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

When we recur to the use of the term in the New Testament, we find one passage, and but one, wherein it is applied to persons. The passage is in the First Epistle of Peter, the fifth chapter, and third verse, which is thus rendered in our version: "Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock." The words in the original are, μηδ' ως κυριευονίες των κλήρων, αλλα τυποι γινομένοι τε ποιμνι8. They are part of a charge given to the presbyters, or pastors, relating to their care of the people committed to them, who are called God's flock-which they are commanded to feed; of which they are to take the oversight, not the mastery; and to which they are to serve as patterns. The same persons, therefore, who, both in this and in the preceding verse, are styled μ, the flock, under the direction of God's ministers, the shepherds, are also called λngo, his inheritance, over whom their pastors are commanded not to domineer. It is somewhat extraordinary, that in the choice of distinctions, which the church rulers so soon showed a disposition to affect, they should have paid almost as little attention to the style as they did to the spirit and meaning of the sacred books. Let it be observed, then, in the first place, that this distinction, so far from having a foundation in scripture, stands in direct contradiction both to the letter and to the sense of that unerring standard. I am not ignorant that some expositors, jealous for the priesthood, render the term λn here the church's possessions. Not to mention that this explication but ill suits the context, and annihilates the contrast between an imperious master and an engaging pattern, and supposeth an awkward ellipsis in the words, allow me to ask,

What were the church's possessions in those days? Was she so early vested with lands and hereditaments, for it is to such only that the term xangos, when denoting property or possession, is applied? Or have those interpreters been dreaming of the truly golden age of Pope Gregory VII. when the patrimonies of some metropolitical and patriarchal sees were indeed like dukedoms and principalities, and the grand hierarch himself could dispose of kingdoms and empires? In the apostolic times, on the contrary, the church's patrimony consisted mostly, I may say, in persecution and calumny, hatred and derision, agreeably to the prediction of her Lord.

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

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

Here are three

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

But to return to the distinction of the whole church into clergy and laity in after ages they even improved upon their predecessors. The schoolmen (a modest race, all clergymen) thought it was doing the laymen too much honour to derive the name from λaos, populus. It suited their notions better to deduce it from λaas, lapis, a stone. Take for a specimen a few things advanced on this subject by some celebrated

66

doctors, as quoted by Altensfaig in his Lexicon Theologicum. Capitur clericus pro viro docto, scientifico, perito, scientia pleno, repleto et experto. E contra laicus capitur pro viro indocto, imperito, insipiente et lapideo. Unde laicus dicetur a Aaas Græce, quod est lapis Latine. Et sic omnis clericus, in quantum clericus, est laudabilis; laicus vero, in quantum laicus, est vituperandus. Clerici quoque a toto genere de jure præponuntur, et debent præponi laicis." To these I shall add the sentiments of Cardinal Bona, in relation to the care that ought to be taken by the clergy, that laymen may not be allowed to do themselves harm by studying the profounder parts of scripture, which their stupidity is utterly incapable of comprehending. He kindly mentions, at the same time, the books which he thinks they will not be the worse for, and which, therefore, they may be permitted to peruse: “De laicis in quibus mater cæcitatis superbia regnat, quatenus ad ea quæ sunt fidei et morem. Cum enim sicut idiotæ presumunt sacram scripturam exponere, quæ est profundissima omnium scripturarum. Cum iterum habeant quandam honestatem exteriorem, contemnunt vitam omnium aliorum, et merito hujus duplicis superbiæ excæcantur, ut incidant in errorem istum pessimum, per quem excæcantur a Deo, ut nesciant discernere quid bonum est et quid malum. Quare non omnes scripturæ libros legant laici. Quoniam nihil est tam sanctum et salubre et pium quo non contingat abuti, sic de libris evenit, quorum non est culpa, neque scribentium, sed scœlus est in abusu: non tamen arcendi videntur ab opusculis moralibus et devotis, nullam in se difficultatem, nec ambiguitatem, nec absurditatem in translatione gerentibus, cujusmodi sunt historiæ, vel vitæ, vel legendæ sanctorum, nec non meditationes sanctæ."-How condescending is the good Doctor! He does not absolutely prohibit the stupid and conceited generation of laymen from reading some of the plainer books of scripture, and indulges them freely in what is better for them, story books, and godly meditations, and the legends of the saints.

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

LECTURE X.

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

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