[Letter L biguities, he must stand convicted of inconsistency; and then his testimony to either party is good for nothing.

By interpreting Jerome in the obscure passages as we do, he is made consistent with himself and with the other fathers; and we keep entirely clear of doing violence to language. This is the way in which Stillingfleet, in his riper years and more mature judgment, understood him. "As the Apostles," says he, withdrew, they did in some Churches sooner, and in some later," [the true meaning of Jerome's little and little, and gradually, as their own continuance, the condition of the Churches, and the qualification of persons were, commit the care and government of Churches to such persons whom they appointed thereto. Of which we have an uncontrolable evidence in the instances of Timothy and Titus." He then observes, "this is the fairest hypothesis for reconciling the different testimonies of antiquity. For hereby the succession of Bishops is secured from the Apostles' times, for which the testimonies of Irenæus, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, and others, are so plain. Hereby room is left to make good all that St. Jerome hath said. So that we may allow for the community of names between Bishop and Presbyter, for a while in the Church, that is, while the Apostles governed the Churches themselves; but afterwards, that which was then part of the apostolical office, became the episcopal, which hath continued from that time to this, by a constant succession in the Church." He then quotes Archbishop Whitgift, Bishop Bilson, and Charles I. Of the last, he justly observes, that "he understood the government of the Church as well as any Bishop in England." This, I believe, is a correct view of Jerome's opinion.

But, Sir, were Jerome's opinion really adverse to ours, it should be remembered, that it is no more than opinion: but when he asserts that St. James was appointed Bishop of Jerusalem by the Apostles; Timothy and Titus Bishops of Ephesus and Crete, by St. Paul; and Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna, by St. John; and that the apostolical succession was brought down uninterrupted to his time, he asserts a fact, supported by the constant tradition of the Church, and in particular, by the history of Eusebius and Hegesippus; so that we may reject or receive the former, according as his reasoning is strong or weak; but we are not at liberty to reject the latter, unless we can produce much better historical evidence against the fact, than Jerome has produced for it. This is a consideration of great weight, and which ought to be duly appreciated.

The next proof which you adduce from Jerome in favour of your hypothesis, will, I apprehend, afford you no support whatever. You say, "Jerome further informs us that the first preeminence of Bishops at Alexandria was only such as the body of the Presbyters were able to confer. They were only standing Presidents, or Moderators; and all the ordination they received,

Unreas, of Separ. p. 269, 270,

on being thus chosen, was performed by the Presbyters themselves. This, he tells us, was the only Episcopacy that existed in the Church of Alexandria, one of the most conspicuous then in the world, until after the middle of the third century." Now, Sir, this is rather your own fancy, than Jerome's testimony. For, 1. Jerome does not say that the Bishop of Alexandria was ordained by the Presbyters. He only says, that " he was chosen by them out of their own body." Could Jerome have asserted the former consistently with truth, no doubt he would have done it; for that would have been expressly to his purpose, which was, to raise the Presbyter and lower the Bishop.

2. Jerome was so far from excluding ordination on that occasion, that, one would suppose from his mentioning it in the next sentence, he meant to include it. "For," even at Alexandria, "what does a Bishop, which a Presbyter may not do, excepting ordination?" [By the way, you have left out this sentence in your quotation.] This, you say, was spoken of Jerome's own time. But if he had so meant, one would suppose, that he would have expressed himself in such a manner that he could not have been easily mistaken. And further: that could not have been his meaning, for then he would not have spoken the truth. A Bishop in his day, besides the prerogative of ordaining, had that of confirming, of jurisdiction over both clergy and laity, of sitting in general and provincial councils, of consecrating churches, and several other particulars. Still farther: Jerome could not have spoken of his own time, because there would be no proper connexion between the passage in dispute and what goes before. Upon our supposition, the sense is as follows:-In the early period of the Church of Alexandria, the Presbyters chose their Bishop out of their own body. For then and there, so important were the Presbyters, that they did every thing which a Bishop did, ordination excepted. This preserves propriety, both in the sense, and in the construction. But upon your supposition, there will be neither the one nor the other. The sense and the construction will be thus: In the early period of the Church of Alexandria, the Presbyters chose their Bishop out of their own body. 66 For," ," in our time, "Presbyters can do every thing that a Bishop does, except ordination." In the name of grammar and good sense, where is the propriety of the conjunction for in the latter sentence? For, implies a reason to prove what he had in view, viz: the superiority of a Presbyter over a Deacon. And what was that reason? Why, that a Presbyter could do every thing that a Bishop could, in the church of Alexandria, except ordination. This was one very good reason for asserting that a Presbyter was superior to a Deacon; for the latter could not "do every thing that a Bishop could, except ordination." The other proof of the superiority of the Presbyters was, that they elected their Bishop, the Deacons having nothing to do in the business. These were two irrefragable proofs of the superiority of Presbyters, to which the Deacons could make no kind of reply. And thus St.

B

Jerome completely gained his point. But, according to your interpretation, there is neither sense nor grammar in the whole passage.

There is a circumstance which deserves to be noticed, as it affords a strong presumption, that you have entirely mistaken Jerome in what he says about the Church of Alexandria. You know, Sir, that Origen and Clemens were members of the presbytery of that Church; and as they lived almost one hundred and fifty years before Jerome, they must have been much better acquainted with its history than he was. Yet, in all that they have said about it, they do not give us the least hint of what you would attach to Jerome. This is particularly striking in the case of Origen, who bitterly complained of ill treatment from his Bishop, Demetrius. Could he have told him, that he was his fellow Presbyter, and that he had no more authority than what was implied in collecting the votes of the presbytery, and maintaining order, it would have been a powerful weapon to wield against him. But Origen never intimates any thing of that kind; nor could he with the least consistency; for he declares repeatedly, that Episcopacy is a divine institution, as I shall show in its proper place.

But this is not all: I have positive testimony to adduce. Bishop Pearson, in his vindication of the epistles of Ignatius, quotes several authors, who particularly mention that the Bishop of Alexandria was always ordained, not by Presbyters, but by a Bishop. Simeon Metaphrastes says of St. Mark, that "he ordained, as his successor, Anianus, Bishop of Alexandria, and gave to other Churches, Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons." Nicephorus Callistus says, (speaking of St. Mark,) that "he laboured in Cyrene and Pentapolis, and having founded Churches, he gave them clergy and Bishops," &c. The Arabian martyrology of the Melchites says, "he adorned the Churches of CHRIST, Constituting for them Bishops and inferior Priests." Severus, in his life of the Alexandrian Patriarchs, records, that "St. Mark proceeded to Pentapolis, remaining there two years, preaching, and ordaining Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons in all its provinces." Bishop Pearson also observes, that Rhabanus Maurus, Alfrec, Archbishop of Canterbury, Notkerus, and Ordericus Vitalis give the same account that Simeon Metaphrastes does. If you should object to these authors, that they are too late to be absolutely depended upon, I answer, that some of them are not so late as Eutychius, upon whose testimony you seem to place great reliance. You cannot, therefore, consistently make that objection. If you say, these authors produce no authorities, I answer, neither do Jerome and Eutychius. You must, therefore, proceed in some other way, to render nugatory these testimonies. Till then, I shall insist upon their keeping their place.

I am not a little surprised to find you quoting Eutychius for 1 Vind. Ep. Ignat.

į Lib. ii. c. 43.

k Lib, ii. c. 43.

your purpose. Had you read Pearson, I can hardly think that you would have ventured to do it. He proves him to be an author upon whom not the least dependance can be placed, when the fact did not happen in or near his own time. Of this take the following evidence:

1. Eutychius was Patriarch of Alexandria in the tenth century. I ask, then, from whom did he derive his information? From any writers of the first five centuries? Not one of them says, that the Presbyters of Alexandria consecrated their Bishop. From the records of the Church of Alexandria? Abulpharagius relates, that Amrus Ebnol, when he took that city, burnt all the books therein. What regard, then, is due to an author who quotes no authorities, and lived too late to know any thing of the origin of the Church of Alexandria, but what is to be derived from the primitive writers?

2. Eutychius appears to have been very little conversant with the Church of Alexandria, in the early ages. In some well known particulars, he contradicts the best writers of antiquity. He says St. Mark came to Alexandria in the ninth year of Claudius, and suffered martyrdom in the first year of Nero; and that under the government of Nero, St. Peter dictated to St. Mark, in the city of Rome, the Gospel which goes under the name of the latter. This contradicts Eusebius, who says, that Mark died in the eighth year of Nero. Eutychius, in this particular, contradicts himself also; for he says, that St. Peter was put to death in the twentysecond year after our LORD's passion; that is, before the government of Nero. Nor do any of the ancients say, that St. Mark did not write his Gospel till his return from Alexandria to Rome, or that he ever did return. On the contrary, it appears from Eusebius, that he wrote his Gospel before he went into Egypt. 3. Eutychius' ignorance of the Church of Alexandria in the primitive times, will appear from what he says concerning Origen, the most noted man of the age in which he lived. Eutychius says," in the time of the Emperor Justinian, there was one Origen, Bishop of the Mangabenses, who asserted the doctrine of the transmigration of souls, and denied the resurrection; that Justinian sent for Origen to Constantinople, and that Eutyehius, the Bishop of that city, excommunicated him." Almost every syllable of this is false. Origen never was a Bishop, and he lived in the second and third centuries, but Justinian lived in the fifth and sixth. Eutychius also relates, that three Bishops were excommunicated at the same time with Origen-Iba, Bishop of Roha, Thaddeus, Bishop of Massininsa, and Theodoret, Bishop of Ancyra; but these Bishops were dead before the time of Justinian. Once more: Speaking of Demetrius, Bishop of Alexandria, (whose Presbyter Origen was, and who was the Bishop that

m PEARSON'S Vind. p. 326, 327. O PEARSON'S Vind. p. 326, 327. q Ibid. p. 327.

n Eccl. Hist. chap. ii.

P

Ibid.

H

excomunicated him,) Eutychius says, Demetrius, the Alexandrian Patriarch, wrote to Gabius, Bishop of Jerusalem, and Maximus, Patriarch of Antioch, concerning the reason of the Paschal feast. And he says, that Gabius was created Bishop of Jerusalem in the seventeenth year of the Emperor Aurelius, and sat only three years. This epistle, then, of which he speaks, must have been written, either at the closing period of Aurelius' government, or at the beginning of the reign of Commodus. But at these periods, Demetrius was not Bishop of Alexandria, but Julian; nor Victor Bishop of Rome, but Eleutherus. Further: when epistles were sent by the Eastern Church to Victor, Bishop of Rome, concerning the Paschal feast, Narcissus, not Gaianus, (whom Eutychius miscalls Gabius,) was Bishop of Jerusalem; and between Gaianus and Narcissus there were nine Bishops. Neither is there any mention in all antiquity, of Demetrius having written to Victor, concerning the time of keeping Easter. The Bishops of Palestine, in their synodical epistle, only say, that the Alexandrians agree with them; but they make no mention of Demetrius.

I think, Sir, that I have now given abundant proof, that Eutychius is not entitled to the least degree of credit, for any thing he asserts concerning the primitive Church.

Let us now sum up all that has been said upon the subject of Jerome's testimonies.

1. Jerome has given repeated, positive, unequivocal testimonies to the apostolic origin of Episcopacy.

2. It cannot be supposed that he intended to prove that Episcopacy was not of apostolic origin; for then he would have contradicted himself, which should never be set to any man's account, unless his words are so clear and decisive, that it is impossible to avoid it. But that is not the case with Jerome's little and little, and decreed throughout the world, and custom of the Churches; for it appears from the Holy Scriptures and from the writings of antiquity, (as will be fully evinced in the course of this controversy,) that the Apostles, as the Churches became too numerous for their care, placed over them Bishops, in the ecclesiastical sense of the word. When, therefore, Jerome says, that the Churches were governed at first by a common council of Presbyters, he must be understood to mean generally, but not universally; otherwise he would have directly contradicted himself, as he had said, that St. James was constituted Bishop of Jerusalem by the hands of the Apostles. By this easy, and in no respect improper interpretation of the above vague expressions, Jerome is preserved from palpable contradiction.

3. It has been proved from the dates of the Epistles to Timothy, to Titus, and to the Philippians, that Jerome did not intend to place the rise of Episcopacy after the apostolic age; for even

r The title of Patriarch was not in use in the Church till the time of Leo. I. and the Ephesine and Chalcedon councils. CAVE's Church Gov. p. 157.