Nazianzeni querela et votum justum, The fundamentals of the hierarchy examin'd and disprov'd wherein the choicest arguments and defences of ... A.M. ... the author of An enquiry into the new opinions (chiefly) propagated by the Presbyterians in Scotland, the author of The fundamental charter of presbytry, examin'd & disprov'd, and ... the plea they bring from Ignatius's epistles more narrowly discuss'd.../ by William Jameson.

Section VIII.

Moe clear Testimonies of the primitive Doctors against the Divine Right of Diocesan Episcopacy, and for the Iden∣tity of Bishop and Presbyter produc'd and vindicated.

THE Bishop (saith Ambrosea 1.1 or rather Hilary, the ancient∣est Commentator save some Fragments of Origen, now extant) because he opens the hidden sense of the Scriptures, is said to. Prophecy, chiefly because he dispenses the words of future hope. Behold the very Idea the Ancients still retain'd of a Bishop, and yet it's nothing but the real Notion of every true Pastor or Dispenser of the Word and Sacraments. Which Order may now be that of the Presbyters. For in the Bishop are all Orders; for he is the first Priest that is the Prince of Priests, and Prophet, and Evangelist. And whatsoever else is for fullfilling the Office of the Church and Service of the Faithfull. And, The Apostle calls Timothy a Presbyter whom he had insti∣tuted a Bishop, for the first Presbyters were called Bishops; so that one Dying the next succeeded. And lastly, in Aegypt the Presbyters ordain in the Bishop's absence; where we see what he means by the Prince of Priests, and that with him a Bishop was nothing but the first either in Age or in respect of Ordination amongst the Colledge of Presbyters without any other

Preheminence or Power over the rest but what these respects gave them. Which, I'm sure, exceeds not the Dignity of a Moderator of a Synod or Presbyter.

But because the following Presbyters were not found worthy of the first place this way was changed by a Council that none by his being first in order, but by his desert might be made a Bishop, and that by the Votes of many Priests, least an unworthy Man should rashly usurp the Office to the offence of many. There were born Priests under the Law of the Race of Aaron the Levite, but now all are Priests according to the Apostle Peter; and therefore Priests may be chosen out of the People.

And on 1 to Timothy 3.

But after the Bishop he straight way subjoins the Ordination of a Deacon, and why? But because of Bishop and Presbyter there's but one Ordination for both of them are Priests, but the Bishop is first, so that every Bishop is a Presbyter not every Presbyter a Bishop, for he's the Bishop who is first among the Presbyters. Finally the Apostle shews that Timothy was ordain'd a Presbyter, but because he had no other Presbyter be∣fore him he was a Bishop. And from thence he shews how Timothy can Ordain a Bishop for 'twas not lawfull for the Inferiour to Ordain a Superiour.

§. 2. Hence appears the perverseness of Bellarmineb 1.2 affirming that Hilary says only there was no need of a new Election, but denies not (saith he) the necessity of a Consecration or Episcopal Ordination. A flat Contra∣diction of Hilary's express saying that there's but one Ordination of both Bishop and Presbyter, and that even Timothy was of no higher Order than that of a Presbyter, whose whole primacy consisted in his meer be∣ing the first Presbyter in respect of age or time of his Ordination as Hi∣lary hath taught us: And so, as he doth also all-along thro' the fore-ci∣ted Passages, explains fully his calling the Bishop Prince of Priests, which the Cardinal also objects, and shews that thereby we're to understand only such a Dignity as either meer priority of Ordination or Seniority yeelds. Thus Hierome also understands this Title, whoc 1.3 calls Pe∣ter Prince of the Apostles, and yet assertsd 1.4 that any Priority Peter had was given to his Age only, which in that very place he makes as good as nothing. Informing us that the Church was equally founded on all the A∣postles, and that the rest no less than Peter received the Keys. Take but ano∣ther

place of Hilary,

By Angels (saith hee 1.5 the Apostle means the Bishops as we learn in the Revelation of John, who being Men are chal∣leng'd for not reproving the people, or commended for their Vertues—And because Sin entred by the Woman she ought to have this token that in the Church, for the reverence to the Bishop, her head ought not to be free but cover'd with a vail; and she has not power to speak because the Bishop represents Christ's person; she ought there∣fore because of the Original of Transgression appear subject before the Bishop as before the Judge because he is the Lord's Vice-gerent.

Here we see that, according to Hilary, there was a Bishop over every Congregation, and in every place of publick Worship frequented by Men and Women, and that the Apocalyptick Angels were only such Congregational Pastors. From which we may well gather that when any in these early times had the name Bishop more peculiarly giv'n them, yet the Primacy could be but only of Order, and nominal which is fitly illustrated by the Athenian Archons.

Petavius thereforef 1.6 to shield his Cause from so deadly blows, does his outmost to discredite these Commentaries, and make their Au∣thor some obscure fellow: and to prove they belong not to Hilary the Luciferian, he brings two passages thereof that shew their Author to have been of the Roman Communion which Hilary deserted. But might he not have been of that Communion when he wrote the com∣mentaries, and yet deserted it afterward? This the Jesuit attempts not to disprove. But whosoever this Author was, or by whatsoever name known, neither are we hurt nor the Hierarchicks helped thereby; his Authority is unquestionably great, being cited by the Councils of Paris and Ayxg 1.7 no mean Conventicles under the name of Ambrose: af∣terward the learn'd, as Bellarmineh 1.8 and the Divines of Lovaini 1.9 gave these Commentaries to Hilarie a Roman Deacon and stout Opposer of the Arrians; the Foundation of which Opinion is strong: For Au∣gustine oftner than once attributes these Commentaries to Hilarie.

