CHAP. I.

§. 1. THAT we may give the more clear and distinct Answer to this Impor­tant [Page 2] Query, it is necessary, that we first examin the Primitive Notion of the Word Church, up­on the due apprehension of which depends the Right Understanding of a great Part of our following Discourse.

This word, Church, as in our modern accep­tation, so also in the Writings of the Fathers, is equivocal, having different Significations ac­cording to the different Subjects to which it is applyed. I shall not here concern my self about the Derivation of the Word, or its Original Use amongst the Heathens, from whom it was translated into the Christian Church; but only take notice of its various Uses amongst the an­cient Christians, which were many, as,

1. It is very often to be understood of the Church Vniversal, that is, of all those, who throughout the face of the whole Earth profes­sed Faith in Christ, and acknowledged him to be the Saviour of Man­kind. This Irenaeus calls, [...] [...]. Lib. 1. cap. 2. p. 34. The Church dispersed thro' the whole World to the ends of the Earth, and [...] [...]. Lib. 1. cap. 3. p. 36. The Church scattered in the whole World. And Origen calls it, [...] [...]. Apud Eu­seb. lib. 6. c. 25. p. 226. The Church of God under Hea­ven. This is that which they called the Catholick Church, for Catholick signifies the same as Vni­versal. Thus Polycarp when he was seized by his Murderers, prayed for [...] Apud Eus. l. 4. c. 15. p. 131. The Catholick Church throughout the World. And [Page 3] in this Sense Dionysius Alexandrinus calls the persecuting Emperour Macrianus, [...]. Epist­ad Herm. apud Euseb. lib. 7. c. 10. p. 256. A War­rior against the Catholick Church of God.

II. The word Church is frequently to be un­derstood of a particular Church, that is, of a Company of Believers, who at one time, in one and the same place, did associate themselves to­gether, and concur in the Participation of all the Institutions and Ordinances of Jesus Christ with their proper Pastors and Ministers. Thus Irenaeus mentions that Church Ea quae est in quoque loco Ecclesia. Lib. 2. c. 56. p. 158. which is in any place. And so Dionysius Alexandrinus writes, that when he was banished to Cephro in Lybia, [...]. Apud Eu­seb. lib. 7. c. 11. p. 259. there came so many Christians unto him, that even there he had a Church. Tertul­lian thinks that, Ubi tres, Ecclesia est. Exhort. ad Castitat. p. 457. Three were sufficient to make a Church. In this sense we must understand, Ecclesia Romana, Cy­prian. Epist. 31. §. 3. p. 70. the Church of Rome, [...]. [...]. ad Smirn. p. 1. the Church of Smyrna, [...]. Idem. Ibid. p. 8. the Church of Antioch, [...]. Origen contr. Celsum; lib. 3. c. 129. the Church of Athens, the Church of Alexandria, or the Church in any o­ther such place whatsoever, that is, a Congrega­tion of Christians assembling all together for Re­ligious Exercises at Rome, Antioch, Smirna, Athens, Alexandria, or such like places.

[Page 4] III. The word Church is sometimes used for the Place, where a particular Church or Con­gregation met for the Celebration of Divine Service. Thus Paulus Samosatenus the Hereti­cal Bishop of Antioch ordered certain Women to stand [...] Epist. Synod. Antioch. apud Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 30. p. 281. in the middle of the Church, and fing Psalms in his Praise. So Clemens Alexandrinui ad­viseth, that Men and Women should with all Modesty and Humility enter [...] Paedag. lib. 3. c. 11. p. 189. into the Church. So the Clergy of the Church of Rome in their Letter to Cyprian, con­cerning the Restitution of the Lapsed, give as their advice, Adeant ad limen Ec­clesiae. Apud Cyprian. E­pist. 31. §. 7. p. 71. That they should only come to the Threshold of the Church­door, but not go over it. And in this Sense is the Word frequently to be understood in De praescript. advers. Haeret. p. 90. De Corona Militis, p. 336. And very often in his Book De Vir­ginibus Velandis. Tertul­lian, De Orat. §. 20. p. 132. Origen, and others, to recite whose Testimo­nies at large would be both tedious and need­less.

IV. I find the Word Church once used by Cyprian for a Collection of many particular Churches, who mentions in the Singular Num­ber, In Provinciâ Africà & Numidiâ Ecclesiam Do­mini, Epist. 71. §. 4. p. 214. the Church of God in Africa and Numidia. Else I do not remember, that ever I met with it in this Sense, in any Writings either of this, or [Page 5] the rest of the Fathers; but whenever they would speak of the Christians in any Kingdom or Province, they always said in the Plural, The Churches, never in the Singular, The Church of such a Kingdom or Province. Thus Dyoni­sius Alexandrinus doth not say the Church, [...]. Apud Euseb. lib. 7. c. 5. p. 251. but the Churches of Cilicia. And so Irenaeus menti­ons, [...]. Lib. 1. c. 3. p. 36. The Churches that were in Germany, Spain, France, the East, Egypt and Lybia. So also Ter­tullian speaks of the Ecclesiis Asiae & Phry­giae. Adversus Praxeam, p. 314. Churches of Asia and Phry­gia, and Per Graeciam Ecclesiae. De Virgin. Veland. p. 386. the Churches of Greece. And so of eve­ry Country they always express the Churches thereof in the Plural Number.

V. The Word Church frequently occurs for that, which we commonly call the Invisible Church, that is, for those, who by a Sound Re­pentance and a Lively Faith, are actually inte­rested in the Lord Jesus Christ: According to this signification of the Word must we under­stand Tertullian, when he says, that Christ had Christus sibi sponsabat ecclesiam. Advers. Mar­cion. lib. 4. p. 196. es­poused the Church, and, that Spirituales nuptias Ec­clesiae & Christi. Exhort. ad Castitat. p. 455. there was a Spiri­tual Marriage between Christ and the Church. And that of Irenaeus, Ecclesia ad figuram i­maginis filii ejus coap te­tur. Lib. 4. c. 72. p. 308. That the Church was fitted according to the form [Page 6] of the Son of God. And in this Sense is the Word oftentimes used in others of the Fathers, as I might easily shew, if any one did doubt it.

VI. The Word Church is frequently to be interpreted of the Faith and Doctrine of the Church. In this Sense Irenaeus prays, That the Conversos ad ecclesiam Dei, Lib. 3. c. 46. p. 229. Hereticks might be reclaimed from their He­resies, and be converted to the Church of God; and exhorts all sincere Christians not to follow Hereticks, but to Confugere ad Ecclesi­am. Lib. 5. c. 17. p. 342. fly to the Church: Upon which account Hereticks are said to have left the Church, as Tertullian told Marcion, that when he became an Heretick, Ab Ecclesiâ Christi re­cessisti. De carne Christi, p. 13. he departed from the Church of Christ, and their Heresies are said to be dissonant from the Church, as Origen writes, that the Opinion of the Transmigration of Souls was [...]. Comment. in Mat. Tom. 13. p. 304. Vol. 1. alien from the Church.

There are yet several other Significations of this Word, though not so usual as some of the forementioned ones, nor so pertinent to my Design, so that I might justly pass them over, without so much as mentioning them: But lest any should be desirous to know them, I will just name them, and then proceed to what is more material.

Besides then those former Significations, the Word according to its Original Import is also used for any Congregation in general; some­times [Page 7] it is applyed to any particular Sect of Hereticks, as Tertullian calls the Marcionites Ecclesiam suam. Adver­sus Marcion. lib. 5. p. 255. the Church of Marcion: At other times it is attributed to the Orthodox in opposition to the Hereticks, as by the same Haereses Ecclesiam la­cessentes. De praescript. advers. Haeret. p. 69. Tertullian: Sometimes it is appropriated to the Heathen Assemblies, as by [...]. Contra Cels. lib. 3. p. 128. Origen, at other times in Opposition to the Jews it is ascribed to the believing Gentiles, as by Ea quae ex gentibus est [...], Lib. 4. c. 37. p. 271. Irenaeus: In some places it is taken for the Deputies of a Particular Church, as in [...]. Ad Philadelph. p. 52. Ignatius. In other places it signi­fies the Assembly of the Spirits of just Men made perfect in Heaven, which we commonly call the Church Triumphant, as in [...]. Padag. lib. 2. c. 1. p. 104. Clemens Alexandri­aeus. Once I find it deno­ting the [...]. Apud [...]. lib. 7. cap. 30. p. 279. Laity only, in opposition to the Cler­gy: And once signifying only Ecclesia vero Christus. Tertullian. de [...], p. 382. Christ as the Head of the Faithful.

§. 2. But the usual and common Acceptation of the Word, and of which we must chiefly treat, is that of a Particular Church, that is, a Society of Christians, meeting together in one place under their proper Pastours, for the Per­formance [Page 8] of Religious Worship, and the exer­cising of Christian Discipline.

Now the first thing that naturally presents its self to our Consideration, is to enquire into the Constituent Parts of a Particular Church, or who made up and composed such a Church. In the general, they were called [...], the Epist. Eccles. Smirn. ad Eccles. Philomil. apud [...]. lib. 4. c. 15. p. 134. Elect, [...]. Clem. Ro­man. Epist. 1. ad [...]. [...]. 1. the Called and Sanctified by the Will of God. And in innumerable places they are called [...], the Brethren, because of their Brotherly Love and Affection; and [...], the Faithful, in opposition to the Pagan World, who had no Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, nor in the Promises of the Gospel. But more par­ticularly we may divide them into two Parts; into the People that composed the Body of the Church, and those Persons who were set apart for Religious and Ecclesiastical Employments: Or to conform to our ordinary Dialect, into the Clergy and Laity, which is an early distinction, being mentioned by [...]. Epist. 1. ad Cor. p. 53. Clemens Romanus, and after him by Homil, 11. in Jerem. p. 113, 114. [...]. 1. Origen, and several others.

§. 3. Each of these had their particular Offi­ces, and both together had their joynt Employ­ments, to all which I shall distinctly speak in the ensuing Tract, as they naturally resolve themselves into these Three Particulars:

• [Page 9]I. The Peculiar Acts of the Clergy.
• II. The Peculiar Acts of the Laity.
• III. The Joint Acts of them both.

By the Resolution of which three Questions, some Discovery will be made of the Constitu­tion and Discipline of the Primitive Church, and of their Practice with respect to many Points unhappily controverted amongst us.

§. 4. I begin with the first of these, What were the Peculiar Acts of the Clergy? Now here must be consider'd the Functions of every particular Order and Degree of the Clergy, which we may say to be three, viz. Bishops, Priests and Deacons, whose Employments we shall severally handle; as also several other Points, which under those Heads shall offer themselves unto us. I shall begin first with the Bishop; but for the better understanding both of him and the rest, it will be necessary, first of all, to consider the condition of the whole World, as it was before the Preaching of the Gospel, in a state of Paganism and Darkness, having their Understandings clouded with Ig­norance and Error, alienated from God, and the true Worship of him, applauding their own bruitish Inventions, and adoring as God what­ever their corrupted Reason and silly Fancies proposed to them as Objects of Adoration and Homage. Into this miserable state all Mankind, except the Jews, had wilfully cast themselves; and had not Christ the Son of Righteousness enlightned them, they would have continued in that lost and blind condition to this very day: [Page 10] But our Saviour having on his Cross Triumph'd over Principalities and Powers, and perfectly conquered the Devil, who before had rul'd ef­fectually in the Heathen World; and being ascended into Heaven, and sat down at the Right Hand of the Father, on the day of Pen­tecost he sent down the Holy Ghost on his Apo­stles and Disciples, who were then assembled at Jerusalem, enduing them thereby with the Gift of Tongues, and working Miracles, and both commissionating and fitting them for the Propagation of his Church and Kingdom, who having received this Power and Authority from on high, went forth Preaching the Gospel, First, to the Jews, and then to the Gentiles, declaring those glad Tidings to all Kingdoms and Pro­vinces; so that as the Apostle Paul said, Rom. 10. 18. Their sound went into all the Earth, and their words unto the ends of the World; every one taking a particular part of the World for his proper Province, to make known the joyful News of Life and Salvation through Christ therein. Thus St. Andrew principally preach'd the Gospel in Scythia, St. Bartholomew in India, St. Matthew in Parthia, St. John in the Lesser Asia, and all the rest of the Apostles had their particular Provinces allotted them, wherein they went forth preaching the Gospel; and as they came to any City, Town or Village, they published to the Inhabitants thereof the blessed news of Life and Immortality through Jesus Christ, constituting the first Converts of every place through which they passed, Bishops and Deacons of those Churches which they there [Page 11] gathered. So saith Cle­mens Romanus, [...]. Epist. 1. ad Co­rinth. p. 54. The Apo­stles went forth preaching in City and Country, ap­pointing the First Fruits of their Ministry for Bi­shops and Deacons, generally leaving those Bi­shops and Deacons to govern and enlarge those particular Churches, over which they had pla­ced them, whilst they themselves passed for­wards, planted other Churches, and placed Governors over them. Thus saith Tertullian, Smirnaeorum Ecclesia habens Polycarpum ab Johanne conlocatum, Ro­manorum Clementem à Petro ordinatum. De [...] script. advers. Haeret. p. 80. Clemens was ordained Bishop of Rome by St. Peter, and Polycarp Bi­shop of Smirna by St. John.

§. 5. Whether in the Apostolick and Primi­tive days, there were more Bishops than one in a Church, at first sight seems difficult to re­solve: That the Holy Scriptures and [...]. Epist. 1. ad Cor. p. 2. Clemens Romanus mention many in one Church, is certain: And on the other hand it is as certain, that Ignatius, Tertullian, Cyprian, and the following Fathers affirm, that there was and ought to be but one in a Church. These Contradictions may at the first view seem Inextricable; but I hope the following Account will reconcile all these seeming Difficulties, and withal afford us a fair and easy Conception of the difference between the Ancient Bishops and Presbyters.

I shall then lay down as sure, that there was but one Supreme Bishop in a place, that was the [...], The Bishop, by way of Emi­nency [Page 12] and Propriety. The proper Pastor and Minister of his Parish, to whose Care and Trust the Souls of that Church or Parish, over which he presided, were principally and more imme­diately committed. So saith Cyprian, Unus in Ecclesia ad [...] Sacerdos. Epist. 55. §. 6. p. 138. There is but one Bishop in a Church at a time. And so Cor­nelius Objects to Novatian, That he did not re­member, [...]. Ad Fabi­um. Antioch. apud Euseb. lib. 6. c. 43. p. 244. that there ought to be but one Bishop in a Church. And throughout the whole Epistles of Ig­natius, and the generali­ty of Writers succeeding him, we find but one single Bishop in a Church, whose Quotations to which purpose would be fruitless to recite here, since the [...] Pra­ctice of the Universal Church confirms it, and a great part of the following Discourse will clearly illustrate it.

Only it may not be impertinent to remark this by the way, that by the [...], or Suc­cession of Bishops, from those Bishops who were Ordained by the Apostles, the Orthodox were wont to prove the Succession of their Faith, and the Novelty of that of the Here­ticks, Edant origines ecclesi­arum suarum, evolvant [...] Episcoporum [...], ita per successiones ab initio decurrentem, ut [...] ali­quem ex [...] vel Apostolicis [...], qui ta­men cum [...] per­severaverit, habuerit au­torem & antecessorem. Hoc enim modo Ecclesiae Apostolicae census suos deserunt, sicut Smirnaeo­rum Ecclesia habens Po­lycarpum ab Johanne conlocatum [...], sicut Romanorum Clementem à Petro ordinatum pro­inde utique exhibent, quos ab Apostolis in E­piscopatum constitutos, [...] seminis tradu­ces habeant. De praescript. advers. [...] p. 78. Let them demon­strate the Original of their Churches, as Tertullian challenges the Marcio­nites, and other Here­ticks; Let them turn over the Orders of their Bishops, and see whether they have [Page 13] had a Succession of Bishops from any one who was Con­stituted by the Apostles or Apostolick Men: Thus the truly Apostolick Churches have, as the Church of Smirna has Polycarp there placed by St. John, and the Church of Rome Clement, ordained by Pe­ter; and other Churches can tell, who were ordain­ed Bishops over them by the Apostles, and who have been their Successors to this very day. So also says Irenaeus, Eam traditionem quae est ab Apostolis, quae per Successiones Presbyterorum in [...] custodi­tur, provocamus eos. Lib. 3. c. 2. p. 170. We challenge the Hereticks to that Tra­dition, which was handed down from the Apostles by the Succession of Bishops.

And in the Lib. 3. c. 3. p. 170, 171. next Chapter of the same Book, the said Father gives us a Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome till his days, by whom the true Faith was successively transmitted down from the Apostles; in which Catalogue we find but one Bishop at a time, and as he died, so another single Person succeeded him in the Charge of that Flock or Parish.

So that this Consideration evidences also, that there was but one Bishop strictly so called, in a Church at a time, who was related to his Flock, A pastore oves, & fi­lios [...] parente [...]. Cypr. Epist. 38. §. 1. p. 90. as a Pastor to his Sheep, and a Parent to his Chil­dren. [Page 14] The Titles of this Supreme Church-Officer are most of them reckoned up in one place by Cyprian, which are, Episcopus, Praepositus, Pastor, Gubernator, An­tistes, Sacerdos. Epist. 69. §. 5. p. 208. Bi­shop, Pastour, President, Governour, Superintendent and Priest. And this is he, which in the Revela­tions is called [...]. De [...], §. 35. p. 34. the Angel of his Church, as Origen thinks, which Appellati­ons denote both his Au­thority and Office, his Power and Duty, of both which we shall some­what treat, after we have discoursed of the Cir­cuit and Extent of his Jurisdiction and Super­intendency, which shall be the Contents of the following Chapter.

CHAP. II.

§. 1. HAving in the former Chapter shewn that there was but one Bishop to a [Page 15] Church, we shall in this evidence, that there was but one Church to a Bishop, which will appear from this single Consideration, viz. That the ancient Diocesses are never said to contain Churches, in the Plural, but only a Church, in the Singular. So they say, [...]. [...]. Rom. Epist. 1. p. 62. the Church of the Co­rinthians, Smirnis Ecclesia. Ire­naeus lib. 3. c. 3. p. 171. the Church of Smirna, [...]. Ignat. Epist. 4. p. [...]. the Church in Magnesia, [...]. Idem Epist. 5. p [...]. the Church in Philadelphia, [...]. Idem ibidem, p. 45. the Church in Antioch, and so of any other place whatsoever, the Church of, or in such a place.

This was the common name whereby a Bishops Cure was denominated, the Bishop himself be­ing usually called, The Bishop of this or that Church, as Tertullian saith, [...] in Smirnis ecclesia constitutus epis­copus. Iren. l. 3. c. 3. p. 171. That Polycarp was ordained Bishop of the Church of Smirna.

As for the Word Diocess, by which the Bi­shops Flock is now usually exprest, I do not remember that ever I found it used in this Sense by any of the Ancients: But there is another Word, still retained by us, by which they fre­quently denominated the Bishops Cure, and that is Parish: So in the Synodical Epistle of Irenaeus to Pope Victor, the Bishopricks of Asia are twice called [...]. Apud Euseb. lib. 5. c. 24. p. 193. Pa­rishes. And in Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History the Word is so applied in several hundred places. It [Page 16] is usual there to read of the Bishops of the [...], lib. 2. c. 24. p. 66. Pa­rish of Alexandria, of the [...], lib. 3. c. 4. p. 73. Parish of Ephesus, of the [...], lib. 3. c. 4. p. 74. Parish of Corinth, of the Parish of [...] lib. 4. c. [...]. p. 144. Athens, of the [...], lib. 7. cap. 3. p. 251. Parish of Car­thage; and so of the Bishops of the Parishes of several other Churches; by that Term denoting the very same, that we now call a Parish, viz. a competent number of Christians dwelling near together, having one Bishop, Pastor or Minister set over them, with whom they all met at one time to worship and serve God. This may be evinc'd from the in­tent of the Word it self, which signifies a Dwelling one by another, as Neighbours do; or an Habitation in one and the same place, as the Church of Smirna writ to the Church Apud Euseb. lib. 4. c. 15. p. 129. that Parished in Philomelium, [...]. And the Epistle of Clemens Romanus is to the Church of God Epist. 1. [...] Cor. p. 1. Parishing at Corinth, [...], that is, dwelling or living in Phi­lomilium and Corinth; so that a Parish is the same with a Particular Church, or a single Con­gregation; which is yet more evident from a Passage in the Differtations of Apollonius against Alexander a Cataphrygian Heretick, wherein it is said, That because that Heretick had been a Rob­ber, therefore [...]. Apud Euseb. lib. 5, cap. 18. p. 185. that Pa­rish [Page 17] to which he belonged would not receive him, that is, that particular Church or Congregation to which he appertained, excluded him from Communion because of his Depredations and Robberies; so that a Parish and a Particular Church are Synonimous Terms, signifying one and the same thing; and consequently a Bishop having but one Parish under his Jurisdiction, could extend his Government no farther than one single Congregation; because a single Con­gregation and a Parish were all one, of the same Bulk and Magnitude.

§. 2. But that the Bishops Diocess exceeded not the Bounds of a modern Parish, and was the same, as in Name, so also in Thing, will appear from these following Observations, as,

1. All the People of a Diocess did every Sunday meet all together in one place to ce­lebrate Divine Service. Thus saith Justin Martyr, [...]. Apol. 2. p. 98. On Sunday all Assemble together in one Place, where the Bishop preaches and prays; for as Ignatius writes, [...]. Epist. ad [...]. p. 6. Where the Bi­shop is, there the People must be; and [...] Epist. ad Tralles. p 48. there is a necessity that we do no­thing without the Bishop; since [...]. Epist. ad Smirn. p. 6. it is unlawful to do any thing without him; for [...]. Epist. ad Phila­delph. p. 40. where the Pastour is, there the [...] ought to [Page 18] follow; wherefore [...] Epist. ad Magnes. p. 33. as Christ did nothing without the Father, so do you no­thing without the Bishop and Presbyters, but as­semble into the same place, that you may have one Prayer, one Supplication, one Mind, and one Hope; [...]. Epist. ad Ephes. p. 20. for if the Prayer of one or two have so great a force, how much more pre­valent must that be, which is made by the Bishop and the whole Church? He then that doth not assemble together, is proud, and hath condemned himself: For it is written, God re­sisteth the proud. Let us not therefore resist the Bi­shop, that we may be subject to God. So that these Passages clearly prove, That all the Mem­bers of the Bishops Church assembled together in one place to send up their common Prayers to the Throne of Grace, and to discharge those other Religious Duties which were incumbent on them, which convincingly evidences the Bi­shops Church to be no bigger than our Parishes; for if it had been bigger, it would have been impossible that the Members thereof, should have constantly assembled together in one place, as we see here they did.

2. The Bishop had but one Altar or Com­munion Table in his whole Diocess, at which his whole Flock received the Sacrament from [Page 19] him. [...]. Epist. ad Phi­lad. p. 41. There is but one Altar, says Ignatius, as there is but one Bishop. At this Altar the Bishop ad­ministred the Sacrament to his whole Flock at one time. So writes Cy­prian, Sacramenti veritatem fraternitate omni prae­sente celebramus. Epist. 63. §. 12. p. 177. We celebrate the Sacrament, the whole Bro­therhood being present. And thus it was in Justin Martyr's Days, [...]. A­polog. 2. p. 98. The Bishop's whole Diocess met together on Sunday, when the Bishop gave them the Eucharist; and if any were absent, he sent it to them by the Deacons. Cer­tainly that Diocess could not be large, where all usually communicated at one time; and the Deacons carried about the Consecrated Eucharist to those that were absent; which would have been an endless and painful Task for the Deacons, had their Bishop­rick contained more Christians in it, than one Congregation would have held. Tertullian writes, that in his Time and Country, Nec de aliorum manu quam de praesidentium sumimus. De [...], p. 338. the Chri­stians received the Sacra­ment of the Lord's Supper from the hands of the Bi­shop alone. Now in those days and places they communicated at least [...]. de oratione, p. 661. three times a week, viz. Wednesdays, Fridays, and Lord's Days, which had been impossible to have been done, [Page 20] if the Bishop had had Inspection over more than one Congregation, as is obvious to every ones Reason; for the Bishop being Finite and Corporeal as well as others, could not be pre­sent in many places at once, but must be confi­ned to one determinated fixed place, in which alone he could administer and dispense the Eu­charist: And for this Reason it is, that Ignatius exhorts the Philadelphi­ans [...]. Epist. ad Philadelph. p. 40. to use the one [...], that is, not to leave the Bishop, and communicate elsewhere, but to partake of that single Eucharist which was administred by him: For as he proceeds to say in the same place, [...]. Ibid. There is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, one Cup, one Altar, and one Bishop. As there was but one Bishop in a Church, so there was but one Altar, a Bishop and an Altar being Correlates: So that to set up another Altar, was a Peri­phrasis of a Schismatick, or of one that cause­lesly separated from his lawful Bishop, and sat up another, which was that they called Schism, as we shall shew in its proper place. Thus Cyprian describes a Schis­matick as one, Contemptis episcopis, & Dei Sacerdotibus de­relictis constituere [...] aliud altare. De Unitat. Ecclesiae, §. 15. p. 301. that contemns his Bishop, leaves the Ministers of God, and dares to set up another Altar: And particularly he brands Novatian as such an one, because Profanum altare [...]. Epist. 67. §. 2. p. 198. he erected a profane Altar, [Page 21] that is, an Altar in opposition to the Altar of Cornelius his lawful Bishop: For, as he saith in another place, Aliud altare constitui, [...] novum [...], [...] unum altare, & unum sacerdotium, non potest. Epist. 40. §. 4. p. 93. No man can regularly consti­tute a new Bishop, or erect a new Altar, besides the one Bishop, and the one Altar: For which Rea­son he calls the Altar that is erected by Schis­maticks, against the One Altar of their lawful Bishops, Altare profanum. Epist. 65. §. 4. p. 193. A profane Al­tar: Which agrees with that of Ignatius, that [...]. Epist. ad Tralles. p. 50. He that is within the Altar is pure, but he that does any thing without the Bishops, Priests and Dea­cons, is impure; and as he says in another place, [...]. Epist. ad Ephes. p. 20. Whosoever is without the Altar, wants the Bread of God.

3. The other Sacrament of Baptism was ge­nerally administred by the Bishops alone with­in their Respective Dio­cesses. So saith Tertullian, Sub Antistis contesta­mur nos renunciare dia­bolo & pompae. De Coron. Milit. p. 336. Before the Bishop we re­nounce the Devil and the World. For as Cyprian says, Non nifi in Ecclesia praepositis licere baptiza­re. Epist. 73. §. 6. p. 220. The Bishops ought only to baptize: And to the same effect writes Fortunatus Bishop of Thu­cabori, that our Lord Je­sus Christ Potestatem baptizandi Episcopis dedit. Act. Con­cil. Carth. apud Cyprian. [...]. 445. gave unto [Page 22] the Bishops the power of Baptizing. So that the Bishops did ordinarily baptize all the Persons that were baptized in their Diocesses; and if so, it is not probable, I may say possible, that their Diocesses were extended beyond the bulk of single Congregations.

4. The Churches Charity was Deposited with the Bishop, who, as Justin Martyr re­ports, [...]. Apolog. 2. p. 99. was the common Curator and Overseer of all the Orphans, Widows, Diseased, Strangers, Im­prisoned, and, in a word, of all those that were needy and indigent. To this charitable Office Ignatius adviseth, Epist. ad Polycarp. p. 12. Polycarpus; but of that Advice more shall be spoken in ano­ther place; only let us here observe, That that Diocess could not be very large, where the Bishop personally relieved and succoured all the Poor and Indigent therein.

5. All the People of a Diocess were present at Church Censures, as Origen describes an Offender, as appearing [...]. Comment. in Matth. Tom. 13. p. 335. Vol. 1. before the whole Church. So Clemens Romanus calls the Censures of the Church [...]. Epist. 1. ad Cor. p. 69. the things com­manded by the multitude. And so the two offending Subdeacons and Acolyth at Carthage were to be tried Plebe universâ. Cypri­an. Epist. 28. §. 2. p. 64. before the whole

[Page 23] 6. No Offenders were restored again to the Churches Peace, without the knowledge and consent of the whole Diocess: So Cyprian writes, that before they were re-admitted to Communion, they were to Acturi causam apud plebem universam. E­pist. 10. §. 4. p. 30. plead their Cause before all the People. And it was ordained by an African Synod, that except in danger of Death, or an instantaneous Persecution, none should be re­ceived into the Churches Peace, Sine petitu & conscien­tiâ [...]. Apud Cyprian. Epist. 59. §. 1. p. 164. without the know­ledge and consent of the People.

7. When the Bishop of a Church was dead, all the People of that Church met together in one Place to chuse a new Bishop. So Sabinus was elected Bishop of Emerita, De universae fraternita­tis suffiagio. Apud Cypr. Epist. 68. §. 6. p. 202. by the [...] of all the Brother­hood; which was also the custom throughout all Africa, Apud nos quoque & fere per provincias uni­versas tenetur, ut ad eam plebem cui praepositus ordinatur, episcopi ejus­dem Provinciae [...] quique conveniant, & episcopus deligatur plebe [...]. [...]. for the Bi­shop to be chosen in the Presence of the People. And so Fabianus was cho­sen to be Bishop of Rome, [...]. Apud Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 28. p. 229. by all the Brethren who were met together in one place for that very end.

8. At the Ordinations of the Clergy the whole Body of the People were present. So [Page 24] an African Synod held Anno 258, determined, Ordinationes Sacerdo­tales non nisi sub populi assistentes Conscientiâ fi­eri oportere, ut plebe praesente, vel detegantur malorum crimina, vel bonorum merita praedi­centur, & sit Ordinatio [...] & legitima, quae omnium Suffragio & Ju­dicio [...] examinata. Apud Cyprian. Epist. 68. §. 4. p. 201. That the Ordination of Ministers ought to be done with the knowledge, and in the Presence of the Peo­ple, that the People being present, either the Crimes of the wicked may be de­tected, or the Merits of the good declared; and so the Ordination may be Just and Lawful, being approved by the Suffrage and Judgment of all. And Bishop Cyprian writes from his Exile to all the People of his Diocess, that In OrdinationibusCle­ricis, Fratres charislimi, solemus vos ante consu­lere, & mores, ac meri­ta fingulorum communi concilio ponderare. Ad Plebem Universam Epist. 33. p. 76. it had been his con­stant Practice in all Ordi­nations, to consult their Opinions, and by their common Counsels to weigh the manners and merits of every one: Therein imi­tating the Example of the Apostles and Aposto­lick Men, who Ordained none, but with [...]. Clemens Romanus Epist. 1. ad Cor. p. 57. the Ap­probation of the whole Church.

9. Publick Letters from one Church to ano­ther were read before the whole Diocess. Thus Cornelius Bishop of Rome, whatever Letters he received from Foreign Churches, he Sanctissimae atque am­plissimae plebi [...]. Cyprian. Epist. 55. §. 21. p. 144. always read them to his most holy and numerous People. [Page 25] And without doubt when Firmilian writ [...]. Epist. Synod. [...]. [...] Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 30. p. 279. to all the Parish of Antioch, they could all assemble toge­ther to read his Letter, and return an Answer to it; since we find that in those days one whole Church writ to another whole Church, as [...]. Clem. Rom. Epist. 1. p. 1. the Church of Rome writ to the Church of Co­rinth. And Cyprian. Fraternitas omnis. Cy­prian. Epist. 58. §. 2. p. 163. and his whole Flock, sent gra­tulatory Letters to Pope Lucius upon his return from Exile.

Lastly, The whole Diocess of the Bishop did meet all together to manage Church-Affairs. Thus when the Schism of Felicissimus in the Bishoprick of Carthage was to be debated, Secundum [...] quoque vestrum, ea quae agenda sunt disponere pariter & limare poteri­mus. Ad Plebem Epist. 40. §. 7. p. 94. It was to be done according to the will of the People, and by the consent of the Laity. And when there were some hot Disputes about the Restitution of the Lapsed, the said Cyprian promised his whole Diocess, Tune examinabuntur singula praesentibus & ju­dicantibus vobis. Ad Ple­bem Epist. 12. §. 1. p. 37. that all those things should be examined before them, and be judged by them. And so also, when they were to send a Messenger to any Foreign Church, all the Peo­ple could meet together to chuse that Messenger, as they could in the [...]. [...]. [...]. ad Philad. p. 45. Church of Philadelphia.

[Page 26] Now put all these Observations together, and duly consider, whether they do not prove the Primitive Parishes to be no larger than our modern ones are, that is, that they had no more Believers or Christians in them than there are now in ours: I do not say, that the An­cient Bishopricks had no larger Territories, or no greater space of Ground, than our Parishes have. On the contrary, it is very probable that many of them had much more; since in those early days of Christianity, in many places the Faithful might be so few, as that for twenty or thirty Miles round, they might associate toge­ther under one Bishop, and make up but one Church, and that a small one too: But this I fay, that how large soever their Local Extent was, their Members made but one single Con­gregation, and had no more Christians in it, than our Parishes now have; for that Diocess cannot possibly be more than one single Con­gregation, where all the People met together at one time, Prayed together, Received the Sa­crament together, assisted at Church Censures together, and dispatched Church Affairs toge­ther; and yet the Members of the Primitive Diocesses did all this together, as the preceding Observations evidently declare; so that I might stop here, and add no [...] Proofs to that which hath been already so clearly proved.

§. 3. But yet that we may more clearly illu­strate this Point, we shall demonstrate it by another method, viz. By shewing the real Bulk and Size of those Bishopricks, concerning whom we have any Notices remaining on ancient Re­cords; and manifest, that the very largest of [Page 27] them were no greater than our particular Con­gregations are. And for the Proof of this, we shall quote the Writings of St. Ignatius, in whose genuine Epistles there is such an account of the Bishopricks of Smirna, Ephesus, Magnesia, Philadelphia, and Trallium, as manifestly evi­dences them to be but so many single Congre­gations.

As for the Diocess of Smirna, its extent could not be very large, since [...]. Epist. ad [...]. p. 6. nothing of Church-Af­fairs was done there with­out the Bishop; he bapti­zed and administred the Eucharist, and none else could do it within his Cure without his permission; wherever he was, his whole Flock followed him; which they might without any Inconveniency do, since they [...]. Epist. ad Poly­carp. p. 13. frequently assem­bled together; as Ignatius advised Polycarp the Bi­shop of this Church, [...], &c. Ibidem, p. 15. To convene his Diocess to chuse a faithful honest Man to send a Messenger into Sy­ria: So that the Bishop of this Church [...]. [...], p. 13. could know his whole Flock per­sonally by their Names, carrying himself respect­fully and charitably to all [...]. Ibidem, p. 13. with all meekness and [Page 28] humility towards Serving-men and Serving-maids, and charitably, [...]. Epist. ad Polycarp, p. 12. taking care of the Widows within his Diocess, permitting [...]. Ihidem, p. 12. nothing to be done there without his Privity. Inso­much [...]. Ibidem, p. 13. that none were married without his previ­ous advice and consent. Now, how all these things could be done, how all this Bishoprick could meet together in one place, how the Bishop could personally know all the Members thereof by their respective Names, even the meanest Serving-maids there­in, and permit none to be married without his Knowledge and Advice, without reducing this Diocess to a single Parish, I know not.

§. 4. As for the Diocess of Ephesus, there was but one Altar or Communion Table in its whole Territory, at which they all communi­cated together; whence they are said, [...]. Epist. ad [...]. p. 20, 29. To break the one Bread; and [...]. Ibid. p. 20. he that was without or sepa­rated from that Altar, is said, to want the bread of God. The Members also of this Church could all meet together in one place, to send up their joint Prayers to God in Christ: And therefore Ignatius condemns all those of that Diocess [...]. Ibidem, p. 20. who did not assemble to­gether in that one place, with the rest of the Mem­bers [Page 29] thereof, to send up their Prayers to God, as proud, self-conceited, and justly condemnable; because thereby they [...] themselves of that unconceivable Benefir, that would accrew unto them by joyning in the Prayers of the whole Church [...]. Epist. ad Ephes. p. 20. For if the Prayer of one or two hath so great a force with God, how [...] more pre­valent must the Prayer of the Bishop and the whole Church be? So that if to communicate together, and to pray together, be the Marks of a Parti­cular Church, then this Bishoprick was one.

§. 5. As for the Church of Magnesia, they all assembled with the Bishop, having but [...]. Epist. ad Magnes. p. 34. one Church, and [...]. Ibid. p. 34. one Altar, [...]. Ibidem. p. 33. joyning all toge­ther in one Prayer, be­cause [...]. Ibidem, p. 32. to have congrega­ted elsewhere would have been against Conscience and Precept. Now how large such a Church is, where there is but one Meeting-place, and one Altar, where all com­municate and pray together, is no hard matter to determine.

§ 6. Touching the Bishoprick of Philadel­phia, its Extent may be guessed at by this, that the Members thereof [...]. Epist. ad Philadelph. p. 40. could do nothing without the Bishop, [...]. Ibidem, p. 40. who being their Shepherd, wherever [Page 30] he was, they were to follow him like Sheep, [...] Epist. ad Phi­ladelph. p. 40. receiving the Sacrament all together from him, [...]. Ibid. p. 41. at that one Altar belonging to their Diocess; which they might well enough do, since their Multitudes were not so great, but that on other occasions they could meet all toge­ther, as [...]. [...], p. 45. to chuse a Mes­senger to send to the Church at Antioch in Syria.

§. 7. As for the Diocess of Trallium, that could be no larger than the former ones, since it had but one Altar in it, which was correlate to its one Bishop; so that to separate from the Altar, was the same, as to separate from the Bishop; whence Ignatius says, that [...]. Epist. ad Tralles. p. [...]. He that is within the Altar is pure, that is, He that doth any thing without the Bishop, Priests and Deacons, is impure.

Now let any impartial Man judge, whether all these Descriptions of those Ancient Dio­cesses do not forcibly constrain us to reduce them to the Rate of our modern Parishes. And if these were no greater, especially Ephesus, at which place St. Paul preached three years, we have no reason to imagin, that other Bishopricks where the Apostles never were, or at least ne­ver preach'd so long, surmounted their Bulk and Largeness.

How long it was before these Diocesses swell'd [Page 31] into several Congregations, is not my business to determin, since it happened not within my prescribed time; except in the Church of Alex­andria; the reason and manner whereof shall be shewn in a few Leafs more, after that I have more fully evidenced this Point, by demonstra­ting, that the greatest Bishopricks in the World, even in the Third Century, were no more than so many single Congregations: And if this can be proved, it is the solidest Demonstration that can be given: For the larger a Church was, and the more time it had to settle and increase its self, the greater Reason have we to expect that it should exceed all others in Numbers and Diffusiveness.

Now the four greatest Diocesses, that in those days were in the World, are Antioch, Rome, Carthage, Alexandria. The three former of which, during the whole three hundred years after Christ, never branched themselves into se­veral particular Congregations, though the lat­ter did, as shall be hereafter shewn.

§. 8. As for the Diocess of Antioch, its Mem­bers were not so many, but that 265 years af­ter Christ, they were able to meet all in one place, of which we have this memorable In­stance, that when Paulus Samosatenus the Here­tical Bishop thereof, was deprived by a Synod held in that place, and Domnus substituted in his room, [...]. Apud [...]. Lib. 7. cap. 30. p. 282. he refused to resign the Churches House, till the Emperor Aure­lian forced him to resign [...]. Ibidem. that House: So that for above 250 Years after [Page 32] Christ, the whole Bishoprick of Antioch had but one Church to serve God in.

§. 9. How large the Diocess of Rome was, may be conjectured by that;

1. All the People thereof could meet toge­ther to perform Divine Service, as appears by that History of a certain Confessor called Na­talis, who returning from the Theodosian Heresy, put himself into the Habit of a Penitent, threw himself at the Feet of the Clergy and Laity, as they went into their Pub­lick Meeting-place, and so bewailed his Fault, [...]. Anonym. apud [...]. lib. 5. cap. 28. p. 197. that at length the Church was touched with Compas­sion towards him.

2. In this Diocess there was but one Church or Meeting-place; for when Bishop Anterus died, [...]. Apud Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 28. p. 229. All the Brethren met together in the Church, to choose a Successor; which distinction or no­mination of place, viz. That they met in the Church, denotes that they had but one Church all; for if they had had more Churches than one, the Historian would have left us in the dark, as to what Church they met in, whether in St. James's, St. John's, or St. Peter's.

3. In this Bishoprick also they had but one Altar or Communion-Table, as appears from a Passage of Cyprian, who describes the Schism of Novatian a Presbyter of this Church, by Profanum altare erige­re. Epist. 67. §. 2. p. 198. his erecting a Profane Altar, [Page 33] in opposition to the Altar of Cornelius his law­ful Bishop.

4. The whole Diocess could concur together in Salutations and Letters to other Churches. Thus concludes a Letter of the Clergy of Rome to the Clergy of Car­thage, Salutant vos fratres, qui sunt in vinculis, & Presbyteri, & tota Ec­clesia. Apud Cyprian. Epist. 3. §. 3. p. 12. The Brethren which are in Bonds salute you, and the Presbyters, and the whole Church.

5. Whatever Letters were writ to that Church, were read before them all, as it was the Custom of Bishop Cornolius, Sanctissimae atque am­plissimae plebi, legere te semper literas [...]. Cyprian. Epist. 55. §. 21. p. 144. to read all publick Letters to his most holy and most numerous Flock.

Lastly, The People of this Diocess met all together to choose a Bishop, when the See was vacant. So upon the Death of Anterus, [...]. Apud Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 28. p. 229. All the Brethren met together in the Church to chuse a Successor, where all the People unanimously chose Fabianus. And so after the Death of Fabianus, Cornelius was chosen Bi­shop of that Diocess Cleri ac Plebis Suffra­gio. Cyprian. [...]. 67. §. 2. p. 198. by the Suffrage of the Clergy and People.

Now whether all these things put together, whether their having but one Communion-Table in their whole Diocess, as also but one Church, where they all usually met, do not unavoidably reduce this Bishoprick to the Cir­cumference [Page 34] of a modern Parish, I leave every Man to judge.

§. 10. The next Diocess to be considered is Carthage, which next to Rome and Alexandria, was the greatest City in the World, and pro­bably had as many Christians in it, as either, especially if that is true, which Tertullian insi­nuates, that the tenth part thereof was Chri­stian; for he remonstrates to Scapula the Per­secuting President of that City, that Quid ipsa Carthago passura est, decimanda a te. Ad Sca [...], p. 450. if he should destroy the Christians of Carthage, he must root out the Tenth part thereof. But yet how many soever the Christians of that Bishoprick were, even some years after Tertullian's days, they were no more in number, than there are now in our Parishes, as is evident from Scores of Passages in the Writings of Cyprian Bishop of that Church. For,

1. The Bishop of that Diocess Ut omnes optimè nos­sem. Cyprian. Epist. 38. §. 1. p. 90. could know eve­ry one therein.

2. The Bishop of that Diocess was the com­mon Curator of all the Poor therein, relieving the Poor and Indigent, paying of their Debts, and aiding the necessitous Tradesmen with Mo­ney to set up their Trades. As Cyprian when he was in his exil'd State, sent Caldonius, Her­culanus, Rogatianus, and Numidicus to his Church at Carthage, Ut expungeretis neces­sitates fratrum nostrorum sumptibus, si qui etiam vellent suas artes exerce­re, additamento quantum satis esset, desideria eo­rum [...]. Idem Ibidem to pay off the Debts of the indebted Members thereof, and to help those poor Mechanicks [Page 35] with a convenient Sum of Mony, who were willing to set up their Trades. If Cyprian's Diocess had consisted of scores of Parishes, how many Thousand Pounds must he have expended, to have paid off the Debts of all the insolvent Persons therein, and to have [...] every poor Trader with a sufficient Stock to carry on his Employment?

3. All the Diocess was present, when the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was admini­stred. So saith Cyprian, Sacramenti veritatem [...] omni prae­sente celebramus. Epist. 63. §. 12. p. 177. We celebrate the Sacra­ment, the whole Brother­hood being present.

4. When Celerinus was ordained Lector or Clerk by Cyprian, he Read from the Pulpit, so that Plebi Universae, Epist. 34. §. 4. p. 81. All the People could see and hear him.

5. In all Ordinations, all the People were consulted, and none were admitted into Holy Orders without their Approbation, as is assu­red by Cyprian Bishop of this Diocess, who tells us, that it was his constant custom In ordinationibus Cle­ricis, fratres charissimi, solemus vos ante consu­lere, & mores ac merita [...] communi consilio ponderare. Epist. [...]. ad Clerum & Plebem. p. 76. in all Ordinations to consult his People, and with their common Counsel to weigh the merits of every Candi­date of the Sacred Orders. And therefore when for extraordinary Merits he advanced one to the Degree of a Lector or Clerk, without first communicating it to his Diocess, he writes [Page 36] from his Exil'd State Plebi Universae. Epist. 34. p. 80. to his whole Flock the Reason of it.

6. When that See was vacant, all the People met together to chuse a Bishop. Whence Pon­tius says, that Cyprian was elected Bishop of this Diocess Plebis favore. In vita Cypriani. by the fa­vour of the people. And Cyprian himself acknow­ledges, that he was cho­sen by Populi universi Suf­fragio. Epist. 55. §. 7. p. 139. the Suffrage of all his People.

7. All the People of this Diocess could meet together to send Letters to other Churches; an instance whereof we have in that gratulato­ry Letter still extant in Cyprian, which they Vicarias vero pro no­bis ego & Collegae, & Fiaternitas omnis has ad vos literas [...]. A­pud Cyprian. Epist. 58. §. 2. p. 163. all sent to Lucius Bishop of Rome, on his Return from Exile.

8. All the People were present at Church-Censures, and concurred at the Secundum vestra divi­na [...] conjurati. Epist. 40. ad [...], §. 1. p. 92. Excommunica­tion of Offenders. Thus Cyprian writing from his Exile, to the People of this his Diocess, about the Irregularities of two of his Subdeacons, and one of his Aco­lyths; and about the Schism of Felicissimus, as­sures them, that as to the former, when ever it should please God to return him in Peace, Et cum plebe ipsa uni­versa. Epist. 28. §. 2. p. 64. it should be determined by him and his Colleagues, and his whole Flock. And [Page 37] as to the latter, that then likewise that should be transacted Secundum arbitrium quoque vestrum, & om­nium [...] commune Consilium. Epist. 40. ad Plebem, §. 7. p. 94. according to the Arbitrament of the People, and the common Counsel of them all.

9. At the Absolution of Penitents, all the People were present, who examined the Rea­lity of the Offender's Repentance; and if well satisfied of it, consented, that they should be admitted to the Churches Peace. Therefore when some Presbyters in a time of Persecution, had with too great [...] and Precipitancy assoyled some of those, that through the Vio­lence of the Persecution had succumbed, Cy­prian writes them from his Exile an objurga­tory Letter, commanding them to admit no more, till Peace should be restored to the Church, when those Offenders should plead their Cause Acturi apud Plebem universam causam suam. Epist. 10. §. 4. p. 30. before all the Peo­ple. And touching the same matter he writes in another place to all the People of his Diocess, that when it should please God to restore Peace to the Church, then all those matters Examinabuntur singula praesentibus & judicanti­bus vobis. Epist. 12. ad Plebem, §. 1. p. 37. should be examined in their Presence, and be judged by them.

Lastly, Nothing was done in this Diocess without the Consent of the People. So resolved Bishop Cyprian A primordio episcopa­tus mei statuerim nihil sine consensu Plebis [...] privata sententia gerere. Epist. 6. §. 5. p. 17. from the first time I was made Bi­shop, said he, I determin­ed [Page 38] to do nothing without the consent of my People. And accordingly when he was exil'd from his Flock, he writ to the Clergy and Laity there­of, that when it should please God to return him unto them, De iis quae vel gesta sunt, vel gerenda, sicut honor [...]. poscit, in commune tractabimus. Epist. 6. §. 5. p. 17. all Affairs, as their mutual Honour did require, should be debated in common by them.

Now whether all these Observations do not evidently reduce the Diocess of Carthage to the same Bulk with our Parishes, I leave to every one to [...]: For my part, I must needs profess, that I cannot imagin, how all the People thereof could receive the Sacrament to­gether, assist at the Excommunication and Ab­solution of Offenders, assemble together to elect their Bishop, and do the rest of those fore­mentioned particulars, without confining this Bishoprick within the Limits of a particular Congregation.

§. 11. As for the Diocess of Alexandria, though the numbers of the Christians therein were not so many, but that in the middle of the Fourth Century they could all, or at least most of them, meet together in one place, as I might evince from the Writings of Apolog. ad Constant. Athanasius, were it not beyond my prescribed time; yet in the third Century they had divided themselves into several distinct and separate Congregations, which were all sub­jected to one Bishop, as is clearly enough as­serted by Dyonisius Bishop of this Church, who [Page 39] mentions, [...]. Advers. [...] apud Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 11. p. 260. the distinct Congregations in the ex­tremest Suburbs of the Ci­ty. The Reason whereof seems to be this; Those Members of this Bishop­rick, who lived in the remotest parts of it, finding it incommodious and troublesom every Lord's Day, Saturday, Wednesday and Friday (on which days they always assembled) to go to their one usual Meeting-place, which was very far from their own Homes; and withal being unwilling to divide themselves from their old Church and Bishop, lest they should seem guil­ty of the detestable Sin of Schism, which con­sisted in a Causeless Separation from their Bi­shop and Parish Church, as shall be hereafter shewn, desired their proper Bishop, to give them leave for Conveniency sake, to Erect near their own Habitations a Chappel of Ease, which should be a Daughter-Church to the Bishops, under his Jurisdiction, and guided by a Pres­byter of his Commission and Appointment, whereat they would usually meet, tho' on some Solemn Occasions they would still all assemble in one Church with their one Bishop.

That for this Reason these separate Congre­gations were introduced at Alexandria, seems evident enough; because Dyonisius Alexandri­nus saith, that these distinct Congregations were only in the [...]. Vide ut antea. remotest Suburbs; and the Chri­stians hereof were not as yet arrived to those great numbers, but that seventy years after they [Page 40] could meet all together in one and the same place, as might be proved from that foremen­tioned place of Athanasius.

So that these distinct Congregations were on­ly for the Conveniency and Ease of those who lived at a great distance from the Bishop's Church, being introduced in the third Centu­ry, and peculiar to the Bishoprick of Alexan­dria: All other Bishopricks confining them­selves within their Primitive Bounds of a single Congregation, as we have before proved the largest of them did; even Antioch, Rome, and Carthage.

§. 12. If then a Bishoprick was but a single Congregation, it is no marvel that we find Bi­shops not only in Cities, but in Country Vil­lages; there being a Bishop constituted, where­ever there were Believers enough to form a competent Congregation; For, says Clemens Romanus, the Apostles go­ing forth, and [...], Epist. 1. ad Co­rintn. p. 54. preach­ing both in Country and City, constituted Bishops and Deacons there. Much to which purpose Cypri­an says, That Per omnes Provincias, & per urbes singulas or­dinati sunt Episcopi, E­pist. 52. §. 16. p. 119. Bishops were ordained throughout all Provinces and Cities: Hence in the Encyclycal Epistle of the Synod of Antioch, it is said, That Paulus Samosatenus had many Flatterers [...]. Apud Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 30. p. [...]. a­mongst the adjacent City and Country Bishops; of this sort of Country-Bishops [Page 41] was Zoticus, Bi­shop [...]. Anonym. apud Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 16. p. 182. of the Village of Comane. And we may reasonably believe, That many of those Bishops, who in the Year 258, were assembled at Concil. Carthag. apud Cyprian. p. 443. Car­thage to the number of fourscore and seven, had no other than obscure Villages for their Seats, since we find not the least notice of them in Ptolomy, or any of the old Geogra­phers.

§. 13. But let the Bishops Seats have been in any place whatever, their Limits, as hath been proved, exceeded not those of our Mo­dern Parishes: I do not here mean, as was said before, that the Territory of some of them, was no larger; no, I readily grant that; for it is very probable, that in those places, where there were but few Believers, the Chri­stians, for several Miles round, met all [...] at the greatest place within that Compass, where probably there were most Christians, whence both the Church and its Bishop took their Denomination from that Place where they so assembled. But this is what I mean, that there were no more Christians in that Bishoprick, than there are now in our ordi­nary Parishes; and that the Believers of that whole Territory met altogether with their Bishop for the Performance of Religious Ser­vices.

Thus it was in the Age and Country of Justin Martyr, who describing their solemn [Page 42] Assemblies, writes, That [...]. A­polog. 2. p. 98. on Sunday all the Inha­bitants both of City and Country met together, where the Lector read some Por­tions of the Holy Scrip­tures; and the Bishop preached unto them, ad­ministred the Eucharist, and sent by the Deacons part of the Consecrated Elements to those that were absent. So that the Inhabitants both of City and Country, assem­bled all at the Bishop's Church, hearing him, and communicating with him, following here­in the Exhortation of Saint Ignatius to the Magnesians, [...]. Epist. ad Magnes. p. 33. Let no­thing, saith he, be in you, that may divide you; but be united to the Bishop, and those that preside over you: As therefore our Lord Jesus Christ did no­thing without his Father, neither by himself, nor his Apostles, so do you no­thing without the Bishop and Presbyters, but assem­ble into one Place, and have one Prayer, one Sup­plication, one Mind, and one Hope.

CHAP. III.

§. 1. THE Bishop's Flock having been so largely discussed, it will now be ne­cessary to speak something of the Bishop's Duty towards them, and of the several Particulars of his honourable Office: I shall not here be tedious, since about this there is no great dif­ference; only briefly enumerate the several Actions belonging to his Charge.

In brief therefore; the particular Acts of his Function were such as these, viz. Origen. in [...]. Hom. 3. Preach­ing of the Word, Justin. Martyr. Apol. 2. p. 98. Pray­ing with his People, ad­ministring the two Sacra­ments of Tertul. de Baptism. p. 602. Baptism and the Idem de Coron. Milit. p. 338. Lord's Supper, Justin Martyr. Apol. 2. p. 99. ta­king care of the Poor, Firmilian. apud Cypr. Epist. 75. §. 6. p. 237. Ordaining of Ministers, Tertul. Apol. cap. 39. p. 709. Governing his Flock, Cypr. Ep. 38. §. 2. p. 90. Excommunicating of Of­fenders, Idem Ep. 10. §. 2. p. 30. Absolving of Penitents; and, in a word; whatever Acts [Page 44] can be comprised under those three General Heads of Preaching, Worship, and Govern­ment, were parts of the Bishop's Function and Office.

I have but just named these things, because they are not much controverted; and my De­sign leads me chiefly to the Consideration of those matters which have been unhappily dis­puted amongst us.

§. 2. To the constant Discharge of those fore­mentioned Actions, did the Primitive Bishops sedulously apply themselves, continually preach­ing unto their People, praying with them, and watching over them, and to that end, residing always with them; which Incumbency or Resi­dency on their Parishes, was deem'd so neces­sary, that Cyprian enumerating the Sins that brought the Wrath of God upon the Churches in that bloody Persecution of Decius, mentions the Bishops Non-Resi­dencies as one; Episcopi derelictâ ca­thediâ, plebe desertâ, per alienas Provincias ober­rantes, negotiationis que­stuosae [...] aucupa­ri, De Lapsis, §. 4. p. 278. Their leaving their Rectories, and deserting their Flocks, and wandring about the Country to hunt after Worldly Gain and Advan­tage: And therefore the said Cyprian writing to the Roman Consessors, who were inveigled into the Schism of Nova­tian, tells them, Nos Ecclesiâ derelictà, [...] exire, & ad vos ve­nire non possumus. Epist. 44. §. 2. p. 102. that since he could not leave his Church, and come in Person unto them, there­fore by his Letters he most earnestly exhorted them to quit that [...] Faction; so that [Page 45] he look'd on his Obligation of Residency at his Church to be so binding, as that in no Case almost, could he warrant the leaving of it; which Determination of his might be the more fix'd and peremptory, because that not long before, he was so severe­ly tax'd Epist. 3. apud Cyprian. p. 11. by the Roman Clergy, and by many of his own Pontius in vita Cy­priani. Parish, for de­parting from them for a while, though it was to avoid the Fury of his Persecutors, who had already proscribed him, and would have executed him as a Malesactor, had he not by that Recess from his Church, escaped their murderous Hand.

So that the Primitive Apostolick Bishops constantly resided with their Flocks, conscien­tiously applying themselves with the utmost Di­ligence and Industry to the Promotion of the Spiritual Welfare of those that were commit­ted to their trust, employing themselves in all Acts of Piety, and Offices of Charity; so lead­ing a laborious and mortified Life, till either a natural, or a violent Death removed them from Earth to Heaven, where they were made Priests to the most High, and were infinitely remunerated for all their Pains and Sorrows; and so leaving their particular Flocks on Earth, to be sed and govern'd by others, who should succeed them in their places; which brings me in the next place to enquire, How a vacant Bishoprick was supplied, or in what manner a Bishop or Minister was elected to a Diocess or Parish?

§. 3. Now the manner of electing a Bishop, [Page 46] I find to be thus: When a Parish or Bishoprick was vacant through the Death of the Incum­bent, all the Members of that Parish, both Clergy and Laity, met together in the Church commonly, to chuse a fit Person for his Suc­cessor, to whom they might commit the Care and Government of their Church.

Thus when Alexander was chosen Bishop of Jerusalem, it was by the [...]. Euseb, lib. 6, cap. 11. p. 212. Compulsion or Choice of the Members of that Church. And as for the Bishoprick of Rome, we have a memorable Instance of this kind in the Advancement of Fabianus to that See, upon the Death of Bishop Ante­rus: [...] Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 28. p. 229. All the People met together in the Church to chuse a Successor, propo­sing several illustrious and eminent Personages, as fit for that Office, whilst no one so much as thought upon Fabianus then pre­sent, till a Dove miracu­lously came and sate upon his Head, in the same manner as the Holy Ghost formerly descended on our Saviour; and then all the People, guided as it were, with one Divine Spirit, cryed out with one Mind and Soul, That Fabianus was worthy of the Bishop­rick; [Page 47] and so straight­ways taking him, they placed him on the Epis­copal Throne. And as Fabianus, so likewise his Successor Cornelius Episcopo Cornelio—Cleri ac plebis suffragio ordinato. Cyprian. Epist. 67. §. 2. p. 198. was elected by the suffrage of the Clergy and Laity.

Thus also with respect to the Diocess of Carthage, Cyprian was chosen Bishop thereof by its Inhabitants and Members, as Pontius his Deacon writes, Judicio Dei, & plebis favore ad Officium Sa­cerdotii, & Episcopatus Gradum, ad huc Neophy­tus- electus est. In Vita Cypriani. That though he was a Novice, yet by the Grace of God, and the Favour of the People, he was elevated to that sublime Dignity; which is no more than what Cyprian himself acknowledges, who fre­quently owns, that he was promoted to that Honourable Charge by the Populi universi suffra­gio. Epist. 55. §. 7. p. 139. Populi suffragium. Epist. 55. §. 6. p. 138. Suffra­gium vestrum, Epist. 406 §. 1. p. 92. Suffrage of the Peo­ple.

§. 4. When the People had thus elected a Bishop, they presented him to the neighbour­ing Bishops for their Approbation and Consent, because without their concurrent Assent, there could be no Bishop legally instituted, or con­firmed.

Thus when the fore-mentioned Alexan­der was Chosen Bishop of Jerusalem, by the Brethren of that place; he had also the [Page 48] [...]. Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 11. p. 212. common Consent of the circumjacent Bishops. Now the Reason of this, I suppose, was, lest the People thro' Ignorance or Affection, should chuse an unfit, or an unable Man for that sacred Of­fice; it being supposed, that a Synod of Bishops had more Wisdom, Learning, and Prudence, than a Congregation of unlearned and ignorant Men, and so were better able to judge of the Abilities and Qualifications of the Person elect, than the People were. Hence we find, that sometimes the Election of a Bishop is attribu­ted to the Choice of the Neighbouring Bishops, with the Consent and Suffrage of the People: This Custom generally prevail'd throughout Africa; where upon the Vacancy of a See, Apud nos, & fere per Provincias universas te­netur, ut ad Ordinatio­nes rite celebrandas, ad cam plebem cui praeposi­tus ordinatur, Episcopi ejusdem Provinciae prox­imi quique conveniant, & Episcopus deligatur, plebe praesente, quae sin­gulorum vitam plenissi­me novit, & uniuscu­jusque actum de ejus Conversatione perspexit. Quod factum videmus in Sabini Ordinatione, ut de universae fraternitatis Suffragio, & de Episco­porum judicio Episcopa­tus ei deferetur. Synod. African. apud Cyprian. E­pist. 68. §. 6. p. 202. The Neighbouring Bishops of the Province met together at that Church, and chose a Bishop in the presence of the People, who knew his Life and Conversation before; which Custom was observed in the Election of Sabinus, Bishop of E­merita in Spain, who was advanc'd to that Dignity by the Suffrage of all the Brethren, and of all the Bishops there present. But whether the Election of a Bishop, be ascribed to the adjoining Ministers, [Page 49] or to the People of that Parish, it comes all to one and the same thing; neither the Choice of the Bishops of the Voisinage, without the Con­sent of the People; nor the Election of the People, without the Approbation of those Bi­shops, was sufficient and valid of it self; but both concurred to a legal and orderly Promo­tion, which was according to the Example of the Apostles and Apo­stolick Preachers, who in the first Plantation of Churches, [...]. Clem. Roman. Epist. 1. ad Corinth. p. 57. Ordained Bishops and Deacons, with the Consent of the whole Church.

§. 5. A Bishop being thus elected and con­firmed, the next thing that followed, was his Ordination or [...], which was done in his own Church by the neighbouring Bishops; as Cyprian mentions some Bishops in his time, who went to In Capsensi Civitate propter Ordinationem E­piscopi essetis, Epist. 53. §. 1. p. 131. a City called Capse to install a Bishop; whither when they were come, they took the Bishop Elect, and in the presence of his Flock, Ordained, or Installed him Bishop of that Church, by Impo­sition of Hands, as Sabi­nus was Episcopatus ei defer­retur, & manus ei impo­neretur. Apud Cyprian. Epist. 68. §. 6. p. 202. placed in his Bishoprick by Imposition of Hands. Therefore For­tunatus the Schismatical Bishop of Carthage, Quinque Pseudo-epis­copi Carthaginem vene­rint, & Fortunatam sibi dementiae suae socium constituerint. Cyprian. Epist. 55. §. 12. p. 140. got five Bishops to come and Ordain him at Carthage: And so Novatian, when [Page 50] he Schismatically aspired to the Bishoprick of Rome, that he might not seem to leap in Uncanonically, [...]. Cornel. apud Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 43. p. 243. wheedled three ignorant and simple Bishops to come to Rome, and install him in that Bishoprick by Im­position of Hands.

How many Bishops were necessary to this in­stalling of a Bishop Elect, I find not; Three were sufficient, as is apparent from the fore­cited action of Novatian; whether less would do, I know not, since I find not the least foot­steps of it in my Antiquity, unless that from Novatian's sending for, and [...] just three Bishops out of Italy, we conclude that Number to be necessary.

But if there were more than Three, it was not accounted unnecessary or needless; for the more Bishops there were present at an Install­ment, the more did its validity and unexcep­tionableness appear: Whence Cyprian argues the undeniable Legality of Cornelius's Promo­tion to the See of Rome, because he had Episcopo in Ecclesia à sedecim Coepiscopis fa­cto. Epist. 52. §. 16. p. 119. sixteen Bishops present at his Or­dination: And for this Reason it was, that Fortunatus, the Schismati­cal Bishop of Carthage falsely boasted, That there were Jactare viginti quin­que Episcopos affuisse. Cyprian. Epist. 55. §. 12. p. 140. Twenty-five Bishops present at his In­stallment. And thus in short, we have viewed the Method of the An­cients [Page 51] in their Election of Bishops; we have shewn, that they were elected by the People, approved and installed by the Neighbouring Bishops; on which Ac­count it is, that Cyprian calls them Delecti, ordinati. E­pist. 41. §. 2. p. 97. Chosen and ordained.

§. 6. It may not now be amiss to mention this Custom, that when a Bishop was thus pre­sented and advanced to a See, he immediately gave notice of it to other Bishops, especially to the most renowned Bishops and Bishopricks, as Tu te Episcopum fac­tum literis nunciares. Cy­prian. Epist. 42. §. 4. p. 99. Cornelius writ to Cy­prian Bishop of Carthage, an Account of his being promoted to the See of Rome; betwixt which two Churches, there was such a peculiar Intercourse and Harmony, as that this Custom was more particularly ob­served by them, insomuch that it was observed by the Schismatical Bishops of each Church, Venerunt ad nos mis­si à Novatiano Maximus Presbyter, &c. Cyprian. Epist. 41. §. 1. p. 96. Novatian giving no­tice to Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, of his Pro­motion to the Church of Rome: And Ad te Legati à For­tunato missi. Idem Epist. 55. §. 18. p. 143. Fortunatus advising Cornelius Bishop of Rome, of his Ad­vancement to the Church of Carthage.

§. 7. Let what hath been spoken now suffice for the peculiar Acts of the Bishop: We have proved, that there was but one Bishop to a Church, and one Church to a Bishop; we have shewn the Bishop's Office and Function, Election [Page 52] and Ordination; what farther to add on this Head, I know not: For as for those other Acts which he performed jointly with his Flock, we must refer them to another place, till we have handled those other Matters which previously propose themselves unto us: The first of which will be an Examination into the Office and Or­der of a Presbyter, which, because it will be somewhat long, shall be the Subject of the fol­lowing Chapter.

CHAP. IV.

§. 1. IT will be both needless and tedious to endeavour to prove, that the Ancients generally mention Presbyters distinct from Bi­shops. Every one, I suppose, will readily own and acknowledge it. The great Question which hath most deplorably sharpned and sour'd the Minds of too many, is what the Office and Or­der of a Presbyter was: About this the World hath been, and still is most uncharitably divi­ded; some equalize a Presbyter in every thing with a Bishop; others as much debase him, each according to their particular Opinions, ei­ther advance or degrade him. In many Con­troversies [Page 53] a middle way hath been the safest, perhaps in this, the Medium between the two Extremes may be the truest: Whether what I am now going to say, be the true [...] of the Matter, I leave to the Learned Reader to de­termin; I may be deceived, neither mine Years, nor Abilities, exempt me from Mistakes and Errors: But this I must needs say, That after the most diligent Researches, and impartialest Enquiries, The following Notion seems to me most plausible, and most consentaneous to Truth; and which, with a great facility and clearness, solves those Doubts and Objections, which, according to those other Hypotheses, I know not how to answer. But yet however, I am not so wedded and bigotted to this Opi­nion, but if any shall produce better, and more convincing Arguments to the contrary, I will not contentiously defend, but readily relinquish it, since I search after Truth, not to promote a particular Party or Interest.

Now for the better Explication of this Point, I shall first lay down a Definition and Descrip­tion of a Presbyter, and then prove the parts thereof.

Now the Definition of a Presbyter may be this: A Person in Holy Orders, having thereby an inherent Right to perform the whole Office of a Bishop; but being possessed of no Place or Parish, not actually discharging it, without the Permission and Consent of the Bishop of a Place or Parish.

But lest this Definition should seem obscure, I shall [...] it by this following Instance: As a Curate hath the same Mission and Power with the Minister, whose Place he supplies; [Page 54] yet being not the Minister of that place, he can­not perform there any acts of his Ministerial Function, without leave from the Minister thereof: So a Presbyter had the same Order and Power with a Bishop, whom he assisted in his Cure; yet being not the Bishop or Minister of that Cure, he could not there perform any parts of his Pastoral Office, without the per­mission of the Bishop thereof: So that what we generally render Bishops, Priests, and Dea­cons, would be more intelligible in our Tongue, if we did express it by Rectors, Vicars, and Deacons; by Rectors, understanding the Bi­shops; and by Vicars, the Presbyters; the for­mer being the actual Incumbents of a Place, and the latter Curates or Assistants, and so dif­ferent in Degree, but yet equal in Order.

Now this is what I understand by a Presby­ter; for the Confirmation of which, these two things are to be proved.

I. That the Presbyters were the Bishops Cu­rates and Assistants, and so inferiour to them in the actual Exercise of their Ecclesiastical Commission.

II. That yet notwithstanding, they had the same inherent Right with the Bishops, and so were not of a distinct specifick Order from them. Or more briefly thus:

1. That the Presbyters were different from the Bishops in gradu, or in degree; but yet,

2. They were equal to them in Ordine, or in Order.

§ 2. As to the first of these; That Presby­ters were but the Bishops Curates and Assist­ants, inferiour to them in Degree, or in the [Page 55] actual Discharge of their Ecclesiastical Com­mission. This will appear to have been, in ef­fect, already proved, if we recollect what has been asserted, touching the Bishop and his Office, That there was but one Bishop in a Church; That he usually performed all the parts of Divine Service; That he was the ge­neral Disposer and Manager of all things with­in his Diocess, there being nothing done there without his Consent and Approbation: To which we may particularly add,

1. That without the Bishop's leave, a Pres­byter could not baptize: Thus saith Tertul­lian Baptismum dandi ha­bet jus—Episcopus, de­hinc Presbyteri & Dia­coni, non tamen sine E­piscopi auctoritate prop­ter Ecclesiae honorem. De Baptism. p. 602. The Bishop hath the Right of Baptizing, then the Presbyters and Deacons, but yet for the Honour of the Church, not without the Authority of the Bishop; and to the same Effect, saith Igna­tius, [...]. Epist. ad Smirn. p. 6. It is not lawful for any one to baptize, except the Bishop permit him.

2. Without the Bishop's permission, a Pres­byter could not administer the Lord's Supper. [...]. Epist. ad Smirn. p. 6. That Eucharist, says Ignatius, is only valid, which is performed by the Bishop, or by whom he shall permit; for it is not law­ful for any one to cele­brate the Eucharist, without leave from the Bishop.

3. Without the Bishops Consent, a Presby­ter could not preach; and when he did preach, [Page 56] he could not chuse his own Subject, but dis­coursed on those Matters which were enjoyned him by the Bishop, as [...]. Homil. de Engastrym. p. 28. Vol. 1. the Bishop commanded Origen to preach about the Witch of Endor.

4. Without the Bishop's Permission, a Pres­byter could not absolve Offenders, therefore Cyprian Aliqui de Presbyteris, nec Evangelii, nec loci sui memores, sed neque futurum Domini Judi­cium, neque nunc sibi praepositum Episcopum cogitantes, quod nun­quam omnino sub Ante­cessoribus factum est, cum contumeliâ & con­temptu praepositi totum sibi vendicent. Epist. 10. §. 1. p. 29. Vide etiam Epist. 11. §. 1. p. 32. & Epist. 12. §. 1. p. 37. severely chides some of his Presbyters, because they dared in his absence, without his Consent and Leave, to give the Church's Peace to some offending Cri­minals.

But what need I reckon up particulars, when in general there was no Ecclesiastical Office per­formed by the Presbyters, without the Consent and Permission of the Bishop: So says Igna­tius, [...]. [...]. ad Smirn. p. 6. Let nothing be done of Ecclesiastical Con­cerns, without the Bishop; for [...]. Idem ibid. p. 7. Whosoever doth any thing without the know­ledge of the Bishop, is a Worshipper of the De­vil.

Now had the Presbyters had an equal Power in the Government of those Churches wherein they lived, how could it have been impudent [Page 57] and usurping in them to have perform'd the particular acts of their Ecclesiastical Function, without the Bishop's Leave and Consent? No, it was not fit or just, that any one should preach, or govern in a Parish, without the per­mission of the Bishop or Pastor thereof; for where Churches had been regularly formed un­der the Jurisdiction of their proper Bishops, it had been an unaccountable Impudence, and a most detestable act of Schism for any one, tho' never so legally Ordained, to have entred those Parishes, and there to have performed Ecclesiastical Administrations, without the per­mission of, or which is all one, in Defiance to the Bishops, or Ministers thereof; for though a Presbyter by his Ordination had as ample an inherent Right and Power to discharge all Cle­rical Offices, as any Bishop in the World had; yet Peace, Unity and Order, oblig'd him not to invade that part of God's Church, which was committed to another Man's Care, without that Man's Approbation and Consent.

So then in this Sense a Presbyter was infe­riour to a Bishop in Degree, in that having no Parish of his own, he could not actually dis­charge the particular Acts of his Ministerial Function, without leave from the Bishop of a Parish or Diocess: The Bishops were superiour to the Presbyters, in that they were the pre­sented, [...], and inducted Ministers of their respective Parishes; and the Presbyters were inferiour to the Bishops, in that they were but their Curates and Assistants.

§. 3. But though the Presbyters were thus different from the Bishops in Degree, yet they [Page 58] were of the very same specifick Order with them, having the same inherent Right to per­form those Ecclesiastical Offices, which the Bi­shop did, as will appear from these three Ar­guments.

1. That by the Bishop's permission they dis­charged all those Offices, which a Bishop did. 2. That they were called by the same Titles and Appellations as the Bishops were: And, 3. That they are expresly said to be of the same Order with the Bishops. As to the first of these, That by the Bishop's permission, they dischar­ged all those Offices which a Bishop did; this will appear from that,

1. When the Bishop ordered them, they preach'd. Thus Origen, in the beginning of some of his Sermons, tells us, That he was commanded thereunto by the Bishop, as parti­cularly when he preach'd about the Witch of En­dor; he says, [...]. Hom. de Engastrym. p. 28. Vol. 1. The Bishop commanded him to do it.

2. By the permission of the Bishop, Presby­ters baptized. Thus writes Tertullian, Baptismum dandi ha­bet jus- Episcopus, de­hinc Presbyteri & Diaco­ni, non tamen sine Epis­copi auctoritate. De Bap­tism. p. 602. The Bishop has the Right of Baptizing, and then the Presbyters, but not with­out his leave.

3. By the leave of the Bishop, Presbyters administred the Eucharist, as must be supposed in that saying of Igna­tius, [...]. Epist. ad Smirn. p. 6. That that Eucha­rist only was valid, which was celebrated by the Bi­shop, [Page 59] or by one appointed by him; and that the Eucharist could not be de­livered but by the Bishop, or by one whom he did approve.

4. The Presbyters ruled in those Churches to which they belonged, else this Exhortation of Polycarpus to the Presbyters of Philippi, would have been in vain; Epist. ad Philip. §. 5. Thus [...] by Dr. Cave, in the Life of St. Polycarp, p. 127. Let the Presbyters be tender and merciful, com­passionate towards all, re­ducing those that are in Errors, visiting all that are weak, not negligent of the Widow and the Orphan, and him that is poor; but ever providing what is honest in the sight of God and Men; abstaining from all Wrath, Re­spect of Persons, and unrighteous Judgment; be­ing far from Covetousness, not hastily believing a Report against any Man, not rigid in Judgment, knowing that we are all faulty, and obnoxious to Judgment. Hence,

5. They presided in Church-Consistories to­gether with the Bishop, and composed the exe­cutive part of the Ecclesiastical Court; from whence it was called the Presbytery, because in it, as Tertullian says, Probati praesident Se­niores. Apol. c. 39. p. 709. Approved Elders did preside.

6. They had also the Power of Excommuni­cation, as Vid. Cyprian. Epist. 38. & 39. p. 90. & 92. Rogatianus and Numidicus, Two Presbyters of Cyprian's Church, by his Order join'd with some Bishops of his Nomination, in the Excommunication of [Page 60] certain Schismaticks of his Diocess. But of both these two Heads, more will be spoken in another place.

7. Presbyters restored returning Penitents, to the Church's peace. Thus we read in an Epistle of Dyonisius, Bishop of Alexandria, That a certain Offender called Serapion, ap­proaching to the time of his Dissolution, [...]. Ad Fabium An­tioch. apud Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 44. p. 246. Sent for one of the Presbyters to absolve him, which the Presbyter did, according to the Order of his Bishop, who had before command­ed, That the Presbyters should absolve those who were in danger of Death.

8. Presbyters Confirmed, as we shall most evidently prove, when we come to treat of Confirmation: Only remark here by the way, That in the days of Cyprian, there was a hot Controversie, Whether those that were bapti­zed by Hereticks, and came over to the Catho­lick Church, should be received as Members thereof by Baptism and Confirmation, or by Confirmation alone? Now I would fain know, Whether during the vacancy of a See, or the Bishop's absence, which sometimes might be very long, as Cyprian was absent two years, a Presbyter could not admit a returning Heretick to the Peace and Unity of the Church, especi­ally if we consider their positive Damnation of all those that died out of the Church? If the Presbyters had not had this Power of Confir­mation, many penitent Souls must have been damn'd for the unavoidable Default of a Bi­shop, [Page 61] which is too cruel and unjust to imagine.

9. As for Ordination, I find but little said of this in Antiquity; yet as little as there is, there are clearer Proofs of the Presbyters Or­daining, than there are of their administring the Lord's Supper: Omnis potestas & gra­tia in Ecclesiâ constitu­ta sit ubi praesident ma­jores [...], qui & bapti­zandi, & manum impo­nendi & ordinandi possi­dent potestatem. Apud Cyprian. Epist. 75. §. 6. p. 237. All Power and Grace, saith Firmilian, is constituted in the Church, where Seniors preside, who have the Pow­er of Baptizing, Confirm­ing, and Ordaining; or as it may be rendred, and perhaps more agreeable to the sense of the place; Who had the Power as of Baptizing, so also of Confirming and Or­daining. What these Seniors were, will be best understood by a parallel place in Tertullian; for that place in Tertullian, and this in Firmi­lian, are usually cited to expound one another, by most Learned Men, as by the most Learned Primitive Christiani­ty. Part 3. cap. 5. p. 379. Dr. Cave, and others. Now the passage in Ter­tullian is this; In the Ec­clesiastical Courts Probati praesident Se­niores. Apol. c. 39. p. 709. ap­proved Elders preside: Now by these approved Elders, Bishops and Presbyters, must necessa­rily be understood; because Tertullian speaks here of the Discipline exerted in one particular Church or Parish, in which there was but one Bishop; and if only he had presided, then there could not have been Elders in the Plural Num­ber; but there being many Elders to make out their Number, we must add the Presbyters to [Page 62] the Bishop, who also presided with him, as we shall more fully shew in another place. Now the same that presided in Church-Consistories, the same also ordained; Presbyters as well as Bishops presided in Church-Consistories; there­fore Presbyters as well as Bishops Ordained. And as in those Churches where there were Presbyters, both they and the Bishop presided together, so also they Ordained together, both laying on their Hands in Ordination, as St. Ti­mothy was Ordained [...]. 1 Tim. 4. 14. by the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytery; that is, by the Hands of the Bishop and Presbyters of that Parish where he was Ordained, as is the constant signification of the word Presbytery, in all the Writings of the Ancients. But,

10. Though as to every particular act of the Bishop's Office, it could not be proved parti­cularly, that a Presbyter did discharge them; yet it would be sufficient, if we could prove, that in the general, a Presbyter could, and did perform them all. Now that a Presbyter could do so, and consequently by the Bishop's per­mission did do so, will appear from the Exam­ple of the great Saint Cyprian, Bishop of Car­thage, who being exil'd from his Church, writes a Letter to the Clergy thereof; wherein he ex­horts and begs them Fungamini illic & ve­stris partibus ac meis, ut nihil vel ad disciplinam, vel ad diligentiam desit. Epist. 5. §. 1. p. 15. to discharge their own and his Office too, that so no­thing might be wanting either to Discipline or Di­ligence. And much to [Page 63] the same Effect he thus writes them in another Letter, Fretus ergo & dile­ctione & religione [...], quam satis novi, his literis & hortor, & man­do, ut vos—vice [...] fungamini circa gerenda ea, quae administratio re­ligiofa deposcit. Epist. 6. §. 2. p. 17. Trusting there­fore to your Kindness and Religion, which I have a­bundantly experienced, I exhort and command you by these Letters, that in my stead you perform those Offices which the Eccle­siastical Dispensation re­quires. And in a Letter written upon the same Occasion, by the Clergy of the Church of Rome, to the Clergy of the Church of Carthage, we find these Words towards the beginning there­of, Et cum incumbat no­bis qui videmur praepo­siti esse, & vice pastoris [...] gregem, si ne­gligentes inveniamur, di­cetur nobis quod & an­tecessoribus nostris di­ctum est, qui tam negli­gentes praepositi erant: quoniam perditum non requisivimus, & erran­tem non correximus, & claudum non colligavi­mus, & [...] eorum ede­bamus, & lanis eorum operiebamur. Apud Cy­prian. Epist. 3. §. 1. p. 11. And since it is in­cumbent upon us, who are as it were Bishops, to keep the Flock in the room of the Pastor. If we shall be found negligent, it shall be said unto us, as it was said to our careless preceeding Bishops, in Ezekiel 34. 3, 4. That we looked not after that which was lost, we did not correct him that wan­dered, nor bound up him that was lame, but we did eat their Milk, and were covered with their Wooll. So that the Presbyters were as it were Bishops, that in the Bishop's Absence kept his Flock, and in his stead performed all those Ecclesiasti­cal Offices, which were incumbent on him.

Now then if the Presbyters could supply the [Page 64] place of an Absent Bishop, and in general dis­charge all those Offices, to which a Bishop had been obliged, if he had been present; it natu­rally follows that the Presbyters could dis­charge every particular Act and Part thereof. If I should say, such an one has all the Senses of a Man, and yet also assert that he cannot see, I should be judged a Self-contradictor in that Assertion; for in affirming that he had all the Human Senses, I also affirmed, that he saw, because Seeing is one of those Senses. For whatsoever is affirmed of an Universal, is af­firmed of every one of its Particulars. So when the Fathers say, that the Presbyters performed the whole Office of the Bishop, it naturally en­sues, that they Confirmed, Ordained, Baptized, &c. because those are Particulars of that Uni­versal.

But now from the whole we may collect a solid Argument for the Equality of Presbyters with Bishops as to Order; for if a Presbyter did all a Bishop did, what difference was there between them? A Bishop preached, baptized and confirmed, so did a Presbyter. A Bishop excommunicated, absolved and ordained, so did a Presbyter: Whatever a Bishop did, the same did a Presbyter; the particular Acts of their Office was the same; the only difference that was between them was in Degree; but this proves there was none at all in Order.

2. That Bishops and Presbyters were of the same Order, appears also, from that originally they had one and the same Name, each of them being indifferently called Bishops or Pres­byters. Hence we read in the Sacred Writ of [Page 65] several Bishops in one particular Church, as the [...]. 20. Actor. v. 28. Bishops of Ephesus, and [...]. 1. Phil. 1. Philippi, that is, the Bi­shops and Presbyters of those Churches, as they were afterwards distinctly called. And Clemens Romanus sometimes mentions many Bishops in the Church of Corinth, whom at other times he calls by the Name of Presbyters, using those two Terms as Synonimous Titles and Appella­tions, Epist. 1. ad Corinth. p. 2. You have obeyed, saith he, those that were set over you, [...], and Ibidem, p. 30. Let us revere those that are set over us, [...], which are the usual Titles of the Bishops; and yet these in another place he calls [...]. Ibid. p. 62. Presbyters, descri­bing their Office, by [...]. Ibid. p. 69. their sitting, or presiding over us. Wherefore he commands the Corinthi­ans [...]. Ibid. p. 73. to be subject to their Presbyters, and whom in one Line he calls Ibidem, p. 58. [...], or Bishops. The second Line after he calls [...], or Presbyters. So Polycarp exhorts the Philippians to be subject to their Presbyters and Deacons, under the name of Presbyters in­cluding both Bishops and Priests, as we now call them.

The first that expressed these Church-Officers by the distinct Terms of Bishops and Presby­ters, was Ignatius, who lived in the beginning of the Second Century, appropriating the Ti­tle [Page 66] of Bishop, [...], or Overseer, to that Minister who was the more immediate Over­seer and Governour of his Parish; and that of [...], Elder or Presbyter, to him who had no particular Care and Inspection of a Parish, but was only an Assistant or Curate to a Bishop that had; the word [...], or Bi­shop, denoting a Relation to a Flock or Cure, [...], or Presbyter, signifying only a Pow­er or an ability to take the Charge of such a Flock or Cure; the former implying an actual discharge of the Office, the latter a power so to do.

This Distinction of Titles arising from the difference of their Circumstances, which we find first mentioned in Ignatius, was generally followed by the succeeding Fathers, who for the most part distinguish between Bishops and Presbyters; though sometimes according to the primitive Usage they indifferently apply those Terms to each of those persons.

Thus on the one hand the Titles of Presby­ters are given unto Bishops; as Irenaeus in his Synodical Epistle, twice calis Anicetus, Pius, Higynus, Telesphorus, and Xistus Bishops of Rome, Apud Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 24. p. 193. [...], or Presby­ters. And those Qui in ecclesiâ sunt Presbyteri—qui cum episcopatus successione, &c. lib. 4. cap. 43. p. 277. Bishops who derived their Succes­sion immediately from the Apostles, he calls, the Presbyters in the Church; and whom Clemens Alexandrinus in one Line calls the Bishop of a certain City not far from Ephesus, a few Lines after he calls [...]. Apud Eu­seb. lib. 5. cap. 24. p. 193. the Presbyter.

[Page 67] And on the other hand, the Titles of Bishops are ascribed to Presbyters, as one of the Dis­cretive Appellations of a Bishop is Pastour. Yet Cyprian also calls his Presbyters Pastores ovium. Epist. 11. §. 1. p. 33. the Pastors of the Flock. Another was that of President, or one set over the People. Yet Cyprian also calls his Presbyters Praepositi. Ibidem. Presidents, or set over the People. The Bishops were also called Rectors or Rulers. So Origen calls the Presbyters [...]. Com­ment in Matth. Vol. 1. p. 246. the Governours of the People. And we find both Bi­shops and Presbyters in­cluded under the common Name of Presidents or Prelates, by St. Cy­prian, in this his Exhor­tation to Pomponius, Et cum omnes omnino disciplinam tenere opor­teat, multo magis Prae­positos & Diaconos cu­rare hoc [...] est, qui ex­emplum & documentum caeteris de conversatione & moribus suis [...]. Epist. 62. §. 2. p. 169. And if all must observe the Di­vine Discipline, how much more must the Presidents and Deacons do it, who by their Conversation and Manners must yield a good Example to others?

Now if the same Appellation of a thing be a good Proof for the Identity of its Nature, then Bishops and Presbyters must be of the same Order, because they had the same Names and Titles. Suppose it was disputed, whether a Parson and Lecturer were of the same Order, would not this sufficiently prove the Affirma­tive? That though for some Accidental Re­spects they might be distinguished in their Ap­pellations, [Page 68] yet originally and frequently they were called by one and the same Name. The same it is in this Case, though for some contin­gent and adventitious Reasons Bishops and Pres­byters were discriminated in their Titles, yet originally they were always, and afterwards sometimes, called by one and the same Appel­lation; and therefore we may justly deem them to be one and the same Order.

But if this Reason be not thought cogent e­nough, the Third and last will unquestionably put all out of doubt, and most clearly evince the Identity or Sameness of Bishops and Pres­byters, as to Order; and that is, that it is ex­presly said by the Ancients, That there were but two distinct Ecclesiastical Orders, viz. Bi­shops and Deacons, or Presbyters and Deacons; and if there were but these two, Presbyters cannot be distinct from Bishops, for then there would be three. Now that there were but two Orders, viz. Bishops and Deacons, is plain from that Golden Ancient Remain of Clemens Romanus, wherein he thus writes, [...]. Epist. 1. ad Corinth. p. 54. In the Country and [...] where the Apostles preached, they ordained their first Con­verts for Bishops and Dea­cons, over those who should believe: Nor were these Orders new; for for many Ages past it was thus pro­phesied concerning Bishops and Deacons, I will ap­point their Bishops in Righ­teousness, [Page 69] and their Deacons in Faith. This place of Scripture which is here quoted, is in Isa. 60. 17. I will make thine Officers peace, and thine Exactors righteousness. Whether it is rightly applyed, is not my business to determin. That that I observe from hence is, that there were but two Orders instituted by the Apostles, viz. Bishops and Deacons, which Clemens supposes were prophetically promised long before: And this is yet more evidently asserted in another passage of the said Clemens a little after, where he says, that the [...]. Ibidem, p. 57. Apo­stles foreknew through our Lord Jesus Christ, that Contention would arise a­bout the Name of Episco­pacy, and therefore being endued with a perfect fore­knowledge, appointed the aforesaid Officers, viz. Bi­shops and Deacons, and left the manner of their Succession described, that so when they died, other approved Men might suc­ceed them, and reform their Office. So that there were only the Two Orders of Bishops and Dea­cons instituted by the Apostles. And if they ordained but those Two, I think no one had ever a Commission to add a Third, or to split One into Two, as must be done, if we sepa­rate the Order of Presbyters from the Order of Bishops: But that when the Apostles ap­pointed the Order of Bishops, Presbyters were included therein, will manifestly appear from the Induction of those fore-cited Passages in [Page 70] Clemens's Epistle, and his drift and design there­by, which was to appease and calm the Schisms and Factions of some unruly Members in the Church of Corinth, who designed to depose their Presbyters; and that he might dissuade them from this violent and irregular Action, amongst other Arguments he proposes to them, that this was to thwart the Design and Will of God, who would that all should live orderly in their respective places, doing the Duties of their own Stations, not invading the Offices and Functions of others; and that for this end, that all occasions of disorderliness and confu­sion might be prevented, he had Instituted Di­versities of Offices in his Church, appointing every Man to his particular Work, to which he was to apply himself, without violently leap­ing into other Mens places; and that particu­larly the Apostles foreseeing through the Holy Spirit, that contentious and unruly Men would irregularly aspire to the Episcopal Office, by the Deposition of their lawful Presbyters; therefore that such turbulent Spirits might be repressed, or left inexcusable, they ordained Bishops and Deacons where they preached, and described the manner and qualifications of their Successors, who should come after them when they were dead and gone, and be rever'd and obeyed with the same Respect and Obedience as they before were; and that therefore they were to be condemned as Perverters of the Di­vine Institution, and Contemners of the Apo­stolick Authority, who dared to degrade their Presbyters, who had received their Episcopal Authority in an immediate Succession from those [Page 71] who [...] advanced to that Dignity by the Apostles themselves.

This was the true Reason for which the fore­quoted Passages were spoken, which clearly evinces, that Presbyters were included under the Title of Bishops, or rather that they were Bishops; For to what end should Clemens ex­hort the Schismatical Corinthians to obey their Presbyters, from the consideration of the Apo­stles Ordination of Bishops, if their Presbyters had not been Bishops?

But that the Order of Presbyters was the same with the Order of Bishops, will appear also from that place of Irenaeus, where he ex­horts us Presbyteri qui ser­viunt suis voluptatibus, & non praeponunt timo­rem Dei in cordibus su­is, sed contumeliis agunt reliquos, & principalis consessionis tumore elati sunt—ab omnibus igitur talibus absistere oportet, adhaerere vero his, qui & Apostolorum sicut prae­diximus, doctrinam cu­stodiunt, & cum Presby­terii Ordine Sermonem sanum, & Conversatio­nem sine offensâ praestant ad informationem & cor­rectionem reliquorum—Tales Presbyteros nutrit Ecclesia, de quibus & Propheta ait, & dabo principes tuos in pace, & Episcopos tuos in [...]. Lib. 4. c. [...]. p. 278. to withdraw from those Presbyters, who serve their Lusts, and ha­ving not the fear of God in their hearts, contemn others, and are lifted up with the Dignity of their first Session; but to adhere to those who keep the Do­ctrine of the Apostles, and with their Presbyterial Or­der are inoffensive, and ex­emplary in sound Doctrine, and an holy Conversation, to the Information and Cor­rection of others; for such Presbyters the Church edu­cates, and of whom the Prophet saith, I will [...] thee Princes in Peace, and Bishops in Righteousness. [Page 72] Now that by these Presbyters, Bishops are meant, I need not take much pains to prove; the precedent Chapter positively asserts it; the Description of them in this Quotation, by their enjoying the Dignity of the first Session, and the application of that Text of Isaiah unto them, clearly evinces it. No one can deny but that there were Bishops, that is, that they were superiour in degree to other Presbyters; or, as Irenaeus styles it, honoured with the first Sessi­on; but yet he also says, that they were not different in Order, being of the Presbyterial Order, which includes both Bishops and Pres­byters.

To this Testimony of Irenaeus I shall subjoin that of Clemens Alexandrinus, who tho' he mentions [...]. [...]. [...]. 6. p. 481. the Processes of Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons, from which some conclude the Bishops Su­periority of Order; yet the subsequent Words evidently declare, that it must be meant only of Degree, and that as to Order they were one and the same; for he imme­diately adds, That those Offices are an imitation of the Angelick Glory, and of that Dispensation, which, as the Scriptures say, they wait for, who treading in the steps of the Apostles, live in the perfection of Evangelick Righteousness; for these, the Apostle [Page 73] writes, shall be took up into the Clouds, (Here he alludes to the manner of the Saints Glorificati­on in 1 Thess. 4. 17. Then we which are alive, and remain, shall be caught up together with them in the Clouds, to meet the Lord in the Air, and so shall we ever be with the Lord) and there first as Deacons attend, and then ac­cording to the Process, or next station of Glory, be admitted into the Presbytery; for Glory differs from Glory, till they increase to a perfect man. Now in this Passage there are two things which manifest, that there were but two Ecclesiastical Orders, viz. Bishops and Deacons, or Presby­ters and Deacons; the first is, that he says, that those Orders were resembled by the Angelick Orders. Now the Scripture mentions but two Orders of Angels, viz. Archangels and Angels, the Archangels presiding over the Angels, and the Angels obeying and attending on the Arch­angels. According to this resemblance there­fore there must be but Two Ecclesiastical Or­ders in the Church, which are Bishops or [...] byters presiding and governing, with the Dea­cons attending and obeying. The other part of this Passage, which proves but two Ecclesi­astical Orders, is his likening of them to the progressive Glory of the Saints, who at the Judgment Day shall be caught up in the Clouds, and there shall first as Deacons attend and wait on Christ's Judgment-Seat, and then, when the Judgment is over, shall have their Glory per­fected, in being placed on the Celestial Thrones of that Sublime Presbytery, where they shall for ever be blest and happy.

[Page 74] So that there were only the two Orders of Deacons and Presbyters, the former whereof being the inseriour Order, never sat at their [...] Conventions, but like Servants Videt & ordinationes, sive stationes ministro­rum ejus. Diaconorum, ut mihi videtur, ordi­nem memorat astantium divino ministerio. [...]. 2. in Cantic. Cantic. Origen. stood and waited on the latter, who Nobiscum sedeat in Clero. Cyprian. Epist. 35. p. 84. sat down on [...], or Seats in the form of a Semicircle, whence they are fre­quently called, Consessus Presbyterii, Or the Session of the Presbytery, in which Session he that was more peculiarly the Bi­shop or Minister of the Parish, sat at the Head of the Semicircle, on a Seat somewhat elevated above those of his Collegis meis. Epist. 28. §. 2. p. 64. Col­leagues, as Cyprian calls them, and so was distin­guished from them by his Priority in the same Order, but not by his being of another Order. Thus the foresaid Clemens Alexandrinus distin­guishes the Bishop from the Presbyters, by his being advanced to the [...], or the first Seat in the Presbytery, not by his sitting in a different Seat from them: For thus he writes, [...]. Stromat. lib. 6. p. 480. He is in truth a Presby­ter of the Church, and a Minister of the Will of [Page 75] God, who does and teaches the things of the Lord, not ordained by Men, or esteemed just, because a Presbyter, but because just, therefore received in­to the [...], who although he be not honoured with the first Seat on Earth, yet shall hereafter sit down on the Twenty and Four Thrones, mentioned in the Revelations, judging the People. So that both Bishops and Presbyters were Members of the same Presbytery, only the Bishop was ad­vanced to the first and chiefest Seat therein, which is the very same with what I come now from proving, viz. That Bishops and Presby­ters were Equal in Order, but Different in De­gree; That the former were the Ministers of their respective Parishes, and the latter their Cu­rates or Assistants.

Whether this hath been fully proved, or whether the precedent Quotations do naturally conclude the Premises, the Learned Reader will easily determine. I am not conscious that I have stretched any Words beyond their natural Signification, having deduced from them no­thing but what they fairly imported: If I am mistaken, I hope I shall be pardoned, since I did it not designedly or voluntarily. As before, so now I profess again, that if any one shall be so kind and obliging to give me better Informa­tion, I shall thankfully and willingly acknow­ledge and quit mine Error; but till that Infor­mation be given, and the falsity of my present Opinion be evinc'd, (which after the impartial­est and narrowest Enquiry, I see not how it can be done) I hope no one will be offended, that I have asserted the Equality or Identity of the [Page 76] Bishops and Presbyters as to Order, and their difference as to Preeminency or Degree.

§. 4. Now from this Notion of Presbyters, there evidently results the Reason why there were many of them in one Church, even for the same Intent and End, tho' more necessary and needful, that Curates are now to those Mi­nisters and Incumbents whom they serve, it was found by Experience, that variety of Ac­cidents and Circumstances did frequently occur both in times of Peace and Persecution; the Particulars whereof would be needless to enu­merate, that disabled the Bishops from attend­ing on, and discharging their Pastoral Office; therefore that such Vacancies might be supplied, and such Inconveniencies remedied, they en­tertained Presbyters or Curates, who during their Absence might supply their Places, who also were helpful to them, whilst they were present with their Flocks, to counsel and advise them; whence Bishop Cyprian assures us, that he did all things by the Communi Consilio. E­pist. 24. p. 55. Common Council of his Presbyters.

Besides this, in those early days of Christia­nity, Churches were in most places thin, and at a great distance from one another; so that if a Bishop by any Disaster was Incapacitated for the Discharge of his Function, it would be very difficult to get a neighbouring Bishop to assist him. To which we may also add, that in those times there were no publick Schools or Univer­sities, except we say the Catechetick Lecture at Alexandria, was one for the breeding of young Ministers, who might succeed the Bishops as [Page 77] they died; wherefore the Bishops of every Church took care to instruct and elevate some young Men, who might be prepared to come in their place when they were dead and gone. And thus for these and the like Reasons most Churches were furnished with a competent number of Presbyters, who helpt the Bishops while living, and were fitted to succeed them when dead.

§. 5. I say only, most Churches were fur­nished with Presbyters, because all were not, especially those Churches which were newly planted, where either the Numbers or Abili­ties of the Belîevers were small and inconside­rable: Neither indeed were Presbyters Essen­tial to the Constitution of a Church; a Church might be without them, as well as a Parish can be without a [...] now; it was sufficient that they had a Bishop; a Presbyter was only neces­sary for the easing of the Bishop in his Office, and to be qualified for the succeeding him in his Place and Dignity after his Death. For as [...] writes, Ubi Ecclesiastici Or­dinis non est consessus, & offert, & tingit Sa­cerdos, qui est [...] solus. [...]. ad Castiat. p. 457. Where there are no Presbyters, the Bishop alone admini­sters the two Sacraments of the Lord's Supper and Bap­tism.

§. 6. As for the time when Presbyters began, to me it seems plain, that their Office was even in the Apostolick Age, tho' by their Names they were not distinguished from Bishops till sometime after. The first Author now extant, who distinctly mentions Bishops and Presbyters, is Ignatius Bishop of Antioch, who lived in the [Page 78] beginning of the Second Century: But without doubt before his time, even in the days of the Apostles, where Churches increased, or were somewhat large, there were more in Holy Or­ders than the Bishops of those Churches. We read in the New Testament of the Bishops of Ephesus, Acts 20. 28. and Philippi, Philip. 1. 1. which must be understood of what was after­wards distinctly called Bishops and Presbyters. So likewise we read in St. Timothy, 1 Tim. 4. 14. of a Presbytery, which in all the Writings of the Fathers, for any thing I can find to the con­trary, perpetually signifies the Bishop and Pres­byters of a particular Church or Parish. And to this [...] may add what Clemens Alexandrinus Reports of St. John, that he went into the neighbouring Provinces of Ephesus, [...]. Apud. [...]. lib. 3. cap. 23. p. 92. Partly that he might constitute Bishops, partly that he might plant new Churches, and partly that he might appoint such in the number of the Cler­gy, as should be command­ed him by the Holy Ghost. Where by the Word Clergy, being oppos'd to Bishops, and so consequently different from them, must be understood either Deacons alone, or which is far more probable, Presbyters and Deacons.

CHAP. V.

§. 1. NExt to the Presbyters were the Dea­cons, concerning whose Office and Order I shall say very little, since there is no great Controversie about it; and had it not been to have rendred this Discourse compleat and entire, I should in silence have pass'd it over. Briefly therefore, their original Institu­tion, as in [...] 6. 2. was to serve Tables, which [Page 80] included these two things, A looking after the Poor, and an attendance at the Lord's Table. As for the Care of the Poor, Origen tells us, that the [...]. Comment. in [...]. Tom. 16. p. 443. Vol. 1. Deacons dispen­sed to them the Churches Money, being employed under the Bishop to in­spect and relieve all the Indigent within their Diocese: As for their At­tendance at the Lord's Table, their Office with respect to that, consisted in preparing the Bread and Wine, in cleansing the Sacramental Cups, and other such like necessary things; whence they are called by Igna­tius [...]. Epist. ad Tral­les. p. 48. Deacons of Meats and Cups, assisting also, in some places at least, the Bishop or Presbyters in the Celebration of the Eucharist, [...]. [...]. Martyr. Apolog. 2. p. 97. delivering the Elements to the Commu­nioants. They also preach­ed, of which more in a­nother place; and in the Baptismum dandi ha­bet jus Episcopus dehinc Presbyteri & Diaconi. Tertul. de Bapt. p. 602. Absence of the Bishop and Presbyters baptized. In a word, according to the signification of their Name, they were as Ig­natius calls them, [...]. Epist. ad [...]. p. 48. the Churches Servants, set a­part on purpose to serve God, and attend on their Business, being con­stituted, as Eusebius terms it, [...]. Lib. 2. cap. 1. p. 38. for the Service of the Publick.

[Page 81] §. 2. Next to the Deacons were the Subden­cons, who are mentioned both by Hypodiaconum Opta­tum. Epist. 24. p. 55. Cyprian and [...]. A­pud Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 43. p. 244. Cornelius. As the Of­fice of the Presbyters was to assist and help the Bi­shops, so theirs was to assist and help the Deacons. And as the Pres­byters were of the same Order with the Bishop, so probably the Subdeacons were of the same Order with the Deacons, which may be gather­ed from what we may suppose to have been the Origin and Rise of these Subdeacons, which might be this, That in no Church whatsoever, was it usual to have more than Seven Deacons, because that was the original Number instituted by the Apostles; wherefore when any Church grew so great and numerous, that this stinted Number of Deacons was not sufficient to dis­charge their necessary Ministrations, that they might not seem to swerve from the Apostolical Example, they added Assistants to the Deacons, whom they called Subdeacons or Under Dea­cons, who were employed by the Head or Chief Deacons, to do those Services in their stead and room, to which, by their Office, they were o­bliged. But whether this be a sufficient Argu­ment to prove the Subdeacons to be of the same Order with the Deacons, I shall not determine, because this Office being now antiquated, it is not very pertinent to my Design, I only offer it to the Consideration of the Learned, who have Will and Ability to search into it.

§. 3. Besides those forementioned Orders, who were immediately consecrated to the Service of God, and by him commission'd thereunto, there [Page 82] were another sort of Ecclesiasticks, who were employed about the meaner Offices of the Church, such as Naricum Acoluthum. Cyprian. Epist. 36. p. 87. Acolyths, Unus de exorcistis vir probatus. [...]. [...] Cypr. Ep. 75. §. 10. p. 238. Exorcists and Hos lectores constitu­tos. Cyp. Ep. 34. §. 4. p. 81. Lectors, whose Offices, because they are now disused, except that of the Lector, I shall pass over in silence, reserving a Discourse of the Lector for another place; on­ly in general, these were Candidates for the Ministry, who by the due discharge of these meaner Employs, were to give Proof of their Ability and Integrity, the Bishops in those days not usually arriving per Saltum to that Dignity and Honour; but commonly beginning with the most inferiour Office, and so gradually pro­ceeding thro' the others, till they came to the supreme Office of all, as Cornelius Bishop of Rome, Non iste ad Episcopa­tum subito [...], per omnia [...] offi­cia promotus—ad Sa­cerdotii sublime fastigi­um cunctis Religionis gradibus ascendit. Cypri­ar. Epist. 52. §. 4. p. 115. Did not presently leap into the Episcopal Throne, but first passed thro' all the Ecclesiastical Offices, gradually ascend­ing to that Sublime Digni­ty. The Church in those happy days, by such a long Tryal and Experience, using all possible Pre­caution and Exactness, that none but fit and qualify'd Men should be admitted into those Sa­cred Functions and Orders, which were atten­ded with [...] dreadful and tremendous a Charge. And this now brings me in the next place, to enquire into the Manner and Form of the Primi­tive Ordinations, which I chuse to discourse of [Page 83] in this place, since I shall find none more pro­per for it throughout this whole Treatise.

§. 4. As for the various Senses and Accepta­tions which may be put on the Word Ordinati­on, I shall not at all meddle with them; that Ordination that I shall speak of is this, the Grant of a Peculiar Commission and Power, which re­mains indelible in the Person to whom it is com­mitted, and can never be obliterated or rased out, except the Person himself cause it by his Heresie, Apostacy, or most extremely gross and scandalous Impiety. Now this sort of Or­dination was conferred only upon Deacons and Presbyters, or on Deacons and Bishops, Pres­byters and Bishops being here to be consider'd as all one, as Ministers of the Church-Univer­sal. As for the Ordination of Deacons, there is no great Dispute about that, so I shall say no more concerning it, than that we have the man­ner thereof at their first Institution in Acts 6. 6. which was, that they were Ordained to their Office by Prayer and Imposition of Hands.

§. 5. But as for the Ordination of Presby­ters, I shall more distinctly and largely treat of the Manner and Form thereof, which seems to be as follows.

Whosoever desired to be admitted into this Sacred Office, he first proposed himself to the Presbytery of the Parish where he dwelled and was to be Ordained, desiring their Consent to his designed Intention, praying them to confer upon him those Holy Orders which he craved. Now we may suppose his Petition was to the whole Presbytery, because a Bishop alone could not give those Holy Orders, as is most evident [Page 84] from Cyprian, who as­sures us, that Communi Consilio om­nium nostrum. Epist. 24. p. 55. all Cleri­cal Ordinations were per­formed by the Common Counsel of the whole Prebytery. And therefore when upon a Necesse fuit—necessi­tate urgente promotum est. Ibidem. most ur­gent and necessary occasion he had been forced to ordain one, but a Lector without the Advice and Consent of his Presby­tery, which one would be apt to think was no great Usurpation, he takes great pains (Ep. 24. p. 55.) to justifie and excuse himself for so doing.

§. 6. Upon this Application of the Candidate for the Ministry, the Presbytery took it in­to their Consideration, debated his Petition Communi Consilio. Epist. 24. apud Cypr. p. 55. in their Common Coun­cil, and proceeded to ex­amine whether he had those Endowments and Qualifications which were requisite for that Sa­cred Office. What those Gifts and Qualificati­ons were, touching which he was examined, may be reduced to these Four Heads, his Age, his Condition in the World, his Conversation, and his Understanding.

As for his Age; It was necessary for him to have lived some time in the World, to have been of a ripe and mature Age; for they or­dained no Novices, or young Striplings: That was the Practice of the Hereticks, whom Tertullian jeers and upbraids with Ordaining Nunc Neophytos con­locant. [...] praescript. adv. Haeret. p. 89. Raw and Vnexperienced Clerks. But as for the Orthodox, they took care [Page 85] to confer Orders on none, but on such as were well stricken in years; observing herein the Apostolick Canon in 1 Tim. 3. 6. Not a No­vice, lest being lifted up with Pride, he fall into the Condemnation of the Devil. But yet if any young Man was endued with extraordinary Grace and Ability, the fewness of his Years was no Obstacle to his Promotion, that being superseded by the Greatness of his Merit; as we find in the case of Aurelius in Cyprian, who tho' In annis ad huc novel­lus. Cypr. Epist. 33. p. 76. young in years, yet for his eminent Courage and Merebatur—Clericae Ordination is—gradus & incrementa—non de an­nis suis, sed de meritis aestimandus. Ibidem. Excellency, was graced with Ecclesiastical Orders: And such an one, I suppose, was the Bishop of Magnesia in the times of Ignatius, which gave occasion to that Exhortation, to the People of that Dio­cese, [...]. [...]. Epist. ad Magnes. p. 31. not to despise their Bishop's Age, but to yield him all due Respect and Reverence.

