of duty by which the ordained was bound to the ordainer was so strict that it could be released only at his own will and by his own act. No Bishop was allowed to take from the diocese of another his priests or deacons without his entire concurrence"; whilst within his diocese the bishop's rule over his clergy was subject only to canonical restrictions on its exercise, which presuppose its authority, and to the appellate jurisdiction of the metropolitan, or provincial synods. All of these details, therefore, lead us back to what was then the universal estimate of the bishop's office, namely, that it was derived from the direct appointment and mission of Christ Himself, and so was the fountain and head of the derived authority and mission of deacons and priests. Thus in each Church the presiding bishop, as one member of the undivided episcopate, was held to be the depositary of ecclesiastical power and right for that diocese; whilst the priests and deacons, and other ministers of the Church, were, in their several grades, offices, and employments, his deputies. To him in his office, it was then believed, had been committed by Christ all the powers of the ministry which He had founded; whilst from that office, under the leading of the Spirit, had been derived by the Apostles, first the Diaconate, and then the Priesthood, the holders of which orders were entrusted severally with certain parts of the bishop's office, which they were in his behalf, and in his stead, to exercise under his direction in the different districts of the diocese in which they were placed, and so to mul

See Bingham, Antiquit., lib. iv. c. vi. § 4.

• See this at length in Bingham, above quoted, lib. ii. c. iii. § 9.

tiply by their ministrations that service which it was impossible for him to render everywhere in his own person.

So universal, indeed, was this belief, that the proofs of it are to be found in the records of almost every successive council, general, national, or provincial, which, either by direct canons or by the whole scope of their language and action, imply the obligation of all other ecclesiastics to obey their bishops. When this was first reduced into a specific promise of obedience, such as that which we are now considering, it is not so easy to say, nor is it of great moment. For the introduction of the specific promise marks the time, not when the duty of obedience was first asserted, but when the tendency to disobedience was from various causes so far strengthened that men sought to counteract it by the introduction of a specific promise to obey.

Some marks of this having been the origin of the pledge we are now considering survive in our own Ordinal, and are yet more plain in that of the rest of the Western Church. For whilst with us the promise of the priest is fuller than that of the deacon, including the pledge of submitting himself to the godly judgments, as well as of obeying the commands of his bishop, in the common ritual of the West it is the priest alone who makes any promise. For the deacon was held to be himself bound to obey his priest, and, as that priest was subject to the bishop, still more was his inferior in the ministry. The nearness of the presbyter to the bishop, and the larger authority with which he was trusted, were what rendered needful his promise of subjection. Of an actual promise of obedience some traces may be found

as early as the year 600 after Christ, and its adoption became gradually common in the Western Church. In some cases it took the form of an oath, and in that form was more than once prohibited by councils". The

The Tenth Council of Toledo, seventh century, expressly declares that obedience to bishops is to be promised by all who enter into Holy Orders. The following form is from a Latin Ordinal of the fourteenth or fifteenth century:

"Epūs interrogat.-'Vis Epō tuo ad cujus parochiam ordinandus os obediens esse et consentiens in licitis secundum canonica statuta?' Resp.-Volo et hoc Deo et Sanctis ejus ita in præsenti promitto prout scio et adimplere valeo, ita me Deus adjuvet et Sancti ejus.' Epūs dicat. Voluntatem tuam bonam et rectam ad perfectionem sibi beneplacitum Deus perduere dignetur.' Resp.-' Amen.” ”—(Pontific. Eccles. Mogunt. circ. 1400. An. Dni.)

In the Roman Ordinal there is no promise made by a deacon. A priest makes the vow in the following mannner, after the ordination, so far as regards the power to consecrate and to absolve, is concluded :-" Mox unusquisque iterum ad Pontificem accedit: et genuflexus ponit manus suas junctas inter manus Pontificis dicentis cuilibet, si suus est Ordinarius, Promittis, mihi et successoribus meis reverentiam, et obedientiam ? Et ille respondet, Promitto.' Si vero Pontifex non est suus Ordinarius'. dicit singulis Presbyteris secularibus :'

"Promittis Pontifici Ordinario tuo, &c., &c."

There is nothing more promised than what is here stated. The question then arises respecting the meaning or extent of the terms “reverentiam et obedientiam." The question has been often discussed, but that which now regulates the practice of Rome, or rather what gives expression to the Roman doctrine, is the bull of Benedict XIV., Jan. 14, 1747. The subject seems to be exhausted by a sentence in the Summa Angelica, p. 245 (b) :-"Illi enim qui præest spiritualibus obediendum est in spiritualibus necessariis ad salutem, vel ad hanc pertinentibus, sicut Episcopo et cæteris prælatis ecclesiasticis ab his qui subjiciuntur jurisdictioni eorum."

" Thus a canon of the Council, Cabilonens. II., ann. 813, enacts :"Dictum est de quibusdam fratribus, quod eos quos ordinaturi sunt jurare cogant, quod digni sint, et contra canones non sint facturi, et obedientes sint Epō, qui eos ordinat, et ecclesiæ in quâ ordinantur.

ground of objection, however, to it never was that it was the claim of any new authority, or the undue extension of one formerly existing, but that it was objectionable as a needless superfluity, because the very act of ordination implied the obligation; whilst in the form in which it was administered it might become the occasion of leading him who took it into sin.

In the Eastern Church no express form of promise was ever introduced. But the same obligation of obedience was abundantly implied.

Quod juramentum quia periculosum est, omnes una inhibendum statuimus."

One of the Decretal Epistles mentions a form used in the time of Innocent III. (thirteenth century), and in which this kind of promise to the Church is distinctly made But Innocent III. ruled, on being consulted, that the promise chiefly regarded the bishop. Decret. ad Præpos. et capit. Placent. cap. cum Clerici xix., de verb. sign.

* See Thomassin, De Disciplin. Eccles.

* The following quotations will serve to prove-l. That the ceremonial in the ordination of a deacon is intended to shew the reverence due on his part to his bishop; 2. the same recognition in the ordination of a priest; 3. that the inferior offices derive their power from the plenitude of the episcopate.

Καὶ ὡς πτερὰ σημαίνει ἀπῃωρημένον τῶν ὤμων, καὶ τὸ τρισάγιον ᾆσμα τῶν ἀγγέλων γεγραμμένον ἔχει καὶ τοῦτο σφραγίζει μὲν ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς αὐτὸς δὲ ἀσπάζεται καὶ τὴν χεῖρα τοῦ ἱεράρχου δεικνὺς ὅτι καὶ ἐρᾷ τοῦ δώρου καὶ τιμᾷ τοῦτο, καὶ τὸν διδόντα ὡς εὐεργέτην τοιούτων.—(Ritus Ordinat. Diacon. (Gr. Eccl.) ex Symeon. Thessal., in Morini Comment. de Sacris Ecclesia Ordinationibus, fol. Paris. 1655, pp. 140, 1.)

Πρῶτον δὲ λαμβάνει ἀρχιερατικὴν εὐλογίαν, καὶ οὕτως ἐξέρχε ται δεικνὺς ὅτι ὑπὸ τὸν ἱεράρχην ἐστὶ, καὶ ὑπ ̓ αὐτοῦ τετελείωται. Καὶ μετὰ τὸ εὔξασθαι πάλιν εὐλογεῖται τὸ τῆς ὑπαχοῆς ἐκπλημῶν, καὶ ὡς μισθὸν λαμβάνων τοῦ ἔργου τῆς ὑπηρεσίας αὐτοῦ τῆς ἱερᾶς. (Ibid., p. 147. Ε.)

Τοῦ μὲν Ἐπισκόπου τὸ ἔργον ἐστὶ τὸ διδάσκειν, τὸ βαπτίζειν, τὸ λύειν καὶ δεσμεῖν τὰς τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἁμαρτίας, καὶ τὸ χειροτονεῖν τοὺς λοιποὺς

From the earliest times, then, we may trace the presence of this principle, that in ordination the priest and deacon contracted a new obligation of obedience to their bishop; and in the West, from the year 600 after Christ, we find this principle of obedience gradually fixed in the words of some direct engagement. The remarkable fact that our Church at the Reformation retained this actual promise, when, as a common rule, she cast aside all that was not primitive, amounts to a declaration on her part that she considered the obligation as always binding, and the express promise as needful for these days.

It is highly probable that the same appreciation of the temper of those unruly times, which, as we have seen, led our reformers to introduce the preceding question, induced them also to retain this; and so to testify against that growing contempt of authority which broke out afterwards into the sins and schisms of puritanical independence. We should therefore conclude, unless there be some reason shewn to the contrary, that she retained the question and the promise in the same sense in which they were before employed, and that sense will agree best with the natural meaning of the words themselves, which we will now go on to examine. What, then, is first promised, is a reverent obedience, in answer to the question, "Will you reverently obey your ordinary ?" by which no less can be meant than an obedience for conscience sake, as a matter of reverence, and not of legal necessity. To interpret this, then, as if it meant no more than "I will τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ἅπαντας βαθμούς· ταυτα γὰρ ἀμέσως ὁ κύριος τοῖς ἁγίοις ¿TOσTÓλOIS TAPÉσxev.—(Gabriel. Philadelp. Metropol. de Ordin., c. v.)