Page images
PDF
EPUB

to God was in part to serve them instead of an estate in land, such as was given to each of the other tribes. But, I pray you, mark the difference; no where is the tribe of Levi called God's inheritance, though that expression is repeatedly used of the whole nation. Concerning the whole Israelitish nation, Moses, who was himself a Levite, says in an address to God, Deut. ix, 29, They are thy people, and thine inheritance, "which thou broughtest out by thy mighty power." The words in the septuagint translation deserve our particular attention. Ουτοι λαος σε καὶ κληρος σε ἐς εξηγαγες εκ γης Αιγυπίς εν τη The same persons are in the same

ισχει σε τη μεγάλη.

sentence declared to be both the λαος and the κληρος. What, says the canonist, at once laymen and clergy? That is certainly absurd; the characters are incompatible: yet it did not then appear so to Moses. Now would it be thought reasonable or just, that what was allowed to be the privilege and the glory of every Israelite, under the more servile establishment of Moses, should, under the more liberal dispensation of the gospel, be disclaimed by all those disciples of Jesus, who have not been admitted into the sacred order, which they, for this reason, have called clerical.

When we recur to the use of the term in the New Testament, we find one passage, and but one, wherein it is applied to persons. The passage is in the first epistle of Peter, the fifth chapter, and third verse, which is thus rendered in our version. "Neither as being Lords over God's heritage, but 66 being ensamples to the flock." The words in the original are, μηδ' ως κυριεύονίες των κλήρων, αλλά τυποι γινομενοι το ποιμενιδ. They are part of a charge given to the presbyters, or pastors, relating to their care of the people committed to them, who are called God's flock, which they are commanded to feed, of which they are to take the oversight, not the mastery, and to which they are to serve as patterns. The same persons, therefore, who both in this, and in the preceding verse, are styled Toμvio, the flock, under the direction of God's ministers, the shepherds, are also called ang his inheritance, over whom their pastors are commanded not to domineer. It is somewhat extraordinary, that in the choice of distinctions, which the church-rulers so soon showed a disposition to affect, they should have paid almost as little attention to the style, as they did to the spirit and meaning of the sacred books. Let it be observed then, in the first place, that this distinction, so far from having a foundation in Scripture, stands in direct contradiction both to the letter, and to the sense of that unerring standard. I am not ignorant that some expositors, jealous for the priesthood, render the term xanpon here, the church's posses

sions. Not to mention that this explication but ill suits the context, and annihilates the contrast between an imperious master and an engaging patron, and supposeth an awkward ellipsis in the words, allow me to ask, What were the church's possessions in those days? Was she so early vested with lands and hereditaments, for it is to such only that the term nang&, when denoting property or possession, is applied? Or have those interpreters been dreaming of the truly golden age of pope Gregory the seventh, when the patrimonies of some metropolitical and patriarchal sees were indeed like dukedoms and principalities, and the grand hierarch himself could dispose of kingdoms and empires? In the apostolick times, on the contrary, the church's patrimony consisted mostly, I may say, in persecution and calumny, hatred and derision, agreeably to the prediction of her Lord.

3

Some have ascribed, but very unjustly, the origin of the distinction we have been considering, to Clemens Romanus, who, in his epistle to the Corinthians, which I had formerly an occasion of quoting, contradistinguishes to (the laicks, as we should be apt to render it) among the Jews, from the highpriest, the priests, and the Levites. It ought to be observed, that it is introduced by him when speaking of the Jewish priesthood, and not of the christian ministry; neither does it stand in opposition to any one general term such as xampos or xanpinoi; but after mentioning three different orders, he uses the term Axo, to include, under one comprehensive name, all that were not specially comprised under any of the former; and in this respect it exactly corresponds to the application sometimes made of the Latin word popularis. In this view it may with equal propriety be contrasted with men in office of any kind whatever. Thus in speaking of civil government, it may be opposed to apoles, to denote the people as distinguished from the magistrates; or, in speaking of any army, to spanyol, to denote the soldiers as distinguished from the commanders or officers.

I maintain further, that in the way the term is employed by Clement, it does not imply that he considered it as in itself exclusive of the priesthood and Levitical tribe, to which the term is opposed in that passage. They are here indeed excluded, because separately named, but not from the import of the word. But as this criticism may, to a superficial hearer, appear a mere subtlety or refinement, I shall illustrate it from some similar examples, which I hope will be thought decisive. Acts xv, 22. "Then pleased it the apostles and el"ders with the whole church." Here are three orders plainly mentioned and distinguished, the apostles or extraordinary

