868. t. 4. Ed. Savil. 1’ Theodor. Haeret. Fabul. lib. 5. c. 18. 1' Cyril. adv. Julian. lib. 7. t. 6. p. 247. Eccles. Hierar. c. 2. p. 251. 2' Basil. de Spiritu Sancto, c. 27. 22 Innocent. Ep. 1. ad Decentium Eugubin. c. 3. Verba vero dicere non possum, ne magis prodere videar, quam ad consultationem respondere. 23 Cone. Laodic. can. 5. M1‘) de'iu 'rc‘zs Xetpo'rouias é'n'i. wapouo'iq dicpowuéuwu 'yiueo'eat. '9 Dionys. 2° Canon. Apost. c. 85. 2* Chrysost. Hom. 18. in 2 Cor. p. 872. '0 ,uéhhwu Xu- porroueiu, 'rds s’xeivwu si'ixa‘zs Kalte'i Fro'rrs, Kai. ai'rroi. e’vrtdm- cpigozrrat, Kai é'rrtfiod'io'w, a'rrep Zaio-w oi ,uejuunuéuot‘ or’: 76:40 61‘; B'e'pts evri 'ribv cinwi'rwu éKKaAl'HI’TflU z'i-n'au-ra. 25 Optat. cont. Parmen. lib. 2. p. 57. Inter vicina mo- menta, dum manus imponit-is et delicta douatis, mox ad altare conversi, Dominicam orationem praetermittere non potestis. Vid. Constitut. Apost. lib. 8. cap. 6—9. 2“ Chrys. Hom. 23. in Mat. p. 236. 2" Aug. in Psal. ciii. “8 Basil. de Spir. Sanct. c. 27. 29 Constit. Apost. lib. 2. c. 57. lib. 8. c. 11. 470' Boox X. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. the doors, that none might come in, during the time of the oblation. Epiphanius 8° and St. J erom 8‘ bring it as a charge against the Marcionites, that they despised this discipline, and admitted catechu- mens indiscriminately with the faithful to all their mysteries. And Palladius *2 forms a like charge against the enemies of Chrysostom, that in the tu- mult they raised against him, they gave occasion to the uninitiated to break into the church, and see those things which it was not lawful for them to set their eyes upon. Nay, so strict was the church then in the observation of this discipline, that Athanasius convicted the Meletians of false witness against him, when they pretended to prove, by the testimony of some catechumens, that Macarius, one of his presbyters, had overturned the communion table in the time of the oblation: he argued, that this could not be so, because,83 if the catechumens were present, there could then be no oblation. Nor did they only exclude catechumens from the sight of these mysteries, but also from all dis- courses which treated plainly about them. They made a distinction between moral and mysterious subjects, and admitted the catechumens to the one, but not to the other, as I have had occasion for- merly to show 8‘ from the testimonies of Theodoret,85 St. Austin,86 and St. Ambrose.37 To which we may here add that of St. Cyril of Jerusalem: You was once, says he, a catechumen, and then wess did not discourse of mysteries to you: and now that you have attained by experience to the height of those things which we teach, you will easily perceive that catechumens are not worthy to be hearers of such things. And that of Gaudentius, bishop of Brixia, who in his sermon to the neophites,‘39 or persons newly baptized, tells them, he would now open to them those mysteries, which could not be explained in the presence of the catechumens. Sometimes indeed they spake of the eucharist be- fore the catechumens in their popular discourses; but then they did it in such obscure and figurative terms as were understood only by communicants, and not by the catechumens : according to that of St. Chrysostom ;4° I would speak plainly, but I dare not because of the unbaptized. For they make our expositions to be more difficult, they compel us to speak obscurely, or else we must reveal what is‘ not to be revealed unto them. Upon this account Epi- phanius, speaking of the words of institution before‘ the catechumens, would .not say, This bread is my body, this wine is my blood; but Hoc meum est hoc et hoe, This is my that and that,‘1 to let the initiated ‘ know his meaning, and not the catechumens. And hence it was they so often used that phrase, "Icacw oi pspvmutvm, Et ndruntfideles, The initiated know what we say; which phrase Casaubon42 has ob- served to occur no less than fifty times in the writ- ings of St. Chrysostom. Casaubon makes another good observation upon this matter, which the learn- ed Albertinus takes from him,"8 and strenuously defends: That whereas there are three things in the eucharist; l. The symbols, or sacred elements of bread and wine; 2. The things signified by them; and, 3. The rites of celebration; that which the ancients laboured chiefly to conceal from the cate- chumens, was not the things signified, but only the symbols or outward signs, and the rites and manner of celebration. For they made no scruple to call the eucharist by the name of Christ’s body and blood before the catechumens, at the same time that they would not call it bread and wine, or speak particularly of the form and manner of ad— ministering it, as Albertinus proves out of Theodoret and many others. of concealing the mystery from the catechumens was not the belief of transubstantiation, as the Romanists pretend; for then they would have chosen rather to conceal the names of Christ’s body and blood, than the names of the outward symbols, and the mystical rites of celebration, the latter of which they studiously concealed, but not the former. He that would see more of this, may consult the elaborate discourse of that most acute and learned writer, where he answers all the objections of Cof~ fetellus against the present assertion. The last sort of things which they for some time concealed from the more graffiti; mys- _ tery of the Trinity imperfect catechumens, were the sub- thgrdgegaglyziafigi limer doctrines of Christianity, such Egghiliiggrt’of ca- as the mystery of the Trinity, and hypostatic union, together with the creed itself and the Lord’s prayer, which the catechumens did not learn till immediately before their baptism. For so Theodoret tells us,“ that they did not teach this prayer to the uninitiated, but to the baptized, or immediate candidates of baptism. For no one that was not baptized could. presume to say, “ Our Father which art in heaven ;” not having yet received the 8° Epiphan. Haeres. 42. n. 3. 3' Hieron. Coin. in Galat. vi. t. 9. p. 199. 82 Pallad. Vit. Chrysostom. c. 9. The same complaint is made by Chrysostom himself in his first epistle to Pope Innocent, t. 4. p. 681. Edit. Front. Ducaci. 33 Athan. Apol. 2. t. l. p. 747. 8* Book I. chap. 4. sect. 8. 35 Theodor. Quaest. 15. in Numer. 3“ Aug. Serm. 1. ad Neophytos, in Append. t. 10. p. 845. “7 Ambros. de Initiatis, c. l. 83 Cyril. Catech. Praef. n. 7. 39 Gaudent. Serm. 2. ad N eophytos, Bibl. Patr. t. 2. p. 14. Ea solum apericnda neophytis, quae praesentibus cate- chumenis explanari non possunt. 4° Chrys. Horn. 40. in 1 Cor. p. 688. 4‘ Epiphan. Anchorat. n. 57. ‘2 Casaub. Exercit. 16. in Baron p. 490. ‘3 Albertin. de Euchar. lib. 2. p. 708. ‘4 Theod. Epitom. Divin. Decret. lib. 5. Hacret. Fabul. c. 28._ Tar'r-rnu 'r1‘1v 'n'poo'evxr‘w or’; "robs o’qumirrovs, dlthc‘r 'roils ,uvqa'yw'yovluéuovs Btdc'zo'Koysu. Which shows, that the reason- CHAP. V. 471 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. gift of adoption. But he that was made partaker 0f baptism might call God his Father, as being adopted among the sons of grace. St. Chrysostom‘5 speaks after the same manner: This prayer belongs only to the faithful, as both the rule of the church and the beginning of the prayer itself teach. For an unbaptized person cannot yet call God his Fa- ther. This prayer was then peculiar to the com- munion service, and never used in the church, but only at the altar, where none of the catechumens could be present, but only the faithful. Whence it was called, nix?) #01321, the prayer of the faithful. And one petition in it was thought to refer more particularly to the eucharist, “ Give us this day our daily bread,” d'prov émozicnov, our super-substantial or super-celestial bread, as many of the ancients render it. For these reasons they never taught the Lord’s prayer to any of the catechumens but the highest rank of them, the competentes, a few days before their baptism. As we learn from those words of St. Austin,‘8 Now learn the Lord’s prayer, which ye must repeat eight days hence, when ye are to be baptized. So they received it only on Saturday be- fore Palm Sunday, in order to repeat it on Saturday before Easter, which was the day of their baptism. They observed the same discipline in reference to the creed, which they taught to the catechu- mens at the same time only as they did the Lord’s prayer, a little before their baptism. This they did not always commit to writing, but kept it, as St. J erom ‘7 words it, in tables of the heart, and de- livered it by word of mouth, that it might not come to the knowledge of the uninitiated and unbelievers. Which is the reason that Sozomen gives,48 why he did not insert the words of the Nicene Creed into his history, because probably many uninitiated persons might read his book, who ought not to read or hear the creed. They were as careful not to com- municate to new beginners the profound mysteries of the Trinity and incarnation, till they had first prepared them by proper preceding instructions for the reception of them. Therefore, as St. Jerom observes,49 it was the custom of the church to put off this part of 'the instruction of catechumens to the last, and not acquaint them with these doctrines till about forty days before they were to be bap- tized, though the catechetical instruction had con- tinued perhaps for two or three years before. This was the whole of that discipline we read so much of among the ancients, of concealing the sacred mysteries from the catechumens. Among all which we have never the least intimation given, that the practice of image-worship, or the adoration of saints and angels, or the doctrine of seven sacra- ments, were the mysteries they intended to conceal from them. For in those days there were no such mysteries in the Christian church. And therefore the late invention of Schelstrate is a mere fiction and sophism, to cover the nakedness of the present Roman church. And the pretence of Bona,50 con- cerning the prohibition of images in churches made by the council of Eliberis, that it was only to con- ceal the secrets of religion from the knowledge of the heathen, is an absurd supposition, which nei- ther Albaspinaeus nor Petavius could digest, as I have showed more fully in another place,“ where I speak of the ornaments of the ancient churches. As to those things which they really concealed from the catechumens, the Remit; i2} con- cealing these things true reasons were, first, That the from the catechu- mens. First, That plainness and simplicity of the Chris- 31; lyggtiyfmggstgerg tian rites might not be contemned by ggng-dfm be °°“' them, or give any occasion of scandal or offence to them, before they were thoroughly in- structed about the nature of the mysteries. For both Jews and Gentiles, out of whom Christian converts were made catechumens, were apt to de- ride the nakedness and simplicity of the Christian religion, as void of those pompous ceremonies and sacrifices, with which those other religions abound- ed. The Christian religion prescribed but one washing in water, and one oblation of bread and wine, instead of that multitude of bloody sacrifices which the other religions commanded. Therefore,’ lest the plainness of these few ceremonies should offend the prejudiced minds of catechumens, before they were well instructed about them, the Christian teachers usually adorned these mysteries with great and magnificent titles, such as would convey noble ideas to the minds of men concerning their spirit- ual effects, but concealing their other names, lest the simplicity of the things should offend them. When they spake of the eucharist, they never men- tioned bread and wine, but the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ; and styled baptism, illumina- tion and life, the sacrament of faith and remission of sins, saying little in the mean time of the out- ward element of water. This was one plain reason, why they denied catechumens the sight of their sacraments, and always spake in mystical terms be- “ Chrysos.,Hom. 20. al. 19. in Matt. p. 200. Horn. 2. in 2 Cor. p. 740. 46 Aug. Hom. 42. ex 50. t. 10. p. 195. Tenete ergo hanc orationem, quam reddituri estis ad octo dies.——Ad octo dies ab hodierno die reddituri estis hanc orationem, quam hodie accepistis. “7 Hieron. Ep. 61. ad Pammach. c. 9. p. 173. Symbo- lum fidei et spei nostraa, quod ab apostolis traditum, non scribitur in charta et atramento, sed in tabulis cordis car- nalibus. ‘8 Sozomen. lib. 1. c. 20. "9 Hieron. Epist. 61. ad Pammach. c. 4. p. 167. Consue- tudo apud nos istiusmodi est, ut his qui baptizandi sunt, per quadraginta dies publice tradamus sanctam et adorandam T rinitatem. 5° Bona, Rer. Liturg. lib. 1. cap. 16. n. 2. 51 Book VIII. chap. 8. sect. 6. 472 Boox X. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. fore them. We shut the doors, says Chrysostom,52 when we celebrate our mysteries, and keep off all uninitiated persons from them, not because we ac- knowledge any imperfection in the things them- selves, but because many are weakly affected toward them. And so St. Cyril,” in the place mentioned above, We speak not openly of our mysteries be- fore the catechumens, but say many things mysti- cally and obscurely, that they who know them may understand us, and they who know them not may receive no harm. In like manner the synod of Alexandria,“ charging the Meletians for publishing the mystery of the eucharist before the catechu- mens, and what was worse, before the heathens, contrary to those rules of Scripture, “ It is good to conceal the secrets of a king ;” and, “Give not that which is holy unto dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine ;” they add, that it is not lawful to bring mysteries upon the open stage before the uninitiated, lest the heathen, through their ignor- ance, should deride them, or the catechumens, by their curiosity, should be offended. Therefore there was an ancient rule in the church, That if any un- initiated person had by any mistake been admitted to partake of the eucharist, he should be imme- diately instructed and baptized, that he might not go forth a contemner or despiser, as the author of the Apostolical Constitutions55 words it. And the fourth council of Toledo gives a like reason 56 why such Jews as had been baptized by force, should continue in the Christian profession, lest the name of God should be blasphemed, and the faith which they had received should be reputed vile and con- ‘temptible; though they made a severe decree against obliging any Jews to be baptized by force or compulsion for the future. Seat. 11_ Another reason assigned for this cmsgfgnglaggggg; discipline of silence, was to conciliate “"them' a reverence in the minds of men for the mysteries which they kept so concealed from them. For, as St. Basil observes,57 the veneration of mysteries is preserved by silence. And as things that are trite and obvious are easily contemned, so those that are uncommon and reserved are naturally adapted to beget in men an esteem and veneration. And therefore he thinks, the apostles and fathers of the church, who made laws about these matters, prescribed secrecy and silence, to preserve the dig- nity of the mysteries. St. Austin 58 gives the same reason for this practice, when he says, it was the honour that was due to the mysteries, which made him pass them over in silence, and not explain them. St. Austin adds to this a third rea- . . , Sect. 12. son, which is, that the mysteries of th'péiarpgfigerrgate baptism and the eucharist were there- 511$: giggle“ *0 fore chiefly concealed from the cate- chumens, to excite their curiosity, and inflame their zeal, and make them more earnest and solicitous in hastening to partake of them, that they might come to an experimental knowledge of them. Though the sacraments, says he, are not disclosed” to the catechumens, it is not always because they cannot bear them, but that they may so much the more ardently desire them, by how much they are the more honourably hidden from them. And again, The Jews acknowledge not the priesthood60 ac-. cording to the order of Melchisedeck. I speak to the faithful; if the catechumens understand it not, let them cast away their slowness and hasten to the knowledge of it. They that do not yet eat of this 6‘ banquet, let them hasten upon invitation. The feast of Easter is at hand. Give in your name to baptism. If the festival does not excite you, let curiosity draw you, that you may know that which is said, “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.” These were the reasons which engaged the an- cients to conceal their mysteries from the catechu- mens: which, we plainly see, have no relation to such doctrines as that of transubstantiation, or the number of seven sacraments, or such superstitious practices as the worship of images, or saints and angels, which are mere novelties, and the modern inventions of the Romish church. I have now gone through all things relating to the discipline of the catechumens in their prepara- tion for baptism. We are next to take a view of baptism itself, and inquire into the manner how the church administered it, and what rites and customs were observed in the celebration of it. 5'2 Chrys. Hom. 23. in Mat. p. 236. ' 53 Cyril. Catech. 6. n. 16. 5* Apud Athanas. Apol. 2. t. l. p. 731. 5'5 Constit. Apost. lib. 7. c. 25. 56 Cone. Tolet. 4. can. 56. Oportet ut fidem etiam, quam vi vel necessitate susceperunt, tenere cogantur, ne nomen Domini blasphemetur, et fides, quam susceperunt, vilis ac contemptibilis habeatur. 5’ Basil. de Spir. Sancto, c. 27. 58 Aug. Serm. 1. inter 40. Edit. a Sirmondo, t. 10. Non mirari debetis, fratres charissimi, quod inter ipsa mysteria de mysteriis nihil diximus, quod non statim ea quae tradidi- mus interpretati sumus. Adhibuimus enim tam sanctis re- bus atque divinis honorem silentii. 59 Aug. Horn. 96. in J oh. Et si catechumenis sacramenta fidelium non produntur, non ideo fit quod ea ferre non pos- sint, sed ut tanto ardentius ab eis concupiscantur, quanto eis honorabilius occultantur. 6° Aug. Hom. in Psal. cix. J udaei non agnoscunt sacer- dotium secundum ordinem Melehisedek. Fidelibus loquor, si quid non intelligunt catechumeni, auferant pigritiam, festinent ad notitiain. “1 Id. de Verbis Domini, Hom. 46. Qui ngondum man- ducant, ad tales epulas invitati festinent.-—Ecce Pascha est, da nomen ad baptismum. Si non te excitat festivitas, ducat ipsa curiositas, ut scias quid dictum sit, Qui manducat carnem meam et bibit sanguinem meuin, manet in me, et ego in eo - BOOK XI. OF THE RITES AND CUSTOMS OBSERVED IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF BAPTISM IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. CHAPTER I. OF THE THERE are a great many questions relating to the doctrine of baptism, which I intend not to make any part of the subject of this Book, because they may be found in any didactical and polemical writers upon this head, and especially in Vossius his elaborate discourse De Baptismo, where he accu- rately canvasses all questions of this nature, and learnedly determines them from the doctrine of the ancients. Here the reader may find a satisfactory account of all questions relating to the mystical signification and spiritual effects of baptism; such as are, 1. Regeneration; 2. Adoption ; 3. Recep— tion into the covenant of grace. In which also is contained remission of sins, renovation of the spirit, and eternal life, which are the noble effects confer- red on all those that rightly receive it. Here also he determines the questions, How it comes to pass, that though sins are forgiven in baptism, yet con- cupiscence, the fuel or incentive of sin, remains still in the regenerate? And whence it is, that after baptism, we are still afflicted with diseases, and that as well infants as adult persons? How it comes to pass, that the magistrate has power to punish those sins which are committed before baptism’, even after they are purged away and forgiven in baptism? With many other questions of the like nature, which are not necessary to come into this discourse I shall also omit the question about the indelible character of baptism, which is pretended to be im- pressed upon the soul; and the questions about the administrator of baptism, and lay baptism, and heretical baptism, because I have lately considered these distinctly and fully in a first and second part of the Scholastical History of Lay Baptism. What Sect. 1. The names of baptism most com- monly taken from the spiritual effects of it. SEVERAL NAMES AND APPELLATIONS OF BAPTISM IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. remains therefore to be considered in this place, is only such other matters in the practice of the an- cient church relating to the administration of bap- tism, as have not yet been spoken to. And here, first of all, it will be proper to say something of the ancient names of baptism; some of which were taken from the internal and spiritual effects of it; others, from the nature and substance of the action; others, from the conditions required in the receivers; others, from the external circumstances and rites observed in the administration. From one of its noble effects, it was sometimes styled indulgentia, indul- ca-liiieezinpgdzgzpzitsigr gence, or absolution and remission of 1233531308.“ at; sins. Thus, in the African council under Cyprian,‘ Privatianus a Sufi'etula terms it, the Divine indulgence. And in the Roman council mentioned by Cotelerius,2 it is said, That at the Easter festival, remission of sins, meaning baptism, may be administered by either presbyter or deacon, in the presence of the bishop in the parish churches. But, forasmuch as absolution or remission of sins may not always necessarily accompany baptism, through some default in the administrator or the receiver, though the baptism be otherwise a true baptism; therefore St. Austin, in disputing with the Donatists, chooses rather to call it3 the sacra- ment of grace, and the sacrament of absolution, rather than grace or absolution itself ; because wicked men may receive the sacrament of baptism, but they cannot receive the grace of baptism, which is absolution, or remission of sins; for God grants that to none but those that turn to him with a sin- cere faith and true repentance. Whenever there- fore the ancients call baptism by the name of abso- ' Conc. Carthag. ap. Cypr. n. 19. p. 234. Si haeresis a Deo est, habere et indulgentiam Divinam potest. 2 Cone. Rom. can. 7. ap. Coteler. Not. in Const. Apost. lib. 3. c. 9. Paschae tempore presbyter et diaconus per pa- rochias dare remissionem peccatorum et ministerium im- plere consueverunt, etiam praesente episcopo. 3 Aug. de Bapt. lib. 5. c. 21. Sacramentuln gratiae dat Deus etiam per malos: ipsam vero gratiarn non nisi per seipsum vel per sanctos suos.——Baptismum vero, quod est sacramentum remissionis peccatorum, nulli dubium est ha- bere etiam homicides posse, &c. 474 Boon XI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. lution or indulgence, they are to be understood with this limitation, that it is so only to those who are worthy receivers of it. And hence we may observe, that the true ancient proper notion of an absolution, or indulgence, is God’s pardoning sin by the minis- terial application of his sacraments, which are the seals of his covenant, granting remission of sins: whence baptism, entering men into that covenant of grace, was dignified with the name of the sacra- ment of absolution and indulgence. Another noble effect of baptism, [And 35%. was regeneration, or a new birth from “iii: the death of sin to the life of right- ' eousness. For every Christian was supposed to be born again by the waters of bap- tism, according to that of Tertullian,4 Nos piscz'culz' secundum ixss» nostrum Jesum Christum in aqua nascz'mur, We fishes are born in water, conformable to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, iX-S'I‘JQ; which, as I have observed5 in another place, was an acros- tic, or technical name, made of the initial letters of our Saviour’s several titles in Greek, ’Incm‘ig Xpwrbg, Geo“? 'Yrbg, Eun'r‘yp, which put together, make up the name IXGYE, which signifies a fish, and is alluded to not only by Tertullian, but by Prosper6 and Op- tatus.’ Hence baptism had the name of waMyys- veo'ia :pvxfigf in Cyril’s Catechism, The regeneration of the soul; and iidwp Zwfig, the water of life, in J us- tin Martyr;9 and fans Divinas, in Cassiodore,m the Divine fountain, whence comesour English name, font; with many other titles of the same import- ance. And because this new birth was wrought by the power and influence of the Spirit, therefore it was called the spiritual birth, whereby those who were born carnally to the world before, were now born spiritually to God. And so, as Optatus words it,11 God was hereby made Father of men, and the holy church their mother. For till men were bap- tized, they were not perfect members of Christ’s body, the church, nor properly adopted into God’s family, and consequently had as yet no right to call God their Father, or the church their mother. And because the Divine operations of the Holy Spirit in sanctifying grace, are sometimes in Scripture called the unction or anointing of the Spirit, therefore baptism had also the name of chrism or unction, from this noble effect attending it. Gregory Nazi- anzen takes notice of this among many other titles of honour: We call it, says he, the gift,12 and grace, and baptism, and unction, and illumination, and garment of immortality, and laver of regeneration, and seal or character, and whatever else is precious or honourable. And in explaining these terms, he particularly notes, that it had the name of unction, because it was a sacred and a royal thing, as those things usually were that were anointed. Whence every man was in some sense made a king and a priest to God by Christ in his baptism, upon which account St. J erom ‘8 styles baptism, sacerdotium laz'cz', the layman’s priesthood, in contradistinction to the clerical priesthood, which was only conferred by ordination. , Another effect of baptism, was the enlightening men’s understandings with Divine knowledge. Hence bap— tism had the name of gbw'rwpog, illumination, as it frequently occurs in Chrysostom," N azianzen,15 Dionysius the Areopagite,16 the council of Laodicea,17 and many others. The reason of which name seems to be partly from the preceding instruction of the catechumens in their preparation for baptism, according to that of Justin Martyr, This laver’? is called illumination, because the minds of those who learn these things are enlightened. Then again, because it was the entrance on an enlightened state, and the introduction to Divine knowledge, which grew by degrees to greater perfection: for J ustin’s words may be understood of the knowledge conse- quent to baptism. And so the reason is given by Clemens Alexandrinus,” and the author under the name of Dionysius,”0 because it confers the first light, and is the introduction to all other Divine il- luminating mysteries, therefore, from the effect, it was dignified with the name of illumination. Per- haps it might be so called in regard also that the baptized were now admitted to all the mysterious parts and recondite knowledge of religion, which by the discipline of the church were kept secret from them whilst they were catechumens. And perhaps some regard might be had to the plentiful effusion of the Spirit in the gift of tongues, know- ledge, and prophecy, which in the apostolical age Sect. 4. And (pun-‘quos, illumination. 4 Tertul. de Bapt. cap. 1. 5 Book I. chap. 1. sect. 2. 6 Prosper. de Praedict. et Promissis, par. 2. cap. 39. 7 Optat. lib. 3. p. 62. 8 Cyril. Catech. Praefat. n. 10. 9 Justin. Dial. p. 231. 1° Cassiodor. in Cantic. cap. 7. 1‘ Optat. lib. 2. p". 52. Dum Trinitas cum fide concordat, qui natus fuerat sseculo, renascitur spiritualiter Deo. Sic fit hominum Pater Deus, Sancta sic fit mater ecclesia. ‘2 Naz. Orat. 40. de Bapt. p. 638. Aéipov Kakfineu, Xé- pw/ua, Bdrm-Lerna, Xpio'na, (pain-Laura, ritpfi'apo't'as ivdvjua, Aa'rpov 'n'cikuy'yevso'ias, o'zppa'yida, 'n'c'iu 3'11 'ripuov. ‘3 Hieron. Dialog. advers. Lucifer. cap. 2. Sacerdotium laici, id est, baptisma. Scriptum est- enim, Regnum quippe nos et sacerdotes Deo ct Patri suo fecit. Et iterum, Gentem sanctam, regale sacerdotium, &c. 1‘ Chrysost. Hom. 13. in Heb. p. 1848. 15 Naz. Orat. 40. de Bapt. p. 638. 16 Dionys. Hierar. Eccl. cap.3. 1’ Conc. Laod. can. 47. 18 Justin. Apol. 2. p. 94. KaAeI'raL 6:‘? 7270 '16 harrpdu (pw'rro'uds, dis tpw'n'gofrévwv "rip: duivotau "rd-w "rafi'ra ,uav- Saudi/"raw. 19 Clem. Alex. Paedagog. lib. l. c. 6. p. 93. 2° Dionys. Eccl. Hier. cap. 3. p. 283. ’E'rru6c‘w 'n'pa'rra (boards ,ueq'adidwo't, Kai. 'n'ao'iiru e’a'riv zipxh 'ré'w S'siwu (pm- q-a'yw'yuiiu, in: TE 'raltspe've 'n‘w 05MB?) 1'5 ¢wrianaros i'n'wvvuiav riuvé'prev. CHAP. I. 475 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. was immediately conferred at baptism, by the impo- sition of the hands of the apostles. Another effect of baptism was eter- And Ezftssfsalva- nal salvation, as it was the ordinary mon. means, not only of obtaining remis- sion of sins, but of bringing men by the grace and blood of Christ to the glory of the kingdom of hea- ven. Whence, as St. Austin observes,” it was very common among the Punic or African Christians to call baptism by the name of salus, salvation, as they did the sacrament of the body of Christ by the name of life, because these two sacraments were reputed necessary to the obtaining of salvation or eternal life. And upon this account Gregory Na- zianzen, introducing a person pleading for liberty to delay his baptism, makes him speak after this manner: I stay only for my father, or mother, or brother, or wife, or children, or friends, or some near relations, and then Iwill be saved, mvucafim awShaopar ;22 the meaning of which must needs be, that then he would be baptized, in order to obtain salvation. Such honourable titles and appella- tions did the ancients give to- this sacrament of baptism, taken from the noble effects which it was supposed to confer on all those who were worthy partakers of it. Sect. 6' Next, from the nature and sub- ,nfi'gggsgggcggtuggf stance of it, it had the names of mys- ilta‘fsfsigliglgiiii', terz'um, sacramentum, and o'¢payl'g. The and af’pa'yi‘" two first of which are so common, and so well known to every reader, that I need not here spend time to explain them. Only I shall note, ' that the terms, mystery and sacrament, are some- times taken in a larger sense, to signify any sacred ceremony, or any part of religion that had any thing of spiritual or mystical signification in it. Of which there will be a more proper place to discourse, when we come to treat of confirmation. The name mppayig, and signaculum, the seal of the Lord, is a little more uncommon, as applied to baptism, and therefore has occasioned some errors among learned men, who often mistake it either for the sign of the cross, or the consignation and unction that was used in confirmation. Thus in that famous dis- course of Clemens Alexandrinus, entitled, Quis Dives salvet-ur, part of which is recorded in Euse- bins,28 and the whole published by Combefis,24 it is said, that the bishop, to whose care St. John had committed a certain young convert, first instructed or catechised him, and then gave him the perfect phylactery or preservative against sin, namely, the seal of the Lord, 71):) a¢payi5a roii Kvpiov. Now, by the seal of the Lord, Christopherson, and Bellarmine, and others from him, understand confirmation: Mr. Seller,25 and some others, will have it to be the sign of the cross; but Valesius,26 and Daille,27 more truly expound it of baptism, which was called the seal of the Lord, because in the very nature of it there is contained a covenant made between God and man; and baptism being the seal of this covenant, it was with the greatest propriety of speech styled, the seal of the Lord. In this sense the ancient author of the Acts of Paul and Thecla uses the name a¢payig for baptism. Give me, says Thecla to St. Paul, the seal of Christ,28 and no temptation shall touch me. And Hermas Pastor, in like manner, speaking of some that were baptized and gone to heaven, uses the same dialect: They that are now dead, were sealed29 with the seal of the Son of God, and are entered into the kingdom of God. For before a man re- ceives the name of the son of God, he is consigned over to death; but when he receives that seal, he is freed from death, and consigned over to life. Now, that seal is water, into which men descend bound‘ over to death, but rise out of it marked out or sealed unto life. This seal therefore was preached unto them, and they made use of it, that they might enter into the kingdom of God. In all this passage, there is no express mention made of baptism, but it is called the seal and name of Christ, because it sets the mark and name of Christians on us, and distinguishes us from Jews and Gentiles, and shows that we belong to the dominion and possession of Christ. Hence Tertullian frequently calls it signa- culumfidez',” the signature of our faith; and says, We are distinguished from Jews by this signature in our bodies,al because their signature was circum- cision, but ours baptism. In like manner, Gregory Nazianzen, accounting for the reason of this name, says, It was called the seal of the Lord, because it was an indication to whose dominion82 we belong, and because it was the consignation of us to eternal 2‘ Aug. de Pec. Merit. lib. l. c. 24 t. 7. p. 294. Optime Punici Christiani baptismum ipsum niln. aliud quam salutem et sacramentum corporis Christi, 1111111 aliud quam vitam vocant, &c. 22 Naz. Orat. 40. de Bapt. p. 655. 23 Euseb. lib. 3. c. 23. 2‘ Combefis, Auctarium Novissimum, p. 185. 25 Seller, Life of Just. Martyr. p. 102. 2“ Vales. Not. in Euseb. lib. 3. c. 23. 2’ Dallaeus de Confirmat. lib. 2. c. l. p. 110. 28 Acta Theclze, ap. Grabe, Spicileg. t. l. p. 106. A0’: plot 'rfiu e’v Xpw'rqi o'cppa'yida, Kai éx d'rlreeraz pa 778L- paanda 29 Hermas Past. lib. 3. Simil. 9. n. 16. Illi igitur de- functi sigillo Filii Dei signati sunt, et intraverunt in regnum Dei. Antequam enim accipiat homo nomen Filii Dei, morti destinatus est: ‘at ubi accipit illud sigillum, liberatur a morte, et traditur vitae. Illud autem sigillum aqua est, in quam descendunt homines morti obligati, ascendunt vero vitae assignati. Et illis igitur praedicatum est illud sigillum, et usi sunt eo nt intrarent in regnum Dei. 3° Tertul. de Spectac. c. '4. Ad principalem auctoritatem convertar, ipsius signaculi nomen. It. 0. 24. Hoc erit pompa diaboli, adversus quam in signaculo fidei ejeramus, 3' Tertul. Apol. c. 21. Neque de ipso signaculo corporis, neque de consortio nominis cum Judaeis agimus. 82 Naz. Orat. 40. de Bapt. p. 639. 476 Boox XI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. life. In which respect, Constantine, at the hour of death, desiring the benefit of baptism from the bishops that were about him, is said by Eusebius88 to ask it in these words: “ Now is the time for me to enjoy the seal of immortality; now is the time for me to obtain the seal of salvation.” Whence it was also called, the seal of the Spirit, because every worthy receiver was supposed, together with the outward element, to receive the earnest of the Spirit in baptism: according to that of Chrysostom, As a mark is set upon34 soldiers, so the Spirit is put upon true believers; and as the Jews had circumcision for their character, so we have the earnest of the Spirit. And this distinction between the internal and external seal of baptism was necessary to be made, because many men received the external seal of baptism, or the outward form of it, who by their own default could not receive the internal seal of the Spirit. Thus the author of the Apostolical Constitutions “5 observes, that even Simon Magus himself received the seal of the Lord, meaning the outward form of baptism; but neither he nor any other author ever said, that he received the internal seal or grace of the Holy Spirit. In like manner Optatus tells the Donatists,36 that both they and the catholics were sealed with one and the same seal, which he explains to be the outward form of bap- tism, in which they both agreed and were both alike baptized. But both Optatus, and St. Austin, and all other ancient writers are agreed, that here- tical and schismatical baptism, such as was that of the Donatists, could not confer the internal seal, or sanctifying graces of the Holy Spirit, because these were only conferred by the ministry of the holy catholic church, of which I have given amore ample account in another place.87 So that in this respect it was always thought necessary to distinguish be- tween the internal and external seal of baptism, be- cause though they are commonly joined together, as in all true believers, yet they are sometimes separ- ated, as in such hypocritical or unworthy receivers, as Simon Magus, and others of the like complexion. Sm 7 St. Austin commonly uses the names, Dgggliggtrésier character regius, and character D0- mrlllce &Ygiwracter minz'cus, the royal mark or character, and the character of the Lord. By which he does not mean any internal quality, or spiritual power, distinct from baptism, imprinted on the soul, as the modern school-men now love to word it; but only the external form of baptism, which is common to all receivers both good and bad, who are duly baptized in the'name of the Holy Trinity; they are so far signed by the mark or character of the Lord, as thereby to be distinguished from unbaptized Jews and Gentiles, who never made any formal profession of Christianity, nor ever received so much as the external character or indication of it. And this character is allowed by St. Austin to be so far indelible also, as that an apostatizing Christian, though he turn Jew or pa- gan in profession, can never need a second baptism, but only repentance and absolution, to reinstate him in all the privileges of the Christian church. Of which, because I have spoken largely in a former Book, I need say no more in this placed” Another sort of names given to bap- Sect. & tism, were taken from the conditions Sammy‘? $1,‘; required of all those that received it, and "pemm' which were, the profession of a true faith and a sincere repentance. Upon which account baptism is sometimes called the sacrament of faith, and the sacrament of repentance. St. Austin uses this name to explain how 8’ children may be said to have faith, though they are not capable of making any formal profession by themselves: As the sa- crament of the body of Christ is in some sort the body of Christ, and the sacrament of the blood of Christ is the blood of Christ, so the sacrament of faith is faith. And upon this account, when the answer is made, that an infant believes, who has not yet the habit of faith, the meaning is, that he has faith because of the sacrament of faith, and that he turns to God because of the sacrament of conversion. Fulgentius uses the same terms in speaking of the necessity of baptism: Firmly believe, and doubt not,“ that excepting such as are baptized in their own blood for the name of Christ, no man shall have eternal life, who is not here first turned from his sins by repentance and faith, and set at liberty by the sacrament of faith and repentance, that is, by baptism. Whence we may observe, what the ancients mean, when they speak of penance 33 Euseb. de Vita Constant. lib. 4. c. 62. "Qpa Kai iméie a'vrohaiio-at 'rfic a'S'aua'rmrotfi oxppayhlce‘ d'ipa 'ré o'w'rnpi'e cr¢payioquaros pe'rao'xe'iv. \ 3* Chrysost. Hom. 3. in 2 Cor. in fine. Kas'oi'rrsp spire-La’:- rrats o'cppa'yis, ii'rw Kai. 'rois wuso'ls 'rd wuefijua e’vrrri-S'e- 'TllL, &c. h 35 Constit. Apost. lib. 2. c. 14. Zipwv 6 ,ud'yos 'n‘w iv Ku- pup mppa'yida ska/Re. Vid. Aug-dc Bapt. lib. 6. 0. l2. 36 Optat. lib. 3. p. 72. Pares credimus, et uno sigillo sig- nati sumus: nec aliter baptizati quam vos. 8’ Scholast. Hist. of Lay Baptism, part I. chap. 1_ n. 21. 88 Ibid. part II. chap. 6. 8” Aug. Ep. 23. ad Bonifac. Sicut secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est, et sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi est, i'ta sa- cramentum fidei fides est.—Ac per hoc cum respondetur parvulus credere, qui DOIldUml fidei habet affectum, respon- detur fidem habere propter fidei sacramentum, et convertere se ad Deum propter conversionis sacramentum, &c. ‘P Fulgent. de Fide ad Petrum, cap. 30. Firmissime tene et nullatenus dubites, exceptis illis, qui pro nomine Christi suo sanguine baptizantur, nullum hominem accepturum vi- tam aeternam, qui non hic a malis suis fuerit per poeniten- tiam fidemque conversus, et per sacramentum fidei et pteni-, tentise, id est, per baptismum, liberatus, &c. CHAP. I. 477 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. I and absolution, or remission of sins, as a sacrament: for they themselves explain their own meaning to be baptism, which is a sacrament requiring repent- ance as a condition, and granting absolution as an effect and privilege to all worthy receivers. Lastly, From the ceremonies used th'ggiijéiégilisgr in the act of administration it took the g'ggttiogfieylazeg, peculiar names of baptism, tinction, 532383;?‘ “We and laver of regeneration, which pro- perly denote either an immersion in water, or such a washing or sprinkling, as was used among the Jews in some cases, and among Christians when they had occasion to baptize sick persons upon a death-bed. For then baptism was administered by sprinkling only, and not by dipping or immersion, as We shall see when we come to speak more parti- cularly of clinic baptism. So that it must be noted, that baptism in the ancient style of the church, does not absolutely and necessarily import dipping or im- mersion, though that was the more usual ceremony practised heretofore as well upon infants as adult persons, but an exception was made for the time of sickness, and such other cases of necessity, as could not admit of a total immersion. In which cases, the substance of baptism was still supposed to be preserved, though some minuter circumstances were less regarded. Seat. 10. Besides these names, which were qggfesggggtgggt taken from things that more immedi- t‘sm' ately related to the administration of baptism, there were some others alluding to circum- cision, and others respecting the great Author and Institutor of it, our Saviour Christ, and others taken from the more remote ‘and distant effects of it, which, because we shall have no further occasion to speak of them, it will not be improper just to men- tion in this place. Because baptism succeeds in the room of circumcision, and is the seal of the Chris- tian covenant, as that was the seal of the covenant made with Abraham, therefore it is, by way of ana- logy, sometimes styled the great circumcision. As when Epiphanius, comparing them both together, says, The carnal circumcision“ served for a time, till the great circumcision came, that is, baptism; which circumcises us from our sins, and seals us in the name of God. So in regard that baptism had Christ for its author, and not man, it was anciently known by the name of 6639011, and xdpwpa Kvpiov, the gift of the Lord. As in the ancient Acts of Paul and Thecla ; when Thecla desired the seal of the Lord, Paul bids her wait with patience, and she should receive dwpec‘w rm“: Xpw'roi'i, the Of Christ, which, as the learned editor observes,42 is but an- other way of denoting baptism. Sometimes it was simply called 5&pov, without any other addition, by way of eminence, because it was both a gratuitous and a singular gift of Christ. We call it the gift, says Gregory Nazianzen,48 because it is given to those who offer nothing for it. And St. Basil, saw émrpéxew 'rq'i du'Jpqi, We ought t0 run 120 the gift,“ meaning baptism. And Casaubon has also further observed,‘5 that because the Spirit was likewise given in baptism, therefore the Holy Ghost had sometimes the name of Munus, The gift. And the eucharist also, or the sacramental oblation of the body and blood of Christ, both before and after consecration, commonly went by this name, ddipa and magma 5639a, of which there are various instances collected out of the ancient rituals by that learned Writer, which are not proper to be inserted in this place. Baptism had also the name of éqhédwv, or oiatz'cum, as well as the eucharist, which denotes properly the prepara- " tion of all things necessary for a journey: in which respect both the sacraments were called m'atz'ca, be- cause they were equally esteemed men’s necessary provision, and proper armour, both to sustain and conduct them safe on their way in their passage through this world to eternal life. St. Basil, ex- horting men of all ages and conditions to receive baptism, makes his address to them in these words :4“ Art thou a young man? Then secure thy youth by the bridle of baptism. Art thou past the flower of thy age? Then beware thou lose not thy viatz'cum, thy phylactery, which should keep and preserve thee in thy way to eternal life. In allusion to which name, Gregory N azianzen,47 speaking of the minis- ter’s act in baptizing, terms it éqwduizew, giving to men their m'atz'cum, or provision for their journey to another world. In reference to the making men complete members of Christ’s body, the church, it had the name of rakeiwcng and TEAETfi, the consecra- tion and consummation; because it gave men the perfection of Christians, and a right to partake of the rb 'réXswv, which was the eucharist, or Lord’s supper. It had the name of pz'mo'tg, and Iwo'rayw-yia, the initiation, because it was the admittance of men to all the sacred rites and mysteries of the Chris- tian religion. And as the eucharist, from its repre- senting the death of Christ by the outward elements of bread and wine, was called the sacred symbols, so baptism sometimes had the same name, as we find in Isidore of Pelusium, and the author of the Dispute with Arius in the Council of Nice, under the name of Athanasius. Though the priest‘8 be an 4‘ Epiphan. Haer. 8. a1. 28. Cerinth. n. 4. Vid. Just. Mart. Dial. c. Tryph. p. 261. "2 Grabe, Spicileg. Patrum, t. l. p. 106. ‘3 Naz. Orat. 40. de Bapt. p. 638. 4* Basil. Homil. 13. de Bapt. p. 411. ‘5 Casaubon, Exercitat. 16. in Baron. n. 51. ‘5 Basil. Homil. 13. de Bapt. p. 4l3. M1‘) Znmwefis "rd e’q'uidza, p1‘) a’qrohéo'ys "rd ¢v7\a:c'rfip1.0v. 4' Naz. Orat. 40. de Bapt. p. 644. ‘8 lsidor. lib. 2. Ep. 37. ‘O Prskofilusvos 065st! qrapaflkcivr- 're'rm. sis 'rr‘z o'w'rnpidadn o'fipfloka, sf. 6 iepal‘ls pr‘) :6 ‘Swim 521?, dkk’ m’rrds juéu 'n'du'rws. 478 3001: XI. 'ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN‘ CHURCH. ill liver, says Isidore, the person initiated receives no harm by the symbols of salvation, but only the priest himself. And the other ‘9 thus argues for the Divinity of the Holy Ghost: If the Holy Spirit be not of the substance of the Father and the Son, why then did the Son of God join him together with them in the symbol of sanctification, when he said to his disciples, “ Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost?” In both which places, it is plain, the symbols of sanctification and salvation can mean no other than baptism. And hence it appears, ‘that the same honourable titles were given _ to the waters of baptism, as to the elements of bread and wine in the Lord’s supper; and whatever change was supposed to be wrought in the one by the in- vocation of the Holy Spirit, was equally ascribed to the other also; and as noble effects derived from the font as the Lord’s table, whilst the death of ” Christ was equally represented, and the benefits of it alike communicated to all worthy receivers in baptism and the Lord’s supper. For which reason I have been a little the more curious in examining and explaining the several titles of honour which the ancients gave to baptism, that under these emi- nent characters we might see what apprehensions and ideas the church of Christ always had of this venerable mystery, which some now by way of con- tempt call water-baptism, as if the Spirit had no concern in it; whose doctrines may easily be per- ceived not to proceed from the general sense of the ancient catholic church, but from particular sects and heresies broken off from it, of which it may not be amiss to give a short account in the following chapter. CHAPTER II. OF THE MATTER OF BAPTISM, WITH AN ACCOUNT OF SUCH HERETICS AS REJECTED OR CORRUPTED BAPTISM BY WATER. 8 ct 1 THOUGH the church always maintain- e I - B ti whol re- - - - 5,0,2; fifth, him ed an honourable opinion of baptism, .i‘fifmwlljg M233: as a Divine and heavenly institution, . 7 . $211223 ‘$351131 yet there wanted not sects and here- sies, who in the earliest ages spake hans. very diminutively and contemptibly of it; and either ‘in whole or in part upon various reasons rejected or corrupted it. The Ascodrutm, who were a sort of Gnostics, placed all religion in knowledge, and under pretence of spiritual worship, would admit of no external or corporeal symbols whatsoever. They asserted, as Theodoretl describes them, that Divine mysteries, being the images of invisible things, were not to be performed by visible things; nor incor- poreal things by sensible and corporeal things. Therefore they never baptized any that were of their sect, nor celebrated any part of the mystery of baptism among them. For they said, the know- ledge of all things was their redemption. Irenaeus 2 and Epiphanius observe the same thing to be prac- tised, upon the same principle of spiritual redemp- tion by knowledge alone, among some of those who were called Marcosian heretics, whilst others of them, who retained a sort of baptism, invented strange forms of their own to corrupt it, of which I shall give an account in the following chapter, sect. 8. Irenaaus8 gives a like account of the Valentinians, some of which wholly rejected baptism, and others corrupted it with strange forms of their own invent- ing, as the Marcosians did, who seem to have been branches of the same heresy under different leaders. Tertullian4 brings a like charge against one Quin- tilla, a woman preacher at Carthage a little before his time, who set up to decry water-baptism as use- less, pleading, that faith alone was sufficient to save men, as it did Abraham, who pleased God without any other sacrament but the sacrament of faith. Against this heresy Tertullian wrote his book of Baptism, to establish the necessity of it from our Sa- viour’s institution, and to answer the little sophisms whereby the libertines of this new sect pretended to destroy it. The Archontici rejected baptism Sect" 2 for another reason, as Epiphanius 5 Andchlgyugre Ar- and Theodoret6 inform us. They had entertained a very monstrous and blasphemous opinion, that the world was not created by the su- preme God of all things, but by certain powers, whom they called (i'pxov'rsg, rulers, whence they them- selves had the denomination of Archontici; these rulers, seven or eight in number, they imagined to be in so many several orbs of the heavens one above another, with orders of angels and ministries under them: and to the chief of these they gave the name of Sabaoth. Now, they also pretended that baptism was only administered in the name of Sabaoth, and not in the name of the supreme God, and therefore they rejected both it and the eucharist as foreign institutions, given by Sabaoth, the God of the Jews ‘9 Athanas. Disp. contra Arium in Conc. Nic. t. l. p. 141. Tivos Eusxsv o'vvnpitlnno'sv aim-d 5 ‘Tide 'roi'i 9206 £11 'rq'i o'ujufidhtp "mi? c'r'ytaa'poii, &c. 1 Theodor. Haeret. Fabul. lib. l. c. 10. 2 lren. lib. 1. c. 18. 8 Iren. lib. 3. c. 2. ‘ Tertul. de Bapt. cap. 1. Nuper conversata istic quaedam de Caiana hseresi vipera venenatissima, doctrina sua ple- rosque rapuit, imprimis baptismum destruens, &c. i It. cap. 13. Adeo dicunt, Baptismus non est necessarius, quibus fides satis est, &c. 5 Epiphan. Haer. 40. de Archonticis, n. 2. 6 Theodor. Haer. Fab. lib. l. c. 11. C HAP. II. 479 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. and the giver of the law, whom they blasphemously distinguished from the supreme God. The Seleucians and Hermians re- fused the use of baptism by water, as St. Austin7 describes them. And the ground of their refusal was a pretence, that bap- tism by water was not the baptism instituted by Christ, because St. John Baptist, comparing his own baptism with the baptism of Christ, says, “ I bap- tize you with water, but he that cometh after me, shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire,“ they thought the souls of men consisted of fire and spirit, and therefore a baptism of fire was more suitable to their nature. But what kind of baptism that was, none of the ancients have told us; unless perhaps we may conjecture from what Cle- mens Alexandrinus9 tells us out of Heracleon, of some, who, when they had baptized men in water, also made a mark upon their ears with fire; so joining water-baptism and, as they imagined, baptism by fire, together. Though this was far enough from the fiery baptism St. John speaks of, which some of the ancients understand of the or- dinary operations of the Spirit, which consume our sins; and others, of that extraordinary effusion of the Spirit in the form of fiery tongues upon the apostles at the day of Pentecost; and others, of the fire of the last judgment. A particular account of which interpretations, the reader that is curious may find in Suicerus upon this subject.10 I only note further out of the anonymous writer about heretical baptism, published by Rigaltius and Bi— shop Fell at the end of St. Cyprian, that there were a sort of heretics, who pretended, that baptism by water alone was of itself imperfect, because St. Sect. 3. And by the Sc- leucians and Her- mians. John had said, we were to be baptized with the ' Holy Ghost and with fire. Therefore they boast- ed,11 that theirs was the only complete and perfect baptism, and all others curtailed and given only by halves, because when they Went down into the water to baptize, either by some curious art in phi- losophy, like that of Anaxilaus, or by some magical art, they made fire to- appear upon the surface of the water, and this they called baptism by fire. Which they confirmed from an apocryphal writ- ing of their own inventing, called, The Preaching of Peter or Paul, wherein it was said, that when Christ was baptized, fire so appeared upon the water. The censure which this author passes upon this kind of baptism, is, that it is adulterate, per- nicious, and wholly evacuating the true baptism of Christ. - Another sect which rejected water- Sm 4“ baptism, were the Manichees, who, Chg? ,‘fgdfiifafifltg‘fj among many other prodigious errors, “8' maintained, that baptizing in water was of no eflfi- cacy to salvation, and therefore they despised it, and never baptized ‘2 any that entered into their society, as St. Austin and the author of the Prae- destinatus,18 published by Sirmondus, inform us. But whether they admitted any other kind of baptism, or upon what ground they rejected this, we are not told: only we may probably conjecture, that it was upon that general vile principle of theirs, that ma- terial things were the work of an evil god, and therefore to be abhorred as polluted and profane. One branch of this heresy were afterward called Paulicians, from one Paulus and Johannes, the first founders of it. Euthymius, out of Photius, gives a large account of them, where he tells us,14 that though they really rejected and despised baptism,- yet they pretended to receive it: but that was only with a deceitful equivocation ; for they maintained that the word of the Gospel was baptism, because our Lord said, “ I am the living water.” The learn- ed Vossius is of opinion,15 that those words, Ego sum aqua viva, “ I am the living water,” was the form which these Paulicians used in baptism in- stead of the form of the church: but he plainly mistakes Euthymius, who does not say, that they used this as a form of words in their baptism; for they had no baptism at all, nor consequently any form of words for baptizing ; but their opinion was, that believing in Christ, or the word or the truth of the Gospel, was all the baptism that was required of men, and that because Christ had said, “ I am the living water.” Yet sometimes, as Euthymius relates in the same place,16 they would bring their " Aug. de Haeres. c. 59. Seleuciani et Hermiani baptis- mum in aqua non accipiunt. 8 Philastr. de Haeres. n. 8. Seleucus et Hermius haere- tici animas hominum dc igne et Spiritu esse existimantes, isto baptismo non utuntur, propter verbum hoc quod dixit Johannes Baptista: Ipse vos baptizabit in Spiritu et 1gne. , . 9 Clem. Alex. Electa ex Scriptura, ap. Combefis Aucta- rium, t. 1. p. 202. "El/Lot 611;, 569 (pm-w ‘Hpalcke’wv, wvpi 'rc‘z (In-a 'rii'w o'rppa'ytgo/lévwv Ica'reo'njunvav'ro. Irenaahs, lib. l. c. 24, has something like this, of the Carpocratians. 1° Suicer. Thesaur. Eccles. t. l. p. 630. 1‘ Anonym. de Baptismo Haereticorum, ad calcem Cypri- ani, p. 30. Tentant nonnulli iterum tractare se solos in- tegrum atque perfectum, non sicuti nos, mutilatum et decurtat'im baptisma tradere. Quod taliter dicantur adsig- nare, ut quam mox in aquam descenderunt, statim super aquam ignis appareat, &c. 12 Aug. de Hazres. cap. 46. Baptismum in aqua nihil cuiquam perhibent salutis adferre : Nec quenquam eorum quos decipiunt, baptizandum putant. 13 Praedestinatorum Haeresis, c. 46. 1‘ Euthym. Panoplia. Par. 2. Titul. 21. p. 48. Quin etiam cum baptismum aspernentur, illud tamen se fingunt suscipere: Nam Evangelii verba baptismum existimant, quoniam Dominus, Ego sum, inquit, aqua viva. ‘5 Voss. de Baptismo, Disp. 1. Thes. 2. p. 28. ‘6 Euthym. ibid. Liberos etiam suos ab ecclesiae presby. teris salutari baptismo volunt aliquando lustrari; existi- mant enim crucem et baptismum corpori prodesse. Horum tamen vim ad animae purgationem pervenire non putant, nec ullam aliam afl’erre utilitatem. 480 Boox XI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. children to the presbyters of the church to be baptized after the catholic way, because they had an opinion that both baptism and the cross were of some advantage to the body for the cure of diseases, but of no other efiicacy, benefit, or virtue to purge the soul. And such an opinion possessed the minds of many others, who had no further re- gard for baptism, but only as it was of use to free the body of some distemper or uncleanness. St. Austin17 puts the question once or twice concerning some such persons, who desired to be baptized with no other view but this. And Matthew Blastares18 mentions a famous case of the Agarenes, who com- pelled the Christian clergy that were under their dominion, to baptize their children before they would circumcise them, because they conceived this would contribute toward the prevention of those distempers and noisomenesses, which are occasion- ed by circumcision. Upon this case a question was made in the council of Constantinople under Lucas Chrysoberges, whether such persons, when they came over to the Christian faith, were to be rebap- tized, or only anointed with chrism? And it was resolved, that they ought without controversy to be rebaptized, since the baptism with which they were washed, was not received with any pious in_ tent, but only as an amulet or a charm. These in- stances make the account which Euthymius gives of the Paulicians seem very probable, that though they had no regard for baptism as a Christian sa- crament, yet they might sometimes make use of it, as the Saracens did, as an enchantment, or a sort of magical spell; which appears to be the only use they ever made of it, and that not in their own assem- blies, (where they had no sacraments at all, neither baptism nor the eucharist,) but fraudulently receiv- ing it in the church at the hands of the Christian ca- tholic priests. The reader may observe by the way, that these Paulicians were not the followers of Paulus Samosatensis, bishop of Antioch, who are commonly - called Paulianists and Samosatenians [though Balsamon confounds them together]; but they had their .denomination from another Paulus Samosatensis and one Johannes, who revived and enlarged the heresy of the Manichees, as appears plainly from Euthymius. And Justellus19 and Vos- sius 2° have observed the same out of Cedrenus, Theophanes, Matthew Blastares, Nicephorus, and other modern Greeks, with which it would be need- less in this place to trouble the reader. 1’ Aug. Ep. 23. ad Bonifacium. ‘8 Blastar. Syntagm. Can. Litera B. cap. 3. ap. Bevereg. Pandect. t. 2. p. 42. Vid. Balsamon in Photii Nomocanon, Tit. 13. de Laicis, cap. 2. et Baron. an. 1148. p. 358. t. 12. It. an. 1145. p. 314. 19 J ustel. Not. in can. 19. Codicis Ecol. Universes. 2° Voss. de Baptismo, Disp. 20. p. 241. 2‘ Cone. Ephes. Act. 7. t. 3. p. 809. 22 Theod. Epitom. Divin. Decret. sive de Fabul. Haeret. Some add to the forementioned sects, who rejected baptism, the he_ whrifgg'anion the resy of the Messalians, or Euchites, Egiiighfigg 3ft big: who were so called from the Greek word abxr), prayer, and Messalians, from the Syriac word Metsalah, which is much of the same signifi- cation, because they resolved all religion into prayer. But it does not appear that they wholly rejected the sacrament of baptism: for then the church would have ordered them upon their return to have been baptized, as Jews or pagans ; which she never did, but only obliged them to anathematize their errors in order to be admitted to communion, as may be collected from the decree of the general council of Ephesus,” made with relation to such of the clergy or laity as returned from them. But their error was in denying the principal part of the spiritual efiicacy of baptism: they said, indeed, it granted re- mission of sins that were past, but added no strength or ability from the Spirit to withstand sin for the future. This we learn from Theodoret, who com- paring the doctrine of the catholic church and that of the Messalians upon this point together, delivers himself22 to this purpose: Baptism, says he, is not like a razor only, as the Messalian enthusiasts call it, which takes away sins that are past; though it has this effect among many others : for if this were the only work of baptism, for what reason should we baptize infants, who have never yet tasted of sin? For the sacrament does not only promise this effect, but greater and more perfect things than that. It is the earnest of future good, the type of the resurrection to come hereafter, the communica- tion of our Lord’s passion, the participation of our Lord’s resurrection, the garment of salvation, the clothing of joy, and the robe of light, or rather, light itself. So that we must allow Theodoret to be his own interpreter, when he seems to give a more harsh account of ‘these Messalians in another place, describing them as men who taught, that no man- ner28 of advantage accrued from Divine baptism to those who received it, but that it was only fervent prayer that expelled the indwelling devil out of men’s minds. For this is to be understood with the forementioned exception, that they allowed baptism so far to be useful, as to wash away all former sins, but not to grant any further perfection. And so Harmenopulus 2‘ represents their doctrine, as teaching, that neither baptism nor participation of the eucharist could give a man the perfection of lib. 5. cap. 18. 23 Theod. Haeret. Fab. lib. 4. cap. 10. Mndeuiau €’IC 1'05 (isiov fia‘vr'rio'pa'ros (ZKPIZASMZU *ro’is rigtovpéuots 'yiueo'tlat‘ #6111111 6% Thu awoudaiau sbxiw 'rdu dzu'uova 'rdv E'uoucou a’EeXaduew. 2‘ Harmenop. de Sectis, c. 18. Bibl. Patr. Gr. Lat. t. l. p. 536. T6 Bc'z'rr'rw'pa in‘) 'rakswfiu 'rdu c'iufipw'rrou, Imdé 'n'gv ,ue'réXmI/w, 61AM‘: ,uévnu 'rr'w rap’ aim'o'is sl’zxfiv. CHAP. II. 481 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. a Christian, but only such prayer as they pretend- ed to. In like manner EuthymiusZS describes them, as maintaining, that baptism did not eradicate sin. They did not deny that it purged away former sins, but they would not allow any efiicacy of the Spirit to be joined with it to resist or overcome sin for the future. Against which doctrine Euthymius thus argues: Our Lord Jesus Christ said, “ Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Now, the Holy Ghost is a Divine fire; for he descended in the form of fiery tongues upon the disciples, and the forerunner of Christ spake of this to the multitude, when he testified of the excellency of Christ, “ He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.” As therefore material fire, when it catches a wood, burns all things upon the surface of the earth, dries up the roots, and purges the place from filth; so the Holy Spirit does, and much more. For it is a fire consuming the iniquity of those who are baptized. And it not only purges and obliterates the spots, and scars, and filth of the soul, but also illuminates and endows it with many gifts, as the apostles, and especially St. Paul, teach us, where they speak of the distribution of the graces of the Holy Spirit, which are conferred on those who are baptized. From this account of the Messalians it appears, that they were neither Anabaptists nor Quakers; they neither rejected the baptism of adult persons nbr infants: for the true state of the con- troversy between them and the church, was not about the use of the outward element of water in baptism, but about the internal and spiritual effects of it, which the Messalians confined to remission of sins, but the church extended to many other noble benefits, which were the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit. Upon which account the church never rebaptized the Messalians, that we read of, as she did the Manichees, and such other heretics, who rejected the use of water, which was the outward element which Christ had appointed. If this was either neglected, or any other element used instead of it, the baptism was esteemed not only irregular, but null, as wanting one necessary and essential part, which could not be supplied but by a new baptism. And therefore when a certain Jew had been baptized in sand, for want of water, in the wilderness, Dionysius, bishop of Ascalon, ordered him to be rebaptized, as Johannes Moschus26 tells the story. And this was done, not because he was baptized by a layman in extreme necessity, but, as Archbishop \Vhitgift,” after the Centuriators,m has observed, because the baptism wanted water. Such was the church’s opinion of the necessity of water- baptism, that, where it might be had, she never thought fit to dispense with the neglect or contempt of it; and therefore she urged the necessity of it against those ancient heretics who despised it, even whilst she judged favourably of such catechumens as died without baptism, not through contempt, but unavoidable necessity: of which I have given a particular account in the last Book, chap. 2. sect. 20, &c. Indeed there is one exception against this in some collections of the canon law. For there we have a decree under the name of Pope Siricius,29 which says, That if an infant is baptized in wine instead of water, in case of necessity, it is no crime, and the baptism shall stand good. But, as Antonius Augustinus and Baluzius have observed, this was no decree of Siricius, but of Stephen II., about the middle of the eighth century. So that it cannot be pleaded as a competent authority to show what was the ancient practice of the church. Antonius Augustinus is very positive, that the primitive church had never any such custom. And it seems pretty evident from that saying of St. Ambrose,30 That if we take away water, the sacrament of bap- tism cannot stand. But among the moderns, Beza,31 and some of the schoolmen, Tolet and Valentia, determine otherwise: against whose resolution I am not concerned to dispute, but only to declare what I take to have been the more current and received opinion of the primitive writers of the church. CHAPTER III. OF THE ANCIENT FORM OF BAPTISM, AND OF SUCH HERETICS AS ALTERED OR CORRUPTED IT. NEXT to the matter of baptism, it will be proper to consider the form of words in which it was anciently administer- ed. And this was generally such a form of words as made express mention of every person of the blessed Trinity, according as our Sa- viour did at the first institution, when he command- Sect. 1. The usual form of baptizing in the name ofthe Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. 25 Euthym. Panopl. Par. II. Tit. 22. p. 55. Negant divi- num baptismum posse radices evellere peccatorum, &c. 2“ Moschus, Pratum Spirituale, cap. 176. 2" Whitgift’s Defence, Tract. IX. p. 519. “8 Centur. Magdeburg. Cent. II. cap. 6. p. 82. 29 Antonius Augustinus cites it out of a Spanish Collection of Canons, and Baluzius from one in France, under the name of Siricius, Presbyter qui in vino baptizat proxima necessitate, ut aeger non periclitetur, pro tali re nulla ei culpa adscribatur. Si vero aqua aderat, et necessitas talis non urgebat, hic communione privetur. Infans vero ille, si in Sancta Trinitate baptizatus est, in eo baptismo permaneat. Vid. Anton. August. de Emendat. Gratiani, p. 200. et Baluz. Not. in Anton. p. 431. 3° Ambros. de iis qui initiantur, cap. 4. Nec iterum sine aqua regenerationis mysterium est. 3‘ Beza, Ep. 2. ad Tillium. 2 1 482 Boox XI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. ed his disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This the ancient author of the Recognitionsl means, when he says, Men were baptized under the appellation of the triple mystery. And again,2 By invocating the name of the blessed Trinity. Tertullian3 refers this to the institution of Christ: The law of baptizing was imposed, and the form prescribed, “ Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” In another place‘ he says, Christ appointed baptism to be ad- ministered not in the name of one, but three, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Therefore we are dipped not once, but thrice, unto every person at the mention of each name. Cyprian derives this practice5 likewise from the institution, saying, The Lord, after his resurrection, taught his disciples after what manner they should baptize, when he said, “ Go, teach all nations,” &c.; where he de- livered the doctrine of the Trinity, unto which mystery or sacrament the nations were to be bap- tized. And he argues‘3 further, against such heretics as baptized only in the name of Jesus Christ, from the same principle, that Christ commanded the na- tions to be baptized, not into one person, but a com- plete and united Trinity. Hence Optatus’ calls baptism, the laver which Christ commanded to be celebrated in the name of the Trinity, and that holy water which flowed from the fountain of those three names. And to mention no more authori- ties, (which are innumerable,) St. Austin8 observes, that this was not only the general practice of the catholic church, but of most heresies also. For one might more easily find heretics that did not baptize at all, than such as retained baptism with- out using those evangelical words, of which the creed consists, and without which baptism cannot be consecrated. And hence it appears, that St. Aus- Se t 2 tin and these other writers thought ge'flggfifnégxggs this precise form of words necessary fifgggiirsylés beilsed to be used in the administration of baptism, by virtue of the original appointment and institution. And this may be further evidenced to have been the general sense of the ancients, some one or two only excepted. The Apostolical Canons” order every bishop and presbyter, that shall presume to baptize any other way than according to the com- mand of the Lord, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, to be deposed. And Athanasiuslo speaks of such baptism as null, that is any otherwise delivered: He that takes away any one person from the Trinity, and is baptized only in the name of the Father, or only in the name of the Son, or only in the Father and the Son, without the Spirit, receives nothing, but remains void and uninitiated; for in the Trinity alone initiation is given. He says in another place,“ that baptism, which is as it were the compendium of our whole faith, is not given in the name of the Word, but of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Didymus of Alexandria ‘2 treads in the steps of Athanasius: I cannot suppose any one, says he, so mad and void of understanding, as to think that to be perfect baptism, which is given in the name of. the Father and Son, with- out the assumption of the Holy Spiritfor in the name of the Father and Holy Ghost, omitting the name of the Son; or in the name of the Son and Holy Ghost, without first mentioning the name of the Father. For though any man should be of such a stony heart, as I may say, or so much beside himself, as to leave out one of the appointed names 1 Clem. Rom. Recognit. lib. 6. cap. 9. Baptizantur sub appellations triplicis sacramenti. 2 Id. lib. 3. cap. 67. Baptizabitur unusquisque vestrum in aquis perennibus, nomine Trinae Beatitudinis invocato super se. 3 Tertul. de Bapt. cap. 13. Lex tingendi imposita est, et forma praescripta, Ite, inquit, docete nationes, tingentes eas in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. 4 Id. cont. Praxeam. cap. 26. N ovissime mandans, ut tin- gerent in Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum. Nam nec semel, sed ter, ad singula nomina in singulas personas tingimur. 5 Cyprian. Ep. 73. ad Jubaian. p. 200. Dominus post. resurrectionem discipulos suos mittens, quemadmodum bap- tizare deberent, instituit et docuit, dicens—Ite et docete gentes omnes, baptizantes eas in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Insinuat Trinitatem, cujus sacramento baptizarentur. 6 Ibid. p. 206. Quomodo quidam dicunt, foris extra eccle- siam, imo et contra ecclesiam, modo in nomine J esu Christi ubicunque et quomodocunque Gentilem baptizatum, remis- sionem peccatorum consequi posse; quando ipse Christus gentes baptizari jubeat in plena et adunata Trinitate? " Optat. lib. 5. p. 85. Lavacrum quod dc Trinitate cele- brandum esse mandaverat aqua sancta quae de trium nominum fontibus inundat. 8 Aug. de Bapt. lib. 6. c. 25. Quis nesciat, non esse bap- tismum Christi, si verba evangelica quibus symbolum con- stat, illic defuerint? sed facilius inveniuntur haeretici, qui omnino non baptizent, quam qui non illis verbis baptizent. 9 Canon. Apost. c. 49. 1° Athan. Epist. ad Serapion. t. l. p. 204. ‘O f1¢arp0ri~ per/69 TL "rfis 'rprcidos, Kai. év pro'mp 'rq'i "r05 Ha'rpds o’uo'na'rt Barr'ngduevos, ii 521 [161169 "rd; dmipa'rr ‘Trad, ii Xwpig v05 Husripra'ros s’v I'Iarrpi. Kai 'Ytq'i, 066s” Aapfidvet, dhha‘r Kevds Kai a’rrshfis dtapévst, &c. 1' Id. Orat. 5. cont. Arian. p. 535. Or’uc sic Aéyou, dirk’ eis I'Ia'répa Kai ‘Trev Kai."A:yLou ITveii/ua dido'rat. 12 Didymus de Spir. Sancto, lib. 2. Bibl. Patr. t. 9. p. 37. Non arbitror quenquam tam vecordem atque insanum fu- turum, ut perfectum baptisma putet, quod datur in nomine Patris et Filii, sine assumptione Spiritus Sancti : aut rursus in nomine Patris et Spiritus Sancti, Filii vocabulo praeter- rnisso: aut certe in nomine Filii et Spiritus Sancti, non praeposito vocabulo Patris. Licet enim quis posset esse saxei, ut ita dicam, cordis, et penitus mentis alienee, qui ita baptizare conetur, ut unum de praeceptis nominibus practer- mittat, videlicet contrarius legislator Christo; tamen sine perfectione baptizabit; imo penitus a peccatis liberare non poterit, quos a se baptizatos existimaverit. CHAP. III. 483 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. in baptism, setting up himself a lawgiver in opposi- tion to Christ, his baptism will be imperfect, and altogether insufficient to grant remission of sins to those whom he esteems baptized by him. Idacius Clarus13 asserts the same, arguing thus against Varimundus the Arian, for the Divinity of the Holy Ghost: If the Holy Ghost be not equal to the Father and Son in the substance of the Deity, why then is that sacrament of baptism imperfect, which is given without him P St. Basil" has a whole chapter to the same purpose. The very title of it is against those, who asserted that it was sufii- cient to give baptism only in the name of the Lord. And whereas they urged, that in several passages of Scripture baptism was said to be given only in the name of Christ; he answers, that in all those places, though the name of Christ was only mentioned, yet the whole Trinity was understood. Which he con- firms from the like expressions concerning the Holy Ghost, 1 Cor. xii. 13, “By one Spirit we are all baptized into one body ;” and Acts i. 5, “Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence ;” where the apostles seem only to make mention of the Holy Ghost in baptism. But, says he, no one may from hence conclude, that that bap- tism is perfect, wherein the Holy Ghost alone is named. For the tradition ought to remain inviola- ble, which was given by the quickening grace. He means the form of baptizing,‘ given by the command of Christ, Matt. xxviii. Upon which he concludes, that as we believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost, so we are baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Therefore both Vossius15 and Peta- vius ‘6 are greatly mistaken to allege St. Basil as one of those who asserted, that baptism in the name of Christ alone was allowable, when he so plainly and directly writes against it. Many other testimonies might here be inserted out of Theodoret,l7 Gregory Nazianzen18 and Nyssen,19 Theophylact,20 and others, but I shall only add further the decree of Pope Vigi- lius, which shows both the practice of the church, and the severity of her censures against any one that should pretend to transgress this settled rule of bap- tizing. If any bishop or presbyter, says he, baptize not according21 to the command of the Lord, “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” but in one person of the Trinity, or in two, or in three Fathers, or in three Sons, or in three Comforters, let him be cast out of the church of God. Indeed, among all the writings of the ancients, I have never yet met in the name of with any but two, that plainly and gliisiiiiiv'ifi‘igsthe directly allow or approve of any other church? form of baptism, save that which was appointed by Christ at the institution. Gennadius mentions one Ursinus, an African monk, who, he says, wrote a book [which is now lost] wherein he asserted, against such as were for rebaptizing all heretics, that it was not lawful to rebaptize those, who were baptized either simply22 in the name of Christ, or in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: but it was sufi‘icient for both sorts of them, upon confession of the Trinity, to receive the bishop’s confirmation in order to obtain eternal life. This author plainly distinguishes betwixt the two forms of baptizing, one with explicit mention of the three persons of the Trinity, and the other in the name of Christ alone; both which he makes to be lawful, and equivalent in sense, though differing in words from one another. And St. Ambrose, I confess, seems to have been of the same opinion. For he takes all those expressions of Scripture, which speak of being baptized in the name of Christ, to mean, the using such a form as this, I baptize thee in the name of Christ, without any express mention of the three persons, though the whole Trinity was im- plied in it. He that is blessed in Christ, says he,28 Sect. 3. Whether baptism ‘3 Idacius, lib. 3. contra Varimundum, Bibl. Patr. t. 4. p. 300. Si Spiritus Sanctus Deitatis substantia Patri et Filio non coaequatur, cur in sacramento sacri baptismatis nihil absque illo com pleturi’ 1‘ Basil. de Spir. Sancto, cap. 12. Or’) 're'hewv div ‘TLQ s't'rrn 'rd ficivr'rto'jua, M61101! 'roii Hvsl'llia'ros b'u0,u.a éqrelchfien' Xpi‘j 'ydp (i'n'apdfi’a'rov pe'uew 'rijv £11 '71] gwo'rrotq'i Xoipt'rt dedope'unv 'n'apo'zfiao'w, &c. 15 Voss. de Bapt. Disp. 2. Thes. 5. p. 51. 16 Petav. de 'l‘rin. lib. 2. cap. 14. n. 6. 1’ Theodor. Ep. 146. ad Johan. (Econom. t. 3. p. 1038. 13 Naz. Orat. 24. p. 431. 19 Nyssen. de Bapt. Christi, t. 3. p. 372. 2° Theophylact. in Luc. xxiv. Fulgent. de Incarnat. c. 11. Cyril. Dial. 7. de Trin. t. 5. p. 633. 2‘ Vigil. Ep. 2. ad Eutherium, cap. 6. Si quis episcopus aut presbyter juxta praeceptum Domini non baptizaverit in nomine Patris et Filii et spiritus Sancti, sed in una Persona Trinitatis, aut in duabus, aut in tiibus Patribus, aut in tribus Filiis, aut in tribus Paracletis, projiciatur de ecclesia Dei. 22 Gennad. de Scriptor. Eccles. cap. 27. Ursinus mona- chus scripsit adversus eos, qui rebaptizandos haereticos de- cernunt, docens, nec legitimum, nec Deo dignum rebap- tizari illos, qui in nomine vel simpliciter Christi, vel in nomine Patris, Filii,et Spiritfis Sancti, quamvis pravo sensu, baptizentur: Iis autem, post Sanctae Trinitatis et Christi simplicem confessionem, sufiicere ad salutem mantis impo- sitionem catholici sacerdotis. 23 Ambros. de Spir. Sancto, lib. 1. cap. 3. Quibenedicitur in Christo, benedicitur in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritfis Sancti, quia unum nomen, potestas una.—Denique et [Ethi- ops eunuchus Candaces reginae, baptizatus in Christo ple- num mysterium consecutus est.-——Quemadmodum si unum in sermone comprehendas, aut Patrem, aut Filium, aut Spi- ritum Sanctum, fide aut-em nec Patrem nec Filium nec Spiritum abneges, plenum est fidei sacramentum: ita etiam quamvis et Patrem et Filium et Spiritum dicas, et aut Patris aut Filii aut spiritus Sancti minuas potestatem, vacuum est omne sacramentum. Qui unum dixerit, Trinitatem sig- navit. Si Christum dicas, et Deum Patrem a quo unctus est Filius, et ipsum qui unctus est Filium, et Spiritum quo unctus est, designasti. Et si Patrem dicas; et Filium ejus, et Spiritum oris ejus pariter indicasti; si tamen id etiam corde comprehendas. 212 484 Boox XI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. is blessed in the name of the Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost; because the name is one, and the power one. The Ethiopian eunuch, who was bap— tized in Christ, had the sacrament complete. If a man names only a single person expressly in words, either Father, Son, or Holy Ghost, so long as he does not deny in his faith either Father, Son,or Holy Ghost, the sacrament of faith is complete: as, on the other hand, if a man in words express all the three per- sons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but in his faith diminishes the power either of the Father, or Son, or Holy Ghost, the sacrament of faith is void. He says further, He that names but one person, designs thereby the whole Trinity. He that names Christ only, intends both the Father by whom the Son is anointed, and the Son himself who is anointed, and the Spirit with which he is anointed. And he that names only the Father, does in like manner intend both his Son and the Spirit of his mouth, if he truly believe them in his heart. So that, according to St. Ambrose, it was a sufiicient baptism, though only one person, Father, Son, or Holy Ghost, was expressly mentioned,because in one name by an orthodox believ- er all the rest were implied. But this appears to have been a singular opinion in St. Ambrose, contrary to the general stream and current of the ancient writers. For though Petavius joins St. Basil with him; and Vossius after Soto makes Cyprian and Athanasius, and the author of the Opus Imperfectum under the name of St. Chrysostom, to be abettors of the same assertion; yet it is clear from what has been alleged before out of Cyprian, Athanasius, and Basil, that they were of the contrary opinion, and esteemed it an error and transgression against the first institu- tion, to give baptism only in the name of Christ. Whence it is also further evident, that they did not understand those passages of Scripture, which speak of baptizing in the name of Jesus, or the Lord, or Christ, as new forms of baptizing, different from the original form delivered by Christ ; but as Eu- logius in Photius 2‘ has explained them: To be bap- tized into Christ Jesus, signifies to be baptized accord- ing to the command and tradition of Jesus Christ; that is, “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” According to which sense, it follows, that the form of baptizin g delivered by Christ, was not changed, as some imagine, but precisely ob- served even by the apostles, and after them by the general consent and practice of the catholic church. sect 4_ It is true, indeed, as sects grew up maolea-L’efi‘fiiilgfln of and increased in the church, some in- novations were made in this matter aigflifgislzgf 11;; among them. For though, as St. mm“ Austin observes, the greatest part of heretics who retained any baptism at all, retained also the old form of the church; yet some there were who varied from it, and brought in new forms of their own, ac- cording as their fancies or the genius of their here- sies led them. There were some very early that turned the doctrine of the Trinity into Tritheism, and, instead of three Divine persons under the economy of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, brought in three collateral, co-ordinate, and self-originated beings, making them three absolute and independ- ent principles, without any relation of Father or Son, which is the most proper notion of three Gods. And having made this change in the doctrine of the holy Trinity, they made another change answerable to it in the form of baptism. For instead of baptiz- ing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, they brought in an unheard-of form of baptizing in the name of three unoriginated principles, as we learn from one of those called the Apostolical Ca- nons, which is directly levelled against them in these words: If any bishop25 or presbyter baptize not ac- cording to the command of Christ, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; but in three un- originated principles, or in three Sons, or in three Paracletes, or Holy Ghosts, let him be deposed. This canon does not describe these heretics by any name, but we may conjecture from another canon of the first council of Bracara, that they were the Gnostics who first introduced this kind of Tritheism, or doctrine of three Gods, into the world, which was afterwards taken up by the Priscillianists, and both of them condemned together in that council. For so the canon words it: If any one shall introduce any strange names28 of the Divinity beside the Holy Trinity, saying, that in the Godhead there is a Trinity of Trinities, as the Gnostics and Priscillian- ists maintain, let him be anathema. This was the consequence of asserting three unbegotten princi- ples : for hereby they made three Fathers, and three Sons, and three Holy Ghosts, which was a Trinity of Trinities, as the council charges them. And in compliance with this grand error, they sometimes baptized in the name of three Fathers, or three Sons, or three Holy Ghosts. dent from that decree of Pope Vigilius made against all such heterodox innovations: If any bishop or presbyter27 baptize not according to the command of the Lord, in the name of the Father, Son, and 24 Eulog. ap. Phot. Cod. 280. p. 1608. T6 sis Xptsdv’lfl- 0-0511 Ba'rr'rzo's'fiuat o'nluaiuot a"u 'rd xa'rd 'rr‘w e'vcrokr‘w Kai‘. 'n'apc'zdoo'w "r05 XpLs-ofi 'Incroii fia'll’Tw's'fil’ala Tov'réqll', 5:9 Ha're'pa, Kai ‘Ytdu, Kai "A'ytov Ilvsiipa. Vid. Aug. Cont. Maximin. lib. 3. cap. 17. 25 Canon. Apost. c. 49. Ei’ 7L9 E'rrio'rcmros ii "P86367890? Ka'rd 1-1‘111 rroi'i Kvpt'ov dtci'raEw/uj ,Gwlr'rio'g eis Hcv'rs'pa, Kori ‘Yto‘u, Icai"A'ytou I'Iusfipa, (DOC sis 'rpsi's duépxovs, ii sis 'rpe'is limbs, 1'5 eis 'rpeis 'rrapaxlui'rovs, Kafiatpaio's'w. 26 Cone. Bracar. 1. can. ‘2. Si quis extra Sanctam Trini- tatem alia nescio quae Divinitatis nominaintroducit, dicens, quod in ipsa Divinitate sit Trinitas Trinitatis, sicut Gnos- tici et Priscilliani dixerunt, anathema sit. 2’ Vigil. Ep. 2.. ad Euther. cap. 6. Cited before, sect. 2. As seems pretty evi- ‘ CHAP. III. 485 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Holy Ghost ;” but in one person of the Trinity, or in two, or in three Fathers,‘ or in three Sons, or in three Paracletes or Holy Ghosts, let him be cast out of the church. Sect. 5. Secondly, By Me- nander and his fol- were. Another corruption of the form of baptism was introduced by Menander, who was a disciple of Simon Magus, and to all his master’s heresies added this of his own, That no one could be saved, except he was baptized in his name, as Tertullian informs us.” The reason of this innovation is assigned by Ire- naeus29 and Epiphanius,30 who tell us, that he took upon him to be the Messias: for he taught, that he was the person sent for the salvation of men; and to gather a church by mysteries of his own appoint- ing, to deliver men from the dominion of the angels and principalities and powers that made the world. And Theodoret31 gives the same account of him; for he says, He called himself the Saviour of the world, and taught that men were saved by being baptized in his name, by which means also they got power over the powers that made the world. But this was so absurd a heresy, that, as Epiphanius ob- serves, it never prevailed much in the church. Menander had promised his proselytes, as Tertul- lian says,‘’'2 That all who would be baptized in his name, should be immortal and incorruptible, and have the benefit of an immediate resurrection : but experience in a little time confuted this foolery; for in a hundred years’ time none of his immortal apostles appeared, to convince any doubting Thomas of the truth of such a pretended resurrection. And so this vain attempt upon the baptism of Christ quickly sunk by its own absurdity. A no less absurd innovation was Thiraiifiij-iiie 131- made by the Elceseans, so called from ceseans' their founder, one Elcesai, who taught them enchantments and invocation of demons, and to use baptisms88 in the name or confession of the elements, or letters, as Theodoret represents them. Though what sort of baptism this was, is not very easy to conjecture, there being scarce any one besides Theodoret that gives any account of this heresy. But they were great admirers of astrology and magic, and upon that account perhaps might bring the elements into their baptism, by composition of certain letters and numbers used by them in their magical operations. The Montanists also, or Cataphry- Sec, 7_ gians, introduced a new form of bap- HbliirttaiiiistsBgndhsea- tism. For Montanus, their founder, bemans' took upon him to be the Holy Ghost, and made himself two prophetesses, Priscilla and Maximilla, who pretended to write books by inspiration. Therefore their followers, having them in great esteem, corrupted the old form of baptism, and ad- ministered it in the name of Father, Son, and Mon- tanus, or Priscilla, as St. Basil acquaints us, who therefore judges their baptism to be null, and ne- cessary to- be repeated34 when they came over to the catholic church. Theophylact35 gives the same account of them, telling us, that their foul and stinking tongues baptized in the name of Mon-tanus, and Priscilla, and Maximilla. By which he does not mean, that they used those three names in- stead of the Trinity, but that they added the name of Montanus, or Priscilla, or Maximilla, to the Fa- ther and Son, instead of the Holy Ghost. For which reason, most probably, the council of Laodi- cea“ orders them to be rebaptized, notwithstanding that some of them had received a pretended ordina- tion, and were advanced not only to the dignity of bishops, but to the title of patriarchs and maximz' among them, as the council of Laodicea Words it. And the same decree was made against them in the first general council of Constantinople,87 and some others also. St. J erom seems further to intimate, that these Montanists were, as to the doctrine of the Trinity, really Sabellians. For though they pretended to believe a Trinity of Divine persons, yet it was but equivocally, in the same way as Sa- bellius had done before, whose three persons were no more but three names, or different appearances of one and the same person. Therefore St. J erom38 28 Tertul. de Praescript. c. 46. Quicquid se Simon dixe- rat, hoc se Menander esse dicebat, negans habere posse quenquam salutem, nisi in nomine suo baptizatus fuisset. 29 Iren. lib. 1. cap. 21. 8° Epiphan. Haer. 22. "Ehsyev e'av'rdu wavra'pqbfim sis o'w'rnpiav dijeeu, Kai sis 'rd o'vvé'ysw 'rwds sis "rd éav'rofi MUO'TTIQLOU, 8L0. 3‘ Theod. Haeret. Fab. lib. 1. cap. 2. Ew'ri'ypa Eav'rdu 1rp0cr- nydpevo'a—Za'izso'eat 8s "robs sis ai’i'rdu fia'rr'rtgope'uovs. *1 Tertul. d3 Anima, cap. 50. In hoc scilicet se a superna et arcana potestate legatum, ut immortales et incorrupti- biles et statim resurrectionis compotes fiant, qui baptisma ejus induerint.—-At ubi sunt illi quos Menander ipse per- fudit, quos in Stygem suam mersit? Apostoli perennes veni- ant, assistant ; videat illos meus Thomas, audiat, contrectet, et credat. 33 Theod. Haeret. Fab. lib. 2. c. 7. Kéxpnv'rar. Ban-Tia’- ‘ ,u an ( I uao'w éqri 'ry 'rwu ovrozxeiwv opoho'ytqz. 3* Basil. Epist. can. 1. cap. 1. 35 Theoph. in Luc. xxiv. p. 546. 36 Cone. Laodic. can. 8. 3’ Conc. l. Constant. can. 7. 88 Hieron. Ep. 54. ad Marcellam adv. Montanum. Pri- mum in fidei regula discrepamus. Nos Patrem et Filium et Spii'itum Sanctum in sua unumquemque persona poni- mus, licet substantia copulemus: illi Sabellii dogma sec- tantes, Trinitatem in unius persona: angnstias cogunt.—-— Aperta est convincenda blasphemia dicentium, Deum pri- mum voluisse in Veteri Testamento per Moysem et pro- phetas salvare mundum: sed quia non potuerit explere, corpus sumpsisse de Virgine, et in Christo sub specie Filii praedicantem, mortem obiisse pro nobis. Et quia per duos gradus mundum salvare nequiverit, ad extremum per Spi- ritum Sanctum in Montanum, Priscillam et Maximillam insanas fceminas descendisse: et plenitudinem quam Paulus non habuerit—abscissum et semivirum habuisse Montanum. 486 Boox XI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. says, The Montanists differed from the catholics in the very rule of faith. For we assert Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost, every one distinct in his own person, though united in substance; but they, following the opinion of Sabellius, bring the Trinity to the narrow restraints of one person. That is, as he explains it a little after, they said, That God at first intended to save the world by Moses and the prophets ; but because he could not effect his design'that way, he assumed a body of the virgin, and preached in Christ under the species of arson, and suffered death for our sakes. And because by these two degrees he could not save the world, at last he descended by the Holy Ghost into Montanus, Priscilla, and Maximilla ; and made Montanus, who was a eunuch, and but half a man, have that plenitude of prophecy, which Paul him-_ self could not pretend to have. From this account of St. J erom, it is evident the Montanists in point of doctrine were really Sabellians, and believed but one person in the Godhead under different appear— ances, or manifestations of himself, which they called 1rp6¢rw1m,perSOnS,in an equivocal sense, where- by they imposed upon many catholics, and among the rest upon Theodoret,”9 to make them believe them sound and orthodox men, when yet they as- serted three persons in no other sense, than Simon Magus, and Praxeas, and Noetus, and Sabellius, and all the Patripassians had done before them. Now, it is very probable the Sabellians had intro- duced a new form of baptism, correspondent to their principles, for which reason all the councils that mention them order them to be rebaptized :40 and the Montanists, following the doctrine of Sabellius, were liable to the same censure. So that upon all ac- counts it nrust be concluded, they had made inno- vations upon the form of baptism received in the catholic church. Another very strange form was con- ceived by the Marcosians, or Marcites, so called from one Marcus, a sorcerer, who taught his disciples to baptize in the name of the unknown Father of all things ;‘“ in the name of truth, the mother of all things; and in Jesus, who descended (or, as Eusebius reads it,"2 in him who descended into Jesus) for the union, and redemption, and communion of the principalities or powers; or, Sect 8. Fifthly, by the Marcosians. in the union, and redemption, and communion of these powers. For it may be so understood, as if the names of these powers were taken into their form of baptism. But Ireneeus, and Epiphanius from him, tell us, they had several forms of bap- tism, and some of them added certain hard Hebrew names to astonish their catechumens and converts, which the inquisitive reader may find in those writ- ers. And some of them wholly rejected baptism as useless, because the mysteries of the ineffable and invisible power were not to be performed by visible and corruptible creatures, nor intellectual and incorporeal things by those that are sensible and corporeal : but the knowledge of the ineffable greatness was a perfect redemption. And in this they agreed with the Ascodrutae, of whom we have spoken in the last chapter. The Paulianists, or followers of Paulus Samosatensis, bishop of Anti- Siiatfrlljif och,who denied the Divinity of Christ, seem also to have been guilty of introducing a new form of baptism, though I do not remember any ancient writer, that tells us particularly what it was. But St. Austin concludes it must be so, because the council of N ice” made an order to receive them only by a new baptism into the church: which he takes to be an argument, that the Paulianists had not kept to the form or rule of baptism, which many other heretics, when they left the church, took along with them, and continued still to observe. Pope Innocent likewise "4 assigns this for the reason, why the council of Nice allowed the baptism of the Novatians, but not the Paulianists; because the Paulianists did not baptize in the name of the Fa- ther, Son, and Holy Ghost, but the Novatians in their baptism always made use of those venerable names, as being, in point of the Divine power of the Holy Trinity, always asserters of the catholic faith. Another sort of heretics there were, who instead of “Father, Son, and Seve§telIiy,1'iiheEu- Holy Ghost,” used this form, “I bap- tize thee into the death of Christ.” Among the Apostolical Canons, there is one that particularly reflects upon this as an unlawful prac- tice :45 If any bishop or presbyter use not three im- mersions in the celebration of baptism, but one only given in the death of Christ, let him be deposed. . 9. by the mists. 39 Theod. Haeret. Fab. lib. 3. cap. 2. e ‘8 Vid. Concil. Constantinop. 1. can. 7. Concil. Trull. can. 95. 4‘ Theodor. Haeret. Fab. lib. 1. cap. 9. E19 6110;“: dy- vu'rs-e IIa'rpds *rilw iihwu, eis &Arifi’etav jun're'pa qra'w'rwu, eis 'rdv KaTsA-s'du'ra ’Ino'§v, eis iii/wow Kai a'vrohri'rpwo'w Kai xowwuiav 'ribu duuéuewu. So also in Irenaaus, lib. 1. cap. 18. and in Epiphanius, Hseres. 34. "2 Euseb. lib. 4. cap. 11, has it, etc 'rdu Ka'reh-S'ciu'ra sis 'rdv 1110-511. ‘3 Aug. de Haeres. cap. 44. Istos sane Paulianos bapti- zandos esse in ecclesia catholics. Nicaeno concilio consti- tutum est. Unde credendum est, eos regulam baptismatis non terrere, quam secum multi haaretici, cum de catholica. discedcrent, abstulerunt, eamque custodiunt. 44 Innocent. Ep. 22. ad Episcopos Macedon. cap. 5. Id- circo distinctum esse ipsis duabus haeresibus ratio manifesto. declarat : quia Paulianistae in nomine Patris, Filii, et Spi- ritus Sancti, minime baptizant: et Novatiani iisdem tre- mendis venerandisque nominibus baptizant, &c. ‘5 Canon. Apost. c. 50. E2 119 é'n'io'lco'n'os ii 'rrpeo-fié'repoc pa‘; 'rpia fia-n'rrio'uarra ,uu'is lumio'ews é'n'r'rehe'o'y, a'AAc‘z Eu Bdrm-Lona, 'rd eis 'rdv S'a'warrov 1'5 Kupie dtdélievou, K110 atpeio's'w, &c. CHAP. III. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 487 ANTIQUITIES OF THE For our Lord did not say, Baptize into my death ; but, “Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” St. Paul indeed sometimes speaks of being baptized into the death of Christ; but then, as Origen has rightly observed, this does not denote any new form of ‘baptism ; for no other form of*bap- tism was ever thought lawful,‘6 beside that which was given in the name of the Trinity, according to the command of Christ: and the apostle is not speaking of the manner of baptizing, but of Christ’s death, and our conforming to it, as signified in bap— tism. Where it would not have been convenient to have said, As many of us as have been baptized in the name of the Father, or of the Holy Ghost, have been baptized into his death: and therefore the apostle in prudence omitted them in that place, because it was not proper to mention either Father or Holy Ghost, where he was speaking of death, which did not belong to them, but only to Christ incarnate. Notwithstanding this just observation of Origen’s, Eunomius the Arian revived this irre- gular practice of those ancient heretics, and cast off the old form of baptism, to make way for others more agreeable to his damnable errors and opinions. For because he denied the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost, he would no longer use the trine im- mersion, nor baptize in the name of the Trinity, but only into the death of Christ, as Socrates47 gives an account of his practice. Epiphanius‘18 observes of the Anomoeans, who were the peculiar followers of Eunomius, that they baptized also in another form, in the name of the uncreated God, and the name of the created God, and the name of the sanctifying Spirit, created by the created Son. And so stiff were they to this form of their own inventing, that they baptized not only the catholics, but all other sects, and even the Arians themselves who had been otherwise baptized before them. And Gregory Nyssen tells us from Eunomius his own books, that he perverted the law of Christ, the law or tradition of the Divine institution; and taught, that baptism was not to be given in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as Christ commanded his disciples when he first delivered the mystery, but49 in the name of the Creator and Maker, and not Father only, but God of the only begotten. Upon which he charges him with adding to the word of God, and corrupting it, because no such words as Creator or Maker of the only begotten, or the Son’s being a creature, or the servant of God, were to be found in the words of the first institution. But now this innovation was pe- culiar to the disciples of Eunomius, Whestlfdrllll the though Baronius5o and some other gage i320. learned men bring the charge against the Arians in general, upon the mistaken authority of Athanasius and St. J erom. Athanasius says they baptized51 in a Creator and a creature; and St. J erom, that they believed in the Father, the only true God, in Jesus Christ, the Saviour52 and a crea- ture, and in the Holy Ghost, the servant of them both. But they do not say that the Arians used this form of baptism; but only that their baptism, though it was given in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, was, in effect, no more than if it had been given in the name of a creature, be- cause they believed the Son and Holy Ghost to be no more than creatures. The Arians corrupted the faith, but they still retained the catholic form of baptism, till Eunomius brought in another form among them. And that is the true reason why both the first general council of Constantinople,58 and the council of Trullo,“ ordered the Eunomians to be rebaptized, at the same time that they appointed the other Arians to be received by imposition of hands only, without a new baptism. And the se- cond council of Arles made a like decree concerning the Bonosiaci, or followers of Bonosus, bishop of Sardica, who were a branch of the Arians, that be- cause they retained baptism in the catholic form, as they there say the other Arians did,55 therefore it should be sufficient, after the confession of a true faith, to receive them with chrism and imposition of hands, without a new baptism. Which is a demon- stration, that neither the ancient Arians before Eunomius, nor the Bonosians after him, had made any alteration in this matter; but though they had corrupted the faith, yet they retained the ancient form of baptizing used in the catholic church. For had it been otherwise, there is no question to be made, but that (as Suicerus 5“ out of Vossius57 has rightly observed) the ancient councils would have rejected their baptism, as they did the Eunomians, ‘6 Orig. Com. in Rom. vi. p. 540. Cum utique non habea- tur legitimum baptisma nisi sub nomine Trinitatis, &c. ‘7 Socrat. lib. 5. c. 24. ‘8 Epiph. Haar. 76. Anomoean. 992. 49 Nyssen. cont. Eunom. lib. 11. t. 2. p. 706. M1‘; eis Ha- 're'pa 're Kai 'Ttdu Kai"A'yLou Hueiipa Kas'cbs Eve'reiha'ro 'ro'ig harem-ale wapadidés 'rd juus'riptov, &AA’ sis 617/“89751, Kai K'ri'qnu, Kai é pciuou Ha're'pa ‘TEE nouo'yeués, a'Md 7611 9561/. 5° Baron. an. 325. n. 88. 5‘ Athanas. Orat. 3. cont. Arian. t. l. p. 413. Big m-ts-r‘ju Kai K'rio'ua, Kai eis 'rrot'npa Kai. wonrrfiu. 52 Hieron. Dial. adv. Lucifer. c. 4. Arrianus cum nihil aliud crediderit—nisi in Patre solo vero Deo, et in Jesu Christo salvatore creature, et in Spiritu Sancto utriusque servo: quomodo Spiritum Sanctum ab ecclesia recipiet, qui necdum peccatorum remissionem consecutus est? 58 Conc. Const. I. can. 7. 5‘ Conc. Trull. can. 95. 55 Conc. Arelat. 2. can. 17. Bonosiacos autem ex eodem errore venientes (quos, sicut Arianos, baptizari in Trinitate manifestum est) dum interrogati fidem nostram ex toto corde confessi fuerint, chrismate et mantis impositione in ecclesia recipi suflicit. 5“ Suicer. Thesaur. Eccles. t. 1. p. 638. 5’ Voss. de Bapt. Disp. 2. p. 54. 488 Boox XI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. and ordered them to have been rebaptized upon their return to the catholic church. For the observation of the form of baptism was always esteemed so ne- cessary a part of the institution, and so essential to the sacrament, that where it was wanting, the bap- tism was reputed an imperfect and void baptism, and to be repeated, by all the rules made against heretics in the catholic church. Sect m There is one question more relating ,Qflgliggggiggggdg; to the form of baptism, which it may Efiiggrggmzpfism not be improper to resolve in this church‘ place: that is, whether any additions were ever allowed to be made to the form of bap- tism in the catholic church? Some learned persons are of opinion, that such additions, when they were only by way of explication, and greater illustration, to confirm the truth against heretics, were used in the form of baptism, as well as in the creed. But I think Vossius, upon better grounds of reason and authority, more judiciously determines the contrary. Two authors are commonly alleged in favour of their assertion, viz. Justin Martyr and the author of the Constitutions, but neither of them comes fully up to the thing intended. For Justin Martyr, as Vossius observes,58 is only giving a paraphrasti- cal explication of the words used in baptism for the instruction of the heathens, to whom he is writing, when he tells them how the Christians baptized in the name of the Father of all things, who was Lord and God, and in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, and of the Holy Ghost. And the author of the Constitutions is yet more plain : for first of all, he tells every bishop and presbyter, that they ought to baptize“9 precisely in that form of words which our Lord enjoined us, when he said, “ Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things which I have commanded you.” And then he goes on to explain the several names of the three persons concerned, viz. That the Father is the person who sent, Christ the person who came, and the Paraclete or Comforter the per- son who bears witness. So that this was plainly an explication or paraphrase of the form of bap- tism only, and not the very form that was then in use. Nor can it be made appear, that ever the ca- tholic church varied from the form delivered by our Saviour, though Vossius thinks a form with such an orthodox addition would not destroy the essence of baptism, as those heretical forms certainly do which corrupt the truth of the catholic faith. CHAPTER IV. OF THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM, OR AN ACCOUNT OF WHAT PERSONS WERE ANCIENTLY ALLOWED TO BE BAPTIZED. WHERE PARTICULARLY OF IN- FANT BAPTISM. HAVING spoken of the matter and form of baptism, I should now have abxl’lltlrfltlge'pdefitfgg considered the persons by whom this ggfgfngftgfivfismis sacrament was anciently administered: but because I have lately had occasion to handle this subject fully in a scholastical way, in two dis- tinct discourses,l it will be sufficient in this place to give this summary account of the matter. There I have showed, that bishops, as the apostles’ suc- cessors, were the persons chiefly intrusted with this power; that they granted power to presbyters to baptize in ordinary cases; to deacons, sometimes in ordinary, and sometimes only in extraordinary cases; to laymen, only in extraordinary cases of extreme necessity: that the usurped baptism of laymen was allowed to be valid, so far as not to need repeating, though given irregularly; that the baptism of wo— men was wholly prohibited; that the baptism of Jews and infidels was never allowed, though now accepted in the church of Rome; that the baptism of heretics and schismatics was disannulled by the Cyprianists, and some few others, who required a true faith, as well as a true form, to make a com- plete baptism; but that this opinion was rejected by the great body of the catholic church, who thought the defects of heretical baptism might be supplied by imposition of hands without rebaptizin g; that yet it was agreed, both by the Cyplianists and all others whatsoever, that heretics and schismatics had not the power of priests, because some of them, as the Novatians, never had a just and legal call to the priesthood; and others were deprived of their power by the lawful authority of the church, which first committed that power tothem; that thence- forward they were reputed, not true Christian priests, but wolves and antichrists, instead of true shepherds and governors of the flock of Christ; that the church had power, not only to suspend the execu- tion of their office, but to cancel their commission, and wholly take away the power and authority of the priesthood from them, and then they were re- duced to the state and condition of laymen; and sometimes they were not only degraded from the priesthood, but thrust down one degree below lay- 58 Justin. Apol. 2. p. 107. ’Eu duo'lua'rt *roi) Hwrpds 'rtbu b'Awu Kai dwrro'rov 9e03, Kai '1'05 Ew'rfipos fipibu Xptcr- "r05 ’I1qo'oii, Kai Hueziparos"Ayiov, 'Td £11 Uda'rt q'o'q-e Aou- 'rpdv 'II'OLOUU'TCZL. 59 Constit. Apost. lib. 7. C. 22. Oii'rw Ba'lr'rio'sts, dis 5 Kfiptos dLe'rdEa'ro fiuiu, )té'ywv, wopavee'u'res paen'rst'm'a'rs 'lréu'ra 'Td £61117, Baqr'rio'av'res aim-oils eis "rd 61/0/11! 1'05 Ha'rpds, Kai 'roii "Ywii, Kai 'roii "A'yiov Ilvsi'ma'ros——'r05 d'rroo-eret'kav'ros Haw-‘ode, 'roii éhfiéu'ros Xpw'roi'r, 'roii pap- TUpfiO'aU'TOS I'Iapalchvi'rov. ‘ Scholastical History of Lay Baptism, 1st and 2nd part, 1712, and 1714. CHAP. IV. 489 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. men, by being anathematized and cast out of the communion of the church: and yet, notwithstand- ing all this, the church did not think fit to cancel or wholly disannul the baptisms given by such men, though given by usurpation and without any au- thority of the priesthood, so long as it appeared they were given in due form, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. All which things being abundantly proved in the two foresaid dis- courses, I think it not proper to repeat or insist any longer upon them; but shall now proceed, as the order of the discourse requires, to consider the per- sons on whom baptism was anciently conferred. Sect’ 2' And here, first of all, it is certain, £55,‘; 23133; the that none but living persons, whether Eg‘gifgfif‘biii’fiififof adult or infants, and that in their own iliebinyiiiiiigciiiiiiif personal capacity, were ever reckoned at‘? iiihtliigsRoirsian subjects capable of baptism in the church. . . . - prnmtive church. The ancients knew nothing of that profane custom of giving baptism to inanimate things, as bells and the like, by a su- perstitious consecration of them. The first notice we have of this is in the Capitulars of Charles the Great,2 where it is only mentioned to be censured. But afterward it crept into the Roman ofiices by degrees, (as I have noted in another place8 out of Baronius, Cardinal Bona, and Menardus,) till at last it grew to that superstitious height, as to be thought proper to be complained of in the Centum Gravamina of the German nation, drawn up in the public diet of the empire held at Norimberg, anno 1518, where (after having described the ceremony of baptizing a bell with godfathers, who make responses, as in baptism, and give it a name, and clothe it with a new garment, as Christians were used to be clothed, and all this to make it capable of driving away tem- pests and devils) they conclude‘ against it, as not only a superstitious practice, but contrary to the Christian religion, and a mere seduction of the simple people, and an exaction upon them. For which reason they declare, so wicked and unlawful a custom ought to be abolished. He that would see more of this, may consult Hospinian,5 or \Volfius,6 or Sleidan,7 who describe the ceremony at large out of the old Romish Pontifical. For I must return to the primitive church. Sect 3. , And here we meet with a practice Baptism Mm be a little more ancient, but not less su— gwen tome dead‘ perstitious, than the former; which was a custom that began to prevail among some weak people in Africa, of giving baptism to the dead. The third council of Carthage8 speaks of it as a thing that ignorant Christians were a little fond of, and therefore gives a seasonable caution against it, to discourage the practice. And this is again repeated in the African Code.9 Gregory Nazi- anzen 1° also takes notice of the same superstitious opinion prevailing among some who delayed to be baptized. In his address to this kind of men, he asks them whether they stayed to be baptized after death P And doubts upon this account whether to esteem them greater objects of pity or contempt. Philastrius also‘1 notes it as the general error of the Montanists or Cataphrygians, that they baptized men after death. The practice seems to be ground- ed upon a vain opinion, that when men had neg- lected to receive baptism in their life-time, some compensation might be made for this default by re— ceiving it after death. And for the same reason, they gave the eucharist also to the dead in the like circumstances, which is equally condemned in the forementioned African Canons, as proceeding from gross ignorance in some presbyters, and want of a due understanding of the true intent and meaning of those holy institutions; for whose information they order provincial councils to be held twice a year, that they might be better instructed. Another absurd practice prevailing among some of the ancient heretics, norstici'hi' living was a sort of vicarious baptism, which wi‘igieoieiiié afpgs- was, that when any one died without 2&5‘; baptism, another was baptized in his stead. St. Chrysostom tells us12 this was practised among the Marcionites with a great deal of ridicu- lous ceremony, which he thus describes: After any catechumen was dead, they hid a living man under the bed of the deceased; then coming to the dead man, they spake to him, and asked him whether he would receive baptism? And he making no answer, the other answered for him, and said, he would be baptized in his stead; and so they baptized the living for the dead, as if they were acting a comedy upon the stage, so great was the power of Satan in the minds of these vain men. Afterward, when any one challenged them upon this practice, they had the confidence to plead the apostle’s authority for it, “ Why are they then baptized for the dead?” Against which St. Chrysostom urges very well, That if this 2 Capitular. Caroli Magni, cited by Durantus de Ritib. Ecol. lib. 1. c. 22. n. 2. Ut clocas non baptizent. 3- See Book VIII. chap. 7. sect. l5. 4 Centum Gravam. n. 51. in Fasciculo Rer. expetend. t. 1, p. 366. Quae res non solum superstitiosa, sed etiam Christianae religioni contraria, ac simpliciorum seductio, et mera est exactio.—-Res igitur tam nefanda et illicita merito aboleri debet. 5 Hospin. de Templis, lib. 4. cap. 9. p. 113. 5 Wolfius, Lection. Memorabil. Centur. 16. an. 1550. " Sleidan, Commentar. lib. 21. p. 388. 8 Cone. Carth. 3. can. 6. Cavendum, ne mortuos bapti- zari posse fratrnm infirmitas credat. 9 Cod. Eccles. Afr. can. 18. M1‘) 'roils iidn 'rsXev'réi'w-ras flaw'rw'tiijuat ‘Iranian 1'1 T5311 7rpso'fiv'ra'pwu d'yuota. 1° Naz. Orat. 40. de Bapt. p. 648. “H Kai on‘) na'usis vsKpds hovfi'i'iuat ; or’; pr'ihkou éksoiiuevos i‘) pw'oiinsuos. 1' Philastr. de Hacres. cap. 2. de Cataphry. Hi mortuos baptizant, &c. ‘2 Chrys. Horn. 40. in 1 Cor. p. 688. 490 BooK XI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. were allowed, in vain had God threatened those that died unbaptized. For by this means, any J eW or Gentile might easily be made a Christian, by having another after his death baptized for him. Tertullian brings the same charge against the Mar- cionites," comparing their practice to the heathen lustrations for the dead upon the kalends of Fe- bruary. But he tells them, they did but in vain allege the apostle’s authority for this practice, as if he had argued from it for the truth and confirmation of the resurrection; for the apostle speaks but of one baptism, and that was of the living for them- selves. He reflects upon the same practice in an- other place,“ where he calls it the vicarious bap- tism, which some used in hopes of the resurrection. Suicerus thinks the Cerinthians were the first au- thors of this kind of baptism, and that indeed would carry it up to the apostles’ time. But Epiphanius, on whose authority he depends, says no such thing, as from any certain proof, or his own judgment, but only that there was an uncertain tradition handed down to them, concerning some heretics in Asia in the apostles’ days,15 who, when any one died without baptism, substituted another in his room to be baptized for him, lest in the resurrection he should be punished for want of baptism, and be subjected to the powers which made the world. And the same tradition asserted, that the apostle hence took occasion to say, “If the dead rise not, why are they then baptized for the dead?” But Epiphanius wholly rejects this opinion, nor do we find any of the ancients so interpreting this passage of the apostle, except only the author under the name of St. Ambrose, who is clearly of opinion, that the apostle had respect to such a custom then in being, and thence drew an argument from the example‘6 of those, who were so firmly persuaded of the truth of the future resurrection, that when any one among them was prevented by sudden death, they had another to be baptized in his name, fearing lest he should either not rise at all, or rise to condemnation. But St. Chrysostom gives a much more rational account of the apostle’s argu- ment; for he supposes him to refer to the catholic custom of making every catechumen at his baptism with his own mouth declare his belief of the resur- rection of the dead, by repeating the creed, of which that was a part, and so being baptized into that faith, or hope of the resurrection of the dead. And therefore he puts them in mind of this, saying, If there be 1’ no resurrection of the dead, why art thou then baptized for the dead, that is, the body? For therefore thou art baptized for the dead, believing the resurrection of the dead, that the body may not remain dead, but revive again. Sotthat baptizing for the dead is an elliptical expression, for being baptized into the faith or belief of the resurrection of the dead. And so I think Tertullian“ is to be understood, when he says, in opposition to the error of the Marcionites, that to be baptized for the dead is to be baptized for the body, which is declared to be dead by baptism : that is, we are baptized into the belief of the resurrection of the body, both whose death and resurrection are represented in baptism. And the interpretation of Epiphanius comes pretty near these, when he says ‘9 it refers to those who were baptized upon the ap- proach of death in hopes of the resurrection from the dead; for they showed thereby that the dead should rise again, and that therefore they had need of the remission of sins, which is obtained in bap- tism. The same sense is given by Theodoret,20 and Theophylact,21 and Balsamon and Zonarasf2 and Matthew Blastares,23 among the Greeks; and it is embraced by Bishop Patrick}4 and Dr. Hammond,25 as the most natural and genuine exposition of this difiicult passage of the apostle. Some indeed think it may refer to another custom, of baptizing over the monuments of the martyrs, who died for the faith in hopes of a future resurrection. But that custom was hardly ancient enough to be alluded to in the time of the apostles, though Vossius26 and some other learned mean incline to this opinion. However it be, it is not likely the apostle would draw an ar- gument from the absurd practice of the worst of heretics : therefore whatever interpretation be ‘3 Tertul. cont. Marcion. lib. 5. cap. 10. Viderit institutio ista, kalendaa si forte Februariae respondebunt illi pro mor- tuis petere. Noli ergo apostolum novum statim auctorem aut confirmatorem eum denotare, ut tanto magis sisteret car- nis resurrectionem, quanto illi qui vane pro mortuis bapti- zarentur, fide resurrectionis hoc facerent. Habemus illum alicubi unius baptismi definitorem. 1‘ Tertul. de Resur. Carnis, cap. 48. Si autem et bapti- zautur quidam pro mortuis, videbimus an ratione. Certe illa praesumptione hoc eos instituisse contendit, qua alii etiam carni vicarium baptisma profuturum existimarent ad spem resurrectionis. ‘5 Epiphan.‘ Haeres. 28. Cerinthian. n. 6. ‘6 Ambros. Com. in 1 Cor. xv. Exemplum eorum subjicit, qui tam securi erant de futura resurrectione, ut etiam pro mortuis baptizarentur. Si quem forte mors praevenisset, ti- mentes, ne aut male, aut non resurgeret, qui baptizatus non fuerat, vivus nomine mortui tingebatur. 1'' Chrys. Hom. 40. in l COX‘. p. 689. Et #1‘) gs'w dude-a- 019, TI Kai Ba'rr'ri'gp inrép T5211 usKpt'Bu' "ra'rés-L, 'riIw o'w/ui- Twu; Kai 'yo‘cp é'm‘. 'ré'ro fiavr'rz'gy, "r5 velcpfi adqua'ros a’ua'w- ‘TGO'LU art's-slimy, 87L ércé'rl. ,ue'vet uelcpo'v. ‘8 Tertul. cont. Marcion. lib. 5. cap. 10. lgitur et pro mortuis tingui, est pro corporibus tiugui ; mortuum enim corpus ostendimus. 19 Epiphan. Haer.28. n. 6. 2° Theodor. Com. in 1 Cor. xv. 29. 2‘ Theophyl. in eundem 10c. 22 Balsamon. in Can. 18. Cone. Carthag. ap. Bevereg. Pandeet. t. 1. p. 54]. 23 Blastar. Syntag. Canon. ibid. t. 2. p. 41. 24 Patrick, Aqua Genitalis, p. 453. 25 Hammond in 1 Cor. xv. 29. '36 Voss. Thes. T heol. Disp. 15. p. 225. CHAP. IV. 49l ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. thought most proper and worthy to be received, that is certainly to be rejected, together with the error of the Marcionites, who founded their vicari- ous baptism upon the authority of this apostolical passage, contrary to the sense and practice of the whole catholic church, which never allowed of bap- tism given to the living for the dead, or of any baptism but such as was given to men in their own persons. Now, of persons who were reckon- baigmgcgfinrmt ed capable of receiving baptism, there gggigggrrcicfrds of were two sorts, infants and adult per- sons. And infants were of two sorts, either such as were born of Christian parents, or such as were born of heathens, but by some provi- dential means became the possession and property, as I may call it, of the Christian church; neither of which sort were excluded from baptism, when sufficient sponsors could be provided for them. This is so evident from the ancient records of the church, that it is to be wondered, how some learned persons could run into the contrary opinion, and offer reasons from antiquity, in prejudice of the church’s constant practice. Mr. Wall, in his elaborate discourse 2’ of Infant Baptism, has justly reflected upon abundance of these men, who, by their unwary concessions, have given too great ad- vantage to the Anabaptists of this age. There are some others also, which he had not seen, who ad- vance as unworthy notions of the ancient practice; for Salmasius, and Suicerus28 out of him, deliver it as authentic history, that for the two first ages no one received baptism who was not first instructed in the faith and doctrine of Christ, so as to be able to answer for himself, that he believed, because of those words, “He that believeth and is baptized.” Which, in effect, is to say, that no infant, for the two first ages, was ever admitted to Christian baptism. But afterwards they own paedo-baptism came in, upon the opinion, that baptism was neces- sary to salvation. Now, I shall not think myself obliged to be very prolix in refuting this opinion, together with the false supposition which is made the foundation of it, since that has so often and so substantially been done by Vossius,29 Dr. Forbes,” Dr. Hammond,31 Mr. Walker,32 and especially Mr. Wall,33 who has exactly considered the testimony and authority of almost every ancient writer that has said any thing upon this subject. But that no one who reads these collections may be wholly at a loss for want of other authors, I shall here sub- join a brief account of the most pertinent authori- ties that occur in the three first ages. The most ancient writer that we sec, 6. have is Clemens Romanus, who lived Rftgguflggrm in the time of the apostles. And he, Hermes Past” though he does not directly mention infant baptism, yet says a thing that by consequence proves it. For he makes infants liable to original sin, which in effect is to say, that they have need of baptism to purge them from it. For speaking of Job, he says, Though he was a just man, yet he84 condemns him- self, saying, There is none free from pollution, though his life be but of the length of one day. Now, if children be born in sin, they have need of a regeneration to make them capable of the king- dom of heaven. Hermas Pastor lived about the same time with Clemens, and has several passages to show the general necessity of water, that is, bap- tism, to save men. In one place he represents the church as a tower built on the waters, and says,35 Hear, therefore, why the tower is built on the waters ; because your life is saved, and shall be saved, by" water. In another place, he makes water- baptism so necessary to all, that in a vision he re- presents the apostles as going after death86 to baptize the holy spirits who lived under the Old Testa- ment, that they might be translated into the king- dom of God. It was necessary, says he, for them to ascend by water, that they might be at rest; for they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God, than by putting off the mortality of their former life. They therefore, after they were dead, were sealed with the seal of the Son of God, and so entered into the kingdom of God. For before any one receives the name of the Son of God, he is lia- ble to death; but when he receives that seal, he is delivered from death and is assigned to life. Now, that seal is water, into which men descend bound over unto death, but ascend out of it assigned unto life. For this reason the seal was also preached 2’ Wall, Hist. of Infant Baptism, part 2. chap. 2. 23 Suicer. Thesaur. Eccles. t. 2. p. 1136. Primis duobus saeculis nemo baptismum accipiebat, nisi qui in fide instruc- tus, et doctrina Christi imbut-us, testari posset, se credere, propter illa verba, Qui crediderit et baptizatus fuerit. Postea opinio invaluit, Neminem salvari posse, nisi qui baptizatus fuisset. 29 Voss. de Bapt. Disp. 14. 9° Forbes, Instruct. Hist. Theol. lib. IO. cap. 5. 31 Hammond, Def. of Infant. Bapt. chap. 4. 32 Walker, Plea for Infant Baptism, chap. 27, &c. 33 Wall, Hist. of Infant Baptism, part 1. chap. 1, &c. 3‘ Clem. Rom. Ep. 1. ad Corinth. n. 17. Airrds éav'rofi Ka'rn'yopéiv )té'yet, obdeis Kaeapo‘s a’rrd fizi'n'ov, was 2:’. [aids ime'pas 1‘1 gun‘; aim-05 ‘5 Hermas Pastor, lib. 1. Vision 3. cap. 3. Quare igitur super aquas aedificatur turris, audi. Quoniam vita vestra per aquam salva facta est et fiet. 36 Id. lib. 3. Simil. 9. n. 16. Necesse est ut per aquam habeant ascendere, ut requiescant : non poterant enim aliter in regnum Dei intrare, quam ut deponerent mortali- tatem prioris vitae. Illi igitur defuncti sigillo Filii Dei signati sunt, et intraverunt in regnum Dei. Antequam enim accipiat homo nomen Filii Dei, morti destinatus est: at ubi accipit illud sigillum, liberatur a morte, et traditur vitae. Illud autem sigillum aqua est, in quam descendunt homines morti obligati, ascenduut vero vitae assignati. Et illis igitur praedicatum est illud sigillum, et usi sunt eo, ut intrarent in regnum Dei. 492 CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Boox XI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE unto them, and they made use of it, that they might enter into the kingdom of God. The plain design of this place, is to represent the necessity of baptism, without which none can ordinarily enter into the kingdom of God. And it cannot be doubted, that he who thought it so necessary even for the patri- archs, who died before the coming of Christ, must think it equally necessary to all those’who lived under the dispensation of the gospel. Though whether the baptism here mentioned be to be under- stood in a literal and corporeal sense, or only in a metaphorical or mystical way, as a vision or a para- ble may require, is what may admit of some dispute. And therefore Cotelerius37 gives his opinion for the latter sense, concluding, that forasmuch as washing in water properly belongs to bodies, and not to spi- rits, our author is necessarily to be understood of metaphorical and mystical baptism, that is, the spi- ritual effects of it, the good things which are con- ferred by God in baptism,ithe chief of which is a title to eternal life, which the patriarchs after death are supposed to be made partakers of, by believing the word of the gospel then preached to them. This was that spiritual water, in which departed souls were baptized, as the bodies of the living are baptized in common water; from the analogy of which we must needs conclude the necessity of water-baptism for all those who are in a capacity to receive it, that is, for all those who are yet in the body, in order to be made partakers of eternal life. God indeed may, if he pleases, give the baptism of the Spirit, and the baptism of faith, which is the baptism of the word, without it: and so some of the ancients suppose the apostles to be baptized without water, from that saying of our Saviour, “ Now ye are clean, through the word which I have spoken unto you ;” so Tertullian‘;8 and others: (though the more general opinion” is, that they were baptized by Christ himself :) in like manner God might dispense with the want of water-baptism in cases extraordi- nary, and supply this want either by martyrdom, or faith and repentance, in such cases where it could not be had; as I have showed (in the last Book) the general consent of the ancients 4° upon this matter to be; but yet in all ordinary cases where water-baptism might be had, they concluded as generally for the necessity of it, from that assertion of our Saviour, “ Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” This was not only a doctrine of the third or fourth ages, as Salmasius and Suicerus represent, but the doctrine of the very first ages immediately succeeding the apostles; for, we see, Hermes Pastor, who lived in the apostolical age, founds the general necessity of baptism upon that very saying of our Saviour. And therefore they who represent this doctrine of the necessity of baptism as a novelty or an error, first introduced into the church in the age of St. Austin against the Pelagian heretics, do manifest wrong both to the doctrine itself, and to St. Austin, and to the ancients, who embraced and delivered the same before him. And it gives an unnecessary advantage to the anti-paedobaptists, which a right understanding of this matter abso- lutely takes from them. I thought it therefore of some use to observe this against Salmasius and Suicerus, and to add it to the observations which Mr. Wall has made upon Hermes Pastor. Another ancient writer, who lived within the compass of the second cen- From Sigitiii' Mar- tury, was Justin Martyr, who very yr’ plainly speaks of infant baptism as used from the time of the apostles. For in one of his Apologies he takes occasion to say,41 There were among Chris- tians in his time many persons of both sexes, some sixty, and some seventy years old, who had been made disciples to Christ from their infancy, and continued virgins or uncorrupted all their lives. Now, Justin wrote this Apology about the year 148, in the middle of the second century, and therefore those whom he speaks of as baptized sixty or seventy years before in their infancy, must be persons bap- tized in the first age, while some of the apostles were living. In another place of the same Apology “2 he urges these words of our Saviour, John iii. 35, “Except ye be” regenerated, or “born again, ye cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven,” to prove the necessity of baptism. And in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, he speaks of the whole progeny of Adam as liable to death43 and the deception of the serpent by reason of Adam’s sin, beside the particular guilt which each man contracts by actual sin in his own person. Now, if all mankind be born with original sin, this extends to infants, who have need of regeneration or baptism to free them from it. And this assertion in Justin by conse- quence proves the necessity of baptism for infants, as well as others, that they may have redemption from original sin. In another place of the same Dialogue he makes baptism parallel to circum- 3’ Coteler. in loc. p. 117. Quandoquidem lavatio corpo- ribus competit, non animis, noster necessario intelligit bap- tismum metaphoricum et mysticum, bona videlicet quae in baptismate a Deo conceduntur. 88 Tertul. de Bapt. cap. 12. . ‘*9 Vid. Augustin. Ep. 108. Anonymus auctor de non ite- rando Baptismo, ad calcem Cypriani, p. 23. Edit. Oxon. It. Clem. Alex. H ypotypos. lib. 5. ap. Johan. Moschum Prat. Spiritual. cap. 176. 4° See Book X. chap. 2. sect. 20. 41 Justin. Apol. 2. p. 62. Kai. TOAAOL' Twas Kai vroAAal e'Emcov'Toii'rat Kai égdopmcom-oii'rat, oi 5K 'n'afdwv sportin- vaidnaav 'rq'i Xpto'q'q'i, oi¢flopot alaMéUOUO'L. ‘2 Ibid. p. 94. 43 Justin. Dial. c. Tryph. p. 315. T5 'ye'vos Priiw a’vepé- 'rwv oiqrd 'roii 'Addy. l'rzrd S'oiva'rou Kai. wko'wnv 'roii ”O¢ews é-lrsqrcru'ucst, 'n'apd 'n‘qv idiav aieriav élco'w'rov afrriiw '11'0- unpsvo'afte'vov. CHAP. IV. 493 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. cision, saying,“ We have not received that carnal circumcision, but the spiritual circumcision, which Enoch and those like him observed. And we have received it by baptism, through the mercy of God, because we were sinners; and it is incumbent on all persons to receive it in the same way. Now, if baptism be answerable to circumcision, and succeed in its room, and be necessary to be received as the means to obtain the true circumcision of the Spirit; then as infants were admitted to circumcision, so they were to be admitted to baptism, that being the ordinary means of applying the mercy of the gos- pel to them, and cleansing them from the guilt of original sin. Next after Justin Martyr, I subjoin thgndlgleigsagtgittipgnqf the ancient author of the book called, ggrslggnmrm with’ The Recognitions, or Travels of St. Peter; because, though it be not the genuine work of Clemens Romanus, whose name it borrowed, yet it is an ancient writing of the same age with Justin Martyr, mentioned by Origen in his Philocalia, and by some ascribed to Bardesanes Sy- rus, who lived about the middle of the second cen- tury. This author speaks of the necessity of bap- tism in the very same style as Justin Martyr did, making it universally necessary to purge away ori- ginal sin, and to qualify men for‘the kingdom of heaven. For putting an objection by way of ques- tion, What does baptism by water45 contribute to- ward the worship of God? He answers, 1st, That it is fulfilling that which is the will and pleasure of God. Then, 2ndly, The man_ that is regenerated by water, and born again to God, is thereby freed from the weakness of his first nativity, which comes to him by man: and so he is made capable of sal- vation, which he could not otherwise obtain. For so the true Prophet (meaning Christ) has testified with an oath, saying, “ Verily, I say unto you, ex- cept one be born again of water, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” This author indeed does not speak particularly of the baptism of in- fants, but his reasons are such, as show his discourse 'to extend to them. For if baptism be necessary upon these two accounts, first to cut off concupis- cence, or original sin, which is the infirmity of our first birth; and then to qualify us to enter into the kingdom of God; these are general reasons for bap- tism, which make it necessary for infants as well as any other, since, according to this author, they are born in original sin, and cannot enter into the kingdom of God, till that sin be purged away by the waters of baptism. Here, then, we have another author within the compass of the two first ages, di- rectly confronting that assertion of Salmasius and Suicerus, that the doctrine of the necessity of bap- tism to salvation, was not the doctrine of the two first ages, but only an opinion taken up afterwards, upon which foundation the practice of infant bap- tism was introduced into the church. For no one can, or ever did, declare himself plainer for the ne- cessity of baptism to salvation, than this author does, from the words of our Saviour Christ, which he interprets as all the ancients both before and after him did, of the ordinary necessity of water- baptism to salvation. So that if infant baptism was founded, as Salmasius pleads, upon the opinion of the necessity of baptism to salvation; this author must be an asserter of infant baptism, because he was undeniably an asserter of the general necessity of baptism to salvation. I have the rather insisted a little upon this author’s meaning, because I know not whether his testimony has been produced be- fore in this cause by any other. Not long after the time of Justin Martyr and the author last mentioned, lived Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, who, as Mr. Dod- well evidently shows,“6 and Dr. Cave from him,47 was born in the latter end of the first century, about the year 97, and was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of St. John. About the year 176, he wrote his book against heresies, being then near eighty years old, and died not many years after. So that he must needs be a competent witness of the church’s sense and practice upon this point during the se- cond century. Now, there are three things relating to this matter, which appear very evident from him. 1. That the church then believed the doctrine of original sin. 2. That the ordinary means of purging away this sin, was baptism. 3. That children, as well as others, were then actually baptized to ob- tain remission of sins, and apply the redemption of Christ to them. For the doctrine of original sin; he sometimes calls it the sin “8 of our first parents, which was done away in Christ, by his loosing the bonds wherein we were held and bound. over unto death: the sin whereby we offended God‘9 in the Sect. 9. And Irenmus. 4*’ Just. Dial. p. 261. Or’) ‘7067112) 'n'ju Ica'rd o'éplca 'n'a- psho'zgolueu 71’8pL1'0fL7‘1U, a’hhd wuavpa'rim‘pu, iii! ’Evd:x Kai oi 'o'potot écpéhagau‘ ima'i's 8E du‘z cred Bavr'rio'paeros ai’rrr‘lu, e’vrstdij cipapcrwhoi e’ysyéustuev, 8rd: 1'6 gheos 'rd 1rapz‘z 705 9.205, éhdfiofisu, Kai. '1rc'io'w sidn'rdu ('iuoiws Xapficiusw. ‘5 Recognition. lib. 6. n. 9. p. 551. ap. Coteler. t. 1. Quid confert aquae baptismus ad Dei cultum? Primo quidem, quia quod Deo placuit impletur; secundo, quia regenerate ex aquis, et Deo renato, fragilitas prioris nativitatis, quae tibi per hominem facts. est, amputatur; et ita demum pervenire poteris ad salutem: aliter vero impossibile est. Sic enim nobis cum sacramento verus propheta testatus est, dicens: Amen dico vobis, nisi quis denuo renatus fuerit ex aqua, non intrabit in regnum coelorum. This is repeated in the Greek Clementines, Horn. 11. n. 26. p. 698. 4“ Dodw. Dissert. in Iren. 4’ Cave, Hist. Lit. vol. i. p. 41. ‘8 Irenze. lib. 5. c. 19. Protoplasti peccatum per correp- tionem primogeniti emendationem accipiens.—-Vinculis illis resolutis, per quae alligati eramus morti. ‘9 Id. lib. 5. cap. 16. Deum in prime quidem Adam of- fendimus, non facientes ejus praeceptum, in secundo autern Adam reconciliati sumus, obedientes usque ad mortem facti. 494 CHRISTIAN CHURCH. BOOK XI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE first Adam, by disobeying his command; but were reconciled to God in the second Adam, by obedi- ence unto death. So that infants, as well as others, were under the guilt of this sin, and had need of a Redeemer with the rest of mankind, to deliver them from it. Now, the ordinary way of being freed from this original guilt, he says, is baptism, which is our regeneration,50 or new birth unto God. And this he expressly aflirms to be administered to children as Well as adult persons. For, says he, Christal came to save all persons by himself; all, I say, who by him are regenerated unto God; infants, and little ones, and children, and youths, and elder persons. Therefore he went through the several ages, being made an infant for infants, that he might sanctify infants; and for little ones he was made a little one, to sanctify them of that age also. N 0 art can elude this passage, so long as it is owned that re- generation means baptism. And for this we have the explication of Irenaeus himself, who calls bap- tism by the name of regeneration; and so all the ancients commonly do, as Suicerus (against whom I am now disputing) scruples not to own, alleging Justin Martyr,52 Chrysostom, and Gregory Nyssen, to this purpose. Which fully evinces infant bap- tism in the age of Irenaaus, that is, in the second century, to have been the common practice of the church. Sect. 10. And Tertullian. In the latter end of the second cen- tury, and beginning of the third, lived Tertullian, presbyter of the church of ‘Carthage, who, though he had some singular notions about this matter, yet he sufiiciently testifies the church’s practice. In his own private opinion he was for deferring the baptism of infants, especially where there was no danger of death, till they came to years of discretion: but he so argues for this, as to show us that the practice of the church was otherwise. For, says he, according to every one’s condition and disposition,53 and also their age, the delaying of baptism is more advantageous, especially in the case of little children. For what need is there that the godfathers should be brought into danger? Because they may either fail of their promises by death, or they may be deceived by a child’s proving of wicked disposition. Our Lord says, indeed, “ Do not forbid them to come unto me.” Let them come therefore when they are grown up: let them come when they can learn; when they can be taught whither it is they come: let them be made Christians when they can know Christ. What need their innocent age make such haste to the forgiveness of sins? Men proceed more cautiously in worldly things: and he that is not trusted with earthly goods, shall he be trusted with Divine? Let them know how to ask salvation, that you may appear to give it to one that asketh. For no less reason unmarried persons ought to be delayed, because they are exposed to tempta- tions, as well virgins that are come to maturity, as those that are in widowhood by the loss of a con- sort, until they either marry or be confirmed in con- tinence. The way of Tertullian’s arguing upon this point, shows plainly that he was for introducing a new practice; that therefore it was the custom of the church in his time to give baptism to infants, as well as adult persons: and his arguments tend not only to exclude infants, but all persons that are unmarried or in widowhood, for fear of temptation. Which are rules that no one beside himself ever thought of, much less were they confirmed by any church’s practice. But even this advice of Tertul- lian, as singular as it was, seems only calculated for cases where there was no danger or apprehensions of death: for otherwise he pleads as much for the necessity of baptism as any other, both from those words of our Saviour,“ “Except one be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven ;” as also from the general cor- ruption of original sin, which renders every son of Adam unclean till he be made a Christian: which is only done in baptism; for men are not born Christians, but made so. And therefore, in case of necessity, he thought every Christian had power to give baptism, rather than any person should die without it. Which seems to imply, that his opinion for delaying baptism, whether of infants or others, respected only such cases where there was no dan- ger of death: but even in those cases the practice of the church was otherwise, for she baptized in- fants as soon as they were born, though without any imminent danger of death, as appears from Tertullian’s discourse itself, who laboured to make 5° Irenae. lib. 1. cap. 18. T05 Barrio-paras "r'fis eis Gsdu a’ua'yeuwio'ews, &c. 5' Id. lib. 2. cap. 39. Omnes venit per semetipsum sal- vare: Omnes inquam, qui per eum renascuntur in Deum; infantes, et parvulos, et pueros, et juvenes, et seniores. Ideo per omnem venit aetatem, et infantibus infans factus, sancti- ficans infantes : in parvulis parvulus, sanctificans hanc ipsam habentes aetatem, &c. 52 Suicer. T hesaur. Eccles. voce 'Avayéuuqms, t. l. p. 243. 5’ Tertul. de Baptismo, c. 18. Pro cuj usque personae con- ditione ac dispositione, etiam aetate, cunctatio baptisini utilior est, praecipue tamen circa parvulos. Quid enim necesse est sponsores etiam periculo ingeri? Quia et ipsi per mortali- tatem destituere promissiones suas possint, et proventu malae indolis falli. Ait quidem Dominus, Nolite illos prohibere ad me venire. Veniant ergo dum addlescunt, veniant dum discunt, dum quo veniunt docentur: fiant Christiani, dum Christum nosse potuerint. Quid festinat innocens aetas ad remissionem peccatorum? Cautius agetur in saecularibus; ut cui substantia terrena non creditur, Divina credatur. Norint petere salutem, ut petenti dedisse videaris. Non minori de causa innupti quoque procrastinandi, in quibus tentatio praeparata est: tam virginibus per maturitatem, quam viduis per vacationern, donec aut nubant, aut conti- nentia corroborentur. 5‘ Tertul. de Anima, cap. 40. De Bapt. cap. 13. CHAP. IV. 495 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. an innovation, but without any success; for the same practice continued in the church in the fol- lowing ages. Origen lived in the beginning of the third century, and nothing can be plainer than the testimonies alleged from him. In one place he says, Every one is born in original sin; which he thus proves from the words of Da- vid, saying, “ I was conceived in iniquity, and in sin“ did my mother bear me ;” showing, that every soul that is born in the flesh, is polluted with the filth of sin and iniquity: and that therefore it was said, as we mentioned before, that none is clean from pollution, though his life be but of the length of one day. Besides all this, it may be inquired, what is the reason, why the baptism of the church, which is given for remission of sins, is by the custom of the church given to infants also? Whereas if there were nothing in infants that wanted remission and indulgence, the grace of baptism might seem needless to them. In another place“ he says, In- fants are baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Of what sins? or when did they commit them? Or how can any reason be given for baptizing them, but only according to that sense which we men- tioned a little before; None is free from pollution, though his life be but the length of one day upon the earth? And for that reason infants are bap- tized, because by the sacrament of baptism the pol- lution of our birth is taken away; and, “Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Where he not only makes infant baptism the practice of the church, but derives it from Divine institution. As he does in another place55 from apostolical tradition; for he affirms, that the church received the order of bap- tizing infants from the apostles. For they to whom the Divine mysteries were committed, knew that Sect. 11. And Origen. there is in all persons the natural pollution of sin, which must be washed away by water and the Spirit: by reason of which the body itself is also ' called the body of sin. In the middle of this age lived St. Seem, Cyprian, in whose time there was a ,hgngggggfgiggg question moved concerning the day thageundermm' on which infants ought to be baptized. For one Fidus an African bishop had sent a query to him upon this case, whether infants were to be baptized, if need required, as soon as they were born, or not till the eighth day, according to the rule given in the case of circumcision? To this question St. Cy- prian and a council of sixty-six bishops returned this synodical answer: As to the case of infants, whereas you judge56 that they ought not to be bap- tized within two or three days after they are born; and that the rule of circumcision should be observed, so that none should be baptized and sanctified be- fore the eighth day after he is born ; we were all in our council of the contrary opinion. It was our unanimous resolution and judgment, that the mercy and grace of God is to be denied to none as soon as he is born. For if the greatest offenders, and they that have sinned most grievously against God be- fore, have afterward, when they come to believe, forgiveness of their sins ; and no person is kept off from baptism and grace; how much less reason is there to prohibit an infant, who being newly born has no other sin, save that, being descended from Adam according to the flesh, he has from his birth contracted the contagion of the death anciently threatened ! Who comes for that reason more easily to receive forgiveness of sins, because they are not his own, but other men’s sins, that are forgiven him. Here we have both the practice of the church, and the reason of it together; infants were baptized, be- cause they were born in original sin, and needed 5’ Orig. Horn. 8. in Levit. t. I. p. 145. Audi David dicen- tem, In iniquitatibus, inquit, conceptus sum, et in peccatis peperit me mater mea: ostendens, quod quaecunque anima in carne nascatur, iniquitatis et peccati sorde polluitur: et propterea dictum esse illud, quod jam superius memoravi~ mus; quia nemo mundus a sorde, nec si nnius diei fuerit vita ejus. Addi his etiam illud potest, ut requiratur quid causae sit, cum baptisma ecclesiae in remissionem peccatorum detur, secundum ecclesiae observautiam etiam parvulis bap- tismum dari? Cum utique si nihil esset in parvulis quod ad remissionem deberet et indulgentiam pertinere, gratia baptismi superflua videretur. 5‘ Orig. in Luc. Hum. 14. t. 2. p. 223. Parvuli bapti- zantur in remissionem peccatorum. Quorum peccatorum? Vel quo tempore peccaverunt? Aut quomodo potest ulla lavacri in parvulis ratio subsistere, nisi juxta illum sensum de quo paulo ante diximus, N ullus mundus a sorde, nec si unius diei quidem fuerit vita ejus super terram. Et quia per baptismi sacramentum nativitatis sordes deponuntur, prop- terea baptizantur et parvuli. Nisi enim quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu, non potest intrare in regnum coelorum. ‘*5 Id. in Rom. lib. 5. cap. 6. p. 543. Ecclesia ab apos- tolis traditionem suscepit etiam parvulis baptismum dare. Sciebant enim illi quibus mysteriorum secreta commissa sunt Divinorum, quia essent in omnibus genuinae sordes pec- cati, quae per aquam et Spiritum ablui deberent: propter quas etiam corpus ipsum corpus peccati nominatur. 5‘ Cypr. Ep. 59. al. 64. ad Fidum, p. 158. Quantum vero ad causam infantium pertinet, quos dixisti intra secundum vel tertium diem, quo nati sunt, constitutos, baptizari non oportere, et considerandam esse legem circumcisionis anti- quae, ut intra octavum diem eum qui natus est baptizandum et sanctificandum non putares: longe aliud in concilio nos- tro omnibus visum est.——Universi potius judicavimus, nulli hominum nato misericordiam Dei et gratiam denegandam. -——Porro autem si etiam gravissimis delictoribus et in Deum multum ante peccantibus, cum postea crediderint, remissa peccatorum datur; et a baptismo atque a gratia nemo pro- hibetur; quanto magis prohiberi non debet infans, qui re- cens natus nihil peccavit, nisi quod secundum Adam car- naliter natus, contagium mortis antiquac prima nativitate contraxit? Qui ad remissam peccatorum accipiendam hoc ipso facilius accedit, quod illi remittuntur non propria, sed aliena peccata. ‘ 496 Boon XI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. baptism to cleanse them from the guilt and pollu— tion of it. To this we may add another place of Cyprian, where describing the great wickedness of those that lapsed in time of persecution, he thus aggravates their crime : That nothing might be wanting" to fill up the measure of their wickedness, their little infants were either led or carried in their parents’ arms, and lost that which they had obtained at their first coming into the world, meaning the benefits of their baptism. And therefore he brings them in thus pleading against their parents in an elegant strain at the day of judgment: This was no fault of ours, we did not of our own accord forsake the meat and cup of the Lord, to run and partake of those profane pollutions: it was the unfaithful- ness of others that ruined us, we had our parents for our murderers ; they denied us God for our Fa- ther, and the church for our mother; for whilst we were little, and unable to take care of ourselves, and ignorant of so great a wickedness, we were insnared by the treachery of others, and by them drawn into a partnership of their impieties. Here we may ob- serve, that children were made partakers of the eu- charist (which Cyprian calls the meat and drink of the Lord) ; and this is evident from other passages in the same author: which is a further evidence for the practice of infant baptism; for it is certain that none but baptized persons were ordinarily allowed to partake of the eucharist at the Lord’s table. I think it needless to clog this discourse with any more authorities from the council of Eliberis, Op- tatus, Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, Ambrose, Chry- sostom, Paulinus, the councils of Carthage, St. Austin, or St. J erom, or other writers of the fourth age, which the reader may find collected together by Mr. Wall, with suitable observations on them. It is sufficient to my design, against Salmasius and Suicerus, to have proved that infant baptism was not owing to any new doctrine begun in the third century, but was derived from more ancient prin- ciples, and handed down through the two first ages from apostolical practice. ‘I shall now proceed to remark a Mattias... few other things relating to the bap- not to be delayed to . , theeishth day.afi_er tism of infants, among those who al- CIT lowed them to be capable of it from 5,35,, $35,351,, their birth. Some there were in the African church, as we have heard out of the last-mentioned citations from Cyprian, who were strictly for confining baptism to the eighth day, because such was the rule in the case of cir- cumcision. But Cyprian and the council of Car- thage answer all the arguments that were brought in favour of this novelty, which seems only to have been a question in theory, and scarce ever reduced to practice. The abettors of it pleaded, that an in- fant in the first days after its birth is unclean, so that any one of us abhors to kiss it. To which Cy- prian answers, We judge not58 this to be any reason to hinder the giving to it the heavenly grace; for it is written, “ To the clean all things are clean :” nor ought any of us to abhor that which God has vouch- safed to make. To the other pretence, that the eighth day was observed in the Jewish circumcision, he answers, That this was only a type going before, a shadow and resemblance, but upon Christ’s com- ing it was fulfilled in the substance; for, because the eighth day, that is, the next to the sabbath day, was to be the day on which the Lord was to rise from the dead, and quicken us, and give us the spi- ritual circumcision ; this eighth day, that is, the next day to the sabbath, or Lord’s day, was signi- fied in the type before, which type ceased when the substance came, and the spiritual circumcision was given to us. So that we judge that no person is to be hindered from obtaining the grace, by the law that is now appointed; and that the spiritual cir- cumcision ought not to be restrained by the circum- cision that was according to the flesh: but that all are to be admitted to the grace of Christ; foras- much as Peter says in the Acts of the Apostles, “ The Lord hath showed me, that no person is to be called common or unclean.” This is the only place where ever we read that this question was made; and after the resolution here given, we never find that it was proposed again. So that this circumstance of time seems never to have prevailed in the practice of the church. Gregory Nazianzen had also a singular opinion in relation to the time of baptizing children when there was no danger of death. For in that case, he thought it better to defer it till they were about three years old; but in case of danger, to give it immediately after they were born, for fear they should die unbaptized. His words are these: What say you” to those that are as yet infants, and are not in a capacity to be sensible either of the grace, or of the loss of it? Shall we baptize them too? Yes, by all means, if any danger so require it. For it is better that they should be sanctified without their own sense of it, than that they should die un- sealed and uninitiated. And the ground of this is circumcision, which was given on the eighth day, and was a typical seal, and was given to those who had not the use of reason: as also the anointing of the door-posts, which preserved the firstborn by things that have no sense. As for others, I give my opinion, that they should stay three years, or thereabouts, till they can hear the mysticalwords, and make answers to them; and though they do not perfectly understand them, yet they can then 5’ Cypr. de Lapsis, p. 125. Ac nequid deesset ad crimi- nis cumulum, infantes quoque parentum manibus vel impo- siti vel attracti, amiserunt parvuli, quod in primo statim nativitatis exordio fuerant consecuti, &c. 58 Cypr. Ep. 59. al. 64. ad Fidum, p. 160. 5° N az. Orat. 40. de Baptismo, t. l. p. 658. CHAP. IV. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 497 ANTIQUITIES OF THE frame to speak them: and then you may sanctify them in soul and body with the great sacrament of initiation. But this was a singular opinion of Na- zianzen, taken up upon some particular reasons, which the church never assented to : and therefore I join this with that other of Fidus the African, as peculiar fancies of private men, which never gained any esteem or credit in the public and avowed prac~ tice of the church. Yet in some churches a custom had prevailed to defer the baptism of in- fants, as well as adult persons, where there was no apparent danger of death, to the time of some of the more eminent and noted festivals, which were more peculiarly designed and set apart for the solemn administration of baptism. Socrates says, 8° in Thessaly they only baptized at Easter: upon which account a great many in those parts died without baptism. He does not say ex- pressly, that this was the case of children; but there are some reasons to incline one to believe, that it related to them as well as others. For both in the French and Spanish councils there are canons which order the baptism of children to be adminis- tered only at Easter, except in case of necessity and imminent danger of death. In the council of Aux- erre“l it was decreed for the French churches, That no children should be baptized at any other time save on the solemn festival of Easter, except such as were near death, whom they called grabatariz', because they were baptized on a sick bed. And if any one contumaciously in contempt of this decree offered their children to baptism in any of their churches, they should not be received. And if any presbyter presumed to receive them against this order, he should be suspended three months from the communion of the church. The second council of Bracara62 also speaks of the like practice in the Spanish churches, ordering that in the middle of Lent, such infants as were to be baptized at Easter, should be presented twenty days before to undergo the purgation, or preparation of exorcism. St. Austin also speaks of children, infants,63 little ones, sucklings hanging on their mothers’ breasts, coming at Easter to be baptized among adult persons ; Sect. 14. Yet in some churches it was de- ferred to the time of an approaching festival. whence Palm-Sunday, or the Sunday before Easter, had the name of Octavw Infantz'um, the Octave of Infants, upon their account. St. Ambrose also“ speaks of great numbers of infants coming at Easter to be baptized: This, says he, is the Paschal gift: pious fathers and holy mothers bring their new- born progeny in great multitudes by faith to the holy font, from whose womb being regenerated under the tree of faith, they shine with the innocent ornament of lights and tapers. These are abundant proofs, that though in cases of extremity children might receive baptism at any time, yet in other cases, where there was no visible appearance or danger of death, their baptism in many places was deferred till the Easter festival, as well as that of adult persons. Whilst I am upon the subject of infant baptism, it will not be improper to resolve certain cases and questions, that may be put concerning it, so far as they are capable of being resolved from the practice of the church, or judgment of the ancient writers. One is concerning such children who had only one parent Christian, and the other a Jew or a heathen: these were reckoned capable of baptism upon the right of one parent being Chris- tian. For so it was resolved in the fourth council of Toledo,65 in the case'of such women as had Jews for their husbands, that the children that were born of them should follow the faith and condition of the mother: and so on the other hand, they who had unbelieving mothers, and believing fa- thers, should follow the Christian religion, and not the Jewish superstition. Another case was concerning the children whose parents were under d whfiteiii'riie chil- excommunication and the church’s giigigggifiisnlii censures. St. Austin had occasion to consider this case upon the account of one Aux- ilius, a young bishop, who in a fit of ungoverned zeal had rashly excommunicated one Classicianus, and together with him, laid his whole family under an anathema and interdict. Which was a practice that, however some later popes have dealt much in, the ancients were not acquainted with. He also Sect. 15. A resolution of some questions. lVhether children might be baptized, when only one pa- rent was Christian? 6° Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 22. ’Ev Pra'is ims'pcus 1'5 Ho'zo'xa po'vov fia'rrcrizao't' did o'qbédpa whip: 6hi'ywu oi Aonroi ,ur‘; ‘ga'lr'rto'B'év'res CETO-S'UfiO'KISO'L. 6' Conc. Antissiodor. can. 18. Non licet absque Paschae solennitate ullo tempore baptizare, nisi illos quibus mors vicina est, quos grabatarios dicunt. Quod si quis in alio pago, contumacia. faciente, post interdictum hoe infantes suos ad baptismum detulerit in ecclesias nostras, non reci- piantur. Et quicunque presbyter ipsos extra nostrum prac- ceptum 'recipere praesumpserit, tribus mensibus a commu- nione ecclesias sequestratus sit. “2 Conc. Bracar. 2. can. 9. Mediante Quadragesima, ex viginti diebus baptizandos infantes, ad exorcismi purgati- onem offer-re praecipiant. Vid. Conc. Matiscon. 2. can. 3. 63 Aug. Serm. 160. de Tempore, t. 10. p. 331. Hodie octavae dicuntur infantium.——Illi pueri, infantes, parvuli, lactantes, maternis uberibus inhaerentes, et quantum in eos gratiae referatur nescientes, ut ipsi videtis, quia infantes vo- cantur, et ipsi habent octavas hodie. Et isti senes, juvenes, adolescentuli, omnes infantes, &c. 6* Ambros. de Mysterio Paschae, cap. 5. H00 Paschae donum.—-Hinc casti patres, pudicae etiam matres, novel- lam per fidem stirpem prosequuntur innumeram. Hinc sub fidei arbore ab utero fontis innocui cereorum splendet orna- tus, &c. 65Conc. Tolet. 4. can. 63. Filii autem qui ex talibus (J udaeis) nati existunt, fidem atque conditionem matris sequantur. Similiter et hi qui procreati sunt de infidelibus mulieribus, et fidelibus viris, Christianam religionem se- quantur, non J udaicam superstitionem. 2 K 498 Boox XI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. seems to have forbidden any children to be bap- tized, who were born in the family during this in- terdict. Upon which St. Austin took occasion to write to him, and expostulate with him upon the reasons of these proceedings, desiring to be inform- ed66 upon what grounds and authority of reason or testimony of Scripture he could confirm his opinion; by what right a son was to be anathematized for the father’s crime, or a wife for her husband’s, or a servant for his master’s ; or a child not yet born, if he happened to be born in the house whilst it lay under such an interdict, why it should not have the benefit of the laver of regeneration in danger of death. In corporal punishments, he owns, some- times it was otherwise: for God thought fit to punish some despisers, with their whole families, though they were not accessory to the contemner’s crimes, that by the death of mortal bodies, which must otherwise have shortly died, he might strike terror into the living: but he never dealt thus in spiritual punishments, which afl'ect the soul; but “the soul that sinneth, it shall die.” And therefore St. Austin for his own part declares, he never durst use excommunication to this purpose, though he was never so highly provoked by the most villan- ous actions of any men against the church; be- cause if any one should ask him a‘reason of such his practice, and oblige him to show the justice of his proceeding, he freely owns, he could find nothing to answer him. Whence, I think, we may fairly conclude, that the excommunication of a parent did not deprive the child of his right to baptism: and though there were some who made a stretch upon church power in this case, yet their actions were so far from being generally approved, or authorized by any rule, that they were rather thought to deserve a censure. The reader that would know how the Reformed churches have re- solved this same case, about the admission of the children of excommunicated persons to baptism, may consult another discourse 6’ which I have formerly had occasion to write in defence of the church, where this case is more particularly con- sidered and resolved upon the principles and prac- tice of some of the most eminent churches of the Reformation. Another question, sometimes agi- tated in the primitive church, was chlil’izil‘l‘gghéihézpoggd concerning such children who were Liligg‘trgiegpgtlilgéa either exposed, or redeemed from the barbarians, whose parents were unknown, and con- sequently it was utterly uncertain whether they were ever baptized or not. This was a case that often happened in Africa, where the Christians bordered upon several barbarous nations; and it was thus resolved upon a consultation in one of the councils of Carthage : That all such infants68 as had no certain witnesses to testify that they were bap- tized, neither could they testify for themselves, by reason of their age, that the sacrament had been given them; that such should, without any scruple, be baptized, lest a hesitation, in that case, should deprive them of the purgation of the sacrament. And this resolution was made at the instance of the legates of the churches of Mauritania, who inform- ed the council, that many such children were re- deemed by them from the barbarians; in which case it was uncertain whether their parents were heathens or Christians. But (as in some cases) if it plainly appeared, that the parents of infants, dm, one“, (“new who by some providential means fell tliits‘tfig‘ttn‘ftiit’g into the hands of Christians, were whatsoever‘ mere Jews or pagans; yet, in such cases, baptism was not denied to the infants, ‘because they were now become the possession of Christians, who un- dertook to be their sponsors, and answer for their education. This is evident from St. Austin,69 who says it in express terms: This grace is sometimes vouchsafed to the children of infidels, that they are baptized, when by some means, through the secret providence of God, they happen to come into the hands of pious Christians. Sometimes they were bought or redeemed with money, sometimes made lawful captives in war, and sometimes taken up by any charitable persons 7° when they were exposed Set 17 Sect. 18. Whether the chil- 66 Aug. Ep. 75. ad Auxilium. Apud charitatem tuam ta- cere non potui, ut si habes de hac re sententiam, certis ra- tionibus vel Scripturarum testimoniis exploratam, nos quo- que docere digneris: quomodo recte anathematizetur pro patris peccato filius, aut pro mariti uxor, aut pro domini servus, aut quisquam etiam in domo nondum natus, si eodem tempore quo universa domus est anathemate obligata, nas- catur, nec ei possit per lavacrum regenerationis in mortis periculo subveniri.--—Ego autem, si quis ex me quaerat, utrum recte fiat, quid ei respondeam non invenio. Nunquam hoc facere ausus sum, cum de quorundam facinoribus immani- ter adversus ecclesiam perpetratis gravissime permoverer. 6’ French Churches’ Apology for the Church of England, Book III. chap. 19. 68 Cone. Carthag. 5. can. 6. Placuit, de infantibus, quo- ties non inveniuntur certissimi testes, qui eos baptizatos esse sine dubitatione testentur, neque ipsi sunt per aetatem idonei de traditis sibi sacramentis respondere, absque ullo scrupulo eos esse baptizandos, ne ista trepidatio eos faciat sacramen- torum purgatione privari. Hinc enim legati Maurorum fratres nostri consuluerunt, quia multos tales a barbaris re- dimunt. Vid. Cod. Can. African. c. 72. 69 Aug. de Gratia et Libero Arbitrio, cap. 22. t. 7. p. 527. Aliquando filiis infidelium praestatur haec .gratia, ut baptizentur, cum occulta Dei providentia in manus piorum quomodocunque perveniunt. "0 Aug. Ep. 23. ad Bonifac. Videas multos non ofi'erri a parentibus, sed etiam a. quibuslibet extraneis, sicut a do- minis servuli aliquando otferuntur. Et nonnunquam mor- tuis parentibus suis, parvuli baptizantur ab eis oblati, qui illis hujusmodi misericordiam praebere potuerunt. quando etiam quos crudeliter parentes exposuerunt, nutri- endos a quibuslibet, nonnunquam a sacris virginibus col- liguntur, et ah eis otferuntur ad baptismum. Ali- CHAP. IV. 499 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. by their parents: in all which cases, either the faith and promises of the sponsors, or the faith of the church in general, who was their common mo- ther, and whose children they were now supposed to be, was sufficient to give them a title to Christian baptism. The holy virgins of the church did many times in such exigences become their sureties, and take care of their religious education. And so it happened, as is observed by St. Ambrose, or who- ever was the author of the excellent book71 De Vo- catione Gentium, that many who were deserted by the impiety of their kindred, were taken care of by the good oflices of others, and brought to be bap- tized by strangers, when they were neglected by their nearest relations. Which was so general and charitable a practice among the ancients, that some learned modern writers72 speak of it with great commendation upon that account, and tell us such children have a right to baptism, after the same manner that Abraham’s servants bought with his money had to circumcision, as well as those that were born in his house. And they concur so far in asserting it to be the common practice, beyond all controversy, in the primitive church, as to say, that St. Austin made use of it as an uncontested argu- ment to prove free grace and election against the Pelagians. Which I note only here by the way, for the sake of some mistaken persons, who impute the encouragement of the same practice in the English church, not to her charity, but rather to a fault and error in her constitution. Sect- 19. There is one question more, con- boypfigig 511313;? cerning such mfants as were born gegtflgvgebggggges while their parents were heathens: but of these there was no doubt ever made; for as soon as the parents were baptized themselves, they were obliged to take care that their wives and children and whole families should be baptized likewise. To which purpose there is a law in the Justinian Code,73 inflicting a severe penalty upon them in case of neglect or prevarication in this matter. For it is there enacted, that such pa- gans as were yet unbaptized, should present them- selves, with their wives and children, and all that appertained to them, in the church, and there they should cause their little ones immediately to be baptized, and the rest as soon as they were taught the Scriptures according to the canons. But if any persons, for the sake of a public office or dignity, or to get an estate, received a fallacious baptism themselves, but in the mean time left their wives, or children, or servants, or any that were retainers or near relations to them, in their ancient error, their goods in that case are ordered to be confiscated, and their persons punished, by a competent judge, and excluded from hearing any oflice in the common- wealth. Photius repeats this law in his Nomocanon, and adds to it another of the same nature, concern- ing the Samaritans, That though they themselves were not to be baptized till they had been two years catechumens, yet their little ones, who were not capable of instruction, might be admitted to baptism without any such delay or prorogation: which law is now extant among J ustinian’s Novels." From all which it appears, that as soon as any Jews or hea- thens were either baptized themselves, or had only taken upon them the state of catechumens, their children were made capable of baptism, and, ac- cordingly, by law required to be baptized. Thus much of infants, and the several cases I have met with in the writings of the ancients, relating to their baptism. CHAPTER V. OF THE BAPTISM 0F ADULT PERSONS. THE other sort of persons on whom . S t. I. baptlsm was conferred, were adult No adfilt persons to be baptized Wilh- er ons who were own u t e r out i 'stuc- p S ’ gr p O y a S tionijttbvqoulhslilfytiiem of understanding, and who, in those ggggfwerfm them- days, made up the main body of the baptized. These were usually converts from J u- daism or Gentilism, who, before they could be ad- mitted to baptism, were obliged to spend some time in the state of catechumens, to qualify them to make their professions of faith and a Christian life 7‘ Ambros. de Vocat. Gent. lib. 2. cap. 8. Multis saepe, quos suorum impietas deseruit, alienorum cura servierit, et ad regenerationem venerint per extraneos, quae eis non erat providenda per proximos. "2 Vid. Rivet. et Walaeum in Synopsi Purioris Theologiae, Disput. 44. n. 49. "'3 Cod. Justin. lib. 1. Tit. 11. de Paganis, Leg. 10. Qni nondum sunt baptizati, ipsi cum 1iberis et conj ugibus et om- nibus suis perducant se ad sanctas ecclesias: et suos parvulos liberos sine mora baptizari curent: majores vero prius Scripturas secundum canones doceantur. Si vero propter militiam, vel dignitatem, vel facultates habendas fingant bap- tizari: et liberos aut conjuges eorum, aut domesticos suos in errore reliqnerint, et eos qui sibi attinent et necessitudine juncti sunt: publicantur et competenter plectuntur, et rempublicam non attingunt. This law is repeated by Bal- samon, Constitut. Eccles. ap. J ustell. Bibliothec. Juris Ca- non. t. 2. p. 1298. and in Photius Nomocanon. Tit. 4. cap. 4. p. 907. ibid. 7‘ Phot. Nomocan. Tit. 4. cap. 4. p. 907. Justin. Novel. 144. cap. 2. Per duos primum annos in fide instituantur, et pro viribus Scripturas ediscant : tumque demum sacro redemptionis ofi‘erantur baptismati, tam longi temporis pmni- tentia prorsus redemptionis fructum assecuti. Pueros autem admodum, qui per aetatem doctrinas intelligere nequeunt, etiam absque hac observatione sacro dignari baptismate admittimus. 2K2 500 Boox XI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. in their own- persons. For without such personal professions, there was ordinarily no admission of them to the privilege of baptism. The time of their instruction, and the substance and manner of it, has already been considered particularly in the last Book: all, therefore, I have further to observe con- cerning them here, is in relation to some special cases, which we find determined in the canons of the ancient councils, when, because great multitudes were baptized at riper years, the church had occa- sion to consider many cases, which are scarce to be met with in the rules of later ages. One of these doubtful cases was in Sect. 2. ' anrgzltegmtgb $31: reference to dumb persons, who were gzifcigesfome cer- incapacitated at the time of baptism from answering for themselves. In this case, if persons had desired to be baptized be- fore this infirmity came upon them, or if they could by sufi‘icient signs signify their present desire, the church favourably accepted their request, and ad- mitted them to the privilege of baptism. The first council of Orange1 has a canon in favour of such persons, both with respect to baptism and penance; for it decrees, That a person who is suddenly struck speechless, may either be baptized, or admitted to penance, if it appears by the testimony of others, that he had any such will or desire before he be- came dumb; or if in the time of this misfortune he could make signs to express his present desire and intention. In the African Code, there is a canon to the same purpose, That men2 so sick that they cannot answer for themselves, may be baptized, if their friends who attended them in danger, do tes- tify their desire of baptism. And among the canon- ical answers of Timotheus of Alexandria, there is one of the like nature. For the question is put,3 Whether if a catechumen be so disordered in his mind that he cannot make profession of his faith, he maybe baptized, notwithstanding this infirmity? And the answer is, He may if he be not possessed. We have an instance of this case actually verified in the baptism of an African negro slave at Car- thage, whom his master had caused to be instructed among the catechumens, and prepared him among the competentes for baptism. He had made his pro- fession of faith and the usual renunciations publicly in the church, as was customary for the candidates of baptism to do before they came to the baptistery to consummate the mystery. But just before the time of baptism he fell sick of a fever, which made him speechless. However, he was baptized; others answering in his name, as if it had been for an in- fant. Ferrandus, who tells the story, had some doubts concerning this baptism, which he commu- nicated to Fulgentius, bishop of Ruspa, who gave him a consolatory answer to this effect: That this man‘ had all the conditions required by our Saviour for adult persons, which were, that they should be- lieve and be baptized. Faith and the profession of it is the act of the man: the baptizing him is only the act of the minister. And though this man had not his senses when the minister performed his act, yet he had when he himself performed his own. We believe, indeed, that none but infants are saved by the faith of those that bring them, and that at the age of reason a man’s own confession is requir- ed: but this man made his profession whilst he had his senses, and was baptized whilst he was yet alive. From whence he concludes, that there was no reason to doubt of his salvation, because he had done all that was necessary on his part, and was baptized in the manner that in this case the canons had ap- .pointed. Let me add to all this, how it is that Al- baspineeus and many others understand that canon of the council of Eliberis,5 which speaks of cate- chumens desertin g their station, and forsaking the church for a long time, yet at last desiring to be baptized: in this case, though they were speechless, they might be baptized, if either any of the clergy, or other faithful witnesses, could testify that they desired to be made Christians, because their crimes were committed whilst they were in the old man : or, as other copies read it, because they seemed to have relinquished and bid adieu to the old man; that is, in their former state of sin and natural cor- ruption. And this was but the very same privilege as was allowed men in the business of penance, mentioned in the forecited council of Orange, and also the fourth council of Carthage, where it is said,6 That if a lapser desires to be admitted to ‘ Cone. Arausican. 1. can. 12. Subito obmutescens, prout statutum est, baptizari aut pmnitentiam accipere po- test, si voluntatis praeteritae testimonium aliorum verbis ha- bet, aut praesentis in suo nutu. 2 Cone. Carthag. 3. can. 34. Ut aegrotantes, si pro se re- spondere non possunt, cum voluntatis eorum testimonium s-ii dixerint, baptizentur. Similiter et de poenitentibus agendum est. This canon is repeated in the Codex Canon. Eccles. Afric. can. 48. and in the later editions of the Councils it is read with a little variation, thus, Cum volun- tatis eorum testimonium hi, qui suis periculo proprio afi'uere, dixerint, baptizentur, &c. 9' Timoth. Respons. Canon. cap. 4. ap. Bevereg. Pan- dect. t. 2. p. 166. 4 Fulgent. de Baptismo Ethiopis, cap. 8. See a like case in St. Austin’s Confessions, lib. 4. cap. 4. 5 Conc. Eliber. can. 45. Qui aliquando fuerit catechu- menus, et per infinita tempora nunquam ad ecclesiam ac- cesserit, si eum dc clero quisquam agnoverit voluisse esse Christianum, aut testes aliqui fideles extiterint, placuit ei baptismum non negari, eo quod in veterem hominem deli- quisse videatur, al. eo quod veterem hominem dereliquisse videatur. 6 Conc. Carthag. 4. can. 76. Qui poenitentiam in infir- mitate petit, si casu, dum ad eum sacerdos invitatus venit, oppressus infirmitate obmutuerit, vel in frenesin versus fu- erit, dent testimonium qui eum audierunt, et accipiat posni- tentiam; et si continue creditur moriturus, reconcilietur per CRAP. V. 501 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. penance in time of sickness, and unfortunately be- comes speechless, or falls into a frenzy, while the priest who is sent for is coming to him, they who heard his desire shall testify for him, and he shall be admitted to penance: and if he seems to be at the point of death, he shall be reconciled by the imposition of hands, and have the eucharist poured into his month. But if he recovers, the witnesses shall acquaint him that his petition was granted, and then he shall submit himself to the ordinary rules of penance, so long as the priest who admitted him to penance shall think fit in his discretion. Now, it is probable that, after the same manner, persons who were baptized in such a condition, when they recovered, were obliged to make their professions, as was usual in baptism, when after- wards they received the imposition of hands in confirmation. But as I cannot aflirm this upon the certain evidence of any rule or canon, as in the other case of penance, but only judge by parity of reason, Iwill not be positive, but leave every one to enjoy his own opinion. Another question was sometimes raised about the energumens, or per- sons possessed by evil spirits, whe- ther during the time of their possession it was proper to give them baptism. The council of Eli- beris orders them to be deferred, till they were set free and cured; but yet in case of extremity, and visible appearance of death,7 appoints them to be baptized. The first council8 of Orange seems to have allowed it not only in absolute necessity, but in the remissions and intervals of their distemper; for it orders, That such catechumens as were pos- sessed, should be baptized, according as their ne- cessity required, or opportunity permitted. In the canons of Timothy, bishop of Alexandria, the same question is put, but resolved a little differently: If baptism be desired for a catechumen that is pos- sessed, what shall be done? To which the answer is, Let him be baptized at the hour of death, and not otherwise.9 80 likewise in the Constitutions 1° under the name of the Apostles: If any one is pos- sessed with a devil, let him be taught the principles Sect. 3. And energumens in cases of extre- mity. of piety, but not be received to communion till he is cleansed: yet if he be under the pressure of im- minent death, let him be received. Some under— stand this of being received to the communion of the eucharist, but it is plain the author means it of being received to the communion of the church by baptism: for he is there giving rules concerning persons -to be baptized, and describing their neces- sary qualifications; among which this is one, That energumens shall be cleansed before they be ad- mitted to communion, except at the hour of death, where necessity gave them a dispensation. And ‘this was the ancient rule in the time of Cyprian, who says, That they who were possessed with un- clean spirits, were baptized in time of sickness: and many times this benefit followed from it, that though some of those for want of faith were still vexedn with unclean spirits; the true energy of baptism, which was to deliver men from the power of the devil, failing in some by their own default and weakness of faith: yet in others it was found true by experience, that they who were baptized in time of sickness and urgent necessity, were thereby delivered from the unclean spirit, with which they were before possessed, and thenceforward lived a very laudable and reputable life in the church, and made a daily proficiency and increase in heavenly grace by the augmentation of their faith. And, on the contrary, it oftentimes happened, that some of those who were baptized in health, when they after- ward fell into sin, were tormented with the unclean spirit returning upon them: whence it was ap- parent, that the devil was excluded in baptism by the faith of the believer, but if afterward his faith failed, the devil returned to his old possession. From this discourse of Cyprian we learn, not only that energumens in time of extremity were admitted to baptism, but that baptism in such cases was many times a peculiar benefit to them, whilst it delivered them from the possession of unclean spirits, which could not before be cast out by any power of the exorcists, though in those days the power of exorcism was a miraculous gift of the Holy Ghost. mantis impositionem, et infundatur ori ejus eucharistia. Si supervixerit, admoneatur a supradictis testibus petitioni suae satisfactum, et subdatur statutis poenitentiaa legibus, quam- diu sacerdos qui poenitentiam dedit, probaverit. Vid. Leo. Ep. 89. ad Theodor. Forojuliensem. a1. 91. " Conc. Eliber. can. 37. Eos qui ab immundis spiritibus vexantur, si in fine mortis fuerint constituti, baptizari placet. 8 Cone. Arausican. can. 15. Energumenis catechumenis, in quantum vel necessitas exegerit, vel opportunitas per- miserit, de baptismate consulendum. 9 Timoth. Respon. Canon. 0. 2. 'Ea‘w C(ILILOULZOI/LEUOQ w‘) xaS’apwS‘fi, é diiva'rathafie'iv 'rd (liq/Lou flci'n'crw-‘ua. 'rrepi 6s 'riw {£05011 Ba'rr'rigs'rat. '0 Constit. Apost. lib. 8. cap. 32. 'Edu dé ‘TIS daiptoua E'Xei, dtdamcéo's'w juéu "rip: abo-éfietau, 1.4.1‘) 7rpoo'dexéo's'w 5e sis Kat- vwm'au, 'n'piu c’z'uxafi’apwfi'fi. ei 8a fiu'wa'ros Ka'ra'zrei'yot, mono-- daxéo-fiw. 1‘ Cypr. Ep. 76. al. 69. ad Magnum. p. 187. Si aliquis in illo movetur, quod quidam de iis qui aegri baptizantur, spiritibus adhuc immundis tentantur; sciat diaboli nequi- tiam pertinacem usque ad aquam salutarem valere, in bap- tismo vero omne nequitias suae virus amittere. Ibid. p. 188. Hoe denique et rebus ipsis experimur, ut necessitate urgente in aegritudine baptizati et gratiam consecuti, ca- reant immundo spiritu, quo antea movebantur; et lauda- biles ac probabiles in ecclesia vivant, plusque per dies- singulos in augmentum caelestis gratiae per fidei incrementa proficiant. Et contra nonnulli saepe de illis qui sanibapti- zantur, si postmodum peccare cceperint, spiritu immundo re- deunte quatiuntur; ut manifestum sit, diabolum in baptismo fide credentis excludi; si fides postmodum defecerit, regredi. See also Clemen. Recognit. lib. 4. cap-32. to the same purpose, 502 Boox XI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Another observation to be made No ssigif'to be upon the baptism of adult persons is baptized without the . _ ’ :Zipgny of his 1n relation to such as were slaves to Christian masters. For we find by the author'of the Constitutions under the name of the Apostles, that in the examination of the several qualifications of those that offered themselves to baptism, one part of the inquiry was, whether they were slaves or freemen. If they were slaves to a heathen, they were only taught their obliga- tions to please their master, that the word of God might not be blasphemed; and the master had no further concern in their baptism, as being him- self an infidel: but if the master were a Christian, then the testimony of the master was first to be re- quired12 concerning the life and conversation of his slave, before he could be admitted to the privilege of baptism. If he gave a laudable account of him, he was received; if otherwise, he was rejected, till he approved himself to his master. So far in those days it was thought necessary and serviceable to religion to grant Christian masters a power over their slaves, that without their testimony and appro— bation they could not be accepted as fit candidates of baptism: not that this was intended to counte- nance any tyrannical power in Christian masters to debar their slaves of baptism, and deny them the privilege and benefits of the Christian religion, (which is a piece of barbarous cruelty, and spiritual tyranny over men’s souls, unknown to former ages,) but the design was to preserve the purity of religion, and keep back hypocritical and profane pretenders from the holy mysteries ; the over-hasty admission of whom might prove a scandal and disgrace to the profession, if persons of a doubtful life were indis- criminately and indifi'erently admitted to the sacred rites of it. This caution wisely lodged a useful power in the hands of Christian masters, which prudence and charity directed them to use soberly, to edification, and not to destruction. And experi- ence proved it to be a useful rule; for it both made the masters zealous for the salvation of their slaves, as we have seen in the instance of the African negro mentioned in Fulgentius, and also made the slaves sincere in their professions and pretences to religion, when they knew they could not be ac- cepted as real converts, worthy of- baptism, without the corroborating testimony of their masters. There were also laws of state obliging all masters to take care of their families, so far as to see that every individual person, slaves as well as children, were made Christians ; and in default of this, some penalties were annexed, depriving the masters of certain privileges in the commonwealth, if they were found either remiss, or acting by collusion in this part of their duty.18 ' So that all imaginable obligation was laid upon masters, both in point of interest, duty, and charity, to take care of the in- struction of their slaves, and bring them with their own testimonials to Christian baptism. Yet, because baptism was to be a voluntary act in adult persons, some ,, Muntmact’and laws were made against compelling ggugg‘tggti 58;‘; any one by force to receive it. In em it‘ the fourth council of Toledo a canon was made to this purpose concerning the Jews, who had some- times been drawn by force to be baptized against their will, and it was ordered by the synod, that thenceforth no one should be compelled by force to profess 1”‘ the Christian faith. “For God hath mer- cy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.” For such are not to be saved against their will, but of their own free consent, that the form or method of their justification may be perfect. For as man perished by his own free will, obeying the serpent, so every man is saved (when he is call- ed by the grace of God) by his own voluntary act of faith, and conversion of his own mind. There- fore they are not to be compelled by force, but to be persuaded by their own free will to be converted. But as to those who have heretofore been forced to embrace Christianity, as was done in the time of the religious prince Sisebutus, or Sisenandus, foras- much as they have been partakers of the sacraments, and have received the grace of baptism, and the unction of chrism, and the communion of the body and blood of the Lord, therefore they ought to be obliged to hold the faith, which they were com- pelled by force or necessity to receive, lest the name of the Lord should be blasphemed, and the faith which they have received be vilified and exposed to contempt. By this we learn, that baptism was always to be a voluntary act in adult persons, and none were to be compelled against their own wills to receive it: and though the church did not rescind such actions as were done against this rule, yet she Sect. 5. Yet baptism to be ‘2 Constit. Apost. lib. 8. cap. 32. ’Edu "mow-05 doiihos if, Epwq-éo'fiw 6 mipws air-r05, s1’. juap'rvps'i airrq'i' éo‘w at in‘), a’vroBaAAe'crQw, iz'ws (iv aim-(iv dEwv é'rrrdaigp 'rqfi dacrvrci'rp, at 6t pap'rvpai' ai’rrqi, 'n'poo'daxe’o'fiw. '3 See chap. 4. sect. l9. 1‘ Conc. Tolet. 4. can. 56. De Judaeis autem praecepit sancta synodus, nemini deinceps ,ad credendum vim in- ferre. Cui enim vult Deus miseretur, et quem vult indurat. Non enim tales inviti salvandi sunt, sed volentes, ut integra sit forma justitia: sicut enim homo propria arbitrii volun- tate serpenti obediens periit, sic vocante se gratia Dei, propriae mentis conversione homo quisque credendo salvatur. Ergo non vi, sed libera arbitrii voluntate, ut convertantnr suadendi sunt, non potius impellendi. Qui autem jam pri- dem ad Christianitatem venire coacti sunt, sicut factum est temporibus religiosissimi principis Sisebuti, (al. Sisenandi,) quia jam constat eos sacramentis Divinis sociatos, et bap- tismi gratiam suscepisse, et chrismate unctos esse, et corpo- ris Domini et sanguinis extitisse participes, oportet etiam ut fidem, quam vi vel necessitate susceperunt, tenere cogan- tur, ne nomen Domini blasphemetur, et fides, quam susce- perunt, vilis ac contemptibilis habeatur. UHAP. V. 503 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. did not approve them, but thought them worthy of her censure, and unfit to be made a precedent for the future. That which looks most like force in this case allowed by law, was the orders of Justinian mentioned ‘5 before, one of which appoints the hea- thens, and the other the Samaritans, to be baptized, with their wives, and children, and servants, under pain of confiscation. But even these laws did not compel them to be baptized against their wills, but allowed them two years’ time to be catechumens, and admitted none but such as made a voluntary profession of their faith and repentance. For the penalties were only designed to prevent fraud and prevarications, in such as pretended to receive bap- tism themselves, but in the mean time took no care to have their families made Christian; against whom the wisdom of the state then thought no laws se- vere enough could be enacted. So that these laws were tempered with the greatest prudence, between the extremes of rigour and remissness, that men might be made sensible, on the one hand, of their obligations to become Christians, and yet none have reason to complain, on the other hand, that they were forced by violence to embrace a religion against their wills, which they could not approve and assent to. For the penalties, as I said, were only designed to chastise the hypocritical practices and fraudulent remissness of manifest prevaricators. And it were to be wished, that all civil governments and states in all ages would enact such laws, and put them duly in execution, against such sort of Christians, who, instead of encouraging their slaves to be bap- tized, are the only obstacles to hinder and deprive them of the benefit of Christian baptism. ' I have one thing more to note con- cerning adult persons, who might or might not be admitted to baptism: and that is, that all such heathens as made their livelihood out of any scan- dalous trades or professions, which could not be allowed by the rules of Christianity, were rejected from baptism, till they solemnly promised to bid adieu, and actually for- sook such vocations. The author of the Apostoli- cal Constitutions specifies several of this nature. Such as the wopvofioami, panders or procurers; mipval, whores ; eiéwkowowi, makers of images or idols ;"" against whom Tertullian has also a particular dis- Sect. 6. What persons were rejected from bap- tism; with a par- ticular account of some certain trades and vocations,which kept men from it: such were image- makers and stage- players. sertation, where he censures this trade as incon- sistent with the profession of Christianity, telling men, that by this art they made the devils their alumni, their pupils, to whom they were a sort of foster-fathers, whilst they furnished out materials to carry on their service. And with what confidence,17 says he, can any man exorcise his own alumni, those devils, whose service he makes his own house a shop or armoury to maintain? reflecting on this unlawful trade of making images for the idol tem- ples. Next to these in the Constitutions follow oi é-zri amp/fig, actors and stage-players, who could not stick to that profession, and be admitted to Christian baptism, because a great deal both of lewdness and idolatry was actually committed or encouraged by such as made a livelihood of that profession. The canons, therefore, forbade all such to be baptized, and excommunicated those that fell to the trade again after baptism. If a soothsayer or a stage- player, says the council of Eliberis,18 have a mind to become believers, that is, to be baptized, let them be received, on condition they first bid adieu to their arts, and return not to them again. Which if they attempt to do against this prohibition, they shall be cast out of the church. In like manner, the third council of Carthage19 appoints all such to be ex— communicated, and not to be reconciled or received again to favour but upon their conversion. And in the time of Cyprian, not only public actors, but pri- vate teachers and masters of this scandalous art, were debarred the communion of the church: as appears from Cyprian’s answer to Eucratius, who put this question to him, Whether20 a stage-player might communicate, who continued to follow that dishonourable trade, by teaching children that per_ nicious art, which he was master of P To which Cyprian replies, That it was neither agreeable to the majesty of God, nor the discipline of the gospel, that the modesty and honour of the church'should be defiled with so base and infamous a ‘contagion. For if the law prohibited men to wear women’s ap— parel, and laid a curse upon all that did it; how much greater was the crime, not only to wear their clothes, but to express their loose, and wanton, and efi‘eminate gestures, by teaching this immodest art to others! Indeed, this kind of life was scandalous even among the wise and sober part of the very heathens. Tertullian observes, That they who pro- '5 See chap. 4. sect. l9. ‘6 Constit. Apost. lib. 8. cap. 32. 1’ Tertul. de Idololat. c. 11. Qua constantia exorcizabit alumnos suos, quibus domum suam cellariam praestat? ‘8 Conc. Eliber. can. 62. Si augur aut pantomimi credere voluerint, placuit, ut prius artibus suis renuncient, et tune demum suscipiantur, ita ut ulterius non revertantur. Quod si facere contra interdictum tentaverint, projiciantur ab ecclesia. ‘9 Conc. Carthag. 3. can. 35. Ut scenicis atque histrioni- bus, caeterisque hujusmodi personis, vel apostaticis, con- versis vel reversis ad Dominum, gratia vel reconciliatio non negetur. 2° Cypr. Ep. 61. al. 2. ad Eucratium, p. 3. Consulendum me existimasti, quid mihi videatur de histrione quodam, qui apud vos constitutus, in ejusdem adhuc artis suae dedecore perseverat, et magister et doctor non erudiendorum, sed per- dendorum puerorum, id quod male didicit, caetcris quoque insinuat; an talis debeat communicare nobiscum ? Puto nec Maj estati Divinae, nec evangelicaa disciplinae congruere, ut pudor et honor ecclesiae tam turpi et infami contagious foedetur, &c. 504 BOOK XI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. fessed these arts were noted with infamy,21 degraded and denied many privileges, driven from court, from pleading, from the senate, from the order of knight- hood, and all other honours in the Roman city and commonwealth. Which is also confirmed by St. Austin,22 who says, No actor was ever allowed to enjoy the freedom, or any other honourable privi- lege of a citizen of Rome. Therefore, since this was so infamous and scandalous a trade even among the heathens, it is no wonder the church would ad- mit none of this calling to baptism, without obliging them first to bid adieu to so ignominious a profes- sion. To have done otherwise, had been to expose herself to reproach, and to have given occasion to the adversary to blaspheme, if men of such lewd and profiigate practices had been admitted to the privileges of the church, who were excluded from the liberties of the city, and honours of the com- monwealth. The next that are prohibited in the Constitutions, are charioteers, and gladiators,” and racers, and curators of the common games, practisers in the Olympic games, minstrels, harpers, dancers, Vintners, and such like, who are commanded either to quit these callings, or to be rejected from baptism. It may seem a little strange, that some of these callings, which seem indifferent in their own nature, and are now commonly allowed, should then be thought just reasons to debar men from baptism. But it is to be supposed, that these arts in the time of hea- thenism were instrumental in carrying on idolatry, lewdness, and profaneness, and therefore by the an- cients, whose discipline was exact, were thought improper to be allowed in the practice of a Chris- tian. The Circensian games were in honour of the gods, and therefore to be concerned in them as a charioteer, was still to partake in idolatry. Upon which account, the first council of Arles24 orders all such to be excommunicated as continued after bap- tism in this service. And there is a remarkable story told by St. J erom25 in the Life of Hilarion, concerning one of these charioteers, a heathen of the city of Gaza, who, being struck by the devil Sect. 7. And gladiators, charioteers, and other gamesters. with a dead palsy, as he was driving his chariot, so' that he could not move his hand, nor neck, but only 44 21Tertul. de Spectac. cap. 22. Damnant ignominia et capitis minutione, arcentes curia, rostris, senatu, equite, caeterisque honoribus omnibus simul ac ornamentis. 22 Aug. de Civ. Dei, lib. 2. c. 14. Actores poeticarum fabularum removent a societate civitatis—ab honoribus omnibus repellunt homines scenicos. 23 Constit. Apost. lib. 8. c. 32. ‘Hm’oxos, i‘; ,uouopéxog, i1 s-adtodpépoe, h Aovdep'mo'q'fis, h ’07\vp.7rucds, ‘Ii XopmiAne, ii Kt3'ap1s'1‘19, 5‘1 Avpw'rhs, f1 5 'r1‘1v iipxno'w é'mdemvépsuos, ‘5 "dW'HAOQ, ii 'n'avo'do'dwo'av, f1 a'qrofiaMe'o'ewcrau. 2‘ Conc. Arelat. 1. can. 4. De agitatoribus, qui fideles sunt, placuit eos, quamdiu agitant, a communione separari. ‘15 Hieron. Vit. Hilarion. cap. 13. Auriga Gazensis, in his tongue to prayer; in this condition he was brought in a bed to Hilarion, who told him that he . could not be healed, unless he believed in Jesus, and promised to bid adieu to his former trade. The man immediately upon this believed, renounced, and was healed, rejoicing more for the salvation of his soul than his body. This calling ministered to idolatry, and upon that score a renunciation of it was so precisely exacted of men at their baptism. The gladiator’s art was infamous for its barbarity and cruelty, involving men in murder and blood- shed, and therefore utterly inconsistent with the rules of Christianity. The racers, and curators of the public games, and Olympic combatants, were all concerned in idolatrous practices; for these games also were held in the name and to the honour of some idol god; which calling was therefore to be renounced, as an appendage to idolatry, before men came to baptism. For the other trades, of min- strels, harpers, dancers, &c., besides their minister- ing to 1evity, vanity, and luxury, they were also employed in idol worship and other profaneness, which seems to have been the principal reason of making such a strict prohibition of them in the subsequent life of every Christian. The next sort of persons mentioned in the Constitutions, as unworthy of mgjggggggeoggg‘, baptism, are lascivious persons, with w’msms' all practisers of curious arts,26 as magicians, en- chanters, astrologers, diviners, magical charmers, idle and wandering beggars, makers of amulets and phylacteries, and such as dealt in heathenish lus- trations, soothsayers, and observers of signs and omens, interpreters of palpitations, observers of ac- cidents in meeting others, making divination there- upon, as upon a blemish in the eye, or in the feet, observers of the motion of birds or weasels, observ- ers of voices and symbolical sounds. All these are appointed to be examined and tried a considerable time, whether they would relinquish their arts or not. If they did, they might be received; if not, they were to be rejected from baptism. The names of these curious arts, which I have expressed in the margin, are some of them difficult to be understood. The Aa'n'ayeg are explained by Chrysostom27 to be idle wandering beggars, given to spend what they Sect. 8. curru percussus a daemone, totus obriguit, ita ut nec manus agitare, nec cervicem posset refiectere. Delatus ergo in lecto, cum solam linguam moveret ad preces, audivit non prius posse sanari, quam crederet in J esum, et se sponderet arti pristinae renunciaturum. Credidit, spopondit, sanatus est, magisque de animae quam de corporis salute exultavit. 2“ Constit. Apost. lib. 8. cap. 32. Mo'z'yos, éqraotdds, do’- 'rpo>\6'yos, ,udu'ns, S'npe-rrtpdds, Adm-0:2, 0’xkayw'yds, wept- (ippta'ra wou'bv, 'n'epucasaipwu, oiwvw'rhs, o'uufiohodeilc'rns, wakut'bv sppavsi‘rs, cpukaer'rciuwos eu o'uuau'rrio'et Aéifias dilutes, ii 01-06(31), f1 o’puZS'wv, f1 'yakdiv, h é'rrl.¢wmiaewu, $1 'n'apaxpoapaicrwu o-upfioktm'bu, Xpo'mp dompagéo's'waav, &c. 2’ Chrysost. Hom. 13. in Ephes. CHAP. V. 505 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. got in gaming and luxury. But others make them a sort of diviners, or fortune-tellers, like our gipsies, which is most agreeable to this place. para were the same with the phylacterz'a, which were amulets made of ribands, with a text of Scrip- ture, or some other charm of words, written in them, and hanged about the neck to cure diseases, and preserve men from danger, whence they had the name of phylacteries or preservatives. Now, this was a piece of heathenish superstition and idolatry, which stuck closest to new converts, and was most difficult to be cured. Therefore we find the ancient canons and fathers very severe in their censures and invectives against it. The council of Laodicea con- demns clergymen that pretended to make such phy- lacteries, which were truly the bonds and fetters of their own souls, and orders all such as wore them to be cast out of the church.28 The council of Trullo29 decrees six years’ penance for such of- fenders. St. Chrysostom?’0 declaims against it as gross idolatry, whatever little pleas were brought in favour of it. The use of amulets to hang about the neck, says he, is idolatry, though they that gain by it offer a thousand philosophical arguments to defend it, saying, We only pray to God, and do no- thing more; and, The old woman that made them was a Christian and a believer; with other such like excuses : notwithstanding all which, he threat- ens to excommunicate all such as were found to practise it. So that, as this was a crime deserving excommunication in all that were already baptized, it was thought also a just reason to prohibit any from coming to baptism, who would not first pro- mise to renounce it. See, 9_ Another sort of persons whom the pgfguggfgggfiggg author of the Constitutions excludes theme‘ from the privilege of baptism, are frequenters of the public games and theatre. If any man’s mind81 be addicted to the madness of the theatre, or huntings, or horse-racings, or other gymnastical sports and‘ exercises, let him either leave them off or be rejected from baptism. The learned Hieronymus Mercurialis“2 has an observa- tion, that will explain the reason of this prohi- bition. For in his curious discourse, De Arte Gym- nastica, he observes, these several sorts of heathen games and plays were instituted upon a religious account, in honour of the gods, and men thought The wepidp- they were doing a grateful thing to them, whilst they were engaged in such exercises. Therefore a Christian could not be present at them as a spec- tator, without partaking, in some measure, in the idolatry of them. Besides, there was a great deal of barbarity and cruelty, as well as lewdness and pro- faneness, committed in many of them, which it did not become a Christian eye to behold with plea- sure and approbation. The theatre was looked upon as the devil’s propriety, and so he himself termed it, as we learn from that famous story in Tertullian,33 where speaking of a Christian woman, who went to the theatre, and returned possessed with a devil, he says, The unclean spirit being asked by the exorcist, how he durst presume to make such an attempt upon a believer, replied confidently, that he had a right to her, because he found her upon his own ground. For these reasons the an- cient canons and fathers are so fi'equently severe in their invectives against all theatrical exercises, not only in the actors, but also in the spectators, ‘declaring them to be incompatible with the piety and purity of a Christian life. And upon this ac- count men were obliged to renounce them before they could be admitted to baptism. But of this something more when we come to the form of re- nunciation. The several sorts of persons hither- to mentioned were excluded from baptism without exception : but there are two other kinds or states of life, that must be considered with some distinction, that is, the military life, and the state of concubinage, as it is called sometimes in the civil law and ancient canons. Some learned persons“ are of opinion, that the ancients had so much a dislike to the mili- tary life, as to excommunicate such as bore arms after baptism: which they affirm upon the authority of the Nicene fathers, to whom they irnpute it as an error, that they condemned absolutely the military life as unlawful, which St. John Baptist had ap- proved. But this charge is grounded merely upon a mistake and misunderstanding of the meaning of those fathers, who had no intent to condemn the military life in general, but only as it might happen to be unlawful in some particular circumstances and cases. The words of the canon referred to are these: “If any, who at first by the grace of God Feet. 10. In what cases the military life might unqualify men for baptism. 23 Cone. Laodic. can. 36. 0:’: 5s? ispa‘rucés f1 Khnp mas 'n'oieiu 'rd'. ks'ydueua ¢u7\ar:'r1ipta, d'rwc'z éc'rt accused-rip“: 'rilw \Iiuxibu aim-div‘ 'rol'ls as ¢op2was fii'lr'rso'eat e'K 'rfis ix- Kkno'ias e'rcsksdo'aysu. 29 Conc. Trull. can. 61. 3° Chrys. Horn. 8. in C0105. p. 1374. Td wepiavr'ra, Kain ufipta cpthoo'ozpd'w'w oi ix 'ré-rwu Xpmua'nzo'psuot, &c. eidw- Aoka'rpsia 'ro qrpéi'ypa Eovrw. Vid. Chrys. in Psalm. ix. et Horn. 6. adversus J udaeos. It. Basil. in Psal. xlvi. Chrys. Horn. 21. ad Pop. Antioch. 3* Coustit. Apost. lib. 8. cap. 32. Oea-rpouaviq ei'ris 'rrpdmcsurai, ii Kvun'yiots, h l7f7r08p0/LL'0L9, ii e’r'yc'bo'w' i1 crav- o'do's'w, ii d'zroflahhs'c's'w. *2 Mercurial. de Arte Gymnast. lib. 1. cap. 3. p. 12. Lu- . dorum finis erat religio quaedam, qua antiqui opinabantur sese diis rem gratam illis ludis tanquam promissam facturos. *3 Tertul. de Spectac. cap. 26. Theatrum adiit, et inde cum daamonio rediit. Itaque in exorcismo cum oneraretur immundus spiritus, quod ausus esset fidelem aggredi; con- stanter, et justissime, inquit, feel, in meo enirn inveni. 3‘ Scult. Discus. Quaast. de Concilio Nicaeno, in Medulla Patr. par. 1. p. 477. 506 B001: XI. I ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. made confession of the faith,35 and cast away the military girdle, afterward return to their vomit again, so as to give money and buy a place in the army, let them be ten years among the prostrators, after they have been three years among the hearers.” The generality of interpreters take this to refer pe- culiarly to the times of Licinius the persecutor, who by an edict had ordered all such Christian soldiers to be cashiered, as would not sacrifice to the gods ; upon which many Christians in the army threw away their girdles, and quitted the military life. But afterward some of them returned again to it upon the conditions proposed, doing sacrifice and committing idolatry, and giving money to regain their places; against whose prevarication and re- volt the discipline of this canon was intended. So Balsamon and Zonaras among the old expositors ; and so Grotius36 and Ziegler,$7 Sylvius and Corio- lanus, Binnius, and Bishop Beverege, with many other modern writers. Albaspinaaus thinks it pe- culiarly respected such penitents only, as vowed to renounce all secular business and employments, and to live in a state of perpetual penance, but af- terward$8 returned to a secular life, and took upon them civil ofi‘ices again, which in the imperial law and canons of the church are sometimes called by the name of militia palatina. And Sahnasius ad- vances89 an opinion not much different from this. However, it is agreed on all hands, that the council of Nice made no general prohibition of the military life, but only in some such special cases. There is therefore no reason to conclude from hence, that they esteemed the vocation of a soldier simply un- lawful. Especially considering that Constantine himself allowed the soldiers, who were cashiered by Licinius, to return to their ancient employment again, as is rightly observed by Ziegler out of The- odoret and Eusebius.4o Nay, the first council of Arles excommunicated all such as threw away their arms in time of peace,“1 on pretence that they were Christians. All which abundantly proves, that the ancient canons did not condemn the military life as a vocation simply unlawful or antichristian, nor consequently such as men were obliged to renounce at their baptism; but all that was required of them, was only what St. John Baptist had exacted before, when they came to his baptism, as appears from the rule in the Constitutions,42 providing in this case, That a soldier, when he desired baptism, should be taught to do violence to no man, to accuse no one falsely, and to be content with his wages: if he con- sented to these things, he was to be received; if otherwise, to be rejected. This was the standing rule of the church, and I believe there is no instance of any man being refused baptism merely because he was a soldier, unless some unlawful circumstance, as that of idolatry, or the like, made the vocation sinful. The other case, which has been matter of doubt, is concerning the Whgfligrnpersons _ , _ nught be baptized, state of concubmage, which in the ygpeoflcimugngg common acceptation is a matter of such ill fame, that it seems a wonder to many to hear of any allowance made to it in the civil law and ancient canons. But they made a distinction anciently in this matter, as the Jews and patriarchs of old did, among whom there was one sort of con- cubines which was permitted, as differing nothing from a wife, save only that she was not married with all the solemnities and usual forms that the other was. And this sort of concubines the ancient ca- nons received both to baptism and the communion. The rule in the Constitutions *3 about this matter is given thus : A concubine that is a slave to an infidel, if she keep herself only to him, may. be received to baptism; but if she commit fornication with others, she shall be rejected. A like decree was made in the council of Toledo 4* concerning the admission of persons to the communion: If any Christian who has a wife, have also a concubine, let him not com- municate. But if he have no wife, but only a con— cubine instead of a wife, he may not be repelled from the communion, provided he be content to be joined to one woman only, whether wife or concu- bine, as he pleases. Now the difference betwixt such a concubine and a wife, as learned men have observed,45 was, not that the one was truly married, and the other not; but in the different way of their being married. For she that was called a wife was married publicly, and with great solemnity, and in- struments of dowry, and other ceremonies which the civil and canon law required; but she who was 35 Cone. Nic. can. 12. Oi. vrpoo'lchnfis'u'res ,uéu drrd "rijs xdpu'ros, Kai. '1'1‘111 "n'pdi'rnv op/un'n/ éudugdusvot, Kai dross’- pieuol. 'rc‘zs {tin/as, pea-0‘: 5a 'raii'ra é'n'i. 'rd oirce'iou EMUTOU dua- dpapdu'res, &c. 3“ Grot. de J ure Belli, lib. 2. c. 2. p. 36. 3" Ziegler. Animadvers. in Grotium, lib. l. c. 2. p. 105. 38 Albaspin. Not. in Can. 12. Cone. Nic. 89 Salmas. de Foenore Trapezitico, p. 782. cited by Ziegler. 4° Euseb. de Vit. Constant. lib. 2. c. 33. 4‘ Conc. Arelat. 1. can. 3. De his qui arma projiciunt in pace, placuit abstinere eos a communione. ‘2 Constit. Apost. lib. 8. c. 32. E'rpaq-rdirns rporrubu 81- drzo-rcéo-S'w ju‘j dduce'iu, luv‘; o-wcorpau'rs'iu, a’pKeIo'S'aL 5% dziiopé- uots (id/willow‘ ‘II'éLOéfLfil/OS 'n'poo'dexa'a-S'w, ain'tké'ywv (inro- BaAAe'o'S’w. “3 Constit. Apost. lib. 8. c. 32. I'IaAAami 'rwos a’vris-a dékn, ércaimp puiuqu o'xokdgeo-a, 7rpoo'deXéo'S'tu' at 8% real qrpds EiAAas &o'eA'yaiusL, a’vroflaAAécrB'w. “_ Conc. Tolet. 1. can. 17. Si quis habens uxorem fidelis, concubinam habeat, non communicet. Caeterum is qui non habet uxorem, et pro uxore concubinam babeat, a commu- nione non repellatur, tantum ut unius mulieris, aut uxoris, aut concubines, ut ei placuerit, sit conjunctione contentus. “5 Vide Anton. Augustinum de Emendatione Gratiani, lib. l. Dial. 15. 170. Pet. Martyr. Loc. Com. lib. 2. cap. 20. n. 3. p. 2733. CHAP. V. 507 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. called a concubine, was one married in a private way, without the solemnity which the law required: but they both agreed in these three things : 1. That they were unmarried persons before. 2. That they obliged themselves to their husbands to live in con- jugal chastity, and in procreation of children, and be joined to no other. 3. And that they would continue faithful in this state all their lives. Now, - this sort of concubines, being in the nature of wives married without the formalities required in the civil law, were not reputed guilty of fornication, though they wanted the privileges, rights, and honours that the law allowed to those who were called legal wives : and therefore they were admitted to baptism without any further obligation, in case the husband was a heathen. But if the husband was a Chris- tian, the rule in the Constitutions made a little dif- ference. For if he had a concubine, he was obliged to dismiss her, and marry a lawful wife,‘6 if his concubine was a slave ; and if she was a free woman, he must make her a lawful wife; otherwise he was to be cast out of the church. And so in the de- crees of Pope Leo,“7 Christians who had only con- cubines, Were obliged to dismiss them, if they were slaves, unless they would free them, and lawfully endow them, and give them a public marriage as the laws required. And in this these decrees seem to differ from that of the council of Toledo, which al- lows a concubine to cohabit in private wedlock without any ecclesiastical censure. St. Austin‘8 reckons this case one of those dubious and difficult points which cannot easily be determined. But he inclines to think a concubine of this kind might be admitted to baptism, because her case differs much from that of a professed adulteress, who could never be admitted to baptism, whilst she lived in the prac- tice of so flagrant a crime; but the other case, he thinks, is a matter which the Scripture has no where so positively condemned, but rather left in doubt, as many other such points and questions, which the church in her prudence must decide by the best skill she has to determine such difficult questions. I have represented the sense of the an- cients upon this point as clearly as I could, because it has occasioned some ill-grounded censures of the ancients, and of Gratian’s canon-law, (which is only copied from them,) in some modern authors; as if they had allowed such concubines as we commonly call harlots, to be baptized without giving signs of repentance; whereas, we see, this matter was not so crudely delivered by them, but considered and determined with several necessary cautions and distinctions. And I have been the more particular in making inquiries concerning these several kinds of adult persons, who might, or might not, be ad- mitted to baptism, because these are questions which the reader will not easily find so distinctly examined in modern writers, who have professedly treated of the subject of baptism. I only note one thing more, con- Sect 1.,’ cerning a pretended rule of purity ofliflgecgiiitgiofgigg among the Marcionites, which was, iieieiiitgg'iguiiioaiii that they would admit no married baptism‘ persons to their baptism; but they must be either virgins, or widows, or bachelors, or divorced per- sons: which, as Tertullian observes, came doubtless from their abhorrence and condemnation49 of the married life; which error was common to them with many other ancient heretics: though I do not find this peculiarity, of denying baptism to such persons, ascribed to any others. However it was, we are sure there was no such rule ever made to discourage marriage in the catholic church. Her rule was always that of St. Paul, “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled ; but whore- mongers and adulterers God will judge.” The church took upon her to judge adulterers, and by the power of the keys to exclude them from bap- tism; but beyond this she pretended to no power or commission from God, to be exercised over any others, whom God had left at liberty to be married or unmarried, as they saw occasion. ' CHAPTER VI. OF THE TIME AND PLACE or BAPTISM. NEXT to the persons who were the S t ' C c - QC . . subjects of baptlsm, 1t Wlll be proper Whyaduitpwws . . _ sometimes delayc to consider the circumstances of time 3115251331 order of and place in the administration of it. As, to infants, I have already showed, that no time was limited for their baptism; but they were to be regenerated as soon as they could with convenience after the time of their natural birth; being confined to no day, as circumcision was, by any rule of Scrip- ture: though the church in some places deferred 45 Constit. Apost. lib. 8. c. 32. IIL-ro‘s Edi) Exp 7rahham‘1u, at Frau déhnv, 1ravcra'a-3'w, Kai. mine? 'yansi'rw, at 6% s'kevfi'é- pow, éx'yapei'rw ai’rrfiu volley. ea’. 6%. ,m‘), ai'n'oflahhéo-S'w. 4’ Leo, Ep. 92. ad Rusticum, c. 4. Clericus, si filiam viro habenti concubinam in matrimonium dederit, non ita accipiendum est, quasi conjugate ei dederit, nisi forte illa mulier et ingenua facta, et dotata legitime, et publicis nup- tiis honestata videatur.——Ibid. c. 5. Ancillam a toro ab- jicere, et uxorem certae ingenuitatis accipere, non duplica- tio conjugii, sed profectus est honestatis. ‘8 Aug. de Fide et Operibus, cap. 19. t. 4. p. 33. De con- cubina quoque, si professa fuerit nullum se alium cognituram, etiamsi ab illo cui subdita est, dimittatur: merito dubit atur, utrum ad percipiendum baptismum non debeat admitti. “9 Tertul. cont. Marcion. lib. 1. cap. 29. Non tinguitur apud illum caro nisi virgo, nisi vidua, nisi ccelebs, nisi divortio baptisma mercata.——Sine dubio ex damnatione conjugii in- stitutio ista const abit. 508 CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Boox XI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE them, when there was no danger of death, to the solemnity of some greater festival. But for adult persons, the case was something otherwise; for their baptism was generally deferred for two or three years, or a longer or shorter time, by order of the church, till they could be sufficiently instruct- ed, and disciplined to the practice of a Christian life; of which I have given a full account in the last book. Others had their baptism put off a longer time by way of punishment, when they fell into gross and scandalous crimes, which were to be ex- piated by a longer course of discipline and repent- ance. This was sometimes five, or ten, or twenty years, or more, even all their lives to the hour of death, when their crimes were very flagrant and pro- voking. If a catechumen turned informer against his brethren in time of persecution, and any one was proscribed or slain by his means, then, by a canon1 of the council of Eliberis, his baptism was to be deferred for five years. And so in case a woman-catechumen divorced herself from her hus- band, her punishment was five years’2 prorogation. But if she committed adultery, and after conception used any arts to destroy her infant in the womb, then she was to remain unbaptized all her life, and only be admitted8 to baptism at the hour of death. From whence it is plain, that the baptism of adult persons was sometimes deferred a considerable time by order of the church; but then this was always either by way of preparation or punishment, whilst catechumens were first learning the principles of religion, or were kept in a state of penance to make satisfaction to the church for some scandalous transgression. Sect. 2. Private reasons for But others deferred their baptism defem'ng baptism’ of their own accord, 'against the rules :ggigfifl g1; nilfss sf of the church ; of Wl'llCh practice there giggle’ “Imaggglf' are frequent complaints in the writings of the ancients, and severe invectives against it, answering the common pleas which men usually urged in their own behalf. Some did it out of a supine laziness and careless negligence of their salvation, which was a very common reason,‘ but such a one as men were ashamed to own, because its own reproach was a sufficient answer to it. Others deferred it ‘out of a hea- nesstorenouncethe thenish principle still remaining in $31.; ZEiKfQ-‘ffii them, because they were in love with 'ehgm' the world and its pleasures, which they were unwilling to renounce, to take upon Sect. 3. 2. An unwilling- them the yoke of Christ, which they thought would lay greater restraints upon them, and deny them those liberties which they could now more freely indulge themselves in, and securely enjoy. They could spend their life in pleasure, and be baptized at last, and then they should gain as much as those that were baptized before; for the labourers who came into the vineyard at the last hour, had the same reward as those that had borne the burden and heat of the day. Thus Gregory Nazianzen5 brings them in, arguing for delaying their baptism, as men now usually do for delaying repentance. This reason was so very absurd and foolish, that many who were governed by it were ashamed to own it. But yet, as St. Basil‘ observes, though they did not speak a word, their actions sufficiently pro- claimed it. For it was the same as if they had said, Let me alone, I will abuse the flesh to the enjoyment of all that is filthy; I will wallow in the mire of pleasures; I will imbrue my hands in blood; I will take away other men’s goods, live by deceit, for- swear and lie; and then I will be baptized when I shall leave off sinning. Such men had the idol of infidelity still in their hearts, as the author7 of the Recognitions, under the name of Clemens Romanus, charges them; and that was the true reason why they put off their baptism; for had they believed baptism to be necessary to all, whether just or un- just, they would have made haste to receive it, be- cause the end of every man’s life is utterly uncertain. Another sort of men put off their 8 4 ‘ baptism to the end of their lives upon afitiiagagft'ifggiw a sort of Novatian principle, because they pretended to be afraid of falling into sin after baptism; and there was no second baptism allowed to regenerate men again to the kingdom of heaven; whereas, if they were baptized at the hour of death, heaven would be immediately open to them, and they might go pure and undefiled into it. In the mean time, if they died before baptism, they hoped God would accept the will for the deed, and the desire of baptism for baptism itself. Now, as this pretence was founded on abundance of errors, so the ancients are copious in refuting them. St. Basil8 argues against their practice from the un- certainty of life. For who, says he, has fixed for thee the term of life? Who is it that can promise thee the enjoyment of old age? Who can undertake to be a sufiicient sponsor for futurity? Do you not see both young and old suddenly snatched away? 1 Cone. Eliber. can. 73. Si quis catechumenus delator fue- rit, et per delationem ejus aliquis fuerit proscriptus vel inter- fectus, post quinquennii tempora admittatur ad baptismum. 2 Ibid. can. 11. 3 Ibid. can. 68. Catechumena si per adulterium concepe- rit, et conceptum necaverit, placuit earn in fine baptizari. ‘ Naz. Orat. 40. de Bapt. p. 654. Constit. Apost. lib. 6. cap. 15. 5 N az. Orat. 40. de Bapt. p. 650 et 652. 6 Basil. Exhort. ad Bapt. Hom. 13. t. 1. p. 414. " Clem. Recognit. lib. 6. n. 9. ap. Cotelerium, t. l. Qui moratur accedere ad aquas, constat in eo infidelitatis adhuc idolum permanere; et ah ipso prohiberi ad aquas, quae sa- lutem conferunt, proper-are. Sive enim justus, baptismus tibi per omnia necessarius est, &c. 8 Basil. Exhort. ad Bapt. t. 1. p. 415. CHAP. VI. 509 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. And why do you stay to make baptism only the gift of a fever? Gregory Nazianzen9 calls it a riddle, for an unbaptized man to think he is baptized in the sight of God, whilst he depends upon his mercy in the neglect of baptism; or to imagine himself in the kingdom of heaven, without doing the things that belong to the kingdom of heaven. This is but a vain hope, says Gregory Nyssen,lo bewitching the soul with false appearances and pretensions. And as they thus exposed the groundless hopes of these men, so they as zealously demonstrated to them the vanity of their pretended fears. For though there was no second baptism for them that fell into sin after the first, yet it was not impossible for men to avoid falling into damnable sins after their first purgation; or if they did so fall, yet if they were not sins unto death, they might obtain a second‘ cleansing by pardon upon repentance. So that it was plain madness and folly to neglect baptism upon such uncertain fears, because that was to run a much more dangerous risk, whilst they sought to avoid a lesser inconvenience, which was attended with much more safety, and had no such appre- hended danger in it. Some again there were, who de- fafl-Ciserslpgsgifigelice ferred their baptism upon a principle Lssttlgstgpgafiigi- of mere fancy and superstition, in re- ference to the time, or place, or minis- ters of baptism. Gregory Nazianzenll brings in some, making this excuse: I stay till Epiphany, the time when Christ was baptized, that I may be baptized with Christ; I rather choose Easter, that I may rise with Christ; I wait for Whitsuntide, Sect. 5 that I may honour the descent of the Holy Ghost. And what then? In the mean time comes death suddenly, in a day thou didst not expect, and in an hour thou art not aware of. Others had a super- stitious fancy to be baptized in some certain place, as at Jerusalem, or in the river Jordan, and there- fore they deferred their baptism till they could have a convenience to come to the place intended. This seems tacitly to be reflected on by Tertullian," when he says, There is no difference between those whom John baptized in Jordan, and those Whom Peter baptized in the Tiber: and by St. Ambrose, in his discourse to the catechumens,m where exhorting them to come with all possible speed to be baptized, he invites them to- draw the blessing of consecra- tion from the font of Jordan, and to drown their sins in that stream where Christ’s sacred person was baptized : but then, that they might not mistake his meaning, he adds, that in order to their being baptized in the font of Jordan, it was not necessary they should go to the Eastern country, or to the river in the land of Judea; for wherever Christ was, there was Jordan; and the same consecration which blessed the rivers of the East, sanctified also the rivers of the West. Eusebius tells us,H that Constantine had a design for many years to have been baptized in the river Jordan, after the example of Christ; and that perhaps might be the reason why he so long deferred his baptism : but God, who knew best what was fit for him, disappointed him in this design, and he was at last baptized at Nico- media a little before his death. For as to that story, which is so pompously set forth by Baronius,‘? concerning his being baptized by Pope Sylvester at Rome, and cured of his leprosy; it is a mere fable, refuted by the testimony of all the ancients, Euse- bius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, Athanasius, St. Ambrose, St. J erom, and the council of Arimi- num, who all speak of his baptism immediately be- fore his death: and the best critics since Baronius, Valesius,16 and Schelstrate,l7 Lambecius,m Papebro- chius,l9 and Pagi,” agree in their verdict with the ancients against the modern fiction. So that now it is agreed on all hands, that Constantine was one of those who deferred his baptism to the time of his death: and the most probable account that can be given of this, is the fancy which he had entertained of being baptized in Jordan, which the providence of God never suffered him to put in execution. Another sort of fanciful men would not be baptized, till they could have one to minister baptism to them, who had some extraordinary qualifications. Gregory Nazianzen takes notice of some such as these, and rebukes them after this manner: Say not thou,” A bishop shall baptize me, and that a metro- politan, and also one of Jerusalem: for grace is not the gift of the place, but of the Spirit. Say not, I will be baptized by one that is of noble birth, and that it will be a reproach to thy noble descent to 9 Naz. Orat. 40. de Bapt. p. 647. 1° Nyssen de Bapt. t. 2. p. 216. " N az. Orat. 40. de Bapt. p. 654. 12 Tertul. de Bapt. cap. 4. N ec quicquam refert inter eos quos J oannes in J ordane, et quos Petrus in Tiberi tinxit. '9 Ambros. Ser. 41. t. 3. p. 268. Debemus, fratres dilec- tissimi, vobis catechumenis loquor, gratiam baptismatis ejus omni festinatione suscipere, et de fonte J ordanis quem ille benedixit, benedictionem consecrationis ham-ire; ut in eum gurgitem in quem se illius sanctitas mersit, nostra peccata mergantur.——Sed ut eodem fonte mergamur, non nobis Ori- entalis petenda est regio, non fluvius term J udaicae. Ubi enim nunc- Christus, ibi quoque J ordanes est. Eadem con- secratio, quae Orientis flumma benedixit, Occidentis fiuenta sanctificat. ‘4 Euseb. de Vita Constant. lib. 4. c. 62. '5 Baron. an. 324. n. 17. '6 Vales. Not. in Socrat. lib. 1. c. 39. 1" Schelstrat. Concil. Antiocben. Dissert. 2. c. l. p. 43. ‘8 Lambec. Commentar. de Bibliotheca Vindobonensi, t. 5. ap. Pagi. '9 Papebroch. Acta Sanctor. Maii. t. 5. Vit. Constant. Maii 21. p. 15. 2° Pagi, Critic. in Baron. an. 324. n. 4. 2' Naz. Orat. ~10. de Bapt. p. 656. 510 Boox XI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. be baptized by any other. Say not, If I am baptized by a presbyter, it shall be one‘ that is unmarried, and one that is of the continent and angelic order, as if thy baptism were defiled by any other. Make not thyself judge of the fitness or qualification of the preacher or baptizer, for there is another that judgeth of these things. Every one is qualified to thee, for thy purgation, provided only he be one of those that are allowed, and not condemned, nor a foreigner, nor an enemy of the church. Judge not thy judges, thou that hast need of healing. Tell me not of the dignity of thy purgators; make no difference among thy spiritual fathers ; one may be better or more humble than another, but each of them is in a higher rank than thee. By all this it appears, that a superstitious distinction of times and places and persons had an influence upon some, and was pleaded as a reason for deferring baptism. Sect 6. Others pleaded for deferring their ,ofi;,wA,g;e'§§;§,p§g baptism till they were thirty years debris" old, from the example of Christ, be- cause'he was of that age when he was baptized. Which pretence is copiously refuted by Gregory N azianzen,22 showing in answer to it, that Christ, as God, was purity itself, and had no need of pur- gation, but what he did in that kind, was only for the sake of men; that there was no danger could befall him by delaying or protracting his baptism; that there were particular reasons for his doing so, which did not belong to other men; and that he did many things which we are not concerned to fol- low his example in, for all his actions were not de- signed to be copies and examples for our imitation. He that would see more of these pleas, may con- sult the discourses of St. Basil, Nazianzen, and Nyssen upon this subject; or Mr. Walker’s trea- tise of Infant Baptism, in the preface to which, he enumerates no less than nineteen such cases as these, which were the pretended occasions of men’s deferring their baptism. Those I have already mentioned, are sufficient to our present purpose, to show, that when men made great delays in this matter, they commonly did it against the rules and orders of the church; and that the ancients with great severity and sharpness always declaimed and inveighed against it, as a dangerous and unchristian practice. Therefore, though there may be some par- ticular instances of persons, who thus carelessly and wilfully, through ignorance or false conceits, neglected their own baptism, and perhaps the bap- tism of their children too; yet these men’s actions are of no account to show us what were the stand- ing measures and methods of proceeding in the church, since they are manifest transgressions of her rule, and deviations from her ordinary practice. The church had but two reasons at any time for deferring the baptism of adult persons year after year; the one was, to give sufiicient time to the catechumens to prepare them for baptism; and the other, to reform their miscarriages, when they hap- pened to turn lapsers or apostates before their bap- tism. Both these were grounded upon one and the same principle; which was, that men were obliged to give sufiicient security and satisfaction to the church, that they intended to live by the rules of the gospel, before they were admitted to the mysteries of it : and the best security that could be given, was from the experiment and trial before- hand, and therefore this discipline was used to make them give testimony of their intentions by a ’reasonable prorogation of their baptism. Sect. 7. The solemn times Upon this account, the church ap- pointed certain stated seasons and appcinted ,0, hm solemn times of baptism in ordinary $12K‘, Masai: cases ; allowing her ministers still the mt’ and Epiphm' liberty to anticipate these times, if either cate- chumens were very great proficients, or in danger of death by any sudden accident or distemper. The most celebrated time among these, was Easter; and next to that, Pentecost or Whitsuntide ; and Epiph- any, or the day on which Christ was supposed to be baptized. These three are plainly referred to by Gregory Nazianzen,23 where he brings in some giving this reason why they deferred their baptism: One said, he stayed till the Epiphany (for the an- cients mean that by ¢Girci and Zu-mz'na, not Candle- mas, as some mistake it, but Epiphany, the day on _ which Christ was baptized, and manifested to the world) ; another said, he had a greater respect for Easter; and a third, that he waited till the time of Pentecost. Which plainly implies, that these three festivals were then the most noted and solemn times of baptism. But Easter and Pentecost were the chief; for they are sometimes mentioned with- out the other, and sometimes with an express pro- hibition of it. St. J erom speaks of the two former, as usual, but says nothing of the latter. He tells us, some referred that prophecy in Zechariah to baptism,“ “ Living waters shall go out from J e- rusalem; in summer and in winter shall it be.” The Septuagint reads it, “in summer and in the spring.” And this they applied to the two solemn times of baptism, Pentecost and Easter, one of which was in summer and the other in the spring, when the living waters of baptism were distributed to all that thirst- ed after them. He mentions the same in his epis- tle to Pammachius,25 against the errors of John of Jerusalem, where he speaks of forty that were bap- 22 Naz. Orat. 40. de Bapt. p. 658. 23 Ibid. p. 654. Mévw "rd daib'ra‘ "rd IIéo'Xa p.01. 'rrnub'rs- pov, "rip: Heuq'mcos'i‘lu élcda'fojraz, &c. 2‘ Hieron. Com. in Zachar. xiv. 8. Aquas viventes multi ad baptismum referunt, quae in vere et in aestate, hoc est, in Pascha et Pentecoste, sitientibus largiendae sunt. 25 Id. Ep. 61. ad Pammach. cap. 16. Circa dies Pente- costes, quadraginta diversae aetatis et sexfis presbyteris tuis CHAP. VI. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 511 ANTIQUITIES OF THE tized at Bethlehem upon Pentecost, and others that offered themselves at Easter, but were rejected by that humoursome bishop, when they were ready for baptism. These two, and no other, are likewise spoken of by Tertullian.28 He says, Easter was appointed as the time of Christ’s sufferings, into which we are baptized. And after that, Pentecost is a very large space of time set aside for that pur- pose. In which time Christ manifested his resur- rection to his disciples, and the grace of the Holy Spirit was first given, and the angels predicted his second advent at his ascension. Where it is very plain, that Tertullian, by the large space of Pentecost, does not mean a particular day, but the whole fifty days between Easter and Whitsuntide, which in his time was one continued festival, as he tells us in other places.” And therefore, though Vicecomes28 reprehends Ludovicus Vives for asserting this, as if he had no authority for it; yet Habertus29 defends him out'of this place of Tertullian, and other learn- ed men30 are of the same opinion. Vicecomes thinks the time of baptizing at Easter was only one day, that is, the great sabbath, or Saturday, when our Saviour lay in the grave. But this is also a mis- take: for though this day was the most famous for baptizing catechumens, and infants also, as we learn from Chrysostom31 and the author of the Constitu- tions,82 yet the whole time of fifty days was set apart for this purpose, and accounted but as one solemn season for baptism. Which, perhaps, is the true reason why some ancient canons allow no other time but that of Easter for baptism; including the whole fifty days from Easter till Pentecost, in the sense of Tertullian. Thus, in the second council of Mascon,33 a decree was made, That whereas many Christians, not regarding the lawful time of bap- tism, were used to bring their children to be baptized upon any holyday or festival of a martyr, so that at Easter there were not above two or three to be baptized; they therefore enacted, that from thence- forward no one should be permitted so to do, except- ing those whose children were in extremity of sick- ness and danger of death. A like decree was made in the council of Auxerref“t confining all children to the time of Easter, except in case of sickness, when they were allowed to have clinic baptism. And so Socrates says“ it was the custom in Thes- saly only to baptize at Easter. All which must either be understood to include the fifty days of Pentecost, or else it must be said these churches had a peculiar custom differing from the rest of the world. For in other rules and canons, express mention is made of Easter and Pentecost, though other festivals are ex- cluded. In the council of Girone, in Spain)’6 all catechumens are ordered to come only at Easter, or Pentecost, because the greater the feast was, the greater ought the solemnity to be. But on all other festivals, none but sick people were to be baptized, who were not to be refused baptism at any time. Siricius, in his epistle to Himerius,87 bishop of Tar- raco, in Spain, intimates indeed, that abundance of people presumed to take greater liberties to be bap- tized on the nativity of Christ, and the Epiphany, and the festivals of the apostles and martyrs; but this was against the rule of the Roman church, and all others, which reserved this privilege peculiarly to Easter, with its Pentecost, or fifty days following, at which time baptism was generally administered to all that were\ qualified, but not at other times, except only to infants, and persons in a languishing condition and in danger of death. In the time of Pope Leo, the custom had prevailed in Sicily, to baptize as many on the festival of Epiphany as at Easter or Pentecost: but he calls38 this an unrea- sonable novelty, and a confusion of the mysteries of each time, to think, that no difference was to be obtulimus baptizandos.—-——It. Praecepisti Bethleem presby- teris tuis, ne competentibus nostris in Pascha baptismum traderent. 2" Tertu1.de Bapt. cap. 19. Diem baptismo solenniorem Pascha praestat, cum et passio Domini, in qua tingimur, adimpleta est. —- Exinde Pentecoste ordinandis lavacris latissimum spatium est, quo et Domini resurrectio inter discipulos frequentata est, et gratis. Spiritus Sancti dedi- cata, &c. 2" Vid. Tertul. de Idol. cap. 14. et de Coron. Mil. cap. 3. 2*‘ Vicecom. de Ritib. Bapt. lib. l. c. 25. 29 Habert. Archieratic. par. 8. Observ. 4. p. 134. 8° Cave, Prim. Christ. par. 1. c. 10. p. 307. 9‘ Chrysost. Ep. 1. ad Innocent. p. 680. “2 Constit. Apost. lib. 5. c. 19. 33 Cone. Matiscon. 2. can. 3. Comperimus Christianos, non observantes legitimum diem baptismi, pene per singulos dies ac natales martyrum filios suos baptizare, ut vix duo vel tres reperiantur in sancto Pascha, qui per aquam et Spiritum Sanctum regenerentur: idcirco censemus, ut ex hoc tempore nullus eorum permittatur talia perpetrare, pree- ter illos, quos infirmitas nimia aut dies extremus compellit filiis suis baptismum suscipere. 8‘ Conc. Antissiodor. can. 19. Non licet absque Paschaa solennitate ullo tempore baptizare, nisi illos quibus mors . vicina est, quos grabatarios dicunt, &c. 35 Socrat. lib. 5. c. 22. 8“ Conc. Gerundens. can. 4. De catechumenis baptizan- dis id statutum est, ut in Paschae solennitate, vel Pente- costes, quanto majoris celebritatis celebritas major est, tanto magis ad baptizandum veniant. Cmteris autem solennitati- bus infirmi tantummodo debeant baptizari, quibus quocun- que tempore convenit baptismum non negari. 3’ Siric. Ep. ad Himer. c. 2. Sola temeritate praesumitur, ut passim ac libere natalitiis Christi, seu apparitionis, nec non et apostolorum seu martyrum festivitatibus, innumerae, (ut adseris) plebes baptismi mysterium consequantur, cum hoe sibi privilegium, et apud nos, et apud omnes ecclesias, dominicum specialiter cum Pentecoste sua Pascha defendat, quibus solis per annum diebus, ad fidem confluentibus gene- ralia baptismatis tradi convenit sacramenta, &c. 38 Leo, Ep. 4. ad Episc. Siculos, cap. I. Miror vos tam irrationabilem novitatem usurpare potuisse, ut confuso tem- poris utriusque mysterio, nullam esse difl'erentiam crederetis inter diem quo adoratus est Christus a Magis, et diem quo resurrexit a mortuis, &c. 7 512 Boox XI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. made between the day on which Christ was adored by the wise men, and that whereon he arose from the dead. Therefore, since these two, Easter and Pen- tecost, were the only lawful$9 times of baptizing the elect catechumens in the church, he gives them an admonition, that they should mingle no other days in the like observance. He gives the same admoni- tion to the bishops of Campania,‘lo Samnium, and Picenum, in another epistle, against baptizing any, except in case of necessity, on the festivals of the martyrs. And after him Gelasius‘l made another decree, directed to the bishops of Lucania, prohibit- ing baptism to be given at anyother time, save Easter and Pentecost, except in case of dangerous sickness, when there might be reasonable fear of the parties dying without the remedy of salvation. So that in the Roman and Western churches this was the general rule, to baptize none of the adult in ordinary cases, save only upon these two great fes- tivals, though the practice in some places was a little dissonant to the injunction of the canons. In the Eastern churches, and in Africa, Epiphany seems also to have been regarded. For, besides what has been already noted out of Nazianzen, Valesius42 has observed out of the ancient ritual, called Typicum Sabin, that on this day they were wont to baptize in the church of Jerusalem. And J oannes Moschus“ mentions the same custom in other parts of the East. And Victor Uticensis‘“ plainly intimates, that it was a solemn time of bap- tizing at Carthage and in the African churches. For though he does not name it Epiphany, yet we may easily collect it was either that day or Christ’s nativity; for he says, it was but a little before the kalends of February, that fatal day on which the African bishops were banished, and the church de- stroyed by the fury of the Arians, in the time of the Vandalic persecution. Sect. 8‘ It was also customary in some mgngggigggeopgaggg churches, to make the anniversary ifgiflisnaanfnni‘lfi festival of the dedication of the church sarvdaysofthededi- . . . cation of churches, a solemn tlme of baptizlng. Sozomen45 p'mned also’ observes it to have been so at J erusa- lem, from the time that Constantine built that famous church over our Saviour’s grave at Mount Calvary, called Anastasis, or the church of the resur- rection. For every year after that time the church of Jerusalem held an anniversary festival of the dedication, which, to make the solemnity more au- gust, lasted for eight days together, on which they held ecclesiastical meetings, and administered the sacrament of baptism; and many men came from all parts of the world to visit the sacred places upon this occasion. Valesius‘6 takes some pains to prove out of several authors, the C hronicon Alexandrinum, Nicephorus, the Greek Menologium, and Typicum Sabae, that this was on the thirteenth of September; that no one might think it fell in with the festivals of Easter or Pentecost, the other solemn times of baptism. Whether the same custom prevailed in any other churches, is not said; but it is not im- probable that it might obtain, because Jerusalem was a leading pattern, and is sometimes styled the mother of all churches. The custom of baptizing on the festivals of the apostles and martyrs seems to have prevailed in many of the French and Spanish churches; but this was condemned and forbidden by many canons, and therefore cannot be spoken of as an authentic custom, because it was rather a transgression‘ and encroachment upon the estab— lished rules of the church, which in this case might be observed without any detriment, whilst a liberty was granted to baptize at any time upon sudden emergencies and extraordinary cases. Indeed, in the first plantation of the Sm 9. gospel there was no such obligation $3, $163,, ‘311% to observe any stated times of bap- fles’days' tism, because the apostles made no law about it. They themselves baptized indifferently at any time, as occasion required, and they left this circumstance wholly to the judgment and prudence of their suc- cessors in the church, to act as reason and piety should direct them. This is very evident from the history of the Acts of the Apostles, and the subse- quent history of the church compared together. The author of the Comments on St Paul’s Epistles, under the name of St. Ambrose,47 has diligently noted this difference in the church’s discipline, be- 39 Leo, Ep. 4. ad Episc. Siculos, cap. 5. Unde quia ma- nifestissime patet, haec duo tempera baptizandis in ecclesia electis esse legitima, monemus ut nullos alios dies huie ob- servantiae misceatis. 4° Leo, Ep. 80. ad Episc. Campan. cap. 1. ‘1 Gelas. Ep. 9. ad Episc. Lucan. cap. 10. Baptizandi sibi quispiam passim quocunque tempore nullam credat inesse fiduciam, praeter Paschale festum et Pentecostes ve- nerabile sacramentum, excepto duntaxat gravissimi lan- guoris incursu, in quo verendum est, ne morbi crescente periculo, sine remedio salutari fortassis aegrotans exitio prae- ventus abscedat. ‘2 Vales. Not. in Theodoret. lib. 2. c. 27. 4*‘ Mosch. Prat. Spirit. cap. 214. “ Victor. de Persec. Vandal. lib. 2. Bibl. Pat-r. t. 7. p. 603. ‘5 Sozom. lib. 2. cap. 26. '99 Kai hwio'us Ev ail-1'15 s'op'rfi 'rslke'icrflat, Kai dim-u‘) rips'pas idJsEfis ércrckno'w'z'gew. "6 Vales. Dissert. de Anastasi et Martyrio Hierosolym. ad calcem Eusebii, p. 306. ‘7 Ambros. Com. in Ephes. iv. Primum omnes docebant et omnes baptizabant, quibuscunque diebus vel temporibus fuisset occasio. Nec enim Philippus tempus quaesivit, aut diem, quo eunuchum baptizaret; neque jejunium interpo- suit. Neque Paulus et Silas tempus distulerunt, quo opti- onem carceris baptizarent cum omnibus ejus. N eque Petrus diaconos habuit, aut diem qumsivit, quando Cornelium cum omni domo ejus baptizavit. Ubi autem omnia loca cir- cumplexa est ecclesia, conventicula constituta sunt, et rec- tores et caetera officia in ecclesia ordinata s1mt.—Hinc ergo est, unde nunc neque diaconi in populo praedicant, neque clerici vel laici baptizant; neque quocunque die credentes tinguntur, nisi aegri. CHAP. VI. 513 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. tween the first and the following ages. At first, says he, every one taught and baptized on all days and times, as occasion required. Philip stayed for no time, nor day, to baptize the eunuch, nor did he use any intermediate fast before it. Neither did Paul and Silas delay the time when they baptized the keeper of the prison with all his house. Neither did Peter use deacons, or stay for a solemn day, when he baptized Cornelius and his family. But when the church had spread itself into all parts, then oratories were built, and church-officers were appointed, and several orders made about the ad- ministration of baptism; whence it was, that now neither deacons preached, nor any of the inferior clergy, nor laymen baptized, nor was baptism ad- ministered at all times to believers, but only to those that were sick. That which seems to have made the difference in this matter, was the difference in the zeal and readiness of the first converts and those that came afterwards. For the church found it necessary in process of time to proceed a little more slowly with the candidates of baptism, both in the instruction and trial of them, because of their dulness, and negligence, and frequent relapses. And by this means it came to pass, that in some populous churches, often vast multitudes were bap- tized together. As Palladius observes in the Life of St. Chrysostom,“ that at Constantinople three thousand persons were baptized at once upon one of these greater festivals. And this was the reason why deacons at Rome, who were not allowed to baptize upon any other occasion, no, not even in times of sickness, were admitted to do it at Easter, because of the vast numbers of people that came then to be baptized, as I have had occasion to show out of a canon of one of the Roman councils in an- other discourse.‘9 But when these rules about stated times of baptism were in their strict- est observation, there were still several cases, wherein it was thought proper to dispense with them, and discharge men of their obligation. The case of sickness and extremity pleaded a just exemption, as we have seen before, in all the canons of the universal church. And the promptness and proficiency of some catechumens above others, gave them an earlier title to baptism, if they desired it, without waiting for a more solemn season, especially in the Eastern churches; as may be collected from the exhortations of Chrysostom and Basil, inviting Sect. 10. How far these rules were obiiging in succeeding ages. such as were duly prepared for baptism, to receive it the first opportunity, without staying for one of these greater festivals. You pretend to stay to the time of Lent, says Chrysostom 15° but why so? Has that time any thing more than others? The apos- tles received not this grace at Easter; but at an- other time. Neither was it the time of Easter, when the three thousand and the five thousand were baptized, of whom we read in the Acts of the Apostles. Other things, says St. Basil,51 have their peculiar seasons; there is a time for sleep, and a time for watching; a time for war, and a time for peace: but the time of baptism is man’s whole life; all times are seasonable to receive salvation thereby, whether day or night, every hour, every minute, every moment. And Nazianzen,52 in answering that plea which men used for delay, that they stay- ed only till Easter, Pentecost, or Epiphany, plainly shows, that he rather thought men ought not to de- fer their baptism, when once they were qualified for it, lest death should come suddenly upon them in a day they did not expect it, and in an hour they were not aware of. And in this respect it was true, what Tertullian said in the close of his discourse upon this subject, that every day"8 was the Lord’s day, every hour, and every time was fit for baptism, if men were fit and prepared for it. One day might be more solemn than another, but the grace of bap- tism was the same at all times. So that these so- lemn times were set apart for prudent reasons by the church, and for as prudent reasons they might be dispensed with, when either the necessities of a languishing distemper, or the zeal and activity of forward proficients, made it advisable to anticipate the usual times of baptism, which, like all other parts of discipline, were designed for edification, and not for destruction. The like observation may be made Sect ,1_ with respect to the place of baptism; fin1§§P,",§s,[',‘,y“,f,f,§e°§{ for this varied also with the state and the ‘"‘pmm’icalagm' circumstances of the church. In the apostolical age, and some time after, before churches and bap- tisteries were generally erected, they baptized in any place where they had convenience, as John baptized in Jordan, and Philip baptized the eunuch in the wilderness, and Paul the jailer in his own house. So Tertullian observes, that Peter“ baptized his converts in the Tiber at Rome, as John had done in Jordan; and that there was no difference whether a man was baptized in the sea, or in a lake, in a ‘8 Pallad. Vit. Chrysost. cap. 9. ‘9 Scholast. Hist. of Lay Baptism, part 1. chap. 1. p, 19, 5° Chrys. Horn. 1. in Act. t. 4. p. 615. Edit. Savil. 5‘ Basil. Exhort. ad Bapt. Horn. 13. t. l. p. 409. 52 Naz. Orat. 40. de Bapt. p. 654. 53 T ertul. de Bapt. cap. 19. Cacterum omnis dies Domini est, omnis hora, omne tempus habile baptismo: si de solen- nitate interest, de gratia nihil refert. 5‘ Tertul. de Bapt. c. 4. Nulla distinctio est, mari quis an stagno, flumine an fonte, laeu an alveo diluatur, nec quicquam refert inter eos quos J oannes in J ordane, et quos Petrus in Tiberi tinxit.—Omnes aquae de pristine. originis praerogativa sacramentum sanctificationis co nsequuntur, in- vocato Deo. Supervenit enim statim Spiritus de coelis, et aquis superest, sanctifieans eas de semetipso, et ita sanctifi- catae vim sanctificandi combibunt. 2 L 514 3001! XI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. river, or a fountain; for the same Spirit sanctified the waters in all places, and gave them the power of sanctification, when once they were consecrated by invocation and prayer. After this manner, the au- thor of the Recognitions, under the name of Cle- mens Romanus,55 represents Peter preaching to the people, and telling them, they might wash away their sins in the water of a river, or a fountain, or the sea, when they were baptized by invoking the name of the blessed Trinity upon them. And he describes'his own baptism, and some others,56 as given them by Peter, in certain fountains in Syria by the sea-shore. And so it seems to have con- tinued to the time of Justin Martyr and Tertullian. For Tertullian speaks of their going from the church to the water, and then making57 their renunciations there as they had done in the church before. And Justin Martyr, describing the ceremony of the ac- tion, says, They brought the person who was to be baptized58 to a place where there was water, and there gave him the same regeneration which they had received before. sect 12. But in after ages baptisteries were aglergciglcgsggipogthe built adjoining to the church, and gfifgsgfries of the then rules were made, that baptism should ordinarily be administered no where but in them. Justinian, in one of his Novels,59 refers to ancient laws, appointing, that none of the sacred mysteries of the church should be celebrated in private houses. Men might have private ora- tories for prayer in their own houses, but they were not to administer baptism or the eucharist in them, unless by a particular licence from the bishop of the place. Such baptisms are frequently condemn- ed in the ancient councils, under the name of wrapa- fiavrriapa-ra, baptisms in private conventicles. As in the council of Constantinople under Mennas,“ complaint is made against Zoaras the monk, that though the emperor had forbidden all private bap- tisms by an edict, yet Zoaras, despising that order, had baptized many in a private house upon the Easter festival. The edict which that council re- fers to, was another Novel of J ustinian’s,61 made against Severus and his accomplices, who, after they were expelled the church, held conventicles in pri- vate houses, and received, and baptized, and gave the communion to all that came to them. Which sort of parabaptizations are there condemned. So also in the petition of the monks presented to Men- nas and the council under him, these baptisms and communions in private houses are reckoned62 to be an erecting of strange altars and baptisteries, in op- position to the true altar and baptistery, or laver of the church; under which name they‘are frequently condemned in the Acts68 of that council. And in the council of Trullo the order was again renewed, That no persons“ should receive baptism in ora- tories belonging to houses, but that they who desire illumination, should go to the catholic, that is, the public churches; and that on pain of deposition to the clergyman who was the administrator, and excommunication to the layman who was the re- ceiver. ' Now, all these laws and rules were intended for the preservation of de- cency and good order in the church, that baptism might be performed in the presence of the whole church, whereof men were then made members, and all the congregation might be spectators and witnesses of their admission. Upon which account it was im- proper to allow it to be done either in heretical con- venticles, or in private houses. Yet, in cases of necessity, sickness, imprisonment, journeying, and the like, these rules could not bind; for they were only made for ordinary cases. Therefore we read of martyrs sometimes baptized in prison, and fre- quently of clinics, as they were called, who were baptized on a sick-bed, and others baptized at sea or in a journey, which were not interpreted trans- gressions of this rule, because the exigence and ne- cessity of the case made them lawful. And some- times baptism was allowed in private oratories by the bishop’s licence, as both the law of Justinian Sect. 13. Except in case of sickness, or with the bishop’s licence to the contrary upon some special occa- axons. 55 Clem. Recognit. lib. 4. c. 32. Ut in praesenti quidem tempore diluantur peccata vestra per aquam fontis, aut fiu- minis, aut etiam maris, invocata super vos trino Beatitudi- nis nomine. Vid. Clementin. Hom. 9. n. 19. 56 Ibid. lib. 6. n. 15. In fontibus, qui contigui habentur mari, perennis aquae mihi baptismum dedit, &c. 5’ Aquam adituri, ibidem, sed et aliquanto prius in eccle- sia sub antistitis manu contestamur nos renunciare diabolo, &c. Tertul. de Coron. c. 3. 58 Justin. Apol. 2. p. 93. 'Eqrer'ra d'you'rat 64>’ huii'w 3116a iidwp és'r, &c. 59 Justin. Novel. 58. Priscis sanciturn est legibus, nulli penitus esse licentiam, domi qnae sacratissima sunt agere.- Sed si quidem domos ita simpliciter aliqui habere putant oportere in sacris suis, orationis videlicet solius gratia, et nullo celebrando penitus horum quae sacri sunt mysterii, hoc eis permittimus, &c. 6° Conc. Constant. sub Menna, Act. 1. p. 70. Ed. Crab. Quanquam piissimus imperator noster mandaverit non re- conventiculare, neque rebaptizare (leg. parabaptizare) Zoaras tamen tale praeceptum despexit, et parabaptizavit in die Paschae non paucos. 6‘ Justin. Novel. 42. c. 3. Sancimus quemlibet talium silentium ducere, et non convocare aliquos ad se, neque ac- cedentes recipere, aut parabaptizare audere, aut sacram communionem sordidare. 62 Libel. Monachor. in Act. 1. Cone. sub Menna. ap. Crab. t. 2. p. 28. Isti falsi sacerdotes et veri antichristi in domibus intrarunt, et aliena altaria erexerunt, et baptisteria aedificaverunt, in contrarium veri altaris et sancti lavacri. 63 Epist. Monachor. 2. Syriac in Act. 1. Ibid. p. 67. “Conc. Trull. can. 59. Mndajudis éu ebx'rnpiop 01mg E'vdov oilcias 'rv'yxo'wou'rr Brim-Twyla évrw'eheio'ew' a’XA’ 0i juékhou'res a’ELZ-io'em ‘Ti; dxpéu're dawq'iqua'ros, 'rais KafioM- Kai's 'rrpoo'epxéo'ewo'av imckno'iats. CHAP. VII. 515 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. and the canons in some places had provided. For the council of Agde65 in France allows the eu- charist to be celebrated in country chapels at all times by the bishop’s leave, not excepting the greater festivals: and it is reasonable to suppose, that where the eucharist was allowed, there baptism might be administered also, though they were not properly parochial or baptismal churches. The council of Eliberis66 in Spain speaks of deacons presiding over a people, and baptizing in places where there was neither bishop nor presbyter, which we must reasonably suppose to have been country villages at some distance from the mother church, where yet for convenience baptism was allowed to be performed by the hands of a deacon. As St. Jerom 6’ also testifies, who says, That in villages and castles, and places remote from the bishop’s church, men were baptized both by presbyters and deacons. So that though the bishop’s church was the ordin- ary place of baptism, as he himself was the chief minister of it, and the public baptistery was only at his church; yet upon proper reasons, by his au- thority and permission, baptism might be adminis- tered in other places, especially in those that were a sort of secondary churches; of which, and their several distinctions from the ecclesia matrix, the episcopal or principal church, I have given a more particular account before in the discourse of churches. CHAPTER VII. OF THE RENUNCIATIONS AND PROFESSIONS MADE BY ALL PERSONS IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THEIR BAPTISM. HAVING thus far conducted the cate- chumens to the place of baptism, that is, to the baptistery of the church; we are next to consider, how the disci- pline of the church proceeded with them imme- diately before their baptism. And here we are to Sect. . Three things re- quired of all persons at their baptism. 1. To renounce the evil. observe in the first place, that three things were now indispensably required of them at this season, that is, a formal and solemn renunciation of the devil, a profession of faith made in the words of some received creed, and a promise or engagement to live in obedience to Christ, or by the laws and rules of the Christian religion. For though these things were in some measure required of .them be- fore, during the time of their institution, yet now they were to make a more solemn and public pro- fession of them before the congregation. Tertullian seems1 to intimate this twofold profession, when he says, That according to the discipline of the church in his time, catechumens first made their renuncia- tion of the devil, and his pomp and his angels, in the church, when they received imposition of hands from the bishop in his prayers for them, and again when they came to the water to be baptized. The form of this renunciation is Sm 2_ more perfectly delivered by the author ,e,',r§,fc,f,"§§;,,°§,f§i‘ of the Constitutions in these words: theimpmmfit' I renounce Satan, and his works, and his pomps,2 and his service, and his angels, and his inventions, and all things that belong to him, or that are sub- ject to him. Others express it more concisely ; some calling it the renunciation of the world, as Cyprian,s who sometimes joins the devil and the world together, as where he asks one of the lapsers, who had gone to offer sacrifice at the capitol, How a servant‘ of God could stand there, and speak, and renounce Christ, who before had renounced the devil and the world? And so it is in St. Ambrose : Thou wentest into the baptistery; consider what questions were asked thee, and what answers thou gavest to them. Thou didst renounce the devil and his works, the world,5 and its luxury and pleasures. In like manner, St. Jerome joins the devil and the world together: I renounce thee, Satan, and thy pomp, and thy vices, and thy world which lieth in iniquity. Sometimes the games and shows, which were part of the devil’s pomp, were expressly men- tioned in this form of renunciation, as it is in Sal- vian: I renounce the devil, his pomps, his shows, and his works. For he thus addresses himself to Christians, who still gave themselves liberty to be “5 Conc. Agathen. can. 21. Si quis etiam extra parochias, in quibus legitimus est ordinariusque conventus, oratorium in agro habuerit, reliquis festivitatibus ut ibi missas teneat propter fatigationem familiae, justa ordinatione permitti- mus, &c. 65 Cone. Eliber. can. 77. Si quis diaconus regens plebem, sine episcopo vel presbytero aliquos baptizaverit, episcopus eos per benedictionem perficere debebit. 6’ Hieron. Dial. cum Lucifer. cap. 4. In viculis et eas- tellis et remotioribus loeis per presbyteros et diaconos bap- tizati, &c. ' Tertul. de Coron. Mil. cap. 3. Aquam adituri, ibidem, sed et aliquanto prius in ecclesia, sub antistitis manu, con- testamur nos renunciare diabolo et pompae et angelis ejus. 2’ Const. Apost. lib. 7. cap. 41. i I ,4 AWO'TGO'O'O/LGL 7(5) Ea'raucl'i, Kai 'ro'is fép'yots aim-05, Kai 'ra'is 'rrolu'rra'is airrofi, Kai 'ra'is Xa'rpst'azs aim-0i}, Kai *roi's d'y'ye'hots airrofi, Kai. "rat's e’¢evp€o'£o'w aim-oi}, Kai 'm'i'a'i. 'rois l'11r’ air'rév. 8 Cypr. Ep. 7. al. 13. ad Rogat. p. 37. Seculo renuncia- veramus, cum baptizati sumus. 4 Cypr. de Lapsis, p. 125. Stare illic potuit Dei servus, et loqui, et renunciare Christo, qui jam diabolo renunciarat et seculo. 5 Ambros. de Initiatis, cap. 2. Ingressus es regenera- tionis sacrarium, repete quid interrogatus sis, reeognosce quid responderis. Renunciasti diabolo et operibus ejus, mundo et luxuriae ejus ac voluptatibus. ‘3 Hieron. Com. in Mat. xxv. 26. Renuncio tibi diabole, et pompae tuae et vitiis tuis, et mundo tuo, qui in maligno positus est. 2 L 2 516 Boox XI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. spectators at the Roman shows: What is the first profession’ that Christians make at baptism? Is it not a protestation, that they renounce the devil, and his pomps, and his shows, and his works? Therefore these shows and pomps, even by our own profession, are- the works of the devil. How then, O Christian, canst thou, after baptism, follow those shows, which thou confessest to be the work of the devil? Tertullian made use of the same argument before, to make Christians refrain from following the Roman theatres. But then he had also the charge of idolatry to throw into the scale against them. For, says he,8 what is the chief and principal thing to be understood by the devil, his pomps, and his angels, but idolatry? Therefore if all the pre- paration and furniture of the shows he made up of idolatry, there can be no dispute, but that the re- nunciation we make in baptism relates to those shows, and is a testimony against them. He argues after the same manner, against all such secular offices,9 and honours, and employments, as could not be held and discharged without partaking in some idolatrous rites and ceremonies; such as the ofliees of the flamens, and many others; in which, the very wearing of a crown or garland, or exhibiting some of the public shows to the people, as by such an office they were obliged to do, made them guilty of idolatry, though they abstained from the grosser act of it, that of offering incense and sacrifice to the idols. And so the council of Eliberis 1° deter- mined, That such flamens as only exhibited the public shows to the people, (which in their lan- guage is called Mzmus dare,) though they did not sacrifice to the idols, should be cast out of the church all their lives, and only be admitted to communion at the hour of death. Whence it is plain, that in the times of heathenism and idolatry, all such oflices and employments as obliged men to exhibit those public games and shows to the people, were sup- posed to be included in the renunciation of the pomps and works of the devil, because of the idola- try that was interwoven with them. But in the time of Salvian, all this idolatry was abolished, and these pomps and shows were no longer exhibited to the honour of idol gods: yet they had still so much vanity, lewdness, and profaneness in them, that they were justly complained of as unchristian and dia- bolical, upon the account of their immorality, and therefore were reputed among those unlawful pomps which every Christian was supposed to renounce at his baptism. Cyril of Jerusalem, who wrote after idolatry was in a great measure destroyed, still con- tinues the charge11 against them for their lewdness and cruelty, and reckons them among the pomps of the devil, whilst he is explaining to his catechumens this part of their baptismal profession. The antiquity of this renunciation Sm a is evidenced from all the writers that ,hghggggggggogf have said any thing of baptism. And ,Egmrggmnigimd by some it is derived from apostolical p'ame' institution and practice. For so they interpret that passage of St. Paul to Timothy, 1 Tim. vi. l2, “Lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art called, and hast professed a good profession before many wit- nesses.” The authors of the Comments under the names of St. Ambrose and St. J erom, supposed to be Hilary the Roman deacon and Pelagius, give this interpretation of the place: Thou hast con- fessed a good confession ‘2 in baptism, by renouncing the world and its pomps, before many witnesses, before the priests and ministers and the heavenly powers. So Pelagius. And Hilary ‘8 seems to say further, that this confession was also entered or enrolled in the monuments of the church. Others do not found it upon this or any other express text of Scripture, but yet derive it from ancient tradi- tion. As Tertullian and St. Basil, the former of which reckons 1‘ it among many other ecclesiastical rites and usages, which are not expressly determined in Scripture, but yet proceeded from tradition, and are confirmed by custom. And St. Basil ‘5 ranks it among those mystical rites which were received in " Salvian. de Provident. lib. 6. p. 197. Quae est enim in baptismo salutari Christianorum prima confessio ? Quae scilicet, nisi ut renunciare se diabolo ac pompis ejus, atque spectaculis et operibus protestentur? Ergo spectacula et pompae, etiam juxta nostram professionem opera sunt dia- boli. Quomodo, O Christiane, spectacula post baptismum sequeris, quae opus esse diaboli confiteris? Vid. Cyril. Ca- tech. Myst. l. n. 4. 8 Tertul. de Spectac. cap. 4. Quid erit summum ac prac- cipuum in quo diabolus et pompae et angeli ej us censeantur, quam idololatria P—Igitur si ex idololatria universam spec- taculorum paraturam constare constiterit, indubitate praeju- dicatum erit etiam ad spectacula pertinere renunciationis nostrae testimonium in lavacro. 9 Tertul. de Coron. Mil. cap. 13. Has erant pompae di~ aboli et angelorum ejus, oflicia seculi, honores, solennitates postulatrices, falsa vota, humane. servitia, laudes vanae, glo- rise turpes: et in omnibus istis idololatria in solo quoque censu coronarum, quibus omnia ista redimita sunt. 1° Cone. Eliber. can. 3. Item flamines, qui non immo- laverint, sed munus tantum dederint, eo quod se a funestis abstinuerunt sacrificiis, placuit in fine eis praestari commu- nionem, acta tamen legitima poenitentia. 1‘ Cyril. Catech. Mystag. l. n. 4. p. 280. 12 Pelag. in 1 Tim. vi. 12. Confessus es bonam confes- sionem in baptismo, renunciando saeculo et pompis ejus, coram multis testibus, coram sacerdotibus, vel ministris, virtutibusque coelestibus. 13 Ambros. in 1 Tim. vi. l2. Cujus confessio inter ipsa rudimenta fidei, teste interrogante et respondents, monu- mentis ecclesiasticis continetur. 1‘ Tertul. de Coron. Mil. c. 3. Hanc si nulla Scriptura determinavit, certe consuetudo corroboravit, quae sine dubio de traditions manavit. ‘5 Basil. de Spir. Sancto, c. 27 . Td'w éu 'rii éKKAflO'iI! 'n'edwkaryhs'uwv do'ypé'rwu Kai KflpU‘yfLé'TwU, 'rc‘z p.521; érc 'rfis é'y'ypc'zdmv dtdao-Kakias é’xonsu, era‘: as fix was *rd'w d'rroc'ré- Awu wapadéo'aws, dtadoeéu'ra im'iu Eu ,uvcr'rnpiop. CHAP. VII. 517 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. the church, not from any written word, but by pri~ vate direction and tradition from the apostles. The conjecture of those learned men ‘6 is not improbable, who think the form of renunciation, made by way of questions and answers, to have been so ancient in the church, as that the apostle St. Peter may be justly thought to refer to it, when he styles baptism, “The answer of a good conscience toward God,” which can reasonably refer to nothing so well as that common custom of answering in baptism, Dost thou renounce the devil? &c. I renounce him. Dost thou believe in God? &c. I believe. It is further to be observed concern- Thasfgi'uiicauon ing this renunciation, that as soon as made persons , , , standing with their baptisteries were bu11t, there was a face to the west. 33% $12,233:“; “(if particular place in them assigned pc- 313;? “her “rem” culiarly to this service. For they commonly had two distinct apart- ments, as has been showed before,17 in the descrip- tion of churches; first, their *n'poaz'llltov OIICOV, their porch, or ante-room, where the catechumens made their renunciations of Satan, and confessions of faith; and then their éadirspov OZICOV, their inner room, where the ceremony of baptism was performed. When the catechumens were brought into the former of these, they were placed with their faces to the . west, and then commanded to renounce Satan with some gesture and rite expressing an indignation against him, as by stretching out their hands, or folding them, or striking them together; and some- times by exsufiiation and spitting at him, as if he were present: which were all of them so many in- dications of their abhorrence. Cyril of Jerusalem, in his mystical catechisms to the illuminated,18 thus describes this part of the action: Ye were first brought into the ante-room of the baptistery, and placed toward the west in a standing posture, and then commanded to renounce Satan, by stretching out your hands against him, as if he were present. A little after he explains the meaning of their doing this with their face toward the west. The west, says he, is the place of darkness, and Satan is dark- ness, and his strength is in darkness. For this reason ye symbolically look toward the west, when ye renounce that prince of darkness and horror. St. J erom plainly alludes to this custom, when he says, In our mysteries, meaning the celebration of baptism, we first renounce him that is in“ the west, who dies to us with our sins: and then turn- ing about to the east, we make a covenant with the Sun of righteousness, and promise to be his servants. In like manner, St. Ambrose, discoursing to some newly baptized persons ;2° When you entered into the baptistery, and had viewed your adversary whom you were to renounce, you then turned about to the east. For he that renounces the devil, is turned unto Christ. Whence, as Gregory Nazianzen21 ob- serves, they did not only renounce the devil in words, but in their very habit and gesture; for they did it divested of their clothes, and with their body turned toward the west, and with hands stretched out against him; to this they added sometimes a collision, or striking of the hands together, and an exsufi‘lation, or a spitting at their adversary, to ex- press their abhorrence of him, as the author under the name of Dionysius22 describes it. From whom we learn also, that this Sect. 5_ renunciation was repeated three times. ,3; ‘$325’; For, in another place, he thus de- three times‘ scribes the whole ceremony: The priest makes the person who is to be baptized23 to stand with his hands stretched out toward the west, and striking them together; (the original iS, 'rdg xsipag daw- Goi‘wra, which denotes collision, or striking of the hands together by way of abhorrence ;) then he bids him épqwafio'ai rpig 11,7 Ea'ravqi', thrice exsufflate, or spit, in defiance of Satan: afterwards, thrice repeat- ing the solemn words of renunciation, he bids him thrice renounce him in that form: then he turns him about to the east, and with hands and eyes lift up to heaven, bids him ovvré£aa€a¢ 11,7 Xpisqi, enter into covenant with Christ. Vicecomes 2‘ thinks this triple renunciation was made, either because there were three things which men renounced in their baptism, the devil, his pomps, and the world; or to signify the three persons of the Trinity, by whom they were adopted as sons upon their re- nouncing Satan; or because it was usual in civil adoptions and emancipation of slaves, for the master to yield up his right by a triple renunciation, which he shows from Aulus Gellius and Sigonius. But as the ancients are silent in this matter, I leave these reasons to the discretion of every judicious reader. The next thing required of men at Sect- 6. . their baptism, was a vow or covenant reqvliiieiiec gin ‘1111231 16 See Dr. Cave, Prim. Christ. lib. 1. cap. 10. p. 315, and Estius and Grotius on 1 Pet. iii. 21. " Book VIII. chap. 7. sect. 1. ‘8 Cyril. Catech. Mystag. I. n. 2. p.278. Eta-flaws 7rpdi'r0u sis crdu wpoadhtou oilcou 'r§ Baqr'rtqnpie, Kai 7rpds 'ro‘zs duo'- ,u.ds s’e'd'r'rss, fixéo'a'rs Kai arpoo'sq'ri'rq-so'fis éle'rsiusw '1'1‘111 Xsi'pa, Kai dis 1rap6u'rl. a'vrs'rd'r'rso'es "rq'i Sacral/d’. ‘9 Hieron. in Amos vi. 14. In mysteriis primum renun- ciamus ei qui in occidente est, nobisque moritur cum pecca- tis: et sic versi ad orientem, pactum inimus cum sole jus- titiae, et ei servituros nos esse promittimus. 2° Ambros. de Initiatis, cap. 2. Ingressus ut adversarium tuum cemeres cui renunciandum mox putares, ad orientem converteris. Qui enim renunciat diabolo, ad Christum con- vertitur. 2' Naz. Orat. 40. de Bapt. p. 67. I‘va'ia'y Kai 'ro'Zs axfihacn Kai *ro'is fifiuaa'w, u’is 6km) a'vro'rrs'jwrry rrv‘ju a’es'fav, fifrws 6X31 6561-1111 o'uucrao'o'dptsvos. 22 Dionys. de Hierarch. Ecol. cap. 3. p. 258. I‘unudv Kai a’uu'n'dds'rov 'is'na't qrpos duayuds d¢opébwra, &c. 2’ Ibid. p. 253. 2‘ Vicecom. de Ritib. Bapt. lib. 2. cap. 20. p. 311. 518 Boox X_I. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. iggirgaggigggggsog of obedience to Christ, which the “Mien” t° Christ Greeks call, ovvréaoeoOar Xptqq'i, giving themselves up to the government and conduct of Christ. This was always an indispensable part of their obligation, before they could be admitted to the ceremony of regeneration. They first renounced the devil, and then immediately promised to live in obedience to the laws of Christ. Some indeed in St. Austin’s time pleaded hard for an exemption in this particular. They were willing to make a pro- fession of faith in Christ, but not of universal obe- dience; and yet would impudently pretend to de- mand baptism of the church, notwithstanding their incorrigible temper. Against whom he wrote that excellent book, De Fide et Operibus, to show the necessity of good works, as well as faith, to the being of a Christian; where he answers all the objections and arguments they pretended to bring from Scrip- ture: for they pleaded Scripture for their practice. Amongst other things they urged that famous text of St. Paul, “Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall de- clare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work, of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.” Upon which they made this perverse comment: That they who built upon this foundation25 gold, silver, pre- ' cious stones, were such as added good works to their faith in Christ; but they who built wood, hay, stubble, were they that held the same faith in unrighteousness and a wicked life. And they imagined, that even these men might be so purged by certain punishments of fire, as to obtain salva- tion by virtue of the foundation, which they re- tained. To which St. Austin replies, That if this was true,26 it were a laudable charity indeed for them to endeavour that all men might indiiferently be admitted to baptism, not only adulterers and adulteresses, who pretended false marriages con- trary to the express command of Christ, but also public harlots continuing in the basest of all pro- fessions; which yet the most negligent church on earth never pretended to admit to baptism, till they had first forsaken that vile prostitution. They urged further, that to deny wicked men the privi- lege of baptism, was to root out the tares before the time. To which St. Austin“'7 replies, That this rejec- tion of them from baptism was not rooting out the tares, but rather not sowing them, as the devil did: they did not prohibit any that were willing to come to Christ, but only convinced them by their own con- fession, that they were unwilling to come to him. And therefore, though these men called it a novel doctrine and practice to reject harlots, and stage- players, and all that made open profession of such abominable arts, from baptism, yet he tells them this was grounded upon the rules28 of ancient truth, which manifestly declared, that “they who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” And that this was the ancient rule, by which the church proceeded, is evident from all the writers that have spoken of baptism. Justin Martyr, who describes the ceremonies of baptism with the greatest sim- plicity, says, It was only given to those who, to their confession of faith, added also a promise or vow 2*’ that they would live according to the rules of Christianity. And hence came that usual form Of words in their profession, Zvvrcirropai cot Xpw'ré, I give myself up to thee, O Christ, to be governed by thy laws: which immediately followed the timi- raérg, or renunciation of the devil, whose service they forsook to choose a new master; as we find it frequently in St. Chrysostom,30 St. Basil,3| St. Cyril of Alexandria,32 the author of the Apostolical Con- stitutions,83 and most of the Greek writers, whose words, as being but one and the same form, I think it needless to repeat upon this occasion. The Latins commonly call it promissum, pactum, and votum, a promise, a covenant, and vow, which names they apply indifi‘erently to all parts of the Christian engagement, as well the renunciation of the devil, as the profession of faith, and obedience to Christ, which do mutually suppose, and are virtually in- cluded in one another. For he that renounces the 25 Aug. de Fide et Oper. c. 15. t. 4. p. 30. Quod quidam ita intelligendum putant, ut illi videantur aedificare super hoc fundamentum aurum, argentum, lapides pretiosos, qui fidei quae in Christo est, bona opera adjiciunt: illi autem foenum,ligna, stipulam, qui cum eandem fidem habeant, male operantur. Unde arbitrantur per quasdam poenas ignis eos posse purgari ad salutem percipiendam merito fundamenti. .. 26 Ibid. Hoc si ita est, fatemur istos laudabili charitate conari, ut omnes indiscrete admittantnr ad baptismum, non solum adulteri et adulterae, contra sententiam Domini falsas nuptias praetendentes, verum etiam publicae meretrices in turpissima professione perseverantes, quas certe nulla etiam negligentissima ecclesia consuevit admittere, nisi ab illa primitus prostitutione liberatas. 2" Ibid. c. 17. Quando tales ad baptismum non admitti- mus, non ante tempus zizania evellere conarnur, sed nolu- mus insuper sicut diabolus zizania seminare; nec ad Chris. tum volentes venire prohibemus, sed eos ad Christum venire nolle, ipsa sua confessione convincimus. 28 Ibid. 0. l8. Antiquum et robustum morem ecclesia retinet, ex illa scilicet liquidissima veritate venientem, qua certum habet, quouiam qui talia agunt, regnum Dei non possidebunt. 2” Justin. Apol. 2. p. 93. Kai. flté'u oii'rws déuaa'flat {J'rrw-Xub'w'rat, &c. 3° Chrys. Hom. 21. ad Popul. Antioch. p. 275. Hom. 6. in Colos. p. 1358. 8‘ Basil. Horn. 13. Exhort. ad Bapt. 82 Cyril. in John xi. 26. 8* Constit. Apost. lib. 7. c. 41. CHAP. VII. 5l9 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. devil and the world, does thereby profess himself a soldier and servant devoted to Christ. Therefore St. Ambrose, speaking of the renunciation, calls it,34 a promise, a caution, a hand-writing or bond, given to God, and registered in the court of heaven; be- cause this is a vow made before his ministers, and the angels, who are witnesses to it. Upon which account he says in another place,35 It is recorded, not in the monuments of the dead, but in the book of the living. St. Austin calls it, a profession38 made in the court of angels, and the names of the professors are written in the book of life, not by any man, but by the heavenly powers. St. J erom 8’ styles it, a covenant made with the Sun of right- eousness, and a promise of obedience to Christ. And he so speaks of this ceremony, as to show it to be a distinct act from the renunciation, (though they both tended to the same end,) because differ- ent rites were used in expressing them. For in renouncing the devil they had their faces to the west, for symbolical reasons which we have heard before; but in making their covenant with Christ they turned about to the east, as an emblem of that light which they received from the Sun of right- eousness, by engaging themselves in his service. This custom of turning about to the Sect. 7. . . dim: gggeogyobe- east, when they made their profession 2153i: yfothewt- of obedience to Christ, is also men- tioned by St. Ambrose, Gregory Nazi- anzen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and the author under the name of Dionysius. For which they assign two reasons: 1. Cyril38 tells his disciples, that as soon as they had renounced the devil, the paradise of God, which was planted in the East, and whence our first parent for his transgression was driven into banishment, was now laid open to them: and their turning about from the west to the east, which is the region of light, was a symbol of this. For the same reason, St. Basil89 and some others of the an- cients tell us, they prayed toward the cast, that they might have their faces toward paradise. The other reason for turning to the east in baptism, was be- cause the east or rising sun was an emblem of the Sun of righteousness, to whom they now turned from Satan: Thou art turned about to the east, says St. Ambrose,“ for he that renounces the devil, turns unto Christ. Where he plainly intimates with St. J erom, that turning to. the east was a symbol of their aversion from Satan, and conversion unto Christ, that is, from darkness to light, from serving idols to serve him who is the Sun of righteousness and Fountain of light. Together with this profession of obedience, there was also exacted a Thesiiiirds'mmg . . ' required of the party profession of faith of every person to gopggfeggiggzggk :31; be baptized. And this was always to g; {1111: 3551.1 Word‘ be made in the same words of the creed, that every church used for the instruction of her catechumens. They were obliged to repeat it privately to the catechist, and then again publicly in the church, when they had given in their names to baptism; as I have showed“1 before. But be- sides this, they were also obliged to make a more solemn profession of it at the time of baptism, and give distinct answers to the several questions, as the minister propounded them, with relation to the several parts of the creed, which contained the sum- mary of Christian faith. There were some indeed in St. Austin’s time, who, as they were for excluding the profession of obedience out of the baptismal vow, so were they for curtailing the profession of faith, and reducing it to one single article, I believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God. In favour of this, they pleaded the example of Philip baptizing the eunuch upon this short confession,42 and that saying of St. Paul to the Corinthians, “ I deter- mined to know nothing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” Yet they durst never proceed so far as to put their designs in practice; for they still continued to make interrogatories about the other articles, as the church always did, concerning the Holy Ghost, the holy church, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the dead, the incarnation of Christ, his passion and death upon 3‘ Ambros. de Sacrament. lib. I. c. 2. Respondisti, Abre- nuncio: memor esto sermonis tui, et nunquam tibi exeidat series cautionis tuae.——Ubi promiseris considera, vel quibus promiseris: Levitam vidisti, sed minister est Christi. Vidisti illum ante altaria ministrare: ergo chirographum tuum te- netur, non in terra, sed in coelo. *5 Id. de Initiatis, cap. 2. Tenetur vox tua, non in tumulo mortuorum, sed in libro viventium. 38 Aug. de Symbolo, lib. 2. c. l. t. 9. Professi estis re- nunciare vos diabolo, pompis, et angelis ejus. Videte di- lectissimi, quia hanc professionem vestram in curiam pro- fertis angelicam: nomina profitentium in libro excipiuntur vitae, non a quolibet homine, sed a superiore ccelitus po- testate. 3' Hieron. Corn. in Amos vi. 14. In mysteriis primum renunciamus ei qui in occidente est: et sic versi in orientem, pactum inimus cum sole justitiae, et ei servituros nos esse promittimus. 88 Cyril. Catech. Mystagog. l. n. 6. 99 Basil. de Spir. Sancto, cap. 27. ‘° Ambros. de Initiatis, c. 2. Ad orientem converteris. Qui enim renunciat diabolo, ad Christurn convertitur. 4‘ Book X. chap. 2. sect. 10. ‘2 Aug. de Fide et Oper. cap. 9. Spado, inquiunt, ille quem Philippus baptizavit, nihil plus dixit, quam, Credo Filium Dei esse Jesum Christum. Num ergo placet, nt hoc solum homines respondeant, et eontinuo baptizentur? Nihil de Spiritu Sancto, nihil de sancta ecclesia, nihil de remissione peccatorum, nihil de resurrectione mortuorum ? &c. Si enim spado cum respondisset, Credo Filium Dei esse J esum Christum, hoc ei sufficere visum est, ut eontinuo baptizatus abscederet: Cur non id sequimur, atque auferi- mus caetera quae necesse habemus etiam cum ad baptizan- dum temporis urget angustia exprimere, interrogando ut baptizandns ad cuncta respondeat, etiamsi ea memorize mandare non valuit t’ 520 Boox XI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. the cross, his burial and resurrection on the third day, his ascension, and session on the right hand of the Father: all which were thought so necessary, that the church never omitted them even in clinic baptism, when men were baptized upon a sick-bed: for if they were able to speak, they answered for themselves, as St. Austin says, to every particular interrogation, though they were not able to commit them to memory; and if they were speechless, their sureties or sponsors answered for them, as they did for children, as will be showed in the next chapter. So that one way or other the whole creed was re- peated, and every individual article assented to by men at their baptism. And this was always the practice of the church from the very days of the apostles, and in their time also : for though no other article he mentioned in the baptism of the eunuch, but only his believing Jesus Christ to be the Son of God, yet, as St. Austin observes in the same place,“3 the Scripture, in saying, Philip baptized him, is to be understood as meaning that all things were fulfilled, which use to be observed in baptism, though, for brevity’s sake, they be not mentioned. And indeed in all the accounts we have of baptism in ancient writers, there is express mention of this profession, either to believe the doctrines of Chris- tianity in general, as they are delivered in Scrip- ture, or as they are briefly summed up in the arti- cles of the creed. Justin Martyr“ ‘says, Before men were regenerated, they must both profess to believe the truth of those things which they had been taught, and also promise to live answerable to their knowledge. Cyprian particularly45 mentions the use of the creed in baptism, and specifies in several of the interrogatories that were made in reference to the particular articles of it; as, Whether they believed eternal life, and remission of sins in the holy church? which were always the concluding articles of the creed. And in another place he speaks both of these, and the articles relating to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as interrogatories used in baptism both by the catholic church,‘16 and the Novatians. For however they differed in the sense of some of the articles, yet they both agreed in the same form of interrogatories, and both bap- tized in the same creed. Tertullian also‘l7 specifies the articles relating to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and the church, as part of the interrogatories of baptism. And Eusebius, reciting the words of the Creed of Caesarea,48 says, it was the Creed into which he was baptized. The same use was made of the Nicene Creed, as soon as it was composed, in most of the Eastern churches; or they ordinarily bap- tized in the profession of that faith, as I have show- ed in the last book.49 It were easy here to subjoin many testimonies out of St. Ambrose, St. J erom, Cyril of Alexandria and Jerusalem, Chrysostom, Nazianzen, Basil, Epiphanius, and Salvian, and the author of the Constitutions: but the matter is so incontestable, that the ancients did never baptize into the profession of any single article, but into a complete and perfect creed, that I think it need- less to insist upon the proof of it, whilst there is not any pretence of an exception to be made against it in any public or private baptism whatsoever. There were some circumstances and ceremonies of this confession, which mmssiici'giragign because they added something to the solemn and public solemnity of the action, it will not be manner. improper to mention. As, first, that it was usually done in public before many witnesses. Which was a circumstance grounded upon apostolical practice, and very rarely dispensed with. Primasius50 de- duces it from the example of Timothy, who wit- nessed a good confession before many witnesses: which he interprets of his profession of faith made at baptism. Which is also the exposition given by Ephrem Syrus.51 And Pope Leo52 seems to refer to the same, when he exhorts men to stand firm in that faith, which they confessed before many wit- nesses; that faith in which they were born again of water and the Holy Ghost, and received the unction of salvation, and the seal of eternal life. It was usual at Rome, St. Austin58 tells us, to make this 43 Aug. de Fide et Oper. cap. 9. In so quod ait, Bap- tizavit eum Philippus, intelligi voluit impleta esse omnia, quae licet taceantur in Scripturis, gratia brevitatis, tamen serie traditionis scimus implenda. 4'‘ Justin. Apol. 2. p. 93. "000:. oil) wewS'iiiov. Kai. 'mseri- wo'w dhnfi'fi 'raii'r'a Td 13¢’ fmdw 6L6d0'K6fLEl/Ct Kai. Asa/(ine- va elvat, Kai [3:511 ii'rws drivao's'at I'J'n'to'xuiim'rat a’ua'yeu- viim'rat. ‘5 Cypr. Ep. 70. ad Episc. Numidas, p. 190. Bed et ipsa interrogatio quas fit in baptismo, testis est veritatis. Nam cum dicimus, Credis in vitarn acternam, et remissionem pec- catorum per sanctam ecclesiam? Intelligimus remissionem peccatorum non nisi in ecclesia dari, &c. ‘6 Cypr. Ep. 69. al. 76. ad Magnum, p. 183. 4" Tertul. dc Bapt. cap. 6. Quum sub tribus et testatio fidei et sponsio salutis pignorentur, necessario adjicitur ec- clesiae mentio: quoniam ubi tres, id est, Pater et Filius et S piritus Sanctus, ibi ecclesia, quae trium corpus est. ‘8 Euseb. Epist. ad Caesarienses, ap. Socrat. lib. 1. cap. 8. ‘9 Book X.'chap. 4. sect. 17. 5° Primas. in 1 Tim. vi. 12. Confessus bonam con- fessionem, in haptismo: coram multis testibus, coram sa- cerdotibus et ministris, atque virtutibus ccelestibus ac di- vinis. 5‘ Ephrem. de Ptenitent. cap. 5. 52 Leo, Serm. 4. de Nativ. Domini, p. 17. Permanete stabiles in fide, quam confessi estis coram multis testibus, et in qua renati per aquam et Spiritum Sanctum, accepistis chrisma salutis et signaculum vita aeternee. 53 Aug. Confess. lib. 8. cap. 2. Ut ventum est ad horam profitendae fidei, quae verbis eertis conceptisque memoriter de loco eminentiorein conspectu populi fidelis Roma: reddi solet ab eis qui accessuri sunt ad gratiam tuam, oblatum esse dicebat Victorino a presbyteris, ut secretius redderet= sicut nonnullis qui verecundia trepidaturi videbantur, offerri mos erat: illum autem maluisse salutem suam in conspectu CHAP. VII. 521 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. confession publicly in the church, in some eminent place appointed for the purpose, that they might be seen and heard by all the congregation. But some- times, to favour the modesty of some very bashful persons, who could not speak without trembling in such an awful assembly, the presbyters received their confession in private: and this they offered to Victorinus, a famous rhetorician, upon his conver- sion ; but he chose rather to make his confession in public ; saying, there was no salvation in rhetoric, and yet he had always taught that in public; and therefore it would not become him to be afraid of making a public confession of God’s word before the meek flock of Christ, who had never been afraid to repeat his own words in the schools of the hea- then, who in comparison of Christians were only to be reputed madmen. sec, ,0. Another circumstance which added .yl‘iii‘irt’ttmifi Q2: to the solemnity of the action, was w" the posture of the body, not only look- ing toward the cast, but with hands and eyes lift up to heaven, as if they were immediately fixed on Christ, with whom they were now entering into covenant, as their new Lord sitting on the throne of his glory. For as they renounced the devil with hands stretched out against him, or with collision or striking them together in defiance of him; so on the contrary, they made their confession and cove- nant, and addresses to Christ, in the posture of pe— tition, with hands lift up to the Sun of righteous- ness, and ready to embrace him. So the author under the name of Dionysius54 describes it, saying, The priest bids the catechumen, after he has re- nounced Satan, to turn about to the east and make his covenant with Christ, with hands and eyes lift up to heaven. SM n This confession also, for greater Repezialtneilsthree solemnity, is thought to have been repeated three times, as we have heard before, that it was usual to do in the renunciation of Satan. Cyril of Alexandria55 says, It was the custom of the church to require a triple confession of Christ, of all those that proposed to love him, and came to his holy baptism: and this after the ex- ample of St. Peter, to whom Christ said three times, “ Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me i)” and Peter answered thrice, “Lord, thou knowest that I love thee.” St. Ambrose”6 says, That in the celebration of baptism, three interrogatories were made, and a triple answer was given to them; nor could any one be otherwise baptized. Whence also Peter was asked three times in the Gospel, whether he loved the Lord? that by answering thrice, he might loose those bonds with which he had bound himself by denying his Lord. But I am not sure that this triple confession always means thrice repeating the whole creed. For St. Ambrose57 in another place makes this triple confession to be rather answering three times, I believe, to the several parts of the creed. Thou wast asked, says he, Dost thou be- lieve in God the Father Almighty? And thou didst answer, I believe. Thou wast asked again, Dost thou believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, and his cross? And thou didst answer a second time, I believe- Thou wast asked a third time, Dost thou believe in the HolyIGhost? And thy answer was, I believe. So thou wast thrice buried under water, that thy, triple confession might absolve thee from the mani- fold offences of thy former life. Where it is plain, the triple confession means no more than answering thrice, I believe, to the several parts of the creed. But there might be different customs in different places ; for St. Cyril seems to mean something more, when he makes these answers not only to be a confession of the three persons of the Trinity, but a triple confession of Christ, which implies a repe- tition of the creed three times over, if I rightly understand him. There was one circumstance more, see," m which, if true, added great weight to wifif‘dflfg‘itscgij’j“ the whole action: which was, that ii? 'i‘irse 3211:3501? 0:: the party, after he had made his con- some thmk' fession of faith, subscribed it also with his own hand, if he were able to do it, in the books or regis- ters of the church. I cannot positively say, that this was any certain or universal practice, but there seem to be some footsteps of it in some ancient re- cords, and the allusions of writers to such a custom. Gregory Nazianzcn is thought to refer to it, when, exhorting men to continue stedfast to the faith which they professed at baptism, he says, If thou wast enrolled into any other faith58 than what I have sanctac multitudinis 'profiteri: non enim erat salus quam docebat in rhetorica, et tamen eam publice professus erat. Quanto minus ergo vereri debuit mansnetum gregem tuum, pronuncians verbum tuum, qui non verebatur in verbis suis turbas insanorum ? 5‘ Dionys. de Eccles. Hierarch. cap. 2. p. 253. 55 Cyril. lib. 12. in Job. xxi. t. 4. p. 1119. Tl'mos at wo'zXw 'ra'i's pjw émchno'iats éu'refifiev sis 'rd Xpfiuat 'rpi'mu dtapw'rgiu '1'1‘1u sis Xprqo‘u duoho'yiav "robs dya'n'cjiv aim-(iv e'hopéuovs, 6w‘: 'ré Kai qrpoo'ehs's'iv 'Tq'; é'yiq) ,Ba'lr'rio-pta'n. 56 Ambros. de Spir. Sancto, lib. 2. cap. 11. Ideo in mysteriis interrogatio trina defertur, et confirmatio trina celebratur: nec potest quis nisi trina confessione purgari. Unde et ipse Petrus in evangelio tertio interrogatur, utrum diligat Dominum, ut trina responsione vincula, quae Domi- num negando ligavit, absolveret. ' 5’ Id. de Sacram. lib. 2. c. 7. Interrogatus es, Credis in Deum Patrem omnipotentem? Dixisti, Credo, &c. Iterum interrogatus es, Credis in Dominum nostrum J esum Chris- tum et in crucem ej us? Dixisti, Credo, et mersisti.——Tertio interrogatus es, Credis et in Spiritum Sanctum? Dixisti, Credo. Tertio mersisti, ut multiplicem lapsum superioris aetatis absolveret trina confessio. 58 Naz. Orat. 40. de Bapt. p. 670- El’ P-é" 590"”? "1778" 'ypadrat, 13 (be 6 e’luds d'lram's'i A6709, defipo Kai p.3'rs'y'yp¢2¢- 61;¢1.-——-Ei1ré 'ro'is ps'ra'lreieeo'i 0's, 3 'yé'ypa¢a, 'ya'ypaqm. 522 Boox XI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. expounded, come and be enrolled again; and then tell those that would draw thee away from it, “ What I have written, I have written.” St. Am- brose seems also to allude to this, when59 he tells the initiated, that their handwriting was recorded not only in earth, but in heaven, because it was taken both in the presence of men and angels. And St. Austin60 says, The names of such as made their profession, were written in the book of life, not only by men, but by the heavenly powers above. Yet I confess St. Chrysostom has a passage which seems to go contrary to all this: for speaking of the difference between earthly masters buying slaves, and Christ taking us to be his servants, he reckons this among others, that Christ requires no wit- nesses nor handwriting of us,61 but only our bare word, to say, I renounce thee, Satan, and all thy pomp. Whence it must be concluded, either that this custom was not so universal as the rest, since St. Chrysostom knew nothing of it; or that the forecited evidences are not so cogent as at first sight they may seem to be. For St. Ambrose and St. Austin may be so interpreted, where they speak of being written in the book of life, as to be understood only in a figurative sense, for having their names written in heaven. Yet Vicecomes is very positive not only of this, but that men also set their seal62 to their subscription, and confirmed their profession with an oath. But I do not find any sufficient au- thority for this, and therefore will not any further insist upon it, which I had rather leave to the fur- ther disquisition of the critical and curious reader. sec," 13“ But by what has been said we may ce'fg‘rflgfi‘fe‘ffijhjg‘f easily perceive, that the design of the gagements to make mensensibie “their church in all these ceremonies, and ti’tigtftarngsttt: the caution and deliberation used in '“m' the whole action, was only to make men truly sensible of the nature of the Christian religion, (which admitted of no proselytes without these formal and solemn professions,) and of their great obligations to continue stedfast in that faith and obedience to Christ, which they had so solemnly promised with their mouths, and subscribed with their own hands, not only before men, but in the presence of God and the holy angels. This was the greatest engagement imaginable upon them, and of force to influence their whole lives. To which pur- pose St. Chrysostom often proposes and insists upon it, to make men bear it perpetually in memory, and use it as their best armour and weapon against all temptations. In his last discourse to the people of Antioch, he expatiates upon this topic, inveighin g first severely against all the shows of the Roman theatre and circus, and observation of days, and presages, and omens, which he reckons among the pomps of Satan. To these he joins enchantments and ligatures: for some Christians made no scruple to hang golden medals of Alexander the Great about their head or feet to cure diseases. With whom he expostulates after this manner: Are these our hopes68 and expectations, that after the cross and death of our Lord, we should put our trust for health in the image of a heathen king? Knowest thou not what wonders the cross hath done? how it hath destroyed death, extinguished sin, emptied hell, dissolved the power of the devil? And is it not as fit to be relied on to cure a bodily disease? It hath given resurrection to the world, and canst not thou confide in it? But thou not only pro- curest ligatures, but also charms, bringing some old drunken staggering woman to thy house for this purpose, and payest reverence to these things, after thou hast been disciplined in the religion of Christ. Nay, when men are admonished of these things, they plead in excuse, that the old woman the en- chanter is a Christian, and names nothing but the name of God. For which she is the more to be abhorred, because she abuses the name of God to so scandalous a practice, and whilst she calls herself a Christian, does the works of the heathen. The devils named the name of Christ, and yet were devils for all that, and were rebuked and ejected by our Saviour. Therefore I beseech you, keep your- selves pure from this deceit, and take this word as your staff and armour. As none of you will choose to walk abroad without his shoes or clothes; so with- out this word, let none of you venture out in public; but when you go over the threshold of your gate, say. first this word, I renounce thee, Satan, and thy pomp, and thy worship; and I make a covenant with thee, O Christ. Never go forth without this word, and it will be your staff, your armour, your invincible tower. And with this word, sign your- selves with the sign of the cross: and then not only man, but the devil himself cannot hurt you, whilst he finds you appearing guarded with this armour. Thus St. Chrysostom exhorts men daily to remem- ber their solemn profession of faith and baptismal vow, wherein they renounced Satan and embraced Christ, as the best preservative against sin and dan- ger. To which both he and Ephrem Cyrus add this momentous consideration,64 That an account of 59 Ambros. de Sacram. lib. 1. cap. 2. Chirographum tuum tenetur, non in terra, sed in crelo. It. de Initiatis, cap. 2. Tenetur vox tua, non in tumulo mortuorum, sed in libro viventium. 6° Aug. de Symbolo ad Catechumenos, lib. 2. cap. 1. No- mina profitentium in libro excipiuntur vitae, non a quolibet homine, sed a superiore cmlitus potestate. 6‘ Chrys. Horn. 21. ad Populum Antioch. t. 1. p. 274. Or’: ,uép'rvpas finds, ol’nc g'ylyparpa finds &vraws'i, 6AA’ aiprcs'i- "ral. \I/LM')’ 'rfi rpwufi, KC?" e’ivrps a’vrd drauoias, a'vrov'oio'o'opai 0-0:. Ea'ram‘i', &c. “2 Vicecom. de Ritib. Bapt. lib. 2. cap. 27. p. 343. 6* Chrys. ,Hom. 21. ad Popul. Antiochen. t. l. p. 275. ‘4 Ephrem. de Abrenunc. Baptismi, p. 150. Haec ipsa CHAP. VII. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 523 ANTIQUITIES OF THE this vow will be required of men at the day of judg- ment; for “by thy words shalt thou be justified, and by thy words shalt thou be condemned.” And Christ will say to every wilful transgressor of it, “ Out of thine own mouth will I condemn thee, O thou wicked servant.” As nothing therefore could be more useful than this part of the church’s disci- pline, in requiring such professions and promises of every man before they entered the service of Christ; as it was usual for masters to do, before they bar- gained“5 with slaves and took them into their family: so nothing could be more material than the con- tinued impressions of this vow upon men’s minds, to keep them under a quick sense of their obliga— tions, on which the whole conduct of their lives so much depended, and their eternal interest at the day of judgment. There is one thing more remains to anf,“,‘,‘:,‘}§§u‘f;;b§§n_ be inquired into under this head, that igfi‘qgfifi’gigfii is, whether any public or particular their baptism‘ confession of sins was required of men at their baptism, besides what was implied in the general renunciation of Satan and all his works and service? Now, this is plainly resolved by St. Chry- sostom in the negative. For discoursing of the dif- ference between God’s choosing his servants, and the choice which earthly princes and masters make of their soldiers and slaves, he makes the difference chiefly to consist in this: That before men were al- lowed to enter the lists in any of the famous exer- cises of the theatre, a public crier must first lead them about by the hand before all, and cry out, saying, Does any one accuse this man ? though there the engagement was only of the body, and not of the soul. But in God’s choice of us it is quite otherwise: for though our engagement depends not upon strength of arms, but on the philosophy and virtue of our souls, yet the ruler and governor thereof acts quite contrary: he does not take a man, and lead him about, and say, Does any one accuse him? but he cries out, Though all men and devils should rise up against him, and accuse him of secret and horrible crimes, I do not reject, I do not abhor him; but I deliver him from his accuser, and ab- solve him from his iniquity, and so I lead him to the combat. Nor is this the only admirable thing, that he forgives our sins, but that he does not reveal nor disclose them; he neither makes open proclam- ation of them,“ nor compels those that come to him Sect. l4. ' to publish their own offences, but requires them to give account, and confess their sins to him alone. He does not, like earthly judges, oblige criminals to make a public confession before all men in hopes of pardon, but he forgives sins upon our private testimony without any other witnesses. This is undeniable evidence, that no public confession was required of men for their private ofi'ences, when they came to baptism. And therefore when Gregory Nazianzen67 speaks of confession of sins made at baptism, he is to be understood either of a general confession, or such a particular confession as men voluntarily imposed upon themselves, to testify more eminently the sincerity of their repentance; which some think was done at J ohn’s baptism, Matt. iii. 6, and in the baptism of those mentioned Acts xix. 18, where it is said, that “ many who believed came, and confessed, and showed their deeds ;” though this was not imposed upon men by any necessary law or rule of the church. In case of public scandalous crimes, they were obliged particularly to promise and vow the forsaking of them; but for private crimes, no particular confession was required to be made, save only to God, with a general renunciation of all sin, in which every private crime was sup- posed to be included. Vid. Aug. Serm. 116. de Tempore. ' ‘ CHAPTER VIII. OF THE USE OF SPONSORS OR SURETIES IN BAPTISM. NEXT to the conditions and promises required of men in their baptism, we 8p'g:sr§s;§§;aggrpfi_ must examine the oflice and business ggiizgugirlelgch- 1- of sponsors or sureties, who had al- ways some concern in these obligations. And here it is first to be observed, that there were three sorts of sponsors made use of in the primitive church: 1. For children, who could not renounce, or profess, or answer for themselves. 2. For such adult per- sons, as by reason of sickness or infirmity were in the same condition with children, incapacitated to answer for themselves. 3. For all adult persons in general. For the church. required sponsors also for those, who were otherwise qualified to make their own responses. Now, the oflice of sponsors was di- versified a little in its nature according to these dis- tinctions. They who were sureties or sponsors for children, were obliged first to answer in their names to all the interrogatories that were usually put in abrenunciatio et pulchra confessio exigetur a quoeunque Christiano in illa die, &c. Chrys. Hom. 21. ad Pop. Antioch. p. 274. Hoc igitur dicamus, abrenuncio tibi Satana: tan- quam in illa die hujus vocis rationem reddituri, ut salvum tunc reddamus depositum. 65 Chrys, ibid_ p_ 273. 6‘ Chrys. Horn. 21. ad Pop. Antioch. p. 270, Oi, 7051-0 as ‘minor: écr'ri. S'avnaa'rdv, 3'11 a'duino'w fin'iv Fro‘: dnap'rfi- para, 00th’ 31'; ai’i'ra‘: obdé émcahfi'rr'ret, 058s 'n'ots'Z (bar/apt‘: Kai. dfiha, 066i dua'yxa'z'gu 'rmpeheéu'ras sis pe'o'ov e’fsmre'iv \ I )AX" ’ a I , k , 6 Ta 7r€7T>\.11].L/.LEA1”L£U(1, a au'rqu pomp a'n'o o'yno'ao' at Ke- hez'isc, Kai. vrpds ab'rdu égonchoyricrao'dat. 8’ Naz. Orat. 40. de Bapt. p. 657. 524 BOOK XI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. baptism, and then to be guardians of their Christian education. Some will also needs have it, that they were obliged to give them a perfect maintenance, and take them as it were for their own children by adoption, in case their parents failed and left them destitute in their minority. Sect,“ But this I take to be a mistake. I, Eggg‘ggigggm; For whoever were sponsors for chil- °wn children‘ dren, if ever they became destitute, the burden devolved‘ upon the church in general, and not upon any others. Which will be evidenced by these two considerations : first, That parents were commonly sponsors for their own children: and in that case, there can be no dispute where the obligation of maintenance lay so long as they were alive. For they were obliged to maintain their own children by a natural law, not because they were sponsors, but because they were parents to them. It was not indeed absolutely necessary that parents should be sponsors for their own children, though some in St. Austin’s days were inclined to think so, which he reckons an error,‘ and shows, that in many cases there was a necessity it should be otherwise. But yet in most cases the parents were sponsors for their own children; as appears from St. Austin, who speaks of parents in all ordinary cases offering their own children to baptism, and making the proper responses for them :2 and the extraordinary cases in which they were presented by others, were commonly such cases where the parent could not, or would not, do that kind ofiice for them; as when slaves8 were presented to baptism by their masters; or children, whose parents were dead, were brought by the charity of any who would show mercy on them; or children exposed by their parents, which were sometimes taken up by the holy virgins of the church, and by them presented unto baptism. These are the only cases mentioned by St. Austin, in which children seem to have had other sponsors, and not their parents. Which makes it probable, that in all ordinary cases parents were sureties for their own children. Which may be collected also from the author of the Hypognostics,4 under the name of St. Austin, who speaks of infants being presented to baptism by the hands of their parents, and some of them dying in their arms before the priest could baptize them. Whilst parents there- fore were sureties for their own children, they were obliged to maintain them; but this not by the law of sureties, but by the law of nature; and if they failed, this duty devolved upon the whole church. Secondly, In other cases, where Sect 3_ strangers became sureties for chil- ,Oflggatgugigetggg dren, the burden of maintenance did ftfonfihtlf‘éfi’tii’é never devolve upon them by any law sponsm' of suretiship, except they were obliged by some antecedent law to take care of them. In case a master was sponsor for his slave, he was obliged to maintain him, because he was antecedently in the nature of a father to him ; and this obligation arose, not from his suretiship, but from his being his mas- ter. But in other cases it was not so. For sometimes children, that were exposed, were taken up and presented to baptism by mere strangers, and in that case the burden of maintenance fell upon the church, and not upon the sponsors. And in some cases, as St. Austin5 informs us, such children were pre- sented unto baptism by the sacred virgins of the church, who had no other maintenance but what they themselves received from the church; and in that case it is evident the children’s maintenance must be derived from the same fountain as the virgins’ was, that is, from the public stock of the church. So that in all cases the church was charged with this care, and not the sponsors, except there was some antecedent obligation. And there was good reason for this; for, as St. Austin6 observes, children were presented to baptism not so much by those in whose hands they were brought, (though by them too, if they were good and faithful men,) as by the whole society of saints. The whole church was their mother, she brought forth all and every one by this new birth; and therefore, if any were to be charged with maintenance, it was but reason- able that the church should maintain her own chil- dren. So that they who lay so much stress upon sponsors undertaking for children, as if they there- by undertook to give them maintenance too, have no grounds for their assertion, since it appears from the best light that we have, to have been otherwise 1 Aug. Ep. 23. ad Bonifac. Illud autem nolo te fallat, ut existirnes reatus vinculum ex Adam tractum, aliter non posse dirumpi, nisi parvuli ad percipiendam Christi gratiam a parentibus oiferantur. 2 Aug. ibid. Quid est illud, quod quando ad baptismum offeruntur, parentes pro eis tanquam fidedictores respon- dent, &c. 3 Aug. ibid. Videas multos non oiferri a parentibus, sed etiam a quibuslibet extraneis, sicut a Dominis servuli ali- quando oiferuntur. Et nonnunquam mortuis parentibus suis, parvuli baptizantur, ab eis oblati, qui illis hujusmodi miserieordiam praebere potuerunt. Aliquando etiam quos crudeliter parentes exposuerunt, nutriendos a quibuslibet, nonnunquam a sacris virginibus colliguntur, et ah eis offe- runtur ad baptismum. 4 Aug. Hypognostic. contra Pelag. lib. 6. cap. 7. t. 7. p. 633. Novimus etiam parvulos, quibus usus liberi arbitrii non est, ut de bonis aut malis eorum meritis judicemus, pa- rentum manibus ad gratiam sacri baptismatis deportatos: et cum in uno eorum per manus sacerdotis mysterium fidei adimpleretur, aliquoties alterum in parentum manibus fac- tum exanimem, fraudatum gratia' salvatoris. 5 Aug. Ep. 23. ad Bonifac. 6 Aug. ibid. Offeruntur quippe parvuli ad percipiendam spiritualem gratiam, non tam ab eis quorum gestantur mani- bus, quamvis et ah ipsis, si et ipsi boni fideles sunt, quam ab universa societate sanctorum atque fidelium—-—T0ta 1100 mater ecclesia quae in sanctis est, facit: quia tota omne tota singulos parit. ‘ can». vn'r. 525 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. in the practice of the primitive church. I have not said this to excuse sponsors from any duty that properly belongs to them, but only to take off the force of an unreasonable objection, which some have made against the present use of sponsors in baptism, as if they were of a different sort from those of the ancient church, because they are not under this particular obligation, which appears not to have any other foundation but the bare surmise of those who make the objection. sect. 4. Two things indeed were anciently swgrugorotrégmwmtfié required of sponsors as. their proper figjgllgggfgnsaw- duty: 1. To answer 1n their names to all the interrogatories of baptism. This seems to be intimated by Tertullian,7 where he speaks of the promises which the sponsors made in baptism, and of the danger there was of their failing to fulfil them, either by their own mortality, or by the untoward disposition of the party. But if any one thinks these promises related only to what the sponsors promised for themselves, and not in the name of the child, he may be informed more clearly from others. Gennadius8 tells us, These promises for infants and such as were uncapablc of learning, were made after the usual manner of interrogatories in baptism. And St. Austin9 more particularly acquaints us with the form then used, which was, Doth this child believe in God? Doth he turn to God? which is the same as renouncing the devil, and making a covenant with Christ. In other places 1° he tells us more expressly, That the spon- sors answered for them, that they renounced the devil, his pomps, and his works. And disputing against the Pelagians, he proves by this argument, That children were under the power of Satan and the guilt of original sin, and needed pardon, because if a Pelagian himself brought a child to baptism, he must answer for him,11 because he could not answer for himself, that he renounced the devil, that he turned to God, and that, among other things, he believed the remission of sins; all which would only be fallaciously said, if children. had no concern in them. And he professes, he would not admit any child to baptism, whose sponsor he had reason to believe did not make these promises and re- sponses sincerely for him. Of the form and prac- tice, then, there is no dispute. Only it seemed a great difficulty to Bishop Boniface, and as such he pro- posed it to St. Austin, How it could be said with truth, that a child believed, or renounced the devil, or turned to God, who had no thought or appre- hension of these things; or if any, yet secret and unknown to us i’ If any one should ask us concern- ing a child, Whether he would prove chaste, or a thief, when he became a man P we should doubtless in that case answer, We know not. Or if the question was, Whether a child in his infancy thought good or evil? we should make the same answer, We know not. Since, therefore, no one would promise either for his future morals, or his present thoughts, how is it that when parents present their children as sponsors in baptism, they answer and say, The children do those things which that age does not so much as think of P as, that they believe in God, and are turned unto him, &c. To this St. Austin answers, That the child is said to believe, because he receives the sacrament of faith and conversion, which entitles him to the name of a believer. For the sacraments,12 because of the resemblance be- tween them and the things represented by them, do carry the name of the things represented. Christ was but once offered in himself, and yet he is offered not only on the annual solemnity of the passover, but every day for the people; and no one tells a lie, that says, He is offered. As therefore the sacrament of Christ’s body after a certain manner is called his body, and the sacrament of his blood is called his blood ; so the sacrament of faith is faith. And upon this account, when it- is answered, That an infant believes, who has not yet any knowledge " Tertul. de Bapt. cap. 18. Quid enim necesse est spon- sores etiam periculo ingeri? Quia et ipsi per mortalitatem destituere promissiones suas possint, et proventu malae in- dolis falli. 8 Gennad. de Eccles. Dogmat. cap. 52. Si vero parvuli sunt, vel hebetes, qui doctrinarn. non capiant, respo ndeant pro illis qui eos offerunt, juxta morem baptizandi. 9 Aug. Ep. 23. ad Bonifac. Interrogamus cos, a quibus offeruntur, et dicimus, Credit in Deum? de illa aetate, quae utrum sit Deus, ignoret: respondent, Credit; et ad caetera sic respondent singula qua: quaeruntur, &c. 1° Aug. Serm.116. de Tempore, t. 10. p. 304. Fidejussores pro ipsis respondent, quod abrenuncient diabolo, pompis et operibus ejus. 11 Aug. de Peccator. Meritis, lib. 1. cap. 34. Vellem aliquis istorum qui coutraria sapiunt, mihi baptizandum parvulum afl‘erret. Ipse certe mihi erat responsurus pro eodem parvulo quem gestaret, quia ille pro se respondere non posset. Quomodo ergo dicturus erat eum renunciare diabolo, cujus in e0 nihil esset? Quomodo converti ad Deum, a quo non esset aversus P Credere Inter caetera remissionem peccatorum, quae illi nulla tribueretur? Ego quidem si con- tra eum haec sentire existimarem, nec ad sacramenta cum parvulo intrare permitterem. 12 Aug. Ep. 23. ad Bouifac. N onne semel immolatus est Christus in seipso? Et tamen in sacramento non solum per omnes Paschae solennitates, sed omni die populis im- molatur; nec utique mentitur qui interrogatus eum respon- deritimmolari. Si enim sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum quarum sacramenta sunt non haberent, sacra- menta. non essent. Ex hac autem similitudine plerumque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt. Sicut ergo se- cundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christi cor- pus Christi est, sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi est, ita sacramentum fidei fides est. Ac per hoc cum respondetur parvulus credere, qui fidei nondum habet afl'ectum, respondetur fidem habere propter fidei sacramen- tum, et convertere se ad Deum propter conversionis sacra- mentum, quia et ipsa responsio ad celebratiouem pertinet sacramenti. 526 Boox XI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. or habit of faith, the meaning of the answer is, That he has faith because of the sacrament of faith, and is converted to God because of the sacrament of conversion ;_for these answers appertain to the celebration of the sacrament. So that, according to St. Austin, when an infant is said to have faith, the meaning is only that he receives the sacrament of faith, which faith he is bound to embrace when he comes to understand it. In the mean time he is called a believer, because he receives the sacrament of faith, and is entered into the covenant of God by his sponsors, who supply that part for him which he cannot perform in his own person. This was the first duty of sponsors toward children. The other was, that they were to iaggidiigbg'guargl- be guardians of their spiritual life for pslrelife foiuiligli'u- the future, and to take care by good admonitions and good instructions that they performed their part of the covenant they were now engaged in. St. Austin *3 makes sponsors themselves concerned in this covenant with God, and therefore presses it as a duty upon them, that they should not only by their examples, but by their words and instructions, teach them the great duties of chastity, humility, sobriety, and peace, for- asmuch as they had answered in their stead, that they renounced the devil, his pomps, and his works. And in another place 1‘ he more particularly specifies their obligations: That they should admonish them to live chastely, and preserve their virginity to mar- riage, to refrain their tongues from evil-speaking and perjury, not to accustom their mouths to filthy and lascivious songs, not to be proud nor envious, not to retain anger nor hatred in their hearts, not to observe divination or soothsaying, nor to hang phylacteries or diabolical characters upon their own bodies or their relations; to keep and hold the catho- lic faith, to frequent the church, to hear the Scrip- tures read with attention, to entertain strangers, and wash their feet, according to what was said to them in baptism, to live peaceably, to be peacemakers among disagreeing brethren, and to honour the priests and their parents with the love of sincere charity. These were such things as they had pro- mised for children in baptism, and therefore they were bound by compact with God to use their ut- most endeavours to engage their spiritual pupils to perform them. Another sort of sponsors were such as were appointed to make answers spgngfsfngofogucolf for such persons, as by reason of 333115013331, ,3: some infirmity could not answer for themsewes' themselves. I have observed before, that such adult persons as were suddenly struck speechless, or seized with a frenzy by the violence of a distemper, might yet be baptized, if any of their friends could testify that they had beforehand desired baptism: and in this case the same friends became sponsors for them, making the very same answers for them as they did for children. This we learn from Cyril of Alexandria, who assures us, That when men were seized with extremity of sickness,15 and it was thought proper upon that account to baptize them, there’ were some appointed to make both the re- nunciations and confessions in their name. And so it is in the account which Fulgentius16 gives of the African negro, who just before his baptism fell sick of a fever, which bereaved him of his senses, and made him speechless : he was baptized, for all this, having his sponsors to answer in his name, as if it had been for an infant. So that all those ca- nons which17 speak of baptizing dumb persons in cases of extremity, though they do not expressly re- quire sponsors for them, yet are to be understood as intending them, according to the usual practice of the church. And if the party happened to recover after such a baptism, it was the sponsor’s duty, not only to acquaint him, as a witness, with what was done for him, but also, as a guardian of his behavi- our, to induce him to make good the promises,which he in his name had made for him. For this was the indispensable duty of sureties in all cases whatsoever. The third sort of sponsors were for such sort of adult persons as were able Thestiiciirggipfit of to answer for themselves; for these figgfisvzrrionzrm at also had their sponsors, and no per- sons anciently were baptized without them. These are spoken of not only by Dionysius“ and the au- thor of the Apostolical Constitutions,’9 but by many other more unquestionable writers. Victor Uticen- sis tells us20 of one Muritta a deacon, who was spon- nor for Elpidiphorus at Carthage. And Palladius?‘ Sect. 6. ‘3 Aug. Serm. 116. de Tempore, t. 10. p. 304. Non so- lum exemplis, sed etiam verbis, eos ad omne opus bonum admonere debetis.—Posteaquam baptizati fuerint, de casti- tate, de humilitate, de sobrietate vel pace eos admonere vel docere non desinant, et agnoscant se fidejussores esse ipso- rum. Pro ipsis enim respondent, quod abrenuncient dia- bolo, pompis et operibus ejus. ‘4 Aug. Serm. 163. de Temp. ‘5 Cyril. Corn. in J oh. xi. 26. t. 4. p. 683. "Trap 6% 'n'bv éo'xo'z—rp vo'o'zp Ka'rstlnmrs'vwu, ,usAAcii/Twv 're 6w‘: 'rfi'ro fia'lr- Q'L'Zso-Oar, Kai d'II'O'Té'T'TOII‘T'GL 'rwes Kai. ovv'ré'r'rou'rm. ‘8 Fulgent. de Bapt. .ZEthiopis, cap. 7. p. 610. Factum est, ut confessionem tempore praeterito redditam, quia non potuit in hora baptismi reddere propter infirmitatem cor- poris, adjutorio fraternae redderet charitatis. Vid. Gennad. de Eccl. Dogm. c. 52. ‘7 See chap. 5. sect. 2. ‘8 Dionys. Eccl. Hierarch. cap. 2. p. 252. ‘9 Constit. Apost. lib. 3. cap. 16. 2° Victor. de Persecut. Vandal. lib. 3. Bibl. Patr. t. 7. p. 613. Hic dudum fuerat apud nos in ecclesia Fausti bap- - tizatus, quem venerabilis Muritta diaconus de alveo fontis susceperat generatum. 2' Pallad. Hist. Lausiac. c. 12. Bibl. Patr. Gr. Lat. t. 2. p. 915. 'Avrodéxerac 'rdu ‘Pecp'iuové c'i'yws aim‘: T6 (.ixpa'v'rs fia'n'v'iawaq'os. CHAP. VIII. 527 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. says, Evagrius Ponticus performed the same of- fice for Rufinus the great statesman, and pre- fectas-praetorzb under Arcadius. St. Austin often mentions them, but then he also acquaints us, that it was no part of their oflice to make responses for their pupils in baptism, as it was in the case of in- fants and sick persons who could not answer for themselves. For though the church accepted it22 in the case of infants by reason of their disability, yet she would not allow adult persons to answer by proxy, who were able to answer for themselves; there being something of natural reason in that saying in the Gospel, “ He is of age, let him speak for himself.” The most rustic capacities and mean- est understandings even in the weaker sex, would not ordinarily excuse them from doing this in their own persons, unless, as Gennadius28 says, they were so heavy and dull, as not to be capable of learning, in which condition their sponsors were required to answer for them as for little children, from whom they differed so little in understanding. But in ordinary cases this was no whossictatiéy was office of the sponsors, when men were 5%; in a capacity to answer for themselves. gggcéftgegpgggw Their only business was to be cura— tors and guardians of their spiritual life; to which purpose, it was incumbent on them to take care of their instruction and morals, as well before as after baptism. Upon this account the deaconesses were usually employed in the private instruction of women, to teach them how to make their responses in baptism. And this was one quali- fication required in deaconesses by some ancient canons}4 that they should be persons of such good understanding as to be able to instruct the ignorant and rustic women, how to make their responses to the interrogatories which the minister should put to them in baptism, and how to order their con- versation afterward, as has been observed in an- other place!25 And by some ancient rules this _ Thasiiii'cg'cmeny oflice was chiefly imposed upon dea- glgosiildupilgagdij conesses, to be sponsors for women, as the deacons were obliged to be for 88885. men. For so the author of the Apostolical Consti- tutions seems to represent it, when he orders 2“ a deacon to be susceptor for a man, and a deaconess for a woman, in baptism. And we find the sacred virgins often mentioned as concerned in this oflice. St. Austin, as we heard before, speaks of them?7 as presenting exposed children to baptism, though they had no children of their own, nor intended to have any. And in the Life of Epiphanius28 we read, that as one Lucian was his godfather in baptism, so Bernice, a sacred virgin, was godmother to his sister. Whence it appears, that at first the sacred virgins and monastics were thought as proper persons as any to take this weighty office upon them. Though afterward, in the French church, by a canon29 of the council of Auxerre, monks are prohibited from being sponsors in baptism. And so the prohibition stands in the Romish church to this day. But anciently there was no prohibi- Sect m tion of any sorts of men from per- h,,‘,’§',he§‘¥f§£“§,§§fé forming this charitable oflice, save spmm' only of such as unqualified themselves, by going contrary to the rules of the Christian religion. Fathers, as we heard before, were frequently spon- sors for their own children; and I know of no pro- hibition of this before the time of Charles the Great, when the council of Mentz“o made a decree against it, forbidding fathers to be susceptors to their own sons or daughters at the font in baptism. Ancient- ly also presbyters and deacons were allowed to be sponsors, though this is also now prohibited in some provincial councils of the Romish church by Car- dinal Borromaeo,81 in the last age. But the only persons whom the ancients excluded from this office, were catechumens, energumens, heretics, and peni- tents; that is, persons who either were yet never in full communion with the church, as being them- selves unbaptized; or else such as had forfeited the privileges of their baptism and church-communion by their errors, or crimes, or incapacity to assist others, who needed assistance themselves. And by some canons,82 persons who were never confirmed, were excluded from being sponsors both in baptism and confirmation. 22 Aug. de Bapt. lib. 4. cap. 24. Cum alii pro infantibus respondent, ut impleatur circa eos celebratio sacramenti, valet utique ad eorum consecrationem, quia ipsi responders non possunt. At si pro e0 qui respondere potest, alius re- spondeat, non itidem valet, &c. 23 Gennad. de Ecol. Dogm. c. 52. Si vero parvuli sunt, vel hebetes, qui doctrinam non capiant, respondeant pro illis qui eos ofl'erunt juxta morem baptizandi. 2‘ Conc. Carthag. 4. can. 12. Viduae vel sanctimoniales quas ad ministerium baptizandarum mulierum eliguntur, tam instructae sint ad ofiicium, ut possint apto et sancto sermone docere imperitas et rusticas mulieres, tempore quo baptizan- dae sunt, qualiter baptizatori respondeant, et qualiter accepto baptismate vivant. 25 See Book II. chap. 22. sect. 9. 26 Constit. Apost. lib. 3. C. 16. Tdv pin c’ivdpa I'm'ode- xa'o'ew o dtéicovoe, 'n‘jv 6t 'yuva'ixa 1‘) 6w'uc0vos. 2’ Aug. Ep. 23. ad Bonifac. Aliquando etiam quos crude- liter parentes exposuerunt, nntriendos a quibuslibet, nonnun- quam a sacris virginibus colliguntur, et ab eis ofi'eruntur ad baptismum. Quae eerte proprios filios non habuerunt ullos, nec habere disponunt. 2” Vita Epiphan. n. 8. t. 2. p. 324. “Os Kai. '7ra'r1‘1p aim-06 s'yemidn évri 'roii ci'yiov gbwrio-na'ros. Bspuixnu 'riyu d'ylfau 7rap6e'uov, ii 'rts é'yéus'ro tui'rnp 'rfis ddshqfifis 'E1n¢am'0v. 29 Cone. Antissiodor. can. 25. Non licet abbati filium de baptismo suseipere; nec monachis commatres habere. 9° Conc. Mogunt. an. 813. can. 55. Nullus igitur proprium filium vel filiam de fonte baptismatis suscipiat. 3‘ Borromae. Synod. Dioeces. 2. Decret. 18. 82 Cone. Moguntinum, ap. Gratian. de Consecrat. Dist. 4. cap. 102. In baptismate vel in chrismate, non potest alium 528 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Boox XI. - Sec, ,,_ From what has been said, the reader But one sponsor geaigsgogng $23, will also easily observe, that anciently and a woman for 5 no more but one sponsor was required, woman' and that was a man for a man, and a woman for a woman; for we never read of more than one, in all the accounts of the ancients, and one of the same sex for adult persons. In the case of infants, there was no regard had to the difference of sex: for a virgin might be a sponsor for a man- child, and a father for his own children, whether they were male or female. And one sponsor was sufficient in any case. Some rules forbid more than one, either in baptism or confirmation: as that de- cree of Leo,“3 cited by Gratian, which says, No more than one, whether man or woman, shall be admitted as surety for a child in baptism: and the like to be observed in confirmation. Which rule was renewed and confirmed by the council of Metz,84 but upon a reason which is something peculiar. For they con- clude, that because there is but one God, one faith, one baptism, therefore an infant ought to have only one sponsor, whether man or woman, at his bap- tism: which I mention not for the excellency of the reason, but .only to show what conformity it bears to the ancient practice. Some perhaps will here be desirous 0,2381; fifjfiv‘ttfigg to know the original of that practice 5.133332133323123? in the Romish church, which is the 13mm‘ occasion of so many dispensations in matrimonial causes, arising from the prohibition of sponsors or godfathers marrying within the forbid- den degrees of spiritual relation. Now, that which seems to have given the first tendency towards this, was a law of Justinian, still extant in the Code, wherein he forbids 85 any man to marry a woman, whether she be a slave or free, for whom he had been godfather in baptism when she was a child; because nothing does induce a more paternal affec- tion, or juster prohibition of marriage, than this tie, by which their souls are in a divine manner united together. Now, this law extended no further than to prohibit marriage in this immediate relation; and it could not affect very many, whilst parents were commonly sponsors for their own children, and the sacred virgins, or the deaconnesses, or the clergy, for others; and men were sponsors for men, Sect. l2. and women for women. But afterward this was improved a little further: for the council of Trullo86 forbids the godfather not only to marry‘ the infant, but the mother of the infant, for whom he answers; and orders them that have done so, first to be sepa- rated, then to do the penance of fornicators. This prohibition was extended to more degrees in the following ages, and grew so extravagant, that the council of Trent thought it a matter worthy of their reformation; though still by their rules this spirit- ual relation 3’ was extended to more degrees than either the laws of Justinian or the canons of Trullo had prohibited. For they forbid marriage not only between the sponsors and their children, but also between the sponsors themselves; and the father and mother of the baptized is not to marry a spon- sor ; nor may the baptizer marry the baptized, nor the father or mother of the baptized, because of the spiritual relation that is contracted between them. But they forbid above two sponsors to appear for a child, and if more than two appear, they are not bound by this law of spiritual relation, though the canon law38 had determined otherwise in former ages. Yet, after all their regulations about this matter, there remain a thousand difficulties to ex- ercise the pens of the Roman casuists, which the reader that is curious may find referred to by So- teallus and Barbosa,” in their Declarations and Remissions on the council of Trent. There is one thing indeed ordered by that council, which was anciently thesponsorsordmd of good use, though not for the pur- Etebio‘éi‘és‘tidd‘.‘ pose for which they appointed it. church' That is, that not only the names of the baptized, but also the names of the sponsors, should be regis- tered in the books of the church. The council of Trent orders it, only that men might know what persons were forbidden to marry by this spiritual relation. But anciently it had a much better use, that the church might know who were sponsors, and that they might be put in mind of their duty, by being entered upon record, which was a stand- ing memorial of their obligations. This custom we find mentioned in the author under the name of Dionysius, where he describes the ceremony of ad— mitting catechumens together with their sponsors. Sect. 13. Why the names of suscipere in filiolum, qui non est ipse vel baptizatus vel con- firmatus. “3 Gratian. de Consecrat. Dist. 4. cap. 101. Non plures ad suscipiendum de baptismo infantem accedant quam unus, sive vir, sive mulier. In confirmatione quoque id ipsum fiat. 8“ Cone. Metense, cap. 12, cited by Vicecomes. 35 Justin. Cod. lib. 5. Tit. 4. de Nuptiis, Leg. 26. Ea persona omnimodo ad nuptias venire prohibenda, quam aliquis, sive alumna sit, sive non, a sacrosancto suscepit baptismate; cum nihil aliud sic inducere potest paternam affectionem, et justam nuptiarum prohibitionem, quam hu- jusmodi nexus, per quem, Deo mediante, animae eorum co- pulatae sunt. 36 Cone. Trull. can. 53. "Eyuwpév 711109 ex Proii Barn-[o'- [LGT'OS‘ 'n'a'idas dvadsxohévovs, Kai ,us'rdz Proii'ro 'ra'ls Ercsiuwu ,m'rpéo't 'YGILLKC‘HI o'vuahhdo'o'ou'ras o'vvoucéo'rov. 5pi§o,u.su d'lrd 'roii 'n'apdu'ros ,undeu 'rotoii'ro qrpaxeiiuat. 8’ Cone. Trident. Sess. 24. de Reform. Matrimon. cap. 2. Inter susceptores ac baptizatum ipsum, et illius patrem ac matrem, necnon inter baptizantem et baptizatum, baptiza- tique patrem ac matrem, tantum spiritualis cognatio con- trahatur. 38 Sext. Decretal. lib. 4. Tit. 3. de Cognat. Spirit. cap. 3. Si plures accesserint, spiritualis cognatio inde contrahi- tur, &c. 99 Canon. Conc. Trid. cum Remissionibus Barbosae, Co- lon. 1621. CHAP. IX. 529 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. The bishop first explains to the catechumen the laws and rules of a divine life and conversation, and then asks him whether he purposes so to live? Which when he has promised, he lays his hand upon his head, and orders the priest to register“0 both the man and his sponsor. Afterward he speaks of reciting their names out of these registers, when men were presented by their sponsors immediately to be baptized. And thus much of the use of sponsors in the primitive church. CHAPTER IX. OF THE UNCTION AND THE SIGN OF THE CROSS IN BAPTISM. Sec," ,_ WE find in some of the ancient ritual- Of the first origin- ,mfmmonmm. ists, but not in all, mention made of tism‘ an unction preceding baptism, and used by way of preparation for it. They who first describe it, speak of it as used either immediately after the confession of faith, as the author1 of the Constitutions; or else between the renunciation and the confession, as Cyril of J erusalem2 describes it. But there is no mention of this unction either in Justin Martyr or Tertullian. For though Tertul- lian speaks of an unction among the ceremonies of baptism; yet, as Daillea rightly observes, it was not this unction preceding baptism, but the unction which followed after it in confirmation, accompa- nied with imposition of hands, which belongs to another subject. For it is plain from Tertullian, that neither of these were given before baptism, but when men‘ were come out of the water, then they were anointed with the holy unction, and had im- position of hands, in order to receive the Holy Ghost. Whence I think Daille’s conjecture very just and reasonable, that the unction preceding bap- tism is of later date, and was not as yet adopted among the ceremonies of baptism in the time of Tertullian. Seem” But the writers of the following beg‘giiltiethtllsifl'gsnce ages speak distinctly of two unctions, a?!“ in wnfirma- the one before, the other after bap- tism; which they describe by different names and different ceremonies, to distinguish them one from the other. The first they commonly call Xpio'w pvarucofi éxaiov, the unction of the mystical oil, and the other, Xpiaw pz’ipov, or xpio'pa, the unction of chrism. They both agree in this, that the bishop only consecrated them, whether for the use of bap- tism or confirmation. The author of the Constitu- tions gives us a form of consecration to be used by the bishop in sanctifying oil for this unction before baptism, where he prays5 to God, that he would sanctify the oil in the name of the Lord Jesus, ‘and grant it spiritual grace, and efi'icacious power, that it might be subservient to the remission of sins, and the preparation of men to make their profession in baptism, that such as were anointed therewith, be- ing freed from all impiety, might become worthy of the initiation according to the command of his only begotten Son. And this power of consecration is reserved to the bishop in all the canons of the an- cient councils, of which more when we come to speak of confirmation. In the mean time, I ob- serve, I. That these two went by different names. The author of the Constitutions calls the first8 mystical oil, and the other mystical'chrism, and has a distinct form of consecration for each of them. And the same distinction in name is observed by Cyril of Jerusalem,’ and the authors under the name of Justin Martyr,8 and Dionysius.9 2. They differed in the time of administering them. For the one was given before the party went into the water, the other after he came out of it again. Which is clear from all the forementioned authors, and from St. Ambrose, who speaks of an unction with oil ‘° before baptism. As also the author of the Recognitions under the name of Clemens Romanus,u who tells persons that were to be baptized, that they were first to be anointed with oil consecrated by prayer. 3. They differed in respect to the persons concerned in the administration. For the unction before bap- tism was often done by a deacon or a deaconess; but that after baptism, by the bishop himself most commonly, or at least by a presbyter in some pecu- liar cases. The author of the Constitutions,12 speak- ing particularly of the unction before the baptism of women, orders the bishop to anoint the head, the deacon the forehead, and the deaconesses the other parts of the body. But the chrism after baptism is reserved to the bishop only. Lastly, They differed 4° Dionys. de Hierarch. Eccl. cap. 2. p. 253. ‘Iepépxns dTO'YPé\,l/'(ZGBGL Kehséal. Profs ispsiio't 'rdu (ivdpa Kai. 'ro‘u a'uédoxou. It. p. 204. Kai. 'rwos iepe'ws 2'1: 759 a’qro'ypacpr’lg ail-ro'u 're Kai 'rdu dvddoxov KnpéEa-u-ros, &c. 1 Constit. Apost. lib. 7. cap. 41. 2 Cyril. Catech. Myst. 2. n. 3. 8 Dallas. de Confirmat. lib. 2. cap. 11. p. 181. 4 Tertul. de Bapt. cap. 7. Exinde egressi de lavacro peruuguimur benedicta unctione de pristina disciplina, qua ungui oleo de cornu in sacerdotium solebant, &c. 5 Constit. Apost. lib. 7. cap. 42. ' 6 Constit. lib. 7. c. 42. Mva'rucdv E'Xalov. Lib. 7. C. 44. Mva'ruco‘u jufipov. Vid. lib. 3. cap. 17. 7 Cyril. Catech. Myst. 2. n. 3. et Catech. 3. n. 3. 8 Justin. Resp. ad Orthod. qu. 137. 9 Dionys. de Eccl. Hierar. cap. 2. pl‘253. 1° Ambros. de Sacramentis, lib. l. c. 2. Venimus ad fontem—Unctus es quasi athlete Christi, quasi luctamen huj us saeculi luctaturus. ‘‘ Clem. Recognit. lib. 3. c. 67. Baptizabitur autem unusquisque vestrum—perunctus primo oleo per Orationem sanctificato. ‘2 Constit. Apost. lib. 3. c. 15 et 16. 2 .u 530 Boox XI. ANTIQUITIES OF 'DHE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. in the design and intent of them. For the design of the first unction was to prepare them for baptism, and enter them on their combat with Satan, as champions of Christ; the other was to consummate and confirm their baptism with the consignation or seal of the Holy Spirit. Cyril of Jerusalem, speaking of the former unction,l3 says, Men were anointed from head to foot with this exorcised or consecrated oil, and this made them partakers of the true olive tree, Jesus Christ. For they being cut out of a wild olive tree, and ingrafted into a good olive tree, were made partakers of the fatness of the good olive tree. Therefore that ex- orcised oil was a symbol of their partaking of the fatness of Christ, and an indication of the flight and destruction of the adverse power. For as the in- sufflations of the saints, and invocation of God, do, like a vehement flame, burn and put the devils to flight; so this exorcised oil, by prayer and invoca— tion of God, gains such a power, as not only to burn up and purge away the footsteps of sin, but also to repel all the powers of the invisible wicked one, the devil. St. Ambrose compares it to the anointing of wrestlers before they enter their combat: Thou camest to the font, says he, and wast anointedl4 as a champion of Christ, to fight the fight of this world. The author under the name of Justin Martyr, distinguishing between the two unctions, says, Men ‘5 were first anointed with the ancient oil, that they might be Christ’s, that is, the anointed of God; but they were anointed with the precious ointment (after baptism) in remembrance of him who reputed the anointing of himself with ointment to be his burial. The author of the Constitutions likewise uses the same distinction: Thou shalt first of all ‘6 anoint him with the holy oil, then baptize him with water, and afterward sign him with the ointment: that the anointing with oil may be the participation of the Holy Spirit, and the water may be the symbol of death, and the signing with oint- ment may be the seal of the compact made with God, But if there be neither oil, nor ointment, water is sufiicient both for the unction and the seal and the confession of Him with whom we die. So that this was only a ceremony of baptism, which might be omitted without any detriment to the substance or essential part of it. To these may be added the testimony of St. Chrysostom,'who says," Every per- Sect. 3. The design of this unction, and the reason of it, son, before he was baptized, was anointed, as wres- tlers entering the field: and this, not as the high priest was anointed of old, only on the head, or right hand, or ear, but all over his body, because he came not only to be taught, but to exercise himself .. in a fight or combat. This is the account which they give of this unction preceding baptism. Dr. Cave ‘8 and some other learned persons are of opinion, that together with this unction, the sign of the cross baptism First, In was made upon the forehead of the gjghflmiggfonggf- party baptized. And there is no Ztcgfjgsgfhefime question to be made of this, though all the passages they refer to are not direct proofs of it. For many of them relate to the sign of the cross in the unction of chrism or confirmation. As particularly, that unction which Tertullian speaks of, and the sign of the cross accompanying it, was not the unction before baptism, but that which fol- lowed in confirmation, as I have showed before in the beginning of this chapter. Therefore, to under- stand this matter exactly, we are to distinguish at least four several times, when the sign of the cross was used, during the preparation or consummation of the ceremonies of baptism. I. At the admission of catechumens to the state of catechumenship and the general name of Christians. 2. In the time of exorcism and imposition of hands, while they were passing through the several stages of catechumens. 3. At the time of this unction before baptism. 4. And lastly, at the unction of confirmation, which was then usually the conclusion of baptism both in adult persons and infants; and many of the pas- sages which speak of the sign of the cross in bap- tism, do plainly relate to this, as an appendage of baptism, and closely joined to it, as the last cere- mony and consummation of it. The use of this sign in the admission of catechumens, I have al- ready showed before from St. Austin, and the Life of Porphyrius, bishop of Gaza." And the frequent use of it in exorcism and imposition of hands and prayer, during their catechetical exercises, has also been noted”0 in treating of them from St. Austin and St. Ambrose, which I therefore need not here repeat. The third use of it was in this unc- Sm 5. 'tion before baptism. For so the unTci‘fgfi‘tdgye 1,21,}? author under the name of Dionysius, tism‘ describing the ceremony of anointing the party be- Sect. 4. The sign of the cross frequently used in the ceremonies of ‘3 Cyril. Catech. Myst. 2. n. 3. - ‘4 Ambros. de Sacram. lib. 1. cap. 2. Venimus ad fon- tem.—-Unctus es quasi athleta Christi, quasi luctamen hujus saeculi luctaturus. ‘5 Justin. Respon. ad Orthodox. (111.137. Xpw'usfia 8% n5 wahazq'i éhaitp, 'L'ua *yzua'wefia XpL-soi. 'rqi dis‘ pfiptp, 'lrpds a’ua'juuntrw Fri; 'rr‘w Xpio'w ‘T5 ,ufipa Eu'razpmo'pldv Eau'rfi h0- 'yt'gopéua. '6 Const. Apost. lib. 7. cap. 22. Xpio'sis 5E 7rpz'lrrov 'rq'i éhaiqu o'uyiqr E'qrsm'a Ba'rr'rio'us ilda'rt, Kai 'rahsu'ra'Zov rr¢pa- 'yio'sts pi'lprp' '[ua fro‘ lieu Xpio'ua ,uzsq'oxr‘y 'n'; 'A'yis Husfipta- ‘T09, 76 6s Udwp o'épfiohou ‘Ta? B'aua'Q-a, ‘To as ,uiipou o'¢pa'yis 'riBu cuutlmciou, &c. 1’ Chrys. Horn. 6. in Colos. p. 1358. "Ahsftps'rat, d'm'vrsp 0i a’ekm'ai. eis qddtov épfifld'éfL890L, &C. 18 Cave, Prim. Christ. par. I. cap. 10. p. 318. 19 See Book X. chap. 1. sect. 3. 2° Book X. chap. 2. sect. 8. CHAP. IX. 531 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. fore the consecration of the water, says, The bishop begins the unction by thrice signing him21 with the sign of the cross, and then commits him to the priests to be anointed all over the body, whilst he goes and consecrates the water in the font. St. Austin also may be understood of this, when he says,22 The cross is always joined with baptism. And by this we may interpret several passages in Cyprian, as where he tells Demetrian, They only escape who are born again, and signed with the sign of Christ. And what that sign is, and on what part of the body it is made, the Lord signified in another place, saying, “ Go through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon their foreheads.” 23 And so again in his book of the Unity of the Church,24 speaking of Uzziah’s leprosy, he says, He was mark- ed for his offence against the Lord in that part of his body, where those are signed who obtain his mercy. Which seems plainly to refer to the- sign of the cross made in baptism. The author of the Apostolical Constitutions is very express in this matter. For explaining the meaning _of the se- veral parts and ceremonies used in baptism, he says,25 The water is to represent Christ’s burial, the oil to represent the Holy Ghost, the sign of the cross to represent the cross, and the ointment or chrism, the confirmation of men’s professions. And not improbably St. J erom might refer to this, though his words be not so restrained to this time of unction, when he says, He was a Christian, born of Christian parents, and carried the banner of the cross26 in his forehead. Some add also those words of Cyprian,” Let us guard our foreheads, that we may preserve the sign of God without danger. And those of Pontius28 in his Life, where speaking of the Christian confessors who were branded by the heathen in the forehead, and sent as slaves into the mines, he says, They were marked in the forehead a second time; alluding to the sign of the cross, which, as Christians, they had received before. But these passages do not necessarily relate to bap- tism, but are only general expressions that may refer to the use of the sign of the cross upon any other occasion; it being usual in those times to sign themselves upon the forehead in the commonest actions of their lives, upon every motion, as Tertul- lian expresses it,29 at their going out and coming in, at their going to bath, or to bed, or to meals, or whatever their employment or occasions called them to. Yet thus far it may be argued from them, that they who used it so commonly upon all other occasions, would hardly omit it in this solemn unction of baptism. And therefore these allega- tions may be allowed to be a sort of collateral evi- dence of the practice. Lastly, It was always used in the unction of confirmation. And that being then an appendage to baptism, what was done in it, was many times said to be done in baptism; and so both the unction and sign of the cross used in confirmation are ascribed to baptism, and upon that account sometimes mistaken for the former unction and consignation preceding baptism. There was no unction before baptism in the time of Tertullian; but there was one imme- diately after it, which, together with imposition of hands, had also the sign of the cross joined with it; and all these were properly ceremonies of confirma- tion, which came after baptism, and are not to be confounded with the former. T ertullian$0 says, The flesh is washed, that the soul may be cleansed; the flesh is anointed, that the soul may be conse- crated; the flesh is signed, that the soul may be guarded; the flesh is overshadowed by imposition of hands, that the soul may be illuminated by the Spi- rit; the flesh is fed by the body and blood of Christ, that the soul may receive nourishment or fatness from God. Here he describes all things in» order as they were done after baptism to the eucharist. There was an unction, and a signing with the sign of the cross, and imposition of hands, and then the eucharist. So that this sign of the cross plainly relates to the unction which came after baptism, and was a usual ceremony of imposition of hands Sect. 6. Fourthl , In the unction o confirm- ation. 21Dionys. de Hierar. Eccl. cap. 2. p. 253. ‘0 6t Tpis Xpfo'ews 810‘: 1'5 o'cppa'yfo'az 'rpis d'n'apga'znevos, 'rd honro‘u cro’is iepeiio'l. 'rdv t’ivdpa xpicrat wave-(finals arapadés, &c. 22 Aug. Serm. 101. de Tempore, p. 290. Semper enim cruci baptisma jungitur. 23 Cypr. ad Demetrian. p. 194. Evadere eos solos posse, qui renati et signo Christi _signati fuerint, alio loco Deus lo- quitur.—Quod autem fit hoc signum et qua in parte cor- poris positum, manifestat alio in loco Deus, dicens, Transi per mediam Jerusalem, et notabis signum super frontes vi- rorum, &c. ' 2‘ Cypr. de Unit.r Eccl. p. 116. In fronte maculatus est, ea parte corporis notatus, ofi'enso Domino, ubi signantur qui Dominum promerentur. 25 Constit. Apost. lib. 3. c. 17. T6 (is Udwp a’m'i Tarpiis, Kai 'rd Ehatov dv'ri IIusripta'ros 'A'yiov, 1‘, o'¢pa'yis a'u'ri 'roi'i o'q'aupoz”), 'rd puipou Beflaiwo'ts 'rfis buoho'yfas. 2“ Hieron. Ep. 113. Praefat. in Job, t. 3. Ego Christia- nus, et de parentibus Christianis natus, et vexillum crucis in mea fronte portans. 2’ Cypr. Ep. 50. al. 58. p. 125. Muniatur frons, ut signum _ Dei incolume servetur. ‘*8 Pontius. Vit. Cypr. p. 4. Confessores frontium notata- rum secunda inscriptione signatos. 2” Tertul. de Coron. Mil. cap. 3. Ad omnem progressum atque promotum, ad omnem aditum et exitum, ad vestitum, ad calceatum, ad lavacra, ad mensas, ad lumina, ad cubilia, ad sedilia, quaecunque nos conversatio exereet, frontem crucis signaculo tenemus. Vid. Cyril. Catech. 4. n. 10. Catech. 13. n. 19. Chrysost. Hom. 21. ad Popul. Antioch. 30Tertul. de Resur. cap. 8. Caro abluitur, ut anima emaculetur. Caro unguitur, ut anima consecretur. Caro signatur, ut et anima muniatur. Caro manus impositione adumbratur, ut et anima Spiritu illuminetur. _Caro cor- pore et sanguine Christi vescitur, ut et anima de Deo sa. ginetur. 2 M 2 532 Boox XI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. or confirmation. And thus we are to understand that other passage in Tertullian," where he says, The devil apes the ceremonies of the divine sacra- ments in his idol mysteries. He baptizes those that believe in him; he promises them expiation of sins in his laver, as now it is in the mysteries of Mithra; he signs his soldiers in the forehead; he celebrates also the oblation of bread, &c. Where most proba- bly signing in the forehead relates to the sign of the cross in confirmation, which comes between baptism and the eucharist. And so in Pope Leof‘2 All that are regenerated in Christ, the sign of the cross makes them kings, and the unction of the Spirit consecrates them priests; meaning in the same sense as St. Peter says, All Christians are a royal priesthood. Which privileges are commonly by the ancients ascribed to the unction in confirma- tion, as here by Leo, who makes the sign of the cross an attendant of this unction after baptism. St. Austin’s words are a little as more general; but yet learned men think“ they refer to the sign of the cross in confirmation, when he says, Several sacra- ments or sacred rites are received in different ways; some, you know, are received in the mouth, mean- ing the eucharist; others in the whole body, meaning baptism, wherein the whole body is washed with water; others in the forehead, as the sign of the cross; where, because he distinguishes the sign of the cross, as a sacrament in the large sense of the word, both from baptism and the eucharist, it seems most reasonable to suppose that he intended the use of it in confirmation. Which, therefore, the Greeks often call mppa'yig, the sign or seal of the Holy Ghost ;85 and sometimes the sign of the cross is more distinctly called aravpoudfig mppayig, the sign made in the form of the cross, which was used not only in baptizing and confirming,but also in the ordina- tion of priests‘, as I have had occasion elsewhere“ to show out of Chrysostom and Dionysius,87 and in the consecration of the waters of baptism, which is the next thing that comes now in order to be considered. CHAPTER X. on THE CONSECRATION OF THE WATER IN BAPTISM. IMMEDIATELY after the unction the Sm ,' minister proceeded to consecrate the “TR; energy; water, or the bishop, if he were pre- by prayer‘ sent, consecrated it, while the priests were finishing the unction. For so the author under the name of Dionysius represents it. While the priests, says he,‘ are finishing the unction, the bishop comes to the mother of adoption, so he calls the font, and by invocation sanctifies the water in it, thrice pouring in some of the holy chrism in a manner represent- ing the sign of the cross. This invocation or con- secration of the water by prayer, is mentioned by Tertullian; for he says,2 The waters are made the sacrament of sanctification by invocation of God. The Spirit immediately descends from heaven, and resting upon them sanctifies them by himself, and they, being so sanctified, imbibe the power of sanc- tifying. And Cyprians declares, That the water must first be cleansed and sanctified by the priest, that it may have power by baptism to wash away the sins of man. And so the whole council of Car- thage,‘ in the time of Cyprian, says, The water is sanctified by the prayer of the priest to wash away sin. Optatus has respect to this, when, speaking of the name of Piscz's, ‘194069 the technical name that ‘ was given to Christ, from the several initial letters of his titles, which signifies a fish, he says, This is the Fish,5 meaning Christ, which is brought down upon the waters of the font in baptism by invoca- tion and prayer. St. Austin often mentions this in- vocation in his books of baptism. That water6 is not profane and adulterated, over which the name of God is invoked, though the invocation be made by profane and adulterous men. In another place’ he says, This invocation was used both in conse- crating the waters of baptism, and the oil for unction, and the eucharist, and in giving imposition 3‘ Tertul. dc Praescript. cap. 40. Ipsas quoque res sa- cramentorum divinorum in idolorum mysteriis aemulatur. Tinguit et ipse quosdam, utique credentes et fideles suos. Expiationem dc lavacro repromittit, et sic adhuc initiat Mithree. Signat illic in frontibus milites suos, celebrat et panis oblationem. 82 Leo, Serm. 3. in Anniversario Die suae Assumptionis, p. 3. Omnes in Christo regeneratos crucis signum eflicit reges; Sancti vero Spiritus unctio consecrat sacerdotes. “3 Aug. Enarrat. Psal. cxli. p. 671. Multa sacramenta aliter atque aliter accipimus. Quaedam, sicut nostis, ore aceipimus, quaadam per totum corpus accipimus. Quia vero in fronte erubescitur.—Crucem Christi quam pagani derident, in loco pudoris nostri constituit. 3‘ Dallas. de Confirm. lib. 2. cap. 24. p. 294. “5 Conc. Gen. Constantinop. 1. can. 7. 8“ Book_IV. chap. 6. sect. l2. 8’ Chrys. Horn. 55. in Matt. p. 475. Dionys. de Hierarch. Eccl. cap. 5. p. 312 et 314. - 1 Dionys. de Hierarcb. Eccl. cap. 2. p. 253. Ab'rds ém‘. "rr‘pv pin-spa 'rfis r'noflscrias E'pxs'rat, Kai. 76 Taurus Udwp 'ra'is iepa'is i'rruchrio'so'r Icaea'ytéo'as, &c. 2 Tertul. de Bapt. cap. 4. Sacramentum sanctificationis consequuntur, invocato Deo. Supervenit enim statim Spiri- tus de ctelis, et aquis superest, sanctificans eas de semetipso, et ita sanctificatae vim sanctificandi combibunt. 9 Cyprian. Ep. 70. ad J anuamp. 190. Oportet vero mun- dari et sanctificari aquam prius a sacerdote, ut possit bap- tismo sua peccata hominis, qui baptizatur, abluere. 4 Cone. Carthag. ap. Cypr. p. 233. Aqua sacerdotis prece sanctificata abluit delicta. 5 Optat. lib. 3. cont. Parmen. p. 62. ‘Hie est Piscis, qui in baptismate per invocationem fontalibus undis inseritur. 6 Aug. de Bapt. lib. 3. cap. 10. Non est aqua profane et adultera, super quam nomen invocatur, 'etiamsi a profanis et adulteris invocetur. " Id. de Bapt. lib. 5. cap. 20. Si ergo ad hoc valet, quod dictum est in evangelio, Deus peccatorem non audit, ut per CHAP. X. 533 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. of hands. And the sacraments were valid, though it were a sinner or a murderer that made the prayer. And again, answering the objection of the Cyprian- ists and Donatists, that a wicked man or a heretic could not sanctify the water, he says, Every error8 in the prayer of consecration does not destroy the essence of baptism, but only the want of those evangelical words (he means the form of baptizing in the name of the Trinity) instituted by Christ, without which baptism cannot be consecrated. For otherwise, if the water were not consecrated when the minister uses any erroneous words in his prayer, then not only wicked men, but many good brethren in the church, did not sanctify the water; for many of their prayers were daily corrected, when they were rehearsed to those that were more learned, and many errors were found in them contrary to the catholic faith. Yet they that were baptized when such prayers were said over the water, were not baptized again. This is a plain evidence, that prayers of consecration were then generally used both among the catholics and Donatists, though neither the use nor the orthodoxy of them were reckoned to be of absolute necessity to the very being and essence of baptism, which might consist with great errors in such prayers. It were easy to add many other testimonies of this ancient practice out of St. Ambrose,9 St. Basil,lo Theodoret,n Gregory Nyssen,‘2 Theophilus of Alexandria,18 Victor Uticen- sis,“ and some others. But I think it needless to re- peat them all at length, after such full evidence from St. Austin and those writers that came before him. Sect, Only I shall add two or three ob- ofti‘gg‘gtgjifitfi servations more concerning this pray- Cmmutions' er of consecration, which may give a little light to some usages, and some doctrines also, of the ancient church. And first we find, that as they had forms for other parts of the Divine service, so they had a form for this consecration prayer, or benediction of the water, though that not so universal and invariable as the form of baptism. For St. Austin observes, that the one never varied, but the other was subject to some errors and corruptions, by reason of the liberty that was left to human composures. One of these forms is now extant in the Constitutions, which it will not be amiss here to insert. It goes under the title of a thanksgiving over the mystical water. The priest blesses ‘5 and praises the Lord God Almighty, the Father of the only begotten God, giving him thanks, for that he sent his Son to be incarnate for us, that he might save us; that he took upon him in his incarnation to be obedient in all things, to preach the kingdom of heaven, the remission of sins, and the resurrec- tion of the dead. After this he adores the only be- gotten God, and for him gives thanks to the Father, that he took upon him to die for all men upon the cross, leaving the baptism of regeneration as a type or symbol of it. He further praises God the Lord of all, that in the name of Christ and by the Holy Spirit, not rejecting mankind, he showed himself at diverse times in diverse providences towards them; giving Adam a habitation in a delicious paradise; then laying upon him a command in his providence, upon the transgression of which he expelled him in his justice, but in his goodness did not wholly cast him off, but disciplined his posterity in diverse man- ners, for whom in the end of the world he sent his Son, to be made man for the sake of men, and to take upon him all the affections of men, sin only excepted. After this thanksgiving, the priest is to call upon God, and say, Look down from heaven and sanctify this water; give it grace and power, that he that is baptized therein, according to the command of Christ, may be crucified with him, and die with him, and be buried with him, and rise again with him to that adoption which comes by him; that dying unto sin, he may live unto right- eousness. Any one that will compare the form in our liturgy with this ancient form, will find a great resemblance between them, both in the thanksgiv- ing, and the particular prayer of consecration. Secondly, I observe, that together Sect. 3_ with this prayer, it was usual to make 6,31,28,15" ,3’ $1}: the sign of the cross also, not, as be- “mama” fore, upon the person to be baptized, but as a cir- cumstance of the consecration. This we learn not only from Dionysius,16 but from St. Austin, who says,17 The water of baptism was signed with the cross of Christ. And St. Chrysostom says, They peccatorem sacramenta non celebrentur: quomodo exaudit homicidam deprecantem, vel super aquam baptismi, vel super oleum, vel super eucharistiam, vel super capita eorum qui- bus manus imponitur? Quae omnia tamen et fiunt et valent etiam per homicidas, &c. 8 Aug. de Bapt. lib. 6. cap. 25. Si non sanctificatur aqua, cum aliqua erroris verba per imperitiam precator effundit, multi non solum mali, sed etiam boni, fratres in ipsa ecclesia non sanctificant aquam. Multorum enim preces emendan- tur quotidie, si doctioribus fuerint recitataa, et multa in eis reperiuntur contra fidem catholicain. N unquid si manifes- tarentur aliqui baptizati, cum illae preces dictae super aqualn fuissent, jubebuntur denuo baptizari ?-—Certa illa evangelica verba, sine quibus non potest baptismus consecrari, tantum valent, ut per illa sic evacuentur quaecunque in prece vitiosa contra regulam fidei dicuntur, quemadmodum daemonium Christi nomine excluditur. 9 Ambros. de Sacram. lib. l. c. 5. lib. 5. c. 2. De Spir. Sancto, lib. l. c. 7. ‘° Basil. in Psal. xxviii. It. de Spir. Sancto, c. 27. 1‘ Theodor. in 1 Cor. vi. 2. t. 3. p. 1411. '2 N yssen. de Bapt. Christ. t. 3. p. 371. It. adv. eos qui Baptism. diiferunt, t. 2. p. 219. ‘3 Theophil. Ep. Paschal. l. Bibl. Patr. t. 3. p. 87. “ Victor. Utic. de Persec. Vandal. lib. 2. p. 502. Gelas. Cyzicen. et Pseudo-Athanas. dc Communi Essentia, &c. '5 Const. Apost. lib. 7. cap. 43. 1“ Dionys. de Hier. Eccl. cap. 2. p. 254. 1" Aug. Hom. 27. ex 50. t. 10. p. 175. Quia baptismus, id est, aqua salutis, non est salutis, nisi Christi nomine con- 534 Boox XI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. used ‘8 it in all their sacred mysteries; when they were regenerated in baptism, when they were fed with the mystical food in the eucharist, when they were ordained, that symbol of victory was always repre- sented in the action, whatever religious matter they were concerned in. To which we may add the au- thor under the name of St. Austin,19 who runs over all the solemn consecrations of the church, and tells us, the symbol of the cross was used in every one, in catechising of new converts, in consecrating the waters of baptism, in giving imposition of hands in confirmation, in the dedication of churches and altars, in consecrating the eucharist, and in pro- moting priests and Levites to holy orders. Thirdly, I observe concerning the Thesiiiécié and effects of this consecration, that the change wrought b giisssacglrésism'aifiopfi: very same change was supposed to be E’figaguffifrigfne in wrought by it in the waters of bap- tism, as by the consecration of bread and wine in the eucharist. For they supposed not only the presence of the Spirit, but also the mystical presence of Christ’s blood to be here after consecra- tion. Julius Firmicus,20 speaking of baptism, bids men here seek for the pure waters, the undefiled fountain, where the blood of Christ, after many spots and defilements, would whiten them by the Holy Ghost. Gregory Nazianzen21 and Basil22 say upon this account, That a greater than the temple, a greater than Solomon, a greater than Jonas is here, meaning Christ, by his mystical presence and the power of his blood. St. Austin23 says, Baptism or the baptismal water is red, when once it is conse- crated by the blood of Christ; and this was pre- figured by the waters of the Red sea. Prosper24 is bold to say, That in baptism we are dipped in blood; and therefore martyrs are twice dipped in blood, first in the blood of Christ at baptism, and then in their own blood at martyrdom. St. Jerom25 uses the same bold metaphor, explaining those words of Isaiah, “ Wash ye, make ye clean :” Be ye baptized in my blood by the laver of regeneration. And again,26 speaking of the Ethiopian eunuch, he says, He was baptized in the blood of Christ, about whom he was reading. After the same manner, Caesarius says,27 The soul goes into the living waters, conse~ crated and made red by the blood of Christ. And Isidore“ says, What is the red sea, but baptism consecrated in the blood of Christ? Others tell us, that we are hereby made partakers of the body and blood of Christ, and eat his flesh, according to what is said in St. J ohn’s Gospel, “ Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.” Upon which words Fulgentius "9 founds the necessity of baptism: Forasmuch as it may be perceived by any considering man, that the flesh of Christ is eaten and his blood drunk in the laver of regeneration. Hence Cyril of Alexandria says,“ We are partakers of the spiritual Lamb in baptism. And Chrysostom,81 That we thereby put on Christ, not only his Divinity, or only his hu~ manity, that is, his flesh, but both together. And Nazianzen,”2 That in baptism we are anointed and protected by the precious blood of Christ, as Israel was by the blood upon the door-posts in the night. St. Chrysostom33 says again, That they that are bap- tized, put on a royal garment, a purple dipped (in the blood of the Lord. Philo-Carpathius says, The spouse of Christ, his church, receives in baptism the seal34 of Christ, being washed in the fountain of his' most holy blood. Optatus,“ as we have heard before, says, Christ comes down by the invo- cation, and joins himself to the waters of baptism. secrata‘, qui pro nobis sanguinem fudit, cruce ipsius aqua signatur. ‘8 Chrys. Hom. 54. al. 55. in Matt. p. 475. ed. Commelin. Htiu'ra 8t’ ai’m'g 'rahs'i'ral. "rd nae’ finds‘ no?!) a’va'ysvvnefivat dép, qavpds wapa'yiua'ral.‘ xd‘u 'rpacpfiuat 'ri‘w ,uus'ucr‘iu irref- vnu Tpo¢1‘)v' Kq’z‘v Xetpo'rounfii'yuat, &c. ‘9 Aug. Horn. 75. de Diversis in Append. t. 10. p. 702. Huj us crucis mysterio rudes patechizantur, eodem mysterio fons regenerationis consecratur, ejusdem crucis signo per mantis impositionem baptizati dona gratiarum accipiunt. Cum ejusdem crucis charactere basilicae dedicantur, alta- ria consecrantur, altaris sacramenta cum interpositione dominicorum verborum conficiuntur: sacerdotes et Levitae per hoc idem ad sacros ordines promoventur. 2° Firmic. de Error. Profan. Relig. c. 28. Quaere fontes ingenuos, quaere purosliquores, ut illic te post multas macu- las cum Spiritu Sancto Christi sanguis incandidet. 2‘ Naz. Orat. 40. de Bapt. p. 657. 22 Basil. de Bapt. lib. l. c. 2. t. 1. p. 558. 23 Aug. Tract. 11. in J oh. p. 41. Significabat Mare Ru- brum baptismum Christi. Unde rubet baptismus Christi, nisi Christi sanguine consecratus P 24 Prosper. dc Promissis, lib. 2. cap. 2. In cocco bis tincto martyria sancta rutilant, semel baptismo Christi san- guine tinguntur, atque suo effusionis cruore denuo retincti. 25 Hieron. in Esai. i. 16. Baptizemini in sanguine meo per lavacrum regenerationis. 2“ Id. in Esai. liii. 7. Statim baptizatus in Agni sanguine quem legebat, vir meruit appellari, ct apostolus genti jEthL, opum missus est. 2" Caesar. Arelatens. Hom. 6. de Paschat. Bibl. Patr. t. 2. p. 276. Ingreditur anima vitales undas velut rubras sanguine Christi consecratas. 28 lsidor. Hispal. in Exod. xix. Quid est mare rubrum, nisi baptismum Christi sanguine consecratum? 29 Fulgent. de Bapt. Ethiop. cap. 11. p. 611. Quisquis secundum mysterii veritatem considerare poterit, in ipso lavacro sanctae regenerationis hoc fieri providebit.——Quod etiam sanctos patres indubitanter credidisse ac docuisse cognoscimus. 9° Cyril. in Exod. xii. lib. 2. t. 1. p. 270. Mé'roxos 7'05 voe'rofi 'n'poflé'rov, &c. 31 Chrys. Serm. 27. de Cruce, t. 6. p. 293. 82 Naz. Orat. 40. de Bapt. p. 646. 83 Chrys. Horn. 60. ad Illuminandos, t. l. p. 796. ‘*4 Philo. in Cantic. iv. 12. Fons signatus sponsa dicitur, quia in baptismate signaculum J esu Christi accepit, ex eju sacratissimi sanguinis fonte perlota. - 35 Optat. lib. 3. p. 62. Hic est Piscis, qui in baptismate per invocationem fontalibus undis inseritur. CHAP. X. 535 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Nay, Chrysostom,$6 in one of his bold rhetorical flights, scruples not to tell a man that is baptized, that he immediately embraces his Lord in his arms, that he is united to his body, nay, compounded or consubstantiated with that body which sits above, whither the devil has no access. Some tell us, as Isidore, that the water of baptism is the water37 that flowed out of Christ’s side at his passion: and others, as Laurentius Novariensis,$8 that it is water mixed with the sacred blood of the Son of God. Others tell us,89 that the water is transmuted or changed in its nature by the Holy Ghost, to a sort of Divine and inefi'able power. So Cyril of Alex- andria, who frequently uses the word ntras-otxeiwmg, transelementation, both when he speaks of the water in baptism, and the bread and wine in the eucha- rist, or of any other changes that are wrought in the mysteries of the Christian religion. Cyril of Jerusalem and Gregory Nyssen have the same ob- servation upon the change that is wrought in the oil, after consecration, which they make to be the same with that of the bread and wine in the eucharist. Beware, says Cyril,“10 that you take not this oint- ment to be bare ointment. For as the bread in the eucharist, after the invocation of the Holy Spirit, is not mere bread, but the body of Christ; so this holy ointment, after invocation, is not bare or com- mon ointment, but it is a gift of God, that makes Christ and the Holy Spirit to be present in the action. In like manner, Gregory Nyssen makes the same change to be in the mystical oil, and in the altar itself, and in the ministers by ordination, and in the waters of baptism, as in the bread and wine in the eucharist after consecration. Do not con- temn, says he, the Divine laver, nor despise it as a common thing, because of the use‘“ of water. For great and wonderful things are wrought by it. This altar, before which we stand, is but common stone in its own nature, differing nothing from other stones, wherewith our walls are built; but after it is con- secrated to the service of God, and has received a benediction, it is a holy table, an immaculate altar, not to be touched by any but the priests, and that with the greatest reverence. The bread also is at first but common bread, but when once it is sancti- fied by the holy mystery, it is made and called the body of Christ. So the mystical oil, and so the wine, though they be things of little value before the benediction, yet, after their sanctification by the Spirit, they both of them work wonders. The same power of the word makes a priest become honour- ble and venerable, when he is separated from the community of the vulgar by a new benediction. For he who before was only one of the common people, is now immediately made a ruler and presi- dent, a teacher of piety, and a minister of the secret mysteries: and all these things he does without any change in his body or shape; for to all outward ap- pearance he is the same that he was, but the change is in his invisible soul, by an invisible power and grace. Pope Leo42 goes one step further, and tells us, that baptism makes a change not only in the water, but in the man that receives it; for thereby Christ receives him, and he receives Christ, and he is not the same after baptism that he was before, but the body of him that is regenerated is made the flesh of him that was crucified. From all which it is easy to observe, that in all these cases, the change which they speak of is not made in the substance of the things, but in the qualities only; the water is not the blood of Christ substantially and really, but only symbolically and mystically; nor is a man changed into the flesh of Christ thereby any other way, than as he is made a living member of his mystical body, participating of that Spirit whereby he rules and governs his church, as the Head of it. So that when the ancients speak of a Divine change or transelementation (for as yet the word transub- stantiation was not known) in the bread and wine in the eucharist, they are to be interpreted, as here we do in baptism, of a change in qualities and powers, and not in substance; since all the words they used to express that change, are equally veri- fied in the waters of baptism after consecration. I must further observe, to avoid all mistakes, that when the ancients speak of an absolute necessity of in- vocation of God to consecrate the waters of baptism, they then do not mean any new forms of prayer instituted by the church, but the very form of baptism instituted by Christ, which they rightly suppose to be an invocation of the holy Trinity; in which sense, no baptism can be duly performed without an invocation to consecrate the water, though it may be performed, in times of exi- Sect. 6. How far these prayers of consecra- tion reckoned neces- sary in the church. - gence, without the additional 4’ prayers of the church. 36 Chrys. Hom. 6. in 00108. p. 1359. Aim-611 sus'e'ws 'rrs- pthanfila'uus 'rdv dso'vrd'rnv, dvarcspévvvo'al. "rd; o'u’ina'rt, a’umpfipn, (leg. a’vmpfipy) 'rq'i o'dipa'rt 'rqi d'uw Keznéuop, &c. 3’ Isidor. de Oflic. Eccl. lib. 2. cap. 24. Aqua est, quae tempore passionis Christi de latere profluxit. 88 Laurent. Novar. Horn. 1. de Poenitentia. Bibl. Patr. t. 2. p. 127. Asperges me aqua Filii tui sacro sanguine mixta—Abluitur Adam corpore Christi, &c. ‘*9 Cyril. in Job. iii. 5. p. 147. And 'rfis 'roii I'Iveiijua'ros zvep'ya'fas 'rd aio'fln'rdu Udwp 'zrpds B'aiau "rwdz Kai ci'rifin'rou &uaa'rotxswii'rat (361/alum. Vid. Albertinum (le Eucharis- tia, lib. 2. p. 488, where he has collected all the passages that speak of this transelementation. 4° Cyril. Catech. Myst. 3. n. 3. "Opa p1‘) l'lvrovorio'ys Elcs'i'uo “rd p.6pov \lnhdu sluat‘ fz'io'rrsp Kai 5 dipcros "rijs ebxaptsias, ,uerd 'rr'ju évrilchno'w "r5 'A'yia Hvezipa'ros, a’uc 5'11 é'p'ros )u'rds, ClAAd mil/Ia XPL§§' Z-i'rw 'rd c'i'ytov rrii'v'o puipov éic gen \Inhdv, &C. ‘1 Nyssen. de Baptismo Christi, t. 3. p. 369. ‘2 Leo, Serm. 14. de Passione, p. 62. Susceptus a Christo, Christumque suscipiens, non idem est post lavacrum, qui ante baptismum fuit, sed corpus regenerati fit caro crucifixi. ‘3 Vid. Albertin. de Eucharist. lib. l. cap.5. p. 18. 536 BOOK XI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. CHAPTER XI. OF THE DIFFERENT WAYS OF BAPTIZING, BY IMMER- SION, TRI‘NE IMMERSION, AND ASPERSION IN THE CASE OF CLINIC BAPTISM. HAVING thus far considered all things ‘All 12%. an- preceding the very act of baptizing, gill?’ rgwiiieiaili we are now to inquire into the man- tized. ner how that was usually performed, whether by dipping and total immersion, or by aspersion and sprinkling, which is now the more general practice of the church. There is no ques- tion made but that either of these ways does fully answer the primary end of baptism, which is to purify the soul, and not the body, by washing away sin. But yet the ancients thought, that immersion, or burying under water, did more lively represent the death and burial and resurrection of Christ, as well as our own death unto sin, and rising again to righteousness; and the divesting or unclothing the person to be baptized, did also represent the put- ting off the body of sin, in order to put on the new man, which is created in righteousness and true holiness. For which reason they observed the way of baptizing all persons naked and divested, by a total immersion under water, except in some particular cases of great exigence, wherein they allowed of sprinkling, as in the case of clinic bap- tism, or where there was a scarcity of water. That persons were divested in order to be baptized is evi- dent, partly from what has been said before of the unction, which was administered not only on the head, but on other parts of the body; partly from express testimonies which afiirm it; and also from the manner of baptizing by immersion, which ne- cessarily presupposes it. St. Chrysostom, speaking of baptism, says, Men were as naked as Adam in paradise, but with this difference; Adam was naked‘ because he had sinned, but in baptism, a man was naked that he might be freed from sin; the one was divested of his glory which he once had, but the other put off the old man, which he did as easily as his clothes. St. Ambrose2 says, Men came as naked to the font, as they came into the world; and thence he draws an argument by way of allusion, to rich men, telling them, how absurd it was, that a man who was born naked of his mother, and re- ceived naked by the church, should think of going rich into heaven. Cyril of Jerusalem takes notice of this circumstance,‘3 together with the reasons of it, when he thus addresses himself to persons newly baptized: As soon as ye came into the inner part of the baptistery, ye put off your clothes, which is an emblem of putting off the old man with his deeds; and being thus divested, ye stood naked, imitating Christ, that was naked upon the cross, who by his nakedness spoiled principalities and powers, pub- licly triumphing over them in the cross. O won- derful thing! ye were naked in the sight of men, and were not ashamed, in this truly imitating the first man Adam, who was naked in paradise, and was not ashamed. So also Amphilochius in the Life of St. Basil,‘ speaking of his baptism, says, He arose with fear and put off his clothes, and with them the old man. And Zeno Veronensis,“ reminding per- sons of their baptism, bids them rejoice, for they went down naked into the font, but rose again clothed in a white and heavenly garment, which if they did not defile, they might obtain the kingdom of heaven. Athanasius, in his invectives against the Arians, among other things, lays this to their charge, that by their persuasions the Jews and Gen- tiles broke into the baptistery, and there offered such abuses to the catechumens as they stood with their naked bodies,“ as was shameful and abomin- able to relate. And a like complaint is brought against Peter, bishop of Apamea, in the council of Constantinople, under Mennas,7 that he cast out the neophytes, or persons newly baptized, out of the baptistery, when they were without their clothes and shoes. All which are manifest proofs that persons were baptized naked, either in imitation of Adam in paradise, or our Saviour upon the cross, or to signify their putting off the body of sin, and the old man with his deeds. And this practice was then so ge- neral, that we find no exception made, magmas“ it?‘ either with respect to the tenderness gfgfiggretg. viii-gen of infants, or the bashfulness of the female sex, save only where the case of sickness or disability made it necessary to vary from the usual custom. St. Chrysostom is an undeniable evidence in this matter. For writing about the barbarous proceedings of his enemies against him on the great sabbath, or Saturday before Easter, among other tragical things which they committed, he reports this for one, That they came armed into the church, and by violence expelled the clergy, killing many ‘ Chrys. Hom. 6. in Coloss. p. 2358. ’Eu"ra50a yupuo'rns, Kc’ixs'i 'yv/rud'rns' a’AA’ élcs'i at» duap'rrifl'as‘ é'yvuva'rfln, s’vretdr‘) iipap'reu' Eurrafitla 6i, Yua d'n'aAAa'yfi 'yupwoii'rar, &c. 2 Ambros. Serm. 20. N udi in sacculo nascimur, nudi etiam accedimus ad lavacrum.——Quam autem ineongruum ac absurdum est, ut quem nudum mater genuit, nudum suscipit ecclesia, dives introire velit in coelum ? ‘‘ Cyril. Catech. Myst. 2. n. 2. ‘ Amphiloc. Vit. Basil. cap. 5. 5 Zeno, Invitat. 2. ad Bapt. Bibl. Patr. t. 2. p. 442. Gau- dete, in fontem quidem nudi demergitis, sed eetherea veste vestiti, mox candidati inde surgitis, quam qui non polluerit, regna ccelestia possidebit. ‘ Athan. Ep. ad Orthodoxos, t. l. p. 946. '1 Cone. Constant. Act. 1. p. 53. ed. Crab. Cum essemus in baptisterio neophytarum, sine tunicis et calceamentis existentium, venit episcopus noster Petrus, et ejecit nos foras una cum neophytis, &c. CHAP. XI. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 537 ANTIQUITIES OF THE in the baptistery, with which the women,8 who at that time were divested in order to be baptized, were put into such a terror that they fled away naked, and could not stay in the fright to put on such clothes as the modesty of their sex required. And that so it was in the case of children also, is evident from the custom of immersion, which con- tinued in the church for many ages; as also from what is particularly said of infants in the Ordo Ro- manus,” and Gregory’s Sacramentarium, That after the priest has baptized them with three immersions, they are to be clothed, and brought to the bishop to be confirmed. For this clothing supposes that they were unclothed before in order to be baptized. Serm. But yet, that no indecency might soigigergétgrtshxegg appear in so sacred an action, two icgxgilégdfnisht be things were especially provided for by ancient rules. 1. That men and women were baptized apart. To which purpose the baptisteries were commonly divided into two apart- ments, the one for the men, the other for the W0- men, as I have had occasion to show from St. Austin 1° in another place.“ Or else the men were baptized at one time and the women at another, as Vossius12 observes out of the Ordo Romanus, Gre- gory’s Sacramentarium, Albinus Flaccus, and other writers. 2. There was anciently an order of dea- conesses in the church, and one main part of their business was to assist at the baptism of women, where, for decency’s sake, they were employed to divest them, and so to order the matter, that the whole ceremony, both of unction and baptizing, might be performed in such a manner as became the reverence that was due to so sacred an action; of all which I have given sufficient proofs in a former Book,“ which I need not here repeat. Sect. 4_ Persons thus divested, or unclothed, “51$? §§“§‘,“n{ were usually baptized by immersion, or dipping of their whole bodies un- mersion. : der water, to represent the death and burial and resurrection of Christ together; and therewith to signify their own dying unto sin, the destruction of its power, and their resurrection to a new life. There are a great many passages in the Epistles of St. Paul, which plainly refer to this custom: Rom. Vi. 4, “ We are buried with him by baptism; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in new- ness of life.” So again, Col. ii. 12, “Buried with him in baptism, wherein ye are also risen with him, through the faith of the operation of God, who raised him from the dead.” And as this was the original apostolical practice, so it continued to be the universal practice of the church for many ages, upon the same symbolical reasons as it was first used by the apostles. The author of the Apostoli- cal Constitutions“ says, Baptism was given to re- present the death of Christ, and the water his burial. St. Chrysostom proves the resurrection from this practice: For, says he, our being baptized and im- merged in the water,“ and our rising again out of it, is a symbol of our descending into hell or the grave, and of our returning from thence. Where- fore St. Paul calls baptism our burial. For, says he, “ we are buried with Christ by baptism into death.” And in another place,16 When we dip our heads in water as in a grave, our old man is buried; and when we rise up again, the new man rises therewith. Cyril of Jerusalem makes it an emblem of the Holy Ghost’s effusion upon the apostles: For as he that goes down into the water ‘7 and is baptized, ‘and sur- rounded on all sides by the water; so the apostles were baptized all over by the Spirit: the water sur- rounds the body externally, but the Spirit incom— prehensibly baptizes the interior soul. The fourth council of Toledo keeps to the former reason,18 The immersion in water is as it were the descending into the grave, and the rising out of the water a resurrection. And so St. Ambrose '9 explains it: Thou wast asked, Dost thou believe in God the Fa- ther Almighty? And thou didst answer, I believe : and then thou wast immerged in water, that is, buried. It appears also from Epiphanius and others, that almost all heretics, who retained any baptism, retained immersion also. Epiphaniusz0 says, The Ebionites received baptism as it was practised in 8 Chrys. Ep. 1. ad. Innocent. p. 680. I‘vva'ixss vrpds 'rd Bé‘ll’TLO'fLa a’vrodvo'cijusval. Ka'r’ airrdu 'rdu Katpdu, 'yviwai E'qfiv'you inrd 1'05 cpo'fiov 'ri'js Xahe'irijs ‘7067719 EdJo'dov‘ 066s 'rr‘ju qrpé'zroucrav 'yéuatfw ebo'xnuoo-i'mnu crv'yxwpoiipamu 'n'sptes'a'eat. Vid. Moschum Prat. Spir. c. 104. 9 Gregor. Sacram. de Bapt. Infant. Baptizat cum sacerdos sub trina mersione, &c. Et vestitur infans. It. Ordo Roman. Cap. de Die Sabbati S. Paschw. Cum vestiti fuerint in- fantes, pontifex confirmet eos. Vid. Athanas. de Parabolis Evangel. qu. 92. T6 'ydp Ka'radfio'at 'rd 'lraldiov, &c. 1° Aug. de Civ. Dei, lib. 22. c. 8. ' " Book VIII. chap. 7. sect. l. ‘2 Voss. de Bapt. Disp. l. p. 36. ‘a Book II. chap. 22. sect. 8. ‘4 Const. Apost. lib. 3. C. 17. 'Ewri. 'roiuvv 'rd prev [3dr- Tto'pa sis 'rdu B'ciua'rov 'roii ’Ino'ofi duiépsvou, To 82-; Udwp a'u'ri 'raq‘iijs. 15 ChryS. Horn. 40. in 1 001'. p. 689. T6 'yr‘zp Barr-rigid’- Gal. Kai Icaradtieo'fiat, ei'ra dual/262111, "riis eis 560v Kai-0,86- o'sws e'a'ri cnipfiohou, Kai 'rfis érceiesu a'uédou, &c. 1“ Chrys. in Job. iii. 5. Horn. 25. p. 656. 1’ Cyril. Catech. 17. n. 8. p. 247. ' ‘9 Conc. Tolet. 4. can. 6. In aquis mersio quasi ad in- fernum descensio est: et rursus ab aquis emersio resurrec- tio est. 1” Ambros. de Sacram. lib. 2. cap. 7. Interrogatus es, Credis in Deum, Patrem Omnipotentem? dixisti, Credo, et mersisti, hoc est, sepultus es. Add also Tertul. de Bapt. c. 2. Homo in aquam demissus, et inter pauca verba tinctus, non multo vel nihilo mundior resurgit. Paulin. Ep. 12. ad Severum. Mira Dei pietas; peccator mergitur undis, &c. Nyssen. de Bapt. Christi, t. 3. p. 372. Athanas. de Para- bolis, qu. 94. t. 2. p. 422. 2° Epiphan. Haer. 30. Ebion. n. 2 et 16. 538 Boox XI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. the churcn, but they added to it a quotidian baptism, immerging themselves in water every day. So the Marcionites were guilty of many errors in other re- spects about baptism: they would baptize no per- sons but either virgins21 or widows, or unmarried men; they repeated their baptism three times {t2 and introduced some other errors about it: but still the baptisms which they administered, were in this re- ,spect conformable to those of the church, that they baptized by a total immersion, as Tertullian23 wit- nesses of them. Other heretics, as the Valentinians, to their baptism by water, added another baptism by fire,” which is mentioned by Tertullian. But yet we find no charge brought against them for their first baptism, as if it were administered in any other way than by a total immersion. The only heretics against whom this charge is brought, were the Eunomians, a branch of the Arians, of whom it was reported by Theodoret?’ that they baptized only the upper parts of the body as far as the breast. And this they did in a very preposterous way, as Epi- phanius” relates, rot‘); midag (imo, mi 71):! negbahrjv xdrw, with their heels upward, and their head downward. Which sort of men are called histopedes, or pederectz'. Whence the learned Gothofred27 conjectures, that in one of the laws of Theodosius, where it is now' read, Ezmomz'am' spadones ; it should be Eunmnz'am' histopecles, which signifies men hanged up by the heels, as he proves from Pausanias, Pollux, Hesy- chius, Harpocration, and others. So that these were the only men among all the heretics of the ancient church, that rejected this way of baptizing by a total immersion in ordinary cases. _ Indeed the church was so punctual Sect. 5. . spgifgifiisgermqg to thls rule, that we never read of any inagoggesfxmordi- exception made to it in ordinary cases, no, not in the baptism of infants. For it appears from the Ordo Romanus, and Gregory’s Sacramentarium, that infants, as well as others, were baptized by immersion, and the rules of the church, except in cases of danger, do still require it. But in two cases a mitigation of this rule was al- lowed. 1. In case of sickness and extreme danger of life. Here that excellent rule, “ I will have mercy and not sacrifice,” was always allowed to take place. Therefore that which the ancients called clinic bap- tism, that is, baptism by aspersion or sprinkling upon a sick bed, was never disputed against as an unlawful or imperfect baptism, though some laws were made to debar men who were so baptized, from ascending to the dignities of the church. For if men. by neglect deferred their baptism to a sick bed, the church, in her prudence and discipline, (because this delay was a fault she always declaimed against,) thought fit to deny such men the privilege of or- dination, as I have had occasion to show in a more proper place.28 But yet she did not at any time attempt to annul such baptisms, or judge them imperfect as to what concerned the essence or sub- stance of the action. This very question was moved by some, together with that of heretical baptism, in the time of Cyprian: but Cyprian, who deter- mined against the validity of heretical baptism, makes no scruple in this case, but offers arguments to prove such clinic baptism by aspersion, to have all the necessary conditions of a true baptism. For though this was the case of Novatian, who had not been washed, but only sprinkled upon a sick bed; yet Cyprian29 had no objection against his Chris- tianity upon that account: but declares, that as far as he was able to judge, all such baptisms were per- fect, where there was no defect in the faith of the giver or the receiver: for the contagion of sin was not washed away, as the filth of the body is, by a carnal and secular washing. There was no need of a lake or other such like helps to wash and cleanse it. The heart of a believer was otherwise washed, the mind of a man was cleansed by the merit of faith. In the sacraments of salvation, when necessity requires, God grants his indulgence by a short way of performing them. This lawfulness of aspersion in such cases he proves from those words of God in Ezekiel xxxvi. 25, “ I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.” And from several other texts, Numb. xix. 19; viii. 7; and xix. 9, where the water of sprink- ling is called the water of purification. Whence he concludes, that the sprinkling of water was as effectual as washing; and what the church did in 2‘ Tertul. cont. Marc. lib. l. c. 29. Non tinguitur apud illum caro, nisi virgo, nisi vidua, nisi coelebs, &c. 22 Epiph. Hmr. n. 3. Or’; mix/0|! amp’ aim-q’; Eu hom'pdv 61:607'621", dkkd Kai fiws 'rpu'Iw hov'rpfbv, &c. 23 Tertul. cont. Marc. lib. 1. cap. 28. Carnem mergit exsortem salutis. 2* Tertul. Carmen cont. Marc. lib. Leap. 7. Namque Valentino Deus est insanus.——Bis docuit tingui, transducto corpore flamma. Vid. Hieron. in Ephes. iv. 25 Theod. Haer. Fab. lib. 4. cap. 3. 2“ Epiphan. Haar. 76. Anomreorum, p. 992. 2’ Gothofred. in Cod. Theod. lib. 16. Tit. 5. de Haereticis, Leg. 17. 28 Book IV. chap. 3. sect. 11. 29 Cypr. Ep. 7 6. al. 69. ad Magnum, p. 185. Quaesisti etiam, fili charissime, quid mihi de illis videatur, qui in in- firmitate ct languore gratiam Dei consequuntur, an habendi sint legitimi Christiani, eo quod aqua salutari non loti sint, sed perfusi.——-—Nos quantum concipit mediocritas nostra, sestimamus in nullo mutilari et debilitari posse beneficia divina, nec minus aliquid illic posse contingere, ubi plena et tota fide et dantis et sumentis accipitur, quod de divinis muneribus hauritur. Neque enim sic in sacramento salutari delictorum contagia, ut in lavacro carnali et seculari sordes cutis et corporis, abluuntur, &c. A_lit.er pectus credentis abluitur, aliter mens hominis per fidei merita mundatur. In sacramentis salutaribus, necessitate cogente, et Deo indul- gentiam suam largiente, totum credentibus conferunt divina compendia. CEAP. XI. 539 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. this case in compliance with necessity and men’s infirmities, was neither displeasing to God, nor de- trimental to the party baptized, who received a full and complete sacrament by the power of God, and the truth of his own faith together. And therefore he blames those who nicknamed these men clinics, instead of Christians. It further appears from the canons which speak of these,30 that they were only denied orders, not the name of Christians. The council of Neoceesarea allows them in time of great exigence, or in case of great merit, to be ordained, as Novatian was for his pregnant parts, and the hopes which the church had conceived of him, as Eusebius31 out of the epistle of Cornelius informs us. The council of Laodicea'°’2 appoints such, if they recover, to learn the creed, but says not a word of rebaptizing them. And it appears from the council of Auxerre,33 that these clinics were allowed to be baptized at any time when necessity re- quired, without a solemn festival. So that many things were indulged to them, which were not al- lowed by the ordinary rules of the church. 2. An- other case in which sprinkling was accepted instead of immersion, was in times of difficulty, when a sufficient quantity of water could not be procured; as when a martyr was to be baptized in prison, or was to baptize any other under such a confinement. Thus we read in the ancient Acts of St. Laurence, referred to by Walafridus Strabo,a4 how one Roma- nus, a soldier, was baptized by him in a pitcher of water. And again, how one Lucillus was baptized by the same martyr35 only by pouring water upon his head. But as both these were extraordinary cases, they only show us, how far the church could dispense with this rule upon reasons of necessity or charity, not what was her standing and ordinary practice. Some learned persons 3“ think Tertullian alludes to the allowance of sprinkling in extraordi- nary cases, when, speaking of men’s pretending to be baptized without true repentance, he says, No man would grant such false penitents37 so much as one aspersion of water. And Gregory Nyssen perhaps refers to it also in that famous story, which he tells of one Archias, who having neglected his opportu- nity of receiving baptism, was at last suddenly sur- prised with death at a season when there was no possibility of obtaining it: and then he cried out in that languishing condition, 0 ye mountains38 and woods, baptize me; 0 ye trees, and rocks, and foun- tains, give me this grace: and with these words, being wounded to death, he expired in the hands of his enemies. This man’s condition he compares to those, who have the sudden summons of death upon a sick bed: they then begin to call for a vessel of water, a priest, and words to prepare them for bap- tism ; but the violence of their disease prevents them from obtaining it. This seems to imply, that such a sprinkling as men might have upon a sick bed, in cases of extremity, was reputed a saving baptism; and it was an unhappiness in some, that they could not obtain even that at their last hour, which the church allowed as the last refuge only in such extraordinary cases. But I must observe further, that they not only administered baptism th'pgigiifiiggiigpé by immersion under water, but also fggzggrglilg- The repeated this three times. Tertullian speaks of it as a ceremony39 generally used in his time : We dip not once, but three times, at the nam- ing every person of the Trinity. The same is as- serted by St. Basil,“0 and St. J erom,”u and the author under the name of Dionysius,42 who says likewise, that it was done at the distinct mention of each person of the blessed Trinity. St. Ambrose is most particular in the description of this rite: Thou wast asked,43 says he, Dost thou believe in God the Fa- ther Almighty? And thou repliedst, I believe, and wast dipped, that is, buried. A second demand was made, Dost thou believe in Jesus Christ our Lord, and in his cross? Thou answeredst again, I be- lieve, and wast dipped. Therefore thou wast bu- ried with Christ. For he that is buried with Christ, rises again with Christ. A third time the question was repeated, Dost thou believe in the Holy Ghost? And thy answer was, I believe. Then thou wast dipped a third time, that thy triple confession might absolve thee from the various offences of thy former life. Two reasons are commonly assigned for this ct 6. 3” Conc. Neocaesar. can. 12. 8‘ Euseb. lib. 6. c. 43. 32 Cone. Laod. can. 47. 33 Cone. Antissiodor. can. 18. Non licet absque Pasehae solennitate ullo tempore baptizare, nisi illos quibus mors vicina est, quos grabatarios dicunt. 3* Acta Laurentii, ap. Surium, t. 4. Unus ex militibus, Romanus nomine, urceum afl‘erens cum aqua, opportuni. tatem captavit, qua eam ofl'erret B. Laurentio, ut baptiza- retur. Vid. Strabo, de Rebus Eccles. cap. 26. 35 Acta, ibid. Cum exspoliasset eum, fudit aquam super caput ej us. 8‘ Vid. Bevereg. Not. in Can. Apost. 30. 3’ Tertul. dc Poenitent. cap. 6. Quis enim tibi tam in- fidae poenitentiac vlro asperginem unam cujuslibet aquaa commodabit ? 38 N yssen. de Bapt. t. 2. p. 220. ‘*9 Tertul. cont. Prax. cap. 26. Non semel, sed ter, ad singula nomina in personas singulas tinguimur. Id. de Coron. Mil. cap. 3. Dehinc ter mergitamur, &c. 4° Basil. de Spir. Sancto, c. 27. ‘1 Hieron. adv. Lucif. c. 4. ‘2 Dionys. de Hierarch. Eccles. cap. 2. ‘3 Ambros. de Sacram. lib. 2. cap. 7. Interrogatus es, Credis in Deum, Patrem Omnipotentem? Dixisti, Credo, et mersisti, hoc est, sepultus es. lterum interrogatus es, Credis in Dominum nostrum Jesum'Christum? Dixisti, Credo, et mersisti. Ideo et Christo es consepultus. Qui enim Christo consepelitur, cum Christo resurgit. Tertiointerro- gatus es, Credis et in Spiritum Sanctum? Dixisti, Credo. Tertio mersisti, ut multiplicem lapsum superioris actatis ab- solveret trina confessio. 540 BOOK XI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. - itself, or breach of any Divine appointment. practice. 1. That it might represent Christ’s three days’ burial, and his resurrection on the third day. We cover ourselves in the water, says Gregory Nys- sen,“ as Christ did in the earth, and this we do three times, to represent the grace of his resurrection per- formed after three days. In like manner Cyril of J c- rusalem45 and the author of The Questions upon the Scripture,“ under the name of Athanasius. Thus likewise Pope Leo among the Latins :“7 The trine immersion is an imitation of the three days’ burial, and the rising again out of the water is an image of Christ rising from the grave. 2. Another reason was, that it might represent their profession of faith in the holy Trinity, in whose name they were bap- tized. St. Austin48 joins both reasons together, tell- ing us there was a twofold mystery signified in this way of baptizing. The trine immersion was both a symbol of the holy Trinity, in whose name we are baptized, and also a type of the Lord’s burial, and of his resurrection on the third day from the dead. For we are buried with Christ by baptism, and rise again with him by faith. St. J erom‘” makes this ceremony to be a symbol of the Unity as well as the Trinity. For, says he, we are thrice dipped in water, that the mystery of the Trinity may appear to be but one: we are not baptized in the names of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but in one name, which is God. And therefore he adds, that though we be tln'ice put under water to represent the mys- tery of the Trinity, yet it is reputed but one baptism. The original of this custom is not of exactly agreed upon by the ancients. Some derive it from apostolical tradi- tion; others, from the first institution of baptism by our Saviour; whilst others esteem it only an indif- ferent circumstance or ceremony, that may be used or omitted, without any detriment to the sacrament Ter- tullian,5o St. Basil,“ and St. J erom,52 put it among those rites of the church, which they reckon to be handed down from apostolical tradition. St. Chry- sostom seems rather to make it part of the first in- stitution. For he says, Christ delivered to his dis- ciples53 one baptism in three immersions of the body, when he said to them, “ Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” And Theodoret54 was of the same opinion: for he charges Eunomius as making an innovation upon the original institu- tion of baptism, delivered by Christ and his apos- tles, in that he made a contrary law, that men should not be baptized with three immersions, nor with in- vocation of the Trinity, but only with one immer- sion into the death of Christ. Pope Pelagius brought the same charge against some others in his time,55 who baptized in the name of Christ, only with one immersion, which he condemns as contrary to the gospel command given by Christ, who appointed every one to be baptized in the name of the Trinity, and that with three immersions, saying to his dis- ciples, “ Go, baptize all nations, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.” And this was so far esteemed a Divine obligation by the authors of the Apostolical Canons,58 that they order every bishop or presbyter to be deposed, who should ad- minister baptism not by three immersions, but only one in the name of Christ; because Christ said not, Baptize into my death, but, “ Go, baptize all nations in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.” It is plain, all these writers thought this a necessary circumstance from our Saviour’s institution. And the Eunomians, who first rejected this, are con- demned by Theodoret and Sozomen, as making a new law of baptizing, not only against the general practice, but against the general rule and tradition of the church. . Yet there happened a circumstance Sect 8. in the Spanish churches in after ages, 6,3313,“ ,‘},‘§f,ef,“eo, which gave a little turn to this affair. ‘my alterum“ i“ it‘ For the Arians in Spain, not being of the sect of 4‘ Nyssen. de Bapt. Christi, t. 3. p. 372. "5 Cyril. Catech. Myst. 2. n. 4. "6 Athan. de Parabolis Script. qu. 94. "7 Leo, Ep. 4. ad Episc. Siculos, cap. 3. Sepulturam tri- duanam imitatur trina demersio, et ah aquis elevatio resur- gentis instar est de sepulchro. “8 Aug. Hom. 3. ap. Gratian. de Consecrat. Dist. 4. cap. 78. Postquam vos credere promisistis, tertio capita vestra in sacro fonte demersimus. Qui ordo baptismatis duplici mysterii significatione celebratur. Recte enim tertio mersi estis, qui accepistis baptismum in nomine Trinitatis. Recte tertio mersi estis, qui accepistis baptismum in nomine J esu Christi, qui die tertia resurrexit a. mortuis. Illa enim tertio repetita demersio typum Dominicae exprimit sepulturae, &c. “9 Hieron. lib. 2. in Ephes. iv. p. 222. Ter mergimur, ut Trinitatis ununr appareat sacramentum, et non baptizamur in nominibus Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, sed in uno nomine, quod intelligitur Deus.—Potest et unum baptisma ita dici, quod licet ter baptizemur propter mysterium Trini- tatis, tamen unum baptisma reputetur. 5° Tertul. de Coron. Mil. c. 3. 5‘ Basil. de Spir. Sancto, c. 27. 52 Hieron. cont. Lucit'. cap. 4. It. Sozomen. lib. 6. c. 26. 53 Chrys. Hom. de Fide, t. 7. p. 290. Edit. Savil. ’Eu 'rpwi Ka'radrio'so't '1'05 o'u'rua'ros 's‘u Bd'ITTLO'fLG ero'is e'av'roii luafln'ra'is qrapade'dwlcs, &c. 5"‘ Theod. Haeret. Fab. lib. 4. c. 3. p. 236. Aim-69 Kai 'ri's' dyiou flavr'rio'ua'ros dué'rped/e 'rdu duélcadeu wapd rr'oii Kv- piov Kai d'n'oo'ro'hwv 'mzpadofléwra 522071611, Kai. du'rucpus éuouofié'rno's, in‘; Xpfivar Ae'ywv 'rpis K117116081.” 'rdv Barr- 'n‘go'luevou, &c. 55 Pelag. Ep. ad Gaudentium, ap. Gratian. de Consecrat. Dist. 4. cap. 82. Multi sunt qui in nomine solummodo Christi, una etiam mersione se asserunt baptizare. Evan- gelicum vero praeceptum, ipso Deo et Domino Salvatore nostro J esu Christo tradente, nos admonet, in nomine Trini- tatis, trina etiam mersione sanctum baptisma unicuique tri- buere, dicente Domino discipulis suis, Ite, baptizate omnes gentes in nomine Patris, Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. 55 Canon. Apost. can. 49. al. 50. CHAP. XI. 541 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. the Eunomians, continued for many years to baptize with three immersions: but then they abused this ceremony to a very perverse end, to patronize their error about the Son and Holy Ghost’s being of a different nature or essence from the Father; for they made the three immersions to denote a differ- ence, or degrees of Divinity, in the three Divine per- sons. To oppose whose wicked doctrine, and that they might not seem to symbolize with them in any practice that might give encouragement to it, some catholics began to leave off the trine immersion, as savouring of Arianism, and took up the single im- mersion in opposition to them. But this was like to prove matter of scandal and schism among the catholics themselves. And therefore, in the time of Gregory the Great, Leander, bishop of Sevil, wrote to him for his advice and resolution in this case. To which he returned this answer: Con- cerning the three immersions in baptism, you 5’ have judged very truly already, that different rites and customs do not prejudice the holy church, whilst the unity of faith remains entire. The reason why we use three immersions, (at Rome,) is to signify the mystery of Christ’s three days’ burial, that whilst an infant is thrice lifted up out of the water, the resurrection on the third day may be expressed thereby. But if any one thinks this is rather done in regard to the holy Trinity, a single immersion in baptism does no way prejudice that; for so long as the unity of substance is preserved in three per- sons, it is no harm whether a child be baptized with one immersion or three; because three immersions may represent the Trinity of persons, and one im- mersion the unity of the Godhead. But forasmuch as heretics use to baptize their infants with three immersions, I think you ought not to do so; lest this multiplication of immersions be interpreted a division of the Godhead, and give them occasion to glory that their custom has prevailed. Yet this judgment of Pope Gregory did not satisfy all men in the Spanish church; for still many kept to the old way of baptizing by three immersions, notwith- standing this fear of symbolizing with the Arians. Therefore, some time after, about the year 633, the fourth council of Toledo, which was a general coun- cil of all Spain, was forced to make another decree to determine this matter, and settle the peace of the church. For while some priests baptized with three immersions, and the others but with one, a schism was raisedf’s endangering the unity of the faith. For the contending parties carried the matter so high, as to pretend, that they who were baptized in a way contrary to their own, were not baptized at all. To remedy which evil, the fathers of this coun- cil first repeat the judgment of Pope Gregory, and then immediately conclude upon it, That though both these ways of baptism were just and unblam- able in themselves, according to the opinion of that great man; yet, as well to avoid the scandal of schism, as the usage of heretics, they decree, that only one immersion should be used in baptism, lest if any used three immersions, they might seem to approve the opinion of heretics, whilst they followed their practice. And that no one might be dubious about the use of a single immersion, he might con- sider, that the death and resurrection of Christ were represented by it. For the immersion in water was as it were the descending into hell or the grave, and the emersion out of the water was a resurrec- tion. He might also observe the Unity of the Deity, and the Trinity of persons to be signified by it; the Unity by a single immersion, and the Trinity by giving baptism in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Some learned persons59 find fault with this council for changing this ancient custom upon so slight a reason, as that of the Arians using it: which, if it were any reason, would hold as well against a single immersion, because the Eunomians, a baser sect of the Arians, were the first inventors of that practice. And therefore the exception made 5’ Gregor. lib. 1. Ep. 41. ad Leand. De trina mersione baptismatis nil responderi verius potest, quam quod ipsi sen- sistis, quod in una. fide nil ofIicit sanctae ecclesias consuetudo diversa. Nos autem quod tertio mergimus, triduanae sepul- turae sacramenta signamus,ut dum tertio infans ab aquis educitur, resurrectio triduani temporis exprimatur. Quod si quis forte etiam pro summae T rinitatis veneratione existi- met fieri; neque ad hoc aliquid obsistit baptizando semel in aquis mergere: quia dum in tribus personis una substantia est, reprehensibile esse nullatenus potest, infantem in bap- tismate vel ter, vel semel immergere; quando et in tribus mersionibus personarum Trinitas, et in una potest Divini- tatis singularitas designari. Sed quia nunc hucusque ab haereticis infans in baptismo tertio mergebatur, fiendum apud vos esse non censeo: ne dum mersiones numerant, Divini- tatem dividant; dumque quod faciebant faciunt, se morem vestrum vicisse glorientur. 58 Cone. Tolet. 4. can. 5. De baptismi autem Sacramento, propter quod in Hispaniis quidam sacerdotes trinam, sim- plam quidam mersionem faciunt, a nonnullis schisma esse conspicitur, et unitas fidei scindi videtur. Nam dum partes diversae in baptizandis aliqua contrario modo agunt, ab aliis non baptizatos esse contendunt.——--Quapropter, quia de utroque sacramento, quod fit in sancto baptismo, a tanto viro reddita est ratio, quod utrumque rectum, utrumque irrepre- hensibile in sancta Dei ecclesia habeatur: propter vitandum autem schismatis scandalum, vel haeretici dogmatis usum, simplicem teneamus baptismi mersionem ; ne videantur apud nos, qui tertio mergunt, haereticorum approbare assertionem, dum sequuntur et morem. Et ne forte cuiquam sit dubium hujus simpli mysterium sacramenti, videat in eo mortem et resurrectionem Christi significari. Nam in aquis mersio, quasi ad infernum descensio est: et rursus ab aquis emersio, resurrectio est. Item videat in eo unitatem Divinitatis, et Trinitatem personarum ostendi. Unitatem, dum scmel mer- gimus: Trinitatem, dum in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti baptizamus. 59 Strabo de Ofiic. Eccl. cap. 26. Vossius de Bapt. Disp. 2. Thes. 4. p. 46. 542 Boox XI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. by this Spanish council in the seventh century, cannot prejudice the more ancient and general prac- tice of the church, which, as Strabo observed, still prevailed after this council; and if Vossius says true, the trine immersion, or what corresponds to it, the trine aspersion, is the general practice of all churches upon earth at this day. And such a cus- tom could not well be laid aside, without some charge of novelty, and danger of giving offence and scandal to weaker brethren. I have now gone over the several circumstances and ceremonies accom- panying baptism, so far as to make it a complete sacrament, and the instrument of salvation to all worthy receivers, if they happened to die without any further consummation, as sometimes they did, when baptism was administered to them with less solemnity, either in times of sickness, or at some distance from the mother-church; in both which cases they had the substance of the sacrament, but not all the ceremonies that were appointed to at- tend it. They were supposed to be made partakers of Christ’s body, and to eat his flesh, and to be washed in his blood, which was drinking it by faith, in baptism as well as in the eucharist. And if they survived, they were also admitted immediately to the symbols of Christ’s body and blood in the eu- charist. But there were some other ceremonies following baptism, as it were to finish the solemnity of it; some of which were introductory and pre- paratory to the eucharist, as the second unction accompanying baptism, which we commonly call imposition of hands or confirmation. Of which, because it will be necessary to speak a little more distinctly, I shall make it, and the remaining cere- monies of baptism, the subject of another Book. BOOK XII. OF CONFIRMATION, AND OTHER CEREMONIES FOLLOWING BAPTISM, BEFORE MEN WERE MADE PARTAKERS OF THE EUCHARIST. CHAPTER I. OF THE TIME WHEN, AND THE PERSONS TO WHOM, CONFIRMATION WAS ADMINISTERED. gm 1 IMMEDIATELY after the persons came ' .Confirmation an‘ up out of the water, if the bishop was ggigiiifivgiéifiggi present at the solemnity, they were we” present‘ presented to him in order to receive his benediction, which was a solemn prayer for the descent of the Holy Ghost upon such as were bap- tized: and to this prayer there was usually joined the ceremony of a second unction, and imposition of hands, and the sign of the cross; whence the whole action many times took these names, xpio'fla, the unction, Xupodeo'ia, the imposition of hands, and appayig, the sign or seal of the Lord, which are names much more common among the ancients than that of confirmation. But by all these names they understood one and the same thing, which was the bishop’s prayer for the descent of the Spirit upon persons newly baptized. This was always administered together with baptism, if the bishop, who was the ordinary minister of it, were present at the action. But if he was absent, as it usually happened to be in churches at a distance from the mother-church, or when persons were baptized in haste upon a sick bed, then confirmation was de- ferred till the bishop could have a convenient op- portunity to visit them. This we learn from St. J erom, who speaks1 of it as customary in the church, for bishops to go and invocate the Holy Spirit by imposition of hands on such as were bap- tized by presbyters and deacons in villages and places remote from the mother-church. And it many times happened, that such persons died be- fore the bishop could come to give them imposition of hands. To prevent which inconvenience, the canons in some places obliged bishops to visit their whole dioceses once every year; and if they were so large that they could not do so, then they were to divide their dioceses and make them less, as we find it decreed and practised in some of the Spanish councils.2 But in case persons were baptized in the presence of the bishop, then without any delay they were immediately. confirmed with imposition of hands and the holy unction. Tertullian says8 very plainly, That as soon as they came out of the water, they were anointed with the oil of consecra- tion, and then received imposition of hands, invit- ing down the Holy Spirit by that benediction. And so Cyril of Jerusalem represents it, when he tells the neophytes, that as soon as they come up out of the waters of the font,‘ they received the chrism or unction, with the antitype of which (that is, the Holy Ghost) Christ was anointed when he came up out of Jordan. In like manner the author of the Constitutions, describing the ceremonies of baptism, orders the priest,5 as soon as he has baptized any one, to anoint him with the holy chrism, and give him im- position of hands, saying a prayer which is there ap- pointed. Thus we find in the Life of St. Basil,6 how Maximinus ‘the bishop, who baptized him and En- bulus together, immediately clothed them with the white garments, and anointed them with the holy 1 Hieron. cont. Lucifer. cap. 4. Non abnuo hanc esse ecclesiarum consuetudinem, ut ad eos qui longe in minori- bus urbibus per presbyteros et diaconos baptizati sunt, epis- copus ad invocationem Saneti Spiritus manum impositurus excurrat. And a little after, In villulis aut in eastellis, aut in remotioi'ibus locis per presbyteros aut diaconos baptizati, ante dormierunt, quam ab episeopis inviserentur. Vid. Conc. Eliber. can. 77. 2 Cone. Lucens. Conc. t. 5. p. 874. 1‘ Tertul. de Bapt. c. 7. Exinde egressi de lavaero per- ungimur benedicta unetione.——Cap. 8. Dehinc manus imponitur, per benedietionem advocans et invitans Spiri- tum Sanctum. 4 Cyril. Catech. Myst. 3. n. I. 'Tp'iv buofws dwagefimcd- a'w d'rrd 'riis Kohvnfiviflpas TE,” ispé'w uajuo'z'rwv, £86611 xpia- na, 'rd dv'rf'rv'rrou Z? éxpfo'en Xpts‘ds' 'ril'ro as ési 'rd "A'ytom l'Ivsfi/Ia. 5 Const. Apost. lib. 7. cap. 43 et 44. Marc‘: 'I'E'ro ,Ba'lr- a'fo'as airro‘v, xpIo-c'z'rqu nfipw, é'mhé'ywv, &c. 6 Amphiloch. Vit. Basil. c. 5. Baptizavit Maximinus episcopus Basilium et Eubulum, et vestivit albis, atque 1m- gens eos sancto chrismate, tradidit eis communionem. 544 Boox XII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. chrism, and gave them the communion. The same may be observed in the description of the ceremo- nies of baptism given by the author under the name of Dionysius,’ St. Ambrose, Optatus, Pacian, and all others amongst the ancients, who have made any mention of the time of administering confirmation. Nor was this only true with respect Andsgliiszas well to adult persons, but also with respect iirlsiiiisxitswaiiigh is to infants, who were anciently con- plgsiri firmed by imposition of hands, and the holy chrism or unction, as soon as they were baptized. Which perhaps will seem a paradox to many, who look no further than to the practice of later ages; but it may be undeniably evidenced these two ways: 1. From plain testimo- nies of the ancients declaring it so to be; and, 2. From that known custom and usage of the church in giving the eucharist to infants, which ordinarily presupposes their confirmation. First, For the testimonies of the ancients, nothing can be plainer than those words of Gennadius, If they be infants that are baptized,8 let those that present them to baptism, answer for them according to the common way of baptizing: and then let them be confirmed with imposition of hands and chrism, and so be ad- mitted to partake of the eucharist. In like manner Pope Innocent, in one of his decrees,9 says, Infants are not to be consigned or confirmed by any but the bishop. And in the Collection of Canons made by Martin Bracarensis '° out of those of the Greek church, this is one, That a presbyter may not con- sign infants in the presence of the bishop, except he be particularly appointed by the bishop to do it. This practice continued in the church for many ages. For it is mentioned by Pope Gregory both in his Sacramentarium and in his Epistles,u and after him by all the writers in the eighth and ninth centuries. Alcuin, who wrote about the offices of the church in the time of Charles the Great, speak- ing of infant baptism,12 says, After an infant is bap- tized, he is to be clothed and brought to the bishop, if he be present, who is to confirm him with chrism, and give him the communion; and if the bishop be not present, the presbyter shall communicate him. The same is in the Ordo Romanus, a book written and used as a liturgy about the same time; where, after the bishop has given the white garment to infants, he lifts up his hand and lays it upon their heads,13 praying for the descent of the Holy Ghost upon them, and signing them with the sign of the cross in the forehead, he says, I confirm thee in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Baluzius, in his Notes upon Regino,“ gives us two ancient manuscript Pontificals of the ninth century, where- in this order for confirming infants is continued. And to these he adds ‘5 an epistle of Jesse, bishop of Amiens, describing the order of baptism, where the rule is for the bishop, After the child has been baptized with three immersions, to confirm him with chrism in the forehead, and then to confirm him (for so it is worded) or communicate him with the body and blood of Christ. These testimonies are so plain and convincing, that all learned men, who have exactly considered this matter, as Well papists as protestants, are agreed, that this was the ancient and general practice of the church, to con- firm infants as soon as they were baptized. For so I find not only Baluzius, but Peter de Marca,l6 Hugo Menardus,l7 Maldonat,18 Estius,19 Galenusfi0 among the papists, and Bishop Taylor 2‘ and Daillé 22 among the protestants, readily consenting. And some23 tell us the same practice continues among the Greeks to this day. The learned reader may add to the former testimonies the authority of St. Austin, who witnesses for this practice in his own person. For he says,“ He himself was used to " Dionys. de Hierarch. Eccl. cap. 2. p. 260. Ambros. de Sacram. lib. 3. c. 2. Optat. lib. 4. p. 81. Paoian. Serm. de Baptismo, Bibl. Patr. t. 3. p. 77. 8 Gennad. de Dogmat. Eccles. cap. 52. Si parvuli sint— respondeant pro illis qui eos ofl'erunt, juxta morem bapti- zandi, et sic manus impositione et chrismate communiti, eucharistiae mysteriis admittantur. 9 Innoc. Ep. 1. cap. 3. De consignandis vero infantibus, manifestum est non ab alio quam ab episcopo fieri licere. 1° Martin Bracar. Collec. Canon. cap. 52. Presbyter pree- sente episcopo non signet infantes, nisi forte ab episcopo fuerit illi praeceptum. 1‘ Gregor. lib. 3. Ep. 9. ‘2 Alcuin. de Offic. cap. de Sabbato Paschae, Bibl. Patr. t. 10. p. 259. Postea vestiatur infans vestimentis suis. Si vero episcopus adest, statim confirmari eum oportet chris- mate, et postea communicare; et si episcopus deest, com- municetur a presbytero. '3 Ordo Roman. cap. de Bapt. Bibl. Patr. t. 10. p. 63. Pontifex elevata et imposita manu super capita omnium, dat orationem super eos cum invocatione septiformis gratiae Spiritus Sancti. Et tincto pollice in chrismate faciat crucem in frontibus singulorum, ita dicendo, Confirmo te in nomine Patris et Filii et Spirittls Sancti. 1‘ Baluz. Not. in Regino, lib. 1. cap. 69. Ex pontificali vet. MS. Statim autem confirmetur infans, et communice- tur ab episcopo, ita dicente, Corpus et sanguis Domini. Item ex altero pontificali; Si episcopus adest, statim con- firmari eum oportet chrismate, et postea communicari. ‘5 Jesse Ambianens. Ep. de Ordine Baptismi, ap. Baluz. ibid. Post triuarn mersionem episcopus puerum ehrismate confirmet in fronte, novissime autem col-pore et sanguine Christi confirmetur seu communicetur, ut Christi membrum esse possit. '6 Marca, Not. ad Concil. Claramontan. p. 312. 1’ Menard. Not. ad Librum Sacramentor. p. 144. "3 Maldonat. de Confirmat. qu. 2. ‘9 Estius, Sentent. lib. 4. Dist. 7. n. 23. p. 101. 2° Galen. Catechism. ap. Dallae. de Confirm. p. 21. 21 Taylor’s 'Worthy Communicant, chap. 3. sect. 2. p. 209. 22 Dallas. de Confirmat. lib. 3. cap. 13. 28 Pet. du Moulin’s Buckler of Faith, p. 381. 2* Aug. Tract. 6. in 1 John iii. t. 9. p. 254. Qua-“£10 im- posuimus manum istis infantibus, attendit unusquisque ves- trfim utrum linguis loquerentur? Et cum videret eos linguis i CHAP. I. 545 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. give imposition of hands, or confirmation, to infants, that they might receive the Holy Spirit. If this matter needed further proof, Frggdgggggwm 0, we might insist upon that known 3?: .ii‘eefilfiaif; practice and custom in the ancient ages’ church, of giving the eucharist to in- fants, which continued in the church for several ages. It is frequently mentioned in Cyprian, Aus- tin, Innocentius, and Gennadius, writers from the third to the fifth century. Maldonat confesses it was in the church for six hundred years. And some of the authorities just now alleged, prove it to have continued two or three ages more, and to have been the common practice beyond the time of Charles the Great. Now, all men know, that in the common course of things confirmation always preceded the eucharist, unless there was some special cause, as sometimes it happened in the case of clinic baptism, or the bishop’s absence, to prevent it. For in these two cases the eucharist was many times given be- fore confirmation, as now it is in our large dioceses, where the bishop’s presence cannot always be had to give confirmation, in places at a great distance, before the communion. But in all other cases, the usual way was to let confirmation usher in the com- munion. And therefore since it is evident, that the communion itself was given to infants, and that immediately from the time of their baptism; it would be reasonable to conclude from hence, were there no other evidence, that confirmation also was given to infants, together with baptism, because this rite by all ordinary rules and custom was prior and introductory to the communion. This observation may help us to un- tmhggggneiigsgm, derstand some difficult passages in the was not esteemed a ancients, and answer an objection Eiilggiiitsiizhmgap- which the Romanists draw from them, as if confirmation were a proper sa- crament distinct from baptism. The ancients, it must be owned, sometimes give it the name of a sacrament, and call baptism and confirmation two sacraments. But then it is very evident, they take the word sacrament in a large sense, for any sacred ceremony, rite, or mystery, belonging to baptism: in which sense they suppose two sacraments, or chief mysterious ceremonies, to be in baptism, that is, the immersion in water, and the unction with the Sect. 8. holy chrism, both which are spoken of as sacra- ments or ceremonies belonging to baptism. Thus in the council of Carthage, under Cyprian, Neme- sianus a Tubunis says, It was not sufficient for men to be regenerated only by imposition of hands, but they ought to be born again25 by both the sacra- ments in the catholic church; that is, as well by washing in water, as imposition of hands, both which he makes sacraments, that is, sacred rites of the same sacrament of regeneration. In the same sense Cyprian himself28 says, both the sacraments of regeneration were required to complete men’s sanctification. Which plainly shows, that by two sacraments he means no more but two of the prin- cipal ceremonies that belonged to a complete and perfect baptism, because he says men were regene- rated or born again by them both. In like manner Optatus27 makes imposition of hands and unction to be only parts and ceremonies completing baptism. For, speaking of the baptism of Christ, he says, He went not into the water, as if any thing in God could need cleansing; but it was necessary the water should go before the unction that was to follow after, to initiate and order and complete the myste- ries or sacramental rites of baptism. When he was washed by the hands of John, the order of the mystery was settled; the Father fulfilled what the Son had asked, and what the Holy Ghost had fore— told. The spiritual oil immediately descended in the image of a dove, and sat upon his head, and anointed him; from whence he began to be called Christ, because he was anointed of God the Father. And that imposition of hands might not seem to be wanting, the voice of God was heard from the cloud, saying, “ This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” Here Optatus professes to de- scribe the order, and parts, and mysteries of baptism, from the similitude of the baptism of Christ. In each of these he makes three sacraments or principal mysteries, the washing, the unction, and imposition of hands; which are not properly three distinct sacra- ments, but three parts or rites of the same sacrament of baptism, which, according to Optatus, were or- dered, and shadowed, and completed in the baptism of Christ. Unless we take sacrament in this large sense, we shall have three proper sacraments in bap- tism, which neither Optatus nor any of the ancients non loqui, ita perverso corde aliquis vestrum fuit, ut diceret, non acceperunt isti Spiritum Sanctum? 25 Conc. Carthag. ap. Cypr. n. 5. p. 231. Male sibi qui- dam interpretantur, ut dicant, quod per mantis impositionem Spiritum Sanctum accipiant, et sic recipiantur: cum mani- festum sit utroque sacramento debere eos renasci in ecclesia catholica. 2“ Cypr. Ep. 72. ad Stephan. p. 196. Parum est eis ma- num imponere ad recipiendum Spiritum Sanctum, nisi ac- cipiant et ecclesias baptismum. Tunc enim demum plene sanctificari et esse Filii Dei possint, si sacramento utroque nascantur. 2" Optat. lib. 4. p. 81. Descendit in aquam, non quia erat quod in Deo mundaretur, sed venturum oleum aqua debuit antecedere, ad mysteria. initianda et ordinanda et complenda baptismatis. Lotus cum in Joannis manibus haberetur, secutus est ordo mysterii, et complevit Pater quod rogaverat Filius, et quod nunciaverat Spiritus Sanctus. Apertum est coelum, Deo Patre ungente. Spiritale oleum statim in imagine columbae descendit, et insedit capiti ejus et per- fudit eum; unde coepit dici Christus, quando unctus est a Deo Patre. Cui ne mantis impositio defuisse videretur, vox audita est Dei de nube dicentis, Hic Filius est meus, &c. 2N 546 Boox XII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. ever thought of, when they speak of the mysteries of baptism; but they allow both unction and imposition of hands to be sacraments, as they are parts or rites of the mystery of baptism. After this manner Pa- cianus, bishop of Barcelona, makes also three sacra- ments of the mystery of baptism, viz. the laver or washing of water, the unction of the Spirit, and the hand and mouth of the priest. For he says, The seed of Christ, that is, the Spirit of God, brings forth a new man, by the hands of the priest, out of the womb of the church, which is the font, faith being the bridemaid to all this.” And without these three sacraments, the laver, the chrism, and the priest, this new birth is not efl‘ected. For by the laver, sin is purged away; by the chrism, the Holy Spirit is poured down upon us; and both these we obtain by the hand and mouth of the priest; and so the whole man is regenerated and renewed in Christ. Here we must of necessity say, either that the laver, the chrism, and words and action of the priest, are three sacraments, or else that they are but three parts or ceremonies of the same sacrament of bap- tism, which is what Pacian plainly intended; for he is speaking of the manner how men are regene- rated in baptism, and he makes chrism to be one means of this regeneration; whence it is evident, he had no other notion of it, but as of an integral part of baptism, though not absolutely essential to it. This, then, is one plain reason why the ancients sometimes call the immersion in the water and the unction of chrism two sacraments, because they are parts, or rites, or ceremonies of the mystery of bap- tism. And there is nothing more usual with the ancients than this way of speaking, to call every sacred rite or ceremony used in the church, by the name of a sacrament or mystery. As St. Austin calls exorcism29 a sacrament. And the salt which was given to the catechumens before baptism, is called the sacrament of the catechumens, both by St. Austin80 and the third council of Carthage,81 as has been observed in another place, where I speak particularly of this sacrament of the catechumens. Cyprian82 speaks of sacraments in the Lord’s prayer. And to insist no longer upon these, it is usual also with the ancients to divide the proper sacraments, baptism and the eucharist, each of them into two or more, meaning the several parts or rites belong- ing to them. Thus Isidore speaks of four sacra- ments83 in the church, which are, baptism, chrism, the body of Christ, and the blood of Christ. As therefore the bread and wine are called two sacra- ments, though they be but two parts of the same eucharist; so the washing and the unction are call- ed two sacraments, though they be but two rites of the same sacrament of baptism. The like style is used by Pope Innocent,“ when he calls the bread and wine sacraments, in the plural. And Fulbertus Carnotensis35 is more express, when he says, There are two sacraments of life, the body and blood of Christ. No wonder therefore the same author“6 should call the immersion in water and the unction of chrism, conveying the Spirit, by the name of the two sacraments of baptism. For nothing can be plainer, than that immersion and chrism are not properly two sacraments of baptism, but only two rites of it: as the bread and wine are not strictly two sacraments of the eucharist, but only different . parts of the same communion. It were easy to add abundance more of such expressions out of other authors, many of which the reader may find collect- ed together by the learned Daillé ;87 I shall only add the words of Haimo Haberstatensis, where he ex- pressly makes confirmation a rite or ceremony of baptism, always accompanying, and administered at the same time with it, as the consummating act and perfection of it: The gift of the Holy Spirit, says he,88 is given in baptism by the imposition of the bishop’s hands. So that when the ancients call confirmation a sacrament, they always mean, that it is a part or ceremony of the sacrament of bap- tism. In which sense, they give the name of sacra- ments to many other things, which ‘were only parts, or ceremonies, or attendants on it, such as exorcism, and the sign of the cross, which were sacraments in the same sense as confirmation. But it may be said, that confirma- tion, imposition of hands, or unction, Nasrigi' \fivhen it was many times given to men at some iisritisriiiaigteinfiilig case of heretics who years’ distance from baptism, as in the 3f"; harmed outof e church. case of heretics and schismatics, who 29 Pacian. Serm. de Bapt. Bibl. Patr. t. 3. p. 77. Christi semen, id est, Dei Spiritus, novum hominem, alvo matris agitatum, et partu fontis exceptum, manibus sacerdotis ef- fundit, fide tamen pronuba.—Haec autem compleri alias nequeunt, nisi lavacri, et chrismatis, et antistis sacramento. Lavacro enim peccata purgantur, chrismate Sanctus Spi- ritus superfunditur; utraque vero ista manu et ore antistitis impetramus; atque ita totus homo renascitur et innovatur in Christo. 2’9 Aug. Horn. 83. de Diversis. Exorcismi sacramento quasi molebamini. 8° Aug. de Peccator. Mcritis, lib. 2. cap. 26. ‘1 Conc. Carthag. 3. can. 5. See these cited, Book X. chap. 2. sect. 16. 8” Cypr. de Orat. Dom. p. 142. ‘*3 Isidor. Origin. lib. 6. c. 19. Sunt autem sacramenta baptismus, et chrisma; corpus et sanguis Christi. *4 Innoc. Ep. 1. ad Decent. cap. 5. Non longe portanda sunt sacramenta. 35 Fulbert. Ep. 1. Bibl. Patr. t. 3. p. 434. Duo vitae sa- cramenta, id est, Dominici corporis et sanguinis. 96 Fulbert. ibid. p. 436. Requiritur sane in baptismatis sacramentis aqua propter sepulturam, et Spiritfis Sanctus propter vitam aeternam. “7 Dallae. de Confirm. lib. 1. cap. 8. p. 150. It. lib. 3. cap. 13. p. 386. *8 Haimo in Hebr. xiii. cited by Daillé. Donum Spiritfis Sancti datur in baptismate per impositionem mantis epis- coporum. CEAP. II. 547 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. were baptized in infancy out of the church, and were received by imposition of hands when they returned to the church afterwards. To which I answer, that the imposition of hands which the church gave in this case separate from baptism, was what could not be avoided, because the church had no opportunity of administering it before ; and therefore no argument is to be drawn from what she was forced to do upon such an exigence,being only an exception to her ordinary practice. It is owned, that the church gave imposition of hands to all heretics upon their return to the church : and this, as I have showed at large in another39 discourse, was to supply the deficiencies of that outward form of baptism, which could not grant them the graces of the Spirit, whilst they remained in heresy or schism. And there I also observed, that_some here- tics retained the unction and imposition of hands as well as baptism, and administered it to infants together with baptism; which was the practice of the Donatists, and, it may be, of several others. But yet the church, though she neither repeated the outward form of baptism, nor always the unction of chrism; especially in the western parts, where St. Austin, Optatus, Alcir'nus, and Avitus lived; yet she always gave a new imposition of hands with prayer, to implore the descent of the Holy Ghost upon them. And though this was separating confirm- ation from baptism, yet it was only in an extraordi- nary case, when the church was not capacitated to do otherwise. In other cases she always joined these two ceremonies together, as well in infants as adult persons, as I suppose the allegations and proofs alleged in this chapter, do abundantly show to any candid reader, beyond possibility of contra— diction. Sect. 6_ But some will be apt to object, that $13,, g‘figififigf if this were the case, then all churches gioixériiiisnniiii-"ZZI at present, as well protestant as pop- $13.2‘: ish, differ from the practice of the ' primitive church in this particular, that now they never administer confirmation to infants, but only to adult persons, who can confirm their baptismal vow in their own persons. And this difference is readily owned, as to practice. But then, if the question be about right, which is the more suitable and agreeable practice? and whether we ought not to conform in every circumstance to the practice of the primitive church? I suppose every church in this case is best judge for herself, what is most for the edifieation of her children. And as no church now thinks herself under any ; fore. ' byters, by ‘the commission of the bishop, to conse- obligation to give the eucharist to infants, because the primitive church for eight hundred years did so; so neither does any church judge herself bound to give confirmation to infants from the same exam- ple: though some learned persons have pleaded for both, as Bishop Bedel,“ among the protestants, for the communion of infants, and Matthew Galen,‘u among the papists, for giving them confirmation. Whilst others judge the modern practice the more edifying way, and think there are no suflicient ar- guments to engage the church to make an alteration. CHAPTER II. OF THE MINISTER OF CONFIRMATION. NExT to the persons to whom con- Sect ,_ The consecration firmation was given, we are to make of chrism reserved inquiry about the ministry of it, and iiiisiiotli’suii; (iiiiececi-f see by whom it was usually given. no“ And here it will be necessary to distinguish the several parts and ceremonies of confirmation, and cases ordinary and extraordinary; as also the con- secration of the chrism from the use of it, and the practice and custom of some churches from others : for one rule was not precisely observed in all these. Confirmation consisted of several acts, as we shall see in the next chapter: there was first the conse- cration of the chrism, which was always the bishop’s act; then there was the unction itself, or the use of it, with consignation or the sign of the cross on the forehead or other parts of the body; then imposition of hands with prayer: there were also cases ordi- nary, when the bishop was present at baptism, and cases extraordinary, when he was absent, and the party in danger of death: there were also different practices according to the rules of different churches : and according to these distinctions the answer must be given to this general question. The consecra— tion of the chrism was generally reserved to the bishop in all churches, and so the use of it was de- rived from his authority in all cases whatsoever. The second council of Carthage1 forbids presbyters to have any concern in it, and refers to a former council, wherein the like prohibition was made be- The third council of ' Carthage allows pres- crate virgins, but never2 to consecrate the chrism. The fourth council of Carthage3 obliges presbyters in country churches to go to the bishop yearly be- 89 Scholast. Hist. of Lay Baptism, chap. 1. n. 21. 