had been an unaccountable Impudence and a most detestable act of Schism for any one tho' never so legally Ordained to have entred those Parishes and there to have performed Ecclesiastical Administrations without the permission of or which is all one in Defiance to the Bishops or Ministers thereof for though a Presbyter by his Ordination had as ample an inherent Right and Power to discharge all Clerical Offices as any Bishop in the World had yet Peace Unity and Order oblig'd him not to invade that part of God's Church which was committed to another Man's Care without that Man's Approbation and Consent So then in this Sense a Presbyter was inferiour to a Bishop in Degree in that having no Parish of his own he could not actually discharge the particular Acts of his Ministerial Function without leave from the Bishop of a Parish or Diocess The Bishops were superiour to the Presbyters in that they were the presented 〈◊〉 and inducted Ministers of their respective Parishes and the Presbyters were inferiour to the Bishops in that they were but their Curates and Assistants § 3. But though the Presbyters were thus different from the Bishops in Degree yet they were of the very same specifick Order with them having the same inherent Right to perform those Ecclesiastical Offices which the Bishop did as will appear from these three Arguments 1. That by the Bishop's permission they discharged all those Offices which a Bishop did 2. That they were called by the same Titles and Appellations as the Bishops were And 3. That they are expresly said to be of the same Order with the Bishops As to the first of these That by the Bishop's permission they discharged all those Offices which a Bishop did this will appear from that 1. When the Bishop ordered them they preach'd Thus Origen in the beginning of some of his Sermons tells us That he was commanded thereunto by the Bishop as particularly when he preach'd about the Witch of Endor he says The Bishop commanded him to do it 2. By the permission of the Bishop Presbyters baptized Thus writes Tertullian The Bishop has the Right of Baptizing and then the Presbyters but not without his leave 3. By the leave of the Bishop Presbyters administred the Eucharist as must be supposed in that saying of Ignatius That that Eucharist only was valid which was celebrated by the Bishop or by one appointed by him and that the Eucharist could not be delivered but by the Bishop or by one whom he did approve 4. The Presbyters ruled in those Churches to which they belonged else this Exhortation of Polycarpus to the Presbyters of Philippi would have been in vain Let the Presbyters be tender and merciful compassionate towards all reducing those that are in Errors visiting all that are weak not negligent of the Widow and the Orphan and him that is poor but ever providing what is honest in the sight of God and Men abstaining from all Wrath Respect of Persons and unrighteous Judgment being far from Covetousness not hastily believing a Report against any Man not rigid in Judgment knowing that we are all faulty and obnoxious to Judgment Hence 5. They presided in Church-Consistories together with the Bishop and composed the executive part of the Ecclesiastical Court from whence it was called the Presbytery because in it as Tertullian says Approved Elders did preside 6. They had also the Power of Excommunication as Rogatianus and Numidicus Two Presbyters of Cyprian's Church by his Order join'd with some Bishops of his Nomination in the Excommunication of certain Schismaticks of his Diocess But of both these two Heads more will be spoken in another place 7. Presbyters restored returning Penitents to the Church's peace Thus we read in an Epistle of Dyonisius Bishop of Alexandria That a certain Offender called Serapion approaching to the time of his Dissolution Sent for one of the Presbyters to absolve him which the Presbyter did according to the Order of his Bishop who had before commanded That the Presbyters should absolve those who were in danger of Death 8. Presbyters Confirmed as we shall most evidently prove when we come to treat of Confirmation Only remark here by the way That in the days of Cyprian there was a hot Controversie Whether those that were baptized by Hereticks and came over to the Catholick Church should be received as Members thereof by Baptism and Confirmation or by Confirmation alone Now I would fain know Whether during the vacancy of a See or the Bishop's absence which sometimes might be very long as Cyprian was absent two years a Presbyter could not admit a returning Heretick to the Peace and Unity of the Church especially if we consider their positive Damnation of all those that died out of the Church If the Presbyters had not had this Power of Confirmation many penitent Souls must have been damn'd for the unavoidable Default of a Bishop which is too cruel and unjust to imagine 9. As for Ordination I find