A fair examination into this question is most important, but we cannot enter upon it at the present moment.  We must necessarily defer it to another day.  I trust, with God’s help and guidance, to resume our subject on Sunday next, and endeavour further to see how the doctrine really stands, taking, briefly but carefully, into consideration these three points:—

1.  What is the testimony of the Holy Scripture as to the doctrine of the Christian priesthood, altar, and sacrifice?

2.  How this has been understood by the Church from the beginning? and,

3.  How it has been received by our own branch of the Church Catholic, the Church of England?

And I will only add now, whilst I pray that we may all strive simply to know the will of God that we may do it, that there can be no more practical matter than this to engage our thoughts and hearts.  For, if it be so, that Christ has left Him no priests now on earth to minister at His altars, and no sacrifice with which His people are concerned, a great part of what so many believe, I might say, of what the Church of God for eighteen hundred years and more has believed, to be of the essence of our faith, is a mere fable and superstition; whilst if, on the other hand, “it be truth, and the thing certain,” [43] that a Christian priesthood, ordained by Christ Himself, and these sacrificial powers, and altar and sacrifice, remain and must remain ever in His Church, what words shall describe the misery and sin of those who are endeavouring to rob a whole nation of their belief in such truth of God, and to pour more than slight and contempt upon the ordinances of Christ; so that, in fact, they would, if they could have their will and way, unchurch the Church of God in this land, deny the virtue of His mysteries, and starve the children of God who seek to receive at His altar the benefits of His sacrifice, humbly waiting on Him there, and partaking of the sacrifice and feast ordained by Him.

Oh! let us pray indeed that we may come to the consideration of so weighty a matter, casting away all passion and prejudice and preconceived opinion, and whatsoever may hinder us from seeing the truth of God, to which may He of His mercy guide us.  And may He grant us also that we may not merely know the truth, but when we know it follow it, in our daily life and conversation, without turning aside to the right hand or to the left.

SERMON III.
Witness of the New Testament to the Doctrine of Sacrifice.

I endeavoured to shew in the first of these discourses that it was no argument against the truth of the priesthood that they who hold it have “this treasure in earthen vessels,” that a priest is like and “of like passions” with others, nay, is “weak as another man.”  In the second, I pointed out that sacrifice was an institution as old as the days of our first parents, and in all probability appointed directly by the Almighty upon man’s fall, with some revelation of its predictive significance; that certainly it met with His approval when duly and religiously performed; and that it was by faith that those who took part in it “obtained the witness that they were righteous:” [45] whence we were led to consider more particularly its relation to the sacrifice upon the Cross of “the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world,” and how from the beginning it looked forward, in its inner meaning, with a preparing and expectant eye and heart, to that wonderful consummation.  We saw, too, that thus among God’s own chosen people, by special and minute provision, this doctrine and usage of sacrifice were preserved even as long as the elder dispensation lasted; whilst, though in terrible and wicked perversion, both as to the object and the mode of worship, they yet prevailed universally throughout the heathen world.  Admitting it to be conceivable that in the Almighty’s will it might be intended that sacrifice should altogether cease when once the great sacrifice was completed; that, although He had appointed foreshadowing and predictive rites of that wonderful event, He did not intend that there should be any reflective or commemorative sacrifice to carry us back to it, or to apply its virtue, or to plead its merits ever afresh before the throne of God; we yet saw great reason to think this to be highly unlikely, and reserved the point more particularly for further examination.  What is the testimony which has been furnished to us upon it?  You will remember that I proposed to consider this testimony under the three heads: first, what Holy Scripture tells us; secondly, what has been the understanding by the Church from the beginning of the declarations of Holy Writ; and thirdly, what is the mind of our own Church in this matter?

Our question is, Has God willed, and has He revealed to us His will, that in His Church, since the death of His Blessed Son upon the cross, there shall be no priesthood, no altar, and no sacrifice?  And first, “What saith the Scripture?” [48a]  I must take but a few out of many passages.

1.  We have, in our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, the following direction: “If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee; leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.” [48b]  Now if this direction be intended to be a guide of conduct for Christian people in the Christian Church, can it be denied that our Lord speaks of an altar to be used, and an offering to be made thereon; and that, speaking to those who were constantly accustomed to altars and sacrifices, His words must have conveyed to them the meaning that an altar and a sacrifice would remain for them whilst they should be practising the precepts of His religion?  If He did not intend so much by this precept, the question surely arises, How shall we, with any certainty, know what other portions of that or any of our Lord’s discourses were designed for the instruction merely of the Jews who were around Him, or should receive His teaching during the time that their covenant lasted, but became immediately inapplicable and void in and under the Christian dispensation?  Will any say that the precepts concerning purity, meekness, government of the tongue, charity, are thus limited? as, “Whoso looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart;” or, “Whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment;” or, again, “Let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay;” or, once more, “Resist not evil; love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you.” [49]  That these and other divine precepts of that same discourse were injunctions to bind the Jews, to whom primarily they were spoken, but require other proof or repetition before they can be conclusively accepted as designed for Christians would seem strange indeed.  If no one will say so, surely we must confess to a strong presumption in favour of the doctrine of an altar and a sacrifice remaining in the Christian Church.

