used to denote the two offices respectively; the Jewish priest, and also that of the Pagan religions, being invariably called HIEREUS [in Latin, Sacerdos]; the Christian priest, EPISCOPOS, or oftener PRESBYTEROS, from which last our English word "Priest” is manifestly formed. It is remarkable, however, that it is never rendered "Priest" in our version of the Bible, but always according to its etymology, "Elder;" and that wherever the word Priest occurs, it is always used to correspond to Hiereus. This last title is applied frequently to Jesus Christ Himself, but never to any other character under the Gospel-dispensation. This circumstance alone would render it highly probable, that Christ and his Apostles did not intend to institute in the Christian Church any office corresponding to that of Priest in the Jewish : otherwise, they would doubtless have designated it by a name so familiarly known. And if we look to the doctrines of their religion, we shall plainly see that they could have had no such intention. For it was manifestly the essence of the Priest's office (both in the true religion of Moses, and in the Pagan imitations of the truth) to offer Sacrifice and Atonement for the People-to address the Deity on their behalf, as a Mediator and Intercessor—and to make a Propitiation for them. All these are described as belonging to Christ, and to Him alone, under the Gospel-dispensation; which consequently (alone of all religions we are acquainted with) has, on earth, no Priest at all.1 2 The office of the Christian Ministers, the Elders or Presbyters, whom the Apostles by their divine commission ordained, is the administration of such rites (the Christian sacraments) as are essentially different from sacrifice; and, the instruction of the people; an office not especially allotted to the Jewish priests, but rather to the whole of the Levites; and so little appropriated even to them, that persons of any other tribe3 were allowed to teach publicly in the synagogues. It deserves then to be kept in mind, I. That Priest, in the two senses just noticed, does not merely Nearly the same reasonings are applicable to the absence, under the Christian dispensation, of a literal TEMPLE, as well as of a Priest. For an able development of these views, see Hinds's Three Temples of the One God. 2 And it is remarkable that even the administration of these rites is not, by any express injunction of Scripture, confined to them. 3 As, for instance, Jesus himself, who was of the tribe of Judah, and Paul, of the tribe of Benjamin. The Prophets also, who seem to have been the authorized instructors, were not necessarily of the tribe of Levi. denote two different things, but is, strictly speaking, equivocal. On the one hand, the word "house," for instance, is not equivocal when applied to the houses of the ancients, and to our own, though the two are considerably different; because both are the same in that which the word "house" denotes, viz. in being "a building for man's habitation:" on the other hand, the word "publican" in its ordinary sense, and in that in which it occurs in our version of the New Testament, is equivocal, though in each case it denotes a man in a certain profession in life; because the professions indicated in each case respectively, by that term, are essentially different. And the same is the case with the word Priest, in the two senses now under consideration. II. That though there is in the Greek, Romish, and some other Churches, a pretended Sacrifice, offered by a Sacerdotal Priest, this creates no just objection to what has been said; since their practice in this point is a manifest corruption of Christianity, totally unsupported by any warrant of Scripture, and manifestly at variance with the whole spirit of the Gospel; and what we are speaking of is, the Religion as originally instituted, not as subsequently depraved. III. That the peculiarity in question, as well as every other of any consequence, affords a strong presumption of the truth of the religion; and this, independent of any question as to the excellence of the peculiarity. For either an impostor or an enthusiast would have been almost sure, on such a point, to fall in with the prevailing notions and expectations of men; as experience shows, in the case of such a multitude of different systems of religion which confessedly have emanated from the sources alluded to. If our religion had been devised by Man, it would, in all probability, have been, in this point, (as well as in many others) different from what it is. And if it could not have come from Man, it must have come from God. It cannot be deemed therefore an insignificant circumstance that the Christian religion should differ from all others, in a point in which, amidst their infinite varieties, they all agree. IV. That the charge of Priestcraft, so often brought indiscriminately against all religions, by those whose hostility is in fact directed against Christianity, falls entirely to the ground, when applied, not to the corruptions of some Churches, (which certainly do lie open to the imputation,) but to the religion of the Gospel, as founded on the writings of its promulgators. It is a religion which has no Priest on earth,—no mortal Intercessor to stand between God and his worshippers; but which teaches its votaries to apply, for themselves, to their great and divine High Priest, and to "come boldly to the throne of grace, that they may find help in time of need." Nor are the Christian Ministers appointed, as the infidel would insinuate, for the purpose of keeping the people in darkness, but expressly for the purpose of instructing them in their religion. V. Lastly, that Christians should be warned, if they would conform to the design of the Author of their Faith, not to think of substituting the religion of the Minister for their own; his office being, according to Christ's institution, not to serve God instead of them, but to teach and lead them to serve Him themselves. 1 See Essay (Third Series) on Vicarious Religion. INDEX. Analogy of divine attributes to human, Essay II. § 3 of Christians to children, Essay v. § 2, 3 PAGK 103 169-182 Antoninus, Marcus, his notions of the consequence of death, Note D to Essay 1. Apostles, inculcation by, of Christian duties, from the motives of their omitting to draw up Catechisms, &c. Essay vi. § 2 Athenians, not believers in a Future State, Essay 1. § 4 129 209 76 31 203 148 150 198 Bible, not designed for the gratification of speculative curiosity, Essay IV. Butler, Bp., his view of the formation of habits, Essay IV. § 8 Cave, illustration from, of the soul's dwelling in the body, Essay 1. Children, example of, proposed for a Christian's imitation, Essay v. Christ, an object of worship, Essay II. § 4 his human character, attractive, Essay II. § 5 Church, the appointed framer of formularies, Essay vI. § 6 Creeds, why not transmitted in writing by the Apostles, Essay VI. 220 Dispensation, old, sanctions of, temporal, Essay 1. § 7 Eden, Theological Dictionary, Introduction, and Appendix, and Essay VI. § 1 9, 233, 204 Emmanuel, discourse on the name, Essay II. § 4 Episcopius, his opinion as to the non-revelation of a Future State by Moses, Essay 1. Note F Eternity, Cowley, description of, Essay v. § 2 Evil, origin of, not explained in Scripture, Essay 1. § 6 PAGE 110 96 173 Feelings must be appealed to, as well as reason, with a view to - 136 103 98-118 God, attributes of, known only by analogies, Essay 11. § 3- Grotius, his opinion as to the non-revelation of a Future State by Hawkins, Dr., remarks of, on omission of systematic teaching in Hinds's, Bp., History of the Rise of Christianity, Essay IV. § 4- Scripture, Essay VI. § 2 - his Three Temples, Essay IV. § 6 Homer, language of, respecting a Future State, Essay 1. § 3 97 205 153 157 28 Immortality, Man's, not discoverable by Reason, Essay 1. § 6 42 Index to the Tracts for the Times, Introduction Jews, their notions respecting a Future State, Essay 1. § 9 Judgment, private, the condemnation of, leads to a withdrawal of King, Archbishop, opinion of, as to Man's notions of the Divine Knowledge, three things implied by, Essay 1. § 2 Law, obedience to, gives not a claim to reward, but only to Lucretius, his views of the dependence of the soul on the body, coincidence between him and Cicero as to the consequence |