Page images
PDF
EPUB

having availed themselves of the supposed analogy, they thought they had the best right in the world to extend their claims much further; arguing, that because the bishops, presbyters, and deacons, were the high-priests, priests, and Levites, of a superiour, a more heavenly and spiritual dispensation, they ought to possess more of the unrighteous mammon, that is, more earthly treasure, and greater temporal power. And, what is still more extraordinary, by such wretched reasoning the bulk of mankind were convinced.

It is worth while to remark the great difference between the style adopted by the apostles, in relation to all sacred matters, and that which, in the course of a few ages, crept into the church, and even became universal in it. Under the Mosaick economy, which exacted the rigid observance of a burdensome ritual, the only place devoted to the ceremonial and temporary service, consisting in sacrifices and oblations, ablutions, aspersions, and perfumes, was the temple of Jerusalem, for no where else could the publick cremonies be lawfully performed. The places that were dedicated to what may be called comparatively the moral and unchangeable part of the service, consisting in prayers and thanksgivings, and instructive lessons from the law and the prophets, were the synagogues, which, as they were under no limitation, in point of number, time, or place, might be built in any city, or village, where a suitable congregation of worshippers could be found; not only in Judea, but wherever the Jewish nation was dispersed, and that even though their temple and their polity should subsist no longer. The ceremonies of the law being represented in the gospel as but the shadows of the spiritual good things disclosed by the latter, and its corporal purifications, and other rites, as the weak and beggarly elements, intended to serve but for a time, and to be instrumental in ushering a more divine and rational dispensation, it was no wonder that they borrowed no names from the priesthood, to denote the christian ministry, or from the parade of the temple-service much calcu lated to dazzle the senses, to express the simple but spiritual devotions and moral instructions, for which the disciples of Jesus assembled under the humble roof of one of their brethren. On the contrary, in the name they gave to the sacred offices, as well as to other things, regaling their religious observances, they showed more attention to the service of the synagogue, as in every respect inore analogous to the reasonable service required by the gospel. The place where they met is once, James ii. 2, called a synagogue, but never a temple. « If there come into your assembly, εις την συναγωγήν ύμων And it is well known, that the names teacher, cider, overseer, at

[ocr errors]

tendant, or minister, and even angel, or messenger, of the con gregation, were, in relation to the ministry of the Jewish synagogue, in current use.

When we consider this frequent recourse to terms of the one kind, and this uniform avoidance of those of the other; and when at the same time we consider how much the sacred writers were inured to all the names relating to the sacerdotal functions; and how obvious the application must have been, if it had been proper; it is impossible to conceive this conduct as arising from any accidental circumstance. We are compelled to say with Grotius, (De imperio sum. Potest. cap. ii. 5,)

Non de nihilo est, quod ab eo loquendi genere, et Christus "ipse, et apostoli semper abstinuerunt." It is indeed most natural to conclude, that it must have sprung from a sense of the unsuitableness of such an use to this divine economy, which, like its author, "is made not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life." I may add, it must have sprung from a conviction that such an application might mislead the unwary into misapprehensions of the nature of the evangelical law.

દે

In it Jesus Christ is represented as our only priest; and as he ever liveth to make intercession for us, his priesthood is unchangeable, untransmissive, and eternal. A priest is a mediator between God and man. Now we are taught, in this divine economy, that as there is one God, there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. The unity of the mediatorship, and consequently of the priesthood, in the strictest sense of the word, is as really an article of our religion as the unity of the Godhead. I do not deny that in a looser sense every minister of religion may be called a mediator, or, if you please, a priest; inasmuch as he is the mouth of the congregation, in presenting their prayers to God, and is, as it were, also the mouth of God, on whose part he admonishes the people. The great reason against innovating by the introduction of these names is, not because the names are in no sense applicable, (that is not pretended) but because first, they are unnecessary; secondly, their former application must unavoidably create misapprehensions concerning the nature of the evangelical ministry; and thirdly, because the inspired penmen of the New Testament, who best understood the nature of that ministry, never did apply to it those names. But to return, the only proper sacrifice, under the new cove nant, to which all the sacrifices of the old pointed, and in which they were consummated, is the death of Christ. This, as it cannot, like the legal sacrifices, be repeated, neither requires nor admits any supplement." For by one offering he hath

"perfected for ever them that are sanctified." Sometimes, indeed, in regard to the Mosaick institution, an allegorical style is adopted, wherein all christians are represented as priests, being, as it were, in baptism, consecrated to the service of God, the whole community as a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices to him, the bodies of christians as temples destined for the inhabitation of God through the spirit. The. oblations are thanksgivings, prayer, and praise. The same name is also given to acts of beneficence and mercy. "To do "good and to communicate forget not, for with such sacrifices "God is well pleased." This is also the manner of the earliest fathers. Justin Martyr, in his dialogue with Trypho, the Jew, after mentioning Christ as our all-sufficient high-priest, insists, that in consequence of our christian vocation, we, his disciples, not the pastors exclusively, are God's true sacerdotal family. Ημείς αρχιερατικον, το αληθινόν γένος εσμεν τα θεα In this allusive way, also, the terms circumcision, passover, unleavened bread, altar, sabbath, and the like, are sometimes allegorically applied by the sacred penmen. But no where are the terms high-priest, priest, or Levite, applied peculiarly to the ministers of Christ.

