Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

day believe, that any particular administrator is necessary. So that from the beginning any person that could dextrously perform the operation, might lawfully circumcise. But what will follow from these concessions? Does not this very plea suppose that God never appointed any administrator of circumcision under the Law? and that He always acknowledged it to be His seal, by whomsoever that mark of distinction was impressed? Was not the bare instance of Zipporah a demonstration of this? She could not but be a lay person; and yet she was never blamed by Moses for executing that office, even though 'tis plain, that 'tis no case of necessity; for Moses himself, or any other proper administrator, might have been procured. But can anything like this be pleaded with respect to the ordinance of Christian Baptism? If so, this argument from the Jewish circumcision to the Christian Baptism will be unanswerably strong. But it appears from what I have already said, that nothing of this nature can be shown. For I have proved, that, from the very first plantation of the Christian Church, GoD committed the administration of Baptism to the Clergy, by giving them a particular and express commission to perform it; and that the administration of it was confined to them, not only in the Apostles' times, (which is abundantly sufficient) but also for the first three hundred years after CHRIST. And, I presume, God has not since that time made any such discovery of His divine will to our adversaries, as may warrant the alteration of that rule which He at the first was pleased to settle in His Church.

Now my argument is entirely built upon the signification of GOD's will. I do by no means deny, but that GoD might have left the administration of Baptism in common to all Christians, and made it as lawful for the Christian laity to perform it, as 'tis on both sides allowed to have been for the Jewish laity to circumcise but I affirm, that since GOD has been pleased to do otherwise; since He has from the beginning made it the business of the Clergy to baptize; since the Clergy have undoubted authority so to do, and the laity are so far from having the like authority, that the constant and uninterrupted practice of the Church, from the first promulgation of Christianity down to the end of the three

first centuries, (in which period, surely, the laity had the best opportunity of knowing what liberty GoD would indulge them; nor did they want a true zeal to exercise it for as good purpose, as our adversaries can pretend to,) demonstrates that God restrained them from the administration of Baptism, and appropriated that office to the Clergy; therefore 'tis plain, that the laity must needs be guilty of a most heinous and provoking sin, if they presume to baptize, and thereby invade the property of the Clergy, and trample upon the authority of God, who bestowed it on them.

2. With respect to the Paschal Sacrifice, 'tis pleaded, that the masters of families offered it amongst the Jews, and that our LORD's Supper succeeds in the room of it. Now I grant, that our LORD's Supper succeeds in the room of the Jewish Passover; but then with respect to the oblation of the Jewish Passover, 'tis necessary for me to distinguish the times, there being a difference as to this particular between the practice before, and the practice after, the institution of the Jewish Priesthood.

First, when the Passover itself was instituted, the Jewish Priesthood was not instituted. And, accordingly, in the first institution of the Passover, the masters of families did, by God's express command, sacrifice the lamb. . . . .

Secondly, when the Jewish Priesthood was instituted, the sacrificing of the Passover was appropriated to the Priesthood by GOD Himself in a most solemn manner; and this was done before a second Passover was celebrated. For after that Aaron and his posterity had the priesthood conferred and entailed upon them, we read, that "the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto Aaron," &c. . . . Lev. xvii. 1-7. And that this law was enacted before a second Passover was celebrated, is manifest; for this law is found in Lev. xvii. whereas in Numb. ix. we have these words, "And the LORD spake unto Moses," &c. ver. 1, 2, 3. So that though the first Passover was by God's express command sacrificed by the masters of families, yet all the following Passovers were sacrificed by the Priests; nor was it lawful for the laity to celebrate the Passover, unless the Priest did his part therein.

Now 'tis certain, that the most essential and solemn part in

the Sacrifice of any beast, was the sprinkling or pouring of the blood. The laity themselves, provided they were clean, did usually kill the Sacrifices; but the oblation of the blood was appropriated to the Priests. This appears from God's express institution. "If any man of you bring an offering unto the LORD, he shall put his hand upon the head," &c. Lev. i. 2. 4, 5. "And if his oblation be a Sacrifice of peace-offering," &c. Chap. iii. 1, 2. "He shall bring his offering," &c. Chap. iv. 23, 24, 25. "He shall lay his hand," &c. ver. 29, 30. And that this was particularly required and observed at the Pas,over Sacrifice, appears from the following passages of Holy Writ. "Then they killed the Passover," &c. 2 Chron. xxx. 15, 16, 17. "So the service was prepared," &c. Chap. xxxv. 1. So that (not to mention what other particulars were either confined to the Priests, or permitted to the people) 'tis plain, that the Priest's action was necessary to the Sacrifice; that the strictly sacrificial part was restrained to him; and that though the people may be sometimes said to have sacrificed, yet 'tis only in a figurative sense, inasmuch as they furnished the offering, or bear a part in the solemnity, which was then only valid and acceptable to GoD, when the Priest discharged his office with relation to it.

