to the Gentiles declaring those glad Tidings to all Kingdoms and Provinces so that as the Apostle Paul said Rom. 10. 18. Their sound went into all the Earth and their words unto the ends of the World every one taking a particular part of the World for his proper Province to make known the joyful News of Life and Salvation through Christ therein Thus St. Andrew principally preach'd the Gospel in Scythia St. Bartholomew in India St. Matthew in Parthia St. John in the Lesser Asia and all the rest of the Apostles had their particular Provinces allotted them wherein they went forth preaching the Gospel and as they came to any City Town or Village they published to the Inhabitants thereof the blessed news of Life and Immortality through Jesus Christ constituting the first Converts of every place through which they passed Bishops and Deacons of those Churches which they there gathered So saith Clemens Romanus The Apostles went forth preaching in City and Country appointing the First Fruits of their Ministry for Bishops and Deacons generally leaving those Bishops and Deacons to govern and enlarge those particular Churches over which they had placed them whilst they themselves passed forwards planted other Churches and placed Governors over them Thus saith Tertullian Clemens was ordained Bishop of Rome by St. Peter and Polycarp Bishop of Smirna by St. John § 5. Whether in the Apostolick and Primitive days there were more Bishops than one in a Church at first sight seems difficult to resolve That the Holy Scriptures and Clemens Romanus mention many in one Church is certain And on the other hand it is as certain that Ignatius Tertullian Cyprian and the following Fathers affirm that there was and ought to be but one in a Church These Contradictions may at the first view seem Inextricable but I hope the following Account will reconcile all these seeming Difficulties and withal afford us a fair and easy Conception of the difference between the Ancient Bishops and Presbyters I shall then lay down as sure that there was but one Supreme Bishop in a place that was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bishop by way of Eminency and Propriety The proper Pastor and Minister of his Parish to whose Care and Trust the Souls of that Church or Parish over which he presided were principally and more immediately committed So saith Cyprian There is but one Bishop in a Church at a time And so Cornelius Objects to Novatian That he did not remember that there ought to be but one Bishop in a Church And throughout the whole Epistles of Ignatius and the generality of Writers succeeding him we find but one single Bishop in a Church whose Quotations to which purpose would be fruitless to recite here since the 〈◊〉 Practice of the Universal Church confirms it and a great part of the following Discourse will clearly illustrate it Only it may not be impertinent to remark this by the way that by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Succession of Bishops from those Bishops who were Ordained by the Apostles the Orthodox were wont to prove the Succession of their Faith and the Novelty of that of the Hereticks Let them demonstrate the Original of their Churches as Tertullian challenges the Marcionites and other Hereticks Let them turn over the Orders of their Bishops and see whether they have had a Succession of Bishops from any one who was Constituted by the Apostles or Apostolick Men Thus the truly Apostolick Churches have as the Church of Smirna has Polycarp there placed by St. John and the Church of Rome Clement ordained by Peter and other Churches can tell who were ordained Bishops over them by the Apostles and who have been their Successors to this very day So also says Irenaeus We challenge the Hereticks to that Tradition which was handed down from the Apostles by the Succession of Bishops And in the next Chapter of the same Book the said Father gives us a Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome till his days by whom the true Faith was successively transmitted down from the Apostles in which Catalogue we find but one Bishop at a time and as he died so another single Person succeeded him in the Charge of that Flock or Parish So that this Consideration evidences also that there was but one Bishop strictly so called in a Church at a time who was related to his Flock as a Pastor to his Sheep and a Parent to his Children The Titles of this Supreme Church-Officer are most of them reckoned up in one place by Cyprian which are Bishop Pastour President Governour Superintendent and Priest And this is he which in the Revelations is called the Angel of his Church as Origen thinks which Appellations denote both his Authority and Office his Power and Duty of both which we shall somewhat treat after we have discoursed of the Circuit and Extent of his Jurisdiction and Superintendency which shall be the Contents of the following Chapter CHAP. II. § 1. As but one Bishop to a Church so but one Church to a Bishop The Bishop's Cure never call'd a Diocess but usually a Parish no larger than our Parishes § 2. Demonstrated by several Arguments § 3. A Survey of the extent of several Bishopricks as they were in Ignatius's days as of Smirna § 4. Ephesus § 5. Magnesia § 6. Philadelphia And § 7. Trallium § 8. The Bigness of the Diocess of Antioch § 9. Of Rome § 10. Of Carthage § 11. A Reflection on the Diocess of Alexandria § 12. Bishops in Villages § 13. All the Christians of a Diocess met together in one place every Sunday to serve God § 1. HAving in the former Chapter shewn that there was but one Bishop to a Church we shall in this evidence that there was but one Church to a Bishop which will appear from this single Consideration viz. That the ancient Diocesses are never said to contain Churches in the Plural but only a Church in the Singular So they say the Church of the Corinthians the Church of Smirna the Church in Magnesia the Church in Philadelphia the Church in Antioch and so of any other place whatsoever the Church of or in such a place This was the common name whereby a Bishops Cure was denominated the Bishop himself being usually called The Bishop of this or that Church as Tertullian saith That Polycarp was ordained Bishop of the Church of Smirna As for the Word Diocess by which the Bishops Flock is now usually exprest I do not remember that ever I found it used in this Sense by any of the Ancients But there is another Word still retained by us by which they frequently denominated the Bishops Cure and that is Parish So in the Synodical Epistle of Irenaeus to Pope Victor the Bishopricks of Asia are twice called Parishes And in Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History the Word is so applied in several hundred places It is usual
according to the Process or next station of Glory be admitted into the Presbytery for Glory differs from Glory till they increase to a perfect man Now in this Passage there are two things which manifest that there were but two Ecclesiastical Orders viz. Bishops and Deacons or Presbyters and Deacons the first is that he says that those Orders were resembled by the Angelick Orders Now the Scripture mentions but two Orders of Angels viz. Archangels and Angels the Archangels presiding over the Angels and the Angels obeying and attending on the Archangels According to this resemblance therefore there must be but Two Ecclesiastical Orders in the Church which are Bishops or 〈◊〉 byters presiding and governing with the Deacons attending and obeying The other part of this Passage which proves but two Ecclesiastical Orders is his likening of them to the progressive Glory of the Saints who at the Judgment Day shall be caught up in the Clouds and there shall first as Deacons attend and wait on Christ's Judgment-Seat and then when the Judgment is over shall have their Glory perfected in being placed on the Celestial Thrones of that Sublime Presbytery where they shall for ever be blest and happy So that there were only the two Orders of Deacons and Presbyters the former whereof being the inseriour Order never sat at their 〈◊〉 Conventions but like Servants stood and waited on the latter who sat down on 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Seats in the form of a Semicircle whence they are frequently called Consessus Presbyterii Or the Session of the Presbytery in which Session he that was more peculiarly the Bishop or Minister of the Parish sat at the Head of the Semicircle on a Seat somewhat elevated above those of his Colleagues as Cyprian calls them and so was distinguished from them by his Priority in the same Order but not by his being of another Order Thus the foresaid Clemens Alexandrinus distinguishes the Bishop from the Presbyters by his being advanced to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the first Seat in the Presbytery not by his sitting in a different Seat from them For thus he writes He is in truth a Presbyter of the Church and a Minister of the Will of God who does and teaches the things of the Lord not ordained by Men or esteemed just because a Presbyter but because just therefore received into the 〈◊〉 who although he be not honoured with the first Seat on Earth yet shall hereafter sit down on the Twenty and Four Thrones mentioned in the Revelations judging the People So that both Bishops and Presbyters were Members of the same Presbytery only the Bishop was advanced to the first and chiefest Seat therein which is the very same with what I come now from proving viz. That Bishops and Presbyters were Equal in Order but Different in Degree That the former were the Ministers of their respective Parishes and the latter their Curates or Assistants Whether this hath been fully proved or whether the precedent Quotations do naturally conclude the Premises the Learned Reader will easily determine I am not conscious that I have stretched any Words beyond their natural Signification having deduced from them nothing but what they fairly imported If I am mistaken I hope I shall be pardoned since I did it not designedly or voluntarily As before so now I profess again that if any one shall be so kind and obliging to give me better Information I shall thankfully and willingly acknowledge and quit mine Error but till that Information be given and the falsity of my present Opinion be evinc'd which after the impartialest and narrowest Enquiry I see not how it can be done I hope no one will be offended that I have asserted the Equality or Identity of the Bishops and Presbyters as to Order and their difference as to Preeminency or Degree § 4. Now from this Notion of Presbyters there evidently results the Reason why there were many of them in one Church even for the same Intent and End tho' more necessary and needful that Curates are now to those Ministers and Incumbents whom they serve it was found by Experience that variety of Accidents and Circumstances did frequently occur both in times of Peace and Persecution the Particulars whereof would be needless to enumerate that disabled the Bishops from attending on and discharging their Pastoral Office therefore that such Vacancies might be supplied and such Inconveniencies remedied they entertained Presbyters or Curates who during their Absence might supply their Places who also were helpful to them whilst they were present with their Flocks to counsel and advise them whence Bishop Cyprian assures us that he did all things by the Common Council of his Presbyters Besides this in those early days of Christianity Churches were in most places thin and at a great distance from one another so that if a Bishop by any Disaster was Incapacitated for the Discharge of his Function it would be very difficult to get a neighbouring Bishop to assist him To which we may also add that in those times there were no publick Schools or Universities except we say the Catechetick Lecture at Alexandria was one for the breeding of young Ministers who might succeed the Bishops as they died wherefore the Bishops of every Church took care to instruct and elevate some young Men who might be prepared to come in their place when they were dead and gone And thus for these and the like Reasons most Churches were furnished with a competent number of Presbyters who helpt the Bishops while living and were fitted to succeed them when dead § 5. I say only most Churches were furnished with Presbyters because all were not especially those Churches which were newly planted where either the Numbers or Abilities of the Belîevers were small and inconsiderable Neither indeed were Presbyters Essential to the Constitution of a Church a Church might be without them as well as a Parish can be without a 〈◊〉 now it was sufficient that they had a Bishop a Presbyter was only necessary for the easing of the Bishop in his Office and to be qualified for the succeeding him in his Place and Dignity after his Death For as 〈◊〉 writes Where there are no Presbyters the Bishop alone administers the two Sacraments of the Lord's Supper and Baptism § 6. As for the time when Presbyters began to me it seems plain that their Office was even in the Apostolick Age tho' by their Names they were not distinguished from Bishops till sometime after The first Author now extant who distinctly mentions Bishops and Presbyters is Ignatius Bishop of Antioch who lived in the beginning of the Second Century But without doubt before his time even in the days of the Apostles where Churches increased or were somewhat large there were more in Holy Orders than the Bishops of those Churches We read in the New Testament of the Bishops of Ephesus Acts 20. 28. and Philippi Philip. 1. 1. which
