THE STATE OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH, AND THE MODE OF GOVERNMENT PRACTISED
BEFORE THE PAPACY.
Hitherto we have treated of the mode of government in the Church, as it
has been delivered to us by the pure word of God, and of the offices in
it, as they were instituted by Christ. Now, that all these things may be
more clearly and familiarly displayed, and more deeply impressed upon
our minds, it will be useful to examine what was the form of the ancient
Church, in these particulars. It will place before our eyes an actual
exemplification of the Divine institution. For though the bishops of
those times published many canons, in which they seemed to express more
than had been expressed in the Holy Scriptures, yet they were so
cautious in framing their whole economy according to the sole standard
of the word of God, that in this respect scarcely any thing can be
detected among them inconsistent with that word. But though there might
be something to be regretted in their regulations, yet because they
directed their sincere and zealous efforts to preserve the institution
of God, without deviating from it to any considerable extent, it will be
highly useful in this place to give a brief sketch of what their
practice was. As we have stated that there are three kinds of ministers
recommended to us in the Scripture, so the ancient Church divided all
the ministers it had into three orders. For from the order of
presbyters, they chose some for pastors and teachers; the others
presided over the discipline and corrections. To the deacons was
committed the care of the poor and the distribution of the alms.
_Readers_ and _Acolytes_ were not names of certain offices, but young
men, to whom they also gave the name of _clergy_, whom they accustomed
from their youth to certain exercises in the service of the Church, that
they might better understand to what they were destined, and might enter
upon their office better prepared for it in due time; as I shall soon
show more at large. Therefore Jerome, after having mentioned five orders
of the Church, enumerates bishops, presbyters, deacons, the faithful, or
believers at large, and catechumens, or persons who had not yet been
baptized, but had applied for instruction in the Christian faith. Thus
he assigns no particular place to the rest of the clergy and the monks.
II. All those to whom the office of teaching was assigned, were
denominated presbyters. To guard against dissension, the general
consequence of equality, the presbyters in each city chose one of their
own number, whom they distinguished by the title of _bishop_. The
bishop, however, was not so superior to the rest in honour and dignity,
as to have any dominion over his colleagues; but the functions performed
by a consul in the senate, such as, to propose things for consideration,
to collect the votes, to preside over the rest in the exercise of
advice, admonition, and exhortation, to regulate all the proceedings by
his authority, and to carry into execution whatever had been decreed by
the general voice;—such were the functions exercised by the bishop in
the assembly of the presbyters. And that this arrangement was introduced
by human agreement, on account of the necessity of the times, is
acknowledged by the ancient writers themselves. Thus Jerome, on the
Epistle to Titus, says, “A presbyter is the same as a bishop. And before
dissensions in religion were produced by the instigation of the devil,
and one said, I am of Paul, and another, I am of Cephas, the Churches
were governed by a common council of presbyters. Afterwards, in order to
destroy the seeds of dissensions, the whole charge was committed to one.
Therefore, as the presbyters know that according to the custom of the
Church they are subject to the bishop who presides over them, so let the
bishops know that their superiority to the presbyters is more from
custom than from the appointment of the Lord, and they ought to unite
together in the government of the Church.” In another place, he shows
the antiquity of this institution; for he says, that at Alexandria, even
from Mark the Evangelist to Heraclas and Dionysius, the presbyters
always chose one of their body to preside over them, whom they called
their bishop. Every city, therefore, had its college of presbyters, who
were pastors and teachers. For they all executed the duties of teaching,
exhorting, and correcting, among the people, as Paul enjoins bishops to
do;[848] and in order to leave successors behind them, they laboured in
training young men, who had enlisted themselves in the sacred warfare.
To every city was assigned a certain district, which received presbyters
from it, and was reckoned as a part of that Church. Every assembly, as I
have stated, for the sole purpose of preserving order and peace, was
under the direction of one bishop, who, while he had the precedence of
all others in dignity, was himself subject to the assembly of the
brethren. If the territory placed under his episcopate was too extensive
to admit of his discharging all the duties of a bishop in every part of
it, presbyters were appointed in certain stations, to act as his
deputies in things of minor importance. These were called
_chorepiscopi_, or _country bishops_, because in the country they
represented the bishop.
III. But with respect to the office of which we are now treating, the
bishops and presbyters were equally required to employ themselves in the
dispensation of the word and sacraments. For at Alexandria only, because
Arius had disturbed the Church there, it was ordained that no presbyter
should preach to the people; as is asserted by Socrates in the ninth
book of his Tripartite History, with which Jerome hesitates not to
express his dissatisfaction. It would certainly have been regarded as a
prodigy, if any man had claimed the character of a bishop, who had not
shown himself really such in his conduct. Such was the strictness of
those times, that all ministers were constrained to discharge the duties
which the Lord requires of them. I refer not to the custom of one age
only; for even in the time of Gregory, when the Church was almost
extinct, or at least had considerably degenerated from its ancient
purity, it would not have been permitted for any bishop to abstain from
preaching. Gregory somewhere says, “A priest dies, if his sound be not
heard;[849] for he provokes the wrath of the invisible Judge against
him, if he go without the sound of preaching.” And in another place:
“When Paul declares that he is ‘pure from the blood of all,’[850] by
this declaration, we, who are called priests, are convicted, confounded,
and declared to be guilty, who to all our own crimes add the deaths of
others; for we are chargeable with slaying all those whom we daily
behold advancing to death, while we are indifferent and silent.” He
calls himself and others silent, because they were less assiduous in
their work than they ought to be. Since he spares not those who
performed half of their duty, what is it probable he would have done, if
any one had neglected it altogether? It was therefore long maintained in
the Church, that the principal office of a bishop was to feed the people
with the word of God, or to edify the Church both in public and private
with sound doctrine.
IV. The establishment of one archbishop over all the bishops of each
province, and the appointment of patriarchs at the Council of Nice, with
rank and dignity superior to the archbishops, were regulations for the
preservation of discipline. In this disquisition, however, what was of
the least frequent use cannot be wholly omitted. The principal reason,
therefore, for the institution of these orders was, that if any thing
should take place in any Church which could not be settled by a few
persons, it might be referred to a provincial synod. If the magnitude or
difficulty of the case required a further discussion, the patriarchs
were called to unite with the synods; and from them there could be no
appeal but to a general council. This constitution of government some
called a _hierarchy_—a name, in my opinion, improper, and certainly not
used in the Scriptures. For it has been the design of the Holy Spirit,
in every thing relating to the government of the Church, to guard
against any dreams of principality or dominion. But if we look at the
_thing_, without regarding the _term_, we shall find that the ancient
bishops had no intention of contriving a form of government for the
Church, different from that which God has prescribed in his word.
