from Pearson's dates, which are later than those of other commentators, it is evident that several Bishops, very soon after the schism at Corinth, were placed at the head of certain Churches, as St. James had been, previously to that event, over the Church of Jerusalem. To these appointments, Jerome himself bears the most positive testimony. Your interpretation is, therefore, contrary to matter of fact, and also sets him at variance with himself.

4. When Jerome, in his Commentary on the Epistle to Titus, and in his Epistle to Evagrius, shows from the Scriptures, that the words Bishop and Presbyter are different titles given to the same officer, he cannot mean, that there was no officer superior to that order; for he repeatedly asserts, that the Apostles held the first rank in the Church, and that St. James was the fixed Bishop of Jerusalem. Jerome, then, could only mean to assert, that no argument could be founded upon the use of the word Bishop, in favour of episcopal pre-eminence, in the original constitution of the Church; for even after episcopacy was established, in consequence of the schism at Corinth, the words Bishop and Presbyter were indifferently applied to the same order. Jerome evidently intended to lower the Bishop, and raise the Presbyter; it matters not from what motive. This he endeavours to do by asserting that, at first, the Churches were not generally governed by fixed Bishops, but by a common council of Presbyters, and that the change took place in consequence of the schism at Corinth. All this, to be sure, is very inconclusive reasoning; nay, very weak, if you please; for whenever, or for whatever purpose, episcopacy was instituted by the Apostles, it was an apostolic institution. Confine Jerome's meaning to this simple assertion, that the Churches were generally, before the schism at Corinth, governed by the common council of Presbyters, subject, however, in the last resort, to the jurisdiction of the Apostles, and you preserve him from inconsistency; but if you extend his meaning beyond the lives of the Apostles, you make him inconsistent; and, consequently, he is no authority on either side of the question.

5. Jerome does not say, that the Bishop elected by the Presbyters at Alexandria was not ordained; or that he was ordained by the Presbyters; and, therefore, no one has a right to assert either for him. Nay, it appears from Jerome's epistle to Evagrius, that he was particularly careful to exclude Presbyters from ordaining; and it has been shown, that if you confine his meaning to his own time, you make the whole passage inconsistent with good sense and good grammar.

And, lastly, Eutychius, who lived in the tenth century, and quotes no authorities for his assertion, that the Presbyters ordained their Bishop, is an author entitled to no credit in matters which happened so long before his time; and he contradicts authors as early, and some of them earlier than himself, and who have a much better claim to confidence.

VOL. I.-2

I shall now conclude all I have to say on the subject of Jerome's testimonies, in the strong language of Doctor Hobart :-"Had the opinion of Jerome been direct and positive-had he asserted in the most explicit terms, that episcopacy was a human invention, no candid Presbyterian should urge his testimony. He lived at too distant a period from the apostolic age. He was biassed by personal feelings and prejudices. It is incredible that so important and extraordinary a change, as that from presbytery to episcopacy, should have universally taken place in the Church, without the most full and positive testimony concerning it. It would not have been left to the single testimony of a father, who wrote at the close of the fourth century.

"The opponents of episcopacy gain nothing by relying on Jerome. They lose much. They admit the weakness of their cause, by resting on the judgment of a father who lived so late as the fourth century, and who cannot be considered as a credible witness or an impartial reasoner," even if his judgment was, upon a fair and candid investigation, in their favour. " They 1 admit that long before his time, (for he gives not the most distant hint of its being a recent event,) the supremacy of Bishops was established. They concede to episcopacy the venerable sanction of primitive and universal usage. They bring on themselves the burden of proving how episcopacy could have universally prevailed within a few years of the apostolic age, if it had not been sanctioned by apostolic authority. But, most mortifying circumstance, they cast a blot as foul as midnight on their darling presbytery; they pass the highest encomium on this hated prelacy. In relying on Jerome, they admit that presbytery proved incompetent to preserving the unity of the Church; that so lamentable were its defects and inconveniences, that the primitive Christians were obliged to throw it off, and to seek repose for their distracted Church, so long tossed on the tempestuous billows of presbytery, in the peaceful haven of episcopacy. Yes, as Dr. Maurice shrewdly and keenly remarks, if the presbyterian parity had any place in the primitive times, as some do imagine, it must needs have been an intolerable kind of government, since all on a sudden it was universally abolished. It must have given strange occasion of offence, when all the Christian Churches in the world should conspire to abrogate this polity, and to destroy all the memory and footsteps of it."

z Vindication of the Government of the primitive Church, in answer to Baxter, 363. 369.

LETTER II.

REV. SIR:

THE next author whom you bring to your aid is Hilary, the Roman Deacon, who is generally supposed to be the commentator under the name of Ambrose. You quote his Commentary on Ephes. iv. 2. "After that churches were planted in all places, and officers ordained, matters were settled otherwise than they were in the beginning." That might very well be, and yet nothing essential in the Church have been altered. Points of expediency must necessarily be regulated by circumstances, and it is a puritanical notion to maintain the contrary. But Hilary does not say that there was any difference made in the ecclesiastical orders; that is, that out of two, three were made. He gives no hint of that sort. You go on: 66 Hence it is, that the Apostles' writings do not in all things agree to the present constitution of the Church; because they were written under the first rise of the Church.” As for instance, he might have said, We have now no Deaconesses, no love feasts, no kiss of charity, no community of goods. And we have some customs which did not exist at first. Our baptized appear in white garments, which are emblematical of innocence; our clergy wear robes of distinction; our churches are grand and highly ornamented; and several other things which might be mentioned. But, Sir, what has all this to do with the essential orders of the ministry? Nothing at all. Hilary proceeds: "For he [the Apostle] calls Timothy, who was created a Presbyter by him, a Bishop, for so at first the Presbyters were called, among whom this was the course of governing Churches; that as one withdrew, another took his place." And do not all Episcopalians acknowledge this community of names? Do we hesitate to acknowledge it? You know that we do not. If you could prove that there was no order in the Church superior to that of Presbyters or Bishops, you would then do something for your cause; but this neither has, nor can be proved. Hilary seems to intimate, (yet very obscurely,) that when the Bishop died, the next in order took his place. Of that, there is not the least hint in the Scriptures, nor in any ancient writer, so far as I know. Jerome directly contradicts that notion, with respect to the Church of Alexandria; and I commit myself to prove, when called upon, that it is totally groundless. But now comes the fatal blow to the cause of episcopacy. "In Egypt, even at this day, the Presbyters ordain in the Bishop

absence." Here, Sir, you should have quoted the Latin, and then those who are acquainted with that language, would not so easily be led into an error. The Latin is consignant. This word is generally used, metonymically, for baptism or confirmation; because, in these rites, the person baptized or confirmed was anointed in the form of a cross. Some have supposed, (Bishop Taylor for one,) that the passage is corrupted, and that the word ought to be consecrant. The Bishop also observes, as a further ground of suspicion, that St. Austin, speaking of the dignity of Presbyters, says, In Alexandria, et per totum Egyptum, si desit Episcopus, consecrat Presbyter; that is, consecrates the Eucharist; but never in the Bishop's presence. But let this emendation be correct or not, it is certain that you have very unwarrantably translated consignant by the word ordain. By consulting Suicer's Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus, I find that my assertion, with respect to consigno, which answers to the Greek word Σopayiw, is correct. It was generally used to signify baptism or confirmation, most commonly baptism. But Suicer quotes a passage from Dionysius the Areopagite, from which it appears, that in his day, the sign of the cross was sometimes used at ordination. It is, I believe, universally acknowledged by the learned, that the writings ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite, were the production of another Dionysius, who lived in the fourth century, according to Pearson and Hammond, or, according to Daille, in the fifth. But this is of no consequence. The Latin translation is as follows; the Greek you will find in Suicer, vol. I. p. 1198, 1199, Unicuique autem eorum signum crucis a consecrante Episcopo imprimitur. "But upon every one of those [ordained] the sign of the cross is impressed by the consecrating Bishop." Now, Sir, I appeal to your ingenuousness, whether a solitary instance, (or, if you please, a few instances,) in which the Greek and Latin words signify metonymically, ordain, will authorize you to translate consignant as you have done; when you must certainly know, that the word used by the Latins, generally, if not universally, is ordino? Hammond observes, that Blondel and Salmasius, with all their diligence, were not able to produce a single instance, in which consigno signifies ordain. Perhaps you will say, that the sense of consigno must be determined by the subject on which the author was treating; and that Ambrose, in the passage quoted, seems to be speaking of ordination. I answer no: he is not speaking of ordination. His words are, Scripta Apostoli non per omnia conveniunt ordinationi, quæ nunc in Ecclesia est. "The writings of the Apostle do not, in all things, agree to the order which is now in the Church." He then mentions one exception to the apostolic order, viz: "In the Church of Alexandria, when the Bishop is absent, the Presbyters consign;" that is, if you will insist upon the word consignant, confirm; but it is

a HAMMOND, yol. II. p. 62.

b

much more probable that the word ought to be consecrant, because we have no other testimony, that. in Egypt, a Presbyter confirmed when the Bishop was absent; and it is surprising to me, Sir, that when Blondel and Salmasius, as quoted by Dr. Hammond, are so uncertain upon this point, that you should speak in such a positive, decisive manner. Salmasius concedes, that consignant in the one author, should be interpreted by consecrant in the other; and Blondel acknowledges, that the former word may signify either confirmation, ordination, or the benediction of penitents.

But, Sir, were I to admit your interpretation, it would directly militate against your cause. For, as Ambrose says, (according to your sense of the word,) that Presbyters ordain at Alexandria in the absence of the Bishop, and mentions this as one instance in proof of his assertion, that the order of the Church was not in his day as in the time of St. Paul, it follows, that ordination by Presbyters at Alexandria, when the Bishop was absent, was a novelty, and contrary to apostolic practice; and, therefore, a most wretched support to Presbyterian ordination.

It is, Sir, a circumstance that ought to excite in the minds of your intelligent readers, a pretty strong suspicion that all is not right, when they see you quoting passages, which, when fairly interpreted, make nothing for your purpose, and omitting to produce quotations from the same authors, which unequivocally establish the apostolic institution of episcopacy. Thus, you do not exhibit the following pointed testimonies from Hilary. "The Bishop is the chief; though every Bishop is a Presbyter, yet every Presbyter is not a Bishop." He declares that "James was constituted Bishop of Jerusalem by the Apostles, and that the Apostles were Bishops."a He affirms that "Timothy and Titus, and the angels of the Asiatic Churches were Bishops"-Bishops in the appropriate sense of the word. He says, “In the Bishop all orders are contained, because he is the prince or chief of the priests."f He affirms that "the Bishop is the vicegerent of CHRIST, and represents his person;" and that "he decreed every Church should be governed by one Bishop, even as all things proceed from one GOD, the Father." And in several other places, this author affirms, "that in a Church there were several Presbyters and Deacons, but never more than one Bishop, even in the Apostles' times," He also says, that the angels in the

́b HAMMOND, Vol. II. p. 62, chap. 8.

c Sed episcopus primus est; ut omnis episcopus presbyter sit, non tamen omnis presbyter episcopus. Comm. 1 Tim. iii.

d Jacobum vidit Hierosolymæ quia illic erat constitutus ab apostolis episcopus. Comm. i. 19. Caput in ecclesia apostolorum posuit-ipsi sunt episcopi. Comm. Cor. 1 xii. 28.

e Hunc jam creatum episcopum instruit per epistolam. Præfat. in Ep. i. ad Tim. Titum apostolus consecravit episcopum. Præfat. in Ep. ad Tit. Angelos episcopos dicit sicut docetur in Apocalypsi Johannis. Comm. 1 Cor. xi. 10.

f In episcopo omnes ordines sunt, quia primus sacerdos, est, hoc est princeps sacerdotum, &c. Comm. 1 Eph. iv. 11.