not the Bishop without the People nor the People without the Bishop but both conjunctly constituted that Supreme Tribunal which censured Delinquents and Transgressors as will be evident from what follows All the Power that any Church-Court exerted was derived from that Promife and Commission of Christ in Matth. 16. 18 19. Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it And I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven whatsoever thou shalt loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven Now this Power some of the Ancients mention as given to the Bishops Thus Origen writes That the Bishops applyed to themselves this Promise that was made to Peter teaching That they had received the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven from our Saviour that so whatsoever was bound that is condemned by them on Earth was bound in Heaven and whatsoever was loosed by them was also loosed in Heaven which says he may be Orthodoxly enough applyed to them if they hold Peter's Confession and are such as the Church of Christ may be built upon And so also says Cyprian The Church is founded upon the Bishops by whom every Ecclesiastical Action is governed Others of the Ancients mention this Power as given to the whole Church according to that in Matth. 18. 15 16 17 18. If thy Brother shall trespass against thee go and tell him his Fault between thee and him 〈◊〉 if he shall hear thee thou hast gained thy 〈◊〉 but if he will not hear thee take with thee one or two more that in the mouth of two or three Witnesses every Word may be established and if he shall neglect them tell it unto the Church but if he neglect to hear the Church let him be unto thee as an Heathen and a Publican Verily I say unto you Whatsoever ye shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever ye shall loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven By the Church here is to be understood the whole Body of a particular Church or Parish unto which some of the Fathers attribute the Power of the Keys as Tertullian If thou fearest Heaven to be shut remember the Lord gave its Keys to Peter and by him to the Church And Firmilian The Power of remitting Sins is given to the Apostles and to the Churches which they constituted and to the Bishops who succeeded them Now from this different attribution of the Power of the Keys we may infer this That it was so lodged both in Bishops and People as that each had some share in it The Bishop had the whole Executive and part of the Legislative Power and the People had a part in the Legislative tho' not in the Executive As for the Executive Power by which I understand the formal Pronunciation of Suspensions and Excommunications the Imposition of Hands in the Absolution of Penitents and such like that could be done by none but by the Bishop or by Persons in Holy Orders Deputed and Commission'd by him as the Sequel will evince But as for the Legislative Decretive or Judicatorial Power that 〈◊〉 both to Clergy and Laity who conjunctly made up that Supreme Consistorial Court which was in every Parish before which all Offenders were tried and if found Guilty sentenced and condemned Now that the Clergy were Members of this Ecclesiastical Court is a thing so evidently known and granted by all as that it would be superfluous to heap up many Quotations to prove it so that I shall but just confirm it after I have proved that which may seem more strange and that is That the Laity were Members thereof and Judges therein being Sharers with the Clergy in the Judicial Power of the Spiritual Court And this will most evidently appear by the consideration of these following Testimonies The first shall be out of that place of Clemens Romanus where he writes Who will say according to the Example of Moses If Seditions Contentions and Schisms are hapned because of me I will depart I will go wheresoever you please and I will do what are enjoyned me by the People so the Church of Christ be in Peace So Origen describes a Criminal as appearing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Before the whole Church And Dyonisius Bishop of Alexandria in his Letter to Fabius Bishop of Antioch speaks of one Serapion that had fallen in the Times of Persecution who had several times appeared before the Church to beg their Pardon but no one did ever take any notice of him But Cyprian is most full in this matter as when two Subdeacons and an Acolyth of his Parish had committed some great Misdemeanors he professes that he himself was not a sufficient Judge of their Crimes but they ought to be tried by all the People And concerning Felicissimus the 〈◊〉 he writes to his People from his Exile that if it pleased God he would come to them after Easter and then that Affair should be adjusted according to their Arbitrement and Common Counsel And in another place he condemns the rash Precipitation of some of his Presbyters in admitting the Lapsed to Communion because of some Pacificatory Libels obtained from the Confessors and charges them to admit no more till Peace was restored to the Church and then they should plead their Cause before the Clergy and before all the People And concerning the same matter he writes in another Letter to the People of his Parish That when it should please God to restore Peace to the Church and reduce him from his Exile that then it should be examined in their Presence and according to their Judgment So that the Consistory Court was composed of the People as well as of the Bishop each of whom had a negative Voice therein On one side the Bishop could do nothing without the People So when several returned from the Schism of Fortunatus and Bishop Cyprian was willing to receive them into the Churches Peace he complains of the unwillingness of his People to admit them and the great difficulties he had to obtain their Consent as he thus describes it in his Letter to Cornelius Bishop of Rome O my dear Brother if you could be present with me when those Men return from their Schism you would wonder at what pains I take to perswade our Brethren to be patient that laying aside their Grief of Mind they would consent to the healing and receiving of those that are sick I can scarce 〈◊〉 yea I extort a Grant from my People that such 〈◊〉 received to Communion And on the other side the People could do dothing without the Bishop as when one of the three Bishops that 〈◊〉 Ordained Novatian came back to the Church and desired admission the People alone could not receive him without the Consent of the Bishop 〈◊〉 for else they would
Authors mentioned in this Treatise together with those Editions that I have made use of are as follow S. Ignatii Epistolae Graeco-Latin Quarto Edit Isaci Vossii Amstelodam 1646. S. Barnabae Epistola Catholica Edit ad Calcem S. Ignatii Quarto Amstelodam 1646. S. Clementis Romani Epistolae Graeco-Latin Quaerto Edit Patricii Junii Oxonii 1633. S. Irenaei Opera Folio Edit Nic. Galasii Genevae 1580. S. Justini Martyris Opera Graeco-Latin Folio Coloniae 1686. Epistola Plinii Secundi Trojano Imperatori de Christianis in fronte Operum Justin. Martyr Colon. 1686. Clementis Alexandrini Opera Folio Edit Heinsii Lugdun Batav 1616. Tertulliani Opera Folio Edit Paris 1580. Novatiani De Trinitate De Cibis Judaicis inter Opera Tertulliani Edit Paris 1580. Cypriani Opera Folio Edit Sim. Goulart apud Johan le Preux 1593. Vita Cypriani per Pontium ejus Diaconum In fronte Oper. Cyprian Edit Goulart 1593. Fragmentum Victorini Petavionensis De Fabrica Mundi pag. 103 104. Histor. literar Dr. S. Cave Edit Folio Londini 1688. Minucii Felices Octavius Edit ad Calcem Tertullian Apolog. per Desiderium Heraldum Quarto Paris 1613. Origenis Commentaria omnia quae Graece Reperiuntur Edit de Huetii 2 Vol. Folio Rothomagi 1668. Originis contra Celsum Libri Octo ejusdem Philocalia Graeco-Latin Edit Quarto per Gulielm Spencer Cantabrigiae 1677. Originis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seu De Oratione Graeco-Latin Octavo Oxonii 1685. As for those other Works of Origen which are extant only in Latin I have made no use at all of those of Ruffin's Translation except his Creed since in them we know not which we read whether Origen or Ruffin and as for those which were translated by more faithful Hands I have used the Editions of Merlin or Erasmus without nominating the Page Eusebii Pamphili Ecclesiastica Historia Graeco-Latin Folio Edit Henric. Vales. Paris 1659. I have read only the Seven first Books of Eusebius's History because the three others go beyond my limited Time As for the Writings of S. Gregory of Neocaesarea they are but few and from thence I have taken nothing but his Creed so that there is no need to mention any Edition of his Works The same I may say also of the short Epistle of Polycarp which I have cited but once and therein have used the Version of Dr. Cave extant in his Apostolici pag. 127. There are vet some other Fathers whose remaining Tracts I have read as Theophilus Antiochenus Athenagoras c. who are not cited in this 〈◊〉 because I have found nothing in them 〈◊〉 to my Design An Enquiry into the Constitution Discipline Unity and Worship of the Primitive Church CHAP. I. § 1. The various Significations of the word Church § 2. A particular Church the chief Subject of the ensuing Discourse The constituent parts thereof Two-fold viz. Clergy and Laity § 3. Each of these had their particular Functions and both their joint Offices Three things on which a great part of the following Discourse depends proposed to be handled viz. The Peculiar Acts of the Clergy The Peculiar Acts of the Laity and the Joint Acts of them both § 4. The Peculiar Acts of the Clergy propounded to be discussed according to their several Orders First of the Bishops A View of the World as it was in a state of Heathenism at the first Preaching of Christianity necessary to be consider'd Where the Apostles planted Churches they appointed the first Converts to be Bishops thereof § 5. But one Bishop in a Church The Orthodoxness of the Faith proved from the Succession of the Bishops The Titles and Relation of the Bishop to his Flock § 1. THAT we may give the more clear and distinct Answer to this Important Query it is necessary that we first examin the Primitive Notion of the Word Church upon the due apprehension of which depends the Right Understanding of a great Part of our following Discourse This word Church as in our modern acceptation so also in the Writings of the Fathers is equivocal having different Significations according to the different Subjects to which it is applyed I shall not here concern my self about the Derivation of the Word or its Original Use amongst the Heathens from whom it was translated into the Christian Church but only take notice of its various Uses amongst the ancient Christians which were many as 1. It is very often to be understood of the Church Vniversal that is of all those who throughout the face of the whole Earth professed Faith in Christ and acknowledged him to be the Saviour of Mankind This Irenaeus calls The Church dispersed thro' the whole World to the ends of the Earth and The Church scattered in the whole World And Origen calls it The Church of God under Heaven This is that which they called the Catholick Church for Catholick signifies the same as Vniversal Thus Polycarp when he was seized by his Murderers prayed for The Catholick Church throughout the World And in this Sense Dionysius Alexandrinus calls the persecuting Emperour Macrianus A Warrior against the Catholick Church of God II. The word Church is frequently to be understood of a particular Church that is of a Company of Believers who at one time in one and the same place did associate themselves together and concur in the Participation of all the Institutions and Ordinances of Jesus Christ with their proper Pastors and Ministers Thus Irenaeus mentions that Church which is in any place And so Dionysius Alexandrinus writes that when he was banished to Cephro in Lybia there came so many Christians unto him that even there he had a Church Tertullian thinks that Three were sufficient to make a Church In this sense we must understand the Church of Rome the Church of Smyrna the Church of Antioch the Church of Athens the Church of Alexandria or the Church in any other such place whatsoever that is a Congregation of Christians assembling all together for Religious Exercises at Rome Antioch Smirna Athens Alexandria or such like places III. The word Church is sometimes used for the Place where a particular Church or Congregation met for the Celebration of Divine Service Thus Paulus Samosatenus the Heretical Bishop of Antioch ordered certain Women to stand in the middle of the Church and fing Psalms in his Praise So Clemens Alexandrinui adviseth that Men and Women should with all Modesty and Humility enter into the Church So the Clergy of the Church of Rome in their Letter to Cyprian concerning the Restitution of the Lapsed give as their advice That they should only come to the Threshold of the Church-door but not go over it And in this Sense is the Word frequently to be understood in Tertullian Origen and others to recite whose Testimonies at large would be both tedious and needless IV. I find the Word Church once used by Cyprian for
