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
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
Diocess as also but one Church where they all usually met do not unavoidably reduce this Bishoprick to the Circumference of a modern Parish I leave every Man to judge § 10. The next Diocess to be considered is Carthage which next to Rome and Alexandria was the greatest City in the World and probably had as many Christians in it as either especially if that is true which Tertullian insinuates that the tenth part thereof was Christian for he remonstrates to Scapula the Persecuting President of that City that if he should destroy the Christians of Carthage he must root out the Tenth part thereof But yet how many soever the Christians of that Bishoprick were even some years after Tertullian's days they were no more in number than there are now in our Parishes as is evident from Scores of Passages in the Writings of Cyprian Bishop of that Church For 1. The Bishop of that Diocess could know every one therein 2. The Bishop of that Diocess was the common Curator of all the Poor therein relieving the Poor and Indigent paying of their Debts and aiding the necessitous Tradesmen with Money to set up their Trades As Cyprian when he was in his exil'd State sent Caldonius Herculanus Rogatianus and Numidicus to his Church at Carthage to pay off the Debts of the indebted Members thereof and to help those poor Mechanicks with a convenient Sum of Mony who were willing to set up their Trades If Cyprian's Diocess had consisted of scores of Parishes how many Thousand Pounds must he have expended to have paid off the Debts of all the insolvent Persons therein and to have 〈◊〉 every poor Trader with a sufficient Stock to carry on his Employment 3. All the Diocess was present when the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was administred So saith Cyprian We celebrate the Sacrament the whole Brotherhood being present 4. When Celerinus was ordained Lector or Clerk by Cyprian he Read from the Pulpit so that All the People could see and hear him 5. In all Ordinations all the People were consulted and none were admitted into Holy Orders without their Approbation as is assured by Cyprian Bishop of this Diocess who tells us that it was his constant custom in all Ordinations to consult his People and with their common Counsel to weigh the merits of every Candidate of the Sacred Orders And therefore when for extraordinary Merits he advanced one to the Degree of a Lector or Clerk without first communicating it to his Diocess he writes from his Exil'd State to his whole Flock the Reason of it 6. When that See was vacant all the People met together to chuse a Bishop Whence Pontius says that Cyprian was elected Bishop of this Diocess by the favour of the people And Cyprian himself acknowledges that he was chosen by the Suffrage of all his People 7. All the People of this Diocess could meet together to send Letters to other Churches an instance whereof we have in that gratulatory Letter still extant in Cyprian which they all sent to Lucius Bishop of Rome on his Return from Exile 8. All the People were present at Church-Censures and concurred at the Excommunication of Offenders Thus Cyprian writing from his Exile to the People of this his Diocess about the Irregularities of two of his Subdeacons and one of his Acolyths and about the Schism of Felicissimus assures them that as to the former when ever it should please God to return him in Peace it should be determined by him and his Colleagues and his whole Flock And as to the latter that then likewise that should be transacted according to the Arbitrament of the People and the common Counsel of them all 9. At the Absolution of Penitents all the People were present who examined the Reality of the Offender's Repentance and if well satisfied of it consented that they should be admitted to the Churches Peace Therefore when some Presbyters in a time of Persecution had with too great 〈◊〉 and Precipitancy assoyled some of those that through the Violence of the Persecution had succumbed Cyprian writes them from his Exile an objurgatory Letter commanding them to admit no more till Peace should be restored to the Church when those Offenders should plead their Cause before all the People And touching the same matter he writes in another place to all the People of his Diocess that when it should please God to restore Peace to the Church then all those matters should be examined in their Presence and be judged by them Lastly Nothing was done in this Diocess without the Consent of the People So resolved Bishop Cyprian from the first time I was made Bishop said he I determined to do nothing without the consent of my People And accordingly when he was exil'd from his Flock he writ to the Clergy and Laity thereof that when it should please God to return him unto them all Affairs as their mutual Honour did require should be debated in common by them Now whether all these Observations do not evidently reduce the Diocess of Carthage to the same Bulk with our Parishes I leave to every one to 〈◊〉 For my part I must needs profess that I cannot imagin how all the People thereof could receive the Sacrament together assist at the Excommunication and Absolution of Offenders assemble together to elect their Bishop and do the rest of those forementioned particulars without confining this Bishoprick within the Limits of a particular Congregation § 11. As for the Diocess of Alexandria though the numbers of the Christians therein were not so many but that in the middle of the Fourth Century they could all or at least most of them meet together in one place as I might evince from the Writings of Athanasius were it not beyond my prescribed time yet in the third Century they had divided themselves into several distinct and separate Congregations which were all subjected to one Bishop as is clearly enough asserted by Dyonisius Bishop of this Church who mentions the distinct Congregations in the extremest Suburbs of the City The Reason whereof seems to be this Those Members of this Bishoprick who lived in the remotest parts of it finding it incommodious and troublesom every Lord's Day Saturday Wednesday and Friday on which days they always assembled to go to their one usual Meeting-place which was very far from their own Homes and withal being unwilling to divide themselves from their old Church and Bishop lest they should seem guilty of the detestable Sin of Schism which consisted in a Causeless Separation from their Bishop and Parish Church as shall be hereafter shewn desired their proper Bishop to give them leave for Conveniency sake to Erect near their own Habitations a Chappel of Ease which should be a Daughter-Church to the Bishops under his Jurisdiction and guided by a Presbyter of his Commission and Appointment whereat they would
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
had been an unaccountable Impudence and a most detestable act of Schism for any one tho' never so legally Ordained to have entred those Parishes and there to have performed Ecclesiastical Administrations without the permission of or which is all one in Defiance to the Bishops or Ministers thereof for though a Presbyter by his Ordination had as ample an inherent Right and Power to discharge all Clerical Offices as any Bishop in the World had yet Peace Unity and Order oblig'd him not to invade that part of God's Church which was committed to another Man's Care without that Man's Approbation and Consent So then in this Sense a Presbyter was inferiour to a Bishop in Degree in that having no Parish of his own he could not actually discharge the particular Acts of his Ministerial Function without leave from the Bishop of a Parish or Diocess The Bishops were superiour to the Presbyters in that they were the presented 〈◊〉 and inducted Ministers of their respective Parishes and the Presbyters were inferiour to the Bishops in that they were but their Curates and Assistants § 3. But though the Presbyters were thus different from the Bishops in Degree yet they were of the very same specifick Order with them having the same inherent Right to perform those Ecclesiastical Offices which the Bishop did as will appear from these three Arguments 1. That by the Bishop's permission they discharged all those Offices which a Bishop did 2. That they were called by the same Titles and Appellations as the Bishops were And 3. That they are expresly said to be of the same Order with the Bishops As to the first of these That by the Bishop's permission they discharged all those Offices which a Bishop did this will appear from that 1. When the Bishop ordered them they preach'd Thus Origen in the beginning of some of his Sermons tells us That he was commanded thereunto by the Bishop as particularly when he preach'd about the Witch of Endor he says The Bishop commanded him to do it 2. By the permission of the Bishop Presbyters baptized Thus writes Tertullian The Bishop has the Right of Baptizing and then the Presbyters but not without his leave 3. By the leave of the Bishop Presbyters administred the Eucharist as must be supposed in that saying of Ignatius That that Eucharist only was valid which was celebrated by the Bishop or by one appointed by him and that the Eucharist could not be delivered but by the Bishop or by one whom he did approve 4. The Presbyters ruled in those Churches to which they belonged else this Exhortation of Polycarpus to the Presbyters of Philippi would have been in vain Let the Presbyters be tender and merciful compassionate towards all reducing those that are in Errors visiting all that are weak not negligent of the Widow and the Orphan and him that is poor but ever providing what is honest in the sight of God and Men abstaining from all Wrath Respect of Persons and unrighteous Judgment being far from Covetousness not hastily believing a Report against any Man not rigid in Judgment knowing that we are all faulty and obnoxious to Judgment Hence 5. They presided in Church-Consistories together with the Bishop and composed the executive part of the Ecclesiastical Court from whence it was called the Presbytery because in it as Tertullian says Approved Elders did preside 6. They had also the Power of Excommunication as Rogatianus and Numidicus Two Presbyters of Cyprian's Church by his Order join'd with some Bishops of his Nomination in the Excommunication of certain Schismaticks of his Diocess But of both these two Heads more will be spoken in another place 7. Presbyters restored returning Penitents to the Church's peace Thus we read in an Epistle of Dyonisius Bishop of Alexandria That a certain Offender called Serapion approaching to the time of his Dissolution Sent for one of the Presbyters to absolve him which the Presbyter did according to the Order of his Bishop who had before commanded That the Presbyters should absolve those who were in danger of Death 8. Presbyters Confirmed as we shall most evidently prove when we come to treat of Confirmation Only remark here by the way That in the days of Cyprian there was a hot Controversie Whether those that were baptized by Hereticks and came over to the Catholick Church should be received as Members thereof by Baptism and Confirmation or by Confirmation alone Now I would fain know Whether during the vacancy of a See or the Bishop's absence which sometimes might be very long as Cyprian was absent two years a Presbyter could not admit a returning Heretick to the Peace and Unity of the Church especially if we consider their positive Damnation of all those that died out of the Church If the Presbyters had not had this Power of Confirmation many penitent Souls must have been damn'd for the unavoidable Default of a Bishop which is too cruel and unjust to imagine 9. As for Ordination I find but little said of this in Antiquity yet as little as there is there are clearer Proofs of the Presbyters Ordaining than there are of their administring the Lord's Supper All Power and Grace saith Firmilian is constituted in the Church where Seniors preside who have the Power of Baptizing Confirming and Ordaining or as it may be rendred and perhaps more agreeable to the sense of the place Who had the Power as of Baptizing so also of Confirming and Ordaining What these Seniors were will be best understood by a parallel place in Tertullian for that place in Tertullian and this in Firmilian are usually cited to expound one another by most Learned Men as by the most Learned Dr. Cave and others Now the passage in Tertullian is this In the Ecclesiastical Courts approved Elders preside Now by these approved Elders Bishops and Presbyters must necessarily be understood because Tertullian speaks here of the Discipline exerted in one particular Church or Parish in which there was but one Bishop and if only he had presided then there could not have been Elders in the Plural Number but there being many Elders to make out their Number we must add the Presbyters to the Bishop who also presided with him as we shall more fully shew in another place Now the same that presided in Church-Consistories the same also ordained Presbyters as well as Bishops presided in Church-Consistories therefore Presbyters as well as Bishops Ordained And as in those Churches where there were Presbyters both they and the Bishop presided together so also they Ordained together both laying on their Hands in Ordination as St. Timothy was Ordained by the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytery that is by the Hands of the Bishop and Presbyters of that Parish where he was Ordained as is the constant signification of the word Presbytery in all the Writings of the Ancients But 10. Though as to every particular act of the Bishop's Office 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
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
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
Ordained to their Office by Prayer and Imposition of Hands § 5. But as for the Ordination of Presbyters I shall more distinctly and largely treat of the Manner and Form thereof which seems to be as follows Whosoever desired to be admitted into this Sacred Office he first proposed himself to the Presbytery of the Parish where he dwelled and was to be Ordained desiring their Consent to his designed Intention praying them to confer upon him those Holy Orders which he craved Now we may suppose his Petition was to the whole Presbytery because a Bishop alone could not give those Holy Orders as is most evident from Cyprian who assures us that all Clerical Ordinations were performed by the Common Counsel of the whole Prebytery And therefore when upon a most urgent and necessary occasion he had been forced to ordain one but a Lector without the Advice and Consent of his Presbytery which one would be apt to think was no great Usurpation he takes great pains Ep. 24. p. 55. to justifie and excuse himself for so doing § 6. Upon this Application of the Candidate for the Ministry the Presbytery took it into their Consideration debated his Petition in their Common Council and proceeded to examine whether he had those Endowments and Qualifications which were requisite for that Sacred Office What those Gifts and Qualifications were touching which he was examined may be reduced to these Four Heads his Age his Condition in the World his Conversation and his Understanding As for his Age It was necessary for him to have lived some time in the World to have been of a ripe and mature Age for they ordained no Novices or young Striplings That was the Practice of the Hereticks whom Tertullian jeers and upbraids with Ordaining Raw and Vnexperienced Clerks But as for the Orthodox they took care to confer Orders on none but on such as were well stricken in years observing herein the Apostolick Canon in 1 Tim. 3. 6. Not a Novice lest being lifted up with Pride he fall into the Condemnation of the Devil But yet if any young Man was endued with extraordinary Grace and Ability the fewness of his Years was no Obstacle to his Promotion that being superseded by the Greatness of his Merit as we find in the case of Aurelius in Cyprian who tho' young in years yet for his eminent Courage and Excellency was graced with Ecclesiastical Orders And such an one I suppose was the Bishop of Magnesia in the times of Ignatius which gave occasion to that Exhortation to the People of that Diocese not to despise their Bishop's Age but to yield him all due Respect and Reverence § 7. As for his Condition in the World he was not to be entangled with any mundane Affairs but to be free from all secular Employments and at perfect Liberty to apply himself wholly to the Duties of his Office and Function This also was founded on that other Apostolick Canon in 2 Tim. 2. 4. No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life that 〈◊〉 may please him who hath chosen him to be a Soldier Which Words saith Cyprian if spoken of all How much more ought not they to be entangled with Secular Troubles and Snares who being busied in Divine and Spiritual things cannot leave the Church to mind earthly and worldly actions Which Religious Ordination as he goes on to write was emblematiz'd by the Levites under the Law for when the Land was divided and possessions were given to eleven Tribes the Levites who waited upon the Temple and Altar and the Sacred Offices thereof had no share in that Division but the others till'd the ground whilst they only worshipped God and received Tenths of the others Encrease for their Food and Sustenance all which hapned by the Divine Authority and Dispensation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who waited on Divine Employments should not be withdrawn therefrom or be forced either to think of or to do any Secular Affairs Which fashion as he there continues to write is now observed by the Clergy that those who are promoted to Clerical Ordinations should not be impeded in their Divine Administrations or iucumbred with secular Concerns and Affairs but as Tenths receiving Subscriptions from the Brethren depart not from the Altar and Sacrifices but night and day attend on Spiritual and Heavenly Ministrations These words were spoken on the occasion of a certain Bishop called Geminius Victor who at his Death made a certain Presbyter called Geminius Faustinus Trustee of his last Will and Testament which Trust Cyprian condemns as void and null Because a Synod had before decreed that no Clergyman should be a Trustee for this Reason because those who were in Holy Orders ought only to attend upon the Altar and its Sacrifices and to give themselves wholly to Prayer and Supplication It was a Blot in the Hereticks Ordinations that they Ordained such as were involved in the World and embarass'd with Carnal and Secular Concerns § 8. As for the Conversation of the 〈◊〉 to be Ordained he was to be humble and meek of an unspotted and exemplary Life So says Cyprian In all Ordinations we ought to choose Men of an unspotted Integrity who worthily and holily offering up Sacrifices to God may be heard in those Prayers which they make for the safety of their Flock For it is written God heareth not a Sinner but if any one be a Worshipper of him and doth his Will him he heareth Wherefore before they were Ordained they were proposed to the People for their Testimony and Attestation of their holy Life and Conversation But of this we shall speak more in another place Only it may not be improper to remember here that this is also an Apostolick Canon in 〈◊〉 Tim. 3. 2 3 7. A Bishop then must be Blameless the Husband of one Wife vigilant sober of good Behaviour given to hospitality apt to teach not given to Wine no Striker not guilty of filthy Lucre but Patient not a Brawler not Covetous Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without lest he fall into Reproach and the snare of the Devil § 9. As for the understanding of the Person to be Ordained he was to be of a good Capacity fit and able duly to teach others This is also another of the Apostolick Canons in 2 Tim. 2. 15. Study to shew thy self approved unto God a Workman that needeth not to be ashamed rightly dividing the Word of Truth And in 1 Tim. 3. 2. A Bishop must be apt to teach which implies an Ability of teaching and a 〈◊〉 of rightly understanding apprehending and applying the Word of God to which end Humane Learning was so conducive as that Origen pleads not only for its usefulness but also for its necessity especially for that part of it which we call Logick to find out the true Sense and Meaning of the Scripture as appears from this following Digression which
began first with the lowermost Office of a Lector tho' by his extraordinary Merits he deserved those that were more sublime and honourable § 12. That this was their constant and unalterable Practice I dare not affirm I rather think the contrary as I might easily prove were it pertinent to my Design this that follows is more certain that whether they were gradually or presently Ordained Presbyters their Names were published or propounded to the People of that Church where they were to be Ordained that so if worthy of that Office they might have the Testimony and Attestation of the People or if unworthy and unfit they might be debarred and excluded from it by which course the Crimes of the Wicked were discovered the Vertues of the Good declared and the Ordination became Valid and Legitimate being examin'd by the Suffrage and Judgment of all § 13. If the People objected nothing against the Persons proposed but approved their fitness for that Office the next thing that followed was their Actual Ordination in that particular Church where they were so propounded not that they were only ordain'd for that particular Church but in it they were ordained Ministers of the Church Universal being at liberty either to serve that Church where they received their Orders or if they had a Legal Call to spend their Labours elsewhere in other Churches as Origen was a Presbyter of Alexandria tho' he was Ordained in Palestina by the Bishops of Caesarea and Jerusalem and Numidicus was a Presbyter of the Church of Carthage tho' he received his Orders elsewhere Hence the Presbyters of a Church were not confined to a set number as the Bishop and Deacons were but were sometimes more sometimes less as fit Persons for that Office presented themselves so were they Ordained some of whom still remained in the same Church where they received their Orders and others went and served other Churches every one going where the Providence of God did call him § 14. But now their formal Ordination was by Imposition of Hands usually of the Bishop and Presbyters of the Parish where they were Ordained For this there needs no other Proof than that Injunction of St. Paul to Timothy 〈◊〉 Tim. 4. 14. Neglect not the Gift that is in thee which was given thee by Prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery As for Imposition of hands it was a Ceremony that was variously used in the Old Testament from whence it was translated into the New and in the Primitive Church used on sundry occasions to no purpose here to enumerate One of those Actions was Ordination of Church-Officers wherein I think it was never omitted Thus Novatian was Ordained a Presbyter by Imposition of Hands And the Bishops of Cesarea and Jerusalem Imposed Hands on Origen to make him a Presbyter The Imposition of Hands being the Completion of Ordination or the Final Act thereof for whosoever had past through the forementioned Examination and Attestation and consequently to that had received the laying on of Hands he was esteemed by all as legally Ordained and was ever after deemed to have sufficient Power and Authority to exert and discharge the Duty and Office of the Presbytership to which by those Actions he was advanced and promoted § 15. Here now I shall conclude what I designed to write with respect to the first Particular concerning the Peculiar Acts of the Clergy under which I have discoursed distinctly of the Office and Order of Bishops Priests and Deacons as also of several other things relating to their Charge and Dignity As for those other Acts of theirs which remain to be inquired into I shall not meddle with them here for tho' they may have some Rapport or Connexion to this Head yet they more properly and immediately respect the third unto which place therefore I shall refer their Discussion and Examination CHAP. VI. § 1. The Peculiar Acts of the Laity proposed to be discoursed of What were the Qualifications of Church-Membership § 2. The People in some Cases had Power to depose their Bishops § 3. The Conjunct Acts of the Clergy and Laity proposed to be discoursed of All Ecclesiastical Affairs were managed by their joint Endeavours § 1. HAving in the former Chapters treated of the Peculiar Acts of the Clergy I come now in this to speak something to the Peculiar Acts of the Laity and to enquire into those Actions and Powers which they exerted distinctly by themselves And here it may not be amiss first of all to make an Enquiry into the Constitution of the Laity that is how and by what means they were first admitted to be Members of a Church by Vertue of which Membership they were made Partakers of all those Powers which we shall hereafter mention Now for Answer hereunto in general all those that were baptized were look'd upon as Members of the Church and had a right to all the Priviledges thereof except they had been guilty of grofs and scandalous Sins as Idolatry Murder Adultery and such like for then they were cast out of the Church and not admitted again till by a Penitent and holy Deportment they had testified their Grief and Sorrow for their unholy and irregular Actions for as Origen saith We do our utmost that our Assemblies be composed of good and wise Men. So that none who are admitted to our Congregations and Prayers are vitious and wicked except very rarely it may happen that a particular bad Man may be concealed in so great a number But since the greatest part of Christians were adult Persons at their Conversion to Christianity and admission into Church-Fellowship and Society therefore we must consider the Prerequisites of Baptism since that Sacrament gave them a Right and Title to that admission or reception Now those Persons who designed to leave Heathenism and Idolatry and desired to be Members of a Christian Church were not presently advanced to that degree but were first continued a certain space of Time in the rank of the Catechumens or the Catechised ones These were Candidates of Christianity who were to stay some time in that Order for these two Reasons The one was That they might be catechised and instructed in the Articles of the Christian Faith from whence they were called Catechumens And the other was that they might give demonstrations of the reality of their Intentions by the Change of their Lives and the Holiness of their Conversations Whilst they were in this Estate or rather in a Preparatory thereunto they were first privately instructed at home till they understood the more Intelligible Principles of Christianity and then they were admitted into the first Rank of Catechumens who are called by Tertullian Edocti or those that are taught These were permitted to come into the Church where they stood in a place by themselves and were present at the Sermons which were adapted to their Capacities being Discourses of
