Изображения страниц

Let us next consider, in what senses both parties may be disposed to agree that the Clergy are priests.

1. The Jewish priests were divinely appointed. (Ex. xxix.)

So are the Clergy. (S. John xx. 21; 2 Cor. x. 8; 1 Tim. i. 12.) 2. The Jewish priests were formally invested with authority. (Ex. xxix.)

So are the Clergy. (S. John xx. 22; Acts vi. 6; 1 Tim. iv. 14.) 3. The Jewish priests transmitted their authority in succession. (1 Chron. xxiii. 13.)

So do the Clergy. No instance is given in the New Testament of any acting as presbyters without transmitted authority. (1 Tim. ii. 2 may possibly allude to this, but is not pressed.)

4. The Jewish priests were a distinct ecclesiastical order; which clearly appears from 1, 2, and 3.

[ocr errors]

So are the Clergy. That is, they are an order of men set apart to perform duties which none else are authorised to perform. 'And He gave some Apostles, some Prophets," &c. Eph. iv. 11. Not all, but 'some." Again," are all Apostles? are all Prophets? are all workers of miracles ?" (1 Cor. xii. 29.)

5. The Jewish priests were maintained by various contributions received from the people to whom they ministered.

So are the Clergy. (1 Cor. ix. 14.)

6. The Jewish priests, amongst other duties, are represented as, Adjudicating. (Deut. xvii. 8-12.) Instructing. (Lev. x. 11; Mal. ii. 7.)

Ruling. (Deut. xvii. 11-12.)

Interceding. (Numb. xvi. 46-48.)

Blessing. (1 Chron. xxiii. 13; Numb. vi. 23.)

Excluding and Admitting to Church Communion. (Lev. xiii.;

Lev. xiv, 11.)

So are the Clergy represented as :

Adjudicating. (Acts xv. 6.)

Instructing. (S. Matt. xxviii. 20.)

Ruling. (S. Luke xii. 42; 1 Tim. v. 17.)

Interceding. (S. James v. 14-15.)

Blessing. (2 Cor. xiii. 14; 1 Cor. x. 16.)

Excluding and Admitting to Church Communion. (S. Matt.

xviii. 18; Gal. vi. 1; 1 Tim. i. 20.)

7. The Jewish priests were to be obeyed. (Deut. xvii. 12.)

So are the Clergy. (Heb. xiii. 17; 2 Thess. iii. 14.)

8. The Jewish priests were to be respected and honoured. (Lam. iv. 16; Acts xxiii. 5.)

So are the Clergy. (1 Thess. v. 13; 1 Tim. v. 17.)

Here then are some points, and others might be added, in which anti-sacerdotalists may possibly be disposed to admit that the Clergy are priests. If so, it must be confessed that the Clergy are priests in very many important particulars.

And now we reach a point when both parties apparently reach the impassable gulf of separation.

The Jewish priests were accustomed to make atonement, and to offer sacrifices. Are the Clergy priests in these senses?

Do they make atonement in any sense for those to whom they minister?

To answer this question, let us inquire what is the meaning of the word "atonement." The radical meaning of "to atone" is to cover, in the sense of shielding or protecting. Hence to atone a person was to cover that person's offence, and to shield him from the displeasure of an offended GOD. It will be seen therefore that "atonement" inIvolved the idea of reconciliation. After atonement was made for a person, GOD was thereby reconciled to that person and permitted him to approach and hold communion with Himself. There was henceforth an at-one-ment between them. The Greek equivalent for the Hebrew word translated "atonement" is used four times in the New Testament. In one place, (Rom. v. 11) it is rendered "atonement;" and in the other three places "reconciliation;" so that the New Testament idea of “atonement" is that of "reconciliation," or at-one-ment. A great authority on the subject says, in speaking of the Jewish priesthood and sacrifices :-" The fundamental ideas which underlay all, and connected it into an harmonious whole were, reconciliation and mediation: the one expressed by typically atoning sacrifices, the other by a typi cally intervening priesthood."1

Now then let us inquire whether the Clergy by definite ministerial acts make atonement in the sense of effecting a reconciliation between GOD and man.

There is one passage in S. Paul's Epistles which clearly answers our inquiry. In 2 Cor. v. 12, he distinctly asserts that GOD" hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation” (karaλλayý.) Here CHRIST's 1 "The Temple and its Services," by Dr. Edersheim.

work of reconciliation and man's ministry of reconciliation are placed side by side in sharp contrast. Here S. Paul clearly asserts that GOD has committed to us, ministerially, the same work of reconciling the world to Himself, which was accomplished in and through JESUS CHRIST. When S. Paul says that the "ministry of reconciliation" was committed to us, what can he possibly mean, but that the ministerial acts of the clergy are in some way the means of bringing about a condition of reconciliation or at-one-ment between GOD and man, on the basis of CHRIST's reconciliation or atonement ?

To the Apostles and those succeeding them was delegated the authority to "bind" and to "loose," to "remit," and to "retain." Assuming even that these words simply conveyed the power of binding or remitting Church censures; what is this but performing a ministerial act corresponding to the Jewish priest's act of making atonement? what is remitting the sentence of Church censure, but an act of effecting a reconciliation between GOD and man? For re-admitting an excluded member into fellowship with the Church of God, what is that but admitting him to communion with GOD Himself? And to admit a soul into communion with GOD, who before was excluded from that communion, what is that but to do what the Jewish priest did when he made atonement for a soul, and thereby enabled that soul to hold communion with GOD?

