NO. VIII. 428 Tertullian's reasons of no force; and his opinions APPENDIX. new, and till now altogether unheard of opinion concerning the Christian priesthood, did not spring from Tertullian's most fruitful brain, or was not wholly owing to his private reasonings. That indeed is what I affirm. He brings reasons in both places, by which he endeavours to confirm this opinion of his. I desire, therefore, that we may weigh his reasons for Tertullian's authority in this controversy ought to be just of as much weight as his reasons are found to be of. '[These words are added by the trans lator.] In his Exhortation to Chastity, our African writer argues from that famous passage of St. Peter: "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people, that ye should shew forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into His marvellous light." From these words he collects that the whole Christian people are a royal priesthood, and consequently that all the ministries of the priesthood belong to them. Now if it can be clearly and evidently proved that no such thing can be justly concluded from those words of the Apostle, Tertullian's authority (in this particular') will fall to the ground, and this new and ill-grounded conjecture will vanish into smoke. Let us try, therefore. These words of St. Peter are taken from a passage in Exodus, where God calls the Israelitesi "a kingdom of priests and an holy nation." But if these words in Exodus do not by any means prove that there were no functions so appropriated to the Israelitical priests as that the laity could not usurp them without impiety, neither will these words in St. Peter prove that the Christian people have any right to administer the functions appropriated to the priesthood amongst them. The antecedent is manifest from all experience, and from all the monuments of antiquity; therefore nothing can be concluded from St. Peter concerning the authority of the laics in this matter. Tertullian therefore argues ill; he is mistaken; his reasoning here is of no force; his authority is of no power to persuade. Η ὑμεῖς δὲ, γένος ἐκλεκτὸν, βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα, ἔθνος ἅγιον, λαὸς εἰς περιποίησιν· ὅπως τὰς ἀρετὰς ἐξαγγείλητε τοῦ ἐκ σκότους ὑμᾶς καλέσαντος εἰς τὸ αυμαστὸν αὐτοῦ φῶς. 1 Pet. ii. 9. [See Tertull. de Exhort. Cast., c. vii.; quoted above, p. 426, note e.} ἡ βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα, καὶ ἔθνος ἅγιον. Exod. xix. 6. contrary to those of the whole primitive Church. 429 DISSERT. V. In the same chapter this ancient writer is not afraid to HUGHES affirm "that where there are three Christians met they are a Church, though they be all laics;" which is not only most false, but repugnant to the constant opinion of the primitive Church, especially of that age wherein Tertullian flourished. St. Ignatius had before that time taught quite otherwise: so afterwards did St. Cyprian, St. Jerome, and all the rest that were conversant in ecclesiastical traditions, who all with one consent instruct us that the Church cannot be understood without a bishop. Let us proceed to the second reason alleged by Tertullian, which we meet in his treatise concerning Baptism, expressed in these words': “For that which is equally received may be equally given." But what is weaker and more absurd than this proposition? It is not worth while to dwell upon the answer to so trifling an objection. I will only produce one instance fetched from the Jewish commonwealth. The Israelitical priests received a power of sacrificing from God; but could they therefore equally give this power to others? No such matter. All this is nothing but mere trifling, and has not the least weight in it. Tertullian's reasons neither do nor can prove any thing. I beg leave, therefore, to dissent from Tertullian in this particular, and rather to follow reason than the authority of a great man which has not the least reason to support it. St. Cyprian, who is in age only forty years inferior to Tertullian, affords us a most noted instance of this matter. In his fifth Epistle, which after his departure he sent to his presbyters and deacons, he admonishes them to use the greatest both care and prudence in visiting the confessors. He judges that the safest way is, that few should go to them at one time, and those privately, lest doing otherwise should give offence. But let us hear St. Cyprian's own words: "Consult therefore," says hem, "and provide, that this may be done more safely and with caution, so that the presbyters Sed ubi tres, ecclesia est, licet laici. -Tertull. de Exhort. Cast. [c. vii. These words follow those quoted above, p. 426, note e.] Tertull. de Baptism. ubi sup.; [quoted above, p. 426, note f.] m Consulite ergo et providete, ut cum temperamento hoc agi tutius pos sit, ita ut presbyteri quoque qui illic NO. VIII. 430 Laymen never consecrated even in cases of necessity; APPENDIX. also, who there administer to the confessors, may go every one by turns with each of the deacons, because the change of persons and vicissitude of comers gives less occasion of jealousy." From this passage of the holy martyr what I would prove is this, that in the age of St. Cyprian the consecration of laics was not so much as heard of, for if at that time this custom had obtained, is it not a matter of wonder that the confessors were not allowed to consecrate the Eucharist for themselves? What was the cause why the priests should with the greatest danger of their lives go to the prison, visit the faithful, and fortify and confirm them against the terrors of death, and the threats of their persecutors, with the most wholesome sacrifice of the Eucharist, if the laics also had a right to consecrate the Sacrament? Whence is it that St. Cyprian did no where exhort them that when necessity urged, and no priests were at hand, they should offer and consecrate for themselves? Whence is it that in all the history of the Church