gave unto the Bishops the power of Baptizing So that the Bishops did ordinarily baptize all the Persons that were baptized in their Diocesses and if so it is not probable I may say possible that their Diocesses were extended beyond the bulk of single Congregations 4. The Churches Charity was Deposited with the Bishop who as Justin Martyr reports was the common Curator and Overseer of all the Orphans Widows Diseased Strangers Imprisoned and in a word of all those that were needy and indigent To this charitable Office Ignatius adviseth Polycarpus but of that Advice more shall be spoken in another place only let us here observe That that Diocess could not be very large where the Bishop personally relieved and succoured all the Poor and Indigent therein 5. All the People of a Diocess were present at Church Censures as Origen describes an Offender as appearing before the whole Church So Clemens Romanus calls the Censures of the Church the things commanded by the multitude And so the two offending Subdeacons and Acolyth at Carthage were to be tried before the whole 6. No Offenders were restored again to the Churches Peace without the knowledge and consent of the whole Diocess So Cyprian writes that before they were re-admitted to Communion they were to plead their Cause before all the People And it was ordained by an African Synod that except in danger of Death or an instantaneous Persecution none should be received into the Churches Peace without the knowledge and consent of the People 7. When the Bishop of a Church was dead all the People of that Church met together in one Place to chuse a new Bishop So Sabinus was elected Bishop of Emerita by the 〈◊〉 of all the Brotherhood which was also the custom throughout all Africa for the Bishop to be chosen in the Presence of the People And so Fabianus was chosen to be Bishop of Rome by all the Brethren who were met together in one place for that very end 8. At the Ordinations of the Clergy the whole Body of the People were present So an African Synod held Anno 258 determined That the Ordination of Ministers ought to be done with the knowledge and in the Presence of the People that the People being present either the Crimes of the wicked may be detected or the Merits of the good declared and so the Ordination may be Just and Lawful being approved by the Suffrage and Judgment of all And Bishop Cyprian writes from his Exile to all the People of his Diocess that it had been his constant Practice in all Ordinations to consult their Opinions and by their common Counsels to weigh the manners and merits of every one Therein imitating the Example of the Apostles and Apostolick Men who Ordained none but with the Approbation of the whole Church 9. Publick Letters from one Church to another were read before the whole Diocess Thus Cornelius Bishop of Rome whatever Letters he received from Foreign Churches he always read them to his most holy and numerous People And without doubt when Firmilian writ to all the Parish of Antioch they could all assemble together to read his Letter and return an Answer to it since we find that in those days one whole Church writ to another whole Church as the Church of Rome writ to the Church of Corinth And Cyprian and his whole Flock sent gratulatory Letters to Pope Lucius upon his return from Exile Lastly The whole Diocess of the Bishop did meet all together to manage Church-Affairs Thus when the Schism of Felicissimus in the Bishoprick of Carthage was to be debated It was to be done according to the will of the People and by the consent of the Laity And when there were some hot Disputes about the Restitution of the Lapsed the said Cyprian promised his whole Diocess that all those things should be examined before them and be judged by them And so also when they were to send a Messenger to any Foreign Church all the People could meet together to chuse that Messenger as they could in the Church of Philadelphia Now put all these Observations together and duly consider whether they do not prove the Primitive Parishes to be no larger than our modern ones are that is that they had no more Believers or Christians in them than there are now in ours I do not say that the Ancient Bishopricks had no larger Territories or no greater space of Ground than our Parishes have On the contrary it is very probable that many of them had much more since in those early days of Christianity in many places the Faithful might be so few as that for twenty or thirty Miles round they might associate together under one Bishop and make up but one Church and that a small one too But this I fay that how large soever their Local Extent was their Members made but one single Congregation and had no more Christians in it than our Parishes now have for that Diocess cannot possibly be more than one single Congregation where all the People met together at one time Prayed together Received the Sacrament together assisted at Church Censures together and dispatched Church Affairs together and yet the Members of the Primitive Diocesses did all this together as the preceding Observations evidently declare so that I might stop here and add no 〈◊〉 Proofs to that which hath been already so clearly proved § 3. But yet that we may more clearly illustrate this Point we shall demonstrate it by another method viz. By shewing the real Bulk and Size of those Bishopricks concerning whom we have any Notices remaining on ancient Records and manifest that the very largest of them were no greater than our particular Congregations are And for the Proof of this we shall quote the Writings of St. Ignatius in whose genuine Epistles there is such an account of the Bishopricks of Smirna Ephesus Magnesia Philadelphia and Trallium as manifestly evidences them to be but so many single Congregations As for the Diocess of Smirna its extent could not be very large since nothing of Church-Affairs was done there without the Bishop he baptized and administred the Eucharist and none else could do it within his Cure without his permission wherever he was his whole Flock followed him which they might without any Inconveniency do since they frequently assembled together as Ignatius advised Polycarp the Bishop of this Church To convene his Diocess to chuse a faithful honest Man to send a Messenger into Syria So that the Bishop of this Church could know his whole Flock personally by their Names carrying himself respectfully and charitably to all with all meekness and humility towards Serving-men and Serving-maids and charitably taking care of the Widows within his Diocess permitting nothing to be done there without his Privity Insomuch that none were married without his previous advice
removed them from Earth to Heaven where they were made Priests to the most High and were infinitely remunerated for all their Pains and Sorrows and so leaving their particular Flocks on Earth to be sed and govern'd by others who should succeed them in their places which brings me in the next place to enquire How a vacant Bishoprick was supplied or in what manner a Bishop or Minister was elected to a Diocess or Parish § 3. Now the manner of electing a Bishop I find to be thus When a Parish or Bishoprick was vacant through the Death of the Incumbent all the Members of that Parish both Clergy and Laity met together in the Church commonly to chuse a fit Person for his Successor to whom they might commit the Care and Government of their Church Thus when Alexander was chosen Bishop of Jerusalem it was by the Compulsion or Choice of the Members of that Church And as for the Bishoprick of Rome we have a memorable Instance of this kind in the Advancement of Fabianus to that See upon the Death of Bishop Anterus All the People met together in the Church to chuse a Successor proposing several illustrious and eminent Personages as fit for that Office whilst no one so much as thought upon Fabianus then present till a Dove miraculously came and sate upon his Head in the same manner as the Holy Ghost formerly descended on our Saviour and then all the People guided as it were with one Divine Spirit cryed out with one Mind and Soul That Fabianus was worthy of the Bishoprick and so straightways taking him they placed him on the Episcopal Throne And as Fabianus so likewise his Successor Cornelius was elected by the suffrage of the Clergy and Laity Thus also with respect to the Diocess of Carthage Cyprian was chosen Bishop thereof by its Inhabitants and Members as Pontius his Deacon writes That though he was a Novice yet by the Grace of God and the Favour of the People he was elevated to that sublime Dignity which is no more than what Cyprian himself acknowledges who frequently owns that he was promoted to that Honourable Charge by the Suffrage of the People § 4. When the People had thus elected a Bishop they presented him to the neighbouring Bishops for their Approbation and Consent because without their concurrent Assent there could be no Bishop legally instituted or confirmed Thus when the fore-mentioned Alexander was Chosen Bishop of Jerusalem by the Brethren of that place he had also the common Consent of the circumjacent Bishops Now the Reason of this I suppose was lest the People thro' Ignorance or Affection should chuse an unfit or an unable Man for that sacred Office it being supposed that a Synod of Bishops had more Wisdom Learning and Prudence than a Congregation of unlearned and ignorant Men and so were better able to judge of the Abilities and Qualifications of the Person elect than the People were Hence we find that sometimes the Election of a Bishop is attributed to the Choice of the Neighbouring Bishops with the Consent and Suffrage of the People This Custom generally prevail'd throughout Africa where upon the Vacancy of a See The Neighbouring Bishops of the Province met together at that Church and chose a Bishop in the presence of the People who knew his Life and Conversation before which Custom was observed in the Election of Sabinus Bishop of Emerita in Spain who was advanc'd to that Dignity by the Suffrage of all the Brethren and of all the Bishops there present But whether the Election of a Bishop be ascribed to the adjoining Ministers or to the People of that Parish it comes all to one and the same thing neither the Choice of the Bishops of the Voisinage without the Consent of the People nor the Election of the People without the Approbation of those Bishops was sufficient and valid of it self but both concurred to a legal and orderly Promotion which was according to the Example of the Apostles and Apostolick Preachers who in the first Plantation of Churches Ordained Bishops and Deacons with the Consent of the whole Church § 5. A Bishop being thus elected and confirmed the next thing that followed was his Ordination or 〈◊〉 which was done in his own Church by the neighbouring Bishops as Cyprian mentions some Bishops in his time who went to a City called Capse to install a Bishop whither when they were come they took the Bishop Elect and in the presence of his Flock Ordained or Installed him Bishop of that Church by Imposition of Hands as Sabinus was placed in his Bishoprick by Imposition of Hands Therefore Fortunatus the Schismatical Bishop of Carthage got five Bishops to come and Ordain him at Carthage And so Novatian when he Schismatically aspired to the Bishoprick of Rome that he might not seem to leap in Uncanonically wheedled three ignorant and simple Bishops to come to Rome and install him in that Bishoprick by Imposition of Hands How many Bishops were necessary to this installing of a Bishop Elect I find not Three were sufficient as is apparent from the forecited action of Novatian whether less would do I know not since I find not the least footsteps of it in my Antiquity unless that from Novatian's sending for and 〈◊〉 just three Bishops out of Italy we conclude that Number to be necessary But if there were more than Three it was not accounted unnecessary or needless for the more Bishops there were present at an Installment the more did its validity and unexceptionableness appear Whence Cyprian argues the undeniable Legality of Cornelius's Promotion to the See of Rome because he had sixteen Bishops present at his Ordination And for this Reason it was that Fortunatus the Schismatical Bishop of Carthage falsely boasted That there were Twenty-five Bishops present at his Installment And thus in short we have viewed the Method of the Ancients in their Election of Bishops we have shewn that they were elected by the People approved and installed by the Neighbouring Bishops on which Account it is that Cyprian calls them Chosen and ordained § 6. It may not now be amiss to mention this Custom that when a Bishop was thus presented and advanced to a See he immediately gave notice of it to other Bishops especially to the most renowned Bishops and Bishopricks as Cornelius writ to Cyprian Bishop of Carthage an Account of his being promoted to the See of Rome betwixt which two Churches there was such a peculiar Intercourse and Harmony as that this Custom was more particularly observed by them insomuch that it was observed by the Schismatical Bishops of each Church Novatian giving notice to Cyprian Bishop of Carthage of his Promotion to the Church of Rome And Fortunatus advising Cornelius Bishop of Rome of his Advancement to the Church of Carthage § 7. Let what hath been spoken now suffice for the peculiar Acts
of the Bishop We have proved that there was but one Bishop to a Church and one Church to a Bishop we have shewn the Bishop's Office and Function Election and Ordination what farther to add on this Head I know not For as for those other Acts which he performed jointly with his Flock we must refer them to another place till we have handled those other Matters which previously propose themselves unto us The first of which will be an Examination into the Office and Order of a Presbyter which because it will be somewhat long shall be the Subject of the following Chapter CHAP. IV. § 1. The Definition and Description of a Presbyter what he was § 2. Inferior to a Bishop in Degree § 3. But equal to a Bishop in Order § 4. The Reason why there were many Presbyters in a Church § 5. Presbyters not necessary to the Constitution of a Church § 6. When Presbyters began § 1. IT will be both needless and tedious to endeavour to prove that the Ancients generally mention Presbyters distinct from Bishops Every one I suppose will readily own and acknowledge it The great Question which hath most deplorably sharpned and sour'd the Minds of too many is what the Office and Order of a Presbyter was About this the World hath been and still is most uncharitably divided some equalize a Presbyter in every thing with a Bishop others as much debase him each according to their particular Opinions either advance or degrade him In many Controversies a middle way hath been the safest perhaps in this the Medium between the two Extremes may be the truest Whether what I am now going to say be the true 〈◊〉 of the Matter I leave to the Learned Reader to determin I may be deceived neither mine Years nor Abilities exempt me from Mistakes and Errors But this I must needs say That after the most diligent Researches and impartialest Enquiries The following Notion seems to me most plausible and most consentaneous to Truth and which with a great facility and clearness solves those Doubts and Objections which according to those other Hypotheses I know not how to answer But yet however I am not so wedded and bigotted to this Opinion but if any shall produce better and more convincing Arguments to the contrary I will not contentiously defend but readily relinquish it since I search after Truth not to promote a particular Party or Interest Now for the better Explication of this Point I shall first lay down a Definition and Description of a Presbyter and then prove the parts thereof Now the Definition of a Presbyter may be this A Person in Holy Orders having thereby an inherent Right to perform the whole Office of a Bishop but being possessed of no Place or Parish not actually discharging it without the Permission and Consent of the Bishop of a Place or Parish But lest this Definition should seem obscure I shall 〈◊〉 it by this following Instance As a Curate hath the same Mission and Power with the Minister whose Place he supplies yet being not the Minister of that place he cannot perform there any acts of his Ministerial Function without leave from the Minister thereof So a Presbyter had the same Order and Power with a Bishop whom he assisted in his Cure yet being not the Bishop or Minister of that Cure he could not there perform any parts of his Pastoral Office without the permission of the Bishop thereof So that what we generally render Bishops Priests and Deacons would be more intelligible in our Tongue if we did express it by Rectors Vicars and Deacons by Rectors understanding the Bishops and by Vicars the Presbyters the former being the actual Incumbents of a Place and the latter Curates or Assistants and so different in Degree but yet equal in Order Now this is what I understand by a Presbyter for the Confirmation of which these two things are to be proved I. That the Presbyters were the Bishops Curates and Assistants and so inferiour to them in the actual Exercise of their Ecclesiastical Commission II. That yet notwithstanding they had the same inherent Right with the Bishops and so were not of a distinct specifick Order from them Or more briefly thus 1. That the Presbyters were different from the Bishops in gradu or in degree but yet 2. They were equal to them in Ordine or in Order § 2. As to the first of these That Presbyters were but the Bishops Curates and Assistants inferiour to them in Degree or in the actual Discharge of their Ecclesiastical Commission This will appear to have been in effect already proved if we recollect what has been asserted touching the Bishop and his Office That there was but one Bishop in a Church That he usually performed all the parts of Divine Service That he was the general Disposer and Manager of all things within his Diocess there being nothing done there without his Consent and Approbation To which we may particularly add 1. That without the Bishop's leave a Presbyter could not baptize Thus saith Tertullian The Bishop hath the Right of Baptizing then the Presbyters and Deacons but yet for the Honour of the Church not without the Authority of the Bishop and to the same Effect saith Ignatius It is not lawful for any one to baptize except the Bishop permit him 2. Without the Bishop's permission a Presbyter could not administer the Lord's Supper That Eucharist says Ignatius is only valid which is performed by the Bishop or by whom he shall permit for it is not lawful for any one to celebrate the Eucharist without leave from the Bishop 3. Without the Bishops Consent a Presbyter could not preach and when he did preach he could not chuse his own Subject but discoursed on those Matters which were enjoyned him by the Bishop as the Bishop commanded Origen to preach about the Witch of Endor 4. Without the Bishop's Permission a Presbyter could not absolve Offenders therefore Cyprian severely chides some of his Presbyters because they dared in his absence without his Consent and Leave to give the Church's Peace to some offending Criminals But what need I reckon up particulars when in general there was no Ecclesiastical Office performed by the Presbyters without the Consent and Permission of the Bishop So says Ignatius Let nothing be done of Ecclesiastical Concerns without the Bishop for Whosoever doth any thing without the knowledge of the Bishop is a Worshipper of the Devil Now had the Presbyters had an equal Power in the Government of those Churches wherein they lived how could it have been impudent and usurping in them to have perform'd the particular acts of their Ecclesiastical Function without the Bishop's Leave and Consent No it was not fit or just that any one should preach or govern in a Parish without the permission of the Bishop or Pastor thereof for where Churches had been regularly formed under the Jurisdiction of their proper Bishops it
could not be proved particularly that a Presbyter did discharge them yet it would be sufficient if we could prove that in the general a Presbyter could and did perform them all Now that a Presbyter could do so and consequently by the Bishop's permission did do so will appear from the Example of the great Saint Cyprian Bishop of Carthage who being exil'd from his Church writes a Letter to the Clergy thereof wherein he exhorts and begs them to discharge their own and his Office too that so nothing might be wanting either to Discipline or Diligence And much to the same Effect he thus writes them in another Letter Trusting therefore to your Kindness and Religion which I have abundantly experienced I exhort and command you by these Letters that in my stead you perform those Offices which the Ecclesiastical Dispensation requires And in a Letter written upon the same Occasion by the Clergy of the Church of Rome to the Clergy of the Church of Carthage we find these Words towards the beginning thereof And since it is incumbent upon us who are as it were Bishops to keep the Flock in the room of the Pastor If we shall be found negligent it shall be said unto us as it was said to our careless preceeding Bishops in Ezekiel 34. 3 4. That we looked not after that which was lost we did not correct him that wandered nor bound up him that was lame but we did eat their Milk and were covered with their Wooll So that the Presbyters were as it were Bishops that in the Bishop's Absence kept his Flock and in his stead performed all those Ecclesiastical Offices which were incumbent on him Now then if the Presbyters could supply the place of an Absent Bishop and in general discharge all those Offices to which a Bishop had been obliged if he had been present it naturally follows that the Presbyters could discharge every particular Act and Part thereof If I should say such an one has all the Senses of a Man and yet also assert that he cannot see I should be judged a Self-contradictor in that Assertion for in affirming that he had all the Human Senses I also affirmed that he saw because Seeing is one of those Senses For whatsoever is affirmed of an Universal is affirmed of every one of its Particulars So when the Fathers say that the Presbyters performed the whole Office of the Bishop it naturally ensues that they Confirmed Ordained Baptized c. because those are Particulars of that Universal But now from the whole we may collect a solid Argument for the Equality of Presbyters with Bishops as to Order for if a Presbyter did all a Bishop did what difference was there between them A Bishop preached baptized and confirmed so did a Presbyter A Bishop excommunicated absolved and ordained so did a Presbyter Whatever a Bishop did the same did a Presbyter the particular Acts of their Office was the same the only difference that was between them was in Degree but this proves there was none at all in Order 2. That Bishops and Presbyters were of the same Order appears also from that originally they had one and the same Name each of them being indifferently called Bishops or Presbyters Hence we read in the Sacred Writ of several Bishops in one particular Church as the Bishops of Ephesus and Philippi that is the Bishops and Presbyters of those Churches as they were afterwards distinctly called And Clemens Romanus sometimes mentions many Bishops in the Church of Corinth whom at other times he calls by the Name of Presbyters using those two Terms as Synonimous Titles and Appellations You have obeyed saith he those that were set over you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Let us revere those that are set over us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are the usual Titles of the Bishops and yet these in another place he calls Presbyters describing their Office by their sitting or presiding over us Wherefore he commands the Corinthians to be subject to their Presbyters and whom in one Line he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Bishops The second Line after he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presbyters So Polycarp exhorts the Philippians to be subject to their Presbyters and Deacons under the name of Presbyters including both Bishops and Priests as we now call them The first that expressed these Church-Officers by the distinct Terms of Bishops and Presbyters was Ignatius who lived in the beginning of the Second Century appropriating the Title of Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Overseer to that Minister who was the more immediate Overseer and Governour of his Parish and that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elder or Presbyter to him who had no particular Care and Inspection of a Parish but was only an Assistant or Curate to a Bishop that had the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Bishop denoting a Relation to a Flock or Cure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presbyter signifying only a Power or an ability to take the Charge of such a Flock or Cure the former implying an actual discharge of the Office the latter a power so to do This Distinction of Titles arising from the difference of their Circumstances which we find first mentioned in Ignatius was generally followed by the succeeding Fathers who for the most part distinguish between Bishops and Presbyters though sometimes according to the primitive Usage they indifferently apply those Terms to each of those persons Thus on the one hand the Titles of Presbyters are given unto Bishops as Irenaeus in his Synodical Epistle twice calis Anicetus Pius Higynus Telesphorus and Xistus Bishops of Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presbyters And those Bishops who derived their Succession immediately from the Apostles he calls the Presbyters in the Church and whom Clemens Alexandrinus in one Line calls the Bishop of a certain City not far from Ephesus a few Lines after he calls the Presbyter And on the other hand the Titles of Bishops are ascribed to Presbyters as one of the Discretive Appellations of a Bishop is Pastour Yet Cyprian also calls his Presbyters the Pastors of the Flock Another was that of President or one set over the People Yet Cyprian also calls his Presbyters Presidents or set over the People The Bishops were also called Rectors or Rulers So Origen calls the Presbyters the Governours of the People And we find both Bishops and Presbyters included under the common Name of Presidents or Prelates by St. Cyprian in this his Exhortation to Pomponius And if all must observe the Divine Discipline how much more must the Presidents and Deacons do it who by their Conversation and Manners must yield a good Example to others Now if the same Appellation of a thing be a good Proof for the Identity of its Nature then Bishops and Presbyters must be of the same Order because they had the same Names and Titles
Suppose it was disputed whether a Parson and Lecturer were of the same Order would not this sufficiently prove the Affirmative That though for some Accidental Respects they might be distinguished in their Appellations yet originally and frequently they were called by one and the same Name The same it is in this Case though for some contingent and adventitious Reasons Bishops and Presbyters were discriminated in their Titles yet originally they were always and afterwards sometimes called by one and the same Appellation and therefore we may justly deem them to be one and the same Order But if this Reason be not thought cogent enough the Third and last will unquestionably put all out of doubt and most clearly evince the Identity or Sameness of Bishops and Presbyters as to Order and that is that it is expresly said by the Ancients That there were but two distinct Ecclesiastical Orders viz. Bishops and Deacons or Presbyters and Deacons and if there were but these two Presbyters cannot be distinct from Bishops for then there would be three Now that there were but two Orders viz. Bishops and Deacons is plain from that Golden Ancient Remain of Clemens Romanus wherein he thus writes In the Country and 〈◊〉 where the Apostles preached they ordained their first Converts for Bishops and Deacons over those who should believe Nor were these Orders new for for many Ages past it was thus prophesied concerning Bishops and Deacons I will appoint their Bishops in Righteousness and their Deacons in Faith This place of Scripture which is here quoted is in Isa. 60. 