Nay, so punctual an observance did God require with respect to this Passover Sacrifice, that He made it unlawful for the Jews, after they possessed the promised land, to celebrate that feast in any other place than that which He chose. Thus they are commanded; "Observe the month of Abib, and keep the Passover," &c. Deut. xvi. 1-7. And, accordingly, since their dispersion into distant countries, and the destruction of their Temple, the Jews have not pretended to sacrifice the Passover; nor indeed have they offered any of those other Sacrifices, which God required to be offered in a certain place.

From what has been said, it appears, that our adversaries cannot infer the lawfulness of the laity pretending to consecrate the LORD's Supper, from the practice of the Jews touching the Sacrifice of the Passover. Because 'tis plain, that ever since the institution of the Priesthood, the oblation of that Sacrifice was VOL. IV.-81.

D d

always made by the Priest, and that no lay Jew could perform it. -pp. 353-363.

POTTER, ARCHBISHOP.-Discourse of Church Government.

Another power which our LORD has left to His Church, is that of consecrating the Eucharist, or LORD's Supper. The first Eucharist was consecrated by our LORD Himself, a little before His Passion. At the same time He gave His Apostles commission to do as He had done : "Do this," said He, "in remembrance of Me." Yet this office was not so strictly appropriated to the Apostles, but that it might lawfully be executed by the ministers of the second order. . .

In the primitive Church the Bishop consecrated, when he was present. Which appears from the before cited passage of Justin Martyr, where he tells us, that, sermon being ended, the elements of bread and wine mixed with water, were brought to the President of the brethren, who immediately proceeded to consecrate them by prayer and thanksgiving. . . . . In the Bishop's absence, it was common for the Presbyters to consecrate; but they neither did this, nor any other act of their office, without the Bishop's direction or allowance...

...

What part the Deacons had in this office, may be learned from the fore-mentioned passage of Justin Martyr, where he tells us, that, when the bread and wine had been consecrated by the president, it was customary for the Deacons to distribute them among the people who were present, and to carry them to such as were absent. Which power was not thought to imply any power in the Deacons to consecrate this Sacrament; but they did it as the Bishops' and the Priests' ministers, as we are expressly assured by the Apostolical Constitutions. . . .

It will here be inquired, why Deacons, who were allowed to administer Baptism, never consecrated the LORD's Supper? To which this might be a sufficient answer, that Baptism was always reckoned one of the lowest ministries, and therefore was usually committed by the Apostles to Ministers of the lower orders, as

was before observed; or that Baptism, being the rite of admission into the Church, was thought more necessary than the LORD's Supper; which reason is commonly assigned by the ancient Fathers, for permitting laymen to baptize, when any person was in danger of leaving the world unbaptized. But there is yet a further reason, why none but Bishops and Presbyters have ever consecrated the LORD's Supper; viz. Because the LORD's Supper was always believed to succeed in the place of Sacrifices; consequently, as none beside the High Priest and inferior Priests, were permitted to offer Sacrifices under the Jewish Law; so the LORD's Supper was consecrated by none but Bishops and Presbyters, who alone are Priests in the Christian sense of that name, It is not my design to explain the nature and ends of the LORD'S Supper, any further than these may lead us to the proper minister of it, and therefore I shall only hint a few things necessary to this purpose.

Here, then, it may be remembered, that, in the ancient Sacrifices, both among the Jews and Heathens, one part of the vict m was offered upon the altar, and another reserved to be eaten by those persons, in whose name the Sacrifice was made; this was accounted a sort of partaking of God's Table, and was a federal rite, whereby He owned the guests to be in His favour and under His protection, as they by offering Sacrifices acknowledged Him to be their God. . . . In the Christian Church there is only one proper Sacrifice, which our LORD offered upon the cross; and consequently Christians cannot partake of any Sacrifice in a literal and strict sense, without allowing Transubstantiation. Lest, therefore, they should want the same pledge, to assure them of the Divine favour, which the Jews enjoyed, our LORD appointed the elements of bread and wine to signify His Body and Blood offered in Sacrifice; whence they are expressly called His Body and Blood; it being common for representatives to bear the name of those things or persons, which they represent: "And as they were eating, JESUS took bread," &c. The elements were not His real Body and Blood, nor understood to be so by the Apostles, or any primitive Father but they were the symbols of His Body and Blood, the partaking whereof is all one to the receivers, and does

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »