« ZurückWeiter »
ing quotation from the Prophet Isaiah, “ In that day there shall be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the Land of Egypt:” Isaiah xix. 19.--thus proceeds; “ If they had an altar, and that they were to sacrifice to Almighty God, πάντως που και ιερωσύνης αξιωθήσονTet, they must be thought worthy of a Priesthood also. But the Levitical Priesthood could not be of any use to them, and therefore they must have another.
Nor was this spoke, (saith he) of the Egyptians only, but of all other nations and idolatrous people, πάν γένος των πριν ειδωλολατρών ανθρώπων; who now pour
prayers, not unto many Gods, but to the one and only Lord; and unto him erect an altar for reasonable and unbloody sacrifices, (θυσιαστήριον ανάιμων και doyixõv Juoiño :) in every place of the whole habitable world, according to the mysteries of the New Testament.” What these mysteries were, Eusebius declares fully in the tenth chapter of his first book.“ Christ, (says he) is the propitiatory sacrifice for all our sins, since when, even those among the Jews are freed from the curse of Moses' Law; celebrating daily (as they ought) the commemoration of his Body and Blood;
which is a far more excellent sacrifice and ministry, than any in the former times.” He then adds, that “ Christ our Saviour offering such a wonderful and excellent sacrifice to his heavenly Father, for the Salvation of us all, appointed us to offer daily unto God the commemoration of the same, (årti tūs Sugías) for, and as a sacrifice, And that whensoever we do celebrate the memorial of that sạcrifice on the table, participating of the elements of his Body and Blood, we should say with David • Thou preparest a table for me in the presence of mine enemies, thou anointedst my head with oil, my cup runneth over.' Wherein he signifieth, most manifestly, the mystical unction, and the reverend sacrifices of Christ's table; where we are taught to offer up unto the Lord, by his own most eminent and glorious Priest, the unbloody, reasonable, and most acceptable, sacrifice all our life long.”—This he intitles afterward, “ The sacrifice of praise, the divine, reverend, and most holy sacrifice, the pure sacrifice of the New Testament. So we see, that in this sacrifice pre
scribed to the Christian Church by our Lord and Saviour, there were two proper and distinct actions. The first to celebrate the memorial of our Saviour's Sacrifice, intitled, the commemoration of his Body and Blood once ofered, (του θύματος την μνήμην) the memory of that his sacrifice: (that is as he clearly explains himself) that we should offer this commemoration, dvtà tūs Juoies for a sacrifice. The second, that withal we should offer to him the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, which is the reasonable service of a Christian man, and to him most acceptable.
“ Therefore (says he) we sacrifice Ounsy sal dúouer, and offer as it were with incense, the memorial of that great sacrifice, celebrating the same according to the mysteries by him given unto us, and giving thanks to him for our salvation; with godly hymns and prayers to the Lord our God; as also offering to Him our whole selves, both soul and body, and to his Priest, which is the Word.”
From the above striking picture of the sacrifice of the Christian altar, drawn by Eusebius; it appears evident that the
Christian Church was formed on the model of the Jewishi Temple; and for the following reason:
The characteristic service of the Jewish Dispensation, which was that of the altar, was performed no where but in the Temple. Now St. Paul says, that “ we Christians have an altar;" and consequently a Priesthood and a sacrifice; for these are correlative terms. The above description given by Eusebius of the service of the primitive Church, confirms this idea. The Christian altar then having succeeded to the Jewish, and the Christian Priesthood to the Levitical; it is most reasonable to conclude, that the Christian Church was formed on the model of the Temple, where the altar service was performed ; and not on that of the Synagogue, where it. certainly was not. But exclusive of the reason of the thing, there is direct proof to be brought forward sufficient to determine this point; part of which the learned Professor has misrepresented, and part he has passed over in silence.
“ Some have ascribed (says the Professor) but very unjustly, the origin of the distinc
tion we have been considering, (namely, between the Clergy and Laity) to Clemens Romanus, who, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, which I had formerly an occasion of quoting, contradistinguishes dain01 (the Laics as we should be apt to render it) from the High Priest, the Priests, and the Levites."
To get rid of the conclusion that was to be drawn from this passage of St. Clemens, relative to the different orders in the Christian Church, the Professor informs his pupils, “ it ought to be observed, that it is introduced by him, when speaking of the Jewish Priesthood, and not of the Christian Ministry.”—But it is not of whom St. Clemens is speaking, but to whom he is addressing himself, that determines the precise meaning of what he says on this occasion. The fact was this, and the Professor, as an Ecclesiastical Historian, ought to have stated it fairly. When St. Clemens made use of the
passage under consideration, he was writing to the divided members of the Church of Corinth, for the express purpose of pressing on them the duty of ecclesiastical subordina