nium,' Anno 256, decreed, "that heretics had no power to minister either baptism, or confirmation, or ordination. Nay some of those, who allowed the baptism of heretics, yet still continued to condemn their ordinations. As Innocent, bishop of Rome, who determines against such as were or dained by the Arians and such other heretics, "that they were not to be admitted with their honours in the Catholic Church; though their baptism might stand good, being administered in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." In another place he says, it was the ancient rule of the Church of Rome to cancel and disannul all such ordinations; though in some places, he owns, they were allowed: for Anisius, bishop of Thessa lonica, with a council of his provincial bishops, agreed to receive those, whom Bonosus, an heretical bishop of Mace donia, had ordained; "that they might not continue to strengthen his party, and thereby bring no small damage upon the Church." Liberius not only admitted the Macedonian bishops to communion, but also allowed them to continue in their office, upon their subscription to the Nicene Creed, and abjuration of their former heresy; as Socrates,5 and Sozomen, and St. Basil, and others testify. In France the custom was, in the time of Clodoveus, to give a new imposition of hands to the Arian clergy, that returned to 4 6 7 1 Firmil. Ep. 75. ap. Cyprian, p. 221. Hæretico sicut ordinare non licet, nec manum imponere, ita nec Baptizare.-Vid. Cypr. Ep. 72. ad Stephan. p. 197. Innoc. Ep. 18. ad Alexand. c. 3. Non videtur Clericos eorum cum sacerdotii aut ministerii cujuspiam suscipi debere dignitate; quoniam iis solum baptisma ratum esse permittimus, &c. $ Id. Ep. 22. -- ad Episc. Macedon. c. 5. Anisii quondam fratris nostri, aliorumque Con sacerdotum summa deliberatio hæc fuit, ut quos Bonosus ordinaverat, ne cum eqdem remanerent, ac ne fieret mediocre scandalum, ordinati reciperentur. - - Jam ergò quod pro remedio ac necessitate temporis statutum est, constat primitùs non fuisse. *Bonosus is called bishop of Macedonia, not because he was of the province of Macedonia, but of the larger district called, the diocese of Macedonia, in the Notitia of the empire and the Church. Learned men were a long time at a loss to tell, what see he was bishop of. Baronius and Petavius profess themselves entirely ignorant of it; Christianus Lupus says, he was bishop of Sirmium; but since Garnerius published the works of Marius Mercator, it appears that he was bishop of Sardica: for Mercator gives him the title of Bonosus Sardicensis. 5 Socrat. lib. iv. c. 12. ad Episcop. Occident. • Sozom. lib. vi. c. 10. 'Basil. Ep. 74. the Catholic Faith; as appears from the first council of Orleans, which made a decree about it.' But that perhaps does not mean a new ordination, but only such a reconciliatory imposition of hands, as was used to be given to penitents in absolution. But if otherwise, it proves that the Church had different methods of proceeding in this case, as she judged it most expedient and beneficial for her service; sometimes reversing and disannulling the ordinations of heretics for discipline's sake, and to show her resentments of their errors; and sometimes allowing them to stand good for her own sake, to prevent greater scandals, and to encourage the straying people to return with their leaders to the unity of the Catholic Faith. Upon which account the general-council of Ephesus made an order concerning the Massalian heretics, otherwise called Euchites and enthusiasts, "that if any of their clergy would return to the Church, and in writing anathematize their former errors, they should continue in the same station they were in before; otherwise they should be degraded, and enjoy neither clerical promotion nor communion in the Church." The council of Nice is thought to have made the like decree in favour of the Novatian clergy, only giving them a reconciliatory imposition of hands by way of absolution, not re-ordination. And there is nothing more certain, than that the African Fathers so treated the Donatists; particularly St. Austin, in all his writings, pleads as much for the validity of heretical ordinations, as heretical baptism; and says further," that when the Church judged it expedient not to suffer the Donatist bishops to officiate upon their return to the Church, she did not thereby intend to deny the reality 1 Con. Aurel. i. c. 12. De Hæreticis Clericis, qui ad Fidem Catholicam plenâ fide et voluntate venerint, id censuimus observari - · - - - ut officium, quo eos Episcopus dignos esse censuerit, cum impositæ manûs benedictione suscipiant. Con. Ephes. Act. 7. Decret. cont. Messalian. tom. iii. Quod si renuerint anathe c. 8. -- p. 809. Si Clerici fuerint, maneant Clerici. - matizare, si Presbyteri, vel Diaconi fuerint, vel in alio quopiam gradu Ecclesiæ, excidant et à Clero et à Gradu et à Communione. * Con. Nic. * Aug. cont. Parmen. lib. ii. c. 13. Cùm expedire hoc judicatur Ecclesiæ, ut Præpositi eorum venientes ad Catholicam Societatem, honores suos ibi non administrent; non eis tamen ipsa ordinationis sacramenta detrahuntur, sed manent super eos. or validity of their ordination, but supposed that to remain still perfect and entire in them." And this is what St. Austin meant by the sacrament of ordination, as he words it, or the indelible character, which was thereby imprinted; that though a man turned apostate, or was suspended or deprived for any crime, yet, if upon his repentance and satisfaction, the Church thought fit to admit him to officiate again, there was no necessity of giving him a new ordination, no more than a new baptism; for the character of both remained entire. This was the doctrine and practice of the African Church, and most others, in the time of St. Austin. BOOK V. OF THE PRIVILEGES, IMMUNITIES, AND REVENUES OF THE CLERGY IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. CHAP. I. Some Instances of Respect, which the Clergy paid mutually to one another. SECT. 1.—The Clergy obliged to give Entertainment to their Brethren, tra velling upon necessary Occasions. HAVING thus far discoursed of the necessary qualifications of the clergy, and the several customs observed in the designation of them to the ministerial office; it will be proper in the next place to speak of the respect and honour, that was generally paid them upon the account of their office, Under which head I shall comprise whatever relates to the privileges, exemptions, immunities, and revenues of the ancient clergy. Some particular marks of honour, as they were peculiar to this or that order, have already been mentioned in speaking of those orders; but now I shall treat of those, which were more universal, and common to all orders. And here it will not be amiss in the first place to say something of that courteous treatment and friendship, wherewith the clergy of the ancient Church were obliged to receive and embrace one another. Two or three instances of which it will be sufficient to observe at present. First, that wher ever they travelled upon necessary occasions, they were to be entertained by their brethren of the clergy in all places, out of the public revenues of the Church; and it was a sort of crime for a bishop or other clerk to refuse the hospitality བྱ of the Church, and take it from any other. The his'o ians, Socrates and Sozomen,' tacitly reflect upon Epiphanius for an action of this nature," that when he came to Constantinople, where Chrysostom showed him all imaginable respect and honour, sending his clergy out to meet him, and inviting him to an apartment according to custom in his house, he refused the civility, and took up his habitation in a separate mansion." This was interpreted the same thing as breaking Catholic communion with him; as it proved in effect; for he came on purpose, by the instigations of Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, to form an accusation against him. On the other hand, to deny any of the clergy the hospitality of the Church, upon such occasions, was a more unpardonable crime, and looked upon as the rudest way of denying communion. Therefore Firmilian smartly reproves the behaviour of Pope Stephen, both as insolent and unchristian, towards the African bishops, who were sent as legates from their Churches to him, "That he neither admitted them to audience himself, nor suffered any of the brethren to receive them to his house; so not only denying them the peace and communion of the Church, but the civility of Christian 'entertainment also." Which was so much the greater despite and affront to them, because every private Christian, travelling with letters of credence from his own Church, might have challenged that privilege upon the "contesseration of hospitality," as Tertullians words it; and much more the bishops and clergy from one another. By the laws of the African Church, every bishop, that went as legate of a provincial synod to that which they called a general or plenary synod, was to be provided of all things necessary in his travels from this liberality of the Church; as appears from a canon in the third council of Carthage, which orders, that no province should send above two or three legates; "that so they might appear with less pomp and envy, and be less charge to their entertainers." Firmil. Ep. 75. Socrat. lib. vi. c. 12. Sozom. lib. viii. c. 14. ap. Cypr. p. 228. Ut venientibus non solum pax et communio, sed et tectum et hospitium negaretur. 8 Tertul. de Præscript. c. 20. + Con. Carth. 3. c. 2. Ut et minus invidiosi, minusque hospitibus sumptuosi exis3 F tant. VOL. I. |