+++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++
BOOK VI.
CONTAINING THEIR FIFTH ASSERTION, "THAT OUR LAWS ARE CORRUPT, AND REPUGNANT TO THE LAWS OF GOD, IN MATTERS BELONGING TO THE POWER OF ECCLESIASTICAL JURISDICTION; IN THAT WE HAVE NOT THROUGHOUT ALL CHURCHES CERTAIN LAY-ELDERS ESTABLISHED FOR THE EXERCISE OF THAT POWER.
I. On the alleged right of LAY-ELDERS to possess spiritual jurisdiction.
WE now come to consider of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, Dignity, and Dominion; which, indeed, were the subjects ultimately aimed at, when the objectors put forth their arguments ostensibly against ceremonial rites. Their doctrine herein is,-"That, by the law of God, there must be for ever, in all congregations, certain Lay-Elders, ministers of ecclesiastical jurisdiction-" inasmuch as our Lord has left (as they assert) all Pastors in the Church executors equally to the whole power of spiritual jurisdiction; and has joined the People with them as colleagues. And herein they set up a claim of divine right, to wrest spiritual power from its present possessors, and to share it equally with pastors of all congregations; and in order to effect this more readily, they enlist the Laity on their side, by persuading them, that they are only thus contending for their own rights and privileges. If, however, in thus acting, their premises shall appear unsound, then their endeavours to advance Presbyterian power, may seem only a parallel to the conduct of Korah and his company, when railing against Moses and Aaron, they exclaimed, "It is too much that ye take upon you, seeing that all the congregation is holy [Num 16:3]."
II. On the NATURE of Spiritual Jurisdiction.
WE must, however, premise that there are two distinct powers in the Church, viz. that of Order, and that of Jurisdiction: the former has reference to the administration of holy things, as included in our Saviour's commission, "preach," "baptize," "do this in remembrance of me;" the latter respects the management of the affairs of the Church as a society, and is intimated when the Apostle speaks of "ruling the Church of God [Acts 20:28]" and of "receiving accusations [1 Tim 5:19]." The spiritual power of the Church is derived from its Divine Head, and depends not on any natural right or human institution. It was given by Him for the good of souls, both in the way of guidance, and of restraint when necessary. And though the words of His Gospel be the only foundation whereon the Church can sustain herself in the use thereof; yet inasmuch as all societies must manifestly, and in the nature of things, have a power of self-regulation for the common good, so the body of the Church must similarly have a power of administering the Saviour's ordinances, and, in this changeful world, of varying, augmenting, or limiting, according to the exigence of the case, in her exercise of that power, which in itself always continues the same. Hence, Spiritual Authority is a power given by Christ, to be used for the good of those subject thereto, according to His own laws, and the wholesome constitutions of His Church.
III. Of PENITENCE, as a private duty, and an external discipline.
IT will help in no small degree towards understanding the subject, to state, that the ultimate object or end of spiritual jurisdiction, is the health of men's souls, by bringing them to repentance of sins against God, and reformation of breaches of Christian charity against man. By Repentance, we are to appease those whom we offend by sin; and as all sins deprive us of God's favour, the way of reconciliation with Him, is the inward secret repentance of the heart, which of itself is sufficient towards God. But if the consequences of our sin reach injuriously to others, then something further is required; and the discipline of His Church calls for a public satisfaction in the eyes of men. Hence, we may term the inward contrition, the virtue of repentance; and the outward manifestation, the discipline of repentance: the former of which, being always the same in nature and effects, is ever daily required of us; but the latter only for certain sins, and in such a fashion and manner as the Church shall, from varying circumstances, consider requisite.
[Here seems to end all that really belongs to Book VI.
What follows is an entire deviation from the professed object of Hooker in this book, as stated in the title thereof: viz. "An Inquiry into the claims of Lay Elders to a share in Church Jurisdiction." Instead of which, it consists of a series of dissertations on Primitive and Romish Penance, in their several points of Confession, Satisfaction, and Absolution, These, though valuable in themselves, and being clearly also, from internal evidence, the composition of Hooker, have, as is just said, no connexion with the professed object of the book; and, from peculiar circumstances, seem to have been accidentally substituted for the real book itself. [Unless indeed, as it has been observed, the consideration of the nature of Repentance itself might be preparatory to the question, "Who were the proper administrators of the Discipline of Repentance."But, even in that case, so judicious a writer as Hooker would not have given his book a title which its subject-matter by no means fulfills, and even scarcely enters upon. Indeed, other considerations show this observation to be unfounded.] This discrepancy has, however, somewhat singularly been overlooked, and the book has been published along with the rest, as if it regularly discussed its professed objects and no such deviation had occurred. The force of prescriptive custom, and the obvious facility of reference from this Digest to the original work, have led to keeping the old arrangement, and the retention of the remaining portion in this place which it was once intended to transfer, as an appendix, to the end of the volume.
The subject has been ably investigated by Keble in the preface to his edition of Hooker's Works; and the conviction arising from the internal evidence of the matter of the Book not at all corresponding to its subject, has been confirmed by a document found in the library of Corpus Christi College: this is no other than a series of notes,-the genuineness of which seems undoubted,-made by George Cranmer, to whom, as his intimate friend, Hooker had sent his Sixth Book for revision. Now, these Notes, professing to be on the Sixth Book, do in no way, either in mode of reference or matter, correspond with the Book that at present goes by that title. The most probable solution of these incongruities seems briefly to be this: Hooker, having published the five first Books, had got the other three ready prepared for the press, but died before they could be published. His Widow was connected in relationship with the Puritans, whose jurisdiction by Lay-Elders, whereon they prided themselves, was in the genuine Sixth Book attacked with all the force and acuteness of such a powerful writer as Hooker, and she therefore is supposed, at their instance, (which indeed is positively stated as a fact by Walton, in his life of Hooker,) to have surrendered the MSS. to them: and they took effectual care to prevent the contents from ever appearing against them. "While at the same time In the search which almost immediately afterwards took place, any one eager to publish, and happening to meet with some loose papers accidentally lying next after a rough sketch or preamble of the Sixth Book might, in the hurry and excitement, fall into the mistake of supposing them to be the Book itself." The only wonder is, that the incongruity as been so long unremarked upon. For further particulars on this interesting subject see Keble's edition of Hooker, Oxford, 1836.]
III. (continued) . Of PENlTENCE .
THE virtue of Repentance is the fruit of divine grace, which offers itself even to those that have forsaken it; and not only "knocks without [Rev 3:20]," but likewise assists to open within, whereby a man is made a repaired temple for the Spirit of God to inhabit again: grace is infused at once, but the virtues comprehended in it develop themselves in an orderly succession. The first thing done by the Holy Ghost in framing man's sinful heart to repentance, is enlightening the eye of faith to see and apprehend the future terrors of the Lord; and, consequently, to produce a salutary fear, similar to that which caused those of old to cry to the Apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do? [Acts 2:37]" Even as fear of man oft restrains from heinous offences, so fear of divine punishment causes a desire of deliverance from the inward guiltiness of sin, wherein otherwise men would securely continue. But fear alone does not constitute Repentance; there must be also a hope of the possibility of pardon. Utter hopelessness would only produce a hatred and an obduracy like that of those obstinate, godless sinners, who, hating what they dread, labour to extinguish the very belief of a God. Whereas, where there is a sense of the goodness of God, arising from the hope of pardon, in that He has provided a way of pardon for rebels against Him, then a love towards Him arises, and a consequent desire of reconciliation and re-union with Him, whom we grieve that we have offended. And hence, a pensive and corrosive desire springs up, which suffers us not to rest or cease from confession and supplication, till the light of God's reconciled favour shine in on our darksome soul. And herein we see why David's confession of sin was effectual [2 Sam 12:13], and Saul's not [1 Sam 15:24-26]: the acknowledgment of the latter proceeded from fear only; that of the former, from fear mingled with love. This feeling was the fountain of Peter's tears; as it was also of the life and eloquence of David's penitential psalms, wherein the very melting words of sorrow do nevertheless bespeak a comforting sense of God's mercy and love. Hence, the well-spring of Repentance is faith, first breeding fear, and then hope and love; these produce a desire of reconciliation, and a resolution of attempt; "I will go unto my Father, and say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before Thee." And in this returning to God, there are three things included: viz. aversion of sin; submissive supplication to God; and earnest purpose of amendment. In three words,-as Repentance hates, bewails, purposes, so there is in it contrition, confession, resolution. Now, contrition is not a sudden natural passion of regret, but a deliberate aversion of the will from sin. This is accompanied, it is true, with external signs of sorrow, wherein grief of heart naturally shows itself; but the outward signs do not constitute Repentance, there must be a deliberate hatred of sin in the heart, and such an aversion of the soul from it, that whereas it once delighted us, so now we shun and abhor nothing so much. And because God wills that offences should not only be abhorred within ourselves, but also humbly displayed before Him, and a testimony given of amendment by present works, worthy of repentance, we consider next the duty of Confession and Satisfaction.
IV. Of the DISCIPLINE of Repentance; as to its original institution by Christ; the primitive practice; and the subsequent perversion thereof, and of CONFESSION, as connected therewith, into an imaginary Sacrament.
