This system might be defended by the same sort of logic which is employed by the clergy to support their pretentions. It is said, that a bishop must be a better judge of a minister's qualifications than Jack the ploughman; so a master tailor must be better able to appreciate the merits of one of his own profession, than a person who does not know a thimble from a nut shell. A regular bred clergyman must be more fit to minister in holy things, than he who, without such. previous preparation, assumes the sacred office; and a person who has served a regular apprenticeship to the art of stitching, must be better qualified to make our clothes, than one who has been brought up to other employments. Once more: civil society cannot exist without religion, and therefore the state ought to support an order of ministers to teach it; and men cannot live in these northern climes without clothes, and therefore the state ought to support a corporation of tailors to make them. When trade is open, the ignorant and idle will starve, and the wise and diligent will prosper. It is the same in religion; let the ministry be free to all,* and the christian world will soon be delivered from hunting, shooting, gaming, swearing, drunken parsons; for nobody will employ them, or contribute to their maintenance; and the consciousness of this will deter such characters from engaging in such an employment. Learning and virtue will be necessary to command crowded congregations and liberal support; and hence the candidates for the ministry, instead of paying court to patrons and prostitutes, will apply to their books and their God to qualify themselves for usefulness in the church. The history of the church, in all ages, affords a practical illustration of the truth of these observations. Look at those countries where the established religion is the only one that is tolerated. Look at Spain and Portugal: what are the abilities and morals of the * That is, to all whom God has called to it.-EDIT. clergy? Is it possible to behold a more deformed picture of ignorance and vice combined? The only reason why things are not so bad in this country is the toleration of dissenters. Many attempts have been made to infringe upon the act of toleration, under the pretence that, the church is in danger; but as the alarmists have not been able to carry any measure of restriction, the clergy have been obliged to be more diligent in their labours, and circumspect in their conduct. The bishops have, of late, in their charges, loudly demanded of the clergy, an increased attention to the duties of their functions, and to the propriety of their deportment,-merely to counteract the influence of the sectaries, who are said to have assailed our most excellent church establishment. Hence some churches have been repaired, and others rebuilt; additional lectures have been set up, and a partial reformation has been effected; but the sole motive for all this, according to the confession of the parties themselves, has been a spirit of opposition to the dissenters. Were the act of toleration to be repealed, the clergy would be secure in their indolence, and have no stimulus to exertion; in which case, it is not saying too much to affirm, that the nation would soon relapse into a state of the most deplorable ignorance, and brutal barbarism. Sozomen informs us, that there was no preaching in the church of Rome;* and though Leo introduced the practice, it soon declined, and was discontinued for five hundred years together, till Pius Quintus revived it again. Neal has shown at large in his bistory that, under the reigns of Elizabeth and the Stuarts, the bishops laboured to keep the people in ignorance; and, therefore, persecuted with uncommon zeal, those ministers who endeavoured to enlighten them by their preaching. And, in the present day, those ministers who preach most frequently are opposed with the greatest violence. Because an itine Sozomen, lib. vii., cap. 19. rant preaches twice or thrice as many sermons as a stated pastor, every possible effort is made to stop his mouth. Almost every lazy drone can rouse his sluggish powers to declaim against the wandering tribe of fanatics, who compass sea and land to make proselytes. Ordination was never deemed necessary to a preacher till within a few years past.* Bingham observes, "that Origen was approved by Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, and Theoctistus of Cæsarea, to preach and expound the scriptures publicly in the church, when he was only a layman. And when Demetrius of Alexandria, made a remonstrance against this, as an innovation that had never been seen or heard of before, that a layman should preach to the people in the presence of bishops; Alexander replied in a letter, and told him he was much mistaken; for it was an usual thing in many places, when men were well qualified to edify the brethren, for bishops to entreat them to preach to the people: As Euelpis was requested by Neon at Laranda, and Paulinus by Celsus at Iconium, and Theodorus by Atticus at Synada. Hallier, a famous Sorbon doctor, is of opinion that they might do it by permission; and he thinks this may be deduced from that cannon of the fourth council of Carthage, which forbids a layman to teach in the presence of the clergy, except they request him to do it. The ancient author of the comment upon the epistles, under the name of St. Ambrose, says that, in the beginning of christianity, for the augmentation and increase of the church, a general commission was granted unto all, both to preach the gospel, and baptize, and explain the scriptures in ecclesiastical assemblies." The monks, who were only laymen, preached publicly in the churches very frequently. Our reformers admitted the lawfulness of ordination, but denied its necessity. Cranmer delivered it as his *This assertion appears to be too sweeping, if we look either into the New Testament, or at the practice of many christian churches.-Edit. + Bingham's Antiquities, book xiv., chap. iv., sect. iv. deliberate judgment, in answer to some queries upon the subject, that, "In the apostles' time, when there were no christien princes, by whose authority ministers of God's word might be appointed, nor synnes by the sword corrected; there was no remedy then for the correction of vice, or appointeinge of ministers, but only the consent of christien multitude amonge themselfe, by an uniform consent to follow the advice and persuasion of such persons, whom God had most endued with the spirit of wisdom and counsaile. And at that time, forasmuch as christien people had no sword nor governor among them, thei were constrained of necessity to take such curates and priests, as either they knew themselfe's to be meet thereunto, or else as were commended unto them by other, that were so replete with the Spirit of God, with such knowledge in the profession of Christ, such wisdom, such conversation and councell, that they ought, even of very conscience, to give credit unto them, and to accept such as by theym were presented. And so some tyme the apostles and other unto whom God had given abundantly his Spirit, sent or appointed ministers of God's word, sometime the people did choose such as they thought meete thereunto. And when any were appointed or sent by the apostles or other, the people, of their owne voluntary will, with thanks did accept them; not for the supremitie, imperie, or dominion that the apostells had over them, to command as their princes, or masters; but as good people, readie to obey the advice of good counsellors, and to accept any thing that was necessary for their edification and benefit. "The bishops and priests were one at that time, and were not two things, but both one office in the beginning of Christ's religion. "A bishop may make a priest by the scriptures, and so may princes and govenours alsoe, and that by the auctorite of God committed them, and the people also by their election. For as we read that bishops have done it, so christien emperors and princes usually K have done it. And the people before christien princes were, commonly did elect their bishops and priests. "In the New Testament, he that is appointed to be a bishop or a priest, needeth no consecration by the scripture; for election or appointing thereto is sufficient."* Pope Alexander VI. granted to the University of Cambridge the privilege of licensing twelve ministers yearly, to preach anywhere throughout England, for life, without obtaining licenses from any of the bishops; and several colleges in both universities oblige masters of arts, whether in orders or not, to take a text and formally preach from it in their chapels. Fuller informs us that, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, "Mr. Tavernour of Water-Eaton, in Oxfordshire, high sheriff of the county, came, in pure charity, not ostentation, and gave the scholars a sermon in St. Mary's, with his gold chain about his neck, and his sword by his side, beginning with these words: 'Arriving at the mount of St. Mary's, in the stony stage, where I now stand, I have brought you some fine biscuits, baked in the oven of charity, and carefully conserved for the chickens of the church, the sparrows of the Spirit, and the sweet swallows of salvation." "§ The clergy of the university must have been very learned, when a layman is employed to preach such stuff as this to the students under their care. In those days, however, we see that laymen were permitted to preach, and to preach even in churches and before universities. Sheriff Tavernour would cut nearly as great a dash with his gold chain about his neck, and his sword by his side, as doctors do, when decked out with bands, and gowns, and aprons. It is quite inconsistent in the clergy to plead for the * Stillingfleet Iren., part. ii., chap. viii., page 391, 392. Rights of Christian Church, chap. ix., p. 349. A stone pulpit. Fuller's Church History of Brit., b. ix., p. 65. |