But perhaps it may be said, Not so: we accept those other precepts as belonging to the Christian Church, because they are simply moral precepts applying to the heart, but the former passage relates to a ceremonial usage of the Jewish polity, and may well be taken to be a mere adaptation of what was then in well-known use; to inculcate, not an act or mode of worship, but figuratively a frame of mind that would be required in Christians.  So that, as the Jew would literally understand, he should go his way from the temple and the altar, and be reconciled to any one to whom he had done wrong, before he could there make his offering; so the Christian in all time, though having no altar to which to come, and no real offering or sacrifice in which to join, should yet learn to be in peace and charity with all men, before he should esteem himself fit to lift up his voice or heart in prayer to God; and that therefore our Lord’s words, spoken “while as the first tabernacle was yet standing,” [50] do not sufficiently prove any altar designed to exist in the Christian Church.  Well, let us allow the utmost weight to such an argument, and grant that the words in and by themselves might possibly be so explained, and yet bear just a tolerable though not, I think, at all a likely interpretation in such sense; but then, let us yet turn and see whether the other and more natural meaning be not corroborated elsewhere, where this gloss will not avail.  Remember the objection to the proof of a Christian altar from those words is, that they were spoken whilst the Jewish polity subsisted, and before the Christian Church was set up, and therefore that it is only (as is asserted) by a figure, suitable enough to Jewish ears, but not as really enunciating a truth or principle to endure in the Christian Church, that they were uttered.  But shall we not find a witness in Holy Scripture to the existence of this altar in the new dispensation, which is free from this exception or construction?  I turn to the Epistle to the Hebrews, and I find the Apostle writing, “We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.” [51a]  Was not this written to Christians?  Does it not speak to them expressly of their altar at which they are to eat?  Was it not set down for their guidance and instruction?  Was it not written after the great sacrifice upon the altar of the cross had been made, and made once for all?

Was it not after the setting up of the Christian Church, and the establishment of Christian worship?  Nay, is it not in an Epistle, the very whole drift and scope of which is to contrast the usages and provisions and teaching of the elder covenant with those of the new, and to shew the superiority in each respect of that which had been ordained, not by angels, but in the hand of the Son of God Himself. [51b]  And can it therefore be that the inferior part or type in the one can lack the corresponding superior part, or antitype, in the other with which it is contrasted, and on which correspondency and contrast the whole argument depends?  Will any one say, Yes, but still the Jewish temple had not then been destroyed; the Jews’ visible altar and worship still existed, and it is only by (again) an adaptation, as a mode of speech particularly intelligible to the Hebrews, and by a very natural economy, that such terms were employed.  But granting that the date of the Epistle is, with all probability, rightly put some little time before the destruction of Jerusalem, yet does not the very turn both of the argument and of the expression of the Apostle shew that he is not making an application of a figure, but a declaration of a fact?  Addressing Hebrews, but most evidently converted Hebrews, Christians, to keep them firm in the faith, and to enlighten them to the more full understanding in it, he presses on them this point, that they have an altar; and not only so, but one distinguished from the altar of the Jew; one at which “they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.”  Take the whole passage together and see its force: “We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.  For the bodies of those beasts whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the High Priest for sin, are burned without the camp.  Wherefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered without the gate.”  Where evidently the type, the great day of atonement under the law, is contrasted with its antitype, the great sacrifice of Christ upon the cross.  So far it might be perhaps thought that our altar is only the cross; but then he continues: “Let us go forth, therefore, unto Him without the camp, bearing His reproach; for here we have no continuing city, but we seek one to come.  By Him, therefore, let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name.” [53]  Here it is evident another sacrifice is to be made, even the sacrifice of praise (which we must remember is the very phrase universally used in the ancient Church for the Holy Eucharist).  Let us therefore (surely we are to understand) follow after Christ, being content to bear His reproach even as we offer to Him, ourselves, our souls and bodies, in and by the sacrifice of His own appointing, the Eucharistic Sacrifice in the supper of the Lord, at the enduring Christian altar as well as table.

But perhaps some may still say, We are not convinced.  The allusion to an altar here may yet be figurative, or only adapting language to the mind of the Jew, “while as the first tabernacle was yet standing;” and the sacrifice of praise need not necessarily mean the Holy Eucharist, or, if it do, may point to no altar or sacrifice by means of a priest, but merely denote the lifting the heart in sincerity to God.

Now, although putting the whole argument together and reading the passage by the light which the continuous belief of the Church throws upon it (as we shall see presently), nothing, I think, can be more unlikely or untenable than such an interpretation, still, for the moment, let us allow it to throw a doubt upon the sense of the passage.  Let us, then, turn to yet another place, and see if the witness of the Apostle is not unmistakeable as to the doctrine of which we speak.

Take that passage in the first Epistle to the Corinthians in which our text occurs, and see if it be possible to understand it in any sense but in that which speaks of a present altar and a continually recurring sacrifice, in which Christians have an interest and bear a part: “Are not they which eat of the sacrifice,” says he, “partakers of the altar?” [54] and this especially in contrast as to the conduct of those engaged in idol worship, and those in Christian worship.  As truly, then, as the idolater partook of his altar (though his idol be nothing), so, only much more, does the Christian of the Christian altar.  And this cannot be the one offering on the cross alone, however deriving all its virtue and power from it, because in that case the Christian could not be said to eat of the sacrifice in any continuous or recurring act.  The sacrifice would be wholly past, and not present as the idol sacrifices were, and so there would be no true parallel between the two things brought into comparison.  Mark the progress of the argument: “What say I then? that the idol is anything, or that which is offered in sacrifice to the idol is anything?  But I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils and not to God;” that is, under the symbol of the senseless wood or stone there lurked an acknowledgment of demoniac power, so that, in fact, in the heart of those worshippers there was a homage paid to Satan and his angels, and this was something wickedly real, even though the idol was nothing.  For he immediately adds what shews that this worship was not without its effect, an effect impressing a character on those who shared in it; for he says, “And I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils,” and why? because thus they would lose all fellowship with God.  “Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils.  Ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils.” [55]  Let it make no difficulty that it is called a table here, as an altar above.  It is both, just as the other, the heathen altar, was both, because in each case there was not merely a sacrifice, but a feast upon a sacrifice.  As truly, then, as the Apostle says that there is a heathen idolatrous sacrifice which Christians can never have to do with, because if they do they would have fellowship with devils, so does he, by the very parallel he draws, and the whole scope of his argument, imply that Christians have a sacrifice, at which they can be, and are to be, continually present; in and by which they have fellowship with the Lord, which also is offered continually in their assemblies, and of which they eat.  For as in the one there were the heathen feasts upon the victims or offerings offered to devils; so in the other there is the feast upon the Christian sacrifice, the offering made in that continually recurring commemorative oblation to God of the body and blood of Christ.  If this be not to be offered up continually, since the one sacrifice completed as the propitiation by blood made once for all upon the cross, then there is no coherency or force in the Apostle’s argument; for there would be nothing in the Christian dispensation like, or answering to, those sacrifices to devils which the heathen used, and in which they were forbidden to join.  The teaching surely is, and must be, as they who join in the heathen altar-worship are partakers of it, and have fellowship thereby with those to whom it is really offered, so they who join in the Christian sacrifice (not so made and passed in point of time as to be incapable of continued and continual recurrence by commemorative but real act) are thereby partakers in and of their feast upon their sacrifice, and have therein fellowship with the Lord.  So this is the continual memorial of the one “sacrifice upon the cross, and of the benefits which we receive thereby,” also the appointed means of our receiving those benefits.  And it would be absurd to think of the Apostle describing the worship of idols as a real act of adoration and sacrifice to devils, and as impressing a real character by a power upon them for evil in those who join in such worship, and not to see that he must allow an equal act of sacrifice, adoration, and homage in the sacrifice and the altar which he speaks of as the Christian’s constant privilege to frequent; and which is as much greater to impress a character for good upon the Christian and to nourish him to life eternal, as the real presence of the Body and Blood of Christ is greater than the idol, which is nothing, or the things offered to idols, which are nothing.

Nor is there any escape, that I can see, from the force of this argument of St. Paul, unless any one will try to evade it by saying: “Look back a moment, and see if the whole argument does not belong to the Jew, and not to the Christian.”  Will any one take this line and appeal to the words immediately before the text?  True, it is written, “Behold Israel after the flesh.  Are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?”  But if this be urged, I say, go back a little further still, and observe the flood of light thrown upon the whole passage, in connection not merely generally with Christianity, but especially and particularly with the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ, in this true commemorative Sacrament, which is exactly where and how, we say, the Christian sacrifice is offered by the Christian priests upon the Christian altar.  After exhortation against yielding to temptation, and declaration of the ever-ready help of God for those who will use it, “who will not suffer us to be tempted above that we are able, but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that we may be able to bear it,” the Apostle adds: “Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.  I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.”  (Oh, let us also be wise to hear and learn!  “Judge ye what I say.”)  “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the Blood of Christ?  The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the Body of Christ?  For we, being many, are one bread and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.” [58]  And then all but immediately he adds, “are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?”  Can anything be clearer than that, to the blessed Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, he attaches the teaching which follows so directly as to the nature of the sacrifice and the altar?  Ah! but, it is said, he interpolates words that you have omitted which alter the application:—“Behold Israel after the flesh;” he says, and then adds, “are not they which eat of the sacrifice partakers of the altar?”  Well, and what do the parenthetical words mean?  Surely they must mean merely this,—that, as his readers would allow such was the case under the law, and with Israel after the flesh; and that Israel, as well as the heathen, had an altar and a sacrifice, so it is also with Christians: as if he had said, We Christians, by this blessed sacramental bond, are one body, even as we are all partakers of that one Bread; and as you will all allow, the partaking of a common sacrifice (for instance, that of the Paschal Lamb,) signified this under the law and with “Israel after the flesh,” so you must be prepared to admit as much under the Gospel, and with the true Israel born anew of the Spirit.  Thus the interpolation does not for one moment break the sequence or invalidate the force of the argument as to the Christian sacrifice, but merely illustrates it by a parenthetical allusion to what his hearers or readers would allow at once to have been the case with Jewish rites, sacrifices, and altars: and the conclusion from the whole is distinct and inevitable, that St. Paul,—speaking to the Christians at Corinth as to men who would understand the whole force of his argument, as being acquainted with Jewish customs, and living also in the very midst of heathen idolatrous worship,—teaches as plainly that Christians use a Christian altar, and offer up a Christian sacrifice, and feast together upon it, and that this is undoubtedly the cup of blessing which we bless, and the bread which we break, and that thereon follows the blessedness of fellowship with the Lord; I say, teaches this as plainly as he says there is, or has been, in Jewish worship a Jewish altar and sacrifice, and as there is in heathen worship an altar and a sacrifice to devils, and a partaking of the cup of devils, and of the table of devils, and thereby the having fellowship with them.  And, (what is particularly to the purpose of my citing this passage), herein is the proof that the sacrifice referred to cannot be the one meritorious, painful, bloody sacrifice upon the cross, once made and never to be repeated; both because this was not (no one can say it was) the literal breaking of bread, and the blessing the cup in the Holy Eucharist, and because also, if that one sacrifice had been intended, there would have been no parallel at all between the heathen sacrifices to which the people were often called, and that sacrifice to which Christians on this supposition could never be called.  Whereas if we do but allow, according to the plain meaning of the words and of the argument, that there is a true sacrifice to God, commemorative, but real, as ordained and appointed by Christ Himself,—no repetition of blood or agony, but the presenting afresh, and pleading afresh, yea, causing Christ Himself to plead afresh for us in heaven, the merits of that one precious death,—then we have the most manifest recognition and declaration of the very doctrine for which we contend, and both many other passages of Holy Writ are made perfectly clear,—(who will now doubt the sense of the other two Scriptures which we examined?)—and the whole sense and usage of the Church from the beginning is both explained and justified.

Our time has been so much taken up in examining what was, of course, the most important question of all, the teaching of Holy Scripture upon this point, that we have left ourselves no time to-day to consider the further portion of our proposed subject, viz., what is the teaching of the Church Catholic from the beginning, and its understanding of the written word on this doctrine of sacrifice; and, yet again, what is the witness of our own Church to her having most carefully preserved, held, and maintained the same.  To this we will recur, if God will, another day; in the meanwhile commending ourselves ever to His mercy, and all we think or do to His grace and guidance.

SERMON IV.
The Testimony of the Early Church to the Doctrine of the Priesthood.