17. I will make thine Officers peace and thine Exactors righteousness Whether it is rightly applyed is not my business to determin That that I observe from hence is that there were but two Orders instituted by the Apostles viz. Bishops and Deacons which Clemens supposes were prophetically promised long before And this is yet more evidently asserted in another passage of the said Clemens a little after where he says that the Apostles foreknew through our Lord Jesus Christ that Contention would arise about the Name of Episcopacy and therefore being endued with a perfect foreknowledge appointed the aforesaid Officers viz. Bishops and Deacons and left the manner of their Succession described that so when they died other approved Men might succeed them and reform their Office So that there were only the Two Orders of Bishops and Deacons instituted by the Apostles And if they ordained but those Two I think no one had ever a Commission to add a Third or to split One into Two as must be done if we separate the Order of Presbyters from the Order of Bishops But that when the Apostles appointed the Order of Bishops Presbyters were included therein will manifestly appear from the Induction of those fore-cited Passages in Clemens's Epistle and his drift and design thereby which was to appease and calm the Schisms and Factions of some unruly Members in the Church of Corinth who designed to depose their Presbyters and that he might dissuade them from this violent and irregular Action amongst other Arguments he proposes to them that this was to thwart the Design and Will of God who would that all should live orderly in their respective places doing the Duties of their own Stations not invading the Offices and Functions of others and that for this end that all occasions of disorderliness and confusion might be prevented he had Instituted Diversities of Offices in his Church appointing every Man to his particular Work to which he was to apply himself without violently leaping into other Mens places and that particularly the Apostles foreseeing through the Holy Spirit that contentious and unruly Men would irregularly aspire to the Episcopal Office by the Deposition of their lawful Presbyters therefore that such turbulent Spirits might be repressed or left inexcusable they ordained Bishops and Deacons where they preached and described the manner and qualifications of their Successors who should come after them when they were dead and gone and be rever'd and obeyed with the same Respect and Obedience as they before were and that therefore they were to be condemned as Perverters of the Divine Institution and Contemners of the Apostolick Authority who dared to degrade their Presbyters who had received their Episcopal Authority in an immediate Succession from those who 〈◊〉 advanced to that Dignity by the Apostles themselves This was the true Reason for which the fore-quoted Passages were spoken which clearly evinces that Presbyters were included under the Title of Bishops or rather that they were Bishops For to what end should Clemens exhort the Schismatical Corinthians to obey their Presbyters from the consideration of the Apostles Ordination of Bishops if their Presbyters had not been Bishops But that the Order of Presbyters was the same with the Order of Bishops will appear also from that place of Irenaeus where he exhorts us to withdraw from those Presbyters who serve their Lusts and having not the fear of God in their hearts contemn others and are lifted up with the Dignity of their first Session but to adhere to those who keep the Doctrine of the Apostles and with their Presbyterial Order are inoffensive and exemplary in sound Doctrine and an holy Conversation to the Information and Correction of others for such Presbyters the Church educates and of whom the Prophet saith I will 〈◊〉 thee Princes in Peace and Bishops in Righteousness Now that by these Presbyters Bishops are meant I need not take much pains to prove the precedent Chapter positively asserts it the Description of them in this Quotation by their enjoying the Dignity of the first Session and the application of that Text of Isaiah unto them clearly evinces it No one can deny but that there were Bishops that is that they were superiour in degree to other Presbyters or as Irenaeus styles it honoured with the first Session but yet he also says that they were not different in Order being of the Presbyterial Order which includes both Bishops and Presbyters To this Testimony of Irenaeus I shall subjoin that of Clemens Alexandrinus who tho' he mentions the Processes of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons from which some conclude the Bishops Superiority of Order yet the subsequent Words evidently declare that it must be meant only of Degree and that as to Order they were one and the same for he immediately adds That those Offices are an imitation of the Angelick Glory and of that Dispensation which as the Scriptures say they wait for who treading in the steps of the Apostles live in the perfection of Evangelick Righteousness for these the Apostle writes shall be took up into the Clouds Here he alludes to the manner of the Saints Glorification in 1 Thess. 4. 17. Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the Clouds to meet the Lord in the Air and so shall we ever be with the Lord and there first as Deacons attend and then
the whole Earth profess Faith in Christ then we may consider its Unity in this Sense either Negatively wherein it did not consist or Positively wherein it did consist Negatively It consisted not in an Uniformity of Rites and Customs for every particular Church was at liberty to follow its own proper Usages One Church was not obliged to observe the Rites of another but every one followed its own peculiar Customs Thus with respect to their Fast before Easter there was a great Diversity in the Observation of it in some Churches they fasted one Day in others two in some more and in others forty Hours but yet still they retained Peace and Concord the diversity of their Customs commending the Vnity of their Faith So also the Feast of Easter its self was variously celebrated The Asiatick Churches kept it on a distinct Day from the Europeans but yet still they retained Peace and Love and for the diversity of such Customs none were ever cast out of the Communion of the Church So likewise writes Firmilian That in most Provinces their Rites were varied according to the Diversities of Names and Places and that for this no one ever departed from the Peace and Vnity of the Catholick Church So that the Unity of the Church Universal consisted not in an Uniformity of Rites and Usages Neither in the next Place did it consist in an Unanimity of Consent to the Non-essential Points of Christianity but every one was lest to believe in those lesser matters as God should inform him Therefore Justin Martyr speaking of those Jewish Converts who had adhered to the Mosaical Rites says that if they did this only through their Weakness and 〈◊〉 and did not perswade other Christians to the observance of the same Judaical Customs that he would receive them into Church-fellowship and Communion Whosoever imposed on particular Churches the observance of the former of these two things or on particular Persons the belief of the latter they were esteemed not as Preservers and Maintainers but as Violaters and Breakers of the Churches Unity and Concord An Instance of the former we have in that Controversie between the Churches of the East and West touching the time when Easter was to be celebrated For when Victor Bishop of Rome had Excommunicated the 〈◊〉 Churches because they continued to observe that Feast on a different time from the Churches of the West not only the Bishops of the adverse Party but even those of his own side condemned him as rash heady and turbulent and writ several Letters about this Affair wherein as the Historian writes they most sharply censured him As for the Latter we have an instance thereof in the Controversie that was between Stephen Bishop of Rome and Cyprian Bishop of Carthage touching the Validity of Hereticks Baptism For when Stephen Anathematized Cyprian because he held the Baptism of Hereticks to be null and void other Bishops condemned Stephen as a Breaker and Disturber of the Churches Peace And amongst others Firmilian a Cappadocian Bishop vehemently accuses him as such because that he would impose upon others the Belief of such a disputable Point which says he was never wonted to be done but every Church followed their own different ways and never therefore broke the Vnity and Peace of the Catholick Church which now saith he Stephen dares to do and breaks that Peace which the ancient Bishops always preserved in mutual Love and Honour And therefore we find in the Acts of that great Council of Carthage convened to determine this matter that when Cyprian summ'd up the Debates thereof he dehorts his Fellow-Bishops from the imposing Humour and Temper of Stephen It now remains saith he that every one of us declare our Judgments concerning this matter judging no Man or removing any one from our Communion if he think otherwise than we do for let none of us make himself a Bishop of Bishops or by a Tyrannical Terror compel his Colleagues to the necessity of obeying So that the forcing a Belief in these lesser matters was Cruelty and Tyranny in the Imposers thereof who for such unreasonable Practices were look'd upon as Enemies to and Violators of the Churches Concord being the true Schismaticks inasmuch as they were the Cause of Schism and Division unto whom therefore may be applyed that Saying of Irenaeus That at the last Day Christ shall judge those who cause Schisms who are inhumane not having the fear of God but prefering their own advantage before the Unity of the Church for trivial and slight Causes rent and divide the great and glorious Body of Christ and as much as in them lies destroy it who speak Peace but wage War truly straining at a Gnat and swallowing a Camel § 3. But Positively The Unity of the Church Universal consisted in an Harmonious Assent to the Essential Articles of Religion or in an Unanimous Agreement in the Fundamentals of Faith and Doctrine Thus 〈◊〉 having recited a Creed or a short Summary of the Christian Faith not much unlike to the Aposiles Creed immediately adds The Church having received this Faith and Doctrine although dispersed through the whole World diligently preserves it as tho' she inhabited but one House and accordingly she believes these things as 〈◊〉 she had but one Soul and one Heart and consonantly preaches and teaches these things as tho' she had but one Mouth for altho' there are various Languages in the World yet the Doctrine is one and the same so that the Churches in Germany France Asia AEgypt or Lybia have not a different Faith but as the Sun is one and the same to all the Creatures of God in the whole World So the Preaching of the Word is a Light that enlightens every where and illuminates all Men that would come to the knowledge of the Truth Now this Bond of Unity was broken when there was a Recession from or a Corruption of the true Faith and Doctrine as Irenaeus speaks concerning Tatian the Father of the Encratites that as long as his Master Justin Martyr lived he held the found Faith but after his Death falling off from the Church he shaped that new Form of Doctrine This Unity of the Church in Doctrine according to Hegesippus continued till the Days of Simeon Cleopas Bishop of Jerusalem who was Martyred under Trajan but after that false Teachers prevailed such as the 〈◊〉 Marcionists 〈◊〉 and others from whom sprung false Christs false Apostles and false Prophets who by their corrupt Doctrines against God and his Christ divided the Unity of the Church So that the Unity of the Church Universal consisted in an agreement of Doctrine and the Corruption of that Doctrine was a Breach of that Unity and whoever so broke it are said to divide and separate the Unity of the Church or which is all one to be Schismaticks So Irenaeus writes that those that introduced new Doctrines did divide and separate the Unity
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
a Collection of many particular Churches who mentions in the Singular Number the Church of God in Africa and Numidia Else I do not remember that ever I met with it in this Sense in any Writings either of this or the rest of the Fathers but whenever they would speak of the Christians in any Kingdom or Province they always said in the Plural The Churches never in the Singular The Church of such a Kingdom or Province Thus Dyonisius Alexandrinus doth not say the Church but the Churches of Cilicia And so Irenaeus mentions The Churches that were in Germany Spain France the East Egypt and Lybia So also Tertullian speaks of the Churches of Asia and Phrygia and the Churches of Greece And so of every Country they always express the Churches thereof in the Plural Number V. The Word Church frequently occurs for that which we commonly call the Invisible Church that is for those who by a Sound Repentance and a Lively Faith are actually interested in the Lord Jesus Christ According to this signification of the Word must we understand Tertullian when he says that Christ had espoused the Church and that there was a Spiritual Marriage between Christ and the Church And that of Irenaeus That the Church was fitted according to the form of the Son of God And in this Sense is the Word oftentimes used in others of the Fathers as I might easily shew if any one did doubt it VI. The Word Church is frequently to be interpreted of the Faith and Doctrine of the Church In this Sense Irenaeus prays That the Hereticks might be reclaimed from their Heresies and be converted to the Church of God and exhorts all sincere Christians not to follow Hereticks but to fly to the Church Upon which account Hereticks are said to have left the Church as Tertullian told Marcion that when he became an Heretick he departed from the Church of Christ and their Heresies are said to be dissonant from the Church as Origen writes that the Opinion of the Transmigration of Souls was alien from the Church There are yet several other Significations of this Word though not so usual as some of the forementioned ones nor so pertinent to my Design so that I might justly pass them over without so much as mentioning them But lest any should be desirous to know them I will just name them and then proceed to what is more material Besides then those former Significations the Word according to its Original Import is also used for any Congregation in general sometimes it is applyed to any particular Sect of Hereticks as Tertullian calls the Marcionites the Church of Marcion At other times it is attributed to the Orthodox in opposition to the Hereticks as by the same Tertullian Sometimes it is appropriated to the Heathen Assemblies as by Origen at other times in Opposition to the Jews it is ascribed to the believing Gentiles as by Irenaeus In some places it is taken for the Deputies of a Particular Church as in Ignatius In other places it signifies the Assembly of the Spirits of just Men made perfect in Heaven which we commonly call the Church Triumphant as in Clemens Alexandriaeus Once I find it denoting the Laity only in opposition to the Clergy And once signifying only Christ as the Head of the Faithful § 2. But the usual and common Acceptation of the Word and of which we must chiefly treat is that of a Particular Church that is a Society of Christians meeting together in one place under their proper Pastours for the Performance of Religious Worship and the exercising of Christian Discipline Now the first thing that naturally presents its self to our Consideration is to enquire into the Constituent Parts of a Particular Church or who made up and composed such a Church In the general they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Elect the Called and Sanctified by the Will of God And in innumerable places they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Brethren because of their Brotherly Love and Affection