THE Saviour, in His Gospel [Mark 16:19], gave His Apostles the government over God's Church, for they that have "the keys" are thereby intimated to possess a certain guiding and correcting power, to be exercised for the good of souls. And for this end, to meet the various cases, either of doctrine or discipline, that occur, they have Courts and Consistories, founded on the sacred authority of that voice which once said, "Tell it to the Church" [Mt 18:17]; and which virtually conferred upon them power of deprivation and exclusion, in the case of those who, by contumacy, might become unto them "as heathens and publicans." To render which decree the more solemn and authoritative, the Lord has promised to ratify them [Matt 18:18]; and thus both Apostles [1 Cor 5:3] and their successors [1 Tim 1:20] used wholesome discipline for reclaiming of offenders, and as the best expedient for the cure of sin. And this is the original warrant for spiritual jurisdiction in the Church of Christ. Formerly, open transgressors were put to open penance and Public Confession, in the hearing of the whole Church; and were not capable of partaking of the sacred mysteries of Christ, till this was duly done. Offenders in secret, knowing themselves to be as unworthy in the sight of God as open ones were, and being desirous of the advice and help of the Church, did also frequently come unto some minister, and make known their faults, through him, to the rest, submitting afterwards to public confession and such other remedies as might to them seem fit. But when persecution ceased, and prosperity had caused evils to spring, and schisms, jealousies, and dissensions to arise, this custom of Public Confession began to be prejudicial in many ways, both to the Church and individuals, and thence gradually to be disused; and instead thereof, Private Confession succeeded. This continued, as an edifying practice, for some time; till at length the Lateran Council (A. D. 1215) decreed, that all men should, once a year at least, confess themselves to a priest: and from thus making it an act of necessity, they further elevated it into a sacrament, teaching, that as Baptism gave life, and the Eucharist nourished life, so Penitency was a sacrament to recover life, and that Confession was a part thereof. They define, therefore, Private Penitency to be "a sacrament of remitting sins after baptism;" and the Virtue of Repentance to be "a detestation of wickedness, with hope of pardon, and purpose of amendment:" i.e. external Repentance to be a sacrament; and internal, a virtue. Now, passing by their confused illogical statements -(which, for instance, among other things, make Contrition, that can belong only to the internal virtue, a part of the external sacrament)-we admit that Confession of sins unto God is every way necessary, and a duty; as being the best method of testifying a hatred of sin, and of humbling our hearts before Him, so as to make us more capable of His mercy. We also know, that amongst the Jews, no Repentance was held available without confession, either conceived in mind, or openly uttered: and of this latter they had various kinds,-such as the general confession annually on the day of Expiation; private voluntary confessions; special confessions for particular acts of sin [Num 5:6f]; and confessions by malefactors adjudged to die [Josh 7:19]. But with respect to this Romish doctrine of auricular confession to the Priest being absolutely necessary to salvation, there is no Scripture warrant for it. We read, indeed, that to John the Baptist those from Jerusalem and Judea came and "confessed their sins [Matt 3:6];" but besides that his was an extraordinary commission, it was before this pretended sacrament of Repentance was instituted; neither was it sin after Baptism. And when we read [Acts 19:18] of some coming to the Apostles, and "confessing their deeds," though it might be good and proper on that occasion, it has not the force of a general example, to be so strictly followed as that it should be necessary to salvation to pour out confessions into the ear of a priest: briefly, it shows Confession a virtuous act, but not a sacrament. The passage also from St. James [James 5:14,16] refers merely to mutual confession, in order to reconciliation amongst themselves; and that from St. John, "If we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins," clearly intimates confession to God, and has no reference to a priest. But perhaps it may be alleged, that whereas Christ said, "Whose sins ye remit, they are remitted, and whose sins ye retain, they are retained [John 20:22]," hence, that sins must be confessed to the priest, otherwise he cannot know how to remit them. Now, the Fathers, in primitive times, and for many centuries after Christ, held no such opinion, and made no such interpretation of Christ's words: public Confession they thought necessary, by way of discipline; but private Confession to a priest, as in the nature of a sacrament, not at all necessary. From Tertullian we gather, that the EXOMOLOGESIS was a confession made openly in the hearing of the whole assembly, that "the whole might labour and strive to help that, wherewith a part of itself was molested." St. Cyprian also teaches, that on occasions of lapse, confessions were made unto God's priests; not to one singly, but to the whole Consistory of God's ministers. Salvianus speaks of confession being made "sub oculis Ecclesiae, in sight of the whole Church;" and "in conspectu fratrum, before the brethren." And St. Ambrose evidently alludes to the same practice, when he speaks of "public supplication" being made by penitents. It is not meant, however, that there was no practice of private confession at all. The first mention of it is found in Origen: from whom it appears, that persons being loath to present their faults rashly to the whole Church, did first unfold their minds to some individual minister, for guidance and counsel, who might either help them himself, or refer them to a higher court, if necessary. And what moved sinners to this, was often a fear to receive the holy sacraments of grace, till the stewards thereof deemed them worthy; as also, on other occasions, to seek for comfort and satisfaction to their own hearts, from the wisdom and experience of ghostly physicians; but, above all, it was a fervent desire to receive benefit from the united prayers of God's saints. Indeed, the words of Gregory, bishop of Nyssa, seem quite apposite to the explication of this; "Humble thyself, and take unto thee such brethren as are of one mind, and do bear kind affection towards thee, that they may together mourn and labour for thy deliverance; show me thy bitter and abundant tears, that I may blend mine own with them." And inasmuch as no one could be a fitter physician for a troubled spirit than a minister of God, he proceeds to say, "Make the priest, as a father, partaker of thy affliction and grief; be bold to impart to him the things that are most secret; he will have a care both of thy safety and thy credit." Whence the whole scope of these examples goes to show, that even private acknowledgments had nothing analogous to the auricular confession of Papacy; but were made as well for ghostly guidance and direction, as also more particularly to ensure, by a communication through the medium of one, the sympathy and help of the whole Church, in the efficacy of whose public prayers there was singular trust and confidence. In process of time, the Greek Church, and subsequently the Latin Church also, altered this arrangement; and, on account of various difficulties arising out of it, superseded the Public Confession, and established instead certain Penitentiaries, throughout all the Churches, to take the confessions and appoint the penances of secret offenders. This practice continued in the Greek Church upwards of a century (from A. D. 253 to 391,) and then, in the Episcopate of Nestorius, was for sundry reasons abolished; The Penitentiaries' office was taken away, and it was left to every man's conscience to determine as to his own fitness for participation in God's holy mysteries. In brief, we may conclude, from an impartial investigation of the writings of the Fathers, that in primitive times the use of Confession -- and especially Public -- was everywhere allowed of, and commended; but the peculiar practice of auricular private confession to a priest, as it is upheld and insisted upon by the Church of Rome, we find not. [Hooker here enters into a long disquisition and sifting of various passages from the Fathers, brought forward to establish this doctrine; and clearly shows, that it is only by illogical reasonings and false constructions, that they can be made to give any apparent countenance thereto; and that their real scope and meaning afford not the slightest warrant for it.] And the whole doctrines held by that Church, of Penitence and Confession, of God being unable to forgive sin without the priest and of the consequent absolute necessity for the priest to give absolution in order to salvation; have no warrant or authority at all, from ancient times, to support them. The pretensions are of modern growth, and antiquity dreamt not of them. Without more observations upon the papistical opinions herein, we turn to those held by the Reformed Churches. Now, Confession being (as already shown) a chief duty in Repentance, and this not only toward God, but in some cases also confession to man: the principal of learned divines on the Continent have always held, that the latter, when cleared from all errors, is not only lawful, but advisable: and this is more particularly the case with the German and Lutheran Churches, which direct all men, at certain times, to confess their offences to God in the hearing of God's ministers; as well for a token of sorrow, as also for advice and direction; and more especially for the benefit of pardon, through the power of those "keys," rightly used, which the Saviour has committed to his ministers. In the Church of England, Public Confession forms a part of her daily Liturgy; and she begins her prayers with a general open acknowledgment before Almighty God, wherein every man may make special application and use thereof to himself, and adapt it to his own individual case and circumstances. And as to Private Confession, though the minister's power, together with the authority of the Church therein, is not denied, yet it is not imposed upon the people as necessary; and because of the various inconveniences that experience shows to attend it, the Church thinks it more expedient to refer men's hidden crimes unto God and themselves only. At the same time, she has special admonitions to this practice for those that come to the Eucharist; and she holds out the comforts arising from it, for those about to depart from life. In reference to the former, the holy Eucharist being so solemn a rite, and the very highest grace that men on earth can be admitted to, the minister is bound to warn the unfit of the peril in receiving, to repel them when known, and to terrify them when unknown. In the case of notorious and flagrant evil-doers, he is to withhold that sacred mystical food until they be reclaimed; but in matters of alleged wrong and injury amongst individuals, as it is difficult to know the exact truth, it is better to leave the matter between the parties and their God, than rashly to sever any from communion. And in respect of the latter, the absolution of the sick indeed has no difficulty; and it is rather an office of joy, to be the dispensers of such a precious gift. Even in the hour of death, many may feel the sting of sharp repentance, and manifest the deepest contrition; and, upon special confession, the minister may absolve, by that authority which Christ has committed to him, knowing that God estimates not so much the time spent, as the truth shown, in repentance. Briefly, when an offence is only between a man and his own conscience, Chrysostom's advice is good; "Tell thy sins to God, who will cure them: let God alone see thee at thy confession." Yet if peace with God do not follow thereupon, and fear and anguish still continue, then it is advisable to have recourse to a spiritual pastor for consolation and remedy.
V. Of the doctrine of SATISFACTION, as a part of the discipline of Repentance; and of Popish INDULGENCES, as arising out of its abuse.
WE now come to consider the term Satisfaction. In the language of the Fathers indeed, it generally included the whole work of penitency; but when it is spoken of as a part, it refers to what the Baptist meant by "works meet for repentance." Satisfaction implies something done to the entire contentment of the injured party, and to be in justice fully equal to the injury committed. Now, sin against an infinite God must necessarily be an infinite wrong, requiring an infinite recompense, or else demanding infinite punishment. Hence man's utter inability thus to satisfy; and God's great love in providing a Mediator to do that for us, which to ourselves was impossible. Wherefore all sin is remitted, only in the faith of Christ's passion; and without belief thereof, no man is justified: faith alone makes Christ's satisfaction ours: and yet not the faith unaccompanied by repentance; but that faith, which makes us by conversion His, and willing to do that which, however unavailable in itself, yet being accepted by God in Christ, causes us to become fit vessels for receiving the fruit of His satisfaction. Repentance implies the operation of a grace in us: Satisfaction, the effect it has, either on God or man; and, if it be complete, nothing further is required. Now, our Lord Jesus Christ, by one most precious sacrifice, did satisfy and reconcile us to God, and purchased His free pardon for all. Although we are not thereby freed from the duty of penitence: God has made it a condition; and Christ is an everlasting Intercessor, through whom every particular penitent's grief for sin is acceptable to God who, beholding his meek submission, regards his deed with infinite mercy, and revives his afflicted mind, saying, "It is I, even I, that take away thine iniquity for mine own sake." Repentance thus satisfies God, changing wrath into mercy. When, however, we speak of God's wrath and mercy, they must not be considered passions in Him, as they are in us; but only as terms used in accommodation to our ideas: inasmuch as His punishments for sin seem as the effects of anger to us; so His withdrawal thereof is as compassion. And when the sin is once pardoned, no further punishment of it remains; once remitted, there is a perfect absolution and discharge: and if chastisements do follow afterwards, as on the people of Israel [Num 14:22], or Moses [Num 20;12], or David [2 Sam 12:14], they are not in revenge for what is pardoned, but only for amendment's sake; and for the noble exercise of faith and patience, to be as examples of warning to others, or as benefits to ourselves. Hence the notion is confounded, that imagines pardon to mean the remission of eternal punishment only, but that a temporal one is still to be endured. [By this mode of reasoning Augustine answered the Pelagian objection, which alleged, "that if death were imposed as the punishment of Adam's sin, it ought to have ceased when Christ had made satisfaction for sin;" showing that the continuance of bodily death was a means for exercising and strengthening the faith, in overcoming the fear of death.] And as the same fire that consumes stubble also refines gold, so we may conclude, with Augustine, that "before forgiveness, chastisements are the punishment of sinners; and after forgiveness, they are the trials of righteous men." Repentance, therefore, even the sole virtue thereof, in its several branches of contrition, confession, and fruits, without shrift or absolution from the priest, is effectual to pacify us to God, through the propitiatory blood of Jesus Christ, and to procure a deliverance from hell, and restoration to glory. Amongst the works of Satisfaction, the chief are Prayers, whereby we lift up our souls to that God, from whom sin had estranged us; Fastings, whereby we bring under the body to the obedience of virtue; and Alms-deeds, expressive of our good-will towards men. Indeed, all the parts of Repentance are in themselves as well painful, and therefore a revenge upon ourselves; as also opposed to actual sin, and therefore likely to be a cautionary preservative therefrom: contrition being the contrary to pleasure; confession, to error; and works of satisfaction, to deeds of sin. And though in strictness, satisfaction (as has been already said) be made to God by Christ only, yet both Faith and Repentance are, in the ordinary phrase of the Fathers, termed satisfactory, and may be so acknowledged by us, in that they are acceptable to God, and make sinners capable of His mercy in Christ. [Particular cases call for particular acts in Repentance. e.g. restitution, in case of wrong or fraud. This was strictly enjoined in the Mosaic Law (Lev 6:2ff), even to the heirs of the injured party, if he were dead (Num. 5:8). And though we are not under that dispensation, yet the spirit of the Law extends fully in this case to Christians.] But though Repentance ordinarily might be private, between God and a man's own conscience; yet in those cases where the Church required some outward sign of satisfaction, if any presented themselves hypocritically, or else by sinister means obtruded on the sacred mysteries, she held them incapable of receiving the grace therefrom which the devout did; and, no doubt, God did retain those bound, whom the Church in such cases refused to loose. Now, the Church established certain rules of discipline and satisfaction, such as restraining from social acts of worship, and from communion, for certain periods, in some cases even for years; in order that penitents might, by patient submission and regular conformity, form settled habits of religious improvement; while, at the same time, they were encouraged by hope of a gradually complete re-admission, which indeed might be accelerated, on manifestation of deep contrition and zealous reformation. [In the case of those who had lapsed, for instance, and repented thereof, it was ordained, "That, earnestly repenting, they should continue three years hearers, seven years be prostrate, and two years communicate (unite) with the people in prayer, before they come to receive the Oblation (Eucharist). In case, however, a person was about to die before his probation finished, the bishop might give leave for him to receive it.] [It seems that sometimes imprisoned martyrs were importuned by those under discipline to intercede for an abridgment of the period for them, which was granted in honour of martyrdom; and we find St. Cyprian complaining of this, as likely, if too much permitted, to bring mischief, as well to the Church itself, as also to the penitents themselves, by lessening their sense of sin, and even in some cases of leading into a belief of peace where there was no peace.] Now, the inventors of the papistical doctrine of sacramental satisfaction have strangely imagined, that when God remits sin, and its eternal punishment, He nevertheless reserves the torments of hell to be endured for a time, longer or shorter in proportion to the crime; but that this temporal punishment may be remitted, by certain duties appointed by the priest, and thus satisfactory to God: if, however, the soul depart from life before these are fulfilled, it must remain in torment till all be paid. And towards the discharge of this, they hold, that the prayers and sacrifices of others in life, on their behalf, may avail; whence arose the enormous pensions and bequests to their priests, to pray for the departed, that they might be delivered from torment. Moreover, a still further assumption they have made, that God's saints may, by their pious life and austerities of self-infliction, have an overplus of merit, which may unite to form a common stock or treasury, as it were, whereout satisfaction may be drawn for the sins of men at the disposal of the Pope: whence sprung all the foolish absurdities and abomination of Indulgences; and the conversion of a pretended sacrament into a monopoly of infinite gain indeed to him, but a scorn to God and man.
VI. On ABSOLUTION of Penitents, and its pre-requisites; ACTUAL only on the part of God, and merely DECLARATORY on the part of the Priest: incorrectness of the Romish tenets herein.
THERE can be no ease from the sense of sin, but by assurance of pardon; and hence it is to be considered, what force the sentence of man has, to absolve us from sins against God. Now, when Christ said to the diseased paralytic, "Thy sins be forgiven thee [Matt 9:2]," though some cavilled, yet others, believing Him to be a prophet, admitted His power thus to speak: even as Nathan, without any imputation of blasphemy, said to David, "God has taken away thy sin." And as God, in that special case, did authorize Nathan, so did Christ more generally authorize His Apostles and ministers, to absolve sinners in His name. The power is the same: the only difference being, that the one had for his warrant prophetical evidence; the others have the combined one, of faith in God's gracious promise to all true penitents, and such external evidence as human observation can furnish, as to the sincerity of each individual. And as our doctrine of Repentance differs from that of papacy, in that we consider true contrition of heart to be the chief; and they exalt an outward ceremonial penance of their own devising: so they proceed to assert, that no penitence whatever can be available to absolution, but such as is enjoined by the Priest's authority; that no contrition, fasts, or charities, have any force towards this end, except with his knowledge and under his direction: for they allege, inasmuch as Christ has said, "Whose sins soever ye retain, they are retained," no man can be reconciled unto God but by their sentence. And thus, forsooth, has God so tied himself, that without the Priest, He cannot pardon any man! Now it is true, that by the words above stated, Christ did give His ministers authority to absolve, and promised to ratify in heaven what they should thus do in faithful discharge of their office; but yet, with the limitation that every jurisdiction carries with it, viz. "that all should be done orderly and with bounds;" and hence, that though power of remission be given to them, it by no means follows that no sin can be pardoned without them. We hold, that the virtue of absolution is, "That it declares unto us the assurance of God's merciful pardon;" the Papists, "That it really takes away sin." We admit that Christ alone has power to forgive sins; but, nevertheless, that grace operating with our means, He will ratify His promise to His ministers. To the remission of sins there are two things necessary: grace, which alone takes away iniquity; and repentance, as the conditional duty. When, then, we have God's promise on the one hand, and the answer of a good conscience as to sincerity on the other, we may well rest assured in God's gracious declaration of forgiveness, as pronounced by His authorized servant. But as there is the power of declaratory absolution in the Church towards voluntary penitents, i. e. of pronouncing sentence according as the outward tokens warrant, (although the actual removal of sin is far beyond priestly power,) so she possesses a more stringent authority of binding or loosing, in reference to sacred mysteries, and can restrain from access to the holy sacraments, or permit it, according to our sinful obstinacy or penitence; herein binding or remitting, in the full and actual meaning of the expression. As this doctrine however, though true, has not escaped from being oppugned, through error [by Tertullian and Novatian], on the one hand; neither has it from being perverted by abuse, on the other. And, in this latter point, Papacy has erred much, holding that men are to confess every sin to the priest; and that whatever is concealed from him, God will never pardon: and thus, from overloading confession, as it were, discipline and absolution have been reduced to a mere formality; and, so far from being discouraged, vice has become emboldened thereby. The Fathers, indeed, were very cautious and slow in absolving, before evident proofs of real contrition; whereas the preposterous practice of Papists,in absolving first, and appointing works of satisfaction afterwards, has led them, as well to pervert the real end of absolution itself, as also to run into such absurdities as those of pardons and indulgences, which increase the evils they profess to cure. In Sin there are three points to be considered: the act itself, which is a transgression of God's Law; the effects of sin, as a permanent quality, defiling the soul; and the debt, or obligation to endure its punishment, whereby sinners are bound, under God's strict justice, till repentance loose them. The act of sin God alone remits; the stain He washes out by the sanctifying grace of the Spirit; and, as to its punishment, since none else has power to cast into hell, so none besides Him has power to deliver therefrom. And the ministerial sentence of absolution can be only declaratory of what God does: even as was Nathan's to David, when he said, "God has taken away thy sin." The words are judicially used: and, according to the saying of St. Jerome, "As the priests of the Law could only discern, and neither cause nor remove, leprosy; so the ministers of the Gospel, when they either retain sin or remit it, do but in the former case judge how long we continue guilty, and in the latter declare when we are clear or free." In brief, the discipline of Repentance, both public and private, was ordained as an outward means to bring men to conversion; and when this did appear by manifest outward signs to be effected, then absolution served to declare, but could by no means make, men innocent. The reason, indeed, why such opinions on Absolution are so strongly maintained by the Church of Rome, is her having elevated Penance into a sacrament; and as she holds that the outward signs, in all sacraments, are not only signs, but also in themselves actual causes, of grace, hence she contends that the priest's absolution, being the external sign in this alleged sacrament, does of itself convey actual remission of sin. [Hooker here mentions some misrepresentations of our tenets by Romish writers, on this point, as if we made sacraments merely modes of instructing the mind by visible images, and nothing more, And he also adverts to other illogical and confused explanations of their own thereon.]
We however hold, that in sacraments there are two things to be considered: the outward sign; and the secret concurrence of God's Spirit: just as the Saviour has taught, that Water and the Spirit combine to work the mystery of the new birth in Baptism: and hence, that no sacramental elements are endowed with any physical efficacy, per se, to work grace (which alone proceeds from God); but that, along with the due administration and reception of the sacramental signs, according to His own ordinance, He bestows grace effectual to sanctify, cure, and comfort the souls of men. Though they be not, however, causes of grace, yet they are not empty, ineffectual signs,- being means that God employs: the delivery and administration thereof are in the hands of men, by whom, as by personal instruments, God applies the signs, and with them joins the Spirit, and through the Spirit works grace: God is the author of the whole; and man a co-operator, appointed to work for, with, and under Him. Indeed, the Romish doctrine itself is inconsistent with the decrees of the council of Trent, which says, "That contrition, perfected with charity, does at all times reconcile offenders to God, before they come to receive actually the sacrament of Penance;" as it is also with the statement of some of their own writers, that on true conversion, "sins are remitted immediately, before they receive priestly absolution." What force has absolution here, when the penitent has been already pardoned of God? or how can this stand with the pretence of absolution being so necessary, that sin without it cannot (except in rare cases) be possibly remitted? In order to evade this, it has been alleged, 1st, That there is in penitents an attrition or grief for sin, arising from fear alone, and that real contrition is produced by absolution; 2nd, That the really contrite desire absolution, and this desire is in God's sight as absolution to them. The first of these positions is contradictory in itself: for what need of contrition is there-(and contrition is a pre-requisite to their sacrament)-if absolution produce it? even Judas had this attrition, proceeding from fear alone. And as to the second, viz. the desire of absolution, (to say nothing of many other concurrent feelings to constitute true repentance,) this desire of absolution, even presupposing that it be commanded, is but a mark of the obedience of a contrite spirit; and, therefore, as such, one of the component parts of true penitence, in virtue of which alone sin is remitted. The sacrament of absolution has in this no place, because it has not been administered; and where there is no actual cause, no effect can follow. Hence, far sounder is the opinion of some of their own divines, who ascribe the real abolition of sin to God's pardoning it, without any dependence upon the priest's absolution as an efficient cause thereof. And to conclude: God alone gives remission of sins. The virtue of Repentance alone procures, and Absolution does but declare it. The most difficult matter oftentimes, however, is to satisfy our own minds in this point, and to make the conscience feel clear of sin. While the sense thereof continues, it is as a sore burden: and this, indeed, is a part of natural religion, and everywhere acknowledged, even by unenlightened Heathens. So that the revelation of a way whereby we may be reconciled to God, and thus shake off the burden, and change the most grisly horrors into comfortable heavenly peace, is worthy of every thankful and most grateful acknowledgment. But the attainment of this joyful state of mind is often prevented, especially in two ways: first, because some apprehend they may be guilty of the "unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost;" and, secondly, others are fearful lest infirmity should prevent them from that perfect repentance which is required. Now, in reference to the first of these, it may be stated, that from the whole scope of the case, "the irremissible sin against the Holy Ghost," was spoken of those persons in Apostolic times, who, having been converted, and received from the imposition of the Apostles' hands the grace and power of the Holy Ghost, enabling them to cure diseases, to speak with tongues, and to prophesy, did afterwards fall away, and blaspheme that blessed Spirit whose gifts they once possessed; so that it was morally "impossible for them to be renewed again unto repentance [Heb 6:6];" and, consequently, they remained sunk in the gulf of unpardonable sin. And the mistake of these self-terrifiers is, that of supposing every act of known and wilful transgression to be of this kind; forgetting, that under the Law there were sacrifices of expiation even for presumptuous sins, as well as for those of error. As to the second case: there are those who, not doubting God's readiness to pardon on true repentance, do nevertheless imagine their own repentance to be defective; and that, after all their earnest wishes and zealous endeavours to be otherwise, their heart remains hard, their deeds imperfect, and their repentance consequently unaccepted,-so that they sink in despair. To such, no better remedy can be offered, than to betake themselves to some spiritual consecrated person, to whom opening their minds, they may receive such ghostly advice and consolation as may remove their timorous scruples, and settle their doubtful minds. In brief: it is not so much the exact measure of their penitential acts, that is to be considered, as their sincere feeling and purpose of mind. The heart is it that makes penitence sincere; sincerity, that which finds favour with God; and the favour of God is that which supplies, by gracious acceptance, whatever is defective in the hearty and true offices of His servants. "If (as St. Chrysostom says) there be a will and a desire to return, He receives and embraces, and omits nothing which may restore us to former happiness." The lowest step in repentance sets us above them that perish. So, with Augustine, we will conclude, "Lord, in thy book and volume of life all shall be written; as well the least of thy saints, as the chiefest: let not, therefore, the imperfect fear; let them only proceed and go forward."
+++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++
BOOK VII.
OF EPISCOPACY. RESPECTING THEIR SIXTH ASSERTION, "THAT THERE OUGHT NOT TO BE IN THE CHURCH BISHOPS ENDUED WITH SUCH AUTHORITY AND HONOUR AS OURS ARE."
I. EPISCOPACY, though oppugned, providentially upheld, and continued hitherto, as being DIVINELY-APPOINTED.
UPWARDS of 1500 years the Church of Christ has continued under the sacred government of BISHOPS; and nowhere has it been planted, during that period, excepting under Episcopacy,-which indeed seems plainly an institution of God. Christianity existed in England, under Bishops, even long before the Saxon conquest; and seems to have commenced towards the close of the second century, during the reign of Lucius. On the invasion of the Saxons, with their accompanying Paganism, the Britons, still however retaining the faith of Christ, and its Episcopal government, withdrew into their fastnesses. Hence we have very ancient historical mention of their Bishops; so that, at the council of Ariminum, A. D. 359, three British Bishops are recorded as being present. When, therefore, Gregory sent over missionaries to convert the Saxons, about A. D. 600, he found the British Christians still observant of the selfsame form of government,-by Bishops over the rest of the clergy. And hence, in establishing Episcopal Christianity amongst the Saxons, he introduced nothing new into the country; but only contributed to replace it in those quarters from whence it had been previously driven. Under this form, Christianity continued till the Norman Conqueror, and has remained such to the present day. Surely, then, it must be a strange infatuation creeping over the minds of men, that has caused a disposition to forsake a mode of Church Government approved by the universal experience of so many centuries, and co-eval with the establishment of Christianity; and to frame unto themselves a new mode of government, neither appointed of God, nor heard of before, until now. But, leaving the ordering of these things, and the consequences thereof, in the hands of Divine Providence, we proceed to inquire into the question of EPISCOPACY; and, first in order, to define the name and office of Bishop.
II. On the meaning of the NAME and OFFICE of a Bishop.
IT may be as well, however, to answer an objection in limine [at the outset], by which the whole argument is attempted to be extinguished at once. For when we plead the antiquity of Episcopacy, we are encountered with the reply, "That the Bishops we have now, are not like those which were formerly." Though in one sense the remark is true, yet it alters not the argument however. Were we reasoning, for instance, as to the antiquity and lawfulness of kingly power, it would be no fair disparagement of the argument, to assert that kings in ancient times were not such in all points as those in the present; the real point at issue being the nature of Sovereignty itself: And if Regality in substance did exist, then the accidental differences thereof, arising from change of time and circumstances, cannot invalidate the lawfulness of the office. Just in the same manner, to those who argue against Episcopacy, and who, being pressed by the question of antiquity, attempt to evade it, by alleging a dissimilarity in circumstances between Bishops of old and those of present times, we reply, that this makes no essential difference in the nature of the office itself. Many things in the state of Bishops have changed with the times; many an ancient Bishop may have been in poorer estate than ordinary pastors now; but this makes no difference as to those things in regard whereof they are termed Bishops, and wherein they essentially differ from other pastors. And first for the Name. In the original language it signified an Over-looker; and, in ecclesiastical writings, was applied to all Church-governors in a general sense; but, in course of time, it began to have a limited application to those only who were Chief governors over the rest. Offices and things generally are more ancient than the names by which they are designated; and frequently a term of general meaning comes to have, in time, a special definite application. Thus the names of Disciple and Apostle originally meant Learner and Messenger; but were appropriated to designate, in Christian language, the former a Follower of Christ; and the latter, an Ambassador specially and immediately sent by Himself. And thus the title of Bishop, implying at first any ecclesiastical governor, came to mean only the principal or chief one. And hence, also, as it is evident that the restricted application of the name is always subsequent to the actual discharge of the office; this conclusion is an answer to the allegations of those who argue against Episcopacy, merely because there seems no use of the word in its limited application, in Apostolic writings, but only in its general meaning. And next for the nature of the office itself. A Bishop is a minister of God, who has a permanent power, not only of administering the Word and Sacraments, but a further power of ordaining Presbyters, and of jurisdiction over them, as well as over Laymen,-being as a Pastor over pastors themselves. He has things in common, therefore, with other Presbyters; but those that properly constitute him a Bishop are not common to other pastors with him. And Bishops may have either an indefinite charge, or a restricted one, confined to jurisdiction over the Churches in one particular locality.
III. On the SUPERIORITY of Bishops; its authoritative and permanent character.
IN our government by Bishops, two things are cavilled at: their superiority; and the honour paid to them. Now, the objectors do admit among themselves a superiority, as arising from eminent gifts and talents; and they also permit it, as an expedient orderly arrangement, wherein one man takes a principal, although only a temporary, share in any public transaction, others being concurring with him. But they utterly deny "that any one minister should have permanent superiority above another; or in any sort a superiority of power that is mandatory, judicial, and coercive, over other ministers;" which position we, on the contrary, strenuously maintain, and contend that Bishops have had it ever since the institution of Christianity. And we now proceed to show, by an induction of particulars, the lawfulness both of a permanent and authoritative superiority on the part of Bishops.
IV. On the ORIGIN of Episcopacy.
THE first Bishops in the Church of Christ were His blessed Apostles, as is seen in the appointment of Matthias to the EPISCOPE; which term implies government, just as the term APOSTOLOS implied having a mission to preach. And though the term EPISCOPE was at first not used in its high and restrictive sense, but applied to inferior offices in general, yet the whole history shows that the spiritual authority, which we have defined as being properly episcopal, was exercised by the Apostles of Christ: the speciality of the name being (as has been already remarked) subsequent to the actual discharge of the office. The Apostles, therefore, were Bishops at large. Though, however, their charge was unlimited, yet, in the execution of it, nothing prevents but that they might restrict themselves individually to some particular portion, as circumstances seemed to require. And thus, as in preaching the Gospel, Paul betook himself to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews, so we find John taking charge of the Asiatic Churches [Eusebius and Tertullian state this]; and the very case in point, of a Bishop restricting his general charge to one locality, is established by St James being constituted Bishop of Jerusalem. The Apostles, moreover,-whether exercising unlimited Episcopal authority, as St. Paul, or limited, as St. James,-did also depute it to others, to exercise in their stead; as they did to Timothy and Titus, in the first instance: though these subsequently were endowed with an apostolical authority of their own. [This appears from the subscriptions in the 2nd Epist. to Timothy and in that to Titus; as it is shown also by Eusebius, Eccles. Hist. 3:14:2] For ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY makes it clear, that the Apostles conferred permanent Episcopal authority on others. Irenaeus says, "We are able to number up those who by the Apostles were made Bishops;" and he states that the Apostles made Linus first Bishop of Rome, and Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna: as Ignatius also states that they made Evodius Bishop of Antioch. Hence the Apostles, being first possessed of this authority, all others who have it after them, in orderly manner, are their lawful successors,-whether it be in any particular Apostolic Church, or in any place where an Apostle has not previously been; succession, in this point, meaning the possession of the same kind of Episcopal power which was first given to them. And thus Jerome says, "All Bishops are the Apostles' Successors." And though they do not (like them) hold their commission immediately from Christ, nor are the first founders of His Church; yet, as in the office of preaching the Gospel, every Presbyter is a successor of the Apostles, so-though not in largeness and extent, yet certainly in that kind of Episcopal function whereby to sit as spiritual judges and directors over the affairs of Christian Churches--our Bishops are, in the true sense of the word, successors of the Apostles.
V. The PERIOD and CAUSES of the Bishoprics being LIMITED to certain localities.
THE Apostles, under inspired guidance, erected Churches in such cities as received the Gospel; and these Churches all received from them the same faith and sacraments, and also the same form of government; which was, in the first instance, that the Laity should be subject to a sort of College of Presbyters, who are sometimes likewise styled Bishops: these being all subject to the Apostles, as specially appointed over them by God. [Compare Acts 20:17 with Acts 20:28, where the same persons are called, first, Presbyters, and then Bishops; and they are directed, "Attendite gregi, -- Look all to that one flock of Ephesus, over which the Holy Ghost has made you Bishops:" they being all subject to St. Paul's control, as their divinely-appointed governor.] But as the Apostles could not be present at all Churches, and as disputes arose even amongst the governors of Churches themselves, it became necessary to appoint one,-according to the order already begun at Jerusalem,-with an Episcopal authority, derived from the Apostles, over the rest, to settle and determine; and thus the actual exercise of the Episcopal authority existed before the limitation of the name and title. Hence we find Bishops, in the book of Revelation, called Angels. [If it be said that these Angels of the Churches were only the ministers in every Church, it may be inquired then, Why should St. John address his speech to one alone? There were many ministers, for instance, in Ephesus: does not the fact of the Apostle's styling one in particular the angel of the Church (Rev 2:I) evince his superiority?] This order prevailed universally, and was so intimately connected with the very idea of Church, that the ancient Christian persuasion was, "Ecclesia est in Episcopo; The outward being of a Church consists in its having a Bishop." This order, therefore,-whether by previous express divine appointment, or subsequent approbation,- being established by those under the plenary inspiration of the Holy Ghost, must be acknowledged as an ordinance of God. And thus it was held to be by the primitive Fathers. St. Augustine asserts, that "whatever positive order the whole Church observes everywhere, it must have received the same from the Apostles." [He adds, "Unless, perhaps, from General Councils;" but these latter pre-suppose Bishops to hold them, and consequently the argument still holds.] St. Jerome says, that "till factions arose in the Church, and among the people it began to be professed 'I am of Paul, I of Apollos, and I of Cephas,' Churches were governed by common advice of Presbyters. But when every one began to reckon those whom himself had baptized to be his own, and not Christ's, it was decreed in the whole world, that one chosen out of the Presbyters should be placed above the rest, to whom all the care of the Church should belong, and so the seeds of schism be removed." [Hooker answers an objection raised from a wrong construction of Jerome's words, in reference to the practice of electing Bishops in the Church of Alexandria, as if it were peculiar to that place only, and not a general practice. He shows that the words have been wrested from their proper bearing and intent; and that, as is seen above, Jerome's testimony to Episcopacy is clear and distinct. He likewise explains another passage of Jerome's, in reference to Bishops with limited jurisdictions; wherein he intimates that their authority, and the Presbyters' subjection thereto, arose from custom more than God's ordinance. But Jerome, in that passage, was giving an admonition, both to Presbyters and Bishops, that each should behave towards the other as became their stations: the one not contumaciously; the other not proudly: and the words must, therefore, be taken generally, as in a matter of grave caution to each party, and not stringently and literally; as is plain from other passages of Jerome's similar to the one quoted above.] Another argument for Episcopacy is found in the Succession of Bishops; as by Epiphanius, the Bishops of Jerusalem are reckoned down from James to the then Bishop in his time, Hilarian. And on this point Tertullian's words are, "Let them show the beginning of their Churches: let them recite their Bishops one by one; each in such sort succeeding the other, that the first Bishop may have had for his author and predecessor some Apostle, or at least some Apostolical person who persevered with the Apostles. For so, Apostolical Churches are wont to bring forth evidence of their estates; so does the Church of Smyrna, having Polycarp, whom John did consecrate." And on this point, Eusebius and Socrates have collected catalogues, making the evidence thereon quite clear and conclusive. Indeed, when we know, that on many occasions, things of far less moment were not commenced without the Divine direction of the Spirit,-as, for instance, the baptism of the Eunuch by Philip, the direction of Paul and Barnabas to preach to the Gentiles, the appointment of Timothy to his charge,-it would seem a plain and manifest inference, that the appointment of Bishops, from James of Jerusalem to all the various Bishops chosen for the preservation of peace and order in Christ's Church, must have had the same Spirit for its author, and that Episcopacy is a divine institution.
VI. On the NATURE and MANNER of the Power which Bishops have exercised from the origin of their Order; being that of ORDER and of JURISDICTION.
THE superiority of a Bishop over a Presbyter consists as well in power of Order, as also in power of Jurisdiction. As, under the Law, Priests were superior to Levites, and the High-Priest above Priests, each having a more dignified charge, and an authority to do in his superior office certain things not permitted to his inferior; so it is with Bishops, Priests, and deacons: each of the superior having certain duties wherewith the inferior may not intermeddle. Now, the power of ordaining Presbyters and Deacons is peculiar to Bishops: it never having been heard of, that inferior Presbyters had authority to ordain. Some, indeed, have been led into the error of supposing Bishops and Presbyters equal in power of order, because the former offer prayer, preach, and administer the sacraments; all which offices are indeed common to both, but the higher office of ordaining is clearly not so. The Apostles, being Bishops at large, ordained Presbyters everywhere; and Timothy and Titus, having a special episcopal power for Greece and Ephesus, ordained in these their respective regions. Confirmation seems generally to have been confined to Bishops; but instances have occurred, when in their absence, this duty has been discharged by Presbyters. From a direction of the Council of Carthage, that Presbyters should lay their hands together with the Bishop on ordained persons, it has been erroneously supposed that Ordination is not peculiar to Bishops. Now, this indeed is the practice in our own Church at the present day. But this is only in the way of association, the Presbyters having no original power therein; just as the Saviour tells the Apostles, "With me ye shall sit and judge the twelve tribes of Israel," although the right and power of judging is in Him alone. Indeed, no Presbyter or Deacon, ordained by Presbyters only, was ever allowed in the ancient Church; though everywhere the converse may be found, where Bishops alone have ordained them. As to the power of Jurisdiction, it may be remarked, that under the Law this was possessed by the High Priests over the Priests, and by the latter over the Levites: e.g. Eleazar, the son of Aaron, we read, was to be "chief over the chief of the Levites, and have the oversight of them [Num 3:32]; as we also find that the Gershonites were to be "at the appointment of Aaron and his sons, in all their burdens and in all their service [Num 4:27]." Indeed, this is not denied by our opponents; but only an attempt is made to evade its force, by saying, that the High-Priest being a figure of Christ in His supremacy, when the Saviour came the figurative supremacy ceased. Now, it is true that the High-Priest was a type of Christ in many things,- such as, for instance, in his entering once each year into the holy place, to atone for the people; but these points were matters of Order, and not of jurisdiction; and to imagine, that an office for directing and regulating a whole society, was so far typical, that it had no other end but simply to prefigure, is absurd. Indeed, St. Cyprian and St. Jerome use the same mode of arguing for Episcopal jurisdiction, by the analogy of the Law: the latter says, "That which Aaron and his sons and the Levites were in the Temple, Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, in the Church, may lawfully challenge to themselves;" and the former also proceeds to assert, "That it is not left to our own choice whether Bishops shall rule or not; but the will of our Lord and Saviour is, that every act of the Church be governed by her Bishops." Ignatius observes of Bishops, that they are HIERATEUEIN KAI ARCHEIN (to function as priests and kings). And, to adduce no more from the many evidences on this point, the power of Timothy and Titus over Presbyters [1 Tim 5:19], in their respective Episcopates, was clearly one of rule and jurisdiction. [Calvin admits, "that in old time the ministers which had charge to teach, chose of their company one in every city, to whom they appropriated the title of Bishop, lest equality should breed dissension." He then goes on to assimilate their office and authority in spiritual, to that of the Roman Consuls in civil, matters. Though, singularly enough, after these admissions, he denies that Bishops had authority to bear rule over other ministers.] Passages have indeed been alleged, both from St. Jerome and St. Chrysostom, implying that Bishops were only superior to Presbyters in the power of conferring Ordination: e.g. the former says, "What may a Bishop do more than a Presbyter, except it be only to ordain?" and the latter, "Bishops seem not to excel Presbyters in anything but only in the power of Ordination." But here they are writing only on the power of Order, which by divine consecration is given to Bishops above Presbyters; and their words are not intended to apply to the authoritative part of their Jurisdiction, which was necessary for the government of the Church. That this is so, may be at once seen by reference to other parts of their writings: e.g. Jerome says, "I marvel that the Bishop under whom Vigilantius is said to be Presbyter, does not yield to his fury, and break that unprofitable vessel with his apostolic and iron rod;" again, advising Nepotian, he says, "Be thou subject unto thy Bishop, and receive him as the father of thy soul." And Chrysostom, when through the factious conduct of a party he had been banished, and was afterwards summoned to appear, objected on the ground of two of the messengers being his own Presbyters; and that it was contrary to all precedent, that they should be sent to summon him, who were a part of that clergy whereof he himself was ruler and judge.