And it's likely that Petavius knew that the Authority of this Writer was not to be shaken with all his Cavills, but only at that time he had

found nothing else to say, wherefore he afterwardsk 1.10 excogitats more Quibbles to darken and deprave this Author; and chiefly strives to make Hilary speak nothing for the Right of Seniority, and against the Election of a Successor to any deceasing Bishop. He says therefore that when Hilary tells us, that one dying, the next or following succeeded, we must not understand it in respect of Years or Ordination, but any of 'em indefinit∣ly taken, who was notwithstanding afterward to be elected by the Clergy, but all the Presbyters in time becoming unworthie of the Episcopal Honour the Method was altered, and another not out of the Colledge of Presbyters, but out of some other Order according to their desert was admitted unto that Office. To sup∣port which Gloss, he brings Hierome's saying that the Presbyters of Alex∣andria named one elected from among themselves, Bishop, as if Hierome were not speaking of Alexandria alone, and to instance therein, that Prela∣cy came not soon to any growth; or as if Hierome and Hilary could not agree in its being of humane Original, and yet differ in the circumstan∣ces of its rise. The rest of his prolix Discourse on this Theme is only a train of meer Cavills and Clouds too thin and airy to feed a very Cha∣maeleon, all which are quite dissolv'd and disappear if we but look into one small parcell of Hilary's words, where he tells us that after the Me∣thod was altered then the Bishop whose desert raised him was constitute by the Judgement or Votes of many Priests or Presbyters: For this Clause being of design inserted by Hilarie to shew the Opposition between the latter and the former Method of coming to the Primacy, proclaims that as after the Change, Suffrages and Election were used, so before this Change, there had been no such Custome. With this the Jesuite darrs not ingage nor with Hilary's making the Ordination of both Bishop and Presbyter, the same, his making Timothy only a Presbyter, his placing all the Es∣sence or Constitutive of a Bishop in being the first Presbyter of the Col∣ledge, his giving a Bishop to every Congregation, &c. These I say, he never adventures once in the least to handle; wherefore surely he was conscious to himself that he spent both Pains and Brains for the sole production of a bulkish nothing.

§ 3. To Hilary I add Chrysostome (which Theoplylact his real Epito∣mator transcribes) After (saith hel 1.11 the Apostle had discoursed

concerning the Bishops, and described them, declaring what they ought to have, and from what they ought to abstain; omitting the order of Presbyters he descends to the Deacons; and why so? But because between Bishop and Presbyter in a manner there is no difference, seeing that also to the Presbyters the Care or Govern∣ment the Church is committed, and whatsoever he said of Bishops agrees also to the Presbyters, in Ordination alone they are Superiour, and they seem to have this onlie more than the others. Where he clearly overthrows all their Di∣stinction between Bishop and Presbyter; notwithstanding that to some he may seem to give the Power of Ordination to Bishops above Presbyters. For First, The words are most capable of another Translation. Thus only in the Matter of Ordination they have got up or set themselves a∣bove them. Secondlie, Of the Power of Ordination, it's being proper to Bishops, he speaks most doubtfully 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they seem &c. (saith he). Thirdly, Had he believ'd that the Power of Ordination by Divine Right belong'd to Bishops above Presbyters, he had never said that there's not∣withstanding in a manner nothing between them: surely Epiphanius thought the Power of Ordination made a most large and notable Differ∣ence. Once again I shall with our Adversaries suppose that Chrysostome allows that Power of Ordination by Divine Appointment was appropri∣ated to Bishops they cann't with reason deny, but that, in all other things to a hair, he asserts the Equality, yea the Identity of Presbyters with Bi∣shops. Now will they stand to Chrysostome herein? Surely they will not; for thus they should be oblig'd to let go all the Prerogatives and Priviledges Bishops both claim and exerce over their Pastors, all their Power Paramount of Governing the Church and her Pastors, all their exorbitant Wealth, Grandeur, Pomp, and Splendor, and, in a word, whatsoever renders to them the Hierarchie amiable or desireable, and so should be really reduc'd to the condition of an ordinary Parish-pastor. And were things so, little, I'm sure, would they care or stickel for up∣holding of any Distinction between these Officers: hence let them blush any more to pretend to Chrysostome's Patrociny: seeing all they can, with the least colour plead for, being giv'n, not granted, he really sub∣verts their Cause, and levells their Diocesan Prelat with a parochial Pa∣stor.

§. 4. Bellarminem 1.12 Answers that Chrysostome and others, while they say that onlie in Ordination a Bishop is above a Presbyter, speak onlie of such

things which no way agree to Presbyters for Iurisdiction and Confirmation may be performed by Presbyters by vertue of Commission from the Bishop. But thus he really makes Chrysostome contradict himself: Chrysostome said they differ'd nothing save in Ordination; Bellarmine compells him to say that they have another Difference no less conspicuous than is between the King and his Commissioner, who can do many regall Acts, being warranted by him thereto. Does such a Power lodg'd in the Bishop, which agrees to none of the Presbyters, make no Distinction between him and them? Or rather, does it not make up the far greater and more conspicuous part of the prelatical Eminency above the rest of the Clergy? Add hereto Chrysostome's Books of the Priest-hood, wherein, altho' he expresly professes he was to treat of the Office of a Bishop, yet in these Books there's nothing but what concerns a congregational Pa∣stor, nothing but what concerns publick prayer, dispensing of the Word and Sacraments, and such Duties that terminat on the People a∣lone, but not a word of the Duties of the Bishop or Prelat over inferiour congregational Pastors as their Object which is a sure Demonstration that, with Chrysostome, Bishop, Priest, and Pastor were Synonymous Terms.

§. 5. To these add Pelagius a grand Heretick indeed, but never branded as such for ought he said of Church-Government, whon 1.13 restricts all Church-Officers to Priest and Deacon. Ando 1.14 asserts that Priest without any Discrimination or Restriction are the Successors of the Apostles. Andp 1.15 Here (saith he) by Bishops we understand Presbyters for there could not have been more Bishops in one Citie: but we have this Mat∣ter also in the Acts of the Apostles Where it's clear that Pelagius, altho', in conformity to the introduc'd Custome of distinguishing Bishops from preaching Presbyters, he endeavour'd accordingly to expone this place with as little dammage thereto as is possible, deduceth nothwithstand∣ing the Ground of the Difference between Bishop and Presbyter from the Churches latter Custome of having but one Bishop in one City, and not from any Scripture-Warrant, and indeed when he brings to clear his Comment the 20. of the Acts 17. and 28. he plainly intimats that even when he and others of that Age seem most clearly to hold forth a Diffe∣rence betwixt Bishop and preaching Presbyter, they then believ'd no such thing to flow from Divine Institution.

