did; nor communicate alone: the word is destructive of the thing; nor baptize, unless he have a chrysome child, or a catechumen. So that all of the diocese being the bishop's charge, the bishop must either authorize the priest, or the priest must not meddle, lest he be (what St. Peter blamed) anλorgiezionomos, a bishop in another's diocese:' not that the bishop did license the acts precisely of baptizing, of consecrating, &c.; for these he had by his ordination: but that in giving license, he did give him a subject to whom he might apply these relative actions, and did quoad hoc' take him in partem solicitudinis,' and concredit some part of his diocese to his administration cum cura animarum.'

But then, on the other side, because the whole cure of the diocese is in the bishop, he cannot exonerate himself of it, for it is a burden of Christ's imposing, or it is not imposed at all; therefore, this taking of presbyters into part of the regiment and care does not divest him of his own power, or any part of it, nor yet ease him of his care; but that as he must still iσROTEIN,' visit' and 'see to his diocese,' so he hath authority still in all parts of his diocese ; and this appears in these places now quoted; insomuch as when the bishop came to any place, there the vicaria' of the presbyters did cease: 'In præsentiâ majoris cessat potestas minoris.' And though, because the bishop could not do all the minor and daily offices of the priesthood, in every congregation of his diocese, therefore he appointed priests, severally to officiate, himself looking to the metropolis, and the daughter-churches, by a general supravision; yet when the bishop came into any place of his diocese, there he, being present, might do any office, because it was in his own charge; which he might concredit to another, but not exonerate himself of it; and, therefore, præsente episcopo,' (say the council of Carthage and St. Leo,) if the bishop be present,' the presbyter, without leave, might not officiate; for he had no subjects of his own, but by trust and delegation; and this delegation was given him to supply the bishop's absence, who could not simul omnibus interesse; but then, where he was present, the cause of delegation ceasing, the jurisdiction also ceased, or was at least absorbed in the greater, and so, without leave, might not be exercised; like the stars, which in the noon-day have

their own natural light, as much as in the night, but appear not, shine not, in the presence of the sun.

6

This, perhaps, will seem uncouth in those presbyters, who, (as the council of Carthage's expression is,) are 'contrarii honori episcopali;' but yet, if we keep ourselves in our own form, where God hath placed us, and where we were in the primitive church, we shall find all this to be sooth, and full of order. For consider: the elder the prohibition was, the more absolute and indefinite it runs: "Without the bishop it is not lawful to baptize, to consecrate," &c. So Ignatius. The prohibition is without limit: but in descent of the church it runs, præsente episcopo,' the bishop being present,' they must not without leave. The thing is all one, and a derivation from the same original, to wit, the universality of the bishop's jurisdiction;' but the reason of the difference of expression is this: at first presbyters were in cities with the bishop, and no parishes at all concredited to them. The bishops lived in cities; the presbyters preached, and offered xar' olxov, 'from house to house,' according as the bishop directed them. Here they had no ordinary charge, and, therefore, the first prohibitions run indefinitely; they must not do any clerical offices 'sine episcopo,'' unless the bishop sends them.' But then, afterwards, when the parishes were distinct, and the presbyters fixed upon ordinary charges, then it was only, 'præsente episcopo," if the bishop was present,' they might not officiate without leave. For, in his absence, they might do it, I do not say without leave, but I say they had leave given them, when the bishop sent them to officiate in a village with ordinary or temporary residence, as it is to this day; when the bishop institutes to a particular charge, he also gives power hoc ipso,' of officiating in that place. So that at first, when they did officiate in places by temporary missions, then they were to have leave, but this license was also temporary; but when they were fixed upon ordinary charges, they might not officiate without leave, but then they had an ordinary leave given, in traditione subditorum,' and that was done in subsidium muneris episcopalis,' because it was that part of the bishop's charge which he could not personally attend, for execution of the minor offices, and, therefore, concredited it to a presbyter; but if he was present,

a new leave was necessary; because as the power always was in the bishop, so now the execution also did return to him when he was there in person; himself, if he listed, might officiate.

All this is excellently attested in the example of St. Austin, of whom Possidonius, in his life, reports, that being but a presbyter, Valerius, the bishop, being a Greek born, and not well spoken in the Latin tongue, and so unfit for public orations: "Eidem presbytero," (viz. to Austin,)" potestatem dedit coram se in ecclesiâ evangelium prædicandi, ac frequentissimè tractandi contra usum quidem, et consuetudinem Africanarum ecclesiarum :" " He gave leave to Austin, then but presbyter, to preach in the church, even while himself was present; indeed against the use and custom of the African churches." And for this act of his he suffered soundly in his report, for the case was thus: in all Africa, ever since the first spring of the Arian heresy, the church had then suffered so much by the preaching of Arius, the presbyter, that they made a law not to suffer any presbyter to preach at all, at least in the mother church, and in the bishop's presence: Τοῦτο ἀρχὴν ἔλαβεν ἀφ ̓ οὗ Αρειος τὴν ἐκκλησίαν Tápaže, saith Socrates: "Thence came this custom in the African churches"." But because Valerius saw St. Austin so able, and himself, for want of Latin, so unfit,- he gave leave to Austin to preach before him, against the custom of the African churches; but he adds this reason for his excuse too; it was not, indeed, the custom of Africa, but it was of the Oriental churches. For so Possidorius proceeds: "Sed et ille vir venerabilis, ac providus in Orientalibus ecclesiis id ex more fieri sciens ;" in the Levant it was usual for bishops. to give presbyters leave to preach; " Dummodo factitaretur à presbytero quod à se episcopo impleri minime posse cernebat," which determines us fully in the business. For this leave to do offices was but there to be given where the bishop himself could not fulfil the offices;' which shows the presbyters, in their several charges, whether of temporary mission, or fixed residence, to be but delegates and vicars of the bishop, admitted in partem solicitudinis;' to assist the bishop in his great charge of the whole diocese.

» Lib. v. c. 22.

Against this it is objected, out of St. Jerome, and it is recorded by Gratian, "Ecce ego dico præsentibus episcopis suis, atque adstantibus in altari, presbyteros posse sacramenta conficere:" "Behold, I say that presbyters may minister sacraments in presence of the bishop:" so Gratian quotes it, indeed P; but St. Jerome says the express contrary, unless we all have false copies. For in St. Jerome it is not 'ecce ego dico,' but nec ego dico.' He does not say it is lawful for presbyters to officiate in the presence of their bishop. Indeed St. Jerome is angry at Rusticus, bishop of Narbona, because he would not give leave to presbyters to preach, nor to bless, &c. This, perhaps, was not well done, but it makes not against the former discourse; for though it may be fit for the bishop to give leave, the church requiring it still more and more in descent of ages, and multiplication of Christians and parishes, yet it is clear that this is not to be done without the bishop's leave; for it is for this very thing that St. Jerome disputes against Rusticus, to show he did amiss, because he would not give his presbyters license. And this he also reprehends in his epistle, ad Nepotianum:'" Pessimæ consuetudinis est in quibusdam ecclesiis tacere presbyteros, et præsentibus episcopis non loqui;" "That presbyters might not be suffered to preach in presence of the bishop, that was an ill custom;" to wit, as things then stood: and it was mended presently after, for presbyters did preach in the bishop's presence, but it was by license from their ordinary. For so Possidonius relates, that upon this act of Valerius, before mentioned, Postea currente et volante hujusmodi famâ, bono præcedente exemplo, accepta ab episcopis potestate, presbyteri nonnulli, coram episcopis, populis tractare cœperunt verbum Dei:" "By occasion of this precedent it came to pass, that some presbyters did preach to the people in the bishop's presence, having first obtained faculty from the bishop so to do." And a little after it became a custom, from a general faculty and dispensation, indulged to them in the second council of Vase. Now, if this evidence of church-practice be not sufficient to reconcile us to St. Jerome, let him then first be reconciled to himself, and then we are sure to be

P Ad Rustic, Narbon. dist. 95. can. Ecce Ego.

VOL. VII.

P

4 Can. 12.

helped for, in his dialogue against the Luciferians, his words are these: "Cui si non exsors quædam et ab omnibus eminens detur potestas, tot efficientur schismata quot sunt sacerdotes. Inde venit ut sine episcopi missione neque presbyter neque diaconus jus habeat baptizandi:" "Because the bishop hath an eminent power, and this power is necessary; thence it comes that neither presbyter nor deacon may so much as baptize without the bishop's leave."

This whole discourse shows clearly, not only the bishops to be superior in jurisdiction, but that they have sole jurisdiction, and the presbyters only in substitution and vicarage.

SECTION XXXVIII.

Reserving Church-Goods to Episcopal Dispensation.

DIVERS other acts there are to attest the superiority of the bishop's jurisdiction over priests and deacons, as that all the goods of the church were in the bishop's sole disposing; and as at first they were laid at the apostles' feet, so afterwards at the bishops'. So it is in the forty-first canon of the apostles; so it is in the council of Gangra : and all the world are excluded from intervening in the dispensation, without express delegation from the bishop, as appears in the seventh and eighth canons, and that under pain of an anathema by the holy council. And, therefore, when, in success of time, some patrons, that had founded churches and endowed them, thought that the dispensation of those lands did not belong to the bishop: of this the third council of Toledo complains, and makes remedy, commanding, "ut omnia, secundum constitutionem antiquam, ad episcopi ordinationem et potestatem pertineant." The same is renewed in the fourth council of Toledo: "Noverint autem conditores basilicarum, in rebus quas eisdem ecclesiis conferunt, nullam se potestatem habere, sed juxta canonum instituta, sicut ecclesiam, ita et dotem ejus ad ordinationem episcopi pertinere." These councils I produce, not as judges, but as