Vindication of the Dissertations Concerning Episcopacy, Chapter 3 · Section 6
Sect. VI.
Saint Jerom's Teſtimony of Biſhops, &c. by Apoſtolicall Tradition. Conſuetudo oppoſed to Dominica diſpoſitio. Saint Jerom's meaning evidenced by many other Teſtimonies to be, that Biſhops were inſtituted by the Apoſtles. So by Panormitan alſo. The Teſtimonies of Iſidore, &c. the Councel of Aquen, and of Leo vindicated. Of Iſchyras's Ordination. The teſtimony of the Synod ad Zurrium, and of the 4th Councel of Carthage.
IN the next place I am to proceed to that of Saint Hierome in his 85. Epiſtle ad Euagrium, the unanſwerableneſſe of which I am affirmed to make matter of Triumph over D. Blondel and Walo Maſſalinus, ſeeming to ſay, that it never can be anſwered, whereas ſay they, if I had been pleaſed to caſt an eye upon the vindication—written by Smectymnuus, I ſhould have found this anſwer—
What this anſwer is, we ſhall ſee anon, In the meane it will be neceſſary to give a briefe account, what it was, which is called a triumphing over theſe two learned men.
And firſt it is ſufficiently knowne, what advantages the defenders of Presbyter… conceive themſelves to have from that one Antient writer, the Presbyter Saint Hierome: From him they have the interpretation of thoſe Scriptures, which they thinke to be for their uſe, as that the word Biſhop and Preſbyter are all one in ſeveral texts of Scripture, and both ſignifie Presbyters, and that the Apoſtles at firſt deſigned, ut communi Presbyterorū concilio Eccleſiae gubernarentur, that the Churches ſhould be governed by the common Councel of Presbyters, and that it ſo continued till upon the diſſentions, which by this meanes aroſe in the Church, it was judged more prudent and uſefull to the preſerving of unity, ut unus ſuperponeretur reliquis, that one ſhould be ſet over the reſt, and all the care of the Church belong to him, And this, ſaith Hierome, in toto Orbe decretum, decreed and executed over the whole world.
By whom this was conceived, by him to be thus decreed, he gives us not to underſtand in that place, nor in what point of time he thought it was done, but leaves us to collect both from ſome few circumſtances; as 1. that it was after Schiſmes entred into the Church, and one ſaid I am Paul, I of Apollos, &c. And if it were immediately after that, then the Preſbyterians will gaine but little by this Patron: For his whole meaning will be, that the Apoſtles firſt put the Government of each Church into the hands of many, but ſoon ſaw the inconvenience of doing ſo, and the Schiſme and ruptures conſequent to it, and changed it themſelves, and ſetled one ſingular Biſhop in the whole power of Government in every Church, to which very fitly coheres what Clement had ſaid, that leſt new contentions ſhould ariſe about this ſingular dignity and authority who ſhould ſucceed to it, they made a roll or Catalogue of thoſe, which in vacancies ſhould ſucceed in each Church.
That this was not, in Hierome's opinion, done thus early in the Apoſtles time, the Preſbyterians think they may conclude from what he ſaith on Tit. 1. Epiſcopi noverint ſe magis conſuetudine quam dispoſitionis Dominicae veritate Preſbyteris eſſe Majores, Let Biſhops know that their greatneſſe and ſuperiority over Preſbyters is held rather by cuſtome, than by Chriſts having diſpoſed it ſo. But it is very poſſible that this may not prove the concluſion, which is thought to be inferred by it, For here Conſuetudo, Cuſtome, as oppoſed to Chriſts dispoſition, may well ſignifie the Practice of the Church in the later part of the Apoſtles times, and ever ſince to S. Hierome's days, and that may well be ſevered from all command, or inſtitution of Chriſts, & ſo Jerom's opinion may well be this, that Chriſt did not ordain this ſuperiority of one above another, but left all in common in the Apoſtles hands, who within awhile, to avoid Schiſm, put the power in each Church in the hands of ſome one ſingular perſon.
And that this was Hierome's meaning, I thought my ſelfe, in charity to him, obliged to thinke, both becauſe in this ſenſe his words would better agree with the univerſal affirmation of all Orthodoxe Chriſtians, that before him (and after him too, unleſſe thoſe few that took it on his credit) ſpeake of this matter, and alſo, becauſe if this be not his ſenſe, he muſt needs be found to contradict himſelfe, having elſewhere affirmed that the three degrees of Biſhops, Preſbyters and Deacons in the Church were of Apoſtolicall tradition, i. e. by the Apoſtles themſelves delivered to the Church.
And now before I proceed, I deſire the ingenuous Reader, who is contrary minded, to conſider, what he can object to this concluſion of mine thus inferr'd concerning S. Hierome's opinion, and conſequently what probability there is, that the Preſbyterians cauſe ſhould be ſuperſtructed on any Teſtimony of S. Hierome, ſuppoſing what I am next to demonſtrate, that the three orders are by him acknowledged to be delivered from the Apoſtles.
And this is evident in his Epiſtle to Euagrius, where having againe delivered the ſubstance of what hath been now cited from his notes on Tit. 1. he yet concludes, Et ut ſciamus-traditiones Apoſtolicas ſumptas de veteriteſtamento, Quod Aaron & filii ejus atque Levitae in templ… fuerunt, hoc ſibi Epiſcopi & Presbyteri & Diaconi in Eccleſiâ vendicent. That we may know that the Apoſtles traditions are taken out of the Old Teſtament, we have this inſtance, that what Aaron and his Sonnes and the Levites were in the Temple, the ſame the Biſhops and Presbyters and Deacons challenge to themſelves in the Church. Where theſe three degrees (and ſo the ſuperiority of Biſhops over Presbyters) are by him affirmed to be traditions of the Apoſtles.
On occaſion therefore of inquiring into Hierome's meaning (and becauſe this place ſo readily offered it ſelfe to expedite it) it was ſure very reaſonable to examine, and obſerve, what they which made moſt advantage of Hierome's authority, ſhould be found to ſay to this teſtimony of his, for the Apoſtolical tradition of three orders. And among theſe, three principall perſons offered themſelves to our conſideration, D. Blondell, Walo Meſſalinus, or Salmaſius, and Lud. Capellus, every of them having newly written on this ſubject, and collected eſpecially what Jerome had ſaid of it.
Of theſe three the laſt was ſoone diſcerned to have dealt moſt prudently, ſetting downe the other teſtimonies out of him, but wholly omitting this; The other two having not been ſo wary, made uſe of another dexterity, ſet downe the words, but deferr'd their obſervations on them, till ſome fitter ſeaſon; D. Blondell put it off to his ſixt Section, whereas upon examination he hath but three in his whole booke, and ſo is certainly never likely to ſpeake of it, nor can be juſtly believed to have, in earneſt deſigned any ſuch thing: The other ſaith, he expects more and better notes on it from Salmaſius (i.e. from himſelfe) in another booke, viz. De Eccleſiaſtico Ordine, and after a great volume come out of that ſubject 8. or 9. yeares after, he yet never takes this place, or his own promiſe into conſideration.
This was all that my ſearch produced, and the taking notice of theſe plaine matters of fact, the behaviours of theſe men in that, which ſo much concern'd the whole cauſe to be taken notice of, and laid to heart, is all that was done by me, and which is ſtyled by theſe a triumphing over thoſe learned Men. And I hope there was little of hard meaſure, and as little of inſolence in this.
Now becauſe what theſe learned Men thus averted the doing, is yet here ſaid to be done by Smectymnuus, and that if I had caſt an eye on the vindication—I ſhould there have found that place of Hierome's anſwered, I am now in the laſt place to obey their directions, and conſider the anſwer, which from Smectymnuus they have ſet down for me.
And it is twofold, the firſt is a civill denyall that there is any truth in the words, For, ſay they, It is hard to conceive how this imparity can be properly called an Apoſtolicall Tradition, when Jerome, having mentioned John the laſt of the Apoſtles, ſaith it was poſtea, that one was ſet over the reſt.
But is this the way of anſwering the place, or ſalving the difficulty? Hierome ſaith, Biſhops, Preſbyters and Deacons in the Church (that ſure is this imparity) are an Apostolicall Tradition; and they anſwer, It is hard to conceive how it can be properly ſo called. What is this but to make Hierom's words (as ſoone as ever he ſaith any thing which accords not with their intereſt) as unreconcileable with truth, as with his own former words, which they had cited from him? And then how much kinder to Hierome was I than they, who thought it neceſſary to affix a commodious meaning to his former words, and interpret confuetudo] the cuſtome of the Church begun in the Apoſtles dayes, that ſo in thus ſaying, he might be reconcileable with himſelf, when he called Epiſcopacy a tradition Apoſtolicall?
As for the reaſon, which makes this ſo hard for them to conceive from Hierome's words, I believe it hath no force in it; For though after the mention of S. John's words in his ſecond and third Epiſtle, he ſaith that [poſtea, afterwards] this imparity was introduced, yet this proves not his opnion to be, that it was not Apoſtolicall tradition; It might be done after the writing of thoſe Epiſtles, and yet in St. John's time, i. e. before his death. And though I believe St. Hierome was miſtaken, in thinking there were no Biſhops till then (it would have had more truth in it, if he had ſaid there were no Presbyters till then) yet for all that, I cannot doubt but this was his opnion, becauſe as he no where ſaith any thing which is contrary to this, ſo here be ſaith expreſly that it was Apostolicall tradition, which in his opinion it could not be, if it were not in the Church, in his opinion, before St. John's death. And ſo there is but little appearance of validity in their firſt Anſwer.
And for their ſecond, that is ſomewhat like the former, viz. that with Hierome Apoſtolicall tradition and Eccleſiaſticall cuſtome are the ſame.
If this be true, then certainly I did not amiſſe in thinking that when Hierome uſed conſuetudo custome in oppoſition to Dominica dispoſitio, Chriſt's appointment or inſtitution, I ought to interpret cuſtome in that place, by Apoſtolicall Tradition in the other. For how Eccleſiaſticall cuſtome with him, and Apoſtolicall Tradition ſhould be the ſame, and yet Eccleſiaſticall cuſtome may not be interpreted by Apostolicall tradition, eſpecially when the ſame man affirmes them both of the ſame thing, I confeſſe I cannot apprehend.
But then ſecondly, becauſe I muſt ſuppoſe, that by making them the ſame, they muſt meane to bring downe Apoſtolicall tradition to ſignifie Eccleſiaſticall cuſtome, not to advance cuſtome to ſignify Apoſtolicall tradition (in the ſame manner as when they make Biſhop and Elder the …ame, they bring down Biſhop to ſignifie Preſbyter, but will not allow Elder to ſignifie Biſhop) that alſo will be worth examining a while.
And 1. Can there be any reaſon to imagine, that Hierome or any man ſhould ſet down that for an inſtance of Apoſtolicall tradition, which the ſame perſon doth not believe to be delivered by the Apoſtles, but to be of a latter date? That which is delivered by the Apoſtles, and received, and practiced by the Church, may fitly be called a cuſtome of the Church, without adding or ſpecifying, that we meane the Apoſtolicall Church, becauſe the Apoſtles, while they lived, were a part of the Church, and the following age was a part of the Church alſo. But can it be truly ſaid, that that was delivered by the Apoſtles, which was onelyonly accuſtomed in the ſubſequent Church, and not ſo much as introduced under the Apoſtles?
This certainly is another ſtrange way of interpreting words or phraſes quite contrary to all Lexicons, or to the uſe of ſuch words or phraſes, which unleſſe they be changed, it is as much as to ſay, he that ſaid Tradition Apoſtolicall, did not meane Tradition Apoſtolicall; And this ſure will bring little credit to St. Hierome, on whoſe authority they ſo much depend in this matter.
As for their proofe of what they ſay, viz. becauſe the obſervation of Lent, which he ſaith, ad Marcellum, is Apoſtolica traditio, is contra Luciferianos, ſaid by him to be Eccleſiae conſuetudo,] that ſure is not of force to conclude what they would have it, for it may be (or by him be deemed to be) both, an Apoſtolicall tradition and a cuſtome of the hurch too, it being very ordinary and reaſonable, that what the Apoſtles delivered, the Church ſhould alſo accuſtome, and practice. But could both theſe be ſaid by him of that which he thought were but one of theſe? That is againe to make him teſtifie againſt his conſcience, to ſay Lent was an Apoſtolicall tradition, and to believe it was not an Apoſtolicall tradition.
Here I ſhall not need debate whether the obſervation of Lent were Apoſtolical, or no; All that is neceſſary to inſiſt on, is, whether Saint Hierome, that ſaid it was ſuch, believed it to be ſuch, And if he be mistaken in his beliefe, then he may be as well miſtaken in the meaning of thoſe paſſages, which he interprets ſo, as is uſefull to, and in favour of the Presbyterians, as that foreign Elders, Act. 20. were the Presbyters of the Church of Epheſus; that the foreign Biſhops, Phil. 1. are Presbyters of that one Church or City, and the like. For either of thoſe is but his beliefe or perſwaſion too, and the more fallible they finde him in other things, the leſſe weight they ought to lay on his opinion in this, and the leſſe blame on us, for departing from his opinion.
But having ſaid this foreign, for the repelling all force of their objection, I ſhall now adde ſome other teſtimonies out of Saint Hierome, and after them, one argument, ad homines undeniable, to demonſtrate, that it was indeed and without queſtion S. Hierome's opinion, that Biſhops in our moderne notion were inſtituted by the Apoſtles themſelves.