Andq 1.16 There is a Question (saith he) why the Apostle made no men∣tion of Presbyters but comprehended them under the Name of Bishops, because, (answers he) this is the second, yea, in a manner, the very same Degree with that of Bishops, as the Apostle writes in the Epistle to the Philippians; To the Bishops and Deacons: when yet one City cann't have more Bishops than one: and, in the Acts of the Apostles, Paul being to go to Hierusalem and having gathered the Elders of the Church, saith, among other things, take heed to the Flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops. Hence it's most evident that he believed both Offices to be, by Scripture-Warrant, one and the same, and not a meer Communication of Names only. But the thing most observable here, is, that to prove the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter, he brings Philip. 1. and hereby shews us, that some of the Ancients, from whose accustom'd Phrases he departed not while he ex∣poned it, when they seem to inferr from that place, only a Communi∣ty of Names, did really believe no such thing, but were perswaded that Philip. 1. 1. quite overthrows all Distinction betwixt Bishop and preaching Presbyter. And Seduliusr 1.17 asserts and proves the Identi∣ty of Bishops and Presbyters, and concludes from the Example of the E∣phesian Elders or Bishops, that there were many Bishops in one City, con∣trary to the Practice of his Age; and that, among the Ancients, Bishop and Presbyter was one and the same. And Primasiuss 1.18 proposeth the Question, why the Apostle comes to the Deacons without any mention of the Presbyters? And Answers in the very words of Pelagius. Thus it's clear, even these whom the Hierarchicks take for the prime Pillars of Prelacy being Judges, that there's no Divine Warrant for Diocesan Episcopacy, and that a Bishop and Presbyter in Scripture in Apostolick times are one and the same.

For (saitht 1.19 Augustine, (with whom I begin, tho' Younger than Hierome, being longer to insist on the other) tho' according to these Names of Honour which the Custome of the Church hath now brought in fashion the Office of a Bishop be greater than that of a Presbyter, yet in ma∣ny things Augustine is below Hierome; where we see that the whole Diffe∣rence was in Expression rather than reality, and that even that was only by Custome not by Divine Appointment. These words (hath now brought in fashion (answers Bellarmineu 1.20 are not opposed to the ancient time of the

Church, but to the time before the Christian Church, so that the sense is, before the times of the Christian Church these Names Bishop and Presbyter were not Titles of Honour but of Office and Age, but now they are Names of Honour and Dignity. D. M. follows his Master Bellarmine in this wretch'd De∣tortion, x 1.21 and adds that this was but a mannerly Complement to Augu∣stine. A piece of immodesty proper to D. M. not arriv'd at by the Je∣suite; Augustine then was only some frenchisi'd Spark that intended not to speak as he thought: but I reply with Juniusy 1.22 that this their An∣swer is clean contrary to Augustine's mind and intention; for he was not so mad as to compare things so hetrogeneous as were the Rites and Customes of the Gen∣tiles, and these of the Church: if it be said that he spoke of the Church of the Jews, where, pray, is there any mention of Bishops in all the Old Testament, and History of the Jewish Church. I add that if this had been Augustine's meaning, he had too much drepress'd, and in too unworthy Terms ex∣press'd Christ's Institution to busk a Complement for Hierome. But Augustine, saith D. M. reasons from the Succession of Bishops. This Ro∣mish Cavill is a 1000 times baffl'd, and by none more sufficiently than by Dr. Stillingfleetz 1.23 who shews

that from such Reasonings of the Fa∣thers, and their mentioning of Successions of Bishops, it can never be proved that Bishops were of a higher Order, or had any other Power over Presbyters, nor that in all places there was so much as any Diffe∣rence at all between them, nor that they mean'd ought save a Succes∣sion of Doctrine, and that no less is said of Presbyters.

Lastly, Bishop Jewela 1.24 advanceth this very passage of Augustine, and thereby proves the Identity of Bishop and Priest or Presbyter. And he thus Englishes Augustine's words, The Office of a Bishop is above the Of∣fice of a Priest, not by Authority of the Scriptures, but after the Names of Honour, which the Custome of the Church hath now obtain'd.

§. 7.

Let us (saith Hierome* 1.25 attend diligently to the words of the Apostle saying that thou should'st Ordain Elders in every City as I appointed thee, and what kind of Presbyter ought to be ordain'd, he declares in the following Discourse; If any (saith he) be blame∣less, the Husband of one Wife &c. and after, he Inferrs, For a Bishop must be blameless as the Steward of God; Therefore both Bishop and

Presbyter is one and the same. And before that by Sathan's instiga∣tion there were Divisions about Religion, and it was said in the Chur∣ches, I am of Paul, I of Apollo, and I of Cephas, the Church was go∣vern'd by a common Council of Presbyters: But after that whomso∣ever any had baptized were by them counted their own, not Christs, it was Decreed thro' the whole World that one, Chosen out of the Presbyters, should be set over the rest to whom all care of the Church should belong, and the Seeds of Division be removed. But you may think that this is our Mind and not the Mind of the Scriptures that a Bishop and a Presbyter is one and the same thing, and that the one is a Name of Age, and the other of Office.