§. 7. As for his Con­dition in the World; he was not to be entangled with any mundane Af­fairs, but to be free from all secular Employ­ments, and at perfect Liberty to apply himself wholly to the Duties of his Office and Function. This also was founded on that other Apostolick Canon in 2 Tim. 2. 4. Nemo militans Deo obligat se molestiis Sae­cularibus, ut possit pla­cere ei cui se probavit. Quod cum de omnibus dictum sit, quantò magis molestiis & laqueis Sae­cularibus obligari non debent, qui divinis re­bus & spiritualibus oc­cupati, ab Ecclesia rece­dere, & ad terrenos & saeculares actus vacare non possunt, cujus ordi­nationis & religionis formam Levitae prius in lege tenuerunt, ut cum terram dividerent, & possessiones partirentur undecem Tribus, Levi­tica Tribus, quae Tem­plo & Altari, & Mini­steriis Divinis vacabat, nihil de illa divisionis portione perciperet, sed aliis terram colentibus, illa tantum Deum cole­ret, & ad victum atque alimentum suum ab un­decem Tribubus de sru­ctibus qui nascebantur, decimas reciperet. Quod totum fiebat de auctori­tate & dispositione divi­nâ, ut qui operationibus divinis insistebant, in nullâ re avocarentur, nec cogitare aut agere saecu­laria cogerentur. Quae nunc ratio & forma in Clero tenetur, ut qui in Ecclesia Domini Ordina­tione Clerica promoven­tur, in nullo ab admini­stratione Divina avocen­tur, nec molestiis & ne­gotiis saecularibus alli­gentur, sed in honore sportulantium fratrum tanquam Decimas ex fru­ctibus accipientes, ab Altari & Sacrificiis non recedant, sed die ac nocte Coelestibus rebus & Spiritualibus serviant. Epist. 66. §. 1, 2. p. 195. No man that warreth, entangleth himself with the affairs of this life, that [...] may please him who [Page 86] hath chosen him to be a Soldier. Which Words, saith Cyprian, if spoken of all, How much more ought not they to be entangled with Secular Troubles and Snares, who being busied in Divine and Spiritual things, cannot leave the Church, to mind earthly and worldly actions? Which Religious Ordination, as he goes on to write, was emblematiz'd by the Le­vites under the Law; for when the Land was divi­ded, and possessions were given to eleven Tribes, the Levites who waited up­on the Temple and Altar, and the Sacred Offices thereof, had no share in that Division; but the o­thers till'd the ground, whilst they only worshipped God, and received Tenths of the others Encrease for their Food and Sustenance; all which hapned by the Divine Authority and Dispensation, [...] who waited on Divine Employments, should not be withdrawn therefrom, or be forced either to think [Page 87] of, or to do any Secular Affairs: Which fashion, as he there continues to write, is now observed by the Clergy, that those who are promoted to Clerical Ordinations, should not be impeded in their Divine Administrations, or iucumbred with secular Con­cerns and Affairs, but as Tenths, receiving Sub­scriptions from the Brethren; depart not from the Altar and Sacrifices, but night and day attend on Spiritual and Heavenly Ministrations. These words were spoken on the occasion of a certain Bishop called Geminius Victor, who at his Death made a certain Presbyter, called Gemini­us Faustinus Trustee of his last Will and Testa­ment, which Trust Cyprian condemns as void and null, Cum jampridem in Consilio Episcoporum statutum sit, ne quis de Clericis & Dei Ministris tutorem vel curatorem testamento suo constitu­at, quando singuli Divi­no Sacerdotio honorati, & in Clerico Ministerio constituti, non nisi Al­tari & Sacrificiis deser­vire, & precibus atque orationibus vacare debe­ant. Idem Ibidem. Because a Sy­nod had before decreed, that no Clergyman should be a Trustee, for this Rea­son, because those who were in Holy Orders ought only to attend upon the Altar and its Sacrifices, and to give themselves wholly to Prayer and Supplication. It was a Blot in the He­reticks Ordinations, that they Nunc Saeculo obstrictos concolant. Tertul. de Praescript. adv. Haeret. p. 89. Ordained such as were involved in the World, and embarass'd with Carnal and Secular Concerns.

[Page 88] §. 8. As for the Conversation of the [...] to be Ordained, he was to be Humiles & mites. Cy­prian Epist. 38. §. 1. p. 90. humble and meek, of an unspotted and ex­emplary Life. So says Cyprian, In Ordinationibus Sa­cerdotum non [...] im­maculates & integros antislites eligere debe­mus, qui sancte & digne Sacrificia Deo offerentes, audiri in precibus pos­sint, quas faciunt pro Plebis Dominicae incolu­mitate, cum scriptum sit, Deus peccatorem non au­dit, sed siquis Deum co­luerit, & voluntatem e­jus [...], illum audit. Epist. 68. §. 2. p. 201. In all Ordina­tions we ought to choose Men of an unspotted In­tegrity, who worthily and holily offering up Sacrifices to God, may be heard in those Prayers which they make for the safety of their Flock: For it is writ­ten, God heareth not a Sinner; but if any one be a Worshipper of him; and doth his Will, him he hear­eth. Wherefore before they were Ordained, they were proposed to the People for their Te­stimony and Attestation of their holy Life and Conversation: But of this we shall speak more in another place: Only it may not be impro­per to remember here, that this is also an Apo­stolick Canon, in [...] Tim. 3. 2, 3, 7. A Bishop then must be Blameless, the Husband of one Wife, vigilant, sober, of good Behaviour, given to hospi­tality, apt to teach, not given to Wine, no Striker, not guilty of filthy Lucre, but Patient, not a Braw­ler, not Covetous. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without, lest he fall into Reproach, and the snare of the Devil.

§. 9. As for the understanding of the Person to be Ordained, he was to be of a good Capa­city, fit and able duly to teach others. This is [Page 89] also another of the Apostolick Canons in 2 Tim. 2. 15. Study to shew thy self approved unto God, a Workman that needeth not to be ashamed, right­ly dividing the Word of Truth. And in 1 Tim. 3. 2. A Bishop must be apt to teach, which im­plies an Ability of teaching, and a [...] of rightly understanding, apprehending, and ap­plying the Word of God; to which end Hu­mane Learning was so conducive, as that Origen pleads not only for its usefulness, but also for its necessity, especially for that part of it, which we call Logick, to find out the true Sense and Meaning of the Scripture, as appears from this following Digression, which he makes concern­ing it, in one of his Com­mentaries, [...]. Tom. 1. Com­ment. in Genes. p. 16, 17. Vol. 1. How is it possible, saith he, that a Question either in Ethicks, Physicks, or Divinity, should be understood, as it ought, without Logick? You shall hear no Absur­dity from those who are skill'd in Logick, and di­ligently search out the sig­nification of words; where­as many times, thro' our ignorance in Logick, we greatly err, not distin­guishing Homonymies, Am­phibolies, the different V­sages, Properties and Di­stinction of Words, as some from the Ignorance of the Homonymy of the word [Page 90] World, have sell into wicked Opinions touching its Maker, not diseerning what that signifies in 1 John 5. 19. The World lies in wickedness; where they understanding by the World, the frame of Hea­ven and Earth, and all Creatures therein, blas­pheme the Creator thereof, by affirming, that the Sun, Moon and Stars, which move in so exact an Or­der, lie in Wickedness. So also thro' the same Igno­rance they know not the true Sense of that Text in 1 John 30. This is the Lamb of God, which ta­keth away the Sins of the World. Neither of that in 2 Cor. 5. 19. God was in Christ reconciling the World to himself: Wherefore if we would not err about the true sense of the Holy Scripture, it is ne­cessary that we understand Logick, which art of [...]. Contra [...], lib. 6. p. 279. Logick, the foresaid Fa­ther thinks, is recommen­ded to us by Solomon in Prov. 10. 17. He that re­fuseth Reproof, or Logick, as he rendreth it, er­reth.

[Page 91] Clemens Alexandrinus also stifly asserts the Utility of Humane Learning, where he says, [...] Stiom. lib. 1. p. 207. [...]. Ibi­dem. p. 233. That it is profitable to Christianity for the clear and distinct Demonstrati­ons of its Doctrine, ¹ in that it helps us to the more evident understanding of the Truth. And in par­ticular for Logick, he gives it high Encomiums, as that [...]. Stromat. lib. 6. p. 472. it is a hedge to defend the Truth from be­ing prod down by Sophist­ers, that [...]. Ibidem. it gives us great light duly to understand the Holy Scriptures, that [...]. Stromat. lib. 1. p. 234. it is necessary to confute the Sophisms of Hereticks. And in general, for all sorts of Learning he tells us, [...]. Ibid. p. 210. that it keeps the way of Life, that we be not de­ceived or circumvented, by those that endeavour to draw us into the way of sin. So that he thinks Philosophy and the Libe­ral Arts [...]. Stromat. lib. 1. p. 210. came down from Heaven unto Men. But should I produce all the Passages in this Father, concerning the Utility and Excellency of Humane Learning, I must transcribe several Pages in Folio, which if the Reader has a Curiosity to view, he may espe­cially [Page 92] take notice of these Places, Stromat. lib. 1. Pag. 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215 and Stromat. lib. 6. Pag. 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 476, 477.

§. 10. It is true, there were some in those days, of whom Clemens [...] com­plains, [...]. Str. lib. 6. p. 472. who dreaded Phi­losophy, lest it should de­ceive them, as much as Children did Hobgoblins. Because they saw by too lamentable experience, that many Learned Mens Brains were so charmed, or intoxicated with Philosophical Notions, as that they laboured to transform them into Christian Verities, and so thereby became Authors of most pestilent and damnable Heresies, which is particularly obser­ved by Tertullian, with respect to the Hereticks of his time, who in this account calls Haereticorum Patriar­chae Philosophi. Advers. Hermog. p. 266. the Philo­sophers, the Patriarchs, of Hereticks. There­fore they accused Phi­losophy it self, as [...]. Clemens Alexand. Strom. l. 4. p. 204. the Production of some evil Inventor, introduced into the World for the ruin and destruction of Man­kind. Even Tertullian him­self, for this reason had an extream Pique against Philosophy, and vio­lently decry'd it, especially Logick, as incon­sistent with true Christianity, as may be seen at [Page 93] large in his Book, De Prescriptione adversus Haereticos, p. 70, 71

But to this Objection Clemens Alexandrinus replies, that if any Man had been deceived and misled by Philosophy, [...]. Stromat. lib. 1. p. 204. that that proceeded not from Philosophy, but from the wickedness of his Na­ture; for whosoever has Wisdom enough to use it, he is able thereby to make a larger and a more de­monstrative Defence of the Faith than others. And concerning Logick in particular, he tells them, that as for Eristick, jangling Logick, for impertinent and contenti­ous Sophisms, which he elegently calls [...] Stromat. lib. 6. p. 500. the Shadows of Reason; he disliked it as much as they, and fre­quently Stromat. lib. 1. p. 205, 211, 212, 215. and lib. 6. p. 472, 500. inveighs a­gainst it: But as for the [...] substantial part of it, he could not but deem it profitable and ad­vantagious, since [...]. [...]. lib. 1. p. 233. it helps us to find out the Truth, [...]. Stromat. lib. 6. p. 472. enables us the better to understand the Scriptures, and [...]. Stromat. lib. 1. p. 234. shews us how to refel the Sophisms and cunning arguments of the Hereticks.

[Page 94] But besides this sort of Objectors, there were others, of whom Clemens Alexandrinus speaks, who condemned Learning on this account, be­cause it was [...]. Stromat. lib. 6. p. [...]. humane, unto whom that Father answers, that [...]. Ibi­dem. p. 476. was most unreasonable, that Philo­sophy only should be con­demned on this account, and that the meanest Arts besides, even those of a Smith and Shipwright, which are as much Humane, should be commended and approved; that [...]. Ibidem. p. 475. they did not rest here and go no farther, but having got what was useful and profi­table from it, they ascend­ed higher unto the true Philosophy, [...]. Stromat. lib. 1. p. 207. making this humane Philosophy a Guide unto, or, a Preparatory for the true Philosophy.

These were the Senti­ments of this Learned Father touching the Uti­lity and Excellency of Humane Learning, with respect to the Interpretation of Scripture, the finding out and defending of the true Faith and Doctrine, and such like things, which were the very Heart and Soul of the Presbyters Function and Employ; from whence we may rationally collect, that it was needful, amiable, and pro­fitable in a Presbyter: I do not say that it was absolutely necessary, for it is apparent that a great part of the ancient Presbyters were not skill'd in it; but I say that it was very useful [Page 95] and advantageous, and they prized and esteem­ed those Presbyters, who were vers'd in it, es­pecially those of them who were Arch-Presby­ters or Bishops, who, if possible, were to be well read in those parts of Learning, which were proper to confirm the Articles of Christianity, and to confute the Enemies thereof. This is plainly insinuated by Origen, when he says, [...]. Contra Celsum, [...]. 6. p. 279. That the Holy Scriptures exhort us to learn Logick, in that place, where it is said by Solomon, He that refuseth reproof, or Lo­gick, as he understand­eth it, erreth; and that therefore he that instruct­eth others, (the Greek Word more particularly denotes the Bishop) ought to be able to convince Gain-sayers.

§. 11. Upon this Examination of the Candi­dates for the Ministry; and their Approbation by the Presbytery, the next thing that follow'd was their being declared capable of their desired Function, to which they were very seldom pre­sently advanced, but first gave a Specimen of their Abilities in their discharge of other inferi­our Ecclesiastick Offices, and so proceeded by degrees to the Supreme Function of all, as Cor­nelius Bishop of Rome, Non [...] ad Episcopa­tum subito pervenit, per omnia ecclesiastica offi­cia promotus—ad Sacer­dotii sublime fastigium cunctis religionis [...] ascendit. [...]. Epist. 52. §. 4. p. 115. did not presently leap in­to his Office, but passing thro' all the Ecclesiastical Employments, gradually as­cended thereunto. And as Aurelius, a Member of [Page 96] the Church of Carthage, Merebatur talis Cleri­cae Ordinationis ulterio­res gradus & incrementa majora, sed interim pla­cuit ut ab Officio [...] incipiat. Idem Epist. 33. p. 77. began first with the low­ermost Office of a Lector, tho' by his extraordinary Merits he deserved those that were more sublime and honourable.

§. 12. That this was their constant and unal­terable Practice, I dare not affirm; I rather think the contrary, as I might easily prove, were it pertinent to my Design; this that follows is more certain, that whether they were gradually or presently Ordained Presbyters, their Names were published or propounded to the People of that Church, where they were to be Ordained, that so, if worthy of that Office, they might have the Testimony and Attestation of the Peo­ple; or if unworthy and unfit, they might be debarred and excluded from it, Ordinationes Sacerdo­tales non nisi sub Populi assistentis conscientiâ fi­eri oportere, ut plebe praesente vel detegantur malorum crimina, vel bonorum merita praedi­centur, & sit ordinatio justa & legitima, quae omnium suffragio & ju­dicio fuerit examinata. Cyprian. Epist. 68. §. 4. p. 201. by which course the Crimes of the Wicked were discovered, the Ver­tues of the Good declared, and the Ordination became Valid and Legitimate, be­ing examin'd by the Suf­frage and Judgment of all.

§. 13. If the People objected nothing against the Persons proposed, but approved their fit­ness for that Office; the next thing that follow­ed, was their Actual Ordination in that parti­cular Church, where they were so propounded, [Page 97] not that they were only ordain'd for that par­ticular Church, but in it they were ordain­ed Ministers of the Church Universal, being at liberty, either to serve that Church, where they received their Orders, or, if they had a Legal Call, to spend their La­bours elsewhere, in other Churches, as Ori­gen was a Presbyter of Alexandria, tho' he was [...]. [...]. lib. 6. c. 8. p. 209. Ordained in Pale­stina, by the Bishops of Caesarea and Jerusalem, and Numidicus Presbyter adscribatur Presbytero­rum Carthaginensium numero. [...]. Epist. 35. p. 84. Numidicus was a Presbyter of the Church of Carthage, tho' he received his Orders elsewhere. Hence the Presbyters of a Church were not con­fined to a set number, as the Bishop and Deacons were, but were some­times more, sometimes less; as fit Persons for that Office presented themselves, so were they Ordained, some of whom still remained in the same Church, where they received their Or­ders; and others went and served other Churches every one going where the Provi­dence of God did call him.

§. 14. But now their formal Ordination was by Imposition of Hands, usually of the Bishop and Presbyters of the Parish where they were Ordained: For this there needs no other Proof than that Injunction of St. Paul to Timothy, [...] Tim. 4. 14. Neglect not the Gift that is in thee, which was given thee by Prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery.

[Page 98] As for Imposition of hands, it was a Cere­mony that was variously used in the Old Testa­ment, from whence it was translated into the New, and in the Primitive Church used on sun­dry occasions, to no purpose here to enumerate: One of those Actions was, Ordination of Church-Officers, wherein, I think, it was never omitted. Thus Novatian was Ordained a Pres­byter [...]. Cornel. apud Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 43. p. 245. by Imposition of Hands. And the Bishops of Cesarea and Jerusalem [...]. Apud Euseb. lib. 6. c. 8. p. 209. Imposed Hands on Ori­gen to make him a Pres­byter. The Imposition of Hands being the Com­pletion of Ordination, or the Final Act thereof; for whosoever had past through the foremen­tioned Examination and Attestation, and con­sequently to that had received the laying on of Hands, he was esteemed by all, as legal­ly Ordained, and was ever after deemed to have sufficient Power and Authority to exert and discharge the Duty and Office of the Presby­tership, to which by those Actions he was ad­vanced and promoted.

§. 15. Here now I shall conclude what I de­signed to write, with respect to the first Parti­cular, concerning the Peculiar Acts of the Cler­gy, under which I have discoursed distinctly of the Office, and Order of Bishops, Priests and Deacons, as also of several other things rela­ting to their Charge and Dignity. As for those other Acts of theirs, which remain to be inqui­red [Page 99] into, I shall not meddle with them here; for tho' they may have some Rapport or Con­nexion to this Head, yet they more properly and immediately respect the third, unto which place therefore I shall refer their Discussion and Examination.

CHAP. VI.

§. 1. HAving in the former Chapters treated of the Peculiar Acts of the Clergy, I come now in this to speak something to the Peculiar Acts of the Laity, and to enquire into those Actions and Powers, which they exerted distinctly by themselves. And here it may not be amiss first of all to make an Enquiry into the Constitution of the Laity, that is, how and by what means they were first admitted to be Members of a Church, by Vertue of which Membership they were made Partakers of all those Powers, which we shall hereafter men­tion.

[Page 100] Now for Answer hereunto, in general, Per Baptisina Spiritus sanctus accipitur, & sic a baptizatis & Spiritum sanctum [...] ad bibendum calicem Do­mini pervenitur. Cy­prian. Ep. 63. §. 5. p. 175. all those that were bapti­zed, were look'd upon as Members of the Church, and had a right to all the Priviledges thereof; ex­cept they had been guil­ty of grofs and scanda­lous Sins, as Idolatry, Murder, Adultery, and such like; for then they were cast out of the Church, and not admitted again, till by a Peni­tent and holy Deportment they had testi­fied their Grief and Sorrow for their unho­ly and irregular Actions; for as Origen saith, [...]. Con­tra [...], lib. 3. p. 143. We do our utmost, that our Assemblies be composed of good and wise Men. So that [...]. Origen con­tra [...], lib. 4. p. 178. none who are admit­ted to our Congregations, and Prayers, are vitious and wicked, except very rarely it may happen, that a particular bad. Man may be concealed in so great a number.

But since the greatest part of Christians were adult Persons at their Conversion to Christiani­ty, and admission into Church-Fellowship and Society, therefore we must consider the Prere­quisites of Baptism, since that Sacrament gave them a Right and Title to that admission or re­ception.

Now those Persons who designed to leave Heathenism and Idolatry, and desired to be Members of a Christian Church, were not pre­sently [Page 101] advanced to that degree, but were first continued a certain space of Time in the rank of the Catechumens, or the Catechised ones: These were Candidates of Christianity, who were to stay some time in that Order for these two Reasons: The one was, That they might be catechised and instructed in the Articles of the Christian Faith, from whence they were called Catechumens: And the other was, [...]. Idem Ibidem, p. 142. that they might give de­monstrations of the reality of their Intentions, by the Change of their Lives, and the Holiness of their Con­versations.

Whilst they were in this Estate, or rather in a Preparatory thereunto, [...]. Idem Ibidem, p. 142. they were first privately instructed at home, till they understood the more Intelligible Principles of Christianity, and then they were admitted into the first Rank of Catechumens, who are called by Tertullian De Praescript. adv. Hae­ret. p. 89. Edocti, or, those that are taught. These were permitted [...]. Origen contia Celsum, lib. 3. p. [...]. to come into the Church where they stood in a place by them­selves, [...]. Idem [...], p. 143. and were present at the Sermons, which were adapted to their Capaci­ties, being Discourses of the Ordinary and less my­sterious Truths of the Go­spel. If they behaved [Page 102] themselves well in this Rank, then they were advanced to the [...], Idem Ibidem. p. 142. Superior Rank of the De [...]. advers. Haeret. p. 89. Perfecti, or, Perfect, as Tertullian calls them, who stayed not only at the Lessons and Sermons, but also at the Prayers, which were the conclusion of the first Service, and in a little time were baptized, and tarried with the Faith­ful at the Celebration of the Eueharist, or the Second Service.

This was the manner of [...] amongst the Ancients; none in those days were hastily advanced to the higher Forms of Christianity, but according to their Knowledge and Merit gradually arrived thereunto, being first instruct­ed at home, then admitted to the Didactick part of the Publick, and then to the Supplica­tive part thereof. It was the wicked Policy of the Hereticks Quis Catechumenus, quis fidelis incertum [...]; pariter audiunt, pariter orant. Tert. de Praescript. advers. Haeret. p. 88. Indiffe­rently to pray and hear with all, making no diffe­rence between the Faithful or the Catechumens: But the True Church distin­guished and permitted not the Catechumens to enjoy the Priviledges of the Faithful, till they had in a Sense merited them, which was, when thro' a considerable time of Trial they had evi­denced the sineerity of their Hearts, by the Sanctity and Purity of their Lives, and then, as Origen saith, [...]. Contra [...], lib. 3. p. 147. we ini­tiate them in our Myste­ries, [Page 103] when they have made a Proficiency in Holi­ness, and according to the utmost of their power, have reformed their Conversations. When they had changed their Manners, and rectified their Irregular Carriages; then they were washed with the Water of Baptism, and not before; for as Tertullian saith, Non ideo abluimur, ut delinquere desinamus, sed quia desinivimus. [...] Poenitentia, p. 379. We are not baptized, that we may ceafe to sin, but because we have alrea­dy ceased.

As soon as they were baptized, they com­menced Members of the Church Universal, and of that Particular Church, wherein they were so baptized, and became actual Sharers and Exer­ters of all the Priviledges and Powers of the Faithful.

§. 2. Now what the distinct and separate Powers of the Faithful were, must be next con­sidered; several of them, to make the Discourse under the former Head complete, we [...] there, as their Election and choice of their Bi­shops, their Attestation to those that were Or­dained, and such like, which will be unnecessa­ry and tedious to repeat here; and others of them cannot be well separated from their Con­junct Acts with the Clergy, but must with them be discoursed of in the next Head, so that there will be little or nothing to say here of their Discretive and Particular Acts, save, that as they had Power to elect their Bishops, so if their Bishops proved afterwards scandalous and grosly wicked in Life, or at least Heretical in Doctrine, and Apostates from the Faith, they had Power to depose them, and to chuse others [Page 104] in their rooms. This I must be forced also to mention in another place, so that for the Proof of it I shall urge only the Case of Martialis and Basilides, two Spanish Bishops, who for A­postacy and Idolatry, were deserted by their Parishes, who Elected Felix and Sabinus Bishops in their steads. After this Deposition Martia­lis and Basilides claim'd the Exercise of their E­piscopal Authority, but their Parishes denied it to them; and that they might not seem to act by a Power, which belonged not unto them, they sent to several Bishops in Africa, to know their Judgment thereupon, who being convened in a Synod Anno 258, whereof Cyprian was Presi­dent, approved and commended their Proceed­ings, assuring them, Desiderio vestro divi­na praecepta respondent quibus jampridem man­dantur voce coelesti, & [...], quos & quales oporteat [...] altari—in Le­vitico praecipit Dominus & [...] Homo, in quo fuerit macula & vitium non accedet offerre dona Deo—nec sibi plebs blandiatur quasi immu­nis [...] contagio deli­cti [...], cum Sacerdote peccatore communicans—Propter quod plebs obsequens praeceptis do­minicis. & Deum metuens, a peceatore praeposito se­parare se debet, nec se ad Sacrilegi Sacerdotis Sacrifi­cia miscere; quando ipsa maxime habeat [...] vel eligendi dignos [...], vel indignos [...]. Epist. 68. apud Cyprian. §. 1, 3, 4. p. 200, 201. That it was according to the Di­vine Law, which was ex­press, that none but those that were holy and blame­less should approach God's Altar; That if they had continued to have commu­nicated with their Profane Bishops, they would have been Accessaries to their Guilt and Villany, and would have contradicted those Examples and Com­mands in Scripture, which [Page 105] oblige a People to separate from their wicked and ungodly Ministers; That they had not acted irre­gularly in what they had done; since as the Peo­ple had the chief Power of choosing worthy Bishops, so also of refusing those that were unworthy: And many other such like Passages are to be found in that Synodical Epistle, which [...] assert the Peoples Power to depose a wicked and Scanda­lous Bishop.

But however, tho' the People had such a Power appertaining to them, yet being subject to be guided by Giddiness, Envy or Pride, where Churches were regularly associated, and their Circumstances did permit it, they did not by vertue of their power alone, upon their own single Judgment depose their Bishop; but that their Actions might be the more Authentick and Unquestionable, they had their Complaints heard, and the whole Affair examined by the Synod to which they belonged, or by some o­ther Bishops, who, if their Accusations were just and valid, might concur with them in the Deposition of their Bishop, and in the Election of a new one: And from hence it is, that we find the Power of Deposing Bishops ascribed to Synods, Apud Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 30. p. 282. as Paulus Sa­mosatenus Bishop of An­tioch, was deprived by a Synod held in that place, and Nonaginta [...] sententia condem­natum. Cyprian. Epist. 55. §. 11. p. 140. Privatus Bishop of Lambese was deposed by a Synod of ninety Bishops. The same Method being observed in the Deposition of a Bishop, as in his Election. As a Bishop was elected by the [Page 106] People, over whom he was to preside, and by the neighbouring Bishops, so was he deposed by the same; both which things seem to be in­timated in that Passage of the forementioned Synodical [...], where­in it is said, [...] ipsa maximè habeat [...], [...] eligendi [...] Sacerdo­tes, vel indignos recu­sandi. Apud Cypr. Epist. 68. §. 4. p. 201. That the People chiefly has Pow­er either to chuse wor­thy Bishops, or to refuse unworthy ones. The word chiefly implying, that besides the People, some others were necessary to concur with them ei­ther in the Election or Deprivation of a Bishop; and those were the neighbouring Bishops, or to speak more properly, that Synod to which they appertained; of which Synods, of their Power and Authority, I shall discourse more largely elsewhere.

§. 3. Having thus briefly dispatched the Se­cond Head, I now proceed to handle the Third, which respects the Conjunct Acts of the [...] and Laity: In answer whereunto, I find, that, in general, all things relating to the Go­vernment and Policy of the Church, were per­formed by their joint Consent and Admini­strations, [...], [...]. Epist. ad [...]. p. 47. the People were to do nothing without the Bishop: And on the con­trary, [...] he did nothing without the knowledge and consent of his People. [...] When any Letters came from Foreign Churches, they were received, and read before the whole [Page 107] Church, and Vicarias vero pro no­bis, ego, & Collegae, & Fraternitas omnis, has ad vos literas mitimus. [...], Ep. 58. §. 2. p. 163. the whole Church agreed [...] com­mon Letters to be sent to other Churches. And so for all other matters re­lating to the Policy of the Church, they were managed In commune tractabi­mus. [...]. Epist. 6. §. 5. p. 17. by the common advice and Counsel of the Clergy and Laity, both concurred to the Dis­charge of those Actions, to recite every parti­cular Act whereof would be extremely tedious and fruitless. Wherefore in speaking hereunto, I shall confine my self to those of their Com­plex Acts, that regarded the Discipline of the Church, which being an Answer to the Second Part of our Enquiry, viz. An Enquiry into the Discipline of the Primitive Church, shall be the Subject of the following Chapter.

CHAP. VII.

§. 1. AS all Governments are necessitated to make use of Laws, and other Poli­tical Means, to preserve their Constitution. So the Church of Christ, which has a certain Go­vernment annexed to it, that it may preserve its self from Ruine and Confusion, has certain Laws and Orders for the due Regulation of her Members, and Penalties annexed to the Breaches thereof. But herein lies the difference between the one and the other; The Penalties and Exe­cutions [Page 109] of the former, are like its Constitution, purely Humane and Carnal; but those of the other are Spiritual; as Religion was at first re­ceived by Spiritual and Voluntary, and not by Carnal and Involuntary means: for as Tertulli­an says, Nec Religionis est co­gere Religionem, quae sponte suscipi debeat, non vi. Ad Scapulam, p. 447. It is not Reli­gion, to force a Religion, which ought to be willingly, not forcibly received. So by the same means it was continued, and the Penalties of the Breach of it were of the same Nature also. The Churches Arms were Spiritual, consisting of Admonitions, Excommunications, Suspensions, and such like, by the weilding of which she Governed her Members, and preserved her own Peace and Purity. Now this is that which is called Disci­pline, which is absolutely necessary to the Uni­ty, Peace, and being of the Church; for where there is no Law, Government or Order, that Society cannot possibly [...], but must sink in its own Ruins and Confusions.

To recite the numerous Encomiums of Disci­pline, that are interspers'd in the Writings of the Ancients, would be an endless Task: Let this one suffice out of Cy­prian, Disciplina custos spei, retinaculum fidei, Dux itineris salutaris, fomes ac nutrimentum bonae indolis, magistra [...], facit in Christo ma­nere semper ac jugiter Deo vivere, & ad pro­missa coelestia & divina praemia [...]. Hanc & sectari salubre est, & aversari ac negligere le­tale. [...] Psalmis loqui­tur Spiritus sanctus Continete Disciplinam, ne forte irascatur [...], & pereatis à via re­cta, cum exaiserit cito ira ejus super vos. Et iterum; peccatori autem dixit Deus, ad quid ex­ponis justificationes me­as, & assumis testamen­tum meum per os ruum? Tu autem odisti Disci. plinam, & abjecisti Ser­mones meos retro. Et denuo legimus: Disci­plinam quia abjicit, in­felix est. Et de Salo­mone mandata Sapientiae monentis accipimus: Fi­li ne neglexeris discipli­nam Domini, nec defe­ceris ab eo correptus. Quem enim diligit Do­minus corripit. Si autem Deus quem diligit, corri­pit, & ad hoc corripit, ut emendet, fratres quo­que & [...], non oderunt; sed diligunt eos quos corri­piunt ut emendent; quando & Deus per [...] praedixerit, & tempora nostra signi­ficaverit, [...] & da­bo vobis pastores secun­dum cor meum, & pas­cent vos pascentes cum Disciplina. De [...] & Habitu Virgi­num, §. 1. p. 265, 266. Discipline, says he, is the Keeper of Hope, the Stay of Faith, the Cap­tain of Salvation, the Few­el and Nutriment of a good Disposition, the Mi­stress of Vertue, that makes us perpetually abide in Christ, and live to God, [Page 110] and tend towards the Hea­venly and Divine Promi­ses. This to follow is sa­ving, but to despise and neglect is deadly. The Holy Ghost speaks in Psal. 2. 12. Keep Discipline, lest the Lord be angry, and ye perish from the right way, when his wrath is kindled but a little against you. And again, in Psal. 50. 16. But unto the Sin­ner God said, What hast thou to do to declare my Law, and to take my Judgments into thy Mouth? Thou hatest Discipline, and castest my Words behind thee. And again we read in Wisdom 3. 11. He that casteth off Discipline is unhappy. And by So­lomon we have received this command from Wis­dom, in Prov. 3. 11. My Son, forget not the Disci­pline of the Lord, nor faint when thou art corrected; for whom the Lord loveth he correcteth. But if God corrects whom he loves, and corrects them that they may amend; Christians al­so, and especially Ministers, [Page 111] do not hate, but love those whom they correct, that they may amend, since God hath also soretold our Times in Jer. 3. 15. And I will give you Pastors after mine own Heart, and they shall seed you in Discipline.

Now this is that Discipline, viz. The Power and Authority of the Church exerted by her, for her own Preservation, in the censuring of her offending Members, that I am now to Dis­course of; for the clearer apprehension where­of these six Queries must be examined into, 1. For what Faults Offenders were censured. 2. Who were the Judges that censured. 3. The manner of their Censures. 4. What their Cen­sures were. 5. The Course that Offenders took to be Absolved. And, 6. The manner of their Absolution.

§. 2. As to the first of these, For what Faults Offenders were censured. I answer, for So was [...] in Cyprian. Epist. 38. §. 2. p. 90. Schism, Euseb. lib. 5. c. 16. p. 181. Heresie, Origen. Hom. 7. in Je­rem. p. 94. Vol. 1. Co­vetousness, Origen. Ibidcm. Gluttony, Cyprian. Ep. 52. §. 13. p. 118. Fornication, Cyprian. Ep. 38. §. 2. p. 90. Adultery, and for Origen contra Celsum, lib. 3. p. 142. all other Sins whatsoever, none excep­ted; nay, the holy and good Men of those days were so zealous against Sin, that they used the strictest Severities against the least appearances of it, not indulging or spa­ring the least Branch of its pestiferous Production, but smartly punish­ing the least sprout of it, its lesser Acts, as well as those that were more scandalous and notorious. Cyprian writes, that not only [Page 112] Epist. 12. §. 1. p. 37. Gravissimae & extrema delicta, The greatest and most heinous Crimes, but even Minora Delicta, The Lesser Faults were punished by their Eccle­siastical Courts, so cutting off Sin in its Bud, and by the Excision of its lesser Acts and Ebul­litions, preventing its more gross and scanda­lous Eruptions. That particular Sin which they most severely punished, and through the fre­quency of Persecutions had numerous Objects of, was Apostacy from the Truth, or a lapsing into Idolatry, which Crime was always [...] with the extremest Rigour; of which Ninus, Clementianus and Florus were sad Instan­ces, who tho' they had for some time couragi­ously endured their Persecutions and Torments, yet at last, thro' the violence thereof, and the weakness of their Flesh, unwillingly consenting to the Heathen Idolatries, were for that Fault forced to undergo three years Penance; and had it not been for their ancient Merits, must have underwent it much longer, as may be seen at large in the 53d Epistle of Cyprian. And thus by these and such like severe and rigorous Courses, those primitive Virtuoso's endeavour­ed to prevent sin, and to make all the Professors of the Christian Religion truly holy and pious; for as Origen saith, [...]. Contra Celsum, lib. 3. p. 143. We use our utmost Endea­vours, that our Assemblies be composed of wise and honest Men.

§. 3. As for the Judges that composed the Consistory or Ecclesiastical Court, before whom offending Criminals were [Page 113] convened, and by whom censured, they will appear to have been the whole Church, both Clergy and Laity; not the Bishop without the People, nor the People without the Bishop, but both conjunctly constituted that Supreme Tri­bunal, which censured Delinquents and Trans­gressors, as will be evident from what fol­lows.

All the Power that any Church-Court exert­ed, was derived from that Promife and Com­mission of Christ, in Matth. 16. 18, 19. Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock will I build my Church, and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven; whatsoever thou shalt loose on Earth, shall be loosed in Heaven. Now this Power some of the Ancients menti­on, as given to the Bishops. Thus Origen writes, [...]. Commentar. in Matthaeum, Tom. 12. p. 279. Vol. 1. That the Bishops applyed to themselves this Promise that was made to Peter, teaching, That they had received the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven from our Saviour, that so whatsoever was bound, that is, condemned by them on Earth, was bound in Hea­ven; and whatsoever was loosed by them, was also [Page 114] loosed in Heaven; which, says he, may be Ortho­doxly enough applyed to them, if they hold Pe­ter's Confession, and are such as the Church of Christ may be built upon. And so also says Cy­prian, Ecclefia super Episco­pos constituatur; & om­nis actus Ecclesiae, per eosdem praepositos gu­bernetur. Epist. 27. §. 1. p. 62. The Church is founded upon the Bishops, by whom every Ecclesiasti­cal Action is governed.

Others of the Ancients mention this Power, as given to the whole Church, according to that in Matth. 18. 15, 16, 17, 18. If thy Brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his Fault between thee and him [...] if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy [...] but if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three Witnesses every Word may be established; and if he shall neglect them, tell it unto the Church; but if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an Heathen and a Publican. Verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven. By the Church here is to be under­stood, the whole Body of a particular Church or Parish, unto which some of the Fathers attribute the Power of the Keys, as Tertullian, Si clausum putas Coe­lum, memento claves e­jus hic Dominum Petro, & per eum Ecclesiae re­liquisse. Scorpiac. p. 612. If thou fearest Heaven to be shut, remember the Lord gave its Keys to Peter, and by him to the Church. And Firmilian, Potestas remittendo­rum peccatorum Apo­stolis data [...], & Ecclesi is quas illi â Christo missi. con­stituerunt, & Episcopis qui eis Ordinatione vacariâ suc­cesserunt. Apud Cyprian. Epist. 75. §. 14. p. 240. The Power of [Page 115] remitting Sins is given to the Apostles, and to the Churches which they constituted, and to the Bishops who succeeded them. Now from this different attribution of the Power of the Keys, we may infer this, That it was so lodged both in Bishops and People, as that each had some share in it: The Bishop had the whole Executive, and part of the Legislative Power; and the People had a part in the Legislative, tho' not in the Execu­tive. As for the Executive Power, by which I understand the formal Pronunciation of Suspen­sions and Excommunications, the Imposition of Hands in the Absolution of Penitents, and such like; that could be done by none, but by the Bishop, or by Persons in Holy Orders Deputed and Commission'd by him, as the Sequel will evince. But as for the Legislative, Decretive, or Judicatorial Power, that [...] both to Clergy and Laity, who conjunctly made up that Supreme Consistorial Court, which was in eve­ry Parish, before which all Offenders were tri­ed; and, if found Guilty, sentenced and con­demned.

Now that the Clergy were Members of this Ecclesiastical Court, is a thing so evidently known and granted by all, as that it would be superfluous to heap up many Quotations to prove it, so that I shall but just confirm it, after I have proved that which may seem more strange; and that is, That the Laity were Mem­bers thereof, and Judges therein, being Sha­rers with the Clergy in the Judicial Power of the Spiritual Court: And this will most evident­ly appear by the consideration of these follow­ing [Page 116] Testimonies: The first shall be out of that place of Clemens Romanus, where he writes, [...]. [...]. 1. ad [...]. p. 69. Who will say according to the Example of Moses, If Seditions, Contentions and Schisms are hapned because of me, I will de­part, I will go wheresoever you please, and I will do what are enjoyned me by the People, so the Church of Christ be in Peace.

So Origen describes a Criminal as appearing [...]. Comment. in Mat. Tom. 13. p. 335. Vol. 1. Be­fore the whole Church. And Dyonisius Bishop of Alexandria in his Letter to Fabius Bishop of Antioch, speaks of one Serapion, that had fallen in the Times of Persecution, who had several times appeared before the Church, to beg their Pardon, but [...]. Euseb. lib. o. c. 44. p. 246. no one did ever take any notice of him.

But Cyprian is most full in this matter, as when two Subdeacons, and an Acolyth of his Parish, had committed some great Misdemeanors, he professes that he himself was not a sufficient Judge of their Crimes, but Haec [...] tra­ctanda [...], & limanda plenius ratio—cum ple­be ipsa universa. Epist. 28. §. 2. p. 64. they ought to be tried by all the Peo­ple. And concerning Fe­licissimus the [...], he writes to his People from his Exile, that, if it pleased God, he would come to them after Ea­ster, [Page 117] and then that Secundum arbitrium quoque vestrum & omni­um nostrum Commune Consilium—ea [...] a­genda sunt disponere pariter, & limare poteri­mus. Epist. 40. § 1. p. 94. Affair should be adjusted accord­ing to their Arbitrement and Common Counsel. And in another place he con­demns the rash Precipi­tation of some of his Presbyters in admitting the Lapsed to Communion, because of some Pacificatory Libels obtained from the Confes­sors, and charges them to admit no more till Peace was restored to the Church, and then they should Acturi & apud nos, & apud plebem universam causam suam. Epist. 10. §. 4. p. 30. plead their Cause before the Clergy, and before all the People. And concerning the same matter, he writes in ano­ther Letter to the Peo­ple of his Parish, Cum pace nobis omni­bus à Domino prius da­ta, ad Ecclesiam regredi caeperimus, tunc exami­nabuntur singula praesen­tibus ac judicantibus vo­bis. Epist. 12. ad [...], §. 1. p. 37. That when it should please God to restore Peace to the Church, and reduce him from his Exile, that then it should be examined in their Presence, and ac­cording to their Judgment.

So that the Consistory Court was composed of the People, as well as of the Bishop, each of whom had a negative Voice therein. On one side, the Bishop could do nothing without the People. So when several returned from the Schism of Fortunatus, and Bishop Cyprian was willing to receive them into the Churches Peace, he complains of the unwillingness of his People to admit them, and the great difficulties he had [Page 118] to obtain their Consent, as he thus describes it in his Letter to Cornelius Bishop of Rome, O si posses, Frater charissime, iuic interesse [...], cum pravi [...] & perversi de Schismate revertuntur, videres quis mihi [...] sit persuadere patientiam Fratribus no­stris, ut [...] dolore sopito [...] curandisque conseuti­ant; vix [...], [...] extorqueo, ut tales [...] admitti. Epist. 55. §. 17. p. 143. O my dear Brother, if you could be present with me, when those Men re­turn from their Schism, you would wonder at what pains I take to perswade our Brethren to be patient, that laying aside their Grief of Mind, they would consent to the healing and receiving of those that are sick; I can scarce [...], yea, I extort a Grant from my People, that such [...] received to Communion. And on the other side, the People could do dothing without the Bishop; as when one of the three Bishops that [...] Or­dained Novatian, came back to the Church and desired admission, the People alone could not receive him, without the Consent of the Bishop [...], for else they would not have [...]. Cornel. apud [...]. [...]. 6. cap. 43. p. 244. so earnestly press'd him [...] his permission, as we find they did.

Thus then we have viewed the Members of the Spiritual Court, and have proved that they were all the Members, or the whole Body of the Church, Clergy as well as Laity, and Lai­ty as well as Clergy; [...] one without the o­ther, but both together.

But now forasmuch as the People were en­cumbred with earthly business, and it was not [Page 119] possible that they could constantly give their at­tendance, and narrowly search into every thing that should be brought before them: There­fore we may suppose, that the Members of the Presbytery, who, as was said before, under the Head of Ordination, were to be free from all Worldly Cares and Employments, were ap­pointed as a Committee to prepare matters for the whole Court. An instance whereof we meet with in Maximus, Vrbanus, Sidonius, and some others, that had joined in the Schism of No­vatian, who being sensible of their Fault, In Presbyterium vene­runt—Quod erat conse­quens, omnis hic actus populo fuerit insinuan­dus. [...]. Epist. 46. §. 2, 3. p. 104, 105. Came into the Presbyte­ry, and desir'd the Churches Peace; the Presbytery ac­cepted of their Submission, and proposed it to the whole Church, who readily em­braced it.

So that the Presbytery prepared matters for the whole Court, which Court was the Supreme Tribunal within the Limits of that Parish, be­fore whom all matters that there occurred, were tried, and by whom all were judged; only when any great and difficult points were deci­ded, 'tis probable it was the custom to desire the Bishops of the neighbouring Parishes to come over, and assist there in presence, that so their Censures might be the freer from any im­putation of Partiality or Injustice. Thus when a nice Affair was to be determined at Rome, Cornelius Adfuerunt Episcopi quinque—ut firmato consilio, quid circa personam eo­rum observari deberet, consensu omnium [...]. Cornel. ad [...]. Epist. 46. §. 2. p. 104. desired five Bi­shops [Page 120] to assist, that so what they did might be firm and indisputable.

§. 4. Having thus found out the Members of the Ecclesiastical Tribunal, the next thing to be consider'd, is the manner and Form of their Proceedings in the Exercise of their Judicial Power and Authority, which by Tertullian is described to be after this manner: When at their general Assemblies the other parts of Di­vine Worship were end­ed, Ibidem etiam exhorta­tiones, castigationes, & censura divina; nam & judicatur magno cum pondere, ut apud certos de Dei conspectu, [...] futuri judicii praejudicium est, fi quis ita deliquerit, ut à com­municatione orationis, & conventus, & omnis san­cti commercii relegetur. Praesident probati quique Seniores, honorem istum non precio sed testimo­nio adepti. Apolog. cap. 39. p. 709. then followed Ex­hortations, Reproofs, and a Divine Censure; for the Judgment is given with great weight, as amongst those that are sure, that God beholds what they do; and this is one of the high­est Preludiums and Fore­runners of the Judgment to come, when the Delin­quent is banished from the Communion of Prayers, Assemblies, and all Holy Commerce. Approved Elders preside there, who obtained that Honour by Testimony, not by Price. So that when the Consistory was sat, the Bishop and his assisting Presbyters, here called Appro­ved Elders; but commonly the Presbytery pre­sided and moderated all things there proposed and debated. Then the Offenders, if possible, were actually brought before them, (tho' the non-appearance of the Criminals was no impe­diment to their Proceedings) for notwithstand­ing they condemned them, and censured them [Page 121] not only for those Crimes, for which they were cited to appear, but also for their Contumacy and Stubbornness, as Cy­prian writes, Spirituali gladio su­perbi & contumaces ne­cantur, dum de ecclesia ejiciuntur. Epist. 62. §. 3. p. 170. the Proud and Obstinate are killed with the Spiritual Sword, whilst they are cast out of the Church; and Contumaces & Deum non timentes, & ab Ec­clesia in totum receden­tes, nemo comitetur. E­pist. 64. §. 4. p. 191. those that are stubborn and fear not God, but go off from the Church, let no Man accompany. But yet, I say, if possible, the Offenders personally ap­peared, that so their Crimes might be objected to them, to which they were to plead, as Cypri­an says, that the Lapsed Acturi & apud nos, & apud Plebem universam causam suam, Epist. 10. §. 4. p. 30. were to plead their Cause before the Clergy and the whole Church. Then the Court consider'd the De­fendant's Plea, as Cypri­an writes, In commune tractabi­mus. Epist. 6. §. 5. p. 17. that all things were debated in common amongst them. And if the Bishop and Majority of the Court judged their Defence insufficient, they were voted by their common Suffrage to be condemned and censu­red, as Cyprian writes, that Secundum vestra divi­na suffragia conjurati. Epist. 40. ad Plebem. §. 1. p. 92. whoever was excom­municated, it was by the Divine Suffrages of the People. The Delinquent being thus cast, or found Guilty, the next thing that succeeded, was the formal Declara­tion of the Sentence of the Court, which was [Page 122] pronounced, as Tertullian intimates in that fore­quoted Passage, by one of the presiding Elders, that is, either by the Bishop or a Presbyter Commission'd by him, the manner of which Pronunciation seems also from that Passage to be thus: He that passed the formal Sentence on the Criminal, first began with Exhortations; that is, as we may reasonably suppose, he ex­horted the Faithful to use all diligent Care and Fear to avoid those Sins and Crimes, which had brought the Offenders before them to so la­mentable and fatal Condition. Then followed Reproofs, which were sharp Rebukes and Re­prehensions to the Delinquents for their foul Miscarriages and enormous Practices, setting forth the Evil, Villany and Misery of them; That they were provoking to God, grievous to the Faithful, scandalous to Religion, and in fine, ruining and pernicious to themselves; in that it rendred them obnoxious to that Divine Censure, which then immediately, as the Con­clusion of all, he formally pronounced on them. Which brings me to the Consideration of the Fourth Query, viz. What the Primitive Cen­sures were; of which, in the following Se­ction.

§. 5. Now in answer hereunto; as the Church, so her Arms were Spiritual; her Thunderbolts [...] in Suspensions and Excommunications, in ejecting and throwing out of the Church her scandalous and rotten Members, not permit­ting a re-induction of them, till by visible signs of Repentance they had satisfied for their Crimes and Villanies.

[Page 123] Various are the Appellations that are given to the Sentence of Excommunication in the Writings of the Ancients. By Dionysius Alex­andrinus it is called, [...]. Apud Euseb. l. 7. c. 7. p. 253. A driving away from the Church. By Tertullian, Ab Ecclesiae Commu­nicatione abjectus. De Praescript. advers. Haeret. p. 95. A casting out from the Churches Communion, and A Communicatione depellere. De Monogam. p. 477. a driving from Commu­nion. By Cyprian, Ab Ecclesia separati, Epist. 38. §. 2. p. 90. A Separation from the Church, De Ecclesia se pelle­rent. Epist. 40. §. 1. p. 92. An Ejection out of the Church, Spirituali gladio ne­cantur. Epist. 62. §. 3. p. 170. A killing with the Spiritual Sword, and many other such like Terms occur in the Fa­thers, all tending to de­scribe the Fearfulness and Misery of an Excom­municated State: So tremendous was it, that whosoever was in that condition, was look'd upon as accursed by God, and really was so by Men, who esteem'd him as a Limb of Satan, and a Member of the Devil, shunning his Company as they did the Plague, or any other infectious Disease. Contumaces & Deum non timentes, & ab Ec­clesia in totum receden­tes, nemo comitetur. E­pist. 65. §. 4. p. 191. Those, says Cy­prian, that are Proud, and fear not God, but go off from the Church, let no Man accompany. And therefore Irenaeus speak­ing concerning the Hereticks, who were all Ex­communicated, says, Quos Paulus jubet no­bis devitare, Joannes e­nim non Ave nobis eis [...] volens. Qui enim [...], inquit, eis Ave, communicat operibus eo­rum nequissimis. Lib. 1. cap. 13. p. 63. that according to the Command of Paul, we must avoid [Page 124] them; and John forbids us so much as to wish them God speed, since by so do­ing we communicate with their Evil Works. And Tertullian in that forementioned place writes, A communicatione o­rationis & conventus, & omnis sancti commercii relegetur. Apol. c. 39. p. 709. That the Delinquent was banished from the Commu­nion of Prayers, Assem­blies, and all holy Con­verse; being look'd upon as one unworthy of hu­mane Society, cast out of the Church of God here; and if impenitently dying in that conditi­on, as certainly excluded the Kingdom of God hereafter. For as Origen writes on Matth. 18. 18. on which Text Excommunication is found­ed, [...]. Com­ment. in Matth. Tom. 13. p. 336. Vol. 1. He that is condemn­ed and bound by the Church on Earth, remains bound, none in Heaven un­loosing him.

§. 6. No wonder then that Men in their right Senses were affrightned at the tremendous Mi­sery of an Excommunicated Condition, and that when through their corrupt Natures and wicked Practices they had incurred that Sen­tence, they never left Fasting. Watching, Weep­ing, and the endurance of the severest Courses of Mortification, till they were absolved from it, and reinstated in God and the Churches Fa­vour. Which brings me in the next place to search into the Course that Offenders took to be [Page 125] received into the Church again, the usual Me­thod whereof seems to have been thus:

All those that desired to be delivered from that miserable state, in the first place in a most penitent and humble manner came weeping and crying unto the Church-doors, where they lay groveling on the Ground, prostrating them­selves at the Feet of the Faithful as they went into Church, and begging their Prayers to God for them. The Behaviour of these Men is thus elegantly express'd by the Clergy of the Church of Rome in a Letter to Cyprian, Pulsent sane fores, sed non utique confringant; adeant ad limen Eccle­siae, sed non utique tran­siliant. Castrorum coe­lestium excubent portis, sed armati modestia, qua intelligant se desertores fuisse. Resumant pre­cum suarum tubam, sed qua non bellicum clan­gant. Arment se quidem modestiae telis, & quem negando mortis metu fi­dei demiserant, clypeum resumant, sed ut contra hostem Diabolum vel nunc armati non contra Ecclesiam, quae illorum dolet casus, armatos [...] esse credant. Multum il­lis proficiet petitio mo­desta, postulatio vere­cunda, humilitas neces­saria, patientia non otiosa; mittant legatos pro suis doloribus lacrymas; advocatione fungantur ex intimo pectore prolati gemitus, dolorem probantes cominissi criminis & pudorem, Epist. 31. apud Cyprian. §. 7. p. 71. Let them, say they, knock at the Church­doors, but not break them; let them come to the Thre­shold of the Church, but not. pass over it; let them watch at the Gates of the Celestial Tents, but armed with Modesty, by which they may remember they were Deserters; let them resume the Trumpet of their Prayers, but not to sound an Alarm to Battle; let them arm themselves with the Darts of Modesty, and retake that Shield, which by their Apostacy they lost, that so they may [Page 126] be armed, not against the Church, which grieves at their Misery, but against their Adversary the Devil; a modest Petition, a bashful Supplication, a necessary Humility, and an Industrious Patience will be advantagious to them; let them express their grief by their Tears, and their sorrow and shame for their Crimes by their Groans. So Tertullian, in the same manner describes one in this state, Sacco & cineri incu­bare, corpus sordibus ob­scurare, animum [...] dejicere,— [...] preces alere, [...], lachrymari, & mug re dies noctesque—Presby­teris advolvi, & caris Dei adgeniculari, omni­bus fratribus [...] deprecationis suae iujun­gere. De Foenitentia, p. 381. by lying in Sackcloth and Ashes, by having a squa­lid Body, and a dejected Soul, by fasting, praying, weeping, groaning and roaring night and day; by throwing himself at the Clergies feet, and kneel­ing before the Faithful, begging and desiring their Prayers and Pardon.