VII. On the MODE wherein Bishops, associating Presbyters with them, administered the affairs of their respective Churches.
THE custom was, whenever Bishops and their Presbyters met in council, on affairs of their Churches, for the Bishop to have a raised seat of dignity, and to be surrounded by his Presbyters, who assisted him with their advice in important matters. Ignatius calls Presbyters SYMBOULOI KAI SYNEDREUTAI TOU EPISKOPOU, "counsellors and assistants of the Bishop." Not that the Bishops had not power of themselves to act,-for this they clearly had; but rather, as a matter of discretion and convenience, they voluntarily submitted things to the college of Presbyters, which they might have done of their own power and authority. Sometimes they also consulted other Bishops, who attended at their councils in matters of moment. But that the Bishop's power of jurisdiction was inherent, ex officio, may be seen in the answer sent to Rogatian, a Bishop who had consulted Cyprian and other Bishops, about the contumelious conduct of one of his own Deacons: "That though in his own cause he did of humility rather show his grievance [unto others] than himself take revenge, which by the vigour of his Apostolical office and the authority of his chair he might have done;" yet if the party should again offend, he was to "use on him that power which the honour of thy place gives thee, either to depose him or exclude him from access unto holy things." The Bishop had also under him a Presbyter named Arch-deacon, to superintend the Deacons; and another Presbyter to rule the Presbyters; which latter office corresponds to what is now called Dean. So that, notwithstanding time may have made certain changes, yet our Cathedral officers are clearly remnants of Apostolical antiquity; and for their support and continuance, as such, it is our duty earnestly to strive.
VIII. On the LOCAL EXTENT, or DIOCESE, over which the authority of a Bishop reached; on ARCHBISHOPRICKS and PRIMACIES or PATRIARCHATES.
HAVING established the position that Bishops had jurisdiction over Presbyters, we may now inquire, although only as a secondary consideration, how far in point of locality this extended; or, in other words, the extent of their Dioceses. In early times, care was had to provide a Bishop for every Christian city, if possible: the college of Presbyters in which, together with those in its circumjacent province or territory (for smaller congregations, with single Pastors to each, by degrees spread in the country-villages) were all subject to him. The cities themselves, also, as believers increased in number, had separate Churches provided in them, wherein single Ministers officiated to separate congregations. But all these Churches, whether in the city or adjacent towns and villages, had a respect for the principal City-Church, as a sort of mother, out of which they grew: to whose Bishop they and their Pastors were all subject; and to which they resorted for the administration of such things as their own Presbyters were not entitled to perform. This mother-church was usually termed Cathedral; which, with the College of Presbyters, formed the Bishop's See; as the local compass of his authority did his Diocese. Within his own See and Diocese, it was his peculiar office to ordain Presbyters and Deacons, and to dispose of matters of importance. Here, then, we may remark, that as St. Paul had a general and unlimited Episcopal authority, and Timothy and Titus an extensive but more limited one; so other Bishops had a smaller Episcopal charge and authority, but yet extending over many congregations. There were also persons appointed by the Bishops to be a kind of substitutes or vicegerents for them, over those Churches of their See that were distant; and those had the name Chorepiscopi; but their power was limited to the oversight of the Churches, and the appointment of sub-deacons, and smaller officers: the power of ordaining being reserved to the Bishop himself. The same causes that required the jurisdiction of Bishops over their respective Presbyters, called, in the course of time, for the establishment of a higher order amongst themselves. The public affairs of the Church enlarging with the increase of her estate and members,-general consultations and judicial ordinances being required, and sometimes disputes arising between Bishops themselves,-rendered it eventually necessary to appoint certain of their own body, to superintend and preside over the deliberations of the rest [Even the Puritan objectors, in their Synods, admit the principle by electing one of their Pastors to rule and preside over the rest. And although this pre-eminence is but temporary, yet it is renewed in some one individual, each time they assemble. Whereas we prefer having one continual president.]; and thus Arch-Bishops were established: in constituting of whom, it seemed fitting that the civil dignity of the place should be considered; consequently, that the Bishop of the mother city or Metropolis should hold the chiefest rank amongst the other Bishops: and hence the title of Metropolitan, which attaches to an Arch-Bishop. And as the Archbishops were many, during that period when the whole Christian world was under one civil government, there being many mother-cities, and consequently Metropolitans, in the various regions of that extensive sway; so a still higher order arose over the Archbishops themselves, called Primates, or Patriarchs, of whom there were four: viz. the Primates of Alexandria, of Rome, of Antioch, and subsequently of Constantinople: these Patriarchs, or Primates, having the same prerogative power In reference to Archbishops, as these latter had in respect to Bishops. [Though the title of Primate be now given to an Archbishop, yet in strictness it was appropriated to the Patriarchs, as above-mentioned. And this title was recognized at the Council of Nicea, A. D. 325; at which the three above first-mentioned Primates were present. About sixty years after this, Constantinople was erected Into a Primacy, and the Primate thereof adjudged to rank next after the Primate of Rome.] All Bishops were indeed equal, as regarded their power within their respective dioceses; but when sundry of them had occasion to assemble on general public matters of the Church, then the Archbishops took precedence and authority: and when, from various causes, difficulties arose amongst them, the Council of Nice appointed unto each grand division of the Christian world one Primate, or Patriarch; from whose decision there was no appeal, except to a general council of Bishops. [The prerogatives wherein Archbishops were superior to Bishops were, the power of convoking the Bishops in their own provinces on public occasions; granting the Bishops leave of absence, when necessary, from their dioceses; apprising them of things commanded by supreme authority; hearing accusations (if any) against them, and deciding in cases of appeals from their inferior clergy; and all Provincial Councils required the presence of an Archbishop to give their acts validity.]
IX. On ANCIENT objections to Episcopacy, as held by AERIUS and his followers.
THE first strenuous opposer of Episcopal superiority that we read of in early days, seems to have been one Aerius, a disappointed man, who, seeking to be made Bishop, and angry that Eustathius was preferred before him for the office, set himself to impugn the dignity he had coveted. His position was, that Scripture makes no difference, in point of order, between Bishops and Presbyters; that the latter are competent to all the duties of the former; that, for instance, Presbyters made Timothy a Bishop [1 Tim 4:14]; and that the Apostle calls Presbyters by the name of Bishops [Phil 1:1]: and hence, that the custom of the Church, in instituting such orders, is unwarranted. Now, to pass by the wrong conduct of Aerius,-in causing schism, and not submitting to the order of the Church,-he was wrong also in his conclusions: for it does not follow, because the Word of God does not mention or appoint any difference between a Presbyter and a Bishop, that it prohibits any such distinction ever to be made. Yet this is the whole ground of his argument.
X. The three general grounds of MODERN objections to Episcopacy.
AND this ground is also taken by the enemies of Episcopacy at the present day; who build thereupon all their arguments, precisely in the same way, against any inequality or difference between Presbyters and Bishops. They allege, 1st, that it is a mere human invention, and that the order and authority of both are the same; 2nd, that it is a corrupt aggravation of an ancient incorrect practice; 3rd, that it is unscriptural,-being not only unwarranted, but even condemned, by Scripture.
XI. On the allegation that Episcopacy is a mere HUMAN INVENTION.
THESE allegations they endeavour to uphold by the following positions: 1st, That wherever Scripture mentions the word Bishop, it signifies a person having an oversight only in respect of some particular congregation, and not over other pastors; and hence, that the names Bishop, Presbyter, and Pastoral-Elder, used frequently in Scripture, are all synonymous: 2nd, That there is no difference in the manner of their election and ordination; hence, also, they are equal: 3rd, As the Apostles were all equal, so Pastors, being their successors in ministry and power, are likewise equal: 4th, That the power of the "keys," and of ordaining ministers, is not in any one Pastor of any one Church, but belongs to the Church itself; and hence, all Pastors therein are equal, not only in Ministry of the Word and Sacraments, but also in Jurisdiction and Authority: 5th, That the Council of Nice attributed the difference [now held] to ancient custom, and not to God's ordinance: lastly, That all ministerial functions ought to be set down in the word of God; and if they be not so, (as Bishops are not,) then they are inventions of men, and can do no good, but only harm, to the Church of Christ. To all which it may be replied, generally, that their alleged proofs from Scripture on this point are unavailable; and that, even were Bishops (as they assert) of no Apostolical institution, yet their authority is not thereby disannulled, nor proved unsuitable or unprofitable to the Church. For, -- 1st. It is untrue that the term EPISKOPE implies only an oversight of a particular congregation: the office of Matthias, for instance, is termed Episcopal [Acts 1:20], and was common to him with all the other Apostles, whose authority clearly was over more congregations than one; and, consequently, included an oversight over Pastors themselves. And though Pastors of certain individual Churches were sometimes termed Bishops, sometimes Presbyters, implying a charge only over the Laity therein; yet this does not prevent the special application of the term in cases of higher government and charge, such as those had whom St. John calls angels [Rev 2:1]. 2nd. There being no difference in the rules for Election and Ordination, is of no weight towards proving no difference in office: the same would apply as to Priests and Deacons; and yet we know that Scripture makes them not equal. And a reason why Timothy and Titus did not receive directions about Bishops specially, may be, that they had Episcopal authority to ordain,-not Bishops, (that power being yet with the Apostles,)-but only Priests and Deacons. 3rd. The argument from the equality among the Apostles is less conclusive still. True, they themselves were all equal; but they had authority over all other Pastors who were not Apostles: Pastors, therefore, were subject to Pastors, in Apostolic days; and where is the commandment that this custom should cease, and that all should thenceforth be equal? 4th. As to the fourth position: the power of the "keys," i.e. of Censure, and also of Ordination, is in the Church; but it is administered by some specially appointed superior: e.g. to Timothy it is said, "Receive thou no accusation save with two or three witnesses [1 Tim 5:19];" to Titus, "I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest redress the things that remain, and shouldest ordain Presbyters in every city, as I appointed thee [Tit 1:5]." If there had been an equality in all Pastors, that all might perform the same things, why this special appointment? and why were not the Epistles addressed to the other Pastors in conjunction with Timothy and Titus, as being their alleged equals? Similarly, also, the Epistles in the Book of the Revelation should be addressed to the whole of the Pastors, and not to the Angels of each Church. Scripture, therefore, does make an inequality of Pastors. 5th. The Nicene Councils only referred to certain Customary honours in the Church, as connected with primates, and had no allusion to superiority of Bishops, as a divinely-appointed ordinance, over Presbyters. 6th. Even supposing the generally-received opinion were incorrect, as to the Apostles leaving Bishops invested by them with power over other Pastors; yet, in that case, if the Churches agreed among themselves to appoint such to hold an Apostolic power, as chief over the rest, for the good of the whole, this ought not therefore to be abrogated. [Our Saviour's question, "The baptism of John, was it from heaven or of men?" (Matt 21:25) implies that spiritual functions may be given, not only immediately by God himself, but also by lawful authority amongst men: and supports the conclusion, that without one of these two modes of commission, no exercise of spiritual functions is warranted.] All things in the Church ought, it is true, to be of God; but there are two modes in which this may be: first, by His own special institution; and, secondly, by man's appointment, but with His approbation. And of His approval it may be considered sufficient evidence, that either His Word warrants it, or that our own reason perceives the intrinsic goodness and fitness thereof, together with its non-repugnancy to His Word and ordinances. Nay, indeed, we disparage the work of God's hands, if we reject every thing simply because "the wit of man" has devised it. All that is good, in the way of civil or religious institution, may be said to be of Him, and approved by Him, whether specifically set down in Scripture or not. Hence, the Apostle terms even the Law of Nature [Rom 1:32], as the Evangelist does the Law of Scripture [Luke 1:6], DIKAIWMA TOU THEOU, God's own righteous ordinance. What, indeed, is expressly directed in Scripture is of more paramount authority; but this forbids not that other things may be estimated and reverenced according to their true use and worth. Hence, if our Episcopacy were not derived from the Apostles, but only an institution for the general good of the Church, yet no exception could on that account justly lie against it.