So with Holy Baptism, what is baptizing but a "ministry of reconciliation," whereby a soul is admitted into communion with the Church of GOD, and so with GOD Himself? What is this again but performing an office corresponding to the office of atoning, and thereby ensuring communion with GOD?

What again is the administration of the Holy Communion but a "ministry of reconciliation," enabling the soul to hold the highest form of communion with the LORD?

So with preaching, what is this but a "ministry of reconciliation," at least in its indirect form, tending to bring about a reconciliation between GOD and man? So also with ministerial prayer or intercession, is not this a "ministry of reconciliation," having for its object, in some of its aspects at least, reconciliation between GOD and man?

Are not most, if not all our ministerial acts designed to accomplish what the Jewish priest accomplished by his act of atoning, viz., ensuring GOD's pardon, reconciliation, and good will, and promoting communion with Him? Is not therefore a clergyman ministerially, sub

ordinately an atoning priest, in much the same sense as the Jewish priest? the form and order of exercising their "ministry of reconciliation," differing, but the spirit and purpose being the same in each case.

Let us next inquire whether the Clergy are priests in the sense of offering sacrifices. We must admit that he is not a priest in this sense according to the popular idea of a priest; viz., that he is a person appointed to slay animals, and to offer their blood on an altar to appease an offended GOD. This, to say the least, is a very shallow and imperfect idea of a priest. In order to ascertain whether the Clergy are priests in the sacrificial sense of the word, it is necessary to bear in mind the following facts.

1. That a sacrifice in its broadest sense is a gift offered to GOD, in order to hold communion with Him.

2. That a sacrifice was not necessarily something which must be slain. Meal, wine, corn, and shew-bread were offered as sacrifices, and were commonly regarded as unbloody sacrifices.

3. That a sacrifice did not necessarily require an altar on which to present it. The Red Heifer of purification, which was called a sin offering, was presented without Altar. (Numb. xix. 9—17.)

4. That a sacrifice was not necessarily offered in order to expiate. The peace offerings were not presented for the purpose of expiating.

5. That the memorial of a sacrifice was regarded as itself a sacrifice. The Paschal lamb for example annually offered, was in reality the memorial or commemoration of a sacrifice, originally offered on the night of Israel's departure from Egypt. It was at the same time a type of the true Paschal lamb, as well as a memorial.

6. That a priest was not necessarily the slayer of a sacrifice. Most of the sacrifices were slain by those who brought them to be offered. 7. That a priest was ordained not only to offer "sacrifices for sins," but also to offer "gifts" commonly termed "unbloody sacrifices."

Bearing these seven facts in mind, it follows that though the Clergy are not slayers of sacrifices, neither have slain sacrifices to offer, neither Altar to offer on, neither offer in order to expiate; yet if they commemorate a sacrifice, if they offer the memorial of a sacrifice, if they offer "gifts" in sacrifice to GOD, they might still lay claim to the title of sacrificing priests in much the same sense as the Jewish priests.

The question which now presents itself is this: Do the Clergy perform any ministerial act that is designed to commemorate a sacrifice, to present the memorial of a sacrifice? Do they offer gifts as a sacri

fice to God? This question brings us to the great central point of conflict, around which the sacerdotal controversy rages, viz., the Holy Communion.

In considering this part of our subject, all controverted points shall be waived, and that view of the Holy Communion alone dealt with which anti-sacerdotalists admit, viz., the memorial view. It will be admitted by this party that the Holy Communion is at least a memorial or commemoration of a sacrifice: that the bread and wine do at least represent in some way or other the body and blood of CHRIST, that the bread and wine are at least gifts: that they are by prayer and formal ministerial acts placed before GOD, in a manner designed to direct GOD's notice of them, which in reality must amount to offering them to GOD. In short, that the Holy Communion corresponds to, and takes the place of the Jewish Passover, being the celebration, or commemoration, or memorial of the true Paschal sacrifice, the Lamb of God.

Now then, if the Paschal Lamb, which was the memorial or representation of a sacrifice, was regarded at the same time as itself a sacrifice, is not the bread and wine, though the memorial or representation of a sacrifice, also to be regarded as equally a sacrifice? Are not therefore the Clergy, who by prayer and formal ministerial acts present these before GOD, sacrificing priests in much the same sense as the Jewish priests, who presented the Paschal lamb before GOD? As before asserted, the form and order differ, the spirit and purpose are the same. In the one case a slain animal is offered accompanied with offerings of bread and wine, and in the other case bread and wine alone are presented, to signify that the true Paschal Lamb has already been slain, and that it simply remains for us perpetually to plead that sacrifice and mystically to feed upon it, when by the Divine power it has become to us the Body and Blood of CHRIST. In the one case a human being ministers on earth, for the great High Priest whose sacrifice is to be offered; in the other, a human being ministers on earth, for the same great High Priest whose sacrifice has been offered. Both minister alike what points to, what represents, and therefore what is, in some sense, the one and same great sacrifice: both minister alike what is designed to secure by individual appropriation the benefits of that sacrifice.

Hitherto the question with which we commenced has been answered from Scripture. Next to Holy Scripture it perhaps most concerns us as Clergy of the English Church, that this question should be answered

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »