Observations on the first and second of the canons, commonly ascribed to the holy apostles wherein an account of the primitive constitution and government of churches, is contained : drawn from ancient and acknowledged writings.

Observations on the first and second of the canons, commonly ascribed to the holy apostles wherein an account of the primitive constitution and government of churches, is contained : drawn from ancient and acknowledged writings.

Table of contents

Title page

The FIRST CANON.

A BISHOP.

A SUPPLEMENT ABOUT THE RURAL BISHOPS, CALLED CHOREPISCOPI.

The SECOND CANON.

POLYHISTOR TO BASILIUS.

§

§

[Page]

[Page]

OBSERVATIONS ON THE FIRST and SECOND OF THE CANONS, Commonly ascribed to the Holy Apostles. WHEREIN An Account of the Primitive Constitution and Government of Churches, is contained. Drawn from ancient and acknowledged Writings.

GLASGOW, By Robert Sanders, Printer to the City and University, 1673.

The FIRST CANON.

[Page]

[Page]

[...].

A Bishop shall be ordained by two or three Bishops.

A BISHOP.

THIS word is sometime taken for a Spy, so Estathius ad Homeri K. sometime for a Defender; so Hector was called Bishop of Troy by Homer, Iliad [...]. There was among the Athenians a publick Office so called: and in this sense, it was also used among the Romans; so Cicero ad Atticum, Lib. 7. Epist. 11. tells, That Pompey would had him to be, quem tota compania & maritima ora habeant Episcopum, ad quem delectus & summa negotii referatur, ff. de mun. & hon. leg. ult. parag. item Episcopi sunt, qui praesunt pani & caeteris rebus vaenalibus.

[Page]This term is sometime in the Old Testament. And Clemens Romanus Epist. ad Rom. proves Bishop and Deacon to be no new terms, from Isai. 60.17. [...] But in our Edition, we find: [...] (where, on the way, mark how different the present Edition of the Septuagint is, from that which Clemens made use of) [...], is also Psalm 109.8. Among the Iews, he who was the chief of the Synagogue, was called Chazan hakeneseth, the Bishop of the Congregation; and Sheliach tsibbor, the Angel of the Church. And the Christian Church being modelled as near the form of the Synagogue as could be, as they retained many of the Rites, so the form of their Government was continued, and the names remained the same. But more of this afterward.

Clemens Romanus in his Epistle, speaks only of Bishops and Deacons. Polycarp again in his Epistle, speaks only of Presbyters and Deacons; where some object that it would seem, that both in the Church of Corinth, to which Clement wrote, and in that of Philippi, to which Polycarp wrote, there were but two Orders of Churchmen, whom the one calls Bishops, the other Presbyters. But if Polycarp's Epistle be genuine, then these of Ignatius, which he there mentions, must [Page] be so too, and in them the matter is past Controversie.

Epiphanius lib. 3. baer. 75. tells, that at first there were only Bishops and Deacons, which he saith he had [...]; and that ubi Episcopi erant jam constituti, scripsit Episcopis & Diaconis. Non enim omnia statim potuerunt Apostoli constituere. Presbyteris enim opus est & Diaconis, per hos enim duos Ecclesiastica compleri possunt; ubi vero non inventus est quis dignus Episcopatu, permansit locus sine Episcopo. Ubi autem opus fuit, & erant digni Episcopatu, constituti sunt Episcopi; cum autem multitudo non esset, non inventi sunt inter ipsos, qui Presbyteri constituerentur, & contenti erant solo Episcopo in loco constituto. Verum sine Diacono impossibile est esse Episcopum. So it seems, that from these profound Histories which he had read, it appeared, that in some Villages there were only Presbyters and no Bishops, because in those places none were found worthy of it. But certainly these places were obliged to depend upon some place where there was a Bishop constitute: For if none were worthy to be Bishops, much less were they worthy to constitute a Church within themselves, and independent. It also appears, that in some places at first, they had no Presbyters: And indeed where the number of Christians was so small (as no doubt it was in many places at first) a Bishop [Page] alone might well have served a whole City: But where the Christians were more numerous, there were need of more hands, to assist the Bishop in his work.

As for that of Polycarp's naming no Bishop, but only Presbyters and Deacons, perhaps he wrote in the vacancy of the See: so we find many Letters of Cyprian's ad Clerum Romanum, when there was no Bishop. Besides, it is known that at first the names of Bishop and Presbyter were used promiscuously.

Presbyters were so called, not from their age, as they were men, but from the age of their Christianity: For a Neophite was not to be ordained, and the Presbyters did jointly with the Bishop, both rule and feed the flock. But some do stretch this too far, as if always the eldest Presbyter had been chosen Bishop.

The Commentaries upon the Epistles, commonly called Ambrose's, but truly Hilary, the Deacons (of which I shall say nothing, it being now agreed among the Criticks, that they are his) upon the 4th of the Eph. After he hath at length shewn the difference which was betwixt the Churches in the Apostles times, when they were not fully constitute, and the ages that succeeded, he tells how at first all in the Clergy baptized and preached, and that on any day, or where they had opportunity. But afterwards [Page] Deacons were restrained in this, and things were astricted to certain times and places. Hinc est ergo (saith he) unde nunc neque Diaconi in populo praedicant, nec Clerici, nec Laici baptizant. — Ideo, non per omnia conveniunt scripta Apostolica ordinationi, quae nunc in Ecclesiâ est, quia haec inter ipsa primordia sunt scripta. Nam & Timotheum à se creatum Presbyterum, Episcopum nominat, quia primi Presbyteri, Episcopi appellabantur, ut recedente eo, sequens ei succederet. Denique apud AEgyptum Presbyteri consignant, si praesens non sit Episcopus: sed quia coeperunt praesentes Episcopi indigni inveniri, ad primatus tenendos immutata est ratio, prospiciente Concilio, ut non ordo, sed meritum crearet Episcopum. Multorum Sacerdotum judicio constitutum, ne indignus temere usurparet, & esset multis scandalo. And like to this is, what he saith on 1 Tim. 3. from which words, it would appear, that he thought the Elder Presbyter, without any Election or Ordination, succeeded unto the Chair of the deceased Bishop. But this is directly contrary even to what Ierome himself saith: neither do we find any such constitution as that he mentions, either in the Acts of the Council of Nice, or of any other.

It is true, Clemens Romanus saith, That the Apostles ordained their first fruits, [...], to be the Bishops and Deacons of them who should afterward believe: but he adds, [...] [Page] [...], trying them by the Spirit (that of discerning spirits being among their extraordinary gifts) and though they ordained no Neophyte, yet there is no reason to believe, that either they made the eldest Christians, Presbyters, or the eldest Presbyters, Bishops. The choice of Matthias, and of the seven Deacons, shews that it went not simply by age. St. Iames the younger was Bishop of Ierusalem, and Timothy was but young, when ordained. Yet the difference of Bishop and Presbyter seems not to have been unknown to Clemens, as appears from these savings of his, [...] praepositis vestris subditi & seniores inter vos debito honore prosequentes.— [...]. Qui nobis praesunt revereamur, seniores inter nos honoremus, [...]. Which by the words that follow, must certainly relate to some Ecclesiastical constitution among themselves, to which he accommodates the terms of the Temple Hierarchy. All which I propose without any peremptory decision in this matter, submitting it to the judgment of the impartial Reader; For I know there are [Page] exceptions against these words, yet they do clearly imply a difference and subordination betwixt the Presbyters, and their Presidents: and what he saith of the ranks of the High Priest, the Priests, the Levites, and the Laicks, hath certainly a relation to the Orders of the Church.

The next opinion about the Origine of Episcopacy, is that of Ierome, and he hath given it very fully, both in his Epistle to Evagrius, and on the Epist. to Titus, cap. 1. He holds, that all things at first were governed in the Church, communi Presbyterorum consilio, and that the Bishops were above the Presbyters, non ex dispositione dominicâ, sed ex Ecclesiae consuetudine; And by divers arguments from Scripture, he proves, that Bishop and Presbyter are one and the same, Acts 20. they who v. 17. are called Presbyters, are v. 28. called Bishops. Titus 1.5. he left him to ordain Elders, and v. 7. it is added, For a Bishop, &c. Whence he infers, that Bishop and Presbyter are one and the same. As also Phil. 1. the Apostle writes only to Bishops and Deacons. And 1 Tim. 3. he gives the Rules only to Bishops and Deacons. S. Peter also called himself [...] And S. Iohn designs himself the Elder.

But he adds, after there arose Schisms, and one said, I am of Paul, &c. Toto orbe decretum [Page]est, ut unus caeteris super imponeretur ad quem omnis Ecclesiae cura pertineret, & Schismatum semina tollerentur — ut Schismatum plantaria evellerentur ad unum, omnis sollicitudo est delata. And ad Evagrium, he tells how Alexandriae à Marco Evangelist â usque ad Heraclam & Dionysium, Presbyteri semper unum ex se electum, in excelsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant. — Quid enim excepta ordinatione facit Episcopus, quod Presbyter non facit. — Et, ut sciamus traditiones Apostolicas sumptas de Veteri Testamento; quod Aaron, & filii ejus, atque Levitae, fuerunt in Templo, hoc sibi & Episcopi, & Presbyteri, & Diaconi vendicent in Ecclesia. And from these words we may observe, that he accounted the difference of Bishop and Presbyter, an Apostolical tradition, which came in place of the difference that was betwixt Aaron and his Sons: as also, that this began from the time of the Apostles, and of Mark the Evangelist: That it was done to evite Schism, and that it was appointed through the whole World: as also, that the whole care and chief Power was in the hands of the Bishop, of which he saith further, Dial adv. Luciferianos. Ecclesiae salus in summi Sacerdotis dignitate pendet, cui si non exors quaedam, & ab omnibus eminens detur potestas, tot in Ecclesiâ efficientur Schismata, quot Sacerdotes. It may seem likewise probable, from him, that Presbyters choosed their Bishop out of their [Page] own number, and that in Alexandria they made him Bishop without any new Ordination. And of this Eutychius Patriarcha Alex. who was not very long after Ierome, speaks more plainly, for he in his Origines Ecclesiae Alexandrinae, published by Selden, pag. 29.30. tells, that there were twelve Presbyters constitute by S. Mark, and when the See was vacant, they did chuse one of their number to succeed, and to be their Head, and the rest laid their hands upon him, and bless'd him: yet this cannot hold true, as shall afterwards appear.

But all Ignatius his Epistles, are full of the subordination of Presbyters to Bishops, not without very hyperbolical magnifications of the Bishops Office. It is true, in the vulgar Editions these expressions are much more frequent; but in the Medicean Codex (published by Vossius, which agrees not only with the old Latin one published by Usher, but also with the citations of Theodoret, and Athanasius, and other ancient Writers which they have taken out of them) there is a great deal of the subordination of Presbyters to Bishops. Ep. ad Tral. he saith, Necessarium est, quemadmodum facitis sine Episcopo nibil operari. — Omnes revereantur Episcopum ut Iesum Christum existentem filium Patris, Presbyteros autem, ut concilium Dei, & conjunctionem Apostolorum. To the Ephes. he bids them be subject [...], [Page] [...], and concludes that they should obey these [...]. In his Epist. to the Magnesians, he saith, Quantum Episcopum quidem vocant, sine ipso autem omnia operantur: wherefore he adviseth them, ut omnia operentur praesidente Episcopo in loco Dei, & Presbyteris in loco confessionis Apostolorum. And there he speaks of the age of Damas their Bishop, who was but a young man, which he calls according to the vulgar Edition, [...], but in the Medicean Codex, [...], from which some will infer, that Episcopacy was then newly invented, but suppose that were the true reading, which some question, who in this prefer the vulgar reading, it is clear from the whole Epistle that he is speaking of the Bishops age, and not of Episcopacy. And from 2 Tim. 2.22. we see [...] is properly youthful, and [...] is that which is new. And what tho Ignatius, who lived so near the Apostles time, did call Episcopacy a new Order? Many other places to the same purpose of the difference among these Offices occur through all his Epistles, neither is there any room for debate: but if these Epistles be his, the difference of Bishop and Presbyter hath begun in the Apostolical times. But that debate would prove too long a digression here; therefore I refer the Reader, if he desire a full discussion of that question to the [Page] incomparably learned and exact defence of them, lately published by Doctor Pearson, whose harvest is so full, that he hath not so much as left work for a gleaner.

That of the Angel in the Revelation, is brought by many, and that not without ground, to prove that there was some singular person in these Churches to whom each Epistle was directed, and we have a great deal of reason to believe that Polycarp was then Bishop of the Church of Smyrna. Iren. lib. 3. cap. 3. and apud Euseb. lib. 4. cap. 13. tells that Polycarp was [...]. Now Irenaeus tells how he was Polycarp his hearer and disciple, and had conversed with him in his youth, and had often heard him teach. And as it were great uncharitableness to suspect the truth of his narration in a matter of fact, so we cannot think he could have been mistaken in a matter of that importance. But whatever jealousie may fix upon Irenaeus, there is no shadow of ground, for suspecting either the veracity, or good information of the Church of Smyrna, who (giving an account of his Martyrdom in an Epistle inserted by Euseb. in his History, lib. 4. cap. 14.) call him Bishop of the Catholick Church of Smyrna.

All that can be alledged against this, is, that in their stile Bishop and Presbyter were one and [Page] the same thing. But the contrary of this is clear from Iranaeus, who speaks always of Bishops as distinct from Presbyters: and tho he sometimes call Bishops Presbyters, yet he never calls Presbyters, Bishops; which is also the stile of these few Writers of that age, who sometimes call Bishops, Presbyters. Eusebius tells from the testimony of the Church of Lions, how he was first a Presbyter in Lions under Pothinus: after whose Martyrdom he succeeded him in the Chair, and died Bishop there. And if we will hear himself, lib. 3. cap. 3. when he is reckoning up the tradition of the Faith from the Apostles, he deduceth it by all the Bishops who did sit in Rome from the Apostolick times: whence two things will follow; one, that he judged there had been still Bishops in that Church. The other, that he looked on the Bishop, as the chief depositary of the faith.

Further, Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 24. sets down his Epistle to Victor Bishop of Rome, wherein he chides him for excommunicating the Eastern Bishops; and there he lays the whole blame upon Victor, without sharing it among the Presbyters, and also commends the former Bishops of Rome for their greater gentleness; whereby it plainly appears, that he judged that the power of discipline lay chiefly in the Bishops hands. Polycrates also (apud Euseb. lib. 5. hist. cap. 23.) [Page] vindicates the practice of their Church about the day of Easter, not only from the example of the Apostles among them, but of the seven Bishops who preceded him in his See. From which we may not only infer, that there was but one Bishop in a City, from the days of the Apostles; but that his authority was great, since what they did, passed for a precedent to their Successors. And indeed the difference of Bishop and Presbyter, is so evpress in Irenaeus, that the most learned assertors of parity, confess the change was begun before his time, which was in the end of the second Century. Now how this change could have been introduced, when there was neither Council, nor secular Prince to establish it, when Churchmen were so pure (Polycarp an Apostolical Man, having died but about thirty years before; besides many other Apostolical men who had long survived) when the Church was in the fire of persecution, and so less dross could be among them; when there was no secular interest to bait them to it: for on the contrary this subjected them to the first fury of the persecution, seems strange. And it is not easie to be imagined, or believed, how this could have been so suddenly received through all the Churches, both Eastern and Western, and that there was none to witness against it; and that neither the sincerity of some Presbyters, nor the pride [Page] of others, should have moved them to appear for their priviledges against this Usurpation: And how neither Heretick, nor Schismatick, save one, and that about two hundred years after, should have charged the Church with this: on the contrary, all of them having their own Bishops; and how this Government continued in so peaceable possession through the succession of so many ages, till of late, that even fundamentals are brought under debate; if this Superiority were either so criminal, as some hold it to be, or had not been introduced at least by some Apostolical men, if not by the Apostles themselves, will not be easily cleared.

In the next Century we have Tertullian speaking clearly of the difference of Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons, lib. de bapt. Dandi quidem jus habet summus Sacerdos, qui & Episcopus, dehinc Presbyteri & Diaconi, non tamen sine Episcopi authoritate, propter Ecclesiae bonum. Idem de praescript. advers. haer. cap. 32. Caeterum si quae (praescriptiones) se audent inserere aetati Apostolicae, ut ita videantur ab Apostolis traditae. — Edant ergo origines Ecclesiarum suarum, evolvant ordinem Episcoporum suorum, ita per successiones ab initio decurrentem, ut primus ille Episcopus, aliquem ex Apostolis, vel Apostolicis viris, qui tamen cum Apostolis perseverarent, habuerit authorem & antecessorem; hoc enim modo Ecclesiae Apostolicae census suos deferunt,[Page]sicut Smyrneorum Ecclesia habens Polycarpum, à Ioanne collocatum refert: sicut Romanorum à Petro Clementem ordinatum edit. Proinde utique & caeterae exhibent, quos ab Apostolis in Episcopatu constitutos Apostolici seminis traduces habeant; confingant tale aliquid baeretici. He also lib. 4. cont. Marcionem, cap. 5. saith, Ordo tamen Episcoporum ad originem recensus, in Joannem stabit authorem. By which we see that he both judged Bishops to be of an Apostolical origene, and that he counted them different from Presbyters. A little after him was Clemens Alex. who 6. Strom. p. 667. speaking of the Constitution of the Christian Churches, saith, there were among them [...], which he thinks was taken from the Angelick glory, and from their Oeconomy and administration.

