require Chappels of ease the Parson sometimes gets a Deacon to officiate in a Chappel and do all the lesser duties for him Reads the Prayers and Lessons yea Baptize where he cannot be present to act it himself yet if he have a Chappel at which he cannot reside as it is too often in my Diocess he must have a compleat Presbyter to do that work so it was in those greater Parishes of Bishops which we call Diocesses but were heretofore called Parishes when they are large and cannot well be super-intended by a Bishops care he had Chori-Episcopi such as being Presbyters only might do his work of which they were capable by Commission But yet if they were very large for which it would be troublesome for the Diocess to receive the Episcopal duties which were beyond the Presbyterian authority there it was necessary to have such Chori-Episcopi which were Bishops And as that Country Parson may restrain his Curate in the exercise of his authority you shall not absolve such and such faults nor give the Communion at such and such times without my particular leave because I mean to be present at those times so may be the case of those Chori-Episcopi who were Bishops they might Ordain those lesser Orders as they are called Sub-deacons and Readers but not Priests or Deacons which indeed are Orders but by leave from their superior Bishops And this I think may fairly meet with the Council of Antioch and all that I can find any where in antiquity spoken of them That this may appear more clearly consider first That this office is by some made as antient as the Apostles times they say that Linus and Clemens were Chori-Episcopi to St. Peter at Rome so Platina with others and there may appear some reasons for it because when St. Peter had pitched upon that place for his Diocess if he did so and was necessarily to prosecute his great Apostolical design about the world in other places as well as Rome it was necessary that he should have some men of eminent worth to Episcopize for him in his absence but then I find not that they in his life time did Ordain any to these Orders although perhaps they might do it until they came to be Bishops themselves at Rome SECT II. The decrees of divers Councils examined THe next piece I find concerning them is in Concilio Ancirano Canon 13 the effect of which is that Chori-Episcopi should not Ordain Priests or Deacons or Priests act any thing without leave from the Bishops letters or under his hand here is nothing whether they were Bishops or no The next the Council of Neocaesarea in which it is thought were the same Bishops as in the other and did immediately follow that at Ancira Canon 13. where the Chori-Episcopi are compared with the seventy which amounts to nothing whether they were Bishops appears not by that but that they were assistants to the supreme Bishops as the seventy were to the Apostles The nâ—xt shall be the Council of Laodicea the two former are mentioned by Doctor Forbes but not this this Council in the fifty seventh Canon decrees this Quod non oporteat in villis pagis Episcopos constitui sed visitatores veruntamen jamdudum constituti nihil facient praeter conscientiam Episcopi Civitatis saith one Edition sine mente Episcopi saith another We may perceive in this Canon two things first that it forbids these Chori-Episcopi or Country-Bishops secondly that although it forbids them yet it supposeth that of themselves they had authority to Episcopize and therefore restrains the Execution of that authority to the leave from the Bishop of the City and therefore from that time they were to be regulated by him The next thing I meet with in Order is the Eighth Canon of that great and glorious Council of Nice the first where I find that upon the reconciliation of the Novations which called themselves Catharei or Puri as more holy than other men when these came into the Church and were received if they had been Ordained by the Novations as Bishops before they were admitted upon repentance into favour they were admitted into the same Order in which they were before but if there were an Orthodox Bishop in that Diocess he might allow him the honour and name of a Bishop if he would if not he might allow him the place of Presbyter or Country Bishop in his Diocess but to avoid a clashing of Competitors in the same City he must have no power there in the City where I observe that Chori-Episcopus may be such as his Episcopal Consecration would have been good in a vacant Bishoprick to entitle him to it although if he was where was a full Bishoprick he would be but a Chori-Episcopus That which follows next is that canvased Council of Antioch which occasioned all this Discourse and then comes in the decree of Damasus to which I have spoken and I may add the Epistle of St. Basil which is writ Chori-Episcopis and that contains a sharp reproof of their negligence in giving Orders and a prohibition that there should not any from thenceforth be admitted without his examination and that these unworthy persons who had been brought into the list of the Clergy should be separated with much more tending to that purpose where I observe that not the defect of power but their abuse of their poweâ— was it they were blamed for that which Isidore Hispalensis or Hrabarus Maurus delivers concerning it is not more than was in the former Councils Balsamon saith they were almost worn out in his time the Meldensian allows them to be but abridgeth their power yet commands Bishops not to authorize them by their own negligence or infirmities so now although Pope Damasus his decree could not prevail to extirpate them yet this Council thought fit to restrain their practice this Councel was Eight hundred years after Christ and more I will not write how Vasques remembers some in his time but come close to our own Age and Country if these men were the same with Suffragans which I know no reason to deny then no doubt but they had Episcopal Ordination and did Consectate not Priests only but Bishops also To prove this let any man peruse that excellent piece of Francis Mason de ministerio Anglicano he shall find that in the dayes of Henry the Eighth and Edward the Sixth and Queen Elizabeth the Suffragans of Bedford Chichester Taunton were Episcopally Consecrated and did joyn in the Consecration of other Bishops So now I have finished this undertaking out of this debate concerning the 10. Canon of Antioch in which I have shewed that if the Council it self be admitted yet that Particular Canon to be most perplexed but if it lean any way it is against Doctor Forbes since it is most reasonable to think by that story which I have set down concerning them that there were at the least divers of the Chori-Episcopi which had Episcopal Consecration
be present untill they setled Bishops amongst them His next place urged is Acts the 20. he leaves me to looke the verse but affirmes that the Church of Ephesus was governed first by Presbiters only from that Chap. afterward they had a Bishop who was called The Angel of the Church of Ephesus Apocalyps 2. That which hath any colour for this in this Chap. must be deduced out of the 17 th verse where it is said That from Miletum Paul sent to Ephesus for the Elders of the Church Therefore it seems the Church was governed by Elders at that time but let the Reader consider whether St. Paul did not Episcopize over them conventing the Elders before him and giving them that most heavenly charge And then consider that these men in the 28. verse are called Bishops Take heed to the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath madâ— you Overseers we read it but it is Bishop in the Original indeed as I have shewed in this Treatise The words were not distinguished at the first but they were promiscuously used untill the great increase of Christianity when the name of Apostles began to weare away and they had more generally setled Churches and planted Bishops over the other Presbiters in the chief Cities and then these were called Bishops and indeed every Presbiter who hath a charge of Souls is a little Bishop in the Superintendency of his parish though noâ— in the nature of the office he must look to his little flâ—ck as Bishop over them so that nominally every Presbiter with charge of Soals is a little Bishop superintendâ—ing them for their Souls good But a Bishop is higher over them and their flocks to take care that he doth his duty in these places of Scripture I see no manner of Argument to shew that a Church may exist without a Bishop for they had Apostles and then Bishops in their places CHAP. III. His Argument drawn from Panormitan answered HE then urgeth a Sentence out of Panormitan Olim Presbyteri in communi regebant Ecclesiam ordinabant sacerdotes consecrabant omnia Sacramenta Sed postmodum ad schismata sedanda fecerunt seâ— ordinaverunt Apostoli crearentur Episcopi Let me examine this bold assertion of Panormitan and of St. Hierom who hath much the same word Olim that was in the first plantation of the Churches I know no record of any authentick authority in the case but the Acts of the Apostles or their Epistles in which I can never find that any man or Company of men who were barely Presbiters did ordain Priests or did perform any Act of Jurisdiction in communi as he speakes which would intimate a Sentorian Government of which as they urge none so I cannot imagine what words in these Acts or Epistles should tend thereunto but then his last Clause I in part yeeld to that the Apostles did ordain Bishops and am confident they did it by divine Right which was given them by our Saviour saying As my Father sent me so send I you but whether only as they say ad sedanda schismata to appease schisme upon the occasion of some that said they were Pauls or else for the absolute better government of the Church which I rather adhere to I leave to the Readers Judgement but in general think it too great a boldness for men to limit Gods designes to their weake measures when God hath not determined or exprest them therefore such a passage in Panormitan is of no vallidity CHAP. IV. His first Argument to prove their ordination after Bishops were instituted answered HE proceeds with the second Number of his distinction to shew that not onely this was done before Bishops were instituted but after likewise the same was done and he gives this reason for saith the Doctor Non enim ad esse sed ad melius esse Ecclesiae necessaria est haec oeconomia This discipline is not necessary to the being but well-being of the Church suppose I grant it 't is true no discipline is necessary to the being of a Christian but Baptisme by which we are made members of that mystical body of Christ of which he is the head political Lawes Civil or Ecclesiastical are not necessary to our being Men or Englishmen of this Country but to our happy being in it we may be Christians and members of Christs Church where is no Presbiter as well as no Bishop As suppose a Diocess and Kingdom conquered by a Pagan as alass too many have been not a Bishop or a Priest left remaining Those noble Christians who remain without them have the being of Christians but not the well-being of Church-communion enjoying the blessed Sacrament which requires sacerdotal administration and likewise Church-discipline which conduce to the well-being of a Church but here we see the same necessity of one as the other for Bishops as Presbiters CHAP. V. An Argument out of Johannes Major answered BUt he proceeds and produceth a place out of Johannes Major de gestis Scotorum that he should write that the Scots were governed by Priests and Monks until Anno Domini 429. from whence he collects that they were two hundred and thirty yens without Bishops he might have urged other late Writers likewise in it But I answer to this that the Registers of that illiterate age were very ill preserved throughout Christendom but worse in those parts amongst the Picts and Scots then almost any where by reason that they were miserably oppressed with the almost perpetual Warrs they had with their Neighbours Brittaines and Romanes the Saxons and scarce any eminent man for learning who recorded any thing was acted amongst them and in that Gap of time in which they place this lack of Bishops their troubles were at the height for as there was all that space Warrs for dominion so there was persecution for destruction of Christianity and the Scots in general were banished that Country The Christians fled every where for safety to the adjacent Isles to Ireland from whence they came to Normandy to Denmarke any where for safety which it may be although unhappy to their wordly content yet advanced the propagation of the Gospel as it was in the Apostles time upon the persecution of St. Stephen Well then I think in this unhappy season they can find good Record for neither Bishops nor presbiters but every Chriâ—â—ian shifting for himself and especially those who were in authority and in Christian office because they of all others were sought after and therefore were concerned to hide their heads besides this it being the custome of Bishops to place themselves in some eminent Cities whereby they might be the more eminent and the better oversee their Diocesses There were few such in Scotland then but these Bishops which were then in the Kingdom were forced to inhabit many obscure places All which considered it is not possible for any man to expect a pedigree of their Bishops as it hath been preserved in more eminent Churches
his Councels come to be Decrees in this Epistle there is not one word like a Decree but onely an Advice to him nothing like a Commission as Vasques and divers others phrase it for then it should be mandamus or concedimus potestatem we Command or grant you power nor of dispensation as Cardinall Bellarmine and others for then it should be in that language we dispence with you or non obstante notwithstanding any Law to the contrary but here is no such thing but sometimes he saith fraternibus vestra your brotherhood knows this or that and the like and here shews him the reason why he should come by more Bishops to assist him although I think he was deceived in his supposals for there were Bishops in Brittain at that time howsoever that reason was good to authorize Austin at that time and the like may be good for any man in the like Condition for this triplicity of Bishops to Consecrate cannot be necessary to Consecration according to any Divine Constitution but onely Ecclesiastical which cannot be understood to exact impossibilities or else to make a particular Church to lose all the benefit of Episcopall Government But then consider the language of all these men and see how inconsistent it is with their first principles that there must be three Bishops by Divine right to the Consecration of a Bishop can the Pope dispence with what is due by Divine authority or can he grant a Commission to act against Divine Laws I hope they will not say so unless they will set themselves against all that is called God and make an earthly god above our Father which is in â—eaven then let us consider how it was possible that Christian Religion could have been planted unless the power essentially had been in one Bishop to Consecrate when Timothy Titus and St. John who you will that went about with the power of Tongues into unknown Countreys to plant Religion and God blessing their industry the Churches increased learned Men were Converted fit to make Bishops of Can you think that these Itinerants would suffer them like Austin here in England to send to Rome for advice in such a matter or much less for a Commission or dispensation to use their Language it is not imaginable nay when a Church is in persecution I know a little what belongs to that can they send to many Bishops in the same Province to send their votes in writing or without that there can be no Consecration It cannot be I conclude thus although in a setled Church there is a great decency in practiseing according to that Rule of having three Bishops at a Consecration yet in these Cases it is not necessary and it may be validly acted by one alone and no Commission or dispensation is necessary And now Reader having walked through this intricacy I cannot think my self nor the Reader satisfied untill I have applied another Question which is what is it which so enables a Consecration that we may say when that is done this man is a Bishop CHAP. XII In which is discoursed what is essentially to the constitution of a Bishop THe Question introduced To understand which that I may write distinctly take this for a Praecognitum that since the power was given to the Apostles in these words As my Father sent me so send I you Therefore when this power is given by Apostles and Apostolicall men then this dignity is conferr'd upon Men But again because that it is necessary for the Church of Christians not onely that they have the power but that this power should be so administred as that other men who are to receive blessings from it should be able to take notice for else how is it possible to repair to the wells head unless they can know where it is that there is such a blessing bestowed upon them therefore this power must be given by some such means as are visible and that men may discern when it is granted for if it should be given by the Apostles without any outward sign onely with a vehitie a kind of secret grant it must be most uncertain to other men because each man may pretend to it and there is no confuting but by some outward sign which being proper to this Action may be an infallible assurance that then and not till then it is given and here will be required a diligent and curious inquest there are divers things pretended to which are not right and they being severed we may then safely pitch upon what is the truth to do which let us first consider that Adâ—m Tanner in his fourth Tome of Scholasticall Divinity upon the third of Thomas and the supplement Disp. 7. Quest. 2. Dubio 4. handling the doubt what is the matter and form of a Priest and Bishop at the last page 1900. he names as a Concessum and things to be supposed eight Actions at the consecration of a Bishop he quotes the Romane Pontificall for it I will not set them down the writing them is too much paines but what hath grown in reputation amongst Scholars I shall examine But yet I must make another pause SECT II. A discourse of Petrus Arcadius illustrated and applied THere is a learned man one Petrus Arcadius who hath writ a Book with a most pious title which is of the concord betwixt the occidentall Church or the Latine and orientall under which headâ— he reduceth the African and sometimes the Rutherian in the administration of the Sacraments which controvercy he hath very industriously and happily handled in very many things in particular in this business having handled before the form used in both Churches at the ordination title 6. de Sacramento ordinis cap. 4. he comes to reconcile them and doth it upon this foundâ—tion I am now handling that is that they agree in the essentialls that is the Doctrine of all the three Churches and the difference is onely in Accidentalls this saith he may be done first by saying our Saviour did so institute this Sacrament that the Consecration of Ministers should be by certain words and outward signs by which it should sufficiently appear to what part of Ministry they were ordained but he left it to the arbitrement of the Church what these signs and words must be this he illustrates by the Councell of Trent wherein Sâ—ssion 23. Canon 3. the Councell decrees the thing that holy ordination should be made with signs and words but determines not what so that it excludes not the Graecian or African Ordination Again he illustrates this by Marriage most rightly for they make Matrimony a Sacrament as well as ordination there the word of God establisheth for men how they should live in holy wedlock but never determines what shall be the manner with what words or signs they shall be married but leaves that to the determination of every Church yea Common-wealth thus you may perceive his Conclusion how strengthned I will set down my Judgements and reasons
Canons of this Councel because there was an ill use made thereof against two eminent Fathers of the Church St. Athanasius and St. John Chrysostome who suffered much trouble and persecution upon the pretence of the IV. and XII Canons thereof from their Adversaries and were sentenced by them before they well heard But in particular concerning the Canon of this Councel about the power of the Chori-Episcopi it is well observed by Estius ubi supra that the words thereof are very intricate and perplexed as we shall now declare in the Chapter following CHAP. XV. The Argument to prove these Chori-Episcopi and their power to Ordain Presbyters examined I Think the likelyest man in the world to expound this Canon is Balsamon who was Patriarch of that Church and although he lived a good while after this Councel yet the sence and meaning of the decrees of his own Church is likelyer to be preserved by him and them in that Church than in any other places and men which lived further remote Therefore in his Comment upon the Canon and those particular words upon which the whole foâ—ce of this Argumentis built Illud autem sine Episcopo qui est in Urbe non accipitur pro eo quod est sine ejus mandato sed pro eo quod est sine ejus Ordinatione seu Consecratione et si enim fuerit Chori-Episcopo mandatum ut Praesbyterum ordinet hoc fecerit irrita erit Ordinatio quia non sit data Praesbyteris ordinandi potestas than which words nothing can be more clear to shew that these Chori-Episcopi here spoken of could not Ordain so now in answer to this Argument of Doctor Forbes drawn from the tenth Canon of the Antiochian Councel it is not of any force because the Councel is of none being made by Heretiques in a wicked Schism conspiring against that ever to be honour'd person Athanasius and urged to the destruction of that incomparable person John Chrysostome Secondly granting it to be of force yet by the best expositor in the world for that Councel Balsamon expounds the dubious language of that Canon against Doctor Forbes now then the business of Pope Damasus his decree falls of it self which introduceth a new work for me SECT II. Pope Damasus his decree examined THis Epistle in Crabbs Edition of the Councels is the fourth but in Binius the fifth Epistle of Damasus and it is sufficiently Pontifical it destroys all Chori-Episcopi and saith that they were prohibited as well by that Seat of Rome as by all the Bishops in the world this he saith there and we must take his word for it only for I find no such thing upon record before or after as will appear when I treat of the nature of them but he inveighs justly agaisnt the Laziness of Bishops which saith he brought them into like Nurces to suckle their children for them whilest they the Bishops might enjoy their ease and pleasure To conclude the whole drift of that Epistle is to prove that these Country Bishops are but Presbyters and therefore have no power to Ordain Priests and Doctor Forbes saith clean contrary that although they were but Presbyters yet by that accursed Councel of Antioch they might Ordain Priests The words of that Canon Damasus mentions although he do not name the Councels and truly these words seemed to me to be of great force quamquam impositionem Episcoporum perceperint where he observes the Plural number imposition of Hands of Bishops many in the Plural number of which more hereafter now if they did I know not what can hinder them by any Canon from a remote power to Ordain which may be acted by only leave from the Bishop himself but this is enough for the business of the decree of Damasus it seems he was angry with them and disputes against them and condemns them but as Doctor Forbes well observes this decree of his was but little or not at all obey'd either because this was no true but a counterfeit Epistle or whether these decrees of Popes extra Cathedram were not valid I know not but do know this that it was not observed so here we see a wicked Councel condemned by a Pope and that Pope neglected by all men afterwards what he urgeth out of Isidore Hispalensis is of no consideration but only to mark that the Popes decree was not observed in his time for Isidore there which is Lib. 2. de Ecclesiasticis officiis Cap. 6. sets down only the bare words of the two Councels of Neocaesarea and this of Antioch that of Neocaesarea only compares the Chori-Episcopi to the Disciples this of Antioch will prove a most perplexed decree in its self and such which may probably be objected against Doctor Forbes as well as expounded for him for that out of Neocaesarea which compares the Chori-Episcopi to the seventy Disciples Damasus shews that they Ordained but only the Apostles and Isidore hath not one word of discourse concerning this office as he uses to have concerning all others but only sets down the words of the Canons so that it remains for all him just as it was which is most intricate Damasus seems to conceive that the Records of this Canon did allow them with leave of the Bishop to Ordain Deacons and Priests and that the Laziness of Bishops connived at it for which reason he condemns them not the fault only but for the faults sake the very office this office we find continued in Isidores time after him in the Church and in late times as I shall shew so that as the Pope thought the Canon of that Councel not obliging so the Christian world thought his decrees invalid wherefore I might well lay them both aside SECT III. This Canon Reviewed BUt I will examine the Canon to see if it have any necessary construction that way There are two principal things which are disputeable in this Canon first whether these Chori-Episcopi might give Orders to Presbyters with leave of the Bishop of the City whereto they appertain secondly whether any of them were Bishops by Episcopal Ordination in both which we may find the Canon so perplexed as it will be hard to collect a clear conclusion of it For the first it is urged by Doctor Forbes that the words of the Canon in all Editions of which he quotes three make for him the first is of Dionysius Exigâ—us a grave Author and he urgeth his words truly Nec Praesbyterum nec Diaconum audeant Ordinare praeter Civitatis Episcopum speaking of Chori-Episcopi they should not Ordain a Priest or Deacon praeter besides the Bishop of the City to whom he with his possession is subject Is not this rightly termed by Estius a perplexed Canon then next take the Edition of Gentianus Hervetus which reads it absque Vrbis Episcopo he must not Ordain these without the Bishop of the City this I take to be in his Edition of Balsamon for so it is there and then why Balsaman
should not Ordain Priests Vasques in answer to this saith that the imposition of the Hands of Bishops is not to be understood of many Bishops laying on their Hands at the same time upon the same man but that several Bishops at several times laid their Hands upon several Chori-Episcopi but to this may be urged that word quamvis as one or etiamsi as another Edition why should the Canon say although he be Ordained by the imposition of Hands of Bishops and Consecrated as a Bishop this although would there signifie nothing for he should not be by it distinguished from a Presbyter but because some were and some were not Ordained by Bishops it reacheth even those who were so Ordained Doctor Forbes is not content with this answer of Vasques but adds another of his own at the bottom of Page 171. and throughout 172 where before cited the sence of which is that the imposition of Hands here mentioned is not to be understood passively for the imposition of Hands which they receive themselves but actively for that imposition of Hands which they had power of to give I think I have set it down as clearly as his words can be rendered for indeed his Language is as obscure as the Canon it self but this is most forced nor indeed can a man conceive Canonically how a Chori-Episcopus could receive that active which he mentions unless he had received it passively first by the imposition of Hands of divers Bishops nor can a man well imagine in that Language ut Episcopi Ordinantur what that ut should mean if it did not come to explain the former Phrase of imposition of Hands of divers Bishops so that then for ought I see Bellarmines exposition against both these adversaries is the most clear and congruous to the Canon let us now examine Pope Damasus's Arguments as they are scholastically urged by Vasques and that is the marrow of all that is in this Epistle SECT V. Damasus his first Argument against the Chori-Episcopi answered Damasus seems to me eitheir with Bellarmine to think there were two sorts of Chori-Episcopi in the time of making the Canon which may be perswaded because although he begins with this Argument from the Plural number before urged yet he never endeavours an answer to it or else believing them all but Presbyters he thinks that his other Argument may invalid this and notwithstanding this being deficient in other things they are not Bishops by it His first Argument is drawn from the word Chori which signifies Countrey they were but country Bishops when as all Bishops should be of a City To this I answer that although such Canons may be made for the establishment of the government of Churches in a setled Kingdom where are such Cities for the Decorum and honour of the Episcopal Sea yet it cannot be in unsetled States as suppose the Gospel should be preached in the barbarous places of the West-Indies where are no such places to give Episcopacy that honour yet the Church may and ought to be planted and governours put into them to regulate their discipline oâ— else things will go backward faster than forward in the matters of Religion Again we may conceive if such Canons be insisted upon that they should be understood of prime and chief Bishops not such as are Vicarii Episcoporum that is vicars of the chief Bishops Now it may happen that there be a necessity of such vicars and they may be of great use to the Bishop of the City whose Diocess is large as will appear shortly and these Chori-Episcopi although they may be impeded in the execution of their office by the superior authority of the Bishop of the City yet with his consent are impowred to Ordain in these cases which is most agreeing to the letter of the Canon according to any Edition either sine or praeter or whatsoever it is This is enough I think for the first Argument of Pope Damasus SECT VI. His next Argument answered ANother is thus framed there are but two Orders of Priesthood Bishops and Presbyters this he enlargeth and proves from the Church under the Law where were Aaron and his Sons only in the Priesthood as likewise from our Saviour himself who had only Apostles and Disciples so saith he it should be in the present Church now it seems these Chori-Episcopi are neither they esteem themselves greater than Presbyters and yet are not Bishops wherefore nothing in answer what they esteem themselves I know not but we have good reason to think some were Bishops and some only Presbyters and they who were Bishops might act these great offices of Ordaining Priests and Deacons with leave of the Bishop of the Diocess those who were only Priests could not Thus Damasus his Arguments are are of no force against that Canon of Antioch and therefore Vasques himself acknowledgeth in that 238. Disp. Cap. 7. That Damasus did conceive that in the time of the Council of Antioch some Chori-Episcopi were Bishops and he affirms that if they had Episcopal Consecration although they were but titular Bishops and so had no place assigned at their Consecration where they should officiate yet they had that power granted them at their Consecration which might be reduced into act whensoever a place was assigned them and yet Damasus condemns them for the future which was never obeyed SECT VII One word in the Canon more explained THere is one word more in the Canon which may abide a misinterpretation and is somewhat insisted upon by Doctor Forbes that is in the latter end of the Canon it is said that he the Chori-Episcopus must be Ordained by the Bishop to whom he and his possession are subject Now if he be Ordained by one Bishop only certainly he is but a Presbyter for although as I have said in a case of necessity one Bishop hath been allowed to Consecrate and the power Apostolical was to them Separative to every one to Ordain yet when Laws were substituted by Ecclesiastique authority for the well government of the Church and severe punishments inflicted upon the violation of them as are in this case it is not reasonable to think that men living in obedience to that Church should dare â—o break them in publique and that constantly as it seems this is for answer to this I say that this makes it evident that this Canon is delivered concerning a double sort of Chori-Episcopi some that were made by the imposition of Hands of divers Bishops and others that were ordained by one only which is all is required and so I will pass to my last proposal to shew what these Chori-Episcopi were CHAP. XVI What the Chori-Episcopi were IT is a hard task which I do not find clearly delivered by any what I find shall be set down and leave the determination to others In general my conceipt of them is this that as it happens in other Parisnes where Presbyters have the charge that where they are large and