V. Nor was the situation of deacons at that time at all different from
what it had been under the apostles. For they received the daily
contributions of believers and the annual revenues of the Church, to
apply them to their proper uses, that is, to distribute part to the
ministers, and part for the support of the poor; subject, however, to
the authority of the bishop, to whom they also rendered an account of
their administration every year. For when the canons invariably
represent the bishop as the dispenser of all the benefactions of the
Church, it is not to be understood as if he executed that charge
himself, but because it belonged to him to give directions to the
deacon, who were to be entirely supported from the funds of the Church,
to whom the remainder was to be distributed, and in what proportion to
each person; and because he had the superintendence over the deacon, to
examine whether he faithfully discharged his office. Thus the canons,
ascribed to the apostles, contain the following injunction: “We ordain
that the bishop do have the property of the Church in his own power. For
if the souls of men, which are of superior value, have been intrusted to
him, there is far greater propriety in his taking charge of the
pecuniary concerns; so that all things may be distributed to the poor by
his authority through the presbyters and deacons, and that they may be
administered with reverence, and all concern.” And in the Council of
Antioch it was decreed, that those bishops should be censured who
managed the pecuniary concerns of the Church without the concurrence of
the presbyters and deacons. But it is unnecessary to argue this point
any further, since it is evident from many epistles of Gregory, that
even in his time, when the administration of the Church was in other
respects become very corrupt, yet this custom was still retained, that
the deacons were the stewards for the relief of the poor, under the
authority of the bishop. It is probable that subdeacons were at first
attached to the deacons, to assist them in transacting the business of
the poor; but this distinction was soon lost. Archdeacons were first
erected when the extent of the property required a new and more accurate
mode of administration; though Jerome states that there were such
offices even in his time. In their hands was placed the amount of the
annual revenues, of the possessions, and of the household furniture, and
the management of the daily contributions. Whence Gregory denounces to
the archdeacon of Thessalonica, that he would be held guilty, if any of
the property of the Church should be lost by him, either through
negligence or fraud. Their appointment to read the gospel, and to exhort
the people to pray, and their admission to the administration of the cup
in the sacred supper, were intended to dignify their office, that they
might discharge it with the more piety, in consequence of being
admonished by such ceremonies, that they were not executing some profane
stewardship, but that their function was spiritual and dedicated to God.
VI. Hence it is easy to judge what use was made of the property of the
Church, and in what manner it was dispensed. We often find it stated,
both in the decrees of the councils, and by the ancient writers, that
whatever the Church possessed, whether in lands or in money, was the
patrimony of the poor. The bishops and deacons, therefore, are
continually reminded that they are not managing their own treasures, but
those destined to supply the necessity of the poor, which if they
unfaithfully withhold or embezzle, they will be guilty of murder. Hence
they are admonished to distribute this property to the parties entitled
to it, with the greatest caution and reverence, as in the sight of God,
and without respect of persons. Hence also the solemn protestations of
Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine, and other bishops, assuring the people
of their integrity. Now, since it is perfectly equitable, and sanctioned
by the law of the Lord, that those who are employed in the service of
the Church should be maintained at the public expense of the Church,—and
even in that age some presbyters consecrated their patrimonies to God,
and reduced themselves to voluntary poverty,—the distribution was such,
that neither were the ministers left without support, nor were the poor
neglected. Yet, at the same time, care was taken that the ministers
themselves, who ought to set an example of frugality to others, should
not have enough to be abused to the purposes of splendour or delicacy,
but only what would suffice to supply their necessities. “For,” says
Jerome, “those of the clergy who are able to maintain themselves from
their own patrimony, if they take what belongs to the poor, are guilty
of sacrilege, and by such an abuse, they eat and drink judgment to
themselves.”
VII. At first the administration was free and voluntary, the bishops and
deacons acting with spontaneous fidelity, and integrity of conscience
and innocence of life supplying the place of laws. Afterwards, when the
cupidity or corrupt dispositions of some gave birth to evil examples, in
order to correct these abuses, canons were made, which divided the
revenues of the Church into four parts, assigning the first to the
clergy, the second to the poor, the third to the reparation of Churches
and other buildings, the fourth to poor strangers. For, though other
canons assign this last part to the bishop, this forms no variation from
the division which I have mentioned. For the intention was, that it
should be appropriated to him, neither for his own exclusive
consumption, nor for lavish or arbitrary distribution, but to enable him
to support the hospitality which Paul requires of persons in that
office.[851] And so it is explained by Gelasius and Gregory. For
Gelasius adduces no other reason why the bishop should claim any thing
for himself, than to enable him to communicate to captives and
strangers. And Gregory is still more explicit. He says, “It is the
custom of the apostolic see, at the ordination of a bishop, to command
him that all the revenue received by him be divided into four portions;
namely, one for the bishop and his family, for the support of
hospitality and entertainment; the second for the clergy; the third for
the poor; the fourth for the reparation of Churches.” It was unlawful
for the bishop, therefore, to take for his own use any thing more than
was sufficient for moderate and frugal sustenance and clothing. If any
one began to transgress the due limits, either in luxury, or in
ostentation and pomp, he was immediately admonished by his colleagues;
and if he would not comply with the admonition, he was deposed from his
office.