§. 7. If the Ecclesiasti­cal Court thought their Repentance to be real, and those external Expressions of Sorrow and Grief to proceed from suitable Affections of Heart, then they began to encline to some Terms of Remission and Reconciliation, and gave the Delinquents some hopes of it, by ad­mitting them to come into the Church, and to stay at some part of Divine Service, but not at the whole of it, to communicate with the Faith­ful, till they had for a long space of time, which they then imposed on them, by their humble and modest Carriage gave good Proofs of their Sorrow and Repentance.

This fixed Time of Tryal was called, the Time of Penance, during which the Penitent, [Page 127] as he was now called, appeared in all the For­malities of Sorrow, with a course Habit, and a dejected Countenance, continually fasting and praying, lamenting and bemoaning the greatness and aggravations of his Sin and Wickedness, as may be seen in sundry places of the Fathers, all which to transcribe would be very tedious; wherefore I shall content my self with Transla­ting a few Elegancies pertinent to this purpose, out of Cyprian's Book De Lapsis, wherein he thus inveighs against those, who in a state of Penance indulged themselves in the Delights and Enjoyments of the Flesh, Lamentari eum puta­mus ex toto corde jeju­niis, fletibus, planctibus Dominum deprecari; qui ex primo criminis die lavacra quotidie cele­brat, qui epulis affluen­tibus pastus, & [...] largiore distentus, cru­ditates suas postridie ru­ctat, nec cibos & potus suos cum pauperum necessitate communicat? Qui hilaris ac laetus incedit, quomodo mortem suam deflet? An illa ingemiscit & plangit, cui vacat cultum pretiosae vestis induere, nec indumentum Christi, quod perdidit, cogitare? Accipere pretiosa or­namenta & monilia elaborata, nec Divini & Coelestis ornatus damna deflere; tu licet indumenta [...] & vestes sericas induas, nuda es; auro te licet & marga­ritis gemmisque [...], [...] Christi decore defor­mis es. Et quae capillos tuos inficis, vel nunc in dolo­ribus desine, & quae nigri pulveris ductu oculorum li­niamenta [...], vel nune lacrymis oculos tuos ablue. Si quem de tuis charis mortali exitu perdidisses, inge­misceres dolenter, & fleres: Facie inculta, veste muta­ta, neglecto capillo, vultu nubilo, ore dejecto indicia maeroris [...], animam tuam misera perdidisti— [...] non [...] plangis, non jugiter ingemiscis? §. 24, [...]. p. 285. Can we think that that Man weeps with his whole Heart, and with-Fa­stings, Tears, and Sighs beseeches God, who from the very first day of his Offence daily frequents the [Page 128] Baths, who indulging to his gluttonous Appetite this Day, vomits up his undigested Crudities the next day, and does not communicate of his Meat and Drink to the Necessities of the Poor? He that goes gay and jocund, how doth he bewayl his Death? Does that Woman weep and mourn, who spends her time in putting on splendid Garments, and does not think upon the Garment of Christ, which she lost? Who seeks after precious Ornaments and rich Jew­els, and does not bewail the loss of the Heavenly and Divine adorning? Altho' thou puttest on exo­tick Garbs and silken Garments, thou art naked; altho' thou beautifiest thy self with Gold and Pearls, without the Beauty of Christ thou art de­formed: And thou who dyest thine Hair, now leave it off in this time of Penance; and thou who paint­est thine Eyes, wash it off with thy Tears. If thou shouldst lose any one of thy dear Friends by Death, thou wouldst sorrowfully weep and howl, and ex­press the greatness of thy Sorrow by thy disregard­ed Face, mourning Garments, neglected Hair, cloudy Countenance, and dejected Visage. Why, O Wretch, thou hast lost thy Soul, and wilt not thou bitterly weep, and continually lament? Orare oportet impensi­us & rogare, diem luctu transigere, vigiliis noctes ac fletibus ducere, tem­pus omne lachrymosis la­mentationibus occupare, stratos solo adhaerere ci­neri, in cilicio & sordi­bus volutari: post indu­mentum Christi perdi­tum, nullum hic jam velle veslitum: post Diaboli cibum malle jejunium. §. 28. p. 286. Now therefore pray and supplicate more earnestly, pass the Day in weeping, the Night in watching and crying, both Night and Day in Tears and Lamen­tations, prostrate your selves upon the Ground, [Page 129] roll your selves in dust and ashes; after having lost the Garment of Christ, have no cloathing here; having tasted the Devil's Meat, chuse now to fast.

§. 8. How long these Penitentiary Stati­ons were, cannot be defined, since they differed according to the Quality of the Offence and the Offender, according to the Circumstance of Time, and the Will and Pleasure of the [...] Court who imposed them; some were in the state of Penance two Years, some three, some five, some ten, some more, some even to their Lives ends; but how long and rigorous soever their Penance was, they were patiently, humbly, and thankfully to endure it the whole time, being not absolved, till they had under­gone Legitimum & plenum tempus satisfactionis. Cyprian. Epist. 59. §. 1. p. 164. the legal and full time of Satisfaction.

It is true indeed, that in some extraordinary Cases the Prudence of the Church saw fit to dispense with the usual length and Severity of their inflicted Discipline, as in Urgere exitus coeperit. Apud [...]. Epist. 13. §. 1. p. 39. Case of Death, Lapsis pacem dandam­esse, & eos ad praelium, quod imminet, armari & [...] oportere. Apud Cyprian. Epist. 54. §. 1. p. 132. of an approaching Perse­cution, or, when a great multitude, and eminent leading Persons were cen­cerned in the same Of­fence; as in the case of Trophimus, which may be seen in the 52d Epistle of Cyprian. Besides these, the Confessors claimed the Privilege of restoring Penitents before the usual time; which irregular and unreasonable [Page 130] Practice of theirs caused great Disturbances to the Church of Carthage in the Days of Cyprian, which may be seen at large in several Epistles extant in the beginning of his Works.

But laying aside these unusual Circumstances, the fixed Period of Penance was never anticipa­ted; but how long and severe soever it was, the Penitent chearfully submitted to it.

When the appointed Time of Penance was ended, the Penitent applyed himself to the Ec­clesiastical Court for Ab­solution, who Inspecta vita ejus qui agit poenitentiam. Cypr. Epist. 12. §. 1. p. 37. examined his Demeanours and Acti­ons, which if they ap­proved and liked, they then proceeded to the formal assoyling of him, of which in the follow­ing Sections.

§. 9. On the appointed Day for Absolution, the Penitent, or he that was now to be absolved, came into the Church mourning and weeping, and expressing all external Indications of his In­ternal Sorrow: As when Natalis, a Roman Confessor, was absolved for his joyning with the Theodotian Hereticks, he came into the Church, as it is related by an ancient [...] Christian, [...]. Apud Euseb. l. 5. c. 28. p. 197. covered with Sackcloth and Ashes, throwing him­self at the Feet of the Cler­gy and Laity, and with Tears in his Eyes begging their pardon and forgive­ness. It being looked up­on as very proper, that they should be admitted into the Church Non minis sed preci­bus & lamentationibus. Cypr. Ep. 55. §. 18. p. 143. by Tears, [Page 131] not by Threats; by Prayers, and not by Cur­ses.

Hence at this time for the greater Demon­stration of their Sorrow and Humility, they were to make a publick Confession of their Sin, styled by them Exomologesis, which was, as Cy­prian saith, Exomologesin [...]- [...] atque extremi delicti. Epist. 11. §. 1. p. 32. A Confession of their great and heinous Crime, and was a neces­sary Antecedent to Ab­solution, inasmuch as it was the Source and Spring of all true Repentance. For as Tertulli­an observes, Satisfactio confessione disponitur, confessione poenitentia noscitur. De Poenitentia, p. 380. Out of Confession is born Repen­tance, and by Confession comes Satisfaction. And in many places of Epist. 10. §. 2. p. 30. Epist. 11. §. 1. p. 32. Cy­prian the necessity of Con­fession is asserted; for as Tertullian says, Tantum relevat con­fessio delictum, quantum dissimulatio exaggerat; [...] enim satisfacti­onis consilium est, dissi­mulatio contumaciae. De Poenitentia, p. 380. Confes­sion as much diminishes the Fault, as Dissimulation ag­gravates it; Confession is the Advice of Satisfacti­on, Dissimulation of Con­tumacy. And therefore he condemns those, who thro' shame deferred from Day to Day the Publication of their Sin, as Pudoris magis memo­res quam Salutis velut illi qui in partibus ve­recundioribus corporis contractâ vexatione, con­scientiam medentium vitant, & ita cum erubescentia sua pereunt. De [...], p. 382. more mindful of their shamefacedness, than of their Salvation: Like those who have a Disease in [Page 132] their Secret Parts, through shame conceal it from the Chyrurgeons, and so with their Modesty die and perish. Confession therefore being so neces­sary, the greatest Offenders were not exemp­ted from it; as when Philip the Emperor, as Eusebius calls him, or rather Philip a Prefect of Egypt, would have joyned with the Faithful in the Churches Prayer, Bishop Babylas denied him admission, because of his enormous Crimes; nor would he receive him, till he had made [...]. A­pud [...]. lib. 6. cap. 34. p. 232. a Publick Confession of his Faults. And accord­ingly when one of those Bishops that Schismati­cally Ordained Novatian, returned as a Peni­tent, he came into the Church weeping, and [...]. Cor­nel. apud [...]. lib. 6. c. 43. p. 243. Confessing his Sin; where we may observe, that it is said in the sin­gular Number, his Sin, [...], which intimates, that the Penitent's Confession was not only general, or for all his Sins in the gross; but it was particular, for that special Sin for which he was censured; consonant whereunto Cyprian, as before quoted, writes, that the Pe­nitent Exomologesin gravissi­mi atque extremi delicti. Epist. 11. §. 1. p. 32. confessed his most great and heinous Sin; that is, that Sin for which he was so severely pu­nished.

This Confession of the Penitents was made with all the outward Signs of Sorrow and Grief, which usually so affected the Faithful, as that they sympathized with them in mourning [Page 133] and weeping. Whence Tertullian exhorts the Penitent not through shame to conceal, but from a true Godly Disposition, to confess his Fault before the whole Church, and to weep and mourn for it, Ergo cum te ad fra­trum genua protendis—aeque illi cum super te lacrymas agunt. De Poe­nitentia, p. 382. since they, being his Brethren, would also weep with, and over him. And so from the same Consideration, Cyprian exhorted the Lapsed to this Penitent Confession, Cum lacrymis nostris vestras lacrymas jungite; cum nostro gemitu, ve­stros gemitus copulate. De Lapsis, §. 27. p. 285. with our Tears, saith he, joyn your Tears; with our Groans couple your Groans.

§. 10. As soon as Confession was over, then followed the formal Absolution, which was thus: The Person to be absolved, kneeled down before the Bishop and the Clergy, who put their Hands upon his Head, and bless'd him; by which external Ceremony the Peni­tent was declaratively and formally admitted to the Churches Peace. Thus Cyprian writes, that they Per impositionem ma­nus Episcopi & Cleri jus communicationis accipi­unt. Epist. 10. §. 2. p. 30. received the Right of Communion by the Imposition of Hands of the Bishop and his Clergy. And that Nec ad Communicati­onem venire quis possit, nisi prius illi & ab Epis­copo & Clero manus [...] imposita. Epist. 12. §. 1. p. 37. no one can be admitted to Communion, unless the Bishop and Cler­gy have imposed Hands on him. This being ac­counted the third and last general Requisite for the reconciling of Offen­ders, the two former being the undergoing a [Page 134] state of Penance, and a publick Confession of their Sin; all which three are frequently men­tioned together as such by Cyprian, as where he Agant peccatores poe­nitentiam justo tempore, & secundum disciplinae ordinem ad exomologe­sin veniant, & per impo­fitionem manus Episcopi & Cleri jus communica­tionis accipiant. Epist. 10. §. 2. p. 30. says, Let Offenders do Penance a set space of time, and according to the Order of Discipline, let them come to Confession, and by Imposition of Hands of the Bishop and Clergy, let them receive the Right of Communion. And in other places he complains of the irregular and unadvised Actions of some of his Presbyters, that they admitted some of the Lapsed to Com­munion, Ante actam poeniten­tiam, ante Exomologe­sin gravissimi atque ex­tremi delicti factam, an­te manum ab Episcopo & Clero in poenitentiam impositam, offerre lapsis pacem, & Eucharistiam dare audeant. Epist. [...]. §. 1. p. 32. and almost the same words are repeat­ed, Epist. 12. §. 1. p. 37. before they had undergone a duc Penance, made a Publick Confession of their Sin, and had Hands imposed on them by the Bishop and Clergy.

§. 11. After the Peni­tents were absolved by imposition of Hands, then they were received into the Communion of the Faithful, and made Par­takers again of all those Priviledges, which by their Crimes they had for a while forfeited: Only when an offending Clergy man was ab­solved, he only was restored to Communion as a Lay-man, but never re-admitted to his Eccle­siastical Dignity. Thus when one of the Schis­matical Bishops, that Ordained Novatian, re­turned to the Church, he was deprived of his [Page 135] Ecclesiastical Office, and admitted only to [...]. [...]. apud Eu­seb. lib. 6. cap. 43. p. 243. Lay-Communion. So likewise Apostate or Lapsed Bishops were ne­ver restored again to their Office. The Rea­sons whereof may be seen in the 64th Epistle of Cyprian. And therefore Basilides a lapsed Bi­shop Satis sibi gratulans, si sibi vel Laico commu­nicare contingeret. Apud Cyprian. Epist. 68. §. 7. p. 202. would have been extremely glad, if the Church would but have permitted him to commu­nicate as a Layman. But yet I suppose that for every Fault Clergymen were not deprived of their Orders, but only according to the Great­ness of their Crimes, and the Aggravation of them, since I find that Maximus a Presbyter of the Church of Rome, who had been deluded in­to the Schism of Novati­an, was upon his Sub­mission Maximam Presbyte­rum locum suum agno­scere jussimus. Cornel. apud Cyprian. Epist. 46. §. 4. p. 105. restored by Cor­nelius, to his former Of­fice.

CHAP. VIII.

§. 1. TO that large Discourse of the Primi­tive Discipline, which was the Sub­ject of the preceding Chapter, it will be neces­sary to add this Observation, that all those judi­cial Acts were exerted in and by every single Parish, every particular Church having Power to exercise Discipline on her own Members, without the Concurrency of other Churches; else in those places where there might be but one Church for several Miles round, which we may reasonably suppose, the Members of that Church must have travelled several, if not Scores of Miles, to have had the consent of o­ther Churches, for the Punishment of their Of­senders: But there is no need to make this Sup­position, since it was decreed by an African Sy­nod, [Page 137] Statutum sit omnibus nobis, & aequum sit pa­riter ac justum, ut unius cujusque causa illic audi­atur, ubi est crimen ad­missum, & singulis pa­storibus [...] gregis sit [...] quam regat unusquisque & gubernet rationem sui actus Do­mino rediturus. Apud [...]. Epist. 55. §. 16. p. 142. that every one's Cause should be heard where the Crime was com­mitted, because that to every Pastor was commit­ted a particular Portion of Christ's Flock, which he was particularly to rule and govern, and to ren­der an account thereof un­to the Lord. And so a­nother African Synod, that decreed the Rebaptization of those that were Baptized by Hereticks, thus conclude their Synodical Epistle to Pope Stephen, who held the contrary, Caeterum scimus quos­dam quod semel imbibe­rint nolle deponere, nec propositum suum facile mutare, sed salvo inter Collegas pacis & concor­diae vinculo, quaedam propria, quae apud se se­mel sint usurpata, [...] qua in re nec nos vim cuiquam facimus, aut legem damus, cum habeat in Ecclesiae admi­nistratione voluntatis suae arbitrium liberum [...] praepositus, rationem actus sui Do­mino redditurus. Apud Cyprian. Epist. 72. §. 3. p. 217. Whereas we know that some Bishops will not relinquish an Opi­nion, which they have em­braced, but keeping the Bond of Peace and Con­cord with their Colleagues, will retain some proper and peculiar Sentiments, which they have formerly recei­ved; to these we offer no violence, or prescribe any Law, since every Bishop has in the administration of his Church, free liberty to follow his own Will, be­ing to render an account of his Actions unto the Lord.

After these two Synodical Determinations, it might be thought needless to produce the [Page 138] single Testimony of Cyprian, but that it shews us not only the practice of the Bishops of his Age, but also of their Predecessors. Apud antecessores no­stros quidam de Epis­copis [...] in provincia nostra dandam pacem moechis non putaverunt & in totum poenitentiae locum contra adultetia clauserunt, non [...] a Coepiscoporum suorum collegio recesserunt, aut Catholicae Ecclesiae uni­tatem vel duritiae vel censurae suae obstinatione ruperunt, ut quia apud alios adulteris pax da­batur, qui non dabat de Ecclesia separaretur, ma­nente concordiae vinculo & perseverante Catholi­cae Ecclesiae individuo Sacramento, actum suum disponit & dirigit unus­quisque Episcopus, rati­onem propositi sui Do­mino redditurus. Epist. 52. §. 13. p. 118. Amongst the ancient Bishops of our Province, saith he, some thought that no Peace was to be given to Adulterers, for ever excluding them from the Communion of the Church; but yet they did not leave their Fellow-Bi­shops, or for this break the Vnity of the Catholick Church; and those that gave Peace to Adulterers, did not therefore separate from those that did not, but still retaining the Bond of Concord, every Bishop disposed and directed his own Acts, rendring an ac­count of them unto the Lord.

Thus every Church was in this Sense independent; that is, without the Concurrence and Authority of any other Church; it had a sufficient Right and Power in its self to punish and chastise all its delinquent and offending Members.

§. 2. But yet in another Sense it was depen­dent, as considered with other Churches, as part of the Church Uni­versal, Cum sit a Christo una Ecclesia per totum mun­dum in multa membra divisa, item episcopatus unus Episcoporum mul­torum concordi [...] diffusus. Epist. 52. §. 13. p 118. There is but one Church of Christ, saith [Page 139] Cyprian, divided through the whole World into many Members, and one Epis­copacy diffused through the numerous Concord of many Bishops. A Particular Church was not the whole Church of Christ, but only a Part or Member of the Universal one; and as one Member of the natural Body hath a regard to all the other Members thereof, so a particular Church, which was but one Member of the Universal, had re­lation and respect to the other Members there­of. Hence tho' the Labours and Inspections of the Bishops were more peculiarly confined to their own Parishes, yet as Ministers of the Church Universal, they employed a general kind of Inspection over other Churches also, observing their Condition and Circumstances, and giving unto them an account of their own state and posture; as Cyprian inspected that of Arles, giving this as his Reason for it, that Nam etsi pastores mul­ti sumus, unum tamen gregem pascimus, & oves universas quas Christus sanguine suo & passione quaesivit, colligere & fo­vere debemus. Epist. 67. §. 6. p. 199. altho' they were many Pastors, yet they were but one Flock, and they ought to congregate and cherish all the Sheep, which Christ redeemed by his Blood and Passion. And the Cler­gy of the Church of Rome thanked Cyprian, that he had acquainted them with the state of the Church in Africa; for say they, Omnes enim nos decet pro co pore totius Ecclesiae, cujus per varias quasque provincias membra digesta sunt, excubare. Apud Cypr. Epist. 30. §. 4. p. 67. We ought all [Page 140] of us to take care of the Body of the whole Church, whose Members are distended through various Pro­vinces. If the Bishop of one Church had any difficult Point to determine, he sent to another Bishop for his Advice and Decision thereof. As when Dyonisius Bishop of Alexandria had a cri­tical Cause to determine, he sent to Xystus Bi­shop of Rome, [...]. [...] Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 9. p. 254. to know his Opinion and Counsel therein. And so when there was some diffe­rence at Carthage about the Pacificatory Libels of the Martyrs, Cyprian writ to the Church of Rome for their Advice therein. For saith he, Et dilectio communis & ratio exposcit, fratres charissimi, nihil consci­entiae vestrae subtrahere de his quae apud nos ge­runtur, ut sit nobis cir­ca utilitatem ecclesiasti­cae administrationis com­mune consilium. Epist. 29. p. 66. Dearly beloved Bre­thren, both common Rea­son and Love require, that none of these things that are transacted here, should be kept from your Know­ledge, but that we should have your Counsel about Ecclesiastical Administra­tions. In these, and in many other such like Cases, which would be needless to enumerate, there was a Correspon­dence between the particular Churches of the Universal one.

§. 3. But that that chiefly deserves our [...], was their Intercourse and Govern­ment by Synodical Assemblies, that is, by a Convocation of Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, and Deputed Lay-men of several particular Churches, who frequently met together to [Page 141] maintain Unity, Love and Concord, to advise about their common Circumstances and Condi­tions, to regulate all Ecclesiastical or Church-Affairs within their respective Limits, and to manage other such like things, of which I shall more largely treat in the end of this Chapter.

That which must be spoken of in this Section is, the several kinds or sorts of Synods, the most august and supreme kind whereof, was an Universal or [...] Synod, which was a Congregation of the Bishops and Deputies of as many Churches as would please to come from all Parts of the World: Of this sort I find but one within my limited space of the first three Hundred Years after Christ, and that was the Apud Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 30. p. 279. Council of Antioch, that condemned Paulus Samosatenus. Or if this will not pass for a General Council, there was no such one before that of Nice, which was held Anno 325. and so there was no one of this kind within that time to which I am confi­ned.

But those Synods, which were very frequent within my prescribed time, were Provincial Synods, that is, as many particular Churches as could conveniently and orderly associate themselves together, and by their common Consent and Authority dispose and regulate all things that related to their Polity, Unity, Peace, and Order. What extent of Ground, or how many particular Churches each of such Synods did contain, cannot be determined; their Pre­cincts were not alike in all places, but accord­ing as their Circumstances and Conveniencies [Page 142] would permit; so they formed themselves into these Synodical Assemblies, and were governed in common by those Synods, who were called the Synods of such or such a Province: As we read in Cyprian of the Coepiscopis nostris in eadem provincia [...] tutis. Epist. 67. §. 1. p. 198. Province of Arles, and the Bishops therein. And Cyprian frequently speaks of the Bishops of his Pro­vince, [...] provincia nostra. st. 52. §. 13. p. 118. as the Bishops ² in Per provinciam no­am. Ep. 42. §. 2. p. 99. our Province, and ³ through­out our Province, and Per provinciam. Epist. 55. §. 18. p. 143. throughout the Province: And tells us, that Latius fusa est nostra provincia. Epist. 45. §. 2. p. 103. his Province was very large, and that it was Apud nos & fere per provincias universas te­netur. ut—ad eam [...] cui [...] ordi­natur Episcopi ejusdem provinciae proximi qui­que conveniant. Epist. 68. §. 6. p. 202. the cu­stom of his Province, and almost all other Provinces, that upon the Vacancy of a Parish, the neighbour­ing Bishops of that Pro­vince should meet toge­ther at that Parish to Ordain them a new Bishop.

§. 4. How often these Provincial Synods were convened, is uncertain, since that varied ac­cording to their Circumstances, and their [...] Customs. Firmilian Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia writes, that in his Province Per singulos annos in unum conveniamus. A­pud Cypr. Epist. 75. §. 3. p. 236. they met every Year. And whosoever will con­sider the frequent Synods that are mentioned in Cyprian, will find that in [Page 143] his Province they met at least once, and some­times twice or thrice a Year.

§. 5. As for the Members that composed these Synods, they were Bishops, Presbyters, Dea­cons, and Deputed Laymen in behalf of the People of their respective Churches. Thus at that great Synod of Antioch, that condemned Paulus Samosatenus, there were present [...]. Ex Epist. Synod. apud Euseb. l. 7. c. 30. p. 279. Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, and the Churches of God, that is, Laymen that repre­sented the People of their several Churches. So also we read in an ancient Fragment in Eusebius, that when the Heresie of the Montanists was fix'd and preach'd, [...]. &c. Apud Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 16. p. 181. the Faithful in Asia met together several times to examine it, and upon ex­amination condemned it. So also when there were some Heats in the Church of Carthage about the Restitution of the Lapsed, Cyprian writes from his Exile, that the Lapsed should be patient till God had restored Peace to the Church, and then there should Ut Episcopi plures in unum convenientes, prae­sente & [...] plebe­disponere omnia consilii communis religione pos­simus. Epist. 14. §. 2. p. 41. be con­vened a Synod of Bishops, and of the Laity who had stood firm during the Per­secution, to consult about, and determine their Af­fairs. Which Propositi­on was approved by Moses and Maximus, and other Roman Confessors, who liked the consult­ing [Page 144] Consultis omnibus E­piscopis, Presbyteris, Dia­conibus, Confessoribus, & ipsis stantium Laicis. Apud Cyprian. Epist. 26. §. 4. p. 60. of a Synod of Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, Con­fessors, and the standing Laity, as also did the whole Body of the Cler­gy of the Church of Rome, who were willing, that that Affair Collatione consiliorum cum Episcopis, Presby­teris Diaconis, Confes­soribus, pariter ac stan­tibus Laicis sacta, lap­sorum tractare rationem. [...] Cyprian. Epist. 31. §. 5. p. 70. of the Lapsed should be determi­ned by the common Counsel of the Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, Confessors, and the standing Laity. And thus at that great Coun­cil held at [...], Anno 258. there were present Eighty Seven Episcopi plurimis—cum Presbyteris & Dia­conibus, praesente etiam plebis maxima parte. Act. Concil. Carthag. apud Cyprian. p. 443. Bishops, together with Presbyters, Deacons, and a great part of the Laity.

§. 6. If it shall be de­manded by whose Autho­rity and Appointment Synods were assembled. To this it will be replyed, That it must necessa­rily have been by their own, because in those Days there was no Christian Magistrate to or­der or determine those Affairs.

§. 7. When a Synod was convened, before ever they entred upon any Publick Causes, they chose out of the gravest and renownedst Bishops amongst them, one, or sometimes two, to be their Moderator or Moderators; as at the Council held at Carthage, Anno 258. Act. Concil. Carthag. ad Calcem oper. Cypr. Cyprian was Moderator or Prolocutor [Page 145] thereof. And so we read of the Prolocutors of several Synods, that were assembled in divers parts of the World, to determine the Contro­versies concerning Ea­ster: As Apud Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 23. p. 190, 191. Victor Bishop of Rome was Prolocutor of a Synod held there. Palmas Bishop of Ama­stris Moderator of a Synod held in Pontus; and Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons of another in France. Apud Fuseb. lib. 5. cap. 24. p. 191. Polycrates Bishop os E­phesus presided over a Sy­nod of Asiatick Bishops; and Apud Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 23. p. 190. at a Convocation in Palestina there were two Moderators, viz. Theophilus Bishop of Caesarea, and Narcissus Bishop of Jerusalem. The Office and Duty of a Moderator was to preside in the Synod, to see all things calmly and fairly deba­ted and decreed; and at the conclusion of any Cause, to sum up what had been debated and urged on both sides, to take the Votes and Suf­frages of the Members of the Synod; and last of all, to give his own. All this is evident in the Proceedings of the Council of Carthage, which are extant at the end of Cyprian's Works, Cyprian being Moderator of that Council: Af­ter all things were read and finished relating to the Question in hand, sums up all, telling the Synod what they had heard, and that nothing more remained to be done, but the Declaration of their Judgment thereupon. Accordingly thereunto the Bishops gave their respective Votes and Decisions; and last of all Cyprian, as President, gave in his.

[Page 146] §. 8. When the Moderator was chosen, then they entred upon the consideration of the Affairs that lay before them, which may be consider'd in a two-fold respect, either as relating to Foreign Churches, or to those Churches only of whom they were the Representatives. As for foreign Churches, their Determinations were not obli­gatory unto them, because they were not repre­sented by them; and so the chiefest matter they had to do with them, was to give them their Advice and Counsel in any difficult Point, which they had proposed to them; as when the People of Astorga and Emerita in Spain had written to some African Churches for their Ad­vice, what to do with their two Bishops, who had lapsed in Times of Persecution. This Case was debated in a Synod held Anno 258, whose Opinion thereupon is to be seen in their Synodi­cal Epistle, extant at large amongst the Works of Cyprian. Epist. 68. p. 200.

§. 9. But with respect unto those particular Churches, whose Representatives they were, their Decrees were binding and obligatory, since the Regulation and Management of their Affairs was the general End of their Conve­ning.

Various and many were the particular Ends of these Synodical Conventions, as for the pre­vention of Injustice and Partiality in a Parish Consistory: As suppose, that such a Consisto­ry had wrongfully and unrighteously censured one of their Members, what should that censu­red Person do, unless appeal to the Synod to have his Cause heard there, as Felicissimus did, who after he was excommunicated by his own [Page 147] Parish, of which Cyprian was Bishop, Literas ad te collegae nostri manu sua subscrip­tas miserunt, qui audi­tis eis, quid senserint, & quid pronunciaverint, ex eorum literis disces. Cyp. Epist. 42. §. 5. p. 99. had his Cause heard before a Sy­nod, who ratified and con­firmed the Sentence of Ex­communication against him. And therefore we may suppose it to be for the prevention of Partia­lity and Injustice; that in Lesser Asia Per singulos annos con­veniamus—ut lapsis fra­tribus per poenitentiam medela quaeratur. Firmil. apud Cyprian. Epist. 75. §. 3. p. 236. Offenders were usually absolved by the Synod, which met eve­ry Year. Synods also were assembled for the examin­ing, condemning, and ex­communicating of all Hereticks within their Limits, that so the Faithful might avoid and shun them: As Paulus Samosatenus was condemned by the Euseb. lib. 7. c. 30. p. 279. Council of An­tioch, for resolving of all difficult Points that did not wound the Essentials of Religion, or had relation unto the Discipline of the Church, as when there was some Scruple about the Time of baptizing of Children, a Apud Cyprian. Epist. 59. p. 162. Synod of Sixty Six Bi­shops met together to de­cide it. And so when there were some Disputes concerning the Martyrs Power to restore the Lapsed, In unum convenien­tes—disponere omnia possimus. Apud Cypr. Epist. 14. §. 2. p. 41. Synods were to be assembled to decide them. But why do I go about to reckon up Par­ticulars, when as they are endless; let this suffice in general, that Sy­nods [Page 148] were convened for the Regulation and Management of all Ecclesiastical Affairs within their respective Jurisdictions, as Firmilian writes, that in his Coun­try Ut per singulos annos seniores & praepositi in unum conveniamus ad disponenda ea quae curae nostrae commissa sunt. Apud Cyprian. Epist. 75. §. 3. p. 236. the Bishops and Pres­byters met together every Year, to dispose those things which were committed to their charge. Here they consulted about the Dis­cipline, Government, and External Polity of their Churches, and what means were expedi­ent and proper for their Peace, Unity and Or­der, which by their common Consent they en­acted and decreed to be observed by all the Faithful of those Churches whom they did re­present.

He who denies this, must be very little ac­quainted with the ancient Councils, especially those which were held after the Emperors be­came Christians. The reason why we find not more Synodical Decrees of the three first Cen­turies, comes not, from that they judicially de­termined none, or required not the observance of them; but from that, either they were not careful, or the Fury and Violence of the Times would not permit them to transmit them down to their Successors; or through the length of time they are lost, and scarce any thing besides the Names of such Synods are now remem­bred; and of Multitudes, neither Names nor Decrees are to be found: But yet there is e­nough escap'd the Fury of Persecution, and the length of time to convince us, that those Sy­nods did decree those things, which they judg­ed [Page 149] expedient for the Polity, Discipline and Go­vernment of those particular Churches, that were within their respective Provinces, and re­quired them to be observed by all the Members thereof.

Thus we find these following Canons deter­mined by several Synods in Africa, viz.

Statueramus—Si peri­culum infirmitatis urge­ret, pacem sub ictu mor­tis acciperent. Apud Cyprian. Epist. 54. §. 1. p. 132. That though a Delin­quent had not endured the whole time of Penance, yet if he was very sick, and in danger of Death, he should be absolved.

Censuimus—Pacem dandam esse, & eos ad praelium, quod imminet, armari & instrui opor­tere. Ibidem. That at the approach of a Persecution, penitent Offenders should be resto­red to the Churches Peace.

Ante legitimum & ple­num tempus satisfactio­nis—pax ei concedere­tur. Cyprian. Epist. 59. §. 1. p. 164. That Penance should not be hastily passed over, or Absolution be rashly and speedily given.

Decreverit ejusmodi homines ad poenitentiam quidem agendam posse admitti, ab Ordinatione autem Cleri atque Sacer­dotali honore [...]. Apud Cyprian. Ep. 68. §. 7. p. 202. That all lapsed and apostate Clergymen, should, upon their Repentance, be only admitted to Commu­nion as Lay-men, and be never more capable of dis­charging or performing any Ecclesiastical Function.

Statutum sit, ne quis de Clericis & Dei mini­stris tutorem vel cura­torem testamento suo constituat. Apud Cypr. Epist. 66. §. 1. p. 195. That no Clergyman should be a Curator or Tru­stee of a last Will or Testa­ment.

[Page 150] And many other such like Synodical Decrees relating to the Discipline and Polity of the Church, are to be met with in Cyprian, which were ever accounted Obligatory to all those Parishes who lived within those respective Pro­vinces, and had their Representatives in those respective Synods; for to what purpose else did they decree them, if it had been fruitless and ridiculous to have made frequent and wea­risom Journeys, with great Cost and Pains, to have debated and determined those things, which they judged expedient for the Churches Well-being, if after all it was indifferent, whe­ther they were obeyed, or not?

But that their Decrees were binding, is ad­judged by an African Synod of Sixty Six Bi­shops, held Anno 254, Victori antequam poe­nitentiam plenam egis­set, [...] Therapius, pacem dederit, quae res nos sàtis mover, reces­sum esse à decreti nostri auctoritate. Apud Cypr. Epist. 59. §. 1. p. 164. who sharply [...] a certain Bishop called The­rapius, for breaking the Canons of a Synod, in ab­solving a certain Presbyter called Victor, before the time appointed by that Sy­nod was expired. Probably the Breaker of those Canons was to have been Deposed or Suspend­ed, or some other severe Punishment inflicted on him, since the Bishops of this Synod speak as if they had moderated the Rigour of the Ca­nons against Therapius, in that they Satisfuit objurgare Therapium—quod te­mere hoc fecerit, & in­struxisse ne quid tale de caetero faciat. Ibidem. were content­ed only with chiding him for his rashness, and with strictly charging him, that he should do so no more.

[Page 151] So another Synod in Africa decreed, that Censuerunt ne quis frater excedens, ad tute­lam vel curam Clericum nominaret, ac si quis hoc fecisset, non offerretur pro eo, nec Sacrificium pro dormitione ejus ce­lebraretur. Apud Cypr. Epist. 66. § 2. p. 195. if any one should name a Clergy-man in his last Will and Testament for his Trustee, no Sacrifice should be offered for him after his Death. (What the mean­ing of this Offering of Sacrifice after his Death is, I shall not shew here, since I must treat of it in another place.) Ac­cordingly when Geminius Victor Bishop of [...] had by his last Will and Testament constitu­ted Geminius Faustinus a Presbyter, his Trustee, Cyprian Bishop of Carthage, writ unto the Cler­gy and Laity of Furnis touching this matter, wherein he informs them, Graviter commoti su­mus ego & collegae mei- & ideo Victor, cum con­tra formam nuper in concilio à Sacerdotibus datum, Geminium Fau­stinum Presbyterum au­sus sit tutorem constitu­ere, non est quod pro dormitione ejus apud vos fiat oblatio, aut de­precatio aliqua nomine ejus in Ecclesia frequen­tetur, ut Sacerdotum de­cretum [...] & ne­cessariè factum servetur à nobis. Ibidem, §. 1, 2. p. 195. That he and his Col­leagues were very much of­fended that Geminius Vi­ctor had thus broke the Canons of the Synod; but that since he had done it, he hoped they would take care that he should suffer the Penalty annexed to the Breach thereof, that in conformity thereunto they would not mention him in their Prayers, or make any Oblation for him, that so the Decree of the Bishops, which was religiously and necessarily made, might be observed by them.

[Page 152] To these two Instances we may add that of Martialis and Basilides, two Spanish Bishops, who for their falling into Idolatry in times of Persecution, were deprived of their Ecclesiasti­cal Functions, and adjudged never more to be admitted to the Churches Communion in any other Quality than that of Laymen, which ri­gorous Sentence an African Synod defends, Maximè cum jampri­dem decretum est ejus­modi homines ad poeni­tentiam quidem agen­dam posse admitti, ab ordinatione autem cleri atque sacerdotali honore prohiberi. [...] Cypr. Ep. 68. §. 8. p. 202. from the Authority of a General Council, who had before decreed, that such Men should only be admit­ted to Repentance, but be for ever excluded from all Clerical and Sacerdotal Dignities.

CHAP. IX.

§. 1. HAving in the precedent Chapters dis­coursed of the Constitution and Disci­pline of the Primitive Church, I come now in this to treat of the Unity thereof, which I had a very great Inclination to search into, since by the due understanding thereof we shall the bet­ter apprehend the Notion of the Ancients con­cerning Schism, because that Schism is nothing else but a Breach of that Unity, as will [...] evidently appear from the Quotations that we shall be forced to make use of in this Chapter.

[Page 154] Now that we may know what the Breach of the Unity of the Church was, it is absolutely necessary first to know what the Unity its self was; for till we understand its Unity, it is im­possible that we should understand the Breach thereof.

Now for the distinct apprehending hereof, we must remember the various Acceptations of the Word Church, as they are related in the be­ginning of this Treatise, and according to the different Significations thereof, so must its Uni­ty be diversified, or be differently understood; and according to the different manner of its Unity, so must we apprehend the Breach thereof.

§. 2. If in the first place we reflect upon the Word Church, as signifying the Church Univer­sal, or all those, who throughout the whole Earth profess Faith in Christ, then we may con­sider its Unity in this Sense either Negatively, wherein it did not consist; or Positively, where­in it did consist.

Negatively, It consisted not in an Uniformi­ty of Rites and Customs; for every particular Church was at liberty to follow its own proper Usages: One Church was not obliged to ob­serve the Rites of another, but every one fol­lowed its own peculiar Customs. Thus with respect to their Fast before Easter, there was a great Diversity in the Observation of it, [...]. [...]. apud Euseb. [...]. 5. cap. 24. p. 193. in some Churches they [Page 155] fasted one Day, in others two, in some more, and in others forty Hours, but yet still they retained Peace and Concord, the diversity of their Customs commending the Vnity of their Faith. So also the Feast of Easter its self was variously celebrated. The Asiatick Churches kept it on a distinct Day from the Europeans, but yet still they retained [...]. Idem Ibidem. Peace and Love, and for the diversity of such Cu­stoms, none were ever cast out of the Communion of the Church. So likewise writes Firmilian, In plurimis provinciis multa pro locorum & no­minum diversitate vari­antur, nec tamen prop­ter hoc ab Ecclesiae Ca­tholicae pace atque uni­tare aliquando [...] est. Apud Cyprian. Epist. 75. §. 5. p. 237. That in most Provinces their Rites were varied accord­ing to the Diversities of Names and Places, and that for this no one ever departed from the Peace and Vnity of the Catholick Church. So that the Unity of the Church Uni­versal consisted not in an Uniformity of Rites and Usages.

Neither in the next Place did it consist in an Unanimity of Consent to the Non-essential Points of Christianity, but every one was lest to believe in those lesser matters, as God should inform him. Therefore Justin Martyr speak­ing of those Jewish Converts, who had ad­hered to the Mosaical Rites, says, that if they did this only through their Weakness and [...], and did not perswade other Chri­stians to the observance of the same Judaical Customs, that [...]. Dia­log. cum Tryphon. p. 266. he would [Page 156] receive them into Church-fellowship and Commu­nion.

Whosoever imposed on particular Churches the observance of the former of these two things, or on particular Persons the belief of the lat­ter, they were esteemed not as Preservers and Maintainers, but as Violaters and Breakers of the Churches Unity and Concord.

An Instance of the former we have in that Controversie between the Churches of the East and West, touching the time when Easter was to be celebrated. For when Victor Bishop of Rome had Excommunicated the [...] Churches, be­cause they continued to observe that Feast on a different time from the Churches of the West, not only the Bishops of the adverse Party, but even those of his own side condemned him as rash, heady, and turbulent, and writ several Letters about this Affair, wherein as the Histo­rian writes, [...]. Euseb. lib. 5. c. 24. p. 193. they most sharply censured him.

As for the Latter, we have an instance thereof in the Controversie that was between Stephen Bishop of Rome, and Cyprian Bishop of Carthage, touching the Validity of Hereticks Baptism: For when Stephen Anathematized Cyprian, be­cause he held the Baptism of Hereticks to be null and void, other Bishops condemned Stephen as a Breaker and Disturber of the Churches Peace. And amongst others, Firmilian a Cappadocian Bishop, vehemently accuses him as such, be­cause that he would impose upon others the Belief of such a disputable Point, which, says he, was never wonted to be done, but [Page 157] Multa pro locorum & nominum diversitate va­riantur, nec tamen prop­ter hoc ab Ecclesiae Ca­tholicae pace atque uni­tate aliquando discessum est. Quod nunc Stepha­nus ausus est facere, tum­pens adversum vos pa­cem, quam semper ante­cessores ejus vobiscum a­more & honore mutuo custodierunt. every Church followed their own different ways, and never therefore broke the Vnity and Peace of the Catholick Church, which now, saith he, Stephen dares to do, and breaks that Peace which the anci­ent Bishops always preser­ved in mutual Love and Honour. And therefore we find in the Acts of that great Council of Carthage convened to de­termine this matter, that when Cyprian summ'd up the Debates thereof, he dehorts his Fellow-Bishops from the imposing Humour and Tem­per of Stephen, Superest ut de hac ipsa re singuli quid sentia­mus, proferamus, nemi­nem judicantes, aut à jure communionis ali­quem, si diversum sense­rit amoventes. Neque enim quisquam nostrum Episcopum se esse Epis­coporum constituit, aut tyrannico terrore ad ob­sequendi necessitatem collegas suos adigit. Concil. Carthag. apud Cy­prian. p. 443. It now remains, saith he, that every one of us declare our Judgments concerning this matter, judging no Man, or removing any one from our Communion, if he think otherwise than we do; for let none of us make him­self a Bishop of Bishops, or by a Tyrannical Terror, compel his Colleagues to the necessity of obeying. So that the forcing a Belief in these lesser matters was Cruelty and Tyranny in the Imposers thereof, who for such unrea­sonable Practices were look'd upon as Enemies to, and Violators of the Churches Concord, be­ing the true Schismaticks, inasmuch as they [Page 158] were the Cause of Schism and Division; unto whom therefore may be applyed that Saying of Irenaeus, Judicabit [...] qui Schismata operantur, qui sunt immanes, non ha­bentes Dei dilectionem, [...] utisitarem po­tius considerantes, quam unitatem Ecclesiae, prop­ter modicas & quaslibet causas magnum & glori­osum corpus Christi con­scindunt & dividunt, & quantum in ipsis est, [...], pacem loquen­tes & bellum operantes, [...] liquantes culicem & camelum transglutientes. Lib. 4. cap. 62. p. 292. That at the last Day Christ shall judge those who cause Schisms, who are inhumane, not having the fear of God, but prefering their own advantage before the Unity of the Church, for trivial and slight Cau­ses rent and divide the great and glorious Body of Christ, and as much as in them lies, destroy it; who speak Peace, but wage War, truly straining at a Gnat, and swallowing a Camel.

§. 3. But Positively, The Unity of the Church Universal consisted in an Harmonious Assent to the Essential Articles of Religion, or in an U­nanimous Agreement in the Fundamentals of Faith and Doctrine. Thus [...] having reci­ted a Creed, or a short Summary of the Chri­stian Faith, not much unlike to the Aposiles Creed, immediately adds, Hane igitur praedica­tionem & hanc fidem a­depta Ecclesia, [...] in universo mun­do diligentes conservat, [...] in una eademque [...]: Ae [...] iis fidem habet, acsi unam animam unumque [...] idem cor haberet: [...] uno [...] haec praedicat, docet [...] tra­dit, acsi uno ore praedita esset. Quamvis [...] dis­similia sint in mundo ge­nera linguarum, una ta­men eademque est vis traditionis; nec quae constitutae sunt in Ger­mania Ecclesiae aliter credunt aut tradunt, nec quae in Hispaniis, neque in Galliis, neque in O­riente, neque in AEgyp­to, neque in Lybia, aut in medio orbis terrarum fundatae sunt. Sed quem­admodum Sol creatura Dei unus & idem est in universo mundo. ita & [...] veritatis ubi­que lucet, & illuminat omnes homines qui ad notionem veritatis ve­nire volunt. Lib. 1. cap. 3. p. 36. The Church having re­ceived this Faith and Do­ctrine, although dispersed through the whole World, diligently preserves it, as tho' she inhabited but one House, and accordingly she believes these things, as [...] she had but one Soul and one Heart, and con­sonantly [Page 159] preaches and tea­ches these things, as tho' she had but one Mouth; for altho' there are various Languages in the World, yet the Doctrine is one and the same; so that the Churches in Germany, France, Asia, AEgypt or Lybia, have not a diffe­rent Faith; but as the Sun is one and the same to all the Creatures of God in the whole World: So the Preaching of the Word is a Light that enlightens e­very where, and illumi­nates all Men that would come to the knowledge of the Truth. Now this Bond of Unity was broken, when there was a Recession from, or a Corrup­tion of the true Faith and Doctrine, as Irenaeus speaks concerning Tatian the Father of the En­cratites, that as long as his Master Justin Martyr lived, he held the found Faith, but after his Death [...]. Apud [...]. lib. 4. cap. 29. p. [...]. falling off from the Church, he shaped that new Form of Do­ctrine. This Unity of the Church in Doctrine, according to Hegesip­pus, continued till the Days of Simeon Cleopas Bishop of Jerusalem, who was Martyred under Trajan; but after that false Teachers prevailed, such as the [...], Marcionists, [...], [Page 160] and others, [...]. Apud Euseb. lib. 4. cap. 22. p. 143. from whom sprung false Christs, false Apostles, and false Pro­phets, who by their corrupt Doctrines against God and his Christ, divided the U­nity of the Church. So that the Unity of the Church Universal consisted in an agreement of Doctrine, and the Corruption of that Doctrine was a Breach of that Unity, and whoever so broke it, are said to divide and separate the Unity of the Church, or which is all one, to be Schismaticks. So Irenaeus writes, that those that introduced new Doct­rines, Scindunt & separant unitatem Ecclesiae. Lib. 4. cap. 43. p. 278. did divide and separate the Unity of the Church. And Cyprian writes, that Diabolus Haereses in­venit & Schismata, qui­bus subverteret fidem, veritatem corrumperet, scinderet unitatem. De Unitate Ecclesiae §. 2. p. 296. the Devil found out Heresies and Sehisms, by which he might subvert the Faith, corrupt the Truth, and divide the Unity. But now for Di­stinctions sake the Breach of this Unity was commonly called Heresie, and the word Schism generally applyed to the Breach of the Churches Unity in another sense, of which more in the other Sections.

§. 4. If in the next place we consider the Word Church collectively, as denoting a Col­lection of many particular Churches, in which Sense it is once used in In provincia Africa & Numidia Ecclesiam Do­mini. Epist. 71. §. 4. p. 214. Cyprian. Then its U­nity may have consisted [Page 161] in a Brotherly correspondence with, and affecti­on toward each other, which they demonstra­ted by all outward Expressions of Love and Concord, as by receiving to Communion the Members of each other, as Apud Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 24. p. 193. Irenaeus mentions, was observ'd between the Churches of Rome and Asia, in mutually ad­vising and assisting one another by Letters, or otherwise, of which there are frequent instan­ces in the Ancients, and especially in Cyprian's Epistles, and in manifesting all other Marks and Tokens of their Love and Concord. Now this Unity was broken, when Particular Churches clash'd with each other, when from being pos­sess'd with Spirits of Meekness, Love and Cha­rity, they were inflamed with Hatred, Rage and Fury against each other. A sad Instance whereof we have in that Controversie betwixt Cyprian and Stephen, or rather between the Churches of Europe and Africa, touching the Validity of Heretical Baptism, wherein those good Men were so far transported with Bitter­ness and Rancour against each other, that they interchangeably gave such [...] Language and invidious Epithets, as are too odious to name, which if the Reader be curious to know, he may find too much of it in Cyprian's Epi­stles.

Or if several particular Churches had for the promotion of Peace, Unity and Order, regu­larly disposed themselves into a Synodical Go­vernment and Discipline, as was always done when their Circumstances and Conveniencies would permit them; then whoever broke or [Page 162] violated their reasonable Canons, were censu­red as turbulent and factious, as it hath been e­videnced in the former Chapter, and needs no farther Proof in this, because that the Schism of the Ancients was not a Breach of the Churches Unity in this Sense, viz. as denoting or signifying a Church Collective.

§. 5. But Schism principally and originally re­spected a particular Church or Parish, tho' it might consequentially influence others too. Now the Unity of a particular Church consist­ed in the Members Love and Amity toward each other, and in their due Subjection or Sub­ordination to their Pastour or Bishop: Accord­ingly the Breach of that Unity consisted in these two things, either in a Hatred and Malice of each other, or in a Rebellion against their Law­ful Pastour, or which is all one, in a causeless Separation from their Bishop, and those that adhered to him.

As for the first of these, there might be En­vies and Discords between the Inhabitants of a Parish, without a formal Separation from Com­munion, which Jars and Feuds were called Schism; an Instance whereof we find in the Church of Corinth, unto whom St. Paul object­ed in 1 Cor. 11. 18. When ye come together in the Church, I hear that there be Divisions, or as it is in the Original, [...], Schisms amongst you. Here there was no separate Communion, for they all came together in the Church, and yet there were Schisms amongst them, that is, Strifes, Quarrels and Discords. And as far as I can perceive from the Epistle of Clemens Ro­manus, which was writ to appease another [Page 163] Schism in the same Church of Corinth, there were then only Turmoils and Differences, with­out any actual Separation. But on this I shall not enlarge, because it is not what the Ancients ordinarily meant by Schism.

§. 6. But that which they generally and com­monly termed Schism, was a Rebellion against, or an ungrounded and causless Separation from their Lawful Pastour, or their Parish-Church. Now because I say, that a causless Separation from their Bishop was Schism, it will be neces­sary to know how many Causes could justifie the Peoples Desertion of their Pastour, and these I think were two, or at most three; the first was Apostacy from the Faith, or when a Bishop renounced the Christian Faith, and through fear of Persecution embraced the Heathenish Idola­tries, as was done in the case of Basilidem & Martia­lem libellis Idololatriae commaculatos—Episco­patum [...], & Sacer­dotium Dei administrare non oportere. Epist. Sy­nod. apud Cyprian. Epist. 68. §. 1. p. 200. Martialis and Basilides two Spanish Bi­shops, and was justified by an African Synod, as is to be seen throughout their whole Synodical E­pistle, still extant amongst those of Cyprian's. The second Cause was He­resie, as Irenaeus saith, Oportet longe fuge­re ab [...]. Lib. 1. cap. 13. p. 63. We must fly far off from all Hereticks. And Ori­gen allows the People to separate from their Bi­shop, Si habueris accusatio­nem doctrinae [...], & alienorum ab [...]. [...]. 7. [...]. if they could ac­cuse him of false and [...] Doctrine.

[Page 164] A third Cause was a scandalous and wicked Life, as is asserted by an African Synod held Anno 258. whose Exhortations and Arguments to this purpose may be seen at large in their Sy­nodical Epistle, still extant in Cyprian, Epist. 68. p. 200. out of which several Passages pertinent to this occasion, have been already cited in the sixth Chapter of this Treatise, to which I must refer the Reader. Of this mind also was Ire­naeus before them, who writes, Qui vero Presbyteri serviunt suis voluptati­bus, & non praeponunt [...] Dei in cordi­bus luis, sed contumeliis agunt reliquos, & prin­cipalis consessionis tumo­re elati sunt, & in ab­sconfis agunt mala—ab omnibus talibus absistere [...]. Lib. 4. cap. 44. p. 278. That as for those Presbyters, who serve their Pleasures, and have not the fear of God before their Eyes, who contumeliously use others, are lifted up with Pride, and secretly commit wickedness, from [...] such Presbyters we ought to separate. Origen indeed seems to be of a­nother mind, and thinks that the Bishops Im­morality in Life could not justifie his Parishes Separation, Qui curam habet vitae suae, non meis delictis qui videor in Ecclesia praedicare scandalizabi­tur, sed ipsum dogma considerans, & pertract­ans Ecclesiae sidem, à me quidem aversabitur, do­ctrinam vero suscipiet secundum [...] Do­mini, qui ait, supra Ca­thedram Moysi sederunt Scribae & Pharisaei, om­nia enim [...] vo­bis [...] audite & fa­cite, juxta autem opera illorum nolite facere; dicunt quippe & non fa­ciunt: iste sermo de me est, qui bona doceo, & contraria gero & sum se­dens supra cathedram Moysi quasi Scriba & Pharisaeus; praeceptum tibi est, O Popule, [...] non habueris accusatio­nem Doctrinae [...], & alienorum ab Ecclesia dogmatum, conspexeris vero meam culpabilem vitam, atque peccata, ut non habeas juxta dicen­tis vitam tuam institue­re, sed ea facere quae lo­quor. Homil. 7. in Eze­chiel. He, saith he, that hath a care of his Soul, will not be scandali­zed at my Faults, who am his Bishop, but considering my Doctrine, and finding it agreeable to the Churches Faith, from me indeed he will be averse, but he will receive my Doctrine ac­cording to the Precept of the Lord, which saith, [Page 165] The Scribes and [...] sit on Moses his Chair, whatever therefore they say unto you hear, and do, but according unto their Works do not, for they say and do not: That Scrip­ture is of me, who teach what is good, and do the contrary, and sit upon the Chair of Moses as a Scribe or Pharisee; the Precept is to thee, O People, if thou canst not accuse me of false Doctrine, or Heretical O­pinions, but only beholdest my wicked and sinful Life; thou must not square thy Life according to my Life, but do those things which I speak. Now whether Irenaeus, or an African Synod, or Origen be to be most credited, I leave the Learned to judge, tho' I think they may be both nearer reconciled than they seem to be, Irenaeus and that Synod affirming, that the People of their own Power and Authority might immediately, without the concurrent Assent of other Churches, upon the Immorality and Scandal of their Bishop, leave and desert him; Origen restraining the People from present Execution, till they had the Au­thority of a Synod for so doing; for thus he must be understood, or else he will contradict all other Writers, it being avouched by all, that Synods did depose all those Bishops that were guilty of criminal and scandalous Enormities, [Page 166] as Privatus Bishop of Lambese was deposed by a Synod of Ninety Bi­shops, Ob multa & gravia delicta. Cyprian. Epist. 55. §. 11. p. 140. for his many and heinous Crimes.