but little said of this in Antiquity yet as little as there is there are clearer Proofs of the Presbyters Ordaining than there are of their administring the Lord's Supper All Power and Grace saith Firmilian is constituted in the Church where Seniors preside who have the Power of Baptizing Confirming and Ordaining or as it may be rendred and perhaps more agreeable to the sense of the place Who had the Power as of Baptizing so also of Confirming and Ordaining What these Seniors were will be best understood by a parallel place in Tertullian for that place in Tertullian and this in Firmilian are usually cited to expound one another by most Learned Men as by the most Learned Dr. Cave and others Now the passage in Tertullian is this In the Ecclesiastical Courts approved Elders preside Now by these approved Elders Bishops and Presbyters must necessarily be understood because Tertullian speaks here of the Discipline exerted in one particular Church or Parish in which there was but one Bishop and if only he had presided then there could not have been Elders in the Plural Number but there being many Elders to make out their Number we must add the Presbyters to the Bishop who also presided with him as we shall more fully shew in another place Now the same that presided in Church-Consistories the same also ordained Presbyters as well as Bishops presided in Church-Consistories therefore Presbyters as well as Bishops Ordained And as in those Churches where there were Presbyters both they and the Bishop presided together so also they Ordained together both laying on their Hands in Ordination as St. Timothy was Ordained by the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytery that is by the Hands of the Bishop and Presbyters of that Parish where he was Ordained as is the constant signification of the word Presbytery in all the Writings of the Ancients But 10. Though as to every particular act of the Bishop's Office it
began first with the lowermost Office of a Lector tho' by his extraordinary Merits he deserved those that were more sublime and honourable § 12. That this was their constant and unalterable Practice I dare not affirm I rather think the contrary as I might easily prove were it pertinent to my Design this that follows is more certain that whether they were gradually or presently Ordained Presbyters their Names were published or propounded to the People of that Church where they were to be Ordained that so if worthy of that Office they might have the Testimony and Attestation of the People or if unworthy and unfit they might be debarred and excluded from it by which course the Crimes of the Wicked were discovered the Vertues of the Good declared and the Ordination became Valid and Legitimate being examin'd by the Suffrage and Judgment of all § 13. If the People objected nothing against the Persons proposed but approved their fitness for that Office the next thing that followed was their Actual Ordination in that particular Church where they were so propounded not that they were only ordain'd for that particular Church but in it they were ordained Ministers of the Church Universal being at liberty either to serve that Church where they received their Orders or if they had a Legal Call to spend their Labours elsewhere in other Churches as Origen was a Presbyter of Alexandria tho' he was Ordained in Palestina by the Bishops of Caesarea and Jerusalem and Numidicus was a Presbyter of the Church of Carthage tho' he received his Orders elsewhere Hence the Presbyters of a Church were not confined to a set number as the Bishop and Deacons were but were sometimes more sometimes less as fit Persons for that Office presented themselves so were they Ordained some of whom still remained in the same Church where they received their Orders and others went and served other Churches every one going where the Providence of God did call him § 14. But now their formal Ordination was by Imposition of Hands usually of the Bishop and Presbyters of the Parish where they were Ordained For this there needs no other Proof than that Injunction of St. Paul to Timothy 〈◊〉 Tim. 4. 14. Neglect not the Gift that is in thee which was given thee by Prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery As for Imposition of hands it was a Ceremony that was variously used in the Old Testament from whence it was translated into the New and in the Primitive Church used on sundry occasions to no purpose here to enumerate One of those Actions was Ordination of Church-Officers wherein I think it was never omitted Thus Novatian was Ordained a Presbyter by Imposition of Hands And the Bishops of Cesarea and Jerusalem Imposed Hands on Origen to make him a Presbyter The Imposition of Hands being the Completion of Ordination or the Final Act thereof for whosoever had past through the forementioned Examination and Attestation and consequently to that had received the laying on of Hands he was esteemed by all as legally Ordained and was ever after deemed to have sufficient Power and Authority to exert and discharge the Duty and Office of the Presbytership to which by those Actions he was advanced and promoted § 15. Here now I shall conclude what I designed to write with respect to the first Particular concerning the Peculiar Acts of the Clergy under which I have discoursed distinctly of the Office and Order of Bishops Priests and Deacons as also of several other things relating to their Charge and Dignity As for those other Acts of theirs which remain to be inquired into I shall not meddle with them here for tho' they may have some Rapport or Connexion to this Head yet they more properly and immediately respect the third unto which place therefore I shall refer their Discussion and Examination CHAP. VI. § 1. The Peculiar Acts of the Laity proposed to be discoursed of What were the Qualifications of Church-Membership § 2. The People in some Cases had Power to depose their Bishops § 3. The Conjunct Acts of the Clergy and Laity proposed to be discoursed of All Ecclesiastical Affairs were managed by their joint Endeavours § 1. HAving in the former Chapters treated of the Peculiar Acts of the Clergy I come now in this to speak something to the Peculiar Acts of the Laity and to enquire into those Actions and Powers which they exerted distinctly by themselves And here it may not be amiss first of all to make an Enquiry into the Constitution of the Laity that is how and by what means they were first admitted to be Members of a Church by Vertue of which Membership they were made Partakers of all those Powers which we shall hereafter mention Now for Answer hereunto in general all those that were baptized were look'd upon as Members of the Church and had a right to all the Priviledges thereof except they had been guilty of grofs and scandalous Sins as Idolatry Murder Adultery and such like for then they were cast out of the Church and not admitted again till by a Penitent and holy Deportment they had testified their Grief and Sorrow for their unholy and irregular Actions for as Origen saith We do our utmost that our Assemblies be composed of good and wise Men. So that none who are admitted to our Congregations and Prayers are vitious and wicked except very rarely it may happen that a particular bad Man may be concealed in so great a number But since the greatest part of Christians were adult Persons at their Conversion to Christianity and admission into Church-Fellowship and Society therefore we must consider the Prerequisites of Baptism since that Sacrament gave them a Right and Title to that admission or reception Now those Persons who designed to leave Heathenism and Idolatry and desired to be Members of a Christian Church were not presently advanced to that degree but were first continued a certain space of Time in the rank of the Catechumens or the Catechised ones These were Candidates of Christianity who were to stay some time in that Order for these two Reasons The one was That they might be catechised and instructed in the Articles of the Christian Faith from whence they were called Catechumens And the other was that they might give demonstrations of the reality of their Intentions by the Change of their Lives and the Holiness of their Conversations Whilst they were in this Estate or rather in a Preparatory thereunto they were first privately instructed at home till they understood the more Intelligible Principles of Christianity and then they were admitted into the first Rank of Catechumens who are called by Tertullian Edocti or those that are taught These were permitted to come into the Church where they stood in a place by themselves and were present at the Sermons which were adapted to their Capacities being Discourses of
must be understood of what was afterwards distinctly called Bishops and Presbyters So likewise we read in St. Timothy 1 Tim. 4. 14. of a Presbytery which in all the Writings of the Fathers for any thing I can find to the contrary perpetually signifies the Bishop and Presbyters of a particular Church or Parish And to this 〈◊〉 may add what Clemens Alexandrinus Reports of St. John that he went into the neighbouring Provinces of Ephesus Partly that he might constitute Bishops partly that he might plant new Churches and partly that he might appoint such in the number of the Clergy as should be commanded him by the Holy Ghost Where by the Word Clergy being oppos'd to Bishops and so consequently different from them must be understood either Deacons alone or which is far more probable Presbyters and Deacons CHAP. V. § 1. The Order and Office of the Deacons § 2. Subdeacons what § 3. Of Acolyths Exorcists and Lectors thro' those Offices the Bishops gradually ascended to their Episcopal Dignity § 4. Of Ordination First of Deacons § 5. Next of Presbyters 〈◊〉 Candidates for that