We shall also find through all Cyprian his Epistles this disparity so clear, that it cannot be denied, that yet we find him as condescending as any. Epist. 6. writing to his Clergy: he saith, Solus rescribere nihil potui, quando à primordio Episcopatus mei statuerim nihil sine consilio vestro, & sine consensu plebis meae, pivata gerere sententia. But even this looks like a yielding to a diminution of that plenitude of power to which he might have pretended, Epist. 65. writing to, Rogatian, who had advised with him concerning a Deacon [Page] that had carried insolently toward him, he writes: Pro Episcopatûs vigore, & Cathedrae authoritate, haberes potestatem, qua posses de illo statim vindicari. (and about the end) Haec sunt enim initia baereticorum, & ortus atque conatus Schismaticorum male cogitantium, ut sibi placeant, ut praepositum superbo tumore contemnant, sic de Ecclesiâ receditur, sic altare profanum foris collocatur, sic contra pacem CHRISTI, & ordinationem, atque unitatem DEI rebellatur. Likewise we find Epist. 31. written to Cyprian, by the Clerus Romanus, the Seat being then vacant, what sense they had of the Bishop's power, when they say: Post excessum nobilissimae memoriae Fabiani, nondum est Episcopus propter rerum & temporum difficultates constitutus, qui omnia ist a moderatur, & eorum qui lapsi sunt possit cum authoritate & consilio habere rationem. And if in any case we receive a testimony, it should be from the mouth of those who can only pretend to be injured. My next witness shall be Dionysius of Alexandria, whose same and authority was inferiour to none of the age he lived in. I do not bring his words to prove there were Bishops in the Church in his time, since that is denied by none: But to prove how full and absolute the authority of the Bishops was then, and that the Presbyters were simply determined by their commands. Great care was used to keep the Christian Assemblies pure; and [Page] therefore such as fell in scandalous sins, chiefly these who apostatised in the persecution, were not admitted to the Communion of the faithful, but after a long and heavy penitence: And a question rising, What should be done with those who died before they finished their penitence: he in his Letter to Fabius Bishop of Rome, telling that signal story of Serapion, shews that in his Diocese the Presbyters sent the Eucharist to the sick who desired it, though they died before they had compleated their penitence: and he adds how this was by his authority, [...]. Where from the stile of [...] Command given by him, which was the rule of his Presbyters, and the rest of that Epistle, it is as clear as any matter of fact can be, that the authority of Bishops over their Presbyters was then full, absolute, and undisputed.

If we will believe Eusebius, who certainly hath been a diligent and great Collector, as any of all the Ancients, the whole Tract, both of his History and Chronology, runs fully in this strain; and he gives us the Catalogues of the Bishops of the Patriarchal Sees, from the days of the Apostles to his own time. And tho it is not to be denied that he hath been too credulous in some instances; yet it is hard to think he [Page] could have been mistaken in such a Tract of so many particulars. And we see from the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice, [...]. That the power of Metropolitans over Bishops, was then accounted by that Council an ancient Custom; neither was there ever any opposition made to this before Aërius, who upon that account is reckoned an Heretick by Epiph. lib. 3. haer. 75. and also by Augustin ad Quod vult Deum, haer. 53. Epiphanius adds, that he was an Arrian, and gives the account of his Opinion in this matter, thus: Aërius being a Presbyter in Sebastia, was offended when Eustathius was preferred before him to that Bishoprick: and tho Eustathius took all ways to gain him, and committed the Xenodochium that was there to his inspection, yet AErius too deeply irritated at the preference, said: Quid est Episcopus ad Presbyterum; nihil differt hic ab illo, unus enim est honor, unus ordo, & una dignitas. Imponit munus Episcopus, ita etiam Presbyter; lavacrum dat Episcopus, similiter & Presbyter. Dispensationem cultûs divini facit Episcopus, facit & Presbyter similiter; sedet Episcopus in throno, sedet etiam Presbyter. By which he deceived many, and had divers followers: but it seems they have died with their Author, for we hear no more of them.

Medina in the Council of Trent, numbred with AErius, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, [Page]Chrysostom, Theodoret, Primasius, and Sedulius, as if they had been of the same mind, wherein he certainly spoke rashly, and was either ignorant or indeliberate. We have already considered both Jerome and Ambrose, or rather Hilary the Deacon, their opinions in this matter.

All that is gathered from Augustine, is, Ep. ad Hieronymum, where he saith: Quanquam secundum honorem vocabulorum, quae jam usus obtinuit, Episcopatus Presbyterio major fit, multis tamen in rebus Augustino Hieronymus major est. Whence some would infer that the difference of these was only in words, and brought in but by custom: But how thin and weak this is, it being but a smooth Complement, will appear to all, especially if they set it in the balance with the great evidence that stands upon the other side.

Chrysostom. hom. II. on I Tim. when he is giving the reason, why the Apostle passeth from Bishops to Deacons, without giving rules to Presbyters, saith, the reason was, [...]. And a little after, he taxeth what that little betwixt them was, [...]. But this is far from saying that they were all one; and that there ought to be no difference betwixt [Page] them. Chrysost. also in his first Homily on the Phil. I. cap. on the word [...], saith, Quid hoc rei est? An unius Civitatis plures erunt Episcopi? nullo modo. Verum sic Presbyteros vocavit, tunc enim nomina invicem communicabant, & Diaconus dicebatur Episcopus. And there he shews that Bishop and Presbyter were taken promiscuously; for which he cites that of Timothy's being ordained by the Imposition of the hands of the Presbytery, which he saith is to be understood of Bishops. Quia Presbyteri Episcopum non ordinassent. (And a little after) Etiam Presbyteri olim appellabantur Episcopi, & Diaconi Christi, & Episcopi Christi, unde nunc etiam multi Presbyteri & Diaconi scribuntur Episcopi. But he adds, that in process of time, each had their proper names appropriated to them.

OEcumeneus and Theophylact, in this, and all other things, follow Chrysostom [...]. As also Primasius, who on I Tim. 3. gives the reason, why the Presbyters are not named. Eos in Episcoporum ordine comprehendit, quia secundus, imo pene unus est gradus. Sedulius Scotus on the I. of Titus, saith verbatim, that which Jerome hath on the same place, and so it is to be considered as all one with him on the matter.

But Theodoret's opinion is a little more perplext, who on I Tim. tells, that the same persons were called sometimes Presbyters, sometimes[Page]Bishops: but these who are now called Bishops, were then called Apostles, and that in the progress of time they left the name of Apostles, and the name of Bishops was appropriated to them who were first called Apostles. Thus he. These words it seems dropped from him without consideration, for there is no shadow of ground to believe it was so; otherwise how came it, that the Apostle gave no rules for them, under that name. But these words are sufficiently tossed by Petavius and Wallo Messalinus. And thus far we have an ingenuous account of the various Sentiments of the Fathers, about the disparity of Bishops and Presbyters.

The next thing in this Canon to be consider'd is, what is meant by [...]. It is unquestionable, that by this is understood Ordination by Imposition of hands, for all the Ancients use [...], & [...] promiscuously: But Criticks judge that by the former we are to understand all that pertained to the Ordination, and the whole Office of it, and that the latter is to be restrained to that particular rite of Imposition of hands given in the Ordination. Nor do I remember of any place, where [...] stands for the Election of Churchmen, except in the fifth Canon of Laodicea, which discharges it to be in the presence of the hearers: and if we compare that with the 13th Canon of the same [Page] Council, which discharges the popular elections, we shall see the reason why they likewise forbid the elections to be in the peoples hearing, which was for avoiding tumults. Balsamon on this Canon refutes their mistake, who understood it [...], which was [...], who founded their gloss on that Canon of Laodicea, (which Zonaras and Aristenus doth) Quae enim fit in Ecclesia ordinatio per preces mysticas peragitur, etiamsi fiat coram multis. And he proves his gloss from the 4. Canon of Nice, which appoints the elections of the Bishops to be by the whole Bishops of the Province, or by three at least. Therefore this Canon cannot be meant of the elections of Bishops, since two suffice by this rule for a [...]; and by the recurring of this same word in the next Canon, he confirms his assertion, since Presbyters and Deacons were not (according to him) elected by Suffrages. Whence we see, how groundless a nicety theirs is, who would distinguish them, as if the former had been the election, the latter the ordination. It is true [...] is in the Greek Authors almost constantly taken for the election of Magistrates, which was ordinarily done in Greece by the extention or elevation of the hand; so Budaeus upon the word, and Cicero pro Flacco speaks of their psephismata porrigenda manu, profundendo (que) clamore concitata. But that distinction [Page] is not observed in sacred Writings, in which these minute critical Modes of speaking are not attended to, and since, before they were to lay on hands, they were to stretch forth their hands on the head of the person, this word is not improperly used for that action: and therefore, Acts 14. 23. [...] is used of Paul and Barnabas their ordaining of Elders, where it is clear, it cannot be meant of the election by the people, but of their Ordination of Pastors.

This word in Scripture is also used for an appointment, or election, Acts 10. 41. [...] is taken for GOD's election; and 2 Cor. 8.19. it is applied to these who were chosen to carry a Message. As for the Ordination of Churchmen, it is nothing else but a solemn Ceremony of blessing them, by laying on of hands. We find of old, that all who were called out for any Divine Service, were solemnly separated for it, so were both Kings, Priests, and Prophets. And the Law of Nature saith, that to all Functions for which a great veneration is due, there should be a solemn Inauguration. The laying of the hand upon the head, was the rite of Benediction, Gen. 48. 14. Jacob blessing Joseph's Children doth it with that Ceremony: In like manner, Deut. 34. 19. did Moses bless Joshuah. We see also by the sinners laying on their hands on the head of the Sacrifice, that is was a Ceremony [Page] used in the devoting of things to GOD, whence might rise that phrase among the Latins caput devovere. And upon these accounts, this was appropriated to the Ordination of Churchmen, who are to be both blessed, and devoted to GOD.

We find this ceremony also used in the New Testament on many and different occasions; sometimes when they healed diseases, Mark 16. 8. They shall lay their hand on the sick, and they shall recover. And our LORD usually touched the sick with his hand. Acts 28. 8. S. Paul lays his hands on Publius. Likewise, when they conferred the holy Ghost on any who were baptized, they used this ceremony, so Acts 8.17. and 19. 6. And farther, when they appointed any for the Ministery of the Gospel, they separated and blessed them, by the laying on of hands; so 1 Tim. 4.15. and 5.22. and 2 Tim. 1.6. Deacons were also ordained by this ceremony, Acts 6. 6. As also when they sent any on a particular mission, though already sanctified for the work of the Gospel, they laid hands on them: so Acts 13. 3. Paul and Barnabas were ordained for the Ministery of the Gentiles. From all which it is clear that they used imposition of hands, as the constant ceremony of Benediction, and as a concomitant of it, and not as a ceremony of it self significant and sacramental.

[Page]Among the Ancients, Imposition of hands was used not only in Confirmation, which is undoubted, and is by many founded on that of Hebrews 6.2. where laying on of hands being joined with Baptism, and reckoned among foundations, seems to be common to all Christians. But they also used it in the receiving of penitents: so 19th Canon of Laodicea.

As for the form of ordaining Bishops, we see here it was to be done by Bishops, which is agreed to by all, only Eutychius seems to say, that in Alexandria Presbyters ordained the Bishop. But as for the number of the Bishops who were to ordain, this seems to be later, and more sutable to the state of the Churches after they were constituted, than while they were under persecution. The number of three was appointed, Conc. Arel. 1. Can. 21. Nic. Can. 4. Arel. 2. Can. 5. Carth. 2. Can. 12. And see more of this Gratian dist. 64. This seems to have been founded on Timothy's Ordination, which is said to have been done by the Presbytery, which Chrysostom understands of a Company of Bishops. But it is not probable, that in the time of persecution, when Bishops neither durst leave their own flocks, nor meet in any number, this was then observed; and divers accounts are given of Ordinations, where we hear only of one Bishop ordaining. Gregory Thaumaturg was [Page] ordained by Fidimus Bishop of Amasia, who went to the Wilderness to seek him. And there are many instances among the Lives of the Solitaries, of such as were brought to a Bishop, and ordained by him, without any other assisting him. So Synesius Epist. 67. tells how Siderius was ordained a Bishop, only by Philo Bishop of Cyrene; and tho he call that a Transgression of the [...], and confesseth it was not [...], but [...], since he was neither ordained in Alexandria, nor by three Bishops; yet he justifies it from the necessity of the times wherein such freedom of Assemblies was not safe. And Gregory the Great allowed Augustine to ordain alone in England; who upon that did ordain some Bishops alone, as Beda relates. Dionysius the Areopagite cap. 5. de Eccles. hierar. giving the account of the Ordination of Bishops, represents it as done by one person. Anno 555 after Vigilius Bishop of Rome his death, Pelagius who got himself made his Successor, being suspected of accession to his death, could only get two Bishops, to wit, Joannes Perusinus, and Bonus Ferentinus, who with Andreas Presbyter of Ostia, laid hands on him. And here is a Presbyter laying hands on a Bishop. The Church of Rome, at this day, ordinarily dispenseth with this, so that one Bishop and two Abbots do often ordain Bishops.

[Page]The Areopagite loc. cit. gives the account of the Bishops Ordination, whom he always calls [...], thus: He who was to be ordained, was brought to another Bishop, and kneeling before the Altar, the Gospels were laid on his head, and the Bishops hand, and so he was consecrated with a holy Prayer, and then marked with the sign of the cross; and last of all, saluted by the Bishop, and whole holy Order. His Theory on this is: Their coming to the Altar, shews the subjecting of their whole life to GOD. Laying on of hands, is as a Father's blessing of his Child. The sign of the cross signifies, that they are to follow CHRIST, even to the cross. Their salutation signifies their union one with another: and the Gospel is laid on the Bishops head, because he being the head of the Hierarchy, is to illuminate the rest.

With this agrees the fourth Council of Carthage, where the rules are at length set down for the tryals and qualifications of Bishops: and Canon first, at the end, we have, Cum in bis omnibus, examinatus, fuerit inventus plene instructus, tunc cum consensu Clericorum & laicorum, & conventu totius provinciae Episcoporum, maxime (que) Metropolitani vel authoritate vel praesentiâ, ordinetur Episcopus. And Canon second: Episcopus quum ordinatur, duo Episcopiponant & teneant Evangeliorum codicem super caput & cervicem (aliter verticem) ejus, & uno super eum fundente benedictionem, [Page]reliqui omnes Episcopi, qui adsunt, manibus suis caput ejus tangant. And of this see Gratian dist. 23. & 77. where we find a Bishop was to be five years a Lector or Exorcist, fourteen years an Acoluth or Subdeacon, and five years a Deacon, ere he be a Presbyter, and then he may hope for the highest degree. But in another Chapter it is said, he must be ten years a Presbyter, ere he can be a Bishop. And in another Chapter, none could be a Deacon under twenty five years of age. But by the Civil Law, the age both of Bishop and Presbyter is the same; to wit, thirty five. These previous degrees were introduced, and the years of tryal in them were appointed, that all might be prepared and rightly formed before they were admitted to the government of the Church. Among other ceremonies in the ordination of Bishops, in some places they were anointed with the Chrisma. Nazianz. Orat. 20. tells, that his father had so anointed Basile: and Orat. 5. tells, that himself was so ordained: but it seems that that was a custom peculiar to that Country, since we meet not with it so early elsewhere.

As for the elections of Bishops, we have seen from Ierome and Eutychius, how the Presbyters did choose the Bishop. But in Africk, the Synod with the Clergy, and the people did it; of which we have a full account from Cyprian, epist. [Page] 68. De traditione divinâ & Apostolicâ observatione tenendum est, & observandum quod apud nos quoque, & fere per Provincias universas tenetur, ut ad ordinationes rite celebrandas, ad cam plebem cui praepositus ordinatur, Episcopi ejusdem Provinciae proximi quique conveniant, & Episcopus delegatur plebe praesente, quae singulorum vitam plenissime novit, & uniuscujus (que) actum de ejus conversatione perspexerit. And a little before, he saith, Plebs ipsa maxime habet potestatem vel elegendi dignos Sacerdotes, vel indignos recusandi. And from that of Numb. 10. where Moses stript Aaron, and clothed Eleazer before all the Congregation, he proves that it was of divine Authority, that the sacerdotal ordinations should not be, nisi sub populi assistentis conscientiâ, ut plebe praesente, vel detegantur malorum crimina, vel bonorum merita praedicentur, & sit ordinatio justa & legitima, quae omnium judicio & suffragio erit examinata. And this course, he saith, held in the ordination both of Bishops, Priests and Deacons. And Epist. 33. he excuseth himself, that he had ordained one a Lector without the consent of his people, though he had been a Confessor in the persecution. the Epistle is directed to the Presbyters, Deacons, and the whole people, and begins: In ordinationibus Clericis solemus vos ante consulere, & mores ac merita singulorum communi consilio ponderare.

[Page]All that we meet with concerning this in Scripture, is the chusing of the Deacons by the people, Acts 6. for that of Acts 14.23. is clearly misapplied. 1 Tim. 3. a Deacon should be first approved, and Titus 1.6. a Bishop must be [...]; and thereby it appears, that certainly some enquiry was to be made into his Conversation, which at least must have been a Promulgation beforehand. So we find Conc. Chalc. can. 6. [...]. And Lampridius in the life of Alexander Severus tells, that he used such a course before he made any Governor of a Province. Dicebatque grave esse non fieri in Provinciarum rectoribus, cum id Christiani & fudaei facerent in praedicandis Sacerdotibus, qui ordinandi sunt.

But there were frequent disorders in these elections, which occasioned the 13. Canon of the Council of Laodicea, [...]: and by the Canon goeth before that, the election of Bishops is committed to the Bishops of the Province, which was also established by the Council of Nice, fourth and sixth Canon. Likewise Justinian, Nov. 123. cap. 1. excludes the people from the election of the Bishop, but leaves it to the Clergy, and the primores Civitatis, to name a list of three, out of which the Metropolitan was to choose one. The Bishops were to be ordained in the presence of [Page] the People, where every one might propose his exceptions, why he might not be ordained, which were to be examined before they proceeded to the Ordination. So Conc. Antioch. Canon 19. and Carthag. Canon 49. and Iustinian tit. 1. Nov. Const. 1, 2.17. according to Photius in Nomocan, tit. 1. cap. 8. Yet these popular elections were not wholly taken away, and at least the peoples consent was asked: but there were great disorders in these elections. Nazianz. Orat. 14. at his Father's Funeral instanceth them in two cases at Cesarea, where his Father was present; in which there were factions at the election of the Bishop: In one of them it was that Basil was chosen.

Ammian Mercellin tells what tumults were at Rome in the elections of their Bishops, of whom he saith, Supra modum humanum ad rapiendam sedem Episcopalem ardebant: So that at the election of Damasus the faction betwixt his electors, and those that were for Urcisinus, brake out into such a tumult, that there were in Basilicâ Sicinini, ubi ritus Christiani est Conventiculum, centum triginta septem peremptorum cadavera reperta, lib. 27. And he adds, It was no wonder they struggled so about it, because id adepti futuri sunt ita securi, ut ditentur oblationibus matronarum, procedantque vehiculis insidentes, circumspecte vestiti, epulas curantes profusas, adeo ut eorum convivia[Page]Regales superent mensas, qui esse poterant beati revera, si urbis magnitudine despecta quam vitiis opponunt, ad imitationem quorandam provincialium Antistitum viverent, quos tenuitas edendi potandique parcissimè, vilit as etiam indumentorum & supercilia humum spectantia perpetuo Numini, verisque ejus cultoribus, ut puros commendant & verecundos.

Because of those disorders in elections, it was that Nazianz. Orat. 19. wished, that the elections were only or chiefly in their hands who served at their Altar. Sic enim nunquam Ecclesiis male esset. Therefore he desires they should no more be committed iis qui opibus ac potentiâ pollent aut plebis impetui ac temeritati, atque etiam plebeiorum vilissimo aut contemptissimo cuique, as had been before. Adding, that the disorders which were in such elections, made him loath his life, and long to be in a Wilderness.

One effect of these confused elections was, that some who were not Presbyters, nay not so much as Christians, were chosen Bishops: for Orat. 20. on Basil, when he tells how Basil was first ordained a Presbyter, he regrates that many Bishops oft-times leaped into the Chair without any preceding degree, which was contrary to Nature and Reason, since among Saylors none is made at first a Pilot: nor is there any at first made a General among Soldiers. Nunc autem periculum est, ne ordo omnium sanctissimus, [Page]omnium maximè sit ridiculus: non enim virtute magis, quam maleficio, & scelere Sacerdotium paratur, nec digniorum, sed potentiorum throni sunt. Adding, that none is called a Physician, before he understand diseases, nor a Painter before he can mix colors. Antistes contra facile invenitur, non elaboratus, sed recens.—Uno die sancto fingimus, eosque sapientes & eruditos esse jubemus, qui nihil didicerunt: nec ad Sacerdotium quicquam prius contulerunt quam velle. And Orat. 19. he tells how in Cesarea at an election of a Bishop, his Father and other Bishops being present, there arose a great sedition about it, which could not be easily composed, partly thorow the peoples fervor about the Faith, partly thorow the eminence of the Chair, which made the contentions greater. But at length the whole people with one consent made choice of a person of great quality, but not yet baptized, to be their Bishop: from which he was very averse, but they took him by force, and by the assistance of some Soldiers then in the City, haled him to the Church, and desired the Bishops, not without threats, to ordain him: whereupon they overawed by fear and force, first purified him, and then set him upon the Throne; but more with their hands than with their heart. Chrysost. also lib. 3. de Sacerdotio, cap, 15. shews the evil of these popular elections, and that in [Page] them they looked more to riches and honor, than to true worth.

But where the Synodical elections were set up, the People were not wholly excluded from their interest in the choice, as we see particularly in the Churches of Milan and Hippo. Neither were these Synodical elections so regular as Nazianzen hoped, which appears from two famous Instances of Nectarius and Ambrosius.

Nectarius came to the Council of Constantinople in the company of Diodorus Bishop of Tarsus: and then it was, that upon some differences (as you shall see afterwards) Nazianzen retired from Constantinople. And Nectarius thinking to go home to his Country, came to his Bishop Diodorus to ask his blessing, and receive his commands. But at that time all Diodorus thoughts were, how a fit Person might be found for Constantinople, and looking on Nectarius, considering his Gravity, his gray Hairs, and sweet Temper, he thought (it seems by a Divine Inspiration) what if he were made Bishop. And thereupon pretending another errand, he took him to the Bishop of Antioch, and whispering him in the Ear, bid him consider how fit a Person Nectarius might prove for the Bishoprick of Constantinople. Meletius laughed in his heart at Diodorus his simplicity, who should [Page] think of Nectarius, when so many famous Men had been named for that See by their Bishops. After that, Theodosius the Emperor commanded the Synod to give him in writing a list of such persons as were judged fit for that Chair, which being laid upon Miletus to draw, he to gratifie Diodorus, puts Nectarius among them. The Emperor at first reading began to think of Nectarius: but at second reading, positively concluded that he must be the Bishop. The Synod was amazed, and began to enquire about him, and found that he was but a Catechumen, whereupon they desired the Emperour to change his mind; but he continuing resolute, the Synod yielded: and after they had baptized him, they ordained him Bishop. And by this we see that the Synod made the list, but the Emperour named the person.

Near of kin to this is the story of Ambrose. After Auxentius the Bishop of Milan his death, Valentinian the Emperor called a Council of Bishops, and appointed them to chuse some holy and fit person to be Bishop there, Cujus authoritati & nos subjiciamur, cujus (que) reprehensiones ferre non dubitemus. Etenim ut Imperatores nos simus, & rerum potiamur, homines tamen esse nos, & humanis lapsibus obnoxios fatendum nobis est. But the Synod referred the Election back to him, that he might name the person, yet he refused it, [Page] and told them, it was their business, adding, Ego vero, id & viribus meis majus & ab officio meo alienum judico. But as they went to consult about this, the people of Milan did all run together to the Church to chuse their Bishops, some of them were Arrians, and others Orthodox, and each party was contending to have the Bishop chosen of their own side. At that time Ambrose a Noble Roman of the Consular Order, was Prefect there, to whom Valentinian, when he sent him to that charge; said, Vade, age non ut Iudex, sed ut Episcopus. He fearing that the concourse of the people might end in a Tumult, came among them to prevent that, and with great sweetness exhorted them to calmness and unity; whereupon they much taken with his Speech, cryed out with one accord; Let Ambrose be Bishop. But he resisted this as much as he could, and did chide them for their indeliberate choice of a secular person, who was a stranger to Ecclesiastical affairs, and not so much as initiated into the faith, for he was not then baptized. Yet the Synod approving of their Election, he was first baptized, and then ordained Bishop. But Paulinus adds, that after his Baptism, he past in order through all the Ecclesiastical degrees, and on the eighth day was ordained Bishop there. Thus went the Synodical Elections: but it was a great while before that, even in the Elections of [Page] the Bishops of Rome, the people were wholly barred from their priviledges. And of all this see at large Antonius de Dominis, lib. 3. de Repub. Eccles. cap. 3.

Metropolitans were chosen by the Patriarchs, and the Patriarchs by the Emperours: but in some cases, the Emperours took the Elections simply to themselves; at other times, they reserved only the ratification of them to themselves: and so for a great while, the Elections of the Bishops of Rome were to be ratified, either by the Emperors of the East, or by their Exarchs at Ravenna. And after that Charles the Great assumed the Empire of the West, it was decreed in a Synod at Rome, that the Election of the Roman Bishop belonged to him: and accordingly he was in possession of it, though his Successors did simply slip from it. Now the Elections are in the hands of the Canons and Prebends, which is an art to make the Election go what way the Superior will. But the Chapters chusing the Bishop, was not known to the Ancients, it belonging to the whole College of the Presbyters without distinction. And all who desire the restitution of Church discipline, think, that the erecting of Provincial Synods, and giving the power of electing Bishops to them, is both the best method, and most agreeable to all Antiquity.

[Page]A See was not to lie vacant over three months, nor the ordination of a Bishop delayed, except upon an inexcusable necessity, otherwise the Metropolitan was liable to Censure, Conc. Chalc. Can. 25. and in the Council of Sardice, Can. 10. Osius proposed, that none should be Bishop till he had passed through all the inferior degrees, and had finished the Ministery of a Lector, Deacon, and Presbyter; and to this all the Bishops there present gave their consent: but by the instances already marked, we see that this order was not universally observed. Nov. 123. it is decreed, that a Bishop be at least three months among the Clergy, before he be ordained, that he may be instructed in the Ecclesiastical Ministery and service.

Another Custom there had been of Bishops ordaining Successors for themselves: so Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 26. or according to the Greek division, [...]. tells how Theotecnus Bishop of Cesarea, ordained Anatolius to be his Successor, and that for some time they were both Bishops together. In other places they did not ordain, but only design their Successors. Yet Augustin was ordained Bishop of Hippo by his Predecessor Valerius; but he apologizes for this, Epist. 110. and saith, that he did not know that it was contrary to the Council of Nice, which decreed that there should be but one Bishop at once in a [Page] City. And from that Epistle we see it was ordinary for Bishops to design their Successors, which was done to prevent the tumults were usually in Elections. And Augustin tells us of a disorder which had been in a neighbor Town, because the Bishop, though he had designed his Successor, yet had not published it. Therefore he to evite that hazard, designed Eradius to be his Successor, to which all the people assented. Yet lest this might have opened a door for Bishops to have transmitted their Sees to their kindred or Friends, it was decreed in the Council of Antioch, Can. 23. that any such designation of Successors made by Bishops, should be declared null, and that the Election of the Bishop should be in the hands of the Bishops of that Synod where the See lay.

There might be but one Bishop in a City for Unities sake, yet sometimes there were Coadjutors: so Nazianzen was Coadjutor to his Father. And Augustin in his second Conference with the Donatists, offered that if the Donatists overcame, then they should yield their Bishopricks to them; but if the Donatists were overcome by them, and so should return to the community of the Church, they should admit them to be conjunct Bishops with them. So was the Schism in Antioch betwixt the Meletianists and the Paulianists setled, that both should be Bishops together, [Page] and all should obey him that survived; to this they all agreed, confirming it by Oath. Yet Flavianus, one of Miletus his disciples, after his death, got himself chosen Bishop, but was in that condemned by all.

It is true, that the Novatians in divers Sees had distinct Bishops, but these were Schismaticks. Yet in the beginning of Christianity, it would appear that there were more Bishops in one place: for Tertullian and Epiphanius assert, that Clemens was ordained Bishop of Rome by S. Peter. And yet all reckon Linus to have succeeded him. So also Evodius is generally reckoned to be the first Bishop of Antioch; thus Eusebius, Origen and Ierome. Yet Chrysostom and Theodoret say, that Ignatius was ordained there by S. Peter. If there be any authority in Clemens his Constitutions, they offer a clear account of this, that Evodius was appointed Bishop of the Circumcision, and Ignatius Bishop of the Uncircumcision; and that after Evodius's death, both Churches grew in one. The same also is applied to the difference about Linus, and Clemens by others, as if Linus had been Bishop of the Circumcision, and Clemens of the Uncircumcision; and that after Cletus's death they all grew in one, and submitted to Clemens. However, it is clear that in every Church there was but one Bishop: and accordingly was decreed, Conc. [Page]Nic. Can. 8. [...]. By which stile we see they guarded against the disorder of two Bishops in a City, as a thing undoubtedly irregular, which hath been accounted so before that time: so that this of one Bishop in a City, is not to be accounted an act of that Council; but a reference to some former act, or at least an universally received practice. Yet the first succession of the Bishops of Rome, tho always perplexed, is much more so, from the most learned Vossius (his Observations in his Letter to Rivet, subjoined to Doctor Pearson's Vindiciae of Ignatius his Epistles:) who from all the Manuscripts of Damasus his lives of the Popes, informs us, that S. Peter did ordain both Linus and Cletus Bishops of Rome: and after some enquiry into the matter, he concludes, that at first there were three Bishops in Rome at once, Linus, Cletus, Anencletus. In the next Succession, he places Cletus, Anencletus and Clemens; but Anencletus surviving both the other, sate alone at Rome: after whom there was but one Bishop there. Yet I know not if Damasus ought to have such authority, that upon his testimony we are bound to believe a thing so different from the accounts given by elder and more unquestioned Writers.

All ambitus was condemned in Bishops; but it seems that in Nazianzen's time it was too [Page] common: For he in his Apologetick regrates how some [...], tanquam non virtutis exemplum, sed victûs parandi occasionem & subsidium hunc ordinem esse judicantes: ac non munus referendis rationibus obnoxium, sed imperium ab omni censurâ immune. And a little after: Prius fere quam primam comam abjecetimus, puerili (que) more balbutire desierimus. — Si duo aut tria pia verba didicerimus, eaque non ex lectione, sed ex sola auditione bausta, ant Davidi paulum operae dederimus, aut pallium scite contraxerimus, aut zonâ tenus philosophati fuerimus, pietatis quandam speciem nobis illinentes, ô praefecturam! ô elatum animum! Justinian. Const. Nov. 137. cap. 1. complains, that absque examinatione, at (que) honestatis vitae testimonio ordinantur Episcopi, Presbyteri, & Diaconi, &c. And there divers places out of Nazianzen's Apologetick are cited, to shew that Ordination should be gone about cum omni diligentiâ atque rigore, Cad. de Epis. & Cler. leg. 31. Tantum ab ambitu debet esse sepositus, ut quaeratur cogendus, rogatus recedat, invitatus effugiat, sola sibi suffragetur necessitas excusandi. Profecto enim est. indignus Sacerdotio, nisi fuerit invitatus, invitus.

Chrysostom in his third Book de Sacerdotio, cap. 10. among the qualifications of a Bishop, reckons for a chief one [...]. Nam [Page]si ad eum principatum adipiscendum vehementi animi affectu rapietur, eo adepto impotentiorem sane suae ambitionis flammam incendet: ac vi tandem captus, ut sibi adeptum honorem stabiliat, nulli non peccato serviet: seu adulandum, seu servile quidpiam atque indignum sustinendum, seu res magno pecuniae sumptu tentanda: nam quod nonnulli caedibus Ecclesias compleverint, contaminarint (que) tum ejus honoris gratiâ depugnantes, civitates aliquot funditus everterunt dicere hic praetermitto, ne quibusdam videar ea in medium afferre quae fide majora sunt. And to preoccupy the objection from 1 Tim.1.3. he adds, [...]. And among other advantages of one who wants this too forward desire, he reckons this [...]. And with a great deal of ingenuity, he confesseth how strong that unlawful desire was in himself, which frighted him from entering in holy Orders.

How far Nazianzen was from all ambitus, the whole tract of his life doth fully discover. He was no sooner ordained a Presbyter, than he with his friend Basile, at that time likewise ordained, fled to Pontus, where they lived a great while, purifying their souls in the exercise of prayer and mortification. After which they returned home. Nazianzen out of compassion to his Father who pressed his return, and Basile [Page] out of zeal to Religion, and the Church then out of zeal to Religion, and the Church then over-run with Arrians; S. Basile by the means of old Nazianzen, was chosen and ordained Biship of Cesarea, and he ordained Nazianzen Bishop of Sasime: but he, what through his love of retirement, what because Sasime being a stage of the Waggoners, was full of stirs and disorders, immediately left that place, in which he was set against his heart. And some say that he never ordained any in it, nor consecrated the Eucharist while he was there: neither could ever his Father obtain of him to return to it. And when his Father dealt earnestly with him, not without threatning of imprecations, that he would accept the charge of Nazianzen in his old age, he with great aversion yielded to his entreaty, declaring he would stay no longer there than his Father lived. During which time, he managed that See with a great deal of success and applause: but after his Father died, which was in the hundred year of his age, he continued a little longer there, till his Mother who survived her Husband sometime, died also. And then he retired to a House of holy Virgins in Seleucia, that in his absence they might chuse another Bishop; but returning thither a little after, he found they had chosen none; yet he continued stiff as an Oak, and neither prayers nor tears could prevail with him. Afterward Constantinople [Page] was in great disorder through the Heresies of was in great disorder through the Heresies of Apollinaris and Macedonius lately sprung up, beside the Arrian, which was there before: and he being inwardly called of God to go thither, and prompted by his Friend Basile, and invited by many Bishops, and honourable Citizens, went and laboured among them: not behaving himself as their Bishop, but as a temporary Overseer. And though all the Churches were then possess'd by the Hereticks, none remaining for the Orthodox, save only Anastasia; yet through his labours the face of affairs was quickly altered in Constantinople. When Theodosius came to Constantinople, he possessed him of the great Church: and all the people desired that he might be enthroned, the Emperour concurring with them in that: but he declined it: And though the Emperour took great pleasure in him, yet he went seldom to the Palace. Then was the second General Council called to Constantinople, and he was by the authority of Miletus Bishop of Antioch (of whom we made mention before) confirmed in the Bishoprick of Constantinople by the Council. But after this, there arose some contention by Timotheus Bishop of Alexandria, who came later to the Council, and alledged upon the prerogative of his See, that that matter should not have been decided without him. Upon this, hot and [Page] sharp contentions arose among the Bishops, not so much out of any displeasure they had at Nazianzen, as out of their mutual jealousies, though he that writes his life, faith, that this was occasioned by Miletus his death. But therein he was mistaken; for Miletus out-lived not only this action, and gave the lift to Theodosius of those who were designed to succeed him (Sozom. lib. 7. cap. 8.) but he also out-lived the Council, and subscribed its acts, and died a little after that in Constantinople. Upon this contention, Nazianzen finding many of those who had before established him, beginning to resile, told them how at first he had refused that Government, tho the Church there had been by his labours and pains setled, and enlarged; but for that he expected his reward from GOD: yet it seemed strange to him, that after he had been forced to accept of it, out of his love to the Flock, and pressed to it with their united suffrages, they should now think of undoing what themselves had done. This he said, not that he desired Riches, or the nobleness of that Seat, and to be called Bishop of the Imperial City: But he confessed, the loss of his Children could not but affect him: besides, he feared they might seem to proceed out of envy or lenitv. However, if they desired it, [...]. — Mihi quidem solitudo & olim chara fuit & nunc [Page]eft: [...]. Whereupon he went out, and retired from the house wherein he dwelt, to one more secret. But many of the people flocked about him, and with tears besought him to have compassion on them: yet he finding the dissention about him growing hotter among the Bishops, went again to the Council, and charged them by the holy Trinity, that they would compose their differences peaceably, adding: But if I seem the occasion of any dissention among you, I am not more worthy than the Prophet Jonas: throw me in the sea, and these raging billows shall quickly be calmed, since I shall choose any thing you please, so if I be innocent, for drawing you to agreement on my account. [...]. After which he went to the Emperor, and with great earnestness begged his permission to retire: which having obtained, he called the Clergy and people together, and with many tears took leave of them, charging them to continue stedfast in the faith. This being done, he retired to Arianze, a Village of Cappadocia, which belonged to him by inheritance, and continued in his retirement, giving himself to his Poetry, till he died in an old age.

