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

current of fact and of opinion for fifteen hundred years after Christ, is in their favour; that we "can "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, to "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 viewed 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 Apology, 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.

have been episcopal from the beginning. A presbyter of the same church, of equal talent, learning, and application, is sworn, and deposes that he too has examined the records, and finds that, at the beginning, these Christian ministers were of equal rank; but that by degrees inequality crept in; and that the bishops have no pre-eminence but what the custom of the church has given them. In general character, for integrity, the witnesses are equal. They flatly contradict each other. Who, now, is the most credible witness? The presbyter runs the hazard of almost every thing in life by his testimony. The testimony of my lord of Durham goes to protect his own dignity in the church; his seat in the house of peers; and a revenue of £20,000 sterling, per annum. A child can decide who is most worthy of credit. Nearly such is the difference between the witnesses for Episcopacy, and JEROME, the witness for presbytery.

But we waive our advantage. We shall lay no stress upon JEROME's opinion. We shall cut off from his deposition every thing but what came within his personal observation. "The presbyters," says he,

know that they are subject to their bishop, by the custom of the church." His testimony embraces a fact in existence and obvious at the time of deposition; viz. the knowledge which the presbyters of his. day had of their being subject to their bishops, solely by the custom of the church, and not by Christ's appointment. This assertion is correct, or it is not. If it is not, then JEROME appealed to all the world for the truth of what he knew, and every body else knew, was an absurd lie. No brass on the face of impudence, inferiour to that of the Duc de Cadore, is brazen enough for this. On the other hand, if the assertion be correct, how is this knowledge "of the presbyters" to be explained? Where did they get it? From

one of two sources. Either there must have been such a previous discussion of the subject, as ended in establishing a general conviction in the minds of the Christian clergy, that prelacy is a human invention; or which is more probable, the remnants and the recollection of the primitive order still subsisted in considerable vigour, notwithstanding the rapid growth of the hierarchy since the accession of Constantine.

It is inconceivable how JEROME should tell the bishops to their faces, that Christ never gave them any superiority over the presbyters; that custom was their only title; and that the presbyters were perfectly aware of this; unless he was supported by facts which they were unable to contradict. Their silence under his challenges, is more than a presumption that they found it wise to let him alone. It amounts to little short of absolute proof, that there was yet such a mass of information concerning their rise, and so much of unsubdued spirit in the church, as rendered it dangerous to commit their claim to the issue of free inquiry. JEROME, with the register of antiquity in his hand, and the train of presbyters at his back, was too potent an adversary. They could have crushed the man; but they trembled at the truth; and so they sat quietly down, leaving to time and habit, the confirmation of an authority which they did not, as yet, venture to derive from the word of God.

In the next age, when JEROME was dead; the presbyters cowed; and the usurpation of the prelates further removed from the reach of a reforming hand; EPIPHANIUS did, it is true, bluster at no ordinary rate against the "heretic" AERIUS; for what reason we shall shortly see. But it is very remarkable, that in the fourth century, when the pretensions of the prelates were pretty openly canvassed, they spoke Vol. III.-No. VII.

3 E