{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_49115/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_49115","id":"gutenberg_49115","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/49115","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Religion/Spirituality","Catholic Church -- Doctrines"],"text":"Transcribed from the 1867 James Parker and Co. edition by David Price,\nemail ccx074@pglaf.org\n\n\n\n\n\n                              Eight Sermons\n                                    ON\n                        THE PRIESTHOOD, ALTAR, AND\n                                SACRIFICE.\n\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                                    BY\n                        MAYOW WYNELL MAYOW, M.A.,\n\n         PERPETUAL CURATE OF ST. MARY\u2019S, WEST BROMPTON, AND LATE\n                    STUDENT OF CHRIST CHURCH, OXFORD.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n    \u201cThe principles of Christianity are now as freely questioned as the\n    most doubtful and controverted points; the grounds of faith are as\n    safely denied as the most unnecessary superstructions; that religion\n    hath the greatest advantage which appeareth in the newest dress, as\n    if we looked for another faith to be delivered to the saints: whereas\n    in Christianity there can be no concerning truth which is not\n    ancient, and whatsoever is truly new, is certainly false.\u201d\u2014(BP.\n    PEARSON ON THE CREED: _Epistle Dedicatory_.)\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                            Oxford and London:\n                           JAMES PARKER AND CO.\n                                  1867.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                      [Picture: Decorative graphic]\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                                  TO THE\n                        RIGHT REV. FATHER IN GOD,\n                               WALTER KERR,\n                        LORD BISHOP OF SALISBURY,\n             IN GRATEFUL REMEMBRANCE OF A CONNECTION WITH HIS\n                DIOCESE FOR NEARLY A QUARTER OF A CENTURY,\n          AS A TOKEN OF REVERENCE FOR HIS OFFICE, AND UNFEIGNED\n                        RESPECT FOR HIS CHARACTER,\n                  AS SOME LITTLE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF MANY\n                           KINDNESSES RECEIVED,\n                 AND AS A HUMBLE TRIBUTE TO HIS CONSTANCY\n                        IN DEFENDING THE FAITH IN\n                          THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND,\n\n                               This Volume\n\n                      IS (BY PERMISSION) INSCRIBED,\n          BY HIS LORDSHIP\u2019S VERY FAITHFUL AND GRATEFUL SERVANT,\n\n                               M. W. MAYOW.\n\n\n\n\nADVERTISEMENT.\n\n\nTHE following Sermons were preached at St. Mary\u2019s, West Brompton, in\nNovember and December, 1866.  They are now printed as a humble\ncontribution towards the defence of the Catholic doctrine of the\npriesthood, the altar, and the sacrifice, in days when there seem no\nlimits to assault upon it, when there prevails every conceivable\nconfusion between what is Catholic and what is Roman, and when there is\nthe widest misapprehension of the principles of our Reformation.  If this\nsmall volume should contribute in any way to a better understanding of\nthose principles, and to the vindication of the loyalty to our own Church\nof such as, maintaining its Catholic character, desire equally to be\nloyal to the Church Universal, (and believe in truth that there is no\nantagonism between them,) it will not, I trust, be wholly useless.  If,\nfurther, it should lead any, in the spirit of candour and of prayer, to\ngive more consideration to this doctrine than perhaps hitherto they have\ndone, and especially to consult larger and more learned works upon the\nsubject, I shall have great additional reason to be thankful.\n\nIt is, I hope, hardly necessary to add that there is no intention or\ndesire in anything here said to pass judgment upon individuals, either\nwithin or without our own communion.  It will be found stated in the\nfollowing discourses how readily we believe that many receive the\nbenefits of the Christian altar and sacrifice who are yet unconscious of\nthem; whilst it is also willingly acknowledged, even as regards those who\nmore directly deny Catholic doctrine, that the present divided state of\nChristendom, and the wide differences of teaching within our own\ncommunion, make it a very different thing to be unable to see, (or even\nto oppose,) the truth than would be the case if the Church were still\nunited, as of old, in one harmonious voice and one external communion, or\nif there were a perfect unanimity among ourselves.  When, alas, even\npriests are found to repudiate their priesthood, it must be admitted,\nwithout reserve, that there is too much excuse for the laity being\nuncertain and perplexed.  Whilst this teaches us to award the largest\nmeasure of charitable construction to those who differ from us, it gives\nonly the more urgent cause both to state and vindicate the ancient faith,\nand to shew that it was in God\u2019s mercy preserved to us at the\nReformation.\n\nI must not omit to say that I am indebted to Mr. Carter\u2019s excellent\ntreatise for many facts, suggestions, and illustrations, even beyond\nthose which the references given explicitly acknowledge.\n\n                                                                  M. W. M.\n\nST. MARY\u2019S, WEST BROMPTON.\n         _February_ 7, 1867.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n                               SERMON I.\n\n                                (p. 1.)\n\n Treasure in Earthen Vessels.\u2014Faith, not Sight, the Recogniser of the\n                              Priesthood.\n\n    \u201cBut we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency\n        of the power may be of God, and not of us.\u201d\u20142 _Cor._ iv. 7.\n                              SERMON II.\n\n                               (p. 23.)\n\nThe Witness of the World, before Christ, to the Doctrine of Sacrifice.\n\n                  \u201cThus did Job continually.\u201d\u2014_Job_ i. 5.\n                              SERMON III.\n\n                               (p. 45.)\n\n    The Witness of the New Testament to the Doctrine of Sacrifice.\n\n        \u201cAre not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the\n                          altar?\u201d\u20141 _Cor._ x. 18.\n                              SERMON IV.\n\n                               (p. 63.)\n\n The Testimony of the Early Church to the Doctrine of the Priesthood.\n\n     \u201cThus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for\n      the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye\n              shall find rest for your souls.\u201d\u2014_Jer._ vi. 16.\n                               SERMON V.\n\n                               (p. 79.)\n\n  The Testimony of our Formularies to the Doctrine of the Priesthood.\n\n    \u201cAnd when He had said this, He breathed on them, and saith unto\n    them Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose soever sins ye remit, they\n    are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are\n    retained.\u201d\u2014_St. John_ xx. 22, 23.\n                              SERMON VI.\n\n                               (p. 97.)\n\n                         The Christian Altar.\n\n                 \u201cWe have an altar.\u201d\u2014_Heb._ xiii. 10.\n                              SERMON VII.\n\n                               (p. 113.)\n\n                         The Christian Altar.\n\n                 \u201cWe have an altar.\u201d\u2014_Heb._ xiii. 10.\n                             SERMON VIII.\n\n                               (p. 135.)\n\n                 God Incarnate our Great High Priest.\n\n\u201cIn whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.\u201d\u2014_Coloss._\n                                ii. 3.\n\n\n\n\n\nSERMON I.\nTreasure in Earthen Vessels.\u2014Faith, not Sight, the Recogniser of the\nPriesthood.\n\n\n                             2 CORINTHIANS iv. 7.\n    \u201cBut we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of\n                   the power may be of God, and not of us.\u201d\n\nTHE words rendered \u201cin earthen vessels,\u201d are easy enough as to their\ngeneral sense.   _\u1f18\u03bd \u1f40\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd_, (the Apostle says,) where\n_\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03c2_ may stand for any kind of utensil or household stuff.  It is the\nword used in St. Matthew, \u201cHow can one enter a strong man\u2019s house and\nspoil his _goods_;\u201d {1} any of his household stuff or possessions; whilst\n_\u1f40\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd_, (the same word which gave its name to the well-known\nGrecian _ostracism_, from the mode of voting,) signifying in its first\nsense that which is made of shell and therefore brittle, is often used in\na derived sense for anything frail and liable to break, and when broken\nnot to be re-joined.  Therefore, again, it represents anything poor and\nmean, as compared with other stronger or more precious material.  Thus,\nin his second Epistle to Timothy, St. Paul uses the very same word to\ndenote those inferior vessels which are made for less honourable use:\n\u201cBut in a great house, there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but\nalso of wood and of earth; _\u1f40\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1_;\u2014and some to honour, and some to\ndishonour.\u201d {2a}\n\nWe cannot, then, err as to the general meaning of the text, if we take it\nto express the fact that great gifts of God\u2014treasure\u2014may be, and are,\naccording to His will, and for good and wise reason, lodged in weak and\nfrail tenements, giving little outward sign of that which is hid within:\ngreat riches enshrined in poor and mean caskets, even as the soul of man\ndwells in the earthy tabernacle, (that red earth or clay which gave its\nvery name to Adam,) when \u201cthe Lord God formed man of the dust of the\nground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became\na living soul.\u201d {2b}\n\nBut St. Paul\u2019s application of the figure here is somewhat different from\nthe illustration just used.  It is not life, or an immortal soul shrouded\nin a mortal body, of which he speaks, but some special gift or gifts of\nGod for the use of His Church and people, which he declares had been\nentrusted to vessels of little \u201cform or comeliness.\u201d  And it will be of\nmuch interest and importance both to trace out what this treasure is, and\nwhat are the vessels in which it is placed, as well as to insist upon the\nfact that the treasure is not the less, because thus shrouded or\nobscured; and that it gives no cause to deny the existence of the\ntreasure, that those who bear it seem either so like other men as they\ndo, or so little worthy in themselves of what they bear.\n\nNow, to see what the treasure is, we need turn back but a little way.  In\nthe preceding chapter, speaking of himself and others charged with the\nministry of the Gospel, the Apostle says, deprecating all high thoughts\nin those so honoured: \u201cNot that we are sufficient of ourselves to think\nanything as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God, who also hath\nmade us able ministers of the New Testament;\u201d and then, after thus\ndisclaiming all personal merit or glory, he goes on immediately to\ncontrast the glory of the Gospel with the glories of the earlier\ndispensation.  \u201cFor if the ministration of death,\u201d he says, \u201cwritten and\nengraven in stones was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not\nstedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance;\nwhich glory was to be done away: how shall not the ministration of the\nSpirit be rather glorious?  For if the ministration of condemnation be\nglory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.\u201d\n{3a}  Pursuing this thought a little further, and enlarging upon the\nglories of the ministration of the Spirit of the Lord which giveth life,\nhe comes back; at the opening of the fourth chapter, more closely to the\nsubject of his ministry, and says: \u201cTherefore, as we have received this\nministry, we faint not;\u201d {3b} and after a word on the effect of the\nGospel which he preached, that it led to the \u201crenouncing the hidden\nthings of dishonesty;\u201d {4a} and another, as to its being sufficiently\nmanifested to every willing heart, and so, if hidden, hidden only \u201cto\nthem that are lost, whom the God of this world hath blinded;\u201d {4b} he\nreturns once more to what it was which he preached, and declares how this\ngreat treasure,\u2014\u201cthe unsearchable riches of Christ,\u201d as he elsewhere\ndescribes it,\u2014was entrusted to poor and weak instruments; \u201cfor we\npreach,\u201d he says, \u201cnot ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and\nourselves your servants for Jesus\u2019 sake.  For God, who commanded the\nlight to shine out of darkness,\u201d (that is, in the natural world when He\nsaid, \u201cLet there be light:\u201d) \u201chath shined in our hearts,\u201d (that is, in\nthe new creation of the spiritual world,) \u201cto give the light of the\nknowledge of the glory of God, in the face of Jesus Christ.\u201d {4c}  And\nthen, in the text, he seems to meet an objection, that if his call and\nministry in the Gospel were of so glorious a nature, the instruments\nthereof would bear more or higher marks of glory themselves, he adds the\nwords of our text: \u201cBut we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that\nthe excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.\u201d {4d}\n\nAnd now, brethren, again I ask, what is the treasure, and to whom\ncommitted?  Surely the ministry of the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ,\nentrusted to human stewardship!\n\nAnd who shall disparage this, or overlook it, or deny the gifts and\ntreasure of and in those who bear it, though they be but as earthen\nvessels; though they look simply like other men; though they are \u201cmen of\nlike passions;\u201d though they have few or no high marks or tokens, to be\ndiscerned by man\u2019s eye, of the greatness of the treasure which\nnevertheless they bear?\n\nThis thought, this warning against denying God\u2019s gifts when lodged in\nearthen vessels, and so speaking against them as actually to make a new\nGospel totally unlike to that which has been from the beginning, is\nespecially a danger of our day: a day when men live so much by sight,\nand, alas, so little by faith; when restless and free enquiry ranges over\nevery subject, and men pride themselves upon their refusal to submit to\nany authority but their own reason, or their own mere opinion, or to\nreceive anything beyond that of which they can understand the mode and\nassign the use.\n\nNot, perhaps, the most unfrequent of these attacks of the present time is\ndirected against almost the very subject of our text: the reality of the\ntreasure or gifts bestowed upon the ministers and stewards of Christ\u2019s\nmysteries, because they are contained in earthen vessels.  Whereas St.\nPaul fully claims and asserts that there is this treasure, and gives as\nthe sufficient reason for its being so lowlily enshrined, that thereby it\nwould be seen indeed that \u201cthe excellency of the power is of God, and not\nof man;\u201d {6} these objectors deny there can be any such treasure as it is\nasserted there is, because it is not to their eye exhibited in or by,\nglorious, or sufficiently distinctive, instruments.\n\nTake a case in illustration, very near indeed to the argument of the\nApostle in this place.  If our Christianity in our beloved Church of\nEngland is, and is to be, the Christianity which has been from the\nbeginning, it cannot be without a priesthood, and an altar, and a\nsacrifice.  I do not propose at this moment to go into the proofs of\nthis, but rather to notice an objection which is sometimes triumphantly\nput forward, by modern infidelity or ignorance, as fatal to all such\nclaims.  It is said, that if it were so that there is a priesthood,\n(which it is intended to deny;\u2014O sad and fearful thought!  That any\nshould be found to deny and refuse the chiefest means of applying to us\nthe pardon of the Cross): but if it were so, then, it is said this\npriesthood must be seen to be such by some peculiar exhibition of its\npowers, by some glorious or distinctive appearance in the\ntreasure-bearing vessels.  So it is said, Whatever there may be\nelsewhere, the Church of England at least has no priesthood, and no\npriests.  No!  