eeptions, are prohibited from cultivating the powers which they possess. Remote from literary society; without libraries; without leisure to use what books they have; distracted with anxiety for their immediate subsistence; doomed to the plough or some other secular business, to keep themselves fed and clothed, their intellect becomes enfeebled; their acquisions are dissipated; their ministry grows barren; their people indifferent; and the solid interests of Christianity are gradually, but effectually, undermined. Let the churches be warned. They have. long slept on the edge of a precipice; the ground is caving in below them; and still they are not aware. Not a place of any importance is to be filled without the utmost difficulty. The search must be made from Dan to Beersheeba; often, very often, unsuccessfully; and when successful it is only enriching one church by the robbery of another. The population of our country is increasing with unexampled rapidity; very incompetent means are used to furnish an efficient ministry; and the people themselves are throwing the most fatal discouragement in the way. All denominations seem to be engaged in a practical conspiracy to starve Christianity out of the land. Let them tremble at their deeds; let their loins be loosed, and their knees smite together, at the bare possibility that they MAY SUCCEED.

But it is not the people only who are in fault; for,

(2.) Much of the guilt of decayed Christianity lies at the doors of the ministers and judicatories of 'the church.

It is not arguing for the divine right of a stated ministry; it is not bragging about the excellence of our church;" it is not lamenting over the supineness of the public, that will cure the evil. It is the procuring a ministry which shall render attendance upon

their ministrations the interest of both the understanding and the heart. Without this, every effort is vain: and this belongs to Christian judicatories. Let the world see and feel that there is an immense superiority of the regular over an irregular ministry, and there will be no more lay-preaching; nor so much difficulty in getting a decent support. But it cannot be concealed, that little as congregations give, they often give to the uttermost farthing, "for value received." The mischief is, that the rule of abridgment becomes general, and the "workman who needeth not to be ashamed," must share the fate of him who is no workman at all. Ministers have themselves to blame for much of this evil. They have lowered the standard of ministerial qualifications. They usher into their high office men who have neither head nor hands for any thing else. The apostolic directions, (in 1 Tim. 3.) are almost totally disregarded. Instead of "laying their hands suddenly on no man," they have been too much in the habit of laying hands upon every one they can

find-novice or no novice-fit to teach or unfit-able to govern or unable; all are accepted-nothing, or next to nothing, is refused. An absurd tender. ness; a fear of hurting the feelings of a young man or of his friends; an infatuated haste to meet "the wants of the churches;" has poured forth a stream of ignorance and incapacity, which now threatens to sweep away the harvest it was designed to water. In the degradation of the pulpit; in the butchery of the scriptures; in the defaced beauty, and tottering pillars of the Christian fabric, is to be seen the reward of timid indulgence and chimerical hope. If the mi. nistry, as a public order, is to regain its credit, its own mismanagement must be radically cured.

REVIEW.

ART. II.

A Collection of Essays on the subject of Episcopacy, which originally appeared in the Albany Centinel, and which are ascribed principally to the Rev. Dr. Linn, the Rev. Mr. Beasley, and Thomas Y. How, Esq. New-York, T. & J. Swords, 1806. pp. 210.

(Continued from Vol. II. p. 358.)

THE advocates of Episcopacy assert that the whole

can

current of fact and of opinion for fifteen hundred years after Christ, is in their favour; that we "produce no record of a change," in the government of the church, "but are obliged to imagine one in "opposition to the uniform testimony of the primi"tive fathers."

We have met them on this ground; and have "produced" the "testimony" of one of the " primitive fathers," directly against the divine original of the hierarchy. This was JEROME, the most learned, able, and distinguished of them all. He tells us, in so many words, not only that the episcopal pre-eminence is without divine authority; but that this was a fact which could not, with any show of reason, be disputed; as being a fact well ascertained and understood. "The Presbyters," says he, "know, that "they are subjected by the custom of the church, tọ "him who is set over them*.”

To elude the force of Jerome's deposition, it is alleged, among other things, that his opinion is of no

Chris. Mag. Vol. II. p. 343.

weight unsupported by facts; and that his testimony, in the fourth century, concerning facts in the first and second centuries, that is, two or three hundred years before he was born, is no better than an opinion; and so he is excluded from the number of competent witnesses*.

By this rule some other witnesses who have been summoned by our Episcopal brethren, must be cast without a hearing. Eusebius, Chrysostom, Augustin, Theodoret, Epiphanius, must all be silenced. It is even hard to see how a single man could be left, in the whole catalogue of the Fathers, as competent to certify any fact of which he was not an eye-witness. To say that they derived their information of times past from credible tradition, or authentic records, is indeed to over-rule the principle of the objection. But when this door is opened to admit the others, you cannot prevent JEROME from walking in. We will allow that EUSEBIUS had access to "all the necessary records of the churches." But had JEROME no records to consult? Was "the most learned of "all the Christians," as ERASMUS calls him, with CAVE's approbation, in the habit of asserting historical facts without proof? If he was, let our opponents show it. If he was not, as his high reputation for learning is a pledge, then his testimony is to be view ed as a summary of inductive evidence reaching back to the days of the Apostles. In his estimation, the facts of the original parity of ministers, and of the subsequent elevation of prelates by the custom of the church, were so undeniable, that he did not think it worth his while to name a document. The conduct of this great man was different from that of some very confident writers whom we could mention. He sifted his authorities, and then brought forward his

* CYPRIAN, NO. VII. Essays, p. 167. HOBART's Apoiogy, p. 171-178.

facts without any specific reference, instead of making stiff assertions upon the credit of authors, whom he never read, nor even consulted.

JEROME, we contend, is not only as good a witness in the case before us, as EUSEBIUS or any other father, but that he is a far better and more unexceptionable witness than either that renowned historian, or any other prelate or friend of prelates. Whatever Eusebius, Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Theodoret, &c. testify in favour of episcopacy, must be received with this very important qualification, that they were themselves bishops; and were testifying in favour of their own titles, emolument, grandeur, and power. They had a very deep interest at stake. An interest sufficient, if not to shake their credibility on this point, yet greatly to reduce its value. On the contrary, JEROME had nothing to gain, but much to lose. He put his interest and his peace in jeopardy. He had to encounter the hostility of the episcopal order, and of all who aspired to its honours. He had to resist the growing encroachments of corruption, and that under the formidable protection of a civil establishment. He had, therefore, every possible inducement to be sure of his facts before he attacked a set of dignitaries who were not, in his age, the most forbearing of mankind*. The conclusion is, that JEROME, as we said, is a more unexceptionable witness than any prelate. To illustrate-let us suppose a tribunal erected in England to try this question, Is Episcopacy of divine institution? that no witnesses can be procured but such as were brought up in the church itself; and that the judges were obliged to depend upon their report of facts. The bishop of Durham is sworn, and deposes that he has examined the records of the church, and finds her to

* MOSHEIM, Vol. I. p. 356.