Sect. VI.
Saint Jerom's Testimony of Bishops, &c. by Apostolicall Tra∣dition. 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 Panormi∣tan also. The Testimonies of Isidore, &c. the Councel of A∣quen, 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. [ Num. 1.] 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, [ 2] 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, [ 3] 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 Pres∣byter 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 reli∣quis, 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 de∣cretum, decreed and executed over the whole world.
By whom this was conceived, [ 4] by him to be thus decreed, he gives us not to understand in that place, nor in what pointPage 172 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 Presby∣terians will gaine but little by this Patron: For his whole mea∣ning will be, that the Apostles first put the Government of each Church into the hands of many, but soon saw the incon∣venience 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, [ 5] 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 con∣suetudine 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 ha∣ving 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, [ 6] 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 mat∣ter, 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 Page 173Church were of Apostolicall tradition, i. e. by the Apostles themselves delivered to the Church.
And now before I proceed, [ 7] 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, [ 8] where having againe delivered the substance of what hath been now cited from his notes on Tit. 1. he yet concludes, Et ut sciamus-tradi∣tiones 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 Presby∣ters 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 Apo∣stles.
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, [ 9] and observe, what they which made most advantage of Hierome's authority, should be found to say to this testimony of his, for the Aposto∣lical tradition of three orders. And among these, three prin∣cipall persons offered themselves to our consideration, D. Blon∣dell, Walo Messalinus, or Salmasius, and Lud. Capellus, every of them having newly written on this subject, and colle∣cted especially what Jerome had said of it.
Of these three the last was soone discerned to have dealt most prudently, [ 10] 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 Page 174fitter season; D. Blondell put it off to his sixt Section, where∣as 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 Salma∣sius (i.e. from himselfe) in another booke, viz. De Ecclesia∣stico 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, [ 11] and the taking no∣tice 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 do∣ing, [ 12] 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, [ 13] 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 Tra∣dition, 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, [ 14] 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 for∣mer words, and interpret confuetudo] the custome of the Page 175Church 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, [ 15] 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, [ 16] that is somewhat like the former, viz. that with Hierome Apostolicall tradition and Ecclesiasticall cu∣stome are the same.
If this be true, [ 17] 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 Tra∣dition in the other. For how Ecclesiasticall custome with him, and Apostolicall Tradition should be the same, and yet Eccle∣siasticall custome may not be interpreted by Apostolicall tra∣dition, especially when the same man affirmes them both of the same thing, I confesse I cannot apprehend.
But then secondly, [ 18] 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 ElderPage 176 to signifie Bishop) that also will be worth examining a while.
And 1. Can there be any reason to imagine, [ 19] that Hierome or any man should set down that for an instance of Apostoli∣call 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 deliver∣ed by the Apostles, which was onely 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, [ 20] 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, [ 21] viz. because the obser∣vation of Lent, which he saith, ad Marcellum, is Apostolica traditio, is contra Luciferianos, said by him to be Ecclesiae con∣suetudo,] 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, [ 22] 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 Page 177interprets so, as is usefull to, and in favour of the Presbyteri∣ans, as that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉Elders, Act. 20. were the Presbyters of the Church of Ephesus; that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, [ 23] 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 no∣tion were instituted by the Apostles themselves.
1. In his 54. Epistle he sets downe this difference among others, [ 24] between the Catholikes and the Montanist hereticks, Apud nos Apostolorum locum tenent Episcopi, apud eos Episco∣pus 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 upper∣most 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 de∣viation from an Apostolical truth.)
2. In this Booke, [ 25] de script. Eccl•s•he saith of James the brother of the Lord▪ Jacobus ab Apostolis statim post ascensionem Do∣mini Hierosylimorum Episcopus ordinatus, suscepit ecclesiam Hie∣rosolyma. Timotheus à Paulo Ephesiorum Episcopus ordinatus, Titus Cretae, Polycarpus à Johanne Smyrnae Episcopus Ordina∣tus, 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 acknowledg∣ed, that Timothy and Titus were singular rulers (which there∣fore they are wont to excuse by saying they are extraordinary officers or Evangelists) and yet by him said to be Bishops ofPage 178 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 prae∣fuit —Eciscopus Hierosolymorum primus fuit, James was the first that was set over that Church—was the first Bishop of Hie∣rusalem. 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*Epist. [ 26] 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* elsewhere largely evidenced. And so, by the way, appea∣reth 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 a∣mong them, as that signifies an higher degree than that of Presbyters.
4. More places there are in him, [ 27] which evidence his opinion, that Bishops, as they differ from Presbyters, are successors of the Apostles: In his Comment on Psal. 45. Nunc quia Apo∣stoli 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 Page 179 steads Bishops their Sonnes; They also are thy Fathers, be∣cause 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 Pau∣linum, 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, [ 28] and fit to be taken in conjun∣ction with them, to give us the full understanding of S. Hie∣rome's opinion in this matter. Ad Nepotian. Ep. 2. Esto subje∣ctus 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 Bi∣shops, just the same as hath beene cited from Ignatius, that all the world over, the Bishops were ordained by the Apostles ac∣cording 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 Ec∣clesiâ baptizatus, nisi per manus Episcopi non accipiat spiritum sanctum—disce hanc observationem ex •a authoritate descen∣dere, quod spiritus sanctus ad Apostolos descendit. The safety of Page 180 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* that place which the Pres∣byterians make most use of) so it directly derives the authority, by which Bishops stand in the Church, distinct from Pres∣byters, and above them from the descent of the Holy Ghost on the Apostles. Lastly, adv. Jovinian.〈◊〉. Episcop• & Presbyter & Di∣aconus 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 collecti∣on and conclusion from plaine words of Saint Hierome, [ 29] 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 promi∣sed 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 them∣selves made use of it against us, which they ought not to have done, if by themselves it shall now be denyed when it is pro∣duced by us.
In the close of their Appendix, [ 30] they have set downe several propositions declaring the judgement and practice of the Antient Church about ordination of Ministers, and their first proposition, Page 181being 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 confere∣bant omnia sacramenta. Of old the Elders ruled the Church in common, and ordained Priests, and joyntly conferred all the Sa∣craments.
These two testimonies of Hierome and Panormitan, [ 31] 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, [ 32] as to prescribe that an Ordinary Clerk as Presbyter sh•uld performe an Episcopal act, Ea quae sum ordi∣nis Episcopalis non possunt acquiri per ordinem inferiorem ex con∣suitudine quantamcunque ve•ustissimâ. Those things that are of Episcopal order cannot be any custome▪ how antient soever, be ac∣quired 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 imme∣diate 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 postino∣dum 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 Page 182 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 im∣pression of the Character, because if Presbyters doe de facto con∣fer them, they confer nothing.
Where, [ 33] 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 Or∣dinations 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 Presby∣ters, 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 [post∣modum ordinaverunt Apostoli, after a while the Apostles or∣deined] opposed to [immediatè post mortem Christi, immediate∣ly after the death of Christ.]
And then by the way, [ 34] as the Reader may hence discerne what force there is, in this Testimony of Panormitan to sup∣port their first proposition concerning the Ordination of Pres∣byters 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*second proposition, have al∣ready been utterly demolished, so also the Testimonies of Isidore Hispalensis and the Councell of Aquen produced for the proofe of their†third Proposition, concerning the Presby∣ters 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 to∣gether transcribed out of Isidore, and consequently the Page 183Testimonies 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 au∣thority or the matter of the Testimony, than in St. Hierome it hath appeared to extend.* And therefore as the * words ci∣ted 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, onely 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 Ordina∣tion and consecration of Clerks (i. e. of all Presbyters and Dea∣cons) 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 Mini∣sters, 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 autho∣ritate 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 pe∣culiarly 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 infal∣libly their due to enjoy, and the Argument demonstrative, that it was their Originall and intrinsick due, because the Ca∣nons deny it.
What they adde of Ischyras Prop. 6. [ 35] that being deposed from being a Presbyter,*because made by Colluthus who was but a Presbyter himselfe, and not a Bishop, this was done, not be∣cause the act of Colluthus was against the Canon of Scripture, but onely 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 storyPage 184 of those times is thus made by Socrates,〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,*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, [ 36] 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, [ 37] one Testimony they produce from the Synod ad Quercum Ann. 403. where it was brought as an accusation a∣gainst Chrysostome,〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 Or∣drined, 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 Cy∣prian and Fermilian) is this, that Ordination by Bishops without the assistance of his Presbyters was alwayes for∣bidden and opposed. How truly this is inferred from the Praem•sses will soone be judged by a view of the Testi∣monies.
For the first, [ 38] this is the truth of the Story, Theophilus a guilty person, and as such, cited to answer, what was object∣ed against him, making use of the envy, under which Chry∣sostome then laboured, shifted the Scene, and becamse his judge, nay, as Photius tells us, he and the rest of that Con∣venticle,Page 185〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that were Chrysostome's greatest enemies,〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, were at once Judges, and Ac∣cusers, 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—that the Bath was heated for him alone, and that after he had bathed, Serapion shuts the pas∣sage into the Bath, that no body else might bath: The 25. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,—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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 per∣son 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. [ 39] 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 civi∣um 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 onely serves to shew, the use of the assistent Presbyters, to helpe the Bishop to a due knowledge of the person to be ordain∣ed (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.
Page 186 So likewise that from Can. 2. [ 40] is onely 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 be∣nediction, but no proofe that a Presbyter might not be ordeined by a Bishop without the presence of such Presby∣ters.
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 Anti∣quity, [ 41] 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 Me∣thod and brevity) because after the publishing of the Disser∣tations 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 Ap∣pendix 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, [ 42] 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 insti∣tuting imparity, which yet elsewhere he affirmes to be Apo∣stolicall 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, Page 187 as may satisfie any impartiall Judge, that Ignatius, in full con∣cord with all, is to be heeded on our side, more than St. Hie∣rome, 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.