The next division of our enquiry is, the understanding of Holy Scripture in the primitive Church as to the priesthood, the altar, and the sacrifice, and its consequent doctrine thereupon.  Before, however, proceeding to this examination, let me briefly remind you of the point in the argument from Holy Scripture at which we have arrived, for our time on Sunday last hardly permitted me to sum up the remarks then made.  The last passage which we considered asks in the tone of unquestionable affirmation, “Are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?”  The parallel, as I then pointed out, lies between those on the one hand, who, eating of the heathen sacrifices, are partakers of the heathen altar, and thus have fellowship with devils; and those, on the other hand, who, eating of the Christian sacrifice, are partakers of the Christian altar, and thus have fellowship with God.  For, I must repeat, if St. Paul’s argument have not this meaning and significance, there is no coherency in the things brought into juxtaposition, and nothing on the one side to answer to the requirement of the other.  Observe further, before we pass on, how the Apostle’s whole reasoning, as it stands, excludes, and must exclude, the sense of the Christian sacrifice being a mere figurative expression, and that which is eaten in it a mere subjective thing, dependent upon the mind of the recipient for its being there at all; for, if it were so in the Christian sacrifice, it must be so in the idol sacrifice also.  But is it so in the latter?  Is it that what is there eaten is a mere nothing in itself, dependent upon the mind of the eater?  Is the partaking of the idol altar not an effect of an actual eating?  Is the consequent fellowship with devils not the result of such actual feasting upon an actual objective sacrifice?  And, therefore, if the parallel has any force at all, must it not be that there is a real objective presence of a sacrificial thing at the Christian altar,—the res sacramenti, as in strict theological phraseology it is termed,—by which he that eateth is partaker of the altar, and the result of which is, his having fellowship with Christ and God?  From which our inference was plain and direct that in St. Paul’s understanding there is a Christian altar and a Christian sacrifice.  Such was the conclusion from Holy Scripture at which we arrived.

But yet, before we go into the proof of this, let it be remarked (for it is very important in order to our seeing the full weight and bearing of the facts and records to which we are about to refer) that these three things—the priesthood, the altar, and the sacrifice—are what we may call correlatives, and reciprocally imply one another.  As the word parent implies a child, or brother, brother or sister; so, if there be an altar, there will be a sacrifice, for the altar would be unmeaning without it, would miss its aim and be purposeless if there were nothing to be offered on it; and in like manner, if there be a sacrifice there will be an altar, for it is contrary to the whole sense and usage of the word to make such sacrificial offering to God, and not withal to sanctify some special place and mode of oblation.  Again, if there be an altar and a sacrifice, there will be a priesthood; unless the voice of the whole world (over and above the constraining teaching of the Scripture) be in error, and any man that pleases may “take this honour unto himself,” [66a] and offer up “gifts and sacrifices” acceptably to God.

Premising, then, thus much, I proceed to call attention to the fact, that the whole literature of Christianity from the beginning either states or implies the doctrine of the priesthood, the altar, and the sacrifice, which we have deduced also from Holy Scripture.  It is true that in the very scanty writings which remain to us from the first century, we may not find the word ‘priest’ applied to the Christian ministry.  But, as Mr. Carter has well observed, “the real question is not whether the name, but whether the idea, of priesthood is found to exist in the extant writings of the Apostolic Fathers;” [66b] whilst for the absence of the name it is not hard to assign satisfactory reasons.  In the first place, the extant writings of that century are too few to let a negative conclusion be built upon them.  They amount, I believe, in all, (if we exclude the “Shepherd of Hermas,” a confessedly mere allegorical work,) to not more than what would make about thirty pages of an octavo volume. [66c]  Over and above this paucity of material on which to found an argument, other reasons may readily be given for the term ‘priest’ not occurring.  It may be sufficient here just to touch upon two.  First, there might be great cause why the earliest Christian writers should not designate those who ministered at their altars by a term which might have been understood to imply that they claimed for them a descent from the house of Aaron according to the flesh; which claim the Jews around them would know in many instances to be unfounded, and which, therefore, to be supposed to make, would lay them open to a charge of imposture; whilst again, secondly, they might equally desire to keep clear of all mistake as to their being confounded with the priesthood of the Gentiles, or heathen world, so likely to involve them in the charge of offering up bloody sacrifices like them; a charge which in fact we know, as it was, they did not wholly escape; a wonderful and most unsuspicious witness by the way (for it comes from those who had no thought to forward any interests of Christianity), that Christians claimed to make a true sacrifice in the Eucharist, for it is evidently this, perverted and mistaken by the persecuting heathen, (as if, when they offered the Body and Blood of Christ, they confessed to offering a human victim,) which led to the accusation; a great evidence surely to the doctrine of the real presence of Christ therein, for who could mistake the Eucharistic doctrine of a large portion of modern Christianity for anything open to such a charge, under which we know, upon the testimony of heathen writers, the early Christians suffered reproach?

I cannot, of course, pretend here to go through this evidence in detail.  We must rather look for a summary which may give the result of a fair examination into the records left us, than make a series of extracts from them.  We shall perhaps hardly find a more unexceptionable witness than the learned writer Vitringa, cited by Mr. Carter in his work already mentioned.  Speaking of the age shortly succeeding the Apostles, Mr. Carter says: “As to the usage of this period there can be no surer authority than that of Vitringa.  His extensive learning, directed assiduously to this very point, and his zeal as a partizan, make his testimony to be peculiarly conclusive.” [68]  His zeal as a partizan, be it observed, was not in favour of the Catholic sense of the writings, nor of any priesthood or altar, for Vitringa was a Dutch Presbyterian, who lived about the middle of the last century, and wrote expressly to explain away the evidence which nevertheless he adduces.  He acknowledges that his own views are opposed to the unvarying testimony and belief of the Catholic Church for sixteen hundred years.  His theory excludes all idea of priesthood and equally of bishops, (not the name only, but also the office,) chancels, altars, and oblations, and, indeed, any stated ministry.  In fact, he regards the whole subject as a staunch Presbyterian, and it is, therefore, certainly not with any bias in favour of the doctrine which we are considering that he thus sums up the results of his enquiries into the writings of those early centuries:—

“That Tertullian, in the beginning of the third century, calls the bishop ‘chief priest,’ (summus sacerdos); that before his time, in the second century, Irenæus calls the gifts made at the Holy Eucharist, ‘oblations,’ (oblata,) and when consecrated by the prayer of the bishop, ‘a sacrifice,’ (sacrificium); and that in Justin Martyr, a still more ancient writer, the gifts are called ‘offerings,’ (προσφοραὶ); are facts so certainly known to the learned, that it is needless to speak of them at greater length.  In the subsequent writings of the Fathers, the terms ‘priesthood,’ ‘Priest,’ ‘Levites,’ ‘altars,’ ‘offertories,’ ‘sacrifices,’ ‘oblations,’ used in reference to the Church of the New Testament, are so obvious and frequent that it can escape no one who has even cursorily examined their writings.  In Eusebius, moreover, and the rest of the ecclesiastical historians, and the canons of Councils, such frequent mention occurs of these phrases, that it is evident they must have struck deep root into the minds of men in those ages.” [70]  So much is the testimony of a very learned man, and a most unsuspicious witness.

But there is a separate line of evidence to be drawn from another and perhaps even still more convincing source: I mean the ancient liturgies of the Church which have come down to us, and tell us in what way the early Christians worshipped God; the place which they assigned to the Holy Eucharist, and the light in which they regarded it in connection with sacrifice, altar, and priesthood.  There are four liturgies, (and we are to remember, the word in all ancient writings means merely and simply the Eucharistic service,) which have been shewn to have been reduced to writing in the course of the fourth century, and one of them in the earliest part of it.  They bear their witness to the Church’s faith and hope and teaching in those days, and even earlier, because it is generally conceded that they were in use long before they were put into writing, the days of persecution rendering it unsafe for the Christians to have documents which might be seized, and turned against them; or perhaps still more, the desire to preserve the mysteries of their faith, and especially of the Holy Eucharist, from the inquisition of heathen scoffing, indisposing them to keep any records which could be thus profanely used.  Of course, after the Empire became Christian, under Constantine, this reason ceased, and it was only what was natural that the services which had been orally in use for years should now be reduced to writing.  Now, these four liturgies were used at the four great central sees of Christendom, and their subordinate branches, and so pervaded the whole Catholic world.  “The first,” to use the words of a learned writer, Mr. Palmer, the author of the Origines Liturgicæ, “is the great Oriental liturgy, as it seems to have prevailed in all the Christian Churches, from the Euphrates to the Hellespont, and from the Hellespont to the southern extremity of Greece; the second was the Alexandrian, which from time immemorial has been the liturgy of Egypt, Abyssinia, and the country extending along the Mediterranean Sea to the West; the third was the Roman, which prevailed throughout the whole of Italy, Sicily, and great part of Africa; the fourth was the Gallican, which was used throughout Gaul and Spain, and probably in the exarchate of Ephesus, until the fourth century.” [71]

Now, the especially important bearing of these liturgies upon our subject is this, that in spite of enough of difference to shew that they are independent witnesses, they yet correspond most closely with one another in all main features, and particularly in their witness to the sacrificial doctrine, and the priestly office, in relation to the Holy Eucharist.  And (as Mr. Palmer has pointed out), with regard to the one first named, the Oriental, existing documents enable us to trace this liturgy to a very remote period indeed, almost or quite to the Apostolic age; for he reminds us that in the time of Justin Martyr, whose writings are the “existing documents” of which he speaks, the Christian Church was “only removed by one link from the Apostles themselves.” [72a]  Nor even is this all; for there is yet a fifth liturgy, of a date still earlier than these four already named, called the Clementine, and what is particularly remarkable in it is, that it agrees with those four great liturgies in all points where they agree with each other, as well as in their general structure.

“Now, in all these liturgies alike,” says Mr. Carter, “the ancient sacerdotal terms in question are ordinarily used.  In reading them, we open upon a scene which represents a priesthood of different degrees, with a complete ritual, ministering before God on behalf of the people, offering sacrifices, and communicating heavenly gifts and benedictions.” [72b]

I must forbear both any quotations to shew this, as well as defer any further remarks upon the progress of events, or (which also is part of our subject) on the careful attention, by our own Reformers and Revisers, to preserve the teaching of the primitive Church in this matter.  If it please God, yet once more we may return to the subject, and see how this stands, as well as make some little practical application of the doctrine to ourselves at this day, to some of our dangers and temptations in an age so free-thinking and free-handling as the present.  Without anticipating these things in any detail, let me yet just remind you that the mere fashion, or usage, or clamour, or forgetfulness, or unbelief of any age or time can make no difference in the truth of God, or in the doctrine which has been from the beginning, or in the mysteries of His kingdom.  That men should try to bring all things, however divine and holy, however deep and mysterious, to the level of their own understanding, and discard all which they may be unable to explain, need be to us no matter of surprise.  The very same temper which in one induces a disbelief in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, because the doctrine is beyond the human understanding to fathom,—or leads another to reject the mystery of the Incarnation, because it is ineffable and above his comprehension,—or another to deny the regenerating gift and efficacy of holy baptism, saying, “How can these things be?”—may readily bring others to that hard state of scepticism which robs the Holy Eucharist at once of its deep mysteriousness and of its hidden virtue; which therefore rejects, and too often ridicules, the very idea of a priesthood and an availing sacrifice, saying, “How should man have power with God?” or, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?” [74a] even though the priestly power be derived from Christ’s own commission, and the mysterious virtue assured by His own Word of Truth.  That there should be some who, leaning too much to their own understanding, forsake the old ways, and dislike and accuse those who desire to cleave to them; that they should frame worldly arguments for worldly men, and even deceive some who in heart and wish are not worldly, but rather unwary, or led away by the mere voice of the multitude, or swayed by prejudice, or betrayed through an ignorance of what has been from the beginning; that some should scoff when they cannot reason, and ridicule that which they have not the heart to understand,—all this, I repeat, need not fill us with either surprise or dismay, though perchance it may make us (not wholly unwarrantably) deem that the latter days are come, or close coming, upon us.  I say all this need not surprise us, for have not our Lord and His Apostles warned us that such things must be?  “When the Son of Man cometh,” He said Himself, “shall He find faith on the earth?” [74b] as though it would exist but in a remnant.  And again, “If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?” [75a]  Why, then, should we expect to escape such things?  But I said, also, we need not be dismayed at them.  Is there not the exhortation, “Ye have need of patience?” [75b] and again the encouragement, “In your patience possess ye your souls?” [75c] and again the gracious promise, “He that endureth to the end shall be saved?” [75d]  What though in the latter times some shall depart from the faith? [75e]  What though “the time will come when men will not endure sound doctrine.” [75f]  Shall this make any difference in our faith, or cast any gloom upon our hope?  No!  Brethren, let us ever remember that what we have to rely upon is, not “man’s wisdom,” nor “an arm of flesh:” what we have to cleave to with all constancy is “that which was from the beginning;” [75g] for it is this which gives us “fellowship with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.” [75h]

And surely here we may see and bless the goodness of God towards us in this our Church of England that He put it into the hearts of our Reformers not for one moment to think of making a new religion or a new Church, but only (throwing off errors and corruptions) to go back to the teaching of the early ages, and embrace the doctrine of the Church universal.  If the Church of England had begun at the Reformation, (as sometimes men speak,) no man, who knew anything of the essentials of Christianity could belong to her for a moment.  But, blessed be God, He put it into the heart and minds of those who, in His providence, guided the course of the English Reformation, to make it a maxim, Stare super antiquas vias, to give heed to the injunction of the prophet: “Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths where is the good way; and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls.” [76]  It is this which has been, under God, our safeguard.  From time to time assaults have been made to destroy our true Catholic character and our bond of union with primitive Christianity; but God has, of His mercy, hitherto, ever kept it in the heart of the rulers in our Church to “ask for the old ways, and to walk in them.”  That our Church has kept to the old ways is manifest from this, that the very persons who disbelieve and desire to drive us from the ancient faith, are the same who, as the means of doing so, are striving to new model our formularies and alter our Prayer-book.  They feel no less than we that, whilst we retain these, we cleave to the doctrine which has been of old; and they, desiring to deprive us of the doctrine, are as anxious to alter our formularies as we are to keep them unchanged.  And many of them would perhaps, even more openly than they do, advocate extensive measures of liturgical revision, in a doctrinal sense, but for the consciousness that to shew too great anxiety on the point is too like a confession of how much the Prayer-book is against them.  Surely these things are of great weight when we would know what doctrine is most according to the mind of the Church of England.  “I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.”  It is this same principle, too, of preserving the one faith once delivered, which makes it so important to examine, as we are attempting to do, the sense of Holy Scripture as attested by the consent of the Church from the beginning, and as accepted by our own Church, upon so grave and practical a subject as the priesthood, the altar, and the sacrifice.  May God give us His illumination to see His truth as He has seen fit to reveal it to us, and grace that where we see it, we may boldly confess it; so shall we pass in safety the waves of this troublesome world, so may we, perchance, be delivered from the strife of tongues; or, if not, yet shall we learn not to fear man, nor be troubled even if we cannot please men, remembering the witness of St. Paul, that “if he pleased men, he should not be the servant of Christ.” [77]

And, brethren, let us all pray for an humble, meek, gentle, teachable, believing heart, that we may not despise or refuse, or disbelieve God’s mighty works, though His treasure be placed in earthen vessels; nor turn our back upon His mysteries, though they transcend our utmost powers of conception, nor neglect His call, be it what it may; to go forth, if it be so, like Abraham, we know not whither; or, like him, to sacrifice our dearest hope, if God demand it; or, like Daniel, to be cast even into the den of lions; or, like the Apostles, to be made the very refuse of the earth and the offscouring of all things,—so that we may but hold fast the faith, and yet hand on again to those who shall come after the good deposit committed to our charge.  If this, indeed, we are enabled to do, we may well “thank God and take courage.”

SERMON V.
The Testimony of our Formularies to the Doctrine of the Priesthood.

In the brief outline which I have submitted in these discourses of the evidences for the doctrine of the Christian priesthood, altar, and sacrifice, I first met the objection sometimes made to there being any such treasure (in our Church at any rate) because lodged in earthen vessels; secondly, I traced, at least in part, the witness of the whole world before Christ’s coming to the belief in, and usage of, sacrifice and altar, with the necessarily attendant priesthood; and thirdly, I adduced some very small portion of the proofs both from Holy Scripture and from the universal consent of the early Church in its interpretation of Scripture, that priesthood, altar, and sacrifice did not expire with the law, but were intended to be continued, and were continued in and under the Christian dispensation, in and under Him who was and is a High Priest of surpassing power and dignity, not after the pattern or lineage of the priests of the sons of Aaron, but “called an High Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek;” of Him who, fulfilling that royal type, was “King of Righteousness,” and after that also “King of Salem, which is King of Peace,” and yet, again, in like manner, “priest of the Most High God,” and who “abideth a priest continually.” [80]

We brought our examination of this evidence to the fourth century of the Christian era by, as I think it must be allowed, the summary of an unexceptionable witness to the substance of the early Christian writings upon that point, and by a reference to the five most ancient liturgies of the Christian Church.  It is unnecessary to say a word as to the same doctrine being the universally received doctrine of the Church from the fourth century to the sixteenth, because its very opponents adduce the teaching of that thousand or twelve hundred years, in this among other things, as proving the great darkness and corruption which had then fallen upon the Church, and obscured, in their view, the simplicity of the Gospel.  So that, whatever may be thought of its orthodoxy, the fact is not disputed, that for such period the whole of Christendom, with the most insignificant exceptions, believed in the doctrine which we are considering.  Whether, as is affirmed by such objectors, this universal belief were a mark of the corruption and ignorance of “the dark ages,” as the self-complacent pride of later times has designated them, (when perchance in God’s judgment they may be as light itself compared with much of the “philosophy and vain deceit” [81a] of this free-handling nineteenth century, which so often “darkens counsel by words without knowledge” [81b]); or whether such consent, following the track of the earliest ages, be not rather the mark of a true understanding of the mind of the Spirit pervading that body with which Christ has promised to be, “even to the end of the world,” is another question.  It is one which I need not now pursue, as what we have to say of the course taken and the doctrine maintained by the Church of England at her Reformation will throw a light upon the whole matter, which ought, I think, to be sufficient for any understanding and faithful member of our Church.