Can any one believe (it is added) that they are priests\nwho are young men, as others, one day; and are ordained, with so little\noutward difference, the next?  Can it be that prayers and a laying on of\nhands, even by bishops, can effect such a change when all looks so nearly\nthe same?  No, truly!  If such there were, if such there be, if we are to\nbelieve in a power given of this kind, if the priest can consecrate, and\noffer upon the altar of God, let us see the difference.  Let the young,\nwho are to fill such an office, be educated, not as other young men are,\nliving with them in social life at our schools and Universities, but as\nset apart for this from their earliest days.  Let them be known of all as\na separate kind or caste; let them have a distinctive dress; let them\ngive up social life; let them, above all, renounce the married state, and\ngive themselves up to pursue their avocation in the single life; and\nthen, perhaps, we may be more inclined to believe in their sacrificial\nfunction; in their power to officiate sacerdotally at the altar; in the\ncommittal to them of the power of the keys, and all which is included in\nthe idea of a distinct order and a priestly authority.  Now all this,\nbrethren, is mere man\u2019s wisdom, setting forth, in truth, not what it\nreally desires to find as the mark of a priesthood, if it might have this\nin vessels of gold or silver, but simply, if it may not disparage and\ndeny a priesthood of Christianity altogether, (which yet it desires to\ndo), at least delighting to deny it to _us_; to raise a prejudice against\nit, and to drive from the Church of England (if it were possible) all\nthose who cleave to the statements of our formularies as they are, and to\nthe faith once for all delivered and handed down to us.\n\nBut observe, brethren, what all this really amounts to.  I am not saying\nwhether there should not be (unto the more edification), a more\ndistinctive theological education for the future priesthood than very\noften there is among us.  I am not saying whether there might not, with\nadvantage, be some greater distinction in outward appearance or dress,\nthan we have among us generally, for those who minister in holy things.\n(Let it, however, here be remarked, that the greatest objection and\nhindrance as to this proceeds, as we well know, from the clamours of\nthose who would first deny us all priestly character, and then reproach\nany who, claiming it, are anxious to mark it also by some outward\ndifference.)  I am not, however, now dwelling upon these things, nor even\non what are the advantages or disadvantages of a celibate clergy, but I\nsay that to suppose the presence or absence of these outward signs or\nmarks should affect the essence of the priesthood, and men being in\nreality and truth ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of\nGod, in the full sense in which these words are understood in all the\nprimitive writings and liturgies of the Church of Christ, shews, not only\nan ignorance of the very first principles of Christian worship, but a\nstrange overlooking of the truth taught in the text, and confirmed to us\nin so many other places of Holy Scripture.  If St. Paul confessed that,\neven with him, his ministry was confided to an earthen vessel; if there\nwere no need and no likelihood that any of the primitive stewards of\nGod\u2019s mysteries should be distinguished as by a star upon their breast,\nor any insignia of their rank in the Apostolic band, then it can amount\nto nothing as a disproof of the priesthood of the ministry of the Church\nof England, that those who serve at her altars have but the outward look\nand bearing of other men.\n\nWe may even carry this argument further, if it may be so done with due\nreverence and humility.  We may take, not merely prophets and Apostles,\nbut our blessed Lord Himself,\u2014our King as well as our great High\nPriest,\u2014and say of Him, that, although of course it is not objectively\ntrue that He had any of His gifts or powers in an earthen vessel, (save\nin the sense that He took upon Him man\u2019s nature, and so being of Adam\u2019s\nrace\u2014yet without sin\u2014had His share of the earth of which Adam was\ncreated); but though, I say, except thus, He held not anything in an\nearthen vessel objectively, still, on the other hand, subjectively, to\nman\u2019s sight and apprehension, He veiled His Godhead, He emptied Himself\nof His glory, He obscured His greatness, so that nearly throughout His\nlife and ministry He was passed over as a common man, or His claims\ndenied, and Himself treated as an impostor.  In spite of the holiness of\nHis life, the tenderness of His compassion, the purity of His precepts,\nthe marvels of His teaching, the abundance and power of His miracles, yet\nHe was not received or accepted generally as other than a common man.\nThe Jews were offended at Him.  He was to them \u201ca stumbling block,\u201d as He\nwas to the Greeks \u201cfoolishness.\u201d  He came in no outward manifestation of\nglory; He was not in kings\u2019 courts; He had no armies or numerous\nfollowers; He won no carnal victories; He did nothing \u201cto restore the\nkingdom to Israel,\u201d in any sense which the Jewish nation could observe or\nrecognise; nay, in His very priestly acts, and in that greatest of them\nin which He did in truth offer up the great sacrifice of all, He appeared\nto man\u2019s eye in no such aspect.  Even as a victim, He was only considered\nas a malefactor put to death, whilst it may be well doubted whether even\nHis own Apostles had the least insight at the time into the nature of the\nsacrifice He made; and none of them had a single thought or perception of\nthe priesthood which He exercised.  So, indeed, He seemed to have \u201cno\nform nor comeliness;\u201d {10a} \u201cHis visage was so marred more than any man,\nand His form more than the sons of men.\u201d {10b}  He seemed to have all He\nhad in an earthen vessel, undistinguished and undistinguishable by the\nvulgar eye from others who were around Him, or who had preceded Him, with\nsome pretensions to be teachers, or reformers of manners, but who had\ndisappeared and left no trace behind them.  Is it, then, so certain that\nthose who now \u201cseek after a sign\u201d before they admit any claim to \u201cthe\noffice of a priest in the Church of God,\u201d and who look for various marks\nand distinctions in outward show or appearance before they will entertain\nthe doctrine as belonging to the Church of England; is it, I say, so\ncertain that they would not have rejected Christ Himself, as not coming\nup to their mark and requirement, if they had seen Him in the days of His\nministration upon earth?\n\nBut let us pass on from the priesthood of our Lord and Saviour, and turn\nagain for a moment to the Apostles and their fellow-labourers.  Observe,\nI am not engaged in proving now their priestly character, nor the truth\nof the sacrifices, or altars of the Christian religion; (we may come to\nthis another day;) but I am merely meeting the preliminary objection that\nthere can be no such things, at least, none such in the Church of\nEngland, because our priesthood is not more manifestly set forth in\noutward show to the eye of the world, by a more distinctive priestly\neducation, or a more distinctive priestly dress, or a more distinctive\n(as is supposed) priestly life as separated from social life; and this\nparticularly by the exhibition of an unmarried clergy.  As I have before\nsaid, I am not even giving an opinion on the advantages or disadvantages\nof some of these things; but I am asking the plain broad question, What\nright have we, from Scripture and Scriptural example, to say these\ndifferences are needful to the existence of a priesthood?  Be the\npriesthood and ministerial powers of St. Peter and St. Paul, and others\ntheir companions, what they may, did they shew them forth as in vessels\nof gold and silver, or were they not what we may call obscured,\nundistinguished, not (in many particulars at least) dissevered from\nsocial life, but just like other men; in short, with their treasure borne\nin earthen vessels, however really great and precious in itself?\n\nCarry your mind back, brethren, to Simon Peter with Andrew his brother,\nto James and John, the sons of Zebedee, fishing on the sea of Galilee.\nThere is no reason, at I know of, to suppose that they wholly gave up\nthis their occupation immediately upon their endowments at the day of\nPentecost.  They certainly pursued them as long as their Lord was with\nthem, and after the Crucifixion.  Nay, after the Resurrection; after\nJesus had appeared unto the Eleven; after He had \u201cbreathed on them and\nsaid, Receive ye the Holy Ghost,\u201d and conveyed to them, (if any thing\ncould do so,) the priestly power, saying, \u201cWhose soever sins ye remit,\nthey are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are\nretained,\u201d {12} still Simon Peter said to the rest, \u201cI go a fishing; and\nthey said unto him, We also go with thee.\u201d {13a}  Will any one dare to\nsay, Had they been true priests of God, they must have pursued another\nmode of life, and borne the marks of their office more demonstratively\nand visibly before the eyes of men?  Will any say, We cannot receive it\nthat the hands, engaged one day in casting a hook into the sea, or\nspreading or mending nets, can be those which exercise, the next, (or the\nsame if so it be,) the Christian ministerial office,\u2014in breaking of\nbread, and celebrating the most holy Christian mysteries?  Will any say\nthat the lips which called to their partners for help, or in direction as\nto the safety or management of their boats and fishing, must therefore be\nincapable of preaching the glad tidings of the Gospel, or of exercising\nthe commission given them of binding and loosing in the name of Christ?\nOr, think of St. Paul, with his fellow-helper and companion in labour,\nAquila, working with their hands at their craft, \u201cfor by their occupation\nthey were tent-makers;\u201d {13b} aye, even \u201cworking night and day,\u201d that\nthey \u201cmight not be chargeable\u201d to others: and will any say, Herein they\nshewed themselves too like to other men to put forward any pretence or\nclaim to have or exercise any priestly or sacerdotal function.  Will any\nagain call to mind that St. Peter was certainly a married man; (\u201cPeter\u2019s\nwife\u2019s mother,\u201d we read at one time, \u201cwas sick of a fever;\u201d) as also\ncertainly was Aquila the companion in labour of St. Paul, (for he came\n\u201cwith his wife Priscilla;\u201d) or, once more, St. Paul\u2019s own claim to the\nright (though he did not exercise it, but still the right) to marry if he\nthought fit; as he says, \u201cHave we not power to eat and to drink?  Have we\nnot power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other Apostles, and\nas the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?\u201d {14} will any consider so much,\nand then say, you must needs have a celibate priesthood, if you are to\nhave any priesthood at all in the Church of Christ; or, if there be one,\nit must be one so separated from all earthly pursuit as to be recognised\nat a glance as of a different order?\n\nNay, my brethren, such things are surely no arguments of even a feather\u2019s\nweight in the mouth of any man against a true priesthood in the Church of\nEngland; and one can hardly see how they can be supposed, by any\nsober-minded thinker, to be either contained in, or deduced from, Holy\nScripture.  They are, in fact, objections merely playing with the\nprejudices of those who have already come to a foregone conclusion, and\nintended rather to point an unjust shaft at the Church of England,\nthrough a mock admiration of the Church of Rome, than to advance the\ncause of truth.  And this with no justice, even towards Rome herself,\neither in praise or blame; for Rome herself may have something to say in\ndefence of her practice as to the distinctions with which she marks her\npriesthood, if looked on merely as matters of expediency and not of faith\nor doctrine; and at the same time, we certainly have no little reason to\nmaintain that in many of these things, (and however there may be\nincidental disadvantages which we need not deny, on the ground of\nexpediency also,) yet we come the nearer of the two to the following of\nthe Apostles, in the not making too broad an outward distinction between\npriests and people, and in the not having laid a yoke hard to be borne,\nperhaps, as a wide and extended rule, too hard to be borne, upon our\npriesthood\u2019s neck; and, in short, that we are at any rate close upon the\nvery type and pattern which St. Paul mentions in our text, in that we too\nhave our treasure in earthen vessels, and may, in one sense at least,\nrejoice that it is so, inasmuch as thereby it may be seen by all \u201cthat\nthe excellency of the power is of God, and not of us.\u201d\n\nFurther, it needs surely no words to prove that such objections and such\nline of argument in denial of our priesthood, can have but one effect, if\nthey have any, namely, to forward the interests of the Church of Rome.\nThis, I presume, ought in consistency to be the last wish of those who\nuse them.  But so it is, and in this way.  There is no more possibility\nof any one, who has the knowledge of what Christianity has been from the\nbeginning, being moved by such assertions to disbelieve the great\ndoctrines of the priesthood, the altar, and the sacrifice, as belonging,\nand necessarily belonging, to the Church Universal, than there is of the\nwords of the objectors moving mountains or drying up seas.  We can no\nmore unlearn the very first elements of the appointed mode of our\napplying to Christ for His intercession on high for us miserable\nsinners,\u2014no more believe the Catholic truths which we have drunk in to be\nmere human figments and superstitious inventions,\u2014than we could return to\nthe system of Ptolemy, and believe the earth to be the centre round which\nthe sun and the stars revolve.  Nothing, therefore, can be gained in this\ndirection by those who propound such views.  But if it should be that\nany, who know what the Church Universal holds and has ever held on these\npoints, should, by weakness or inadvertence, be shaken in their belief\nthat the Church of England maintains these doctrines and preserves this\nsacerdotal order,\u2014if any should come to think that perhaps after all she\nhas not a priesthood, and an altar, and a sacrifice, then such would no\ndoubt begin to fail in their allegiance to her, and be afraid longer to\ntrust their souls to her teaching or her keeping.  No well-instructed,\npatient, humble-minded member of the Church of England can, I think, be\ndeceived by so sophistical an argument as that which we have been\nconsidering; but, of course, all are not well instructed, nor, perchance,\nare all patient or humble minded, and hence it may be, there _is_ a\ndanger.  But if there be this danger, or if any defections should follow\nupon such defamation of our Church, those who put forth the libel must\nhave upon their conscience the weight of having aided the Church of Rome\nagainst their Mother Church of England.\n\nBut to return; take but two brief illustrations further of our subject.\nYou will remember the contention between St. Paul and St. Barnabas\nconcerning \u201cMark, sister\u2019s son to Barnabas,\u201d whom \u201cPaul thought not good\nto take with them,\u201d and how it \u201cwas so sharp between them that they\nparted asunder one from the other.\u201d {17a}  Again, you will recollect the\noccasion when at Antioch St. Paul (as he says), \u201cwithstood\u201d St. Peter \u201cto\nthe face because he was to be blamed;\u201d saying to him \u201cbefore them all, If\nthou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as do\nthe Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?\u201d\nConsider that \u201cthe other Jews dissembled likewise with him, insomuch that\nBarnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation;\u201d and to such a\npoint did this reach, that St. Paul declares he \u201csaw that they walked not\nuprightly according to the truth of the Gospel;\u201d {17b} put all this\ntogether and then say whether, upon the grounds of the objection urged,\nany one might not far more plausibly have denied to the Apostles\nthemselves any just power or fitness to rule or teach authoritatively in\nthe Church of God, than any man can deny the priesthood of the Church of\nEngland because its power is not more demonstratively shewn among us.\n\nOr, for a second point, note this:\u2014Does, or did ever, the admission to\nthe Christian covenant, and the wondrous gift of God, the new birth of\nwater and of the Spirit, by which, as the Apostle plainly teaches,\nChristians are made the temples of the Holy Ghost; does it, or did it\never, make such outward show of difference as will enable man to decide,\nimmediately and infallibly, who are Christ\u2019s, and who are forfeiting or\nhave forfeited the gift bestowed?  Then, if there be not this palpable\nmanifestation as to the Christian life in each, why should there be a\nmore manifest and outward demonstration of the treasure of the\npriesthood?  If the grace of Baptism be not thus self-evident, and ever\nrecognised by sight, why must the grace of Orders be so either?  Oh! when\nshall we learn to believe instead of to cavil; to use the blessings God\ngives us, not to dispute about them; to judge, not according to\nappearance, but to judge righteous judgment; to believe there is a\ntreasure, even the treasure which the Church has ever believed and\ndeclared to be in her ministry and stewardship, though it be contained in\nearthen vessels?\n\nOne word more, brethren, of most serious weight and import, as to such\nobjections and I objectors.  Carry your mind back to the time of Christ,\nto the labours of Apostles and Evangelists, and the infancy of the\nChurch, and see of what Spirit they are.  I am not speaking, remember, of\nall who may, from one cause or other, not be able to receive the doctrine\nof the Christian priesthood and altar, and who, we may well hope and\nbelieve, many of them receive the blessing of these gifts of Christ,\nthough they know it not; but I speak of the particular objection with\nwhich I have all along been dealing,\u2014that there cannot be a Priesthood,\nunless marked by striking outward differences visible by all.  And I ask,\nwhat would have been the part taken, if the framers of such a test, being\nconsistent in their objection, had lived in the days of Christ on earth?\nSurely we should have heard them saying, aye, in spite of His mighty\nworks and great High Priesthood, \u201cIs not this the carpenter\u2019s Son?  Is\nnot His mother called Mary, and His brethren James, and Joses, and Simon,\nand Judas?  And His sisters, are they not all with us?\u201d {19a}  What is He\ndifferent from another?  Or what more likely than that expecting\nsomething different in show and demeanour in the great Apostle of the\nGentiles, they would have joined in the reproach: \u201cHis bodily presence is\nweak and his speech contemptible!\u201d {19b} and have rejected Him?\n\nIf these things shew us the dangers of such a line of argument, let them\nkeep us from any word said to countenance or support it.  It is a solemn\nthought that we cannot, by even the most careless word of levity, express\napproval of such assaults upon the ancient faith, or sympathy with those\nwho make them, without becoming sharers in their responsibility.  For it\nis thus, by a few words here and a few there, that public opinion is\nformed or strengthened; and what can be more awful than to have helped to\nform it adversely to the truth of God, and in derogation of that\n\u201cministry of reconciliation,\u201d and those means of grace, which He has\nappointed.  Surely the sin of such must be, like that of the sons of Eli,\n\u201cvery great before the Lord,\u201d when a prejudice is raised by which men, if\nthey do not \u201cabhor,\u201d are at least taught to deny and despise, \u201cthe\noffering of the Lord.\u201d  At the same time, let us pray earnestly for them,\nfor, we will hope and trust, \u201cthey know not what they do.\u201d  Let us not\nwish that they went out from us, but let us hope and pray that they may\nbe turned to better things.  Let us remember, too, as a ground of\ncharity, that many fall into error here because too much, for many years,\nthe teaching of the primitive Church and of Catholic antiquity has been\noverlooked as a guide to the due understanding of the Scriptures; and\nagain, because the face of Christendom, alas, is not now so one and\nundivided as to present all truth in due form, and mode, and weight, to\neach man\u2019s acceptance.  The glory of our Reformation is, indeed, that it\nappeals to antiquity, and carries us back to the early Church; but these\nlater days have too much overlooked this great principle of the\nReformation.  So it has happened, that what is, alas, the misfortune and\nthe reproach of Christendom\u2014I mean its divided state\u2014may be, and we will\nhope is, some palliation before God for defect in those who wish to\nfollow the truth, but are unable at the present moment to see or to\naccept it.  So let us above all pray to the one great Lord of all, that\nin His good time the Church may again be one, not only in its essence,\nwhich it must be, (we believe in but \u201cone holy Catholic and Apostolic\nChurch,\u201d) but also in its life, and in a re-established communion of the\nSaints; that being indeed, if it may be so, once more one, our Lord\u2019s own\nprayer for it may be fulfilled, and His promise accomplished, and \u201cthe\nworld believe that God hath sent Him.\u201d {21a}  And let us ourselves,\nbrethren, ever remember that all we have in treasure is indeed in earthen\nvessels, and let us for ourselves be content to be reviled and threatened\n(yes, as the holy Apostle was, and his Lord and Master before him), for\n\u201cthe disciple is not above his Master, nor the servant above his Lord.\u201d\n{21b}  Neither, indeed, let us count it a strange thing, \u201cas though some\nstrange thing happened unto us,\u201d {21c} if we have to \u201cgo forth bearing\nthe reproach of Christ\u201d {22a} and His Apostles; nay, rather, \u201cbeing\nreviled, let us bless; being persecuted\u201d (if so it be), \u201clet us suffer\nit; being defamed, let us intreat;\u201d yea, let us be willing to be \u201cmade as\nthe filth of the world, and the off-scouring of all things,\u201d {22b} so\nthat we may but do our Master\u2019s work, and preserve His truth in the midst\nof a crooked and perverse generation, and win souls to Christ, and, if it\nmay be so indeed, \u201cfinish our course with joy, and the ministry, which we\nhave received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the Gospel of the grace of\nGod.\u201d {22c}\n\n\n\n\nSERMON II.\nThe Witness of the World, before Christ, to the Doctrine of Sacrifice.\n\n\n                                  JOB i. 5.\n                         \u201cThus did Job continually.\u201d\n\nTHAT which such a man as Job \u201cdid continually,\u201d we shall naturally\nconclude was well-pleasing in the sight of God.  The Almighty\u2019s own\nwitness to his character is given in His Word addressed to Satan: \u201cHast\nthou considered My servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth,\na perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?\u201d\n{23}  And when we couple this with the circumstances to which the text\nrelates, and the tone of the whole narrative, we shall find, I think,\nmore than a _prima facie_ probability that the act so mentioned was not\nonly right in itself, but that it bore a significant import, not merely\nto those who lived near Job\u2019s own time or in his own country, but to the\nworld at large.\n\nWhat then is it to which the text alludes?\n\nJob, we read, was a man of great substance as well as great integrity,\nliving in a very early time in the land of Uz.  Moreover, besides his\ngreat possessions, we are told that he had seven sons and three\ndaughters.  And we find that his sons were used, \u201cto feast in their\nhouses, every one his day;\u201d and that on these occasions it was their\ncustom to \u201csend and call for their three sisters to eat and to drink with\nthem;\u201d a token, (as a well-known commentator has fairly enough\nconjectured,) both of their harmonious family affection and of the good\norder and conduct which prevailed in their feastings, or so holy a man as\nJob would not have permitted his daughters to join in their festivity.\nBut, nevertheless, we read that Job in his anxious care was mindful to\nintercede for them, even in case they might have erred or sinned in the\nfulness of their rejoicing, or in the exuberance of their mirth.  \u201cAnd it\nwas so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent\nand sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered\nburnt-offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may\nbe that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts.  Thus did\nJob continually.\u201d {24}\n\nHere, then, we have no doubtful witness, not merely to the usage of\nsacrifice, but to its acceptableness also in the sight of God, as a part\nof worship and intercession.  And this is all the more, not merely\ncurious, but important, when we reflect upon the very early date almost\nuniversally assigned to the events related in the Book of Job.  Whether\nthe record itself may have been composed at a somewhat later period, as\nsome have thought, yet all authorities are, I believe, agreed that the\ntime of Job\u2019s life was contemporaneous with even the earliest part of the\nlife of Moses, and, therefore, that he did not derive his knowledge of\nGod from the institutions of the Jews, or live under the Mosaic\ndispensation.  The consenting witness, both of the Jews themselves and of\nthe early Christian writers accepting their testimony, is that Job is the\nsame as Jobab, mentioned in the first book of Chronicles, who is there\nnamed as the third in descent from Esau; so that he, as well as Moses,\nwas the fifth in descent from Abraham,\u2014the one in the line of Esau, and\nthe other in the line of Jacob.  Moreover, it would appear that this Job\nor Jobab was, if not absolutely what may be termed a king, yet a ruler\nand a prince in the land called Uz, or Ausitis, a country on the\nconfines, probably, of Idum\u00e6a and Arabia.  If this be so, he would seem,\nfrom the summary given in the first book of Chronicles, to have succeeded\nBalaam in the sovereignty or chiefdom of that country.  \u201cFor,\u201d (says that\nnarrative,) \u201cthese are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before\nany king reigned over the children of Israel; Bela the son of Beor,\u201d\n(undoubtedly the same as Balaam); \u201cand the name of his city was Dinhabah.\nAnd when Bela was dead, Jobab the son of Zerah of Bozrah reigned in his\nstead.\u201d {26a}  Now we find in the book of Numbers, that Balaam the son of\nBeor was killed in battle, fighting on the side of Midian in the last\nyear of the Israelites\u2019 wandering in the wilderness, {26b} and supposing\nJob\u2019s trial to have taken place (as some ancient writers assert) some few\nyears after the Exodus, as he lived one hundred and forty years after\nthose events, he may very well have succeeded to the chief place among\nthe Idum\u00e6an or Uzzite people upon the death of Balaam.  The importance of\nthis to our present purpose lies in the fact, that he is thus a witness\nto the antiquity and the use of sacrifice and burnt-offering, quite\nindependently of the institutions and commands of the Mosaic law.  If Job\nwere of man\u2019s estate, and had sons and daughters of like estate also, (as\nthe narrative unquestionably implies,) even before his sufferings, he\nmust have been born not far in time from the birth of Moses, probably\nsome little while before him; and what he \u201cdid continually\u201d in his own\ncountry, and apart from Moses, is a witness to the practice and\nacceptableness of sacrifice, anterior to the enactments of the law from\nSinai; and a witness, not merely, let us observe, to the use of\nsacrifice, but to sacrifice by burnt-offering, when the victim was killed\nand consumed upon the altar of God.\n\nNow this leads us back to consider what is the probable origin of\nsacrifice, and sacrifice of this kind, altogether; for it is thus\nevident, that it was adopted into, and not originated by, the peculiar\ninstitutions of the Jewish nation and law.\n\nNow, of course we see at once where we must turn for the first account of\nsacrifice.  The primal exercise of this mode of approach to God, is that\nrecorded in the fourth chapter of the book of Genesis, which shews at\nonce the need which the Fall had brought upon man of drawing nigh to God,\nnot without a propitiation; and at the same time exhibits, in sad\nprominence, the first-fruits of that corruption of nature entailed by it,\nwhich provoked the eldest-born of the world, in malignant envy of heart,\nto slay his next born brother.\n\nLet us turn, then, to a brief consideration of those events, as\nillustrative of the origin and nature of sacrifice.\n\nLook first to St. John\u2019s and St. Paul\u2019s account of the cause of Cain\u2019s\nquarrel against his brother Abel.  \u201cAnd wherefore slew he him?\u201d (says St.\nJohn), \u201cBecause his own works were evil, and his brother\u2019s righteous.\u201d\n{27a}  And St. Paul tells us wherein Abel\u2019s righteousness and superiority\nconsisted: \u201cBy faith he offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than\nCain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying\nof his gifts.\u201d {27b}  The narrative in the Book of Genesis tells us the\nsame thing as to the fact that Cain\u2019s offering was rejected and Abel\u2019s\naccepted; but without the Apostle\u2019s comment we should not have precisely\ntraced the cause of this rejection and acceptance: but we know now that\nit was _faith_ in the one and a _want of faith_ in the other, in which\nthe distinction lay; and also that somehow this difference was exhibited\nin the gifts which they brought: \u201cGod\u201d (of Abel) \u201ctestifying of his\ngifts.\u201d  By this, too, St. Paul tells us, \u201cHe being dead still speaketh;\u201d\na statement which brings the whole matter home to ourselves.  The\nnarrative then is this: \u201cAnd Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a\ntiller of the ground.  And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain\nbrought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord.  And Abel,\nhe also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof.\nAnd the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering: but unto Cain and\nto his offering He had not respect.\u201d {28}\n\nThis takes us back to the origin of sacrifice; and the first remark which\noccurs is, that it would seem highly probable that its institution was a\nmatter of revelation from God to Adam; for though mere reason and moral\nfeeling might make the creature see the propriety of offering to the\nCreator something of that which His bounty had bestowed, and possibly\nmight lead to the thought that it should be not mean, but good and\nprecious, yet there are so many attendant circumstances in the\ninstitution, which it does not appear possible to account for upon the\nhypothesis of the mere dictates of reason and feeling, that we can hardly\nascribe the practice to anything short of a communication of the divine\nwill to man.  However, be this as it may, it is plain that both Cain and\nAbel were conscious of the duty of offering sacrifice or oblation in some\nkind to God.  And each brought of that which he had.  So far, it might be\nthought, Cain was not behind his brother.  \u201cAbel was a keeper of sheep,\nbut Cain was a tiller of the ground.\u201d  Cain brought of the fruit of the\nground, but Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock, and (it is\nadded) \u201cof the fat thereof.\u201d  Now it may be we are intended to note a\ndifference here,\u2014that Abel\u2019s offering, the firstlings and the fat,\ndenotes the earliest and the best: as if he hastened to acknowledge, in\nall thankfulness and humility, that he was not worthy to touch or use\nanything he had, until he had sanctified it by first offering of it to\nGod; and this, the first he had, and the best: whilst the more scanty\nnarrative as to Cain, that he merely brought of the fruit of the ground,\nmay mark that he took no heed to bring of the first, nor of the best.  He\nwould offer _something_ as an acknowledgment of God\u2019s power,\u2014perhaps,\ntoo, of His goodness,\u2014but not in that due spirit of unmeasured humility\nand thankfulness, which alone was becoming in a son of Adam.  But this,\nif it were so, does not seem to be all which is implied as to his lack of\nfaith.  To understand wherein this lay, we must remember the promise made\nto our first parents after the Fall, of \u201cthe seed of the woman\u201d who\nshould \u201cbruise the serpent\u2019s head.\u201d {30a}  Faith in this seed, the hope,\nthe only hope of the world after Adam\u2019s transgression, seems to be the\nthing intended; and if we suppose that God was pleased to reveal to our\nfirst parents some further particulars as to the mode of the atonement to\nbe made by shedding of blood, by which this hope was to be fulfilled, and\nthe victory to be obtained, we shall be furnished, not merely with a clue\nto the difference in the acceptableness of the offerings of the two, but\nalso with a key to a large part of the Holy Scriptures, and an\nunderstanding what manner of faith should be in every one of us, as well\nas to much that is important as to the history and design of sacrifice.\nLet it be granted, then, as highly probable, that to Adam a revelation\nwas given that in him, as the federal head of mankind, and by his\ntransgression, as deteriorating the whole race to spring from him, were\nall men lost by nature, and further, that \u201cwithout shedding of blood\nshould be no remission;\u201d {30b} but that by a worthy sacrifice and\nblood-shedding should the promised seed of the woman in due time effect a\nreconciliation for them and their descendants, and reverse the evil and\nthe curse of their transgression.  Surely, then, from that time forward,\na faith in the efficacy of a sacrifice by blood would be required, and\nwould be acceptable to God.  Cain, then, would be evidently one who had\nnot this faith, who denied, and disbelieved, and did not look forward to,\nthis sacrifice, or cast himself upon this mercy.  By bringing of the\nfruits of the ground, he may be considered to have made acknowledgment of\nthe power and goodness of God, in causing the seed to grow and the corn\nto ripen; he may have done as much as we do, when we merely confess that\nwe must look to God for rain, and sunshine, and \u201cfruitful seasons,\nfilling our hearts with food and gladness;\u201d (therefore, by the way, let\nus not think too highly of ourselves if we do confess so much; it is\nright, but it is a very small part of religion:) he may have meant to\nexpress thankfulness for blessing, but observe what he did not express.\nHe made no acknowledgment of sin; he exhibited no sense of unworthiness;\nhe confessed no shortcomings; he gave no sign of sorrow or repentance; he\nasked no mercy; above all, he turned to no one out of himself\u2014no\nintercessor, no mediator between his God and him.  He shewed no sign of\nlooking to a Saviour to make atonement, atonement by blood: he looked to\nno \u201cLamb of God to take away the sins of the world\u201d in general, and his\nown sins in particular.  He ignored, then, the whole promise which was\nthe sole hope of man.  He may have said, \u201cGod, I thank Thee,\u201d but he\nshewed himself to be wholly without the feeling \u201cGod be merciful to me a\nsinner.\u201d\n\nBut, on the other hand, Abel brought of the sheep or goats which were of\nhis flock.  He offered up not an unbloody sacrifice.  He laid the victim\non the altar, and believing God, as well as feeling his need of a\nSaviour, he looked forward with the eye of faith to an expiation greater\nthan that of kids, or lambs, or bulls, or goats, to take away sin.  Nay\nmore, he shewed his sense of the need of an atonement out of and beyond\nhimself; for the blood of the victim offered described at once the sense\nof his own blood being required as a penalty, if justice only held its\ncourse and no expiatory sacrifice were found, and represented also, in\ntrue type and figure, that better sacrifice, that more precious blood,\nwhich should be shed in the fulness of the time to make such an\nexpiation, even that of \u201cthe Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of\nthe world.\u201d\n\nNow I have gone through this history with what I think is its probable\nand satisfactory explanation, because not merely does it serve to shew\nwhat the Apostle means when he tells us it was by faith that Abel pleased\nGod, and that God testified of his gifts, but also because the very same\nremarks seem to apply to the whole history and intention of sacrifice, as\neither commanded or accepted, or both, by Almighty God from the\nbeginning.  Take such to be the origin of propitiary sacrifice, and I\nthink nothing can more fully agree with, or illustrate, or be illustrated\nby, the further progress both of the fact and doctrine as we find them,\nfirst in the Holy Scripture, and, secondly, in the world at large, even\nthough by the world\u2019s wickedness so fearfully perverted.  In perfect\naccordance with such beginning of acceptable sacrifice we have the same\nused and practised, and with the like acceptance, by Noah, Abraham,\nMelchizedek, Isaac, and Jacob, {33a} and, indeed, by all the patriarchs\nuntil the institution was embodied in the law of Moses.  As we know,\nalso, it was practised by all the heathen nations of antiquity of whom we\nhave any record, though with them its true meaning and intention were\nfearfully lost and perverted.  Nor does the difference in the instance of\nAbraham on one occasion, as to his being ready to offer a human sacrifice\nin the person of his son (which was of course a wholly exceptional case\nas regards the sacrifices of those knowing the true God), make any\ndifference as to the witness of the acceptableness of sacrifice by blood,\nor the consuming the victim upon the altar.  It has, indeed, been\ndisputed whether Abraham were not the more easily reconciled to the idea\nof sacrificing his son, or even incited to it, by the customary \u201cfierce\nritual\u201d of the Syrians around him; but independently of the utter\ncontradiction which this view would give to the account in Holy\nScripture, by the attribution of any other motive for Abraham\u2019s conduct\nthan the command of God, received in all faith, and leading to all\nobedience, it may well be doubted whether a perverse misinterpretation of\nthe sacrifice which Abraham was thus ready to make, and an utter\ninattention to the real circumstances of that case, may not have been,\ninstead of in any way the _consequence_, rather the _cause_ of the\nnations around falling into the practice of human sacrifice.  But, be\nthis as it may, we have the plain witness to the usage of sacrifice, and\nits efficacy when performed according to the will of God.  Also, that it\nprefigured the great sacrifice by the blood of a pure victim, as well as\nin itself taught the lesson that (as afterwards expressed by the Apostle\nto the Hebrews) \u201cwithout shedding of blood is no remission.\u201d {34}\n\nAnd all this we see consolidated and confirmed, as well as more fully\nexpanded and defined, under the Law.  And especially there, a certain new\nelement in its administration is introduced, in the appointment of a\nparticular order for the performance of the service.  In all the earlier\nusage, it would seem that the head of the family or tribe acted as the\nministering priest.  And there is no disproof of this, as far as I see,\nin the account of even the first sacrifice of all.  For there is nothing\nin the narrative in the Book of Genesis to shew that Cain and Abel were\nthemselves the acting priests (if we may so term it) in the sacrifice.\nThey may each, for aught that appears to the contrary, have brought their\noffering to Adam, and it may have been by his hand that the different\noblations were placed before God, and presented or devoted to Him.  Such\nas the office and privilege of the head or chief, would seem to have been\nthe recognised right and duty of such persons throughout the patriarchal\nage; but as the rule of patriarchs in secular matters merged in that of\nkings, as nations grew out of families, so the office of chiefs as\npriests, however thus exercised by Noah, Abraham, Melchizedek, or Job,\nseems to have been afterwards restricted to a tribe, or family, or other\npersons, set apart for the special service, and denominated priests,\n\u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2, or _sacerdotes_; names implying their dedication to holy things,\nand their exclusive rights in many particulars to deal with them.  And\nthis theory of worship, if we may so call it, was not merely reduced to a\nsystem by God\u2019s law among the Jews, but also prevailed universally among\nthe heathen world from the very earliest times of which any records are\npreserved.  Hesiod, Homer, Herodotus, bear witness to it, and the\nuniversal practice of all nations substantiates it, whether in the\nbarbarian forms of the ancient Druidical or other worship in the ruder\npeoples of the world, or in the more refined practice of Greece and Rome,\nor in the grotesque or cruel rites of the eastern countries, or\nabsolutely barbarian tribes.  They all have their altars, their priests,\nand their sacrifices, and in most, if not in all, the notion of\npropitiation by the blood of the victim has prevailed.\n\nIt need hardly be added that in the provisions of the Mosaic Law all\nthese principles were embodied, so that, with every safeguard introduced\nagainst the perversions, the sensuality, the materialism, and the\ncruelty, which pervaded all forms and systems of idol worship, yet the\ntrue worship of Jehovah, as established by Himself, embraced, and\ncontained, and stereotyped under the mark of His own approval, nay, of\nHis absolute command, the same three points, of an altar, a priesthood,\nand a sacrifice; yes, a sacrifice in the sense of more than a mere\noblation or offering,\u2014a sacrifice by blood of a victim slain, and\nconsumed in the very act of the commanded worship.  For it ought never to\nbe forgotten that amid all other offerings that were permitted,\u2014nay, for\ncertain purposes enjoined, as, for instance, for thank-offerings, or for\nmere legal purification,\u2014yet, under the Jewish Law, the particular\nsacrifice which was appointed for expiation of any moral offence was the\nburnt-offering, where the victim, as I have said, was killed, and\nafterwards consumed by fire upon the altar; {36} and this appears to have\nno exception, unless it were in the case of the extremely poor, who might\noffer the tenth part of an ephah of meal; but even then, I believe, it is\nconsidered that this was placed upon a victim offered by others, or by\nthe priest, for the sins of the people, and so may be deemed to have made\na part of a sacrifice with blood.  So that, in truth, as St. Paul says to\nthe Hebrews, \u201calmost all things are by the law purged with blood, and\nwithout shedding of blood is no remission.\u201d\n\nWe might say much on this head, and more particularly upon the\nappointment of the Passover, and the light thrown by this institution\nupon the typical character of sacrifice generally, and its relation to\nthe great sacrifice of all,\u2014the Lamb slain, once for all upon the cross,\nfor the sins of the world; but the outline already given of the doctrine\ntaught by the sacrifice of Abel will readily suggest a key to the true\nintention of the ever-recurring sacrifices of the Jews, and to the manner\nin which they (although \u201cthe blood of bulls and of goats could never take\naway sin,\u201d yet) pointed to, and prepared the way for, our understanding\nthe nature of the sacrifice of Christ, and, indeed, were the great means\nto elicit and foster faith in Him who should come, and to teach all the\nworld daily and continually to look to Him who alone is its salvation,\nwithout whom, and whose mercy, no flesh should be saved at all.\n\nWe have brought, then, our statement, and I may say our argument, to this\npoint; first, generally that the whole world, with one consent, bears\nwitness to the usage of sacrifice.  The whole world from Adam to\nChrist,\u2014Patriarchal, Jewish, Gentile, Barbarian, Civilized, North, South,\nEast, and West, together (for the new world when discovered was found\nherein not to be divergent from the old),\u2014testifies, I say, with one mind\nand one mouth, as to the Being of a God, so likewise to this usage of\nsacrifice.  And again, secondly, and more particularly, the witness\nagrees, that the sacrifice is made, (to speak generally,) not without\nblood, and made for the purpose of reconciliation, after sin committed,\nwith the supernatural being or beings invoked, or for propitiation and\nintercession in cases of favour sought.  Even, still further is there\naccordant and consenting witness; that there will be, as necessary\naccompaniments to the sacrifice, an altar on which it is to be made, and\na specially set apart order of men: priests (\u03af\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2, _sacerdotes_, or\nhowever particularly designated), by whom these sacrifices should be\noffered up, and intercessions made on behalf of the people.  So much the\nwhole world testifies generally, in spite of certain differences of\nusage, and the fearful abominations which prevailed amongst those who did\nnot retain the true God in their knowledge:\u2014the cruelty, licentiousness,\nand abhorrent vice into which this worship, when it degenerated into idol\nworship, everywhere sunk; which, however, it is plain, is no more an\nargument against sacrifice, holily and obediently offered in accordance\nwith God\u2019s appointment, than the superstitions of heathen invocation are\nan argument against godly prayer and intercession.  And thus, too, we see\nthat this very idea of sacrifice, (without the vicious accompaniments,)\nprevailed among God\u2019s children from the first,\u2014as with Abel, Noah,\nMelchisedek, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Job; whilst by God\u2019s own sanction\nand special command, and, with what in human affairs we should call the\nmost laborious care and pains, the whole system was, under Moses,\nrecognised, enlarged, defined, and embodied in a whole code of laws, to\nbe in their very minutest details carried out until the Mediator of a new\ncovenant should come, when that which was old should be ready to vanish\naway.\n\nBut it is well worthy of all our care in examination, to see whether it\nis the essence of this idea, and even mode, of worship which is done\naway, or only its ceremonial and local detail, as established in the\nJewish Church and polity; whether\u2014as all sacrifices before Christ were\nintended to look forward to Him, and His precious, inestimable,\nexpiation, to be once made by blood and suffering upon the altar of the\ncross\u2014whether, I say, so it has not been His will to continue an altar\nand a priesthood, and therewith and thereby a sacrifice\ncommemorative\u2014but, though commemorative, nevertheless perfectly real and\ntrue\u2014by which the Christian Church may both look back to Him, then dying\nonce for all, and ever plead afresh the merits of His death before the\nthrone of God on high.  As Abraham looked forward, and \u201crejoiced to see\nHis day, and saw it, and was glad;\u201d {40a} what if, so likewise, the\nChristian Church is to look back on Him, and to rejoice; not merely to\nsee Him and be glad, but to be allowed also, according to His own will\nand ordinance,\u2014(aye, brethren, observe, of and by His own very\nappointment, whereby His very body and blood are truly offered up to\nGod,)\u2014allowed thus to plead, week by week and day by day, the very\nall-prevailing merits of that same sacrifice upon the cross; yea, and be\nthe means of Himself graciously pleading it for His people ever afresh\nbefore the mercy-seat of His Father.  O, my brethren, if this be so, who\ncan undervalue this great thing, or disparage it, or attempt to throw it\noff, or deny it, or trample it under foot, without a sacrilege fearful to\nthink of?  But, again, if this be so, how is the Lamb of God, and His\nprecious blood-shedding, made, more than in any other way which we can\nconceive, the centre towards which the whole world looks, from its\nearliest to its latest day; from the moment of the promise that the seed\nof the woman should bruise the serpent\u2019s head, {40b} until that awful\nhour when that same seed of the woman, the Son of Man, shall come in the\nclouds of heaven with power and great glory?  I do not say, it is not\nconceivable that the whole system and machinery (so to call it), of\npriest, and altar, and sacrifice, might have fulfilled its purpose at the\nhour of the crucifixion, and nothing remain of it, or like it, in the\nChristian Church; nothing in the Christian ministry to answer to the\nprevious priesthood; nothing in it, but a set of teachers or expounders\nof the Christian faith; a faith, however, be it remarked, in that case, a\nvery different thing from that which the Church has ever supposed it to\nbe, or (as I think) the Holy Scripture sets before us.  But even if all\nthis be conceivable, I do say, and I think no unprejudiced person should\ndispute it, that the whole testimony and usage of all previous time in\nthis matter, the whole of what holy men \u201cdid continually\u201d in relation to\nit, not merely with God\u2019s manifest approval, but even with His especial\nsanction, and by His positive command, raises a very strong _prima facie_\npresumption, that all this was not intended to be, and was not, thus\nabrogated and done away; and that, at the very least, we ought to have\nshewn us the most express and distinct proofs of its being thus\nabrogated, before we can accept its abrogation.  We have been accustomed\nto see, rather, that instead of being abrogated, the usage is changed and\nglorified; changed from the shadow to the image, from wood and stone to\nsilver and gold, from a comparatively dead state to a glorious living\none, from the ministration of death to the ministration of life; but, if\nthis be not so, then, indeed, we may surely ask to see this reversal of\nall which the economy of God\u2019s dealings would seem to lead us to,\nexpressly promulgated and proved by the word of Christ or His Apostles;\nso plainly set down as to need no explanation further; or else, so\nexplained by those who immediately followed them, and had the best means\nof understanding their sense and design, as to leave us no ground for\nreasonable doubt, or we must be excused if we cannot accept the mere\nassertion of so improbable a thing as true, or believe the unchangeable\nGod to be so like a Man that He should thus repent.\n\nA fair examination into this question is most important, but we cannot\nenter upon it at the present moment.  We must necessarily defer it to\nanother day.  I trust, with God\u2019s help and guidance, to resume our\nsubject on Sunday next, and endeavour further to see how the doctrine\nreally stands, taking, briefly but carefully, into consideration these\nthree points:\u2014\n\n1.  What is the testimony of the Holy Scripture as to the doctrine of the\nChristian priesthood, altar, and sacrifice?\n\n2.  How this has been understood by the Church from the beginning? and,\n\n3.  How it has been received by our own branch of the Church Catholic,\nthe Church of England?\n\nAnd I will only add now, whilst I pray that we may all strive simply to\nknow the will of God that we may do it, that there can be no more\npractical matter than this to engage our thoughts and hearts.  For, if it\nbe so, that Christ has left Him no priests now on earth to minister at\nHis altars, and no sacrifice with which His people are concerned, a great\npart of what so many believe, I might say, of what the Church of God for\neighteen hundred years and more has believed, to be of the essence of our\nfaith, is a mere fable and superstition; whilst if, on the other hand,\n\u201cit be truth, and the thing certain,\u201d {43} that a Christian priesthood,\nordained by Christ Himself, and these sacrificial powers, and altar and\nsacrifice, remain and must remain ever in His Church, what words shall\ndescribe the misery and sin of those who are endeavouring to rob a whole\nnation of their belief in such truth of God, and to pour more than slight\nand contempt upon the ordinances of Christ; so that, in fact, they would,\nif they could have their will and way, unchurch the Church of God in this\nland, deny the virtue of His mysteries, and starve the children of God\nwho seek to receive at His altar the benefits of His sacrifice, humbly\nwaiting on Him there, and partaking of the sacrifice and feast ordained\nby Him.\n\nOh! let us pray indeed that we may come to the consideration of so\nweighty a matter, casting away all passion and prejudice and preconceived\nopinion, and whatsoever may hinder us from seeing the truth of God, to\nwhich may He of His mercy guide us.  And may He grant us also that we may\nnot merely know the truth, but when we know it follow it, in our daily\nlife and conversation, without turning aside to the right hand or to the\nleft.\n\n\n\n\nSERMON III.\nWitness of the New Testament to the Doctrine of Sacrifice.\n\n\n                             1 CORINTHIANS x. 18.\n      \u201cAre not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?\u201d\n\nI RESUME the subject upon which I have spoken on two previous Sundays\u2014the\nreality of the Christian priesthood, altar, and sacrifice.\n\nI endeavoured to shew in the first of these discourses that it was no\nargument against the truth of the priesthood that they who hold it have\n\u201cthis treasure in earthen vessels,\u201d that a priest is like and \u201cof like\npassions\u201d with others, nay, is \u201cweak as another man.\u201d  In the second, I\npointed out that sacrifice was an institution as old as the days of our\nfirst parents, and in all probability appointed directly by the Almighty\nupon man\u2019s fall, with some revelation of its predictive significance;\nthat certainly it met with His approval when duly and religiously\nperformed; and that it was by faith that those who took part in it\n\u201cobtained the witness that they were righteous:\u201d {45} whence we were led\nto consider more particularly its relation to the sacrifice upon the\nCross of \u201cthe Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world,\u201d and\nhow from the beginning it looked forward, in its inner meaning, with a\npreparing and expectant eye and heart, to that wonderful consummation.\nWe saw, too, that thus among God\u2019s own chosen people, by special and\nminute provision, this doctrine and usage of sacrifice were preserved\neven as long as the elder dispensation lasted; whilst, though in terrible\nand wicked perversion, both as to the object and the mode of worship,\nthey yet prevailed universally throughout the heathen world.  Admitting\nit to be conceivable that in the Almighty\u2019s will it might be intended\nthat sacrifice should altogether cease when once the great sacrifice was\ncompleted; that, although He had appointed foreshadowing and predictive\nrites of that wonderful event, He did not intend that there should be any\nreflective or commemorative sacrifice to carry us back to it, or to apply\nits virtue, or to plead its merits ever afresh before the throne of God;\nwe yet saw great reason to think this to be highly unlikely, and reserved\nthe point more particularly for further examination.  What is the\ntestimony which has been furnished to us upon it?  You will remember that\nI proposed to consider this testimony under the three heads: first, what\nHoly Scripture tells us; secondly, what has been the understanding by the\nChurch from the beginning of the declarations of Holy Writ; and thirdly,\nwhat is the mind of our own Church in this matter?\n\nBefore, however, coming to these particulars, let me premise that it can\nbe but a brief summary of such evidences which it is possible to give\nhere.  The subject is so large, and the full testimony so extensive, that\nit would require volumes to go through it.  Those who would study it in a\nmore complete manner will find it elaborately discussed in the discourses\non \u201cThe Government of Churches and on Religious Assemblies,\u201d of Dr.\nHerbert Thorndike, Canon of Westminster, about the middle of the\nseventeenth century, (a very learned theologian); and in the three octavo\nvolumes of \u201cTreatises on the Christian Priesthood,\u201d by Dr. Hickes, Dean\nof Worcester, some fifty years later; whilst there is a very thoughtful\nand condensed statement of the whole matter in a small book by the Rev.\nT. T. Carter, called \u201cThe Doctrine of the Priesthood.\u201d\n\nLet us now turn to our own enquiry, as some help (if it please God) to\nthose who may not be so likely, possibly may not have leisure or\nopportunity, to consult larger works, but may yet have a godly anxiety\namid the bold assertions, and I fear we must say, in no small measure,\nthe irreverent scoffing of a free and licentious time, to learn the will\nof God herein, that they may neither think nor do anything but what is\npleasing and acceptable in His sight.\n\nOur question is, Has God willed, and has He revealed to us His will, that\nin His Church, since the death of His Blessed Son upon the cross, there\nshall be no priesthood, no altar, and no sacrifice?  And first, \u201cWhat\nsaith the Scripture?\u201d {48a}  I must take but a few out of many passages.\n\n1.  We have, in our Lord\u2019s Sermon on the Mount, the following direction:\n\u201cIf thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy\nbrother hath aught against thee; leave there thy gift before the altar,\nand go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and\noffer thy gift.\u201d {48b}  Now if this direction be intended to be a guide\nof conduct for Christian people in the Christian Church, can it be denied\nthat our Lord speaks of an altar to be used, and an offering to be made\nthereon; and that, speaking to those who were constantly accustomed to\naltars and sacrifices, His words must have conveyed to them the meaning\nthat an altar and a sacrifice would remain for them whilst they should be\npractising the precepts of His religion?  If He did not intend so much by\nthis precept, the question surely arises, How shall we, with any\ncertainty, know what other portions of that or any of our Lord\u2019s\ndiscourses were designed for the instruction merely of the Jews who were\naround Him, or should receive His teaching during the time that their\ncovenant lasted, but became immediately inapplicable and void in and\nunder the Christian dispensation?  Will any say that the precepts\nconcerning purity, meekness, government of the tongue, charity, are thus\nlimited? as, \u201cWhoso looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committed\nadultery with her already in his heart;\u201d or, \u201cWhosoever is angry with his\nbrother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment;\u201d or, again,\n\u201cLet your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay;\u201d or, once more, \u201cResist\nnot evil; love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them\nthat hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute\nyou.\u201d {49}  That these and other divine precepts of that same discourse\nwere injunctions to bind the Jews, to whom primarily they were spoken,\nbut require other proof or repetition before they can be conclusively\naccepted as designed for Christians would seem strange indeed.  If no one\nwill say so, surely we must confess to a strong presumption in favour of\nthe doctrine of an altar and a sacrifice remaining in the Christian\nChurch.\n\nBut perhaps it may be said, Not so: we accept those other precepts as\nbelonging to the Christian Church, because they are simply moral precepts\napplying to the heart, but the former passage relates to a ceremonial\nusage of the Jewish polity, and may well be taken to be a mere adaptation\nof what was then in well-known use; to inculcate, not an act or mode of\nworship, but figuratively a frame of mind that would be required in\nChristians.  So that, as the Jew would literally understand, he should go\nhis way from the temple and the altar, and be reconciled to any one to\nwhom he had done wrong, before he could there make his offering; so the\nChristian in all time, though having no altar to which to come, and no\nreal offering or sacrifice in which to join, should yet learn to be in\npeace and charity with all men, before he should esteem himself fit to\nlift up his voice or heart in prayer to God; and that therefore our\nLord\u2019s words, spoken \u201cwhile as the first tabernacle was yet standing,\u201d\n{50} do not sufficiently prove any altar designed to exist in the\nChristian Church.  Well, let us allow the utmost weight to such an\nargument, and grant that the words in and by themselves might possibly be\nso explained, and yet bear just a tolerable though not, I think, at all a\nlikely interpretation in such sense; but then, let us yet turn and see\nwhether the other and more natural meaning be not corroborated elsewhere,\nwhere this gloss will not avail.  Remember the objection to the proof of\na Christian altar from those words is, that they were spoken whilst the\nJewish polity subsisted, and before the Christian Church was set up, and\ntherefore that it is only (as is asserted) by a figure, suitable enough\nto Jewish ears, but not as really enunciating a truth or principle to\nendure in the Christian Church, that they were uttered.  But shall we not\nfind a witness in Holy Scripture to the existence of this altar in the\nnew dispensation, which is free from this exception or construction?  I\nturn to the Epistle to the Hebrews, and I find the Apostle writing, \u201cWe\nhave an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the\ntabernacle.\u201d {51a}  Was not this written to Christians?  Does it not\nspeak to them expressly of their altar at which they are to eat?  Was it\nnot set down for their guidance and instruction?  Was it not written\nafter the great sacrifice upon the altar of the cross had been made, and\nmade once for all?\n\nWas it not after the setting up of the Christian Church, and the\nestablishment of Christian worship?  Nay, is it not in an Epistle, the\nvery whole drift and scope of which is to contrast the usages and\nprovisions and teaching of the elder covenant with those of the new, and\nto shew the superiority in each respect of that which had been ordained,\nnot by angels, but in the hand of the Son of God Himself. {51b}  And can\nit therefore be that the inferior part or type in the one can lack the\ncorresponding superior part, or antitype, in the other with which it is\ncontrasted, and on which correspondency and contrast the whole argument\ndepends?  Will any one say, Yes, but still the Jewish temple had not then\nbeen destroyed; the Jews\u2019 visible altar and worship still existed, and it\nis only by (again) an adaptation, as a mode of speech particularly\nintelligible to the Hebrews, and by a very natural economy, that such\nterms were employed.  But granting that the date of the Epistle is, with\nall probability, rightly put some little time before the destruction of\nJerusalem, yet does not the very turn both of the argument and of the\nexpression of the Apostle shew that he is not making an application of a\nfigure, but a declaration of a fact?  Addressing Hebrews, but most\nevidently converted Hebrews, Christians, to keep them firm in the faith,\nand to enlighten them to the more full understanding in it, he presses on\nthem this point, that they have an altar; and not only so, but one\ndistinguished from the altar of the Jew; one at which \u201cthey have no right\nto eat which serve the tabernacle.\u201d  Take the whole passage together and\nsee its force: \u201cWe have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which\nserve the tabernacle.  For the bodies of those beasts whose blood is\nbrought into the sanctuary by the High Priest for sin, are burned without\nthe camp.  Wherefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with\nHis own blood, suffered without the gate.\u201d  Where evidently the type, the\ngreat day of atonement under the law, is contrasted with its antitype,\nthe great sacrifice of Christ upon the cross.  So far it might be perhaps\nthought that our altar is only the cross; but then he continues: \u201cLet us\ngo forth, therefore, unto Him without the camp, bearing His reproach; for\nhere we have no continuing city, but we seek one to come.  By Him,\ntherefore, let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that\nis, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name.\u201d {53}  Here it is\nevident another sacrifice is to be made, even the sacrifice of praise\n(which we must remember is the very phrase universally used in the\nancient Church for the Holy Eucharist).  Let us therefore (surely we are\nto understand) follow after Christ, being content to bear His reproach\neven as we offer to Him, ourselves, our souls and bodies, in and by the\nsacrifice of His own appointing, the Eucharistic Sacrifice in the supper\nof the Lord, at the enduring Christian altar as well as table.\n\nBut perhaps some may still say, We are not convinced.  The allusion to an\naltar here may yet be figurative, or only adapting language to the mind\nof the Jew, \u201cwhile as the first tabernacle was yet standing;\u201d and the\nsacrifice of praise need not necessarily mean the Holy Eucharist, or, if\nit do, may point to no altar or sacrifice by means of a priest, but\nmerely denote the lifting the heart in sincerity to God.\n\nNow, although putting the whole argument together and reading the passage\nby the light which the continuous belief of the Church throws upon it (as\nwe shall see presently), nothing, I think, can be more unlikely or\nuntenable than such an interpretation, still, for the moment, let us\nallow it to throw a doubt upon the sense of the passage.  Let us, then,\nturn to yet another place, and see if the witness of the Apostle is not\nunmistakeable as to the doctrine of which we speak.\n\nTake that passage in the first Epistle to the Corinthians in which our\ntext occurs, and see if it be possible to understand it in any sense but\nin that which speaks of a present altar and a continually recurring\nsacrifice, in which Christians have an interest and bear a part: \u201cAre not\nthey which eat of the sacrifice,\u201d says he, \u201cpartakers of the altar?\u201d {54}\nand this especially in contrast as to the conduct of those engaged in\nidol worship, and those in Christian worship.  As truly, then, as the\nidolater partook of his altar (though his idol be nothing), so, only much\nmore, does the Christian of the Christian altar.  And this cannot be the\none offering on the cross alone, however deriving all its virtue and\npower from it, because in that case the Christian could not be said to\neat of the sacrifice in any continuous or recurring act.  The sacrifice\nwould be wholly past, and not present as the idol sacrifices were, and so\nthere would be no true parallel between the two things brought into\ncomparison.  Mark the progress of the argument: \u201cWhat say I then? that\nthe idol is anything, or that which is offered in sacrifice to the idol\nis anything?  But I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice,\nthey sacrifice to devils and not to God;\u201d that is, under the symbol of\nthe senseless wood or stone there lurked an acknowledgment of demoniac\npower, so that, in fact, in the heart of those worshippers there was a\nhomage paid to Satan and his angels, and this was something wickedly\nreal, even though the idol was nothing.  For he immediately adds what\nshews that this worship was not without its effect, an effect impressing\na character on those who shared in it; for he says, \u201cAnd I would not that\nye should have fellowship with devils,\u201d and why? because thus they would\nlose all fellowship with God.  \u201cYe cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and\nthe cup of devils.  Ye cannot be partakers of the Lord\u2019s table, and of\nthe table of devils.\u201d {55}  Let it make no difficulty that it is called a\ntable here, as an altar above.  It is both, just as the other, the\nheathen altar, was both, because in each case there was not merely a\nsacrifice, but a feast upon a sacrifice.  As truly, then, as the Apostle\nsays that there is a heathen idolatrous sacrifice which Christians can\nnever have to do with, because if they do they would have fellowship with\ndevils, so does he, by the very parallel he draws, and the whole scope of\nhis argument, imply that Christians have a sacrifice, at which they can\nbe, and are to be, continually present; in and by which they have\nfellowship with the Lord, which also is offered continually in their\nassemblies, and of which they eat.  For as in the one there were the\nheathen feasts upon the victims or offerings offered to devils; so in the\nother there is the feast upon the Christian sacrifice, the offering made\nin that continually recurring commemorative oblation to God of the body\nand blood of Christ.  If this be not to be offered up continually, since\nthe one sacrifice completed as the propitiation by blood made once for\nall upon the cross, then there is no coherency or force in the Apostle\u2019s\nargument; for there would be nothing in the Christian dispensation like,\nor answering to, those sacrifices to devils which the heathen used, and\nin which they were forbidden to join.  The teaching surely is, and must\nbe, as they who join in the heathen altar-worship are partakers of it,\nand have fellowship thereby with those to whom it is really offered, so\nthey who join in the Christian sacrifice (not so made and passed in point\nof time as to be incapable of continued and continual recurrence by\ncommemorative but real act) are thereby partakers in and of their feast\nupon their sacrifice, and have therein fellowship with the Lord.  So this\nis the continual memorial of the one \u201csacrifice upon the cross, and of\nthe benefits which we receive thereby,\u201d also the appointed means of our\nreceiving those benefits.  And it would be absurd to think of the Apostle\ndescribing the worship of idols as a real act of adoration and sacrifice\nto devils, and as impressing a real character by a power upon them for\nevil in those who join in such worship, and not to see that he must allow\nan equal act of sacrifice, adoration, and homage in the sacrifice and the\naltar which he speaks of as the Christian\u2019s constant privilege to\nfrequent; and which is as much greater to impress a character for good\nupon the Christian and to nourish him to life eternal, as the real\npresence of the Body and Blood of Christ is greater than the idol, which\nis nothing, or the things offered to idols, which are nothing.\n\nNor is there any escape, that I can see, from the force of this argument\nof St. Paul, unless any one will try to evade it by saying: \u201cLook back a\nmoment, and see if the whole argument does not belong to the Jew, and not\nto the Christian.\u201d  Will any one take this line and appeal to the words\nimmediately before the text?  True, it is written, \u201cBehold Israel after\nthe flesh.  Are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the\naltar?\u201d  But if this be urged, I say, go back a little further still, and\nobserve the flood of light thrown upon the whole passage, in connection\nnot merely generally with Christianity, but especially and particularly\nwith the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ, in this true\ncommemorative Sacrament, which is exactly where and how, we say, the\nChristian sacrifice is offered by the Christian priests upon the\nChristian altar.  After exhortation against yielding to temptation, and\ndeclaration of the ever-ready help of God for those who will use it, \u201cwho\nwill not suffer us to be tempted above that we are able, but will with\nthe temptation also make a way to escape, that we may be able to bear\nit,\u201d the Apostle adds: \u201cWherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.\nI speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.\u201d  (Oh, let us also be wise\nto hear and learn!  \u201cJudge ye what I say.\u201d)  \u201cThe cup of blessing which\nwe bless, is it not the communion of the Blood of Christ?  The bread\nwhich we break, is it not the communion of the Body of Christ?  For we,\nbeing many, are one bread and one body: for we are all partakers of that\none bread.\u201d {58}  And then all but immediately he adds, \u201care not they\nwhich eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?\u201d  Can anything be\nclearer than that, to the blessed Sacrament of the Body and Blood of\nChrist, he attaches the teaching which follows so directly as to the\nnature of the sacrifice and the altar?  Ah! but, it is said, he\ninterpolates words that you have omitted which alter the\napplication:\u2014\u201cBehold Israel after the flesh;\u201d he says, and then adds,\n\u201care not they which eat of the sacrifice partakers of the altar?\u201d  Well,\nand what do the parenthetical words mean?  Surely they must mean merely\nthis,\u2014that, as his readers would allow such was the case under the law,\nand with Israel after the flesh; and that Israel, as well as the heathen,\nhad an altar and a sacrifice, so it is also with Christians: as if he had\nsaid, We Christians, by this blessed sacramental bond, are one body, even\nas we are all partakers of that one Bread; and as you will all allow, the\npartaking of a common sacrifice (for instance, that of the Paschal Lamb,)\nsignified this under the law and with \u201cIsrael after the flesh,\u201d so you\nmust be prepared to admit as much under the Gospel, and with the true\nIsrael born anew of the Spirit.  Thus the interpolation does not for one\nmoment break the sequence or invalidate the force of the argument as to\nthe Christian sacrifice, but merely illustrates it by a parenthetical\nallusion to what his hearers or readers would allow at once to have been\nthe case with Jewish rites, sacrifices, and altars: and the conclusion\nfrom the whole is distinct and inevitable, that St. Paul,\u2014speaking to the\nChristians at Corinth as to men who would understand the whole force of\nhis argument, as being acquainted with Jewish customs, and living also in\nthe very midst of heathen idolatrous worship,\u2014teaches as plainly that\nChristians use a Christian altar, and offer up a Christian sacrifice, and\nfeast together upon it, and that this is undoubtedly the cup of blessing\nwhich we bless, and the bread which we break, and that thereon follows\nthe blessedness of fellowship with the Lord; I say, teaches this as\nplainly as he says there is, or has been, in Jewish worship a Jewish\naltar and sacrifice, and as there is in heathen worship an altar and a\nsacrifice to devils, and a partaking of the cup of devils, and of the\ntable of devils, and thereby the having fellowship with them.  And, (what\nis particularly to the purpose of my citing this passage), herein is the\nproof that the sacrifice referred to cannot be the one meritorious,\npainful, bloody sacrifice upon the cross, once made and never to be\nrepeated; both because this was not (no one can say it was) the literal\nbreaking of bread, and the blessing the cup in the Holy Eucharist, and\nbecause also, if that one sacrifice had been intended, there would have\nbeen no parallel at all between the heathen sacrifices to which the\npeople were often called, and that sacrifice to which Christians on this\nsupposition could never be called.  Whereas if we do but allow, according\nto the plain meaning of the words and of the argument, that there is a\ntrue sacrifice to God, commemorative, but real, as ordained and appointed\nby Christ Himself,\u2014no repetition of blood or agony, but the presenting\nafresh, and pleading afresh, yea, causing Christ Himself to plead afresh\nfor us in heaven, the merits of that one precious death,\u2014then we have the\nmost manifest recognition and declaration of the very doctrine for which\nwe contend, and both many other passages of Holy Writ are made perfectly\nclear,\u2014(who will now doubt the sense of the other two Scriptures which we\nexamined?)\u2014and the whole sense and usage of the Church from the beginning\nis both explained and justified.\n\nOur time has been so much taken up in examining what was, of course, the\nmost important question of all, the teaching of Holy Scripture upon this\npoint, that we have left ourselves no time to-day to consider the further\nportion of our proposed subject, viz., what is the teaching of the Church\nCatholic from the beginning, and its understanding of the written word on\nthis doctrine of sacrifice; and, yet again, what is the witness of our\nown Church to her having most carefully preserved, held, and maintained\nthe same.  To this we will recur, if God will, another day; in the\nmeanwhile commending ourselves ever to His mercy, and all we think or do\nto His grace and guidance.\n\n\n\n\nSERMON IV.\nThe Testimony of the Early Church to the Doctrine of the Priesthood.\n\n\n                               JEREMIAH vi. 16.\n     \u201cThus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the\n    old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find\n                            rest for your souls.\u201d\n\nTHE next division of our enquiry is, the understanding of Holy Scripture\nin the primitive Church as to the priesthood, the altar, and the\nsacrifice, and its consequent doctrine thereupon.  Before, however,\nproceeding to this examination, let me briefly remind you of the point in\nthe argument from Holy Scripture at which we have arrived, for our time\non Sunday last hardly permitted me to sum up the remarks then made.  The\nlast passage which we considered asks in the tone of unquestionable\naffirmation, \u201cAre not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the\naltar?\u201d  The parallel, as I then pointed out, lies between those on the\none hand, who, eating of the heathen sacrifices, are partakers of the\nheathen altar, and thus have fellowship with devils; and those, on the\nother hand, who, eating of the Christian sacrifice, are partakers of the\nChristian altar, and thus have fellowship with God.  For, I must repeat,\nif St. Paul\u2019s argument have not this meaning and significance, there is\nno coherency in the things brought into juxtaposition, and nothing on the\none side to answer to the requirement of the other.  Observe further,\nbefore we pass on, how the Apostle\u2019s whole reasoning, as it stands,\nexcludes, and must exclude, the sense of the Christian sacrifice being a\nmere figurative expression, and that which is eaten in it a mere\nsubjective thing, dependent upon the mind of the recipient for its being\nthere at all; for, if it were so in the Christian sacrifice, it must be\nso in the idol sacrifice also.  But is it so in the latter?  Is it that\nwhat is there eaten is a mere nothing in itself, dependent upon the mind\nof the eater?  Is the partaking of the idol altar not an effect of an\nactual eating?  Is the consequent fellowship with devils not the result\nof such actual feasting upon an actual objective sacrifice?  And,\ntherefore, if the parallel has any force at all, must it not be that\nthere is a real objective presence of a sacrificial thing at the\nChristian altar,\u2014the _res sacramenti_, as in strict theological\nphraseology it is termed,\u2014by which he that eateth is partaker of the\naltar, and the result of which is, his having fellowship with Christ and\nGod?  From which our inference was plain and direct that in St. Paul\u2019s\nunderstanding there is a Christian altar and a Christian sacrifice.  Such\nwas the conclusion from Holy Scripture at which we arrived.\n\nI proceed now to shew further, that this, the natural and, as I think,\nthe necessary sense of that passage (supported by numerous other passages\nof Holy Writ, some of which we have noticed, though many others we have\nnot had time particularly to examine), is the sense in which the Church\nCatholic has ever understood the doctrine of the Scripture upon this\nsubject, and which our own Church carefully guarded and preserved at her\nReformation; thus maintaining, on so essential a point, her connection\nwith the Church from the beginning and in all times.\n\nBut yet, before we go into the proof of this, let it be remarked (for it\nis very important in order to our seeing the full weight and bearing of\nthe facts and records to which we are about to refer) that these three\nthings\u2014the priesthood, the altar, and the sacrifice\u2014are what we may call\ncorrelatives, and reciprocally imply one another.  As the word parent\nimplies a child, or brother, brother or sister; so, if there be an altar,\nthere will be a sacrifice, for the altar would be unmeaning without it,\nwould miss its aim and be purposeless if there were nothing to be offered\non it; and in like manner, if there be a sacrifice there will be an\naltar, for it is contrary to the whole sense and usage of the word to\nmake such sacrificial offering to God, and not withal to sanctify some\nspecial place and mode of oblation.  Again, if there be an altar and a\nsacrifice, there will be a priesthood; unless the voice of the whole\nworld (over and above the constraining teaching of the Scripture) be in\nerror, and any man that pleases may \u201ctake this honour unto himself,\u201d\n{66a} and offer up \u201cgifts and sacrifices\u201d acceptably to God.\n\nPremising, then, thus much, I proceed to call attention to the fact, that\nthe whole literature of Christianity from the beginning either states or\nimplies the doctrine of the priesthood, the altar, and the sacrifice,\nwhich we have deduced also from Holy Scripture.  It is true that in the\nvery scanty writings which remain to us from the first century, we may\nnot find the word \u2018priest\u2019 applied to the Christian ministry.  But, as\nMr. Carter has well observed, \u201cthe real question is not whether the name,\nbut whether the idea, of priesthood is found to exist in the extant\nwritings of the Apostolic Fathers;\u201d {66b} whilst for the absence of the\nname it is not hard to assign satisfactory reasons.  In the first place,\nthe extant writings of that century are too few to let a negative\nconclusion be built upon them.  They amount, I believe, in all, (if we\nexclude the \u201cShepherd of Hermas,\u201d a confessedly mere allegorical work,)\nto not more than what would make about thirty pages of an octavo volume.\n{66c}  Over and above this paucity of material on which to found an\nargument, other reasons may readily be given for the term \u2018priest\u2019 not\noccurring.  It may be sufficient here just to touch upon two.  First,\nthere might be great cause why the earliest Christian writers should not\ndesignate those who ministered at their altars by a term which might have\nbeen understood to imply that they claimed for them a descent from the\nhouse of Aaron according to the flesh; which claim the Jews around them\nwould know in many instances to be unfounded, and which, therefore, to be\nsupposed to make, would lay them open to a charge of imposture; whilst\nagain, secondly, they might equally desire to keep clear of all mistake\nas to their being confounded with the priesthood of the Gentiles, or\nheathen world, so likely to involve them in the charge of offering up\nbloody sacrifices like them; a charge which in fact we know, as it was,\nthey did not wholly escape; a wonderful and most unsuspicious witness by\nthe way (for it comes from those who had no thought to forward any\ninterests of Christianity), that Christians claimed to make a true\nsacrifice in the Eucharist, for it is evidently this, perverted and\nmistaken by the persecuting heathen, (as if, when they offered the Body\nand Blood of Christ, they confessed to offering a human victim,) which\nled to the accusation; a great evidence surely to the doctrine of the\nreal presence of Christ therein, for who could mistake the Eucharistic\ndoctrine of a large portion of modern Christianity for anything open to\nsuch a charge, under which we know, upon the testimony of heathen\nwriters, the early Christians suffered reproach?\n\nThese two reasons, then, may suffice as to the term \u2018priest\u2019 not being so\nearly applied to the Christian ministry, and indeed we need no defence\nupon the subject, because the whole idea of the priesthood prevails in\nthose early writings whether the word \u2018priest\u2019 be used or not, inasmuch\nas there is constant mention of the sacrifice and the altar as in use in\nthe Christian Church.\n\nAs we proceed with the stream of Christian writing there is ample proof\nof the universal holding and teaching of this doctrine.\n\nI cannot, of course, pretend here to go through this evidence in detail.\nWe must rather look for a summary which may give the result of a fair\nexamination into the records left us, than make a series of extracts from\nthem.  We shall perhaps hardly find a more unexceptionable witness than\nthe learned writer Vitringa, cited by Mr. Carter in his work already\nmentioned.  Speaking of the age shortly succeeding the Apostles, Mr.\nCarter says: \u201cAs to the usage of this period there can be no surer\nauthority than that of Vitringa.  His extensive learning, directed\nassiduously to this very point, and his zeal as a partizan, make his\ntestimony to be peculiarly conclusive.\u201d {68}  His zeal as a partizan, be\nit observed, was not in favour of the Catholic sense of the writings, nor\nof any priesthood or altar, for Vitringa was a Dutch Presbyterian, who\nlived about the middle of the last century, and wrote expressly to\nexplain away the evidence which nevertheless he adduces.  He acknowledges\nthat his own views are opposed to the unvarying testimony and belief of\nthe Catholic Church for sixteen hundred years.  His theory excludes all\nidea of priesthood and equally of bishops, (not the name only, but also\nthe office,) chancels, altars, and oblations, and, indeed, any stated\nministry.  In fact, he regards the whole subject as a staunch\nPresbyterian, and it is, therefore, certainly not with any bias in favour\nof the doctrine which we are considering that he thus sums up the results\nof his enquiries into the writings of those early centuries:\u2014\n\n\u201cThat Tertullian, in the beginning of the third century, calls the bishop\n\u2018chief priest,\u2019 (_summus sacerdos_); that before his time, in the second\ncentury, Iren\u00e6us calls the gifts made at the Holy Eucharist, \u2018oblations,\u2019\n(_oblata_,) and when consecrated by the prayer of the bishop, \u2018a\nsacrifice,\u2019 (_sacrificium_); and that in Justin Martyr, a still more\nancient writer, the gifts are called \u2018offerings,\u2019 (_\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1\u1f76_); are\nfacts so certainly known to the learned, that it is needless to speak of\nthem at greater length.  In the subsequent writings of the Fathers, the\nterms \u2018priesthood,\u2019 \u2018Priest,\u2019 \u2018Levites,\u2019 \u2018altars,\u2019 \u2018offertories,\u2019\n\u2018sacrifices,\u2019 \u2018oblations,\u2019 used in reference to the Church of the New\nTestament, are so obvious and frequent that it can escape no one who has\neven cursorily examined their writings.  In Eusebius, moreover, and the\nrest of the ecclesiastical historians, and the canons of Councils, such\nfrequent mention occurs of these phrases, that it is evident they must\nhave struck deep root into the minds of men in those ages.\u201d {70}  So much\nis the testimony of a very learned man, and a most unsuspicious witness.\n\nBut there is a separate line of evidence to be drawn from another and\nperhaps even still more convincing source: I mean the ancient liturgies\nof the Church which have come down to us, and tell us in what way the\nearly Christians worshipped God; the place which they assigned to the\nHoly Eucharist, and the light in which they regarded it in connection\nwith sacrifice, altar, and priesthood.  There are four liturgies, (and we\nare to remember, the word in all ancient writings means merely and simply\nthe Eucharistic service,) which have been shewn to have been reduced to\nwriting in the course of the fourth century, and one of them in the\nearliest part of it.  They bear their witness to the Church\u2019s faith and\nhope and teaching in those days, and even earlier, because it is\ngenerally conceded that they were in use long before they were put into\nwriting, the days of persecution rendering it unsafe for the Christians\nto have documents which might be seized, and turned against them; or\nperhaps still more, the desire to preserve the mysteries of their faith,\nand especially of the Holy Eucharist, from the inquisition of heathen\nscoffing, indisposing them to keep any records which could be thus\nprofanely used.  Of course, after the Empire became Christian, under\nConstantine, this reason ceased, and it was only what was natural that\nthe services which had been orally in use for years should now be reduced\nto writing.  Now, these four liturgies were used at the four great\ncentral sees of Christendom, and their subordinate branches, and so\npervaded the whole Catholic world.  \u201cThe first,\u201d to use the words of a\nlearned writer, Mr. Palmer, the author of the _Origines Liturgic\u00e6_, \u201cis\nthe great Oriental liturgy, as it seems to have prevailed in all the\nChristian Churches, from the Euphrates to the Hellespont, and from the\nHellespont to the southern extremity of Greece; the second was the\nAlexandrian, which from time immemorial has been the liturgy of Egypt,\nAbyssinia, and the country extending along the Mediterranean Sea to the\nWest; the third was the Roman, which prevailed throughout the whole of\nItaly, Sicily, and great part of Africa; the fourth was the Gallican,\nwhich was used throughout Gaul and Spain, and probably in the exarchate\nof Ephesus, until the fourth century.\u201d {71}\n\nNow, the especially important bearing of these liturgies upon our subject\nis this, that in spite of enough of difference to shew that they are\nindependent witnesses, they yet correspond most closely with one another\nin all main features, and particularly in their witness to the\nsacrificial doctrine, and the priestly office, in relation to the Holy\nEucharist.  And (as Mr. Palmer has pointed out), with regard to the one\nfirst named, the Oriental, existing documents enable us to trace this\nliturgy to a very remote period indeed, almost or quite to the Apostolic\nage; for he reminds us that in the time of Justin Martyr, whose writings\nare the \u201cexisting documents\u201d of which he speaks, the Christian Church was\n\u201conly removed by one link from the Apostles themselves.\u201d {72a}  Nor even\nis this all; for there is yet a fifth liturgy, of a date still earlier\nthan these four already named, called the Clementine, and what is\nparticularly remarkable in it is, that it agrees with those four great\nliturgies in all points where they agree with each other, as well as in\ntheir general structure.\n\n\u201cNow, in all these liturgies alike,\u201d says Mr. Carter, \u201cthe ancient\nsacerdotal terms in question are ordinarily used.  In reading them, we\nopen upon a scene which represents a priesthood of different degrees,\nwith a complete ritual, ministering before God on behalf of the people,\noffering sacrifices, and communicating heavenly gifts and benedictions.\u201d\n{72b}\n\nI must forbear both any quotations to shew this, as well as defer any\nfurther remarks upon the progress of events, or (which also is part of\nour subject) on the careful attention, by our own Reformers and Revisers,\nto preserve the teaching of the primitive Church in this matter.  If it\nplease God, yet once more we may return to the subject, and see how this\nstands, as well as make some little practical application of the doctrine\nto ourselves at this day, to some of our dangers and temptations in an\nage so free-thinking and free-handling as the present.  Without\nanticipating these things in any detail, let me yet just remind you that\nthe mere fashion, or usage, or clamour, or forgetfulness, or unbelief of\nany age or time can make no difference in the truth of God, or in the\ndoctrine which has been from the beginning, or in the mysteries of His\nkingdom.  That men should try to bring all things, however divine and\nholy, however deep and mysterious, to the level of their own\nunderstanding, and discard all which they may be unable to explain, need\nbe to us no matter of surprise.  The very same temper which in one\ninduces a disbelief in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, because the\ndoctrine is beyond the human understanding to fathom,\u2014or leads another to\nreject the mystery of the Incarnation, because it is ineffable and above\nhis comprehension,\u2014or another to deny the regenerating gift and efficacy\nof holy baptism, saying, \u201cHow can these things be?\u201d\u2014may readily bring\nothers to that hard state of scepticism which robs the Holy Eucharist at\nonce of its deep mysteriousness and of its hidden virtue; which therefore\nrejects, and too often ridicules, the very idea of a priesthood and an\navailing sacrifice, saying, \u201cHow should man have power with God?\u201d or,\n\u201cHow can this Man give us His flesh to eat?\u201d {74a} even though the\npriestly power be derived from Christ\u2019s own commission, and the\nmysterious virtue assured by His own Word of Truth.  That there should be\nsome who, leaning too much to their own understanding, forsake the old\nways, and dislike and accuse those who desire to cleave to them; that\nthey should frame worldly arguments for worldly men, and even deceive\nsome who in heart and wish are not worldly, but rather unwary, or led\naway by the mere voice of the multitude, or swayed by prejudice, or\nbetrayed through an ignorance of what has been from the beginning; that\n_some_ should scoff when they cannot reason, and ridicule that which they\nhave not the heart to understand,\u2014all this, I repeat, need not fill us\nwith either surprise or dismay, though perchance it may make us (not\nwholly unwarrantably) deem that the latter days are come, or close\ncoming, upon us.  I say all this need not surprise us, for have not our\nLord and His Apostles warned us that such things must be?  \u201cWhen the Son\nof Man cometh,\u201d He said Himself, \u201cshall He find faith on the earth?\u201d\n{74b} as though it would exist but in a remnant.  And again, \u201cIf they\nhave called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they\ncall them of his household?\u201d {75a}  Why, then, should we expect to escape\nsuch things?  But I said, also, we need not be dismayed at them.  Is\nthere not the exhortation, \u201cYe have need of patience?\u201d {75b} and again\nthe encouragement, \u201cIn your patience possess ye your souls?\u201d {75c} and\nagain the gracious promise, \u201cHe that endureth to the end shall be saved?\u201d\n{75d}  What though in the latter times some shall depart from the faith?\n{75e}  What though \u201cthe time will come when men will not endure sound\ndoctrine.\u201d {75f}  Shall this make any difference in our faith, or cast\nany gloom upon our hope?  No!  Brethren, let us ever remember that what\nwe have to rely upon is, not \u201cman\u2019s wisdom,\u201d nor \u201can arm of flesh:\u201d what\nwe have to cleave to with all constancy is \u201cthat which was from the\nbeginning;\u201d {75g} for it is this which gives us \u201cfellowship with the\nFather, and with His Son Jesus Christ.\u201d {75h}\n\nAnd surely here we may see and bless the goodness of God towards us in\nthis our Church of England that He put it into the hearts of our\nReformers not for one moment to think of making a new religion or a new\nChurch, but only (throwing off errors and corruptions) to go back to the\nteaching of the early ages, and embrace the doctrine of the Church\nuniversal.  If the Church of England had _begun_ at the Reformation, (as\nsometimes men speak,) no man, who knew anything of the essentials of\nChristianity could belong to her for a moment.  But, blessed be God, He\nput it into the heart and minds of those who, in His providence, guided\nthe course of the English Reformation, to make it a maxim, _Stare super\nantiquas vias_, to give heed to the injunction of the prophet: \u201cThus\nsaith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths\nwhere is the good way; and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your\nsouls.\u201d {76}  It is this which has been, under God, our safeguard.  From\ntime to time assaults have been made to destroy our true Catholic\ncharacter and our bond of union with primitive Christianity; but God has,\nof His mercy, hitherto, ever kept it in the heart of the rulers in our\nChurch to \u201cask for the old ways, and to walk in them.\u201d  That our Church\nhas kept to the old ways is manifest from this, that the very persons who\ndisbelieve and desire to drive us from the ancient faith, are the same\nwho, as the means of doing so, are striving to new model our formularies\nand alter our Prayer-book.  They feel no less than we that, whilst we\nretain these, we cleave to the doctrine which has been of old; and they,\ndesiring to deprive us of the doctrine, are as anxious to alter our\nformularies as we are to keep them unchanged.  And many of them would\nperhaps, even more openly than they do, advocate extensive measures of\nliturgical revision, in a doctrinal sense, but for the consciousness that\nto shew too great anxiety on the point is too like a confession of how\nmuch the Prayer-book is against them.  Surely these things are of great\nweight when we would know what doctrine is most according to the mind of\nthe Church of England.  \u201cI speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.\u201d\nIt is this same principle, too, of preserving the one faith once\ndelivered, which makes it so important to examine, as we are attempting\nto do, the sense of Holy Scripture as attested by the consent of the\nChurch from the beginning, and as accepted by our own Church, upon so\ngrave and practical a subject as the priesthood, the altar, and the\nsacrifice.  May God give us His illumination to see His truth as He has\nseen fit to reveal it to us, and grace that where we see it, we may\nboldly confess it; so shall we pass in safety the waves of this\ntroublesome world, so may we, perchance, be delivered from the strife of\ntongues; or, if not, yet shall we learn not to fear man, nor be troubled\neven if we cannot please men, remembering the witness of St. Paul, that\n\u201cif he pleased men, he should not be the servant of Christ.\u201d {77}\n\nAnd, brethren, let us all pray for an humble, meek, gentle, teachable,\nbelieving heart, that we may not despise or refuse, or disbelieve God\u2019s\nmighty works, though His treasure be placed in earthen vessels; nor turn\nour back upon His mysteries, though they transcend our utmost powers of\nconception, nor neglect His call, be it what it may; to go forth, if it\nbe so, like Abraham, we know not whither; or, like him, to sacrifice our\ndearest hope, if God demand it; or, like Daniel, to be cast even into the\nden of lions; or, like the Apostles, to be made the very refuse of the\nearth and the offscouring of all things,\u2014so that we may but hold fast the\nfaith, and yet hand on again to those who shall come after the good\ndeposit committed to our charge.  If this, indeed, we are enabled to do,\nwe may well \u201cthank God and take courage.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nSERMON V.\nThe Testimony of our Formularies to the Doctrine of the Priesthood.\n\n\n                             ST. JOHN xx. 22, 23.\n    \u201cAnd when He had said this, He breathed on them, and saith unto them,\n       Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose soever sins ye remit, they are\n        remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are\n                                  retained.