1. In his 54. Epiſtle he ſets downe this difference among others, between the Catholikes and the Montaniſt hereticks, Apud nos Apoſtolorum locum tenent Epiſcopi, apud eos Epiſcopus tertius eſt, Among the Catholikes the Biſhops (ſuch as were in S. Hierome's time, i. e. certainly ſuch as in ours not mere Presbyters) hold the place of the Apoſtles (i. e. the uppermoſt place in the Church of Chriſt, and ſucceed the Apoſtles in it) and among thoſe Hereticks the Biſhop is the third, which it ſeems was one character of their being Hereticks, and ſo a deviation from an Apoſtolical truth.)
2. In this Booke, de ſcript. Eccl…ſ… he ſaith of James the brother of the Lord▪ Jacobus ab Apostolis ſtatim poſt aſcenſionem Domini Hieroſylimorum Epiſcopus ordinatus, ſuſcepit eccleſiam Hieroſolyma. Timotheus à Paulo Epheſiorum Epiſcopus ordinatus, Titus Cretae, Polycarpus à Johanne Smyrnae Epiſcopus Ordinatus, James preſently after Chriſts Aſcenſion, was ordained Biſhop of Hieruſalem, and undertook (i. e. ruled, as to receive the Congregation, Pſal. 75. is to rule it) the Church of Hieruſalem, Timothy was ordained Biſhop of the Epheſians by Paul▪ Titus of Crete, Polycarpe was by John ordained Biſhop of Smyrna. Where, as it is evident, and by the Presbyterians acknowledged, that Timothy and Titus were ſingular rulers (which therefore they are wont to excuſe by ſaying they are extraordinary officers or Evangeliſts) and yet by him ſaid to be Biſhops of Epheſus and Crete, and ſo conſtituted by the Apoſtles, ſo it is conſequent that James and Polycarpe were by him deemed ſingular rulers alſo (and not Collegues in a Presbytery) and thoſe ſo conſtituted by the Apoſtles alſo, and accordingly of this James he ſaith, ad Gal. 2. Jacobus primus ei Eccleſiae praefuit —Eciſcopus Hieroſolymorum primus fuit, James was the firſt that was ſet over that Church—was the firſt Biſhop of Hieruſalem. And in conſequence thereto in his comments on Iſae. lib. 5. cap. 17. he calls this James Decimum tertium Apoſtolum the thirteenth Apoſtle
3. In like manner*Pag. 85. Epiſt. ad Euagrium, ſpeaking of Marke (who dying in the 8th. of Nero▪ what was done by him, muſt be reſolved to have been in the Apoſtles times, and agreeable to then practice] he ſaith, Alexand…iae à Ma…co Evang…ſtâ ad Heraclam & Dionyſium Epiſcopos Presbyteri ſemper unum ex ſe electum in excelſiori ſuper Presbyteros gradu… collocatum, Epiſcopum nominabant, quomodo ſi exercitus Imperatorem faceret. At Alexandria from the time of Marke the Evangeliſt, to the time of Heraclas and Dionyſius Biſhops, the Presbyters alwayes named one choſen from among themſelves, and placed in an higher degree above Presbyters, their Biſhop, as if an army ſhould chooſe their Generall. That what is ſaid of the Presbyters chooſing their Biſhop, belongs not to Presbyters impoſing hands on him, is*Diſſert. 3. cap 10. elſewhere largely evidenced. And ſo, by the way, appeareth the falſeneſſe of the citation out of Jerome, Appen. p. 142. that in Alexandria for a long time the Presbyters ordained (it ſhould have been ſaid elected) their Biſhop. That which I here inferre from the teſtimony is manifeſt, viz. that in Saint Markes time, and from the firſt planting of the Church at Alexandria, one Biſhop or ſingular Ruler was conſtituted among them, as that ſignifies an higher degree than that of Presbyters.
4. More places there are in him, which evidence his opinion, that Biſhops, as they differ from Presbyters, are ſucceſſors of the Apostles: In his Comment on Pſal. 45. Nunc quia Apoſtoli à mundo receſſerunt, habes pro his Epiſcopos filios, ſunt & hi patres tui, quia ab ipſis regeris. Now (in…. Hierome's time) becauſe the Apoſtles are parted from the world, you have in their ſteads Biſhops their Sonnes; They alſo are thy Fathers, becauſe thou art governed by them. Where the Biſhops that then ruled (thoſe are confeſt to be ſingle perſons, not Presbyteries) are the ſucceſſors of the Apoſtles in his opinion. And Ep. 1. ad Heliodorum, of not undertaking the office of Biſhop. Non eſt facile stare loco Pauli, tenere gradum Petri; 'tis not eaſie to ſtand in Pauls place, to hold the degree of Peter. Where Epiſcopacy is the place and degree of thoſe Apoſtles. And ſo Ep. 13. ad Paulinum, Epiſcopi & Presbyteri habeant in exemplum Apoſtolos & Apoſtolicos vires, quorum honorem poſſidentes habere nitantur & meritum, Biſhops and Presbyters muſt have for their Examples the Apoſtles and Apoſtolical men, whoſe honour they poſſeſſe, and therefore ought to endeavour to imitate their merit.
