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-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
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 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 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 they had committed Schisms and been the Authors of Heresies And in the same Epistle they call Novatian an Heretick and a Schismatick So Cyprian also accuses the said Novatian of heretical Pravity and calls his Error a Schismatical and Heretical Error 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 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 That Martian 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 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 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
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
Authors mentioned in this Treatise together with those Editions that I have made use of are as follow S. Ignatii Epistolae Graeco-Latin Quarto Edit Isaci Vossii Amstelodam 1646. S. Barnabae Epistola Catholica Edit ad Calcem S. Ignatii Quarto Amstelodam 1646. S. Clementis Romani Epistolae Graeco-Latin Quaerto Edit Patricii Junii Oxonii 1633. S. Irenaei Opera Folio Edit Nic. Galasii Genevae 1580. S. Justini Martyris Opera Graeco-Latin Folio Coloniae 1686. Epistola Plinii Secundi Trojano Imperatori de Christianis in fronte Operum Justin. Martyr Colon. 1686. Clementis Alexandrini Opera Folio Edit Heinsii Lugdun Batav 1616. Tertulliani Opera Folio Edit Paris 1580. Novatiani De Trinitate De Cibis Judaicis inter Opera Tertulliani Edit Paris 1580. Cypriani Opera Folio Edit Sim. Goulart apud Johan le Preux 1593. Vita Cypriani per Pontium ejus Diaconum In fronte Oper. Cyprian Edit Goulart 1593. Fragmentum Victorini Petavionensis De Fabrica Mundi pag. 103 104. Histor. literar Dr. S. Cave Edit Folio Londini 1688. Minucii Felices Octavius Edit ad Calcem Tertullian Apolog. per Desiderium Heraldum Quarto Paris 1613. Origenis Commentaria omnia quae Graece Reperiuntur Edit de Huetii 2 Vol. Folio Rothomagi 1668. Originis contra Celsum Libri Octo ejusdem Philocalia Graeco-Latin Edit Quarto per Gulielm Spencer Cantabrigiae 1677. Originis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seu De Oratione Graeco-Latin Octavo Oxonii 1685. As for those other Works of Origen which are extant only in Latin I have made no use at all of those of Ruffin's Translation except his Creed since in them we know not which we read whether Origen or Ruffin and as for those which were translated by more faithful Hands I have used the Editions of Merlin or Erasmus without nominating the Page Eusebii Pamphili Ecclesiastica Historia Graeco-Latin Folio Edit Henric. Vales. Paris 1659. I have read only the Seven first Books of Eusebius's History because the three others go beyond my limited Time As for the Writings of S. Gregory of Neocaesarea they are but few and from thence I have taken nothing but his Creed so that there is no need to mention any Edition of his Works The same I may say also of the short Epistle of Polycarp which I have cited but once and therein have used the Version of Dr. Cave extant in his Apostolici pag. 127. There are vet some other Fathers whose remaining Tracts I have read as Theophilus Antiochenus Athenagoras c. who are not cited in this 〈◊〉 because I have found nothing in them 〈◊〉 to my Design An Enquiry into the Constitution Discipline Unity and Worship of the Primitive Church CHAP. I. § 1. The various Significations of the word Church § 2. A particular Church the chief Subject of the ensuing Discourse The constituent parts thereof Two-fold viz. Clergy and Laity § 3. Each of these had their particular Functions and both their joint Offices Three things on which a great part of the following Discourse depends proposed to be handled viz. The Peculiar Acts of the Clergy The Peculiar Acts of the Laity and the Joint Acts of them both § 4. The Peculiar Acts of the Clergy propounded to be discussed according to their several Orders First of the Bishops A View of the World as it was in a state of Heathenism at the first Preaching of Christianity necessary to be consider'd Where the Apostles planted Churches they appointed the first Converts to be Bishops thereof § 5. But one Bishop in a Church The Orthodoxness of the Faith proved from the Succession of the Bishops The Titles and Relation of the Bishop to his Flock § 1. THAT we may give the more clear and distinct Answer to this Important 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 The Church dispersed thro' the whole World to the ends of the Earth and The Church scattered in the whole World And Origen calls it 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 The Catholick Church throughout the World And in this Sense Dionysius Alexandrinus calls the persecuting Emperour Macrianus 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 which is in any place And so Dionysius Alexandrinus writes that when he was banished to Cephro in Lybia there came so many Christians unto him that even there he had a Church Tertullian thinks that Three were sufficient to make a Church In this sense we must understand the Church of Rome the Church of Smyrna the Church of Antioch 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 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 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 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 That they should only come to the Threshold of the Church-door but not go over it And in this Sense is the Word frequently to be understood in Tertullian 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 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 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 but the Churches of Cilicia And so Irenaeus mentions The Churches that were in Germany Spain France the East Egypt and Lybia So also Tertullian speaks of the Churches of Asia and Phrygia and 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 espoused the Church and that there was a Spiritual Marriage between Christ and the Church And that of Irenaeus That the Church was fitted according to the form 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 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 