For, 1. He is a minister of Christ for the church, and not the minister of the church properly. And he is subordinate to Christ in his priestly office, as well as in his teaching and ruling office: and the priests did always take it for their office, not only to speak as the people's mouth, but as sub-mediators or intercessors for them to God; and as then they were types of Christ by standing between God and the people, so they were his officers as well as types; and so they are his officers to this day: and as they teach and rule in his name by office, so do they intercede in his name: all men confess that they may do this in private; and where is it forbidden to be done in public?
2. And there are some cases in which it is fittest that it should be so. That is, when it is supposed that the congregation doth not join with him. As, 1. When the whole church is fallen into some error of judgment, (as who hath not many,) and he knoweth that they differ from him, it is fitter for him to pray as a sub-intercessor for them in his own person, than to speak as in their persons, who he knoweth join not with him. For that hath a plain untruth in it. 2. If the whole church be fallen into some little sin, which seduction yet hindereth them from repenting of, he were better confess it, and profess sorrow for it, in his own person, than in theirs that join not with him in it. 3. When he prayeth for somewhat for himself and them, that is above their understanding, (as for direction in some difficult controversies, &c.) I know not that he is bound to speak in their names that understand him not.
Therefore this is no business for christians that are not possessed with a proud, peevish, self-conceited, quarrelsome humour, to censure or despise a minister for; nor should any introduce that false doctrine of man's invention into the church, that the minister is only to pray in public as the people's mouth. But the power of prejudice is great.
[369] 1 Tim. ii. 1, 2; Isa. lix. 16; Jer. xxvii. 18; vii. 16; xxix. 7; xxxvii. 3; xlii. 2, 4, 20; 1 Sam. vii. 5; xii. 19, 23; 2 Cor. xiii. 7; Phil. i. 9; Col. i. 9, 3; 1 Thess. v. 23; 2 Thess. i. 11; 1 Thess. iii. 10.
Quest. CXXII. _May the name, priests, sacrifice, and altars, be lawfully now used instead of, Christ's ministers, worship, and the holy table?_
_Answ._ 1. He that useth them in design to bring in the popish transubstantiation and real sacrifice of the mass, doth heinously sin in such a design and use.
2. In a time and place where they may not be used without scandal, or tempting or encouraging any to their errors, the scandal will be a grievous sin.
3. The New Testament useth all the Greek names which we translate, priests, sacrifice, and altars, therefore we may use the same in Greek; and our translation and English names are not intolerable. If priest come from presbyter I need not prove that; if it do not, yet all ministers are subordinate to Christ in his priestly office as essentially as in the rest. And Rev. i. 6; v. 10; xx. 6, it is said, that we are or shall be made priests of God, and unto God. And 1 Pet. ii. 5, we are "an holy priesthood," and ver. 9, a "royal priesthood:" if this be said of all, then especially of ministers.
And the word sacrifice is used of us and our offered worship, 1 Pet. ii. 5; Heb. xiii. 15, 16; Phil. iv. 18; Eph. v. 2; Rom. xii. 1.
And Heb. xiii. 10, saith, "We have an altar whereof they partake not," &c. And the word is frequently used in the Revelation, chap. vi. 9; viii. 3, 5; xvi. 7, &c. in relation to gospel times. We must not therefore be quarrelsome against the bare names, unless they be abused to some ill use.
4. The ancient fathers and churches did ever use all these words so familiarly without any question or scruple raised about them, either by the orthodox or any heretics, that at present I can remember to have ever read of, that we should be the more wary how we condemn the bare words, lest thence we give advantage to the papists to make them tell their followers, that all antiquity was on their side; which were very easy for them to prove, if the controversy were about the names alone. Extremes and passionate imprudence do give the adversaries great advantages.
5. The names of sacrifice and altar, were used by the ancient churches, not properly, but merely in allusion to the Jewish and heathen sacrifices and altars, together with a tropical use from the christian reasons of the names.
As the Lord's supper is truly the commemoration of Christ's sacrifice; and therefore called by protestants, a commemorative sacrifice; so that our controversy with the papists is not, whether it may be called a sacrifice, but whether it be only the sacrament of a sacrifice, or a sacramental, commemorative sacrifice, or also a real, proper sacrifice of the very body and blood itself of Christ. For we acknowledge, that This is a sacrifice, is no more tropical a speech, than This is my body and blood.