the Jews, and another of the Gentiles. Thus they think it was at Antioch, where Euodius and Ignatius are said to be bishops ordained by the apostles; as also Linus and Clemens at Rome, the one ordained by St. Peter bishop of the Jews, and the other by St. Paul bishop of the Gentiles. Epiphanius seems to have been of this opinion; for he says," Peter and Paul where the first bishops of Rome: and he makes it a question whether they did not ordain two other bishops to supply their places in their absence. In another place he takes occasion to say, that Alexandria never had two bishops, as other churches had: which observation, Bishop Pearson thinks, ought to be extended to the apostolical ages; as implying that St. Mark, being the only preacher of the gospel at Alexandria, left but one bishop his successor, but in other churches sometimes two apostles gathered churches, and each of them left a bishop in his place. Yet this does not satisfy other learned persons, who are of a different judgment, and think that though the apostles had occasion to ordain two bishops in some cities, yet it was not upon the account of different churches of Jews and Gentiles, but in the ordinary way of succession: as Ignatius was ordained at Antioch after the death of Euodius, and Clemens at Rome after the death of Linus. I shall not pretend to determine on which side the right lies in so nice a dispute," but leave it to the judicious reader, and only say, that if the former opinion prevails, it proves another exception to the common rule of having but one bishop in a city; or rather shows what was the practice of the church before the rule was made.

20

Sect. 4.

jutors.

To these we may add a third excepThe case of coad- tion in a case that is more plain, which was that of the coadjutors. These were such bishops as were ordained to assist some other bishops in case of infirmity or old age, and were to be subordinate to them as long as they lived, and succeed them when they died. Thus, when Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem, was disabled by reason of his great age, (being a hundred and twenty years old,) Alexander was made his coadjutor. Eusebius and St. Jerom both say it was done by revelation; but they do not mean, that Narcissus

needed a revelation to authorize him to take a coadjutor, but only to point out to him that particular man: for Alexander was a stranger, and a bishop already in another country, so that without a revelation he could not have been judged qualified for this office; but being once declared to be so, there was no scruple upon any other account, but by the unanimous consent of all the bishops in Palestine, he was chosen to take part with Narcissus in the care and government of the church. Valesius reckons this the first instance of any coadjutor to be met with in ancient history, but there are several examples in the following ages. Theotecnus, bishop of Cæsarea, made Anatolius his coadjutor, designing him to be his successor, so that for some time they both governed the same church together. Maximus 26 is said by Sozomen to be bishop of Jerusalem together with Macarius. Orion, bishop of Palæbisca, being grown old, ordained Siderius his coadjutor and successor, as Synesius" informs us. So Theodoret" takes notice that John, bishop of Apamea, had one Stephen for his colleague. And St. Ambrose 29 mentions one Senecio, who was coadjutor to Bassus. In the same manner Gregory Nazianzen was bishop of Nazianzum together with his aged father. Baronius indeed" denies that ever he was bishop of Nazianzum, but St. Jerom" and all the ancient historians, Socrates, Sozomen, 23 Ruffin," and Theodoret expressly assert it; though some of them mistake in calling him his father's successor: for he was no otherwise bishop of Nazianzum, but only as his father's coadjutor. He entered upon the office with this protestation, that he would not be obliged to continue bishop there any longer than his father lived, as he himself acquaints us in his own Life," and other places; so that after his father's death he actually resigned, and getting Eulalius to be ordained in his room, he betook himself to a private life.” All which evidently proves that he was not his father's successor, but only his coadjutor. I will but add one instance more of this nature, which is the known case of St. Austin, who was ordained bishop of Hippo whilst Valerius was living, and sat with him for some time as his coadjutor; which he did by the consent of the primate

27 Synes. Ep. 67.

35

38

of Carthage, and the primate of Numidia, who ordained him. Possidius says, he had some scruple upon him at first, because he looked upon it as contrary to the custom of the church; but being told that it was a thing commonly practised both in the African and transmarine churches, he yielded with some reluctancy to be ordained. These instances are evident proof, that it was not thought contrary to the true sense of the canon, in case of infirmity or old age, to have coadjutors in the church : though, it is true, St. Austin was of opinion that his own ordination was not regular, when afterward he came to know the Nicene canon, which he did not know before; and for this reason he would not ordain Eradius bishop whilst he himself lived, though he had nominated him with the consent of the church to be his successor. But all men did not understand the canon in this strict and rigorous sense that St. Austin did, as absolutely forbidding two bishops to be in a church at the same time in all cases whatsoever, but only when there was no just reason, and the necessities of the church did not require it: but if there was a reasonable cause to have more bishops than one, as when a bishop was unable to execute his office, or in any the like case, the canon did not oblige, as appears from the instances that have been mentioned, and several others that might be added to them.

39

but because they were τῆς χώρας ἐπίσκοποι, count bishops, as the word properly signifies, and n presbyters of the city regions, as Salmasius unde stands it.

opinions about 11 nature of this ord

Three different

1st. That they we mere presbyters.

Now, though the name does in some Sect. 2. measure determine their quality, yet great dispute has been among learned men concerning the nature of this order. Among the schoolmen and canonists, it a received opinion, that they were only presbyters as may be seen in Turrian,' Estius, Antonius Au gustinus, and Gratian,' who are followed not onl by Salmasius, but by Spalatensis,' Dr. Field, an Dr. Forbes," the last of which brings several argu ments to prove that they were mere presbyters, an never had any episcopal ordination.

Sect. 3. A 2nd opinion, that some of them presbyters,

bishops.

Others think there were two sorts of chorepiscopi, some that had episcopal ordination, and others that were and some of them simple presbyters: which is the opinion of Cabassutius," Peter de Marca" and Bellar min." They allow that in some cases it happened that the chorepiscopi were bishops, because they were ordained bishops before they were made chorepiscopi. And thus much is certainly true: for in the primitive church, sometimes bishops were ordained to a place, but not received, either through the perverseness of the people, or by reason of persecution, or the like cause: and such bishops (whom the ancient writers" and canons term axolaio and OxoλÁĽOVTEC ÉTIOкоTо, vacant bishops) not being permitted to officiate in their own church, were admitted to act as chorepiscopi under any other bishop that would entertain them. The council of Nice" made the like provision for such of the Novatian bishops as would return to the catholic church; that the bishop of the place should admit them either to the office of a city presbyter, or a chorepiscopus; that there might not be two bishops in one city. And so it was determined likewise by the same council's in the case of the Meletian bishops, that upon their return to the unity of the church, they should be allowed to officiate in subordination to the bishops of the catholic church. Now, it is plain that all such chorepiscopi as these were properly bishops, because they were originally ordained bishops before they came to act in the quality of country bishops under others. But for all the rest, De Marca thinks they were only presbyters.

Spalat. de Repub. par. 1. lib. 2. c. 9. n. 17, 18, 19. Field, of the Church, lib. 5. c. 29.

Forb. Iren. lib. 2. c. 11. prop. 14. p. 249.

10 Cabassut. Notit. Concil. c. 8. p. 45.
"Pet. de Marca, de Concord. lib. 2. c. 13.

12 Bellarm. de Cleric. lib. 1. c. 17.

13 Socrat. H. E. lib. 4. c. 7. Conc. Antioch, can. 16. 14 Conc. Nic. can. 8.

15 Conc. Nic. Ep. Synod. ap. Socrat. H. E. lib. 1. c. 9.

that they were all probable.

18

16

Dr. Beverege, Dr. Cave," and even by Mr. Blondel" himself, who, though by some reckoned among those of the contrary opinion, has a long dissertation against De Marca, to prove that all the chorepiscopi mentioned in the ancient councils were properly bishops. And there needs no fuller proof of this than what Athanasius says in his Second Apology, where he puts a manifest distinction betwixt presbyters and the chorepiscopi. For speaking of the irregular promotion of Ischyras, who was made bishop of the region of Mareotis by the Eusebian faction, he says, Mareotis was only a region of Alexandria, and that all the churches of that precinct were immediately subject to the bishop of Alexandria, and never had either bishop or chorepiscopus" among them, but only presbyters fixed each in their respective villages or churches. This, as Blondel well observes, shows evidently that the chorepiscopi were not the same with presbyters, however the forger of the Decretal Epistles, under the name of Pope Leo and Damasus, would have persuaded the world to believe so..

Sect. 5.

against this answer

ed.

I

23

But why then does the council of Some objections Neocæsarea say that the chorepiscopi were only an imitation of the seventy? answer, because they were subject to the city bishops, as the seventy elders were subject to Moses, or the seventy disciples to the apostles. For whatever the council means by the seventy, it cannot be proved thence that the chorepiscopi were mere presbyters.

But it is said, that they could not be bishops, because the ordination of bishops was to be performed by three bishops, with the consent of the metropolitan and the provincial bishops; whereas the council of Antioch says, that a chorepiscopus was ordained by one bishop only, the bishop of the city to whose jurisdiction he belonged. To this the reply is easy, that this was one principal difference between the city bishops and country bishops, who differed both in the manner of their ordination, and in their power; for the one was subordinate to the other. Therefore, those canons which require three bishops to impose hands in the ordination of a bishop, speak only of such bishops as were to be absolute and supreme governors of their own diocese, and not of such who were subordinate to them,

whom the city bishops might ordain at their own discretion, yet so as to stand accountable to a provincial synod.

Sect. 6. The chorepiscopi allowed to ordain the inferior clergy, but

not presbyters or

deacons, without

special licence from

the city bishop.

The office of these chorepiscopi was, to preside over the country clergy, and inquire into their behaviour, and make report thereof to the city bishop; as also to provide fit persons for the inferior service and ministry of the church. And to give them some authority, they had certain privileges conferred on them. As, 1. They might ordain readers, subdeacons, and exorcists for the use of the country churches. St. Basil 25 requires of his chorepiscopi, that they should first acquaint him with the qualification of such persons, and take his licence to ordain them. But the council of Antioch 26 gives them a general commission to ordain all under presbyters and deacons, without consulting the city bishop upon every such promotion. And for presbyters and deacons, they might ordain them too, but not dixa rov ¿v tỷ módai étiokóв, without the special leave of the city bishop, under whose jurisdiction both they and the country were. And this is the meaning of the council of Ancyra," which says, the chorepiscopi shall not have power to ordain presbyters or deacons : which we must interpret by the explication given in the council of Antioch, that they should not be authorized to do it without the particular direction of the city bishop, but by his leave they might.

Sect. 9.

officiate in the presence of the city bishop.

4. They had liberty to officiate in They had power to the city church, in the presence of the bishop and presbyters of the city, which country presbyters had not. For so the council of Neocæsarea determined in two canons to this purpose: "The country presbyters shall not offer the oblation, nor distribute the bread and wine in time of prayer in the city church, when the bishop and presbyters are present: but the country bishops, being in imitation of the seventy, as fellow labourers, for their care of the poor, are admitted to offer."

Sect. 10. And to sit and vote in councils.

5. They had the privilege of sitting and voting in synods and councils: of which there are several instances still remaining in the acts of the ancient councils. In the first Nicene council" Palladius and Seleucius subscribe themselves chorepiscopi of the province | of Colosyria: Eudæmon, chorepiscopus of the province of Cilicia: Gorgonius, Stephanus, Euphronius, Rhodon, Theophanes, chorepiscopi of the province of Cappadocia: Hesychius, Theodore, Anatolius, Quintus, Aquila, chorepiscopi of the province of Isauria: Theustinus and Eulalius, of the province of Bithynia. So again in the council of Neocæsarea, Stephanus and Rudus, or Rhodon, two of the same that were in the council of Nice, subscribed themselves chorepiscopi of the province of Cappadocia. And in the council of Ephesus, Cæsarius, chorepiscopus of Alce.