That which next occurs to be considered is, in what places Bishopricks were founded, and [Page] Bishops setled. We find in all Cities where the Gospel was planted, and Churches constituted, that Bishops were also ordained. Among the Jews, where ever there were an hundred and twenty of them together, there did they erect a Synagogue. Compare with this Acts I. 15. where the number of those that constituted the first Christian Church, is the same. So it is like where ever there was a competent number of Christians together, that a Church was there setled.

Yet in some Villages there were Churches and Bishops; so there was a Bishop in Bethany: And S. Paul tells of the Church of Cenchrea, which was the port of Corinth. It is true, some think that the Church of Corinth met there. So these of Philippi went out of the City by a River side to prayer, Acts 16.13. But we find Acts 18. that there was a Synagogue in Corinth, and that S. Paul stayed in the House of Justus, near the Synagogue: and therefore there is no reason to think that the Christians should have had their meeting without the City, since there was no persecution then stirring: and neither in the Acts, nor in any of the Epistles, is there mention made of their going out to Cenchrea. Therefore it is probable that the Church of Cenchrea was distinct from Corinth: and since they had Phebe for their Deaconness, it is not to be doubted [Page] but they had both Bishops and Deacons.

From the several Cities the Gospel was dilated and propagated to the places round about. But in some Countries we find the Bishopricks very thick set. They were pretty throng in Africk, for at a Conference which Augustine and the Bishops of that Province had with the Donarists, there were of Bishops two hundred eighty six present, and one hundred and twenty absent, and sixty Sees were then vacant, which make in all four hundred sixty and six: There were also two hundred seventy nine of the Donarists Bishops. Sozom. lib. 7. hist. cap. 19. speaking how differently constituted some Churches were, he tells how in Scythia, though there were many Cities, yet there was but one Bishop. But in other Nations there were Bishops even in their Villages, as he knew to be among the Arabians and Cyprians. Theodoret tells, that there were eight hundred Parishes within his Diocese, Epist. 113. But it is to be observed, that in those places where the Gospel was latest of planting, the Bishopricks are fewer, and consequently larger. It is reported that in the vast tract of the Abyssin Churches, there is one only Bishop at Abuna. Balsamon on the 57. Canon of Laodicea tells, that at that time in some Churches of the East, it was neither safe nor expedient for them to have Bishops: and they were [Page] supplied by Visiters, sent them from other Bishops, so that they had no Bishops of their own: which was occasioned both by their poverty, and the smalness of their number, yet they were under the care and charge of other Bishops. Some Churches lay long vacant and without Bishops. In Carthage, when Hunnerick invaded them, they wanted a Bishop twenty four years: and he offering them one, providing the Arrians might have the free exercise of their Religion among them, they answered, that upon these terms Ecclesia non delectatur Episcopum habere, so Victor lib. 2. pers. V and. When Miletus was driven out of Antioch, for ten years together Diodorus and Flavian two Presbyters ruled that Church, Theodor. lib. 4. hist. cap. 23. Some places are alledged to have had the Gospel long before there were Bishops among them, and particularly Scotland, for Major lib. 2. cap. 2. faith, per Sacerdotes & Monachos, sine Episcopis Scoti in fide eruditi erant. The time of our conversion to the faith is reckoned to have been An. 263. And Palladius reckoned the first Bishop came not for an hundred and seventy years after that in the year 430. Fordown in his Chronicle, lib. 3. cap. 8. faith, Ante Palladii adventum habebant Scoti fidei Doctores, & Sacramentorum administratores, Presbyteros solum, vel Monachos ritum sequentes Ecclesiae primitivae. [Page] These were called Culdes, though in some Bulls they be Celli Dei. Boethius thinks it is Culdei, quasi cultores Dei: but others judg that it is from the Cells wherein they lived, which were held in great esteem, and after their death were turned into Churches: and from thence they think the name Kil is to this day so much used, as Kilpatrick, Kilmarnock, Kilbride, &c. Of these Boethius saith, That by common suffrage, they made choice of one of their number to be chief over them, who was called Episcopus Scotorum: so lib. 6. fol. 92. This is contradicted by Buchanan lib. 5. who faith, That before Palladius his coming, Ecclesiae absque Episcopis per Monachos regebantur, minori quidem cum fastu, & externâ pompâ, sed majore simplicitate & sanctimoniâ. But all our old Manuscripts being gone, it will not be easie to come to a decision about this matter. The Gothick Churches are said to have been planted and constituted before Ulphilas their first Bishop came unto them for seventy years together.

In the beginning the Bishop's whole charge was called [...], and by the strain of Ignatius his Epistles, especially that to Smyrna, it would appear, that there was but one Church, at least but one place, where there was one Altar and Communion in each of these Parishes: for he saith, There was one Bishop, one Church, and [Page] one Altar. And Cyprian phraseth the erecting of a Schism, by the erecting of an Altar against an Altar: which seems to import, that there was but one Altar in the Bishops Parish. While the number of the Christians was but small, they might well have all met together in one place; but as they increased, and the persecutions grew upon them, they must have had several meeting places, and consequently several persons to preside and officiate in these meetings. But Damasus and Platina reckon, that Evaristus who was Bishop of Rome about the 106 year, was the first, qui titulos in urbe Româ Presbyteris divisit: so that before his time, the Presbyters have all officiated here or there indefinitely according to the Bishop's appointment. And Evaristus seems to have given them assignments to particular places. As for the meaning of the word Tituli, it is to be considered that the Christians met about the places where the Martyrs were buried, and so their meeting places were called Memoriae Martyrum. Now upon Burials some title or inscription being usually made, it followed that the place of the burial or Gravestone was called Titulus among the Latins: so Gen. 35.20. Jacob's erecting a Pillar upon Rachels Grave, is rendred by the vulgar Latin, erexit titulum super sepulchrum: and Gen. 28.18 of Jacob's stone at Bethel, it is said, erexit in titulum, and 2 Sam. 18. [Page] Absalom his Pillar is called Titulus: Hence it is that Evaristus his dividing of the titles is to be understood of his giving particular assignments of several Churches to Presbyters.

The next thing to be examined is, what were the actions appropriated to Bishops. If we believe Ierome, the Bishop did nothing which Presbyters might not do, except Ordination: By which we see, that he judged Ordination could not be done without the Bishop. Athanasius in his second Apology inserts among other papers, an Epistle of the Synod of Alexandria, mentioning that Ischyras his Ordination by Coluthus being questioned and examined, and it being found that Coluthus had never been ordained a Bishop, but that he had falsly pretended to that Title and Character, all the Ordinations made by him were annulled: and Ischyras with such others who were so ordained, were declared Laicks. Which is an undeniable instance, that at that time, it was the general sense of the Church, that none but a Bishop might ordain. Neither in any Author do we meet with an instance of any that were ordained by Presbyters, save one, that Cassian, who was about the 500. year, Collat. 4. cap. 1. gives of one Paphnutius a Presbyter in the Desert of Scetis, who delighting in the Vertues of one Daniel, ut quem vitae meritis & gratiâ sibi parem noverat, coaequare sibi [Page]etiam Sacerdotii ordine festinaret. — Eum Presbyterii honori provexit. But what a few devout solitaries might do in a desert and undiscerned corner, will be no precedent for a constituted Church: else we may allow of Baptism with sand, for that was once done in a Desert.

But Socrates had another Opinion of this, who lib. 1. cap. 27. tells, that Ischyras did a thin [...]. And in the third Council of Toledo, set down by Gratian, dist. 23. cap. 14. this Canon was made. Quorundam Clericorum dum unus ad Presbyterium duo ad Levitarum ministerium sacrarentur, Episcopus oculorum dolore detentus, fertur manum suam super eos tantum imposuisse, & Presbyter quidam illis contra Ecclesiasticum ordinem benedictionem dedisse, sed quia jam ille examini divino relictus, humano judicio accusari non potest, ii qui supersunt gradum Sacerdotii vel Levitici ordinis quem perverse adepti sunt, amittant. By which we see how far they were from allowing of any Ordination, wherein a Bishop had not intervened.

It is further clear, that the Bishop was looked upon as the Pastor of the Flock, who was [...], and that Presbyters or Deacons could finish nothing, [...], and that he was to give an account of the Souls of the people: and indeed in these [Page] days a Bishoprick was onus more than honos. The common treasury of the Church was also committed to his care, so infra Can. 4. And as the Offerings of the faithful were laid down at the Apostles feet, Acts 4.3.4. so were the collectae, and the other goods of the Church laid in their hands. For all the goods os the Church and collectae, were at first deposited in the Bishop's hand, and distributed by him, tho afterwards there was an OEconomus appointed for that work.

Ignatius Epist. ad Magnes. tells, that they were to do nothing without their Bishop. And ad Smyrn. [...]. And 5. Canon of Laodicea, they might no nothing, [...]. Idem. Can. 19. Arel. 1.

As for Baptism, Tertull, de bapt. saith, Dandi quidem jus habet summus Sacerdos, qui & Episcopus, dehinc Presbyteri & Diaconi, non quidem sine Episcopi authoritate, propter Ecclesiae bonum, quo salvo salva pax est, alioquin laicis etiam jus est. Firmilian ad Cyprianum, which is reckoned the 75. among Cyprian his Epistles, faith, Majores natu (and by what is a little after, where he calls these Bishops, it is clear he means not of Presbyters) in Ecclesiâ praesidebant, & baptizandi, & manum imponendi, & ordinandi, potestatem possidebant. Pacian. serm. de Bapt. Lavacro peccata[Page]purgantur, Chrismate spiritus super funditur, utra (que), purgantur, Chrismate spiritus super funditur, utra (que), vero ist a manu & ore Antistitis impetramus. And even Ierome himself contra Luciferianos, saith, Sine Chrismate & Episcopi jussione, neque Presbyter, neque Diaconus jus habent baptizandi. By all which we see, that Baptism was chiefly the Bishop's work, and that the Presbyters did not baptize without his order.

As for the Eucharist, Ignatius ad Smyrnenses, saith, [...] And a little after [...]. Iustin in his second Apol. giving the account of their Eucharist and whole service, reckons all to have been managed by the [...]. And Tert. de cor. mil. Non de aliorum quam praesidentium manibus sumimus. But all this is very unjustly applied by such as would pretend to the whole Ecclesiastical Authority; but would exempt themselves from the great labor of it. For it is clear, that according to the primitive constitution, the Bishop was the immediate Pastor of the flock, and the Presbyters were assumed by him in partem sollicitudinis: the greatest of the load still lying on his own shoulders, and this might have been some way managed by him, where the Dioceses were smaller. But the enlarging of the Dioceses hath wholly altered the figure of Primitive Episcopacy. All that the Bishop [Page] can now do being to try entrants well, and oversee these that are in charge; which ought not to be performed either by these overly visitations in Synods, or by a pompous procession through the Diocese, but by a strict and severe Examen both of their lives and labors, performed in such visitations, as are sutable to the simplicity and humility of the Gospel.

As for Preaching, it was ordinary at first, even for persons not ordained to preach, not to mention that of the Corinthians, where every one brought his Psalm, his interpretation, or his doctrine to the Meeting, which may be called Extraordinary; under which notion, most reject everything in Scripture that doth not please them. But this continued longer in the Church. Euseb. lib. 6. hist. cap. 20. tells, that Origen before he had gotten the [...] (mark how this word stands here for the order and degree of Presbyterat) was invited earnestly by the Bishops not only to dispute, but also to expound the Scriptures, [...] In the publick assembly of the Church. For the vindication whereof Alexander Bishop of Ierusalem, and Theoctistus Bishop of Cesarea, wrote to Demetrius Bishop of Alexandria thus: Quod autem in literis adjunxeris nunquam antea auditum, neque jam usurpatum, ut Laici praesentibus Episcopis disputarent, scripturásve exponerent in eo mihi, nescio quo modo,[Page]videris falsa dixisse: Nam ubi idonei & habiles reperiuntur, qui fratribus in verbo DEI adjumento sint, à sanctis Episcopis rogantur, ut populum DEI instituant in verbo, sicut Larandis Euelpis à Neone, Iconii Paulinus à Celso, & apud Synadas Theodorus ab Attico, qui omnes beati ac pii fratres crant: ac verisimile est, quamvis nobis obscurum & minime cognitum sit, illud idem in aliis locis fieri. Tert. in his Apologetick cap. 39. tells, that Post aquam manualem & lumina, quisquis ut de Scripturis sanctis, vel de proprio ingenio potest provocatur in medium DEO hymnum canere. And of this remember what was before cited from Hilary the Deacon on the 4th of the Ephesians. Sozom. lib 7. cap. 19. saith, that at Rome neither the Bishop, nor any other taught in the Church: but that in Alexandria the Bishop alone taught, that not being allowed to any Presbyter, after Arrius broached his Heresie.

It remains only to be enquired who was the proper Minister of Confirmation. But because this whole matter of Confirmation comes not in so properly upon any of the other Canons, I shall therefore examine all that relates to it here, and shall consider upon what grounds it was used, how early it was practiced, with what Rites it was administred, who was the proper Minister of it, and for what end it was introduced, and continued in the Church.

[Page]From Acts 8.15. and 19.6. all the Fathers have pleaded for this Rite: for there we have the laying on of hands practiced, as a Rite clearly distinct from Baptism: and tho we find the holy Ghost conferred by that imposition of hands, thence it will not follow that that action was extraordinary, and so to have expired with the Apostles: For we find extraordinary effects following upon their ordinary actions, such as Ordination, Excommunication, &c. And yet none will plead that these actions are now to be disused, because they are no more attended with such effects. But Heb. 6.2. speaks most plainly for this, where among the foundations of Religion, the laying on of hands is joined with Baptisms: and this seemed so clear to Calvin commenting on that place, that he judges this to have been a Rite derived from the Apostles.

The constant Ceremony of it was that which is often mentioned in Scripture, Imposition of hands. But besides this, they began very early to use a Chrisma of consecrated Oil, with which they anointed them in the brow. This it seems hath been taken from the mention that we find made of anointing, 2 Cor. 1.21. where some think the whole Rites of Confirmation are set down in these words: Now he which stablisheth us with you in CHRIST, and hath anointed us, is [Page]GOD, who hath also sealed us, and given us the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts. And 1 Ioh. 2.27. we are told of an unction from above, and a holy anointing. But that in these words no material anointing, but the extraordinary conferring of the holy Ghost is meant, seems clear from the Text: and so Christ is said to be anointed with the Oil of joy above his fellows, tho we hear nothing of a material anointing. It is true, James 5.14. there is clear mention made of an anointing with Oil, in which certainly there is no Metaphor, but that relates nothing to our purpose. However, it is like from these places it was that the Ancients used the Chrisma, for we find that this was very early practised in the Church.

Theophilus Alexandrinus, who flourished about the year 170. lib. 1. ad Antolycum, saith, we are for this reason called Christians, [...]. Et quis mortalium est, qui vel ingreditur in hanc vitam, vel certat in arenâ & non oleo inungitur. Iren. lib. 1. cap. 18. tells, That Valentinus used both Confirmation and anointing in the receiving of his Disciples, and tells, that he used a mixture of Water and Oil with Opobalsamum. And this seems to imply that to have been the practice of the Church; for he tells, that Valentinus had adapted and transformed the Rites of the Church into his Character. Tert. de bapt. cap. 7. makes mention of the Unctio benedicta, [Page]qua egressi de lavacro perunguntur. And cap. 8. dehinc manus imponitur per benedictionem advocans & invitans Spiritum Sanctum, Idem de refur. carnis, cap. 8. saith, Caro abluitur — caro ungitur — caro signatur, caro manus impositione adumbratur, ut & anima spiritu illuminetur. And lib. de praescript. cap. 36. Aquâ signat, Spiritu sancto vestit, Eucharistiâ pascit. Yet Tert. de Cor. Mil. cap. 3. when he recounts these Ceremonies which he judged to have been of Apostolical tradition, doth not reckon this for one.

Cyprian Epist. 73. ad Iubaianum, speaking of S. Peter and S. Iohn their laying on of hands at Samaria, shews it was no new Baptism: Sed tantummodo quod deerat id à Petro & Ioanne factum esse, ut oratione pro iis habitâ, ac manu impositâ, invocaretur & infunderetur super eos Spiritus sanctus: quod nunc quoque apud nos geritur, ut qui in Ecclesiâ baptizantur praepositis Ecclesiae offerantur, & per nostram orationem & manus impositionem Spiritum sanctum consequantur, & signaculo divino consummentur. And Epist. 70. after he hath spoken of Baptism, he adds, Ungi quoque necesse est cum qui baptizatus sit, ut accepto Chrismate id est unctione esse unctus Dei, & habere in se gratiam Christs possit. And he tell, That both the Eucharist & oleum unde unguntur babtizati, in altari sanctificatur. Cyril of Ierusalem his third Mistagogical Catechism is, [...], wherein he describes [Page] the anointing we have from GOD; and the consecrated Oil, which was the rite expressive of the former, comparing it to the Dove that descended from Christ, and was his spiritual Anointing. Which is also done by Optatus, lib. 4. cont. Paramenianum, and the Areopagite de Eccles. hier. cap. 4. where he at length describes the rites used in the consecrating of the Chrisma. Yet this Chrisma was not so peculiar to Confirmation, but that it was also used upon other occasions. Nazianzen tells (as is above cited) that such as were ordained, were also anointed. It was also used in Baptism, so both Tertullian, Cyprian, and Ierome, and the 48. Canon of the Council of Laodicea decrees, that the Illuminati post baptisma should be anointed with this unguentum coeleste. But by the I. Can. of the Council of Orange, it was decreed, That he who was not anointed at Baptism, should receive the Chrisma at his Confirmation: by which it seems they did not repeat the ceremony of Anointing, to such as had received it at Baptism.

Likewise these who returned from Heresie, by the 7. Can. of the second General Council were to be anointed & fronte, & oculis, & naribus, & ore, & auribus, & signantes eos dicimus donum Spiritus sancti. And like unto this is the 7. Can. of Laodicea. And Author Resp. ad Orthod. that goeth under Iustin's name, ad quoest. 14. Cum hoereticus[Page]ad veram fidèm accedit, corrigitur lapsus falsae opinionis, sententiae, mutatione: baptismi, sancti Chrismatis unctione; ordinationis, manum impositione: nihilque quod prius erat, indissolutum manet. Now by this [...], which he mentions, is not meant a new Ordination, which was not given to these that returned from Heresie. For as appears by the Council of Nice, the Orders which they got among the Hereticks were held valid, and not to be renewed: but this is meant of the Ceremony ordinarily given in the absolution and receiving of Penitents. August. cont. Donatist. lib. 5. cap. 23. confesseth, that the Baptism of Hereticks was valid, but denies that they conferred the holy Ghost, and therefore imposition of hands was given to those who returned from Heresie.

Besides this Chrisma, they used also in Confirmation the sign of the Cross, of which that phrase of Tertullian is to be understood caro signatur. And Aug. in Psal.. 141. speaking of the Sacraments, saith, Quaedam sicut nostri ore accipimus, quaedam per totum corpus. And a little after, tegat frontem crux Domini, which words are to be understood of the Eucharist, Baptism and Confirmation. He calls this also Sacramentum Chrismatis, lib. 2. cont. Petilianum, cap. 104. applying to it that of the Ointment on Aaron's beard, Psalm 133. But elsewhere he calls that Bread [Page] which was blest, not with the Eucharistical and Sacramental benediction, but with that lower degree, called Eulogy, which might be given to the Catechumens, Sacramentum Catechumenorum; using this term largely, as he saith Epist. ad Marcellinum. Signum cum ad rem sacram applicatur, Sacramentum appellatur. Of this sign of the Cross, is likewise to be understood that of the Signaculum Dominicum, mentioned by Cyprian, Ep. 73.

The next thing to be enquired after is, who was the Minister of Confirmation? In the Western Church the Bishop did only administer it. So Ierome adv. Luciferianos, brings in the Luciferian in the Dialogue. An nescis Ecclesiarum hunc morem esse, ut baptizatis postea manus imponantur, & ita invocetur Spiritus sanctus? Exigis ubi scriptum est? In Actibus Apostolorum. Etiamsi Scripturae authoritas non subesset, totius orbis hanc in partem consensus, instar praecepti obtineret. Then he makes the Orthodox to answer: Non equidem abnuo hanc esse Ecclesiarum consuetudinem, ut ad eos qui longe in minoribus urbibus per Presbyteros & Diaconos baptizati sunt, Episcopus ad invocationem Sancti Spiritus excurrat. And asking why the holy Ghost was not given, but by the Bishop? He answers, That was potius ad honorem Sacordotii, quam ad legis necessitatem. Aug. de Trin. lib. 15. cap. 16. speaking of the Apostles conferring of the holy Ghost, saith, Orabant, ut veniret Spiritus sanctus[Page]in eos quibus manum imponebant, non enim ipsi cum dabant, quem morem in suis praepositis etiam nunc servat Ecclesia.

But in the Greek Church, Presbyters might confirm: so the above cited Hilary on the 4 of the Ephes. Deni (que) apud AEgyptum Presbyteri consignant, ubi praesens non sit Episcopus: and lib. quaest. in Vet. & Nov. Test. called Augustin's, but believed to be the same Hilary's, quaest. 101. faith, In Alexandriâ, & per totam AEgyptum si desit Episcopus consecrat Presbyter. By the comparing of which places, it appears, that it is the same thing which is exprest by these various names of Consecration and Consignation: but what is meant by it, is not agreed to. It is absurd to think that Ordination can be meant by it. For that decision of the case of Ischyras shews that in Alexandria they were far from allowing Presbyters to ordain without a Bishop. Some think that because Consecration is more usually applied to the blessing of the Eucharist; therefore both it and Consignation, is so to be understood here. And whereas it is objected that in the cited places some custom peculiar to Alexandria seems to be mentioned; but it was universally allowed in the Bishop's absence for the Presbyter to consecrate the Eucharist: therefore some other thing must be there meant. It is answered to this, that in other places Presbyters might not consecrate sine Episcopi jussione; according [Page] to what was cited out of Ignatius; and that the custom in Alexandria hath been, that the Presbyters without any such express Mandate, might have consecrated in the Bishop's absence. But the general practice of the Greek Church inclines me to think, that Confirmation is meant by the cited places, which was usually phrased by Consignation [...], or [...], only the consecrating af the Chrisma and Oil, was peculiar to the Bishop, as his work; so that the Greeks seem to have made a difference betwixt the hallowing and applying of the Chrisma. The first could only be done by the Bishop, but the second was not denied to the Presbyters. Even as in the Eucharist none might consecrate but Presbyters,, yet Laicks of both Sexes, in case of necessity, might have carried and given it to the absents.

Of Confirmation administred by Presbyters, some instances do meet us in the Latin Church. The first Canon of the Council of Orange, permits the use of the Chrisma to the Priests, who are appointed to carry some of it always about with them. Conc. Epaunense, cap. 16. permits the Presbyters to give the Chrisma to such Hereticks as were converted on their death beds. And the second Canon of the Council of Orange is: Haereticos in mortis discrimine positos, si Catholici esse desiderant, si Episcopus desit, à Presbyteris cum Chrismate & benedictione consignari placuit. And [Page] the Council of Toledo permits a Presbyter to do it in the Bishops absence, or in his presence, if commanded by him. But both East and West, it was agreed, that the Chrisma could not be sanctified by Presbyters. Conc. Romanum sub Sylv. cap. 5. decreed it. But as that Council is much suspected, so the reason there given is a very poor one. Quia Christus dicitur à Chrismate. But Canon sixth, Cod. Afric. is more authentick, ut Chrisma à Presbyteris non fiat. And Synod Tolet. Can. 20. Quamvis pene ubique custodiatur ut abs (que) Episcopo nemo Chrisma conficiat, tamen quia in aliquibus locis vel Provinciis dicuntur Presbyteri Chrisma consicere, placuit ex hoc die nullum alium nisi Episcopum hoc facere. And the Areopagite, as he at length describes it, and descants upon it, so he appropriates it to the Bishop.

Gregory the Great, lib. 3. Epist. 9. writing to Ianuarius Bishop of Caralis in Sardinia, discharges Presbyters to anoint with the Chrisma on the brow, appointing that to be reserved to the Bishop: for Sardinia, and the other Isles, had observed the customs of the Greek Church: but Gregory Epist. 26. writing to that same person, tells, that he heard how some were scandalized, because he had discharged Presbyters the use of the Chrisma, which he therefore takes off in these words: Et nos quidem secundum usum veterem Ecclesiae nostrae fecimus, sed si omnino hac de re[Page]aliqui contristantur, ubi Episcopi desunt, ut Presbyteri etiam in frontibus baptizatos Chrismate tangere debeant concedimus.

But 200 years afterwards, Nicolaus first Bishop of Rome, observed not that moderation. For the Bulgarians who were converted by the Greeks, receiving the Chrisma from the Presbyters according to the custom of that Church; Nicolaus sent Bishops to them, and appointed such as had been confirmed by Presbyters to be confirmed again by Bishops. But upon this, Photius, who was then Patriarch of Constantinople, called a Synod, it which it was decreed, that the Chrisma being hallowed by a Bishop, might be administred by Presbyters. And Photius in his Epistle contends, that a Presbyter might, unguento signare, sanctificare, consummatos angere, & expiatorium donum baptizato consummare, as well as he might either baptize or offer at the Altar. But Nicolaus impudently denied, that this had ever been permitted, and upon this account it is, that many of the Latins have charged the Greek Church, as if there were no Confirmation used among them. But this challenge is denied and rejected by the Greeks. And so much of the Minister of Confirmation.

It is in the last place to be considered, what value was set upon this action, and for what ends it was practised in the Church. We have already [Page] heard Augustin call it a Sacrament. It is likewise so termed by Cyprian Epist. 72. and in the Records of the Council held by him for the rebaptizing of Hereticks. But as was marked before, they took that term largely for an holy rite or symbolical action: Whereas a Sacrament strictly taken is a holy rite instituted by Christ for a federal stipulation, by which the promises of the Gospel are sealed, and grace conveyed to the worthy receivers. Now in this sense it is visible, that Confirmation is no Sacrament: it neither being instituted by Christ, nor having any grace appended to it. Neither is it so totally distinct from Baptism, being but a renovation of the baptismal Vow, joined with Prayer, and a solemn benediction.

Some have thought, that Confirmation was only used by the Ancients, as an appendix, or a consummatory rite of Baptism, which mistake is founded upon this, that some of the riper age being baptized, got this imposition of hands after Baptism. For the clearing of which some things must be considered: First, The Ancients used an imposition of hands before Baptism, to such as were admitted to be Catechumens, who were in the Christian Church, like the Proselytes of the gates among the Iews: for they having renounced Idolatry, were admitted to some parts of the Christian worship, and instructed [Page] in the faith for some time, before they could commence Christians. And an imposition of hands was used, when any were admitted to this Order: so it is express in the 39. Canon of Elib. and in the Greek Euchology there is a prayer [...]. Where it is said, Inflat signat & manum imponit. And in the Liturgy called S. Marks, Quotquot ad Baptismum dispositi estis accedite, ac manus impositionem & benedictionem accipite, dem manum imponit Sacerdos. And Euseb. de vitae Const. lib. 4. faith of Constantine; Confessione factâ precum particeps factus est per impositionem manuum. The Areopagite makes mention also of this as done twice before Baptism; and Aug. de mer. & remis. pec. lib. 2. cap. 26. Catechumenum secundum quendam modum suum per signum & orationem manuum impositionis puto sanctificari. And Cyprian ad Steph. makes Baptism a superaddition to that imposition of hands: which he draws from the example of Cornelius, upon whom the Spirit falling first, he was afterward baptized. It is true, he is there speaking of such as turned from Heresie, who he judged should be rebaptized, after an imposition of hands first given them.

But as the 39. Canon of Elib. speaks of an imposition of hands given before Baptism, so the 7. Canon of that same Council, mentions another given after it. Si quis Diaconus regens plebem [Page]sine Episcopo, vel Presbyteris, aliquos baptizaverit, eos per benedictionem perficere debebit. And by the 33. Canon of that Council, any Laick that was baptized, and was no Bigamus, might baptize a Catechumen if sick. Ita ut si supervixerit, ad Episcopum cum perducat, ut per manus impositionem perficere (or as others read it perfici) possit. If the first be the reading, it will relate to Confirmation; if the second, it will relate to the compleating of the Baptism.

The 48. Canon of Laodicea is, Illuminatos post baptisma unguento caelesti liniendos esse. To infer from that, that Confirmation was immediately to follow upon Baptism is, [...], for [...], doth not imply that it was to be done immediately after, but only that Baptism was to go before it: and we find that same phrase in the Canons immediately preceding this, applied to such as had been of a great while baptized. But tho such as were of riper years had been confirmed immediately after they received Baptism, it will no more prove that Confirmation was an appendix of Baptism, than that the Eucharist was so likewise, which was also given to them at the same time. So the Areopagite tells, how such as were baptized, were carried by the Priest to the Bishop. Ille vero unguento consecrato virum ungens sacrosanctae. Eucharistiae participem esse pronunciat. And tho [Page] even Children were confirmed immediately after Baptism, that doth not prove the one but a rite of the other: for we find that not only in the African Churches, but also in the Roman Church, the custom of giving Children the Eucharist immediately after Baptism, continued long: for the Ordo Romanus, held by some a work of the eleventh Century, appoints, that Children be permitted to eat nothing after they are baptized, till they received the Eucharist. That same practice is also mentioned by Hugo the S. Victore, lib. 1. cap. 20. in the twelfth Century. And all the Greek Writers assert the necessity of Childrens receiving the Eucharist, and yet none asserted the Eucharist to be but a rite of Baptism. Cornelius tells of Novatian (apud Eusebium, lib. 6. hist. cap. 35.) how he was baptized Clinicus, and being recovered nec reliquorum particeps factus, quae secundum Canones Ecclesiae obtinere debuerat, nec ab Episcopo obsignatus est. (It is true, it is in the Greek [...], as if it were explicative of the [...], which in the former words he said he wanted; whence some infer, that Confirmation was but one of the Baptismal rites. But it is clear that the true reading is [...], and so Nicephorus hath read it) quo non impetrato, quomodo Spiritum sanctum obtinuisse putandus est. Yet from the Story it appears that Confirmation was judged only necessary [Page] ad bone esse, and not to the esse of a Christian; since notwithstanding the want of this, Fabian Bishop of Rome ordained Novatian a Presbyter.

The Greek Euchology shews, that such as were baptized, were after their baptism anointed, and so to be confirmed: and it subjoyning that the Eucharist was to be given to them, proves no more the one to be a rite of Baptism than the other.

The whole current of the Fathers runs, that in Confirmation the holy Ghost was conferred. August. de Bapt. cont. Donatistas, lib. 3. cap. 16. Spiritus sanctus in solâ Catholicâ, per manus impositionem dari dicitur, which he derives from the Apostles, tho these extraordinary effects of speaking of Tongues, or the like, did not follow upon it: Sed invisibiliter & latenter per vinculum pacis, est eorum cordibus charitas divina inspirata. And concludes, Quid enim est aliud nisi oratio super hominem.

And certainly, were Confirmation restored according to the Apostolical practice, and managed with a primitive sincerity, nothing should give more probable hopes of a recovery of the Christian Church, out of the darkness and deadness in which it hath continued so long. It might quicken persons more seriously to consider to what they were engaged in Baptism, when they were put to so solemn a renovation of it. But [Page] the more denuded it were of all unnecessary rites, such as Oil, and the like, it might be more sutable to the Evangelical Spirit. And we see likewise from Antiquity, that there is no reason for appropriating this action wholly, or only to the Bishop. It should not be gone about till the person were ripe in years, and not only able by rote to recite a Catechism, but of a fitness to receive the Eucharist immediately after. But I shall conclude this whole matter with Calvin's words, lib. 4. Instit. cap. 19. sect. 4. & sequentibus: where after he hath laid out the primitive practice of Confirmation, he subjoins: Haec disciplina, si bodie valeret, profecto parentum quorundam ignavia acueretur, qui liberorum institutionem, quasi rem nihil ad se pertinentem, negligunt; quam tum sine publico dedecore omittere non possent. Major esset in populo Christiano fidei consensus, nec tanta multorum inscitia, & ruditas, non adeo temere quidam novis, & peregrinis dogmatibus, abriparentur; omnibus denique esset quaedam velut methodus doctrinae Christianae.

[Page]

A SUPPLEMENT ABOUT THE RURAL BISHOPS, CALLED CHOREPISCOPI.

IT hath been already marked, that the extent of the Dioceses was not all of one proportion: and generally the Villages which lay adjacent to Cities, having received the Gospel at first from them, continued in subjection to the City, as to their Mother Church: whereby the Bishops Parish was not limited to the City, but did also include the adjacent Villages. The inscription of Clemens his Epistles insinuates this: [...]. By which we see, that the Churches of Rome and Corinth were made up not onely of such as inhabited the Towns, but also of such as dwelt about them: and this is yet clearer from Ignatius his inscription of his Epistle to the Romans; [...]. Neither did they judg it fit to ordain Bishops in smaller or lesser Cities, as appears by the Council of Sardis, Can. 6. where it is decreed, that a Bishop [Page] should not be ordained [...]. Adding, that it was not necessary that Bishops should be ordained there, lest the name and dignity of a Bishop should be vilipended.

But before this, it was decreed in the Council of Laodicea, Can. 57. [...], (for so reads the Manuscript of Oxford, Dionysius Exiguus, Isidore Mercator, Hervetus, and Iustellus; and not [...], vel, as Binius) [...]: who were to do nothing without the knowledg of the Bishop of the City, whom the learned Beverigius observes (on this Canon) to have been distinct from the Rural Bishops; which he makes out both from the Civil Law, and a place of Gennadius, where the Orders of Churchmen being reckoned, these circular Visitors are set in a middle rank betwixt the Rural Bishops and Presbyters. Frequent mention is also made of these Visitors in the Acts of the Council at Chalcedon. This course therefore they took for these Villages to send Presbyters from the City, who were called [...]: and because the Bishop could not immediately over-see them himself, he did therefore substitute a Vicar and Delegate who was generally called [...]. The first time that we meet with any of these, is in the beginning of the fourth Century, [Page] in the Councils of Ancyra, Neocesarea, and Antiochia. These differed from Presbyters, in that they got an Ordination distinct from theirs, called by the Council of Antioch [...]. They also might have ordained Subdeacons, Lectors, and Exorcists, and given them commendatory Letters. But they differed from Bishops in these things: First, that they were ordained but by one Bishop, as appears by the tenth Canon of the Council of Antioch, [...]. And therefore it is true that Balsamon calls them, [...]. Now we have already seen, that a Bishop must be ordained by two Bishops at least. Next, these [...] were ordained [...], saith Zonaras. And therefore in their subscriptions of the Councils, they only design themselves Chorepiscopi, without mentioning the place where they served, as the Bishops do. Now Bishops could not be ordained but with a Title to a particular charge and See. Thirdly, their power was limited, and in many things inferior to the power of Bishops. So Pope Leo the first, in his 88. Epist. Quamvis, cum Episcopis plurima illis ministeriorum communis sit dispensatio, quaedam tamen Ecclesiasticis regulis sibi prohibita norint, sicut Presbyterorum & Diaconorum consecratio. They might in general do nothing [...], [Page] and both the Council of Ancyra:, Canon 13. And that of Antioch, Canon 10. discharge them the ordaining of Presbyters or Deacons. The words of the Council of Antioch are [...], which words clearly import, that the Bishop must have intervened in the Ordination, and so are wrong rendered by an old Latin Edition, praeter conscientiam Episcopi. As if they had heen only limited not to ordain unless the Bishop gave warrant. And thus these Bishops of the Villages and lesser Cities were reduced from the degree of Bishops, to an inferiour and limited Office, and were undoubtedly of the Episcopal Order, tho their authority was much abridged.

In the Council of Neocesarea their relation to the Bishop, is compared to that of the seventy Disciples to the Apostles, and they are called [...]. And that which is there marked as their chief work, is their care of the poor. But by the Canon of Antioch, they might have ordained Lectors, Sub-Deacons, and Exorcists. And yet Basil in his 181. Epist. saith, That they might not have ordained, even these inferiour ranks, without having first advertised the Bishop, and sent their testimonies, and the suffrages of their Election to him: which is observed by Aristenus in his Gloss on the 13. Canon of Ancyra: and by Mattheus Blastares in his Syntagma, cap. 31.

[Page]But Damasus, who was about the year 370. writes his whole fourth Epistle against them, telling that he found it decreed by his Predecessors, that they should be abolished, Prohibititam ab, hac sacrâ sede, quam à totius orbis Episcopis. — Nam (ut nobis relatum est) quidam Episcoporum, propter suam quietem, eis plebes suas committere non formidant. And falls severely on these Bishops, and compares them to Mercenaries and Whores, that give out their Children to others to suckle. He proves they were not Bishops, because not ordained by three Bishops, and descants upon the Canons of Neocesarea and Antioch, which seem to import, as if they had the Ordination of Bishops; adding, Cesset ergo, cesset tot vicibus damnata praesumptio. And yet Pope Leo (as we have already cited) who was Bishop of Rome about 70. years after him, makes mention of them. And notwithstanding all he saith against them, of their being condemned, it doth not appear when or where it was so done. Express mention is made of them in the Council of Nice, Canon 8. as of a rank distinct from Presbyters. It being there provided, that such [...], as returned to the unity of the Church, should continue in that same Order of the Clergy, wherein they were before, only such of them as were Bishops might not continue Bishops of a City, where there was already a Bishop [Page] placed: because there could not be two Bishops in one City: but if it pleased the Bishop, they might either retain the bare name of a Bishop, or be made Chorepiscopi, or continue among the Presbyters.

Mention also is made of them in the 2. Canon of the general Council of Chalcedon, which shews, that at that time they were not wholly taken away: but the latest accounts we have of them is in France, where it seems they continued longest. Conc. Paris. An. 829. they are cap. 27. compared to the 70 Disciples, according to that of Neocesarea, and Bishops are appointed to see that they did nothing beyond what was permitted to them by the Canons. The like is decreed Conc. Meldensi, An. 845. cap. 44. And it is expressed there, that they might neither give the holy Chrisma, nor the holy Ghost, nor confer any Order above that of a Subdeacon, nor consecrate Churches. Conc. Metensi, Anno 888. cap. 5. It was decreed, That Churches consecrated by them were to be again consecrated by a Bishop, and any thing they did which was proper to a Bishop was declared null, and they are reckoned all one with Presbyters; and here we lose sight of them, hearing no more of them: for as they arose insensibly, so they vanished in the like fashion. So much of them and upon the first Canon.

The SECOND CANON.

[Page]

[...].

A Presbyter shall be ordained by one Bishop, so likewise a Deacon, and the rest of the Clergy.

WE find most of the Fathers, even Ierome himself, drawing the subordination among Churchmen from what was under the Law; and therefore Deacons were ordinarily called Levites. But there is more ground to think, it was immediately taken from the form of the Synagogue, tho that constitution might have had its rise from the model of the Temple-service. I shall not here engage in a large Examen of the first Origine and rise of the Synagogues, or of the worship performed in them, or debate whether they began before [Page] the Captivity, in it, or after it. Nor what ground there may be from the word Synagogue used Psalm 74.8. to assert their early date. But certain it is, that the Temple worship was merely typical, in which the whole people were to assist, but as a few returns of the year. And beside this, the Law of Nature dictates, that GOD is to be frequently and solemnly worshipped by such as acknowledge his great Name, which will plead for an early rise to these Assemblies.

But be in that what may be, two things are certain. The one is, that Synagogues were constitute in our Saviour's time, and that there were Rulers, and chief Rulers in these Synagogues, that in them Prayers were said, the Law was read, expounded, and exhortations made upon it, and Discipline was used, and such as were faulty were cast out of these Synagogues. All this is evident from the New Testament: and much more than this can be gathered out of Iewish writings. Now our Saviour's going into these Synagogues, reading the Law, and preaching in them, doth abundantly evince, that this constitution was not unlawful.

Another thing is as clear from the Old Testament, that there was neither written command, nor warrant for such Assemblies; and the contrary of this none can undertake to make out. [Page] From which positions, both of them equally clear and certain, a great step might be made for the calming and composing of debates about Government, were heats and prejudices out of the way. It being apparent, that there was an entire frame of Church Government, and worship among the Iews, which was not unlawful, though not of divine Institution.

In the Synagogues there was (as is marked before) first, one that was called the Bishop of the Congregation. Next, the three Orderers, and Judges of every thing about the Synagogue, who were called Tsekenim, and by the Greeks [...], or [...]. These ordered and determined every thing that concerned the Synagogues, or the persons in it. Next them, were the three Parnassin or Deacons, whose charge was to gather the collections of the Rich, and to distribute them to the poor: And these were called Septem viri boni Civitatis. The term Elder, was generally given to all their Judges: but chiefly to these of the great Sanhedrin, so we have it, Matth. 16.21. Mark 8.31. 14.43. and 15.1. And Acts 23.14. And for a fuller satisfaction to this, I must refer you to such as have given an account of the Synagogue out of the Iewish Writers.

Next, a great deal might be said, to prove that the Apostles in their first constitutions, took [Page] things as they had them modelled to their hand in the Synagogue: and this they did, both because it was not their design to innovate, except where the nature of the Gospel Dispensation obliged them to it. As also, because they took all means possible to gain the Jews, who we find were zealous adherers to the traditions of their Fathers, and not easily weaned from these precepts of Moses, which by Christ's Death were evacuated: And if the Apostles went so great a length in complying with them in greater matters, as Circumcision, and other legal observances, (which appears from the Acts and Epistles) we have good grounds to suppose, that they would have yielded to them in what was more innocent and less important. Besides, there appears both in our Lord himself, and in his Apostles, a great inclination to symbolize with them, as far as was possible. Now the nature of the Christian Worship shews evidently, that it came in the room of the Synagogue, which was moral, and not of the Temple-Worship, which was typical and ceremonial. Likewise, this parity of Customs betwixt the Iews and Christians, was such, that it made them be taken by the Romans, and other more overly observers, for one sect of Religion: and finally, any that will impartially read the New Testament, will find, that when the forms of [Page] Government, or Worship are treated of, it is not done with such architectonical exactness, as was necessary, if a new thing had been instituted, which we find practiced by Moses. But the Apostles rather speak, as these who give rules for the ordering, and directing of what was already in being. From all which it seems well grounded and rational to assume, that the first constitution of the Christian Churches, was taken from the model of the Synagogue, in which these Elders were separated, for the discharge of their imployments, by an imposition of hands, as all Iewish Writers do clearly witness.

So the Presbyters of the Christian Church were ordained by an Imposition of hands. Their power was not only to preach, which (as I shewed already) was common to others, but also to administer Sacraments; so that it is true which Ierome saith, Communi consilio Presbyterorum res gerebantur.

We have already considered, how necessary it was judged, that no Ordination of Presbyters might be gone about without the presence and concurrence of the Bishop, as the principal Person, which was judged necessary (as I suppose) more upon the account of Unity and Order, than from the nature of the thing in its self: for taking things in themselves, it will follow, that [Page] whatever power one hath, he may transmit to another; and therefore there seems to be small reason, why one who hath the power of preaching the Gospel, and administring Sacraments, may not also transmit the same to others: and it seems unreasonable so to appropriate this to a Bishop, as to annul these Ordinations which were managed by Presbyters, where Bishops could not be had. Maimonides saith, Every one regularly ordained, hath power to ordain his Disciples also.

There remains nothing to be cleared about this from Antiquity, save the 13 Canon of the Council of Ancyra, which runs thus. [...], (others read) [...]. Others read [...].

Now the difficulty raised about this Canon is this, that if the reading be [...] and [...], then it will follow, that the Presbyters of the City might have ordained without the Bishops presence, if they had his warrant in writing. Yea, they also infer, that it is probable that before that, they ordained even without the Bishops warrant, to which they were limited by this Canon: and upon this Wallo Messalinus triumphs not a little. But Blondel chused [Page] rather to read the Canon [...]; as if the meaning of it were, that the Chorepiscopi could not have ordained either Presbyters or Deacons; nor the Presbyters of the City without the Bishops Warrant in writing; which will infer, that they might have done it being so warranted. It is true, Binnius hath read it so; so also hath Gentianus Hervetus, as appears by his Latin version of this Council. The Arabick Manuscript also favors this. And it is directly asserted by Zonaras on this Canon, and Aristenus.

But it is contradicted by the whole tract of Antiquity, whom we find all concurring in this, that the Chorepiscopi might neither ordain Presbyters, nor Deacons without a Bishop, as was cleared in its due place. Fut for that of Wallo Messalinus, it will appear to be ill grounded: For first, it is certain that the Chorepiscopi were a dignity above Presbyters. It will be therefore unreasonable to think that Presbyters could do that which was unlawful to the other. Besides, how bad an Inference is it from one Canon of a Provincial Council, of which there are such various readings, to argue for a thing which is not only without any other ground, but also contrary to the whole Current of Antiquity? And it was but few years after this, that in Alexandria the Ordinations given by Colutbus, who [Page] was but a Presbyter, and only [...], were annulled. Now Ancyra being in Asia the lesser, and divers Bishops out of Syria being there, in particular the Bishops of Antioch and Cesarea, who subscribed first; how came it that there was no notice of this had at Alexandria, to have prevented their severe Sentence in the Case of Colutbus?

But to consider the readings of the Canon, Binius reads it [...] so Iustellus: it is true, he hath on the margin (aliter [...]) Hervetus hath translated it, in alienâ Parochia. Now if this be the true reading, the meaning of it will run thus. Whereas by a great many other Canons, Presbyters were so tied to their Bishop, that no Bishop was to receive the Presbyter of another Bishop, without his Bishops Warrant and Licence, and his literae pacificae, and dimissoriae. So here the Presbyters of the City are discharged to go and assist at Ordinations, in other Parishes, without a written Licence from their own Bishop.

But as this Canon is read ( [...]) by some, so they seem to have added to it, [...], or [...]; so that the meaning of it is, that the Presbyters of the City might do nothing without the Bishop's Warrant and Licence in writing: Thus have both Isidorus Mercator, and Dionysius Exiguns read it, as appears by their Latin [Page] versions which are, Sed nec Presbyteris civitatis (licet) sine Episcopi praecepto, aliquid amplius imperare, vel sine authoritate literarum ejus' in unaquaque Parochiâ aliquid agere. And this is according to Binius's Edition of them. But in another Edition of Dionysius Exiguus by Iustellus, he seems to have read it simply [...], without any supplement.

Another old Latin Edition published by Iustellus hath, Sed neque Presbyteris civitatis licere, sine jussione Episcopi, sed cum ejusdem literis eundi ad singulas Parochias. Ioannes Antiochen in his Collectio Canonum, reads it simply [...]. Ferrandus in his Breviatio Canonum, Canon 92. cites this part of the Canon thus: Ut Presbyteri civitatis, sine jussu Episcopi, nihil jubeant, nec in unaguaque Paroeciâ aliquid agant. Alexius Aristinus in his Synopsis, hath the first part of the Canon, but wants the second part. (And in his Gloss agrees with Zonaras, as was before observed.) And so doth Simeon Logotheta, in his Epitome Canonum. And by this diversity of reading, it will appear how little ground there is for founding any thing upon this Canon alone, especially when that alledged from it, is contradicted by undeniable Evidences.

But as Presbyters might not ordain without Bishops, so neither could Bishops ordain without the advice, consent, and concurrence of [Page] their Presbyters Conc. Carth. 4. Canon 22. Ut Episcopus, sine concilio Clericorum suorum, Clericos non ordinet, ita ut cirvium testimonium & co [...]iventiam quaerat. And it was laid to Chrysostone's charge, [...]. And in the Roman Council held by Sylvester (if credit be due to the Registers of that Council, which are indeed justly questionable) it was decreed, cap. 11. that one was to be ordained a Presbyter, cum omnes Presbyteri declararent & firmarent, & sic ad ordinem Presbyterii accederet. And none was to be made a Bishop, nisi omnis Clerus expeteret uno voto perenni.

It is likewise certain, that all things were done by the joint advice of Bishop and Presbyters. Neither were these wretched contests, of the limits of Power, much thought on, or tossed among them. The Bishops pretending to no more, than Presbyters were willing to yield to them; and Presbyters claiming no more than Bishops were ready to allow them. Their contentions lay chiefly with these that were without; those intestine Fewds and Broils being reserved for our unhappy days.

But as we find Cyprian amply declaring, how he resolved to do nothing without the consent of his Clergy, and People: so in the African, Churches, that course continued longest in [Page] vigor. Divers instances whereof appear in the 4. Council of Carthage; one I have already cited, to which I shall add three more, Can. 23. Episcopus nullius causans audiat, absque praesentiâ Clericorum suorum, alioquin irrita erit sententia Episcopi, nisi Clericorum praesentiâ confirmetur. Can. 34. Episcopus in quolibet loco sedens, stare Presbyterum non patiatur. And Can. 35. Episcopus in Ecclesiâ, & in consessu Presbyterorum, sublimior sedeat; intra domum vero, collegam Prebyterorum sese esse cognoscat.

There were two ranks of Presbyters, as clearly appears from the 13. Canon of Neocesareo, to wit, the Presbyters of the City, and the Presbyters of the Country. The former were the more eminent, in so far that the latter might not consecrate the Eucharist within the Church of the City in their presence, which appears from the cited Canon. Over the Presbyters of the Country were the Chorepiscopi, of whom already; but the Presbyters of the City being next at hand, were the Bishops Counsel, and advisers in all matters. The Bishop and they had the oversight of the Souls within the City. They were also to be maintained out of the Treasury of the Church, and were called Canonici or Praebendarii. The reason why they were called Canonici, was either, because of their regular observing of the course of Worship, and hours of [Page] Prayer: or because of the distributions that were made among them, according to the Canon or Rule, and from the share that was assigned to them, called Praebenda, they got the name Praebendarii.

This Consessus or Collegium Presbyterorum, was afterwards designed by the barbarous word Capitulum. The chief over them, or the Vice praeses next to the Bishop was called Archipresbyter, or Decanus, Idem quod decurio, qui decem militibus praeerat: And insensibly the whole Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction crept into their hands. The Presbyters of the Country either neglecting it, or being neglected in it. But without the Capitulum, nothing that the Bishop did was valid.

However, when the first servor and vigor of Church Discipline slacken'd: avarice and ambition creeping in apace into the Hearts of Churchmen, these Chanoins or Praebends not contented with their allowances out of the Church of the City, which were too small for their growing desires, got Churches in the Country annexed to them: and for most part serv'd them by Substitutes, except at the return of some solemn Festivities: and by this means it was, that Church Discipline fell totally into the Bishops hands; and the ancient model being laid aside, new Courts which were unknown to Antiquity, were set up. As these of the Arch-deacons,[Page]Chancellors, Officials, Surrogates, &c. However the Praebends, though they had deserted their Interest in Church-Discipline, yet two things they stuck to, because of the advantage and power that followed them.

The one was the capitular Elections of the Bishop, and the other was the meddling with, and disposing of the Church Revenues, and Treasure. But it was a gross Contradiction to the ends of Government, that the Bishop alone might manage the Spiritual part of his Charge, but must be limited to the advice of his Presbyters for the governing of the Temporality. Yet this was a farther proof of that saying, Religio peperit divitias, & filia devoravit matrem. And thus far we have seen what Interest Presbyters had within their own Parish, (mark that at first the Bishops Precinct was called Parish, and not Diocese) neither was the meeting of the Bishop with his Presbyters called a Synod: by which we see how weak that Allegiance is, that there were no Diocesan Bishops in the first Centuries, it being merely a playing with the word Diocess.

But let us next consider what Interest Presbyters had in Provincial or National Councils. If that of the Acts 15. was a Synod, in it we have Presbyter subscribing with the Apostles. Brethren are also there added, not as if there had [Page] been any Laicks elected out of the Laity, such as these are who are now vulgarly called Lay-Elders, but some more eminent Christians, whom as the Apostles call'd then, so the Bishops continued afterward to consult and advise with in Ecclesiastick matters. But that Presbyters sate in Provincial Synods in the first and purest Ages, is undeniably clear. When Victor held the Council at Rome about the day of Easter, Damasus tells that it was collatione facta cum Presbyteris & Diaconibus. Likewise in the Council that Cyprian held, about the rebaptizing of Hereticks, there were present, Episcopi plurimi ex provinciâ Africanâ, Numidiâ, Mauritaniâ, cum Presbyteris & Diaconibus, praesente etiam plebis maximâ parte. And his contemporary Firmilian, whose Epistle is the 75. among Cyprian's, tells us, how there were yearly Synods of Bishops and Presbyters, Quâ ex causâ, saith he, necessario apud nos sit, ut per singulos annos seniores & Presbyteri, (by which it is clear, that he can mean none, but Presbyters and Bishops) in unum conveniamus, ad disponenda ea, quae curae nostrae commissa sunt.

Eusebius lib. 6. cap. 35. tells, That upon the account of Novatus's Schism, there was held at Rome [...], which consisted of sixty Bishops, and many more Presbyters, and Deacons, [...]. He likewise tells, lib. 7. cap. 27. How [Page] that upon Samosatenus's Heresie, there was a great Synod held in Antioch: and after he hath set down the names of some Bishops there present, he adds, that there were [...]. And their Synodal Letter is written in the name of the Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons.