18 DE8.

Doctor Hickes, a zealous asserter of what he calls the christian priesthood, has a wonderful method of solving this difficulty. He supposes, that Christ and his apostles acted the politicians in this particular. According to him they were afraid, that with all the miracles and supernatural gifts they could boast, it was an undertaking too bold to be hazarded, to appear as rivals to the Jewish priests. Here he inadvertently ascribes a conduct to Jesus Christ, which, in my apprehension, reflects not a little on the sincerity of that spotless character. "As a Jew," says he, (Let. 1, chap. iii. § 1.) “ he was to ob"serve the law and the temple worship, and live in communion "with the Jews; which, though he could do as a king and a "prophet, yet he could not do it with congruity, had he declar"ed himself to be their sovereign pontif, that very high-priest, "of which Aaron himself was but a type and shadow.' allow me to ask, Why could he not? Was it because there was a real incongruity betwixt his conforming to the Jewish worship, and his character of high-priest? If there was, he acted incongruously, for he did conform; and all he attained by not declaring himself a priest, was not to avoid, but to dissemble, this incongruity. And if there was none in conforming, where was the incongruity in avowing a conduct which was in itself congruous and defensible? We are therefore forced to conclude, from this passage, either that our Lord acted incongruously, and was forced to recur to dissimulation to conceal

But

it, or that Doctor Hickes argues very inconsequentially. The true christian can be at no loss to determine which side of the alternative he ought to adopt.

But to consider a little the hypothesis itself, the apostles might boldly, it seems, and without such offence as could endanger the cause, call their master the Messiah, the king, (a name with the Jews above every other human title.) They might, in this respect, say safely, that though their chief priests. and rulers had killed the Lord of life, God had raised him from the dead, nay, had done more, had exalted him to his own right hand, to be a prince and a saviour, to give repentance to the people, and the remission of sins. They might thus openly, if not put him in the place of the priest, put him in the place of the Almighty, to whom the priests are bound to minister, and from whom ultimately all the blessings must be obtained; nay, and represent his power as more extensive in procuring divine forgiveness and favour, (the great object of all their sacrifices) than any that had ever been experienced through the observance of the Mosaick rites; inasmuch as "by him all that believe are justified from all things, from "which they could not be justified by the law of Moses." Yet, says the doctor, they durst not call him priest. Now we know that the usurping of this title was not, by the Jewish institute, either treason or blasphemy; whereas, the titles and attributes, which the apostles gave their master, were accounted both treasonable and blasphemous by the unbelieving Jews, and with too much appearance of truth, if Jesus, had been the impostor they imagined him; for the disciples set him in their representations above every thing that is named, either in the heaven, or upon the earth. I might say further, Did the first preachers hesitate to maintain the cause of their master, not. withstanding that by implication it charged the guilt of his blood on the chief priests and rulers, as those rulers themselves but too plainly perceived? But why do I say by implication? They often most explicitly charged them with this atrocious guilt. It was in the midst of the sanhedrim that Stephen boldly said, Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them who showed before of the coming of the just one, of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers. Might they thus with safety to the cause, at least, though not with impunity to their persons, exhibit those priests as homicides, parricides, regicides, and, if I may be allowed a bold expression, even deicides; and yet durst not, without involving the whole in one general ruin, so much as insinuate that they also had their priests? Credat Judæus Apella.

In short, the whole pretext of this learned doctor is precisely as if one should say, that if in a country like this, for instance, one were to raise a rebellion in favour of a pretender to the crown, the partisans might, with comparatively little danger or offence, style the sovereign in possession a tyrant and usurper, and proclaim the man they would set up, King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, and even add, Defender of the Faith. But it would be imminently hazardous, and would probably ruin the cause, to insinuate that he had the patronage of any ecclesiastick benefices. They may with safety denominate him the head of the church, and of the law, the source of all honours and authority in the state, and even give him higher titles than ever monarch had enjoyed before; they may assume to themselves the names of all sorts of offices, civil or military, under him; but if they would avoid inevitable perdition, let them not style any of themselves his chaplains. In fact, the absurdity here is not equal to the former.

Let it not be imagined, Gentlemen, from what has been advanced above, that I mean to contend with any man about words and names. I know they are in themselves but mere sounds, and things indifferent. And, doubtless, any one sound is naturally as fit to serve as the sign of any idea as another. It is a matter of no moment to us, at present, whether we call a minister of religion, bishop, prelate, presbyter, priest, or clergyman. And pertinaciously to refuse the use of the names which custom, the arbiter of language, has authoriz ed, might be thought to savour of puritanical fanaticism. The allusion they plainly bore at first is now scarcely minded, and their etymology is, in regard to most people, either unknown or forgotten. But in deducing the train of changes which, in process of time, was effected both in things and in opinions, it is pertinent to take notice of the purpose originally served by the introduction of such novel names and phrases, as those on which we have been remarking once were, as well as of the meanings originally conveyed by them. To causes in appearance the most trivial often effects the most important are to be ascribed.

I might add to the above observations, that some carried this species of innovation so far as even, one would think, to envy the pagans the appellations they bestowed on the ministers of an idolatrous worship, and on those who presided in their secret and abominable rites. The learned doctor lately quoted, though a sincere christian in his way, possessed much of that spirit, and seems to regret exceedingly that we have no such fine words and high-sounding titles as hierophant, hieromyst, and mystagogue. It was the same spirit that prompted,

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »