to the Gentiles declaring those glad Tidings to all Kingdoms and Provinces so that as the Apostle Paul said Rom. 10. 18. Their sound went into all the Earth and their words unto the ends of the World every one taking a particular part of the World for his proper Province to make known the joyful News of Life and Salvation through Christ therein Thus St. Andrew principally preach'd the Gospel in Scythia St. Bartholomew in India St. Matthew in Parthia St. John in the Lesser Asia and all the rest of the Apostles had their particular Provinces allotted them wherein they went forth preaching the Gospel and as they came to any City Town or Village they published to the Inhabitants thereof the blessed news of Life and Immortality through Jesus Christ constituting the first Converts of every place through which they passed Bishops and Deacons of those Churches which they there gathered So saith Clemens Romanus The Apostles went forth preaching in City and Country appointing the First Fruits of their Ministry for Bishops and Deacons generally leaving those Bishops and Deacons to govern and enlarge those particular Churches over which they had placed them whilst they themselves passed forwards planted other Churches and placed Governors over them Thus saith Tertullian Clemens was ordained Bishop of Rome by St. Peter and Polycarp Bishop of Smirna by St. John § 5. Whether in the Apostolick and Primitive days there were more Bishops than one in a Church at first sight seems difficult to resolve That the Holy Scriptures and Clemens Romanus mention many in one Church is certain And on the other hand it is as certain that Ignatius Tertullian Cyprian and the following Fathers affirm that there was and ought to be but one in a Church These Contradictions may at the first view seem Inextricable but I hope the following Account will reconcile all these seeming Difficulties and withal afford us a fair and easy Conception of the difference between the Ancient Bishops and Presbyters I shall then lay down as sure that there was but one Supreme Bishop in a place that was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bishop by way of Eminency and Propriety The proper Pastor and Minister of his Parish to whose Care and Trust the Souls of that Church or Parish over which he presided were principally and more immediately committed So saith Cyprian There is but one Bishop in a Church at a time And so Cornelius Objects to Novatian That he did not remember that there ought to be but one Bishop in a Church And throughout the whole Epistles of Ignatius and the generality of Writers succeeding him we find but one single Bishop in a Church whose Quotations to which purpose would be fruitless to recite here since the 〈◊〉 Practice of the Universal Church confirms it and a great part of the following Discourse will clearly illustrate it Only it may not be impertinent to remark this by the way that by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Succession of Bishops from those Bishops who were Ordained by the Apostles the Orthodox were wont to prove the Succession of their Faith and the Novelty of that of the Hereticks Let them demonstrate the Original of their Churches as Tertullian challenges the Marcionites and other Hereticks Let them turn over the Orders of their Bishops and see whether they have had a Succession of Bishops from any one who was Constituted by the Apostles or Apostolick Men Thus the truly Apostolick Churches have as the Church of Smirna has Polycarp there placed by St. John and the Church of Rome Clement ordained by Peter and other Churches can tell who were ordained Bishops over them by the Apostles and who have been their Successors to this very day So also says Irenaeus We challenge the Hereticks to that Tradition which was handed down from the Apostles by the Succession of Bishops And in the next Chapter of the same Book the said Father gives us a Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome till his days by whom the true Faith was successively transmitted down from the Apostles in which Catalogue we find but one Bishop at a time and as he died so another single Person succeeded him in the Charge of that Flock or Parish So that this Consideration evidences also that there was but one Bishop strictly so called in a Church at a time who was related to his Flock as a Pastor to his Sheep and a Parent to his Children The Titles of this Supreme Church-Officer are most of them reckoned up in one place by Cyprian which are Bishop Pastour President Governour Superintendent and Priest And this is he which in the Revelations is called the Angel of his Church as Origen thinks which Appellations denote both his Authority and Office his Power and Duty of both which we shall somewhat treat after we have discoursed of the Circuit and Extent of his Jurisdiction and Superintendency which shall be the Contents of the following Chapter CHAP. II. § 1. As but one Bishop to a Church so but one Church to a Bishop The Bishop's Cure never call'd a Diocess but usually a Parish no larger than our Parishes § 2. Demonstrated by several Arguments § 3. A Survey of the extent of several Bishopricks as they were in Ignatius's days as of Smirna § 4. Ephesus § 5. Magnesia § 6. Philadelphia And § 7. Trallium § 8. The Bigness of the Diocess of Antioch § 9. Of Rome § 10. Of Carthage § 11. A Reflection on the Diocess of Alexandria § 12. Bishops in Villages § 13. All the Christians of a Diocess met together in one place every Sunday to serve God § 1. HAving in the former Chapter shewn that there was but one Bishop to a Church we shall in this evidence that there was but one Church to a Bishop which will appear from this single Consideration viz. That the ancient Diocesses are never said to contain Churches in the Plural but only a Church in the Singular So they say the Church of the Corinthians the Church of Smirna the Church in Magnesia the Church in Philadelphia the Church in Antioch and so of any other place whatsoever the Church of or in such a place This was the common name whereby a Bishops Cure was denominated the Bishop himself being usually called The Bishop of this or that Church as Tertullian saith That Polycarp was ordained Bishop of the Church of Smirna As for the Word Diocess by which the Bishops Flock is now usually exprest I do not remember that ever I found it used in this Sense by any of the Ancients But there is another Word still retained by us by which they frequently denominated the Bishops Cure and that is Parish So in the Synodical Epistle of Irenaeus to Pope Victor the Bishopricks of Asia are twice called Parishes And in Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History the Word is so applied in several hundred places It is usual
of the Bishop We have proved that there was but one Bishop to a Church and one Church to a Bishop we have shewn the Bishop's Office and Function Election and Ordination what farther to add on this Head I know not For as for those other Acts which he performed jointly with his Flock we must refer them to another place till we have handled those other Matters which previously propose themselves unto us The first of which will be an Examination into the Office and Order of a Presbyter which because it will be somewhat long shall be the Subject of the following Chapter CHAP. IV. § 1. The Definition and Description of a Presbyter what he was § 2. Inferior to a Bishop in Degree § 3. But equal to a Bishop in Order § 4. The Reason why there were many Presbyters in a Church § 5. Presbyters not necessary to the Constitution of a Church § 6. When Presbyters began § 1. IT will be both needless and tedious to endeavour to prove that the Ancients generally mention Presbyters distinct from Bishops Every one I suppose will readily own and acknowledge it The great Question which hath most deplorably sharpned and sour'd the Minds of too many is what the Office and Order of a Presbyter was About this the World hath been and still is most uncharitably divided some equalize a Presbyter in every thing with a Bishop others as much debase him each according to their particular Opinions either advance or degrade him In many Controversies a middle way hath been the safest perhaps in this the Medium between the two Extremes may be the truest Whether what I am now going to say be the true 〈◊〉 of the Matter I leave to the Learned Reader to determin I may be deceived neither mine Years nor Abilities exempt me from Mistakes and Errors But this I must needs say That after the most diligent Researches and impartialest Enquiries The following Notion seems to me most plausible and most consentaneous to Truth and which with a great facility and clearness solves those Doubts and Objections which according to those other Hypotheses I know not how to answer But yet however I am not so wedded and bigotted to this Opinion but if any shall produce better and more convincing Arguments to the contrary I will not contentiously defend but readily relinquish it since I search after Truth not to promote a particular Party or Interest Now for the better Explication of this Point I shall first lay down a Definition and Description of a Presbyter and then prove the parts thereof Now the Definition of a Presbyter may be this A Person in Holy Orders having thereby an inherent Right to perform the whole Office of a Bishop but being possessed of no Place or Parish not actually discharging it without the Permission and Consent of the Bishop of a Place or Parish But lest this Definition should seem obscure I shall 〈◊〉 it by this following Instance As a Curate hath the same Mission and Power with the Minister whose Place he supplies yet being not the Minister of that place he cannot perform there any acts of his Ministerial Function without leave from the Minister thereof So a Presbyter had the same Order and Power with a Bishop whom he assisted in his Cure yet being not the Bishop or Minister of that Cure he could not there perform any parts of his Pastoral Office without the permission of the Bishop thereof So that what we generally render Bishops Priests and Deacons would be more intelligible in our Tongue if we did express it by Rectors Vicars and Deacons by Rectors understanding the Bishops and by Vicars the Presbyters the former being the actual Incumbents of a Place and the latter Curates or Assistants and so different in Degree but yet equal in Order Now this is what I understand by a Presbyter for the Confirmation of which these two things are to be proved I. That the Presbyters were the Bishops Curates and Assistants and so inferiour to them in the actual Exercise of their Ecclesiastical Commission II. That yet notwithstanding they had the same inherent Right with the Bishops and so were not of a distinct specifick Order from them Or more briefly thus 1. That the Presbyters were different from the Bishops in gradu or in degree but yet 2. They were equal to them in Ordine or in Order § 2. As to the first of these That Presbyters were but the Bishops Curates and Assistants inferiour to them in Degree or in the actual Discharge of their Ecclesiastical Commission This will appear to have been in effect already proved if we recollect what has been asserted touching the Bishop and his Office That there was but one Bishop in a Church That he usually performed all the parts of Divine Service That he was the general Disposer and Manager of all things within his Diocess there being nothing done there without his Consent and Approbation To which we may particularly add 1. That without the Bishop's leave a Presbyter could not baptize Thus saith Tertullian The Bishop hath the Right of Baptizing then the Presbyters and Deacons but yet for the Honour of the Church not without the Authority of the Bishop and to the same Effect saith Ignatius It is not lawful for any one to baptize except the Bishop permit him 2. Without the Bishop's permission a Presbyter could not administer the Lord's Supper That Eucharist says Ignatius is only valid which is performed by the Bishop or by whom he shall permit for it is not lawful for any one to celebrate the Eucharist without leave from the Bishop 3. Without the Bishops Consent a Presbyter could not preach and when he did preach he could not chuse his own Subject but discoursed on those Matters which were enjoyned him by the Bishop as the Bishop commanded Origen to preach about the Witch of Endor 4. Without the Bishop's Permission a Presbyter could not absolve Offenders therefore Cyprian severely chides some of his Presbyters because they dared in his absence without his Consent and Leave to give the Church's Peace to some offending Criminals But what need I reckon up particulars when in general there was no Ecclesiastical Office performed by the Presbyters without the Consent and Permission of the Bishop So says Ignatius Let nothing be done of Ecclesiastical Concerns without the Bishop for Whosoever doth any thing without the knowledge of the Bishop is a Worshipper of the Devil Now had the Presbyters had an equal Power in the Government of those Churches wherein they lived how could it have been impudent and usurping in them to have perform'd the particular acts of their Ecclesiastical Function without the Bishop's Leave and Consent No it was not fit or just that any one should preach or govern in a Parish without the permission of the Bishop or Pastor thereof for where Churches had been regularly formed under the Jurisdiction of their proper Bishops it
since it was decreed by an African Synod that every one's Cause should be heard where the Crime was committed because that to every Pastor was committed a particular Portion of Christ's Flock which he was particularly to rule and govern and to render an account thereof unto the Lord. And so another African Synod that decreed the Rebaptization of those that were Baptized by Hereticks thus conclude their Synodical Epistle to Pope Stephen who held the contrary Whereas we know that some Bishops will not relinquish an Opinion which they have embraced but keeping the Bond of Peace and Concord with their Colleagues will retain some proper and peculiar Sentiments which they have formerly received to these we offer no violence or prescribe any Law since every Bishop has in the administration of his Church free liberty to follow his own Will being to render an account of his Actions unto the Lord. After these two Synodical Determinations it might be thought needless to produce the single Testimony of Cyprian but that it shews us not only the practice of the Bishops of his Age but also of their Predecessors Amongst the ancient Bishops of our Province saith he some thought that no Peace was to be given to Adulterers for ever excluding them from the Communion of the Church but yet they did not leave their fellow-Fellow-Bishops or for this break the Vnity of the Catholick Church and those that gave Peace to Adulterers did not therefore separate from those that did not but still retaining the Bond of Concord every Bishop disposed and directed his own Acts rendring an account of them unto the Lord. Thus every Church was in this Sense independent that is without the Concurrence and Authority of any other Church it had a sufficient Right and Power in its self to punish and chastise all its delinquent and offending Members § 2. But yet in another Sense it was dependent as considered with other Churches as part of the Church Universal There is but one Church of Christ saith Cyprian divided through the whole World into many Members and one Episcopacy diffused through the numerous Concord of many Bishops A Particular Church was not the whole Church of Christ but only a Part or Member of the Universal one and as one Member of the natural Body hath a regard to all the other Members thereof so a particular Church which was but one Member of the Universal had relation and respect to the other Members thereof Hence tho' the Labours and Inspections of the Bishops were more peculiarly confined to their own Parishes yet as Ministers of the Church Universal they employed a general kind of Inspection over other Churches also observing their Condition and Circumstances and giving unto them an account of their own state and posture as Cyprian inspected that of Arles giving this as his Reason for it that altho' they were many Pastors yet they were but one Flock and they ought to congregate and cherish all the Sheep which Christ redeemed by his Blood and Passion And the Clergy of the Church of Rome thanked Cyprian that he had acquainted them with the state of the Church in Africa for say they We ought all of us to take care of the Body of the whole Church whose Members are distended through various Provinces If the Bishop of one Church had any difficult Point to determine he sent to another Bishop for his Advice and Decision thereof As when Dyonisius Bishop of Alexandria had a critical Cause to determine he sent to Xystus Bishop of Rome to know his Opinion and Counsel therein And so when there was some difference at Carthage about the Pacificatory Libels of the Martyrs Cyprian writ to the Church of Rome for their Advice therein For saith he Dearly beloved Brethren both common Reason and Love require that none of these things that are transacted here should be kept from your Knowledge but that we should have your Counsel about Ecclesiastical Administrations In these and in many other such like Cases which would be needless to enumerate there was a Correspondence between the particular Churches of the Universal one § 3. But that that chiefly deserves our 〈◊〉 was their Intercourse and Government by Synodical Assemblies that is by a Convocation of Bishops Presbyters Deacons and Deputed Lay-men of several particular Churches who frequently met together to maintain Unity Love and Concord to advise about their common Circumstances and Conditions to regulate all Ecclesiastical or Church-Affairs within their respective Limits and to manage other such like things of which I shall more largely treat in the end of this Chapter That which must be spoken of in this Section is the several kinds or sorts of Synods the most august and supreme kind whereof was an Universal or 〈◊〉 Synod which was a Congregation of the Bishops and Deputies of as many Churches as would please to come from all Parts of the World Of this sort I find but one within my limited space of the first three Hundred Years after Christ and that was the Council of Antioch that condemned Paulus Samosatenus Or if this will not pass for a General Council there was no such one before that of Nice which was held Anno 325. and so there was no one of this kind within that time to which I am confined But those Synods which were very frequent within my prescribed time were Provincial Synods that is as many particular Churches as could conveniently and orderly associate themselves together and by their common Consent and Authority dispose and regulate all things that related to their Polity Unity Peace and Order What extent of Ground or how many particular Churches each of such Synods did contain cannot be determined their Precincts were not alike in all places but according as their Circumstances and Conveniencies would permit so they formed themselves into these Synodical Assemblies and were governed in common by those Synods who were called the Synods of such or such a Province As we read in Cyprian of the Province of Arles and the Bishops therein And Cyprian frequently speaks of the Bishops of his Province as the Bishops 2 in our Province and 3 throughout our Province and throughout the Province And tells us that his Province was very large and that it was the custom of his Province and almost all other Provinces that upon the Vacancy of a Parish the neighbouring Bishops of that Province should meet together at that Parish to Ordain them a new Bishop § 4. How often these Provincial Synods were convened is uncertain since that varied according to their Circumstances and their 〈◊〉 Customs Firmilian Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia writes that in his Province they met every Year And whosoever will consider the frequent Synods that are mentioned in Cyprian will find that in his Province they met at least once and sometimes twice or thrice a Year § 5. As for
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 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. 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 That at the approach of a Persecution penitent Offenders should be restored to the Churches Peace That Penance should not be hastily passed over or Absolution be rashly and speedily given 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 That no Clergyman should be a Curator or Trustee of a last Will or Testament 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 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 were contented only with chiding him for his rashness and with strictly charging him that he should do so no more So another Synod in Africa decreed that 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 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 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 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. Of the Vnity of the Church of Schism defined to be a Breach of that Vnity The Vnity of the Church and consequently the Breach of it to be differently understood according to the various Significations of the Word Church § 2. The Vnity of the Church Vniversal considered Negatively and Positively Negatively it consisted not in an Vniformity of Rites nor in an Vnanimity of Consent to the non-essential Points of Christianity The Rigid Imposers thereof condemned as Cruel and Tyrannical § 3. Positively it consisted in an harmonious Assent to the Essential Articles of Faith The Non-agreement therein called Schism but not the Schism of the Ancients § 4. How the Vnity of a Church Collective was broken this neither the Schism of the Ancients § 5. The Vnity of a particular Church consisted in two things in the Members Love and Amity each towards other and in the Peoples close adherence to their Bishop or Parish Church The Breach of the former sometimes called Schism § 6. The Breach of the latter which was a causeless Separation from their Bishop the Schism of the Ancients In how many Cases it was lawful for the People to separate from their Bishop § 7. A Separation under any other Pretence whatsoever was that which the Fathers generally and principally meant by Schism proved so to have been § 8. Farther proved from Ignatius § 9. Exemplified in the Schism of Felicissimus and Novarian § 10. An Objection answered touching the Schism of Novatian How the Schism of one particular Church affected other Churches § 11. A Summary and Conclusion of this Discourse concerning Schism § 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 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
of the Church And Cyprian writes that 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 Cyprian Then its Unity may have consisted 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 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 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 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 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 We must fly far off from all Hereticks And Origen allows the People to separate from their Bishop if they could accuse him of false and 〈◊〉 Doctrine 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 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 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 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
the Catholick Church And Secundinus Bishop of Carpis determined that on Hereticks who are the Seed of Antichrist the Holy Ghost cannot be conferred by Imposition of Hands alone in Confirmation Stephen pleaded on his side That 〈◊〉 very Name of Christ was so advantagious to Faith and the Sanctification 〈◊〉 Baptism that in what place soever any one was baptized in that Name he immediately obtained the Grace of Christ. But unto this Firmilian briefly replies That if the Baptism of Hereticks because done in the Name of Christ was sufficient to purge away Sins why was not Confirmation that was performed in the Name of the same Christ sufficient to bestow the Holy 〈◊〉 And therefore it is thus eagerly argued by Cyprian Why 〈◊〉 they saith he meaning Stephen and his Party who received Hereticks by Imposition of Hands only patronize Hereticks and Schismaticks let them answer us have they the Holy Ghost or have they not If they have why then do they lay Hands on those that are baptized by them when they ceme over to us to bestow on them the Holy Ghost when they had received him before for if he was there they could confer him But if Hereticks and 〈◊〉 have not the Spirit of God and therefore we lay Hands on them in Confirmation that they may here receive what Hereticks neither have nor can give it is manifest that since they have not the Holy Ghost they cannot give remission of Sins That is since they cannot Confirmtherefore they cannot Baptize So that from these and some other Passages which to avoid tediousness I omit it is clear that both Stephen and Cyprian understood by Imposition of Hands that which we now call 〈◊〉 Secondly I now come to shew that they also termed it Absolution as will appear from these following Instances They says Cyprian meaning Stephen and his Followers urge that in what they do they follow the old Custom that was used by the Ancients when Heresies and Schisms first began when those that went over to them first were in the Church and baptized therein who when they returned again to the Church and did Penance were not forced to be baptized But this says he makes nothing against us for we now observe the very same Those who were baptized here and from us went over to the Hereticks if afterwards being sensible of their Error they return to the Church we only absolve them by the Imposition of Hands because once they were Sheep and as wandring and straying Sheep the Shepherd receives them into his Flock but if those that come from Hereticks were not first baptized in the Church they are to be baptized that they may become Sheep for there is but one Holy Water in the Church that makes Sheep But that this Imposition of Hands was the same with Absolution will most evidently appear from the Opinion or Determination of Stephen and from Cyprian's Answer thereunto Stephen's Opinion or Determination was If any shall from any Heresie come unto us let nothing be innovated or introduced besides the old Tradition which is that Hands be imposed on him as a Penitent Now unto that part of this Decree which asserts the Reception of Hereticks only by Absolution or the Imposition of Hands in Penance to be a Tradition descended down from their Predecessors Cyprian replies That he would observe it as a Divine and Holy Tradition if it were either commanded in the Gospel and the Epistles of the Apostles or contained in the Acts that those who came from Hereticks should not be baptized but only Hands imposed on them for Penance or as Penitents but that for his part he never found it either commanded or written that on an Heretick Hands should be only imposed for Penance and so he should be admitted to Communion Wherefore he on his side concludes and determins Let it therefore be observ'd and held by us that all who from any Herefie are converted to the Church be baptized with the one lawful Baptism of the Church except those who were formerly baptized in the Church who when they return are to be received by the alone Imposition of Hands after Penance into the Flock from whence they have strayed So that these Instances do as clearly prove that they meant by their Imposition of Hands Absolution as the former Instances do that they meant Confirmation and both of them together plainly shew and evidence Confirmation and Absolution to be the very self-same thing for since they promiscuously used and indifferently applyed these Terms and that very thing which in some Places they express by Confirmation in others they call Absolution it necessarily follows that there can be no essential or specifical difference between them but that they are of a like numerical Identity or Sameness But Secondly I now come in the next place to demonstrate that together with the Bishop and sometimes without the Bishop Presbyters did absolve by Imposition of Hands That they did it together with the Bishop several places of Cyprian abundantly prove Offenders saith he Receive the right of Communion by the Imposition of Hands of the Bishop and of his Clergy And No Criminal can be admitted to Communion unless the Bishop and Clergy have imposed Hands on him And that some times they did it without the Bishop always understanding his leave and permission is apparent from the Example of Serapion who being out of the Churches Peace and approaching the hour of Dissolution sent for one of the Presbyters to Absolve him which the Presbyter did according to the Order of the Bishop who had before given his Permission unto the Presbyters to absolve those who were in danger of Death And as the Bishop of Alexandria gave his Presbyters this Power so likewise did Cyprian Bishop of Carthage who when he was in Exile order'd his Clergy to confess and absolve by Imposition of Hands those who were in danger of Death And If any were in such condition they should not expect his Presence but betake themselves to the first Presbyter they could find who should receive their Confession and absolve them by Imposition of Hands So that it is evident that Presbyters even without the Bishop did absolve Offenders and formally receive them into the Churches Peace by Imposition of Hands Now then If the Imposition of Hands on Persons just after Baptism and the Imposition of Hands at the Restitution of Offenders was one and the self-same thing and if Presbyters had Power and Authority to perform the latter I see no reason why we should abridge them of the former both the one and the other was Confirmation and if Presbyters could confirm at one time why should we doubt of their Right and Ability to perform it another time If it was lawful for them to impose Hands on one occasion it was as lawful for them to do it on another § 9. From the precedent Observation of the Identity
the Ordinary and less mysterious Truths of the Gospel If they behaved themselves well in this Rank then they were advanced to the Superior Rank of the 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 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 we initiate them in our Mysteries 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 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 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 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 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 as Paulus Samosatenus Bishop of Antioch was deprived by a Synod held in that place and 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 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 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 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 Church and 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 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
not have 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 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 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 't is 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 desired five Bishops 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 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 not only for those Crimes for which they were cited to appear but also for their Contumacy and Stubbornness as Cyprian writes the Proud and Obstinate are killed with the Spiritual Sword whilst they are cast out of the Church and 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 were to plead their Cause before the Clergy and the whole Church Then the Court consider'd the Defendant's Plea as Cyprian writes 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 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 pronounced as Tertullian intimates in that fore-quoted 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 Various are the Appellations that are given to the Sentence of Excommunication in the Writings of the Ancients By Dionysius Alexandrinus it is called A driving away from the Church By Tertullian A casting out from the Churches Communion and a driving from Communion By Cyprian A Separation from the Church An Ejection out of the Church 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 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 that according to the Command of Paul we must avoid 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 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
the Members that composed these Synods they were Bishops Presbyters Deacons and Deputed Laymen in behalf of the People of their respective Churches Thus at that great Synod of Antioch that condemned Paulus Samosatenus there were present Bishops Presbyters Deacons and the Churches of God that is Laymen that represented the People of their several Churches So also we read in an ancient Fragment in Eusebius that when the Heresie of the Montanists was fix'd and preach'd the Faithful in Asia met together several times to examine it and upon examination condemned it So also when there were some Heats in the Church of Carthage about the Restitution of the Lapsed Cyprian writes from his Exile that the Lapsed should be patient till God had restored Peace to the Church and then there should be convened a Synod of Bishops and of the Laity who had stood firm during the Persecution to consult about and determine their Affairs Which Proposition was approved by Moses and Maximus and other Roman Confessors who liked the consulting of a Synod of Bishops Presbyters Deacons Confessors and the standing Laity as also did the whole Body of the Clergy of the Church of Rome who were willing that that Affair of the Lapsed should be determined by the common Counsel of the Bishops Presbyters Deacons Confessors and the standing Laity And thus at that great Council held at 〈◊〉 Anno 258. there were present Eighty Seven Bishops together with Presbyters Deacons and a great part of the Laity § 6. If it shall be demanded by whose Authority and Appointment Synods were assembled To this it will be replyed That it must necessarily have been by their own because in those Days there was no Christian Magistrate to order or determine those Affairs § 7. When a Synod was convened before ever they entred upon any Publick Causes they chose out of the gravest and renownedst Bishops amongst them one or sometimes two to be their Moderator or Moderators as at the Council held at Carthage Anno 258. Cyprian was Moderator or Prolocutor thereof And so we read of the Prolocutors of several Synods that were assembled in divers parts of the World to determine the Controversies concerning Easter As Victor Bishop of Rome was Prolocutor of a Synod held there Palmas Bishop of Amastris Moderator of a Synod held in Pontus and Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons of another in France Polycrates Bishop os Ephesus presided over a Synod of Asiatick Bishops and at a Convocation in Palestina there were two Moderators viz. Theophilus Bishop of Caesarea and Narcissus Bishop of Jerusalem The Office and Duty of a Moderator was to preside in the Synod to see all things calmly and fairly debated and decreed and at the conclusion of any Cause to sum up what had been debated and urged on both sides to take the Votes and Suffrages of the Members of the Synod and last of all to give his own All this is evident in the Proceedings of the Council of Carthage which are extant at the end of Cyprian's Works Cyprian being Moderator of that Council After all things were read and finished relating to the Question in hand sums up all telling the Synod what they had heard and that nothing more remained to be done but the Declaration of their Judgment thereupon Accordingly thereunto the Bishops gave their respective Votes and Decisions and last of all Cyprian as President gave in his § 8. When the Moderator was chosen then they entred upon the consideration of the Affairs that lay before them which may be consider'd in a two-fold respect either as relating to Foreign Churches or to those Churches only of whom they were the Representatives As for foreign Churches their Determinations were not obligatory unto them because they were not represented by them and so the chiefest matter they had to do with them was to give them their Advice and Counsel in any difficult Point which they had proposed to them as when the People of Astorga and Emerita in Spain had written to some African Churches for their Advice what to do with their two Bishops who had lapsed in Times of Persecution This Case was debated in a Synod held Anno 258 whose Opinion thereupon is to be seen in their Synodical Epistle extant at large amongst the Works of Cyprian Epist. 68. p. 200. § 9. But with respect unto those particular Churches whose Representatives they were their Decrees were binding and obligatory since the Regulation and Management of their Affairs was the general End of their Convening Various and many were the particular Ends of these Synodical Conventions as for the prevention of Injustice and Partiality in a Parish Consistory As suppose that such a Consistory had wrongfully and unrighteously censured one of their Members what should that censured Person do unless appeal to the Synod to have his Cause heard there as Felicissimus did who after he was excommunicated by his own Parish of which Cyprian was Bishop had his Cause heard before a Synod who ratified and confirmed the Sentence of Excommunication against him And therefore we may suppose it to be for the prevention of Partiality and Injustice that in Lesser Asia Offenders were usually absolved by the Synod which met every Year Synods also were assembled for the examining condemning and excommunicating of all Hereticks within their Limits that so the Faithful might avoid and shun them As Paulus Samosatenus was condemned by the Council of Antioch for resolving of all difficult Points that did not wound the Essentials of Religion or had relation unto the Discipline of the Church as when there was some Scruple about the Time of baptizing of Children a Synod of Sixty Six Bishops met together to decide it And so when there were some Disputes concerning the Martyrs Power to restore the Lapsed Synods were to be assembled to decide them But why do I go about to reckon up Particulars when as they are endless let this suffice in general that Synods were convened for the Regulation and Management of all Ecclesiastical Affairs within their respective Jurisdictions as Firmilian writes that in his Country the Bishops and Presbyters met together every Year to dispose those things which were committed to their charge Here they consulted about the Discipline Government and External Polity of their Churches and what means were expedient and proper for their Peace Unity and Order which by their common Consent they enacted and decreed to be observed by all the Faithful of those Churches whom they did represent He who denies this must be very little acquainted with the ancient Councils especially those which were held after the Emperors became Christians The reason why we find not more Synodical Decrees of the three first Centuries comes not from that they judicially determined none or required not the observance of them but from that either they were not careful or the Fury and Violence of the Times would