Seer pees
15
SSS
aed “ἢ
Nt
f
ae
CERARY OF PRINCES
BL 635.H8 MS 1835
Mills, James Bassnett
A history of the Christian priesthood
᾿
᾿ ; μιν. iy rea at aa Ai, | ΣΝ
va? =
‘ Φ
A HISTORY
OF THE
CHRISTIAN PRIESTHOOD,
IN REPLY TO HOWITT’S « POPULAR HISTORY OF PRIESTCRAFT;” BEING AN ATTEMPT TO PROVE Au Cpiscopal Hierarchy ESSENTIAL TO
THE VALID RATIFICATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE CHRISTIAN COVENANT.
BY THE REV. JAMES BASSNETT MILLS, B.A.
CURATE OF OLDLAND AND HANHAM EPISCOPAL CHAPELS, BITTON, NEAR BRISTOL; AND FORMERLY OF QUEEN’S COLLEGE, OXFORD.
‘‘ go disputationes non amo, et cuperem homines in agendo, non in rixando occupari. Sed postquam a curiosis hominibus invecte sunt opiniones non solum fals#, sed etiam perniciose, refellendz videntur, ne errent homines periculo suz salutis.’’
—Castellio.
‘QO magna vis Veritatis! que contra hominum ingenia, calliditatem, solertiam facile se per se ipsa defendat.’”’—Cicero, I. de Legibus, 4.
OXFORD:
PUBLISHED BY J. VINCENT; RIVINGTONS, LONDON ; AND HICKLIN, NOTTINGHAM.
1835.
TO THE
VENERABLE EDWARD BERENS, M.A.
ARCHDEACON OF BERKS, &C,
Rev. 518,
Resrecr for the noiseless yet untiring zeal, with which, for so many years, you have adorned and illustrated the doctrines which you teach, and admiration of an example, the value of which can only be adequately appreciated by those who, like myself, have lived in your more immediate neighbourhood, induce me to dedicate to you my ‘ History of the Christian Priesthood.’
The reading world has, long since, passed a favourable opinion on your more public labours. in the cause of Sacred Literature and Church
Reform. I am, Rev. Sir, With much respect,
Your faithful Servant,
JAMES BASSNETT MILLS.
BITTON, NEAR BRISTOL: Oct. 26, 1835.
“It is to be hoped that Mr. Mills’s ‘ History of the Christian Priesthood’ will be read by all persons who are anxious for the maintenance of Christianity, and the support of that Establishment, by which, as a means in the hands of Providence, it is more especially upheld, The great merit of this work consists in its advancing no principle, which cannot be supported by competent and irrefragable authority, and in producing at once and at length the authorities themselves. The arguments deduced from the principles laid down, are logical and precise ; and although on one or two occasions the zeal of the writer carries him somewhat beyond what many persons may be inclined to concede, he is, with a very trifling exception, calm, temperate, argumentative, and eloquent. The work is so full of important testimony in support of the cause it advocates, that innumerable passages might be extracted in the columns of a public journal, without full justice being done to the Author.” Times, Dec. 31, 1835.
“This is a very able and admirable publication. A more triumphant and learned refutation of the ignorant and malevolent attacks which have been levelled against our venerable Church we have never read; and we trust that the well directed labours of the Author will be rewarded by an extensive support from all who value our Institutions, or the sacred cause of truth.” Nottingham Journal.
«« Mr. Mills has exposed Mr. Howitt’s extraordinary tissue of baseless assertions and malicious inventions, with clearness, diligence, and ability, and has drawn together a very large mass of useful information.” British Magazine.
PREFACE.
‘ Vox Poputt’ is not always ‘ Vox Dei.’ In all ages the untaught have been easily moved by the clamours of artful men; in our own age, the ill- taught are incited with equal ease, and their de- mands are more dangerous. Hence the rage for innovation, which is the vice of the present time, as persecution was of the past. Superficial know- ledge produces doubt, distrust, and conjecture; and doubt, distrust, and conjecture, produce an eager desire for change. The ill-taught find it easier to pull down than to build up,—to destroy than to restore. They trample under foot, in all the pride of purblind ignorance, institutions “ rich with the spoils of time.”
This disposition is to be attributed partly, per- haps, to that unsettlement which is inevitable whilst the mind is in a state of transition from darkness to comparative light, but principally to a radical defect in the present method of education, I
vi PREFACE.
mean the education (so called) of the people. Such an education (I must continue to use the word, for want of a better,) is an evil, under the semblance of a good; it attempts to uproot ignorance without seeking to implant virtue; it contains no moral ; neither does it instruct men in the right government of their passions and prejudices; it furnishes them with no great and governing views in life; it adds to the power of doing evil, without enlarging the conception for doing good; it does not teach re- flection and examination to precede action; and it involves a seeming paradox—an increase of intel- lectual light, accompanied by a corresponding in- crease of moral darkness. Such an education contains within itself the elements of social dis- organization.
Agesilaus, the Spartan king, when asked “ What that was in which youth ought principally to be instructed,” returned this very just and sensible answer :—* In that which they will have most need to practise when they are men ;” and Marcus Anto- ninus somewhere observes :—‘‘ The highest learning is to be wise, and the greatest wisdom is to be good.” That the education given to the mass of the people does not effect the end contemplated by these heathens, is more than sufficiently apparent, even to the mere superficial observer. I shall not, however, enlarge upon the subject here, as this
PREFACE. vii
is obviously not the place either to trace the failure to its source, or to point out a remedy. Amongst the various institutions which the rage for indiscriminate innovation has selected for attack, the Established Church of this country stands pro- minently forward; and as the desire for such innovation is seldom or never combined with habits of reflection and examination, the great majority of readers eagerly adopt, at second hand, the opinions and ew parte prejudices of any writer who may espouse the popular side of the question. One proof, amongst many which may be brought in support of this axiom, is the fact that Mr. Howitt’s Popular History of Priestcraft has passed through three editions in the course of twelve months, and is quoted as a text-book by the enemies of our Establishment. And yet, perhaps, no book ever issued from the press containing a greater number of mistatements, a more glaring perversion of facts, more abundant proofs of ignorance, or a greater mass of falsehoods. Nevertheless, the vast majority of those who have so eagerly read the Attack will never think of looking at the Defence; and, in all probability, the remarks which I have thrown to- gether in the following pages will be scarcely heard of beyond the narrow circle of those who wish to inform themselves on both sides of a question be-
fore they pronounce an opinion on its merits. If,
Vill PREFACE,
however, only one of the inquirers after truth who may condescend to read this little book, should have his mind disabused, and his judgment con- vinced, by the arguments herein contained, I shall be more than repaid for the degree of trouble and research which this Reply has cost me.
The cause is strong, though the advocate is weak, and therefore I commit this volume to the candid consideration of dispassionate readers, not without consciousness, indeed, that many imperfections may be discovered, but confident that no attempt at wilful deception has been practised.
The work has been somewhat hastily written in the brief intervals of leisure permitted to me by arduous professional duty, and would have been published some months ago but for circumstances which unavoidably prevented my superintending its progress through the press.
A TRUE HISTORY
OF
THE CHRISTIAN PRIESTHOOD,
IN ALL
AGES AND NATIONS, &c.
ΘΈΑ...
*‘ CerTAINLY there be that delight in giddiness, and count it a bondage to fix a belief, affecting free- will in thinking, as well as in acting; and, though the sects of philosophers of that kind be gone, yet there remain certain discoursing wits, which are of the same veins, though there be not so much blood in them as those of the ancients. But it is not only the difficulty and labour which men take in finding out of truth; nor, again, that when it is found, it imposeth upon men’s thoughts that doth bring lies in favour; but a natural, though corrupt love of the lie itself. A mixture of a lie doth ever add pleasure. Doth any man doubt that if there were taken out of men’s minds vain opinions, flattering hopes, false valuations, imaginations as one would, and the like, but it would leave the minds of a number of men, poor shrunken things,
B
2 History of the Christian Priesthood.
full of melancholy indisposition, and unpleasing to themselves? One of the fathers, in great severity, called poesy, ‘ venum daemonum,’ because it filleth the imagination, and yet it is but with the shadow of a lie. But it is not the lie that passeth through the mind, but the lie that sinketh in, and settleth in it, that doth the hurt, such as we spake of before. But, however these things are thus in men’s depraved judgments and affections, yet truth, which only doth judge itself, teacheth that the inquiry of truth, which is the love making or wooing of it, —the knowledge of truth, which is the pre- sence of it,—and the belief of truth, which is the enjoying of it,—is the sovereign good of human nature.”?
The celebrity which has been given to “A Popular History of Priestcraft, in all Ages and Nations, by William Howitt,” presents a forcible illustration of the truth of Lord Bacon’s remarks. Every dispassionate and sincere searcher after truth, even if he be but tolerably conversant with the important subjects which Mr. Howitt has ven- tured to discuss, must have been astounded at the paucity of his arguments, the reckless boldness of his assertions, and the extraordinary inferences which he draws from premises which, if carried out into all their bearings, would necessarily lead to directly opposite conclusions.
At a time when the opinions of men are much divided as to the soundness of the basis upon which the spiritual polity and temporal privileges
(a) Lord Bacon.
Listory of the Christian Priesthood. 3
of the Church of England rest, and when there are evident symptoms of a breaking up, as it were, of those mental landmarks, which, either from the force of prejudice or truth, were wont to guide men in their inquiries on these subjects, it might not be inexpedient to institute a searching, careful, and withal dispassionate examination into the vali- dity of Mr. Howitt’s arguments.
Without further preface, then, I address myself to this task, and avowing myself the humble advo- cate of truth, rather than the champion of any particular sect; and having a strong confidence in the justice of my cause, I boldly throw down the gauntlet to Mr. Howitt, and affirm that the far greater part of his assertions cannot be borne out either by Revelation, by History, or by Ex- perience.
I purpose in these pages to show,—first, what Mr. Howitt pretends to have proved in his ‘‘ Popular History of Priestcraft,” and to examine the argu- ments by which he professes to have proved it; and, secondly, to show that if these arguments be tested by the only legitimate authorities on such a subject, viz. Revelation, History, and Experience, they will prove directly the contrary to what Mr. Howitt pretends to have proved.
Now ‘‘the great object and drift” of his whole book is, as he avows in his “ Vindication of Himself against the Attack of Archdeacon Wit- kins,”” to overthrow the spiritual polity, and the temporal prerogatives and privileges of the Church
(2) P. 9. oe B2
4 Ffistory of the Christian Priesthood.
of England, and to prove, that “ her hireling mini- Ὁ sters are an abomination.” °
The mode by which he hopes to overthrow her spiritual polity, is by proving the two sacraments, which are the outward and visible seals of the covenant between Christ and man, to be but ‘“mummery, ἢ and ‘‘ dead forms ;”* and that Christ not only did not institute a special and distinct order of ministers to seal this covenant in his name, and to conduct other spiritual affairs of his kingdom, but that his chief design in coming into the world, was to “cut off for ever, every claim, the most specious, to the dominance” of such an order of men.!
In denying the institution by Christ of a distinct order of ministers, Mr. Howitt, of course, denies the necessity of any further division of such a body into the three distinct orders of Bishep, Presbyter, and Deacon; and he asserts that the opinion which Archbishop Bancroft maintained, that “‘ ‘the episcopal order were by express ap- pointment of God, superior to the presbyters, and that all priests not ordained by bishops were spu- rious,’ laid the foundation for perpetual dissensions and feuds,” ® because ‘‘ many desired a purer, more apostolic, and less worldly system.”" He further asserts, that because ‘‘episcopacy was not utterly abrogated” in the Church of England, at the Re- formation,’ as it was generally by the continental
(c) P. 209. (d) P. 243. (-) Vindication against Archdeacon Wilkins, p. 17. (f) P. 101. (g) P. 186. (h) P. 181. (7) P. 200.
History of the Christian Priesthood. ῦ
reformed churches, that, therefore, our Church of England is not only “ἃ sot-disant reformed church,”* but “ the least reformed, the most en- slaved of all churches,”! ‘the eldest daughter of popery, covered with all her deformities, with the mark of the beast blazing on her forehead, and the filthy rags of cast-off popery fluttering about her,"
Mr. Howitt, in speaking of the privileges and temporalities which the Church of England enjoys from her incorporation with the State, proposes the total severance of that connexion, and in support of this position advances the following arguments.
He contends that ‘all hierarchies are antichris- tian,”" that the union of Church and State was ‘the device of artful politicians,” to ‘‘ enslave religion ;” that the Church at first submitted, because ‘“‘it was no easy matter to escape the grasp of regal and political dominion ;”° that the union was ‘‘ unnecessary,” ‘‘ unnatural;’’4 that the Church being thereby ‘enslaved by the temporal power,” became the “tool of ambitious kings and rulers ; Ὁ that the clergy, enriched by ‘‘the tithes, which were the most iniquitous method ever con- ceived for the support of a minister of religion, taxing not simply a man’s land, but his capital, his genius, his skill, and industry,* began, forsooth, to ‘ act as legislators ;”* to “ strut in lawn sleeves, and ‘raise their mitred fronts in courts and _par-
(1) P. 184. (1) P.179. (m) P. 187. (n) P. 209.
fo), Pe 17S as BY208: 0), Gg Pa 298, 0.) (x) Bel 9a (5) P. 209. (t) P. 209.
6 History of the Christian Priesthood.
liaments,”" and to be “clothed with titles and dignities, foreign to their spiritual offices.”* As a christian-like, fitting, and charitable climax to this veritable string of assertions, he affirms that the Church of England is ‘‘a patchwork of priesteraft and barbarism, regarded by every one with ridicule and abhorrence;”Y and that a continuance of her rule ‘‘must be fire and blood, horrible anarchy, deadly exasperation, and relentless murder "! 2 Again, Mr. Howitt states, that being ‘‘ compelled to support such an Established Church, he is compelled not only to support and propagate all its errors, its injustice, and its absurdities,”* but to ‘support what, in the abstract, both religiously and politically, he believes ought not to exist;”> because it is ‘fat once an oppression, and a bitter mockery,”° an injustice to the subject, and an in- dignity to the Church itself;”4 and that, as ‘the nation ought not to enrich one body of Christians, at the expense of the rest,”® he requires of the legislature to “ divorce the Church from the State,”! and to ‘exercise its right to recall the loan of church property,” (‘ one-third of which,” he con- tends, “‘ ought to have been relinquished by the Church long ago, as being the undoubted property of the poor,’ 5) ‘‘ which right to recall,” he states to be ‘fas clear as day-light, the present priesthood forming a standing proof and precedent of it, since it was taken from the Catholics, and given to them.” »
(u) P. 249. (a) ORs 119% (y) P. 187. (z) P. 205. (a) P. 208. (b) P. 206. (c) }. 206. (2) P2211. (e) P. 215. CF) Po2th (g) P. 210. (hk) P. 215
History of the Christian Priesthood. 7
Having thus fully and fairly stated the conclusions at which Mr. Howitt has arrived, let us now inquire how far the arguments upon which his inferences are built, authorize him in coming to those conclusions.
Mr. Howitt asserts the two sacraments to be ‘‘mere mummery, ‘dead and useless forms.” Now, surely, it is not unreasonable to suppose, that Mr. Howitt would have added some tittle of scriptural proof to convince his readers that the “mummery,” and the “dead forms,” were con- trary to the commands, and at variance with the precepts of the divine Founder of our faith. That our Saviour did not institute these two ordinances as the outward and confirmatory seals of ratifying and maintaining the covenant entered into by him- self with mankind. That in commanding his apostles to “baptize all nations,”’ and to “ eat of the bread and drink of the cup,’* (which were ‘the communion of his body and blood,”') ‘ in remembrance of himself,” ™ (that is, after his death, or after his body should be broken, and his blood shed,) he spoke only of a mystical purification and spiritual nourishment of the soul. That his apostles and their immediate successors did never either “baptize with water,”® nor ‘‘ shew the death of Christ” ° by the celebration of the other sacra- ment; and that the texts which have generally convinced the majority of the christian world, of
(1) Mark xvi. 15, 16. (k) 1Cor. xi. 28. (2) 1 Cor. x. 16.
(m) Luke xxii. 19; John vi. 53. See also Matt. xxvi. 26—28 ; Mark xiv. 22, 24; Luke xxii. 19, 20.
(n) See Acts vill. 86, 38; x. 47, το. (0) 1 Cor. xi. 26.
8 Ffistory of the Christian Priesthood.
all denominations, that these institutions were de- signed and ordained by Christ equally for all ages of the church, and for all Christians in every age, as at least a memorial of himself, prove nothing at all.
But no,—we are to have our faith in these holy mysteries destroyed on the mere αὐτὸς ἔφη of Mr. Howitt. We are to believe that the words of our Saviour mean the direct contrary of what they have hitherto been supposed to mean. We must take for granted, that the apostles themselves did not understand them aright—that the primitive Christians and Fathers of the church were equally in ignorance—that the many wise and good men (even amongst those who “have raised their mitred heads in courts and parliaments,”) who have adorned the doctrines of the cross, and some of whom have sealed the profession of their faith with their blood, were also in error—that all these ‘* worthies,” who, believing that ‘‘all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him amen, to the glory of God in us,”? and who have, therefore, in the spirit of a true and lively faith, partaken of ‘ the most comfortable sacrament of the body and blood of Cbrist,” and who have thereby had their hopes strengthened, and their faith confirmed, have all been labouring under some unaccountable delusion which this new light, this self-elected apostle of the Gentiles,—this learned, candid, and unassuming Quaker, is selected to dispel. Is it uncharitable to assert, that what-
(p) 2 Cor. i. 20.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 9
ever Mr. Howitt may have failed to prove, he has, at all events, most abundantly proved, that
“ Fools rush on where angels fear to tread ?”
Again, we might reasonably expect, that as Mr. Howitt denies the institution by Christ of a distinct order of men, consecrated to his service, and expressly set apart from others as ministers of his word, he would have cited the express pro- hibition of such an order in the words of Christ himself; or that at least he would have quoted numerous texts of Scripture, all of them either expressly denying the existence, or prohibiting the institution of such an order of men. Or, if the Scriptures, from their silence on so important a subject, furnished him with no such authority, then, in common fairness, Mr. Howitt was bound to have proved his assertions consequentially ; that is, by showing, that although “ priestcraft did exist in Judea under the direct ordinance of God,” (as he himself is compelled to admit,) and that ‘the Jewish priesthood was expressly ordained of heaven,’" yet that Christianity not being built upon, nor having any common origin with Judaism, the Christian priesthood might not have been “ ex- pressly ordained of heaven.” But, although to have advanced even thus far, Mr. Howitt must have contradicted himself, as he allows the ‘* Jewish priesthood to have been preparatory to the Chris- tian,” § still these proofs would have been insufficient, as they would only show the improbability, and by
(2) Ε.12: (r) 990. (s) P. 96. BS
10 History of the Christian Priesthood.
no means would have proved, or even implied, the impossibility, of a christian priesthood being a divine institution. We might further have looked to Mr. Howitt to explain away, or to give a new reading to, those numerous passages in the New Testament, which incidentally refer to this subject. He ought to have proved that the words “ receive the Holy Ghost,”* and ‘as my Father sent me, even so send I you," were spoken not to the apostles only,* (although none others were present) but to all “the five hundred disciples of whom Christ was seen at once;” thereby clearly con- veying to them a spiritual authority over the souls of men, with the same power to preach the gospel and to commission new ministers, as he himself had been entrusted with by his heavenly Father. That the commission to “go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature,’’ to ‘‘ baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” to ““ bless the cup of blessing, and to break the bread,”* which were “6 his body given for them,” and ‘the New Testa- ment in his blood, which was shed for them,”” to be “ἢ done inremembrance of him,”¢ (though especially and exclusively addressed to the apostles, and in no one instance to the disciples,) were not confined to the twelve, but that the ““ hundred and twenty,” ἃ the “five hundred,”® and indeed all his disciples were equally empowered to perform these acts.
(¢) John xx. 21. (w) John xx. 21.
(a) Mark xvi. 14; Luke xxiv. 33. (y) Mark xvi. 16. (3) Matt. xxvili.19. (a) 1Cor.x.16. (δ) Luke xxii. 19, 20. (ὁ) Ver. 29; (d) Acts i, 15. (e) 1 Cor. xv. 6.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 11
We might also reasonably presume, that Mr. Howitt would have endeavoured to justify his in- ference from the practice of the apostles themselves ; or if the apostles and Mr. Howitt were at variance upon the subject, that Mr. Howitt would have shown himself to be right, and the apostles to be wrong ;—that St. Paul, for instance, was mistaken in supposing that God had appointed only ‘‘ some in the church, as apostles, prophets, and teachers,’ ἢ for (according to Mr. Howitt) ad/ were so appointed ; that the apostle asked superfluous questions when he inquired “ Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers?” for (according to Mr. Howitt) all were so; nor did the same apostle wisely ask, ‘* How shall any preach, unless they be sent ?”” for, if Mr. Howitt is to be believed, there needed no sending at all, except of themselves. We might also expect Mr. Howitt to have explained the apostle’s meaning, when he contends that the “‘Presbyters who labour especially (or most di- ligently) in word and doctrine, are worthy of double revenue ;”' that “the labourer is worthy of his hire ;”* that they who devote their time to the preaching of the gospel, ought not to do so “‘at their own charges;”! that ‘‘they who have sown (to their flocks) spiritual things, ought to reap
(Ff) 1 Cor. xii. 28. (2), LCor ix. ἃ (hk) Rom. x. 15.
(1) 1 Tim. v. 17. The reader who may doubt the correctness of the version here given to the words τιμὴ (which I have rendered “revenue”’), and μάλιστα of κοπιῶντες (which I have translated “ those labouring especially, or most diligently,””) may be satisfied by reference to the next chapter.
(x) Luke x. 7. (?) 1 Cor.'ix. ἡ.
12 History of the Christian Priesthood.
(of their flocks) carnal things;”™ that “as they which minister about holy things, live of the things of the temple; and they which wait at the altar, should be partakers with the altar; so the Lord had ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.”® Again, as every body knows, the guilt of ‘‘ Corah and his company” (the fTowiits of that day) consisted in their “ seeking the priesthood,”° and affirming “all the congrega- tion to be holy, every one of them,” ? and, therefore, competent to ‘‘do the service of the tabernacle of the Lord, and to stand before the congregation to minister unto them.”4 Now, if there were no order of men in the christian church set apart to “do the service of the christian tabernacle, and to stand before a christian congregation to minister unto them, how could the apostle of the New Testa- ment, St. Jude, affirm, with any degree of truth, that some of the early Christians had “ perished in the gainsaying of Core?”" Surely we might have expected Mr. Howitt would have disproved the inference, which, if words have any meaning, must be drawn from this declaration of the in- spired apostle. Might we not also have expected that, as Mr. Howitt has taken so much pains to unsettle the opinions of the christian world, he would have endeavoured to convince them that the terms “‘Apostle,”* ‘ Bishop,” ‘ Angel,”" “ Pro- phet,”* “ Evangelist,”’ ‘‘ Presbyter,” or ‘ Elder,”
(m) 1 Cor. ix. 11. (n) 1 Cor. ix. 14 (0) Numb. xvi. 10. (p) Ver. 3, (q) Ver. 9. (r) Jude, ver. 11. (8). Gor tix {2 1 Tim ii. 1: (uw) Rev. ui. 1.
(2) Acts xvii. 1. (y) 2 Tim. iv. 5. (x) Acts xiv. 23.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 13
** Deacon,” * &c., found in the New Testament, were not terms expressly designating a peculiar body of men set apart for the ministerial office (as the christian world have hitherto admitted them to be), but terms appropriated to certain secular profes- sions, or callmgs of men? and that although the apostles are recorded to have qualified men for these offices by ‘‘ laying their hands on them,”” yet that such imposition of hands did not specially consecrate them to the ministerial office, but simply conferred on the persons so qualified, the right or privilege of following suck secular profession or calling. We might further have expected Mr. Howitt to have proved that, when the notion of a distinct and special order of men to minister in spiritual matters began to be, as he expresses it, “‘ built on the foundation of Christianity,’* some one, at all events, of the early christian writers were opposed to what, from Mr. Howitt’s showing, must necessarily have been a direct innovation _ upon the institutions of Christ, and the practice of his apostles.
Unless Mr. Howitt be either himself deceived, or purposes to deceive others, he must feel con- vinced that nothing short of these proofs ought to produce a doubt in the mind of any reasonable man as to the divine institution, and, consequently, the absolute necessity of the christian priesthood.
Mr. Howitt, however, seeing how utterly im- possible it would be to prove a christian priest-
(a) 1 Tim. iii, 8. (Ὁ) Acts vi. 3, 6; xiii. 3; xiv. 23, &c. (c) Ρ. 108.
14 History of the Christian Priesthood.
hood (or priestcraft, as he is pleased to call it), to be unscriptural, from Scripture itself, (the only mode one would suppose that would have been resorted to by any one whose own conviction upon the subject was not very questionable,) has shirked the question, and, in utter penury of scriptural proof, has laboured hard to produce an impression upon the minds of his readers, that the Christian priesthood was built upon, and had a common origin with the priesthoods of Paganism, and, therefore, could not be of divine origin. The first nine chapters of his volume are bestowed to esta- blish this point. He has, first, endeavoured to show, from the writings of Calmet, Bryant, Faber, Spencer, Toland, Dr. Borlace, Davis, Rowland, M. Mallet, Robertson, Purchas, Archbishop Potter, Maurice, and M. Tavernier, that amongst the Greeks, Gauls, Hindoos, Egyptians, Persians, Sy- rians, Goths, Jakuthi Tartars, Chinese, Japanese, Peruvians, Mexicans, Virginians, and Iroquois, New Zealanders, and Otaheitans, paganism was universally distinguished by the same great leading principles. That all these nations worshipped a ‘triad of principal gods, one of whom in each case was a deity of a dark nature ;” ὦ that “‘ an ark,” (which “ their circular stone temples symbolised,”)° ** was to be found in nearly every system of pagan worship,” “ being borne in their religious pro- cessions;”! that they all believed in “ the trans- migration of souls;”& that they all worshipped (2) 3P.'8, 2), 23, 7. (
(
ὍΝ pl gt 4 Ga i) ο)
Ps 21; 49..71; 70.
5
History of the Christian Priesthood. 15
* the evil and vindictive principle,”’" besides “ ser- pents,' dogs, cats, lizards, and idols ;”* that they all ‘* celebrated artful mysteries,”! and practised other delusions, as “‘ oracles,” &c.;™ that they all “‘sacri- ficed not only other animals, but human beings,’” to their respective deities; and, lastly, (in Mr. Howitt’s opinion worse than all), that they all per- mitted the ‘‘ absolute dominance of the priesthood.” ° How far all this will warrant Mr. Howitt in drawing the inference, that the christian priesthood is of pagan origin, and, therefore, cannot be a scriptural institution, shall be shewn presently.
Now, as Mr. Howitt readily admits that “ priest- craft did exist in Judea under the express ordi- nances of God,”? and as elsewhere he allows the Jewish priesthood to have been “ preparatory to the christian,”4 his only mode of satisfactorily establishing the common origin of the Christian and Pagan priesthoods, would have been not only to have proved their identity in the great leading principles by which each was distinguished, but also to have proved their non-identity with the Jewish church. For if, on the one hand, he do not fully prove that Christianity and Paganism are distinguished by the same great leading principles or characteristics, he cannot expect us to infer that their priesthoods have a common origin; and unless he prove, not only that Paganism and Christianity are distinguished by the same great leading prin-
(h) P. 8, 84. (2) Ρ. 84. (1) P. 45. (2) Peis (m) P.61. (x) P. 21, 27, 33, 59, 75. (o) P. 75. (p) P. 12, 96. (4) Ρ. 96.
16 History of the Christian Priesthood.
ciples, but that Judaism and Christianity are not also so distinguished, he cannot infer that the priesthoods of Judaism and Christianity also may not, upon the same principle which he has himself laid down, have a common origin; and, therefore, that if the Christian priesthood be so built upon the Jewish, it must be of divine origin; for he allows the Jewish priesthood to have ‘‘ existed under the express ordinances of God;”" and, consequently, that the Christian priesthood is both of divine, and also of merely human origin, which is impossible. And if, on the other hand, Mr. Howitt do not satisfactorily prove that Judaism and Paganism are not distinguished by the same great leading prin- ciples, he cannot infer that the Judaical and Pagan priesthoods, as well as the Christian, may not also have a common origin; and, therefore, that either the Jewish priesthood is of merely human insti- tution like the Pagan (which contradicts his own assertion, that it was ‘‘ expressly ordained οἵ heaven,”)S or that the Pagan priesthood is of divine institution, like the Jewish; and, therefore, it can matter but little whether the Christian priesthood have a common origin with it or not; since, if it have, it must be a divine institution like the Pagan; and if it have not, Mr. Howitt has only thrown away so much paper and print in his first nine chapters to prove that common origin. But Mr. Howitt proves nothing of all this. He no where attempts to shew that the Christian priests of our Church inculcate the worship of a “ triad of prin- (ἡ P. 12. (s) Ρ. 96.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 17
cipal (besides inferior) gods, one of them being of a dark nature;” he no where attempts to prove that ‘‘ they bear an ark in their religious pro- cessions;” nor that they believe in ‘ a transmigra- tion of souls,” nor that they worship either ‘ the evil and vindictive principle,” or such animals as ‘‘ dogs, cats, lizards, and serpents;” nor that ‘‘ oracles,” and other religious ‘‘ mysteries” and delusions are practised by them to deceive the people; nor that they ‘‘ sacrifice human beings to the Deity.” And, therefore, as he no where attempts to prove that Paganism and Christianity are distinguished by the same great leading principles, he can by no means infer that their priesthoods have a common origin. For as to “ the absolute dominance of the priest- hood,” alike permitted in both, I will hereafter show that this proves nothing at all either one way or the other; not only because such a circumstance is at most but accidental, but also because, as I will prove in its proper place, there is nothing in Scripture which excludes that ‘‘ dominance.” So that he has bestowed much labour in vain, and has signaily failed in his attempt to prove to his readers that the Christian priesthood of this realm is built upon the ‘‘ bloody” and “ licentious” order of pagan druids.”
But even if he had satisfactorily proved that the Christian priesthood was built upon a Pagan priest-
(ὃ Compare John xx. 21; Matt. xvii. 19; Luke x. 16; 1 Cor. xiv. 29, 36, 37; Heb. xiii. 7,17; 1 Cor. xi. 1,2; John iti. 9; 1 Thess. iv. 14;°1 Tim. i. 3; Tit. 11.10; Acts v. 12; 1 Cor. v. 1; 1 Tim. v. 19; Rev. ii. 15, 16—20; 1 Pet. i. 15.
(u) P. 21—24, p. 30.
18 History of the Christian Priesthood.
hood, on account of its having the same great leading principles, unless he also shew (which he has no where attempted to do) that Judaism and Christianity are not equally distinguished by the same great leading principles by which Christianity and Paganism are distinguished, how can he infer that the Christian priesthood may not, with as great probability, be built upon the Jewish priesthood as upon the Pagan? Nay, whilst he no where allows _ the Pagan priesthoods to have been “ preparatory” to the Christian, he freely admits the Jewish to have been so ““ preparatory;’* and whilst he no where proves the Pagan and Christian priesthoods to have been distinguished by any the same great leading principles, he allows that the Pagan and Jewish were so distinguished. For he readily admits that the ark which was borne in the reli- gious processions of the Jewish church, was ‘ to be found in nearly every system of Pagan wor- ship.”» But we no where find that the ark forms any part either in the worship or the ceremonial observances of the Christian church. Again: the Jewish priesthood, as well as the Pagan, “ offered burnt- offerings, and sacrificed peace-offerings of oxen and other animals to the Lord;”” but it is no part of the Christian priesthood to offer such sacri- fices. Again: as the heathens had their oracles, by consulting which, in any inquiry of importance, they professed to discover the mind and will of the Deity; in like manner, by consulting, in cases of
(x) Ρ. 96. (y) Ρ. 9, 21, &e. (x) Exod. xxiv. 5; Lev. i. 5—9, &c.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 19
difficulty, the “ Urim and Thummim”* (called in Scripture “ the oracle”) in the breast-plate on the ephod of the high priest, the mind and will of God were made known to the Jews. ‘There are many other great leading principles between the pagan and Jewish religions, but I do not consider it necessary to pursue the subject further, especially as Mr. Howitt himself makes a similar admission.
From all which we may infer that there is a far greater probability (partly even upon his own show- ing) of a common origin to the Jewish and Pagan, than to the Christian and Pagan priesthoods ; and, therefore, that the Jewish and Pagan priesthoods are either both of them of human origin, or both of them of divine origin; and as he assigns a divine origin to one of them (viz. the Jewish), it follows that the other (viz. the Pagan) must be likewise of divine origin; and, consequently, if the priesthoods of Pagan nations be of divine origin, and (as he would have us infer) the Christian priesthood have the same origin with the priesthoods of Pagan nations, the Christian priesthood also must have a divine origin. I have here logically demonstrated the absurd, and not absurd alone, but contradictory conclusions which are necessarily drawn from Mr. Howitt’s false reasoning.
It is far more probable, however, that the Chris- tian priesthood was grafted upon the Jewish, and this Mr. Howitt not only no where attempts to dis- prove, but even acknowledges that the one was ‘¢ preparatory” to the other.» In my next chapter,
(a) Exod. xxviii. 30; Numb. xxvii. 31. (Ὁ) P. 96.
20 History of the Christian Priesthood.
I shall endeavour to prove that Christianity is built or grafted upon Judaism, and, consequently, that the priesthoods of both the one and the other have one common origin. Whence we may infer that the Christian and Jewish religions, being distin- guished by the same great leading principles, whilst the Christian and Pagan are not at all so distin- guished, that, therefore, if Mr. Howitt allow the Jewish priesthood to have “‘ existed in Judea under the express ordinances of God,”*° he can assign no possible cause why a Christian priesthood may not also exist in any christian country equally “ under the express ordinances of God;” and, therefore, that the Jewish priesthood was not ‘the only priesthood ever expressly ordained of Heaven,” because the Christian priesthood may also have been so ordained. For if Mr. Howitt do not allow the Christian priesthood to be of the same origin with the Jewish priesthood, with which it has many the same great leading principles, but to be of Pagan origin only, with which it has nothing in common, then it necessarily follows that the fact of two religions being distinguished by the same great leading principles does not prove their identity. So that Mr. Howitt must either allow the Christian priesthood, as well as the Jewish, to have been “‘ expressly ordained of Heaven;” or he must abandon the hypothesis upon which he has laboured with so great pains to establish his asser- tion, that two religions, being distinguished by the same great Jeading principles, does prove their
(c) P. 12. (4) P. 96.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 21
identity. I leave, therefore, to my readers to judge how far Mr. Howitt has succeeded in proving the Christian priesthood noé to be “an ordinance of God,” merely upon the sole ground (and throughout his whole book he has advanced no other) of its being built upon, and having a common origin with the priestly office in Pagan systems of worship. But it is very clear, that, even if it had been possible for Mr. Howitt to have drawn his con- clusions with ever so great logical certainty, such a mode of reasoning ought not to have been resorted to in his case. It was incumbent upon him to have proved the unscriptural origin of the order from the Scriptures themselves, and in the mode which I have pointed out. And nothing can be more certain than that he has not so proved it. For the only allusion (and that an exceedingly vague one) to the original institution of a ministry by Christ, in the whole of his volume, is to be found at page 100:—‘* The system of religious worship founded by Christ, unlike all other systems, was bloodless, boundlessly beneficent, inexpressibly pure; and, most marvellous of all, went to break all bonds of body and soul, and to cast down every temporal and spiritual tyranny; it was a system calculated for the whole wide universe; adapted to embrace men of all climes, all ages, all ranks of life, or intellect; for the rich and for the poor, for the savage and the civilized; for man, woman, and child.” And the only text to discountenance the original institution of a ministry by Christ, is to be found at page 101 :—“ By declaring, that ‘ wherever
22 History of the Christian Priesthood.
two or three were met together in his name, He would be in the midst of them,’ Christ cut off for ever every claim, the. most specious, of priestly dominance.” Now I venture to ask the reader whether these two proofs [?!] (and there is not another line throughout the whole volume, which bears either directly, or indirectly upon the original institution, scriptural or otherwise, of a christian priesthood, or ministry) can be deservedly denomi- nated scriptural proofs of the unscriptural origin of a christian ministry ?
From this glance at a ministry as founded by Christ, Mr. Howitt takes a kangaroo leap over the early history of the christian church — of what length does the reader imagine ?—why, of nearly six hundred years!* And this is ‘“ A Popular
(e) Having no wish to misrepresent Mr. Howitt, I will subjoin all he has said in reference to the christian church from the time of Christ to the time of the first “ universal bishop,” or pope, Boniface the Third, a.p. 606. At page 102, immediately after asserting the non-institution by Christ of any ministry, he adds, “One would have thought that from this epoch (i. e. from the time of Christ) the arm of priestcraft would have been broken; that it would never have dared to raise its head; but it is a principle of shameless avidity and audacity; and it is exactly from this time (i.e. from the time of Christ, a. Ὁ. 33) that we trace the most amazing career of its delusions and atrocities, down to the very day of our own existence.” Now in the very neat passage, Mr. Howitt goes at once from the time of Christ to popery. He begins thus,—‘ Who is not familiar with the horrors and arrogant assumptions of the papal church, &c.?” Here, then, is a jump from Christ to the first pope, Boniface the Third, a. p. 606. It is true that there is an allusion to the Emperor Constantine, but it is purely incidental, and contained in three lines; after which Mr. Howitt immediately commences with popery. And even here he makes another jump, for, in the very next page (p. 103), we find him in the middle of popery, and telling his readers, that ‘“ the
τς
History of the Christian Priesthood. Ὁ
History of Priestcraft in all Ages and Nations "᾿.-- Yes, “ popular” enough, in all conscience, and as mendacious as popular.
Proceed we now to examine the value of these two assertions. For example, even if ‘‘ the system of religious worship founded by Christ, unlike all other systems” (which had previously existed in the world) ‘“ were bloodless,” does its ‘‘ bloodless” character involve a divine prohibition of a distinct order of ministers? The term “ bloodless” (if it have any meaning at all) can only signify, that as the services of the Jewish church were “ bloody,” that is, consisting of sacrifices which required the shedding of “ blood,” the Christian church is ‘‘ blood- less,” inasmuch as that Christ by the one perfect sacrifice of himself upon the cross, entirely abro- gated all such sacrifices. Now, all this I am per- fectly ready to admit; but I am not so willing to allow the inferences which Mr. Howitt would draw popes, as if they had studied the pagan hierarchies, brought into con- centrated exercise all their engines of power, deception, and corrup- tion,” which they could not well have done, until they had been for some length of time established in their ill-gotten power. In fact, there is no chapter with a title professedly referring to “ Chris- tianity.” The first eight chapters refer exclusively to ‘‘ Pagan” priesthoods; the ninth chapter is headed “ The Hebrews;” and the tenth chapter (the one of which we are speaking) “ Popery.” So that his “ History of Priestcraft in all 4ges and Nations” does not contain so much as an historical allusion to the history of the christian church during the first six centuries. This historical hiatus I will fill up, and will prove from the Scriptures and the writings of the early Fathers, (authorities which, 1 presume, cannot be questioned,) that from the time of Christ to the close of the sixth century, there existed a priesthood essentially and sub-
stantially the same with the episcopal clergy established in this country.
24. History of the Christian Priesthood.
from this ““ bloodless” nature, or character of Chris- tianity ; namely, that because it was the chief office and peculiar duty of the priests in the Jewish church to sacrifice, and that sacrifices are now no part of the visible church, that, therefore, in abolishing sacrifices, Christ also abolished the priestly order, whose office it was to offer those sacrifices. For we should bear in mind that to make a “ sacrifice,” no longer a part of the office of his ministers (which is all that Mr. Howitt can show), is one thing, and altogether to abolish the office itself, is another, and a very different thing. Mr. Howitt’s error seems to have originated in a misconception of the term “ Priest,” as if it necessarily implied a “ sacri- ficer.” But, if it have that signification, it must be either because the word itself can be regularly deduced from, or has an etymological affinity to some word necessarily implying a ‘ sacrifice ;” or because those who first imposed the name intended a ἐς sacrificer ; or because the popular acceptation of the term (I mean the idea conceived of it in the present day -by the people generally) implies a sacrificer. Now the first cannot be, because I take the word “ Priest” to be derived either from the Greek word πρεσ[ϑύτερος, whence the old French word ‘ Prestre,’ and thence the English term ** Priest ;’ or else from προεστὼς ; and as the former word in its primary signification simply refers to age, and the latter to precedency, or preeminence, the word “ Priest” cannot on this first ground necessarily imply a ‘* sacrifice.” The second also cannot be, because those who first imposed the
3
History of the Christian Priesthood. 25
name upon a minister of religion, if they thereby intended a ‘ sacrificer,” must have done so merely because the chief or peculiar duty of the priesthood then was to sacrifice; and as the services of the Jewish and heathen nations consisted of ‘ sacri- fices,” and as it was the office of their priests to sacrifice, the term ‘ priest” might have implied a ἐς sacrificer.”. When, however, a sacrifice ceased to be a part of the service of the church, (and a sacrifice is now no such part,) the word “ priest” (particularly as the word itself implies no such act) could no longer signify a ‘‘ sacrificer,” because it was no longer a part of his office to sacrifice. The third also cannot be, because the common people in this country have no more idea that the word “priest” means a “ sacrificer” (even if the word ever had any such meaning) than they have that the name of a ‘‘ senator” or ‘‘ alderman” implies old age, or that every one so termed must necessarily be advanced in years, because originally years were respected in the nomination of both. It is certain, then, that even if ‘‘ the system of religious worship founded by Christ, unlike all other systems, were bloodless,” that we cannot therefore infer (at least for that reason only) that its Divine Founder prohibited a distinct order of ministers.
Neither does it follow that because the system of religious worship founded by Christ was ‘‘ bound- lessly beneficent and inexpressibly pure,” that, therefore, his great design was to prohibit the existence of a particular order of men, whose office it might be to inculcate and practice that ‘ bene~
6
26 History of the Christian Priesthood.
ficence” and “ purity;” unless indeed Mr. Howitt be prepared to prove that ‘‘ the comparatively small body,” of which he is himself a member, and to whom alone of all others a “ hireling ministry is an abomination,” are the only ‘‘ beneficent” and *‘ pure” Christians in the world; and that all other denominations of Christians are hindered from being ἐς houndlessly and inexpressibly pure,” merely be- cause they approve of such an order.
Again, Mr. Howitt’s assertion, that a christian ministry was forbidden by Christ, (for nothing can be called ‘ antichristian” which has not been so forbidden,) merely because the system which Christ instituted “‘ was calculated for the whole universe, and to embrace men of all climes, all ages, all ranks of life, or intellect; for the rich and for the poor, for the savage and for the civilized, for man, woman, and child,” refutes itself. For such a system must have presupposed the existence of a ministry. In corroboration of this, be it remem- bered that if any one system of Christianity has made less progress in “the whole universe,” and, therefore, has proved itself to be less ‘‘ calculated” to do so than any other system ;—if any one sys- tem has proselyted fewer persons from the higher ‘ranks of life and intellect,” and has, therefore, proved itself to be less “ calculated” to do so than any other system ;—if any one system has been less successful in its missionary exertions, both among “ the savage and the civilized,” and has, therefore, proved itself to be less ‘ calculated” to
(f) P.206.
History of the Christian Priesthood. QT
be so than any other system ;—that system must be the one adopted by a sect, which, notwithstanding the increase of most other sects, still continues to be (as Mr. Howitt himself freely acknowledges) only ‘a comparatively small body;’’ and, therefore, if the system which Christ founded were “ calculated for the whole universe,” &c. it evidently could not have been ¢hat system which does not recognize any distinct order of ministers.
It is also very questionable whether, even if the system of religion instituted by Christ were designed to ““ cast down every spiritual tyranny,” we must therefore infer that it was also designed to “‘ cast down” every order of ministry. For much must depend upon what is meant by the term “ spiritual tyranny.” If it imply a blind and implicit obe- dience to an absolute authority, founded on an unerring infallibility in spiritual matters, it does not affect the Church of England, which altogether disclaims such authority; professing to “have no dominion over the faith” of her members," but only to be “a helper of their joy.”i But if by “ spiritual tyranny,” Mr. Howitt would have us to understand such a reasonable obedience to the authority of the Church, as would require us simply to ‘“ obey them that have the rule over us, and to submit ourselves, since they watch for our souls as they that must give an account;”* if he mean only such an obedience as may be reasonably, nay, scripturally, required of
(g) P. 206. (h) 2 Cor. i. 24. (i) Ibid.
(x) Heb. xiii. 3, 17. σῷ
28 flistory of the Christian Priesthood.
those who are commanded to be “ subject for con- science sake”! to their spiritual rulers, as “ the keepers of the oracles of God,’™ and as the suc- cessors of those Apostles who were specially in- vested by Christ with the very same authority which he himself had received from his Father, saying, “ ds my Father sent me, even so send I you;’" if thts be what Mr. Howitt means by ‘ spiritual tyranny,” then I must frankly confess that I see nothing in such a “ spiritual tyranny” which does not very well consist with our Saviour’s ordering all final appeals to be made to his Ministers, ‘even unto the end of the world,”° saying, ‘ Tell it to the church, and if the obstinate offender neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen and a publican;”? or which does not very well consist with St. Paul’s injunction to Titus, Bishop of Crete, ‘‘ A man that is an heretic, after the second admonition reject.”4 And besides, even were it otherwise, what can be a greater act of ‘* spiritual tyranny” than that practised by those very people, to whom alone “a hireling ministry is an abomination,”’™ namely, the expulsion of those who presume to marry out of their society ἢ ὃ
(ἢ) Rom. xiii. 5. (m) Rom. 111. 2. (n) John xx. 21, (0) Matt. xxviii. 20. (p) Matt. xviii. 17. (q) Tit. iii. 10. (r) Ρ. 209.
(5) Compare 1 Cor. vii. 12—14. Few denominations of Chris- tians have clamoured more against spiritual tyranny, or practised it more rigidly, than ‘‘ the comparatively small body” of which Mr. Howitt professes himself to be a member. As soon as they had formed themselves into a society, they not only excommuni- cated those members who dared to marry, but even those who presumed to bury, differently from themselves; and all indeed who
History of the Christian Priesthood. 29
For all these reasons I infer (and I trust the impartial reader will be ready to agree with me) that Mr. Howitt has completely failed in his attempt to prove either the pagan, or the unscriptural origin of the Christian Priesthood.
Mr. Howitt, expressing himself in terms con- demnatory of the opinion entertained by Archbishop Bancroft, that ‘‘ the episcopal order were, by ex- press appointment of God superior to the pres- byters,”* declares the episcopal form of church government to be ‘‘ an impure, unapostolical, and worldly system.”" Mr. Howitt has no where proved this, either from the words of Christ him- self, or from the practice of his apostles. The only argument, throughout his whole work, by which he endeavours to prove Episcopacy to be **an impure, unapostolical, and worldly system,” is, that it has “ laid the foundation for perpetual dissensions and feuds.”* This is proving nothing at all; because Christ himself foretold similar consequences of his own mission, when he said, ** Think not that I am come to send peace on earth ; I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and
would not be guided by what they called ‘the Light of the Body,” and “the Light of Ancient Friends.” (See Spirit of the Heart, p. 12, 13, &c.) In fact, George Fox declared he had “‘ power to bind and loose whom he pleased,” and said in one of their meet- ings, that “ he never liked the word ‘ Liberty of conscience,’ and would have no liberty given to Presbyterians, Papists, Inde- pendents, and Baptists.” (Pp. 27, 41.) (t) P. 186. (u) P. 181. (x) P. 186.
30 History of the Christian Priesthood.
a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.” But are we hence to conclude, that the mission of Christ was not from heaven? In my fifth chapter I hope to prove that Christ not only con- stituted an order of men authorized to minister in sacred things, but that he further constituted them in a triple imparity, or gradation of official rank, and that he appropriated to each order a separate character and power, by virtue of their different degrees of consecration: that this triple imparity (i. e. Episcopacy) thus instituted by Christ himself, was adopted by his Apostles, continued by the primitive church, and from thence uninterruptedly maintained by the universal church for more than fifteen centuries. If I can succeed in doing this, I shall have shown that Mr. Howitt has no right to complain that Episcopacy was not ‘“ utterly abrogated” at the Reformation, unless he could also show that man may justly annul what God has instituted; for if it be an acknowledged principle in both human and divine governments, that no less a power than that which institutes can abro- gate; and if, as I hope to be able to prove most fully, Episcopacy was instituted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the authority of the Holy Ghost, by which it was established, was necessary to abrogate it; whence we infer, that as an inferior power may not abrogate what has been established by a superior, the reformers of the Church of England were not at liberty to “ abrogate” her episcopal form of government.
(y) Matt. x. 34—36.
CHAP: Ii;
Havine thus far put my readers in possession of the arguments and mode of reasoning by the help of which Mr. Howitt has, with no little vanity, hoped to overthrow the spiritual polity of the Church of England, (with what probability of success I leave to all intelligent and impartial persons to determine,) 1 hasten to inquire into the arguments which he has advanced in support of his proposal to ““ divorce the Church from the State,”? and to deprive her of the temporalities and privi- leges which she at present enjoys from that incor- poration.
When Mr. Howitt asserts. the union of Church and State to be unscriptural, and that kings cannot interfere in matters of religion without political Injustice, we might reasonably have expected that he would have proved this from the sacred writings. On the contrary, however, we find that under the Patriarchal dispensation the offices of Priest and King were, by Divine appointment, commingled in the person of Melchisedec,” and it is certain that in the exercise of these commingled offices he used
(a) Py 2th. (0) Gen. xiv. 18.
32 Listory of the Christian Priesthood.
the power which he possessed as King to promote and strengthen the religion of which he was a Priest. Mr. Howitt has yet to show why the same authority may not continue to be exercised for the same purposes under the Christian dispensation. Further, we might reasonably have expected Mr. Howitt to have proved that the incorporation of Church and State was not also sanctioned by Divine appointment under the Mosaic dispensation; and, consequently, that David, Solomon, Josiah, and He- zekiah, are improperly commended by the inspired historians in the Old Testament for taxing their subjects for the erection of the Temple, and for the support of the hierarchy connected with it ;—that he would have endeavoured to prove that the whole tenor of the declarations, promises, and predictions of the Old Testament, do not lead to the conclusion that the Nationality of the Christian religion should be specially protected by the regal power; further- more, that he would have explained away the natural and generally-received meaning of the promises addressed to the Christian Church, ‘ Kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and Queens thy nursing mothers,” ‘‘ Kings shall build up thy walls, and minister unto thee,”* by showing that these pro- mises either did not imply any connexion between the Church and the temporal sovereign in the cha- racter of a “nursing father,” and a “ builder up of the church’s walls,” or that if they did, they were not predicted of the Christian Church; or will Mr. Howitt have us believe that the prophet, (c) Isai. xlix. 22, 23. (4) Isaiah Ix. 10.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 99
whose lips were touched with the hallowed fire from God’s own altar, who ‘ spake as he was moved by the Holy Ghost,” * was himself deceived ? or will he degrade these glorious and lofty pro- mises to the Christian Church to mean nothing more than Kings in their zndtvidual capacity as men, and not in their Kingly capacity as ftulers? If Mr. Howitt assert the first, he proves the prophet an impostor; if he admit the second, he must admit the scriptural lawfulness of a National Church under the protection of a National King. We have also a right to demand from Mr. Howitt numerous texts of Scripture to prove that both Christ and his Apostles have expressly forbidden compulsory pay- ments towards the maintenance of the ministers of a National Church. Furthermore, he ought to have proved that Christ denounced not only the defects and abuses of the Jewish National Church, or Hier- archy, but also the principle of its Nationality ; and that too, in such terms as might fairly be applied to the nationality of any other church; and that his uniform compliance with the forms and _ services established in Judea, did not imply that his de- sign was that the same human means of support should be afforded to his own religion, when it should come to be universally acknowledged and professed, as was then provided for the main- tenance of the institutions of Moses. Mr. Howitt should also have explained what Christ meant when he enjoined the Scribes and Pharisees, on more than one occasion, “‘ not to leave the payment (6) 2 Pet. i. 21. Cé
34 History of the Christian Priesthood.
of tithes wndone ;”* that is, to continue the pay- ment of them for the support of the National Church. He should also have shown, from the precepts and practice of Christ, that although he sanctioned, nay enjoined, the payment of tithes for the support of the Jewish National church, he would have refused them towards the support of that church, of which he was the Founder, and to which (to use Mr. Howitt’s own expression) the ““ Jewish church was preparatory.”
Another fact, worthy of consideration, and of the existence of which Mr. Howitt must have been fully aware, is that the extreme paucity and poverty of our Saviour’s followers, who during their divine Master’s continuance on earth are never recorded to have exceeded “ five hundred” ἢ in number, (and even these necessarily shut out from all share in the government of the State, and obnoxious to the severest penalties of the law,) rendered it utterly impossible for them, except by the inter- position of a most signal miracle, which would have been contrary to God’s ordinary mode of dealing with mankind, and, moreover, contrary to his scheme of gospel providence, to have overthrown the existing Pagan Establishment (which they must have done before they could have constituted a Christian Kstablishment), supported as it was by the many millions who then belonged to the religion of Paganism, and who constituted both the potential and numerical majority of the country. Had Christ, therefore, enjoined his disciples to found a National
(f) Matt. xxiii. 23. (g) P. 96. (hk) 1 Cor. xv. 6.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 35
Church, he would have enjoined them to do a thing which it was impossible they could do. But perhaps Mr. Howitt may say, that if Christ had been desirous of founding a National Church, he would at all events have given a prospective injunction to that effect. But, to say nothing of the fact, that there is not one purely prospective injunction throughout the whole of the New Testament, Mr. Howitt is impaled on either horn of the dilemma; for he must admit, that even a prospective injunction to the early Christians to accomplish the overthrow of the existing Pagan establishment, and to procure the political establishment of Christianity, would neces- sarily have brought them into collision with the existing government, and would thereby have en- dangered the Christian religion. No such injunc- tion, therefore, is to be looked for in the Sacred Writings, unless Mr. Howitt would argue that Christ would be likely to excite his disciples to rebel against the existing government, and would seek to endanger the religion which he came to found. It would appear, therefore, that in order to secure (humanly speaking) the preservation and permanence of the Christian religion, no such pre- cepts ought to have been given. Might we not more reasonably suppose, that our Saviour, know- ing that his Apostles, and the converted Jews, had all of them been educated under a Church Esta- blishment founded by divine appointment; and, therefore, that they must, from the force of preju- dice and habit, have had a very strong bias in favour of an established institution for the promotion of
36 History of the Christian Priesthood.
the gospel, did not think it necessary to give them any such injunctions, leaving its Establishment to the natural course of things, and waiting his own good pleasure for the fulfilment of the promise he had made to the Christian church, that ‘‘ Kings should be her nursing fathers, and queens her nursing-mothers?”i Unless, then, Mr. Howitt can show, by a clear and direct prohibition of our Saviour, that he was opposed to such an Kstablishment, we are compelled to infer, that the Apostles and early converts to Christianity, would have assumed for granted (arguing from the divine institution and sanction of the Jewish hierarchy, and the promises of Scripture respecting the Christian church), that they were fully at liberty, as a matter of course, and, by inference, as a matter of duty, to obtain a political establishment for Christianity as soon as it became the religion of a nation. If, for example, when St. Paul exclaims, “ I would to God that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds,” King Agrippa had_ been converted, would Mr. Howitt have us believe that the Apostle would have expressly forbidden him to convert Pagan temples into Christian churches, and to have used his kingly power for the instruction of his people by providing them with Christian ministers ?
We will now proceed to examine ΠΣ scriptural proofs [?!] adduced by Mr. Howitt to establish the “ antichristian” character of a National church.
(¢) Isa. xlix. 22, 23.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 91
_ Had such an Establishment been expressly un- lawful and contrary to the design of the divine Founder of Christianity, it would have been for- bidden, in terms so plain, that the Apostles might have seen, by clear revelation, that however lawful such an institution might have been under the Mosaic dispensation, it was nevertheless plainly unlawful (which they would not for a moment have suspected until told so) under the Christian dis- pensation. We accordingly look to Mr. Howitt to cite the numerous passages in which our Saviour declares to his Apostles his express determination that they should not avail themselves of the benefits of an Establishment for the promotion and extension of his gospel, although in the Jewish church it had been employed by divine appoint- ment as the most approved means to an end.
But the only scriptural proof adduced by Mr. Howitt is a passage from St. John’s Gospel, wherein Christ declares, that ‘‘ His kingdom is not of this world.”*
Now, if Zruth had been the object of Mr. Howitt, he would doubtless have quoted the whole passage, and have stated the occasion upon which our Saviour made the declaration, and the persons to whom he made it. But this would not have suited Mr. Howitt’s purpose; because, so far from proving that “ all hierarchies are antichristian,” the most prejudiced of his readers would at once have seen, that the passage not only proved no such thing, neither had any, even the most remote, bearing upon the
(1) P. 195.
38 History of the Christian Priesthood.
question of an Established Church, but that it referred entirely and exclusively to the charge brought against Christ of aiming at a temporal sovereignty.
To prove this, beyond even the shadow of a shade of doubt, let us examine the occasion on which the declaration was made. The evangelist states, that *‘ the whole multitude of the elders of the people, and the chief priests and the scribes arose, and led Jesus unto Pilate; and they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow per- verting the nation, and forbzdding to give tribute to Cesar, saying that he himself is Christ a king.”! Hence the Roman governor’s question, (evidently referring to the sovereignty of Judea,) « Art thou the King of the Jews?’ Jesus refutes the accusation in words, part of which only, for obvious reasons, are quoted by Mr. Howitt: “ My kingdom is not of this world; ἡ my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that 1 should not be delivered to the Jews.”™ I will not insult the understanding of my readers by telling them, that this passage can by no means be construed, even by the stretching, india-rubber elas- ticity of Quaker-candour, and ‘‘ Popular” veracity, as any prohibition whatever of a National Church as a means of promoting the increase and perpetuation of Christianity, but purely as a denial, on the part of our Saviour, of any attempt on the Jewish throne. Again, it was not only Mr. Howitt’s duty to have stated the occasion on which this declaration was
(ἢ Luke xxii.66, and xxiii. 1, 2. (m) John xviii. 36.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 39
made, but also the persons to whom it was addressed. For had this declaration of our Saviour been in- tended, not as a reply to Pilate’s question, but as a prohibition of a National Church, he would assuredly have addressed it to his followers, and not to a heathen judge about to sentence him to crucifixion, and who was inclined to destroy, rather than to build up the establishment of a religion so alto- gether opposed to his own. On the contrary, we are not told that either “ Simon Peter, or that other disciple,” (the only two who “ followed Jesus into the palace of the high-priest,”™) were present in the hall of judgment.°
(n) John xvii. 15.
(0) Most of the respectable writers among the Dissenters enter- tained the same view of this passage. Dr. Doddridge, for example, thus paraphrases it:—‘* Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world, nor is it my business or design to erect a temporal dominion, and to establish any claim which should at all interfere with that of Czesar, or of which any prince has reason to be jealous; indeed, if I would have entertained such views, I might have found support and encouragement from the very persons who are now my accusers; andif I had asserted that my kingdom was of this world, and had favoured such methods of defence, my servants, who professed of late so great and so public a regard to me, would resolutely have fought that I might not have been delivered to the Jews, or would attempt even now to rescue me out of their hands; but now my kingdom is not from hence, nor to be erected here; and therefore, I have been so far from arming my followers with secular weapons, that the guard who came to apprehend me know I forbade them making use of those they had.”
“ When Christ declared ‘ His kingdom not to be of this world,’ ” writes Dr. Dwight, an American divine, “he had not even the remotest reference to the political establishment of Christianity. He merely replied to the accusation which the Jews brought against him to Pilate, viz. that he claimed to be a king, and was, therefore a rebel against the government of Cesar.’’—Dwight’s Travels in New England and New York, Vol. IV. p. 393.
40 History of the Christian Priesthood.
How weak, how miserably weak, must that cause be, which induces a man to attack, by the weapons of falsehood and misrepresentation, the time-hallowed institutions of our country, and to run a muck even against truth itself for the purpose of attaining his unholy purposes !
As Mr. Howitt has decidedly failed in establish- ing any prohibition on the part of our Saviour of an Establishment as connected with Christianity, I contend that the total absence of all prohibition amounts to a divine sanction. What is not for- bidden is lawful. I presume Mr. Howitt will admit that under the Patriarchal system, the head of every family was made answerable for the re- ligious conduct of his whole household. For ex- ample, in reference to the outward sanctification of the Sabbath, (which is a case strictly and unequi- vocally religious,) it was required of them by the fourth commandment, ‘‘ in it (2. 6. the Sabbath) thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, and thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor the stranger that is within thy gates.”? Will Mr. Howitt venture to assert that parents and heads of families would have been made respon- sible for the religious conduct of their families and households, unless they possessed authority to en- force it? Or will he contend, that although this commandment, as well as all the commandments, are as obligatory upon Christians as upon Jews, yet that under the Christian dispensation, parents and heads of households are no longer required to
( p) Exod. xx. 10.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 41
exercise the same authority that was enjoined upon them under the Patriarchal and Mosaic economy, to “ bring up their children in the fear and admo- nition of the Lord?”4 The duty here required of parents and heads of families cannot be affected by the magnitude of the family or household, but is equally obligatory, whether that family or house- hold be large or small. In the case of Abraham, for example, we find that he was blessed because ““he commanded his children and his household after him, to keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment.”* Now Abraham’s household are recorded to have amounted to upwards of three hundred; and will Mr. Howitt contend that, if they had amounted to upwards of three thousand, the command would not have been equally binding ? But if Mr. Howitt admit the continued responsi- bility of the Ruler of a numerous tribe, how will he deny the authority of a Christian sovereign (who is the ‘‘ political father” of his subjects’) to ‘‘ com- mand” his political children to ‘‘ keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment?” Unless, forsooth, Mr. Howitt limit the commands of God by arith- metical proportion, and will prove that what is scrip- tural when applied to a tribe, becomes unscriptural when applied to a nation. Perhaps, too, Mr. Howitt will show that the responsibility of an accountable being does not increase in proportion to his power and influence, and, therefore, that although Christ has laid an obligation upon fathers of families to
(q) Eph. vi. 4. (r) Gen. xviii. 19. (s) Gen. xviii. 19.
42 Listory of the Christian Priesthood.
** bring up their children in the nurture and admo- nition of the Lord,”* yet that kings, who are the “fathers” of their subjects, are not equally bound to avail themselves of the advantages which their station gives them over private Christians, to protect, defend, and increase Christianity, by becoming the ** nursing fathers” of Christian churches,—unless, I say, Mr. Howitt can prove these things, he cannot infer that sovereigns are not bound to promote, much less, as he would have us believe, can he infer that they are prohibited from promoting, the cul- tivation of religion among their subjects, by giving to Christianity the sanction of law, and the support of a public profession."
(ὃ Eph. vi. 4.
(zu) Dr. Owen, an eminent Congregationalist, and who is called “the prince and metropolitan of Dissenters,” when preaching before the Long Parliament, said, “‘ Some think, if you (the Parliament) were well settled, you ought not, as rulers of the nation, to put forth your power for the interest of Christ. The good Lord keep your hearts from that apprehension....If it once comes to this, that you shall say that you have nothing to do with religion as rulers of the nation, God will quickly manifest that he has nothing to do with you as rulers of the nation. Certainly it is incumbent on you to take care that the faith which was once delivered to the saints, in all the necessary concernments of it, may be protected, preserved, propagated to and among the people over which God hath set you If a father, as a father, is bound to do what answers this in his own family unto his children; a master, as a master, to his servants; if you will justify yourselves as fathers and rulers of your country, you will find in your attempt this to be incumbent on you.” The same divine, in a Sermon on Dan. vii. 15, says, “ Judges, rulers, and magistrates, which are promised under the New Testament to be given in mercy, and to be singular in useful- ness, as the judges were under the Old, are to take care that the Gospel Church may, in all its concernments as such, be supported and promoted, and the truth propagated wherewith they are entrusted.” And elsewhere, ‘* These promises assert that ma-
History of the Christian Priesthood. 43
Nor, if we consider it merely as a question of good government, can he justify his inference that kings ought not to interfere in such a matter, unless he be also prepared to show, either that the hap- piness of a people is not promoted in proportion to the means which are provided for their religious instruction, or that it is not the end of sovereignty to promote the happiness of the people. I pre- sume that Mr. Howitt will not dispute either of these two positions. Religion is not only indis- pensable to the welfare and happiness of a people,
gistrates shall put forth their power for the welfare of the Church. Kingdoms are said to serve the Church; and how can a king- dom, as a kingdom, serve the Church, but as putting forth its power and strength in her behalf? What God has promised, kings, magistrates, rulers, nations, shall do; that is their duty to do. Surely these promises will scarcely be accomplished in bringing Commonwealths to be of Gallio’s frame, to take care for none of these things.”” Matthew Henry, (who also was a Dissenter,) in his Commentary upon Isaiah xlix. 23, writes, “ This promise, that ‘ Kings shall be thy nursing fathers,’ was in part fulfilled to the Jews after their return out of captivity... Esther the Queen was a nursing mother to the Jews that remained in their captivity, putting her life in her hand to snatch the child out of the flames. The Christian Church, after a long captivity, was happy in some such kings and queens, as Constantine and his mother Helena, and afterwards Theodosius, who nursed the Church with all possi- ble care and tenderness. Wherever the sceptre of Government is put into the hands of religious Princes, then the promise is ful- filled. The Church in this world is in an infant state, and it is in the power of princes and magistrates to doit a great deal of service ; it is happy when they do so; when their power is a praise to them that do well.’ Mr. Flavell (another Dissenter), in his Exposition of the Assmbly’s Catechism, replies to the question , ‘* What is the duty of political fathers, or magistrates, to their political children, or subjects?” in these words, ‘ It is to rule and govern the people over whom God hath set them with wisdom; carefully providing for their souls in every place of their dominion.”
44 History of the Christian Priesthood.
but the very existence of society depends upon it. Moral obligation derives all its weight from our knowledge of the attributes and moral government of God, therefore, where God is not worshipped, the influence of the moral obligations, which are all founded upon a knowledge of his attributes, is unfelt, and consequently disregarded. Hence all human laws are incomplete, inasmuch as they do not con- tain in themselves any principle of sufficient inherent force to induce the performance of our duties either to our fellow-creatures, or to the Creator. Human laws, per se, can neither sufficiently, nor perma- nently, curb the unruly passions of our nature ; they are like characters traced upon the sand, which the waves of human frailty and folly would continually efface ; they omit the most important duties of charity, fidelity, and piety, because they cannot enforce the observance of such duties; they permit the most heinous sins of ingratitude, indolence, craft, and extravagance, because they are powerless to prevent the commission of such crimes. ‘The laws of men derive all their power of enforcing moral obligations in proportion as they are based upon the Word of God. It is evident that some more powerful restraint than human laws is requisite to control the unruly wills and appetites. of men, and if such control cannot be exercised, a disruption of human society must ensue, and mankind revert to their original barbarism. Reli- gion, I mean its general and fundamental principles, such as the belief in the being and power of God, of a Providence ruling over all things, of a future
History of the Christian Priesthood. 4
tate of rewards and punishments, is the one great yulwark of society. It is certain, therefore, that eligion, even so far as regards the temporal in- erests of mankind, is essential not only to good rovernment, but also to the very existence of so- iety. Therefore, it is the paramount duty of every thristian sovereign to use the only sure mode of romoting the happiness of his ‘subjects by duly roviding them with the means of religious instruc- ion. If it be objected, that no such necessity xists, inasmuch as the people would provide uch religious instruction themselves, I answer, that Ithough religious wants are, in reality, the most rievous and pressing of all, yet they are the ast which those who labour most severely under hem feel, and consequently the last for which hey think of making provision; experience and nowledge of human nature prove that the great najority, In every State, are either too careless © go in search of such religious instruction, wr are too poor to pay for it. Consequently the nonarch is bound to put that religious instruc- ion in the way of the careless, and to supply it to he poor, in the only mode in which, under such ircumstances, it can be effectually done; namely, yy the ministers of an Mstablished Church. Per-
(x) The Eclectic Review, the organ of all that is respectable mong the Dissenters, makes the following broad and unequivocal dmissions, when speaking of the voluntary contribution principle;: —¢ We cannot,” writes the learned reviewer, “so boldly affirm, 5 many have ventured to do, that the non-established communi- ies, depending absolutely on voluntary contributions for support, vould have been able to do, or are likely to be soon able to do, the
46 History of the Christian Priesthood.
haps, however, Mr. Howitt’s theological knowledge will enable him, not only to disprove those truisms, but also to give a more “" Popular” translation of the text, which, referring to the Church of Christ, declares, that ‘‘ kings shall be her nursing fathers, and queens her nursing mothers.”Y Perhaps, too,
entire work of the Establishment. As this is a point upon which we run some risk of having our misgivings imputed to that trim- ming and time-serving, or tenderness for the Church, with which we Eclectic Reviewers have of late been charged in certain quar- ters, we must cautiously approach the subject under the shelter of some popular authorities. ‘'The testimony of history,’ writes the late Rev. J. Ballantyne (a dissenting minister), in his Comparison of Established and Dissenting Churches, ‘seems unfavourable to the general success of the voluntary system, how beneficial soever it may be on a limited scale. 'The Primitive Church, for nearly three hundred years, acted under this system, and, all things considered, her success was certainly extensive; but there seems no reason to believe that she had the means of instructing the great mass of the people, till established by law in the days of Constantine. The same remark is still more obviously applicable to the Churches of the Reformation. The zeal and talent of the reformers of the six- teenth century has never been surpassed; and the energy of their characters bore down before it every opposition; but, until their churches were established by law, they never were able, and never pretended to be able, to afford instruction to the great body of the people! That the voluntary system,” continues the Eclectic Re- viewer, “‘ would have been adequate to the wants, and capable of adapting itself to the varying circumstances of society, in all past ages, neither the records of history, nor the dictates of common sense, allow us to suppose .... The advocates of the voluntary prin- ciple take the most disadvantageous position imaginable, when they undertake to prove, that were the Establishment cleared away, the ‘free churches’ would be adequate to provide for the instruction of the whole home population. Jt may be so—the Mil- lenium is approaching; but we have no notion of being called upon to subscribe to a theory like this. Had we no fears or doubts of our own to surmount, the remarks of such a man as Mr. Douglas upon this subject would give us pause, &c.”
(y) Isai. xlix. 23.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 4.7
the unpruned luxuriance of this truth-seeking Quaker’s imagination will urge him to prove that the State has no interest whatever in the moral condition of its subjects; for, unless he can prove this, and it is quite as susceptible of proof as the greater part of Mr. Howitt’s assertions, he cannot infer, that it is not the duty of the State to appoint ministers who shall regularly and diligently dispense the word of God in every Parish, and thereby afford opportunity to the most careless and to the poorest of the people to “ enter into His courts with thanks- giving, * and to ‘ drink of the waters of life” “‘ without money and without price.”* Mr. Howitt may assert, but he cannot prove, indeed, throughout his book he asserts many things, but proves nothing, that, if Christ had been speaking to his Apostles of the peculiar duties of Christian kings, which he no where does, (and yet Mr. Howitt cannot deny that kings have duties to perform,) or that if he had been speaking to kings themselves of the duties required of them as the ‘ nursing fathers” of his Church,—which he no where does, because kings had not yet been convérted to the Christian faith,— that he would not have declared it to be incumbent upon them, and one of their most essential duties, to make religion the principal object of their legisla- tive care and attention, by founding and endowing a National Church for its promotion and support.
Again, Mr. Howitt tells his readers, that the first union of Church and State was “ the device of
(z) Ps. c. 4. (a) Isai. lv. 1.
48 Πιδέογῃ of the Christian Priesthood.
artful politicians,” ἢ to “ enslave religion ;”° that the Church, at first, submitted, because “‘ it was no easy matter to escape the grasp of regal and political dominion ;”¢ and that, being thereby ‘‘ enslaved by the temporal power,’® she became ‘‘the tool of ambitious kings and rulers.” f
This is directly at variance with historical fact, though, doubtless, in accordance with “ Popular” notions.—The first union of Church and State was under the Emperor Constantine, which was brought about, not by “‘ the device of artful politicians,” nor with a view to “ enslave religion,” nor with any intention, on the part of the royal convert, to subject the Church to ‘‘the grasp of regal and political dominion,” or to impose upon it ‘ the iron and blood-stained hand of political rule ;°” but merely in fulfilment of the designs of Him, to whom Prin- cipalities and Powers are subject; ‘‘ in whose hands are the hearts of kings;”" and who, in promotion of the designs of his providence, ‘‘ guideth them according to his own good pleasure.” So far, there- fore, from Mr. Howitt’s assertion being correct, Constantine was the first Gentile king who realized the prophecy of Isaiah respecting the Christian church, that ‘‘ the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.”? More of this, however, anon.
In order to the complete establishment of Mr. Howitt’s argument, that kings have no right to
(6) P. 211. (c) ἘΣ 178. (d) P. 179. (e) P. 178. CF )sP.195. (6) Ibid. (h) Prov. xxi. 1. (i) Isai. Ix. 3.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 41
interfere in matters of ecclesiastical regulation, it was necessary for him to prove, that although ecclesiastical jurisdiction bears an inseparable re- lation to religion, and religion to good government ; and although in order to the security and well- being of the people, the government of a State must necessarily have authority over every thing within itself, and, therefore, over the Church, inasmuch as the Church is within the State, and not the State within the church; yet that religion, notwithstand- ing it is an admitted essential requisite in the good government of a State, is in no manner to be under the contro] of the governor of that State.
If we had not long since discovered the futility of expecting Mr. Howitt to prove any thing, we might have further expected him to prove that the kings of God’s own chosen people, the Jews (from the time of Moses to the Maccabees), were not by divine appointment invested with the supremacy of eccle- siastical power by virtue of their exercise of civil dominion; and that all ecclesiastical laws of that nation are not termed ‘‘ the deeds of the king :” and we should also look to Mr. Howitt to prove that there was any thing local or peculiar in the exercise of supreme ecclesiastical power by the Jewish kings, so that their case is inapplicable to Chris- tian kings. Mr. Howitt, perhaps, may here dis- play his eel-like propensity of slipping out of one question by asking another; he may say that my argument proves nothing, inasmuch as God gave a regal government to the Jews in anger, and not as the best mode of government. I give him the full benefit of every thing which he can gain by σ *
42* History of the Christian Priesthood.
this assertion, and beg to ask him, who, from the time of Moses to the first king, Saul, under the form of government peculiarly and especially ap- pointed by the Almighty, had authority in eccle- siastical matters, the high priest or the civil governor ?—It would seem, therefore, that in the scheme of God’s providence, it was deemed neces- sary for the promotion of religion, that kings should have a direct and immediate control over it.
In support of his assertion that “‘ regal dominion ’ over ecclesiastical matters is contrary to the tenets of Scripture, he ought to have convinced us also, that the prophecies which declare that “kings should be the nursing fathers, and queens the nursing mothers”* of the Christian church, and that the Christian church should “ suck the breast of kings,”! had not been, and never would be fulfilled.
Again, it is an historical fact, that in all Pagan States, the emperors exercised a direct control over the religion of the State, promulgating such laws as they saw fit for its security and maintenance ; that their right to do so was always submitted to, and never even questioned; and that in the different revolutions that occurred in consequence of the tyranny of those kings, amongst the numerous causes which led to those revolutions, we never find interference in ecclesiastical matters recorded as one of them; it was, therefore, the avowed and undoubted privilege of all heathen kings so to interfere. Now the Being, whose eye beholds
(k) Isai. xlix. 22, 23. (1) Isai. lx. 16.
9
History of the Christian Priesthood. 48
the present and the future, and to whom “a thou- sand years are but as a day,” must necessarily have foreseen that some of these heathen rulers would be converted to Christianity; and knowing the imper- fection of our nature, even when brought under the chastening influences of His gospel, and how eager we all are to grasp even at the shadow of power and authority, He must have also known that these heathen kings and rulers, when con- verted to Christianity, would not willingly have resigned so important a part of their prerogative, unless they were convinced that it was contrary to the precepts of that religion to which they had become converts. Unless, therefore, Mr. Howitt can show such prohibition clearly and to be ex- pressly declared in the pages of Holy Writ, he cannot infer that the Almighty, who thought it necessary to give such ecclesiastical authority to the Jewish Rulers, for the purpose of supporting a religion which only shadowed forth Christianity, might not have considered it equally necessary to continue the same authority to Christian Princes and Rulers, in order to secure the promotion and extension of the gospel.
The Apostles knew the kings of their own nations were, by divine appointment, invested with the su- premacy of ecclesiastical power, merely by virtue of their exercise of civil dominion ; and that the inter- ference even of heathen sovereigns, as the Assyrian princes, for example, had, for the same reasons, been divinely permitted over the Jewish church. When St. Paul was brought before Festus, the vicegerent of the Roman emperor, and accused of
44* History of the Christian Priesthood.
being “a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes,”™ and of preaching “‘ heresy,”" the Apostle expressly admits the right of the heathen governor to hear and adjudicate upon the accusation. ‘ I stand at Cesar’s judgment seat,” says St. Paul, ‘‘ where I ought to be judged.”° Now if he admitted this right of ecclesiastical interference in a heathen sovereign, by what possible line of argument can Mr. Howitt show that if the reigning emperor had been converted to Christianity in the times of the Apostles, they would have considered it ab- stractedly unlawful to submit to him in matters of ecclesiastical, as well as of civil regulation.”
(m) Acts xxiv. 5. (x) Verse 14. (0) Chap. xxv. 10.
(p) As Iam anxious not to be misunderstood, either as to the ex- tent or the nature of the right of the Civil Governor in Ecclesiastical matters, I quote the following documents, showing the limitation of that authority:—The ancient Canon law declares, ‘ Lex Impera- torum non est supra legem Dei, sed subtus. Non licet Imperatori aliquid contra divina mandata presumere, Imperiali judicio non possunt Ecclesiastica gura dissolvi. Imperium non debet usurpare, que Sacerdotibus Domini solum conveniunt..... Non licet impera- tori, vel cuiquam pietatem custodient aliquid contra divina pre- sumere, aut quicquam, quod Evangeliis Propheticis, aut Apostolicis regulis obviet, agere.” (Ὁ. 1. 9. ο. 11.) In the Declaration of the Convocation of the Church of England at the Reformation, to which the Clergy subscribed their hands, it is expressly stated, “ Cujus (Ecclesix, sc. Anglican) singularem Protectorem, unicum et Supremum Dominum et (quantum per Christi leges licet,) Su- premum Caput, ipsius Majestatem recognoscimus.” (See Antiq. Britan. Mason. de Minist. Anglic.)—In the Injunctions of Queen Elizabeth, published in the first year of her reign, and allowed by the Clergy in their Book of Articles agreed upon in Convocation about five years afterwards, it is declared, ‘‘ We give to our Princes that only Prerogative, which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself; that is, that they should rule all states and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil doers.” (Article XXXVII.) The
History of the Christian Priesthood. 4585
But Mr. Howitt, who never descends from the antage ground of general assertion, into the arena f close arguments and proofs, flatters himself hough such a supposition is any thing but flattering > his readers,) that they will concede to him the etitio principiz, without even knowing that it has ver been asked. After wading through the medley 1855. of simile and metaphor, magniloquent words nd bold assertions, contained in the two hundred nd seventy-six pages of his volume, and which rings to one’s mind Cowper’s observation, that,
‘* Some write a narrative, and call the rant An History,’’4
cannot find that Mr. Howitt has adduced a single roof in support of his assertion, or any thing which as the slightest bearing whatever upon the ques- ion of the supremacy of the civil governor in natters of ecclesiastical regulation. Mr. Howitt alks much, but proves nothing. He says, that he system introduced by Christ ‘‘ went to break lown all bonds of body and soul ;”* and that “ the oice of Christ proclaims to men, ‘ The truth shall nake you free.’”’s Presbyterian Kirk of Scotland admit the same right of the Civil sovernor: ‘The Civil Magistrate hath authority, and it is his luty to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church; hat the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed; for the better ef- fecting whereof, he hath power to call Synods, and to be present at
them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be ac-
cording to the mind of God.’’ (Confession of Faith, Chap, xxiii. Sect. 3.)
(q) Task, Book II. (r) P.100. (2) P. 195.
46* History of the Christian Priesthood.
Now I am quite at a loss to discover what Mr. Howitt means by Christ’s ‘‘ breaking down all bonds of body and soul.” If he mean, that Christ came to separate, what the Scriptures all along put to- gether, the concerns of *‘ body and soul,” that is, to sever the spiritual and temporal interests, and con- sequently the present and future happiness of man- kind, I only wish he had condescended to prove it. For it is clear (and, so long as every man is com- posed of “soul and body,” it will ever remain so) that the civil and religious duties of mankind, which are the only ‘‘ bonds of body and soul,” must be in- separably interwoven; and, consequently, unless Mr. Howitt can prove, that ever since the coming of Christ mankind have been altogether uninfluenced by temporal and spiritual prospects, Christ could not have come to “break down those bonds of body and soul.” I am free to admit with Mr. Howitt, that ‘* the voice of Christ proclaims to men —‘The truth shall make you free.’” But these words of our Saviour prove nothing at all against the interference of civil governors in ecclesiastical matters. I do not deny that the word truth” in the New Testament often means ‘‘ the gospel,” or ‘the Christian faith,”* in which sense Mr. Howitt would have us explain it in this passage,—“‘ the truth (i.e. the gospel, or the Christian faith) will make you free.” “Free” from what? Let St. Paul explain the meaning of his divine Master. “ς The law of the Spirit of life in Christ,” writes the Apostle (by which he unquestionably means the same as our Saviour by the word “truth,” that is, the gospel), ““ has made me free from the law of
(¢) See 2 John 3, 4. ὃ John 3, 4.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 4.7 *
sin and death, which the law could not do." So that our Saviour by ‘‘ The truth shall make you free,’ does not mean (as Mr. Howitt would have us infer) that ‘‘ the gospel shall make the Church free” from the control of the civil governor, but that the gospel shall make Christians ‘free from the law of sin and death,” which it was impossible for the law of Moses to do.
Again, Mr. Howitt declares a National church to be “‘ unnecessary ;” that is, he would leave it to men, as individuals, to associate for the promotion of religion, as they would for the promotion of any object merely of private and worldly interest.
Before Mr. Howitt can expect us to place any confidence in this assertion, he ought to have proved that when the miraculous powers conferred upon the primitive teachers of Christianity were withdrawn, an Established church was not the best, nay more, the only efficient substitute for those advantages which the authority and sanction of miracles had conferred. He ought also to have proved that although men by nature seek after that which is evil, rather than after that which is good, they would all, whether religiously disposed or not, contribute to the preservation of religious edifices, and to the support of Christian ministers. Fur-
(u) Rom. vii. 22, 23.
(x) “There are some wants which may safely be left to the animal instincts of our nature to be supplied; the cravings of hunger and thirst are sure to meet with attention through the summons of our physical necessities; the more a man feels them, the more he desires to satisfy them; but the case is not so with the more refined and elevated feelings. It isnot so in the instance of a common secular education. The less enlightened men are, the
48* History of the Christian Priesthood.
thermore it was imperative on Mr. Howitt to have shown that although God in his dealings with mankind has generally operated by the use of means and second causes, yet that a National Church Establishment was not a probable instru- ment or means to have been made use of by him for the promotion of his gospel.
But to come at once to our own Church, in which we are more immediately concerned, and putting aside the many able, and, in my opinion irresistible arguments which have been urged by
less they feel their ignorance, and the less pains they take to ad- vance their own improvement; and surely this argument will apply to religious instruction.” (See Lord Chancellor Brougham’s Speech in the House of Lords, May 13, 1834.) ‘* The spontaneous demand of human beings for religion is far short of the interest which they actually have in it. This is not so with their demand for food or raiment, or any article which ministers to the necessi- ties of our physical nature. The more destitute we are of these articles, the greater is our desire after them. In every case where the want of any thing serves to whet our appetite, instead of weak- ening it, the supply of that thing may be left, with all safety, to the native and powerful demand for it, among the people themselves. The sensation of hunger is a sufficient guarantee for there being as many bakers in a country as it is good and necessary for the country to have, without any National Establishment of bakers... But the case is widely different when the appetite for any good is short of the degree in which that good is useful or necessary ; and, above all, when just in proportion to our want of it, is the decay of our appetite towards it. Now this is, generally speaking, the case with religious instruction. The less we have of it, the less we desire to have of it. It is not so with the aliment of the soul as it is with the aliment of the body. The latter will be sought after; the former must be offered to a people, whose spiritual ap- petite is ina state of dormancy, and with whom it is just as neces- sary to create a hunger, as it is to minister a positive supply. In these circumstances, it were vain to wait for any original move- ment on the part of the receivers. It must be made on the part of the dispensers.” (Chalmers’ Christian and Civil Economy, Vol. I. pp- 89, 90.)
“δ πιά
ona
History of the Christian Priesthood. 49
Church of England men in favour of Ecclesiastical Kstablishments,’ Mr. Howitt ought to have shown that even the Dissenters themselves (who advocate the voluntary contribution system, and must, there- fore, be admitted to be practically acquainted with the workings of such a system), have not lamented the uncertain and precarious payment of their ministers, and consequently the inefficiency of the voluntary system to the promotion of religion."
(g) By far the best work upon this subject is ‘ Correlative Claims and Duties,’ (8vo. Hatchards,) by the present learned and highly- gifted Editor of the Christian Observer.
(h) “Τὴ the common transactions and business of life,” writes Mr. Hale of Homerton, who is himself a zealous Dissenter, ‘“ we know that an increased demand for any of its comforts or luxuries will always secure an increased supply; but we must proceed in an inverse ratio, when it regards the welfare of immortal souls. ‘The carnal mind is enmity against God.’ There is no desire in the human race for religious instruction; they are totally averse from it; and to speak in the political language just referred to, we must always overstock the market with a supply, before we can expect to have any demand. There are many worthy pastors in various parts of the empire who know from bitter experience the truth of these observations; who have been struggling for years against the tide of adversity, and whose extreme distresses are known only to the afflicted partners of their lives, and to those of their children who have been early inured to the severe privation of almost every comfort. Their anguish has been such as to render them totally unfit for the labours of the Sabbath; and while they have been called to exhort their congregations to the practical exercise of every relative duty, they have been sensible that their own inability to discharge their just debts has been too freely cir- culated by some of their hearers; that unjust motives have been partially ascribed to their conduct, and that thus an advantage is taken, by the enemies of religion, to destroy the effects of their preaching. With respect to those stations, exceedingly interesting and important, which are suffering incalculably from the want of ministers, it is acknowledged, that the chief obstacle to such stations being suited with able pastors, is the not raising a suffi-
cient provision for their frugal maintenance.” (Hale’s ‘ Cursory
D
50 Ffistory of the Christian Priesthood.
Mr. Howitt was also bound to prove that if the Minister’s personal income were dependent upon the number of his hearers, he would not thereby be induced zz the pulpit to seek to increase his income by suiting his doctrines to the views of his hearers rather than by basing them upon the sure word of God: and that owt of the pulpit, he would not be likely to neglect the first, and by far the most important of his duties, of being ‘‘ instant in season and out of season,”! lest his visits should be mis- interpreted into a desire to increase the number of his congregation, and to ‘‘ win” hearers to himself, rather than to ‘ win souls to Christ.”
Admitting Mr. Howitt could prove (which I be- lieve he could not), that in the 375 larger towns, containing 5,000 inhabitants,* the bulk of the people, contrary to all past experience of human nature, would sufficiently provide themselves with ministers duly qualified for that purpose, he would yet have to show that no injury would result to the population of the country villages. The ‘ Report
Remarks upon the Present State of Protestant Dissenting Con- eregations.’)
“Tt is quite notorious,’ writes the Author of ‘Remarks upon the Present State of the Dissenting Interest,’ “ that the general income of Dissenting Ministers in country places és wholly in- adequate to their maintenance, more especially if they have families dependent upon them.” (See ‘Remarks upon the Present State of the Dissenting Interest, with Hints for its Improvement by means of a Consolidated Union, by one of the Laity.’ 1831).
(i) 2 Tim. iv. 2.
(1) See ‘ Report from his Majesty’s Ministers for Inquiring into the Administration and Practical Operation of the Poor Laws.’— Supplement, No. II. p. 104.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 51
of the Poor Law Commissioners’ states that no less than 9,802 parishes contain less than 500 souls! (that is, about one hundred families); and as none of these 9,802 parishes could furnish sufficient funds for the maintenance of an educated minister, Mr. Howitt has the somewhat difficult task of proving that the inhabitants of all these parishes would not soon be left entirely destitute of religion, and ultimately sink into a state of practical hea- thenism. As of the remainder no less than 3,038 parishes contain from 500 to 1,000 inhabitants,™ and the mass of these agricultural labourers, a class of men who, being in some instances unable to support themselves in their station as labourers, cannot, under any circumstances, be expected to contribute to the support of a minister, Mr. Howitt has, by some statistical and arithmetical legerde- main, to show the mode in which an adequate voluntary contribution for the instruction of the people could be raised from the empty pockets of these individuals. But even, for the sake of proving the utter absurdity of Mr. Howitt’s argu- ment, let us even suppose that in these 12,840 parishes, averaging only 750 inhabitants, a suffi- cient number of persons could be found in each parish to associate for the obtaining a duly qualified minister, still the majority of the persons so sub- scribing would be unprovided with ministers who would preach doctrines adapted to their different religious persuasions; unless, indeed, under the blessed effects of the voluntary contribution system, (ἢ) Report.—Supplement, No. II. p. 104. {m) Tbid. D2
52 History of the Christian Priesthood.
they procured a minister who would preach Muggletonianism in the morning, Bryanitism in the afternoon, Swedenborgianism in the evening, and any other “‘zsm,” on any other day of the week, ‘‘ fora consideration.” It appears, therefore, that before Mr. Howitt could show the expediency (to take no higher ground) of abolishing the National Church, he lay under the necessity of proving that its overthrow would not deprive nine out of every ten parishes in England and Wales of the means of religious instruction. And as he assures his readers that, “‘ sorry should he be to see our noble ecclesiastical piles deserted and falling to decay, because the national funds were withdrawn,”—* sorry should he be to see, in his Sunday rambles into the country, the picturesque village church deserted by its accustomed minister, and occupied by some ignorant and clamorous fanatic,’" we might at least expect that he would prove to his readers that such would not be the inevitable effect of ‘* withdrawing” (what he is pleased to term) ‘‘ the national funds,”® and ** divorcing the Church from the State.”?
Mr. Howitt ought also to have proved that those who are anxious for the abolition of a National church, are, notwithstanding, most desirous to uphold and to extend Christianity; but, so far as my reading enables me to judge, I find that the parties most desirous of the overthrow of the National Church are equally anxious for the over-
(n) P. 251. (o) Ibid. (p) P. 211.
History of the Christian Priesthood. ὅθ
throw of Christianity itself; and that they seek the destruction of the one, as the surest mode of effectually extinguishing the other. The French nation succeeded in what Mr. Howitt wishes to attempt; and human nature shudders at the fiend- like atrocities resulting from that success, and which history has recorded in characters of blood.
But even if no such atrocities resulted from the overthrow of our present National Church, we know that the Dissenters, from a persuasion of the un- lawfulness of such an Establishment, would not seek the political establishment of their own reli- gion; we might, therefore, call upon Mr. Howitt to prove that no apprehension need be entertained of the re-establishment of Popery.4
(q) I feel confident that nothing would strengthen and encourage the exertions of the Romanists to seek the political re-establishment of their own dark doctrines and traditions, so much as the putting out “the eye’’ (as the learned Genevan Professor, Deodatus, called the National Church of this country) of Protestantism, by overthrow- ing the National Church, which opposes such a barrier to Popery. It was the advice of the Jesuit Contzens, (Contz. Polit. lib. il. cap. 18) ; it was also the openly expressed opinion of the Jesuit Campanella, in his ‘ Discourse on the Spanish Monarchy,’ a.p. 1600, and published in English at London, a. Ὁ. 1654, in which he professes that the only mode of “ extinguishing and rooting out the Religion of the English, was by the overthrow of the existing National Church.” (See Campan. Disc. of Span. Mon. chap. xxv. p. 197.) Doubtless, it was on this account that the Church of Rome secretly abetted the cause of the Republicans in the civil wars which pre- ceded the abolition of the Established Church in 1649. (See Edwards’ Gangrena, Part II. p. 10.) It is certain that Dr. Bayly, a distinguished Romanist of that period, openly courted Oliver Cromwell, as the only hope of Rome, and flatteringly called him, “Oliva vera.” (See the Life of Bishop Fisher, p. 260, 261.) Gifford, the Jesuit, also appeared openly among the agitators, in the year 1647, and he principally assisted in drawing up, at a
54: History of the Christian Priesthood.
In brief, unless Mr. Howitt satisfactorily prove to his readers that the abolition of the National Church could not possibly produce a decay of the religious and moral feeling of the country, and that neither infidelity, nor popery, nor fanaticism, would succeed, and, furthermore, that the existence of the National Church forms no barrier against any one of these great national evils, he cannot expect his
committee in the army, the paper, called the ‘ Agreement of the People.’ (See Arbit. Government, p. 28.) And Robert Mentit de Salmonet, a Scotchman, and a secular Roman Priest, mentions many of the Priests slain at Edge-hill, and of two companies of Walloons and other Catholics (as he is pleased to style them), in the service of the States. (See Hist. des Troubles de la Grand Bret. a Paris, 1661, lib. 11. p. 165; also, ‘ A Short View of the late Troubles,’ p. 564.) King Charles the First, in one of his printed Declarations, speaks of such things as notorious. (See Whitelock’s Memoirs, p. 270, 280, 282.) “‘ All men,” writes he, “knew the great number of Papists which serve in their army, commanders, and others.” (Exact. Col. p. 647.) It is clear, there- fore, that the Romanists themselves of that period entertained hopes of restoring the Popish Religion, by the overthrow of the National Church. Nor let it be objected that we need be under no alarm in the present day. The spirit of Popery is the same now that it was in 1645; and it is certain that Popery is, at the very moment in which I write, greatly on the increase in this country. It appears from ‘ The Catholic Directory’ that there are in England and Wales 423 Popish Chapels, of which no less than sixty-five have been built since 1824; in Scotland, of 74 Chapels, no less than twenty-three have been erected during the last four years: so that in Great Britain, nearly one hundred Roman Chapels have been built during the last ten years. And, to come to towns, it has been ascertained that there are now in Manchester and its environs about 42,060 persons of the Roman Catholic per- suasion, when but a few years ago that place scarcely contained seventy! Many other large towns show a similar increase. With Mr. Howitt, who contends that ‘‘the Catholic Religion ought to be the Established Religion of Ireland,’ (p. 200), such statements may have but little weight, but they ought to be no slight argument to every ProTesTANT Dissenter, to uphold the Establishment which
Fiisiory of the Christian Priesthood. δῦ
readers to infer that no social or religious benefits are derived to the community from such an institution: much less can he expect them to infer that such an institution is ‘‘ unnecessary,” if a State religion be at all beneficial to the support and extension of the Christian faith, and have any, the least, beneficial influence upon the principles and morals of all classes of society.
We will now proceed to examine and to answer the arguments adduced by Mr. Howitt to convince his readers of the “ non-necessity and political op- pression,’* and “ uselessness, and impolicy, and nuisance of an Establishment.”
He sets out with contending that ‘ nothing could justify a State Religious Establishment but the total and proven impossibility of keeping alive Christianity without it.”* Now, be it observed, Mr. Howitt does not require the advocates of “a State Religious Establishment” to prove that it is impossible for Christianity to flourish without a National church, or even to show the greater pro- bability of its flourishing under the protection of
upholds such a barrier to Papal encroachment. In America, where no such barrier exists, Popery is alarmingly on the increase. It would appear, from the 49th number of the ‘ New York Protestant,’ that “ between New Orleans and Baltimore, there are nearly two hundred Popish buildings, either mass-houses, colleges, seminaries, convents, or nunneries ;”.... “throughout the Valley of the Missis- sippi, the Papists outnumber the two largest communities in Ame- rica”’.... and “the Protestants in South Carolina have permitted the Pope’s Grand Inquisitor for America (a Dominican Jesuit) to harangue in their places of worship.” (See Protestant Journal, December 1831; and New York Protestant, No. X LIX.) (r) P. 208. (ΕΝ 180. (¢) P. 208.
56 History of the Christian Priesthood.
such an institution. With any reasonable man, the adducing such proof would be sufficient to decide him to support such an institution. But it is far otherwise with Mr. Howitt: he cares not whether Christianity flourish or not, so long as it can be but barely “‘ kent alive” without a National church. Now no man in his senses would think of proving that Christianity may not be ‘‘ kept alive” without a National church, although it would be very easy to show “ the total and proven impossibility” of its flourishing without such an institution. I pass on, however, to the consideration of the proofs [?!] which Mr. Howitt has adduced in support of his position of ‘‘ the non-necessity, political oppression, uselessness, impolicy, and nuisance of an Establish- ment.” All his “ proofs” [?!] are drawn from America. To show not only the possibility, but the advantage, of upholding Christianity without a National church, he argues that because “ in the United States of America, where there is no State religion, Christianity flourishes not less than among us”" (the gross falsehood of which assertion, by the way, I will hereafter demonstrate), therefore, “ America stands a monument not merely of the uselessness, but the impolicy and nuisance of Esta- blishments.” *
In the first place, it is by no means evident that because “‘ Christianity may flourish not less” (he does not say flourish more) “ in America than among us,” that, therefore, it follows that Establishments are necessarily ‘‘ impolitic and a
(wu) P. 208. (x) P. 189s
History of the Christian Priesthood. δὴ
nuisance.” If what Mr. Howitt assert with respect to the state of religious feeling in America, namely, that “ it flourishes not less there than among us,” be correct (for the whole question hinges upon this), it may prove “ the uselessness of Establish- ments,” but it will be very far indeed from proving the ‘‘impolicy and nuisance” of them. But let this pass. The main question to be proved is the ‘“uselessness” of such an institution; for if it be “‘ useless,” I need not inform this wordy friend it cannot, of course, be necessary. Leaving, there- fore, undiscussed, whether Mr. Howitt be justified in calling a National church ‘ impolitic,” and a ** nuisance,” proceed we to consider how far the case of America, and he has advanced no other, will bear him out in affirming our National Church to be an “ useless” institution; and, how far the “* Americans have become,” what he affirms they have, ‘ our practical teachers in the philosophy of religion and government.” ἡ
Mr. Howitt can have no pretext for demanding that we should take America as a proof of the possibility, not barely of ‘ keeping alive,” but of upholding Christianity in a flourishing degree, unless he be prepared to prove that America once had a National church; for if he cannot give such proof, the case of America is not a safe and applicable model for any other nation in which a National church has long prevailed. For as it by no means follows that because an Indian, who, having been accustomed to subsist principally upon vegetable productions, can
(y) P.189. D3
58 History of the Christian Priesthood.
do without animal food, that, therefore, an European who has always lived upon such food would be equally strong and healthy, if suddenly and alto- gether debarred the use of it; neither does it follow, that because religion is “‘ kept alive” in America, which never had an Established church, that it would be equally “ kept alive” if the Establish- ments were overthrown in those countries in which they have hitherto existed, and where religion has flourished through their instrumentality. But Mr. Howitt does not attempt to prove that the United States of America ever had a National church ; indeed he broadly asserts, in his “‘ Reply to Archdeacon Wilkins,” that America has existed ‘“‘ two hundred years”? (that is, of course ever since Christianity had been introduced into the country), without a National church. If Mr. Howitt had been disposed to act fairly by the advocates for Church Establishments, he would not have gone to America at‘all (though, by the way, I heartily thank him for doing so), but would have drawn his proofs exclusively from countries in which a National church had previously existed, but in which, after its overthrow, religion had continued to flourish with equal vigour. He could not have objected that history furnished him with no such examples; for he might have taken France, a country, which having for centuries had the benefit of a National church (for though the Church was a corrupt and Popish one, still, its existence was a benefit, aye, and not a slight one, as subsequent events fully
(e) (Pc 10,
History of the Christian Priesthood. 59
proved), overthrew it, and thereby destroyed the barriers, which even this corrupt and Popish church interposed against the flood of anarchy and atheism, which afterwards swamped that unfortunate coun- try. If, touse Mr. Howitt’s own phrase, he had “turned his sickening eyes away” from this moral ruin, “‘ blinded with burning tears,”* he might have delighted his readers in all the glowing terms with which his poetical imagination might have furnished him, with a full description of the advantages de- rived to our own country, after she had cast from her the ““ political oppression,” and ‘‘ nuisance” of a Church Establishment.
But, unfortunately, alas! most unfortunately, for Mr. Howitt, both these cases (the only ones with which history furnishes us as applicable in all their parts to our own case) furnished strong, and, it is to be hoped, never to be forgotten examples in favour of Church Establishments. Religion, in- stead of flourishing more without such an institu- tion, was, as he himself allows, ‘‘ wrecked,” and in France “ such horrors perpetrated, as turned the sickening eyes of the beholder away, blinded with burning tears ;”° whilst in England, the whole country, until the restoration of the National Church, was “ deluged in blood, and tossed in anarchy and erime.”* As these are the only instances which
(a) P.175. (Ὁ) Ibid. (c) Ibid.
(4) P. 193.—Mr. Howitt admits that by the overthrow of the National Church in this country during the Commonwealth, the” country was “ tossed in anarchy and crime.” As the thing that has
been, may be again, and as the same causes, set on foot by the same principles, will eternally produce the same effects, 1 cannot
60 Ffistory of the Christian Priesthood.
occur of an whole nation abolishing a National church, perhaps Mr. Howitt would be good enough to inform his readers, upon what grounds he would have them believe that the same lamentable effects would not be the natural results of “ divorcing the Church from the State” in this country. Or is he anxious that religion, instead of being barely “ kept alive,” should be ““ wrecked,”’® and our hitherto highly-favoured country “ deluged in blood, and tossed in anarchy and crime?” I am not un- charitable enough to suppose that Mr. Howitt is actuated by motives so base, and so unchristian- like; nevertheless, if his sectarian zeal urge him to furnish us with only one-sided arguments, and if, in his fierce and blinded zealotry to overthrow the
see how he can possibly be sincere in recommending the overthrow of our National Church a second time. I earnestly recommend to the attentive perusal of every inquirer after truth on this subject the following works—chiefly written during the period of this lamentable event—which are filled with recitals of the horrible blasphemies and gross immoralities practised with impunity until the restoration of the National Church. I have given the pages which more directly tend to prove the truth of my position :— Mysteries of God, a.p. 1649; Whitelock’s Memoirs, A.p. 1649 (p. 430); Salmon’s Rout, (Pref. and p. 10,11); View of the late Troubles (chap. xliii. p. 366, 567) ; Whitelock’s Memoirs, A.p. 1654. (p. 241, 592); Edward Burrough’s Trumpet of the Lord Sounded ; Wynst. in Saints’ Paradise (c. v. p. 54, &c.); Catalogue and Dis- covery of Errors (p. 15, and. Ixxiii. to Ixvi.), Second Part (p. 5, 22, 24, 27, 105, 110); Fresh Discoveries (p. 115, 162, &c.); Edwards’ Gangrena (Part III, p. 17); Edwards’ Further Dis- coveries (p. 187); Part III. (p. 185); Jenkins’ Fast Sermon, Jan. 27, 1646 (p. 29); also, ‘A Letter from a Noble Venetian to Cardinal Barbarino,’ translated and printed a.p. 1649 (p. 19), in which the writer shows the great increase of Atheism in this country.
(6) P.175. (f) P. 198.
Flistory of the Christian Priesthood. 61
** proven,” scriptural, and time-hallowed institutions of the country, he will perversely shut his eyes, not only to the ‘ proven” benefits which we have derived from these institutions, but to the fatal and not yet repaired results which have attended their overthrow elsewhere ;—if, I say, Mr. Howitt is moral incendiary enough to do so, I trust that very few, except “them that are given to change,”! the restless, and alas! too numerous spirits of the day, “the scum That rises upmost, when the nation boils,” will be misled by his ““ Popular History of Priest- craft.” Sure I am, that the sound-headed, and right-hearted part of the population will pause ere they forsake the altars of their forefathers, ere they abandon that Establishment, which has subsisted in this country for so many centuries, and upon the pillars of whose sacred edifice every friend of order and religion would wish to see inscribed, Esto PERPETUA.
In reference to the past, Mr. Howitt ought to prove that the non-establishment of Christianity in the United States was, in the first instance, a matter of choice, not of necessity ; and as to the future, for aught we know, circumstances might occur before the expiration of another half century, to cause the establishment of such an institution, and more espe- cially if the country continue to progress in science and literature.”
(g) Prov. xxiv. 21. (h) “ The religion of England,” writes an American Clergyman, “was an Establishment supported by the Government; our ances-
62 L[istory of the Christian Priesthood.
Chiefly, however, Mr. Howitt ought to have proved, and most fully to have proved, his assertion, that ‘‘ in the United States of America, where there is no State religion, Christianity does flourish no less than among us.”! Now the truth or falsehood
tors being opposed to the form of that Establishment, came to New England to erect an Establishment of their own. It was a minority withdrawing, to set up a Government more agreeable to their own wishes. They consequently formed their religious polity at the same time in which they formed their civil. When they migrated, it was as a Church, with their pastors at their head. Jf then the whole of these United States had been peopled from the same source, an Established Religion would in all probability have been retained; in which case, either provision would have been made from time to time, for the settlement of any new States, as formerly in New England, for the settlement of new towns; or, if there had been any dissension, the discontented would have retired, as a Religious body, carrying with them their own institutions, and forming, elsewhere, a new Establishment, according to their own model. But the other parts of America were peopled by adventurers, of different nations and opposite sentiments. Some, indeed, as Lord Baltimore and William Penn, with their followers, came out on account of their religion; but most of the seitlers came out from widely different motives, impelled by discontent at home, or allured by the thirst of gain. At the very commencement, therefore, of the political existence of the colonies, they were made up of the most dis- cordant materials, as it regarded religion. And when our Indepen- dence was achieved, and our union formed, it became necessary, as a measure of sound policy for the constitution of our National Government, only to tolerate, and not to support, Christianity. It became necessary, in order to blend together the heterogeneous mass, to prevent the collisions of religious parties from having any sway over the public councils, by excluding religion itself. J¢ became necessary to banish that subject, which of all others ought to be most interesting to men in every station of life, because the corruptions of the human heart, and the errors of the human understanding, here rent asunder the body of Christ.’ (Sermon, preached before the Auxiliary Education Society of the Young Men of Boston. By Samuel Farmar Jarvis, D.D. Rector of St. Paul’s Church, Boston, 1822.) (4) P. 208.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 63
of this assertion is the cardinal point on which all the inferences to be drawn from it hinge; and as it is a maxim in logic that a nullity in the antecedents produces a nullity in the consequents, it follows, that if the assertion be untrue, America does Not stand ‘‘ a monument of the uselessness, impolicy, and nuisance of Establishments,’* but rather as a monument of the necessity of such institutions. Mr. Howitt boldly assures his readers that religion not only exists, but ‘‘ flourishes” in America. Now let the plain force of truth crush the brazen front of falsehood. Mr. Howitt could not have selected a more unfortunate negative example in favour of a National Church than America. From this un- supported assertion of Mr. Howitt, I appeal to the well-authenticated assurances of Americans them- selves, to show that religion is in any thing but a flourishing state! Can this candid gentleman
(k) P. 189.
(ἢ) “The sanctity of the Lord’s day among us is either violated by an attention to worldly concerns, or is observed in a manner worse than the violation, by being made the occasion of idleness and BEIGE Cha. οτος To settle a minister becomes impracticable; or, if two or more are settled, the scanty pittance given for their support obliges them to escape from the horrors of poverty by removal... . Can it be then a matter of surprise, that, in the midst of all that life and energy which are exhibited in our new settlements, the goodly plant of Christianity should have taken no root, and is withering and dying for want of nourishment ? The sound of the axe may ring through the forest—the plough may pierce the soil which has been before undisturbed for centuries, excepting by the hunter’s tread— the streams may be pent up in their narrow bed, and powers not their own given them to turn the mill-wheel, and afford nourish- ment and protection to man—villages, and towns, and cities may spring up and flourish—but while the smoke is seen to curl from many a domestic hearth, where, alas! are the altars? Where is the
D8
64 History of the Christian Priesthood.
disprove the statement contained in the ‘ Reports of the American Tract Society’ for 1833, which says :—* It is estimated, by those who have the best means of judging, that not far from five millions of our population are now unblessed with the means of grace ;”™ ‘ having scarcely heard a ser- mon or a prayer in their lives ;”" a large proportion of them have ‘‘ never seen a Bible, nor heard of Jesus Christ.”° This statement applies to all the
_ village spire, pointing to heaven, and telling to the distant traveller that he is approaching the abode of Christian as well as of civilized man? Our children remain unbaptized and uninstructed. The incense of prayer never ascends from the altar of their hearts. The walls of the sanctuary never reverberate with their praises. The memorial of their Redeemer’s love never touches their lips. In the first generation religion wears itself away by a gradual decline,—in the second, it can hardly be said to have existed. As our population increases, therefore, the prospect is shrouded by a more portentous gloom; and there is great danger, that with all the exertions which the pious and benevolent can make, we shall become a nation of heathens and not of Christians.’ (See a Sermon, before the Auxiliary Education Society of the Young Men of Boston. By Samuel Farmer Jarvis, D.D. Rector of St. Paul’s Church, Boston, 1822.)
(m) In the ‘ Report’ for 1822, we find a similar statement made:—‘‘ More than half the population of America (or nearly five millions, twice the population of Scotland) it is estimated, by those best acquainted with the subject, are unsupplied with Evange- lical preaching.” “At this moment,” says the Clerk of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America, “ there are six hundred and thirty-six vacant churches, in our ninety Presbyteries, which have no regular ministration of the Gospel.” “There are about four hundred congregations belonging to the German Reformed Synod, and only about ninety ministers.” (See the ‘ Religious Intelligencer’ of November, 1828.)
(n) Dwight’s Travels in New England and New York, vol. iv. p- 398.
(0) See a " Report of a Missionary Tour throughout that part of the United States which lies West of the Alleghany Mountains, by the Rev. J.S. Mills.’ P. 29.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 59*
States, and we shall find its truth borne out if we take the different States separately.
The ‘ Religious Intelligencer,’ of August, 1828, says :—‘‘ There are now, in the State of Maine, fifty-six churches destitute of Ministers.”
The ‘ Report of the Massachusetts Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge,’ for 1830, affirms : ‘The churches in New Hampshire are in a desti- tute and broken state; only a small proportion of the people being disposed to raise money to support pious, regular, and well-instructed Ministers.”
The ‘ Religious Intelligencer,’ of November, 1828, asserts, that ‘* between two hundred and three hun- dred destitute congregational churches are reported in the Minutes of the General Association of Con- necticut, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, and in Vermont and Maine.”
In Rhode Island, embracing a territory of fifty miles in length and thirty in breadth, and including half of the population, there was, until lately, but one regularly educated Minister, and but ten in the other parts !»—Virginia, with a population of about
(p) See British Review, No. XXVI. “ The Sabbath, with a great part of this people,” writes Dr. Dwight of the inhabitants of Rhode Island, ‘ is merely a day of visiting and sport. Many of the inhabitants have customarily devoted it to labour.” (See Dwight’s Travels in New England and New York, p. 56.) In his illustration of the advantages of a National Establishment of religion, Dr. Dwight contrasts the State of Rhode Island with that of Connecticut, in which State the principle of an Establish- ment was recognized in the shape of a compulsory tax upon the inhabitants for the support of religion: “" both of these States, although planted by colonies from the same nation, lying in the same climate, and separated only by a meridional line, yet a sober man, who knows them both, can hardly hesitate, whatever may have been his original opinion concerning this subject, to believe
60* History of the Christian Priesthood.
974,000, had but sixty regular ministers; so that assuming there ought to be a minister for every thousand souls, no less than 914,000 persons are without religious instruction.—The situation of Maryland is similar to that of Virginia ;—and by the last ‘ Annual Report of the American Bible Society,’ we find that, “ἴῃ East Tennessee, there were five counties where societies could not be formed for want of materials, there being few churches, or religious men of any name.” That such a case is by no means an uncommon one appears, incidentally, from various other passages in the same Report. ‘
The ‘ Report of the American Tract Society’ for 1833, and the statement of the Rev. J. 5. Mills, in his “ Report of a Missionary Tour throughout that part of the United States which lies West of the Alleghany Mountains, in 1815, prove that “ In the whole country, from Lake Erie to the Gulf of Mexico, together with Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, occupying more than half the territory
that a legislature is bound to establish the public worship of God.” (Dwight’s Travels, vol. iii. p. 399.)
(q) British Review, No. XXVI. I should add, that Dr. Dwight illustrates his position by facts. Connecticut containing, in 1798, only 251,002 inhabitants, supported 189 ministers of the Presby- terian denomination, whilst the States of New England, contain- ing 4,033,776, supported only 242 ministers, that is, although containing sixteen times the number of inhabitants, supported not much more than one-fourth more ministers; and, in these latter States, 160 congregations were vacant, or without ministers. If these States were supplied with ministers in the same proportion as Connecticut, the whole number of ministers settled and sup- ported would be 3,024, instead of 242. “In this estimate,” writes Dr. Dwight, “we have a fair specimen of the natural consequence of; establishing or neglecting to establish the public worship of God by the law of the land.” (Pp, 397, 398.)
History of the Christian Priesthood. 61*-
of all the States of the Union, and containing more than a million of inhabitants, there are only a little more than one hundred Presbyterian or Congrega- tional ministers in it;" so that if we give one
(r) “ In all the States west of the Alleghany mountains, toge- ther with Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, occupying more than half the territory of all the States in the Union......a large portion of that population have not the Bible, nor any places of public worship, nor any stated preaching of the gospel, and are, in a great measure, destitute of the other means of grace.” (See ‘ Report of the American Tract Society’ for 1833.) ‘ Never will the impression be erased from our hearts,” write Messrs. Mills and Smith, “ that has been made by beholding those scenes of wide-spreading desolation. The whole country, from Lake Erie to the Gulf of Mexico, is as the valley of the shadow of death. Darkness rests upon it. Only here and there a few rays of gospel light pierce through the awful gloom. This vast country contains more than a million of inhabitants. Their number is every year increased by a mighty flood of emigration. Soon will they be as the sands on the’sea-shore for multitude ; yet there are, at present, only a little more than one hundred Presbyterian or Congrega- tional ministers in it. Were these ministers equally distributed throughout the country, there would be only one to every ten thousand people! But now there are districts of country, con- taining from twenty to fifty thousand inhabitants, entirely destitute. And how shall they hear without a preacher 2?” (See ‘ Report of a Missionary Tour,’ &c. p. 47.) ‘‘ In a distance of one hundred and twenty miles, from Baton Rouge to New Orleans, the most populous part of the State, very many of the inhabitants of which are Americans, it is believed that the first gospel sermon since the world began remains yet to be preached on the Sabbath in the English language.” (See the ‘ Religious Intelligencer’ of No- vember, 1828.) In the ‘ Report by the Directors of the American Society for Educating Pious Youths for the Gospel Ministry,’ for 1818, a correspondent of the Directors, resident in the West, says, in one of his communications, “ I have too often seen, in other parts of the country, professed preachers of the gospel, who could not teach, and would not learn. Judge, then, how I must have felt in this region, where I have seen more than one preacher who was ready to avow that he could not read the Bible!” (P. 9.) Mr. Flint, in his ‘ Geography and History of the Western States,’ writes :—“ Nine-tenths of the religious instruction of the country
62* History of the Christian Priesthood.
minister to every thousand souls, no less than 900,000 are without spiritual instruction.
The ‘ Directors of the American Society for Educating Pious Youths for the Gospel Ministry,’ in their Report for 1818, after asserting that “ the ratio of supply of ministers has, for a long time, been re- gularly and rapidly on the decline,”s further inform us that, “in North Carolina, South Carolina,tand Geor- gia, containing, according to the last census, a popu- lation of 1,223,048, there are but about one hundred and ten competent ministers, so that 1,113,048 are utterly destitute of proper religious instruction,”" are
is given by people who itinerate.”” (Vol. ii. p. 456, as quoted by Stuart. ) (s) See ‘ Report,’ ὅς. p. 21.
(ἢ The Directors of the ‘ American Society for Educating Pious Youths for the Gospel Ministry,’ in their Report for 1818, add that “ a respectable gentleman, who is a native citizen of South Carolina, informs us that, in an ancient district of the State, embracing an extent of 900 square miles contiguous to the sea coast, there is but one place of worship, and that not used ; and not one Christian Church or minister of any denomination.” (See ‘ Report,’ p. 13.)
(wu) In‘ An Account of the Massachusetts Society for Pro- moting Christian Knowledge,’ for 1830, we read, “ It may be stated, generally, that in the counties of Rockingham and Strafford, con- taining (exclusively of Portsmouth and Exeter) seventy-six towns, and, according to the census in 1810, eighty-three thousand and forty-seven inhabitants, there are forty-five towns which, with their inhabitants, are destitute of the stated means of grace. Of these forty-five towns, some have been destitute ten, some twenty, some thirty, some forty years; and in some the gospel ministry has never been statedly enjoyed. One lamentable consequence is, that in some towns a Christian Church has not yet been formed; and, in some, where churches exist, the Lord’s Supper has not, for ten, twenty, or thirty years, been once administered. Most of these churches are also much reduced in number, one from sixty- two members to two females ; several to but one female member ; and, in one town, containing one thousand and sixty-three souls, the visible Church of Christ, after a stated ministry of twenty-eight years, has been many years totally extinct.” (P. 49.)
fTistory of the Christian Priesthood. 685
“There is reason to fear,” writes Dr. Samuel Howe, in his lecture on ‘the Use of the Means of Grace,’ “ that dark days, in relation to real religion, are before us... these things are pro- ducing, in the minds of many, a heartless indifference to religion, or open infidelity,” &c. (See Spruce Street Lectures, Philadel- phia, 1833, p. 95.) Mr. Timothy Flint, President of the Seminary of Rapide, writes, with reference to the state of religion and its ministrations, in the Valley of the Mississippi: —“ No minister of any Protestant denomination, to my knowledge, has ever received a sufficient living two years in succession..... For two years I derived not support enough from the people (though I laboured ‘ in season and out of season,’) to defray the expense of my ferriage over the rivers.” (See a Series of Letters, by Mr. Timothy Flint, President of the Seminary of Rapide, 1831, quoted in ‘ Quarterly Review,’ for October, 1832, pp. 203, 204.) “ A serious mind,” adds the same writer, “ cannot fail to observe with regret the want of the permanent and regular moral influence of settled religious institutions.” ‘In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,” writes Mr. Alexander M‘Farlane, in a lecture on ‘ Church Discipline,’ delivered Jan, 22, 1832, “ we call upon all the members of our Church deeply and solemnly to consider the present state of things among us. At no time in the history of our community has the aspect of affairs appeared so dark and appalling. The tide of delusion and innovation has been advancing upon us with por- tentous impetuosity, threatening to sweep away all that we venerate as excellent and lovely and scriptural.” (P. 137.) “It is un- deniable,” writes the same gentleman, “ that within a few years a great change has taken place. From the desire prevalent in most voluntary Christian communities to increase their numbers, to extend their influence, and to gratify those who evince a prepos- session in their favour, the sacred ministry becomes profaned by the conceited novice, the corrupt worldling, and the equivocating heretic.” (P.117.) ‘A contract between a minister and his congregation, for his maintenance,” writes Dr. Dwight, “ they have placed on the same footing as contracts made at the gaming-table. Hence, except in their large towns, a minister liberally educated cannot often be found. Hence the places of such ministers are filled by plain, ignorant individuals, who vociferate in a manner which, in every other place, would be thought grossly indecent; distort doctrines and precepts; dishonour ordinances; pervert the meaning of the Scriptures, and murder arguments and language... Next to a wicked ministry, the greatest evil which can befal the Church is a weak ministry.” (Dwight’s Travels in New England and New York, vol. iii. pp. 53, 54.) ““ Clergymen here consider themselves as holding their connexion with their congregations
64* History of the Christian Priesthood.
by a very precarious tenure. A voluntary contribution, except in a large town, is as uncertain as the wind, and a chameleon only can expect to derive a permanent support from this source.” (P.177.) “ Every member of the congregation knowing that he can lay down this burthen whenever he pleases, multitudes do for this very reason lay it down....this, of itself, discourages men qualified for the office from entering into it.” (Vol. iii. p. 260.) ‘“‘ All the arguments to enforce the duty of opening the purse for the support of the public worship of God are addressed to a heart of stone and an intellect of lead... Conviction and principle are out of the question; the only inquiry, the only thought being concefning a pitiful sum of money.” (Vol. iv. p.161.) ‘ Duty to the soul and its salvation are bartered for a sum of money; that is, for the purpose of saving a sum of money, which cannot be grudged without meanness, nor mentioned without 4 blush.” (P. 162.) “‘ Such has been the progress of vice, in consequence, that crimes to a considerable extent are now practised, avowed, and vindicated, are made the materials of a jest, and gloried in as proofs of ingenuity and independence, which our ancestors knew only by report, and of which they spoke only with horror. In- ferior deviations from rectitude are extensively become familiar, and regarded as things of course. Loose men only laugh at them; and good men, discouraged by their frequency, cease in a great measure to censure them with severity. The man, who fifty years since sunk under the consciousness of his own guilt, and withdrew from the detestation of others, now clears his brow and lifts up his front, while he repeats, by rote, the latitudinarian opinions of those who have employed their talents in seducing their fellow-men to guilt and perdition.” (Vol. iv. p. 380.) ‘ From the middle class of men infidelity has received a considerable accession of recruits.” (P. 380.) “ The spirit with which we resist wickedness is languid, and the measures are weak.” (Vol. iv. p. 381.) Dr. Mason, another American, thus writes of his countrymen:—‘ They have lost, by degrees, all anxiety for the institutions of Christ; their feeble substitutes, the small social meetings, without the minister of Christ, soon die away ; their Sabbaths are pagan ; their children grow up in ignorance, vice, and unbelief; and their land, which smiles around them like a garden of Eden, presents one unbroken scene of spiritual desolation.” The ‘Report of the American Domestic and Foreign Episcopal Missionary Society,’ for 1830, says:—‘‘ This Society contemplates with the deepest sympathy, the utter destitution of thousands of families of our people, who, in a land calied Christian, live for years destitute of Christian privi- leges, and rear their children where the voice of public prayer is never heard.”
History of the Christian Priesthood. 65
left to wander in ‘‘a wilderness in which there is no way?”—and that South Carolina, with a popu- lation of upwards of 400,000, has but therty-sex, and the State of Georgia but den ministers?™ This fearful disproportion between the population of the United States and their religious teachers, proves the utter inefficiency of voluntary associations for the promotion of religion, and sufficiently shows the absolute necessity of compulsory payments for its support. Of the existence of these statements, Mr. Howitt could not but have been aware. They are plain facts which can neither be gainsaid nor denied, and which abundantly prove the utter false- hood of his assertions. Mr. Howitt has proved nothing satisfactorily but his thorough contempt for truth; and if such be the flourishing condition to which he would wish to reduce religion in this country, may God in his mercy long preserve us from such a state of prosperity !
But with that lamentable want of candour, which is the prime characteristic of every page and line of his ‘‘ Popular History,” he has on this, as on every other occasion, omitted all notice of every fact which would militate against the impression which it has been his anxious determination to produce upon the minds of his readers. Perfectly careless how that impression was made, so that he but suc- ceeded in making it, he has neither written the people up to the truth, nor the truth down to the people, but has sacrificed the interests of both to the reckless and ‘‘ popular” spirit of innovation.
(m) See British Review, No. XX VI.
66 History of the Christian Priesthood.
A brief digression might, perhaps, be pardonable here, for the purpose of noticing that the whole tenor of Mr. Howitt’s book would lead us to infer that freedom exists in a country in proportion to its exemption from the ‘ political oppression” of a National church. If this were true, how is it that one-fifth part of the population of the United States, ‘“‘ where there is no State religion,” are slaves, and that the same state of things does not exist in any Christian European country in which there is a National church ?
To recur to our inquiry, however, I again ask, Where are the proofs of the “ non-necessity” of an Established church? Give me full, unequivocal, undeniable proofs of the non-necessity of an Esta- blished church, and I will at once be content to furl my banner, and give up the war. Are there any proofs from Scripture? No. From history ? No. From experience? No. From philosophi- cally profound and far-seeing knowledge of human nature? No. There is not one single atom of proof derivable from any of these sources. Mr. Howitt’s “ Popular History” is all assertion, bare assertion, couched in hollow, tinkling, word-bedaubed phrases,
“ Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing,” and borrowed from the ringle-jingle school of modern English. And with this stuff the monstrous egotism of this drab-coated innovator expects that his read- ers will be satisfied! He begs us to believe that «« America is the every-day opprobrium of priest- craft.”" What State priest,” he asks, “ can ever (n) P. 189.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 67
forget America?”°® ‘‘ Who,” says he, “ shall dare to turn his eye on the United States of America, and then attempt to palm upon us the canting and sel- fish falsehood, that religion is bound up in the bundle of life with an Act of Parliament?”? I take up Mr. Howitt’s words against him, and I also ask him, “‘ Who shall dare turn his eye on the United States of America, and then attempt to palm upon us the canting and selfish falsehood” in the bundle of lies bound up in one I6mo volume, denominated, ‘‘ A Popular History of Priestcraft in all Ages and Nations, by William Howitt?” And now, gentle reader, listen to me. I have carefully examined this “ Popular History of Priestcraft,” and do solemnly, and without the slightest fear of contradiction, assert that Mr. Howitt has adduced no other example, and brought forward no other ““ proof” [?!] of ‘* the non-necessity, and_ political oppression,’4 and ‘“ uselessness, and impolicy, and nuisance of an Establishment.” Credat Judeus. If, forsooth, all his similes were truths, and all his figures of speech logical conclusions, then indeed this doughty champion of ἃ save-all, lack-all, voluntary-contribution church, would have proved the truth of all his “ Popular” assertions with more than mathematical exactness.
From “the uselessness and impolicy of Esta- blishments” in general, Mr. Howitt next proceeds to discuss the subject of the dignities and revenues
(0) William Howitt’s ‘ Vindication of his History of Priestcraft against Archdeacon Wilkins,’ p. 10. (p) P. 208. (q) P. 208. (5), P. 189.
68 History of the Christian Priesthood.
of the Bishops of our own National Church. He complains that the Bishops of the Church of England “ act as legislators;”* that they “ strut in lawn sleeves, and raise their mitred fronts in courts and parliaments,” ἢ and that they are ‘‘ clothed with titles and dignities foreign to their spiritual offices.” *
Now I again ask Mr. Howitt for proofs—proofs ; for of assertions there have been enough, wsque ad nauseam. He wishes his readers to believe that Bishops ought not to “ act as legislators,” nor to sit ‘in courts and parliaments.” Now, “ ought” is a relative term, and must either refer to divine or to human law. By divine law, we understand the revelation of God’s will to us in the Old and New Testaments; by human law, the law of the land in which we live.
I concede to Mr. Howitt that the legislation of Bishops in secular matters ought not to be permitted, if it be either in opposition to the law of God under the Mosaic dispensation, or to any law or precept of our Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles.
Where, however, are Mr. Howitt’s proofs from the divine law, either in the Old or New Testa- ments, that Bishops owght not to “act as legislators?” Can he prove that the annexation of civil jurisdic- tion to the priestly office, or that the interference of the high-priests in secular matters was forbidden in the Old Testament, or can he show that they are prohibited to Christian Bishops in the New Testament? If he cannot prove this, his arguments,
(s) P. 249. (Ὁ) Ibid. (u) Ρ. 119.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 69
so far as the divine law is concerned, fall to the © ground; and, therefore, he has no right to infer that Bishops ought not, by the divine law, to “act as legislators” in civil as well as ecclesiastical matters.
The divine law, as contained in the Old Testa- ment, is not silent upon this point, and, therefore, Mr. Howitt might have referred to it as an authority which could not be questioned. But unfortunately such a reference would not merely have militated against, but would have actually destroyed his in- ference. For we find that the divine law not merely sanctioned, but actually authorized and commanded such civil jurisdiction to be annexed to the priestly office. The Jewish bishops (or high-priests) sat in the Jewish Sanhedrim, or House of Lords; the inferior clergy sat in the second Court of Judgment, or House of Commons.* And, there- fore, the Bishops can plead not only a very ancient prescriptive, but a positively divine right for their exercise of legislative authority in civil matters. This is no far-fetched analogy, but is plainly de- ducible from the divine law, and was more parti- cularly entitled to Mr. Howitt’s consideration, as appertaining to a Church which he himself ac-
(4) In this second Court of Judgment (as our Saviour calls it, Matt. v. 22) all causes were heard of life and death, ecclesiastical and temporal, with right of appeal to the Sanhedrim, or Great Council of Jerusalem. It consisted of twenty-three judges, of whom seven only were laymen, called “ Elders of the cities; the
remainder being Priests and Levites; and, besides this court, to every magistracy in the cities in which a court of judgment was held, there were alloted two Levites for assistance. Ἑκάστῃ δε ἀρχῇ ἄνδρες δύο ὑπηρέται διδόσθωσαν ἐκ τῆς τῶν Λευίτων φυλῆς. (Joseph. Antiq. lib. iv. cap. 8; also, Grotius, in Matt. v. 21.)
70 History of the Christian Priesthood.
knowledges, was ‘“ preparatory” to, and, there- fore, on many accounts prospectively adapted to, the Christian.
The supreme court of judicature among the Jews (called the Sanhedrim, or Great Council of the Seventy Elders), had authority in all temporal matters. We know from Scripture, that, by God’s appointment, they legislated upon the highest Tem- poral affairs of the Realm, as War, Peace, Punish- ments of whole cities and tribes, Appeals from all inferior Courts, and also upon many cases, which now among us belong, for the most part, to the common law,—as Jealousy, Inquisition for Murder, Perjury, and other matters, all of a purely civil nature ;¥ and in this Council, the Jewish clergy sat together with the principal, or chief men of the laity. Moreover, the authority of the priesthood to interfere in secular matters was so clearly re- cognized, that the high-priest bore the chief sway in the council, the others being especially com- manded of God to take counsel of him. Nay,
(y) See Maimon. in Sanhedr. apud Ainsworth, in Numb. xi. 16; Lightf. Temple. c. xx; Grot. in Matt. ν. 22; Talmud. Bab. in Sanhedr. c.1; See Bp. Bilson’s Perpetual Government.
(x) See Casaubon. Exercit. in Baron, 13. sect. 5; Bishop Ban- croft’s Survey, c. xxv; Grot. in Mal. ii. 5; in Deut. xvii. xix. ; Grotius de Imperio Summarum Potestatum, cap. 11. sect. 15; Bertram de Politia Judaica Hebrzorum, lib. vi. c.7. ‘ Inivére hoc concilium (i.e. Sanhedrim) Rex cum Principibus Populi ac Septuaginta Senioribus Populi, et Pontifex cum Principibus Sacerdo- tum et Scribis, id est, Legis Doctoribus, ut perspicere liqueat, ex Evangeliis, ubi agitur de Judicio Christi,” &c. See also Scutet. Exercit. lib.i. cap. 54; Schickardus de Jure Regio Hebrzorum, c. 1. p. 9,10; Seld. Uxor. Hebraica, cap. 15; De Synedrio Ju- deorum, 110, i. p. 9.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 71
further, the high-priest presided in all purely eccle- siastical matters at the express command of God; Amazias, the high-priest, for example, in Jehosa- phat’s time, presided in all “ matters of the Lord,” as Zebediah, a ruler of the house of Judah, was chief ‘for all the king’s affairs ;” Sadock was em- ployed as judge under king David, and Jehoiada under his nephew, king Joash. After the captivity of Babylon, for six hundred years, until the coming of Christ, the priests still continued to be ‘‘ coun- sellors”* and legislators. Ezra the priest, for example, had a commission from the emperor Artaxerxes to govern, with authority to appoint magistrates and judges, to inflict punishment unto death, and to banish, imprison, and confiscate goods. After Kzra’s time, the Maccabees also (even to Antigonus, the last descendant of that family, who was taken prisoner by Pompey, and crucified afterwards by Mark Antony,) were all of them princes and legislators, as well as priests.
As Mr. Howitt, therefore, cannot show that the high-priest and other chiefs of the clergy of God’s own constitution were not permitted to ‘act as legislators” in temporal as well as ecclesiastical matters, he must go to the New Testament for that proof which I have clearly shown is denied to him in the Old. Before we discuss this point, however, it may, in passing, be observed that the clergy were also the principal “‘ judges and officers over Israel” (ΘΒ and Ow) in all cases, ecclesiastical and temporal; that is, to decide, as our laws call
(a) 1 Chron, xxvi. 14.
72 History of the Christian Priesthood.
them, in all pleas of the crown and common- wealth.”
Unless Mr. Howitt can prove that God did not commit any part of the civil government to the high-priests, or can show that not only the cere- monies and rituals of the Jewish church, but also their general rules of justice, equity, order, and government, are now abolished, he must admit (unless there be a prohibition in the New Testa- ment) that under the Christian dispensation also, the high-priests, or Bishops of the Christian church, may ‘‘ act as legislators,” not only “in the business of the Lord, but also in the service of the king.”*
Having thus distinctly shown that legislative authority in purely secular matters was annexed to the high-priest’s office in the Old Testament, let us now proceed to the New. And here we call upon Mr. Howitt to prove that by a direct, literal, and express prohibition either of Christ himself, or of his Apostles, that the Christian high-priests, or Bishops, are forbidden the exercise of such legis- lative authority.
Now it is needless to say, that Mr. Howitt has not adduced, nay more, that he cannot adduce any express and direct prohibition of Christ himself, either forbidding temporal office to the clergy, or proving the administration of civil authority to be of itself repugnant to the office of the Christian ministry.
(Ὁ) Deut. xvii, 12; 1 Chron. xxvi. 80, 32. See also 1 Chron. xi. 22; xv. 14; xxvi. 14, 830—32; xxvii. 5; xxviii. 12, 13, 19; 1 Kings ii. 35; xxii. 35, &c.
(c) 1 Chron. xxvi. 90.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 73
With respect to the Apostles, as the Sanhedrim, or Jewish Supreme Court of Judicature, continued in great power even to their own time, they could not be ignorant that the clergy of their nation (as well as the laity) sat in that Council, and legislated in temporal as well as ecclesiastical causes. As they also knew it was God himself who annexed this civil jurisdiction to the Priesthood, they must neces- sarily have inferred that (unless subsequently for- bidden by Christ) it could not possibly be against the divine law for the Priesthood under the Chris- tian dispensation to exercise similar jurisdiction in temporal matters. Furthermore, as Christ did not forbid (and I defy even Mr. Howitt to obtain any such prohibition, except by wresting Christ’s words from their straight and fair interpretation), nay, as it is not unreasonable to suppose that he had an eye to, and looked back, as it were, upon the Jewish Sanhedrim, when he made choice of a similar number, viz. “ the Twelve” and “ the Seventy ” to be his ministers in the first Christian Sanhedrim— possibly intending the continuance under the Chris- tian dispensation of the same secular jurisdiction and privileges which the principal clergy enjoyed under the Mosaic dispensation—the Apostles could not suppose, either by direct or inferential reason- ing, that it would have been unlawful for them to accept temporal power in the event of Nero being converted to the Christian faith, and offering them such jurisdiction. For as they could not have been convinced of the unlawfulness of accepting such temporal jurisdiction except by the direct prohibi-
E
74 History of the Christian Priesthood.
tion of their divine Master, and as no such pro- hibition was ever given by him, the only mode which they had of forming any opinion upon the subject was znferentially, or by consequences. ἢ mean such a mode of arriving at a conclusion as that, for example, by which St. Peter was induced to change his original opinion that Gentiles, unless they were circumcised, were not fit for baptism. He was convinced of the contrary, not by any positive order, or express words, such as “* Baptize this Cornelius,” or ‘* Baptize Gentile men, though uncircumcised,” but he concluded or argued it by consequences ; for when he was informed that they were no longer “ unclean,”’ and saw the Holy Spirit come on them,® he concluded that they should be baptized, merely because they were capable of the ends of baptism.
As the Apostles could not by the direct, neither could they by the inferential, mode of reasoning have concluded it to be unlawful for them to receive temporal power at the hands of any newly converted prince; for there was nothing to convince them that the ends of spiritual government were directly, or even remotely, opposed to the true ends of temporal or civil government; and, therefore, there could be nothing to convince them that the union of the two was incompatible with the precepts of their religion. Before Mr. Howitt, therefore, can expect to persuade us that the Apostles, individually or collectively, would have declined such temporal authority at the hands of the Emperor, he must
(d) Acts x. lo, (e) Acts x. 47.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 75
prove that the ends of civil and spiritual government are directly opposed to one another, and that the Apostles themselves thought they were so opposed.
But the ends of civil government being to advance the honour of God and the good of men, and the ends of spiritual government being also to advance the honour of God and the good of men, the ends of civil government, so far from being directly opposed to (as Mr. Howitt must prove them to be, before he can establish his position), must be essentially the same with those of spiritual govern- ment. [here is no imaginable case in human affairs so temporal, that it in no way relates to spiritual things, nor any so spiritual, but that it has some relation to temporal things; consequently, the union of the two in a spiritual person are not incompatible with the precepts of the Christian religion. Accordingly, St. Paul, in excusing him- self for reviling the high priest,—‘‘I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest, for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the Ruler of my people,”‘—uses the same word for “ fuler” [’Apxyovra] which he employs to designate the Civil Governor, where the word ἤΑρχοντες is translated by Beza, ‘‘ Magistrates,’—as the same Apostle, reproving the Corinthians, probably in allusion to the Episcopal office which he himself held, writes to them: “ Know ye not that we” [i.e. Apostles and Bishops] ‘‘ shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to
(f) Acts xxiii. 5. (g) Rom. xiii. 3, | E 2
76 History of the Christian Priesthood.
this life, (and) set them to judge who are least esteemed in the Church, I speak it to your shame ;”" thereby implying that the Apostle would rather have those who were most “ esteemed,” even the Apostles and Bishops, (whom he elsewhere ealls ““ Prefects,” ““ Rulers,” or ‘ Governors,”:) to be ‘‘ Judges,” even in “ judgments of things pertaining to this life,”* that is, in secular and temporal causes; provided, at least, they be not ** entangled,”! (as the Apostle calls it,) that is, so bound and taken up with such “ judgments,” or legislation, as utterly to neglect the office and duties of their sacred calling. Furthermore, the same Apostle permitted both Timothy and Titus, as Bishops of Ephesus and Crete, by virtue of spiritual jurisdiction from Christ, to cite heretics and other wicked persons before them, to hear accusations against them, to examine witnesses, and to give sentence of excommunication. Mr. Howitt has to prove that the Apostle would have objected, had the reigning Emperor given them secular juris- diction, by virtue of which they might have restrained the evil doings of such persons by civil punishments.
Let us examine the question yet more fully by passing on to the usages of the primitive Church,
(hk) 1 Cor. vi. 3, 4.
(Ὁ) 1 Thess. v. 12. The word Προϊσταμένοι, which the Apostle applies in this passage to Bishops, is of the same signification with - Προστάτης, Preefectus, Preses, from προΐστημι.--- (See Budi Com- mentar. Ὁ. 487; and Stephani Thesaur. in προΐστημι, προστασία, and προστάτης.
(1) 1 Cor. vi. 4, 5. (1) 2 Tim, xi. 4.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 77
which Church must necessarily be deemed a com- petent judge of the precepts of the New Testament as taught and practised by Christ and his Apostles.
It is evident that, in the primitive Church, up to the time of Constantine, all controversies between Christians were referred to the decisions of the Bishops (as the learned Gothofred, of Geneva, himself declares)" upon the principle that those whom God had entrusted with their souls, they might with an equal confidence trust with their secular affairs. The Emperor Constantine must have entertained the same opinion when he said in the first general council that God had appointed Bishops to be “ priests and rulers to judge the people ;”° and Sozomen, a lawyer of Constanti- nople, relates that the imperial constitutions of the same Emperor permitted all men to bring their causes before the Bishops, without ever going to the other tribunals;? which, indeed, as the same learned Gothofred, of Geneva, confesses, is the true foundation of the constitution “‘ De Episcopali Judicio,” and inserted into the Capitulars.1 After the time of Constantine the Great, all Christian Bishops administered civil jurisdiction, the authority for so doing being imparted to them by religious emperors, as can be shewn by reference to Eccle-
(m) “Mos hic frequens et legitimus eundiad Judices Episcopos.” (Jac. Goth. in Cod. Theod. ad Extra de Epise. Judicio.)
(n) Heb. xiii. 17.
(0) Ἱερεῖς τε δὴ “Apxovras, &c. (Gelasius Cyzicenus, Hist. Conc. Nic. cap. 8.)
(p) Soz. Hist. lib. i. cap. 9.
(4) See Capitul. Carol. et Ludov. lib. vi. ο. 281. Ed. Lindenb. ; ce. 366. Ed. Baluz.
78 Ffistory of the Christian Priesthood.
siastical Histories and Councils, and out of the Emperor’s own laws (as in the constitution of the Emperors Honorius and Theodosius), which laws ratified the judgment of Bishops upon trial by consent before them, and ordained that no appeal should lie from their decree.t It is evident, there- fore, from the practice of the primitive Church, that they thought there was no law of Christ, or of hie Apostles, forbidding Bishops to meddle in secular affairs; which might be further proved from the practice of Gregory Thaumaturgus and St. Basil, in the East; of Silvanus, Bishop of Troas; of St. Ambrose, and other eminent and devout prelates of those times; as well as from St. Augustine, who was so far from thinking it unlawful, that in his opinion St. Paul even commanded the Bishops to do itt We may therefore conclude, that the interference of Christian Bishops in secular matters is not in opposition to the Divine will. Mr. Howitt may deny the conclusion at which I have arrived, but he cannot deny the premises, neither can he overthrow the conclusion. In the Second Volume of “The History of the Christian Priesthood,” further proofs shall be given that this question does not depend upon such testimony alone, but that there is sufficient in Scripture to determine any reasonable man of the lawfulness and propriety of our Anglican Prelates “ acting as legislators.”
(r) Cod. Just. de Episc. Audient. lib. i. tit. 4. ¢. 8.
(s) Greg. Nyss. Vit. Greg.; Basil in Ep. Socr. lib. vii. c. 37; Ambros. de Offic. lib. ii. ο. 24
(ἢ) “ Constituit enim talibus causis Ecclesiasticos Apostolus cognitores.” (Aug. Ep. 147. in Ps. exviii. Conc. 24.)
History of the Christian Priesthood. “9
As for the “ titles and dignities”" which, in addition to their privileges as “ legislators,” our Bishops enjoy, Mr. Howitt must first prove that ** titles” are unfit in themselves to be given to any class of men, before he can show that it is unlawful! for Christian Princes to confer upon Bishops titles equally eminent with those which they bestow upon laymen; nay, even that it is not more becoming in them te confer such titles upon spiritual personages, in order to express the honour due to God by the respect paid to the persons of his ministers.
Mr. Howitt must know that in the Jewish Church the higher orders of clergy were distinguished above the others in title and dignity, and that the pro- phets also were called ‘‘ Lords” in Holy Scripture. Obed Edom is recorded to have said to the prophet, ** Art not thou my Lord Elijah?” and the children in the prophets’ schools, “" Knowest thou not that God will take thy Lord from thy head this day?” Neither can Mr. Howitt be so ignorant of Jewish Scriptural history as not to know not only that the priests were “ chief men among the people,”* but that the high priests in the Jewish Church were “ elothed with dignities and titles,” quite ‘as foreign to their scriptural office” as any “‘ titles and dig- nities” which have ever been conferred by Christian princes upon Christian Bishops. Josephus, in the beginning of his Life, written by himself, tells us he was of a Priestly race, as a proof of the high dignity ef his illustrious family. Philo, in his first book,
(wu) P. 119. (x) Lev. xxi. 4. (y) P. 119.
SO Flistory of the Christian Priesthood.
Περὶ Movapxiac, asserts that it was the intention of the Jewish law that the high priests should have equal honour and veneration with their kings.” King Agrippa, in the Supplicatory Letter which he sent to Caligula, in favour of his countrymen the Jews, writes—‘‘ I was born a Jew, as your majesty knows, and Jerusalem is the place of my birth, in which is the temple of the Most High God. I have had kings for my progenitors, some of whom have been high priests, who thought the regal dignity inferior to the sacerdotal.”*
In the prophetical visions, where the government of Christ is spoken of, the prophet says, ‘‘ Instead of fathers, thou shalt have ehzldren, whom thou mayest make Princes in all lands,”? which words, according to early Christian writers, were spoken of the Apostles, and their successors, the Bishops.°
It was prophesied by Isaiah, of the Christian Church, (according to the Greek translation,) “ I will give thy Archons in peace, and thy Bishops in righteousness.”* Now the word ”Apyovtec, both in Latin and English, is commonly translated
(z) Ἐξ ὧν ἁπάντων ἐστὶ δῆλον ὅτι βασιλέως εἰς σεμνότητα Kar τιμὴν περιάπτει τοῖς ἱερευσιν ὃ νόμος. Philo. de Monarch. lib. i.)
(a) Philon. Judzi lib. de Legatione ad Cavim.
(b) See also Psalm xlv. 16.
(ὁ) This passage is thus paraphrased by Apollinarius, ᾿Αντὲ τῶν Πατέρων viot σέθεν ἡβωοῦσι, τοὺς δὲ καταστήσειας ὕλης χθονὸς Ἡγεμονῆα5. (Apollinar. in loc.) See also Eusebius Cesariensis in Psalm xlv. 17.)
(4) Tovs”Apxovras σου, &c. Isaiah lx. 17—“ In quo Scripture sancte admiranda Majestas, quod Principes futuros Ecclesie Epis- copos nominavit, quorum omnis Visitatio in pace est, et vocabulum dignitatis in Justitia.”’ (Hieron. in Isa. lx. 17.)
History of the Christian Priesthood. 81
* princes,” both in the Old and the New Testa- ments;° and where the LXX have translated "Apxovtec, we use “ Princes.”!
In the New Testament secular titles are applied to Christian Bishops, as is shown by the words Προϊσταμένοιβ and ᾿Ηγούμενοι," as applied by St. Paul to Christian prelates; the former title being of the same signification with Προστάτης, [that is, a president, prefect, ruler, or governor,| and the latter title signifying Ἡ γεμὼν, [that is, a governor, or prince,| and often applied both by sacred and profane authors, in its civil signification, to princes and others possessing chief rule and authority.* Bishops receive other titles in Scripture, as ‘‘ am- bassadors,”! ‘ angels,”™ ‘ stars,”™ ‘* governors,” ° “‘ crowns of the Church,” &c. Scripturally, there- fore, it is neither unlawful for Christian Princes to confer, nor for Christian Bishops to receive, secular titles.
(6) Matt. xx. 25; Mark iii. 22; John xii. 31; 1 Cor. 11. 8; Eph. ii. 2.
(f) 1 Chron. xxviii. 1, 24. See also Isaac Casaubon ‘ De Liber- tate Ecclesiastica.’ Edit. by Almeloveen, p. 206, &c.
(g) Thess. v. 12. (h) Heb. xiii. 7, 17, 24.
(ἢ) See Budzi Commentar. p. 487; and Stephani Thesaur. in προΐστημι, προστασία, and προστάτης.
(1) In 1 Mace. xiv. 4, this word ᾿Ηγούμενος is applied to Simon: “The Jews were well pleased that Simon should be their prince, or governor (Ἡγούμενον), and high priest.’ In Matt. 1. 6, it is used to set forth our Lord’s dominion, “ For out of thee shall come a Prince or Governor (‘Hyouevos), that shall rule my people Israel.” ὩἩἩγεμονία, the noun, signifies supreme authority, and is applied, in Luke iii. 1, to the government, or empire of Tiberius Cesar. (See Stephani Thesaur. in ἡγέομαι, ἡγεμὼν, ἡγεμονία.)
(t) 2 Cor. v. 20. (m) Rev. ii. 1. (n) Rev. 1. 20.
(0) 1 Cor. iv.
ES
82 History of the Christian Priesthood.
Moreover, the very titles which Mr. Howitt excepts against, were the usual style of the primi- tive Bishops in the earliest ages of Christianity. The titles, “‘ Prince or Governor,”? ‘ Princes of priests,”4 ‘‘ dignified Archons or Rulers,”* were given to Bishops by Christian writers of the first century, and their chairs were called “ thrones.”* They were also called ‘‘ Presidents” and ‘‘ Princes,”* and their dioceses “‘ Principalities” or ‘‘ Princedoms,”" by Christian writers of the second century. And, in the third century, they were called ‘‘ Princes”* and ‘‘Senators,’’ “Archons or Rulers,”* ‘‘ Gover- nors, Kings, Potentates, and Lords,”* and their
(p) οἱ Ἡγουμένοι (i.e. Ἡγεμονε5), and Προηγουμένοι. (Clem. Epist. ad Corinthios.)
(q) Ignat. Epist. ad Smyrn.
(r) ᾿Αξιοπρεπέστατο: ἼΑρχοντες. Ignat. Epist. ad Magnesian, &c. (s) Πιστέυω yap εἰς τὸν Πατέρα τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ... ὅτι δείξει μοι ὃ Θεὸς Ἥρωνα ἐπὶ τοῦ Θρονοῦ μοῦ. (Ignat. Epist.
ad Heron.)
(ἢ) Προεστῶτες, and προϊστάμενοι (i.e. Προστἄται). Justin Martyr.
(u) Ad hanc enim Ecclesiam propter potentiorem Principalitatem, &c. (Irenei. lib. ii. cap. 8, cum Johannis Ernesti Grabe Notis in locum. |
(x) Ὁ δὲ Ἡγούμενος, οὕτως δὲ οἶμαι ὀνομάδειν τὸν καλούμενον ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις ᾿Επίσκοπον. (Origen in Matt. xx. 20.) Καὶ ἀναγ- καίως ἅμα καὶ δικαίως Ἡγούμενοι, καὶ πάντων πεφροντίκοτες. (866 Origen contr. Celsum. lib. viii. p. 428; and Usher Vet. Testimonia de Ignatio, p. 4. Episcopatis dign.)
(y) Βούλευται καὶ ”Apxovres ἐκκλησίας θεοῦ. (Origen.)
(x) Ὅπως χρὴ τοῦς ᾿Αρχομένονς πειθαρχεῖν τοῖς "Αρχουσιν *Em- σκόποις. (Apost. Constit. lib. xi. cap. 20.) Αρχοντες, (lib. il. cap. 123 vili. cap. 4.)
(a) "Ἄρχων, Ἡγόυμενος, βασιλεὺς, Δυναστής. (Apost. Constit. lib. ii. cap. 11.) ἊὮ ᾿Ἐπισκόποι, ὑμεῖς τοίς ἐν ὑμῖν Λαϊκοῖς ἐστε “Apxovres, καὶ Hyovmevor, καὶ βασιλεῖς, (cap. 25, 20.) Οὗτος
History of the Christian Priesthood. 83
office styled ‘a glorious Principality.”” In the fourth century, Bishops continued to be called ‘ Lords,” “Ὁ ** Lords bishops,”¢ “truly sacred Lords,”® ‘most holy and blessed Lords,” ‘most honourable Lords,”¢ “ς Presidents,”" ‘ Archons and Rulers,”: “ Princes of priests,”* ‘“ Kings;”! their office styled, “ an apostolical presidency,”™ “a spiritual Principality,”
᾿Αρχῶν, καὶ Ἡγούμενος ὑμῶν" οὗτος ὑμῶν βασιλεὺς, καὶ Δυναστὴς, (cap. 26.)
(0) Λαμπρὰ ἡγεμονία. (Apost. Constit. lib. viii. cap. 4.)
(c) Eusebius (before the Council of Nice) sends greeting Té Δεσπότῃ μου Παυλινῳ. (Theodor. Eccles. Hist. lib. i. cap. 6.) Chrysostom superscribes his letter to Pope Innocent, Τῷ Δεσπότῃ μου ᾿Ιννοκεντίῳ. (Palladii Dial, p. 10.) Epist. Chrysost. ad Inno- cent; Arius also calls Eusebius, who was Bishop of Nicomedia, “ His Lord Eusebius.” (Theodor. Eccles. Hist. lib. i. c. 4.)
(4) Of Κύριοι of Ἐπισκόποι. (Epist. Greg. Nazianzen. ad Greg. Nyssen. )
(6) “ Domine vere Sancte.”’ (Hieron. ad 5. Augustin.)
(f) Κύριοι ᾿Αγιότατοι (Athanas. Apolog. 2.) Julius, Bishop of Rome, is styled, Κύριος Μακαριώτατος.
(6) Κύριοι Τιμιώτατοι. (Athanas. Apol. 2.) Chrysostom in his Epistle to Pope Innocent, mentioning several Bishops, calls them Οἱ Κύριοι τιμιώτατοι. (Epist. Chrysost. ad Innocent.)
(h) MIpocota@res. (8. Basil et Greg. Nyssen.)
(i) “Apxovres. (Chrysost. in Hom. xxxiv. in Epist. ad Hebreos. Hom. Ixxxvi.)
(1) “ Principes Sacerdotum.”” (Ambros. in Ephes. iv.)
(ἢ) In the ancient Glossary of Hesychius, the term ᾿Επισκόπος is explained by Βασιλεὺς, because, according to Fulgentius, “ Quantum ergo pertinet ad hujus temporis vitam, constat quid in Ecclesia nemo Episcopo potior, et seculo nemo Christiano Imperatore celsior invenitur. (Fulgentius, lib. ii. cap. 32, de Verit. Predest.) Gregory Nazianzen calls the office of a Bishop, the office of aking. (Exarch. Habert.)
(m) Προεδρία ᾿Αποστολικήῆ. (Basil. in loc.)
(n) ᾿Αρχὴ Πνευματική. (Chrysost. Hom. xv. in 2 Cor.) See also Chrysost. de Sacerdotio, lib. 111. cap. 5 and 6; Hieron. in Esd. ix. 17, ‘* Honor et Sublimitas Episcopalis nullis potest compa- rationibus adzquari.”’ (S. Ambros. de Dignitate Sacerd. cap. 2.)
84 fistory of the Christian Priesthood.
“ἃ spiritual Consulship,”° and ‘a dynasty or dominion,”? containing “ principality, honour, and authority ;”9 and their chairs called ‘ thrones.”! In the councils which assembled during this same century, the Bishops received the same eminent titles ; for the synod of Jerusalem called Athanasius, Lord Bishop of Egypt and Libya;* in the council of Sardis, the episcopal office was called ‘a divine and most venerable dignity,”' and * the highest of all honours and governments;”" the Bishops of Egypt addressed the epistle which they wrote to the Bishops assembled in the council of Tyre, “ to our most honourable Lords;”* in the synodical epistles, sent by the Bishops who met in the council in Illyricum, they style the Bishop of that diocese, Elpidius (by whom they sent the letter), and Kustathius, ‘* Lords Bishops.”Y In the fifth century, Bishops were styled ‘‘ most honoured and See also Chrysost. Hom. xv. in 2 Cor. Tom. V. cap. vii. p. 648 ; Hom. iv. in Epist. ad Hebreos; de Sacerdotio, lib. 111. cap. 2; Hom. v. de Verbis Isaize; Hom. Ixxxiil. in xxvi. cap. Matt.
(0) Ὑπατία Πνευματίκη. (Chrysost. Serm. de Utilit. Lect. Scripturarum.)
(p) Δυναστεία. (Greg. Nazianzen.)
(4) "Apxn, τιμὴ, αὐθεντεία. (Chrysost. de Sacerdotio.)
(r) Euseb. Eccl. Hist. lib. iii. c. 2, where he speaks of the throne of Simeon, Bishop of Jerusalem; and cap. 35, of that of Justus, his successor. The throne of this see of Jerusalem he calls Θρόνος ᾿Αποστολικὸς, (lib. vii. c. 14, 22.)
(5) Ποιμένα ὕμων καὶ Κύριον. (Athanas. Apol. 2.)
(4) Πλεονάκες διὰ τῶν ὀλίγων, ἀναισχυντίαν, τὸ Θεῖον, καὶ SeBac- μιάτητον ὄνομα τῆς Ἱερωσύνης εἰς καταγνῶσιν ἐληλύθηναι. (Can. xx.)
(u) Μεγίστη τιμὴ. (Conc. Sard. Can. κ. Greec.) ᾿Αρχὴ μέγιστη. (Chrysost. Serm. de Utilit. Lect. Scripturarum.
(a) Κύριοις Τιμιώτατοις. (Conc. Tyr.)
(y) Tov κύριον ἡμῶν ᾿Ἑλπίδιον, &c. (Theodoret. Histor. Eccl. ib, av.c. 9.)
History of the Christian Priesthood. 85
most honourable Lords,’? ‘‘ most blessed Lords,” # ** God-beloved Lords,”” and ‘‘ most holy Lords : Ὁ and their office called “ an incomparably eminent apostleship,”¢ and ‘‘a spiritual Sovereignty.”° The synodical book of the council of Constantinople is inscribed, “* To the most reverend lords, Damasus, Ambrose, &c.”' Bishops were called ‘* most re- verend,’ by the council of Chalcedon; and, in the third council of Toledo, King Recared addressed them as ‘‘ most reverend lords.”" Now, unless Mr. Howitt can show, either that such were noé the usual titles! of Bishops in the early ages, or that in
(z) Κύριοι Τιμιώτατοι. (Theodor. lib. i. c. 4.) The Epistles of George, Bishop of Laodicea, are superscribed, according to Sozomen, “ΤῸ my most honoured Lords, Macedonius, Basilius, Cecropius,” &c. (Sozom. Hist. Eccles. lib. iv. c. 13.)
(a) The Epistle to Julius, Bishop of Rome, from his brethren, is inscribed, Τῷ Κύριῳ μακραιότατῳ. (Theodor. lib. iv. c. 4, δ.)
(b) Κύριοι ἀγιότατοι. (Sozom. lib. 111. c. 38.)
(c) Κύριοι θευοφιλέστατοι. (Theodor. lib. iv. c. 4, 5.)
(4) Sidon. Apollinar. lib. vi. Ep. 4.
(e) Isidorus Peleusiota, in the case of Zosimus, Maro, and Eustathius, makes only this distinction between the Temporal Sovereignty, and that of the Bishop, viz. that the one is ᾿Αρχὴ κυσμιιςὴ, and the other ᾿Αρχὴ πνευματίκη.
(f) Dominis Reverendissimis Damaso, Ambrosio, &c. (Theodor. lib. ν. ο. 9.)
(g) Ἑὐλαβέστατοι ᾿Επίσκοποι. (Cone. Chalced. can. 5. act. 4.)
(hk) “ Reverendissimi Domini.” (Conc. Toled.) See also Biblio- theca Patrum, Vol. III., containing several letters written to Bishops towards the close of the fifth century; Dr. John Forbes’s Instructiones Historico Theologica, lib. xvi. c. 1; Dr. Downham’s Defence, book 111. cap. 6, p. 149; Habert. Pontiff. Grec. p. 539.
(1) The titles which I have shown to have been applied in these early ages to Christian Bishops will, I think, very fairly bear the interpretation which has been given them: for example, the word Κύριος, which occurs so frequently, is a title of great dignity, being often used to denote the Emperor; Δεσπότης also in Greek writers
80 History of the Christian Priesthood.
using them they did not followa practice sanctioned in the Old, and permitted in the New Testament, he cannot, either from Scripture, from the practice of the primitive Church, or from the nature of the thing itself, prove that “titles and dignities are foreign to spiritual offices.”
Having thus proved that the conjunction of spiritual and secular authority is not forbidden to Christian Bishops by the divine law, we will examine the footing upon which they have been placed by human laws.
It is certain that legislative privileges have been enjoyed by Bishops by continual usage and _ pre- scription; that this privilege has been ratified at different periods of our history, and is most strictly in accordance with the spirit of our Constitution. It is also equally certain that no attack upon, or deduction from those privileges, can be made with- out inflicting a vital injury upon that Consitution.
Neither are those privileges peculiar to the hierarchy of this country, for we find that even from the earliest times, no sooner was any country Christianized, than the Bishops were called to its public councils, and most solemn debates.
For example, we find Christianity was no sooner introduced into France, than the Bishops sat in Parliament both in a legislative and judicial capa- city; as is evident not only from Hinckmarus,* but
is a title of the Emperor, and his regal relations, and of the great princes and Governors under him, And the words Ἢ γουμενος and “Apxwy (as I have shown, p. 80, 81.) often denote “ Princes” both in sacred and profane writers.
(k) Hinckmarus writes, that “There were two great Councils every
History of the Christian Priesthood. 87
also from the Annals of the Capitulars of France during the Merovingian and Caroline race, from the Canons of the celebrated Council of Frankford,} and from the ancient Formule in Marculphus,™ and Bignonius." With respect to Spain, it is certain, from the several Councils of Toledo during the Gothic dynasty, that the Bishops sat in the early assemblies or parliaments of that country, and legislated not only in the ordinary civil affairs of that nation, but even in cases of impeachment for treason, and on the rights and prerogatives of their princes.© In Germany also, it is evident from Goldastus,? a learned Protestant, and Arumeus,‘!
year; one of the States of the kingdom, for ordering the affairs of the ensuing year, and redressing of grievances, and in these the Bishops were always present; and the other of the King’s Council, which managed the intervening affairs; and into this the chief of the Bishops were chosen.’ (Hincmar. Epist. de Ordine Palatii.)
(1) Concil. Francf. cap. 3 and 9.
(m) One of these Formule declares that the King sat in Judg- ment, ““ Una cum Dominis et Patribus nostris Episcopis, et cum plurimis optimatibus nostris, ὅσο." (Marculph. Form. lib. i. c. 25.)
(n) Bignonius, after declaring that in the Palatine Court the greater causes were heard, the King himself (or the Comes Palatii) being present, adds, “ Episcopis et Proceribus assidentibus.” (Bignon. Not. in Mare. p. 287.)
(o) In one of these Councils it is declared that after matters of religion had been deliberated, they proceeded ‘ ad caterarum causarum negotia.” In the 13th Council, Can. 2, the case of Im- peachment for Treason is introduced. (See Concil. Tolet. iv. c. 75; vec. 7; vi. c. 17; viii. in Prefat; xii.c. 1; xvii. c. 1, &c.)
(p) Goldastus declares that in the first Parliament of Lotha- rius II. there were present 33 Bishops, 34 Dukes, 74 Counts. (Rer. Aleman. Tom. II. Cod. Leg. Antiq. B. 362.)
(q) Arumeus says, that “The Bishops of Germany sit in a double capacity in the Diets, both as Bishops, and as Princes of the Empire ;” and he commends “ the prudence of that Constitution
88 History of the Christian Priesthood.
an eminent Protestant lawyer of the empire, as well as from the matriculation roll of the States of the empire, that the Bishops as well as the nobles sat ‘in Comitiis Regni” from the time of Lotharius II. who promulgated the first laws that were ever pub- lished. The same Goldastus informs us, that in Bohemia the Bishops ‘ acted as legislators” in civil matters, from the time Christianity was first introduced into the country until the days of Sigis- mund.' It is also certain, that no sooner was Christianity received into Hungary, than the princes Stephanus and Ladislaus called the Bishops as well as the nobles to the great council of the nation,‘ and that in passing all the laws made in the Con- cilium Zabolchianum the Bishops voted.t Staro- volscius and Sigismund state, that in Poland, from the moment the country became Christian, the Bishops had the first place in the Senate, and held other great temporal offices. In all the northern kingdoms, we know that, from the first introduction
with respect both to justice and the honour and safety of religion.” (Arume. de Comitiis, ἢ. 35, c. 4, n. 98.)
(r) Goldastus says, “ There, as in all other well-constituted kingdoms, there were three estates of Prelates, Nobles, and Com- mons.” .... “ This continued from the time Christianity was received, till the days of Sigismond.” (Goldast. Bohem. lib. v. ς, 1.)
(s) Bonfin. dec. 2. lib. i.
(t) Decret. Ladisl. p. 12.
(u) Starovolscius says, “ Their ancestors, after they received Christianity, out of regard to religion, gave the Bishops the first place in the Senate; and admitted the Clergy to the great offices of the kingdom..”” (Starovolsc. Polon. p. 265.) And Sigismond in his Constitution writes, ‘‘ The States of Poland consist of the Bishops, Barons, and Delegates, called ‘ Nuntii Terrestres.’” (Herburt. Stat. Regni Pol. p. 263.)
History of the Christian Priesthood. 89
of Christianity, the Bishops, as well as the nobility, sat and voted in the State Conventions or National Councils. It is evident from the ‘‘ Hindstraa,” or ancient laws of Norway, that it was so in that country ;* and we learn from Adamus Bremensis,’ and Loccenius,”? that it was so in other northern kingdoms. These historical references indisputably prove, that in the early ages there was a general consent throughout Christendom, in all well-con- stituted kingdoms, to call Bishops, as well as nobility, to their legislative councils and assemblies; and that legislation, or the administration of justice, was not considered incompatible with the Episcopal office.
Let us now turn to the early history of our own Church. Although parliaments, as they are now holden, did not begin until after the Conquest (for the first Parliament upon record was held in the 49th year of Henry III.), yet our Saxon ancestors had frequent public Gemots, or assemblies of the estates, and principal nobility of the kingdom, as the Wittena-Gemots, the Folkmots, &c.;* which
(x) It appears by the “ Hindstraa,” that the Bishops, as well as nobility, were present in the Convention of the States, and all Public Councils.”” (Jus Aulicum Norveg. c. 3. c. 36.)
(y) Adamus Bremensis says, that in these other northern king- doms, “ The Bishops, after the people received Christianity, were received into their Public Councils.” (Adam. Brem. de situ Dan. n. 85.)
(z) Loccen. Antiq. Succo. Goth. c. 8.
(a) “‘ Wittena-gemott idem apud Anglo-Saxones fuit, quod apud nos hodie Parliamentum; parumque a Folkmotto differebat, nisi quod hoc annuum esset et e certis plerumque causis, illud ex arduis contingentibus, et legum calendarum gratia, ad arbitrium Principis interdictum..... In Folkmotto semel quotannis sub initio Calen-
90 History of the Christian Priesthood.
Wittagemots were the. true foundation of the legis- lative assembly in this country, in like manner as the ancient Palatine Court of France was the ori- ginal of the Parliament of Paris. Now it was the custom at that period (as fully appears in Sir Henry Spelman’s edition of the Councils) for the persons present to give their assent to the laws (made in Parliament, for such it was,) by subscribing their names to all such assemblies and councils. Among the parties so subscribing we find the names of the Anglo-Saxon Bishops, thereby proving that for five hundred years before the Conquest they exercised the same legislative power in enacting laws and con- stitutions, as our Bishops do at the present day. In the time of Ethelbert, the first Christian King, so long back as twelve hundred and thirty years ago, and within eleven years after the arrival of Augustine into this country, the style of the Parlia- ment runs thus, “‘ Commune Concilium Clert quam Populi,” and the laws passed in it (as is proved by _ Sir Henry Spelman) are entitled, ‘‘ Hac sunt de- creta, seu judicia que Ethelbertus constituit, tem- pore Augustini.” Although the name of Augustine only is mentioned, and not any other Bishops, yet this
darum Maii (tanquam in Annuo Parliamento) convenére Regni Principes, tam Episcopi, quam Magistratus, liberique homines. Jurantur Laici omnes coram Episcopis in mutuum foedus, in fidelitatem, et in jura Regni conservanda. Consulitur de communi salute, de pace, de bello, et de utilitate publica promovenda, &c. Scirgemott, (si pluries opus non esset) bis solummodo in anno indicebatur. Aderat Provincize Comes, aderat Episcopus, aderant Magnates, omnes Comitatenses, &c.”’
(4) Spelm. Cone, (A.p. 605), p. 126, &c.
(c) Spelm. Comment. p. 127.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 91
was because he was the principal Bishop present; as is evident from the old book called Textus Rof- fensis, written by Ernulph, a Bishop of Rochester, in which all the laws passed in the reign of Ethel- bert are extant.4 King Ina’s Parliament was held, A.D. 612, ‘‘communem assensum omnium Episco- porum, &c.;” the grand league was made during his reign, “per commune Concilium et assensum omnium Episcoporum, Procerum, Comitum, &c. et per preeceptum Regis Inz ;”¢ and in all the Parlia- ments held in his reign the Bishops are always named first and principal members of those Par- liaments ;f as also in the time of King Withfred :8 as also under King Alured;> King Athelstane ;' King Edmund,* and King Edgar.! During the
(4) See also Bed. lib. ii. cap. 5.
(e) Bed. Eccl. Hist. lib. j.; see also Spelman and Lambard in loc.
(f) “ Ego Ina, Dei gratia, West Saxonum Rex, exhortatione et doctrina Cennedes Patris mei, Heddes Episcopi mei, et Erkenwaldes Episcopi mei, et omnium aldermannorum meorum, et Seniorum, et Sapientum Regni mei, constitui,’ &c. (Lambard, p. 1. Concil. Ῥ. 186.)
(g) Concil. p. 206.
(h) Concil. p. 568, c. 17.
(4) “Ego Adelstanus Rex, consilio Wulfelmi Archiepiscopt mei, et aliorum Episcoporum meorum, mando Prepositis meis.’’ (Lambard, p- 57. Council, p. 402. See also Concil, p. 402, c, 11. De officio Episcopi, et quid pertinet ad officium ejus.)
(1) ““ Edmundus Rex congregavit magnum Synodum Dei ordinis et seculi, apud London civitatem, in Sancto Pasche solennis, cui interfuit Odo, et Wulstannus Archiepiscopi, et alii plures Episcopi. (Council, p. 423.)
(1) ‘* Intersit unusquisque hundredi Gemoto, ut superius est prescriptum, et habeantur burgemotti tres, quotannis duo vero scire Gemotti; de istis adsunto loci Episcopus et aldermannus, doceatque alter jus divinum, alter seculare,”’ &c. (See Glossar,
92 History of the Christian Priesthood.
government of the Danes also, the Parliaments are recorded to have been made ‘‘cum consilio et de- creto Archiepiscoporum et Episcoporum.’™ The subscriptions to the laws made by the Bishops of these several times may be seen in all ancient char- ters and statutes in the first volume of our English councils. We find the King signs first, then the two Archbishops of Canterbury and York, and the other Bishops, and then the noblemen." _ It is in- disputable, therefore, that our Bishops acted as legislators “‘five hundred years before the Conquest.°
p- 815.; Lambard, p. 80; Coke, 2 Instit. 487; Selden’s Hist. of Tithes, chap. xiv. Sect. 1; Seld. Janus, lib. ii. sect. 14, &c.)
(m) Concil. p. 568, c. 17.
(x) Subscriptions to a Charter of King Edgar, to the Monastery of Glasten. (See Lambard. Concil. p. 486.)
Ego Edgar Rex totius Britannie prefatam libertatem cum sigillo sanctze Crucis confirmavi.
Ego Edward, clito Patris mei donum cum triumpho sancte crucis impressi.
Ego Kinedrius Rex Albaniz adquievi.
Ego Mascusius Archipirata confortavi.
Ego Dunstannus Dorobenensis Ecclesie Archiepiscopus cum Tropheo Sancte crucis, et cum Suffraganeis Presulibus Regis donum corroboravi. Ego Oswald Eboracensis Ecclesie Primas, consentioni subscripsi.
Ego Ethelnoldo Wintoniensis Ecclesie Episcopus signum sancte erucis impressi.
Ego Brichtelm Fontarensis Episcopus consentiens corroboravi.
Ego Elislam Episcopus confirmavi.
Ego Oswald Episcopus adquievi.
Ego Elfnolde Episcopus concessi.
Ego Winsige Episcopus cum signo sancte crucis conclusi, &c. &c.
Ego Elphene Dux, Dominz mez Sanctze Marie Glasteniensis Ecclesiz libertatem omni devotione cum sigillo sancte crucis con- firmavi.
Ego Oslack Dux consensi.
Ego Ethelwine Dux hoc donum triumphale hagiz crucis proprie manus depictione impressi. &c. &c.
(0) With respect to the ‘ Titles and Dignities ” enjoyed by the
HMistory of the Christian Priesthood. 93
Neither can Mr. Howitt say that these privileges were taken away at the Conquest, for the Norman Princes, in opposition to the Pope,? and witha view
Saxon Bishops, we read “" Magno sane in honore fuit universus Clerus, cum apud populum et proceres; tum apud ipsos Reges Angliz Saxonicos ; nec preecaria hoc quidem concessione, sed ipsis confirmatum legibus.... Episcopus similiter inter Comites ipsos majores, qui integro fruebantur Comitatu, juribusque Comitivis; Archiepiscopus Duci et Satrape amplissime Provincie pluribus gaudenti comitatibus preeficitur, ut et ceteri omnes Ecclesiastici comparibus suis omnibus Secularibus.... Primi igitur sedebant in omnibus Regni Comitiis et Tribunalibus Episcopi in Regali quidem Palatio, cum Regni Magnatibus in Comitatu una cum Comite, et Justiciario Comitatus, in Turno Vice Comitis cum Vice Comite.” (Epist. ad Regem. Tum in vita tum in favore Concil. Thansum, p. 525. K. Edw. Confess. cap. 3.) See also K. Athels- tani Regis apud Lambardum, p. 71; and Concil. Britannica, Ῥ. 406. cap. 13. de Weregeldis, 1. Capitum zstimationibus.
(p) It is evident from Matthew Paris, that not only the Pope, but the Bishops of that period, were opposed to the erection of their Bishoprics into Temporal Baronies, considering it as a mark of subjection to the civil power—Matthew Paris calls it “ Consti- tutionem pessimam.” (Matt. Paris, ad A. p. 1070.) He also calls the Constitutions of Clarendon “ Consuetudines iniquas,’’ and the Rolls that were made of the Services belonging to the Baronies “Rotulas Ecclesiastice Servitutis.””. Thomas a Becket strenuously opposed these Constitutions, and says in his Epistles that they were framed “ad ancillandam Ecclesiam.”) (Baronius, a. Ὁ. 1164, n. 3.) And we find that Pope Alex. III. condemned ten of the sixteen Constitutions of Clarendon. (Baron. a.p. 1164.) So that it is certain that the exercise by the Bishops of this secular jurisdic- tion was not only not an encroachment of the Bishops and Clergy themselves, and a relic of Popery, but that the Papists themselves were as anxious to prevent the Bishops “ acting as Legislators ”’ as ever Mr. Howitt could be. It was prohibited by Otho and Othobon, Lanfranc, Anselm, and Stephen Langton. In a Council, held by Richard, Archbishop of Canterbury, it was decreed, “ In- hibemus sub pena Anathematis ne quis Sacerdos, habeat Vice Comitatum aut Prepositi Secularis officium.’’ (Conc. Westmo- nasterien. 21 Hen.) “ Clerici non debent Procurationes Szculares suscipere, &c. nec Jurisdictiones Seculares sub aliquibus Principibus
94 History of the Christian Priesthood.
to strengthen their own power erected the Bishop- rics into baronies, the only difference being, that since that time the Bishops have sat in a double capacity, that is, both as spiritual and temporal Lords. Prior to their being summoned as temporal Barons, they had seats in Parliament by virtue of their episcopal office, and as representing a distinct estate of the realm; and their being subsequently summoned by virtue of their temporal baronies did by no means abrogate their far more ancient and indefeasible right of sitting in Parliament purely in their character of Bishops, and as a third estate of the realm; for the erection of the Bishoprics into baronies by the first William was, as has been before observed, to answer his own political purposes, and to strengthen and consolidate his kingly power. All our ancient Parliaments and statutes fully recognize three Estates in Parliament, exclusively of the King’s person ; reckoning the Lords spiritual the first Estate, the Lords temporal the second, and the Commons the third Estate.4 In the preamble to the Act of 8th Elizabeth, cap. 1, the Clergy are declared to be aut Secularibus viris ut Justiciarii eorum fiant Clericorum quisquam exercere presumat.”? (See a decree of Pope Alexander, in Roger Hovenden, Anno 25 H. 2.) Bellarmine also contends that ‘ Re- gimen Ecclesiasticum est distinctum a Politico.” (Bellarm. de Rom. Pontifice, 1. i. cap. 5.) This, however, is not the only point in which the Papists and Mr. Howitt are agreed against us.
(4) ‘*This Court consisteth of the King’s Majesty, sitting there, as in his royal politic capacity, and of the three Estates of the Realm, viz.
«ς First, are the Lords Spiritual, Archbishops and Bishops, being in number 26, who sit there by succession, in respect of their
counties or baronies, parcel of their bishoprics, which they hold also in their politic capacity. And every one of these, when any
Flistory of the Christian Priesthood. 95
‘one of the greatest estates of the realm,” that is, 1 third estate, not only of the kingdom but of the parliament also,’ for the three estates of the realm and of parliament are the same. We have reason, herefore, to conclude that our Bishops do not sit in he House of Lords merely in the capacity of tem-
Parliament is to be holden, ought, ex debito justitiz, to have a Writ »f Summons.
** Secondly, the Lords Temporal, Dukes, Marquesses, Earls, Viscounts, and Barons, who sit there by reason of their dignities, which they hold by descent, or creation, in number, at this time, 106. And likewise every one of these, being of full age, ought to lave a Writ of Summons, ex debito justitiz.
“ The third Estate is the Commons of the Realm, whereof there )6 Knights of the Shires or Counties, Citizens of Cities, and Bur- resses of Burroughs; all which are respectively elected by the Shires of Counties, Cities and Burroughs, by force of the King’s Writ, ex debito justitiz. And none of them ought to be omitted ; und these represent all the Commons of the whole realm, and ‘rusted for them, and are in number, at this day, 499.᾽ (Lork. Coke, 4 Instit. cap. 1.)
(r) See also Stat. 39, Eliz. cap. 8.
(s) ““ Memorand. quod queedam Billa exhibita fuit,” &c. “ Be it remembered that a certain Bill was exhibited, &c. containing in writing certain Articles of the tenor underwritten on the behalf, and in the name of the three Estates of this Realm of England, that is to say, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and of the Commons by name. Now, forasmuch as neither the said Trree Estates, nor the said persons which presented and delivered, &c. were assembled in Form of Parliament, by reason whereof divers doubts and ques- tions, &c. have been moved, &c. ‘Therefore to the perpetual memory of the truth and declaration of the same, be it ordained, provided, and established in this present Parliament, that the tenor of the said Roll, with all the contents of the same, presented as is above said, in the name and in the behalf of the said Three Estates out uf Parliament. Now by the said three Estates assembled in this present Parliament, and by the authority of the same be it ratified, recorded, enrolled, approved, and authorized, to the removal of the occasion of doubts, &c. (Rot. Parl. 1 Ric. 3. Die veneris, tertio die Januarii, anno Regni Regis Ric. 3. primo, ὅσο.)
96 History of the Christian Priesthood.
poral barons (which they never do excepting when they sit as members of the Supreme Court of Judi- cature, when the King requires their attendance as his barons,*) but also as representing a third estate in Parliament. This can be proved beyond question from the rolls of Parliament, whch show that when a bishopric became vacant, a writ was sent to the Guardian of the Spiritualities of the diocese, and when the Bishop was beyond sea, to the Vicar Gene- ral," both of whom in such cases, although simple
(t) ‘‘ Archiepiscopi, Episcopi, et universee Persone Regni qui de Rege tenent in capite, habeant possessiones suas de Rege, sicut Baroniam, et inde respondeant Justiciariis et Ministris Regis, et se- quantur et faciant omnes consuetudines Regias; et sicut czteri Barones, debent interesse Judiciis Curie Regis, &c.” (Constit. Clarend. xi.)
(u) 24 Edw. I. Writs were directed ‘ Custodi Archiepiscopatis Eborum, sede vacante; et Electo Menevensi, vel ejus vices gerenti, ipso agente in partibus transmarinis.” 27 Edw. I. ‘‘ Custodibus Episcop. Lincoln, sede vacante ; et Capitulo Eccles. B. P. Eborum, Custodibus Spiritual. ejusdem Dioces. sede vacante.”’ 5 Edw. II. *‘ Vicario Generali Archiep. Eborum, ipso Archiepiscopo in remotis agente.” 6 Edw. II. “ Custodi Archiepiscopatiis Cantuar. sede vacante.” 7 Edw. II. “ Custodi Episcop. London. sede vacante.”’ 1 Edw. III. ““ Custodi Spiritualitatis Archiep. Cantuar. sede va- cante ;”’ as also 2 Edw. III. 9 Edw. III. “ Rex dilecto 5101 in Christo Priori Eccles. Christi Cantuar. Custodi Spiritualit. Archiep. Cantuar. sede vacante.” 10 Edw. III. “ Custodi Spirit. Episcop. Norwic. sede vacante.” 11 Edw. III. “ Custodi Spirit. Episcop. Cicestr. sede vacante; et H. Episcopo Lincoln. vel ejus Vicario Generali, ipso Episcopo in remotis agente.” 12 Edw. III. A more general Writ: “ Tothe Archbishop, &c. vel Vicariis vestris Gene- ralibus, vobis in partibus transmarinis agentibus.”’ 14 Edw. III. Τὶ Episcop. Hereford, vel ejus Vicario Generali, ipso Episcopo in remotis agente.’ 20 Edw. IIT. “ Custodi Spiritualit. Episcop. Assaphensis, &c.” The like we find 20 Edw. III. 34, 36, 38, 44; 5 Ric. 11. 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 18, 20; all which plainly prove (as Mr. Selden himself admits, in his ‘ Titles of Honour,’ chap. v. p. 2. n. 17, 23.) that the Bishops continue to sit in Parliament as
History of the Christian Priesthood. 91
yresbyters, and having no right whatever to sit in yarliament as temporal barons, sat and voted in the House of Peers as proxies for their respective lioceses.
In our time the Clergy are not, as in days of yore, xempt from temporal jurisdiction ; they are stripped I lament it not) of all exclusive privileges—they we subject to all temporal laws, suits, arrests, and mprisonments, impositions, taxes, and charges; urthermore, they alone are excluded from the N - 2 Sommons House of Parliament; and surely neither ustice nor the more supple principles of political xpediency, can require that they should be deprived f representatives in the upper House of Parliament.*
Moreover, by the laws of England, especially Maena Charta,Y the boasted palladium of our liber- ies, and any infringement of which a person of Mr. Howitt’s liberal sentiments could never consistently anction, the Bishops have a r1GHT to seats in par- iament: and such right, enjoyed by them for nearly hirteen hundred years, is as much theirs by those aws and by that charter, and ought to be held as cred, as the right by which temporal barons sit here ;? nor can this right be taken from them 3ishops, and in a spiritual capacity, as they did in the Wittena- emott in the Saxon times.
(4) “Civis nulla re alid magis definitur, quam participatione, udicii ac Magistratfis.”’ (Arist. Polit. lib. iii. cap. 1.) ‘* An soli x omnibus clerico commune jus clauditur?” (Ambros. lib. ii.— Hpist. 12. tom. v. p. 98.) ;
(y) ““ Concessimus Deo, quod Ecclesia Anglicana libera sit, et iabeat omnia sua, jura integra, et libertates suas illesas.” (Lord Soke, 2 Instit. cap. ii. p. 3.)
(z) See Honours of the Clergy, p. 80; Selden’s Baronage, ». 143, 144. The Bishops are expressly called in the Rolls of
Ε
98 History of the Christian Priesthood.
without breach of the constitution, any more than the lords temporal can be deprived of their rights. Nay, it is even questionable whether their presence is not indispensable to constitute a parliament.?
Parliament “ Pieres de la Terre et Juges du Parlement,” (See Case of John de Gomenitz and William de Weston, Numb. 29. 1 Ric. II.) “ Pares Regni,’’ (See Protestation of the 11 Ric. II.) “ Peers of the Realm,” (Rot. 2,21. 15 Edw. II.; 1 Edw. III. Rot. 55.) ““ Peers in Parliament,” (Rot. 56 and 61.) and more fully and distinetly, ‘‘ Peers of the Realm in Parliament.” (See also 25 Edw. III. c. 26; 4 Hen. V. c. 6.)
(a2) Mr. Prynn, speaking of King Richard, observes :—‘‘ The Three Estates must concur to make a Parliament, or else his title would neither be valid nor satisfactory, but ambiguous, as before ; no one or two of them being a full and real Parliament, but all con- joined.” (Cott. Abr. p. 710, nota marginali.) Accordingly we find that Parliamentary Judgments have been often repealed in consequence of the absence of the Bishops, as the Representatives of a third Estate in Parliament, which sufficiently proves that their cencurrence in the judgments of the other two Estates (the Tem- poral Peers and Commons) was thought necessary to make ajudg- ment valid. For example: in 15 Edward II. the judgment against the two Spencers, which had been made by the Parliament without the Prelates, was nulled and made void before the King, Lords, and Commons, the same year; and one of the reasons given for its being reversed was, “ because the Lords Spiritual assented not to it ;” (Claus. 15 Edw. II. n. 23, 24, and dors. 13, 32.); which prece- dent is cited and allowed by Mr. Prynn. (See Prynn’s Plea for the Lords, p. 193; see also Rot. 55, 56. 21 Rich. 11.) Itis very clear, from the assertion of it in two Parliaments, (15 Edw. IT. and 21 Rich. II.), that in the general opinion of King, Lords, and Commons, the presence of the Lords Spiritual, as the Represen- tatives of a third Estate in Parliament, was necessary to the validity of a Judgment. And we find, that in 21 Rich. II. the House of Commons, with their Speaker, did solemnly and openly petition the King in these words :—“ That, forasmuch as divers judgments had been heretofore undone and repealed, for that the Lords Spi- ritual were not present at those Judgments, and so the Parliament not being full, that the King would command the Bishops to make some one their common Procurator,’” (for the Bishops absented themselyes—secundum Sacrorum Canonum instituta—when matters of blood were agitated,) “ with sufficient authority thereunto,
History of the Christian Priesthood. 99
Before any weight can be attached to Mr. Howitt’s assertion, he must prove that it is possible for the Bishops to be, and that they are required to be, in the same rank and condition in which the Apostles were when the Christian Church was first planted in the world; he ought further to prove that no difference ought to be made between a Church constituted and settled, and incorporated into the State, and one not yet formed, but labouring under great difficulties, and making its way through con- stant persecutions. Nay, to be consistent with himself, he must show that because the Apostles passed from place to place, preaching the word of God, that therefore Bishops are not to stay in one country, nor to have any fixed habitation. If, how- ever, the episcopal order is in substance the same with that of the Apostles and the primitive Bishops of the Christian Church, (and that it is so shall be proved in the present volume,) the additions of dignity and title, which are merely external and adventitious, simply make the episcopal order of more esteem and reputation in the eyes of men, but alter neither its substance nor its nature.
As reasonably, therefore, may Mr. Howitt con- tend that a change of garments alters the body, as to argue that the accession of the external privileges of dignity and title alter the nature of the holy calling with which our Bishops have been
which would put an end to all controversies.’’ The Bishops, on this occasion, we find, appointed Sir Thomas de la Percy to give assent on their behalf, as appears by their public instruments on record in the Rolls of Parliament. And this was a frequent occurrence.
Ee
100 History of the Christian Priesthood.
invested. The Bishop is the same whether dignified or undignified, titled or without title, rich or poor. The patriarch Joseph was the same in Potiphar’s dungeon and on Pharaoh’s throne; our Saviour was the same in Joseph’s workshop and on Tabor’s hill; St. Paul was the same when making tents in the house of Aquila, as when disputing in the school of Tyrannus.
The learned Bishop Hall, of Norwich, well re- marks, “‘ It is an old and certain rule in philosophy, that degrees do not diversify the kinds and nature of things; the same fire that flashes in the tow glows in the juniper; if one gold be finer than another, yet both are gold; if some pearls be fairer than others, yet their kind is the same.”
If any dependence, therefore, is to be placed on the authority of Scripture, on the usages of the primitive Church, or the records of history; or if any deference is to be paid to analogy, and to the arguments drawn from the nature of things, Mr. Howitt cannot show that legislative privileges, dignities, and titles are incompatible with the Epis- copal office.»
(Ὁ) “ They who are opposed to the order of Bishops altogether, are more consistent, and more rational in their views, than those who would allow of Bishops for ecclesiastical purposes, and exclude them from Parliament? Their having seats there, is a very im- portant and effectual check upon their exercise of spiritual as well as temporal power. It subjects them to the same kind of respon- sibility which Ministers of the Crown are under from having seats in the Legislature, where they are liable daily to be called to account for the exercise of their ministerial functions. Such opportunities are still more necessary in the case of Prelates,
whose tenure of office is for life.” (Bishop of Chichester’s Charge to the Clergy of the Archdeaconry of Lewes, delivered in May, 1824.)
CHAP. III.
From the legislative privileges, dignities, and titles of the Bishops of the Church of England, Mr. Howitt proceeds to object to the revenues of her clergy. He first asserts, that “a more ini- quitous method could not have been devised for the support of a minister of religion than tithes;”* that “it taxes not simply a man’s land, but his capital, his genius, his skill, and industry;”> that “ every sect in England at present is compelled to con- tribute to the support of the Established Church by the payment of tithes,” ° and that ‘‘as the nation ought not to enrich one body of Christians, at the expense of the rest,”¢ such ‘‘ compulsion is ἃ moral and political absurdity, and a violation of all the rights of conscience ;’® that ‘the clergy of the United Kingdom are overpaid, and loaded with opulent sinecures;”! that “they have become the richest body of priests in the world,”’ being “ paid more than the clergy of all the rest of Christendom besides, by a million sterling and upwards;’" that
(a) P. 209. (Ὁ) Ibid. (c) P. 206 and 209.
(d) P. 215. Ce) Bo206) 2 (if)! P4198: (g) P.197. (h) P. 249.
102 History of the Christian Priesthood.
‘one third portion of the revenue of the Church is the undoubted property of the poor,”! and that as ες Parliament has aright to recall the loan of church- property, having formerly taken it from the Ca- tholics, and given it” * to the clergy who at present hold it, therefore, the whole of the tithes ought to be “ abolished.”!
Such is the mode in which Mr. Howitt hopes to convince his readers of the ‘‘ iniquitousness” of the tithe system. Let us test these assertions by the touchstone of truth and sincerity.
Before, however, I enter upon this task, I cannot help observing that in objecting to tithes as ‘ the most iniquitous method ever conceived for the support of a minister of religion,’™ Mr. Howitt directly impugns the wisdom of God himself, who was (as Mr. Howitt admits) the first to ““ conceive this iniquitous method for the support” of the ministry of his worship. But let this pass. It is only one amid the mass of contradictory absurdities with which Mr. Howitt’s book abounds.
** The history of tithes,” he writes in the third edition of his work, “ is a singular one. Never were any poor people so troubled to contrive a plausible title to ill-gotten booty, as our Protestant Clergy to this Popish plunder of tithes. They have asserted for them rights of all kinds,—a right divine; a right constitutional; a right from pos- session; and have, in turn, been driven from them all” //» ‘That the Protestant Clergy have ever
(ἡ Pe 2h (k) P. 215. (2) P2207: (m) 2ded. p. 209; 3d ed. p. 252. (n) 8d ed. p. 252.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 108
been driven from any one of these positions is an astounding falsehood.
“ Quid dignum tanto feret hic promissor hiatu 2”
Where are the proofs? He endeavours to prove that they have been driven from their divine right. Mr. Howitt says, “ Their divine right was founded on the Mosaic law. But this the clergy soon found they could never establish, unless they could prove us all Jews, and themselves genuine Levites ; for God gave tithes only to his own people, and that to the tribe of Levi.”°
Here let me entreat the reader’s attention whilst I prove the gross falsehood, ignorance, and shallow fallacy evinced in this assertion. ‘‘ The right divine of the Clergy to tithes is not founded on the Mosaic law.” If this can be proved, the falsehood of Mr. Howitt’s premises necessarily destroys his conclusion ; and, therefore, the Clergy are not called upon to “ prove either all Christians to be Jews, or themselves to be genuine Levites.”
Let us inquire into the object for which tithes were first instituted, whether for the maintenance of the spiritual part of God’s worship, which began shortly after the creation, and being de- pendent on his nature must be immutable; or for the ceremonial part, which was not enacted until the time of Levi, and which being dependent on the will of God must be mutable.
I. God originally was the chief Proprietor of all things in the world, from “ the sparrow which
(0) 3d ed. p. 252.
104 History of the Christian Priesthood.
sitteth alone on the house-top” to ‘‘ the cattle upon a thousand hills;” no person having any peculiar title to property, but holding it by the permission of the Creator of all things and on the tenure which he had appointed.”
11. The conditions of the tenure were these,— that the people who then constituted his Church upon earth should allot a tenth part of their wealth, and a seventh part of their time, to his honour and service, not only as an acknowledgment of his dominion, by whose benevolence they had the whole, but also as a testimony of their affection and gratitude towards the donor.
IIL. The Lord of all things deputed the power of receiving this tenth part of the wealth of his people to the ministers of his worship, and he surrendered it as their official and inalienable inheritance, on condition of their being the spiritual instructors of his people.‘
In proof of these truths, let us begin, first of all, with the patriarchal dispensation, under which, notwithstanding Mr. Howitt’s barefaced denial, we meet both with Priests and with tithes, and where we find that as soon as God had appointed ministers, he at the same time appointed tithes for their maintenance.
(p) ‘¢ Ipse Deus jus dominii plenissimum habet, ut in res nos- tras, ita et in vitam nostram ut munus suum, quod sine ulla causa, et quovis tempore auferre cuivis, quando vult, potest.” (Grot. de Jur. Belli, lib. ii. cap. 21. § 14.)
(q) Hugo de 8. Victor. Annot. elucid. in loc. Peter. Comestor. Histor. Schol. Gen. xxvi.; R. Nachman in Gen. xxvi. 5; R. Bechai
in Gen. xxvi. 12. See also Hugo de S. Victor. erud. Theol. de Sacram. L. I. par. 11, c. 4.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 105
It is certain from Scripture that under the patriarchal dispensation, and long before the enact- ment of the ritual and ceremonial law of Levi, tithes were the personal inheritance of the Lord; for when they are first mentioned, it is said, ‘ All the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, Is (mark,—not shall be) the Lord’s; 1s (mark again,—not shall be) holy unto the Lord.” Accordingly we find the Mosaic law (with which Mr. Howitt would have us believe tithes commenced, and upon which law he pretends them to have been founded), when it enjoins the payment of tithes, recognizes them as a known and long-existent due. Amongst the sons of Noah of the posterity of Shem, by whom the true religion was chiefly preserved, and the Church planted, we have two witnesses that the ministers of the visible Church under the Patriarchal dispen- sation were maintained by tithes. Melchisedec, a ** Priest of the Most High God,” having “ blessed” Abraham, received of him “ tithes of all,”* that is, of all that he had." Now, according to the Hebrew chronology, this occurred within four hundred and thirty-four years from the death of Noah, and four hundred and thirty-one years before Levi was born, and consequently four hundred and thirty-one years
(7) Compare Levit. xxvii. 30. with Numb. xviii. 20, 28.
(5) Exod. xxii. 29. Compare Levit. xxvii. 29, 80. See R. R. ap. Hottinger. Juris Hebreor. Leg. 78. p. 98.
(¢) Gen. xiv. 20.
(u) “ De omnibus rebus,”’ C. P. Onk. ; Junius and Tremelius in Chaldee Paraphrase, ἀπὸ πάντων, LXX.; “ ex omnibus,” Vulg.—
Rabbi Salomon on Heb. vii., both in Syriac and Arabic Para- phrase. '
106 History of the Christian Priesthood.
before tithes were given by God from his own people to the tribe of Levi. St. Paul, alluding to this historical fact, uses an expression most emphatical, and not to be misunderstood. The Apostle says, Melchisedec ‘ tithed [δεδεκάτωκε Abraham and blessed him;”* that is, that Melchi- sedec not merely received tithes of Abraham, but took them from him as his right, as a divinely- appointed legal tribute due from Abraham to the “ Priest of the Most High God.” It is certain that Melchisedec exercised his right of “ tithing” in his capacity as ‘‘ Priest,” for the payment of tithes by Abraham is evidently and strictly in con- nexion with the “ blessing,” which, in the exercise of his priestly office, Melchisedec pronounced upon the patriarch. Moreover, one hundred and fifty years afterwards, Jacob, the grandchild of Abraham and father of Levi, vowed at Bethel, for himself and his whole seed, to give “ tithe” of all the property he might acquire in Mesopotamia.Y Now as God could not receive the tenth of this property personally, and as he had expressly assigned this tenth as the official inheritance of his ministers, we are bound to believe that the tenth of the property acquired by Jacob in Mesopotamia was given by him in the same manner as the tenth had been formerly given by his grandfather Abraham, to the “Priests of the Most High God.” It is evident,
(2) Heb. vii. 6.
(y) Gen. xxviii. 21 to 23; see also Joseph. Antiq. 1. i. c. 18; Aben Ezra in Gen. xxxv.; and Lyra, Tostatus, ibid.; compare
Deut. xxiii. 21; 1 Sam. i. 11; Psal. 1. 14; Ivi. 5; Eccles. v. 4; Jonah 1. 16.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 107
therefore, that long before the Mosaic law was instituted, or that the Jews had become an esta- blished people, the ‘‘ Priesthood of the Most High God” “ tithed” the people who constituted the visible Church of God upon earth, and, conse- quently, tithes cannot be said to be “ founded on the Mosaic law.”
To revert to the original question, let us now more particularly inquire for what object tithes were first instituted, whether for the maintenance of the spiritual or the ceremonial part of God’s worship; the first being dependent on the nature of God, and therefore immutable; the last on his will, and therefore mutable.
The worship of the patriarchal dispensation was not a ceremonial one, neither was it a peculiar or exclusive dispensation, as that of Levi was; inas- much as it prescribed no law, either ritual or moral, that could not be received and practically obeyed by all men. Under this dispensation we no where read of any ceremonial worship: the office of Melchisedec, for example (who was a priest under this dispensation), consisted in the performance not of ceremonial, but of the religious or spiritual duties, of instructing the people, and of offering prayer and praise to God. Now it was for the support of the Priesthood under this dispensation, that tithes were first instituted; and they were
(z) Gen. xiv. 18; Διῶν τὸν τῶν θείων μυστηρίων προεσήμαινε τύπον. Isid. Peleus. lib. i. Epist. 431; Hieron. in Gen. tom. iil. p. 828 ; and Chron. Alexandrin.; Epiphan. contr. Heres. 55. 1. 11. tom. i.
p- 209; Steph. Tornacens. Ep. 171; Isidor. Hispal. Glos. in Genes.
108 History of the Christian Priesthood.
afterwards transferred to, and held by the Levitical Priesthood, on the same tenure, that is, for the performance of the same spiritual duties, and not for the performance of ceremonial observances. The ritual and ceremonial law of the Jews was not enacted until nearly four hunded years after Mel- chisedec had “ tithed” Abraham. If, therefore, tithes were annexed in official inheritance to the patriarchal Priesthood on account of any other services than those mentioned, and which must from their nature be of perpetual obligation, I would thank Mr. Howitt to inform me what those services were, and when and by whom they were enacted. This dispensation enjoined a spiritual, not a cere- monial or typical worship; a spiritual, not a cere- monial time of worship (I mean its Sabbaths?); neither did it enjoin a typical place of worship (such, for instance, as Jerusalem was under the Levitical dispensation), but a spiritual one, as appears by the altars erected by Noah and Abraham in all their travels. Sacred history, proves, therefore, that tithes were coeval with the institution of the patriarchal dispensation, and annexed as an official inheritance to the ministers of God’s worship exclusively for spiritual, and not for ceremonial services.
Our next inquiry will be, whether those spiritual services (I use this term in contradistinction to ceremonial services), in right of which exclusively the Patriarchal Priesthood enjoyed the maintenance of tithes, ceased when the Patriarchal dispensation gave way tothe Mosaic.
(a) Gen. ii. 3.
—— oe
History of the Christian Priesthood. 109
It is not denied that when God dedicated to himself the tribe of Levi, a ritual and ceremonial law was then annexed to the priestly office, in addition to the previously existing spiritual ser- vices.» Nevertheless, in the enactment of this ritual and ceremonial law, there was virtually nothing of the Patriarchal worship abolished ; doubtless, it was altered in form, but it remained the same in substance; the ceremonial part was added, the moral part remained. The additional services imposed upon the “‘ Priests of the Most High God” by the ceremonial law, in no wise exempted them from the performance of any of those services, by virtue of the performance of which they were permitted to enjoy, as the Patriarchal Priesthood had done before them, the inheritance of tithes. The Levitical Priesthood were still required to ‘‘ teach Jacob the judgments of God, and Israel his law,”* to ‘‘ teach the good knowledge of the Lord,” to “ cause the people to understand the law of God,”® and to “ bless the children of Israel in the name of the Lord ;”! none of which services were ceremonial.
And here lies Mr. Howitt’s mistake in affirming that tithes ended with the Levitical Priesthood. If he had only taken the trouble to distinguish between ceremonial ordinances and moral duties,— the first limited by time, the last only by eternity ; the one intended to work out a scheme in God’s
(6) Deut. xxiii. 10. (c) Deut. xxxiii. 10. (d) 2 Chron. xxx. 22. (e) Nehem. viii. 8, 9. (f) Deut. x. 8; Numb. vi. 23.
110 History of the Christian Priesthood.
providence, the other dependent on his attributes which are “ the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever, —he would never have arrived at a con- clusion so historically untrue, so morally impos- sible, and so perfectly absurd.
Tithes, then, being paid to the ministry of God’s visible Church in right of their spiritual com- mission, long before any ceremonial services were included in that commission, the establishment or abolition of those ceremonial and temporary ser- vices neither did, nor could affect the right of the spiritual instructors to the inheritance of tithes. If, in defiance of all proof to the contrary, Mr. Howitt will still venture to assume that tithes were paid on account of these ceremonial services, will he have the goodness to tell me, on what ground that assumption is founded, and on what account tithes were paid long before those ceremonial services were instituted ?
If, indeed, Mr. Howitt could show the com- mission of the Levitical Priesthood to have been exclusively ceremonial, the case would be com- pletely altered. But he cannot deny that the offices of “‘ blessing” and ‘ teaching” the people are, purely spiritual, neither can he deny that such “ blessing” and ‘‘ teaching” were the chief functions of the Levitical Priesthood.
Are we wrong, then, in concluding, that that particular portion in every man’s estate, called tithes, was by the Almighty, as supreme Lord and owner of every man’s property and possessions, annexed inseparably to the ministry of his visible
History of the Christian Priesthood. 111
Church, on account of spéritual services to be per- formed:-by them for the benefit of his people?
But we can go from inferential arguments to a fact which will at once set the question at rest. We find the Levitical Priesthood enjoyed a distinct and separate maintenance for their ceremonial ser- vices, such for instance as the second tithes for feasts, and sacrifices, &c. paid at Jerusalem :8 all of which have ceased to be due ever since the coming of Christ.
Having proved, then, that tithes were considered the rightful property of the ministry, during both the Patriarchal and Levitical dispensations, and also that they were held by the Priesthoods of both those dispensations on the tenure of the self-same special conditions, viz. the performance of certain spiritual services,—it will be my purpose to inquire whether this inheritance has descended to their successors in the ministry under the Christian dispensation. It is not denied that the Levitical covenant, prefiguring the Messiah by sacrifices and ceremonies, terminated at the coming of Christ. But as it was not on account of any of these typical or figurative ceremonies that the Levitical Priest- hood had succeeded to this official inheritance; so the abrogation of the ceremonial law could not possibly affect the right of their successors to tithes which had been held in right of sperétual services. When the Patriarchal dispensation gave way to the Levitical, the tithes, which had first of all been annexed to the Patriarchal Priesthood, were not
(g) Deut. xiv. 22—24. Compare Numb. xviii, 21. 24,
110 =History of the Christian Priesthood.
abolished under the Levitical; and they were not abolished merely and only because the spiritual services were not abolished. If, therefore, the spiritual services on account of which the Patri- archal and Levitical Priesthoods received the inheritance of tithes have not been abolished under the Christian dispensation, it follows as a conse- quence that the Ministers of that dispensation hold their inheritance under precisely the same right as their predecessors.
If, indeed, Mr. Howitt could prove that both or either of the Priesthoods under the Patriarchal and Levitical dispensations, ‘‘ tithed” the people exclu- sively in right of ceremonial services, his assump- tion would rest upon a different ground. He might then, perhaps, with some show of reason, call upon me to prove “‘ Christians to be Jews, and Christian Ministers genuine Levites.” But even this (if we are to follow the literal meaning of the word “* Levite”), would not be so difficult of proof, as Mr. Howitt, in the plenitude of his wisdom, and in his love of antithesis, would have us suppose. For the term ‘ Levite,’ upon which Mr. Howitt triumphantly erects his argument, means in Scrip- ture, not a person, but an office; not, as at first, the proper name of one single man, the son of Jacob, nor (as afterwards, for distinction sake,) the name of a particular tribe; but it signifies all who may be separated from the people, and dedicated to the service of God; and, thus interpreted, is common to all ages, and to every dispensation, whether it be Patriarchal, Levitical, or Christian.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 118
Thus Isaiah, prophesying directly of the days of the Gospel, how God would work amidst the Gentiles by the ministry of the Jews, other than Levites, declares, ‘‘ And they shall bring all your brethren (that is, the Gentiles), for an offering to the Lord, out of all nations; .... I will take of them (i. e. the Gentiles) for Priests and Levites, saith the Lord.”® And St. Paul, the appointed Apostle for the Gentiles, speaks plainly of himself, both as a Minister, and as a Priest, and by conse- quence, a Levite :—‘‘ That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ towards the Gentiles, ministering the Gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gen- tiles might be acceptable.” And when comparing the law with the gospel, the same Apostle calls the officers of both ““ Ministers,”: and the spiritual services in both a “ ministration.”* As the term ‘* Levi,” therefore, signifies only the office, and not the persons of God’s Clergy, if we but prove the Ministers of the Christian religion to fill the office of the Ministers of God’s visible church, we prove them, in the sense used both by the inspired Prophet and Apostle, to be ‘ genuine Levites” by the very office which they hold, because the word ** Levite” denotes the Ministers of God in all degrees, and in all ages. So, as Mr. Howitt admits, that if the Clergy can in a scriptural sense “‘ prove themselves genuine Levites,” they will have established a divine right to tithes, the argument may fairly be said to be at an end, and
(h) Isaiah Ixvi, 20, 21. (4) Heb, viii. 2; 2 Cor. iii. 6. (k) 2 Cor. iii. 7, 8.
114 History of the Christian Priesthood.
the Ministers of the Establishment will have to thank Mr. Howitt for proving and admitting their divine right.
Mr. Howitt cannot deny, that in the duties of the Christian Priesthood, the spiritual functions of the Levitical Priesthood are still included. The cere- monial law is abolished, the moral law remains. The rising of the Sun of Righteousness has dispersed the types and shadows of the one, whilst the other remains in all its original strength and purity... The command, therefore, given to the Priesthood under the Levitical dispensation to ‘* bless the children of Israel in the name of the Lord,”™ and to “teach Jacob the judgments of God, and Israel his law,”" was most emphatically continued to the Christian Priesthood, when they were commanded by the same Great ‘ Head of the Church” to ‘ bless”® and to ‘ teach all nations.”? And it is for the teaching and expounding of this law that the official inheritance was first bestowed on the Patriarchal; secondly, on the Levitical ; thirdly, and lastly, on the Christian Priesthood. The right of God’s Ministers to tithes, therefore, is coeval with their spéritual services, and so long as the one is performed the other is rightfully due.
The Scriptures (and Mr. Howitt will excuse me, if upon this occasion, I prefer their definition to his)
(2) Rom. vi. 1. 4. (m) Deut. x. 8; Numb. vi. 23.
(n) Deut. xxxiii. 10. (0) 1 Cor. x. 16; xiv. 16.
(p) Matt. xxviii. 19; Acts v.42; 1 Cor.iv. 17; 1 Tim. iv. 11; 2 Tim. iii. 2.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 115
Jefine a Levitical ceremony to be a type or emblema- ical representation of Jesus Christ and his relation Ὁ his church; the shadow ordained to prefigure the substance “ until the fulness of time was come,”? ‘standing only in meats and drinks and divers washings and carnal ordinances ;”* the ““ shadow of heavenly things”*® enjoined for the service of the abernacle only ‘ until the time of reformation ynly,”' that is, until the coming and full appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ, who was the end and substance of all things. Let Mr. Howitt but prove hat tithes answer to this definition, and I will 9e content to allow that tithes were truly legal eremonies.
But tithes do not answer to this definition, and ithes, not so answering, cannot be a part of the hing defined. Tithes were applied under the Jewish, as they are at present under the Christian lispensation, to the maintenance of the ministry ; ind, therefore, tithes could not be types. ‘* What- ver things recorded in the Old Testament,” writes he present learned Bishop of Peterborough, “‘ were sxpressly declared by Christ or his Apostles to ave been designed as prefigurations of things elating to the New Testament, such things so ecorded in the former, are types of things with which they are compared in the latter.” Thus many things. were typical, as Noah’s ark, the manna, and the tabernacle; places were typical, is Canaan, Jerusalem, and the cities of refuge;
(4) Gal. iv. 4; Rom. xi. 25. (r) Heb. x. 10. (s) Heb. viii. 5. (¢) Heb. ix. 10.
116 =©Hastory of the Christian Priesthood.
and institutions were typical, as the passover, — the repeated atonements, and the purifications. But what thing, I would ask, in Christ or his Church, could tithes possibly prefigure or typify; for they differed in every respect from the sacrifices with which God was before honoured, and which were no longer accepted? What “ simi- litude of heavenly things” were tithes? Wherein were tithes ‘a shadow of good things to come?” And if in any place abolished, by what things supplied?
Again, even supposing tithes to have begun with the Levitical law, which they did not, for the Patriarchal Priesthood enjoyed them many hundred years before the law; that they were ordained for the service of the tabernacle, which they could not have been, because the tabernacle did not exist before the time of Moses, or nearly five hundred years after Abraham had paid tithes to Mel- chisedec; and that they only looked, or led us to Christ, which it has been shown tithes did not; even supposing all this (which is far beyond what we are warranted in supposing), it will not even then follow, that tithes are ceremonial, and were, therefore, abrogated by the coming of Christ. For if every thing which came with the Levitical law must end with its extinction, the Decalogue itself is at an end; and if every thing that was ordained for the tabernacle must be considered ceremonial, the Decalogue itself must be so considered, inasmuch as it was restricted to be read in the tabernacle by Levi; and if every thing that looked or led us
History of the Christian Priesthood. 117
9 Christ was ceremonial, and abrogated by the oming of Christ, this mode of reasoning would brogate both the moral and judicial law.
We have thus fully proved from scriptural thority that tithes were neither Levitical, nor sremonial, nor typical, nor judicial, but moral, iat is, instituted for moral purposes. And (for
Quod morale est, mortale non est,”) when the [osaic dispensation gave way to the Christian, as othing was abolished by Christ excepting what as legal or ceremonial, he consequently did not polish tithes when he abrogated the ceremonial ww, with which law the payment of tithes had othing to do. Let it be borne in mind, that the tual and ceremonial law was abolished for the bvious reason that it had served the purpose for hich it had been designed. But tithes being tended for the maintenance of the Clergy, and ierefore not having, at the coming of Christ, com- leted the purposes for which they were instituted, ere left as a necessary part of the Christian ispensation.
Tithes then being designed for the maintenance ithe spérétual, and not for the ceremonial worship | God, must last as long as the spiritual worship mntinues.
Another important consideration, when applied to thes, is that when the ritual and ceremonial law f the Jews was abolished at the coming of Christ, ankind were not left to regard it as abolished, erely because it had in their fallible judgment ecome unnecessary. God was pleased not to
118 History of the Christian Priesthood.
abolish what he had once authorized and sanc- .
tioned without the most explicit declaration of his will. In the New Testament there is an express repeal, by name, of all ceremonial things that were abolished at the coming of Christ, such as the ceremonial place of worship," and the ceremonial
worship itself,* also the ceremonial maintenance oh
those ceremonial services.» If, therefore, God afas
not see fit to abolish even what was confessedly no longer necessary (having served the purpose for which they were designed, which tithes had not, and were therefore as necessary after the law as before it), without an express declaration of his purpose, by name, how far more probable is it that if tithes were to have been abolished under the New Testament dispensation, we should have had an equally express command for their abolition.
Unless, therefore, Mr. Howitt can produce such
an unequivocal command, he will excuse my being convinced, and that too on scriptural grounds, that no such change was intended.
The reader will however be astonished to learn —
that Mr. Howitt (doubtless after a very careful
perusal of the New Testament) has only adduced — one text from Scripture in proof of the ‘‘ abolition” -
(u) ‘“‘ The hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain,
nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.” (John vi. 21; Mark ii. 28; Matt. xii. 8; Col. ii. 16, 17.)
(x) “ We have an altar, whereof they have no authority to eat,
which serve in the tabernacle.” (Heb. xiii. 10.)
(y) “Let no man, therefore, judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath — days, which are a shadow of things to come.” (Col. ii. 16, 1759
Heb. xiii. 9.)
History of the Christian Priesthood. 119
ind ‘ antichristianity” of tithes. If this text con- ained an explicit declaration on the subject, it vould be far from me to ask for a second. To an thority taken from Scripture, I should at once lefer. But neither the text, nor the context, ‘ontains any such explicit declaration, nor even lusion, however vague or remote, concerning the Yoolition of tithes.
These are the words: ‘* Freely ye have received, reely give.”
Now the man who could gravely quote this text is containing a prohibition of tithes, must be either 1 knave or a noodle; and it were waste of time to »xpose its shallow and self-evident fallacy. The sloven-foot is too palpable. The passage has no nore reference to tithes than Mr. Howitt’s ‘‘ Popu- ar History of Priestcraft” has to truth; it refers 2xclusively (as the context plainly shows), to the mode in which Christ wished his Apostles to exer- sise the miraculous power which he had given them, Ὁ ‘heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the lead, and cast out devils;”? immediately after the bestowment of that power, he adds, “ Freely ye have received, freely give.”
Tithes, therefore, having been given by God to his Ministers from the beginning of time, it is not for the Clergy of the Christian Church to show any re-injunction by Christ requiring the continuance of that payment which he ordained from the foun- dation of the world, because a divine law (not a ceremonial one), having for its object the spiritual
(z) 3d Edit. p. 323. (a) Matt. x. 8.
120 History of the Christian Priesthood.
instruction of God’s people, needed no re-enactment, but would continue in force so long as the happi- ness of the created formed any part of the scheme
of the Creator. The ceremonial law depended on
the will of God, and was therefore mutable; the spiritual instruction of the people on his nature, and therefore immutable.
But let us take another and a lower ground for the illustration of this argument. Considering the circumstances under which the Apostles wrote, it is not too much to assert, that if the balance of interpretation, as deduced from their writings, favour tithes ever so little more than any other scheme of clerical maintenance, or more than no scheme at all, the continued right of the ministers of the same God, and officiating for the same pur- poses, to receive those tithes (although under another dispensation), is placed beyond a doubt.
The Apostle Paul infers the continued right of
the Christian to succeed to the official inheritance of the Levitical Priesthood, not merely in conside- ration of their performance of the spiritual services of “blessing” and “teaching” the people (on account of which services tithes had been annexed to the Patriarchal, and afterwards to the Levitical Priesthood), but also from the express ordinance of Christ himself, who having succeeded to his Father’s personal inheritance in tithes,” annexed them to the Ministers of the Church of which he was himself the founder.
The Apostle alludes to the priestly office of
(b) Heb. i. 2.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 121
‘ blessing” and “ teaching” (on account of which ithes were given), when, in comparing the Law vith the Gospel, he calls the officers of both ‘ Ministers,”° and the spiritual services in both a ‘ ministration.”“¢ Hence the Apostle plainly infers he eguity of tithes, being paid to the Christian ninistry, as rewards and wages for spiritual ser- ices. If the Levitical Priesthood received tithes inder the law, not on account of ceremonial ser- ices (as has been shown), but merely and exclu- ively (like their predecessors under the Patriarchal lispensation) because they ‘‘ caused the people to inderstand the law of God,”* by “ teaching the rood knowledge of the Lord,”! and ‘ teaching Jacob the judgments of God, and Israel his law,” n like manner, the Apostle judges it to be but just ind reasonable that ‘‘ if the Gentiles have been nade partakers of the spiritual things (of the Ministers of the Gospel), their duty is also to ninister unto them in carnal things.”" In support yf his argument, the Apostle likens the Clergy to abourers,' soldiers,* planters,! and shepherds.™ “ΝΟ man,” saith he, ‘‘ goeth to war without vages ;” ΟΥ̓“ planteth a vine without eating of the ruit,’ or ““ feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the nilk.”" But, continues the Apostle, Christ's ninisters ‘‘ fight for you,” as soldiers of the King
(c) Heb. viii. 2; 2 Cor, ii1.6. (d) 2 Cor. in. 7, 8.
(e) Nehem. viii. 8, 9. (f) 2 Chron. xxx. 22.
(g) Deut. xxxiii. 10. (h) Rom. xvii. 21; 2 Tim.i. 11. (i) 1 Cor. ix. 17; 2 Tim. i. 11.
(Ὁ) 1 Tim. vi. 12; 2 Tim. ii.3; Jude 4. (7) 1 Cor. iii. 6, 7. (m) Acts xx. 28. (2)! 1 ΟΟΥΟῚΣ, 7.
G
122 History of the Christian Priesthood.
of kings; ‘‘they plant you and feed you,” as labourers of Christ, the Great Husbandman and Shepherd; therefore, ye must furnish the Ministers of Christ, ‘‘ wages,” “ fruit,” and ‘ milk.” Ac- cordingly, the Apostle, comparing the Gospel ministry with the Levitical in this respect, con- cludes, ‘‘ Let him that is taught in the word, com- municate to him that teacheth in all good things ;”° or, as the Geneva translation renders it, “ Let them make him partaker of all their goods.”? Hence the Apostle plainly teaches us to infer, that as the Patriarchal and Levitical ministry received tithes on account of spiritual services, it is equally just and reasonable that the Christian ministry should also receive similar tithes in consideration of similar services. And surely if the Ministers under the Law, which was but the shadow of the substance, and which, as the Apostle says, only represented “the good things which were to come,”¢ had a right to the priestly or official inheritance in tithes, the Ministers under the Gospel, whose Founder “came not to destroy the Law,’ must have not only an equal, but a greatly superior right,— equal, as being derived from the same authority,— superior, as being claimed by the Ministers of the Gospel, mstead of the Ministers of the Law, of which Gospel the Law was but a type or repre- sentation. St Paul (less quicksighted than Mr.
(0) Gal. vi. 6.
(p) “ Ex omnibus bonis,” Beza. in Gal. vi. 6;. compare the same sense in the original, Luke xii. 19; xvi. 25; Rom. xiii. 18.
(q) Heb. x. 1. (r) Matt. v. 17.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 123
Howitt) did not seem to consider the circumstances of Jews and Christians to be so totally different as not to admit the application of the same general principle of maintenance to the one case, which had previously been applied to the other. ‘The Apostle could not see why, under the Old Testament dis- pensation, the Clergy of the Church, under which he himself had been educated, should enjoy a main- tenance by tithes, (a maintenance annexed to it by, God himself, in a way which gave no ground for supposing that it was thereafter to be withheld or withdrawn,) and yet that the same maintenance should be denied to ‘‘ the more excellent ministry of the Gospel,”s the ““ Priests and Levites taken from the Gentiles,”’t the holy Priesthood ordained to offer up spiritual sacrifices as acceptable to God by Christ Jesus,”" and “ given for the perfecting of the saints, and for the work of the ministry.”* The Apostle no where gives us to understand, that under the Mosaic law the ‘ paying tithes of all they pos- sessed,”’Y should be called ‘‘ an honouring of the Lord”? on the part of a Jew, but an “ iniquitously” dishononring of him on the part of a Christian; nor that the withholding tithes under one dispensation should be called “ robbing God,”* and yet under another dispensation should be considered as the doing God a service. St. Paul looked in vain for any virtual or express repeal of tithes among the precepts of his divine Master, or for some reasons
(s) Heb. viii. 6. (¢) Isaiah Ixvi. 21. (4). Ὁ Pet. ti 11. (4) Eph.iv. 11,12. (y) Luke xviii. 12. (z) Prov. 111. 9. (a) Mal. iii. 8.
G2
124 © History of the Christian Priesthood.
"
why the commands given in the Old Testament for the support of God’s ministry should not apply to Christians quite as much as to Jews. “ Say I these things,” asks the Apostle, ‘as a man? or saith not the Law the same also?”” “ Verily, they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the Priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the Law.”°¢ -* Saith Moses this (only for the sake of the Levites, or) altogether for our sakes,”¢ who are of the Christian Priesthood?” ‘For our sakes, no doubt, it is written.”° ‘If others, therefore, (that is, the Levitical Priesthood,) “ have been partakers of this power over you, are not we rather,” who are of “ἃ more excellent ministry”? than they? — If, therefore, the Christian Priesthood” ‘‘ have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if they shall reap your carnal things?”* ‘‘Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things, live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? EVEN so HATH THE Lorp oRDAINED, that they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gos- pel.”' Now as it is unquestionable that the Priests and Levites lived by ¢éthes, it is clear that by the phrases, “living of the things of the temple,” and ‘“‘ being partakers with the altar,” St. Paul did refer, and musé have referred to tithes. It is also equally evident that by the phrase “living of the
(b) 1 Cor. ix. 8. (c) Heb. vii. 5. (d) 1 Cor. ix. 10. (e) 1 Cor. ix. 10. CP) id Corsax: 19: (g) Heb. viii. 6. (i) Π ΟΡ ΣΤ Ts), Τὴ iCoroim: 13, 2:
History of the Christian Priesthood. 125 —
Gospel,”) ἐκ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ζῇν,) the Apostle means ‘the gift or reward due for the Gospel.” For these words are an ἀπόδοσις to a πρότασις im- mediately preceding, and admit of no other inter- pretation than that as “‘ they who wait at the altar shall partake of the gift of the altar, so they who preach the glad tidings of the Gospel, shall live of the gift or reward due for those glad tidings.” The true and proper signification of the word εὐαγγέλιον is a gift or reward for glad tidings. The word is constantly so used, not only in profane writers, but in the Scriptures. Thus in 2 Sam. iv. 10, where King David, speaking to Rechab and Baanah, who brought Ishbosheth’s head unto him, says, ““ When one told me, saying, Behold, Saul is dead, thinking to have brought good tidings, I took hold of him, and slew him in Ziklag, who thought that I would have given him a reward for his tidings,” where the LXX. translate these last words by ὦ ἔδει μὲ δοῦναι εὐαγγέλιον, and the Vulgate by ‘‘mercedem pro nuncio,” and the Chaldee Para- phrast by “donum pro nuncio,” the reward of good tidings. The Apostle’s meaning, therefore, by the passage which I have quoted is evidently this: “ As God the Father appointed the Priests and Levites to live of tithes, and as God the Son hath ordained that they which preach the Gospel shall live by the Gospel, in the same manneras the Priests and Levites lived by the Law, therefore God the Son hath ordained that they which preach the Gospel are to be maintained in like manner.” Now as the Apostle writes, ‘‘ So Hatu the Lord ordained,” (ὃ
126 History of the Christian Priesthood.
Κύριος διέταξε.) using a tense which implies an action absolutely past, if the Apostle do not refer to an ordinance already existing under the Law, I only ask Mr. Howitt at what other time, or under what circumstances, or with reference to what mi- nistry, was the ordinance given? Like whatever else relates to the divine service and to our salva- tion, it is too plain to be misunderstood. ‘“* The Lord uatu ordained ;” these words are unanswer- able, and clearly show that the same system of maintenance which had previously applied to the ministers under the Law, was, by divine appoint- ment, to apply to the ministers under the Gospel. The Apostle, therefore, must have referred to tithes, inasmuch as it is certain “ the Lord had not ordained” any thing anew relative to the mainte- nance of Gospel ministers. Therefore, when allu- ding to this maintenance for Gospel ministers, the Apostle, with equal force and propriety, said, ‘‘ The Lord hath ordained.”
We conclude, therefore, that Mr. Howitt, in asserting that ‘‘ they which preach the Gospel”* must ‘‘ prove themselves to be genuine Levites,”! before they can establish a ‘‘ right divine” to tithes, ‘errs, not knowing the Scriptures,”™ unless, indeed, he may be allowed to interpret them after his own fancies. For the Apostle asserts, that ‘“ they which preach the Gospel”® need not “ count their descent from Levi,”° (that is, be ‘‘ genuine Levites,”) nor be ‘* called after the order of Aaron,”? in order to
(1) 1Cor. ix. 14. (ἢ 3d Ed. p. 252. (m) Matt. xxii. 29. (n) 1 Cor. ix. 14 (ο) Heb. vii. 6. (p) Heb. vii. 11.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 197
prove their divine right to ‘ live by the Gospel,” in the same manner as they who under the Law “ἐς ministered about holy things, and waited at the altar, lived of the things of the temple, and were partakers with the altar.”4
From the divine right of the Clergy to tithes, Mr. Howitt proceeds to what he terms their “‘ con- stitutional or legislative right.”* He says, ‘‘ There was no general act for the payment of tithes until the reign of John, about 1200, in obedience to the bull of Innocent III.”* To show how directly this statement is at variance with facts, let us give a brief historical summary of the appropriation of tithes for the support of the Clergy in this country.
About the year 596, Gregory, Patriarch of Rome, sent Augustine, with forty Missionaries from Rome, to convert to the faith of the Gospel those of the En- glish who still continued in heathenism.t Having converted Ethelbert, whose queen, Bertha, sister of Charibert, king of Paris, was already a Christian, and the greater portion of his subjects, (of whom ten thousand are recorded to have been baptized on one Christmas-day,) the venerable missionary un- dertook the conversion of the other kingdoms of the Saxon Heptarchy. Soon afterwards, Sebert, the king of the East Saxons, together with most of his
(q) 1 Cor. ix. 13. (r) 3d Ed. p. 253. (s) 3d Ed. p. 253.
(¢) The reader is, of course, aware that there was a Christian Episcopal Church, with lawful governors, in this island, for at least three centuries before the arrival of St. Augustine. See Euseb. Evang. Demons. Lib. III. c. vii. tom. 1; Theodoret, in Psalm exvi.; Florin. Wigorn; Antig. Manuscript, Freculphus Lexoniensis, Tom. IT. lib. ii. cap. 4; Wm. of Malmesbury; Bedz Histor. Anglic. lib.i. cap. 4, 8, &c.
128 History of the Christian Priesthood.
subjects, embraced the Christian faith. And in the reign of Edwin, a. p. 627, the Anglo-Saxons to the north of the Humber were, by the instru- mentality of Paulinus, (afterwards Archbishop of York) and other missionaries who had been sent by Justus, Archbishop of Canterbury, converted in such considerable numbers, that Paulinus and his colleagues were employed during thirty-six succes- sive days, from morning to night, in baptizing the converts. Before a century had elapsed, Christi- anity was the established religion throughout Anglo- Saxon Britain.
At the period of which we treat, the Clergy of the Anglo-Saxon empire lived with their Bishops at the episcopal seats, from whence they were sent out to preach in the towns and villages of the respective dioceses. During the continuance of this collegiate or conventual state, the Clergy sub- sisted chiefly upon weekly voluntary offerings and oblations, and upon other dues payable at harvest and Whitsuntide, as the cynicyceat, (ὁ. 6. cyric- sceat, or kirkshot, or scot,) a church rent of corn, consisting of one penny Saxon, payable on St. Martin’s day, for every house worth thirty pence of rent. Several causes, however, concurred gradu- ally to bring about a different state of things.
As dioceses were at first of large extent, being in fact commensurate with the kingdoms of the Saxon princes, the churches, which were far remote from the residence of the Bishop and his Clergy, were of course very irregularly and imperfectly served by these itinerant missionaries; neither could these
History of the Christian Priesthood. 129°
eccasional services be performed without great dif- ficulty and danger. From the inconveniencies, therefore, which the people experienced from the non-residence of their ministers who served the churches, in some cases at so great a distance as from seventy to a hundred miles from the episcopal seat, from the fatigues of itinerant preaching, and from the danger of travelling in those rude and unsettled times, it became an object of general desire, as conducive to the common interests both of ministers and people, that the Clergy should cease to be itinerant missionaries, and should be- come resident and attached to individual Churches ; whereby the inhabitants of those remote districts might obtain not only the benefit of a frequent and regular celebration of divine worship, but also an opportunity of profiting from the example and private instruction of their resident ministers. The advantages of a resident and parochial ministry were soon found to be so desirable, that the Saxon chieftains, and such as possessed large manors and estates, resolved (1 do not say all at once, for the thing was done gradually, and according to the dispositions and circumstances of the various owners of estates,) permanently to secure these advantages to their retainers, vassals, and tenantry. Accord- ingly we find that they not only built, at their own cost, churches and a house with an attached glebe for the minister to inhabit, but they also vo- luntarily, expressly, and for ever, endowed this pa- rochial benefice in a very solemn manner, and by written instruments, with a tenth of the gross pro- G3
130 History of the Christian Priesthood.
duce of their estates, as an independent and inalien- able provision for the officiating minister. Thus in less than a century after the arrival of Augustine, the support of an itinerant ministry by voluntary contributions and dues gave way to the establish- ment of a parochial and resident Clergy, supported by a regular endowment of tithes. This occurred five hundred years before the reign of John.
That such was the origin of tithes in this country is unquestionably proved from the existence of numerous documents, under the seal of the pro- prietor of each manor, or estate." It is also ad- mitted by the most violent opponents to the tithe system in this country. Mr. Cobbett, for example, in his * Sermon on Parsons and Tithes,” writes,— “ In the year 600, the then Pope, whose name was Gregory, sent a monk, whose name was Austin, with forty others under him, from Rome to Eng- land to convert the English. They landed in Kent, and the king of Kent received them well, became a convert, and built houses for them at
(uw) The general style in which the grants ran was as follows :— “ Eco A. de B. concessi firmiter, et finaliter dedi Ecclesie A, singulis annis in perpetuum habendas decimas terre mez quam dominio meo teneo in Villa A.” .... “ Ego A. de B. concessi decimas dominii mei de C. de omnibus rebus quee deamari possunt et debent, &c.” .... “A. de B. concessit pro se et heredibus suis decimam de C, ἅς." .... “ Notum sit omnibus quod ego A. de B. et C. uxor mea, et D. privignus meus, et heres patris sui pro amore Dei, concessimus Ecclesiz omnem decimam de B. firmiter et stabiliter, et quieté perpetuo tenendam, &c.” .,.. «ς Notum sit omnibus presentibus atque futuris quod ego A. de B. do et concedo decimam de C. &c.” ... . “ Sciant tam preesentes quam futuri quod ego A. de B. concedo et confirmo Ecclesiz decimam meam totam de dominio meo, &c.” &c.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 1851
Canterbury. As the Christian religion extended itself over the country, the lords of great landed estates built churches and parsonage-houses, and endowed them with lands and tithes.” *
This appropriation of a tenth part of the land to the support of the Church was very common about the year 750, as is evident, not only from the historians of that period, (Bede, for example, who incidentally mentions Puch, a Saxon nobleman, Addi, and others,’ who, in the year 700, had en- dowed the churches with tithes of their estates,) but also from the Epistle of Boniface, Archbishop of Mentz, to Cuthbert, Archbishop of Canterbury, “De corrigendis vitiis Anglorum,” and written about the year 745, in which epistle, blaming the Clergy for neglecting their cures, a denunciatory expression which he applies to certain Ecclesiastics clearly shows that payment of tithes must at that period have been in general use.”
We have seen that when individual nobles and thanes embraced Christianity, there came endow- ments of tithes; in like manner, when kings were converted, there came confirmations of those endow- ments by royal charters, thereby giving the Church a double right to the possession of this appropriated tenth by way of property and inheritance, and en- abling the Clergy to gather and recover them as
(x) See Twelve Sermons, by William Cobbett. 1828. “ Par- sons and Tithes,”’ p. 222.
(y) Bed. Hist. Eccl. lib. v. c. 4, 5.
(z) “ Qui lac ac lanam ovium Christi oblationibus quotidianis
ac decimis fidelium accipiunt, et curam gregis domini deponunt.” (Lamb. Arch. Spelm. Conc. p. 240.)
132 History of the Christian Priesthood.
their legal due, by the aid of the civil power. Thus Illyricus in his Centuries tells us, that in a parlia- ment, held a. p. 785, at Chalchuth, (or Calchuth, Cel- chyth, or Cealtide, for thus it is variously spelt,) in Northumberland, (as Camden places it,) or perhaps between York and Durham, Cé£lfwald, (or Osward,) king of Northumberland, confirmed the payment of tithes which had been previously bequeathed by the landed proprietors to the Clergy of that kingdom.* The payment of tithes was further confirmed by Offa, king of East Anglia and Mercia, a. p. 790; which confirmation extending only to the kingdoms of West Saxony and Mercia, was rendered general throughout the whole realm of England, about ten years afterwards, by Ethelwulph, with the consent of all his baronage and Bishops, at a Wittenagemote assembled at Winchester, a. p. 855, and three
(a2) The 17th Decision of the “ Concilium Calchuthense”’ was “de Decimis dandis sicut in lege scriptum est.” .... ‘“ Con- venerunt omnes Principes regionis tam Ecclesiastici quam Secu- lares, &c. . .. . Decimam partem ex omnibus frugibus tuis, seu primitiis deferas in domum Domini Dei tui. Rursum_ per Prophetam, ‘ Adferte,’ inquit, ‘omnem decimam, &c.’” (Vid. Illyric. Cent. VIII. cap. ix. p. 320. Edit. 1624.)
(Ὁ) “ Regnante Domino nostro in perpetuum, &c. Ego Ethel- wulphus Rex West Saxonum cum consilio Episcoporum, ac Princippm meorum, consilium salubre ac uniforme remedium affirmantes consensimus, ut aliquam portionem terrarum heredi- tarlam antea possidentibus omnibus gradibus, sive famulis et famulabus Dei Deo servientibus, sive laicis miseris, semper decimam mansionem, ubi mininum sit, tum decimam partem omnium bonorum in libertatem perpetuam donari_ sancte Ecclesize dijudicavi, ut sit tuta, et munita ab omnibus secularibus servitutibus, &c. ὅθ. Actasunt hee apud Wintoniam in Ecclesia Sancti Petri, anno Dominice JIncarnationis 855. indictione tertia, &c.” (See also Hist. Eccl. lib. v. cap. 4 and 5.)
History of the Christian Priesthood. 133
hundred and forty-five years before the reign of King John, in whose time (if we are to give cre- dence to Mr. Howitt’s positive statement) tithes were first introduced into the kingdom. They were again confirmed by King Alfred,° and again by his son and successor, King. Edward ;¢ and yet again by Guthrun the Dane,° and subsequently by King Athelstane, at the synod of Graetly (as Prideaux and Rapin spell it,) or Gratanlea, as Henry calls it; as afterwards by King Edmund, his brother and successor, at the Amicelne synod or parliament, held at London, a. ἢ. 944; as afterwards by King Edgar, a. Ὁ. 967, whose law enforced the payment of tithes, under a penalty of a forfeiture of eight tenths of the crop, to be divided between the Bishop and the Thane.? Tithes were afterwards confirmed by King Athelred, the brother of Edgar, in the parliament held at Ainham, a. p. 1009 -" as also in the parliament held at Habam, a. p. 1012.1 They were afterwards confirmed by the Danish king, Canute, in a parliament held at Winchester, a. p. 1032, and under the same penalty as that enacted
(6) Prefat. in leges Alfred. c, 388; Lamb. Arch. p. 19; Spel- man. Concil. Tom. I. p. 360.
(4) Vide Foedus Edovardi et Guthurni, apud Lamb. Arch. p- 41; and Spelm. Concil. pp. 390, 391.
(6) Vide Leg. Eccl. ab. Alured et Guthurno, ib. cap. ix. p- 377.
(f) Leg. Eccles. Athelstani apud Spelm. c. i. p. 402; Lambard Archaion. p. 45; Fox’s Acts and Monuments, lib. iii. p. 149.
(6) Lamb. Arch. ο. iii. p. 62; Spelm. Concil. ad ann. 967, p. 444.
(nr) Spelm. ad ann. 1009, pp. 510, 517.
(i) Histor. Jornass. fol. 65. apud Seld. de Decim. p. 225; and afterwards published by Spelman. Concil. ad ann. 1012, p. 531.
,
134 History of the Christian Priesthood.
by the law of Edgar ;* and subsequently by Edward the Confessor, a. Ὁ. 1042.1 At the Conquest, the law of tithes was again solemnly confirmed by Wil- liam the Conqueror ;™ and afterwards by Henry the First at Westminster ;" also by Stephen.°
These facts, of which the reader can easily satisfy himself, and which prove the utter falsehood of Mr. Howitt’s assertion, that ‘‘ there was no general act for the payment of tithes until the reign of John, about a. p. 1200, in obedience to the bull of Innocent the Third,”’? will enable him to form a judgment of that gentleman’s competency to write a true ‘“‘ History of Priestcraft.” Even in these days of the march of intellect, it is desirable that persons should read history, before they proceed to wrete one.
Having shown how and by whom tithes were originally appropriated and subsequently confirmed, I ask Mr. Howitt to point out to me any landed proprietor in the three kingdoms,—aye, or in Eu- rope,—who holds his estate by a title one hundredth part so valid, and by a civil right so every way incontestable.
(1) Leg. Canut. Lambard. Arch. p. 101, sect. 8; Spelman. Concil. ad ann. 1052, cap. viii. p. 644; and cap. xv. p. 563.
(ἢ) See Leg. Edward. Regis apud Lambard. Archaion, p. 139; and Spelm. Concil. p. 620.
(m) “ Legis boni Edovardi, quas Gulielmus confirmavit.” ... . “ Omnis Clericus, &c.” (Lambard. Arch. p. 138; Spelman. Concil. p. 619.
(n) Eadmer. Hist. Novorum, lib. iii. p. 68; Leg. Hen. I. apud Lambard. cap. xi. p. 182.
(0) Matt. Par. in Vita Stephan. Reg. in prin. p. 71.
(p) 3d Ed. p. 258.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 18
Let us pursue this inquiry a little further. There are three modes, any one of which creates, in the eye of the law, aright to property; viz. Donation, Confirmation, and Prescription. The Clergy hold their property by the threefold combination of these rights.
I. Donation, which Bracton (who lived Hen. III.) defines to be a certain institution which proceeds from mere bounty and will, no man forcing to transfer a thing to another: “ 'To give,” says Fleta, (who lived under Edward I.) “is to make any thing his that receives τ; Ὁ or according to Cuiacius, (whose definition I prefer,) ‘‘ Donation is properly the free alienation of any thing with this intent, that it shall not revert to the donor.’
If the title of the laity to property held in the present day by Donation be contrasted with cle- rical property held by the same right, we shall find a great preponderance in favour of the latter. The one, as the “‘ Dedimus Deo” of their charters prove, was given for the noblest of all purposes—the religious instruction of the people: the other was, in the first instance, too frequently wrested by the strong hand of royal violence, or the serpent guile
(4) “ Est autem donatio quedam institutio que ex mera libe- ralitate et voluntate, nullo jure cogente, procedit, ut rem transferat ad alium.” (De acquir. rerum dom. cap. ii. sect. 2, fol. 11.)
(r) “ Dare autem est rem accipientis facere cum effectu.” (Flet. lib. iii. cap. 3, sect. 1.) “ Item acquiritur nobis dominium jure civili ex causa douationis.” (Fleta, lib. iii. cap. 2, sect. 17; Bracton, 2, 4, 1 ; Cowell, Institut. lib. ii. tit. 7, sect. 1. Hen. VIII.)
(s) “ΕΔ est proprié donatio alienatio rei que liberalitatis causa fit, hac mente, ut nullo casu recipiatur.” (Paratit. ad F. de donationibus.)
136 History of the Christian Priesthood.
of fraud, from its rightful but helpless possessors, and transferred to the fierce retainer, or the pam- | pered menial, as the wages of iniquity. Indeed, it would not be difficult to name many exalted per- sonages in this realm, whose property at one time or other was so acquired, insomuch that a Lord Chancellor, in reference to the property at present in the hands of the laity, has been heard to declare, that ‘‘ there is scarcely a legal title to an estate in England.” Now it has been seen that tithes be- came in the first instance the property of the Church by an immediate and express grant from the original proprietors of the land; and that they were the free and voluntary donation or gift of the owners themselves, whose legal and moral right to confer a tenth (or any larger proportion) of the produce of their estates (had it so pleased them) for the instruc- truction of their vassals and tenantry by Christian Ministers, will not, I presume, be disputed by any sane person. The owner of the estate bequeathed his property to his heir, diminished in value by the minister's co-proprietorship or inheritance; and from that period, property has always descended to all future inheritors and purchasers, subject to a deduction in value proportionate to the amount of those tithes. In our ancient law books, tithes are defined to be “ an ecclesiastical inheritance or property in the Church, collateral to the estate of the lands thereof ;’”" and it was on this ground the present Lord Chancellor compared “ the right of the Clergy to tithes to a coparcenary tenancy in a
(¢) Edinburgh Review, No. 101, p. 129. (u) 11 Rep. 13.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 137
field, of which one party was entitled to one tenth, and the other party to nine tenths.” Nay, even Mr. Cobbett, in his Political Register, in reference to the right of the Clergy to tithes by Donation, admits that ‘‘the tithes are real property as much as the land itself; the right to them descending along with the right to the land, and the title of their owner (2. 6. the Clergyman) being, in general, much safer than that of the owner of the land can possibly be, because it rests upon unwritten laws.” * We conclude, therefore, that the Clergy’s right to tithes, so far as Donation is concerned, has been proved to demonstration.
II. Next in order comes Confirmation, or Rati- fication, which is defined by Bracton to be “ the strengthening of a former right, and the establish- ment of an ownership already obtained; assigning nothing new, but consolidating and confirming the old or ancient right.’
Now, in the case of church property, we have seen that the payment of those tithes to the Clergy, which the owners of estates had long before given voluntarily to them, was not only universally recognized in practice, but was again and again solemnly guaranteed to the Church by every autho- rity known to the constitution, which could give either permanency to possession, or sanctity to
(x) Cobbett’s Political Register, Vol. XXIII. p. 807, June 5, 1813.
(y) “ Videndum est igitur quid sit Confirmatio; et est con- firmatio prioris juris et dominii firmatio, cum prima firmatione donationis ; nihil enim novi attribuit, sed jus vetus consolidat et confirmat.” (Bracton, lib. ii. cap. 25, sect. 2, fol. 58.)
188 History of the Christian Priesthood.
right. It is proved, then, that the Church has not only Donation from the original proprietor, but Confirmation by the laws of lfwald, Offa, Ethel- wulph, Alfred, Edward, Guthrun, Athelstane, Edmund, Edgar, Athelred, Canute, Edward the Confessor, William the Conqueror, Henry, and Stephen.
III. In addition to the right of the Clergy by Donation and Confirmation, they have also the right of Prescription, or continuance of possession ; and it is unquestionable that this alone, even if un- supported either by Donation or Confirmation, creates a right to property.”
Prescription is usage strengthened into law.? Now, as tithes have been possessed by the Clergy for more than eleven hundred years, it is clear such
(x) “ Quod nullius est,’ says Gaius, “id jure naturali occu- panti concreditur.”’ (F. de acquir. rerum dominio, lib. iii.) “ Cum neuter jus habet, melior est causa possidentis.” (Bracton. Tra. sup. cap. 2, sect. 8, fol. 161; see also lib. 11. cap. 22, sect. 1, fol. 32.) And according to the canon law, “ In pari delicto vel causa potior est conditio possidentis.” (Reg. Jur. canon. 65.) And according to civil law, “In pari causa possessor potior haberi debet.” (F. de diversis Regalis Juris Antiqui. c. 170.) Again, ‘* Paritas juris non aufert seysinam a tenente, propter commodum possidenti, et privilegium possessionis.” (Bracton. lib. il. cap. 38, sect. 5, fol. 90.)
