of age Mention is made of them by Pliny lib. 10. Epist 97. who writing to Trajan of the enquiry he was making of the Christians saith Necessarium credidi ex duabus ancillis quae ministrae dicebantur quid effet veri per tormenta quaerere They were received by an Ordination in Tertullian's time for he speaking of them saith De castit cap. 13. Ordinari in Ecclesia solent And ad uxorem lib. 1. cap. 7. Viduam allegi in ordinationem nisi univiram non concedit The 19. Canon of the Council of Nice reckons the Deaconesses among those that were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but saith that they had no imposition of hands so that in all things they were reckoned among the Laicks but hints that they had a particular habit calling them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Balsamon's Gloss on this is that the Virgins who dedicated themselves to GOD continued in a Laical habit till they were forty years of age and were then if found worthy ordained Deaconesses by a particular imposition of hands To this Zonar as adds that the Virgins in the twenty fifth year of their age got a particular habit from the Bishop The 74 Canon of Nice according to the Arabick Edition appoints the Office of a Deaconess to be only the receiving of Women in Baptism Epiph. baeres 79. after he hath proved that a Woman is not capable of the publick service of the Church adds That the Order of the Deaconesses was instituted out of reverence to that Sex that when the Womans body was naked in Baptism they might not be so seen by the Priest And with this agrees the 12th Canon of the fourth Council of Cartbage Vidue vel sanctimoniales quae ad ministerium baptizandarum mulierum eliguntur tam instructae sint ad officium ut possint apto sano sermone docere imperitas rusticus mulieres tempore quo baptizandae sint qualiter baptizatori interrogatae respondeant qualiter accepto baptismate vivant This is also confirmed by the 6. Chap. of the 6. Novel which appoints the age both for Virgins and Widows to be fifty years Sicque sacram promereri ordinationem And their Office is denied to be adorandis ministrare baptismatibus aliis adesse secretis quae in venerabilibus ministeriis per eas rite aguntur And the rest of that Chapter gives divers other rules concerning them The 15. Canon of Chalcedon appoints a Deaconess not to be ordained till she were forty years of age it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Canon and it is appointed that it be done after a strict examination but that after she was ordained and continued some time in the Ministery if she gave her self in Marriage she as one that had reproached the grace of GOD was to be anathematized with her Husband Zonaras reconciles this age with the Apostle that the Apostle speaks of Widows and this Canon of Virgins tho it be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Canon Yet it seems some of these Deaconesses have given scandal in the Church and perhaps proved like the Females among the Pharisees whom the Rabbins reckoned among these who destroyed the World And so we find the Western Church being scandalized at some miscarriages in this Order they are discharged to be ordained by the first Council of Orange Can. 26. Diaconissae omnimodo non ordinandae si quae jam sunt benedictioni quae populo impenditur capita submittunt And in the beginning of the sixth Century it seems they gave great scandal for Canon 22. Council Epaun. they are simply discharged Viduarum consecrationem quas Diacoâ—as vocant ab omni regione nostra penitus abrogamus solam eis poenitentia benedictionem si converti ambiant imponendo And Anno 536. Con. Aurel. 2. Câ—â— 17. Benedictio Diaconatus is said to be given to the Women contra interdicta Canonum And the next Canon of that Council is Placuit etiam ut nulli postmodum foeminae Diaconalis benedictio pro conditionis hujus fragilitate credatur Yet they are mentioned in the Council of Worms in the year 868. Canon 73. where the 15. Canon of Chalcedon is wholly insert One scandal we find occasioned by these Deaconesses was that they presumed to distribute the Elements in the Eucharist which Gelasius blames in his ninth Epistle written to the Bishops of Lucaniâ— Quod foeminae sacris altaribus ministrare ferantur And this it seems hath continued longer For we find Ratherius of Verona in the tenth Century appoints in his Synodal Epistle which in the Tomes of the Councils is printed as a Sermon of Pope Leo the fourths Nulla foemina ad altare Domini accedat And Matthaeus Blastaris in his Syntagma lit 1. cap. 11. concludes it to be unknown what the Office of the Deaconesses was Some judged that they ministred to Women who being in age received Baptism it being accounted a crime for a Man to see a Woman naked Others thought that they might enter to the Altar and exercise the Office of Deacons who proved this from many things particularly from some words of Nazianzen's Oration at his Sisters Funeral but that was afterwards forbidden 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet he doubts much the truth of that it not agreeing with reason that Women who were not suffered publickly to teach should be admitted to the Office of a Deacon whose duty it was by the ministery of the word to purifie these who were to be baptized And after that he gives an account of the form of their Ordination Mention likewise is made of them in the Council in Trullo Canon 14. A Deaconess was not to receive imposition of band 's before she was forty years of age Which is more expressly appointed in the 40. Canon where they decree that though the Apostle made the age 60. yet the Canons had allowed their Ordination at 40. because they found the Church was become firmer in the grace of GOD and had advanced forward and by the 48. Canon of that Council a Bishop's Wife when separated from her Husband by consent was to live in a Monastery and if found worthy might be made a Deaconess Basil by his 18. Canon allows Virgins to be received at the sixteenth or seventeenth year of their age but by his 24. he reckons it a fault to receive a Widow into the Order under 60 yet it seems that was not peremptorily observed For in his 44 Canon he speaks of Deaconesses found in Fornication who might not be allowed to communicate before seven years had been past in penitence Whence this Order failed in the Greek Church we know not but Balsamon on the 15. Canon of Chalcedon tells That in his time Deaconesses were no more ordained and his reason is because no Woman was suffered to enter unto the Altar though saith he some Women were abusively so called As for the inferiour degrees of Subdeacon Acolyth c. as they were only Iuris Ecclesiastici so they were not