XII. Episcopacy alleged to be UNNECESSARY.
OTHER allegations, however, are made: as 1st, That as in the primitive Church all Pastors were equal, and her affairs flourished, Bishops (in our meaning of them) are superfluous; if really necessary, they would have been earlier instituted: 2nd, That as Christ prescribed all, even the minutest things, under the Law, so He would not have left so weighty an affair undetermined in the Gospel: 3rd, That as faults had better be investigated on the spot, the office of Bishops and Archbishops, with jurisdiction at a distance, is unsuitable.
XIII. Refutation of the foregoing assertions, as to Bishops being UNNECESSARY.
Now, it has already been shown [An objection is here answered by Hooker, founded upon a perversion of Cyprian's words, that Bishops were only Pastors of single congregations, and the perversion and irrelevancy thereof are shown.], that the Apostles did rule over the Church of Christ as Bishops at large; and, consequently, at first there was no need for Bishops with local limited jurisdiction established in every city. But so far from the Church subsequently flourishing because without these, it was the evil that immediately arose wherever they were not, that led to their universal appointment, after the manner of that Episcopate already so beneficially established at Jerusalem: and thus the very origin of the office proves its use and necessity. The argument from want of express prescription, as the Jews had for every thing, under the Law, is here inapplicable: were it otherwise, indeed, we should clearly then have to refrain even from building churches, inasmuch as we have no directions at all for the structure of them; whereas the Jews had for every particle of their Temple. And for the objection of distant places for trial or appeal, it is evidently of no weight; such customs being adopted generally from experience of their benefit, and being sanctioned by the Apostle himself, who "appealed from the court of Judaea unto Caesar" at Rome.
XIV. On the alleged DIFFERENCE between the Power of Bishops, as exercised in ANCIENT times and in MODERN.
BUT the superiority of Bishops to Presbyters having been conceded,--at least as being of ancient standing,-another objection is raised, "that they had not the same kind or extent of power as ours have:" such as ordaining without the people's leave; excommunicating or releasing of their own will; bearing civil office in a realm, etc. Now, supposing it were so, and that by degrees they had crept into this sole exercise of power; yet even thus they perform not, after all, any act which in itself they were originally debarred from doing, only with the consent and co-operation of others: and if such a custom had, by a sort of general tacit consent, obtained in the Church for many ages, it is not therefore to be uprooted. The Church, as a body politic, is competent to make new laws, or abrogate old ones; and if she either let ancient canons go into desuetude, or abrogate them at once, then such laws are not afterwards to be brought forward as forming grounds whereon to build objections. At the first institution of Deacons, it is true that the Apostles committed unto the people the power of choosing out fit persons for the office; but it was the imposition of Apostolic hands that constituted them such. And, in making of Presbyters, both the custom and canons of the Church require that hands should be "laid suddenly on no man;" and that due examination and probation of them should take place before presentation to the Bishop; which, in fact, is the custom in the Church of England even now; but, as in the case of the Deacons, it is the imposition of hands alone that constitutes them Presbyters, the selection and probation being only preparatives thereto. And hence, if the Bishops ordained fit persons, even should the people exercise no previous choice,-(such custom having by tacit consent fallen into disuse,)-neither is there transgression of any law in this, nor is the ordination in any sort invalid. Indeed, experience shows how inconvenient, and even unsuitable, some customs, originally good, may in time become, especially in matters wherein a multitude exercise power. And on this very principle the objectors themselves act, in the mode of appointing their own Deacons by an Ecclesiastical Senate, and not, as in Apostolic times, by the people at large: and the reason they allege is briefly this, "That, as in civil governments the whole sway is originally in the people's hands, who voluntarily appoint magistrates,-but that afterwards the magistrates, and not the multitude, have the ordering of public affairs,-so exactly it was with the Church; the regimen of which is not now in the hands of the whole multitude, but wholly in theirs who are appointed guides thereof: and hence, what for certain causes was done by the people, before the Church was fully settled, cannot be made a perpetual form of ordering the Church." Unless, then, that which is truth, when uttered in defence of the practice in Scotland and Geneva, ceases to be truth when applied to the Church of England, here is in their own reasoning a complete answer to all their allegations against us on this head. There are two things in every ecclesiastical function; "Power to exercise the duty;" and some "Charge of people whereon to exercise it." The former can only be conferred by the visible Catholic Church; and they whom she has authorized, as her instruments herein, are not the Laity (of whom it has, therefore, never been heard that they were allowed to ordain), but certain ecclesiastical persons, superior both to Deacons and Presbyters, who have power to confer order in the name of the whole Church. Such were the Apostles, such were Timothy and Titus; such Bishops, who, though different from them in some points, are the same in pre-eminence of place, otherwise they might not ordain. [Episcopal Ordination, however, in extreme and extraordinary cases, may perhaps be dispensed with: as when God specially raises up some instruments for His own purposes; only, in that case, they must be furnished with some evident and satisfactory sign, that He has authorized them. Or, again, should a Church ever be in such a position as not, by any possibility, to obtain a Bishop to ordain, she must yield to such inevitable necessity; and the lineal descent of power by Apostolical succession is not, in such case, to be urged absolutely, and without any possible exception. [As connected with what is just said in regard to Episcopal Ordination, a reference to the words of Hooker may be made here, which was omitted in its proper place at Book 3:11. "For mine own part,-although I see that certain reformed Churches,-the Scottish, and especially the French,-have not that which best agrees with Scripture, I mean the government that is by Bishops, inasmuch as both are fallen under a different kind of regimen,-to remedy which is for the one altogether too late, and for the other too soon, in their present affliction and trouble,-this their defect and imperfection I had rather lament, in such case, than re-agitate; considering that men may often, without any fault of their own, be driven to want [be deprived of] that kind of polity which is best, and to content themselves with that which either the irremediable error of former times, or necessity of the present, has cast upon them." Here, though clearly contending for Episcopacy, he at the same time speaks with a tender reserve and Christian forbearance of the irregularities into which pressing circumstances had driven others.]] The power of Order having been thus conferred, and requiring next some Charge, then comes in the People's consent, and not before. Power of Order may be received without their consent, but cannot be exercised upon them against their wills. In this respect, no Pastor in the Church of England exercises his charge in any parish, but the people virtually consent thereto. Not, indeed, that they do so by particular vote; but inasmuch as in former days it seemed reasonable, and for the encouragement of further piety in the eyes of the Christian world, that those who built and endowed Churches on their own soil, and at their own charge, should have the appointment of the Minister thereof, the public right was thus orderly devised to an agent, whose choice therefore is virtually theirs. Hence it is untrue that Ordination ought only to proceed on the people's suffrages; that ancient Bishops could not otherwise ordain; or that our Bishops have usurped a power not originally belonging to them. Nor yet is the allegation well-founded, that they also act tyrannically in excommunicating or releasing by their own power, without concurrence of the many. Indeed, by the word many here, the objectors mean not the people at large, but a council of Lay-Elders; and the reply to it might well rest on their own words, as just quoted in reference to Ordination. But the tyranny of any act depends, not upon the number of agents, as one or more, but in its being contrary to law; and if a Bishop excommunicate only those whom the law authorizes him, the complaint is groundless. Besides, were he to call in others, viz. Presbyters, into council hereon, still he would not remove the complaints of the objectors, because they would have Lay-Elders, such as no ancient Bishop ever was judicially associated with. How much better to strive for real good, than to contend on such trifles!
XV. On the CIVIL power and authority exercised by our Bishops.
ANOTHER objection is started against the power of secular punishment being entrusted to our Bishops, and against their being permitted to hold civil offices. With regard to the former-(premising that it is not any capital punishment, but only one extending to imprisonment),- what they do is only done according to the laws of the land; and herein, were it necessary, a precedent might be adduced from the practice of the Priests under the Law [Jer 29:26]. And in reference to civil offices being held; though some may be unsuited to the clerical character, yet all are not, but may be held, and that often with manifest general advantage. For instance, a Christian society may be placed in such circumstances, as that there is a lack of discerning and skilful men among the Laity; and then, what hinders that, in the spirit of the Apostle's advice, [1 Cor 6:1-7] they should commit the arbitration of their disputes to the wisest among them, even if the same should happen to be their Pastors? Indeed, Augustine concluded therefrom, that it was actually incumbent upon him, although it was pain and travail to him, nevertheless to "endure the perplexities of other men's causes," to which toils "the Apostle, being directed by the Spirit, had tied him." Again, in Ecclesiastical Societies it is expedient on similar grounds, that certain of their own body should undertake civil offices for the right government of the whole: hence Chancellors, and other like academical officers. [Supposing any of the Blood-Royal in a nation be ordained to the ministry, and the Crown did descend to him, ought he thereby to be precluded from his lawful civil dignity? or, rather might it not be a blessing to the Church, that he should be, as God's anointed in two senses, a nursing-father to her?] And, indeed, in a general point of view, wherever God has bestowed eminent peculiar gifts and parts, it would seem somewhat derogatory of the Giver, were the Commonwealth wherein they live to be entirely deprived of their ability in a civil capacity. Do we not read of David employing the High-Priest as his chief counsellor of state? nay, even of the Jews sometimes selecting Priests to be their leaders in war? Moreover, from certain dignities attached to ecclesiastical offices, there may arise an increase of respect for religion itself, salutary at all times, as far as it goes: and thus, in our own nation, the Clergy are held for the chief of the three estates that make up the entire body of the commonwealth, under one Supreme Head. Hence, there may be a certain conjunction of civil with ecclesiastical power, exercised beneficially to a nation, provided it be not of such a kind or extent as is contrary to law or reason. And that there is no real incompatibility in such things, we have the striking instance in Scripture, of Eli being both Priest and Judge, and of Ezra being Priest and Governor. Nor will the argument apply here, which is sometimes alleged, from the conduct of the Saviour, when He said, "My kingdom is not of this world," and refused to be made a king, or to interfere in civil matters; He merely implied, that such was no part of the Messiah's office. Neither again can any argument be drawn from the words or conduct of the Apostles; who taught that "good soldiers of Christ should not entangle themselves with the business of life;" [2 Tim 2:4] and who themselves never took upon them civil office or power. For in the first instance, the Apostle is only giving general advice, to be regulated by circumstances, that disciples should not be too much occupied in worldly affairs, so as to cause neglect of spiritual; otherwise for instance, his words might be drawn even into a prohibition of marriage itself [1 Cor 7:7f], which brings many cares. And in the next place, their own circumstances, and those of the times wherein they lived, formed a sufficient reason for their not sustaining any civil offices themselves. And whereas it is alleged also, that sundry Canons and Councils forbid the Clergy to bear secular offices; neither is this sufficient to overthrow our position, that, under certain circumstances, ecclesiastical and civil offices may be profitably conjoined. In the law of God it is showed that they may be so. And if occasionally laws have been made to restrain it, they have been rather to restrain an excess in the practice, than to form ground of perpetual prohibition. Indeed, change of times requires change of regulations; and the Church has power as well to relax old laws, as to make new ones. For instance, ancient laws forbade ecclesiastical persons to be executors of wills, or guardians of children; are these laws of perpetual obligation? However it would seem idle to argue these points further with those who protest both against what has been, and what is; and who utterly condemn, as well the ancient as the present superiority of ecclesiastical persons.
I. Refutation of the objection that the laws of Christ, and the judgment of the best men in all ages, FORBID Episcopal superiority.