Thus we are brought to the immediate subject of our further enquiry.  It being admitted, as I think I have shewn it must be, that this doctrine of the priesthood, altar, and sacrifice, is a doctrine founded upon, and supported by, Holy Scripture; so understood by the Church at large from the earliest times, so maintained with no faltering lips to at least the sixteenth century; what, we ask next, is the evidence of the mind of our own Church at the Reformation and since, as to her preserving or rejecting it?

You will hardly expect me to go through all the evidence.  But—remembering what we said on Sunday last, that these three things are correlatives, reciprocally implying each other, or each one the other two, (the priest; the altar and the sacrifice;—the altar; the sacrifice and the priest;—the sacrifice; the priest and the altar;)—let us turn to some portion of the proof that our Church has fully intended and intends, has accounted and accounts, those who in her carry on the services of the sanctuary to be priests of God.

Now, observe, the three great offices embraced in the idea of a priest are these:—first, that he is one who has commission to rule and teach; secondly, one who has power to absolve; thirdly, one who has authority to offer up sacrifice.  The first of these functions, though belonging to the priesthood, is hardly to be called distinctive of it (as we may see more clearly presently); the other two are of its essence, that is, pertaining to none else; so that, on the one hand, he who has them both, or even he who has, if it were so, either of them, is necessarily in a true sense a priest; and, on the other, he who is a priest will have one or other, or both of these powers, not indeed of himself, but committed to him.  To see how this stands with us, who are ministers and stewards of God’s mysteries in this our Church of England, we must turn to our service-books, and especially to the Service for Ordaining Priests, to see what is the commission given to each, and what we learn from this to be the mind of the Church concerning them who are admitted to that holy function.

Now this shews, I think, beyond dispute, that the Church of England holds that no one, according to her mind and rule, is to be accounted or taken to be a lawful bishop, priest, or deacon, without episcopal ordination or consecration; for those who are ordained or consecrated according to the forms which follow, unquestionably have it; and those who are or have been admitted by any others, are not to be accounted lawfully admitted to those Orders unless they have at some time been episcopally ordained.

To the deacon it is said, with the laying on of hands: “Take thou authority to execute the office of a deacon in the Church of God committed unto thee; in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost;” and then, further: “Take thou authority to read the Gospel in the Church of God, and to preach the same if thou be thereto licensed by the bishop himself.” [85a]

But to the priest the corresponding, but far higher commission, is: “Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a priest in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of my hands.” [85b]

Yes, it may be said, but what work?  We grant there is the use of the word ‘priest,’ but the whole question turns upon the sense in which it is used.  Oh, brethren, listen with simple hearts of reverence, loving and seeking only the truth, to the solemn and awful words which follow: “Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained; and be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word of God, and of His holy Sacraments: in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.  Amen.” [85c]

And then, further, delivering the Bible into the hand of each: “Take thou authority to preach the Word of God, and to minister the Holy Sacraments in the congregation where thou shalt be lawfully appointed thereunto.” [85d]

Now, not only is there evidently in all this a general superior commission given, but there is the particular and specific difference which I affirm can only be accounted for by the intentional full recognition of the priestly idea and priestly office as we have all along explained and taken those terms.

And the words settle, as it seems to me, beyond dispute, another question,—which yet is not another, though it may bear a separate word of comment in our argument,—namely, whether the Church of England considers our Lord’s ministerial commission to His Apostles to have been confined to them, or whether it was His will, by virtue of His words, “As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you,” [86] that they should again transmit the powers of the priesthood on to others after them?  For observe particularly what words they are which are used by the bishop to give this commission to the priest.  “Receive,” he says, “the Holy Ghost for the office of a priest, in the Church of God;” and then, “Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained.”  Now from whence do these words come?  Who used them before, and to whom did they then give a commission?  Let us turn to the twentieth chapter of St. John’s Gospel, and we shall find the Divine record: “Then said Jesus to them again,” (viz. to the Apostles,) “Peace be unto you; as My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you.  And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.” [87]

Now is there any one who denies that our Blessed Lord thus gave such power to those to whom He then spoke, and on whom He then breathed?  I suppose not.  It would be wholly to explain away and contradict His word to say so.  It would be to prevent any one relying upon the plainest meaning of anything to say so.  It would be to make every injunction He ever gave, and every truth He ever uttered, without sense or force, so to read such a passage, as that it gave no commission even to the Apostles.  If His Apostles did not receive from that commission a power to bind and loose, to remit and retain sins, it must, I think, be hopeless for any one to imagine any duties can be proved or any doctrines declared in Scripture, or, we might add, by any words anywhere set down.  But then it is said, We do not deny the commission as a personal thing to the Apostles, but we say that it extended no further.  We say that if any imagine such a power and authority to have been intended to be transmitted further, or to be capable of being thus transmitted, he is in a grievous error and mistake.  Now I am not arguing this question, whether mine be the right understanding of the Scripture, but I say, is it not as plain as the sun at noon-day that, right or wrong, it is the understanding of the Church of England?  Surely her meaning here can no more be questioned as to those to whom she applies them, than our Blessed Lord’s intention can be questioned as to those to whom He addressed them.  What possible explanation is there of her appointing those words to be solemnly used in her Ordinal at the time of, and in the ordaining a man to be a priest, but that she believed the powers of the priesthood, as to absolution, to be then and thereby given to that man according to the will of God and Christ?  “I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.”  Would it not shew either an ignorance of the force of words which is inconceivable, not merely in eminent theologians, which assuredly many of our Reformers were, but in any one of sane mind, if the words appointed to be so solemnly used, yet mean absolutely nothing?  Or, if not this, must it not argue an impiety amounting to blasphemy for the Church of any country to draw up for use a service such as this, and, playing unmeaningly or deceitfully with such holy words, not to suppose any gift of the Holy Ghost, or any power of absolution, to be conveyed to those to whom they are addressed?  What could we esteem such a barren equivocation with the holiest of things, if there were such design, but impious mockery towards God and deceit towards man?

But further, we are not even left to such proof that our Church intends no such mockery.  Turn to the work of the priest on this very point of absolution, and what is the light thrown by this upon the words of ordination?  I will pass over the Absolution both in our Morning and Evening Prayers and in the Office of Holy Communion, as, though in each case specifically limited to being given by the priest, they may be thought to be capable of a sense chiefly or only declaratory, or precatory.  But I ask you to turn to two other places—1. to the end of the second Exhortation, as to the coming to Holy Communion; and, 2. to the Office for the Visitation of the Sick.

In the former place, after explanation of the preparation, “the way and means” to come worthily to that Holy Sacrament, we find the following: “And because it is requisite, that no man should come to the Holy Communion but with a full trust in God’s mercy, and with a quiet conscience; therefore if there be any of you, who by this means” (namely, his own private examination of his life) “cannot quiet his own conscience herein, but requireth further comfort or counsel, let him come to me, or to some other discreet and learned minister of God’s Word, and open his grief; that by the ministry of God’s holy Word, he may receive the benefit of absolution,” (What is the benefit if there be no power to absolve?) “together with ghostly counsel and advice, to the quieting of his conscience, and avoiding all scruple and doubtfulness.” [89]

Here then, surely, he who has been ordained a priest, and received the Holy Ghost that he may remit or retain sins, is to exercise his ministry in the absolution of the penitent soul.

But if it be said, There is no minute description or account of the mode of absolution, it may still be but declaratory or precatory; I say, then, turn once again to another place, and see if the form and method of the absolution be not there actually all which we can suppose even an Apostle himself could use.  In the Office for the Visitation of the Sick, when the sick man is in the full contemplation of death, and perhaps death very near at hand, the priest being solemnly engaged in his office of preparing him for it, the distinct direction is given that the sick person shall be “moved to make a special confession of his sins, if he feel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter.  After which confession, the priest shall absolve him (if he humbly and heartily desire it) after this sort.”  And the words are: “Our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath left power to His Church to absolve all sinners who truly repent and believe in Him, of His great mercy forgive thee thine offences;” (so far we have the declaration of the power left to the Church, and either, it may be said, declaratory or precatory words, “forgive thee.”  But this is not all; immediately it is added), “And by His authority committed to me, I absolve thee from all thy sins; in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.  Amen.” [90]

Now, brethren, I do not desire to say much in comment on such words as these.  But I do say, and I know not how to avoid saying, first, if such authority was committed to the priest, when was it committed to him, or how, but at his ordination, and in and by “the form and manner of ordering priests,” which we have before noted?  And, secondly, can any reasonable being believe that the Church could have drawn up such a service, and put such words into the priest’s mouth when dealing solemnly and truly with a sick or dying man, and yet believe that such power of absolution, as a part of the priest’s distinctive character and endowment by God, had not been conferred upon him? or maintain that she thought our Blessed Lord’s commission extended no further than to its first recipients, and died out with the Apostles themselves, when still she uses the words continually in her “ordering of priests?”  If it be said,—Well: still we cannot believe this, and can only say that we heartily desire to remove from our Prayer-book and Ordinal, as a blasphemous fable and a dangerous deceit, all traces of such authority being given,—I can only reply that this argument is wholly beside our present question.  I am not now arguing whether such an interpretation and use of Holy Scripture be the right interpretation and use, (though I have given reasons before for feeling sure it is,) but I am shewing what is the mind and understanding herein of the Church of England.  I am silencing, if I may, (and in the judgment of right reason I cannot conceive that I should fail in doing so,) the calumny that they who maintain the doctrine of the priesthood are disloyal to the Church of England, or deviating from the principles of the Reformation.  For, not merely according to what right reason must, I think, enforce to be the intention of those who drew up our formularies, but according to the simple sense of those formularies, this doctrine and none other is the only doctrine which can be made consistent with the documents themselves, or which they can justly be taken to enunciate.  We have at times heard not a little of the dishonesty of those who, it is said, have taken our formularies in a non-natural sense, on the Catholic side, though in a sense which they deemed they would fairly bear.  If this argument be good for anything, against whom can it so conclusively be brought as against such as will affirm that, when in the most solemn exercise of a bishop’s office, the bishop says, “Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a priest in the Church of God,” the Church intends that there is no gift of the Holy Ghost bestowed, and no priest made at all?  Or, again, when he says, adopting Christ’s own words of commission,—“Whose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven unto them, and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained;”—that in this there is no intention to teach that the commission of Christ extended beyond the Apostles themselves, and that no power of binding or loosing is conferred by this solemn act?  Or, yet again, who tell us that when the priest is instructed to exercise this holy function of absolving penitents, either that they may come “with a full trust in God’s mercy and with a quiet conscience” to the Holy Eucharist, or, in the solemn moments of serious sickness, perhaps the near prospect of death, (things and times surely beyond all others to drive away the very notion of unreal or unmeaning words, which must also, if they be such, be to the poor penitent most deceitful and misleading words also); that then the Church gives her instruction to use the word of absolution, and say, “By His authority committed unto me, I absolve thee from all thy sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” and yet means hereby only a mockery and a delusion; that there is no such power, no such authority, no such absolving at all; surely all this is not a mere non-natural sense which the words will bear, though it may not be the most obvious at first sight, but is a non-natural sense so monstrous that they will not bear it at all.