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 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 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 it is applyed to any particular Sect of Hereticks as Tertullian calls the Marcionites the Church of Marcion At other times it is attributed to the Orthodox in opposition to the Hereticks as by the same Tertullian Sometimes it is appropriated to the Heathen Assemblies as by Origen at other times in Opposition to the Jews it is ascribed to the believing Gentiles as by Irenaeus In some places it is taken for the Deputies of a Particular Church as in 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 Clemens Alexandriaeus Once I find it denoting the Laity only in opposition to the Clergy And once signifying only 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 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 Elect 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 Clemens Romanus and after him by 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 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 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
gave unto 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 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 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 before the whole Church So Clemens Romanus calls the Censures of the Church the things commanded by the multitude And so the two offending Subdeacons and Acolyth at Carthage were to be tried before the whole 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 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 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 by the 〈◊〉 of all the Brotherhood which was also the custom throughout all Africa for the Bishop to be chosen in the Presence of the People And so Fabianus was chosen to be Bishop of Rome 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 an African Synod held Anno 258 determined 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 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 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 always read them to his most holy and numerous People And without doubt when Firmilian writ 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 the Church of Rome writ to the Church of Corinth And Cyprian 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 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 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 Church of Philadelphia 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 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 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 frequently assembled together as Ignatius advised Polycarp the Bishop of this Church To convene his Diocess to chuse a faithful honest Man to send a Messenger into Syria So that the Bishop of this Church could know his whole Flock personally by their Names carrying himself respectfully and charitably to all with all meekness and humility towards Serving-men and Serving-maids and charitably taking care of the Widows within his Diocess permitting nothing to be done there without his Privity Insomuch that none were married without his previous advice
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 in some Churches they 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 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 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 he would 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 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 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 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 were the Cause of Schism and Division unto whom therefore may be applyed that Saying of Irenaeus 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 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 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 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 〈◊〉 and others 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 did divide and separate the Unity
whatsoever and therefore neither an African Synod nor Antonius an African Bishop would communicate with the Legates of Novatian Nor would 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 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 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 sent Maximus a Presbyter Augendus a Deacon Machaeus and Longinus unto Cyprian to inform him of his Promotion to the See of 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 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 Directed his Congratulatory Letters unto him refused to communicate with the Schismatical Messengers of Novatian and exhorted them to quit their Schism and to submit to their lawfully elected Bishop 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 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 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 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 FINIS THE SECOND PART OF THE ENQUIRY INTO THE Constitution Discipline Unity Worship OF THE Primitive Church That Flourished within the First Three Hundred Years after CHRIST Faithfully Collected out of the Extant Writings of those Ages By an Impartial Hand LONDON Printed for Jonathan Robinson at the Golden Lyon and John Wyat at the Rose in St. Paul's Church-Yard 1691. The Second Part of the Enquiry into the Constitution Discipline Unity and Worship of the Primitive Church CHAP. I. § 1. Of the Publick Worship of the Primitive Church § 2. In their Assemblies they began with Reading the Scriptures Other Writings Read besides the Scriptures § 3. Who Read the Scriptures from whence they were Read and how they were Read § 4. Whether there were appointed Lessons § 5. After the 〈◊〉 of the Scriptures there followed Singing of Psalms § 6. What Psalms they Sung § 7. The manner of their Singing § 8. Of Singing Men and of Church Musick § 9. To Singing of Psalms succeeded Preaching On what the Preacher discoursed How long his Sermon was § 10. The Method of their Sermons § 11. Who Preached usually the Bishop or by his Permission any other either Clergyman or Layman § 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 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 The Writings of the Prophets and Apostles were read 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 Hermas called Pastor and 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 was first to begin with the Office of reading The Name by which this Officer was distinguished was in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Latin 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
one but all Men ought to be admitted to the Grace of Christ as Peter saith in the Acts of the Apostles that the Lord said unto him that he should call no Man common or unclean But if any thing can hinder Men from Baptism it will be hainous Sins that will debar the Adult and Mature therefrom and if those who have sinned extremely against God yet if afterwards they 〈◊〉 are baptized and no Man is prohibited 〈◊〉 this Grace how much more ought not an Insant to be 〈◊〉 who being but just born is guilty of 〈◊〉 Sin but of Original which he 〈◊〉 from Adam Who ought the more 〈◊〉 to be received to the remission of Sins 〈◊〉 not his own but others sins are remitted to him Wherefore dearly beloved it is our Opinion that from 〈◊〉 and the Grace of God who is merciful kind and benign to all none 〈◊〉 to be prohibited by us which as it is to be observed and followed with respect to all so especially with respect to Infants and those that are but just born who deserve our Help and the Divine 〈◊〉 because at the first instant of their Nativity they beg it by their Cries and Tears Apud Cyprian 〈◊〉 59. § 2 3 4. p. 164 165. 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 as these were first instructed in the 〈◊〉 Faith continued some time in the Rank of the 〈◊〉 till 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 heard the Questions and Answers of those that were Baptized Which Questions Firmilian styles 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 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 〈◊〉 When 〈◊〉 are baptized 〈◊〉 renounce the World the Devil and his Angels And with 〈◊〉 Mouth we have vowed to renounce the World the 〈◊〉 and his Angels And We have renounced the Devil and his Angels And Thou hast 〈◊〉 to renounce the World the Devil and his Angels And 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 When we were baptized we renounced the World And We have renounced the World its Pomps and Delights And The Servant of God has renounced the Devil and the World And We have renounced the World and by the Faith of Spiritual Grace have cast off its Riches and Pomps And We 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Devil and the World And so likewise saith Clemens Alexandrinus that in Baptism 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 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 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 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 The Law of the Symbol And by Novatian The Rule of Truth § 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 § 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignat. Epist. ad 〈◊〉 p. 52. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lib. 1. c. 2. p. 35 36 〈◊〉 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
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
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 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. Of the Lord's Supper The Time when administred § 2. Persons that received it none present at the Celebration thereof besides the Communicants § 3. The manner of its Celebration In some places the Communicants first made their Offerings § 4. The Minister began with a Sacramental Discourse or Exhortation Then followed a Prayer consisting of Petitions and Praises which consecrated both the Elements at once § 5. After that the Words of the Institution were read § 6. Then the Bread was broken and the Wine poured out and both distributed Diversity of Customs in the manner of the Distribution § 7. The Posture of Receiving § 8. After they had communicated they sung a Psalm and then concluded with Prayer and a Collection for the Poor § 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 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 at Supper-time 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 of their receiving the Eucharist in their Antelucan Assemblies or in their Assemblies before day And Pliny reports that in his time the Christians were wont to meet together before it was light and to bind themselves by a Sacrament Cyprian writes that in his Days they administer'd this Sacrament both Morning and Evening And 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 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 the faithful 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 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 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. 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 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 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 It being our Duty as Irenaeus writes to offer unto God the first Fruits of his Creatures as Moses saith Thou shalt not appear empty before the Lord. 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 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
this Enquiry with an earnest Perswasion to Peace Vnity and Moderation § 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 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 when they were baptized Milk and Hony And 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 the Quire of the Apostles was dead till which time as Hegesippus writes the Church remained a pure and unspotted Virgin then the 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 the eating of Milk Hony after Baptism the abstaining from Baths the Week after 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 § 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 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 to the Unity of the Church to have an Uniformity of Rites for according to Firmilian the Unity of the Church consisted 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 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 in most Provinces