IT is however urged, that the words of our Saviour forbid the authority of one minister over another, when he says, "Kings of nations bear rule over them; but it shall not be so with you." [From these words the Anabaptists deduced, that Christians ought to have no civil government, but only be ordered by Christ their head: alleging that Christ spoke to His Apostles not in their Apostolical character, but as Christians, in opposition to Heathens generally: a conclusion which our present Puritan objectors will not allow, because it suits not their purpose to go so far; but they, nevertheless, urge it to the extent they themselves require it.] Now,-to omit arguments derived from this peculiar mention of regal government, and of Gentile kings,-the best interpretation of these words will be arrived at, by considering the circumstances under which they were spoken. The Jews had a mistaken notion of their promised Messiah's kingdom,-that it was to be that of a mighty temporal prince, who should subdue the world, and make Jerusalem the seat of an universal empire. Under this impression, the mother of Zebedee's children sued to the Saviour for their secular aggrandisement, when, as she expected, He should set up His kingdom; and Christ replied, that though kings of nations might have ample preferments for their respective followers, yet His disciples must not look for such things from Him, whose kingdom was not of this world. Hence, the passage referring to His own case and circumstances, has only a general bearing to His disciples, and inculcates humility of temper, and spirituality of views, but it has no specific application to distinctions amongst Christians themselves. [Two objections are here stated from the words of Cyprian, and the Council of Carthage; but in the former case, Cyprian is only protesting against an undue assumption of power over him, and not against degrees of ecclesiastical dignity: and in the latter, the Council of Carthage only lays it down, that amongst Archbishops, though the chief Metropolitan had a certain prerogative over the rest, yet that this power was not of the same kind, and to the same extent, as that of Bishops over their own Clergy, which reached even to suspension, excommunication, or deposition.] For, indeed, it is a well known fact, manifest from Scripture, that the Apostles did exercise authority and power over the rest of the disciples. Neither, as has been already stated, is evidence wanting in the writings of the ancient Fathers, on this head; nothing is more constantly insisted upon, than that Episcopal authority is sanctioned of God, and that, according to His divine law, the whole Christian fraternity is under an obligation of obedience to their Bishop; it was a thing universally admitted, and agreed upon by the Christian world of old: and it is only pride of heart and spirit that moves men now to despise, what was once so reverently esteemed, and falsely to allege arguments from Scripture, in order to procure their own self-exaltation, and to set up themselves as teachers not brooking a superior.
XVII. On the HONOUR and RESPECT paid to Bishops, being a great cause of enmity against them.
ONE chief motive of opposition to Episcopacy is, the honour and respect paid to it, and through it to the Clergy; whereat their envy and jealousy are stirred up, precisely as in the case of Korah and his company against Aaron and the priests of God [Num 16:3]. Now, honour is the respect due from man to man, according to the several kinds of worth which each may possess, and by which they are presumed to be beneficial to their fellow-men; the degrees thereof being regulated according to the measure of worth in each. And the inward feeling of this requires to be evidenced in outward actions. Hence the Scripture direction, "Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head, and honour the person of the aged [Lev 19:32];" thus we are directed to "honour the king;" and even by St. Peter to "honour all men;" that is, to give to each the proper degree of respect, "honour to whom honour," and "custom to whom custom" is due. And though the external signs, such as titles, gestures, etc., in themselves, are of little value, and easily given, yet they are practically of great influence amongst mankind in general; so that, strip any office of its external ornaments, and the estimation thereof will be visibly diminished. And as the custom in this kingdom-(even as it was in Israel of old, and is now in all Christian kingdoms)-is to give to the chief prelate in God's name, the degree of honour next to that of the Sovereign, the reasons thereof may now be investigated.
XVIII. The various PUBLIC BENEFITS arising from Episcopacy, form the chief ground of its being HONOURED.
The ground then, whereon to claim honour for the prelates of God's Clergy, is the public good they are the authors of. Now, as God's favour is the great prop of states, and the practice of true religion therein the great means of securing it; so true religion is intimately connected with prelacy, and by consequence its public benefit is clear. This latter position, however, is now often disputed. But if it was accounted amongst God's blessings to His people, that they were led "like sheep by the hands of Moses and Aaron [Psalm 77:20];" the former being as a civil governor, and the latter as a spiritual one; it must be likewise beneficial now, to have what was exemplified by the rule of Moses and Aaron, viz. Monarchy and Prelacy; Sovereigns being as Moses was; and Bishops, in reference to their Clergy, being what High Priests were then to the inferior priesthood. And as Christianity also was singularly benefited by the regimen of the Apostles, so does it continue to reap benefit from prelates their successors. As, however, the steersman's quiet office in a vessel seems not, to the unobserving eye, one of so much beneficial importance, as perchance that of the more bustling ordinary mariner,-although, the safety of the vessel is involved therein; so the government of prelates is often by the unthinking depreciated. But to those who estimate aright the great value of orderly, punctual, and efficient ministration of all the sacred ordinances, in God's house and vineyard, the authority whereby such a singular benefit is secured, and negligence therein prevented, will never be otherwise than highly reverenced. And even if-(what must happen through human infirmity)-they be not in all points personally such as they ought, yet the authority itself of their office effects great good; and while those that rule well are by the Apostle's verdict [1 Tim 5:17] "worthy of double honour;" others, at least, for their office' sake, are not to be lightly esteemed. There are also other public benefits derived to a State incidentally from prelacy; as the increased esteem wherein it is held by foreign powers, when the virtuous conduct of Bishops, the lights of the Church, shines out conspicuously: or when posterity has recourse to their history, for orderly direction in ecclesiastical matters: or when,-in consideration of the peculiar feelings arising from different grades of society,-a Sovereign requires the aid and direction of a spiritual counsellor, he may at once have the benefit thereof, in a person whose elevated position removes many obstacles that else might have stood in the way; even as Joshua had Eleazar, the High Priest, for his counsellor;-David, Abiathar;-Constantine, Hosius, the Bishop of Cordova; and other Christian kings their respective Prelates, whose private advice and admonitions were often of singular benefit. We must be content to deal with human nature as it is, and personal feelings must be respected; and hence by a similarity of reasoning, Prelacy is beneficial also in respect of the Aristocracy of a nation, by the discountenance of vice, and the encouragement of virtue, given by Bishops moving respectively as peers amongst the various grades of nobility. Indeed, the conjunction of Prelacy with the Aristocracy, in forming one integral portion of the State, whereof the King as supreme is also one, and the Laity another, was a most wise arrangement of our forefathers, which, whosoever should attempt to sever, would thereby greatly impair the general good. And, as the detriment arising from the loss of civil government is great to the people at large, so would there be equal injury from loss of ecclesiastical government, whereof Prelates are the chief support, and whose power is beneficial generally to the settlement of disputes and difficulties between clergy and their flocks, and also particularly to the Clergy themselves, in thus affording them natural guardians as it were, and protectors against oppression and wrong. Hence, Prelacy being attended with such various and manifest good fruits (tempering excesses in all estates, binding together the parts of the body politic, and contributing to the religious and moral benefit of society) instead of meriting the disregard and contempt that the vile would heap upon it, is in every point of view, entitled to honour and respect at the hands of all.
XIX. On the KIND of Honour due unto Bishops.
HAVING shown the grounds whereon honour may be claimed for Prelacy, it remains next to show the sort of honour which is due thereto. Good government, either in a Church or Commonwealth, depends very much upon the public external respect paid to its governors, in their character of governors: for though individually, governors may be esteemed in proportion to their private virtues; yet it is in their official character, that honours are due to them, as a public token of the estimation wherein the beneficial effects and social advantages of their order are held; and this honourable respect no individual, on the mere strength of his own private opinion, is warranted in withholding. These things have been indeed wisely instituted and arranged beforehand by those who, knowing the variability of men's opinions, have laid down rules and regulations to secure, by public decision, an uniformity in so important a matter; allotting different degrees of honour and dignity to different situations. So that the people at large, as in civil offices, so here in religious ones, might have some criterion, whereby to guide them in their estimation of things. For if there were no such distinctions of public esteem in religious offices, as there are always in civil ones, what would follow, but an impression that religion is not accounted beneficial to a State, and a consequent disregard thereof? In vain, therefore, does a state pretend to honour God, unless it honours God's ministers. For order's sake, there must be amongst the body of the Clergy degrees of honours; and these may be classed under the heads of Titles, Place, Ornament, Attendance, Privilege, Endowment; and in these things Prelates have ever ranked much higher than the inferior Clergy.
XX. On the Honours of Bishops in respect of TITLE, PLACE, ORNAMENT, of DRESS, and ATTENDANCE.
IN reference to the first of these distinctions, i.e. Titles, we find that under the Mosaic law, those appointed to sacrifice were comprehended under the general name of Priests; there being, however, the higher distinctions amongst them of Arch-priests, who stood at the head of the twenty-four companies of Priests; and of the High Priest, who equally stood above these latter. Even so the ministers of Christ's Gospel have the general name of Presbyters; and above them Bishops and Archbishops. And the honour of pre-eminence of Place, respectively allotted to each rank, is a necessary arrangement for decent order and propriety. Ornaments of Dress have also a propriety; even as the wise Preacher says of Aaron, that God "made him blessed through his comely ornament, and clothed him with the garment of honour [Ecclus 45:7]." For though the robes of a Judge add not to his virtue; and as the chief ornament of a King is his justice, so of a Bishop, is his purity of life; yet, notwithstanding, the peculiar attire of each is an evident token of estimation, and of the honour wherein, for their office' sake, they are held. Thus, likewise, Attendance belongs similarly to Bishops, even as to High Priests under the law. For though the Saviour came "not to be ministered unto, but to minister," yet He had His stated Apostles and Disciples, who followed Him and waited upon Him. And when the Apostles were commissioned by Him afterwards, though despised by the world generally, they nevertheless had amongst the saints, those who ministered to them. And Ignatius shows, that in his days, attendants were regularly provided for Bishops; as, indeed, the affairs for Church regimen would necessarily require, even though they formed no portion of honourable retinue. [Hence the name acolyte (AKOLOUTHEW, to follow)-shows that there was a regular set train of attendants usual about Bishops.]
XXI. On Honours by ENDOWMENTS, with Lands and Livings.
BUT these things might all most probably have been easily admitted by the objectors, were it not that the Clergy had the substantial honour of wealthy endowment: this, in truth, is the real origin of their alleged grievances, and what stirs them most to anger. "How soon-oh! how soon might the Church be perfect, even without any spot or wrinkle, if public authority would at length say amen unto the holy and devout requests of those godly brethren, who as yet with outstretched necks, groan in the pangs of their zeal, to see the houses of the Bishops rifled, and their so long desired livings gloriously divided amongst the righteous. But there is an impediment, a let, which somewhat hinders these good men's prayers from taking effect; they, in whose hands the sovereignty of power and dominion over this Church rests, are persuaded that there is a God!" And hence, that the robbery, attempted under the name of reformation, is vile sacrilege! To argue with those whose hearts are set on such plunder, would be useless; but for the information of others, we may do well to show, 1st, That none has property in Church goods, but God himself: 2nd, That the Clergy are God's receivers therein,-Prelates having the honour of principal ones: 3rd, That each have the power of using such, according to their respective receipts: 4th, That even in case of any abuse herein, the receipt thereof cannot nevertheless be lawfully alienated from them to persons of another profession.