Sect. 11.

32

But here I must observe, that the

The power of the power and privileges of the chorepischorepiscopi not the same in all times and places.

copi varied much, according to the

difference of times and places. For when the synod of Riez, in France, anno 439, had deposed Armentarius from his bishopric, because he was uncanonically ordained, they allowed him the privilege of being a chorepiscopus, after the example of the Nicene fathers, but limited him as to the exercise of his power. For though they gave him authority to confirm neophites, and consecrate virgins, and celebrate the eucharist in any country church with preference to any presbyter of the region; yet, first, They denied him the privilege of consecrating the eucharist in the city church," which, by the thirteenth canon of the council of Neocæsarea, was allowed to other chorepiscopi. Secondly, They confined him to a single church in the exercise of his chorepiscopal power; whereas others had power over a whole region. Thirdly, They forbade him to ordain any of the inferior clergy even in his own church, which other chorepiscopi were al

lowed to do by the thirteenth canon of the cound of Ancyra. And hence it appears, that, as the power was precarious, and depending upon the wi of councils and city bishops, from whom they r ceived it; so by this time their authority began sink apace in the church.

36

Sect. 12.

Their power fi struck at by the

council of Laodice

which set up TEPL

room.

38

The council of Laodicea gave them the first blow, anno 360. For there it was decreed,35 that for the future no bishops should be placed in coun- devrai in their try villages, but only reρiodevrai, itinerant or visiting presbyters; and for such bishop as were already constituted, they should do nothin without the consent and direction of the city bishop In the council of Chalcedon we meet with som such presbyters expressly styled Tɛpiodevrai, as Alex ander and Valentinus," each of which has th title of presbyter and πepiodεurns. And so in th fifth general council at Constantinople, one Ser gius, a presbyter, has the same title of repшodevrǹg curator or visitor of the Syrian churches: yet stil the order of the chorepiscopi was preserved in many places. For not only mention is made of them by Gregory Nazianzen and St. Basil in the fourth century, but also by Theodoret," who speaks o Hypatius and Abramius, his own chorepiscopi; and in the council of Chalcedon, in the fifth century, we find the chorepiscopi sitting and subscribing in the name of the bishops that sent them. But this was some diminution of their power; for in former councils they subscribed in their own names, as learned ment agree: but now their power was sinking, and it went on to decay and dwindle by degrees, till at last, in the ninth century, when the forged Decretals were set on foot, it was pretended that they were not true bishops, and so the order, by the pope's tyranny, came to be laid aside in the western church.

41

Sect. 13. Of the attempt to restore the chorepisin England, unfragan bishops.

Some attempt was made in England, at the beginning of the Reformation, to restore these under the name der the name of sufof suffragan bishops. For as our Histories inform us," by an act of the 26th of Henry VIII., anno 1534, several towns were appointed for suffragan sees, viz. Thetford, Ipswich, Colchester, Dover, Guildford, Southampton, Taunton, Shaftesbury, Molton, Marlborough, Bedford, Leicester, Gloucester, Shrewsbury, Bristol, Penrith, Bridgewater, Nottingham, Grantham, Hull, Huntingdon, Cambridge, Penreth, Berwick, St. Germains in Cornwall, and the Isle of Wight. These suffragans were to be consecrated by the archbishop

=་ ན་་

Seet. 14.

different from the

primitive church.