U

com

ministers, the elders or fixed pastors, and the church or christian people. But does this imply that the name church does not properly comprehend the pastors as well as the people? By no means. They are not indeed, in this passage, prised under the term, not because it does not properly extend so far, (which is not fact) but because they are separately named. The import of the expression is, therefore, no more than this," The apostles and elders, with all the christian "brethren, who come not under either of these denomina❝tions." Of the same kind exactly is the passage lately quoted from Peter, where the geoßulepas are opposed to the xango, not as though the former constituted no part of God's heri tage, or, to adopt the modern style, clergy; they only do not constitute that part, of which they are here commanded to take the charge. In like manner Clement's mention of Xo after speaking of the several orders of the Jewish priesthood, imports neither more nor less than if he had said, " And all "the Jewish people." So that his manner of using this term affords no foundation for the distinction that was long after his time introduced; no more than the general argument against the encroachment of the people, or of the pastors, on each other, taken from the rigid observance which the different classes, under the Mosaick economy, had of their respective functions, affords a foundation (as some have ridiculously urged) for concluding that the orders in the christian ministry, were the same in number with the Jewish. So far indeed is Clement from giving any insinuation of this kind, that, in a passage formerly quoted, he expressly mentions the christian orders as being two, and as having been clearly and by name predicted in the prophetical writings of the Old Testament.

But to return to the distinction of the whole church inte clergy and laity in after ages they even improved upon their predecessors. The schoolmen (a modest race, all clergymen) thought it was doing the laymen too much honour to derive the name from os populus. It suited their notions better to deduce it from as, lapis, a stone. Take for a specimen a few things advanced on this subject by some celebrated doc. tors, as quoted by Altensfaig in his Lexicon Theologicum. "Capitur clericus pro viro docto, scientifico, perito, scientia pleno, repleto et experto. E contra laicus capitur pro viro "indocto, imperito, insipiente et lapideo. Unde laicus dicetur "a hans, Græce, quod est lapis Latine. Et sic omnis clericus, "in quantum clericus, est laudabilis; laicus vero, in quantum "laicus, est vituperandus. Clerici quoque a toto genere de "jure præponuntur, et debent præponi laicis." To these I shall add the sentiments of cardinal Bona, in relation to

[ocr errors]

the care that ought to be taken by the clergy, that laymen may not be allowed to do themselves harm by studying the profounder parts of scripture, which their stupidity is utterly inca pable of comprehending. He kindly mentions, at the same time, the books which he thinks they will not be the worse for, and which, therefore, they may be permitted to peruse. "De "laicis in quibus mater cæcitatis superbia regnat, quatenus ad 86 ea quæ sunt fidei et morum. Cum enim sicut idiotæ presu "munt sacram scripturam exponere, quæ est profundissima "omnium scripturarum. Cum iterum habeant quandam ho"nestatem exteriorem, contemnunt vitam omnium aliorum, "et merito hujus duplicis superbia excæcantur, ut incidant in 66 errorum istum pessimum, per quem excæcantur a Deo, ut ❝nesciant discernere quid bonum est et quid malum. Quare 66 non omnes scripturæ libros legant laici. Quoniam nihil est "tam sanctum et salubre et pium quo non contingat abuti, sic "de libris evenit, quorum non est culpa, neque scribentium, “sed scœlus est in abusu: non tamen arcendi videntur ab op"usculis moralibus et devotis, nullam in se difficultatem, nec "ambiguitatem, nec absurditatem in translatione gerentibus, "cujusmodi sunt historiæ, vel vitæ, vel legendæ sanctorum, "nec non meditationes sanctæ." How condescending is the good doctor! He does not absolutely prohibit the stupid and conceited generation of laymen from reading some of the plainer books of Scripture, and indulges them freely in what is bet ter for them, story-books and godly meditations, and the legends of the saints.

I shall have occasion afterwards to trace a little further the most material changes, to which those above-mentioned, as well as other novel names and distinctions, were rendered subservient.

LECTURE X.

I HAVE met with the observation, though I do not at present recollect where, that the world is ruled by names. It matters not who said so: but experience shows us, that there is more truth in the remark than any one, at first hearing, would be apt to imagine. When names are first assigned to offices, or even to orders of men, there is commonly an association of ideas favourable or unfavourable in some respect or other, which is derived from the more ancient to the more recent application of the term. And even if the term should be coined for the occasion, the materials whence it is taken, that is, the known etymology, produces the same effect. It invariably gives rise to certain associations; these influence opinion, and opinion governs practice. We have seen the tendency, which the distinction of mankind into clergy and laity had to heighten, in the minds of the populace, that is, more than nine-tenths of the people, the reverence for the sacred or der. The effect thus actually produced, in ignorant ages, through the arrogance of the one side, and the superstition of the other, is sufficiently manifest, and perfectly astonishing. I shall proceed to take notice of the consequences of some other innovations in the style adopted on these subjects.

A close resemblance, both in titles and functions, to the Jewish priesthood, came soon to be very much affected by the pastors of the church. The very names of high-priest, priest, and Levite, which the inspired writers had never once applied to any class of ministers, ordinary or extraordinary, in the christian commonwealth, appeared to have a wonderful fascination in them, that rendered them incomparably superiour to any appellations which Jesus Christ, or his apostles, had thought fit to bestow. Beside the fancied dignity, the sacerdotal titles had been always understood to convey the notion of certain rights, which conduced both to the honour, and to the emolument, of those to whom these titles belonged. Now

« PreviousContinue »