XXII. All Ecclesiastical Property, of every kind, peculiarly and INALIENABLY BELONGETH UNTO GOD.
ALL possessions of the Church belong to God, in such sort, that no man, as such, can claim property in them. [For more on this subject, see Book 5:79, on Oblations, Endowments, and Tithes.] Every thing, indeed, is God's, in right of creatorship: but sacred property is His by another tenure; inasmuch as those who receive blessings from Him, have returned them again to Him in the way of special gift or oblation; so that God terms the places wherein such gifts were stored up, as being peculiarly "His treasuries [Mal 3:10]." Such oblations seem to be prompted indeed even by natural piety, whereby men are led to "honour the Lord with their substance," so that their barns may be filled with plenty [Prov 3:9]." For although sincerity of heart and spirit, be the chief things He requires, yet outward tokens are not to be omitted, both as evidences of our gratitude, and as manifest proofs to others that we honour Him. And in doing so, the gifts we bring should be the best and choicest that we have, as being most suitable to His dignity, and also conformable to the intimations of Scripture, which everywhere shows that God expects this at our hands. The sacrifices under the law, for instance, were to be "without blemish;" the "first fruits," and the "first born," all belonged unto God. And though sacrifices are not required now under the Christian dispensation, yet the principle of "honouring God with our substance," is still binding upon us; and an offering of gratitude is a homage still required at our hands. The prophecy which said, "The kings of Tarshish and of the Isles shall bring presents" to the Messiah; the visit of the magi to Him With "gold, frankincense, and myrrh;" the pouring of precious oil upon His head [Matt 26:13], which the Saviour said should ever be "told as a memorial of her who did it;" all indicate the acceptability of such things before God, from the hands of Christians. Now the best gifts are evidently those that have the greatest permanency; hence, absolute donations of such things as are irrevocably and permanently given up to Him, rank first; and hence, lands and endowments were formerly devoted to Him, by entire alienation on the part of the owners. In primitive times, indeed, money arising from the sale of lands was given; because in the exigency of those times, it was most advisable. But subsequently, when Christianity was spread and established, then houses and lands in perpetuity were hallowed and set apart for His service. And herein, Constantine's devotion stands admirably conspicuous. If any one should be disposed to carp at this, let him first consult Solomon's [Prov 3:10] and Malachi's words [Mal 3:10], and consider also the conduct of the holy patriarch Jacob, who vowed, if God would be with him, to prosper and keep him, that he would set up "a house of God," and "give a tenth of all he had unto Him [Gen 28:22]." May not a Christian follow the example of holy Jacob? Is there any law of nature or of Scripture to forbid it Or rather do not both concur, to consider it, as such, acceptable unto God? And in things so consecrated and given up, no man or community of men, in their civil capacity, can claim any propriety or share whatever.
XXIII. Ecclesiastical Property entrusted to the Clergy as GOD'S STEWARDS; Bishops the chief-receivers thereof; with a power of freely using a portion for their own benefit.
OF this sacred property of God, Ecclesiastical persons are the Stewards; as they are the ministers in His spiritual gifts, so they are receivers in His temporal revenues. Amongst the Jews, tithes were first offered to the Lord, and then bestowed upon the Levites; while the tithe of the Levites' income was given to the High Priest [Num 18:24]; and of spoils taken in war a portion was laid up as a grateful offering to God in the Tabernacle. And similarly, in the earliest times of the Church, we find that contributions for general use were put into the hands of the Presbyters, and by them delivered to their Bishop, to be disposed of at his discretion as their head. On this ground the Apostolical canons were framed, arranging that Bishops should have chief control in sacred property. Difficulties have been started, as to the use whereto these sacred treasures should be applied; and some have condemned their expenditure in costly ornaments for God's house. But although we know that when He is worshiped in spirit and in truth, such worship is acceptable, even though in caves and dens of the earth, when men are so situated as to be unable to provide better: yet it is evident from the sacred history, that when circumstances permit, God expects external honour to His House; and of this the splendid Tabernacle in the wilderness, and the magnificent Temple in Canaan bear ample testimony. The chief difficulty, however, seems to be about the apportionment of it for the maintenance of his Clergy. But the regulation of the Mosaic law may afford us guidance herein; and is indeed the best criterion we can have; inasmuch as it was arranged by God himself. Looking then at all the regulations about offerings and tithes, we shall find on a fair computation of quantity and quality, that the tribe of Levi received about four-twelfth parts of the produce of all the lands of Canaan: and hence, that each Levite's share was ample, being, on comparison, four times as good as that of any individual in any other tribe, while the High Priest's share, being a tenth of all the Levites' portion, placed him in a state of very superior affluence. Besides this, forty-eight cities were allotted them, for their special residences, dispersed through all the tribes, in order that they might have convenient and ready access in instructing the people. And thus did God himself apportion and honourably provide for his clergy, exempting them from manual toil, and setting them above want and penury. Now in God's making a provision after this sort, there is great wisdom displayed, inasmuch as it prevents the heart-burnings and grudging which men might otherwise be disposed to feel; for what they thus give, they are taught to consider as in fact a portion to that Lord, to whose providence they are indebted for every thing: it is represented in Scripture as given to Him as a right, and bestowed by Him on His ministry [Num 18:24]. And that Christian ministers ought not to be inferior to Jewish ones, the Apostle's argument clearly proves; "Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things, eat of the things of the temple; and they which wait at the altar, are partakers with the altar? Even so has the Lord ordained that they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel [1 Cor 9:13]." If then the grateful hearts of God's people prompt them to honour Christ with their riches, nothing prevents that the portion of His ministers therefrom, under the Gospel, should be as ample as that of priests under the Law; nay, even the Apostle says, "so has the Lord ordained it." And what they thus enjoy, is not to be deemed as the mere hire of human service; it is a sacred maintenance, from Christ, who counts them worthy the hire. And although men should be found, wicked enough sacrilegiously to defraud them of aught thereof, yet their faithful labour in the Lord shall not be forgotten, but, in one way or other, the hire of which He accounts them worthy, shall be punctually fulfilled to them. In primitive times, when Christians disposed of their property for the good of the whole community, and entrusted it to the Apostles [Acts 4:35], it would be absurd to suppose that the Clergy would be excluded from a proper share, wherewith to provide their own decent maintenance. The Apostles, and the rest of the Clergy at Jerusalem, seem to have lived as a sort of Collegiate Society, and were supported, as well as the poorer brethren, from a common purse, contributed by the faithful; and in this sense we must understand the passage [Acts 2:44] respecting their "having all things in common." For some centuries, there seems to have been no other maintenance for their Clergy, save what arose from the devout charity of believers, in bestowing goods or lands; the proceeds whereof formed a sacred Christian treasury, from whence to defray the charges in the service of God, to provide a support for the Bishops and their Clergy, and to minister to the poor. And for the management thereof; one of the Presbyters was appointed by the Bishop as a sort of treasurer [The office and name (Arch-Deacon?) remain, though the original object no longer exists.], who administered the portions according to his directions. When circumstances however caused some Presbyters to live apart from their college,-as when the districts began to have parochial limits, and a minister to separate parishes,-then their allowances were sent them separately [These portions were called SPORTULAE, and the receivers thereof FRATRES SPORTULANTES.]; while a certain number still continued to reside and share a common table with the Bishop, as a College Society. This apportionment, however, being according to the discretion of each Bishop, certain disputes began in the course of time to arise, respecting what was his own proper share, and whether he might not be induced to assign himself too much. This led eventually to a regular specific arrangement; whereby it was fixed that, the revenues being divided into four equal portions, each Bishop was to have one-fourth share; the Clergy another; while another was set apart for furnishing and upholding Churches; and the remaining fourth was appropriated to the maintenance of houses of relief for the poor. Hence it appears, what proportion of maintenance was, in those early times, thought fitting for Bishops; even a fourth portion of the whole Church-revenues. And hence we may infer, that their state was not altogether so mean as some have asserted. Indeed, the contrary is shown, from the very circumstance of ambitious men being extremely discontented when they failed in their endeavours after a bishopric, and when being "disappointed (as Lactantius says), of wealth and honours" thereby, they sometimes separated with their followers from the Church. As to the ancient canons, which the objectors allege, restraining the expenditure of Bishops; these had only reference to the times when they lived in common, as has been said, with their Clergy; and some fitting regulations were necessary for the expenditure of a whole body. But they have no force or application now, when Bishops have an entirely separate and peculiar maintenance, in the expenditure whereof their own discretion must be their guide. Neither is the argument of any force, which goes to set up the Saviour's poverty and mean condition, as a pattern or a measure for a Bishop's mode of living; for if the rule be applicable at all, it is equally so to all Christians at large. And as the Saviour's poverty is a sufficient example, to teach every disciple of His a lesson of contentment, even under the meanest circumstances, and to repress all covetous dispositions in all: so to urge it as a rule for every one strictly and literally to follow, is evidently absurd. [Supposing a person, summoned before one of the Synods of the Puritans, were to object to their authority, on the ground that the Saviour "came not to judge;" would they therefore abolish their elderships, and permit no more tribunals?]
XXIV. The SACRILEGIOUS INJUSTICE; of confiscating Ecclesiastical property to secular purposes.
INDEED it would seem clear, that it is not so much from a sincere wish to accomplish a true reform, whereby effectually to benefit the Church of Christ, that the cry is raised against Episcopal revenues; as it is from a rapacious desire, on the part of wickedly covetous and ungodly men, sacrilegiously to seize and convert to their own use and benefit, the treasures that have been solemnly dedicated to God. They therefore put forward loud accusations against the Clergy, and raise an outcry in the ears of the unwary and simple multitude, in order to create a prejudice against God's ministers; and to obtain a colourable pretext for their persecution, and spoliation of their temporal possessions, which excite the cupidity of their calumniators. At the same time, we well know, that God sometimes uses wicked men as the instruments for inflicting deserved chastisements upon His people; and it behooves, on such occasions, to look to our ways, and see whether our transgressions have merited it, in order to our repentance and reformation. And Bishops will do well herein to lend a patient ear, in Christian humility, to any respectful and seasonable admonition to themselves, though it be from those in inferior place. Let none then aim at obtaining the sacred office of Episcopacy, by undue means; and let both the receiver and the bestower of the office of Prelate look well to it, that they avoid this grievous and scandalous sin (impious in both parties,) of making merchandise of holy things, and profaning the Church of Christ by such ungodly bargains. For Bishops, moreover, certain qualifications are necessary, to render them efficient in their office. It is one that requires not only soundness of judgment and integrity of purpose; but also much skill, learning, and acquaintance with the civil and canonical laws, and when men of such qualifications are appointed, it is well for the land. Yet even when so appointed, they should not rely on themselves alone, but rather strengthen each other's hands by mutual consent and co-operation: a singular benefit, indeed, would thence ensue, both to themselves and the Church at large. And in the general discharge of their Episcopal duties, it is highly incumbent on them to exercise great caution, whom they ordain, and whom they institute to any holy function or preferment. Nothing more contributes to bring the Church into contempt, than a lack of competent skill and ability on the part of her ministry. And though in the matter of institution, the rights of patrons may form some obstacle to Bishops-(although their own easiness or want of resolution herein often increases the difficulty);- yet there can be no excuse for any negligence in the admission of unfit and incompetent persons to ordination, and for thereby throwing upon the Church not only a useless but an injurious burden. Moreover, in the bestowal of their own patronage, Bishops should beware of favouritism,-a grievous blot; and should set a commendable example to others, by giving dignities or preferments to the worthiest in their dioceses; and thus hold out an encouragement for learning and industry, to those over whom they preside. It might be well, also, if visitations were rendered more efficient, and made to answer their original intent, in the investigation and correction of abuses; rather than that they should be held in their present manner of mere formality: and if in their Courts likewise, speedy straightforward justice were done, free from all corrupt seeking of gain and profit. As a Bishop, solicitous for the welfare of souls, might be a general blessing, by a zealous and steady course, tempered with paternal kindness and courtesy towards his clergy on the one hand, and firmness of discipline on the other; so it is to be feared, that this desirable object has been sometimes frustrated, by the fault of those whose patronage has exalted unworthy persons to such a high and important trust. And for this evil of former times we are now perhaps grievously suffering. The estimation wherein Bishops are held, arises from the excellency of those virtues that fit them for their office. If their souls be possessed of God, and influenced by His Spirit,-if they exhibit a meek devotion, a serious sense of religion, deep meditation on holy things;-if these and similar divine virtues appear in them, then will their very position itself draw a higher and more reverend estimation of their Christian conduct generally; and, moreover, they may be the happy means of winning over to the paths of life, those of higher grades amongst whom they move, and whose state-occupations not unfrequently are a sore hindrance to a truly religious path. Hence, indeed, it behooves them, at all times, to walk circumspectly; with dignity and gravity, both of speech and action, as great ambassadors of God; in soundness of wisdom and knowledge, as angels of the Church; and in fervour of piety, and warm diffusive charity; and lastly, withal in daily prayer for aid and strength, knowing that many wait on every side for their halting: so that their petition to God should ever be, Lead me, O Lord, in thy righteousness, because of mine enemies." Let not, however, malicious censurers think, that though Bishops may not always reach so high a standard, this will form any just excuse for their own hard and cruel speeches against them, proceeding from an evil temper and bitter spirit. Indeed, we are all too apt to look upon Prelates generally, with an overweening sort of expectation; to desire too much from them; and not to make that reasonable allowance for them, as frail and fallible men, which we ought to do for all that are encompassed about with infirmity. And, hence, proportionate discontent and vexation arise, whenever our expectations herein are disappointed. But after all, whatever may be the case as respects the conduct of Prelates, it does by