Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

in view, than any passage that appears in any other quarter. They may bear this sense, but they may also bear the metaphorical, which I prefer, on the considerations, that nothing could have been more natural than for Christians to take their metaphor from the Old Testament economy; that, if the contrary interpretation be correct, Ignatius is the only instance within the time of which we are speaking of such a use of the word; and that "priest" (Iɛçevs) being correlative to “altar," I cannot otherwise account for his never applying the former word to Christian ministers, although he has occasion to speak of them so often. I feel more satisfaction in the opinion now expressed, than in joining with Mosheim, who says, that "the question concerning the authenticity of Ignatius' epistles is embarrassed with many difficulties;" or with our judicious Jortin, who "hesitates to affirm that they have undergone no alteration at all."

On the subject generally, there has been a passage quoted from St. Clement, although I forget whether Dr. Hickes notices it. To me the passage, which is in ch. 40, 41, speaks merely the language of comparison, applied to the single point of every man's discharging his official duty in the proper time and place. On reading formerly the use made of it by Mr. Johnson, in his "Unbloody Sacrifice," I had the curiosity to look into Bona, and found the zeal of the Romish Cardinal less in this respect than that of the Protestant Presbyter: the former not citing Clement to his purpose, which might have been expected, had the passage been applicable in his opinion.

Let me not be misunderstood, in regard to the words spoken of, as if I objected altogether to the use of them as applied to the Christian Church. There are so many circumstances in her economy analogous to that of the law, that such a use seems natural and unexceptionable: and therefore I join with Mr. Hooker (page 101) in saying: "the names themselves may be retained without sin, in respect of that proportion which things established by our Saviour have unto them which are abrogated and so, throughout all the writings of the ancient fathers, we see that the words which were do continue; the only difference is that, whereas before they had a literal, they now have a metaphorical use, and are so many notes of remembrance unto us, that what they did signify in the letter is accomplished in the truth." Yes, let us in moderation use the words, but let them be understood in metaphor, meaning this as opposed to the letter and to the reality, which is not injured by the distinction. But when the words are taken literally, we may learn from the case of Dr. Hickes to what mistakes they lead, as in his making of Christian ministers, intercessors, mediators, and expiators.

In what sense are ministers intercessors for their flocks, in which these may not be intercessors for them also? St. Paul in several places asks those whom he addresses to pray for him, and in one place he hopes, as the effect of their prayers, that he may be restored to them the sooner. There is no notice in the New Testament of more than "one Mediator between God and man." The Jewish priesthood was different in this respect from the Christian ministry. Under the law, the sacrifice, or the oblation, was brought by the worshipper to the priest, and though there was doubtless exacted sincerity in the former, yet the act of sacrificing was performed exclusively by the latter. Analogous to this is the Mass of the Romish Church, in which the sacrifice is performed entirely by the priest, it not being held necessary that the people should understand a syllable of what is said. But what is there like this in the worship of our Church? Or what in the remains which we possess of the early Church? Certainly nothing for in both the language of the service shews that the minister is the mouth of the congregation, who are supposed not only to say "Amen" at the conclusion, but to accompany him through the whole. And as to ministerial expiation, it seems to me not only an utterly inadmissible idea, but particularly alien from the service of the eucharist, to which it is especially applied by Dr. Hickes, and those who think with him: for it seems agreed on all hands, that this holy ordinance answers not to sacrifice of expiation, but to that of the peace-offerings, which are never said to make atonement, but, on the contrary, suppose the worshipper in a state of reconciliation. I forbear to dilate on the consequences of our leading of the people to believe, that at every celebration of the Lord's Supper we are making atonement for sin. No; let it be a commemoration of an atonement made once for all; an interest in which is to be judged of by every man, according to his consciousness of what he is and does.

:

I will give you, as briefly as I can, my sense of the texts which Dr. Hickes has enlisted in his service.

His first is Matthew v. 23, 24. Now if we were to suppose our Saviour speaking in language accommodated not to an existing but to a future economy, which however seems very unreasonable, yet it would be evident that the passage is then inconsistent with Dr. Hickes's supposed reserve of our Saviour on this subject. For

although Dr. Hickes truly remarks, that the sermon on the mount was to the Lord's disciples, yet, as annotators notice, the term must be understood with a latitude, since it is said, on the finishing of the discourse, "the multitude were astonished at his doctrine.' By the disciples, were accordingly meant those generally who had received his instructions. Where then would have been the wisdom of the supposed secrecy concerning a new altar and a new priesthood to be in due time set up?

The same remark applies to another of Dr. Hickes' texts-that of Heb. xiii. 10. Here, it seems, the secret was divulged to the whole body of Hebrew Christians, in the very teeth of all their prejudices. But no: that the sacrifice of the altar spoken of could not have been the eucharist, is evident in the circumstance that this has nothing answering, even in a spiritual sense, to those sacrifices in which the bodies of the victims "were burnt without the camp." But I refer you to Dr. Hammond for an explanation of that text.

In Romans xv. 15, 16, there is a noble figure, the beauty of which is very much lessened, if we depart from the usual translation and interpretation, of the offering being of the persons of the Gentiles, and if we apply it to their eucharist or to their devotions generally.

In 1 Corinthians ix. 13, there is a parallel drawn between Jewish priests and Christian ministers, in the single point of their being alike entitled to a maintenance. What is more common than the making of a comparison where there is nothing common to the subjects, except the circumstance for which the comparison is made?

In 1 Corinthians x. 20, 21, it is sufficient to the apostle's reasoning, if the bread and wine of the eucharist are an appointed memorial of the body and blood of Christ. For, then, the partaking of them is inconsistent with the partaking of

heathen sacrifice.

Dr. Hickes's remarks on we are at best too slight a ground on which to erect a theory. Besides, his explanation of it, as applied to the eucharist, seems fully satisfied by the idea of an oblation in that ordinance.

He understands an expression in 1 Peter ii. 9, as synonymous with a kingdom of priests, or a priestly government. But the passage receives a different interpretation from Revelation i. 6, which makes priests in the accommodated sense intended of all the people of the seven churches. It seems to me that there is no explaining those passages but in allusion to the eminent holiness which Christianity exacts, and the dignity of character which it bestows. And these are coincident with the apostle's train of sentiment in the passage first mentioned.

We have heard much of the Epistle to the Hebrews, as describing a prefiguration of the Christian priesthood in that of the law. But the analogy there traced is declared to be accomplished in the priesthood of Christ: that is, in his sacrifice of the cross, and his presentation of it in heaven. The part of the epistle alluded to has no reference to the Christian ministry, unless on the principle of a continued priestly offering of the true atonement, as is pretended in the mass. But this must be proved through some other medium, for there is nothing of it in the epistle.

Dr. Hickes cites Revelations v. 8, and viii. 3. But was it unobserved by him that all matters relating to the Christian Church in that book are figuratively represented under terms of the Jewish economy? The scene is laid in the temple; the names of the Israelitish tribes are ascribed to Christian people; the martyred saints repose under the altar; and, in short, all the circumstances are accommodated to the figure.

In regard to Dr. Hickes's texts generally, it may be remarked, that his interpretation destroys the ground of the reserve supposed by him. If his interpretation be correct, a new sacrifice, a new priesthood, and a new altar were explicitly declared, and there was no reason against making the names correspond with the subjects. But if that interpretation be wrong, I appeal to you whether, at least after the destruction of Jerusalem, there might not be expected from an apostle or some apostolic man-I need not say an explicit declaration, but at least an intimation of the intended change, and that it should not have been left to be discovered by human ingenuity, after the lapse of above a century.

And let me remark on what different ground the question stands from that between Episcopacy and Presbytery. According to the pretensions of the latter, a change took place all at once in all parts of the world, and affecting rights and duties in daily exercise, and all without opposition or even historic notice. Such a change could never have happened among mankind, constituted as we see them. But it is otherwise in regard to new names, easily reconciled by analogy, perhaps introduced by writers of celebrity, by them used at first metaphorically and sparingly, with an intermixture of the old; the change at the same time wearing the

specious appearance of a tendency to the increase of piety; however afterwards made the instrument of the most inordinate ambition.

In all here said, I have been aware of the solemn caution given by Dr. Hickes to Christian ministers not to lessen the dignity of their calling. But if it is the scriptural definition of the Jewish high priest, that he was ordained from among men for things pertaining to God," is it less honourable, as Dr. Outram is represented by Dr. Hickes saying of the Christian minister, that he is "ordained by God for things pertaining to men?" And is not the superiority of the ministry of the latter, in comparison of that of the former, sufficiently supported by the comparative merits of their respective dispensations?

[ocr errors]

When Dr. Hickes pronounced it disgraceful in a minister of the Church of England to reject priesthood, sacrifice, and altar, in the strict and proper sense, why did he not criminate the church herself? That neither sacrifice nor altar is found in her liturgy is evident. And as to the word "priest," that she considers it as Burgos," with an English termination, appears in the circumstance, that in the Latin Prayer-book, which is of equal authority with the English, "Priest" is not "Sacerdos," but Presbyter; this, even in the sacramental service, which in the estimation of Dr. Hickes and those who think with him, is in the most eminent degree sacerdotal.

I have already intimated that I distinguish between sacrifice and oblation. And, therefore, I never could perceive any reason in the objection which some have made to that part of our consecration of the elements, in which we offer them to the Father, as typical of his blessed Son's body and blood. On this point of oblation, the testimony of the apostolic Clement is express; and it seems involved in the act of our Saviour, when, in the original institution, he invoked a blessing on the elements, in which act there must have been a religious presentation of them.

To me, indeed, it seems surprising, that the very pains which some authors have taken to show the eucharist answerable to the under the law, did not show at the same time that it cannot answer to the of the same economy, which always involved the taking of animal life. And there is a consideration which should cali our attention to the distinction. It is the countenance which may be given by the latter word to the gross ideas founded on our Saviour's calling the bread and wine his body and blood. From the conjunction of this error, with that of considering the eucharistic service a sacrifice, there seems to me to arise, by a natural train of sentiment, the monstrous opinion of the propitiatory sacrifice of the mass.

I beg you to remark, in your reading, how authors puzzle themselves to frame a definition of sacrifice after they have lost sight of that essential property of it-the death of the victim. Mr. Johnson has recited a variety of definitions, all of which seem grounded on no other circumstances than their suiting the theories of their respective authors. Bishop Pearce says he has seen "almost hundreds of definitions," and, after all, I am sorry to say of this ingenious prelate, that he seems to me to have chosen or made one principally accommodated to a favourite point with him-the_excluding of the passover from the account of sacrifice.

When I require the death of the victim as essential to this rite, I am not ignorant of the criticisms on the Greek word voix. But I have nothing to do with them. My stress is on the Hebrew word, which confessedly involves slaughter. And besides, whatever may have been the original application of the Greek word to inanimate (as it is said) as well as to animate objects, I believe that, when the Seventy adopted it for the rendering of the Hebrew word, it had become appropriate to the sacrifice of animals.

As to Dr. Hickes' long definition, it seems to me evidently drawn from the contemplation of his own theory rather than having any correspondency with the institution of sacrifice in Leviticus. I admit Dr. Hickes' alleged difficulty of an exact definition. But when we perceive a circumstance applying to all sacrifice, and without which there can be no sacrifice, all the purposes of a definition may be answered.

Before I finish let me request you to be assured that, when I speak so freely of great names, it is with a sense of my own weakness, notwithstanding which it is incumbent on me, in respect to subjects of difference between men of the same grade of talents and learning, to make an opinion for myself.

In what I have written, my purpose is to bring some little aid to your own reflec. tions. And so, committing myself to your candour, and imploring the Divine bene. diction on your inquiries, I remain your affectionate friend and brother,

WM. WHITE.

CHRIST. OBSERV. No 34.

4 G

PRAYER THE FIRST BREATH OF THE RENEWED SOUL.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

PRAYER, it has been as often as truly remarked, is the first breath of the renewed soul; and for this we have the authority of our ascended Lord himself; for he said to Ananias, concerning the penitent Saul of Tarsus, “Behold he prayeth." As a Pharisee he must have often used the utterance of prayer, but now he prayed indeed. I recollect an apt illustration of the above remark in the case of Lord Byron. When his lordship was in Greece he said to Dr. Kennedy, a pious physician of his acquaintance, that he wished he were a Christian. "I am tired," said he, "and sick of every thing in life; there is no joy to be found on earth." "Do you read the Bible?" said Dr. K. "Yes, and carefully." "Do you pray?" Why, no, I don't pray I have not got quite so far as that yet; but perhaps I shall by and by."