§. 7. But now except­ing these three Causes of Apostacy, Heresie and Immorality, it was Schism in a Parish to leave their Minister, or to set up another Bi­shop against him; for tho' they at first chose their Bishop, yet their Bishop being on their Choice approved and confirmed by the neigh­bouring Bishops, they could not dethrone him, without truly assigning one of those forementi­oned Causes; for this was to gather a Church out of a Church, to erect a new Altar and a new Bishop, which could not be in one Church; for as Cyprian writes, Deus unus est, & Chri­stua unus, & una Eccle­sia, & Cathedra una su­per Petrum Domini vo­ce fundata; aliud altare constitui, aut Sacerdo­tium novum fieri praeter unum altare & unum Sa­cerdotium non potest: Quisquis alibi collegerit, spargit, adulterum est, impium est, quodcunque humano furore institui­tur, ut dispositio divina violetur. Epist. 40. §. 4. p. 93. God is one, Christ is one, the Church is one, the Rock on which the Church is built is one; wherefore to erect a new Altar, and constitute a new Bishop, be­sides the one Altar and the one Bishop, is impractica­ble; whosoever gathers here, scatters; so to do is adulterous, impious, sacri­legious, mad and wicked. Neque enim aliunde nata sunt schismata, quam inde quod Sacer­doti Dei non obtemperatur, nec unus in Ecclesia ad tempus Sacerdos, & ad tempus Judex vice Christi [...]. Epist. 55. §. 6. p. 138. From hence, says Cypri­an, Schisms do arise, that the Bishop is not obeyed; [Page 167] and it is not considered that there ought to be but one Bishop, and one Judge in a Church at a time. And Hi sunt ortus atque conatus Schismaticorum malè [...] placeant, ut praepositum superbo [...] contem­nant, [...] de Ecclesia re­ceditur, sic altare pro­fanum [...], sic contra [...], & ordinationem atque unitatem Dei rebellatur. Epist. 65. §. 4. p. 193. this is the Rise and Source of Schismaticks, that through their swelling Pride they contemn their Bishop, and so they go off from the Church, so they erect a profane Altar, and so they rebel against the Peace of Christ, and the Ordination and Vnity of God. And again, Inde Schismata & Hae­reses [...] sunt, & ori­untur, dum Episcopus qui unus est, & Ecclesiae praeest, superba quorun­dam praesumptione con­temnitur, & homo dig­natione Dei honoratus indignus hominibus ju­dicatur. Epist. 69. §. 4. p. 208. From thence proceed Schisms, that the Bishop who is but one, and presides over the Church, is contemned by the proud Presumption of Men, and he that was thought worthy by God, is esteemed unworthy by Men. And again, Illi sunt Ecclesia plebs Sacerdoti adunata, & pastori suo grex adhae­rens, unde scire debes Episcopum in Ecclesia esse, & Ecclesiam in E­piscopo, & si qui cum Episcopo non sunt, in Ecclesia non esse, & fru­stra sibi blandiri eos, qui pacem cum Sacerdotibus Dei non habentes obrepunt, & latentur apud quosdam communicare se credunt, quando Ecclesia, quae Catho­lica una est, [...] non sit, neque divisa, sed sit utique connexa, & cohaerentium sibi invicem Sacerdotum glu­tino copulata. Epist. 69. §. 7. p. 209. The Church is the People united to their Bishop, and the Sheep ad­hering to their Pastour; the Bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the Bi­shop; whosoever are not with the Bishop, are not in the Church, and those do [Page 168] in vain flatter themselves, who having not Peace with God's Priests, creep about, and privately com­municate with some, as they think, when the Ca­tholick Church is not divided, but connexed and coupled together by the Vnity of its agreeing Bi­shops. Whosoever therefore should causelesly desert his Bishop, and solicit others so to do, was a true Schismatick, since in so doing, Cum Episcopo portio­nem plebis dividere, id est, à pastore oves, & fi­lios à parente separare, & Christi membra dissi­pare. Epist. 38. §. 1. p. 90. he divided a Portion of the Flock with the Bishop, separated the Sheep from their Pastour, and dissipa­ted the Members of Christ.

From these Quotations then it is apparent, that the Primitive Schism respected only a particu­lar Church, and consisted in a Person's Separa­tion from Communion with his lawful Bishop without a just and authentick Cause; when any one should set up a particular Church in a par­ticular Church, in opposition to the lawful Bi­shop thereof, and should draw away the Inhabi­tants of that Parish from the Communion of their legal Minister, setting up distinct Meet­ings and Conventicula sibi di­versa [...]. De [...]. Eccles. §. 10. p. 299. Conventicles, as Cyprian calls them. This was true Schism; for as Ignatius says, who­soever so assembled [...]. Ad [...]. p. 2. were not congregated legally ac­cording to the Command: And [...]. [...]. ad [...]. p. 7. whosoever officiated without the Bishop, sacrifi­ced to the Devil.

[Page 169] §. 8. This Notion now of Schism gives us a clear Reason, why we find in Ignatius so fre­quent and Pathetick Injunctions of Obedience to, and Unity with our respective Pastours, of avoiding all Divisions, and closely adhering to them; because a deserting of them, or a sepa­rating from them, was a Commission of this horrid and detestable Sin of Schism, as will ap­pear from these following Exhortations and In­structions of his, with which every Leaf al­most of his Epistles are fraught and furnished, [...]. Epist. ad [...]. p. 6. All you of the Church of Smirna obey your Bishop as Jesus Christ did the Fa­ther, and the Presbytery as the Apostles, and ho­nour the [...] accord­ing to the Command of God. Let nothing of Ec­clesiastical Services be done without the Bishop; let that Communion only be e­steemed valid, which is performed by the Bishop, or by one permitted by him. Wherever the Bishop is, there let the People be; as where Jesus Christ is, there the Catholick Church is; it is not lawful without the Bishop, or one permitted by him, to baptize or ce­lebrate the [...]; this is pleasing unto God, that so whatsoever is done may be firm and Legal. [Page 170] [...]. [...]. ad [...]. p. 14. Have respect unto your Bishop; as God hath re­spect unto you. My Soul for theirs that obey their Bishop, Presbyters and Deacons, and with them let my part in God be. [...]. Ad [...]. p. 20. Let us not resist our Bi­shop, lest we be found Re­sisters of God. [...]. [...]. ad Magnesios, p. 33. I exhort you to do every thing in the Vnity of God, the Bishop presiding in the place of God, and the Presbyters in the place of the Coun­cil of the Apostles, and the Deacons persorming the intrusted Ministry of Jesus Christ; let there nothing be in you that may divide you, but be u­nited to your Bishop and Presidents: As therefore Christ did nothing without the Father, being united to him, neither by himself nor by his Apostles, so do you nothing without the Bi­shop and Presbyters, nor privately withdraw from them, but assemble toge­ther, having one Prayer, one Supplication, one Mind and one Hope. [...]. [...]. ad [...]. p. 40. Flee all Division; where the Pa­stour [Page 171] is, there as Sheep follow, for there are many [...] Wolves, that seek to carry you away, but let them have no place in your Vnity—Whoever are God's and Jesus Christ's, they are with the Bishop; and whosoever repenting shall come to the Vnity of the Church, those shall be God's, that they may live according to Jesus Christ. Be not deceived, my Brethren, if any one follows a [...], or one that causeth Division and Se­paration, he shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. [...]. [...]. ad Phila­delph. p. 43. Respect the Bishop, Presbyters and Deacons; do nothing without the Bi­shop, Keep your Flesh as the Temple of God, Love Vnity, Avoid Schisms, be followers of Jesus Christ, as he was of his Father—Where Division and Wrath is, God dwells not; God therefore pardons all Peni­tents, if they penitentially return to the Vnity of God, and the Presbytery of the Bishop. And some other such like Expressions there are in the [...] of this Father, which evidently demonstrate Schism to be nothing else than a causeless Separation from our Parish Bishop or Minister, and a wan­dring [Page 172] after, or an Adhesion to another false and pretended Pastour.

§. 9. But for the clearer Proof, that this was what the Fathers meant by Schism, it may not be altogether unnecessary to add unto these Quotations an Example or two; for Examples more convincingly [...] than bare Testimo­nies and Citations. And here let us first view the Schism of Felicissimus in the hurch of Car­thage, as it is related in the 38th, 40th, and 55th Epistles of Cyprian, and we shall find it re­specting only that particular Church or Parish. When Cyprian was elected Bishop of Carthage, Felicissimus and others of his Faction opposed him, but finding themselves too weak, and not powerful enough to balance his interest, they yielded to his Promotion, but yet still retained an Hatred against his Person, and waited for a more favourable opportunity and a plausible Pretence to separate from him. It pleased God that Cyprian some time after his Advancement, was forced, by reason of the Persecution, to withdraw and absent from his Flock, during which Absence that Faction made use of all means to lessen his Interest, till they had made their Party indifferently strong, and then they broke out into an open Separation from him, forming themselves into a distinct Meet­ing, creating a new Bishop, erecting a new Altar, and constituting a new Church. Now all this was acted in, and respected only the particular Parish of Carthage, without causing or attempting any Separation in any other Church or Parish; and yet this Cyprian calls [Page 173] Schism, and Excommunicates the Actors in it as Schismaticks, and Breakers of the Unity of the Church, of his Church Actually, and of all the other Churches of the Church Univer­sal Virtually, who like the Members of the Natural Body, are affected with the Pains and Convulsions of each other.

So also the famous Schism of Novatian re­spected only the particular Church of Rome, being no other than his causeless Separation from Cornelius his lawful Bishop, and his erect­ing separate Conventicles against him, as may be read at large in those Epistles of Cyprian, that treat of this Affair, and in his Book De Vnitate Ecclesiae.

§. 10. But I foresee an evident Objection against this restrained Notion of Schism, and in particular from the Schism of Novatian, which I cannot well pass over without resol­ving, since the Solution thereof will inform us in the manner, how the Schism of one parti­cular Church did affect other Churches. Now the Objection may be this: If Schism respect­ed only one particular Church, whence then comes it to pass that we read of Novatian Bi­shops, not only at Rome, where that Schism first began, but in several other Churches and Parishes besides? Now to this I answer, That we must distinguish between the Schism and the Heresie of Novatian; had Novatian been only guilty of Schism, in all probability, his Schismatical Actions, as well as all other Schisms before, would have ended in the same Church where they began, and have proceed­ed [Page 174] no farther; but he having once engaged in his Schism, and willing to continue it, that he might have some pretence for those enormous Practices, he accused his Bishop of remitting and loosing the Reins of Discipline, in com­municating with Trophimus, and others, that had Sacrificed to Idols, as may be amply seen in the 55th Epistle of Cyprian; consequently for the Justification of this Accusation, he ad­ded this Doctrine, as the Characteristick Dog­ma of his Party, That the Church had no Power to absolve those who lapsed after Bap­tism, but were to leave them to the Tribunal of God. This was an Error in Doctrine, in­vidious to the Mercy of God, and injurious to the Merits of Christ, as Cyprian shews at large in his 55th Epistle. Every Error in Doctrine was called Heresie. Accordingly Novatian is branded for this as an Heretick; whence the Confessours in their return from his Party, confessed that in adhe­ring to them, Commisisse se Schis­mata, & haeresis auctores fuisse. Cyprian. Epist. 46. §. 1. p. 104. they had committed Schisms, and been the Authors of Here­sies. And in the same Epistle they call Nova­tian Schismatico & [...] homine. Ibidem §. 3. p. 105. an Heretick, and a Schismatick. So Cyprian also accuses the said No­vatian, Haereticae pravitatis. Epist. 47. §. 1. p. 107. of heretical Pra­vity; and calls his Er­ror Schismaticus & haere­ticus error. Epist. 51. §. 2. p. 111. a Schismatical and Heretical Error.

[Page 175] So that Novatian's Schism was accompa­nied with Heresie; which, as usual, was cal­led after the Name of its Author; and having many eminent Persons to abet it, and a speci­ous shew of Sanctity and Mortification, it is no wonder that it spreads its self into many other Churches, besides that where it was first hatched; unto which we may also add their Industrious Endeavours to proselyte Men unto their Party, Ostiatim per multo­rum domos, vel oppida­tim, per quasdam civi­tates discurrentes, obsti­nationis suae & erroris scissi sibi quaerant co­mites. Epist. 41. §. 2. p. 97. running about, as Cyprian writes, from House to House, and from Town to Town, to gain Companions in their Obstinacy and Error. For many of them really thinking themselves to be in the right, and believing others to be in the wrong, conceived it to be their bounden Duty to leave their Bishop, if he would not leave his Heresie, as they apprehended it to be. And probably several Bishops of the Or­thodox, who were the legal Pastours of their respective Parishes, were through their own Ignorance, and those Men's fair Pretences, de­luded into the same uncharitable Error with them, Of denying the Lapsed any Pardon. But we need not guess at this as only pro­bable, since we have an Instance of it in Mar­tian the lawful Bishop of Arles, concerning whom, Cyprian writes to Stephen Bishop of Rome, that he had received Advice from the Bishops of that Pro­vince, Martianus Arelate consistens Novatiano se conjunxerit, & à Ca­tholicae Ecclesiae unita­te, atque à corporis no­stri & Sacerdotii con­sensione discesserit, te­nens Haereticae praesump­tionis durissimam pravi­tatem, ut servis Dei poenitentibus & dolen­tibus, & ad Ecclesiam lachrymis & gemitu & dolore pulsantibus, di­vinae pietatis & lenitatis paterna solatia & subsi­dia claudantur, nec ad fovenda vulnera admit­tantur vulnerati, sed si­ne spe pacis & commu­nicationis relicti ad lu­porum rapinam & prae­dam Diaboli projician­tur. Epist. 67. §. 1. p. 198. That Martian [Page 176] of Arles had joyned him­self unto Novatian, and had departed from the Vnity of the Church, and the Concord of the Bi­shops, holding that Here­tical Severity, that the Consolations of Divine Pity and Fatherly Lenity, should be shut against the penitent and mourning Servants of God, who knock at the Church with Tears, Sighs and Groans, so that the wounded are not ad­mitted to have their Wounds healed, but be­ing left without any hope of Peace or Communion, are thrown out to the Rapine of Wolves, and Prey of the Devil.

So that it was not Novatian's Schism, but his Heresie, that was diffused through other Churches; his Schism respected only his own Church, but his Heresie, which was a Breach of the Unity of the Church Universal, re­spected other Churches also; so that in an­swer to the forenamed Objection, we need only say this, That there was no such thing as the Objection supposes; that is, that there were no Bishops or Followers of Novatian's Schism in other Churches, but that those that were discriminated by his Name, were the Bi­shops and Followers of his Heresie. [Page 177] But however let us suppose the worst, viz. That all Schismaticks had been Orthodox and sound in every Point of Faith, had been exem­plary and pious in the discharge of every Du­ty, had been guilty of no Crime but their Schism from their Bishop and Parish, and yet their Schism might have influenced other Churches and Parishes too, and that I think these two ways.

1. If one or more Churches had admitted to Communion those that were Excommuni­cated by their own Church for Schism, that Church or Churches made themselves Parta­kers of those Mens Crimes, and involved themselves in the same Guilt of Division and Schism with them, as Martian, Bishop of Ar­les, was adjudged by Cyprian as a Schis­matick, Cum Novatianus ipse, quem sequitur, olim ab­stentus & hostis Eccle­fiae judicatus sit. Epist. 67. §. 2. p. 198. Because he had joined with Novatian, when he had been before Excommunicated. I do not here mean, that a Bishop or Parish to make themselves guilty, should actually or perso­nally communicate with the Author of the Schism himself, much less in the Church where he began his Schism, but it was enough if they joyned with his Legates or Messengers, or any of his Followers in any Church what­soever; and therefore neither an Et cum ad nos in Afri­cam legatos misisset, op­tans ad communicationem nostram admitti, hinc sen­tentiam retulerit, se foris esse coepisse, nec posse à quo­quam nostrum sibi communicari. Cypr. Ep. 67. §. 2. p. 198. African Sy­nod, [Page 178] nor Cum Novatiano te non communicare. Idem Epist. 52. §. 1. p. 113. Antonius an African Bishop, would communicate with the Le­gates of Novatian. Nor would Felicissimum rejectum à te illic esse. Cyprian. Epist. 55. §. 1. p. 137. Cornelius joyn in Communion with Felicis­simus a Schismatick of Carthage, when he came to Rome; but as he was excluded from Com­munion in his own Church, so likewise was he in that of Rome.

2. It was the Custom when any Bishop was Elected, to send News of his Promotion to other Bishops, as Tuas literas legimus. Cyprian. Epist. 42. §. 1. p. 99. Cor­nelius did to Cyprian, that so he might have their Confirmation, and their future Letters to the Bishop of that Church, to which he was promoted, might be directed unto him, as Literas nostras ad te direximus. Cyprian. E­pist. 42. §. 1. p. 99. Cyprian did unto Cor­nelius; which Custom of sending Messengers to o­ther Churches, to ac­quaint them of their Advancement to the Episcopal Throne, was also observed by the Schismaticks, and in par­ticular by Novatian, who Venerunt ad nos, mis­si à Novatiano Maxi­mus Presbyter & Au­gendus Diaconus, & Machaeus quidam, & Longinus. Cyprian. E­pist. 41. §. 1. p. 96. sent Maximus a Pres­byter, Augendus a Dea­con, Machaeus and Lon­ginus unto Cyprian, to inform him of his Pro­motion to the See of [Page 179] Rome. Now if any Bishop or Church did knowingly approve the Pretensions of the Schismatical Bishop, they broke the Concord of the Church, and became guilty of Schism, as may be gathered from the beginning of an Epistle of Cyprian's to Antonius an African Bishop, wherein he writes him, Accepi literas tuas, concordiam collegii Sa­cerdotalis firmiter obti­nentes & Catholicae Ec­clesiae cohaerentes, qui­bus significasti cum No­vatiano [...] non commu­nicare, sed cum Cor­nelio Coepiscopo no­stro unum tenere con­sensum. Epist. 52. §. 1. p. 113. That he had received his Letter, which firmly consented to the Concord of the Sa­cerdotal Colledge, and ad­hered to the Catholick Church, by which he had signified, that he would not communicate with No­vatian, but hold an A­greement with Bishop Cor­nelius. And therefore when Legates came to Cyprian, both from Cornelius and Novatian, he duly weighed who was legally Elected; and finding Cornelius so to be, he approved his Election, Literas nostras ad [...] direximus. Epist. 42. §. 1. p. 99. Direct­ed his Congratulatory Let­ters unto him, A communicatione eos nostra statim cohibendos. esse censuimus. Epist. 41. §. 1. p. 96. refused to communicate with the Schismatical Messengers of Novatian, Nec mandare desisti­mus, ut perniciosa dis­sensione deposita—ag­noscant, Episcopo [...] facto, alium constitui nullo modo posse. Ibid. §. 2. p. 97. and ex­horted them to quit their Schism, and to submit to their lawfully elected Bi­shop.

[Page 180] So that in these two respects, the Schism of a particular Church might influence others al­so, involving them in the same Crime, crea­ting Quarrels and Dissentions between their respective Bishops, and so dividing the Dis­chargers of that Honourable Office, whom God had made one; for as Cyprian says, Cum sit à Christo una Ecclesia per totum mun­dum in multa [...] item [...] unus [...] multorum concordi nu­merositate [...]. E­pist. 52. §. 16. p. 119. As there is but one Church throughout the whole World, divided in­to many Members; so there is but one Bishop­rick diffused through the agreeing Number of ma­ny Bishops.

§. 11. But now that we may conclude this Chapter, the Sum of all that hath been spo­ken concerning Schism, is, that Schism in its large Sense, was a Breach of the Unity of the Church Universal; but in its usual and re­strained Sense of a Church Particular, who­soever without any just reason, through Facti­on, Pride and Envy, separated from his Bi­shop, or his Parish Church, he was a true Schismatick; and whosoever was thus a Schis­matick, if we may believe Saint Cyprian, Alienus est—habere jam non potest [...] patrem, qui [...] non habet matrem; ta­les etiam si occisi in confessione nominis sue­rint, macula [...] nec sanguine abluitur. De Unit. Eccles. §. 5. & 12. p. 297. & 300. He had no longer God for his Father, nor the Church for his Mother, but was out of the Num­ber of the Faithful; and though he should die for the Faith, yet should he never be saved.

[Page 181] Thus much then shall serve for that Query, concerning the Churches Unity. The next and [...] thing that is to be enquired into, is the Worship of the Primitive Church; that is, the Form and Method of their Publick Ser­vices, of Reading, Singing, Preaching, Pray­ing, of Baptism, Confirmation, and the Lord's Supper; of their Fasts and Feasts; of their Rites and Ceremonies, and such like, which I thought to have annexed to this Treatise; but this being larger than I expected, and the Dis­course relating to the Primitive Worship being like to be almost as large, I have for this and [...] other Reasons, reserved it for a parti­cular Tract by its self; which, if nothing pre­vents, may be expos'd hereafter to publick View and Observation.

CHAP. I.

[Page 4] §. 1. HAving in a former Treatise enqui­red into the Constitution, Disci­pline, and Unity of the Primitive Church; I intend in this to enquire into the Worship thereof, which naturally divides its self into these Two Parts, Into the Worship its self, and, Into the necessary Circumstances thereof, as Time and Place, and such like; both which I design to handle, beginning first with the Worship its self, wherein I shall not meddle with the Object thereof, since all Pro­testants agree in the Adoring God alone through Jesus Christ, but only speak of those Particular Acts and Services, whereby in the Publick Congregations we honour and adore Almighty God, such as Reading of the Scriptures, Sing­ing of Psalms, Preaching, Praying, and the Two Sacraments, every one of which I shall consider in their Order, as they were perform­ed in the Ancient Parish Churches. And First,

§. 2. When the Congregation was assembled, the first Act of Divine Service, which they performed, was the Reading of the Holy Scriptures. In our Publick Assemblies, says Tertullian, Scripturae leguntur, Psalmi canuntur, adlo­cutiones [...], & Petitiones delegantur. De [...], c. 3. p. 530. The Scrip­tures are Read, Psalms Sung, Sermons Preached, and Prayers presented. So also Just in Martyr writes, that in their Religious Assemblies, first of all, [...]. Apolog. 2. p. 98. The Writings of the Pro­phets and Apostles were read.

[Page 5] But besides the Sacred Scriptures, there were other Writings read in several Churches, viz. The Epistles and Tracts of Eminent and Pious Men, such as the Book of [...]. Euseb. lib 3. c. 3. p. [...]. Hermas, called Pa­stor, and [...]. Euseb. lib. 3. c. [...]. p. 88. the Epistle of Clemens Romanus to the Church of Corinth, which were read in the publick Congregations of many Churches.

§. 3. He that read the Scriptures, was parti­cularly destinated to this Office, as a Prepara­tive to Holy Orders, as Aurelius, whom Cyprian design'd for a Presbyter, Placuit ut ab Officio lectionis incipiat. Epist. 33. p. 77. was first to begin with the Office of reading. The Name by which this Of­ficer was distinguished, was in Greek, Just. Martyr. Apol. 2. p. 98. [...]. In Latin, Tertul. de Praescript. ad­vers. [...]. p. 89. Lector, both which signifie in English, a Reader, or as we now call him, a Clark. The Place from whence the Clark Read, was an Eminency e­rected in the Church, that so all the People might see and hear him, which was called Cyprian. Epist. 33. p. 77. & Epist. 34. §. 4. p. 81. Pulpitum, or a Pulpit, from which Pulpit he read the Scriptures a­lone, and not others al­ternatively with him; it being his Office on­ly to Read, whilst the Congregation listned to him, as Cyprian writes, that Celerinus a [Page 6] Lector, Plebi Universae—le­gat Praecepta & Evange­lium Domini. Epist. 34. §. 4. p. 81. Read the Law and the Gospel to all the People. Celerinus only read, whilst all the Peo­ple attended; and there­fore when this Duty was ended, it is described only [...]. [...]. Mar­tyr. Apolog. 2. p. 98. by the Lectors cea­sing to Read, and not by the Peoples ceasing so to do.

§. 4. How much the Lector read at a Time is uncertain, since they varied according to the Circumstances of their Condition. So writes Tertullian, that Cogimur ad literarum divinarum Commemora­tionem, siquid praesenti­um temporum qualitas aut praemonere cogit aut recognoscere. Apolog. cap. 39. p. 709. they Read the Scriptures according to the Quality of their present Times. And to the same purpose says Justin Mar­tyr, that the Clark read, [...]. Apo­log. 2. p. 98. until it was sufficient.

§. 5. When the Read­ended, then followed the Singing of Psalms. So says Tertullian, Scripturae leguntur, Psalmi canuntur. De Anim. cap. 3. p. 530. [...] Scriptures are Read, and Psalms Sung. This was a considerable Part of the Christians Service, who, as Pliny writes, met to­gether before Day, Carmen Christo, quasi Deo dicere. Epist. ad [...]. to sing an Hymn to Christ, it being useful to elevate the Mind in Heavenly Raptures of Praise and Adoration, and to raise a Pious Soul into greater Degrees of Admira­tion of God's Love and Bounty, whence such a [Page 7] Soul is described by Clemens Alexandrinus, [...]. Stro­mat. lib. 6. p. 483. to be continually Blessing, Praising, Singing and pre­senting Hymns to God the Lord of all, being assist­ed by the Holy Spirit of God, [...], &c. Ori­gen. de Orat. §. 6. p. 7. without whose Aid it was impossible to Sing ei­ther in good Rhime, Tune, Metre or Harmony.

The Christians in those Days condemned only the debauched Bacchanalian Singing and Roar­ing, but commended the Blessing and Praising of God, [...]. Clem. Alex. Pae­dag. lib. 2. c. 4. p. 121. by Thanksgiving and Singing of Psalms. In­asmuch that it was made one [...] Di­stinction of a Christian: As Tertullian inveighs against the Marriage of a Believing Woman with an [...], because thereby she would be hindred from discharging the Ordinances of the Gospel, amongst which he enumerates Singing of Psalms; for then, says he, Quid maritus suus il­li? Vel marito quid il­la cantabit? Ad Uxor. lib. 2. p. 431. What would her Hus­band sing to her? or, What would she sing to her Hus­band? And a little after he describes the happy Condition of that Cou­ple, who were both Christians, in that they did both joyn together in, and exhort one another to, the vigorous Performance of God's Wor­ship, Sonant inter duos Psal­mi & Hymni, & mutuò provocant, quis melius Deo suo canet? Ibidem, p. 433. Psalms and Hymns [Page 8] sound between those two, and they mutually excite one another, who shall sing unto God best; it be­ing their daily Employment, and recurring as often as they eat their Meat. Thus faith Cle­mens Alexandrinus, [...]. Stromat. lib. 7. p. 523. a good Christians Life, is a continued Festival, his Sa­crifices are Prayers and Praises, Reading of Scriptures before Meat, and Singing of Psalms and Hymns at Meat. Hence in their Feasts and Banquers, [...]. Stromat. lib. 6. p. 475. When they drank to one another, they Sung an Hymn, therein blessing God for his unexpressible Gifts towards Mankind, both as to their Bodies and Souls.

I confess indeed that most of these Quotations respect only Private Singing of Psalms, and so they may seem to be somewhat alien from my purpose; on which Account I should not have mentioned them, but have wholly passed them over in silence, had it not been to have satisfied those, who hold it un­lawful to Sing any Psalms at all, in what man­ner soever; for if singing in private was usual and commendable, then no doubt publick Sing­ing was so also.

§. 6. What those Psalms or Hymns were, that the Primitive Christians sung, may be a Questi­on necessary to be resolved, which I take to be two-fold, either such as were taken out of the Holy Scriptures, and particularly out of the Book of Psalms, or such as were of their own [Page 9] private composing. So writes Tertullian, that after the Celebration of the Lord's Supper,

Quisque de Scripturis Sanctis, vel de proprio ingenio provocatur in medium Deo canere. A­polog. c. 39. p. 710. Every one Sung an Hymn out of the Bible, or of his own composing. As for the Singing of David's Psalms, the same Father particularly mentions the 133d Psalm, as Sung in his Days, Vide quam bonum & quam jueundum habita­re Fiatres in unum: Hoc tu psallere non fa­cile [...], nisi quo tem­pore cum compluribus coenas. Advers. Psychy. cos de Jejunio. p. 650. O how good and pleasant it is for Bre­thren to dwell together in Vnity: This thou canst not easily sing, unless when thou suppest with many. As for the Hymns that were of Private Men's Com­position, it was one of the Accusations of Pau­lus Samosatenus, the Heretical Bishop of Anti­och, [...] Act. Concil. [...]. apud Euseb. lib. 7. c. 30. p. 281. that he abolished those Psalms, which were wont to be Sung to the Ho­nour of the Lord Jesus Christ, as Novel, and com­posed by Modern Authors, and that he appointed Wo­men on Easter Day, in the middle of the Church, to sing Psalms in his Praise. And in the Fragment of an Anonymous Author extant in Eusebius, we find the Heresie of Artemon, who denied the Divinity of Christ, [...], not only by the Scriptures, and the Writings of the precedent [Page 10] Fathers, but also [...]. Lib. 5. cap. 28. p. 196. by the Psalms and Hymns of the Brethren, which were for­merly composed by them, wherein they praised Christ by making him a God. Such a private composed Hymn was that which Clemens Alexandrinus mentions, as one commonly known among the Christians in his Days, beginning [...], or Hail Light. Protreptic. p. 52.

§. 7. As for the manner of the Primitive Sing­ing, it was [...]. Origen. de Oratione, §. 6. p. 7. in good Tune, and Concent, all the Peo­ple bearing a part in it; but whether all together, or Antiphonally, cannot well be determined, every Country probably following its own Mode, Singing only in General being command­ed, not the particular manner or fashion of it. In a Precedent Origen. de Orat. §. 6. p. 7. Quota­tion mention is made of Singing, in Concent, [...], or with Voices altogether. In other Places the Alternative Method of Singing seems ex­presly to be used; as Pliny writes, That the Christians in his time, met together before Day, Carmen [...] dice­re secum invicem. Epist. ad Trajan. to Sing an Hymn to Christ by course, or, one against another. And so in that forecited Passage of Tertullian, Quid Maritus suus il­li? Vel marito quid il­la cantabit? Ad Uxor. lib. 2. p. 431. What will an Vnbelieving Husband sing to a Believing Wife? [Page 11] Or what will a Believing Wife sing to an Vnbe­lieving Husband?

§. 8. As for Singing Men and Singing Wo­men, I find that Paulus Samosatenus the Hereti­cal Bishop of Antioch, abolished the old usual Hymns, and [...]. [...]. lib. 7. cap. 30. p. 281. appointed certain Women on Easter Day in the middle of the Church, to sing Psalms in his Praise. But whether these Singing Women were first Instituted by this Heretical Bishop, or were before his Time, I cannot tell.

As for Church-Musick, for Organs, and the like, those Primitive Ages were wholly igno­rant of them; for it cannot rationally be con­ceived, that in those Days of continual Persecu­tion or Violence, they could either use or pre­serve them; all that they look'd after, was to Sing [...]. Origen. de Oratione, §. 6. p. 7. in Rhyme, Metre, Tune and Concent, to of­fer up unto God the Prai­ses of their Voices, Lips and Mouths, which Cle­mens Alexandrinus thinks, was Emblematized or shadowed forth by those Musical Instruments mentioned in the 150th Psalm, where, saith he, [...]. [...]. lib. 2. c. 4. p. 121. We are commanded to praise God on the Psaltery, that is, on the Tongue, be­cause the Tongue is the [Page 12] Psaltery of the Lord; and to praise him on [...] Harp, by which we must understand the Mouth; and to praise him on the loud sounding Cymbals, by which the Tongue is to be understood, which sounds or speaks through the knocking or coition of the Lips.

§. 9. When the Singing of Psalms was end­ed, then succeeded the Preaching of the Word. So writes Tertullian, Scripturae leguntur, Psalmi canuntur, ad lo­cutiones proferuntur. De Anima, c. 3. p. 530. Scriptures are read, Psalms sung, and then Sermons pronounced. As for the Subject of the Preacher's Sermon, it was usually a Commen­tary or Explication of the Lessons that were just before read. So it was in the Time and Country of Justin Martyr, who writes, that [...]. Apo­log. 2. p. 98. when the Reader had ended, the Bishop made a Sermon, by way of Instru­ction and Exhortation, to the Imitation of those ex­cellent things which had been read. Whence Ori­gen calls their Sermons [...]. Con­tra Celsum, lib. 3. p. 142. Explanations of the Les­sons. And such Expla­nations are all his Ser­mons or Homilies, as whosoever reads them will easily see; and he himself intimates as much in Homil. de Engastrym. And Homil. 17. in Je­rem. several of them.

As for the Length of their Sermons, they u­sually [Page 13] preach'd an Hour, as Origen complains of his abundance of Matter, that if he should throughly handle every part of it, it would [...]. Ho­mil de [...]. p. 29. require not only the one Hour of their Assembly, but several. Therefore when the Lessons were long and copious, which sometimes consisted of several Chapters, as the Lesson which was the Subject of Origen's 15th Homily on Jeremiah, reached from the 15th Chapter and 10th Verse, to the 17th Chapter and 5th Verse. The Prea­cher passed over some of the Matter unmenti­oned, and handled the most important, or the most curious part therein. Thus in the begin­ning of a Sermon of Origen's, we find, that the Chapters that were read, were the 25, 26, 27, and 28th Chapters of the first Book of Samuel, [...]. Hom. de [...]. p. 28, 29. which he complains were too large and [...] to be all handled at once, and therefore he would only discourse of the 28th Chap­ter, touching the Witch of Endor, and those things related there [...] her.

§. 10. As for the manner of their Sermons, we may observe this Method in those of Ori­gen's, that he first began with a short [...], and then explained Verse after Verse, or Sentence after Sentence, [...] the Natural and Literal Signification of the Words, and then the Spiritualized or Mystical meaning of them, and concluded with a suitable Applicati­on [Page 14] of all, either [...]. Origen. [...]. lib. 3. p. 142. by way of Exhortation to Piety and Vertue, or by way of Dehortation from Vice and Impiety. Always accom­modating their Discour­ses to the Capacities of their Hearers. [...]. Idem, [...], p. 143. Is their Auditors were prudent and understanding, then they scrupled not to treat of the profound Mysteries of the Gospel; but if they had attained no great measure of Knowledge, and had need of Milk, as the Apo­stle stiles it, then they con­cealed from them those deep and recondite Points.

§. 11. As for the Preacher himself, it was usually the Bishop of the Parish. So saith [...] Martyr, [...]. Apolog. 2. p. 98. The Bi­shop Preaches by way of In­struction and Exhortation, to the Imitation of those excellent things which we [...]. Or else he desired a Presbyter, or some other fit Person to preach in his room; without his Consent it had been Schism and Violence in any Person whatsoever to have usurped his Chair, but with his Per­mission any Clergyman or Layman might Preach in his Pulpit. Now that Clergymen Preach'd, no one will question, though it will be doubt­ed, [Page 15] whether Laymen did: But that they did so, ap­pears from a memorable History concerning Ori­gen, who going from Alexandria into Palestina, by the Desire of the Bishops of that Country, publickly Preach'd in the Church, and expoun­ded the Holy Scriptures, although he was not yet in Holy Orders. At which Action, when Demetrius Bishop of Alexandria was offended, Alexander Bishop of Jerusalem, and Theoctistus of Caesarea writ to him in defence of it, as fol­lows, [...]. A­pud Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 19. p. 222. Whereas you write in your Letter, that it was never before seen or done, That Laymen should preach in the presence of Bishops, therein you wander from the Truth; for wheresoe­ver any are found, that are fit to profit the Brethren, the Holy Bishops of their own accord ask them to Preach unto the People. So Evelpis was desired by Ne­on Bishop of Laranda, and Paulinus by Celsus of I­conium, and Theodorus by Atticus of Synnada, our most blessed Brethren; and it is credible, that this is likewise done in other Places, though we know it not. But yet though Laymen Preach'd, it was not every one that did so, but only those, that were [...], fit to prosit the Brethren; [Page 16] and though they were never so fit, yet they did not irregularly or disorderly run about a Preach­ing, or discharge that Sacred Office, till they were desired by the Bishop of a Parish to do it, [...], but stayed for the Permission and Appro­bation of such an one; for without that, their Sermons and Discourses would have been but so many Acts of Schism and Faction.

CHAP. II.

§. 1. AS soon as the Sermon was ended, then all the Congregation rose up to present their Common and Publick Prayers unto Almighty God, as Justin Martyr writes, that when the Preacher had finished his Dis­course, [...]. Apolog. 2. p. 98. They all rose up, and offered their Prayers unto God. Standing be­ing the usual Posture of Praying (at least the con­stant one on Sundays, on which Day they e­steemed it a Sin to kneel) whence the Preacher frequently concluded his Sermon with an Ex­hortation to his Auditors, to stand up and pray to God, as we find it more than once in the [Page 18] Conclusion of Origen's Sermons, as, [...]. Hom. 19. in Jerem. Vol. 1. p. 198. Where­fore standing up, let us beg help from God, that we may be blessed in Je­sus Christ, to whom be Glory for ever and ever, Amen. And, Quapropter consur­gentes deprecemur Do­minum, ut digni efficia­mur—Christo Jesu, cui est Gloria & Imperium in Saecula Saeculorum. Amen. Homil. 2. in Can­tic. where­fore rising up, let us pray to God, that we may be made worthy of Jesus Christ, to whom be Glory and Dominion for ever and ever, Amen. And again, Surgentes per Chri­stum Sacrificia Patri Of­feramus, ipse enim pro­pitiatio est pro peccatis nostris, cui est Gloria & Imperium in Saecula Sae­culorum. In [...]. Ho­mil. 1. Standing up let us offer Sacrifices to the Father through Christ, who is the Propitiation for our Sins, to whom be Glory and Do­minion for ever and ever, Amen.

§. 2. Accordingly the whole Congregation stood up, and turned their Faces towards the East, it being their Custom and Manner to pray towards that Quarter, as Tertullian writes, Nos ad Orientis Re­gionem precari. Apolog. c. 16. p. 688. We pray towards the East. Now the Reasons that I meet with for this Usage, may be reduced to these Three or Four.

I. Out of Respect and Reverence to their Lord and Master Jesus Christ, they prayed to­wards the East, because the East is a Title [...] to Christ in the Old Testament; for that [Page 19] Place in Zach. 6. 12. Behold the Man whose Name is the [...], they Translated according to the Septuagint, [...]. [...]. Mar­tyr. Dialog. cum Try­phon. p. 334. Be­hold the Man whose Name is the East, which misap­prehension of the Word Branch, arose from the different Significations or Applications of the Greek Word, by which the Septuagint expressed it. In the Original Hebrew the Word is [...], which signifies an arising or sprouting out, as doth a Branch from a Root. The Word by which they rendred it in Greek, is [...], which in a large Sense com­prehends all sorts of arising and springing out; but strictly and generally is applyed to the ari­sing and first appearing of the Sun, and by a Metonymy, is appropriated to the East, be­cause the Sun arises in that Quarter. The Fa­thers therefore not knowing the Original, and finding Christ to be called in their Ordinary Version [...], presently concluded, that ac­cording to the usual signification of the Word, he was there termed by the Prophet, The East, whom they conceived to be so called, because [...]. Idem, [...], p. 334. he was to arise like a Star: And, [...]. [...]. [...]. p. 350. as the Sun that arises in the East pe­netrates thro' the World with its warm and illumi­nating Rays; So Christ the Sun of Righteousness would [Page 20] arise with more Warmth and Light, and pierce farther than the material Sun, even into the Depths of Mens Hearts and Minds. Hence the East is called by Tertullian, [...] Christi figu­ram. Advers. Valentin. p. 284. A Type of Christ, and for this Reason we may very well suppose, that they pray­ed towards the East, as well as built their Churches toward it, which that they did, we shall shew in its proper place.

II. Another Reason might be with respect to the Similitude of the Rising of the Sun, with our Spiritual arising out of the Darkness of Sin and Corruption, which I find thus expressed by Clemens Alexandrinus, [...]. Stro­mat. lib. 7. p. 520. Let Prayers be made to­wards the East, because the East is the Representa­tion of our Spiritual Nati­vity: As from thence Light first arose, shining out of Darkness; so ac­cording to that Rising of the Sun, the Day of true Knowledge arose on those, who lay buried in Igno­rance; whence the ancient Temples looked towards the West, that so they who stood against the Images therein, might be forced to look towards the East.

III. Origen advises to pray towards the Ea­stern Climate, to denote our Diligence in the Service of God, in being more forward to arise and set about it, than the Sun is to run his daily [Page 21] Course, for which he produces an Apocryphal Text, Wisdom 16. 28. [...]. De [...], §. 20. p. 127. That it might be known, that we must prevent the Sun to give thee thanks, and at the Day-spring pray unto thee.

IV. Another Reason for their praying towards the East, was their Opinion of the Excellency of this Quarter above others, which Argument Origen thus delivers, as well as I can Translate it. [...]. De Oratione, §. 21. p. 133, 134. Whereas there are four Climates, the North and South, the West and East, who will not acknow­ledge that we bught to pray looking towards the East, Symbolically representing thereby, our Souls behold­the arising of the true Light? If a Man, which way soever the Doors of his House are placed, would rather make his Prayers towards the Windows, say­ing, That the sight of the [Page 22] Sky hath something more peculiar [...] it, to stir up his Affection, than his looking against a Wall. Or if it so happen, that the Windows of his House do not look towards the East, that happened from the Arbitrary Structure of the Builder, but not from Nature, which prefers the East before the other Quarters, and Nature is to be preferred be­fore that Building. Or if any one will pray in the open Field, will he not pray rather towards the East, than towards the West? And if in these things the [...] is preferred before the West, why is it not so also in every other thing besides?

For these four Reasons now, but principally I suppose for the first, they usually prayed to­wards the East, inasmuch that for their Worship­ing towards this Quarter, and for their Religi­ous Observation of the Lord's Day, or Sunday, so called, because Dedicated to the Sun, they Inde suspicio, [...] nos ad [...] Regionem [...] [...]. Apol: 16. p. 688. were accused by the Heathens of Reverencing and Adoring the Sun.

§. 3. The Congrega­tion being thus turned towards the East, they put themselves into a [...] of Prayer, stretching out their Hands, and lifting up their Eyes towards Heaven, as Clemens. Alexandrinus writes, We lift up our [...]. [...]. Iib. p. p. 510. Head, and stretch out our Hands towards Heaven. And so Tertullian, We [...]. pray looking upto Heaven, [...] expanded Hands, by this devout [...] imi­tating [Page 23] [...], &c. Origen. de Orat. §. 20. p. 128. the lifting up of their Hearts to God in the [...] Wherefore, as now to quicken the Peo­ples Devotion, the [...] before Prayer excites them thereunto, by saying, Let us pray. So in the African Churches, in Cyprian's Days, the Minister Sacerdos [...] Oratio­nem Praefatione praemis­sa, parat Fratrum [...] dicendo, Sursum cor­da, & responder [...], Habemus ad Dominum. Cyprian. de Orat. Dominic. §. 22. p. 316. Prefac'd in his Prayer, by saying to the People, Lift up your Hearts. To which the People to testifie their Consent, answered, We lift them up unto the Lord.

§. 4. After this the Minister began to Pray. But before we handle his Prayer, it may not be unnecessary to consi­der in what Habit he Officiated, whether in a Surplice, or no. His usual Garb was a Palli­um, which is the same with what we call a Pallio nihil expeditius—quippe tota molitio ejus operire est solutim, id est, uno circumjectu—ita omnia hominis si­mul contegit. Tertul. de Pallio, p. 490. Cloak. This as being the most simple and plain Garment was commonly worn by the Christians; the usual Garb through­out the whole Roman Empire was the Toga, which was more gay and splendid than the Pal­lium; wherefore those who came over from Pa­ganism to Christianity, for the Indication of their Humility and Contempt of the World, quitted the Toga as too pompous and mundane, and assumed the Pallium or Cloak, as more [Page 24] grave and modest; from which change of Ap­parel, and renouncing of a sumptuous Habit, to embrace a poor and mean one, the Heathens derided and exposed the Christians, even to a Proverb, a Toga ad Pallium, which sarcastical Language engaged Tertullian to write a little Tract in Defence of the Cloak, which is still extant in his Writings, under the Title of De Pallio.

But Salmasius and Primitive Christianity, Part 2. c. 3. p. 47. Dr. Cave think this severe Habit was not worn by all [...], but only by those of them that lead a more au­stere and mortified Life, such as the Clergy, and some self-denying Personages [...] the Laity, and that therefore it is called by Tertul­lian in the sorementioned Tract, Sacerdotis Ha­bitus, or Priests Apparel, as it is in all ancient Manuscripts, and in the first Edition of Beatus Rhenanus, and not Sacer Habitus, The Holy Ap­parel, as it is in the later Editions. But whe­ther it were so or no, I shall not here debate. This is sufficient for my purpose, that the Clergy usually wore a Cloak. But now, that in times of Publick Prayer, they should put a Surplice, or any other kind of Linnen Garment over their Cloaks, neither Tertullian, nor any other, speak the least Syllable of it: Instead of putting ano­ther Vestment on their Gown or Cloak, Ter­tullian mentions some in his Days, who at Pray­ers would throw off their Gown or Cloak, which he condemns as a Superstitious Affecta­tion, and an Heathenish [...]. So, saith he, [Page 25] Quorundam positis pe­nulis Orationem facere: sic enim adeunt ad ido­la nationes: quod uti­que [...] fieri [...], [...] qui de habitu Orandi docent, compre­hendissent, nisi si qui putant Paulum penulam suam in Oratione penes Carpum reliquisse. D. Oratione, p. 659. the Heathens pray to their Gods, which if [...]. ought to have been done, would have been enjoyned by the Apostles, who have given Directions concern­ing the manner of Prayer; unless some think, that when Paul had put off his Cloak at Prayer, he for­got it, and left it behind him at Carpus's.

§. 5. But quitting the Habit of him that [...], let us return to his Prayer, which he pronounced Modestis precibus ora­re. Cyprian. de Orat. Do­minic. §. 2. p. 309. with a mo­dest and bashful Voice, that being most proper for those, who came to ac­knowledge the multitude and heinousness of their Sins, and to beg God's Pardon and Grace, which is the End and Design of Prayer. Musi­cal Singing is best agreeable to the praising and adoring of God; Enixis precibus, lacry­mis, ingemiscamus, pre­ces, gemitus, lachry­mae. Cyprian. Epist. 8. p. 23. but our Petitions to God ought to be sent up with most fervent Prayers, with Tears, and Cries, and Groans.

Doubtless the Minister so prayed, as did most affect the People, whose Mouth he was to God; for they did not vocally [...] with him in the Prayers, but only testified their Assent to what the Minister prayed, by saying [...], or So be it. Thus in the Prayer at the Celebrati­on of the Lord's Supper, the President of the [Page 26] Assembly only prayed, and the People concur­red with the Amen. So writes Justin Martyr, [...]. Apo­log. 2. p. 97. The Bishop makes a long Prayer over the Elements, and when he ends, all the People present give their Approbation, by saying, Amen. And [...]. Ibid. p. 97. When the Elements are blessed by the Minister's Prayer, and the People have approved it, by saying, Amen, Then they are distributed. And [...]. Ibid. p. 98. the Bishop, according to his Ability, prays over the Elements, and the People give their Acclamations, saying, Amen. So that scrupulous Person men­tioned by Dionysius Alexandrinus in his Epistle to Xystus, is said, [...]. Apud [...]. lib. 7. c. 9. p. 255. to have frequently heard the Eucharistical Prayer, and with the rest of the Con­gregation to have answer­ed, Amen. Henricus Valesius in his Notes on this Place; as likewise Dr. Hammond in his An­notations on 1 Cor. 14. think that St. Paul had reference to this Custom of the Peoples saying Amen, at the Conclusion of the Eucharistical Prayer in 1 Cor. 14. 16. Else when thou shalt bless with the Spirit, how shall be that Occupieth the room of the unlearned, say Amen, at thy giving of Thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? In which place St. Paul condemns as ab­surd [Page 27] and senseless, the Practice of some Men, who would consecrate the Sacrament in He­brew or Syriack before Greeks, who under­standing not those Tongues, could not bear their share in the Eucharistical Prayer, which consisted not in Antiphonal or Responsory Re­plies to the Minister, but only in saying [...], or, So be it, to what he had prayed.

It is true indeed, that these Citations are spo­ken in particular of the Prayer before the Lords Supper; but yet they may be also ap­plyed to their Prayer after Sermon, since we have no reason to imagine, that in the one they should use Responsals, and in the other none. But that in all their Prayers the Priest only pray­ed, seems to be apparent, from that it was one part of his Office, to pray for the People, In precibus quas faci­unt pro Plebis Dominicae incolumitate. Epist. 68. §. 2. p. 201. The Priests, says Cypri­an, pray for the safety of the Lord's People. And, Qui idolis sacrificando sacrilega Sacrificia fece­runt, Sacerdotium Dei sibi vindicare non pos­sunt, nec ullam in con­spectu ejus precem pro Fratribus facere. Epist. 64. §. 2. p. 190. the Priests who have Sa­crificed to Idols, cannot assume to themselves the Priesthood, or make any Prayer in God's sight for the Brethren. Oportet eos ad Sacer­dotium deligi, quos à Deo [...] audiri. Epist. 68. §. 3. p. 201. There­fore those ought to be cho­sen into the Priesthood, whom God will hear. It was the Priest that solely pronounced the Publick Prayers without the Voi­ces of the People: And indeed it was impossible for the People to re­spond, since they had no fixed publick Form of [Page 28] Prayer, except the Lord's Prayer, which Lord's Prayer they frequently, though not al­ways, repeated: And then as to their other Prayers, every Bishop or Minister of a Pa­rish, was left to his own Liberty and Ability therein.

§. 6. As for the use of the Lord's Prayer, it must first be observed, that the [...] repeat­ing of it with other Prayers, was not esteemed necessary, but frequently it was omitted. Thus in the Heavenly Prayer of Polycarpus at the Stake, the Lord's Prayer is neither at beginning nor ending. The Con­clusion of it is, [...]. Apxd Euseb. lib. 4. c. 15. p. 133. Lord I will praise thee, I will bless thee, I will magnifie thee, through the Eternal High Priest Christ Jesus thy beloved Son, by whom to thee, with him, and the Holy Ghost, be Glory now, and for evermore, Amen. So Clemens Alexandrinus concludes his last Book of Pedagogy, with a Prayer, which neither ends nor begins with the Lord's Prayer; and Origen prescribing a Method of Prayer, speaks not a Word of the Lord's Prayer, but Dc Oratione, §. 22. p., 134, 135. advises both to begin and end with Doxology, or a giving Praise to God. In this Respect they regarded the Lord's Prayer, as given by Christ for a Pat­tern of all other Prayers, according to which they were to be made; whence Cyprian calls [Page 29] this Prayer, Orandi legem. De U­nit. Ecclesiae, §. 11. p. 299. the Law or Rule of praying; Ut aliter orare quam docuit, non ignorantia sola sit, sed & culpa. De Orat. Dominic. §. 1. p. 309. so that to pray otherwise than that Prayer directed was Igno­rance and Impiety Where­fore, says Cyprian, Unusquisque oret De­um non pro se tantum, sed pro omnibus fratri­bus, sicut Dominus ora­re nos docuit. Epist. 8. §. 6. p. 24. Let every one pray to God, not only for himself, but for all the Brethren, as the Lord hath taught us to pray for all. And so writes Clemens Alexandrinus, [...]. Strom. [...]. 7. p. 537. that a good Man never remembers the Affronts that are offered him, but always forgets them; wherefore he justly prays, saying, Forgive us as we forgive others; that is, he prays according to the Sense of the fifth Petition; for it is the Sense, not the very Words of that Petition, that he here recites.

But tho' the Repetition of the Lord's Prayer was not necessary, yet it was usual; whence saith Origen, Quâ patrem—nos jus­sit orare. In Isaiam, Ho­mil. 1. Christ gave us a Prayer, with which he commanded us to pray unto the Father. And Tertullian writes, Novam orationis for­mam determinavit. De Oratione, p. 657. That our Lord Jesus Christ gave to his Disciples a new Form of Prayer. Whence he calls the Lord's Prayer, Legitima Oratio. De suga in [...]. p. 436. The Lawful Prayer. And [Page 30] Cyprian yet more fully writes, that Orandi ipse formam dedit, ipse quid preca­remur monuit & [...]: Qui [...] vivere, do­cuit & [...]—ut dum prece & oratione quam filius docuit, apud pa­trem loquimur, facilius audiamur—Quae [...] potest esse magis spiritu­alis Oratio, quam quae verè à [...] nobis data est, à quo nobis & Spiri­tus [...] missus est? Quae verè magis apud Patrem precatio, quam quae à filio, qui [...] ve­ritas, de ejus ore prolata est? Ut [...] orare quam docuit, non igno­rantia sola sit sed & cul­pa—Oremus itaque fra­tres dilectissimi, sicut Magister Deus docuit. Amica & Familiaris [...] est Deum de suo ro­gare ad aures ejus ascen­dere [...] orationem, [...] pater filii sui verba: cum precem [...], qui habitat intus in pectore, ipse sit & in voce: & cum ipsum [...] apud patrem [...] pro peccatis mostris quando peccatores pro [...] nostris petimus, advocati [...] verba premamus. Nam cum dicat, quia quodcunque petierimus à Patre in nomine ejus, dabit nobis: quantò efficacius [...] quod [...] in Christi nomine, si petamus [...] oratione? De [...]. Dominic. §. 1, 2. p. 309. Christ hath given us a Form of Prayer, he hath admonished and instructed what we should pray for: He that made us live, hath taught us to pray, that whilst we offer unto the Father, the Pray­er which the Son taught, we may be the more easily heard.—For what Prayer can be more Spiritual, than that which was given us by Christ, who gave us also the Holy Spirit? And what Prayer can be more prevalent with God, than that of his Son, who is the Truth, proceeding out of his Mouth? So that to pray otherwise than he hath taught, is both Ignorance and Impiety. Let us pray therefore, dearly beloved Brethren, as God our Ma­ster hath taught us: It is a friendly and familiar [Page 31] Prayer to ask God with his own, and to present the Prayer of Christ to his Ears; the Father will ac­knowledge his Sons Words. When we pray, let him that dwells in the Heart, be in the Voice; and since we have him an Advocate with the Father for our Sins, when we beg pardon for our Sins, let us use the Words of our Advocate; and since he says, that whatsoever we shall ask of the Father in his Name, he will give it us; how much more ef­ficaciously shall we prevail for what we beg in Christ's Name, if we ask it in his Prayer? To this Prayer it is that Tertullian gives this Encomium, Compendiis paucorum verborum, quot attin­guntur edicta [...], Evangeliorum, A­postolorum, Sermones Domini, Parabolae, ex­empla, praecepta, quot simul expunguntur Offi­cia Dei, honor in patre; fides, testimonium in no­mine, oblatio obsequii in voluntate, commemo­ratio spei in Regno, pe­titio vitae in pane, exo­mologesis debitorum in deprecatione, sollicitudo tentationum, in postula­tione tutelae. Quid mi­rum! Deus solus docere potuit, ut se vellet [...]. De Orat. p. 659. In the Compendium of a few Words, how many De­clarations of Prophets, E­vangelists, and Apostles; how many Speeches, Para­bles, Examples and Pre­cepts are contained! How many Duties towards God! Honour to God in the Pre­face, Faith in the first Pe­tition, Hope in the Second, Resignation in the Third, Petition for Life in the Fourth, Confession of Sins in the Fifth, Watchfulness against Temptations in the Sixth. What Wonder! God alone could teach, how he would be prayed to.

