66

66

readers by producing examples of the armies of those ages choosing their general, and remitting him to a higher authority for his commission. But how came the Detector to alter Jerome's phrase from "making" to "choosing" a general? We always thought, that making and commissioning an officer, are the same thing. Further, how came the Detector to render Jerome's " imperator" by "general?" Almost all the world, (for the Detector seems to be an exception,) knows that Imperator," in Jerome's day, signified not "general,” but “ Emperor ;" and was the highest official title of the Roman monarchs. It is further known, that the army had, on more occasions than one, made an emperor; and that this was all the commission he had. "You inquire," says Jerome," how the bishops were at first appointed. Suppose the deacons should get together and elect one of their number to preside over the rest, with the title of Arch-deacon; or suppose the army should elevate a person whom they thought fit, to the Imperial throne; just so, by their own authority and election, did the Presbyters make the first Bishops."And yet Dr. H. can find, in this very testimony, a salvo for Episcopal ordination.-His powers of detection are very uncommon;

For optics sharp he needs, I ween,

Who sees what is not to be seen!

7. JEROME states it, as a historical fact, that even in his own day, that is, toward the end of the

fourth century, there was no power, excepting ordination, exercised by a Bishop, which might not be exercised by a Presbyter. "What does a Bishop," he asks, "excepting ordination, which a Presbyter may not do ?”

Two observations force themselves upon us.

1st. Jerome challenges the whole world, to show in what prerogative a Presbyter was, at that time, inferiour to a Bishop, excepting the single power of ordination. A challenge which common sense would have repressed, had public opinion concerning the rights of Presbyters, allowed it to be successfully met.

2d. Although it appears from Jerome himself, that the prelates were not then in the habit of associating the Presbyters with themselves, in an equal right of government, yet, as he told the former, to their faces, that the right was undeniable, and ought to be respected by them, it presents us with a strong fact in the progress of Episcopal domination. Here was a power in Presbyters, which, though undisputed, lay, for the most part, dor

mant.

The transition from disuse, to denial, and from denial to extinction of powers which the possessors have not vigilance, integrity, or spirit to enforce, is natural, short, and rapid. According to Jerome's declaration, the hierarchy did not pretend to the exclusive right of government. Therefore, there was but half a hierarchy, according to the present system. That the Bishops had, some

time after, the powers of ordination and government both, is clear. How did they acquire the monopoly? By apostolic institution? No. Jerome refutes that opinion from the scriptures and history. By apostolical tradition? No. For in the latter part of the fourth century, their single prerogative over Presbyters was the power of ordination. Government was at first exercised by the Presbyters in common. When they had, by their own act, placed a superiour over their own heads, they rewarded his distinction, his toils, and his perils, with a proportionate reverence; they grew slack about the maintenance of troublesome privilege; till at length, their courtesy, their indolence, their love of peace, or their hope of promotion, permitted their high and venerable trust to glide into the hands of their prelates. We have no doubt that the course of the ordaining power was similar, though swifter.

Nothing can be more pointless and pithless than the declamation of Cyprian, the Layman, and their Bishop, on the change which took place in the original order of the church. They assume a false fact, to wit, that the change must have happened, if it happened at all, instantaneously: and then they expatiate, with great vehemence, on the impossibility of such an event. This is mere noise. The change was not instantaneous, nor sudden. The testimony of Jerome, which declares that it was gradual, has sprung a mine under the very

foundation of their edifice, and blown it into the air. Were we inclined to take up more of the reader's time on this topic, we might turn their own weapon, such as it is, against themselves. They do not pretend that Archbishops, Patriarchs, and Primates, are of Apostolical institution. They will not so insult the understanding and the senses of men, as to maintain that these officers have no more power than simple Bishops. Where, then, were all the principles of adherence to Aposlic order when these creatures of human policy made their entrance into the church? Among whom were the daring innovators to be found? Where was the learning of the age? ? Where its spirit of piety, and its zeal of martyrdom? Where were the Presbyters? Where the Bishops? What! all, all turned traitors at once? All, all conspire to abridge their own rights, and submit their necks to new-made superiours? What! none to reclaim or remonstrate? Absurd! Incredible! Impossible! These questions, and a thousand like them, might be asked by an advocate for the divine right of Patriarchs, with as much propriety and force as they are asked by advocates of the simpler Episcopacy. And so, by vociferating on abstract principles, the evidence of men's eyes and ears is to be overturned, and they are to believe that there are not now, and never have been, such things as Archbishops, Patriarchs, or Primates in the Christianized world; Vol. III. 31

seeing that by the assumption of the argument, they have no divine original; and by its terms, they could not have been introduced by mere human contrivance.

To return to Jerome. The Prelatists being unable to evade his testimony concerning the change which was effected in the original order of the church, would persuade us that he means a change brought about by the authority of the Apostles themselves.* But the subterfuge is unavailing. For,

(1.) It alleges a conjectural tradition against the authority of the written scriptures. For no trace of a change can be seen there.

(2.) It overthrows completely all the proof drawn for the hierarchy from the Apostolic records. For, if this change was introduced by the Apostles. after their canonical writings were closed, then it is vain to seek for it in those writings. The consequence is, that the Hierarchists must either retreat from the New Testament, or abandon Jerome.

(3.) It makes the intelligent father a downright fool-to plead Apostolic authority for the original equality of ministers; and in the same breath to produce that same authority for the inequality which he was resisting!

(4.) To crown the whole, it tells us that the apostles having fixed, under the influence of divine inspiration, an order for the church; found, upon a few years' trial, that it would not do, and were

* HOBART'S Apology, p. 174, &c.