« 上一页继续 »
point the Jewish and the Episcopal priesthood differ essentially. There is no likeness between the type and the antitype. Who, that intended to institute a set of resemblances, would ever dream of appointing a numerous body of Levites to represent a numerous body of deacons; a numerous body of priests to represent another numerous body of priests; and then finish by putting at the head of his system a single high priest, to represent an order often thousand bishops? Nay, if the Episcopal argument here is sound, it concludes much more forcibly in favour of the Papal than of the Protestant hierarchy. The former preserves, in her single pontiff, an essential feature of the type, which the latter, by her order of bishops, has perfectly obliterated. Thus, then, the case stands; if the typical character of the Jewish priesthood does not include its orders, the Episcopal inference from them in behalf of the bishops, priests, and deacons, is palpably false: If it does, while the Presbyterian perishes, the church of Rome gains much more than the church of England. But this notion of the typical property of the grades of priesthood in the Jewish church, is an Episcopal fiction. It has no real existence. The decisive proof is, that the Levitical priesthood typified our Lord Jesus Christ, in whom there could be no place for different orders. Its several
grades, as such, had nothing to do with its typical Wol. III. 10
character and functions. These lay in another direction altogether. We, therefore, advance a step higher, and deny the whole doctrine of the hierarchy, in so far as it makes the Jewish priesthood a type of the Christian ministry. The Layman has asserted that “the law being figurative of the gospel, in all its important parts, the Jewish priesthood was, of course, typical of the Christian.” To the same purpose Cyprian, “We say that the Jewish priesthood was the image of the Christian.”f These are the assertions; now for the proof. Cyprian tells us, that it “ is the uniform language of the fathers—the conclusion to which the data afforded us by the apostles inevitably lead.” The Layman, that “for this,” viz. that the “Jewish priesthood was typical of the Christian, we have the express declaration of the apostle Paul,” and that “the advocates of parity will not pretend to controvert the position.” But they certainly do, sir; confident as you are of the negative. They not only venture to controvert, but engage to refute, your position. They maintain that the apostles have not afforded any data which can lead to such a conclusion. Cyprian has mentioned none : and the only passage which the other has quoted in his own justification, he has misunderstood and misapplied. The considerations which make against them, are numerous and weighty. * No. VIII. Collec. p. 310. # No. IV. Collec. p. 320.
1. The scriptures no where draw a parallel or comparison between the rank and functions of the ministry of the Old Testament and that of the New. And if the former was designed to be the model of the latter, the omission is altogether unaccountable. They neither say nor insinuate that the priests under the law were a type and image of which the truth and substance are to be sought in the ministers of the new dispensation. The nature and use of the legal institutions are explained with minute accuracy by the Apostle Paul, in his epistle to the Hebrews. He treats them as types of “Jesus Christ, and all the effects of his mediation in grace and glory;” but of their typical relation to the Christian ministry, not a single syllable.
Here the Layman interrupts us with “the express declaration of the apostle Paul.” Let us have it. “The priests of the law serving as “the example and shadow of heavenly things,’ the circumstance of there being three orders in the Jewish ministry furnishes a strong presumption against the doctrine of parity.” The “express declaration” of the apostle, it seems is, that “the priests of the law serve as the example and shadow of heavenly things;”f representing his meaning to be, that the priests of the law are that example and shadow. We have a small objection to this assertion of the Layman; and that is, that, like Cyprian's story of bishop Epaphroditus, it puts into the mouth of the apostle a speech which he never uttered. There is neither in the passage quoted, nor in any other passage of the epistle to the Hebrews, nor in the whole New Testament, such a declaration as the Layman ascribes to Paul. He has either quoted from memory, which we suspect to be the fact, and so has forgotten what the apostle said; or else is as unlucky in his criticism as his poor friend Cyprian. The apostle says, “the priests who offer gifts according to the law, serve,” not AS, but “UNTO the example and shadow of heavenly things.” It was not the priests, but the things to which they ministered, that constituted the “example and shadow.” This is obvious upon the first inspection of the text.” The apostle is discoursing of the tabernacle, its furniture and service. These were the “example and shadow.” The substance, the “heavenly things,” was Christ Jesus, his sacrifice and intercession, with all their blessed effects in the salvation of men. This is the apostle's own interpretation. For these same priests whom he here describes as “ serving unto the example and shadow of heavenly things,” he elsewhere describes as “serving the tabernacle.”f The tabernacle, therefore, not the priests, were the “example and shadow of the heavenly things.” And that
* No. viii. Collec. p. 110. # P. 111.
this is the apostle's meaning, is “yet far more evident.” For in the 9th chapter, after detailing the construction, the furniture, and the service of the tabernacle,” he says that this tabernacle, thus framed, equipped, and attended, was a figure for the time then present.f “But Christ being come,” proceeds the apostle, “an high priest of good things to come, by (through) a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building: neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood, he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.” This “greater and more perfect tabernacle,” is the human nature of the Son of God, in virtue of the once offering up of which as a sacrifice for sin, he entered into heaven itself for us. It is this blood of his, typified by the “blood of goats and calves,” which “purges our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.” These are the “good things to come;” these “the heavenly things,” of which the first tabernacle was the “example and shadow.” The “Christian priesthood,” as it is improperly and offensively termed, does not even appear in the comparison. If the Layman has discovered it among the “heavenly things,” his penetration is acute indeed. Instead, therefore, of producing an “express declaration” of the apostle to support his doctrine, he has only put a
* Heb. xiii. v. 2–7. f v. 9.