since it was decreed by an African Synod that every one's Cause should be heard where the Crime was committed because that to every Pastor was committed a particular Portion of Christ's Flock which he was particularly to rule and govern and to render an account thereof unto the Lord. And so another African Synod that decreed the Rebaptization of those that were Baptized by Hereticks thus conclude their Synodical Epistle to Pope Stephen who held the contrary Whereas we know that some Bishops will not relinquish an Opinion which they have embraced but keeping the Bond of Peace and Concord with their Colleagues will retain some proper and peculiar Sentiments which they have formerly received to these we offer no violence or prescribe any Law since every Bishop has in the administration of his Church free liberty to follow his own Will being to render an account of his Actions unto the Lord. After these two Synodical Determinations it might be thought needless to produce the single Testimony of Cyprian but that it shews us not only the practice of the Bishops of his Age but also of their Predecessors Amongst the ancient Bishops of our Province saith he some thought that no Peace was to be given to Adulterers for ever excluding them from the Communion of the Church but yet they did not leave their Fellow-Bishops or for this break the Vnity of the Catholick Church and those that gave Peace to Adulterers did not therefore separate from those that did not but still retaining the Bond of Concord every Bishop disposed and directed his own Acts rendring an account of them unto the Lord. Thus every Church was in this Sense independent that is without the Concurrence and Authority of any other Church it had a sufficient Right and Power in its self to punish and chastise all its delinquent and offending Members § 2. But yet in another Sense it was dependent as considered with other Churches as part of the Church Universal There is but one Church of Christ saith Cyprian divided through the whole World into many Members and one Episcopacy diffused through the numerous Concord of many Bishops A Particular Church was not the whole Church of Christ but only a Part or Member of the Universal one and as one Member of the natural Body hath a regard to all the other Members thereof so a particular Church which was but one Member of the Universal had relation and respect to the other Members thereof Hence tho' the Labours and Inspections of the Bishops were more peculiarly confined to their own Parishes yet as Ministers of the Church Universal they employed a general kind of Inspection over other Churches also observing their Condition and Circumstances and giving unto them an account of their own state and posture as Cyprian inspected that of Arles giving this as his Reason for it that altho' they were many Pastors yet they were but one Flock and they ought to congregate and cherish all the Sheep which Christ redeemed by his Blood and Passion And the Clergy of the Church of Rome thanked Cyprian that he had acquainted them with the state of the Church in Africa for say they We ought all of us to take care of the Body of the whole Church whose Members are distended through various Provinces If the Bishop of one Church had any difficult Point to determine he sent to another Bishop for his Advice and Decision thereof As when Dyonisius Bishop of Alexandria had a critical Cause to determine he sent to Xystus Bishop of Rome to know his Opinion and Counsel therein And so when there was some difference at Carthage about the Pacificatory Libels of the Martyrs Cyprian writ to the Church of Rome for their Advice therein For saith he Dearly beloved Brethren both common Reason and Love require that none of these things that are transacted here should be kept from your Knowledge but that we should have your Counsel about Ecclesiastical Administrations In these and in many other such like Cases which would be needless to enumerate there was a Correspondence between the particular Churches of the Universal one § 3. But that that chiefly deserves our 〈◊〉 was their Intercourse and Government by Synodical Assemblies that is by a Convocation of Bishops Presbyters Deacons and Deputed Lay-men of several particular Churches who frequently met together to maintain Unity Love and Concord to advise about their common Circumstances and Conditions to regulate all Ecclesiastical or Church-Affairs within their respective Limits and to manage other such like things of which I shall more largely treat in the end of this Chapter That which must be spoken of in this Section is the several kinds or sorts of Synods the most august and supreme kind whereof was an Universal or 〈◊〉 Synod which was a Congregation of the Bishops and Deputies of as many Churches as would please to come from all Parts of the World Of this sort I find but one within my limited space of the first three Hundred Years after Christ and that was the Council of Antioch that condemned Paulus Samosatenus Or if this will not pass for a General Council there was no such one before that of Nice which was held Anno 325. and so there was no one of this kind within that time to which I am confined But those Synods which were very frequent within my prescribed time were Provincial Synods that is as many particular Churches as could conveniently and orderly associate themselves together and by their common Consent and Authority dispose and regulate all things that related to their Polity Unity Peace and Order What extent of Ground or how many particular Churches each of such Synods did contain cannot be determined their Precincts were not alike in all places but according as their Circumstances and Conveniencies would permit so they formed themselves into these Synodical Assemblies and were governed in common by those Synods who were called the Synods of such or such a Province As we read in Cyprian of the Province of Arles and the Bishops therein And Cyprian frequently speaks of the Bishops of his Province as the Bishops 2 in our Province and 3 throughout our Province and throughout the Province And tells us that his Province was very large and that it was the custom of his Province and almost all other Provinces that upon the Vacancy of a Parish the neighbouring Bishops of that Province should meet together at that Parish to Ordain them a new Bishop § 4. How often these Provincial Synods were convened is uncertain since that varied according to their Circumstances and their 〈◊〉 Customs Firmilian Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia writes that in his Province they met every Year And whosoever will consider the frequent Synods that are mentioned in Cyprian will find that in his Province they met at least once and sometimes twice or thrice a Year § 5. As for
many Rites were varied according to the Diversities of Names and Places but yet saith he never any one for this broke the Peace and Vnity of the Church One Church or Bishop did not in those days Anathematize another for a disagreement in Rites and Customs except when Victor Bishop of Rome through his Pride and Turbulency excommunicated the Asiatick Bishops for their different Observation of Easter from the Church of Rome which Action of his was very ill resented by the other Bishops of the Christian Churches and condemned by them as alien from Peace and Unity and contrary to that Love and Charity which is the very Soul and Spirit of the Gospel even the Bishops of his own Party that celebrated Easter on the same Day that he did censured his 〈◊〉 and violence as unchristian and uncharitable and writ several Letters wherein they severely checkt him as Eusebius reports in whose time they were extant all which are now lost except the Fragment of an Epistle written by Irenaeus and other Bishops of France wherein they affirm that Victor was in the right with respect to the time of Easter that it ought to be celebrated as he said on the Lords Day but that yet he had done very 〈◊〉 to cut off from the Vnity of the Church those that observed it otherwise that it had never been known that any Churches were excommunicated for a disagreement in Rites 〈◊〉 of which there was not only in the time of Easter 〈◊〉 self but in the Fast that preceded it Some fasted one day others more some forty hours which variety of Observations began not first in our Age but long before us in the times of our Ancestors who yet preserved Peace and Vnity amongst themselves as we now do for the Diversity of 〈◊〉 commended the Vnity of Faith And as for this 〈◊〉 concerning the time of Easter the Bishops which governed the Church of Rome before Soter viz. Anicetus Pius Higynus Telesphorus and Xystus they never celebrated it the same time with the 〈◊〉 neither would they permit any of their People so to do but yet they 〈◊〉 kind and 〈◊〉 to those who came to them from those 〈◊〉 where they did otherwise observe it and never any for this Cause were thrown out of the Church even your Predecessors though they did not keep it yet they sent the Eucharist to those that did keep it and when in the times of Anicetus blessed Polycarp came to Rome and there were some Controversies between them they did not seperate from one another but still maintained Peace and Love And though Anicetus could never perswade Polycarp nor Polycarp Anicetus to be of each others mind yet they communicated one with another and Anicetus in Honour to Polycarpus permitted him to Consecrate the Sacrament in his Church and so they departed in mutual love and kindness and all the Churches whether observing or not observing the same Day retained Peace and Vnity amongst themselves § 4. But though one Church could not oblige another to a Conformity in Rites and Customs yet a particular Church or Parish could enforce its own Members to such a Conformity an instance whereof we meet with in that famous Controversie about the Time of Easter It was the Custom of the Asiaticks to celebrate that Feast at the Full Moon or at the same time with the Jewish Passover on whatsoever day of the Week it happened It was the manner at Rome to observe it the Lords Day after and both these Churches quietly followed their several Usages without imposing them on each other But yet the Churches of Asia permitted none of their Members to solemnize it after the Roman manner neither did the Churches of Rome or of the West license any of their Inhabitants to celebrate it after the Asiatick manner for if either of them had granted any such thing there must have ensued Confusion and Disorder to have seen Easter differently observed in one and the same Church whilst some Members of a Parish where Fasting to behold others Feasting would have been a perfect Ataxy and Irregularity Therefore though Anioetus Bishop of Rome retained Peace and Unity with Foreign Churches that differed from him as to the Time of Easter without obliging them to a Compliance with the Roman Custom yet he peremptorily required it of the Members of his own Church and would never permit them to Solemnize that Feast on the same time with the Asiaticks So that though every Church had the Liberty to use what Rites she pleased yet every particular Member had not but was obliged to observe the Manners and Customs of that Church where he lived or where he occasionally communicated A Church Collectively or the Majority 〈◊〉 a Church with their Bishop could change their old Customs and introduce new ones as was done in the Affair of Easter the Asiaticks at length submitting to the Roman Usage but till that was done every particular Member was required to follow the old Customs of that Church to which he belonged and not to bring in any Innovations or new Rites because as was said before that would beget Tumults and Disorders and the Persons so acting would be guilty of that Strife and Contention which is condemned by those Words of the Holy Apostle 1 Cor. 11. 16. But if any Man seem to be contentious we have no such custom neither the Churches of God Which is as if the Apostle had said If any Men either to shew their Wit or to head and strengthen a Party will contradict what we have said and affirm it to be decent and comely either for Men to pray covered or Women uncovered This should silence such Contentious Opposers that there is no such Rite or Custom in any of the Churches of God but their Practice is the very same with what we have directed unto and therefore to that they ought peaceably and quietly to submit and yield Thus now I have finished this Enquiry and have as far as I could search'd into what was first proposed If I have not illustrated any Point as clearly as might be expected the reason is because I found nothing farther pertinent thereunto in those Writings to which I am confined if I had I should freely have mentioned it Whether I have been mistaken in the Sense and Meaning of any Passage I must leave unto my Readers to judge all that I can say is that I am not conscious to my self of any wilful and designed Mistakes having throughout this whole Discourse endeavoured deavoured to find out the plain and naked Truth without being byass'd to any Party or Faction whatsoever and that if any one shall be so kind and favourable as to convince me of any Slips or Errors which I may have committed through Inconsideration or want of a due Understanding I shall thankfully acknowledge them and willingly renounce and leave them § 5. What hath been related concerning the Constitution Discipline Unity and Worship of the Primitive
of the Church And Cyprian writes that the Devil found out Heresies and Sehisms by which he might subvert the Faith corrupt the Truth and divide the Unity But now for Distinctions sake the Breach of this Unity was commonly called Heresie and the word Schism generally applyed to the Breach of the Churches Unity in another sense of which more in the other Sections § 4. If in the next place we consider the Word Church collectively as denoting a Collection of many particular Churches in which Sense it is once used in Cyprian Then its Unity may have consisted in a Brotherly correspondence with and affection toward each other which they demonstrated by all outward Expressions of Love and Concord as by receiving to Communion the Members of each other as Irenaeus mentions was observ'd between the Churches of Rome and Asia in mutually advising and assisting one another by Letters or otherwise of which there are frequent instances in the Ancients and especially in Cyprian's Epistles and in manifesting all other Marks and Tokens of their Love and Concord Now this Unity was broken when Particular Churches clash'd with each other when from being possess'd with Spirits of Meekness Love and Charity they were inflamed with Hatred Rage and Fury against each other A sad Instance whereof we have in that Controversie betwixt Cyprian and Stephen or rather between the Churches of Europe and Africa touching the Validity of Heretical Baptism wherein those good Men were so far transported with Bitterness and Rancour against each other that they interchangeably gave such 〈◊〉 Language and invidious Epithets as are too odious to name which if the Reader be curious to know he may find too much of it in Cyprian's Epistles Or if several particular Churches had for the promotion of Peace Unity and Order regularly disposed themselves into a Synodical Government and Discipline as was always done when their Circumstances and Conveniencies would permit them then whoever broke or violated their reasonable Canons were censured as turbulent and factious as it hath been evidenced in the former Chapter and needs no farther Proof in this because that the Schism of the Ancients was not a Breach of the Churches Unity in this Sense viz. as denoting or signifying a Church Collective § 5. But Schism principally and originally respected a particular Church or Parish tho' it might consequentially influence others too Now the Unity of a particular Church consisted in the Members Love and Amity toward each other and in their due Subjection or Subordination to their Pastour or Bishop Accordingly the Breach of that Unity consisted in these two things either in a Hatred and Malice of each other or in a Rebellion against their Lawful Pastour or which is all one in a causeless Separation from their Bishop and those that adhered to him As for the first of these there might be Envies and Discords between the Inhabitants of a Parish without a formal Separation from Communion which Jars and Feuds were called Schism an Instance whereof we find in the Church of Corinth unto whom St. Paul objected in 1 Cor. 11. 18. When ye come together in the Church I hear that there be Divisions or as it is in the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Schisms amongst you Here there was no separate Communion for they all came together in the Church and yet there were Schisms amongst them that is Strifes Quarrels and Discords And as far as I can perceive from the Epistle of Clemens Romanus which was writ to appease another Schism in the same Church of Corinth there were then only Turmoils and Differences without any actual Separation But on this I shall not enlarge because it is not what the Ancients ordinarily meant by Schism § 6. But that which they generally and commonly termed Schism was a Rebellion against or an ungrounded and causless Separation from their Lawful Pastour or their parish-Parish-Church Now because I say that a causless Separation from their Bishop was Schism it will be necessary to know how many Causes could justifie the Peoples Desertion of their Pastour and these I think were two or at most three the first was Apostacy from the Faith or when a Bishop renounced the Christian Faith and through fear of Persecution embraced the Heathenish Idolatries as was done in the case of Martialis and Basilides two Spanish Bishops and was justified by an African Synod as is to be seen throughout their whole Synodical Epistle still extant amongst those of Cyprian's The second Cause was Heresie as Irenaeus saith We must fly far off from all Hereticks And Origen allows the People to separate from their Bishop if they could accuse him of false and 〈◊〉 Doctrine A third Cause was a scandalous and wicked Life as is asserted by an African Synod held Anno 258. whose Exhortations and Arguments to this purpose may be seen at large in their Synodical Epistle still extant in Cyprian Epist. 68. p. 200. out of which several Passages pertinent to this occasion have been already cited in the sixth Chapter of this Treatise to which I must refer the Reader Of this mind also was Irenaeus before them who writes That as for those Presbyters who serve their Pleasures and have not the fear of God before their Eyes who contumeliously use others are lifted up with Pride and secretly commit wickedness from 〈◊〉 such Presbyters we ought to separate Origen indeed seems to be of another mind and thinks that the Bishops Immorality in Life could not justifie his Parishes Separation He saith he that hath a care of his Soul will not be scandalized at my Faults who am his Bishop but considering my Doctrine and finding it agreeable to the Churches Faith from me indeed he will be averse but he will receive my Doctrine according to the Precept of the Lord which saith The Scribes and 〈◊〉 sit on Moses his Chair whatever therefore they say unto you hear and do but according unto their Works do not for they say and do not That Scripture is of me who teach what is good and do the contrary and sit upon the Chair of Moses as a Scribe or Pharisee the Precept is to thee O People if thou canst not accuse me of false Doctrine or Heretical Opinions but only beholdest my wicked and sinful Life thou must not square thy Life according to my Life but do those things which I speak Now whether Irenaeus or an African Synod or Origen be to be most credited I leave the Learned to judge tho' I think they may be both nearer reconciled than they seem to be Irenaeus and that Synod affirming that the People of their own Power and Authority might immediately without the concurrent Assent of other Churches upon the Immorality and Scandal of their Bishop leave and desert him Origen restraining the People from present Execution till they had the Authority of a Synod for so doing for thus he must be understood or else
he will contradict all other Writers it being avouched by all that Synods did depose all those Bishops that were guilty of criminal and scandalous Enormities as Privatus Bishop of Lambese was deposed by a Synod of Ninety Bishops for his many and heinous Crimes § 7. But now excepting these three Causes of Apostacy Heresie and Immorality it was Schism in a Parish to leave their Minister or to set up another Bishop against him for tho' they at first chose their Bishop yet their Bishop being on their Choice approved and confirmed by the neighbouring Bishops they could not dethrone him without truly assigning one of those forementioned Causes for this was to gather a Church out of a Church to erect a new Altar and a new Bishop which could not be in one Church for as Cyprian writes God is one Christ is one the Church is one the Rock on which the Church is built is one wherefore to erect a new Altar and constitute a new Bishop besides the one Altar and the one Bishop is impracticable whosoever gathers here scatters so to do is adulterous impious sacrilegious mad and wicked From hence says Cyprian Schisms do arise that the Bishop is not obeyed and it is not considered that there ought to be but one Bishop and one Judge in a Church at a time And this is the Rise and Source of Schismaticks that through their swelling Pride they contemn their Bishop and so they go off from the Church so they erect a profane Altar and so they rebel against the Peace of Christ and the Ordination and Vnity of God And again From thence proceed Schisms that the Bishop who is but one and presides over the Church is contemned by the proud Presumption of Men and he that was thought worthy by God is esteemed unworthy by Men. And again The Church is the People united to their Bishop and the Sheep adhering to their Pastour the Bishop is in the Church and the Church in the Bishop whosoever are not with the Bishop are not in the Church and those do in vain flatter themselves who having not Peace with God's Priests creep about and privately communicate with some as they think when the Catholick Church is not divided but connexed and coupled together by the Vnity of its agreeing Bishops Whosoever therefore should causelesly desert his Bishop and solicit others so to do was a true Schismatick since in so doing he divided a Portion of the Flock with the Bishop separated the Sheep from their Pastour and dissipated the Members of Christ. From these Quotations then it is apparent that the Primitive Schism respected only a particular Church and consisted in a Person 's Separation from Communion with his lawful Bishop without a just and authentick Cause when any one should set up a particular Church in a particular Church in opposition to the lawful Bishop thereof and should draw away the Inhabitants of that Parish from the Communion of their legal Minister setting up distinct Meetings and Conventicles as Cyprian calls them This was true Schism for as Ignatius says whosoever so assembled were not congregated legally according to the Command And whosoever officiated without the Bishop sacrificed to the Devil § 8. This Notion now of Schism gives us a clear Reason why we find in Ignatius so frequent and Pathetick Injunctions of Obedience to and Unity with our respective Pastours of avoiding all Divisions and closely adhering to them because a deserting of them or a separating from them was a Commission of this horrid and detestable Sin of Schism as will appear from these following Exhortations and Instructions of his with which every Leaf almost of his Epistles are fraught and furnished All you of the Church of Smirna obey your Bishop as Jesus Christ did the Father and the Presbytery as the Apostles and honour the 〈◊〉 according to the Command of God Let nothing of Ecclesiastical Services be done without the Bishop let that Communion only be esteemed valid which is performed by the Bishop or by one permitted by him Wherever the Bishop is there let the People be as where Jesus Christ is there the Catholick Church is it is not lawful without the Bishop or one permitted by him to baptize or celebrate the 〈◊〉 this is pleasing unto God that so whatsoever is done may be firm and Legal Have respect unto your Bishop as God hath respect unto you My Soul for theirs that obey their Bishop Presbyters and Deacons and with them let my part in God be Let us not resist our Bishop lest we be found Resisters of God I exhort you to do every thing in the Vnity of God the Bishop presiding in the place of God and the Presbyters in the place of the Council of the Apostles and the Deacons persorming the intrusted Ministry of Jesus Christ let there nothing be in you that may divide you but be united to your Bishop and Presidents As therefore Christ did nothing without the Father being united to him neither by himself nor by his Apostles so do you nothing without the Bishop and Presbyters nor privately withdraw from them but assemble together having one Prayer one Supplication one Mind and one Hope Flee all Division where the Pastour is there as Sheep follow for there are many 〈◊〉 Wolves that seek to carry you away but let them have no place in your Vnity Whoever are God's and Jesus Christ's they are with the Bishop and whosoever repenting shall come to the Vnity of the Church those shall be God's that they may live according to Jesus Christ. Be not deceived my Brethren if any one follows a 〈◊〉 or one that causeth Division and Separation he shall not inherit the Kingdom of God Respect the Bishop Presbyters and Deacons do nothing without the Bishop Keep your Flesh as the Temple of God Love Vnity Avoid Schisms be followers of Jesus Christ as he was of his Father Where Division and Wrath is God dwells not God therefore pardons all Penitents if they penitentially return to the Vnity of God and the Presbytery of the Bishop And some other such like Expressions there are in the 〈◊〉 of this Father which evidently demonstrate Schism to be nothing else than a causeless Separation from our Parish Bishop or Minister and a wandring after or an Adhesion to another false and pretended Pastour § 9. But for the clearer Proof that this was what the Father 's meant by Schism it may not be altogether unnecessary to add unto these Quotations an Example or two for Examples more convincingly 〈◊〉 than bare Testimonies and Citations And here let us first view the Schism of Felicissimus in the hurch of Carthage as it is related in the 38th 40th and 55th Epistles of Cyprian and we shall find it respecting only that particular Church or Parish When Cyprian was elected Bishop of Carthage Felicissimus and others of his Faction opposed him but
the Members that composed these Synods they were Bishops Presbyters Deacons and Deputed Laymen in behalf of the People of their respective Churches Thus at that great Synod of Antioch that condemned Paulus Samosatenus there were present Bishops Presbyters Deacons and the Churches of God that is Laymen that represented the People of their several Churches So also we read in an ancient Fragment in Eusebius that when the Heresie of the Montanists was fix'd and preach'd the Faithful in Asia met together several times to examine it and upon examination condemned it So also when there were some Heats in the Church of Carthage about the Restitution of the Lapsed Cyprian writes from his Exile that the Lapsed should be patient till God had restored Peace to the Church and then there should be convened a Synod of Bishops and of the Laity who had stood firm during the Persecution to consult about and determine their Affairs Which Proposition was approved by Moses and Maximus and other Roman Confessors who liked the consulting of a Synod of Bishops Presbyters Deacons Confessors and the standing Laity as also did the whole Body of the Clergy of the Church of Rome who were willing that that Affair of the Lapsed should be determined by the common Counsel of the Bishops Presbyters Deacons Confessors and the standing Laity And thus at that great Council held at 〈◊〉 Anno 258. there were present Eighty Seven Bishops together with Presbyters Deacons and a great part of the Laity § 6. If it shall be demanded by whose Authority and Appointment Synods were assembled To this it will be replyed That it must necessarily have been by their own because in those Days there was no Christian Magistrate to order or determine those Affairs § 7. When a Synod was convened before ever they entred upon any Publick Causes they chose out of the gravest and renownedst Bishops amongst them one or sometimes two to be their Moderator or Moderators as at the Council held at Carthage Anno 258. Cyprian was Moderator or Prolocutor thereof And so we read of the Prolocutors of several Synods that were assembled in divers parts of the World to determine the Controversies concerning Easter As Victor Bishop of Rome was Prolocutor of a Synod held there Palmas Bishop of Amastris Moderator of a Synod held in Pontus and Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons of another in France Polycrates Bishop os Ephesus presided over a Synod of Asiatick Bishops and at a Convocation in Palestina there were two Moderators viz. Theophilus Bishop of Caesarea and Narcissus Bishop of Jerusalem The Office and Duty of a Moderator was to preside in the Synod to see all things calmly and fairly debated and decreed and at the conclusion of any Cause to sum up what had been debated and urged on both sides to take the Votes and Suffrages of the Members of the Synod and last of all to give his own All this is evident in the Proceedings of the Council of Carthage which are extant at the end of Cyprian's Works Cyprian being Moderator of that Council After all things were read and finished relating to the Question in hand sums up all telling the Synod what they had heard and that nothing more remained to be done but the Declaration of their Judgment thereupon Accordingly thereunto the Bishops gave their respective Votes and Decisions and last of all Cyprian as President gave in his § 8. When the Moderator was chosen then they entred upon the consideration of the Affairs that lay before them which may be consider'd in a two-fold respect either as relating to Foreign Churches or to those Churches only of whom they were the Representatives As for foreign Churches their Determinations were not obligatory unto them because they were not represented by them and so the chiefest matter they had to do with them was to give them their Advice and Counsel in any difficult Point which they had proposed to them as when the People of Astorga and Emerita in Spain had written to some African Churches for their Advice what to do with their two Bishops who had lapsed in Times of Persecution This Case was debated in a Synod held Anno 258 whose Opinion thereupon is to be seen in their Synodical Epistle extant at large amongst the Works of Cyprian Epist. 68. p. 200. § 9. But with respect unto those particular Churches whose Representatives they were their Decrees were binding and obligatory since the Regulation and Management of their Affairs was the general End of their Convening Various and many were the particular Ends of these Synodical Conventions as for the prevention of Injustice and Partiality in a Parish Consistory As suppose that such a Consistory had wrongfully and unrighteously censured one of their Members what should that censured Person do unless appeal to the Synod to have his Cause heard there as Felicissimus did who after he was excommunicated by his own Parish of which Cyprian was Bishop had his Cause heard before a Synod who ratified and confirmed the Sentence of Excommunication against him And therefore we may suppose it to be for the prevention of Partiality and Injustice that in Lesser Asia Offenders were usually absolved by the Synod which met every Year Synods also were assembled for the examining condemning and excommunicating of all Hereticks within their Limits that so the Faithful might avoid and shun them As Paulus Samosatenus was condemned by the Council of Antioch for resolving of all difficult Points that did not wound the Essentials of Religion or had relation unto the Discipline of the Church as when there was some Scruple about the Time of baptizing of Children a Synod of Sixty Six Bishops met together to decide it And so when there were some Disputes concerning the Martyrs Power to restore the Lapsed Synods were to be assembled to decide them But why do I go about to reckon up Particulars when as they are endless let this suffice in general that Synods were convened for the Regulation and Management of all Ecclesiastical Affairs within their respective Jurisdictions as Firmilian writes that in his Country the Bishops and Presbyters met together every Year to dispose those things which were committed to their charge Here they consulted about the Discipline Government and External Polity of their Churches and what means were expedient and proper for their Peace Unity and Order which by their common Consent they enacted and decreed to be observed by all the Faithful of those Churches whom they did represent He who denies this must be very little acquainted with the ancient Councils especially those which were held after the Emperors became Christians The reason why we find not more Synodical Decrees of the three first Centuries comes not from that they judicially determined none or required not the observance of them but from that either they were not careful or the Fury and Violence of the Times would