§. 7. But tho' they frequently used the Lord's Prayer, yet they did not only use that, but o­ther Prayers also; for immediately to the fore­going Encomium of the Lord's Prayer, Tertul­lian [Page 32] adjoyns, Posse nos super adji­cere—& sunt quae pe­tantur pro [...]. De Oratione, p. 659 That we may add thereunto, and offer up Prayers unto God according to the Variety of our Circumstances and Conditions. From which Passage of the said Father, we may guess their usual Method of Prayer was first to begin with the Lord's Prayer, as the Ground and Founda­tion of all others, and then according to their Circumstances and Conditions to offer up their own Prayers and Requests. Now that this Con­jecture may appear to have some Foundation, it will be necessary to translate at large this place of Tertullian, and to shew the Introduction or Occasion of it, which was this: After this Fa­ther had, as before, Commented on, summ'd up, and magnify'd the Lord's Prayer, he con­cludes, that nevertheless, Posse nos super adjice­re. Quoniam tamen Do­minus prospector huma­narum necessitatum se­orsim post traditam [...] Disciplinam, [...], inquit, & [...], & sunt quae [...], pro [...] cujusque, praemisia legi­tima & ordinaria Orati­one quasi fundamento, accidentium jus est desi­deriorum, jus est [...] extrinsecus petitiones, cum memoria tamen [...]: Ne quantum à [...] tantum ab [...] Dei longè simus. Memoria [...] sternit ad Coelum quorum praecipuum est, [...]. p. 659. We may add thereunto; for since the Lord the Ob­server of all Humane Ne­cessities, has in another place, after he had deli­vered this Prayer, said, Ask and ye shall receive: And every one has parti­cular Circumstances to beg for; therefore having pre­mised [Page 33] the lawful and ordinary Prayer, there is place for accidental. Requests, and a Liberty of offering up other Petitions, so as they do agree with the Precepts: As far as we are from the Precepts, so far are we from God's Ears; the remembrance of the Precepts makes way for our Prayers to Hea­ven, of which it is the chief.

Now these other Prayers, which made up a great part of Divine Service, were not [...] and imposed Forms, but the Words and Expressions of them were left to the Prudence, Choice and Judgment of every particular Bishop or Minister.

I do not here say, that a Bishop or Minister used no Arbitrary Form of Prayer; all that I say is, that there was none imposed: Neither do I say, that having no imposed Form, they unpremeditately, immethodically or confused­ly vented their Petitions and Requests; for without doubt they observed a Method in their Prayers; but this is what I say, That the Words or Expressions of their Prayers were not imposed or prescribed, but every one that offi­ciated, delivered himself in such Terms as best pleased him, and varied his Petitions according to the present Circumstances and Emergencies: Or if it be more intelligible, that the Primitive Christians had no stinted Liturgies, or Imposed Forms of Prayer.

Now this being a Negative in Matter of Fact, the bare Assertion of it is a sufficient Proof, ex­cept its Affirmative can be evinced. Suppose it was disputed, whether ever St. Paul writ an Epistle to the Church of Rome, the bare Nega­tion thereof would be Proof enough that he did not, except it could be clearly evidenced on the [Page 34] contrary that he did: So unless it can be pro­ved that the Ancients had fixed Liturgies and Prayer-Books, we may very rationally con­clude in the Negative, that they had none at all.

Now as to these prescribed Forms, there is not the least mention of them in any of the Pri­mitive Writings, nor the least Word or Sylla­ble tending thereunto that I can find, which is a most unaccountable Silence, if ever such there were, but rather some Expressions intimating the contrary; as that famous controverted place of Justin Martyr, who describing the manner of the Prayer before the Celebration of the Lord's Supper, says, That the Bishop sent up Prayers and Praises to God Apolog. 2. p. 98. with his utmost abi­lity, [...], that is, that he prayed with the best of his Abilities, Invention, Expression, Judgment and the like. I am not ignorant that there is another Sense gi­ven of [...], or, According to his Ability. But I must needs say, that I generally, if not always found this Phrase to include personal A­bilities. Thus as to the Explanation of Scrip­ture, Origen writes, that he would expound it, Com. in Matth. Tom. 17. p. 487. Vol. 1. according to his Ability, [...], and that he would Comment on that Parable of the Blind Man, that was healed near Jericho, mentioned in Luke 18. 35. Com. in Matth. Tom. 16. p. 429. Vol. 1. [...]. And so on the Parable concerning the Husband­man; [...]. Tom. 17. p. 463. [...]; and on the Marriage of the [Page 35] King's Son, Ibid. Tom. 17. p. 474. [...]; and that he would search out the Sense of the Gospel of St. John, Com. in Johan. Tom. 1. p. 5. Vol. 2. [...]. Now what doth Origen intend, by his searching out the Sense, and expounding the meaning of the Scriptures to the utmost of his Power and Ability? Is it a bare reading and transcribing of other Mens Works, or an Employment of his own Abilities and Studies to find out the Sense and Meaning of them? Certainly every one will think the latter to be most probable.

So as to the Argumentative Defence of the Truth, Origen promises that he would answer the Calumnies of Celsus, Contra Celsum. lib. [...]. p. 2. according to his Power, [...]: and that he would defend and confirm his Arguments against Celsus Ibid. lib. 1. p. 36. according to his Power, [...]: and demon­strate the Reasonableness of the Christian Religi­on, Ibid. lib. 6. p. 265. according to his Power, [...]: and dispute against Celsus, Ibid. lib. 7. p. [...]. according to his Power, [...]. Now whe­ther Origen's defending the Truth, and dispu­ting against Celsus according to his [...] Abi­lity and Power, consisted in a reading, or in a bare transcribing out of a Book, the written Arguments of other Men, or in an Employ­ment [Page 36] of his own Abilities, Inventions and Expressions, is no difficult matter to deter­mine.

I have not found one place, wherein this Phrase of [...] doth not comprehend per­sonal Abilities; and several scores more might I cite, where it is so to be understood, which I shall omit, and mention only one more, spoken by Origen with respect to this Duty of Prayer, where it must of necessity imply personal Abi­lities, and that is in his Book §. 22. p. 134. De Oratione, where he prescribes the Method and Parts of Prayer, the first whereof was Doxology; wherein, says he, he that prays must bless God according to his Power, [...], where [...], must signifie the Performer's Abilities of Judgment and Expression, because it is not spoken of prescribed Words, but of a prescribed Method of Prayer; as if any one should desire me to inform him, how or in what Method he must pray; I tell him, as Ori­gen doth in this place, that first he must begin with an Invocation of God by his Titles and Attributes; then he must proced to praise God for his Mercies and Benefits, confessing withal his Ingratitude and Unfruitfulness; then beg pardon for past Sins, strength against fu­ture, and conclude all with praising God through Christ, and that he must do all this ac­cording to the utmost of his Ability. What could any one imagine, that I should intend by this Advice of following this Method to the ut­most of his Power, but by the exerting of his [Page 37] own Abilities, Understanding, Memory, Inven­tion, Expression, and the like, since I direct him not to any prescribed Words, but only to the Observation of those General Heads and Parts of Prayer.

So that the Ministers Praying [...], or according to the utmost of his Ability, imports the exerting his Gifts and Parts in suitable Matter and apt Expressions; and that the Pri­mitive Prayers were so, appears yet farther from a Passage in Origen, who thus explains that Verse in Matth. 6. But when ye pray, use not vain Repetitions as the Heathens do, [...] De Oratione, §. 10. p. 63. But when we pray, let us not Battologise, that is, use not vain Repetitions, but Theologise: But we Battologise, when we do not strictly observe our Selves, or the Words of Prayer, which we express, when we utter those things which are filthy either to do, speak, or think, which are vile, worthily reprov­able, and alienated from the Purity of the Lord. Surely this Caution had been needless of strictly observing the Words that they uttered, and this Fear had been groundless of expressing themselves undecently or sinfully, if they had had a Prayer-Book to recur to; but that they had no such Prayer-Book appears yet more evidently from Tertul­lian, who describing their Publick Prayers, says [Page 38] that Illue suspicientes Chri­stiani manibus expansis, quia innocuis, capite nu­do, quia non erubesci­mus, denique sine moni­tore, quia de pectore o­ramus. Apolog. c. 30. p. 703. looking up to Hea­ven, they spread abroad their Hands because inno­cent; uncovered their Heads, because not asha­med; and without a Mo­nitor, because they prayed from the Heart. Now what is to be understood by praying from the Heart, will best appean from enquiring into what is opposed to it, viz. The Praying by a Monitor. Now the praying by a Monitor, as is acknowledged by all, was praying by a Book. But thus Tertullian affirms the Primi­tive Christians prayed not: We do not pray, saith he, with a Monitor, reading our Prayers out of a Book. No; but on the contrary, we pray de Pectore, from the Heart, our own Heart and Soul dictating to us, what is most proper and fuitable to be asked, having no need of any other Monitor besides.

Hence their Prayers were suited to their E­mergencies and present Circumstances, as Ter­tullian writes, that Praemissa legitima & ordinaria orarione, acci­dentium jus es desideri­orum. De Orat. p. 659. ha­ving premised the Lord's Prayer, we may offer up accidental Requests and Petitions, of which oc­casional Requests we find some Instances, as in the sixteenth Epistle of Cyprian, where that Fa­ther assures Moses and Maximus, two Roman Confessors, Et quando in Sacrifi­ciis precem cum pluri­mis facimus. Epist. [...]. §. 1. p. 44. That he re­membred them in his Pub­lick Prayers with his Con­gregation. And in ano­ther [Page 39] Epistle where he congratulates Pope Luci­us upon his Return from Banishment, he assures him, Hic quoque in Sacrifi­ciis atque in Orationi­bus nostris non cessantes Deo—gratias agere, & orare pariter, ac petere, ut qui perfectus [...] atque perficiens, custodiat & perficiat in vobis con­fessionis vestrae glorio­sam coronam. Epist. 58. §. 2. p. 163. That he did not cease in his publick Pray­ers to bless God for so great a Mercy, and to pray him that was perfect, to keep and perfect in him the glorious Crown of his Confession. And so when the Church of Carthage sent a Sum of Money to the Bishops of Numidia, for the Redemption of some Christian Captives, they desired those Bi­shops In mentem habeatis in Orationibus vestris, & eis vicem boni operis in Sacrificiis & precibus re­praesentetis. Epist. 60. §. 4. p. 167. to remember them in their publick Prayers. So that their Prayers could not be [...], in­variable Forms, because they could add new Pe­titions, as their Occasions and Circumstances did require.

Firmilian reports of an Exorcist Woman, that being acted by the Devil, she did wondrous Feats, taking upon her to perform Ecclesiasti­cal Administrations, as to Baptize and Cele­brate the Eucharist, the Elements whereof she Consecrated, Invocatione non con­temptibili. Apud Cypr. Ep. 75. §. 10. [...] 138. with an Invocation not to be de­spised, that is, as seems to be most agreeable un­to the Place, and to the [...] of Justin Martyr. The Matter, Invention and Expressi­on of that Prayer, wherewith she consecrated [Page 40] the Elements, was not mean of contemptible, but indifferently well performed. So that it seems evident, that though the Method of their Prayers might in the main be the same, yet eve­ry one was left to follow his own Fancy and Ex­pression therein.

But that I may hasten to the Conclusion of this Section, it is very unlikely that they were obliged to prescribed Forms, because they ne­ver read a Syllable of their Prayers out of any Book whatsoever, which is evident from their Posture of Prayer, which was two-fold, Either with their Hands and Eyes lifted up to Heaven, or with their Eyes shut: That they prayed with their Eyes and Hands lifted up to Heaven, has been already shewn in the Third Section of this Chapter, to which I shall only add this far­ther Observation, that Expandimus manus & dominica passione modu­lantes & orantes consite­mur Christo. Tertul. de Orat. p. 659. they stretched out their Hands in the Figure of a Cross.

That they also prayed with their Eyes shut, is evident from Origen, who having explained what is meant by that Injunction of our Saviour in Matth. 6. 5. And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the Hypocrites are; for they love to pray standing in the Synagogues, and in the Corners of the Streets, that they may be seen of Men; verily, I say unto you, they have their Rewards, thus explains the following Verse; But thou, when thou prayest, enter thou into thy Closet, and when thou hast shut to thy Door, pray to thy Father which is in secret, and thy Father which seeth in [Page 41] secret, shall reward thee openly. [...]. De Orat. §. 9. p. 62, 63. But he that is no Hypocrite, enters into the Closet of his Heart, to the Riches that are treasu­red up there, and shutting himself in amongst those Treasures of Wisdom and Knowledge, and not fixing his Eyes on external Ob­jects, as looking after any thing without, and closing every Gate of the Senses, lest he should be drawn a­side by them, and their Species or Fancies should creep into his Mind, he prays the Father, who ne­ver flies from, or leaves such an one, but together with the Son, dwells in him. So the same Father writes, that a true Christian prays in every place, [...]. Contia Cel­sum, lib. 7. p. 362. closing the Eyes of his Senses, but erecting those of his Mind. Now let them have prayed iu either of these Postures, and it is very evident that they could read in neither of them; for it is very improbable that they could turn over the Leaves of a Book, whilst their Hands were extended towards Heaven in the Form of a Cross; or that they could read in a Book, whilst their Eyes were lifted up, or else quite shut and closed.

[Page 42] If therefore there had been prescribed and imposed Forms, they must of necessity have re­membred them, which would have been an in­tolerable Load to the strongest Memory, espe­cially to have repeated Word after Word the Prayers of their Fast Days, which must have been several Hours long, since some of their Fasts, as will be shewn in another place, were prolonged from the Morning of one Day, to the beginning of another.

§. 8. There remains now but one Question more with respect to their Publick Prayers, and that is, Whether they were divided into several Collects? To which I have not much certain to Answer; probably on their Assemblies on Fast Days, when they continued together tre­ble the usual time, for the Ease of the Bishop and his Assistants, they made several [...] Prayers, and probably at their Ordinary Meet­ings, their Prayer after Sermon was but one en­tire Piece. But all this is but Conjecture, all that I find positive, is touching their Prayer, that preceded the Consecration of the Eucha­ristical Elements, which, as Justin Martyr writes, [...]. Apolog. 2. p. 97. was one long Prayer, to which the People said,

Amen.

CHAP. III.

§. 1. HAving in the former Chapter discour­sed of their Publick Prayers, I [...] in the next place to consider the Two Sa­craments, viz. Baptism, and the Lord's Supper. And first of all, to treat of that of Baptism, together with its Appendix and Confirmation; for the more methodical and distinct handling whereof, I shall enquire into these three Things, viz. The Persons Baptizing, the Persons Bapti­zed, and the manner of Baptism.

[Page 44] First, As to the Persons Baptizing, usually they were the Bishops or Pastors of their Re­spective Parishes, as Justin Martyr describes Baptism as performed by the [...], or Apolog. 2. p. 97. President; and Tertulli­an by the Antistes, or, De [...]. Milit. p. 336. Superintendent; and Summus Sacerdos qui est Episcopus. De Bap­tism. p. 602. by the High Priest, who is the Bishop; but Dehinc Presbyteri & Diaconi, non tamen sine Episcopi auctorirate—Laicis etiam jus est— [...] in necessitati­bus. Ibidem, p. 602, 603. with his Permission and Consent, It was allowed to Presbyters and Deacons; and in case of Necessity, even to Lay­men to Baptize; but Mulier non tingendi jus sibi pariet. Ibid. p. 603. ne­ver under any Necessity whatsoever was it permit­ted to a Woman so to do.

§ 2. As for the Per­sons that were Baptized, they were two sorts, ei­ther Infants, or Adult persons. That Infants were baptized, will be evident from this single Consi­deration. Baptism was always precedent to the Lord's Supper; and none were admitted to re­ceive the Eucharist, till they were baptized. This is so obvious to every Man, that it needs no proof: If any one doubts it, he may [...] it clearly asserted in the Second Apology of Ju­stin Martyr, p. 97. Children received the Eu­charist in the Primitive Church, which is also a thing so well known, as that for the proof of it I shall only urge one pas­sage of Diaconus reluctanti li­cet, de Sacramento Ca­licis infudit. De Lap­sis, §. 20. p. 284. Cyprian's, where he tells a long Story of a Sucking Girl, who so vio­lently [Page 45] refused to taste the Sacramental Wine, that the Deacon was obliged forcibly to open her Lips, and to pour down the Consecrated Wine. There­fore it naturally follows, that Children were baptized; for if they received that Ordinance, which always succeeded Baptism, then of ne­cessity they must have received Baptism its self. But I needed not to have mentioned this Consi­deration, since Infant-Baptism is as clearly as­serted in Words at length in the Primitive Wri­tings, as a thing can possibly be. Thus Origen writes, that Parvuli baptizantur in Remissionem peccato­rum; Quorum peccato­rum? Vel quo tempore peccaverunt? Aut quo­modo potest ulla lavacri in parvulis ratio subsi­stere, nisi juxta illum seusum de quo paulo an­te diximus, nullus mun­dus à sorde, nec fi unius diei quidem fuerit vita ejus super terram? Et quia per Baptismi Sacra­mentum nativitatis sor­des deponuntur, prop­terea baptizantur & par­vuli. In Lucam. Homil. 14. Children are baptized for the Remission of their Sins, fer the purg­ing away of their natural Filth, and original Impu­rity which is inherent in them, according to Job 15. 14. What is Man that he should be clean? And he which is born of a Wo­man, that he should be Righteous? And that of the Prophet Isaiah, chap. 4. v. 4. When the Lord shall have washed away the Filth of the Daughter of Sion, and shall have pur­ged the Blood of Jerusalem from the midst there­of. No one is clean from the Filth; no, though he lived but one Day upon the Earth. Wherefore because through the Sacrament of Baptism, the Uncleannesses of our Birth are purged away, there­fore Children are baptized. And the same Fa­ther Commenting on that place of our Saviour, [Page 46] Matth. 18. 10. See that ye despise not one of these little ones, alledges this as one Reason, why we should not do so, because of the Angels that guard them, on which reason he makes this Que­ry, [...]. Comment. in Mat. Tom. 13. p. 331. Vol. 1. At what time the Angels begin their Guar­dianship over those little ones, whether at the time of their Birth or their Baptism? So that little ones were Baptized; by which little ones he means Infants and Chil­dren, as is most evident from those other Titles, which he gives them in the same Tome, as [...], little Children, [...], Infants; and in one place he supposes them to be [...]. Ibid. p. 321. under three or four Years old.

To these Testimonies of Origen, I might also add those of Irenaeus, Lib. 2. cap. 39. p. 137. and of Cyprian, De Lapsis, §. 7. p. 279. But I shall chuse to wave them, because I would wil­lingly translate at length the Determination of an African Svnod, held Anno 254, whereat were present Threescore and Six Bishops; [...] the occasion of which Determination was this: A certain Bishop called Fidus, had some Scruples, not concerning the Baptism of Infants, but concerning the time of their Baptism, whether they might be baptized before the Second or Third Day after their Birth, or before the Eighth Day, as it was observed with respect to Circumcision under the Mosaical Oeconomy; [Page 47] the Reasons or Grounds for which his Scruples he proposed to this Synod, who having serious­ly examined them, [...] decreed, That Childrens Baptism was not to be deferred to long, but that the Grace of God, or Baptism, should be given to all, and most especially unto [...], which Synodical Decree, because so pertinent to my purpose, I have at large tran­scribed as follows:

So that here is as Formal, Synodical Decree for the Baptism of Infants as possibly can be [...]; which being the Judgment of a Synod, is more [...] and cogent than that of a private Father, it being supposable, that a [...] Father might write his own particular Judgment and Opinion, but the Determinati­ons of a Synod or Council, denote the common Practice and Usage of the Whole Church.

§. 3. It is evident then, that Infants were baptifed in the Primitive Ages; and as for the Baptism of the Adult, that being own'd by all, it will be needless to prove it. These were [...] grown in Years, able to judge and [...] for themselves, who relinquished Pagan­ism, and came over to the Christian Faith. What Qualifications were required in them previous or antecedent to Baptism I need not here relate, since I have already handled this Point in the Sixth Chapter of the former Trea­tise, to which I refer the Reader. In short, such [Page 54] as these were first instructed in the [...] Faith, continued some time in the Rank of the [...], till [...], &c. Just. Mart. Apol. 2. p. 93. they had given good Proofs of their Resolutions to [...] a pious, religious Life, and had protested their Assent and Consent to all the Chri­stian Verities, and then they were solemnly bapti­zed. Which brings [...] to the third thing proposed, [...]. The [...] of Baptism, which for the main was, as [...].

§. 4. The Person to be baptized was first asked several Questions by the Bishop, or by him that Officiated, unto which he was to give his Answer, concerning which Baptismal Que­stions and Answers Dionysius [...] speaks in his Letter to Xystus Bishop of [...], wherein he writes of a certain sorupulous Per­son in his Church, who was exceedingly trou­bled, when he was present at Baptism, and [...]. A­pud Euseb. lib. 7. [...]. 9. p. 254. heard the Questions and Answers of those that were Baptized. Which Que­stions Firmilian styles, Usitata & Legitima verba interrogationis. A­pud Cyprian. Epist. 75. §. 10. p. 238. the lawful and usual In­terrogatories of Baptism. Now these Questions and Answers were two-fold: First, Of Abjuration of the Devil and all his Works: And, Secondly, Of a Firm Assent to the Articles of the Christi­an Faith. First, Of Abjuration. The Mini­ster [Page 55] proposed this Question to the Party bapti­zed, or to this Effect, Do you renounce the Devil, the World, and the Flesh? To which he answer­ed, Yes. So writes [...], Contestamur [...] re­nunciare Diabolo & Pompae & Angelis [...]. De [...], p. 336. When [...] are baptized, [...] renounce the World, the Devil, and his Angels. And [...] nos [...] & [...] & Ange­lis ejus ore nostro [...]. De Spectac. p. 583. with [...] Mouth we have vowed to renounce the World, the [...] and his Angels. And Renunciavimus Dia­bolo & Angelis ejus. De [...]. p. 618. We have renounced the Devil and his Angels. And Pactus [...] renunciare Diabolo, & Pompae & Angelis ejus. Lib. de [...]. c. 17. p. 554. Thou hast [...] to renounce the World, the Devil, and his Angels. And, Vocati sumus ad mili­tiam Dei vivi, jam [...] cum in Sacramenti ver­ba spondimus. Ad Mar­tyr. p. 367. We were called to the Warfare of the Living God, when we promised in the Words of Baptism. To the same effect also says Cyprian, Saeculo renunciavera­mus cum baptizati su­mus. Epist. 7. §. 5. p. 20. When we were baptized, we renounced the World. And Mundi pompis & de­liciis jam tunc renuncr­avimus. De Hab. Virg. §. 6. p. 267. We have renounced the World, its Pomps and Delights. And Dei servus— Diabolo jam renunciarat & Sae­culo. De Lapsis, §. 6, p.279. The Ser­vant of God has renounced the Devil and the World. And, Saeculo renunciavimus & Divitias ejus & [...] pas fide gratiae spiritua­lis [...]. De Orat. Dom. §: 14. p. 213. We have renoun­ced the World, and by the Faith of Spiritual Grace have cast off its Riches [Page 56] and Pomps. And, Diabolo & Mundo re­nunciavimus. De Bono [...], §. 7. p. 365. We [...] the Devil and the World. And so likewise saith Clemens Alexandrinus, that in Baptism [...]. Theod. Epist. p. 573. we renounced the Devil.

The Second Question was, Whether the Party to be Baptized, did believe all the Articles of the Christian Faith, to which he answered, Yes, as Justin Martyr writes, [...], &c. Apo­log. 2. p. 93. that those who were to be baptized, were to give their Assent to the things that were [...] and held by them. So Cy­prian writes, that at Bap­tism they asked the Baptised Person's Assent to this Creed, Symbolo baptizare, nosse Deum Patrem, Fi­lium Christum, Spiritum Sanctum, credis remissi­onem peccatorum, & vi­tam aeternam per Sanctam Ecclesiam? Epist. 76. §. 6. p. 248. Whether he believed in God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, re­mission of Sins, and eter­nal Life through the Church? And that at Baptism they asked, Credis in vitam aeter­nam, & remissionem pec­catorum per sanctam Ec­clesiam? Epist. 70. §. 2. p. 211. Dost thou believe [...] Life everlasting, and re­mission of Sins through the Holy Church? These Ar­ticles of Faith to which the Baptized Persons gave their Assent, are called by Cyprian, Symboli legem. Epist. 76. §. 6. p. 248. The Law of the Symbol. And by Novatian, Regula veritatis. De [...] inter Opera [...] p. 493. The Rule of Truth.

[Page 57] §. 5. And here since we have mentioned the Symbol, it will be no unuseful Digression to en­quire a little into the Ancient Creeds; for as for that Creed, which is commonly called the Aposties, all Learned Persons are now agreed, that it was never composed by them, neither do I find it within my prescribed Time: But though they had not that, yet they had other Creeds very like thereunto, which contained the fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith, [...] which all Christians gave their Assent and [...], and that publickly at Baptism; whence, as before it is called by Cyprian, The Law of the Symbol; and by Novatian, The Rule of Truth.

This Creed was handed down from Father to Son, as a brief Summary of the necessary Scripture Truths, not in ipsissimis verbis, or in the same set Words, but only the Sense or Sub­stance thereof, which is evident, from that we never find the Creed twice repeated in the same Words, no, not by one and the same Father; which that it may the more manifestly appear, as also that we may see the Congruity and Af­finity of the Ancient Creeds with our Present Creed, commonly call'd the Apostles, I shall [...] in their Original Language all the whole Creeds, and Pieces of Creeds, that I find within my limited Bounds, which, toge­ther with the Authors wherein they are to be [...], are as follows.

[Page 58] §. 6. [...]. Ignat. Epist. ad [...]. p. 52.

[...]. [...], lib. 1. c. 2. p. 35, 36,

[Page 59] [...] in unum Deum fabricatorem [...] ac [...], & [...] quae in eis sunt, per Chri­stum Jesum Dei Filium, qui propter [...] erga Figmentum suum dilectionem, [...] quae esset ex Virgine, generationem [...], ipse per se hominem adunans Deo, & passus sub Pontio Pilato, & resurgens, & in claritate receptus, in gloria venturus Salvator eorum qui salvantur, & Judex eorum qui [...], & mittens in ignem aeternum trans­figuratores veritatis, & contemptores patris sui & adventus ejus. Irenaeus, lib. 3. cap. 4. p 172.

Regula est autem Fidei, ut jam hinc quid credamus, profitearur, illa scilicet, qua credi­tur unum omnino Deum esse, [...] alium prae­ter mundi creatorem, qui universa de nihilo produxerit per verbum suum, primo omnium amissum: id verbum Filium ejus appellatum in nomine Dei, varie visum Patriarchis, in Pro­phetis semper auditum, postremo delatum ex spiritu patris Dei & virture in Virginem Mati­am, carnem factum in utero ejus, & ex ea na­tum, egisse Jesum Christum, exinde proedicasse novam legem & novam promissionem Regni Coelorum, virtutes fecisse, fixum cruci tertia die resurrexisse, in coelos ereptum, sedere ad dexteram patris, misisse vicariam vim spiritus sancti, qui credentes agant, venturum cum cla­ritate ad sumendos sauctos in vitae eternae, & promissorum coelestium fructum, & ad [...] judicandos igni perpetuo, facta utriusque partis resuscitatione cum carnis [...]. [Page 60] Haec regula a Christo—instituta nullas habet apud nos quaestiones, nisi quas haereses [...], & quae haereticos faciunt. [...]. de [...], advers. [...]. p. 73.

Unicum quidem Deum credimus, sub hac [...] dispensatione quam [...] dicimus, ut unici Dei sit & Filius Sermo ipsius, qui ex ipso processerit, per quem omnia facta sunt, & sine quo factum est nihil, hunc missum a patre in Virginem, & ex ea natum hominem & Deum, filium hominis & filium Dei, & cognominatum Jesum Christum, hunc passum, [...] mortuum & sepultum secundum scripturas, & resuscitatum a Patre, & in coelo resumptum, sedere ad dex­teram patris, venturum judicare vivos & [...], qui exinde miserat secundum promissio­nem suam a patre spiritum sanctum Paracletum, sanctificatorem fidei eorum qui credunt in pa­trem, & filium, & spiritum sanctum. Hanc regulam ab initio Evangelii decucurrisse, &c. Tertul. advers. Praxean. p. 316.

Regula Fidei una omnino est, sola immobilis & irreformabilis credendi scilicet in unicum Deum omnipotentem, mundi conditorem, & [...] ejus Jesum Christum, natum ex Virgine Maria, crucifixum sub Pontio Pilato, tertio [...] resuscitatum a mortuis, receptum in coelis, se­dentem nunc ad dexteram patris, venturum [...] vivos & mortuos, per carnis etiam re­surrectionem. Tertullian de Virginib. veland. p. 385.

[Page 61] [...]. Origen. Comment. in [...]. Tom. 32. p. 397. Vol. 2.

Unus Deus est, qui omnia creavit, atque composuit; quique ex nullis fecit esse universa, Deus a prima creatura & conditione mundi omnium justorum, Adam, Abel, Seth, Enos, &c. & quod hic Deus in novissimis diebus, [...] per Prophetas suos ante promiserat, [...] Dominum [...] Jesum Christum, [...] quidem vocaturum Israel, secundo vero etiam gentes post perfidiam populi Israel. Hic Deus [...] & bonus pater domini nostri Jesu Christi, Legem & Prophetas & Evangelia ipse [...], qui & Apostolorum Deus est, & veteris & no­vi Testamenti: Tum deinde quia Jesus Christus ipse qui venit, ante omnem [...] ex patre est: Qui cum in omnium conditione [...] ministrasset (per ipsum enim omnia [...]) novissimis temporibus seipsum [...] homo factus est, incarnatus est cum Deus [...] & homo mansit quod Deus erat. Corpus as­sumpsit corpori nostro simile, eo solo [...], quod natum ex Virgine & Spiritu sancto est, & quoniam hic Jesus Christus natus & [...] est in veritate, & non per imaginem, communem hanc mortem vere [...] est; vere enim a [Page 62] morte resurrexit, & post resurrectionem conversatus cum [...] suis assumptus [...].

Tum deinde honore ac dignitate Patri ac Filio sociatum tradiderunt Spiritum sanctum, in hoc non jam manifeste discernitur, utrum [...] aut innatus. Sed inquirenda jam ista pro viribus sunt de Sacra Scriptura, & sagaci per­quisitione investiganda, sane quod iste Spiritus [...] unumquemque sanctorum vel Prophe­tarum, vel Apostolorum inspiravit, & non [...] Spiritus in veteribus, alius vero in his, qui in adventu Christi inspirati sunt, manifestissime in Ecclesiis praedicatur. Post haec jam, quod anima substantiam, vitamque habens [...], cum ex hoc mundo discesserit, & pro [...] meritis dispensabit, sive vitae aeternae ac [...] haereditate potitura, si hoc ei sua [...] praestiterint; sive igne aeterno ac [...] mancipanda, si in hoc eam scelerum culpa de­torserit. Sed & quia erit tempus resurnectio­nis mortuorum, cum corpus hoc quod in [...] seminatur surget in incorruptione, & quod seminatur in ignominia, surget in gloria. Origen. in Proaem. lib. [...].

Credis in Deum Patrem, Filium Christum, Spiritum Sanctum, remissionem peccatorum, & Vitam AEternam per Sanctam [...] Cyprian. Epist. 76. §. 6. p. 248.

[...] [Page 63] [...]. Gregor. [...].

§. 7. These are all the Creeds that I have met with, in which the Words are various, but generally recurring to the [...] Sense: It would be too tedious to translate them all; wherefore I shall sum them up in the Creed, commonly call'd the Apostles, and thereby shew their Congruity and Agreement, as also, what is in the Apostles Creed more than in these. Now the Articles of the Apostles Creed, that are to be found in the [...] Creeds, are as follows:

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Ma­ker of Heaven and Earth, and in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried—The Third Day he rose again from the Dead, ascended into Heaven, sitteth at the Right Hand of God the Father Almighty, from whence he shall come to judge both the Quick and the Dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Holy Catholick [...]—the Forgiveness of [Page 64] [...].

Here are now two Clauses of our [...], viz. He descended into [...] [...] The Communion of [...].

§. 8. If we would know how they were [...], we must first consider how the whole Creed was framed, which I conceive was done these two ways.

First, Some of the Articles were deri­ved down from the very Days of the Apo­stles.

Secondly, Others were afterwards added in opposition to Heresies, as they sprung up in the Church.

First, Some of the Articles were [...] down from the very Days of the [...], such were these, I believe in God the [...], (or as the Greek Creeds read it, in one [...] the Father, in opposition to the Polytheism of the Heathens) and in Jesus Christ his only [...] Son our Lord: I believe, in the Holy [...] the Resurrection of the Body, and the [...], lasting. For in the Days of the [...] as well [...] afterwards, it was the Practice at Bap­tism, to demand the baptized [...] assent [...] the fundamental Articles of the [...] Faith, us Philip did the [...]; [...] amongst which Fundamentals we may be [...] they reckoned the Doctrine of the [...] [Page 65] because they were baptized in the Name and Dedicated to the Service of the [...]; and that of the Unity of the Godhead, because, it was the great [...] and design of their Preach­ing to overturn the Pagans multiplicity of Deities; and that of the Resurrection of the [...], and the Life everlasting, because that was the Characteristick or Peculiar Doctrine of the [...] Religion, by which it was emi­nently [...] from other Sects and Opi­nions, and was the only Comfort and support of the Christians under their Sufferings and Martyrdoms, according to that of St. Paul, 1. [...]. 15. 29. If the Dead rise not at all, why are they then baptized for the Dead?

As for the other Articles of the Creed, viz. Such as are predicated of Christ, as, His being conceived of the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, &c. and those other two, The Holy Ca­tholick Church, and, The Forgiveness of Sins, I conceive them to be introduced the second way, viz. in opposition to Heresies, as they sprung up in the Church, as, was conceived by the Holy Ghost, in opposition to the [...], Ebio­nites, and Cerinthians, who taught that Christ was born in the ordinary and common way as other Men and Women are: Was born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, &c. in contradiction to the Docetae, Simonians, and others, who affirmed Christ to be a Man, not really, but only Phantastically, or in appear­ance; of which Hereticks [...] [...]. [...]. ad Smirn. p. 2. speaks; and [...] them his fore­mentioned Creed seems [Page 66] particularly to be levelled, The Remission of Sins, against the Basitidians, who held that not all Sins, but only involuntary ones would be remitted; or rather against the Novatians, who denied remission to the Lapsed: The Holy Ca­tholick Church, to exclude thereby all [...] and Schismaticks from being within the Pale thereof.

By these two ways then was the Creed com­posed, and by the latter hereof were those two Articles introduced, of Christ's Descent into Hell, and of the Communion of Saints. The Communion of Saints was brought in last of all. The Descent into Hell towards the [...] end of the Fourth Century, into the manner and occasion whereof, as also the intent and meaning of this Article, I had designed once to enquire, having made some Collections con­cerning it; but finding I should be then forc'd to pass the Limits of my prescribed time, I have thought it expedient to omit it, and to re­turn to those Points, from whence I have so long digressed.

CHAP. IV.

§. 1. HAving in the former Chapter made a little Digression, I now return to the matter that first occasioned it, which was, the Questions proposed to the Persons to be Baptized, unto which Adult Persons answer­ed for themselves, and Susceptors, or Godfa­thers, for Children. Of these Susceptors, or Sponsors, [...] speaks, where he thus adviseth the delay of Childrens Baptism, Quid [...] est sponsores etiam periculo ingeri, qui & ipsi per mortalitatem [...] promissiones suas pos­sunt, & proventu malae indolis falli? De Bap­tism. p. 603. What necessity is there that Sponsors should ex­pose themselves to danger, who through Death may [...] of the Performance of their Promises, or may be deceived by the wicked Disposition of those they promise for? Whether the use of Sponsors was from the Apostles Days, I cannot determine, unless the Nega­tive [Page 68] may be conjectured from Justin [...], Tertullian's Senior by Fisty Years, who when he enumerates the Method and Form of Bap­tism, says not one Word of Sponsors or God­fathers, as may be seen in his Second Apolo­gy, Pag. 93, 94.

§. 2. When these Questions and Answers were ended, then followed Exorcization, the manner and end whereof was this: The Mi­nister put his Hands on the Persons Head that was to be Baptized, and breathed in his Face, implying thereby the Exorcization, or expel­ling of the Devil or Evil Spirit from him, and a preparing of him for Baptism and Confir­mation, when and where the good and holy Spirit was conferred and given.

This Practice I find mentioned by Clemens Alexandrinus, who speaks of the Theodot. Epirom. p. 573. [...], or Exorcism before Bap­tism, but more fully by some of those Bishops that were present at that famous Council of Carthage, held Anno 258 in whose Determinations, Exorcization is required as previous and antecedent to Bap­tism. Thus in that of Crescens Bishop of Cir­ta, Censeo omnes Haereti­cos & Schismaticos qui ad Catholicam Ecclesi­am voluerint venire, non ante ingredi, nisi [...] & baptizati prius fuerint. Apud [...]. p. 445. I judge, saith he, that all Hereticks and Schismaticks, who would come to the Catholick Church, are not to be ad­mitted, [Page 69] till they have been first Exorcized and [...]. So also said Lucius Bishop of [...], Haereticos—censeo [...] & bapti­zandos esse. Ibid. [...]. 447. It is my Opinion that all Hereticks are to [...] exorcized and bapti­zed. And thus more clearly Vincentius Bishop of Thibaris, Haereticos scimus pejo­res esse quam ethnicos, si ergo conversi ad Domi­num venire voluerint, habemus utique regulam veritatis, quam Domi­nus praecepto divino mandavit Apostolis, di­cens: [...] in nomine meo, [...] imponite, Daemonia expellite; & alio loco, ite, docete gentes; baptizantes eos in nomine Patris & Fi­lii, & Spiritas sancti; ergo primo per manus impositionem in exorcis­mo; secundo per Bap­tismi regenerationem, tune possunt ad Christi pollicitationem venire: alius autem fieri censeo non debere. Ibid. p. 447. We know Hereticks to be worse than [...]. If therefore they would turn and come to the Lord, we have a Rule of Truth, which the Lord commanded the [...], saying; Go, in my [...], lay on Hands, and cast out Devils, (Mark 16. 17.) And in another place. Go and teach all Nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Fa­ther, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, (Matth. 28. 19.) Therefore first let them come by Impositi­on of Hands in Exorcism, and then by the Regenera­tion of Baptism, that so they may be made Partakers of Christ's Promises; but otherwise I think they cannot.

From this last Determination we may ob­serve the Reason of these Exorcisms, which arose from a misunderstanding of Christ's Va­ledictory Speech to his Disciples in Mark 16, 17, [Page 70] &c. In the 16th Verse of that Chapter [...] them to go forth preaching the Gospel, and to Baptize, which was to be [...], perpetual Ministration to the end of the World. Then he proceeds to tell them, v. 17, 18. that for the speedier propa­gation of the Gofpel, and that the Heathens [...] the more readily embrace it, he would confer on them, and the first Preachers [...] of, the Gift of working Miracles, that in [...] Name they should cast out Devils, and speak with new Tongues, as they most [...] did at the Day of Pentecost; That they should take up Serpents, as Paul did at [...] with­out receiving any Injury; and if they [...] any deadly thing, it should not hurt them; They should say Hands on the Sick, and they should recover; All which they did, as Eccle­siastical Histories [...] testifie; and St. Mark closes this Chapter, and his Gospel, with saying, that when the Apostles went [...] and Preached, the Lord [...] with them, and confirmed the Word with Signs following. So that these were extraordinary Actions [...] promised to the [...] and first [...] of the Faith of Christ.

But now it is evident from the foremention­ed Determination of Vincentius Bishop of [...], that in his Age, they apprehended them to be like Baptism, ordinary and standing Ad­ministrations in the Church, and so [...] in the Sense of the fore-cited Text, introdu­ced for an ordinary and constant Practice, that which was promised by Christ for an extraor­dinary [Page 71] and miraculous Gift. Christ promised his [...], the miraculous Power of casting Devils out of Bodies possessed by them: But these Fathers understood this Promise of the common Spiritual Effects of the Gospel, which, where it is believingly received, delivers that Person from the Desusion and Dominion of the Devil, under which we all naturally are, being by Nature Children of Wrath; and for the Declaration of this invisible Freedom and De­liverance, which they all thought to be in [...] Baptism, they made use of this external Sign of Exorcism just before Baptism, to de­clare thereby, that now the unclean Devil with all his Power and Tyranny was cast out of that Person, who was now going in and by [...], to be [...] to the Service of a [...] Master, viz. of the Blessed Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, God blessed for ever­more.

§. 3. When [...] was [...], then came Baptism its self; and the Person being ready to be Baptized, the Minister, by Prayer, [...] the Water for that use, because it was not any Water, but only Aqua [...]. Act. Con­cit. [...]. apud Cypri­an. p. 446. that Water, as Se­datus Bishop of Turbo writes, which is sanctified in the Church by the Pray­ers of the Minister, that [...] away Sin. It is true indeed, as Tertulli­an writes, Omnes Aquae de [...] That any Wa­ters [Page 72] [...] Sacramentum san­ctificationis consequun­tur [...], su­pervenit [...] statim [...] de Coelis & [...] Baptism. p. 598. may be applyed to that use, but then God must be first Invocated, and then the Holy Ghost presently comes down from Heaven, moves upon them, and [...] them. [...], saith Cyprian, [...] ergo mundari & sanctificari [...] a Sacerdote ut possit Baptismo suo peccata ho­minis qui baptizatur [...] Epist. 70. §. 2. p. [...]. The Wa­ter must be first [...] and sanctified by the Priest, that by its washing it may wash away the Sins of Man that is Baptized.

§. 4. The Water being Consecrated, the Person was then Baptized in the Name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. So writes Justin [...], [...]. Apolog. 2. p. 94. They are baptized in the Name of God the Father, Lord of all, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Ghost. For as Clemens [...] says, [...]. Theod. Epitom. p. 573. The baptized Per­son by this Dedication to the Blessed Trinity, is de­livered from the corrupt Trinity, viz. The Devil, the World, and the Flesh, and is now Sealed by the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. This Baptizing in the Name of Tri­nity, Origen terms, [...]. Comment. in Johan. Vol. 2. Tom. [...]. p. 124. The Invocation of the Adora­ble Trinity.

[Page 73] §. 5. As for the [...] of Water employ­ed in Baptism, that is, whether they [...] or dipped; to me it seems evident, that their [...] Custom was [...] or dip the whole Body. When St. Barnabas describes a baptized Person by his going down into the Water, [...]. [...]. Ca­thol. §. 9. p. 235. We go down, saith he, into the Water full of Sin and Filth, but we ascend with Fruit and Benefit in our Hearts. And so Ter­tullian represents bapti­zed Persons, as, Aquam [...] De Spectaculis, p. 583. entred into the Water. And as In aqua demissus. De Baptismo. p. 597. let down into the Wa­ter. And Justin Martyr describes the same [...]. Apolog. 2. p. 94. by being washed in Water; and calls the place where they are baptized [...], Ibidem ut supra. a washing-place, or a Bath; whence [...] [...] against the Baptism of Hereticks, condemns it as carnal, and as being upon that account no [...] Nihil differt a Judae­orum Baptismo, quo sic illi utuntur, & [...] tan­quum communi & vul­gari lavacro tantum sor­des laventur. Apud Cy­prian. Ep. 75. §. 11. p. 239. diffe­rent from the Baptism or washing of the Jews, which they used as a com­mon and ordinary Bath to wash away the [...] of their Bodies.

[Page 74] §. 6. But though Immersion was their usual Custom, yet Perfusion or Sprinkling was not accounted unlawful; but in cases of necessity that was used, as in Clinic Baptism, which was, when sick Persons, whose Deaths they appre­hended, were Baptized in their Beds, as [...] [...]. Cornel. ad [...]. apud Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 43. p. 244. being sick, and [...] Death, as was [...], was Baptized in his [...] Perfusion, or, Pouring on of Water.

It is true indeed, this Baptism was not gene­rally esteemed as perfect, as the more solemn Baptism; for which Rea­son it was a Custom in some Churches, not to advance any to Clerical Orders, who had been [...] Baptized; an Instance whereof we have in the Church of Rome, where the Ordination of Novatian to be a Presby­ter, was [...]. Ex [...]. Cornel. ad. Fabi­um Antioch apud Eu­seb. lib. 6. cap. 43. p. 245. opposed by all the Clergy, and by many of the [...], as unlawful, be­cause of his Clinic Perfu­sion. But yet that they held it not altogether or absolutely unlawful to be done, appears from that on the Intreaties of the Bishop, they consented that he should be or­dained, as he accordingly was: And Cyprian in a set Discourse on this Subject, declares, that he thought this Baptism to be as perfect and [Page 75] [...], as that done more solemnly by Immersi­on, for when one Magnus writ to him, [...] his Opinion, whether those were [...] baptized, who, through their [...], were [...], but only perfused or aspers'd, he [...].

And a little [...] in the same Epistle, the said Father argues the Validity of Baptizing by Sprinkling, because such as had been so Bapti­zed, were never Baptized again.

So that Sprinkling or Perfusion was [...] valid, and seems to be always used in Cases of Necessity, as Immersion was in their ordi­nary Publick Baptism, when as Tertullian writes, Ter mergitamur. De Coron. Milit. p. 336. they dipped the Baptized Person three times under Water, that is, dipping him once at the naming of each Person of the Holy Tri­nity. Nec semel, sed ter, ad singula nomina in perso­nas singulas tingimur. Advers. [...]. p. 229. We are, says the foresaid Father, dipped at the naming of each Person.

§. 7. When Baptism was over, the Person that had been then Baptized, as Justin Martyr [Page 79] relates it, [...]. Apolog. 2. p. 97. was [...] into the number of the Faithful, who then sent up [...] Publick Prayers to God for all Men, for themselves, and for him that had been Baptized. After which the Bapti­zed Person, as the said Father goes on to write, was admitted to receive the other Sacrament of the Lord's Supper with the rest of the Faithful. So that in Justin. Martyr's Age, at least in his [...] at that Season, it seems very probable that there followed only Prayers after Baptism: But not long after his time, we meet with ma­ny other Ceremonies then used, which because they have some Relation to our present Con­troversies, I shall mention in the following Chapter.

CHAP. V.

§. 1. AS for those Rites that succeeded Bap­tism, and which we find first men­tioned in Tertullian, they were in number three, viz. Vnction, Signation, and Imposition of Hands; or if the Reader pleases, he may call them all by the Name of Confirmation.

Touching Unction or Chrismation, [...] thus writes, Egressi de lavacro pe­rungimur benedicta Un­ctione—in nobis carna­liter currit [...]. sed spiritualiter proficit. De Baptism. p. 599, 600. As soon as we are baptized, we are [...] with the bles­sed Vnction—An ex­ternal carnal Vnction is poured upon us, but it spi­ritually advantages. And to the same purpose says his Follower Cyprian, Ungi quoque necesse est eum, baptizatus sit, ut accepto Chrismate, id est, Unctione, esse Un­ctus Dei, & habere in se gratiam Christi possit. Epist. 70. §. 3. p. 211. He that is baptized must of necessity be anointed, that having received the [...] or Vnction, he may be the Anointed of God, and have him in the Grace of Christ.

[Page 81] §. 2. Under this Crismation was comprehend­ed Signation, or the Signing of the Baptized Person with the Sign of the Cross, which the Minister performed with this [...] or [...]. So saith [...], [...]. The Flesh is [...], that the Soul may be [...]. And then it follows, The Flesh [...] Signed, that the Soul may be fortified. This Sign was made in the Fore­head, as Cyprian observes, than King [...] for invading the Priest's Office, Leprae [...] in fronte maculatus [...], [...] parte corporis [...] offenso Domino, ubi sig­nantur qui Dominum [...]. De Unit. Eccles. § 16. p. 301. was smit with a [...] on his Forehead, and mark'd by an offended God [...] that place where those are mark'd whom God Receives. Hence he calls a Christians Fore­head; Frons cum Signo. De Lapsis, § 1. p. 277. A Signed Fore­head; and thus elegant­ly exhorts the People of [...] in Allusion hereunto, to take unto themselves the whole Armour of God, menti­oned [...] 6. [...]. Accipiamus quoque ad [...] capitis [...], ut [...] aures, ne [...]. To take [...] themselves for a Covering for their Head, the [...] of Salvation, that their Ears might be fortified against their [...], that their Eyes might be strengthned against the beholding of [Page 82] [...] Images, that their Forehead might [...], that so the Sign of God might be [...] inviolable. So Pontius speaks of certain Con­fessors, who by the [...] of their T or men­tors Confessores frontium notatarum secunda in­scriptione signatos. In Vita Cypriani. had their Foreheads marked a Second Time.

It is observed by Ter­tullian, that the Devil strives to be God's Ape, imitating the Acts of his Worship and Service, and prescribing the fame to his Deluded Ado­rers, as particularly in the Idolatrous Services of [...] as, Tingit & ipse quos­dam, utique credentes & fideles suos: expiationem delictorum de lavacro re­promittit; & sic initiat [...], signat illic in frontibus milites suos. De Praescript. advers. Haeret. p. 87. whose Priests baptized some as his Be­lieving and Faithful Ser­vants, and Sign'd them in their Foreheads as his [...].

§. 3. To [...] Imposition of Hands, or that which most properly we term Confirmation, which was, the Minister [...] his Hands on the Head of the Party Baptized; A­nointed and Signed, and prayed that the Holy Ghost would be pleased to descend, and [...] upon him: This immediately followed Signa­tion, as that did Unction. So [...] [...], Caro ungitur, ut a­nima [...]: caro [...], ut & [...] muniatur; caro manus [...], ut & anima spiritu [...]. De [...] p. 31. The Flesh is [...] that the Soul may be [...]; the Flesh is Sign­ed, that the [...] [Page 83] [...]. The Flesh is [...] with the [...] of [...] that the Soul may be [...] the Spirit. And when [...] [...] manus [...], per [...] advocans & invitans Spi­ritum sanctum. De Bap­tism. p. 600. is finished, [...] Hands are imposed, with Prayers invocating and inviting the Holy [...].

§. [...]. Having thus briefly shewn what their Additional Acts to Baptism were, it will in the [...] place be necessary to enquire into the [...] or Reasons of their usage of them; [...] for Unction: This was taken from the [...] Rites, [...] it was employed in the Instalment of [...] High Priest, to denote his [...] to the Service of God, as Tertullian writes; De [...] Discipli­na, quâ ungi [...] de [...] in Sacerdotio sole­bant, ex quo Aaron à Moyse [...]. De Baptism. p. 660. This Vnction is [...] the Jewish Dispen­sation, wherein the High Priest was anointed with [...] of an Horn, as Aaron was by Moses. So now in the times of the Gospel, all Christians being, as Tertullian says, [...] & [...] Sa­cerdotes sumus? [...] est, Regnum quo (que) nos & Sacerdotes Deo & [...] fecit. [...]. ad Castitat. p. 457. [...] to God and the [...]. They were in [...] thereunto [...] by the a [...] of Oyl to their [...]; [...], os the [...] Father expresses it, Caro ungitur, ut [...]. De [...]. Carnis. p. 31. The Flesh is anointed, [...] Soul may be conse­crated.

[Page 84] From the Spiritual Unction also of God the Son by God the Father, for which reason he was called Christ, or Anointed, they pleaded for their [...] and external Unction, as [...] saith, Christus dictur à [...] quod est unctio, quae Domino nomen ac­comodavit, facta Spiri­tualis, quia Spiritus unctus est à Deo patre, [...] in Actis: Collecti sunt enimvero in [...] civitate adversus [...] filium [...] quem [...]: Sic & in nobis [...], sed spiritualiter proficit. De Bapt. p. [...]. Jesus is called Christ from being anointed, which Vnction was Spiritual, be­cause whilst only a Spirit, he was anointed by the Fa­ther, as in the Acts. They are gathered [...] this City against thy Holy Son, whom thou hast [...]; but our [...] is Carnal, though it spiri­tually profits.

Cyprian adds this fur­ther Reason for this Cu­stom of [...], viz. Ungi quoque necesse est eum, qui [...], ut accepto [...], id est, Unctione, esse [...] Dei, & habere in se gratiam [...]. Epist. 70. § 3. p. 211. He that is Baptized, must of necessity receive the [...], or [...], that so he may be the [...] of God, and [...] in him the Gract of Christ.