and had conversed with him in his youth and had often heard him teach And as it were great uncharitableness to suspect the truth of his narration in a matter of fact so we cannot think he could have been mistaken in a matter of that importance But whatever jealousie may fix upon Irenaeus there is no shadow of ground for suspecting either the veracity or good information of the Church of Smyrna who giving an account of his Martyrdom in an Epistle inserted by Euseb. in his History lib. 4. cap. 14. call him Bishop of the Catholick Church of Smyrna All that can be alledged against this is that in their stile Bishop and Presbyter were one and the same thing But the contrary of this is clear from Iranaeus who speaks always of Bishops as distinct from Presbyters and tho he sometimes call Bishops Presbyters yet he never calls Presbyters Bishops which is also the stile of these few Writers of that age who sometimes call Bishops Presbyters Eusebius tells from the testimony of the Church of Lions how he was first a Presbyter in Lions under Pothinus after whose Martyrdom he succeeded him in the Chair and died Bishop there And if we will hear himself lib. 3. cap. 3. when he is reckoning up the tradition of the Faith from the Apostles he deduceth it by all the Bishops who did sit in Rome from the Apostolick times whence two things will follow one that he judged there had been still Bishops in that Church The other that he looked on the Bishop as the chief depositary of the faith Further Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 24. sets down his Epistle to Victor Bishop of Rome wherein he chides him for excommunicating the Eastern Bishops and there he lays the whole blame upon Victor without sharing it among the Presbyters and also commends the former Bishops of Rome for their greater gentleness whereby it plainly appears that he judged that the power of discipline lay chiefly in the Bishops hands Polycrates also apud Euseb. lib. 5. hist. cap. 23. vindicates the practice of their Church about the day of Easter not only from the example of the Apostles among them but of the seven Bishops who preceded him in his See From which we may not only infer that there was but one Bishop in a City from the days of the Apostles but that his authority was great since what they did passed for a precedent to their Successors And indeed the difference of Bishop and Presbyter is so evpress in Irenaeus that the most learned assertors of parity confess the change was begun before his time which was in the end of the second Century Now how this change could have been introduced when there was neither Council nor secular Prince to establish it when Churchmen were so pure Polycarp an Apostolical Man having died but about thirty years before besides many other Apostolical men who had long survived when the Church was in the fire of persecution and so less dross could be among them when there was no secular interest to bait them to it for on the contrary this subjected them to the first fury of the persecution seems strange And it is not easie to be imagined or believed how this could have been so suddenly received through all the Churches both Eastern and Western and that there was none to witness against it and that neither the sincerity of some Presbyters nor the pride of others should have moved them to appear for their priviledges against this Usurpation And how neither Heretick nor Schismatick save one and that about two hundred years after should have charged the Church with this on the contrary all of them having their own Bishops and how this Government continued in so peaceable possession through the succession of so many ages till of late that even fundamentals are brought under debate if this Superiority were either so criminal as some hold it to be or had not been introduced at least by some Apostolical men if not by the Apostles themselves will not be easily cleared In the next Century we have Tertullian speaking clearly of the difference of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons lib. de bapt Dandi quidem jus habet summus Sacerdos qui Episcopus dehinc Presbyteri Diaconi non tamen sine Episcopi authoritate propter Ecclesiae bonum Idem de praescript advers haer cap. 32. Caeterum si quae praescriptiones se audent inserere aetati Apostolicae ut ita videantur ab Apostolis traditae Edant ergo origines Ecclesiarum suarum evolvant ordinem Episcoporum suorum ita per successiones ab initio decurrentem ut primus ille Episcopus aliquem ex Apostolis vel Apostolicis viris qui tamen cum Apostolis perseverarent habuerit authorem antecessorem hoc enim modo Ecclesiae Apostolicae census suos deferunt sicut Smyrneorum Ecclesia habens Polycarpum à Ioanne collocatum refert sicut Romanorum à Petro Clementem ordinatum edit Proinde utique caeterae exhibent quos ab Apostolis in Episcopatu constitutos Apostolici seminis traduces habeant confingant tale aliquid baeretici He also lib. 4. cont Marcionem cap. 5. saith Ordo tamen Episcoporum ad originem recensus in Joannem stabit authorem By which we see that he both judged Bishops to be of an Apostolical origene and that he counted them different from Presbyters A little after him was Clemens Alex. who 6. Strom. p. 667. speaking of the Constitution of the Christian Churches saith there were among them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he thinks was taken from the Angelick glory and from their Oeconomy and administration We shall also find through all Cyprian his Epistles this disparity so clear that it cannot be denied that yet we find him as condescending as any Epist. 6. writing to his Clergy he saith Solus rescribere nihil potui quando à primordio Episcopatus mei statuerim nihil sine consilio vestro sine consensu plebis meae pivata gerere sententia But even this looks like a yielding to a diminution of that plenitude of power to which he might have pretended Epist. 65. writing to Rogatian who had advised with him concerning a Deacon that had carried insolently toward him he writes Pro Episcopatûs vigore Cathedrae authoritate haberes potestatem qua posses de illo statim vindicari and about the end Haec sunt enim initia baereticorum ortus atque conatus Schismaticorum male cogitantium ut sibi placeant ut praepositum superbo tumore contemnant sic de Ecclesiâ receditur sic altare profanum foris collocatur sic contra pacem CHRISTI ordinationem atque unitatem DEI rebellatur Likewise we find Epist. 31. written to Cyprian by the Clerus Romanus the Seat being then vacant what sense they had of the Bishop's power when they say Post excessum nobilissimae memoriae Fabiani nondum est Episcopus propter rerum temporum difficultates constitutus qui