In the Council of Eliberis in Spain, there were 19. Bishops, residentibus originta sex Presbyteris, abstantibus Diaconibus & omni plebe. In the Provincial Council at Arles, which judged in the matter of Donatus's Schism, Constantine the Emperor being present, where were about two hundred Bishops from divers Nations, from Italy, France, Spain, Sicily, Sardinia, Africk, Numidia, and Britain, the Canons of that Council are subscribed by many Presbyters and Deacons. And if the Story of the Council of Rome under Sylvester be true, it is subscribed by 284. Bishops, 45. Presbyters, and 5. Deacons. Now all these being before the Council of Nice, evince that in the first and best ages, Presbyters voted and judged in Provincial Councils, and if in Provincials, why not in General ones?

The Council of Nice is subscribed by some Chorepiscopi, and one Chorepiscopus subscribes in the Council of Ephesus, And if Chorepiscopi be (as it is the opinion of some) in their natural dignity only Presbyters, then we have Presbyters [Page] also subscribing General Councils. Besides that in the Council of Constantinople, and Ephesus, divers Bishops subscribed by Presbyters: from all which it is clear, that there is no ground from Antiquity to exclude Presbyters from a Suffrage in national and general Councils: and it is but a frivolous distinction that they may have a consultative, tho not a deliberative Suffrage, since we see them subscribing both the decisions of Faith and Canons of discipline.

The next thing to be examined, is the qualification, election, and ordination of Presbyters. For their qualification, great care was used to train them up long in an abstracted and devote Life, that so they might be well prepared for that holy Function. And therefore it was, that many of the Primitive Bishops lived in Monasteries among them, whom they were educating for holy Orders, as appears from the Lives of Basil, Augustine, and Martin: Neither was one to be ordained a Presbyter, but after a long probation and tryal, and all these degrees, of which we shall speak afterward, were so many steps and preparations through which all were to go, before they could be initiated. And indeed it seems against reason, at first step to ordain a man Presbyter, and commit the care of Souls to him, before a long previous probation had of him.

Therefore the ancient Monasteries, as they [Page] were Sanctuaries for such as designed to leave the World, and live devoutly, so they were also Colleges for the Education of Churchmen. It is true, the years of Probation may seem too too many; but they ordinarily dispensed in that, as they found Persons worthy and qualified. But none might be Presbyter before he were thirty years of age, according to the Council of Neocesarea, even tho he were highly worthy ( [...].) And the reason given for this, is, because Christ was thirty years of age before he entred upon the discharge of his holy Function.

Likewise a Clinicus, that is, one baptised in sickness, by the twelfth Canon of Neocesarea, could not have been a Presbyter, because he was not a Christian, [...]. And this was not to be dispensed with, but upon his following Faith and Diligence, or that others could not be had.

And in the Canon Law, dist. 77. cap. Siquis, among other prerequisites for a Presbyter, one is: Si poenitentiam publicam non gesserit, holding that any gross scandal committed after Baptism, should be a bar upon a Man from being ordained a Presbyter.

As also Dist. 56. cap. 1. the Children of Presbyters are discharged to be ordained: Presbyterorum filios à sacris altaris ministeriis removemus, nisi aut in Coenobiis, aut in Canonicis religiose probati[Page]fuerint conversari. It is like, this was either to discourage the marriage of Churchmen, or to obviate the scandal might have been taken, if they had been partial to their own Children. Yet this was neither old nor universal; for Nazianzen was both a Presbyter and a Bishop, though a Bishop's Son. And in the next Chapter of that same Dist. many instances are alledged by Damasus to the contrary.

Further, none who had been Soldiers, and were Curiales, and obstricti curiae, could have been ordained without a dimission, and that they had been fifteen years in a Monastery, and three parts of four of their Estate were adjudged to the fisk; so Dist. 53. and Iustinian 123. Nov. Now this might be first, left any weary of the service to which they were obliged, should upon that pretence shake it off, and run from their colors, or other employments. But next, that men who had been much involved in the World, and particularly men of bloud, might not enter into holy Orders, without a long precedent change of the course of their life; it not being easie to pass of a sudden from a course of secularity, to that sublimity of holiness which is necessary for such a sacred Function.

And finally, all ambitus was condemned in Presbyters, as well as in Bishops, though we see both from Chrysostom's Books de Sacerdotio, and [Page] Nazianzen's Apologetick, that there was enough of it among both kinds. Yet many there were who resisted the Calls given them to Church-Offices with great earnestness, some flying from them to the Wilderness, as from a persecution: some cutting off their Noses, and other members, that they might be thought unworthy of it; some continued to the end in their refusal: others were not ordained without being haled even by force; many receiving this sacred imposition of hands with trembling and many tears. And indeed were the greatness of the charge more weighed, and the secular advantages less looked at, it is like there might be yet need of some force to draw men to accept of it; whereas all are so forward to rush toward it, blown up with pride, or provoked by covetousness.

We saw already how averse Nazianzen was from entring in sacred Orders: but no less memorable is the History of Chrysostome, who (with his Friend Basil) having engaged in a Monastick life, was struck with fear when a rumour rose that they were both to be ordained Presbyters. (And by the way observe, that he calls it [...].) But Chrysostome was silent, lest the expressing of his aversion should have deterred Basil; and his his silence was judged by Basil a consent, and so proved one of his [Page] chief inducements to accept of Orders. But when the day came wherein Chrysostome knew that the Bishops designed to ordain them, he withdrew privately, so that he could not be found: yet the Bishops upon another pretence, carried Basil to the Church, and there ordained him, much against his mind.

But when he first met with his Friend Chrysostome, he melted down in tears, challenging him severely for his withdrawing from him; whereof Chrysostome gives his Apology at large in these six excellent Books of his de Sacerdotio; wherein by way of Dialogue betwixt him and his Friend, he layeth out the great dignity and weight of that Charge, chiefly in the third Book, where he shews, That a Priest should be like one of the Angels of GOD, cap. 4. And he blames these Elections that were rashly made, cap. 10. upon which he charges most of the disorders that were then in the Church. And cap. 11. he confesseth how guilty himself was of that unlawful ambitus for Church employment; which being yet unmortified in him, did frighten him from entring in holy Orders. Cap. 14. he saith, Episcopum convenit studio acri & perpetuâ vitae continentia tanquam adamantinis armis obseptum esse. In the fourth Book he speaks of the great caution was to be used in Elections and Ordinations, complaining that in these, Regard was rather had [Page]to Riches and Honor, than true worth. Through the fifth Book he shews the great evil and hazard of popular applause, and the sin of being much pleased with it. And lib. 6. cap. 2. he hath that excellent saying, That the soul of the Priest should be purer than the very beams of the Sun themselves. [...]. And cap. 12. he accuses himself of his vain desires and other faults, whence it was that he had so great a horrour of attempting at that for which he knew himself so unworthy: preoccupying that Objection, that a Man in that is to submit to the judgment of others, by the Examples of one who hath no skill in Physick, and knowing himself ignorant, is not to administer Physick, though all the World should desire him to undertake a Cure, declaring their Opinion and confidence of his skill: for if upon another mans opinion of his skill he should offer to meddle in it, and give Physick, he might as well kill as cure. So neither one unacquainted in military affairs, was to undertake the leading of an Army, knowing his own unfitness, though never so much solicited to it: whence he subsumes more strongly, that none should undertake the leading of Souls, as long as he knew his own unfitness, were the importunities and solicitations of others never so many. And so far of the qualifications of [Page] those who were to be ordained Presbyters.

Their Election hath been touched already, for it went the same way with the Elections of Bishops, and so was partly popular, at least was to be ratified by the approbation, and consent of the people. Possidius in vita Augustini, tells how he was chosen a Presbyter by the people.

We have the Ordination of the Presbyters set down thus, Conc. Carth. 4. Canon. 3. Presbyter quum ordinatur, Episcopo eum benedicente, & manum super caput ejus tenente, etiam omnes Presbyteri, qui praesentes sunt, manus suas juxta manum Episcopi super caput illius teneant. Dionysius the Areopagite in the forecited place tells, That the Presbyter whom he calls [...], was ordained in the same form that a Bishop was ordained, save only that the Gospel was not laid on his head. From which simplicity of the primitive forms, we may see, how far they were from all these superstitious Fopperies now used in the Romish Church in Ordination. And so much concerning Presbyters.

Deacons are next to be treated of. The Original of them is by the general current of the Ancients taken from the Levites under the Temple, and therefore in not a few of the antient Councils, they go under that designation. But as was formerly observed, it is more probable, that the Christian Church took its immediate Model [Page] from the Synagogue, tho that might have been taken from the Temple. Now in the Synagogue, as there was a Bishop and Presbyters, so there were also Deacons called Parnasin. There were three of them in each Synagogue, two were to gather the Collections, and all the three together did distribute them.

The first Origine of them in the Christian Church is set down, Acts 6. where their primitive institution shews, that their first design was for looking to the necessities of the poor, who had been neglected in the daily distribution of the Charity, and there they are called [...]. It is true, that term Luke 4.20. is used in another sense, for there the Minister of the Synagogue, to whom CHRIST delivered the Book, could be no other, than their Chazan or Bishop, whose Office it was to call out any to read the Law in the Synagogue. But since all Church-Office is for service, and not for domination, Christ himself not coming to be ministred unto, but to minister, it is no wonder, if that term should then have been promiscuously used. We also find S. Paul applying to himself (1 Cor. 4. a term equivalent to this.) But though the primitive institution of Deacons import only their looking to the necessities of the poor: yet from the Levites ministring to the Priest in the Sacrifices, it came to be generally received and used, [Page] the Deacons should serve the Bishops and Presbyters in the administration of the Sacraments.

The institution of them doth also discover, that they were persons to be separated for that holy service, and consecrated for it by an imposition of hands; and so were to be no more secular, but Ecclesiastical persons: and the usual practice of the Church was to account that Office a step, degree and probation, in order to ones being made a Presbyter. And therefore our mungrel Lay-Deacons differ vastly, both from the first institution of the Scripture, and current of all Antiquity.

The Arcopagite gives the account of their Ordinations thus: That the Deacon being brought to the Bishop, kneeled down on one knee, and so received imposition of hands. The fourth Canon of the fourth Council of Carthage is: Diaconus quum ordinatur, solus Episcopus, qui eum benedicit, manum super caput illius ponat; quia non ad Sacerdotium, sed ad ministerium consecratur.

As for their Election, at the first institution they were chosen by the whole Body of the people, so Acts 6. And tho the people were barred their suffrage in the choice of other Church Officers, yet there might be good reason why they should still chuse the Deacons, their Office being almost wholly temporal, to [Page] receive and distribute the peoples alms. But whatever right people might pretend to in this, it will never be proved that by divine Right, the people should chuse those who had the charge of their souls. For reason would infer, that none could make a choice, who were not able to give a judgment of the qualifications, and worth of a Churchman, that being peculiar to the Clergy. And hence it is that more than a consent cannot be justly pretended to by the people. But after all this, if this place prove anything, it will prove in favor of the whole body of the people, and not of a few selected Lay-Elders.

All the Deacons were in their degree and order inferiour to Presbyters, which will appear from these Canons of the 4. Council of Carthage, Canon 37. The Deacon is declared to be the Minister of the Presbyter, as well as of the Bishop. Canon 39. He might sit in the presence of a Presbyter, if desired by him. Canon 40. In conventu Presbyterorum Diaconus interrogatus, loquatur; so that he might not speak, except desired. It is therefore a disorder in Church-discipline, that the Archdeacon should not only be a Presbyter, but also exercise Jurisdiction over Presbyters. And therefore Petrus Blesensis, Epist. 123. hath well observed, how turbato ordine dignitatis, Archidiaconi bodie Sacerdotibus praeeminent, & in eos vim ac potestatem suae Jurisdictionis exercent.

[Page] Jerome is the first that makes mention of these Arch deacons, telling how the Deacons did chuse one of their number to be over them, quem Archidiaconum vocabanst: and in the same Epistle to Evagrius, he severely inveighs against those Deacons, who pretend to an equality with, or preference over Presbyters, saying: Quid patitur mensarum & viduarum Minister, ut supra eos tumidus sese esserat, ad quorum preces corpus sanguisque Christi conficitur.

Because of the first number Seven, the custom was to have but seven Deacons in a City were it never so great: so it was decreed in the Council of Neocesarea 14. Canon. Their Office was chiefly to look to the poor, and to serve in the administration of the Sacraments. Just in Martyr in the end of his second Apology tells, That the Eucharist was sent by the Deacons to such as were absent. Cyprian lib. 3. Epist. 15. reckons it as a part of the Deacon's Office to wait upon the Martyrs, and Epist. 17. of that same Book, he tells, That where there was no Presbyter, & urgere exitus coeperit. The Deacon might receive the Exhomulagesis of penitents, and absolve them by imposition of bands. Optatus lib. 2. calls them the Defenders of the holy Table; telling how the Donatists had broken through the roof of a Church, and had killed and wounded some of the Deacons, who preserved the holy Elements from their sacrilegious attempt.

[Page]The Deacons distributed the Eucharist, and sometime they did give it to the Presbyters, but that was forbidden by the 18. Can. of the Council of Nice. Yet in the fourth Council of Carthage, Can. 38. Diaconus, praesente Presbytero, Eucharistiam corporis Christi populo si necessitas cogat, jussus eroget. Cyril of Jerusalem in his 17. Catechism, counts the Deacon the Minister of Baptism, as well as the Bishop or Presbyter. And certain it is, that generally Baptism was administred by the Deacons, as well as by the Presbyters.

Some parts of the publick Worship were also discharged by the Deacons. Chrysostome hom. 14. ad Rom. tells, that the Deacons offered prayers for the people; and hom. 17. ad Heb. he tells, That the Deacons stood in a high place at the administration of the Eucharist, and calling with a terrible voice, as Heraulds, invited some, and rejected others from these holy mysteries. And thus far I have given an account of the sense which the Ancients had of the Offices of Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon, which three were the only ones they accounted Sacred and Divine. And this held good even at the time, that the Areopagites's pretended Books were written (I call them pretended, because there is none now so simple as to believe them his) for he reckons the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy to consist in these three degrees.

To this account given of Deacons, I shall add [Page] somewhat of Deaconesses, of whom mention is made, Rom. 16 1. where Phebe is called [...] the Deaconess [...]f the Church of Cenchrea. They are likewise so called in the 15. Canon of Chalcedon; but more ordinary in ancient Writings [...] IJerome on that place to the Romans, speaking of Phebe, understands her to have been a Deaconess: and adds, Etiam nunc in Orientalibus Diaconissae mulieres in suo sexu ministrare videntur, in baptismo, sive in ministerio verbi, quia privatim docuisse foeminas invenimus sicut Priscillam. He likewise understood the Widows mentioned, 1 Tim. 5. to be Diaconesses: Tales eligi voluit Diaconissas quae omnibus essent exemplum vivendi. Origen likewise takes it as undoubted, that Phebe had a particular office in the Church of Cenchrea: and saith on that place, Hic locus Apostolica authoritate docet etiam foeminas in ministerio Ecclesiae constitui, in quo officio positam Phaeben apud Ecclesiam quae est Cenchreis. Chrysostome likewise understood it to be an Office: And saith on that place, [...]. If any credit be due to the Apostolical Constitutions, they tell us many things of their Office, tho with a great alloy of much idle stuff. They tell, That no Woman might come to a Bishop or Presbyter, except in the company of a Deaconess, Lib. 2. cap. 26. And that they were to go to Womens Houses to instruct them, which had been scandalous for Churchmen, [Page] Lib. 3. cap. 15. They did likewise receive them in Baptism, Cap. 16. And kept the gates by which Women entred into the Church, Lib. 8. cap. 28. So it seems their Office was to instruct and teach Women. And so S. Paul, Phil. 4.3. speaks of Women who laboured with him in the Gospel. And Rom. 16. we find mention not only of Priscilla, but of Tripbona, Triphosa and Persis, who laboured in the Lord. And it is like their Office was also to minister to the necessities of Churchmen: and therefore when S. Paul speaks of leading about a Sister and a Wife, as well as other Apostles, he may be well understood to speak of one of those who might both have supplied his wants, and assisted him in the conversion of Women; but for eviting scandal, they were not to be under sixty years of age.

Mention is made of them by Pliny, lib. 10. Epist. 97. who writing to Trajan, of the enquiry he was making of the Christians, saith, Necessarium credidi ex duabus ancillis quae ministrae dicebantur quid effet veri & per tormenta quaerere. They were received by an Ordination in Tertullian's time: for he speaking of them, saith, (De castit. cap. 13.) Ordinari in Ecclesia solent. And ad uxorem, lib. 1. cap. 7. Viduam allegi in ordinationem nisi univiram non concedit. The 19. Canon of the Council of Nice, reckons the Deaconesses among those that were [...], but saith that [Page] they had no imposition of hands, so that in all things they were reckoned among the Laicks; but hints that they had a particular habit, calling them [...]. Balsamon's Gloss on this is, that the Virgins who dedicated themselves to GOD, continued in a Laical habit till they were forty years of age; and were then, if found worthy, ordained Deaconesses, by a particular imposition of hands. To this Zonar as adds, that the Virgins in the twenty fifth year of. their age, got a particular habit from the Bishop. The 74 Canon of Nice, according to the Arabick Edition, appoints the Office of a Deaconess to be only the receiving of Women in Baptism. Epiph. baeres. 79. after he hath proved that a Woman is not capable of the publick service of the Church, adds, That the Order of the Deaconesses was instituted out of reverence to that Sex, that when the Womans body was naked in Baptism, they might not be so seen by the Priest. And with this agrees the 12th Canon of the fourth Council of Cartbage: Vidue vel sanctimoniales quae ad ministerium baptizandarum mulierum eliguntur tam instructae sint ad officium, ut possint apto & sano sermone docere imperitas & rusticus mulieres tempore quo baptizandae sint, qualiter baptizatori interrogatae respondeant, & qualiter accepto baptismate vivant. This is also confirmed by the 6. Chap. of the 6. Novel, which appoints the [Page] age both for Virgins and Widows to be fifty years: Sicque sacram promereri ordinationem. And their Office is denied to be adorandis ministrare baptismatibus, & aliis adesse secretis quae in venerabilibus ministeriis per eas rite aguntur. And the rest of that Chapter gives divers other rules concerning them.