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
be absolved came into the Church mourning and weeping and expressing all external Indications of his Internal Sorrow As when Natalis a Roman Confessor was absolved for his joyning with the Theodotian Hereticks he came into the Church as it is related by an ancient 〈◊〉 Christian covered with Sackcloth and Ashes throwing himself at the Feet of the Clergy and Laity and with Tears in his Eyes begging their pardon and forgiveness It being looked upon as very proper that they should be admitted into the Church by Tears not by Threats by Prayers and not by Curses Hence at this time for the greater Demonstration of their Sorrow and Humility they were to make a publick Confession of their Sin styled by them Exomologesis which was as Cyprian saith A Confession of their great and heinous Crime and was a necessary Antecedent to Absolution inasmuch as it was the Source and Spring of all true Repentance For as Tertullian observes Out of Confession is born Repentance and by Confession comes Satisfaction And in many places of Cyprian the necessity of Confession is asserted for as Tertullian says Confession as much diminishes the Fault as Dissimulation aggravates it Confession is the Advice of Satisfaction Dissimulation of Contumacy And therefore he condemns those who thro' shame deferred from Day to Day the Publication of their Sin as more mindful of their shamefacedness than of their Salvation Like those who have a Disease in their Secret Parts through shame conceal it from the Chyrurgeons and so with their Modesty die and perish Confession therefore being so necessary the greatest Offenders were not exempted from it as when Philip the Emperor as Eusebius calls him or rather Philip a Prefect of Egypt would have joyned with the Faithful in the Churches Prayer Bishop Babylas denied him admission because of his enormous Crimes nor would he receive him till he had made a Publick Confession of his Faults And accordingly when one of those Bishops that Schismatically Ordained Novatian returned as a Penitent he came into the Church weeping and Confessing his Sin where we may observe that it is said in the singular Number his Sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which intimates that the Penitent's Confession was not only general or for all his Sins in the gross but it was particular for that special Sin for which he was censured consonant whereunto Cyprian as before quoted writes that the Penitent confessed his most great and heinous Sin that is that Sin for which he was so severely punished This Confession of the Penitents was made with all the outward Signs of Sorrow and Grief which usually so affected the Faithful as that they sympathized with them in mourning and weeping Whence Tertullian exhorts the Penitent not through shame to conceal but from a true Godly Disposition to confess his Fault before the whole Church and to weep and mourn for it since they being his Brethren would also weep with and over him And so from the same Consideration Cyprian exhorted the Lapsed to this Penitent Confession with our Tears saith he joyn your Tears with our Groans couple your Groans § 10. As soon as Confession was over then followed the formal Absolution which was thus The Person to be absolved kneeled down before the Bishop and the Clergy who put their Hands upon his Head and bless'd him by which external Ceremony the Penitent was declaratively and formally admitted to the Churches Peace Thus Cyprian writes that they received the Right of Communion by the Imposition of Hands of the Bishop and his Clergy And that no one can be admitted to Communion unless the Bishop and Clergy have imposed Hands on him This being accounted the third and last general Requisite for the reconciling of Offenders the two former being the undergoing a state of Penance and a publick Confession of their Sin all which three are frequently mentioned together as such by Cyprian as where he says Let Offenders do Penance a set space of time and according to the Order of Discipline let them come to Confession and by Imposition of Hands of the Bishop and Clergy let them receive the Right of Communion And in other places he complains of the irregular and unadvised Actions of some of his Presbyters that they admitted some of the Lapsed to Communion before they had undergone a duc Penance made a Publick Confession of their Sin and had Hands imposed on them by the Bishop and Clergy § 11. After the Penitents were absolved by imposition of Hands then they were received into the Communion of the Faithful and made Partakers again of all those Priviledges which by their Crimes they had for a while forfeited Only when an offending Clergy man was absolved he only was restored to Communion as a Lay-man but never re-admitted to his Ecclesiastical Dignity Thus when one of the Schismatical Bishops that Ordained Novatian returned to the Church he was deprived of his Ecclesiastical Office and admitted only to Lay-Communion So likewise Apostate or Lapsed Bishops were never restored again to their Office The Reasons whereof may be seen in the 64th Epistle of Cyprian And therefore Basilides a lapsed Bishop would have been extremely glad if the Church would but have permitted him to communicate as a Layman But yet I suppose that for every Fault Clergymen were not deprived of their Orders but only according to the Greatness of their Crimes and the Aggravation of them since I find that Maximus a Presbyter of the Church of Rome who had been deluded into the Schism of Novatian was upon his Submission restored by Cornelius to his former Office CHAP. VIII § 1. Of the Independency of Churches § 2. Of the Dependency of Churches § 3. Of Synods and the several kinds of them § 4. How often Synods were convened § 5. Who were the Members of Synods § 6. By whose Authority Synods were convened § 7. When convened the manner of their Proceedings a Moderator first chosen what the Moderator's Office was § 8. Then they entred upon Business which had relation either to Foreign Churches or their own with respect to Foreign Churches their Acts were only advising § 9. With respect to their own Churches obliging The End and Power of Synods enquired into § 1. TO that large Discourse of the Primitive Discipline which was the Subject of the preceding Chapter it will be necessary to add this Observation that all those judicial Acts were exerted in and by every single Parish every particular Church having Power to exercise Discipline on her own Members without the Concurrency of other Churches else in those places where there might be but one Church for several Miles round which we may reasonably suppose the Members of that Church must have travelled several if not Scores of Miles to have had the consent of other Churches for the Punishment of their Ofsenders But there is no need to make this Supposition
the Members that composed these Synods they were Bishops Presbyters Deacons and Deputed Laymen in behalf of the People of their respective Churches Thus at that great Synod of Antioch that condemned Paulus Samosatenus there were present Bishops Presbyters Deacons and the Churches of God that is Laymen that represented the People of their several Churches So also we read in an ancient Fragment in Eusebius that when the Heresie of the Montanists was fix'd and preach'd the Faithful in Asia met together several times to examine it and upon examination condemned it So also when there were some Heats in the Church of Carthage about the Restitution of the Lapsed Cyprian writes from his Exile that the Lapsed should be patient till God had restored Peace to the Church and then there should be convened a Synod of Bishops and of the Laity who had stood firm during the Persecution to consult about and determine their Affairs Which Proposition was approved by Moses and Maximus and other Roman Confessors who liked the consulting of a Synod of Bishops Presbyters Deacons Confessors and the standing Laity as also did the whole Body of the Clergy of the Church of Rome who were willing that that Affair of the Lapsed should be determined by the common Counsel of the Bishops Presbyters Deacons Confessors and the standing Laity And thus at that great Council held at 〈◊〉 Anno 258. there were present Eighty Seven Bishops together with Presbyters Deacons and a great part of the Laity § 6. If it shall be demanded by whose Authority and Appointment Synods were assembled To this it will be replyed That it must necessarily have been by their own because in those Days there was no Christian Magistrate to order or determine those Affairs § 7. When a Synod was convened before ever they entred upon any Publick Causes they chose out of the gravest and renownedst Bishops amongst them one or sometimes two to be their Moderator or Moderators as at the Council held at Carthage Anno 258. Cyprian was Moderator or Prolocutor thereof And so we read of the Prolocutors of several Synods that were assembled in divers parts of the World to determine the Controversies concerning Easter As Victor Bishop of Rome was Prolocutor of a Synod held there Palmas Bishop of Amastris Moderator of a Synod held in Pontus and Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons of another in France Polycrates Bishop os Ephesus presided over a Synod of Asiatick Bishops and at a Convocation in Palestina there were two Moderators viz. Theophilus Bishop of Caesarea and Narcissus Bishop of Jerusalem The Office and Duty of a Moderator was to preside in the Synod to see all things calmly and fairly debated and decreed and at the conclusion of any Cause to sum up what had been debated and urged on both sides to take the Votes and Suffrages of the Members of the Synod and last of all to give his own All this is evident in the Proceedings of the Council of Carthage which are extant at the end of Cyprian's Works Cyprian being Moderator of that Council After all things were read and finished relating to the Question in hand sums up all telling the Synod what they had heard and that nothing more remained to be done but the Declaration of their Judgment thereupon Accordingly thereunto the Bishops gave their respective Votes and Decisions and last of all Cyprian as President gave in his § 8. When the Moderator was chosen then they entred upon the consideration of the Affairs that lay before them which may be consider'd in a two-fold respect either as relating to Foreign Churches or to those Churches only of whom they were the Representatives As for foreign Churches their Determinations were not obligatory unto them because they were not represented by them and so the chiefest matter they had to do with them was to give them their Advice and Counsel in any difficult Point which they had proposed to them as when the People of Astorga and Emerita in Spain had written to some African Churches for their Advice what to do with their two Bishops who had lapsed in Times of Persecution This Case was debated in a Synod held Anno 258 whose Opinion thereupon is to be seen in their Synodical Epistle extant at large amongst the Works of Cyprian Epist. 68. p. 200. § 9. But with respect unto those particular Churches whose Representatives they were their Decrees were binding and obligatory since the Regulation and Management of their Affairs was the general End of their Convening Various and many were the particular Ends of these Synodical Conventions as for the prevention of Injustice and Partiality in a Parish Consistory As suppose that such a Consistory had wrongfully and unrighteously censured one of their Members what should that censured Person do unless appeal to the Synod to have his Cause heard there as Felicissimus did who after he was excommunicated by his own Parish of which Cyprian was Bishop had his Cause heard before a Synod who ratified and confirmed the Sentence of Excommunication against him And therefore we may suppose it to be for the prevention of Partiality and Injustice that in Lesser Asia Offenders were usually absolved by the Synod which met every Year Synods also were assembled for the examining condemning and excommunicating of all Hereticks within their Limits that so the Faithful might avoid and shun them As Paulus Samosatenus was condemned by the Council of Antioch for resolving of all difficult Points that did not wound the Essentials of Religion or had relation unto the Discipline of the Church as when there was some Scruple about the Time of baptizing of Children a Synod of Sixty Six Bishops met together to decide it And so when there were some Disputes concerning the Martyrs Power to restore the Lapsed Synods were to be assembled to decide them But why do I go about to reckon up Particulars when as they are endless let this suffice in general that Synods were convened for the Regulation and Management of all Ecclesiastical Affairs within their respective Jurisdictions as Firmilian writes that in his Country the Bishops and Presbyters met together every Year to dispose those things which were committed to their charge Here they consulted about the Discipline Government and External Polity of their Churches and what means were expedient and proper for their Peace Unity and Order which by their common Consent they enacted and decreed to be observed by all the Faithful of those Churches whom they did represent He who denies this must be very little acquainted with the ancient Councils especially those which were held after the Emperors became Christians The reason why we find not more Synodical Decrees of the three first Centuries comes not from that they judicially determined none or required not the observance of them but from that either they were not careful or the Fury and Violence of the Times would
loud sounding Cymbals by which the Tongue is to be understood which sounds or speaks through the knocking or coition of the Lips § 9. When the Singing of Psalms was ended then succeeded the Preaching of the Word So writes Tertullian Scriptures are read Psalms sung and then Sermons pronounced As for the Subject of the Preacher's Sermon it was usually a Commentary or Explication of the Lessons that were just before read So it was in the Time and Country of Justin Martyr who writes that when the Reader had ended the Bishop made a Sermon by way of Instruction and Exhortation to the Imitation of those excellent things which had been read Whence Origen calls their Sermons Explanations of the Lessons And such Explanations are all his Sermons or Homilies as whosoever reads them will easily see and he himself intimates as much in several of them As for the Length of their Sermons they usually preach'd an Hour as Origen complains of his abundance of Matter that if he should throughly handle every part of it it would require not only the one Hour of their Assembly but several Therefore when the Lessons were long and copious which sometimes consisted of several Chapters as the Lesson which was the Subject of Origen's 15th Homily on Jeremiah reached from the 15th Chapter and 10th Verse to the 17th Chapter and 5th Verse The Preacher passed over some of the Matter unmentioned and handled the most important or the most curious part therein Thus in the beginning of a Sermon of Origen's we find that the Chapters that were read were the 25 26 27 and 28th Chapters of the first Book of Samuel which he complains were too large and 〈◊〉 to be all handled at once and therefore he would only discourse of the 28th Chapter touching the Witch of Endor and those things related there 〈◊〉 her § 10. As for the manner of their Sermons we may observe this Method in those of Origen's that he first began with a short 〈◊〉 and then explained Verse after Verse or Sentence after Sentence 〈◊〉 the Natural and Literal Signification of the Words and then the Spiritualized or Mystical meaning of them and concluded with a suitable Application of all either by way of Exhortation to Piety and Vertue or by way of Dehortation from Vice and Impiety Always accommodating their Discourses to the Capacities of their Hearers Is their Auditors were prudent and understanding then they scrupled not to treat of the profound Mysteries of the Gospel but if they had attained no great measure of Knowledge and had need of Milk as the Apostle stiles it then they concealed from them those deep and recondite Points § 11. As for the Preacher himself it was usually the Bishop of the Parish So saith 〈◊〉 Martyr The Bishop Preaches by way of Instruction and Exhortation to the Imitation of those excellent things which we Or else he desired a Presbyter or some other fit Person to preach in his room without his Consent it had been Schism and Violence in any Person whatsoever to have usurped his Chair but with his Permission any Clergyman or Layman might Preach in his Pulpit Now that Clergymen Preach'd no one will question though it will be doubted whether Laymen did But that they did so appears from a memorable History concerning Origen who going from Alexandria into Palestina by the Desire of the Bishops of that Country publickly Preach'd in the Church and expounded the Holy Scriptures although he was not yet in Holy Orders At which Action when Demetrius Bishop of Alexandria was offended Alexander Bishop of Jerusalem and Theoctistus of Caesarea writ to him in defence of it as follows Whereas you write in your Letter that it was never before seen or done That Laymen should preach in the presence of Bishops therein you wander from the Truth for wheresoever any are found that are fit to profit the Brethren the Holy Bishops of their own accord ask them to Preach unto the People So Evelpis was desired by Neon Bishop of Laranda and Paulinus by Celsus of Iconium and Theodorus by Atticus of Synnada our most blessed Brethren and it is credible that this is likewise done in other Places though we know it not But yet though Laymen Preach'd it was not every one that did so but only those that were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fit to prosit the Brethren and though they were never so fit yet they did not irregularly or disorderly run about a Preaching or discharge that Sacred Office till they were desired by the Bishop of a Parish to do it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but stayed for the Permission and Approbation of such an one for without that their Sermons and Discourses would have been but so many Acts of Schism and Faction CHAP. II. § 1. After Preaching all the Congregation rose up to joyn in Publick Prayers § 2. They prayed towards the East Their Reasons for that Custom § 3. They lifted up their Hands and Eyes towards Heaven § 4. Whether the Minister that Officiated wore a Surplice and therein of Ministers Habits § 5. Whether they Sung their Prayers and whether they used Responsals § 6. Of prescribed Liturgies The Lord's Prayer not always but commonly used by them § 7. To the Lord's Prayer they added other Prayers of their own Choice or Invention proved so to have been § 8. Whether their Prayers were divided into several Collects § 1. AS soon as the Sermon was ended then all the Congregation rose up to present their Common and Publick Prayers unto Almighty God as Justin Martyr writes that when the Preacher had finished his Discourse They all rose up and offered their Prayers unto God Standing being the usual Posture of Praying at least the constant one on Sundays on which Day they esteemed it a Sin to kneel whence the Preacher frequently concluded his Sermon with an Exhortation to his Auditors to stand up and pray to God as we find it more than once in the Conclusion of Origen's Sermons as Wherefore standing up let us beg help from God that we may be blessed in Jesus Christ to whom be Glory for ever and ever Amen And wherefore rising up let us pray to God that we may be made worthy of Jesus Christ to whom be Glory and Dominion for ever and ever Amen And again Standing up let us offer Sacrifices to the Father through Christ who is the Propitiation for our Sins to whom be Glory and Dominion for ever and ever Amen § 2. Accordingly the whole Congregation stood up and turned their Faces towards the East it being their Custom and Manner to pray towards that Quarter as Tertullian writes We pray towards the East Now the Reasons that I meet with for this Usage may be reduced to these Three or Four I. Out of Respect and Reverence to their Lord and Master Jesus Christ they prayed towards the East because the East is a
the Catholick Church And Secundinus Bishop of Carpis determined that on Hereticks who are the Seed of Antichrist the Holy Ghost cannot be conferred by Imposition of Hands alone in Confirmation Stephen pleaded on his side That 〈◊〉 very Name of Christ was so advantagious to Faith and the Sanctification 〈◊〉 Baptism that in what place soever any one was baptized in that Name he immediately obtained the Grace of Christ. But unto this Firmilian briefly replies That if the Baptism of Hereticks because done in the Name of Christ was sufficient to purge away Sins why was not Confirmation that was performed in the Name of the same Christ sufficient to bestow the Holy 〈◊〉 And therefore it is thus eagerly argued by Cyprian Why 〈◊〉 they saith he meaning Stephen and his Party who received Hereticks by Imposition of Hands only patronize Hereticks and Schismaticks let them answer us have they the Holy Ghost or have they not If they have why then do they lay Hands on those that are baptized by them when they ceme over to us to bestow on them the Holy Ghost when they had received him before for if he was there they could confer him But if Hereticks and 〈◊〉 have not the Spirit of God and therefore we lay Hands on them in Confirmation that they may here receive what Hereticks neither have nor can give it is manifest that since they have not the Holy Ghost they cannot give remission of Sins That is since they cannot Confirmtherefore they cannot Baptize So that from these and some other Passages which to avoid tediousness I omit it is clear that both Stephen and Cyprian understood by Imposition of Hands that which we now call 〈◊〉 Secondly I now come to shew that they also termed it Absolution as will appear from these following Instances They says Cyprian meaning Stephen and his Followers urge that in what they do they follow the old Custom that was used by the Ancients when Heresies and Schisms first began when those that went over to them first were in the Church and baptized therein who when they returned again to the Church and did Penance were not forced to be baptized But this says he makes nothing against us for we now observe the very same Those who were baptized here and from us went over to the Hereticks if afterwards being sensible of their Error they return to the Church we only absolve them by the Imposition of Hands because once they were Sheep and as wandring and straying Sheep the Shepherd receives them into his Flock but if those that come from Hereticks were not first baptized in the Church they are to be baptized that they may become Sheep for there is but one Holy Water in the Church that makes Sheep But that this Imposition of Hands was the same with Absolution will most evidently appear from the Opinion or Determination of Stephen and from Cyprian's Answer thereunto Stephen's Opinion or Determination was If any shall from any Heresie come unto us let nothing be innovated or introduced besides the old Tradition which is that Hands be imposed on him as a Penitent Now unto that part of this Decree which asserts the Reception of Hereticks only by Absolution or the Imposition of Hands in Penance to be a Tradition descended down from their Predecessors Cyprian replies That he would observe it as a Divine and Holy Tradition if it were either commanded in the Gospel and the Epistles of the Apostles or contained in the Acts that those who came from Hereticks should not be baptized but only Hands imposed on them for Penance or as Penitents but that for his part he never found it either commanded or written that on an Heretick Hands should be only imposed for Penance and so he should be admitted to Communion Wherefore he on his side concludes and determins Let it therefore be observ'd and held by us that all who from any Herefie are converted to the Church be baptized with the one lawful Baptism of the Church except those who were formerly baptized in the Church who when they return are to be received by the alone Imposition of Hands after Penance into the Flock from whence they have strayed So that these Instances do as clearly prove that they meant by their Imposition of Hands Absolution as the former Instances do that they meant Confirmation and both of them together plainly shew and evidence Confirmation and Absolution to be the very self-same thing for since they promiscuously used and indifferently applyed these Terms and that very thing which in some Places they express by Confirmation in others they call Absolution it necessarily follows that there can be no essential or specifical difference between them but that they are of a like numerical Identity or Sameness But Secondly I now come in the next place to demonstrate that together with the Bishop and sometimes without the Bishop Presbyters did absolve by Imposition of Hands That they did it together with the Bishop several places of Cyprian abundantly prove Offenders saith he Receive the right of Communion by the Imposition of Hands of the Bishop and of his Clergy And No Criminal can be admitted to Communion unless the Bishop and Clergy have imposed Hands on him And that some times they did it without the Bishop always understanding his leave and permission is apparent from the Example of Serapion who being out of the Churches Peace and approaching the hour of Dissolution sent for one of the Presbyters to Absolve him which the Presbyter did according to the Order of the Bishop who had before given his Permission unto the Presbyters to absolve those who were in danger of Death And as the Bishop of Alexandria gave his Presbyters this Power so likewise did Cyprian Bishop of Carthage who when he was in Exile order'd his Clergy to confess and absolve by Imposition of Hands those who were in danger of Death And If any were in such condition they should not expect his Presence but betake themselves to the first Presbyter they could find who should receive their Confession and absolve them by Imposition of Hands So that it is evident that Presbyters even without the Bishop did absolve Offenders and formally receive them into the Churches Peace by Imposition of Hands Now then If the Imposition of Hands on Persons just after Baptism and the Imposition of Hands at the Restitution of Offenders was one and the self-same thing and if Presbyters had Power and Authority to perform the latter I see no reason why we should abridge them of the former both the one and the other was Confirmation and if Presbyters could confirm at one time why should we doubt of their Right and Ability to perform it another time If it was lawful for them to impose Hands on one occasion it was as lawful for them to do it on another § 9. From the precedent Observation of the Identity