entertained; of what possible advantage would it be to the cause of prelacy? For not only are we instructed that Christ is 'the apostle and high priest of our profession;' we are also informed, that, in this office, he can have no possible successors, nor any partners in his work, character, and mediation. He is, we are assuredly told, a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedec, and ever liveth,' as such, 'to make intercession for us.' Like Melchizedec, Christ neither succeeded unto any other in his office of kingly priesthood, nor is he capable of being succeeded in his royal honors. Like him, who was his chosen type, he 'continueth ever, in his unchangeable priesthood, being made a priest, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.' As our great high-priest, Christ stands singly and alone, the first and the last of his order, the beginning and the end, superior to Aaron, to Levi, and to Abraham. He is 'the one mediator between God and man,' and 'the only advocate with the Father,' the Lamb, who is in the midst of the throne, of whose kingdom, dominion, and overruling presidency, as the head of his church, there shall be no end. From this very argument, therefore, and the consideration of the prelacy of Christ, we are conclusively taught that such an order as that of prelates neither can, nor ought to exist in any church pretending to be christian. 'One is our master, even Christ.' He alone is our prelate, our pope, our supreme and ever-living head. The prelatic theory is founded upon the dethronement of Christ from his priestly office; and the abjuration of the infinite merit of his sacrifice and intercession, as eternally presented before God in the courts of heaven, for the uninterrupted continuation of the happiness and glory of his people.2 To this one error, the offspring of this prelatic hypothesis, begotten by vanity and pride, and the lust of domination, is to be traced that prime element in all the systems of anti-christian superstition and corruption, the priestly character of the gospel ministry, and the consequent doctrines of altars, and sacrifices, and mysteries, and all the profane idolatries by which men have departed from the faith. Christ is first made one link in the chain of succession from Aaron to Peter, 1) Heb. VII. Dr. Hawkins on the Hist. Script. of the Old Test. p. 156. 2) 'No one indeed can deny,' says Dr. Chapman, in his sermons to Presbyterians, vol. i. p. 148, 'the perpetual tenure by which Jesus is sustained as the grand hierarchy of the christian church. According to the psalmist, 'The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest after the order of Melchizedec.' And four times does the apostle to the Hebrews reiterate the declaration. 3) Dr. Hawkins, in his Discourses on the Historical Scriptures of the Old Testament, (p. 156,) says that, conveying down, in holy orders, absolute contact with the God of all the earth." Prelates, and through them all the other orders, are then made successors to Christ in this office, as links in the unbroken chain from Christ to the end of time. As his ministers, or stewards, or ambassadors, or lieutenants in his kingdom upon earth, they are also made his vicegerents in all his three offices as Priest, Prophet, and King. Christ is thus displaced and dethroned by his own ministers, and is to all practical purposes as good as annihilated. We are, therefore, unblushingly required, as Dr. Hickes affirms, by 'the doctrine of the catholic church,' to honor 'the bishop as the high-priest representing God, representing God as a prince and Christ as a priest,' 'and therefore we ought to regard the bishop as God!'"2 Well might John Walker say, that this whole theory is, indeed, a fiction so monstrously absurd, that it might excite laughter if it were not so monstrously profane, that indignation rather must predominate in the christian who considers it.3 We are, therefore, driven to the conclusion, that, during our Lord's manifestation upon earth, as our Emmanuel, nothing like this triple order of distinctly classified ministers, with their subordinated dignities and functions, was to be found in the administration of the church. And that prelatists should have ventured to assert the contrary, and to insist upon it so strenuously as they do, would indeed be amazing, had we not been already admonished of the fact, that boldness of assertion is found to be generally in exact proportion to the weakness of the proof by which it is sustained. Either Christ was himself an order in the priesthood, or he was not. If he was not, as we believe, then, during his ministry, there was but one class of ministers employed in executing the purposes of their temporary commission, and thus is the principle of presbyterian parity established, and the presbyterian shown to be the true and 'mistaking the means for the end, the shadow for the substance, is the common error of weak and ignorant men. And the correction of this error is one of the remarkable purposes to which the preaching of the gospel before the law is applied by St. Paul himself.' 1) The Church, the Bishop, or Korah. Two sermons by Frederick A. Glover, Lond. 1838, p. 72-74. In Dr. Brown on Civil Obedience, p. 43, Supplement, notes. 2) Ignat. ad Ephes. c. 6, and ad Smyrn. c. 9. Hicke's, vol. ii. p. 22-24, Conf. ii. Beveridge Can. Apost. Vind. lib. ii. c. 2, § 11. In Nolan's Cath. Char. of Christ, pp. 231-237. 3) See also the strong language of the archbishop of Cashel, in charge to the clergy of his Diocese, Dublin, 1822, p. 20. Also of the bishop of Chester, in the Lond. Chr. Obs. Dec. 1841, page 761. The Churchman's Monthly Rev. 1841, p. 274, 2, &c. Nolan's Cath. Char. of Christ, p. 203. Essays on the Church, p. 331. Powell on Tradition, Supplement, pp. 6, 7, &c. 4) This was the position taken by bishop Hobart and others, in the only succession that can exist. If, however, Christ must be regarded as an order of the ministry, then during his life there was but one other; and ever since that time, there must be, on the prelatic theory, at least four orders, and not three. So that in either case, to substantiate the all-important claims of prelates, Christ must be deposed from his office, and dethroned from his kingly and everlasting throne.1 Essays on Episcopacy in the Albany and by the present episcopal writers generally. 1) See the argument_very_conclusively presented in Dr. Mason's Wks. vol. iii. p. 87, &c. CHAPTER III. THE CLAIMS OF PRESBYTERY TO THE TRUE APOSTOLICAL OR § 1. The apostles were not commissioned before the delivery of the final commission by our ascending Saviour, with an examination of John, 20: 21. WE are now brought to that period when the christian church was openly and permanently established, upon the corner-stone of Christ's death, resurrection, and ever-living power, as Head over all things to his church. We are, therefore, to inquire what charter, commission, or law, the inaugurated Redeemer, the Counsellor and Legislator of his church, has left behind him, for its guidance and instruction. Nor are we long in finding our way to that last, solemn, authoritative, and full commission, delivered by our Lord just before ascending up into heaven. It has, indeed, been supposed by some, that the apostles were consecrated to their high function on the evening of the day after Christ's ascension, when he told them, 'as my Father hath sent me, so I send you,' (John, 20: 21,) and that then they received their peculiar prelatical authority. But nothing can be more gratuitous and vain than such a supposition. It appears that on this occasion, as Mr. Scott well explains the passage, 'the apostles and other disciples met together, in some room which they had procured; probably in order to join in prayer and supplication." The evangelist uses the general term 'disciples,' which, in the very chapter preceding, (19: 31), is applied to Joseph of Arimathea, and was, we know, given to the seventy, (Luke, 10.) He also particularly notices the fact, that it was on the first day of the week,' which day was 1) Commentary, in loco. thus early set apart in commemoration of Christ's resurrection. This interview, therefore, was not merely with the twelve, but with all the disciples of Christ; and was designed to comfort their sorrowing hearts, to inspirit their drooping faith, and to impart to them that peace they were previously ied to expect. Having, therefore, repeated to them the assurance of his peace, Christ 'renewed and confirmed to them, their apostolic commission; sending them forth to declare his truth to the world, and to be his ambassadors and vicegerents."1 We would also remark, that the exclusive application of these words of Christ to prelates, is no less arbitrary, and a complete begging of the question, than the interpretation given to them by the Romanists, who allege, that as the Father sent Christ to offer sacrifice for sin, so did Christ send his priests to offer the sacrifice of the mass. Both these explanations, however, the prelatic and the Romish, are perfectly gratuitous. We remark, further, that the application of these words to popes, prelates, or to any christian ministers whatsoever, in their full literal wording, so as to convey the idea that they have the same power conveyed to them by Christ, which was conveyed to Christ by God, is gross impiety, and blasphemous presumption. The supposition is impossible in the very nature of things. The human nature of Christ never existed as a distinct person. His mediatorial power was not committed to the human nature of Christ, but to the human and divine natures as together constituting one person. It was as a divine person, and not merely as human, Christ had all power given to Him, and was able to forgive sins and to exercise all other authority. It was, therefore, as God and man in one person the Father sent the Son. The persons here addressed, then, be they who they may, could not be sent with the same authority or in the same manner as Christ was sent by God. The supposition lands us in open heresy or blasphemy, and the words therefore must be understood as we have explained them, as referring only to the fact, that as Christ was sent by the Father and authorized by Him, so were they and all true ministers sent by Christ, and authorized by Him to preach his gospel, and to conduct the affairs of his kingdom. But it is added, that 'when Christ had said this, he breathed on them, and said, receive ye the Holy Ghost.' These words, however, can only be understood prophetically. As Christ 1) Scott. ibid. |