we never read that confessors, at the very approach of death, consecrated the Eucharist? But there are no instances or footsteps any where appear of such kind of consecrations, even in cases of the utmost exigence. Whatever occurs in the holy fathers concerning this sacrifice, excepting only one obscure and very difficult passage of Tertullian, persuades us of the contrary, and most evidently proves that this power did ever belong to priests only. Is it not very agreeable to reason to argue that the laity never had any such power, because it is sufficiently manifest that no such power was ever exercised by them? The next argument by which I prove that in the opinion of the third century laics had never any right to consecrate the Sacrament, is taken from hence, that it appears that deacons, the third order of the holy ministry, were never endowed with that power. And this appears most evidently from the great Nicene council, whose authority was always of very great esteem in the Christian Church. The words of the canon are these": "The holy and great council was informed that in some places and cities the deacons gave the η ἦλθεν εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν καὶ μεγάλην σύνοδον, ὅτι ἐν τισὶ τόποις καὶ πόλεσι τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις τὴν εὐχαριστίαν οἱ διάκονοι διδόασιν· ὅπερ οὔτε ὁ κανὼν, οὔτε ἡ συνήθεια παρέδωκεν, τοὺς ἐξου σίαν μὴ ἔχοντας προσφέρειν, τοῖς προστ φέρουσι διδόναι τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ. -Conc. Nic. Can. xviii. [Concilia, tom. ii. col. 41, A.] nor even Deacons; as appears from the council of Nice. 431 Eucharist to the presbyters, a thing which neither canon nor custom allowed, viz., that such as have not authority to offer should deliver the body of Christ to those that offer." The canon does in most express words deny that deacons ought so much as to deliver the elements to priests; and then alleges this reason, that according to the canons and custom of the Church it was unworthy of, and by no means became those, who had not the power of consecrating the Sacrament, to deliver the Eucharist to priests, who were endowed with this extraordinary power. From this one passage we understand that the fathers of the Nicene council, men venerable both for age, learning, and piety, and perfectly well acquainted with, and most tenacious of ecclesiastical traditions, had never so much as heard of consecrations by deacons, and much less by laics. It is indeed very wonderful that this most ancient and pure custom (as they loudly proclaim it) should in the best times, without any contest or the least noise, have so wholly vanished throughout all the Christian world that it was not only not made use of by any one, but that not so much as one of all those bishops, assembled from all the corners of the empire, had been able to learn even that there ever was any such custom in the Church. From this one testimony (it is so considerable and illustrious) we may not without reason conclude that the power of consecrating the elements in the holy Eucharist never belonged either to laics or to deacons. HUGHES DISSERT. V. DISSERTATION VI. OF THE POWER OF THE CHRISTIAN PEOPLE IN THE ELECTIONS WHAT has been said in the foregoing dissertations is abundantly sufficient to persuade even the most obstinate that there is a very great difference between the clergy and the laity, and that the sacred functions are so appropriated to that order as that they cannot be usurped by laics without rashness and impiety. It remains now that I add something concerning the authority of the Christian people in the elec NO. VIII. 432 That the laity had no proper voice in the election of clergy; APPENDIX. tions of the clergy, lest any thing should seem to be wanting to my purpose. Our adversaries do vehemently contend that the suffrages of the people are so necessarily required in the elections of bishops and presbyters, that if these suffrages be either taken away or diminished no such election ought to be accounted just and lawful. And this conjecture of theirs they imagine is wonderfully confirmed, not only from the nature of the Christian society, but also from divers examples in the New Testament. I assert, therefore, that the people, or multitude of the faithful, had no proper suffrages in the elections of the clergy; but whatever power in this particular they arrogated to themselves in the third or fourth century, (and I do not deny that they arrogated very much,) that all that, whatever it was, was done by the indulgence and favour of the bishops, but by no manner of right. And I am not afraid of undertaking to demonstrate this with the greatest evidence and perspicuity. For, 1. It appears most clearly from the sacred oracles, that Jesus Christ committed the care and government of His Church to a certain determinate order of men. But concerning the authority or suffrages of the people, there does not appear the least shadow of a command. And indeed, as far as I can see, the very designation of a certain peculiar order for the government of the Church does manifestly exclude the laity from all authority in matters ecclesiastical. For pray consider: when any one delivers a commission to a particular person, is not he thereby supposed to have utterly excluded all other persons whatever from the power designed in that commission? 2. To whom the power of the keys is entrusted after a peculiar manner, to them also is committed the power of governing the Church in solidum, (to speak in St. Cyprian's phrase,) that is, so to share the government among them, as that each had a right in the whole. This is manifest from thence, that the power of governing the Church is in the Scripture particularly designed by the power of the keys. It is a thing most evident, that the power of the keys was always committed to the Apostles apart from the people: [S. Cyprian. de Unitate Ecclesiæ, Op., p. 195, quoted above, p. 192] |