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 excellences 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, and loco-motion, and immortality. And these excellences 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.

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 I 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 have a distinct character, yet it is not disparate from 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":""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

• Hæres. 75.

acknowledges no ordainer but a bishop. 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, χωρεπισκόπους μὴ ἐξεῖναι πρεσβυτέρους ἢ διακόνους χειροτονεῖν· ἀλλὰ μηδὲ πρεσβυτέρους πόλεως, χωρὶς τοῦ ἐπιτραπῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐπισκόπου μετὰ γραμμάτων ἐν iτéga nagonía. "That rural bishops shall not ordain presἑτέρᾳ παροικίᾳ. byters or deacons in another's diocese, without letters of license from the bishop. Neither shall the priests of the city attempt it." First, not rural bishops, that is, bishops that are taken 'in adjutorium episcopi principalis,' 'vicars to the bishop of the diocese,' they must not ordain priests and deacons. For it is iτéga napoxía, "it is another's diocese," and to be ἀλλοτριοεπίσκοπος 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. εἰ καὶ χειροθεσίαν εἶεν ἐπισκόπων εἰληφότες, 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,

a Eccles. Hier, c. 5.

b Lib. vi. c. 23.

e Can, 13.

but is most certainly implied in it; for else, what description could this be of chorepiscopi,' above presbyteri rurales,' to say that they were χειροθεσίαν ἐπισκόπων εἰληφότες, 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 Tσówν 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.

But the city-priests were also included in this prohibition. True it is, but it is in a parenthesis, with an arrà undề, 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 though, 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 further 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 arrà undè πρεσβυτέρους πόλεως. Add to this ; the presbyters 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 chorepiscopi 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 rúжOV Tuv &ßdoμńnovτa, '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 diocese; 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, ἡ ὑπόκειται, ἐπισκόπου.