OBSERVATIONS ON THE FIRST and SECOND OF THE CANONS Commonly ascribed to the Holy Apostles WHEREIN An Account of the Primitive Constitution and Government of Churches is contained Drawn from ancient and acknowledged Writings GLASGOW By Robert Sanders Printer to the City and University 1673. The FIRST CANON 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Bishop shall be ordained by two or three Bishops A BISHOP THIS word is sometime taken for a Spy so Estathius ad Homeri K. sometime for a Defender so Hector was called Bishop of Troy by Homer Iliad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There was among the Athenians a publick Office so called and in this sense it was also used among the Romans so Cicero ad Atticum Lib. 7. Epist. 11. tells That Pompey would had him to be quem tota compania maritima ora habeant Episcopum ad quem delectus summa negotii referatur ff de mun hon leg ult parag item Episcopi sunt qui praesunt pani caeteris rebus vaenalibus This term is sometime in the Old Testament And Clemens Romanus Epist. ad Rom. proves Bishop and Deacon to be no new terms from Isai. 60.17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But in our Edition we find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where on the way mark how different the present Edition of the Septuagint is from that which Clemens made use of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is also Psalm 109.8 Among the Iews he who was the chief of the Synagogue was called Chazan hakeneseth the Bishop of the Congregation and Sheliach tsibbor the Angel of the Church And the Christian Church being modelled as near the form of the Synagogue as could be as they retained many of the Rites so the form of their Government was continued and the names remained the same But more of this afterward Clemens Romanus in his Epistle speaks only of Bishops and Deacons Polycarp again in his Epistle speaks only of Presbyters and Deacons where some object that it would seem that both in the Church of Corinth to which Clement wrote and in that of Philippi to which Polycarp wrote there were but two Orders of Churchmen whom the one calls Bishops the other Presbyters But if Polycarp's Epistle be genuine then these of Ignatius which he there mentions must be so too and in them the matter is past Controversie Epiphanius lib. 3. baer 75. tells that at first there were only Bishops and Deacons which he saith he had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that ubi Episcopi erant jam constituti scripsit Episcopis Diaconis Non enim omnia statim potuerunt Apostoli constituere Presbyteris enim opus est Diaconis per hos enim duos Ecclesiastica compleri possunt ubi vero non inventus est quis dignus Episcopatu permansit locus sine Episcopo Ubi autem opus fuit erant digni Episcopatu constituti sunt Episcopi cum autem multitudo non esset non inventi sunt inter ipsos qui Presbyteri constituerentur contenti erant solo Episcopo in loco constituto Verum sine Diacono impossibile est esse Episcopum So it seems that from these profound Histories which he had read it appeared that in some Villages there were only Presbyters and no Bishops because in those places none were found worthy of it But certainly these places were obliged to depend upon some place where there was a Bishop constitute For if none were worthy to be Bishops much less were they worthy to constitute a Church within themselves and independent It also appears that in some places at first they had no Presbyters And indeed where the number of Christians was so small as no doubt it was in many places at first a Bishop alone might well have served a whole City But where the Christians were more numerous there were need of more hands to assist the Bishop in his work As for that of Polycarp's naming no Bishop but only Presbyters and Deacons perhaps he wrote in the vacancy of the See so we find many Letters of Cyprian's ad Clerum Romanum when there was no Bishop Besides it is known that at first the names of Bishop and Presbyter were used promiscuously Presbyters were so called not from their age as they were men but from the age of their Christianity For a Neophite was not to be ordained and the Presbyters did jointly with the Bishop both rule and feed the flock But some do stretch this too far as if always the eldest Presbyter had been chosen Bishop The Commentaries upon the Epistles commonly called Ambrose's but truly Hilary the Deacons of which I shall say nothing it being now agreed among the Criticks that they are his upon the 4th of the Eph. After he hath at length shewn the difference which was betwixt the Churches in the Apostles times when they were not fully constitute and the ages that succeeded he tells how at first all in the Clergy baptized and preached and that on any day or where they had opportunity But afterwards Deacons were restrained in this and things were astricted to certain times and places Hinc est ergo saith he unde nunc neque Diaconi in populo praedicant nec Clerici nec Laici baptizant Ideo non per omnia conveniunt scripta Apostolica ordinationi quae nunc in Ecclesiâ est quia haec inter ipsa primordia sunt scripta Nam Timotheum à se creatum Presbyterum Episcopum nominat quia primi Presbyteri Episcopi appellabantur ut recedente eo sequens ei succederet Denique apud AEgyptum Presbyteri consignant si praesens non sit Episcopus sed quia coeperunt praesentes Episcopi indigni inveniri ad primatus tenendos immutata est ratio prospiciente Concilio ut non ordo sed meritum crearet Episcopum Multorum Sacerdotum judicio constitutum ne indignus temere usurparet esset multis scandalo And like to this is what he saith on 1 Tim. 3. from which words it would appear that he thought the Elder Presbyter without any Election or Ordination succeeded unto the Chair of the deceased Bishop But this is directly contrary even to what Ierome himself saith neither do we find any such constitution as that he mentions either in the Acts of the Council of Nice or of any other It is true Clemens Romanus saith That the Apostles ordained their first fruits 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be the Bishops and Deacons of them who should afterward believe but he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 trying them by the Spirit that of discerning spirits being among their extraordinary gifts and though they ordained no Neophyte yet there is no reason to believe that either they made the eldest Christians Presbyters or the eldest Presbyters Bishops The choice of Matthias and of the seven Deacons shews that it went not simply by age St. Iames the younger was Bishop of Ierusalem and Timothy was but young when ordained Yet the
meeting places and consequently several persons to preside and officiate in these meetings But Damasus and Platina reckon that Evaristus who was Bishop of Rome about the 106 year was the first qui titulos in urbe Româ Presbyteris divisit so that before his time the Presbyters have all officiated here or there indefinitely according to the Bishop's appointment And Evaristus seems to have given them assignments to particular places As for the meaning of the word Tituli it is to be considered that the Christians met about the places where the Martyrs were buried and so their meeting places were called Memoriae Martyrum Now upon Burials some title or inscription being usually made it followed that the place of the burial or Gravestone was called Titulus among the Latins so Gen. 35.20 Jacob's erecting a Pillar upon Rachels Grave is rendred by the vulgar Latin erexit titulum super sepulchrum and Gen. 28.18 of Jacob's stone at Bethel it is said erexit in titulum and 2 Sam. 18. Absalom his Pillar is called Titulus Hence it is that Evaristus his dividing of the titles is to be understood of his giving particular assignments of several Churches to Presbyters The next thing to be examined is what were the actions appropriated to Bishops If we believe Ierome the Bishop did nothing which Presbyters might not do except Ordination By which we see that he judged Ordination could not be done without the Bishop Athanasius in his second Apology inserts among other papers an Epistle of the Synod of Alexandria mentioning that Ischyras his Ordination by Coluthus being questioned and examined and it being found that Coluthus had never been ordained a Bishop but that he had falsly pretended to that Title and Character all the Ordinations made by him were annulled and Ischyras with such others who were so ordained were declared Laicks Which is an undeniable instance that at that time it was the general sense of the Church that none but a Bishop might ordain Neither in any Author do we meet with an instance of any that were ordained by Presbyters save one that Cassian who was about the 500. year Collat. 4. cap. 1. gives of one Paphnutius a Presbyter in the Desert of Scetis who delighting in the Vertues of one Daniel ut quem vitae meritis gratiâ sibi parem noverat coaequare sibi etiam Sacerdotii ordine festinaret Eum Presbyterii honori provexit But what a few devout solitaries might do in a desert and undiscerned corner will be no precedent for a constituted Church else we may allow of Baptism with sand for that was once done in a Desert But Socrates had another Opinion of this who lib. 1. cap. 27. tells that Ischyras did a thin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And in the third Council of Toledo set down by Gratian dist 23. cap. 14. this Canon was made Quorundam Clericorum dum unus ad Presbyterium duo ad Levitarum ministerium sacrarentur Episcopus oculorum dolore detentus fertur manum suam super eos tantum imposuisse Presbyter quidam illis contra Ecclesiasticum ordinem benedictionem dedisse sed quia jam ille examini divino relictus humano judicio accusari non potest ii qui supersunt gradum Sacerdotii vel Levitici ordinis quem perverse adepti sunt amittant By which we see how far they were from allowing of any Ordination wherein a Bishop had not intervened It is further clear that the Bishop was looked upon as the Pastor of the Flock who was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that Presbyters or Deacons could finish nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that he was to give an account of the Souls of the people and indeed in these days a Bishoprick was onus more than honos The common treasury of the Church was also committed to his care so infra Can. 4. And as the Offerings of the faithful were laid down at the Apostles feet Acts 4.3.4 so were the collectae and the other goods of the Church laid in their hands For all the goods os the Church and collectae were at first deposited in the Bishop's hand and distributed by him tho afterwards there was an OEconomus appointed for that work Ignatius Epist. ad Magnes tells that they were to do nothing without their Bishop And ad Smyrn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And 5. Canon of Laodicea they might no nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Idem Can. 19. Arel 1. As for Baptism Tertull de bapt saith Dandi quidem jus habet summus Sacerdos qui Episcopus dehinc Presbyteri Diaconi non quidem sine Episcopi authoritate propter Ecclesiae bonum quo salvo salva pax est alioquin laicis etiam jus est Firmilian ad Cyprianum which is reckoned the 75. among Cyprian his Epistles faith Majores natu and by what is a little after where he calls these Bishops it is clear he means not of Presbyters in Ecclesiâ praesidebant baptizandi manum imponendi ordinandi potestatem possidebant Pacian serm de Bapt. Lavacro peccata purgantur Chrismate spiritus super funditur utraque purgantur Chrismate spiritus super funditur utraque vero ist a manu ore Antistitis impetramus And even Ierome himself contra Luciferianos saith Sine Chrismate Episcopi jussione neque Presbyter neque Diaconus jus habent baptizandi By all which we see that Baptism was chiefly the Bishop's work and that the Presbyters did not baptize without his order As for the Eucharist Ignatius ad Smyrnenses saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iustin in his second Apol. giving the account of their Eucharist and whole service reckons all to have been managed by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Tert. de cor mil. Non de aliorum quam praesidentium manibus sumimus But all this is very unjustly applied by such as would pretend to the whole Ecclesiastical Authority but would exempt themselves from the great labor of it For it is clear that according to the primitive constitution the Bishop was the immediate Pastor of the flock and the Presbyters were assumed by him in partem sollicitudinis the greatest of the load still lying on his own shoulders and this might have been some way managed by him where the Dioceses were smaller But the enlarging of the Dioceses hath wholly altered the figure of Primitive Episcopacy All that the Bishop can now do being to try entrants well and oversee these that are in charge which ought not to be performed either by these overly visitations in Synods or by a pompous procession through the Diocese but by a strict and severe Examen both of their lives and labors performed in such visitations as are sutable to the simplicity and humility of the Gospel As for Preaching it was ordinary at first even for persons not ordained to preach not to mention that of the Corinthians where every one brought his Psalm his
collections of the Rich and to distribute them to the poor And these were called Septem viri boni Civitatis The term Elder was generally given to all their Judges but chiefly to these of the great Sanhedrin so we have it Matth. 16.21 Mark 8.31 14.43 and 15.1 And Acts 23.14 And for a fuller satisfaction to this I must refer you to such as have given an account of the Synagogue out of the Iewish Writers Next a great deal might be said to prove that the Apostles in their first constitutions took things as they had them modelled to their hand in the Synagogue and this they did both because it was not their design to innovate except where the nature of the Gospel Dispensation obliged them to it As also because they took all means possible to gain the Jews who we find were zealous adherers to the traditions of their Fathers and not easily weaned from these precepts of Moses which by Christ's Death were evacuated And if the Apostles went so great a length in complying with them in greater matters as Circumcision and other legal observances which appears from the Acts and Epistles we have good grounds to suppose that they would have yielded to them in what was more innocent and less important Besides there appears both in our Lord himself and in his Apostles a great inclination to symbolize with them as far as was possible Now the nature of the Christian Worship shews evidently that it came in the room of the Synagogue which was moral and not of the Temple-Worship which was typical and ceremonial Likewise this parity of Customs betwixt the Iews and Christians was such that it made them be taken by the Romans and other more overly observers for one sect of Religion and finally any that will impartially read the New Testament will find that when the forms of Government or Worship are treated of it is not done with such architectonical exactness as was necessary if a new thing had been instituted which we find practiced by Moses But the Apostles rather speak as these who give rules for the ordering and directing of what was already in being From all which it seems well grounded and rational to assume that the first constitution of the Christian Churches was taken from the model of the Synagogue in which these Elders were separated for the discharge of their imployments by an imposition of hands as all Iewish Writers do clearly witness So the Presbyters of the Christian Church were ordained by an Imposition of hands Their power was not only to preach which as I shewed already was common to others but also to administer Sacraments so that it is true which Ierome saith Communi consilio Presbyterorum res gerebantur We have already considered how necessary it was judged that no Ordination of Presbyters might be gone about without the presence and concurrence of the Bishop as the principal Person which was judged necessary as I suppose more upon the account of Unity and Order than from the nature of the thing in its self for taking things in themselves it will follow that whatever power one hath he may transmit to another and therefore there seems to be small reason why one who hath the power of preaching the Gospel and administring Sacraments may not also transmit the same to others and it seems unreasonable so to appropriate this to a Bishop as to annul these Ordinations which were managed by Presbyters where Bishops could not be had Maimonides saith Every one regularly ordained hath power to ordain his Disciples also There remains nothing to be cleared about this from Antiquity save the 13 Canon of the Council of Ancyra which runs thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 others read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Others read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now the difficulty raised about this Canon is this that if the reading be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then it will follow that the Presbyters of the City might have ordained without the Bishops presence if they had his warrant in writing Yea they also infer that it is probable that before that they ordained even without the Bishops warrant to which they were limited by this Canon and upon this Wallo Messalinus triumphs not a little But Blondel chused rather to read the Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if the meaning of it were that the Chorepiscopi could not have ordained either Presbyters or Deacons nor the Presbyters of the City without the Bishops Warrant in writing which will infer that they might have done it being so warranted It is true Binnius hath read it so so also hath Gentianus Hervetus as appears by his Latin version of this Council The Arabick Manuscript also favors this And it is directly asserted by Zonaras on this Canon and Aristenus But it is contradicted by the whole tract of Antiquity whom we find all concurring in this that the Chorepiscopi might neither ordain Presbyters nor Deacons without a Bishop as was cleared in its due place Fut for that of Wallo Messalinus it will appear to be ill grounded For first it is certain that the Chorepiscopi were a dignity above Presbyters It will be therefore unreasonable to think that Presbyters could do that which was unlawful to the other Besides how bad an Inference is it from one Canon of a Provincial Council of which there are such various readings to argue for a thing which is not only without any other ground but also contrary to the whole Current of Antiquity And it was but few years after this that in Alexandria the Ordinations given by Colutbus who was but a Presbyter and only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were annulled Now Ancyra being in Asia the lesser and divers Bishops out of Syria being there in particular the Bishops of Antioch and Cesarea who subscribed first how came it that there was no notice of this had at Alexandria to have prevented their severe Sentence in the Case of Colutbus But to consider the readings of the Canon Binius reads it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Iustellus it is true he hath on the margin aliter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hervetus hath translated it in alienâ Parochia Now if this be the true reading the meaning of it will run thus Whereas by a great many other Canons Presbyters were so tied to their Bishop that no Bishop was to receive the Presbyter of another Bishop without his Bishops Warrant and Licence and his literae pacificae and dimissoriae So here the Presbyters of the City are discharged to go and assist at Ordinations in other Parishes without a written Licence from their own Bishop But as this Canon is read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by some so they seem to have added to it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that the meaning of it is that the Presbyters of the City might do nothing without the Bishop's Warrant and Licence in writing Thus have both
eum benedicit manum super caput illius ponat quia non ad Sacerdotium sed ad ministerium consecratur As for their Election at the first institution they were chosen by the whole Body of the people so Acts 6. And tho the people were barred their suffrage in the choice of other Church Officers yet there might be good reason why they should still chuse the Deacons their Office being almost wholly temporal to receive and distribute the peoples alms But whatever right people might pretend to in this it will never be proved that by divine Right the people should chuse those who had the charge of their souls For reason would infer that none could make a choice who were not able to give a judgment of the qualifications and worth of a Churchman that being peculiar to the Clergy And hence it is that more than a consent cannot be justly pretended to by the people But after all this if this place prove anything it will prove in favor of the whole body of the people and not of a few selected Lay-Elders All the Deacons were in their degree and order inferiour to Presbyters which will appear from these Canons of the 4. Council of Carthage Canon 37. The Deacon is declared to be the Minister of the Presbyter as well as of the Bishop Canon 39. He might sit in the presence of a Presbyter if desired by him Canon 40. In conventu Presbyterorum Diaconus interrogatus loquatur so that he might not speak except desired It is therefore a disorder in Church-discipline that the Archdeacon should not only be a Presbyter but also exercise Jurisdiction over Presbyters And therefore Petrus Blesensis Epist. 123. hath well observed how turbato ordine dignitatis Archidiaconi bodie Sacerdotibus praeeminent in eos vim ac potestatem suae Jurisdictionis exercent Jerome is the first that makes mention of these Arch deacons telling how the Deacons did chuse one of their number to be over them quem Archidiaconum vocabanst and in the same Epistle to Evagrius he severely inveighs against those Deacons who pretend to an equality with or preference over Presbyters saying Quid patitur mensarum viduarum Minister ut supra eos tumidus sese esserat ad quorum preces corpus sanguisque Christi conficitur Because of the first number Seven the custom was to have but seven Deacons in a City were it never so great so it was decreed in the Council of Neocesarea 14. Canon Their Office was chiefly to look to the poor and to serve in the administration of the Sacraments Just in Martyr in the end of his second Apology tells That the Eucharist was sent by the Deacons to such as were absent Cyprian lib. 3. Epist. 15. reckons it as a part of the Deacon's Office to wait upon the Martyrs and Epist. 17. of that same Book he tells That where there was no Presbyter urgere exitus coeperit The Deacon might receive the Exhomulagesis of penitents and absolve them by imposition of bands Optatus lib. 2. calls them the Defenders of the holy Table telling how the Donatists had broken through the roof of a Church and had killed and wounded some of the Deacons who preserved the holy Elements from their sacrilegious attempt The Deacons distributed the Eucharist and sometime they did give it to the Presbyters but that was forbidden by the 18. Can. of the Council of Nice Yet in the fourth Council of Carthage Can. 38. Diaconus praesente Presbytero Eucharistiam corporis Christi populo si necessitas cogat jussus eroget Cyril of Jerusalem in his 17. Catechism counts the Deacon the Minister of Baptism as well as the Bishop or Presbyter And certain it is that generally Baptism was administred by the Deacons as well as by the Presbyters Some parts of the publick Worship were also discharged by the Deacons Chrysostome hom 14. ad Rom. tells that the Deacons offered prayers for the people and hom 17. ad Heb. he tells That the Deacons stood in a high place at the administration of the Eucharist and calling with a terrible voice as Heraulds invited some and rejected others from these holy mysteries And thus far I have given an account of the sense which the Ancients had of the Offices of Bishop Presbyter and Deacon which three were the only ones they accounted Sacred and Divine And this held good even at the time that the Areopagites's pretended Books were written I call them pretended because there is none now so simple as to believe them his for he reckons the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy to consist in these three degrees To this account given of Deacons I shall add somewhat of Deaconesses of whom mention is made Rom. 16 1. where Phebe is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Deaconess â—f the Church of Cenchrea They are likewise so called in the 15. Canon of Chalcedon but more ordinary in ancient Writings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 IJerome on that place to the Romans speaking of Phebe understands her to have been a Deaconess and adds Etiam nunc in Orientalibus Diaconissae mulieres in suo sexu ministrare videntur in baptismo sive in ministerio verbi quia privatim docuisse foeminas invenimus sicut Priscillam He likewise understood the Widows mentioned 1 Tim. 5. to be Diaconesses Tales eligi voluit Diaconissas quae omnibus essent exemplum vivendi Origen likewise takes it as undoubted that Phebe had a particular office in the Church of Cenchrea and saith on that place Hic locus Apostolica authoritate docet etiam foeminas in ministerio Ecclesiae constitui in quo officio positam Phaeben apud Ecclesiam quae est Cenchreis Chrysostome likewise understood it to be an Office And saith on that place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If any credit be due to the Apostolical Constitutions they tell us many things of their Office tho with a great alloy of much idle stuff They tell That no Woman might come to a Bishop or Presbyter except in the company of a Deaconess Lib. 2. cap. 26. And that they were to go to Womens Houses to instruct them which had been scandalous for Churchmen Lib. 3. cap. 15. They did likewise receive them in Baptism Cap. 16. And kept the gates by which Women entred into the Church Lib. 8. cap. 28. So it seems their Office was to instruct and teach Women And so S. Paul Phil. 4.3 speaks of Women who laboured with him in the Gospel And Rom. 16. we find mention not only of Priscilla but of Tripbona Triphosa and Persis who laboured in the Lord. And it is like their Office was also to minister to the necessities of Churchmen and therefore when S. Paul speaks of leading about a Sister and a Wife as well as other Apostles he may be well understood to speak of one of those who might both have supplied his wants and assisted him in the conversion of Women but for eviting scandal they were not to be under sixty years
sub Sylv. cap. 5. decreed it But as that Council is much suspected so the reason there given is a very poor one Quia Christus dicitur à Chrismate But Canon sixth Cod. Afric is more authentick ut Chrisma à Presbyteris non fiat And Synod Tolet. Can. 20. Quamvis pene ubique custodiatur ut absque Episcopo nemo Chrisma conficiat tamen quia in aliquibus locis vel Provinciis dicuntur Presbyteri Chrisma consicere placuit ex hoc die nullum alium nisi Episcopum hoc facere And the Areopagite as he at length describes it and descants upon it so he appropriates it to the Bishop Gregory the Great lib. 3. Epist. 9. writing to Ianuarius Bishop of Caralis in Sardinia discharges Presbyters to anoint with the Chrisma on the brow appointing that to be reserved to the Bishop for Sardinia and the other Isles had observed the customs of the Greek Church but Gregory Epist. 26. writing to that same person tells that he heard how some were scandalized because he had discharged Presbyters the use of the Chrisma which he therefore takes off in these words Et nos quidem secundum usum veterem Ecclesiae nostrae fecimus sed si omnino hac de re aliqui contristantur ubi Episcopi desunt ut Presbyteri etiam in frontibus baptizatos Chrismate tangere debeant concedimus But 200 years afterwards Nicolaus first Bishop of Rome observed not that moderation For the Bulgarians who were converted by the Greeks receiving the Chrisma from the Presbyters according to the custom of that Church Nicolaus sent Bishops to them and appointed such as had been confirmed by Presbyters to be confirmed again by Bishops But upon this Photius who was then Patriarch of Constantinople called a Synod it which it was decreed that the Chrisma being hallowed by a Bishop might be administred by Presbyters And Photius in his Epistle contends that a Presbyter might unguento signare sanctificare consummatos angere expiatorium donum baptizato consummare as well as he might either baptize or offer at the Altar But Nicolaus impudently denied that this had ever been permitted and upon this account it is that many of the Latins have charged the Greek Church as if there were no Confirmation used among them But this challenge is denied and rejected by the Greeks And so much of the Minister of Confirmation It is in the last place to be considered what value was set upon this action and for what ends it was practised in the Church We have already heard Augustin call it a Sacrament It is likewise so termed by Cyprian Epist. 72. and in the Records of the Council held by him for the rebaptizing of Hereticks But as was marked before they took that term largely for an holy rite or symbolical action Whereas a Sacrament strictly taken is a holy rite instituted by Christ for a federal stipulation by which the promises of the Gospel are sealed and grace conveyed to the worthy receivers Now in this sense it is visible that Confirmation is no Sacrament it neither being instituted by Christ nor having any grace appended to it Neither is it so totally distinct from Baptism being but a renovation of the baptismal Vow joined with Prayer and a solemn benediction Some have thought that Confirmation was only used by the Ancients as an appendix or a consummatory rite of Baptism which mistake is founded upon this that some of the riper age being baptized got this imposition of hands after Baptism For the clearing of which some things must be considered First The Ancients used an imposition of hands before Baptism to such as were admitted to be Catechumens who were in the Christian Church like the Proselytes of the gates among the Iews for they having renounced Idolatry were admitted to some parts of the Christian worship and instructed in the faith for some time before they could commence Christians And an imposition of hands was used when any were admitted to this Order so it is express in the 39. Canon of Elib and in the Greek Euchology there is a prayer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where it is said Inflat signat manum imponit And in the Liturgy called S. Marks Quotquot ad Baptismum dispositi estis accedite ac manus impositionem benedictionem accipite dem manum imponit Sacerdos And Euseb. de vitae Const. lib. 4. faith of Constantine Confessione factâ precum particeps factus est per impositionem manuum The Areopagite makes mention also of this as done twice before Baptism and Aug. de mer. remis pec lib. 2. cap. 26. Catechumenum secundum quendam modum suum per signum orationem manuum impositionis puto sanctificari And Cyprian ad Steph. makes Baptism a superaddition to that imposition of hands which he draws from the example of Cornelius upon whom the Spirit falling first he was afterward baptized It is true he is there speaking of such as turned from Heresie who he judged should be rebaptized after an imposition of hands first given them But as the 39. Canon of Elib speaks of an imposition of hands given before Baptism so the 7. Canon of that same Council mentions another given after it Si quis Diaconus regens plebem sine Episcopo vel Presbyteris aliquos baptizaverit eos per benedictionem perficere debebit And by the 33. Canon of that Council any Laick that was baptized and was no Bigamus might baptize a Catechumen if sick Ita ut si supervixerit ad Episcopum cum perducat ut per manus impositionem perficere or as others read it perfici possit If the first be the reading it will relate to Confirmation if the second it will relate to the compleating of the Baptism The 48. Canon of Laodicea is Illuminatos post baptisma unguento caelesti liniendos esse To infer from that that Confirmation was immediately to follow upon Baptism is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not imply that it was to be done immediately after but only that Baptism was to go before it and we find that same phrase in the Canons immediately preceding this applied to such as had been of a great while baptized But tho such as were of riper years had been confirmed immediately after they received Baptism it will no more prove that Confirmation was an appendix of Baptism than that the Eucharist was so likewise which was also given to them at the same time So the Areopagite tells how such as were baptized were carried by the Priest to the Bishop Ille vero unguento consecrato virum ungens sacrosanctae Eucharistiae participem esse pronunciat And tho even Children were confirmed immediately after Baptism that doth not prove the one but a rite of the other for we find that not only in the African Churches but also in the Roman Church the custom of giving Children the Eucharist immediately after Baptism continued long for the Ordo
Romanus held by some a work of the eleventh Century appoints that Children be permitted to eat nothing after they are baptized till they received the Eucharist That same practice is also mentioned by Hugo the S. Victore lib. 1. cap. 20. in the twelfth Century And all the Greek Writers assert the necessity of Childrens receiving the Eucharist and yet none asserted the Eucharist to be but a rite of Baptism Cornelius tells of Novatian apud Eusebium lib. 6. hist. cap. 35. how he was baptized Clinicus and being recovered nec reliquorum particeps factus quae secundum Canones Ecclesiae obtinere debuerat nec ab Episcopo obsignatus est It is true it is in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if it were explicative of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in the former words he said he wanted whence some infer that Confirmation was but one of the Baptismal rites But it is clear that the true reading is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so Nicephorus hath read it quo non impetrato quomodo Spiritum sanctum obtinuisse putandus est Yet from the Story it appears that Confirmation was judged only necessary ad bone esse and not to the esse of a Christian since notwithstanding the want of this Fabian Bishop of Rome ordained Novatian a Presbyter The Greek Euchology shews that such as were baptized were after their baptism anointed and so to be confirmed and it subjoyning that the Eucharist was to be given to them proves no more the one to be a rite of Baptism than the other The whole current of the Fathers runs that in Confirmation the holy Ghost was conferred August de Bapt. cont Donatistas lib. 3. cap. 16. Spiritus sanctus in solâ Catholicâ per manus impositionem dari dicitur which he derives from the Apostles tho these extraordinary effects of speaking of Tongues or the like did not follow upon it Sed invisibiliter latenter per vinculum pacis est eorum cordibus charitas divina inspirata And concludes Quid enim est aliud nisi oratio super hominem And certainly were Confirmation restored according to the Apostolical practice and managed with a primitive sincerity nothing should give more probable hopes of a recovery of the Christian Church out of the darkness and deadness in which it hath continued so long It might quicken persons more seriously to consider to what they were engaged in Baptism when they were put to so solemn a renovation of it But the more denuded it were of all unnecessary rites such as Oil and the like it might be more sutable to the Evangelical Spirit And we see likewise from Antiquity that there is no reason for appropriating this action wholly or only to the Bishop It should not be gone about till the person were ripe in years and not only able by rote to recite a Catechism but of a fitness to receive the Eucharist immediately after But I shall conclude this whole matter with Calvin's words lib. 4. Instit. cap. 19. sect 4. sequentibus where after he hath laid out the primitive practice of Confirmation he subjoins Haec disciplina si bodie valeret profecto parentum quorundam ignavia acueretur qui liberorum institutionem quasi rem nihil ad se pertinentem negligunt quam tum sine publico dedecore omittere non possent Major esset in populo Christiano fidei consensus nec tanta multorum inscitia ruditas non adeo temere quidam novis peregrinis dogmatibus abriparentur omnibus denique esset quaedam velut methodus doctrinae Christianae A SUPPLEMENT ABOUT THE RURAL BISHOPS CALLED CHOREPISCOPI IT hath been already marked that the extent of the Dioceses was not all of one proportion and generally the Villages which lay adjacent to Cities having received the Gospel at first from them continued in subjection to the City as to their Mother Church whereby the Bishops Parish was not limited to the City but did also include the adjacent Villages The inscription of Clemens his Epistles insinuates this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By which we see that the Churches of Rome and Corinth were made up not onely of such as inhabited the Towns but also of such as dwelt about them and this is yet clearer from Ignatius his inscription of his Epistle to the Romans 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neither did they judg it fit to ordain Bishops in smaller or lesser Cities as appears by the Council of Sardis Can. 6. where it is decreed that a Bishop should not be ordained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Adding that it was not necessary that Bishops should be ordained there lest the name and dignity of a Bishop should be vilipended But before this it was decreed in the Council of Laodicea Can. 57. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for so reads the Manuscript of Oxford Dionysius Exiguus Isidore Mercator Hervetus and Iustellus and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel as Binius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who were to do nothing without the knowledg of the Bishop of the City whom the learned Beverigius observes on this Canon to have been distinct from the Rural Bishops which he makes out both from the Civil Law and a place of Gennadius where the Orders of Churchmen being reckoned these circular Visitors are set in a middle rank betwixt the Rural Bishops and Presbyters Frequent mention is also made of these Visitors in the Acts of the Council at Chalcedon This course therefore they took for these Villages to send Presbyters from the City who were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and because the Bishop could not immediately over-see them himself he did therefore substitute a Vicar and Delegate who was generally called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The first time that we meet with any of these is in the beginning of the fourth Century in the Councils of Ancyra Neocesarea and Antiochia These differed from Presbyters in that they got an Ordination distinct from theirs called by the Council of Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They also might have ordained Subdeacons Lectors and Exorcists and given them commendatory Letters But they differed from Bishops in these things First that they were ordained but by one Bishop as appears by the tenth Canon of the Council of Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And therefore it is true that Balsamon calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now we have already seen that a Bishop must be ordained by two Bishops at least Next these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were ordained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Zonaras And therefore in their subscriptions of the Councils they only design themselves Chorepiscopi without mentioning the place where they served as the Bishops do Now Bishops could not be ordained but with a Title to a particular charge and See Thirdly their power was limited and in many things inferior to the power of Bishops So Pope Leo the first in his 88. Epist. Quamvis cum Episcopis plurima illis ministeriorum communis sit