(a) “ Preescriptio est titulus ex usu et tempore substantiam eapiens ab auctoritate legis.” (Coke on Littleton, Inst. I. fol. 113, 110.) According to the civil law, ‘‘ Usurpatio est. adjectio” (or ““ adeptio,” See Ulpian. Duaren. in loc. and Calvin, in Lexie, Jur. p. 959.) “ dominii per continuationem possessionis temporis lege definiti.” (Ff. lib. 41. tit. 3, 1.3.) So Bracton, “ Consue- tudo verd pro lege observatur, in partibus ubi fuerit pro more utentium approbata, et vicem legis obtinet ; longzevi enim temporis usus et consuetudinis non est vilis auctoritas.” (Bract. de divisione rerum, c. iii. sect. 2.)
History of the Christian Priesthood. 1389
a Prescription or long continuance of possession is far, very far, beyond the period required either by the civil, feudal, canon, common, or statute laws. Church property underwent no alterations at the Conquest, at which period they already had a pre- scription of at least three hundred and sixty years. William the Conqueror not only abstained from intermeddling with the church tithes, but solemnly confirmed the laws of Edward the Confessor, which enjoined the payment of them.” Now, with respect to the titles to private estates, we know that the Norman Conquest is the most ancient period to which those titles can be traced, and not one in five hundred of them can be traced so far back. Lord Bacon affirmed that ‘‘ save church lands, and those in Kent, all else had their rights drowned in that deluge; save what was saved by mercy, the rest then perished.”* If my recollection serve me, the oldest descent of real property in the kingdom is that of Mr. Swinton, of Allan Bank, who is pro- prietor of the adjoining barony and demesnes of Swinton, in the county of Berks; this estate, although not entailed, having descended in an un- interrupted succession, in the Swinton family, for no less a period than eight hundred years. But as the title of the Clergy had been uninterruptedly and universally recognized in practice, and expressly
(b) “ Legis boni Edovardi, quas Gulielmus confirmavit ...- Omnis clericus, &c.” (Lambard. Arch. p. 138; Spelman, Concil. Ὁ. 619.
(c) Chancell. Bacon, ‘‘ Of the Use of the Law,” p. 23. See also the preface to Hen. I. Laws, edited by Sir Robert Twisden, p- 155.
140 History of the Christian Priesthood,
sanctioned by law, for a period of greater anti- quity by nearly four centuries than the title (the oldest in the kingdom) which Mr. Swinton can produce, it follows that the right of the Clergy to tithes (being of much longer date than the title to any estate in the kingdom,) is beyond all com- parison the most ancient title to property which now exists.
It is certain, then, that tithes are the property of the Clergy by Donation, Confirmation, and Prescription, and that these three (each one of them creating an unquestionable right, much stronger than that which any lay proprietor pos- sesses) combine to make the title of the Clergy to their property by far the most valid, safe, and ancient title which now exists. In truth, the title by which any gentleman in the kingdom holds his private property is valueless, when put in compa- rison with the title by which the clergyman holds his tithes. If ever the destructives of England proceed to take away the one, the other will most assuredly follow. If there be any such thing as property in England, the Clergy hold a property in tithes; and if this property is not to be held sacred, what is property in England, and on what foundation does it rest? If confiscation is to be the order of the day, at all events, let us be con- sistent enough to begin by confiscating lay property, so much of which was originally acquired by fraud and violence.
Mr. Howitt, however, endeavours to evade this conclusion, and the admission that unavoidably
History of the Christian Priesthood. 141
iows from it, by asserting that ‘‘ the institution of ithes was so perfectly Popish.... ordered by the Pope himself, given by a Popish monarch, and for nost Popish pretences, that no Protestant Clergy an lay claim to them on these grounds,’’‘ viz. the roluntary grant of the first donors; “as, therefore,” vrites Mr. Howitt, ‘they were taken from the Papal Church,” “to whom they were given for murposes peculiar to that Church,”® ‘ all modern itle must rest,” not on the private bequests of Saxon proprietors, but ‘‘ on the act of Henry VIII. who took them from the original possessors, and yave them to the Protestant Clergy.”!
This run-and-jump-at-a-conclusion assertion is as mcorrect as the one which has been so fully dis- proved, viz. that ““ there was no general act for the payment of tithes until the reign of John, about 1200, in obedience to the bull of Innocent II1.”& Mr. Howitt, however, who, throughout his book, evi- dently aims at popularity, and cares nothing for truth, cannot even here boast of being the original assertor of that which is altogether untrue; though that there are many original falsehoods in his book Iam perfectly ready to admit. Other anti-tithe wri- ters have fallen into the same error. Mr. Cobbett, for example, in his Sermon on “ Parsons and Tithes,” from which I have already quoted, says, ‘‘ The Clergy tell us, that the piety of our ancestors dedi- cated tithes to God. They omit, however, to tell us, that these ‘ pious ancestors’ of ours were
iS a ae p. pe (e) 3d Ed. p: 253. (f) 3d Ed. p. 253. g . p. 253.
142 History of the Christian Priesthood.
Roman Catholics, against whose faith they protest ; whose doctrines they call idolatrous and damnable ; and from whom they and their Protestant prede- cessors took those very tithes which those ‘ pious’ believers in idolatrous and damnable doctrines dedicated to God. They omit to tell us this; but leave us to believe, that this present Church was in existence when tithes were first introduced into England.”"... “‘ As it was to support Popery that our pious ancestors instituted tithes, may we not be allowed to wonder how it can have come to pass that, as the errors of our pious ancestors were found, at the end of eleven hundred years, to be so damnable, the éithes which they granted were not at all erroneous.”?
Having placed Mr. Howitt’s assertion fairly before my readers, and having also brought Mr. Cobbett to his assistance, I will now prove—l. That our “ pious ancestors, who dedicated tithes to God, — were not believers in doctrines which our present Clergy call idolatrous and damnable.” 2. That “this present Church (or what amounts pretty much to the same thing, a Church believing the same doctrines, professing the same worship, and maintaining the same polity or government,) was in existence when tithes were first introduced into — England.”
I. The institution of tithes was the private bequests of the original Saxon proprietors, who ποῦς only did not believe in any ‘doctrines which our —
(h) Twelve Sermons, by William Cobbett, p. 221. (i) Ibid, p. 224.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 148
‘lergy call idolatrous and damnable,” but who did, n the contrary, actually hold doctrines perfectly criptural, and in all essential tenets the same as hese of the Reformation. The Clergy of the thurch of England afterwards abandoned these loctrines, and fell into errors which were perfectly ‘ Popish.”
To prove this effectually, we must first know in vhat the religious opinions of our Saxon ancestors liffered from those professed by the Church from vhom Henry VIII. took the tithes in 1534. If I annot prove a most essential, or what, perhaps, Messrs. Howitt and Cobbett would call a radical, lifference, I will admit that the assertions of these wo champions are correct; but if such undeniable roof can be adduced, it must follow that Henry, in aking the tithes from the Popish and conferring hem upon the Protestant Clergy, merely took them rom the wrongful, and restored them to the rightful laimants; that is, to a Clergy professing similar loctrines to those professed by the Clergy to whom they had been originally granted. Wherefore it was a resumption, not a wrongful taking away.
Our “ancestors dedicated tithes to God” nearly within a century of Augustine’s arrival in England, and these tithes were taken from the Papal Church, and given to the Protestant Clergy,” a.p. 1534. All then that we have to do is, to see whether the English Clergy of these two different periods held the same belief.
Now of the ““ Thirty-nine Articles of Faith agreed upon by the Archbishops and Bishops of
144 History of the Christian Priesthood.
both provinces, and the whole Clergy, in the Con- vocation holden at London in the year 1562,” the nine articles in which we differ from our Roman Catholic brethren are, Article VI. which asserts ‘‘the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for salvation ;” Article XI. which treats of “the Justification of Man;” Article XIV. which denies the possibility of our performing ‘‘ Works of Supererogation;” Article XXII. which condemns the Romish doc- trine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, and the wor- shipping, adoration, and invocation of Saints and Images; Article XXIV. which defines the nature and number of Sacraments; Article XX VIII. which condemns the Romish doctrine concerning Tran- substantiation; Article XX XII. which permits the Marriage of the Clergy; and Article XXXVII. which denies the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome in this country. We will, therefore, direct our attention to the nine cardinal differences of opinion upon Articles of Faith, and will show that our Saxon ancestors held the same opinions relative to these Articles at the period tithes were given, which the Reformed Church of England did at the time of Henry VIII., and which we continue to believe in the present century. We will after- wards show that the doctrines of the Popish Clergy
in 1534 differed, and for a considerable antecedent —
period had differed, from the doctrines of the original tithe donors, and, consequently, from the similar doctrines professed by the Reformed Clergy. Article VI. declares, that ““ Holy Scripture con- taineth all things necessary to salvation; so that
SOO >
History of the Christian Priesthood. 145
whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved hereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or ye thought requisite or necessary to salvation.” Now, there can be no question but that the same loctrine was believed by our Saxon ancestors, vho ‘‘ dedicated tithes to God” shortly after the rrival of Augustine, Mellito, Johannes, and the ther Missionaries into England, because the very ame Gregory, who sent them hither, thus writes: ‘all things which edify and instruct are contained n the Scriptures,” and ‘‘ from thence the teachers nay presently teach what is needful.” ™
Article XI. speaking of “ the Justification of Mian,” declares, ‘‘ we are accounted righteous before zod only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour jesus Christ, by faith, and not for our works or leservings;” and Article XIV. “οἵ Works of Supererogation,” affirms, that ‘ voluntary works yesides, over and above God’s commandments, vhich they call Works of Supererogation, cannot ye taught without arrogancy and impiety; for by hem men do declare, that they do not only render into God as much as they are bound to do, but hat they do more for his sake than of bounden luty is required.” Our Anglo-Saxon ancestors, who bequeathed the tithes shortly after the time of Augustine, maintained precisely the same doctrine especting justification, for the same Gregory insists, hat ‘the best of men will find no merit in their
(m) Greg. in Ezek. Hom. 1. i. ο. 8; de Cur. Past. 1. ii. 6. 11. H
146 History of the Christian Priesthood.
best actions;”" and again, ‘‘I pray to be saved, not trusting in my merits, but presuming to obtain that by thy mercy alone, which I hope not for by my merits.”° And it is evident that the same con- tinued to be believed by the Anglo-Saxon Clergy for nearly four centuries after the introduction of tithes ; for in the exhortation which Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, (who died a. p. 1089,) required should be given to a certain monk when he was dying, we find the following words, (after- wards condemned in the Index Expurgatorius by Cardinal Quiroga,) “ Do you believe that you cannot be saved but by the death of Jesus Christ? A. I do believe so.—Do you heartily thank him for it? A. I do.—Be you, therefore, ever thanking him for it as long as you live, and put your whole trust and confidence zn that death alone, and let that be your own safeguard, &c.”? Here, as in all the subsequent paragraphs, we see an entire coincidence of doctrine.
Article XXII. asserts, that ** the Romish doc- trine concerning purgatory, pardons, worshipping and adoration, as well of images as of reliques, and also invocation of saints, is a fond thing vainly in- vented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of God.” Our Anglo-Saxon ancestors held the very same opinion; for with respect to purgatory, Gregory, whose mis- sionary Augustine was, and who, of course, enter-
(n) Greg. Moral. 1. ix. ὃ. 11. (0) Greg. in 1 Psalm. peenit. (p) See Oper. p. 2913 also Confess. Fidei Petric. cap. 73.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 147
tained the same doctrinal tenets as his master, declares, that ‘‘ at the time of death, either the good or the evil spirit seizeth upon the soul, and keepeth it for ever with it without any change.”4 Nor was this doctrine of purgatory taught po- sitively in the Church of England until the year 1140, when alms began to be preached up as con- tributory to the salvation of the donor, and it became a consecrated maxim of the Church, that ‘* Kleemosyna defunctis et vivis prodest.” And with respect to the ‘‘ worshipping and adoration, as well of images as of reliques, and also the invo- cation of saints,” the Anglo-Saxon Clergy held the same belief as it is expressed in the XXIId Article of the Church of England. For Gregory declared in his letter to Serenus, Bishop of Mar- seilles, ‘‘ you ought to call your people together, and show them from Scripture that it is not lawful to worship the work of men’s hands.” The worship of images was first allowed by the second Council of Nice, which was held a. p. 786, under the Empress Irene. Nevertheless, the Clergy of the Anglo-Saxon Church, a. ἡ. 794, (that is, nearly a century after the introduction of tithes,) posi- tively rejected this Nicene Council, and the express reason assigned for the rejection of this council was, that it permitted the adoration of images, “which,” say they emphatically, “ the Church of God abhors.”®
(1) Greg. Moral. in Job 1. viii. c. 8.
(r) Greg. Epist. lib. vii, Epist. 109 ad Serenum; and Registr. Epist. lib. ix. Epist. 9.
(s) See Hovedeni Annal. p. prior. ad a.p. 794.
ΠΤ
148 History of the Christian Priesthood.
Article XXV. declares, ‘‘ There are two sacra- ments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel ; that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord. Those five commonly called sacraments ; that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not like nature of sacraments with Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.” Here again we perceive in the doctrines of the Saxon Clergy, a strict conformity with the prin- ciples laid down in this Article. They taught that ‘there are two sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord.” Nay, even in the Church of Rome herself, we no where find seven sacra- ments so much as mentioned until Hugo de St. Victore, A.D. 1130,‘ as indeed is admitted by Car- dinal Bellarmine." The first writer who reckons seven sacraments is Peter Lombard, who lived in the twelfth century ;* and the first council which - precisely fixed the number was the Council of Florence, held a. p. 1439. It is admitted by Alex- ander of Hales that the Anglo-Saxon Clergy did not believe confirmation to be a sacrament.’ By the decrees of the Councils of Florence and Trent, the
(t) Hugo de St. Vict. J. i. c. 12.
(uw) See Bell. de Sacr. 1. ii. c. 25.
(x) See Pet. Lomb. 1. 3. dist. 2.
(y) See Alex. Hales, par. 4, que. 24, men. 1.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 149
sacrament of penance is declared to consist in the contrition or repentance of the penitent, and secret confession to be made to the priest,” and the conse- quent remission of sins; the first and third are re- quired in the word of God, were required by the Anglo-Saxon Clergy, and are required by the Church of England; the second was rejected by the Saxon, and is rejected by the English Clergy. In fact, the doctrine of the necessity of particular confession of one’s sins to a priest, was not made an article of faith even in the Church of Rome until more than a thousand years after Christ. Fleury, himself a Romanist, speaking of the twenty-first canon of the Fourth Lateran Council, held a. p. 1215, which en- joined upon all, at least once in the year, a private confession of their sins to a priest, honestly admits, that “‘ this is the first canon, as far as he knows, which imposes the general obligation of sacramental confession.” The sacrament (so called) of Extreme Unction, Romanists suppose to have been instituted by St. James in these words: “ Is any sick among you, let him call the elders of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil, in the name of the Lord.”» The Anglo-Saxon Clergy understood these words, and they are also understood by our Clergy in the present day, to refer purely to “ the cure of pains and _ infir- mities, and sickness of body;”° and to be de~
(5) See Conc. Flor. dec. Unionis; and Conc. Trid. Sess. ii. c. 3. (a) See Gratian, Decret. de Poenit. Dist. i. c. 89.
(b) James v. 14.
{c) “Ad refectionem corporis, &c. ad evacuandos dolores,
150 History of the Christian Priesthood.
signed for the recovery of the patient, not the fortifying him for another world. In fact, even the Roman Church herself put a similar inter- pretation upon these words for at least a cen- tury after the introduction of tithes into this country.¢
Article XXVIII. declares “‘ the Supper of our Lord is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ’s death; insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ; and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ. Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, over- throweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.” That the Anglo- Saxon Clergy did not believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation can be fully proved. Gregory had affirmed that “in the sacrament, the substance or nature of bread perishes not ; ὃ in like manner, when the doctrine of a corporeal presence in the sacrament was first of all asserted by Paschase Radbert, Abbot of Corby, in France. John Scot Erigena, who was professor at Oxford in King omnesque infirmitates, omnemque #gritudinem corporis,’ &c. (S. Gregorii Sacram. Ὁ. 66.) See also Bed. Hist. Angl. 1. iii. ‘ Ἢ See the Collection of Monsieur Daillé, 1. de Extrema Unctione, from p. 122 to 132. The whole is too long to be
transcribed. (e) Sacram. 16. Kal. Mar; and in Psalm 6. peenit,
History of the Christian Priesthood. 151
Alfred’s time, wrote in refutation of Paschase’s doc- trine, and that his opinion on this subject, which fully coincides with that of the XXVIIIth Article of the Church of England, was held by the Anglo- Saxon Clergy, is evident from the circumstance that the work which he published against St. Austin’s doctrine of predestination, was disapproved of by many of the Anglo-Saxon Clergy, (and like- wise severely censured by the Church of Lyons,’ ) yet no reflection whatever was cast on his opinions concerning the eucharist.
Article XXX. asserts that “the cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the lay people; for both the parts of the Lord’s sacrament, by Christ’s ordinance and commandment, ought to be administered to all Christian men alike.” Gregory speaks of the con- stant practice of the people to receive the sacrament in both kinds ;2 and even so late as in the end of the eleventh century, Pope Urban, in the Council of Clermont, decreed that ‘‘ none should communicate without taking the body apart, and the blood apart, in consequence of the heresy of Berengarius, lately condemned, which affirmed that the figure was completed by one of the kinds;”" and there is internal evidence to place it beyond a doubt, that the Clergy of that period continued to administer — the cup to the laity until the contrary was made an
(f) “ The Book of the Church of Lyons against the erroneous definitions of John Scotus Erigena,’”’ is published in Bibhioth. Patr. v. xv. pr Obl.) ΠῚ i677.
(g) Sacram. in Quadrag. Tr. 3.
(hk) See Cone. Clar. can. 28.
152 History of the Christian Priesthood.
article of faith by the Council of Constance, which concluded a. p. 1418.
Article XXXII. of the Church of England, de- clares, ‘‘ Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are not commanded by God’s law either to vow the estate of single life, or to abstain from marriage; there- fore it is lawful for them, as well as for all Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness.”? The old manuscript Chronicle of Winchester relates, that all the monasteries in England, (except Glastonbury and Abingdon,) consisted of nothing else but mar- ried priests until Edgar’s time, that is, for two hundred and sixty years after the tithes had been bestowed upon the Clergy. We constantly read of the children of the married Clergy in England, even so late as Paschal the Second, who died a. ἢ. 1118.)
(i) Mr. Cobbett, in his Sermon against “ Parsons and Tithes,”’ makes the supposed celibacy of the Clergy, to whom our Saxon ancestors gave tithes, an insurmountable argument against the right of the present Clergy to the tithes originally bestowed upon the Church. He says, those who gave tithes to the Church “ yequired the Clergyman not to marry, and compelled him to take an oath of celibacy, in order that, divested of the cares and anxieties inseparable from a wife and family, he might wholly devote himself to the service of God.” And upon this statement of his, evidently founded upon his ignorance of the history of that period, he proceeds to argue :—‘ The reasons are obvious, that the tithes could never be applied according to the intention of the Founders, if the Priests had wives and families to maintain.” (Cobbett’s Twelve Sermons, p. 225.)
(k) See also Collier’s Hist. Eccl. Vol. I. Ὁ. 3. cent. 10. p. 184.
(/) For example, Herebertus Losinga, Bishop of Norwich, was the son of Robert Losinga, a Clergyman, afterwards Abbot of Winchester. (Malmsbur. de gest. Pontif. Angl. 1. ii.) Rithmarch was son and successor of Sulgheim, Bishop of St. David's.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 158
Henry de Knighton," Simeon Dunelmensis," Henry Huntingdon,® Matthew Paris,? Hovedon,1 Brompton,' and Polydore Virgil,* admit that the English Clergy were not “ required to take any oath of celibacy” until the time of Pope Hildebrand, called Gregory VII. at the end of the eleventh cen- tury, and no less than three hundred and eighty years after the introduction of tithes into this country. We learn, moreover, from Matthew Paris,‘ and Radulphus de Diceto," that the attempt of Pope Hildebrand to impose celibacy upon the Clergy,* was most violently opposed by the Clergy of this country. Lanfranc, the then Archbishop of Canterbury, was unable to enforce Pope Hilde- brand's decree prohibiting marriage upon the
(Godvinus de Pres. Angl. p 605.) Thomas, Archbishop of York, was the son of a Norman Priest (Id. par. 2. p. 23.); as also his brother Samson, Bishop of Worcester, whose son Thomas suc- ceeded his uncle in the Archbishopric of York. (Ibid.) Henry, Archdeacon of Huntingdon, the Historian, was the son of Nicholas, a Priest of Lincoln, for his great piety and learning called ‘The Star of the Clergy.’ (Stella Cleri. Henr. Huntingd. Hist. 1. vii.) Richard, Archdeacon of Coventry, was the son and successor of Robert, Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, &c.
(m) ‘Prius non prohibitas uxores, &c.” (De event. angl. 1, ii. c. 8.)
(n) Hist. de gest. Reg. Angl. ad ann. 1102.
(0) Histor. 1. vii.
(p) Hist. Major. ad ann. 1074, & 1102.
(4) Annal. par. 1. p. 262.
(r) Chron. ad ann. 1074.
(s) “Non ante Pontificatum Gregorii VII. conjugium adimi occidentalibus Sacerdotibus potuit.” (De invent. rer. 1. iv. c. 4.)
(t) Hist. Major. ad ann. 1074.
(u) Abbreviat. Chron. ad ann. 1074.
(x) This decree was passed in the third and fourth canons of a Synod held at Rome, a.p, 1074.
ΗΘ
154 History of the Christian Priesthood.
Clergy of England, (in many other places the decree was annulled,’ and the Pope himself called a ‘‘heretic,”)* and in the Council of Winchester, held a. p. 1076, Lanfranc was compelled to pass a decree, that “ none of the Clergy who lived in towns and villages (i.e. none of the parochial Clergy,) should be compelled to put their wives away.”* Anselm, who succeeded Lanfranc in the see of Canterbury, attempted, in a national synod, A. ἢ. 1102, to reinforce the prohibition of Hilde- brand, and, in consequence, as unmarried priests could not be found, all divine service was generally discontinued throughout England, and the entrances to the churches were overgrown with thorns. In fact, the opposition made by the Clergy to any law of celibacy was so determined, that whilst there were nothing but renovations of the law, (as in the Council of London, a. Ὁ. 1129, in the Council of London, A. ἢ. 1138,° and in the Council of West- minster, A. ἢ. 117,4) in many cases the popes were compelled to give way in respect to the English
(y) We read that this was done by the Bishops of Lombardy, with Guibert, Bishop of Parma at their head, at a Council at Basil. (Damian. de Legat. ad Henric.) The Clergy of Laon did the same (Damian. ad Epist. ad Cupipertum) ; as also the Councils of Tri- bur, Brixia, &c. (Conradus Ursperg. Chron.)
(9) “ Frendebant Clerici, hominem plané hereticum et vesani dogmatis esse clamitantes, qui oblitus sermonis Jesus Christi, &c.” (Lambertus Schafraburg. ad annum 1074.)
(a) “Sacerdotum in castellis, vel in vicis habitantium habentes uxores non cogantur ut dimittant.”’ (Concil. Tom. x. p. 351.)
(Ὁ) Matt. Paris. Hist. ad ann. 1129; Brompton. Chron. ad ann. 1129; See also Spelman. Concil. Angl. Tom. 11. p. 36.
(c) Ricardus Hagustad. de gest. Steph. Regis. Gervas. Tilber. Chron.
(4) Gervas. Tilbur. Chron, ad ann, 1179.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 155
Clergy, to whom, in certain cases, the 3lst and 14th Canons of the Lateran Council, held a.p. 1215, (and after more than five hundred years tithes were given to the Clergy,) under Innocent III. permitted marriage in these words, ‘‘ Legitimo matrimonio uti pos- sunt.”® It is clear also from the Epistles of Alex- ander to the Bishops of England, in the Appendix to the third Council of Lateran, that the English Clergy were generally married up to the year 1179.’ It is likewise evident from the Epistle of Innocent ITI. to the Bishop of Norwich,® that even in the thir- teenth century, a very great number of the parochial beneficed Clergy were married men, which also ap- pears from the 15th Canon of the Synod of London, a. Ὁ. 1237, and from the 34th Canon of the Synod of Worcester, held three years after. It is also to be inferred from the 17th title of the first Book οἵ Decretals of Gregory 1X. who died about a. p. 1260, that the English Clergy were generally married up to that period; for in Chap. XII. it is declared that ‘‘ the sons of the Bishops and Priests may be promoted to holy orders.”® Mr. fox also unde- niably proves from ancient deeds, evidences, and records,' wherein estates are given, settled, or entailed upon clergymen and their wives, and heirs lawfully begotten of their wives; or wherein they,
(e) Cone. Later. Can. 14 & 31.
(f) Concil. Tom. x. p. 1633.
(6) Decret. Greg. 1. iii. tit. 3. cap. 5.
(h) “A Pontificibus, &c. generati, si ex legitimo matrimonio sunt procreati, ad sacros ordines promoveri licite possunt.”’. . ‘* In Sacerdotio genitus de uxore legitim4 natus et conceptus.” (Cap. 14.)
(i) Martyrolog. Anglie, Tom. it. Ὁ. 484.
156 History of the Christian Priesthood.
together with their wives, sell estates; that the use of marriage was yet retained by the Clergy of England in the middle of the 14th century. We have thus ample proof that the original tithe donors, as also the Clergy to whom tithes were given, held opinions precisely similar to those propounded in the XXXIId Article of the Church of England, which says, “ It was lawful for Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, as well as for all Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness.”
Lastly, in Article XXXVII. of the Church of England, it is asserted, that “‘ the King’s Majesty hath the chief power in this realm of England, unto whom the chief government of all estates of this realm, whether they be ecclesiastical or civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign jurisdiction. The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England.” Now it is certain from history, that at the period tithes were given, the Anglo-Saxon Church never dreamed of acknowledging the su- premacy of the see of Rome. Nay, at the period to which we allude, the Bishops of Rome no more thought of claiming supremacy over the Church of England, than the Archbishop of Canterbury did of claiming supremacy over the Church of Rome.‘ The Saxons (as we have already seen) had been converted under Pope Gregory’s direction; and this Pope declared on several occasions, that for
(k) Even in the reign of Hen. I., the Archbishop of Canterbury was acknowledged to be “ Papa alterius or)is.’’
History of the Christian Priesthood. 157
one Bishop to set himself over the rest, and to have ali the rest in subjection to him, was ‘ the pride of Lucifer,” and the ‘‘ forerunner of Anti- christ,”! and centuries elapsed before the Bishops of Rome extorted this supremacy from the English Church. It is freely acknowledged even by the learned papist, Father Barns, that the papal au- thority was not admitted by the English Church at the period when tithes were introduced;™ whilst Fleury, also a papist, allows that the Bishop of Rome as yet exercised no definite jurisdiction be- yond the churches which immediately depended on the Roman see," as those of the south of Italy, Sicily, and some other islands, and which were therefore called Suburbicarian.° The histories of the times before the Norman Conquest make no mention whatever of the Bishops of Rome holding or claiming jurisdiction in the realm of England. We find the Saxon and Danish kings making such rules in ecclesiastical matters, as proved they con- sidered themselves as supreme in all causes, and over all persons within their dominions, as well ecclesiastical as temporal. Nay, even after the Conquest, when the papal usurpation began to be partially submitted to, many laws were passed, in opposition to the encroachments of the Roman Patriarch.
(Ὁ See Greg. Ep. 1. iv.; Ep. 32, 34, 36, 38, 39,1. vi.; Ep. 24, 28, 80, 31, 1. vii.; Ep. 70.
(m) “ Insula autem Britannica gavisa est privilegio Cyprio, ut nullius Patriarch legibus subderetur.”” (Barns’s Catholico-Roma- nus Pacificus MS. Sect. 31.) (n) Fleury, lib. xxxv. s. 19.
(0) Giannor. Stor. di Nap. lib. ii. c. 8.
158 History of the Christian Priesthood.
Sufficient has been adduced to prove, that at the period tithes were given to the Church by the Anglo-Saxon proprietors, (and which was more than three hundred and fifty years before the Conquest,) the Church of England was αὐτοκέφαλος and αὐτόνομος, governed by its own head, and having its own laws, without dependence on, or subordination to, the Church of Rome; and; that there was a perfect agreement between the doc- trines of the Anglo-Saxon tithe donors, and the sixth, eleventh, fourteenth, twenty-second, twenty- fifth, twenty-eighth, thirtieth, thirty-second, and thirty-seventh Articles of the Church of England; these, be it remembered, being the only ones out of the thirty-nine which have any direct allusion to those doctrines of the Romish Clergy, ‘ which our clergy call idolatrous and damnable.”
It will now be necessary for us to inquire whether the Clergy, from whom the tithes were taken in 1534, held the same, or any thing like the same, religious opinions. It is, indeed, the more necessary that we should institute such an inquiry, because this literary scavenger, this pedlar in the valueless wares of misrepresentation and falsehood, dares to assert, that ‘“‘ except as to the marriage of the Clergy, auricular confession, and a less pom- pous and ornate form of worship, little difference between Popery and the English Church can be discerned !!
Having compared our Articles with the doctrines of the tithe donors, and having proved the agree-
(p) Second Ed. p. 186.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 159
ment which subsisted between the two, we will in like manner compare our Articles with the doctrines held by the Clergy from whom tithes were taken away, A.D. 1534, by Henry VIII., and will prove the fundamental difierences which exist between them.
The practices of the Clergy of 1534 were directly opposed to the sixth Article, which asserts that the Scriptures ‘ contain all things that are neces- sary to salvation;” for they (that is, the Popish Clergy) taught that “ the Scriptures did not contain all things necessary to salvation,” and that ““ tra- ditions were to be received with the same veneration as the Holy Scriptures.’’4
Article XI. declares, “‘ we are accounted right- eous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus, by faith, and not for our works or deservings.” The Popish Clergy of 1534, on the contrary, taught that all good works of their own nature are so completely perfect, that they “ truly merit the reward of eternal life,”* ‘ the merit of such works arising from the real and inherent dignity of the action itself,”*’ and “‘ no accession of dignity being made to them by the merits or person of Christ.” ἢ
Article XIV. affirms, that “‘ voluntary works, besides, over and above God’s commandments, which they call works of supererogation, cannot be
(q) See Bellarmine de Verb. Dei. 1. iv. c. 12. “ Pari pietatis affectu et reverentia.” Conc. Trid. Sess. 4.
(r) Trid. Sess. 6. cap. 16. et can. 32.
(s) Maldon. in Ez, xviii. 20. (¢) Vasquez, Comment. in 1, 2. gu. 114. disp. 214. ο. 1d.
160 History of the Christian Priesthood.
taught without arrogance and impiety. The Popish Clergy of 1534 taught, that men “‘ may not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do, but that they may do more for his sake than of bounden duty is required,’ ἃ and have, consequently, ‘* a stock of supererogative merit to communicate to others.”
Article XXII. condemns the Romish doctrine concerning purgatory, pardons, worshipping and adoration as well of images as of relics, and also invocation of saints. The Popish Clergy of 1534, in opposition to this “wholesome” doctrine of the Anglo-Saxon and Reformed Churches taught—I. That ‘‘ there was a purgatory after this life, where the souls of those that were not purged, nor had satisfied for their sins here, are there to be purged, and give satisfaction until their time be shortened by the prayers, alms, and masses of the living.”* Il. The Popish Clergy of 1534 admitted a power in the Pope (and which is condemned in the article under the head of *‘ Pardons,”) of granting ‘the clean remission of men’s sins perpetually enduring,” of “transferring the souls of men from the pain of eternal damnation into a temporal state of purga- tory, and from the pain of purgatory to eternal felicity ;”* and even to ‘‘ command the angels of
(u) See Bellar. de Monach. 1. 11. c. 6,7. ‘ The Works which we do more than precept, are called Works of Supererogation.” (Rhem. Test. Annot. in Luke xi. 35.)
(xz) Conc. Trid. Sess. 6. can. 30; et Sess. 22. can. 3; et Conc. Flor. Sess. 25.
(y) See Hore B. V. Maria, secundum usum Sarum. (x) Ibid.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 161
heaven to place men’s souls in paradise exempt from purgatory.? III. They taught their fol- lowers to worship the Virgin Mary with divine adoration ; ἢ to offer sacrifices to her as a ‘ goddess,’° as ‘the accomplishment of the Trinity,’¢ and as being equally omnipotent with God the Father, and superior to God the Son, ‘‘ over whom,” say they,
(a) The bulls that were issued for indulgences (A.D. 1500,) by Pope Alexander VII., to such as might die on their way to a Ju- bilee celebrated in that year at Rome, (and at which no less than twenty thousand of our own countrymen were present,) were thus worded.—* We” (that is the Pope of Rome) “ COMMAND THE AN- GELS that they place the souls of A. B. and C. D. in Paradise, ex- empt from Purgatory!” And others, “ Our will and pleasure is, that the pains of hell do not afflict A. B. and C. D. in any wise!” (See Grove’s Life of Wolsey.) Ninety thousand years of pardon for deadly sin were granted for saying three prayers before the chapel of the Holy Cross of the Seven Romans, in Hor. B. V. Mar. quoted by Bishop Taylor in Diss. p. 1. c. 11. sect. 8. Nume- rous instances of this kind may be found in Stillingfleet’s Works, vol. v. p. 190; see also Trid. Sess. 25. Bull Pii. IV.
(Ὁ) See Pontif. R. Ord. Excom. et Absolv. p. 196, 197; Miss. Sar. in Ord. Misse, fol. 146; Ord. Miss. p. 311. Paris, 1616; Ri- tuale Fr. de Sales. par. post. p. 19. Lyon, 1639, &c. In the public Liturgies in use at the time alluded to, we meet with these prayers of adoration addressed to the Virgin Mary, ‘‘ Sub tuum presidium confugimus S. Dei Genetrix; nostras deprecationes ne despicias in necessitatibus ; sed a periculis cunctis libera nos semper Virgo gloriosa et benedicta.’’ (Offic. B. V. p. 84.) And in one of the Antiphonas, *‘ Da mihi, Virgo sacrata, virtutem contra hostes tuos.” (Ibid. p. 103.) In their hymns, they said, “ Alma Re- demptoris Mater, succurre cadenti, populo, peccatorum miserere.” (Offic. B. V. p. 122.) ‘Maria, tw nos ab hora mortis suscipe.” (Ibid. p- 128.); in which all is asked on the ground of her own power, without even the mention of the names of God and our Saviour.
(c) See the disputes upon the Titles of honour bestowed by the Roman church on the Virgin Mary, between the Bishop of Bellay and Mr. Drelincourt, in which this title of ‘Goddess,’ and other titles, occur.
(d) See Father Salazer in his Proverb. Salom.
162 History of the Christian Priesthood.
*¢ she possesses an absolute and sovereign power;”° that it was by her merits that the sins of the whole world had been expiated.£ They further taught men to offer sacrifices to saints and angels, as their intercessors,£ on the ground that by the merits of those saints (which merits the Popish Clergy placed in equal rank with the passion of Christ,) men would deserve to be rewarded hereafter," and that those saints had the power to command God to deliver all mankind from their sins.‘ Again, they
(6) “Ὁ Felix puerpera, nostra pians scelera jure Matris IMPERA REDEMPTORI. Da fidei foedera, Da salutis opera, Da in vite vespera bene mori.” Cassander acknowledges this prayer. (Con- suet. Art. 21.) Monsieur Daillé assures us, that it was in the Missal printed at Paris a.p. 1634. in libr. Extrem. p. 81. Ac- cordingly Peter Damian, speaking to the Virgin, tells her, “ Ac- cedis ante aureum illud humane reconciliationis altare, non solum rogans, sed IMPERANS. (Pet. Damian. Serm. 1,de Nat. Marie.) And Albertus Magnus writes, “ Pro salute famulantium sibi, non solum potest Filio supplicare, sed etiam potest auctoritate materna eidem IMPERARE.” (Albert. Magn. Serm. 2. de laud. Virg.) “ Eadem potestas est Matris et Filii, que omnipetente Filio omnipotens facta est.” (Crasset. 1. Part. Tract. 1. Qu. 8, 60, 61.) In their doxologies, ‘‘ Glory to God the Father, and to the Blessed Virgin, and to Jesus Christ, as it was, is, and ever shall be.” (Greg. de Valentia; and Contemplat. p. 23.)
(f) St. Antoninus, Archbishop of Florence, asserted that “all sins were forgiven by her alone ;”’ see also the hymn, ““Ὁ felix puerpera, nostra pians scelera.’’
(g) Trid. Sess. 25. de cultii Sanct. Catech. Rom. par. 4, ο. 9.
(2) ‘‘ Blessed John the Baptist, grant that through thy merits, we may deserve to be free from all tribulation.”.... ‘‘ By the blood of Thomas [a Becket], which he shed for thee, make us to ascend up into heaven, whither he is gone.’”” (Mornaye de la Masse, p. 826. Saumur, 1604.) See also Pontif. R. Ord. Excom. et absolv. p- 196, 197; Miss. Sar. in Ord. Missz, fol. 146 ; Ord. Miss. Chris. 1616, p. 311.
(i) ‘* dudite preces supplicum ; qui ccelum verbo clauditis, seras- que ejus solvitis, nus a peccatis omnibus solvite jussu, queesumus.”
(Offic. B. V. p. 495.)
History of the Christian Priesthood. 1608
taught the people that ‘ the images of the saints were to be worshipped with divine adoration ; not only by accédent and improperly, but properly and by themselves, so as to terminate the worship upon them, and that as considered in themselves, and upon their own account, not only as they are the representatives of the original;* and that these images were not only tobe ‘adored with the same adoration as Christ himself,”! but that as many as prayed and bowed down themselves before them ‘ were freed from all the sins they had com- mitted.” ™
Article XXV. asserts positively that “6 there are
(k) “ Imagines sanctorum venerande sunt, non solum per acci- dens vel improprié, sed etiam per se, et proprié; ita ut ipse termi- nent venerationem ut in se considerantur, et non solum ut vicem gerunt exemplaris.” (Bellarm. de Imag. I. ii. p. 2148.) See Pont. Rom. p. 205; Trid. Sess. 25; Catech. Rom. par. 4, ¢. 6, n, 4. Cardinal Capisucchi proved also from the Council of Trent, that “ἃ divine worship may be paid to images.”—‘‘ Ex his constat, et in Concilio Tridentino, aliisque Zatriam duntaxat Idolatricam sa- cris Imaginibus denegari, qualem Gentiles Imaginibus exhibent, ac proinde Latriam illam interdici que Imaginibus in seipsis, et propter ipsas exhibentur, queque Imagines seu numina aut Divinitatem con- tinentia more Gentilium colantur; de hujusmodi enim Laéria@ con- troversia erat cum Jud@is, et hereticis, qui hac ratione nos imagines colere asserebant,’ ὅς. (Art. vill. p. 647.)
(2) “Crux Christi latri@ adoranda est. . . .unda adoratur eadem adoratiene cum Christo, scil. adoratione Latriz.’”? (Thomas 8, p. 9, 25. Art. 4.) ‘*Tum Pontifex flexis ante crucem genibus ipsam de- voté adorat.’”’ (Pontificale de Benedictione Nove Crucis, p. 161. col. 2.) “Interim dum fit adoratio crucis, cantantur, etc. Deinde cantatur communiter Anna, Crucem tuam adoramus, Domine.” (Ibid. p. 209.)
(m) ‘Ut orantes inclinantesque ante hance crucem, hujus crucis merito omni careant perpetrato peccato.” (Pontificale de Benedic- tione nove Crucis, p. 162.) In the “ Office of the Holy Week,” printed in Latin and English at Paris a.p. 1670, the title of the Ceremony is, ‘“‘ The Adoration of the Cross.” (p. 342.)
164 History of the Christian Priesthood.
only two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper. The Popish Clergy of 1534 taught that ‘‘ the Sacraments appointed by Jesus Christ were neither more nor fewer than seven, viz. Bap- tism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Orders, and Matrimony, and that every one of these was truly and properly a Sacrament.”
Article XXVIII. declares, that ‘“ the body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper of the Lord only after a heavenly and spiritual manner, and the mean whereby the body of Christ is re- ceived and taken in the Supper is faith.” The Popish Clergy of 1534 taught the people that ‘‘ the bread and wine itself, after consecration, were turned into the substance of Christ’s body and blood, the bread and wine itself being annihilated, their outward appearances, or accidents, alone re- maining.”° ‘They also commanded the people (contrary to this Article) to kneel and worship the host.P
Article XXX. asserts the necessity of admi- nistering the cup to the laity. The Popish Clergy of 1534 expressly denied that the laity may receive this Sacrament in both kinds‘, which denial of the cup annulled the institution, and consequently de- stroyed the effect of the Sacrament.
Article XX XII. asserts, that it is not incumbent
(n) See Conc. Trid. Sess. 7, Can, 1.
(0) Bellarm. de Euchar. 1. 111. c. 18, 19.
(p) See Greg. IX. Decret. 1. iii. Tit. 42. ο. 10.
(q) Bellar. de Euch. 1. iv. c. 25. p. 683. ἃ; Trid Sess. 21. 6. 1.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 165
upon the Clergy to abstain from marriage. The Popish Clergy of 1534 taught, that ‘‘ By divine appointment, those who were in holy orders might not marry, and those who were married might not be admitted to holy orders.”* : Article XXXVII. asserts, that the Bishop of Rome has no jurisdiction in the realm of England, but that the Sovereign has that jurisdiction. The Popish Clergy of 1554 taught that ‘‘ It was neces- sary to men’s salvation to believe the Church of Rome the mother and mistress of all Churches ;”s and that ‘‘ the Pope of Rome was the Vicar of Christ, and had the supreme power over the whole Church, and that without subjection to him as such, there was no salvation;”* that Christian Kings were not only subject in spiritual, but also in tem- poral matters, to the Papal authority ;”" that the
(r) Conc. Later. 1. can. 21; et Later. 2. can. 6.
(s) Concil. Trid. Sess. 7, de Bapt. can. 3. et Bulla Pii 4.
<t) Concil. Trid. Sess. 6. Decret. de Reform. c. 1, et Bulla Pii. 4.
(u) “Oportet autem gladium esse sub gladio, et Temporalem auctoritatem Spirituali subjici potestati.” (Bonif. VIII. Extray. Com. 1.8.1.) ‘Fiat autem oratio pro dignitate regia post ora- tionem factam pro Papa, qui Potestas suprema Sacerdotalis exce- dit Regiam antiquitate, dignitate, et utilitate, &c.” (Gab. Biel. in Can. Miss.) Accordingly we find, that in the very Canon of the Mass, the Pope (together with the Bishop of the Diocese, one of his Ministers,) is set before all Christian Princes, “Una cum Fa- mulo tuo Papa nostro N; et Antistite nostro N; et Rege nostro N; et omnibus Orthodoxis, &c.’” According to Pope Innocent III. the Pope is one of the two great luminaries mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis —, ‘Ad firmamentum igitur cceli, hoc est Universalis Ecclesiz, fecit Deus duo magna luminaria, id est, duas instituit dignitates, quee sunt Pontificalis auctoritas, et Rega- lis potestis; sed illa que preest diebus, id est, Spiritualibus,
major est; que vero carnalibus, minor, ὅς. (Innocent III. in Decret. Greg. I. 33, 6.)
166 History of the Christian Priesthood.
Papal authority could infringe any law,”* and that the slightest disobedience to that authority would assuredly incur the Divine indignation.’
We have thus shewn that the Popish Clergy of 1534: differed in many and cardinal points of doc- trine from the Anglo-Saxon and Protestant Clergy; but that no such cardinal difference ever existed between the Anglo-Saxon and Reformed Clergy ; and, consequently, that the assertions of Messrs. Howitt and Cobbett, that our Saxon ancestors, who dedicated tithes to God, were Roman Catholics, and believers in doctrines which our ‘‘ present Clergy call idolatrous and damnable,’—that the ‘‘ institu- tion of tithes was so perfectly Popish,” and for such “ὁ most Popish pretences that no Protestant Clergy could lay claim to them on the ground” of the original voluntary grant of our Anglo-Saxon an- cestors, but ‘‘ must rest them-on the act of Henry VIII. who took them from the original possessors, and gave them to the Vrotestant Clergy,” have no foundation in truth. On the contrary, it is perfectly clear, that our Saxon ancestors, who set apart or reserved the tenth portion of the produce of their estates for eccle- siastical purposes, did noé profess the religion now called Roman Catholic, but held essentially the
(1) ‘Secundum plenitudinem potestatis de jure possumus supra jus dispensare.” (Greg. decret. lib. 111. tit. 8. can. 4.
(y) The Roman Bulls generally ended thus, “Si quis voluntati nostre contraire preesumpserit, indignationem omnipotentis Dei se noverit incursum.” Pope Gregory IV. declares, ‘ Nulli fas est vel velle, vel posse transgredi Apostolice sedis precepta.” (Greg. IV-
apud Grat. dist. 19. cap. 5.) “Ab omnibus quicquid statuit, quicquid ordinat,perpetud et irrefragabiliter observandum est.” (Ibid. cap. iv.)
History of the Christian Priesthood. 167
same tenets as are entertained by the Protestant Church of the present day. The Romish Clergy, who subsequently gained possession of these tithes by what the lawyers call “ disseisin,” or “ unjust entry,’ differed in religious creed, worship, and government, from the first donors of tithes. The Anglo-Saxon Clergy, who were, as has been shewn, in all essential respects Protestants, and not the Popish Clergy, were the “ original possessors.” Therefore, when the Reformation took place, the tithes reverted to the right owners, that is, to a Clergy professing the same belief, worship, and government, as those to whom the tithes were first of all given. It is clear, therefore, that ‘ the modern title of the Clergy to tithes does not, and never did, rest on the act of Henry VIII.,” but on the voluntary donation of the original Saxon (Pro- testants in faith, though not in name) proprietors of the land; and that donation had been again and again solemnly confirmed to the Church by a long line of Anglo-Saxon, quasi-Protestant, Kings, all of whom lived long before the Church of England had suffered her privileges to be encroached upon by the ambitious policy of the Church of Rome.
Another branch of Mr. Howitt’s argument—I beg his pardon, rather let me say, assertion—is, that as the present Clergy have usurped more than the original grant, they can only claim a portion of the tithes, and not the whole of the tithes ; which, he contends, were “not merely given to the Clergy, but fo the poor; one part to the Bishop, one to
168 Aistory of the Christian Priesthood.
the Clergy, one to the support of Ecclesiastical buildings, and one to the poor. All this,” he continues, ‘‘ which was religiously observed, even by the swindling, deluding Popish Priests, was done away with by the Reformed Clergy; they robbed the poor of their part, and threw both them and the Churches on the country.”?”
Now in these eight lines there are three egregious falsehoods.
I. It is moé true, that “ tithes were given not merely to the Clergy, but to the poor; one part to the Bishop, one to the Clergy, one to the support of Ecclesiastical buildings, and one to the poor.”
II. It is not true, that the division of the tithes into these four parts ‘ was religiously observed by the swindling, deluding Popish Priests.”
III. It is no¢ true, that “ the Reformed Clergy have robbed the poor of their right, and thrown both them and the Churches on the country.”
To the proof.—I. Mr. Howitt gratuitously as- sumes what he must have known to be false, viz. that the tithes reserved and set apart by our Saxon ancestors ‘‘ for the Christian enlightenment and instruction of the people,”* were ‘‘ given not merely to the Clergy, but to the poor, and to the support of Ecclesiastical buildings.” It shall be shown that the very assumption on which this de- lusive theory is constructed is utterly destitute of foundation, being unsupported either by history, or by evidence from the canon, civil, common, or statute laws.
(z) 8d Ed. p. 257. (a) 8d Ed. p. 266.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 169
It has been already shewn that for nearly a cen- tury after the arrival of St. Augustine into this country, the Clergy lived with their Bishops at the episcopal seats, from whence they were sent out to preach in the towns and villages of the respective dioceses; and that during this period, they sub- sisted chiefly upon weekly voluntary offerings and oblations, and upon other dues payable at harvest and Whitsuntide. Now I have no wish to deny that these weekly offerings and oblations had four objects in view, viz. the support of the Bishop, the Clergy, the ecclesiastical buildings, and the poor; the proportion to be thus given being always left to the uncontrolled will and pleasure of the Bishop himself. This distribution of voluntary oblations existed only whilst the Bishop and his Clergy lived in common. As soon as a parochial and resident Ministry were established, they were sup- ported by a regular endowment by tithes, the whole and undiminished tithe going unreservedly and un- conditionally to the parochial Minister.”
(0) There are only two Canons extant, at least of which I have any knowledge, (and the authority of both is very questionable) enacted since the introduction of tithes, in which any mention is made of a tripartite division, viz. The ‘‘ Excerptions of Egbert,’ enacted a.D. 743, and the “ Canons of A¢lfric,”’ a.p. 1052. Now even if these Canons could be authenticated, they are no proof that such a practice ever prevailed in this country ; for as Sir Matthew Hale observes, ‘‘ There are divers Canons made in ancient times, which never were admitted here in England, and particularly in relation to tithes.” (Common Law, vol. i. p. 37.) And Sir Wm. Blackstone also: ‘* Many of these Canons were of no more intrinsic authority than the laws of Solon and Lycurgus.” (Vol. iil. p. 88.) And Mr. Selden argues to the same purpose: ‘ It is a common but most de- ceiving argument among them, (writers upon tithes,) affirmatively
I
170 History of the Christian Priesthood.
{1 am asked, how then were the poor supported subsequently to this regular establishment of tithes, I answer, that they continued to derive their sup- port from the same source as they had done prior to the tithes being dedicated to the maintenance of a resident parochial Ministry, viz. by the conti- nuance of voluntary obiations, given at the altar, and which were then bestowed not in part, but wholly upon the poor. Up to the reign of Eliza- beth, when a regular provision was made for the poor, these oblations were collected weekly in the churches ; and notwithstanding the enactment of this law, some relics of the olden usage still remain, in the universal appropriation of the Sacrament
to conclude facts on practice of tithing, from what they see ordained for tithes in any old Canon of the Church, as if every thing so ordained necessarily had also a following use; it being indeed frequent enough to find Canons directly contrary to following prac- tice. .. . Canons were very little obeyed at that time. . . . To argue therefore from affirmative Canons only to practice, is equal in not only a few things (and especially in this of tithing) to the proving of the practice of a custom from some consonant law of Plato’s Commonwealth, of Lucian’s Men in the Moon, or of Aristophanes’ City of Cuckoos in the Clouds.’’ (Preface to Selden’s History of Tithes, p. v. Ed. 1618.) But the Excerptions of Egbert, and the Canons of A‘lfric, cannot be authenticated; for the one (which consists of 163 Canons,) is the mere compilation of an impostor from the adulterated Canons of Foreign Councils. ‘‘ How can we believe,’ asks Mr. Selden, “that Egbert was the author of any part of these Excerptions? For the ancientest Canonical au- thority, (such as the Excerptions speak of,) is divers years later than Egbert’s death.” (Selden’s Hist. of Tithes, p. 198. Ed. 1618.) Nor do these unauthenticated Excerptions even pretend to bea col- lection of Canons authorized in the Anglo-Saxon Church. As for the ‘* Canons of /Zlfric,” they contain no proof of the practice of the tripartite division having been ever decreed in an English Council, and the most that can be said of them is, that they are very suspicious documents, of uncertain age and authority.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 171
money to the relief of the poor. In Scotland also, where no poor laws exist, the same custom con- tinued, and still continues in full force, weekly collections being regularly made for the relief of the poor; yet, be it remembered, tithes both did and do exist in that country. The following authorities prove the correctness of this view of the question. The seventh chapter of the ““ Council of Chalchuth,” held a.p. 785, urges the laity to give to the Church ‘“ tenths of all things which they possess, and to live upon the nine parts, and to give alms.”° The “ Liber Legum Ecclesias- ticarum” enjoins agriculturists, &c. after paying their tenths, to “ give alms out of the nine parts.” ἃ The “ Laws of Ethelred” require the payment of the tithes, and then, in a following chapter, ex- pressly require the “alms money for the poor.”® With respect to “the support of ecclesiastical buildings,” the laws of Canute (as those of other Kings before his time) distinctly declare, that “all the people ought to contribute, according to the law, to the repairing of the church.”
The full payment of tithes, without any deduc- tion whatever, is recognized by all the ancient laws and canons: as, for example, in the Synod or Par- liamentary Convention of the Estates of the King- doms of Mercia and Northumberland, held a.p.
(c) Wilkins, vol. i. Ὁ. 150, a.v. 785.
(d) Wilkins, p. 278, a.p. 1003.
(e) Ibid. p. 295, a.p. 1018.
(f) “ Ad refectionem Ecclesiz debet omnis populus secundum legem subvenire.” (Vide Chronicon Johan. Brompton. Hist. An- glicum Script. Dec. p. 628.)
12
172 History of the Christian Priesthood.
786 ;® in the ‘ Foedus Edwardi et Guthruni,” A.D. 906; in the Constitutions of Odo, Archbishop of Canterbury, A.p. 943; in the Canons of the Council of London, a.p. 944; and in the Canons and Laws of Edgar, a.p. 959 and 967. Indeed, the present Chancellor Law, in his “ Letter to Lord King,” asserts that he had ‘ looked into one hundred bequests of property to Ecclesiastical Cor- porations, sole and aggregate, in England, and he only found the name of the poor mentioned in two of them.”!
Lastly, let us quote the opinions of those who have made this subject the business and study of their lives. Mr. Selden, a learned barrister of the seventeenth century, and author of the well-known and justly-celebrated ‘‘ History of Tithes,” (Mr. Howitt ignorantly calls this learned layman “a most celebrated Bishop”!™) tells us that this division of ‘* one part to the maintenance of the Minister, another to the relief of the poor, sick, and strangers, a third to the reparation of churches, and a fourth to the Bishop, was all” (as I have before allowed) “in primitive times,” (ὃ. 6. before parochial tithes were instituted); “for that not long after such time as laymen began to build and endow parish
(g) Selden, c. viii. § 2.
(h) Wilkins, Concil. Vol. I. p. 213.
(i) Ibid, p. 214.
(k) Ibid, p. 228 ; see also pp. 245, 293, 295, 302, 311, 365, 382, 574, 578, 596, 638, &c.
(1) See Chancellor Law’s ‘ Letter to Lord King, controverting the Statements lately delivered in Parliament as to the fourfold
division of Tithes.’ (m) 3d Ed. p. 195.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 173
oratories or churches in their Lordships, and in them place or invest Chaplains, that former kind” (2. 6. of a tripartite division of Ecclesiastical reve- nues,) “ discontinued, and the Chaplain or Incum- bent received now the (whole) profits that rose out of Christian devotion to a particular use of his own church.”" Sir William Blackstone, when speaking of the voluntary oblations paid before the introduc- tion of tithes, admits, (as I have already done,) that “the Bishop distributed among his Diocesan Clergy the revenues of the Church, which were then in common ;” yet, as if to show that such a division of Ecclesiastical revenues was confined to the time when the Clergy of this country subsisted on voluntary oblations, he immediately afterwards —and his words are most conclusive in favour of my position—adds, ‘‘ But when dioceses were divided into parishes” (ὁ. 6. when tithes were insti- tuted,) ‘‘ the tithes of each parish were allotted to its own particular Minister by the appointment of the Lord of the Manor,”°.... then “ the Rectors had full possession of all the rights of a Parochial Church,” and ‘ had during their lives the freehold of themselves of the parsonage house, the glebe, the tithes, and other dues;”? and that after that period “the poor of England subsisted entirely upon private benevolence and the charity of well-disposed Christians.”4 Accordingly, after bringing down
(n) Selden, c. vi. § 6. pp. 80, 82, 86.
(9) Blackstone’s Commentaries, Vol. II. p. 26. (p) Comment. book i. c. 11.
(4) Comment. Vol. I, book I. c. ix. p. 879.
12
174 ~=©History of the Christian Priesthood.
the history of the tithes in England from “ the first mention which he had met with in any written English law,” down to the year 930, without saying a word in the whole extract of such a division,* he adds, ‘‘And this is as much as can certainly be traced out with regard to their legal original ;”* that as for the poor, “‘ he could find no compulsory method chalked out for this purpose, but that they seem to have been left to such relief as the hu- manity of their neighbours would afford them.”* Mr. Howitt has, with more boldness than dis- cretion, placed his opinion in opposition to these two high authorities. Before, however, we can be induced to leave their literary lights for the murky and glimmering taper of this learned and modest writer, the least we can expect of him is, that in support of his singularly erudite opinion, he will quote evidence clearly and explicitly to prove that an obligation was laid upon the Clergy on whom the tithes were originally bestowed, to make such a definite division of them, from the numerous au- thentic documents which still remain to us, not only in the wills of Founders, but also in the Civil, Common, and Statute laws. If he cannot produce such unequivocal proof, (as ‘* preesumptionibus standum est, donec probetur in contrarium,”) Mr. Howitt cannot expect the most credulous of his readers to believe that the Clergy were obliged to reserve only one-fourth of the tithes to their own
(r) Compare Vol. I. p. 385. (s) Vol. II. pp. 126, 127. (¢) Blackstone’s Comment. Vol. I. book 1. c. 9, p. 879.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 175
use, and to apply the remaining three-fourths to the maintenance of the Bishop, the Church, and the Poor.
But so unqualified is the language adopted in the grants of the original Founders of endowed bene- fices in this respect,—so unreservedly and uncon- ditionally did they bequeath the tithes to the first Incumbents and to their successors for ever, in real and inalienable possession,—so silent are they respecting any definite partition, or specific appro- priation by the Clergy, of these tithes,—that although, had any stipulation existed, Mr. Howitt had it clearly in his power, if he had pleased, to quote numerous instances of such a stipulation on the part of any granter of tithes, seeing that so many of these original deeds exist, he has neverthe- less not only not done so, but the only authority which he has adduced in proof of the existence of this tripartite division is—what think you, gentle reader ?—the Editor of the Essex Independent ! “In the following paragraph,” says this learned antiquarian, ‘“‘ which appeared in the Hssex Inde- pendent, what an image of Clerical rapacity and want of conscience we have before us: ‘ The Church ought to relinquish the property of the poor; the original division of tithes is acknow- ledged, one-third portion of the revenue of the Church being the undoubted property of the poor ; one third of the possessions of the Church is, there- fore, the sum which the State is most equitably entitled to demand from the Church.’ After reading this,” adds Mr. Howitt, “‘ who can prevent him-
176 History of the Christian Priesthood.
self”’—ay, who indeed !—‘*‘ recalling the words of Christ, ‘The poor ye have always with you, but me ye have not always.’”" The result, then, of Mr. Howitt’s researches comes to this, that because the Editor of an obscure provincial newspaper ‘* acknowledges an original tripartite division of tithes,” and that because the Editor of that news- paper is himself persuaded that ‘‘ one-third portion of the revenue of the Church is the undoubted pro- perty of the poor,” that, therefore, it must necessarily be so! Nowif the dictum of this Theban of the broadsheet is to be considered as unanswerable, how does it happen that the very ‘‘ specimens” — which Mr. Howitt has given, at p. 254: of the third edition of his volume, as being of “original grants,” do not contain a single syllable in support of such an opinion, but, on the contrary, do actually assign the whole and undiminished tithe, unreservedly and unconditionally, to the Church ?
But it may be objected, that it does not follow, that because Mr. Howitt, who is evidently a writer of no learning or research, is unable to produce such evidence, that, therefore, no authorities in favour of the tripartite division exist. I answer, it is so certain that no such authorities do exist, that even the most learned and inquisitive of the advocates of a tripartite division are unable to cite a single authentic document in support of their opinion. The late Bishop Doyle, for example, in his Letter on a legal provision for the Irish poor, addressed to Mr. Spring Rice, states that ‘‘ such information
(u) 3d Ed. p. 260; 2d Ed. pp. 210, 211.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 177
{relating to the nature and destination of Church property) “could scarcely be expected from a Clergyman of the Established Church, especially from one whose studies were not occupied with Ec- clesiastical antiquities or laws; but,” he adds, ‘‘ fam differently circumstanced; Jam connected with these old Canons; they have been long familiar to me.”* Now this Prelate, who may be presumed to have been deeply read in all Ecclesiastical matters, and would, therefore, have been well acquainted with any ancient partition of Ecclesiastical revenues, had any such been in existence, gives the following very distinct answer to two of a series of questions which were put to him by their Lordships, in his “Evidence taken before the Committee of the House of Lords, appointed to inquire into the collection and payment of tithes in Ireland, and the state of the laws relating thereto.” 1. “ Does what you have just stated amount to any proof in point of fact, that that claim of the poor antecedent to the Reformation was made and ac- knowledged?” 2. “Is there any historical proof on the subject except that belief of yours?” Dr. Doyle’s reply, (after having, according to his own confession, spent more than a year of laborious search in the endeavour to discover it,) was this: “* To say there is no historical proof, would seem to furnish an argument against this matter, which I cannot admit to be just; if I cannot lay my finger upon a particular act to show it, it is not therefore
(x) See Bishop Doyle’s “ Letter on a Legal Provision for the Irish Poor,” p. 82.
το
178 History of the Christian Priesthood.
to be inferred that it did not exist!!” What, then, is the gist of Dr. Doyle’s evidence on this subject? He acknowledges that no enactment was ever made for this maintenance of the poor from tithes, but ** supposes it to have been Common Law, because it is supposed to have been enacted.” And upon this very satisfactory ground he modestly claims the fourth of the tithes for the support of the poor.
If. Mr. Howitt’s assertion, that such an appro- priation of the tithes was “ religiously observed by the swindling, deluding, Popish Priests,” is unsup- ported by any one fact or allusion, however remote, in English history ; nay more, the entire body of the Canon and Statute laws of England, from the year 1200 to the Reformation, does not contain a single reference to the quadripartite division. If Mr. Howitt will only tell me where the statute is to be found, or where the historical evidence is to be met with, which proves the existence of the divi- sion for which he contends, I will be satisfied. But facts run directly the other way; there are positive Statutes and numberless Canons of the Church which most distinctly prove that tithes were never appro- priated either to the repair of the churches, or to the relief of the poor.’
(y) There is only one Canon from this period to the Reforma- tion, in which mention occurs of the “ quarta ‘pars,” viz. the statute known by the title of Circumspecté Agatis, enacted A.D. 1285, in the reign of Edward I. But this Canon is in a body of laws prescribing the cases in which the ecclesiastical judge shall have cognizance “ non obstante Regia prohibitione,” and has no reference whatever either to the fabric of the Church, or to the poor. (Vide Statutum de Circumspecté Agatis pro
moderanda prohibitione Regia editum, 18 Edwardi Primi, Anne Domini 1285, p. 33.)
History of the Christian Priesthood. 179
Two things, therefore, are certain; that there was no obligation laid upon ‘ the swindling, delud- ing, Popish Priests” by any enactments of Canon or Statute law to appropriate a fourth or any given part of the tithes, either to the reparation of the Church, or to the relief of the poor. The first is evident from Canons and various legislative enact- ments. 1. The Synod ‘‘ De decimis et earum solutionibus,” held a.p. 1222, establishes, with sufficient distinctness, the right of the Parochial Priest to the tithe without any diminution or sub- traction whatever.2 2. The Canon in the Lega- tine Constitutions of Othobon, a. p. 1268, and the commentary of Athona, written upon them, 4. Ὁ. 1290, prove not only that the repairs of the nave of the church, where the lay parishioners sit, be- longed to the parishioners themselves,’ but that the Rector himself was exempted from all expense whatever in the reparation of the church. 3. The
(5) “ Decime tam prediales quam aliz sine diminutione et cum omni integritate solvantur . .. Concedimus etiam quod quilibet Sacerdos Parochialis detentores decimarum in sua paro- chia potestatem coercendi habeat . . . In prestandis decimis, et maximé preedialibus, nulle deducantur expense.” (Consut. Provincial. in Conc. Oxon. Α.Ὁ. 1222.)
(a) Athona says, that this Canon of Othobon, enacted in a Council of all England, in 1268, alluded “ Communi consue- tudini Anglican, per quam, defectio navis Ecclesiz, ubi insident ipsi Parochiani Laici, ad ipsos Parochianos pertinet.” . . . ‘‘ Certe, de Consuetudine, Parochiani etiam Laici ad hujusmodi reparationem compelluntur, populus itaque laicus hujusmodi laudabilem consue- tudinem cogitur observare.. . . Licet enim per consuetudinem, ἃς. (Constit. Othobon. p. 112. Edit. Oxon. 1679; Not. Atho. ad tenentur ; Vide Pitseus De Ilustribus Angliz Scriptoribus.)
(ὁ) “‘Licet enim per consuetudinem exoneretur Rector a sumptibus prestandis.” (Ibid.)
180 History of the Christian Priesthood.
Statute 35. Edw. I. entitled ‘‘ Statutum ne pro- sternat arbores in coemeteriis,” also proves beyond question that the parish alone repaired the body of the church.© 4. One of the Constitutions of a Synod held at Merton, under Archbishop Winchel- sey, in the reign of Edward I. a. p. 1305, proves the same.* 5. One of the Canons of the provincial Council held at Oxford, by Archbishop Reynolds, A.D. 1322, entitled ‘* De Visitatione Archidiaconi,” proves that where the Rectorial tithes are in the hands of laymen, to them appertained the reparation of the chancel; and where the Rectorial tithes were not in the hands of laymen, the parishioners sup- plied the defect.e And the same provisions are as a matter of course fully recognized and recapitulated in the provincial Council held at London, a. p. 1342, under Archbishop Stratford, “‘ De reparationibus Ecclesiarum et clausuris Coemeteriorum.”! These
(ὁ) This Statute allows the Clergy, of their charity, to relieve the parishioners οἵ their burthens in the reparation of the church, by charitably bestowing upon them some of the trees growing in the churchyard; that is, by charitably bestowing upon them what in law they had no title to demand.
(d) “ Quid Parochiani invenire debent,” &c. Constit. Province. Cantuar. A.D. 1305, p. 84. See also Provin. Guliel. Lyndwood de Ecclesiis Aidificand, p. 253.
(e) Lyndwood, in explaining the practice of the times in which he lived, and the custom of the Church, remarks, ‘‘ Consuetudo tamen transfert onus reparationis, saltem navis Ecclesiz in Paro- chianos, et similiter Cancelli quandoque, sicut satis constat in Civitate Londinensi in multis Ecclesiis, et hanc consuetudinem servare debent compelli Parochiani, ubi talis est consuetudo,” (Lyndwood, lib. i. Tit. x. de Officio Archidiaconi, p. 53.)
(7) “ De reparationibus Ecclesiarum et clausuris Ceemeteriorum
Nos presentis approbatione Concilii duximus_ statu- endum secundum prediorum ac possessionum quantitatem in
History of the Christian Priesthood. 181
~ documents fully show that the appropriation of a third portion of the tithes to the reparation of *‘ ecclesiastical buildings” was not “ most religiously observed even by the swindling, deluding Popish Priests.”
II. It is also certain that, during the dominion of the “ swindling, deluding Popish Priests,” there was no legislative enactment giving “ the Poor” any. claim either to a fourth, fifth, sixth, or any other portion of the tithes. This is demonstrable in two ways; first, from positive Statutes ; secondly, from historical facts. The positive Statutes are these: 1. The letter of Pope Alexander III. to the Arch- bishop of York, in which it is distinctly allowed that each Incumbent ‘ had to his own use, all ecclesi- astical profits increasing in the limits of the same town.2” 2. The Synod held a.p. 1222, “ De deci- mis et earum solutionibus,” which establishes dis- tinctly the fact that no part of the tithe of the Parochial Priest was appropriated to the use of the poor." 3. The Commentary of Lyndwood upon one
of the Canons of Archbishop Langton, ‘‘ De Officio
Parochiis existentium, quod tam Religiosi quam alii, &c. in ipsis degentes, vel alibi, ad quevis onera Parochianis predictis in his incumbentia, de consuetudine, vel de jure, &c. . . . Onera qua consideratis possessionum et redituum quantitatibus, imminent vel imponentur eisdem,” &c. (Constit. Provin. p- 90, Edit. Oxon. 1679.)
(6) See Selden on Tithes, c. ix. p. 363; 267.
(h) “ Decimz tam prediales quam alize sine diminutione et cum omni integritate solvantur. . .. Concedimus etiam quod quilibet Sacerdos Parochialis detentores decimarum in sua Paro- chia coercendi habeat. ... In prestandis decimis, et maximz predialibus, nullz deducantur expense.” (Constit. Provincial. in Conc. Oxon. A.D. 1222.)
182 History of the Christian Priesthood.
Judicis Ordinarii,” from which it would appear that the charity of the Clergy was perfectly optional, ex- cept in some few cases where it was a debt incumbent on property.' 4. The Commentary of Lyndwood upon a Canon which is to be found among the Statutes, ““ De Consuetudine,” enacted a.p. 1234, by Edmund de Abendonia, Archbishop of Canter- bury, proves that the Rector had a property in the whole tithes, and the power of disposing of them every year after the day of Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary.* 5. The Constitutions of Archbishop Peckham, a. p. 1281, in which, although the non-resident Clergy are exhorted to the mainte- nance of a Vicar, and also to hospitality, yet not a word is said of any quadripartite division of their tithes ; the portion to be allotted is quite optional in the non-resident Rector, whilst the Rector who resided is not alluded to at all.! 7. The Commen- tary of Athona upon the Legatine Constitutions of Othobon, refutes the doctrine that the poor had a claim upon any Ecclesiastical revenues whatever ; for after asserting that the allocation of Ecclesiastical revenues, arising from Rectories appropriated to religious monasteries, was regulated by the decision of the Prelate, whose wants, and those of his
(i) “ Hospitalitas quedam est charitativa et pertinet ad officium pietatis. Alia est que fit ex debito servitutis. . .. Hospitalitatem vero secundo modo dictam Clerici non tenentur subire, etiam beneficiati, et hoc est verum, nisi in concessione possessionis Ecclesiz donata aliquid tale fuerit.’’ (Provinciale G. Lyndwood, lib. i. tit. 13, p. 67.)
(k) Lyndwood, lib. ii. tit. 3. p. 18.
(2) Constit. Johannis Peckham, a.p 1281, p. 30.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 188
Clergy, were first to be protected, he adds, that “iF” any thing remained, that was to be the portion of the poor.™ 8, It is evident also from such Statutes of Kings in succeeding centuries, from 35 Edw. I. A.D. 1306, to 25 Hen. VIII. a. p. 1533, as con- tain within them any recital of the intentions of the founders of monasteries, and of the benefactors of the Clergy, that the duty of relieving the poor was a moral, not a legal duty™ In a word, all the Charters of monasteries, and every case of endow- ment which can be produced, are silent upon the subject of such definite division.
Thus far as to positive Statutes ; now for histo- rical facts. Neither the monasteries endowed with tithes, nor the Rectors so endowed, ever appropri- ated a fourth of their tithes to the poor. ‘The pro- perty of the monasteries, it is true, was burthened in some cases, with certain endowments of alms, and in some instances (as I have already mentioned,) with payments made by appropriators, where a rectory was converted into a vicarage ; but even these alms and payments rarely exceeded a fiftieth part of the revenues of such monasteries, as shall be shown presently. Although, be it remembered, the
(m) “ Przlati habent eorum proprietatem quantum ad fidelem et debitam dispensationem, sibi et suis faciendam, non autem voluptuosam ; et st qui supersunt, non sunt propriz, sed com- munes, indigentibus et pauperibus erogandi.’”’ (Constit. D. Othoboni de Institutionibus seu Collationibus, tit. 29, p. 126.)
(n) See Statute of Carlisle, 35 Edw. I. a.p. 1306-7; Statutum de Provisoribus, 25 Edw. III. a.p. 1350-1; Statute of West- minster, ὃ Richard IL. a.p. 1379-80; and 25 Hen. VIII. 1533-4, contained in the “ Statutes of the Realm,’’ Vol. I. pp. 150, 316; Vol. 11. p. 14; Vol. III. p. 483.
184 History of the Christian Priesthood.
fact of such payments, insignificant as they were in amount, being made at all to the poor, cannot pos- sibly affect the right of the reformed Clergy, because the property of the parochial beneficed Clergy (which is the only property belonging to the Church in the present day), was, at the period of which we treat, entirely free from any such burthens or payments. But leaving this part of the question for future dis- cussion, let us see how far historical facts bear out Mr. Howitt’s assertion, that ‘‘ the swindling, delud- ing Popish Priests, religiously observed” the appro- priation of a fourth part of the tithes to the poor. This assertion is positively contradicted—1. By an expression which occurs in the Legatine Constitu- tions of Othobon, which, after recapitulating a long catalogue of crimes, alleged against the “ swindling, deluding Popish Priests,” says “ Charitas exulat, et spes pauperum deperit.” 2. The history of Matthew Paris, and the Annales Monast. Burton, which show the manner in which both the Monks and the parochial Clergy expended their revenue in the thirteenth century, positively disprove the as- sertion that, during this period, any such appropri- ation of their property was ‘ religiously observed ” by them.° 3. From one of the Canons of the provincial Synods held at London by Archbishop Stratford, ἃ. Ὁ. 1342, entitled, ““ De Eleemosynis faciendis in Parochiis Keclesiarum appropriatarum,” (which Canon refers exclusively to the “ Religiosi,” religious houses, and not to the Parochial Priests,)
FOF
(0) See Matt. Paris, Hist. Ang]. ad ann. 1246, p. 535, Edit. 1640 ; Wilkins’ Concilia, Vol. I. pp. 679, 687.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 185
it would appear that the avaricious Monks, who had heaped together the revenues of a great number of rectories, gave nothing at all to the poor, but pro- fligately squandered them on their own debau- cheries.? 4. There is not a trace throughout the monastic history, as detailed in the Valor Eccle- siasticus of Henry VIII., that the monasteries of England ever allotted a fourth part of their reve- nues to the poor. This work was the result of an inquiry enacted by the 26 Hen. VIII. a. pv. 1535, into the property of the monasteries, a short time prior to their dissolution. As this inquiry was to be regulated according to the net, and not the gross value of each monastery, if the possessors had been in the habit of “ religiously observing” any appro- priation of their property to the poor, amongst the deductions which the possessors had to pay, (all of which are specified,) we should expect to find some allusion made to the subtraction of this one-fourth for the poor. On the contrary, however, although among other deductions we find continual notice of “ς Alms distributed to the poor, by reason of some foundation or ordinance,” (which “ Alms,” as will be seen below, rarely exceeded a fiftieth part of the clear revenues of each monastery,) there is neverthe- less no mention of any fourth part distributed to the poor.1 5. It is notorious, that so little relief was
(p) “ Sed Religiosi nostree Provinciz appropriatas obtinentes sibi Ecclesias, &c. in nullo exhibent, nec inter nos exercere curant, quevis opera charitatis.” (Constit. Provin. Johannis Stratford, Lond. a.p. 1342.)
(q) The Valor Ecclesiasticus contains an accurate statement of all the property of the cathedral churches and religious houses in
186 History of the Christian Priesthood.
given to the poor before the Reformation, (although the church property then was immeasurably greater
England and Wales. Among other “ Reprises and Deductions going out of the said houses yearly,”’ we find continual mention of ““ alms to the poor by reason of some foundation or ordinance.’’ I have carefully gone through the whole of the five volumes in which this work is comprised, and find the comparative proportion between the clear revenues of the religious houses, and the alms which they gave to the poor, to be in a ratio of 53 to 1. It would be impossible to give the data on which this calculation relative to the seven hundred and ninety-one religious houses then in the kingdom, is founded, in a single note. I shall therefore merely insert those belonging to the two Metropolitan Dioceses of Canterbury and York :—
Diocese oF CANTERBURY, (Vol. i. pp. 1—98.) Clear value. Alms. Ss ths Eo st Monastery of St. Augustine, Canterbury 1413 411 32 2 10 Hospital of St. Laurence, Canterbury.. 31 7 10 1 610
Priory of St. Gregory, Canterbury . . 12115 1 10 6 8 Priory of St. Sepulchre, Canterbury . 2912 5 0}, 6)°8 Hospital of St. Nicholas, at Harbaldown 83 15 0 nothing Hospital of St. Thomas, at A ἐν LOD ΠΟ oe 616 0 Hospital of St. James . . . . oi Bo a8 tao 212 4 Priory.of Monks Horton) τ. ον 116 8 Priory. of Bilsinpton os}. τ 6s 0 eee 1.0) τῷ Priory of Folkeston τὴ. 7; pete) Oe a oO nothing Priory of Dover . . SOE OLS TOs NOLS ae Hospital (‘ Domus Dei’ ) of Tene ou aril JO 14°14. 9 24 aie Monastery of Radegund . . . . . 15918 6 nothing Priory of Sedis. . . iad) OO tase gare nothing College of All Saints, at Maidstone os 8627 {ΠῚ ΤΟ Ὁ Monastery of St. Sexburge. . . . . 159 7 10 L 17) 6 Monastery of Bexley . . » 129 ΠΟ a oa
House of the Holy Trinity, Ate τ ἕδη : 20414 al nothing Monastery of Faversham . . . . . 60,13 0 -10. 2058 Preceptory of Swingfield . .... 87 8 8 nothing Monastery of Cumbwell. . . . . . 8017 5 nothing
Diocese of Canterbury . . £3577 6 2 116 18 10
History of the Christian Priesthood.
187
than in the present day,) that famines were almost of periodical recurrence. We close this part of the
DIOCESE OF 1. County of York, (pp. 1—146.)
Clear value.
Soe sao Bs Priory of St. Clement, York foe OAD Priory at Helagh Park . 72:10 ἢ Priory of Siningthwaite . ἐς προ ΘΟ Θ ΝΣ Monastery of St. Mary, York. . . . 1650 7 0 Cells of St. Mary, York. . 328 10 0 Monastery of Selby 723 12 10 Priory of Drax . oa, RE ee at Ree EL Ponryot ἈΕΊ ΘΟ δ ἐς ον ei. ear TS Priory of Esseholt . . . aa ary) Me ἈΘΉΜΑ Hospital of St. Leonard, hae S672 1949 Chapel of St Mary, York : 139.19 2 College of St. Andrew, Nether cola 27 13 Ὁ Hospital of St. Nicholas, Wamgate . . 29 1 4 Monastery of Rupe : 224 2 5 Monastery of St. a Magdalene, Ἶ 239 3 6
Monkburton :
Proryor Hampall ys. 2 pe oe δ 0. 9 College of Rotheram. . . Meany ode rae ee Monastery of St. Oswald, Mutants 492 18 2 Cells of St. Oswald, Nostell 17411 3 Monastery of St. John, Pontefract 337 14 8 Priory of Kirkleghes . . LDP Saez College of the Holy Trinity, Parent 182 14 7 Preceptory of Newland . ah slp apiet Seog bana ® Monastery of Giseburne 628 16 4 Monastery of Whitbey 437 2 9 Monastery at Mountgrace . 323 2 10 Hospital of St. James, near Noriiallerton 66°22 Prigty@e-nwmeme ΠΝ ον οι dee OG EIGN IO! ΟΥ̓ ΘΕ απ νι πριν oe se, a eat Priory of Base Dale Hoton......... 20 1 4 Prioty of Handdle: vy. 2.05. ρον aS TD 0 Priory of Newburgh . 0 9 2 Monastery οἵ Byland . aon ae Priory of Marton . a : 151 5 4 Priory of Thickhed τ 5. . ς 20 18 10
Carried forward
York, (Vol. v. pp. 1—200.)
Alms. BGs ΩΣ
nothing nothing nothing 134 19 1 213 4 19 16 0 i Oe ay nothing nothing 86 0 0 24 13 4 nothing nothing nothing
ater 0.1
nothing 1613 4 nothing nothing 14 17 7
nothing DAG nothing
£7753 211 448 17. 4
188 History of the Christian Priesthood.
subject by defying Mr. Howitt to produce any evidence from history of ‘‘ the swindling, deluding
Brought forward
Clear value.
ssid: 7768 211. 4438.17) 4
Alms. a Sg "ἢ
Monastery of /St Johny jvc eet mes τ 10215.0 SOLO Priory of Molesley 26 2 10 nothing Monastery of Kirkham . 269 5 9 nothing Monastery of Melsa . . . - . 29916. “4216S ee Hospital of St. Sepulchre, Newt 1118 4 nothing Hospital of Newton . . 21 τὺ nothing Monastery of Swinkly 82 3 9 (Aloe Monastery of Nun, Kelynge 35 15 5 ee es. Monastery of Bridlington 547 6°11. 22.5658 Priory of Haltemprice 100 0 3 20a Priory of Elreton 62 8 10 nothing Priory of Fereby 60 1 2 nothing Priory of Nunburne Holme . 815 3 nothing Hospital of the Holy Trinity, Aull TOO" OB? 217 6s Monastery of Sawley, Rivall 141 3 10 nothing Monastery of Old Malton . . . 278 10 2 nothing Priory of Yedingham Hess 21 16 6 nothing Priony-ol Roseddle’ "076270. 5» 387 17 5 nothing 2. County of Nottingham, (pp. 147—200.) Priory of Lenton. . . 329 19 7 nothing Priory of Thurgarton 259 9 4 TA 8. ἢ Priory of Shirwood 4 167 16 11 4 0 0 Priory Of Welley yy. i, .c τ» 40 19 1 nothing Priory of Beauvale 196 6 0 nothing Priory of Shelford a aie cite ΛΠ ΟΖ, EL 2 6 8 Monastery of Welbeck . . . . . . 249 6 3 nothing Monastery of Rufford . 176 11 6 nothing Priory of Worksope. . . Ὁ 239 15 5 nothing Priory of Blyth 5 113 0 8 016 8 Priory of Mattersey . 56 2 56 nothing Nunnery of Wallingwells 58 9 10 2 ὃ ὃ Nunnery of Brodsham . ... ς 16 5 2 nothing
Diocese of York
. £11,896 3 0 531
3 10
Thus the comparative proportion between the clear revenues of
the monasteries, &c. in the diocese of Canterbury, and the alms distributed by them to the poor, is in a ratio of 383 to1; and in the Diocese of York, of 23 to 1, instead of being but three to one.
History of the Christian Priesthood. [189
Popish Priests ever having” religiously observed “the division of which he speaks.” As no such proof can be produced, we conclude the parochial tithes in the present day are appropriated in strict compliance with the wills of the founders, by whom they were given, viz., solely for the maintenance of the Clergy.
These facts, of course, contain in themselves a refutation of Mr. Howitt’s third falsehood, in which he affirms that ‘‘ the reformed Clergy have robbed the poor of their right, and thrown both them and the churches on the country.”* There never was any stipulation or condition made by the original donors of tithes obliging the Clergy to reserve either one third part, or indeed any part of the tithes to
(r) “ A very ungrounded prejudice,” writes Mr. Hallam, in his ‘ Constitutional History of the Middle Ages,’ ‘ has long obtained currency, that the alms of the monasteries maintained the indigent throughout the kingdom, and that the system of parochial relief, so much the topic of complaint, was rendered necessary by the dissolution of these benevolent foundations. There can be no doubt that many of the impotent poor received support from their charity, but the blind eleemosynary spirit inculcated by the Roman Church, is notoriously the cause, not the cure of beggary. ... Even while monasteries were yet standing, the scheme of a provision for the poor had been adopted by the legislature, by means of regular collections, and which, in the course of a Jong series of enactments, were almost insensibly converted into compulsory assessments. It is by no means probable that, however some, in particular districts, might have to lament the cessation of hospitality in the convents, the poor were placed in a worse condition by their dissolution.”? (Hallam’s Constitutional History of England, Vol. I. c. ii.“ p. 86. Quarto Edition.) It is observable, that in this extract there is not one word to intimate that the poor had, at the period to which the writer alludes, any maintenance whatever from the tithes of the Parochial Priest.
(s) 3d Ed. p. 257.
190 History of the Christian Priesthood.
their own use, and to apply the remaining two-thirds to the maintenance of the poor, and the reparation of the churches ; and, even if any such stipulation had ever existed, it was never fulfilled by the Roman Catholic Clergy, although the Ecclesiastical property in Popish times was immeasurably greater than what the ““ Reformed Clergy” now possess; there being no lay impropriations, no tithe free lands, no mo- dusses to diminish their incomes; and the immense property which they possessed, (amounting, as Mr. Howitt confesses, to “‘ one third of the land of the country, ἢ was altogether relieved from the burthen of taxes, whilst in the present day ‘‘ the Reformed Clergy” bear an equal portion with their fellow- citizens of all the taxes imposed upon them by the legislature. Notwithstanding the vastly superior pecuniary advantages in the hands of the Roman Catholic Clergy, they neither kept the poor, nor re- paired the churches, nor were even required to do so by the wills of the founders of tithes, or the charters of the monasteries; Mr. Howitt, therefore, will be somewhat puzzled to prove that the ““ Reformed Clergy” have ‘“ robbed the poor of a right” which never existed, and which has never been heard of, save in the pages of writers equally veracious with the author of the “ Popular History of Priestcraft.”
But let us, for the sake of argument, concede that the poor did derive some little support from the Romish Clergy. Will such an admission in any way tend to convict the Reformed Clergy of ‘having robbed the poor” of such support? It is certain
(ἢ 2d Ed. p. 254.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 191
that for the only relief (trifling as it was) which the poor obtained, they were indebted to the alms dis- tributed in certain cases by the monasteries. But where is the monastic property from which this partial relief was obtained? I answer in Mr. Howitt’s own words, ‘ Henry laid his bold hand on the booty, and swept it all into his capacious crypt, to the amount of 30,503,400/.” If therefore the poor have been robbed of a right, they must go to the lay-impropriator for redress, and not to the “ Reformed Clergy,” who possess not the slightest interest in a single rood of impropriated land. But although the property of the Church of 1534 was immeasurably greater than that now possessed by the Protestant Church of the present day, never- theless it would not be difficult to prove that the “ Reformed Clergy” give up nearly one third of their present very reduced income to the poor, (viz. the rates upon the tithes,) which the Popish Clergy never did. |
The more effectually to show the absurdity of Mr. Howitt’s assertion, let us take another view of the question. Mr. Howitt tells us, that “ the Re- formed Clergy have thrown the poorand the churches on the country.” Now let us suppose, that a third of the tithes now in the hands of the Clergy do of right belong to the poor; even in that case, Mr. Howitt’s assertion sinks into a miserable falsehood. By “the Report of his Majesty’s Commissioners for inquiring into the administration and practical operation of the Poor Laws,” it appears that the Poor Rates amount to 7,036,9687. And the first
192 History of the Christian Priesthood.
“ Report of the Commissioners of Ecclesiastical Inquiry,” bearing date June 16, 1834, and ordered to be printed on the 26th of July, states that the ageregate net value of the parochial tithes in Eng- land and Wales is 3,000,959/. per annum. Now the third of this income derivable from tithes amounts to 1,000,320/., which taken from 7,036,968/. leaves 6,056,648/. Itis clear, therefore, that, even if the third part of the tithes were so appropriated, six paupers out of every seven would be left to starve, or, as Mr. Howitt says, be ‘‘ thrown upon the country.” The calculation thus derived from Mr. Howitt’s own statements, demonstrates the false- hood and absurdity of his assertions, and further proves that his morbid love of unprincipled exag- geration is only equalled by the grossness of his ignorance.”
Against this official return, however, given from personal knowledge, we are bound in candour to oppose Mr. Howitt’s statement. ‘ The full amount of the annual revenue of the Clergy is 8,852,000/. ;”” and again, “ the entire possessions of the Church,
(y) The Parliamentary Papers of the present year make the
poor rates in— Sussex <niss0es Gee oOo .o01 14
FRET) 2a eso ie hae os 425,578 10 Lancashire....... 411,292 12 Middlesex....... 938,345 15 ΠΟΥ ΤΟΙ πὰ τς 862,132 0 Surrey cesses seee 364,483 18
£2,829,694 4
Hence, it appears, that the whole of the Tithes would barely keep the poor in siz Counties only. (z) 2d Ed. p. 197.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 198
in tithe and landed property, amount in value to the sum of £170,450,000.”2
I will not stop to point out the sheer impossibility of Mr. Howitt’s acquiring any certain information on a subject which no individual, unassisted by official returns, could have investigated with any probability of success. The question is, whether this exaggerated amount, or the sum stated in the Parliamentary papers, be the correct one. I will first show the inaccuracy of Mr. Howitt’s calcula- tions, and will then show that the Parliamentary returns are correct.
«© Now the basis of our calculations,” writes Mr. Howitt, ‘‘ is the value of the benefices as given in Liber Regis. ‘Those estimates were made ‘when labour was a penny a day; now it is twenty-four pence; so that if we place pounds instead of shillings, that is, an advance of twenty-fold, we shall make a moderate calculation, according to the increase in the value of general property ;—why not that of the Church? I have applied this scale to various paro- chial livings whose income is well known, and the result was wonderfully accurate.” Now “ the basis of this calculation” must necessarily depend upon the fact, that the value of property in general has increased ‘‘ twenty-fold” since the period when the estimates in Liber Regis were made. Mr Howitt’s proof is, that “ when those estimates were made, labour was a penny a day, now it is twenty-four pence.” Now any person living in an agricultural
νι
(a) 2d Ed. p. 210. (b) 3d Ed. p. 269.
194 History of the Christian Priesthood.
county must, from his own individual experience, know this to be a gross mistatement. It is, how- ever, only one of the many sweeping and unproved assertions, which constitute the miserable garbage with which the author of the ‘ Popular History of Priestcraft” panders to the depraved taste of the changing spirits of the day. But it needs no poli- tical economist to prove that the price of labour is not a fair standard by which we can judge of the increased value of property. If we compare the average price of corn at the time when Liber Regis was published with the average price in the present day, we shall arrive at a much fairer standard than that with which Mr. Howitt has favoured us. The average price of corn in Henry the Eighth’s time was eight shillings a quarter ; it is now fifty-six shillings, which gives an increase of seven-fold. Now as the price of corn always did, and, in the very nature of things, always must, regulate the price of labour, and as this average only gives a seven-fold increase, Mr. Howitt’s ‘ twenty-fold” calculation is not only unfair, but untrue. It being, however, no part of the matter in hand to prove, that the value of pro- perty in general has not increased ‘‘ twenty-fold,” I proceed to compare the value of Ecclesiastical property, as set forth in Liber Regis, with the value of Ecclesiastical property in the present day. The result will speak for itself.
In the time of Henry the Eighth’s Leber Regis, there existed in the King’s Exchequer a “‘ Valor” of Ecclesiastical property, which had been made A.D. 1291, in the time of Edward I., and which
History of the Christian Priesthood. 195
had been used as the standard by which all papal or regal demands on the Clergy were regulated up to the time of the Reformation. Let us then see how far Mr. Howitt’s “scale” holds good with respect to the alleged increase in the value of Ecclesiastical property. Between this ‘‘ Valor” of Edward I., and the Liber Regis of Henry VIII., two hundred and forty-four years hadelapsed; and between the Liber Regis of Henry VIII. and the present period, three hundred years ; if the value of the benefices, there- fore, in the “ Valor” of Edward I. be multiplied by 16 instead of by 20, the result (at least, if Mr. Howitt’s “scale” or ‘* basis of calculation” be worth any thing,) will, of course, produce the value in the Leber Regis of Henry VIII. I have sub- joined, in the note, the names of a few bene- fices promiscuously selected from the Diocese of York; the aggregate value of them in 1291 was 115/. 13s. 4d., and the same benefices (according to Mr. Howitt’s ** scale”) in 1535, ought to have been 1850/. 13s. 4d.; on the contrary, however, it was only 1567. 6s. 9:4... Thus in the space of two
A.D. 1291. If multiplied by 16. a.p. 1535.
(c). Armthorpe. . £5 0 0... £80 0 0 .. £818 8 Badewortinn, ἀν 20) O° Ὁ ἢ Le Fs hala, S brane. 15. Ὁ. UB. . ΕΝ Se at. 2 18, A bow walisn. |, 12°00 OF 2. 192 0 Ὁ. Ὁ 14 610 Eidhmgtonpper ani. 000 Ὁ 9... ΠΡ τῶ Ὁ: 5.19 9 ΒΆΛΑΝ as.) Oy Ov. 128). 0:0“: 9k Smeaton, ΤῊΝ | pc Ὁν τ: 10 τς IO 1 eo Sprotborough . . 26138 4 .. 42613 4 .. 4418 82 Thurhscoe foe tt ana Θ᾽ 8.0: 85 6 8 11. faes Warmesworth . . 5 6 8 85 6 8 6 10 10
£11513 4 £185013 4 £156 6 91 no
196 History of the Christian Priesthood.
hundred and forty-four years, the value of these livings, instead of increasing sixteen fold, had in fact increased only one third. The Parliamentary returns, the general correctness of which cannot be impugned, make the tithes in the hands of the Clergy to amount to 3,000,959/. per annum. Let us see how far this statement agrees with a statistical fact. It would appear from “ The Third Report of the Emigration Committee,” that of 37,094,400 acres in England there are 28,749,000 cultivated. When it is considered that the far greater portion of land in the North of England, and also in Wales, is of very inferior quality, I feel convinced that in putting the average rent of land throughout England and Wales at twenty shillings per acre, I greatly exceed the actual rental. Taking twenty shillings, however, as the basis of my calculation, it would appear, that —
The rental of 28,749,000 acres in England and Wales, at 203. an acre, will be 6,005 ὦ ee a eeO 010 1009
The annual produce of the land in England and Wales,
at three times the rent .. . oy tee a t/a? 0! OO;2ET. DOU Deduct one-seventh for modusses, Ἐπ ΠΕ &c. . 12,321,000 Annual produce of titheablelands. . . . .. . 73,926,000
Assuming the number of rectories and vicarages to
be equal, the annual produce of the lands subject
to rectorial tithes, willbe. . ὁ . - - - . 86,963,000 Allowing compositions (which are “ae general) to
amount to three-fourths of the tithes,if taken in kind,
the rectorial tithes, in England and Wales, will be 2,772,225 Vicarial tithes, one-fourth of the rectorial . . . . 693,056
Total amount of tithes in the hands of the Clergy. . £3,465,281
History of the Christian Priesthood. 197
This calculation, (the accuracy of which cannot be fairly questioned,) whilst it falls short of Mr. Howitt’s absurdly exaggerated statement by nearly six millions, comes within the Parliamentary Re- turns by 464,3227. We may, therefore, assume, for all purposes of calculation, (and, be it remem- bered that this assumption is based, not upon any fanciful theory, but wpon the actual number of cul- tivated acres in England and Wales,) that the Par- liamentary Returns are correct, and consequently that the parochial tithes in the hands of the Clergy amount to 3,000,959/. per annum. Now if this sum be divided by 10,498, the actual number of benefices in England and Wales, it will yield on the average but 285/. to each; and if we include the number of Curates actually doing duty, (which, ac- cording to the Parliamentary Returns, amounts to 5384,) the average income of each actually officiat- ing Clergyman will amount to 256/.4 Now in asking whether either of these amounts be sufficient for the adequate maintenance of the Clergy, I am not going to deny that it may be unequally, nay, perhaps, in some respects inequitably, divided; but this forms no part of the present question. Will Mr. Howitt point out to me any class of educated men in the kingdom whose average emoluments are not far superior to those of the Clergy? Even the Edin- burgh Review, (which, it is notorious, cannot be
(4) It appears from the 28th abstract of the numbers and classes of resident and non-resident incumbents, according to the Diocesan Returns for the year 1831, that there are 6,333 beneficed incumbents actually doing parochial duty.
198 History of the Christian Priesthood.
suspected of any undue leaning towards the Church, ) writes, “* Scarcely any one will say that the number of Ecclesiastical Dignitaries and of Beneficed Clergy in England, as compared with the duties they have to perform, is excessive; or that the services of so learned, respectable, and useful a body of men could be obtained at a cheaper rate ;”° “there is not any set of men more deserving of a liberal provision, or whose labours conduce more to the public advantage, than the Clergy.” Mr. Howitt, however, with all the morbid and sectarian virulence of his nature, maintains, that the inestimable services of this much abused body of men are ‘ overpaid,”® that their revenues are “ exorbitant,”" nay, that ‘‘ they are paid more than the Clergy of all the rest of Christen- dom, by a million sterling and upwards.”! This is only one of the Lo triumphes which Mr. Howitt so frequently and so impudently puts forth. The eccle- siastical property of Spain alone, according to Cabarrus, amounts to 12,500,000,000 reals, or 125,000,0002. It would appear also from the cadastral bases of the twenty-two generalities of Castille and Arragon, that the fixed annual revenues of the Spanish clergy amount to 1,050,936,000 reals, or 10,509,360/.; viz. their patrimony to 78,260,000 reals, or 782,600/.; houses, 24,920,000 reals, or 249,200/.; lands, 439,168,000 reals, or 4,391,6802. ; cattle, 36,572,000 reals, or 865,720/. ; their fixed
(e) Edinburgh Review, No. LXXIII. June, 1822, p. 78.
(f) Edinburgh Review, No. LX VII. August, 1820, p. 71.
(g) 2d Ed. p. 198; 3d Ed. p. 238.
(h) 2d Ed. p. 249; 3d Ed. p. 304. (i) 2d Ed. p. 249; 3d Ed. p. 304.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 199
salaries to 20,616,000 reals, or 206,160/.; their ecclesiastical tithes (according to Martin de Garay, and other economists) to 324,000,000 reals, or 3,240,0002.; and their casual revenues (according to the same authorities) to 127,400,000 reals, or 1,274,000. So that the revenues of the Church of Spain alone are nearly thrice the revenues of the Church of England. So much for the asser- tion of the Cretan Howitt, that the Clergy of this latter church are “‘ paid more than the Clergy of all the rest of Christendom by a million sterling and upwards!”* But why need we go to Spain at all, to disprove Mr. Howitt’s assertion? The Sectarian Destructives talk loudly of the modest income of the Scotch Presbyterian Church, and Mr. Howitt himself, who never condescends to utter the truth unless he thinks it will answer his purpose so to do, affirms, that the Scotch Clergy are ‘ slenderly in- comed ;”! and yet the average income of the Clergy of the Church of England is not greater than that of the Church of Scotland, although it at first sight appears so, from the Ecclesiastical revenues of the latter being more equally divided amongst the Scotch Clergy. The Edinburgh Reviewers state (and their statement is admitted and quoted by Mr. Howitt,™) “in Scotland there are 950 Parish Clergymen, whose incomes average but 275/. a year each.” Now the English Clergy receive, on the average, 285/. a year each," but then it must be recollected, that whilst the Parsonage houses in England are kept in repair
(k) 2d Ed. p. 249; 3d Ed. p. 304. (ἢ) 2d Ed. p. 250; 3d Ed. p. 305. (m) 3d Ed. p. 305. {n) See p. 197.
200 History of the Christian Priesthood.
by the Clergy themselves, in Scotland they are kept in repair by the landowners. Again, there is no living in the Church of Scotland below 1501., for it appears from the Parliamentary Papers, that 191 Clergymen in that country receive payments from the Exchequer in sums from 3/. to 128/. per annum to raise their incomes to 150/. per ann., exclusive of manses, glebes, &c.; and that others, by similar payments, are raised to 2007. per ann. Now from the ‘‘ Report of the Commissioners of Ecclesiastical Revenue Inquiry,” it appears that no less than three thousand five hundred and six livings in England are below 150/. a year, and consequently less in value than the poorest living belonging to “ the slenderly-incomed” Clergy of the Church of
Scotland.° The remedy that will naturally suggest itself to
the mind of the reader for the purpose of increasing
(0) I subjoin the Parliamentary Returns of the Church of England for the years 1809 and 1834, and of the Church of Ireland for the year 1833 :—
CHURCH OF ENGLAND. | 1809.| 1834. CHURCH OF IRELAND. 1833.
£ £ Ξ Ρ Under 50 per annum 1061 | 294 || From 30 to 200 | 465 From 450 and under 100} 1726 [162]
— 100 -- 150] 1211 1691} — 400 — 600 |} 281 -- 160 “τς 200)no ret.|1355 — 600 — 800 | 148 — 200 -- 800) — |1964 || — 800 — 1000] 74 — 800 — 400 — [1817 — 1000 — 1200; 48 — 400 -- 500} — | 830 — 1200 — 1500; 28 — 4500 -- 600} — | 504 || — 1600 — 2000} 20 — 600 -- 700] — | 337 || — 2000 — 2600 10 πὴ τος 800] — | 217 2800 1 — 800 --- 900) — | 129 — 900 — 1000) — 91 — 1000 — 1500) — | 187 — 1500 — 2000 — 31
2000 and upwards -- 18
History of the Christian Priesthood. 201
these 3506 livings will be a more equal distri- bution of Church property; and that amore equal distribution would greatly promote the interests of both Church and people, every sincere friend to the Church must be prepared to admit. A very little reflection, however, will also render it obvious, that the perfectly equal distribution for which Mr. Howitt contends, would be alike injurious to the in- terests of religion, to the Clergy, and to the people.
In advocating an “‘ equal distribution” of Church property, Mr. Howitt says, “ The Scotch Clergy, although slenderly incomed, are not inferior in point of attainments to any in Europe,” “‘ hence we see the exact value of the arguments for high salaries,”4 and for those “ preferments which have been so much vaunted as stimulants to activity and talent m the Church.”
Now even granted that the pastoral duties are as well performed in Scotland as in England, never- theless, in the present state of society, we do not want mere pastors, we also want men of great ac- quired learning and natural talent, able and willing to expose and defeat the sophistry of Deists and Papists, and to strengthen and confirm the minds of the wavering in our most holy faith. I have no wish to contend for a very unequal distribution of Church property, but it is certain that an equal distribution would effectually operate to the removal of all rewards and encouragements (without which
(p) 2d Ed. p. 250; 3d Ed.p. 305. (q) 2d Ed, p. 251; 3d Ed. p. 306. (r) 2d Ed. p. 250; 3d Ed. p. 305.
K3
202 History of the Christian Priesthood.
it were vain to expect ἃ learned and respectable Clergy,) for distinguished merit. Even if the re- venues of the Church of England were more un- equally distributed than in any other church in the world, we must never forget, that the result has been, that in every department of literature many of the most eminent names will be found to be those of English Clergymen; and that the cause of Sacred literature in particular is indebted more to the English Clergy, than to all the world besides. In the Church of Scotland, for example, although most of her ministers are excellent and exemplary men, except in some rare cases, they are treated by the higher orders with little more respect than a menial servant. Mr. Howitt asserts, that “ the Scotch Clergy are not inferior in point of attainments to any in Europe”;’ to this I only reply, by simply asking, where these men of “ attainments” are to be met with? for with the exception of Robertson, Chalmers, Campbell, M‘Knight, Inglis, and some few others, the Church of Scotland has scarcely ever produced a single Divine of any note, or con- sequence. [Even the few Divines of distinction and celebrity in her communion have almost all been persons called away from their livings to public stations in the Universities. Whom can the Scotch Church produce that can vie with the “ burning © and shining lights” in the hemisphere of literature, which have adorned the Church of England, and “ς of whom the world was not worthy?” Amongst
(s) 84 Ed. p. 305; 2d Ed. p. 250.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 208
her BisHors, are to be found the glorious names of Jewel, Whitgift, Bilson, Andrewes, Fotherby, Hall, Usher, Prideaux, Ward, Cosin, Sanderson, Reynolds, Wilkins, Barlow, Barrow, Jeremy Tay- lor, Lloyd, Pearson, Fell, Parker, Burnet, Patrick, Stillingfleet, Tillotson, Tennison, Kidder, Beve- ridge, Bull, Wake, Atterbury, Potter, Fleetwood, Smallridge, Chandler, Hoadley, Gastrell, Hare, Sherlock, Secker, Potter, Claggett, Butler, Cony- beare, Pearce, Warburton, Newton, Lowth, Hurd, Porteus, Watson, Douglas, Horsley, Horne, Randolph, Middleton, Magee, and Lloyd; each of them
“4 Clarum et venerabile nomen Gentibus, et multum nostre quod profuit urbi.”
And amongst her subordinate Dignitaries and Clergy, she can select from a host, Aldrich, Allix, Allestree, Balguy, Bentley, Bingham, Biscoe, Bullock, Castell, Cave, Chapman, Chillingworth, Collet, Comber, Cudworth, Cumberland, Derham, Dodwell, Donne, Greaves, Hales, Hammond, Heylin, Hickes, Holmes, Hooker, Horbery, Hyde, Kennicott, Jackson, Jenkin, Jortin, Lightfoot, Lively, Mangey, Mede, Mill, Milles, Mills, Milner, Nowell, Outram, Paley, Pococke, Shuckford, South, Spencer, Waterland, Whitby, White, and Wilkins. If we come down to the present day, where amongst the living Pres- byterians of Scotland do we meet with men so eminent in literature as Archbishop Howley, Bishops Philpotts, Copplestone, Monk, Kaye, Van Mildert, Marsh, Blomfield, Burgess, and Maltby; or Deans Ireland, Chandler, Pearson, and Turton; or Arch-
204 History of the Christian Priesthood.
deacons Moysey, Berens, Wilkins, Lyall, and ‘Wrangham; or Professors Burton, Faussett, Hamp- den, Keble, Lee, and Pusey; or Prebendaries Faber, Hughes, Slade, Townshend, Gilly, Vaux, Rose, Horne, Gisborne, Benson, Hughes, Wad- dington, and Nott ; or among the Beneficed Clergy, as Carwithen, D‘Oyley, Spry, Bloomfield, Valpy, Hinds, Short, Pearson, Wilks, Shuttleworth, Hun- tingford, Rose, Soames, Croly, Dale, Melvill? &c. The Church of England has produced names which will be illustrious in all ages ; whose works, whilst they continue to enlighten and improve man- kind, are the admiration of the world. Who shall say what portion of the great benefit, which the writings of these illustrious men have conferred upon the Christian world, may be traceable to the un- equal distribution against which Mr. Howitt points the shafts of his sectarian virulence?' It would be invidious to allude to living writers; but in by- gone ages, is it at all probable that the “ Atheo- mastix” of Bishop Fotherby, or the ““ Origines Sacre” of Bishop Stillingfleet, or the ‘“ Analogy of Revealed Religion” of Bishop Butler, would have ever been undertaken, unless they had been urged forward by that hope of well deserved distinction, which, in the Church of England, is the reward (or rather the fruit) of superior mental acquirements- conjoined with piety? In the Church of Scotland, where the equal-distribution principle (to use one of the cant terms of the present day) prevails to a
(ὃ) “ Ad tenuitatem beneficiorum necessario sequitur ignorantia Sacerdotum.”—Panormitan.
History of the Christian Priesthood, 205
provedly injudicious extent, the Ministers of that church willingly admit that m order to convert from infidelity, they are obliged to recommend the works of English Divines. A distinguished living Mi- nister of the Presbyterian Communion of Scotland, writes, ‘‘ Though many look with an evil eye on the endowments of the English Church, to that Church the theological literature of owr nation stands in- debted for her best acquisitions ; nor can we grudge her the wealth of her endowments, when we think how well, under her venerable auspices, the battles of orthodoxy have been fought; that in the holy war they are her sons and her scholars who are foremost in the field, ready at all times to face the threatening mischief, and by the might of their ponderous eru- dition to overbear it.”" ‘ Shall national parsimony, then,” asks a learned, pious, and gifted Clergy- man of the Church of England, ‘ in front of twenty cathedrals, silent, majestic, and grey with years,— standing amidst the stir, and noise, and smoke of opulent commerce, hacker about the remuneration, when the palaces of the metropolitan blacking-men are more splendid than those of the Bishop of Lon- don, when there are ten thousand golden merchants to one golden Prebendary ?”*
To return, however, from this digression ; we next find that Mr. Howitt complains, in unmeasured vitu- peration, that “‘ English Dissenters are compelled to contribute to the support of the Clergy ; Ὑ that the
{u) See Chalmers ‘On Endowments.’
(z) See Rev. W. L. Bowles ‘On English Cathedral Establish- ments.’ (y) 3d Ed. p. 206.
206 History of the Christian Priesthood.
government, in ‘‘ supporting the present Clergy, not only in preference to, but at the expense of, the rest,” ** compel every sect to contribute to that which it abhors;’* that the Dissenters being so ‘‘ compelled to support a mode of religion, and a set of opinions, in their opinion erroneous and antichristian,”? are also compelled to ‘‘ support and propagate all its errors, its injustice, and its absurdities ;”° which is ‘‘ at once an oppression, and a bitter mockery,”? ‘‘ a moral and political absurdity,” and “ a compulsion by which all the rights of conscience are violated.”* In reply to this tirade, I contend, that ‘ English Dis- senters do not contribute in any shape whatever to the support of the Established Clergy, more than any tenant may be said to contribute to the support of his landlord. If, therefore, it be ‘* erroneous, antichristian, unjust, and absurd, at once an op- pression and a bitter mockery,” to pay the clerical landlord, it is equally ‘‘ erroneous, antichristian, unjust, and absurd, at once an oppression and a bitter mockery,” to pay the lay landlord. In “ the good old times” of the commonwealth, when
“ Oyster women locked their fish up, And trudged away to cry ‘No Bishop,’”
such opinions were openly promulgated by the furi- ous, puritanical, and destructive Howztts of that period.
(5) P. 206. (a) P. 209. (δ) P. 206. εἴ Ἐν 208:
(2) P, 206. °°.” ° (2) P. 206. (f) P. 206, 215.
(g) Hume tells us, that during Cromwell’s Protectorate, the doctrine was pretty common, that it was unworthy of a christian man to pay rent to his fellow-creatures, and that the landlords were obliged to use all the penalties of the law against those tenants whose consciences were scrupulous.—(Hume, vol. x. note F.)
History of the Christian Priesthood. 207
When the Church of England became originally entitled to a tenth of the land, it was by the free gift of the landed proprietors themselves, so far back as eleven hundred years ago; and when thus freely bestowed, this tenth portion was appointed to be paid by all subsequent occupiers as a part or por- tion of the rent, with this difference only, that the greater rent was to go to one person, namely, the owner of nine-tenths of the estate; and the lesser, Or BEQUESTED RENT, to be paid to the clerical owner of one tenth of the estate. Since that period, every acre of land in the kingdom which remains tithe- able has been inherited, purchased, or let, subject to this lesser, or bequested rent, which the original proprietor had determined should be paid. No one occupier, therefore, be he Churchman or Dissenter, who has occupied this land subsequently to this division of the rents, can ever, with any show of reason, object to the stipulated payment of both landlords.
The Duke of Norfolk and the Earl of Shrews- bury, although Roman Catholics, are impropriators of tithe; much of the property in Ireland belonging to Mr. O’Connell, and various branches of his family, “consists of lay impropriations of tithes. Every Protestant who rents property of this kind,
(h) In the return made to the House of Commons, May 16, 1834, in the diocese of Killaloe alone, Mr. Bindon Scott, of Ca- hircon, in the county of Clare, and father-in-law of Mr. Maurice O‘Connell, M.P. receives, as lay impropriator, the following sums :—Parish of Kilfedane, 166/. 85. 1d.; Kilmurry and Clon- dralaw, 120/.; Killadysart, 276/. 18s.44d.; Kilchrist, 6 41, 12s, 33d. ;
208 History of the Christian Priesthood.
under any one of these Roman Catholic proprietors, pays tithes to them, although believing the religion professed by them to be “‘ erroneous and anti-chris- tian.” Will Mr. Howitt contend, that such Pro- testant tenants, in paying the tithes impropriated to these Roman Catholic landlords, are thereby ‘‘ com- pelled to support a religion and a set of opinions which they believe to be erroneous and anti-chris- tian?” Now, as the Protestant Episcopal Clergy- man and the Roman Catholic landed proprietor are both supported by property not taken from the people, but allotted by individuals to whom it ori- ginally belonged, it is clear that the Dissenters are no more compelled to support an Episcopal Clergy in whom they do not believe, than they are to sup- port a Roman Catholic duke or earl, in whose reli- gious creed they do not believe. If lands had been left by will for the support of Quaker schools, or Dissenting academies, would Mr. Howitt think any Churchman, renting such land, justified in refusing the payment of rent reserved by such bequest, merely because it was to go for the support of a creed dif-
Kilmachill, 55/. 7s. 84d.; Clondyad, 280]. 15s. 43d.; Kilrush, 86]. 18s. 53d.; Killone, 180/.; Killofin, 160]. Total, 12907. 15s. 23d.
It is needless to add, that however strenuously Mr. O'Connell may clamour for the uncompensated abolition of that portion of the tithes which is paid to the Protestant Clergy of Ireland, he nevertheless, in his first letter to Mr. Sharmon Crawford, inserted in the ** Dublin Pilot” of Oct. 6, 1834, proposes to enact, “ that all persons who hold Jay impropriations should receive for compen- sation for the extinction of their rights the sum they actually paid as purchase money.’’... “1 would make the sum to be paid,” he continues, “ by their extinction, to amount to twelve years’ pur- chase of the sum fairly payable as tithe composition.”
History of the Christian Priesthood. 909
fering from his own? Such a case is closely analo- gous to the payment of tithes, by Dissenters, to the Clergy of the Church of England. Mr. Howitt contends, that Parliament has “a power of resump- tion” in tithes.’ Now the term “resumption” sig- nifies a re-taking, or re-possessing, of that of which the resuming party once had possession. But we have seen that the endowments attached to our Church, and consisting of a tenth part of the land, were the free and spontaneous bequests of the owners of estates; and, therefore, by what sort of logic is it to be proved, that the Legislature have a right of ‘‘ resumption,” or that it is possible for it to resume that which it never gave, and never possessed, and which, therefore, it can never ‘‘ re- sume?” The State neither gave tithes to the Church, nor did it ‘lend them to her for political purposes.” Except a grant in the time of Queen Anne, and a grant a few years ago, for the building of churches, there never has been a grant of any property from the State to the Church, nor an en- dowment of a single parish church. Can Mr. Howitt disprove this from history, or can he show the Acts of Parliament in which, as he most falsely asserts, the State “lent the tithes for poli- tical purposes?” Tithes belong to the Church on the principle of private property, and indepen- dently of all legislative enactments, except so far as these enactments may strengthen and confirm the intentions of those persons who first bequested tithes for the support of Ministers of Religion, and the
(i) 3d Ed. p. 256; see also 2d Ed. p. 215; 3d Ed. p. 265,
210 History of the Christian Priesthood.
more effectual spread of the Gospel of Christ. The State is the Trustee, not the Proprietor; the guardian and regulator, not the ‘‘resumer” or spo- liator, of church property. The arguments by which it has been attempted to prove the contrary, viz. I. That public duty is entailed upon the pos- sessors of the tithes granted; but this does not prove that the State is the owner of the tithes, for if so, the living would necessarily revert to the State on the death of the Clergyman, which it does not; it merely proves, even in the widest acceptation of terms, that the State is a trustee. II. That the existing alliance of Church and State being an essential condition of Church property, and the Par- liament having an unquestionable right to dissolve that alliance, the forfeiture of the endowments of tithes would be the necessary consequence of such a step. This argument, also, is fallacious; for the existing alliance of Church and State is not an essential condition of Church property. Ifall secu- lar interference in spiritual concerns were with- drawn to-morrow, the Church endowments would still equitably and reasonably remain in the same hands. As this assertion is very likely to be called in question by many, especially as so few general readers clearly understand in what the union of Church and State consists, I prefer speaking in the words of one who has long and ably opposed that union. Mr. Josiah Conder, a Dissenter, and the intelligent Editor of the Eclectic Review, (whose ‘ Protestant Nonconformity’ is as far superior to Howitt’s ‘ Popular History of Priest-
History of the Christian Priesthood. 211
craft, as knowledge is superior to ignorance, and the spirit of candid inquiry is superior to the foul slaver of bigot virulence,) in his remarks on Bal- lantyne’s ‘ Comparison of Established and Dis- senting Churches, thus expresses himself: ‘‘ Were the political alliance between the Church and State in this country dissolved, the right of the Church to retain all its endowments would remain the same, including among its endowments the tithes themselves..... To maintain, on the one hand, that the Church of England has, as an Ecclesias- tical Corporation, no collective right of property, appears to us a most untenable and monstrous as- sertion. It is, however, fallacious to talk of the Church property, as being vested in the Legislature. Dissenters who hold this language expose them- selves to the charge of being either very ignorant, or guilty of wilful and malicious representation. The tithes are no more vested in the Legislature, than are the Irish estates of a London Company, or the endowments of our Dissenting academies and meeting-houses. The manner in which the aboli- tion of tithes by an Act of Parliament is sometimes spoken of, as a thing quite feasible, legal, and de- sirable, might have suited a French Constituent Assembly; but that British Christians, nay, Mi- nisters of the Gospel, nay, individuals enjoying the benefit of endowments, should be so far misled by party zeal, as to join in the unprincipled clamour of Church property, raised by the advocates of un- compensated spoliation, forgetful alike of consis- tency, the decencies of their sacred office, and the
212 History of the Christian Priesthood.
plain dictates of common honesty ; this, we must avow it, has filled us with amazement and shame. The cause of Dissent is under small obligations to those who have brought down upon it this deep disgrace. We have reason to know, that the two numbers of the Library of Ecclesiastical Knowledge ‘ on Tithes,’ have been very generally disapproved for the spirit which pervades them. Indeed, some respectable individuals, who originally joined in the Society with the purest intentions, have seceded from it in disappointment and disgust, on finding themselves committed as the patrons of a publication so little creditable to the learning, good taste, discretion, or temper of the body.” III. The third argu- ment by which it is attempted to establish a right in the legislature to confiscate the Church property, is insisted upon by Mr. Howitt in these words: ‘* The very means by which the tithes held by the Popish Clergy were converted into the maintenance of a Protestant Clergy implies in the Government a power of resumption.”* But such an inference derives its sole weight and authority from the as- sumption that our Saxon ancestors, who first gave the tenth portion of the produce of their estates for Ecclesiastical purposes, professed the religion now called ‘ Roman Catholic ;? whereas it has been proved, that they held the same tenets as are entertained by the Protestant Clergy of the present day ; and that the Romish Clergy who subsequently gained possession of these tithes differed in Creed,
(k) 8d Ed. p: 256.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 215
Worship, and Government, from the donors. Now, it is readily admitted that the State has an un- doubted right as Trustee, or Guardian of the Church property, to superintend the trust by seeing ts application to purposes in strict accordance with “the original intentions of the donors ;” and this s all the State did do, when, at the Reformation, ‘the tithes held by the Popish Clergy were con- verted into the maintenance of a Protestant Clergy.” [he State acted in its character as Trustee, not as 1 Proprietor. It does not follow, that because the State is the Trustee, that, therefore, it must neces- sarily be also the Proprietor of the Church pro- verty ; or that, because the Parliament has a right o regulate the application of the tithes agreeably o the wills of the founders, that, therefore, it must iave a right to confiscate the tithes, or to apply hem to purposes not immediately religious. The ame party cannot be Trustee and Proprietor. In act, with a strange degree of inconsistency, Mr. Howitt, after advocating the confiscation of the ithes, which are, to all intents and purposes, a ivate endowment, argues, that ‘‘in resuming he National [?] property of tithes, we must respect t the same time all private endowments made since he Reformation, which ought to be held as sacred s the private endowments of Dissenters.°" Now he argument which applies to the private
(1) The reader who may doubt the accuracy of this inference, is equested to turn again and read attentively from p. 142 to p. 167. (m) 3d Ed, p, 268.
214 History of the Christian Priesthood.
endowments of Dissenters,” applies with equal force to “the private endowments” of the Church of England made before the Reformation as to those made “ since the Reformation,” and for the very same reasons, viz. because they are both held according to “the original intentions of the donors.””
To conclude, if the Parliament must interfere with the tithes, let them begin by allowing a moderate compensation to Lay Impropriators, and thereby effect, what Mr. Howitt is pleased to call (and here the word would be rightly applied) a ‘‘ resumption” of this Ecclesiastical property; not, indeed, for civil purposes, but for the benefit of the Church, by restoring to her, and allowing her the “ resump- tion” of the bequested tithe property, which was wrested from her by that impious and God- forgetting tyrant, Henry VIII., whose abominable desecration was yielded to by the hungry, tyrant- compelled, and craven Parliaments of the day. “Τὴ mine own opinion and sense,” writes Lord Bacon, “‘ I must confess that all the Parliaments since 27 and 31 of Hen. VIII., (who gave away Impropriations from the Church) seem to me to stand in a sort obnoxious and obliged to God, in conscience, to do somewhat for the Church, to reduce the Patrimony thereof to a competency.”° More than half the tithes which belonged to the Church before the Reformation is now in the hands
(x) 3d Ed. p. 266: compare also p. 258. (0) Lord Bacon, ‘ Of the Pacification of the Church,’
History of the Christian Priesthood. 215
of laymen,? who not only exact the payment of them most rigorously, but do no service in re- turn. It is well known, that when tithes were first impropriated to the Laity in the reign of Henry VIII., the payment of them to mere laymen was a custom so unprecedented in itself, and so contrary to the ideas which had always been en- tertained that tithes belonged of right to the Clergy only, that numbers refused to pay tithe rent to the Laity, who had so sacrilegiously obtained the im- propriation ; and to such a height was this feeling carried, that the Parliament of that period found it necessary to enact a particular statute to compel the payment of tithes to the new lay-possessors. Some of the best and most learned men of those times, as Mr. Selden, Judge Rastal, Sir Henry Spelman, Sir Edward Coke, Lord Chancellor Bacon, and others of distinguished learning and talent, have agreed that tithes ought never to have come into the hands of the Laity, and that impropriators were bound in conscience to restore them (as indeed many of them did) to the Churches to which they belonged. Will Mr. Howitt permit these tithe- usurpers to continue in quiet possession of this ill-gotten property, to which they have no rightful claim, (unless time can alter the immutable nature
(p) In the Church of Ireland also, the whole tithes of 115 parishes, and a greater or less share of the tithes of 633 parishes, (that is, more than half the livings in Ireland,) yielding £114,000 per annum, are in the hands of lay-impropriators. The Marquis of Donegal, for example, has the tithes of twenty-eight parishes; the Duke of Devonshire, of twenty-six; the Earl of Cork, of seven- teen; the Earl of Shannon, of eleven, &c.
216 History of the Christian Priesthood.
of great moral principles, and convert a wrong into a right,) and the proceeds of which are applied in utter opposition to ‘the original intentions of the donors?” Will he propose the confiscation of the privately endowed property of the Church, which has a prescription of more than a thousand years, and the proceeds of which are, as has been already shown, strictly applied ‘‘ according to the original intentions of the donors,” and thereby re-enact in the nineteenth century the audacious Church robbery which disgraced the sixteenth century? For my part, I utterly protest against the right of the Parliament to confiscate one farthing of the clerical tithes of the Church. It is true I cannot deny its power to do so, neither can I deny the power of an armed highwayman, who found me defenceless, to rob me of my purse; both the Parliament and the highwayman have, in the case supposed, the power ; but whilst truth is truth, and justice is justice, they can never have the right. Let the legislature act the part of prudently zealous and faithful trustees ; and let them never forget, that, both with nations and with individuals, ‘‘ Honesty is the best policy.”
CHAP: 8.
I BELIEVE it is Tacitus who says, “ Plebi non judicium, non veritas, ex opinione multa, ex veritate pauca judicat.” If the opinion of the close-thinking Roman be correct, we at once per- ceive why Howitt’s ‘‘ Popular History of Priest- craft” has attained to some degree of celebrity among the unthinking many, whilst it has shrunk to its proper level in the estimation of the thinking few. For the sake of religion and good govern- ment, we will continue to pursue the dark and winding track of this bold demagogue; and as the light of truth is let in upon the path, we trust that every impartial inquirer will exclaim, as the Roman did of old, ““ Magna est veritas, et przevalebit.”
We have hitherto contemplated the Church of England only in her incidental or adventitious cha- racter as an Ecclesiastical Establishment. It has been shown that a National Church is a scriptural and a necessary institution; and that the temporal privileges and endowments enjoyed by the Clergy of the National Church of England are, upon the principles of right and justice, inalienable. But even, if it could be proved to the entire satisfaction of this priest-hater, that a National Church was not only
L
218 History of the Christian Priesthood.
necessary for the preservation of religion and mo- rality, but also in strict accordance with the Gospel of Christ, Mr. Howitt would nevertheless refuse his assent to the Church established in this country, inasmuch as he distinctly asserts that the civil ma- gistrate has acted contrary to Scripture in preferring an Episcopal to a Presbyterian Church.
_ Mr. Howitt maintains that Christ delegated to all his ministers an equalety of ministerial power ; that there can be proved from the New Testament but one order of men authorized by Christ to officiate as the ministers of religion, all being of equal grade, and having inherently equal spiritual rights ; whereas, continues Mr. Howitt, by the Church established in England, ‘‘ the Episcopal order are, by express appointment of God, considered supe- rior to the Presbyters, and all priests not ordained by bishops are spurious.”*... ““ Here we have the appearance of coming upon scriptural ground; bat when we examine into facts, we find we are as far off as ever. This Reformed Church would have us believe that it is founded on the Rock of Ages, and organized in the strict principles of the New Testament; yet in almost the only instance in which it has retained the scriptural name [ Bishop], it has taken care to separate it from the scriptural office.””.... ‘ The Bishop of the Apostolic Church was synonymous with the Elder and Presbyter— was, in fact, the pastor of a flock.”*.... ‘‘ No minister of the Gospel possesses jurisdiction over
(a) 2d Ed. p. 186; 3d Ed. p. 187. (6) 3d Ed. p. 341. (c) 3d Ed. p. 341.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 9219
another ;”* and consequently, ‘‘ the English Bishop has not an attribute in common with the Apostolical. He is not the pastor of one flock; his duties are of a widely different nature.”°....‘* St. Jerome, in the fourth century, expressly states how this original order of things was changed :—‘ By the ordinances of Christ,’ writes St, Jerome, ‘ Priests and Bishops were all one; but afterwards the Emperor divided them, and made Bishops lords, and Priests servants; and this was the cause of envy, and quenched much charity.’”! Thus far Mr. Howitt. Let us now proceed to the facts of the case.
The Church of England, in ‘ retaining the scrip- tural name of Bishop, has nod separated it from the scriptural office:” ‘‘ the Bishop of the Apostolic Church was not synonymous with the Elder and Presbyter ;” the Bishop was not simply “ the pastor of a single flock ;” the ‘* Bishop did possess jurisdic- tion over other ministers ;” he did perform “ duties of precisely the same nature,” and ‘had attributes in common with” the Bishops of the Church of England; “‘ the Emperor [Constantine] did not divide Priests and Bishops, making Bishops lords, and Priests servants,” for Bishops and Priests were so divided nearly three centuries before Constan- tine lived; and every reader possessing a single particle of candour, will, whatever may be his reli- gious opinions, be not a little astonished to learn that St. Jerome never wrote any thing of the kind. Having thus glanced at Mr. Howitt’s falsehoods, I now apply myself to confute his arguments.
(4) 3d Ed. p. 227. (ὁ) 8d Ed. p. 241. (0) 3d Ed. p. 241. L 2?
ἕν
220 History of the Christian Priesthood.
Christ not only constituted an order of men au- thorized to minister in sacred things, but he farther constituted them by defferent degrees of consecration or ministerial power, in a tréple imparity or grada- tion of official rank and order, appropriating, by virtue of their different degrees of consecration, a distinction of office and power to each of the three Orders. To the highest, or Epzscopal Order, was especially and exclusively assigned the power of delegating or transmitting the same authority to others, and from the exercise of that power (ἐ. 6. the power of ordination) all were excluded whose administration was in an inferior or subordinate ministry to that of the Episcopate. ‘This triple imparity of ministerial order or power (the Episco- pate, Presbyterate, and Diaconate), thus instituted by Christ himself, was continued by his Apostles, persevered in by the Primitive Church, and from thence uninterruptedly maintained by the Universal Church for more than fifteen centuries.
There is evidence explicitly revealed in Scripture, abundantly sufficient to convince an impartial in- quirer of the divine institution of Episcopacy. Be- fore, however, we proceed to our proofs, I cannot help digressing for a moment to observe, that in the Jewish Church there also existed a threefold Order of Priesthood, called High Priest, Priests, and Levites, which three orders were distinguished not only by a difference in the form of consecration, but also in the peculiar functions assigned to each order.®
(g) Exod. vi. 16, 20; xl. 12, &c.; Numb. iii. 6,&c.; viii. 5,
History of the Christian Priesthood. 221,
I do not infer, that because the Jewish Church was 50 administered, it therefore follows, that the Chris- tian Church must necessarily be also governed by a threefold Order of Ministers. Inasmuch, however, as Christ unquestionably made the Old Testament his exemplar, looking to many of the Jewish rites and institutions as patterns and standards for the Christian Church, Mr. Howitt must at all events concede, that a threefold order of Clergy must not necessarily be rejected under the Gospel.
Under the Christian dispensation, neither our Saviour nor his Apostles (who, be it remembered, were Jews) either abolished this threefold distinc- tion of ministerial order, or substituted a parity of Order in its place. Of course, I do not mean to contend, that the offices of Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon, correspond in every respect with the ofiices of High Priest, Priest, and Levite. The Jewish dispensation being the shadow of good things to come, and the Christian dispensation being the substance itself, it necessarily follows that a perfect similarity between the offices in these two divinely- given dispensations cannot be looked for. It is sufficient if it can be shown that there be a three- fold ministry in both, and that there still remains a sufficient resemblance between the two, to prove that their divine Author meant this triple imparity to continue. The office of Bishop was somewhat analogous to that of the High Priest, both being
Compare also Exod. xxxix. 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 28, 30, 31,55; xxvill. 4, 39, 40; xxxvi. 28, 30, 31, &e.
222 History of the Christian Priesthood.
the spiritual governors of their respective churches; " a like similarity may be traced between the Priests of the Jewish and Christian Churches; and also between the Levites, or Readers of the Law, and the Deacons, who are Readers of the Gospel.*
It should be premised, before this important sub- ject be further discussed, that we do not look to Scripture for official names but for official powers. Names are not given until after things are in existence, to indicate which they then become neces- sary: for example,—at the creation of the world, ‘God brought the beasts unto Adam, to see what he would call them.”! Things pre-existed, and therefore are necessarily more ancient than names. There is no exception to this rule; hence it follows, the order and office of a Bishop, of a Presbyter, and of a Deacon, must have existed before the names of Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon. If we can find a triple emparity of official powers, distinct in their several characters and employments, and cor- responding with the powers and commission of each Order in the Church of England, we shall have found all that an impartial inquirer can desire, and need pay no regard to the name, which is not of itself alone worth a line of controversy. The names of the Episcopate, [ἡ ’Emtoxomi,™] the Presbyterate, [τὸ
(h) Numb. 111. 4,6; Deut. xvii.; Lev. xvi.; Acts xxiii. 4, 5.
(i) Lev. i. 5, 7, 8; ii. 23; Numb. xv. 40; Exod. xxx. 7.
(k) The Syrian Christians call their Deacons “ Sciamas;”’ the ancient name of the Jewish Levites (now called by modern Jews
‘‘ Hazars”) was “ Sciamas.” (1) Gen. ii. 19. (m) Acts 1. 26.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 228
Πρεσβυτέριον,"] and the Diaconate, [ἡ Acaxovia,°| were given by the Apostles to this threefold order, shortly after our Saviour’s resurrection. Controvertists, of whatever calibre, admit that our Lord Jesus Christ ministered to the Church in his Father’s name. Although at no period of his life destitute either of wisdom to teach, or of power to confirm, by miracles, the great truths of his religion, he did not take upon himself the Priestly character until he had received an official commission or ordi- nation from his Father, which was conferred upon him by the visible descent of the Holy Spirit, conse- crating and setting him apart, as it were, to his most holy office, and investing him with special authority for the public exercise of its most holy functions.” And it is worthy of all attention, that prior to this ordination to the priestly office, we read neither of doctrine delivered, nor of miracle wrought. The office to which Christ was ‘“‘ called of God,” and * anointed with the Holy Ghost” was thrice re- peated ;2 consequently, our Saviour’s commission was threefold, and the form of his investiture three- fold; and he filled the very three orders to which the names of Bishop, Priest, and Deacon, were afterwards given, thereby instituting the things to which his Apostles afterwards gave the names. Christ acted as a Deacon, when he read and preached in the Synagogue; as a Priest, when he administered the sacrament to his Apostles; as a Bishop, when, with the divine afflatus, he breathed
(n) 1 Tim. iv. 14. (0) Rom. xi. 13; 2 Cor. vi.4. (p) Heb.v. 5. (q) Matt. 111, 15, 17; John xii, 28; Matt. xvii. 5.
224 History of the Christian Priesthood.
upon them Episcopal consecration, saying, ‘‘ As my Father sent me, even so send I you; receive the Holy Ghost.”* Be it specially noticed, that these three offices every way correspond with the powers and commission of the same three orders of Bishop, Priest, and Deacon, in the Church of England. In reference to Christ’s first ordination, he is called a “‘ Deacon,” [Διάκονος,"] in reference to his second ordination, he is called a *‘ Priest,” ' and in reference to his ehérd and last ordination, he is called a ““ Beshop and Ῥαβίον, ἃ an “" Apostle and High Priest.”* Here, then, is an authority for a threefold Order of Clergy, firmly based upon the Sacred Scriptures, illustrated in the person of Christ himself, and, therefore, altogether unassail- able. If, however, the ordination or commission of the Saviour had been but one, and the form of his investiture but one, it would not therefore follow, that our Divine Master appointed but one order of ministers. In providing a constant succession of ‘‘ Ambassadors from God to men,” he might have seen fit, had he received but one commission from on high, to have made a triple diviszon of the powers therein contained. We have shown, how- ever, that the visible commission of Christ was threefold, and it shall be further shown that a threefold order of ministers was actually instituted by him for the government of his Church.
The lowest powers included in this threefold com- mission were those of Preaching and Baptism :—
(r) John xx. 21,22. (s) Rom. xv. 8. (¢), Heb,.x./215 (uw) 1 Pet. ii. 25. (5) Heb, 111. 1,
a _—
——— TS Δ ὡνι όνδων ὰὰ
History of the Christian Priesthood. 225
the one, to instruct men in the principles of the Christian Religion, the other, to constitute them members of the Christian Church. Christ selected twelve of his disciples, whom he ordained to the ex- ercise of this ¢nferior administration or commission. St. Luke, in speaking of these twelve, says, ‘ It came to pass in those days, that Jesus went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God; and when it was day, he called unto him his disciples, and of them he chose twelve”Y....** Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority to preach the kingdom of God”? .... ‘ And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature: he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned”*... . ‘‘ And they departed, and went through the towns, preaching the Gospel.”” These Twelve constituted but a small minority of Christ’s disciples; for we read that “‘ there went out to John, Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him.”° Now, without question, most, if not all, of the multitudes thus baptized by the forerunner, became the disciples of Christ, when baptized “ in the name of him that was to come, to whom John bore witness ; ἃ declaring that “ he himself was not the Christ, but was sent before him.”® But even were it otherwise, numerous as John’s disciples
(y) Luke vi. 12, 13. (5) John 111. 26. (a) Mark xvi. 15, 16. (b) Luke ix. 6. (c) Matt. iii. 5. (d) John 1. 7; iii. 26. (e) John iii. 28.
L 3
226 History of the Christian Priesthood.
must have been, we are told, that ““ Christ made and baptized more disciples than John;”! nay, that “6 all men came to him to whom John bare witness, (ἡ. ὁ. to Christ,) and he baptized them.” The jfirst commission of this chosen number, was a very limited one, restricting them to Preaching and Baptism; offices, be it remembered, which are considered in the Church of England as within the qualification of the lowest order of ministers, or Deacons.
When the Twelve [Deacons] may be supposed to have been sufficiently qualified for the exercise of a higher administration than that in which they had been hitherto employed, Christ, by a new ordina- tion, delegated to them authority ‘‘ to bless” the elements of bread and wine, which were thence- forth to be taken in commemoration of the death and sacrifice of himself. The inspired Evangelist thus records this second [Presbyteral] commission, or ordination, given by our Saviour to his Apostles : ** Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to them, and said, Take, eat, this is my body: and he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins;”" “ this do, (ὦ. 6. take bread, bless it, and break it, and give it to others, saying, Take, eat, this is Christ’s body, &c.) in remembrance of me.”! St. Paul, in re- ference to this second, or Presbyteral ordination,
(f) John iv. 1. (g) Jobniii. 26. (h) Matt. xxvi. 26—28. (7) Luke xxii, 19.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 227°
distinctly says, ‘‘ The cup of blessing which we bless.”* Now, it is unquestionable, that in the authority thus given to ‘ bless” or consecrate the elements of bread and wine, ‘in remembrance of Christ,” there was, as in the first commission, the distinct impress of a distinct character. When Christ gave to the Twelve their first ordination, that ordination only authorized them to “ preach” and to ““ baptize.” ‘Their second commission or ordi- nation invested them with a power to perform certain offices which their first had given them no power to do.
It is important to notice, that before the Twelve had been admitted to this second and higher order in the Christian ministry, [viz. that of Presbyters, | ‘the Lord appointed” to the lowest, or Diaconal office, ‘‘ other seventy” to supply their place, “‘ and sent them, two and two, before his face into every city and place whither he himself would come ; therefore said he unto them, The harvest truly is creat, but the labourers are few... . Go your ways, and into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.”! ‘To these Seventy no commission was given by our Saviour, but the limited one of preaching repentance ; we no where find the slightest intimation that their commission invested them with any power to “bless” (or consecrate) the elements of bread and wine; neither are ‘ the Seventy” ever recorded to have any where exercised that power. It is needless, therefore, to observe,
(k) 1 Cor. x. 16. (i): Lukex: 1,8, 9.
228 History of the Christian Priesthood.
that their first ordination did not confer upoa the Seventy the same powers which were conferred upon the Twelve by their second [Presbyteral] ordina- tion.™ Had not Christ intended this inequality, why are “the Twelve” mentioned apart, and contradis- tinguished from “‘ the Seventy?” Why (had their offices been equal) do we never read of “ the eighty- two?” Why does the Evangelist particularize the names of ““ the Twelve,” and only state the number of the Seventy? As the first ordination of the Seventy was inferior to the second ordination of the Twelve, so were the miraculous powers conferred upon them. The Seventy healed only by the touch, the Twelve by their very shadow; the Seventy had the Holy Ghost, the Twelve gave the Holy Ghost.
Our Saviour, at the period of which we are speaking, was clearly ‘‘ the Bishop” (as indeed St. Peter calls him,") of this newly created Priest- hood, exerting that principal ecclesiastical authority in the Ordination of inferior ministers, and the Supreme government of the Church, which has ever
(m) “ In Regno duedecim Phylarche, totidem sibi Christus constituit Apostolos; et, ne dubitaretur, qud respexerit, duodecim ipsis thronos, in quibus judicaturi essent totidem tribus Israelis. In Regno Senatores Magni Synedrii LXX. totidem Evangelistas constituit Christus. Tertius in Regno est dignitas Judicum Ur- banorum, qui B'3pt vocabantur, quod Greecé est Πρεσβύτεροι, in Keclesia quoque Presbyteri Apostolos et Evangelistas tertio loco sequuntur, Horum Judicum Principes vocabantur ppp, quod Grace est Ἔπίσκοποι, ut modo diximus; ita et Presbyterorum in Ecclesia Principes Episcopi. Denique Judicibus his inserviebant, Day vocabantur, quod Gracé est Διάκονοι ; neque aliter vocati sunt in Ecclesia hi, qui infra Presbyteros sunt constituti.”” (H. Grotii de Imp. Summe Potest. p. 393. 8vo. Paris, 1648.)
(u) 1 Pet. ii. 25.
ee SS Se eee
History of the Christian Priesthood. 999
since been considered as inseparable from the Epis- copal office. The Twelve and the Seventy formed two distinct Orders of ministers, (which two Orders were subsequently called, in the language of Scrip- ture, the ‘* Presbyterate,”° and the ‘ Diaconate,” ?) and under his supreme Episcopal authority we see the immediate divine institution, not only substantially, but specifically, of three distinct orders, or offices of ministry, viz. one Bishop, twelve Presbyters, and seventy Deacons ; the functions appropriated to each every way corre- sponding with the powers and commission of each Order in the Church of England.
We are still farther confirmed in this view of the subject by the fact, that ‘‘ the T'welve” [Presbyters| were subsequently invested by their Heavenly Master with a third or Episcopal commission, con- stituting them the visible ‘‘ Bishops and Pastors’’4 of the Church which he had founded, and of which he had previously ordained them Deacons and Presbyters.
To maintain the Episcopal succession from himself, when ‘the time of his departure was at hand,” our blessed Lord, being about to resign the personal Episcopacy of his Church, constituted the Twelve Apostles, by a third ordination, as his successors in the Episcopal office. ““ Ali power,” says he, ‘‘is given unto me in heaven and earth;” and, by virtue of that divine power, he thus ordains his Apostles: “ As my Father hath sent ΜῈ, EVEN
(s) 1 Tim. iv. 14. (p) Rom. xi. 13; 2 Cor. vi. 4. (q) 1 Pet. ii. 25.
230 History of the Christian Priesthood.
so send I you;* that is, As my Father hath consti- tuted me “the Szshop and Pastor of the souls” * of men, “‘ the Apostle and High Priest”* of ‘ the Church which I have purchased with my blood,”" even so do I ordain you, my successors, ‘‘ Bishops and Pastors of the souls” of men, “ Apostles and High Priests,” giving you Episcopal autho- rity to govern my Church, and to ordain its ministers, even as £ have governed it, and or- dained you; “ Lo, I am with you alway,” (that is, not with them as zndéveduals, for as men they were subject to death, but with their office, and their successors in that office,) ‘‘ even unto the end of the world:”* and “ when he had said this,” continues the Evangelist, ‘‘ he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive the Holy Ghost.” 9
Now, in this ¢hzrd commission, we have again (as in the two former ones, the first of which gave the power of preaching and baptizing, and the second of ‘ blessing” or consecrating the elements of bread and wine in the Eucharist,) the impress of a distinct character; a character by which the Apostles were invested with powers which they did not previously possess; viz. that of exercising Su- preme authority in the Church of Christ, and of ordaining others, by whom the purposes of Christ’s ministry should be fulfilled, ‘‘ even unto the end
(r) John xx. 21, 22.
(s) ᾿Επίσκοπον καὶ Ποιμένα, (1 Pet. ii. 25); St. Peter elsewhere joins ᾿Επισκοποῦντες and Ποιμαίνοντες together, (1 Pet. v. 2.)
(¢) Heb. iii. 1. (u) Acts xx. 28. («) Matt. xxviii. 20. (y) John xx. 21, 22.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 231
of the world.” It is worthy of observation, that the Twelve Apostles alone were invested with these two powers of Ordination and Jurisdiction: the ““ Seventy” were not even present when the last and plenitudinal commission was given to the Twelve.
We have hitherto contented ourselves with proving from the Scriptures the existence of the several sacred offices, or official powers, of Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon, prior to the existence of the names by which those offices were subsequently distinguished. As every office necessarily existed antecedent to the dtle or name by which it after- wards became known, we sought after things, not words. We have found the thing sought, viz. a triple imparity of Ecclesiastical offices or orders, perfectly distinct and separate in their several characters and employments, and strictly corresponding with the powers and commission of each Order in the Church of England.
Subsequently, we find the Apostles selected from the titles of secular honour or offices then in use,’ the names of Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon, whereby to designate the Ecclesiastical offices or orders of which we have spoken.?
(z) Ov παρ᾽ ᾿Αθηναίων εἰς τὰς ὑπηκόους πόλεις ἐπισκέψασθαι τὰ παρ᾽ ἑκάστοις πεμπόμενοι, Ἐπίσκοποι καὶ φύλακες ἐκαλοῦντο, ods οἱ Λάκωνες ἁρμοστὰς ἔλεγον, - (5 14.) Κατέστησεν ἔφ᾽ ἑκάστοις τῶν mayav ἄρχοντα Ἐπίσκοπον τε καὶ περίπολον τῆς ἰδίας μοίρας, [Dionys. Halicarnan. in Numa Pompilio, Απεῖᾳ. lib. ii] “ Vuit me Pompeius esse quem tota hec Campania et maritima ora habeat ᾿Ἐπίσκοπον, ad quem delectus et negotii summa referatur.” (Cic. ad Attic. lib. vil. epist. ii.)
(a) ᾿Επίσκοπος [LXX.] is used in Nehem. xi. 14, 20, as the Overseer of the Priests and Levites, Heb. ΡΒ; Comp. 1 Mac. i.
232 History of the Christian Priesthood.
The highest order of Clergy, (whose office was made by our Saviour to consist in ordaining minis- ters, and exercising Supreme authority in the Church, ) they called the Epéscopate, [ἡ ᾿Ἐπισκοπὴ Ὁ]; the second order, (whose office consisted in adminis- tering the Sacraments,) the Presbyterate, [τὸ Πρεσ- βυτέριον “7; and the ¢herd order, (whom Christ had empowered only to preach the Gospel, and to baptize,) the Diaconate, [ἡ Διακονία ].
The Apostles themselves (to whom, as we have shown, the Hpiscopacy or oversight of the Christian
51; thus Eleazar, the son of Aaron, is in the LXX. called Ἐπίσκοπος, from Num. iv. 16. In Isaiah, where the Prophet is foretelling the glory and felicity of the Church by the accession of the Gentiles, for the Heb. ΠΡῪΣ tran pow qnopp snow), the LXX. translate it, καὶ δώσω τοὺς dpxdvras σοῦ ἐν εἰρήνῃ, καὶ τοὺς Ἐπίσκοπου 5 σοῦ ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ. Τῇ is not improbable that the Overseers of the Christian Church are in the New Testament called Ἐπίσκοποι, from this very passage of Isaiah. This word Ἐπίσκοπος, by a smooth and easy transition through the Latin [ Episcopus ], Teutonic [ Bischoff], Dutch [Bischopp], and Saxon tongues [Biycop], becomes our word Bishop. In like wanner, the term Πρεσβύτερος becomes our word Priest (for the Spaniards alone use Presbytero); Latin, Presbyter; Teutonic, Prester ; Dutch, Priester; French, Prestre ; Danish, Prest; and Saxon, Pneoyc. The Saxons first used Presoster, whence by a farther contraction came Preste, and Priest. ‘* Episcopatus autem vo- cabulum inde dictum, quod 1116 qui superefficitur superintendat, curam, scil. gerens subditorum... Sed Presbyter Gracé, Latiné Senior interpretatur, non pre ztate, vel decrepita senectute, sed propter honorem et dignitatem quam acceperunt.” (Isidor. lib. vii. Etymolog. c. 12.) Οὐδὲν ἐστὶ Πρεσβύτερον, ἄντι τοῦ οὐδὲν ἐστὶ τιμιώτερον ; καὶ Πρεσβεύειν τὸ τιμᾶν, παρὰ Πλάτωνι. (Julius Pollus in loc.) ‘* Nec dicit Paulus Apostolus si quis Episcopatum desiderat, bonum desiderat gradum, sed bonum opus desiderat, quod in majore ordine constituitur, possit, si velit, oceasionem habere exer- cendarum virtutum.” (S. Hieron. in loc.)
(Ὁ) Acts i. 26. (c) 1 Tim. iv. 14. (4) Rom. xi. 13; 2 Cor. vi. 4
History of the Christian Priesthood. 238
Church had been committed by Christ,) were them- selves the Bishops of that Church. Bishop and Apostle were synonymous terms, and the duties attached to them synonymous; the Bishopric was an Apostolate, and the Apostolate a Bishopric :— His bishopric (é. e. his apostolate) let another man take,” ὁ writes St. Luke, speaking of the office va- cated by Judas; if, therefore, the office to which Matthias was chosen was an Sptscopal one (ἡ “Ἑπίσκοπη,) it is clear that similar offices held by the other Apostles were also Episcopal. Accord- ingly, the whole administration of the Apostolate, as recorded throughout the New Testament, is one continued illustration of their Epeseopal juris- diction.
We find them, for example, at one time charging and commanding,’ at another time controlling and censuring ;= at one time giving laws and ordi- nances," at another time enforcing their observ- ance ;' at one time ordaining Church ministers, * at another time urging them to the performance of their duty ;! at one time threatening punishment,™ at another time inflicting it." If all these acts be not strictly, and in themselves, acts of Episcopal juris- diction, I should feel obliged to Mr. Howitt to define what are acts of Episcopal jurisdiction, or in what the office of Episcopacy consists.
These twelve Aposiles, or Bishops, although equal among themselves, possessed a superiority
(e) Acts i. 20. (f) 2 Thess. iii. 6, (g) 1 Cor. v. 4, 7. (h) 1 Cor. xi. 2. (i)1Cor. xv. 1. (1) 2 Tim. i. 6. (2) 1 Tim. v. 21; vi. 13; 2 Tim. iv. i. (m) 2 Cor. xiii. 2.
(n) 1 Tim. i. 20.
234 History of the Christian Priesthood.
inherent and peculiar to their office, over two other Orders of ministers, viz. Presbyters [or Elders] and Deacons. Besides “ the seventy” Presbyters of Christ’s ordination,°® one of whom was “ ordained” into “ the Bishopric”? vacated by Judas, and thenceforth ‘‘ numbered with the eleven Apostles :” 4 the Apostles are, on several occasions, recorded to have ‘ ordained Presbyters [Πρεσβύτερους] in every Church ;”" as, for example, at ‘‘ Phoenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch,” and “in Judea, and Galilee, and Samaria,” where Churches being planted, ““ had rest and were multiplied.”s We frequently read in the Acts of the Apostles, of the Presbyters of different dioceses; of the Presbyters of Jerusalem, (Acts xi. 30; xv. 4, 6; xvi. 4); and of the Presby- ters of Kphesus, (Acts xx. 17; 1 Tim. v. 17; iv. 14.) The texts here quoted, sufficiently prove there were many “ Presbyters” in each of these dioceses. I need not, I hope, observe, that the “" Presbyters” here alluded to, were all of them Ministers of the Gospel, and could not have been mere laymen;
(0) Eusebius writes—Téy δ᾽ ἑβδομήκοντα μαθητῶν κατάλογος μὲν οὐδεὶς οὐδαμῆ φέρεται. Λέγεται γε μὴν εἷς αὐτῶν Βαρνάβας γεγονέναι" ov διαφόρως μὲν καὶ αἱ πράξεις τῶν ᾿Αποστόλων ἐμνημονεύσαν, οὐχ ἥκιστα δὲ καὶ ὃ Παῦλος γράφων Γαλάταις. τούτων δ᾽ εἶναι φάσι καὶ Σωσθένην τὸν ἅμα Παύλῳ Κορινθίοις ἐπιστείλαντα" ἢ δ᾽ ἱστορία παρὰ Κλημέντι κατὰ τὴν πέμπτην τῶν ὑποτυπώσεων, ἐν Hy κ' τ. Δ. « « «καὶ Ματθίων δὲ τὸν ἀντὶ ᾿Ιούδα τυῦ προδότου τοῖς ᾿Αποστόλοις ἐγκαταλέ- γεντα, τὸν τε σύν αὐτῷ τῇ ὁμοίᾳ ψήφῳ τιμήθεντα, τῆς αυτῆς τῶν ἑβδομήκοντα κλήσεως ἠξίωσθαι κατέχει Adyos* καὶ Θαδδαῖον δὲ ἕνα τῶν αὐτῶν εἶναι φάσι... .. ἔπειτα δ᾽ ὦφθαι αὐτὸν ᾿Ιακώβω φησιν" εἷς δὲ καὶ οὗτος τῶν φερομένων τοῦ Σωτῆρος μαθητῶν, ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ αδελφών ἦν. (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. i. cap. xii. p. 35.)
a Acts i. 20. (4) Acts i, 26. (r) Acts xiv. 29, (s) Acts ix. 31.
History of the Christian Priesthood. = 235
inasmuch as they are every where spoken of as having been ‘ordained”' to the ministerial office, as being ““ Presbyters of Churches,”" as “ feeding the Church of God,”* as “ preaching the word,” as “ labouring in word and doctrine.”
Now we find these ¢wo Orders of Ministers (viz. Apostles and Presbyters) are all along déstinguished from each other in the passages which speak of them as “‘ the Apostles and Presbyters ; 5 the Apo- stles being one Order, and the Presbyters another.
The Apostles not only “ ordained Presbyters in every Church,”* but are also recorded to have ‘prayed, and laid their hands on seven men of honest report, and full of the Holy Ghost and of wisdom,”” whom they ordained “ Deacons.” Allusion is frequently made in the sacred writings to the ‘* Deacons” in different dioceses, as the “Deacons” of Philippi,° the ‘‘ Deacons” of Ephesus,“ ὅς. It may be observed here also, in passing, that the ““ Deacons” were not laymen, but (like the Presbyters) ordained Ministers in the Christian Church. This is evident from the qualifications required for “ the office of a Deacon.”° They were required to be not merely of an honest mind, and a well approved integrity, (which would have been abundantly sufficient for a lay officer,) but to be * full of the Holy Ghost and of wisdom;” that is, endowed with extraordinary gifts, and a full know-
(¢) Acts xiv. 23; Titi. 5. (uw) Jam. v. 14.
(x) Acts xx. 28. (y) 1 Tim. v. 17.
(x) Acts xv. 2, 4, 6, 223 xvi. 4, &c. (a) Acts xiv. 23.
(b) Acts vi. 6. (c) Phil. i. 1. (d) 1 Tim, iii. 10, 13.
(e) 1 Tim. 111. 13.
236 History of the Christian Priesthood.
ledge of God’s word. In the directions which the Apostle Paul gave to ‘Timothy, to guide him in the choice of persons to fill the Diaconal office, the same character for piety and good conduct is re- quired in Deacons as in Presbyters; it is even added, ‘‘let these also first be proved, then let them use the office of a Deacon, being found
9
blameless.”£ Moreover, the ““ Deacons” were ordained to that office by the imposition of the hands of the Apostles, in the very same manner as the “‘Presbyters” were ordained,’ which solemn ceremony would certainly never have been used in the appointment of a mere lay officer." That they were ministers is likewise proved by their acts; for they are recorded to have both ‘‘ preached” and ‘‘ baptized ;” Stephen, the Deacon, preached ;
(f) 1 Tim. iii 10. (g) Acts vi. 8, 9, 10, 14.
(kh) Ὡς Θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ Διάκονοι, καὶ ove ἄνθρωπων, (Polycarp. Epist. ad Philip. p. 17. Edit: Oxon. 1644.) Δεῖ δὲ καὶ τοὺς Διακόνους ὄντας μυστήριων Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Χριστοῦ κατὰ πάντα τρόπον πᾶσιν ἀρέσκειν οὐ γὰρ βρωμάτων καὶ ποτῶν εἶσιν Διάκονοι, ἀλλ᾽ Ἐκκλησίας Θεοῦ ὑπηρέται. (Ignat. Epist. ad Trall. p. 48. Ed. Voss.) Meminisse autem Diaconi debent quoniam Apostolos, id est, Episcopos et Preepositos Dominus elegit ; Diaconos autem post ascensum Domini in ccelos Apostoli 5101 constituerunt, Episcopatis sui, et Leclesie Ministros. (Cypr. Epist. 65. Ord. Pamel.) ‘O ποῖον δὲ ἄρα αξιώμα εἶχον οὗτοι; καὶ ποίαν ἐδέξαντο χειροτονίαν ἀναγκαῖον μαθεῖν ἄρω τὴν τῶν Διακόνων ; καὶ μὴν τοῖτο ἐν ταῖς Ἐκκλησίαις οὐκ ἐστίν. ᾿Αλλὰ τῶν Πρεσβυτέρων ἐστὶν 7 οἱκονομία. So Theophylact,— Τῶν Πρεσβυτέρων οἴμαι τὸ ὄνομα εἶναι καὶ τὸ ἀξιώμα αὐτὼν ; ἀλλὰ T ἔως εἰς τοῦτο διακονεῖν τοῖς πιστοῖς τὰ πρὸς τὴν χρεῖαν ἐχειροτονη- θήσαν. (Theophylact. in loc.) Εὐχαριστήσαντος δὲ τοῦ Προεστῶτος, ---οΟἶ καλούμενοι παρ᾽ ἡμῖν Διάκονοι διδόασιν ἐκάστω τῶν παρόντων μεταλαβεῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ εὐχαριστηθέντος ἄρτου καὶ οἴνου καὶ ὕδατος, (Just. Mart. Apol. 2. p. 97. Ed. Par. 1615.) Mens enim disci- pulorum tune temporis communes et sacre etiam fuere ; hoc est, in communi convictu Sacramentum Ecclesie celebrabant. (Bp.
ae ,
SE. Se Pg eerie
-
omer
τς ὦ “Ὁ
eg)
a sie "
History of the Christian Priesthood. 2837
and Philip, the Deacon, both preached and bap- tized.!
Our next inquiry shall be, whether the Episcopal pre-eminence and authority exercised by the Apostles over the two inferior orders of Presbyter and Deacon was in itself only personal, local, and tem- porary, or successive and perpetual. When Christ, at the third and last ordination of his Apostles, de- legated to them the government and administration of his Church, saying, “ As my Father sent me, EVEN so send I you,”* as “ Bishops and Pastors,”' as ““ Apostles and High Priests” ™ in the “ Church which I have purchased with my own blood ;”" he added, ‘* Lo, 1 am with you alway, even unio the end of the world.”°® Now, this declaration evidently refers to the Office, and not to the zndividuals ; for the Apostles continued not long upon earth after himself, and could not have carried their commis- sion with them to heaven. The promise, therefore, that Christ ‘‘ would be with them alway, to the end of the world,” clearly, and in the strictest sense, applied to their Successors in the Apostolate.? Hence, Pearson in Act. Apost. Lect. III. Sect. vi. p. 53.) Καταξιώσον αὐτὸν εὐχαρίστως λειτοῦργήσαντα τὴν εὐχαρισθείσαν αὐτῶ Διακονίαν ἀτρέπτως, ἄμεμπτως, ἀνεγκλήτως“, μείζονα5 ἀξιωθῆναι βαθμοῦ. (Clem. Const. Apost. lib viii. cap 18; Grot. in loc.)
(i) (k) John xx. 22. (2) 1 Pet. ii. 25.
(m) Heb. iii. 1. (n) Acts xx. 28. (oc) Matt. xxviii. 20.
(p) See Rom. xii. 6; 1 Cor. xii. 28; Eph. iv. 11. “‘ Our Lord, itis evident, could not be with the first Apostles always as individuals, because they were subject to death. He could, therefore, be with them always only as a corporation, which never dies. It is plain, that Christ did not promise to be merely with their acts of apostle-
ship ; for he didnot say, “ Lo, 1 am with baptizing, I am with teaching alway ;”? but most emphatically, ‘‘ Go ye, baptizing, teaching,” and
238 History of the Christian Priesthood.
the ordinary powers of the office of the Apostolate, (with its fixed and permanent pre-eminence and superiority of powers, privileges, and jurisdiction over the two inferior orders of Presbyter and Deacon), were universal, successive, and per-- petual, ‘even unto the end of the world.”% I use the word ordinary, in contradistinction to the extraordinary powers with which the Apostles were specially endowed. The Apostles, for ex- ample, were ¢mmediately called, miraculously gifted, infallibly guided, and had given to them an Episcopal commission which extended to “ all the world.” Their extraordinary powers and privileges, (viz. their immediate mission, their miraculous operations, the ¢nfallibilty of their judgment, and their wnléméted jurisdiction), were confined to themselves; their ordinary powers (viz. the powers of ordination and Church go- vernment) descended to their successors. Now, the agency of one of the Twelve, with whom Christ had exclusively deposited this power, was essential to the legitimate transmission of the same power or authority to others. There is no mention made in the New Testament (for we must prove the right by the practice) of any
‘lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world;” which shows, clearly as the sunbeam, that the Apostles were necessarily TO BE always, which can only be by succession as a cor- porate body, and such a succession as may justly be called them,” ὥς. (See‘The exclusive power of Episcopally Ordained Clergy to administer the Word and Sacraments,’ &c. Cambridge, Ste- venson, 1834.) (q) Matt. xxviii. 20.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 289
ordination whatever to the ministry by any Pres- byter or Presbyters; for, whenever we read of the ordination even of a Presbyter or Deacon, we also read that it was administered by one of the Apostles.
Presbyters, whose administration was in an inferior or subordinate ministry to that of the Apo- stolate, could not give what they did not themselves possess, viz. the higher office of the Apostolate. They were zpso jure unauthorized to confer it. Upon the death of St. John, therefore, (who was the last survivor of those to whom Christ himself had personally transmitted this authority), not only the office of the Apostolate itself (although designed for perpetuity), but an authorized (?. 6. apostolically appointed) ministry would have become extinct, if, prior to the death of the Apostles, the Apostolical office and authority had not been duly transmitted by them to others.
Now, we have seen that the office of the 4posto- late (the delegation or transmission of which we are now about to consider) was distinguished from the two inferior orders of Presbyters and Deacons by the powers of Ordination and Church govern- ment; whilst, therefore, it contained in itself all the sacerdotal powers, and consequently the powers of the two inferior (Presbyteral and Diaconal) orders, viz. preaching, and administering the Sacraments, it, moreover, involved or contained peculiarly, according to its Episcopal order, the exclusive power of ordaining Apostles or Bishops
to succeed themselves. These two powers of Ord?-
240 History of the Christian Priesthood.
nation and Church government constitute precisely what the Church of England calls the Order and Office of Episcopacy.
We have hitherto seen the Episcopal power pos- sessed solely by the Apostles or Bishops. When, however, the churches became too numerous to admit of their personal Episcopal superintendence being extended to the whole, the Apostles by an ordination de novo, by the solemn imposition of hands, conferred the plenitude of apostolical power upon one of the Presbyters of each diocese, to whom they had hitherto merely delegated the mi- nisterial authority to preach and baptize. The power thus communicated, made these newly con- secrated Bishops equal with the Twelve Apostles in their ordinary and permanent authority; they had the same right and institution the Apostles had, though their personal mission was not immediate, as that of the Apostles; on which account, and to distinguish them from those immediately sent by Christ, they are called “ ordained of men.” The twelve continued to exercise, as before, au- thority over the Presbyters and Deacons, but in the case of those Presbyters whom they had con- secrated Bishops, their authority ceased to exist; the Bishops so consecrated were inferior to the twelve in miraculous, but equal to them in ordi- nary, power.
James, one of the Bishops so ordained by the Apostles, presided over the first restricted bishop- ric or diocese on record, viz. that of Jerusalem. During the residence of the Apostles at Jeru-
History of the Christian Priesthood. 241
salem,’ they had “ ordained Presbyters in every Church ;”* amongst whom the ‘ Presbyters of Jerusalem” are frequently mentioned.t It was also at Jerusalem they had ‘laid their hands” on no less than seven Deacons at one time." Now it must have been during this period that the Apo- stles, being about to leave Jerusalem, in order to enlarge the kingdom of Christ, erected that city into a restricted bishopric, over which James, the brother of our Lord, was appointed to preside; and we find that, as Bishop of Jerusalem, he presided over all the Churches in Jerusalem and in its neigh- bourhood, for a period of thirty years. It is clear from the New Testament that James, although a Bishop, was not one of ‘‘ the Twelve” Bishops who were ordained by Christ, because among the Twelve Apostles there were but two of that name, viz. James the son of Alpheus, and James the son of Zebedee, the brother of John; but neither of these was James, the Bishop of Jerusalem, whom St. Paul, when he gives us a distinct enumeration of all the persons to whom Christ appeared after the resur- rection, calls ** the Lord’s brother.”* First, St. Paul says “that he (ὁ. 6. Christ) was seen of Cephas (or Peter), then of the Twelve; after that he was
(r) Ἔτι δὲ ws ἐκ παραδόσεως τὸν Σωτῆρα φησὶ Ἀπολλώνιος προστε- ταχέναι τοῖς αὐτοῦ ᾿Αποστόλοις ἐπὶ δώδεκα ἔτεσι μὴ χωρισθῆναι τοῦ Ἱερουσαλήμ. (Euseb. Histor. Eccles. lib. v. c. 18.) Accordingly, we find the Twelve Apostles were excepted out of the number of those who were dispersed upon the persecution which followed the death of Stephen. (Acts viii; compare Luke xxiv. 49.)
(s) Acts xiv. 23. (ἢ) Acts xi. 80; xv. 4, 6; xvi. 4.
(u) Acts vi. 1—6. (x) Gal. 1. 19.
M
242 History of the Christian Priesthood.
seen of above five hundred brethren at once; after that, he was seen of James; then of all the Apo- stles."’ Now here James is distinctly mentioned apart from the Twelve, and the Twelve from “all the other Apostles,”% z. 6. from all the subsequently ordained Apostles, or ‘‘ Apostles ordained of men.’
Again, St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Galatians, says, ‘‘ But other Apostles saw I none, save James, the Lord’s brother.”® This proves St. James to have been an Apostle or Bishop, although not one of the Twelve, who were specially ordained Bishops by Christ. He must therefore have received the Episcopal ordination, in right of which St. Paul gives him the title of “‘ Apostle,” from one of the Twelve; for it is quite clear that our Lord himself ordained twelve only to the office of Apostle or Bishop. The only difference between the Apostles ordained by Christ himself, and those subsequently ordained by the Twelve, in right of the Episcopal authority which had been given them by Christ, and with which he had promised to remain, ‘ even unto the end of the world,” is that the former are called ‘ Apostles of Jesus Christ,” but the latter
(1 Cor. x7 ἢ (5) ““ Certum esse hunc Jacobum non fuisse unum ex duodecim.” (Wal. Mess. p. 20.) See also Grot. in Jac. i. 1; Hammond, Dis- sert. Ignat. IV. 8; Vales, in Euseb. I. 12; Blondel, in Epist. Clem. ad Jacob.; Carol. Bovium. in Constit. Apost.; Schol. ἜΣΤΗΝ de Script. Eccl.in Jacob. et in 1 Galat.; Epiphan. Heres, δ᾽ 79. (a) Thus Matthias, Barnabas, Timothy, Titus, &c. are called “Apostles.” (Acts i. 263 xiv. 4, 14; Gal. i. 19; compared with Mark. vi. 3; John vii. 5; 1 Thess. ii. 6, compared with i. 1.) (ὁ) Gal. 1. 19.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 449
“ς Apostles ordained of men,” and sometimes * Apostles” only: thus, James is called an Apostle” indefinitely,° but St. Peter calls himself ‘an Apostle of Jesus Christ.”? Thus far to prove James a Bishop. Secondly, James was not only a Bishop, but he was Bishop of Jerusalem. This is evident from several passages of Scripture. We are told that Peter, after he had declared to the Christians to whom he went, his miraculous deli- verance from prison, bids them ‘‘ go and show these things to James, and to the brethren”® at Jerusalem. Now I would ask, why to James in particular? or why were the brethren with James rather than with John? seeing that that Apostle was also living at Jerusalem at that time, and for at least four years afterwards.£ Whilst the Twelve resided at Jerusalem, and considered not Jerusalem only, but the whole of the known world, as their diocese, we are told ‘that when the Apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had re- ceived the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John;£ but we invariably find that after James had been appointed by them Bishop of that city, all messengers sent from Jerusalem are said to be sent “from James ;’ thus Paul, in his Epistle to the Galatians, describes certain persons who came from the Church at Jerusalem to Antioch, as “ coming from James.”" Now what could have induced Paul to say, that those who came from Judea, came
(ὁ) Gal. i. 19. (d) 2 Pet. i.; iti. 2. (e) Acts xii. 17. (5) See Dr. Cave’s Life of St. John. (g) Acts vill. 14. (h) Gal. ii, 12.
M 2
244 History of the Christian Priesthood.
from James, rather than from the other Apostles and Presbyters residing at Jerusalem, unless he consi- dered James as the Governor of the Church at Jeru- salem. No other cause can be assigned, with any degree of reason or argument. When Paul, fourteen years after his conversion, went up to Jerusalem to confer with the Apostles, we find that in the account of that conference, the name of James, although not one of the Twelve, is placed before the names of Cephas (or Peter) and John,' two of the Twelve, and, moreover, the two favourite disci- ples of our Lord. This is another proof that James was considered by the Apostles as the Bishop of Jerusalem, and as the highest Ecclesiastical au- thority in that city. Again, we find Peter, Paul, and Barnabas, were the disputants upon this occasion, whilst James acted as the Presi- dent of the synod, taking no part in the dispute, but pronouncing the decision: ‘‘ And the Apostles and Presbyters came together for to consider of this matter; and when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, &c.... then all the multitude kept silence, and gave au- dience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring, &c.*...” James then closed the discussion, by summing up what had been said by Peter and the other Apo- stles, after which he alone pronounced sentence in an authoritative manner, saying, “ Wherefore my sentence is, &c.”! We afterwards find this im- portant decree was promulgated, not in the name of the Council, but in that of the Bishop James. (i) Gal. ii. 9, (k) Acts xv. 6, 7, 12. (ἢ) Ver. 19.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 44
The acts of the Presbyters in this Council were deliberative—* they disputed ;”™ the acts of Peter, Barnabas, and Paul were declarative, “ they de- clared ;”" the act of James was decisive, ‘‘ my sentence is.” This procedure shows that James sat as President in this Council, which, considering he was not one of the Twelve (as I have already shown), would be unaccountable, did we not take into consideration the fact of the Council being held at Jerusalem, of which city he had been ordained Bishop. Another important proof of the correctness of this view of the question, may be adduced from the fact, that the bearers of these Epistles, viz. Judas and Silas (two Presbyters of the see and diocese of Jerusalem), are declared to have come—mark, not from the Council, but—‘“‘ from James.”° We have another strong corroborative proof in another place, that James was considered by the Apostles as the supreme Episcopal authority at Jerusalem. In the twenty-first chapter of the Acts, St. Luke, speaking of Paul, when upon his arrival at Jerusalem, being desirous to impart the success of his labours among the Gentiles to the Christians of that city, says, “‘ And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly, and the day following, Paul went in with us unto James, and all the Presbyters were pre- sent.”? If these words in this single passage do not of themselves, and without any other text being quoted, imply that James was the head of
(m) Acts xv. 7. (n) Ver. 12. (0) Gal. ii. 12. (p) Acts xxi. 18.
246 History of the Christian Priesthood.
the Church of Jerusalem, and in that character superior to the Presbyters, they do not imply any thing.
It is clearly attested by all the Primitive Fathers, and by all the early histories; for example, by Cle- ment,? Anacletus,' Hegesippus,’ Clement of Alex- andria,t the Apostolical Constitutions," Eusebius,*
(4) St. Clement (according to Eusebius) declares James to have been consecrated to the See and Diocese of Jerusalem by the Apostles:—TIlérpov yap φήσι καὶ ᾿Ιάκωβον καὶ Ἰωάννην μετὰ τὴν ἀνάληψιν τοῦ σωτῆρος ὡς ἂν ὑπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου προτετιμημένους, μὴ ἐπιδικάζεσθαι δόξης, ἀλλ᾽ Ἰάκωβον τὸν δίκαιον Ἐπίσκοπον Ἱεροσολύμων ἑλέσθαι. (See Euseb. lib. ii. Hist. cap. 1.)
(r) Porro et Hierosolymitarum primus Episcopus beatus Apo- stolus, qui Jacobus dicebatur, et secundum carnem Domini nun- cupatus est frater, 4 Petro, et Jacobo, et Johanne Apostolis est ordinatus. (Anicl. Epist. 2.)
(5) Ὁ μὲν οὖν Ἡγήσιππος ἐν πέντε τοῖς εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐλθοῦσιν ὑπομνή- μασι, τῆς ἰδίας γνώμης πληρεστάτην μνήμην καταλέλοιπεν᾽ ἐν οἷς, &c. .«. Καὶ μετὰ τὸ μαρτυρῆσαι ᾿Ιάκωβον τὸν δίκαιον ὡς καὶ ὃ Κύριος ἐπὶ τῷ αὐτῷ λόγῳ, &c. (Euseb. Eccl. Hist. chap. 22.)
(t) Κλήμης δὲ ἐν ἕκτῳ τῶν ὑποτυπώσεων γράφων ὧδε παρίστησι. Πέτρον yap φήσι καὶ Ἰάκωβον καὶ ᾿Ιωάννην μετὰ τὴν ἀνάληψιν τοῦ Σωτῆρος, ὡς ἂν καὶ ὑπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου προτετιμημένους μὴ ἐπιδικάζεσθαι. δόξης, GAN Ἰάκωβον τὸν δίκαιον Ἐπίσκοπον Ἱεροσολύμων ἑλέσθαι. Ὁ δ᾽ αὐτὸς ἐν ἑβδόμῳ τῆς αὐτῆς ὑποθέσεως, ἔτι καὶ ταῦτα περὶ αὐτοῦ φησίν, ᾿Ιακώβῳ τῳ δικαίῳ, καὶ ᾿Ιωάννῃ καὶ Πέτρῳ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν παρέδωκε τὴν γνῶσιν 6 Κύριος. (Euseb. Eccl. Hist. lib. ii. ο, 1.)
(uw) In the Apostolical Constitutions, under the head of St. Cle- ment, the Apostles are brought in speaking thus :—“ De ordinatis autem a nobis Episcopis in vita nostra, significamus vobis quod hi sunt; Hierosolymis ordinatus est Jacobus frater Domini a nobis Apostolis. (See Apost. Constit. lib. vil. c. 46; lib. viii. cap. ult.)
(x) Πρῶτος ᾿Επίσκοπος ἐν ‘TepocoAdmus Ἰακώβος ὃ τοῦ Κυρίου λεγόμενος ἀδελφὸς ἦν. (Euseb. Eccl. Hist. lib. iv. cap. ὅ.) Ἰουδαῖοι γεμὴν Tod Παύλου Καίσαρα ἐπικαλεσαμένου, ἐπὶ τε τὴν Ῥωμαίων πόλιν ὑπὸ Φηστοῦ παραπεμφθέντους, τῆς ἐλπίδος καθ᾽ ἣν ἐξήρτυον αὐτῳ τὴν ἐπιβουλὴν ἀποπέσοντες, ἐπὶ ᾿Ιάκωβον τὸν τοῦ Κυρίου τρέπονται ἀδελ- pov, ὦ πρὸς τῶν ᾿Αποστόλων 6 τῆς Ἐπισκοπῆς τῆς ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις ἐγκεχείριστο θρόνος, (Lib. ii. cap. 23.)
History of the Christian Priesthood. 247
Cyril of Jerusalem,’ Epiphanius,? Jerome,? Augus- tine,> and Chrysostom,° that this James was re- sident Bishop of Jerusalem for thirty years; and so even the Jewish Rabbies were acquainted with his miracles, and have preserved the remembrance of them in their writings to this day.
Lastly, James, as Bishop of Jerusalem, was a Diocesan, and not a Congregational Bishop; not, as Mr. Howitt would have his readers believe, “‘ the Pastor of a single flock,”* but such a Bishop as *‘ possessed jurisdiction over other ministers,”° inasmuch as he had “ Presbyters”’ under him, and ““ Deacons”§ in subordination to them. These “ Presbyters” and ‘ Deacons” could not have been required, had Jerusalem been a single Church or Congregation; nor would it have been consis- tent with the duty of the Apostles to have placed even one supernumerary spiritual husbandman
(y) Nam de his non mihi solim, sed etiam Apostolis, et Jacobo hujus Ecclesiz olim Episcopo cure fuit. (S. Cyrill. Catech. 4; see also Catech. 16.)
(5) Πρῶτος Ἰακώβος εἴληφε τὴν καθέδραν τῆς ᾿Επισκοπῆς. ᾧ πεπί- στευκε Κύριος τὸν θρόνον αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς πρώτων. (Epiph. Heres. 78.)
(a) Jacobus post passionem Domini statim ab Apostolis Hieroso- lymorum Episcupus ordinatus. (Hieron. lib. de Script. Eccles. in Jacob.)
(0) Cathedra tibi quid fecit Ecclesia Romane, in qua Petrus sedit, et in qua hodie Anastasius sedet ? vel Ecclesiae Hierosoly- mitanz, in qua Jacobus sedit, et in qua hodie Johannes sedet. (S. August. lib. ii. cont. lit. Petil. c. 51: lib. ii. cont. Crescon. c. 37.)
(c) Ὁ Χριστὸς γὰρ Ἰακώβον λέγεται κεχειροτονηκέναι, καὶ ᾿Ἐπί- σκοπὸν ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις πεποιήκεναι πρῶτον. (Chrys. in 1 Cor. Orat. xi.)
(d) 3d Ed. p. 341. (6) 8d Ed. p. 227.
(f) Acts. xi. 30; xv. 4,6; xvi. 4. (5) Acts vi. 1—6.
248 History of the Christian Priesthood.
there, at a time when the harvest was great, and the labourers were few."
We are told that at Jerusalem our Lord ap- peared, after his resurrection, to above “ five hundred brethren at once,” the greater part of whom remained when St. Paul wrote his first Epistle to the Corinthians. In the second chapter of the Acts, on the miracle of the visible descent, we read that an addition was made unto the Chris- tians of Jerusalem to the number of “ three thousand souls,’* and that ‘* the Lord was daily adding to the Church such as should be saved ;”! all of whom continued at Jerusalem “ in the Apo- stles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.”"™ In the fourth chapter of the Acts, we are told, that on the preaching of Peter and John, “ many of them which heard the word, believed, and the number of the men was about five thousand.”" In the fifth chapter, we read that * believers were more added to the Lord, multitudes of men and women.”° In the sixth chapter, that “‘ the word of God still increased, and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusa- lem greatly, and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.”? All these latter con- versions were at other times than the first conver- sion, which took place at the Feast of Pentecost, and consisted not of strangers, but of inhabitants of Jerusalem. In addition to all these successive
(h) Luke x. 2. (i) 1 Cor. xv. 6. (k) Acts ii, 41. (2) Acts 11, 47. (m) Acts ii. 42. (n) Acts iv. 4. (0) Acts v. 14. (p) Acts vi. 7.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 349
accounts of the great increase of believers in Jerusalem, we are informed in the twenty-first chapter, that when St. Paul came up to that city, and went unto James and his Presbyters, “ they said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thou- sands [μυριάδες, myriads, in the original, i. 6. tens of thousands| there are of Jews which believe ;”? so that if we suppose six myriads only, there must have been stxty thousand Christians at Jerusalem. When we consider that at this early period the Christians met in very small numbers, we may with confidence assert that no one congregation could have consisted of more than four hundred persons ; and taking this extreme number as the average, we shall have one hundred and fifty Churches or con- gregations, to every one of whom a Presbyter had been appointed, for the Apostles are plainly stated to have “ ordained Presbyters in every Church.”* Over this numerous body of Presbyters and Christians, James was consecrated Bishop by the Apostles.
The next Consecrations recorded in Scripture of Presbyters to the Apostolate or Episcopal functions are those of Paul and Barnabas, which are thus recorded :—‘ Now there were in the Church that was at Antioch certain Prophets and Teachers, as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, and Saul; as they ministered to the Lord, the Holy Ghost said, Se- _parate me (the Presbyters) Barnabas and Saul, for
(q) Acts xxi. 20. (r) Acts xiv. 23.
M 3
250 History of the Christian Priesthood.
the work whereunto I have called them, (viz. the Episcopal office) ; and when they had laid their hands on them,” by which they were consecrated Bishops, *‘ they sent them away.” Now ‘ God,” writes St. Paul, ‘‘ has appointed, first, Apostles (or Bishops), secondarily, Prophets (or Presbyters), thirdly, Teachers (or Deacons).”* As these persons are called ““ Prophets;” as they are all said to have ** ministered unto the Lord;”" as it is evident that Paul had been a Presbyter, ‘ preaching Christ in the Synagogues, that he was the Son of God,”* long before this occurrence; and Barnabas also, by his preaching, had ‘ added much people unto the Lord ;”¥—it follows that they must both have been Presbyters at the period when they are here recorded to have been ‘ ministering to the Lord.” As Paul and Barnabas, therefore, were Presbyters before this “laying on of hands,” it is clear this _ Consecration must have been to a higher, and if to a higher, necessarily to the Epéscopal, office. This is evident, not only from the text and context, but also from the fact that after the Consecration here spoken of, the Scriptures invariably style Paul and Barnabas “ Apostles,” a title restricted and peculiar to the Episcopal order. Moreover, the functions of an Apostle or Bishop, viz. the powers of Jurisdic- tion and Ordination, were afterwards exercised by them. Of Jurisdiction, ‘ As I have given order,” writes St. Paul, “ to the Churches in Corinth,” to
(s) Acts xiii, 1—3. (ὃ) 1 Cor. xii. 28. () Acts xiii. 2. (x) Acts ix. 20. (y) Acts xi. 24.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 251
the Churches in Galatia, ‘‘ even so do ye,”” and “6 so ordain I in all Churches”* within the local compass of my charge, or Diocese. And with respect to the power of Ordination, it is recorded, that in their first tour from Antioch, immediately after their own Consecration, as they passed through Lystra, Iconium, Antioch, and Derbe, “ Paul and Barnabas ordained them Presbyters in every Church,” and, “ by the laying on of their hands,‘ consecrated others to “‘ the office of Bzshop.”@
We have scripturally shown that James had been appointed resident Bishop of Jerusalem, and we have the testimony of Paul himself, that he was in like manner resident Bishop of Ephesus, ‘‘ by the space of three years together.”® Paul, however, being about to resign the Bishopric of Ephesus, is recorded to have ‘* sent from Miletus to Ephesus, and called the Presbyters of the Church. And when they were come to him, he said unto them, Ye know, from the first day that I came into Asia, after what manner I have been with you at all seasons... And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shadi see my face no more... Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you Overseers, to feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my de- parting shall grievous wolves enter in among you,
(z) 1 Cor, xvi. 1. (a) 1 Cor. vil. 17. (b) Acts xiv. 23. (0) 2 Tim. i. 6. (4) 1 Tim. iii. 1. (e) Acts xx. 31.
252 History of the Christian Priesthood.
not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. ‘Therefore watch, and remember that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears... And when he had thus spoken, he kneeled down and prayed with them all. And they all wept sore, and fell on Paul’s neck, and kissed him, sorrowing most of all for the words which he spake, that they should see his face no more. And they accom- panied him into the ship.”! Now from this nar- rative, (which, to prevent mistake, I have quoted at length,) we learn the extent of the ministerial powers conferred upon the Presbyters of Ephesus : —to ‘‘ take heed to themselves ;” to “take heed to, and feed the flock, over which the Holy Ghost had made them overseers;” and to ‘‘ watch” and warn their followers against “‘ the grievous wolves who,” after the Apostle’s departure, ‘‘ would enter in among them, not sparing the flock,” and against those also “‘ who of their own selves (should arise from among the Presbyters,) speaking per- verse things, to draw away disciples after them.” The powers here mentioned by the Apostle are such, and such only, as belong essentzally to the christian ministry. The Apostle, though he alludes to minis- ters who would “ speak perverse things, to draw away disciples after them,” gives no power to these Pres- byters to expel the members so offending from their body; neither does he invest them with the power
(f) Acts xx. 17, 18, 25, 28—31, 36—38.
History of the Christian Priesthood, 253
of Ordination, These powers belonged exclusively to the Episcopal office. Had not the office of the Lipiscopate been designed to govern and ordain, and the Presbyterate limited, as being an inferior order to the pastoral office of ‘* feeding the Church of God,” the Apostle would not, in his affectionate and valedictory address, have omitted so important a point liable to doubt. We may be assured, there- fore, that the office of the Presbyters of Ephesus, (like all other Presbyters from that period to the present,) was purely ministerial, and never Epis- copal.
As the Churches of Asia were to ‘‘ see the face” of their Bishop “πὸ more,” we read that Paul selected Timothy, a Presbyter,? and the companion of his travels, and ‘* by the laying on of his own hands,” consecrated him as his successor in the Episcopal office; in like manner as Paul himself had been consecrated at Antioch, when the Apo- stles ‘‘ laid their hands on himself and Barnabas.” i Subsequently to this Consecration, Timothy is called by St. Paul an ‘ Apostle,”* or Bishop; and Paul ‘‘besought him to abide at Ephesus, when,” for the third time,! ‘‘ he himself went into
(g) 1 Tim. i. 3. (h) 2 Tim. i. 6. (i) Acts xiii. 8.
(k) 1 Thess. ii. 6, compared with i. 1.
(1) It is important to bear in mind that Timothy’s appointment to the See of Ephesus was not until Paul “ went into Macedonia” for the third time, because this sufficiently establishes the fact that there were Presbyters in Ephesus before Timothy had entered upon his Episcopal charge. It is certain that he was not appointed on the Apostle’s first journey into Macedonia, mentioned in Acts Xvi. for then there was no Church of Ephesus existing; Paul did
254 History of the Christian Priesthood.
Macedonia.”™ Now there were many Presbyters in the Diocese of Ephesus. It is recorded that “ Paul kneeled down, and prayed with all” the Ephesian Presbyters, whom “ he had ordained in every Church ;” "—‘‘and they αὐ wept sore, and fell on Paul's neck, and kissed him, sorrowing most for the words which he spake, that they should see his face no more.”° Whence it is evident, that the Bishop ordained by Paul as his successor in the Episcopal government of Ephesus, was not the Bishop of a single Church or Congregation, but one whose Epis- copal preeminence and authority extended “ over all to whom St. Paul had gone preaching the word of God,”? in Asia Minor.
St. Paul, in the Epistles which he addressed to Timothy as the Bishop of Ephesus, directs him to
not visit that city until a long while after. Nor could it be when the Apostle left Ephesus to go the second time into Macedonia, mentioned in this twentieth chapter, for then he sent Timothy and Erastus before him. It is certain, therefore, that Timothy was not consecrated Bishop of Ephesus until ‘‘ Paul went into Mace- donia,” after his stay of three months in Greece, when hearing that “the Jews laid wait for him, as he went about to sail into Syria,” he changed his course, and determined to return through Syria. Timothy, after he had been commissioned by the Apostle to govern the Church of Ephesus, went before him to Troas, at which place Paul arrived from Philippi in five days. They stayed there seven, Timothy going by water, and Paul by land to Assos, where Paul embarked and proceeded to Miletus, at which place he sent for the Presbyters of Ephesus and the neighbouring region. Hence there were Presbyters in Ephesus before Timothy was appointed Bishop of that Diocese ; and we find that Paul left Miletus without Timothy, and proceeded on his voyage to Jerusalem, where he was apprehended, and sent a prisoner to Rome. (m) 1 Tim. 1. 3. (n) Acts xiv. 23. (0) Acts xx. 86—38. (p) Acts xx. 25.
History of the Christian Priesthood. — 255
‘© command,”? and “ charge” the Presbyters of Ephesus, that “ they teach no other doctrine” * than what was prescribed by Christ. Now it is only for superiors to “ charge,” and for inferiors to obey ; if, therefore, Timothy had been a Presbyter only, and not a Bishop, he would have had no right to “charge” those who, in their ministerial office, were equal to himself. Again, Timothy is required to prove and examine ‘the Deacons,” whether they be “blameless” or not, and whether qualified for the ministerial office; and if found to be such, to allow them to “ use the office of a Deacon,” and in due time to promote them to the ‘‘ higher degree,” or order of Presbyter.s Again, his Epis- copal jurisdiction over Presbyters is clearly recog- nized in the caution which the Apostle gives him to exercise such jurisdiction mildly :—‘‘ Reprove, and rebuke, and exhort;’* yet “rebuke not a Presbyter” roughly. Timothy was forbidden to upbraid (for such is the meaning, according to Suidas, of ἐπιπλήττω,) the ministers of his diocese, but he was to require (for παρακάλεω, according to Budeus, signifies postulo, provoco,) or command them to do their duty. If Timothy had no juris- diction, or coercive authority over Presbyters, how
(q) 1 Tim. iv. 11. (r) 1 Tim. i. 3.
(s) By the word “ degree” [βαθμὸΞ5] the Apostle means “ order ;” for it is evident that “ ordo’’ and “ gradus” are used indiscrimi- nately by all ancient writers. The Latins use “ ordo”’ for βαθμός. The three “‘ orders” of Clergy among the Greeks are called τρεῖς βαθμοὶ; and Leo, to express the same, says, “ Primus ordo est Episcopalis, secundus Presbyteralis, tertius Leviticus.” (Leo. Epist. 84. ς. 4.) (ἢ) 1 Tim. iv. 2.
256 History of the Christian Priesthood.
could he exercise it? They who can inflict censures upon Presbyters, (as Timothy was empowered to do,) must certainly have jurisdiction over Presbyters. ‘* /Aqualis zequalem coercere non potest,” says the law; and “ Par in parem non habet imperium,” says Bracton. Timothy is moreover desired to take care that ‘‘ the Presbyters who labour most especially in word and doctrine,” should receive “a double maintenance.”" Now it is obviously
(uv) 1 Tim. v.17. This passage is differently rendered in the authorized version: ‘‘ Let the Presbyters that rule well be worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in word and doctrine.” It has been argued by some, that these words imply that there were some Presbyters who did not * labour in word and doctrine,” and who were, therefore, laymen. Now the words here rendered “double honour,” (referring to O%3¥ %, or elder brother’s “‘ double portion,’’ Deut. xxi. 17,) signity a ‘‘ double maintenance” from the revenues of the Church; and, indeed, the word τιμὴ is so used, Acts xxviii. 10, This is evident from the words that imme- diately follow: ‘ For it is written, thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn,’’ and ‘ the labourer is worthy of his reward,” which words the same Apostle has employed in his Epistle to the Corinthians, (1 Cor. ix. 9,) in immediate reference to the pecuniary support of the Clergy, saying, “ that as they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple, and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar; even so hath the Lord ordained, that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel,” (vers. 13, 14.) Now, as we have no reason to suppose a maintenance could be due at all to any but to those who *‘ Jaboured in word and doctrine,” we are compelled to infer that μάλιστα κοπιῶντες does not mean a separate and distinct office, but rather a more intense and serious labour in the same office, and who, because they labour “ more especially,” or more abundantly than others, are to be maintained and supported accordingly. Dr. Campbell, an eminent Presbyterian Divine, is of the same opinion. In his “ Ecclesiastical Lectures,” he writes, ‘‘ The word especially is not intended to indicate a different office, but to distinguish from others those who assiduously apply themselves to the most important as well as the most difficult part of their office, public teaching; the distinction intended is, therefore, not official, but
History of the Christian Priesthood. 257
impracticable that an ordinary Presbyter should have had the disposal of any portion of the Church revenues except that which appertained to himself. Timothy is further charged, ‘‘ Against a Presbyter do not receive an accusation, but before two or three wit- nesses ;"* but the Presbyters ‘“‘ that sin, rebuke before all, that others may fear;”Y or rather, that the rest” of the Presbyters ‘‘ may fear,” it being οἱ λοιποῖ ; the proper word for “* others” would be ἄλλοι, or ἕτεροι ; and, therefore, the Apostle was not speaking indefinitely of other persons. Timothy, therefore, was empowered by his office to ‘‘ receive accusations” against Presbyters. Now he who has authority to ‘‘ receive accusations,” and hear ‘‘ witnesses” against any Presbyter, must also have authority to be the Judge of that Presbyter. More- over, when he finds a Presbyter guilty, he is required to “rebuke him before all, that the rest of the Presbyters may fear,” which he could not have been empowered to do unless he were their superior. Timothy is solemnly charged “* before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, to observe all these things, without preferring one [Presbyter] before another, and doing nothing by partiality.”* It is, therefore, very plain, that the
personal ; it does not relate to the difference in the powers cor- ferred, but solely to a difference in their appiication. It is not to the persons who have the charge, but to those “ who labour in it.” (Vol.i. p. 178.) Blondel, Chamier, Salmasius, Ludovicus Capellus, and Moyses Amiraldus, freely admit that none of the Presbyters were Jaymen. (See Bishop Sage’s Cyp. Age Vindicated, p. 442.) Baxter and Vines (whom he cites) were of the same opinion.— (See Baxter’s Preface to Five Disputations of Church Government. ) (x) 1 Tim. v. 19. (y) 1 Tim. ν. 20. (x) 1 Tim,v. 21.
258 History of the Christian Priesthood.
authority which Timothy possessed over the Pres- byters was so extensive as to be susceptible of abuse, and this extensive authority could have been no other than Episcopal authority. The Apostle also gives the newly appointed Bishop minute and particular directions, in the third chapter of his first Epistle, concerning those whom he should ordain Presbyters and Deacons, and specially charges him to ‘* lay hands suddenly on no man.”* If, more- over, we bear in mind, that whilst the Apostle gives these particular directions to Timothy respecting the Ordination of Presbyters and Deacons, he gave no such directions to the Presbyters of this very city of Ephesus when he sent for them to Miletus,” we cannot but conclude that Timothy was sent to Ephesus for the power of Ordination, and to supply the want of that power in the Presbyters.
We have seen that the charge given by the Apostle to the Presbyters of Ephesus was altogether per- sonal, and that it extended not beyond their own lives. But as Timothy had a power to ordain not only Presbyters and Deacons, but also others to succeed himself in the Episcopate, to him the Apostle writes, ‘‘ The same (i. 6. Episcopal power) commit thou to faithful men;’° “41 give thee charge in the sight of God, that thou keep this commandment until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ.”* Now, as Paul necessarily knew that Timothy would not live “ until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ,” this charge (unlike the
(a) 1 Tim. v. 22. (b) Acts xx. 17. (c) 2 Tim. ii. 2. (d) 1 Tim. vi. 18, 14.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 259
limited charge given to the Presbyters) was not confined to the person of Timothy, but extended to the Episcopal office which he held at Ephesus, which office was designed to be continued to the end of time, being a part of that promise which Christ made to his Apostles, that he ‘ would be with them always, even unto the end of the world.”
It must be obvious, therefore, to every one who compares this Charge which Paul in these two Epistles gives to Timothy at Ephesus, with the Charge which the same Apostle gives to the Pres- byters who ministered in the same city and region, that Timothy was set above those Presbyters in Ecclesiastical power, and particularly in regard to the power of governing the Clergy, and of ordaining. Both of these powers are explicitly ascribed to Timothy personally, and in the stngular number; “ This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy ; ὁ “ These things write I unto thee, that thou mightest know how to behave thyself in the house of God;”! “ If ¢how put the brethren in re- membrance of these things;”é “That ¢how mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine;”" « Against a Presbyter receive not [thou] an accu- sation, but before two or three witnesses ;”' “ Them (i. ὁ. those of the Presbyters thus accused) that sin, rebuke [thou] before all ;”* ‘‘ That thow observe these things ;”! “* These things write I unto thee;’™ ‘‘ Lay [thou] hands suddenly on no man.”" In all
(e) 1 Tim. i. 18. (f) 1 Tim. iii, 14,15. (6) 1 Tim. iv. 6. (h) 1 Tim. 1, 8. (i) 1 Tim. v. 19. (x) 1 Tim. v. 20. (2) 1 Tim. ν. 21. (m) 1 Tim. iii, 14. (n) 1 Tim. v. 22,
260 History of the Christian Priesthood.
these charges, then, Timothy is mentioned alone ; there is not any, the least, intimation in the two Epistles of Presbyters having any right to exercise similar powers either as originally in virtue of their office, or as being invested with such powers by the Apostle.
The next Presbyter whom the same Apostle is recorded to have consecrated to the Episcopal office is Titus, whom he constituted (when he went from Macedonia, through the AXgean Sea,) Bishop of Crete; an island having no less than one hundred cities, (whence it had the name of ἑκατόμπολις,) and ‘every city”’° subjected (as the Apostle affirms) to the Episcopal authority of Titus, who is afterwards called an ‘ Apostle of the Churches”? [᾿Απόστολος ᾿Εκκλησιῶν] in Crete. Titus was appointed to regulate and perfect in the Churches of Crete such matters as were not dis- tinctly settled by divine command, and to ordain ministers for the service of those Churches. ‘ For this cause,” writes St. Paul, “ left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order” (or, as Beza and Erasmus render it, ‘‘ pergas corrigere’) “‘ the things that are wanting,” (that is, are left ‘‘ undone,” as the margin expresses it) ‘ and that thou shouldst ordain Presbyters in every city, as I had appointed thee.”? Titus is further charged to ‘stop the mouths” of those Presbyters, who preached doctrines “ which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake;’? and to “‘ rebuke such with all authority,” (that is, with all
(0) Tit. 1. 5, (p) 2 Cor. viii, 23. (qg) Titus i. 5. (r) Titus i. 2.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 261
Episcopal authority); and if not reclaimed “ after the first and second admonition, to reject them.” ὃ It belonged, therefore, to Titus alone, to proceed against erroneous Preachers, to judge of heresy, to give formal admonitions to the heretic; and lastly, in virtue of the Episcopal power committed to him, to cast him from the Church. Here, as in the case of Timothy, the charge is committed to Titus alone : ςς For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain Presbyters in every city, as I -had appointed thee ;’' “ Put [thou] them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers ;”" “ An heretic after the first and second admonition reject” thou.*
Timothy and Titus were invested with the Epis- copal character within thirty years after our Saviour’s ascension. The Scriptures testify that several other Episcopal appointments took place before the close of the Apostolic age.’ As sufficient proofs, how-
Gi Pits tits 1021(2). Tit. τσοὶ (a) Tits net i (Ge) Tite. Ὁ:
(y) In the Epistles to the Seven Diocesan Churches of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea, written by St. John, a.p. 95, we find these Churches incidentally mentioned as under the care and government of their respective Bishops. These Bishops are denominated “ Angels,” a term significant of their dignity and office as the highest officers in the Christian Church; on which account Christ himself, in his character as ‘‘ Bishop” and “ High Priest of the Church,” (1 Pet. ii. 25 ; Heb. iii. 1;) is styled the “ Angel of the Covenant,” (Mal. iii. 1 ;) and the same term, “ Angel,” is also applied to the Twelve Apostles who succeeded him in the Episcopal office, (Rev. xxi. 12, 14.) The ‘ Angels” of these Seven Diocesan Churches (in every one of which it is evident there were several Presbyters) are in the Apocalypse addressed in the character of individual Bishops,
262 History of the Christian Priesthood.
ever, have been adduced in the cases of James. Paul, Barnabas, Timothy, and Titus, it is needless to cite additional instances to prove that Mr. Howitt, in contrasting the Constitution and Form of Govern- ment in the Church of England with the Apostolic model, has displayed gross ignorance in particular instances, and is altogether in error in the in- ference which he has drawn. For it has been proved that Bishops are, by the institution of Christ, a distinct and superior order of Clergy from the Presbyters; that when advanced to this distinct and superior order they had a new and distinct ordination; and that each Bishop had a number of Presbyters under his special government. It has also been proved, upon scriptural authority, that these Bishops were exclusively invested with the right of ordination; there being not a single passage of Scripture that speaks of ordinations by Presbyters.
It follows, therefore, that the office of the Apostolate or Episcopal order is essential to the perpetuity of the christian ministry. All au- thority to minister in the Church is derived from Christ, and there are but two ways in which this authority could have been delegated by him to his ministers; either by the continual and visible interposition of Christ in the call and ordi- nation of every individual minister, which would have been contrary to the scheme of God’s provi- dence as displayed in his dealings with mankind,
having Episcopal authority over both the Clergy and Laity of the Churches named in conjunction with them. (See Revelation, chap. 1. 4—20; chap. ii.; and chap. iii.)
History of the Christian Priesthood. 263
or by the transmission of that authority through an uninterrupted succession, from those who had pri- marily received it from Christ himself down to the present time. Hence the original necessity for, and the continuance of the Episcopal order.
Now there is no promise of God which authorizes the opinion that heaven is the natural portion of any human creature. Nay, even if it could be proved that heaven was our natural portion, by any general consequence from the Divine nature or from any necessary obligation incumbent on God by virtue of his natural goodness, it must necessarily follow that whatever is obligatory to God in regard of his essential goodness must be as obligatory in respect of heathens who never heard of the christian reli- gion; and if heaven be the natural portion of the heathen world, what advantage is derived from the doctrines of Christianity? The ordinances which Christ has enjoined to be observed by those who seek salvation through him, consist in “ two outward and visible signs,” viz. Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. ‘The Scriptures teach that Baptism is the outward and confirmatory seal of the covenant of grace, by which we put on Christ, are engrafted into Him, the true vine, and made members of his mystical body. The Scriptures
(z) “ As many as are baptized unto Christ, (i. 6. all baptized persons,) have put on Christ.” (Gal. iii. 27.) ““ Except any one [ris] be born of water, and (or, as well as) of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God ;” (John iii. 5;) that is, except any one be baptized according to Christ’s institution, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. ‘ He,” that is, Christ, ‘ shall baptize
264 History of the Christian Priesthood.
further teach that, in the Supper of the Lord, we feed on the sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood, and partake of the benefits of his passion. Now ‘the Church,” writes the Apostle, ‘‘ is the body of Christ,”® and Christ is called “ the Saviour of his body "ὁ and is represented as being the Saviour, strictly speaking, only of those who are members of “his body,” that is, members of his visible Church.¢ The Scriptures further teach that
you with the Holy Ghost.” (Mark i. 8.) “ Be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the Holy Ghost ; for the promise” (of forgiveness of sins, and of spiritual grace, of which Baptism is the channel or instrumental conveyance,) “ is unto you and to your children, and to all that are afar off.’’ (Acts ii. 38, 39.) “ And now why tarriest thou ? arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins.” (Acts xxii. 16.) Therefore by Baptism we “receive the Holy Ghost,” and “ remission of sins.” “ Being buried with Christ in Baptism, wherein also we are risen with him, through the faith of the operation of God” (at Baptism), ‘ we have all trespasses forgiven us.” (Col. 11. 12,13; Rom. vi. 4.) “ God hath saved us by the washing (or bath, λουτρὸν,) of regeneration.’ (Tit. iii. δ.) “ Baptism doth now save us.” (1 Pet. iii. 21.)
(a) ‘‘ Take, eat, this is my body; drink ye all of this, this és my blood, which is shed for many for the remission of sins ; do this in remembrance of me.’ (Matt. xxvi. 26—28.) ‘* The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. x. 16.) “Τῇ a man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh; verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you; whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; he that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, shall live for ever.” (John vi. 51—58.) “ As often as ye eat of the bread, and drink of the cup, ye show the death of Christ till he come.”
(6) Eph. i. 23. (c) Eph. v. 23.
(d) ““ But now hath Christ obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the Mediator of a better covenant, which
History of the Christian Priesthood. 265
Baptism is so essential to Church Membership, that no wn-baptized person can be a member of Christ’s body, or visible Church :—‘‘ He that be- lieveth and is baptized shall be saved ;”* “" Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing,” &c.' “ We are
was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For, finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of [srael, and with the house of Judah; not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel, After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts, and | will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people.” (Heb. vii. 6—10.) One of the effects, therefore, of the new covenant was, that “God would be unto us a God, and we should be to him a people τ᾿ that is, we are made God’s “ people” by virtue of this covenant with him, because it is only by this covenant (of which baptism is the outward and confirmatory seal) that we can become “ his people.” Now, writes the Apostle to the Ephesians, ‘‘ Wherefore remember, that ye being in past time Gentiles, that at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants cf promise, having no hope, and without God in the world,”’ (Eph. ii. 11, 12;) therefore they had not an equal interest in Christ, when Gentiles, that they had, after that having been ‘“‘ baptized unto Christ, they had put on Christ.” (Gal. ili. 27.) Accordingly our Saviour says, “ I pray not for the world, but only for those whom thou hast given me out of the world,” (John xvii. 9,) in the same sense in which Judas himself had been “ given him,” which cannot be understood of a giving successful in the event, but only of a giving of external initiation or admission into the covenant; and it is only “to as many as are thus given hin by the Father,” (John vi. 39,) that Christ has “ power given him of the Father to give eternal life,’ (John xvii. 2,) and to “‘ raise up at the last day,” (John vi. 39, 40.) . (e) Mark xvi. 16. (f) Mark xxvii. 19.
N
266 History of the Christian Priesthood.
all baptezed into one (visible) body,’® or one visible Church.
To participate in the benefits of this Sacrament is common to all Christians, but to administer either this Sacrament, or the Sacrament of the Supper of the Lord, is, by the Scriptures, expressly confined to an Episcopally ordained Ministry. If this assertion be correct, (and if otherwise, let the arguments adduced in the present chapter be dis- proved from Scripture,) it must follow, as a natural and inevitable consequence, that the administration of these Sacraments by any other Ministry is in- valid; it must also follow that the Sacramental Elements, when invalidly administered, cease to be ‘* outward and visible signs of an inward and spiri- tual grace.”
(g) Eph. i. 23.
CHAPTER V.
We have hitherto fought Mr. Howitt on Scrip- tural grounds, and have shown, by Scriptural proofs, that the Church instituted by Christ and his Apostles was an Episcopal one. We next proceed to dismantle another of his strong-holds, and will use, for this purpose, weapons selected from the armoury which he himself has chosen; viz. the writings of the Fathers of the Church.
Had Mr. Howitt been really anxious to place before his readers the opinions of the Fathers of the Church on this subject, he would, of course, have commenced with those who were contempo- raneous with Christ and his Apostles. The opinions of these holy men might fairly have been considered as decisive of the question, as they must necessarily have been competent judges of the intentions of Christ and his Apostles, so far as they related to the Government and Discipline of the Church. These unimpeachable witnesses, however, would have given their testimony in direct opposition to the bold assertions of this hot-headed sectarian. Their testimony, therefore, was unhesitatingly re- jected; and Mr. Howitt, fixing his eye upon the object for which he wrote, and regardless of the
N2
268 History of the Christian Priesthood.
means by which that object was attained, takes a kangaroo leap of three hundred years, and pro- fesses to give us the opinions of St. Jerome: I say professes, because, finding the opinions of this Father were against him, he dares to falsify those opinions, and to mould them to his purposes. Either Mr. Howitt has done this, or he has never read the Fathers. The Author of the “ History of Priesteraft” may select which horn of the dilemma he pleases, to empale this specimen of the Quaker- craft upon. [jither he has been content to filch a carbled quotation, at second hand, from Jerome’s writings, or, having read them, he has been dis- ingenuous enough to falsify the opinions of this venerable sage of the far-olden day, and to wrench his writings to prop the coarse virulence of his attack upon the Church of England. The first merely evinces the recklessness of presumptuous ignorance, and this has been so often shown in the ‘¢ Popular History of Priestcraft,” that it excites other feelings than those of surprise; the second proves a moral depravity, of which I do not wil- lingly believe Mr. Howitt guilty. Let Mr. Howitt, however, become the felo-de-se of his own reputa- tion, as an author, a scholar, and an anxious inquirer after truth.
* St. Jerome,” writes Mr. Howitt, “ says, ‘ By the Ordinances of Christ, Priests and Bishops were all one, but, afterwards, the Emperor divided them, and made Bishops lords, and Priests servants.’”*
In these few lines we have a double falsehood;
(a) 3d Ed. p. 241.
History of the Christian Priesthood. “69
first, as to the opinion of St. Jerome; secondly, as to the historical assertion. No such passage is to be found in St. Jerome’s writings, nor did the Emperor make the division spoken of.
But, leaving the waters which are mudded and heated in their course, let us go to the pure cool lymph which bubbles at the fountain. Let us begin with the early Fathers, and from the opinions of Clement, who was contemporaneous with the Apostles, and all the intermediate Fathers down to Cyprian, who lived one hundred and fifty years after them, let us prove, and that too fully, fairly, and beyond the possibility of contradiction, that the Episcopal form of government was unequivocally upheld by all the early Fathers.
The most ancient Father is Clement, the coad- jutor and familiar friend of the Apostles Paul and Peter, the former of whom, in his Epistle to the Philippians, describes him as a “ fellow-labourer, whose name is in the book of life.”” In Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians (written, be it observed, before the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, and immediately after the martyrdom of St. Peter and St. Paul*) he distinctly upholds the divine right of Episcopacy. ‘‘ The Apostles,” says the Father, “ having received the commands of Christ, ordained Bishops and other Ministers through
(6) Philip. iv. 3.
(c) In chap. v. of this Epistle, Clements mentions these two Apostles as ἔγγιστα γινομένους ἀθλήτας ; and in chap. xlv. he
says that daily sacrifices, sin-offerings, &c., are offered up (using
the present tense, προσφέρονται) in the Temple of Jerusalerm.— (See Cl. Dodwelli Dissertat.)
270 History of the Christian Priesthood.
regions and cities...”¢ that ‘ this was not a new institution ....” and that ““ Christ had defined, in his most exalted will, by whom he would have these sacred offices performed;”* he immediately after shows that, in the Christian Church, there was, ‘“‘ by the laws of Christ,” the same threefold sub- ordination of Ecclesiastical Offices as in the Jewish Church. His words are,—‘ Proper offices are assigned to the High-Priest [or Bishop], and a proper place or function has been ordained to the Priests [or Presbyters|, and proper ministrations to the Levites [or Deacons], and the Layman is bound or confined to Laic Ordinances.” ἦ
“The Apostles knew, by our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be contention about the name of Episcopacy ; for this very reason, therefore, they, being endued with a perfect foreknowledge, ordained the aforesaid Ministers, [viz. Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons], and afterwards regulated the manner of succession, that when they should die, other approved men should succeed to their Ministra-
(4) Τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ παραγγελίας οὖν λαβόντες, κατὰ
/ ΄ 3 , ͵ \ > Η ees xwpus καὶ πόλεις ᾿Απόστολοι καθίστανον τὰς Απαρχὰς αὑτῶν,
/ a“ a
δοκιμάσαντες τῷ πνεύματι εἰς πισκόπους καὶ Διακόνους τῶν μελ-
7 . λόντων πιστεύειν... «. (Clem. Epist. ad Cor. cap. 42.)
(6) Πάντα τάξει ποιεῖν ὀφείλομεν, ὅσα 6 Δεσπότης ἐπιτελεῖν
/ ἐκέλευσεν" κατὰ καιροὺς τεταγμένους τάς TE προσφορὰς Kal λειτουρ-
7 Ν A ὦ A 7, > a 7 ῥ εν of ~ ylas επιτελεῖσθαι" Sia τίνων ἐπιτελεῖσθαι θέλει, αὑτὸς ὥρισεν Τῇ ὑπερτάτῃ αὐτοῦ βούλησει. (Clem. Epist. ad Cor. cap. 40.)
(f) Tots γὰρ νομίμοις τοῦ δεσπότου ἀκολουθοῦντες, ὅς. Τῷ
\ > A oA / / 3 A “~ « tp yap ᾿Αρχιερεῖ ἰδίαι λειτουργίαι δεδομέναι εἰσὶ, καὶ τοῖς Ἱερεῦσιν » / / -“ ͵7 5...) / Vis} . ἴδιος ὃ τόπος προστέτακται, καὶ τοῖς Λευίταις ἰδίαι διακονίαι ἐπίκεινται ὁ Λαϊκὸς ἄνθρωπος Tas λαϊκᾶς προστάγμασιν dederar.—(Clem. Epist. ad Cor. cap. 40.)
History of the Christian Priesthood. “711
tion.”$ After which, he exhorts the Corinthians to “ reverence Bishops, and to honour Presbyters.” " Ignatius is the next earliest Father; he also lived in the days of the Apostles, by whom, a. Ὁ. 70, he was consecrated Bishop of Antioch.’ As he was martyred at a very advanced age (according to Baronius), in the eleventh year of Trajan, [Δ.Ὁ. 107,] we have also reason to believe that he saw Christ in the flesh. In the Epistles of this Apo- stolical Father, written within a few years after the death of the Apostle John, he explicitly and un- equivocally declares Diocesan Episcopacy to be of Divine institution, and the form of church govern- ment in the very earliest ages of Christianity. In
(6) Οἱ ᾿Απόστολοι ἥμων ἔγνωσαν διὰ του Κυρίου ἥμων ‘incov Χριστοῦ, ὅτι ἔρις ἔσται ἐπὶ τοῦ ὀνόματος τῆς ᾿Ἐπίσκοπῆϑ᾽ διὰ ταύτην οὖν τὴν αἰτίαν πρόγνωσιν εἰληφότες τελείαν, κατέστησαν τοὺς προει- ρἡμένους, καὶ μεταξὺ ἐπινομὴν (of the importance of which word ἐπινομὴ, see Dodwell’s Parenes. ὃ 10, p. 86, and Jac. Ardenne Conjectura circa ἐπινομὴν D. Clementis Rom.) ἐπιδεδώκασι, ὅπως ἐὰν κοιμηθῶσι, διαδέξωνται ἕτεροι δεδοκιμασμένοι ἄνδρες THY λειτουρ- γίων avtey.—(Clem. Rom. ad Corinth. I. pp. 54, 57.)
(h) Τοὺς Προηγουμένους [i. e. Ἔπίσκοπους] juwy αἰδεσθῶμεν" τοὺς Πρεσβυτέρους ἡμῶν τιμήσωμεν. -.. Ὑμεῖς οὖν οἱ τὴν καταβολὴν τῆς στάσεως ποιήσαντες, ὑποτάγη τε τοῖς Πρεσβύτεροις, καὶ παιδεύθητε εἰς wetavolay.—(LEpist. ad Cor. cap. 56, p. 132.)
(i) ᾿Αλλὰ καὶ τῆς ἐπ᾽ ᾿Αντιοχείας Evodiov πρώτου καταστάντος, δεύτερος ἐν τοῖς δηλουμένοις ᾿Ιγνάτιος ἐγνωρίζετο. (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. cap. 22, p. 113.) Ὅ τε παρὰ πλείστοις εἰσέτι νῦν διαβόητος ᾿Ιγνάτιος, τῆν κατ᾽ ᾿Αντιοχείαν Πέτρου διαδοχῆς; δεύτερος τῆν ἐπισκοπὴν κεκληρωμένος, λόγος δ᾽ ἔχει τοῦτον ἀπὸ Συρίας ἐπὶ τὴν Ῥωμαίων πόλιν ἀναπεμφθέντα, θηρίων γενέσθαι βορὰν τῆς εἰς Χριστὸν μαρτυρίας ἕνεκεν. (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. cap. 36. p. 30.) Chry- sostome calculates that, “ in the time of Ignatius, Antioch contained no less than two hundred thousand souls;” (see Cave’s Life of Ignatius, p. 101 ;) and doubtless, therefore, the Church of Antioch consisted of numerous congregations of Christians.
(k) The authenticity of these Epistles of Clement and Ignatius
272 History of the Christian Priesthood.
his Epistle to the Trallesians, he writes,—‘ It is necessary, therefore, that whatsoever ye do, to do
can be proved by the same arguments by which we prove that the writings of Xenophon, Livy, and Tacitus, and the books of the New Testament, were written by those whose names they bear. A chain of Christian authors have made allusion to several passages in these very Epistles, and have named, as their authors, Clement and Ignatius. The Epistle of St.Clement to the Corinthians, is attested by Justin Martyr, by Irenzeus, (who calls it ἱκανωτάτην γραφὴν τοῖς Koply@o1s,) by Clemens Alexandrinus, by Origen, by Cyril of Jerusalem, by Photius, (who terms it ᾿Ἐπιστολὴν ἀξιόλογον.) and by Jerome, who calls it “ valdé utilem,” and assures us that it was publicly read, as authentic, in all the primitive Churches, and that in its character it very closely resembled the Epistle to the Hebrews. It is also evident, from the testimony of the first and ensuing ages, that the seven Epistles of ignatius, published by Archbishop Usher, and afterwards by Dr. Isaac Vossius, are, undoubtedly, the genuine Epistles of Ignatius. Polycarp, the intimate friend of Ignatius, and a disciple of St. John, directly testified that Ignatius wrote these Epistles in his Epistle to the Philippians. Polycarp is mentioned in Ignatius’s Epistle to the Smyrnzans, and to him one of the Epistles is written. He speaks of the Epistles of Ignatius in his Epistle to the Philippians, as those which he sent to them together with his own, as appears by that part of the Epistle which Eusebius has preserved in its original. (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. c. 36.) Trenzeus, in the next age, who had been a disciple of Polycarp, also testifies to the authenticity of the Epistles of Ignatius, [Ὡς εἶπε τὶς τῶν ἥμετε- pov, &c. (Irenzus, lib. v. advers. Heres. cap. 28, apud Euseb.) Origen, in the next century, quotes two passages from Ignatius’s Epistle to the Romans and Ephesians, and attributes them to Ignatius, whom he calls “ one of the saints,” and “a martyr.” ‘“‘Eleganter in cujusdam Martyris Epistola scriptum reperi ; Ignatium dico Episcopum Antiochiz,” &c. (Origenes in Lucam homilia 6.) Eusebius also gives us a full account of these Epistles, and where Ignatius wrote them: Ὁ παρὰ πλείστοις εἰσέτι νῦν διαβόητος Tyvarios.... μίαν μὲν Ἐπιστολὴν τῇ κατὰ τὴν Ἔφεσον ἐκκλήσιᾳ ypapel’... ἕτεραν δὴ τῇ ἐν Μαγνησίᾳ, &c. (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib 111. cap. Ae et Aor.) Moreover Chrysostome, Athanasius, Jerome, Theodoret, and Gelasius, (all of whom must have been competent judges whether the Epistles of Ignatius were genuine or not,) bear full testimony to these Epistles. Athanasius writes :
History of the Christian Priesthood. 2738
nothing without the Bishop; and be subject also to the Presbyterate as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ ; it behoves us also to please the Deacons, who are the Ministers of the mysteries of Jesus Christ, and of the Church of God....The Bishop is the type of God, the Father of all things; and the Pres- byters are as the council of God, and the college of the Apostles of Christ. Without these [three orders] there is no elect Church, no holy assembly, no congregation of the pious... Reverence, there- fore, your Bishop as Christ himself, even as the blessed Apostles have commanded us. He who is within the altar is pure, wherefore he also obeys the Bishop, and the Presbyters; but he who is without the altar, this is he who acts without the Bishop, and the Presbyters, and the Deacons ; such an one is defiled in his conscience, and is worse than an unbeliever. For what is a Bishop,
Ἰγνάτιος 6 μετὰ τοὺς ᾿Αποστόλους κατασταθεὶς Ἐπίσκοπος, γράφων περὶ τοῦ Κυρίου εἴρηκεν᾽ εἷς ἰατρὸς ἐστὶ, &c., quoting a passage from Ignatius’s Epistle to the Ephesians. (Athanasius in lib. de Synodis Arimini et Seleucia.) Jerome writes, “ Ignatius Antiochenz Epistole tertius post Petrum Apostolum Episcopus...cum navigans Smyrnam venisset, scripsit unam Epistolam ad Ephesios, alteram ad Magnesios, tertiam,”’ &c. (Hieron. in Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Catalogo.) Among modern writers, Usher, Vossius, Grotius, Petavius, Bull, Wake, Cave, Cotelerius, Grabe, Dupin, Tillemont, Le Clerc, Bochart, Fabricius, (in fact the great body of the learned of all denominations,) have borne testimony to the genuineness and authenticity of the seven Epistles of Ignatius, published by Usher and Vossius. See also Vedelii Apologia pro Ignatio; Horsley’s Letters to Priestley, p. 34; and Bp. Pearson’s Vindicie Epist. 5. Ignatii, where he fully refutes all the exceptions which Mr. Daillé and others have made against these Epistles. See also Lardner’s Credibility of the Gospel History, vol. ii. p. 69; and Primitive Truth and Order, p. 219.)
nN 3
274 History of the Christian Priesthood.
but he who is beyond all principality and power, and, as far as it is possible for a man to rule, made an imitator of the Christ of God? And what are the Presbytery but a holy assembly, the Counsellors and Assessors of the Bishop? And what the Dea- cons, but the imitators of the Angelical powers, ministering to him a pure and blameless ministra- tion... He, therefore, who does not obey these, is entirely without God, and impious, and despises Christ, and impairs his constitution.”! He con- cludes this Epistle thus: ‘‘ Fare ye well in the Lord Jesus Christ, obeying the Bishop, and in like manner the Presbyters, and the Deacons.”™ Jn his Epistle to the Magnesians, he writes,—‘‘ Since I
(1) ᾿Αναγκαῖον οὖν ἐστὶν, ὅσα πὲρ ποιεῖτε, ἄνευ τοῦ ᾿ΕἘπισκόπου μηδὲν πράττειν ὑμᾶς" ἀλλ᾽ ὑποτάσσεσθε καὶ τῷ Πρεσβυτερίῳ, ὡς ᾿Απο- στόλοις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ... καὶ τοὺς Διακόνους ὄντας μυστηρίων Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἂρέσκειν, Ἐκκλησίας θεοῦ ὑπηρέτας. . .. ὡς καὶ 6 ᾿Ἐπίσκοπος τοῦ Πατρὸς τῶν ὅλων τύπος ὑπάρχει" of δὲ Πρεσβύτεροι, ὧς συνέδριον θεοῦ, καὶ σύνδεσμος ᾿Αποστόλων Χριστοῦ. Χωρὶς τούτων Ἐκκλησία ἐκλεκτὴ οὐκ ἔστιν, οὐ συνάθροισμα ἅγιον, οὗ συναγωγὴ ὅσίων..... Αἰδεῖσθε δὲ καὶ τὸν Ἐπίσκοπον ὑμῶν, ὡς Χριστὸν, καθ᾽ ἡμῖν οἱ μακάριοι διεταξαντο ᾿Αποστόλοι. Ὃ ἐντὸς τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου ὧν, καθάρος ἐστὶ. Διὸ καὶ ὑπακούει τῷ Ἐπισκόπῳ, καὶ τοῖς Πρεσβυτέροις. Ὃ δὲ ἐκτὸς ὧν, οὗτος ἐστὶν ὃ χωρὶς τοῦ ᾿Επισκόπου, καὶ τῶν Πρεσβυ- τέρων, καὶ τῶν Διαικοόνων, τὶ πρασσων. ὋὉ τοιοῦτος μεμίανται τῇ συνειδήσει, καὶ ἔστιν ἀπίστου χείρων. Τὶ γάρ ἐστιν Ἐπίσκοπος, ἀλλ᾽ ἢ πάσης ἀρχῆς, καὶ ἐξιουσίας ἐπέκεινα παρὰ τῶν κρατῶν, ὡς οἷον τε ἄνθρωπον κρατεῖν, μιμητὴν γινόμενον κατὰ δύναμιν Χριστοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ; τὶ δὲ Πρεσβυτέρων, ἀλλ᾽ ἢ σύστημα ἱερὺν, σύμβουλοι καὶ συνεδρευταὶ τοῦ ᾿Επισκόπου; τὶ δὲ Διάκονοι, GAN’ 7) μιμηταὶ τῶν ἀγγελικῶν δυνάμεων ; λειτουργοῦντες αὐτῷ λειτουργίαν καθαρὰν καὶ ἄμωμον, K.TAveee-'O τοίνυν τούτων παρακούων ἄθεος πάμπαν εἴη ἂν, καὶ δυσσεβὴς, καὶ ἀθετων Χριστὸν, καὶ τὴν αὐτοῦ διάταξιν σμικρύνων.---- (Ignat. Epist. ad Tralles, pp. 4, 5, 8, 9.)
(m) Ἔῤῥωσθε ἐν Κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ, ὑποτασσόμενοι τῷ Ἔπι- ordre, ὁμοίως καὶ τοῖς Πρεσβυτέροις, καὶ τοῖς Avakdvois.—(P. 16.)
History of the Christian Priesthood. 275
was deemed worthy to see you by your Bishop Damas, and the Presbyters Bassus and Apollonius, and Sotion the Deacon.... it behoves you to obey your Bishop, and to contradict him in nothing; for it is a fearful thing to contradict such a person, and such an act does not ascribe blame to man, but to God...The Bishop presides in the place of God, the Presbyters in the place of the Council of the Apostles, and the Deacons have been en- trusted with the Deaconship of Jesus Christ ... As, therefore, the Lord does nothing without the Father, for he says, ‘I can do nothing of myself,’ so neither do ye any thing without the Bishop, neither Presbyter, nor Deacon, nor Layman; nor let any thing appear reasonable to you contrary to his judgment, for such is unlawful and hateful to God... Be subject to your Bishop, as Christ to his Father, that there may be a divine union in you.”" In his Epistle to the Philadelphians, he writes,—‘‘ For
(n) ᾿Επεὶ οὖν ἠξιωθην ἰδεῖν διὰ Aaa, τοῦ ἀξιοθέου ὑμῶν ᾿Ἐπισκόπον, καὶ Πρεσβυτέρων θεοῦ ἀξίων, Βάσσου καὶ ᾿Απολλωνίου, καὶ τοῦ συμβιωτοῦ μοῦ Διακόνου ΞΣωτίωνος, οὗ ἔγὼ οναίμην, ὄτι ὑποτάσσεται τῷ Ἐπισκόπῳ, καὶ τῷ Πρεσβυτερίῳ χάριτι θεοῦ, ἐν νόμῳ ᾿Ἰησου Χριστοῦ... Πρέπον οὖν ἐστὶ καὶ ὑμᾶς ὑπακούειν τῷ ᾿Ἐπισκόπῳ ὑμῶν, καὶ κατὰ μηδὲν αὐτῷ ἀντιλέγειν' φοβερὸν γὰρ ἐστὶ τῷ τοιοῦτῳ ἀντιλέγειν" τὸ δὲ τοιοῦτο, οὗ πρὸς ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλὰ πρὸὺς θεὸν ἔχει τὴν ἀναφοράν ... Πρόκαθημενου τοῦ ᾿Επισκόπον εἰς τόπον θεοῦ" καὶ τῶν Πρεσβυτέρων εἰς τόπον συνεδρίου τῶν ᾿Αποστόλων᾽" καὶ τῶν Διακόνων πεπιστευμένων Διακονίαν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, κιτ.λ.... «Ὥσπερ οὖν 6 Κύριυς ἄνευ τοῦ Πατρὸς οὐδὲν ποιεῖ" οὐ δύναμαι γὰρ, φησὶ, ποιεῖν am ἐμαυτοῦ οὐδέν, K.T.A. οὕτω καὶ ὑμεῖς ἄνευ τοῦ ᾿Ἐπισκόπου, μηδὲ Πρεσβύτερος, μὴ Διάκονος, μὴ ΔΛαϊκὸς, μηδὲ τι φαινέσθω ὑμῖν εὔλογον παρὰ τὴν ἐκείνου γνώμην" τὸ γὰρ τοιοῦτον παράνομον, καὶ θεοῦ ἐχθρὸν... 'Ὑποτάγητε τῷ Ἐπισκόπῳ, καὶ ἀλλήλοις, ὡς 6 Χριστὸς τῷ Πατρὶ, ἵνα
ἕνωσις ἢ κατὰ Θεὸν ev vuty.—(Ignat. Epist. ad Magues. pp. 50, 52, 54, 55, 61.)
276 History of the Christian Priesthood.
there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one blood of his which was shed for us; and one bread was broken for all, and one cup was distri- buted to all, one altar to all the Church, and one Bishop with the Presbyters and Deacons... . Let rulers obey Cesar, and the soldiers obey the rulers; let the Deacons obey the Presbyters ; and let the Presbyters and the Deacons, together with all the Laity, and the soldiers, and the rulers, and Ceesar obey the Bishop; let the Bishop obey Christ, as Christ the Father; and thus unity is preserved in all things.”° In his Epistle to the Smyrnzans, he writes thus: ‘ Let all follow the Bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the Presbyters as the Apostles, and respect the Deacons as minister- ing by the command of God. Let no one do any thing of what appertains to the Church without the Bishop... Honour God, as the Author and Lord of all things, and the Bishop as the Chief Priest, bearing the likeness of God; he who honours the Bishop will be honoured by God... Let the Laity be subject to the Deacons, the Dea- cons to the Presbyters, the Presbyters to the Bishop, the Bishop to Christ, as Christ to the
(0) Mia γάρ ἐστὶν ἡ σὰρὲ τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ, καὶ ἕν αὐτοῦ τὸ αἷμα τὸ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐκχυθέν. εἷς καὶ ἄρτος τοῖς, πᾶσιν ἐθρύφθη, καὶ ἕν ποτήριον τοῖς ὅλοις διενεμήθη, ἕν θυσιαστήριον πασῃ τῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ, καὶ εἷς Ἐπίσκοπος ἅμα τῷ Πρεσβυτερίῳ, καὶ τοῖς διακόνοις τοῖς συνδούλοις μοῦ"... Οἱ ἄρχοντες, πειθαρχείτωσαν τῷ Καίσαρι"... . Οἱ στρατιῶται, τοῖς ἄρχεσιν᾽" οἱ Διάκονοι, Tots Πρεσβυτέροις ᾿Αρχιερεῦσιν, οἱ Πρεσβύτεροι, καὶ of Διάκονοι, καὶ ὃ λοιπὸς κλῆρος, ἅμα πάντι τῷ λαῷ, καὶ τοῖς Στρατιώταις, καὶ τοῖς ἼΑρχοισι, καὶ τῷ Καίσαρι, τῷ ᾿Ἐπίσκοπῳ᾽ ὃ ᾽᾿Ἐπίσκοπος τῷ Χριστῷ, ὡς 6 Χριστὸς τῷ Πατρί. Καὶ οὕτως ἣ ἑνώτης διὰ πάντων σωζεταί.---(Ρρ. 93, 96.)
History of the Christian Priesthood. 210
Father.”? He concludes this Epistle in these words, — “I salute your God-worthy Bishop Polycarp, your God-worthy Presbyters, and your Christ-bearing Deacons.”4 In his Epistle to this Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, he writes :—‘‘ Let nothing be done without thy approbation ;” and to his people, he writes :—‘ Let all things be done to the honour of God. Give heed to your Bishop, that God may hearken unto you; I would exchange my soul with theirs who obey the Bishop, the Presbyters, and the Deacons. May my lot be together with theirs in God.”* In his Epistle to the Ephesians, he writes :—‘“‘ Be zealous to yield obedience to the Bishop, and to the Presbyters, and to the Deacons; for he who yields obedience to them, obeys Christ who employs them: and he who disobeys them, disobeys Christ Jesus, and he who disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God awaits him.”* Ignatius also men-
(p) Πάντες τῷ Ἐπισκόπῳ ἀκολουθεῖτε, ὡς ὃ Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς τῷ Πατρὶ, καὶ τῷ Πρεσβυτερίῳ δὲ, ὧς τοῖς ᾿Αποστόλοις᾽ τοὺς δὲ Διακόνους ἐντρέπεσθε, ὡς θεοῦ ἐντολην διακονοῦντας. Μηδεὶς, χωρὶς Ἐπισκόπου, τὶ πρασσέτω τῶν ἀνηκόντων εἰς τὴν Ἐκκλησίαν... Τίμα μὲν τὸν Θεὸν, ὡς αἴτιον τῶν ὅλων καὶ Κύριον" ᾿Επισκόπον δὲ, ws ᾿Δρχιερέα, Θεοῦ εἰκόνα φοροῦντα. Ὅ τιμῶν Ἐπίσκοπον, ὑπὸ θεοῦ τιμηθήσεται ... Οἱ λαΐκοι τοῖς Διακόνοις ὑποτασσέσθωσαν᾽ οἱ Διάκονοι τοῖς Πρεσβυτέριοι-" Oi Πρεσβύτεροι τῷ Ἐπισκόπῳ᾽ ὃ ᾿Ἐπίσκοπος τῷ Χριστῷ, ὡς αὐτὸς τῷ Πατρί...
(4) ᾿Ασπάζομαι τὸν ἀξιόθεον Ἐπίσκοπον ὑμῶν Πολύκαρπον, καὶ τὸ θεοπρεπὲς Πρεσβυτέριον, καὶ τοῖς Χριστοφόροις Διακόνοις, τοὶς cvvdovAus μοῦ.---(Ἰρηδῖ. Epist. ad Smyrn. pp. 168, 169, 172.)
(r) Πάντα εἰς τιμὴν θεοῦ γινέσθω, τῷ ᾿Ἐπισκόπῳ προσέχετε, ἵνα καὶ ὃ θεὺς ὑμῖν ἄντιψυχον ἐγὼ τῶν ὑποτασσομένων ᾿Ἐπισκόπῳ, Πρεσβυ- τερίῳ, Διακόνοις' Mer’ αὐτῶν μοὶ τὸ μέρος γένοιτο ἔχειν παρὰ θεοῦ. (Ignat. Epist. ad Polycarp, p. 208.)
(5) Srovddoure, ἀγαπητοὶ, ὑποταγῆναι τῷ ᾿Επισκόπῳ καὶ τοῖς
278 History of the Christian Priesthood.
tions, by name, several Bishops contemporary with him, as Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna; Onesimus, Bishop of Ephesus; Damas, Bishop of Magnesia, and Polybius, Bishop of Tralles.
Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, is the Father next in order of time. He was a disciple of the Apostles ; and had conversed with many who had seen Christ. According to Bishop Pearson, he died a.p. 147.* His Epistle, addressed to the Christians at Philippi, is an additional proof that Episcopacy existed in his time, and was recognized as the form of church government instituted by Christ. ‘ Polycarp [Bishop of the Smyrnzans], and the Presbyters with him, to the Church of God which is at Philippi ; may mercy abound to you, and peace from Almighty God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ. In like man- ner may the Deacons be blameless before the face of his justice, as the Deacons of God in Christ and not of men... Wherefore it behoves you to abstain from all these things, being obedient to the Pres- byters and Deacons.” "
Irenzeus follows Polycarp, of whom he had been
Πρεσβυτέροις, καὶ τοῖς Διακόνοις. ὋὉ γὰρ τούτοις brotaccopuevos, ὑπακούει Χριστῷ τῷ προχειρισάμενῳ αὐτούς" ὃ δὲ ἀπειθῶν αὐτοῖς, ἀπειθεῖ Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ" ὃ δὲ ἀπειθῶν τῷ υἱῷ, οὐκ ὄψεται τὴν ζωὴν, GAN 7 ὀργὴ τοῦ θεοῦ μενει ἐπ᾽ αὖτον.---(ἴσηαῖ, Epist. ad Ephes. p. 219.)
(ἢ) Op. Posthum. Chronol. Dissert. c. 14, &c.
(u) Πολύκαρπος [Σμύρνης Ἐπίσκοπος] καὶ of σὺν αὐτῷ Πρεσβύτεροι τῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῇ παροικούσῃ Φιλίπποις ἔλεος ὑμῖν, καὶ εἴρηνη παρὰ Θεοῦ παντοκράτορος, καὶ ἱζυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν πληθυνθείη... Ὁμοίως Διάκονοι ἄμεμπτοι κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ τῆς δικαιο- σύνης, ὡς Θεοῦ ἐν Χριστοῦ Διάκονοι, καὶ οὐκ ἀνθρώπων, K.T.A.... Διὸ δέον ἀπέχεσθαι ἀπὸ πάντων τούτων, ὑποτασσομένους τοῖς Πρεσβυτέροις
καὶ Διακόνοις, (Polycarp. Epist. ad Philipp. pp. 13, 17, 18.)
History of the Christian Priesthood. 279
the disciple, and lived a.p. 178. He was first a Presbyter of the Church of Lyons, in France, (in which character he is recommended to Eleutherius, Bishop of Rome, by the Christians of Lyons, while they were in prison,*) and after the martyrdom of Pothinus, whom the Churches of Lyons style their Bishop at the time of his suffering, lrenzeus suc- ceeded him as the Bishop of that city.y This Irenzus, in his writings against Valentinus, Mar- cion, and other heretics of his time, proves that their doctrines were not in the writings of the Apostles, neither delivered down from them by any undoubted tradition. In the following passage he bears testimony, not only to the fact that the Apostles consecrated Bishops, but also that there was an uninterrupted succession of Bishops from the Apostolic age down to the time in which he him- self wrote: ‘‘ It is in the power of all who wish to hear the truth, to discover the tradition of the Apostles in the whole world manifested in the Church. We are able to reckon up those who were constituted Bishops by the Apostles in the Churches, and those who were their successors, even down to our own times, who neither taught nor knew any such doctrine as is raved by these men. Although if the Apostles had known these acknowledged mysteries, which (as these heretics pretend) they taught the perfect apart and secretly from the rest of mankind, they would most espe-
(1) Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. v. c. 4.
(y) Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. y. c. 5; see also Pearson, Ep. Ignat. part 11. cap. 13, p. 158, &c.
280 History of the Christian Priesthood.
cially have delivered the same to those (viz. the Bishops) to whom also they committed the Churches themselves. For they greatly desired that those should be perfect and unblamable in every thing, whom they left to be their swecessors, consigning to them their own place of government. But since it is too tedious, in this volume, to reckon up the successions of al] the Churches, I will instance of the Church of Rome, the greatest and most ancient, and known to all, founded and constituted by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that tra- dition which it has from the Apostles, and that faith declared to men, conveyed down, even to our time, by means of the successions of Beshops, and hereby confound all these men. The blessed Apostles, therefore, founding and establishing that Church, delivered the Episcopacy of governing the Church to Linus. Of this Linus, Paul has made mention in his Epistles to Timothy. Anacletus succeeded him; after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement obtains the Hpiscopate, who also saw the Apostles themselves, and conversed with them, when as yet he had the preaching of the Apostles sounding in his ears, and their tradition before his eyes. To this Clement succeeded Evaristus, and to Evaristus Alexander, and Sixtus was appointed in succession the sixth from the Apostles; and, after him, Telesphorus, who also most gloriously suffered martyrdom, and afterwards Hyginus; after him Pius, after whom was Anicetus; but, after that, Soter succeeded to Anicetus; Eleutherius, now in the twelfth place from the Apostles, has the
ilistory of the Christian Priesthood. 281
Episcopacy. By this Ordination and Succession, that tradition and preaching of the truth, which is in the Church, from the Apostles, has come down even to our times.... And Polycarp also was constituted, by the Apostles, Bishop of the Church which is at Smyrna, in Asia, whom we also have seen in our early age, for he had continued very long, and when a very old man, he departed this life, suffering martyrdom, most nobly and gloriously.” In the fourth book of the same work, I[renzus
(z) “ Traditiones itaque Apostolorum in toto mundo mani- festatam in Ecclesia adest perspicere omnibus qui vera velint audire, et habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis, et Successores eorum usque ad nos, qui nihil tale docuerunt, neque cognoverunt quale ab his deliratur. Etenim si recognita mysteria scissent Apostoli, que seorsim et latenter ab reliquis perfectos docebant, his vel maximé traderent ea quibus etiam ipsas Ecclesias committebant. Valde enim perfectos et irreprehensibiles in omnibus eos volebant esse, quos et successores relinqguebant suum ipsorum locum Magisterii tradentes. Sed quoniam valdé longum est, in hoc tali volumine omnium Ecclesiarum enumerare successiones, maxim et antiquissime, et, omnibus cognite ἃ gloriosissimis duobus Apostolis Petro et Paulo Rome fundate et constitute Ecclesia, eam quam habet ab Apostolis traditionem, et annunciatam hominibus fidem, per successiones Episcoporum pervenientem usque ad nos, indicantes confundimus omnes eos. Fundantes igitur et instruentes beati Apostoli Eccle- siam, Lino Episcopatum administrande Ecclesie tradiderunt. Hujus Lini Paulus in his que sunt ad Timotheum Epistolis meminit. Succedit autem ei Anacletus, post eum tertio loco ab Apostolis Episcopatum sortitur Clemens, qui et vidit ipsos Apo- stolas, et contulit cum eis, cim adhuc insonantem predicationem Apostolorum et traditionem ante oculos haberet. [This last pas- sage Eusebius has preserved in Irenzeus’s own words :--- Θεμελιώ-ς σαντες καὶ οἰκοδομήσαντες of μακάριοι ᾿Απόστολοι τὴν ᾿Εκκλησίαν. Λίνῳ τὴν τῆς Ἐπισκοπῆς λειτουργίαν ἐνεχείρησαν. Τούτου τοῦ Λίνου Παῦλος ἐν ταῖς πρὸς Τιμόθιον ἐπιστολαῖς μέμνηται. Διαδέχεται δὲ αὐτὴν ᾿Ανέγκλητος μετὰ τοῦτον δὲ τρίτῳ τόπῳ ἀπὸ τῶν ᾿Αποστύλων τὴν Ἐπισκοπὴν κληροῦται Κλήμης. ‘O καὶ ἑωρακὼς τοὺς μακαρίους
282 History of the Christian Priesthood.
writes :—‘‘ Wherefore it behoves those who are Presbyters in the Church to obey those who have the succession in the Episcopate from the Apostles, as we have shown....”* ‘ Paul, teaching, says, ‘God has placed, first, Apostles in the Church; secondly, Prophets; thirdly, Teachers. Where, therefore, the graces of the Lord are placed, there it behoves us to learn the truth, among those with whom is that succession in the Church, which is from the Apostles....”’ <‘* For all these men are later than those Bishops to whom the Apostles committed the Churches.” °
᾿Αποστόλους, καὶ συμβεβληκὼς αὐτοῖς. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. v. c.6.] Non solus enim, adhuc multi supererant tune ab Apostolis docti. Sub hoc igitur Clemente, &c....Huic autem Clementi succedit Euaristus, et Euaristo Alexander, ac deinceps sextus ab Apostolis constitutus est Sixtus, et ab hoc Telesphorus, qui etiam gloriosissimé martyrium fecit, ac deinceps Hyginus, post Pius, post quem Anicetus. Cum autem successisset Aniceto Soter, nunc duodecimo loco Episcopatum ab Apostolis habet Eleutherius. Hae Ordinatione et Successione ea que est ab Apostolis in Ecclesia traditio, et veritatis przconiatio pervenit usque ad nos... Poly- carpus autem ab Apostolis in Asia, in e& est que Smyrnis Ecclesia constitutus Episcopus [preserved by Eusebius in the original, Ὑπὸ ᾿Αποστόλων κατασταθεὶς εἰς τὴν ᾿Ασίαν ἐν τῇ ἐν Σμύρνῃ ἐκκλησίᾳ ᾿Επίσκοπος. Eccl. Hist. lib. iv. ο. 14.7 quem et nos vidimus in prima nostra ztate; multum enim perseveraverat, et valdé senex gloriosissimé et nobilissimé martyrium faciens exivit de hac vita.” —(Iren. advers. Hereses, lib. iii. cap. 8, de Apostolorum Traditione, p. 170.)
(a) ‘‘ Quapropter eis qui in Ecclesia sunt Presbyteris obaudire oportet, his qui Successionem [Episcopatis] habent ab Apostolis, sicut ostendimus, qui cum Episcopattés successione charisma veri- tatis certum,”’ &c.—(Lib. iv. cap. 43, p. 277.)
(0) “ Paulus docens ait, Posuit Deus primd in Ecclesia Apostolos, secundd Prophetas, tertio Doctores. Ubi igitur charismata Domini posita sunt, ibi discere oportet veritatem, apud quos est ea que est ab Apostolis Ecclesie successio,” &c.—(Lib. iv. cap. 45.)
(6) ““Omnes enim ii valde posteriores sunt quam Episcopi,
History of the Christian Priesthood. 288
The next Father whom I shall quote is Clement, a Presbyter of the Church of Alexandria (thence called Clemens Alexandrinus), who followed Irenzeus at a distance of only sixteen years, z.e. A.D. 194. He not only mentions the several Offices of Bishop, Presbyters, and Deacons, as offices then in use, but that such offices existed in the times of the Apostles. For example, in his Pedagogus, after having recommended, out of the Holy Scriptures, several Christian duties, he tells us, that “‘ manifold instructions, appertaining to chosen characters, have been prescribed in the Holy Scriptures; some appertaining to Presbyters, some to Bishops, some to Deacons, others to widows.”* In his Stromateis, or Miscellanies, he speaks of Presbyters ‘‘ who were honoured, not merely because they were Presbyters, but by reason of their probity; that such a Presbyter was justly honoured, although he was not dignified wth the chief seat, or the most eminent dignity in the Church to which a Pres- byter had not arrived.” ‘“‘ And since there are gradual advancements in the Church, of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons; 1 think that these are imitations of angelical glory.” ὃ
quibus Apostoli tradiderunt Ecclesias,”’ &c.—(Lib. v. adv. Heres. cap. 17, Ὁ. 341.)
(4) Μυρίαι δὲ ὅσαι ὑποθῆκαι, εἰς πρόσωπα ἐκλεκτὰ διατείνουσαι, ἐγγεγράφαται ταῖς βίβλοις ταῖς ἁγίαις" ai μὲν Πρεσβυτέροις, αἱ δὲ ᾿Επισκόποις, αἱ δὲ Διακόνοις.---(Ῥεάδρορτιδ, lib. iii. c. 12.)
(6) Ἐπεὶ καὶ ai κατὰ τὴν Ἐκκλησίαν προκοπαὶ, Ἐπισκόπων, Τίρεσ- βυτέρων, Διακόνων, μιμήματα οἶμαι ᾿Αγγελικῆς δόξη». --- (Clem. Alexand. Stromat. lib. vi. p. 667. Edit. Paris.)
284 History of the Christian Priesthood.
Contemporary with Clement of Alexandria, was Tertullian. This Father was converted to Chris- tianity, A.D. 175, and ordained a Presbyter of Car- thage, Α. Ὁ. 192. A single passage from his writings will prove, that in that age Episcopacy was recog- nized as the Apostolical form of church government : “ But if any things dare to engraft themselves upon the Apostolic age, that therefore they may seem to have been delivered by the Apostles, be- cause they were under the Apostles, we are able to reply,— Let them produce the original of their Churches, and unroll the order of their Bishops so running down by successions from the beginning, that that first Bishop had some one of the Apostles themselves, or of persons ordained to the Apostolate, as his ordainer and predecessor, who persisted with the Apostles; for after this manner do Apostolic Churches bring down their Registers [or Records] ; as the Church of the Smyrnzans brings Polycarp constituted [Bishop] there by John; as the Church of the Romans, in like manner, Clement ordained [Bishop] there by Peter ; in like manner as the rest of the Churches show what branches they may have of Apostolical seed constituted into the Episcopate by the Apostles themselves. The heretics may forge or invent some such thing.”! In a Treatise on
(f) “ Czterum, si que audent interserere se xtati Apostolicez, ut ideo videantur ab Apostolis tradite, quia sub Apostolis fuerunt possumus dicere: edant ergo origines Ecclesiarum suarum, evolvant ordinem Episcoporum suorum, ita per successiones ab initio decurrentem, ut primus ille Episcopus aliquem ex Apostolis vel Apostolicis viris, qui tamen cum Apostolis perseveraverit,
History of the Christian Priesthood. 285
Baptism, also, Tertullian thus expresses himself:— ‘The High-Priest, who is the Bishop, has the power of baptizing, and then the Presbyters and Deacons, not however without the authority of the Bishop.” He also makes frequent mention of three distinct orders of Clergy, viz. Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons.
Origen, who flourished a. p. 230, makes frequent mention of Bishops, and of their office, as distinct from that of Presbyters. In his Treatise of Prayer he observes, there is ‘‘a debt due to the Deacon, another to the Presbyter, and that the debt to the Bishop is the weightiest of all, being claimed by our Saviour of the whole Church, under pain of punish- ment.”' In his Commentary on St. Matthew’s Gospel, he blames those who “ exalted themselves on account of their progenitors having sat on the
habuerit auctorem et antecessorem: hoc enim medo Ecclesize Apostulice census suos deferunt; sicut Smyrnzorum Ecclesia Polycarpum ab Joanne collocatum refert; sicut Romanorum Clementem a Petro ordinatum itidem; perinde-utique et cxterz exhibent, quos ab Apostolis in Episcopatum constitutos Apostolici seminis traduces habeant; confingant tale aliquid heretici.”— (Tertull. de Prescriptione Hereticorum, Sect. 32, p. 409.)
(5) “ Dandi quidem habet jus Summus Sacerdos qui est Epis- copus. Dehinc Presbyteri et Diaconi, non tamen sine Episcopi auctoritate.’”’—(De Baptism. lib. p. 415.)
(h) Monogam, p. 206; de Prescript. Hereticor. cap. 42, p. 413. “ Habemus et Johannis alumnas Ecclesias ; nam etsi Apocalypsim ejus Marcion respicit, ordines tamen Episcoporum ad originem recensus, in Joannem stabit auctorem.’’—(Tertull. lib. iv. adv. Marcion.)
(i) Χωρὶς δὲ τούτων καθυλικωτέραν ὄντων ἔστι τις χήρας προ- νοουμένης ὑπὸ τὴς ἐκκλησίας ὀφειλὴ, καὶ ἕτερα Διακύνου, καὶ ἄλλη Πρεσϑυτέρου, καὶ ᾿Επισκόπου δὲ ὀφειλὴ βαρυτάτη ἐστὶν ἀπωιτουμένη ὑπὸ τοῦ τῆς ὅλης ἐκκλησίας σωτῆρος, καὶ ἐκδικουμένη εἰ μὴ ἀποδιδῶτο. —(Origenes de Oratione, c. 28, p. 259.)
286 History of the Christian Priesthood.
Episcopal throne.”* In his Commentary on Jere- miah, he writes:—‘‘ Honour parents as parents, brothers as brothers, sons as sons, Bishops as Bishops, Presbyters as Presbyters, and Deacons as Deacons.”! In his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, he writes:—‘‘ The things which the Gospel, or the Apostle now speaks, he does not speak to temporal princes, nor to the kings of the world, but he speaks to the Governors and Princes of Churches, namely, to’those who judge those who are within; that is, to Bishops.”™ Lastly, in his Commentary on St. Luke’s Gospel, he writes :—“ If Jesus, the Son of God, is subject to Joseph and Mary, I will be subject to the Bishop, who has been ordained by God as a father to me; I will be sub- ject also to the Presbyter, who has been set over me by the authority of the Lord.””
(k) Προεδρίας ἠξιωμένοις ἐν τῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ Ἑκισκόπικου θρόνου, ἢ Πρεσβυτερείου τιμῆς, ἢ Διακονίας εἰς τὸν λαὸν τοῦ Ocov.—(Orig. Comm. in Matt. tom. xv. p. 690.)
(1) Τιμῆσας τοὺς γονεῖς, ὡς γονεῖς" ἀδελφοὺς, ὡς ἀδελφούς" vious, ὡς vious’ ᾽᾿Ἐπισκόπους, ὡς Ἐπισκόπους" Πρεσβυτέρους, ὡς Πρεσβυτέρου" Διακόνους, ὡς Διακόνους, κιτ.λ. --- (Origen in Jeremiam, Hom. xiv. p. 210.)
(m) “ Que Evangelium, vel Apostolus nunc loquitur, non Prin- cipibus seeculi, nec Regibus mundi, sed Ecclesiarum Rectoribus et Principibus loquitur, his videlicet qui judicant eos qui intus sunt, id est, Episcopis, vel Principibus, et Diaconibus.”— (Orig. Comment. in Epist. ad Rom. lib. 11. p. 477.) ‘O δὲ ἡγούμενος, οὕτω δὲ οἶμαι ὀνομάζειν τὸν καλούμενον ἐν ταῖς Ἐκκλησίαις Ἐπίσκοπον, k-T.A.—(Orig. Comm. in Matt. tom. xvi. p. 728.) Οἱ δὲ τὰς πρωτοκαθεδρίας πεπιστευμένοι τοῦ λαοῦ Ἐπίσκοποι καὶ Πρεσβύτεροι, x.7.A.—(Comm. in Matt. Hom. tom. xvi. p. 759.)
(n) “51 Jesus, Filius Dei, subjicitur Josepho et Marie, ego subjiciar Episcopo, qui mihi ἃ Deo ordinatus est Pater; subjiciar Presbytero, qui mihi Domini dignatione prepositus est.”—
History of the Christian Priesthood. 287
Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, who flourished about twenty years after Origen, makes frequent mention of three distinct Orders of Ministers by Apostolical institution in the Primitive Church, viz. Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons.° He asserts that no man was ever consecrated a Bishop who had not been ordained Deacon and Presbyter be- fore ;? that the power of ordination was peculiar and restricted to the Episcopal order; and that this order and office of Episcopacy was instituted by Christ himself.4 ‘* Hence,” continues Cyprian, “ in
(Origenes in Lucam. Homil. xxi.) Ἐν Ἐκκλησιαστικῇ of δοκοῦντες εἶναι ὑπεροχῇ Ἐπίσκοπους, καὶ Πρεσβυτέρους, εἴτε καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις κοσμικοῖς τίσιν ἀξιώμασιν.---(Οτῖρ. Comment. in Johan. tom. xxxii. p- 423.) Εἴ τις οὖν καὶ ἐν τούτοις τοῖς Ἵερευσι [δείκνυμι δὲ τοὺς Πρεσβυτέρους ἡμᾶς,] ἢ ἐν τούτοις τοῖς περιεστηκόσι τὸν λαὸν Λευίταις, [λέγω δὲ τοῦς Διακόνου5) ἁμαρτάνει ἕξει ταύτην τὴν κόλασιν.---- (Origen. in Jeremiam, Homilia xii. p.196.) Ἔξεστιν οὖν καὶ μὴ ὄντα σὲ Πρεσβύτερον, καὶ μὴ ὄντα ce Ἐπίσκοπον, μηδέ Διακόνον, μηδέ τίνι τιμῇ Ἐκκλησιαστικῇ τετιμημενον, εἰπεῖν τοῦτο, K.T.A.—(Orig. in Jerem. Hom. xiv. p. 220.) ‘‘Ecclesiasticum puto ordinem dicit qui in Episcopatis vel Presbyterii sedibus habetur. Vidit et Ordinationes, sive stationes Ministrorum ejus. Diaconorum (ut mihi videtur) ordinem memorat astantium divino Ministerio.’’— (Origen. Canticum Canticorum, lib. ii. p. 48.) “Εὖ sic custodiunt Episcopi mandatum imitantes Jesum, sic et Presbyteri.”— (Origen. in Isaiam, Hom. vi. p. 117.)
(0) Epist. 50, 66.
(p) “ Non iste ad Episcopatum subito pervenit (Cornelius), sed per omnia Ecclesiastica officia promotus, et in divinis administra- tionibus Dominum sepe promeritus ad Sacerdotii sublime fastigium cunctis religionis gradibus ascendit...et factus est Episcopus a plurimis Collegiis nostris qui tunc in urbe Roma aderant, qui ad nos literas, &c., de ejus ordinatione emiserunt.””—(Cypr. Epist. 52.)
(q) “ Meminisse autem Diaconi debent quoniam Apostolis, ὁ. e. Episcopos, et Prepositos Dominus elegit.’”—(Cypr. Ep. 65, ad Rogatian.) “ Quod si nos aliquid audere contra Deum possumus
288 History of the Christian Priesthood.
the course of times and succession, the order of Bishops and the constitution of the Church have descended, so that the Church is founded upon the Bishops, and every act of the Church is to be directed by the same Governors.”’ ‘ All Bishops succeed the Apostles by vicarial ordination,” s ‘‘ governing the Church with the same authority with which their predecessors, the Apostles, governed it.” ‘* Christ constituted the Apostles Bishops and Governors”" of the Church; ‘* Bishops are the successors of those Apostles.”* ‘‘ The Bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the Bishop, and if there be any who are not with the Bishop, they are not in the Church.”” He calls those schismatics, who act in
qui Kxpiscopos facit, possunt et contra nos audere Diaconi, a quibus fiunt.”—(Ibid.) “ Episcopos in Ecclesiis Dominicis in toto mundo divina dignatione praepositos.” —(Cypr. Epist. 63.)
(r) “Inde per temporum et successionum vices, Episcoporum ordinatio et Ecclesiz ratio decurrit, ut Ecclesia super Episcopos constituatur ; et omnis actus Ecclesia per eosdem Prepositos gubernetur. Cum hoc itaque divina lege fundatum sit, miror quosdam audaci temeritate sic mihi scribere voluisse, ut Ecclesiz nomine literas facerent, quando Ecclesia in Episcopo et Clero, et in omnibus stantibus sit constituta.”—(S. Cypr. Epist. 27.)
(s) “ Nec hee jacto, sed dolens-profero, cum te judicem Dei constituas et Christi, qui dicit ad Apostolos ac per hoc adomnes Prepositos qui Apostolis Vicarid Ordinatione succedunt, qui vos audit, me audit,” &c.—(Cypr. Epist. 69, ad Florentium Pa- pianum.)
(ἢ) “ Ecclesia gubernande sublimis ac divina potestas.” —(Cypr. Epist. 9, ad Rogatianum.)
(5) ‘ Apostolos, id est, Episcopos et Przpositos Dominus elegit.”—(Cypr. Ep. 65.)
(x) “ Hoc enim vel maxime Frater, et laboramus et laborare debemus ut unitatem a Domino, et per Apostolos nobis (Episcopis) Successoribus traditam quanttiim possumus obtinere curemus.””— (Cypr. Epist. 42, ad Cornelium.)
(y) “ Ecclesia super Episcopos constituatur,” &c.—(Cypr. Ep.
flistory of the Christian Priesthood. 989
opposition to their lawful Bishop, “ setting up separate conventicles for themselves ;”* and con- siders that the abolition of Episcopacy will be the
forerunner of, and preparatory to the great Anti- christ.”
Eusebius, a.d.315.—The testimony of Eusebius, Bishop of Ceesarea, is important on this subject, because although not born until eight years after the martyrdom of Cyprian, yet, in compiling his Ecclesiastical History, he had the advantage of consulting al/ the Christian writings, whether Greek or Latin, (amongst them the rare collection of manuscripts which Pamphilius, his particular friend, had collected at Czesarea,) the greater part of which are lost to us,° but was, as he himself tells us, fur- nished, by the order of the Emperor Constantine, with all the records of the churches throughout the empire.¢ Now Eusebius, after this most diligent
27, ad Lapsos.) ‘ Illi sunt Ecclesia, Plebs Sacerdoti adunata, et Pastori suo Grex adherens. Ecclesia non est que non habet Sacerdotes, similiter et Ecclesia multis gradibus consistens ad extremum Diaconis, Presbyteris, et Episcopis finitur.’”’—(S. Cypr. Epist. 66.)
(a) “ Conventicula 5101 diversa constituerunt.”
(6) “ Christi adversarius, et Ecclesize ejus inimicus δά hoc, Ecclesi@ Prepositum sua infestatione prosequitur, ut Gubernatore sublato, atrociis atque violentids circa Ecclesiz naufragia gras- setur.’’—(Cypr. Ep. 55.)
(c) See Hieron. Ep. ad Chron. ; and Heliod. Antipater Bostrensis in Concil. Nicen. IIL. Act. 5.
(4) Among the writings and records with which Eusebius was furnished, are to be found the following :—‘ Africani Epistola ad Aristidem de consensu Evangeliorum in stirpe Christi narranda ;’ ‘ Josephi Antiquitates ;) ‘ Annales et Commentarii publici Urbis Edessenorum ;’ ‘ Tertulliani Apologia ;’ Of ὑποτυπώσεις, seu In- stitutiones Clementis liber cui Titulus est, ‘Quis nam dives
O
290 History of the Christian Priesthood.
search into the ancient records of the Church, (many of which were written immediately after the
salvetur ;’ (which oration of Clemens Alexandrinus may be seen “ in Auctuario Bibliothece Patrum, a Fr. Combefis,’ edit. anno 1672, part i. p. 185, n. 42); also Of Στρωματεῖς ; ‘ Philo in legatione ad Caium;’ ‘Liber de Virtutibus;’? ‘ Olympiadum Scriptores ;’ ‘ Justini Apologetici;’ ‘ Irenei adversus hereses libri;’ ‘ Caii Disputatio adversus Proclum;’ ‘ Hegesippi Commentarii;’ ‘ Dionysii Episc. Corinth. Epistola ad Romanam Ecclesiam et Athenienses ;’ ‘ Origenis Expositiones in Genesim, Psalmorum, in Evangelia Matthzi, et ‘Joannis, Epistole ad Leonidem patrem, ad Ambro- sium et Protoctetum, ad Africanum, ad Philippum Imp. et ad Severum Aug. ad Fabianum Papam, Homil. in Epist. Pauli ad Hebreos, et Homil. in Psalm lxxxii. ;’ ‘ Dionysius Alexandrinorum Episcop. De Promissionibus, Epist. advers. Cyermanum, ad Fabium Antiochensem Episcopum, ad Novatum, ad Cornelium Papam, ad Hermammonen, ad Stephanum et Xystum Papam; Epistola ad Domitium et Didymum ; Epistole Paschales ad Hieracem Epi- scopum, et ad Alexandrinos; Polycratis Ep. Ephes. Epistola ad Victorem ;’ ‘Ignatii Epist. ad Romanos et ad Smyrnzos ;’ ‘ Polycarpi Epist. ad Philippenses ;’ ‘ Quadrati Apologeticus pro Christianis ad Imp. Hadrianum;’ ‘ Aristo Pellzeus;’ ‘ Acta Pas- sionis Carpi, Papuli, et Agathonice ;’ ‘ Tatianus advers. gentes;’ ‘ Melitonis liber de Pascha, Apologetic. ad Imp. Marcum, liber excerptorum sacre Scripture ;’ ‘ Apollinaris Episcopus Hieropo- litanus ;’ ‘ Incertus liber adversus Cataphrygas; et liber contra Artemonis heresim;’ ‘ Apollonii liber adv. Cataphrygas;’ ‘ Se- rapionis Epistola ad Caricum et Ponticum, et liber de Evangelio Petri;’ ‘ Alexander in Epistola ad Antinoitas, ad Antiochenses, ad Origenem, et Demetrium;’ ‘ Anatol. ex Canone Paschali;’ ‘ Philee Epistola ad Thmuitas; Epistole Ecclesise Smyrnzeorum ad Philomelienses et reliquas Ecclesias, Ecclesia Smyrnzeorum de Martyrio Pionii;’ ‘ Ecclesia Smyrnzorum de Martyrio Pionii;’ ‘ Ecclesia Viennensis ac Lugdunensis ad Ecclesias Asie et Phrygie ;) ‘ Martyrum Lugdunensium ad Eleutherum Papam ;’ ‘ Epist. Synodica Concilii Romani de Celebratione Festi Paschalis ;’ ‘ Epistola Synodica Episcoporum Provincie Palestine ;’ ‘ Epistola Synodica Ecclesiarum Ponti ;’ ‘ Epistola Synodica Concilii Gali- eani;’ ‘Synodica Epistola Ecclesiarum Osdroene de celebratione Pasche ;’ ‘ Epist. Bacchylli Corinthiorum Episcopi de celebratione Pasche ;’ ‘ Epistola Synodica Irenei ad Victorem Papam ;’ ‘ Cor- nelii Pape Epist. ad Fabium Antiochenum de condemnatione
History of the Christian Priesthood. 291
Apostolic age,) not only positively speaks of the three orders of Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon, as having existed from the earliest ages of Chris- tianity, but also gives us a list of the Bishops who presided in the principal cities of the Roman empire, from the Apostles down to his own time.*
Novati;’ ‘Synodica Epistola Concilii Antiocheni ad Dionysium Papam et reliquos Episcopos.’
(e) In the see of Jerusalem, he names thirty-six Bishops in immediate succession, from James to Hermon: Πρῶτος Ἐπισκόπος ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις ᾿Ιακώβος 6 τοῦ Κυρίου λεγόμενος ἀδελφὸς ἢν" μεθ᾽ dv δεύτερος Συμεών" τρίτος ᾿Ιοῦστος᾽ Ζακχαῖος τέταρτοΞ᾽ πέμπτος Τωβίας" ἕκτος Βενιαμίν" ᾿Ιωάννης €Bdouos’ ὄγδοος Ματθίας" ἔννατος Φίλιππος" δέκατος Σενεκᾶς᾽ ἑνδέκατος Ἰοῦστος Λευὶς δωδέκατος" Ἐφρῆς τρισκαιδέκατοδ᾽ τεσσαρεσκαιδέκατος ᾿Ιωσήφ᾽ ἐπὶ πᾶσι πεντεκαιδέκατος Ἰούδας. Τοσοῦτοι καὶ οἱ ἐπὶ τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων πόλεως ᾿ΕἘπίσκοποι, ἀπὸ τῶν ᾿Αποστόλων εἰς τὸν δηλούμενον διαγενόμενοι χρόνον, οἵ πᾶντες ἐκ περιτομῆς" (Euseb. Eccl. Hist. lib. iv. cap. 5.) "EE οὗ δὴ πρῶτον THY αὐτόθι Ἐκκλησίαν ἐξ ἐθνῶν συστῆναι μετὰ τοὺς ἐκ περιτομῆς. καθηγήσασθαι τε αὐτῶν πρῶτον ἐξ ἐθνῶν Ἐπίσκοπον Μάρκον ἐδηλώσαμεν" μεθ᾽ ὃν ἐπισκοπεῦσαι Κασσιανὸν, αἱ τῶν αὐτόθι διαδοχαὶ περιέχουσι; καὶ μετὰ τοῦτον Πούπλιον᾽ εἶτα Μάξιμον" καὶ ἐπὶ τούτοις Ἰουλιανόν" ἔπειτα Τάϊον᾽ μεθ᾽ ὃν Σύμμαχον, καὶ Γάϊον ἕτερον᾽ καὶ πάλιν ἄλλον Ἰουλιανόν᾽ Καπίτωνα τε πρὸς τούτοις καὶ Οὐάλεντα, καὶ Δολιχιανόν" καὶ ἐπὶ πᾶσι τὸν Νάρκισσον, τριακοστὸν ἀπὸ τῶν ᾿Αποστόλων κατὰ τὴν τῶν ἑξῆς διαδοχὴν γεγενημένον. (Eccl. Hist. lib. v. cap. 12.) Τοῦ δὲ Ναρκίσσου ἀνακεχωρηκότος ἐφ᾽ ἑτέρου μετίασιν "Ἐπισκόπου χειροτονίαν, Atos τούτω ὄνομα ἦν᾽ ὅν Γερμανιων διαδέχεται" καὶ τοῦτον Τύρδιος. (Eccl. Hist. lib. vi. cap. 10.) Καὶ δὴ μηκέθ᾽ olovre dvTos λειτουργεῖν διὰ λιπαρὸν γῆρας, K.T.A, ᾿Αλέ- tavipos ἦν τῆς Ἱεροσολύμων ἐκκλησίας Ἐπίσκοπος... Μαζαβάνης διάδοχος τῆς ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις Ἐπισκοπῆς ἀναδείκνυται" (Eccl. Hist. lib. vi. cap. 11, 89.) Ἔν Ἱεροσολύμοις, ἀναπαυσαμένου Μαζαβάνου, τὸν θρόνον Ὑμέναιος διεδέξατο. (Eccl. Hist. lib. vi. cap. 14.) In the see of Rome, he names from Linus to Miltiades twenty-eight Bishops in immediate succession: Οὐεσπασιανοῦ κατὰ δεύτερον ἔτος τῆς Βασιλείας, Aivos Ἐπίσκοπος τῶν Ῥωμαίων ἐκκλησίας δυοκαί- δεκα τὴν λειτουργίαν ἐνιαυτοῖς κατασχὼν, ᾿Ανεγκλήτῳ ταύτην παρα- δίδωσι. (Eccl. Hist. lib. iii. cap. 13.) ᾿Ανέγκλητον διαδέχεται Κλήμης. (Lib. iii, cap. 15.) Κλήμης Evupeot@® παραδίδωσι: τὴν
292 History of the Christian Priesthood.
We hope that sufficient testimony has been pro- duced to distinctly prove that the Apostles, and the
λειτουργίαν" (Lib. 111. cap. 34.) ᾿Αλέξανδρος τὴν *EmoKxorhy ἀπολαμβάνει. (Lib. iv. cap. 1.) Ξύστος ἣν τούτῳ διάδοχος. (Lib. iv. cap. 4.) Ξύστον ἕβδομος ἀπὸ τῶν ᾿Αποστόλων διαδέχεται Τελεσφύρος. (Lib. iv. cap. ὅ.) Τελεσφόρου τὸν βίον μεταλλάξαντος, Ὑγῖνος τὸν κλῆρυν τῶν Ῥωμαίων ᾿Ἐπίσκοπῆς παραλαμβάνει. (Lib. iv. cap. 10.) Ὑγίνου τελευτήσαντος Πῖος ἐπὶ Ῥώμης ἐγχειριζέται τὴν λειτουργίαν. (Lib. iv. cap. 11.) ᾿Ανίκητον Σωτὴρ διαδέχεται. (Lib. iv. cap. 19.) Σωτὴρα δωδέκατος ἀπὸ τών ᾿Αποστόλων ᾿Ελεύθερος διαδέχεται. (Lib. v. cap. 1.) ᾿Ελεύθερον διαδέχεται Βίκτωρ. (Lib. v. cap. 22.) ‘O “Ῥωμαίων Ἐπίσκοπος Zepupivos μεταλλάττει τὸν βίον" μεθ᾽ ὅν Κάλ- λιστος τὴν ᾿Ἐπισκοπὴν ἐγχειρίζεται" ὃς Οὐρβανῷ τὴν Ἐκκλησίαν καταλείπει. (Lib. vi. cap. 21.) Τῆς κατὰ Ῥώμην ἐκκλησίας Ποντιανὸν ἐπισκοπεύσαντα διαδέχεται ᾿Αντέρως. ... φαβιανὸς τῇ λειτουργίᾳ διεκονήσε. (Lib. vi. cap. 29.) Φαβιανοῦ τελειωθέντος Κορνήλιος τὴν ᾿Επισκοπὴν διαδέχεται. (Lib. vi. cap. 89.) Κορνήλιον τὴν Ἐπισκοπὴν διανύσαντος Λούκιος κατέστη διάδοχος οὗτος Στεφάνῳ τελευτῶν μεταδίδωσι τὸν κλῆρον. (Lib. vii. οαρ. 2.) Στέφανον Ἐύστος διαδέ- χεται. (Lib. vii. cap. ὅ.) Ξύστον διαδέχεται τῷ κατ᾽ ᾿Αλεξάνδρειαν ὁμώνυμος Διονύσιος. (Lib. vii. cap. 27.) Καθ᾽ ods Φήλικα Ἐὐτυχιανὸς διαδέχεται" οὗτος Ταίῳ τῷ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς καταλείπει τὸν κλῆρον" Μαρκελλῖνος κατέστη διάδοχος. (Lib. vii. cap. 32.) Μαρκελλῖνον διαδέχεται Μιλτιάδης. (Lib. x. cap. 5.) In the see of Alexandria he names eighteen Bishops in succession from Mark to Alexander : Τῆς κατ᾽ ᾿Αλεξάνδρειαν παροικίας 6 πρῶτος [μετὰ Μάρκον] ᾿Αννιανός" διαδέχεται δ᾽ αὐτὸν δεύτερος ᾿Αβίλιος. (Eccl. Hist. lib. iii. cap. 14.) ᾿Αβίλιον διαδέχεται Κέρδων. (Lib. iii. cap. 21.) Τέταρτος δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν ᾿Αποστόλων τὴν τῶν αὐτόθι λειτουργίαν κληροῦται Πρίμος. (Lib. iv. cap. 1.) Πρίμον διαδέχεται Ἰοῦστος. (Lib. iv. cap. 4.) Tas ᾿Αλεξανδρέων παροικίας τὴν προστασίαν Εὐμενὴς ἕκτῳ κλήρῳ διαδέχεται" (Lib. iv. cap. 6.) κατὰ γε μὴν τὴν ᾿Αλεξάνδρειαν Μάρκος ἀναδείκνυται ποιμὴν. Κελαδίων τῶν ᾿Αλεξανδρέων ἐκκλησίας τὴν λειτουργίαν παραλαμβάνει. (Lib. iv. cap. 11.) Τὴν διαδοχὴν ᾿Αγριππῖνος διαλαμβάνει. (Lib. iv. cap. 19.) Kar’ ᾿Αλεξάνδρειαν ἐκκλησιῶν Ἰουλιανὸς ἐγχειρίζεται τὴν Ἐπισκοπήν. (Lib. v. cap. 9.) Τῶν κατ᾽ ᾿Αλεξανδρειαν παροικιῶν τὴν λειτουργίαν εγχειρίζεται Δημήτριος. (Lib. v. cap. 22.) Διαδέχεται δ᾽ αὐτὸν 6 Ἡρακλᾶς. (Lib. vi. cap. 26.) Τῶν κατ᾽ ᾿Αλεξάνδρειαν ἐκκλησιῶν τὴν ᾿Επισκοπὴν Διονύσιος ὑπολαμβάνει. (Lib. vi. cap. 85.) Διαδέχεται δὲ αὐτὸν Μάξιμος. (Lib. vii. cap. 28.) Μάξιμον Θεωνᾶς διαδέχεται. Mera
History of the Christian Priesthood. 293
Apostolic Fathers of the second and third centuries, recognized Episcopacy as of divine institution, and,
δὲ Θεωνᾶν διαδέχεται THY Ἐπισκοπὴν τῶν ἐπ᾽ ᾿Αλεξανδρείας Πέτρος. (Lib. vii. cap. 32.) In the see of Antioch he names eighteen Bishops in succession, from Evodius to Tyrannus: ᾿Αλλὰ καὶ τῆς ἐπ᾽ ᾿Αντιοχείας Evodtov πρώτου καταστάντος, δεύτερος ἐν τοῖς δηλου- μένοις Ἰγνάτιος ἐγνωρίζετο. (Eccl. Hist. lib. 111. cap. 22.) Διαδέχεται δὲ μετ᾽ αὐτὸν τῆς ᾿Αντιοχείας Ἐπισκοπὴν “Hpws. (Lib. 111. cap. 36.) Τηνικαῦτα καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς ᾿Αντιοχέων ἐκκλησίας Θεόφιλος ἕκτος ἀπὸ τῶν ᾿Απυστόλων ἐγνωρίξετο. (1,10. iv.cap.20.) Τοῦτον μὲν οὖν ἕβδομος ἀπὸ τῶν ᾿Αποστόλων διαδέχεται Μαξιμῖνος. (Lib. iv. cap. 24.) “Oy500s Σαραπίων ᾿Ἐπίσκοπος ἐγνωρίζετο. (Lib. v. cap. 22.) Τὴν Ἐπισκοπὴν διαδέχεται ᾿Ασκληπιάδης. (Lib. vi. cap. 11.) ᾿Ασκλη- πιάδην Φιλητὸς διαδέχεται. (Lib. vi. cap. 21.) Μετὰ Φιλητὸν Ζεβῖνος. (Lib. vi. cap. 23.) Βαβύλας τὴν αρχὴν διαδέχεται. (Lib. vi. cap. 80.) Φάβιος τῆς ev’ Ἀντιοχεία προΐσταται ἐκκλησίας. (Lib. vi. cap. 39.) Τῆς δὲ ἐπ’ ᾿Αντιοχείας μετὰ Φάβιον Δημητριανύς καθη- γεῖτο. (Lib. vii. cap. 14.) Τὴν ᾿Επισκοπὴν Παῦλος 6 ἐκ Σαμοσάτων παραλαμβάνει. (Lib. vii. cap. 27.) Δόμνος τὴν λετουργίαν τῆς κατὰ ᾿Αντιόχειαν ἐκκλησίας διεδέξατο. (Lib. vii. cap. 80.) Κατὰ τούσδε τῆς ᾿Αντιοχέων ᾿Ἐπισκοπῆς μετὰ Δόμνον ἡγήσατο Τίμαιος" ὅν 6 καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς διεδέξατο Κύριλλος" μετὰ δὲ Κύριλλον Τύραννος τῆς ᾿Αντιοχέων παρακίας τὴν Ἐπισκοπὴν διεδέξατο. (Lib. vii. cap. 32.) In the see ot Cesarea, in Palestine, of which see he was himself Bishop, Eusebius mentions six Bishops from Theophilus to himself: Θεόφιλος τῆς ἐν Καισαρείᾳ τῇ ἐπὶ Παλαιστίνῃ παροικίας "Ἐπίσκοπος. (Lib. v. cap. 22, 28.) Θεόκτιστος ὃ Καισαρείας ᾿Επίσκοποξ. (Lib. vi. cap. 19.) Τῆς δ᾽ ἐπὶ Παλαιστίνης Καισαρείας διαδέχεται τὴν Ἐπισκοπὴν Aduvos. Θεότεκνος 6 Kal? ἡμᾶς διάδοχος καθίσταται. (Lib. vil. cap. 14.) Θεότεκνον ᾿Αγάπιος διαδέχεται. (Lib. vii. cap. 32.) In the see of Laodicea, in Syria, Eusebius names seven Bishops in succession, from Thelymidres to Theodotus: Λαοδίκειας προΐστατο Θηλυμίδρης Ἐπίσκοπος. (Lib. vi. cap. 46.) Ἡλιόδωρος ἐν Λαοδικεία ἀναπαυσα- μένου Θηλυμίδρου. (Lib. vii. cap. 5.) Τῆς δ᾽ ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ παροικίας ἡγήσατο μετὰ Σωκράτην Εὐσέβιος. (Lib. viii. cap. 32.) ᾿Ανατόλιος αὐτῷ διάδοχος καθίσταται. (Lib. vii. cap. 32.) Tod ᾿Ανατολίου δὲ τὸν βιὸν μεταλλάξαντος, καθίσταται Στέφανος. (Lib. vii. cap. 32.) Besides these principal sees, Eusebius mentions the names οἵ Bishops presiding over other sees. The Bishops of Bostra, in Arabia, [Βήρυλλος, lib. vi. cap. 20; Μάξιμος, lib. vil. cap. 28 ;] the Bishops of Tyre, [Kdoowws, lib. v. cap. 25; Μαρῖνος, lib. vii. cap. 5; Tupavviwy, lib. vii. ee Παυλίνος, lib. x. cap. 43] oO
294 History of the Christian Priesthood.
consequently, as an essential part of Christ’s Church. The Apostolic age was an Episcopal one, and that age is ours; succeeding ages may be whose they may. Even the arch enemy of Episcopacy, Mr. Howitt, tacitly admits that Episcopacy was unques- tioned by the Fathers until the close of the fourth century; for the first, indeed the only, Father whom he brings forward as an anti-episcopal wit- ness, is Jerome, who lived a.p. 392.6 We will
the Bishop of Develtum, in Thrace, [Αἴλιος Πούπλισς ᾿Ιουλίος, lib. v. cap. 19;] the Bishops of Lyons, in Gaul, [Ποθεινὸς, lib. v. cap. 1; Εἰρηναῖος, lib. v. cap. 23 5] the Bishop of Crete, [Φίλιππος, lib. iv. cap. 25;] the Bishop of Sardis, [Μελίτων, lib. iv. cap. 13, 25 ;] the Bishops of Ephesus, [Τιμοθέος, lib. iii. cap. 43 Ἰωάννης, lib. iii. cap. 23; Πολύκρατης, lib. v. cap. 22;] the Bishop of Smyrna, [Πολύκαρπος, lib. v. cap. 23, 24;] the Bishops of Hiera- polis, [Παπίας, lib. 111. cap. 26, 39; ᾿Απολλινάριος, lib. iv. cap. 26 ;] the Bishops of Corinth, [Πρίμος, lib. iv. cap. 21 ; Auovuctos, lib. iv. cap. 23; Βακχύλλος, lib. v. cap. 23;] the Bishops of ᾿ Pontus, [Πάλμας, lib. v. cap. 235 Τρηγύριος δὲ καὶ ᾿Αθενόδωρος, lib. vil. cap. 28; Μελέτιος, lib. vii. cap. 82 :] the Bishop of Eu- menea, [ Θρασέας, lib. v. cap. 243] the Bishop of Ptolemais, [KaAdpos, lib. v. cap. 253] the Bishop of Hermopolis, [Κόνων, lib. vi. cap. 465] the Bishop of Cappadocia, [Φιρμιλιανὸς, lib. vi. cap. 11; vii. 14; vi. 26;] the Bishop of Armenia, [Mepoufavns, lib. vi. cap. 46;] the Bishop of Tarsus, in Cilicia, [Ἑλένος, lib. vi. cap. 463 vii. cap.5;] the Bishop of Carthage, [Kumpiavos, lib. vii. cap. 3; Καικιλιανὸς, lib. x. cap. 5;] the Bishop of Iconium, ΓΝικόμας, lib. vii. cap. 28;] the Bishops of Egypt, [‘Iepaé, lib. vii. cap. 21; Νέπως, lib. vii. cap. 24; Πηλεὺς, lib. vill. cap. 13; Φιλεὰς τε Kal Ἡσύχιος Kat Παχύμιος καὶ Θεύδωρος, lib. viii. cap. 13; ix. cap. 6;] the Bishop of Berenice, [’Aupwr, lib. vii. cap. 26;] the Bishop of Pentapolis, [Βασιλείδης, lib. vil. cap. 26;] the Bishop of Nicomedia, [“Av@:uos, lib. viii. cap. 13 ;] the Bishop of Emesa, ΓΣΞιλβανὸς, lib. viii. cap. 18; ix. cap. 6;] the Bishop of Gaza, [ Z:ABavos, lib. viii. cap. 13;] the Bishop of Syracuse, [Χρήστος, lib. x. cap. 5;] the Bishops of Athens, [Πούπλιος, Kodparos, lib. iv. cap. 23.] See also Euseb. Eccl. Hist. lib. vii. cap. 5, 28; viii. cap. 13: de Vita Constant. lib. 111. cap. 17. (f) 3d Ed. p. 241.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 295
quote Jerome’s writings in their order, but next in succession to Kusebius, whom we last named, comes Athanasius.
A.D. 3826. Athanasius.—This Father was con- temporary with Eusebius, sat with him in the council of Nice, and was forty-seven years Arch- bishop of Alexandria. He not only gives unequi- vocal testimony in favour of Episcopacy, but, in his Apology against the Arians, tells us that the ordination of Ischyras and others was annulled by the synod of Alexandria because they had been ordained by Colluthus, a Presbyter.®
A.D. 304. Hilary.—Hilary, the Roman Deacon, speaks of the Order and Office of Episcopacy as of divine institution."
A.D. 368. Epiphanius. — Again, Epiphanius, Bishop of Cyprus, not only asserts the Church to
(6) ᾿Αλλ᾽ ὅτι Κόλλουθος Πρεσβύτερος, ὥν ἐτελεύτησε, καὶ πᾶσα χεὶρ αὐτοῦ γέγονεν ἄκυρος, καὶ πάντες of παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ κατασταθέντες, καὶ ἐν τῷ σχίσματι, λαϊκοὶ γεγόνασι... Ὑπὸ yap Κολλύθου τοῦ Πρεσβυ- τέρου φαντισθέντος ᾿Επισκοπὴν, καὶ ὕστερον ὑπὸ κοινῆς τοῦ Ὁσίου Συνόδου, καὶ τῶν σὺν αὐτῷ ᾿Ἐπισκόπων κελευσθέντος Πρεσβυτέρου εἶναι, καθὸ καὶ πρότερον ἢν---ὧς καὶ αὐτὸς Ἰσχύρας λαϊκὸς ὥφθη. (S. Athanas. Apol. pp. 732, 784, Edit. Par. 1627.) Ἐκπεσὼν καὶ THs ψευδοῦς ὁπονοίας τοῦ Πρεσβυτερίου. .. Λαϊκοὶ γεγόνασι, καὶ οὕτω συνάγονται... ὧς οὐδενὶ καθήστεικειν ἀμφίβολον, κιτιλ. (See apud Athanas. Apolog. 2 Epist. Presb. et Diacon. Mareotic. ad Curiosum et Philagrium.)
(h) “ Sed Episcopus primus est, ut omnis Episcopus Presbyter sit, non tamen omnis Presbyter Episcopus.” (Comm. 1 Tim. iii.) “« Jacobum vidit Hierosolyme quia illic erat constitutus ab Apos- [0115 Episcopus.” (Com.i.19.) “ Caput in Ecclesia Apostolorum posuit—ipsi sunt Episcopi.” (Comm. 1 Cor. xii. 28.) “ Hunc jam creatum Episcopum [Timotheum] instruit per Epistolam.’’ (Prefat.in1 Ep.ad Tim.) “ Titum Apostolus consecravit Epi- scopum.” (Prefat. in Ep. ad Tit.) “ Angelos Episcopos dicit
296 History of the Christian Priesthood.
have been Episcopaliy governed in his own time,’ and that the same distinction between Bishop and Presbyter had prevailed during the lives of the Apostles,* but he scruples not to call Arius a heretic for asserting that a Presbyter was equal to a Bishop.!
A.D. 3870. Basil and Optatus.— Basil, an African Bishop, calls the office of Bishop, ‘‘ the Presidency of the Apostles.”™ Optatus, a Numidian Bishop, speaks unreservedly of the existence in the Church of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, during the lives of the Apostles."
sicut docetur in Apocalypsi Johannis.”” (Comm. in 1 Cor. xi. 10.) “In Episcopo omnes ordines sunt, quia primus Sacerdos est, hoc est, primus Sacerdotum,” &c. (Comm. in 1 Eph. iv. 11.)
(i) ‘H ΓἘπισκόπη] μὲν γὰρ ἐστὶ πατέρων γεννητικὴ τάξις, πατέρας γὰρ γεννᾷ τῇ Ἐκκλήσιᾳ" ἢ δὲ πατέρας μὴ δυναμένη γεννᾷν. (Epiphan. Heres. 75). ‘‘ Singuli Ecclesiarum Episcopi habent sub se Ecclesias.’ (Epiphan. Epist. ad Johan. Hieron.) ‘‘ Quotquot enim in Alexandria Catholice Ecclesie sunt, sub uno Episcopo sunt, ad has destinati sunt Presbyteri propter Ecclesiarum neces- sitates, ita ut habitatores vicini sunt uniuscujusque Ecclesiz.”’ (Epiphan. apud 5. Hieron. Heres. 69.)
(k) “ Docet divinus Apostoli sermo quis sit Episcopus et quis Presbyter, quum dicit ad Timotheum qui erat Episcopus, Presby- terum ne objurges,” &c. (Epiphan. Heres. 75.)
(1) τί ἐστιν Ἐπίσκοπος πρὸς Πρεσβύτερον ; οὐδὲν διαλλάττει μετὰ τούτου" μία γάρ ἐστι τάξις, μία [φησὶ] τιμὴ; καὶ ἐν ἀξίωμα" χειροθετεῖ, φησὶν, Ἐπίσκοπος" ἀλλὰ καὶ ὃ Πρεσβύτερος, κ-τ.λ. Λόγον μανιώδη. -. καὶ ὅτι μετὰ ἀφροσύνης“ ἐστὶ τὸ πᾶν ἔμπλειον, τοῖς σύνεσιν κεκτημένοις τοῦτο δῆλον᾽ τὸ λέγειν, αὐτὸν Ἐπίσκοπον, καὶ Πρεσβύτερον ἶσον εἶναι... καὶ πῶς ἔσται τοῦτο δυνατόν; ἡἣ γὰρ ἐστὶ πατέρων Τεννητικὴ τάξις᾽ Πατέρας γὰρ γεννᾷ τῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ" ἣ δὲ πατέρας μὴ δυναμένη γεννᾶν διὰ τῆς TOV λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας τέκνα γεννᾷ τῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ, ov μὴν πατέρας, ἢ διδασκάλους" καὶ πῶς οἷόν τε ἣν Πρεσβύτερον καθι- στῶν, μὴ ἔχοντα χειροθεσίαν τοῦ χειροτονεῖν. (Epiphan. Heres. lib. iii. ad Heres. 75.)
(m) Tpocdpiuy τῶν ᾿Αποστόλων ; Προεδρίαν ᾿Αποστολικὴν. (Basil. in loc.)
(n) “ Quid commemorem Laicos qui tune in Ecclesia nulla
istory of the Christian Priesthood. 297
A.D. 374. Ambrose.—Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, declares Episcopacy and a threefold order of ministry to be of divine institution,® speaks of Bishops as being the successors of the Apostles,? and asserts that, by divine right, the power of ordination was exclusively confined to the Episcopal office.?
fuerant dignitate suffulti? quid ministros plurimos, quid Diaconos in tertio, quid Presbyteros in secundo Sacerdotio constitutos ? Ipsi apices, et Principes omnium aliqui Episcopi aliqua instrumenta Divine legis impié tradiderunt.’? (Optatus, lib. 1. ad Parmen.) ‘‘ Quatuor genera capitum sunt in Ecclesia, Episcoporum, Pres- byterorum, Diaconorum, et fidelium.’’ (Optatus, lib. 11. adv. Parmen.)
(0) “ Ided quanquam melior Apostolus aliquando tamen eget Prophetis, et quia ab uno Deo Patre sunt omnia singulos Episcopos singulis Ecclesiis praeesse decrevit.” (8. Ambros. in 1 Corinth. xi.) “ Honor igitur, Fratres, et Sublimitas Episcopalis, nullis poterit comparationibus adequari; si Regum fulgori compares,” &c. (S. Ambros. de Dignit. Sacerd. cap. 2.) ‘Sic certé ἃ Domino tertid, Pasce oves meas. Quas oves, et quem gregem non soliim tunc suscepit Petrus, sed et cum ille nos [Episcopi] suscepimus omnes.” (De Dignit. Sacerd. in fin.) “ Hunc igitur jam creatum Episcopum instruit per Epistolam quomodo deberet Ecclesiam ordinare.”’ (5. Ambros. Prefat. in 1 Tim. ; see also in 1 Tim. vi.) “ Uterque Sacerdos est, sed Episcopus primus est; ut omnis Episcopus Presbyter sit, non omnis Presbyter Episcopus.” (Ambros. in 1 Tim. 111.)
(p) “ Quosnam dedit Apostolos, Apostoli Episcopi sunt.” (S. Ambros. in Ephes. iv.) ‘‘ Caput itaque in Ecclesia Apostolos posuit, qui legati Christi sunt, sicut dicit idem Apostolus (pro quo legatione fungimur) Ipsi sunt Episcopi, firmante istud Petro Apostolo, et dicente inter cwtera de Juda, et Episcopatum ejus accipiat alter.” (S. Ambros. in 1 Cor. xii. 28.) ‘“ Numquid omnes Apostoli? verum est, quia in Ecclesia unus est Episcopus.” (In 1 Cor. xii. 29.)
(4) “ Unde et quemadmodum Episcopum ordinet ostendit. Neque enim fas erat, aut licebat, ut inferior ordinaret majorem... Nemo tribuit, quod non accepit.” (S. Ambros. in 1 Tim. iii.) ‘* Sub testatione ergo, ea que ad ordinationem Ecclesiz mandat
298 History of the Christian Priesthood.
A.D. 892. Jerome.—Next comes Jerome, the Father who, according to Mr. Howitt, has declared that, “‘ by the ordinances of Christ, Priests and Bishops were all one, but that the emperor [Con- stantine] divided them, and made Bishops lords, and Priests servants.” *
My answer to this pretended quotation will be in few words:—No such passage occurs in Jerome’s writings, and I call upon Mr. Howitt to name the edition of Jerome’s writings and the page from which this pretended extract is taken. If he can- not do so, he stands convicted of having fastened upon and knowingly inserted in the pages of his work, a surreptitious quotation. But, even sup- posing Jerome had so expressed himself, his s¢ngle opinion ought not to weigh against all the Apostles, and early Apostolical Fathers, and so to weigh against them as to prove all these Apostles and Fathers in the wrong, and Jerome alone in the right.
Having disposed of what Jerome does not say,
custodiri... ne facilé aliquis accipiat Ecclesiasticam dignitatem... peccat enim si non probat, et sic ordinet. Melior enim ceteris debet probari qui ordinandus est. Hac Episcopus custodiens, castum se exhibebit religioni, cujus rei in futuro premium consequetur.” (S. Ambros. in 1 Tim. v. 22.) ‘ Titum Apostolus consecravit Episcopum, et ideo commonet eum ut sit solicitus in Ecclesiasticaé ordinatione, id est, ad quosdam qui simulatione quadam dignos se ostentabant ut sublimem ordinem tenerent, simulque et hereticos ex circumcisione corripiendos.” (5. Ambros. in 2 Tit.) “ Epis- copi ordinationis preediti potestate, ita ut plenissimé iidem Prepositos Ecclesiarum esse cognoscerent.” (Ambros. apud Amalarium, de Offic. Eccl. lib. ii. c. 13.) (r) 3d Ed. p. 241.
Flistory of the Christian Priesthood. 299
we will now quote a few passages from his writings, leaving it to the reader’s judgment to decide whether they make for or against Episcopacy. We give the edition and the references.
In his letter to Marcella against the Montanists, he writes :—‘* The Bishops, with us, hold the place of the Apostles ;’* he further acknowledges a continued succession of Bishops in many sees, from the Apostles downwards. He moreover admits “‘ that Apostolical traditions were taken from the Old Testament; that that which Aaron and his sons, and the Levites were in the temple, the same may Bishops and Presbyters and Deacons challenge in the Christian Church ;”’*t that “‘ where there were no Bishops, there was no Church of Christ.”" In allusion to the Episcopal Order, he writes :—‘ The Bishop is the Christ of Christians; the greatest reverence is to be paid him by all the Clergy, and by the people. The Bishop is in all things like God himself. It is manifest that in the Clergy are the parts and members of virtues, but in the Bishop dwells the fulness of the Deity bodily; and it is thus that you may recognize our Lord Jesus Christ in the Bishops, the Apostles in the Presbyters,” &c.*
(s) “ Apud nos Apostolorum locum tenent Episcopi.’”’ (Hieron. Ep. 54, ad Marc. adv. Mont.)
(¢) “ Ut sciamus Traditiones Apostolicas sumptas de veteri Testamento, quod Aaron et Filii ejus, et Levite in Templo fuerunt, hoc sibi Episcopi, Presbyteri, et Diaconi vendicent in Ecclesia.” (Epist. Hier. Evagr. Vol. iii, fol. 149, 150.)
(wu) “ Ecclesia non est que non habet Episcopos.”’ (Hicron. Dialog. adv. Lucifer.)
(x) “‘ Episcopus est Christus Christianorum, id est, Sanctus sanctorum et Episcopus animarum...huic summa a cunctis
300 History of the Christian Priesthood.
In his dialogue against the Luciferians, he thus expresses himself:—‘‘ The very safety of the Church depends on the dignity of the Chief Priest (or Bishop), to whom, if a peculiar and eminent autho- rity be not yielded by all, there will be as many schisms as there are Priests in the Church ; whence it comes, that, without the leave of the Bishop, neither Presbyter nor Deacon may have the power even of baptizing.”Y In his letter to Nepotian, he thus confirms the opinion formerly expressed :— “ Be thou subject unto thy Bishop, and receive him as the Father of thy soul;”” and we have these words, in his Commentary on Micah vii.: “ Let us honour the Bishop, respect the Presbyter, and rise up to the Deacon.”
A.D. 3898. Augustine and Chrysostome.—Augus- tine, Bishop of Hippo, in Africa, speaks of the Episcopal office as of divine institution,? and of
Clericis atque ab omni populo deferenda reverentia est... Hic per omnia similis Deo est. Manifestum est in Clericis esse partes et membra virtutum, in Episcopo plenitudinem divinitatis habitare corporaliter, atque ita est, ut in Episcopis Dominum, in Presby- teris Apostolos, &c. recognoscas.”” (Hieron. de septem gradibus Ecclesia. Voi. 11. fol. 49.)
(y) “ Ecclesiz salus in summi Sacerdotis [i. e. Episcopi] dig- nitate pendet, cui si non exsors quedam, et ab omnibus eminens detur potestas, tot in Ecclesiis efficientur Schismata quot Sacer- dotes ; inde venit, ut sine Episcopi jussione, neque Presbyter, neque Diaconus jus habeant baptizandi.” (Hier. Dialog. adver. Lucifer. Vol. iii. fol. 63.)
(z) “ Esto subjectus Pontifici tuo, et quasi anime parentem suscipe.” (Hieron. Epist. ad Nepotian.)
* (a) “Nemo ignorat Episcopos Salvatorem Ecclesiis instituisse. Ipse enim priusquam in Ccelos ascenderet, imponens manum
Apostolis, ordinavit eos Episcopos.” (S. August. Quest. Vet. et N. Testament. Qu. 97.)
: History of the Christian Priesthood. 801
Bishops themselves, as the successors of the Apo- stles ; in his treatise concerning heretics, he con- demns Arius (as Epiphanius had done before him), because he asserted Presbyters to be equal to Bishops.* Chrysostome, Bishop of Constantinople, calls Bishops the successors of the Apostles,’ and asserts the necessity of an Apostolical succession.° A.D. 450. Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Lsidore.—Sozomen and Socrates, two ecclesiastical historians, whose writings extend from the year 309, where Eusebius ended, down to 450, give their testimony, as do also Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus,’ and Isidore, Bishop of Pelusium,? who
(4) “Si solis Episcopis dixit, qui vos spernit, me spernit, spernite nos; si autem sermo ejus pervenit ad nos, et vocavit nos, et in eorum loco constituit nos, videte ne spernetis nos.” (5. August.
de Verbis. Dom. Serm. 24.)
(ce) “ Presbyterum ab Episcopo nulla differentia debere discerni, Arius dixit.” (Aug. lib. de Heres. ad quod vult Deum. Vol. vi. p. 16. Edit. Frob. 1528.)
(4) Τὰ πρόβατα---ἃ τῷ Πέτρῳ καὶ τοῖς μετ᾽ ἐκεῖνον ἐνεχειρίσε. (Chrysost. de Sacerd. I.) “" Potestatas anathematizandi ab Apo- stolis ad Successores eorum nimirum Episcopos transiit.” (S. Chrysost. in loc.)
(6) Διὸ καὶ βαπτίζων, πνεῦμα τοῖς βαπτιζομένοις οὐκ ἐδίδους οὐδὲ γὰρ εἴχεν ἐξουσίαν" τοῦτο γὰρ τὸ δῶρον Ϊ ἐξαίρετὸν] μόνων τῶν δώδεκα ἦν... ὕθεν καὶ τοὺς κορυφαίους, οὐκ ἄλλους τινὰς ἐστὶν ἰδεῖν τοῦτο ποιοῦντας. (S. Chrysost. Homil. 18, in Act.)
Cy) Eheads Bicel. Hist. 1. c),11'3 a. 6: 151: νὸ ον 28, 30:
(g) “ Apostolis decedentibus successerunt Episcopi, qui sunt constituti per totum mundum in sedibus Apostolorum.’’... * Quo toto contemplari oportet, Aaron summum Sacerdotem, id est, Episcopum fuisse ; filios ejus Presbyterorum figuram premon- strasse.” (Lib. 11. cap.5.) ““ Episcopatus autem vocabulum inde dictum, quod ille qui superefficitur superintendat, curam scil. gerens subditorum. Sed Presbyter Grecé, Latiné Senior inter- pretatur, non pro etate, vel decrepita senectute, sed propter honorem et dignitatem quam acceperunt.” (Isidor. lib. vii. Etymolog. c. 12.)
P
302 History of the Christian Priesthood.
were contemporary with them, for a threefold order of ministry in the Christian Church ;" viz. Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons; and, in their histories, we have a list of the names and sees of several
hundred Bishops in the Christian Church.'
(hk) Ἐδόκει τοῖς Ἐπισκόποις νόμον νεαρὸν eis τὴν ᾿Εκκλησίαν εἰσφέρειν, ὧστε τοῦς ἰερωμένους, λέγω δὲ ᾿Ἐπισκόπους καὶ Πρεσ- βυτέρους καὶ Διακόνους, κιτ.λ. (Soc. Eccl. Hist. lib. 1. ο. 11.) Σὺν αὐτοῖς δὲ πολλοὶ ᾿πίσκοποι καὶ Πρεσβύτεροι, καὶ ἄλλοι ἰερατικουν τάγματος. (Soc. νἱ. ο. 18.) Εἶναι γὰρ ἐν ᾿Αλεξανδρείᾳ ἔθος, καθάπερ καὶ νῦν, ἑνὺς ὄντος τοῦ κατὰ πάντων ᾿Ἐπισκόπου, Πρεσβυτέρους ἰδιᾳ τὰς ἐκκλησίας κατέχειν, καὶ τὸν ἐν αὐτοῖς λαὸν συνάγειν. (Sozom. Eccl. Hist. lib. i. ο. 15.) Ἦσαν δὲ τούτων of μὲν ᾿Επίσκοποι" of δὲ, Πρεσβύτεροι καὶ ἄλλοι ἄλλων Κληρικῶν ταγμάτων. (Sozom. lib. il. ce. 10.) ᾿Αμέλει Σκύθαι πολλαὶ πόλεις ὄντες, ἕνα πάντες Ἐπίσκοπον ἐχούσιν. (Sozom. lib. vii. ο. 19.)
(ὁ) Dionysius, [Διόνυσιος, Soc. lib. ii. c. 86. Soz. lib. iv. c. 9.] Bishop of Alba in Italy, [*AA8a;] Athanasius, [’A@avacios, Soc. lib. i. 6. 15. Soz. lib. ii. ὁ. 17 ;] Peter, [Tlérpos, Soc. lib. i. c. 53] Achillas, [PAxiAAds, Soc. lib. i. c. 6;] Alexander, (Soz. lib. ii. c. 17 3) Gregory, [Γρηγόριος, Soc. lib. 11. c. 2. Soz. lib. iii. c. 55] Timothy, [Τιμοθέος, Soc. lib. iv. c. 87 5] Theophilus, [Θεόφιλος, Soc. lib. iv. c. 12. Soz. lib. vii. c. 14;] Cyril, [Κύριλλος, Soc. lib. vii. c. 73] and Georgius, [Tewpyios, Soc. lib. ii. c. 29.] Bishops of Alexandria, [᾿Αλεξανδρέων :] Piso, [Πίσων, Soc. lib. iii. c. 255] and Cyriacus, [Kupiaxds, Soz. lib. vii. c. 1.] Bishops of Adani, [Addvwy:] Eulalius, [Εὐλάλιος, Soz. lib. vii. c. 2.] Bishops of Amasia, in Pontus, [Auwacta:] Marcellus, [Μάρκελλος, Soz. lib. ii. ο. 33;] Athanasius, [A@avdo.os, Soz. lib. vi. c. 4, 12;] and Leontius, [Λεόντιος, Soz. lib. vi. ο, 34.] Bishops of Ancyra, [’Ayxvpa:]| Eustathius, [Εὐστάθιος, Soc. lib. i. c. 18. Soz. lib. ii. c. 17;] Euphronius, [Εὐφρόνιος, Soc. lib. i. c. 24. 50Ζ. lib. ii.c. 19 3] Leontius, [Λεόντιος, Soc. lib. ii. c. 26. Soz. lib. iii. c. 20;] Eu- doxius, [Εὐδόξιος, Soz. lib. iv. c. 22;] Meletius, [Μελέτιος, Soc. lib. ii, ο. 435] Paulinus, [Παυλῖνος, Soc. lib. iii. ο. 6 ;] Sarapion, ΓΣαραπίων, Soc. lib. iii. c. 73] Flaccillus, [Πλάκητος, Soz. lib. ἢ]. c.5;] Flabianus, [@AaBiavis, Soe. lib. v. c. 9. Soz. lib. viii. ο. 24 5] Euagrius, [Εὐαγριος, Soz. lib. vii. c. 15;] Porphyrius, [Πορφύριος, Soc. lib. vil. c. 9. Soz. hb. viii. c. 24;] Alexander, [AAééavdpos, Soc. lib. vil. c. 9;] Stephanus, [Srépavos, Soc. lib. ii, c. 265] Euzoius, [Evf@ios, Soc. lib. iv. c. 35;] and Optimus, [Ὄπτιμος,
History of the Christian Priesthood. 503
Soc. lib. v. ο. 8.] Bishops of Antioch, [’Avrioxela:] Arabianus, ΓΑραβιανὸς, Soc. lib. ili. c. 25.) Bishop of Antrum, [Αντρον :} Acacius, [᾿Ακάκιος, Soc. lib. vii. c. 21.] Bishop of Amidenus, [᾿Αμίδη :] Uranius, Γ[Οὐράνιος, Soc. lib. ili, ο. 25.] Bishop of Apamea, [᾿Απαμεία :] Theotimus, [Θεότιμος, Soc. lib. 111, c. 25.) Bishop of Arabia, [᾿Αράβων :} Lucianus, [Λουκιανὸς, Soc. 110. 111. ce. 25;] Marcus, [Μάρκος, Soc. lib. ii. 6. 30. Soz. lib. iii, c. 105 v. c. 10.] Bishop of Arethusa, [Ape@otca:] Palladius, [Παλλάδιος, Soc. lib. vii. c. 36.] Bishop of Aspumea, [Ασπουνα :)] Piso, [Πίσων, Soc. lib. 111. c. 25.] Bishop of Augusta, [Αὐγούστη:] Isacocis, [Ἰσακόκις, Soc. lib. iii. c. 25.] Bishop of Armenia Major; [Apevia μεγάλη: Anatolius, [’AvardAwos, Soc. lib. iil. ο. 25 1] Cyrus, [Κύρος, Soc. lib. i. c. 24;] and Acacius, [᾿Ακάκιος, Soc- lib. vi.c. 17.] | Bishops of Berea in Syria, [Bepofa:] Eusebius, [Εὐσέβιος, Soc. lib. 1. c. 6.] Bishop of Berytii, [Βηρυτίοι :] Titus, [Ttros, Soc. lib. iii. c. 25. Soz. lib. iii. c. 14. v.c. 15.] Bishop of Bostra, [Βόστρων :] Acacius, [᾿Ακάκιος, Soc. lib. ii. c. 39. 502, lb. iti. c. 2; ] Eusebius, [Εὐσεβίος, Soc. lib. i. c. 4;] and Euphronius, [Εὐφρόνιος, Soc. lib. 11. c. 9.] Bishops of Cesarea, in Palestine, [Καισαρεία ἐν Παλαίστινῃ :] Firmus, [Φίρμος, Soc. lib. vil. c. 48 5] Eulalius, [Εὐλαλίος, Soc. lib. 11. c. 43;] Basileus, [Βασίλειος, Soc. lib. iv. c. 113] Helladius, [Ἑλλάδιος, Soc. lib. v. c. 8 ;] Thalassius, [Θαλασσίος, Soc. lib. vii. c. 48 ;7 and Dianeus, [Διάνοιος, Soz. tb. 111. 6. 5.] Bishops of Cesarea, in Cappadocia, [Καισαρεία Καπ- παδοκίας :1 Lucifer, ΓΛούκιφερ, Soc. lib. iii. c. 5.] Bishop of Caralis, [Καράλαι:] Archelaus, ["ApyeAdes, Soc. lib. i. c. 22.] Bishop of Caschari, [Κασχάροι :) Theophilus, [Θεόφιλος, Soc. lib. iv. c. 25.] Bishop of Castabala, in Cilicia, [KaoraBdAa:] Theo- dulus, [Θεόδουλος, Soc. lib. ii. c. 41.] Bishop of Cheretapi, [Χαιρετάποι:] Magnus, [Mayvos, Soc. lib. iii. c. 25;] Maris, [Mdpis, Soc. lib. 1. c. 8, 27. lib. ii. c. 12;] Cyrinus, [Kupivos, Soc. lib. vi. c. 15.] Bishop of Chalcedon, [Χαλκηδῶν :] Callicrates, [Καλλικράτης, Soc. lib. iii. c. 25.] Bishop of Claudiopolis, [Κλαυδίου Πόλις : Leontius, [Λεόντιος, Soc. lib. iii. c. 25.] Bishop of Comana, [Koudva:] Epiphanius, [᾿ Επιφάνιος, Soc. lib. vi. c. 10; | and Spyridon, [Zzvpidwy, Soc. lib. i. c. 8, 12.] Bishops of Con- stantia, [Kevoruytia τῆς Κύπρου :} Salamis, or Trimithuntis, in Cyprus— Arsacius, [’Apodxios, Soz lib. viii. c. 23;] Alexander, [᾿Δλέξανδρος, Soc. lib. i.c. 38;] Paulus, [Παύλος, Soc. lib. ii. c. 6; | Macedonius, [ Maxeddvios, Soc. lib. ii. c. 27 3] Eudoxius, [Εὐδύξιος, Soc. lib. iv. c. 253] Demophilus, [Δημόφιλος, Soc. lib. v. c. 35] Gregorius, [Γρηγόριος, Soc. lib. v. c. 6;] Marcianus, [ Μαρκιανὸς, Sec. lib. v. c. 213] Nectarius, [Nexrdpios, Soc. lib. vi. c. 15]
304 History of the Christian Priesthood.
Atticus, PArtixos,] Sisinnius, [Σισίννιος, Soc. lib. vii. c. 263] Maximianus, [Μαξιμιανὸς, Soc. lib. vii. c. 353} Proclus, [Tpdxdos, Soc. lib. vil. c.40.] Bishops of Constantinople, [Κωνσταντινου- πόλις :] Hosius, [Ὅσιος, Soc. lib. i. c. 7, 10, 16. lib. 11. 29, 31.] Bishop of Corduba, [Kopdov8n:] Symeones, [ξυμεώνης, 802. lib. ii. ce 9.] Bishop of Ctesiphon, [Κτησιφῶν : Harpocration, [‘Aproxpariwy, Soc. lib. i. c. 19.) Bishop of Cynopolis, [Κύνων :] Proclus, [Πρόκλος, Soc. lib. vii. c. 28;] Eleusius, [Ἐλεύσιος, Soc. hb.ii. c. 88 ;] and Eunomius, [Εὐνομίος, Soc. lib. iv. c. 7.1 Bishops of Cyzicum, [Κυζικον:} Melitius, [Μελίτιος, Soc. lib. i. c. 63} Alexander, [᾿Αλέξανδρος, Soc. lib. i. c. 143] Ammonius, [᾿Αμμώ- vios,| ‘Thmuis, [Θμοϑὲς,} Gaius, [Tdios,] Philo, [Φίλων,] Hermes, [‘Epuijs,|} Plenius, [TAjv0s,] Psenosiris, [Ψενόσιρις,1 Nilammon, [NeAaupov, |] Agatho, [᾿Δγάθων,] Anagamphus, [᾿Ανάγαμφος,] Marcus, [ Μάρκος, Dracontius, [Δρακόντιος,1 Adelphius, PASéA- uos, | and Athenodorus, [’A@nvddwpos, Soc. lib. ii. c. 28.] Bishops of Egypt, [Αἰγύπτος :] Eutuchius, [Εὐτύχιος, Soe. lib. iii. c. 30.] Bishop of Eleutheropolis, [Ἐλευθεροπόλις :] Paulus, [Παύλος, Soz. lib. vi. c.12.] Bishop of Emesa, [’Euéon:] Heraclides, [‘Hpa- κλείδης, Soc. lib. vi. c. 113] and Menophantus, [Μηνόφαντος, Soz. lib. iii. c. 12.] Bishops of Ephesus, [Ἔφεσος :] Amphion, [’Au- φίων, Soz. i, 10.| Bishop of Epiphania, 1 Ἐπιφανία :] Theophilus, [Θεύφιλος, Soc. vii. 36.} Bishop of Eudoxiopolis, [Εὐδοξιουπολις:] Severianus, [Σεβηριανὸς, Soc. vi. 11.] Bishop of the Gabales, [TaBdda:] Arsacius, [᾿Αρσακίος, Soz. v. 16.] Bishop of Galatia, [Tararia:] Asclepas, [᾿Ασκληπᾶς, Soc. ii. 15;] Irenio, [Εἰρηνίων, Soc, iii. 253] and Quintianos, [Κυντιανὸς, Soz. iii. 8.] Bishop of Gaza, [Tafn:] Eudoxius, [Εὐδοξιος, Soc. ii. 19.] Bishop of Ger- manicia, [Tepwavereta:] Ulfila, [OdAgiAas, Soc. ii. 41.] Bishop of the Goths, [Terdc:] Lucius, [Λούκιος, Soc. ii. 15.] Bishop of Hadrianopolis, [᾿Αδριανουπόλις :] Sabinus, [SaBivos, Soc. i. 83] Theodorus, [Θεόδωρος, Soc. ii. 7 ;] Hypatianus, [Ὑπατιανὸς, Soc. ii, 29;] Sarapion, [Zapamiwy, Soc. vi. 17;] and Hypatianus, 1 Ὑπατιανὸς, Soz. vi. 7.1 Bishop of Heraclea, in Thrace, [Ἡρακλεία τῆς Περίνθου :)] Dioscorus, [Διόσκορος, Soc. vi. 17.1 Bishop of Hermupolis, [Ἑρμουπόλις :] Arsenius, [᾿Αρσένιος, Soc. i. 32.] Bishop of Hypselite, in Egypt, [Ὑψηπολιται:} Amphilochius, [ΓΑμφιλόχιος, Soc. v. 8.] Bishops of Iconium, [Ἰκονίον :] Macarius, [Maxaptos, Soc. i. 9;] Maximus, [Μάξιμος, Soc. ti. 8;] Cyril, [Κύριλλος, Soc. ii. 38;] Arrenius, [’Appnvios, Soc. ii.45 3] Johannes, [[Ἰωάννης, Soc. v. 15;] Juvenalis, [[Ἰουβενάλιος, Soc. vii. 345] Erennius, [ Ἐρέννιος, Soz. iv. 80;] Heracleus, [Ἡράκλειος, Soz. iv. 20;| Hilarius, [‘IAapios, Soz. iv. 30.] Bishops of Jerusalem,
History of the Christian Priesthood. 305
[‘IeporoAvua:} Frumentius, [Φρουμέντιος, Soc. i. 19.] Bishop of India, [Ἰνδοὶ Narcissus, [Napkiocos, Soz. 111. 10.] Bishop of Irenopolis, [Εἰρηνοπόλις:}] Marcianus, [Mapkiavds, Soc. v. 8.] Bishop of Lampsacus, [Λαμψάκος :] Zoilus, [Ζώϊλος, Soc. 111, 25. ] Bishop of Larissa, [Aapica:] Georgius, [Tedpyios, Soc. 1. 245] Theodotus, [Θεόδοτος, Soc. ii. 463] Pelagius, [Πελάγιος, Soc. iii- 25 ;] Ammonius, [᾿Αμμώνιος, Soc. vi. 183] Apollinarius, [᾿Απολ- Awéptos, Soz. vi. 21.] Bishop of Laodicea, [Λαοδικεία :] Sabinus, [SaBivos, Soc. ii. 15.] Bishop of Macedonia, [Maxedovtos :] Theonas, [@ewvas, Soc. i. 8.1 Bishops of Marmarica, [Μαρμαρικη : | Auxentius, [Αὐξεντίος, Soc. iv. 80 ;] and Ambrosius, [’Au8pocuos, Soz. vi. 24.] Bishops of Mediolanum, [MedsoAdvos: | Uranius, [Odpanos, Soc. iii. 25 ;] Otreius, [Ὀτρήϊος, Soc. v. 8.] Bishops of Melitina, [MeAcrw7:] Maruthas, [Mupovdas, Soc. vi. 15.] Bishop of Mesopotamia, [Μεσοποταμία :] Euagrius, [Εὐαγριος, Soc. 11. 40.] Bishops of the Island of Mitylene, [Μιτυλήνης 4 νήσος :)] Macedo- nius, [Makedovios, Soc. ii. 19;] and Theodorus, [Θεύδωρος, Soc. vi: 3.] Bishop of Mopsuestia, [Μόψου ἑστία :] Valens, [Οὐαλης, Soc. i. 27.] Bishop of Myrsa, in Upper Pannonia, [Μουρσαι τῆς Παν- vovias:| Irenzeus, [Εἰρηναῖος, Soc. v. 22.] Bishop of Lyons, [AovySouvoy ἔν Tudadig:] Gregory, [Tpnydpios, Soc. iv. 11.] Bishop of Nazianzum, [NafiavSov :] Narcissus, [ Νάρκισσος, Soc. ii. 18.] Bishops of Neronia, in Cilicia, [Nepwuia ἣ ἐν Κιλικίᾳ :] Theognis, [Θεόγνις, Soc. i. 8 ;] and Eugenius, [ Εὐγένιος, Soz. iv. 8.1] Bishops of Nice, [Nixaa:] Eusebius, [Εὐσεβίος, Soc. i. 6; | and Marathonius, [Μαραθώνιος, Soz.iv.20.] Bishop of Nicomedia, [Nixoundela:] Polycarpus, [Πολύκαρπος, Soc. vii. 86,7] Bishop of Nicopolis, [Νικοπόλις :] Lazarus, [ Λάζαρος, Soz. vi. 83.) Bishop of the Nisibeni, in Syria, [NuoiBnvor:] Gregory, [Tpnydpios, Soc. v, 8.] Bishop of Nyssa, [Nvoon:] Methodius, [Μεθόδιος, Soc. vi. 13.] Bishop of Olympus, in Lycia, [’OAvusos:] Patricius, [Πατρίκιος, Soc. iii. 25.) Bishop of Paltum, [TléAroy:] Pancra- tius, [Παγκράτιος, Soc. ii. 29.] Bishops of Pelusium, [Πηλουσίον :] Barlamenus, [BapAamévos, Soc. iii. 253] and Dracontius, [Apa- κόντιος, Soz. iv. 24.] Bishops of Pergamus, [ Περγάμος :] Abdas, [Ἄνλδας, Soc. vii. 83] and Mills, [ Μίλλης, Soz. ii. 14.] Bishops of Persia, [Mepots:] Theodosius, [Θεοδόσιος, Soc. ii. 405] and Beryllus, [Βηρύλλος, Soc. 111. 7.1 Bishops of Philadelphia, [Φιλα- δελφία ἡ ἐν Λυδίᾳ: Briso, [Βρίσων, Soc. vi. 18.] Bishop of Philippi, [Φιλλίπποι : Hilarius, [Ἱλάριος, Soc. iii. 10.] Bishop of the Pictavi, [Πυκτάβοι:} Hierophilus, [‘IepopiAos, Soc. vil. 36.] Bishop of Plotinopolis, [Πλωτινοπόλις :] Sophronius, [Swppdvos, Soc. ii. 89,7 Bishop of Pompeiopolis, [Πομπηιουπόλις :] Johannes,
P3
306 History of the Christian Priesthood.
[Ἰωάννης, Soc. vii. 86.) Bishops of Proconnesus, [Προικονήσος : | Secundus, [Zexovvdos, Soc. v. 8;] and Antiochus, [ Avridxos, Soc. vi. 11.] Bishops of Ptolemais, [Πτολεμαῖς :] Antipatrus, [Αντί- πατρος, Soc. 111. 29. Bishop of Rhosus, [Ῥώσος:} Melan, [Méaay, | and Solon, [SéAwy, Soz. vi.31.] Bishops of Rinocorura, [Ῥινοκου- potpa:] Julius, [Ἰουλιος, Soc. ii. 8;] Liberius, [A:Bépios, Soc. ii. 3453] Damasus, [ Δάμασος, Soc. iv. 22;] Cornelius, [ Κορνήλιος, Soc. iy. 28;] Victor, [Βίκτωρ, Soc. v. 22 ;] Siricius, [Σιρίκιος, Soc. vil. 9;] Anastasius, [’Avacractos, Soc. vii. 9;] Innocent, [Ἶνο- κέντιος, Soc. vil. 9;] Zosimus, [Ζώσιμος, Soc. vii. 11;] Boniface, [Βυνιφάτιος, Soc. vii. 11;] Celestinus, [KeAeorivos, Soc. vii. 11 ;] Silvester, [BiABeotpos, Soz. i. 2;] Felix, [Φηλιξ, Soz. iii. 11.] Bishops of Rome, [‘Pwun:] Eusebius, [Εὐσέβιος, Soc. 111. 25. ] Bishop of Samosata, [Sapoodra:] Moses, [Maons, Soz. vi. 38. ] Bishop of the Saracens, [Ξαρακηνοι:} Protogenes, [Mpwroyérns, Soc. 11. 20.] Bishop of Sardica, [Sapé:cyn:] Heortasius, [Ἑορτάσιος, Soz. iv. 24.] Bishop of Sardis, [Σάρδεις :] Gregory, [Tpnydpios, Soc. vii. 86.] Bishop of the Sasimi, [ξασιμοι :] Elpidius, [Ἐλπίδιος, Soc. ii. 42.] Bishop of Satali, in Macedonia, [Sarda τῆς Mare- Sovias: | Theotimus, [Θεότιμος, Soc. vi. 12.] Bishop of Scythia, [Σκυθία :] Pairophilus, [Πατροφίλος, Soc. ii. 9.] Bishops of Scy- thopolis, [Σκυθοπόλις :] Eustathius, [Εὐστάθιος, Soc. ii. 89 ;] and Melitius, [Soc. vii. 836.] Bishops of Sebastia, [S<Buotia:] Dosi- theus, [Δοσίθεος, Soc. vii. 36;] and Neonas, [Νεῶνας, Soc. ii. 42.] Bishop of Seleucia, [Σελευκεια:} Aristonicus, [᾿Αριστόνικος, Soc. il. 25.] Bishop of Seleucobelum, [Σελευκοβήλον :)] Eugrius, [Εὐάγριος, Soc. iii. 25.] Bishop of Sicily, [SuceAac:] Peter, [Meérpos, Soc. 111. 25.] Bishop of Sippi, [Siamo::] Ursacius, ΓΟὐρσάκιος, Soc. i. 27.] Bishop of Singidunum, m Upper Mesia, ἱ Σιγγιδων τῆς ἄνω Muoias:] Photinus, [Φωτεινὸς, Soc. ii. 18.] Bishop of Sirmium, [S:putov: | Theodosius, [Θεοδόσιος, Soc. vii. 3.] Bishops of Synnada, [ Svddw :] Silvanus, [:ABavos, Soc. ii. 39;] and Diodorus, [A:ddwpos, Soc. vi. 3.] Bishop of Tarsus, [Tapcos :] Paphnutius, [Παφνούτιος, Soc. i. 8.] Bishop of Thebais, [Θηβαΐς : } Ascholios, [᾿Ασχολίος, Soc, v. 8.] Bishops of Thessalonica, [ @ec- σαλονίκη :] Theodulus, [Θεόδουλος,} and Olympius, [Ολύμπιος, Soc. ii. 26.] Bishops of Thrace, [Θράκη :}] Paulinus, [ Παυλῖνος, Soc. i. 36.] Bishop of Treviri, [Τριβέρις :] Heliodorus, [Ἡλιό- Swpos, Soc. v. 22.| Bishops of Trica, [Tpixkn:] Leontius, [Λεόντιος, Soc. ii. 40.] Bishop of Tripolis, [Τριπόλις :] Silvanus, [Σιλβανὺς, Soe. vii. 36.] Bishops of Troas, [Τρώας :] Renverentius, [Ῥενβέ- pevtios, Soc. vil. 36;] Paulus, [Παῦλος, Soc. 1. 29;] Uranius, [Οὐράνιος, Sec. ii. 39 ;] Paulinus, [Παυλῖνος, Soz. i, 15;] and Zeno,
flistory of the Christian Priesthood. 907
In conjunction with these authorities,* it should also be noticed that several general councils were
[Ζηνων, Soz. vi. 12.] Bishops of Tyre, [Τύρον Eusebius, [Εὐσέβιος, Soc. ii. 36.] Bishop of Vercelle, [BpexéAAai:] Abramius, [᾿Αβράμιος, Soc. iii. 25.] Bishop of Urimi, [Odpiuo::] Pasinicus, [Πασίνικος, Soc. iii. 25.] Bishop of Zeni, [Ζήνοι,) and Sabinianus, [Σαβιανὸς, Soc. iii. 25.] Bishop of Zeugma, [Ζεύγμα.]
(k) The Fathers whom I have quoted, not only assert the divine institution of Episcopacy, but also expressly affirm this Episcopacy to be no more than one, and all Bishops so to share this one Episcopacy among them, as that each has a right to the whole. Ἡ ἐκκλησία, καίπερ ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ κόσμῳ διεσπαρμένη---ὡς ἕνα οἶκον οἰκοῦσα. (Iren. adv. Her. lib. i. c. 8.) “ Una nobis οἱ 1115 fides, unus Deus, idem Christus, eadem spes, eadem lavacri Sacramenta ; semel dixerim una Ecclesia sumus.’”’ (Tertull. de veland. Virgin. cap. 2.) ‘ Episcopatus unus est, cujus a singulis, in solidum pars tenetur. Ecclesia quoque una est, que in multitudinem latius incremento fecunditatis extenditur.” (Cypr. de Unit. Eccl. p- 108.) These Fathers, therefore, ascribe to all Bishops a free, absolute, and independent authority, directed by, and accountable to no other Bishop in the administration of Ecclesiastical affairs, without mentioning any primacy of authority and jurisdiction in the Bishop of Rome over his fellow-Bishops. Indeed, Pope Gregory, in his Epistle to the Bishop of Constantinople, thus expresses himself:—“ Tu quia Christo Universalis Ecclesiz capiti in extremi judicii dicturus examine, qui cuncta ejus Membra tibimet coneris Universalis appellatione supponere? quis rogo in hoe tam perverso vocabulo nisi ille ad imitandum proponitur, qui despectis Angelorum Legionibus secum socialiter constitutis ad culmen conatus est singularitatis erumpere, ut et nulli subesse, et solus omnibus preeesse videretur? qui etiam dixit, in ccelum conscendam, super astra cceli exaltabo solium meum—quid enim fratres tui omnes Universalis Ecclesie Episcopi, nisi astra cceli sunt ? quibus tum cupis temet ipsum vocabulo elationis preeponere, eorumque nomen tui comparatione calcare.” (Greg. Ep. 4, 38.) And, in his Epistles to the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch, on the same subject:—“ Jactantium sumpsit ita ut universa sibi tentet ascribere, et omnia que soli uni capiti coherent, videlicet Christo per elationem pompatici sermonis ejusdem Christi sibi studeat membra subjugare.” (Greg. M. Ep. 4, 36.) “ Ego autem fidenter dico, quia quisquis se Universalem Sacerdotem vocat, vel
308 History of the Christian Priesthood.
held during these first five centuries, all of which distinctly recognise a threefold order of Ministers in the Christian Church, with the powers of ordi- nation and jurisdiction restricted, and peculiar to the highest or Episcopal order. In the Apostolical Canons, for example, which were framed near the
vocari desiderat, in elatione sua Antichristum precurrit quia superbiendo se ceteris preponit.’’ (Greg. I. lib. vi. Ep. 30.) “ Nec dispari superbia ad errorem ducitur; quia sicut perversus ille Deus videri vult super omnes homines; ita quisquis est, qui solus Sacerdos appellari appetit, super czeteros Sacerdotes se extollit.” (Ad Mauric. Aug.) ‘ Ubicunque,” writes Jerome, πε fuerit Episcopus, sive Rome, sive Eugubii, sive Constantinopoli, sive Rhegii, sive Alexandrie, sive Thanis, ejusdem meriti, ejusdem et Sacerdotii; potentia divitiarum et paupertatis humi- litas vel sublimiorem vel inferiorem Episcopum non facit ; cetertm omnes Apostolorum successores sunt.” (Hier. Ep. 85, ad Evagr.) “ Neque enim quisquam nostrum Episcopum se esse Episcoporum constituit, aut tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem Collegas suas adigit; quando habeat omnis Episcopus pro licentia libertatis et potestatis suze arbitrium proprium, tamque judicari ab alio non possit, quam nec ipse potest alterum judicare ; sed expectemus universi judicium Domini nostri Jesu Christi, qui unus et solus habet potestatem et preeponendi nos in Ecclesiz suze gubernatione, et de actu nostro judicandi. (Cypr. in Pref. Conc. Carthag.) See also Iren. ili. 8; Tertull. de Bapt. c. 17; de Prescript. 82; in Mare. iv. 5; Cypr. Ep. 55, ad P. Cornel; Ep. 52, ad Antonianum; Ep. 72, ad Stephanum; Ep. 73, ad Juba- bianum; Firmil. in Cypr. Ep. 75; Ep. 76, ad Magnum; Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iv. 13 vi. 43; vii. 5, 30; Athan. Epist. ad Afr. p. 931; Apol. li. pp. 799, 756, 761; Cyril. ad Nest. in Syn. Eph. p. 207. Clem. Alex. apud Euseb. iii. 23; Epiphan. Heres. 72; Basil, Ep. 69; Ambr. de Sacr. il. 1; Ep. 5; in Eph.iv. 11; Constit. Apost. viil. 46; Theod. v. 9; Hier. contr. Lucif. 4; Ep. 99, ad Asell; ad Evagr. Or. 19, p. 309; ad Marcellum, Ep. 54; Isid. Hisp. apud Grat. dist. 21, cap. 1; P. Innoc. I. Ep. 1, ad Decent; Ep. 12, ad Aurel.; P. Zoz. Ep. 1, ad Hesych., P. Leo, Ep. 838, 84, cap. 5; P. Gelas. Ep. 1, ad Euphemium ; P. Greg. I. Ep. 4, 6, 36, 38, 30, ad Eulog. Alex., &c. See also ‘ Les Occurres de Leschassiecr,’ ἢ. 404.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 809
age of the Apostles,’ it is enacted,—‘* Let a Bishop be ordained by two or three Bishops; a Presbyter
(ἢ These Apostolical Canons were received as authentic by the whole of the Primitive Church. We are informed by Frig- willzeus, in his “ Palma Christiana,” that very many of them were transferred into, approved of, and cited by the early Councils, with the very appellation of ““ Apostolical.”” The 9th, 10th, 15th, and 16th canons of the Nicene Council are transcripts of the 14th, 15th, 61st, and 62d, of the ““ Apostolical Canons,” the latter only being more simple, and therefore of far earlier date; this is also proved from the word “" Metropolitan” (first used by the Nicene Council) not being found in the Apostolical Canons. Moreover there is a correspondence not only in the matter, but nearly in the words of the first canon of the Council of Antioch, with the 7th “ Apostolical’? canon; of the 2d Antioch with the 8th, 9th, 10th, llth, 12th, and 13th, of the “ Apostolical ;᾽ of the 3d Antioch, with the 15th and 16th “ Apostolical;”’ of the 4th, 5th, and 6th, of the Council of Antioch, with the 33d Apostolical ; of the 9th Antioch with the 34th Apostolical; of the 12th and 18th Antioch, with the 35th Apostolical; of the 17th and 18th Antioch, with the 36th Apostolical; of the 20th, 21st, 23d, 24th, and 25th, of the Council of Antioch, with the 27th, 14th, 76th, 40th, and 4st, Apostolical. These canons were received as authentic by the Council of Gangra (which calls them “ Apostolicas Traditiones,” ) the Council of Ephesus, (post advent. Episc. Cypr.) and by the Councils of Constantinople, Chalcedon, Orleans, and Cabilon. These same canons are also cited as “ Apostolical” by Tertullian, (advers. Praxeam,) by Constantine the Great, (Euseb. iii. 29, de Vita Constant.) as also by Athanasius and Basil; they are, more- over, expressly named, and a reference evidently made to the 12th canon in a letter (preserved in the Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret, lib. i. 14,) written before the meeting of the Nicene Council, by Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, to Alexander, Bishop of Constantinople. Frigwilleus informs us, that Aurelius, Bishop of Carthage, made use of them as “ Apostolical Canons,” as the test whereby to examine the decrees of the Bishop of Rome; and that, by these same canons, the African Bishops repelled the tyrannical usurpation of that Pontiff; on which account Pope Celasius, finding nearly one half of them (that is, thirty-five out of eighty-five) affect his supremacy, rejected them. It is true that Blondel, the distinguished champion of Presbyte- rianism, does not admit these canons to have been published before
310 History of the Christian Priesthood.
and Deacon by one Bishop.” “1 any Presbyter or Deacon, leaving his own parish, go into another parish to dwell there, without the consent of his own Bishop, and not returning on being required to do so by the Bishop, let him be excommuni- cated.”™ In these canons, the word ᾿Επίσκοπος, or Bishop, is used thirty-eight times in appropri- ation to him who is the ordinary Ruler and Pre- sident of the Church above Presbyters and Deacons, being twenty-four times expressly distinguished from Presbyter, and in the other fourteen, the government, jurisdiction, and ordination, being dis- tinctly committed to him.
All the later councils recognise the same form of Church government." The councils of Carthage,°
the year 280, but Calvin declares that, if not composed by the Apostles themselves, they are, nevertheless, exceedingly ancient tes- timonies of the practice of the Church. (“ Valde antiqui testes moris Ecclesiz, &c. Instit. iv. 4.) Bishop Beveridge, if I mistake not, has published a very able defence of “ The Apostolical Canons.”
(m) ᾿Ἐπίσκοπος χειροτονείσθω ὑπὸ ᾿Επισκόπων δύο ἢ τριῶν, Πρεσβύ- τερος ὑπὸ ἑνὸς Ἐπισκόπου χειροτονείσθω, καὶ Διάκονος, καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ Κληρικοί. (Can.land2.) E? τις Πρεσβύτερος ἢ Διάκονος, ἢ ὅχλος τοῦ καταλόγου τῶν Κληρικων, απολείψας τὴν ἑαυτοῦ παροικίαν, εἰς ἑτέραν «πέλθοι, καὶ παντελῶς μεταστὰς διατρίβοι ἐν ἄλλῃ παροικίᾳ παρὰ γνώμην τοῦ ἰδίου ᾿Ἐπισκόπου, κιτιλ. (Can. 15.)
(n) Ἐὲ τὶς Ἐπισκόπος ὑπὸ Συνόδου καθαιρεθεὶς, ἢ Πρεσβύτερος, ἢ Διάκονος ὑπὸ τοῦ ἰδιοῦ ᾿Ἐπισκόπου, κιτ.ιλ. (Conc. Antioch. can. 4.) “ Per singulas regiones Episcopos convenit nosse Metropolitanum Episcopum solicitudinem totius Provincie gerere,’ &c. (Cone. Antioch. can. 9, 19, cap. 9, 25; can. 10.) Ἐπίσκοπον eis Πρεσβυ- τέρου βαθμὸν φέρειν ἱεροσυλια ἐστίν. (Conc. Chalced. can. 19.) “ Interdixit per omnia Magna Synodus, non Episcopo, non Pres- bytero, non Diacono licere,” &c. (Nicen. Concil. can. 3.) Τρεῖς Βαθμοὺς τούτους, φημὶ δὲ ᾿Ἐπισκόπους, Πρεσβυτέρους, καὶ Διακόνους. (Conc. Carthag. can. 2.)
(0) At the Counci! of Carthage, held a.p. 256, Fortunatus a
History of the Christian Priesthood. 4811
Rome,? and Chalcedon,‘ expressly call Bishops the successors of the Apostles; the council of Sardis proves not only that no one was ever made a Bishop without having previously been ordained Presbyter,' but (as do also the councils of Arles,’ Nice, and Carthage,") that there was a particular mode of ordination for a Bishop.
The council of Sardis annulled the ordinations of those persons who had been ordained by Muszeus and Eutychianus, because they had been ordained by Presbyters;* the synod of Alexandria reduced Ischiras and others to lay communion, because
Thuchabori, Venantius a Tinisa, and Clarus a Muscula, call them- selves the Episcopal successors of the Apostles; ‘‘ Manifesta est sententia Domini nostri Jesu Christi Apostolos suos mittentes et ipsis solis potestatem a Patre 5101 datam permittentis quibus nos successimus eadem potestate Ecclesiam Domini gubernantes. Nos successimus, &c. (Concil. Carthag. apud Cypr.)
(p) “ Non oportere quemquam Domini discipulis, id est, Apo- stolorum Successoribus detrahere.’’ (Conc. Rom. in loc.)
(4) ᾿Απὸ τοὶ ἁγίου Τιμοθέου μένει νῦν Kf [xxvil.] Ἐπίσκοπο: ἔγενοντο πάντες ἐν Ἐφέσω χειροτονήθησαν. (Syn. Chal. Act xi.)
(r) Ἵνα καθ᾽ ἕκαστον βαθμὸν... εἰς τὴν ἀψίδα τῆς ᾿Ἐπισκοπῆς, κατὰ προκοπὴν διαβῆναι δυνηθείη ... ἕξει δὲ ἑκάστου τάγματος 6 βαθμὸς οὐκ ἐλαχίστου δηλονότι χρόνου μῆκος, ὅς. (Concil. Sard. can. 10.)
(5) Conc. Arl, can. 5.
(ἢ) Cone. Nic. can. 3,
(u) “ Episcopus quum ara duo Episcopi ponant, et teneant Evangeliorum codicem super caput, et cervicem ejus, et uno super eum fundente benedictionem, reliqui omnes Episcopi qui adsunt manibus suis caput ejus tangant.” (Conc. Carthag. can. 4.)
(x) ᾿Αλλ᾽ ἐκείνους τοὺς ἱερωθέντας παρὰ τίνων τῇ ἀληθεία μὲν ὄντων Ἐπισκόπων ... ὡς λαΐκοις συγκοινωνήσαμεν, ὅτι οὐδὲ ὄνομα Ἐπισκόπου δυνάντων ἐκδικεῖν of αὐτοὺς τάχα χειροτονήσαντες «... “ Que autem de Muszo et Eutychiano dicta sunt, trahe etiam ad alios qui non ordinati fueruut.” (Balsamon in Can. 19, Conc. Sard.)
312 History of the Christian Priesthood.
ordained by Colluthus, who was but a Presbyter ;¥ and the council of Constantinople, in like manner, all the Presbyters ordained by Maximus; for all these councils assume for granted (what indeed was never yet disputed) that the power of ordination was appropriated exclusively to the Episcopal order.” Moreover, these councils, (especially those of Ancyra,? Arles, Laodicea,” Nice,° Chalcedon,‘ and Antioch,°
(y) Ἐκπεσὼν καὶ τῆς ψευδοῦς ὑπονοίας τοῦ Πρεσβυτερίου. .. Λαϊκοὶ φεγόνασι; καὶ οὕτω συνάψονται .... ὧς οὐδενὶ καθήστεικειν ἀμφίβολον, κιτ.λ. (See apud Athanas. Apolog. 2 Presb. and Diacon. Marestic. ad Curiosum et Philagrium.)
(x) Ai χειροτονίαι καὶ πάντα ἅ τῷ Ἐπισκόπῳ ἀνήκει, κιτ.λ. (Conc. Trull. can. 37.) “ Ea que non nisi par Episcopos geruntur.” (Conc. Arausican. can. 20.) ‘H [’Emioxdrn] μὲν γὰρ ἐστὶ πατέρων γεννητικὴ τάξις, πατέρας γὰρ γεννᾷ TH "ExkAeoia’ ἣ δὲ πατέρας μὴ δυναμένη γεννᾷν. (Epiphan. Heres.75.) ‘ Episcopus unus esse potest per quem dignatione diviné Presbyteri multi constitui possunt.”? (Conc. Carthag. can. 45.) See also Conc. Nic. cap. 19; Conc. Antioch. cap. 9; Conc. Chalced. cap. 2 and 6.)
(a) ““ Presbyteri sine conscientid Episcoporum nihil faciant. Sed nec Presbyteris civitatis sine Episcopi precepto amplius aliquid imperare, vel sine auctoritate literarum ejus in unaquaque parochia aliquid agere.” (Conc. Ancyr. can 13, apud Isidor.)
(ὁ) Ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ τοὺς Πρεσβύτερους μηδὲν πράττειν ἄνευ γνώμης τοῦ Ἐπισκόπου. (Conc. Laodic. cap. 56.)
(c) “ Ut ita demum hi qui ob culpas suas, Episcoperum suorum offensas merito contraxerunt digné etiam a ceteris excommunicati habeantur, quoresque in communi, vel ipsi Episcopo suo usum fuerit, humaniorum circa eos ferre sententiam.’’ (Conc. Nic. can. 0.)
(d) Εἰ τὶς Κληρικὸς πρὸς Κληρικὸν πράγμα ἔχοι, μὴ καταλιμπανέτο τὸν οἰκεῖον Ἐπίσκοπον, καὶ ἐπὶ κοσμικὰ δικαστήρια κατατρεχέτω" ἀλλὰ πρότερον τὴν ὑπόθεσιν “γυμναζέτω παρὰ τῷ ἰδὶῳ ᾿Ἐπισκόπω, ἤ σὺν γνώμη, αὐτοῦ τοῦ ᾿Επισκόπου παρ᾽ ois by τὰ ἀμφότερα μέρη βούλεται, τὰ τῆς δίκης συγκροτεῖσθω. .. Ei δὲ τὶς παρὰ ταῦτα ποιήσει, κανονι- κοῖς ὑποκείσθω ἐπιτιμίοις. (Conc. Chale. can. 9.)
(6) ἜΞκαστον γὰρ Ἐπίσκοπον ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν τὴς ἐαυτοῦ παροικίας. διοικεῖν κατὰ τὴν εκάστῳ ἐπιβάλλουσαν εὐλάβειαν, καὶ πρόνοιαν
History of the Christian Priesthood. 313
and Ephesus,‘) forbid the Presbyters, on any occa- sion, to act without the permission of their Bishop.
We have proved, therefore, from the testimony of the inspired Apostles themselves, as conveyed to us in the Holy Scriptures, of nineteen Fathers who lived and wrote next after them, and of fourteen ancient councils (six of them general councils) which were holden during the first five centuries, that from the time of our Saviour (who himself instituted that form of polity) the Christian Church was governed by Bishops; that those Bishops were not congregational but diocesan Bishops, in the strict and proper sense of the term; that the Bishop was raised to the highest grade of Priesthood by a distinct ordination, in virtue of which he became the supreme Ruler of the Church. In the words of the judicious Hooker, therefore, we “ call upon the adversaries of Episcopacy to find out but one Church upon the face of the whole earth, that was ordered by their discipline, or was not ordered by ours; that is to say, by Episcopal regimen, since the time that the blessed Apostles were here con- versant.”§
ποιεῖσθαι πάσης τῆς χώρας τῆς ὑπὸ Thy ἑαυτοῦ πόλιν ; Gs καὶ χειρο- τονεῖν Πρεσβυτέρους καὶ Διακόνους, καὶ μετὰ κρίσεως ἕκαστα διαλαμ- βάνειν. (Syn. Antioch. can. 9.)
(f) Ὅσοι δὲ ἐπὶ ἀτόποις πράξεσι κατεκρίθησαν ὑπὸ τῆς ἁγίας συνόδου, ἤ ὑπὸ τῶν οἰκείων ᾿ΕἘπισκόπων, κιτιλ. (Concil. Ephes. c. 5.)
(g) Preface to “ Ecclesiastical Polity.” ͵
CHAP. VI.
We have the testimony of ancient and creditable writers, that the original inhabitants of this country were converted to Christianity by the preaching of one or more of the Apostles. Be this, however,
(a) St. Clement (who was contemporary with St. Paul) writes of that Apostle: διὰ ζῆλον ὃ Παῦλος ὑπομονῆς βραβεύον ἀπέσχεν, ἑπτάκ:ς δεσμὰ φορέσας, παιδευθεὶς, λιθασθεὶς, κῆρυξ γενόμενος ἔν τε τῇ ἀνατολῇ καὶ ἐν τῇ δύσει, τὸ γεναῖον τῆς πίστεως αὐτοῦ κλέος ἔλαβεν, δίκαιοσυνην διδάξας ὅλον τὸν κόσμον, καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως ἐλθὼν, καὶ μαρτυρήσας, κιτιλ. (Epist. ad Cor. cap. 5, Ρ. 14.) Now, by the words τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως, it is certain that he included Britain ; Catullus calls Britain ‘‘ Ultimam occidentis Insulam,” (Catull. ad Cesar.); and the Britons he calls “ Ultimos Britannos.’”’ (Catull. ad Aur.) Horace calls them, “ Ultimos Orbis Britannos.” (Horat. Carm. lib. i. c. 35.) Plutarch also, in his Life of Cesar, speaking of his expedition into Britain, says he was the first who brought a fleet into the Western Ocean, by which he understands the sea between Gaul and Britain; and Eusebius calls the British Ocean the Western, and joins the British _ Ocean and the Western parts together, (Euseb. Vit. Const. lib. i. c. 85, 41; lib. ii. c. 28,) and elsewhere mentions Gaul and the western parts beyond it, by which he understands Britain. (Euseb. de Martyr. Palest. c.13.) Theodoret mentions the inhabitants of Spain, Britain, and Gaul, as those who dwell in the bounds of the west. (Theod. Hist. Relig. c. 26.) Eusebius speaks of the Apo- stles having passed over the ocean, ἐπὶ τᾶς καλούμενας Βρεττάνικας νῆσους. (Euseb. Demonstrat. Evang. vol. i. lib. 111, c.17.) St. Jerome says the same. (Hieron. in Amos. c. 5.) Theodoret ex- pressly names the Britons as one of the nations converted by St. Paul. (Theodoret, vol. iv. Serm. ix. p. 610; vol. i. in Psal. cxvi. p. 870; in 2 Ep. ad Tim. iv. 17.) Venantius Fortunatus
History of the Christian Priesthood. 3815
as it may, questionless there was an Episcopal Church in Britain for some centuries before the time of Augustine.” It is true that no Ecclesiastical records, written during the continuance of the Romans in this country, are extant. Gildas, our most ancient historian, who wrote a.p. 564, sup- poses them to have either been destroyed by fire, or carried away into foreign countries by exiled Britons.° Nevertheless, ample testimony remains
thus describes the labours of St. Paul: ““ Transit et Oceanum, vel qua facit insula Portum, Quasque Britannus habet terras quasque insula Thule.’ (Ven. Fortunat. Vit. St. Martin. lib. iii.) At all events, it is certain that there was a numerous Christian Church in this country in the days of Tertullian and Origen. Tertullian writes, in his areument against the Jews, “ Et Britannorum inac- cessa Romanis loca, Christo vero subdita.” (Compare Tertull. cont. Judeos. c. 7, p. 212 pv. and 213 a.) And Origen affirms the same. (Origen, in Ezek. hom. 4; in Luc. i. hom. 6.) Com- pare Zosim. Hist. lib. ii. p. 688, 23, and 676 B.; Euseb. Hist. Eccl. viii. 13. p. 309; de Vita Constant. I. 13. p. 413; Lactant. de Mort. Persec. 1544; Optat. de Schism. lib. i. p. 25; Sozomen, Hist. I. 6. p. 407; Eutrop. Hist. lib. x.; Usser. de Prin. p. 173.) Scotland received Christianity at a much later period: “ Christi transactis tribus annis atque ducentis Scotia Catholicam ceepit inire fidem.” (Fordon. lib. iii. c. 35; Maior de Gest. Scot. lib. i. c. 14.)
(Ὁ) In the reign of Lucius [or Lever-Maur] who, a.p. 154, succeeded Cogidunus, as King of Sussex and Kent, Eluanus [Aualonius] Bishop of Glastonbury, and Medwinus, Bishop of Belga or Wells, were sent by that king to Eleutherius or Evaristus, Bishop of Rome. They returned to England with two other Bishops, viz. Fagan [Fagatius or Fugatus] and Dervan [ Duvianus, Damianus, or Dividianus.] (See Stillingfleet’s Origines Britan- nice, p. 64; Florin. Wigorn; and Monastic. Angl. vol. iii. p- 188.)
(ec) “ Illa proferre conabar in medium, quee temporibus Impera- torum Romanorum et passa est Britannia, et aliis intulit civibus longe positis mala. Quantum tamen potuero non tam ex scripturis patriz, scriptorumve monumentis (quippe que, vel si qua fuerint,
Q2
316 History of the Christian Priesthood.
to prove the existence of Episcopacy in this country at that early period. Three British Bishops were present in the first General Council of the Western Church, holden at Arles, convened by Constantine the Great, A.D. 314. This Council consisted chiefly of Bishops from the eighteen provinces of Gaul and Britain; the British Bishops were Restitutus, Bishop of London,* (which diocese included the provinces of Loegria and Cornubia); Eborus, Bishop of York, (which diocese included the provinces of Deira and Albania); and Adelfius, Bishop of Caer- leon,® upon the Usk, in Glamorganshire, extending (according to Ranulphus Cestrensis,*‘) as far as the Severn, and so (besides Wales) including Chester, Hereford, and Worcester. These three Bishops were the provincial Bishops of Britain; viz. Bri- tannia Prima, Maxima Ceesariensis, and Britannia Secunda. Athanasius expressly affirms that British Bishops were present at the General Council of
aut ignibus hostium exusta, aut civium exilii classe longius deportata, non compareant), quam transmarina relatione, que crebris irrupta-intercapedinibus, non satis claret.” (Gildas. Hist. sect. 2.)
(4) Concil. Arelat. [. Subscript. post Canones. There were other British Bishops who did not attend the Council. Compare Gildas de Excid. Brit. lib. i.; Uss. Prim. c. 5, p. 57, from Gild. de Victoria Aur. Ambrosii. lib. vii.
(e) Adelfius ex Civit. Col. Londin.; which should, probably, be ** ex Civit. Col. Leg. II.” In the province of ‘ Britannia Secunda’ there were two noted colonies, the one called by Bede ‘ Colonia Divana,’ and ‘ Civitas Legionum;’ the other called ‘ Civitas Legionis ad Yscam,’ where was a colony of II. Leg., which pro- vince is sometimes called ‘ Britannia Secunda.’ (Bed. lib. ii. 8,12.)
(f) Ranulph. Cestren. Polychron. lib. i. c. 52; Matt. Westm. A. Ὁ. 490 and 507.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 31%
Sardica, a. Ὁ. 350, and that they boldly withstood the Arian heresy." Sulpicius Severus also tells us that three British Bishops were present in the Council of Ariminum, A. Ὁ. 359, and that they gave their suffrages against the Arian heresy. Several Councils were holden in Britain during the fifth century, at all of which British Bishops were pre- sent! Finally, when Augustine was sent hither by Gregory I., he found the British Church, which the persecutions of the Saxons had almost extirpated, under the Episcopal form of government.*
(g) Athanas. Apolog. ii. p. 720; Nicephor. Eccl. Hist.; Bucher. Belg. Rom. lib. ix. c. 4, n. 4; Hilar. de Synodis, &c.
(kh) Athanas. ad Jov. Ὁ. 246; Hieron. adv. Marc. ad Evagr. ; Chrysost. vol. iii. p. 696; vi. p. 635; vill. p. 111.
(i) The anonymous Author of the Chronicle in Leland, informs us that Germanus, Bishop of Auxerre, and Lupus, Bishop of Troyes, were sent for from France by the British Churches, a. D. 430, and that, having rooted out Pelagianism, they consecrated Bishops in several parts of Britain, placed a Cathedral at Llandaff, and consecrated Dubricius Archbishop, and Daniel Bishop of Bangor. | (Collect. vol. ii. p. 42.) The old Register of Llandaff says that Germanus and Lupus consecrated Bishops in many places, and made Dubricius Archbishop over all the Britons. (See Monast. Anglic. vol. iii. p. 188; Usser. de Primord. p. 80.) They also consecrated Illutus Archbishop of Caerleon. Geoffrey of Mon- mouth informs us that in a council of Britons, held a.n. 490, Aurelius Ambrosius appointed Sampson to the vacant Metropo- litan See of York. We also read of Theomis and Thaodiceus, the two Metropolitan Bishops of London and York, retiring, with their Suffragan Bishops, into Cornwall and Wales, on the perse- cution of the Saxons; and, not long after, of a council of British Bishops, held at Brevy, on account of the renewal of the Pelagian heresy. (Matt. Paris. a.p. 586; Marcus Sabel. in Ennead. vii. lib. v.)
(x) * Sunt ergo jure divino Episcopi a Presbyteris przlatione distincti.” (Bed. hb. iii. ο. 15, super Lucam.)
318 History of the Christian Priesthood.
It has been already proved, in a former chapter,! that, both prior to the mission of Augustine, (who was consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury by the Archbishop of Arles,™) and for nearly five cen- turies after his arrival, the Episcopal Church of this country was αὐτοκέφαλος and αὐτόνομος, [self-headed and self-lawed ;] consequently acknow- ledging no spiritual headship to the Bishop of Rome." This αὐτονομία or independence of Church
(ἢ) Chap. iii. pp. 144—157.
(m) “ Interea vir Domini Augustinus venit Arelas, et ab Archiepiscopo ejusdem civitatis Aitherio, juxta quod jussa sancti Patris Gregorii acceperat, Archiepiscopus genti Anglorum ordinatus est.” (Bed. Eccl. Hist. in loc.)
(n) Bede informs us, that after Augustine had been consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury, and returned to England, he desired a conference with the British Bishops, at a place called Augustinsac, on the confines of the Wiccii and the West Saxons. (Bed. lib. ii. c. 2.) Seven Bishops of the Britons were present at the con- ference, with Dinoth, Abbot of Bangor, and many Presbyters of the same Monastery. After much disputation, says Bede, “ they would not own Augustine as Archbishop over them,” and would acknowledge the supremacy of no other Primate than that of the Archbishop of Caerleon on Usk, the only Archbishop of three which before they had. The Synod of Strenshalch, at Whitby in Yorkshire, (called, by the Saxons, Streansheale,) was held for the decision of the question concerning Easter. The Church of Rome kept the memorial of our Lord’s resurrection upon that Sunday which fell between the 15th and 21st days of the moon, (both terms included,) next after the 21st day ef March; and, in reckoning the age of the moon, they followed the Alexandrian cycle of nine- teen years. The British Church, on the contrary, kept the Easter upon the Sunday that fell between the 14th and the 20th day of the moon, following, in their account of it, Sulpicius Severus’s circle of eighty-four years. In this Synod of Strenshalch, Colman, Metropolitan and Archbishop of York, in the days of King Oswi and Alhfrid his son, refused to conform to the ordinances of Rome respecting Easter; nor did any of the British Bishops yield this point until the death of Elbodus, chief Bishop of North Wales, nor
History of the Christian Priesthood. 319
government continued until the eleventh century,° when the wiles of the Papal see succeeded in usurping the supreme Ecclesiastical authority from the Kings of England,? and this usurped authority
would they hold communion with those who, in England, had sub- mitted to the Roman regulations :—“ Si quilibet de nostris, id est, Catholicis,” writes Aldhelme, Abbot of Malmesbury, to Geruntius, King of Cornwall, “‘ ad eos habitandi gratia perrexerint, non prius ad consortium sodalitatis suze adsciscere dignantur, quam quadra- ginta dierum spatia in penitendo peragere compellantur.”” (Ald- helm. Epist. ad Dumnonios.) And Bede says, “ Quippe cim usque hodie moris sit Britonum, fidem religionemque Anglorum pro nihilo habere, neque in aliquo eis magis communicare quam Paganis.” (Bed. lib. 11. Hist. c. 20.)
(0) See chap. 111. pp. 156, 157. The Church of Canterbury was, up to this period, considered as the “‘ common mother of all ;’—‘“‘ Omnium nostrum mater communis sub sponsi sui Jesu Christi dispositione.’—(Gervas. Dorob. p. 1663, apud Twisd. p- 72.) William of Malmesbury affirms that Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, was welcomed by Urban II., Patriarch of Rome, to the Council of Bari, in Apulia, “ tanquam alterius orbis Papa;”’ or, as John Capgrave expresses it, ‘‘ tanquam Patriarcham Apo- stolicum.”’
(p) A supremacy in matters of Ecclesiastical regulation belongs to the Sovereign, not only de jure, (as has been already proved in chap. ii.) but de facto also. This authority was exercised and enjoyed by all the early Christian Emperors. We read that Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria, appealed from the Synod of Tyre to the Emperor Constantine, to whom also three appeals were made in the case of Czcilianus and Donatus; Priscillian appealed to Maximus, and Chrysostome to the Emperor Arcadius, against the sentence of Theophilus. Moreover, all general coun- cils were summoned [κατὰ πρόσταξιν and προστάγματι] by the command of the Emperor, and the Bishops were summoned to it [διὰ τῶν τοῦ βασιλέως ypdupatwy] by the letters of the King. Indeed, Jerome, to disprove the authority of a Synod, which was pretended to be genuine, employs this as a forcible argument :— “ Dic, quis Imperator hanc Synodum jusserit convocari?” The first General Council of Nice, at which three hundred and eighteen Bishops were present, was summoned and confirmed by Constan- tine, A.D. 325, as was also the Council of Arles. His son Con- stantius (although an Arian) convoked the Councils of Sardica,
320 «History of the Christian Priesthood.
was not restored to them until the era of the Reformation, when the Clergy in Convocation
Arimnium, Seleucia, Sirmium, and Milan. [Προσέταξεν εἰς Sap- δικὴν συνδραμεῖν ᾿Επίσκοπους.) Theodor. ii. 43 Soz. iii. 11; Socr. ii. 16, 20; Athan. vol. i. p.761; Hil. in fragm. ‘ Jubet ex toto orbe apud Sardicum Episcopos congregari.” Sulp. 11. 52; Ἔκτε τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ κελεύσεως καὶ τῆς σῆς εὐσεβείας προστάγματος, κτλ. Syn. Arim. Epist. ad Const. Socr. ii. 3873 11. 89. ἭἪἫν- γενέσθαι τὸ βασιλέως ἐκέλευε πρόσταγμα. Ann. 381. Ὁ βασιλεὺς Σύνοδον Ἐπισκόπων ἐν τῷ Σιρμίῳ γενέσθαι ἐκέλευσε. Socr. li. 29; Soz.iv. θ.ἁ Πρόσταγμα δὲ ἦν τοῦ βασιλέως ἐν Μεδιολάνῳ πόλει ποιεῖσθαι τὴν Σύνοδον. (Socr. i. 86; Soz. iv. 9.) The Emperor Honorius summoned the Council of Rome; the Emperor Valenti- nian called the Synod of Illyricum; [Ἔν μὲν τῷ Ἰλλυρικῳ Σύνοδον γενέσθαι προσέταξε. Theod. iv. 7; | and the Council of Lampsacus was called by the same Emperor. The Emperor Theodosius called the Council of Aquileia, as also the second General Council of Constantinople, which condemned Eutyches, A. Ὁ. 448, at which one hundred and fifty Bishops were present. The Council of Thessalonica was convoked by the Emperor Gratian. The third General Council of Ephesus, which condemned the heresy of Nestorius, held a. ἢ. 449, at which two hundred Bishops were pre- sent, was summoned [νεύματι καὶ ex θεσπίσματος] “ by the inti- mation and command” of the Emperors Theodosius II. and Valentinian. [Πρόσταγμα τοῦ Βασιλέως εἰς τὴν Σύνοδον συνίεναι ἐκελεύσεν. Socr. vil. 34; Euag. i. 3. ‘H ἁγία Σύνοδος, 4 χάριτι Θεοῦ κατὰ TO θέσπισμα τῶν εὐσεβεστάτων Kal φιλοχρίστων ἡμῶν Βασιλέων συγκροτηθεῖσα. Syn. Eph. Act. i. p. 291, Ἡ χάριτι Θεοῦ καὶ νεύματι τοῦ ὑμετέρου Κράτους συναχθεῖσα. Ῥ. 297. Τὰ πρυστε- ταγμένα τῇ ἁγίᾳ Συνόδῳ παρὰ τοῦ ὑμετέρου κράτους, «.7.A. Act. ν. p- 847. Τοῖς ἀθροισθεῖσι κατὰ πρόσταγμα τῶν βασιλέων. P. 404. Ἥντινα Σύνοδον οἱ Χριστιανώτατοι καὶ Φιλανθρώποτατοι βασιλεῖς ὥρισαν. Act. iii. p. 880. Τῇ ἁγίᾳ Συνόδῳ τῇ κατὰ Θεοῦ χάριν καὶ θέσπισμα τῶν θεοφιλεστάτων καὶ φιλοχρίστων βασιλέων συναχθείση. Act. iv. p. 337. ᾿ἘἘθεσπίσαμεν κατὰ ταυτὸ συνελθόντων ὁσιοτάτων, κιτ.λ.... Τῷ αὐτῷ τύπῳ ἐγράφη καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις εὐλαβεστάτοις Ἔπι- σκόποις ὥστε παραγενέσθαι εἰς τὴν Συνόδον. Syn. Chale. parsi. Ρ. ὅ8. “ Episcopale Concilium quod haberi apud Ephesum precepistis.”’ P. Leo. i. Ep. 24,25, ad: Theod.) The fourth General Council held at Chalcedon, in Bithynia, a. Ὁ. 451, at which six hundred and thirty Bishops were present, was convoked by the Emperor Marcian. (‘H ayia καὶ μεγάλη καὶ οἱκουμενικὴ Σύνοδος ἣ κατὰ Θεοῦ
History of the Christian Priesthood. 321
again recognised the monarch as the supreme governor of the Church of England. This act of
χάριν, καὶ Θέσπισμα τῶν εὐλαβεστάτων καὶ φιλοχρίστων ἡμῶν βασιλέων συναχθεῖσα-- ὥρισε τὰ ὑποτεταγμένα. Act. vi. p. 346.) The fifth General Council, held a.p. 553, to “ cut off heresies,” was convoked [kata θέσπισμα] “ by the decree” or authority of the Emperor Justinian. (‘ Semper studium fuit Orthodoxis, et piis Imperatoribus pro tempore exortas Hereses per congrega- tionem religiosissimorum Episcoporum amputare, et recta fide predicata in pace Sanctam Dei Ecclesiam custodire.” Justin. in Syn. v. Collat. i. p. 209; “ Pro Dei voluntate, et jussione piissimi Imperatoris ad hance urbem convenimus.’’ Collat. vii. “ Ut quz resistente Romano Pontifice fuerit congregata.” Baron. Ann. 553, § 219.) The sixth General Council, at Constantinople, at which one hundred and fifty Bishops were present, was sum- moned, A. Ὁ. 681, by the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus, as is admitted by the Council, in its epistle to Agatho, Bishop of Rome. [Ἡ ἁγία καὶ μεγάλη, καὶ οἰκουμενικὴ Σύνοδος, ἣ κατὰ Θεοῦ χάριν καὶ πανευσεβὲς θέσπισμα τοῦ εὐσεβεστάτου καὶ πιστοτάτου μεγάλου βασιλέως Κωνσταντίνου συναχθεῖσα. Act. xviii. pp. 255, 285. In Epist. ad P. Agatho. Ταύτῃ τῇ Θεολέκτῳ τῆς εἰρήνης διδασκαλίᾳ θεοσόφως ὃ πραότατος ἡμῶν βασιλεὺς ὁδ᾽ ἡγούμενος, ὃ τῆς μὲν ὀρθο- δοξίας ὕπερμαχος, τῆς δὲ κακοδοξίας ἀντίμαχος, τὴν καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς ἁγίαν τάυτην, καὶ οἰκουμενικὴν ἀθροίσας dunyupw, τὸ τὴς ᾿Εκκλησίας ἅπαν ἥνωσε σύγκριμα. Act. xviii. p. 256, in definitione Synodica. Ταῖς θειοτάταις ὑμῶν προστάξεσιν εἴκοντες ὅτε τῆς πρεσβυτάτης καὶ ᾿᾽Απο- στολικῆς ἀκροπόλεως ἄρχιερατικώτατος προέδρος καὶ ἡμεῖς ἑλάχιστοι. κιτιλ. Act. xviii. p. 271. Καὶ γὰρ ἐπέγνωμεν ὅτι ἡ ἁγία καὶ μεγάλη καὶ οἰκουμενικὴ ἕκτη Σύνοδος, ἥτις κατὰ Θεοῦ χάριν τῷ βασιλικῷ προστάγματι ἐναγχος ἐν τῇ βασίλιδι συνηθροίσθη πόλει. P. Leo. II. in Epist. ad Constant. Imp. p. 806.) Whatever any of these councils did determine upon without the Emperor’s con- sent had no force. We read, in the canon law, that Ecclesiastical affairs being administered by a synodical (κρίσις) judgment or decree, were always confirmed by the royal ἐπικμρίσις, or second or after-decree of the Emperor. Accordingly, all the Councils, both Greek and Latin, are found subscribed by the Emperors, and confirmed by their letters or edicts. The Greeks called these edicts Διάταγματω, Θέσπισματα, or Χρυσόβουλλα κυροῦντα τὰς Συνοδικὰς ἀποφάσεις, i. e. edicts or golden bulls to confirm synodical decrees by royal authority ; whence it is evident, that the right tov κυροῦν, or of giving sanction to the decrees of a Synod, so that they might
ῳ
-
322 History of the Christian Priesthood.
obtain the force of a law, was always attributed to the Emperors. This right of convening and confirming the decrees of councils was universally practised. The first Christian King of France was Clovis, the fifth from Pharamond, the first king of that country ; he summoned the Council of Orleans, a. ἢ. 507; Guntherannus, another king of France, summoned the Councils of Lyons, Chalons, and Mascon; the second Council of Orleans was convened by Childebert; and Sigismund, King of Burgundy, convened the Synod of Pau. When the Western Empire fell into the hands of the French, the Councils of Akon, Mentz, Meldun, Wormes, and Colen were summoned by Charles the Great and his successors in that empire. All the Councils, not only under the Caroline, but the Merovignean family, were opened, confirmed, and sometimes presided over, by their kings and princes. In Spain also, A. Ὁ. 589, King Recared summoned the third Council of Toledo against the Arian heresy brought in by the Goths; indeed, the first ten councils holden at Toledo, as well as the two at Bracara, were summoned by the writ and mandate of the kings. The Council of Agde also was summoned, a. D. 606, by Alaric, who was even an Arian. Accordingly, all the Fathers of the Church insist upon the subjection of the Church to the imperial authority: “ Sive Apo- stolus, sive Evangelista, sive Propheta, sive quisquis tandem fueris, &c.....neque enim pietatem subvertit ista subjectio.”’ (5. Chrysost. Hom. xiii, in Rom. xiii.) “Sive est Sacerdos aliquis, sive Antistes, sive Monasticam vitam professus, iis cedat quibus sunt mandati magistratibus.” (Theod. in Rom. xiii.) “ Universus erudit, sive Sacerdos sit ille, sive Monachus, sive Apvo- stolus, ut se Principibus subdant, cujusmodi subjectio nil prorsus est Dei, sublatura cognitionem.” (Theophyl. in Rom. xiii.) ‘¢ Instruens omnem animam, et audiens, ut licet Sacerdos quispiam sit, licet Monachus, licet Apostolus, potestatibus subjiciatur.” (CEcumenius in Rom. xiii.) ‘‘ Si omnis anima, et vestra; Quis vos excepit ab universitate.”’ (Bernard. Ep. 42.) ‘ Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit; nec excipit animam Pape.” (Aneas Silvius, lib. i. de gestis Basil. Concil.) ‘‘ Sacerdotes meos manuituze commisi.”’ (Gregor. Epist. lib. ii. c. 100—103.) “ Do- minari non solum militibus, sed etiam Sacerdotibus Imperatori concessit Deus.’ (Gregor. Epist.) “Super Imperatorem non est, nisi solus Deus, qui fecit Imperatorem.’’ (Optat. contra Parm. lib. ili.) With respect to the Church of England herself, it ap- pears, from Sir H. Speiman’s Collection of the Saxon Councils, that almost all the Ecclesiastical Canons for the government of the Church of England, were either originally promulgated, or after- wards approved and allowed of, either by the supreme Monarch of
History of the Christian Priesthood. 828
the Convocation was subsequently confirmed by Act
of Parliament.4
We have given this rapid sketch of the early history of the English Church, in order more unanswerably to disprove Mr. Howitt’s assertion,
all the Saxons, or by some King or other of the several Heptarchies presiding in the national or provincial Synods until after the Norman conquest. Several instances are also summed up by Sir Edward Coke, in the fifth part of his Reports in Cawdrie’s case, entitled ‘ De Jure Regis Ecclesiastico.’ Even after the conquest, a right of interference in all matters of Ecclesiastical regulation was claimed by William the Conqueror; (see Eadmeri historia rerum novarum, lib. i. p. 6. Edit. Lond. 1623;) and by Henry 11. (“ Et si Archiepiscopus defecerit in justitia exhibenda, ad Domi- num Regem deveniendum est postremo.’’)
(q) It is evident, from the Act of Parliament entitled ‘The Act of Submission of the Clergy,’ that in the rejection of the Papal supremacy, and the acknowledgment of the King as ‘ Supreme Head of the Church of England,’ the Parliament did nothing but what was done before by the Clergy in Convocation, The statute 26 Hen. VIII. c. 1, is thus worded: “ Albeit, the King’s Majesty justly and rightly is, and ought to be, the supreme Head of the Church of England, and is so recognised by the Clergy of this Realm in their Convocations ; yet, nevertheless, for corroboration and con- firmation thereof, and for increase of virtue in Christ’s religion within this realm of England, &c.; be it enacted by authority of this present Parliament that the King our Sovereign Lord, &c.”’ In fact, for nearly two years before it was proposed in the Houses of Parliament, (as appears from the Records of Convocation,) the Clergy subscribed their hands to this acknowledgment, ‘‘ Cujus (Ecclesiz Anglicane) Singularem Protectorem, unicum et Su- premum Dominum et (quantum per Christi leges licet) Supremum Caput, ipsius Majestatem recognoscimus.” (See Antiq. Britan. Mason. de Minist. Anglic.) And the Clergy promised the King in Verbo Sacerdotii, not to enact or execute any new Canons and Constitutions, in their Convocations, without His Majesty’s royal assent; “ Clerus in verbo Sacerdotii fidem Regi dedit, ne ullas deinceps in Synodo ferrent Ecclesiasticas leges, nisi et Synodas auctoritate Regia congregata, et Constitutiones in Synodis publi- cate eadem auctoritate rate essent.”’
524 History of the Christian Priesthood.
that ‘all the most celebrated Ministers of the English Church admitted”* that “ prelacy was notoriously antichristian.”* Mr. Howitt’s triple anti-Episcopal argument was, that the Scriptures, the Fathers of the Primitive Church, and * the most celebrated Ministers of the English Church,” were opposed to Episcopacy. Having dealt with this argument, so far as applies to the Scriptures and the Fathers of the Primitive Church, we proceed to the third and last part with the same fearlessness, and with the same certainty of pro- ducing a triumphant refutation.
‘“‘ Wycliffe, Tyndal, Lambert, Cranmer, Latimer, and Ridley,” says Mr. Howitt, “held, as may be seen in their writings, or their oral testimonies on their trials, widely different doctrines,’—that 15, widely different doctrines from the present Church of England,—‘“ and in particular this, that the Bishop and Priest are scripturally one.”* ‘* Henry VIII. issued, in 1537, a Declaration, signed by Cromwell, his secretary, by the two Archbishops, eleven Bishops, and various other learned persons, ‘ That the New Testament sanctions no degrees or distinctions in religious orders, but those of Dea- cons or Ministers, and Priests or Bishops.’ ”¥ ‘© * The institution of a Christian man,’ which was subscribed and recommended by the Archbishops, seventeen Bishops, forty Abbots, various Deans and Prebendaries, maintains but two orders of
(r) 3d Ed. p. 222. (s) 3d Ed. p. 342. (t) 3d Ed. p. 222, (u) 3d Ed. p. 342.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 320
Clergy;”* ‘Archbishop Parker and Bishop Hooper regarded the office of Bishop as not | founded in the spirit of the Gospel;”¥ ‘ the Ge- nevan [i.e. Presbyterian] form of worship was admitted by some of the most celebrated Bishops in the famous Assembly of Divines at Westminster, among them Tillotson and Selden ;”* ‘‘ Cartwright, a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, maintained that Bishops and Deacons ought to be reduced to the Apostolical Institution, the Bishops to teach, and the Deacons to take care of the poor; that the Church should not be governed by Bishops.”* ‘¢ The same opinions were held by Bishops Alley, Pilkington, Jewel, Morton, and by Doctors Willet, Whittaker, Humphrey, and Holland.”? ‘ Mr. Scott, the esteemed Commentator of the English Church, on chap. xx. of Acts, says, that ‘ The same persons are, in this chapter, called Elders or Presbyters, and Overseers or Bishops; it must, therefore, be allowed that these were not distinct orders of Ministers at that time.’”* The writings of several of these “ὁ most celebrated Ministers of the English Church” were familiar to me before I had heard of the ‘ Popular History of Priestcraft;’ it was, therefore, with the most perfect astonishment that I saw opinions attributed to them so perfectly contradictory of those which I had gathered from their writings. In order, however, to be, as it were, doubly con- vinced, I again applied myself to the works of
(x) 3d Ed. p. 208. (y) 3d Ed. p. 208. (z) 2d Ed. p. 194; 84 Ed.p.195. (a) 3d Ed. p. 212. (2) 3d Ed. p. 342. (c) 3d Ed, p. 341.
326 History of the Christian Priesthood.
these great theologians, and found that, with one or two exceptions, their opinions were decidedly in favour of the Episcopal form of government.
The exceptions are, Wickliffe, Tyndal, Cart- wright,? and Tillotson.
Most writers will admit that the opinions of Wickliffe, however valuable in other matters of a theological nature, are to be received with con- siderable reservation on this particular subject. It is well known that he went to such an heretical extreme as to advocate the admission of women to the Priesthood, overlooking, in his zeal, the ex- press command: “ Let your women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak, but they are commanded to be under obedi- ence, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home, for it is a shame for women to speak in the Church.”° Neither can the slightest weight be attached to Tyndal’s opinion on Episcopacy, for he asserts that all Christians are Priests, and denies the necessity of a distinct order.
‘‘ TheGenevan [é.e. Presbyterian ] form of worship,” continues Mr. Howitt, ‘‘ was admitted by some of the most celebrated Bishops in the famous Assembly of Divines at Westminster ; amongst them Tillotson and Selden.” Neither Z%dlotson nor Selden ever sat in this famous Assembly! But admitting that
(4) Cartwright, the champion of Presbyterianism, against the “judicious” Hooker, finally became a controvertist in favour of Diocesan Episcopacy. (See Bancroft’s ‘ Survey of the Pretended
Discipline,’ pp. 447—449.) (e) 1 Cor. xiv. 34, 35.
History of the Christian Priesthood. S27
Tillotson was inclined to the Presbyterian form of Yhurch Government, it must also be remembered hat he was an Arian;f and Arius himself, the
(f) Archbishop Tillotson preached four sermons before the Jourt, A. Ὁ. 1690-93, for the very purpose of clearing himself from his charge of Arianism. In these sermons (and be it remembered he Arians acknowledge Christ to be ὁμοιούσιος, although not μοούσιος, of a like, but not of the same substance with the Father) he word ‘ consubstantiality’ does not once occur; and, therefore, n Sermon iii. pp. 140, 141, in a quotation from the Nicene Creed, he Archbishop omits, as if purposely, the words, “ being of one ubstance with the Father.” He all along scruples to allow the hree persons in the sacred Trinity to be truly and properly per- ons, or different subsistences, calling them merely “ differences,” nd urges, as an authority, that ‘‘ Jerome does, somewhere, desire o be excused from using the word person.” (Serm. ii. p. 120.) ferome, however, calls the Trinity “tres personas subsistentes ;” t is the word ὑπόστασις, which he (without some explanation) lesitates to use. In Sermon iv. Ὁ. 211, he denies the death of christ to be a satisfaction paid to the justice of God, considering here was no necessity of any satisfaction to God’s justice at all. in this last sermon, ‘ concerning the sacrifice and satisfaction of thrist,’ on Heb. ix. 29, (preached before the Queen, at Whitehall, April 9, 1693,) in allusion to Christ as our perpetual Advocate and Intercessor in heaven, Dr. Tillotson thus expresses himself :— ‘The wisdom of God thought fit thus to order things, in great sondescension to the weakness and common prejudices of mankind.” Serm. iv. p. 179.) ‘‘ God seems to have very much suited the lispensation of the Gospel, and the method of our salvation, by he incarnation and sufferings of his Son, to the common prejudices of mankind, especially of the heathen world... by gratifying them n some measure, and in a gracious compliance with our weakness, vy bending and accommodating the way and method of our salvation Ὁ our weak capacities and imperfect conceptions of things.” (P. 187.) “ God seems to have had great consideration of some very weak and gross apprehensions of mankind concerning reli- zion.” (P. 186.) “ And he hath, in great goodness and condescen- sion to our inveterate prejudices concerning these things, appeared in the end of the world to take away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” (P, 206.) ‘* Another reason of this dispensation seems to have been a gracious condescension and compliance of Almighty God, with a certain apprehension and persuasion which had very early
328 History of the Christian Priesthood.
founder of the sect called after his name, was the first person who denied the divine right of Epis- copacy.
Wickliffe, Tyndal, and Tillotson, therefore, can- not be cited as authorities upon this occasion, inasmuch as the opinions of the two former, on this subject, were wild and visionary, and the latter held heretical opinions affecting the divinity of the Son of God, and the necessity of an atonement.
With these three exceptions, ends Mr. Howitt's long array of ‘‘ most celebrated Ministers of the English Church ;” for Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley, Lambert, Parker, Hooper, Alley, Pilkington, Jewel, Morton, Willet, Whittaker, Humphrey, and Holland, whom
and universally obtained among mankind concerning the expiation of sin, and appeasing the offended Deity by sacrifices.” (Sermon ‘concerning the Sacrifice and Satisfaction of Christ,’ p.5.) ‘ God was pleased to comply so far with these notions and apprehensions of theirs, as to make his own Son both a Priest and a Sacrifice.” (P.6.) “ And with this general notion of mankind, whatever the ground or foundation of it might be, God was pleased so far to comply, as once for all to have a general atonement made for the sins of all mankind, by the sacrifice of his only Son.’’ (Serm. iv. p- 193.) ‘The world was mightily bent upon addressing their requests and supplications, not to the Deity immediately, because their superstition thought that too great a presumption, but by some mediators between the gods and them, who might, with advantage, in this humble manner, present their requests so as to find ac- ceptance.” (Serm. iv. p. 195.) And, in the same sermon, he scruples not to aftirm, that the ‘‘ only difference between Socinians and ourselves, as to the doctrine of satisfaction, consists only in this, that they (é.e. the Socinians) say Christ suffered for us, or for our sake, Whereas others would have it understood that Christ suffered for us, that is, in our stead, which,’’ continues he, “ is a mere controversy about words.” (Pp. 16, 31, 82.) In asermon preached betore the Queen, March 7, 1690, on Matt. xxv. 46, he declares there is no certainty of hell.
History of the Christian Priesthood. 3829
he quotes as authorities, ad/ (so far as I can learn) were decidedly favourable to an Episcopal Form of Government. A few brief quotations from their writings, in proof of this fact, will be more satis- factory than any assertion of mine.
Archbishop Cranmer, in his sermon ‘‘ On the Authoritie of the Keys,” says, ‘‘ The ministration of God's worde, which our Lorde Jesus Christ hymselfe dyd first institute, was deryved from the Apostles unto other after theim by imposition of handes, and gyuynge the Holy Ghost, from the Apostles’ tyme to our dayes. And this was the consecration, orders, and unction of the Apostles wherby they, αὐ the begynnynge, made Bishopes and Pryestes, and this shall continewe in the Churche even to the worldes end.” The Preface to the old Ordinal, written by Archbishop Cranmer and others, ex- pressly declares, ‘‘ It is evident unto all men, diligently reading holy Scripture and ancient authors, that from the Apostles’ times there have been three orders of Ministers in Christ’s Church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, which offices were evermore held,’ &c. Archbishop Cranmer’s opinions on the subject of Episcopacy are further known by his subscription to the answers given, a.D. 1540, to “« Questions relative to the settlement of Religion,” by a ‘‘ Committee of select Bishops and Divines appointed for examining all the Offices of the
(g) See—A short Instruction into Christian Religion, being a Catechism set forth by Archbishop Cranmer, in 1548.— Oxford. 8vo. 1829. p. 196.
330 History of the Christian Priesthood.
Church.”" The eleventh question, concerning the office of Bishops and Presbyters, was answered by Doctors Redmayne, Cox, Thirleby, Symmons, Robertson, and Leighton. Durell, (who had ex- amined the original manuscript,) in his ‘* Vindiciz,” informs us that Cranmer gave his consent to Leighton’s opinions upon this subject, by sub- scribing to each Zhos. Cantuariensis.: The answer was:—‘‘ I suppose that a Bishop hath au- thority of God to make a Priest ; and that any other man hath authority to make a Priest by Scripture, I have not read, nor any example thereof.”
Mr. Howitt asserts that, “ “ The institution of a Christian man,’ which was subscribed and recom- mended by the Archbishops, seventeen Bishops, forty Abbots, various Deans and _ Prebendaries, maintains but two orders of Clergy.”"* The work from which Mr. Howitt here professes to quote, is so scarce that there is not a single copy in all America, and I much question whether he ever had an opportunity of consulting one. Be this as it may, however, the “ Institution of a Christian Man” clearly distinguishes the three orders of Bishop, Priest, and Deacon, and considers them of Apo- stolical institution.! ‘‘ Christ and his Apostles dyd
(h) See Burnet’s ‘ History of the Reformation,’ vol. ii. p. 61.
(i) See Chandler’s Appeal Defended, pp. 26, 27.
(k) 3d Ed. p. 208.
(7) See fol. 41; “ For the holy Fathers of the Churche, which succeeded the Apostles, dyd institute certeyne inferiour orders or degrees, as Janitours, Lectours, Exorcistes, Accolites, and Sub- deacons, and deputed to every one of those certeyne oifices to
History of the Christian Priesthood. 331
institute and ordeyne, in the New Testament, that besydes the civile powers and governaunce of Kyngis and Princes, (which is called Potestas gladii, the power of the swerde,) there shuld also be continually in the Church milytant, certayne other Ministers or Officers, which shulde have speciall power, and auctoritie, and commission under Christ. First, [ἡ. e. the Diaconal order, ] to preache and teache the Worde of God, unto his people, to dyspense [2. e. distribute] the Sacramentes of God unto them. Secondly, [. 6. the Presbyteral order,] to consecrate the blessed body of Christ in the Sacrament of the altare, to loose and absolve from synne all persones which be duely penitent and sorye for the same; to bynde and to excommu- nicate suche as be gyltie in manyfeste crymes and synnes, and wyll not amende their defaultes. Thirdly, [. 6. the Episcopal order,] to ordre and consecrate others in the same rome, order, and office, whereunto thei be called, and admitted them- selfe....”™ The Bishops, and other Divines, who subscribed and recommended this work, distinctly declare, inArticle X XIII. of the Church of England, that “ It is not lawful” (¢. e. according to the laws
execute in {the Church,” (fol. 42.) These inferior orders are admitted to have been instituted after the time of the Apostles, but the office of Bishop is affirmed to be of Apostolical institution. “ To the intente the Church of Christ should never be destituted of suche Ministers, as shulde have and execute the sayde power of the keyes, it was also ordeyned and commanded by the Apostelles, that the same Sacrament of orders should be applyed and adminis- tered by the Byshop from tyme to tyme, unto suche other persones as had the qualities necessarily thereunto.” (m) Fol. 39.
332 History of the Christian Priesthood.
of God,) ““ for any man to take upon him the office of public preaching, or ministering the sacraments in the congregation, before he be lawfully called and sent to execute the same;” and ‘* no man,” (says the preface to the Ordinal,) ‘ shall be ac- counted or taken for a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, except he be called according to the form hereafter following, or hath had, formerly, Episcopal consecration, or ordination.
Bishop Jewel, whom Mr. Howitt quotes as asserting ‘‘ Bishops and Priests to be scripturally one order,” in the Preface to his ‘ Apology,’ declares that ““ Episcopacy was settled, in all Churches, in the days of the very Apostles, and by them.” And, in the ‘ Apology’ itself, he writes: ‘‘ We believe that there is one Church of God; that this Church is the kingdom, the body, and spouse of Christ; that Christ is the only Prince of this kingdom; that there are in the Church divers orders of Ministers; that there are some who are Deacons, others who are Presbyters, and others who are Bishops.”
All the other “celebrated Ministers of the English Church,” quoted by Mr. Howitt, held simi- lar opinions, as did also the Presbyterian Ministers
(01) ““ Credimus unam esse Ecclesiam Dei; eam Ecclesiam esse regnum, esse corpus, esse sponsam Christi; ejus regni Christum solum esse Principem ; ejus corporis Christum solum esse caput ; ejus sponse Christe solum esse sponsum. Varios in Ecclesia esse Ordines Ministrorum; alios esse Diaconos, alios Presbyteros, alios Episcopos, quibus institutio populi et religionis cura et procuratio commissa 510, (Apologia Ecclesiz Anglican Auctore Johanne Juello, olim Episcopo Sarisburiensi. Londini, pp. 27, 28.)
History of the Christian Priesthood. 385
of the Reformed Continental Churches—Calvin, Beza, Moulin, Bucer, Chamier, Martyr, Fagius, Alasco, Bullinger, Drusius, Renicherus, Gualter, Simler, Junius, Rolloeus, Luther, Melancthon, Casaubon, Frigevill, Saravia, Zanchy, and Damens. In fact, the distinguishing characteristic of the Protestant Church, as opposed to the Church of Rome,° was an unvarying and consistent acknow-
(9) The essential principles of Episcopacy are these three viz. by divine institution, and according to the practice of the Primitive Church, the Christian Ministry were constituted in a threefold imparity of order, Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons,—the Bishop and Presbyter constitute two distinct orders, the former superior to the latter,—and all Bishops are equal in order and jurisdiction. The Roman Clergy, on the contrary, are constituted in a sevenfold imparity of order; viz. Priests, Deacons, Subdeacons, Readers, Exorcists, Acolytes, and Sacristans. Secondly, in the Church of Rome, the Bishop and Priest are but one and the same order. The Church of Rome defines ‘ order’ to be ““ ἃ special power in relation to the Holy Sacrament,” which she calls, ‘ Corpus Christi Naturale ;’ and as she considers nothing to be an ‘ order’ but what is a power in order to consecration of the Eucharist, (Bellarm. de Sacr. Ordin. lib. i. c. 9;) and as a Bishop has no new power in the consecration of the Eucharist more than a Priest; she looks upon Episcopacy not as a distinct order. Accordingly, the Church of Rome exerted herself to bring the Episcopal and Presbyteral orders almost to an equality by exalting the Priests to the pre- judice of the Bishop, and by availing herself of every means of effectually degrading the Episcopal order. She licensed ordinary Priests to ordain, to confirm, and to perform the most essential offices of Bishops. (See Conc. Araust.c. 1. Cod. Affr. can. 6, Conc. Toled. c. 20.) Their schools teach us that “a Priest may be the extraordinary Minister of Priesthood, and confer inferior orders by the delegation of the Pope;” and again, “the Pope may confer the power of confirmation upon a simple Priest.” (See Abp. Bramhall’s Works, p. 431.) When, in the seventeenth cen- tury, a question arose whether the Romanists of this country should have a resident Bishop in England, for the purposes of Ordination and Confirmation, the Jesuits opposed it on the ground that a
334 History of the Christian Priesthood.
ledgment of the divine right and institution ‘of Episcopacy, in which opinion the eminent con- tinental Reformers, whose names have been given, fully concurred. It is no argument against this assertion that Presbyterianism was established on the continent, inasmuch as it was established to satisfy the unthinking multitude, and was a mere yielding to what, in the popular language of the present day, we should call the doctrine of expedi- ency. Urged on by the popular clamour of the day, (may God prevent the Governors of our own Church from following such an example!) the establishment of Presbyterianism was their mis- fortune rather than their fault, the result of timorous compliance, not of conscientious conviction.
Calvin, for example, expresses his great regret that Episcopal government should have been abolished, declares that the Episcopal office ought Bishop was not absolutely necessary for either. It was with a view of degrading the Episcopal order that the Church of Rome gave to Abbots a right to a staff and mitre, (hitherto the peculiar insignia of the Bishop) and conferred upon them the title of Prelate, with a power to assist in the consecration of Bishops, and to sit in C&cumenical Councils. At the Reformation, when certain Bishops asserted the divine right of Episcopacy, Lainez, the General of the Jesuits, and the whole Popish court party, wrote with great vehe- mence against it, openly denying that a Bishop was above a Priest in order. Finally, in order to overthrow all Episcopal jurisdiction, the Popes usurped a power to hear and judge all causes origi- nally, removed all Ecclesiastical matters out of the hands of the Episcopal Ordinaries, brought the cognizance of them to Rome, and erected Legantine Courts in every place where those trials were held. The Episcopal power was, by these means, so com- pletely abrogated that Alneas Sylvius asks, “ Quid hodie erant Episcopi nisi umbra quedam? Quid plus eis restabat quam baculus et mitra?’”? (AEn. Sylv. de gestis Syn. Bas. lib. 1.)
History of the Christian Priesthood. 335
to be regarded with reverence,’ asserts that the primitive Presbyters did not exercise the right of ordination,’ and “ confesses that all deserve to be anathematized who do not reverence and implicitly obey the Episcopal order.”* Theodore Beza, another Presbyterian Divine, prays that ‘the Reformed Church of England, supported by the authority of Bishops, may, in God’s name, enjoy for ever this singular favour of God,” meaning thereby Episcopal government. Peter du Moulin, a French Presbyterian, in his third letter, dated Paris, Jan. 1, 1619, addressed to Dr. Andrewes, Bishop of Winchester, thus expresses himself :— ** In the time of the Apostles it was settled that, in one city, one of the Presbyters should be entitled Bishop, and have preeminence over his colleagues...
(p) “ Interea tamen Ecclesiz auctoritatem, vel Pastorum, et Superintendentium, quibus Ecclesiz provincia mandata est, sub- latam nolumus. Fatemur, ergo, Episcopos, sive Pastores, reve- renter audiendos, quaterus pro sue functionis ratione verbum Dei docent.” (Calv. Confess. Fidei nomine Gall. Eccles.)
(4) “ Paulus ipse, se non alios complures, Timotheo manus imposuisse commemorat. Quod de impositione manuum Pres- byterii dicitur, non ita accipio, quasi Paulus de Seniorum (i.e. Presbyterorum) Collegio loquatur.”” (Calvin. Institut. lib. iv. ο. 3, in fine.)
(r) “ Talem si nobis hierarchiam exhibeant, in qua sic emineant Episcopi, ut Christo subesse non recusent, et ab illo tanquam unico capite pendeant, et ad ipsum referantur; in qua sic inter se fraternam societatem colant, ut non alio modo quam ejus veritate sint colligati; tum vero nullo non anathemate dignos fatear, si qui erunt, qui non eam reverentur, summaque obedientia observent.”’ (Calv. de Eccl. Neces. Reform.)
(s) Fruatur sane isté singulari Dei beneficentia, quee utinam sit illa perpetua.” (Tract. de Minist. Eccl. Grad. cap. i. 18; Resp. ad Sarav. p. 3; see also Sarv. Discipl. p. 135.)
336 History of the Christian Priesthood.
and all Churches, everywhere, received this form of government... ΤῸ deny this would argue a depraved folly, or an invidious detraction from the glory of God, or a dark stupidity groping in the daylight... With me, the venerable antiquity of the first ages will ever have greater influence than the upstart institution of any man...I dispute not that the Episcopal order was distinct from that of Presbyter- —it is the voice of antiquity...I think, then, our Churches are defective in a point of divine right, but in such a way that they are not to be excluded from the hope of salvation... The Episcopal dignity may be traced to the very cradle of the Church; the Apostle James was Bishop of Jerusalem, and from him was derived a long succession of Bishops in that city.”* Bucer, another Presbyterian, writes, “* By the perpetual observance of the Church, even from the Apostles themselves, we see, it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, that among the Pres- byters to whom the charge of the Church is especially committed, one should have the singular charge of the Church, and in that charge and care, governed others; for which reason the name of Bishop was conferred upon these chief governors of the Church.” Chamier, another French Presby- terian Divine, having admitted that “‘ immediately
(¢) P. Molinzei Epist. 3, Reverendiss. Viro, Prasuli dignissimo, D. Episc. Winton. ‘ Egone male vellem Ordini vestro,” ὅσ. “ Constitutum est statim post tempora Apostolorum, aut etiam eorum tempore, ut in una urbe, unus inter ceeteros Presbyteros Episcopus vocaretur, qui in suos Collegas haberet preeminentiam, ad vitandam confusionem que ex equalitate nascitur.” (Pet. Molin. vol. iii. p. 179.)
History of the Christian Priesthood. 3837
after the decease of the Apostles” began the dif- ference between a Bishop and a Presbyter, imme- diately (as if correcting himself) adds, ‘‘ What! the thing itself began in the very time of the Apostles, or rather proceeded from them.” ἡ
In 1549, Calvin, Bullinger, and other Presby- terians residing on the continent, wrote to Edward VI. desiring to have Bishops in their Churches for better unity and concord amongst them. This letter (as appears from Strype’s Memorial of Arch- bishop Cranmer, as likewise from a writing of Archbishop Abbot, found among the manuscripts of Archbishop Usher) unfortunately fell into the hands of the Romish Bishops, Gardiner and Bonner, who, in the names of the Reformers, returned an unfavourable answer. The manuscript was not discovered until the sixth year of Queen Elizabeth’s reign, and several years after John Calvin’s death.*
(ὦ) Chamier, elsewhere, says: “ Inzqualitatem esse vetustis-
simam ac vicinam Apostolorum temporibus, quod nos ultro fatemur.’ (Cham. vol. 11. lib. x. c. 6, ὃ 24.)
(4) See Chandler’s Appeal defended, p. 238, and Strype’s Life of Parker, p. 70. The Presbyterians of Germany, iu their collec- tive writings, profess their grief that Episcopal government was abrogated in their Churches: “ the cruelty of the Romish Pre- lates,” say they, “is the cause why that Apostolical government, or polity, which we earnestly desired to preserve is, in some places, now dissolved.” (‘Quam nos magnopere conservare cupie- bamus,” &c.) And, in the Synod of Dort, when the Bishop of Llandaff, in his speech, had shown that the want of Episcopal government gave opportunities for those divisions which were then arising in the Netherlands ; Bogermannus, the President of that Assembly, rose up, and admitting the Bishop’s inference, said: “ς Domine, nos non sumus adeo felices.”” In the Conference of Hampton Court also, we read that the Marquis of Rhosny, (after- wards Duke of Sully and Lord High Treasurer of France,) who came as Ambassador to King James, from Henry IV., affirmed
R
338 History of the Christian Priesthood.
We have, in the former part of this chapter, given historical evidence that the early Bishops of
the same of the reformed Churches in France. When the Kirk of Scotland abolished Episcopacy, she retained ‘ Superintendents’ with the same power and authority which their predecessors, the Bishops, enjoyed: the diocese of the ‘ Superintendent’ of Orkney included the isles of Orkney, Caithness, and Strathnever, and his residence was at Kirkwall; the diocese of the ‘ Superintendent’ of Ross comprehended Ross, Sutherland, Moray, and the islands of Sky and Lewis, and his residence the canonry of Ross; the diocese of the ‘ Superintendent’ of Argyle was, Argyle, Cantire, Lorne, and the isles of Arran and Bute, and his residence at Argyle. There were also the ‘ Superintendents’ of Aberdeen, of Brechin, of Fife, of Edinburgh, of Jedburgh, of Glasgow, and of Dumfries. Bishop Sage, in his § Presbytery Untwisted,’ names thirty points of superiority which these Superintendents possessed over the parish Ministers: they wanted but consecration to have made them Bishops. (See also ‘ Elect. Sup. in Constitution,’ before the ‘ Book of Psalms in Metre.’) Blondel, one of the most celebrated of the British Presbyterians, concludes the famous Treatise, which he wrote at the request of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, to prove Jerome a Presbyterian, by acknowledg- ing that he “ did not intend, in the slightest degree, to invalidate the ancient and Apostolical Form of Episcopal Government, since he was fully persuaded, within himself, that it ought to be caretully preserved wherever it was established, and that it ought to be reverently restored wherever it had been abolished through weak- ness or bigotry.” Dury, one of Melville’s active tools in the establishment of Presbyterianism in Scotland, on his death-bed, admitted “ the necessity of restoring the ancient government of the Church; and, since the state of the Church did require it, he wished the Assembly to make no trouble therefore, but only to insist with the King that the best Ministers, and of greatest experience, might be preferred to places as Bishops.”’ (See Skinner’s Eccle- siastical History, vol. ii. p. 286.) The Presbyterian Henderson, who had been placed at the head of the Commissioners for the Presbyterian side by the Parliament, died a convert to Episcopacy. (See Clarendon’s Book, K. p. 31; Heylin’s Hist. of Presby. p. 477 ; and Collier, vol. ii. p. 848.) Robert Brown, the founder of Congregational Independency, returned to the Communion of the Church of England, and became Rector of Achurch, in North- amptonshire. John Wesley, the founder of the sect of Wesleyan
History of the Christian Priesthood. 339
the Church of England were in a descent or suc- cession from the Apostles themselves, and, there- fore, that the claim of our present Bishops to be considered as of Apostolical descent, is as regular as is the descent of our present Sovereign from those ancestors in right of whom he claims his throne. I am aware that Papists tell us that the Bishops of the Church of England lost the Aposto- lical succession in their secession from the Church of Rome at the Reformation. But this argument carries with it its own confutation. That the Protestant Bishops of the Church of England, at the Reformation, were Apostolically consecrated, cannot be questioned. Archbishop Cranmer, for example, was a Bishop as truly con- secrated and invested as any of the Roman Church were; nay, he was confirmed by the Pope, who sent him the pall; indeed the Romanists of that day acknowledged the validity of his consecration, or why did they degrade him with the usual cere- monies before his martyrdom. Now Archbishop Methodists, solicited Episcopal consecration of Erasmus, Bishop of Arcadia, (a Prelate of the Greek Church,) and, that being denied him, he would not permit the administration of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper by any of his Ministers who had not been Episcopally ordained. An application was made to the excellent Prelates of the Episcopal Church of Scotland, for Episcopal conse- eration, by the Wesleyan Methodists, to be conferred upon one of their preachers, soon after the consecration of Dr. Seabury, in 1784. The late Dr. Berkeley, of Canterbury, I believe, was in possession of the letter containing the application, together with Bishop Skinner’s refusal to comply with the request. Dr. Coke also solicited Episcopal consecration, on the part of the Wesleyans, from Bishop White, of America. (See Bishop White’s Memoirs of
the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, p. 211, and Appendix, No. 21.)
340 History of the Christian Priesthood.
Cranmer consecrated the Bishops who succeeded him; and, as he was truly consecrated himself, it follows, as a natural consequence, that the conse- cration of all ordained by him was equally valid.
We find that the Bishops who were conse- crated in the time of Henry VIII. were not only acknowledged by Queen Mary for lawful and canonical Bishops, but were called upon to assist at the consecration of such other Bishops (Cardinal Pole himself amongst the number) as were elected during her reign.y When the Protestant religion was restored by Queen Elizabeth, and Dr. Matthew Parker was consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury, the ceremony was performed by Bishops who had been themselves Apostelically consecrated—conse- quently the ordination was valid. The Bishops officiating upon that occasion were, Dr. William Barlow, late Bishop of Bath and Wells, and Bishop elect of Chichester; Dr. John Scory, late Bishop of Chichester, and Bishop elect of Hereford; Dr. Miles Coverdale, late Bishop of Exeter; and Dr. John Hodgkins, Suffragan Bishop of the Archbishop of Canterbury.” It has been proved, therefore, that the Church of England, in departing from the errors and superstitions of the Church of Rome, did not forfeit her Apostolical descent and succes- sion.
(y). Mason, de Minist. Ane.
(x) “ The succession of Church offices is no more affected by the errors of Popery than a man’s pedigree is affected by his bodily distemper, or the distempers of his parents; and if the man, by alteratives and restoratives, is cured with the blessing of God, he returns to the state of his purer ancestors of a remote generation.” (Short View, &c- Scholar Armed.)
Flistory of the Christian Priesthood. 341
I have now arrived at the conclusion of Mr. Howitt’s ‘ History of Priestcraft, in the attempt to refute which I have opposed evidence arising from facts, and arguments deduced therefrom, to assertions arising for the most part from misrepre- sentation, and in some instances from falsehoods, delivered with the confidence of truth, and the apparent perspicuity of history.
THE END.
R. CLAY, PRINTER, BKEAD-STREET-HILL, LONDON,
an ‘ Ἢ}: ἢ πῃ ΟΝ, ie i Fe “ cay ἱ Gites an elds ΤΑ RS, net ray sie 48 δον 7 on (yas aa τΝ ᾿ ' ΩΣ ‘ ᾿ ἍΝ δ, εἰ εἰς é Ἂ ; ‘ te eo af 18 Weyer ᾿ i a ἐγ fat 3 ἫΝ hy 4
DA) car ie alee? 8 MRS ee! ΡΣ ΟΝ ΝΣ
rT - iy ee j “ὦ , i ν WK ἡ ν᾿ δ ; e Bh toe tie fant |, τ"
᾿ a 2 - ay 4 > aed i
᾿ Ἄν δον AM ΑΝὙ}} 7. γι ' ; - ἂν z ἢ
ψ' Rig: ett | Ne deg am
Ree, nip ies . dette sists Bi sel Pre 4 ξ, 2 2 | ἣν
: etd AM. SPLATT Ὁ
; ΜΑΣ See τ SATO ὁ ἢ, 2.) ἢ ἢ Ἢ GEA ΩΝ
Mth AR eye. ΓΑ lg ον
ΟΥ̓ Ν deg FO ae fe ΣΝ ae PH
eed ae ony a neat Oe 3 ne | Fab Neat, ὧς AP CAOA TELUS nly i Bie! May Ao ws AA RENEE ENS wt Mi Se GL A ait PACA, nm ἢ ΓΟ ἡ ἢ hice! ace: 4 Tuleh ᾷ 4 ᾿ i “ἃ
Ν ᾿ it bain! γι ἈΝ Κλ - ts
BOOKS
PUBLISHED BY J. VINCENT, OXFORD.
fAaps & Blans. L
Dedicated, with permission, to the Rey. Dr. RusseLtt, Head Master of Charter House School, London ATLAS of ANCIENT GEOGRA-
PHY, containing seventy Plates il-
lustrative of Herodotus, Thucydides,
Xenophon, Polybius, and Livy. To
which is added, a Synoptical Table
from the Creation to the end of the
Peloponnesian War. 4to. half bound,
price 2/. 2s. outlined.
11.
The Same, ona reduced scale, for the Use of Schools, half bound, price 12s. outlined.
Tire
MAPS and PLANS illustrative of THUCYDIDES. 8vo. boards, second edition, price 12s.
Vi:
MAPS and PLANS illustrative of HERODOTUS. 8vo. boards, second edition, price 125,
Vy. The Same, coloured, half bound, 14s. WALL:
MAPS and PLANS illustrative of
LIVY. 8vo. boards, price 12s. Wal
MAPS and PLANS illustrative of POLYBIUS and XENOPHON.§3s.6d.
Questions. I
QUESTIONS on DIVINITY. i8mo. cloth boards, price 45.
Il.
QUESTIONS on HERODOTUS. Second edition, price 4s. boards.
Ill.
QUESTIONS on THUCYDIDES. Second edition, price 4s. boards.
Ἐν:
QUESTIONS on LIVY: Book 21 to 30. Price 15.
Wi: QUESTIONS on LOGIC, with re-
ferences to the most popular Treatises. 12mo. interleaved, price 2s. 6d.
WAG
KEY to the QUESTIONS on LO- GIC. 12mo. price 2s. 6d.
VIE
QUESTIONS on the OLD TESTA- ~ MENT, with references to the most approved Commentators. Third edition, price Is.
VIII. QUESTIONS on the NEW TESTA-
MENT, with references to the most approved Commentators. Third edition, price Is,
Mitvinity. if
The ARTICLES of the CHURCH of ENGLAND, with Notes com- piled from the Writings of the most eminent Divines of the Church of England, confirmed by Texts of the Holy Scripture. Second edition, with addi- tions, price 2s, --
An ANALYSIS of the HISTO- RICAL BOOKS of the OLD TES- TAMENT, with Notes and References to the most approved Commentators. 12mo. price 6s. boards.
TED: The ARTICLES of the CHURCH of ENGLAND, with Proofs, and a Se- ries οἱ Questions. Price 18.
ΤΥ.
ANSWERS to the QUESTIONS on the ARTICLES of the CHURCH of ENGLAND. Price 15.
Books Published by J. Vincent, Oxford.
Ve CATECHISM of the CHRISTIAN
RELIGION, with Scripture Proofs at length. 12mo. price 3s. boards.
Wake CHRONOLOGY of the Principal Persons and Events in the History of the Jews from the Creation to the final
Destruction of Jerusalem; ov ὦ card. Second edition, price 18.
VII.
The PRINCIPAL TYPES and PROPHECIES relating to the MES- SIAH and the HOLY GHOST; ona
card. Price 15.
VIII.
HARMONY of the MIRACLES, PARABLES, SAYINGS, &c. of CHRIST, contained in the FOUR GOSPELS; on a sheet. Price 1s. 6d.
IX.
HARMONY of the OLD and NEW TESTAMENTS, shewing the Prophe- cies in the Old Testament, and their fulfilment in the New. Second edition, price 25, boards.
x
WATTS’S SHORT VIEW of SCRIPTURE HISTORY. 18mo. price 2s. boards. τ
HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION to the several Books of the OLD and NEW TESTAMENTS, compiled from the most eminent Divines of the Church of England. Price 2s. 6d. boards.
XII.
HISTORICAL and TYPICAL CONNEXION between the OLD and NEW TESTAMENTS, showing the Types in the former and their fulfil- ment in the latter. Fourth edition, price 15.
XIII.
MANUAL of DIVINITY, compiled for the Use of Students. 2 vols. 18mo. fifth edition, cloth boards, price 95,
XIV.
NATURAL THEOLOGY, by για Pacey, D. D.; illustrated by a series of 41 Plates and Explanatory Notes. By James Paxton, Member of the Royal College of Surgeons, London. Third edition, with additions, 2 vols. 8vo.
XV. τ
SUMMARY of the EVIDENCES of the CHRISTIAN RELIGION, By Beitsy Porreus, Ὁ. Ὁ. Price ls,
XVI.
RELIGIO MEDICI. By Sir T Browne, Knt. New edition, price 4s. boards.
XVII.
PROPHETICAL CONNEXION between the OLD and NEW TES- TAMENTS; with a Table of the Pro- phecies; and their fulfilment. Fourth edition, price 18.
XVIII. The SCRIPTURE LEXICON ; or,
a Dictionary of above Four Thousand proper Names of Persons and Places mentioned in the Old and New Testa- ments. By Perer Oxiver, LL.D. To which is added, a Short Explanation of Obsolete Words. By the Rev. H. Cor- Ton, LL.D. Archdeacon of Cashel, and late Student of Christ Church, Oxford. 18mo. price 5s.
XIX.
A SERIES of THIRTY-SIX EN- GRAVINGS, with descriptive letter- press, illustrative of PaLrey’s NATURAL THEOLOGY. 8vo. boards, price 12s. A few proof impressions may be had, price 1/. Is.
XxX.
SHORT NOTES on the FOUR GOSPELS, selected from the best Divines of the Church of England. By the Rev. R. B. Paut, late Fellow of Exeter College, Oxford. 12mo. price 4s. 6d. boards.
XXI.
An ANALYSIS of PALEY’S EVI- DENCES of CHRISTIANITY. 18mo. price ls. 6d. sewed.
XXII.
An EXPOSITION of the THIRTY- NINE ARTICLES of the CHUBCH of ENGLAND. By Georce Tomine, D.D. late Lord Bishop of Winch st r. To which are added ΝΌΤΕΒ, and a Series of Questions. By the R v. R. B. Paut, late Fellow and Tutor of Exeter College; Minister of Torquay Chapel, Devon; and Domestic Chaplain to the Earl of Falmouth. 12mo. price 9s extra boards.
1 1012 01017 0043
a
; 1
᾿ ἢ ΨΥ
i We Oe ae oy ol ΝΥ ΠΥ ἮΝ ao Bishi, Av ae. é ἣν 4 a ἣ
i \itge ᾿