« AnteriorContinuar »
their successors of the Asmonean family: Herod, too, changed the High Priesthood at pleasure, a and the Romans openly exposed it to sale. Now these were as great nullities in the High Priests of our Saviour's time as can be conceived, for the Jews, who kept their genealogies with such strictness, must have known in whom the right of this office was vested. Yet these were in fact High Priests, and made the atonement for the people, and were owned as such by our Saviour, as is evident from the instance of Caiaphas, whose claim to the title was acknowledged by him. (John xviii. 22.) Hence it appears, that where the necessity was real and unavoidable, the Jews were bound to think that God dispensed with his own precept. It is reasonable, therefore, to infer, that whenever God by his providence brings Christians under a visible necessity, either of joining in a defiled worship, or of breaking through established rules, in order to the being united in government, the latter may be chosen with impunity.
Modin, the city where Matathias resided, he resisted it with success, and his sons, following his example, at last freed their country from a foreign yoke.--See Hale's Anal. of Chronol. v. ii. p. 597.
Herod the Great was made king of Judea by the Roman senate, B. C. 40. He elected Ananelas High Priest after the death of Antigonus, whom, however, he was obliged to depose, in order to make room for Aristobulus, the rightful successor to the pontificate.-See Hale's Anal. v ii. p. 613. and Lewis's Heb. Antiq. boji.
2. It is justified by antiquity. Frumentius, a layman, preached to the Indians, and was afterwards made a priest and a bishop by Athanasius.a The king of the Iberians also, before he was baptised himself, converted his subjects, and thus became the Apostle of his country before he was initiated. These instances justify us in not passing too severe a censure on a departure from established rules, when necessity calls for it; at the same time, that we may not ourselves concur in that departure. Thus we believe that none ought to baptize but persons lawfully ordained, yet since a practice of admitting the baptism of laymen or women has generally prevailed, we have that regard to such a common practice, that we do not annul, though we condemn it.
See Mosheim's Hist. cent. iv. p. 1.c. 1. sec. XX. • See Sozomen, Hist. Eccl. I. ii. c. vi.
OF SPEAKING IN THE CONGREGATION IN
SUCH A TONGUE AS THE PEOPLE UN-
IT IS A THING PLAINLY REPUGNANT TO THE WORD OF
GOD AND THE CUSTOM OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH,
This Article was differently expressed in those compiled in King Edward's reign : “ It is most “ fit and most agreeable to the Word of God, “ that nothing be read or rehearsed in the con“gregation in a tongue not known unto the
people, which St. Paul hath forbidden to be “ done, unless some be present to interpret.”
It condemns the practice of having public prayers in an unknown tongue; and in this condemnation it is supported, 1. by reason ; 2. by the Word of God; and 3. by the custom of the primitive Church.
1. The practice is contrary to reason. The worship of God is an act by which we acknowledge his attributes, rejoice in his goodness, and implore his mercies. In this, the more we raise our thoughts, and the greater devotion that animates our minds, the more acceptably do we serve God," who is a spirit, and will be worshipped in spirit and in truth.” (John, iv. 24.) Now this effect is totally precluded, if the worship of God be performed in a language unknown to the people. They have nothing but noise and show to amuse them, which, though they may entertain the senses, yet cannot affect the heart nor excite the mind.
2. It is contrary to the Word of God. (1.) In the Old Testament, the expressions contained in the Psalms, prove that they were intended to affect those who were to use them. And if this be admitted, then it follows, that all ought to understand them, for no one can be affected by that which he does not understand. (2.) When Ezra and Nehemiah were instructing the people out of the law, they appointed persons, who “ read it distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused the people to understand the reading.” (Neh. viii. 8.) Again, after they had been a long time in captivity, and the Chaldee language had become more familiar to them than the Hebrew, a paraphrase was made of their law in that language ;a and in the form of prayers we find that one cried with a loud voice, “ stand up and bless the Lord your God for ever and ever.” (Neh. ix.
5.), which shows that all understood the service. And finally, when the Greek language became more generally known to them, they read the law in their synagogues in that language, and since they read their law in Greek, it is reasonable to suppose that they prayed in it too.
3. In the New Testament, the Apostles were enabled to speak several tongues, the design of which was, that every nation might understand them when they preached in its native language.
4. St. Paul desires that“ all things be done to edification.” (1 Cor. xiv. 26.) Since then the performing public service in a tongue not uuderstood by the people can edify no person, it is therefore forbidden.
5. When some who had the gift of tongues at Corinth used it without discretion, and pretended to teach the people in an unknown language, St. Paul opposes the practice on reasons that are equally conclusive against prayer, or reading the word of God, in an unknown tongue. Indeed the former is even more inexcusable, since it is much more necessary that men should hear and understand the revelation of God than the expositions of men. As to prayer, he says,"
a This discourse of St. Paul is supposed by Roman Catholic writers to allude to those extemporaneous prayers uttered by the immediate inspiration of the Holy Gbost, which were then frequent in the Church, but not to any stated liturgy, or form of service. (See Bellar, de Ver. Dei. 1. 2. c. 16.) Now, in the Primitive Church