§. 5. As for Signation, or the Signing with the Sign of the Cross: By this was [...]. That they were to be [...] and valiant in the Cause of Christ, having their Hearts [...] and [...], as [...] observes, Caro signatur, [...] muniatur. De [...]. Carnis. p. 31. The [...] is Sign'd, [...] the [...] may be [...]. Hence this Sign was [Page 85] made on an open, visible place, on their [...] which is the Seat of [...] and [...], implying thereby, that they [...] and constantly to fight like good Soldiers under the Cross of Christ; whence [...] says, that as the Christians, so the [...] of [...] Signat illic in fronti­bus [...] suos. [...] adv. Haeret. p. 87. Sign'd the Foreheads of their Sol­diers.

§. 6. As for the very Act of Confirmation, or Imposition of Hands, that was practised from an Opinion of the Imperfection of [...], that that did not convey the Graces of the Holy Spirit, but only prepared Persons for the reception of them, when they should be actually bestown in the Confirmation, for as [...] says, Non quod in aquis Spiritum Sanctum con­sequamur, sed in aqua [...] sub [...]. De [...] p. [...]. We do not receive the Holy Ghost­in Baptism, but-being [...] therein by the [...], ( [...] to the An­gel that mov'd upon the [...] at [...]) we are [...] prepared for the Holy Ghost. And, Tunc ille [...] super [...] & benedicta corpo­ra libens à [...]. Ibid. p. 600. When our Bodies, are [...] and blessed, then that most Ho­ly Spirit willingly descends from the Father. And Caro manus [...] adumbratut, ut & anima spiritu illumine­tur. De [...]. [...], p. 31. at the Imposition of Hands, the Soul is illumi­nated by the Spirit.

[Page 86] Cyprian in his 74th Epistle, §. 6, 7, 8, [...] somewhat largely of this Custom of Confirmation; from whence I have observed this following [...] of it. Non per manus impo­sitionem quis nascitur, quando accipit Spiritum Sanctum, sed in baptis­mo, ut Spiritum jam na­tus accipiat, sicut in pri­mo [...] Adam [...]. Ante enim [...] eum [...], & tunc [...] in faciem ejus flatum vitae, nec [...] potest accipi [...], [...] prius [...] qui [...] §. 8. p. 230. Every one in a state of Heathenism and Idolatry was considered as dead; wherefore when any one came from that state to the Christian Faith, he was said to live; which Life may be compared to a natural Life: As to compleat a Natural Life; there must be a Body [...] a Soul, so must the same be imagin'd in a [...] Life: As in the first Creation, God first [...] the Body of Man, and then breathed [...] him the Breath of Life; first made a fit [...] to receive the Soul, before the Soul its self [...] framed: So in the second Creation, God first pre­pares the Man, before he gives his Spirit; [...] first makes the Man a fit Temple for the Holy Ghost, before he gives the Holy Ghost. Now the [...] by which a Man is prepared and [...], is by Baptism, by which he is cleansed and purged from Sin, and fitted for the Reception of the Spirit of God, in which respect he is to be regarded as a Body: The way by which the Holy Ghost is in­fused, which as a living Soul must actuate and direct that prepared Body, is by Prayer and Im­position of Hands, or by Confirmation. For as [Page 87] Cyprian writes in the same place, Peccata [...], & [...] sanctifi­care aqua [...] non po­test, [...] habeat & Spi­ritum sanctum, § 7. p. 230. Baptism a­lone cannot purge away. Sins, or sanctifie a Man, unless he has also the Holy Ghost. That is, has re­ceived Confirmation, as it is frequently styl'd in Cyprian's Epistles. In the Decrees of the Council of Carthage, and in the Letter of Cornelius to Fabius Bishop of Antioch, extant in Eusebius, Lib. 6. cap. 43. p. 244. This being the Regeneration of the Spirit, and Baptism the Regeneration of Wa­ter, both which our Saviour affirmed to be ne­cessary, when he said unto [...], John 3. 5. Except a Man be born of Water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. As Nemesianus Bishop of Thubunis saith, one is not sufficient without the other, Neque [...] sine aqua onerari porest, neque aqua sine Spiritu—utioque Sacra­mento debere [...] in Ecclesia Catholica. Act. Concil. [...]. [...] Cyprian. p. 444. the Spirit cannot [...] without Water, nor the Water without the Spi­rit. Therefore it was necessary to be regenera­ted by both Sacraments, viz. By Baptism and by Confirmation. Where­fore, as Cyprian exhorts, we must pray, Ut qui adhuc sunt prima [...], incipiant [...] coelestes, ex Aqua & Spiritu nati. De [...]. Dominic. § 12. [...]. That those who are yet Earthly, may become Heavenly, and be born of the Water and the Spirit. That is, be Baptized and Confirm­ed, [Page 88] which were the external Signs of [...] from Sin, [...] bestowing Grace, both [...] necessary to make a compleat [...]; for as the same Father writes, [...] enim demum [...], & esse [...] Dei possunt, si Sacra­mento utroque nascan­tur, cum scriptum sit, [...] quis natus fuerit ex Aqua & Spiritu, non [...] introire in regnum Dei. Epist. 62. § 1. p. 216. Then are [...] truly sanctified, and fully be­come the Sons of God, when they are regenerated with both Sacraments, Baptism and [...]; according as it is written, Except a Man be born of Water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter in­to the Kingdom of God. So that though a [...] was Baptized, yet they accounted his Christianity incomplete and imperfect till he was also confirmed: For which reason [...] objects against [...], that he [...]. [...] F. b. Antioch. [...] Euseb. lib. 6. cap. [...]. p. 244. could scarcely acknowledge him a complete Christian, be­cause being baptized in his Bed, he [...] not received Confirmation, or the Ad­ditionary Rituals to Bap­tism, nor did he ever [...] receive them.

Thus you see the Rea­sons they produced for this Usage, to fortifie which, they added some Examples of the Holy Writ, [...] Tertullian [...] to this purpose the Example of Jacob [Page 89] [...] Genesis, who put his Hands on the [...] nepotes suos ex Joseph Esrem & Manassem. Ia­cob [...] inipositis & [...] manibus [...]. De [...]. p. 600. Heads of Ephraim and Manaffes, and blessed them. And Cyprian urges that in­stance of the Apostles, Acts 8. 15. 17. where, after several of the [...] had been baptized by Philip, Peter and James conferred the Holy Ghost on them by Imposition of Hands, Quia legitimum & ecclesiasticum, baptis­mum consecuti fuerant, [...] eos ultra non oportebat: Sed tantum­modo quod deerat id a Petro & Johanne [...] ut oratione [...] eis habita, & manu imposi­ta, invocaretur & [...] super eos Spiritus sanctus. Quod nunc quoque apud [...] geri­tur, ut qui in [...] baptizantur, [...] Ecclesiae offerantur, & per nostram [...] ac manus [...] Spiritum Sanctum con­sequantur, & [...]. Epist. 73. § 8. p. 230. They had no need again to be Baptized, saith he, having been baptized by [...], but only what was [...] or lacking, was performed by Peter and John, which was, that by Prayer, and Imposition of Hands, the Holy Ghost should be conferred on them, which Custom, as he there adds, is now ob­served by us, that those who are Baptized in the Church, are offered to the Governours thereof; by whose Prayer and Imposi­tion of Hands, they re­ceive the Holy Ghost, and are compleated with the Lord's Seal. To this Practice also Firmilian refers that action of St. Paul, in Acts 19. 5. Where on those who had been only Baptized by [Page 90] Eos qui ab Johanne baptizati fuerint, [...] missus esset [...] Do­mino Spiritus Sanctus baptizavit denuoSpiritu­ali [...], & sic eis [...] imposuit, ut ac­ciperent [...] san­ctum. Apud Cyprian Epist. 75. § 7. p. 237. John's Baptism, [...] the Holy Ghost by Imposition of Hands, And Cyprian applies to Con­firmation the Descent of the Holy Ghost, [...] 10. 44. Invenimus hoc esse ab Apostolis custoditum, ut [...] domo CorneliiCen­turionis super Ethnicos qui illic aderant, Fidei calore ferventes, descen­disserSpiritusSanctus, &c. Epist. 75. § 1. p. 216. in miraculous [...] and Gifts of Tongues on Cornelius and his Friends, though they were not then Bapti­zed.

So much now for the Reasons of Confirmati­on; all that I shall do more, is to add two or three Observations concerning it.

§. 7. The first whereof is, That Confirma­tion was an immediate Consequent of Baptism; it was not deferred till many Years after, but was presently administred, as Tertullian writes, Egressi de lavacro pe­rungimur benedicta Un­ctione— [...] ma­nus imponitur. De [...]. p. 599. p. 600. As soon as we come out of the Baptismal Laver, we are anointed, and then we are confirmed. Else if they had not been so soon confirmed, they must, notwithstanding their Baptism, accord­ing to their Opinions, as it hath been before demonstrated, have continued graceless, with­out the Adorning Gifts of the Holy Spirit, a long time, even as long as their Confirmation [Page 91] was delayed, which to imagine concerning them is unreasonable and uncharitable.

Indeed in case of Necessity, when they had neither time nor [...] it was waved, [...] Immersion was with respect to Baptism; but yet if the sick Person happened to recover, he was then to be confirmed, as is evident from the Case of Novatian, whom [...] accuses, because [...]. Apud Euseb. lib. 6. cap. [...]. p. 244. that when he was restored to his Health again, he was not confirmed according to the Canon of the Church. But otherwise [...] immediately, or [...] the same time followed [...].

§. 8. From the former Observation there fol­lows this, that not only the Bishop, but also his Presbyters or Curates did by his [...], and in his Absence confirm: For if Confirmation always succeeded Baptism, then whenever Bap­tism was, there was also Confirmation. Now [...] for Baptism, we may reasonably suppose, that in a Church there were some fit to be [...] at least once a year; and sometimes it might happen that either the See was [...], or the Bishop through Persecution might be [...] from his Flock so long a time, as Cy­prian was double the space; and if so, must no Persons have been Baptized within that time by reason of the Bishop's unavoidable Absence? That seems a little hard, since, as was said be­fore, [Page 92] they esteemed Baptism and Confirmation necessary to Salvation, and to deprive [...] Souls of Salvation, that died within that [...], because they had not been confirmed by [...] Bishop, which was impossible, would be too severe and uncharitable.

Besides, that Presbyters did Baptize, we have proved already; and since Confirmation was done at the same time with Baptism, it is very reasonable to conclude, that he that did the one, performed the other also.

But, that Presbyters did confirm, will ap­pear most evidently from this very Considera­tion, viz. That the Imposition of Hands [...] Persons just after Baptism, which we call Con­firmation, and the Imposition of Hands at the [...] of Offenders, which we call [...], was one and the self same thing, Con­firmation and Absolution being [...] that we make use of, to distinguish the [...] times of the Performances of the [...] or Ceremony. The: Thing or [...] was not different, Imposition of Hands was used both at one and [...] other, [...] the same Mystical Signification, viz. The Conferring [...] the Holy Ghost and his Graces on that [...]: on whom [...] were imposed. Only now to distinguish the time of this [...] of Hands, whether after Baptism, or at the [...] of Offenders; these two Terms of Con­firmation and [...] are used by us, the former to signifie that used just after Baptism, and the latter, that [...] was employed at [...].

[Page 93] This now, viz. That Confirmation and [...] were one and the self same thing, I [...] presently prove: And then in the next [...] I shall shew, that with the Bishop, and sometimes without the Bishop, Presbyters did Absolve by Imposition of Hands. And if these [...] Points can be clearly manifested, it will [...] follow that Presbyters did confirm; for if there was no difference between Con­firmation and Absolution, but only with respect to time; and [...] Presbyters at one time, viz. at Absolution conferred the Holy Ghost by Imposition of Hands, it is very unreasonable to deprive them of the same Power at the other time, which was at Confirmation. If Presby­ters could at one Season bestow the Holy Spi­rit, it is very probable that they could do the same at the other also.

Now as to the first Point, viz. That there was no difference between Confirmation and Absolution, but that they were one and the self same thing; This will appear most evident­ly from the consideration of that famous Con­troversie, touching the Validity of Hereticks Baptism, between Stephen Bishop of Rome, and Cyprian Bishop of Carthage: or rather be­tween the Churches of Europe and Africa, the Sum whereof was this, Stephen Bishop of Rome [...], That those who were baptized by Hereticks, and came over to the Catholick Church, should be received only by Imposition of Hands. Cyprian Bishop of Carthage con­tended, that besides Imposition of Hands, they should also be baptized, unless that they had been before baptiz'd by the Orthodox, in [Page 94] which Case Imposition of Hands should be e­steemed sufficient. Now this Imposition of Hands they sometimes term that which we [...] Confirmation, and sometimes Absolution, [...] using either of those Expressions, and indifferently applying them, according [...] they pleased, in one place giving it the Title of Confirmation, and in another that of Ab­solution, which that they did, I shall endeavour to evince, by shewing;

First, That they called this Imposition of Hands Confirmation.

Secondly, That they called it Absolution.

First, I shall prove that they called it Con­firmation; unto which end let us consider these following [...], [...] qui sint foris ex­tra Ecclesiam tincti—quando ad [...], atque ad Ecclesiam quae una est, venerint, baptizari [...], [...] quod [...] sit eis manum [...] ad accipiendum Spi­ritum Sanctum, nisi ac­crpiant & Ecclesiae [...]. [...] enim de­mum [...] sanctificari & esse [...] Dei possunt, [...] Sacramento utroque [...], cum scriptum [...], nisi quis natus [...] ex Aqua & Spiritu non [...] in reg­num [...]. Epist. 72. § [...] p. 216. Those, says Cyprian, which are baptized with­out the Church, when they come unto us, and [...] the Church which is [...] one, they are to be bapti­zed, because the Impositi­on of Hands by Confirma­tion, is not sufficient with­out Baptism, for then they are fully sanctified, and be­come the Sons of God, when they are born [...] both Sacraments, [...] as it is written, [...] a Man be born again of the Water and of the Spi­rit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. To the same effect says [...] Bishop of [...], [Page 95] Male sibi quidam in­terpretantur, ut [...] quod per manus [...] Spiritum sanctum [...], & sic recipi­antur, cum manifestum sit utroque Sacramento debere eos renasci in Ecclesia Catholica. Act-Concil. [...]. apud Cy­prian. p. 444. Those [...] greatly [...], who affirm that they ought only to be confirmed by Imposition of Hands, and so to be received, since it is, manifest they must be [...] with both Sa­craments in the Catholick Church. And Secundinus Bishop of Carpis deter­mined, that Super filios alienos, &c Soboles Antichristi [...] Sanctum per ma­nus impositionem [...] non posse de­scendere. Act. Concil. Carthag. apud Cyprian. p. 446. on Here­ticks who are the Seed of Antichrist, the Holy Ghost cannot be conferred by Imposition of Hands alone in Confirmation.

Stephen pleaded on his side, Sed in multum, in­quit, proficit nomen Christi ad fidem & bap­tismi Sanctificationem ut quicunque & ubicunque in nomine Christi bap­tizatus fuerit, [...] gratiam Chri­sti, quando huic Ioco breviter occurri possit, & [...], quoniam si in [...] Christi valuit foris baptisma ad hominem purgandom, in [...] Christi nomine valere illic potuit & manus [...] ad accipiendum Spiritum Sanctum. Apud Cyprian Epist. 75. § 16. p. 240. That [...] very Name of Christ was so advanta­gious to Faith and the San­ctification [...] Baptism, that in what place soever any one was baptized in that Name, he immediately ob­tained the Grace of Christ. But unto this Firmilian briefly replies, That if the Baptism of Hereticks, because done in the Name of Christ, was sufficient to purge away Sins, why was not Confirmation, that was performed in the Name of the same Christ, sufficient to bestow the Holy [...]? And therefore it is thus eagerly argued [Page 96] by Cyprian, Qui Haereticis sive Schismaticis [...], [...] nobis habeant [...] Spiritum San­ctum, an [...]? Si­habent, cur illic [...], quando ad nos veni­unt, manus imponitur ad [...] Spiritum [...], cum jam uti (que) [...] acceptus sit ubi si fuit, dari potuit? Si au­tem [...] cuncti Haeretici & Schismarici non ha­bent Spiritum Sanctum, & ideo apud nos manus imponitur, ut hic accipi­atur, quod illic nec [...], nec dari potest: manife­slum est nec remissionem peccatorum dari [...] eos posse, quos [...] Spiri­tum sanctum non habere. Epist. 76. § 8. p. 249. Why [...] they, saith he, (meaning Stephen and his Party, who received Hereticks by Imposition of Hands only) patronize Hereticks and Schismaticks, let them answer us, have they the Holy Ghost, or have they not? If they have, why then do they lay Hands on those that are bapti­zed by them, when they ceme over to us, to bestow on them the Holy Ghost, when they had received him before; for if he was there, they could confer him? But if Hereticks and [...] have not the Spirit of God, and therefore we lay Hands on them in Confirmation, that they may here receive, what Hereticks neither have, nor can give; it is manifest, that since they have not the Holy Ghost, they cannot give remissi­on of Sins. That is, since they cannot Confirm­therefore they cannot Baptize. So that from these and Cyprian. Epist. 73. § 8. p. 270. & § 19. p. 224. E­pist. 74. § 6, 7, 8. p. 230. [...] apud Cyprian. Epist. 75. § 7. p. 237. & § 11. p. 239. some other Passages, which to avoid tediousness I omit; it is clear, that both Stephen and Cyprian understood by Imposition of Hands, that which we now call [...].

[Page 97] Secondly, I now come to shew, that they also termed it Absolution, as will appear from these following Instan­ces. Et dicunt se in hoc ve­terem consuetudinem se­qui, quando apud veteres Haereseos & Schismatum prima adhuc fuerint initia, ut hi illic essent, qui de Ec­clesia recedebant, & hic baptizati prius fuerant: quos tamen ad Ecclesiam revertentes, & poenitenti­am agentes, necesse non erat baptizare, quod nos quoque hodie observamus, ut quos constet hic bapti­zatos esse, & à nobis ad Haereticos tranfisse, si postmodum peccato suo cognito & errore digesto, ad veritatem et matricem redeant, satis sit in poeni­tentiam manum impone­re: ut quia ovis jam fue­rat, hanc ovem abaliena­tam & errabundam in ovi­le suum pastor recipiat. Si autem qui ab Haereticis venit, baptizatus in Eccle­sia prius non fuit, sed alie­nus in totum & profanus venit: baptizandus est, ut ovis fiat, quia una est aqua in Ecclesia sancta quae o­ves faciat. Epist. 71. § 2. p. 214. They (says Cyprian, meaning Stephen and his Followers) urge, that in what they do, they follow the old Custom, that was used by the Ancients when Heresies and Schisms first began, when those that went over to them, first were in the Church, and baptized therein, who when they re­turned again to the Church, and did Penance, were not forced to be baptized. But this, says he, makes no­thing against us, for we now observe the very same; Those who were baptized here, and from us went o­ver to the Hereticks. if afterwards being sensible of their Error they return to the Church, we only ab­solve them by the Impositi­on of Hands, because once they were Sheep, and as wandring and straying Sheep the Shepherd receives them into his Flock; but if those that come from He­reticks were not first baptized in the Church, they are to be baptized, that they may become Sheep; for there is but one Holy Water in the Church, that makes Sheep.

[Page 98] But that this Imposition of Hands was the same with Absolution, will most evidently ap­pear from the Opinion or Determination of Stephen, and from Cyprian's Answer thereunto.

Stephen's Opinion or Determination was Si quis ergo à qua­cunque Haeresi venerit ad nos, nihil innovetur, nisi quod traditum est, ut ma­nus illi [...] in poe­nitentiam. Apud Cyprian. Epist. 74. § 1. p. 229. If any shall from any Heresie come unto us, let nothing be innovated or introduced besides the old Tradition, which is, that Hands be imposed on him as a Penitent. Now un­to that part of this Decree which asserts the Reception of Hereticks only by Absolution, or the Imposition of Hands in Penance to be a Tradition, descended down from their Pre­decessors. Cyprian re­plies, Si ergo autem evan­gelio praecipitur, aut in Apostolorum Epistolis, aut Actibus continetur, ut à quacunque Haeresi veni­entes non baptizentur, sed tantum manus illis impo­natur in Poenitentiam, ob­servetur haec divina & san­cta traditio. Ibid. § 2. p. 229. That he would observe it as a Divine and Holy Tradition, if it were either commanded in the Gospel, and the Epistles of the Apostles, or contained in the Acts, that those who came from Hereticks should not be baptized, but only Hands imposed on them for Penance, or, as Penitents; but that for his part, Retro nusquam omni­no praeceptum eft, neque [...], ut Heretico tantum manus in poeniten­tiam imponatur, & sic ei communicetur. Ibid. § 4. p. 229. he never found it either comman­ded or written, that on an Heretick Hands should be only imposed for Penance, and so he should be admit­ted to Communion Where­fore [Page 99] he on his side concludes and determins, Observetur itaque à nobis & tenetur—ut om­nes qui ex quacunque Hae­resi ad Ecclesiam conver­tuntur, Ecclesiae unico le­gitimo baptismo bapti­zantur, exceptis his qui baptizati in Ecclesia prius fuerant, & sic ad Haereticos transierant, hos enim o­portet, cum redeant, acta poenitentia per manus im­positionem solam recipi; & in ovile, unde errave­rant, à Pastore restitui. I­bidem § 16. p. 232. Let it therefore be ob­serv'd, and held by us, that all who from any Herefie are converted to the Church, be baptized with the one lawful Baptism of the Church, except those who were formerly baptized in the Church, who when they return, are to be received by the alone Imposition of Hands after Penance into the Flock, from whence they have strayed.

So that these Instances do as clearly prove, that they meant by their Imposition of Hands, Absolution, as the former Instances do, that they meant Confirmation, and both of them together plainly shew and evidence Confirma­tion and Absolution to be the very self-same thing; for since they promiscuously used and indifferently applyed these Terms, and that very thing, which in some Places they express by Confirmation, in others they call Absoluti­on, it necessarily follows, that there can be no essential or specifical difference between them, but that they are of a like numerical Identity or Sameness. But,

Secondly, I now come in the next place to demonstrate, that together with the Bishop, and sometimes without the Bishop, Presbyters did absolve by Imposition of Hands, That they did it, together with the Bishop, several places of Cyprian abundantly prove. Offenders, [Page 100] saith he, Per impositionem ma­nus Episcopi & Cleri jus communicationis accipi­unt. Epist. 10. § 2. p. 30. Receive the right of Communion by the Imposition of Hands of the Bishop, and of his Clergy. And, Nec ad communicati­tion em venire quis possit, nisi prius illi & ab Episco­po & Clero manus fuit imposita. Ep. 12. § 1. p. 37. No Cri­minal can be admitted to Communion, unless the Bi­shop and Clergy have im­posed Hands on him. And that some times they did it without the Bishop (always understanding his leave and permissi­on) is apparent from the Example of Serapion, who being out of the Churches Peace, and ap­proaching the hour of Dissolution, [...]. Ex Epist. Alexand. apud Eu­seb. lib. 6. cap. 44. p. 246. sent for one of the Presbyters to Absolve him, which the Presbyter did, according to the Order of the Bishop, who had before given his Permission unto the Pres­byters to absolve those who were in danger of Death. And as the Bishop of Alexandria gave his Presbyters this Power, so likewise did Cyprian Bishop of Carthage, who when he was in Ex­ile, order'd his Clergy Si premi infirmitate aliqua & periculo coepe­rint, exomologesi facta, & manu eis a vobis in poeni­tentiam imposita. Epist. 14. § 1. p. 41. to confess and absolve by Imposition of Hands, those who were in danger of Death. And Si incommodo aliquo infirmitatis periculo occu­pati fuerint, non expecta­ta praesentia nostra apud Presbyterum quemcunque praesentem—Exomologe­sin facere delicti sui pos­sint; ut manu eis in poeni­tentiam imposita, veniant ad Dominum cum pace. Epist. 13. § 1. p. 39. If any were in such condition, they should not expect his Presence, but betake them­selves to the first Presbyter [Page 101] they could find, who should receive their Confession, and absolve them by Imposition of Hands. So that it is evident that Presbyters, even without the Bishop, did absolve Offenders, and formally receive them into the Churches Peace by Imposition of Hands.

Now then, If the Imposition of Hands on Persons just after Baptism, and the Imposition of Hands at the Restitution of Offenders was one and the self-same thing; and if Presbyters had Power and Authority to perform the lat­ter, I see no reason why we should abridge them of the former; both the one and the other was Confirmation; and if Presbyters could confirm at one time, why should we doubt of their Right and Ability to perform it another time? If it was lawful for them to impose Hands on one occasion, it was as law­ful for them to do it on another.

§ 9. From the precedent Observation of the Identity of that which we now distinguish by the Names of Confirmation and Absolution, it necessarily results, that Confirmation was not like Baptism, only once performed, but on many Persons frequently reiterated: All Persons after Baptism were confirmed, that is, by the Imposition of Hands and Prayer, the Holy Ghost was beseeched to descend upon them, and so to fortifie them by his Heavenly Grace, as that they might couragiously perse­vere in their Christian Warfare to their Lives [Page 102] end; but if it should so happen, as oftentimes it did, that any so confirmed should fall from the Christian Faith, and be for a time exclu­ded the Churches Peace, when they were again admitted, Hands were again imposed on them, and the Holy Spirit again Invocated, to strengthen them with his Almighty Grace, by which they might be upheld to the Day of Sal­vation; and so as often as any Man fell, and was restored to the Churches Communion, so often was he confirmed, and the Holy Ghost entreated more firmly to establish and settle him.

CHAP. VI.

§ 1: THE first of the Christian Sacra­ments having been so largely dis­cussed, I now come to treat of the other, viz. The Lords Supper; in the handling of which I shall enquire into these three things: 1. The Time. 2. The Person. And, 3. The manner thereof.

First, As for the time of its Celebration: In general, it was at the conclusion of their Solemn Services, as Ju­stin Martyr writes, Apolog. 2. pag. 97. that after they had read, sung, preached and prayed, then they proceeded to the Administration of the Eucharist. But as for the particular part of the Day, that seems to have been according to the Circumstances and Customs of every Church. In Tertullian's Age and Country they re­ceived it In tempore victûs. De Coron. Milit. p. 337. at Supper­time; from which late Assembling, it is probable, that the Heathens took occasion to accuse them of putting out the Lights, and promiscuously mingling one with another. Which Accusation may be read at large in Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Try­phon, in Minutius Felix, and the Apologies of Tertullian and Athenagoras. But whether this was then their constant Season in times of Peace, I know not; this is certain, that in times of Persecution they laid hold on any Sea­son or Opportunity for the enjoying of this Sacred Ordinance: whence Tertullian tells us [Page 104] of their Eucharistiae Sacra­mentum etiam anteluca­nis coetibus. De Coron. Mi­lit. p. 338. receiving the Eucharist in their Antelu­can Assemblies, or, in their Assemblies before day. And Pliny reports, that in his time the Chri­stians Ante lucem conveni­re—seque Sacramento obstringere. Epist. ad Tra­jan. were wont to meet together before it was light, and to bind themselves by a Sacrament.

Cyprian writes that in his Days In matutinis Sacrifici­is—cum ad coenandum venimus, mixtum calicem offerimus. Epist. 63. § 12. p. 177. they admini­ster'd this Sacrament both Morning and Evening. And, Christum offerre o­portebat circa vesperam diei, ut hora ipsa Sacrisi­cii oftenderet occasum & vesperam mundi—Nos autem resurrectionem Do­mini mane celebramus. I­bidem. That as Christ ad­minister'd the Sacrament in the Evening, to signifie the Evening and end of the World. So they celebrated it in the Morning, to de­note the Resurrection of their Lord and Master.

All that can be gathered from hence is, That they did not deem any particular part of the Day necessary to the Essence of the Sacra­ment, but every Church regulated its self herein according to the Diversity of its Cu­stoms and Circumstances.

§ 2. As for the [...] communicating, they were not indifferently all that professed the Christian Faith, as Origen writes, [...]. [...] in Joan. Vol. 2 Tom. 28. p. 345. It doth not belong to every one to eat of this Bread, and to drink of this Cup. But they were only such as were in the number of [Page 105] the faithful, [...]. Just. Martyr. Apolog. 2. p. 97. such as were baptized, and receiv­ed both the Credentials and Practicals of Christi­anity. That is, who be­lieved the Articles of the Christian Faith, and lead an holy and a pi­ous Life. Such as these, and none else, were per­mitted to Communicate.

Now since none but the Faithful were ad­mitted, it follows that the Catechumens and the Penitents were excluded; the Catechu­mens because they were not yet baptized, for Baptism always preceded the Lords Supper, as Justin Martyr says. [...]. Apolog. 2 p. 97, 98. It is not lawful for any one to partake of the Sa­cramental Food, except he be baptized. The Peni­tents, because for their Sins they were cast out of the Church, and whilst excluded from the Peace thereof, they could not participate of the Marks and To­kens of that Peace, but were to be driven therefrom, and not ad­mitted thereto, Ante actam poeniten­tiam—offerre lapsis pa­cem, & Eucharistiam da­re, id est, sanctum Domi­ni corpus profanare aude­ant, cum scriptum sit; Qui ederit panem, aut biberit calicem Domini indignè, reus erit Corporis & San­guinis Christi. Cyprian. E­pist. 11. § 1. p. 32. till they had fully satisfied for their Faults, lest otherwise they should profane the Body of the Lord, and drink his Cup unworthily, and so be guilty of the Bo­dy and Blood of the Lord.

[Page 106] Hence when the other parts of Divine Worship were ended, and the Celebration of the Eucharist was to begin, the Catechumens, Penitents, and all, except the Communicants, were to depart, as Ter­tullian says hereof, Piae initiationes arce­ant prosanos. Apolog. cap. 7. p. 674. Pi­ous Initiations drive a­way the Profane. These being Mysteries which were to be kept secret and concealed from all, except the Faithful; inasmuch as to others the very method and manner of their Actions here­in were unknown, which was observed by the Pagans, who objected to the Christians the Se­crecy of their Mysteries, which Charge Ter­tullian does not deny, but confessing it, answers, Ex forma omnibus mysteriis silentii fides ad­hibeatur, Samothracia & Eleusinia reticentur. Apo­log. cap. 7. p. 674. That that was the very Nature of Mysteries to be concealed, as Ceres's were in Samothracia.

§ 3. The Catechumens with others being gone out, and none remaining but the Faith­ful, the Celebration of the Eucharist next fol­lowed; which brings me to the Inquiry of the Third thing, viz. The manner of the Ce­lebration thereof. But before I meddle there­with, I shall briefly premise this Observation, viz. That in some places, as in France and A­frica the Communicants first made their Offe­rings, presenting according to their Ability, Bread, or Wine, or the like, as the first Fruits of their Encrease, Offerre igitur opor­tet Deo primitias ejus cre­aturae, sicut & Moyses ait, non apparebis vacuus ante conspectum Domini Dei tui. Lib. 4. c. 34. p. 262. It being our Duty, as Ire­naeus writes, to offer unto God the first Fruits of his [Page 107] Creatures, as Moses saith, Thou shalt not appear empty before the Lord. Non quasi indigenti, sed ut ipsi nec infructuosi nec ingrati sint. Lib. 4. cap. 32. p. 261. Not as if God wanted these things, but to shew our fruitfulness and gratitude unto him. Wherefore Cyprian thus severely blam'd the Rich Matrons for their scanty Oblations, Locuples & dives es, & Dominicum celebrare te credis, quae Corbonam omnino non respicis? Quae in Dominicum sine Sacri­ficio venis, quae partem de Sacrificio quod pauper ob­tulit, sumis? De Opere & Eleemosyn. § 14. 354. Thou art rich and weal­thy, saith he, and dost thou think duly to celebrate the Lord's Supper, when thou refusest to give? Thou who comest to the Sacrament without a Sacrifice, what part canst thou have from the Sacrifice which the Poor offer up?

These Offerings were employed to the Relief of the Poor, and other Uses of the Church; and it seems probable that a sufficient Quantity of that Bread and Wine was presented to the Bishop, or to him that officiated, to be employ­ed for the Sacramental Elements, whose Con­secration next succeeded, which in the main was after this following Manner.

§ 4. It is very likely, that in many places the Minister first began with an Exhortation or Discourse touching the Nature and end of that Sacrament, which the Congregation were going to partake of, that so their Hearts might be the more elevated and raised into Heavenly Frames and Dispositions. This may be gathered from the History of an Exorcist Woman, re­lated by Firmilian, who took upon her to per. form many Ecclesiastical Administrations, as [Page 108] to Baptize and Celebrate the Lord's Supper, which last she did Sine Sacramento soli­tae praedicationis. Apud Cypr. Epist. 75. § 10. p. 238. with­out the wonted Sermon, or, Discourse. Which seems to intimate, that in those days it was customary in Lesser Asia, and perhaps at Carthage too, for the Minister to make a Speech or Exhorta­tion before the Participation of the Sacrament. But whether this Practice was universal, or more ancient than [...], I cannot deter­min; this that follows was, viz. A Prayer o­ver the Elements by him that Officiated, unto which the People gave their Assent, by saying Amen. This Prayer is thus described by Justin Martyr, [...]. Apolog. 2. p. 97. Bread and Wine are offered to the Minister, who receiving them gives Praise and Glo­ry to the Lord of all through the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and in a large manner renders particular Thanks for the present Mercies; who when he hath ended his Prayers and Praise, all the People say Amen. And [...], &c. Ibid. when the Minister hath thus given Thanks, and the People said Amen, the Deacons distributed the Elements. [Page 109] And again, [...]. Ibid p. 98. Bread and Wine are offered to the Minister, who to the ut­most of his Abilities sends up Prayers and Praises, and the People say Amen, and then the Consecrated Elements are distributed.

From this Description by Justin Martyr of the Sacramental Prayer, we may observe these few things pertinent to the matter in hand.

I. That there was but one long Prayer ante­cedent to the Distribution of the Elements: For he says, That the Minister having received the Bread and Wine, he offered up Prayers and Praise unto God in a large manner; and when he had ended, the People said Amen.

II. That this long Prayer consisted of two Parts, viz. [...], and [...], as he calls them, that is, Petition and Thanksgiving; in the former they prayed for the Peace of the Church, the Quiet of the World, the Health of their Emperors, and in a Word, for all Men that needed their Prayers, as it is repre­sented by Tertullian, Oramus pro Impera­toribus, pro ministris eo­rum ac potestatibus, pro statu Saeculi, pro rerum quiete, pro mora finis. A­polog. cap. 39. p. 709. We pray, saith he, for the Emperors, for all that are in Authority under them, for the State of the World, for the Quiet of Affairs, and for the Delay of the Day of Judgment. In the latter they gave God thanks for sending [Page 110] Christ, and for the Institution of that comfor­table Sacrament, desiring his Blessing on, and Consecration of the Elements then before them.

III. That by this one Prayer both the Ele­ments were consecrated at once; for he says, That the Minister took both Elements together, and blessed them, and then they were distributed. He did not consecrate them distinctly, but both together.

§ 5. After Prayer was ended, they read the Words of Institution, that so the Elements might be consecrated by the Word, as well as by Prayer. Whence Origen calls the Sacramental Elements [...]. Com. in Matth. Vol. 1. p. 254. The Food that is sancti­fied by the Word of God and Prayer. And that is hallowed by the Word of God, and Prayer. And [...] writes, Quando mixtus calix & fractus panis percipit verbum Dei, fit Euchari­stia sanguinis & corporis Christi. Lib. 5. cap. 4. p. 318. That when the Bread and Wine perceive the Word of God, then it becomes the Eucha­rist of the Body and Blood of Christ.

§ 6. The Elements being thus Consecrated, the Minister took the Bread, and brake it, Panis quem frangi­mus—fractus panis. Lib. 5. cap. 4. p. 318. The Bread which we break, or, or the broken Bread, as it is styled by Irenaeus, and then gave it to the Deacons, who distributed it to the [Page 111] Communicants, and after that the Cup, which the Deacons in the like manner delivered. So it was in Justin Martyr's time and Country, [...]. Apolog. 2. p. 97. The Element, saith he, being blessed, the Deacons give to every one present of the Consecrated Bread and Wine. But in Ter­tullian's Time and Coun­try the Minister, and not the Deacons, distributed the Elements, Nec de aliorum ma­nu, quam praesidentium sumimus. De Coron. Milit. p. 338. We receive, saith he, from no ones Hands but the Bishops. And yet at the same Place not ma­ny years after, Calicem Diaconus of­ferre praesentibus coepit. Cyprian. de Lapsis, § 20. p. 283. The Deacons offered the Cup to those that were pre­sent. So that herein there was a Diversity of Cu­stoms; in some places the Deacons delivered the Elements, in others the Bishop, or the Minister that consecrated them. But whe­ther it was done either by Bishop or Deacons, it seems probable, that which of them soe­ver did it, they delivered the Sacramental Bread and Wine particularly to each Com­municant. I find but one Example to the con­trary, and that was in the Church of Alexan­dria, where the Custom was to permit the People to take the Bread themselves from the Plate, or Vessel wherein it was consecrated, [Page 112] as is insinuated by [...]. Stromat. lib. 1. p. 198. Cle­mens Alexandrinus; but in most other Churches it is likely that the E­lements were particu­larly delivered to eve­ry single Communicant. So it was in the Coun­try of Justin Martyr, where [...]. A­pol. 2. p. 98. the Deacons gave to each one of the conse­crated Bread and Wine. So at Carthage in the time of Cyprian, Calicem Diaconus of ferre praesentibus coepit. Cyprian. de [...], § 20. p. 283. The Deacons offered the Cup to those that were present. In the time of which Father it was usual for Children and Sucking Infants to receive the Sacrament, unto whom it was necessary parti­cularly to deliver the Elements, since it was impossible for them to take it orderly from the Hands of others: And therefore when a little sucking Girl refused to taste the Sacramental Wine, Diaconus— [...] licet de Sacramento ca­licis infudit. Ibid. p. 284. The Deacon vio­lently forc'd it down her Throat. So it was also at Rome, as appears from what Cornelius re­ports of his Antagonist Novatian, that [...]. Apud Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 43. p. 245. when he administer'd the Sacra­ment, and divided and gave to each Man his part; with his two Hands he held those of the Recei­ver, saying to him, Swear unto me by the Body and [Page 113] Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, that thou wilt ne­ver leave my Party, to return to that of Corne­lius; so forcing the mise­rable Receiver, instead of saying Amen, to say, I will not return to Cor­nelius.

§ 7. As for the Posture of receiving, at A­lexandria the Custom was to [...]. Ex [...]. Dionys. Alexan. apud Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 43 p. 245. stand at the Ta­ble, and receive the E­lements, which may be supposed to have been [...] this manner: The Bread and Wine being consecrated, the Com­municants came up in order to the Communi­on Table, and there standing received the Elements, and then returned to their places again. But whether this was universal I know not, or whether any other postures were used, I cannot determin; only as for kneeling, if the Sacrament was Celebrated on the Lords Day, as usually it was, or on any other Day between Easter and Whitsontide, then no Church whatsoever kneeled; for as Tertullian writes, Die Dominico—nefas ducimus—de geniculis adorare, eadem immunitate die Paschae in Pentecosten usque gaude­mus. De Coron. Milit. p. 340. On the Lords Day we account it a Sin to worship kneeling, which custom we also observe from Easter to Whitson­tide.

[Page 114] § 8. The Elements being thus blessed, di­stributed, and received, they afterwards sung an Hymn or Psalm to the Praise and Glory of God, as Tertullian writes, Quisque de Scripturis Sanctis, vel de proprio ingenio, provocatur in medium Deocanere. Apol. cap. 39. p. 710. Then every one sings an Hymn to God, either of his own Composition, or out of the Holy Scriptures. Then followed for a Conclusion a Prayer of Thanksgiving to God Almighty for his inestimable Grace and Mer­cy; as the same Tertulli­an saith, Oratio convivium di­rimit. Ibidem. Prayer con­cludes this Feast. To which was subjoined a Collection for the Poor. When as Justin Mar­tyr reports, [...]. Apol. 2. p. 98, 99. Every one that was able and willing gave according to his Abi­lity, and that that was gathered, was committed to the care of the Bishop, who relieved therewith the Orphans and Widows, the Sick and Distressed, Pri­soners, Travellers, Stran­gers, and in a Word, all that had need thereof.

CHAP. VII.

§ 1. HItherto I have spoken of the seve­ral particular Acts of the Publick Worship of the Ancients: I now come, ac­cording to my propounded Order, to enquire into the necessary Circumstances thereof. By which I mean such things as are inseparable from all humane Actions, as Place and Time, Habit, and Gesture. As for Habit, as much of that as is Controverted, I have spoken to already in that Chapter, where I discoursed of the Ministers Habit in Prayer. And as for Gesture, I have already treated of Worshipping towards the East. And of their Posture at the Reception of the Lord's [Page 116] Supper. There is nothing more disputed with reference thereunto, besides the bowing at the Name of Jesus, and the worshipping towards the Communion Table; but both these being introduced after my prescribed time, viz. a­bove three hundred years after Christ, I shall say nothing to them, but pass on to the Dis­cussing of the two remaining Circumstances of Publick Worship, viz. Place and Time.

§ 2. First. As for Place: This all will rea­dily grant to be a necessary Circumstance of Divine Worship; for if we serve God, it is impossible, but that it must be in one place or other. Now one Query with respect here­unto may be, Whether the Primitive Christi­ans had determined fixed Places for their Pub­lick Worship? Unto which I answer, That usually they had; though it is true indeed, that in times of Persecution, or when their Circumstances would not permit them to have one usual sixed Place, they met where-ever they could, [...]. Dionys. A. lex. apud Euseb. lib. 7. c. 22. p. 268. in Fields, Deserts, Ships or Inns: Yet in times of Peace and Serenity they chose the most setled conve­nient Place that they could get, for the Performance of their So­lemn Services; which place, by a Metonymy, they called the Church. Thus at Rome, the place where the Christians met, and chose Fa­bian for their Bishop, was [...]. Euseb. lib. 6. c. 29. p. 239. the Church. At Antioch Paulus Samosa­satenus Bishop thereof, ordered certain Women [Page 117] to sing Psalms to his Praise [...]. Apud Euseb. lib. 7. c. 30. p. 281. in the midst of the Church. At Carthage the Baptized Persons renounced the Devil and all his Works. In Ecclesia. Tertul. de Coron. Milit. p. 336. in the Church And thus In Lib. de Virgin. Ve­land. Fertullian very frequent­ly calls their definite places for Divine Wor­ship Churches.

§ 3. As for the Form of these Churches, or the Fashion of their Building, I find this Description of them in Tertullian, Nostrae columbae do­mus simplex, etiam in aedi­tis semper & apertis, et ad lucem, amat figuram Spi­ritus sancti, Orientem Christi figuram. Advers-Valentintan. p. 284. The House of our Dove like Religion is simple, built on high and in open View, respecting the Light as the Figure of the Holy Spirit, and the East as the representation of Christ. The meaning whereofis, that their Churches were erected on high and open pla­ces, and made very light and shining, in imita­tion of the Holy Ghost's Descent upon the Apostles at the Day of Pentecost, who came down with Fire, or Light upon them; and that they were built towards the East, in re­semblance of Christ, whom they apprehen­ded in Scripture to be called the East, con­cerning which Title, and the reason thereof, I have already discoursed in that Head con­cerning praying towards the East, unto which place, to avoid repetition, I refer the Reader.

§ 4. But tho' they had these fixed Places or Churches for Conveniency and Decency, yet [Page 118] they did not imagin any such Sanctity or Ho­liness to be in them, as to recommend or make more acceptable those Services that were discharged therein, than if they had been per­formed elsewhere; for as Clemens Alexandri­nus writes, [...]. Stromat. lib. 7. p. 520. Every place is in Truth holy, where we receive any knowledge of God. And as Justin Martyr saith, [...]. Dialog. cum Tryphon. p. 344. Through Jesus Christ we are now all become Priests to God, who hath promised to ac­cept our Sacrifices in eve­ry, or in any part of the World. And therefore in times of Persecution, or such like Emergen­cies, they scrupled not to meet in other pla­ces; but where-ever they could securely joyn together in their Religious Services, there they met, though it were [...]. Dyonis. A­lexand. apud Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 22. p. 268. in Fields, Deserts, Ships, Inns or Prisons, as was the Case and Practice of Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria. So that the Primitive practice and Opinion with respect to this Circumstance of Place was, That if the State of their Affairs would permit them, they had fixed Places for their Publick Worship, call'd Churches, which they set apart to that use, for Conveniency and Decencies sake; but [Page 119] not attributing unto them any such Holiness, as thereby to sanctifie those Services that were performed in them.

I know nothing more with respect to Place, that requires our Consideration: I shall there­fore now proceed to enquire into the Time of Publick Worship, under which will be comprehended the Primitive Fasts and Feasts.

§ 5. Time is as necessary a Circum­stance to Religious Worship as Place; for whilst we are in this World, we cannot serve God at all times, but must have some determinate time to serve him in: That God's People therefore under the Law might not be left at an uncertainty when to serve him, it pleased the Almighty to institute the Sabbath, the Passover, and other Feasts, at which times they were to congregate and assemble together, to give unto God the Glory due unto his Name, And for the same end under the Evangelical Admini­stration there are particular Days and Seasons appointed for the Publick and Solemn Wor­ship of the Glorious and Eternal Lord, accor­ding to the Sayings of Clemens Romanus, God hath required us to serve him. [...]. Epist. 1. ad Co­rinth. p. 52. in the ap­pointed times and seasons. For which Reason we ought to serve him [...]. Ibid. at those determinated times. That so worshipping [Page 120] him [...]. Ibid. p. 53. at those Comman­ded Seasons, we may be blessed and accepted by him.

§ 6. Now the principallest and chiefest of these prescribed Times was the first Day of the Week, on which they con­stantly met together to perform their Re­ligious Services. So writes Justin Martyr. [...], &c. Apolog. 2. p. 98. On the Day that is cal­led Sunday, all both of the Country and City as­semble together, where we preach and pray, and dis­charge all the other usual parts of Divine Worship. Upon which account those parts of God's Pub­lick Worship are styled by Tertullian Dominica Solennia. De Anima. c. 3. p. 530. The Lord's Days Solemnities. Au­relius, who was ordained a Lector, or a Clark, by Cyprian, is described in the Execution of his Office, Dominico legit. Cyp. Epist. 33. p. 77. by reading on the Lord's Day. And Victorinus Petavionensis represents, Die Dominico cum gratiarum actione ad pa­nem exeamus. De Fabric. Mundi apud D. Cave, p. 103. this day, as an usual time, wherein they received the Lord's Supper. Which was ob­served by the Heathen in Minucius Felix, who mentions the Christi­ans Ad [...] Solenni die coeunt. p. 26. assembling to eat on a Solemn Day. And Pli­ny reports, that the [Page 121] Christians in his time met together Essent [...] stato die ante lucem convenire, carmenque Christo quasi Deo dicere secum invicem, seque Sacramento obstrin­gere. Epist. ad Trajan. on an ap­pointed day, to sing Prai­ses unto Christ, as a God, and to bind themselves by a Sacrament.

§ 7. This was the Day which Clemens A­lexandrinus calls [...]. Stromat. lib. 6. p. 492. the Chief of Days, our Rest indeed; Which they ob­served as the highest and supremest Festival, Diem Solis laetitia in­dulgemus. Apolog. cap. 16. p. [...]. On Sunday we give our selves to Joy, saith Ter­tullian. And before him St. Barnabas, [...]. Epist. Cathol. § 11. p. 244. We keep the Eighth Day with Gladness. And Ignatius, [...]. Ad [...]. p. 35. We observe the Lord's Day, banishing every thing on this day that had the least tendency to, or the least ap­pearance of Sorrow and Grief; inasmuch that now they Die dominico jejuni­um nesas ducimus, vel de geniculis adorare. Tertul. de Cor. Mil. p. 339. 340. esteemed it a Sin either to fast or kneel: Even the Montanists themselves, those rigid Observers of Fasts and Abstinences Quantula est enim a­pud nos interdictio cibo­rum duas in anno Heb­domadas Xerophagiarum nec totas, exceptis scilicet Sabbatis & Dominicis of­ferimus Deo. Tertullian de Jejuuio, p. 651. Abstained from Fasting on this most glad and joying day.

[Page 122] This day they accounted Holy, as Dionysius Bishop of Corinth, in his Letter to the Church of Rome, saith, [...]. Apud Euseb. lib. 4. cap. 23. p. 145. To day being the Lord's Day, we keep it holy. The way wherein they san­ctified it, or kept it holy, was the employ­ing of themselves in Acts of Divine Wor­ship and Adoration, especially in the Pu­blick Parts thereof, which they constantly performed on this day, as has been alrea­dy proved; and in that forementioned Letter, where Dionysius Bishop of Corinth, writ unto the Church of Rome, that that day being the Lord's Day, they kept it holy. The manner of sanctifying it is im­mediately subjoined, [...]. Ibidem. In it, saith he, we have read your Epistle, as also the first Epistle of Cle­mens. And Clemens A­lexandrinus writes, [...]. Strom. lib. 7. p. 535. That a true Christian, ac­cording to the Commands of the Gospel, observes the Lords Day, by casting out all [...] Thoughts, and entertaining all good ones, glorifying the Resurrecti­on of the Lord on that day.

§ 8. The Reafon why they observed this Day with so much Joy and Gladness, was, that they might gratefully commemorate the [Page 123] glorious Resurrection of their Redeemer, that happened thereon. So writes St. Barnabas, [...]. Epist. Catho­lic. § 11. p. 244. We keep the eighth day with gladness, on which Christ arose from the Dead. So says Ignatius, [...]. Epist. ad Magnes. p. 35. Let us keep the Lord's Day, on which our Life arose through [...].

And so says Clemens Alexandrinus, [...]. Stomat. lib. 7. p. 535. He that truly observes the Lord's Day, glorifies therein the Resurrection of the Lord. Justin Martyr relates that [...]. Apolog. 2. p. 99. On Sunday the Christians assembled toge­ther, because it was the first Day of the Week, on which God out of the confused Chaos made the World, and Jesus Christ our Saviour arose from the Dead; for on Fry­day he was Crucified, and on Sunday he appeared to his Apostles and Disciples, and taught them those things that the Christians now believe. And to the same purpose Origen adviseth his Auditors to pray unto Almighty God, Maxime in Domini­ca die, quae passionis Chri­sti Commemoratrix est; neque enim resurrectio Domini semel in Anno, & non semper post septem dies celebratur. In Isai­am. Homil. 5. especially on the Lord's Day, which is a [Page 124] Commemoration of Christ's Passion; for the Resur­rection of Christ is not on­ly celebrated once a year, but every seven days.

§ 9. From hence it was, that the usual Appellation of this Day both by the Greek and Latin Churches, was The Lords Day. So it is styled by Clemens Alexandrinus, [...]. Strom. lib. 5. p. 437. & lib. 7. p. 535. the Lords Day. And amongst the La­tins, by Victorinus Peta­vionensis, Dies Domini­cus, De Fabric. Mund. apud Dr. Cave, Hist. literar. p. 103. the Lords Day. As also by an Dies dominicus. Apud Cyprian. Ep. 53. § 3. p. 164. African Synod, And by Dominicum diem. De Idolat. p. 623. Tertulli­an. Sometimes it is simply called [...], and, Dominicus, that is, the Lords, without the addition of the Word Day, as it is thus called [...] by Ad Magnes. p. 35. Ignatius. And Dominicus by Epist. 33. p. 77. Cy­prian.

§ 10. So that the Lords Day was the com­mon and ordinary Title of this blessed and glorious Day; though sometimes in compli­ance with the Heathens, that they might know what Day they meant thereby, they called it in their Phrase, Sunday, so termed because Dedicated to the Sun.

Thus Justin Martyr informing the Heathens of the Time and Manner of the Christians [Page 125] Assemblies tells them [...]. Apolog. 2. p. 98, & 99. That on the Day called Sunday they met together for their Religious Exer­eises. And, That on Sun­day they assembled toge­ther. And so Tertullian upon the same occasion lets the Heathens know that the Christi­ans Diem Solis laetitiae in­dulgemus. Apolog. c. 16. p. 688. indulged themselves on Sunday to Mirth and joyfulness.

But though they so far complyed with the Heathens as to call this Sunday, yet I do not find that they ever so far indulged the Jews as to call it the Sabbath Day; for through all their Writings, as may be es­pecially seen in Advers. Judaeos. Tertul­lian, and Dial. cum Tryphon. Justin Mar­tyr, they violently de­claim against Sabbati­zing, or keeping the Sabbath Day, that is, the Judaical Observation of the Seventh Day, which we must always understand by the Word Sabbatum in the Writings of the Anci­ents, not the Observation of the first Day, or the Lords Day; for that was constantly cele­brated, as it has been already proved, and by those who condemn the Observance of the Sabbath Day, the Sanctification of the Lord's Day is approved and recommended, as by Ju­stin Martyr and Tertullian in those Passages al­ready cited, unto which we may add that clear [Page 126] Passage of Ignatius, [...]. Epist. ad Magnes. p. 35. Let us no longer Sabbatize, but keep the Lords Day, on which our Life rose. Or as it is more fully expressed in his inter­polated Epistle, [...]. Epist. interpol. ad Magnes. p. 149. In­stead of Sabbatizing, let every Christian keep the Lords Day, the Day on which Christ rose again; the Queen of Days, on which our Life arose, and Death was conquered by Christ.

§ 11. So that their not Sabbatizing did not exclude their keeping of the Lords Day nor the Christian, but only the Judaical Observance of the Sabbath, or Seventh Day; for the Eastern Churches, in compliance with the Jewish Converts, who were nu­merous in those Parts, performed on the Seventh Day the same publick Religious Services that they did on the First Day, observing both the one and the other as a Festival. Whence Ori­gen enumerates [...]. Cont. Cels. lib. 8. p. 392. Satur­day as one of the four Feasts solemnized in his time; though on the contrary, some of the Western Churches, that they might not seem to Judaise, fasted on Sa­turday, [Page 127] as Victorinus Pe­tavionensis writes, Die septima—sole­mus superponere—Para­sceve superpositio fiat, ne quod cum Judaeis Sabba­tum observare videatur. De Fabric. Mun. apud D. Cave. p. 103. We use to fast on the Seventh Day. And, It is our custom then to fast, that we may not seem with the Jews to observe the Sabbath.