4° See Bishop Usber’s Letters, Ep. 163. p. 442. ‘1 Galen. Catechism. ap. Dallas. de Confirm. lib. l. p. 21. 1 Cone. Carth. 2. can. 3. Memini praeterito concilio statutum fuisse, ut chrisma, vel reconciliatio poenitentium, necnon et puellarum consecratio a presbyteris non fiant. 2 Ibid. 3. can. 36. Ut presbyter inconsulto episcopo virgines non eonsecret, chrisma vero nunquam eonficiat. “7 Ibid. 4. can. 36. Presbyteri, qui per dioeceses ecclesias regunt, non a quibuslibet episcopis, sed a suis, nec per mino- rem elericum, sed omni anno aut per seipsos, aut per illum qui sacrarium tenet, ante Pascha: solennitatem chrisma petant. 2N2 548 BooK XII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. fore Easter, or else to send their sacrist to him for the chrism. In some churches of Spain the pres- byters took upon them to consecrate it themselves, which occasioned the first council of Toledo to renew the decree against this as a usurpation,‘ for- bidding any beside the bishop to do it from that day forward, and obliging presbyters, as before, to go to their own bishop for it before Easter. The like injunctions are made in the first council of Vaison,5 the council of Auxerre,6 the council of Barcelona,7 the first and second council of Bracara,8 and in the Collection of Greek Canons made by Martin Bracarensis ;9 as also in the Roman Decrees made by Pope Innocent,lo Leo,11 and Gelasius,l2 which I need not repeat at length upon this occa- sion. So that by this means the bishop’s authority was secured, even in such cases where presbyters were allowed to have their share in this holy unction. Sect. a Now, this unction or consignation, ch'gg; 313mg‘, 3;? in many churches, (particularly in the t‘;;;§;‘p,“;;,°$::,;f Roman church,) was distinguished ms‘ into two sorts, the consignation of the forehead, and the consignation of the other parts of the body. And the former, in such churches where this distinction was made, was generally reserved to the bishop, to be administered with imposition of hands; but the latter was given by presbyters also. All churches did not allow of this distinction of chrism into two sorts, but such as did allow of two, granted authority to presbyters to administer the one, but not the other. The double chrismation was first brought in by Pope Innocent, and he thus divides the office between bishops and presbyters. A presbyter, says he,18 baptizing either in the bi- shop’s presence or absence, may anoint the baptized party with chrism, provided it be consecrated be- forehand by the bishop; but he may not sign him in the forehead with the same oil, because it belongs to bishops only when they give the Holy Ghost. And so it is in the decrees of Gelasius,H and Pope Gregory,15 his successor in the Roman see. But this double chrismation was not received in France, nor in any of the Eastern churches. In France it was the office of presbyters, and the imposition of hands was only reserved to the bishop. This is undeniably evident from the council of Orange,16 which orders every minister, who had received the office of baptizing, wherever he went, to have the chrism with him, because it was agreed, that chrism should only be once used in baptism. But if by any necessity it had been omitted in baptism, then the bishop should be put in mind of that omission in confirmation. For it was agreed to have only one chrismation. This canon is repeated and re- ferred to again in the second council of Arles,l7 and Valesius adds ‘8 to them an inscription in Gruter, confirming the same thing, That the bishop did not minister the chrism, except it had been omitted by the presbyter before. In the Eastern churches they had but one unction after baptism, and that per- formed by the bishop, except in some particular and extraordinary cases. The author of the Apos- tolical Constitutions makes this the office19 of the bishop, to anoint those that were baptized with the holy chrism. And this, he says, was the confirm- ation of the professions which they had made in baptism?‘o The author under the name of Diony- sius says the same,21 That after the presbyters have baptized a man, they bring him to the bishop, and he anoints him with the divine chrism, and pronounces him capable of partaking of the holy eucharist. Now, this episcopal unction was not only in the forehead, as was usual in the Roman church, but in all other parts of the body. For, as Cyril of J erusalem22 tells those that were baptized, They were first anointed in the forehead, to wipe ‘ Cone. Tolet. 1. can. 20. Quamvis pene ubique custodia- tur, ut absqne episcopo chrisma nemo conficiat, tamen quia in aliquibus locis vel provinciis, presbyteri dicuntur chrisma conficere, placuit, ex hac die nullum alium nisi episcopum chrisma conficere, et per ditecesim destinare, ita ut de sin- gulis ecclesiis ad episcopum ante diem Paschae diaconi des- tinentur, aut subdiaconi, qui confectum chrisma ab episcopo destinatum ad diem Paschae possint ad tempus deferre. 5 Cone. Vasense, 1. can. 3. 6 Conc. Antissiodor. can. 6. " Conc. Barcinon. can. 2. 8 Cone. Bracar. I. can. 37. Bracar. 2. can. 4. 9 Martin Bracar. Collect. Can. cap. 51. 1° Innoc. Ep. 1. ad Decentium, cap. 3. 11 Leo, Ep. 88. ad Gallos. ‘2 Gelas. Ep. 9. ad Episcopos Lucaniae, cap. 6. ‘8 Innoc. Ep. 1. ad Decent. c. 3. Presbyteris, seu extra episcopum, seu praesente episcopo, baptizant, chrismate baptizatos ungere licet, sed quod ab episcopo fuerit conse- cratum; non tamen frontem ex eodem oleo signare, quod solis debetur episcopis, cum tradant Spiritum Sanctum Pa- racletum. 1‘ Gelas. Ep. 9. c. 6. 15 Greg. Ep. 9. lib. 3. 16 Cone. Arausican. 1. can. 2. Nullus ministrorum, qui baptizandi recipit oflicium, sine chrismate usquam debet pro- gredi, quia inter nos placuit semel in baptismate chrismari. De e0 autem, qui in baptismate, quacunque necessitate faciente, non chrismatus fuerit, in confirmatione sacerdos commonebitur. Nam inter nos chrismatis ipsius non nisi una benedictio est. 1" Cone. Arelaten. 2. can. 27. Nullum ministrum, qui baptizandi recepit oflicium, sine chrismate usquam debere progredi, quia inter nos juxta synodi constitutionem, pla- cuit semel chrismari. ‘8 Vales. Not. in Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 43. p. 135. ex Gruter. p. 1177. de Marea, has this distich ; Tuque sacerdotes docuisti, chrismate‘sancto Tangere bis nullum, judice posse Deo. '9 Constit. Apost. lib. 3. cap. 16. Macro‘: *ror'rro 6 é'n'icnco- was Xpté'rw "rolls ,Ba'lr'rto'ee'u'ras 'rq'i ,ulipup. 2° Ibid. cap. 17. Td fuipou Baflaiwo-ts 'rfis oluoho'yias. Vid. lib. 7. cap. 43. 21 Dionys. de Hier. Eccl. c. 2. p. 254. '0 iepfl'lpxflg ""5 pfipq; 'r'dv d'udpa o'qbpa'ywépsuos, &c. 22 Cyril, Catech. Myst. 3. n. 3. IIpiIrrov éxpieoes Eqri "rd fLé'Tw'ITOV, &c. CHAP. II. 549 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. away that shame which the first man by his trans- gression had contracted; and that they might now with open face behold the glory of the Lord. Then they were anointed on the ears, that they might have ears to hear the Divine mysteries. After that on the nose and breast, that they might be a sweet savour unto the Lord, and being armed with the breastplate of righteousness, might be able to with- stand all the insults of the devil. Thus23 also all such heretics as were to be received into the church without rebaptization, as having been baptized in due form before, are appointed to be received by consignation or unction of the holy chrism; first on the forehead, then on the eyes, nose, mouth, and ears, with this form of words, The seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit. But though this whole cere- mony of unction 1n the Eastern church was ordi- narily to be performed only by the bishop, and not divided (as in the Roman) between the bishop and presbyters; yet in some special cases, in some par- ticular churches this office devolved upon the pres- byters. For at Alexandria, if the bishop was absent, it was usual for the presbyters to give this con- signation at the same time that they baptized. As I think the words of the author under the name of St. Ambrose24 are to be understood, when he says, In Egypt the presbyters consign in the bishop’s ab- sence. And this another author under the name of St. Austin25 calls consecration. Which some learned persons, I know, take for the consecration of the eucharist. But that was nothing singular, but common to all the world, for presbyters to con- secrate the eucharist in the bishop’s absence in all churches, and therefore needed not to be noted as a peculiar custom in Egypt. Therefore I rather judge it to mean some consecration, which presby- ters in many other churches were not allowed in the absence of the bishop, as the consecrating or consigning such as were baptized, with the chrism of confirmation, which a presbyter might not do in the Roman churches. But in some of the Eastern ‘churches this was allowed, for the author of the Constitutions, speaking of the celebration of bap- tism, addresses himself both to bishops and presby— ters, telling them in what order they should perform it: Thou bishop, or presbyter, shalt first anoint the party to be baptized with the holy oil; then thou shalt baptize him with water; and last of all” thou shalt sign him with the holy chrism. Where we see not only the unction preceding baptism, but that which followed after, which was the unction of confirmation, is commanded to the presbyter as well as the bishop; which must at least be inter- preted to mean his doing it in the absence of the bishop; or in his presence, if he has a particular command and delegation. So that as to what con- cerned this first ceremony of confirmation, the unc- tion of chrism, the practice of different churches varied much upon it. Some churches, as the R0- man, divided the office between bishops and pres- byters : others, as those of France, committed it wholly to presbyters, reserving to the bishop only the consecration of the oil, and imposition of hands in confirmation: others, as those of the East, re- served not only the consecration of the chrism, but the use of it, to the bishop entirely, when he was personally present, and in all ordinary cases; only allowing it to be used by presbyters in his absence, or some such extraordinary cases. As to the other ceremony, of impo- sition of hands in confirmation, we mfg; ,‘}",*,‘§,',O,°,f,§,; find that more universally and strictly geilaiiiiéumigriiii reserved to the office of bishops; yet ‘mice of b“ ops' not so absolutely and entirely, but that the canons authorized presbyters to do it in subordination to their bishop in some certain cases. It is certain Cyprian27 speaks of it as the ordinary office of hi- shops or chief ministers of the church. For men- tioning the imposition of hands given by the apos- tles to those whom Philip had baptized, Acts viii., he says, The same custom was now observed in the church, that those who were baptized, were pre- sented to the governors of the church, that by their prayer and imposition of hands, they might receive the Holy Ghost, and be consummated with the seal of the Lord. In like manner, Firmilian, bishop of Caasarea in Cappadocia, who was contemporary with Cyprian, makes bishops the ordinary ministers of this office,” whilst he draws a comparison be- tween St. Paul giving imposition of hands to those whom he baptized at Ephesus, Acts xix., and the bishop’s giving imposition of hands to such as re- turned from heresy or schism to the unity of the catholic church. So likewise the anonymous 2’ Sect. 3. 2* Conc. Constant. 1. can. 7. 2‘ Ambros. in Ephes. iv. 11. Denique apud Egyptum presbyteri consignant, si praesens non sit episcopus. 25 Aug. Quaest. in Vet. et Nov. Test. qu. 101. In Alexan- dria et per totam Egyptum, si desit episcopus, consecrat presbyter. 26 Constit. Apost. lib. 7. cap. 22. 7Q ivriaxovrs ii 7rpstr- fiu'rsps, wpdrrou Xpio'us s’Aaitp dying, Evrst'ra Ba'rr'r'ia'us iida'rt, Kai. "rehsu'rai'ov o'cppa'yio'sts pliptp. ‘ 2’ Cypr. Ep. 73. ad J ubaian. p. 202. Quod nunc quoque apud nos geritur, ut qui in ecclesia baptizantur, praepositis ecclesias ofi'erantur, et per nostram orationem ac mantis im- positionem Spiritum Sanctum consequantur, et signaculo Dominico consummentur. 2“ Firmil. Ep. 75. ap. Cypr. p. 221. Nisi si his episcopis, de quibus nunc, minor fuit Paulus; ut hi quidem possint per solam mantis impositionem venientibus haareticis dare Spiritum Sanctum ; Paulus autem idoneus non fuerit, qui a Joanne baptizatis Spiritum Sanctum per mantis impositio- nem daret, nisi eos prius etiam ecclesias baptismo baptizasset. 29 Anonym. de Bapt. Haereticorum, ap. Cypr. p. 23. in Appendice. Per manus impositionem episcopi datur unicui- que credenti Spiritus Sanctus, sicut apostoli circa Samarita- nos post Philippi baptisma. manum eis imponendo fecerunt' 550 Boox XII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. author, who writes of the baptism of heretics, at the end of St. Cyprian’s works, makes imposition of hands the oflice of bishops, in imitation of the apostles giving imposition of hands to those who were baptized by Philip the deacon, Acts viii. And in another place"0 he says, If bishops were present at baptism, they gave imposition of hands together with baptism; but if any were baptized by the inferior clergy in time of necessity, then the bishops supplied this afterwards, or else the Lord supplied it as he saw fit. The council of 'Eliberis not long after made two canons to this purpose. In one of which81 it is ordered, That if a layman baptized a catechumen, when he was dangerously sick at sea, or where there was no church near at hand, he should afterward bring him to the bishop, that he might perfect his baptism by imposition of hands. And in the other canon it is also ordered, That in case a deacon governing a country people,82 where there is no bishop or presbyter present, shall bap- tize any of them, the bishop shall afterwards perfect them by his benediction. Or if they chanced to die before this could be done, they were to be re- puted in a salvable condition by the faith in which they were baptized. We have heard St. J erom“? before testifying of this, as the general practice of the church, for bishops to go about the country villages and remoter places in their. dioceses, to give imposition of hands to such as were baptized by presbyters and deacons: and some of these died before the bishop could come to them; which im- plies, not only that it was the bishop’s ordinary office, but that presbyters and deacons did not ad- minister imposition of hands, even in such cases of necessity; otherwise the party who wanted it, could not have died without it. This was evidently the practice of the Roman church, where, though the ofiice of chrismation was in part allowed to pres- byters, yet the consignation in the forehead, with imposition of hands, was still reserved to the bishop, as his peculiar office in confirmation: as we learn from the Letters of Pope Innocentf"4 Gelasius,85 and Gregory *6 the Great, which have already been men- tioned in the last section. To which we may add the testimony of Cornelius, who lived before all these in the time of Cyprian, as it is recorded by Eusebius. He there, speaking" of Novatian, who was baptized only with clinic baptism upon a sick bed, says, When he recovered from his distemper, he never received those things, which by the laws of the church he was obliged to receive, to wit, con- signation by the hands of the bishops, &c. All those testimonies likewise, which require heretics to have imposition of hands from the bishop, in order to obtain the gift of the Holy Ghost, are a further evidence of this practice. To which purpose we have the decrees of Pope Leo,88 and Siricius,89 who particularly observes this to have been the general practice of the whole church, both Eastern and Western, as well as the church of Rome, in the re- ception of those who had been baptized in any heresy or schism. And as to all persons baptized in the church, St. Austin is a further witness, who says, That in propriety of speech, neither the apos- tles nor any other man, but Christ alone, as he is God, could give the Holy Ghost: for the apostles only‘o laid hands on men, that the Holy Ghost by their prayers might descend upon them; which custom the church now observed and practised by her bishops or governors also. In like manner, St. Ambrose41L says, The spiritual seal, or seal of the Spirit, which was the completion of baptism, came after the font, when by the prayer of the priest, that is, in his language, the bishop, the Holy Ghost was poured upon them. From all which testimonies it is most undeniably evident, that the 9° Id. p. 26. Et ideo cum salus nostra in baptismate Spi- rittls, quod plerumque cum baptismate aquae conjunctum, sit constituta, si quidem per nos baptisma tradetur, integre et solemniter et per omnia quae scripta sunt adsignetur, atque sine ulla ullius rei separations tradatur: aut si a minore clcro per necessitatem traditum fuerit, eventum ex- pectemus, ut aut suppleatur a nobis, aut a Domino sup- plendum reset-vetur. 3‘ Conc. Eliber. can. 38. Peregre navigantes, aut si ec- clesia in proximo non fuerit, posse fidelem, qui lavacrum suum integrum habet, nec sit bigamus, baptizare in necessi- tate positum catechumenum: ita ut s'i supervixerit, ad epis- copum eum perducat, ut per mantis imposit-ionem perficere possit. 32 Ibid. can. 77. Si quis diaconus regens plebem, sine episcopo vel presbytero aliquos baptizaverit, episcopus eos per benedictionem perficere debebit. Quod si ante de se- culo recesserint, sub fide qua quis crediderit, poterit esse Justus. *3 Hieron. Dial. cont. Lucifer. cap. 4. See before, chap. 1. sect. l. 8‘ Innocent. Ep. 1. ad Decentium, cap. 3. *5 Gelas. Ep. 9. ad Episc. Lucan. cap. 6. 3“ Gregor. lib. 3. Ep. 9. 9'’ Euseb. lib. 6. c. 43. 066% 'rihu homrd'w s'q-vxs, Stadiu- 'ydiv Thu 1160011, (In! xpfi lué'rakajufiéusw Kan-o‘: 'rdu 'rfis s'K- Khno'ias Kavoiva, '15 "re acppa'yto'tlfiuat {m'o‘ "r5 é'n'ta'xé'lrs. 38 Leo, Ep. 37 . ad Leonem Raven. cap. 2. Si ab baereti- cis baptizaturn quempiam fuisse constiterit—hoc tantum quod ibi defuit, conferatur, ut per episcopalem mantis im- positionem virtutem Sancti Spiritus consequatur. “9 Siric. Ep. 1. ad Himerium, cap. 1. Arianos nos cum Novatianis—-—per invocationem solam septiformis Spirittls, episcopalis mantis impositione catholicorum conventui so- ciamus. Quod etiam totus Oriens Occidensque custodit. 4oAug. de Trin. lib. l5. cap. 26. N eque enim aliquis discipulorum ejus dedit S piritum Sanctum. Orabant quippe ut veniret in eos quibus manum imponebant, non ipsi eum dabant. Quem morem in suis praepositis etiam nunc servat ecclesia. ‘1 Ambros. de Sacram. lib. 3. cap. 2. Sequitur spirituale signaculum, quod audistis hodie legi, quia post fontem su- perest ut perfectio fiat quando ad invocationem sacerdotis Spiritus Sanctus infunditur. CHAP. II. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 551 ANTIQUITIES OF THE bishop in all ordinary cases, was the only standing and regular minister of this part of confirmation, which consisted in imposition of hands and prayer, to invocate the gift of the Holy Ghost. Sec, ,_ Yet there were some special and egg; Qggiiyigfs', extraordinary cases, in which some lblvefimlbmriisisriisliiarait churches, if not all, granted a licence also. As, 1st, when b‘ h :- larl r 'ni samurai by canon to P esbytersi t° “11 S? S Eggffsasfiegbftg? this part of confirmation also. "d in the chm" " when bishops, either in their presence or absence, appointed a presbyter by a particular delegation or command to do it. This was no en- croachment upon the bishop’s authority, nor in- fringement of his privilege and power, because what was done, was only done in subordination to him, and in pursuance of his command. This licence we find sometimes granted to presbyters, even in the bishop’s presence; as is clear from that canon“2 in the collection of Martin Bracarensis, out of the canons of the Greek church, A presbyter shall not consign infants in the presence of his bishop, unless it be particularly enjoined him by his bishop. Here three things are manifestly implied: 1. That this consignation, or imposition of hands with the sign of the cross and prayer, was ordinarily the sole oflice of the bishop. 2. That by a special commis- sion he might authorize presbyters to do it even in his presence. 3. That in his absence they were authorized to do it by a general commission, rather than infants or any other baptized persons should die without confirmation. And this agrees very well with what has been said before in the last section, concerning the practice of the churches of Alex- andria and Egypt; though in the Western churches it was otherwise, as is evident from what has been alleged before out of Pope Innocent“ and St. J c- rom,‘H who tell us, That presbyters neither in the presence of the bishop, nor in his absence, were allowed to do it, but many men were forced to die without confirmation or imposition of hands, be- cause the bishop did not come time enough to ad- minister it to them. See, 5_ Yet also in the Western churches miggrafigigggm there were some special cases, in which the energumem' this consignation was allowed to be performed by presbyters. Nay, and in one case by deacons also. As it was in the case of energumens, or persons possessed with evil spirits after baptism; concerning whom Pope Innocent makes this decree, in the same epistle where he prohibits presbyters from consigning in all ordinary cases: That if any one was seized“ with an evil spirit after baptism, the bishop might give orders to a presbyter or a deacon to consign him in that condition. It was not to be done but by the bishop’s authority; for he only had the power of imposition of hands; but because an energumen, who was at a great distance from the bishop, might have several chances in his journey, it was therefore thought more proper for the bishops to grant a commission to a presbyter or deacon, to give him imposition of hands at home, than to venture his falling into his distemper, by either coming to the bishop, or returning. Another extraordinary casein which this oflice of imposition of hands was granted to presbyters, was, when any who had been baptized by heretics or schismatics, were, upon their return to the church, seized with a violent sickness, and in imminent danger of death, before they could go to the bishop, or the bishop come to them, to give them imposition of hands, and confirm them with that grace of the Spirit, which they could not have in heresy or schism. In that case, rather than such persons should die without this ofi‘ice, a commission was granted to presbyters to administer it. This we find most expressly in the first council of Orange,“ That heretics, if they be in extremity and apparent dan- ger of death, when they desire to become catholics, shall, in the bishop’s absence, be consigned by the presbyters with chrism and benediction, that is, im- position of hands in the benediction prayer. And the like decree is made in the council of Epone," That if any heretics, who lay desperately sick, upon a death-bed, desired suddenly to be converted, in that case, for the salvation of their souls, which was heartily desired, a presbyter should be permitted to give them the consolation of chrism; which they that were in health were to go to the bishop for, at their conversion. Where we may observe, that the chrismation here spoken of, was not the chrismation which presbyters were ordinarily al- Sect. 6. 3dly, And to such as were baptized in heresy or schism, in case the were in danger 0 death. 42 Martin. Bracar. Collect. Canon. can. 52. Presbyter, praesente episcopo, non signet infantes, nisi forte ab epis- copo fuerit illi pracceptum. ‘3 Innoc. Ep. 1. ad Decent. cap. 3. ‘4 Hieron. cont. Lucif. cap. 4. ‘5 Innoc. Ep. 1. ad Decent. c. 6. De his vero baptizatis, qui postea. a daemonio, aut vitio aliquo, aut peccato interveni- ente, arripiuntur, quaesivit dilectio tua, si a presbytero vel diacono possint aut debeant consignari: quod hoe nisi epis- copus concesserit, non licet: nam eis manus imponenda non est, nisi episcopus authoritatem dederit id faciendi. Ut autem fiat, episcopi est imperare, ut manus eis vel a presbytero, vel a caeteris clericis imponatur. Nam quomodo id fieri sine C magno labore poterit, ut longe constitutus energumenus ad episeopum deducatur, cum, si talis casus ei in itinere accide- rit, nec perferri ad episcopum, nec referri ad sua facile possit? ‘6 Conc. Arausican. 1. can. 2. Haereticos in mortis discri- mine positos, si catholici esse desiderent, si desit episcopus, a presbyteris cum chrismate'et benedictione consignari placet. ‘7 Conc. Epaunens. can. 86. Presbytero, propter salutem animarum, quam in cunctis optamus desperatis et in lecto recumbentibus haereticis, si conversionem subitam petant, chrismate subvenire permittimus. Quod etiam omnes con- vertendi, si sani sunt, ab episcopo noverint expetendum. Vid. Pontifical. Damasi, Vit. Sylvestri. p. 229. ap. Crab. t. l. 552 Boox XII. 'ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. lowed to give in the Western church, but that which was joined with imposition of hands, which was peculiarly reserved to the bishop, except in such cases of extremity, when a presbyter was allow- ed to give it, rather than a converted heretic should die without it. And the reason of this concession was, because heretics, who were baptized out of the church, were supposed to be without the grace of the Spirit, till they received it by imposition of hands in the catholic church. For which reason, all heretics, as well those who used imposition of hands at baptism, as those that did not, received a new benediction when they returned to the unity of the church, as I have showed from St. Austin,48 Optatus,49 and Alcimus Avitus,5o in another place. See Scholast. Hist. of Lay Baptism, part I. p. 86. CHAPTER III. OF THE MANNER OF ADMINISTERING CONFIRMA- TION, AND THE CEREMONIES USED IN THE CELE- BRATION OF IT. q 1 HAVING thus far considered both the . ect. . . . The first ceremo- subject of confirmation, or persons to ny of confirmation $352? "new" °'f whom it was administered, and the persons by whom it was administered, we are in the next place to take a view of the form and manner of its administration; in which we may observe four distinct ceremonies besides the consecration of the chrism, which were, the unction, the sign of the cross, imposition of hands, and prayer. The unction was commonly first in order, as we learn from that of Tertullian,l As soon as we are come out of the water, we are anointed with the blessed unction. And then we receive imposition of hands, invocating the Holy Spirit by a benediction. seem. The first rise and original of this 'lffisoailguzlngf unction 1n the church is not exactly known, and the sentiments of learned men are various about it. The late famous writer, under the feigned name of Petrus Aurelius, in his book called Orthodoxus, against Sirmond, takes a great deal of pains to prove it an apostolical prac- tice. But Habertus2 calls this a dream and a mad undertaking, against the general stream and current of learned men. And Estius says,3 The common opinion is, that the apostles, in the beginning of their preaching, used no chrism in the administra- tion of this sacrament, as he calls it. So that what the Romanists now make the matter of their new sacrament, is confessed to be without any founda- tion in Scripture. Bishop Pearson4 is of opinion, that the use of it came into the church shortly after the time of the apostles. Basnage5 and Daillé“ think not till the third century, when it is first mentioned by Origen" and Tertullian. Some in- deed allege an author more ancient than either of these, which is Theophilus Antiochenus,8 who says, That we are therefore called Christians, because we are anointed with the oil of God. But the unction he speaks of is a spiritual and‘ mystical unction, such as, he says, the whole air and earth under heaven is anointed with, viz. the unction of light and the Spirit of God. So that there being no author before Tertullian, who mentions the material unction as used in confirmation, it is most probable it was a ceremony first begun about his time, to re- present the unction of the Holy Ghost. But when it was once admitted, it was usually magnified as the symbol, and sometimes the instrumental cause, of very great effects. The consecra- tion of it was supposed to work a mystical change in its nature, answerable to the change wrought in the waters of baptism, and the bread and wine in the eucharist, which Cyril of Jerusalem compares together.9 It was this unction, as the completion of baptism, to which they ascribed the power of making every Christian, in some sense, partaker of a royal priesthood. Which is not only said by Origen in the passage last mentioned, but by Pope Leo,10 St. J erom,ll and many others.12 To it they also ascribed the noble effects of confirming the soul with the strength of all spiritual graces on God’s part, as well as the confirmation of the professions and Sect. 3. The form and manner of adminis- tering it, together with the effects of it. ‘8 Aug. de Bapt. lib. 3. c. 16. "9 Optat. lib. 7. p. 109. 5° Avitus, Ep. 24. ad Stephanum. 1 Tertul. de Bapt. cap. 7. Exinde egressi de lavacro perunguimur benedicta unctione.-—Cap. 8. Dehinc manus imponitun'pei' benedictionem advocans et invitans Spiritum Sanctum. 2 Habert. Archieratic. p. 702. Quod divinare quidam nos volunt, apostolos in libro Praxapostolor. confirmésse cum chrismate, id rationem fugit. Praefracte id contra summos theologorum persuadere nititur Petrus Aurelius in Ortho- doxo contra Sirmondum. a Estius in Sent. lib. 4. Dist. 7. sect. 7. Communior sen- tentia est, apostolos initio suae praedicationis non usos fuisse chrismate in administratione hujus sacramenti. 4 Pearson, Lect. in Act. v. n. 6. p. 69. " 5 Basnag. Critic. in Baron. p. 76. 6 Daill. de Confirm. lib. 2. cap. 2. p. 116, &c. 7 Origen. in Levit. Horn. 9. p. 156. Omnes quicunque ungnento sacri chrismatis delibuti sunt, sacerdotes effecti sunt, sicut et Petrus ad omnem dicit ecclesiam, Vos regale sacerdotium. 8 T heophil. ad Autolycum, lib. 1. Bibl. Patr. G. L. t. 1. p. 110. Kahol'queea Xpto'q'tauoi, 5w Xpiopsea E'Aawv 92027. 9 Cyril. Catech. Myst. 3. n. 3. 1° Leo, Ser. 3. de Assumptione sua, p. 3. 11 Hieron. cont. Lucif. cap. 2. 12 Vid. Prosper. Sentent. 342. Ambros. de Initiatis, cap. 6. Aug. Ser. 3. post 40. a Sirmondo editis, in Appendice, t. 10. p. 847. CHAP. III. 553 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. covenant made on man’s part. The author of the Constitutions makes it to be on man’s part Befiaiw- mg rfig dyokoyiag, xai cvvQnmIiv, the confirmation 13 of the confessions and compacts made with God in baptism; and on God’s part, the collation of the Holy Spirit, represented by this ceremony of anointing. Which is so frequently mentioned in every Greek writer upon this subject, that it is su- perfluous to refer any learned reader to them. It will be sufficient only to hint the forms of prayer which they used upon this occasion; for these will evidently show what spiritual effects they expected from this unction. Now, of these we have two an- cient forms remaining, a shorter and a longer, the one an express, and the other an implicit prayer. The shorter form was conceived in these words, Egbpdylg dwpedg Ilvsl'lparog 'A'yiov, The seal Of the gift of the Holy Spirit, as we find it in the first general council of Constantinople," where they order such as were baptized by heretics, to be confirmed by the unction of chrism in this form of words. And so again, in the council of Trullo15 and some private writers.“ Not to mention now, that this is the form still in use in the Euchologium of the present Greek church.‘ But beside this shorter form, (which was only an implicit prayer, as if they had said, Let this unction be unto thee the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit,) they had also some larger forms, which were more express prayers; one of which is in the author of the Apostolical Constitutions, under the title of an sixxaptqia mpi roii ‘we-moi’! pz'rpov, a thanks- giving or benediction to be used in the unction of the mystical chrism, where the bishop is ordered to anoint the party baptized, saying these words,17 0 Lord God, the unbegotten, who hast no Lord, who art Lord of all, who madest the sweet savour of the knowledge of the gospel to go forth among all na- tions: grant now, that this chrism may be effectual in this baptized person, that the sweet savour of thy Christ may remain firm and stable in him, and that he ‘being dead with him, may rise again and live with him. Now, this unction, in the Greek church, was not only in the forehead, but in several other parts of the body, all performed by the bishop in one and the same act; but the Latins divided the office in some places between the bishop and pres- byters, as has been observed before: but whether united or divided, it was all reckoned the unction of confirmation. Which is evident from that canon of the council of Barcelona, which, speaking of presbyters receiving the consecrated chrism from their bishops, which they themselves were to use, says expressly,18 that it was for confirming neo- phytes, or persons newly baptized. Which is a manifest proof, that that part of the ceremony of unction, which was committed to presbyters, was reckoned a part of confirmation. And so much of it might be committed to presbyters, acting in sub- ordination to their bishop, as the rules of every church allowed. For this part of confirmation be- ing wholly of ecclesiastical institution, it was in the power of the church to make orders in all things concerning it, both in what manner, and by what persons she would have it performed. Which is the true reason of so much variety, as we have ob- served, in different churches in the administering this first ceremony of confirmation. Together with this unction they usually joined the sign of the cross. m3; Zefcopgnggrlcj For this ceremony they used upon all ztfiggevggssfhe Sign occasions, and therefore would not omit it in this solemn act of confirmation. Of this we have several clear proofs in Tertullian, Pope Leo, and others, which, because they have been already recited at large,19 in speaking of the use of the sign of the cross in baptism, I will not here re- peat them; but only add, that the name consigna- tion, which is so often used by the Latin writers to denote confirmation?o seems to have had its rise from this ceremony and custom of signing with the sign of the cross, when they gave the unction to persons baptized. And this in some measure an- swers to the Greek name o'gbpayig, which many times, though not always, denotes the sign of the cross, as used in baptism or confirmation, or any other of- fice of religion; of which I need not here be more particular. The most noted ceremony in this Sect 5_ whole affair, and that which most 52322125353335 universally prevailed, was imposition igiitiggflgfyfggggg of hands ; a ceremony used in all sorts joined therewith’ of benedictions, but more peculiarly applied to or— dination, reconciling of penitents, and confirmation. The Latin writers commonly speak of confirmation under this title. But some think it was not in use among the Greeks, who, they say, only used chrism, and not imposition of hands, in confirmation. But this is a great mistake : for the author of the Con- stitutions,21 in the same chapter where he rehearses the prayer of the mystical chrism, immediately sub- Sect 4. '8 Constit. Apost. lib. 3. cap. 17. lib. 7. c. 22. 1‘ Conc. Constant. 1. can. 7. '5 Conc. Trull. can. 95. ‘6 Asterius Amasen. de Filio Prodigo, ap. Photium, God. 271. p. 1499. 1’ Constit. Apost. lib. 7. c. 44. ‘8 Conc. Barcinon. can. 2. Statutum est, ut cum chrisma presbyteris dioecesanis pro neophytis confirmandis datur, ni- hil pro liquoris pretio accipiatur, &c. 19 Book XI. chap. 9. sect. 6. 2° Innoc. Ep. 1. ad Decent. c. 3. De consignandis vero infantibus, &c. Martin. Bracaren. can. 52. Presbyter non signet infantes, &c. 2‘ Constit. Apost. lib. 7. Cap. 44. 'Elcdc'rov 'yn‘zp 1'1 driva- /.us The Xupofisa'ias' fic‘w 'yc‘zp in‘) sis Exam-rev 'rofi'rwv 1') s’vrr'rckno'ts 'yémrrat rape‘: 'roii silo-£8059 iepe'ws Totaé'rn 'ns, sis iidwp [161/011 Ka'raBaivu 5 Ba'ir'rtlépsvos, (be iovdaioz, &c. 554 Boox XII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. joins, This is the power of imposition of hands ne- cessary for every one: for unless he that is baptized have this invocation of the holy priest, he only goes into the water as a Jew, and puts off the filth of the body, but not the filth of the soul. Therefore, though this imposition of hands be not so frequently mentioned in the Greek writers, yet it is always to be understood, as chrism is in the Latin writers, where only imposition of hands is mentioned. The antiquity of this ceremony is by all ancient writers carried as high as the apostles, and founded upon their example and practice. There are three passages in Scripture from which they generally deduce it: Acts viii., where mention is made of the apostles’ laying hands on those whom Philip had baptized. Acts xix., where St. Paul laid his hands on those whom he baptized after J ohn’s baptism. And Heb. vi. 2, where mention is made of imposition of hands among the first principles of religion. Cyprian de- rives it from the practice of the apostles22 laying their hands on those whom Philip baptized: For, says he, the same custom is now observed in the church, that they who are baptized, are presented to the governors of the church, that by their prayer and imposition of hands they may receive the Holy Ghost. And in other places,28 he refers it in general to apostolical institution and practice. The anony- mous author of the book concerning heretical bap- tism, at the end of Cyprian,24 deduces it likewise from the same example of the apostles’ laying hands on the Samaritans whom Philip baptized. Firmi- lian compares the bishop’s imposition of hands to The original of this ceremony of imposition of hands. invocate the Holy Spirit, to that of St. Paul,25 upon . those whom he baptized at Ephesus. St. J erom owns the Luciferian’s argument to be good, when he derives this custom26 from the Acts of the Apostles, and the case of the Samaritans receiving imposition of hands after Philip had baptized them: though he thinks the practice and tradition of the church suflicient to authorize such a custom in this case, as well as in several other rites belonging to baptism and other things, which had the authority of laws, though they were no where expressly commanded in Scripture; as the triple immersion in baptism, and the tasting of milk and honey in token of a new birth. St. Austin in like manner affirms27 this ' observation descended to the governors of the church from the apostles, who prayed over those on whom they laid their hands, that they might receive the Holy Ghost. And because it might be objected, that the apostolical practice was for a quite different end, to confer on men the miraculous gift of the Spirit, empowering them to speak with new tongues; he is very careful once or twice to answer this ob- jection, and show, that notwithstanding any such difference, this practice of imposition of hands in order to obtain the Holy Spirit, might be said to descend from the apostles. For, says he,” by the Holy Ghost, which is given only in the catholic church by imposition of hands, our forefathers would have us to understand that which the apos- tle says, “ The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given us.” For that is the charity, which they have not who are cut oil‘ from the communion of the catholic church; and though they speak with the tongues of men and angels, and know all mysteries and all know- ledge, it profits them nothing. For they have not the love of God, who love not the unity of the church; upon which account it is rightly said, that ' the Holy Spirit is not received but only in the ca- tholic church. For now the Holy Spirit, which is given by imposition of hands, does not appear with sensible and temporal miracles to attest it, as it was heretofore given to recommend the first plantation of faith, and to dilate the church in its infancy. For who now expects, that they to whom imposition of 22 Cypr. Ep. 73. ad J ubaian. p. 202. Quod nunc quoque apud nos geritur, ut qui in ecclesia baptizentur, praepositis ecclesias ofi'erantur, ut per nostram orationem ct manus im- positionem Spiritum Sanctum consequantur. 2“ Cypr. Ep. 72. ad Stephan. p. 196. 2* Anonym. de Bapt. Haeretic. ap. Cypr. in Append. p. 23. Per manus impositionem episcopi datur unicuique cre- denti Spiritus Sanctus, sicut apostoli circa Samaritanos post Philippi baptisma manum eis imponendo fecerunt. 25 Firmil. Ep. 75. ap. Cypr. p. 221. 2“ Hieron. cont. Lucifer. cap. 4. An nescis et jam eccle- siarum hunc esse morem, ut baptizatis postea manus impo- natur, et ita invocetur Spiritus Sanctus i‘ Exigis ubi scrip- tum sit? In Actibus Apostolorum. Etiamsi Scripturae auctoritas non subesset, totius orbis in hac parte consensus instar praecepti obtinet. Nam ct multa alia quae per tradi- tionem in ecclesiis observantur, auctoritatem sibi scriptae legis usurpaverunt; velut in lavacro ter caput mergitare; deinde egressos lactis et mellis praegustare concordiam ad infantiae significationem. 2" Aug. de Trin. lib. 15. c. 26. Orabant ut veniret in eos quibus manus imponebant, non ipsi eum dabant. Quern morem in suis praepositis etiam nunc servat ecclesia. 28 Aug. de Bapt. lib. 3. cap. 16. Spiritus autem Sanctus, quod in sola catholica per manus impositionem dari dicitur, nimirum hoc intelligi majores nostri voluerunt, quod apos- tolus ait, Quoniam caritas Dei‘difl'usa est in cordibus nostris per Spiritum Sanctum, qui datus est nobis. Ipsa enim est caritas, quam non habent qui ab ecclesias catholicae com- munione praecisi sunt; ac per hoc etiamsi linguis hominum loquantur et angelorum, si sciant omnia sacramenta et om- nem scientiam, &c., nihil eis prodest. Non autem habent Dei charitatem, qui ecclesia; non diligunt unitatem; ac per hoc recte intelligitur dici, non accipi nisi in catholica Spi- ritus Sanctus. Neque enim temporalibus et sensibilibus miraculis attestantibus per manus impositionem modo datur Spiritus Sanctus; sicut antea dabatur ad commendationem rudis fidei, et ecclesias primordia dilatanda. Quis enim nunc hoc expectat, ut ii quibus manus ad accipiendum Spi- ritum Sanctum imponitur, repente incipiant linguis loqui? Sed invisibiliter et latenter intelligitur per vinculum pacis eorum cordibus divina caritas inspirari, ut possint dicere Quoniam caritas, &c. CHAP. III. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 555 ANTIQUITIES OF THE hands is given to receive the Holy Spirit, should immediately begin to speak with new tongues ? But the love of God is supposed to be inspired into their hearts invisibly and latently by the bond of peace, so as they may truly say, “ The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost that is given us.” He gives the same answer to this pretended difficulty in another place.29 “ Hereby,” says he, “we know that he dwells in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.” If thou findest in thy heart the love of God, thou hast the Spirit to give thee know- ledge. Which is a very necessary thing. In the first age the Holy Ghost fell on them that believed, and they spake with tongues, which they had never learned, as the Spirit gave them utterance. These were signs proper for that time; for then it was ne- cessary that the Holy Ghost should be thus demon- strated in all kinds of tongues, because the gospel was to run throughout the whole world in all sorts of languages. But this demonstration once made, it ceased. For does any man now expect to hear them speak with new tongues, who receive imposi- tion of hands as a means to obtain the Holy Spirit? Or, when we laid hands on these infants, did any of you look when they should speak with tongues? And when they did not speak with tongues, was any one so perverse in heart, as to say, They have not received the Holy Ghost? For if they had re- ceived it, they would have spoken with tongues,’- as was done heretofore. If, therefore, there be no such miracles now, to testify the presence of the Spirit, how knows any man that he has received the Holy Ghost? Let him ask his own heart: if he loves the brethren, the Spirit of God abideth in in him. Thus St. Austin derives imposition of hands for conveying the Spirit from the practice of the apostles, though there were very different effects then from what there are now: though men had I not the gift of tongues conferred upon them, as in the days of the apostles ; yet they might have other graces, suflicient both to testify the presence of the Spirit, and to entitle the act of imposition of hands to the dignity of an apostolical institution. From whence also we may observe, that charity and unity, ‘mystery of baptism? or stedfastness in the love of God and religion, was a particular grace of the Spirit given by imposition of hands: which because heretics could not have, who were baptized out of the church, therefore they always received imposition of hands upon“ their return to the church, whether they had received it in pretence among their own party before or not. For some heretics gave imposition of hands together with baptism, and others did not; but both of them received imposition of hands again upon their return to the catholic church. There is one passage more, upon which some of the ancients found this prac- tice, which is Heb. vi. 2, where the apostle joins imposition of hands with baptism. Upon which, the author under the name of St. Ambrose 3‘ notes, That it means that imposition of hands, which is supposed to confer the Holy Ghost, which is ordi- narily given by the chief priests or bishops after baptism, for the confirmation of men in the unity of the church of Christ. Which exposition is repeated by Haymo82 and some later writers, and allowed as probable by Grotius and Calvin. There is one writer more, who seems to derive it from the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the apostles at the day of Pentecost. He goes under the name of Eusebius Emissenus; but learned men suppose him to be Eucherius of Lyons, or Hilary of Arles, or some other writer about the time of Pope Leo, in the middle of the fifth century. Whoever he was, the account he gives of confirmation is very particular and instructive, and therefore the whole passage may be worth translating. That which imposition of hands,” says he, now gives to every one in con- firming neophytes, the same did the descent of the Holy Ghost then confer on all believers. But be- cause we have said, that imposition of hands and confirmation confers something on him that is born again and regenerated in Christ; perhaps some one will be ready to think with himself, and say, What can the ministry of confirmation profit me after the If, after the font, we want the addition of a new ofiice, then we have not re~ ceived all that was necessary from the font. It is not so, beloved. For, if you observe, in the military 29 Aug. Tract. 6. in 1 Joan. iii. t. 9. p. ‘254. In hoc cog- noscimus quia manet in nobis, de Spiritu quem dedit nobis. Si enim inveneris te habere caritatem, babes Spiritum Dei ad intelligendum. Valde enim necessaria res est. Primis temporibus cadebat super credentes Spiritus Sanctus, et 10- quebantur linguis quas non didicerant, quomodo Spiritus dabat eis pronunciare. Signa erant tempori opportuna. Oportebat enim ita significari in omnibus linguis Spiritum Sanctum; quia evangelium Dei per omnes linguas cursurum erat toto orbe terrarum. Significatum est illud, et transiit. Nunquid modo quibus imponitur manus ad accipiendum Spiritum Sanctum, hoc exspectatur, ut linguis loquantur? Aut quando imposuimus manum istis infantibus, attendit unusquisque vestrum, utrum linguis loquerentur? Et cum videret eos linguis non loqui, ita perverso corde aliquis ves- trum fuit, ut diceret, Non acceperunt isti Spiritum Sanctum? Nam si accepissent, linguis loquerentur, quemadmodum tunc factum est. Si ergo per base miracula modo testimo- nium praesentiae Spiritfis Sancti non fit: unde cognoscit quisque accepisse se Spiritum Sanctum? Interroget cor suum: si diligit fratrem, manet Spiritus Dei in illo. l“*Aug. de Bapt. lib. 5. cap. 23. Propter charitatis co- pulationem, quod est maximum donum spiritus Sancti, sine quo non valeant quaecunque alia sancta in homine fue- rint, manus correctis haereticis imponitur. 31 Ambros. in Heb. vi. 2. Impositionis manuum per quam Spiritus Sanctus accipi posse creditur: quod post bap- tismum ad confirmationem unitatis in ecclesia Christi a pontificibus fieri solet. *1 Haymo in Heb. vi. 2. 33 Euseb. Emissen. Hom. de Pentecost. 556 Boon XII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. life, when the emperor has chosen any one to be a soldier, he does not only set his mark or character upon him, but furnishes him with competent arms for fighting: so it is in a baptized person, the bene- diction is his armour. Thou hast made him a sol- dier; give him also the weapons of warfare. What doth it profit, though a father confer a great estate upon his child, if he do not also provide him a tutor? Now, the Holy Ghost is the keeper, and comforter, and tutor to those who are regenerated in Christ. As the Scripture saith, “ Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.” Therefore the Holy Ghost, which descends with his saving presence on the waters of baptism, there gives us the plenitude of perfection to make us in- nocent ; but in confirmation he gives us an aug- mentation of grace. Because in this world we are to live all our lives among invisible enemies, and to walk in the midst of dangers; in baptism we are born again to life, but after baptism we are confirm- ed to fight; in baptism we are washed, but after baptism we are strengthened. And so the benefits of regeneration are suflicient for those who pre- sently leave this world; but to them who are to live in it, the auxiliary aids of confirmation are also ne- cessary. Regeneration by itself alone saves those who are presently received in peace into a better world; but confirmation arms and prepares those who are reserved to fight the battles and combats of this world. He that, after baptism, goes immaculate, with the innocence which he has acquired, to death, is confirmed by death; because he cannot sin after death. If here we shall ask, what advantage the apostles had by the coming of the Holy Spirit after the passion and resurrection of Christ? the Lord himself evidently shows us, saying, “ I have many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now: howbeit, when he the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth.” You see, when the Holy Ghost is given, the heart of a believer is dilated and enlarged with prudence and constancy. ' Before the descent of the Holy Ghost, the apostles were terrified even to the denial of Christ; but after his visitation they were armed with a contempt of death, even to suffer martyrdom for his sake. Thus it is that we have redemption by Christ, but the Holy Ghost gives us the gift of spiritual wisdom, by which we are illuminated, edified, instructed, and consummated to perfection. This is the account which the ancients generally give of the original of imposition of hands; which ceremony is now wholly laid aside and disused in the Roman church, though they pretend to make another sacrament of confirmation. But this only by the way. From the account given by this 7 author, we clearly learn, what the an- anicvi’psttsigfigig? 31.: cients supposed confirmation super- :ffifitrofwnfirm- added to the benefit of regeneration. The new birth gave innocence and pardon of sins; but the invocation of the Spirit added wisdom and strength to preserve and establish men in innocence to perfection. He also shows us what opinion the ancients had of the necessity of confirmation. It was not absolutely the same as that of baptism. For if men died immediately after baptism without im- position of hands, they were saved by their inno- cence which they had acquired in baptism: they needed no other confirmation but death, which was a security against all other dangers. Confirmation was only necessary to those who were to live and fight with the world and invisible powers. And this is the sense of all other writers, who speak the highest of the necessity of confirmation. The coun- cil of Eliberis having said,84 That it was necessary for the bishop to consummate those by his benedic- tion, who were baptized by deacons; adds, Yet if any one die before this can be done, he is justified by the faith which he professed in baptism. And so the author of the Apostolical Constitutions says,35 If there be neither oil nor chrism, the water alone is sufiicient both for the unction of the Holy Ghost and the seal of the covenant. By which we are to mollify that other harsh expression of his in an- other place,86 where he says, That baptism without this imposition of hands and prayer of the priest, is only a bodily washing, like that of the Jews, purging the filth of the body, but not of the soul. For unless some very candid interpretation be put upon this expression, it will be highly injurious and derogatory to the saving power of baptism, which purges away sin by a spiritual regeneration. And therefore it is but reasonable to let the harsh ex- pressions of this author be interpreted by himself, when he owns that the water of baptism is suffi- cient to answer all the ends of chrism or confirma- tion, where that is omitted not by any contempt, but for want of opportunity to receive it. And this is plainly St. J erom’s meaning, when he says, That though the practice of imposition of hands descends from the acts of the apostles;87 yet in many places 3‘ Conc. Eliber. can. 77. Si quis diaconus regens plebem, sine episcopo vel presbytero, aliquos baptizaverit, episcopus eos per benedictionem perficere debebit. Quod si ante de seculo recesserint, sub fide; qua quis crediderit, poterit esse justus. _ *5 Constit. Apost. lib. 7. c. 22. E2. a‘: wire E'Mlwv if, #1578 paipou, dprcs'i iidwp, Kai wpds Xpio-w, Kai 'n'pds czjmwyida. 8‘ Constit. lib. 7. c. 44. 8’ Hieron. cont. Lucifer. c. 4. Quod si obloqueris, Quare in ecclesia baptizatus nisi per manus episcopi non accipiat Spiritum Sanctum, quem nos asserimus in vero baptismate tribui; disce hanc observationem ex ea anctoritate descen- dere, quod post ascensum Domini Spiritus Sanctus descen- dit. Multis in locis id tamen esse factum reperimus ad honorem potius sacerdotii, quam ad legis necessitatem. Alioquin si episcopi tantum imprecatione Spiritus Sanctus CHAP. IV. 557 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. it was observed rather for the honour of the chief priesthood, than for any absolute necessity of the thing. For otherwise, if the Spirit was only obtain- ed by the prayer of the bishop, those men must be in a deplorable condition that were baptized in vil- lages, and castles, and remote places, by presbyters and deacons, and died before the bishop could come to visit them. All, therefore, that was necessary to salvation was conferred in baptism, which minis- tered such a portion of the Spirit, as was sufficient to cleanse men from sin, and qualify them for eternal life. So that when some of the ancients say, That baptism does not minister the Spirit, which was only given by imposition of hands in confirmation; as Cornelius pleads in his letter88 against Novatian; and Tertullian,39 who says, That we do not obtain the Holy Ghost in baptism, but are only cleansed in the water and prepared for the Holy Ghost; they are to be understood as meaning only that the Holy Ghost is not given in that full measure in baptism, as afterward by imposition of hands. They do not deny that baptism grants men remission of sins by the power of the Holy Ghost, but only that there are some further effects and operations of the Holy Spirit, which are not ordinaiily conferred on men, but by the subsequent invocation of the Spirit, the increase of which men were to desire, and to receive imposition of hands in order to obtain it. In which sense it is said in the Gospel, that “the Holy Ghost was not yet given,” because the apostles had not yet received that plentiful effusion of it in the gift of tongues, which they afterwards had on the day of Pentecost, though they had before re- ceived such a measure of it as both enabled them to work several sorts of miracles, and also qualified them in every respect for the kingdom of heaven. Sec, 8_ But though the ancients did not ,fittsthitrgl‘gz‘g: think this imposition of hands so ab- lmd it‘ solutely necessary, as that the want of it should exclude those who were baptized from the kingdom of heaven; yet they thought fit to punish the neglect of it, by setting some marks of disgrace and public censure upon such as volun- tarily and carelessly omitted it, when they had op- portunity to receive it. Such men were ordinarily denied the privilege of ecclesiastical promotion and holy orders. As appears from the objection made against Novatian, that he ought not to be ordained, because being baptized privately with clinic bap- tism, he had afterward neglected to receive his con- summation from the hands of the bishop, which ‘° he ought to have done by the laws of the church, And to this purpose the council of Neocaesarea‘l has a canon, forbidding such to be ordained; which is made part of the code of the universal church. The council of Eliberis also"2 excludes such as have not Za'vacrum z'ntegrum, their own baptism completed by imposition of hands, from the privilege of giving baptism to others, which in cases of necessity they allowed to all other laymen. So far they thought fit to discountenance the contempt and neglect of confirmation, though they neither esteemed it a distinct sacrament from baptism, nor of absolute necessity to salvation, but only as a proper means to strengthen men in their Christian warfare. CHAPTER IV. OF THE REMAINING CEREMONIES 0F BAPTISM FOL- LOWING CONFIRMATION. MUCH about the same time as the Sec, ,_ unction of confirmation was adminis- ,Jggfgmgylgfar tered to persons newly baptized, they white garments‘ were also clothed in white garments. In the Latin church it came immediately before confirmation, but in the Greek church it seems to have followed after. For Cyril of Jerusalem speaks of it as following the unction.l This was to represent their having put off the old man with his deeds, and having put on the new man Christ Jesus. Hence they were called Mvxapovoi'wreg, and grew Christi candz'dus et m'veus, the white flock of Christ,2 as we find in Lactantius and many others. Palladius, in the Life of St. Chrysostom,8 notes it particularly, as a great piece of barbarity in Arcadius, that when St. Chrysostom’s presbyters in his exile had baptized three thousand persons at one festival, the emperor sent his sol- diers to disperse them, as they were Aevxupovoflvreg, clothed in their white garments. This was other- wise called, the garment of Christ, and the mystical garment. For so Socrates‘ and Sozomen,5 speaking of the ordination of Nectarius, bishop of Constan- defluit, lugendi sunt qui in villulis aut in castellis ant in re- motioribus locis per presbyteros et diaconos baptizati ante dormierunt, quam ab episcopis inviserentur. *8 Ap. Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 43. Toii'rov In‘; *rvxdw, m7): a"u 'roii ‘A'yt'ov Husiipa'ros éruxs ; ' 89 T ertul. de Bapt. cap. 6. Non quod in aqua Spiritum Sanctum consequamur, sed in aqua emundati, sub angelo Spiritui Sancto praeparamur. ‘° Euseb. lib. 6. c. 43. ‘2 Conc. Eliber. can. 38. ‘ Cyril. Catech. Myst. 4. n. 2. 'Evduo'c'zyevos 'rd 1rvsv,ua- 4' Conc. Neocaesar. can. 12. 'rucd Xsvm‘z, x91‘; ksvxslpovs'iv dra'n'au'rds, &c. 2 Lactant. Carmen de Resur. Dom. Fulgentes animas vestis quoque candida signat; Et grege de niveo gaudia pastor habet. Moschus, Prat. Spir. cap. 207. ’I66wss ai’rn‘w )tsvxoqbo- poiio'au, &c. Paulin. Ep. 12. ad Sever. p. 145. Unde parens sacro ducit de fonte sacerdos Infantes niveos corpore, corde, habitu. 8 Pallad. Vit. Chrysost. cap. 9. 4 Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 8. 5 Sozom. lib. 7. cap. 8. Tip! pvs'ua‘jv éo'ei'rra £11 1’]p.¢|,go-. pix/09, &c. 558 Boox XII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. tinople, which was immediately given him after his baptism, say, He was ordained whilst he had his mystical garment on; meaning this white robe, ’ which had just before been given him at his bap— tism. St. J erom6 also, writing to Fabiola, seems to allude to this, when he says, We are to be washed with the precepts of God, and when we are prepared for the garment of Christ, putting off our coats of skins, we shall put on the linen garment, that hath nothing of death in it, but is all white, that rising out of the waters of baptism, we may gird about our loins with truth, and cover the former filthiness of our breasts. Some also allege two other passages of his in his epistles to Pope Damasus,7 where he speaks of his having put on the garment of Christ at Rome. But others, who have more exactlyacon- sidered the time of St. J erom’s baptism, and the same phrase as used by him in other places, more probably conclude, that he means the monastic habit, which he elsewhere9 calls the garment of Christ, and not the albes of baptism. However, not insisting on those dubious passages of St. J erom, the ancient custom is sufficiently attested from other authors. Some of which also tell us, that 'rjhesseecibiissmes these garments were wont to be de- delrvered to them _ . gfit‘lvloidssglemn form hvered to the neophytes wrth a so- lemn form of words, in the nature of a charge: such as that in Gregory’s Sacramen- tarium,lo Receive the white and immaculate gar- ment, which thou mayest bring forth without spot before the tribunal of our Lord Jesus Christ, that thou mayest have eternal life. Amen. These garments were commonly worn eight days, and then laid up in the church. St. Austin, or some one under his name,11 speaks of the Sunday after Easter, as the time appointed for this purpose. That was the conclusion of the Paschal festival, and then the neophytes changed their habit; whence that day is thought to have the name of Dominica in Alba's ; and Whit-Sunday is said to be so called from this cus- tom of wearing white robes after baptism. These, being laid aside, were carefully preserved in the w Sect. d orn eiv t a and then loaid upiiii the church. 6 Hieron. Ep. 128. ad Fabiol. Praeceptis Dei lavandi sumus, et cum parati ad indumentum Christi, tunicas pelli- ceas deposuerimus, tunc induemur veste linea, nihil in se mortis habente, sed tota candida, ut de baptismo consur- gentes, cingamus lumbos in veritate. " Id. Ep. 57. ad Damas. Cathedram Petri, ct fidem apos- tolico ore laudatam censui consulendam ; inde nunc animae postulans cibum, unde olim Christi vestimenta suscepi. It. Ep. 78. ad Damas. Christi vestem in Romans urbe sus- cipiens, nunc barbaro Syriac limite teneor. 8 See Wall of Infant Baptism, par. ii. chap. 3. sect. 10. 9 Hieron. Ep. 22. ad Eustoch. c. 1. 1° Gregor. Sacrament. de Bapt. Infant. Vestitur infans dicente presbytero, Accipe vestem candidam ct immacula- tam, quam perferas sine macula ante tribunal Domini nostri J esu Christi, ut habeas vitam aeternam. Amen. Ordo Ro- L . fess and take upon thee. vestries of the church, as an evidence against men, if afterward they violated those professions which they had made in baptism. A remarkable instance of which we have related in Victor Uticensis, con- cerning one Elpidiphorus, a citizen of Carthage, who having a long time lived in the communion of the church, at last turned Arian, and became a bit- ter enemy to the orthodox in the Vandalic persecu- tion. Among others, whom be summoned before him as their judge, was one Muritta, a deacon, who had been sponsor for him at his baptism. He, being ready to be put upon the rack, produced against him those white robes with which he had been clothed at his baptism; and with words ‘2 melting all the whole city into tears, he thus bespoke him: These are the garments, O Elpidiphorus, thou min- ister of error, which shall accuse thee, when the majesty of the great Judge shall appear; these I will diligently keep as a testimony of thy ruin, which shall depress thee to the bottom of the lake 1 that burns with fire and brimstone. These are they that were girt about thee, when thou earnest im- maculate out of the holy font; these are they that shall bitterly pursue thee, when thou shalt begin to take thy portion in the flames of hell; because thou hast clothed thyself with cursing as with a garment, and hast cast off the sacred obligation of thy bap- tism, and the true faith which thou didst then pro- So that the design of this significant ceremony was, first to represent that innocence and angelical purity, which every man obtained by the remission of his sins in baptism, j and then to remind them of the obligations and = professions they had entered into, which, if they violated, would rise up as so many accusers at the ‘ day of judgment. To this ceremony of wearing white robes, they added another of the like amsZgiéii'ony o: _ , 1r hts and tapers. nature, which was the carrying of Ifhata intended by l . lighted tapers in their hands. I can- ggzsgjgpiildjiiigzg not say this was so universal a practice as the former, but it is mentioned by Gregory Na- zianzen among other ceremonies following baptism. The station, says he, when immediately after bap- man. de S. Sabbato. Bibl. Patr. t. 10. p. 83. Deportantur ipsi infantes ante eum, et dat singulis stolam candidam et decem siliquas et chrismale, dicens, Accipe vestem candi- dam, &c. _ 11 Aug. Horn. 86. de Diversis, in Octavis Paschae, t. 10. p. 709. Paschalis sollennitas hodierna festivitate conclu- ditur, et ideo hodie neophytorum habitus commutatur; ita tamen, ut candor, qui de habitu deponitur, semper in corde teneatur. _ 12 Victor. de Persec. Vandal. lib. 5. Bibl. Patr. t. 7. p. 613. Haec sunt linteamina, Elpidiphore, minister erroris, quae te accusabunt, dum majestas venerit judicantis; custodiente diligentia mea ad testimonium tuae perditionis, ad demer- gendum te in abysso putei sulphurantis. Haec te immacu- latum cinxerant de fonte surgentem; haec te acriter perse- quentur, flammantem Ge'hennam cum co'eperis possidere, &c. CHAP. IV. 559 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. tism thou shalt be placed before the altar, is an emblem of the glory of the life to come; the psalm- ody with which thou shalt be received, is a foretaste of those hymns and songs of a better life; and the lamps which thou shalt light," are a figure of those lamps of faith, wherewith bright and virgin souls shall go forth to meet the Bridegroom. Others refer it to another reason, that it might be a symbol of their own present illumination, and as done in allu- sion to that saying of our Saviour, “So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” In some baptisms also of great men, we find these ceremonies enlarged and set off with greater pomp; for not only they themselves, but all their retinue and attendance were clothed in white garments, and all carried lamps in their hands. As it was in the magnificent baptism of the younger Theodosius, related in an epistle of Marcus Gazensis“ published by Baronius; where he says, The procession from the church to the palace was extremely splendid; for the leaders of the people were all clothed in white, which made the company look as if it had been, covered with snow ; and all the senators, and men of quality, and soldiers in their ranks carried lamps in their hands, that one would have thought the stars had appeared upon earth. The expense of these things, especially when so very sumptuous and magnificent, we may reasonably suppose, was defrayed by every person at his own proper cost and charge. And so the ob-' jection which some make in Gregory Nazianzen against baptism, upon the account of the charge at- tending it, plainly intimates. For thus they object against it: Where is the gift that I shall offer at baptism? where is the garment ‘5 of light in which I must shine? wherewithal shall I entertain my baptizers? To which Nazianzen replies, That in great things men should not be concerned about such small matters as these. For the sacrament itself was far above these visible objects. Therefore ofi'er thyself for a gift, put on Christ for a garment, and let thy entertainment of me, the minister, be a holy conversation. God requires no great thing of us, which the poor cannot give. From whence we may conclude, that either these ceremonies were omitted in the baptism of poor men, or else the church herself was at the charge of them. Which some think may be inferred from the donations of Constantine made to the baptisteries of Rome, men- tioned in the Pontifical, in the Life of Pope Sylves- ter; but it may more certainly be proved from the epistles of Pope Gregory,“ where he often mentions his giving these garments to the poor, who could not provide them for themselves. Another ceremony used to congra- Sect 5. tulate such as were newly baptized, gilfiekiffgefififififi upon their admission and incorpora; "My bapmed' tion into the church, was the kiss of peace. Which was observed even towards infants, as we learn from that objection raised against it in Cyprian; where the opponents pleaded for deferring baptism till the child was eight days old, because children at their birth were unclean, and every one abhorred to kiss them, as was necessary to be done after baptism, to testify their right of fraternity upon their adoption into God’s family. To which Cyprian replied, That this was no impediment to their baptism; for all things were clean to them that were clean. No one ought to abhor that which God had vouchsafed to make. For though an infant was but just born, yet he was then in such a condition, as no one ought to abhorl7 in giving him the grace of bap- tism, or imparting to him the kiss of peace. This custom is also mentioned by St. Austin,18 and it seems to be founded upon that apostolical rule, ob- served in the eucharist and other holy ofiices, of saluting one another with a holy kiss, in token of their most cordial affection, and acknowledging one another as brethren. St. Chrysostom gives another reason why it was called, the peace, or the kiss of peace, because men were now reconciled to God '_by baptism, and restored to his peace and favour. For elegantly comparing the two nativities of man together, the natural and the spiritual, he says, The first birth is always attended with tears and lamentations, nature as it were presaging the subsequent sorrows and miseries of life: but in the second birth it is otherwise: here are no tears or mournings, but Salutations, and kisses, and em- bracings of the brethren, who acknowledge the person baptized as one of their ‘own members, and receive 1’ Naz. Orat. 40. de Bapt. p. 672. 1‘ Ap. Baron. an. 401. t. 5. p. 134. Baptizato juniori Theodosio, et ah ecclesia egressoinpalatium, licebat rursug intueri decorem eorum qui praeerant multitudini, et vestem eorum refulgentem. Erat enim omnes candidati, ut existi- maretur multitudo esse nive repleta. Pracedebant autem patricii, illustrés, et omnis dignitas cum ordinibus militari- bus, omnes portantes cereos, ut putarentur astra, cemi in terra. '5 Naz. Orat. 40. de Bapt. p. 655. H05 6% ép¢o3¢uog £69139, hapnrpvuerio'opaz, &c. 1“ Greg. lib. 7. Ep. 24. ad Faustin. Quoscunque ex iis pauperes, et ad vestem sibi emendam non sufiicere posse cognoscis: te eis vestem,quam ad baptisma habeant, com- parare volumus ac praebere. Vid. lib. 4. Ep. 16. 1’ Cypr. Ep. 59. al. 64. ad Fidum, p. 160. Nam et quod ves- tigium infantis in primis partfis sui diebus constituti, mundum non esse dixisti, quod unusquisque nostrum adhuc hon-eat exosculari ; nec hoc putamus ad coelestem gratiarn dandam impedimento esse oportere; scriptum est enim, Omnia mun- da sunt mundis. Nec aliquis nostrum id debet horrere, quod Deus dignatus est facere. Nam etsi adhuc infans a. partu novus est, non ita est tamen, ut quisquam illum in gratia danda atque in pace facienda exosculari horrere de- beat, &c. i 15 Aug. cont. Epist. Pelag. lib. 4. cap. 8. 560 BooK XII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. him as one returning from a long peregrination out of his own country. For because before his bap- tism he was an enemy, but after baptism is made a friend of our common Lord, we therefore all rejoice with him: and upon this account, the '9 kiss has the name of peace, that we may learn thereby, that God has ended the war, and received us into fami- liarity and friendship with himself. Hence it is, that to give the peace to any one, is the same thing many times in the writings of the ancients, as to salute him with the holy kiss, in the phrase of the apostle. They were used also to give to the Sect. 6. O . . hog; aidtfitfikfifn newly baptized a httle taste of honey {3E3 0‘ their new and milk: which Salmasius and some others20 suppose to be given them in- stead of the eucharist; but that is a mistake, for the eucharist was given them at the same time. The ancients themselves give another reason for it. St. J erom21 and Tertullian22 say it was to signify their new birth, and that they were now as children adopted into God’s family. Tertullian says more- over,” That the Marcionites retained the custom for the same reason as they did many other usages of the church. St. J erom24 says further, That in some of the Western churches, the mixture was made up of milk and wine instead of honey, and this in allu- sion to those passages of the apostle, “ I have fed you with milk, and not with strong meat ; ” and St. Pe- ter’s saying, “ As new-born babes, desire the sincere milk of the word.” For milk denotes the innocency of children. Clemens Alexandrinus also25 takes notice of this custom, saying, As soon as We are born, we are nourished with milk, which is the nu- triment of the Lord. And when we are born again, we are honoured with the hope of rest by the pro- mise of Jerusalem which is above, where it is said to rain milk and honey. For by these material things we are assured of that sacred food. We learn further, from the third council of Carthage, that this milk and honey had a peculiar consecration distinct from that of the eucharist. It is there said to be offered at the altar,26 on a day most solemn, (which means the great sabbath, or Saturday be- fore Easter, which was the most solemn time of baptism,) and there to have its proper benediction _ to use this prayer. for the mystery of infants, (that is, persons newly baptized, who are commonly called infants in the mystical sense,) that it might be distinguished from the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ. This part of the canon indeed is omitted in some collections, but Labbe says it was in the ancient manuscripts, and it is now so read in the body of the African27 Code; which puts the matter beyond all dispute. I have given this canon with a little explanatory paraphrase, because some learned men complain of the obscurity of it, and profess them- selves to be in the dark about the mystery of infants, which seems to me evidently to refer to this custom of giving milk and honey to the newly baptized. When persons were thus adopted Seen into God’s family, and acknowledged 85%;; $3,331,“ t° as brethren in Christ, then they were Wye" admitted as sons to call upon God their Father, and immediately required to do it in the form of words taught us by Christ. The author of the Constitu- tions28 bids them repeat the Lord’s prayer standing upright, because they were now risen with Christ from the dead: and after that repeat this other short form: “ Almighty God, the Father of Christ, thy only begotten Son, give me an immaculate body, a pure heart, a watchful soul, an unerring knowledge, with the influence of the Holy Ghost, that I may possess and enjoy the fulness of the truth, through thy Christ, by whom all glory be to thee in the Holy Ghost for ever. Amen.” St. Chrysostom29 ‘also mentions their repeating the Lord’s prayer pre- sently after their coming up out of the water; and that standing also, not falling upon their faces, but looking up to Christ, to whose body they are united, as he sits above in heaven, where Satan has no ac- cess. And this was the first time they were allowed For till men were baptized, and made sons of God by regeneration, they were not allowed to call God their Father. And though they learned the Lord’s prayer before baptism, yet they were not permitted till after baptism to use it as a prayer publicly in the church. Among other ceremonies after bap- tism, Gregory Nazianzen mentions their reception with psalmody,so which, Sect. 8. Received with psalmody. ‘9 Chrys. Serm. 50. de Util. Legendae Scriptures, t. 5. p. 686. Am‘: 'Toii'ro Kai. 'rd (pihnna sipfiun KaAs'Z'raL, 't'ua p.13’!- ewptsu 3n wo'hsnou Ka're'hvo'sv 5 Beds, Kai 'n'pds 1-1‘111 oilcsi- wo'w e’vrauri'ya'ys 'rr'w e'av'roii. 2° Salmas. ap. Suicer. Thesaur. Part. 2. p. 1136. 21Hieron. cont. Lucif. cap. 4. Deinde egressos lactis et mellis praegustare concordiam ad infantiae significa- tionem. 22 Tertul. de Coron. Mil. c. 3. Inde suscepti lactis et mellis praegustamus concordiam. 23 It. cont. Marcion. lib. 1. cap. 14. Sed et ille usque nec aquam reprobavit creatoris, qua suos abluit, nec oleum quo suos unxit, nec mellis et lactis societatem, qua suos in- fantat, nec panem, quo ipsum corpus suum repraesentat. 2'‘ Hieron. in Esai. 1v. 1. Lac significat innocentiam parvulorum. Qui mos ac typus in Occidentis ecclesiis hodie usque servatur, ut renatis in Christo vinum lacque tribuatur. De quo lacte dicebat et Paulus, Lac vobis potum dedi, non solidum cibum. Et Petrus, Quasi modo nati parvuli, ratio- nale lac desiderate. 25 Clem. Alex. Paedagog. lib. 1. cap. 6. p. 103. 26 Cone. Carth. 3. can. 24. Primitiae vero, seu mel et Iac, quod uno die solennissimo pro infantis mysterio solet ofi'erri, quamvis in altari offeratur, suam tamen habet pro- priam benedictionem, ut a sacramento Dominici corporis ac sanguinis distinguatur. 2? Codex Eccles. Afric. can. 37'. ap. J ustellum. 28 Constit. Apost. lib. 7. cap. 44 et 45. 29 Chrys. Hom. 6. in Colos. p. 1953. 9° Naz. Orat. 40. de Bapt. p. 672. CHAP. IV. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 561 ANTIQUITIES OF THE he says, was a prreludium or foretaste of those hymns and praises which should be the employment of the life to come. But whether this means any particular psalms appointed to be sung at baptism, or the common psalmody of the church, he does not inform us. If I may be allowed to conjecture, I should conclude for the former, because the com- mon psalmody of the church was no more than what catechumens were allowed to hear before, as being part of the missa catechumenorum, or first service, at which not only catechumens, but pro- fessed Jews and heathens might be present. Per- haps they sung the 118th Psalm, in which are these words, “This is the day which the Lord hath made, we will rejoice and be glad in it ;” because St. Aus- tin,$1 speaking of the Easter festival, seems to refer to it, saying, This is the day which the Lord hath made, higher than all, brighter than all, in which he hath acquired to himself a new people by the Spirit of regeneration, and hath filled our minds with joy and gladness. And Paulinus32 speaks of singing halleluj ahs upon this occasion. But in doubt- ful matters I will not be over-positive to determine. It is more certain, that as soon as Sect. 9. . . mgdqgtzgmtipeghim- the ceremonies of baptism were fin- gfglrrfmnion of the ished, men were admitted to a partici- pation of the eucharist. For this was the n‘) rékuov, the perfection or consummation of a Christian, to which he was entitled by virtue of his baptism. Therefore all the ancient writers speak of this as the concluding privilege of baptism, which in those days was always immediately subjoined to it. And this was observed, not only with respect to adult persons, but children also. For proof of which custom, at present it will be sufficient to al- lege the testimony of Gennadius,” who joins the baptism of infants, and confirmation, and the eu- charist all together. And this continued to the ninth century, as appears from the rituals of that age, some of which have been produced before,84 and many others might be added; but these belong to another place, where it will be more proper to treat of the communion of infants among other things that relate to the subject of the eucharist, which, together with the ancient psalmody, reading of the Scriptures, preaching, and prayers, which make up the whole ordinary service of the church, under the name of missa catechumenorum, and missa fide- lium, will be the subject of the next volume, which is intended to give an account of the liturgy of the church. There was one ceremony more, used in some churches, but rejected by ofowr others, which it will not be improper Zgsigfigsfil some to give some account of here in the close: that was the custom of washing the feet of the baptized. Vicecomes$5 thinks, at first it was a ceremony preceding baptism, and used on Maundy Thursday, or the same day that our Saviour (from whose example it was taken) washed his disciples’ feet. And this seems to be clear, he says, from St. Austin’s words, who has occasion to mention it in two of his epistles. But in the former epistle,86 St. Austin is speaking of the custom of bathing the whole body before Easter, that the catechumens, who had neglected themselves in the observation of Lent, might not appear offensive when they came to be baptized: therefore Maundy Thursday was chosen as the day to cleanse themselves, by bathing, from the bodily filth which they had contracted. And because this was allowed to the catechumens, many others chose to bathe themselves with them on that day also, and relax their fast, because fasting and bathing would not agree together. So that this washing was not the washing of the feet, however Vicecomes came to mistake it, but the bathing of the whole body; and not used as a religious ceremony, but as a ceremony of convenience and civil decency, that they might not be offensive to the senses of others, when they came to baptism. In the other epistle he speaks particularly of washing the feet, but that was after baptism, on the third day, or the octaves, or such other time as those churches which retained the ceremony thought fit to appoint it. For many churches,” he says, would never admit of this custom at all, lest it should seem to belong to the 3‘ Aug, Serm. 163. de Tempore, t. 10. p. 332. Hic est dies, dilectissimi, quem fecit Dominus, celsior cunctis, luci- dior universis, in quo sibi novam plebem, ut videtis, regene- rationis Spiritu conquisivit, &c. 82 Paulin. Ep. 12. ad Sever. p. 145. Hinc senior sociae eongaudet turba catervae; Alleluia novis balat ovile choris. 83 Gennad. de Eccles. Dogm. cap. 52. Si parvuli sint, qui doctrinam non capiant, respondeant pro illis qui .eos offe- runt, juxta morem baptizandi : et sic mantis impositione et chrismate communiti, eucharistiae mysteriis admittantur. 8‘ Book XII. chap. 1. sect. 2. “5 Vicecom. de Ritib. Bapt. lib. 3. cap. 20. 36 Aug. Ep. 118. ad J anuarium, p. 213. Si autem quaeris, cur etiam lavandi mos ortus sit: nihil mihi de hac re cogi- tanti probabilius occurrit, nisi quia baptizandorum corpora per observationem quadragesimae sordidata, cum offensione sensfis ad fontem tractarentur, nisi aliqua die lavarentur. Istum autem diem potius ad hoc electum quo coena Domini anniversarie celebratur. Et quia coucessum est hoc baptis- mum accepturis, multi cum his lavare voluerunt, jejunium- que relaxare. 8’ Au'g. Ep. 119. ad Januar. cap. 18. De lavandis vero pedibus, cum Dominus hoc propter formam humilitatis, propter quam docendam venerat, commendaret, sicut ipse consequenter exposuit, quazsitum est, Quonam tempore po- tissimum res tanta etiam facto doceretur, et in illud tempus occurrit, quo ipsa commendatio religiosius inhaereret. Sed ne ad ipsum sacramentum baptismi videretur pertinere, multi hoc in consuetudinem recipere noluerunt. N onnulli etiam de consuetudine auferre non dubitarunt. Aliqui au- tem, ut hoc sacratiore tempore commendarent, et a bap- tismi sacramento distinguerent, vel diem tertium octava- rum, quia ternarius numerus in multis sacramentis maxime 2o 562 Boox XII ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. sacrament of baptism, when our Saviour only in- tended it as a lesson of humility. And other churches, for the same reason, abrogated the cus- tom, where it had been received. And others, who retained it, that they might recommend it by fixing it to some more sacred time, and yet distinguish it from the sacrament of baptism, chose either the third day of the octaves, or the octave after bap- tism itself, as most convenient for this purpose. Among the churches which wholly refused, or ab- rogated this custom, the Spanish church is one, which in the council of Eliberis made a canon against it; forbidding at once the exacting any gift or reward for administering baptism, lest the priest should seem to sell what he freely received; (of which I have given a full88 account, in speak- ing of the revenues of the church ;) and also forbid- ding the priests,89 or any other of the clergy, to wash the feet of such as were baptized. Among those churches which never received this custom, we may reckon the Roman church; and among those which always received it, the church of Milan, ‘whose practice is opposed to the Roman by St. Ambrose, or whoever was the author of the books De Sacramentis, and De iis qui Mysteriis initiantur, among his works. He says," In the church of Milan the bishop was used to wash the feet of the baptized. But the Roman church had not this custom. And he thinks they might decline it, be- caase of ‘ the multitude of those that were baptized. But they of the Roman church pleaded, that it was not to be done by way of mystery in baptism or re- generation, but only by way of humility, as the custom of washing the feet of strangers. But on the contrary, the church of Milan pleaded, that it was not merely a business of humility, but of mys- tery and sanctification, because Christ said to Peter, “Except I wash thy feet, thou hast no part with me.” This I urge, says our author, not to repre- hend others, but to commend my own oflice. For though we desire to follow the Roman church, yet we are men that have our senses about us. And therefore we observe that practice, which we con- ceive to be righter in other churches. He adds further, That this was not done‘1 to obtain remission of sins, for that was already done in baptism: but because Adam was supplanted by the devil, and the serpent’s poison was cast upon his feet, therefore men were washed in that part for greater sanctifica- tion, that he might have no power to supplant them any further. These were the reasons given by the church of Milan, for their adhering to this practice: but they were not so strong as to prevail with others, and so this custom never got any great foot~ ing in the Christian church. I have now gone over the most material ceremonies and usages of a gig-silence- the church, observed about the ad- iiriiliiiigggiirtffle ministration of baptism, as well those iégégiigilalgfliggéfiiig that went before, as those that ac- companied the action itself, and those that followed after; and, as near as I could, delivered them in the same order and manner as she herself observed them. And shall here close the discourse only with one ge- neral reflection, which may be of some use to vindi- cate the practice of the present church, and give satis- faction to such sober dissenters as scruple our oflice of baptism for the sake of an innocent, significant ceremony or two retained in it. The candid reader may observe throughout this discourse, that not only one or two, but many significant ceremonies were observed by the ancient church in the ad- ministration of baptism; particularly, the sign of the cross was used at least four or five times in the whole process of the action. Therefore they who now raise objections against the present office, had they lived in the primitive times, must have had much more reason to complain of the ancient prac- tice. And yet we do not ordinarily find objections raised against the baptism of the church, upon the account of the ceremonies she used therein, no, not even by those who in other things differed from her. Which consideration, methinks, should a little satisfy those, who really value the peace and unity of the church, and be an argument to them not to dissent from the practice of the present church, for those things which must more forcibly have obliged them to have been dissenters in all ages. I know not how far this consideration may prevail upon any, but I know how far it ought to prevail upon excellit, vel etiam ipsum octavum, ut hoc facerent, ele- gerunt. 88 Book V. chap. 4. sect. l4. ' 8° Conc. Eliber. can.48. Emendari placuit, ut hi qui bap- tizantur (ut fieri solet) nummos in concham non mittant, ne sacerdos, quod gratis accepit,pretio distrahere videatur. N eque pedes eorum lavandi sunt a sacerdotibus vel clericis. 4° Ambros. de Sacram. lib. 3. cap. I. Succinctus summus sacerdos pedes tibi lavit.—-—Non ignoramus, quod ecclesia Romana hanc consuetudinem non habeat, cujus typum in omnibus sequimur et formam : hanc tamen consuetudinem non habet, ut pedes lavet. Vide ergo ne propter multitu- dinem declinarit. Sunt tamen qui dicant, et excusare conentur, quia hoc non mysterio faciendum est, non in bap- tismate, non in regeneratione: sed quasi hospiti pedes la- vandi sunt. Aliud est humilitatis, aliud sanctificationis. Denique audi, quia mysterium est, et sanctificatio. Nisi lavero tibi pedes, non habebis mecum partem. Hoc ideo dico, non quod alios reprehendam, sed mea oflicia ipse com- mendem. In omnibus cupio sequi ecclesiam Romanam, sed tamen et nos homines sensum habemus. Ideo quod alibi rectius servatur, et nos recte custodimus. 4' Ibid. In baptismate omnis culpa diluitur. Recedit ergo culpa: sed quia Adam supplantatus a diabolo est, et vene- num ei sufl‘usum est supra pedes, ideo lavas pedes, ut in ca parts, in qua insidiatus est serpens, majus subsidium sancti- ficationis accedat, quo postea te supplantare non possit. He repeats this reason in his Book de Initiatis, cap. 6. CHAP. V. 563 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. all that love the peace and study the quiet of the church, and therefore I could not but in this place here seasonably suggest it. CHAPTER V. OF THE LAWS AGAINST REBAPTIZATION} BOTH IN CHURCH AND STATE. Sect. 1. To what has been said about baptism, prgggrgnesgaggssmi it Will not be improper to add some- glligyceg binghihy thing about the laws made both in church and state against the repetition of it, when once duly performed. The ancients generally determine against a repetition of baptism; though Vossius thinksI their reasons are not always strictly conclusive. Some argued, that baptism was not to be repeated, because we are baptized into the death of Christ, who died but once. So St. Basil,2 and St. Austin.’ But Vossius thinks there is no weight in this argument, because that which is but once done, may be often represented; as the sacra- ment of the eucharist is often repeated, though it also be in remembrance of the Lord’s death till he come. Others prove it from those words of our Sa-- viour, John xiii. 10, “ He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit.” This argument is used by Optatus, St. Austin, Ful- gentius, Pacianus, and St. Ambrose. But Vossius thinks there is as little force in this reason as the former; because men may become polluted and un- clean after baptism, and so have need of a second washing, if there were no other reason against it. Others argued from those words of the apostle, Heb. vi. 4, “ It is impossible for those who are once en- lightened, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance.” The ancient expositors, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Primasius, Sedulius, and Haimo, understand this as a prohibition of renew- ing men to repentance again by a second baptism; for they do not deny absolutely the possibility of a second repentance or pardon, but only upon a second baptism. And so Vossius says it is also expounded by Epiphanius,4 Cyril of Alexandria,5 St. J erom,6 St. Austin,7 and St. Ambrose.8 But he thinks their exposition not so agreeable to this place, as that of others, who interpret the falling away, either to mean the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, or what St. John calls “ a sin unto death,” or a total apostacy from the Christian religion, for which there is no renewal of repentance. But I will not be so positive as Vossius, that any of these are better interpretations of that text, which is so una- nimously urged by the ancients against the Nova- tians, as a prohibition, not simply of a second re- pentance, but of a repentance by a second baptism. Others made use of those words of the apostle, Eph. iv. “ One faith, one baptism.” Which is the argu- ment urged by Cyril of Jerusalem and Pope Leo against rebaptization. But this, as Vossius ob- serves, probably was not intended as a prohibition of a second baptism, but only to declare the com- munity of that baptism, which is received one and the same by all, without exception. As the apostle calls the eucharist “ one bread,” not because it was only once to be received, but because it was that common bread, of which all were partakers. The true reason, Vossius thinks, why baptism is not to be repeated, is the Divine will that so appointed it. For there is no command to reiterate baptism, as there is to repeat the eucharist, in the words of in- stitution. Neither is there any example of any re- baptization in Scripture, though we often read of men’s falling into gross and scandalous sins after baptism. To which may be added, that baptism succeeds in the room of circumcision, being the en- trance and seal of the covenant, which, on God’s part, is never broken: so that as circumcision was never repeated, though the passover was yearly; in like manner, men enter into the covenant by bap- tism, and their breaches of the covenant are not to be repaired by repeated baptisms, but by confession and repentance, which is the method prescribed by the apostle for restoring fallen brethren. St. J c- rom9 observes, that though there were many here- tics in the apostles’ days, as the Nicolaitans and others, yet there was no command given to rebap— tize them upon their repentance. And Optatus1° makes the unity of circumcision a good argument for the unity of baptism, in which both the catho- lies and Donatists agreed. For though the Dona~ tists rebaptized the catholics, yet they did it not under the notion of a second baptism, but as sup- posing they had received no true baptism before. Indeed, among all the ancient here- tics, we find none for a plurality of “82151 ganglia]; baptisms, but only the Marcionites. gate thrice repeat- Which Epiphanius observes to have been an invention of Marcion, their first founder, Sct2 1 Voss. de Bapt. Disp. 17. n. 5. p. 210. 2 Basil. dc Spir. Sancto, cap. 15. 3 Aug. de Vera et Falsa Poenit. cap. 3. 4 Epiphan. Haer. 59. Novatianor. 5 Cyril. lib. 5. in Joan. xvii. 6 Hieron. cont. Jovin. lib. 2. " Aug. Com. in Rom. 8 Ambros. de Prenit. cont. Novat. lib. 2. cap. 2. 9 Hieron. cont. Lucifer. cap. 8. De Apocalypsi quoque approbemus, haereticis sine baptismate debere poenitentiam concedi. Nunquid dixit, Rebaptizentur qui in Nicolaitarum fidem b‘aptizati sunt? ‘° Optat. lib. l. p. 35. Quid magis dici pro nobis, et nos- trum esse potest, quam quod dixisti, in comparationem baptismatis semel factum esse diluvium? Et' singularem circumcisionem salubriter profecisse populo J udaeorum, ma- gis pro nobis, quasi noster locutus es. 2 o z 564 Boox XII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. in regard to his own conversation :“ for he having been guilty of deflowering a virgin, invented a se- cond baptism, asserting, that it was lawful to re- peat baptism three times for the remission of sins. So that if any'man fell, he might receive a second bap- tism after the first, and a third after that, upon his repentance. Which he pretended to ground upon those sayings of our Saviour, “ I have a baptism to be baptized with, and I have a cup to drink ;” which have no reference to any other baptism in water, but to his baptism in blood, that is, his death and passion. Of which the ancients speak much, as they do of some other sorts of baptism, which are only metaphorical, as the baptism of afi'iictions, the baptism of tears and repentance, and the bap- tism of fire at the last day. But here the question is only about proper baptism by water, which the Marcionites afiirmed might be repeated three times in the same way, which the church never allowed of. It is true, indeed, there were some whieiiieséhumh doubtful cases, in which it might hap- did in doubtful cases, . , ppgtpgilztigaed a re- pen accidentally that's. man might be a second time baptlzed; but these were such cases only, in which the party was re- puted not to have received any former baptism at all. As when a man could neither give any account of his own baptism, nor were there any other credi- ble witnesses that could attest it. Which often happened to be the case of those who were taken captives in their infancy, and made slaves by the heathen. When any such were redeemed or re- covered by the Christians, the church made no scruple to baptize them; because, though they might perhaps have. received a former baptism, yet no evidence of it appeared. And so this‘ was not reputed a rebaptization. A decree was made to this purpose in the fifth council of Carthage,12 upon a question put by the bishops of Mauritania, who affirmed that they redeemed many such captive children from the hands of the barbarians : the council ordered, That in this case, as often as it hap- pened, that there were no certain witnesses found, who could give undoubted testimony of their bap- tism; nor were they able of themselves to affirm, by reason of their age, that they ever had received it; they should be baptized without any scruple, lest a hesitation in this case should deprive them of the purgation of the sacraments. The like de- termination was also given in one of the Roman synods under Leo upon the same case, where it was concluded,13 That in such a doubtful case, neither the baptizer nor the baptized incurred the crime of rebaptization. And Leo resolves the matter ‘4 him- self after the same manner in other places. Nei— ther was it reckoned any crime, though it afterward appeared that the party had been baptized be- fore, because it was done in ignorance: but yet, like clinic baptism, it was a sort of blemish to him, that deprived him of ecclesiastical promotion, ex- cept in some extraordinary case, as we learn from Theodore’sl5 Poenitentiale, cited by Gratian. Neither was it reckoned properly Sect. ‘L a second baptism, when the church ,iggirgfggggygbggc; baptized any who had before been un- 38,‘; £31215’, £23; duly baptized in heresy or schism. 8y °r schism‘ For then she did it only on presumption that they had received no true baptism before. Some here- tics corrupted baptism by altering the necessary form, and others corrupted it by changing the mat- ter of it into some other substance of their own ap- pointing; and the baptisms of all such were looked upon as no baptisms ; and therefore the church or- dered all those to be baptized upon their return to her communion, in the very same manner as Jews .and Gentiles, as supposing their former pretence of baptism to be nothing at all, but her own baptism the first true baptism that was given them. And even the Cyprianists, who baptized all that had been baptized in any heresy or schism whatsoever without distinction, did it still only upon this sup- position, that the baptism which they had received before, was no baptism at all, but a mere nullity. But if any had been baptized in the catholic church, and after that turned heretics or schismatics, or even apostates, Jews or Gentiles, they never gave such another baptism upon their return to the church again. For the Cyprianists in this agreed Sect. 5_ with the rest of the catholic church, mgagj’gi‘ggeigegig that catholic baptism was never to be mm“ mm!" repeated in the greatest apostates. This doctrine is not only inculcated by St. Austin,‘6 but even by Cyprian himself and his followers, where they plead so much for baptizing those who had been baptized 1‘ Epiphan. Haer. 42. Marcionit. n. 3. 12 Cone. Carthag. 5. can. 6. Placuit de infantibus, ut quoties non inveniuntur certissimi testes, qui eos baptizatos esse sine dubitatione testentur, neque ipsi sint per aetatem idonei de traditis sibi sacramentis respondere, absque ullo scrupulo eos esse baptizandos, ne ista trepidatio eos faciat sacramentorum purgatione privari. Hinc enim legati Mau- rorurn fratres nostri consuluerunt, quia multos tales a bar- baris redimunt. Vid. Cod. Eccl., Afric. can. 72. et Cone. Trull. can. 84. ‘3 Leo, Ep.37. ad Leon. Raven. Non potest in itera- tionis crimen devenire, quod factum esse omnino nescitur. 1‘ Id. Ep. 92. ad Rustic. cap. 16. Si nulla existant in- dicia inter propinquos aut familiares, nulla inter clericos aut vicinos, quibus hi, de quibus quaeritur, baptizati fuisse doceantur; agendum est ut renascantur, ne manifeste per- eant, in quibus quod non ostenditur gestum, ratio non sinit ut videatur iteratum. ‘5 Theodor. Poenitent. ap. Gratian, Dist. 4. (1e Consecrat. cap. 117. Qui bis ignoranter baptizati sunt, non indigent pro e0 pmnitere: nisi quod secundum canones ordinari non possunt, nisi magna aliqua necessitas cogat. ‘8 Aug. de Bapt. lib. 2. cap. 1. Cont. Liter. Petil. lib. 2. cap. 7 et 48. Cont. Crescon. lib. 2. cap. 16. CHAP. V. 565 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. in any heresy or schism; they still except those heretics who had originally been baptized in the catholic church: though they turned apostates they were not to be received again by baptism,l7 but only by repentance, as was determined in the council of Carthage, over which Cyprian presided. St. Austin refers us to this very passage, and thence concludes this was a point agreed upon universally in the catholic church, that no lapse or crime could make it necessary to give a second baptism to any who had once been truly baptized within the pale of the church. A longer penance indeed was imposed upon such deserters and apostates as had been bap- tized in the church, than upon those who had been baptized among heretics originally, as the Rules of Pope Innocent18 inform us; the one were obliged to go through a long course of penance for their apostacy, but the other were admitted immediately by imposition of hands upon their recantation: yet still the church kept strict to her rule, that whatever way she admitted them she would not do it by a second baptism. Sec, 6_ Several heretics pretended to ob- ,Jgi’attrgtigigg: serve the same rule; for they rebap- hcs' tized the catholics; yet they said this was not a second baptism, because the catholics were reputed heretics with them, and therefore their baptism of no value in their account. Upon this ground the Novatians rebaptized the catholics, as we learn from Cyprian,19 and the epistle of Pope Innocent last cited. The Donatists followed the Novatians in this sacrilegious practice, as the charge is often brought against them by St. Austin,20 and many others. And the Eunomians not only re- baptized _the catholics, but all others of the Arian sects that were not of their own particular faction, as is noted by Epiphanius" in his account of them. And the other Arians, though they were at first averse to this practice, (as Papebrochius 2’ and Pagi23 rightly observe, in order to refute the story of Con- stantine’s being baptized by Pope Sylvester, and re- baptized by Eusebius of Nicomedia; for at that time the Arians had not taken up the practice of rebap- tizing the catholics,) yet afterwards they gave way to it about the time of St. Austin. For ‘he charges it upon them more than once,“ that they rebaptized the catholics. And it appears from Victor Uticensis,25 that they insisted stifily upon it in the time of the Vandalic persecution, and we after- wards meet with the same in the epistles of Vigili~ us.28 Valesius” cites the Life of Fulgentius, and the author of the Breviarium Fidei, published by Sirmondus, to the same purpose. By which last author28 we find, that the Arians not only rebaptized the catholics, but also made an argument of it, (as some Romanists in another case have since argued against the protestants,) that their baptism was bet- ter than the catholics’, because the catholics never rebaptized those that came over from the Arians, but reconciled them only by imposition of hands; but the Arians, whenever they could seduce any from the catholics, always gave them a second baptism. Now, to prevent this petulant hu- mour from spreading in the church, Whatsiiiihigiments many and severe laws were made ggégigéggggargii against it, both by the ecclesiastical and the secular power. The church by her canons29 not only censured and condemned all such rebap- tizations, as impious and sacrilegious, as a crucify- ing of Christ again, a doing despite to the Spirit, as a mockery of the Divine mysteries, and derision of holy things; but also inflicted penalties on all those who were either actively or passively con- cerned in them. The council of Leridaso forbids the faithful so much as to eat with persons that suf- fered themselves to be rebaptized. The canons of Pope Innocent enjoin them a long penance to 1’ Conc. Carthag. ap. Cypr. n. 8. p. 232. Censeo omnes haereticos et schismaticos, qui ad catholicam ecclesiam vo- luerint venire, non ante ingredi, nisi exorcisati et baptizati prius fuerint; exceptis his sane qui in ecclesia catholica fuerint ante baptizati, ita tamen ut per manus impositionem in pcenitentiam ecclesias reconcilientur. See the same, ibid. n. 22. And Cypr. Ep. 71. ad Quintum, p. 194. Ep. 74. ad Pompeium, p. 216. ‘8 Innoc. Ep. 2. ad Victricium, cap. 8. Ut venientes a N ovatianis vel Montensibus, per mauus tantnm impositio- nem suscipiantur. Quia quamvis ab haereticis, tamen in Christi nomine sunt baptizati: praeter eos, si qui forte a nobis ad illos transeuntes, rebaptizati sunt: hi siresipiscen- tes, et ruinam suam cogitantes, redire maluerint, sub longa pmnitentiae satisfactione admittendi sunt. '9 Cypr. Ep. 73. ad Jubaian. p. 198. Nec nos movet, quod in literis tuis complexus es,Novatianenses rebaptizare eos, quos a nobis sollicitant. 2° Aug. cont. F ulgent. cap. 7. Da mihi aliquem sancto- rum post Trinitatern rebaptizare, quod facis. It. de Haeres. c. 69. Audent etiam rehaptizare catholicos, &c. Vid. Cod. Theodos. lib. 16. Tit. 6. Ne sanctum baptisma iteretur. Leg. 4. Honorii. 2‘ Epiphan. Haer. 76. Anomosor. p. 992. 2’ Papebroch. Vit. Constant. Mai. 21. t. 5. p. 17. 23 Pagi, Critic. in Baron. an. 324. n. 12. 24 Aug. de Haeres. cap. 49. Rebaptizari quoque ab his catholicos novimus, utrum et non catholicos nescio. It. de Haeres. cap. 7. Baptizato ingerit baptismum, &c. 25 Victor. de Persec. Vandal. lib. l. Bibl. Patr. t. 7. p. 590. 26 Vigil. Ep. 2. ad Euther. cap. 3. It. Conc. Tolet. 3. Praef‘at. 2’ Vales. Not. in Sozomen. lib. 6. cap. 26. “8 Breviar. Fidei adversus Arianos. Dicere etiam solent de baptismo, quod in eo melius sit ipsorum baptismum, quam nostrum; quia qui de illis ad nos convertuntur, non eos rebaptizamus, sed per mantis impositionem reconcilia- mus. Illi vero, si quos de nostris seducere possint, incon- sideranter rebaptizant. 2’ Vid. Cod. Eccles. Afric. can. 48. Constit. Apost. lib 6. cap. 15. 3° Conc. Ilerdens. can. 14. Cum rebaptizatis fideles reli- giosi nec in cibo participent. 566 BooK XII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. make satisfaction.“ And those of Pope Leo82 require even those who through fear or terror were rebap- tized against their wills, to do penance at the dis- cretion of the bishop, before they were admitted again to communion. If they were bishops, pres- byters, or deacons, who thus sufi'ered themselves to be rebaptized, then they were to be degraded, and obliged to do penance all their lives, without being suffered to communicate with the church either in the prayers of the faithful, or the prayers of the catechumens, and were only to be admitted to lay communion at the hour of death, because they had not only denied their orders, but their Christianity, and openly professed themselves pagans, by being rebaptized. This we find in the decrees of Felix 111., made in a Roman council,‘33 with respect to the African churches, where such rebaptizations were often practised, by the power of the Arians, who compelled the catholics to be rebaptized. This was the ancient discipline of the church toward those, who were only passive in admitting a second bap- tism, after they had once been truly baptized with catholic baptism before. Then again for those who were actively concerned in such rebaptizations, the Canons appointed, that if any bishop or presbyter presumed to give a second baptism after a true one once received,’’4 he should be degraded: and this penalty was confirmed by the civil law; for Valen- tinian put forth an edict against such rebaptizers, declaring them unworthy of the priesthood.35 But because such sort of penalties did not much affect either the Donatists or the Eunomians, who were already out of the church, and little regarded her censures; therefore Honorius reinforced the former laws by adding a civil penalty to them. For in two laws made against the Donatists, who were chiefly concerned in this crime, he enacted,‘’’6 That it should be confiscation of all a man’s goods, whoever was found to rebaptize another. And Theodosius junior 8’ laid the same penalty upon the Eunomians, and those that were rebaptized by them, commanding their goods to be confiscated, and their persons to be banished. Such was the care‘ both of the civil and ecclesiastical governors to preserve the unity of baptism in the catholic church. But as Gothofred, I think, rightly observes, these laws seem only in- tended against heretics rebaptizing catholics. For if heretics rebaptized heretics, as the Eunomians did the other Arians, it does not appear, that in that case the penalties of these laws afi'ected them, but only were designed to restrain their insolencies against the catholic church. Some catholics con- tinued still, after the Cyprianic way, to rebaptize all heretics and schismatics whatsoever, without dis- tinguishing those that were baptized in the name of the Trinity from those that were not: and though this was contrary to the general custom and disci- pline of the church, yet I conceive the penalties of these laws did not affect them neither. And the same may be said of those, who thought themselves obliged to rebaptize those who were only baptized by laymen. For though it was reckoned a rebap- tization by those churches which practised other- wise, yet it was not that criminal rebaptization, against which these laws were chiefly intended: and these being something more of doubtful and disputed cases, about which good catholics them- selves were divided, a greater allowance was made in these, so long as men only observed the custom and practice of the churches in which they lived, about them: which was St. Basil’s advice to the _churches of Asia, which were divided upon these questions. 31 Innoc. Ep. 2. ad Victric. cap. 9. Qui rebaptizati sunt, sub longa poenitentia et satisfactione admittendi sunt. 32 Leo, Ep. 79. ad Nicetam, cap. 6. Qui ad iterandum baptismum vel metu coacti sunt—-—non nisi per poenitentiae remedium, et per impositionem episcopalis manus, commu- nionis recipiant unitatem. “3 Felix, Ep. 7. cap. 2. Eos, quos episcopos, presbyteros, vel diaconos fuisse constiterit, et seu optantes forsitan, seu coactos lavacri illius unici salutarisque claruerit fecisse jacturam; et Christum, quem non solum dono regenerationis, verum etiam gratia percepti honoris induerant, exuisse; cum constet neminem ad secundam tinctionem venire potuisse, nisi se palam Christianum negaverit, et professus fuerit se esse paganum ;—-—usque ad exitus sui diem, si resipiscunt, jacere conveniet, nec orationi non modo fidelium, sed nec catechumenorum omuimodis interesse, quibus communio laica tantum in morte reddenda est. 3‘ Vid. Canon. Apost. can. 47. *5 Theod. lib. 16. Tit. 16. de non Iterando Bapt. Leg. 1. Antistitem, qui sanctitatem baptismi iterata usurpatione ge- minaverit, et contra instituta omnium eam gratiam iterando contaminaverit, sacerdotio indignum esse censemus. 35 Ibid. Leg. 4. Quisquis post haec fuerit rebaptizasse detec- tus-——Facultatum omnium publicatione multatus, inopiae poenam expendat. Vid. ibid. Leg. 5. Honorii. 3’ lbid. Leg. 7. Theodosii. Nefarios Eunomianorum coe- tus, ac funesta conventicula penitus arceri jubemus. Eos qui episcoporum, seu clericorum, vel ministrorum nomine usurpato, hujusmodi coetibus praesunt——— cum in hoc fuerint scelere deprehensi, stilum proscriptionis incurrere, et bono- rum amissione coerceri. Eos vero qui fide, ut dictum est, imbutos immani furore rebaptizare deteguntur, cum his qui rebaptizantur (arceri jubemus). BOOK XIII. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS RELATING TO DIVINE WORSHIP IN THE ANCIENT CHURCH. CHAPTER I. SOME NECESSARY REMARKS UPON THE ANCIENT NAMES OF DIVINE SERVICE, WHICH MODERN CORRUPTIONS HAVE RENDERED AMBIGUOUS. sect 1 WE have hitherto seen the method of m: of introducing men into the church, ' through the various steps of their catechumenship, and baptism, and confirmation: we are now to view their practice in the-worship of God after their admission, and to examine into the manner of their holding religious assemblies, and performing there the several public oflices of Divine service. Some things of this kind are ge- neral considerations, that run through all oflices, and relate to every part of Divine worship; such as the object of their worship, and the circumstances of language, and forms, and habits, and gesture, and time; and therefore of these general things I shall discourse firstin this Book. After this I shall con- sider the several parts of their most solemn worship on the Lord’s day; such as their psalmody, and reading of the Scriptures, and preaching, and prayer, and receiving the communion, which were their solemn acts of worship on every festival. And because some of these were such as the Cate- chumens and all others were allowed to be present at, for their benefit and edifieation; whilst other parts of Divine service were more restrained to per- sons baptized, who were complete and perfect Chris- tians (who were therefore called communicants, because they had a more peculiar right to all the privileges of Christian communion); I shall upon this account speak of their worship under these two heads, according to their own distinction; the mz'ssa catechumenorum, and the missa fidelz'um, the service of the catechumens, and the service of the com- municants; or, as we may otherwise term them, the ante-communion service, and the communion service. The missa catechumenorum compre- hended all that part of the service, which preceded the common prayers of the communicants at the altar; that is, the psalmody, the reading of the Scriptures, the sermon, and the particular pray- ers that were made over the catechumens and other orders of penitents, energumens, &c., before they were dismissed. For by the ancient rules and dis- cipline of the church, the method of Divine service was so ordered that all persons, except some very scandalous sinners, had liberty to be present at some parts of it. The psalms, and lessons, and sermons were for the instruction, not only of believers, but also of catechumens and heathens, Jews and in- fidels, unbelievers and heretics: and therefore by some canons all these had liberty to stay in the church, till this part of the service, called mz'ssa catechumenorum, was ended. The fourth council of Carthage1 has a rule to this purpose, That the bishop shall not prohibit any one to enter the church, and hear the word of God, whether he be Gentile, Jew, or heretic, till the service of the cate- chumens was ended. A like canon was made by the first council of Orange, That the catechumens2 should have the liberty to stay and hear the Gospels read in all their churches. The council of Valentia' in Spain extends the privilege to heretics and hea- thens, as well as catechumens, and therefore orders Sect. 2. Of the missrz cale- chmnenorum, or first part of Divine service, to which all orders of men were admitted. lConc. Carthag. 4. can. 84. Ut episcopus nullum pro- hibeat ingredi ecclesiam, et audire verbum Dei, sive Gen- tilem, sive haereticum, sive J udecum, usque ad missam cate- chumenorum. 2 Cone. Arausican. 1. can. 18. Evangelia placuit dein- ceps catechumenis legi apud omnes provinciarum nostrarum ecclesias. 3 Conc. Valentin. can. 1. Ut sacrosancta evangelia ante munerum illationem, in missa catechumenorum in ordiue lectionum post legantur, quatenus salutaria praecepta Do~ mini nostri J esu Christi, vel sermones sacerdotis, non solum fideles sed etiam catechumeni ac pcenitentes, et omnes qui e diverso sunt, audire licitum habeant. Sic enim ponti. ficum praadicatione audita, nonnullos attractos ad fidem evidenter scimus. 568 CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Boox XIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE that the Gospel should be read before the oblation was brought forth, in the usual order of the lessons; so that not only the communicants, but the cate- chumens, and penitents, and Gentiles, and heretics, who were of the contrary part, might have liberty to hear the saving precepts of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the sermons of the bishops. For they had learned by experience, that by the bishops’ preaching many had been brought over to the faith. And by this we may interpret an obscure canon‘ of the council of Lerida, which orders, That incestuous persons, so long as they continued in their sin, should not be permitted to stay any longer in the church, save only during the service of the cate- chumens, that is, to hear the psalmody, the lessons, and the sermon. St. Chrysostom abundantly con- firms this observation: for in many of his homilies5 he speaks not only of catechumens, but of heretics and heathen being present as part of his auditory. Particularly in his homily6 upon the forty-fourth Psalm, he wishes all the Jews and heathens had been then present to have heard him expound that prophetical Psalm of Christ. In another homily’ upon the forty-eighth Psalm, he brings in a heathen using this form of complaint against Christians : I went into a Christian church, and there I heard Paul say to their women, that they should not adorn themselves with gold or pearl; but I saw every thing contrary in their practice. And, says Chry- sostom, will not the heathen, when he comes into the church, and sees the women thus adorned in the galleries above, and hears Paul thus speaking below, be ready to say, our religion is mere page- antry and fable? It is not so indeed; but the hea— then is scandalized and offended at this contrariety in our practice. This plainly implies, that the hea- thens had free liberty to come into the Christian churches, and hear the Scriptures read, and the sermon preached. And it is very remarkable, what Sozomen8 observes of St. Chrysostom, that by this means he brought over many of those who heard him in the church, to acknowledge the Divinity of Christ. Which some understand of the scholars of Libanius, but Valesius, I think, more truly inter- prets it of heathens and heretics in general, who flocked to St. Chrysostom’s church to hear him. There is but one thing that can he said against all this, and that is, that the council of Laodicea has a contrary canon, which absolutely forbids9 the per- mitting of heretics to enter into the house of God. But this is only a local ordinance; and the thing being a matter of pure discipline, there might be prudential reasons for denying heretics in some places the privilege that was allowed them in others. Or else the canon may be understood of not permit- ting them to come into the church for prayers or communion, which was a thing forbidden by all canons whatsoever, till after their recantation. Some indeed think, that in Tertullian’s time the catechu- mens were excluded before sermon, because he ob- jects it to the heretics,lo that there were such confu- sions in their assemblies, that no one could tell who was a catechumen, and who was a communicant, because they all met, and heard, and prayed toge- ther. And heathens, if they came in among them, were not excluded from the very mysteries of their religion. But in this, as Schelstratell has observed against Albaspinaeus and Christianus Lupus, Ter- tullian does not object to the heretics, that they ad— mitted catechumens to hear their sermons, but that they made no distinction in their assemblies, as the church did; but without any observation of decency or order, sufi'ered their catechumens to mingle them— selves with communicants, whom the catholics always confined to a separate place in the church, while heretics admitted them confusedly, not only to hear sermons, but to be present at their prayers, and the oblation of the eucharist also. So that this passage of Tertullian rather confirms the thing as- serted, that the missa catechumenorum, or service of the catechumens, lasted to the end of the sermon. After which, it was usual for the deacon to call to the heathens and heretics, if there were any pre- sent, t0 be gone: M1’) ng 113v drcpowpévwv' my ‘HQ 'rt'iiv dwiamv: Let none that are only hearers, none of the unbelievers, be present, as the author of the Consti- tutions'2 words it. Then followed the prayers for the catechumens, of the order called prostrators ; and after their dismission, prayers for the energu- mens; and after them, the prayers for the candi- dates of baptism; and last of all, the prayers for the penitents. All which was included in the general name of missa catechumenorum, the service of the catechumens, or ante-communion service. After this was ended, it was usual Sect 3. for the deacon to make another solemn ,hgflfl‘grmfgfnflfij proclamation to all orders of non-com- Eli“ i’Z'vcififgfififil municants to withdraw: Oi dicowu'mn-rol cams only' 4 Cone. Ilerden. can. 4. De his qui incesta pollutione se commaculant, placuit, ut quousque in ipso detestando et illicito carnis contubernio perseverant, usque ad missam tantum catechumenorum in ecclesia admittantur. 5 Chrys. Hom. 41. de Pelagia, t. 1. p. 560. Horn. 72. de Phoca. t. l. p. 878. Hom. 8. t. 5. p. 124. Hom. 1. in Mat. p.5. Hom. 27. in Mat. p. 271. Hom.de Prophet. Obscuri- tate, t. 3. p. 926. Hom. 2. p. 946. Hom. 40. in 1 Cor. p. 688. 6 Hom. in Psal. xliv. al. xlv. t. 3. p. 206. ’ Hom. in Psal. xlviii. al. xlix. p. 806. 8 Sozom. lib. 8. cap. 2. 9 Cone. Laodic. can. 6. IIspi. 1'05 p.1‘1 o'v'yxwps'iv 'ro'is aipe'ruco'is sic-Laval. sis "rdv oilcov 'roii 9.20:7. 1° Tertul. de Praescript. advers. Hsereticos, cap. 41. In primis quis catechumenus, quis fidelis, incertum est: pariter adeunt, pariter audiunt, pariter orant: etiam ethnici si su- pervenerint, sanctum canibus, et porcis margaritas, licet non veras, jactabunt. 1' Schelstrat. de Concilio Antiocheno, p. 200. ‘'1 Constit. lib. 8. cap. 5. CHAP. I. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 569 ANTIQUITIES OF THE mpmarfiaa-re, Ye that cannot communicate, walk off and be gone. Let no catechumen be present, no hearer, no infidel, no heterodox or heretical person, as the author of the Constitutions words it.‘3 And, as St. Chrysostom acquaints “ us, he was used to add further, émywdmnere a'Ma’gAovg, Ye that are communi- cants, discern and know one another: see that there be no catechumen, none of those that cannot eat of the sacrifice, no spy, no one that cannot see the heavenly blood shed for the remission of sins, no one unworthy of the living sacrifice, no unbaptized person, no one that may not touch the tremendous mysteries with his polluted lips. And here began the missafidelz'um, or communion service, so called, because none might be present at it but communi- cants only, as appears from these solemn forms of dismissing all others 'ore it began. This contains all those prayers which were said at the altar, and were properly called az’zxai 'ms'im, prayers of the faith- ful or communicants, in opposition to the prayers of the catechumens, which went before: these were the prayers for the whole state of the church, and peace of the world, which preceded the oblation and consecration of the eucharist; and then the consecra- tion prayers, and prayers again for all orders of men in the church, with proper forms of communicating, and doxologies, hymns, and thanksgivings after re- ception; of which we discourse particularly in the last of these Books, under the general title of missa fidelz'um, or communion service. This part of the service being wholly spent in prayers, and that by the communicants only, is therefore peculiarly dis- tinguished by the name of esx-ez mard‘w, the prayers of the faithful, by the council of Laodicea,15 which speaks of them as coming after the prayers of the catechumens and their dismission. In other canons they are called the common prayers of the people, and absolutely, the prayers, without taking notice of any other prayers in the church. Whence in the coun- cil of Nice,‘6 speaking of penitents, the phrase, com- municating in prayers with the people without the oblation, denotes joining in this part of the service of the church, distinguished by the name of prayers, or communion service, which belonged not to the catechumens, but the body of the people, in which the penitents of the highest class, called co-standers, were allowed to join, though they might neither make their oblations, nor partake of the eucharist with the faithful. And in the same sense the coun- cil of Ancyra ‘7 speaks of penitents, who, as they were to be three years substrators among the catechu- mens, and bow down under the bishop’s hands for benediction; so were they for two years to commu- nicate in prayers only, without the oblation. And so communicating in prayers with the people is taken in the council of Antioch, when they say, All such as come to church, and hear the Holy Scrip- tures read, but will not communicate18 in prayers with the people, or withdraw themselves disorderly from partaking of the eucharist, shall be cast out of the church. Where, as reading of the Scriptures is put for the whole service of the catechumens, which was the first service; so communicating in prayers and the eucharist, denotes the second part of the service, peculiar to communicants, or persons baptized; from which, as catechumens were debar- red, so others might not withdraw themselves, under pain of ecclesiastical censure. This was the true order of the first and second service in the ancient church, and the true distinction between the missa cateckumenorum and missa fidelz'um, of which I in- tend to give a full account in the two next Books. At present we may observe, how sec, 4, shamefully they have abused the an- angiiiediiifigiififlid cient name missa, under the appellation ilttliiatévhrlilhii of mass, who apply it only to denote the ggngfgrrlléiiéirelggzi; office of consecrating bread and wine gfftgg‘gfgggg *3; into the body and blood of Christ, and the quid‘ and dead‘ offering that as an expiatory sacrifice for the quick and dead. For anciently the name missa signified no such thing, but was a general name for every part of Divine service. It signified, as we have seen already, the service of the catechumens, as well as the service of the altar, and is often used for the psalmody, for the lessons, and for the prayers at evening, when there was no communion, as well as for the prayers used in time of celebration of the eucharist. Thus Cassian19 often mentions the missa nocturna, by which he means the morning prayers and psalmody before day, when it is certain they had no communion. The council of Agde2° speaks of evening mass, as well as morning, which meant no more but morning and evening prayer, without any communion. For they had no communion either morning or evening at their daily prayers, but only on festivals, at a distinct hour from both those. So the emperor Leo, in his Tactics,” speaks of the pica: e'o'mpwai, a word plainly borrowed from the '3 Constit. lib. 8. cap. 12. 1‘ Chrys. Horn. 1. cont. Judaeos, t. 1. p. 440. et Horn. 37. de Filio Prodigo, t. 6. p. 375. '5 Conc. Laodic. can. 19. 1“ Conc. Nicen. can. 11. A60 as 5711 Xwpis 1rpocr¢0piis, Kowwmio'ovo'l. 11;? had’; 'rdw 1rpoo'avxé'w. '7 Conc. Ancyr. can. ‘Y'Ird "ro'u Kamiva 1rt'rr'ré'rwo'av'r 'rpia E'rn inro'lrru'm'sws, Kai. 660 {1'11 sbxns xwpis 'n'pocr- ¢opéis. . '8 Conc. Antioch. can. 2. Héu-ras 'robs eio'to'u'ras eis 'rr‘ju éxxhno'iau, Kai 'rd'w ispd'w 'ypaqidw circmiou'ras, in‘; Koww- uofiu'ras 6e sbxfie z'z'pa 'rq'i kaq'i, ii a'vroo'vpe¢o,uéuous 'riju ps'rcihmf/w 'ri'ls abxapw'rias Ka'l'é 'rwa d'raEL'au, 'rod'rovs dwrofikfi'rovs 'yiuso'eat "rijs élcxhno'ias. '9 Cassian. Institut. lib. 2. cap. 13. lib. 3. cap. 5 et 6. 2° Conc. Agathen. can. 30. In conclusione matutinarum vel vespertinarurri missarum, post hymnos capitella de psalmis dici, &c. 2‘ Leo, Tactic. cap. 11. num. 18, cited by Bishop Usher. 570 Boox XIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE‘CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Latin missa, (for the Greeks had originally no such name,) to signify only evening prayer. And Bishop Usher, in his Religion of the Ancient Irish,22 gives us another such instance out of Adamnanus, who uses the name vespertinalis missa for what is com- monly called evening prayer. And the late learned Mabillon28 has observed out of the Rules of ‘Caesa- rius Arelatensis and Aurelian, that the word missa is sometimes used for the lessons also. For it is one of Aurelian’s Rules, That they should take six missas, that is, lessons, out of the prophet Isaiah, Facz'te sex missus de Esaz'a propheta. And Mabillon very judiciously remarks further,24 That the word mz'ssa has at least three significations. It sometimes signifies the lessons, sometimes the collects or prayers, and sometimes the dismission of the people. And indeed the third sense is the original notation of the word. For missa is the same as missio. And it was the form used in the Latin church, Ite mz'ssa est, which answers to the Greek 'AaroMiso'Qe and Hpoék- Here, the solemn words used at the dismission of the catechumens first, and then of the whole assembly afterwards, at the end of their respective services. Whence the services themselves at last took their names from these solemn dismissions, the one being called mz'ssa catechumenorum, and the other missa fidelz'um, neither of which ever signify more than the Divine service, at which the one or the other attended. In vain, therefore, do many learned men labour to deduce its original from foreign languages, to make it signify something agreeable to the modern notion of the Roman mass, when it is so plainly of Latin extraction. Baronius,25 after Reuclin and Gen ebrard, would have it come from the Hebrew Word missah, an oblation: but Durantus26 has a good reason against that; because if it had been of Hebrew ex- traction, the Greeks would have retained it in their language, as they do the words hosanna, sabaoth, allelujah, and amen: whereas there is no Greek writer uses it till the time of Leo Sapiens, who first borrows it from the Latin in his Tactics. Albas- pinaeus has still a wilder conjecture; he says, the word mess, among the northern nations, signifies a festival, and therefore he imagines the name missa and mass might come from that: which is only to invert the origination, and make the daughter to become the mother; since it is evident the name mess comes from missa, and not missa from that. Cardinal Rona27 takes a great deal of pains to con- fute these and all other false opinions, and estab- lishes the true one with undeniable evidence from Alcimus Avitus, and all the ancient ritualists, Isi- dore, Rabanus Maurus, Florus Magister, Remigius Altissiodorensis, Alcuinus, Gregory’s Sacramenta- rium, Hugo Victorinus, and Bernoldus, who all agree in this, that missa comes from the dismission of the people, and not from any other original. So that I think it needless to trouble my reader with any of these authorities, since the matter is now cleared be- yond all contradiction by Mabillon and Bona, two such eminent writers of the Roman communion. Another general name of the an- cient service, which in later ages has vhllgfirggéfiegti: met with some abuse, is saorgficz'um, Icrujnafled sacrifi- sacrifice; a name borrowed om the Jewish carnal sacrifices, and applied to the spiritual sacrifices of Christians, viz. their prayers and praises, and preaching, and devoting themselves en- tirely, body and soul, to the service of Christ by the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper. Hence every part of Divine worship had the name of sacri- fice, and not only the service of the altar. For they commonly call their evening hymns and prayers by the name of evening sacrifice. Thus St. Jerom bids Laeta accustom her daughter not only to the morn- ing hymns, and daily hours of prayer, the third, the sixth, and the ninth, but also when night comes, and the lamps are lighted, then in like manner to render to God her evening sacrifice.28 And so St. Hilary, upon those words of the psalmist, “Let the lifting up of my hands be an evening sacrifice,” says, The sacrifice of Christians is their prayers, recom- mended to God by stretching forth their hands to relieve the poor. For we, says he, upon whom29 the ends of the world are come, do not sacrifice to God with blood or burnt-ofi'erings : but the evening sacrifice which is pleasing to God, is that which Christ teaches in his Gospel, “ I was an hungry, and ye fed me; thirsty, and ye gave me drink,” &c. This is the evening sacrifice, that is, the sacrifice of the last times. In this we are to lift up our hands; for by such prayers the inheritance of the kingdom of heaven is prepared for those that are blessed of God, from the foundation of the world. In the same sense Eusebius calls the prayers of Christians the rationalsacrifices,“0 that are offered without blood to God. And Clemens Alexandrinus says, The sacri- 22 Usher, Relig. of the Ancient Irish, chap. 4. p. 26. ex Adamnani Vita Columban. lib. 3. cap. 31. 28 Mabil. de Cursu Gallicano, lib. 2. p. 107. 2‘ Ibid. p. 393. 25 Baron. an. n. 59. 2° Durant. (1e Ritibus, lib. 2. cap. 1. n. 1. So also Bellar- mine and Bone. both refute it. 2’ Bona, Rer. Liturg. lib. 1. cap. 1. sect. 6, where ‘he cen- sures Genebrard, as nimis addictus rebus Hebraicis. 2“ Hieron. Ep. 7. ad Laetam. Accensa lucerna reddere sacrificium vespertinum. 29 Hilar. in Psal. cxI. p. 330. Non enim sanguine et holo- caustis nos, in quos consummatio saeculorum devenit, sacri- ficamus Deo: sed quod sacrificium vespertinum placitum sit, audiamus Dominum—-—Hoc sacrificium vespertinum, id est, temporum novissimorum est. In hoc manus elevandae sunt: quia istiusmodi orationibus jam ab initio mundi bene- dictis Dei, regni cmlestis praeparata possessio est. 8° Euseb. de Laud. Constant. Orat. p. 659. Tris cil/(zines Kai Xo'ymds .S'vo'iae 'rds 5L’ sizxt'bu. Vid. cle Vit. Constant. lib. 4. cap. 45. Guo'iats a’uaiiwts, &c. CHAP. I. 571 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. fices of Christians are their prayers and praises," and reading of the Scriptures, and psalms and hymns before meals, and at their meals, and at bed- time, and in the night. And there are hundreds of passages in the ancients, both of public and private prayers, to the same purpose, besides what is said of the sacrifice of the eucharist, or communion ser- vice, of which we shall have reason to say some- thing more upon another occasion. Here it is sufficient to have hinted the grounds, upon which the ancients gave the general name of sacrifice to all parts of Divine service. See,“ 6. Another name, though neither so And mm‘m‘mt‘" ancient nor so common as the former, is that of sacramenta, which in some authors signi- fies not what we now call sacraments, but the order or manner of performing Divine oflices, and that as well the prayers and service in general, as the parti- cular offices of administering baptism and the Lord’s supper. For the word sacramentum, answering to the Greek pvqfiplov, is a word of a large extent, de- noting not only the proper sacraments, but all sacred ceremonies and usages of the church, that have any thing of symbolical or spiritual significancy in them, representing something more to the understanding than appears to the outward senses; and in a more restrained, though not the strictest sense, it denotes the manner or method of performing Divine offices in the church, whether relating to the sacraments properly so called, or any other parts of Divine ser- ' vice, as the prayers, hymns, lessons, in morning or evening service. In this sense, it is observed by learned men,32 that the book of Divine ofiices com- posed by Gregory the Great for the use of the R0- man church, bears the title of Liber Sacramento- rum, The Book of Sacraments, that is, a book or method for performing Divine offices in the church. And Gelasius did the same thing before him under the title of Codex Sacramentarius, lately published by Thomasius at Rome, 1680. And Gennadiusas says, Musaeus, a presbyter of Marseilles, composed Volumen Sacramentorum, a large Book of Sacra- ments, that is, Divine ofiices, to direct what lessons, and psalms, and hymns were to be used in the com- munion service, according to the seasons of the year, and what prayers and thanksgivings were to make up the service of the church. And it is the opinion of two very learned men, Menardus and Bi- shop Stillingfieet,“ that both St. Austin and St. Ambrose give the name of Sacramenta to the books of liturgic otlices used in their time. And they ob- serve that the old Missal published by Illyricus, bears the name of Ordo Sacramentorum, which can mean nothing but the manner of performing Di- vine offices in the administration of the eucharist and other parts of public worship. These oflices are by other writers styled Cursus ecclesiastz'cus, the order or course of Divine oflices. For un- der this title, Gregory Turonensis is said to have composed a book, De Cursibus Ecclesiasticis, for the use of the Gallican church, which is now lost; but he himself “5 mentions it in his history. And Bishop Usher86 cites an ancient manuscript out of the Cotton library, which says, that Germanus and Lupus brought Ordinem Cursus Gallorum, the Gal- lican liturgy, into Britain with them. And this was the liturgy of the British churches for some ages, till by degrees the Cursus Romanus was brought in upon them. Bede says,87 In the time of Pope Aga- tho, J oannes Abbas, the Roman precentor, was sent over to settle the Roman cursus, or psalmody for the whole year, according to the usage and way of St. Peter’s church at Rome. And the council of Calchuth,88 some time after Bede, speaks of the liturgy under the same title, ordering all churches at the canonical hours reverently to perform their cursus. And Mabillon39 cites the Lives of Walaricus and Senericus, where there is frequent mention of the Cursus Gallicanus. Among the Greek writers we sel- dom meet with any of these names, but they usually style all holy oflices, and all parts of Divine service, by the general name Of Aetrovpyia, and iepovp- yia, liturgy, and sacred service. Though liturgy in its extended sense denotes any public office or minis- tration, as the apostle uses it, Phil. ii. 30, and 2 Cor. ix. 12, for the ministration of charity; and ecclesi— astical writers do the same, often applying it both to civil and sacred functions, as to the ofiice of a ma- gistrate or a bishop, as Casaubon“ shows at large; yet in a more limited sense it is put to signify those sacred oflices which make up the several parts of And cursus eccle- siastzcus. 3' Clem. Alex. Strom. 7. lib. p. 860. Ed. Oxon. Gvo'ial. 'rq'i Gsq'i, et'lxai 're Kai. ail/al., Kai. ai. 7rpd 'rfis és'uio'sws a’u'ret'lgus 'rd'w ypa¢6m, &c. Vid. Cassian. Instit. lib. 3. c. 3. Conc. Aurelian. 3. can. 23. Martin. Bracarensis Capitul. c. 63. 32 Menard. Not. in Sacrament. Gregor. p. I. et Stilling- fleet, Orig. Britau. p. 225. 33 Gennad. de Scriptor. cap. 79. Composuit Sacramen- torum egregium et non parvum Volumen, per membra qui- dem pro opportunitate ofliciorum et temporum, pro lectio- num textu, psalmorumque serie et decantatione discretum, &c. Id. cap. 78. de Voconio. ComposuitSacramentorum Volumen. Sect. 8. The names A6‘- Toup'yz'a, 'Lepoup- 7m, iepd, and uvqo'yw'yt'a, most usual in the Greek church. 8‘ Menard. ibid. Stillingfleet, ubi supra. 35 Greg. Turon. Hist. lib. lO. cap. ult. De Cursibus Ec- clesiasticis unum librum condidi. 3‘ Usser. de Primord. Eccles. p. 185. 3’ Bede, Hist. lib. 4. c. 18. Quatenus in monasterio suo cursum canendi annuum, sicut ad Sanctum Petrum Roma: agebatur, edoceret. 38 Cone. Calchuthens. can. 7. Conc. t. 6. p. 1865. Ut om- nes ecclesiae publicae canonicis horis cursum suum cum re- verentia habeant. 39 Mabil. de Cursu Gallican. p. 420. 4° Casaub. Exercit. in Baron. 16. n. 4]. p. 471. 572 BOOK XIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Divine worship, as prayers, reading, preaching, and administration of the sacraments. But it is never used, as the Romanists would appropriate it, for the business of sacrificing only. The council of Ephesus speaks both of evening“ and morning liturgies, which doubtless mean evening and morn- ing prayers only. And so Casaubon observes, that J ustinian‘2 takes it for the office of reading the Scripture as well as administering the eucharist, when he says of a certain monastery, that the Di- vine liturgy was performed in it, as it was used to be in the churches, both by reading the Holy Scrip- tures and receiving the holy communion. And Antiochus‘la applies the name of liturgy, not only to morning prayer, but also to the service of their midnight assemblies. Neither of which was in his time the ordinary hours of the communion service. So that Erasmus and others are governed more by prejudice than reason, who would have that pas- sage Of Acts Xiii. 2, Aurovpyoz'w'rwv ar’ird'w, to be rendered, sacrificantz'bus z'llz's, as if there were no Di- vine service without sacrifice in their notion of it; when yet the Vulgar translation renders it minister- ing, and the old Syriac and Arabic, as Beza ob- serves, have it praying; which is agreeable to the notion of liturgy for Divine service. Yet when the epithet of mystica was added to liturgz'a, then it commonly signified the communion service. As when Theodoret says, that the salutation of St. Paul, 2 Cor. xiii. 14, “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,” &c., is the beginning of the mystical liturgy,44 he means the communion oflice, where this form of salutation was always used. And so in the Cle- mentina Epitome,45 the sacred liturgy denotes the service of the altar, which came after the sz’zxfiv rd'rv iepdiv iipvwv, prayers used in psalmody, or the ser- vice of the catechumens. And it is Bona’s observ- ation‘6 out of Vincentius Riccardus," that except the words sacred, or mystical, be added to the name liturgy, it is never to be taken for the sacrifice of the altar, but for some other part of Divine service: though, I think, this is more than can be fairly proved. As on the other hand, when the epithet of mystical is added, it does not always, but only for the most part, as I said before, mean the eucharis- tical service. For the service of baptism was ever esteemed a mystical service, as well as that of the eucharist. And the name pvqaywyia, communion in the sacred mysteries, is upon that account frequent- ly given by St. Chrysostom,48 Theodoret,‘°and others, to baptism, as well as the Lord’s supper; as may be seen at large in Suicerus’s” Collections upon that subject. It is certain the author under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite, uses the title of mystagogz'a, as well when he is describing the cere- monies and service of baptism, as the eucharist: and Cyril’s Mystagogical Catechisms are equally an exposition of the rites observed in administering baptism and confirmation, as of those of the other sacrament; these being the two great mystical ser- vices of the Christian church. The names ispd, ispovpyia, and Smaia, are all words of the same im- portance: they most commonly signify the commu- nion service, or the sacrifice of prayers at the altar. But sometimes they denote the offices of baptism, preaching, reading the Scripture, and psalmody; these being the spiritual sacrifices of Christians. It is certain the apostle calls preaching the gospel by the name of ispovp-yia, Rom. xv. 16, and the conver- sion of the Gentiles thereby, the offering them up or sacrificing them to God. Upon which words Chrysostom 5‘ observes, That the apostle does not _ call this service barely Aa'rpu'a, but Aetrovp'yia, and ispovpyia, sacrifice, or sacred service. For this is my priesthood, to preach and publish the gospel; this the sacrifice that I offer to God. And St. Ba- sil52 'ves the same names of is ov ia and Susie: to 9 Pl’ , the duty of praise and thanksgiving: “ I will offer unto thee the sacrifice of praise.” And we have seen before (sect. 5.) how the evening prayer is commonly styled sacrgficz'um vespertz'num, evening sacrifice, by the Latin writers. It is further to be observed, that as the Latins, by the names missa, cur- sus, ordo, and oficz'um, mean not only the Divine worship itself, but also the books con- taining the method and prescriptions for the regular performance of it, which we usually call set forms of prayer; so the Greeks sometimes understand the same thing by the name of liturgy; and that not only when they speak of the forms of administering the sacraments, but of any other parts of Divine service. It is plain the author of the Constitutions58 takes the word in this sense, when he applies it to ' Sect. 9. Liturgy some- times taken for set forms of prayer. ‘1 Conc. Ephes. Epist. Synod. ad Imperat. ap. Casaubon. ibid. Tr‘zs éo'vrspwds fi 'rl‘zs e'wewds Ast'rep'yias. ‘2 Justin. Novel. 7. ‘Ispd 'ye'yovs Aat'rap'yia——q-5w "re S'st'wv lillCl'YLllll-IO'KO’Lé-UIDU 'ypatpdiu, 'rfis “re iepiis Kai dfirifi'ra pte'radtdoptévns Icowwvias. ‘3 Antioch. Hom. '19. Bibl. Patr. G. L. t. 1. p. 1056. 'EEé- 'yetpov finds '1rpds 'rds uvlc'rspwds Kai éwtiwds Aswep'ysias. “ Theod. Ep. 146. p. 1032. 'Eu 'n'a'zo'ats "rat's imchno'itus 'rfis ,uvqtm'js Asm-ap'yt'as 'rrpooz'hrov. “5 Clementina Epitome de Gestis Petri, ap. Coteler. t. 1. p. 796. TE 'n'a'rpuipxe 'rhv iepo‘w firm-sh s'a'av'ros Aerrspyiav. 4“ Bona, Rer. Liturg. lib. 1. cap. 3. n. 3. 4’ Riccard. Comment. in Proclum de Tradit. Missae. ‘8 Chrys. Hom. 21. t. 1. ad Popul. Antioch. p. 272. ‘9 Theod. in cap. 1. Canticorum. 5° Suicer. Thesaur. voce Mvqa'yw'yia. 5' Chrys. Horn. 29. in Rom. p. 302. 06x dvrhc'bs ka'rpei’au Ae'ywv, cihhd Ast'rep'yiau Kai iepep'yiau' aii'rn 'yz‘rp plot iepwo'dun, 'rd Knpri'r'rsw Kai Ka'ra'y'ya'hhsw' 'rdv'rnu 'n'poo- ¢€pw *rr‘pu 311010211. 52 Basil. in Psal. CXV. p. 275. ‘Ispsp'yfio'w o'oL 'rfiu 'rfjs air/screws Svo'iau. 53 Constit. lib. 8. cap. 6. 'H S'si'a Au'rovp'yia, £11 'n'poa- quinine-ts r'nrsp 'rii'w Ka'rnxovpe'vwv. CHAP. I. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 573 the forms of prayer then made for the catechumens. And Casaubon observes,54 That all those forms of worship which go under the names of Peter, James, Andrew, Chrysostom, and Basil, bear the name of liturgies, which the Latins call ordo, and Ojicz'um, and the modern Greeks, a’xokoveia. These were sometimes‘ also, among the ancient Greek writers, termed ez'zxd'm dlarcigug, the order of prayers ; which is the name that Nazianzcn gives the liturgy of St. Basil,55 composed by him by the direction of his bishop, whilst he was presbyter of Cmsarea; and those forms and orders of Divine worship collected by the author of the Constitutions, bear the same title, &a-rdEag. In Chrysostom they are styled 116- pm, the rules or appointments of the church; and the prayers particularly are distinguished into two sorts of forms, both by him56 and the council of Laodicea,57 the one called ef'rxai rcarnxovpévwv, the prayers of the catechumens, and the other, U’Jxai moniiv, the prayers of the faithful, or believers. But I shall say no more of liturgies here, considered as set forms or prescriptions of worship, because they will come to be discoursed of more fully here- after in their proper place. There is one general name more, This at first a which the first writers use to denote 52255:, “his. :1’? all sorts of public prayers, but the :Qgiihidiiifi; middle ages have appropriated 1t to a ififiiiiiigjfiiiilis particular form of worship, that is, mgatms‘ litanies, in Greek called Arr-avatar, and Are-at: in Latin, supplicationes, and rogatz'ones. These words, in their original signification, are but another name for prayers in general, of whatever kind, that either were made publicly in the church, or by any private person. Eusebius, speaking of Constantine’s custom of making his solemn addresses to God in his tent, before he went out to battle, says, He en- deavoured to render God propitious to him by sup- plications and litanies,“ that he might obtain his favour, assistance, and direction in his enterprises. And again, he says,59 A little before his death he spent some time in the house of prayer, making supplications and litanies to God. In which places, litany seems to be a general name, and not to in- tend any particular sort of prayers. So Chrysostom also uses the word litany, when he says60 to his people, To-morrow I shall go forth with you to make our litany, that is, the public service. And again,“ speaking of the solemn form of words, Pas: nobis, Sect. 10. Of‘ litanies. Peace be with you, he says, The bishop used it in all offices when he first entered the church, when he made the prayers and litanies, and when he preach- ed. And Arcadius, in one of his laws 62 made against heretics about the same time, takes litany in the same sense for prayers in general, when he forbids heretics to hold profane assemblies in the city, either by night or by day, to make their litany. Where it is plain, his intent was, not to prohibit heretics from making any particular sort of prayers, but all prayers in general within the city, and to cut off all opportunities-of meeting either by night or by day for that purpose: and so Gothofred un- derstands him. For this law was made with a direct view to the Arian assemblies for psalmody in their night stations, which had occasioned some tumults and murder in the city, as Socrates63 and Sozomen inform us. So that the morning hymns, and psalm- ody, and prayers then came all under the general name of litany, and the Arians were forbidden in this sense to make any litanies within the city by this law of Arcadius. What Hamon L’Estrange“ alleges out of St. Austin, Cyprian, and Tertullian, proves nothing, but that there were always prayers made in the church to implore God’s mercy and fa- vours; which no one ever denied: neither is the name litany used by any of them. It is more to the purpose, what St. Basil$5 says to the church of Neocaesarea, where Gregory Thaumaturgus was bishop; that though in Gregory’s time they had no litanies, yet afterward, before St. Basil’s time, they had admitted the use of them. By which argument, he defends the nocturnal prayers, and psalmody, and vigils, against those who objected that they were not used in St. Gregory’s time. For neither were lita- nies used in his time, and yet now they were in use, and no one objected novelty against them. This shows, that St. Basil takes litanies for a peculiar sort of prayers lately set up in the church. For it cannot be doubted, but that they had prayers before, though not of this particular kind. Some think, that litanies, in this new limited sense, were first introduced by Mamercus, bishop of Vienna in France, about the year 450. But St. Basil’s testimony proves them to be earlier in the East. And it is a mistake in those who assert Ma- mercus to be the first author of them in the West: for Sidonius Apollinaris, who lived in the time of Mamercus, and wrote some epistles to him, says 5‘ Casaubon. Exerc. 