and two other bishops, and by the act to have the ། same episcopal power as suffragans formerly had within this realm: but none of them either to have or act any thing properly episcopal, without the consent and permission of the bishop of the city, in whose diocese he was placed and constituted. Now, any one that compares this with the account that I have given of the ancient chorepiscopi, will easily perceive that these suffragans were much of the same nature with them. But then I must observe, that this was a new name for them: for anciently suffragan bishops were all the city bishops Sufragan bishops of any province under a metropolitan, cherrpiscopi in the who were called his suffragans, because they met at his command to give their suffrage, counsel, or advice in a provincial synod. And in this sense the word was used in : England at the time when Linwood wrote his Provinciale, which was not above a hundred years before the Reformation, anno 1430. In his comment upon one of the constitutions of John Peckham, archbishop of Canterbury, which begins with these words, Omnibus et singulis coepiscopis suffraganeis nostris, To all and singular our fellow bishops and suffragans, upon the word suffragans he has this note: "They were called suffragans, because they were bound to give their suffrage and assistance to the archbishop, being summoned to take part in his care, though not in the plenitude of his power." Whence it is plain, that in his time suffragan bishops did not signify chorepiscopi, or rural bishops, but all the bishops of England, under their archbishops or metropolitans. Thus it was also in other churches: the seventy bishops who were immediately subject to the bishop of Rome, as their primate or metropolitan, were called his suffragans, because they were frequently called to his synods; as the reason of the name is given in an ancient Vatican MS. cited by Baronius."

Seet 15. The fragan hi

a technical name, libra

And here it will not be amiss to ob

shape of the Roman serve, whilst we are speaking of sufcalled by fragan bishops, that these seventy bishops, who were suffragans to the bishop of Rome, were by a peculiar technical name called libra; which name was given them for no other reason, but because of their number seventy. For the Roman libra, as antiquaries 5 note, consisted of seventy solidi, or so many parts; and therefore the number seventy in any other things, or persons, thence took the name of libra: as the seventy witnesses which are introduced deposing

45

"Linwood, Provinc. lib. 1. tit. 2. c. 1. Suffraganeis. Sic dictis, quia archiepiscopo suffragari et assistere tenentur, &c. "Baron. an. 1057. n. 23. Præter septem collaterales episcopos erant alii episcopi, qui dicuntur suffraganei Romani pontificis, nulli alii primati vel archiepiscopo subjecti, qui, frequenter ad synodos vocarentur.

45 Brerewood de Ponder. et Pret. c. 15.

against Marcellinus, in the council of Sinuessa, that they saw him sacrifice, are by the author of those acts 46 termed libra occidua, for no other reason, as Baronius" conceives, but because they were seventy in number. And Grotius" gives the same reason for affixing this title on the seventy bishops, who were assessors or suffragans to the bishop of Rome; they were, as one might say, his libra, or ordinary provincial council.

CHAPTER XV.

OF THE INTERCESSORES AND INTERVENTORES IN THE AFRICAN CHURCHES.

Sect. 1. Why some bishops called intercessors in the African

churches.

THERE is one appellation more given to some bishops in the African councils, which must here be taken notice of, whilst we are speaking of bishops; which is the name intercessor and interventor; a title given to some bishops upon the account of a pro-tempore office which was sometimes committed to them. In the African churches, and perhaps in others also, upon the vacancy of a bishopric, it was usual for the primate to appoint one of the provincial bishops to be a sort of procurator of the diocese, partly to take care of the vacant see, and partly to promote and procure the speedy election of a new bishop. And from this he had the name of intercessor and interventor.

Sect. 2. The office of an intercessor not to

last above a year.

The design of this office was manifestly to promote the good of the church; but it was liable to be abused two ways. For the intercessor by this means had a fair opportunity given to ingratiate himself with the people, and promote his own interest among them, instead of that of the church; either by keeping the see void longer than was necessary; or, if it was a wealthier or more honourable place than his own, by getting himself chosen into it. To obviate any such designs, the African fathers in the fifth council of Carthage made a decree, that no intercessor should continue in his office for above a year; but if he did not procure a new bishop to be chosen within that time, another intercessor should be sent in his room and the more effectually to cut off all abuses, and prevent corruption, they enacted it also

46 Concil. Sinuess. ap. Crab. t. 1. p. 190. Hi omnes electi sunt viri, libra occidua, qui testimonium perhibent, videntes Marcellinum thurificasse.

47 Baron. an. 302. n. 92.

48 Grot. in Luc. x. 1. Romanis episcopis jam olim 70 episcopi adsessores libra dicti, quod libra Romana tot solidos

contineret.