VIII. The portion which they applied to ornament the sacred edifices, at
first was very small; and even after the Church was become a little more
wealthy, they did not exceed moderation in this respect: whatever money
was so employed, still continued to be held in reserve for the poor, if
any pressing necessity should occur. Thus, when famine prevailed in the
province of Jerusalem, and there was no other way of relieving their
wants, Cyril sold the vessels and vestments, and expended the produce in
purchasing sustenance for the poor. In like manner, when vast numbers of
the Persians were almost perishing with hunger, Acatius, bishop of
Amida, after having convoked his clergy, and made that celebrated
speech, “Our God has no need of dishes or cups, because he neither eats
nor drinks,” melted down the vessels, and converted them into money, to
redeem the wretched, and buy food for them. Jerome also, while he
inveighs against the excessive splendour of the temples, makes
honourable mention of Exuperius, at that time bishop of Thoulouse, who
administered the emblem of our Lord’s body in a wicker basket, and the
emblem of his blood in a glass, but suffered no poor person to endure
hunger. The same that I have just said of Acatius, Ambrose relates of
himself; for when he was censured by the Arians for having broken up the
sacred vessels to pay the ransom of some captives, he made the following
most excellent defence: “He who sent forth the apostles without gold,
gathered Churches together likewise without gold. The Church has gold,
not to keep, but to expend, and to furnish relief in necessities. What
need is there to keep that which is of no service? Do not we know how
much gold and silver the Assyrians plundered from the temple of the
Lord? Is it not better that it should be melted down by the priest for
the sustenance of the poor, if other resources are wanting, than that it
should be carried away by a sacrilegious enemy? Will not the Lord say,
Wherefore hast thou suffered so many poor to die with hunger, and at the
same time hadst gold, with which thou mightest have supplied them with
food? Why have so many been carried away into captivity, and never been
redeemed? Why have so many been slain by the enemy? It would have been
better to preserve the vessels of living beings, than those of metals.
To these questions you could make no answer. For what would you say? I
was afraid that the temple of God would be destitute of ornament. God
would reply, The sacraments require no gold, nor is gold any
recommendation of that which is not purchased with gold. The ornament of
the sacraments is the redemption of captives.” In short, we see that it
was very true which was observed by the same writer in another place,
“that whatever the Church possessed at that time, was appropriated to
the relief of the necessitous,” and “that all that a bishop had,
belonged to the poor.”
IX. These, which we have enumerated, were the offices of the ancient
Church. Others, which are mentioned by ecclesiastical historians, were
rather exercises and preparations, than certain offices. For to form a
seminary, which should provide the Church with future ministers, those
holy men took under their charge, protection, and discipline, such
youths as, with the consent and sanction of their parents, enlisted
themselves in the spiritual warfare; and so they educated them from an
early age, that they might not enter on the discharge of their office
ignorant and unprepared. All who were trained in this manner, were
called by the general name of _clergy_. I could wish, indeed, that some
other more appropriate name had been given them; for this appellation
originated in error, or at least in some improper views; for Peter calls
the whole Church _the clergy_, that is, _the inheritance of the
Lord_.[852] The institution itself, however, was pious and eminently
beneficial; that those who wished to consecrate themselves and their
labours to the Church, should be educated under the care of the bishop;
that no one might minister in the Church but one who had received
sufficient previous instruction, who from his early youth had imbibed
sound doctrine, who from a strict discipline had acquired a certain
habitual gravity, and more than common sanctity of life, who had been
abstracted from secular occupations, and accustomed to spiritual cares
and studies. Now, as young soldiers by counterfeit battles are trained
to real and serious warfare, so the clergy were prepared by certain
probationary exercises, before they were actually promoted to offices.