5. I ſhall adde a Cumulus of other paſſages much to the ſame purpoſe with the former, and fit to be taken in conjunction with them, to give us the full underſtanding of S. Hierome's opinion in this matter. Ad Nepotian. Ep. 2. Eſto ſubjectus Pontificituo, & quaſi anima parentem ſuſcipe, quod Aaro… & filios ejus, hoc Epiſcopum & Presbyteros eſſe noverimus. Be ſubject to the Biſhop, and receive him as the parent of thy Soule, what Aaron and his Sonnes were, that we muſt know the Biſhop and Presbyters to be. And on Tit. 1. ſpeaking of S. Paul's directions for the making a Biſhop, Apoſtolus, ſaith he, Eccleſiae Principem formans, the Apoſtle forming the Prince or ruler of the Church, and ſo againe in the ſame words on Pſal. 45. deciphering a ſingle ruler by that Biſhop, which the Apoſtle there meant to forme. So on that 45. Pſal. Conſtituit Chriſtus in omnibus finibus mundi Principes Eccleſiae Epiſcopos, Chriſt in all parts of the world conſtituted Princes of the Church, the Biſhops, juſt the ſame as hath beene cited from Ignatius, that all the world over, the Biſhops were ordained by the Apoſtles according to the minde of Chriſt. In his Dial. adv. Luciferian. Eccleſiae ſalus in ſummi ſacerdotis dignitate pendit, cui ſi non exors quaedam & ab omnibus eminens detur poteſtas, tot in Eccleſiis efficientur Schiſmata quot ſacerdotes; and, Si quaeris quare in Eccleſiâ baptizatus, niſi per manus Epiſcopi non accipiat spiritum ſanctum—diſce hanc obſervationem ex …a authoritate deſcendere, quod spiritus ſanctus ad Apostolos deſcendit. The ſafety of the Church depends on the dignity of the chiefe Prieſt (or Biſhop) to whom▪ if a peculiar power be not given above all that others have there will be as many Schiſms as Prieſts in the Churches —If you demand why he that hath been baptized in the Church, may not receive the Holy Ghoſt but by the hands of the Biſhop, learne that this obſervance d…ſcends from that Authority in that the holy ſp…it deſcended on th… Apoſtles … Teſtimo…y, as it ſhewes the neceſſity of a ſingular Biſhop to avoid Schiſms in the Church, and ſo muſt affixe the inſtitution of them on the Apoſtles, who made proviſion againſt that danger (and that I ſuppoſe is his meaning in*In t…to o… be … ut unus de Pre…byteris … ad quem omnis Eccliſiae cura …, ut ſchiſatum ſemi… toilcrentur, and Paulatim ut diſſ… ſionum ſemina t…llercutur, ad unum omnis …oll…itudo d…ela… a eſt. Com ad Tit. that place which the Preſbyterians make moſt uſe of) ſo it directly derives the authority, by which Biſhops ſtand in the Church, diſtinct from Preſbyters, and above them from the deſcent of the Holy Ghoſt on the Apoſtles. Laſtly, adv. Jovinian. …. Epiſcop… & Presbyter & Diaconus non ſunt meritorum nomina ſed offi…ior…m Nec dicitur, ſi quis Epiſcopatum deſilerat—The Biſhop and Presbyt…r and Deacon, are names of offices, neither is it ſaid▪ If any man d…ſi…e a Biſhoprick—applying thoſe Texts of Saint Paul, concerning the qualifications of Biſhops to the Biſhop, as in his time he ſtood, diſtinct from Presbyters.
All this I ſupoſe may ſuffice to give authority to my collection and concluſion from plaine words of Saint Hierome, that his meaning was as plaine and undubitable, that Epiſcopacy was delivered downe and inſtituted in the Church by the Apoſtles themſelves. And I cannot conceive what can be invented to avoid the evidence of theſe teſtimonies; yet becauſe I promiſed it, I ſhall now adde that one argument (ex abundanti, and much more than is neceſſary) to the ſame purpoſe, (viz. to prove that this was Hierome's meaning, which I pretend it to be.) And that ſuch, as by theſe objectors cannot with juſtice be denyed, to have a full irrefragable force in it, having themſelves made uſe of it againſt us, which they ought not to have done, if by themſelves it ſhall now be denyed when it is produced by us.