16. in Baron. n. 41. p. 472. ‘5 Naz. Orat. 20. in Land. Basil. p. 340. 5‘ Chrys. Horn. 2. in 2 Cor. p. 740. 5’ Conc. Laodic. can. 19. 58 Euseb. Vit. Const. lib. 2. cap. 14. Tdu Gsdu ilcs'rnpiats Kai Am'a'is DwiOt’lfLillOQ, &c. 59 Id. lib. 4. cap. 61. Ebm'npt'rp éudtaerpigbas 01mg, 1108* q-nplous sr’ixo'zs "rs Kai M'rauaiac dué'n-sp'lrs 'rq'i Gaqi'. 6° Chrys. Horn. antequam iret in exilium, t. 4. p. 965. Aifpwu sis )u'rausiou e’Eahsifo'o/ial. use’ {Indira 6‘ Chrys. Horn. 3. in Colos. p. 1338. 'Eu 'ra'is sxxhnaiats slpfiunv, Eu 'ra'is Euxa'is, éu 'ra'is M'rai's, &c. “2 Cod. Theod. lib. 16. Tit. 5. de Haereticis, Leg. 30. Interdicatur his omnibus, ad litaniam faciendam intra civi- tatem noctu vel interdiu profanis coire conventibus. 6* Socrat. lib. 6. cap. 8. Sozomen. lib. 8. cap. 8. 6‘ L’Estrange’s Alliance of Divine Offices, cap. 4. p. 100. ‘5 Basil. Ep. 63. ad Neocaes. p. 97. 'AXN 068%. ai 7n- Taus'iat s'rri I‘pnyopiou, {is blue'is uiiu é'lrt'rndst'zs're. 574 Boox XIII ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. expressly, that he was not the first inventor of them, but only of the Rogation fast days before Ascension, to which he applied the use of these litanies, which were in being long before, though not observed with such solemnity, nor fixed to any stated times, but Only used as exigences required, to deprecate any impending judgment. This he declares at large in an epistle to Mamercus himself,66 styling him the author of the Rogation days, and showing both the reasons of their institution, and the manner of ob- serving them, with ardent supplications and fast- ings, in imitation of the Ninevites, to avert the threatening judgments of fire, or earthquakes, or inundations, or hostile invasions. But that we may not think Mamercus was the first author of litanies, because he applied their use particularly to the R0- gation days, he speaks more expressly in another epistle,67 where he says, that Mamercus indeed first brought in the observation of the Rogation solemnities, which spread by his example: but sup- plications or litanies were in use before, when men had occasion to pray against excessive rains or droughts ; though they were observed but in a cold and disorderly manner, without fasting or full as- semblies: but those which he instituted, were ob- served with fasting, and praying, and singing, and weeping. What Sidonius says here, proves that Mamercus was the author of the Rogation fast in France; but litanies were in use before: and if Sa- varo judge right of one of St. Austin’s homilies,68 the Rogation fast must have been observed long before in the African churches. For among his homilies de Tempore, there is one upon the vigil of the Ascension, where he speaks of a fast69 observed for three days before Ascension day, advising all men to keep those days with fasting, prayer, and psalmody. However, from the time of Mamercus we are sure these Rogation days and litanies were celebrated with great solemnity in the church, being frequently mentioned by Alcimus Avitus,7o Caesarius Arelatensis,"l Eucherius Lugdunensis junior,"2 and Gregory of Tours,78 to name no later writers. The first council of Orleans, anno 511, established them'”L by a decree, ordering the three days before Ascension to be kept a fast with abstinence after the manner of Lent, and with rogations or litanies, and that on these days servants should rest from their labours. In the Spanish churches they defer- red these rogations to the week after Pentecost: for they kept to the old rule of the ancient church, not to have any fast during the fifty days between Easter and Whitsuntide; therefore, as Walafridus Strabo observes of them,75 they would not observe the Rogation fast in the time that the Bridegroom was with them. But by an order of the council of Girone,76 these litanies and this fast was put off to the Week after Whitsuntide. And they ordered a second litany to be used on the first day of No- vember. The fifth council of Toledo77 appointed another such litany and fast to be celebrated yearly for three days, commencing on the thirteenth day of December. The sixth council of Toledo78 con- firmed this decree about two years after, anno 638, and made it a general rule for all the churches of Spain and Gallicia, and Gallia Narbonensis, which was at this time under the government of the Go- thic king Chintillan. And in the seventeenth coun- cil of Toledo,79 anno 694, under King E gicanes, amore general decree was made, That such litanies should be used in every month throughout the year. And so “6 Sidon. lib. 7. Ep. 1. ad Mamercum. Solo tamen in- vectarum, te auctore, Rogationum palpamur auxilio, quibus inchoandis, instituendisque populus Arvernus coepitinitiari, &c. 67 Id. lib. 5. Ep. 14. Rogationum nobis solennitatem pri- mus Mamercus pater et pontifex, reverentissimo exemplo, utilissimo experimento, invenit, instituit, invexit. Erant quidem prius (quod salva fidei pace sit dictum) vagae, te- pentes, infrequentesque, utque sic dixerim, oscitabundae supplicationes, quae saepe interpellantium prandiorum obici- bus hebetabantur, maxime aut imbres aut serenitatem depre- caturae :—-—-In his autem, quas suprafatus summus sacerdos nobis et protulit pariter et contulit, jej unatur, oratur, psalli- tur, fietur. 68 Savaro, Not. in Sidon. lib. 5. Ep. 14. p. 354. 69 Aug. Hom. 173. de Temp. t. 10. p. 338. Sine dubio peccatorum suorum vulnera diligit, qui in istis tribus diebus, jejunando, orando, et psallendo medicamenta sibi spiritualia non requirit. 7° Avitus, Hom. de Rogationibus. 71 Caesar. Hom. 33. 72 Eucher. Hom. de Litaniis. "3 Greg. Turon. lib. 2. cap. 34. "4 Conc. Aurelian. I. can. 27. Rogationes, id est, litanias, ante ascensionem Domini placuit celebrari, ita ut preemie- sum triduanum jejunium in Dominicae ascensionis solen- nitate solvatur, &c. 75 Strabo, de Oflic. Eccles. cap. 28. Hispani autem, propter hoc quod scriptum, Non possunt filii sponsi lugere, quamdiu cum illis est sponsus, infra Quinquagesimam Pas- chac recusantes jejunare, litanias suas post Pentecosten po- suerunt. 76 Cone. Gerunden. can. 2. Ut litaniae post Pentecosten a quinta feria usque in sabbatum celebrentur. So it is in the title of the canon: and in the body of it, Ut per hoc triduum abstinentia celebretur. Ibid. can. 3. Item Secunda. litania facienda est kalendis Novembris. 7’ Conc. Tolet. 5. can. I. Ut a die iduum Decembrium litania triduo ubique annua successione peragatur, &c. 78 Cone. Tolet. 6. can. 2. Universalis authoritate cense- mus concilii, ut hi dies litaniarum, quae in synodo praemissa. sunt instituti, annuo recursu omni observatione habeantur celeberrimi. 79 Conc. Tolet. 17. can. 6. Quando priscorum patrum in- stitutio, per totum annum, per singulorum mensium cursum, litaniarum vota decreverit persolvenda—-—dccernimus, nt deinceps per totum annum, in cunctis duodecim mensibus, per 1miversas Hispanias et Galliarum provincias pro statu ecclesias Dei, pro incolumitate principis nostri, atque salva- tione populi, et indulgentia totius peccati, eta cunctorum fidelium cordibus expulsione diaboli, exomologeses votis gliscentibus celebrentur. . CHAP. I. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 575 ANTIQUITIES OF THE by degrees these solemn supplications came to be used weekly, on Wednesdays and Fridays, the an- cient stationary days, in all churches. In the mean time, Gregory the Great instituted some such rogations at Rome, and one particularly on the twenty-fifth day of April, which goes by the name of litam'a septg'formz's, because he ordered the church to go in procession in seven distinct classes; first the clergy, then the laymen, next the monks, after them the virgins, then the married women, next the widows, and last of all the poor and the children. This is mentioned both by Gregory80 himself and Walafridus Strabo,all who give it the name of litam'a major: whence some have been led into a mistake, to think the Roman litanies were distinguished by the name of the greater litanies from those of Mamercus, which they call the less. So Hamon L’Estrange,82 and others, in their accounts of these things. But the French writers do not allow of this distinction. Cellotius 8’ says, The rogation or litam'a of Mamercus, was always dignified with the title of Zz'tam'a major by their old writers, as well as that of Gregory, and that Gregory’s litany was of little use among them. It is certain, the council of Mentz,“ and the Capitulars of Charles the Great,"5 which re- peat the words of that council, applied the name of litam'a major to their own rogations before Ascen- sion. And Cellotius says, Gaulterus Aurelianensis and Strabo both give it the same title. But still he does not tell us what they mean by the litam'a minor, the lesser litany, in contradistinction to the greater. If the reader will take my conjecture, it is no more but the known form, Kyrz'e, elez'son, as the Latins read it, from the Greek, Kl'lpti éxénaov, Lord, have mercy upon us, or, Lord, have mercy upon them, if they were praying for others. As this was the con- stant response made by the people to each petition of their larger supplications for the catechumens and others (as we shall see hereafter); so it was used sometimes by itself, in all their offices, as a shorter form of supplication: and then it had the nature of a litany by itself, and was not a part of a larger prayer. This is evident from the order made in the council of Vaison,88 for introducing the use of it into the French churches: Whereas, say they, it is a very useful and agreeable custom in the Roman church, and all the provinces of Italy and the East, Sect. 11. Of the distinction between greater and lesser litanies. to use the frequent repetition of the Kyrz'e, elez'son, Lord, have mercy upon us, with great affection and contrition; we therefore decree, That the same holy custom be introduced into all our churches, both at morning and evening prayer, and in the commu- nion service. The Greeks usually said, Lord, have mercy upon us, without adding the other part, Christ, have mercy upon us: but the Latins used both clauses, and repeated them alternately, as we now do, first the minister, and then the people; whereas by the Greeks the supplication was made by the common voice of all together. This difference is noted by Gregory the Great ;87 but it does not detract from our observation, but rather confirms it, that this was a short form of supplication used one way or other in all churches, and that as a part of all their daily offices ; whence it borrowed the name of the lesser litany, in opposition to the greater litanies, which were distinct, complete, and solemn services, adapted to particular times, or extraordinary occa- sions. I must note further, that the greater litanies are sometimes termed exomologeses, confessions ;88 because fasting, and weeping, and mourning, and confession of sins, was usually joined with supplica- tion to avert God’s wrath, and reconcile him to a sinful people. Sometimes to these solemn suppli- Sec, ,2_ cations they added processions, which 0mg“ pmesslm‘" at first had nothing of harm or superstition in them: for they were only of the same nature with their processions at a funeral, when they carried a corpse with the solemnity of psalmody to its interment. They sometimes made their processions, and some- times their litanies, as occasion required, in the open field: but here was no pomp of relics, nor exposing of the eucharist to adoration, in such solemnities; they only carried the cross, as they did also in some of their night processions for psalmody, as the badge of their profession, before them. Of this indeed there are some instances as early as Chrysostom; for it is noted in his Life by Palladius,89 that his enemies trampled under foot the sign of the cross, which the people carried on their shoulders as they made their litanies in the field. And in those vigils which he set up at Constantinople in opposition to the Arians, the historians“ say, they had silver crosses given them by the empress for this purpose. And the laws of Justinian 9' expressly provided, That 8° Greg. lib. ll. Ep. 2. 8‘ Strabo de Ofiic. Eccles. cap. 28. 8*’ L’Estrange, Alliance, cap. 4. p. 100. 83 Cellot. Not. in Capitula Gualteri Aurelianensis. Conc. . 8. p. 649. 8‘ Conc. Moguntin. an. 813. can. 33. 85 Carol. Capitular. lib. 5. c. 85. 8“ Conc. V-asens. 2. can. 3. Quia tam in sede apostolica, quam etiam pertotas Orientis atque Italia: provincias, dulcis ct nimium salubris consuetudo intromissa. est, ut Kyrie, elei- son, frequentiuscum grandi atfectu ac complmctione dicatur: placuit etiam nobis, ut in omnibus ecclesiis nostris ista con- n- suetudo sancta, ct. ad matutinum, et ad missas, et ad ves- peram, Deo propiciante, intromittatur. 8'' Greg. lib. 7. Ep. 64. ad Joan. Syracusan. ‘*8 Vid. Conc. Moguntin. can. 32. 89 Palladius, Vit. Chrysost. cap. 15. p. 27. in Appendicc, t. 2. Crucis signum venerabile, quod illi ferentes in hume- ris, litanies in campo agebant, pedibus suis concultautes. 9° Socrat. lib. 6. cap. 8. Sozomen. lib. 8. cap. 8. 91 Justin. Novel. 123. cap. 3'2. Omnibus laicis interdici- mus litanias facere sine sanctis episcopis, et qui sub eis sunt reverendissimis clericis,———sed et ipsas honorandas cruces 576 Boox XIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. as these litanies should not be celebrated without the bishop or the clergy; so the crosses to be used in these solemnities should not be reposit-ed in any places but the churches, nor be carried by any but such as were appointed. And because in these so- lemn processions some were inclined to appear in pomp unsuitable to the occasion, with gay clothing, and on horseback; therefore both these things were particularly forbidden. Sidonius92 notes it as a great absurdity for men to appear, castorz'natz' ad lz'tam'as, dressed up in their rich beaver cloths at a litany, because sackcloth and ashes were more be- coming such solemnities, which were intended for fasting, and mourning, and supplication, and hu- miliation, and confession of sins, after the example of the Ninevites, in their solemn addresses to God. And for this reason the canons98 forbade any one to appear on horseback or in rich apparel at the ro- gation solemnities, but rather discalceate in sack- cloth and ashes, unless he had the excuse of in- firmity to hinder him. For these rogations were intended to implore God’s mercy in the most humble manner; and, with the most ardent affections of soul, to beseech him to avert all sicknesses, and plagues, and tribulations ; to repel the evils of pestilence, war, hail, and drought; to compose the temper of the air, so that it may be for the health of men’s bodies, and fertility of the earth; that he would keep all the elements in due order and har- mony, and grant men peaceable times; as Euche- rius”4 relates the chief heads of them in his sermon upon this subject. Whereas, yet, we may observe, no prayers or intercessions were made to saints or angels, as in the modern litanies of the Romish church, but to God only, as shall be showed at large in the following chapter. CHAPTER II. THAT THE DEVOTIONS OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH WERE PAID TO EVERY PERSON OF THE BLESSED TRINITY. HAVING thus distinguished the ambi- 3 ct. I. - . hProott'goéhthetwor- gmty of the names of the ancient 8 1p O 115 as . ' the Son of God. or worship, and settled the true mean- :lge sglcond person of _ . _ iniheiflfidcgggg, mg of them, our next inquiry must be into the object of the Christian wor- ship, to see what persons they were to whom they paid their devotion. That which makes this in- quiry necessary, which otherwise might have been omitted, is the prevalency of two contrary errors, too much reigning in these later ages; one of which asserts, that the Father alone was the sole object of true Divine worship, and not the Son or Holy Ghost ; and the other, that saints and angels had also a share in it. To show the falseness of both which pretences, I shall a little detain the reader with the proofs and evidences of the contrary assertions. And first to show, that Christ, as the Son of God, and the second person of the ever blessed Trinity, was the object of Divine worship in all ages, we will begin with the original of Christian worship, and carry the inquiry through the three first centuries. For the first age, the Scripture is sufficient evidence of the Christians’ practice. For not to insist on the precept of honouring the Son, as they honoured the Father; or the form of baptism, in which they are commanded to join the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in one act of worship; or the injunction to believe in the Son, as they believed in the Father; with many other acts of internal worship peculiar to God alone; I only argue from their example and practice. St. Stephen, the protomartyr, when he was sealing his confession with his blood, breathed out his last in a prayer to Christ, “Lord Jesus, receive my spi- ritz” and, “Lord, lay not this sin to their charge,” Acts vii. 59, 60. St. Paul professes he never baptized any but only in the name of Christ, 1 Cor. i. 13. And his common forms of blessing were with invo- cation of the name of Christ : “ Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord J c— sus Christ;” and, “ The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all :” as the solemn forms run almost in all his epistles, both in the be- ginning and the conclusion of them. Nay, so com- mon was this practice, that among other titles of the believers, at their first rise and appearance in the world, they were distinguished by the character of those that called on the name of Christ, Acts ix. 14, 21; 1 Cor. i. 2; 2 Tim. 22. Some critics, I know, would have the phrase, éWLKCZAOI'JILEVOL To 5110;“: Xpwro'fi, to be taken passively only for those who were named by the name of Christ, that is, Christians; but this criticism is of no weight; for they were called invokers, or worshippers of Christ, before the name Christian was known in the world: for this name was not used till some time after St. Paul’s conversion, when, as St. Luke says expressly, Acts xi. 26, “the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.” But they were worshippers of him be- fore, and therefore were distinguished by the cha- (cum quibus et in litaniis ingrediuntur) non alibi nisi in venerabilibus locis reponi, &c. "2 Sidon. lib. 5. Ep. 7. ad Thaumastum. p. 327. Libenter incedunt armati ad epulas, albati ad exequias, pelliti ad ecclesias, pullati ad nuptias, castorinati ad litanias. 93 Cone. Mogunt. can. 33. Sicut sancti patres nostri in- stituerunt, non equitando, nec preciosis vestibus induti, sed discalceati, cinere et eilicio induti, nisi iufirmitas impedie- rit. Vide Burchard. lib. l3. cap. 7. 9‘ Eucher. Hom. de Litaniis. CHAP. II. 577 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. racter of the men that called upon his name. Many other such like evidences are obvious to any one that reads the New Testament: I only add that of Revelation v. 8-13, where the church in heaven and earth together is represented as offering both prayers and hymns to Christ : “ When he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints. And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou ‘wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; and hast made us unto our God kings and priests : and we shall reign on the earth. And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the num- ber of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands; saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to re- ceive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing. And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sit- teth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.” 8m ,_ ‘We have here seen the model of the 5'51’? $213531? worship of Christ, as begun and set- my' tled in the practice of the church in the first age. And we shall find it continued in the same manner in those that followed immediately after. For Pliny, who lived in the beginning of the second century, and, as a judge under Trajan, took the confessions of some revolting Christians, says, They declared to him, they were1 used to meet on a certain day before it was light, and among other parts of their worship, sing a hymn to Christ, as to their God. Which is a plain indication of their worship of Christ on the Lord’s day. Not long after this lived Polycarp, who2 joins God the Father and the Son together in his prayers for grace and benediction upon men: The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ himself, the eternal High Priest, the Son of God, build you up in faith and truth, and in all meekness, to live without anger, in patience, in long-suffering, and forbearance, and give you a lot and part among the saints, and to us with you, and to all them that are under heaven, who shall believe in Jesus Christ our Lord, and in his Father, who raised him from the dead. And so he begins his epistle, Mercy and peace from God Almighty, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, be multiplied unto you. And when he came to his martyrdom, he made a prayer to God at the stake, before he was burnt, concluding it with this doxology to the whole Trinity:a I praise thee, I bless thee, I glorify thee for all things, together with the eternal and heavenly Jesus Christ, thy beloved Son; with whom unto thee, and the Holy Spirit, be glory both now and for ever, world with- out end. Amen. When Polycarp was dead, the church of Smyrna wrote a circular epistle to other churches, to give an account of his sufferings, wherein they relate this remarkable occurrence, that as soon as he was dead, the Jews suggested to the heathen judge, that he should not suffer the Christians to take Polycarp’s body and bury it, lest they should‘ leave their crucified Master, and be- gin to worship this other. Not considering, says the epistle, that we can never either forsake the worship of Christ, who suffered for the salvation of all those who are saved in the whole world, the just for the unjust; or worship any other. For we wor- ship him as being the Son of God; but the martyrs we only love, as they deserve, for their great affection to their King and Master, and as being disciples and followers of their Lord, whose partners and fellow disciples we desire to be. This is an unanswerable testimony, to prove both the Divine worship of Christ, as the true Son of God, and that no martyr or other saint was worshipped in those days. Not long after this lived Justin Martyr, who, in his second Apology, to wipe off the charge of atheism, brought against them by the heathens, who object- ed to them, That they had cast off the worship of God; answers, That they worshipped and adored still the God of righteousness, and his Son, (that 1 Plin. lib. 10. Ep. 97. Aflirmabant, quod essent soliti stato die ante lucem convenire; carmenque Christo, quasi Deo, dicere secum invicem. 2 Polycarp. Ep. ad Philip.n. l2. Deus autem et Pater Do- mini nostri J esu Christi ; et ipse sempiternus Pontifex, Dei Filius, Christus Jesus, aedificet vos in fide et veritate, et in omni mansuetudine, &c.; et det vobis sortem et partem inter sanctos suos, et nobis vobiscum, et omnibus qui sunt sub coelo, qui credituri sunt in Dominum nostrum J esum Chris- tum et in ipsins Patrem. 9 Martyrium Polycarpi, ap. Coteler. Patr. Apostol. t. 2. p. 199. I'Ispi. ‘train-ram aim?) as, ebho'yiii as, 60861:» as, o'i‘w 'rq'i aiwuiq) Kai. éqrapaviqu 'Inaii XpLs-q'i, ei'ya'rrn'rq'i 0'5 'n-atdi, p.29’ 3; 0'0; Kai. Husépa'n 'A'yiap vi 8650: Kai uiiu, Kai eis- 'roi/s pa'hkou'ras aié'mas' 'Apa'pv. Eusebius, lib. 4. C. 15. ex Epist. Ecclesiae Smyrnensis, reads this with a little variation of the particles: Aid *rfi aiwula a’pxtspe'ws 'Inaé XpLs'Q T5 d'ya- vrn'ré' o'a amides’ 8;’ g O'OL o'i‘w ab'rq'i s'u Hvsélua'n'A'yiqi 1‘) 665a, &c. But this makes no alteration in the ‘sense; for still it concludes with a doxology to the three Divine persons: By whom and with whom unto thee and the Holy Spirit be glory for ever and ever. Amen. 4 Smyrn. Eccles. Epist. ap. Euseb. l. 4'. c. 15. et ap. C0- teler. p. 200. Mi}, cjmo'iv, a’¢e'v'res 'rdv e's'avpwjuéuou, 'ri'i'rov r’z'pgwv'rai o-a'Beo'BaL' d'yvofiv'rss', 31'; fire 'rdu Xpis'dv Tori‘: Icaerahnre'iu dvvno'o'psea, Ton inrép "rile 'rQ' cram-69 K60’pl8 enim awzopévwu o'w'rnpiae qrafio'v'ra, (into/Lou im-ép lipap'rwhilw, are 'é'repriu 'rwa o'éfleo'acn' Frii'rou ydp, Tidy 507a 'ré Gee’, 'n'poo'xvufinav' 'roi‘is 6e pép'rvpac, dis ,uaen'rdg Kai pipn'ra‘ze 'ré Kvpia, d'ya'rrfimeu a’Eiws, &c. 2 P 578 Boox XIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. came from him, and taught both them and the host of good angels, who followed him, and were made like unto him,) as also the Holy Spirit of prophecy:‘ to these they paid a rational and true honour, as they always frankly owned to all such as were disposed to learn. Bellarmine6 very fraudulently urges this place, to prove the worship of angels: as if Justin had said, that they worshipped the Father, the Son, the angels, and the Holy Spirit; whereas he says nothing of the worship of angels, but that the an- gels were taught by the Son, and that the Son, to- gether with the Father and Holy Spirit, were the object of Christian worship. Which he repeats again in his foresaid Apology,7 saying, in answer to the same objection, that they could demonstrate, that as they worshipped God the Creator of all things, so with equal reason they worshipped Jesus Christ in the second place, and the Holy Spirit of prophecy in the third, knowing Jesus Christ to be the Son of the true God. For whereas the heathens objected further, that it was madness in them, next to the immutable and true God, Maker of all things, to give the second place to a crucified man, he tells them, They understood not the mystery of this prac- tice. Which shows, that as they worshipped Christ, so they worshipped him as the true Son of God, and not as a creature: for he tells the emperors a little after,8 they held it unlawful to worship any but God alone. Therefore in their practice they also showed their belief of his true Divinity; since they worshipped him only upon this foundation and supposition, that he was truly God, and not a mere man; and to have done it upon any other supposi- tion, had been gross idolatry by their own confes- sion. Which I wish were duly considered by those who now write against the Divinity of Christ, and absurdly pretend that all the fathers of the three first ages were of their opinion. For this is only to make them guilty of the grossest idolatry, and in- volve them in a monstrous contradiction; whilst they pretended to worship none but God alone, and yet gave Divine honour to one, whom (if our mo- dem representers say true) they did not believe to be truly God by nature, but only a creature. But to go on with the inquiry, as to what con- cerns the object of their worship in practice. Athe- nagoras answers the charge of. atheism, after the same manner as Justin Martyr had done before him: We are no atheists,” who worship the Creator of all things, and his Word that proceedeth from him. Minucius Felix, to another objection, That they worshipped a crucified man, answers, That they were mistaken in the charge; for he whom they worshipped ‘° was God, and not a mere mortal man : miserable is he whose hope is only in man; for his help is at an end, when the life of man is extinct. About this time lived Lucian the heathen, who, in one of his Dialogues, takes notice of the Christian worship. For, bringing in a Christian instructing a catechumen,“ he makes the catechumen ask this question, By whom shall I swear? And he that personates the Christian, answers, By the God that reigns on high, the great, immortal, heavenly God, and the Son of the Father, and the Spirit proceed- ing from the Father, one in three, and three in one. Take these for your Jupiter, imagine this to be your God. Which evidently shows, that Lucian had learned this from the Christian institutions, that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, were the object of their Divine worship. And he elsewhere objects to them the worship of their crucified impostor,l2 as he blasphemously terms our blessed Lord. Not long after Irenmus, speaking of the miracles which the church wrought in his time, particularly in casting out devils, says, She did this ‘8 not by invocation of angels, nor by enchantments, nor by any other wicked piece of curiosity, but by directing her prayers, clean, and pure, and openly, to the God over all; and by invocating the name of Jesus Christ she works miracles for the benefit of men, and not for their seduction. And that this was so, appears further from some of the forms of prayer used then in the church for the energumens in the public service, one of which is recorded by the author of the Con- 5 Justin. Apol. 2. p. 56. ZARA’ élcs'i'miu “rs, Kai "rdv rap’ aim-05 Tidy ékeéu'ra, Kai. dzfio'zfawra filud's 'rafi'ra, Kai 'ro‘v 'rd'w (ihhwv é'rrojue'vwv Kai éEOfLOLOU’LéUtOU rig/(165111 c’t'y'yéhwv o'q'pa'rdu, Husiijuc'z 'rs "rd 'lrpodm'rmdu o'efio'jusda Kai 'n'poa- Kill/017M811, &c. 8 Bellarm. de Beatitud. Sanctor. lib. 1. cap. 13. t. 1. p. 1957. . 7 Justin. Apol. 2. p. 60. T61! dnpwvp'ydv—Kal 'Incrofi Xpw'rdv, Yic‘w airroi'i 705 5117009 9805 paeéu'res, nut in deu- Tépq Xu'ipq i-z'xoucrss, I‘Iueiiuc'z 'rs vrpoclm'rméu éu 'Tpi'ry rro'zigst, fi'n ,us'rd lo'yov 'I'LIudB/LEU, a'w'odeiEo/rev. It. Dial. cum Tryph. p. 302, he styles him Oedv laxvpév Kai 1rpomcvvn- rro‘u, the mighty God that was to be adored. 8 Ibid. p. 64. Gedv [.Léll ,uo'uov 7rpoo'lcvuofipsv, &c. 9 Athenag. Legat. pro Christianis, Bibl. Patr. Gr. Lat. t. l. p. 76. 017K éoyuéu r’iiisot, a’z'yov'rse "rdv 'rrom'riw 'roiide 'roii qrav-rds, Kai Ta» 'n'ap’ air'roii Aé'yov. ‘° Minuc. Dial. p. 88. Quod religioni nostrae hominem noxium et crucem ejus adscribitis, longe de vicinia veritatis erratis, qui putatis Deum credi aut meruisse noxium, aut potuisse terrenum. Nae ille miserabilis, cujus in homine mortali spes omnis innititur: totum enim ej us auxilium cum extincto homine finitur. 1‘ Lucian. Philopatris, prope finem. 'Tiinlue'dou'ra 956v, pé'yau, a’z'pifipo'rov, oi’lpaviwua, Tidy Ha'rpds, Hue-{illa élc Ha'rpds émropsvélueuov, “Ev 5K 'rpu'bv, xai £5 duds’ 'rpt'a, Tafi'ra vépuzs Zv’iua, 'rdv d’ fryoii 6262/. 12 Lucian. de Morte Peregr. p. 277. Téu &IEO'KOAO'ITLO“ ps'uou Ercs'i'uou o'ocpw'n‘pv qrpoo'xvue'lu. 1’ Iren. lib. 2. cap. 57. Nee invocationibus angelicis facit, nec incantationibus, nec aliqua prava curiositate, sed munde et pure et manifeste orationes dirigens ad Dominum, qui omnia fecit, et nomen Domini nostri J esu Christi invocans, virtutes secundum utilitates hominum, sed non ad seduc- tionem perficit. CHAP. II. 579 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. stitutions,“ directed personally to Christ, under the title of the only begotten God, who binds the strong one, that is, the devil: which prayer I need not re- peat here, because the reader may find it at length hereafter ‘5 in the service of the catechumens. About the same time with Irenaeus lived Theo- philus, bishop of Antioch, who, though he does not expressly mention the worship of Christ, yet he ac- knowledges him to be God of God,“ and says the world was made by him: For when the Father said, “ Let us make man in our own image,” he spake this to no other,‘7 but to his own Word and his own Wisdom, that is, the Son and Holy Spirit. Whom he expressly styles by the name of Trinity18 in the Godhead; and says elsewhere, that God is to be worshipped, and nothing ‘9 else besides him, who is the true God, the ordainer of kings; who may be honoured, but not worshipped, because they are only men, and not God. From all which it is easy to infer, that Theophilus thought Christ the object of Divine worship, as the living and true God; and that it would be idolatry to give Divine worship to Christ, upon any other supposition, than that he is true God as well as man. In the same age, Clemens Alexandrinus is an illustrious witness of this practice. For in his ex- hortation2o to the Gentiles, he styles him the living God, that was then worshipped and adored: Believe, says he, O man, in him who is both man and God: believe, O man, in him who suffered death, and yet is adored as the living God. In the end of his Pmdagogue, he himself addresses his prayers to the Son jointly with the Father, in these words: Be merciful to thy children, O Master, O Father, thou Ruler of Israel, O Son, and Father, who are both One, our Lord.21 And in the conclusion of the book, he has this doxology to the whole Trinity: Let us give thanks22 to the only Father and Son, to the Son and the Father, to the Son, our Teacher and Master, with the Holy Spirit; one in all respects; in whom are all thin gs ; by whom all things are one; by whom is eternal existence; whose members we are; whose is the glory and the ages; who is the perfect good, the perfect beauty, all-wise, and all-j ust: to whom he glory, both now and for ever. Amen. Contemporary with Clemens was Athenogenes the martyr, who suffered about the year 196. St. Ba- sil28 says, He composed a sacred hymn, setting forth the glory of the Holy Ghost. From whence we may collect, that it did the same for Christ as the Son of God. The learned Doctor Cave,24 by a little mistake of what St. Basil says, supposes Atheno- genes to have been the author of those two ancient hymns, called the Morning and Evening Hymns, which the reader will find related at length25 here- after, under the titles of the Great Doxology, “ Glory be to God on high,” &c., and the Hymnus Lucernalis. But it is plain from St. Basil, that the hymn of Athenogenes was distinct from these. For he makes no mention of the Morning Hymn, and says expressly of the Evening Hymn, that he knew not who was the author of it. However, it was a hymn of ancient use in the church, addressed immediately to Christ, and containing this doxology to the whole Trinity, 'Ypvoiipw Ha'répa, mi Yiov, icai"Aytov llveiipa 9.505, We laud the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit of God. Which St. Basil urges, as we do here, as a distinct testimony from that of Athenogenes, and as a further instance of the church’s ancient practice in giving Divine honour and worship, not only to the Father, but to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. About the same time, suffered Andronicus the martyr: in the Acts of whose passion it is objected to him by the heathen judge,26 that Christ whom he. invocated and worshipped, was a man that had suf- fered under the government of Pontius Pilate, and that the Acts of his passion were then extant. Their worship of Christ was so well known to the hea- thens, that at every turn, we see, it was objected to them. And their answer was always the same, that they worshipped him indeed, but not as a mere man, but God, the Son of God by nature, and of the same substance with the Father. Which is the answer that Tertullian (who is the last writer of the second age) makes to this objection. . For whereas it was objected,” that they were worshippers of a man, whom all the world knew to be a man, and the Jews had condemned as a man: to this he an- swers,28 not by denying that they worshipped him, but by explaining the reasons and foundation of 1* Constit. lib. 8. cap. 7. ‘5 Book XIV. chap. 5. sect. 7. '8 Theoph. ad AutoIyc. lib. 2. p. 130. 9269 Jul 5 Ao'yos, Kai éK 9.20:7 werpvmbs. 1" Ibid. lib. 2. p. 114. Oa'uc all‘? 5%. ‘TLIIL s’lpmce, I'Ionio'w- p.511, &AX' ii 'rq'i éavrroii Ad'yop, Kai 'rij e'au'roii 25¢iq. ‘8 Ibid. lib. 2. p. 106. Ti'rrrol. Tpuidos T05 9205, Kai. 1'05 Ad'yov aim-05 Kai. 'ri'is Eotpias ail'roi'i. ‘9 Ibid. lib. 1. p. 30. Ozq'i 6% To}? dv'rws Oea‘; Kai. &Anesi' qrpoo'icvvai', &c. 2° Clem. Cohort. ad Gent. p.84. Edit. Oxon. Him-wool), dwepw'rre, dwepdnrrp Kai. 925:‘ 'n't's'euo'ou, dufipw'rre, 'Tqii' 4m. 661111, Kai ‘ITQOO’KUUQLlélMp Geq'i {Eu/'11. 2‘ Id. Peedagog. lib. 3. c. 12. p. 311. "Durex "role o'o'i's, qratda'yw'yé, Ha'rép, fwioxe 'Icrponjh, Tié Kai. IIa-Tip, 2v fipqwo, Kiipte. 22 Ibid. p. eadem. Tq'i ,uo'ucp Haw-pi. Kai Tiq'i, Tia? Kai. Hart-pi, waidaywyq'i Kai. dtdao'lco'thqi Yiq'i, o'iw Kai. 'rq'i 'A'yizp . 7 1 I HUEIJIILGTL' qrc'w'ra 'rdi .iui' iv (9 'rdz writ/Ta, &c. w f1 602a Kai 1161), Kai eis Tails aid'was' 'Apniu. Vid. Strom. lib. 7. cap. 7. p. 851. Ea'fisw é'yxsltsvo'jisfia rrou Aé'yov, &c. 23 Basil. de Spir. Sancto, cap. 29. t. 2. p. 359. 2‘ Cave, Hist. Liter. vol. 1. p. 60. 25 See chap. 10. sect. 9. chap. ll. sect. 5. 26 Acta Andronici, ap. Baron. an. 290. n. 26. Non scis, quem invocas Christum, homiuem queudam factum, sub custodia Pontii Pilati punitum; cujus extant Acta passionis? 2’ Tertul. Apol. cap. 21. Sed et vulgus jam scit Chris- tum, ut aliquem hominum, qualem Judeei judicaverunt, quo facilius quis nos hominis cultores existimaverit. ‘5 Ibid. Hunc ex Deo prolatum didicimus, et prolatione 2 P 2 580 Boox XIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. their worship, because they knew him to be the‘ true natural Son of God, by a spiritual generation, and therefore called God and the Son of God, because he was of one and the same essence or substance. For God was a Spirit; and the Son was Spirit of Spirit, and God of God, as Light is of Light. In that manner he was begotten of God, so as to be God and the Son of God, as they were both one. In another place, dissuading Christian women from marrying with unbelievers, among other arguments, he uses this,29 That in such a family there could be no mention of God, no invocation of Christ, no cherishing of faith by their joint reading of the Scripture. At the same time, he tells us,” a Christian could pray to no other but the eternal, the living, and true God: he could not ask such things, as they were wont to ask in prayer, of any other but him, from whom he knew he could obtain them, and who alone was able to give them. Now, this had been absurd and ridiculous arguing to the hea- thens, had not Christians believed Christ to be the eternal, living, and true God. Their arguments might easily have been retorted, and charged with contradiction ; and they would have stood self-con- demned by their own practice, if, whilst they were arguing against the heathen idols upon this foot, that nothing was to be worshipped but the eternal, living, and true God, they themselves had wor- shipped one who fell short of that character. There- fore we must conclude, that as it is plain from the foregoing testimonies, that Christians did give Divine worship to Christ in this age, so they did it only upon this supposition, that he was the eternal, living, and true God, as the eternal Son of the eternal Father; and that however they differed, as far as it was necessary for a Father and Son to be distinct, yet they were but one Creator, and one God. We are now come to the third cen- tury, where we have first an illus- trious testimony for the worship of Christ as God, in the Fragments of Cains, a Roman presbyter, preserved by Eusebius, out of his book called The Labyrinth, written against Artemon, one of the first that appeared against the Divinity of our Saviour. Here, among many other things, showing the novelty of that heresy, he observes,31 There were anciently many psalms and hymns com- posed by the brethren, and transcribed by the faith- ful, setting forth the praises of Christ as the Word of God, and ascribing Divinity to him. And that such sort of hymns were used in the service of the church, we learn from another passage in the same Eusebius, taken out of the council of Antioch against Paulus Samosatensis, the heretical bishop of An- tioch, about the middle of this century. For there he is charged as giving orders82 to forbid the use of such psalms or hymns as were used to be sung in the church to the honour of our Lord Jesus Christ, under pretence that they were only the novel compositions of late and modern authors: whilst, in the mean time, he suborned women on the great day of the Lord’s passion, (or the resurrection, for pascha will signify both,) to sing hymns composed to his own honour; where, among other things, he that would not allow Christ any other but an earthly original, was not ashamed to hear himself blasphemously extolled as an angel come down from heaven; which, as those holy fathers observe, was enough to make a hearer tremble. And for this insolent attempt against the Divinity and worship of Christ, that heretical bishop was anathematized and deposed. A httle before this time, Nepos, an Egyptian bi- shop, composed psalms and hymns for the use of the church, which are commended by Dionysiusf"a bishop of Alexandria, as a useful work for the edification of the brethren. And, probably, they might be some of those hymns which Paulus Samosatensis dis- carded as novel inventions of modern authors, though hymns of the like nature had been in use from the first foundation of the church. Dionysius of Alexandria was one of those who opposed the practice of Paul us Samosaten sis by his letters, though he was not present in the council; and he is com- mended by St. Basil,” as one that always used this form of doxology : To God the Father, and the Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit, be glory and dominion now and for ever, world with- out end. Amen. But we have more pregnant testi- monies from the works of Origen in the beginning of this century. In his fifth Book against Celsus, he tells us, That they could not lawfully worship angels, but they might and did worship the Son of God. All prayers, says he, and supplications,35 and interces- Sect. 3. Proofs of the wor- ship of Christ in the third century. generatum, etidcirco Filium Dei, et Deum dictum ex unitate substantiae: nam et Deus Spiritus.—-—Ita de Spiritu Spi- ritus, et de Deo Deus, ut lumen de lumine accensum, ita quod de Deo profectum est, Deus est, et Dei Filius, et unus ambo. 29 Tertul. ad Uxor. lib. 2. cap. 6. Qua: Dei mentio? quae Christi invocatio ? ubi fomenta fidei de Scripturarum inter- lectione ? 3° Id. Apol. cap. 30. Nos pro salute imperatoris Deum invocamus aeternum, Deum verum, Deum vivum, &c. Haec ab alio orare non possum, quam a quo me scio consecutu- rum, quoniam et ipse est qui solus praestat. 3' Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 28. ‘Pahuoi 6%. 6601. Kai aidal. a’dek- ¢&w, dvrapxfis fnrd en's-Gm 'ypacpe'io-ai, 1'61: Ao'you 1'5 6&2 'rdv Xpts'du furl/Em S'soho'yiiu'res. 82 Cone. Antioch. Epist. Synod. ap. Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 30. \IfaA/ues 6t 7009 sis 'rdvKr'lptov fmdiv ’Ino§u Xpwrdu wado'as, 15s 61‘) vsw'ra'pas Kai vew'répwu a’udpdiv o'v'y'ypo'znjua'ra, &c. 88 Dionys. de Promission. ap. Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 24. ’A'ya1r5; Né'n'w'ra—Tfis 'rs thahjuqidias, 5 ,uaxpl. vi'iu vroAAoi 'rd'w a'dehdidm alley/1521101.. 3‘ Basil. de Spir. Sancto, cap. 29. 35 Origen. cont. Cels. lib. 5. p. 233. 11501121 pzlv 'ydp I déno'w, Kai. 7rpoo'svxz‘ju, Kai gin-sugar, Kai. sr’ixapta'q'tav, CHAP. II. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 581 ANTIQUITIES OF THE sions, and thanksgivings, are to be sent up to God the Lord of all, by the High Priest who is above all angels, being the living Word and God. And we can also pray to the Word himself, and make inter- cessions to him, and give thanks, and make suppli- cations to him, if we rightly understand how prayer is to be taken in propriety of speech, or with some restriction. He means, that prayers offered to the Son of God, considered as a Son, redound to the Fa- ther, as the fountain of the Deity: as Bishop Bull36 judiciously explains, and vindicates this passage from the unjust exceptions. which Huetius makes against it. As he does also another passage in the eighth Book, where Origen more largely asserts the worship of Christ against the common objection renewed by Celsus, That the Christians worshipped one that had but lately appeared in the world. Celsus had thus formed the objection with all the art and force he was able: If the Christians, says he, worshipped no other but one God,87 their argu- ments might be of some weight and force against others ; but now they give immense honour and worship to this new upstart, who so lately made his appearance in the world, and yet think they commit no offence against God, though they give Divine worship to his servant. To this Origen replies, not by dissembling, or denying, or diminishing the worship of Christ, but by asserting it upon such grounds and principles, as show that Father and Son can be but one God; and that to worship two persons under such relation and economy of real Father and Son, cannot be to worship two Gods. If Celsus, says he, had understood the meaning of this, “ l and the Father are one ;” or what the Son of God says in his prayer, “As I and thou are one,” he would never have imagined that we worship any but the God who is over all. For he saith, “The Father is in me, and I in the Father.” But that no one may think that, in saying this, we run over to those who deny the Father and Son to be two hy- postases or persons, (meaning the Sabellians,) let him consider that which is said, “All they that be- lieved were of one heart and one soul,” that he may understand this, “ I and the Father are one.” We therefore worship one God, as I have showed, the Father and the Son; and our reasoning stands still in full force against others; neither do we give Di- vine honour to an upstart being, as if he had no existence before. For we believe him, when he says, “ Before Abraham was, I am ;” and again, “I am the Truth.” Neither is any of us of so mean and servile understanding, as to- imagine, that the substance of Truth had not a being before the appearance of Christ in the flesh. Therefore we worship the Father of Truth, and the Son, who is the Truth, two things in personal subsistence, but one in agree- ment, and consent, and identity of will, 511111 660 1'5 z'nroo'rciaet 1rpdypa'ra, Ev 5% 1'5 opovoiq, Kai. 'rfi o'vpl- quom'g, mi 'rfi ravrorqn 'roii flovhr'lpa'rog: So. that W110- ever sees the Son, who is the brightness of the glory of God, and the express image of his person, sees God in him, as being the true image of God. Now Celsus imagines, that because together with God we worship his Son, it follows upon our own principles, that we may not only worship God, but his ministers and servants. And, indeed, if he meant the true servants of God, after his only be- gotten Son, such as Michael and Gabriel, and the rest of the angels and archangels, and stood up for the worship of these; perhaps, taking worship, and the acts of the worshippers, in a sound and quali- fied sense, (he means the common respect of love and honour, which is due to good angels,) we might say something proper upon this head; but now, when he understands by the servants of God, only the devils whom the Gentiles worship, he does not oblige us by any just consequence to worship such as these, whom the Scripture assures us to be only servants of the wicked one, the prince of this world, and the author of apostacy from God. We refuse to worship all such, as knowing them to be no serv- ants of God; for had they been servants, we should not have called them devils; but we worship one God, and his only Son, and Word, and Image, with supplications and prayers to the utmost of our power, offering our prayers to God over all by his only begotten Son; to whom we first present them, beseeching him who is the propitiation for our sins, as our High Priest, to offer our prayers, and sacri- fices, and intercessions to God, the Lord of all things. Therefore our faith relies only upon God, by his Son who confirms it in us. And therefore Celsus has no reason or colour for his charge of sedition, or departing from God upon the account of his Son; for we worship the Father, whilst we admire and adore the Son, who is his Word, and Wisdom, and Truth, and Righteousness, and what- ever else we are taught to believe of the Son of God, begotten of such a Father. I have recited this passage at length, not only because it is such a full proof of the matter of fact, that the Christians did give Divine honour and wor- ship to the Son; but also because it shows us upon what principle and foundation they did it; viz. as a’ua'rrepvrréou *‘rq'i é'lri. 'm'io't Geq'i, 6rd 'ro'ii évri. qréu'rwu a'y'yé- Awu a’pxtapéws, e'ugbéxou Aé'yov Kai. Geoi'i' dznco'pefia 6E Kai ai’rrofi 'roi; A6700, Kai s’u'rsvféueea aim-(ii, Kai. qrpoaevgo'tts- 60: 6E, éc‘w dvua'ipefla Ka'iraxoiiuu 'rfis arepi. 'n'poo'evxfis KuptoAsEiae Kai. Ka'raxprio'ews‘ d'y'yéhovs 'yr‘zp Kakéo'at— ot’uc siiho'yov. 3“ Bull. Defens. Fid. Nicen. sect. 2. cap. 9. n. 15. p. 199. 3’ Orig. cont. Cels. lib. 8. p. 385. Celsi verba: Ei pin 61‘) ,unde'ua n’z'AAou éespé'rravov oil'rot, 'n'hr‘w 'a'ua 926v, flu o’z'v ‘rte abro'is i'o'ws mods "robe ai'AAous d'revfis X6709‘ vvui. 6t r611 Eua'yxos qmvs'wra 'roi'i'rou l'nroepno'lcefiso't, &c. Vid. Orig Hepi anxfis, n. 49 et 50; and Bp. Fell’s note upon it. 582 Boox XIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. being the true Son of God, and one God with the Father. For though Huetius has excepted against some words in this passage, as derogatory to the Son; and the modern Arians have abused it to patronize their heresy; and the Romanists would fain draw it into a proof for the worship of angels; yet I dare be bold to say, there is not a tittle in it, when rightly understood, to countenance any of their suggestions: but as it is a solid proof of the matter of fact, so it is an illustrious evidence of Origen’s belief, and clear explication of the unity of the Godhead. For excepting that sort of unity, which Origen and all catholic writers reject as in- consistent with a real Trinity, that is, the unity of hypostases, or persons, which none but Sabellians and their followers maintain; he asserts all other kinds of unity, in opposition to Arians, who denied the unity of essence or nature, and made the Son to be of a different substance from the Father, as a created Being; in opposition to the Marcionites, and such other heretics, as maintained contrary principles, one good, and another evil, in the God- - head; in opposition to the Tritheites, who brought in the proper doctrine of three Gods, by denying the subordination and relation of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and asserting three co-ordinate and independent principles, and baptizing in the name of three such c'z'vapxot, dvai'not, and dyévvn'roz, (as the Apostolical Canons” call them,) three unoriginated and unbegotten principles, wholly independent of one another; in opposition to Hieracas and the Triformians, who absurdly divided the Trinity into three parts of one whole; and finally, in opposition to all that swarm of heretics, who distinguished, with the Cerdonians, between the God of justice and the God of goodness, styling the one the God of the law and the prophets; and the other, the Father of Christ and God of the gospel. Origen, I say, in opposition to all these, asserts every sort of unity, except the Jewish and Sabellian notion of unity, which confines the Divine nature to one per- son. For, in saying first that the Son is the express and true image of God the Father, he asserts the iden- tity of nature, against Arius; and so could not believe him to be a creature of a different substance or na— ture, but as a true Son, of the same essence with his Father, and equal to him in all infinite and Divine perfections. 2. In saying that he was a Son, deriv- ing his original from the Father, and not another independent being, he maintains the unity of prin'- ciple, and reserves to the Father the privilege of being the fountain of the Deity; and, consequently, opposes the heresy of the Tritheites, who maintain three co-ordinate and independent principles, and destroy the monarchy, and make three Creators in- stead of one, by destroying the due subordination and relation of the Son to the Father. 3. In say- ing that the Father and Son are one in agreement, and consent, and identity of will, he asserts the unity of operation, creation, and government: which destroys the heresy of those who maintained con- trary principles in the Godhead. 4. In saying that the Son was equal to the Father in all infinite perfections, he rejects the absurdity of those who dreamed of three parts in the Divine nature. 5. In asserting Christ to be the Son of the Creator and God of the Old Testament, he maintains the unity of Providence, and refutes the heresy of those who maintained that the Creator and God of the Old Testament was a different God from the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. So that he maintains all sorts of unity, except personal unity, which cannot consist with a real Trinity in the Godhead. And upon this foot he answers the objection of Celsus, who charged the Christians with polytheism, for giving Divine honour to Jesus Christ. Having made this short and useful digression upon this celebrated passage of Origen, to vindicate it from the abuses of the modern Arians, I now re- turn to the history of fact, to show that Divine worship was given to Christ as the Son of God. And of this there is further evidence in Origen: for this is not the only place in which he is put to vin- dicate the worship of Christ from the charge of polytheism, which is frequently repeated by Celsus. In the third Book39 Celsus objects, That they wor- shipped one who was apprehended and put to death; in which respect they were no better than the Getaa, who worshipped Zamolxis; and the Ci- licians, Mopsus; and the Acarnanes, Amphilochus; and the Thebans, Amphiaraus; and the Lebadians, Trophonius. In replying to which, Origen says, They offered their prayers to Christ, as Mediator between God and men, who conferred the blessings of the Father upon men, and presented their prayers, as High Priest, to the God over all. Not long after, Celsus4o repeats the charge again, That they who ridiculed the heathens for worshipping Jupiter, whose sepulchre the Cretians could show, did them- selves worship one that was laid in the grave. In the seventh Book, he renews the impeachment three times, bidding the Christians‘1 not be so ridiculous as to revile the heathen gods as idols, whilst they worshipped a God of their own more wretched than any idol, and not so much as an idol, for that he was truly dead. If they had a mind to innovate in worshipping a dead man,42 they might with more reason, he thinks, have chosen Hercules, or ZEscu- lapius, or Orpheus, or Anaxarchus, or Epictetus, or Sibylla, rather than have made a god of one who 88Canon. Apost. e. 49. 8” Origen. cont. Cels. lib. 3. p. 131. 4‘? Ibid. lib. 3. p. 136. 4‘ Celsus, lib. 7. p.358. 42 Ibid. p. 367, ass. CHAP. II. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 583 ANTIQUITIES OF THE lived an infamous life, and died a miserable death. Yea, they might have chosen among their own pro- phets, Jonas under the gourd, or Daniel in the lions’ den, as more worthy of this honour. He whom they worshipped, he cries again,43 is no demon, but a dead man. Thus, from the charges of Celsus, and Origen’s replies, we may collect what worship was given to Christ as the Son of God, and also as Me- diator between God and men. It is further observable, that Origen, in his first Book,“ speaking of the wise men who came to wor- ship Christ, by the leading of a star, says, They offered gifts to him suited to his different qualities, who was compounded, as one might say, of God and mortal man: they therefore presented him with gold, as a king; with myrrh, as a mortal man that should die; and with frankincense, as a God. ‘And Origen himself, in his other works, frequently speaks of his own prayers offered to Christ. In one of his homilies‘5 he addresses him in these words: O Lord Jesus, grant that I may be found worthy to have some monument of me in thy tabernacle. I could wish to offer gold, or silver, or precious stones, with‘ the princes of the people: but because these things are above me, let me at least be thought worthy to have goats’ hair in the tabernacle of God, only that I may not in all things be found empty and unfruit- ful. In another homily :46 We must pray to the Lord Jesus and the Holy Spirit, that he would take away that mist and darkness, which is contracted by the filth of our sins, and dims the sight of our souls. And again :47 I must pray to the Lord Jesus, that when I seek he would grant me to find, and open to me when I knock. And in another homily :“8 Let us pray from our hearts to the Word of God, who is the only begotten of the Father, that reveals him to whom he will, that he would vouchsafe to reveal these things unto us. And he has many the like prayers in his other discourses.“9 But especially that passage in his Comment on the Epistle to the Romans is most remarkable, where he proves Christ to be God, from his being called upon in prayer: The apostle, he says, in those words, 1 Cor. i. 2, “With all that call on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ,” declares him to be God,50 whose name was called upon. And if to call upon the name of the Lord, and to adore God, be one and the self-same thing; then as Christ is called upon, so is he to be adored: and as we offer to God the Father first of all prayers, so must we also to the Lord Jesus Christ; and as we offer supplications to the Father, so do we also to the Son; and as we offer thanksgivings to God, so do we offer thanksgivings to our Saviour. For the Holy Scripture teaches us, that the same honour is to be given to both, that is, to God the Father and the Son, when it says, “That they may honour the Son, as they honour the Father.” Not long after Origen lived Novatian at Rome, and Cyprian at Carthage, who both speak of the. prayers of the church, as offered up to Christ to- gether with the Father. Novatian51 makes it an argument of his Divinity, that he is present in all places to them that call upon him; which belongs not to the nature of man, but God. And he argues further from the church’s praying to him as Media- tor; which kind of prayers would be of no use, if he were a mere man: and from our obligations to fix our hope on him, which would be a curse rather than a blessing, if he were not God, as well as man. For cursed is the hope that is placed only in man. St. Cyprian in like manner speaks of his being wor- shipped in many places. In his book of the Ad- vantage of Patience, he styles him,52 the Lord God of hosts, the God of the Christians: and particu- larly tells us, That God the Father has commanded his Son to be worshipped; and in regard to that command, the apostle Paul says, “That God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name above every name; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth :” and in the Revela- tion, when St. John would have worshipped the angel, the angel opposed it, and said, “ I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren: worship the Lord Jesus.” So Cyprian reads it, Jesum Dominum adom. And he uses this as an argument to per- suade men to patience, that the Lord Jesus, who is worshipped in heaven, bears with many indigni- ties on earth, and does not avenge himself till his second coming in glory. Again, in one of his epis- 43 Celsus, lib. 7. p. 976. ‘4 Ibid. lib. l. p. 46. ‘5 Orig. Hom. 13. in Exod. xxv. t. l. p. 102. Domine J esu, praesta mihi, ut aliquid monumenti habere merear in tabernaculo tuo, &c. ‘6 Hom. l. in Levit. p. 106. Ipse nobis Dominus, ipse Sanctus Spiritus deprecandus est, ut omnem nebulam, om- nemque caliginem, quas peccatorum sordibus concreta, visum nostri cordis obscurat, auferre dignetur, &c. 4’ Hom. 5. in Levit. p. 126. Dominum meum J esum in~ vocare me oportet, ut quaerentem me faciat invenire, et pul- santi aperiat, &c. "8 Hom. 26. in Numer. p. 271. Nos autem oremus ex corde Verbum Dei, qui est unigenitus ejus, et qui revelat Patrem quibus vult, ut et nobis haec revelare dignetur. ‘9 Orig. Horn. 3. in Ezek. p. 627. Praesta mihi, Christe, ut disrumpam cervicalia in animarum consuta luxuriam. It. t. 32. in Joan. p. 404. Utinam nobis adsit columna illa lucidae nubis J esu, &c. 5° Orig. Com. in Rom. x. lib. 8. p. 587. 5‘ Novat. de Trin. cap. 14. Si homo tantummodo Christus; quomodo adest ubique invocatus, cum haec hominis natura non sit, sed Dei, ut adesse omni loco possit? Si homo tan- tummodo Christus; cur homo in orationibus Mediator in- vocatur, cum invocatio hominis ad praestandam salutem in- efiicax judicetur? Si homo tantummodo Christus: cur spes in illum ponitur, cum spes in homine maledicta re- feratur? 52 Cypr. De Bono Patientiae, p. 220. 584 Boox XIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. tles, he speaks of their offering prayers to him as Mediator58 first, and then by him to God the Fa- ther; and that upon this double foundation, that he was their Advocate and Intercessor, and also their Lord and their God. In another place,54 writing to Lucius, bishop of Rome, who had been a confessor for Christ, he tells him, They would not cease, in their sacrifices and prayers, to give thanks for him to God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ his Son, and also make supplications and prayers for him, that he who was the Author of all perfection, would keep and consummate in him the glorious crown of his confession. Not long after Cyprian, Arnobius wrote in vindication of the Christian wor- ship, and here again he brings in the heathens forming their usual charge against the worship of Christ. Our gods,55 say they, are not displeased with you for worshipping the Almighty God, but that ye make a God of one that was born a man, and put to death by the punishment of the cross (an infamous punishment, only inflicted on vile men); and because ye believe him to be yet alive, and make daily supplications unto him. To this he answers, first, upon their own principles, That admitting it were so, that Christ were only a man, yet he might with more reason deserve to be wor- shipped for his good deeds to mankind, than either their Bacchus, or Ceres, or ZEsculapius, or Minerva, or Triptolemus, or Hercules, because there was no comparison between their actions and his for the benefit of the world. But, secondly, he answers more closely upon true Christian principles, That the reason of their worshipping Christ,“ was indeed their certain knowledge that he was the true God, whom they could not but worship and honour as the Head of their body. And though an angry heathen would rave at his being called God, yet they must answer plainly, that he was God, and God, too, of the interior powers of the soul; that is, “ the searcher of the hearts and reins,” which is ' men. the peculiar property of God. The same objection is once more proposed," and answered by Lactan- tius. They are wont, says he, to object to us his passion, by way of reproach, that we worship a man, and one that was put to a notorious death by In replying to which, after having largely set forth the reasons of his incarnation and suffer- ings, he at last answers that part of the objection which concerns their worshipping him, and pleads, that they worshipped him as one God with the Fa- ther. For, says he, when we speak of God the Fa- ther, and God58 the Son, we do not speak of diverse natures, or separate the one from the other; for neither can he be a Father without a Son, nor the Son be divided from the Father: forasmuch as he cannot be called a Father without a Son, nor the Son be begotten without a Father. Seeing there- fore a Father makes a Son, and a Son makes a Fa- ther, they have both one mind, and one spirit, and one substance: but the Father, as the fountain and original; and the Son, as the stream flowing from the fountain. A little after, he explains their 5’ unity by this similitude: When any one hath a son, who is his dearly beloved, as long as he is in his father’s house and under his hand, although he allow him the name and power of lord, yet it is called but one house, and one lord. So this world is one house of God; and both the Son and the Father, who unanimously dwell therein, are but one God; be- cause the one is as two, and the two as one. Mean- ing two persons, and one God. Nothing can be plainer than these two things from the words of Lactantius; first, that Christians gave Divine wor- ship to Christ; secondly, that they gave him this "worship, as one God with the Father: and there was no other way to avoid the charge of polytheism, which they objected to the heathens, and the hea- thens were so desirous to recharge and throw back upon them. There is one thing more may be observed as very 53 Cypr. Ep. 8. al. 11. p.25. Primo ipsum Dominum rogare, tum deinde per ipsum Deo Patri satisfacere debe- mus. Habemus Advocatum et Deprecatorem pro peccatis nostris, J esum Christum Dominum et Deum nostrum. ' 5‘ Cypr. Ep. 58. al. 61. p. 145. Hie quoque in sacrificiis atque in orationibus nostris non cessantes Deo Patri et Christo Filio ejus gratias agere, et orare pariter ac petere, ut qui perfectus est atque perficiens, custodiat et perficiat in vobis confessionis vestrae gloriosam coronam. 55 Arnob. cont. Gentes, lib. l. p. 30. Sed non (inquitis) idcirco dii vobis infesti sunt, quod omnipotentem colatis Deum: sed quod hominem natum, et (quod personis in- fame est vilibus) crucis supplicio interemptum, et Deum fuisse contenditis, et superesse adhuc creditis, et quotidianis supplicationibus adoratis. 5“ Arnob. ibid. p. 36. Cum vero Deus sit re vera, et sine ullius rei dubitationis ambiguo, inficiaturos arbitramini nos esse, quam maxime illum a nobis coli, et praesidem nostri corporis nuncupari? Ergone, inquiet aliquis furens—Deus ille est Christus? Deus, respondebimus : et interiorum potentiarum Deus. 5" Lact. lib. 4. cap. 16. Venio nunc ad ipsam passionem, quae velut opprobrium nobis objectari solet, quod et homi- nem, et ah hominibus insigni supplicio afi'ectum et excruci- atum, colamus. 58 Ibid. cap. 29. De mortalitate jam diximus, nunc de unitate doceamus. Cum dicimus Deum Patrem, et Deum Filium, non diversum dicimus, nec utrumque secer- nimus: quia nec Pater esse sine Filio potest, nec Filius a Patre secerni: siquidem nec Pater nuncupari sine Filio, nec Filius potest sine Patre generari. Cum igitur et Pater Filium faciat, et Filius Patrem; una utrique mens, unus spiritus, una substantia: sed ille quasi exuberans fons est, hie tanquam defluens ex eo rivus. 59 Ibid. Propiore exemplo uti libet: Cum quis habet filium, quem unice diligit, qui tamen sit in domo, et in manu patris, licet ei nomen domini potestatemque concedat, civili tamen jure et domus una et unus dominus nominatur. Sic hic inundus una Dei domus est :_ et Filius ac Pater, qui unanimes incolunt mundum, Deus unus est; quia et unus tanquam duo, et duo tanquam unus. CHAP. II. 585 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. remarkable in this age, which was an age of great persecution: that is, that the martyrs, who suffered in it, commonly directed their last prayers, as St. Stephen did, personally to Christ, in whose cause they laid down their lives, and into whose bands they resigned their spirit, commending their souls to him, as unto a faithful Creator and Redeemer. Thus Eusebius observes of a whole city in Phrygia in the time of the Diocletian persecution, that being all met together in the church, men, women, and chil- dren, magistrates and people, (for the city was en- tirely Christian,) they were surprised by their ene- mies, and barbarously burnt all together in the church, as they were at their devotions, calling60 upon Christ, the God over all, rbv érri mz’vrwv Gebv Xpts-bv émfiowpévovg. So in a former persecution in France under Antoninus, Blandina, one of the mar- tyrs, when she was put into a net, to be tossed by a wild bull, is said not to have been sensible of any pain, whilst she made her prayers to Christ, 6w‘: rfiv opthiav 'n'pog 'rc‘w Xptqbusl And Eusebius himself, who gives us these particular relations, makes a more general observation concerning the worship of Christ, That the highest powers on earth confessed and adored him,62 not as a common king, made by men, but as the true Son of the supreme God, as the true and very God ; who had preserved his church against all the opposition of so many fierce persecutions; there being nothing that was able to withstand the will of that Word, who was the uni- versal King and Prince of all things, and very God68 himself. We see, in the opinion of Eusebius, the ground of their worship was no other than his being the living and true God, and the great King of all the earth. Which is the title that is given him in the Acts of St. Felix, an African bishop, who suf- fered in the Diocletian persecution: O Lord God of heaven and earth, Jesus Christ, I bow my neck“ to thee as a sacrifice, who livest to all eternity: to whom belongs honour and power for ever and ever. Amen. And in the Acts of Thelica :65 I give thanks to the God of all kingdoms. Lord Jesus Christ, we serve thee: thou art our hope: thou art the hope of Christians: most holy God, most high God, God Almighty, we give thanks to thee for thy great name. So again, in the Acts of Emeritus :66 I be- seech thee, O Christ: I give thanks to thee: deliver me, O Christ. In thy name I suffer, I suffer for a. moment, I suffer willingly: let me not be con- founded, O Christ. The curious reader may find many other prayers in the like terms in the Pas- sions of Glycerius,67 Olympius,68 Ampelius,69 Eu- plius,7o Dativus,71 Saturninus "2 senior and junior, recorded in Baronius, which I need not here tran- scribe. I only add two further instances out of Eusebius and St. Ambrose. Eusebius,"a speaking of the passion of Porphyrius, a Palestine martyr, and one of the scholars of Pamphilus, says, When he was surrounded with flames, he called upon Jesus the Son of God to be his helper, and with those words he gave up the ghost. And St. Ambrose" tells us, Vitalis the martyr made this his last prayer: 0 Lord Jesus Christ, my Saviour and my God, command that my spirit may be received; for I de- sire to obtain the crown which thy holy angel hath showed me. It were easy to add‘many other testimonies of the like nature, but these are abundantly sufficient to show what was the practice of the church, in reference to the worship of Christ, during the three first ages, before Arianism appeared in the world, or any of those difiicult questions were raised, which afterwards perplexed men with unintelligible subtle- ties, occasioned by the restless endeavours and so- phistry of the Arian party. The Christians of the three first ages, we see, in their disputes with the heathens, always, with a great deal of honest plain- ness and simplicity, freely owned that they worship- ped Christ as their Creator and their God; not as a. creature, but as the true and living God; equal to the Father in all Divine perfections, as a genuine Son; who, as a Son, could not be another God, but only one God with the Father. For they declared, that so long as he was owned to be a true Son, he could neither be a creature, nor another God, which would imply another co-ordinate and independent being, which was inconsistent with his being the Son of God. They declared at the same time, that °° Euseb. lib. 8. cap. 11. 61 Ibid. lib. 5. cap. 1. p. 164. ex Epist. Eccles. Lugdun. et Vien. 62 Ibid. lib. 10. cap. 4. p. 375. 06x oia Kowov if (iv- Bpdnrwv Baa-rhea 'yeuo'ysuov époko'ye'io-Bru, a’AA’ oIa 'rii Ka- Bo'Aa 925 wa'ida 'yvfio'wu Kai aim-602011 'n-poo'lcvus'io'eat, &c. 6*‘Ibid. p. 376. Ti 7619 aushhe 1'5 'n'auBao-tkéwe, Kai 'n'avn'yepovos Kai (10'1"; Ge; A678 eve-150100411. q-q'i 'n'uei'r- a'rt. 6* Acta Felic. ap. Baron. an. 302. n. 124. Domine Deus cceli et terrac, Jesu Christe, tibi cervicem meam ad victi- mam flecto, qui permanes in aeternum : cui est claritas et magnificentia in saecula saeculoruin. Amen. 65 Acta Thelicae, ap. Baron. an. 303. n. 41. Gratias ago Deo regnorum. Domine J esu Christe, tibi servimus: tu es spes nostra: tu es spes Christianorum: Deus sanctissime, Deus altissime, Deus omnipotens, tibi laudes pro nomine tuo agimus. ‘*6 Acta Emeriti, ap. Baron. an. 303. n. 50. Rogo, Christe: tibi laudes : libera me, Christe. In nomine tuo patior, bre- viter patior, libenter patior: Cbriste non confundar. 8" Acta Glycerii, ap. Baron. an. 301. n. 28. “B Acta Olympii, ap. Baron. an. 259. n. 30. ‘9 Acta Ampelii, ap. Baron. an. 303. n. 52. 7° Acta Euplii, ibid. n. 148. 7‘ Acta Dativi, ibid. 11. 44, 45. 72 Acta Saturnin. ibid. 11. 48 et 54. "8 Euseb. de Martyr. Palacst. c. 11. p. 339. T611 T261: q-E 9&5 ’Ino'§v fionedu é'lrtflocbjuavos. '" Ambr. Hortat. ad Virgines, t. l. p. 105. Domine J esu Christe, Salvator meus, et Deus meus, jube suscipi spiritum meum; quia jam desidero ut accipiam coronam, quam angelus tuus sanctus mihi ostendit. 586 Boox XIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. it was unlawful and idolatry to give Divine worship to any creature, or any being, how excellent soever, that was not the living and true God; as we shall see more fully in the next chapter: and that is such a sensible and intelligible argument of their believing the Son to be the living and true God, as any one of the meanest capacity may understand; and it is such an argument of his Divinity, as all the art and sophistry in the world cannot evade, without charging those holy men with the grossest idolatry, and self-condemnation, and a flat contra- diction of their principles in their practice, if they gave Divine honour to one, whom they did not be- lieve to be by nature the living and true God. And for this reason I have insisted a little the longer upon this plain way of proving their belief of the ' Divinity of our blessed Lord, from their constant and universal practice in giving Divine worship to him as their God. And as to those distinctions be- tween absolute, relative, and mediatorial worship; or those of latrz'a, dulz'a, and hyperdulz'a, (hard words invented to solve the idolatry of later ages,) whatever shelter modern idolaters may think to find in them; the ancients had no occasion to lay the stress of their cause upon any such subtleties and distinctions. For they knew no distinction between latm'a, dulz'a, and hyperdulz'a, when they spake of religious worship, but plainly said all religious worship was solely due to God: and though they distinguished between absolute, relative, and mediatorial worship, yet they gave all these to the Son; worshipping him with mediatorial worship, as the only proper Mediator in both natures between God and man; beseeching him by his own merits, as their great High Priest, to present their prayers to the Father; and with relative worship, as the Son of God, whose honour redounds to the Father ; and with absolute worship, as their Creator and Author of their being; de- claring it to be idolatry to give any such honour to any mere creature. So that either they believed Christ to be the living and true God, or else it is impossible to understand men by their words or practice. Sm 4_ We are now to see whether they ,,,§’;°°§§ "tigers; gave the same Divine honour to the amt‘ Holy Ghost. And for this the reader only needs to look back into the former proofs ; for many of the preceding allegations join the Son and Holy Ghost together. Polycarp’s doxology 7‘ is to the whole Trinity: To Thee (the Father) with him (the Son) and the Holy Spirit, be glory now and for ever. Amen. Justin Martyr” declares also to the heathen, that the object of their wor- ship was the whole Trinity: We worship and adore the God of righteousness, and his Son, and the Holy Spirit of prophecy. And again he proves," That Christians were no atheists, as the heathens objected, because they worshipped the Creator of all things, and his Son Jesus Christ in the second place, and the Holy Spirit of prophecy in the third place: only observing the natural order of the per- sons, not distinguishing them into one God and two creatures; for then it had been unlawful to wor- ship them upon their principles, which denied Di- vine worship to any thing that by nature was not God. We have heard Lucian before, representing the Christian worship,” as the worship of the great God of heaven, and the Son of the Father, and the Spirit proceeding from the Father, three of one, and one of three. Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, express- ly mentions the Trinity,"9 under the title of the Fa- ther, his Word, and his Wisdom; and says further, That it was his Word and his Wisdom to whom he said“ in the beginning, “ Let us make man.” So that if the Holy Ghost was the Creator of man, there can be no dispute but that he was worshipped as his Creator together with the Father and Son. We have heard Clemens Alexandrinus concluding his Peedagogue81 with this doxology, To the Father, and the Son, with the Holy Spirit, be glory now and for ever. Amen. We have heard St. Basil testifying of Athenogenes the martyr,82 that he composed a hymn to the glory of the Holy Ghost; and that the church, time out of mind, used that known doxology in her evening hymn at setting up lights, We laud the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit of God. Which hymn was so ancient, that St. Basil professes he knew not who was the author of it. He testifies further in the same place, that Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, was always wont to use this form of doxology; To God the Father, and the Son our Lord Jesus Christ, with the Holy Ghost, be glory and dominion now and for ever. Amen. We have heard Origen saying,83 That we are to pray to the Lord, to the Holy Spirit; that he would vouchsafe to take away that mist and darkness, which is contracted in our hearts by the defilement of sin, and dims the sight of our minds. They that said such things as these, did certainly own and practise the religious adoration and worship of the Holy Ghost. And all this we have seen proved in the former allegations. To which we may here add that plain testimony of Origen upon the first chapter to the Romans, where he compares the prac- tice of the heathens and Christians.“ It is the pro- perty of those only to dishonour their bodies, says he, 75 Polycarp. Martyr. ap. Coteler. t. 2. p. 199. 7“ Justin. Apol. 2. p. 56. 7' Ibid. p. 60. "8 Lucian, Philopatris. '9 Theoph. ad Autolyc. lib. 2. p. 106. 8° Ibid. p. 114. 8‘ Clem. Paedagog. lib. 3. "2 Basil. de Spir. Sancto, cap. 29. “3 Orig. Horn. 1. in Levit. p. 106. 8‘ Orig. in’ Rom. i. lib. l. p. 468. Eorum est contume- liis aflicere corpora sua, qui deserviunt simulacris ; et eorum colere creaturam, qui dereliquerunt Creatorem. Nos autem CHAP. II. 597 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. who serve idols; and of them only to worship the creature, who have forsaken the Creator. As for us, who worship and adore no creature, but the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as we do not err in our worship, so neither let us offend in our ac- tions and conversation: but, looking to what the apostle says, “Know ye not, that your bodies are the members of Christ?” and again, “that your bodies are the temples of the Holy Ghost?” let us keep our bodies in all holiness and purity, as mem- bers of Christ, and as temples of the Holy Spirit. St. Basil, who wrote in defence of the worship of the Holy Ghost, cites another passage of Origen, out of his Commentaries85 upon St. John, wherein he speaks of the worship of the whole Trinity in the celebration of baptism, saying, Baptism, by virtue of the invocations there made, is the fountain and spring of spiritual graces to every one that dedicates himself to the Divine Majesty of the adorable Trinity. In which words Origen, by invocations, seems to refer to two things : first, the consecration of water to a mystical use, which was always per- formed by prayer, (as I have showed at large in another placef") and secondly, the form of baptism, which was always administered in the name of the ' holy Trinity; in like manner as bread and wine in the eucharist was consecrated by invocation of the three Divine persons. Which is expressly said by St. Cyril,87 That before invocation of the adorable Trinity it is common bread and wine, but after in- vocation it is made the body and blood of Christ. Where he uses the same expression about the con- secration of the eucharist, as Origen does about baptism, saying, that it was done by invocation of the adorable Trinity. And this is what Justin Mar- tyr88 means, when he says, That the minister, in consecrating the eucharist, sent up praise and glory to the Father of all by the name of his Son and Holy Spirit. Optatus,89 speaking of the sacrilege of the Donatists, says, They had broken down the altars, where God Almighty was wont to be invo- cated, and the Holy Ghost prayed to, that he might come down and sanctify the oblation. Theophilus of Alexandria says, in like manner,“ That the bread and wine in the eucharist was consecrated by the invocation and descent of the Holy Ghost. And we are told, that in the old Gallican liturgy the ob- lation prayerm was conceived in this form: Receive, O holy Trinity, this oblation, which we offer unto thee, in memory of the passion, resurrection, and ascension. And, probably, Origen might have re- spect to some such invocation of the holy Trinity in the consecration of the waters of baptism. How- ever, the form of administering baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, was ever esteemed an act of adoration of the Trinity, both as a profession of faith in three Divine persons, and as a dedication of the party to the service of the holy Trinity, and as a solemn invocation of their benediction. The ancient author of The Recogni- tions, who lived before Origen, says expressly,92 That baptism was anciently given by invocation of the name of the'blessed Trinity. By which we can understand nothing but joining the Holy Ghost as God with the Father and the Son in the same act of adoration, expressed either in the prayers or form of baptism. And hence the ancients were used to prove the Holy Ghost93 to be God, because he was joined in the same Divine worship with the Father and the Son in the administration of baptism. And that baptism was generally esteemed null and void, which was given to any person without mentioning the Holy Ghost, as well as Father and Son, as I have fully showed in another place.94 It is further observable, that in Tertullian’s time, the worship of the Holy Ghost was so common in the church, that Praxeas and other Unitarians were ready to charge the catholics with tritheism, or the worship of three Gods, upon this account. They boasted that95 they were the only persons who truly worshipped one God, and preserved the Divine mon- archy entire; whilst all other Christians, by wor— shipping three persons, introduced the worship of three Gods: As if, says Tertullian, the Unity ab- surdly collected, might not make a heresy; and a Trinity rationally conceived, might not consist with qui nullam creaturam, sed Patrem, Filium, et Spiritum Sanctum colimus et adoramus, sicut non erramus in cultu, ita nec in actibus quidem et conversations peccemus, &c. 85 Orig. t. 6. in Joan. ap. Basil. de Spir. Sanct. cap. 29. Tq'i s’pvrapéxovrrl. e'av'rdv 'rfi Bsé'rn'n 'rijs 'rrpomcvun'rfis 'I‘ptédos, 6rd 'rfis duvo'zpsws 'riiw é'n'uckfio'swv, Xapwjudrwv a’pxi‘w Exes Kai 'rrn'yiiv. 85 Book XI. chap. 10. sect. l, 2. 8’ Cyril. Catech. Myst. l. n. 4. 11,06 'rijs ci'yt’as a’m- Khrio-sws *rfis 'n'poa'Kuun'rfis Tpuidos é'p'ros 1711/ Kai oluos Arr-69, &c. It. Catech. 3. n. 3. Marc‘: 'rr'jv é'n'irckno'w 'roii 'A'yt'ov Husfina-ros, ix Z'rl. d'p'ros Ari-ris. 88 Justin. Apol. 2. p. 97. Ail/0v Kai drigav 'rq'i Ha'rpi. Tim 3Awv, du‘: *roi? dud/caves 'roii T1017 Kai. 'roii Husfipaq-og T05 'A'yt'ov &va'zrs'pvrsi. ‘ 89 Optat. lib. 6. p. 93. Quid tam sacrilegum, quam altaria Dei frangere, quo Deus omnipotens invocatus sit, quo postu- latus descendit Spiritus Sanctus ? 9° Theophil. Ep. Paschal. l. Bibl. Patr. t. 3. p. 87. Panem Dominicum---per invocationem et adventum Sancti Spi- riti’ls consecrari. 9' Microlog. de Observat. Eccles. cap. 11. Suscipe sancta Trinitas hanc oblationem, quam tibi olferimus in memoriam passionis, resurrectionis, ascensionis. 9’ Clemen. Recognit. lib. 3. cap. 67. Baptizabitur unus- quisque vestrum in aquis pereunibus, nomine trinae Beati- tudinis invocato super se. 9“ Vid. Idacium, lib. 3. contra Varimundum, Bibl. Patr. t. 4. p. 300. Basil. de Spir. Sanct. cap. 29. 9‘ Book XI. chap. 3. sect. 2. 95 Tertul. cont. Prax. cap. 3. Duos et tres jam jactitant a nobis praedicari, se vero unius Dei cultores praesumunt: quasi non et unitas irrationaliter collecta, haeresin faciat: et Trinitas rationaliter expense. veritatem constituat. 588 Boox XIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Unity. He there explains how these three are one God,95 by unity of original, by unity of substance, condition, and power. And he adds, That as the Father was God, so the Son"6 was God, and the Holy Ghost God. And says in another place," That the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, was a Trinity in one Godhead, or Divine nature. So that it is plain, the difference then between the Praxean heretics and the catholics was, that the Praxeans worshipped but one person as God; but the catho- lics worshipped three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, under the title and appellation of one God. And Erasmus was wonderfully mistaken, when he asserted, that the name, God, was 'never given to the Holy Ghost before the time of St. Hilary, in the middle of the fourth century; when it is so evident he had both the name and worship of God given him in the time of Tertullian, and in effect by all Christians in former ages, whilst they joined him in all acts of Divine worship and glorifi- cation with the Father and Son as one God. Cyprian expressly styles him God, when, dis- puting against the validity of heretical baptism, he uses this argument:98 If a man can be baptized by heretics, he may obtain remission of sins; if he may obtain remission of sins, he may be sanctified and be made the temple of God. I ask, of what God? If it be said, the Creator; he cannot be his temple, who believes not in him. If Christ; neither can he be his temple, who believes not Christ to be God. If the Holy Ghost; seeing the three are one, how can the Holy Spirit be reconciled to him who is an enemy to the Father or the Son? As the Holy Ghost is here plainly styled God, so every true Christian is said to be the temple of the Holy Ghost, as God; and temples being for the worship of God, it may be concluded, that, according to Cyprian, the Holy Ghost was then worshipped in all his living temples as God. At the same time with Cyprian lived those two shining lights of the Asiatic church, Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea, and Gregory, of Neocaesarea, from hisv power in working miracles, surnamed Thaumaturgus. Of both these St. Basil99 testifies, That in their prayers and books they were always wont to use this doxology, To God the Father, and his Son our Lord Jesus Christ, with the Holy Ghost, be glory and dominion for ever and ever. And this is the doxology that most commonly occurs in the author of the Constitutions,'which, though I do not, with a late author, take for an in- spired writing, nor for the genuine work of Clemens Romanus, yet I believe it to be a very good collec- tion of the rituals and liturgy of the ancient church, for the three first ages, and not infected with those pernicious principles of Arianism, which some would ’ fain father upon him, who pervert his words, as they do the other Ante-Nicene writers, from their proper meaning to an heretical sense. This author, I say, commonly uses that doxology which is so much commended by St. Basil, as expressing the true worship of the holy Trinity. Of which I shall give a few instances out of his eighth Book, which is a collection of the forms of prayer used in the ancient service. In the twelfth chapter of that Book the oblation prayer is thus concluded: We beseech thee to gather us into the kingdom of thy Christ, the God of the whole nature of things both visible and invisible, and our King; for to thee be- longs all glory, and worship, and thanksgiving, and honour, and adoration, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, now and for ever, throughout all ages, world without end. In the thirteenth chapter, the prayer after consecration ends in the same manner: By thy Christ, to whom, with thee and the Holy Ghost, be glory, honour, and praise, doxology, and thanksgiving, for ever and ever. In the same chapter all the people sing this hymn to Christ: There is one holy, one Lord Jesus Christ, blessed for ever, to the glory of God the Father. Glory be to God on high, and on earth peace, good will towards men. Hosanna to the Son of David: blessed be God the Lord, who came in the name of the Lord, and was manifested unto us : hosanna in the highest. In the fourteenth chapter, after the communion, the deacon says, wapafhbprQa, Let us commend ourselves to God, the only unbegotten God, and i0 his Christ. NOW the wapaeéaug, or commendations, were one sort of prayers, as I shall show hereafter.loo Then the bishop makes a thanks- giving in the fifteenth chapter, which he concludes in these words : By Jesus Christ our Lord, to whom, with thee and the Holy Ghost, be glory, honour, and adoration, now and for ever. Amen. And in his invocation in the same chapter, he says, To thee and thy Son Jesus, thy Christ, our Lord, and God, and King, and to the Holy Ghost, be glory, praise, majesty, worship, and adoration, now and for ever, world without end. Amen. There are many other such doxologies in other prayers throughout this 95 Tertul. cont. Prax. cap. 2. Tres sunt unius substantise, et unius status, at unius potestatis: quia unus Deus, ex quo (tres) in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti deputantur. 9“ Ibid. cap. 13. Et Pater Deus, et Filius Deus, et Spi- ritus Sanctus Deus, et Deus unusquisque. 9’ Tertul. de Pudicitia, cap. 21. Trinitas unius Divinita- tis, Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus. 9° Cypr. Ep. 73. ad Jubaian. p. 203. Si baptizari quis apud haereticos potuit, utique et remissam peccatorum con- sequi potuit. Si peccatorum remissam consecutus est, et sanctificatus est, et templum Dei factus est; quaero, cujus Dei? Si Creatoris; non potuit qui in eum non credidit. Si Christi; nec hujus fieri potest templum, qui negatDeum Christum. Si Spiritus Sancti; cum tres unum sint, quo- modo Spiritus Sanctus placatus ei esse potest, qui aut Pa- ' tris aut Filii inimicus est? 9° Basil. de Spir. Sanct. cap. 29. W Book XV. chap. 3. sect. 29. CHAP. III. 589 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. this Book,‘°‘ which I need not here repeat. For if these be not plain instances of the worship of the Holy Ghost, together with the Father and the Son, it is hard to say what words can ex- press it. Now, then, by all this we may inter- In .vsfiii'iae a1 pret the meaning of that African prayers are ordered , goasgegfrectedmhe canon, which orders all prayers at the altar to be directed to the Father.102 For that was not intended to exclude the worship of the Son and Holy Ghost together with the Fa- ther; for the hymns and doxologies before men- tioned, which were used at the altar, plainly show the contrary: but it was designed, that when the sacrifice of Christ was commemorated, he should be considered as the great Mediator, by whose sa- crifice we apply to the Father, and have access by his merits and intercession to the throne of grace and mercy. And therefore all prayers at the altar are ordered to be directed to the Father in his name: which very application was a worship of the Son as Mediator, and an honour peculiar to him, and in- communicable to any creature. In other prayers, direct applications were made to the Son, as we have seen before in that of the Constitutions,108 for the dispossessing of devils: and in these prayers at the altar, the glorification was in common to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Whence Fulgentius, who was an African bishop, and therefore may be presumed to understand the meaning of the African canons, tells us,104 That all worship and adoration of honour and sacrifice was equally given to the Fa- ther, Son, and Holy Ghost, that is, to the holy Trinity, by the catholic church. And that it was no prejudice to the Son or the Holy Ghost, that the minister at the altar directed the prayers to the per- son of the Father; for in the end of them, the names of the Son and Holy Spirit were always ex- pressed; and that showed, that there was no differ- ence in the holy Trinity: because when the words were only directed to the person of the Father, yet the whole Trinity was honoured by the faith of the true believer; and whilst the intention of the sacri- fice was more peculiarly fixed upon the Father, the sacrifice itself was by one and the same act offered to the whole Trinity. From all which it is evident to a demonstration, that the three persons of the holy Trinity were always the object of Divine ador-- ation from the first foundation of the Christian church, and that the giving of Divine honour to the Son and Holy Ghost, as God, was not the‘ invention or addition of any later ages. ' CHAPTER III. THAT IN THE ANCIENT CHURCH RELIGIOUS WORSHIP WAS GIVEN T0 N0 CREATURE, SAINT OR ANGEL, BUT TO GOD ALONE. IT has been observed in the foregoing chapter, that the worship of Christ ratified}. prov- . . . . ed first from their in the pr1m1t1ve church was esteemed Eggs: grilialrgatilzlllis a good argument of his Divinity, be- gggfggfshipwanr cause it was then an undoubted prin- ciple, that no creature, how excellent soever, was to be worshipped with religious worship, but only the living and true God. And an Arian or a So- cinian can never answer or evade this argument from antiquity, so long as both these assertions stand good, that Christ was worshipped with religious worship, and that nothing is to be worshipped with religious worship but only the living and true God. The force of this argument has been much weakened, and indeed wholly enervated and destroyed, by the writers of the Romish church, in whose mouths the argument signifies nothing to an Arian or Socinian, because their own practice, in giving religious wor- ship to saints and angels, is a sufficient answer to it. For upon supposition that saints and angels may be worshipped, the worship of Christ can be no argu- ment of his Divinity, no more than it is of the Di- vinity of saints or angels, because they are worship- ped in the Romish church. But upon the principles of the primitive church, the argument is unanswer- able: for, at the same time that they asserted the worship of Christ, they asserted, likewise, that re- ligious worship was not to be given to any creature, but to God alone. And in this view, the argument for Christ’s Divinity was very rational and solid. As, therefore, we have seen the truth of the first po- sition, That Christ was religiously worshipped in the primitive church, made good from their unde- niable assertions and practice ; so now we will a little examine the truth of the second, That nothing is to be religiously worshipped but only the living and true God. Which position is designed to be handled here, only as an illustration and confirm- 1°' Vid. Constit. lib. 8. cap. 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 29, 37, 38, 39, 41. 1°? Conc. Carthag. 3. can. 23. 1°’ Constit.}ib. 8. cap. 7. 1°‘ Fulgent. ad Monimum, lib. 2. cap. 5. Omne cujus- libet honorificentiae et sacrificii salutaris obsequium, et Patri et Filio et S piritui Sancto, hoc est, sanctae Trinitati ab ec- clesia catholica pariter exhiberi.—-—Neque enim praejudi- cium Filio vel Sancto Spiritui comparatur, .dum ad Patris personam precatio ab offerente dirigitur. Cujus consum- matio dum Filii et Spiritus Sancti complectitur nomen, ostendit nullum esse in Trinitate discrimen. Quia dum ad solius Patris personam sermo dirigitur, bene credentis fide tota Trinitas honoratur: et cum ad Patrem litantis destina- tur intentio, sacrificii munus omni Trinitati uno eodemque ofiertur litantis oificio. 590 Boox XIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. ation of the argument for the Divinity of Christ, drawn from vthe practice of the primitive church in giving religious adoration to him. And the truth of this proposition I shall confirm briefly these three ways: 1. By showing, in general, that the ancients de- clare universally against giving religious worship or adoration to any creature, or being which by nature is not God. 2. That in particular they rejected the worship of saints and angels, as idolatry and unlaw- ful. 3. That there is no mention made of it but in the practice either of heretics or heathens, whose idolatry is aggravated upon the account of this prac- tice. In the first place it is observable, that the ancients in general declare against giving religious worship to any creature, or being which by nature is not God. It would fill a whole volume to cite all that is said by the ancients upon this head, there- fore I shall content myself to select a few plain passages out of an infinite number that might be alleged to this purpose. Justin Martyrl often tells the emperors in his Apology, That Christians could worship none but God alone: and that Christ had taught them so in saying, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve with all thy heart, and with all thy strength, the Lord God that made thee; and again in saying, “ Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” Therefore we worship God alone, but in all other things we cheerfully serve you. In like manner Theophilus, bishop of An- tioch: I will honour the king, says he, not by wor- shipping him, but praying for him. But I will worship God, the living and true God, knowing that by him the king is ordained. You will say then, Why do you not worship the king? Because he is not made to be worshipped, but to be honoured with lawful honour. For he is not a God, but a man. And as he will not suffer any other to assume the title of king but himself; so neither is it lawfulz to worship any other but God alone. In another place’ he says, God’s laws forbid not only the wor- ship of idols, but all other creatures, the sun, moon, and stars, heaven, earth, and sea; and command the worship of the true God alone, who is the Crea- tor of all things. After the same manner Tertul- lian, speaking of the Christians’ prayers for the em- perors and the peace of the world,‘ says, They asked these things of the living and true God, and they could ask them of no other but him, of whom they were sure to obtain them, because he alone was able to give them. And he repeats the same ‘in several5 other places of his writings. This was the answer which the martyrs commonly gave to the persecuting judges, when they solicited them to worship other gods. When Fructuosus (a Spanish bishop and martyr, who suffered at Tarragone about the year 262) was commanded to sacrifice, he re- plied, I only worship one God,6 the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things that are therein. And so Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, answered ZEmy- lian the prefect, as he himself tells us in an epistle recorded by Eusebius :' I have publicly testified, says he, that I worship none but the true God alone, neither can I ever depart from this practice, or cease to be a Christian. And when .ZEmylian urged him further to worship the gods of the empire together with his own God, his answer was still the same, We worship him and no other. There are many the like expressions in Irenaaus,8 Clemens Alexandrinus,9 Origen,lo Cyprian,‘l Lactantius,12 the author of the Recognitions under the name of Clemens Ro- manus,“ Athenagoras, Tatian, and others; which, because the learned reader may have recourse to himself, or read them collected together in one view in that excellent book of Mr. Daille,“ against the idolatry of the church of Rome, I shall here omit them, and proceed To the second observation; which is, Sect 2. That the ancients not only in general thfiijwgglnyjingfim reject the worship of any creature, but msijffgefsf “fa-53:? reject the worship of saints and angels 35:333., it‘; $31 in particular, as idolatry and unlaw- my’ ful. And of this we cannot have a plainer proof than was given in the answer of the church of Smyrna to the suggestion of the Jews, when, at the martyrdom of Polycarp, the Jews desired the heathen judge, that he would not permit the Christians to carry off the body of Polycarp, lest they should leave their crucified Master, and begin to worship this man in his stead. This suggestion, says the answer, proceeded purely from ignorance, that we could neither forsake Christ, nor worship any ‘5 I Just. Apol. 2. p. 63. T51! Gsdu po'vov ds'i' qrpoo'lcvus'i'u, &c. It. p. 64. "06211 9861! 11.621011 w'poo-lcvvoiinsv, &c. 2 Theoph. ad Autolyc. lib. 1. p. 30. 066E d'klup £561: is: 'Irpoo'icvue'io'eat, (DOC ii mimp Osq'i. 3 Id. lib. 2. p. 173. Mo'vqu ‘rep dim-we Beep Kai. aroma-{i 75w {Dum} Xpi'; ha'rpsi'lew. “ Tertul. Apol. cap. 30. Nos pro salute imperatorum Deum invocamus aeternum, Deum verum, Deum vivum. Haec ab alio orare non possum, quam a quo me scio consecuturum, quouiam et ipse est qui solus praestat, &c. 5 Tertul. Scopiac. cap. 4. Praescribitur mihi, ne quem alium. adorem, aut quoquomodo venerer, praeter unicum illum, qui ita mandat. Vid. Apol. c. 17. et ad Scapul. c. 2. 6 Acta Fructuosi, ap. Baron. an. 262. n. 62. Ego unum Deum c010, qui fecit coelum et terram, et omnia quae in eis sunt. '’ Dionys. Epist. ap. Euseb. lib. 7. c. 11. Tdu 9.2611 76:: o'u'ra #611011, Kai. obdéua E'rspov créflwv. 8 Iren. lib. 5. cap. 22. 9 Clem. Strom. 6. p. 825. 1° Orig. cont. Cels. lib. 1. p. 10. lib. 8. p. 395. et passim. 1‘ Cypr. Ep. 58. It. ad Demetrian. p. 13'). ‘2 Lactant. lib. 2. cap. 1. lib. 4. c. 14. 18 Recognit. lib. 5. c. 16. 1‘ Dallae. de Objecto Cult. Religiosi, lib. 1. cap. 2, 3, 4. '5 Martyr. Polycarp. ap. Euseb. lib. 4. cap. 15. p. 134. CHAP. III. 591 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. other. For we worship him, as being the Son of God; but the martyrs, as the disciples and followers of the Lord, we love with a due affection, for their great love of their own King and Master; with whom we desire to be partners and fellow disciples. A like answer was given at the martyrdom of Fruc- tuosus in Spain. For when the judge asked Eulo- gins, his deacon, whether he would not worship Fructuosus? as thinking, that he who refused to worship the heathen idols, might yet perhaps be inclined to worship 3. Christian martyr: to this Eulogius plainly replied, I do not worship ‘8 Fructu- osus, but I worship him whom Fructuosus worships. We are beholden to Baronius himself for this testi- mony: and we cannot desire a clearer evidence, that in those early times the Christians did not worship the martyrs, but only the God of the martyrs, to whom the martyrs offered their own bodies in sacri- fice, whilst they died for his name, and sealed their confession with their blood. Before this, Origen, in his answers to Celsus, positively denies that ever the Jews or Christians gave any religious worship to angels. He says, They are ministering spirits, that bring the gifts of God to us, but there is no command in Scripture to worship" or adore them. For all prayers, supplications, intercessions, and giving of thanks, are to be sent up to God by the great High Priest, the living Word of God, who is superior to all angels. He says again,18 Allowing what Celsus pleaded to be true, that the angels were God’s heralds and heavenly messengers; yet still the heralds and messengers were not to be worship- ped, but he whose heralds and messengers they were. He repeats this frequently in his eighth Book in several places,“ which for brevity’s sake I here omit, only reciting one passage more, because it so handsomely meets with that common pretence of the Romanists, that we are to worship angels, be- cause they are the friends of God. We must endea- vour, says he,” to please God alone, who is above all things, and labour to have him propitious unto us, procuring his good will with piety and all kind of virtue. And if Celsuswill yet have us to pro- cure the good will of any others, after him that vis God over all; let him consider, that as, when the body is moved, the shadow follows its motion; so, in like manner, when we have God, who is over all, favourable unto us, it follows, that we shall have all his friends, both angels, and souls, and spirits, fa- vourable unto us also. For they have a fellow feel- ing with them that are thought worthy to find fa- vour from God. Neither are they only favourable to such as are thus worthy, but they labour with them also that are willing to worship God over all, and are friendly to them, and sympathize with them, and pray with them. So that we may be hold to say, that when men, who with resolution propose unto themselves the best things, do pray unto God, many thousands of the sacred powers pray together with them unspoken to, ci'xhm'ot, with- out any invocation. A like answer is given to the same pretence by the author under the name of St. Ambrose. Men are wont, says he,21 when they are ashamed of their neglecting of God, to use this miserable excuse; that by these they might go to God, as by officers we go to the king. To which he answers, Is any man so mad, or so unmindful of his salvation, as to give the king’s honour to an officer; when if any shall be found but to treat of such a matter, they will be justly condemned as guilty of high treason? And yet these men think themselves not guilty, who give the honour of God’s name to a creature, and forsaking the Lord, adore their fellow servants; as though there were any thing more that could be reserved to God. For therefore men go to the king by tribunes or officers, because the king is but a man, and knows not with whom he may intrust the affairs of the common- wealth. But to obtain the favour of God, (from whom nothing is hid, for he knows the merits of all men,) we have no need of an advocate or spokesman, but only a devout mind. For wheresoever such a one shall speak unto him, he will answer him. We have heard before out of Irenaeus,22 that the church in his time, though she wrought many miracles for the benefit of men, yet did nothing by invocation of angels, but only by prayer to God and the Lord_ J c- sus Christ. And that thus it continued to be in the time of Athanasius, appears plainly from his way of disputing with the Arians, when he proves the unity of the Father and Son, from the apostle’s joining them together in prayer, I Thess. iii. 11, “ God himself and our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way unto you.” No man, says he,28 ‘8 Acta Fructuosi, ap. Baron. an. 262. n. 62. Ego Fruc- tuosum non colo, sed ipsum colo, quem et Fructuosus. Vid. Aug. Serm. 101. de Diversis, p. 571. 17 Orig. cont. Oels. lib. 5. p. 233. OI'IX c'bcr'rs 'n'poa'rtia- o'po'fiat filu'iu robs dtaxouoiiv'ras—o'e'fiew Kai 'n'poo-Kvvs'iu a’v'ri. 'roii 6505, &c. 13 Ibid. p. 239. ‘9 Lib. 8. p. 416. 2° Ibid. p. 420. 2‘ Ambros. in Rom. i. Solent tamen pudorem passi neg- lecti Dei, misera ea uti excusatione, dicentes, Per istos posse ire ad Deum, sicut per comites pervenitur ad regem. Age, nunquid tam demens est aliquis, aut salutis sues immemor, ut honorificentiam regis vindicet comiti, cum de hac re si qui etiam tractare fuerint inventi, jure ut rei majestatis damnentur? Et isti se non putant reos, qui honorem no- minis Dei deferunt creatures, et relicto Domino conservos adorant; quasi sit aliquid plus, quod reservetur Deo. Nam et ideo ad regem per tribunos aut comites itur, quia homo utique est rex, et nesciat quibus debeat rempublicam cre- dere. Ad Deum, (ante quem nihil latet, omnium enim merita novit,) promerendum suifragatore non opus est, sed mente devota. 2’ Iren. lib. 2. c. 57. Nec invocationibus angelicis facit, nec incantationibus, &c. 2‘ Athan. Orat. 4. cont. Arian. t. l. p. 464. 592 Boox XIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. would pray to receive any thing from the Father and the angels, or from any other of the creatures: neither would any man say, God and the angel give me this. And whereas the Arian might have said, that Jacob joined God and the Angel together in prayer, Gen. xlviii. 16; Athanasius obviates this exception, by saying, He did not join one of the created angels, who are angels by nature, with God, who was their Creator; neither did he, omitting God that fed him, desire a blessing from an angel upon his children: but in saying, “the Angel which redeemed me from all evil,” he showed that it was not any of the created angels, but the Word of God, whom he joined with the Father, and prayed unto him. There had been no force in this argument, had the church used invocation of angels in her prayers in the time of Athanasius : the Arian might easily have replied, that his argument was refuted by experience in the church’s daily practice. But that neither men nor angels were the object of religious adoration in his time, appears further from another discourse of his against the Arians," where he argues thus: Peter the apostle did forbid Cor- nelius, when he would have worshipped him, saying, “ I myself am also a man,” Acts x. 26. And the angel likewise did forbid John, when he would have worshipped him, in the Revelation, saying, “ See thou do it not; for I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them who keep the sayings of this book: worship God,” Rev. xxii. 9. Wherefore it belongs to God only to be wor- shipped. And this the angels very well know, that though they excel others in glory, yet they are all but creatures, and not in the number of those that are to be worshipped, but of those that worship the Lord. We cannot have clearer evidences than these either of the church’s doctrine or practice. Both which are equally attested by St. Austin, in his book of True Religion; where he makes it a dis- tinguishing character and property of true religion, to worship no sort of creature, particularly neither angels, nor saints after death, but the sovereign majesty of God alone. Let not our religion,25 says he, consist in the worship of dead men: because if they lived piously, they are not esteemed such as would desire that kind of honour; but would have Him to be worshipped by us, by whose illumination they rejoice to have us partners with them in their merit. They are, therefore, to be honoured for imi- tation, not to be worshipped for religion. A little after he says, That which the highest angel wor- ships, the same is to be worshipped by the meanest man. And this we are to believe, that‘ the very greatest of angels, and most excellent ministers of God, would have us worship one God with them. And therefore we honour angels with love, not with religious service: neither do we build temples to them; for they desire not to be so honoured by us; because they know, that we ourselves, when we are good, are the temples of the most high God. And therefore it is well recorded, that the angel forbade . the man to worship him, and bid him worship God, under whom he was his fellow servant, Rev. xxii. 9. It is true, indeed, the Manichees about this time began to charge the catholics with worshipping their martyrs : Faustus objected to them, That they had only exchanged the heathen idols for martyrs, whom they worshipped with the same devotions, offering sacrifice of wine and meats to the ghosts and shades of dead men. Had this been a true charge, though it could not have affected the argu- ment, as drawn from the practice of the church in former ages, yet it would have proved the corruption of saint-worship to have crept a little earlier into the church than will now be allowed. But the truth of the matter is, it was a mere calumny of Faustns’s own inventing; and St. Austin rejects it with the utmost scorn and indignation. Therefore he says,26 in answer to it, That the Christian people did cele— brate the memories of the martyrs with religious solemnity, both to excite themselves to their imita- tion, and to be partners in their merits, and to have the benefit of their prayers: yet so, as that we never offer any sacrifice to a martyr, but to the God of martyrs, although we erect altars in the memories of the martyrs, meaning churches called by their 2‘ Athan. Orat. 3. cont. Arian. p. 394. 25 Aug. de Vera Relig. cap. 55. t. 1. p. 317. Non sit nobis religio cultus hominum mortuorum: quia si pie vixerunt, non sic habentur, ut tales quaerant honores: sed illum a nobis coli volunt, quo illuminante laetantur meriti sui nos esse con- sortes. Honorandi sunt ergo propter imitationem, non adorandi propter religionem.—-—~Quod colit summus ange- lus, id colendum est etiam ab homine ultimo.—--Hoc etiam ipsos optimos angelos, et excellentissima Dei ministeria velle credamus, ut unum cum ipsis colamus Deum.——Quare honoramus eos charitate, non servitute; nec eis templa con- struimus: nolunt enim se sic honorari a nobis, &c. 26 Aug. cont. Faust. lib. 20. cap. 21. t. 6. p. 156. Populus Christianus memorias martyrum religiosa solennitate con- celebrat, et ad excitandam imitationem, et ut meritis eorum consocietur, atque orationibus adjuvetur: ita tamen ut nulli martyrum, sed ipsi Deo martyrum sacrificemus, quamvis in memoriis (al. in memorias) martyrum constituamus altaria. Quis enim antistitum in locis sanctorum corporum adsistens altari, aliquando dixit, Ofi'erimus tibi, Petre, vel Paule, vel Cypriane? Sed quod ofl’ertur, ofl'ertur Deo, &c. Colimus ergo martyres eo cultu dilectionis et societatis, quo et in hac vita coluntur sancti homines Dei, quorum cor ad talem pro evangelica veritate passionem paratum esse sentimus.——- At vero illo cultu, quas Greece latria dicitur, Latine uno verbo dici non potest, cum sit quaedam proprie Divinitati debita servitus, nec colimus, nec colendum docemus, nisi unum Deum. Cum autem ad hunc cultum pertineat oblatio sacrificii, unde idololatria dicitur eorum, qui hoc etiam idolis exhibent: nullo modo tale aliquid ofl'erimus, aut ofl'ereudum praecipimus, vel cuiquam martyri, vel cuiquam sanctse ani- mse, vel cuiquam angelo: et quisquis in hunc errorem dela- bitur, corripitur per sanam doctrinam, sive ut corrigatur, sive ut condemnetur, sive ut caveatur. CHAP. III. 593 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. names. For what priest, standing at the altar in the places where the holy bodies lie, ever said, We offer unto thee, Peter, or Paul, or Cyprian? But whatever is offered, is offered unto God that crown- ed the martyrs, at the memories of those whom he crowned, that by the very admonition of the places our affection may rise higher, to quicken our love both toward them, whom we may imitate, and to- ward Him who enables us to imitate them. There- fore we worship the martyrs with that worship of love and society, wherewith we worship holy men of God in this life, whose heart we perceive to be prepared to suffer in like manner for the gospel truth. But with that worship, which the Greeks call Zatrz‘a, and the Latins cannot express by one word, being a service proper to God, we neither worship, nor teach any one to worship any other but God alone. And whereas the offering of sa- crifice appertains to this kind of worship, whence it is called idolatry in those that give it to idols; we neither offer, nor teach any to offer such worship, either to any martyr, or any holy soul, or any angel; but whoever falls into this error, is rebuked by sound doctrine, either to correct him, or condemn him, or to make him be avoided by others. It is plain from this answer of St. Austin’s, that the charge of giving religious worship to saints and angels was false, and a mere calumny upon the church in those days; and that the only persons then guilty of it, were such as were disowned and discarded by the church. Which brings me to the third and last consideration proposed to confirm this position, That the ancient church did not give religious worship either to saints or angels, because she condemned the practice both in heathens and heretics, and aggravated their idolatry upon this account. Sect. 3. St. Austin in another place makes 'I'hirdly, From their charging the a severe remark upon all such as liiigiigg Orin‘; ‘L11’? sought to angels by prayer for their mummy’ assistance: he says they were dis- tracted with strange curiosities and illusions. Take it in his own words, as he delivers it in a pious re- flection upon his own happiness in escaping the snare at his own conversion, and a thankful ac- knowledgment of God’s mercy in delivering him from such a delusion. Whom, says he, should I have found, that might reconcile me unto thee? Should I have gone unto” the angels ? With what prayer? with what sacraments? Many, endeavour- ing to return unto thee, and not being able to do it by themselves, as I hear, have tried these things; and have fallen into the desire of curious visions, and were accounted worthy of illusions. St. Chry- sostom has a more severe reflection on this sort of men; for he not only says,28 That no creature is to be worshipped by man, neither of things above, nor things below, whether man, or demons, or angels, or archangels, or any other supernal powers, but only God the Lord of all; and that the apostle, in the second chapter of his Epistle to the Colossians, discourses against such as taught, that man was to come to God by angels, and not by Christ; for that was too great for him :29 but he adds, in pursuance of the same matter, that it was the devil80 which introduced this having recourse to angels, whilst he envied the honour of man. These be the enchant- ments of devils. Though it be an angel, though an archangel, though they be cherubims; endure it not. For neither will these powers themselves re- ceive it, but reject it, when they see their Lord dis- honourcd. I have honoured thee, saith God, and bid thee call upon me. And dost thou then dis- honour him? Where we see plainly, that invocation of God and invocation of angels are opposed to one another; and as the one is made the character of true religion, so the other is said to be the doctrine of devils. The persons here reflected on by Chrysostom, were probably the same as had been known in the church, and condemned, from the apostles’ days, as heretics, under the name of angelica, or angel-wor- shippers. For so St. Austin 3‘ describes them, call- ing them angelica‘, from their inclination to worship angels. And so Isidore82 after him. Irenaeus “3 seems to insinuate that heretics were wont to invocate angels, when he opposes the church’s practice to them, telling them, that many miracles were wrought in the church, not by invocation of angels, but by prayer to God and the Lord Jesus Christ. And Tertullian“ says expressly of the followers of Simon Magus, that they worshipped angels in the exercise of their magical art, which idolatry was condemned by St. Peter in their first founder. Now, there being such footsteps of angel-worship in the practice of so many heresies; and it being a thing that some were fond of, because it had a show of humility in it; the council of Laodicea, to prevent the growing 2" Aug. Confess. lib. 10. cap. 42. Quem invenirem, qui me reconciliaret tibi? An eundem mihi fuit ad angelos? Qua prece? quibus sacramentis? Multi conantes ad te redire, neque per seipsos valentes, sicut audio, tentaverunt haze; et inciderunt in desiderium curiosarum visionum, et digni habiti sunt illusionibus. 28 Chrys. Hom. 5. in Colos. p. 1348. 29 Horn. 7. in Col. p. 1360. 8° Horn. 9. in C01. p. 1381. 'O duifiohos 'rd 'rt'éu ci'y'ye'hwv é'rrewri'ya'ys, Bao'xaiuwv 13/4111 'rfis 'rtpiis' 'ré'w datptiuwu Totafi'rat ai é'lrqidai, &c. 8' Aug. de Haeres. cap. 39. Angelici, in angelorum cultu inclinati. 82 Isidor. Origin. lib. 8. cap. 5. Angelici vocati, quia angelos colunt. 38 Iren. lib. 2. cap. 57. 3‘ Tertul. de Pracscrip. cap. 33. Simonianae autem magiae disciplina angelis serviens, utique et ipsa inter idololatrias deputabatur, et a Petro apostolo in ipso Simone damnabatur. 2 Q 594 Boox XIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. malady, made a severe canon under the denunciation of anathema to restrain it. Christians, say they,85 ought not to forsake the church of God, and go aside, and hold conventicles, to invocate or call upon the names of angels. Which things are forbidden. If any one therefore be found to ex- ercise himself in this private idolatry, let him be accursed; because he hath forsaken our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and gone over to idol- atry. The first publishers of this canon in the Latin editions, changed the word angelos into angulos, corners instead of angels: but the Greek admits of no such corruption, and therefore the fraud is easily discovered; and nothing but the shame of seeing their practice so plainly condemned in this canon, could have induced any men to have attempted such a childish corruption. Theodoret, in his Comment upon the Epistle to the Colossians, has occasion twice to mention this canon. Where. he says, That because some in the apostles’ days commanded men to worship angels, therefore the apostle enjoined’"6 the contrary, that they should adorn their words and deeds with the commemoration of the Lord Christ, and send up thanksgiving to God and the Father by him, and not by the angels. And that the synod of Laodicea, following this rule, and de- siring to heal that old disease, made a law that men should not pray to angels, nor forsake our Lord J c- sus Christ. And again,$7 This vice continued in Phrygia and Pisidia for a long time, for which cause also the synod assembled in Laodicea, the chief city in Phrygia, made a law to prohibit praying to an- gels. But yet, even to this day, among them and their neighbours, there are oratories of St. Michael to be seen. Cardinal Perron uses a great deal of art and sophistry to pervert the sense of the apostle and this canon together, which the reader may find sufficiently exposed and refuted by the learned Daille,as with the false glosses of Petavius and others, with which I shall not trouble this dis- course. I only observe further, that as the church condemned heretics as guilty of idolatry for wor- shipping of angels, so did she likewise for worship- ping of their leaders and martyrs. Apollonius, who wrote against the Montanists, objects it to them, that they worshipped one Alexander, a martyr among them.39 And St. Austin reckons it among the errors of Simon Magus,40 that he left his own image, and the image of his harlot Selene, to his disciples, to be worshipped by them. They objected the same to the heatheq, that they worshipped such gods as were only men, and dead men: as may be seen in all the apologies made by Minucius Felix,“ Tertullian,42 Clemens Alexandrinus,“ Arnobius,“ Cyprian,45 and the rest that wrote against them: which had been a very weak argument, and easily retorted, had Christians worshipped their martyrs, whom they could not deny to be mortal men. The heathens further pretended, that their demons, or gods whom they worshipped, were good angels, and worshipped only as the ministers of the supreme God, and attendants of the court of heaven. Not- withstanding which pretence, they charge them with idolatry, as giving the worship of God to the crea- ture. He that would see this argument managed to just advantage, may consult the learned discourses of Mr. Daille,‘6 and Bishop Stillingfleet,47 where he will find the pretences of the heathen, and the an- swers of the Christians, collected and set in their proper light. I shall only detain my reader with one citation out of St. Austin, as a specimen of all the rest, where he introduces the heathen making this apology for themselves: We do not worship wicked devils, say they; it is the angels you speak of that we worship,48 the powers of the great God, the ministers of the great God. To which St. Aus- tin answers, I wish you would worship them, for they would quickly teach you that they are not to be worshipped. Hear the instruction of an angel. He taught a certain disciple of Christ, and showed him many miracles in the Revelation of St. John; who having seen a certain miracle in a vision, was astonished, and cast himself down at the feet of the angel. But the angel, who sought nothing but the glory of his Lord, said, Arise; what dost thou? Worship God: for I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren. How is it then, my brethren? Let no one say, I fear lest the angel should be angry at me, if I do not worship him for my God. He is then only angry at thee, when thou art inclined to 35 Conc. Laodic. can. 35. Oz’) 6e? Xplstaués E'yxacrahsi- qrsw '7'7‘111 éICKAflO'iaU 'rié 9&5, Kat dvrtéuat, Kai. a’y'yékas O’UOFLG'ZGLU, Kai. o'uuc'zgsts "n'ote'l'u, &c. 36 Theod. in Col. iii. 17. 8" Theod. in Col. ii. 18. 88 Dallas. de Objecto Cult. Relig. lib. 3. cap. 31. 89 Apollon. ap. Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 18. 4° Aug. de Haeres. cap. 1. Imagines et suam et ejusdem meretricis discipulis suis praebebat adorandas. ‘1 Minuc. Dial. p. 88. ‘2 Tertul. Apol. cap. 10, I2, 29. ‘8 Clem. Protreptic. p. 26. 4* Arnob. lib. l. p. 32. ‘5 Cyprian. de Idol. Vanit. p. 11. 46 Dallas. de Cultu Relig. lib. 3. cap. 25. ‘7 Stilling. Defence of the Discourse of Idol. part 1. chap. 1. ‘8 Aug. in Psal. xcvi. t. 8. p. 445. Respondent, Non co- limus mala daemonia.’ Angelos quos dicitis, ipsos et nos colimus, virtutes Dei magni, et ministeria Dei magni. Uti- nam ipsos colere velletis, facile ab ipsis disceretis non illos colere. Audite angelum doctorem. Docebat quendam dis- cipulum Christi, et ostendebat illi multa miracula in Apoca- lypsi J oannis. Ille autem, quodam sibi demonstrato mira- culo visionis, expavit, et misit se ad pedes angeli. Et ille angelus, qui non quaerebat nisi gloriam Domini sui, Surge, quid facis? inquit, illum adora : nam et ego conservus tuus suum, et fratrum tuorum. Quid ergo, fratres mei? Nemo dicat, Timeo, ne irascatur mihi angelus, si non illum 0010 pro Deo meo. Tune tibi irascitur, quando ipsum colere volu- eris. Bonus est enim, et Deum amat. Quomodo enim daemones irascuntur, si non colantur: sic angeli indignan- . tur, si pro Deo colantur. CHAP. IV. 595 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. worship him. For he is good, and loves God: and as the devils are angry, if they be not worshipped; so the angels are highly displeased, if they be wor- shipped instead of God. At last he concludes with this admonition to the pagans : Let the pagans learn to adore God. They have a mind to adore angels: let them imitate angels, and adore him whom the angels adore.49 And with these words I shall con- clude this whole discourse of religious worship, knowing no better admonition that can be given to the angel-worshippers of the present age, than to advise them to imitate the angelical practice of the primitive church, who had God, and only God, for the object of their adoration. CHAPTER IV. THAT ANCIENTLY DIVINE SERVICE WAS ALWAYS PERFORMED IN THE VULGAR TONGUE, UNDER- STOOD BY THE PEOPLE. HAVING thus considered the nature Fr'ggizsigézgétfitz and object of Christian worship, I gsigzrggfghganciem come now to speak of the circum- stances and manner of performing Divine service. And here it will be proper to ex- amine in what language the ancients performed their worship; and to inquire into the use and original of what we commonly call liturgies, or set forms of prayer; and to take notice of the habits, and modes, and gestures, and different rites and ceremonies observed without any breach of faith or Christian unity in different churches; together with the solemn times of prayer and religious as- semblies, whether weekly or daily, generally ob- served and set apart for the exercise of public devotion. As to the first of these, there is nothing more certain in history, than that the service of the an- cient church was always performed in the vulgar or common language of every country, that is, such as was either commonly spoken, or at least commonly understood. And so it continued for above a thou- sand years in the church. And it is even monstrous to think, that in so inquisitive an age as the pre- sent is, there should be any men of learning to de- fend, ‘or whole nations so tamely to submit to, the imposition and tyranny of the contrary practice; so absurd and unreasonable in itself; so prejudicial to devotion; so contrary to the use of speech, whose end is edifieation; so reproachful to human nature, as if men were asses indeed, as Thomas Aquinas once made the comparison; so derogatory to the Christian’s birthright; so flatly contradictory to the apostle’s reasoning; and so diametrically op- posite to the universal practice of the church for so many ages. But I shall not think myself obliged to dispute against it upon all these topics, nor to say all that might be said in an historical way against it. He that pleases may see that done already in an excellent book1 of Bishop Usher’s, published by Mr. Wharton. I shall content myself to suggest a few things agreeable to the design of treating matters succinctly, which will be sufficient to satisfy any candid reader as to the sense and practice of the primitive church. And first I observe, That the ancients declare unanimously, that Divine service was performed in the vulgar tongue of every nation. The Grecians, says Origen,2 use the Greek language in their prayers, and the Romans the Roman, and so every one in his own dialect prays to God, and gives thanks as he is able; and the God of all lan- guages hears them that pray in all dialects, un- derstanding their different languages as well as if they all spake with one tongue. This he says in answer to an objection of Celsus, who charged them with using of barbarous and unintelligible names and words in their prayers. Justin Martyr says,3 The Scriptures were first read in their assemblies to the people, and then the president made a dis- course to them, exhorting them to observe and fol- low the good instructions they had heard out of the prophets and apostles. Which had been an absurd admonition, had not the lessons been read in a lan- guage which they understood. St. Jerom tells us,‘ That at the funeral of the famous Lady Paula, the psalms were sung in Syriac, Greek, and Latin, be- cause there were men of each language present at the solemnity. And for the same reason Caesarius, bishop of Arles, is said5 to have appointed the people to sing the psalms and hymns, some in Greek, and some in Latin: no doubt, that the Divine ser- vice might be understood by men of different lan- guages then present in the assembly. Aurelius Cas- siodore, writing upon those words of the psalmist, “ She shall be brought unto the king in raiment of divers colours,” says, This variety signified that 49 Aug. in Psal. xcvi. Discant pagani adorare Deum. Angelos volunt adorare: angelos imitentur, et illum ado- rent qui ab angelis adoratur. 1 Usserii Historia Dogmatica de Scripturis et Sacris Ver- naculis, cum Auctario H. Wharton. Lond. 1690, 4to. 2 Orig. cont. Cels. lib. 8. p. 402. 'Ev 'ra'is ez’lxa'i's 0i pill "EAAm/ss ‘Ekknvuco'ls Xpiiw'rar, oi. dé 'Pwpa'iol. ‘Pwpa'i— Ko'is, &c. 8 Justin. Apol. 2. p. 98. ‘ Hieron. Epitaph. Paulae. Graeco, Latino, Syroque ser- mone psalmi in ordine personabant. ' 5 Cyprian. Vit. Caesar. Arelat. apud Surium. Aug. 27. vol. 4. p. 947. Compulit laicos et populares homines psalmos et hymnos promere, altaque et modulata voce, instar cleri- corum, alios Greece, alios Latine, prosas et antiphonas de- cantare, &c. h 2 Q 2 596 Boox XIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. diversity of tongues,6 wherewith every nation sang to-God in the church, according to the difference of their own country language. And it being then the way of the church, that all oflices should be performed with the understanding and edification of the people, Justinian provided for this in one of his laws, obliging all bishops’ and presbyters to repeat the prayers used in the communion and bap- tismal service, not in secret, but with an audible voice, so as the minds of the hearers might be raised to greater devotion, and stirred up to glorify the Lord God. For so the holy apostle directs in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, saying, “If thou blessest only with the spirit, how shall he that oc- cupieth the room of the unlearned, say the holy Amen to God at thy giving of thanks? For he knoweth not what thou sayest. For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.” It is plain by this, that Justinian thought all prayers which the people either could not hear, or could not understand, were equally blamed by the apostle, as not contributing to edification; and therefore, as he made a law against private muttering of prayers, which ought to be public; so he would no doubt have been as severe against praying in an unknown tongue, had there then been any occasion (as there was not) for the like prohibition in the liturgy of the church. Which may be collected from another of his laws, which was made upon occasion of a dis- pute which, in his time, arose among the Jews. Some of them, who were superstitiously inclined, were for having the law read only in Hebrew, though not understood by the people: others were for having it read in Greek, or any language which the peo- ple understood. The matter at last was brought before Justinian, and he determined in favour of the latter, that it should be read in Greek, or any other language,8 which the place where they lived had made more useful and known to the people. Hither- to therefore we are assured, this corruption had made no attempt to gain admittance in the service of the Christian church, since it was corrected by the civil magistrate as soon as it was observed to be creeping into the Jewish synagogue. Secondly, As a further evidence of the Peoples joinin this matter, we may observe, that all jinraygrs'fuanriddrsimkihlg the people anciently were allowed to their respmes' join in psalmody and prayers, and co . Secondly, From make their proper responses. The learned and un- learned, nay, even women, young virgins, and chil- dren, in those times, bare a part in the public ser-. vice of the church. St. Chrysostom9 and the author of the Constitutions,lo speak of children praying with the rest of the congregation for the catechu- mens and the faithful also. And St. J eromu speaks of young virgins singing the Psalter at morning and evening, at the third, and sixth, and ninth hours, and at midnight, in their course: and says, they were obliged to learn the psalms, and some portion of Scripture, every day. St. Basil ‘2 and many others (as we shall see hereafter, when we speak of psalm- ody) say, all the people sung the psalms alternately : and Basil particularly takes notice ‘a of children performing this ofiice in common with the rest of the people. And we shall meet with the people’s prayers and responses almost in every part of the li- turgy, such as the Kama, ékémmv, “Lord, have mercy,” subjoined to every petition of the deacon’s prayers; and in those mutual prayers of minister and people, “ The Lord be with you: And with thy spirit. Lift up your hearts : We lift them up unto the Lord;” with abundance more that need not here be mentioned. All which suppose the service to be in the vulgar and known language; else it were ab- surd to think, that the people should know how and when to make their responses ; or that children and young virgins should learn the psalms and Scripture by heart, and join in psalmody and other parts of the service of the church. ' Thirdly, There is nothing more common among the ancients in their discourses to the people, than to ad- 3811;" glggpififegg monish and exhort them both to hear, 11153;’ jiilhreagtcifi and read, and pray with understand- standing‘ ing, attention, and fervency of spirit. Whiéh had been very incongruous admonitions, obliging them to impracticable rules, had the lessons and prayers been in an unknown tongue. St. Basil thus ex- horts his people,“ Thou hast the psalms, thou hast the prophets, the precepts of the gospel, the preach- ings of the apostles; let thy tongue sing and thy mind search the meaning of what is spoken; that thou mayest sing with the spirit, and sing with un- derstanding also. In another homily he tells them,15 That the Divine oracles were God’s gifts to the church, to be read in every assembly, as the food Sect. 3. Thirdly, From the fCassiodor. in Psal. xliv. al. xlv. Hic varietatem aut linguas multiplices significat; quia omnis gens secundum suam patriam in ecclesia psallit auctori ; aut. virtutum pul- cherrimam diversitatem. ’ Justin. Novel. 137. cap. 6. Jubemus omnes episcopos et presbyteros, non in secreto, sed cum ea voce quae a fide- lissimo populo exaudiatur, Divinam oblationem, et preca- tionem quae fit in sancto baptismate, facere; ut inde audi- entium animi in majorem devotionem, et Dei laudationem et benedictionem efi'erantur, &c. 8 Justin. Novel. 146. 9 Chrys. Hom. 71. in Mat. p. 624. 1° Constit. lib. 8. cap. 6. 11 Hieron. Epitaph. Paulae. Mane, hora tertia, sexta, nona, vespere, noctis medio, per ordinem Psalterium canta- bant. Nee licebat cuiquam sororum ignorare psalmos, et non de Scripturis Sanctis quotidie aliquid discere. 12 Basil. Ep. 63. ad N eocaesarienses. 1* Basil. Prooem. in Psalmos. Venet. Fortunat. lib. 2, Poem. in Land. Cleri Parisiaci : Pontificis monitis clerus, plebs psallit, et infans. 1‘ Basil. Hom. in Psal. xxviii. Serm. 1. t. l. p. 154. 15 Ibid. Hom. in Psal. lix. p. 253. frequent exhorta- ' CHAP. IV. 597 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. which the Spirit afforded us for the nourishment of our souls. And in another place,16 putting the ques- tion, How a man prays with the spirit, whilst his understanding is unfruitful? he answers, That this was spoken of those that prayed in a tongue un- known to the hearers. For the apostle says, “If I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit indeed prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.” For when the words of the prayer are not known to them that are present, the understanding of him that prayeth is unfruitful, because his prayer is of no use or advantage: but when they that are pre- sent understand the prayer, which is of advantage to the hearers, then he that prays reaps the fruit of it, namely, the edification of those who receive benefit by it. And we are to conceive in like man- ner of all utterance of the words of God. For it is written, If any be useful for edification in the faith. By all this it is evident, the Scriptures and psalms and prayers were read in a known tongue; for other- wise it were in vain to exhort men to give diligence and attention to understand what they heard, if every thing was spoken in a language which they did not, or could not, understand. Fourthly, The fathers in their ser- thfggglhelgatglgglde mons frequently refer to the prayers byaflzersfaigsrsl 5:831:11: of the church, and to the lessons read &fulfhfervice of the before, as things the people were per- fectly well acquainted with. They often argue from matters contained in the prayers, as Chrysostom does commonly from all parts of the liturgy: and their sermons, for the most part, were upon such portions of Scripture as had just been read before, as I shall show when I come to the office of preaching. Now this supposes, that both the prayers and lessons of Scripture were in a known tongue; else it were absurd for the preachers to ap- peal to their auditors as well acquainted with them, or draw arguments from thence, as motives ground- ed upon their own experience, if yet indeed they had no knowledge of them. Fifthly, This is evident from that riraififtrriia the pious care which the church took to Scriptures being , _ translated mm all have the Bible translated into all lan- i‘r‘éi'utgffidiiifitti . - churches. guages , and as soon as any nation was converted, that spake an uncom- mon tongue, immediately to procure a new version of the Scriptures into their language. Eusebiusl7 says, They were translated into all languages, both of Greeks and barbarians, throughout the world, and Sect. studied by all nations as the oracles of God, Chry- sostom assures us, That the Syrians,18 the Egyptians, the Indians, the Persians, the Ethiopians, and a multitude of other nations, translated them into their own tongues, whereby barbarians learned to be philosophers, and women and children with the greatest ease imbibed the doctrine of the gospel. Theodoret19 says the same, That every nation under heaven had the Scripture in their own tongue: the Hebrew books were not only translated into Greek, but into the Roman, Egyptian, Persian, Indian, Ar- menian, Scythian, and Sauromatic languages, and, in a word, into all tongues used by all nations in his time. The like is attested by St. J erom,20 and St. Austin,21 and many others. Ulphilas is said, by all the historians,22 to have translated the whole Bible into the Gothic tongue. St. J erom translated it into the Dalmatic, as he himself23 seems to inti- mate, when he calls it his own tongue ; as Scaliger and most others understand him; though Bishop Usher24 thinks he meant the Latin rather by his own tongue. St. Chrysostom25 sometimes mentions the Syriac translation; and he is said, by the author of his Life,26 to have procured, during his exile at Cu- cusus in Armenia, a translation of the Psalms and New Testament for the use of the Armenian churches. Not to mention that of Methodius, or Cyril, into the Slavonian tongue, or any others of later ages. Of which the curious reader may find exact ac- counts in Bishop Usher,27 Bishop Walton,28 Dr. Milles,29 and Hottinger,$0 and others, upon this pe- culiar subject of the Scripture versions. As to the ancient practice, it may be evidenced further, and confirmed, usiixgihslggzi‘gqgiertlfi from the use of interpreters in the icrllffirrgfisters in the church ; whose ofiice, as has been showed in another place,81 out of Epiphanius,$2 and other writers, was to render one language into an- other, as there was occasion, both in reading the Scriptures and in the homilies that were made to the people. For it happened sometimes that there were men of different languages in the same church: as in the churches of Syria and Palestine, some un- _ derstood Syriac only, and others Greek; and in the African churches, some spake Latin and others Punic: in which cases, whatever was said in one language, was immediately rendered into the other by the interpreter for the benefit of the people. In confirmation of which custom, to what has been said before, I shall here add the observation of 16 Regal. Brev. qu. 278. 1"’ Euseb. de Praepar. Evang. lib. l2. cap. 1. Praesertim de Laud. Constant. cap. 17. p. 662. ‘8 Chrys. Hom. 1. in Joan. a1. 2. Edit. Savil. t. 2. p. 561. 1” Theod. de Curand. Graecor. Affect. Serm. 5. t. 4. p. 555. 2° Hieron. Praefat. in 4 Evangel. 21 Aug. Ep. 48. ad Vincent. 2'’ Socrat. lib. 4. cap. 33. Sozom. lib. 6. cap. 37, Z’ Hieron. Ep. 134. ad Sophronium. 2‘ Usser. de Sacris Vernac. p. 220. 25 Chrys. Hom. 3. in 2 Cor. p. 754. 26 Gregor. Alexandria. Vit. Chrys. n. 59. t. 8. Edit. Savil. 2’ Usser. de Script. Vernac. p. 220. 28 Walton. Prolegom. cap. 5. 29 Millii Prolegom. in Nov. Test. . 9° Hottinger. de Translat. Biblior. Heidelberg. 1660. 3' Book III. chap. l3. sect. 4. ‘*2 Epiphan. Expos. Fid. n. 21. 598 Boox XIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Theodoret83 upon the practice of Chrysostom, who, by the help of such an interpreter, often preached to the Arian Goths in Constantinople, whom by that means he reduced to the catholic faith. Séch 7 Another custom observed in the an- Seventhly; From cient church, was to have Bibles in the custom of hav- . . . ins Bibles laid in the vulgar tongue laid in a convenient churches for the gfgfgfm °° "ad in part of the church, for the people at their leisure to employ themselves, as they were piously inclined, in reading of the Scrip- tures before or after the times of Divine service. Of which custom those verses of Paulinus,84 which he wrote upon the wall of the secretmv'um of the church of Nola, are an infallible proof, which were in these words: Si quem sancta tenet meditandi in lege voluntas; Hic poterit residens sacris intendere libris: If any one is piously disposed to meditate in God’s law; here heamay sit, and employ himself in read- ing the holy books. Thus Constantine himself, as is observed by Eusebius,85 was wont to employ himself in the church, partly by joining in the public prayers with the people, and partly by taking the books of the Divine oracles into his hands, and ex- ercising his mind in the contemplation of them. And probably for this reason he ordered Eusebius to prepare fifty copies of the Bible for the use of the church of Constantinople,86 as his letter to Eu- sebius witnesses: for it is observed and spoken to his praise by Eusebius in another place,87 that by his means innumerable multitudes both of men and women exchanged the food of their bodies for that of their souls, that rational food, which was so agree- able to rational minds, and which they obtained by reading the Holy Scriptures. This must necessarily relate, either to their reading the Scriptures by the help and benefit of his copies in the church, or else will argue that they were encouraged by him to read them at home in their private houses; which had been denied them under pain of banishment or death before, in the preceding reigns of the perse- cuting princes. Sect. 8. And this leads us to another plain Eishthly, Frog; evidence of the primitive practice; the general all _ , , ance granted to an whlch was, the privilege and encou- men to have and . - Flga‘tihgff 33$?“ ragement all Christians had to read . W i '- ' $312522,” $223.2- the Scriptures at home, for the exer- iiigifaiiiaii‘gerggf cise of themselves and families in cutors. _ . private devotion, and better prepara- tion for the public. None ever denied them this privilege, but those persecuting tyrants, who in- tended to destroy the name and faith of Christians, together with their Bibles, out of the world: for which reason they made the strictest search after them, and used all imaginable art and force to make them deliver them up to be burnt: which they who did, were branded by the infamous name of tradi- tores, traitors, and betrayers of their religion. A certain argument, that then private Christians had the use of the Scriptures; else they could not have been impeached for delivering them up to the enemy. It cannot he pleaded here, that the Scrip- tures were then only in the hands of the bishops, and readers, and others of the clergy: for Baronius himself has published the Acts of several martyrs, where not only private men, but women, confess to the inquisitors that they had the Holy Scriptures in their houses with them. I will give a single in- stance out of the Acts of Agape and Irene,38 and their companions. Where the grand inquisitor asks this question of Irene, Who advised you to keep those parchments and Scriptures to this time? To which Irene answered, God Almighty, who has commanded us to love him unto the death; for which cause we durst not betray him; but had rather be burnt alive, or suffer any other things that may befall us, than treacherously deliver up those writings. It is plain from this, that private Christians, both men and women, then enjoyed the Scriptures as their birthright, and none pretended to ravish them from them but only the persecuting heathens. The fathers of the church were so far from doing this, that, on the contrary, they used all manner of arguments to induce men to read and study them; exhorting them not only to hear them with attention in the church, but to read them pri- vately at home with their wives and families; com- mending those that studied them, and reproving those that neglected them; making large encomi- ums upon the use and excellency of them, and re- quiring men to peruse them privately as the best preparation for the public service and instruction: answering all objections and pretences that men could make to the contrary; as, that they were ig- norant and unleamed, and that the Scriptures were diflicult and hard to be understood; that they were only for the use of monks and religious, and not for secular men, and men of business: assuring them that the Scriptures were for the use of all men, and that it was the neglect of them that was the cause of all ignorance, heresies, errors, and irreligion. These were the general topics, upon which the fathers then pressed the common people to read the 8’ Theod. lib. 5. cap. 30. 3* Paulin. Ep. 12. ad Severum. ‘5 Euseb. Vit. Constant. lib. 4. cap. 17. 9“ Ap. Euseb. ibid. lib. 4. cap. 36. et ap. Theod. lib. 1. cap. 16. et Socrat. lib. 1. cap. 6. I 8" Euseb. Orat. de Laudibus Constant. cap. 17. p. 661. ‘*8 Acta Agapes et Sociarum, ap. Baron. an. 304. n. 46. Quisnam tibi auctor fuit, ut membranas istas atque Scrip- turas in hodiernum usque diem custodires? Irene inquit, Deus omnipotens, qui jussit nos ad mortem usque ipsum diligere, qua de causa non ausi sumus eum prodere, sed maluimus aut viventes comburi, aut, quaecunque alia nobis acciderint, perpeti, quam talia scripts. prodere. C HAP. IV. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 599 ANTIQUITIES OF THE Scriptures, which are diametrically opposite to the arguments used in later ages to dissuade and deter men from the use of them. A man cannot look into the fathers, but he will see such arguments every where running through their writings. So that it is needless here to insist upon them: the reader that pleases, may see them collected to- gether from first to last by Bishop Usher and Mr. Wharton. I shall only relate one passage of Chrysostom, out of his famous sermons upon Laza- rus, where he at once proposes the several argu- ments, and answers the several objections, I have now mentioned. For this reason, says he?9 we often acquaint you many days beforehand with the subject of our discourse, that, taking the Bible into your hands in the mean time, and running over the whole passage, you may have your minds better prepared to hear what is to be spoken. And this is the thing I have always advised, and shall still continue to exhort you to, that you should not only hear what is said in this place, but spend your time at home continually in reading the Holy Scriptures. And here let no one use those frigid and vain excuses, I am a man engaged in the busi- ness of the law, I am taken up with civil affairs, I am a tradesman, I have a wife, and children to breed up, I have the care of a family, I am a secu- lar man: it belongs not to me to read the Scrip- tures, but to those that have bid adieu to the world, and are retired into the mountains, and have no- thing else to do but to exercise themselves in such a way of living. What sayest thou, O man? Is it not thy business to read the Scriptures, because thou art distracted with a multitude of other cares? Yes, certainly, it belongs to thee more than them. For they have not so much need of the help of the Holy Scriptures, as you have, who are tossed in the waves of the multiplicity of business. Then, enu- merating what sins and temptations secular men are exposed to, he infers, that they have perpetual need of Divine remedies, as well to cure the wounds they have already received, as to ward off those they are in danger of receiving; to quench the darts of the devil whilst they are at a distance, and drive them away, by continual reading of the Holy Scrip- tures. For it is impossible that a man should attain salvation without perpetual exercise in reading spi- ritual things. But some again will say, What if we cannot understand the things that are contained therein? Why, says he,‘0 even in that case, though you do not understand every thing that is contained therein, yet by reading you shall obtain much sanc- tification. For it is impossible that you should be equally ignorant of all things in those books. For the grace of the Spirit so ordered it, that they should originally be composed and written by publicans, and fishers, and tent-makers, and shepherds, and private and illiterate men, that none of the most ignorant and unlearned might have this excuse of difliculty to fly to; that the things there spoken might be easy to be looked into by all men; that the handicraftsman, the servant, the widow, the most illiterate and unlearned among men, might reap benefit and advantage by hearing them read. The apostles and prophets, he says, wrote not, like the philosophers of the Gentiles, in obscure terms, but made things plain to the understandings of all men, as being the common teachers of the world, that every man by himself might learn by reading alone the things that were spoken. To whom are not all things in the gospel manifest and plain? Who is there that, hearing those sayings, “ Blessed are the meek, Blessed are the merciful, Blessed are the pure in heart,” and the like, would desire a teacher, to understand the meaning of them ? M ore- over, the signs, and miracles, and histories, are they not all intelligible and plain to any ordinary reader? This, therefore, is only a pretence, and excuse, and cloak for idleness. Thou dost not understand the things contained in the Scripture. How shouldst thou understand them, when thou wilt not so much as look into them? Take the book into thy hands, read the whole history, and remember those things that are intelligible and easy; and those things that are more obscure and dark, read over and over again: and if thou canst not by frequent reading dive into the meaning of what is said, go to a wiser person, betake thyself to a teacher, and confer with him about any such passage; show thy diligence and desire to be informed. And when God sees thy willingness and readiness of mind, he will not de- spise thy vigilance and care; but though man in- form thee not in the things about which thou makest inquiry, he himself will certainly reveal it unto thee. Remember the eunuch of the Ethi- opian queen, who, though he was a barbarian, and immersed in a multitude of cares and business, and understood not what he read, yet he read for all that, sitting in his chariot. And if he showed so great diligence by the way, consider how he be- haved himself at home. If he would not omit reading in the time of a journey: much less would he omit it when he sat quietly in his own house. If, when he understood nothing of it, he still con- tinued to read, much more would he do it when he came to understand it. Wherefore, because he read when he had no guide, he quickly found a guide. God knew the willingness of his mind, and accepted his diligence, and presently sent him a teacher. But Philip you will say, does not now stand by us. No; but the Spirit that moved Philip is still by us. Let us not neglect our own .salva- 39 Chrys. Horn. 3. in Lazar t. 5. p. 59. -f 4° Chrys. Hom. 3. in. Lazar. t. 5. p. 62. 600 BooK XIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. tion, beloved. These things were written for our salvation, upon whom the ends of the world are come. The reading of the Scriptures is our great guard against sin. Our ignorance of them‘ is a dangerous precipice, and a deep gulf: it is an ab- solute betraying of our salvation, to know nothing of the Divine law. - It is this that has brought forth so many heresies; this, that has brought so much corruption into our lives ; this, that has turned all things into confusion. One would think St. Chrysostom had foreseen all the little pleas and sophistry of the Romish church, and was here disputing and inveighing against them. So apposite is every word to refute their trifling pretences; That ignorance is the mother of devo- tion; that the Scriptures are obscure; that there is need of an infallible guide on earth, besides the Spirit, to understand them; that the promiscuous use of them is the cause of all errors and heresies ; that laymen and secular men are not fit to be in~ trusted with them: each of which positions is as plainly combated by St. Chrysostom, as if he had been directly disputing against the insufferable ty- ranny and frivolous pleas of the present church of Rome: and his whole discourse, with some hun- dreds of the like passages that might be alleged out of him and other writers, do irrefragably show, that it was as much the care and concern of the primitive church to have the service of God and the Scriptures to be understood by all, as now it is the concern of the Roman church to have them con- cealed from their knowledge, and locked up in a lan- guage which the unlearned do not understand. For it is very observable further, the liberty granted that in the primitive church not only EZC‘fRIQZZZjZdJ-fifi men and women, but children were Eihfegilbiifepgiiifi encouraged and trained up from their tum infancy to the reading of the Holy Scriptures ; and the catechumens were not only ad- mitted to some of the prayers of the church pecu- liarly appropriated to their condition, but also obliged to learn the Scriptures, as part of their dis- cipline and instruction. Of their obligation to learn the Scriptures, we have treated before,‘ll in speak- ing of the method of training them up for baptism: and of their admission to certain prayers of the church, we shall see more hereafter, in that part of the worship called the service of the catechu- mens.42 All, then, that is further here to be showed, is, that children were trained up to the use of the Holy Scriptures. And of this we have undoubted evidence from many eminent instances of their practice. Eusebius48 remarks of the great care of Sect. 9. Ninthly, From Leonides the martyr, and father of Origen, in the education of his son, that he made him learn the Scriptures before he set him to the study of the liberal arts and polite learning. And Socrates“ makes the like observation upon the education of Eusebius, surnamed Emisenus, who was born of noble parentage at Edessa, a city of Osroene in Mesopotamia, that he was first taught the Holy Scriptures from his infancy, and then human learn- ing: and Sozomen,‘l5 in relating the same story, says, this was done Ica'rd mirpwv é’Oog, according to the custom of the country; which shows that it was no singular instance, but a general practice, to bring children up from their infancy to the use of the Holy Scriptures. Gregory Nyssen46 notes it in the Life of his sister Macrina, That the first part of her instruction in her infancy, was to be taught the easy portions of Scripture, that were most suitable to her age: and he says also,‘7 she did the same for her younger brother Peter, taking him from his mother’s breasts, and instructing him in the Scriptures, that he might have no time to spend upon vain studies. It is noted by Sozomen"8 and Palladius, of Marcus the hermit, that he was so expert in the Scriptures when he was but a youth, that he could repeat all the Old and New Testament without book. And it is ob— servable, that as there were many catechetic schools in those times for explaining the Scriptures to the catechumens, so there were also schools appointed in many churches to instruct the youth in the know- ledge of the Scriptures. When Gregory, the apos- tle of the Armenians, first converted that nation, it is said in his Life,49 That he set up schools in every city, and masters over them, by the king’s command, to teach the Armenian children to read the Bible. And Theodoret50 relates a remarkable story of Pro- togenes the scribe, That when Valens the Arian emperor banished him to Antinoe in Thebais, in the utmost parts of Egypt, he, finding the greatest part of the city to be heathens, set up a charity school among them, and taught them the Holy Scriptures ; dictating to them in writing short-hand David’s Psalms, and making them learn such doctrines of the apostolical Writings, as were proper for them to understand; by which means he brought many, both of the children and parents, over to the Chris- tian faith. And it has been observed before,51 that by the canons of some councils such sort of charity schools were appointed to be set up in cathedrals and other churches, where, no doubt, according to the custom of those days, children were taught to read the Scriptures.52 These rules were renewed in several councils under Charles the Great and the fol! 4' Book X. chap. i. sect. 6. ‘8 Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 2. ‘5 Sozom. lib. 3. cap. 6. ‘6 Nyssen. Vit. Macrin. t. 2. p. 179. 47 Ibid. p. 185. ‘8 Sozom. lib. 6. cap. 29. Pallad. Hist. Lausiaca, cap. 21. ‘2 Book XIV. chap. 5. ‘4 Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 9. ‘9 Acta Gregorii, ap. Simeon. Metaphrast. Sept. 30, cited by Bishop Usher. 5° Theod. lib. 4. cap. 15. al. 18. 5' See Book VIII. chap. 7. sect. 12. 52 Gone. 6. General. can. 4 et 5. CHAP. IV. 601 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. lowing princes. Particularly in the second council of Chalons,58 anno 813, it was appointed, That ac- cording to the order of Charles the emperor, bishops should set up schools to teach both grammar and the knowledge of the Scriptures. And in the coun- cil of Toul, or Savonieres,54 in Lorrain, the decree was renewed, That schools of the Holy Scripture and human learning should be erected; forasmuch as, by the care of the religious emperors in former days, by this means both ecclesiastical knowledge and human learning had made a considerable progress in the world. And Mr. Wharton"5 will furnish the inquisitive reader with many other rules and canons, made about the same time, to promote and encou- rage the learning of the‘Scriptures. Sect ,0. I only observe one thing more, that ,Of‘nisflli'd Ffififgrtllff the very form and tenor of the ordin- iil-Zdeiiriiiiiion °f ation of readers anciently did mani- chmh' festly imply, that the service of the ancient church was always performed. in a known tongue. For they were sometimes ordained with prayer to God for his Holy Spirit, to qualify them to read his word to the instruction and edification of the people. The form of their ordination in the book of the Constitutions, prays, That God“ would give the reader wisdom, as he did to Esdras, to read his laws to the people. Now, it is well known how Esdras read the law to them, by causing them to understand the reading. Neh. viii. 7, 8, “They read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.” And if all readers read as Esdras did, they certainly either read, or interpreted the reading, in a known tongue. ‘For he rendered that which was written in the Hebrew tongue, into the Chaldee or Syriac, which was, after the captivity, the common language of the people. Cyprian twice or thrice speaks of the ordination and office of readers, and he plainly intimates, that the people understood what they read out of the gospel to them. In one place, speaking of Celerinus the confessor, whom he had ordained a reader, he says, It was very fitting he should read the gospel,57 who had so courageously and faithfully observed it; and that the same tongue which had confessed the Lord, should be daily heard to repeat what the Lord hath spoken; since there was nothing wherein a confessor could more advantage his brethren, than to have them hear the gospel read by the mouth of such a confessor and reader, whose faith was so brave an example. In another epistle,58 speaking of Aurelius the confessor, whom he also ordained aread- er, he says, There was nothing more agreeable than that that voice, which had so gloriously confessed the Lord, should sound forth in reading the lessons of the Lord: and after those lofty words, whereby he proclaimed the martyrdom of Christ, he should read the gospel of Christ, which makes martyrs. The gospel was then so read that the hearers might reap advantage by it, whilst they understood the doctrines and precepts that were read to them out of it. And such was the advantage which some hearers in those days reaped from the benefit of having the Scriptures read in their own tongue, that it is very remarkable what is related of one or two of them, that being men of good memories, they got the Scriptures by heart, without any knowledge of letters, only by hearing them constantly read in the church or elsewhere. St. Austin59 remarks this of St. Antony, the famous Egyptian monk, that with- out being able to read himself, he made such a pro- ficiency in the knowledge of the Scriptures, as both by hearing them read, to be able to repeat them, and by his own prudent meditation to understand them. And Gregory the Great60 gives a like instance in one Servulus, a poor man at Rome, who, though he knew not a letter in the book, yet, purchasing a Bible, and entertaining religious men, he prevailed with them to read it continually to him, by which means he perfectly learned the Holy Scriptures. It is a yet more astonishing instance, which Eusebius 6‘ gives in one of the martyrs of Palestine, a blind man, called John, who had so happy 3. memory, that he could repeat any part of the Bible as readily as others could read it. And he sometimes supplied the oifice of a reader in the church: and he did this to so great perfection, that Eusebius says, when he first heard him, he was perfectly amazed, and thought 53 Cone. Cabillon. 2. can. 3. Oportet etiam, ut sicut dominus imperator Carolus praecepit, episcopi seholas con- stituant, in quibus et literaria solertia disciplines, et Sacrae Scripturae documenta discantur. 5‘ Conc. Tullense, ad Saponarias, can. 10. Statuimus ut scholae Sanctarum Scripturarum, et humanae quoque lite- raturac, &c. constituantur. 55 Wharton. Auctarium ad Usserii Hist. Dogmat. cap. 4. p. 346. 56 Constit. lib. 8. cap. 22. 5’ Cypr. Ep. 34. al. 39. p. 77. Legat praecepta et evan- gelium Domini, qua: fortiter ac fideliter sequitur; vox D0- minum confessa, in his quotidie, quae Dominus locutus est, audiatur. N ihil est in quo magis confessor fratribus prosit, quam ut dum evangelica lectio de ore ejus auditur, lectoris fidem quisquis audierit, imitetur. 58 Id. Ep. 38. al. 33. p. 75. Nihil magis congruit voci, quae Dominum gloriosa praedicatione confessa. est, quam celebrandis divinis lectionibus personare: post verba sub- limia quae Christi martyrium prolocuta sunt, evangelium Christi legere, unde martyres fiunt. 59 Aug. de Doctrina Christiana in Prologo. t. 3. p. 3. Sine ulla scientia literarum Scripturas Divinas, et memoriter audiendo tenuisse, et prudenter cogitando intellexisse pree- dicatur. 6° Greg. Hom. 15. in Evangelia, t. 3. p. 40. Nequaquam literas noverat, sed Scripturae Sacrae sibimet codices emerat; et religiosos quosque in hospitalitatem suscipiens, hos coram se legere sine intermissione faciebat. Factumque est, ut quantum ad mensuram propriam atti net, plene Sacram Scrip- turam disceret; cum sicut dixi, literas funditus ignoraret. 6‘ Euseb. de Martyr. Palaestin. cap. 13. p. 344. 602 Boos XIII. ANT'IQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. he had heard one reading out of a book, till he came a little more curiously to examine him, and found that he did it only by the eyes. of his understanding, having the Scriptures written not in books or tables of stone, but in the fleshy tables of his heart. These and such like examples, of which there are many62 in ancient story, are enough to raise in a man another sort of astonishment than that which Eusebius speaks of: I mean, it would amaze a man to think, that there should be a church in the world pretending to the height 'of purity and devotion, which yet runs counter to this indisputable practice of the ancient church, whose public readers never once pretended to read an y part of Scripture in an unknown tongue: that being as much against the design of their ordination, as it is against the design of the Scripture itself; for: the one was written, and the other ordained to read what was written, for men’s learning and instruction. Yea, the very form of ordaining readers, as it stands still in the Roman Pontifical, shows as much: for it is much ancienter than the corruption that is now crept into their ser- vice, and only stands there as a monument of their reproach, who oblige their readers to act directly contrary to the design of their oifice, and the very instructions that are gi ven them in their ordination. For there the bishop still, in conferring the order of readers, uses this form: Study to pronounce‘B the word of God, that is, the sacred lessons, distinctly and plainly, to the understanding and edification of the faithful, without any error or falsehood; that ye may teach your hearers both by word and ex- ample. This was a very proper form of exhortation to be given to readers :at their ordination, while the ancient custom continzued of reading in a known tongue: but now it is: no better than mockery, to tell men they are obliged by the vow of their ordin- ation to read the Scriptures to the understanding, and instruction, and edification of the people; and at the same time tie up their mouths, that they shall not read a word that may be understood, but it must all be in an unknown tongue. This monstrous contradiction in their own practice, one would think, might bring men to see their error, and (what some in their communion64 have been so long plead- ing for) oblige them to return to the useful and edifying practice of the primitive church. “2 Vide Palladium, Vit. Chrysost. cap. 17. Socrat. lib. 7. cap. 22. ‘8 Pontifical. Roman. Cap. de Ordinat. Lectorum. Stu- dete verba Dei, videlicet lectiones sacras, distincte et apert-e ad intclligentiam et :edificationem fidelium absque omni CHAPTER V. OF THE ORIGINAL AND USE OF LITURGIES, IN STATED AND SET FORMS OF PRAYER, IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. THE next inqulry' is concerm'ng the . . ' . S t. I ancient manner of performing Divine Everyecbishop at liberty in the first service; whether they did it by stated jg; g? gig; :2; liturgies, which we usually call set $3203?“ Own forms of prayer, or by unlimited liberty of prophesying and extempore conceptions? The question about set forms of worship has more dis- turbed the present church than any other; and yet, after all, there can be no public prayer, but it will be a set form, at least to the congregation. For though we suppose the minister to pray extempore, and vary the method, the form, and the phrase, every time he prays; yet to make it common prayer to a congregation, it will be a form to them, though a new form every time, in spite of all contradiction. And I have often wondered that discerning men should not observe this, before they charged all forms of prayer as void of the Spirit, or a stinting of the Spirit: since, if they were so, extemporary forms would be as much stinting the spirit of the congregation as any other; and, perhaps, in some measure more so; since, in stated forms, which every one knows beforehand, men may be supposed to make them their own hearty prayers by preceding meditation; whereas in extemporary forms every man must wait till he hears what is said, and then join in that form, or else not pray at all, but only privately by himself, not in any public or common prayer jointly with the rest of the congregation. For which reason I shall not here inquire simply, whether the public worship of the ancients was by a form or no? since it is impossible there should be any public worship of a congregation, as a congre- gation, joining in common prayer to God, without having a common form dictated to them some way or other for all to join in: but the question shall only be, whether they used stated forms of worship, or new extempore forms in every church assembly? And here we must distinguish, 1. Between Divine forms, and forms of human institution. 2. Between ordinary and extraordinary occasions. 3. Between the times of extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, and the times when those miraculous gifts abated. Now, there is no doubt to be made, but that the forms of Divine institution were always used in the church without any variation: as the form of baptism, the mendacio falsitatis proferre.-——Quatenus auditores vestros verbo pariter et exemplo docere possitis. “4 Vid. Frederic. Turius Ceriolanus de Libris Sacris in vernaculam linguam convertendis. CHAP. V. 603 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Lord’s prayer, the singing of David’s Psalms, the forms of benediction, such as, “ The Lord be with you,” “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,” &c. The constant use of the form of baptism has been demonstrated already.1 The use of the Lord’s prayer and the rest shall be showed hereafter.2 As to forms of human institution, they were added by the bi- shops and governors of the church according to their wisdom and discretion. And this with relation to the ordinary service; for still they were at liberty to compose new forms for extraordinary emergencies and occasions. And whilst the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit continued, there is little doubt to be made, but that prayers and hymns, immediately dic- tated by the Spirit, made up a part of the ordinary service; still retaining such forms as were antece- dently of Divine appointment. When the extra- ordinary Spirit of prophecy ceased, then the rulers of the church supplied this want by proper forms of their own composition, according to Christian prudence and discretion. And this seems to have been the true original of liturgies, or stated forms of Divine service. But why, then, have we none of these liturgies remaining entire and perfect to this day? I answer, there may be several reasons as- signed for this. One is, that the bishops at first made every one their own liturgy for the private use, as we may call it, of their own particular churches. And therefore the use of them not extending fur- ther than the precincts of their own dioceses, there was little knowledge of them beyond the bounds of those churches, and not much care to preserve them but only for the use of such churches, for which they were particularly designed. That every bishop had at first this power and privilege to compose and order the form of Divine service for his own church, I have showed in another place,8 where I had occa- sion to discourse of the independency of bishops, and their absolute power in their own church : where, among other things, I observed, that as they had the privilege to word their own creeds, so they had the privilege to frame their own liturgy; which privilege they retained for several ages. As may be confirmed by this further and most certain observa- tion, that when any new episcopal church was taken and erected out of another, the new erected church was not obliged to follow the model and prescrip- tions of the old church, but might frame to herself a form of Divine service agreeable to her own cir- cumstances and condition. Of which Sozomen‘ gives a clear evidence in the instance of Maiuma, a city raised from a village in Palestine, and once be- longing to the diocese of Gaza: for as soon as it was erected into a distinct episcopal see, it was no longer obliged to observe precisely the rules and forms of the church of Gaza, but had, as he parti- cularly remarks, a calendar for the festivals of its own martyrs, and commemorations of their own bi- shops and presbyters that had lived among them. Which is the same thing as to say, they had a li- I turgy and service of their own, independent of the church out of which they were taken. In after ages bishops agreed by con— sent to conform their liturgy to the chi; §ec:';.2g'eshn{s model of the metropolitical church of c 88 o a w 0 a the province to which they belonged. And then it was enacted into a law by several councils, that the same order and uni- formity should be observed in all churches. The rudiments of this discipline were first laid in the French churches. For in the council of Agde5 a canon was made about the year 506, That one and the same order should be equally observed in all churches of the province in all parts of Divine service. And in the council of Epone6 it is more expressly said, That in celebrating Divine oflices, the provincial bishop should observe the same order as was observed by the metropolitan. And before these, the council of Vannes in Britanny, in the pro- vince of Tours, made a like order for that whole province, That one and the same7 custom in cele- brating Divine service, and the same order of psalm- ody, should be kept in all churches; that as they held one faith and confession of the holy Trinity, so they should keep to one rule of Divine offices; lest if they varied in their observations, that varia- tion should be interpreted as a disagreement in some point or other. And the same rule was made and concerted in the Spanish churches. For in the council of Girone, anno 517, a like decree was made for the whole province of Tarragone or Catalonia, That the same8 order of mass, and custom in psalm- ody, and other ministrations, should be observed in all churches of the province, as was observed in the metropolitical church. The fourth council of Toledo enlarged the order for uniformity in all churches of Spain and Gallicia,’ obliging all priests to perform Divine offices in the same manner, that there might province by consent conformed to the li- turgy of the metro- pohtan. 1 Book XI. chap. 3. 2 Book XIII. chap. 7. a Book II. chap. 6. sect. 2. 4 Sozomen. lib. 5. cap. 3. 5 Cone. Agathens. can. 30. Quia convenit ordinem ec- clesiae ab omnibus aequaliter observari, studendum est ubique (sicut fit) et post antiphonas, collectiones per ordinem ab episcopis vel presbyteris dici, &c. 6 Cone. Epaunens. can. 27. Ad celebrandum divina ofli- cia, ordinem, quem metropolitani tenent, provinciales eorum observare debebunt. ’ ' Conc. Veneticum. can. 15. Rectum quoque duximus, ut vel intra provinciam nostram sacrorum ordo, et psallendi una sit consuetudo ; ut sicut unam cum Trinitatis confessione fidem tenemus, unam et officiorum regulam teneamus: ne, variata observatione, in aliquo devotio nostra discrepare videatur. ' 8 Cone. Gerundense. can. 1. Ut institutio missarum, sicut in metropolitans ecclesia agitur, ita in Dei nomine in omni Tarraconensi provincia tam ipsius missae ordo, quam psal- lendo vel ministrando, consuetudo servetur. 9 Cone. Tolet. 4. can. 2. Placuit omnes sacerdotes, qui 604 BOOK XIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. be no diversity among them, and that such differ— ence might neither offend the weak, nor look like a schism in the church to ignorant and carnal men. Therefore they appointed, that one order should be observed in praying and singing, and the same method be kept in the morning and evening ser- vice, because they were all of the same faith and the same kingdom. And the first council of Braga has four or five canons to the same purpose,10 ap- pointing the same order of psalmody, and lessons, and Salutations, and the same forms of celebrating baptism and the eucharist, to be observed in all churches. So that though every bishop at first had liberty to frame a liturgy for the use of his own church; yet in process of time they agreed by con— sent to take the liturgy of the metropolitical church as a standard for the whole province: and when the Roman empire began to be cantonized and di- vided into different kingdoms, then came in the use of national liturgies, whose use was commensurate to the bounds and limits of their respective nations and kingdoms. If it be inquired, why then none of the ancient liturgies are now remain- ing, as they were at first composed for the use of particular churches P I answer, several reasons may be assign- ed for this. 1. The very liberty which every bishop had to frame the liturgy of his own church, was one reason why none of these are now remaining perfect and entire, as they were at first composed for the use of such a particular church. For the design of them being only for the use of such a particular church, there was no great reason to be very solicitous, either to communicate and diffuse the knowledge of them to other churches, or to preserve them entire to posterity, who were not precisely tied up to the use of them, but might frame others at their own discretion. 2. It is not improbable, but that, as a late learned French writer“ has observed, the ancient liturgies were for some ages only cer- tain forms of worship committed to memory, and known by practice, rather than committed to writ- ing, which is the only certain way of preserving such sort of monuments to late posterity. This seems very probable, because, in the persecutions under Diocletian and his associates, though a strict inquiry was made after the books of Scripture, and other things belonging to the church, which were often delivered up by the tr'adz'tores to be burnt, yet Sect. 3. Why none of the ancient liturgies are now remaining per- feet and entire as they were in their first original. we never read of any ritual books, or books of Di- vine service, delivered up among them. Which is an argument, that their forms of worship and adminis- tration of the sacraments were not then generally committed to writing, or at least not compiled in books distinct from the Psalms, or other books of Scripture: otherwise, it is very probable, that as the Scriptures, with other utensils and treasures of the church, were often found by the heathens, or betrayed by apostatizing Christians, and delivered up to be burnt; so we should have heard something of their books of Divine worship undergoing the same fate; since they who were so curious in in- quiring after the cups, and lamps, and torches, and vestments, and other utensils and vessels of the church, (as in some of their calendars and breviates we find they were,) would hardly have omitted their books of worship, as being more proper ob- jects of their spite and malice, had they found any such in the Christian churches. Mr. Daillé12 ar- gues well upon this foot against the use of images in the ancient church, because no such thing was ever found or betrayed to the heathen in the times of their most furious inquisition after any thing that related to the Christian church or religion: and I think the argument will hold as well against hav- ing their liturgies compiled into books and volumes, since it is scarce possible that such things in difiicult times should have wholly escaped the notice and fury of their enemies. We are not hence to conclude, (as some weak men might perhaps be inclined to do,) that therefore they had no liturgies or set forms of Divine worship in these persecuting ages of the church; because there are undeniable evidences to the contrary, as we shall see by and by; but we are only to conclude, that they did not so generally com- pile them in books as in after ages, but used them by memory, and made them familiar to the people by known and constant practice, as many now use forms of prayer at this day without committing them to writing. And this is another reason, why none of those ancient liturgies are come to our hands perfect and entire, but only in scattered fragments, as the fathers had occasion to mention them inci- dentally in their writings. Nor need we wonder at this, since even those liturgies which were most cer- tainly compiled in books in the following ages, are now in a great measure lost also by the injuries of time, as the old Gallican, Spanish, African, and Roman liturgies, of which there is nothing but catholicae fidei unitatem complectimur, ut nihil ultra diver- sum aut dissonum in ecclesiasticis sacramentis agamus, ne quaelibet nostra diversitas apud ignotos seu carnales schis- matis errorem videatur ostendere, et multis existat in scan- dalum varietas ecclesiarum. Unus ergo orandi atque psal- lendi ordo a nobis per omnem Hispaniam atque Galliciam conservetur: unus modus in missarum solennitatibus, unus in vespertinis officiis : nec diversa sit ultra in nobis ecclesi- astica consuetudo, quia in una fide continemur et regno. 1° Cone. Bracar. 1. can. 19. Placuit ut unus atque idem psallendi ordo in matutinis vel vespertinis ofliciis teneatur, &c. Vid. can. 20—23. ibid. 11 Renaudotius, Collectio Liturgiar. Oriental. Dissertat. l_. p. 9. t. 1. Paris, 1716. ‘2 Dallas. de Cultu Relig. lib. 1. cap. 25. I CHAP. V. 605 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. fragments and dismembered parcels now remaining: which is a third reason why none of those ancient liturgies are extant at this day. The fourth and last reason is, the interpolations and additions made to the ancient liturgies in future ages. For though those ancient liturgies which go under the name of St. Chrysostom and St. Basil might originally have something of their composition in them, yet so many additions and alterations have been made in them by the Greek church in following ages, that it is not easy to discern, after they have passed through so many hands, and so much new modelling, what was the genuine composition of the first authors. And therefore I have made little use of them in this work, but rather chosen to collect the fragments of the ancient liturgy from the scattered remains in the genuine writings of the fathers; joining with them such forms as we find in the ancient book, called the Apostolical Constitutions: which though it be not so ancient as the title pretends, nor of so venerable authority as Mr. Whiston contends for, who would have it to be truly apostolical, yet it is owned to be a good collection of the liturgy and rituals of the church in the third and fourth centu- ries, and less corrupted than any other liturgy that bears the name of an ancient writer; the true reason of which was, because it never being of that esteem as to be used as a standing liturgy in any church, the book came down to us with less alterations than other liturgies, which were new modelled, according to the difierent taste and sentiments of the ages they passed through, as all things of this kind are commonly revised and altered by several hands, when they are in constant use and practice. For proof of which we need go no further than the example of our own liturgy, which has received many reviews, alterations, and additions from the time it was first compiled in the days of King Edward. Upon this score, those liturgies which bear the names of ancient authors, are not. to be depended on, as the genuine, unmixed liturgies of those authors, having undergone so many altera- tions, interpolations, and additions, by passing through various hands in succeeding ages. Foras- much, therefore, as we have now no ancient liturgies perfect and entire, as they were first composed, we must take our accounts and estimate of them from other fountains : and by the providence of God there is so much of them remaining in the genuine writings of the ancient fathers, as both to show us in general that the church made use of stated forms of worship, and also what was the particular order and method of her worship in the most considerable parts of her sacred service and devotions. We will, therefore, first give some account of the use of liturgies and sacred rites in general, and then proceed to explain ' in order the several parts of the ancient service in the same natural method as we find it was per- formed, at several times, either in the daily or weekly assemblies for that purpose. As to the use of liturgies in general, 4 I shall begin with the apostolical usghiftgirgsoylzg times, and carry the history through flfifiéntwgffifflgg the four first ages. The apostolical iiigifsiediiiieligiv' practice may be considered in a double inigiihiingiifigdiii respect ; first, in their compliance semce' with the stated forms settled among the Jews; and, secondly, in the new forms introduced into the Christian service. As to the former, there seems to be nothing more uncontested among learned men, than that the Jews had set forms of worship in all parts of Divine service, and that the apostles freely used these in all instances, in which they thought it necessary or becoming to join with them. Their ordinary service was of two sorts, the service of the temple, and the service of the synagogue. These differed in many respects, but both agreed in this, that the public prayers in both were offered up in a certain constant form of words. For their private prayers, which every man made particularly by himself, (which were like those silent prayers we shall hereafter ‘3 meet with in the Christian church,) a late learned writer 1‘ tells us, They had no public forms to pray by, nor any public ministers to offici- ate to them herein; but all prayed in private con- ceptions: but their public prayers were directed by public forms, both in the service of the temple and the synagogue. The temple service is very accu- rately described by Dr. Lightfoot, as it stood in the time of our Saviour: the sum of his description is this :15 First, before the offering of the sacrifice, the president called upon them to go to prayers, which they began with this form: Thou hast loved us, O Lord our God, with an everlasting love, with great and abundant compassion hast thou had mercy on us, 0 our Father, our King, for our fathers’ sakes, who trusted in thee, and thou taughtest them sta- tutes of life. So be gracious to us also, O our Fa- ther, O most merciful Father, O thou compassion- ate One, pity us. And put into our hearts to know, understand, obey, learn, teach, observe, do, and per- form all the words of the doctrine of thy law in love, and enlighten our eyes by thy law, and cause our hearts to cleave to thy commandments, and unite our hearts to love and to fear thy name, &c. After this prayer, they rehearsed the ten command- ments, and after the ten commandments they said over their phylacteries, in Hebrew called tephz'llz'n, which contained four portions of the law, written in four parchments. The first out of Exodus xiii., Sect ‘3 See Book XV. chap. 1. 1‘ Prideaux, Connexion of Scripture History, part 1. chap. 6. p. 382. 15 Lightfoot, Temple Service, chap. 9. sect. 4. p. 108. 606 Boox XIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.- ‘ from ver. 3 to 10. The second out of Exod. xiii, . from ver. 11 to 16. The third out of Deut. vi., from ver. 4 to 9. The fourth out of Deut. xi., from ver. 13 to 21. After this prayer, and rehearsal of the decalogue and of their phylacteries, at the time of offering incense, they had three or four prayers more: the first of which was in this form, referring to their phylacteries: Truth and stability, and firm and sure, and upright and faithful, and beloved and lovely and delightful, and fair and terrible and glo- rious, and ordered and acceptable, and good and beautiful, is this word for us for ever and ever. The truth of the everlasting God our King, the rock of Jacob, the shield of our salvation, .for ever and ever. He is sure, and his name sure, and his throne set. tled, and his kingdom and truth established for evermore, &c. The second prayer was in this form: Be pleased, O Lord our God, with thy people Israel, and with their prayer, and restore the service to the oracle of thy house, and accept the burnt offering of Israel, and their prayer in love and complacency; and let the service of thy people Israel be continually well- pleasing unto thee. And they concluded thus: We praise thee, who art the Lord our God, and the God of our fathers, the God of all flesh, our Creator, and the God of all creatures: glory and praise be to thy great and holy name, because thou hast preserved and kept us; so preserve and keep us, and bring ‘ back our captivity to the courts of thy holiness, &c. A third prayer ran thus: Appoint peace, good- ness, and blessing, grace, mercy, and compassion, for us, and for all Israel thy people. Bless us, 0 our Father, even all of us as one man, with the light of thy countenance; for in the light of thy counte- nance thou, O Lord our God, hast given us the law of life, and loving mercy and righteousness, and blessing and compassion, and life and peace: let it please thee to bless thy people Israel at all times. Let us, and all thy people the house of Israel, be remembered and written before thee in the book of life, with blessing and peace, &c.‘ A fourth prayer was used on the sabbath as a blessing, by the course that went out of their ser- vice, upon those that came in to do the service of the following week, in these words: He that caused his name to dwell in this house, cause love and brotherhood, and peace and friendship, to dwell among you. After these things, the priests lifted up their hands, and blessed the people in that form of words, which is in Numb. vi. 24-—26, “The Lord bless thee, and keep thee: the Lord make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee: the Lord lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.” To which the people answered, “ Blessed be the Lord God, the God of Israel, from everlasting to ever- lasting.” After this blessing, the meat ofl'ering and the drink ofl'ering was offered, and then began the sing- ing of psalms, and the music. The constant and ordinary psalms which they sung were these: On the first day of the week, Psalm xxiv., “ The earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof,” &c. On the second day, Psalm xlviii.: “ Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised in the city of God,” &c. On the third day, Psalm 1xxxii., “ God standeth in the congregation of the mighty, and judgeth among gods,” &c. On the fourth day, Psalm xciv., “ O Lord God, to whom vengeance belongeth,” &c. On the fifth day, Psalm lxxxi., “ Sing aloud unto God our strength; make a joyful noise unto the God of Jacob.” On the sixth day, Psahn xciii., “ The Lord reign- eth; he is clothed with majesty.” . On the sabbath day they sang Psalm xcii., which bears the title of “ A Psalm or Song'for the sabbath day,” both in the Hebrew Bibles, and the translation of the Septuagint. These were the known, and constant, and fixed psalms for the several days of the week throughout the year.18 But upon some certain days they had additional psalms and hymns. For on the sabbath, as there was an additional sacrifice appointed, Numb. xxviii. 9; so at the time of this additional sacrifice, the Levites sang the song of Moses, Deut. xxrn'i, “ Hear, O heavens, and I will speak ;” which they divided into six sabbaths for the morn- ing service: and at the evening service they sang that other song of Moses, Exod. xv., “ I will sing unto the Lord, for he hath triumphed gloriously : the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea,” &c. By which custom of singing the songs of Moses upon the sabbath, Dr. Lightfoot observes,17 that that passage in Rev. xv. 3 may be illustrated, where the saints are said to “ sing the song of Moses, the servant of God ;” because they were now come to their everlasting sabbath, having “ gotten the vicé tory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name,” and having the harps of God in their hands. Which allusion to the sabbath service in the time of St. John, is a good argument for the antiquity of the practice. Besides this, there was an additional sacrifice ap- pointed on the first day of the year, called the Feast of Trumpets, Numb. xxix. l ; and at this time they sang the eighty-first Psalm, “ Sing aloud unto God our strength,” &c. And at the evening service of this day, the twenty-ninth Psalm, “ The voice of the Lord shaketh the wilderness,” &c. ‘6 Lightfoot, Temple Service, chap. 7. p. 59. 17 Ibid. p. 61. CHAP. V. 607 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHUlRCH. _2. Reading of the Scriptures. Also at the Passover, besides many other forms, they were used to sing the hymn called the Egyptian Hallel, because it was sung in remem- brance of their delivery out of Egypt: which con- sisted of Psalms cxiii. cxiv. cxv. cxvi. cxvii. and cxviii. And this, as some observe,18 was sung also at the beginning of every month, and on the Feast of Dedication, and the Feast of Weeks, and the Feast of Tabernacles. And the latter part of it is generally supposed to be the hymn which our Sa- viour sung with his disciples at the conclusion of his last supper. This is the sum of the Jewish temple service, as it stood in our Saviour’s time, with which, notwith- standing its stated forms, both he and his disci- ples complied, whenever they had occasion upon any such solemnities to frequent the temple. The service of the synagogue was something dif- ferent from that of the temple. For here were no sacrifices, but only these three things: 1. Prayers. 3. Preaching and expounding upon them. Their public prayers, like those of the temple, were all by stated forms. Among these, the most ancient and solemn were those which are called Shemoneh Eshreh, that is, the eighteen prayers, which are said to have been appointed by Ezra, and the great synagogue, from the time of the captivity. These have been lately translated and published by Dr. Prideaux, in his Connexion of Scripture History,19 which, because it is a work that deserves to be in every one’s hands, I shall not here transcribe, but refer the reader thither for the knowledge of them. Only whereas he observes rightly, That another prayer, called the nineteenth, was added a little before the destruction of Jerusalem, against the Christians, who are therein meant under the names of apostates and heretics; I shall confirm his observation from a passage in Epiphanius,20 who tells us, That the Jews in their synagogues were used to pray against the Christians in this form: 'Emxa'rapdaar. 6 Geog 'ror‘rg Nazapaiovg, O God, curse the Nazarenes. And the same thing is intimated by Justin Martyr,21 who says, Imme- diately after our Saviour’s resurrection, the Jews sent forth their chosen emissaries to all the syna- gogues in the world, to tell them, That there was a certain impious, lawless sect risen up under one Jesus, a Galilean impostor, whom they had crucified, but his disciples came by night, and stole him away out of the grave, and deceived men by saying, He was risen from the dead, and ascended into heaven : and he adds, That after their city was demolished they repented not, but even dared narapiiaQar az'l'rm'i, to curse him, and all that believed on him. Which plainly refers to this additional prayer inserted into their liturgy against the Christians. But except- ing this prayer, which was of later date, all the other seem to have been in use in the time of our Saviour and his apostles. And as we are sure they frequented the synagogues, so there is no doubt to be made, but that they joined in these usual forms of prayer, which were one part of the synagogue service. The other parts of this service, were the reading of the law and the prophets, and expounding of them to the people. Which was also done by a cer- tain rule and order. For the five books of Moses were divided into as many sections, or lessons, as there are weeks in the year, one of which was read every sabbath, and half of the same every Monday and Thursday, which were their days of assembly for the synagogue service. At these our Saviour was usually present, and sometimes assisted and officiated in reading, according to custom, as a member of the synagogue, as is expressly said of him, Luke iv. 16, and at other times taught in their synagogues, Mark i. 39 ; Luke iv. 15, 44; which is also noted of St. Paul, Acts xiii. l5 ; xvi. 123; xvii. 2; xviii. 4, that it was his manner on the sab- bath days to go into the synagogues, where prayer was wont to be made, and there, after the reading of the law and the prophets, to preach to the people, and dispute or reason with them. So that, not- withstanding the public service of the synagogue was all performed by order and form, yet this was no reason to the apostles to refrain from it, as a thing simply sinful or unlawful; but they com- plied with it for some time, probably to gain upon the Jews the better, and make them lay aside their prejudices against the Christian doctrine. But besides their compliance with the stated forms of the Jewish liturgy and worship, they had some forms of their own in constant use among themselves. Among which we may safely venture to reckon, l. The Lord’s prayer, as a form appoint- ed by Christ to be used by all his disciples; of which the primitive Christians never made any dispute, as we shall see more fully hereafter. 2. The form of baptism, constantly used without any variation, as has been showed in a former22 Book. 3. The forms of professing their faith in baptism, or the forms of sound words settled in every church. 4. The forms of renouncing Satan and covenanting with Christ in baptism. 5. The forms of Scripture hymns and psalms, and glorifications of God. To which the ancients seem to add, 6thly, The forms of benedic- tion, such as, “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,” &c. And lastly, The repetition of the history of Christ’s institution of the last supper, as a neces- sary part of consecration, which, together with the 18 Otho. Lexicon. Rabbin. p. 236. 19 Part 1. book 6. p. 375. 2° Epiphan. Haer. 29. Nazaraeor. in fine. 21 Justin. Dial. cum Tryph. p. 335. 22 Book XI. chap. iii. 608 BOOK XIII". ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. use of the Lord’s prayer in the celebration of the eucharist, is generally thought to descend from apostolical practice. These things are sufficient to show, that even the apostles themselves, notwith- standing the extraordinary gift of inspired prayer, whether in matter, or method, or words, or lan- guages, sometimes confined themselves to forms, without any reflection on their gifts, or stinting of the Spirit, or want of edification to their hearers. If these things be rightly considered, some of them at least will evince, that the use of well chosen and well appointed forms, are no ways disagreeable to apostolical practice, since the apostles themselves both complied with the forms in use in the Jewish temple and synagogue, and used some others of Christian institution. I now proceed to carry this inquiry through the three or four following ages of the church. And here, first, we may add what Josephus says of the Essenes,28 That they were used to rise before the sun was up, and offer unto God wa'rpiag 'rwag ez’ixdg, certain prayers, according to the custom of their forefathers, or such as they had received from them : and what Philo says24 of the Therapeutee of Alexandria, the ascetics, whether Jews or Chris- tians, that lived there in his time, That the president among them, after he had made a sermon, first be- gan to sing a hymn to the praise of God, either such as he had composed himself, or one taken out of the ancient prophets, in the close of which they all, both men and women, joined in concert with him. Again, in their vigils,25 they divided them- selves into two quires, the one of men, the other of women, each of which had their precentor; and so they sang hymns to the glory of God, composed in divers sorts of metre, sometimes one side singing and sometimes the other, in imitation of the children of Israel, under the conduct of Moses and Miriam, their precentors, at the Red Sea. This was so much a re- semblance of the ancient Christian way of psalmody, that Eusebius,26 who transcribes a great many things out of this curious tract of Philo, was clearly of opinion, that it was a description of the worship of such Jews as had embraced the Christian religion: in which opinion he is followed not only by St. J erom,22 but by many learned writers of this last age also. I shall not need to determine this question, whether they were Jews or Christians: it is suffi- cient to our present purpose, that their way of wore shipping God by certain forms of praise, and those of human composition, was the same, or so much alike, that it was not easy to distinguish the one from the other. In the beginning of the second cen- Sect 5 tury lived Pliny, a Roman proconsul thgm: gyiitiirgcfise in Bithynia, who giving Trajan the gjcsgfidfgggtsuyyr the emperor an account of the Christian way of worship, which he had from the mouth of some apostates, says, They were used to meet on a certain day before it was light, and sing a hymn al- ternately to Christ as God, binding themselves by an oath or sacrament (not to any wicked thing, but) that they would not steal, nor rob, nor commit adultery, nor break their faith, nor withhold the pledge.28 The word, carmen dicere, which Pliny uses, will signify a solemn form of prayer, as well as praises, as Vossius29 and Brissonius“o have ob- served out of the Roman writers: and then it will denote, that their whole Divine service was by a stated form. However, in the most restrained sense it implies, that they used certain forms in some part of their service in their alternate hymnody, which could not otherwise be performed but by compo- sition and prescription. And that makes it proba- ble, that the rest of their service was then of the same nature and order. In the beginning of the same century, Ignatius is said by the ancient historians to have brought in the way of alternate singing‘n into the church of Antioch; that is, hymns sung alternately to the praise of the holy Trinity. For they speak not of the alternate singing of David’s Psalms, as intro- duced by Ignatius, but of hymns composed by him to set forth the Divinity of Christ: which appears to have been a very ancient practice, not only from what has been already observed out of the account given by Pliny, but from what is said by that an- cient author in Eusebius,82 who wrote against the heresy of Artemon in the latter end of the second century; where, among other arguments which he brings for the church’s constant belief of our Sa- viour’s Divinity, he urges this for one, That from the beginning there were psalms and hymns com- posed by the brethren, and written by the faithful, setting forth the praises of Christ as the Word of God, and declaring the Divinity of his person. Among these hymns we may reckon those of Igna- tius, composed for the service of the church of An- tioch, which probably might continue in use till Paulus Samosatensis removed them out of the church, and introduced others in their room, as the fathers of the council of Antioch, mentioned in Eu- sebius,88 object against him. It is not improbable, likewise, but that Ignatius, as he made hymns, so might compose a whole form of prayers for the use of his own church, as was 29 Joseph. de Bello Jud. lib. 2. cap. 12. 2* Philo de Vita Contemplativa, t. 2. p. 1214. 25 Philo, ibid. p. 1215. 26 Euseb. lib. 2. cap. 17. 2" Hieron. (le Scriptor. cap. 21. 28 Plin. lib. IU- Ep. 97. 29 Voss. Comment. in 100. p. 97. 3° Brisson. de Formulis, p. 97. 8' Socrat. lib. 6. cap. 8. Hist. Tripartite, lib. 10. cap. 9. 32 Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 28. See this cited before, chap. 2. sect. 3. 33 Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 30. UHAP. V. 609 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. customary for bishops to do in those days. To which custom he seems to refer in his epistle to the Magnesians, when he bids them do nothing with- out the bishops and the presbyters; nor attempt any thing seemingly agreeable to their private fan- cies; but when they met together,34 to have one prayer and one supplication. Which not only for- bids them to break out and divide into schisms and separate assemblies, but also to conform to the order of prayers agreed upon by the bishop and presbytery of the church. Not long after Ignatius, we meet with the colla- teral evidence of Lucian the heathen, who had some knowledge of the Christian service. For in one of his dialogues, describing his coming into a religious assembly, he says, he there heard that prayer which began with the Father, and ended with the hymn of many names.35 It is more than probable, that by the prayer beginning with the Father, he means the Lord’s prayer, which was of known and general use in the eucharistical service: but it is not so clear what he means by the hymn of many names, that came after it. Bishop Weten- hall36 takes it for the lesser or common doxology, “ Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost : ” Dr. Smith37 and others, for the great doxology, “Glory be to God on high;” which I think more probable: though it is not necessary in our present inquiry, to determine what hymn it was; it being suflicient to our purpose, that he speaks of some prayers and hymns then of such common and vulgar use in the Christian worship, as that they were known to the very heathens. Justin Martyr’s authority is commonly alleged on both sides, both for and against liturgies. The defenders of prescribed forms urge his mentioning xowdg Gilxdg, common prayers :88 the opposers, with great vehemence, argue for extempore prayer, be- cause he says, The bishop ofi'ered prayers and thanks- givings 8m) dl'maplg, with all his might and power.89 Now, to speak freely, I think there is no demonstra- tion in either of these expressions : for they are both ambiguous. Common prayer does not always im- ply, that the minister prayed by a prescribed form: for inspired prayer was doubtless common prayer, when offered in a public congregation : "and though it was then a form prescribed to the people, yet it was not so to the minister; but conceived by im- mediate inspiration. Therefore we cannot argue barely from the mentioning of common prayer, that the minister prayed by a prescribed form, un— 3‘ lgnat. Ep. ad Magnesian. n. 7. Mndé 'n'stpéo'n'ra eiiko- yo'v '1'1. (pair/soda; idiq bp'iu' (DOC é'rri 'rci air-rd ,uia 7rpoo'svx1‘1, 'uL'a 5511019. 35 Lucian. Philopatris, p. 1128. Tr‘pv auxin! dqro 'n'a'rpds a'pfo'zpsvos, Kai 'rfiv wohvévupou qidfiu sis 'rékos é'meais. 36 Wetenhall’s Gift of Singing, chap. 11. p. 273. 3’ Smith’s Account of the Greek Church, 1'). 226. Comber, less it be added, as usually it is in Chrysostom, that the congregation prayed W92 950014;, with one voice, joining vocally in the whole prayer, or alternately, by way of responses, with the minister; for that implies, that the people understood beforehand the words of their common prayers, before they were uttered by the minister. On the other hand, there is no solidity in the argument brought against litur- gies, from J ustin’s saying, That the bishop prayed and gave thanks, 3m; Ez'mapig, with all his ability or power. For this may not at all relate to the inven- tion of words, but to the ardency and intenseness of devotion, which may be in the use of prescribed forms as well as those of immediate conception. And so it is plain the very same phrase is used by Nazianzcn, when he exhorts the Christians to sing 3m; b‘z'waptg, with all their might, that triumphal hymn‘l0 upon the death of Julian, which the chil- dren of Israel sang when the Egyptians were drown- ed in the Red Sea. Which was not an extempore hymn, but a form composed by Moses, and appoint- ed to be sung alternately by the congregation of Israel, Exod. xv. So that, after all the pains that has been taken by some late writers to draw an argument against liturgies out of this passage of Justin, there is no reason for such a conclusion: and yet this is the only passage that is brought against them. But it is more material to consider, that Justin lived among the Jews, who certainly used set forms of prayer, one of which he condemns, as I have showed before, as an execration inserted against the Christians, but says nothing against the other, which yet doubtless he would have done, had he believed the use of liturgies to have been only a piece of Jewish superstition, unbecoming the spirit of a Christian. But he too well understood the practice of our Saviour and his apostles, in comply- ing with the forms of the Jewish service, to put any such mark or brand of infamy upon them. And therefore this is of more weight with me, to persuade that Justin believed the known forms both of the Jewish and Christian service to be lawful, than any ambiguous expressions are to persuade the contrary. Not long after Justin, lived Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons in France. And he takes notice of a certain form used in the Christian worship, so well known to the Valentinian heretics, that they made use of it as an argument to prove their own fabulous doctrine of the wanes : For, said they, you yourselves of the church, in your thanksgivings, say, For ages of ages,‘1 or ceones of wanes; thereby intimating the Orig. of Liturgies, chap. 2. p. 30, takes it for the trz'sagion. 38 Justin. Apol. 2. p. 97. 89 Justin. ibid. p. 98. 4° Naz. Orat. 3. quae est 1. Invectiv. cont. J ulian.t. l. p. 54. 4' Iren. lib. l. c. l. ’A)\)\& Kai. finds s’vri 'rfis sbxapw'riac M'Pyov'ras', eis Proiis aic'lwas 'rdw aia’wwu, e’lcsivovs "robs aifbvas o'nuaiuaw. 2n 610 Boox XIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. wanes which we contend for. This plainly refers to some form of thanksgiving then of known use in the church. Dr. Comber and some others take it for the Gloria Patrz', because it ends as that in Irenaeus did, with the words, “world without end. Amen.” But I rather conceive, with Dr. Grabe,42 that it was the conclusion of the great thanksgiving in the eucharist; where the glorification of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, ends with the words st’g rofzg aid'wag 'rci'w aic'mwv, world WithOllt end; to which the people always answered, Amen, as appears from the form remaining in the Constitutions,‘3 of which more in its proper place. About the same time lived Clemens of Alexandria, who, speaking of the church, says, It was the con- gregation of those who prostrated themselves in. prayers, having, as it were, ¢wmjv njv Kowrjv, one common voice ;‘“ which implies, that their prayers were such as that they could join vocally in them, either by repeating the whole, or at least by alternate responses. He also mentions a form of prayer used over the penitents by the Valentinians, in imposition of hands, in the close of which were these words,45 That they may obtain angelical absolution. Not to mention that common form of doxology, which he uses at the end of his Paedagogue, To whom he glory both now and for ever, World without end. Amen. Next after him Tertullian often tells us, that they used the Lord’s prayer as a form enjoined by Divine command, of which I shall say more in a following chapter.46 He also says,“7 That the form of baptism was appointed and prescribed by Christ to be always in the “name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” And not only so, but to this the church added several other ceremo- nies and observations, which were not enjoined ex- pressly in so many words by Christ. As the form of renouncing the devi ,“8 and his pomp, and his angels ; the trine immersion ; the interrogatories and responses, which were made in a certain form to the articles of the creed; the giving of milk and honey to the newly baptized; the obligation to abstain from bathing for a whole week after: all which observations were only of ecclesiastical institution and prescription. So, again, their receiving the eucharist in their morning49 assemblies before day, which Christ instituted after supper; their annual oblations and commemorations for the dead; their avoiding fasting, and refusing to pray kneeling, on the Lord’s day, and the fifty days between Easter and Pentecost; their signing themselves with the sign of the cross upon all occasions; and their ap- pointing of occasional fasts,5o together with the fast ofLent, and stationary days. None of which were of express Divine command, but were instituted by the church, with many other observations of the like nature, for the edification of her children, as her rules of discipline, and psalmody, and singing a particular psalm at the eucharist, which is men- tioned by our author.“ Again he intimates,52 that in all their assemblies they had not only sermons and prayers, but also the Scriptures read, and psalms sung to the glory of God. Which inust be allowed to be forms of praise and glorification. Nor would it be material to suggest, that Tertullian, when he v wrote this, was a Montanist; for both the church and heretics commonly agreed in singing of David’s Psalms, and even vied in hymns of their own com- position and prescription. Tertullian indeed does not expressly say, that ‘their prayers, like their psalms, were offered in a certain form of words; but he says what may incline a man reasonably to believe it. For, as a proof of the Christians’ loyalty, he saysf'a They met together, and as if they were drawn up in battle, did jointly set upon God with their prayers, which violence was acceptable to him. They prayed for the emperors, for their officers and powers, for the state of the world, for the peace of their government, and for the continuance of their empire. And again he says, They prayed constantly for all the emperors, that they might have a long life and quiet reign; that their family might be safe, their armies valiant, their senate faithful,‘ their people virtuous, and that the whole world might be in peace. Now these, as we shall see hereafter, were known parts of the church’s liturgy; and if they had not been of constant use, they had been but poor arguments of the Christians’ loyalty, for which Tertullian here produces them. In another place, he expressly mentions the same doxology as Irenaeus does before him; for, speaking against Chiistians frequenting the Roman theatres, he asks them, With what face they could go54 from the church of God into the church of the devil? and ‘2 Grabe, Not. in loc. Irenaei. 43 Constit. Apostol. lib. 8. cap. 12. 4‘ Clem. Alex. Strom. 7. cap. 6. p. 848. Edit. Oxon. "5 Clem. Epitome, p. 974. ’E11 'rg'i xetpotiea'iqc Aé'youo-w s’rlri 'réhovs, sis Ali'rpwo'w d'y'yekuciw. “5 Chap. 7. 4’ Tertul. de Bapt. cap. 13. Lex tinguendi imposita est, et forma praescripta. Ite, &c. ‘8 Tertul. de- Coron. Mil. cap. 3 et13. It. de Bapt. cap. 6. ‘9 Tertul. de Coron. cap. 3. 5° Tertul. de J ejun. cap. 13. 5‘ Tertul. ibid. 52 Tertul. de Anima, cap. 9. Jam vero prout Scriptures leguntur, aut psalmi canuntur, aut adlocutiones proferuntur, aut petitiones delegantur: ita inde materiae visionibus sub- ministrantur. 53 Tertul. Apol. cap. 39. Coimus in coetum et congregatio- nem, ut ad Deum, quasi manu facta, precationibus ambi- amus orantes. Haec vis Deo grata est. Oramus etiam pro imperatoribus, pro ministris eorum et potestatibus, pro statu saeculi, pro rerum quiete, pro mora finis. It. cap. 30. Pre- cant-es sumus semper pro omnibus imperatoribus, &c. 5* Tertul. de Spectac. cap. 25. Quale est enim de ecclesia Dei in diaboli ecclesiam tendere ?-—Ex ore illo, quo Amen CHAP. V. 611 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. with that mouth, wherewith they had said Amen at the consecration or reception of the eucharist, give testimony to a gladiator; or say, “ world with- out end,” to any besides God and Christ, or to any besides Christ their God? I do not take this, with some learned men, to mean that common form of doxology, “ Glory be to the Father,” &c., at the end of the psalms, but the conclusion of the consecration prayer in the communion service, which, as I noted before, always ended with those words, sig aiovag, “world without end,” to which the people subj oined their Amen. And then it is an evident proof, that the African churches had a certain form of prayer for consecrating the eucharist, the known words of which Tertullian could allege to the people as an argument to dissuade them from frequenting the heathen theatres. He also intimates, that they sang psalms and hymns alternately in private;55 for, to dissuade Christian women from marrying heathen husbands, he uses this argument, What will such a husband sing to his wife, or the wife to her husband? but if they married Christian husbands, then they would sing psalms and hymns between themselves, and mutually provoke one another, and strive56 who should make the sweetest melody to their God. And there is no doubt to be made, but that this private psalmody was an imitation of the public psalmody of the church. So when he says, That at their feasts of charity, after the communion was ended, in the close of all, when they had wash- ed their hands, and brought in lights,57 every one was excited either to sing something out of Scrip- ture, or some hymn of his own composing; this as plainly argues, that they made use of forms in this part of their private devotions. For the psalms of Scripture are undoubtedly forms, and hymns of private composition are no less so, unless we will suppose every one that sings, has words suggested to him by immediate inspiration; which still will be a form to the congregation that hears it, though not to the person who is so extraordinarily in- spired by the Holy Ghost. But there is one expression in Tertullian which the opposers of liturgies lay great stress upon, be- cause he says, The Christians prayed for the em- peror,58 sine monitore, quia ole pectore, without any monitor, because they prayed from their heart; which they expound, praying extempore. But if this be interpreted rigidly, it will prove much more than the objectors design. For if they prayed simply without any monitor, then it will exclude even the minister’s dictating to them his own conceptions, because these will be an admonition or direction to the people; and so all public prayer must cease, and all devotion be resolved into the private prayers of the people. Which is such an absurdity, as neither Tertullian ever thought of, nor the ob- jectors themselves will allow. Whatever, therefore, be meant by this phrase, praying from the heart without a monitor, it cannot mean, that the people’s prayers were simply their own conceptions. Among the many interpretations which are put upon these words by learned men, (which may be seen in Dr. Faulkner,59 or Dr. Comber,) I take these two to be the most natural; either, first, That they prayed memorz'ter, saying their prayers by heart, and need- ing no prompter, as the heathens did; which is the sense that Rigaltius‘” and Bishop Fell61 put upon it: in which sense it is an argument for liturgies, and not against them: or, secondly, That they prayed sincerely from the heart, and freely out of the loyalty of their own heart without compulsion, as Hamon L’Estrange and Dr. Comber62 interpret it. Which seems to be the truest sense: for the heathens were neither sincere, nor hearty, nor zeal- ous in their prayers for the emperor ; but the Christians offered their prayers with all those due qualifications, as became the character of truly pious votaries and loyal subjects. The sense of this dark passage being thus cleared, it remains no argument against liturgies, unless a man will say, there can be no such thing as sincerity and hearti- ness in a form of prayer; which would be to con- demn the whole catholic church in the time of Ter- tullian, fi'om whose testimonies it is evident, that forms were generally used in most parts of Divine service. I have nothing further to add in this century, but only one or two small observations out of the Acts of St. Perpetua and Felicitas, two African martyrs, who suffered in the latter end of this age. There it is remarked of Perpetua,63 that seeming in a vision to receive the eucharist into her hands and eat it, all that stood round her said, Amen: al- luding to the custom of saying Amen at the recep- tion of it from the hands of the minister in the church. There is a like allusion to the use of the Trisagz'on, Holy, holy, holy, which the angels in sanctum protuleris, gladiatori testimonium reddere? sis aiéiwas alii omnino dicere, nisi Deo Christo? or, as other copies have it, nisi Deo et Christo ‘I’ 55 Tertul. ad Uxor. lib. 2. cap. 6. Quid maritus suus illi, vel marito quid illa cantabit? 5“ Ibid. cap. 9. Sonant inter duos psalmi et hymni, et mutuo provocant, quis melius Deo suo canet. 5’ Tertul. Apol. cap. 39. Ut quisque dc Scripturis Sanctis, vel de proprio ingenio potest, provocatur in medium Deo canere. 53 Ibid. cap. 30. 59 Faulkner, Libertas Eccles. Book I. chap. 4. sect. 2. Comber, Orig. of Liturgies, chap. 2. p. 47. 6° Rigalt. in Tertul. cap. 30. 6‘ Fell. Not. in Cypr. de Orat. p. 152. 62 L’Estrange, Smectymniomastix, p. 5. Comber of Litur- gies, p. 49. 63 Passio Perpetuae, ad calcem Lactant. de Mort. Persec. p. 10. Ego accepi junctis manibus, et manducavi: et uni- versi circumstante's dixerunt, Amen. 2R2 612 BOOK XIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. used in heaven.“ And a further intimation of the solemn custom of giving the peace, and the kiss of peace, in the communion: for it is said,“ That Perpetua and her brother Saturus saluted one an- other with a kiss before they suffered, that they might consummate their martyrdom by the solemn rites of giving the peace. sect 6 In the beginning of the third centu- thgguiis gidgrligeuse ry, about the year 220, lived Hippolytus frtl‘ijgtcmgiyin the the martyr, and bishop of Adana, or Portus Romanus in Arabia. Among other learned works, he wrote a book called,’ A'lroqoM- x1) Hapédomg 'n'spi Xapto'ya'rwv, The Apostolical Tradi- tion concerning Ecclesiastical Oflices; which, ac- cording to the general opinion of the most learned critics, Dr. Bernard, Dr. Gale, and others,66 is no other than the eighth book of those called the Apostolical Constitutions, which they think were compiled and published at Rome by this author. And if so, there can be no question what his opinion was about the use of forms in Divine service: for that book is no- thing else but a collection of such forms, as either were in use, or made in imitation of those that were then in use in the church. I will not allege any of them here, because I do it in every part of this work, and it would be very needless and superfluous here to repeat them. Besides this, Hippolytus wrote a book of odes or hymns upon several parts of Scripture, some of which most probably were of use in the public ser- vice. For in another treatise, of the Consummation of the World and Antichrist," he commends the use of doxologies, and psalms, and spiritual odes; and makes it one of the signs of the reign of anti- christ, that liturgy shall be extinguished, psalmody shall cease, and reading of the Scriptures shall not be heard. It is true indeed, some learned men, Bishop Usher,68 Combefis, and Du Pin, reject this as a spurious tract, composed by some modern Greeks; but as learned critics, Labbe69 and Bishop Bull,7o have undertaken to defend it, and answer all the arguments that are produced against it. I will not enter into this debate, but only say, that as there is nothing in this passage now alleged dis- sonant to the sense of Hippolytus’s other works, we may be allowed to cite it in this cause, till some clearer evidence can be produced against it. Hip- polytus wrote also a book, called Canon Paschalis, which Scaliger71 and Gothofred72 take to be a calendar, showing what lessons were to be read on several festivals ; as the first of St. Matthew, called I‘évmg, the generation of Christ, on the vigil of Christ’s nativity; and the HéQog, or the history of his sufferings out of the Gospel of St. Matthew, on the day of his crucifixion: and it is certain from many passages in St. Chrysostom, St. Austin, and others, that such calendars were used in the church, as shall be showed in another place,78 when I come to speak of the ancient method of reading the Holy Scriptures by a certain rule and order in Divine service. But because ZEgidius Bucherius, who has since republished this Paschal Cycle, and Dr. Cave,74 give another interpretation of it, I will lay no greater stress upon it than it will bear, contenting myself in so critical a point to have suggested the sense of learned men, and leave the matter to the further disquisition of the curious reader; having otherwise given sufficient evidence, that the church in the time of Hippolytus used stated forms of prayer and praises in her public service. Not long after Hippolytus, lived Origen, who was one of his scholars, and took some of his opinions from him. Now this writer, in his Homilies upon J eremy,75 expressly mentions one of the prayers of constant use in the church: We frequently say in our prayers, says he, Grant us, O Almighty God, grant us a part with thy prophets; grant us a part with the apostles of thy Christ; grant that we may be found at the feet of thy only begotten Son. Which is a testimony so clear, that the Centuriators76 made no scruple to conclude hence, that forms of prayer were undoubtedly used in the church in the time of Origen. He elsewhere "7 says, The Christians used the ordered or prescribed prayers, as became them, continually night and day, whereby they were preserved against the power of magic and the devil- For Celsus, in his spiteful way, had advanced an egregious calumny against the Christians, pretend- ing that he had seen in the hands of some of their presbyters certain barbarous books, containing the names of the devils and their impostors; hereby insinuating, that the prayers which the Christian 6‘ Passio Perpetuae, ad calcem Lactant. de Mort. Persec. p. 23. Introivimus et audivimus vocem unitam, Hagios, ha- gios, hagios, sine cessatione. “5 Ibid. p. 35. Ante jam osculati invicem, ut martyrium per solennia pacis consummarent. 66 Vid. Cave, Hist. Literar. vol. 2. p. 45. 6’ Hippol. de Consummat. Mundi. Bibl. Patr. Gr. Lat. t. 2. p. 357 et 362. “8 Usser. Biblioth. Theol. ap. Cave, Hist. Liter. t. l. p. 70. Combefis, Auctarium, Bibl. Patr. p. 51. Du Pin, Biblioth. vol. 1. p. 104. 69 Labb. de Scriptor. Eccl. p. 471. 7° Bull. Defens. Fid. Nic. sect. 3. chap. 8. p. 369. 7‘ Scaliger, de Emendat. Temp. lib. 7. p. 726. 72 Gothofred. Not. in God. Theodos. lib. l5. Tit. 5. De Spectaculis, Leg. 5. p. 356. 73 Book XIV. chap. 3. sect. 3. "4 Vid. Cave, Hist. Literar. vol. 2. p. 47. "5 Orig. Horn. 11. in J erem. p. 606. Frequenter in ora- tione dicimus, Da Omnipotens, da nobis partem cum pro- phetis; da cum apostolis Christi tui; tribue ut inveniamur ad vestigia Unigeniti tui. "6 Centur. Magdeburg. Cent. 3. cap. 6. p. 94. 7"’ Orig. cont. Cels. lib. 6. p. 302. Ta'is qrpoqaxtlsio'ats "re abxa'i's a'vusxe's'epov Kai derive-we vvlc'rds Kai inuépas xpu'i- psvot, &c. CHAP. V. 613 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. presbyters had in their books, were only magical enchantments: which calumny Origen not only rejects with scorn, appealing to the experience of the world, which knew it to be a fiction; but also tells his adversary further, that the prayers which they used by order and appointment, were such as rendered them invincible, and proof against all the force of magic and power of the devils. Now, con- sidering that the objection of Celsus lay against the service books of the Christian presbyters, it is rea- sonable to conclude, that Origen’s answer relates to the same: for Origen does not deny that they had any such books, but only says, their prayers, which they were ordered to use, were of a differ- ent nature from what the adversary had represent- ed them. To this we may add what Origen says in his Comments upon Job, that by ancient custom of the church,78 the Book of Job was always read in Lent, and particularly in the Passion Week, as most pro- perly adapted to that occasion. The reader may find this passage at length hereafter,79 and therefore it is sufficient to hint in this place, that the Scrip- tures in his time were methodized and brought under rule, being read by some certain order and prescription. Not long after Origen, St. Cyprian testifies not only that the Lord’s prayer was used as a form, and as a spiritual form, most acceptable to God, as we shall see hereafter; but also mentions several other forms of common and noted use in Divine service. As in the administration of baptism, every one was to renounce the devil and the world in a certain form of words,Em then vulgarly known in the church, which Cyprian more than once has occasion to mention. They were likewise to make profession of the several articles of the Christian faith in a certain form of words, which every church had for that purpose, and for this particular use, collected into a creed. Cyprian 8‘ often specifies both the interrogatories and the answers that were made upon this occasion; and he assures us, they were so precise to a form, that the Novatians themselves82 used the very same words in their questions and responses, as the catholics did: they observed the same rule as the church did: they baptized with the same creed; they asked the party, Whether he believed in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? Whether he believed in the remission of sins, and eternal life, by the holy church? which were the first and last words in the creed. So they kept close to the same form of words, though they differed about the sense of them in some particulars relating to remission of sins, and the church: which is so clear an argu- ment for the observation of a form in baptism, that I see not what can reasonably he replied to it. Then, again, for the prayers in the administration of the eucharist, nothing can be more evident, than that the people bare a part in them. I will not in- sist on those expressions of his, that they had pub- lic and common prayer,83 because they are capable of an evasion: but what he says of the people’s an- swering to the priest, is not to be evaded. For, per- suading the people to use diligence and attention in their prayers, he puts them in mind of a usual form of speech, which the whole church used to raise their souls to a spiritual and heavenly temper. The priest, says he, before prayer prepares the hearts 8‘ of the brethren, by premising a preface, and saying, “ Lift up your hearts ;” that whilst the people an- swer, “ We lift them up unto the Lord,” they may be admonished at that time to think of nothing but the Lord only. What Cyprian says here of this preface coming before the prayer, is not so to be understood, as if it came before all the prayers of the church, but immediately before the prayer of consecration in the communion service: for, as we shall see hereafter, there came before this both the prayers for the catechumens and penitents, and the prayers for the faithful, or the whole state of Christ’s church; but when the solemn prayer of the oblation was to be made, then it was that the priest called upon the people in this form, “ Lift up your hearts ;” and they answered, “ We lift them unto the Lord :” the priest went on again, and said, “ Let us give thanks to our Lord God ;” and the people answered, “ It is just and right so to do.” Then followed the eucharistical or consecration prayer, and the Lord’s prayer ; and after that the Salutation, Paa: robz's, “ Peace be with you ;” to which the people answer- ed, “ And with thy spirit.” After which they gave one another mutually the kiss of peace, and then 78 Origen. in Job, lib. 1. p. 366. "9 Book XIV. chap. 3. sect. 3. 8° Cypr. de Lapsis, p. 125. Stare illic potuit Dei servus, et loqui et renunciare Christo, qui jam diabolo renunciaret et saeculo? It. Ep. 7. al. 13. ad Rogat. p. 37. Saeculo re- nunciaveramus, cum baptizati sumus. 8' Ibid. Ep. 70. ad Episcopos Numidas, p. 190. Sed et ipsa interrogatio quae fit in baptismo, testis est veritatis. Nam cum dicimus, Credis in vitam aeternam, et remissionem peccatorum per sanctam ecclesiam? Intelligimus remis- sionem peccatorum non nisi in ecclesia dari, &c. 82 Ibid. Ep. 69. al. 76. ad Magnum. p. 183. Eandem No- vatianum legem tenere, quam catholica ecclesia teneat eo- dem symbolo, quo et nos baptizare; eundem nosse Deum Patrem, eundem Filium Christum, eundem Spiritum Sanc- tum :——-Dicunt, Credis remissionem peccatorum et vitam zeternam per sanctam ecclesiam? 83 Cypr. de Orat. Dom. p. 141. Publica. nobis et com- munis oratio est. It. Ep. 8. al. ll. ad Cler. p. 26. Oratione communi et concordi prece pro omnibus jussit orare. 8‘ Ibid. de Orat. Dom. p. 152. Ideo et sacerdos ante orationem, praefatione praernissa, parat fratrum mentes, di- cendo, Sursum corda: ut dum respondet plebs, Habemus ad Dominum, admoneatur, nihil aliud se quam Dominum co- gitare debere. 614 Boox XIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. proceeded to receive the holy sacrament. This was the form and order of the communion service in St. Austin’s time in the African church; and it is very probable it might be much the same in the time of Cyprian: but Cyprian had no occasion to mention any other part of the prayers, but only that which related to his particular subject; which one is suf- ficient to prove, that stated forms of prayer were then allowed in the public service of the church of Carthage, and probably in the rest of the African churches. At the same time with Cyprian lived Firmilian, bishop of Cazsarea in Cappadocia, who, having oc- casion to speak of a certain woman, an impostor, who pretended to the spirit of prophecy, he says, She took upon her85 to consecrate the eucharist with the venerable invocation, and ceremony of predication then commonly used in the church: he means the commemoration of God’s great blessings bestowed upon man, and the repetition of the his- tory of the first institution of the Lord’s supper, which by the ancients is called liva'pvno'ig, and solita praedz'catz'o, a thing seldom or never omitted in the consecration of the eucharist. He adds also, that the same impostor baptized many, using the com- mon and appointed interrogatories, that she might not seem to vary in any thing from the rule of the church. She made them answer to every article of the creed, the creed (as he calls it) of the holy Trinity; she put the usual questions to them pre- scribed by the church, that is, Whether they re- nounced the devil, his angels, his pomp, and his service? and, Whether they made a covenant with Christ? and she did every thing ad imaginem ce- rz'tatz's, according to the exact method and form that was observed in the church. Now, though all this was done by the devil, speaking in an impostor ; yet, being done according to the exact rules of the church, it argues, that the church at that time had a stated rule and order for administering both the sacraments, and that the forms were so well known, that this woman could imitate them so exactly, as in nothing to vary from the usual solemnities either of prayers, or other ceremonies then observed in the church. And if we consider, that the administra- tion of the two sacraments was then the most con- siderable part of the church’s service, this is as clear an evidence as we can desire, to prove that pre- scribed forms were now in use in the Asiatic churches. Gregory Thaumaturgus, bishop of Neocaesarea in Pontus, was contemporary with Firmilian, and he was a man famous for working miracles by the Spi~ rit, whence he had the name of Thaumaturgus, the wonder-worker. There is no doubt but that he prayed also by the Spirit, yet he prayed by a form; which shows, that praying by a form, and praying by the Spirit, are not inconsistent. As he was the founder of his church, (finding but seventeen Chris- tians when he came thither, and leaving but seven- teen heathens when he was taken from it,) so he left them a liturgy or form of Divine service, which they were so tenacious of, that, as St. Basil86 testi- fies of them, they would not suffer one ceremony, or one word, or one mystical form, to be added to those which he had left among them. He settled the way of singing psalms, not alternately, but by the common voice of the people all joining together: and the clergy of Neocaesarea were such admirers of this rule, that when St. Basil had introduced the alternate way into his own church, they were of- fended at it, and objected against him, that it was not ‘so in the days of Gregory the Great. Upon which St. Basil was forced to write an apologetical epistle to them in vindication of his practice, wherein he shows, That the way of alternate song was now conformable to the practice of all the Eastern churches, except that of Neocaesarea ; and that, however tenacious that church had formerly been of the ways and forms of Gregory, yet in one particu- lar they had now made an alteration: for in the days of Gregory they87 had none of that peculiar form of prayers, called litanies, which now in St. Basil’s time they had admitted into their service, and were very zealous in the use of it, notwith- standing that it was neither of St. Gregory’s com- position, nor used at all in his days. As this shows that the use of litanies was brought into the church of Neocmsarea some years after the time of St. Gre- gory; so it as evidently proves that their other forms were instituted by him, and derived their original from his composition, who was the first founder of the church. Not long after this, we find a complaint made by the council of Antioch, anno 270, against Paulus Samosatensis, the heretical bishop of that place, that he had forbidden the use of such psalms?8 or hymns as were used to be sung in the church to the honour of our Lord Jesus Christ, under pretence that they were only the novel compositions of late ‘*5 Firmil. Ep. 75. ad Cypr. p. 223. Hoc frequenter ausa est, ut invocatione non contemptibili sanctificare se panem, et eucharistiam facere simularet, et sacrificium Domino non sine sacramento solitae praedicationis ofi'erret; baptizaret quoque multos, usitata. et legitima verba interrogationis usurpans, ut nil discrepare ab ecclesiastics regula videretur. --Nunquid et hoc Stephanus, et qui illi consentiunt, com- probant? Maxime cui nec symbolum Trinitatis, nec inter- rogatio legitima et ecclesiastica defuit? Potest credi aut remissio peccatorum data, aut lavacri salutaris regeneratio rite perfecta, ubi omnia quamvis ad imaginem veritatis, ta- men per daemonem gesta sunt, &c. 86 Basil. de Spir. Sancto, cap. 29. p. 360. Or’) qrpriz'Eiv 'rwdz, or’: A6700, 0:’; 7.97m” 'rwa‘z ,uuo-q-ucdv, 'n'ap’ 3v Exeiuots KGTéAL'II'E, 'rfi émchno'iq 7rpoo'étinlcau. 87 Basil. Ep. 63. ad Neocaesar. ’A)O\’ 066% at hi'raus'iat s’rri. I‘pn'yopiou, {is finals uiiu éqrv'rndsue-rs. 88 Cone. Antioch. ap. Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 30. CHAP. V. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 615 and modern authors. I have already produced this passage more at length89 to prove the worship of our Saviour: and here it serves to prove, that they worshipped him by certain forms of praise, which the bishop cast out of the church, upon a pretence of novelty: which was but a mere pretence; for such forms of praise had been in use in the church dmzpxfig, from the beginning, as the ancient writer against the heresy of Artemon in Eusebius 9° words it. ‘And about the same time Nepos, an Egyptian bishop, composed hymns of the like nature for the service of the church, for which he is commended by Dionysius,91 bishop of Alexandria; who also him- self used a certain form of doxology to the whole Trinity, as is reported by St. Basil,92 who also tells us, in the same place, That Athenogenes the martyr composed hymns to the glory of the Holy Ghost; and adds, that the hymn called Hymnus Lucernalis, the hymn to be sung at lighting of candles in the evening service, containing a glorification of the holy Trinity, was of ancient use in the church; so ancient, that he knew not who was the author of it. But I have already alleged these more at large’3 in vindicating the worship of our Saviour, and there- fore content myself barely to hint them as accus- tomed forms of praise in this place. I shall only note one thing more in this century, out of the epistle of Cornelius, bishop of Rome, to Fabian, bishop of Antioch, recorded by Eusebius: which is, That it was customary, in those days, for the minister to use a form of words at the delivery of the bread and wine in the eucharist, saying, The body of Christ, or the blood of Christ, to which the people always answered, Amen. For Cornelius,” speaking of the wickedness of Novatian, says, When he delivered the eucharist to the people, he obliged them, instead of saying Amen, at the naming of it, to swear by the body and blood of Christ, that they would not desert his party, nor return to Cornelius : which custom of saying Amen, in answer to the minister, when he named the body or blood of Christ, is both an ancient and universal practice. For Tertullian,95 as has been showed already, men- tions it long before; and we find it frequently in the writers of the next age, St. Ambrose, St. Cyril, St. Austin, St. J erom, and the author of the Con- stitutions; of which I shall have occasion to speak more in another place. In the beginning of the fourth cen- Sect. .,_ tury, Arnobius, apologizing for the ugvggesgiemggfg Christian devotions, tells the heathens, the mm‘ mm’ They might know that they worshipped the supreme God, and called upon him for what they desired, by the sound of their voice,96 which they used in prayer. He says, they all prostrated themselves before him, adoring him with joint supplications.” And he gives us the general heads of their prayers, which are very agreeable to the ancient forms of the church, viz. That God would grant 98 peace and pardon to all men, to the magistrates, to the armies, and to the emperors; to their friends and to their enemies; to those that were alive, and those that were set at liberty from the bonds of the body. Which petitions are so conformable to the method and order of the ancient liturgies, that one might have imagined them to be offered by a form, though Arnobius had said nothing of their joint prayers, or vocal consent in their devotions. Lactantius and Eusebius wrote after the great persecution under Diocletian and his associates was over ; and they both take notice of forms of prayer appointed by the first Christian emperors for their soldiers to use, in imitation of those of the church. Lactantius says expressly, that when Licinius was about to join battle with Maximinus, Maximinus made a vow to Jupiter, that if he got the victory, he would utterly extinguish and blot out the very name of Christians. Upon which, the night after an an- gel of God came and stood by Licinius ‘as he lay at rest, bidding him rise quickly, and pray to the most high God with all his army, promising him the vic- tory if he did so. As soon as he heard this, he thought with himself that he arose and stood with the angel who gave him this warning, and who then taught him after what manner and in what words they should pray. Therefore, awaking out of sleep, he ordered a notary to be brought to him, to whom he dictated the prayer99 in these very words, as he had heard them: O thou most high God, we be- seech thee. O holy God, we beseech thee. We 89 Chap. 2. sect. 3. 9° Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 28. 9‘ Dionys. Epist. ap. Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 24. 9? Basil. de Spir. Sancto, cap. 29. "3 See chap. 2. sect. 2. 9‘ Cornel. Ep. ad Fabian. ap. Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 43. p. 245. 95 Tertul. de Spectac. cap. 25. 9“ Arnob. lib. l. p. 24. Summum invocare nos Deum, et ah eo quod postulamus orare, vel auribus poterit scire, vel ipsius vocis sono, qua utimur in precibus, noscitare. 9’ Ibid. p. 25. Huic omnes ex more prosternimur, hunc collatis precibus adoramus. 99 Id. lib. 4. p. 181. Our nostra meruerint immaniter con- venticuladirui ? In quibus summus oratur Deus, pax cunctis et venia postulatur, magistratibus, exercitibus, regibus, fa- miliaribus, inimicis, adhuc vitam degentibus, et resolutis corporum vinctione. 99 Lact. de Mort. Persecut. cap. 46. Discusso somno notarium jussit asciri, et sicut audierat, haec verba dictavit. Summe Deus, te rogamus. Sancte Deus, te rogamus. Om- nem justitiam tibi commendamus; salutem nostram tibi commendamus ; imperium nostrum tibi commendamus. Per te vivimus, per te victores et felices existimus. Summe sancte Deus, preces nostras exaudi. Brachia nostra ad te tendimus. Exaudi,sancte summe Deus. Scribuntur haec in libellis pluribus, et per praepositos tribunosque mittuntur, ut suos quisque milites doceat. Erat jam utraque acies in conspectu. Liciniani scuta deponunt, galeas resolvunt, ad coelurn manus tendunt, praeeuntibus praepositis, at post imperatorem precem dicunt.: audit acies peritura precan- tium murmur. Illi oratione ter dicta, virtute jam pleni, &c. 616 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Boon XIII. commend all the justice of our cause to thee : .we commend our safety unto thee: we commend our empire unto thee. By thee we live, by thee we are victorious and happy. 0 most high and holy God, hear our prayers. We stretch forth our arms unto thee. Hear us, O most high and holy God. These words were written in many books, and sent by the generals and tribunes, that they might teach them to their soldiers. When the day of battle came, the soldiers laid aside their shields, and put off their helmets, and lifting up their hands to heaven, said the prayer after the emperor, their generals repeat- ing it before them. And this they did so loudly, that the adverse army, ready to be sacrificed, heard the echo of their prayer. Which when they had repeated three times, they were inspired with cou- rage, and resuming their arms, though they were but a few, they without any loss gained a complete victory over their enemies; whom the most high God, says our author, delivered up to be slaughtered, as if they had come not to engage in battle, but as men devoted to death and destined to destruction. It is not many years since this little golden tract of Lactantius came to light, and therefore probably this testimony may not very often have fallen under the observation of every ordinary reader. But as ~ there is no dispute to be made of the truth of the relation upon the authority of Lactantius, so it is an illustrious evidence both of the opinion of Lac- tantius and the general sense of Christians, that they did not think forms of prayer unlawful, be- cause they were written in a book, nor the repeti- tion of them any offence, for this prayer was thrice repeated. ' If it should be said, that this prayer was dictated immediately by an angel, the same and more may be said of the Lord’s prayer, that it was dictated by Christ himself, and the Psalms were Written as forms of prayer and praise by an inspired penman ; and yet there are those, who, for no other reason but because they are forms, despise the use of them, when inserted into any liturgy of the church. Parallel to this testimony of Lactantius is that other relation of Eusebius concerning Constantine, That he ordered all his soldiers, as many of them as were heathens, to go forth into the field on the Lord’s day, and there, with hands and hearts lift up 120 heaven, t0 offer up t0 GOd pepsherflpévnv ef/Xfimm a certain prayer which they had learned and pre- meditated before. The prayer was to be said in the Latin tongue, which was the vulgar language, and in this express form of words: We acknowledge thee to be the only God;‘°l we profess thee to be our King; we call upon thee as our helper. It is from thee we have our victories; by thee we are superior to our enemies. We give thee thanks for the by-past favours and benefits we have already re— ceived; and we hope in thee for those that‘ are to come. We are all humble supplicants unto thee, beseeching thee to preserve Constantine our king, with all his pious children, and grant him long to reign over us with safety and victory. This was the prayer which he enjoined the heathens in his army to use every Lord’s day. As for those that were Christians, he commanded them to follow his own example, and attend the prayers of the church on the Lord’s day, setting them a pattern in his own practice. He ordered his own palace after the manner of a church, first taking the Bible into his hands, and reading and meditating therein, and then repeating the pre- scribed prayers m with all his royal family. Which shows that forms of prayer were then generally used in the church, since Constantine used the pre- scribed prayers in his own family, and thereby made it to resemble the church. Eusebius highly extols and applauds Constantine for all this; which argues that Eusebius himself was no enemy to prescribed forms. And indeed we are beholden to his history both for the knowledge of this of Constantine, and many other forms, which had been lost, had it not been for his care and diligence in preserving them; of which any reader may be sensible, that considers how many things have already been alleged out of his treasury, especially the account which he gives of the Es- senes, and their way of worship, out of Philo J udaeus; for as it is evident that they worshipped God by certain forms, so it is as evident that Euse- bius took them for Christians, and their worship for the way of worship settled by the first Chris- tians at Alexandria.103 It may not be improper also to observe, that Eusebius, in one of his letters recorded by Socrates,104 expressly says, That in the church of Caasarea, where he was bishop, they always had a creed in a certain form of words (which he there repeats) whereby their catechumens were to be instructed, and their answers in baptism to be made in the words of it; and that thus it was that he himself had been there both catechised and baptized. And if his church allowed a form in bap- tism, there is reason to believe, from what has been said, that she was not averse to it in other parts of Divine service. Moreover, from the time of the council of Nice, we are well assured, that the creed composed in that council was used in most of the Eastern churches, as a precise form by which all catechumens were to make their responses in bap- l°° Euseb. de Vita. Constant. lib. 4. cap. 19. 1°‘ Ibid. cap. 20. "2 Ibid. cap. 17. E17’ si’ixo‘zs s’ufie'o-juous o'l‘w 'roi's 'rdu Baa-[Aston o‘ircov whnpoiio'w a’qrsdidov. ‘03 Vid. ibid. lib. 2. c. 17. 1°‘ Socrat. lib. 1. cap. 8. C HAP. V. 617 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. tism, as I have proved105 elsewhere upon another occasion, though it was not presently admitted as a form to be repeated, as now it is, in the ordinary service of the church; but its being allowed as a form in baptism, is an argument that the church had then no exception against forms, since she en- joined them in the administration of her sacraments, which are the most considerable part of Divine service. ' Athanasius, as well as Eusebius, was a member of the council of Nice, and there are plain footsteps of a liturgy in his writings. In one place he de- clares, that when he said, Let us pray for the safety'"6 of the most religious emperor Constantius, all the people immediately with one voice answered, Christ help Constantius. Which is exactly agreeable to the ancient way of praying for kings and others in the prayer for the whole state of Christ’s church, where the people were used to answer to every petition, Kl'lpw, ékénoov, or 0130011, Lord, have mercy upon them, or, Lord, save and help them, as will be showed in its proper place. Again, speaking of the communion service,107 he says, The people offered up their prayers with one voice, and without any manner of disagreement; and that in that great multitude there was but one voice, when they unanimously answered, Amen. It is evident also, that in his time psalmody was in great request at Alexandria; for Sozomen108 takes notice, that it was by the advantage of this practice, that Athanasius, when he was beset in the church by his enemies, escaped their hands, whilst he got out secretly in the company of those that were singing psalms. St. Austin also speaks of it, and tells us,‘°9 That Athanasius made some regulation in the way of singing, and brought in the custom of plain song, ordering the readers of the psalms to pronounce their words with so little inflexion or variation of the tone, that it looked more like reading than sin g- ing. It is further observable out of Ruffinus110 and the other historians, who relate the story of Athanasius baptizing the catechumens whilst he was but a youth, that the questions and answers, and all other ceremonies of baptism, were then per- formed by such a certain rule and order in the church, that Athanasius was able to imitate them exactly, and omit nothing that was used to be done, but observed every rite to a tittle, as Alexander the bishop found upon inquiry, when he came more strictly to examine them. And this shows, that not only in the time of Athanasius, but in the days of Alexander his predecessor, such sort of forms were of constant use in the church. Athanasius himself also not only mentions their psalmody, but tells us, that it was so ordered, the people might bear a part in it. For though the antiphonal way of singing verse for verse, by way of alternate song, was not yet brought into the church in repeating David’s Psalms, yet it was usual sometimes for the people to join in the close of a verse, and repeat it together with the reader. And this was called 131rnxeiv, and bwanoz’mv, to come into the concert at the close. \Vhence Athanasius, speaking111 of that great as- sault made upon his church, mentioned before by Socrates and Sozomen, says, He commanded the deacon to read a psalm, to which the people did im-axoz’ww, that is, not barely hearken, as the un- skilful translator renders it, but repeat in the close these words, “ For his mercy endureth for ever.” Of which way of singing I shall say more hereafter in its proper place, Book XIV. chap. i. sect. 12. Here I shall only note further, that Athanasius, describing the great barbarities and indignities which the Arians showed to the matrons and virgins in the very church, mentions one virginn2 whom they de- spitefully used, having her Psalter in her hand. Which no doubt she had to join in singing David’s Psalms, according to the custom of the church. And the book De Interpretatione Psalmorum, is nothing else but a direction how to use the Psalms as forms of prayers and praises upon all particular occasions, where, among other things, he observes,“3 That the 62nd or 63rd Psalm, “O God, my God, early will I seek thee,” was always a psalm to be used at morning prayer. And the author of the book of Virginity,1H among his works, says the same; which is also mentioned by St. Chrysostom and some others about this time, of whom we shall have occasion to speak more particularly in considering the order and method of morning service, Book XIII. chap. x. sect. 2. Athanasius lived forty-six years bishop of Alex- andria, and continued in being till the year 371. During which interval, we have the concurrent tes- timony of J uvencus and Pachomius, and all the Egyptian monasteries; of Flavian, bishop of An- 1°5 Book X. chap. 4. sect. 17. 1°“ Athanas. Apol. ad Constant. p. 679. Méuov 'ydp Eka- yov, Er’zfémaea 'lrspi. 'rfis o'wq-npias, &c. Kai r59 5 Aads £06.39 ,utqi ¢wufi éfio'a, Xpw'rz‘z, 301568; Kwucr'ram-iqu. ‘07 Athan. ibid. p. 683. Miav Kai. 'rv‘iu aim-1'11: #871‘! (mp.- ¢wuias Frau) Kain; 'yeua'o'eat 'rfiu ¢ww‘)v, &c. m Sozom. lib. 3. cap. 6. Ewuqbdwou 6%. 'rfis \b'akprpdias 'yevope'vns, &c. Vid. Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 11. IIpoo'Tégas dtalco'uop Kflpugal. zilxr‘w, &c. Theod. lib. 2. cap. 13. “9 Aug. Confess. lib. lO. cap. 33. Tam modico flexu vocis faciebat sonare lectorem psalmi, ut pronuncianti vicinior esset quam canenti. ‘1° Rui‘fin. lib. 1. cap. 14. Diligenter inquirens, quid in- terrogati fuerint, quidve responderint, videt secundum re- ligionis nostraa ritum cuncta constare, &c. m Athan. Apol. ad Constant. p. 717. Hpoé'rpa'n'ou 'rdu p.521 duilcouou c’wa'ywu'io'xew \IHZA’Ldll, 'rol‘ls 5e Aaoils inm- Koéew, 371 £19 *rdu aidwa To E'Asos aa’i'roii, &c. “2 Ibid. Epist. ad Orthodoxos, p. 947. “3 Ibid. de Interpr. Psalmor. ad Marcellin. t. l. p. 975. 1“ Ibid. de Virgin. p. 1075. 618 Boox XIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. tioch; Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, Hilary, bishop of Poictiers ; Optatus, Epiphanius, Gregory N azianzen, Ephrem Syrus, St. Basil and Apollinaris, the sup- posed author of the books under the name of Diony- sius the Areopagite, together with the council of Laodiceaf And not long after, St. Ambrose, St. J erom, St. Austin, and St. Chrysostom, with several African councils, all within the compass of this fourth age, in which Athanasius lived. J uvencus flourished under Constantine in Spain, and being a poet, turned the history of the gospel into verse; and St. J erom adds, that he wrote a book115 in the same way, giving an‘ account of the order of the sacraments of the church. Now, if we consider, what has been observed before,116 that, in ecclesiastical style, Ordo Sacramentorum commonly denotes a book of Divine oflices, it is most probable that this work of J uvencus was no other but the oflices or forms of Divine service turned into verse. Pachomius, about the year 340, brought the Egyptian monks into communities, and settled them . under rules ; one of which was, to meet twice a day, and sing a certain number of psalms, with prayers intermixed, as may be seen in the accounts which Cassian,117 Palladius,“8 and St. J erom119 give of them. Now, it must be owned, that whatever their prayers were, their psalmody was matter of form, whether sung singly or alternately: and though they did not repeat the usual doxology, “ Glory be to the Father,” as was usual in the Western church, at the end of every psalm, yet they did it at other times at the end of their antz'phonce, as Cassian,120 an eye wit- ness of their service, informs us. About the year 350, lived Flavian, first a pres— byter, and then bishop of Antioch. Whilst he was presbyter, it happened that Leontius, the Arian bi- shop, made an alteration in the common doxology, “ Glory be to the Father,” &c., to make it favour his heresy. Upon this, Flavian and Diodorus withdrew from his communion, and assembled with the peo— ple at the monuments of the martyrs; where, di- viding the people into two parts, they taught them to sing the Psalms of David alternately;121 which custom beginning first at Antioch, was from thence propagated all the world over. After this manner Theodoret relates the story; where it is easy to ob- serve, I. That the form of glorification was an an- cient thing, and only Leontius made an innovation in it. 2. That the singing of David’s Psalms was ancient too, which are forms both of prayers and praises; and Flavian was not the author of that service, but only of the alternate way of singing them. And whereas it is said by Socrates, that Ig- natius had introduced the antiphonal way of sing- ing before, that is not to be understood of David’s Psalms, but of other hymns composed to the glory of the holy Trinity ; which, as we have seen before, were always in use in the Christian church. And Theodoret adds, 3. That this way of singing was so taking to the people of Antioch, that they all de- serted Leontius, and he was forced to beg of Fla- vian, that he would bring back this Aarovpyiav, this liturgy or service into the churches. About the same time lived Cyril, bishop of J eru- salem, who, in his Catechetical Discourses to the newly baptized, takes notice of many forms that had been of ancient use in the church. In his first catechism,122 he tells them the meaning of the cere- monies used in baptism: Ye were first brought in, says he, into the ante-room of the baptistery, and placed towards the west in a standing posture, and then commanded to renounce Satan, by stretching out your hands against him, as if he had been pre- sent. A little after he explains the meaning of their doing this toward the west. The west, says he, is the place of darkness, and Satan is darkness, and his strength is in darkness. For this reason ye symbolically look toward the west, when ye re- nounce that prince of darkness and horror. For what did every one of you then say, standing? I renounce thee, Satan, and all thy works, and all thy pomp, and all thy worship and service. After this, he tells them,"23 they turned from the west to the east, which is the region of light and place of paradise, and then were commanded to say, I be- lieve in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and in one baptism of repentance. In his second discourse, he reminds them of their unction in the baptistery)?“ and their repeated confession of the holy Trinity, and their trine immersion. In his third discourse, he treats of125 the second unc- tion with the holy chrism, which was then used in confirmation, immediately after they were come out of the waters of baptism. In his fifth discourse, he treats of the ceremonies used in the communion service, where first he speaks ‘26 of the deacon’s bringing water to the bishop and presbyters to wash their hands, in token of men’s obligation to purify themselves from sin. Then the deacon cries out, Embrace and salute 1” one another with a holy kiss. After this, the priest cries out,128 Lift up your hearts; and ye answer, We lift them up unto the Lord. He says again, Let us give thanks to the Lord; and ye answer, It is meet and just so to do. "5 Hieron. de Script. Eccl. cap. 84. Nonnulla eodem metro ad sacramentorum ordinem pertinentia. composuit. "6 Book XIII. chap. i. sect. 6. “7 Cassian. Institut. lib. 2. cap. 5. “3 Pallad. Hist. Lausiac. cap. 38. “9 Hieron. Ep. 22. ad Eustoch. c. 15. 12° Cassian. lib. 2. cap. 8. 12‘ Theod. lib. 2. cap. 24. 122 Cyril. Catech. Myst. 1. n. 2. p. 278. 123 Ibid. n. 6. p. 283. 12‘ Ibid. 2. n. 3 et 4. 125 Ibid. 3. n. 2 et 3. ‘26 Ibid. 5. n. I. 1?’ Ibid. n. 2. 1” Ibid. 11. 3. CHAP. V. 619 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. After this, we make mention of heaven, and earth, and sea, the sun, moon, and stars, and the whole creation, rational and irrational, visible and invisi- ble, angels and archangels, dignities, dominions, principalities and powers, thrones and cherubims, and with them we sing the seraphical hymn, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of sabaoth. After which, we beseech the merciful God, that he would send forth his Spirit upon the elements, and make the bread the body of Christ, and the wine the blood of Christ. Then, after this spiritual and unbloody sa- crifice and service is performed, we beseech God for the common peace of the church, for the tranquillity of the world, for kings and their armies and allies, for the sick and afflicted; and, in a word, for all that Want assistance, saying, We beseech thee for them, and offer this sacrifice unto thee. Then we make mention of those that are fallen asleep, first, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and martyrs, that God, through their prayers and intercessions, may receive our prayers; and after, we pray for our holy fathers and bishops, and all that are departed this. life before us. Then we say that prayer, which our Saviour gave to his disciples, calling God by the name of Father, and saying, “ Our Father which art in heaven.” After which, the priest says, Holy things for those that are holy. And the people answer, There is one holy, one Lord Jesus Christ. Then one is appointed to sing those words of the thirty-third Psalm, “ O taste and see that the Lord is gracious,” as an excitement to receive the commu- nion; and every one communicates, saying Amen twice, when first he receives the body of Christ into his hand, and afterward the cup of his blood. Fi- nally, when all have communicated, he tells them, they are to wait for prayer again, and give God thanks for making them partakers of so great mys- teries. Now, one must be blind that cannot see the plain footsteps and forms of a stated liturgy in all this; and, therefore, I shall make no other descant upon them, but only this, that, undoubtedly, before St. Cyril wrote those lectures, there was a prescribed liturgy, and offices in form for the administration both of baptism and the eucharist, in the church of Jerusalem, and those handed down from their fore- fathers, though it be not possible to trace every thing precisely to its first original. Contemporary with Cyril was Hilary, bishop of Poictiers, of whom St. J erom '29 says, That he wrote a book of hymns and mysteries, which most pro- bably were the forms of the holy offices then used in the church. It is certain, his hymns, together with those of St. Ambrose, were afterwards in great request in the church; and when some excepted against them, as only of human composition, the fourth council of Toledo ordered ‘3" them to be re- tained in the church’s service, together with the hymns, “ Glory be to the Father,” and, “Glory be to God on high; ” threatening excommunication to any who in the churches of Spain and Gallicia should reject them. Hilary himself plainly intimates, that both the prayers and hymns were such, as all the people with an audible voice might join in them. Let every profane hearer, says he,“ be terrified with the words of our confession: let us fight against the devil and his weapons with the sound of our prayers, and let the victory of our war be proclaim- ed with the voice of exultation. Let him that stands without the church hear the voice of the people praying; let him perceive the glorious sound of our hymns, and hear the responses of our devout confession in the oflices of the Divine sacraments. He that can make out all this from the people’s silent consent in heart only to the minister’s prayer, without any vocal joining in forms of prayer and praises, may make any thing out of any thing, and it were not worth while to produce any manner of evidence for such a man’s conviction. I only note further out of Hilary, that these prayers and hymns were both for morning and evening ser- vice: ‘32 The church had her outgoings both morn- ing and evening to praise God: she began the day with prayers, and ended the day with hymns to God. Chronologers are not exactly agreed about the time of the council of Laodicea. Labbe and others place it before the council of Nice, about the year 319; Bishop Beverege, about the year 365; but on all hands it is agreed to be within this century. Now, here are several canons, which plainly show the use of prescribed forms in the service of the church. The seventh canon orders, That such as returned from the heresies of the Novatians, the Photinians, and the Quartadecimani, should first learn the creeds of the church, and be anointed with the holy chrism, before they were admitted to the communion of the holy mysteries. Which implies, that the creeds were then in a certain form, since ‘29 Hieron. de Scriptor. cap. 140. Liber hymnorum et mysteriorum. 13° Conc. Tolet. 4- can. 13. Quia nonnulli hymni hu- mano studio in laudem Dei, atque apostolorum et martyrum triumphos compositi esse noscuntur, sicut hi, quos beatissimi doctorcs Hilarius atque Ambrosius ediderunt, quos tamen quidam specialiter reprobant, pro eo quod de scripturis sanc- torum canonum, vel apostolica traditione non existunt, &c. '31 Hilar. in Psal. lxv. p. 232. Terrendus est confes- sicnis nostras sermone omnis profanus auditor: et adversus diabolum armaque ejus orationum nostrarum sonitu cer- tandum est, et belli nostri victoria exultationis voce mon- stranda est. Audiat orantis populi consistens quis extra ecclesiam vocem; spectet celebres hymnorum sonitus; et inter Divinorum quoque sacramentorum officia responsionem devotee confessionis accipiat. "2 Id. in. Psal. lxiv. p. 231. Progressus ecclesiae in ma- tutinum (leg. matutinorum) et vespertinorum hymnorum delectatione maximum misericordiae Dei signum est. Dies in orationibus Dei inchoatur, dies hvmnis Dei clauditur. 620 BOOK XIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. they were obliged to learn them. The fifteenth canon orders, That none should sing in the church except the canonical singers, who went up into the ambo, or reading desk, and sang from a book, dab 5¢¢9épag. The seventeenth canon forbids the con~ tinuing of psalms one after another, and orders a lesson to be read after every psalm. The eighteenth orders the same liturgy of prayers to be used at the nones, that is, three o’clock in the afternoon, and at evening service. The nineteenth orders the method of Divine service, That after the bishop’s sermon should follow the prayers for the catechumens; and after they were gone, the prayers for the penitents; and when they had been under the bishop’s hand, and were retired, then the three prayers for the faithful or communicants; the first whereof were to be in silence, the second and third by way of bidding prayer and audible invocation. Then the presbyters were to give the kiss of peace to the bishop, and laymen to one another; after which, the holy oblation was to be made, those only of the clergy communicating within the rails of the altar. This canon plainly describes the order and method of the ancient service, as it was performed in that age; and though the several forms of prayer here mentioned are not set down, yet we are sure they were in use at that time; and therefore a brief refer- ence, such as was suitable to the compass of a short canon, is made to them, as shall be showed more at large in another place.138 The twenty-second canon orders, That the subdeacon shall not wear the ora- m‘zmz, which was a scarf or tippet belonging to the deacons, by which they were used to give the signal or directions to the people in the performance of the several parts of Divine service. The forty-sixth canon orders those that are to be baptized, to learn the creed, and on the Thursday before Easter to re- hearse it to the bishop or presbyters. The forty- seventh canon appoints those that were baptized in sickness, afterwards to learn the creed also; which implies, that the creed was then in a certain form of words. The fifty-ninth canon orders, That no psalms composed by private men should be sung in the church; which argues, that hymns composed by private men were only to be discarded, but others were allowed that were authentic. And this is full proof, that forms of Divine service were in use‘ at the time of this council. About the year 368, Epiphanius was made bishop of Salamis, or Constantia, in Cyprus. And that he approved forms of prayer, appears from the frequent 133 Book XV. chap. 1. 13* Coteler. T estimonia Veterum praefixa Constitut. Apos- tol. ’ ‘35 Epiph. Haer. 70. Audianor. n. 10. 1150-0: éu aim-ii Kavomm‘j 'rc'zELs é,u.¢€ps*raz, Kai. obdév 7rapalcsxapayjuéuou 'rfis aria-"rams, 068s 'rw'js duoko'yias, odds 'riis éicxkno'zas'uciis dwuaio'ews, Kai. :cauo'uos. testimony he gives to the book called the Apos- tolical Constitutions, the eighth Book of which is nothing but a collection of such forms. Cotelerius "A has compared the several places in the Constitu- tions, with those that Epiphanius alleges out of them, and showed them to be the same in substance: particularly he observes, that Epiphanius in one place ‘35 gives the Constitutions this character, That they contain all canonical order, and nothing con- trary to the faith, or confession, or the administra- tion and rules of the church. Which no man could say, that did not approve of the several forms of worship contained therein. And therefore when Epiphanius says "6 in another place, That the church observed her morning hymns and prayers, and her evening psalms and prayers, it is reason- able to suppose, that all these were according to prescribed forms, as it is certain at least the psalms and hymns were. But there is one place in Epi- phanius’s epistle to John, bishop of Jerusalem, which evidently proves that the communion service was then performed by a prescribed ofiice and form. For Epiphanius having been accused to John, as if he had reflected on him in his prayers, saying thus, Lord, grant that John may believe aright: to clear himself of the accusation, he denies that ever he prayed so for him in public, (though he did so pri- vately in his heart,) and for the truth of this, he appeals to the words of the communion oflices then in public use: \Vhen we offer up prayers in the communion ofiice, says he,137 we use these words for all bishops, and for you also; Keep him who preach- eth the truth: or certainly thus, Lord, grant our requests, and keep him that he may preach the word of truth; as the occasion of the words requires, and as the order of the office for prayer directs. To understand which aright, we are to consider, that anciently in the communion service there were two prayers where bishops were prayed for, one in the prayer for the whole state of Christ’s church before the oblation, and the other in the prayer immediately after the oblation, when all states of men were again solemnly commemorated and recommended to God; as we shall see hereafter. Now, in refer- ence to these two prayers, Epiphanius says, they prayed either thus or thus, asthe occasion of the words required, and the order of the office directed. Which is a manifest reference to the two prayers in which these words were contained, and as plain an argument for prescribed forms as can be required. And indeed the word consequential, which in Greek, ‘36 Epiph. Expos. Fid. n. 23. t. 1. p. 1106. 13’ Epiphan. Epist. ad Joan. Hierosol. t. 2. p. 313. Quando autem complemus orationem secundum ritum mys- teriorum, et pro omnibus, et pro te quoque dicimus, Custodi illum qui pracdicat veritatem: vel certe ita, Tu praesta, Domine, et custodi, ut ille verbum praedicet veritatis: sicut occasio sermonis se tulerit, et habue rit oratio consequentiam. CHAP. V. 621 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. no doubt, was dlcohoveia, shows as much; for that always signified a stated form or prescribed order of prayers. Of which the reader may find examples enough in Suicerus’s Thesaurus, or Meursius’s Glossary, which need not here be inserted. Optatus, bishop of Milevis, was contemporary with Epiphanius, and he has a great many plain re- ferences to the forms then used in the public service. He tells the Donatists, that by confining the church to their own party they had frustrated the intent of the Holy Spirit, which had presignified that the name of God should be praised with psalms and hymns over all the earth, “from the rising of the sun to the going down thereof ;” and that, in effect, they had defrauded God ‘38 of his praise; for if they only were the true church that was to praise him, the rest of the world, “ from the rising of the sun to the going down thereof,” must be silent: they had shut the mouth of Christian nations, and im- posed silence upon all people, however desirous to praise God at the proper seasons. Which mani- festly implies, that psalmody was then a part of the people’s devotions all the world over, and that the Donatists were injurious to God, whose principles tended to defraud him of it. Again, he speaks of the prayer for the whole church in the time of the obla- tion, as a form so firmly established by law, that the Donatists themselves would not venture to make any alteration in it. Who doubts, says he,189 but that you continue to use that settled form of words in the celebration of the sacrament, and never omit to say, that you offer for that one church which is diffused over all the world? He says the same of the use of the Lord’s prayer ‘4° in the communion service, that the Donatists con- tinued to use it as well as the catholics; for he ob- serves, that though they gave imposition of hands and absolution to sinners in such a haughty and supercilious manner, as if they themselves had had no sin; yet not long after, when they turned to the altar, they could not omit the Lord’s prayer, wherein they said, “Forgive us our trespasses and sins.” The Lord’s prayer, he says, was of one and the same use with them both. He says also, The common form of Salutation, ‘established by law, was likewise retained by the Donatists; for they could not omit saying, Peace be with you;‘“ they re- tained the name when they had lost the substance. He says further, That the catholics and Donatists used the same interrogatories in baptism ; they asked the catechumen,142 whether he renounced the devil? and whether he believed in God? And he answered, I renounce, I believe. Only the Donatists did one thing amiss, in repeating these things over again, and rebaptizing those whom the catholics had baptized before. He seems also to hint something of the ancient form of exorcising catechumens before baptism, when he tells the Donatists, That by re- baptizing catholics, who were already baptized, and in whom “3 God dwelt, they said in effect to God, Go out, thou cursed one. For this was the phrase then used in exorcism, which was a prayer, as St. CyrilN4 calls it, for expelling Satan out of the cate- chumen: and these words of Optatus seem plainly to be taken out of the prayers of exorcism then commonly used in the church. There is one thing more very observable in Optatus: he says, A rumour was once spread in Africa, that the emperor’s ofli- cers were to come and make strange alterations in the church, by placing images upon the altar in time of Divine service. Which flying report put the people in to great consternation and confusion. But they were presently quieted again, when they saw those ofiicers come, and no such alterations made by them, but the ancient purity and solemn custom145 and usual rites were still observed, and nothing was either changed, or added, or diminish- ed in the Divine sacrifice. Which shows, that the public service was then in a certain form, and not left to every man’s liberty to make alterations in it, or lengthen or shorten it, by adding or diminishing at his pleasure. About the year 370, St. Basil was made bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia; but before he was bishop he lived a presbyter in the same church, under Eu- sebius, his predecessor in the see. During which time, as Nazianzen assures us,146 among other ser- vices done for that church, he composed forms of prayer and orders of decency for the communion service, which, by the consent and authority of his ‘38 Optat. lib. 2. p. 47. Fraudatis aures Dei. Si vos soli laudatis, totus tacebit orbis, qui est ab ortu solis usque ad occasum. Clausistis ora omnium Christianarum gentium: indixistis silentium populis universis, Deum per momenta laudare cupientibus, &c. 13” Ibid. p. 53. Quis dubitet vos illud legitimum in sa- cramentorum mysterio praeterire non posse? Aiferre vos dicitis pro una ecclesia, quae sit in toto terrarum orbe dilfusa. 14° Ibid. p. 57. Inter vicina momenta, dum manus im- ponitis et delicta donatis, mox ad altare conversi, Domini- cam orationem praetermittere non potestis, &c. It. lib. 3. p. 72. Oratio Dominica apud nos et apud vos una est. 1“ Ibid. lib. 3. p. 73. Non potuistis omittere quod legi- timum est: utique dixistis, Pax vobiscum.—--Quid salutas, de quo non babes? Quid nominas quod exterminasti? Sa- lutas de pace, qui non amas. “2 Ibid. lib. 5. p. 86. Quocunque interrogante, qui credidit, Deo credidit: et post illius unum credo, tu exigis alterum credo. It. p. 89. Interrogemus gentilem, an renunciet di- abolo et credat Deo. Et dicat, Renuncio, et credo. “3 Ibid. lib. 4. p. 79. Vos rebaptizando exorcizatis homi- nem fidelem, et dicitis Deo habitanti, Maledicte, exi foras. 1“ Cyril. Catech. 16. n. 9. p. 234. ‘O daijuwv, lo'yozs a’rxfis e’lcpa'rfien. "5 Optat. lib. 3. p. 75. Visa est puritas, et ritu solito solennis consuetudo perspecta est; cum viderent Divinis sa- crificiis nec mutatum quicquam, nec additum, nec ablatum. “5 Naz. Orat. 20. in Land. Basil. p. 340. Ebxibu 6m- 'rdfus Kai sbxoo'nias 1'05 Britten-as, &c. 622 BOOK XIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. bishop, Eusebius, were used in the church. We are not bound to assert, that any of the liturgies which now go under his name, are exactly the same with that. It is certain they have received many additions and alterations, and in many things differ from one an- other: and some things are alleged by ancient writers out of St. Basil’s genuine liturgy, which a learned man “7 assures us are not to be found at present in any of these. As that prayer which is cited by Petrus Diaconus, who lived about the year 520, in whose time St. Basil’s liturgy was used al- most all the East over. For he says,“8 Among other things, they then prayed thus, according to St. Ba— sil’s liturgy: Grant us, Lord, thy defence and pro- tection; we beseech thee, make the evil to become good, and keep those that are good in their good- ness. For all things are possible unto thee, and no one can contradict thee: when thou pleasest, thou canst save, and there is no one that can resist thy will. Some fancy these words are to be found in the present copies, but whether that be so or not, we may be pretty well assured they were in the original liturgy of St. Basil, whence the author cites them. And that is an argument that St. Basil com- posed a liturgy, which was then of general use in the East, and known to the Africans also. Proclus, bishop of Constantinople, was within half an age of St. ‘Basil’s time, and he gives this account of his composing a liturgy: St. Basil, seeing men’s sloth and degeneracy made them weary of a long liturgy, thought there was nothing unnecessary or tedious in that of St. James, which was used before ; yet to prevent the weariness of priests and people, he de- livered a shorter form.“9 And it is also cited under St. Basil’s name by Leontius150 and the council of Trullo.151 So that though many things be inserted into the present copies of St. Basil’s liturgy, and others wanting in them ; yet these are no arguments against the original composition, of which there is such clear evidence in the ancient writers. But St. Basil not only composed a form for the communion service, but often speaks of other forms as generally used upon other occasions. In his sixty- third epistle he gives a large account of the people’s joining in alternate psalmody and prayers, and of their repeating the psalm of confession, that is, the fifty-first psalm, at morning prayer. And he there also speaks of the liturgy of Gregory Thaumaturgus with approbation, and of the litanies which the church of Neocaesarea had admitted since the time of Gregory. In his two hundred and forty-first epistle he mentions several particulars of the usual prayer for the whole state of the church, telling his friend whom he writes to, that he must needs re- member them in the deacon’s bidding prayer, for all that were gone to travel; for the soldiers ; for all that profess the name of Christ, &c. Which, as I shall show hereafter,152 were the usual forms of sup- plication in the prayers for all states of men in the church. In his sixty-eighth epistle he mentions other forms, which were as evidently parts of the ancient liturgies: We pray that the rest of our days may continue in peace; we desire that our death may also be in peace. We have heard him before ‘53 speak of the hymns of Athenogenes, and the even- ing hymn to the holy Trinity. And we shall hear him hereafter speaking ‘54 of particular psalms ap- pointed for particular hours of canonical prayer. All which are such manifest indications of the use of stated forms, as nothing but prejudice can incline a man to except against them. , Gregory Nazianzen was St. Basil’s dear friend, and of him it were enough to say, that he commends his friend for making forms of prayer for the use of the church, as we have heard already. But he also says, his own father ‘55 consecrated the eucharist with the solemn words that were wont to be used upon that occasion. And speaking of Julian the apostate, he says, He admired the church for her forms ‘56 of wor- ship, which were anciently delivered and still pre- served among them: and therefore he intended that his heathen priests should imitate the Christians, and have a form of prayers ‘5’ in parts, that is, prayers so composed as that the people might make their responses. Sozomen, who says, That Julian, admiring the order of Christian worship, appointed that the heathen temples should be adorned after the same manner, with prescribed prayers ‘58 upon set days and hours. N azianzen also mentions the usual form of re- nouncing the devil in baptism, and the solemn cove- nant or compact made with Christ, which he says ‘5” they did, eat ro'ig o'xfipao't Kai 'ro'ig fir'jpao't, both by words and gestures; that is, renouncing the devil “7 Cave, Hist. Liter. vol. I. p. 194. “8 Petr. Diacon. de Incarnat. inter Fulgentii Opera, cap. 8. p. 633. Basilius Caasariensis in oratione sacri altaris, quam pene universus frequentat Oriens, inter caetera, Dona, inquit, Domine, virtutem ac tutamentum; malos, quaesu- mus, bonos facito ; bonos in bonitate conserva : omnia enim potes, et non est qui contradicat tibi; cum enim vo- lueris, salvas, et nullus resistit voluntati tuae. “9 Proclus de Tradit. Divin. Liturg. cited by Comber, of Liturgies, p. 168. 15” Leont. cont. Nestor. lib. 3. Bibl. Patr. t. 4. part 2. p. 1006. ‘51 Conc. Trull. can. 32. 152 Book XV. chap. 1. sect. 3. 153 Book XIII. chap. ii. 15‘ Basil. Regul. Majores, quaest. 37. 155 Naz. Orat. 19. p. 305. El'ra é'n'snrdw '11‘: 0-559 80X!!— pw'rias firilua'ra oii'rws, dis o'vvntiés, &c. 156 Ibid. Orat. 3. p. 101. Tol's qrapadedops'vots Kai. sis *réds cre'rnpnuévms ‘Tl’l'fl'OLS 'ri'js éicxkno'ias. 157 Ibid. p. 102. Euxc'bu Pru'n'ov s’u ,uépst. 158 Sozom. lib. 5. cap. 16. 'Qpt'i'w '11-: ‘6117511! Kai. fiuepd'w Ts'ra'yjuévats suxa'is, &c. “9 Naz. Orat. 40. de Bapt. p. 671. Which is also taken notice of by. CHAP. V. 623 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. with their faces to the west, and then turning about to the east, by which they signified their turning to Christ the Sun of righteousness. Both which words and gestures were evidently matter of form and ecclesiastical prescription. As was also the form of professing their faith, the triple immersion, and many other such rites and Observances, which we meet with in Nazianzen, and all other ecclesiastical writers almost, that have any occasion to speak of the ancient manner of administering baptism. There is one author more which was famous about this time, before the death of Athanasius, which was Ephrem, deacon of Edessa, commonly called the prophet of the Syrians. Theodoret16° says, That he composed a great many hymns, in opposi- tion to those that had been formerly made by Har- monius, the son of Bardesanes the heretic, and that they were used upon the festivals of the martyrs. Sozomen161 mentions his Divine hymns also, as well as those that were made upon the martyrs. And these, no doubt, were some of those famous writings of his, which St. Jerom162 says were used to be rehearsed in the church after the reading of the Scriptures. Here it will not be improper also to observe, that the practice of heretics in endeavouring to corrupt and alter the ancient forms of the church, is often a manifest evidence and testimony of the antiquity of them. Thus Theodoret takes notice "5’ that, in the beginning of this century, Arius, transgressing the ancient laws of giving glory to God, which had been handed down by those who lived and served in the ministry of the word from the beginning, in- troduced a new form, teaching those whom he de- ceived, to say, Glory be to the Father, by the Son, in the Holy Ghost: and that though he did not pre- sume to alter the form of baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, yet he forbade to use the glorification according to the rule of bap- tism. Does not this prove, that the form of this doxology was long before Arius, since he presumed to introduce a new one? So again, when the same Theodoret164 tells us, That Eunomius subverted the ancient law of baptism, delivered by Christ and his apostles, and brought in a contrary law, that men should not be baptized with a triple immersion, nor by invocation of the Trinity, but only by a single immersion in the name of Christ; does not this innovation as plainly prove, that the rite of trine immersion was the ancient form and custom of the church? as Tertullian,165 and all that speak of it before Eunomius, have constantly asserted. So that whether we consider the testimonies of the catholics, or the practices and innovations made by heretics, they both concur to prove, that within this period of time, viz. during the life of Athanasius, the church made use of forms in every considerable part of Divine service, baptism, psalmody, and the most solemn worship at the Lord’s table. And so she did also in her funeral rites, where nothing is more common than to hear of psalmody in their solemn processions to any interment, as may be seen in the writings of Gregory Nazianzen,166 and the Constitutions,167 to mention no other at present, that come not within the prefixed term of the life of Athanasius. It was not above three years after the death of Athanasius, that St. Ambrose was made bishop of Milan, anno 374. He was a zealous defender of the catholic faith against the Arians, in opposition to whom he composed several hymns in Latin to the glory of the holy Trinity, for the people to sing in the church. Of which he himself gives this account in his tract against Auxentius: They accuse me, says he, for deceiving168 and alluring the people with the poetry of my hymns. And I do not altogether deny the charge. For what can be more powerful and alluring than the confession of the Trinity, which is daily sung by the mouth of all the people? They all zealously strive to make profession of the faith; they all know how to celebrate the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in verse. These hymns are mentioned also by Prosper in his Chronicon,169 as the first that were sung in the church in Latin measures. St. Austin frequently speaks of them, and says,170 They were sung as then the psalms were, in the alternate way, verse for verse, by the people, to alleviate the tediousness of their sorrow: and from this example the custom of alternate hymnody and psalmody spread almost all over the Western churches. One of these is particularly cited "1 by him, as an evening hymn, and others are among 16° Theod. lib. 4. cap. 29. ‘81 Sozom. lib. 3. cap. 16. "2 Hieron. de Scriptor. cap. 115. Ad tantam venit clari- tatem, ut post lectionem Scripturarum puhlice in quibusdam ecclesiis ej us scripta recitentur. 163 Theod. Haeret. Fabul. lib. 4. cap. 1. 16‘ Theod. ibid. cap. 3. 1“ Tertul. cont. Prax. cap. 26. It. de Coron. Mil. cap. 3. Vid. Con. Apostol. 49. 166 N az. Orat. 4. in Julian. p. 118. 16" Vid. Constit. Apost. lib. 6. cap. 30. 1“ Ambr. Orat. cont. Auxent. ad calcem Epist. 32. IIymnorum quoque meorum carminibus deceptum populum ferunt. Plane ne hoc abnuo. Grande carmen istud est, quo nihil potentius. Quid enim potentius quam confessio Trinitatis, quas quotidie totius populi ore celebratur? Cer- tatim omnes student fidem fateri; Patrem et Filium et Spi- ritum Sanctum norunt versibus prsedicare. ‘69 Prosper. Chronic. an. 386. ap. Pagi Critic. in Baron. an. 387. n. 7. Hymni Ambrosii compositi, qui nunquam ante in ecclesiis Latinis modulis canebantur. 17° Aug. Confess. lib. 9. cap. 7. Tune hymni et psalmi ut canerentur secundum morem Orientalium partium, ne populus maeroris taedio contabesceret, institutum est; et ex illo in hodiernum retentum,multis jam ac pene omnibus gregibus tuis et per caetera orbis imitantibus. "1 Ibid. cap. 12. Recordatus sum veridicos versus Am- 624 BooK XIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. his works : and these we are sure in the following ages continued in use ; for the172 hymns of St. Am- brose and St. Hilary are mentioned by the fourth council of Toledo, anno 633, as parts of the daily service in the Spanish churches. St. Ambrose him- self also speaks of the use of that ancient hymn called the Trisagion, telling us, that in most of the Eastern and Wes tern churches,178 when the sacrifice was offered to God, the priest and people with one voice said, “ Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of hosts, all the earth is full of thy glory.” He mentions also the common form of salutation, “ The peace of God be with you.” "4 He says the music spoken of in the parable of the prodigal son, Luke xv., means the whole church singing together the psalms alternate- ly,175 men, women, and children, with different voices, but all conspiring, as the strings of an instrument, in one harmonious concord. And this was the symphony which the apostle had reference to, when he said, “ I will sing with the Spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.” His books De Sa- cramentis, if we allow them to be his, are so full of forms and ceremonies relating to the administration of baptism, confirmation, and the eucharist, that a man cannot look into them, but he must conclude, he wrote his accounts of these things from the known and settled forms of the church. For which reason I think it needless to recite any of them; but they that please may see them related in Dr. Comber.176 If any one should except against these books, as none of St. Ambrose’s genuine offspring, it is sufiicient to have evidenced the use of forms from his undoubted writings. St. J erom testifies concerning the use of the psalms, as forms of prayer and praises, that they were used both pub- licly and privately upon all occasions. In the Egyptian monasteries, he says,177 the singing of the psalms was a principal part of their devotions at every solemn meeting. He directs Rusticus1m to learn the Psalter by heart, and to repeat the psalm in his turn, as the monks were obliged to do one by one in their assemblies. He says of himself,179 that he thus learned the psalms by heart, when he was young, and sung them when he was old every day. He directs Laeta, a noble lady, so to accustom her daughter to the singing of psalms and hymns at all the canonical hours of prayer,180 and teach her this by her own example. And after the same manner '8‘ he writes to Demetrias, a virgin, to ob- serve the order of psalmody and prayers at every such stated hour. There may be some dispute about the observation of canonical hours seven times a day in the public service of the church, but there is none about the use of psalmody in general; for St. J erom, writing to Sabinianus,182 a deacon, who had been guilty of some indecent behaviour toward a consecrated virgin, reminds him of the immodest signs he had made to her even whilst he stood in the quire of the singers. And a little before ‘8’ he speaks of the whole church sounding forth hymns to Christ their Lord in her nocturnal vigils, a great part of which, as we shall see hereafter, was always spent in psalmody. This was always a part of their funeral service: for, speaking of the great concourse of bishops and people at the funeral of the Lady Paula, he says,‘84 Some of the bishops led up the quire of singers, and the people sounded forth the psalms in order, some in Greek, some in Latin, some in Syriac, according to the different language of every nation. He says the same in his Epitaph of Fabiola,‘85 That the people made the gild- ed roof of the temple shake and echo again with their psalms and hallelujahs. It is also observable, that in St. J erom’s time, and long before, the church had a peculiar order among her clergy, called sing- ers, which he himself mentions,“36 and of which I have given a more particular account ‘a’ in a former Book. He also frequently speaks188 of the clergy brosii: Deus Creator omnium,polique rector, vestiens diem decoro lumine, noctem soporis gratia: artus solutos ut quies reddat laboris usui, mentesque fessas allevet,luctusque solvat anxios. Vid. Retractation. lib. 1. cap. 21. "2 Conc. Tolet. 4. can. 12. "3 Ambros. de Spir. Sancto, cited by Comber, of Litur- gies, p. 183. 1" Ibid. de Dignit. Sacerd. cap.5. Pronunciat episcopus hujusmodi ad populum, dicens, Pax vobis, &c. "5 Ibid. lib. 7. in Luc. xv. t. 5. p. 125. Haec est sym- phonia quando concinit in ecclesia diversarum aetatum atque virtutum, velut variarum chordarum indiscreta concordia, psalmus respondetur; Amen dicitur. Haec est symphonia, quam scivit et Paulus; ideo ait, Psallam spiritu, psallam et mente. "6 Comber, Origin of Liturg. p. 182. 1" Hieron. Ep. 22. ad Eustoch. cap. 15. Post horam no- nam in commune concurritur, Psalmi resonant, scripturae recitantur ex more, &c. Vid. Ep. 27. cap. 10. "8 Ep. 4. ad Rustic. Monach. Discatur Psalterium ad verbum.———Dicas psalmum in ordine tuo. "9 Invect. 2. cont. Ruflin. c. 7. Psalmos jugiter canto, &c. 18° Epist. 7. ad Laetam. Assuescat exemplo ad orationes et psalmos nocte consurgere, mane hymnos canere, tertia, sexta, nona, &c. ‘81 Ep. 8. ad Demetr. Considerans propter psalmorum et orationis ordinem, quod tibi hora tertia, sexta, nona, ad ves- perum, media nocte et mane semper est exercendum. '82 Ep. 48. cont. Sabinian. Stabas deinceps in choro psallentium, et impudicis nutibus loquebaris. 188 Ibid. Tota ecclesia nocturnis vigiliis Christum Domi- num personabat, &c. 18* Hieron. Ep. 27. Epitaph. Paulae. Alii choros psal- lentium ducerent in media ecclesia.——Graeco, Latino, Sy- roque sermone psalmi in ordine personabant. '85 Ibid. Ep. 30. Epitaph. Fabiolae. Sonabant psalmi, et aurata tecta. templorum reboans in sublime quatiebat Al- leluia. ‘86 Ibid. Com. in Ephes. v. 19. Audiant haec adolescen- tuli : audiant hi, quibus psallendi in ecclesia oflicium est, &c. 181 Book III. chap. 7. 188 Hieron. Ep. 3. ad Heliodor. Ep. ad Praesidium. Com. in Ezech. c. xliv. lib. 2. cont. Pelag. CHAP. V. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 625 as ministering in a peculiar habit, a white garment, in imitation of the angels, of which more will be said hereafter. At present I only observe, that this could not be done without some rule or order, pre- scribing the ceremonies of decency in Divine wor- ship. He does not say much of the other parts of the liturgy, yet he frequently mentions the form of renunciation used in baptism, and the use of the creed,189 as does also Pelagius, in his Comments upon the Epistles of St. Paul, under the name of St. J e- rom,190 and Hilary the Roman deacon, under the name of St. Ambrose,191 whose authorities are good in this case, because they were contemporaries with these writers. He mentions also the use of the Lord’s prayer in the communion oflice, as given by Christ to his apostles, from whom the church ‘92 learned to use it every day in the sacrifice of his body. He speaks likewise of the Trisagzbn, or cherubical hymn, “Holy, holy, holy,193 Lord God of sabaoth,” which they sung as a confession of the holy Trinity. And he mentions a part of one of the church’s prayers)” , which was, Lord, grant us thy peace, for thou hast given us all things. And again,195 Thus saith the church, In rest and in tribulation I have been mind- ful of thee: commenting on that psalm, which the ancients called their morning psalm, “My God, my God, early will I seek thee.” And on another psalm,196 the church says, “ From the remembrance of our former sins, our hearts are hot within us.” Speaking also of wicked priests, he says,197 They act impi— ously against Christ, whilst they think that a good life is not as necessary to the eucharist, as the solemn prayer or words of the priest. Where he seems plainly to reflect on those, who trusted to the bare form of prayer without moral qualifications. He also mentions the solemn rite of giving each other the kiss of peace in the eucharist,198 and the people’s known custom of answering, Amen, at the reception of it. All which are plain indications of the use of certain forms in Divine worship; though St. J erom only mentions them incidentally, and had no occasion to enlarge much upon them. St. Austin and St. Chrysostom, as they are more voluminous writers, so they are more copious and exact upon this subject. I have given the reader a specimen of what may be collected of the Eastern liturgy out of the writings of St. Chrysostom in the following chapter. And some learned men are of opinion, that if any one will be as curious in examin- ing St. Austin’s works,he may find the whole African liturgy in his writings. I will not pretend to be so exact in this collection, but only make some short references to what he says upon some parts of it. He divides the whole liturgy, or service of the church, into five parts,199 viz. psalmody, reading of the Scriptures, preaching, prayers of the bishop, and the bidding prayers of the deacon. All which, except preaching, were done by certain forms and prescriptions. And, first, For psalmody, he says, it was the exercise of the people at all times, when no other part of the service was performing. For there was no time, he says, unseasonable for the people to sing holy psalms and hymns in the church, ex- cept when either the Scriptures were read, or the sermon was preached, or prayers were made by the bishop, or the common prayers were dictated by the voice of the deacon. We have heard him before speak with approbation of the ways of singing psalms and hymns introduced by Athanasius and St. Ambrose.200 Which argues, not only that he allowed the singing of psalms and hymns, that is, forms of prayer and praises, in general; but also that he liked the several ways of singing then in use, the plain song, and the symphoniacal concert at the conclusion of every verse, used by Athana- sius, and the new alternate way introduced by St. Ambrose. Though he intimates. that the plain way generally was more agreeable to the slow genius 2°‘ of the African people, whose singing he vindicates from the scurrilous objections which the Donatists made against their practice. And he wrote a book particularly against one Hilarius, a secular tribune, who pretended to quarrel with the custom of the church of Carthage, for singing hymns202 out of the 189 Hieron. Com. in Amos vi. 14. et in Mat. v. 26. et Dial. cont. Lucifer. 19° Pelag. Com. in 1 Tim. vi. l2. 19' Ambros. in 1 Tim. vi. 12. "2 Hieron. cont. Pelag. lib. 3. cap. 5. Sicut docuit apos- tolos suos, ut quotidie in corporis illius sacrificio credentes audeant loqui, Pater noster qui es in coelis, &c. ‘93 Ibid. de 42. Mansionibus, in initio. In confessionem sanctae T rinitatis erumpimus, dicentes, Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus, Dominus Deus sabaoth. ‘94 Ibid. Epist. 4. ad Rusticum. Utinam audiatur vox ecclesias implorantis, Domine, pacem tuam da nobis: omnia enim dedisti nobis. ‘95 Ibid. Com. in Psal. lxii. Dicit haec ecclesia, Et in requie et in tribulatione non fui tui oblitus. '96 In Psal. xxxviii. Concaluit cor meum intra me. Dicit ecclesia, A recordatione delictorum priorum. 19’ In Zepban. iii. Impie agnnt in legem Christi, putantes sbxapts-iau impreeantis facere verba, non vitam ; et neces- sariam esse tantum solennem orationem, et non sacerdo- tum merita. ‘99 Hieron. Ep. 62. ad Theophil. cap. 1. Quisquamne inter sacras epulas, J udae osculum porrigit ?--—Qua consci- entia ad eucharistiam Christi accedam, et respondebo Amen, cum de charitate dubitem porrigentis? 1” Aug. Epist. 119. ad J anuar. cap. 18. m Ibid. Confes. lib. 9. cap. 7 et 12. lib. 10. cap. 33. 2°‘ Ibid. Ep. 119. ad Paulin. cap. 19. Donatistae nos repre~ hendunt quod sobrie psallimus in ecclesia divina cantica prophetarum, &c. “2 Ibid. Retractat. lib. 2. cap. I]. Hilarius quidam, vir tribunitius laicus—mo-rem qui tune esse apud Cart-haginem caeperat, ut hymni ad altare dicerentur de psalmorum libro, sive ante oblationem, sive cum distribueretur populo quod esset oblatum, maledica reprehensione, ubicunque poterat, lacerabat, &c. 2s 626 Boox XIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Book of Psalms at the altar, either before the ob- lation of the eucharist was made, or whilst it was distributed to the people. This book of St. Austin’s is now lost, but he mentions it in his Retractations. He also speaks208 of the evening hymns: and of the singing of the halleluja 2"‘ in some churches every day, and in others, only the fifty days between Easter and Pentecost. And Possidius tells us in his Life,205 That in the great irruption of the Vandals into Africa, a little before his death, nothing grieved him more than to see the hymns and praises of God destroyed out of the churches, and the solemnities of God’s worship, with the sacrifice and sacraments, to fail in the places where they were used to be celebrated. And he adds,”06 That in his last sick- ness, he ordered some of the penitential Psalms of David to be written for him in large sheets, and 'hanged up against the wall, which he read and used as forms proper for penitential devotion. All which shows, that St. Austin thought the Psalms of David were not unlawful to be used as forms of prayers and praises in the service of God. Secondly, For the reading of the Scriptures, he acquaints us in many places, that this was done by a certain rule and calendar, appointing proper les- sons for particular occasions and seasons. There were some festival days, he says,” on which they were bound to read certain appropriated lessons out of the Gospel, which were so fixed to those anniver- sary solemnities, that no other lessons might be read in their room. Thus, he says, in Easter week, they constantly read208 four days, one after another, the history of Christ’s resurrection out of the four Gos- pels; on the first day St. Matthew, on the second St. Mark, on the third St. Luke, and on the fourth St. John. So likewise on the day of Christ’s pas- sion, he says, they read the history of his suffer— ings209 out of St. Matthew only, because it was all but one day: and when he would have had all the four Gospels read at that time also, the people were disturbed at it, because they had not been accus- tomed to it. In the time between Easter and Pen- tecost, he says,210 they always read the Acts of the Apostles. St. Chrysostom will give us the reason of this hereafter: and we shall see that this was a universal custom, obtaining throughout the whole church, when we come to consider this rule more fully exemplified2n in the church’s general practice. Thirdly, For the prayers made by the bishop in the communion oflice, St. Austin gives us such a description of them, as shows they must needs be made by a certain order and form. For he thus describes one part of them, while he instructs the newly baptized in the method and meaning of them: Ye understand, says he, the sacrament in the order of its administration.2l2 First, after prayer, (mean- ing the prayer for the whole state of the church, which went before,) ye are taught to lift up your hearts. Therefore when it is said, “ Lift up your hearts,” ye answer, “ We lift them up unto the Lord.” The bishop or presbyter who ofliciates, goes on and says, “Let us give thanks to our Lord God:” and ye give in your attestation, and say, “ It is meet and right so to do.” Then, after the consecration of the sacrifice, we say the Lord’s prayer. And after that, the priest says, “Peace be with you,” and Christians salute one another with a holy kiss. Here we have not only the method of the commu- nion service, but the several forms of it in order, one after another. And these forms are frequently mentioned by St. Austin in other places. The Lord’s prayer, he says,218 was always used by the whole church almost, as the close of the consecra~ tion service, and at other times as the daily prayer of the faithful,214 peculiarly belonging to them, and not to the catechumens, as we shall show more fully hereafter.215 The form, Sw'sum corda, “ Lift up your hearts,” &c., he says,216 was used by all Chris- tians throughout the world, who daily answered with one voice, “ We lift up our hearts unto the 2°? Aug. de Civ. Dei, lib. 22. cap. 8. 2"‘ Ep. 119. ad J anuar. c. 17. Ut autem halleluia per illos solos dies quinquaginta cantetur, non usquequaque ob- servatur. Nam in aliis diebus varie cantatur alibi; ipsis autem diebus ubique. 205 Possid. Vit. Aug. cap. 28. Cernebat etiam hymnos Dei et laudes de ecclesiis deperisse: solennia quoque quae Deo debentu r, de propriis locis defecisse, &c. 2°“ Possid. ibid. cap. 30. J usserat sibi Psalmos Davidi- cos, qui sunt paucissimi, de pmnitentia scribi, ipsosque qua- terniones jacens in lecto contra parietem positos diebus suae infirmitatis intuebatur et legebat, et jugiter ac ubertim flebat. 2°’ Aug. Expos. in 1 Joan. in Praefat. t. 9. p. 235. Inter- posita est solennitas sanctorum dierum, quibus certas ex evangelio lectiones oportet in ecclesia recitari, quae ita sunt annuae, ut aliae esse non possint. 208 Serm. 139. de Temp. It. 140, 141, I44, 148. 2°? Serm. 144. de Temp. p. 320. Passio, quia uno die le- gitur, non solet legi nisi secundum Matthaeum, &c. 21° Tract. 6. in Joan. Evang. t. 9. p. 24. Actus A posto- lorum, &c. Anniversaria solennitate post passionem Domini nostris illum librum recitari. Vid. Aug. Hom. 227. Nov. Edit. Benedictin. quas est 83. de Diversis. 2" Book XIV. chap. 3. sect. 3. - 212 Aug. Hom. 83. de Diversis, t. 10. p. 556. Tenetis sa- cramentum ordi'ne suo. Primo post orationem admonemini sursum habere cor, &c. Ideo cum dicitur, Sursum cor, re- spondetis, Habemus ad Dominum.-Sequitur episcopus vel presbyter, qui ofl'ert, et dicit, Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro : et vos attestamini, Dignum et justum est, dicentes. Deinde post sanctificationem sacrificii dicimus orationem Dominicam. Post istam dicitur, Pax vobiscum: et oscu- lantur se Christiani osculo sancto. 213 Aug. Ep. 59. ad Paulin. 2" Ep. 121. ad Probam. Enchirid. ad Laurent. cap. 71. Homil. 42. inter 50. 215 Chap. 7. sect. 9. 216 Aug. de Vera Relig. cap. 3. Serm. 54 et 64. De Temp. Ep. 156. ad Probam. CHAP. V. 627 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Lord,” as he speaks in his book of True Religion, and other places. And to this he says the priests added that other form, “ Let us give thanks to our Lord God :” to which the people answered, “ It is meet and right so to do :” as he speaks in his epis- tles'm to Dardanus and Honoratus, and in his book of the Gift of Perseverance, against the Pelagians, and de S piritu et Litera, and de Bono Viduitatis ; which being all to the same purpose, need not here be re- peated. He also mentions in his other writings the solemn form of the priest’s saying, “Peace be with you,” and the people’s giving one another there- upon the kiss of peace, which was a symbol”8 of that innocency and peace, which ought to be the qualification of true Christian doves. And this rite, he says, was observed not only by the catho- lics, but by the Donatists also.”19 So that here is unquestionable evidence for the use of all these forms in the writings of St. Austin. And though he does not give us the whole forms of the longer prayers made by the bishop at the altar, yet he mentions some parts of them, and makes such re- ferences and appeals to them both in his discourses to the orthodox, and confutations of heretics, as plainly shows they were common forms which they were well acquainted with, and by remembering them might understand the doctrine of the church. Thus, in his book of Perseverance,22° he says, Those of the church need not any operose disputations to convince them of the necessity of God’s grace to persevere; they need only remember her daily prayers, how she prays, that infidels may believe, and that believers may persevere. And again,221 he tells them, it is the safest way for weak men, in this dispute, to look upon these prayers, which the church always had, and always will have to the end of the world. For when did not the church pray for infidels and her enemies, that they might believe? Or, who ever, when he heard the priest praying over the faithful, and saying, Grant, O Lord, that they may persevere in thee unto the end, durst either in word or thought find fault with him, and not rather, with faith in his heart, and confession in his mouth, answer Amen to such a benediction? when the faithful pray no otherwise in the Lord’s prayer, especially when they say, “ Lead us not into temptation.” By all which it appears, that both the larger and the shorter prayers in the communion office of the African church, in St. Austin’s time, were offered up in such forms, as the people could easily remember, when he referred to them as evi- dence in some disputes, which this was an easy way to determine. ‘ Fourthly, There was one sort of prayers more, which St. Austin distinguishes from the former, by the name of the common prayers dictated or indited to the people by the voice of the deacon. Now, these prayers, as I shall show more fully hereafter,222 differed from the bishop’s prayer in this, That the bishop’s prayer was a direct and continued invoca- tion of God, to which the people answered only Amen in the conclusion; but the deacon’s prayer was a sort of bidding prayer, or direction to the people what particulars they were to pray for ; the deacon going before them, and repeating every pe- tition, to which they made answer, Lord, hear us, or, Lord, help us, or, Lord, have mercy, or the like. And this sort of prayer St. Austin expressly228 calls communis oratz'o voce dz'aconi indicta, common prayer dictated by the voice of the deacon. And he seems in one of his epistles 22‘ to specify some of the par- ticular petitions contained in that prayer. For, writing to one who was infected with the Pelagian doctrine, (maintaining that infidels were only to be preached to, and not prayed for, because faith was not the work of God’s grace, but the effect of man’s own free will,) he urges him with the known prayers of the church, which the man himself fie— .quented. Exercise, says he, your disputations against the prayers of the church; and when you hear the priest of God at the altar exhorting the people of God to pray for unbelievers, that they may be con- verted to the faith ; and for catechumens, that God would inspire them with a desire of regenera- tion; and for the faithful, that by his gift they may persevere in that wherein they have begun; mock at these pious words, and say, you do not do what you here are exhorted to do. And again, en you hear225 the priest of God at the altar ex- horting the people to pray to God, or else hear him praying with an audible voice, that God would compel the unbelieving Gentiles to come in to his faith, do you not answer and say, Amen? These seem to be usual parts of the prayer for the whole 2" Ep. 57. ad Dardanum, et Ep. 1%. ad Honoratum. De Bono Persever. cap. 13. De Spiritu et Litera, lib. 1. c. 11. De Bono Viduitatis, cap. 16. 2'8 Aug. Horn. 6. in Joan. t. 9. p. 21. Habere cum fratri- bus veram pacem, quam significant oscula columbarum, &c. 2"’ Cont. Literas Petilian. lib. 2. cap. 23. Illum com— memoro, (Optatum Gildonianum,) cui pacis osculum inter sacramenta copulabatis. 22° De Bono Perseverantise, cap. 7. In hac re non opero- sas disputationes expectet ecclesia, sed attendat quotidianas orationes suas. Orat, ut credentes perseverent. 22' Ibid. cap. 23. Ut magis intuerenter orationes suas, quas semper habuit et habebit ecclesia.—Quando enim non oratum est in ecclesia pro infidelibus atque inicimis ejus, ut crederent P—Aut quis sacerdotem super fideles Dominum invocantem, si quando dixit, Da. illis Domine in te perse- verare usque in finem, non solum voce ausus est, sed saltem cogitatione reprehendere; ac non potius super ejus talem benedictionem, et corde credente et ore confitente respon- dit Amen : cum aliud in ipsa oratione Dominica non orant fideles, &c. 222 Book XV. chap. 1. sect. 2. 2” Aug. Ep. 119. ad Paulin. cap. 18. 22' Ep. 107. ad Vitalem, p. 187. 225 Ibid. p. 191. 2S2 628 Boox XIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. state of the world, in which infidels were prayed for as well as others, to which St. Austin refers, as things well known to all that frequented the prayers of the church. Besides these, there were some occasional ofiices, such as the offices of exorcism, and the institution of the catechumens, and baptism, in which many forms, and rites, and ceremonies were observed, agreeable to the practice then obtaining in the church; but of these I have had occasion to speak largely out of St. Austin and other writers in a former Book,226 and therefore think it needless to repeat them in this place. All I shall further add, is two or three canons of the African councils held in St. Austin’s'time, at some of which he was pre- sent and assisted. He was a member of the third council of Carthage, in one of whose canons there are several orders and directions given concerning the public prayers,” That no one in prayers should name the Father for the Son, or the Son for the Father. And when they stood at the altar, all prayers should be directed to the Father. And whatever prayers any one wrote out for himself, or from other books, he should not use them before they were examined by his more learned brethren. This is as plain an argument for set forms as can be given, and yet some, I know not by what means, make it an argument against them. The design of the canon was plainly to prevent all irregularities and corruptions creeping into the devotions of the church; and therefore the fathers made an order, That no bishop should use any prayers in his church but such as were first examined and approved by his fellow bishops in a council. As another canon in the African Code explains it,228 That such prayers should be used by all, as had been authorized and confirmed in synod, whether they were prefaces, or commendations, or impositions of hands ; and that no other should be brought in against the faith, but those only be said which were collected or examined by men of greater abilities and understanding. And this is repeated again in the council of Milevism almost in the same words. These African fathers probably had observed, that there were some country bishops who had not sufiicient abilities to compose orthodox forms for the use of their own churches; and therefore they a little restrained the ancient liberty which every bishop had of composing a form of prayer for his own church, and obliged them to use such as were composed by men of greater abili- ties, or such as had been approved in synod, that no heretical opinion might _creep into the public worship, either by their ignorance or want of care in their compositions. By all this it appears, that the public devotions of the African church were at this time directed by certain forms of worship, and those not left to every bishop to compose for himself, but he must use such prayers as were first approved by his brethren, or established and confirmed in coun- cil. And this seems to be the first beginning of that custom, which afterward prevailed all over the church, as has been observed before in this chapter,"-80 that all provincial bishops should use the same form of prayer that was established in the churches of their metropolitans. I need not now insist upon these same councils, speaking of the solemn interrogatories 23‘ and an- swers to be made in baptism; nor of their mention- ing the Lord’s prayer, as a form of so necessary and general a use,232 that the Pelagians themselves, who did not like one petition in it unless interpreted to a very perverse sense, durst not presume to lay aside the use of it. For, as the first of these is a known practice, so the second will have a more par- ticular handling, when we come to consider the use of the Lord’s prayer in a chapter by itself. And so I put an end to this chapter, concerning the use of liturgies in the ancient church. CHAPTER VI. AN EXTRACT OF THE ANCIENT LITURGY OUT OF THE GENUINE WRITINGS OF ST. CHRYSOSTOM. IT has often been wished by learned men, that some one would represent the ancient liturgy, in its several parts and ofiices, as it may be collected out of the genuine and undoubted writings of St. Chrysostom ; foras- much as that liturgy which goes under his name, cannot be so certainly depended on as his genuine offspring: but there are a great many parts of an- cient liturgy of unquestionable credit, which may be Sect. 1. Parts of the litur- gy in the first tome. 22“ Books IX. and X. 22’ Cone. Carthag. 3. can. 23. Ut nemo in precibus vel Patrern pro Filio, vel Filium pro Patre nomiuet. Et cum ad altare assistitur, semper ad Patrern dirigatur oratio. Et quicunque sibi preces aliunde describit, (al. quascunque sibi preces aliquis describit) non eis utatur, prius quam eas cum instructioribus fratribus contulerit. 228 Cod. Afric. can. 3. "Qa'rs 'rc‘zs KeKvpw/réuas e’u *rfi o-uvo'drp ilcso'iae, ai'rrs 7rpoo’ilum, ai'q's wapadéo'ets, sir-s *rois "rfis Xstpds é'lrteéo'us, o’mrd 'n'c'w'rwu s’vru-rskei'o'eat, Kai amu- q-skdas &Ahas Ka'rd 'rfis wirr'rsws pmde'rrore 1rposvexeijvat‘ &AA’ a'l'rwes dfi'rro'rs a’qrd 'n'bv o'vusz'w'rs'pwu avwixencrav, Asxdrio'owrat. 229 Gone. Milevit. can. 12. Placuit etiam illud, ut preces vel orationes seu missae, quse probatee fuerint in synodo, sive praefationes, sive commendationes, sive manus impositiones, ab omnibus celebrentur. Nec aliae omnino dicantur in ecclesia, nisi quae a prudentioribus tractataa, vel compro- batae in synodo fuerint, ne forte aliquid contra fidem, vel per ignorantiam, vel per minus studium sit compositum. 23° See before in this chap. sect. 2. 28‘ Cone. Carthag. 3. can. 34. 232 Gone. Milevit. can. 8. CHAP. VI. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 629 gathered up out of his other discourses. Mr. Hales of Eton, a diligent reader of Chrysostom, is said to have designed such a collection, but he did not ef- fect it. Therefore, till some one else pursues his de- sign more completely, I think it not improper, for its relation to the present subject, to give the reader, in one view, a specimen of such passages as plainly refer to the several parts of the ancient liturgy, ob- serving the order of St. Chrysostom’s works accord- ing to the Paris edition, 1609, and that of Com- melin, 1617. In the first tome, Hom. I. p. 1, he plainly inti- mates, that the Scriptures were read then in some order by a stated rule of the church, because his sermon that day was upon a passage that had been read in the course of morning service, 1 Tim. v. 23, “ Drink no longer water, but use a little wine.” In his second homily, p. 32, he says again his text was taken out of the Epistle then read for the day, which was 2 Tim. vi. 17, “ Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not high minded.” In his third homily, p. 45, he says, The Lord’s prayer was by appointment of the church the peculiar privilege of those only who were baptized. For before their initiation in the holy mysteries, they were not al-- lowed to use it. In his seventh homily, p. 106, he observes, That the Book of Genesis was always ap- pointed to be read in Lent: and, accordingly, it was then read for the day, and he preached upon the first words of it, “ In the beginning God created heaven and earth.” In his fifteenth homily, p. 191, he says, The whole city met together, and with one common voice, Ti; jug? xowfi 9M5, made their litany, or supplications to God. And in the same discourse he intimates, that a portion of the prophet Zecha- riah, chap. v., concerning the flying roll against s‘wearers, had then been read for the day, which he accommodated to the subject of vain oaths, against which he was then discoursing. In his eighteenth homily, p. 226, he says, He preached upon the Epis- tle which had been read that day, Phil. iv. 4, “ Re- joice in the Lord always, and again I say, rejoice.” And in his sixteenth homily, p. 234, he notes the same, That the words upon which he preached out of the Epistle to Philemon, “ Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ,” &c., had been read that day. In his twenty-first homily, p. 266, he takes notice of the use of the hymn called the Trisagion, or cherubical hymn, “ Holy, holy, holy,” in the celebration of the eucharist; arguing to his hearers in this manner upon it: What an absurdity is it for a man, after he has heard that mystical song that was brought down from heaven, brought down, I say, by the cherubims, to pollute his ears with the songs of harlots, and the efi‘eminate music of the theatre! In the same homily be twice takes notice of the form of renouncing the devil in baptism, p. 267: We are commanded to say, 'Arrorciaaopai am, Ea'ravc'i, I renounce thee, O Satan, that we may never more return to him. And again, p. 273, Remember, says he, those words which you spake when you were initiated in the holy mysteries, I renounce thee, O Satan, and thy pomp, and thy worship and service. In his twenty-second homily, upon anger and for- giving enemies, he argues for the necessity of pardoning offences, from the necessary obligation that is laid upon all men to say the Lord’s prayer. For this reason, says he, p. 287, we are commanded to say, “Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us.” And again, p. 288, when you say, “ Forgive us, as we forgive :” if you do not forgive, you ask nothing else of God, but that he would deprive you of all excuse and pardon. And whereas some pleaded, that they did not say the whole prayer, but omitted that clause, “as we forgive them that trespass against us,” he rebukes them for it, and bids them not be so vainly cautious, as to think they were excused by curtailing the prayer, but advises them to use the whole prayer, as Christ appointed it to be used, that the necessity of this petition might daily terrify them from revenge, and'compel them to grant pardon to their neigh- bours. In his twenty-fourth homily, of the baptism of Christ, p. 317, he again speaks of the cherubical hymn in the communion service. Do you think, says he, that you have any secular business at that hour? Do you then imagine yourself to be upon earth, or conversing among men? Whose heart is so stony, as to think, that at that time he stands upon the earth, and is not rather in a quire of an- gels, with whom you sing that mystical hymn, with whom you send up that triumphal song to God? In his twenty-eighth homily, (which is the third of the incomprehensible nature of God,) p. 363, he speaks of the common prayer, as sent up with one common voice of the whole congregation, speaking and crying aloud to God with one accord. Some would have excused themselves from these prayers of the church, by this frivolous plea, that they could pray at home, but they could not hear a sermon or discourse of instruction in their own houses; and therefore they would come to sermon, but not to prayers. To whom he makes this reply: You deceive yourself, O man; for though you may pray at home, yet you cannot pray there in that manner as you do in the church, where there are so many fathers together, and where the cry of your prayers is sent up to God with one consent. You are not heard so well, when you pray to God by yourself alone, as when you pray with your bre~ thren. For there is something more here, consent of mind, and consent of voice, and the bond of cha- rity, and the prayers of the priests together. For the priests for this very reason preside in the church, that the people’s prayers, which are weaker of them- selves, laying hold on those that are stronger, may 630 Boox XIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. together with them mount up to heaven. This is a plain description of such common prayers, wherein both priests and people joined not only in heart, but in one common form of words, whereby they cried aloud to God together. A little after, p. 365, he describes these prayers again by the people’s sending up their tremendous cry all at once, [306501 'njv ppucwdeeémv Bm'jv. And he makes this differ- ence between the manner of the energumens’ sup- plicating God, and that of the people, that the one spake not a word, but only supplicated by the pos- ture of their bodies, bowing down their heads; whilst the people, who were allowed to speak audi- bly in prayers, spake aloud for those who could not speak for themselves. For this reason, says he, the deacon at the time of the oblation brings forth the energumens, or those that are possessed with evil spirits, and bids them bow their heads only, and signify their supplications by this bodily gesture: for they are not permitted to pray with the common assembly of the brethren: therefore he presents them before the congregation, that you, pitying both their vexation, and their disability to speak for themselves, might, by the freedom and liberty of speech which is allowed you, grant them your pa- tronage and assistance. From this it appears, that these prayers for the energumens were in a certain form, in which all the people vocally joined to- gether. In his twenty-ninth homily, which is the fourth de Incomprehensibz'lz', p. 374, he repeats the same account of the deacon’s calling forth the ener- gumens, and bidding them how their heads, and the people’s praying to God opofivpadbv mt nerd 0-950- dpiig ,Bofig, with one consent and with strong cries, that he would show mercy on them. A little after, in the same homily, p. 375, he mentions another form used by the deacon, as the herald of the church, who was appointed to call upon the people every now and then, and excite them to fervency in devotion, by using this form of words, 6pQoi s'dipev xaM'ig, Let us elevate our minds, and attend with decency to our devotions. For, as he there explains it, this admonition did not so much respect the body, as the mind. When the deacon, says he, calls upon us, and says, Let us stand elevated with decency, it was not without good reason that this admonition was by the rule of the church appointed, but that we should elevate our thoughts that lie grovelling upon the ground; that, casting away the distraction that arises from secular affairs, we should be able to present our souls upright and raised to a spiritual sense in the presence of God. Let no man therefore, adds he, join in those sacred and mystical hymns with remissness of mind; let no man entertain the thoughts of this life at that time; but driving away all earthly concerns, let him translate himself wholly into heaven, as stand- ing then close by the throne of glory, and flying with the seraphims: and so let him offer up rbv 1rava'ylov iipvov, that most holy hymn (meaning the Trisagz'on, or else the hymn called “ Glory be to God on high”) to the God of majesty and glory. It is upon this account we are called upon at this time, és'a'vat ‘may, to compose ourselves decently, as it becomes men who stand in the presence of God, with fear and trembling, with a vigilant and ele- vated soul. In his thirty-fourth homily, which is the first against the Jews, p. 440, he speaks of an- other form used by the deacon, and that frequently, before the participation of the holy mysteries: he then cried out, émywu’wxere &Ma'jhsg, Discem and know one another: which was an admonition to the people, that they should suffer no Jew, infidel, here- tic, catechumen, or penitent, to communicate among them. In his fortieth homily, upon the martyrs, Juventinus and Maximus, p. 550, he says, The church kept her vigils all the night with continual psalmody, which was nothing but forms of prayers and praises out of the Holy Scriptures. In the forty-seventh homily, upon Julian the martyr, p. 613, he again mentions the solemn form of re- nunciation in baptism. You renounced, says he, 'all this kind of pomp, (harlots, songs, and obscene words used in the theatre,) and made a covenant with Christ, in that day when you were initiated in the holy mysteries. Remember, therefore, those words, and your covenant, and beware you do not transgress it. In his fifty-first homily, upon Ber- nice, p. 635, he says, They used hymns, and pray- ers, and psalms at the funerals of Christians; and particularly the words of Psalm cxvi., “ Return unto thy rest, 0 my soul, for the Lord hath dealt bountifully with thee :” implying, that the death of a Christian was a kindness and a rest: “for he that is entered into that rest, hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.” In his fifty-fifth ho- mily, which is the fifth of repentance, p. 672, he plainly intimates, that his discourse was made upon the Epistle that had been read for the day, 2 Cor. xii. 21, “Lest when I come again, I shall bewail many who have sinned, and have not repented.” In his sixtieth homily, which is his catechetical in- struction to those that were preparing for baptism, he takes notice of several forms and rules made by the church, relating to that matter, p. 797. As, first, the solemn words by which every man entered into covenant with Christ. For, speaking of the danger and ill consequents of deferring baptism to a sick bed, he says, When he that is baptized knows none that are about him, when he cannot hear a word that is spoken, when he cannot utter those words wherewith he should make the blessed covenant with our common Lord, but lies like a stock or a stone, differing nothing from a dead man; what ad- vantage is it to such a one to be initiated in the holy mysteries in such a state of insensibility? This CHAP. VI. 631 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. implies, that the party baptized was to make his compact with God in a solemn and usual form of words, which a man at the point of death was not able to utter. After this he goes on to show, that the church had appointed the time of Lent chiefly above other times for exorcism and baptism; and that the catechumens, after they were instructed, were remitted over to the exorcists, to have their exorcisms or prayers said over them ; and that during this time they were obliged to walk discalceate, and wear only one coat: which were appointments of the church, he says, established for good reasons, and not without their mystical signification. In his seventy-fourth homily, in which is a panegyric upon the martyrs, p. 900, he speaks again of the Trz'sagz'on, or cherubical hymn, as used to be sung in the cele- bration of the eucharist. The martyrs, says he, are now joining in concert, and partaking in the mystical songs of the heavenly quire: for if, whilst they were in the body, whenever they communi- cated in the holy mysteries, they made part of that quire, singing with the cherubims the .Trz'sagz'on hymn, “ Holy, holy, holy ;” as all ye that are initiated in those mysteries very well understand: much more now, being joined with them whose partners they were in the earthly quire, they do with greater freedom partake in those solemn blessings and glo— rifications of God in heaven above. The second tome of St. Chrysos- _ Partggiiilz'liwrgy tom’s works, is his Homilies upon in the second tome 1123:; Cbrysoswm's Genesis, which were preached in Lent, when that book was always read in the church, as appears from his first homily, p. 10, and from what has been observed before out of his seventh homily to the people of Antioch, in the foregoing section. In his twenty-seventh homily upon this book, he plainly intimates, that the Lord’s prayer was always a part of the communion ofiice. For, speaking of the duty of forgiving enemies, he says, p. 358, If we do this, we may then, with a pure conscience, come to this holy and tremendous table, and boldly say the words that are contained in that prayer. They who are initiated in the holy myste- ries know what I mean. He covertly intends that petition of the Lord’s prayer, “ Forgive us our tres- passes, as we forgive them that trespass against us.” In his thirty-third homily, p. 478, he acquaints us, That though the Book of Genesis was by the order of the church read in Lent, yet when they came to the Thursday in the Passion Week, the day on which our Saviour was betrayed, then they had proper lessons for that day, and Good Friday, and Easter day, and all the time between Easter and Pentecost, when it was customary to read the Acts of the Apostles, as a demonstration of our Saviour’s resur- rection. In his fifty-fourth homily, p. 731, he says, Christ commanded the use of the Lord’s prayer, prescribing us therein the bounds and rules of pray- ing for temporal things, whilst he enjoins us to say those words, “Give us this day our daily bread.” In his second homily upon the prayer of Hannah, in the same volume, p. 965, he says, When Christ com— manded his disciples not to pray after the manner of the heathen, using vain repetitions, he also taught us the measure of prayer, meaning the form which he appointed. He repeats the same in the third homily upon Saul and David, p. 1053. Al- though, says he, you are guilty of a thousand crimes, yet if you sincerely offer up that prayer, which pro- mises, that if you forgive your enemies, your Father will forgive your trespasses; you shall, with great confidence, obtain the remission of all your sins. The third tome contains St. Chry- sostom’s Commentaries and Homilies dgjg'gitggttgg it‘; on the Psalms and the Prophet Isaiah, third mm‘ where he frequently refers to the known parts of the liturgy then in use in the church. In his Com- ment upon Psalm cxii., he three times mentions the necessary use of the Lord’s prayer, p. 369. As Christ, says he, when he would induce us to unanimity and charity in our prayers, enjoins us to make common prayer, and obliges the whole church, as if it were but one person, to say, “ Our Father ;” and, “ Give us this day our daily bread; and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us; and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil ;” always using a word of the plural number, and commanding every one, whether he pray alone by himself, or in common with others, still to make prayer for his brethren: so here the prophet David calls all men to a consent in prayer, saying, “Praise the Lord, 0 ye servants : praise the name of the Lord.” Again, p. 370, speaking of glo- rifying God, he says, Christ hath commanded us to pray for this, saying, whenever we pray, “ Hallowed be thy name.” And, p. 372, Christ, in his gospel, hath commanded us to pray, and say, “ Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven.” In like man- ner, on Psalm cxiv., p. 394, speaking of the life to come, and how we ought to desire it, and make all our actions tend that way, he adds, For this reason we ‘are commanded to say in our prayer, “ Thy king- dom come ;” that we may always have respect to that day. He repeats the same words on Psalm cxix., p. 425. And on Psalm cxxvii, p. 465, We are commanded to use a prayer, in which there is but one petition relating to this life, “ Give us this day our daily bread ;” which he repeats again on Psalm exL, p. 551. On Psalm cxliv., p. 595, he says, We are commanded to say in our prayer, “ Hallowed be thy name.” And on Psalm cxlix., p. 633, he calls it the prayer which was offered up by all in common, and always in the plural number, “ Our Father,” &c. On Psalm 01., p. 636, he says, This prayer was peculiar in its use to the sons of God only, who could call God their Father, by virtue Sect. 3. 632 BOOK XIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. of their regeneration and adoption. Our prayer, says he, is prefaced with this title; for it belongs to them only to say, “ Our Father,” who can give him thanks for the gifts which they have received, and show forth them all in that name. For he that calls God his Father, confesses the adoption of sons: and he that confesses the adoption of sons, owns and declares both justification, and sanctification, and redemption, and remission of sins, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. For all these must go before, that we may thereby enjoy the adoption of sons, and be thought worthy to call God our Father. By which reasoning of St. Chrysostom it appears, that he was so far from thinking the Lord’s prayer a carnal form, not proper to be used by spiritual men, because it was a form, that, on the contrary, he thought none were truly qualified to use it, but such as were regenerate, and adopted, and endowed with the gifts of the Holy Spirit, who alone had the true title to call God their Father. And this, I shall show in the next chapter, was the general sense of all the ancient writers. But to return to St. Chrysostom. In his Com- ment on Psalm cxvii., P. 406, he takes notice, that the people were used in their responses to return one verse of this psalm, which was, “ This is the day which the Lord hath made, we will rejoice and be glad in it.” This kind of responses he calls imnxetv, and z'nrorlla'kksw, because it was the people’s subjoining their response to something that the minister had read before out of the same psalm. And it seems to have been appointed for the service of Easter day, or Christmas day, or the Lord’s day, because he adds, The people were wont to make this response chiefly on that spiritual assembly and heavenly festival; plainly referring to some eminent festival then well known to the people. And that this custom was introduced by a law and order of the church, is evident from what follows: for he says, Their forefathers had appointed the people to sing this verse, z'nmxetv évopoeérnaav, both because it was sonorous, and also contained a sublime doc- trine, that forasmuch as they knew not the whole psalm, they might from this one verse be perfectly instructed in the mystery of it. This was the wis— dom of the ancient church, according to Chrysos- tom, to teach the people the mysteries of religion, by obliging them to bear a part in the usual service. In his Comment on Psalm cxxxvii., p. 518, he declares again, That the psalmody was performed partly by the priests, and partly by the people’s joining with them: the priests began, and the peo- ple answered to them. On Psalm cxl. he notes, p. 544, That this psalm was constantly sung in the order of the daily evening service, whence it had the name of the evening psalm; as the lxii. had the name of the morning psalm, because it was always sung in the morning service. Of which, because I have given a more particular account hereafter,l I say no more in this place. On Psalm cxliv., p. 594, he acquaints us, that this psalm was always sung alternately by the priest and people at the Lord’s table, chiefly upon the account of these words in it, “ The eyes of all wait upon thee, and thou givest them their meat in due season.” Of which custom we shall have another occasion to speak further in its proper place. See Book XV. chap. 5. sect. 10. In his sermon on Psalm cxlv., p. 823, he tells us, That psalm was used to be sung in the Passion Week, “ Praise the Lord, 0 my soul; while I live, will I praise the Lord,” &c. In his first sermon on Isaiah, p. 834, he says, The Trisagz'on, or cherubical hymn, “ Holy, holy, holy,” was sung by the sera- phims in heaven above, and by men on earth be- neath. And, p. 836, he takes notice of the angelical doxology, “Glory be to God on high,” as used in the church: and the forms, Kiiple, ékénoov, and 0630011, “ Lord, have mercy upon us,” and, “Lord, save us,” as usual prayers and responses of the people: and reproving the people’s clamours, and negligence, and indecent gesticulations in the church, he repri- mands them in this manner: How dare you mix the devil’s sport with this doxology of angels? Why do you not revere the words, which you yourselves use in that place, “ Serve the Lord in fear, and re- joice unto him with reverence?” Is this to serve him in fear, when you thus theatrically toss and stretch your bodies, and know not what you say yourselves for your disorderly vociferation? This plainly implies, that the people bare their part, though sometimes without a just decorum, in all these doxologies, prayers, and responses. In his sermon upon the seraphims, which is the sixth upon Isaiah, p. 890, he gives a large account again of the use of the seraphical hymn, “ Holy, holy, holy,” at the communion table: which, because I shall recite at length hereafter, I only just barely hint it in this place. See Book XV. In his second homily upon the obscurity of the ancient prophecies, p. 946, in answer to that vulgar plea, that men could pray at home, he replies in such a manner, as shows that the people bare a part with their own tongues in the common prayers of the church. You may pray at home, says he, but your prayer is not of that eflicacy and power, as when the whole body of the church, with one mind, and one voice, (ipoevpadov [mi W147, send up their prayers together, the priest assisting, and of- fering up the prayers of the whole multitude in com- mon. He there also speaks of the deacon’s form in bidding prayer for all orders of men in the world, which I shall not recite here, because I have done 1 See Book XIII. chap. 10. and 11. CHAP. VI. 633 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. it more fully in its proper place. Book XV. chap. 1. The fourth volume of St. Chrysos- cigftafistécrrt'iizg an‘; tom’s works consists chiefly of private 811;; 5332 are ‘it: discourses, which have not much re- lation to the public liturgy of the church: 'yet some few passages are worthy to be noted among these. In his famous discourse upon Eutropius, p. 554, among other arguments, where- by he presses the people to_lay aside their anger against him, and pardon the injury he had done them, he urges this: How will you otherwise, says he, take the holy sacrament into your hands, and use the words of that prayer, wherein we are com- manded to say, “Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us,” if you exact punishment of your debtor? This shows that the Lord’s prayer was used then as a usual part of the communion service. In the third homily of repent- ance, p. 562, he speaks of the seraphical hymn un- der the title of pvs'ucbv péhog, tlie mystical song, because it was used in the celebration of the holy mysteries. And again, in his second epistle to Olym- pias, p. 715, he mentions it under the same title. And in his sermon after his return from banish- ment, p. 971, he speaks of the form Ei’pi'qvn mist, Peace be to you all, as a solemn form used frequent- ly in the church. Sm 5_ The fifth volume of his works af- mthefif‘h mm‘ fords us many more examples. Here he no less than eight times mentions the Lord’s prayer as a form in common use by the command- ment of Christ. In his sixth homily, upon Laza- rus, p. 107 : We are commanded in our prayer to say, “ Forgive us our trespasses,” that, by the con- tinual use of that prayer, we may be put in mind that we are liable to punishment. In his eighth homily, on our Saviour’s prayer, “ Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me,” p. 134, he says, Christ prayed, to teach his disciples to pray. But they were to learn not only to pray, but after what manner to pray: and therefore he delivered them a prayer in these words, commanding them and us to say, “Our Father which art in heaven,” &c. In his tenth homily, p. 154, he says, Christ taught us what we are to say in prayer, and in a few words instructed us in all manner of virtue. In his six- teenth homily, upon those words, “ If thine enemy hunger, feed him,” p. 237, he urges forgiveness of injuries with this argument, For this reason we are taught to say, “ Forgive us, as we forgive,” that we may learn, that the measure of forgiveness takes its rise from ourselves. In his thirty-sixth homily, upon Pentecost, p. 552, he says praying by the Lord’s prayer is praying by the Spirit: his words are these, If there was no Holy Ghost, we that are believers could not pray to God: for we say, “Our Father which art in heaven.” "As therefore we could not say, that Jesus was the Lord, so neither could we call God our Father, without the Holy Ghost. How does that appear? From the same apostle, who says, “Because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.” In his thirty-eighth homily, of repentance and the eucharist, p. 570, he thus again argues for forgiving enemies: When we go into the church, let us approach God as becomes his majesty; lest if we have designs of revenge in our hearts when we pray, we pray against ourselves, saying, “ Forgive us, as we forgive them that trespass against us.” These are terrible words, and the same as if one said to God, Lord, I have forgiven my enemy, for- give thou me ; I have loosed him, loose thou me ; I have pardoned my enemy, pardon me; if I have retained his sins, retain thou mine; if I have not loosed my neighbour, do not thou loose my offences; what measure I have meted to him, measure to me again. In his fifty-first homily, upon the prayers of Christ, p. 691, he says, Christ taught his disciples to pray both in words and actions; meaning the words of the Lord’s prayer, together with his own example. And in the sixty-second homily, upon the paralytic, p. 934, he says, This prayer was the peculiar privilege of the faithful, and not allowed to any unbaptized catechumen : for before we have washed away our sins in the font of the holy waters, we cannot call God our Father; but when we re turn from thence,.having put off the burden of our sins, then we say, “Our Father which art in heaven.” Besides this account of the various use of the Lord’s prayer, he mentions several other parcels of the liturgy in this volume. In the sixteenth homily, p. 229, he takes notice of the use of the seraphical hymn in the eucharistical service. Consider, says he, you that are initiated, what a mystical service you have been employed in, with whom you have sent up that mystical song, with whom you have cried out Tpwa'ytog, “ Holy, holy, holy.” In the thirty-sixth homily, upon Pentecost and the Holy Spirit, p. 553, he treats at large of that ancient form of salutation used in every ofiice, “Peace be with you,” or, “The Lord be with you ;” and the people’s answering always, “And with thy spirit.” Our common father and teacher, says he, meaning the bishop, when he goes up into his throne, says, “Peace be to you all,” and you all make answer with one common voice, “ And with thy spirit.” Neither do you make this answer only when he goes into his throne, or when he preaches to you, or when he prays for you, but when he stands by the holy table; when he is about to offer that tremen- dous sacrifice, (they that are initiated know what I say,) before he touches the elements lying upon the table, he prays, “ The grace of the Lord be with you,” and ye reply, “And with thy spirit :” remind- ing yourselves by this answer, that it is not the 634 BOOK XIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. minister that effects any thing in this matter, neither is the consecration of the gifts the work of human nature; but that it is the grace of the Spirit then present, and descending upon the elements, which consummates that mystical sacrifice. In the thirty- eighth homily, on the eucharist and repentance, p. 569, he takes notice of another known form in the communion service, where the priest says, “Let us lift up our minds and hearts,” and the people an- swer, “We lift them up unto the Lord,” 'Exoptsv wpog 'rov Ki'lpwv. This is the same form as we have seen before in Cyprian, Sursum corda, and Habemus ad Dominum. In the forty-seventh homily, p. 632, he speaks again of the seraphical hymn, taken out of Isaiah, under the name of pvo'rucov péllog, the mystical song. And homily fifty-second, in eos gm’ Pascha jejunant, p. 713, persuading men to peace and unity, he argues again from the frequent use of the form Eipz'wr; m'iow, “Peace be with you all,” in every oflice of the church. There is nothing, says he, canbe compared with peace and concord. Therefore the bishop, when he first enters the church, before he goes up into his throne, prays, saying, “Peace be with you all :” and when he rises up, he does not begin to preach, before he says again, “Peace be with you all.” And the priests, when they are about to say any prayer of benedic- tion, do not begin the blessing before they have used the same form of salutation. And the deacon, when he bids men pray with others, enjoins them this in their prayers, that they ‘should pray for the angel of peace,2 and that all their purposes may be directed to a peaceable end: and when he dismisses you from this assembly, he prays thus, saying, lIopsz'J- :69: iv sipr'wy, “ Go in peace ;” and nothing is said or done without this. So that it seems this was a form that had its return in every particular oflice, and was sometimes used six or seven times at one assembly of the church. In his thirty-fifth homily, upon the Ascension, p. 535, he more particularly takes notice of this form of the deacon’s bidding men pray for the angel of peace. In his admonition to those that are scandalized at the evils which be- fall the church, cap. 4. p. 863, he has again occa- sion to mention the seraphical hymn, under the foresaid title of the mystical song of sanctifica- tion. In his sixty-third homily, p. 949, he shows us how, by the order of the church, on the day of our Saviour’s passion, all such portions of ' Scripture were read as had any relation to the cross; and on the great sabbath, or Saturday following, such scriptures as contained the history of his being he- trayed, crucified, dead, and buried. And he adds, p. 951, that on Easter day they read such passages as gave an account of his resurrection, and on every festival the things that happened at that season. Only the Acts of the Apostles, which contain the history of the miracles done by the apostles after Pentecost, after the Holy Ghost was come upon them, were for a particular reason ordered to be read before Pentecost, that is, immediately after Easter, because the miracles of the apostles, contained in that book, were the great demonstration of our Saviour’s resurrection; for which reason the church appointed the Book of the Acts always to be read in the time 'between Easter and Whitsuntide, immediately after the resurrection of Christ, to give men the evidences and proofs of that holy mystery, which was the com- pletion of their redemption. Thus, according to Chrysostom, the church, in great wisdom, ordered and methodized her liturgy by exact rules, for the better instruction and edification of the people. The sixth tome is chiefly made up See,” 6_ of such tracts as do not acknowledge 1“ thesmhmme' Chrysostom for their author ; and therefore among these we shall not be very curious in searching for the forms of the ancient liturgy. Some of them are sup- posed, by learned men, to be written by Severianus, bishop of Gabala, contemporary with Chrysostom, and these may be reckoned of the same authority as Chrysostom’s own writings. Among the homi- lies of this sort is reckoned the thirty-seventh, upon the parable of the prodigal son, where the author, p. 375, commenting upon those words, “They began to be merry,” thus discourses: Ye know what spiritual mirth is, who have tasted of it, who have been partakers of the holy mysteries, and have seen the deacons or ministers of Divine service, imitating the wings of angels with their little veils lying upon their left shoulders, and tra? versing the church, and crying, Let no catechumen be present, none of those that may not eat, no spy, none of those that may not see the feast of the fatted calf, none of those that may not look upon the hea- venly blood shed for the remission of sins, no one that is unworthy of the living sacrifice, no one that is yet unbaptized, no one that may not with his polluted lips touch the tremendous mysteries: ye remember how, after this, the angels from heaven sing the hymns and praises, saying, Holy is the Father, who willed the fatted calf to be slain, who knew no sin, as saith the prophet Isaiah, “who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth :” holy is the Son, the calf that is always willingly slain, and always lives : holy is the Comforter, the Holy Ghost, which perfects the sacrifice. These are plain references and allusions to the usual forms of the church, viz. to the deacons, vested in their proper habit and badge, calling to all non-commu- nicants to withdraw; and to the seraphical hymn, “ Holy, holy, holy,” which was always sung in the communion service. The same writer, a little after, 2 See this form explained, Book XIV. chap. 5. sect. 4. CHAP. VI. 635 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. p. 377, as plainly alludes to the use of the Lord’s prayer at the eucharist, when he brings in the fa- ther thus speaking to the elder son: Son, thou art ever with me: thou standest by the altar, and there criest out with freedom, “ Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name.” In the first homily in this volume, entitled, De Uno Legislatore, p. 10, there is mention made of the ceremony of laying the book of the Gospels upon a bishop’s head at his ordination. For this reason, says the author, when priests are ordained in the church, the gospel of Christ is laid upon their heads, that he that is ordained, may learn that he receives the true tire or covering of the gospel; and that he may be taught, that though he be the head of all, yet he is subject . to those laws; though he rules over all, he is under the rule of those laws; though he gives laws to all others, he is to be governed by the law himself. The critics are not agreed upon the author of this discourse. Du Pin8 rejects it as none of Chrysos- tom’s: but Photius quotes it under his name, and Bishop Pearson4 has a long dissertation to vindicate the authority of it, out of Photius, and several other ancient writers before him, where he answers all the objections that Bishop Usher and some other learned men had raised against it. Without de- ciding this controversy, it is suflicient for our pre- sent purpose, that the homily either acknowledges Chrysostom or some such other ancient writer for its author; and the ceremony here spoken of was certainly a custom observed in the ordination of bishops in the time of Chrysostom, as appears not only from other places in Chrysostom, but also from the authors of the Constitutions and the Ec- clesiastical Hierarchy, and the canon of the fourth council of Carthage, which I have had an occasion to produce in a former5 Book, to which I refer the reader, and go on with Chrysostom in order. In the fifty-second homily, upon the Circus in this volume, p. 491, the author makes mention of that ancient custom of saying, “6.50: am, Kzipus, “Glory be to thee, O Lord,” at the reading of the gospel. When we are met together, says he, in the eccle- siastical theatre, as soon as the deacon opens the book of the Gospels, we all look upon him with silence; and when he begins to read, we presently rise up, and say, “ Glory be to thee, O Lord.” In his eleventh homily on St. Mat- thew, p. 108, he mentions the people’s joining in psalmody and the accus- tomed prayers. When ye have borne your part in singing two or three psalms, 560 tpakpocg '5 rpeig imnxfiaavreg, and have made your usual prayers, 'rzig ovw'fielg ar'zxdg wowz'mevoz, ye think ye have done enough for your salvation. In the thirty-third Sect. 7. In the seventh tome of his Homi- lies on St. Matthew. homily, p. 318, he notes the customary form of the minister’s saying, Eipi'pln 13,17», “ Peace be unto you all,” when he first enters the church: and he forms this exhortation upon it : When I say, “ Peace be unto you ;” and ye answer again, “And with thy spirit ;" do not say this only in words, but in mind; not with your mouth, but with your heart. For if you say here in the church, “Peace be with thy spirit ;” but as soon as you are gone out, begin to oppugn me, despise me, accuse me, and load me with a thousand reproaches, what peace is this? In his sixty-ninth homily, p. 600, speaking of the monks, and their manner of worshipping God, he says, As soon as they were out of their beds, they made a quire, and sang hymns to God, avpqsu'mwg c'in'avrsg, &imrcp E5 e'vbg o'rdparog, all together with one voice, and as it were with one mouth: and among these they particularly addressed that angelical hymn to God, “Glory be to God on high, on earth peace, good will towards men. In his seventy-second homily, p. 624, he speaks of three prayers, one of which was for the demoniacs, the second for the penitents, and the third for the faithful, or commu- nicants, all conceived in a certain form of words; which is evident from this circumstance, which he there subjoins, that in the last of these prayers the children of the church joined with the rest of the people in crying to God for mercy. The people prayed alone without the children, when they pray- ed for the demoniacs and penitents; but when they prayed for themselves, they strengthened their pray- ers with the cries and intercessions of their chil- dren, whose innocence and simplicity they esteemed to be prevailing motives with God to hear them. By this account it is plain, these prayers must be in certain forms known both to the people and the children; otherwise it is impossible to imagine, how they should all join vocally in crying to God for mercy. In his twentieth homily, which is upon the Lord’s prayer, he not only mentions the use of this form of prayer, but says it was the peculiar privi- lege of communicants or baptized persons to use it. That this prayer, says he, p. 200, belongs to the faithful only, is evidenced both from the laws of the church, and the first words of the prayer itself; for no unbaptized person can call God his Father. In the same homily, he takes notice of the cere- monies used in the reception of the eucharist, par- ticularly the custom of giving one another the holy kiss of peace. And in the seventh homily, p. 70, he alludes to the custom of the priest’s saying, ('i'yta roig dyl'otg, in the celebration of the eucharist, when he says, Christ gives holy things to holy men. The eighth tome of St. Chrysos- tom’s works contains his Homilies on Sect. 8. In the eighth tom, 3 Du Pin, Bibliothec. Cent. 5. p. 22. 4 Pearson, Vindic. Ignat. part 1. cap. 9. p. 311. 5 Book II. chap. ll. sect. 8. 636 BOOK XIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 0;; gto-Ifohnennfpghsg St. John and the Acts of the Apostles. ties. In his preface to St. John, he men- tions the form of renouncing the devil, and cove- nanting with Christ. Ye which are initiated, says he, know what compact ye made with us, or rather with Christ, when he admitted you to his holy mys- tery, what you said to him concerning the pomp of Satan; how, after you had renounced Satan and his angels, you renounced this also, and promised never to look toward it again. Homily forty-second, he speaks of the Lord’s prayer as a form of spiritual prayer, which Christ taught his disciples and all Christians. Homily forty-fourth, he says, Every good Chris- tian used this prayer daily, saying those holy words, “ Thy kingdom come ; ” implying a belief of the re- surrection. Homily sixty-first, he makes mention of hymns and psalmody, as the honour of Christian funerals. Homily seventy-seventh, he takes notice of the kiss of peace, and the common prayers made for the whole state of the world in the communion service. We salute one another, says he, in the holy mys- teries, that being many, we may be made one ; and we make common prayers for those that are un- baptized, and supplications for the sick, and for the fruits of the world, both by sea and land. Which plainly refers to the known forms then commonly used in the church. In his nineteenth homily on the Acts of the Apostles, he speaks of several customary forms ob- served in the reading of the Scriptures : The dea- con, the common minister of the church, first stood up, and cried with a loud voice, Hpoo'xwuev, Let us give attention: and this he repeated over and over again. After that, the reader names the prophet Esaias, or the like, and before he begins to read, he cries out, Ta'ds M's-yet 6 K‘l'lptog, Thus saith the Lord. Homily twenty-first, he refers to the bidding prayer of the deacon, in which he was used to ad- monish the people in these words, among many other petitions, Let us pray for those that sleep in Christ, and for those that make commemorations for them, for the church, for the priests, for the people, for the martyrs, &c. Homily twenty-fourth, he mentions the hymns that were used by all in common at the communion table. Know you not, that you then stand with angels, and sing with them, and send up hymns and praises to God with them? Meaning the Tri- sagz'on, or cherubical hymn, “ Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of hosts,” &c., which was a known part of the eucharistical service. The ninth tome of his works con- S t. 9. o o . - - . In the iiimh tome, tains 1'11S Homilies on the Epistle to on Romans, and fhigsg 33111553? to the Romans, and the First and Second ' to the Corinthians. In his seventh homily, on Romans, p. 68, he speaks of common prayer sent up to God with one voice for the ener- gumens, or persons vexed with evil spirits. Which was by a certain form, as we have seen before, in his seventy-first homily on St. Matthew, and is evident from the very manner of expressing it here: for the people could not pray with one voice, unless a form of words was some way or other dictated to them. This dictating of prayers to be used by the whole assembly was commonly the office of the deacon, as Chrysostom informs us in the fourteenth homily upon this same epistle, p. 165, where he shows the different state of the church in the apos- tles’ days from that of his own time. For, explain- ing those words, “ The Spirit maketh intercession for us with groanings that cannot be uttered,” he says, This was an obscure expression, because many of . the miraculous gifts, which were then in being, were since ceased: as the gift of prophecy, the gift of wisdom, the gift of healing the sick, the gift of raising the dead, the gift of tongues; and among the rest, the gift of prayer, which was then distinguished by the name of the Spirit: and he that had this gift, prayed for the whole congregation. Upon which account, the apostle gives the name of the Spirit both to this gift, and to the soul that was en- dowed with it, who made intercession with groan- ings unto God, asking of God such things as were of general use and advantage to the whole congre- gation: the image or symbol of which is now the deacon, who offers up prayers for the people. Here, according to Chrysostom, the spirit of praying was an extraordinary gift, like that of tongues ; and the difference between the apostolical age and his own was this, that at first both the matter and words of their prayers were inspired in an ex- traordinary way, but afterward the deacons prayed by ordinary forms, without any such immediate in- spiration. In his Comments upon the First Epistle to the Co- rinthians, homily twenty-four, p. 532, he rehearses the heads of the solemn thanksgiving at the consecra- tion of the eucharist. We rehearse, says he, over the cup the ineffable blessings of God, and whatever benefits we enjoy; and so we offer it at the holy table, and communicate, giving him thanks that he hath delivered mankind from error; that when we were afar off; he hath made us near; that when we had no hope, and were without God, he hath made us brethren and fellow heirs with himself: for these and all the like blessings we give him thanks, and so come to his holy table. Homily thirty-five, p. 640, he notes the words, eig rm‘ig aid'n/ag ruiv ai’rbvwv, for ever and ever, to be the common conclusion of their eu- charistical thanksgivings, to which a layman, if they were said in an unknown tongue, could not answer Amen. tions the form, “ Peace be with you all,” to which the people answered, “And with thy spirit ;” which In his thirty-sixth homily, p. 652, he men- - CnAP. VI. 637 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. he derives from apostolical practice, when both minister and people were used to speak by immediate inspiration of the Holy Ghost. He further observes, p. 653, that they all sang in common, both in the apostles’ days, and in his own time; and that the bishop, at the entrance into the church, said always, “ Peace be to you all,” as a proper salutation when he came into his Father’s house; though he laments, that whilst they retained the name of peace, they had lost the thing. Again, p. 655, he takes notice, that when a single reader sung the psalms, all the people, as it were with one mouth, did imnxsiv, re- turn their answer to him, that is, either by singing the verses alternately, or by joining in the close of every verse; of which more in the next Book, chap. 1. Homily forty, p. 688, he observes, that every per- son at his baptism was, by the rule of the church, obliged to make profession of his faith in the so- lemn words of the creed; and among other articles, particularly said, “I believe the resurrection of the dead :” by which form of profession Chrysostom ex- plains that noted passage of St. Paul, “Why are they then baptized for the dead?” That is, if the dead rise not, why do they profess at their baptism, that they “believe the resurrection of the dead?” Homily forty-one, p. 702, he mentions part of the solemn form of prayer for the dead, then in use in the church. It is not without reason, says he, that he that stands at the altar, when the holy mysteries are celebrated, says, We offer for all those who are dead in Christ, and for all those who make commemora- tions for them. And a little after, We at that time also make prayers for the whole world, and name the dead with martyrs, and confessors, and priests: for we are all one body, though some members ex- ceed other members in glory. In his second homily upon the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 740, he styles the Lord’s prayer ez'lxr‘yv vsvopwpévnv, the prayer which Christ brought in, and established by law in his church; and says it was the peculiar privilege of the faithful to use it, for the catechumens were not allowed so great a favour before baptism. There also he mentions several forms of the deacons calling upon the peo- ple to pray: as that, 21641521 IcaM'ig, dsnfid'msv, Let us stand devoutly, and pray: which, he says, was ad- dressed not only to the priests, but also to the peo- ple: and again, Let us pray ardently for the cate- chumens: after which admonition the deacon re— cited the particular petitions they were to makevfor them, which Chrysostom there relates at length in the very form that was used, which I shall omit to recite here, because the reader may find it whole hereafter in the service of the catechumens, Book XIV. chap. 5. A little after, in this same homily, p. 743, he mentions the usual form of renunciation in baptism: Ye that are initiated, says he, know what I say; for ye easily remember those words, whereby y'e renounce the tyranny of the devil, fall- ing upon your knees, and going over to Christ your King, and uttering those tremendous words, whereby we are taught to pay no manner of obedience to the tyrant. And, p. 745, he adds, That in the service of the faithful, that is, the communion service, the deacon again bid them supplicate and address God for bishops, for presbyters, for kings, for emperors, for all by sea and land, for the temperature of the air, and for the whole world. Which are but so many hints of the deacons bidding prayer in the service of the faithful, more fully related in Book XV. chap. 1. Homily fifth, p. 775, he speaks of the obligation men have to use the Lord’s prayer. Homily eighteenth, p. 872, he intimates a form of prayer used by the people at the time of ordaining ministers. The suflirage of the people, says he, is no little ornament to those who are called to any spiritual dignity. And therefore he that performs the oflice of ordination, then requires their prayers, and they join their suffrage, and cry out those words, which they that are initiated know, for it is not lawful to speak all things before the unbaptized. A little after, p. 873, he says, The people had a consi- derable share in the prayers of the church. For common prayers were made both by priest and peo- ple for the energumens and penitents, and they all say one and the same prayer for them, the prayer is so full of mercy. Again, when we dismiss those who may not participate of the holy table, another prayer is to be made, in which we all fall down upon the ground together, and all rise together. He means the prayer for the whole state of Christ’s church, which was said jointly by the priest and people to- gether. Again, when the salutation of peace is mutually to be given and received, we all in like manner use this salutation. He means either the kiss of peace, or the form of salutation used between priest and people, “ The peace of God be with you, And with thy spirit.” But more probably he means the former, because it immediately follows after, When we come to the tremendous mysteries; then, as the priest prays for the people, so the people pray for the priest; for these words, “ And with thy spirit,” signify nothing else. Again, that prayer wherein we give thanks, is common to both. For not only the priest gives thanks, but all the people. For he first receives their answer, they rejoining, “ It is meet and right so to do,” and then he begins the thanksgiving. And why should any man won- der that the people should speak together with the priest, when they even join with cherubims and the powers above to send up in common those sacred hymns to heaven? meaning the hymns, “Holy, holy, holy,” and, “ Glory be to God on high,” which were sung by all the people in the communion ser- vice. Chrysostom has a good remark upon all these forms, and the people’s obligation to bear a 638 Boox XIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. part in them, which, therefore, I may not ‘here omit, because it shows us the reason why the ancient church so ordered her service. I have mentioned all these things, says he, on purpose to excite the vigilance of those that are in an inferior station, that we may learn that we are all one body, and only differ as one member may differ from another; and that We should not cast all upon the priests, but ourselves be concerned in the care of the whole church, as of one common body. The last volume of St. Chrysos- tom’s works contains his homilies upon the remaining Epistles of St. Paul. In his first homily on the Ephesians, p. 1037, he speaks of the forms of profession used in baptism: What is more gracious, says he, than those words by which we renounce the devil? by which we cove- nant with Christ? What more gracious than that profession which we make both before and after baptism? In the third homily, p. 1051, he tells us the deacons were wont to use this form of words to all those that were under the church’s censures, to withdraw from the Lord’s table, Ye that are in the state of penance, depart. And, p. 1052, when they were gone they said again to the communicants, Let us pray in common all together. And there also he speaks of the hymns that were sung at the Lord’s table. Homily fourteenth, p. 1127, he argues from the use of the Lord’s prayer, that men should not revile those whom they therein owned to be their brethren. If he is not thy brother, how dost thou say, “Our Father?” for that word, “ our,” denotes many persons. And further to show the indecency of such contumelious language, he reminds them of their known cus- tom in singing the sacred hymns with cherubims and seraphims at the communion. Consider with whom you stand in the time of the holy mysteries. With cherubims, with seraphims. For the sera- phims use no reviling; Their mouth is continually employed in fulfilling one necessary office, that of glorifying and praising God. How then can you say with them, “ Holy, holy, holy,” who use your mouth to revile your brethren? He adds, You say, “ Our Father ;” and what follows that? “ which art in heaven.” As soon as you say, “ Our Father which artin heaven,” the word raises you up, and gives wings to your soul, and shows that you have a Father in heaven. Therefore do nothing, say nothing of those things that are upon earth. You stand in heaven, and do you use reviling? You converse with angels, and do you use reviling? You are honoured with the kiss of the Lord, and do you use reviling? God adorns your mouth so many ways with angelical hymns, with meat, not angelical, but above angels, with his own kisses and embraces, and do you still accustom yourself to reviling? Homily twenty-third, p. 1190, he says, Jesus, the Sect. 10. In the tenth tome. Son of the living God, hath brought down to us the celestial hymns. For what the cherubims say above, he hath commanded us to say, “ Holy, holy, holy.” On the Philippians, homily fifteenth, p. 1311, he positively asserts, that Christ delivered the Lord’s prayer as a form of prayer, 3pm! 66%;, teaching us to say, “ Give us this day our daily bread.” On the Colossians, homily third, p. 1337, \Ve pray, saying, “ Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven.” We give thanks, saying, “Glory be to God on high, on earth peace, good will towards men.” We petition in our prayers for the angel of peace, and we pray for peace upon all occasions, for nothing can be compared unto it. The bishop in the church gives the benediction of peace, say- ing in every oflice, in prayers, in supplications, in his homilies, once, twice, thrice, and oftener, “Peace be with you all.” Again, p. 1338, When the bishop enters the church, he immediately says, “ Peace be with you all :” when he preaches, “ Peace be with you all :” when he gives the blessing, “Peace be with you all :” when he bids you salute one another, “ Peace be with you all :” when the sacrifice is offered, “ Peace be with you all z” and in the inter- vals, “Grace and peace be with you.” Is it not, therefore, absurd, that when we so often hear peace mentioned, we should still be at war among our- selves? We receive the salutation of peace, and return it to him that gives it, and yet are at war with him. You answer, “And with thy spirit ;” yet, as soon as you are gone out of the church, you calumniate and revile him. He adds, p. 1339, That it was not the bishop, properly speaking, that gave the peace, but Christ, that vouchsafes to speak by his mouth. Homily sixth in Colossians, p. 1358, he compares the forms of renunciation in baptism, and covenant- ing with Christ, to a hand-writing or bond, say- ing, Let us beware that we be not convicted by it, after we have said those words, “ We renounce thee, Satan, and we make a covenant with thee, O Christ.” Again, p. 1359, You are taught to say, “I renounce thee, and thy pomp, and thy worship, and thy angels.” He adds, That every new baptized person, as soon as he came up out of the water, was ap- pointed to say, “ Our Father which art in heaven. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.” Homily ninth in Coloss., p. 1380, on those words, “ Admonishing one another in psalms, and hymns, and’ spiritual songs,” he says, The faithful know what is the hymn of the spirits above; what the cherubims above say; what the angels said, “Glory be to God on high :” meaning that these two hymns were sung by the faithful in the communion service. Homily tenth, p. 1385, he gives the Lord’s prayer the title of silxfi mardiv, “the prayer of the faith- ful,” because it was their peculiar privilege to use it. CHAP. VI. 639 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Homily third in 2 Thess., p. 1502, he mentions two usual forms, relating to the reading of the les- sons in the church. When the reader rises up, and says, “ Thus saith the Lord ;” and the deacon, stand- ing up, commands all men to keep silence; he does not say this to honour the reader, but God, who speaks to all by him. Homily sixth in I Tim., p. 1553, he proves, that infidels are prayed for as well as others, from the use of the Lord’s prayer. For when he that prays says,“ Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven,” the meaning is, that as there is no infidel in heaven, so we pray, that there may be none on earth neither. Homily second in 2 Tim., p. 1638, he says, The words whereby the priests consecrate the eucharist, were the same that Christ spake. Homily fourth on Hebrews, p. 1785, he intimates, that they had set psalms in their funeral service. Consider, says he, what you sing at that time, “ Turn again unto thy rest, O my soul, for the Lord hath rewarded thee.” And again, “ I will fear no evil, for thou art with me.” And again, “ Thou art my refuge from tribulation, which compasses me about.” Consider what those psalms mean. You say, “ Turn again unto thy rest, O my soul ;” and do you still weep? Is not this mere pageantry and hypocrisy? If you believe the things to be true, which you say, it is superfluous to lament. Homily fourteenth, p. 1852, speaking of the hymns sung at the eucharist, he says, Do not we sing the same celestial hymns, which the quires of incorporeal powers sing above? Homily seventeenth, p. 1870, he mentions a part of the oblation prayer: In the oblation we offer, or bear and confess our sins, and say, “Forgive us our transgressions,” whether voluntary or involuntary: that is, we first remember them, and then ask par- don. There also, p. 1872, he mentions the deacon’s solemn form of words, admonishing the people to come holy to the holy sacrament: for this reason, the deacon cries out, and calls upon the saints, and by these words prompts all men to consider their offences, that no one come unprepared. Homily twenty-second, p. 1898, he tacitly refers to the form, Sursum corda, “ Let us lift up our hearts.” For having mentioned those words of the psalmist, “ Let the lifting up of my hands be an evening sacrifice,” he adds, With our hands let us also lift up our hearts. Ye which are initiated, know what I say; you perhaps understand what is spoken, and perceive what I have obscurely hinted. “ Let us lift up our souls on high.” Beside these passages collected out of Chrysos- tom’s works, published by Fronto Ducaeus, there are several others in those homilies, which Sir Henry Savil set forth in Greek, and others in the Latin editions only. Neither of which I have had oppor- tunity perfectly to examine, and therefore I shall leave them to the more diligent inquiry of the eu- rious reader; only noting, that in the sixth homily of repentance,lo he observes this difference between David’s Psalms and the rest of the Scriptures, that the others were read only twice a week in public, but the Psalms were used by all sorts of men, in all places, and upon all occasions. In ecclesiis pernoc- tantz'bus primus et medias, et novissimus est David. When they held their vigils all night in the church, David’s Psalms were in the beginning, and middle, and end of all their service. The same was ob- served in ‘their morning prayer; in their funeral obsequies ; by virgins at their needle; by the illite- rate and unlearned, who could not read a letter in the book, yet could repeat David’s Psalms by heart. David was always in their months, not only in the cities and the churches, but in the courts, in the monasteries, in the deserts and the wilderness. He turned earth into heaven, and men into angels, be- ing adapted to all orders, and all capacities, chil- dren, young men, virgins, old men, and sinners. In the beginning of the same homily, he says the Book of Genesis was by appointment of the church read only once a year, at a certain season, which was the time of Lent; as we have heard before in several places of this author, and as we shall see more fully demonstrated from other writers in the next Book. Among those published in Greek by Sir H. Savil, the hundred and twenty-third homily, t. 5. p. 809, speaks of the priests using this form of admonition to all communicants, in the time when the holy mysteries were celebrated, "Ayw: 'ro'ig dyiocg, “ Holy things are only for holy men.” And whoever will bestow the pains to peruse the rest of the homilies which are in that edition, may doubtless find many other such fragments of the ancient liturgy, which, as appears from this collection, so much abound in this celebrated writer. CHAPTER VII. or THE use or THE LoRn’s PRAYER IN THE LITURGY or THE ANCIENT CHURCH. IF there were no other argument to prove the lawfulness of set forms rhesficola'l'pam of prayer in the judgment of the an- gimme? e 1: nilfr'iil _ _ _ . given by Chr'rst _to ments, the opinion which they had caged by hm dw- of the Lord’s prayer, and their prac- tice pursuant to that opinion, would sufiiciently do 1° De Pcenitent. Horn. 6. t. 7. p. 146. Basil. 1525. 640 BOOK XIII. ANTIQUITIES ()F THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. it. And therefore, though several things have been occasionally hinted already about this matter, yet it will not be amiss to give it a distinct handling in this chapter. And first of all I observe, that the ancients did not only esteem it as a rule and pattern to conform our prayers to, but looked upon it as a particular form of prayer, which Christ enjoined all his disciples to use in the same words that he de- livered it. Tertullian says,1 Our Lord prescribed a new form of prayer for his new disciples of the New Testament: and that though John had taught his disciples a form of prayer, yet all that he did was only as a forerunner of Christ: when Christ was increased, (as John had foretold, “ He must increase, but I must decrease,”) then the whole work of the servant passed over to'the Lord. And therefore it is not so much as extant now in what words John taught his disciples to pray, because earthly things were to give way to heavenly. So again, The re- ligion of prayer was ordained by Christ himself, and this prayer being animated by his Spirit from the time that it came out of his heavenly mouth, ascends up to heaven with a privilege, commend- ing to the Father what the Son taught. But be- cause our Lord, who foresaw the necessities of man, after he had given this rule of praying, said also, “Ask, and ye shall receive;” and there are many things which men’s particular circumstances oblige every one to ask; therefore we have a right to make additional requests, and build other prayers upon this, always premising this appointed and ordinary prayer as the foundation. So that, according to Tertullian,2 it was not only a rule prescribing the method and matter of prayer, but a form to be used in the words in which Christ delivered it, and to be added to all other prayers as the foundation of a superstructure. After the same manner St. Cy- prian says, That Christ, among other wholesome admonitions and Divine precepts, by which he pro- vided for the salvation of his people, has given us also a form of prayer,3 teaching and admonishing us what we are to pray for. And a little after,‘ We are to learn from our Lord’s information, what we are to pray for; for he said, Pray thus, “ Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name,” &c. St. Austin assures us, That as the church always used this prayer, so she used it by the command of Christ.5 He said, Pray thus: he said to his disciples, Pray thus: he said to his dis_ ciples, he said to his apostles, and to us who are the lambs he said, and to the rams of his flock he said, Pray thus. In another place, This prayer6 is necessary for all, which the Lord gave to the rams of his flock, that is, to his apostles, that every one of them should say, “Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us.” For if there is any one to whom these words in the prayer are not necessary, he must be said to be without sin. And if Christ had foreseen that there would have been any such, so much better than his apos- tles, he would have taught them another prayer, in which they should not have asked forgiveness of sins for themselves, who had already obtained re- mission of all in baptism. Again he says,7 If any one say that this prayer is not necessary in this life for every saint of God, that knows and does the will of God, except one, the Holy of holies, he is in a manifest error, and pleases not that God whom he pretends to praise. For this prayer which we use} was given as a rule to the apostles by the heavenly lawgiver, who said to them, Pray thus. He enjoined the rams of his flock, the leaders of his sheep, the chief members of the great Shepherd, to use it; and they thence learned to say, “ Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us.” In his Retractations9 he confirms all this, calling 1 Tertul. de Orat. cap. I. Dominus noster novis disci- pulis N ovi Testamenti novam orationis formam determi- navit.—-Docuerat et Joannes discipulos suos orare. Sed omnia Joannis Christo praestruebantur, donec ipso aucto (sicut idem J oannes praenunciabat, illum augeri oportere, se vero diminui) totum praeministri opus cum ipso Spiritu transiret ad Dominum. Ideo nec extat, in qua: verba do- cuerit J oannes orare, quod terrena coelestibus cesserint. 2 Ibid. cap. 9. Ab ipso ordinata est religio orationis, et de Spiritu ipsius jam tune, cum ex ore Divino ferretur, ani- mata suo privilegio ascendit in coelum, commendans Patri quae Filius docuit. Quoniam tamen Dominus prospector humanarum necessitatum, seorsum post traditam orandi dis- ciplinam, Petite, inquit, et accipietis, et sunt, qua: petantur pro circumstantia cujusque, praemissa legitima et ordinaria oratione quasi fundamento, accidentium jus est desiderio- rum, jus est superstruendi extrinsecus petitiones. 9' Cypr. de Orat. Domin. p. 139. Inter caetera salutaria sua monita et praecepta Divina, quibus populo suo consu- luit ad salutem, etiam orandi ipse formam dedit; ipse quid precaremur, monuit. et instruxit. 4 Ibid. p. 141. Cognoscamus, docente Domino, et quid oremus. Sic, inquit, orate, Pater noster qui es in coelis, &c. 5 Aug. Hom. 29. de Verbis Apost. t. 10. p. 150. Ecclesiae oratio est, vox est de magisterio Domini veniens. Ipse dixit, Sic orate : discipulis dixit, Sic orate : discipulis dixit, apos- tolis dixit, et nobis, qualescunque agniculi sumus, dixit, arietibus gregis dixit, Sic orate. 6 Aug. Ep. 89. ad Hilarium. Omnibus necessaria est oratio Dominica, quam etiam ipsis arietibus gregis, id est, apostolis suis Dominus dedit, ut unusquisque Deo dicat, Dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris, &c. " Aug. de Peccator. Meritis, lib. 3. cap. 13. Quam ora- tionem quisquis cuilibet etiam homini sancto, et Dei volun- tatem scienti atque facienti, praeter unum sanctum sancto- rum, dicit in hac vita necessariam non fuisse, multum errat, nec potest illi ipsi placere quem laudat. 7 8 Aug. in Psal. cxlii. p. 675. Ipsi didicerunt orare quod oramus, i psis data est regula postulandi a jurisperito ccelesti. Sic orate, inquit, &c. 9 Aug. Retractat. lib. 1. cap. 19. In eisdem mandatis est etiam quod jubemur dicere, Dimitte nobis debita nostra, &c_ Quam orationem usque ad finem sacculi tota dicit ecclesia. CHAP. VII. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 641 ANTIQUITIES OF THE it one of Christ’s commands to use this prayer, which the whole church will continue to use to the end of the world. St. Chrysostom, in two volumes of his works, the third and fifth, repeats this almost twenty times, that the Lord’s prayer was a common form in use among them by the express command of Christ. And there are many other scattered pas- sages throughout his writings to the same purpose, which, because I have produced them at large in the last chapter, I need not here repeat them. Evident it is beyond dispute, that the whole primitive church constantly used it in all her holy offices, out of consciousness and regard to Christ’s command. This, as we have heard Tertullian word it, was laid as the foundation of all other prayers.lo It is the prayer of the church: the whole church says, “Forgive us our trespasses,” as we have it before in the testimony of " St. Aus- tin. And the practice was so universal and well known from the beginning, that Lucian the heathen is thought to refer to it in one of his dialogues,12 where he speaks, in the person of a Christian, of the prayer which began cm‘) 7'05 Harpdg, with “ Our Father.” But we have more certain evidence from the records and oflices of the church. For there was no considerable Divine oflice, in the celebration of which this prayer did not always make a solemn part. Particularly in baptism, as soon as the per- son baptized came up out of the water, he was en- joined to say, “Our Father which art in heaven.” Immediately after this, says the author of the Con- stitutions,13 let him stand and pray the prayer which the Lord hath taught us. And so Chrysostom," As soon as he rises out of the water, he says those words, “ Our Father which art in heaven,” &c. In like manner in the celebration of the other sacrament of Christ’s body and blood, it was commonly used at the close of the consecration prayer. So it is ex- pressly more than once noted by St. Austin: After the sanctification of the sacrifice '5 we say the Lord’s prayer: and again,16 The whole church almost con- cludes the prayer of benediction and sanctification with the Lord’s prayer. Upon this account he tells his hearers, that all who were communicants ‘7 heard this prayer said daily at the altar. And he ex- pressly makes this difference between the Lord’s Sect. 2. And accordingly it was used by the primitive church in all her offices, par- ticularly in the ad- ministration of bap- tism. Sect. 3. And in the cele- bration of the eu- charist. prayer and the creed, that men might remember the former by hearing it daily repeated at the altar; but the creed was not so, for as yet it was never pub- licly used, but only in the occasional service of baptism; whereas the Lord’s prayer was of constant use by being a daily part of the communion service. Cyril, in his Mystagogical Catechism to the illumi- nated,n3 gives the same account of it: After the obla- tion prayer we say that prayer which our Saviour delivered to his disciples, calling God our Father with a pure conscience, and saying, “Our Father which art in heaven.” And St. J erom,19 though he do not so precisely note what part of the commu- nion office it was used in, yet, in general, he says Christ taught his apostles this prayer, that believers might every day in the sacrifice of his body have boldness to say, “Our Father which art in heaven.” And St. Chrysostom2° in a covert way intimates the same, when he tells his hearers, that if they forgive their enemies, they may come with a pure conscience to the holy and tremendous table, and boldly say the words that are contained in the prayer. The initiated know what I mean. He means that petition of the Lord’s prayer, “Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us.” Which he expresses thus covertly, be- cause of non-communicants, catechumens, or infi- dels, that might be present at a popular discourse in a general assembly. He speaks more plainly in his sermon upon Eutropius,” where, pressing the people to forgive the injury which that great statesman had done the church, he uses this argument to them : How otherwise will you take the holy sacra- ment into your hands, and use the words of that prayer, wherein we are commanded to say, “ Forgive us our trespasses, as We forgive them that trespass against us?” This plainly shows, that the Lord’s prayer was then used as an ordinary and constant part of the communion service. Only with this difference, that in the Greek church and the Galli- can church it was said by the priest and all the peo— ple together, as Mabillon22 proves out of Gregory of Tours, and Leontius, in the Life of J oannes Elee- mosynarius, bishop of Alexandria, and the epistles of Gregory the Great, who expressly notes the dif- ference between the Greek and Latin church in this particular: Among the Greeks the Lord’s prayer23 is said by all the people, but with us by the priest 1° Tertul. de Orat. cap. 9. cited above. 1' Aug. Hom. 29. de Verbis Apost. p. 150. 1‘2 Lucian. Philopatris. 13 Constit. Apost. lib. 7. cap.44. 14 Chrys. Horn. 6. in Colos. p. 1359. It. Horn. 62. in Pa- ralyticum, t. 5. p. 934. 15 Aug. Hom. 83. de Diver-sis, p. 556. Post sanctifica- tionem sacrificii dicimus orationem Dominicam. '6 Aug. Ep. 59. ad Paulin. quacst. 5. Quam totam pe- titionem fere omnis ecclesia Dominica oratione concludit. 1’ Hom. 42. inter 50. t. 10. p. 197. In ecclesia ad altare quotidie dicitur ista oratio Dominica, et audiunt illam fideles. 18 Cyril. Catech. Myst. 5. p. 298. ‘9 Hieron. lib. 3. cont. Pelag. cap. 3. Docuit apostolos suos, ut quotidie in corporis illius sacrificio credentes aude- ant loqui, Pater noster qui es in coelis, &c. 2° Chrys. Hom. 27. in Genes. p. 358. 21Chrys. Hom. in Eutrop. t. 4. p. 554. 2’ Mabill. de Liturg. Gallic. lib. Leap. 5. n. 22. ex Gre- gor. Turon. de Mirac. Martini, lib. 2. cap.30. 23 Greg. lib. 7. Ep. 64. Sed et Dominica oratio apud Gree- cos ab omni populo dicitur : apud nos vero a solo sacerdote. 2 T 642 Boox XIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. alone. And in this the Gallican church chose to follow the way of the Greek church, as we now fol- low the Gallican church, and not the Roman. The manner of the Mosarabic liturgy in Spain, is noted also by Mabillon to be different from both these; for there the priest repeated every petition by itself, and the people answered to each petition separately, “Amen.” But these differences in the manner of using it only serve to confirm the use of it in general, and show us that it was never omitted by any church in the public service of the altar, at least from the beginning of the fourth century, when Cyril of Jerusalem lived, whose Mystical Catechisms are a clear evidence for it. ‘ Sect 4. It also made a part in their daily myfiggugfggggn' morning and evening prayers, dis- pmye's‘ tinct from the communion oflice. Of which we have instances in the canons of the coun- cils of Giron'e 2‘ and Toledo,25 which shall be recited hereafter, when we come to consider more exactly the several parts of the morning and evening service. Sect 5 They used it also in their private Aggteigetvigignga- devotions. As is evident from that passage in St. Chrysostom upon the 112th Psalm, where he says,26 That Christ, to induce us to unanimity and charity, enjoins us to make common prayer, and obliges the whole church, as if it were but one person, to say, “Our Father ;” and, “ Give us this day our daily bread; and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us; and lead us not into temptation,- but deliver us from evil ;” always using a word of the plural number, and commanding every one, whether he pray alone by himself, or in common with others, still to make prayer for his brethren. This implies, that in their private devotions, as well as public, they thought themselves obliged, by the command of Christ, to use the Lord’s prayer. In another place he gives us an instance in the practice of a holy man, who, to the form of his private devotions, (which he also there recites,) always added the Lord’s prayer, or the prayer of the faithful,27 as he styles it, for a particular reason, of which more by and by; making it both the conclusion and uniting tie of all his other prayers for all men. In compli- ance with this general practice it is, that the author of the Constitutions”8 orders every one to use the Lord’s prayer three times a day. And this, Cotele- rius thinks, was done in honour of the holy Trinity,” citing Theodoret and Isidore for his opinion. St. Ambrose also, writing instructions to virgins,30 di- rects them to sing psalms in bed, and say the Lord’s prayer between every psalm. And the fourth coun- cil of Toledo makes it deprivation for any clergy- man to omit31 using the Lord’s prayer daily, either in his public or private oflices of devotion, censuring him as a proud contemner of the Lord’s injunction. Now, this being the constant use that was daily made of the Lord’s prayer, it hence took the name of oratz'o quotidiana, the daily prayer, as is ob- served in the foresaid canon of that council. And so we find it styled in Cyprian, who thought that petition in the Lord’s prayer, “ Give us this day our daily bread,” might be taken in a spiritual as well as a literal sense, and refer to the eucharist, or the body and blood of Christ, the celestial bread,82 which they then desired to receive every day. And the council of Toledo cites St. Hilary to the same pur- pose :38 “Give us this day our daily bread.” God desires nothing so much as that Christ may dwell in us daily, who is the Bread of life, and the Bread that comes from heaven. And because this is our daily prayer, we therefore pray daily that this bread may be given us. St. Austin also84 means the Lord’s prayer, when he says, That the Christian’s daily prayer makes satisfaction for those lesser and daily failings, without which no man lives. Upon which account he says in another place,85 That this daily prayer is a sort of daily baptism, because in the pious use of it men obtain daily remission of sins, as they did at first in baptism. Possidius also36 Sect. 6. Irvhence it had the name of oratio wtidiana, the ‘hristian's daily prayer. 24 Conc. Gerundens. can. 10. 25 Cone. Toletan. 4. can. 9. 26 Chrys. Com. in Psal. cxii. p. 369. 2" Chrys. Horn. 10. in Coloss. p. 1385. ’E1rt6els "rill! ebxhv 75311 quo-"rim, cils Kopwvida *rwci Kai o't'wdao'luou i‘nrép 'n'év'rwu sl’lxw‘lv 1romo'c'znsuos. 28 Constit. lib. 7. cap. 24. Tpis 'ri'is finépas oii'rw 'n'poa- mixes-ea’. 29 Coteler. in 100. ex Theodor. Ep. 145. et Isidor. Orig. lib. 6. cap. ult. _ ‘ 3° Ambros. de Virgin. lib. 3. p. 115. In ipso cubili volo psalmos cum oratione Dominica frequenti contextos vice. 3‘ Conc. Tolet. 4. can. 9. Quisquis ergo sacerdotum vel subjacentium clericorum hanc orationem Dominicam quo- tidie aut in publico aut in privato ofiicio praeterierit, prop- ter superbiam judicatus, ordinis sui honore privetur. *2 Cypr. de Orat. Dom. p. 147. Hunc panem dari nobis quotidie postulamus, ne, qui in Christo sumus, et eucharis- tiam quotidie ad cibum salutis accipimus, a Christi corpore separemur. 93 Cone. Tolet. 4. can. 9. Sanctus Hilarius dicit, Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie. Quid enim tam vult Deus quam ut quotidie Christus habitet in nobis, qui est Panis vitae et Panis e coelo? Et quia quotidiana oratio est, quotidie quoque ut detur, oratur. 3* Aug. Enchirid. cap. 71. De quotidianis autem brevi- bus levibusque peccatis, sine quibus haec vita non ducitur, quotidiana oratio fidelium satisfacit. Eorum enim est di- cere, Pater noster, qui es in coelis, &c. 85 Aug. Hom. 119., De Tempore, p. 306. Remissio pec- catorum non est in sola ablutione baptismatis sacri, sed etiam in oratione Dominica et quotidiana. In illa invenie- tis quasi quotidianum baptismum. 3‘ Possid. Vit. Aug. cap. 27. De bono Domino se dicitl magis quam de meritis suis confidere. Cui etiam in ora- tione quotidiana Dominica dicebat, Dimitte nobis debits. nostra, &c. CHAP. VII. 643 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. makes this remark in his Life, upon his practice and that of St. Ambrose, that they both trusted more in God ’s mercy than their own merits, being used to pray in the words of our Lord ’s daily prayer, “ Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us.” From all which, and much more that might be alleged upon this head, it ap- pears, that this prayer, in the very words which Christ delivered it in, was not only an allowed form, but a prayer of daily use both in their public and private devotions. Neither were there any sects or And iiitdéea by heresies, that pretended in those times gilhiifgiliiz lidwell to object the least thing against the as w om use of it. The Donatists broke off from the church, and set up conventicles of their own, but they did not alter the way of worship: they still thought themselves obliged, as Optatus says, to use the Lord’s prayer at the altar.37 The Pelagians could not relish well one petition in it, “ Forgive us our trespasses ;” for they proudly thought the saints were without sin, and had no- thing to ask forgiveness of: yet they also continued to use it, and accounted for their practice, by putting this false gloss upon it, that they then prayed not for their own sins, but the sins of others. We find this often objected to them in the African councils,88 but never any charge brought against them, as if they omitted the Lord ’s prayer in whole, or even this single petition in it. St. Austin indeed often says, that their impious tenets and disputations tend- ed39 to take away the use of the Lord ’s prayer; but then he explains himself to mean, not that they laid aside the use of it, but that they taught that a man might come to such perfection in righteousness in this life, by observing all the commands, and that by his own free-will, without the help of the grace of Christ, that he needed not to say, “ Forgive us our trespasses,” for himself, but only for others. They owned,‘o that the apostles used the Lord’s prayer; but then they said, they were so holy and perfect without all manner of sin, that they did not say for themselves, “Forgive us our trespasses,” but only ‘for other sinners that were yet imperfect. St. Chry- sostom mentions another sort of men, who were also offended at this petition because of the condition that was in it, “Forgive us, as we forgive others ;” and therefore they curtailed the prayer by dropping this petition when they said it: but he rebukes them‘'1 for this, and bids them not be so vainly cau- tious, as to think they were excused by curtailing the prayer, but advises them to use the whole pray- er, as Christ appointed it to be used, that the neces- sity of this petition might daily terrify them from revenge, and compel them to grant pardon to their neighbours. So that though there were some here- tics and other ill men, who did not like this one petition for different reasons, yet they all continued to use the prayer either in whole or in part, and there is no instance of any that totally rejected it. There was no objection against it sect 8. in those days, that it was a form, or ,I‘gittti‘gggeggeifij that it was not a spiritual prayer, be- mualfmmfpmie" cause it was used in the very words in which Christ had delivered it; but on the contrary, it was re- commended as the most spiritual and prevalent prayer that could be used, because of the dignity of its Author. St. Cyprian thus argues for the use of it: Christ, says he, had foretold, that the hour was coming, when the true worshippers should worship the Father in spirit and in truth: and he fulfilled what he had promised before, that we who had re- ceived the Spirit and truth by his sanctification, might worship in spirit and truth by his tradition, , or the prayer which he delivered to us. For what prayer can be more spiritual, than that which is given us42 by Christ, by whom the Holy Spirit is sent to us? What can be esteemed a truer prayer with the Father, than that which came out of the mouth of his Son, who is truth itself? So that to pray otherwise than he has taught us, is not only ignorance, but a crime, since he has laid it down, and said, “Ye reject the commandment of God, to establish your own tradition.” Let us therefore, my dearly beloved brethren, pray as our God and Mas- ter taught us. It is a friendly and familiar way of praying, to beseech God in his own words, to let the prayer of his Son come up to his ears. Let the Father hear and acknowledge the words of his Son: when we make our prayers, let him that dwells in our heart, be also in our voice. And forasmuch as We have him our Advocate with the Father for 8" Optat. lib. 2. p. 57. Ad altare conversi Dominicam orationem praetermittere non potestis. It. lib. 3. p. 72. Oratio Dominica apud nos et apud vos una est. 88Conc. Milevitan. can. 8. Quicunque dixerit, in ora- tione Dominica ideo (licere sanctos, Dimitte nobis debita nostra, ut non pro seipsis hoe dicant, quia non est eis jam necessaria ista petitio, sed pro aliis, qui sunt in populo pec- catores. Et ideo non dicere unumquemque sanctorum, Dimitte mihi debita mea., sed, Dimitte nobis debita nostra, ut hoc pro aliis potius, quam pro se justus petere intelliga- tur, anathema sit. Vid. can. 9. ibid. et Cod. Can. African. 0. 115, 116. 39 Aug. Ep. 92. ad Innocent. Nobis etiam Dominicam orationem impiis disputationibus conantur auferre.-—Dicunt posse hominem in hac vita, praeceptis Dei cognitis, ad tan- tam perfectionem justitiae sine adjutorio gratiae salvatoris per solum liberum voluntatis arbitrium pervenire, ut ei non sit jam necessarium dicere, Dimitte nobis debita nostra. 4° Id. de Peccator. Meritis, lib. 2. cap. 10. Quidam con- tra orationem Dominicam argumentantur: quia etsi ora~ bant earn, inquiunt, sancti et perfecti jam apostoli, nullum omnino habentes peccatum, non tamen pro seipsis, sed pro imperfectis adhuc peccatoribus dicebant, Dimitte nobis, &c. Vid. Aug. Ep. 94. ad Hilarium. 4‘ Chrys. Hom. 22. t. l. p. 288. ‘2 Cypr. de Orat. Dom. p. 139. 2T2 644 Boon XIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. our sins, when we sinners pray for the pardon of our sins, let us bring forth the words of our Advo- cate. For since he has said, that “whatever we ask the Father in his name, he will give it 118; ” how much more eflicaciously shall we obtain what we ask in the name of Christ, if we ask it in his prayer! He introduces all this discourse with these words : He that made us live, taught us to pray, by the same kindness that he confers all other things upon us; that whilst we speak to the Father in the prayer and orison which the Son taught us, we should more easily be heard. So far was this holy man from thinking the Lord’s prayer a dead form, that could not be offered with the true spirit of prayer, that, on the contrary, he labours with all his might to convince men, that no prayer could be more justly styled worshipping God in spirit and in truth, or with greater efficacy and advantages be presented to the Father. St. Chrysostom was of the same mind, that praying by the Lord’s prayer might justly be termed, praying by the Spirit. For he uses this as an argument for the Holy Spirit’s operation upon us. If there were no Holy Ghost,“3 says he, we that are believers could not pray to God; for we say, “ Our Father which art in heaven.” As therefore we could not say, that Jesus was the Lord, so neither could we call God our Father without the Holy Ghost. How does that appear? From the same apostle, who says, “ Because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.” And St. Austin,“4 ex- pounding those words of the apostle, Rom. viii. 26, “ We know not what to pray for as we ought; but the Spirit helpeth our infirmities ; ” concludes, that the Spirit’s helping and teaching them to pray as they ought, could not mean his helping them to new words and expressions; for both the apostle, and they to whom _he wrote, were well acquainted al- ready with the Lord’s prayer; so that there could be no want of the Spirit’s assistance in that respect: but the want was this ; men are commonly ignor- ant of the real benefit of temporal tribulation and affliction, which tends either to cure the tumour of pride, or exercise and try men’s patience, and crown it with a greater reward, or else to chastise and abolish such other sins as they are subject to: men being ignorant of these advantages, are usually most inclined to ask a perfect freedom and immu- nity from temporal affliction. But the Spirit cor- rects this ignorance, and helps this infirmity, and teaches men rather to ask patience of God, and submission to his will, that they may not think themselves neglected of God, though he do not re- “ Chrys. Hom. 36. in Pentecost. t. 5. p. 552. ‘4 Aug. Ep. 121. ad Probam, cap. 14. N eque enim ullo modo credendum est,_vel ipsum, vel quibus ista dicebat, Do- minicam nescisse orationem. ‘5 Ibid. cap. 13. Fides, ergo, et spes et charitas ad Deum move such afflictions, but with a devout and pious patience hope for greater good arising from them. This is St. Austin’s exposition of that famous pas- sage of the apostle, concerning the assistance of the Spirit in prayer: by which he is so far from de- rogating from -the Lord’s prayer, as void of the Spirit, that he supposes the very knowledge of it to be antecedently a work of the Spirit : and he says further,45 That when men believe, and hope, and desire, and consider the things they ask of God in the Lord’s prayer, they are then qualified with those graces of the Spirit, faith, hope, and charity, which are necessary to bring a pious votary unto God. Men that say such things as these of the Lord’s prayer, could not conceive any mean thing about it, derogatory to the spirit of prayer; but must be presumed to entertain the most high and venerable notions of it, of any that can possibly be imagined. And that they did so, is evident Sm 9_ from one thing further, very observ- 3.21.5.1‘: Sffviiggig able in the ancient discipline and frindhviitlgilsihhodcggf: practice; that is, that then the use of feet Christiana‘ the Lord’s prayer was not a mark of infamy or re- proach, but an honorary privilege, allowed to none but communicants, or complete and perfect Chris- tians. For, as I have had occasion to remark once or twice “6 in former parts of this work, all catechu- mens, or persons unbaptized, were absolutely debar- red from the use of this prayer; they were not al- lowed to call God, “Our Father,” till they were regenerated and made sons by the waters of baptism. I have noted several passages out of St. Austin, St. Chrysostom, and Theodoret to this purpose, which need not here be repeated. To these I shall only add one passage out of Chrysostom,“7 in his homily upon the paralytic, where, speaking of baptism, he says, Before we have washed away our sins in the font of the holy waters, we cannot call God, “Our Father;” but when we return from thence, having put off the load of our sins, then we say, “ Our Father which art in heaven.” And upon this account, as has been also noted before, this prayer was peculiarly called fl’lxfi media», the prayer of communicants or believers, because none had a right to use this prayer, but only such as had a right to communicate at the al- tar, and there hear it daily repeated. perducunt orantem, hoc est, credentem, sperantem, desi- derantem, et quee petat a Domino in Dominica oratione considerantem. 46 Book I. chap. 4. sect. 7. and Book X. chap. 5. sect. 9. 4" Chrys. Horn. 62. t. 5. p. 934. CHAP. VIII. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 645 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHAPTER VIII. OF THE USE OF HABITS, AND GESTURE, AND OTHER RITES AND CEREMONIES IN THE SERVICE OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH. Sect 1' THE next things to be spoken of, are deg‘; fgglfnusjvj; the circumstances and ceremonies of ggifigggsggggeagg habits, gestures, and times appropri- °'thetw°f°n°"’ing' ated to Divine service. Of all these it may be said in general, that as they are matters of indifferent usage in their own nature, so the church used her liberty in the appointment and ob- servation of them. The writers of the Romish church, Baronius, Du Saussay, and Bona, who will have every ceremony to be apostolical, pretend that the apostles themselves wore a distinct habit in all their sacred ministrations. Bona is very confident1 that St. Paul’s cloak which he left at Troas, was a sacerdotal vestment. And others speak of St. Peter’s planeta, which is said to be sent from Antioch to Paris, and kept there as a sacred relic in the temple of St. Genouesa. And others mention St. J ohn’s, which is said to be sent to Gregory the Great. But Bona himself will not undertake to vouch for these, because of the silence of all ancient writers about them.2 Yet he is very angry with Nicholas Aleman- nius, for saying, that neither the apostles nor apos- tolical men used any sacred vestments,” and that the opinion which maintains it, is to be exploded as ridiculous, and as what is rejected by learned men. Vicecomes was a diligent inquirer into antiquity, and yet he could find no ground for this assertion, but has some arguments against it, which Bona is put to answer. And till some better arguments can be produced to support it, I think it most prudent to leave uncertain tradition to shift for itself, and proceed to an age wherein we have more light and certainty in the matter. In the beginning, then, of the fourth age, when the church was quietly composed by Constantine, and settled in peace, we are sure a distinction was made in the habits and vestments of Divine service. For Con- stantine himself is said4 to have given a rich vest- ment embroidered with gold to Macarius, bishop of Sect. 2. What evidence there is for them in the fourth century. Jerusalem, to be worn by him when be celebrated the service of baptism. And it was one of the ac- cusations that the Arians afterward brought against Cyril, that he had sold it. Valesius thinks that it was not intended for an ordinary habit, whenever the bishop celebrated the office of baptism, but only when he performed the service of the great day of our Lord’s baptism, which was the festival of Epi- phany, held in great veneration at Jerusalem. This is not so likely in my opinion, but be it as it will, it makes no alteration in the case; for still it was a - sacred vestment to be used in the celebration of the liturgy or Divine service, which is enough to the present purpose. Not long after, we find Atha- nasius accused by his enemies for laying a tax upon the Egyptians, to raise a fund for the linen vest- ments of the church. The thing is mentioned both by Athanasius himself 5 and Sozomen,6 the one call- ing them linen stz'eharz'a, and the other linen tumbles, which are the same thing. Where we are to ob- serve, that the accusation was not that he used such vestments in the church, but only that he laid a tax upon the people to provide them; which supposes them to be in use, else there had been no colour or foundation for such a charge against him. St. J erom often mentions this distinction of habits as generally observed in his time. I urge not those words which he has in his Commentary upon Eze- kiel, The religion of God has one habit in its minis- try,7 and another for the common uses of life; be- cause I think he is there speaking of the Jewish priests in opposition to the idol-priests of Isis and Serapis. But what he says in his book against Pe- lagius, plainly relates to the Christians : What harm or enmity, I pray, is it against God, if I use a more cleanly garment? If a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, or any other of the ecclesiastical order, come forth in a white8 vestment, when they administer the sacraments? He says also in his epitaph upon Ne- potian, that Nepotian for his ordinary wearing used the pallz'um, the cloak that was in common use among Christian philosophers: but in his ministrations he used a tunicle,9 which he ordered his uncle Heliodore to send as his legacy to St. J erom. St. Chrysostom also intimates that the deacons wore a peculiar habit in their ministrations, when he says, Their honour, crown, and glory, did not consist so much in their 1 Bona, Rer. Liturg. lib. 1. cap. 24. n. l. 2 Ibid. lib. 1. cap. 5. n. 2. a Aleman. de Parietinis Lateran. cap. 9. ap. Bonam, ibid. 4 Theod. lib. 2. cap. 27. Thu Zspc‘w s'olh‘ju, 't’ua "raii'rnv 'rrsptfiahho'pteuos', '1'1‘111 ‘1'5 esiov ,Ba'rr'rio'pa'ros Ast'rovp'yiau évrrrshfi, &c. 5 Athan. Apol. 2. p. 778. I'Ihc'vr'rovrral. modrrnv Ica'rn- 'yopiau crept s'txapiwu )twilw, (59 and Icavtiva. q'o'i'c Ai'yv'rr- "riots évrtflo'zhhowros. 6 Sozom. lib. 2. cap. 22. IIpeirrnv i'l'n'ouévsl. 'ypacpfjv, dis xt'rwm'wv Muc'bv (pépou earn-reels Ai'yu'lr'riots. " Hieron. Com. in EzekQcap. xliv. p. 668. Religio divina alterum habitum habet in ministerio, alterum in usu vitaque communi. 8 Id. lib. 1. cont. Pelag. Quae sunt, rogo, inimicitiae con- tra Deum, si tunicam habuero mundiorem? Si episcopus, presbyter, diaconus, et reliquus ordo ecclesiasticus in ad- ministratione sacramentorum candida veste processerint? 9 Id. Ep. 3. ad Heliodor. H anc tunicam, qua utebar in ministerio Christi, mitte dilectissimo, &c. It. Epist. ad Praesidium Diaconum. Diflicile est locum Stephani im- plere, et populos subjacentes candenti desuper veste de- spicere. 646 BOOK XIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. walking about the church ‘° in a white and shining garment, as in their power to repel unworthy com~ municants from the Lord’s table. This implies that they had a distinct habit when they ministered in Divine service. And so it is remarked by Sozomen,11 when speaking of the assault that was made upon the church by the enemies of Chrysostom, he says, The priests and deacons were beaten and driven out of the church, as they were in the vestments of their ministration. And there is among St. Chry- sostom’s works a homily upon the prodigal son, written by Severianus, bishop of Gabala, contem- . porary with St. Chrysostom, who, speaking of the deacons ministering in the sacred mysteries, says, They resembled '2 the wings of angels, with their veils or tippets on their left shoulders, running about the church, and crying out, Let none of the catechumens be present at the ‘celebration of the mysteries, &c. In like manner Nazianzen, in his Vision of the Church of Anastasia, represents the deacons standing 18 iv e't'parn wap¢av6w0w, in their bright and shining garments. And in his will he leaves to his deacon Evagrius a xdpaoov and a G'lxé- prov, which were then the common names for these surplices or white garments used in Divine 1‘ ser- vice. The council of Laodicea has two canons concerning the little habit called the orarz'um,“ which was a scarf or tippet to be worn upon the shoulders, and might be used by bishops, presby- ters, and deacons, but not by subdeacons, singers, or readers, who are expressly debarred the use of it in that council. The fourth council of Carthage ‘8 speaks of the alba or surplice, which the deacon is ordered to wear when the oblation is made, or the lessons are read. The council of Narbo" mentions the same. The first council of Braga speaks of the tunica and the orarz'um“ as both belonging to deacons. And the third council of Braga19 orders priests to wear the orarz'um on both shoulders when- they ministered at the altar. By which we learn, that the tum'ca or surplice was common to all the clergy, the oram'um on the left shoulder pro- per to deacons, and on both shoulders the distin- guishing badge of priests. The fourth council of Toledo is most particular in these distinctions. For in one canon it says, That if a bishop, presbyter, or deacon be unjustly degraded, and be found innocent by a synod, yet they shall not be what they were before, unless they receive the degrees they had lost from the hands of the bishops before the altar. If he be a bishop, he must receive20 his oram'um, his ring, and his staff; if a presbyter, his orarz'um and planeta ,- if a deacon, his orarium and alba. And in another canon,” that the deacon shall wear but one orarz'um .' and that upon his left shoulder, wherewith he is to give the signal of prayers to the people. Where we may observe also the reason of the name orarz'um in the ecclesiastical sense, ab orando, from praying; though in common acceptation it signifies no more than a handkerchief to wipe the face, and so comes from ore, in which signification it is sometimes used by St. Ambrose,22 and St. Austin,28 as well as by the old Roman authors. But here we take it in the ecclesiastical sense, for a sacred habit appro- priated to bishops, priests, and deacons in the so- lemnities of Divine service, in which sense it ap- pears to have been a habit distinct from that of civil and common use, by all the authorities that have been mentioned. The author of the Questions upon the Old and New Testament, under the name of St. Austin, speaks also of the dalmatz'ca,“ as worn both by bishops and deacons: but whether it was then a garment of sacred use, is not said by - him or any other ancient writer, that I know of; and therefore I content myself with the proofs al- ready alleged, as sufficient to show that in the fourth age a plain distinction of habits was made in the sacred service of the church. The next considerable circumstance sect, 3, in their worship, was the posture ob- deir'giignpgligviriil 3i . . by the ancients. served in their addresses and adora- rim standing, which was particu- tions of God; and of this we find four larlyenjoimd on the Lord’s_ day, and all kinds generally practised and allowed, glzfsteimagdbggffeq viz. standing, kneeling, bowing, and “8" prostration: for sitting, which some add as a fifth sort, was never allowed by the ancients as an or- dinary posture of devotion. Standing was the '0 Chrys. Hom. 82. al. 83. in Mat. p. 705. Aevlcdv xrrw- vimcov Kai d-Iroa'rikfiov'ra 'n'eptfiakko'psuot, &c. ‘I. Sozom. lib. 8. cap. 21. 'Iepéwu 5% Kai &arcciuwu 'rv'rr'ro- ,ue'uwv 're, Kai 'n'pds fliau, dis elxou o'xripa'ros, éhavvons'uwm '2 Chrys. Hom. 37. de Filio Prodigo, t. 6. p. 375. T5611 ptpovne'vwu 'rate will; d'y'ye'hwv 7r'ra'pv'yac 'rai's Xe'lr'ra'is 6061mm 'ra'i's é'rri 'riim dpwepéiw zi'mwu Keméuats, &c. 1’ Naz. Somnium Anastas. t. 2. p. 78. ‘4 Id. in Testamento, ap. Brisson. de Formulis, lib. 7. '5 Conc. Laodic. can. 22 et 23. 1° Conc. Garth. 4. can. 41. Ut diaconus in tempore obla- tionis tantum vel lectionis alba induatur. 1" Conc. Narbon. an. 589. can. 12. 18 Cone. Bracar. 1. can. 27. Quia. diacones absconsis in- fra tunicam utuntur orariis, ita ut nihil differre a subdiacono videantur, de caatero superposito scapulae, sicut decet, utan- tur orario. 19 Cone. Bracar. 3. can. 3. Non aliter accedat quam ora- rio utroque humero circumseptus. 2° Conc. Tolet. 4. can. 28. Episcopus, presbyter, aut dia- conus, si a gradu suo injuste dejectus, in sancta synodo in- nocens reperiatur, non potest esse quod fuerat, nisi gradils amissos recipiat coram altario de manu episcoporum. Si episcopus est, orarium, annulum, et baculum. Si presbyter, orarium et planetam. Si diaconus, orarium et albam. 2‘ Can. 40. Unum orarium oportet levitam gestare in sinistro humero, propter quod orat, id est, praedicat. 2’ Ambros. de Obitu Satyri Fratris. Et Epist. 54. 23 Aug. de Civ. Dei, lib. 22. cap. 8. Vid. Pontium Vit. Cyprian. 2‘ Aug. Quaest. Vet. et Nov. Test. qu. 4. t. 4. Quasi non hodie diaconi dalmaticis induantur sicut episcopi. CHAP. VIII. 647 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. general observation of the whole church on the Lord’s day, and the fifty days between Easter and Pentecost, in memory of our Saviour’s resurrection. This custom may be traced as high as Irenaeus, who derives it from apostolical authority. For the author under the name of Justin Martyr25 gives this account of the use of both postures in prayer: For- asmuch as we ought to remember both our fall by sin, and the grace of Christ, by which we rise again from our fall; therefore we pray kneeling six days, as a symbol of our fall by sin: but our not kneeling on the Lord’s day is a symbol of the resurrection, whereby through the grace of Christ we are de- livered from our sins, and from death, that is morti- fied thereby. And this custom took its original from the times of the apostles, as St. Irenaeus says in his book concerning Easter, wherein he also makes mention of Pentecost, during which time we kneel not, because it is of the same nature with the Lord’s day, according to the reason that has been given. Not long after, Tertullian speaks of it,26 as an observation, among many others, handed down from ancient tradition. And Cyprian may be sup- posed to hint it,27 when he speaks of their standing in prayer. It is mentioned also by Clemens of Alexandria,m and Peter, bishop of Alexandria,29 who died some years before the council of Nice. He says, We keep the Lord’s day as a day of joy, because then our Lord rose from the dead, and our tradition is not to kneel on that day. In the time of the council of Nice there was some disagreement about this practice, and therefore that council made a canon to bring all churches to a uniformity in this matter:30 Be- cause there are some who kneel on the Lord’s day, and in the days of Pentecost; that all things may be uniformly performed in every parish or diocese, it seems good to the holy synod, that prayers be made to God standing. After this St. Hilary 3‘ speaks of it again as an apostolical practice, neither to fast nor worship kneeling on the Lord’s day, or the fifty days between Easter and Pentecost. Epipha- nius says,32 that on the appointed days they prayed kneeling, but during the whole fifty days of Pente- cost they neither fasted nor kneeled. St. J erom reckons it”3 among the traditions of the universal church, neither to fast nor kneel on the Lord’s day or Pentecost. St. Austin is a little doubtful as to the practice of the church universal,84 but he as- sures us, that as far as he knew, all churches in Africa forbore fasting, and prayed standing, and sung hallelujah at the altar every Lord’s day, and all the days of Pentecost, in token of our Saviour’s resurrection. We find the same in St. Basil,35 who derives it from apostolical practice. And Cassian86 testifies of the Egyptian churches, that from Satur- day night to Sunday night, and all the days of Pen— tecost, they neither kneeled nor fasted. And in another place” he gives the reason of _ this, because kneeling was a sign of deep repentance and mourn- ing, which they omitted on those days out of re- spect and reverence to our Saviour’s resurrection. Hence it was, that the author of the Constitutions88 makes it one of his apostolical orders, that all men should pray three times, or three prayers, on the Lord’s day standing, in memory of him who rose the third day from the dead. And from hence came that usual form so often mentioned by St. Chry- sostom"9 and others, of the deacon’s calling upon the people in prayer, "OpSwg qopsv num;, Let us stand upright with reverence and decency; alluding to the posture then commonly used in prayer on the Lord’s day. How long this custom continued in the church, is not easy to determine: but we may observe it to be mentioned by Martin Bracarensis“o in the sixth century, and the council of Trullo ‘“ in the seventh century, and the third council of Tours ‘2 in the time of Charles the Great. Nor do we meet with any exception to this rule all this time, save only one relating to the penitents, or those that were under the discipline of the church; who being, by their falling into scandalous sins, reduced to a 25 Justin. Quaest. et Respons. ad Orthodox. qu. 115. 2“ Tertul. de Coron. Mil. cap. 3. Die Dominico jeju- nium nefas ducimus, vel de geniculis adorare. Eadem im- munitate a die Paschae in Pentecosten usque gaudemus. 2’ Cypr. de Orat. p. 152. Quando stamus ad oratio- nem, &c. 2*‘ Clem. Strom. 7. p. 854. 3° Conc. Nic. can. 20. 31 Hilar. Prolog. in Psal. p. 189. Et haec quidem sabbata sabbatorum ea ab apostolis religione celebrata sunt, ut his quinquagesimae diebus nullus neque in terram strato cor- pore adoraret, neque jejunio festivitatem spiritualis hujus beatitudinis impediret: quod id ipsum etiam extrinsecus in diebus Dominicis est constitutum, &c. 9” Epiphan. Expos. Fid. n. 22 et 24. 33 Hieron. Dial. cont. Lucifer. cap. 4. Die Dominico et per omnem Pentecosten, nec de geniculis adorare, et jeju- nium solvere soleant. 3‘ Aug. Ep. 119. ad J anuarium, cap. 17. Ut autem stantes 2‘9 Pet. Alex. can. 15. in illis diebus et omnibus Dominicis oremus, utrum ubique servetur ignoro. Ibid. cap. 15. Propter hoc et jejunia re- laxantur, et stantes oramus; quod est signum resurrectionis. Unde etiam omnibus diebus Dominicis id ad altare obser- vatur, et halleluia canitur. 95 Basil. de Spir. Sanct. cap. 27. a“Cassian. Institut. lib. 2. cap. 18. Hoc quoque nosse debemus, a vespera sabbati, quae lucescit in diam Domini- cam, usque in vesperam sequentem apud Egyptios genua non curvari; sed nec totis quinquagesimae diebus, &c. 9" Cassian. Collat. lib. 21. cap. 20. Ideo in ipsis diebus nec genua in oratione curvantur, quia inflexio genuum velut poenitentiae ac luctus indicium est, &c. 38 Constitut. lib. 2. cap. 59. Tpis vel 'rpe'Zs er'lxc‘zs' E's-Ewes term-shelter}, humans Xépw 1'5 did 'rptdw duas'du'ros imapdw. 39 Chrys. Horn. 29. al. 4. de Incomprehensibili Dei N a- tura, t. l. p. 375. Horn. 2. in 2 Cor. p. 740. 4° Martin. Bracar. Collect. Canon. cap. 57. 4' Conc. Trull. can. 90. ‘2 Conc. Turo'n. 3. can. 37 648 BOOK XIII ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. state of penance, were not allowed this privilege of standing at prayers on the Lord’s day, but were obliged in token of their humiliation to kneel at all times, not EXcepting the days of ‘relaxation, as the fourth council of Carthage ‘3 words it in a canon made in this behalf. And so we have seen the con- current testimony of all writers for the antiquity and universality of this practice. At other times kneeling was the _ Secosriedltyiii'kneel- most common and ordinary posture of iirilessggsifiétgiggrg devotion. This may be concluded gggoggfr times of from the former exception of the Lord’s day and Pentecost from this posture; for that implies, that at other times they used a different posture in their addresses to God. This was the usual posture of their ordinary morn- ing and evening service on the weekly days, and on the stationary or fast days, which were called sta- tionary days, not from their standing at prayer, but from their continuing and prolonging the exercise, in imitation of the military stations. The only difference between these days and the Lord’s day v was, that on the Lord’s day all prayers were per- formed standing, but on other days some were said standing, some kneeling. In this sense we must un- derstand St. Chrysostom,44 when he speaks of the people’s falling on the ground when they said the prayer for the whole state of the church, and their rising again at the bishop’s invocation. And so the author of the Constitutions45 represents them kneel- ing at the first prayer, and standing up at the second. In like manner Cassian“6 says the people performed their private prayers kneeling, and then rose up to the minister’s collect or prayer, in which all joined standing. This is to be understood of their prayers on ordinary days, and not of the Lord’s day, on which (as we have seen before) all their prayers were performed standing. As to the posture of kneeling upon other occasions, it would be endless to cite all the testimonies that may be alleged for it. It was so common among them, that the author of The Acts of Thecla“7 gives prayer the name of Kht'o'tg yova’r'wv, bending the knees. And Arnobius, when he would describe to the heathen the manner of Christians performing their divine ofiices to God, does it by saying, They all fell down ‘8 upon the earth, as their custom was, and made their common prayers to him. Eusebius,” speaking of the great devo- tion of St. James, bishop of Jerusalem, says, He was wont to go into the temple alone, and there pray assiduously upon his knees, making intercession for the sins of the people, till his knees were grown as hard and callous as those of camels, by continual exercise of his devotions. And so again, speaking of the thundering legion, (who in the time of Mar- cus Aurelius procured rain by their prayers, to save the Roman army, and thunder to destroy their ene- mies,) he says, They fell upon their knees, as was the usual50 custom of Christians in their prayers, and so made their supplications to God at the head of the army as it was going forth to battle. Tertullian had his eye upon this very story, when he tells Sca— pula,51 That the geniculations, or prayers on the bended knee, together with the fastings of Christians, were always effectual in driving away drought and famine. It were easy to give a thousand other in- stances 5” of the like practice out of the ancient writ- ers ; but in a case so clear and uncontested, I think it next to impertinence to trouble my reader with them. I only note, that though these two postures of prayer were very indifferent in their own nature, yet it was always esteemed an instance of great neg- ligence, or great perverseness, to interchange them unseasonably one for the other; that is, to pray kneeling on the Lord’s day, when the church re- quired standing; or standing on other days, when the rules and custom of the church required men to kneel. And therefore, as the canons of Nice and Trullo reflect upon those who were superstitiously bent upon kneeling on the Lord’s day; so others, with equal severity, complain of the remissness and negligence of such, as refused to kneel at other times, when the church appointed it. It is a very indecent and irregular thing, says Caesarius of Arles,” that when the deacon cries out, Let us bend the knee, the people should then stand erect as pillars in the church. These were but small observations in them- selves, but of great consequence, we see, when done perversely, to the scandal and disorder of the church, whose great rule in all such cases, is that of the apos- tle, “Let all things be done decently and in order.” A third posture of devotion was bowing down the head, or an inclina- Thirgiif'bséwing down the head. tion of the body between the postures ‘9 Conc. Carthag. 4. can. 82. remissionis genua flectant. Poenitentes etiam diebus 4‘ Chrys. Hom. 18. in 2 Cor. p. 873. Héu'rss 5,440fws e’rr’ . Edo'zqias Ksinetla, Kai 'n'o'w'res (‘i/wires c’zmo'q'o'zjusfia. ‘5 Constit. lib. 8. cap. 9. "000:. ria-"rot, Ickiuwfisv 'yo'uv. It. cap. 10. ’E'ystpoii,ue6a dsnee'u'res, &c. ‘6 Cassian. Institut. lib. 2. cap. 7. Cum is qui orationem collecturus est, e terra surrexerit, omnes paritersurgunt, &c. 4" Acta Theclae, ap. Grabe, Spicileg. t. 1. p. 96. ‘8 Arnob. lib. l. p. 25. Hie propositus terminus divi- norum officiorum, hic finis, huic omnes ex more prosterni- mur, hunc collatis precibus adoramus. 49 Euseb. l. 2. cap. 23. Ksiptsvos éqri. "role yo'uao't, &c. 5° Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 5. I‘duu S's'urras évri. '1'1‘111 'yijv Ka'ro‘z 'rd oilcs'iov vii/flu "r5111 silxiiw é'eos, &c. 5‘ Tertul. ad Scapul. cap. 4. Quando non geniculationi- bus et jejunationibus nostris etiam siccitates sunt depulsae P 5'2 Vid. Hermis Pastor. part 1. Vision. 1. n. l. Genibus positis, &c. Clem. Roman. Ep. 1. ad Corinth. n. 48. Hpoa- rréawneu, &c. Passio Ignatii, t. 2. p. 176. Cum genuflex- ione, &c. Passio Cypriani, p. 13. Euseb. Vit. Constant. lib. 4. cap. 61. Aug. de Civ. Dei, lib. 22. cap. 8. Chrys. Horn. 22. de Ira, t. l. p. 278. Prudent. Cathemerin. Hymn. 2. 53 Caesar. Arelatens. Hom. 34. CHAP. VIII. 649 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. of standing and kneeling. This was chiefly used in receiving the bishop’s or priest’s benedictions, in all direct and formal addresses to God for his mercy and favour upon the people, whether catechumens, penitents, or any other. Thus we find in the Con- stitutions,54 the catechumens are bid to how the head in order to receive the bishop’s benediction in a form of invocation there appointed to be said over them. So likewise the energumens55 have the same direction: Bow down your heads, ye energumens, and receive the benediction. In like manner the candidates of baptism56 and the penitents” are bid to rise up, after the deacon’s prayer, and how their heads to receive the benediction. And this may be confirmed out of Chrysostom, who says,58 The dea- con in the time of the oblation presented the ener- gumens, and bid them bow their heads. only, to in- dicate, at least by the habit and gesture of the body, that they were in a praying posture. And this he repeats ""9 in other places, where he particularly speaks of those that were possessed of evil spirits. sect-6. The last posture of devotion was Fourgéppwstm- prostration, or lying along in the hum- blest manner upon the ground. This seems to have been the proper posture for extraor- dinary humiliations, when men had some singular request more earnestly to recommend to God. We often read of Moses and other saints falling upon their faces in Scripture, when they were to make some extraordinary intercession for the sins of the people. And in imitation of them the same gesture was sometimes used in the Christian church. Some lapsers, when they sued for admission to a state of penance, did not only fall down upon their knees, but prostrate themselves before the faithful, to beg their prayers as they entered into the church. Which is particularly noted by Socrates60 of Ece- bolius the sophist, who having lapsed in the time of Julian, desired favour under Jovian; and the more to move compassion, he put himself into the mourn- fullest posture, falling upon his face before the gate of the church, and crying out, Calcate me at sal in- sipz'dum, Tread me under foot as salt that has lost its savour. But this was not the ‘only case in which they used this mournful posture, but they also practised it upon other occasions, whenever any great necessity urged them with greater ardency to prefer their petitions to God. Thus Socrates ob- serves of Alexander, bishop of Constantinople," That when he was in a great strait about the admis- sion of Arius into the church, he prostrated him- self upon his face under the communion table, and there prayed to God for many days and nights to- gether, that God would give some token to determine which of their doctrine was true : if the doctrine of Arius was true, he desired that he himself might not live to see the day appointed for the disputation: but if his own were true, then he desired that Arius might suffer the punishment due to his impiety. Which he accordingly did, voiding his entrails as he had occasion to go to stool, whilst he was going triumphantly to the church. Theodoret62 makes a like a remark upon the behaviour of Theodosius the Great, That when he first entered the church, after he had been for some time excluded by St- Ambrose, he would neither pray to God standing, nor kneeling, but prostrate with his face to the ground; using those words of the psalmist, “My soul cleaveth to the dust, O quicken thou me ac- cording to thy word.” By which we learn, that this posture was chiefly appropriated to deep humi- liations, and expressions of shame or sorrow upon some very remarkable occasion, but scarce ever used as a general practice of the church. There is one posture more, which some plead for as a posture of ador- ation ; but it never had any allowance in the practice of the ancient church: that is, sit- ting, which Cardinal Perron and some others in the Romish church pretend was the posture in which the apostles received the communion at its first in- stitution, and this was then a common posture of adoration used among the heathens. But the learned Mr. Daillé68 has abundantly exposed this pretence, and showed the falsity of it in every par- ticular. For neither did the heathens sit at their devotions, as the cardinal imposed upon himself by a false interpretation of Plutarch and T ertullian; neither did the apostles communicate sitting, but lying along on beds or couches, which all men know to be a different posture; neither did they worship the eucharist in any posture; neither did the pri- mitive Christians ever use or take sitting for a pos- ture of devotion. Tertullian indeed says,64 There were some superstitious persons in his time, admir- ers of the book called Hermes Pastor, who made it Sect. 7. Sitting, no allowed posture of devotion. 5‘ Constit. lib. 8. cap. 6. Kkwdu'rwv 6e ai’i'ribu 'rc'zs readm- Xc‘zs, silAo'ysi-rw aim-obs 5 s-lrimco'lros si’flto'yiau 'rou'wds, &c. 55 Ibid. Khiua'rs 0i. élJEP'YéfLEl/Ol, Kai. sbho'yeio'ee. 5‘ Ibid. cap. 7. Khivau'ras sirho'ysicrflwo'au, &c. 5" Ibid. cap. 8. 'Auas'c'w'res KAiua're Kai ebho'ysio's's. 5*‘ Chrys. Hom. 28. sive 3. de Incomprehensibili, t. l. p. 355. Kshsiist Khiuat Thu Ks¢a7hjv poi/0v, Kai 'rq'; o'xfijua'rl. wots'i'o'eal. 'rii o'éipa'ros 'rt‘zs ixs'rspias. 59 Chrys. Hom. 29.1t. l. p. 374. 6° Socrat. lib. 3. cap. 13. ‘Pill/as écw'rdu 'rrpnvfi 1rpd 'rfis mikns 1'5 since-"pie o'L'Ks, wa'rvio-a're' las, é‘gcia, 'rd &Aas 'ro‘ duo'uo'enrov. 6‘ Socrat. lib. 1. cap. 37. ‘Yard 'rr‘w lspc‘w 'Tpéqrszav Eav- mdu é'rri s-éna élc'raiuas, sfixe'rat, &c. “2 Theod. lib. 5. c. 19. Hpnm'is é'rri. 'rfi 8a1r€da Ksipisvos, &c. ‘9 Dallas. de Objecto Cultus Relig. lib. 2. cap. 2. 6‘ Tertul. de Orat. cap. 12. Item, quod adsignata oratione assidendi mos est quibusdam, non perspicio rationem, nisi si Hermes ille, cujus scriptura fere Pastor inscribitur, trans- acta oratione non super lectum assedisset, verum aliud quid fecisset, id quoque ad observationem vindicaremus, &c. 650 Boox XIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. a matter of conscience to sit down for some time adszjqnata oratione, that is, not in time of prayer, as some falsely render it, but when prayer was ended, because they found the example of the pastor in that book to that purpose. For as he sat down upon a bed after prayer, so they thought themselves ob- liged to do the same in compliance with his example. But this is no proof of their sitting at prayer, but only after prayer was ended: and that too grounded upon a very weak and superstitious opinion, that every circumstance of an action or narration, how- ever indifferent in itself, was to be drawn into ex- ample, and to be made matter of necessary duty. According to which way of reasoning, as Tertullian observes, they must have worshipped no where but where there was a bed, nor sat upon a chair or bench, because this would have been a deviation from their example. He adds, That the heathens only were used to sit after prayer before their idols, and for that very reason it was not fit for Christians to imi- tate65 their practice. All which shows, that the Christians then were so far from using sitting as a posture of devotion, that they did not think it pro- per to sit even after prayer in the presence of God, whilst the angel of prayer (it is his phrase) stood by them; and because it looked more like a hea- thenish than a Christian practice. sect 8_ Tertullian in the same book takes 51.231551355353133; notice of some other superstitious ob— noted by Tertullian’ servations, which some ran into in their devotions in imitation of the heathen. Some thought it necessary to put off their cloaks when they went to prayer, which he condemns as symbol- izing with idolaters; for so the heathen66 were used to do in reverence to their idols. This was superstition, not religion; and more an afi'ectation and curiosity, than any thing of rational and manly service. Others would not pray without washing the whole body in water, as if that made them more acceptable to God; whereas the true purity was that of the spirit, to lift up holy hands, free from deceit, murder, cruelty, witchcraft, idolatry, and other such corruptions67 which defile both flesh and spirit. A man that is free from these, is always clean, being once washed in the blood of Christ : but he that is inwardly polluted, is unclean, though he wash every member of his body every day. It is the supersti- tion of these practices that Tertullian complains of: for otherwise, the Christians themselves had their fountains before the church in many places, for men to wash their hands, as a matter of decency, before they went to worship God, as has been showed68 in another place. And the evil of such practices con- sists not in the bare use of such things, but in lay- ing the opinion of necessity upon them, and aflix- ing holiness to the usage, and making them become essential parts of Divine service. Such practices, therefore, as were attended with superstition, they dis- un'Ic‘lggzrieiéeaiciients claimed; but retained such other rites Egjliin their devo- and ceremonies, as were either proper expressions of decency in their own nature, or by their significancy and symbolical use might be im- proved to a spiritual advantage. They prayed with the head uncovered, according to the apostle’s direc- tion, as esteerning it a great indecency to do other- wise. So Chrysostom, in his comment on the place. Tertullian adds another reason in his Apology to the Gentiles,89 We pray uncovered, because we are not ashamed to appear with open face; making it a sort of testimony and symbol of their innocency in their addressing God without covering. On the other hand, as both nature and custom had made it decent for women to be covered, so they were very precise in requiring this to be observed especially in reli— gious assemblies. Some pleaded an exemption for virgins in the case, which gave occasion to Tertul- lian to write his book De Velandis Virginibus, wherein 7° he argues both virgins and matrons to be under the same obligation of being veiled or covered in time of Divine service; and he severely inveighs against those who hanged a fringe or riband about their heads, and pretended to call that a covering. But some learned persons 7‘ think he was too severe in this reflection, and almost singular in applying it to the case of virgins, who were then allowed a greater liberty in this matter above matrons or mar- ried women, by the general discipline of the African church. _ It is more uncontested, what Ter- . Sect. 10. tullian observes of another ceremony, hang? £335 gig: that they usually prayed with their "flfgifojynmggipgiosise arms expanded, and their hands lift s'es up"2 to heaven, and that sometimes in the form of a - cross, to represent our Saviour’s passion. For this is also noted by Minucius, when he says, They 65 Tertul. de Orat. cap. 12. Porro cum perinde faciant na- tiones adoratis sigillaribus suis residendo, vel propterea in nobis reprehendi meretur, quod apud idola celebratur, &c. 6'‘ Tertul. ibid. Hujusmodi non religioni, sed supersti- tioni deputantur, coacta et affectata, et curiosi potius quam rationalis ofl‘icii, certe vel eo coercenda, quod gentilibus adaequent. Ut est quorundam positis peuulis orationem facere: sic enim adeunt ad idola nationes. 6"’ Tertul. ibid. cap. 11. Hae sunt verse munditiae, non quas plerique superstitiose curant, ad omnem orationem etiam cum lavacro totius corporis aquam sumentes, &c. 68 Book VIII. chap. 3. sect. 6. “9 Tertul. Apol. cap. 30. Capite nudo, quia non erubes- cimus, precantes sumus semper, &c.- "0 Tertul. de Veland. Virgin. cap. 17. Quantam castiga- tionem merebuntur etiam illae, quae inter psalmos, vel in quacunque Dei mentione retectae perseverant P &c. "1 Vid. Du Pin, Bibliothec. t. l. p. 95. 