of the order of bishops, ordination was appropriate | same issue is that circumlocutory description or to them, then it will also from hence be evident, name of a bishop, used by St. Chrysostom, ô μéλthat the nullity of ordination without a bishop, is Awv έμās xeipotovýσev, "the man that is to ordain not dependent upon positive constitution, but on the clerks." exigence of the institution. Now that the power of ordination was only in the bishop, even they who, to advance the presbyters, were willing enough to speak less for episcopacy, give testimony; making this the proper distinctive cognizance of a bishop from a presbyter, that the bishop hath power of ordination, the presbyter hath not. So St. Jerome: "Quid facit episcopus, excepta ordinatione, quod presbyter non faciat ?" "All things," saith he,' (to wit, all things of precise order,)" are common to bishops with priests, except ordination;" for that is proper to the bishop. And St. Chrysostom: "Solâ quippe ordinatione superiores illis sunt episcopi, atque hoc tantum plusquam presbyteri habere videntur." m Ordination is the proper and peculiar function of a bishop; and, therefore, not given him by positive constitution of the canon. 4. No man was called a heretic for breach of canon, but for denying the power of ordination to be proper to a bishop: Aerius was, by Epiphanius, Philastrius, and St. Austin, condemned and branded for heresy, and by the catholic church, saith Epiphanius. This power, therefore, came from a higher spring than positive and canonical sanction. But now proceed. The council held in Trullo," complaining of the incursion of the barbarous people upon the church's inheritance, saith that it forced some bishops from their residence, and made that they could not karà rò κρατῆσαν ἔθος τὰς χειροτονίας καὶ πάντα ἅ τῷ ἐπισκύπῳ ἀνήκει πράττειν τε καὶ μεταχειρίζεσθαι, “ according to the guise of the church, give orders and do such things as did belong to the bishop:" and in the sequel of the canon they are permitted in such cases, "ut et diversorum clericorum ordinationes canonicè faciant," "to make canonical ordinations of clergymen." Giving of orders is proper, it belongs to a bishop. So the council. And, therefore, Theodoret, expounding that place of St. Paul, "by laying on the hands of the presbytery," interprets it of bishops; for this reason, because presbyters did not impose hands. There is an imperfect canon in the Arausican council," that hath an expression very pertinent to this purpose: "Ea quæ non nisi per episcopos geruntur," "those things that are not done but by bishops," they were decreed still to be done by bishops, though he that was to do them regularly, did fall into any infirmity whatsoever, yet "non sub præsentia sua presbyteros agere permittat, sed evocet episcopum." Here are clearly by this canon, some things supposed to be proper to the bishops, to the action of which presbyters must, in no case, be admitted. The particulars, what they are, are not specified in the canon, but are named before, viz. orders and confirmation; for almost the whole council was concerning them, and nothing else is properly the "agendum episcopi," and the canon else is not to be understood. To the And all this is but the doctrine of the catholic church, which St. Epiphanius P opposed to the doctrine of Aerius, denying episcopacy to be a distinct order. 'H μèv yàp (speaking of episcopacy) ¿σrì πατέρων γεννητικὴ τάξις, πατέρας γὰρ γεννᾷ τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ· ἡ δὲ πατέρας μὴ δυναμένη γενναν, speaking of presbytery: "The order of bishops begets fathers to the church of God, but the order of presbyters begets sons in baptism, but no fathers or doctors by ordination." It is a very remarkable passage related by Eusebius, in the ordination of Novatus to be presbyter, the bishop did it diaкwλvóμevoc åñò πάντος τοῦ κλήρου, "all the whole clergy was against it," yet the bishop did ordain him, and then certainly scarce any conjunction of the other clergy can be imagined; I am sure none is either expressed or intimated. For it was a ruled case, and attested by the uniform practice of the church, which was set down in the third council of Carthage: "Episcopus unus esse potest, per quem dignatione Divina presbyteri multi constitui possunt."r This case I instance the more particularly, because it is an exact determination of a bishop's sole power of ordination. Aurelius made a motion, that if a church wanted a presbyter to become her bishop, they might demand one from any bishop. It was granted; but Posthumianus, the bishop, put this case: "Deinde qui unum habuerit, numquid debet illi ipse unus presbyter auferri ?" " How, if the bishop have but one priest, must his bishop part with him to supply the necessity of the neighbour widowchurch ?" Yea, that he must. But how then shall he keep ordinations, when he hath never a presbyter to assist him? That indeed would have been the objection now, but it was none then; for Aurelius told them plainly, there was no inconvenience in it; for though a bishop have never a presbyter, no great matter, he can himself ordain many, and then I am sure there is a sole ordination; but if a bishop be wanting to a church, he is not so easily found. Thus it went ordinarily in the style of the church, ordinations were made by the bishop, and the ordainer spoken of as a single person. So it is in the Nicene council,s the council of Antioch, the council of Chalcedon," and St. Jerome, who, writing to Pammachius against the errors of John of Jerusalem, "If thou speak," saith he, "of Paulinianus, he comes now and then to visit us, not as any of your clergy, but ejus à quo ordinatus est,' that bishop's who ordained him." alone they did it, their ordination was pronounced although I have seen it once pretended, yet hath no invalid and void "ad initio." validity to impugn the constant practice of primitive antiquity. To these particulars add this, that bishops alone were punished if ordinations were uncanonical; which were most unreasonable, if presbyters did join in them, and were causes in conjunction. But unless they did it alone, we never read that they were punishable; indeed bishops were "pro toto, et integro," as is reported by Sozomen in the case of Elpidius, Eustathius, Basilius of Ancyra, and Eleusius. Thus also it was decreed in the second and sixth chapters of the council of Chalcedon, and in the imperial constitutions. Since, therefore, we never find presbyters joined with bishops in commission, or practice, or penalty, all this while ; I may infer, from the premises, the same thing which the council of Hispalis expresses in direct and full sentence: 66 Episcopus sacerdotibus ac ministris solus honorem dare potest, solus auferre non potest:" "The bishop alone may give the priestly honour, he alone is not suffered to take it away." y This council was held in the year 657, and I set it down here for this purpose, to show that the decree of the fourth council of Carthage," which was the first that licensed priests to assist bishops in ordinations, yet was not obligatory in the West; but for almost three hundred years after, ordinations were made by bishops alone. But till this council, no pretence of any such conjunction, and after this council, sole ordination did not expire in the West for above two hundred years together; but for aught I know, ever since then it hath obtained, that although presbyters oin not in the consecration of a bishop, yet of a presbyter they do; but this is only by a positive subintroduced constitution, first made in a provincial of Africa, and in other places received by insinuation and conformity of practice. I know not what can be said against it. I only find a piece of an objection out of St. Cyprian, who was a man so complying with the subjects of his diocess, that, if any man, he was like to furnish us with an antinomy: "Hunc igitur, fratres dilectissimi, à me, et à collegis qui præsentes aderant, ordinatum sciatis." a Here either by his "colleagues" he means bishops or presbyters. bishops, then many bishops will be found in the ordination of one to an inferior order; which, because it was, as I observed before, against the practice of christendom, will not easily be admitted to be the sense of St. Cyprian; but if he means presbyters by" collegæ," then sole ordination is invalidated by this example, for presbyters joined with him in the ordination of Aurelius. If I answer, that it matters not whether by his colleagues he means one or the other; for Aurelius the confessor, who was the man ordained, was ordained but to be a reader; and that was no order of Divine institution, no gift of the Holy Ghost, and, therefore, might be dispensed by one or more, by bishops or presbyters, and no way enters into the consideration of this question, concerning the power of collating those orders which are gifts of the Holy Ghost, and of Divine ordinance; and therefore, this, * Novell. Constit. 6. et. 123. c. 16. у Сар. 6. But then are all ordinations invalid, which are done by mere presbyters, without a bishop? What think we of the reformed churches? 1. For my part, I know not what to think. The question hath been so often asked, with so much violence and prejudice, and we are so bound, by public interest, to approve all that they do, that we have disabled ourselves to justify our own. For we were glad, at first, of abettors against the errors of the Roman church; we found these men zealous in it; we thanked God for it, as we had cause; and we were willing to make them recompence, by endeavouring to justify their ordinations; not thinking what would follow upon ourselves. But now it is come to that issue, that our own episcopacy is thought not necessary, because we did not condemn the ordinations of their presbytery. 2. Why is not the question rather, what we think of the primitive church, than what we think of the reformed churches? Did the primitive councils and fathers do well in condemning the ordinations made by mere presbyters? If they did well, what was a virtue in them, is no sin in us. If they did ill, from what principle shall we judge of the right of ordinations ? since there is no example in Scripture of any ordination made but by apostles and bishops; and the presbytery that imposed hands on Timothy, is, by all antiquity, expounded either of the office or of a college of presbyters; and St. Paul expounds it to be an ordination made by his own hands, as appears by comparing the two epistles to St. Timothy together; and may be so meant by the principles of all sides; for if the names be confounded, then presbyter may signify a bishop; and that they of this presbytery were not bishops, they can never prove from Scripture, where all men grant that the names are confounded. So that whence will men take their estimate for the rites of ordinations? From Scripture? That gives it always to apostles and bishops, as I have proved; and that a priest did ever impose hands for ordination, can never be shown from thence. From whence then? From antiquity? That was so far from licensing ordinations made by presbyters alone, that presbyters, in the primitive church, did never join with bishops in collating holy orders of presbyter and deacon, till the fourth council of Carthage; much less do it alone, rightly, and with effect. So that as, in Scripture, there is nothing for presbyters' ordaining, so in antiquity there is much against it; and either in this particular we must have strange thoughts of Scripture and antiquity, or not so fair interpretation of the ordinations of reformed presbyteries. But for my part, I had rather speak a truth in sincerity, than err with a glorious correspondence. But will not necessity excuse them, who could not have orders from orthodox bishops? Shall we either sin against our consciences, by subscribing to heretical and false resolutions "in materiâ fidei,” Epist. 33. z Can. 2. et 3. or else lose the being of a church, for want of episcopal ordinations? Indeed if the case were just thus, it was very hard with good people of the transmarine churches; but I have here two things to consider. 1. I am very willing to believe, that they would not have done any thing, either of error or suspicion, but in cases of necessity. But then I consider that M. Du Plessis, a man of honour and great learning, does attest,b that at the first reformation, there were many archbishops and cardinals in Germany, England, France, and Italy, that joined in the reformation, whom they might, but did not, employ in their ordinations; and what necessity then can be pretended in this case, I would fain learn, that I might make their defence. But, which is of more and deeper consideration, for this might have been done by inconsideration and irresolution, as often happens in the beginning of great changes; but it is their constant and resolved practice, at least in France, that if any returns to them, they will reordain him by their presbytery, though he had, before, episcopal ordination, as both their friends and their enemies bear witness.c 2. I consider that necessity may excuse a personal delinquency; but I never heard that necessity did build a church. Indeed no man is forced, for his own particular, to commit a sin; for if it be absolutely a case of necessity, the action ceaseth to be a sin; but indeed if God means to build a church in any place, he will do it by means proportionable to that end; that is, by putting them into a possibility of doing and acquiring those things, which himself hath required, of necessity, to the constitution of a church. So that, supposing that ordination by a bishop is necessary for the vocation of priests and deacons, as I have proved it is, and, therefore, for the founding or perpetuating of a church, either God hath given to all churches opportunity and possibility of such ordinations, and then, necessity of the contrary is but pretence and mockery; or if he hath not given such possibility, then there is no church there to be either built or continued, but the candlestick is presently removed. The same happened in the case of the Iberians converted by a captive woman : "Posteà verò quàm ecclesia magnificè constructa est, et populi fidem Dei majore ardore sitiebant, captivæ monitis ad imperatorem Constantinum totius gentis legatio mittitur : res gesta exponitur: sacerdotes mittere oratur, qui cœptum erga se Dei munus implerent." The work of christianity could not be completed, nor a church founded, without the ministry of bishops. Thus the case is evident, that the want of a bishop will not excuse us from our endeavours of acquiring one; and where God means to found a church, there he will supply them with those means and ministers, which himself hath made of ordinary and absolute necessity. And, therefore, if it happens that those bishops, which are of ordinary ministration amongst us, prove heretical, still God's church is catholic; and though with trouble, yet orthodox bishops may be acquired. For just so it happened when Mauvia, queen of the Saracens, was so earnest to have Moses, the hermit, made the bishop of her nation, and offered peace to the catholics upon that condition; Lucius, an Arian, troubled the affair by his interposing and offering to ordain Moses: the hermit discovered his vileness, " et ita majore decore deformatus compulsus est acquiescere." Moses refused to be ordained by him that was an Arian. So did the reformed churches refuse ordinations by the bishops of the Roman communion. But what then might they have done? Even the same that Moses did in that necessity: "Compulsus est ab episcopis, quos in exilium truserat, (Lucius,) sacerdotium sumere." Those good people might have had order from the bishops of England or the Lutheran churches, if at least they thought our churches catholic and christian. 66 If an ordinary necessity will not excuse this, will not an extraordinary calling justify it? yea, most certainly, could we but see an ordinary proof for an extraordinary calling, viz. an evident prophecy, demonstration of miracles, certainty of reason, clarity of sense, or any thing that might make faith of an extraordinary mission. But shall we then condemn those few of the reformed churches, whose ordinations always have been without bishops? No, indeed; that must not be they stand or fall to their own master. And though I cannot justify their ordinations, yet what degree their necessity is of, what their desire of episcopal ordinations may do for their personal excuse, and how far a good life and a catholic belief may lead a man in the way to heaven, although the forms of external communion be not observed, I cannot determine. For aught I know, their con There are divers stories in Ruffinus to this purpose. When Ædesius and Frumentius were surprised by the barbarous Indians, they preached christianity, and baptized many; but themselves, being but laymen, could make no ordinations, and so not fix a church. What then was to be done in the case?" Frumentius Alexandriam pergit: et rem omnem, ut gesta est, narrat episcopo, ac monet, ut provideat virum aliquem dignum, quem congregatis jam plurimis christianis in barbarico solo episcopum mittat." "Frumentius comes to Alex-dition is the same with that of the church of Perandria to get a bishop." Athanasius, being then patriarch, ordained Frumentius their bishop; "et tradito ei sacerdotio, redire eum cum Domini gratiâ unde venerat jubet: ex quo," saith Ruffinus," in Indiæ partibus, et populi christianorum et ecclesiæ factæ sunt, et sacerdotium cœpit." e gamus: "I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is; and thou heldest fast my faith, and hast not denied my name:" Nihilominus habeo adversus te pauca;" some few things I have against thee;" and yet of them, the want of canonical ordinations is a defect, which, 46 d Eccles. Hist. lib. x. c. 9. per Ruffinum. e Ibid. c. 10. et apud Theodoret. lib. i. 1 Eccles. Hist. lib. xi. c. 6. per Ruffinum. 66 I trust, themselves desire to be remedied; but if it cannot be done, their sin indeed is the less, but their misery the greater. I am sure I have said sooth, but whether or no it will be thought so, I cannot tell; and yet why it may not, I cannot guess, unless they only be impeccable; which, I suppose, will not so easily be thought of them, who themselves think, that all the church possibly may fail. But this I would not have declared so freely, had not the necessity of our own churches required it, and the first pretence of the legality and validity of their ordinations been buoyed up to the height of an absolute necessity; for else why shall it be called tyranny in us, to call on them to conform to us, and to the practice of the catholic church, and yet in them be called a good and a holy zeal to exact our conformity to them; but I hope it will so happen to us, that it will be verified here, what was once said of the catholics, under the fury of Justina: "Sed tanta fuit perseverantia fidelium populorum, ut animas prius amittere, quàm episcopum mallent;" if it were put to our choice, rather to die, (to wit, the death of martyrs, not rebels,) than lose the sacred order and offices of episcopacy, without which no priest, no ordination, no consecration of the sacrament, no absolution, no rite, or sacrament, legitimately can be performed, in order to eternity. The sum is this. If the canons and sanctions apostolical; if the decrees of eight famous councils in christendom, of Ancyra, of Antioch, of Sardis, of Alexandria, two of Constantinople, the Arausican council, and that of Hispalis; if the constant successive acts of the famous martyr-bishops of Rome making ordinations; if the testimony of the whole pontifical book; if the dogmatical resolution of so many fathers, St. Denis, St. Cornelius, St. Athanasius, St. Jerome, St. Chrysostom, St. Epiphanius, St. Austin, and divers others, all appropriating ordinations to the bishop's hand; if the constant voice of christendom, declaring ordinations made by presbyters to be null and void in the nature of the thing; and never any act of ordination by a non-bishop approved by any council, decretal, or single suffrage of any famous man in christendom; if that ordinations of bishops were always made, and they ever done by bishops, and no pretence of priests joining with them in their consecrations, and after all this it was declared heresy to communicate the power of giving orders to presbyters, either alone or in conjunction with bishops, as it was in the case of Aerius; if all this, that is, if whatsoever can be imagined, be sufficient to make faith in this particular, then it is evident that the power and order of bishops is greater than the power and order of presbyters, to wit, in this great particular of ordination, and that by this loud voice and united vote of christendom. a Epist. de Chorepisc. Epist. ad Jubaian. SECTION XXXIII. And Confirmation. BUT this was but the first part of the power, which catholic antiquity affixed to the order of episcopacy. The next is of confirmation of baptized people. And here the rule was this, which was thus expressed by Damascen: "Apostolorum et successorum eorum est, per manûs impositionem donum Spiritûs Sancti tradere;" "It belongs to the apostles and their successors, to give the Holy Ghost by imposition of hands."a But see this in particular instance. The council of Eliberis, giving permission to faithful people of the laity to baptize catechumens in the cases of necessity, and exigence of journey : "Ita tamen ut si supervixerit baptizatus, ad episcopum eum perducat, ut per manûs impositionem proficere possit:" "Let him be carried to the bishop, to be improved by imposition of the bishop's hands." This was law. It was also a custom, saith St. Cyprian, “Quod nunc quoque apud nos geritur, ut qui in ecclesia baptizantur, per præpositos ecclesiæ offerantur, et per nostram orationem, et manûs impositionem, Spiritum Sanctum consequantur, et signaculo Dominico consummentur;" b and this custom was catholic too, and the law was of universal concernment. "Omnes fideles, per manuum impositionem episcoporum, Spiritum Sanctum post baptismum accipere debent, ut pleni christiani accipere debent." So St. Urban, in his decretal epistle; and, "Omnibus festinandum est sine morâ renasci, et demùm consignari ab episcopo, et septiformem Spiritùs Sancti gratiam recipere;" so saith the old author of the fourth epistle under the name of St. Clement: "All faithful baptized people must go to the bishop to be consigned, and so by imposition of the bishop's hands, to obtain the sevenfold gifts of the Holy Ghost." с λovç Tivás éotiv ideīv toūto towūvraç "whence it | firmation, he says, it was "ad honorem potius sacerdotii quàm ad legis necessitatem :" "for the honour of the priesthood, rather than for the necessity of a law." I shall not need to instance in too many particulars; for that the ministry of confirmation was, by catholic custom, appropriate to bishops in all ages of the primitive church, is to be seen by the concurrent testimony of councils and fathers, particularly of St. Clemens Alexandrinus, in Eusebius, Tertullian, St. Innocentius the First, Damasus, St. Leo,k in John the Third,' in St. Gregory, Amphilochius, in the life of St. Basil, telling the story of Bishop Maximinus confirming Basilius and Eubulus, the council of Orleans," and of Melda, and, lastly, of Sevill, which affirms, "Non licere presbyteris, per impositionem manûs fidelibus baptizandis Paracletum Spiritum tradere :" "It is not lawful for presbyters to give