Office presented themselves to the Presbytery of the Parish where they were Ordained § 6. By them examined about 〈◊〉 Qualifications viz. Their Age. § 7. Their Condition in the World § 8. Their Conversation § 9. And their Vnderstanding Humane Learning needful § 10. Some Inveighed against Humane Learning but condemned by Clemens Alexandrinus § 11. Those that were to be Ordain'd Presbyters generally pass'd thro' the Inferiour Offices § 12. When to be ordained propounded to the People for their Attestation § 13. Ordain'd in but not to a particular Church § 14. Ordain'd by the Imposition of Hands of the Presbytery § 15. The Conclusion of the first Particular concerning the Peculiar Acts of the Clergy § 1. NExt to the Presbyters were the Deacons concerning whose Office and Order I shall say very little since there is no great Controversie about it and had it not been to have rendred this Discourse compleat and entire I should in silence have pass'd it over Briefly therefore their original Institution as in 〈◊〉 6. 2. was to serve Tables which included these two things A looking after the Poor and an attendance at the Lord's Table As for the Care of the Poor Origen tells us that the Deacons dispensed to them the Churches Money being employed under the Bishop to inspect and relieve all the Indigent within their Diocese As for their Attendance at the Lord's Table their Office with respect to that consisted in preparing the Bread and Wine in cleansing the Sacramental Cups and other such like necessary things whence they are called by Ignatius Deacons of Meats and Cups assisting also in some places at least the Bishop or Presbyters in the Celebration of the Eucharist delivering the Elements to the Communioants They also preached of which more in another place and in the Absence of the Bishop and Presbyters baptized In a word according to the signification of their Name they were as Ignatius calls them the Churches Servants set apart on purpose to serve God and attend on their Business being constituted as Eusebius terms it for the Service of the Publick § 2. Next to the Deacons were the Subdencons who are mentioned both by Cyprian and Cornelius As the Office of the Presbyters was to assist and help the Bishops so theirs was to assist and help the Deacons And as the Presbyters were of the same Order with the Bishop so probably the Subdeacons were of the same Order with the Deacons which may be gathered from what we may suppose to have been the Origin and Rise of these Subdeacons which might be this That in no Church whatsoever was it usual to have more than Seven Deacons because that was the original Number instituted by the Apostles wherefore when any Church grew so great and numerous that this stinted Number of Deacons was not sufficient to discharge their necessary Ministrations that they might not seem to swerve from the Apostolical Example they added Assistants to the Deacons whom they called Subdeacons or Under Deacons who were employed by the Head or Chief Deacons to do those Services in their stead and room to which by their Office they were obliged But whether this be a sufficient Argument to prove the Subdeacons to be of the same Order with the Deacons I shall not determine because this Office being now antiquated it is not very pertinent to my Design I only offer it to the Consideration of the Learned who have Will and Ability to search into it § 3. Besides those forementioned Orders who were immediately consecrated to the Service of God and by him commission'd thereunto there were another sort of Ecclesiasticks who were employed about the meaner Offices of the Church such as Acolyths Exorcists and Lectors whose Offices because they are now disused except that of the Lector I shall pass over in silence reserving a Discourse of the Lector for another place only in general these were Candidates for the Ministry who by the due discharge of these meaner Employs were to give Proof of their Ability and Integrity the Bishops in those days not usually arriving per Saltum to that Dignity and Honour but commonly beginning with the most inferiour Office and so gradually proceeding thro' the others till they came to the supreme Office of all as Cornelius Bishop of Rome Did not presently leap into the Episcopal Throne but first passed thro' all the Ecclesiastical Offices gradually ascending to that Sublime Dignity The Church in those happy days by such a long Tryal and Experience using all possible Precaution and Exactness that none but fit and qualify'd Men should be admitted into those Sacred Functions and Orders which were attended with 〈◊〉 dreadful and tremendous a Charge And this now brings me in the next place to enquire into the Manner and Form of the Primitive Ordinations which I chuse to discourse of in this place since I shall find none more proper for it throughout this whole Treatise § 4. As for the various Senses and Acceptations