72 Tertul. Apol. cap. 30. Manibus expansis, quia inno- cuis, &c. It. de Orat. cap. 11. Nos vero non attollimus tantum, sed etiam expandimus, et Dominica passione modu- lantes, et orantes Christo confitemur. CHAP. VIII. 651 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. worshipped God with a pure mind, and their hands stretched forth in the form of a cross.73 And by Asterius Amasenus, in a fragment of his homily concerning prayer, preserved in Photius," who says, The Christian represents the passion of the cross by his gesture, whilst he expands his arms and lifts them up in the figure of a cross. After this man- ner Paulinus describes St. Ambrose,75 in his last minutes, praying to God with his hands expanded in the form of a cross. And Prudentius, relating the passion of Fructuosus, a Spanish bishop and martyr in the time of Gallienus, says, The bands which tied his arms were first burnt off without touching his skin; for they durst not restrain those arms which were to be lift up to the Father76 in the manner of a cross. And this probably is St. Chry- sostom’s meaning, when he says, The sign of the cross was used even by the emperors upon all occa- sions, on their purple, on their diadems, in their ” prayers, on their arms, and at the holy table. And in reference to this gesture it is that Eusebius tells us, that Constantine ordered his own image to be stamped on his golden medals, representing him78 in the posture of a supplicant, looking up to heaven, with his arms stretched forth to God. Origen says,79 this was to represent the lifting up of their hearts to God in the heavens. And Chrysostom“ more largely sets forth the use of it in explaining those words of the psalmist, “ Let the lifting up of my hands be an evening sacrifice.” What means, says he, the stretching forth our hands in prayer? Because they are instrumental in many sorts of wickedness, as fighting, murder, robbery, and rapa- cious avarice, therefore we are commanded to lift them up, that the ministry of prayer may tie them up from vice, and deliver them from wickedness: that when you are inclined to rob, or plunder, or smite your neighbour, you should then remember, that these hands are the advocates, as it were, which you are to send forth to God, and by which you are to offer the spiritual sacrifice of prayer to him; and therefore you ought not to dishonour them, and de- stroy their confidence, by letting them minister to wicked actions; but rather cleanse them by alms- deeds, and humanity, and assistance of those that are in want, and so lift them up to God in prayer. For if you cannot endure to lift up unwashen hands, how much less should you think it meet to defile them with sin! By all this it appears, that these ceremonies, both of washing hands, and lifting them up in prayer, were of spiritual use, and designed for pious ends, to put men in mind of internal purity by external symbols; and that this significancy was the chief thing that could justify and account for the use of them, as ceremonies in Divine service. But as they allowed of such decent Sm n. and significant ceremonies as those gjargtgggggfm an that have been mentioned, so they “mm” gestu‘es' were great enemies to all light and theatrical ges- tures. They required a modest, and grave, and well- composed behaviour in all external deportment, as thinking no other becoming the majesty of God, or the character of those that were to address him. Upon this account, Tertullian81 requires a modesty and humility in his votaries, even in lifting up their hands in prayer, that they should not toss them up indecently on high, nor appear with a countenance expressing elation and boldness: because the pub- lican’s humility and dejection was more commend- able than the audaciousness of the Pharisee. He requires also a gentle and submissive voice, since God did not hear men for the sound of their words, or the strength of their lungs or arteries, but the fervency of their hearts. And they that were loud in prayer, he tells them, did nothing else but hinder their neighbour’s devotion. St. Cyprian “2 expresses himself much after the same way in his directions about the manner of praying: Let them that pray, says he, do it with an orderly voice, expressing quietness and modesty. Let us consider ourselves as standing in the sight of God, and that we are to please the Divine eyes both with the habit or ges- ture of our body, and with the manner of our voice. For as it is a sign of an impudent man to make a clamorous noise, so it becomes a modest man to use modesty in his prayers. Therefore when we meet together with our brethren, and celebrate the Divine sacrifices with the priest of God, we ought to be mindful of reverence and discipline ; not tossing out our prayers with a rude and disorderly voice, nor with a tumultuous loquacity pouring forth those petitions, which ought to be recommended modestly to God. For God is not the hearer of the voice, but the heart: neither needs he to be re- 7* Minuc. Dial. p. 90. Crucis signum est, cum homo porrectis manibus Deum pura mente veneratur. "4 Aster. ap. Phot. God. 271. ’Elc'r.<.'rap.e'uas Pn'poflaldui- [1.81/09 'rc‘zs xs'Zpas, 'rd 'roii c'ralipou qrdfios e’v 'rq'i O'Xfi/LQ‘TL Efeucovi-Kez. 75 Paulin. Vit. Ambros. p. 12. Ab hora undecima diei usque ad illam horam qua emisit Spiritum, expansis mani- bus in modum crucis orabat. "6 Prudent. Peri Stephan. Hymn. 6. in Fructuos. Non ausa est cohibere poena palmas, in morem crucis ad Patrem levandas. 7’ Chrysost. Demonstrat. quod Christus sit Deus, cap. 8. t. 5. p. 838. ’E1ri ailxdm o'd'avpds, é'n'l ii'lrhwu arravpds, &c. "'8 Euseb. Vit. Constant. lib. 4. cap. 15. ‘99 &um Bha'rruv dolce'iv &va'ra'rape'uos 'rrpds Gad», 'rpé'lrov elixojuéuov. "9 Orig. 7r£pi sbxfis. n. 20. 8° Chrys. in Psal. cxl. p. 550. Vid. Clem. Alex. Strom. 7. p. 854. 8' Tertul. de Orat. cap. 13. Cum modestia et humilitate adorantes, magis commendamus Deo preces nostras, ne ipsis quidem manibus sublimius elatis, sed temperate ac probe elatis. Ne vultu quidem in audaciam erecto, &c. 82 Cypr. de Orat. Dom. p. 140. 652 Boox XIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. minded by noise and clamour, who sees the thoughts of men. It appears from these cautions, that men were apt to run into disorders and excesses in the manner of expressing the external part of their de- votions, which needed such rules and admonitions to direct them in the purest ages. And it appears yet more from St. Chrysostom, who has several sharp and severe invectives against some, who ac- customing themselves to see the Roman games and plays, brought the manners of the stage into the church, and corrupted their devotions with theatri- cal gestures. It will be sufficient to relate a few words out of a single passage88 in one of his homi- lies to this purpose. 0 unhappy wretch, says he, thou oughtest with reverence and fear to send up the angelical hymn, and with trembling make con- fession to God, and thereby ask pardon of thy of- fences. Instead of this, thou bringest into the church the manners of mimics and dancers, by a disorderly tossing up thy hands, and beating with thy feet, and agitation of thy whole body. Dost thou not consider, that the Lord himself is present, who measures every man’s motions, and examines their consciences? Dost thou not consider, that the angels stand by this tremendous table, and sur- round it with fear? But thou considerest none of these things, because thy mind is blinded with what thou hast heard and seen in the theatres; and the things which are done there thou bringest into the rites and ceremonies of the church, and with insignificant clamours bewrayest the disorder of thy soul. How canst thou expect to incline God to mercy, who ofl'erest thy prayer with such contempt? Thou sayest, Lord, have mercy on me, whilst thy behaviour proclaims itself a stranger to mercy. Thou criest out, Lord, save me, whilst the whole deportment of thy body is in opposition to salva- tion. For what can those hands, which are al- ways tossed up on high, and disorderly rolled about, contribute toward prayer? What use can there be in vehement clamour, and violent impulse of spirit, that has nothing in it but sound and noise without signification? These are more the prac- tices of strumpets on the high-way, or actors on the theatre. And how darest thou to mingle the sports of devils with that doxology, whereby angels glo- rify God? Thus far St. Chrysostom in his warmth and zeal against the corruptions that were creeping in upon devotion by absurd and ridiculous gestures. And this shows us abundantly, that as the an- cients were no way averse to any rites and cere- monies, habits or gestures, that were decent and significant in their own nature, and had any real tendency toward piety; so they were utter enemies to such as were insignificant and trivial, light and theatrical, and discountenanced them as the effects of superstition or vanity, arising from misappre- hensions of religion or evil customs of the world, which they laboured to extirpate, but could not al- ways conquer; men’s corrupt inclinations disposing them to commute the great things of religion for those that were small in comparison, and sometimes for those which were a real detriment and disad- vantage to it, as in the cases now before us. But to pass by irregularities, and proceed with the observations of the church. This were a proper place to take notice of several other usages, whereby they expressed their reverence to God at their first en- trance into the church. But because some of these have been already considered in a former Book,“ where we speak of the respect and reverence which the primitive Christians paid to their churches, I shall but just name them in this place. Such was the ceremony of respect used by kings and em- perors, who laid aside their crowns and arms and guards, when they entered into the house of the King of kings. Of which I have only this further to observe here, that probably it was done in imita- tion of the old Roman magistrates, who, as some authors tell us,85 were wont to lay aside their fasces and other ensigns of honour, whenever they went into the schools of philosophy at Athens. Such was that other custom of respect observed by the monks of Egypt, who put off their shoes when they went into the house of God: but this, I showed, was only a topical custom peculiar to that nation, and not a general one reaching the whole church. I observed also, that there are some reasons to be- lieve the ancients used the ceremony of bowing to- wards the altar at their first entrance into the church, though the arguments amount only to a probability, not a demonstration. It is more certain, that the bishop saluted the people in the usual form, sal'l‘ft‘gg 3;: bfm; Pax vobis, Peace be with you, at his gggngggcggngg’tgg first entrance into the church. For dumb‘ this is often mentioned by St. Chrysostom,86 who derives it from apostolical practice. St. Chrysostom also mentions an- other very laudable custom, and he 823318133803: . I g uses all h1s rhetoric to promote and poor, whostood be- fore the gates of the encourage the practice of it; which £23311 forthis pur- was, the people’s giving alms to the poor, at their first entrance into the church. For this reason, says he, our forefathers appointed the poor to stand before the doors of our churches, that Sect. 12. Of ceremonies used at their entrance in- to the church. Sect. 13. the sight of them might provoke the most backward ' 83 Chrys. Horn. 1. de Verbis Esai. t. 3. p. 836. Vid. Hom. 19. in Mat. p. 195. 8‘ Book VIII. chap. 10. 85 Vid. Pool, Synops. Criticor. in 2 Reg. v. 9. ‘35 Chrys. Hom. 36. in 1 Cor. p. 652. Hom. 3. in Colos, p. 1338. CHAP. VIII. 653 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. and inhuman soul to compassion.87 And as by law and custom we have fountains before our oratories, that they who go in to worship God, may first wash their hands, and so lift them up in prayer; so our ancestors, instead of fountains and cisterns, placed the poor before the doors of the church; that as we wash our hands in water, so we should cleanse our souls by beneficence and charity first, and then go and offer up our prayers. For water is not more adapted by nature to wash away the spots of the body, than the power of alms-deeds is to cleanse the filth of the soul. As, therefore, you dare not go in to pray with unwashen hands, though this be but a small offence; so neither should you without alms ever enter the church for prayer. You, many times, when your hands are clean, will not lift them up to God, before you have washed them in water; so prevalent is the force of custom with us : let us therefore do the same with respect to alms-deeds: and though we are not conscious to ourselves of any great and heinous crimes, yet let us by charity clear our consciences of lesser spots and blemishes, which we contract in our daily business and conversation. So again in another place,88 expounding those words, “ Thou shalt not appear before the Lord empty :” These things, ‘says he, were spoken to the Jews; and how much more to us ! Therefore the poor stand be- fore the doors of the church, that no one should go in empty, but enter securely with charity for his com- panion. You go into the church to obtain mercy: first, show mercy: make God your debtor, and then you may ask of him, and receive with usury. We are not heard barely for the lifting up our hands. Stretch forth your hands, not only to heaven, but to the hands of the poor: if you stretch out your hands to the poor, you touch the very height of heaven. For He that sits there, receives your alms: but if you lift up barren hands, it profits nothing. He repeats the same89 in other places, which shows, that it was an excellent custom prevailing among them, and carefully recommended as a just prepar- ation for prayer, among many other moral qualifica- tions for this duty, which being vulgar and commonly known, I need not insist upon them in this place. sect 15_ There was one observation more, “31:33:53,305, which must not be omitted, because it eas“ with ‘he was a ceremony almost of general use reasqna for this PM we‘ and practice: and that was, the cus- tom of turning their faces to the east in their solemn adorations. The original of this custom seems to be derived from the ceremonies of baptism, in which, as has been showed before,90 it was usual to renounce the devil with their faces to the west, and then turn about to the east, and make their cove- nant with Christ; from whence, I conceive, it be- came their common custom to worship God after the same way that they had first entered into cove- nant with him. The ancients give several reasons for this custom, but they all seem to glance at this one. who was called the Orient, and Light, and Sun of righteousness, in Scripture : and therefore, since they must worship toward some quarter of the world, they chose that which led them to Christ by symbolical representation. As Tertullian tells us in one place,91 that in fact they worshipped toward the east, which made the heathen suspect that they worshipped the rising sun; so in another place92 he says, The cast was the figure of Christ, and there- fore both their churches and their prayers were di- rected that way. Clemens Alexandrinus 93 says, They worshipped toward the east, because the east is the image of our spiritual nativity, and from thence the light first arises and shines out of dark- ness, and the day of true knowledge, after the man- ner of the sun, arises upon those who lie buried in ignorance. And St. Austin,94 When we stand at our prayers, we turn to the east, whence the hea- vens, or the light of heaven arises: not as if God was only there, and had forsaken all other parts of the world, but to put ourselves in mind of turning to a more excellent nature, that is, to the Lord. This reason exactly falls in with that which is given for turning to the east, when they covenanted with Christ in the solemnities of baptism. 2. Another reason given for it by some, is, that the cast was the place of paradise, our ancient habit- ation and country, which we lost in the first Adam by the fall, andwhither we hope to be restored again, as to our native abode and rest, in the Second Adam, Christ our Saviour. This reason is given by Gre- gory Nyssen95 and St. Basil,96 and by the author of the Constitutions,97 and the author of the Questions and Answers to Antiochus among the works of Athanasius,98 together with Chrysostom, (as he is cited by Cotelerius "9 and Gregentius,‘°°) and many 8’ Chrys. Hom. 25. de Verbis Apost. t. 5. p. 369. 8‘ Chrys. Hom. l. in 2 Tim. p. 1631. 8” Chrys. Horn. 9. de Poenitent. t. l. p. 704. 9° Book XI. chap. vii. sect. 4. 9' Tertul. Apol. cap. 16. Inde suspicio, quod innotuerit nos ad orientis regionem precari. 92 Id. cont. Valentin. cap. 3. Nostrae columbae domus simplex, etiamin editis semper et apertis et ad lucem: amat figuram Spiritus Sancti, orientem Christi figuram. 93 Clem. Alex. Strom. 7. p. 856. 94 Aug. de Serm. Dom. in Monte, lib. 2. cap. 5. Cum ad orationes stamus, ad orientem convertimur, unde coelum surgit, &c. ut admoneatur animus ad naturam excellenti- orem se convertere, id est, ad Dominum. 95 Nyss. Hom. 5. de Orat. Dom. t. l. p. 755. 9“ Basil. de Spir. Sanct. cap. 27. ' 9" Constit. lib. 2. cap. 57. 98 Athan. Quaest. ad Antioch. qu. 37. 9'’ Coteler. Not. in Constitut. lib. 2. cap. 57. Ex Chrys. in Dan. vi. 10. M Gregent. Disput. cum Herbano Judaeo. Bibl. Patr t. l. p. 217. Gr. Lat. Some say, the cast was the symbol of Christ, , 654 Boox XIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. others. Now, this is the very reason assigned by St. Cyril for turning to the east, when they cove- nanted with Christ, and celebrated the mysteries of baptism. So that hitherto we find a clear relation of these ceremonies one to the other, and a perfect agreement between them. 3. Another reason assigned for this custom, was, that the east was the most honourable part of the creation, as being the seat of light and brightness. The author of the Questions and Answers to the Orthodox 1°‘ gives this reason for it: We set apart, says he, the most honourable things to the honour of God: and the east, in the opinion of men, is the most honourable part of the creation: we therefore in time of prayer turn our faces to the east; as we sign those in the name of Christ, that need con- signation, with the right hand, because it is deemed more honourable than the left, though it differ only in position, not in nature. And Lactantius, without taking any particular notice of this custom, makes this general observation, That the east was m more peculiarly ascribed to God, because he was the fountain of light, and illuminator of all things, and because he makes us rise to eternal life. But the west was ascribed to that wicked and depraved spirit the devil, because he hides the light, and induces darkness always upon men, and makes them fall and perish in their sins. Now, this is a reason that equally holds for turning to the east in baptism, as well as their daily devotion. _ 4. There is one reason more assigned for it, which is, that Christ made his appearance on earth in the East, and there ascended into heaven, and there will appear again at the last day. This is one of the three answers, which the author of the Questions to Antiochus, under the name of Athanasius,108 orders to be given to this question : If a Christian ask the question, he is to be told, They looked toward para- dise, beseeching God to restore them to their ancient country and region, from whence they were expel- led. If a heathen put the question, the answer should be, Because God is the true Light, for which reason, when they looked upon the created light, they did not worship it, but the Creator of it. If the question was proposed by a Jew, he should be told, They did it because the Holy Ghost had said by David, “We will worship toward the place where thy feet stood, O Lord,” Psal. cxxxii. 7, meaning the place where Christ was born, and lived, and was crucified, and rose again, and ascended into heaven. Which seems also to be intimated by St. Hilary on those words of the 67th Psalm, according to the translation of the Septuagint, “ Sing unto God, who ascended above the heaven of heavens” in the east. The honour of God, says he)“ who ascended above the heaven of heavens in the east, is now reason- ably required: and for that reason. toward the east, because he, according to the prophet, is the East or Morning from on high; that he, returning to the place whence he descended, might be known to be the Orient Light, who shall hereafter be the Author of men’s rising to the same ascent of a celestial ha- bitation. These several reasons have all a peculiar refer- ence to Christ: and therefore, as Christians first used the ceremony of turning to the east, when they en- tered into covenant with Christ in baptism; so it is probable, that from thence they derived this custom of turning to the east in all their solemn adorations. But whether this were so or not, we are sure there was such a general custom among them, and that it was founded upon some or all the reasons that have been mentioned; which is as much as is neces— sary to be said here for the illustration of it. CHAPTER IX. OF THE TIMES OF THEIR RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLIES, AND THE SEVERAL PARTS OF DIVINE SERVICE PERFORMED IN THEM. THERE remains one circumstance more of Divine worship, which I have No Sight‘. rule _ for meeting in pub- purposely reserved for this place, be- £33353; 1818035112: cause the consideration of it will gerzggegitgggmfor lead us to the several parts of the worship itself; that is, the circumstance of time: concerning which it may be inquired, how often they met in a week, and how often they met in a day, for Divine worship? Now, no general an- swer can be given to these questions, because the times of their assemblies varied according to the different state and ages of the church. At first, learned men think, they held assemblies every day in the apostles’ time, and whilst the Jewish temple stood; for we read of the apostles going up to the temple at the ninth hour, being the hour of prayer, Acts iii. 1. And of their “continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house,” or in their house, mean- 1‘" Justin. Quaest. ad Orthodox. qu. 118. 1°? Lact. lib. 2. cap. 10. Oriens Deo accensetur, quia ipse luminis fons, et illustrator est rerum, et quod oriri nos faciat ad vitam aeternarn. Occidens autem oonturbatae illi pravaeque menti ascribitur, quod lumen abscondat, quod tenebras semper inducat, et quod homines faciat occidere ac interire peccatis. 1°? Athan. Quaest. ad Antioch. qu. 37. 1°‘ Hilar. in Psal. lxvii. p. 242. Competenter nunc ascen- dentis super coelum coali ad orientem Dei honor poscitur. Ad orientem vero idcirco, quia ipse secundum pro- phetam oriens ex alto sit : ut regressus eo unde descenderat, oriens nosceretur, ipseque sit hominibus in hunc ccelestis sedis ascensum rursus autor oriundi. CHAP. IX. 655 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. ing the church, or house of prayer, as others render it, Acts ii. 46. Though their most solemn meetings were on “the first day of the week,” or the Lord’s day, Acts xx. 7; 1 Cor. xvi. 2. In after ages, when the persecutions grew warm, they are thought to have confined themselves to the Lord’s day. For the confession which Pliny ' took from the mouths of some apostatizing Christians, mentions no other: they confessed to him, that the sum of their crime or error was, that they were used to meet on a cer- tain stated day, before it was light, and sing a hymn to Christ, as to their God; and to bind themselves by a covenant or sacrament, not unto any wicked- ness, but that they would not commit any theft, or robbery, or adultery, or break their faith, or deny what was committed to their trust; after which they were used to break up their assembly, and return again to a common feast. Which is a plain description of their worship, and communion and love-feast, called agape, on the Lord’s day, but no other. And so Justin Martyr,2 describing the Chris- tian Worship, says, That on the day called Sunday, there was a general meeting of all that lived both in city and country, when they had the Scriptures read, and a sermon preached, and prayers, and the communion; but he mentions no assembly for pub- lic worship on any other day: whence learned men8 have concluded, that in his time the church ob- served no other days of solemn assemblies, but only the Lord’s day. His silence as to all others, is a negative argument against them, unless perhaps some distinction may be made between the general assembly of both city and country on the Lord’s day, and the particular assemblies of the city Chris- tians (who had better opportunities to meet) on other days: which distinction we often meet with in the following ages, when Christianity was come to its maturity and perfection. Sect 2_ However, it was not long after J us- thgggafiggggagaygf tin Martyr’s time before, we are sure, ‘ti:.§f‘“.'§"w“§§§:;: the church observed the custom of 23?; $3; Fii‘iit’fg meeting solemnly for Divine worship his trig; on Wednesdays and Fridays, which days are commonly called stationary days, because they continued their assemblies on these days to a great length, till three o’clock in the afternoon; for which reason they had also the name of semi-jejunia, or half-fasts, in opposition to the Lent fast, which always held till evening; and jejania qaartce and sextwferia, the fasts of the fourth and sixth days of the week, that is, Wednesdays and Fridays. These are first mentioned by Tertullian, and Clemens Alexandrinus, and Origen, and after them, by most other writers, as fast-days generally observed by the church. But I consider them not here as fasts, (which will be more properly done under another head, when we come to speak of the fasts and festivals of the church,) but here only look upon them as days of religious assembly, to discover what public Divine worship was performed on them. And for this we are chiefly beholden to Tertullian, who assures us, That on these days they always celebrated the communion; from whence we may infer, that the same service was performed on these days as on the Lord’s day, unless perhaps the ser- mon was wanting. Some there were, he says, who objected against receiving the communion on these days, because they were scrupulously afraid they should break their fast by eating and drinking the bread and wine in the eucharist; and therefore they chose4 rather to absent themselves from the obla- tion prayers, than break their fast, as they imagined, by receiving the eucharist. Whom he undeceives by telling them, that to receive the eucharist on such days would be no infringement of their fast, but bind them closer to God; their station would be so much the more solemn for their standing at the altar of God; they might receive the body of the Lord, and preserve their fast too; and so both would be safe, whilst they both participated of the sacrifice and discharged their other obligation. Since, therefore, they received the eucharist on these days, we may conclude they had all the prayers of the communion ofiiee, and what other offices were wont to go before them, as the psalmody, and read- ing of the Scriptures, and prayers for the catechu- mens and penitents, which, together with the ser- mons, were the whole service for the Lord’s day. But, because even all this could not take up near so much time, as must needs be spent in these sta- tions, it seems most probable, that in two particulars they much enlarged their service on these days, that is, in their psalmody, and private prayers and con- fession of their sins. The psalms, as we shall see hereafter, were sometimes lengthened to an in- definite number, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, or more, as the occasion of a vigil or a fast required, and be- tween every psalm they had liberty to meditate and 1 Plin. lib. 10. Ep. 97. Aflirmabant, autem, hanc fuisse summam vel culpae suae, vel erroris, quod essent soliti stato die ante lucem convenire: carmenque Christo, quasi Deo, dicere secum invicem; seque sacramento non in scelus aliquod obstringere, sed ne furta, ne latrocinia, ne adulteria committerent: quibus peraetis, morem sibi discedendi fu- isse, rursusque coe'undi ad capiendum cibum, &c. 2 Justin. Apol. 2. p. 98. T5 T05 fflkiou he'yope'up imépq qrév'rwv Ica'rr‘z wo'kus 1’) a’ypmls ,usvcim'wu é-n'i 'ro airro o'vué- heuo'ts 'yIus'raL, &c. a Coteler. in Constitut. Apost. lib. 2. cap. 59. 4 Tertul. de Oratione, cap. 14. Similiter de stationum diebus non putant plerique sacrificiorum orationibus inter- veniendum, quod static solvenda sit accepto corpore Do- mini. Ergo devotum Deo obsequium eucharistia resolvit, an magis Deo obligat? Nonne solennior erit static tua, si et ad aram Dei steteris? Accepto corpore Domini, et re servata, utrumque salvum est, et participatio sacrificii et executio oflicii. Some editions read it, reservato, instead of re servata. 656 BOOK XIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. fall to their private prayers: and by these two exer- cises, so lengthened and repeated, it is easy to con— ceive how the longest station might be employed. Socrates5 says, At Alexandria on these days they had sermons and all other service used at other times, except the communion. But admitting they had the whole service entire, as on the Lord’s day, yet it was not commensurate to the time of their stations, unless we suppose their psalmody and pri- vate devotions in the church to be enlarged on those days to a greater length, than was usual in ordinary service. St. Basil6 agrees with Tertullian in making these days not only fasts, but communion days; for, reck- oning up how many days in the week they received the communion, he makes Wednesday and Friday to be two of the number. Yet still it is hard to conceive what business they could have to detain them so long in the church; since their collects and public prayers were but few in comparison; and therefore it seems most probable, that a competent share of this time was spent in psalmody, and, as I find a learned person’ inclined to think, in private devotions, which always had a share in their service, and was generally intermixed with their singing of psalms, as shall he showed in their proper places. See Book XIV. chap. 1. Book XV. chap. 1. sect. 1. We also find in ancient writers fre- quent mention made of religious as- semblies on the Saturday, or seventh of public dmtmn' day of the week, which was the Jewish sabbath. It is not easy to tell either the original of this practice, or the reasons of it, because the writers of the first ages are altogether silent about it. In the Latin churches (excepting Milan) it was kept as a fast; but in all the Greek churches as a festival: I consider it here only as a day of public Divine service, on which, as the authors who men- tion it assure us, all the same offices were performed as were used to be on the Lord’s day. For Atha- nasius,8 who is one of the first that mentions it, says, They met on the sabbath, not that they were infected with Judaism, but to worship Jesus, the Lord of the sabbath. And Timotheus, one of his successors in the see of Alexandria, says, The com- munion9 was administered on this day, as on the Sect. 3. Saturday, or the se- venth day, anciently observed with great solemnity, as a day Lord’s day. Which were the only days in the week that the communion was received by the Christians of his time at Alexandria. Socrates 1° is a little more particular about the service: for he says, In their assemblies on this day they celebrated the commu- nion; only the churches of Egypt and Thebais dif- fered in this from the rest of the world, and even from their neighbours at Alexandria, that they had the communion at evening service. In another place, speaking of the churches of Constantinople in the time of Chrysostom, he reckons Saturdayll and Lord’s day the two great weekly festivals, on which they always held church assemblies. And Cassian12 takes notice of the Egyptian churches, that among them the service of the Lord’s day and the sabbath was always the same; for they had the lessons then read out of the New Testament only, one out of the Gospels, and the other out of the Epistles or the Acts of the Apostles; whereas, on other days they had them partly out of the Old Testament and partly out of the New. In another place he observes,18 That in the monasteries of Egypt and Thebais, they had no public assemblies on other days, besides morning and evening, except upon Saturday and the Lord’s day, when they met at three o’clock, that is, nine in the morning, to cele- brate the communion. In the council of Laodicea there are three canons to the same purpose. One 1" appoints the Gospels, with the other Scriptures, to be read upon this day. Another,“ That the oblation of the bread in the eucharist shall not be made all the time of Lent, except on the sabbath and the Lord’s day. Which implies that those were com- munion days, and kept as festivals, even in Lent itself. And for the same reason a third canon 1“ or- ders, That no festivals of martyrs should be kept in Lent, but only commemorations of the martyrs be made on the sabbath and the Lord’s day. The only difference that was then made between the sab- bath and the Lord’s day, was, that Christians were not obliged to rest from bodily ‘7 labour on the sab- bath, but might work on that day, (so far as Divine service would permit,) giving preference in this re- spect to the Lord’s day, whereon they were to rest as Christians. And if any transgressed these rules about working on the sabbath, they were to be 5 Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 22. 6 Basil. Ep. 289. t. 3. p. 278. 7 Stillingfleet, Orig. Britan. p. 224. 8 Homil. de Semente, t. 1. p. 1060. 9 Timoth. Ep. Canon. can. 13. ap. Bevereg. Pandect. t. 2. 1° Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 22. 11 Ibid. lib. 6. cap. 8. 12 Cassian. Institut. lib. 2. cap. 6. In die vero sabbati vel Dominico utrasque lectiones de Novo recitant Testamento, id est, unam de Apostolo vel Actibus Apostolorum,et aliam de Evangeliis. ‘3 Cassian. lib. 3. cap. 2. Exceptis vespertinis horis ac nocturnis congregationibus, nulla apud eos per diem solen- nitas, absque die sabbati vel Dominica, in quibus hora tertia sacrae communionis obtentu conveniunt. 1‘ Conc. Laodic. can. 16. IIspi 1'05 511 o'afifia'vnp sila'y- ye'Ma ,uerrr‘z é'répaw ypa¢éiu dua'ywdio'xso'fiat. 15 Ibid. can. 49. "O'rl. 01’; 851'. '72’; 'reo'o'apalcoo'q'fi &p'rov qrpoo'qiépew, at’. pa‘) Eu o'afifié'rqi Kai KvpLaKfi #611011. 15 Can. 51. "0'11 01’) 62? éu 'z'so'o'apalcoa'rfi ,uap'n'ipwu 'yeué- BMov é'lru'reke'iv, (1’)\>\.C‘l T5111 oi'yiwv pap'n'lpwv‘ pJ/eiau 'lroze'iv Ev 'ro'is o'afiflo'm'ots Kai Kuptaica'is. 1" Can. 29. "0'11 01’) (is? Xpw'nauol'ls iovda‘i'zsw, Kai £11 'rq'i o'aflfié'np a'xohc'zzew, a'XM‘z ép'yo'zgeo'eai aim-obs in 'rfi azi'rfi fms'pq‘ '1'1‘111 8s Kvpzarchv 'n'po'rlttd'w'ras, axokc'z'ge'w dis Xpw'rtauoi' at 6% al’lpaeeisv 'Iovdaicrai, Eo'Prwo'au a’vc'zequa wapd Xpw'rq'i. CHAP. IX. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 657 ANTIQUITIES OF THE deemed Judaizers, and are ordered to be anathe- matized by another canon of the same council. By which it appears that Saturday was kept weekly as a day of public worship, but not as a Jewish sab- bath. Epiphanius“3 mentions it likewise as a day of public assemblies in some places, but not in all. St. Basil ‘9 says it was one of the four days in the week, on which in his time they received the com- munion. By all which we may perceive that the author of the Constitutions had a plain regard to the practice of the Eastern church, when he pre- scribed, that on every sabbath save one, (that is, the Saturday before Easter day,) and on every Lord’s day,”0 they should hold religious assemblies, and keep them as the weekly festivals ; that is, not only with psalmody, and reading the Scriptures, and common prayers, which was the ordinary service of the morning and evening of every day; but with sermons also, or preaching the gospel, and the of- fering of the oblation, and reception of the holy food; as he describes the service of the sabbath and Lord’s day in another place.” Now, as these were the two great How they observ- festivals of every week, so they were ed the viails of the _ Sibhaztllllldaargqhlégrgif commonly ushered in by the attend- gmslpytlgtfestivalsof ance of preceding pernoctations or vigils, which, as harbingers, went be- fore to make preparation for the solemnities of the following days. These vigils were much of the same nature as the common nocturnal, or daily morning prayer, which was early, before it was light; and they only differed from the usual ante- lucan service in this, that whereas the usual morn- ing service never began till after midnight, towards cock-crowing in the morning, these vigils were a longer service, that kept the congregation at church the greatest part of the night. These the Greeks called wavvvxideg; and the Latins, pernoctationes and pervz'gz'lz'a, watchings all the night. St. Chrysos- tom often speaks of these : Go into the church, says he, and there see the poor continuing from mid- night to break of day; go, and see the holy pernoc- tations22 joining day and night together : behold the people of Christ, fearing neither by night, nor by day, the tyranny of sleep or the necessities of po- verty. In another place” he calls them mivvvxo: mi dtflllélcé'ig qa'cszg, the continued and perfect night stations, in opposition to the stations by day, which Sect. 4. were but partial and imperfect. By these, he adds, you imitate the station of the angelical choir, whilst you offer up t'ma-rdn'avs-ov bpvokoyiav, psalmody and hymnody without ceasing to your Creator. Oh the wonderful gifts of Christ! The armies of angels sing glory to God above : and on earth men, keep- ing their choral stations in the church, sing the same doxology after their example. The cherubims above cry aloud, “ Holy, holy, holy,” in the Trz'sa— gion hymn; and the congregation of men on earth below send up the same : and so a common general assembly is made of the inhabiters of heaven and earth together. Their thanksgiving is one and the ‘same, their exultation the same, their joyful choral station the very same. In which words he plainly gives us to understand, that the angelical hymn, “Glory be to God on high,” and the cherubical hymn, or the Trz'sagz'on, as it was called from the cherubims thrice repeating the first words, “ Holy, holy, holy,” were part of their sacred service in these night stations: which, as I observed before, were but an earlier oblation of the ordinary morning ser- vice, wherein we shall find the angelical hymn amongst other parts of Divine worship always ap- pointed to be used. It were easy to make a long discourse here of the several sorts of these night stations, or completer vigils holding all the night through; for they were sometimes held upon extraordinary occasions of prayer, upon great emergencies and necessities of the church; instances of which the curious reader may find several in Chrysostom,“ and St. Austin,25 and Ruffin,26 and Socrates,27 and Sozomen,28 and Theodoret.29 Sometimes, again, they were kept as ' anniversary vigils to usher in the greater festivals of the Nativity, Epiphany, Resurrection, and As- cension of Christ, and the descent of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost; of which sort there is mention made in Tertullian,so Lactantius,m Chrysostom,32 Socrates,” and many others. But the vigils we are here concerned to speak of, are only such as have some relation to the weekly service, of which num- ber we may reckon those vigils of the sabbath and Lord’s day the chief, because they returned con- stantly in the weekly revolution. Concerning which we have not only the forementioned au- thority of Chrysostom, but several others. For Socrates, giving an account of Athanasius’s escape '8 Epiphan. Epitom. t. 1. p. 1107. ”Eu 71.01 as 'ré-lrots Kai. iv 'roZs o'éfifiao't avuégsts 87TUT£>\OUO'UI. '9 Basil. Ep. 289. ad Caesaream Patriciam. So Austin, Ep. 118. Alibi nullus dies omittitur, quo non ofi'eratur, alibi sabbato tantum et Dominico. 9° Constit. lib. 5. cap. 20. It. 'lib. 8. cap. 23. 2‘ Ibid. lib. 2. cap. 59. p. 268. 22 Chrys. Horn. 4. de Verbis Esaiae, t. 3. p. 865. Bltévrs qravvuxié‘as iepz‘zs imspa Kai. vux'ri o'vua¢0eio'as. 23 1d. Hom. 1. de Verb. Esai. p. 834. 2* Chrys. Hom. 20. de Statuis, t. l. p. 252. et Horn. 40. in J uventinum, t. l. 550. 25 Aug. Confess. lib. 9. cap. 7. Ep. 119. ad Januarium. 2‘ Ruifin. lib. 1. cap. 12. lib. 2. cap. 16. 2’ Socrat. lib. 1. cap. 37. lib. 5. cap. 11. 28 Sozom. lib. 2. cap. 29. lib. 3. cap. 6. 29 Theod. lib. 1. cap. 14. 9° Tertul. ad Uxor. lib. 2. cap. 4. 9‘ Lactant. lib. 7. cap. 19. 3'2 Chrys. Hom. 30. in Genes. p. 424. 83 Socrat. lib. 7. cap. 5. Vid. Euseb. de Vit. Constant. lib. 4. cap. 57. Hieronym. Com. in Mat. xxv. 2 U 658 BOOK XIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. out of the church of Alexandria in the night,“ when the church was beset with soldiers to take him, says, It was evening, and the people were keeping their nocturnal vigils, because the next day was to be a synaxz's, or church assembly. Therefore Atha- nasius, fearing lest the people should suffer upon his account, bid the deacon give the signal or call to prayer, and he commanded a psalm to be sung, and whilst they were singing their psalmody, the soldiers were quiet, and they all meanwhile went out at one door of the church, and Athanasius in the midst of the singers escaped untouched and fled to Rome. Athanasius himself 85 has the same story in his Apology‘ for his Flight, where he says, some of the people were keeping their night vigil, ex- pecting an assembly the next day. And Socrates in another place, speaking of these nocturnal vigils kept both by the Arians and catholics, says, they held them against the weekly festivals, the sabbath and the Lord’s day,86 on which days there were used to be general assemblies of the church. And be- cause the Arians were allowed no churches within the walls, they sung their hymns in the streets and porticos of the city till the morning light, and then went out to their meeting-places without the gates. And the historian observes, That Chrysostom,-fear- ing the Arians might gain ground upon the church by this practice, and draw away some of the more simple people, appointed ‘some of his own people, who were used to nocturnal hymnody, to meet in the streets after the same manner; ~ and to make the solemnity more splendid, the empress gave them silver crosses to set their lamps in, appoint- ing one of her own eunuchs, called Brison, to be their protector: which so provoked the Arians, that they fell to blows upon it, and Brison and some others were slain in the engagement; which occasioned the emperor wholly to put down those Arian meetings, and leave the catholics quietly to go on with their vigils in the churches, as they had done before. From these accounts we may easily collect, both that there were such weekly vigils fre- quented by the more zealous and religious sort of people in all parts of the East, and also that psalms and hymns and prayers were the exercises, where- with they entertained themselves to the morning light. I might add many other testimonies out of Nazianzen87 and other Greek writers, but these are abundantly suflicient to show us the practice of the Oriental church. For the Latin church we have the authority of St. J erom, who, interpreting the word “watcher,” in Daniel, says, it signifies the angels, who always watch, and are ready to obey the commands of God: and he adds,88 We also, by our frequent per- noctations or night-watches, imitate the office of angels. And it appears from him further, that women and virgins frequented this service, as well as men; for he advises Laeta89 to inure her daugh- ter to these solemn pernoctations; only cautioning her to keep a guard upon her, and not let her wan- der from her side; for the same reason, I presume, for which the council of Eliberis 4° thought fit wholly to forbid women the observation of these vigils, be- cause many, under pretence of prayer, were found to commit wickedness. There are many other pas- sages in St. Austin, and St. Hilary, and other Latin writers, which speak of vigils ; but because they may be understood either of private watchings in prayers at home, or of the common vigils of the or— dinary morning prayer before day, I omit them in this place ; only alleging that of St. Ambrose,41 where he seems to found this practice upon the imitation of Christ’s example : The Lord Jesus, says he, continued all night in prayer, not that he want- ed the help of prayer, but to set thee an example to copy after: he continued all night praying for thee, that thou mightest learn after what manner to pray for thyself. But besides these stated vigils of the two weekly festivals, there was another sort of incidental ones, which came almost every week throughout the year, or at least were very frequent in some parts of it: those were the vigils of the festivals or an- niversaries of the martyrs. Those anniversaries, as we shall see by and by, were always in great re- pute, and observed with the same solemnities of Di- vine worship, as the sabbath or the Lord’s day; and therefore their vigils were also celebrated with the same ceremony, as the vigils or night stations of the two great weekly festivals. St. Chrysostom42 is an undoubted witness of this; for in a homily made upon one of these festivals, he takes notice of the preceding vigil, that had continued all the 8‘ Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 11. ‘*5 Athan. Apol. de Fuga, t. 1. p. 716. T06 ham? 'rwes é’fl'lll/UUXLZOU, qrpoo'dolcwpte'uns o'vuégsws, &c. 3“ Socrat. lib. 6. cap. 8. 3’ Naz. Carm. Iambic. 18. t. 2. p. 218. Orat. 11. (1e Gorgonia, t. 1. p. 183. 88 Hieron. Com. in Dan. iv. 13. Significat autem angelos, quod semper vigilent, et ad Dei imperium sint parati. Unde et nos crebris pernoctationibus imitarnur angelorum officia. 8” Id. Ep. 7. ad Laetam. Vigiliarum dies et solennes per- noctationes sic virguncula nostra celebret, ut ne transverso quidem ungue a matre discedat. 4° Conc. Eliber. can. 35. Placuit prohiberi, ne foeminae in coemiterio pervigilent; eo quod saepe sub obtentu ora- tionis latenter scelera committant. 41 Ambr. Serm. 19. in Psal. cxviii. ver. 147. p. 740. Per- noctabat in oratione Dominus Jesus, non indigens precatio- nis auxilio, sed statuens tibi imitationis exemplum. Ille pro te rogans pernoctabat, ut tu disceres quomodo pro te rogares. 42 Chrys. Horn. 59. in Martyres, t. 5. p. 779. ’E7rouio'a'rs '1'1‘711 m'nc'ra fmépav did q-t'lw "ITGUUUXLIOUJII_ 'rii'w iepéiw‘ n1‘) qrouio'a'rs 'n'o'ckw Tr‘w fipe'pav vi'm'ra 6w‘: 'rfis #56119, &c. O C HAP. IX. 659 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. night: Ye have turned, says he, the night into day by keeping your holy stations all the night: do not now turn the day into night again by surfeiting, and drunkenness, and lascivious songs. And Sidonius Apollinaris4a will testify the same, at least for some part of the western church; for, writing about the festival of Justus, bishop of Lyons, he thus describes both the observation of the day, and the preceding vigil : We met, says he, at the grave of St. Justus; it was a morning procession before day; it was an anniversary solemnity; the confluence of people of both sexes was so great, that the church, though very capacious and surrounded with cloisters, would not contain them. When the service of the vigil was ended, which the monks and clerical singers performed with alternate melody, we separated for some time, but went not very far away, as being to. meet again at three o’clock, that is, nine in the morn- ing, when the priests were to perform Divine service, that is, the service of the communion, as on afestival. Se ' _. ' And now that we have mentioned 0‘ the festivals °f the festivals of martyrs, as days of martyrs. Their ori- éigg‘lgeiz‘ggti‘gtplgi: public religious worship, we must take formed ‘mthem' notice of their original, to find out how early they became days of solemn addresses to God, and in what oflices of Divine service their ob- servation consisted. These festivals were grown so numerous in the time of Chrysostom and Theodoret, that they tell us, it was not once, or twice, or five times in a year that they celebrated their memorials, but they had oftentimes one or two in the same week,“ which occasioned frequent solemnities. The original of them is at least to be carried as high as the time of Polycarp, who suffered about the year 168. For the church of Smyrna, (whereof he was bishop,) in their epistle to the church of Philome- lium, recorded by Eusebius,45 tell them, That they intended, if God would permit, to meet at his tomb, and celebrate his birth-day, that is, the day of his martyrdom, with joy and gladness, as well for the memory of the sufferer, as for example to posterity. Tertullian speaks of these anniversary festivals, as observed in his time. We offer, says he, oblations for those that are dead, for their “6 nativities on their anniversary day. And Cyprian‘7 orders his clergy to note down the days of their decease, that a com- memoration of them might be celebrated amongst the memories of the martyrs. And in another place“8 he says, They offered sacrifices for them, as often as they celebrated their passions, or days of martyrdom, by an anniversary commemoration. These sacrifices were the sacrifices of prayer, and thanksgiving to God for the examples of the martyrs, and the cele- bration of the eucharist on these days, and the offer- ings of alms and oblations for the poor, which, to- gether with a panegyrical oration or sermon, and reading the acts or passion of the martyr, if they had any such recorded, were the exercises and spe- cial acts of devotion, in which they spent these days. For these were always esteemed high festivals, and therefore the same service that was performed on the sabbath and Lord’s day was always performed on them. They never passed without a full assem- bly, nor without a sermon or a communion, as ap- pears from some of Chrysostom’s homilies upon such occasions. To dissuade the people from in- temperance, he bids them consider how absurd it was,49 after such a meeting, after a whole night’s vigil, after hearing the Holy Scriptures, after par- ticipating of the Divine mysteries, after such a spirit- ual repast, for a man or a woman to be found spend- ing whole days in a tavern. The foundation of his argument is built upon this supposition, that they had received the eucharist in the church before, in celebrating the memorial of a martyr. And so Si- donius Apollinaris represents the matter in the pas- sage just now cited from him,“ That after they had kept the vigil of St. Justus the night preceding, they assembled again by day at nine in the morning, when the priests did rem dz'vz'nam facere, offer the oblation, or consecrate the eucharist, as Savaro“ rightly interprets it. But besides the usual solemnities of other festi- vals, there was one thing peculiar to these festivals of the martyrs : which was, that the history of their passions, as they were taken by the notaries ap- pointed by the church for this purpose, were com- monly read in the assembly upon such occasions. It was at least the common practice of the African churches. For St. Austin52 speaks of it as a usual ‘3 Sidon. lib. 5. Epist. l7. Conveneramus ad Sancti J usti sepulchrum.—Processio fuerat antelucana, solennitas anni- versaria, populus ingens sexu ex utroque, quem capacissima basilica non caperet, et quamlibet cincta difi’usis cryptopor- ticibus. Cultu peracto vigiliarum, quas alternante mulce- dine monachi clericique psalmicines concelebraverant, quisque in diverse. secessimus, non procul ta'men, utpote ad tertiam praesto futuri, cum sacerdotibus res Divina fa- cienda. "4 Vid. Chrys. Horn. 40. in Juventinum, t. l. p. 546. Theod. Serm. 8. de Martyribus, t. 4. p. 605. Chrys. Hom. 65. de Martyr. t. 4. p. 971. ‘5 Euseb. lib. 4. cap. 15. “6 Tertul. de Coron. Mil. cap. 3. Oblationes pro defunctis pro natalitiis, annua die facimus. 4’ Cypr. Ep. 12. al. 37. Denique et dies eorum quibus excedunt annotate, ut commemorationes eorum inter me- morias martyrum celebrare possimus. 48 Id. Ep. 39. al. 34. p. 77. Sacrificia. pro eis semper, ut merninistis, ofi‘erimus, quoties martyrum passiones et dies anniversaria commemoratione celebramus. 4” Chrys. Hom. 59. de Martyribus, t. 5. p. 779. 5° Sidon. Apoll. lib. 5. Ep. 17. 51 Savaro, Comment. in Sidon. 5'2 Aug. Horn. 26. ex 50. t. 10. p. 174. Quando aut pas- siones prolixae, aut eerte aliquae lectiones longiores, qui stare non possunt, humiliter et cum silentio sedentes, attentis au- ribus audiant quae leguntur. 2 U 2 660 Boox XIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. thing, indulging his people liberty to sit, whilst they heard them read, because they were sometimes of a considerable length. And the third council of Car- thage53 made a canon to encourage the reading of them. Mabillon54 gives several other instances out of Alcimus Avitus, Caesarius Arelatensis, and Fer- reolus, to show that they were read also in the French churches. Only they were forbidden in the Roman church by the decree of Pope Gelasius,55 in his synod of seventy bishops, under pretence that they were written by anonymous authors, and some- times by ignorant ,heathens, and sometimes by he- retical authors, as the Passions of Cyricus, J ulitta, and St. George. For which reason they had, by ancient custom, prohibited the reading of them in the Roman church. But this rule, it seems, did not then prescribe to other churches. Sect 6. It may be further observed, that Sam“ “semblies during the whole forty days of Lent, for preachimr an other acts of wine worship held ever, they had continual assemblies not only $3361: “$3? tdlfys of for prayers, but preaching also: as is .iiiilttgiieiimnsgiii- evident from Chrysostom’s sermons, and Whitsuntide. . many of which were preached by h1m successively one day after another throughout the greatest part of that season; as his homilies upon Genesis, and those famous discourses, called his ‘Audprdvreg, preached at Antioch, in Lent, upon the occasion of a tumult, wherein the emperor’s statues were demolished. And many other instances may be given of the same practice, of which more here- after, under the head of preaching, in the next Book.56 It is true, indeed, they did not always con- secrate the eucharist in Lent, but only upon the sabbath and Lord’s day, as we learn from the coun- cil of Laodicea,57 which expressly forbids the obla- tion of the bread in Lent upon any other day besides the sabbath and the Lord’s day. The reason of which was, that these two days were observed as festivals even in Lent itself; and they did not ordi- narily consecrate the eucharist upon the solemn fasts in the time of this council: but instead of the consecration service, they had probably that which in the following ages is called 7rp0nyla0'pévwv Among- 716, missa prwsanctgficatorum, the oflice of the pre- sanctified elements, which was a shorter service for communicating on fast days in the elements that were consecrated before on the Lord’s day festival, about which there is a particular direction in the council of Trullo, can. 52. So that one way or other they seem to have had both a communion and a sermon every day in Lent. Then, again, the fifty days between Easter and Whitsuntide were a sort of perpetual festival, and observed with great solemnity, as days of joy, from the time of Tertullian, who mentions it, and triumphs over the heathen upon it, That besides the Sunday, which returned once in eight days, this one con- tinued festival58 of Pentecost was more than all the festivals the heathen could pretend to reckon up in a whole year. He does not tell us here, indeed, with what solemnity they observed this time, but in an- other place he assures us 59 they had solemn worship every day, and paid the same respect to it as they did to the Lord’s day, in that they neither fasted nor prayed kneeling on any day during this ,whole in- terval, which was the commemoration of our Sa- viour’s resurrection and ascension. Whence it is no improbable conjecture, that during this season they might have the same complete worship every day, that they had upon the Lord’s day. And this consideration will lead us to fix the date of the setting up morn- (furl prayer ing and evening prayer daily in the (gi'crefigggjfflvig church. For if the persecutions would give leave in Tertullian’s time to keep fifty days together as solemn festivals; there is no reason to imagine that they could not as well meet every day for their ordinary devotions. And if Wednesdays and Fridays were then observed as stationary days, with more than ordinary attendance, as we have heard him declare before; there is little reason to question, but that every day might have an ordinary vigil or morning assembly. It was not long after Tertullian’s time, that Cyprian“ assures us, They received the eucharist every day; and he thinks, that petition in the Lord’s prayer may bear this sense, when we say, “ Give us this day our daily bread :” which was also Tertullian’s sense of it before him.61 Now this is demonstration, then, that they had assemblies for public worship every day, since 53 Con. Garth. 3. can. 47. Liceat etiam legi passiones martyrum, cum anniversarii dies eorum celebrantur. 5‘ Mabillon, de Cursu Gallicano, p. 403, &c. 55 Gelas. Decret. ap. Crab. t. l. p. 992. Singulari cautela, secundum antiquam consuetudinem, in sancta Romana ec- clesia non leguntur, quia et eorum qui conscripsere nomina penitus ignorantur; et ab infidelibus idiotis superflua, aut minus apta, quam rei ordo fuerit, scripta esse putantur, sicut cujusdam Cyrici et J ulitae, sicut Georgii aliorumque hujus- modi passiones, quae ab haereticis perhibentur composites. 5‘ Book XIV. chap. 4. 5" Cone. Laodic. can. 49. "On 01’; 581' 'rfi 'rso'o'aparcoo'q-fi c'ip'rou qrpoo'cpépew, at in‘; Ev o'afifia'q-q) Kai. KvptaKfi #611011. 58 Tertul. de Idololat. cap. 14. Ethnicis semel annuus dies ect. 7. quisque festus est: tibi octavo quoque die. Excerpe sin- gulas solennitates nationum, et in ordinem texe, Pentecos- ten implere non poterunt. 59 Tertul. de Coron. Mil. cap. 3. Die Dominico jejunium nefas ducimus, vel de geniculis adorare. Eadem immuni- tate a die Paschae in Pentecosten usque gaudemus. 6° Cypr. de Orat. Domin. p. 147. Hunc panem dari nobis quotidie postulamus, ne qui in Christo sumus, et quotidie eucharistiam ad cibum salutis accipimus, intercedente aliquo graviore delicto—a Christi corpore separemur. 6‘ Tertul. de Orat. cap. 6. Corpus ejus in pane censetur: Hoc est corpus meum: itaque peteudo panem quotidianum, perpetuitatem postulamus in Christo, et individuitatem a, corpore eJ us. CHAP. IX. 661 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. they received the eucharist every day, which they did not use to consecrate but in public assemblies of the church. From this time therefore there is no dispute about the church’s daily sacrifice of prayer in her morning assemblies ; which, in after ages, are commonly called cwtus antelueam', and vigi- lz'ee, and home noeturm, because they were a sort of ordinary vigils, or night assemblies, held before it was light, though not so early as those other sort of vigils, or night stations, before the sabbath and Lord’s day, which were of longer duration, as has been noted already of them in its proper place. As to evening prayer, public in the church, Mr. Mede62 thinks there is no mention made of it in Cyprian or Tertullian, nor in any writers before the author of the Constitutions and the council of Laodicea: he thinks the ninth hour of prayer, mentioned by Cyprian,63 relates only to private prayer; which is very probable: and that Ter- tullian’s noctumw convocationes mean not evening, but morning prayers early before day; which is undoubtedly true: but then he seems not to have considered, that in Cyprian’s time there was a cus- tom among some of communicating after supper; for he plainly mentions it,64 though he did not like ~ the custom: and this custom continued among the Egyptians till the time of Socrates,65 who speaks of it then as something peculiar to those churches. Now, if there was a custom in Cyprian’s time of communicating after supper, there is no doubt to be made of evening prayer at the same time. Ri- galtius,66 and after him Bishop Fell 6’ and Dr. Cave,"8 carry this custom of communicating after supper as high as Tertullian; but I think they mistake his words ; for he does not say, that they communicated after supper,b9 but that Christ, at supper time, gave the command for the sacrament of the eucharist to all, though then they communicated in their morn- ing assemblies, and received it from the hands of none but their governors. I lay no stress therefore upon this proof, but think the proof of evening prayer may be rationally deduced from that of Cyprian. After whom the author of the Constitu— tions not only speaks of it,70 but gives us the order both of their morning and evening service, with which I shall present the reader in the following chapters. The council of Laodicea speaks of the evening service,7l together with that of the names, or three in the afternoon, and orders the same service to be used in both. The Greeks commonly call it Avxvmpia, and the Latins, lucemarz'um, because it commonly began at the time when the day went off, and when they lighted candles for the night. It is likewise frequently styled sacr‘zficz'um vespertz'num, the evening sacrifice, and missa cespertz'na, as those names are used to signify, in general, the service or prayers of the church. And these two, evening and morning, are the most celebrated times of the ancient daily service, which are to be found almost in every ecclesiastical writer; so that it is alto- gether needless here to insist any further upon them. There remains one question more Sect. 8_ concerning those times of prayer, th'flclgnogiigfgougf which are commonly called the ca- 3,1535; ggpgg nonical hours, that is, besides the 120°. 95112523331063 forementioned evening and morning three firstages' prayer, those that are called the first, the third, the sixth, and the ninth hours, with the completom'um, or bed-time. They who have made the most exact inquiries into the original of these as fixed hours of public prayer, can find no footsteps of them in the three first ages, but conclude they came first into the church with the monastic life. So Mr. Mede,72 and Bishop Pearson,73 who observes that Tertullian mentions the third, sixth, and ninth hours of prayer ; but then he is disputing, as a Montanist," against the catholics, and urging the necessity of observing the rules of the Montanists in all the heights of their austerities, and pretences of mortification and devotion above the church. And he does not inti- mate, that either the Montanists or the catholics observed these hours for public assemblies. Cyprian indeed recommends "5 these hours of prayer from the example of Daniel, and other arguments, to Christians, in their private devotions : but he does not so much as once suggest, that the church had then by any rule made these the stated hours of public devotion. That which evidently confirms this opinion, is an observation to be made out of Cassian, who particularly describes the devotions of these canonical hours, and the gradual rise of them. For they had not all their originaliat the same time. The first monks of Egypt, who were the founders of the monastic life, he assures us, never observed any other canonical hours for public devotion, but only evening and morning early76 before day: all 62 Mede, Epist. 66. p. 840. 63 Cypr. de Orat. Dom. p. 154. 64 Cypr. Ep. 63. Ad Caecilium, p. 156. An illa sibi ali- quis contemplatione blanditur, quod etsi mane aqua sola offerii videtur, tamen cum ad coenandum venimus, mixtum calicem ofi'erimus? “5 Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 22. 66 Rigalt. in Cypr. Ep. 63. 6’ Fell, in dictum Cypriani locum. 58 Cave, Prim. Christ. par. 1. cap. 11. p. 338. 69 Tertul. de Cor. Mil. cap. 3. Eucharistiae sacramentum et in tempore victus, et omnibus mandatum a Domino, etiam antelucanis coetibus, nec dc aliorum manu quam pree- sidentium sumimus. 7° Constit. lib. 8. c. 35. "1 Conc. Laodic. can. '18. Hepi 1'05, 'n‘ju ai’rrr‘w Xsm-ovp- yt'av 'rdiv si’ixii'w qrc'w'r'o're real. in 'ra'i's évmi'rals Kai. iv era-is éo'qrépats d¢si>xew 'yivso'eat. "2 Mede, Epist. 66. 73 Pearson, Praelect. 2. in Act. Apost. num. 3, 4. "'4 Tertul. de Jejun. cap. 10. 75 Cypr. de Orat. Domin. p. 154. "5 Cassian. Institut. lib. 3. cap 2. 662 Boox XIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. the rest of their time they spent at work privately, joining private meditation of the Scriptures, singing of psalms, and prayers, continually with their labour. Not long after, the monasteries of Mesopotamia and Palestine set up the practice of meeting publicly at the third, sixth, and ninth hours for performing their psalmody77 and devotions. But as yet there was no new morning service distinct from that of the old morning service before day. This was first begun in the monastery of Bethleem,78 and thence propagated into others, but not received in all. And the completorium, or bed-time service, was utterly unknown to the ancients, as distinct from the Zu- cernam's, or evening service, as Bona79 himself proves against Bellarmine. So that these canonical hours came gradually into the church, and are all of them owing to the rules of the Eastern monasteries for their original. Therefore what a learned man80 among ourselves says, must be taken with a little qualification, else it will not be true: “ That the universal church anciently observed certain set hours of prayer, that all Christians throughout the world might at the same time join together to glo- rify God: and some of them81L were of opinion, that the angelical host, being acquainted with those hours, took that time to join their prayers and praises with those of the church.” If this be understood of any rule or custom of the universal church for hours of public prayer, besides those of morning and evening, in the three first ages, it will not be true: but if it only mean, that there were directions given for the encouragement of private prayer at those set times, and that Christians generally observed them in private, it may be allowed; since not only Origen, but Cyprian, as we have heard before, writes in fa- vour of them, and Clemens Alexandrinus82 says, some allotted set hours for prayer, the third, sixth, and ninth. So necessary is it to distinguish between public and private devotions, and between the first and the following ages, when we speak of canonical hours of prayer as appointed by the church univer- sal. For even after they were set up in the monas- teries, they were not immediately observed in all the churches. For Epiphanius,83 speaking of the customs of the catholic church, mentions the morn- ing hymns and prayers, and the evening psalms and prayers, but no other. So Chrysostom often men- tions the daily service in the church 8‘ morning and evening; and at the most never speaks of above three times85 a day for public assemblies. For thus he brings in a secular man complaining, and saying, How is it possible for me, who am a secular man, and pinned down to the courts of law, to run to church, and pray at the three hours of the day? In answer to which Chrysostom does not say, that the church had these three hours of prayer for laymen, and more for others; but he tells the man of busi- ness, that if he could not come to church, because he was so fettered _to the court, yet he might pray even as he stood there; since it was the mind and the voice, and the elevation of the soul, rather than the lifting up of the hands, that was to be regarded in prayer. For Hannah’s prayer was not heard for her loud voice, but because she cried aloud inwardly in her soul. This seems to intimate, that the church then only observed three hours of prayer, that is, the evening and morning, and, as I conceive, the nones, or three in the afternoon. For by this time, in some places, the church had received that hour as a stated hour of prayer, of which more by and by. Yet it was some time after this before these hours were admitted in the Gallican and Spanish churches. For Mabillon shows86 out of Gregory Turonensis, that the sixth and ninth hours of prayer were not ' introduced into the church of Tours till the time of Bishop Injurio‘sus, which was not till the year 530. And it appears from one of the canons of Martin Bracarensis, that they were not in his time admitted into the Spanish churches. For he calls only87 the morning and evening service the daily sacrifice of psalmody, at which all clerks were obliged to be present, under pain of deposition without amend- ment. This argues, that as yet the other hours were not established in the churches (but only in the monasteries) as canonical parts of the daily service. And it is observable further, that most of the writers of the fourth age, who speak of six or seven hours of prayer, speak of the observations of the monks only, and not of the whole body of the church. As St. J erom,88 where he describes the in- stitutions of the monasteries erected by the famous Lady Paula, says, They sung the psalter in order, in the morning, at the third, and sixth, and ninth hours, and at evening, and at midnight. And giving di- rections in another place to Laeta, how to educate her daughter in the monastic life, he prescribes the 7’ Cass. lib. 3. cap. 3. "8 Ibid. cap. 4. 7” Bona de Psalmod. cap. 11. sect. l. n. 2. 8° Patrick of Prayer, part 2. chap. 11. p. 109. 81 Origen. '1rspi. sbxfis. n. 33, 35. 82 Clem. Alex. Strom. 7. p. 854. Ed. Oxon. ‘3 Epiphan. Expos. Fid. n. 23. t. 1. p. 1106. ‘Ewen/oi ere UMUOL s'u ar’rrfi 'rz'i oi'yia émchno'ia dmvsrce'is 'yivov'rat, Kai 'n-poo'evxai Ewen/at, Avxvucoi "re t'z'lua glrakpoi Kai 'n'poo'ev- Xai. 8”‘ Chrys. Horn. 18. in Act. p. 174, 176. Horn. 6. in 1 Tim. p. 1550. 85 Ibid. Horn. 4. tle Anna, t. 2. p. 995. H639 duuacrov, du- epw'rrou Btw'rucdu, ducao'q'npiop 'lrpoo'nAwMsfz/ou, Ka'rc‘z 'Tpsi's r'épas siixeo'eou. 'rfis fipépas, Kai £iséKKA11o'ial/IiK'rpéXuv, &c. 86 Mabil. de Cursu Gallicano, p. 409. 87 Martin. Bracar. Capitul. Synod. cap. 64. Si quis cleri- cus intra civitatem fuerit, aut in quolibet loco, in quo eccle- sia est, et ad quotidianum psallendi sacrificium non con- venerit; deponatur a clero, &c. 88 Hieron. Epitaph. Paulae, Epist. 27. cap. 10. Mane, hora tertia, sexta, nona, vespere, noctis medio, per ordi- nem psalterium cantabant. ' CHAP. IX. 663 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. same hours to be observed in devotion.”9 And the like may be seen in St. Basil, Gregory Nyssen, Cas- sian, Cassiodore, and most other writers, nay, even St. Chrysostom himself, who speaks but of three solemn hours of prayer in the church, yet when he has occasion to speak of the monks and their insti- tutions, he gives in much the same number of ca- nonical hours as others do. He tells us,90 they had their midnight hymnsjtheir morning prayers, their third, and sixth, and ninth hours, and last of all their evening prayers. But I will not deny that by this time these hours of prayers might in some places of the East be admitted into'the churches. For the author of the Constitutions has different directions upon this point: in some places 91 he speaks only of morning and evening prayer in the church; but in another he prescribes this rule to be observed by the bishops in the church : Ye shall make prayers 92 in the morning, and at the third hour, and the sixth, and the ninth, and at evening, and at cock-crowing. In the morning giving thanks to the Lord for that he hath enlightened you, removing the night, and bringing in the day: at the third hour, because at that time the Lord received sentence of condemna- tion from Pilate : at the sixth hour, because at that time, after the Lord was crucified, all things were shaken and moved with horror and astonishment at the audacious fact of the impious Jews, detesting the affront that was put upon their Lord: at even- ing giving thanks to God, who hath given the night to be a rest from our daily labours: at cock-crowing, because that hour brings the welcome news of the day, to work the works of light. If you cannot go to church because of the infidels, you shall assemble in a house: or if you can neither assemble in a house, nor in the church, then let every one sing, read, and pray by himself; or two or three together: “ For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” One may conjecture from this passage, that this author, living in the time when these canonical hours began to be in request, in the beginning of the fourth cen- tury, found them to be admitted into the usage of some churches, and therefore drew his scheme of directions in conformity to their practice. And it being allowed, that about this time they began gradually to whasteggi'viibe was take place in the church, it will not figtigfi £32188; at be amiss to take a short view of them church. in particular, and examine what parts of Divine service were performed in each of them. Cassian, speaking of the first institution of them in the monasteries of Mesopotamia and Palestine, where they had their first birth, says” they were appoint- ed to be celebrated with the singing of three psalms at every meeting. And these, intermixed with some prayers, were the whole service. So that these were but short ofiices in comparison of the ancient morn- ing and evening service. And there is reason to believe, that the church did not precisely follow these monastic rules, but made proper oflices for herself to be used upon these occasions, partly be- cause the monastic ofiices were very different from one another, and not always chosen with the great— est discretion. Of which I need but give one proof here out of the council of Braga, which made a canon to this purpose,94 That by common consent one and the same order of singing should be ob- served in the morning and evening offices, and that the private and different customs of the monasteries should not be mingled with the rules of the church. The Gallican church, in the time of the second council of Tours, it is certain, had a very different rule from that of the Eastern monasteries about the number of psalms, hymns, and antiphonas to be said at the several hours and times of prayer. For in one of the canons of that council,95 about the year 567, a very peculiar order was made, that the method of psalmody and number of hymns should be in proportion to the number of the hours or months in which they were used: the new morning service was to be performed with six antiphonas and two psalms in the height of summer; in Sep- _ tember, there were to be seven antiphonas and two psalms; in October, eight antiphonas and three psalms; in November, nine and three psalms; in December, ten and three psalms; and the same in January and February, until Easter. So again at the sixth hour there were to be six psalms and the hallelujah, and at the twelfth hour twelve psalms ‘*9 Hieron. Ep. 7. ad Laetam. Assuescat exemplo ad ora- tiones et psalmos nocte consurgere, mane hymnos canere, tertia, sexta, nona hora stare in acie, quasi bellatricem Chris- ti; accensaque lucerna reddere sacrificium vespertinum. 9° Chrys. Hom. 14. in I Tim. p. 1599. 9' Constit. lib. 2. cap. 59. lib. 8. cap. 35. i 92 Ibid. cap. 34. 93Cassian. Institut. lib. 3. cap. 3. Itaque in Palaestinae vel Mesopotamiae monasteriis, ac totius Orientis, supradic- tarum horarum solennitates trinis psalmis quotidie fini- untur. 1"‘ Conc. Bracarens. 1. can. 19. Placuit omnibus com- muni consensu, ut unus atque idem psallendi ordo in matu- tiuis vel vespertinis ofliciis teneatur, et. non diversae ac privates monasteriorum consuetudines contra ecclesiasticas regulas sint permixtae, vel eum ecclesiasticis regulis sint permixtae. 95 Cone. Turon. 2. can. 19. Iste ordo psallendi servetur, ut in diebus aestivis ad matutinum sex antiphonas binis psalmis explicentur. Toto augusto manicationes fiant, quia festivitates sunt etmissae. Septembri septem antiphonas explicentur binis psalmis; Octobri octo ternis psalmis; Novembri novem ternis psalmis: Decembri decem ternis psalmis: J anuario et Februario, itidem usque ad Pascha.— Superest, ut vel duodecim psalmi expediantur ad matuti- num, quia patrum statuta praeceperunt ut ad sextam sex psalmi dicantur cum alleluia; et ad duodecimam duodecim, itemque cum alleluia, &c. 664 BOOK XIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. and the hallelujah. And in the whole month of August, there should be manications, that is, as Mabillon96 explains it out of Aimoinus,97 early ma- tins, or morning service, without any psalms, be- cause it was harvest time, and men were in haste to be gone to their labour, when they had perform- ed the solemnity of the festivals, which in that month were frequent above others. This shows, that no certain rule was at first observed about these canonical hours, but that they varied both as to their number and service in their first original. __ Sec‘: 10 The first of these oflices was the or a...» inat'utina, matutina, or prima, the new morning or prima, ed the _ . . . . 11?“ momma we service, so called in contradistinction V108. to the old morning service, which was always early before day; whereas this was after the day was begun. Cassian"8 tells us, this was first set up in the monastery of Bethleem, for till that time the morning service used to end with the old nocturnal psalms and prayers and the daily vigils, after which they used to betake themselves to rest till the third hour, which was the first hour of di- urnal prayer, till this new oflice of morning prayer was set up within Cassian’s memory, to prevent some inconveniences, which he there mentions. He often gives it the name therefore of novella so- Zenm'tas, the new solemnity, as being so lately in- vented. And this is the true reason why, in most of the writers before Cassian, such as St. J erom, the author of the Constitutions, St. Basil, and others who speak particularly of the canonical hours, there is no mention of this first hour, but they always reckon them up after this manner, the morning, meaning the morning vigil before day, the third, the sixth, the ninth, without mentioning the first, be- cause it was not in their time as yet become an ac- customed hour of prayer. But when it was once made a canonical hour, to complete the number of seven times a day, then there were psalms particu- larly appointed for this service, which Cassian99 says were these three, the fiftieth, sixty-second, and eighty-ninth; which, according to our computation, are the fifty-first, sixty-third, and ninetieth. The first of which, is that which the ancients called properly the psalm of confession, or penitential psalm, which begins, “Have mercy upon me, O God, after thy great goodness: according to the multi- tude of thy mercies, do away mine offences.” This, C assian says in the same place, was used by all the churches of Italy in his time as the close of this morning service. The ‘second of these psalms is that which the ancients called by a peculiar name, the morning psalm, as we shall see hereafter, be- cause it begins with those words, “O God, my God, early will I awake unto thee,” or, “early will I seek thee ;” and was always used in the old antelucan service before this new service was set up. The third of these psalms, which is the ninetieth, seems to be taken into this service upon the account of those words in it suiting the state of human life, “ In the morning it is green, and groweth up, but in the evening it is cut down, dried up, and wither- ed :” and, “ So teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom.” Next after this, in all such churches ect- n. as admitted the first, was the tertia, or that 121;?“ fgrmyegf third hour, that is, nine in the morn- ing: this is mentioned by all the writers that say any thing of hours of prayer; some saying it was to be observed in regard100 to our Saviour’s being condemned by Pilate at that time; and others, in memory of the Holy Ghost’s coming upon the apos— tles 1°‘ at that hour: that men might with one mind worship the Holy Spirit, and beg of him the same sanctification, direction, and. protection, imitating David’s prayer, in saying, “ Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me,” Psal. li.: in another place, “ Let thy loving Spirit lead me forth into the land of righteousness,” Psal. cxliii. This is the reason assigned by Cassian and St. Basil for this solemnity. But whether any par- ticular psalms were appropriated to this service, we are not told, but only in general Cassian-says, three psalms, together with prayers, were appointed for every hour. But on all festivals this service was omitted, because on Sundays the communion ser- vice was used, which always began at this hour. The next hour was the sixth, or noon-day service. At which time, St. Basil says,102 they used the 90th or 91st Psalm, praying for protection against the in- cursions of the noon-day devil, datpovia Itso'mifipwoii, for so the Septuagint and other translations render the words of that Psalm, “ Thou shalt not be afraid for any terror by night, nor for the arrow that fiieth by day; nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness, nor for the sickness, nor the devil de- stroying at noon-day. What other psalms they Sect. 12. Of the sixth hour, or noon-day service. 96 Mabil. de Cursu Gallicano, n. 54. p. 422. ' 9’ Aimoin. Hist. Francor. lib. 3. cap. 81. Porro toto Augusto, propter crebras festivitates, manicationes fiebant. Manicare autem mane surgere dicitur. 98 Cassian. Institut. lib. 3. cap. 4. Sciendum tamen hanc matutinam, quas nunc observatur in Occiduis vel maxime regionibus, canonicam functionem, nostro tempore, in nos- tro quoque monasterio primitus institutam, ubi Dominus noster Jesus Christus natus ex virgine.—Usque ad illud enim tempus, hac solennitate matutina, quae expletis noc- turnis psalmis et orationibus post modicum temporis inter- vallum solet in Galliw monasteriis celebrari, cum quotidi- anis vigiliis pariter consummata, reliquas horas reflectioni corporum deputatas, a majoribus nostris invenimus. 99 Cassian. lib. 3. cap. 6. Quinquagesimum vero psal- mum, et sexagesimum secundum, et octogesimum nonum huic novellae solennitati novimus fuisse deputatos. 1°" See the author of the Constitutions, lib. 8. c. 34. 1°‘ Basil. Regul. Major. qu. 37. Cassian. Institut. lib. 3. c. 3. 1°” Basil. ibid. CnAP. X. 665 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. used he tells us not, but probably they might be some that had relation to the death of Christ, be- cause it is agreed by all, that this service was ap- pointed in commemoration of our Saviour’s im- maculate sacrifice to the Father at this hour. The last hour of prayer in the day- time, was the ninth hour, that is, three in the afternoon, at which time our Saviour expired upon the cross, and by his death triumphed over death and hell. At this hour Cornelius was praying, when he was visited by an angel: as Peter was at the sixth hour, when he had the vision of the sheet let down from heaven. This was the hour when Peter and John went up into the temple, “ at the ninth hour, being the hour of prayer,” and the usual time of the Jewish evening sacrifice. In regard to all which the church seems to have taken this hour for a solemn time of public prayer before the two last mentioned. For the council of Laodicea103 expressly mentions the ninth hour of prayer, and orders that the same service should be used in that as was appointed for even- ing prayer. And St. Chrysostom, speaking of three hours 1°‘ of public prayer in the day, may most rea- sonably be understood to intend this ninth hour as the third of them; because in another place he seems “5 to recommend it as such : for, speaking of the apostles going into the temple at the ninth hour, being the hour of prayer, he says, They observed this hour not without very good reason: for I have often told you concerning this hour, that it was the time when paradise was opened, and the thief en- tered into it; this the time when the curse was taken away, when the sacrifice of the world was offer- ed, when the darkness was dissolved, and the light, as well sensible as spiritual, shone forth. It was at the ninth hour, when others, after dinner and drunk- enness, sleep a deep sleep, that they then, being sober and vigilant, and fervent in love, made haste to prayer. And if they needed to be so exact and assiduous in prayer, who had such boldness, and were conscious of no evil; what shall we do, who are overrun with wounds and sores, and neglect to use the medicine of prayer ? This character here given of the ninth hour, makes it probable to me, that this was one of those three famous hours of prayer, which in the former place he exhorts all men to frequent in public. We have no particular account in any writer, of the psalms or prayers to be used at this hour, but only what we have heard before out of the council of Laodicea, that it was to be the same with the evening service; and there- fore we must draw our accounts of it from thence. Now, because we have a more ample and distinct account of the morning and evening daily service, Sect. 13. Of the ninth hour, or three in the after- noon. than of any other stated hours of prayer in the an- cier t church, (as being both more ancient and more celebrated than the rest) I'shall give a more par- ticu ar and exact description of the several parts, and method of performing those offices, from such records as may be depended on for their truth and fidelity; and have therefore reserved the consider- ation of these for the two following chapters. CHAPTER X. THE onnnn OF THEIR DAILY MORNING SERVICE. THE most noted and usual times of meeting, besides those of the Lord’s jrheolgii'oi'mom- day, were the morning and evening of every day, which in times of peace fgigdiggghgie sixty- were constantly and regularly ob- served. I will describe the order of these services, as they are laid down in the Constitutions, and compare the several parts of them with the memo- rials and accounts that are left us by other ancient writers. The order for the morning service begins with the appointment of the :taxpbg 6994111169‘, the morning psalm, as the author of the Constitutions terms it.1 He names not what psalm it was in this place, but in another place he calls it the sixty- second; that is, in our division, the sixty-third. Which (to show how proper it was to begin their morning service with, both in relation to the night past and the day approaching) I think it not im- proper to recite in this place, according to our old version, which comes nearest to the translation of the Septuagint used in the ancient church. PSALM LX111. 1 O GoD, thou art my God: early will I seek thee. 2 My soul thirsteth for thee, my flesh also long- eth after thee, in a barren and dry land, where no water is. 3 Thus have I looked for thee in holiness; that I might behold thy power and glory. 4 For thy lovingkindness is better than the life itself: my lips shall praise thee. 5 As long as I live will I magnify thee on this manner, and lift up my hands in thy name. 6 My soul shall be satisfied even as it were with marrow and fatness, when my mouth praiseth thee with joyful lips. 7 Have 1 not remembered thee in my bed, and thought upon thee when I was waking? 8 Because thou hast been my helper, therefore under the shadow of thy wings will I rejoice. 1°? Conc. Laodic. can. 18. 1°‘ Chrys. Hom. 14. in 1 Tim. p. 1599. “5 Ibid. Hom. 12. De Inscriptione Act. Apost. t. 5. p. 176. 1 Constit. lib. 8. cap. 37. Confer. lib. 2. c. 59. 666 ANTIQUITIES OF THE Boox XIII. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 9 My soul hangeth upon thee: thy right hand hath upholdcn me. 10 These also that seekNthc hurt of my soul, they shall go under the earth. ' 11 Let them fall (Septuagint, They shall fall) upon the edge of the sword, that they may be a portion for foxes. 12 But the king shall rejoice in God; all they also that swear by him shall be commended: but the mouth of them that speak lies shall be stopped. St. Chrysostom shows that the au- Imixlhzgeifipfi'qgomg thor of the Constitutions does not im- i'v‘fiulrzfgfl'" 1“ other pose upon us in this morning psalm: for he says,” The fathers of the church appointed it to be said every morning, as a spiritual song and medicine to blot out our sins; to kindle in us a desire of God; to raise our souls, and inflame them with a mighty fire of devotion; to make us overflow with goodness and love, and send us with such preparation to approach and appear before God. He names not the psalm, but he repeats the first words, “ O God, my God, early will I awake unto thee. My soul thirsteth for thee.” And, “Thus have I appeared before thee in holiness, that I might behold thy power and glory.” By which we may know that it is the same psalm. He says, he had before made an exposition upon this psalm; and re- fers his reader thither for a larger account of it: but that, by injury of time, is now lost, and we are beholden to this passage by the by for all the notice we have of this morning psalm out of him, upon the occasion of his commenting upon the evening psalm; of which more hereafter, in its proper place. Besides Chrysostom, we have the testimony of Cas- sian for the use of this psalm; for, speaking of the several hours of prayer, and assigning reasons out of Scripture for them, he makes this to be one rea- son for morning prayer, that the psalm, which was daily sung in that ofiice,a did properly instruct men about their obligations to this duty, saying, “ O God, my God, early will I seek thee.” And Athanasius also once or twice recommends this psalm to virgins and others, as proper to be said privately in their morning devotions. Rising early in the morning, says he to Marcellinus,‘ sing the sixty-second Psalm. And again,5 to the virgins, In the morning sing this psalm, “ O God, my God, early will I seek thee.” These were but private directions, indeed, but pro- bably might be suited to the orders and measures of public worship; it being evident, from the forecited authors, that this psalm was the usual introduction to their morning devotions. Immediately after this morning psalm, without mention of any other fo‘rsfvf‘tjfiljiiiipmm psalmody, or reading any lessons out glinfrlgggfi:M2533, of the Old or New Testament, follow mitt“, und puni- the prayers for the several orders of catechumens, energumens, candidates of baptism‘, and penitents, as in the general service of the Lord’s day, which, because I shall recite them at large in that service,0 I omit to mention any further in this place. O-nly observing, that these prayers were performed partly by the deacons wpoaedwnmg, bidding the people pray, and repeating the several petitions they were to make for those several orders of men; and partly by the bishop’s invocation or benediction said over them, as they bowed down to receive the blessing before their dismission. When these several orders were sent away, there followed the prayers which, on the Lord’s day, began the communion service, and which upon that account were usually styled u’lxai mard'w, the prayers of the faithful, or communicants, because none but they who had a right to communicate in the eucharist might be present at them. These were the prayers for the peace of the world, and all orders of men in the church, which always went before the consecration of the eucharist. And though there were no consecration of the eucharist on these ordinary days, yet these general prayers were al~ ways used in the daily morning service. I omit the reciting of them here for the same reason as I do the former, because the reader may find them re- hearsed at large hereafter,7 in the entrance on the communion service. I only observe here, that there is 8mg mention made, in other writers as well hQxiflffihlffiijffiullfl as the Constitutions, of these prayers mw‘emrl‘m' for the whole state of the world, and all orders of men in the church. For Chrysostom, writing upon those words of St. Paul, “I exhort, therefore, that first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and all that are in authority ;” says, This word, “first of all,” relates to the daily worship; wherein they that were initiated knew what was done every day, morning and evening ;8 how we make supplication to God for the whole world, for kings and all that are in authority. This clearly shows, that such prayers were not only made on communion days at Sect. 4. Then the prayers for the faithful, the peace of the world, and the whole state of Christ’s church. 2 Chrys. Com. in Psal. cxl. t. 3. p. 545. Towii'rcis £011 real. (3 éwliwds illum/ids, &c. Q ‘’ Cassian. Institut. lib. 3. cap. 3. De matutina vero so- lcnnitate etiam illud nos instruit, quod in ipsa quotidie de- cantari solet, Deus mous ad to do luce vigilo. 4 Athan. Ep. ad Marccl'linum, t. l. p. 075. ’Op0pi§wu MAM Tdu eigmcocr'rdu dado-spot’. ‘1 Id. do Virginit. t. 1. p. 1057. Hpris 5p6pov 6t 'rdu drak- hdu 'roil'rou Aé'ye'ra, ‘O Osds, Ostia p.01), 'n'pris o'i; (ipepigw. 0 See Book XIV. chap. 5. " See Book XV. chap. 1. 8 Chrys. Hom. 6.111 1 Tim. p. 1550. 'l‘oil'ro lo'ao'w ol ,ullTaL, Wills K113" s'miqnu fiue'pm/ 'yius'rat Kai iv storm-{pg Kai. 'n'pw'i'q, 7rd“; i'nrip 'mw'rds 'rofl KO'O'fLOU, Kai Barn/\e'wu, Kai 'n'ciu'rwu 'rd'w .iu I'rrrepoxg'i du'rwv crowd/“00¢ 'rv‘w (lino-w CRAP. X. CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 667 ANTIQUITIES OF THE the celebration of the eucharist, but every day, both morning and evening also, when it is certain there could be no sacrifice but only that of their prayers; for the consecration of the eucharist in that age was never made at evening prayer. In this sense we may understand many of the ancient apologists, when they speak of making prayers continually for the Roman government. Thus Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, tells ZEmylian the prefect, We wor- ship the one God, Maker of all things, who gave the empire to Valerian and Gallienus our divine governors: to Him we pray” continually for their kingdom, that it may be preserved free from dis- turbance and commotion. And so Tertullian 1° ac- quaints Scapula: We offer sacrifice for the emperor’s safety, but to no other god but our God and his; and in that manner as God has appointed, that is to say, by prayer alone without blood. In like manner Cyprian tells Demetrian :1‘ We continually pour forth supplications and prayers for driving away your enemies, and- procuring rain, and either for removing or moderating your calamities; and we pray instantly and incessantly day and night for your peace and safety, appeasing God and ren- dering him propititious unto you. Origen also,12 answering the objection of Celsus, that the Chris- tians were wanting in their duty to the emperor, in that they gave him no aid in his wars, and refused to fight for him, among other things tells him, That they gave him the most seasonable assistance, pro- curing him the Divine aid, and defending him with the whole armour of God. And this they did in obedience to the apostle’s admonition, “I exhort, therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, in— tercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men, for kings, and all that are in authority.” He adds, That keeping their hands pure, they fought in their prayers to God for their lawful sovereign and those that fought lawfully under him, that all opposition and enemies might fall before them, whilst they were lawfully employed. They by their prayers enervated the power of devils, the authors of war, and confounders of leagues, and disturbers of peace; and in doing this they did the emperor more effectual service, than they that bare arms for him. Athenagoras tells the emperors them- selves, in his address to them,13 That the Christians prayed for their government and the royal progeny, that the son might succeed the father in his king- dom according to right, and that their empire might be extended and enlarged, all things succeeding ac- cording to their desire : and this they did, both that they might lead a quiet and peaceable life, and cheerfully observe all that was commanded them. Now, though in all these passages there is no ex- press mention made of morning and evening prayer in the church ; yet their continual prayer, and their praying day and night, may reasonably be pre- sumed to include these, without any prejudice to other times of public or private devotion. I now go on again with the order of morning prayer in the Constitutions. After the prayer for the whole state of the church was ended, and the mgr,‘Tnfj‘fhgfififgfi deacon had said, “Keep us, 0 God, $3313.33 f,".§i,,°,',',“{§.i‘: and preserve us by thy grace ;” which ifi'iit'igliyikriifcpJfii concludes the former prayer; he ex- “mg day’ horted the people to pray for peace and pros~ perity the day ensuing and all their lives, in this manner: “ Let us beg of God his mercies and compassions, that this morning and this day, and all the time of our pilgrimage, may be passed by us in peace and without sin: let us beg of God, that he would send us the angel of peace, and give us a Christian end, and be gracious and merciful unto us. Let us commend ourselves and one another to the living God by his only begotten Son.” What is here said concerning the angel of peace, is a petition that came often in the devotions of the ancient church, both when they prayed for them- selves and others. For we shall meet with it again in the evening service, and in the prayer for the catechumens“ mentioned by St. Chrysostom in se- veral places of'his writings, where he often speaks of the deacon’s bidding men pray for the angel of peace, and that all their purposes may be directed to a peaceable end. Which agree very well with this prayer of the deacon in the Constitutions. Immediately after this common prayer of the deacon and people to- gether, (the deacon having bid the people commend themselves to God,) the bishop makes this commendatory prayer, which is there called ei/Xapiqia 6pdpm), the morning thanksgiving,15 and is in the following words : “O God, the God of spirits and of all flesh, with whom no one can compare, whom no one can ap- proach, that givest the sun to govern the day, and the moon and the stars to govern the night; look Sect. 6. Sect. 7. Then the bishop's commendation, or thanksgiving. 9 Dionys. Epist. ap. Euseb. lib. 7. c. 11. Tolifrqi drnuaxiiis i'nrtp 'riis Bao'thsias add-div, iirrws da'dheucros diaper”), 'n'poa- auxépetia. 1° 'l‘ertull. ad Scapulam, cap. 2. Sacrificamus pro salute imperatoris, sed Deo nostro et ipsius: sed quomodo pree- cepit Deus, pura prece. Vid. Apol. cap. 30, 31, et 39. ‘1 Cypr. ad Demetrian. p. 193. Pro arcendis hostibus et imbribus impetrandis, et vel auferendis vel temperandis ad- versis, rogamus semper et preces fundimus: et pro pace ac salute vestra propitiantes ac placantes Deum, diebus ac noetibus jugiter atque' instanter orainus. '2 Orig. cont. Cels. lib. 8. p. 426. '3 Athenag. Legatio pro Christianis, p. 39. '4 See these places of Chrysostom cited Book XIV. chap. 5. sect. 4. ‘5 Constit. lib. 8. cap. 37. 668 BooK XIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. ' peace.” down now upon us with the eyes of thy favour, and receive our morning thanksgivings, and have mercy on us. For we have not spread forth our hands to any strange god. For there is not any , new god among us, but thou, our eternal and im- mortal God, who hast given us our being through Christ, and our well-being through him also. Vouch- _ safe by him to bring us to everlasting life; with whom unto thee be glory, honour, and adoration, in the Holy Ghost, world without end. Amen.” Sm 8_ After this the deacon bids them tinfindofmi‘milfifif; how their heads and receive the im- be'mdicuon' position of hands, or the bishop’s benediction, which follows under the title of Xapo— Qwia 6p9pun), the imposition of hands in morning prayer, in the form of words here annexed. “ O God, faithful and true, that showest mercy to thousands and ten thousands of them that love thee; who art the friend of the humble, and defender of the poor, whose aid all things stand in need of, be- cause all things serve thee: look down upon this thy people, who how their heads unto thee, and bless them with thy spiritual benediction; keep them as the apple of the eye; preserve them in piety and righteousness, and vouchsafe to bring them to eter- nal life, in Christ Jesus thy beloved Son, with whom unto thee be glory, honour, and adoration, in the Holy Ghost, now and for ever, world without end. Amen.” This said, the deacon dismisses the congregation with the usual form, Hpoéhde'rs tv u’pr'lvy, “Depart in Which Chrysostom takes notice of as the solemn word for dismissing every church assembly. For, speaking of the frequent use of the salutation, Pax vobis, “Peace be unto you,” he observes, that as it was used in the beginning of every sacred ac- tion, prayer, preaching, blessing, &c., and sometimes in the middle of prayers too, so particularly at the bishop’s entrance into the church, and the deacon’s final dismission of the assembly: The deacon, says he, when he sends you away ‘“ from this meeting, does it with this prayer, Hopsz’iwfis iv eip'l'jvp, “ Go in peace.” . But besides this order of morning Sect. 9. . . . iyghfityimu‘rx‘gngrrié prayer laid down 1n this place by the gietrhyc nuyljlicwviw author of the Constitutions, there is, in another place, a prayer or hymn appointed for the morning, but whether for public or private use, is not said; I suppose he intended it only for private devotion, because it is placed among many other private prayers. He gives it the name of rpoowxr) s'wtiwr), the morning prayer. Other writers call it the hymn, and the angelical hymn, and the great doxology, from the first words of it, “Glory be to God on high,” which was the , angels’ hymn at our Saviour’s birth. The form of it in this author runs in these words :" - “Glory be to God on high, in earth peace, good will towards men. We praise thee, we laud thee, we bless thee, we glorify thee, we worship thee by the great High Priest, thee the true God, the only unbegotten, whom no one can approach, for thy great glory, O Lord, heavenly King, God the Father almighty: Lord God, the Father of Christ, the im- maculate Lamb, who taketh away the sin of the world, receive our prayer, thou that sittest upon the cherubims. For thou only art holy, thou only Lord Jesus, the Christ of God, the God of every created being, and our King. By whom unto thee be glory, honour, and adorationl This same hymn is mentioned also by Athana- sius, in his book of Virginity, but he gives it only as a direction to virgins in their private devotions: Early in the morning, says he, sing this psalm, “ O God, my God, early will I awake unto thee. My soul thirsteth for thee.” (That is the 63rd Psalm.) When it is light, say, “Bless ye the Lord, all ye works of the Lord.” (That is the Song of the Three Children.) And,la “Glory be to God on high, on earth peace, good will towards men. We laud thee, we bless thee, we worship thee ;” and what follows. It is great pity this author did not give us the whole hymn, that we might have compared it with that in the Constitutions. It was always used in the communion service, though not exactly in the same form, as we shall see hereafter. But St. Chrysostom1m speaks of it as used also daily at morning prayer. For, describing the devotions of those who led an ascetic life, he says, As soon as they rose out of bed, they met together and made a quire, and as it were with one mouth sang hymns to God, praising him, and giving him thanks for all his blessings both general and particular; and, among other things, like angels on earth, singing, “Glory be to God on high, and on earth peace, good will towards men.” And Mabillon2m observes out of the Rules of Caesarius Arelatensis and Aure- lian in the beginning of the sixth century, that it is there appointed to be sung at matins, or morning prayer, every Lord’s day, and on Easter day, and such other noted festivals. Which shows, that, at least in some churches, it was used in other ofiices besides the communion service, and among the monks as an ordinary hymn in their daily morn- ing service. And so it is now used among the modern Greeks, as a learned searcher of their rituals21 informs us in his account of the Greek church. 1“ Chrys. Hom. 52. in eos qui Paseha jejunant, t. 5. p. 713. " Constit. lib. 7. cap. 47. 1'‘ Athan. de Virgin. t. l. p. 1057. 1" Chrys. Horn. 69. in Matt. p. 600. 2° Mabil. de Cursu Gallicano, p. 407. 2‘ Smith of the Creek Church, p. 224 CI-IAP.,X. 669 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. \ But it seems a little morediflicult to SF 5.10. 0 o 0 , ‘Whctheifithcpsalms account for another thmg, whlch 1s and lessons were ‘rigging; Bilxicguily omitted in the Constitutions. For there is no order there either for psalms or lessons to be read in the morning service, be sides that one psalm, which was particularly styled the morning psalm. Whereas other authors, and particularly Cassian, speak of three psalms read at every assembly_through all the canonical hours of the day ;22 and he remarks precisely for the morning service the very psalms ”‘ thatwere used, namely, the 50th, that is, our 51st, which they commonly called the penitential psalm: “Have mercy upon me, O God, after thy great goodness: according to the multitude of thy mercies, do away my offences:” and together with that, the 62nd Psalm, that is, the 68rd in our division, which was commonly called the morning psalm, as we have noted before: and the 89th, that is, our 90th Psalm, which is appro- priated to the funeral office, but is as proper for the service of every day, and fit to be used by all men whenever they begin a new day, because of those excellent petitions in it for God’s protection and favour, and for wisdom to consider our latter end; “So teach us to number our days, that we may ap- ply our hearts unto wisdom :” and for that it so familiarly puts us in mind of our mortality, compar- ing our life to a sleep, which fades away suddenly like the grass ; “ In the morning it is green and groweth up, but in the_evening it is cut down, dried up, and withered.” By which we may judge both of the wisdom and piety of the ancients in appoint- ing this psalm to be used constantly in the daily course of morning service. Cassian observes further in the same place,24 that in his time, throughout all the churches of Italy, their morning hymns were concluded with the penitential psalm, that is, the 50th according to his account, but with us the 51st. And St. Basil25 remarks the same thing for many of the churches of the East, that their vigils, or noctur- nal psalmody, was concluded, when the morning appeared, with the psalm of confession, by which he means no other but this same 51st, or peniten- tial psalm, as 1 have evidently showed in another 2“ place. What shall we say then to the author of the Constitutions, who speaks but of one psalm in the morning service? I answer, 1. No doubtthcrc were different customs in different churches, and in no- thing did the practice vary more than in the rules and measures about psalmody, as we shall see more clearly hereafter. So that both accounts may be very true, only applying them to the state and prac- tice of different churches. 2. I have observed be- fore,27 That the primitive morning service, in times of persecution especially, was no other but the con- clusion of the vigils, or antelucan or nocturnal ser- vice, which concluded towards break of day with some proper morning psalm, such as the 51st, or 63rd, or 90th, and certain prayers or collects proper to the occasion; the preceding part of the morning having been spent in psalms and hymns to a greater measure and number, sometimes ten, twelve, eigh- teen, or twenty, and these intermingled with lessons of Scripture, and public or private prayers between them; but when the morning service was made a distinct office from the vigils, as it began to be in the fourth or fifth century, then some other psalms were added to the morning psalm, and three psalms at least were read in this as well as in all other of- fices; and that is the reason why we meet with but one psalm in the order for morning service in the Constitutions, and three in others, which were of later appointment. Cassian himself, who gives the best account of these things of any other writer, plainly favours this observation : for he tells us in one place,28 that the Egyptians never admitted of any morning oflice distinct from their nocturnal vigils, nor of any other times of public worship be- sides the evening hours and nocturnal assemblies, except on the sabbath and the Lord’s day, when they met also at the third hour, that is, at nine in the morning, to celebrate the communion on those days. All other times they spent in labouring pri- vately in their cells, joining continual meditation of the Psalms and other Scriptures with their labour, and mingling short prayers and ejaculations with them ; so making the whole day but one continued office of devotion, which others performed by inter- vals of time, and distinction of stated hours of prayer. In another place29 he tells us, That they who first 22 Cassian. Institut. lib. 3. cap. 3. In Palacstinac et Me- sopotamizn monastcriis ac totius Orientis supradictarum ho- rarum solcnnitates tribus psalmis quotidie finiuntur. 23 1d. lib. 3. cap. 6. Quinquagesimum vero psalmum et sexagesimum secundum et octogesimum nouum huic novellue solennitati novimus fuisse deputatos. 24 Cassian. ibid. Denique per Italiam hodieque consum- matis matutinalibus hymnis quinquagesimus psalmus in universis ecclesiis canitur. 25 Basil. Ep. 03. &(l Neocaesar. t. 3. p. 90. 'Hjue'pas iidn livrohalu'n'éo'ns —- 'Irdu'res 'Tdu 'rijs iigojuoho'yrio'ews \Ilahpdu duadiépeo't To’; Kupflp. 2“ See below, sect. 13. of this chapter. 2’ Book X111. chap. 9. sect. 4 and 10. 2“ Cassian. Institut. lib. 3. cap. 2. Apud illos hacc oflicia, quae Domino solvere per distinctiones horarum ct temporis intervalla cum admonitione compulsoris adigimur, per to- tum diei spacium jugiter cum operis adjeetione spontanea celebrantur.———Quamobrcm exccptis vespertinis horis ac noeturnis congregationibus, nulla apud eos per diem publica solennitas absque die sabbati vcl Dominica celebratur, in quibus hora tertia sacrve communionis obtcntu couveniuut. 2” Cass. lib. 3. cap. 6. lllud quoque nosse debcinus, nihil a senioribus nostris, qui eundem matutinam solenuitatem addi dcbcre censuerunt, dc antiqua psalmorum consuetudine immutatum: sed eodem ordine missam, quo prius in noe- turnis conventibus celebratam. Etenim hymnos, quos in hac regione ad matutinam excepcre solennitatern, in fine nocturnarum vigiliarinn, quas post gallorum cantum ante auroram fiuire solent, similitcr hodieque dccantant, id est, 670 Boox XIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. brought in this new morning oflice, distinct from the nocturnal, did not diminish aught of the ancient psalmody from the nocturnal service; for they con- tinued still to conclude their vigils before break of day with the same psalms as they were used to do before; that is, with 148th, 149th,‘ 150th Psalms; only they set apart the 51st, 63rd, and 90th Psalms for this new oflice of morning service. From all which it seems very probable, that, according to the difference of times and places, the number of psalms for the morning service might vary, since there were such diil'erent methods in the observation of this solemnity, and an old and a new oflice, that both went by the name of morning service. Seem’ Having thus far described the'order an'ltrlpmgfigillfiigof of the old morning service, as it lies Sgflgltgglfifiiglllfilms in the Constitutions; and hinted, that the morning assemblies were origin- ally the very same with the nocturnal or antclucan meetings for Divine service, which we so often read of in ancient writers; for the further illustration of this part of the Christian worship, it will be proper to inquire a little more narrowly into the nature and management of them from their first original; which is known to have had its rise from the severity of the heathen persecutions. For the Christians, being afraid to meet publicly on the Lord’s day for Di- vine worship, were forced to hold their assemblies in the night, meeting early in the morning before day, to avoid the observation of their enemies. This appears from that early account of Pliny, which he had from the mouths of some apostatizing Chris- tians, who confessed to him,80 that the sum of their crime or error was, that they were used to meet to- gether on a certain day before it was light, and sing a hymn to Christ, as to their God. Hence it is, that the heathen in Minucius more than once81 ob- jects to them their night assemblies, and calls them a sculking generation, that fled from the light, be- ing mute in public, but free in discourse with one another, when they were got into their private corners. Celsus82 seems to mean the same thing, when he objects to them their holding of clancular meetings, cvvQa’pcag K915651111. And Tertullian, to show Christian women the inconvenience of marry- ing heathens, puts them in mind of these night assemblies : What husband, says he,"8 will be willing to suffer his wife to rise from his side, and go to the night assemblies. And Prudentius, describing the martyrdom of St. Laurence, introduces the heathen judge84 telling him, that he had heard how they sa— crificed in silver, and had their wax-lights set in gold for the use of their night assemblies. And this was the true original of lamps, and oil, and tapers for the use of such meetings in time of persecution. Now, though it was necessity which first gave rise to these assemblies ; yet the church in after ages thought fit to continue them, (transferring them from the Lord’s day to all other days,) partly to keep up the spirit of devotion in the ascetics, or such as had be- taken themselves to a stricter life; partly to give leisure and opportunity to men of a secular life to observe a seasonable time of devotion, which they might do early in the morning without any distrac- tion; and partly to guard her children against the temptations and seduction of the Arian sect, who with great zeal endeavoured to promote their heresy by their psalmody in such meetings, as appears from what Socrates “5 and Sozomen 8“ say of them, and what Sidonius Apollinaris particularly notes a’ of Theodoric, king of the Goths, that he was so eager a promoter of the Arian cause, that in his zeal for them he frequented their morning assemblies before day, with a small guard attending him. Now, the catholics having so many reasons to keep up these assemblies, not only continued them, but with great zeal encouraged them in their discourses. St. Chry— sostomas commends the widows and virgins for fre- quenting the church night and day, and singing psalms in these assemblies. He says, Men ought” to come to the sanctuary in the night, and pour out their prayers there. In another place, speaking of the excellency of the city of Antioch, he says, It consisted not in its fine buildings or pillars, but in the morals of the men. Go into the church,‘10 and there see the excellency of the city. Go into the church, and see the poor continuing there from mid- night to the morning light. And it is remarkable what Socrates“ says of him, when he was bishop of Constantinople, That he made additional prayers for the nocturnal hymns, on purpose to counter- Scet.12. ' These continued when the persecu- tions were over. Psalmum 148, ct reliquos qui sequuntur: quinquagesimum vero psalmum, et sexagesimum secundum, et octogesiinum nonum huic novellae solennitati novimus fuisse deputatos. 3° Plin. lib. 10. Ep. 97.. Ailirinabant autem bane fuisse summam vel culpae sues, vel erroris, quod essent soliti state die ante lueem eonvenire: carmenque Christo, quasi Deo, (licere secum invicem. 3' Minuc. de Idol. Vanit. p. 25. Nocturnis eongregationi- bus---faederantur. Latebrosa et lucifugax natio, in publi- cum muta, in angulis garrula. It. p. 27. Occultis ac noc- turnis sacris apposita suspicio. 32 Origen. cont. Cels. lib. l. p. 4. 3“ Tertul. ad Uxor. lib. 2. cap. 4. Quis nocturnis convo- cationibus, si ita oportuerit, a latere suo eximi libenter feret P It. de Coron. Mil. cap. 3. 9“ Prudent. Hymn. ‘2. dc Laurentio. Argenteis scyphis ferunt. fumare sacrum sanguinem, auroque noeturnis sacris adstare fixos cereos. 3” Socrat. lib. 6. cap. 8. 3“ Sozom. lib. 8. cap. 8. “7 Sidon. lib. 1. Ep. 2. Antelucanos sacerdotum suorum coetus minimo comitatu expetit. 9*’ Chrys. Hom. 30. in 1 Cor. p. 591. 3“ Chrys. Coin. in Psal. cxxxiii. t. 3. p. 488. 4° Chrys. Hom. 4. dc Verbis Esaiae, t. 3. p. 865. '“ Socrat. lib. (3. cap. 7. HiiEnm-z qrpdi'ros Kai 'n‘zs wept 'rol‘ls uwc'rapwobs Uiwous ebxds. CHAP. X. 671 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. mine the practice of the Arians. But I must not stand to repeat all that is said of these famous morning assemblies; for there is scarce an ecclesi- astical writer" that has not given some hint of them, which I need not recite, but rather go on to show what were the chief exercises of these meet- ings, which usually began soon after midnight, and continued to the morning light. St. Basil, in one of his epistles, vine “mice which gives us a pretty clear description of iiilsmfilrsromiliaéd them, though but in general terms, by St'msu' whilst he makes an apology for the practices of his own church, against some who charged them with innovation. His words are these: The customs, says he, which now prevail among us,43 are consonant and agreeable to all the churches of God. For with us the people, rising early, whilst it is night, come to the house of prayer, and there, with much labour and affliction, and contrition and tears, make confession of their sins to God. When this is done, they rise from prayers, and dispose themselves to psalmody: some- times dividing themselves into two parts, they answer one another in singing, or sing alternately, dwabdMovaw dhhfihmg: after this again they per- mit one alone to begin the psalm, and the rest join in the close of every verse, imnxofio't. And thus with this variety of psalmody they carry on the night, praying betwixt whiles, or intermingling prayers with their psalms, await‘: 1rpoo'svxépsvoi. At last, when the day begins to break forth, they all in com- mon, as with one month and one heart, offer up to God the psalm of confession, rbv 'rfig ti'éopohoyfio'swg z/zahpbv m3‘ Kvpi'q) civczdiépovo't, every one making the words of this psalm to be the expression of his own repentance. Here we have the plain order of these nocturnal or morning devotions. l. Confession of sins. 2. Psalms sung alternately. 3. Psalms sung by one alone. 4. Prayers between the psalms. 5. Lastly, The common psalm of confession, or the penitential psalm, in the close of all. Whether the first confession of sins was a public or private one, is not very certain; some learned persons‘H take it for a public confession, like that in the beginning of our liturgy; but I rather think it was a private confession, with which we are sure their ofiices generally began, as appears from a canon of the council of Laodicea,45 where it is called the silent prayer, dixfi 81d manrfig, of which I have given a fuller account in the communion service.‘“3 The Sect. 13. The order of Di- latter confession was plainly a public one, made by a certain form, being no other but the 51st Psalm, “ Have mercy on me, O God, after thy great good- ness: according to the multitude of thy mercies, do away mine offences.” For this psalm was par- ticularly noted among the ancients by the name of the psalm of confession. Athanasius gives it“7 this title, telling us that the 50th Psalm, which is the 51st in our division, is illahpog tfiopohoyi'yo'swg, the psalm of confession. And what further confirms this interpretation is, that this very psalm by name is appointed to be used in the close of the matins, or morning service, which the Western churches introduced as distinct from the nocturnal service, as Cassian48 relates, who was an eye-witness of it. See before, sect. 10. What number of psalms or prayers was used in this service, is not par- ticularly noted by St. Basil; nor per- haps was it stinted to any certain number, but ac- cording as the length of the psalms or time required. But in the Egyptian churches they reduced it to the precise number of twelve psalms, from whence some other churches afterwards took their model, as Cassian informs us,‘19 who says, That in other regions there were different rules and appointments: for some recited no less than twenty psalms, and these by way of antiphonal or alternate melody; others exceeded this number; others had eighteen ; so that there were almost as many ways and rules as there were monasteries and cells. Nay,‘ in Egypt, Sect. 14. The account of them out of Cassian. before the rule was settled, some were for having50 fifty, some sixty psalms; but at last, upon mature advice, they fixed upon 5‘ the certain number of twelve psalms both for their evening and morning service, interposing a prayer between each psalm, and adding two lessons, one out of the Old Testament, and the other out of the New; which was their cus- tom on all days, except Saturdays and Sundays, when they repeated them both out of the New Testament, the one out of St. Paul’s Epistles or the Acts of the Apostles, and the other out of the Gospels, as they did also for the whole term of fifty days between Easter and Whitsuntide. He adds further, That they did not use the alternate way of singing in Egypt, but. only one amongst them sung with a plain and even voice, the rest sitting by, and attend- ing to what was said. Neither did they answer, “ Glory be to the “2 Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost,” at the end of every psalm, but inter- "2 Vid. Epiphan. in fine Panarii. Hieronym. Ep. 7. ad Laetam. Hilar. in Psal. lxiv. p. 231. 4” Basil. Ep. 63. ad Neocacsar. t. 3. p. 96. ‘4 Hamon. L’Estrange, Alliance of Divin. Olfic. cap. 3. p. 75. "5 Conc. Laodicen. can. 19. ‘"1 See Book XV. chap. 1. sect. l. "7 Athan. Ep. ad Marcellinum, dc lnterpr. Psalmor. t. l. p. 975. ‘8 Cassian. Institut. lib. 3. cap. 6. 4” Cassian. lib. 2. cap. 2. Quidam vicenos psalmos, et hos ipsos antiphonarum protelatos melodiis, et adjunctione qua- rundam modulationum debere dici singulis noctibus cen~ suernnt, &c. 5° Cass. ibid. cap. 5. 5‘ Id. cap. 6. 5'3 Cassian. lib. 2. cap. 8. Illud etiam quod in hac pro- vincia (Gallia) vidimus, ut uno cantante, in clausula psalmi omnes astantes concinant cum clamore; Gloria Patri, et 672 Boox XIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. posed a prayer (which was the custom of all the East); and then at the end of the last psalm, which they called the hallelujah, they subjoined the glori- fication of the Trinity, which they never used but at the end of that antiphona, as they called the halleluj ah in the Eastern church. When the psalms were very long, they sometimes divided them into two or three parts, and at the end of every part made a stop to interpose a prayer,53 thinking it bet- ter to use frequent and short prayers to keep up the fervour of devotion. .It does not appear, that these were public prayers, but rather private, at the end of which the chief minister officiating is said colligere precem, to make a collect or prayer, reca- pitulating the prayers that were made before by the assembly in private; of which I shall have occasion to give a fuller account in another place. See Book XV. chap. i. sect. I. It is noted further by Cassian,?4 concerning the last of their psalms, called the anti- phona, or hallelujah, that no psalm was ever used in this place but only one of those which had the inscription of hallelujah prefixed in the title of it, such as the 145th, and those that follow, one of which was commonly the concluding psalm, repeat— ed by way of antiphona or responses. It was something particular in the manner of performing this psalmody in those Egyptian monasteries, that he that sung the psalms only stood up, but the rest heard them sitting: which Cassian55 observes to be matter of indulgence in regard to their continual watchings' and hard labour. And it was no less peculiar, that never above four persons were allowed to repeat the twelve psalms in one assembly, and that by course, every one singing three in order after one another. Or if there were but three, then each sung four psalms; and if but two, each of them sung six. Sect 15. And thus far of the nocturnal psalm- vighgggrgggzgt ody, which was the old morning ggrgv the laity 0M1 service of the church. I only add, that though this service was very early in the morning, yet it was frequented, not by the clergy and monks only, but by the people also. For, as we have seen before, St. Basil takes notice, that the people came to church to celebrate these morning devotions; and Sidonius has told us also, that Theodoric, king of the Goths, was a constant observer of them. So here it is also remarked by Cassian,56 that this part of the church’s devotions was with great exactness observed by many secular men, who, rising early before day, would not engage themselves in any of their most necessary and ordi- nary worldly business, before they had consecrated the first-fruits of all their actions and labours to God, by going to church, and presenting themselves in the Divine presence. A worthy example, fit to be recorded in letters of gold, to excite the emulation of the present age, wherein the daily worship of God at religious assemblies is so little frequented, and by many so much despised; though the same service with that of the ancients for substance is still retained, with some improvements, and none of the corruptions which the superstition of darker ages brought into the devotions of the church; ‘as any one may satisfy himself, that will compare what has been delivered in this chapter with the daily service of our church. CHAPTER XI. THE ORDER OF THEIR DAILY EVENING SERVICE. THE evening service, which was call- ed the hora Zucernarz's, because it be- gan at the time of lighting candles towards the close of the day, was in most parts the same with that of the morning, only with such variation of psalms, and hymns,’ and prayers, as were proper to the occasion. The pray- ers for the catechumens, energumens, candidates of baptism, and penitents were all the same; so were the prayers for the faithful or communicants, called the prayers for the peace of the world, and the whole state of the catholic church, which are de- scribed at large in the following Books, to which the reader may have recourse. The first thing wherein they dif- fered was, the initial psalm: for as the morning service began with the 63rd Psalm, so the evening service is appointed to begin with the 140th mum“- Psalm, which we reckon the 141st. “Lord, I call upon thee, haste thee unto ‘me, and consider my Sect. 1. The evenin ser- vice in most ings conformed to that of the morning. Filio, et Spiritui Sancto; nusquam per omnem Orientem audivimus; sed cum omnium silentio, ab eo qui cantat finito psalmo, orationem succedere: hanc vero glorificationem Trinitatis tantummodo solere antiphona terminari. (Leg. antiphonam terminare. Vel, ut legit Mabillon, glorifica- tione, &c. antiphona terminari.) 53 Cassian. Instit. lib. 2. cap. 11. Ne psalmos quidem ip- sos, quos in congregationibus decantant, continuata student pronunciatione conludere: sed eos pro numero versuum duabus vel tribus intercessionibus cum orationum interjec- tione divisos distinctim particulatimque consummant. Sect. 2. But they differed, first, in that a pro- per psalm was up- inted for the even- mg, called the even- ing psalm by the author of the Con- 5‘ Cassian. ibid. Illud quoque apud eos omni observantia custoditur, ut in responsione alleluiae nullus dicatur psalmus, nisi is, qui in titulo suo alleluiaa inscriptione praenotatur. 55 Id. lib. 2. cap. 11 et 12. 56 Cassian. Collation. 21. cap. 26. Quod devotionis genus multi etiam saecularium summa cautions custodiunt, qui ante lucem vel diluculo consurgentes, nequaquam familiar- ibus ac necessariis mundi hujus actibus implicantur, prius- quam cunctorum actuum suorum operationumque primitias, ad ecclesiam concurrentes, divino studeant consecrare con- spectui. CHAP. XI. 673 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. voice when I cry unto thee. Let my prayer be set forth in thy sight as the incense, and let the lifting up of my hands be an evening sacrifice,” &c. This psalm the author of the Constitutions calls empha- tically rov émh'ixmov \PaApbv} the evening psalm, in the place where he describes the order of this ser- vice. And though he does not in that place either name the psalm, or mention any words in it; yet he infallibly means the psalm now spoken of, because in another place2 he expressly calls it the 140th Psalm, requiring it to be used in public assemblies at the daily evening service. Sect 3_ And that which puts the matter be- figfi 3331;? tg‘een' yond all dispute, is, that Chrysostom, 3%‘3532‘2222‘233 in his Comment upon this psalm, takes “hammer” notice of the use of it in the church upon this particular occasion. Hearken diligently, says he,8 for it was not without reason that our fa- thers appointed this psalm to be said every evening; not barely for the sake of that single expression, “ Let the lifting up of my hands be an evening sacrifice ;” for other psalms have expressions of the same nature, as that which says, “ At evening, and morning, and noon-day will I show forth thy praise :” and again, “ The day is thine, and the night is thine :” and again, “Weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning :” and many other such like psalms may one find, that are proper for the evening season. Therefore our fathers did not or- der this psalm to be said upon the account of this expression, but they appointed the reading of it, as a sort of salutary medicine to cleanse us from sin; that whatever defilement we may have contracted throughout the whole day, either abroad, in the market, or at home, or in whatsoever place, when the evening comes, we might put it all ofi‘ by this spiritual charm, or song, which is a medicine to purge away all such corruption. Sec," 4“ After this psalm was ended, there N23335:? egg}; followed the same prayers for the cate- “emce' chumens, energumens, penitents, and common prayers for the world and the church, that were used in the morning service; but after them the deacon bid the people pray in a certain form proper for the evening, which the author of the Constitutions4 styles 'n'poo'qblbvnmg émkéxmog, the even- ing. bidding prayer, and it runs in these words : “ Let us pray to the Lord for his mercies and compassions; and entreat him to send us the angel of peace, and all good things convenient for us, and that he would grant us to make a Christian end. Let us pray, that this evening and night may pass in peace, and with- out sin, and all the time of our life unblamable and without rebuke. Let us commend ourselves and one another to the living God through his Christ.” This said, the bishop, if present, made this com- mendatory collect, which is there styled émkz'lxvwg ei/Xapwria, the evening thanksgiving, and is con- ceived in the following words: “0 God, who art without beginning and without end, the Maker and Governor of all things through Christ, the God and Father of him before all things, the Lord of the Spirit, and King of all things both intellectual and sensible; that hast made the day for works of light, and the night to give rest to our weakness: for the day is thine, and the night is thine; thou hast pre- pared the light and the sun: do thou now, most kind and gracious Lord, receive this our evening thanksgiving. Thou that hast led us through the length of the day, and brought us to the beginning of the night, keep and preserve us by thy Christ; grant that we may pass this evening in peace, and this night without sin; and vouchsafe to bring us to eternal life through thy Christ; by whom be glory, honour, and adoration unto thee in the Holy Spirit, world without end. Amen.” After this, the deacon bids the people xXiva're 'rg'i Xapoewr'q, bow down to receive the benediction with imposition of hands, and then the bishop makes this following prayer: “ O God of our fathers, and. Lord of mercy, that hast created man by thy wis- dom a rational being, and of all thy creatures upon earth dearest unto thee, that hast given him do- minion over the earth, and ha'st made us by thy pleasure to be kings and priests, the one to secure our lives, and the other to preserve thy lawful wor- ship: be pleased now, 0 Lord Almighty, to bow down and show the light of thy countenance upon thy people, who bow the neck of their heart before thee; and bless them by Christ, by whom thou hast enlightened us with the light of knowledge, and re- vealed thyself unto us: with whom is due unto thee and the Holy Ghost the Comforter, all worthy ador- ation from every rational and holy nature, world without end. Amen.” There are two expressions in these prayers, which may seem a little unusual to a modern reader; one, where prayer is made for the angel of peace; and the other, which styles God the Father, Lord of the Spirit: but both these occur in the morning prayers for the catechumens, hereafter,6 where I show out of Chrysostom, that prayer for the angel of peace was a common petition in many of the known forms of the church: and for that other expression, which styles the Father, Lord of the Spirit, which is a harsh way of speaking, and looks like Macedo- nianism, as Cotelerius remarks upon it, I have showed out of Bishop Bull, that it may fairly be interpreted to a sound and catholic sense from parallel expressions in Justin Martyr. So that we 1 Constit. lib. 8. cap. 35. 2 Id. lib. 2. cap. 59. 3 Chrys. Hom. in Psal. cxl. t. 3. p. 544. ‘ Constit. lib. 8. cap. 36. 6 Book XIV. chap. 5. sect. 3. ‘5 Ibid. cap. 37. 2 X 674 Boox XIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. need not condemn this author as an Arian or Mace- donian heretic, only allowing him the favour of a candid interpretation. To return, therefore, to the prayers themselves: the deacon, after these collects made by the bi- shop, dismisses the people with the usual form, as in the morning service, Hpoéwers év eipw’gvg, “Depart in peace.” And this is the conclusion of the evening service, according to our author in this place. But in another place7 he speaks also of an evening hymn, which he styles sl’lxfi émrspwbg, an evening prayer or thanksgiving, which is a sort of doxology to God, like that used before in the morning prayer. The form is in these words : “ Praise the Lord, ye serv- ants, O praise the name of the Lord. We praise thee, we laud thee, we bless thee, for thy great glory, O Lord and King, the Father of Christ the unspotted Lamb, that taketh away the sin of the world. All praises, and hymns, and glory, are justly rendered unto thee our God and Father, by thy Son, in the most Holy Spirit, for all ages, world without end. Amen. Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: for mine eyes have seen thy salvation, which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; to be a light to lighten the Gentiles, and to be the glory of thy people Israel.” It is not here said, whether this hymn was for public or private use. However, that there were such sort of hymns in use among the ancients at the first bringing in of candles in the evening, is evident from St. Basil, who mentions one part of such a hymn, which he styles émhixmog El’lxapw'ria, the thanksgiving at setting up lights. It seemed good, says he, to our forefathers8 not to receive the gift of the evening light altogether with silence, but to give thanks immediately upon its appearance. We cannot certainly tell who was the first author of that thanksgiving at setting up lights; but this we are sure of, that the people have of old used this form of words, (and no one ever charged them with impiety for SO doing,) Aiuoiipw l'Ia'répa, Kai (YLO‘V, xai "Ayrov Hmiipa 9.205, We praise the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit of God. Bishop Usher9 and Dr. Smith10 have given us an ancient form of this kind more at large, out of the Alexandrian Manuscript of the Septuagint, and some other ancient copies of the Psalter in Greek, which it may not be improper to insert in Sect. 5. Of the evening hymn. this place. It goes in some books under the title of iipvog émrepwbg, the evening hymn; and in others it is called iipvog 'roi‘i Avxvucoii, the hymn said at setting up lights. We cannot certainly say this is the same that St. Basil refers to, but all that St. Basil mentions out of that ancient hymn, is now found in this; which makes it probable that they are the very same. It is as follows :“ “0 Jesus Christ, thou joyful light of the sacred glory of the immortal, heavenly, holy, blessed Father! we now, being come to the setting of the sun, and seeing the evening light, do laud and praise the Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit of God (or the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, that is God). Thou art worthy to have hymns at all times sung unto thee with holy voices, 0 Son of God that givest life. Therefore the world glorifies thee.” Bishop Usher, by mistake, says this hymn was the same as the dummy a’mluixmog, the evening psalm mentioned in the Constitutions, lib. 8. cap. 35. Whereas indeed that evening psalm was quite another thing from this evening hymn; that being one of David’s Psalms, as I showed be- fore out of Chrysostom and the Constitutions them- selves; and this a hymn of human composition. Neither is it the same form with the evening hymn related before out of the Constitutions, .but seems more likely to be that mentioned by St. Basil, which, I conceive, was not a form for public, but only pri- vate devotion, to be used at home by all Christians, as a pious ejaculation or hymn to Christ, “the true Light that enlightens every man that comes into the world.” But I only offer this as a conjecture, be- cause I find not this hymn mentioned, as inserted into the public oflices, either by the author of the Constitutions, or St. Basil, or any other. But then it may be asked, Were there no hymns used in the evening Mastiff; 6a... service? Were there no lessons read, ‘Siéfié‘éfyo’iyi’éé‘sflf read in the evemnt: nor psalms, besides that called the Serlvsitcgsglegses tbs evening psalm, sung in the church? I answer, No doubt there were in many churches; for the customs of churches varied in this matter; and though the author of the Constitutions men- tions them not in the rituals of the churches he describes, yet other accounts do. For Cassian,‘2 describing the customary service of the Egyptian monasteries, says, They sung twelve psalms every morning and evening in their solemn meetings, and had two lessons read, one out of the Old Testa- ment, and the other out of the New, and had pray- " Constit. lib. 7. cap. 48. 8 Basil. de Spir. Sancto, cap. 29. 9 Usserii Diatriba de Symbolis, p. 35. 1° Smith’s Account of the Greek Church, p. 302. H @519 iAapdv zi'yias do'Ens c’rfiavc'z'rov Ham-969, oi’lpam'ou, ci'yt'ov, [.UiKGPOQ, 'lqaoi] Xpw'ré‘ a'Aeo'u'ras s’vri "r017 1'1Mov (360-w,’ idol/‘res (1)5)? s'o'vrspwov, l'quvofipsv Ha'répa Kai. ‘ria., Kai. "A'ytov Huei'ipa 9205. (al. 9.2611.) 1"After si in mic-r Katpo'Zs {music-Gal (pan/(11's oo'iats, 'Yu‘a 9e05, Zwfiu o drdoi‘ls' 8rd 6 Kéoyuos 0s 6056151.. 12 Cassian. Institut. lib. 2. cap. 6. Exin venerabilis Pa- trum senatus-—-—-decrevit hunc numerum (l2 psalmorum) tam in vespertinis, quam in nocturnis conventiculis custo- diri, quibus lectiones geminas adjungentes, id est, unam Veteris et aliam Novi Testamenti, &c. Vid. cap. 8. CHAP. XI. 675 ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. ers also between the psalms; and sung the Gloria Patrz' at the end of the last psalm. St. J erom con- firms this account, and adds, that they had a ser- mon made by the abbot (who was always a presby- ter) every day after evening prayer. For thus he describes their evening devotions: At nine o’clock they meet together, then the psalms are sung, and the Scriptures are read ;13 and prayers being ended, they all sit down, and one among them, whom they call their father, begins to discourse to them, whom they hear with the profoundest silence and venera- tion. But it may be said, this perhaps was only the custom of the monasteries, and not of the churches. In answer to which Epiphanius assures us,H it was the custom of the church to have psalms and hymns continually both at morning and evening prayer. St. Austin also mentions hymns ‘5 as well as prayers at evening service; which implies, that they had more psalms than one sung upon that oc- casion. St. Hilary, upon those words of the psalm- ist, “The outgoings of the morning and evening shall praise thee ;” shows the same, when he says, The progression of the church to her morning and evening hymns with delight, is a great sign of God’s mercy. The day ‘6 is begun with prayers, and the day is closed with hymns to God. St. Hilary him- self is said to be the author of some of those hymns, and St. Ambrose of others, which were of public use in the church: and though some would have rejected them, because they were only of human composure, and not to be found in Scripture, yet the fourth council of Toledo ‘7 ordered them to be retained in the public service of the church, toge- ther with the hymns, “Glory be to the Father,” and “ Glory be to God on big ,” which were likewise of human composition. For the Eastern churches, the like is said by Chrysostom,18 that they had hymns-at night in their evening prayer, as well as morning. In the Gallican churches they had, be- sides their collects and prayers, both hymns and antiphonas, or chapters, as they called them, col- lected out of the Psalms, to be said by way of responses, as appears from the council of Agde.l9 And the second council of Tours orders, That at evening prayer, which they call the twelfth hour of prayer, twelve psalms should be sung,20 answerable to the order of morning service, which had twelve psalms, as the sixth hour of prayer had six psalms, with the additional psalm called the Hallelujah. From all which it is apparent, that a considerable number of psalms and hymns were used together with the prayers, to make up the daily course of evening as well as morning service in many churches. And in some churches the Lord’s prayer was always made a part of the Thqsrigi-lrl'pnyer daily worship both morning and even- gliiiicliiessgiffhe con- . _ _ clusion of the daily, mg. For the council of G11'011621m21d6 both mormng and a general decree for the Spanish e‘emngsemce' churches, that the Lord’s prayer should constantly be used by every priest at the close of the matins and Vespers in the daily service. It had always been used before on Sundays in the communion ofiice; but it being, in the very title and tenor of it, guotidiana oratio, a quotidian or daily prayer, they thought it proper to make it a standing part of their daily offices. And when some priests neglected to obey this order, and still confined the use of it to the Lord’s day, the fourth council of Toledo” made a decree, That all such of the clergy as contuma- ciously refused to use it daily both in their public and private oflices, should be degraded. In the French churches the practice was the same. For by a canon of the third council of Or- leans,” the people'are obliged to stay at Divine service till the Lord’s prayer was said; and if the ‘3 Hieron. Ep. 22. ad Eustochium, cap. 15. Post horam nonam in commune concurritur, psalmi resonant, Scriptures recitantur ex more. Et completis orationibus, cunctisque residentibus, medius quem patrem vocant, ineipit dispu- tare, &c. ' 1‘ Epiphan. Exposit. Fidei, n. 23. p. 1106. ‘Ewen/oi 'rs {favor éu aim-ii 'rfi ci'yiq émckno'iq duivelca'is 'yiuou'rai, Kai. 'lrpoo'svxai éwewai, Xuxvucoi 'ra (‘i/1a drahpiol Kai. 'rrpoo'svxai. '5 Aug. de Civ. Dei, lib. 22. cap. 8. p. 1485. Ad ves- pertinos illuc hymnos et orationes cum ancillis suis et qui- busdam sanctimonialibus ex more Domina possessionis in- travit, atque hymnos cantare cceperunt. 1‘ Hilar. in Psalm. lxiv. p. 231. Progressus ecclesiae in matutinum (leg. matutinorum) et vespertinorum hymnorum delectatione maximum misericordiae Dei signum est, Dies in orationibus Dei inchoatur, dies hymnis Dei clauditur. 1’ Conc. Tolet. 4. can. 12. 1*‘ Chrys. Horn. 18. in Act. p. 174. 19 Cone. Agathen. can. 30. In conclusione matutinarum vel vespertinarum missarum, post hymnos, capitella de psalmis dici, et plebem, collecta oratione, ad vesperam ab episcopo cum benedictione dimitti. 2° Conc. Turon. 2. can. 18. Patrum statuta praeceperunt, ut ad sextam sex psalmi dicantur cum alleluia; et ad duo- decimam duodecim, itemque cum alleluia. lt. can. 24. Et licet Ambrosianos habeamus hymnos in canone, &c. 21Conc. Gerundense, can. 10. Item nobis semper pla- cuit observari, ut omnibus diebus posit matutinas et vesperas oratio Dominica a sacerdote proferatur. 22 Cone. Tolet. 4. can. 9. N onnulli sacerdotum in Hispa- niis reperiuntur, qui Dominicam orationem, quam Salvator noster docuit et praecepit, non quotidie, sed tantum die Do- minica dicant.-Quisquis ergo sacerdotum, vel subjacen- tium clericorum, hanc orationem Dominicam quotidie aut in publico aut in privato ofiicio praeterierit, propter super- biam judicatus, ordinis sui honore privetur. 23 Cone. Aurel. 3. can. 28. De missis nullus laicorum ante discedat, quam Dominica dicatur oratio. Et si epis- copus preesens fuerit, ejus benedictio expectetur. Sacrificia vero matutina (leg. matutinarum) missarum, vel vesper- tinarum, ne quis cum armis pertinentibus ad bellorum usum, expetat. 676 Boox XIII. ANTIQUITIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. bishop was present, to wait for to pronounce the benediction, which shows that it was the con-'- clusion of the prayers, since nothing came after but the benediction. It is true, the word used for Divine service in this canon, is missa ; which might seem to mean the communion service, where the Lord’s prayer was always used: but it has been showed before, in the first chapter of this Book, that missa is a general name for any part of Divine service; and in this canon is particularly taken for the morning and evening sacrifice of prayers. For it immediately follows, that no one should come to the sacrifice of morning or evening mass, that is, morning or evening prayers, with his arms or weapons, which only appertained to the use of war. Besides, that in the communion service, as we shall see hereafter, the Lord’s prayer came always in the 'middle, and not, as here, in the conclusion of the service. This is the substance .of what I have observed ' concerning the several parts and order ‘of the daily morning and evening service in the writings of the fathers and the canons of the councils, which are at present the chief rituals of the ancient church: and I have been the more careful to separate these ofiices from the great service of the Lord’s day, be- cause they are too often confounded in the accounts of modern authors. I now proceed to the offices and service of the Lord’s day, which must be the subject of the two following Books. . an- ....._ . a. . .1 L. ......er.a.=...~i.. a...) r ... r: 1 . . ... 31....14 ....... as... 4...... a... . a. .5... 1.1a“. ..._.........§., ea... . 7 .. . . . . 4.. . -2 i... 1 .14.... he. . . . as}; . 3:5 .......M.......u_.w awn-air .. an... a..." .3. Isa Liam‘. z . . an. a... .. . . ... .. . .. J . .. . ¢ . . .: .. . a. are. . v.1 x. -msmeswfmamra a??? \ .rf/J . . ../.. ./ (I. .11.. a _.._._ . a. .. . .a _ _ . m g. . . . _ ll i- _ '7" I (will. . .0 .m_.....a.§.._._._.....,= =. :v , .1. 1 . .. f. . . ... J. . u 0 H "M195, Jlln-iu- @llawmll .. .... Fm m. . . . . . s x ml...ii._..i=====_======_=_==E/:.“..: 2.1% AA... .._._. .___.___.=___======_=_=_.a.ELEM . . N. M r ...w.m€!r ...1. . .ww. ... . . ... . . .n. .. .1. . .W __ . a .. . . .. . . U. f1 _. H I m... .; “I. .u. .w. ... “I”: . . m" "m m? . a. . . _ . . . am. " 1 1 4a .. p 9. . . . - -. - H _ . u I, ‘X..- ,._.-,V_n_. _,.,.~- A... ... ill Elli. w . . l .l. _ I. . ."I. 7.. illiilli m” . . .. m u . .._fl.l._ . a ..\.. ., . . an .. “mu . x. i am. . . . "r. .. l. _ m“. _. .m. _ a. . - . . _ .H.. La. . . _. .olar - A _ m’. . a . no”. Emu M al.. . m If “Pl-m a . . . .. . .11. n. .._,.. . . .. was... .. Fr _..._. .. .. . “mu . .- . H... . .. . ==: _= =====_ H PM A .. , In . .. ._ _ . =5. . f . . . . . . ritll. ii ill! 4.! ii... ll . . . msfiuxnx . n . . . . . _ . . _ . 1H2?!» . J . . a \ . i . r. » I u... .. . MW . . ..~ .. ..~ . 1 r) I .= 4 . Yiunnréaw . . . . [a r.” .... . . .. . ...... . . Tr . .. .. .. . . a I .lmgédi . . ‘Lu . . . . did-Irv...» _ . 2c .5363. Quill? rmivg it tor .Je . . . . .a. . 2. . f . . .. , . . .r . .. . . . .. . .1. i... . . .: . . . s .. . a . . ., . 1 Z sheik, a». . In “a. . . . . .. v. I,‘ M 12 r :- . .. . .. . o... . . LN. . v31‘. . . . . . u .a a. . . . .. .. . . . . .5 ,..a...........um~... IvafihsiihfidihfdH a . . . . . . . . . .. . . , . a. . a . q n .. . . i . . : . . . .. ffimnl “.0. ... an? a. ..... . massif-5 . . .. . 1 . . . .. l ... .fl . .. . . _. . v . .. . . . . fake’ ‘fold.’ . . . . . . .mfimmzziii, . .. ; , _ . . V. . . ; .. a . . . _. .x... . . ., m .. a . SJ .. {a w . . . \ r V , r . . . L1 . . . .3 . . ... w . . . n. ., . .. . a . .m a. $1. . , ; r. . .. . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . .: evaaef:m. .. a . .. .. , ... L . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . a .: ... “.12... .3 .. 4 . . . .. I f L. .. . . . .. I. 1 . .. . . .4 . s . . P . 4 t .. . . Fidnklewkb x Swank; we » . Leagues... .. win.“ . .. 1 1...» . 'm~w..‘4 v . 1 .. 24m. a; .J. nave“. Y v I . a: {a PM .. . 1 s A. X . . . . .1- ~ ~ .. m . ¢. . .2... in . . .. fl .1. . ...~ .. . , ~ . s, . ..;.w. r. . . . .. . - . ... . s .. . ~ . .. . 72x... . ,|.i. .n - v < .. . r J. __ .i . . .. ,. __ a, . Y . ‘(v a minim... 1. “mm? riff..." . 1 .. , .. r. v. . . . . .. .... r . ..e.1...i . .H. w H. .. .. . s... .r... 2.5193?‘ . . .,~ . . . .. h . .. . . . i. . .. _ a . .. u a. . . Nun.‘ .... .... i ... :aJWr‘ .Margo... J... .r... . ...~ .. v. .. I . ,, p .. .. ; .. that... A . . .1 .. ...;. .~ .. ..s. r. .- . .. .. . “A. .. .. a . 3.. . J a... ..~ . . L ,. r .. .. .. r .. . . . . .. u... . . . . . .... . . .... a3‘. .. .. . .. . i . . . ... ....~ . . . .. 13.. . . . . 4 . ...~ . . madman. "A c . .. ; .. . i. a ... as...“ .. ,. . .. L . . Hr. Y .. a!“ v .2 ..m. m. his... .1 .a r... . ... . r I .. . .I: . . . v» . . L $1.1.“ was?! 1.1%.!‘ .1 . . lags. . . &Wvwflwwwwaflflwmwfi .vmmmmmn HMWMMWRIr-mwhai émiwbatniwmwrfimfi? . .iL. . t r. 1% .. r . 5...? .. as Trash... .. . .. . . 3.1%. .1... J: JKMWMMW? . ~ 1.... .ewnfivw .r- . . .. . . ... .., ... . m. . .. . . . . .. fvmfmujh-wmrIHms-Mirwrswaummsihwuflflil. 1912..“ .r .. .. 4. r .. , . . ..~ .. .. . .Jw. . vmvhu L . .. . . .. . . A . . vufnfwwwww . . . .. .fimflmlxw. warm. .9 . . . . .. .... . . .. . . . . . . . an... . R .. . . . in: it! .... Y . i . . . . . . . . ... . . rational’? ZS’... . . .2 $7 .. t i. .. . . .. .1!!- tr! . 1.3% .fiu (ma.- . I mp6,! .hunmlwnhbfi. a»... . vegan Ihwlbwa .. a... Itifii... .7 . has? . . . ., . .. . . i‘ . 1‘ - , ~ I t . . v . . ,. . Z . . .. . . . i . 0 . a... .. ... .. ., 2 .. 1 . a . - ., , . . .. I... . . . .. . .. ... . .. M .. . . .. . a a a . s . . 92.1. . . .. v . .a h... . . \ . . . a - s%? .1 .. ..i. , . . ..~ . .@.a .. V; . ..w .; .$mMiV....:1.w“ EMU. . .. . . . .. . . h ... . .. . M . f . . . . . , . . . . . refit... . . . i . .. . s ~ . . .1. ‘Kati-Dir,“ .' . . . . . .. . 4W1“? .. . n Y. ~.....wa w . e.‘ a i J . .. .1 . . a. ennui . . . s. . . .. 5... .. .. _... a . , ._. . . ... 1.. .. . . .1.» ,. .... ...... K.‘ .. .... .1 K . . . . 1 -Rvmnnmnafiws .. .... I...” . 5L. ... . - . . s . .. ~ . . a . . “1 I‘. .z . r . . . >i~>. I .r I - .._ . .. . ..... .. .. . .. . .£.: A‘. v . 1 I .. .. . . .. M0 6 . . . m; . ._ . . , I h... .. ... .. . Y 1 .. .....~ . . . ... ..: .. .wl . . . . . . . . . . .. . . ,, . .. ...~ . We 1%.: . . .. Q . at...» - . ,. . esmmw. .. .. Y. .. . Q . . ,. . . i is . ., . i ., 3% .. ,. . . .. . , . . .. . , . . . . n. .? ~ ‘DJ 1% . a... .. 1 T . . .. ,m an .. . . . : . . . . . . . . .xhww.st.,._. . . . . . y - u - a . . ~ . . . .. . .. . . .. . w . . v - v‘ . a . . . a . .J a a; . .3 m , . wwfiwfiawmw . ...~ . . , _. . . .. . .. . . . . . . _ . . . . , &bmm .. 1.3%.»..- ii... =55. . . . . . .. s . ... . .. .. . . . . . .. .. . ... .9 . . .. . . . . .. .i. . . . . . .. warmer if? awfiwfiammwfsx .. . . . L , . . . . .. ..~ . . .. . . . . 1:“ T a . . far as? .. a as. . .. , . .. , . . .. . . . , _. . . . a H , . _ . ._H.r._...w.r.....m.a a . I: a. . Masha?“ a 4 tray-4's,‘ ~ - ' hr. Re . 411.- ,l g- ‘ .. ‘nu? T x a . . . .. .. ... Xi: . . .. . . ...~ . I > L . .... . . . . . .. “Pr: . . . . .. . . . _ .. 7 m. kunyuuwimpwwrmrmwwmmmr 1.... . . . . . . .. ~ . .. . ... .. . ...: v; u flung . .. .1 . . l . r .. . . . . k a. . 2 . . . . .. . .. .31 .. .3 .. : . ._ . 2: . .Lgiiamlgvt