So that besides the Lord's Day, Saturday was an usual Season whereon many Church­es solemnized their Religious Services. As for those other times, in which they Pub­lickly assembled for the Performance of Di­vine Worship, they will fall under the two General Heads of Times of Fasting and Times of Feasting, of which in the following Chap­ters.

CHAP. VIII.

§ 1. IN this Chapter I shall make an En­quiry into the Primitive Fasts, which may be considered in a two-fold respect, either as Occasional, or Fixt.

Occasional Fasts were such, as were not de­termined by any constant fixed Period of Time, but observed on extraordinary and unusual Seasons, according as the Variety and Ne­cessity of their Circumstances did require them. Thus in Times of Great and Imminent Danger either of Church or State, when by their Sins they had kindled God's Wrath and Fury against them, that they might divert his Vengeance, and appease his of­fended Majesty, they appointed set Days and Times for the Abasing of themselves [Page 129] before the Lord, for the seeking of his Face by Prayer and Fasting, abstaining from the Food of their Bodies, and practising all external Acts of Humiliation, as so many In­dications of the internal Contrition of their Hearts and Souls. So Cyprian in the time of a sharp Persecution ad­vised his Flock Ad placandum atque exorandum Dominum, non voce sola, sed & jeju­niis, & lachrymis, & om­ni genere deprecationis ingemiscamus. Epist. 8. § 1. p. 22. To seek to appease and paci­fie the Lord, not only by Prayers, but by Fastings, and by Tears, and by all kind of Intreaties. And when the same Father foresaw an approaching Persecution, he writ to Cornelius Bishop of Rome, Quoniam providentia Domini monentis instrui­mur—appropinquare [...] certaminis & agonis nostri diem, jejuniis, vi­giliis, orationibus insi­stere, cum omni plebe non desinamus, incumba­mus gemitibus assiduis & deprecationibus crebris, haec sunt enim nobis arma coelestia; quae stare & perseverare fortiter faci­unt. Epist. 57. § 3. p. 159. That since God was pleased in his Provi­dence to warn them of an approaching Fight and Tryal, they ought with their whole Flocks dili­gently to fast and watch, and pray, to give them­selves to continual Groans, and frequent Prayers; for those are our Spiritu­al Arms, that make us firmly to stand and per­severe.

Tertullian jeers the Heathens, Denique cum ab im­bribus aestiva, hyberna suspendunt, & annus in cura est, vos quidem quo­tidie pasti, statimque pransuri, balneis & cau­ponis & lupanaribus ope­rati, Aquilicia Jovi immo­latis, Nudipedasia populo denunciatis Coelum apud Capitolium quaeritis, nu­bila de [...] ex­pectatis, aversi ab ipso & Deo & Coelo. Nos ve­ro jejuniis aridi, & om­ni continentia aspersi [...] omni vitae fruge dilati, in sacco & cinere volu­tantes, invidia Coelum tundimus, Deum tangi­mus, & cum misericordi­am extorserimus, Jupiter honoratur. Apolog. cap. 40. p. 711. That in times of Danger or great necessity, after they had [Page 130] voluptuously and sensually glutted themselves, they then ran to the Capitol, and with all outward Signs of Humility, depre­cated Gods Judgments, and implored his mercy, whilst in the mean time they were Enemies unto him, But, says he, We on such Emergencies and Occasions abstain from all things, give our selves wholly to fasting, roll our selves in Sackcloth and A­shes; thus incline God as it were to repent, to have Mercy and Compassion upon us; for by this way God is honoured.

These Occasional Fasts were appointed by the Bishops of every Church, as they saw fit and necessary. So writes Tertullian, Episcopi universae Plebi mandare jejunia as­solent—ex aliqua soli­citudinis ecclesiasticae cau­sa. De Jejun. c. 13. The Bishops are wont to ordain Fasts for their Churches, ac­cording as the Circum­stances of the Churches require.

§ 2. The next sort of Fasts were set or fix­ed ones, that is, such as were always observed at the same Time and Season; and these again were two fold, either Weekly or Annual. First, Weekly. These were kept every Wed­nesday and Friday, as Clemens Alexandrinus re­lates [Page 131] that [...]. Strom. lib. 7. p. 534. they fasted on every Wednesday and Friday. These Fasts were commonly called Stations, in allusion to the Military Stations, or the Soldiers stand­ing, when on the Guard. Thus Tertullian mentions Stationum dies. De Orat. p. 661. Their Statio­nary Days. And writes that Stationibus quartam & sextam Sabbati dica­mus. De Jejunio, p. 651. Wednesdays and Fridays were Stations. On these Stationary Days their Fasts ended Non ultra nonam de­tinendum. Tertul. de Je­jun. p. 648. at three a Clock in the Afternoon; whence they are called by Tertullian, Stationum Semijeju­nia. Ibid. p. 650. The half Fasts of Sta­tions. Though some on Fridays lengthened out their Fasts Jejunium facimus. Victor. Petav. apud D. Cave, p. 103. till Evening.

Why they fasted on Wednesday rather than on any other Day of the Week, I cannot find; but on Friday they chose to fast Ob Passionum Do­mini. Victor. Petav. ubi antea. because Christ was Crucified thereon.

§ 3. The next sort of fixed Fasts is such as are annual, of which kind they had but one, viz. Lent. And indeed besides this, they had no other necessary fixed Fast, [...] Weekly nor Yearly; the Faithful were not strictly o­bliged to the observation of any other, as will be evident from what follows.

[Page 132] It is true, they fasted Wednesdays and Fri­days, but this was ex Arbitrio, of their own Free Will and Choice, not ex imperio, of Command or Necessity. For when the Mon­tanists, began to impose as a Duty other stin­ted Fasts, they were for so doing branded as He­reticks, [...]. Apud Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 18. p. 184. Who, saith A­pollonius concerning Montanus, is this new Doctor? His Works and Doctrin evidently declare him, this is he that tea­ches the Dissolution of Marriages, and prescribes Fasts. And for the same Practice they were accused by the Or­thodox, for Galatis nos [...] aiunt Observato­res dierum, & mensium & annorum. Tertul. de jejun. p. 645. Galatici­sing, or committing the Error of the Galatians in observing Days, and Months, and Years.

But that the Ancients esteemed Lent to be the only necessary fixed Fast, and any other, even the Stationary Days to be indifferent, will appear most evidently from this ensuing Passage of Tertullian, Tertullian being now a Montanist, and defending their prescribed Fasts against the Orthodox, thus jeeringly exposes the Opinions of his Adversaries with respect to the necessary determined times of Fasting. Certè in evangèlio illos dies [...] determi­natos putant, in quibus ablatus est sponsus: & hosesse jam solos legitimos jejuniorum Christianorum abolitis legalibus, & pro­pheticis vetustatibus,—Itaque de caetero indiffe­renter jejunandum ex ar­bitrio, non ex imperio novae disciplinae pro tem­poribus & causis uniuscu­jusque: Sic & Apostolos observasse, nullum aliud imponentes jugum certo­rum & in commune om­nibus obeundorum jejuni­orum: proinde nec sta­tionum, quae & ipsae suos quidem dies habeant quartae feriae & sextae, passim tamen currunt, ne­que sub lege praecepti neque ultra supremam diei, quando & orationes fere hora nona concludat de Petri exemplo quod actis refertur, De Jejunio, p. 645. Forsooth, saith he, they think that accor­ding to the Gospel, those days are to be prescribed [Page 133] Fasts, wherein the Bride­groom was takeu away, (i.e. Lent) and those to be the only Fasts of Christi­ans, the Legal and Pro­phetical Fasts being abo­lished; and that for o­thers we may indifferent­ly fast, according to our Will, not out of necessity or command, but accor­ding to our Circum­stances and conditions, and that so the Apostles abserved, commanding no other fixed and common Fasts besides this; no, not the Stationary Days, which indeed they keep on Wednesdays, and Fri­days, and do all observe, but yet not in obedience to any Command, or to the end of the Day, but Prayers are concluded at three a Clock in the After­noon, according to the Example of Peter in the Acts.

So that from hence it is evident, That the Orthodox apprehended themselves to be free from the necessary Observation of the Stati­onary Fasts, and to be only strictly obliged to fast on those Days, wherein the Bridegroom was taken away; or on Lent, from which Periphra­sis [Page 134] of Lent we may collect both the Reason and the Duration thereof.

First, the Reason thereof, or the Ground on which they founded the necessity of this Fast, and that was on that saying of Christ, in Matth. 9. 15. The Days will come when the Bridegroom shall be taken from them. This they imagined to be an Injunction of Christ to all his Followers, to fast at that time, when the Bridegroom should be taken away. The Bridegroom they esteemed to be Christ, the time when he was taken away, his Crucifixi­on, Death, and continuing under the Power of Death to the instant of his Resurrecti­on, during which time they thought them­selves by the forementioned Command obli­ged to fast.

Secondly, From hence we may observe the Duration of this Fast, or how long it was continued, and that was, from the time that Christ the Bridegroom was taken away, to the time that he was restored again, that is, from his Passion to his Resurrection. Now ac­cording to their Various Computations of the beginning and end of Christ's being taken a­way, so was the Duration of their Fast; some might reckon from Christ's Agony in the [...], others from his being betrayed by Judas. [...] again from his being fastned to the Cross, and others from his being actually dead; and so according to these Diversities of Com­putations were their Fasts either lengthened [Page 135] or shortned. This we may probably suppose to be the occasion of the different Observati­ons of this Fast with respect to its Duration, as we find it in Irenaeus, [...] A­pud Euseb. lib 5. cap. 24. p. 393. Some, says he, esteem, that they must fast but one Day, others two, others more, and some allow to this Fast forty Hours. Which last space of Time seems to have been their general and common Allowance: Whence this Fast, was afterwards called [...], or, Quadragesima, that is, not a Fast of Forty Days, in imitati­on of Christ's Fasting in the Wilderness, but a Fast of Forty Hours, beginning at Friday Twelve a Clock, about which time Christ was dying, and ending Sunday Morning, when Christ arose. So that from Twelve a Clock Good Friday, as we call it, when Christ the Bridegroom was taken away, they fasted, in obedience to his Command, as they imagined, till Sunday Morning, when he was found again by his Resurrection, at which time they for­got their Sorrow and Mourning, concluded their Fast, and began the joyful Festival of Easter, or of Christs Resurrection.

§ 4. As for the manner of their Fasts, we may observe them to be of three sorts, viz. Statio, Jejunium, and Superpositio; Station, Fasts, and Superposition; all which three are at once [Page 136] mentioned by Victorinus Petavionensis, Usque ad horam no­nam jejunamus, us (que) ad vesperam, aut superposi­tio usque in alterum diem fiat. De Fabric. Mun. apud D. Cave, p. 103. We fast, says he, till the ninth hour, or till evening, or their is a Superposition till the next morning.

I. There was the Fast of Stations, which ended at Three a Clock in the Afternoon, or at the Ninth Hour, as it is called in the fore­cited Passage of Victorinus Petavionensis. This sort of Fasting was used on [...] and Fridays, which Days, as we have shewn before were called Stationary Days, and on them Divine Services were ended at Three a Clock in the Afternoon, for which Reason Monta­nising Tertullian Stationum semijeju­nia. De Jejun. p. 650. terms them, The Half Fasts of Stations.

II. The next sort was strictly called Jeju­nium, or a Fast; which according to the [...] place of Victorinus Petavionensis, lasted till Evening: Of this sort, it is probable, their Occasional Fasts were, as Tertullian writes, Denique cum ab im­bribus aeftiva, &c—Nos jejuniis aridi, & omni [...] aspersi— [...] Coelum tundimus. A­polog. cap. 40. p. 711. In times of ne­cessity and danger we dry up our selves with Fasting, abstain from all Meat, roll our selves in Dust and Ashes, and by these means cause God to have mercy upon us. Though it is also likely, that in times of more eminent Danger they extended these Fasts unto that of Superposition.

[Page 137] The Second sort of Fasts was observed by some on Fridays, who turned the Station into a Fast, as Victorinus Pe­tavionensis writes, Ob Passionem Domi­ni Jesu Christi aut Sta­tionem do, aut jejunium facimus. De Fabric. Mund. apud D. Cave, p. 103. On Friday, in Commemora­tion of the Lord's Passion, I either keep a Station, or observe a Fast.

III. The last sort of Fasts was called Su­perposition, or, as by the Greeks, [...], which lasted till the Morning of the next Day, according to that of Victorinus Petavio­nensis, Superpositio usque in alterum diem fiat. D. Fa­bric. Mundi apud D. Cave, p. 103. Let Superpositi­on be done till the next Day.

As for the times when this Fast was obser­ved, I find that in some of the Western Churches they so kept every Saturday through­out the Year, fasting thereon till Midnight, or till the beginning of Sunday Morning, as Victorinus Petavioniensis says, Parasceve superposi­tio fiat, ne quod cum Judaeis Sabbatum obser­vare videamur. Ibid. p. 103. Let Superposition be done on Saturday, lest we should seem to observe the Jewish Sabbath. But not only in these, but in other Churches also, they so fasted on Easter Eve, or on the Saturday preceeding that Sunday, which being Lent, was so necessary and usual, that Tertullian enumerating those particular Acts of Divine Worship, that a [Page 138] Christian Woman could not freely perform, if married to a Pagan Husband, reckons this as one, Quis Solennibus Pas­chae abnoctantem securus sustinebit. Ad Vxor. lib. 2. p. 429. That on Easter Eve she could not stay up, and watch that Night: But to please her Hus­band, must be diverted from this necessary Fast, that usher'd in the Glorious Festival of Easter, which brings me in the next place to enquire into this, and their other Feasts, of which in the ensuing Chapter.

CHAP. IX.

§ 1. AS the Primitive Fasts were two-fold, so likewise were their Feasts, either Occasional, or Fixed. As for those that were Occasional, I shall pass them over, because not controverted, and come immediately to en­quire into their Fixed Feasts, which, as their Fasts, were also two-fold, either Weekly or Annual. Of their Weekly Feasts, which were Sundays, and in the Oriental Churches Saturdays, I have already discoursed, so that there only remains an Enquiry into their [Page 140] Annual Feasts, which, befides the Martyrs Festivals, were two, viz. Easter and Whitsun­day, or at most Three, viz, Easter, Whitsunday, and Christmass, of each of which in their Or­der.

§ 2. I begin with Easter, as being the an­tientest Feast of all, concerning which Tertul­lian writes, Pascha celebramus annuo circulo in mense primo. De Jejun. p. 651. We Cele­brate Easter in the first Month every Year. Cy­prian mentions their Solennia Paschae. E­pist. 53. § 2. p. 131. Easter Solemnities. And Origen reckons [...]. Contra Cel sum, lib. 8. p. 392. Easter as one of the four Festi­vals observed in his time. But that they Solemnized Easter, is a thing so well known, that it will be unne­cessary to prove it, especially since every one knows, or at least might easily know, those sharp Contests and Debates that were in the Church about the time when it should be kept; the whole Affair hath been at large related by several Hands in our own Tongue; amongst others, by the most learned Dr. Cave, in his Apostolici, in the Life of Irenaeus, to which I refer the Curious, contenting my self with gi­ving a very brief Account of the Controversie, which was this: The Churches of the Lesser Asia kept their Easter the same day that the Jews kept their Passover, on what day of the Week soever it happen'd. The Church of Rome, with other Churches, kept it the Lords Day after. This Diversity of Customs [Page 141] created a violent Disorder and Confusion a­mongst the Christians; for the Church of Rome would impose their Usages on the Chur­ches of the Lesser Asia, unto which the latter peremptorily refused to submit. To appease these Heats and Storms, Polycarp Bishop of Smirna came to Rome to confer with Anicetus Bishop of that Church about it, who [...], that every Church should be left to follow its own Custom, as accordingly they were to the times of Pope Victor, who revived this Con­troversie, and was so turbulent and imperi­ous, as that he excommunicated the Asiaticks, for refusing to comply with the Church of Rome in this matter, condemning them as Hereticks, loading them with the long and frightful Name of Tessareskaidekatitae, or, Quar­todecimani, so called because they kept their Easter Quarta Decima Luna, upon the Four­teenth Day after the appearance of the Moon, or at the Full Moon, on what Day soever it happened. But however the Asiaticks stood their Ground, and still maintained their old Custom, till the Council of Nice, Anno 325. by their Authority decided this Controversie, decreeing, that throughout the whole Christi­an World, Easter should be observed not on the Day on which the Jewish Passover fell, but on the Lord's Day ensuing, as it was ever after observed and followed.

§ 3. The next Feast that was observed was Whitsunday, or Pentecost, in Commemoration of the Holy Ghosts Descent on the Apostles, [Page 142] which also was very ancient, being mentioned several times by De Coron. Milit. p. 340. De Baptism. p. 604. & De Idololatria, p. 623. Ter­tullian; and reckon'd by Origen for one of the [...]. Contra Celsum. lib. 8. p. 392. four Festivals observed in his time, the other Three being Sundays, Saturdays, and Easter.

§ 4. As for Christmass, or the time of Christs Nativity, there is a Passage in Clemens Alexandrinus, which seems to intimate, that it was then observed as a Festival: For speak­ing of the Time when Christ was born, he says, that those who had curiously search'd into it, affixed it to the 25th Day of the Month Pachon. But the Basilidian Hereticks held otherwise, [...]. Strom. lib. 1. p. 249. who also observed as a Feast, the Day of Christs Baptism. From which Words who also, if that be the meaning of the Words [...] one might be apt to infer, that the meaning of Clemens Alexandrinus was, that the Basilidians not only feasted at the time of Christs Nativity, but also at the time of his Baptism. But whether this Interpretation will hold, I leave to the Learned Reader to determin. On the contrary, there are other Considerations, which more strongly insinuate, that this Festival was not so early solemni­zed, as that when Origen reckons up the [Page 143] Feasts observed in his Age, 1 [...]. Contra Celsum. lib. 8. p. 392. he mentions not one Syllable of Christmas; and it seems improba­ble that they should Celebrate Christs Nati­vity, when they disagreed about the Month and Day when Christ was born.

Clemens Alexandrinus reckons [...] Strom. lib. 1. p. 249. from the Birth of Christ to the Death of Commodus, exactly one hundred ninety four Years, one month, and thirteen days; which years must be computed according to the Na­bonassar, or Egyptian Account, who varied from this in our year, in that they had only 365 days in a year, never taking notice of the odd Hours, or Quadrant of a Day, that every fourth Year makes a whole Day, and are ac­cordingly by us then added to the Month of February, which maketh the Bissextile or Leapyear. So that though the Egyptians al­ways begun their Year with the first day of the Month Thoth, yet making no Account of the Annual odd Hours, that Month wande­reth throughout the whole Year: And where­as now the first Day of that Month is the first Day of our March, about Seven Hundred Years hence, it will be the first of September; and after Seven Hundred Years more, or near thereabouts, it will come to the first of March again. Wherefore that we may reduce unto [Page 144] our Style this Calculation of Clemens Alexan­drinus, we must deduce, for those odd Hours which are not accounted, one Month and Eighteen Days, and so reckoning the Birth of Christ from the Death of Commodus, which happened on the first Day of January, to be One Hundred Ninety Four Years, wanting five or six Days, it will appear that Christ was born on the 25th or 26th of the Month of December, according to the Julian Account, which is the Epoch we follow.

But as the same Father farther writes in the same place, [...]. Ibid. p. 249. There were some, who more curiously searching after the Year and Day of Christs Na­tivity, affixed the latter to the 25th of the Month Pachon, Now in that Year in which Christ was born, the Month Pachon commenced the twentieth Day of April: So that according to this Computation Christ was born the 16th Day of May. Nay, there were yet some o­ther ingenious Men, as the same Father con­tinues to write, [...]. Ibid. p. 249. that assigned Christ's Nativity to the 24th or 25th of the Month Pharmuthi, which answers to our 16th or 17th of April: So that there were Diversities of Opinion concerning the Time of Christs Birth, which makes it very pro­bable, that there was then no particular Feast [Page 145] observed in Commemoration of that Glori­ous and transcendent Mercy.

§ 5. There is yet another Feast called by us Epiphany, wherein there is a Commemora­tion of Christs Baptism, which I find to have been peculiarly Solemnized by the Basilidian Hereticks. For thus Clemens Alexandrinus re­ports it to be a parti­cular Custom of theirs, [...]. Strom. lib. 1. p. 249. to keep as a Festival the day of Christs Bap­tism. The Day on which Christ was bap­tized, [...]. Ibid. p. 249. they said to be the fifteenth of the Month Tyby, in the fifteenth Year of the Reign of the Emperor Tiberius, which answers to our One and Thirtieth of Decem­ber; or as others ima­gin'd it, [...]. Ibid. On the Ele­venth of the Month Ty­by, which was the Se­ven and Twentieth of our December.

§ 6. Besides these forementioned Festivals, there were none others observed to the Hon­our of the blessed Jesus, nor of the Virgin Mary, nor of the Holy Apostles and Evan­gelists; and which may be a little observable, it is very seldom, if ever, that the Ancients give the Title of Saints to those Holy Per­sons, [Page 146] but singly style them, A Petro ordinatum. Tertul. de Praescript. advers. Haeret. p. 78. Peter, Tunc Paulus, &c. Idem. Scorpiac. advers. Gnostic. p. 615. Paul, Ab Johanne conlocatum. Idem de Praescript advers. Haeret p 78 John, &c. not St. Peter, St. Paul, or St. John.

§ 7. But now there was another sort of Festivals, which every Church Celebrated in the Commemoration of its own Martyrs, which was, on the Anniversary Day of their Martyrdoms: They assembled together, where they recited the Martyrs Glorious Actions, exhorted to an Imitation of them, and blessed God for them. So says Cyprian, Martyrum Passiones & dies anniversaria comme­moratione celebramus. Epist. 34. § 3. p. 80. The Passions of the Martyrs we Celebrate with an Anniversary Com­memoration. And so writes Tertullian, Oblationes pro de­functis, pro [...] an­nua die facimus. De Co­ron Milit. p. 339. Vp­on the Annual Day of the Martyrs Sufferings, we offer Thanks to God for them. When this Practice began, cannot certainly be determi­ned; it is first found mentioned in the Letter of the Church of Smirna to the Church of Philomilium, touching the Death of Polycarp, wherein they write, [...]. A­pud Euseb. lib. 4. cap. 15. p 135. That they had gathered up his Martyr'd Bones [Page 147] and buried them in a de­cent place, where, say they, if possible, we will meet to celebrate with Joy and Gladness the Birth­day of his Martyrdom. Hence that they might be certain of the very day of the Martyrs Sufferings, there were some appointed to take an exact Account of them, and faithfully to register them, that so there might be no mi­stake. Thus Cyprian writ from his Exile to the Clergy of his Church, Dies eorum, quibus ex­cedunt, [...], ut com­memorationes eorum in­ter memorias Martyrum celebrare possimus—Sig­nificet mihi dies quibus in carcere beati fratres [...] ad immortalitatem glorio­sae mortis exitu [...], & celebrentur hic a nobis oblationes & Sacrificia ob commemorationes eorum Epist. 37 § 2. p 87, 88. That they should take special care, exactly to note down the very day of the Martyrdom of the Faithful, that so they might be commemorated amongst the Memories of the Martyrs, and to sig­nifie to him the precise time of their departure to a glorious Immortality, that so he might also ce­lebrate it.

§ 8. The Reasons for which they observed these Festivals, we find in the forementioned Letter of the Church of Smirna, wherein they write [...]. Apud Eu­seb. lib. 4. cap. 15. p. 135. That they would meet to celebrate with Joy and Gladness the Martyr­dom [Page 148] of Polycarp, for the Commemoration of those who had already gloriously striven, and for the Confirmation and Pre­paration of others by their Examples. So that their Design was two-fold, to animate and encourage others to follow the glorious Examples of those Heroick Mar­tyrs, who were commemorated before their Eyes, and to declare the Honour and Vene­ration, that they had for those invincible Champions of Jesus Christ, who by their Mar­tyrdoms were now freed from all their Mise­ries and Torments, and Translated to a blessed and glorious Immortality, in an happy man­ner experiencing the Truth of that Scripture in Ecclesiastes 7. 1. That the day of a Man's Death is better than the day of his Birth. Whence the Time of the Martyrs Deaths was usually termed their Birth-Day, because then was a Period of all their Grief and Trouble, and a beginning of their everlasting Bliss and [...]. Thus in the forementioned Letter of the Church of Smirna concerning the Death of Polycarp, they write, 1 [...] Apud [...]. lib. 4. cap. 15. p. 135. Oblationes pro de­functis, pro natalitiis an­nua die facimus. De Coron Milit. p 339. That they would meet to celebrate with joy and gladness the Birth-day of his Martyrdom. And so Tertullian says, that 3 they annually commemora­ted the Birth-days of the Martyrs; that is, their [Page 149] Deathdays; as he writes in another place con­cerning St. Paul, Tunc Paulus civitatis Romanae consequitur na­tivitatem, cum illic Mar­tyrii renascitur generosita­te. Scorpiac adv. Gnostic. p. 615. That he was born at Rome, when he suffered Martyr­dom there.

§ 9. As for the Place where these Anni­versary Solemnities were performed, it was at the Tombs of the Martyrs, who were usu­ally buried with the rest of the Faithful, in a distinct place from the Heathens, it being their Custom to interr the Christians by themselves, seperate from the Pagans; accounting it an hainous Crime, if possibly it could be preven­ted, to mingle their Sacred Ashes with the defiled ones of their Persecuting and Idola­trous Neighbours. Wherefore in the Ratifi­cation of the Disposition of Martialis Bishop of Astorga by an African Synod held Anno 258, this was one of the Articles alledg'd against him, Filios—exterarum gentium more apud pro­fana Sepulchra depositos, & alienigenis consepultos. Apud Cyprian. Epist. 68. § 7. p 202. That he had buried his Sons after the Pagan manner, in Gentile Sepulchres, a­mongst Men of another Faith. And for this Reason it was, that the surviving Christians would run upon ten thousand Hazards, to collect the scattered Members of the Dead Martyrs, and decently to inter them in the common Repository of the Faithful. As when Emilian the barbarous Prefect of Egypt, forbad any, under Severe Penalties, to entomb the Dead Bodies of the murdered Saints, and se­duously [Page 150] watched if any would durst to do it. Yet [...] a Deacon of Alexandria [...]. Dionys. Alexand. apud [...]. lib. 7. c. 11. p. 61. resolute­ly ventured upon it; And it is applauded by the Historian as an Act of Religious Boldness and Freedom, whereby Asturias a Roman Sena­tor rendred himself renouned, in that when [...]. Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 16. p. 264. he saw the Martyrdom of Marinus at Caesarea, he took his martyred Bo­dy, cloathed it with a pre­cious Garment, bore it away on his own Shoulders, and magnificently and de­cently [...] it. And in a Letter from the Christians of Lyons and Vienna in France to the Churches of [...], concerning their sore and grievous Persecuti­ons, we find them passionately complaining of the Inhumane Cruelty of their Persecutors, [...]. Apud Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 1. p. 169. that neither Prayers nor Tears, neither Gold nor Silver, could prevail with them, to permit them to collect the dead Bodies of their murthered Brethren, and decently to [...] them. As on the other hand, the Faithful or the Church of Smirna re­joyced, that they had gotten the most precious [Page 151] Bones of Polycarp, which they buried Apud Euseb. lib. 4 cap. 15 p 135. [...], [...] decebat, where they ought, as Va­lesius renders it; that is, as seems most proba­ble, at the common Burying Place of the Christians.

Now it was at these Tombs and Sepulchres that the Memories of the Martyrs were solem­nized. Thus in the forecited Letter of the Church of Smirna to the Church of Philomili­um, they write, that [...]. Apud Euseb. lib. 4. cap. 15. p. 135. in that place where they had interr'd the Bones of Polycarp, they would by the Blessing of God assem­ble together, and celebrate his Martyrdom; which was a Practice so usual and constant, as that the Heathens observed it: So that as on the one hand, under the Persecution of Valerian, AEmilian the Prefect of Egypt threatned Dionysius Alexandrinus and his Fellow-Sufferers, that for their Obstinacy and [...], as he termed it, he would send them into Lybia, to a desert place called Cephro, [...]. Dion. Alex. apud Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 11. p. 258. where they should not meet together, or go to those places called Ce­meteries. That is, the places where the Mar­tyrs and the rest of the Faithful were buried; so on the other hand when Galienus Valerian's Son restored Peace [Page 152] to the Churches, he published an express E­dict [...]. Apud. Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 13. p. 262. for returning to the Christians the Ceme­teries that were taken from them.

§ 10. If in the next place it shall be enquired, how they observed these Festival Days. I answer, that they did not, according to the fashion of the Heathens, spend them in Riot and Debauchery, in Bacchanalian Revellings and Luxury, but in Religious Exercises and Employments, in Pray­ers and Devotions. [...]. Contra Celsum, lib. 8. p. 392. He, saith Origen, truly keeps a Festival, who does what he ought to do, al­ways praying, and by his Prayers offering up un­bloody Sacrifices unto God.

The Solemnites of these Feast Days were not Drunkenness and Gluttony, but Acts of Piety and Charity. Now they publickly as­sembled, as the Church of Smirna writes in her Letter concerning the Death of Polycarp, [...]. Apud Euseb. lib. 4. cap. 15. p. 135. to commemorate the Martyrs Courage and Triumphs, and to exhort and prepare others to the same glorious and renown­ed Actions. Or as Ter­tullian expresses it, Oblationes facimus. De Coron Milit. [...] 339. now they offered Oblations. [Page 153] as Cyprian, Celebrentur hic a no­bis oblationes & Sacrificia Epist. 37. § 2. p. 88. They offered Oblations and Sacrifi­ces; that is, they offe­red Thanks and Praise to God, that had given Grace to those Mar­tyrs, to Seal his Truths with their Blood, and in evidence of their Gratitude distri­buted of their Substance to the Poor and [...].

CHAP. X.

§ 1. HAving in the precedent Chapters enquired into the several Parts of Divine Worship, and the Circumstances there­of, I now come to close up all with a brief Ap­pendix concerning Rites and Ceremonies, by which I mean two different things: By Rites, I understand such Actions as have an [...] Relation to the Circumstances or man­ner of Worship: As for Instance. The Sa­crament was to be received in one manner or other, but whether from the Bishop or Dea­con, that was the Rite. Lent was to be obser­ved a certain space of Time, but whether One Day, or Two Days, or Three Days, that was the Rite thereof. So that Rites [...] necessary Concomitants of the Circumstan­ces of Divine Worship, Appendages to them; or, if you rather please, you may call them Circumstances themselves.

[Page 155] By Ceremonies, I mean such Actions as have no regard either to the Manner or Circum­stances of Divine Worship, but the Acts there­of may be performed without them; as for instance, In some Churches they gave to Per­sons Suscepti lactis & mel­lis concordiam proegusta­mus. Tertul. de Coron. [...]. p. 337. when they were baptized, Milk and Hony. And, Manibus ablutis—Orationem obire. Idem De Oratione, p. 659. Before they pray­ed, they washed their Hands. Now both these Actions I call Ceremo­nies, because they were not necessary to the Discharge of those Acts of Divine Worship, unto which they were affixed; but those Acts might be performed without them; as Baptism might be entirely administred without the Ceremony of giving Milk and Hony, and Prayers might be presen­ted without washing of Hands.

Now having explained what I intend by those two Terms of Rites and Ceremonies, let us in the next place consider the Practice of the Primitive Church with reference there­unto. And first for Ceremonies.

§ 2. It is apparent that there were many of that kind crept into the Church, of whom we may say, that from the beginning they were not so: For when [...]. Apud [...]. lib. 3. cap. 32. p. [...]. the Quire of the Apostles was dead, till which time, as Hege­sippus writes, the Church remained a pure and un­spotted Virgin; then the [Page 156] Church was gradually [...] and corrupted, as in her Doctrin, so also in her Worship, an Infinity of Ceremonies by degrees insensibly sliding in, very many of which were introdu­ced within my limited time, as Suscepti lactis & mel­lis concordiam praegusta­mus, ex (que) ea die lavacro quotidiano per totam [...] abstinemus. Ter­tul. de Coron Milit. p. 337. the eating of Milk & Hony after Bap­tism, the abstaining from Baths the Week after, Manibus ablutis—orationem obire—ad­signata oratione assidendi mos est quibusdam Idem de Orat. p 659 660. the washing of their Hands before Prayer, their sit­ting after Prayer, and many other such like, which through various ways and means winded themselves into the Church; as some came in through Custom and Tradition; one eminent Man perhaps inven­ted and practised a certain Action, which he used himself, as Judging it fit and proper to stir up his Devotion and Affection; others being led by his Example performed the same, and others again imitated them, and so one followed another, till at length the Action be­came a Tradition and Custom, after which manner those Ceremonies were introduced, Suscepti lactis & [...] concordiam prae­gustamus, exque ea die [...] quotidiano per to­tam hebdomadem [...]—Die Dominico ne­fas ducimus de geniculis adorare, eadem [...] a die Paschae in [...] usque gaudemus ad [...] at (que) promotum, ad omnem a­ditum & exitum—qua­cunque nos [...] exercet frontem crucis signaculo terimus. Harum & aliarum ejusmodi Dis­ciplinarum si legem ex­postules [...] nullam invenies, [...] tibi praetendetur auctrix, consuetudo confirmatrix. Idem de Coron Milit. p 337, 340, 341. of tasting Milk and Hony after Baptism, of abstaining from the Baths the whole ensuing Week, of not kneeling on the Lords Day, and the space between Easter and Whit­suntide, of the Signing of themselves with the Sign [Page 157] of the Cross in all their Actions and Conversati­ons, concerning which and the like, Tertullian writes, That there was no Law in Scripture for them, but that Tradition was their Author, and Custom their Confirmer. Of which Custom we may say what Tertullian says of Custom in general, that Fere consuetudo ini­tium ab aliquà [...] vel simplicitate sortita in usum per successionem corroboratur, & ita ad­versus veritatem vindica­tur, sed Dominus noster Christus veritatem se, non [...]. Si semper Christus & prior omnibus aequè veritas sempiterna & antiqua res—Haereses non tam novitas quam ve­ritas revincit, quodcunque adversus veritatem sapit hoc erit Haeresis, etiam vetus consuetudo. De Vir­gin. Veland. p. 385. commonly Custom takes its rise from Ignorance and Simplicity, which by Succession is corroborated into use, and so vindicated against the Truth: But our Lord Christ hath called himself Truth, and not Custom; wherefore if Christ was always, and before all, then Truth was first and ancientest; it is not so much Novelty as Verity that confutes Hereticks: Whatsoever is against the Truth is Heresie, although it be an old Custom.

Others again were introduced through a wrong Exposition or Misunderstanding of the Scripture; so were their Exorcisms before Baptism, and their Unctions after Baptism, as in their proper places hath been already shewn.

[Page 158] Finally, Others crept in through their Dwelling amongst the Pagans, who in their ordinary Conversations used an Infinity of Su­perstitions; and many of those Pagans, when they were converted to the Saving Faith, Chri­stianiz'd some of their innocent former Cere­monies, as they esteemed them to be; either [...] them deceut and proper to stir up their Devotion, or likely to gain over more Hea­thens, who were offended at the plainness and nakedness of the Christian Worship of which sort were Manibus ablutis—orationem obire—ad­signata oratione assiden­di mos—gentilibus adaequant. De Orat. p. 659, 660. their washing of Honds before Prayer, their sitting after Prayer, and such like. Concern­ing which Tertullian af­firms, that they were practised by the Heathens.

So that by these and such like Methods it was, that so many Ceremonies imperceptibly slid into the Ancient Church, of some of which Tertullian gives this severe Censure, Quibus merito vani­tas exprobanda est, siqui­dem sine ullius aut Domi­nici aut Apostolici prae­cepti auctoritate fiunt, hu­jusmodi enim non Religi­oni, sed Superstitioni de­putantur, affectata & co­acta & curiosi potius quam rationalis officii. Certe vel eo coercenda quod gentilibus adaequent. De Orat. p. 659. That they are deservedly to be condemned as vain, be­cause they are done with­out the Authority of any Precept, either of our Lord, or of his Apostles; that they are not Religi­ous, but Superstitius, af­fected and constrained, curious rather than rea­sonable, and to be abstained from because Hea­thenish.

[Page 159] § 3. As for the Rites and Customs of the Primitive Church, these were indifferent and arbitrary; all Churches being left to their own Freedom and Liberty to follow their pe­culiar Customs and Usages, or to embrace those of others, if they pleased; from whence it is, that we find such a variety of Methods in their Divine Services, many of which [...] be observed in the precedent part of this Dis­course; as, some received the Lords Supper at one time, others at another; Some Chur­ches received the Elements from the Hands of the Bishop, others from the Hands of the Deacons; some made a Collection before the Sacrament, others after; some kept Lent one Day, some two days, and others exactly forty Hours; some celebrated Easter on the same Day with the Jewish Passover, others the Lords Day after; and so in many other things one Church differed from another, as Firmilian writes, that Circa celebrandos di­es Paschae, & circa multa alia divinae rei Sacramenta videat esse apud alios ali­quas diversirates, nec ob­servari illic omnia aequali­ter, quae Hierosolymis ob­servantur, secundum quod in caeteris quo (que) plurimis provinciis multa pro loco­rum & nominum diversita­te variantur. Apud Cyprian Epist. 75. § 5. p. 237. at Rome they did not observe the same Day of Easter, nor many other Customs which were practised at Jerusa­lem; and so in most Provinces many Rites were varied according to the Diversities of Names and Places.

So that every Church followed its own par­ticular Customs, although different from those of its Neighbours, it being nothing necessary [Page 160] to the Unity of the Church, to have an U­niformity of Rites; for according to Firmili­an, the Unity of the Church consisted Fidei & veritatis u­nanimitatem. Apud Cypr. Epist. 75. § 2. p. 236. in an unanimity of Faith and Truth, not in an Uniformity of Modes and Customs; for on the contrary, the Diversity of them, as Ire­naeus speaks with reference to the Fast of Lent [...]. Apud Eu­seb. lib. 5. c. 24. p. 193. did commend and set forth the Vnity of the Faith.

Hence every Church peaceably followed her own Customs, without obliging any other Churches to observe the same; or being obli­ged by them to observe the Rites that they used; yet still maintaining a loving Corres­pondence, and mutual Concord each with other; as Firmilian writes, that Plurimis provinciis multa pro locorum & no­minum diversitate varian­tur, nec tamen propter hoc ab Ecclesiae Catholi­cae pace atque unitate [...] discessum est. A­pud Cyprian. Epist. 75. § 5. p. 237. in most Provinces many Rites were varied according to the Diversities of Names and Places; but yet, saith he, never any one for this broke the Peace and Vnity of the Church. One Church or Bishop did not in those days Ana­thematize another for a disagreement in Rites and Customs; except when Victor Bishop of Rome, through his Pride and Turbulency, excommunicated the Asiatick Bishops for their different Observation of Easter from the Church [Page 161] of Rome; which Action of his was very ill resented by the other Bishops of the Christi­an Churches, and condemned by them as ali­en from Peace and Unity, and contrary to that Love and Charity, which is the very Soul and Spirit of the Gospel; even the Bi­shops of his own Party, that celebrated Easter on the same Day that he did, censured his [...] and violence, as unchristian and un­charitable, and writ several Letters, wherein [...]. Lib. 5. cap. 24. p. 192. they severely checkt him, as Eusebius reports, in whose time they were extant, all which are now lost, except the Fragment of an E­pistle, written by Irenaeus, and other Bishops of France, wherein [...]. A­pud Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 24. p. 192, 193. they affirm, that Victor was in the right with respect to the time of Ea­ster, that it ought to be celebrated, as he said, on the Lords Day, but that yet he had done very [...] to cut off from the V­nity of the Church those that observed it otherwise; that it had never been known, that any Churches were excommunicated for a disagreement in Rites, [...] of which there was not only in the time of Easter [...] self, but in [Page 162] the Fast that preceded it: Some fasted one day, others more; some forty hours, which variety of Observations began not first in our Age, but long before us in the times of our Ancestors, who yet preserved Peace and Vnity amongst themselves, as we now do; for the Diversity of [...] commended the Vnity of Faith: And as for this [...] con­cerning the time of Ea­ster, the Bishops which governed the Church of Rome before Soter, viz. Anicetus, Pius, Higy­nus, Telesphorus, and Xystus, they never cele­brated it the same time with the [...], nei­ther would they permit any of their People so to do; but yet they [...] kind and [...] to those who came to them from those [...], where they did otherwise observe it, and never any for this Cause were thrown out of the Church; even your Predecessors, though they [Page 163] did not keep it, yet they sent the Eucharist to those that did keep it; and when in the times of Ani­cetus, blessed Polycarp came to Rome, and there were some Controversies between them, they did not seperate from one another, but still maintained Peace and Love: And though Anicetus could never perswade Polycarp, nor Polycarp Anice­tus to be of each others mind, yet they communi­cated one with another; and Anicetus in Honour to Polycarpus, permitted him to Consecrate the Sacrament in his Church, and so they departed in mutual love and kindness; and all the Churches, whether observing, or not observing the same Day, retained Peace and Vnity amongst themselves.

§ 4. But though one Church could not o­blige another to a Conformity in Rites and Customs, yet a particular Church or Parish could enforce its own Members to such a Con­formity, an instance whereof we meet with in that famous Controversie about the Time of Easter. It was the Custom of the Asia­ticks to celebrate that Feast at the Full Moon, or at the same time with the Jewish Passover, on whatsoever day of the Week it happened. It was the manner at Rome to observe it the Lords Day after, and both these Churches quietly followed their several Usages, with­out imposing them on each other. But yet the Churches of Asia permitted none of their [Page 164] Members to solemnize it after the Roman manner; neither did the Churches of Rome, or of the West, license any of their Inhabi­tants to celebrate it after the Asiatick manner; for if either of them had granted any such thing, there must have ensued Confusion and Disorder, to have seen Easter differently ob­served in one and the same Church; whilst some Members of a Parish where Fasting, to behold others Feasting, would have been a perfect Ataxy and Irregularity: Therefore though Anioetus Bishop of Rome retained Peace and Unity with Foreign Churches, that diffe­red from him as to the Time of Easter, with­out obliging them to a Compliance with the Roman Custom; yet he peremptorily required it of the Members of his own Church, and [...]. Iren. apud Eu­seb. lib. 5. cap. 24. p. 193. would never permit them to Solemnize that Feast on the same time with the Asiaticks.

So that though every Church had the Liber­ty to use what Rites she pleased, yet every particular Member had not, but was obliged to observe the Manners and Customs of that Church where he lived, or where he occasi­onally communicated. A Church Collectively, or the Majority [...] a Church with their Bishop could change their old Customs, and introduce new ones, as was done in the Affair of Easter, the Asiaticks at length submitting to the Ro­man Usage; but till that was done, every par­ticular Member was required to follow the [Page 165] old Customs of that Church, to which he be­longed, and not to bring in any Innovations or new Rites, because, as was said before, that would beget Tumults and Disorders, and the Persons so acting would be guilty of that Strife and Contention, which is condemned by those Words of the Holy Apostle 1 Cor. 11. 16. But if any Man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom; neither the Churches of God. Which is, as if the Apostle had said, If any Men, either to shew their Wit, or to head and strengthen a Party, will contradict what we have said, and affirm it to be decent and comely, either for Men to pray covered, or Women uncovered, This should silence such Contentious Opposers, that there is no such Rite or Custom in any of the Churches of God, but their Practice is the very same with what we have directed unto, and there­fore to that they ought peaceably and quietly to submit and yield.

Thus now I have finished this Enquiry, and have as far as I could, search'd into what was first proposed. If I have not illustrated any Point, as clearly as might be expected, the reason is, because I found nothing farther pertinent thereunto in those Writings to which I am confined; if I had, I should freely have mentioned it. Whether I have been mi­staken in the Sense and Meaning of any Passage, I must leave unto my Readers to judge; all that I can say is, that I am not conscious to my self of any wilful and designed Mistakes, having throughout this whole Discourse en­deavoured [Page 166] deavoured to find out the plain and naked Truth, without being byass'd to any Party or Faction whatsoever; and that if any one shall be so kind and favourable as to convince me of any Slips or Errors, which I may have committed through Inconsideration, or want of a due Understanding, I shall thankfully ac­knowledge them, and willingly renounce and leave them.

§ 5. What hath been related concerning the Constitution, Discipline, Unity and Wor­ship of the Primitive Church shall suffice, I have nothing more to add, but mine earnest In­treaty and Persuasion unto all those, into whose Hands this little Treatise shall fall, to imitate and follow the Primitive Christians in their Moderation and the Peaceableness of their Temper and Disposition. In those hap­py days the Christians were so eminent above all other Sects for their mutual Love and Cha­rity, that the Heathens observed it with a­stonishment, and cried out with Admiration, Vide, inquiunt, ut invicem se diligunt. Ter­tul. Apolog. cap. 39. p. 709. Behold, how they love one another! Pro alterutro mori sant parati— [...] nos vocamus—quia u­num patrem Deum [...], qui unum Spi­ritum biberunt sanctita­tis, qui de uno utero ig­norantiae [...] ad unam lucem expiraverunt veri­tatis. Ibidem, p. 709. We are, saith Tertullian, ready to die for each other; and we call one another Bre­thren, because we acknow­ledge one and the same God the Father, and have been sanctified by the same holy Spirit, and have been [Page 167] brought from the same state of Ignorance, to the light of the same marvellous. Truth. But alas! Lam. 4. v. 1. How is the Gold be­come [...] How is the most fine Gold changed! How is that Love and Charity now turned into Malice and Cruelty! Pity, Compassion, and Tender-heartedness have left the World, and Envy, Hatred and Rancour are succee­ded in their Places; Love is now exploded as ungenteel and mean, Charity is condemned as abject and base, whilst Hatred, Revenge and Fury are esteemed as Noble and Generous.

But, O Lord, how loug? Shall Malice and Envy, Wrath and Pride for ever ride Tri­umphant and uncontrolled? When [...] thou, O Prince of Peace, and God of Love, heal our Breaches, and compose our Differences, and cause us Ephes. 4. 2, 3. with all lowliness and meekness, and long-suffering to for­bear one another in Love, endeavouring to keep the Vnity of the Spirit in the bond of Peace?

We have too too long unnaturally quar­relled already, and to the Dishonour of God, and the Scandal of Religion, have most un­christianly abused each other: I speak not this only of one Party, but of all; we have all been guilty as to this matter, we have all erred and gone astray from the most Holy Commandment, and have been deficient eve­ry one of us in this great and necessary Duty of Love and Unity: We have loathed Con­cord, and loved Jarrs and Divisions, and have been always back-biting, persecuting and ma­ligning [Page 168] one another to this very day, never at all remembring that we were Brethren, and Professors of the same blessed and glori­ous Religion.

But what shall I say? This Theme is too harsh and displeasing; if it is an unpleasant Work to rip up those uncharitable Actions, may they be buried in perpetual silence and oblivion, and never more be remembred, so as to stir up Anger and Revenge, but only so as they may produce in us all Humility, Re­pentance, and mutual Forgiveness; let us now with our Floods of Penitential Tears at once quench God's Anger for our past Divisi­ons, and the Flames of our present Fire and Heats, that so there may be no Fuel for future Contentions; and being grieved that we have played the Fool so long, we may now the more firmly resolve by the Grace of God to do so no more, that so however infamous we have been heretofore for our blind Zeal and unaccountable Animosities, we may for the time to come be highly renowned and conspi­cuous for our ardent Love and fervent Cha­rity, Ephes. 4. 32, 33. Putting away all bitterness and Wrath, and Anger, and Clamour, and evil speaking, with all Malice, being kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving one ano­ther, even as God for Christs sake hath forgiven us, Colos. 3. 12, 13. Putting on (as the Elect of God, holy and beloved) Bowels of Mer­cy, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness; long suffering, [...] one another, and forgiving one another.

[Page 169] Certain I am, we need no Arguments to in­duce us hereunto; both the necessity and Fa­cility of Love and Unity require it at our hands; its necessity is evident from hence, that whilst we spend our Zeal and Heat about these inconsiderable matters, the very Foun­dations of Faith and Morals are attack'd and shaken, Atheism increases, Immorality pre­vails, and those damnable Heresies, which for many Ages have been silenced and abandoned, are now revived by Men of a corrupt Faith, who take an occasion from the Lawlesness and Licentiousness of this present Age, to vent those cursed Tenents, which eradicate and destroy all Religion; it is to be feared, that unless we hasten to compose our Differences about the Skirts and Fringes of Religion, the very Vitals and Essentials thereof will be cor­roded and devoured by Heresie and Profane­ness.

And as for these and the like Reasons the ne­cessity of an Union or Comprehension is ma­nifest on the one Hand, so the Facility of such an Union is as apparent on the other hand; for, thanks be to God, our differences are neither about Faith nor Manners; we all believe in one and the same God, hope to be saved by one and the same Redeemer, desire to be sanctified by one and the same Sancti­fier, receive one and the same Scriptures, as­sent to the same Doctrins, and acknowledge the necessity of the same Duties: Our Disputes are only about lesser matters, about Modes and Forms, about Gestures and Postures, and such like inferiour matters, about which it [Page 170] should grieve a wise Man to quarrel, and which with the greatest ease in the World might be composed and setled, if managed by Men of Prudence and Moderation; and such Men, tis hoped, are the Reverend Bishops advanced by their Majesties, whose Promotion to those Places of Dignity and Trust many honest and peaceable Men look upon as a good Omen and Prognostick of our Future Union and happy Establishment.

With these two Considerations let us re­member those solemn Vows and Engagements which we made to Almighty God, and to one another in the day of our late Distress; how we then vow'd and promised, that if God would be pleased to deliver and rescue us, we would forget our Differences, and mu­tually condescend and abate of our Rigour and Severity: Wherefore now since God hath so wonderfully saved us, let us not be so per­fidious and faithless, as to neglect to perform what we then obliged our selves unto; but let us willingly and conscientiously discharge it, lest God bring severer Judgments on us then ever, and at once utterly destroy us both Root and Branch, for our Lying, Perjury and Hy­pocrisie.

Many other such cogent Arguments I might [...] produce; but that I may avoid too great Prolixity and Tediousness, I shall urge but one more, which is, that unless we have an u­niting Spirit, and a peaceable Disposition, we are no true Christians, we unjustly ar­rogate that glorious Name; for the very Soul of Christianity is Love and Charity, [Page 171] Rom. 14. 17 18. The Kingdom of God, saith the Apostle, is not Meat and Drink, not zealous Disputes and Strifes about lesser Points, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy [...]; for he that in these serveth Christ, is ac­ceptable to God, and approved of Men. It is an Absurdity and a meer Contradiction, for a Man to say that he is Religious, and yet to be ma­licious and uncharitable. Our Saviour flatly tells us, that John. 13. 35. by this all Men shall know that we are his Disciples, if we have Love one to another. We may talk what we please of Religion, and profess what we list; the Word of God is plain, that whoso­ever hath not Love and Charity, is no Chri­stian; but to allude to that of Christ, John 10. 1. He is a Thief and a Robber, he hath not the Spirit of God abiding and dwelling in him; for Gal. 5. 22. 23. The Fruit of the Spirit is Love, Joy, Peace, Long suffering, Gentleness, Goodness, Faith, Meekness, Temperance. And James 3. 17. The Wisdom from above is peaceable, gentle, and easie to be entreated, full of mercy and good Fruit. So that the very Soul and Spirit of Christianity consists in Unity, Love, and Amity.

Wherefore let my Intreaties be prevalent with you to endeavour for a mutual Compli­ance and Comprehension, as you have any Re­gard to the Honour of God, and the Credit of Religion; as you would hinder the Growth of Damnable Errors, and abominable Debau­cheries, [Page 172] and do what in you lies to prevent the Ruin and Damnation of Multitudes of poor Souls; nay, as you would secure your own Salvation, and be able with Confidence to ap­pear at the dreadful and impartial day of Judg­ment, let me conjure you in the Name of God 1 Pet. 1. 22. to love one another with a pure Heart for­vently, 1 Tim. 6. 11. to follow after Righteousness, Godliness, Faith, Love, Patience, Meekness; to forget and pardon all former Injuries and Affronts, 1 Phil. 3. 14. doing nothing for the time to come, through Strife or Vain-Glory, but in lowliness of Mind, each esteeming others better than themselves, doing all things without Murmur­ings or Disputings, 2 Tim. 2. 23, 24. avoid­ing all foolish and unlearn­ed Questions, knowing that they do but gender Strifes, behaving your selves like the Servants of the Lord, who must not strive, but be gentle unto all Men, apt to teach, patient, mutually comply­ing with each other, doing all things unto E­dification, labouring after Peace and Unity, that so we may at length Rom. 15. 5. with one mind and one mouth glorifie God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

And for the Accomplishment of this blessed and glorious Design, let us above all things avoid Pride and Vain-glory, which, as it is to be feared, hath had no small share both in the causing and increasing of our Divisions: We have been so stiff and self-conceited, and stood so much upon the pitiful Punctilio's of Ho­nour, [Page 173] that we have refused to condescend to one another, or to join in a way of Compre­hension, or mutual Relaxation, which seems to be the only way left for Union and Agree­ment, if ever we hope, or intend to have it. Wherefore let me address my self unto you in the Words of the Reverend and Moderate Bishop Hall, Passion Sermon. Men, Brethren and Fathers help, for Gods sake put to your Hands to the Quenching of this common Flame, the one side by Humili­ty and Obedience the other by Compassion, both by Prayers and Tears. And as he, so let me Ibid. beg for Peace as for Life by your Filial Piety to the Church of God, whose Ruins follow upon our Divisions, by your Love of God's Truth, by the Graces of that one blessed Spirit, whereby we are all informed and quickened, by the precious Blood of that Son of God, which was shed for our Redemp­tion, be inclined to Peace and Love, and though our Brains be different, yet let our Hearts be one. Let us all endeavonr by a Compliance and a Comprehension to promote Love and Charity, Peace and Unity, that so being Children of Peace, and obedient Subjects of the Prince of Peace, the God of Peace may Bless us with Peace, Quiet and Serenity here, and at the end of our Days receive us into his Eternal Peace, and everlasting Rest; which God of his infinite Mercy grant may be the Portion of us all, through the Merits of his only Son our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen, and Amen.