confirmation, for it is properly an act of episcopal power:"-" Chrismate Spiritus Sanctus super infunditur. Utraque verò ista manu et ore antistitis impetramus." These are enough for authority and dogmatical resolution, from antiquity. For truth is, the first that ever did communicate the power of confirming to presbyters, was Photius, the first author of that unhappy and long-lasting schism between the Latin and Greek churches, and it was upon this occasion too. For when the Bulgarians were first converted, the Greeks sent presbyters to baptize and to confirm them. But the Latins sent again to have them re-confirmed; both because (as they pretended) the Greeks had no jurisdiction in Bulgaria, nor the presbyters a capacity of order to give confirmation. 66 The matters of fact and acts episcopal, of confirmation, are innumerable; but most famous are those confirmations made by St. Rembert, bishop of Brema, and of St. Malchus, attested by St. Bernard, because they were ratified by a miracle, saith the ancient story. I end this with the saying of St. Jerome ; "Exigis ubi scriptum sit? In Actibus Apostolorum. Sed etiamsi scripturæ auctoritas non subesset, totius orbis in hanc partem consensus instar præcepti obtineret:" If you ask where it is written," (viz. that bishops alone should confirm,) "it is written in the Acts of the Apostles;" (meaning, by precedent, though not express precept;) | "but if there were no authority of Scripture for it, yet the consent of all the world upon this particular is instead of a command." It was fortunate that St. Jerome hath expressed himself so confidently in this affair, for by this we are armed against an objection from his own words; for in the same dialogue, speaking of some acts of episcopal privilege and peculiar ministration, particularly of con To this the answer is evident from his own words: “ That bishops should give the Holy Ghost in confirmation, is written in the Acts of the Apostles ;" and now that this is reserved, rather "for the honour of episcopacy, than a simple necessity in the nature of the thing," makes no matter. For the question here, that is only of concernment, is not to what end this power is reserved to the bishop, but by whom it was reserved? Now St. Jerome says it was done "apud acta," "in the Scripture;" therefore, by God's Holy Spirit; and the end he also specifies, viz. "for the honour of that sacred order," "non propter legis necessitatem," "not that there is any necessity of law," that confirmation should be administered by the bishop. Not that a priest may do it, but that, as St. Jerome himself there argues, the Holy Ghost being already given in baptism, if it happens that bishops may not be had, (for he puts the case concerning persons in bondage, and places remote and destitute of bishops,) then, in that case, there is not the absolute necessity of a law, that confirmation should be had at all: a man does not perish if he have it not; for that this thing was reserved to a bishop's peculiar ministration, was indeed an honour to the function, but it was not for the necessity of a law tying people, in all cases, actually to acquire it. So that this "non necessarium” is not to be referred to the bishop's ministration, as if it were not necessary for him to do it when it is to be done, nor that a priest may do it if a bishop may not be had; but this non-necessity is to be referred to confirmation itself; so that if a bishop cannot be had, confirmation, though with much loss, yet with no danger, may be omitted. This is the sum of St. Jerome's discourse, this reconciles him to himself, this makes him speak conformably to his first assertions, and, consequently, to his arguments; and to be sure, no exposition can make these words to intend, that this reservation of the power of confirmation to bishops is not done by the Spirit of God, and then let the sense of the words be what they will, they can do no hurt to the cause; and as easily may we escape from those words of his, to Rusticus, bishop of Narbona : "Sed quia scriptum est, presbyteri duplici honore honorentur; prædicare eos decet, utile est benedicere, congruum confirmare," &c. It is quoted by Gratian, dist. 95. "Ecce Ego." But the gloss upon the place expounds him thus, i. e. “in fide," "the presbyters may preach, they may confirm their auditors, not by consignation of chrism, but by confirmation of faith;" and for this quotes a parallel place for the use of the word "confirmare," by authority of St. Gregory, who sent Zachary, his legate, into Germany, from the see of Rome, "Ut orthodoxos episcopos, pres can. ■ Apud. Gratian. de Consecrat. dist. 5. can. ut Jejuni. 4 Vide Anast. 1. Biblioth. Præfat. in can. 8. Synodi. |