and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Faithful in opposition to the Pagan World who had no Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ nor in the Promises of the Gospel But more particularly we may divide them into two Parts into the People that composed the Body of the Church and those Persons who were set apart for Religious and Ecclesiastical Employments Or to conform to our ordinary Dialect into the Clergy and Laity which is an early distinction being mentioned by Clemens Romanus and after him by Origen and several others § 3. Each of these had their particular Offices and both together had their joynt Employments to all which I shall distinctly speak in the ensuing Tract as they naturally resolve themselves into these Three Particulars I. The Peculiar Acts of the Clergy II. The Peculiar Acts of the Laity III. The Joint Acts of them both By the Resolution of which three Questions some Discovery will be made of the Constitution and Discipline of the Primitive Church and of their Practice with respect to many Points unhappily controverted amongst us § 4. I begin with the first of these What were the Peculiar Acts of the Clergy Now here must be consider'd the Functions of every particular Order and Degree of the Clergy which we may say to be three viz. Bishops Priests and Deacons whose Employments we shall severally handle as also several other Points which under those Heads shall offer themselves unto us I shall begin first with the Bishop but for the better understanding both of him and the rest it will be necessary first of all to consider the condition of the whole World as it was before the Preaching of the Gospel in a state of Paganism and Darkness having their Understandings clouded with Ignorance and Error alienated from God and the true Worship of him applauding their own bruitish Inventions and adoring as God whatever their corrupted Reason and silly Fancies proposed to them as Objects of Adoration and Homage Into this miserable state all Mankind except the Jews had wilfully cast themselves and had not Christ the Son of Righteousness enlightned them they would have continued in that lost and blind condition to this very day But our Saviour having on his Cross Triumph'd over Principalities and Powers and perfectly conquered the Devil who before had rul'd effectually in the Heathen World and being ascended into Heaven and sat down at the Right Hand of the Father on the day of Pentecost he sent down the Holy Ghost on his Apostles and Disciples who were then assembled at Jerusalem enduing them thereby with the Gift of Tongues and working Miracles and both commissionating and fitting them for the Propagation of his Church and Kingdom who having received this Power and Authority from on high went forth Preaching the Gospel First to the Jews and then
and consent Now how all these things could be done how all this Bishoprick could meet together in one place how the Bishop could personally know all the Members thereof by their respective Names even the meanest Serving-maids therein and permit none to be married without his Knowledge and Advice without reducing this Diocess to a single Parish I know not § 4. As for the Diocess of Ephesus there was but one Altar or Communion Table in its whole Territory at which they all communicated together whence they are said To break the one Bread and he that was without or separated from that Altar is said to want the bread of God The Members also of this Church could all meet together in one place to send up their joint Prayers to God in Christ And therefore Ignatius condemns all those of that Diocess who did not assemble together in that one place with the rest of the Members thereof to send up their Prayers to God as proud self-conceited and justly condemnable because thereby they 〈◊〉 themselves of that unconceivable Benefir that would accrew unto them by joyning in the Prayers of the whole Church For if the Prayer of one or two hath so great a force with God how 〈◊〉 more prevalent must the Prayer of the Bishop and the whole Church be So that if to communicate together and to pray together be the Marks of a Particular Church then this Bishoprick was one § 5. As for the Church of Magnesia they all assembled with the Bishop having but one Church and one Altar joyning all together in one Prayer because to have congregated elsewhere would have been against Conscience and Precept Now how large such a Church is where there is but one Meeting-place and one Altar where all communicate and pray together is no hard matter to determine § 6. Touching the Bishoprick of Philadelphia its Extent may be guessed at by this that the Members thereof could do nothing without the Bishop who being their Shepherd wherever he was they were to follow him like Sheep receiving the Sacrament all together from him at that one Altar belonging to their Diocess which they might well enough do since their Multitudes were not so great but that on other occasions they could meet all together as to chuse a Messenger to send to the Church at Antioch in Syria § 7. As for the Diocess of Trallium that could be no larger than the former ones since it had but one Altar in it which was correlate to its one Bishop so that to separate from the Altar was the same as to separate from the Bishop whence Ignatius says that He that is within the Altar is pure that is He that doth any thing without the Bishop Priests and Deacons is impure Now let any impartial Man judge whether all these Descriptions of those Ancient Diocesses do not forcibly constrain us to reduce them to the Rate of our modern Parishes And if these were no greater especially Ephesus at which place St. Paul preached three years we have no reason to imagin that other Bishopricks where the Apostles never were or at least never preach'd so long surmounted their Bulk and Largeness How long it was before these Diocesses swell'd into several Congregations is not my business to determin since it happened not within my prescribed time except in the Church of Alexandria the reason and manner whereof shall be shewn in a few Leafs more after that I have more fully evidenced this Point by demonstrating that the greatest Bishopricks in the World even in the Third Century were no more than so many single Congregations And if this can be proved it is the solidest Demonstration that can be given For the larger a Church was and the more time it had to settle and increase its self the greater Reason have we to expect that it should exceed all others in Numbers and Diffusiveness Now the four greatest Diocesses that in those days were in the World are Antioch Rome Carthage Alexandria The three former of which during the whole three hundred years after Christ never branched themselves into several particular Congregations though the latter did as shall be hereafter shewn § 8. As for the Diocess of Antioch its Members were not so many but that 265 years after Christ they were able to meet all in one place of which we have this memorable Instance that when Paulus Samosatenus the Heretical Bishop thereof was deprived by a Synod held in that place and Domnus substituted in his room he refused to resign the Churches House till the Emperor Aurelian forced him to resign that House So that for above 250 Years after Christ the whole Bishoprick of Antioch had but one Church to serve God in § 9. How large the Diocess of Rome was may be conjectured by that 1. All the People thereof could meet together to perform Divine Service as appears by that History of a certain Confessor called Natalis who returning from the Theodosian Heresy put himself into the Habit of a Penitent threw himself at the Feet of the Clergy and Laity as they went into their Publick Meeting-place and so bewailed his Fault that at length the Church was touched with Compassion towards him 2. In this Diocess there was but one Church or Meeting-place for when Bishop Anterus died All the Brethren met together in the Church to choose a Successor which distinction or nomination of place viz. That they met in the Church denotes that they had but one Church all for if they had had more Churches than one the Historian would have left us in the dark as to what Church they met in whether in St. James's St. John's or St. Peter's 3. In this Bishoprick also they had but one Altar or Communion-Table as appears from a Passage of Cyprian who describes the Schism of Novatian a Presbyter of this Church by his erecting a Profane Altar in opposition to the Altar of Cornelius his lawful Bishop 4. The whole Diocess could concur together in Salutations and Letters to other Churches Thus concludes a Letter of the Clergy of Rome to the Clergy of Carthage The Brethren which are in Bonds salute you and the Presbyters and the whole Church 5. Whatever Letters were writ to that Church were read before them all as it was the Custom of Bishop Cornolius to read all publick Letters to his most holy and most numerous Flock Lastly The People of this Diocess met all together to choose a Bishop when the See was vacant So upon the Death of Anterus All the Brethren met together in the Church to chuse a Successor where all the People unanimously chose Fabianus And so after the Death of Fabianus Cornelius was chosen Bishop of that Diocess by the Suffrage of the Clergy and People Now whether all these things put together whether their having but one Communion-Table in their whole
must be understood of what was afterwards distinctly called Bishops and Presbyters So likewise we read in St. Timothy 1 Tim. 4. 14. of a Presbytery which in all the Writings of the Fathers for any thing I can find to the contrary perpetually signifies the Bishop and Presbyters of a particular Church or Parish And to this 〈◊〉 may add what Clemens Alexandrinus Reports of St. John that he went into the neighbouring Provinces of Ephesus Partly that he might constitute Bishops partly that he might plant new Churches and partly that he might appoint such in the number of the Clergy as should be commanded him by the Holy Ghost Where by the Word Clergy being oppos'd to Bishops and so consequently different from them must be understood either Deacons alone or which is far more probable Presbyters and Deacons CHAP. V. § 1. The Order and Office of the Deacons § 2. Subdeacons what § 3. Of Acolyths Exorcists and Lectors thro' those Offices the Bishops gradually ascended to their Episcopal Dignity § 4. Of Ordination First of Deacons § 5. Next of Presbyters 〈◊〉 Candidates for that Office presented themselves to the Presbytery of the Parish where they were Ordained § 6. By them examined about 〈◊〉 Qualifications viz. Their Age. § 7. Their Condition in the World § 8. Their Conversation § 9. And their Vnderstanding Humane Learning needful § 10. Some Inveighed against Humane Learning but condemned by Clemens Alexandrinus § 11. Those that were to be Ordain'd Presbyters generally pass'd thro' the Inferiour Offices § 12. When to be ordained propounded to the People for their Attestation § 13. Ordain'd in but not to a particular Church § 14. Ordain'd by the Imposition of Hands of the Presbytery § 15. The Conclusion of the first Particular concerning the Peculiar Acts of the Clergy § 1. NExt to the Presbyters were the Deacons concerning whose Office and Order I shall say very little since there is no great Controversie about it and had it not been to have rendred this Discourse compleat and entire I should in silence have pass'd it over Briefly therefore their original Institution as in 〈◊〉 6. 2. was to serve Tables which included these two things A looking after the Poor and an attendance at the Lord's Table As for the Care of the Poor Origen tells us that the Deacons dispensed to them the Churches Money being employed under the Bishop to inspect and relieve all the Indigent within their Diocese As for their Attendance at the Lord's Table their Office with respect to that consisted in preparing the Bread and Wine in cleansing the Sacramental Cups and other such like necessary things whence they are called by Ignatius Deacons of Meats and Cups assisting also in some places at least the Bishop or Presbyters in the Celebration of the Eucharist delivering the Elements to the Communioants They also preached of which more in another place and in the Absence of the Bishop and Presbyters baptized In a word according to the signification of their Name they were as Ignatius calls them the Churches Servants set apart on purpose to serve God and attend on their Business being constituted as Eusebius terms it for the Service of the Publick § 2. Next to the Deacons were the Subdencons who are mentioned both by Cyprian and Cornelius As the Office of the Presbyters was to assist and help the Bishops so theirs was to assist and help the Deacons And as the Presbyters were of the same Order with the Bishop so probably the Subdeacons were of the same Order with the Deacons which may be gathered from what we may suppose to have been the Origin and Rise of these Subdeacons which might be this That in no Church whatsoever was it usual to have more than Seven Deacons because that was the original Number instituted by the Apostles wherefore when any Church grew so great and numerous that this stinted Number of Deacons was not sufficient to discharge their necessary Ministrations that they might not seem to swerve from the Apostolical Example they added Assistants to the Deacons whom they called Subdeacons or Under Deacons who were employed by the Head or Chief Deacons to do those Services in their stead and room to which by their Office they were obliged But whether this be a sufficient Argument to prove the Subdeacons to be of the same Order with the Deacons I shall not determine because this Office being now antiquated it is not very pertinent to my Design I only offer it to the Consideration of the Learned who have Will and Ability to search into it § 3. Besides those forementioned Orders who were immediately consecrated to the Service of God and by him commission'd thereunto there were another sort of Ecclesiasticks who were employed about the meaner Offices of the Church such as Acolyths Exorcists and Lectors whose Offices because they are now disused except that of the Lector I shall pass over in silence reserving a Discourse of the Lector for another place only in general these were Candidates for the Ministry who by the due discharge of these meaner Employs were to give Proof of their Ability and Integrity the Bishops in those days not usually arriving per Saltum to that Dignity and Honour but commonly beginning with the most inferiour Office and so gradually proceeding thro' the others till they came to the supreme Office of all as Cornelius Bishop of Rome Did not presently leap into the Episcopal Throne but first passed thro' all the Ecclesiastical Offices gradually ascending to that Sublime Dignity The Church in those happy days by such a long Tryal and Experience using all possible Precaution and Exactness that none but fit and qualify'd Men should be admitted into those Sacred Functions and Orders which were attended with 〈◊〉 dreadful and tremendous a Charge And this now brings me in the next place to enquire into the Manner and Form of the Primitive Ordinations which I chuse to discourse of in this place since I shall find none more proper for it throughout this whole Treatise § 4. As for the various Senses and Acceptations which may be put on the Word Ordination I shall not at all meddle with them that Ordination that I shall speak of is this the Grant of a Peculiar Commission and Power which remains indelible in the Person to whom it is committed and can never be obliterated or rased out except the Person himself cause it by his Heresie Apostacy or most extremely gross and scandalous Impiety Now this sort of Ordination was conferred only upon Deacons and Presbyters or on Deacons and Bishops Presbyters and Bishops being here to be consider'd as all one as Ministers of the Church-Universal As for the Ordination of Deacons there is no great Dispute about that so I shall say no more concerning it than that we have the manner thereof at their first Institution in Acts 6. 6. which was that they were