At first they were charged with the care of opening and shutting the
temples, and they were called _ostiarii_, or _door-keepers_. Afterwards
they were called _acoluthi_, or _followers_, waiting upon the bishop in
domestic services, and accompanying him on all occasions, at first in a
way of honour, and afterwards to prevent all suspicion; moreover, that
by degrees they might become known to the people, and might acquire some
consideration among them, and at the same time that they might learn to
bear the presence of all, and have courage to speak before them, that
after being made presbyters, when they should come to preach, they might
not be confounded with shame, therefore they were appointed to read the
Scriptures from the pulpit. In this manner they were promoted by
degrees, that they might approve their diligence in the respective
exercises, till they were made subdeacons. I only contend, that these
were rather preparations for pupils, than functions reckoned among the
real offices of the Church.
X. We have said, that the first point in the election of ministers
related to the qualifications of the persons to be chosen, and the
second to the religious reverence with which the business ought to be
conducted. In both these points, the ancient Church followed the
direction of Paul and the examples of the apostles. For it was their
custom to assemble for the election of pastors with the greatest
reverence and solemn invocation of the name of God. They had likewise a
form of examination, in which they tried the life and doctrine of the
candidates by that standard of Paul. Only they ran into the error of
immoderate severity, from a wish to require in a bishop more than Paul
requires, and especially, in process of time, by enjoining celibacy. In
other things their practice was in conformity with the description of
Paul.[853] In the third point which we have mentioned, namely, by whom
ministers ought to be chosen, they did not always observe the same
order. In the primitive times there was no one admitted among the number
of the clergy, without the consent of all the people; so that Cyprian
makes a laboured defence of his having appointed one Aurelius a reader,
without consulting the Church, because he departed in this instance from
the general custom, though not without reason. He begins in the
following manner: “In appointing the clergy, my very dear brethren, we
are accustomed first to consult you, and to weigh the morals and merits
of every one of them in the general assembly.” But as there was not much
danger in these inferior exercises, because they were admitted to a long
probation, and not to a high office, the consent of the people ceased to
be asked. Afterwards, in the other offices also, except the episcopate,
the people generally left the judgment and choice to the bishop and
presbyters, so that they determined who were capable and deserving;
except when new presbyters were appointed to the parishes, for then it
was necessary to have the express consent of the body of the people at
each place. Nor is it any wonder that the people were not very
solicitous for the preservation of their right in this case. For no one
was made a subdeacon, who had not been tried for a considerable time as
one of the _clergy_, under the severe discipline which was then
practised. After he had been tried in that station, he was constituted a
deacon; in which if he conducted himself with fidelity, he obtained the
rank of a presbyter. Thus no one was promoted who had not really
undergone an examination for many years, under the eyes of the people.
And there were many canons for the punishment of their faults; so that
the Church could not be troubled with wicked presbyters or deacons,
unless it neglected the remedies within its reach. The election of
presbyters, however, always required the consent of the inhabitants of
the place; which is testified by the first canon, which is attributed to
Anacletus. And all ordinations took place at stated times of the year,
that no one might be introduced clandestinely, without the consent of
the faithful, or be promoted with too much facility, without any
attestation to his character.
XI. The right of voting in the election of bishops was retained by the
people for a long time, that no one might be obtruded who was not
acceptable to all. The Council of Antioch therefore decreed, that no
bishop should be appointed without the consent of the people, which Leo
the First expressly confirms. Hence the following injunctions: “Let him
be chosen who shall be called for by the clergy and people, or at least
by the majority of them.” Again: “Let him who is to preside over all, be
chosen by all.” For he who is appointed without having been previously
known and examined, must of necessity be intruded by force. Again: “Let
him be elected who shall have been chosen by the clergy and desired by
the people; and let him be consecrated by the bishops of that province,
with the authority of the metropolitan.” So careful were the holy fathers
that this liberty of the people should not by any means be infringed,
that when the general council, assembled at Constantinople, appointed
Nectarius, they would not do it without the approbation of all the
clergy and people; as is evident from their epistle to the Council of
Rome. Wherefore, when any bishop appointed his successor, the
appointment was not confirmed but by the suffrages of all the people. Of
such a circumstance we have not only an example, but the particular form
in Augustine’s nomination of Eradius. And Theodoret, when he states that
Peter was nominated by Athanasius as his successor, immediately adds,
that this was confirmed by the clergy, and ratified by the acclamations
of the magistracy, the nobility, and all the people.
XII. I confess that there was the greatest propriety in the decree of
the Council of Laodicea, that the election should not be left to the
populace. For it scarcely ever happens that so many heads concur in one
opinion for the settlement of any business; and almost every case
verifies the observation, that the uncertain vulgar are divided by
contrary inclinations. But to this danger was applied an excellent
remedy. For in the first place, the clergy alone made their choice, and
presented the person they had chosen to the magistracy, or to the senate
and governors. They deliberated on the election, and if it appeared to
them a proper one, confirmed it, or otherwise chose another person whom
they preferred. Then the business was referred to the multitude, who,
though they were not bound to concur in these previous opinions, yet
were less likely to be thrown into disorder. Or if the business
commenced with the multitude, this method was adopted in order to
discover who was the principal object of their wishes; and after hearing
the wishes of the people, the clergy proceeded to the election. Thus the
clergy were neither at liberty to elect whom they pleased, nor under a
necessity of complying with the foolish desires of the people. This
order is stated by Leo in another place, when he says, “It is requisite
to have the votes of the citizens, the testimonies of the people, the
authority of the governors, and the election of the clergy.” Again: “Let
there be the testimony of the governors, the subscription of the clergy,
the consent of the senate and people. Reason permits it not to be done
in any other way.” Nor is there any other meaning in that decree of the
Council of Laodicea, than that the clergy and governors should not
suffer themselves to be carried away by the inconsiderate multitude, but
by their prudence and gravity should check, on every necessary occasion,
the folly and violence of popular desires.
XIII. This mode of election was still practised in the time of Gregory,
and it is probable that it continued long after. There are many of his
epistles which furnish sufficient evidence of this fact. For in every
case relating to the creation of a new bishop in any place, he was
accustomed to write to the clergy, the senate, and the people; and
sometimes to the duke, according to the constitution of the government
in the place to which he was writing. And if, on account of disturbances
or dissensions in any Church, he confides the superintendence of the
election to some neighbouring bishop, yet he invariably requires a
solemn decree confirmed by the subscriptions of all. Even when one
Constantius was created bishop of Milan, and on account of the
incursions of the barbarians, many of the Milanese had retired to Genoa,
he thought the election would not be legitimate, unless they also were
called together, and gave their united consent. And what is more, it was
within the last five hundred years that Pope Nicholas made this decree
respecting the election of the Roman pontiff; that the cardinals should
take the lead, that in the next place they should unite with them the
rest of the clergy, and lastly that the election should be confirmed by
the consent of the people. And at the conclusion he recites that decree
of Leo, which I have just quoted, and commands it to be observed in
future. If the cabals of the wicked should go to such a length as to
constrain the clergy to quit the city in order to make a proper
election, still he ordains that some of the people should be present at
the same time. The consent of the emperor, as far as I can discover, was
required only in two Churches, at Rome and at Constantinople, because
they were the two capitals of the empire. For when Ambrose was sent to
Milan with authority from Valentinian to preside at the election of a
new bishop, that was an extraordinary measure, in consequence of the
grievous factions which raged among the citizens. At Rome the authority
of the emperor had anciently so much influence in the creation of a
bishop, that Gregory speaks of himself as having been appointed to the
government of the Church by the sole command of the emperor,
notwithstanding he had been formally chosen by the people. But the
custom was, that when any one had been chosen by the senate, clergy, and
people, it was immediately reported to the emperor, that he might either
ratify the election by his approbation, or rescind it by his negative.
