366 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[No. 106. 



such cities where parlicular churches were planted, or, 

 as one spealceth, in toto orbe, ' throughout the world.' " 



This passflge will be found at p. 136. of the 

 edition in the Anglo- Catholic Library, and at the 

 foot of the page is the reference given by the 

 Couvocation to the words "«n toto orbe." 



"Jerome in Ep. ad Tit. cap. i. [See note O.] " 



The words within brackets direct us to one of 

 the notes which the editor has added at the end 

 of the volume; where, at p. 281., the following is 

 found : 



"Note O., p. 136. 



" Jerome in Ep. ad Tit. c. i. [The editor has failed 

 in discovering the passage here alluded to, although 

 the Benedictine and several earlier editions have been 

 consulted.]" 



AVithout waiting for an opportunity of referring 

 to the Benedictine, or any of the earlier editions, to 

 which the writer has not access at the present 

 moment, it is sufficient to observe, that the pas- 

 sage in question occurs in St. Jerome's Commen- 

 tary on the Epistle to Titus, and may be found in 

 Vallarsius's edition, torn. vii. col. 694. 



One would be glad to content oneself with this 

 note, but the interests of literature and theology 

 demand something more ; and if the anonynious 

 editor should feel pained by the following remarks, 

 the writer can only say that he has not the slight- 

 est suspicion who the editor of this volume is, and 

 that it is to the Committee (most especially in 

 such a case as this, where they have allowed the 

 editor to withhold his name,) the Subscribers — 

 not to say the Church of England — will look for 

 such a work being brought out in a proper 

 manner. 



To confess that a passage, which the Convoca- 

 tion of 1603 have referred to in this otl-hand 

 manner, is not to be found in the works of Jerome, 

 is strange enough : but the confession assumes a 

 new character, as regards both the editor and the 

 Committee, when one reflects for an instant on 

 the particular passage which the editor thus can- 

 didly informs us, he " has foiled in discovering." 



]t is not at all too much to say, that no one 

 could be even moderately acquainted with the 

 Presbyterian controversy, and the arguments in 

 defence of Episcopacy, without being so familiar 

 with this passage as to recognise it at first sight. 

 It is, indeed, one of the chief testimonies which 

 the Presbyterians urged in proof of the antiquity 

 of their discipline, — as Bishop Pearson says : 

 "Locus Hieronymi, quern pro fundo habent novr. - 

 tores;" and, as such, it has been discussed by 

 almost every divine of eminence, who has under- 

 taken to defend the constitution of the English 

 church. 



To multiply references is needless. But, with- 

 out attempting to exhaust even the resources of 

 a small and very incomplete pi-ivate collection, it 



will suffice to say, that Henry Dodwell has ex- 

 amined it in his additions to Pearson. {De Success, 

 prim. RomcB Episcop., Diss. I. cap. ix.) Bishop 

 Bilson discusses it, and refers to it again and 

 again {Perpetual Government of Christ's Church, 

 ""Epistle to the Reader," p. 5. ; ch. xi. pp.217.268.; 

 eh. xii. pp. 284. 289. 307. ; edit. Oxlbrd, 1842). 

 Hooker quotes and explains it (book vii. ch. v. 

 7.; vol. iii. p. 162. ; Oxford, 1845). It is the 

 subject of an entire section of Jeremy Taylor's 

 Episcopacy asserted (sect. xxi.). And, to enume- 

 rate no more, it is fully discussed by Archbishop 

 Potter, in his Discourse on Church Government 

 (chap. iv.). 



These facts will, it is trusted, exempt the writer 

 from the charge of minute and carping criticism. 

 Tiie Convocation of 1603, indeed, niei-ely allude 

 to the passage as one with which every English 

 divine would be familiar; and most unquestion- 

 ably no one could have been a stranger to it, who 

 was acquainted with the subject which the Con- 

 vocation were discussing. 



It is surely then but reasonable to feel sur- 

 prised, that a document so important, and drawn 

 up by men of such eminence, should have been 

 confided to an editor who had never heard of the 

 passage, and knew not where to find it : in a 

 word, to an editor, who, by his own acknowledg- 

 ment (and his candour is deserving of respect), is 

 a stranger to one of the principal subjects of the 

 volume he was employed to edit. 



The Committee of the Anglo- Catholic Library 

 are not persons who require to be informed, that 

 something more is demanded in an editor, than 

 industry in hunting out references, and transcrib- 

 ing scraps of Latin. Nor could this passage have 

 presented an instant's difficulty to some whose 

 names iiave stood on the list of the Committee 

 from the commencement of the undertaking. But 

 this is the very thing which the Subscribers have 

 a right to complain of. They expected that the 

 editors employed should have the benefit of co- 

 operation and consultation with the Committee. 

 They had a right to expect this. The Subscribers 

 cannot be expected to feel satisfied with the unre- 

 vised performance of an anonymous editor. They 

 had a right to expect, in the first place, that the 

 Committee would not engage any one to edit a 

 book until they had ascertained whether he was 

 acquainted with the subject of which it treated. 

 They had a right to expect also, that the Com- 

 mittee would exercise such a real and bona fide 

 superintendence and control as should have pre- 

 vented the possibility of any work, issued with 

 the sanction of their names, containing ,i confes- 

 sion so stranoje and so humiliating, and manifesting 

 a degree of editorial incompetency so disappomt- 

 ing to the Subscribers, and so discreditable to the 

 literary and theological character of the country. 



The names of the jjentlemen of the Committee 