[ocr errors]

His lordship had not "got quite so far" as that; he evidently felt that prayer would be a turning point in the passage from death to life; nor with all his vices and his settled infidelity did he venture to account prayer of no value; for in that remarkable letter which he wrote to Mr. Shepherd, in reply to a communication informing him of a passage in the deceased Mrs. Shepherd's secret diary, in which she fervently prayed for him, he said: "I can assure you that all the fame which ever cheated humanity into higher notions of its own importance, would never weigh on my mind against the pure and pious interest which a virtuous being may be pleased to take in my welfare. In this point of view I would not exchange the prayer of the deceased in my behalf for the united glory of Homer, Cæsar, and Napoleon. Do me the justice to suppose that video meliora proboque, however the deteriora sequor may have been applied to my conduct.

Thus did even Lord Byron in his serious moments feel that "the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much ;" and he was overawed with the spectacle of a Christian woman supplicating for him at the throne of Divine mercy.

Two corollaries result. First, the importance of regarding prayer as a test of our spiritual character; and secondly, the value of intercession for others. I remember hearing an elderly lady, many years since dead, say that her first serious reflection respecting her soul originated in hearing that she had been prayed for by a little company of "Mr. Wesley's people" (as they were then called). She was then a thoughtless young person, addicted to the ordinary worldly fashions of her station; and she was much struck that any person should think she needed to be prayed for; and the arrow thus infixed was never extracted till she was led to prayer for herself.

PASTOR.

ON THE OMISSION OF THE BOOK OF REVELATION IN THE CHURCH LESSONS.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

On the day on which I am writing (August 31) our Church recommences her half-yearly reading of the New Testament, taking in the morning service the historical portions, namely, the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, and in the evening the Epistles. I confess that I always feel disappointed when we come to St. Jude, that we do not go on to the book of Revelation; at least to a selection of parts of it. It is passed by in the daily Lessons, as though no such portion of Holy Writ were extant; and it is only used for Lessons on the festival of St. John its inspired penman, and in the evening of the festival of All-Saints. It is used indeed for the Epistle on Trinity Sunday; and also on the commemoration of the Innocents, St. Michael and All-Angels, and All-Saints; but if I recollect rightly, on none of these occasions was it expressly selected by our church, but was retained from the primitive liturgies; and assuredly nothing more appropriate could have been substituted.

It were superfluous to remark that this rejection from the daily Lessons did not originate in any doubt as to the canonicity of this portion of Holy Writ; for besides the introduction of the abovenamed passages, and also other citations, as in the Burial service, and the frequent references to it in the Homilies, it is included in the acknowledgment of the Sixth Article, which accounts canonical" All the books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received." The only reason alleged by our ritualists for the exclusion of this book is its mysterious character. Wheatly says, Except upon these occasions (St. John the Evangelist's day, and All Saints') none of this book is read openly in the church for lessons, by reason of its obscurity, which renders it unintelligible to meaner capacities.” Shepherd also alleges the same reason: "The greater part of the prophecies is so involved in mystery and obscurity as to be unintelligible to an ordinary congregation."

[ocr errors]

Now this, I think, would be a satisfactory reason for omitting from the public reading the more obscure chapters, as is done occasionally in the Old Testament, though no whole book is there passed by, except the Canticles, the propriety of omitting which it is presumed will not be disputed. But then many parts of the Revelation are not more difficult than other portions of Scripture which are retained; and Comber himself, speaking of the Epistles, says that "It requires a quick apprehension and a solid judgment to unravel all the mysteries in them; and yet they that avoid curiosity and selfconceit, and bring humility, love, and holy resolution, cannot be more effectually improved in knowledge and piety by any part of Scripture." This remark may be emphatically applied to several difficult chapters in the Revelation; but others, and especially the second and third, which contain the messages to the Asiatic churches, are, if not throughout, at least to a great extent, among the most plain and practically edifying portions of Holy Writ; so that the omission of them in the public reading is not easy to be accounted for. It might have been thought that the messages to the

« VorigeDoorgaan »