Nor is there any thing repugnant to this custom in the decrees collected
by Gratian; which only say, that it is by no means to be suffered that a
king should supersede all canonical election by appointing a bishop at
his own pleasure, and that the metropolitans ought not to consecrate any
one who shall thus have been promoted by the violence of power. For it
is one thing to spoil the Church of its right, by transferring the whole
to the caprice of an individual, and another to give a king or an
emperor the honour of confirming a legitimate election by his authority.
XIV. It remains for us to state, by what ceremony the ministers of the
ancient Church, after their election, were initiated into their office.
This the Latins have called _ordination_ or _consecration_. The Greeks
have called it χειροτονια, _extension_ or _elevation of hands_, and
sometimes χειροθεσια, _imposition of hands_; though the former word
properly signifies that kind of election in which the suffrages are
declared by the lifting up of the hands. There is a decree of the
Council of Nice, that the metropolitan should meet with all the bishops
of the province, to ordain him who shall have been elected; but that if
any of them be prevented by the length of the journey, by sickness, or
by any other necessary cause, at least three should meet, and those who
are absent should testify their consent by letters. And when this canon
from disuse had grown obsolete, it was renewed in various councils. Now,
the reason why all, or at least as many as had no sufficient excuse,
were commanded to be present, was that there might be a more solemn
examination into the learning and morals of the person to be ordained;
for the business was not completed without examination. And it appears
from the epistles of Cyprian, that in the beginning the bishops were not
invited after the election, but used to be present at the election, and
that for the purpose of acting as moderators, that nothing turbulent
might take place among the multitude. For after having said that the
people have the power either to choose the worthy for priests, or to
reject the unworthy, he adds, “Wherefore it is to be carefully held and
observed as a Divine and apostolical tradition, (which is observed among
us, and in almost all the provinces,) that for the due performance of
ordinations, all the neighbouring bishops of the same province should
meet with the people over whom a bishop is to be ordained, and that the
bishop should be chosen in the presence of the people.” But because such
an assembly was sometimes very slowly collected, and there was danger
that such a delay might be abused by some for the purposes of intrigue,
it was deemed sufficient, if they assembled after the election was made,
and upon due examination consecrated the person who had been chosen.
XV. This was the universal practice, without any exception. By degrees a
different custom was introduced, and the persons elected went to the
metropolitan city to seek ordination. This change arose from ambition
and a corruption of the ancient institution, rather than from any good
reason. And not long after, when the authority of the see of Rome had
increased, another custom obtained, which was still worse; almost all
the bishops of Italy went to Rome to be consecrated. This may be seen by
the epistles of Gregory. Only a few cities, which did not so easily
yield, preserved their ancient right; of which there is an example
recorded by him in the case of Milan. Perhaps the metropolitan cities
were the only ones that retained their privilege. For almost all the
provincial bishops used to assemble in the metropolitan city to
consecrate their archbishop. The ceremony was imposition of hands. For I
read of no other ceremony practised, except that in the public assembly
the bishops had some dress to distinguish them from the rest of the
presbyters. Presbyters and deacons also were ordained solely by
imposition of hands. But every bishop ordained his own presbyters, in
conjunction with the assembly of the other presbyters of his diocese.
Now, though they all united in the same act, yet because the bishop took
the lead, and the ceremony was performed under his direction, therefore
it was called his ordination. Wherefore it is often remarked by the
ancient writers, that a presbyter differs from a bishop in no other
respect, than that he does not possess the power of ordination.
Footnote 848:
Titus i. 9.
Footnote 849:
Exod. xxxviii. 35.
Footnote 850:
Acts xx. 26.
Footnote 851:
1 Tim. iii. 2, 3.
Footnote 852:
1 Peter v. 3.
Footnote 853:
1 Tim. iii. 2-7.