X41) quam in periculofuerit conffitutus e fe reconcilian divinis altaribuspetierit, fi Epi- fcopus abfensfuerit, debet soigne Presbyter confulere Epifeopum, & fie periclitantem cum precepto reconciliare. Where note that reconciliari altaribus is the Phrafe for being reconciled to the Churches : And that no Presbyter might do it but in cafe ofthe perfons danger, the Bithops abfence, and with the Bishops Com- mand : Which flill fheweth that the Bifhop was ufually prefent. And as Al- baj¢ineus noteth, a Presbyter might not do it for a dying Man, till he had con- fulted the Bifhop, and told him all the cafe,. and had his Comman0Which fuppofethhim near (for the man may be dead before our Miniflers can ride to the Bithop and have. his Commiflion) and fuppofeth the Church to be but (mall. XXIV. Tomake short, and leaveno place for doubting, I will joyn feveral Canons which decree that [No Man (hall bea Clerk to twoChurches, nor an Abbot to two Monafleries, nor a Bishop to two Cities or Churches.] So Coned. Oecumen. Nic. 2. Can. 15. (in Bin. pag. 394.) Clericus ab hoc deinceps tempore, in duabus Ecclefiunon collocetur. Ab ipfa ertim domini voce audi- vimus, non poffe quenquam duobus domitüsfervire. And Concil. Chalcedon.Can. so. juxta Dionyf. Non licet Clericum confcribi in duabusfimul Ecclefiu. And though then the Can. 17. fheweth that there were SingularumEcclefiarum Ruflice Parochie vel pofefones, yet thefe were but like our Chappels, and not called Churches, but only the Bifhop's Church. And if theSecular Powermade any place a City, it was thereupon to follow the Se- cular Order. So of Abbots, Concil. Venet. Can. 8. (in Crab, pag. 948.) no one was tohave twoMonafleries ; hid. Concil. Agath. Can. 38. AndPhotius Balfamon Nomocan. r. cap. 20. pag. 21. Ne in una Pro- vincia duo Metropolitani, ä"út in una Civitate duo Epifcopi, ant in duabus Civitati- bus unus Clericus ---- Neque in duabus Civitatibus quit poteft effe Epifcopus.] Ex- cepting only (even then) EpifeopumTomenfem: IAe cram .reliquarum Ecclefia- rum Scythie curam gerit, (Becaufe the Chriftians were few; and from under the Roman Power.) [ Et Leontopolis IfaurixfubEpifeopo Ifauropolis eft.] He addeth, [Porro 35 Conft. tit. 3. 1. s. Cod. c. 3. &c. ait, [Eum qui gnamcun- que veterem aut recent conditam civitatem, proprii Epifcopatus jure, alioveprivilegio privat, tametfi Principepermiffu idfaciat, infamia notat, mullïatque bonis conflitit do ; ac fimul inceptum irritum facit.] So that no City new or old might be deprived of its Privilege ofhaving a Bifhop. Now feting Corporationsand Market Towns are in the old fenfe Cities, and feeingParish Churches fuch as ours are true Churches (as Communities) how many Cities, and how many hundred Churches have manyBifhops now? He addeth,Can.s 5/ onc.7.and faith [Si nonpermittitur cuiquam in duabus Ecclefiu Clericum fieri, multo magiapreful duo Menafferia non moderabitur ; luemadmodum neque union caput duo corpora: Therefore by parity ofreafoh much lefs fhould one Church-man or Bifhop be the head of many hundred or a thoufand Bodies,without any fubordinatc Head or Bithop under him. Why may not an Abbot as well rule a thoufand Mona- fieries, per alios non Abbatti, as a Bishop a thoufand Churches per alios non E- pifcopos? More
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=