The 15. Canon of Chalcedon, appoints a Deaconess not to be ordained till she were forty years of age (it is [...] in the Canon) and it is appointed that it be done after a strict examination; but that after she was ordained, and continued some time in the Ministery, if she gave her self in Marriage, she (as one that had reproached the grace of GOD) was to be anathematized with her Husband. Zonaras reconciles this age with the Apostle, that the Apostle speaks of Widows, and this Canon of Virgins, tho it be [...] in the Canon. Yet it seems some of these Deaconesses have given scandal in the Church, and perhaps proved like the Females among the Pharisees, whom the Rabbins reckoned among these who destroyed the World: And so we find the Western Church being scandalized at some miscarriages in this Order, they are discharged to be ordained by the first Council of Orange, Can. 26. Diaconissae omnimodo non ordinandae, si quae jam sunt benedictioni quae populo impenditur, capita submittunt. [Page] And in the beginning of the sixth Century, it seems they gave great scandal; for Canon 22. Council Epaun. they are simply discharged: Viduarum consecrationem quas Diaco [...]as vocant ab omni regione nostra penitus abrogamus, solam eis poenitentia benedictionem si converti ambiant imponendo. And Anno 536. Con. Aurel. 2. C [...]. 17. Benedictio Diaconatus, is said to be given to the Women contra interdicta Canonum. And the next Canon of that Council is, Placuit etiam ut nulli postmodum foeminae Diaconalis benedictio pro conditionis hujus fragilitate credatur. Yet they are mentioned in the Council of Worms in the year 868. Canon 73. where the 15. Canon of Chalcedon is wholly insert. One scandal we find occasioned by these Deaconesses, was, that they presumed to distribute the Elements in the Eucharist; which Gelasius blames in his ninth Epistle written to the Bishops of Lucani [...], Quod foeminae sacris altaribus ministrare ferantur. And this it seems hath continued longer: For we find Ratherius of Verona in the tenth Century, appoints in his Synodal Epistle (which in the Tomes of the Councils is printed as a Sermon of Pope Leo the fourths) Nulla foemina ad altare Domini accedat. And Matthaeus Blastaris in his Syntagma, lit. 1. cap. 11. concludes it to be unknown what the Office of the Deaconesses was. Some judged that they ministred to Women, [Page] who being in age received Baptism, it being accounted a crime for a Man to see a Woman naked. Others thought that they might enter to the Altar, and exercise the Office of Deacons, who proved this from many things, particularly from some words of Nazianzen's Oration at his Sisters Funeral, but that was afterwards forbidden [...]; yet he doubts much the truth of that, it not agreeing with reason, that Women who were not suffered publickly to teach, should be admitted to the Office of a Deacon, whose duty it was by the ministery of the word, to purifie these who were to be baptized. And after that he gives an account of the form of their Ordination.

Mention likewise is made of them in the Council in Trullo, Canon 14. A Deaconess was not to receive imposition of band's, before she was forty years of age. Which is more expressly appointed in the 40. Canon, where they decree, that though the Apostle made the age 60. yet the Canons had allowed their Ordination at 40. because they found the Church was become firmer in the grace of GOD, and had advanced forward: and by the 48. Canon of that Council, a Bishop's Wife, when separated from her Husband by consent, was to live in a Monastery, and if found worthy might be made a Deaconess.[Page]Basil by his 18. Canon allows Virgins to be received at the sixteenth or seventeenth year of their age, but by his 24. he reckons it a fault to receive a Widow into the Order under 60: yet it seems that was not peremptorily observed. For in his 44 Canon he speaks of Deaconesses found in Fornication, who might not be allowed to communicate before seven years had been past in penitence. Whence this Order failed in the Greek Church, we know not; but Balsamon on the 15. Canon of Chalcedon tells. That in his time Deaconesses were no more ordained, and his reason is, because no Woman was suffered to enter unto the Altar, though (saith he) some Women were abusively so called.

As for the inferiour degrees of Subdeacon, Acolyth, &c. as they were only Iuris Ecclesiastici, so they were not designed for any sacred performance, nor had they any holy Character upon them: but were intended as steps for those whom they were training up to sacred employments, and were but like the degrees given in Universities. No mention is made of them in the first two Centuries: Ignatius is express that there is no intermedial step betwixt the Laick, and the Deacon, which stile we also meet in all the Fathers before Cyprian's time.

He, Epistle 24. speaks of the Lectors and Subdeacons, telling how he had ordained Saturus a [Page] Lector, and Optatus a Subdeacon, quos jam communi consilio Clero proximos feceramus. And of the Lectors, he saith, Epist. 34. Caeterum Presbyterii honorem nos illis designasse sciatis. And by what follows, it is clear he means of a share in the maintenance of the Church. Epistle 28. he speaks of the Subdeacons and Acolyths, shewing how they likewise had a share in the divisions of the offerings made to the Church. Epistle 33. he tells of one Aurelius, who had been twice a Confessor in the persecution, whom he had ordained a Lector, apologizing that he had done it without the consent of his Clergy and people. In ordinationibus solemus vos ante consulere, & voces ac merita communi consilio ponderare; sed expectanda non sunt testimonia humana, cum praecedant suffragia divina. And after he hath laid out the merits of the Person, he adds, Placuit tamen ut ab officio Lectionis incipiat, quia & nihil magis congruit voci quae Dominum gloriosâ praedicatione confessa est, quam celebrandis divinis lectionibus personare. Of the same strain is his following Epistle concerning Celerinus, who had refused to be ordained a Lector, until he was persuaded to it by a divine Revelation in the Night. Likewise in his 76. Epistle, he makes mention of Exorcists: who are also mentioned by Firmilian in his Epistle, which is reckoned the 75. among Cyprians. And at the [Page] same time Cornelius, the Bishop of Rome, in his Epistle (insert by Eusebius, lib. 6. cap. 43.) wherein he gives account of the Clergy were then at Rome; tells, That there were 46 Presbyters, 7 Deacons, 42 Acolyths, 50 Exorcists, Lectors, and Porters. These inferiour Orders we see were then in the Church. And since we have no earlier accounts of them, we may conclude their rise to have been about this time. A short account will suffice for their several employments, which will be best gathered from the several Canons of the 4th Council of Carthage.

Canon 5. Subdiaconus quum ordinatur, quia manus impositionem non accipit, patinam de Episcopi manu accipiat vacuam, & calicem vacuum. De manu vero Archidiaconi urceolum cum aquâ, & mantile, & manutergium. So his Office was to look to the Vessels for the Eucharist, and to serve the Deacons in that work.

Canon 6. Acolythus quum ordinatur ab Episcopo quidem doceatur, qualiter in officio suo agere debeat. Sed ab Archidiacono accipiat ceroferarium cum cereo ut sciat se ad accendenda Ecclesiae luminaria mancipari, accipiat & urceolum vacuum, ad suggerendum vinum in Eucharistiam sanguinis Christi. As for these Cerei, they shall be spoken of upon the next Canon. The work of Acolythus was to light the Candles, and provide the Wine: And from the ratio nominis, we may believe [Page] their Office was particularly to wait upon the Bishop, and follow him.

Canon 8. Lector quum ordinatur, faciat de illo verbum Episcopus ad plebem, indicans ejus fidem ac vitam, atque ingenium. Posthaec spectante plebe tradat ei codicem, de quo lecturus est, dicens ad eum: accipe, & esto lector verbi Dei, habiturus, si fideliter & utiliter impleveris officium, partem cum eis, qui verbum Dei ministraverunt. And by what hath been already cited out of Cyprian compared with this, it appears, that the Office of the Lector was judged that of the greatest importance of them all.

Canon 9. Ostiarius quum ordinatur postquam ab Archidiacono instructus fuerit, qualiter in domo Dei debeat conversari, ad suggestionem Archidiaconi, tradat & Episcopus claves Ecclesiae de altario, dicens: sic age, quasi redditurus Deo rationem pro bis rebus, quae his clavibus recluduntur.

Canon 10. Psalmista, id est, Cantor potest absque scientia Episcopi, solâ jussione Presbyteri, officium suscipere cantandi, dicente sibi Presbytero; vide, ut quod ore cantas, corde credas; & quod corde credis, operibus comprobes. Now the Psalmistae were these that were the Singers, for it was appointed in the Council of Laodicea, that none might sing in the Church, [...], that is, those of the suggestum, or Pulpit.

[Page]But because the 7. Canon will afford more matter of question, I have reserved it last. Exorcista quum ordinatur, accipiat de manu Episcopi libellum, in quo scripti sunt Exorcismi, dicente sibi Episcopo: accipe, & commenda memoriae, & habato potestatem imponendi manum super Energumenum, sive baptizatum, sive Catechumenum.

But for examining this of the Exorcist, we must run a little back. The Iews under the second Temple were much addicted to Magick. In the Talmud it is given as a necessary qualification of one that might be of the Sanhedrin, that he should be skilled in all Magick doctrines and charms. And in the inner Court of the Temple, called the Court of Israel, there was a Chamber said to have been built by one Parva a Magician, by the Art of Magick, from whom it was called Happarva: And much of what they say of the Bath-col, seems to hint that it was an effect of Magick. Many places are also cited out of the Talmud, of their Rabbies killing one another by that Art; and so highly do they extol it, that many of them thought that all Miracles were wrought by the exact knowledg of the Cabbalistick Arts, and it is well enough known how that abounded among the Heathens. Ulpian made a Law against these Physicians who cured Diseases by Exorcisms.

We see our LORD triumphed over the [Page] powers of darkness, who were then raging through the World: and that the Oracles were silenced at this time, is confessed by Heathens. Neither did this gift of casting out Devils, conferred by our LORD on his Disciples, die with them, but remain some ages in the Church.

Tertullian speaks of it as a Gift communicated to all Christians. De coronâ mil. he tells, That some Soldiers did exorcismis fugare spiritus malignos: and de Idololatriâ, cap. 11. Quo ore Christianus Thurarius (this is one that offered incense to Idols) si per templa transibit, fumantes aras despuet, & exsufflabit, quibus ipse prospexit: quâ constantiâ exorcizabit alumnos suos, quibus domum suam cellariam praestat. So that he hath understood this Power of exorcizing to have been the effect of every sincere Christian's Prayer.

Origen in his 35. tract. on Matth. condemns the form of doing it, by adjuring the Devils, saying that CHRIST hath given us power to command them. Est enim Iudaicum adjurare Daemonia.

Cyprian speaks of an Exorcism ordinarily preceding Baptism; but prefers the vertue of Baptism to that of Exorcism, Epist. 76. Hodie etiam geritur, ut per Exorcist as voce humanâ & potestate divinâ flagelletur, & uratur, & torqueatur Diabolus; & cum exire se & dimittere homines DEI saepe dicat: in eo tamen quod dixerit, fallat —[Page]Cum tamen ad aquam salutarem, &c. And ad Demetrianum, he saith, O si audire eos velles, & videre, quando à nobis adjurantur & turquentur spiritalibus flagris, & verborum tormentis, de obsessis corporibus, ejiciuntur; quando ejulantes & gementes voce humanâ, & potestate divinâ flagella, & verbera sentientes, venturum judicium confitentur. And much of this nature is to be met with among the primitive Writers, which shews that the power of Exorcising was an Authority over Devils.

Yet if this had been a formal Office, Reason will say it should rather have been among the highest than lowest Orders, the work being so great and miraculous. But from the Areopagite, and others, we are told, that before Baptism there was used a renunciation of the Devil, with a Prayer for casting him out: And there is some probability that these called Exorcists were only Catechists, who had some formuls, whereby they taught, such as they instructed, to renounce the Devil: and this with the Prayer that accompanied it, was called an Exorcism.

Nazianz. Orat. in Bapt. Ne exorcismi medicinam asperneris, nec ob illius prolixitatem animo concidas, nam vel ut lapis quidam Lydius est, ad quem exploratur, quam sincero quisque pectore ad baptismum accedat.

[Page] Cyril of Ierusalem, Praefat. in Catech. Festinent pedes tus ad catecheses audiendas, exorcismos studiose suscipe, etiamsi exorcizatus & inspiratus jam sis, salubris enim est tibi res ista. The Council of Laodicea, Can. 26. discharged all to exorcize either in Churches or Houses, except these appointed for it by the Bishops. And by the tenth Canon of Antioch, the Rural Bishops are warranted to constitute Exorcists, from which we see they could not esteem that a wonder-working Office. And Balsamon in his Sholion, makes them one with the Catechists, [...]and on the Canon of Laodicea, [...]. And towards the end of his Gloss on that Canon, he saith, That an Exorcist though appointed by the Chorepiscopus, and not by the Bishop, [...]. And Beveregius cites Harmenopolus to the same purpose on the tenth Canon of Antioch. From these evidences it is most probable to think, that the Exorcists at first were nothing but Catechists; but afterwards, as all things do in any tract of time degenerate, they became corrupt, beyond perhaps either these of the Iews or the Gentiles; so that the Books of Exorcisms now in the Roman Church, are so full of Bombast terms, and odd Receipts, that they are a stain to the Christian Church.

And it is the most preposterous thing can [Page] be imagined, that what was given in the New Testament for the greatest confirmation of the Christian faith, should be made a constant Office, and put in so mean hands. And to this I need not add the base Arts and Cheats discovered among that sort of people.

I shall conclude this long tedious Account of the sense the Ancient Church had of the several Officers in it, with some words of Tertullian, which I shall barely set down, without any descant on them, tho they have occasioned much perplexity to divers good Antiquaries. Tertullian in exortatione ad uxorem, cap. 7. saith: Nonne & laici Sacerdotes fumus? Scriptum est regnum quoque nos & Sacerdotes DEO & Patri suo fecit. Differentiam inter Ordinem & plebem constituit Ecclesiae authoritas, & honor per Ordinis consessum sanctificatus. Ideo ubi Ecclesiastici Ordinis non est consessus, & offers, & tingis & Sacerdos es tibi solus, sed ubi tres sunt, Ecclesia est, licet laici. But others read these words differently, their Copies having them thus: Sanctificatus à DEO. Ubi Ecclesiastici Ordinis est consessus, & offert, & tingit, Sacerdos qui est ibi solus: sed ubi tres, Ecclesia est, licet laici.

FINIS.

POLYHISTOR TO BASILIUS.

[Page]

YOUR desire, and my own promise, have engaged me to send you the enclosed Papers: For the trouble the reading them may give you, my Apology lies in my Obedience; and yet I have contracted things as much as I could, and perhaps have exceeded in my abridging: For had I let loose my Pen in a descant on every particular, these few Sheets had swelled to a Volume. And my design was not to act the Critick, but to be a faithful Historian. These gleanings were intended partly for my own use, and partly for the direction of some under my charge in the study of Antiquity; and were written some years ago, when I had no thoughts of making [Page] them more publick, than by giving a few transcripts of them. But now I leave the Midwifry of them to you, that you may either stifle this Embryo, or give it a freer Air to breath in. I have here only given you what related to the constitution and modelling of Churches, referring to my Observations on other Canons, matters that come to be treated more properly upon their Texts, as of the administration of all the parts of the Pastoral charge, of all their forms in Worship, and Church-Discipline, of their zeal against Heresies and Schisms, together with the methods used for reclaiming them; and of the poverty, simplicity, abstraction from secular affairs, and sublime sanctity of the primitive Bishops and Presbyters. These with many other particulars, if well examined, as they will make the Work swell to a huge bulk, so they will bring pleasure, as well as advantage, to such as desire a better Acquaintance with the state of the Church of GOD in her best times; but what through the entanglements of affairs, and other avocations, what through their want of Books, are not able to engage in so laborious an enquiry by searching the Fountains themselves.

I assure you, I have not gone upon trust, having taken my Observations from the Writings [Page] themselves, that I have vouched for my Warrants. I once intended to have cited all the Testimonies I brought in English; and so to have avoided the pedantry of a Babylonish Dialect, as the French begin now to write. But observing that the foul play many have committed, hath put a jealousie in most Readers of these Citations, where the Author's words are not quoted, I chused rather to hazard on the censure of being a Pedant, than of an unfaithful wrester in my Translations. Only to save the Writer the labour of writing much Greek, which I found unacceptable, I do often cite the Latin translations of the Greek Authors. I shall only add, that as I was causing write out these Papers for you, there came to my hands one of the best Works this Age hath seen, Beveregius his Synopsis Canonum. I quickly looked over these learned Volumes, that I might give these Sheets such improvements as could be borrowed from them, which indeed were not inconsiderable.

I detain you too long, but shall importune you no more. I leave this to your Censure, which I know to be severely Critical in all such matters. Your judgment being the wonder of all who know you, especially who consider how little your leisure allows you, to look unto [Page] things so far without the Orb you move in: though nothing be without the vast Circle of your comprehensive understanding, if you let loose these Papers to a more publick view, let this Paper accompany them, which may some way express the zeal of your faithfullest Servant, who humbly bids you Adieu.

[Page]

Information about this book

Title statement

Observations on the first and second of the canons, commonly ascribed to the holy apostles wherein an account of the primitive constitution and government of churches, is contained : drawn from ancient and acknowledged writings.

Burnet, Gilbert, 1643-1715.

Edition statement

1673

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2004-03 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A30396

ID [STC]

Wing B5840

ID [STC]

ESTC R233638

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

18570235

ID [OCLC]

ocm 18570235

ID [VID]

108034

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A30396)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 108034)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 1647:10)

Source

— Observations on the first and second of the canons, commonly ascribed to the holy apostles wherein an account of the primitive constitution and government of churches, is contained : drawn from ancient and acknowledged writings., Burnet, Gilbert, 1643-1715..

Extent

[2], 126 p.

Printed by Robert Sanders ...,. Glasgow :: 1673.. (Attributed to Gilbert Burnet by Wing and NUC pre-1956 imprints.) (Contains errors in pagination.) (Reproduction of original in the Union Theological Seminary Library, New York.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.