Let them read over the words of the Apostle to the Philippians, where, as Hierome professed∣ly asserts the Presbyterian Thesis, so he clearly proves it by the Presby∣terian Arguments. And I would fain learn wherein, as touching the Scriptural Identity of Bishop and Presbyter, he differ'd from Aërius. They differ'd as much (answers Bellarminec 1.26 as Heaven and Hell. For Hierome still held that a Bishop was greater than a Presbyter as to the point of Ordination, and that doubtless by Divine Right. Bellarmine is herein fol∣low'd only by some of the more impudent of his Brethren as Bayly the Jesuite and Petavius; and last of all appears their perpetual shadow D. M.d 1.27 with whom Hierome is a grand Asserter of the Episcopal Hi∣erarchy, and Aërius a grand Heretick. But Juniuse 1.28 answers to both the Jesuites and their Genuine Issue, that Hierome, when he said, what doth the Bishop except Ordination which a Presbyter does not? understood it only of his oun time. But Bellarmine (saith Junius) confounds the time (as doth D. M.) that he more easily may deceive the Simple. We have heard already that many of the greatest Lights of the Church of England, yea, and of the Romanists, have exploded this shamefull and Jesuitical At∣tempt of making Hierome for the Divine Right of Prelacy, or for any Difference between Bishop and Presbyter. To which add Dr. Stillingfleet. For (saith hef 1.29 as to the Matter it self, I believe upon the strickest En∣quiry, Medina's Judgement will prove true that Hierome, Austine, Am∣brose, Sedulius, Primasius, Chrysostome, Theodoret, Theophylact, were all of Aërius's Judgement as to the Identity of both Name and Order of Bishops and Presbyters in the primitive Church &c. Of what Church then

shall we count D. M. and his Brethren who only scrape together these most dishonest and a thousand times baffl'd depravations and perversions of the Jesuites, and being plum'd with the feathers of so unlucky Birds, can appear without any more shame and blushing than as if they were the innocent penns of a Dove? But Hierome (subjoins Bellarmine, who is transcrib'd by D. M.) acknowledges that the Difference between Bishop and Presbyter, as also the Princely Prerogatives of Bishops, was introduc'd by the very Apostles, when 'twas said, I am of Paul &c. But it's answer'd by Juniusg 1.30 that

the former of these can never be prov'd from Hierome, and the latter Hierome denies, while he saith, when these whom any baptiz'd were counted their own &c. Where [saith Ju∣nius] Hierome shews that 'twas not when this Evil was at Corinth only, but when 'twas spread thro' the whole Churches: And the latter of these [continues Junius] Paul denies while he reproves this Evil in the Corinthians, and yet neither in the first nor in the second Epistle makes ever the least mention of setting up a Bishop over them.

They who use this Argument (saith Dr. Stillingfleeth 1.31 among many other Answers far better than ever such a Cavill deserv'd) are greater Strangers to St. Hierome's Language then they would seem to be, whose Custome it is, u∣pon incidental Occasions to accommodat the Phrase and Language of Scripture to them as when he speaks of Chrysostome's Fall, cecidit Babylon, cecidit, of the Bishops of Palestine, multi utroque claudicant pede—All which Instances (saith the Doctor) are produc'd by Blondel, but have the good fortune to be pass'd over without being taken nottice of. And now judge whe∣ther there was more Ignorance or Impudence in D. M's following Queryi 1.32 Whether the Opinion of St. Hierome be not disingenuously repre∣sented by the Presbyterians, since he never acknowledg'd nor affirm'd any intervall after the Death of the Apostles, in which Ecclesiastical Affairs were govern'd communi Presbyterorum consilio? Bellarmine objects also (as doth his Epe D. M.) that Hierome says James was made Bishop of Jerusalem, pre∣sently after the Death of our Saviour. But both are repell'd by Iuniusk 1.33 who shews that the common reading of that place of Hierome's Catalogue is corrupted. And Answers that James was only left while the Apostles went thro' the World for the Commodity of that Church, and was never absolutely or∣dain'd a Bishop by the Apostles, for James himself was an Apostle. Of the

same Mind is Salmasius, that James resided not at Jerusalem as one of their Hierarchick Bishops, but as an Apostlel 1.34 And yet D. M.m 1.35 is not asham'd to tell his Reader, as the Concession of Salmasius, that we have a Diocesan Bishop establish'd in the person of St. James the Just, in the City of Jerusalem. Now that Hierome understood James's Episcopacy in the sense giv'n by Junius and Salmasius against the Jesuites, is most apparent especially if we consider how the Ancients us'd to speak of the Apostles and Apostolick extraordinary Church-Officers in the Stile of their own times, and how positive Hierome was for the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter during the Apostolick age and first primitive Church.

Add hereto that Hierome (as he shews in his Preamble to Dexter) was altogether uncertain of much of what he wrote in his Catalogue of Writers, which is yet more clear from his account of Paul, for the writes that he was a Native of Gischalis, and during the Wars between the Jews and Ro∣mans sted with his Parents to Tarsus when Gischalis was taken. Which, I'm sure, Hierome, a Man so well acquaint with the Affairs of the Jews, who had no Wars with the Romans for many years after the time where∣in the Fabler, whom Hierome transcribes, suppos'd these Wars to have been commens'd, and Gischalis taken, could never believe; but only, because he could light on no better, transcrib'd things as he found 'em. Which removes, tho' no more could be said, D. M's Objection from Hierome's mentioning of Ignatius his Epistles, whereon D. M. with no small Ostentation insists. He follows also Bellarmine objecting that Hie∣rome makes Bishops the Apostles Successors. But Junius Replies that Hie∣rome denies not this to be also the priviledge of Presbyters. It's also objected by Dr. Pearsonn 1.36 that Hierome, in his Epistle to Heliodorus, speaks of the Deacons as the third Order. And seeing this, of all the passages of Hie∣rome produc'd by the Papists to involve him in self-repugnancy, is most plausible, take it at full length. If a Man (saith Hieromeo 1.37 de∣sires the Office of a Bishop, he desires a good Work: These things we know; but add what follows, A Bishop then must be blameless &c. and having ex∣press'd the rest of the things which there follow concerning a Bishop, the Apostle uses no less diligence in setting forth the Duties of the third Degree, saying, Likewise let the Deacons be grave &c. But passing that he was scarce

more than a Child when he wrote that Epistle, and wrote clearly for the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter in his riper years, it's certain he pretends no Divine Warrant for this Tripartition. Yea from the very words they would now detort, it's most evident that tho' Hierome, following the Custome of his Age, mentions a third Degree, he notwithstanding takes both Paul's Bishop and Presbyter for one and the same thing. More∣over in this same Epistle Hierome makes all who had the Power of Dispens∣ing the Sacraments, Successor, to the Apostlesp 1.38. which the Jesuites and their Supporters appropriat to Bishops: hence they are baffl'd with the very places of Hierome they endeavour to abuse.