which may be put on the Word Ordination I shall not at all meddle with them that Ordination that I shall speak of is this the Grant of a Peculiar Commission and Power which remains indelible in the Person to whom it is committed and can never be obliterated or rased out except the Person himself cause it by his Heresie Apostacy or most extremely gross and scandalous Impiety Now this sort of Ordination was conferred only upon Deacons and Presbyters or on Deacons and Bishops Presbyters and Bishops being here to be consider'd as all one as Ministers of the Church-Universal As for the Ordination of Deacons there is no great Dispute about that so I shall say no more concerning it than that we have the manner thereof at their first Institution in Acts 6. 6. which was that they were
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
could not be proved particularly that a Presbyter did discharge them yet it would be sufficient if we could prove that in the general a Presbyter could and did perform them all Now that a Presbyter could do so and consequently by the Bishop's permission did do so will appear from the Example of the great Saint Cyprian Bishop of Carthage who being exil'd from his Church writes a Letter to the Clergy thereof wherein he exhorts and begs them to discharge their own and his Office too that so nothing might be wanting either to Discipline or Diligence And much to the same Effect he thus writes them in another Letter Trusting therefore to your Kindness and Religion which I have abundantly experienced I exhort and command you by these Letters that in my stead you perform those Offices which the Ecclesiastical Dispensation requires And in a Letter written upon the same Occasion by the Clergy of the Church of Rome to the Clergy of the Church of Carthage we find these Words towards the beginning thereof And since it is incumbent upon us who are as it were Bishops to keep the Flock in the room of the Pastor If we shall be found negligent it shall be said unto us as it was said to our careless preceeding Bishops in Ezekiel 34. 3 4. That we looked not after that which was lost we did not correct him that wandered nor bound up him that was lame but we did eat their Milk and were covered with their Wooll So that the Presbyters were as it were Bishops that in the Bishop's Absence kept his Flock and in his stead performed all those Ecclesiastical Offices which were incumbent on him Now then if the Presbyters could supply the place of an Absent Bishop and in general discharge all those Offices to which a Bishop had been obliged if he had been present it naturally follows that the Presbyters could discharge every particular Act and Part thereof If I should say such an one has all the Senses of a Man and yet also assert that he cannot see I should be judged a Self-contradictor in that Assertion for in affirming that he had all the Human Senses I also affirmed that he saw because Seeing is one of those Senses For whatsoever is affirmed of an Universal is affirmed of every one of its Particulars So when the Fathers say that the Presbyters performed the whole Office of the Bishop it naturally ensues that they Confirmed Ordained Baptized c. because those are Particulars of that Universal But now from the whole we may collect a solid Argument for the Equality of Presbyters with Bishops as to Order for if a Presbyter did all a Bishop did what difference was there between them A Bishop preached baptized and confirmed so did a Presbyter A Bishop excommunicated absolved and ordained so did a Presbyter Whatever a Bishop did the same did a Presbyter the particular Acts of their Office was the same the only difference that was between them was in Degree but this proves there was none at all in Order 2. That Bishops and Presbyters were of the same Order appears also from that originally they had one and the same Name each of them being indifferently called Bishops or Presbyters Hence we read in the Sacred Writ of several Bishops in one particular Church as the Bishops of Ephesus and Philippi that is the Bishops and Presbyters of those Churches as they were afterwards distinctly called And Clemens Romanus sometimes mentions many Bishops in the Church of Corinth whom at other times he calls by the Name of Presbyters using those two Terms as Synonimous Titles and Appellations You have obeyed saith he those that were set over you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Let us revere those that are set over us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are the usual Titles of the Bishops and yet these in another place he calls Presbyters describing their Office by their sitting or presiding over us Wherefore he commands the Corinthians to be subject to their Presbyters and whom in one Line he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Bishops The second Line after he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presbyters So Polycarp exhorts the Philippians to be subject to their Presbyters and Deacons under the name of Presbyters including both Bishops and Priests as we now call them The first that expressed these Church-Officers by the distinct Terms of Bishops and Presbyters was Ignatius who lived in the beginning of the Second Century appropriating the Title of Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Overseer to that Minister who was the more immediate Overseer and Governour of his Parish and that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elder or Presbyter to him who had no particular Care and Inspection of a Parish but was only an Assistant or Curate to a Bishop that had the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Bishop denoting a Relation to a Flock or Cure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presbyter signifying only a Power or an ability to take the Charge of such a Flock or Cure the former implying an actual discharge of the Office the latter a power so to do This Distinction of Titles arising from the difference of their Circumstances which we find first mentioned in Ignatius was generally followed by the succeeding Fathers who for the most part distinguish between Bishops and Presbyters though sometimes according to the primitive Usage they indifferently apply those Terms to each of those persons Thus on the one hand the Titles of Presbyters are given unto Bishops as Irenaeus in his Synodical Epistle twice calis Anicetus Pius Higynus Telesphorus and Xistus Bishops of Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presbyters And those Bishops who derived their Succession immediately from the Apostles he calls the Presbyters in the Church and whom Clemens Alexandrinus in one Line calls the Bishop of a certain City not far from Ephesus a few Lines after he calls the Presbyter And on the other hand the Titles of Bishops are ascribed to Presbyters as one of the Discretive Appellations of a Bishop is Pastour Yet Cyprian also calls his Presbyters the Pastors of the Flock Another was that of President or one set over the People Yet Cyprian also calls his Presbyters Presidents or set over the People The Bishops were also called Rectors or Rulers So Origen calls the Presbyters the Governours of the People And we find both Bishops and Presbyters included under the common Name of Presidents or Prelates by St. Cyprian in this his Exhortation to Pomponius And if all must observe the Divine Discipline how much more must the Presidents and Deacons do it who by their Conversation and Manners must yield a good Example to others Now if the same Appellation of a thing be a good Proof for the Identity of its Nature then Bishops and Presbyters must be of the same Order because they had the same Names and Titles
They had no need again to be Baptized saith he having been baptized by 〈◊〉 but only what was 〈◊〉 or lacking was performed by Peter and John which was that by Prayer and Imposition of Hands the Holy Ghost should be conferred on them which Custom as he there adds is now observed by us that those who are Baptized in the Church are offered to the Governours thereof by whose Prayer and Imposition of Hands they receive the Holy Ghost and are compleated with the Lord's Seal To this Practice also Firmilian refers that action of St. Paul in Acts 19. 5. Where on those who had been only Baptized by John's Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Holy Ghost by Imposition of Hands And Cyprian applies to Confirmation the Descent of the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 10. 44. in miraculous 〈◊〉 and Gifts of Tongues on Cornelius and his Friends though they were not then Baptized So much now for the Reasons of Confirmation all that I shall do more is to add two or three Observations concerning it § 7. The first whereof is That Confirmation was an immediate Consequent of Baptism it was not deferred till many Years after but was presently administred as Tertullian writes As soon as we come out of the Baptismal Laver we are anointed and then we are confirmed Else if they had not been so soon confirmed they must notwithstanding their Baptism according to their Opinions as it hath been before demonstrated have continued graceless without the Adorning Gifts of the Holy Spirit a long time even as long as their Confirmation was delayed which to imagine concerning them is unreasonable and uncharitable Indeed in case of Necessity when they had neither time nor 〈◊〉 it was waved 〈◊〉 Immersion was with respect to Baptism but yet if the sick Person happened to recover he was then to be confirmed as is evident from the Case of Novatian whom 〈◊〉 accuses because that when he was restored to his Health again he was not confirmed according to the Canon of the Church But otherwise 〈◊〉 immediately or 〈◊〉 the same time followed 〈◊〉 § 8. From the former Observation there follows this that not only the Bishop but also his Presbyters or Curates did by his 〈◊〉 and in his Absence confirm For if Confirmation always succeeded Baptism then whenever Baptism was there was also Confirmation Now 〈◊〉 for Baptism we may reasonably suppose that in a Church there were some fit to be 〈◊〉 at least once a year and sometimes it might happen that either the See was 〈◊〉 or the Bishop through Persecution might be 〈◊〉 from his Flock so long a time as Cyprian was double the space and if so must no Persons have been Baptized within that time by reason of the Bishop's unavoidable Absence That seems a little hard since as was said before they esteemed Baptism and Confirmation necessary to Salvation and to deprive 〈◊〉 Souls of Salvation that died within that 〈◊〉 because they had not been confirmed by 〈◊〉 Bishop which was impossible would be too severe and uncharitable Besides that Presbyters did Baptize we have proved already and since Confirmation was done at the same time with Baptism it is very reasonable to conclude that he that did the one performed the other also But that Presbyters did confirm will appear most evidently from this very Consideration viz. That the Imposition of Hands 〈◊〉 Persons just after Baptism which we call Confirmation and the Imposition of Hands at the 〈◊〉 of Offenders which we call 〈◊〉 was one and the self same thing Confirmation and Absolution being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that we make use of to distinguish the 〈◊〉 times of the Performances of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Ceremony The Thing or 〈◊〉 was not different Imposition of Hands was used both at one and 〈◊〉 other 〈◊〉 the same Mystical Signification viz. The Conferring 〈◊〉 the Holy Ghost and his Graces on that 〈◊〉 on whom 〈◊〉 were imposed Only now to distinguish the time of this 〈◊〉 of Hands whether after Baptism or at the 〈◊〉 of Offenders these two Terms of Confirmation and 〈◊〉 are used by us the former to signifie that used just after Baptism and the latter that 〈◊〉 was employed at This now viz. That Confirmation and 〈◊〉 were one and the self same thing I 〈◊〉 presently prove And then in the next 〈◊〉 I shall shew that with the Bishop and sometimes without the Bishop Presbyters did Absolve by Imposition of Hands And if these 〈◊〉 Points can be clearly manifested it will 〈◊〉 follow that Presbyters did confirm for if there was no difference between Confirmation and Absolution but only with respect to time and 〈◊〉 Presbyters at one time viz. at Absolution conferred the Holy Ghost by Imposition of Hands it is very unreasonable to deprive them of the same Power at the other time which was at Confirmation If Presbyters could at one Season bestow the Holy Spirit it is very probable that they could do the same at the other also Now as to the first Point viz. That there was no difference between Confirmation and Absolution but that they were one and the self same thing This will appear most evidently from the consideration of that famous Controversie touching the Validity of Hereticks Baptism between Stephen Bishop of Rome and Cyprian Bishop of Carthage or rather between the Churches of Europe and Africa the Sum whereof was this Stephen Bishop of Rome 〈◊〉 That those who were baptized by Hereticks and came over to the Catholick Church should be received only by Imposition of Hands Cyprian Bishop of Carthage contended that besides Imposition of Hands they should also be baptized unless that they had been before baptiz'd by the Orthodox in which Case Imposition of Hands should be esteemed sufficient Now this Imposition of Hands they sometimes term that which we 〈◊〉 Confirmation and sometimes Absolution 〈◊〉 using either of those Expressions and indifferently applying them according 〈◊〉 they pleased in one place giving it the Title of Confirmation and in another that of Absolution which that they did I shall endeavour to evince by shewing First That they called this Imposition of Hands Confirmation Secondly That they called it Absolution First I shall prove that they called it Confirmation unto which end let us consider these following 〈◊〉 Those says Cyprian which are baptized without the Church when they come unto us and 〈◊〉 the Church which is 〈◊〉 one they are to be baptized because the Imposition of Hands by Confirmation is not sufficient without Baptism for then they are fully sanctified and become the Sons of God when they are born 〈◊〉 both Sacraments 〈◊〉 as it is written 〈◊〉 a Man be born again of the Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God To the same effect says 〈◊〉 Bishop of 〈◊〉 Those 〈◊〉 greatly 〈◊〉 who affirm that they ought only to be confirmed by Imposition of Hands and so to be received since it is manifest they must be 〈◊〉 with both Sacraments in
the Catholick Church And Secundinus Bishop of Carpis determined that 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