The first witness I introduce is “Richard Watson,” who the McClintock and Strong Cyclopedia says “gave the first systematic treatment of Wesleyan theology. His Institutes, though not the legal, have been the moral and scientific standard of Methodist doctrine.” All aspirants to the Methodist pulpit are required to study “Watson’s Theological Institutes.” He says:
The course of the synagogue worship became indeed the model of that of the Christian Church. It consisted in prayer, reading and explaining the Scriptures, and singing psalms; and thus one of the most important means of instructing nations, and of spreading and maintaining the influence of morals and religion among people, passed from the Jews into all Christian countries.... The mode of public worship in the primitive church was taken from the synagogue service; and so, also, was its arrangements of offices.... Such was the model which the apostles followed in providing for the future regulation of the churches they had raised up. They took it, not from the temple and its priesthood, for that was typical, and was then passing away. But they found in the institution of the synagogues a plan admirably adapted to the simplicity and purity of Christianity, ... and which was capable of being applied to the new dispensation without danger of Judaizing. (Theological Institutes, pages 640, 683, 684.)
Lyman Coleman, Presbyterian, who was “eminent in solid abilities, in accurate scholarship, in stores of accumulated learning, and in extended usefulness,” says:
He (Jesus) was a constant attendant upon the religious worship of the synagogue, and, after his ascension, his disciples conformed their acts of worship to those of the synagogue. They consisted in prayer, in singing and in the reading and exposition of the Scriptures, as appears from the writers of the New Testament, from the earliest Christian fathers, and from profane writers of the first two centuries. (Ancient Christianity Exemplified, page 94.)
The eminent scholar of the Church of England, G. A. Jacob, in his “Ecclesiastical Polity of the New Testament,” which is used as a text-book in some of the Episcopal theological seminaries in this country, says:
In the temple was the priest consecrated according to a precise regulation, and a sarcedotal succession laid down by God himself, with the altar and its sacrifices at which he officiated, the incense which he burned, the holy places into which none might enter but those to whom it was especially assigned. In the synagogue was the reader of the Scriptures, the preacher or expounder of religious and moral truth, the leader of the common devotions of the people, unconsecrated by any special rites, and unrestricted by any rule of succession; with a reading desk or pulpit at which he stood, but with no altar, sacrifice or incense, and no part of the building more holy than the rest. And without attempting now to dwell upon all the remarkable contrasts thus displayed, it may suffice to say that the temple exhibited in a grand combination of typical places, persons and actions. God dwelling with man, reconciling the world unto himself in the person and work of Christ; and pardoning, justifying and graciously receiving those who come to him through the appointed Saviour; while the synagogue exhibited a congregation of men, already reconciled to God, assembled as devout worshipers for prayer and praise, for instruction in divine knowledge, and edification in righteous living. And the two systems—the one gorgeous and typical, the other simple and real; in one, God drawing near to man, in the other, man drawing near to God—never clashed or interfered with each other; were never intermingled or confounded together. In the temple there was no pulpit, in the synagogue there was no altar.... They (apostles) retained and adapted to Christian use some Jewish forms and regulations; but they were taken altogether not from the temple, but from the synagogue. The offices which they appointed in the church, and the duties and authority which they attached to them, together with the regulations which they made for Christian worship, bore no resemblance in name or in nature to the services of the priesthood in the temple. The apostles had been divinely taught that those priests and services were typical forms and shadows, which were centered, and fulfilled, and done away in Christ; and to reinstate them in the Church would have been in their judgment to go back to the bondage of “weak and beggarly elements” from the liberty, strength and rich completeness of the Gospel dispensation. They saw that as the ordinances of the temple represented the work of God wrought out for man, not man’s work for God, to continue them after that work was finished in the life and death of Jesus, would be in effect so far to deny the efficacy of the Saviour’s mission, and to thrust in the miserable performances of men to fill up an imagined imperfection in the Son of God. (Ecclesiastical Polity, pages 96-98.)
The apostles, therefore, by the directions of the Holy Spirit adopted official arrangements similar to those of the synagogue, and discarded those of the temple, in the institution of church offices, and plainly showed by this circumstance that no priestly powers or duties were attached to their ministrations. Another argument which leads to the same conclusion is deduced from the condition of the members of the Church as it appears in the New Testament, and the equality of standing in Christ, which Christians possessed. The way of access to God being open to all without distinction through the priesthood of Christ, there was nothing for a priest to do—no sacerdotal work or office for him to undertake.
On this phase of the subject, Mr. Jacob has said some very pointed things, and I will call on him to give testimony. He says:
A distinct proof that the office bearers in the Church of the Apostles were not, and could not be priests, or perform any sacerdotal duties, is seen in a condensed form in the epistle to the Hebrews, and is found at large in the whole of the Old and the New Testaments, of which that epistle, as far as the subject reaches, is so valuable an epitome. We there learn that from the very nature of the priestly office, it is necessary for those who hold it to be specially called and appointed by God, either personally by name, or according to a divinely instituted order of succession; and that, since the patriarchal dispensation, only two orders of priesthood have ever had this necessary divine sanction granted to them. The two orders are the order of Aaron and the order of Melchisedek. The priests of the former order belonged to the Jewish dispensation only, and have indisputably passed away. The only priest after the order of Melchisedek, even mentioned in the Bible, is our Lord Jesus Christ—the “priest upon his throne,” without a successor, as he had none before him, in the everlasting priesthood of his mediatorial reign. This argument appears to me to be conclusive. It appears to me that the epistle to the Hebrews shuts out the possibility of there being any other priest in the Church besides Christ himself. But this does not so appear to a large number of our clergy. Bishops as far back as the third century claimed to be successors or vicegerents of Christ on earth; and our presbyters do not hesitate to declare that they are priests after the order of Melchisedek. To my mind and feeling this is an impious claim; but countenanced as they are by numberless past and present examples, good men are not conscious of impiety in making it. But, then it is necessary to ask the “priests” for their credentials. Where is the record of their divine appointment to the sacerdotal office? In what part of the New Testament, and in what form of words, is the institution of such priests, and the manner of their succession, to be found? And to such inquiries no satisfactory answer has been or can be given. (Ibid, pages 102-104.)