§. 7. But I return to Hierome, Philippi, continues he, is a single Town of Macedonia, and truly in one City there could not be (called are they as) moe Bishops. But because at that time they called the same Men both Bishops and Presbyters, therefore he spoke indifferently concer∣ning both Bishops and Presbyters.

From these words (saith Petavi∣us q 1.39 It can be evidently demonstrated that Hierome believed that Bishops and Presbyters were not one and the same Order, yea even in the Age of the Apostles: For had he so believ'd he had never said that there could not be a plurality of Bishops in one City, when surely there was a plurality of Presbyters.

As if Jerome's whole discourse, scope, and conclusion, were not directly opposite to what the Jesuite impudently fathers on him, who in the words Petavius abuses, only meets with some Wranglers as he elsewere terms them, who, to elude the proof Jerome brought for the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter, from Philippians 1. & 1. absurdly contended that in the City of Philippi alone there were a multitude of Bishops distinguish,d from, and superior to other Pastors.

But yet this may seem doubtfull (con∣tinous Jerome) to some except it be confirmed by another Testi∣mony. It is written in the Acts of the Apostles that when the Apostle was come to Miletum he sent to Ephesus and called for the Elders of that Church, to whom, amongst other things, he said, take heed to your selves and to the Flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops to feed the Church of Christ.—And observe this diligently how the Apostle calling the Elders of Ephesus, which was but one City afterwards names them Bishops, if any receive the Epistle

which under Paul's Name is written to the Hebrews, there also the care of the Church is equally divided amongst a plurality. For he writes to the People, Obey your Governours and be subject to them, for they watch—And Peter, who received his Name from the strength of his Faith, saith in his Epistle, The Elders which are among you I exhort who am also an Elder—We have enlarged on these things that we might shew that among the Ancients Bishops were all one with Presbyters.

Hierome then never, as Petavius and his Fol∣lowers impudently pretend, thought that there had hapned no alterati∣on, or that Bishops bore greater bulk in his time than they had done in the Age of the Apostles)

but by little and little to the end the seeds of Schism might be remov'd, the whole care was devolv'd upon one; wherefore as the Presbyters know that by the Custome of the Church they are subject to their prefect, so let Bishops know that rather by Custome than by the Truth of Christ's Institution they are greater than Presbyters, and ought to Rule the Church in common with them, i∣mitating Moses who, when he alone had Power to Rule the Israelites, chused other Seventy with whom he might judge the People.

Here (say they) is a proof of Superiority of Bishops by Divine Right, but they should remember that Hierome here undertook to prove the quite contrary. And it's most injust to fish and search for self-contradictions in any Author when with ease he may be understood otherways as the Matter is here. Hierome is arguing a majori ad minus, from Moses his Practice who, tho' he had sole Authority by Divine Right, yet shar'd it with others, to that which ought to have been done by the Bishops of his time whom only Church Custome not Christ's Appointment had raised over other Pastors. And indeed they might on equal grounds inferr from John 13. 14. If I then your Lord and Master have washed your Feet, ye onght also to Wash one anothers Feet, that every Apostle yea and every Believer is Lord and Master of the rest.

§. 8. And writing to Euagrius I hear (saith Hierome)

there is one so mad as to preferr the Deacons to the Presbyters that is to the Bi∣shops. For seeing the Apostle clearly teaches that Bishops and Pres∣byters are one and the same, how can a Server of Tables and Widows, proudly preferr himself to these at whose Prayers the Sacrament of Christ's Body and Blood is consecrated: you will require a Proof, hear a Testimony, Paul and Timothy to all the Saints in Philippi with the Bi∣shops

and Deacons; would you have another Example in the Acts of of the Apostles, Paul thus speaks to the Presbyters of one Church, Take heed to your Selves and the whole Flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops to Rule the Church, &c. And that none may conten∣tiously plead that in one City there were many Bishops, here also a∣nother Testimony wherein it's most evidently proved that both Pres∣byter and Bishop were one and the same, and then produces the 1 to Titus, and 1 to Timothy 4. 8. 14. neglect not—with the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytry.

And 1 Peter 4 and 1. 2 John 1. 3 John 1. And all these to prove that he had undertaken viz that both Bishop and Presbyter were one and the same. Now it's most observable that that he inferrs this Conclusion not only from Scriptures written long after the first Epistle to the Corinthians, where it's said, I am of Paul &c. but even from the last Epistle of John the longest Liver of all the Apo∣stles. And therefore no less notticeable is D. M's extream stubbor∣ness and aversion from Truth, who would force Hierome to introduce Bi∣shops presently after that Schism mention'd 1 Cor. 1. And accordingly, as his bad Cause oblig'd him to do with this and the rest of Hierome's Testimonies, wholly smuther'd it. And indeed all hitherto who have adventur'd to graple therewith have been conquer'd thereby, yea even Bellarmine himself is compell'd to give up the Cause. Hierome indea∣vours, (saith the Jesuiter 1.40) to conclude the equality of Bishops and Pres∣byters from the Epistle to Titus, to the Philippians, and from the Epistles of Peter and John which were written after the first Epistle to the Corinthians. Neither can the Jesuite find another way to be even with Hierome, but by arraigning him as fraughted with self-repugnancy, levity, and in∣stability in this Matter; and all the Arguments he brings to prove Hie∣rome a Favourer of Episcopacy are only so many fruitless Attempts to make that appear.

But let us go on with Hierome. But (saith he) the reason why after this (viz. the writing of both the Epistles of John) one was chosen and set over the rest, was that there might be a remedy of Schism, least every one, draw∣ing the Church of Christ to himself, should divide it. For in Alexandria from Mark the Evangelist even to Heraclas and Dionysius the Presbyters still gave to one elected from amongst themselves, and placed in a higher seat, the Name of Bishop, as if an Army should creat a General, or the Deacons should chuse one

of themselves whom they know to be industrious and name him Arch-Deacon. On these words D. M. triumphs, The Custome was (saith he) even from the days of St. Mark the Evangelist that a Presbyter was chosen who Go∣verned the whole Society: this in the Opinion of St. Hierome cuts off that ima∣ginary Interval, wherein the Chruch is said to have been Governed by a Parity of Presbyters. Where he forgeth a Gloss no way contain'd in the words of Hierome, whose Example of an Army and Deacons are only adduc'd to shew the manner of that Presbyter or nominat'd Bishop's entrance, and not at all the measure of his Power over his Collegues. And that no Power over the rest can be collected from this place is beyond Scruple clear from Hierome's present Scope, who introduces this Ancient Alex∣andrian Practice to clear and prove the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter, which, according to him, remain'd in the Church for a while after the Writings of John, the longest Liver of all the Apostles. Had D. M. perused Dr. Stillingfleets 1.41 he had taught him that both Election and Ordination of this Alexandrian Bishop was only performed by his Fellow Presby∣ters, & that the Original of Hierome's exsors potestas, any Power he mentions in Bishops over Presbyters, is by Hierome attributed not to any Episcopal Insti∣tution but to the free choice of the Presbyters themselves: for what doth a Bishop (continues Hierome) except Ordination, which a Presbyter may not do. Here the Jesuites and their Follower D. M. dream they find a fine Distin∣ction made by Hierome between Bishop and Presbyter: but first they must make an unseasonable Antiptosis, and compell Hierome to speak con∣trary to the express words of this place which are in the present Tense, contrary to the scope and design of this Epistle, which is professedly to shew the great Dignity of Presbyters, yea even their Identity with Bi∣shops, and thereby to reach a sharper reproof to the petulant Deacon. And contrary, finally, to Hierome's most clear and most frequently repeat∣ed Doctrine of the Scriptural Identity of both Offices. Were it not mad∣ness then to dream, with the Jesuits, that, in these words, Hierome makes any Distinction between the Scripture-Bishop and Presbyter, who is here only asserting that in all places (Rome excepted, where the Presby∣ters were more depressed and the Deacons more raised than in other Churches) even then in his time, a Presbyter was allow'd by the Ca∣nons and Constitutions of the Churches to do ought that a Bishop might do, save Ordination alone. This his Design of holding forth the most

great dignity of Presbyters, yea even their equality with Bishops, which Bellarmine acknowledges that he may the better compesce the Insolency of the Deacons, Hierome all along this Epistle prosecutes: and having again cited the Epistles to Timothy and Titus to prove that a Presbyter is contain'd in, i. e. is one and the same with a Bishop, otherwayes a Deacon is also in a Bishop; and so Hierome had crossed his own Design by the very Argument wherewith he minded to compass it, and, hav∣ing added some other Topicks to the same purpose, thus concludes his Epistle. And that we may know that the Apostolick Traditions are brought from the Old Testament, that which Aaron and his Sons, and the Levites were in the Temple, the Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons claim in the Church,

Nunc animis opus Aenaeae, nunc pectore firmo.

All the Jesuites and their Complices will presently be about our Ears, But

Solamen nobis Soeios habuisse malorum.

Their Attaques are no less on Hierome than us, wherefore this is one of the chief places brought by Bellarminet 1.42 to involve Hierome in a maze of self-contradiction, and make him propugn Prelacy, who is followed by others of the Hierarchicks but chiefly the Jesuites: And lastly in the rear comes D. M. concluding

that the Hierarchy of the Christian Church is founded upon Apostolick Tradition, and that the Apostles had the Modell of the Temple in their view when they erect∣ed this Plat-form.

But Juniusu 1.43 Answers

that their Conclusi∣on is a non sequitur.

For (saith he)

this comparison is not particu∣lar between each of these particular Officers under the Old Testa∣ment, and these under the New, but in common shewing, that as they are all obliged to serve the Church of the Jews, so all the Church-Of∣ficers under the New Testament ought to serve the Christian Church.

Moreover, (continues Junius)

tho' we should give that the Comparison were particular, yet their Conclusion would not follow, seeing Hie∣rome speaks only of the Church Polity of his own time, and the Que∣stion now is about Hierome's Sentiments of the Church Government and Polity in the Apostolick Age and first primitive Church.

And that this in Hierome's Mind was not Hierarchick but a meer Parity of Pastors, Junius already evinced: and Dr. Stillingfleetx 1.44 at more length

overthrows this their Jesuitical Doctrine, and Demonstrats that by Apo∣stolical Tradition in Hierome only Ecclesiastick Custome of some Antiquity is mean'd, & asserts that

it's not imaginable that Jerome who had been pro∣ving all along the Superiority of a Presbyter above a Deacon, because of his Identity with a Bishop in the Apostles times should at the same time say that a Bishop was above a Presbyter by the Apostles Instituti∣on, and so directly overthrow all he had been saying before.

The plain meaning (continues Dr. Stillingfleet) then of Jerome is no more but this, that as Aaron and his Sons in the Order of Priesthood were above the Le∣vites under the Law: So the Bishops and Presbyters in the Order of the Evan∣gelical Priesthood are above the Deacons under the Gospel.

