to the king's highness in form aforesaid, he shall be reputed and taken lord elect of the said office and dignity of archbishop whereunto he shall be so elected, and after he hath made such oath and fealty only to the king's majesty, his heirs and successors as shall be limited for the same, the king's highness by his letters-patent under the great seal, shall signify the said election to one archbishop and two other bishops, or else to four bishops within this realm, or within any other the king's dominions, to be assigned by the king's highness, his heirs or successors, requiring and commanding the said archbishop and bishops, with all speed and celerity, to confirm the said election, and to invest and consecrate the said person so elected to the office and dignity that he is elected unto, and to give and use to him such full benedictions, ceremonies, and other things requisite for the same, without suing, procuring, or obtaining any bulls, briefs or other things at the see of Rome, or by authority thereof in any behalf;" where it is clear the king, his heirs and successors might by the statute send letters-patent for consecration of an archbishop and two bishops, or else to four bishops, therefore it might be performed without an archbishop, and yet not contrary to the laws of England. PHIL. Admit this were true, yet it availeth you nothing, for M. Parker was consecrated neither by three1 nor two, much less by four, though by your own confession the law required four. ORTH. How know you that? Were you present at his consecration, or did you learn it of any that were present ? PHIL. I cannot say so, but it is very likely, because the Catholic bishops, being required to crown Queen Elizabeth, refused all, except one. ORTH. That one was Owen Oglethorp, Bishop of Carlisle, but he was none of the consecrators of Archbishop Parker; for he continued in your Popish religion, refused the oath of supremacy, and was therefore deprived. PHIL. That was the common case of them all but one," for one alone, I must confess, was made to break unity, of whom a right good and Catholic bishop said to a nobleman, We had but one fool among us, and him you have gotten unto you, little worthy the name of a bishop and lord, whose learning was small, and honour thereby much stained;"3 and he, as it seemeth, was the only bishop which you had, therefore Matthew Parker could not be consecrated by three. ORTH. He whom you mean was Anthony Kitchen, Bishop of Llandaff, who was in the commission, but was none of the consecrators, therefore you shoot at random and miss the mark. PHIL. Whence then had you your consecrators? Surely you did not go "to the churches of the Calvinists and Lutherans, if peradventure they had any."* 1 Sand. de Schism, lib. iii. p. 297. 2 Hard. Confut. of the Apol., part vi. c. 2. 3 It is a common custom with the Papists when any bishop or priest secedes from their communion to stigmatize him with the appellation of fool and madman, and a weed thrown out of the Pope's garden, although they previously considered him wise and learned enough to be ordained a bishop in the Popish Church. ED. 4 Sand. quo supra. ORTH. We did not. PHIL. Then you must be glad to run to your usual refuge, that you had one from Greece. Alas! my masters, you are narrowly driven when you are forced to fly to such miserable shifts. ORTH. This tale proceeded not from Eudamon, but from Cacodæmon, the father of lies. No, sir, we needed no Grecian, though it pleaseth you to play the Cretian. PHIL. If you had neither bishops of your own, nor procured any, either from the Catholic Church or from the reformed churches, or from the Greek Church, then it is true which Dr. Kellison reporteth out of Sanders, "that they made one another bishops.' "2 ORTH. Though Sanders, in that book, hath as many lies as lines, yet he hath not this loud lie; it is the invention of Kellison himself. You promise demonstrative reasons, and when your argument comes to the issue, where all your strength should lie, you bring nothing but slender surmises, flying reports, and detestable lies. Do these go at Rome for demonstrations? But I will answer you with evidence of truth, which may be justified by monuments of public record. Queen Mary died in the year 1558, the 17th November, and the self-same day died Cardinal Pole, Archbishop of Canterbury, and the very same day was Queen Elizabeth proclaimed. The 15th of January next following was the day of Queen Elizabeth's coronation, when Dr. Ogelthorpe, Bishop of Carlisle, was so happy as to set the diadem of the kingdom upon her royal head. Now the see of Canterbury continued void till December following, about which time the dean and chapter having received the conge d'elire, elected Master Doctor Parker for their archbishop. Juxta morem antiquum et laudabilem consuitudinem ecclesiæ prædicte ab antiquo visitatam et inconcusse observatam;3 that is," Proceeding in this election, according to the ancient manner, and the laudable custom of the foresaid church anciently used, and inviolably observed." After which. election, orderly performed and signified according to law, it pleased her highness to send her letters-patent of commission for his confirmation and consecration, to seven bishops, (six whereof were lately returned from exile ;) whose names, with so much of the commission as concerneth this present purpose, I will here set down for your better satisfaction. Elizabeth Die Gratia, &c. Reverendis in Christo patribus. [Anth. Landavensis. Will. Barlow, quondam Bath. John Scory, quondam Cicestensi nunc He- Miloni Coverdale, quondam Exoniensi Epis 1 Eudamon Joh. Cadonius parall. c. 5. 2 Reply to D. Sult. p. 31. 3 Ex Regis. M. Parker. 4 Literæ patent Regiæ, ex Regist. Park. fol. 3. And the same Record is to found in the Chancery. Quatenus vos aut ad minus 4. vestrum eundem Math. Parkerum in Archiepiscopum, et pastorem Ecclesiæ Cathedralis et Metropoliticæ Christi Cantuar: prædicte sicut præfertur, electum, electionem q' (quod) predictam confirmare et eundem Magistrum Math. Parker in Arch. et Pastorem Ecclesiæ prædicte consecrare, ceteraque omnia et singula peragere, quæ vestro in hac parte incumbunt pastorali officio, juxta formum stattorum in ea parte editorum et provisorum velitis cum effectu," &c. Dat. 6 Decem. Anno. 2. Elizab. That is, "That you, or at least four of you, would effectually confirm the said Math. Parker, elected to be Archbishop and Pastor of the Cathedral and Metropolitical Church of Christ at Canterbury aforesaid, as is before mentioned, and that you would effectually confirm the said election, and consecrate the said Mathew Parker, Archbishop and Pastor of the said Church, and perform all and every thing which belongs to your pastoral office in this respect, according to the form of the statutes set out and provided in this behalf." Behold how both the commission and statute concur with the Canons. PHIL. But was the consecration duly performed? Ortн. You need not doubt it. For, first, the bishops, to whom the letters-patent were directed, had reason to set their hands cheerfully to so good a work, so much tending to the advancing the true religion which they all embraced, and for which all of them, except one, had been in exile. Secondly, how durst they do otherwise, seeing it was enacted by a statute made in the twenty-fifth year of King Henry VIII. cap. 20, and still in force, “that if any archbishop or bishop within the king's dominions, after any such election, nomination, or presentation signified unto them by the king's letters-patent, should refuse and not confirm, invest and consecrate with all due circumstance, within twenty days after that the king's letters-patent of such signification, or presentation, should come to their hands, then he or they, so offending, should run in the dangers, pains, and penalties of the statute of provision and premunire made in the twenty-fifth year of the reign of King Edward the Third, and in the sixteenth of King Richard the Second." PHIL. This is some probability; but yet for all this, seeing Master Dr. Sanders saith, that you had neither three nor two bishops, and Master Dr. Kellison saith you could find none, I will not believe the contrary, unless you produce the consecration itself. ORTH. Then, to take away all scruples, I will faithfully deliver unto you, out of authentic records, both the day and when he was consecrated, and the persons by whom. Anno 1559,1 Math. Parker Cant. Cons.. William Barlow, Miles Coverdale. 17th December, by John Hodgeskins. (To be continued.) 1 Ex Registro, Math. Park. tom. i. fol. 2 and 10. THE ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF TITHES. WE have been led to the consideration of the subject of Tithes by the violent opposition made to their payment by the Irish Papists. Among the many crimes of that apostate church this is not the least, that they rob God of his due. "Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, wherein have we robbed thee? IN TITHES AND OFFERINGS." The Papists now attempt sacrilegiously to deprive the church of God of the tithes, and to appropriate them to themselves; for what other meaning_Dr. M'Hale's " useful purposes has, it is difficult to determine. In his letter to Lord John Russell this turbulent incendiary says, "the longer your Lordship delays the complete settlement of the tithe question by contracting the Establishment to the wants of its adherents, and appropriating its revenue to useful purposes, the deeper will be your embarrassment." The embarrassment with which his lordship is menaced by this ecclesiastical bully is an increased agitation on the part of the Popish dissenters. The tithe of the land is holy unto the Lord; therefore the wilful and obstinate withholding of it from God, that is, from his representatives to whom it is payable, is a robbing of God, and brings the robbers under a curse-" Ye are cursed with a curse; for ye have robbed ME, even this whole nation." "2 Tithes are of divine institution, and have existed from the begin ning of the world. They are the active honour and worship of God with our substance, and show that we wholly depend on God for the good things which we enjoy; an institution with which even the heathens complied, and the knowledge of which they received by tradition from revelation, as they did many other parts of their worship. The first express mention of the payment of tithes in Scripture is in the case of Melchisedek, and which were paid to him by Abraham as a tribute due to him as the priest of the Most High God. This implies that the payment of tithes was not a new doctrine, but a custom which had descended from Noah at least; but we shall find it even earlier than his time. The history of the period before the flood is remarkably brief, still there are some indications of the institution of tithes to be found even there. Some part of the increase of their substance was offered by Cain and Abel. The offering of sacrifice was not an invention of Adam's, but a positive institution of God, and was a type of Christ the true passover. The offering of sacrifice were acts of worship, and consequently means of grace, which all acts of worship instituted by the Almighty undoubtedly are, and conveyed grace to those who offered them in faith. Faith itself is the gift of God, being the revelation of his will, and particularly of the grand sacrifice offered for the sins of the whole world on the cross. God, therefore, instructed Adam when and how to worship himself by the offering of sacrifice, and Adam again taught his sons, and so that particular mode of worship VOL. I. 1 Lev. xxvii. 30. 2 Mal. iii. 8, 9. E descended traditionally through all his descendants. This, says Leslie," is further evident, in that it is said,' that Abel offered by faith. Now faith has only relation to God and to his commands. To obey the command of a parent or magistrate is not called faith; and if we think to please God by a worship of our own invention, and have faith or trust in him, that he will accept it, it is presumption in us. It is superstition and hateful to God, and which the Scripture would never call faith in God. Therefore, since Abel did offer in faith, it is a necessary consequence that the thing was commanded of God." Tertullian, against the Jews, citing the Septuagint version of the Scripture, says, that "God rejected the sacrifice of Cain because he did not divide aright that which he offered." He offered of the fruits of the earth, which was a part of the worship of God; but his sin partly lay in not offering the proper quantity which God had appointed; hence he was condemned for "not dividing aright." The appropriation of the tenth part to the worship of God was a divine command to Adam, and through him to all his posterity; for it is otherwise impossible to conceive that all the world could have hit upon the exact decimation, which it is well known they did, unless there had been a divine institution descending traditionally from father to son. This divine command was renewed to Moses in the delivery of the law, and we know that it continued a positive institution in that church so long as it existed as a church. "Tithes must be as ancient as sacrifice; for tithes were a sacrifice. They were the quantum of the sacrifice. They must, therefore, be as ancient as priesthood," (which we know was instituted in Adam); "for they were given by God as a maintenance to his priests, and were always so understood. To sacrifice was the office of the priest, and the tithe was his reward; so that these being relatives must be of equal standing." The council of Seville, in the year 590, enjoined the payment of" tithes of all cattle, fruit, and labour of men ;" and that council also decreed, that whosoever subtracted the tithes should be accounted" a robber of God and a thief, and that the curse which God inflicted on Cain, who did not divide aright unto God his portion, be heaped upon him." So the fathers of that council read that portion of the book of Genesis in the same sense as the Septuagint has it. 3 Tithes were not abrogated when the ceremonial law gave place to the Gospel. Christ did not destroy the law, he came to fulfil all the types of himself; and the ceremonies which accompanied these types were ended when the shadows gave place to the substance. Except the typical, the ceremonial, and the judicial, all the rest of the Levitical law was confirmed by Christ without any new injunction. Tithes made no part of either the typical or the ceremonial law. Christ is frequently called by the names of his types, as "Christ our passover;" but tithes not being a type, he is nowhere called our tithe. The end and object of tithes were an homage due to God as the author of all which men possessed, and an acknowledgment that 1 Heb. xi. 4. 2 Essay on Tithes, p. 96. 3 Essay on Tithes, p. 104. |