In the cloſe of their Appendix, they have ſet downe ſeveral propoſitions declaring the judgement and practice of the Antient Church about ordination of Miniſters, and their first propoſition, being this, that in the firſt and pureſt times—there was ordination of Presbyters without Biſhops over Presbyters, their proofe is this. For theſe Biſhops came in poſtea and p…ul…tim, afterward, and by little and little as Jerome ſaith. And Panormitan, lib. 1. Decretal. de Conſuetud. cap. 4. ſaith Olim Presbyteri in communi regebant Eccleſian… & … ſacerdotes, & pariter conferebant omnia ſacramenta. Of old the Elders ruled the Church in common, and ordained Priests, and joyntly conferred all the Sacraments.
Theſe two teſtimonies of Hierome and Panormitan, being brought to prove the ſame propoſition concerning ordination by Presbyters, and the time of Biſhops coming in to the Church, It muſt ſure be reaſonable to reſolve that what Panormitan hath defined in this matter, that was Saint Hieromes ſenſe alſo; Now what that is, will be diſcerned by ſetting downe Panormitane's words at large, as they lye in the place cited by them.
The buſineſſe he hath there in hand is to prove that cuſtome is not of force ſo farre, as to preſcribe that an Ordinary Clerk as Presbyter ſh…uld performe an Epiſcopal act, Ea quae ſum ordinis Epiſcopalis non poſſunt acquiri per ordinem inferiorem ex conſuitudine quantamcunque ve…uſtiſſimâ. Thoſe things that are of Epiſcopal order cannot be any cuſtome▪ how antient ſoever, be acquired by any Inferiour order: The reaſon is, quia conſuetudo non facit quem capacem, becauſe cuſtome doth make no man capable—Then he makes this obſervation, that Ritus Apoſtol orum circa ſacramenta habent impedire characterus impreſſionem; The rites, or practice, or Institutions of the Apoſtles about the Sacraments, have power to h…nd …the impreſſion of the Character, nam immediate poſt mortem Chriſti…om…es Presbyteri in communi regebant eccleſiam, non fuerant inter ipſos Epi…ſcopi, ſed idem Presbyter quod Epi…copus, & pariter conferebant omnia ſacramenta, ſed postinodum ad Schiſmata ſed…nda fecerunt ſeu ordinaverunt Apoſtoli, ut crearentur Epiſcop… & certa ſacramenta iis reſervarunt, illa interdicendo ſimplicibus Presbyteris—For immediately after the death of Chriſt, all th… Elders in common ruled the Church, and ſo there were no Biſhops among them, but a Presbyter was the ſame that a Biſhop, and they joyntly conferred all the Sacraments. But after a while for the appeaſing of Schiſmes the Apoſtles cauſed or ordained that Biſhops ſhould be created, and reſerved to them ſome Sacraments (or holy Rites) forbidding ſingle Presbyters to meddle with them: and he concludes, Et vides hic quod talis ordinatio habet impedire etiam impreſſionem Characteris, quia ſi Presbyteri illa de facto conferunt, nihil conferunt, and here you ſee, that ſuch an Ordination is able to hinder the impreſſion of the Character, becauſe if Presbyters doe de facto confer them, they confer nothing.
Where, as Panormitan cited by them to prove Ordination without Biſhops (and ſpecious words pickt out of him to that purpoſe) doth yet diſtinctly affirme that Preſbyters, which confer Orders without a Biſhop conferre nothing, all their Ordinations are meere nullities (and what could have been ſaid more ſeverely againſt their practice, and their deſigne in citing him, than this?) ſo he plainly interprets St. Jeromes aſſertion of the occaſion and time of Biſhops being ſet over the Presbyters, that it was done by the appointment of the Apoſtles themſelves, and ſo that conſuetudo, cuſtome in Jerome, oppoſed to Dominica dispoſitio Christ's diſpoſall, is no more than [poſtmodum ordinaverunt Apoſtoli, after a while the Apoſtles ordeined] oppoſed to [immediatè poſt mortem Chriſti, immediately after the death of Chriſt.]