For the Com∣parison runs not between Aaron and his Sons under the Law, and Bi∣shops and Presbyters under the Gospel; but between Aaron and his Sons, as one part of the Comparison under the Law, and the Levites under them as the other; so under the Gospel, Bishops and Presby∣ters make one part of the Comparison, answering to Aaron and his Sons in that wherein they all agree; viz. the Order of Priesthood; and the other part under the Gospel is that of Deacons, answering to the Levites under the Law. The Opposition is not then in the Power of Jurisdiction between Bishops and Priests, but between the same Power of Order, which is alike both in Bishops and Presbyters (ac∣cording to the acknowledgement of all) to the Office of Deacons which stood in Competition with them—Hereby we see how un∣happyly those Arguments succeed, which are brought from the Ana∣logy between the Aaronical Priesthood, to endeavour the setting up of a Jus Divinum of a paralell Superiority under the Gospel. All which Arguments are taken off by this one thing we're now upon, viz, that the Orders and Degrees under the Gospel, were not taken up from Analogy to the Temple.

—Other passages of Jerome they also study to abuse, but these now handl'd are the most specious. But of such Allegat••ons out of Jerome, hear the same Dr.y 1.45

And among all these fifteen Testimonies produced by a learned Writer out of Je∣rome for the Superiority of Bishops above Presbyters, I cannot find one that doth found it upon any Divine Right, but only upon the con∣veniency of such an Order for the Peace and Unity of the Church of God: But granting some passages may have a more favourable aspect

towards the Superiority of Bishops over Presbyters in his other Writ∣ings, I would fain know whether a Man's Judgement must be taken from occasional and accidental Passages, or from designed and set Discourses; which is as much as to ask, whether the lively Repre∣sentation of a man by picture, may be best taken, when in hast of other business he passeth by us, giving only a glance of his countenance, or when he purposely and designedly sits in order to that end that his countenance may be truly represented?

He adds that Jerome, in his Commentaries, where he expresly declares not his own mind, transcribes often out of others without setting down their names &c.

§. 9. Most dishonest therefore is the conduct of the Loyolites, and of others of the Prelatists their Associats in this Matter, but above all men that of D. M. who, beside all this his foul dealling, following Bayly the Iesuite, has scarce adventur'd to lay before his Reader in ••nglish so much as one scrape or particle of what the Reform'd bring from Jerome against the Romanists and such Hierarchick Advocats; which in D. M. is the most certain product of both extream Disingenuity & Diffidence But so great is the power of prejudice that they stick not to sacrifice both their Credit, and whatsoever else they should reckon most estim∣able, to such Dreams, as even most of the Church of England, yea and of the Romanists either acted by the love of the Truth or compell'd by its Power, had condemn'd. We have heard how Bishop Jewel, Dr. Mor∣ton, the Bishop of Spalato, and Dr. Stillingfleet, renounce and explode so palpable an untruth. And Dr. Forbesz 1.46 is of the same Mind, yeeld∣ing that Hierome is all one with Aërius in this, that Bishops by Divine Right are not at all Superior to Presbyters. And that these two are in∣tirely of one and the same Mind, we have heard also granted by the most learn'd of the Romanists as Alphonsus de Castro, and Medina, some whereof acknowledge, that none could be of another Opinion concerning them. And Benedictus Justinianus and other Romanists are of the same Mind. How then, were all these Doctors sitting in Council to determine of this very Matter, should they chastise and brand these most partial and disingenuous Dealers, we have now to do with? O∣ther Hierarchicks who would not confess so much in plain Terms, yet sometimes discover both their disingenuity and true Sentiments so pal∣pably as if they had expresly made the same Confession. Dr. Pearson,

tho' he says nothing in his own Name, yeta 1.47 acknowledges that Hierome hath said so much for the Authority of Presbytry, and endeavoured so much to establish it, that he is judged to make it well nigh equal to the Episco∣pal Order. And Bellarmine tells us that Hierome was self repugnant, and knew not what he said. And Petavius, tho' the most pertinacious wrang∣ler of all the Society, grantsb 1.48 that Hierome makes Presbyters well nigh all one with Bishops but not the very same (saith the Jesuite) or intirely their Equalls being Inferior in so much as they want the Power of Ordination. And c 1.49 that according to Hierome's Mind meer Custome and not the Lord's Ap∣pointment gave to the Bishops above Presbyters any Power they have either in Ruling the Church, or external Government. And were things brought to this pass, I'm sure they should make but small account of the sory re∣mainder Petavius makes Hierome leave them, as being altogether use∣less for support of the Pomp and Splendor of their Hierarchy. To these add the Jesuite Cel••otius who after a thousand Meanders and serpentine windings to elude and deprave these clear Testimonies of Hierome, at length, seeing all would not do, rejects them all as the For∣geries of unlucky Aërian hands never written by Hierome. For which Cellotius is chastised even by Petavius and others of the Loyolites them∣selves. Into such Discord, Confusion and Torment do Men usually throw themselves, so soon as they obstinatly resolve to wage War with so clear and irradiant Verities. And here it's observable that in all times, and in all Churches, the Authority of Hierome has been exceeding great, and above most of the primitive Writers which came not to pass without a special Divine Providence that he, and in him the whole primitive Church whose Judgement in these Matters he most clearly delivers, might remain as an unsuspected and an uncontroverted witness against some of latter Ages pretendedly Catholick but really Sectarian Nove∣lists. Among the great Services he did to the Church, two Pieces are more especially notticeable viz. his most clear asserting and acurat distin∣guishing the Canonical Books from the Apocryphal above all who han∣dled or wrote of that great and most necessary Article: and, which

