Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

This is conduct which must disgrace the best of causes, and can add strength to none. Harsh and illiberal epithets (see p. 90) applied to opponents, if they were in character, considered as proceeding from a Professor ex Cathedra, certainly do not become the scholar, much less the Divine. And, how high soever Dr. Campbell may be thought to stand in either or both those characters, yet for him to have spoken with proper respect of men of such profound erudition and distinguished excellence, as Dodwell and Hickes, however mistaken they might be, would certainly not have diminished in the least his own reputation in the world.

With the view however of exposing what is called the "inconsequential reasoning" of Dr. Hickes, Professor Campbell has furnished his reader with an opportunity of weighing his own knowledge of the Jewish Scriptures, and that of Dr. Hickes against each other.

Dr. Hickes (in his first Letter on the Christian Priesthood, C. 3.) says, "that our Lord, as a Jew, was to observe the Law and the Temple worship, and live in com

munion with the Jews: which, though he could do as a King and a Prophet, yet he could not do with congruity, had he declared himself to be their Sovereign Pontiff; that very High Priest, of which Aaron himself was but a Type and Shadow.But allow me to ask (continues the Professor) why could he not? Was it because there was a real incongruity betwixt his conforming to the Jewish worship, and his character of High Priest? If there was, he acted incongruously, for he did conform: and all he attained by not declaring himself a Priest, was not to avoid, but to dissemble this incongruity. And if there was none in conforming, where was the incongruity in avowing a conduct, which was in itself congruous and defensible? We are therefore forced to conclude, from this passage, either that our Lord acted incongruously, and was forced to recur to dissimulation to conceal it, or that Dr. Hickes argues very inconsequentially.”—Page 313.

Such is the mode of reasoning adopted by the Professor, with the view of vindicating our Saviour's Character, from that charge of political dissimulation which ap

pears

pears, in his opinion, to have been inadvertently ascribed to it on this occasion by Dr. Hickes.

Might I presume to hold the balance between these two learned men, I should observe, what, from a due attention to the argument on both sides, appears to me to be the case: that the Professor has certainly commenced his attack on Dr. Hickes's position, by a palpable misinterpretation of it; and on that misinterpretation has built his conclusion.

The Professor supposes the incongruity in this case, according to Dr. Hickes's position, to consist in our Saviour's conformity to the Jewish worship, and his character of High Priest; and on this supposition proceeds to say, that our Saviour acted incongruously, for he did conform. But the incongruity alluded to by Dr. Hickes, would have consisted, not in our Saviour's conformity to the Temple worship, and his character of High Priest under the Gospel, for in this there was nothing incongruous; but in our Saviour's observing the Law and Temple worship as a Jew, and his assuming to himself the 'office

office of High Priest under that Dispensation. We are not therefore forced to conclude with the Professor from this passage from Dr. Hickes, either" that our Saviour acted incongruously, and was forced to recur to dissimulation to conceal it, or that Dr. Hickes argues inconsequentially;" because our Saviour was not chargeable with the incongruity to which Dr. Hickes alluded: he observed the Law and Temple worship as a Jew; but never assumed the office of High Priest under the Law: there was therefore no occasion for our Saviour (if we may so say) to use dissimulation for the concealment of a character, to which he made no pretensions. Our Saviour being born under the Law, was to observe the Law. This he could do as a King or a Prophet; but in assuming the office of Sovereign Pontiff, he would have broken the Law; for he belonged to the Tribe of Judah, not to the Tribe of Levi, to which the office of Priesthood exclusively appertained. The difference between a man's conforming to an established worship, and acting as an officiating Minister in it, must, it is presumed, be sufficiently apparent.

The

The fallacy of Dr. Campbell's argument against Dr. Hickes appears to consist then in its confounding, what it was the intention of Dr. Hickes to discriminate; namely, the congruity of our Saviour's conduct in observing the Temple worship as a Jew, with what would have been the incongruity of it, had he officiated in it as a Priest. There was no incongruity in the former case; in the latter there certainly would have been; and for the following obvious reason:

The Jewish Dispensation was Typical of the Christian. The High Priest of the Law was the Type of Christ, the great High Priest of the Gospel. It would therefore have been a confusion of the divine œconomy of Grace, for the Type and Anti-type to have been made to co-exist under the same Dispensation. St. Paul gives the reason why our Saviour should not have been a Priest under the Law."If he were on earth (says the Apostle) he should not be a Priest; seeing that there are Priests that offer gifts according to the Law." Heb. viii. 4. Our Saviour's Priesthood was to be exercised not on earth but

« ZurückWeiter »