There is nothing said against this but a fancy of some of the church of Rome, obtruded, indeed, upon no grounds; for they would define order to be "a special power in relation to the holy sacrament," which they call "corpus Christi naturale;" and episcopacy indeed to be a distinct power, in relation “ad corpus Christi mysticum," or the regiment of the church, and ordaining labourers for the harvest, and, therefore, not to be a distinct order.

But this to them that consider things sadly, is true or false, according as any man list. For if these men are resolved they will call nothing an order but what is a power in order to the consecration of the eucharist,-who can help it? Then indeed, in that sense, episcopacy is not a distinct order; that is, a bishop hath no new power in the consecration of the venerable eucharist, more than a presbyter hath. But then why these men should only call this power" an order," no man can give a reason. For, 1. In antiquity, the distinct power of a bishop was ever called an order, and I think, before Hugo de S. Victore, and the Master of the Sentences, no man ever denied it to be an order. 2. According to this rate, I would fain know the office of a subdeacon, and of an ostiary, and of an acolouthite, and of a reader, come to be distinct orders; for surely the bishop hath as much power in order to consecration "de novo," as they have "de integro." And if I mistake not, that the bishop hath a new power to ordain presbyters who shall have a power of consecrating the eucharist, is more a new power in order to consecration, than all those inferior officers put together have in all; and yet they call them orders; and, therefore, why not episcopacy also, I cannot imagine, unless because they will not.

But however, in the mean time, the denying the office and degree of episcopacy to be a new and distinct order, is an innovation of the production of some in the church of Rome, without all reason, and against all antiquity. This only by the

way.

The enemies of episcopacy call in aid, from all places, for support of their ruinous cause, and, therefore, take their main hopes from the church of Rome, by advantage of the former discourse. For since, say they, that consecration of the sacrament is the greatest work, of the most secret mystery, greatest power, and highest dignity, that is competent to man, and this a presbyter hath as well as a bishop, is it likely that a bishop should, by Divine institution, be so much superior to a presbyter, who,

m S. Hieron. ad Rusticum Narbonens apud Gratian. dist. 95. Cad. Ecce Ego Casus, ibid.

VOL. II.

1. Then, whether power be greater, of ordaining priests, or consecrating the sacrament, is an impertinent question: possibly, it may be of some danger; because in comparing God's ordinances, there must certainly be a depression of one, and whether that lights upon the right side or no, yet peradventure, it will not stand with the consequence of our gratitude to God, to do that, which, in God's estimate, may tantamount to a direct undervaluing; but however it is unprofitable, of no use in case of conscience, either in order to faith or manners; and besides, cannot fix itself upon any basis, there being no way of proving either to be more excellent than the other.

2. The sacraments and mysteries of christianity, if compared among themselves, are greater and lesser in several respects. For since they are all in order to several ends, that is, productive of several effects, and they all are excellent,-every rite and sacrament, in respect of its own effect, is more excellent than the other not ordained to that effect. For example: matrimony is ordained for a means to preserve chastity, and to represent the mystical union of Christ and his church; and therefore, in these respects, is greater than baptism, which does neither. But baptism is for remission of sins," and, in that, is more excellent than matrimony: the same may be said for ordination, and consecration; the one being in order to Christ's natural body, as the schools speak; the other in order to his mystical body, and so have their several excellencies respectively; but for an absolute pre-eminence of one above the other, I said there was no basis to fix that upon, and I believe all men will find it so, that please to try. But in a relative or respective excellency, they go both before and after one another. Thus wool and a jewel are better than each other; for wool is better for warmth, and a jewel for ornament. A frog hath more sense in it than the sun, and yet the sun shines brighter.

3. Suppose consecration of the eucharist were greater than ordaining priests, yet that cannot hinder but that the power of ordaining may make a higher and distinct order; because the power of ordaining hath in it the power of consecrating and something more; it is all that which makes the priest, and it is something more besides which makes the bishop. Indeed if the bishop had it not, and the priest had it, then supposing consecration to be greater than ordination, the priest would not only equal but excel the bishop; but because the

a The Nicene Creed.

4. Suppose that consecration were the greatest clerical power in the world, and that the bishop and the priest were equal in the greatest power, yet a lesser power than it, superadded to the bishops, may make a distinct order and superiority. Thus it was said of the Son of man, “Constituit eum paulò minorem angelis:" "He was made a little lower than the angels." It was but a little lower, and yet so much as to distinguish their natures, for he took not upon him the "nature of angels, but the seed of Abraham." So it is in proportion between bishop and priest; for though a priest communicating in the greatest power of the church, viz. consecration of the venerable eucharist, yet differing in a less, is "paulò minor angelis ;" a little lower than the bishop, the angel of the church;" yet this "little lower" makes a distinct order, and enough for a subordination. An angel and a man communicate in those great excellencies of spiritual essence; they both discourse; they have both election and freedom of choice; they have will, and understanding, and memory, impresses of the Divine image, motion, and immortality. And these excellencies are (being precisely considered) of more real and eternal worth, than the angelical manner of moving so in an instant, and those other forms and modalities of their knowledge and volition; and yet for these superadded parts of excellency, the difference is no less than specifical. If we compare a bishop and a priest thus, what we call difference in nature there, will be a difference in order here, and of the same consideration.

and loco

5. Lastly, it is considerable, that these men that make this objection, do not make it because they think it true, but because it will serve a present turn. For all the world sees, that to them that deny the real presence, this can be no objection; and most certainly the anti-episcopal men do so, in all senses; and then, what excellency is there in the power of consecration, more than in ordination ? Nay, is there any such thing as consecration at all? This also would be considered from their principles. But I proceed.

One thing only more is objected against the main question. If episcopacy be a distinct order, why may not a man be a bishop that never was a priest, as (abstracting from the laws of the church) a man may be a presbyter that never was a deacon; for if it be the impress of a distinct character, it may be imprinted "per saltum," and independently, as it is in the order of a presbyter?

To this answer, It is true, if the powers and characters themselves were independent; as it is in all those offices of human constitution, which are called the inferior orders: for the office of an acolouthite, of an exorcist, of an ostiary, are no way dependent on the office of a deacon; and, therefore, a man may be deacon that never was in any of those; and perhaps a presbyter too, that never was a deacon, as it was in the first example of the presbyterate in the seventy-two disciples. But a bishop, though he

that of a presbyter, but supposes it "ex vi ordinis." For since the power of ordination (if any thing be) is the distinct capacity of a bishop, this power supposes a power of consecrating the eucharist to be in the bishop; for how else can he ordain a presbyter with a power, that himself hath not? Can he give what himself hath not received?

I end this point with the saying of Epiphanius: "Vox est Aerii hæretici, Unus est ordo episcoporum et presbyterorum, una dignitas:"n"To say that bishops are not a distinct order from presbyters, was a heresy first broached by Aerius," and hath lately been (at least in the manner of speaking) countenanced by many of the church of Rome.

SECTION XXXII.

For Bishops had a Power distinct and superior to that of Presbyters. As of Ordination.

FOR to clear the distinction of order, it is evident in antiquity, that bishops had a power of imposing hands, for collating of orders, which presbyters have not. What was done in this affair in the times of the apostles, I have already explicated: but now the inquiry is, what the church did in pursuance of the practice and tradition apostolical. The first and second canons of apostles command, that two or three bishops should ordain a bishop, and one bishop should ordain a priest and a deacon. A presbyter is not authorized to ordain; a bishop is. St. Dionysius affirms," Sacerdotem non posse initiari, nisi per invocationes episcopales," and acknowledges no ordainer but a bishop.a No more did the church ever; insomuch that when Novatus, the father of the old Puritans, did "ambire episcopatum," he was fain to go to the utmost parts of Italy, and seduce or entreat some bishops to impose hands on him, as Cornelius witnesses in his epistle to Fabianus, in Eusebius. To this we may add, as so many witnesses, all those ordinations made by the bishops of Rome, mentioned in the pontifical book of Damasus Platina, and others. "Habitis de more sacris ordinibus Decembris mense, presbyteros decem, diaconos duos, &c. creat S. Clemens: Anacletus presbyteros quinque, diaconos tres, episcopos diversis in locis sex numero creavit ;" and so in descent, for all the bishops of that succession, for many ages together.

But let us see how this power of ordination went in the bishop's hand alone, by law and constitution; for particular examples are infinite.

In the council of Ancyra it is determined, ywpεπισκόπους μὴ ἐξεῖναι πρεσβυτέρους ἢ διακόνους χειροτονεῖν· ἀλλὰ μηδὲ πρεσβυτέρους πόλεως, χωρὶς τοῦ ἐπιτραπῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐπισκόπου μετὰ γραμμάτων ἐν ἑτέρᾳ παροικία. "That rural bishops shall not ordain presbyters or deacons in another's diocess, without letters of license from the bishop. Neither shall the priests of the city attempt it." First, not b Lib. vi. c. 23.

c Can. 13.

66

rural bishops, that is, bishops that are taken "in adjutorium episcopi principalis," "vicars to the bishop of the diocess," they must not ordain priests and deacons. For it is ἑτέρα παροικία, “ it is another's diocess," and to be aλλоTρioεiσкоnоç is prohibited by the canon of Scripture. But then they may with license? Yes; for they had episcopal ordination at first, but not episcopal jurisdiction, and so were not to invade the territories of their neighbour. The tenth canon of the council of Antioch clears this part. The words are these, as they are rendered by Dionysius Exiguus : "Qui in villis, et vicis constituti sunt chorepiscopi, tametsi manûs impositionem ab episcopis susceperunt, [et ut episcopi sunt consecrati] tamen oportet eos modum proprium retinere," &c. ei kaì XɛɩoƉɛoíav elev étioкóTwν εiληpóτes, the next clause, "et ut episcopi consecrati sunt," although it be in very ancient Latin copies, yet is not found in the Greek, but is an assumentum" for exposition of the Greek, but is most certainly implied in it; for else, what description could this be of " chorepiscopi," above presbyteri rurales," to say that they were xepoDεoíaν ÉTLOKÓTWv eiλnpóres, for so had country priests, they had received imposition of the bishop's hands. Either then the chorepiscopi had received ordination from three bishops, and έπɩσкóжwv is to be taken collectively, not distributively, to wit, that each country-bishop had received ordination from bishops; many bishops in conjunction, and so they were very bishops; or else they had no more than village-priests, and then this caution had been impertinent.

66

But the city-priests were also included in this prohibition. True it is, but it is in a parenthesis, with an ảλλà μndè, in the midst of the canon; and there was some particular reason for the involving them; not that they ever did actually ordain any; but that since it was prohibited to the chorepiscopi to ordain, (to them I say, who thought, for want of jurisdiction, they might not ordain without license, it being "in alienâ parochiâ," yet they had capacity by their order to do it,) if these should do it, the city-presbyters,-who were often despatched into the villages upon the same employment, by a temporary mission, that the chorepiscopi were, by an ordinary and fixed residence,-might, perhaps, think that their commission might extend farther than it did; or that they might go beyond it, as well as the chorepiscopi; and therefore their way was obstructed by this clause of aλλà μηδὲ πρεσβυτέρους πόλεως. Add to this; the pres- | byters of the city were of great honour and peculiar | privilege, as appears in the thirteenth canon of the council of Neo-Cæsarea, and, therefore, might easily exceed, if the canon had not been their bridle.

The sum of the canon is this. With the bishop's license the chore piscopi might ordain; for themselves had episcopal ordination: but without license they might not; for they had but delegate and subordinate jurisdiction: and, therefore, in the fourteenth canon of Neo-Cæsarea, are said to be siç τύπον τῶν ἑβδομήκοντα, “like the seventy disciples,” that is, inferior to bishops, as the seventy were to

the twelve apostles; viz. "in hoc particulari," not in order, but like them in subordination and inferiority of jurisdiction: but the city-presbyters might not ordain, neither with nor without license; for they are in the canon only by way of parenthesis, and the sequence of procuring a faculty from the bishops to collate orders, is to be referred to "chorepiscopi," not to "presbyteri civitatis," unless we should strain this canon into a sense contrary to the practice of the catholic church. "Res enim ordinis non possunt delegari," is a most certain rule in divinity, and admitted by men of all sides and most different interests. However, we see here that they were prohibited; and we never find, before this time, that any of them actually did give orders, neither by ordinary power, nor extraordinary dispensation; and the constant tradition of the church, and practice apostolical, is, that they never could give orders; therefore this exposition of the canon is liable to no exception, but is clear for the illegality of a presbyter giving holy orders either to a presbyter or a deacon, and is concluding for the necessity of concurrence, both of episcopal order and jurisdiction for ordinations; for "reddendo singula singulis," and expounding this canon according to the sense of the church and exigence of catholic custom, the chorepiscopi are excluded from giving orders, for want of jurisdiction,—and the priests of the city, for want of order; the first may be supplied by a delegate power" in literis episcopalibus;" the second cannot, but by a new ordination, that is, by making the priest a bishop. For if a priest of the city have not so much power as a chorepiscopus, as I have proved he hath not, by showing that the chorepiscopus then had episcopal ordination, and yet the chorepiscopus might not collate orders without a faculty from the bishop,— the city-priests might not do it, unless more be added to them; for their want was more. They not only want jurisdiction, but something besides, and that must needs be "order."

But although these chorepiscopi, at the first, had episcopal ordination, yet it was quickly taken from them, for their encroachment upon the bishop's diocess; and as they were but " vicarii," or " visitatores episcoporum in villis," so their ordination was but to a mere presbyterate. And this we find, as soon as ever we hear that they had had episcopal ordination. For those who, in the beginning of the tenth canon of Antioch, we find had been consecrated as bishops, in the end of the same canon we find it decreed “ de novo :” χωρεπίσκοπον δὲ γενέσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦ τῆς πόλεως, ἦ ὑπόκειται, ἐπισκόπου. "The chorepiscopus, or country-bishop, must be ordained by the bishop of the city, in whose jurisdiction he is;" which was clearly ordination to the order of a presbyter, and no more. And ever after this, all the ordinations they made, were only to the inferior ministries, with the bishop's license too; but they never ordained any to be deacons or priests; for these were orders of the Holy Ghost's appointing, and, therefore, were "gratia Spiritûs Sancti," and issues of order; but the inferior ministries, as of a reader, an ostiary, &c., were human