And then by the way, as the Reader may hence diſcerne what force there is, in this Teſtimony of Panormitan to ſupport their firſt propoſition concerning the Ordination of Presbyters without Biſhops over Presbyters (for which beſides St. Jeromes poſtea and paulatim, and part of this teſtimony of Panormitan, they produce no other) and as by what was formerly ſaid of the Teſtimonies of Cyprian and Firmilian, their chiefe ſupports for their*Append. p 129 ſecond propoſition, have already been utterly demoliſhed, ſo alſo the Teſtimonies of Iſidore Hiſpalenſis and the Councell of Aquen produced for the proofe of their†Append. p. 131. third Propoſition, concerning the Preſbyters having an intrinſick power to ordaine Miniſters, will immediately vaniſh in like manner. For as it is evident that that place in that councell of Aquen is for nine Chapters together tranſcribed out of Iſidore, and conſequently the Teſtimonies out of him and that councell are but one and the ſame thing, twice repeated, to increaſe the number, ſo 'tis as evident that what is by them ſaid, is taken from St. Hierome, and can no farther be extended either in reſpect of the authority or the matter of the Teſtimony, than in St. Hierome it hath appeared to extend.Append p. 13…. And therefore as the * words cited by theſe men out of them are no more than theſe, that ſolum propter authoritatem Clericorum ordinatio & conſecratio reſervata eſt ſummo ſacerdoti, That Preſbyters have many things common with Biſhops, onelyonly in respect of authority (or for the preſerving it intire, and the unity of each Church; which depended on that, in St. Hierom's opinion) the Ordination and conſecration of Clerks (i. e. of all Presbyters and Deacons) was reſerved to the chiefe Prieſt, i. e. the Biſhop; which how farre it is from concluding what it was brought to prove, the intrinſick power of Presbyters to ordaine Miniſters, I leave to any Reader to paſſe judgement. And yet truly this doth it as well as their one other antient Teſtimonie, that of Leo, ſet out in their front, out of his 88. Epiſtle▪ concerning the Conſecration of Presbyters and Deacons, and ſome other things, Quae omnia ſolis deberi Pontificibus authoritate canonum praecipitur, All which that they ſhould be due to the Biſhops and to none elſe, it is commanded by the authority of the …anons. Who would ever have thought fit from ſuch words as theſe, which affirme this privilege to be reſerved peculiarly to the Biſhops, and that the authority of the Canons ſo requires, to conclude that the Preſbyters had this intrinſick power; As if all that the Canons deny Presbyters, were infallibly their due to enjoy, and the Argument demonſtrative, that it was their Originall and intrinſick due, becauſe the Canons deny it.
What they adde of Iſchyras Prop. 6. that being depoſed from being a Presbyter,P. 143. becauſe made by Colluthus who was but a Presbyter himſelfe, and not a Biſhop, this was done, not becauſe the act of Colluthus was againſt the Canon of Scripture, but onelyonly becauſe it was againſt the Canons of ſome councels.] is ſomewhat of the ſame nature with the former, and will be beſt judged of by the relation of the Fact, which in the ſtory of thoſe times is thus made by Socrates, foreign,L. …. c. 10. He adventured on a thing worthy of many Deaths, for being never admitted to the Prieſthood, and aſſuming to himſelfe the name of an Elder, he dared to doe the things belonging to a Prieſt. A cenſure which certeinly ſets the fault ſomewhat higher than the tranſgreſſing of the Canons of ſome Councels.
Two Teſtimonies more I ſhall touch on, before I returne to the purſuit of my propoſed Method, and then I ſhall render the reaſon of this Excurſion.
For the confirmation of their ſecond Propoſition concerning Ordination, one Teſtimony they produce from the Synod ad Quercum Ann. 403. where it was brought as an accuſation againſt Chryſoſtome, foreign, That he made Ordinations without the company and ſentence of the Clergy. Another from the councell of Carthage Can. 20. Vt Epiſcopus ſine Concilio Clericorum ſ…orum non ordinet, That a Biſhop ordeine not Clerkes without the Councell of his owne Clerkes, and Can. 2. Cum Ordinatur Presbyter Epiſcopo eum benedicente, & manum ſuper caput ejus tenente, etiam omnes Presbyteri qui praſentes ſunt manus ſuas juxta manum Epiſcopi ſuper caput illius teneant. When a Presbyter is Ordrined, as the Biſhop bleſſeth him and layes his hand on his head, let all the Presbyters alſo that are preſent lay their hands on his Head by the Hand of the Biſhop. And the concluſion deduced from theſe Teſtimones (and the forementioned of Cyprian and Fermilian) is this, that Ordination by Biſhops without the aſſiſtance of his Presbyters was alwayes forbidden and oppoſed. How truly this is inferred from the Praem…ſſes will ſoone be judged by a view of the Teſtimonies.
For the firſt, this is the truth of the Story, Theophilus a guilty perſon, and as ſuch, cited to anſwer, what was objected againſt him, making uſe of the envy, under which Chryſostome then laboured, ſhifted the Scene, and becamſe his judge, nay, as Photius tells us, he and the reſt of that Conventicle, foreign, that were Chryſoſtome's greateſt enemies, foreign, were at once Judges, and Accuſers, and Witneſſes of all that was charged againſt him. And therefore we already ſee, what heed is to be given to the accuſati…n of thoſe Fathers ad quercum, and how valid an argument can be deduced from it; And we ſhall the better gueſſe at it, if we conſider alſo, what other particulars were, in the ſame manner that this was, charged againſt him, ſet downe by Photius in his Bibliotheca. The 23. charge was, foreign—that the Bath was heated for him alone, and that after he had bathed, Serapion ſhuts the paſſage into the Bath, that no body elſe might bath: The 25. foreign,—that he ate alone, living like one of the Cyclopes, and betwixt theſe two new found crimes, comes in this, in the midſt, being the 24. foreign, that he ordained many that had no Teſtimonialls; which being ſet down by Photius, as the ſumme of that charge, referres us indeed to the ground, on which their charge was built, of his ordaining without a Councell, and againſt the minde of his Clergy, (thoſe teſtimonialls, and ſo the approbation of the perſon by the Clergy being generally a good preparation to the receiving Orders) but doth not at all prove that a Biſhop might not ordaine without aſſiſtance of his Presbyters, or that it was alwayes forbidden, any more than it proves that eating or bathing alone was alwayes forbidden alſo.
As for that of the 4. Councell of Carthage Can. 20. They have ſet downe but halfe the Canon; the whole runnes thus, Vt Epiſcopus ſine concilio Clericorum non ordinet…, ita ut civium conniventiam & Teſtimonium quaerat, That the Biſhop ordain not without his councell of Clergy, ſo that he ſeeke the liking and teſtimoniall of the Inhabitants. Which againe onelyonly ſerves to ſhew, the uſe of the aſſiſtent Preſbyters, to helpe the Biſhop to a due knowledge of the perſon to be ordained (and this they know we Praelatiſts aſſent to and approve of) but is no argument of the unlawfulneſſe of ſole ordination, or of any power that the Preſbyters have in the conferring of Orders.
So likewiſe that from Can. 2. is onelyonly a Teſtimony for the fitneſſe and uſefulneſſe of that cuſtome (ſtill retein'd and uſed in our Church in all Ordinations of Preſbyters and Deacons) that the Presbyters there preſent ſhould lay on their hands by the hand of the Biſhop, and ſo joyne in the Prayer or benediction, but no proofe that a Preſbyter might not be ordeined by a Biſhop without the preſence of ſuch Presbyters.
I have for a while gone aſide from the conſideration of S. Hierome's testimony (the deſigned matter of this Section) and allowed my ſelfe ſcope to take in all the teſtimonies of Antiquity, which are made uſe of by theſe Aſſemblers, for the juſtifying their Ordination of Miniſters; And I have done it on purpoſe (though a little contrary to my deſigned Method and brevity) becauſe after the publiſhing of the Diſſertations againſt Blondel. I remember I was once told, that though it was not neceſſary, yet I might do well to add ſome Appendix, by way of Anſwer to that one head of diſcourſe concerning Presbyteriall Ordination, and the Inſtances which were objected by him. For which reaſon I have now, as neer as I can, taken in all, in this place, which are in their Appendix produced on that head, and doe not elſewhere in this briefe reply, fall in my way to be anſwered by me. For ſome others, mentioned by D. Blondel, I refer the Reader to the learned paines of the Biſhop of D…rry, in his vindication of the Church of England from the aſperſion of Schiſme, p. 270. &c.
And ſo being at laſt returned into my rode againe, This may, I hope, ſuffice to have ſaid in the juſtification of what was done in the Diſſertations concerning St. Hierome, both to cleare his ſenſe, and for the ſetting the ballance aright betwixt his authority on the one ſide, and the authority of Ignatius on the other, betwixt ſome doubtfull ſayings of the former, which ſeemed to prejudice the Doctrine of the Apoſtles inſtituting imparity, which yet elſewhere he affirmes to be Apoſtolicall tradition, and the many cleare and uncontradicted, conſtant ſayings of the latter, which are acknowleged to aſſert it. Which one thing, if it be not in the Diſſertations ſo done, as may ſatisfie any impartiall Judge, that Ignatius, in full concord with all, is to be heeded on our ſide, more than St. Hierome, in ſome few of his many Teſtimones, can be juſtly produced againſt us, I ſhall then confeſſe my ſelfe guilty of over-much confidence; but if therein I have not erred, it is moſt evident that I need not undertake any farther travaile in this whole matter.