is the Matter in hand, his Antiprelatick Doctrine of the Identity of Bi∣shop and Presbyter: these not only Hieronymian, but also truly Catho∣lick Doctrines are with equall fierceness impugn'd by the Romanists: and I appeal to the impartial Reader if their Exceptions against this lat∣ter be a whit more solide than these which are advanced against the for∣mer, viz. Hierome's Judgement of the Canonical Scriptures which are to be found collected and learn'dly refuted by Dr. Cosine 1.50. And indeed these Sophisters, endeavouring to subvert these Catholick Doctrines of Hierome, dash only on an Adamantine Rock: for as never any Articles were better founded, so, notwithstanding of whatsoever practical A∣berrations therefrom were fall'n into, none were more universally im∣brac'd, receiv'd and handed down: for to speak of the Matter of our present concern, this Hieronymian Doctrine all following Church Wri∣ters ratifie and approve; the bulk of subsequent Commentators, Writers of Offices and of other Treatises, asf 1.51 Salvianus, Isidorus Hispalensisg 1.52 Amalariush 1.53, Rabanus Maurusi 1.54, yea, and intire Councils as that 2 of Sevilk 1.55 which ascribes the whole Difference and S••periority only to Church-Canons and late Constitutions: and after them Gratianl 1.56 and Lombardm 1.57, who affirm that in the primitive Church there was only Pres∣byters and Deacons and his Expositors, among whom is Aestiusn 1.58 who very fairly quites the Scriptures, and tells us that this Superiority is not very clear from Scripture, which is nothing but a Confession of the Truth of Hierome's Doctrine forced from this great Prelatist and School-man. Yet adds Aestius, this may be sufficiently proved another way. To which words Dr. Stillingfleet occurrs. Ingenuously said (saith heo 1.59) however; but all the difficulty is, how a Jus Divinum should be prov'd, when Men leave the Scriptures. But in the recounting and transcribing of such Confes∣sions or Testimonies, I will not inlarge. And now having rescued the principal Scriptures, our Antagonists detort in favours of their Distin∣ction between Bishop and Presbyters, and vindicated some places com∣monly adduc'd for the Identity thereof, as also evinced that the most celebrated of the Ancients did no otherways understand these Scrip∣tures, nor derive the Original of Prelacy from Divine Institution, I

may with confidence conclude that Ignatius had none before him of the Judgement that he (if we believe the Hierarchicks) so passionately fa∣vour'd.

Notes

• a 1.1

  In Epist. ad Ephes. Cap. 4.
• b 1.2

  De Clericis. C••p. 15.
• c 1.3

  Catal. Scriptor.
• d 1.4

  Tom. 2. Fol. 12.—Aetati delatum est quia Petrus senior erat.
• e 1.5

  In 1. ad Cor. 11. 10.
• f 1.6

  De Hierarchia Eccles. Lib. 1. Cap. 12.
• g 1.7

  Apud Blondellum.
• h 1.8

  De scrip. Eccles.
• i 1.9

  In Scholis ad Cap. 4. Lib. 4. Augustini contra duas Epistolas Pelagiani.
• k 1.10

  In appendice ad Hierarchiam. Lib. 2. Cap. 1.
• l 1.11

  In prior. E∣pist. ad Tim. homilia 11^ma, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c.
• m 1.12

  De Clericis. Cap. 15. 10.
• n 1.13

  In Rom. 12.
• o 1.14

  In 1 Cor. 1.
• p 1.15

  In Philip. 1. 1.
• q 1.16

  In 1 Tim. 3.
• r 1.17

  In Tit. 1.
• s 1.18

  In 1 Tim. 3.
• t 1.19

  Epist. 19. 2d Hieronymum.
• u 1.20

  De Clericis. Cap. 15.
• x 1.21

  Page 81. & seq.
• y 1.22

  Tom. 2. Col. 1214.
• z 1.23

  Irenicum. Pag. 300. & seq.
• a 1.24

  Defens. apolog. Pages 122, 123.
• * 1.25

  In Epist. ad Titum.
• c 1.26

  De Clericis. Lib. 1. Cap. 15.
• d 1.27

  Page 65. & seq.
• e 1.28

  Col. 1212.
• f 1.29

  Irenicum. Page 276.
• g 1.30

  Tom. 2. Col. 1213.
• h 1.31

  Iren. Page 280.
• i 1.32

  Page 159.
• k 1.33

  Col. 1213.
• l 1.34

  Vide inter alia Wal. Mess. Page 45. Et seq. & Page 193. Et seq.
• m 1.35

  Page 138.
• n 1.36

  Vind. St. Ignat. Part 1. Pages 191, 192.
• o 1.37

  Epist. ad Heliodorum.
• p 1.38

  Absit ut de his quicquam sinistrum loquar: qui Apostolico gradui succedentes, Christi corpus sacro ore conficiunt: per quos & nos Christiani sumus &c.
• q 1.39

  Appendice ad Hierarchiam Lib. 2. Cap. 5.
• r 1.40

  De Clericis. Cap. 15.
• s 1.41

  Irenicum. Pages 273, and 274.
• t 1.42

  De Clericis. Cap. 15.
• u 1.43

  Col. 1213.
• x 1.44

  Irenicum. Pag. 266. & seq.
• y 1.45

  Irenicum. Page 277. Et seq.
• z 1.46

  Irenicum. Pag. 130.
• a 1.47

  Vind. Ignat. Part. 2. Pag. 22.—tam multa de Presbyteratus Autoritate congerit, ut cum eam stabiliat, aeqnalem penè ipsi Episcopali po••esta••i statuere cen∣seatur.
• b 1.48

  Dog. Theol. Tom. 3. Pag. (mihi.) 747. Hieronyn us—Presbyteros suppares Episcopis facit &c.
• c 1.49

  Pag. 756.—regendae Ecclesae potest ••tem externam∣que Gubernatianem sola consuetudine, non dispositionis Dominicae Veritate Episcopis tribuit.
• e 1.50

  Scholast. Hist. Of the Canon of Scripture. Page 74. Et seq.
• f 1.51

  Timotheus Lib. 3.
• g 1.52

  De Officiis. Lib. 2. Cap. 8. Et de Originibus. Lib. 7. Cap. 12.
• h 1.53

  Apud Blandellum. Page 80.
• i 1.54

  De constit. cler. Lib. 2. Cap. 6.
• k 1.55

  Can. 7.
• l 1.56

  Distinct. 60.
• m 1.57

  Sentent. Lib. 4. Distinct. 24.
• n 1.58

  Comment. In locum.
• o 1.59

  Iren. pag. 294.