Church shall be the Subject of the following Chapter CHAP. VII § 1. The Necessity Quality and Excellency of Discipline Six things propounded to be handled 1. For what Faults Offenders were censured 2. Who were the Judges that censured 3. The manner of their Censures 4. What their Censures were 5. The Course that Offenders took to be absolved 6. The manner of their Absolution § 2. Censures were inflicted for all sorts of Crimes especially for Idolatry § 3. The whole Church were the Judges that composed the Ecclesiastical Consistory The Executive Power lodg'd in the Clergy and the Legistative both in Clergy and Laity In difficult Points some neighbouring Bishops assisted at the Decision of them § 4 The manner of their Censures § 5. Their Censures consisted in Excommunications and Suspensions the dreadfulness thereof § 6. The Course that Offenders took to be absolved They first lay groveling and weeping at the Church Doors § 7. Then admitted into the Rank of the Penitents Their Behaviour during their time of Penance § 8. How long their Penance was In some Cases the fixed Period anticipated when ended the Penitents were examined by the Court and if approved then Absolved § 9. The manner of their Absolution They came into the Church with all Expressions of Sorrow publickly confessed the Sin for which they had been censured The Church was tenderly affected with their Confession § 10. After Confession they were absolved by the Clergies Imposition of Hands § 11. Then admitted to the Churches Peace The Clergy generally restored only to Lay Communion § 1. AS all Governments are necessitated to make use of Laws and other Political Means to preserve their Constitution So the Church of Christ which has a certain Government annexed to it that it may preserve its self from Ruine and Confusion has certain Laws and Orders for the due Regulation of her Members and Penalties annexed to the Breaches thereof But herein lies the difference between the one and the other The Penalties and Executions of the former are like its Constitution purely Humane and Carnal but those of the other are Spiritual as Religion was at first received by Spiritual and Voluntary and not by Carnal and Involuntary means for as Tertullian says It is not Religion to force a Religion which ought to be willingly not forcibly received So by the same means it was continued and the Penalties of the Breach of it were of the same Nature also The Churches Arms were Spiritual consisting of Admonitions Excommunications Suspensions and such like by the weilding of which she Governed her Members and preserved her own Peace and Purity Now this is that which is called Discipline which is absolutely necessary to the Unity Peace and being of the Church for where there is no Law Government or Order that Society cannot possibly 〈◊〉 but must sink in its own Ruins and Confusions To recite the numerous Encomiums of Discipline that are interspers'd in the Writings of the Ancients would be an endless Task Let this one suffice out of Cyprian Discipline says he is the Keeper of Hope the Stay of Faith the Captain of Salvation the Fewel and Nutriment of a good Disposition the Mistress of Vertue that makes us perpetually abide in Christ and live to God and tend towards the Heavenly and Divine Promises This to follow is saving but to despise and neglect is deadly The Holy Ghost speaks in Psal. 2. 12. Keep Discipline lest the Lord be angry and ye perish from the right way when his wrath is kindled but a little against you And again in Psal. 50. 16. But unto the Sinner God said What hast thou to do to declare my Law and to take my Judgments into thy Mouth Thou hatest Discipline and castest my Words behind thee And again we read in Wisdom 3. 11. He that casteth off Discipline is unhappy And by Solomon we have received this command from Wisdom in Prov. 3. 11. My Son forget not the Discipline of the Lord nor faint when thou art corrected for whom the Lord loveth he correcteth But if God corrects whom he loves and corrects them that they may amend Christians also and especially Ministers do not hate but love those whom they correct that they may amend since God hath also soretold our Times in Jer. 3. 15. And I will give you Pastors after mine own Heart and they shall seed you in Discipline Now this is that Discipline viz. The Power and Authority of the Church exerted by her for her own Preservation in the censuring of her offending Members that I am now to Discourse of for the clearer apprehension whereof these six Queries must be examined into 1. For what Faults Offenders were censured 2. Who were the Judges that censured 3. The manner of their Censures 4. What their Censures were 5. The Course that Offenders took to be Absolved And 6. The manner of their Absolution § 2. As to the first of these For what Faults Offenders were censured I answer for Schism Heresie Covetousness Gluttony Fornication Adultery and for all other Sins whatsoever none excepted nay the holy and good Men of those days were so zealous against Sin that they used the strictest Severities against the least appearances of it not indulging or sparing the least Branch of its pestiferous Production but smartly punishing the least sprout of it it s lesser Acts as well as those that were more scandalous and notorious Cyprian writes that not only Gravissimae extrema delicta The greatest and most heinous Crimes but even Minora Delicta The Lesser Faults were punished by their Ecclesiastical Courts so cutting off Sin in its Bud and by the Excision of its lesser Acts and Ebullitions preventing its more gross and scandalous Eruptions That particular Sin which they most severely punished and through the frequency of Persecutions had numerous Objects of was Apostacy from the Truth or a lapsing into Idolatry which Crime was always 〈◊〉 with the extremest Rigour of which Ninus Clementianus and Florus were sad Instances who tho' they had for some time couragiously endured their Persecutions and Torments yet at last thro' the violence thereof and the weakness of their Flesh unwillingly consenting to the Heathen Idolatries were for that Fault forced to undergo three years Penance and had it not been for their ancient Merits must have underwent it much longer as may be seen at large in the 53d Epistle of Cyprian And thus by these and such like severe and rigorous Courses those primitive Virtuoso's endeavoured to prevent sin and to make all the Professors of the Christian Religion truly holy and pious for as Origen saith We use our utmost Endeavours that our Assemblies be composed of wise and honest Men. § 3. As for the Judges that composed the Consistory or Ecclesiastical Court before whom offending Criminals were convened and by whom censured they will appear to have been the whole Church both Clergy and Laity
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
whatsoever and therefore neither an African Synod nor Antonius an African Bishop would communicate with the Legates of Novatian Nor would Cornelius joyn in Communion with Felicissimus a Schismatick of Carthage when he came to Rome but as he was excluded from Communion in his own Church so likewise was he in that of Rome 2. It was the Custom when any Bishop was Elected to send News of his Promotion to other Bishops as Cornelius did to Cyprian that so he might have their Confirmation and their future Letters to the Bishop of that Church to which he was promoted might be directed unto him as Cyprian did unto Cornelius which Custom of sending Messengers to other Churches to acquaint them of their Advancement to the Episcopal Throne was also observed by the Schismaticks and in particular by Novatian who sent Maximus a Presbyter Augendus a Deacon Machaeus and Longinus unto Cyprian to inform him of his Promotion to the See of Rome Now if any Bishop or Church did knowingly approve the Pretensions of the Schismatical Bishop they broke the Concord of the Church and became guilty of Schism as may be gathered from the beginning of an Epistle of Cyprian's to Antonius an African Bishop wherein he writes him That he had received his Letter which firmly consented to the Concord of the Sacerdotal Colledge and adhered to the Catholick Church by which he had signified that he would not communicate with Novatian but hold an Agreement with Bishop Cornelius And therefore when Legates came to Cyprian both from Cornelius and Novatian he duly weighed who was legally Elected and finding Cornelius so to be he approved his Election Directed his Congratulatory Letters unto him refused to communicate with the Schismatical Messengers of Novatian and exhorted them to quit their Schism and to submit to their lawfully elected Bishop So that in these two respects the Schism of a particular Church might influence others also involving them in the same Crime creating Quarrels and Dissentions between their respective Bishops and so dividing the Dischargers of that Honourable Office whom God had made one for as Cyprian says As there is but one Church throughout the whole World divided into many Members so there is but one Bishoprick diffused through the agreeing Number of many Bishops § 11. But now that we may conclude this Chapter the Sum of all that hath been spoken concerning Schism is that Schism in its large Sense was a Breach of the Unity of the Church Universal but in its usual and restrained Sense of a Church Particular whosoever without any just reason through Faction Pride and Envy separated from his Bishop or his Parish Church he was a true Schismatick and whosoever was thus a Schismatick if we may believe Saint Cyprian He had no longer God for his Father nor the Church for his Mother but was out of the Number of the Faithful and though he should die for the Faith yet should he never be saved Thus much then shall serve for that Query concerning the Churches Unity The next and 〈◊〉 thing that is to be enquired into is the Worship of the Primitive Church that is the Form and Method of their Publick Services of Reading Singing Preaching Praying of Baptism Confirmation and the Lord's Supper of their Fasts and Feasts of their Rites and Ceremonies and such like which I thought to have annexed to this Treatise but this being larger than I expected and the Discourse relating to the Primitive Worship being like to be almost as large I have for this and 〈◊〉 other Reasons reserved it for a particular Tract by its self which if nothing prevents may be expos'd hereafter to publick View and Observation FINIS THE SECOND PART OF THE ENQUIRY INTO THE Constitution Discipline Unity Worship OF THE Primitive Church That Flourished within the First Three Hundred Years after CHRIST Faithfully Collected out of the Extant Writings of those Ages By an Impartial Hand LONDON Printed for Jonathan Robinson at the Golden Lyon and John Wyat at the Rose in St. Paul's Church-Yard 1691. The Second Part of the Enquiry into the Constitution Discipline Unity and Worship of the Primitive Church CHAP. I. § 1. Of the Publick Worship of the Primitive Church § 2. In their Assemblies they began with Reading the Scriptures Other Writings Read besides the Scriptures § 3. Who Read the Scriptures from whence they were Read and how they were Read § 4. Whether there were appointed Lessons § 5. After the 〈◊〉 of the Scriptures there followed Singing of Psalms § 6. What Psalms they Sung § 7. The manner of their Singing § 8. Of Singing Men and of Church Musick § 9. To Singing of Psalms succeeded Preaching On what the Preacher discoursed How long his Sermon was § 10. The Method of their Sermons § 11. Who Preached usually the Bishop or by his Permission any other either Clergyman or Layman § 1. HAving in a former Treatise enquired into the Constitution Discipline and Unity of the Primitive Church I intend in this to enquire into the Worship thereof which naturally divides its self into these Two Parts Into the Worship its self and Into the necessary Circumstances thereof as Time and Place and such like both which I design to handle beginning first with the Worship its self wherein I shall not meddle with the Object thereof since all Protestants agree in the Adoring God alone through Jesus Christ but only speak of those Particular Acts and Services whereby in the Publick Congregations we honour and adore Almighty God such as Reading of the Scriptures Singing of Psalms Preaching Praying and the Two Sacraments every one of which I shall consider in their Order as they were performed in the Ancient Parish Churches And First § 2. When the Congregation was assembled the first Act of Divine Service which they performed was the Reading of the Holy Scriptures In our Publick Assemblies says Tertullian The Scriptures are Read Psalms Sung Sermons Preached and Prayers presented So also Just in Martyr writes that in their Religious Assemblies first of all The Writings of the Prophets and Apostles were read But besides the Sacred Scriptures there were other Writings read in several Churches viz. The Epistles and Tracts of Eminent and Pious Men such as the Book of Hermas called Pastor and the Epistle of Clemens Romanus to the Church of Corinth which were read in the publick Congregations of many Churches § 3. He that read the Scriptures was particularly destinated to this Office as a Preparative to Holy Orders as Aurelius whom Cyprian design'd for a Presbyter was first to begin with the Office of reading The Name by which this Officer was distinguished was in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Latin Lector both which signifie in English a Reader or as we now call him a Clark The Place from whence the Clark Read was an Eminency erected in the Church that so all
in claritate receptus in gloria venturus Salvator eorum qui salvantur Judex eorum qui 〈◊〉 mittens in ignem aeternum transfiguratores veritatis contemptores patris sui adventus ejus Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 4. p 172. Regula est autem Fidei ut jam hinc quid credamus profitearur illa scilicet qua creditur unum omnino Deum esse 〈◊〉 alium praeter mundi creatorem qui universa de nihilo produxerit per verbum suum primo omnium amissum id verbum Filium ejus appellatum in nomine Dei varie visum Patriarchis in Prophetis semper auditum postremo delatum ex spiritu patris Dei virture in Virginem Matiam carnem factum in utero ejus ex ea natum egisse Jesum Christum exinde proedicasse novam legem novam promissionem Regni Coelorum virtutes fecisse fixum cruci tertia die resurrexisse in coelos ereptum sedere ad dexteram patris misisse vicariam vim spiritus sancti qui credentes agant venturum cum claritate ad sumendos sauctos in vitae eternae promissorum coelestium fructum ad 〈◊〉 judicandos igni perpetuo facta utriusque partis resuscitatione cum carnis 〈◊〉 Haec regula a Christo instituta nullas habet apud nos quaestiones nisi quas haereses 〈◊〉 quae haereticos faciunt 〈◊〉 de 〈◊〉 advers 〈◊〉 p. 73. Unicum quidem Deum credimus sub hac 〈◊〉 dispensatione quam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicimus ut unici Dei sit Filius Sermo ipsius qui ex ipso processerit per quem omnia facta sunt sine quo factum est nihil hunc missum a patre in Virginem ex ea natum hominem Deum filium hominis filium Dei cognominatum Jesum Christum hunc passum 〈◊〉 mortuum sepultum secundum scripturas resuscitatum a Patre in coelo resumptum sedere ad dexteram patris venturum judicare vivos 〈◊〉 qui exinde miserat secundum promissionem suam a patre spiritum sanctum Paracletum sanctificatorem fidei eorum qui credunt in patrem filium spiritum sanctum Hanc regulam ab initio Evangelii decucurrisse c. Tertul. advers Praxean p. 316. Regula Fidei una omnino est sola immobilis irreformabilis credendi scilicet in unicum Deum omnipotentem mundi conditorem 〈◊〉 ejus Jesum Christum natum ex Virgine Maria crucifixum sub Pontio Pilato tertio 〈◊〉 resuscitatum a mortuis receptum in coelis sedentem nunc ad dexteram patris venturum 〈◊〉 vivos mortuos per carnis etiam resurrectionem Tertullian de Virginib veland p. 385. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Origen Comment in 〈◊〉 Tom. 32. p. 397. Vol. 2. Unus Deus est qui omnia creavit atque composuit quique ex nullis fecit esse universa Deus a prima creatura conditione mundi omnium justorum Adam Abel Seth Enos c. quod hic Deus in novissimis diebus 〈◊〉 per Prophetas suos ante promiserat 〈◊〉 Dominum 〈◊〉 Jesum Christum 〈◊〉 quidem vocaturum Israel secundo vero etiam gentes post perfidiam populi Israel Hic Deus 〈◊〉 bonus pater domini nostri Jesu Christi Legem Prophetas Evangelia ipse 〈◊〉 qui Apostolorum Deus est veteris novi Testamenti Tum deinde quia Jesus Christus ipse qui venit ante omnem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ex patre est Qui cum in omnium conditione 〈◊〉 ministrasset per ipsum enim omnia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 novissimis temporibus seipsum 〈◊〉 homo factus est incarnatus est cum Deus 〈◊〉 homo mansit quod Deus erat Corpus assumpsit corpori nostro simile eo solo 〈◊〉 quod natum ex Virgine Spiritu sancto est quoniam hic Jesus Christus natus 〈◊〉 est in veritate non per imaginem communem hanc mortem vere 〈◊〉 est vere enim a morte resurrexit post resurrectionem conversatus cum 〈◊〉 suis assumptus 〈◊〉 Tum deinde honore ac dignitate Patri ac Filio sociatum tradiderunt Spiritum sanctum in hoc non jam manifeste discernitur utrum 〈◊〉 aut innatus Sed inquirenda jam ista pro viribus sunt de Sacra Scriptura sagaci perquisitione investiganda sane quod iste Spiritus 〈◊〉 unumquemque sanctorum vel Prophetarum vel Apostolorum inspiravit non 〈◊〉 Spiritus in veteribus alius vero in his qui in adventu Christi inspirati sunt manifestissime in Ecclesiis praedicatur Post haec jam quod anima substantiam vitamque habens 〈◊〉 cum ex hoc mundo discesserit pro 〈◊〉 meritis dispensabit sive vitae aeternae ac 〈◊〉 haereditate potitura si hoc ei sua 〈◊〉 praestiterint sive igne aeterno ac 〈◊〉 mancipanda si in hoc eam scelerum culpa detorserit Sed quia erit tempus resurnectionis mortuorum cum corpus hoc quod in 〈◊〉 seminatur surget in incorruptione quod seminatur in ignominia surget in gloria Origen in Proaem lib. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Credis in Deum Patrem Filium Christum Spiritum Sanctum remissionem peccatorum Vitam AEternam per Sanctam 〈◊〉 Cyprian Epist. 76. § 6. p. 248. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gregor 〈◊〉 § 7. These are all the Creeds that I have met with in which the Words are various but generally recurring to the 〈◊〉 Sense It would be too tedious to translate them all wherefore I shall sum them up in the Creed commonly call'd the Apostles and thereby shew their Congruity and Agreement as also what is in the Apostles Creed more than in these Now the Articles of the Apostles Creed that are to be found in the 〈◊〉 Creeds are as follows I believe in God the Father Almighty Maker of Heaven and Earth and in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord who was conceived by the Holy Ghost born of the Virgin Mary suffered under Pontius Pilate was crucified dead and buried The Third Day he rose again from the Dead ascended into Heaven sitteth at the Right Hand of God the Father Almighty from whence he shall come to judge both the Quick and the Dead I believe in the Holy Ghost the Holy Catholick 〈◊〉 the Forgiveness of Here are now two Clauses of our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. He descended into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Communion of 〈◊〉 § 8. If we would know how they were 〈◊〉 we must first consider how the whole Creed was framed which I conceive was done these two ways First Some of the Articles were derived down from the very Days of the Apostles Secondly Others were afterwards added in opposition to Heresies as they sprung up in the Church First Some of the Articles were 〈◊〉 down from the very Days of the 〈◊〉 such were these I believe in God the 〈◊〉 or as
this Enquiry with an earnest Perswasion to Peace Vnity and Moderation § 1. HAving in the precedent Chapters enquired into the several Parts of Divine Worship and the Circumstances thereof I now come to close up all with a brief Appendix concerning Rites and Ceremonies by which I mean two different things By Rites I understand such Actions as have an 〈◊〉 Relation to the Circumstances or manner of Worship As for Instance The Sacrament was to be received in one manner or other but whether from the Bishop or Deacon that was the Rite Lent was to be observed a certain space of Time but whether One Day or Two Days or Three Days that was the Rite thereof So that Rites 〈◊〉 necessary Concomitants of the Circumstances of Divine Worship Appendages to them or if you rather please you may call them Circumstances themselves By Ceremonies I mean such Actions as have no regard either to the Manner or Circumstances of Divine Worship but the Acts thereof may be performed without them as for instance In some Churches they gave to Persons when they were baptized Milk and Hony And Before they prayed they washed their Hands Now both these Actions I call Ceremonies because they were not necessary to the Discharge of those Acts of Divine Worship unto which they were affixed but those Acts might be performed without them as Baptism might be entirely administred without the Ceremony of giving Milk and Hony and Prayers might be presented without washing of Hands Now having explained what I intend by those two Terms of Rites and Ceremonies let us in the next place consider the Practice of the Primitive Church with reference thereunto And first for Ceremonies § 2. It is apparent that there were many of that kind crept into the Church of whom we may say that from the beginning they were not so For when the Quire of the Apostles was dead till which time as Hegesippus writes the Church remained a pure and unspotted Virgin then the Church was gradually 〈◊〉 and corrupted as in her Doctrin so also in her Worship an Infinity of Ceremonies by degrees insensibly sliding in very many of which were introduced within my limited time as the eating of Milk Hony after Baptism the abstaining from Baths the Week after the washing of their Hands before Prayer their sitting after Prayer and many other such like which through various ways and means winded themselves into the Church as some came in through Custom and Tradition one eminent Man perhaps invented and practised a certain Action which he used himself as Judging it fit and proper to stir up his Devotion and Affection others being led by his Example performed the same and others again imitated them and so one followed another till at length the Action became a Tradition and Custom after which manner those Ceremonies were introduced of tasting Milk and Hony after Baptism of abstaining from the Baths the whole ensuing Week of not kneeling on the Lords Day and the space between Easter and Whitsuntide of the Signing of themselves with the Sign of the Cross in all their Actions and Conversations concerning which and the like Tertullian writes That there was no Law in Scripture for them but that Tradition was their Author and Custom their Confirmer Of which Custom we may say what Tertullian says of Custom in general that commonly Custom takes its rise from Ignorance and Simplicity which by Succession is corroborated into use and so vindicated against the Truth But our Lord Christ hath called himself Truth and not Custom wherefore if Christ was always and before all then Truth was first and ancientest it is not so much Novelty as Verity that confutes Hereticks Whatsoever is against the Truth is Heresie although it be an old Custom Others again were introduced through a wrong Exposition or Misunderstanding of the Scripture so were their Exorcisms before Baptism and their Unctions after Baptism as in their proper places hath been already shewn Finally Others crept in through their Dwelling amongst the Pagans who in their ordinary Conversations used an Infinity of Superstitions and many of those Pagans when they were converted to the Saving Faith Christianiz'd some of their innocent former Ceremonies as they esteemed them to be either 〈◊〉 them deceut and proper to stir up their Devotion or likely to gain over more Heathens who were offended at the plainness and nakedness of the Christian Worship of which sort were their washing of Honds before Prayer their sitting after Prayer and such like Concerning which Tertullian affirms that they were practised by the Heathens So that by these and such like Methods it was that so many Ceremonies imperceptibly slid into the Ancient Church of some of which Tertullian gives this severe Censure That they are deservedly to be condemned as vain because they are done without the Authority of any Precept either of our Lord or of his Apostles that they are not Religious but Superstitius affected and constrained curious rather than reasonable and to be abstained from because Heathenish § 3. As for the Rites and Customs of the Primitive Church these were indifferent and arbitrary all Churches being left to their own Freedom and Liberty to follow their peculiar Customs and Usages or to embrace those of others if they pleased from whence it is that we find such a variety of Methods in their Divine Services many of which 〈◊〉 be observed in the precedent part of this Discourse as some received the Lords Supper at one time others at another Some Churches received the Elements from the Hands of the Bishop others from the Hands of the Deacons some made a Collection before the Sacrament others after some kept Lent one Day some two days and others exactly forty Hours some celebrated Easter on the same Day with the Jewish Passover others the Lords Day after and so in many other things one Church differed from another as Firmilian writes that at Rome they did not observe the same Day of Easter nor many other Customs which were practised at Jerusalem and so in most Provinces many Rites were varied according to the Diversities of Names and Places So that every Church followed its own particular Customs although different from those of its Neighbours it being nothing necessary to the Unity of the Church to have an Uniformity of Rites for according to Firmilian the Unity of the Church consisted in an unanimity of Faith and Truth not in an Uniformity of Modes and Customs for on the contrary the Diversity of them as Irenaeus speaks with reference to the Fast of Lent did commend and set forth the Vnity of the Faith Hence every Church peaceably followed her own Customs without obliging any other Churches to observe the same or being obliged by them to observe the Rites that they used yet still maintaining a loving Correspondence and mutual Concord each with other as Firmilian writes that in most Provinces
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