\u201d\n\nIN the brief outline which I have submitted in these discourses of the\nevidences for the doctrine of the Christian priesthood, altar, and\nsacrifice, I first met the objection sometimes made to there being any\nsuch treasure (in our Church at any rate) because lodged in earthen\nvessels; secondly, I traced, at least in part, the witness of the whole\nworld before Christ\u2019s coming to the belief in, and usage of, sacrifice\nand altar, with the necessarily attendant priesthood; and thirdly, I\nadduced some very small portion of the proofs both from Holy Scripture\nand from the universal consent of the early Church in its interpretation\nof Scripture, that priesthood, altar, and sacrifice did not expire with\nthe law, but were intended to be continued, and were continued in and\nunder the Christian dispensation, in and under Him who was and is a High\nPriest of surpassing power and dignity, not after the pattern or lineage\nof the priests of the sons of Aaron, but \u201ccalled an High Priest for ever\nafter the order of Melchizedek;\u201d of Him who, fulfilling that royal type,\nwas \u201cKing of Righteousness,\u201d and after that also \u201cKing of Salem, which is\nKing of Peace,\u201d and yet, again, in like manner, \u201cpriest of the Most High\nGod,\u201d and who \u201cabideth a priest continually.\u201d {80}\n\nWe brought our examination of this evidence to the fourth century of the\nChristian era by, as I think it must be allowed, the summary of an\nunexceptionable witness to the substance of the early Christian writings\nupon that point, and by a reference to the five most ancient liturgies of\nthe Christian Church.  It is unnecessary to say a word as to the same\ndoctrine being the universally received doctrine of the Church from the\nfourth century to the sixteenth, because its very opponents adduce the\nteaching of that thousand or twelve hundred years, in this among other\nthings, as proving the great darkness and corruption which had then\nfallen upon the Church, and obscured, in their view, the simplicity of\nthe Gospel.  So that, whatever may be thought of its orthodoxy, the fact\nis not disputed, that for such period the whole of Christendom, with the\nmost insignificant exceptions, believed in the doctrine which we are\nconsidering.  Whether, as is affirmed by such objectors, this universal\nbelief were a mark of the corruption and ignorance of \u201cthe dark ages,\u201d as\nthe self-complacent pride of later times has designated them, (when\nperchance in God\u2019s judgment they may be as light itself compared with\nmuch of the \u201cphilosophy and vain deceit\u201d {81a} of this free-handling\nnineteenth century, which so often \u201cdarkens counsel by words without\nknowledge\u201d {81b}); or whether such consent, following the track of the\nearliest ages, be not rather the mark of a true understanding of the mind\nof the Spirit pervading that body with which Christ has promised to be,\n\u201ceven to the end of the world,\u201d is another question.  It is one which I\nneed not now pursue, as what we have to say of the course taken and the\ndoctrine maintained by the Church of England at her Reformation will\nthrow a light upon the whole matter, which ought, I think, to be\nsufficient for any understanding and faithful member of our Church.\n\nThus we are brought to the immediate subject of our further enquiry.  It\nbeing admitted, as I think I have shewn it must be, that this doctrine of\nthe priesthood, altar, and sacrifice, is a doctrine founded upon, and\nsupported by, Holy Scripture; so understood by the Church at large from\nthe earliest times, so maintained with no faltering lips to at least the\nsixteenth century; what, we ask next, is the evidence of the mind of our\nown Church at the Reformation and since, as to her preserving or\nrejecting it?\n\nYou will hardly expect me to go through all the evidence.\nBut\u2014remembering what we said on Sunday last, that these three things are\ncorrelatives, reciprocally implying each other, or each one the other\ntwo, (the priest; the altar and the sacrifice;\u2014the altar; the sacrifice\nand the priest;\u2014the sacrifice; the priest and the altar;)\u2014let us turn to\nsome portion of the proof that our Church has fully intended and intends,\nhas accounted and accounts, those who in her carry on the services of the\nsanctuary to be priests of God.\n\nNow, observe, the three great offices embraced in the idea of a priest\nare these:\u2014first, that he is one who has commission to rule and teach;\nsecondly, one who has power to absolve; thirdly, one who has authority to\noffer up sacrifice.  The first of these functions, though belonging to\nthe priesthood, is hardly to be called distinctive of it (as we may see\nmore clearly presently); the other two are of its essence, that is,\npertaining to none else; so that, on the one hand, he who has them both,\nor even he who has, if it were so, either of them, is necessarily in a\ntrue sense a priest; and, on the other, he who is a priest will have one\nor other, or both of these powers, not indeed of himself, but committed\nto him.  To see how this stands with us, who are ministers and stewards\nof God\u2019s mysteries in this our Church of England, we must turn to our\nservice-books, and especially to the Service for Ordaining Priests, to\nsee what is the commission given to each, and what we learn from this to\nbe the mind of the Church concerning them who are admitted to that holy\nfunction.\n\nTurn first, then, for a moment to the Preface, to \u201cThe Form and Manner of\nmaking, ordaining, and consecrating of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons,\naccording to the order of the United Church of England and Ireland.\u201d  We\nfind it there said: \u201cIt is evident unto all men diligently reading the\nHoly Scripture and ancient authors, that from the Apostles\u2019 time there\nhave been these Orders of Ministers in Christ\u2019s Church; Bishops, Priests,\nand Deacons.  Which offices were evermore had in such reverend\nestimation, that no man might presume to execute any of them, except he\nwere first called, tried, examined, and known to have such qualities as\nare requisite for the same; and also by public prayer, with imposition of\nhands, were approved and admitted thereunto by lawful authority.  And\ntherefore, to the intent that these Orders may be continued, and\nreverently used and esteemed, in the United Church of England and\nIreland; no man shall be accounted or taken to be a lawful Bishop,\nPriest, or Deacon, in the United Church of England and Ireland, or\nsuffered to execute any of the said functions, except he be called,\ntried, examined, and admitted thereunto, according to the form hereafter\nfollowing, or hath had formerly episcopal consecration, or ordination.\u201d\n\nNow this shews, I think, beyond dispute, that the Church of England holds\nthat no one, according to her mind and rule, is to be accounted or taken\nto be a lawful bishop, priest, or deacon, without episcopal ordination or\nconsecration; for those who are ordained or consecrated according to the\nforms which follow, unquestionably have it; and those who are or have\nbeen admitted by any others, are not to be accounted lawfully admitted to\nthose Orders unless they have at some time been episcopally ordained.\n\nWe therefore find the authority and commission, in each case, given by\nthe laying on of a bishop or bishops\u2019 hands, though, according to the\nScriptural warrant, accompanied also, in the ordination of priests, by\nthe laying on of the hands of the priests present.  Still it is evident\nthat these, without the bishop, are not esteemed competent to convey the\ngift of Holy Orders.\n\nBut, next, what is the commission given?  Observe the difference between\nthat to deacons and to priests, and you will see the more clearly what is\nof the essence of the priesthood.\n\nTo the deacon it is said, with the laying on of hands: \u201cTake thou\nauthority to execute the office of a deacon in the Church of God\ncommitted unto thee; in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of\nthe Holy Ghost;\u201d and then, further: \u201cTake thou authority to read the\nGospel in the Church of God, and to preach the same if thou be thereto\nlicensed by the bishop himself.\u201d {85a}\n\nBut to the priest the corresponding, but far higher commission, is:\n\u201cReceive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a priest in the Church\nof God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of my hands.\u201d {85b}\n\nYes, it may be said, but what work?  We grant there is the use of the\nword \u2018priest,\u2019 but the whole question turns upon the sense in which it is\nused.  Oh, brethren, listen with simple hearts of reverence, loving and\nseeking only the truth, to the solemn and awful words which follow:\n\u201cWhose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou\ndost retain, they are retained; and be thou a faithful dispenser of the\nWord of God, and of His holy Sacraments: in the Name of the Father, and\nof the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.  Amen.\u201d {85c}\n\nAnd then, further, delivering the Bible into the hand of each: \u201cTake thou\nauthority to preach the Word of God, and to minister the Holy Sacraments\nin the congregation where thou shalt be lawfully appointed thereunto.\u201d\n{85d}\n\nNow, not only is there evidently in all this a general superior\ncommission given, but there is the particular and specific difference\nwhich I affirm can only be accounted for by the intentional full\nrecognition of the priestly idea and priestly office as we have all along\nexplained and taken those terms.\n\nAnd the words settle, as it seems to me, beyond dispute, another\nquestion,\u2014which yet is not another, though it may bear a separate word of\ncomment in our argument,\u2014namely, whether the Church of England considers\nour Lord\u2019s ministerial commission to His Apostles to have been confined\nto them, or whether it was His will, by virtue of His words, \u201cAs My\nFather hath sent Me, even so send I you,\u201d {86} that they should again\ntransmit the powers of the priesthood on to others after them?  For\nobserve particularly what words they are which are used by the bishop to\ngive this commission to the priest.  \u201cReceive,\u201d he says, \u201cthe Holy Ghost\nfor the office of a priest, in the Church of God;\u201d and then, \u201cWhose sins\nthou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain,\nthey are retained.\u201d  Now from whence do these words come?  Who used them\nbefore, and to whom did they then give a commission?  Let us turn to the\ntwentieth chapter of St. John\u2019s Gospel, and we shall find the Divine\nrecord: \u201cThen said Jesus to them again,\u201d (viz. to the Apostles,) \u201cPeace\nbe unto you; as My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you.  And when He\nhad said this, He breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the\nHoly Ghost: whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and\nwhose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.\u201d {87}\n\nNow is there any one who denies that our Blessed Lord thus gave such\npower to those to whom He then spoke, and on whom He then breathed?  I\nsuppose not.  It would be wholly to explain away and contradict His word\nto say so.  It would be to prevent any one relying upon the plainest\nmeaning of anything to say so.  It would be to make every injunction He\never gave, and every truth He ever uttered, without sense or force, so to\nread such a passage, as that it gave no commission even to the Apostles.\nIf His Apostles did not receive from that commission a power to bind and\nloose, to remit and retain sins, it must, I think, be hopeless for any\none to imagine any duties can be proved or any doctrines declared in\nScripture, or, we might add, by any words anywhere set down.  But then it\nis said, We do not deny the commission as a personal thing to the\nApostles, but we say that it extended no further.  We say that if any\nimagine such a power and authority to have been intended to be\ntransmitted further, or to be capable of being thus transmitted, he is in\na grievous error and mistake.  Now I am not arguing this question,\nwhether mine be the right understanding of the Scripture, but I say, is\nit not as plain as the sun at noon-day that, right or wrong, it is the\nunderstanding of the Church of England?  Surely her meaning here can no\nmore be questioned as to those to whom she applies them, than our Blessed\nLord\u2019s intention can be questioned as to those to whom He addressed them.\nWhat possible explanation is there of her appointing those words to be\nsolemnly used in her Ordinal at the time of, and in the ordaining a man\nto be a priest, but that she believed the powers of the priesthood, as to\nabsolution, to be then and thereby given to that man according to the\nwill of God and Christ?  \u201cI speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.\u201d\nWould it not shew either an ignorance of the force of words which is\ninconceivable, not merely in eminent theologians, which assuredly many of\nour Reformers were, but in any one of sane mind, if the words appointed\nto be so solemnly used, yet mean absolutely nothing?  Or, if not this,\nmust it not argue an impiety amounting to blasphemy for the Church of any\ncountry to draw up for use a service such as this, and, playing\nunmeaningly or deceitfully with such holy words, not to suppose any gift\nof the Holy Ghost, or any power of absolution, to be conveyed to those to\nwhom they are addressed?  What could we esteem such a barren equivocation\nwith the holiest of things, if there were such design, but impious\nmockery towards God and deceit towards man?\n\nBut further, we are not even left to such proof that our Church intends\nno such mockery.  Turn to the work of the priest on this very point of\nabsolution, and what is the light thrown by this upon the words of\nordination?  I will pass over the Absolution both in our Morning and\nEvening Prayers and in the Office of Holy Communion, as, though in each\ncase specifically limited to being given by the priest, they may be\nthought to be capable of a sense chiefly or only declaratory, or\nprecatory.  But I ask you to turn to two other places\u20141. to the end of\nthe second Exhortation, as to the coming to Holy Communion; and, 2. to\nthe Office for the Visitation of the Sick.\n\nIn the former place, after explanation of the preparation, \u201cthe way and\nmeans\u201d to come worthily to that Holy Sacrament, we find the following:\n\u201cAnd because it is requisite, that no man should come to the Holy\nCommunion but with a full trust in God\u2019s mercy, and with a quiet\nconscience; therefore if there be any of you, who by this means\u201d (namely,\nhis own private examination of his life) \u201ccannot quiet his own conscience\nherein, but requireth further comfort or counsel, let him come to me, or\nto some other discreet and learned minister of God\u2019s Word, and open his\ngrief; that by the ministry of God\u2019s holy Word, he may receive the\nbenefit of absolution,\u201d (What is the benefit if there be no power to\nabsolve?) \u201ctogether with ghostly counsel and advice, to the quieting of\nhis conscience, and avoiding all scruple and doubtfulness.\u201d {89}\n\nHere then, surely, he who has been ordained a priest, and received the\nHoly Ghost that he may remit or retain sins, is to exercise his ministry\nin the absolution of the penitent soul.\n\nBut if it be said, There is no minute description or account of the mode\nof absolution, it may still be but declaratory or precatory; I say, then,\nturn once again to another place, and see if the form and method of the\nabsolution be not there actually all which we can suppose even an Apostle\nhimself could use.  In the Office for the Visitation of the Sick, when\nthe sick man is in the full contemplation of death, and perhaps death\nvery near at hand, the priest being solemnly engaged in his office of\npreparing him for it, the distinct direction is given that the sick\nperson shall be \u201cmoved to make a special confession of his sins, if he\nfeel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter.  After which\nconfession, the priest shall absolve him (if he humbly and heartily\ndesire it) after this sort.\u201d  And the words are: \u201cOur Lord Jesus Christ,\nwho hath left power to His Church to absolve all sinners who truly repent\nand believe in Him, of His great mercy forgive thee thine offences;\u201d (so\nfar we have the declaration of the power left to the Church, and either,\nit may be said, declaratory or precatory words, \u201cforgive thee.\u201d  But this\nis not all; immediately it is added), \u201cAnd by His authority committed to\nme, I absolve thee from all thy sins; in the name of the Father, and of\nthe Son, and of the Holy Ghost.  Amen.\u201d {90}\n\nNow, brethren, I do not desire to say much in comment on such words as\nthese.  But I do say, and I know not how to avoid saying, first, if such\nauthority was committed to the priest, when was it committed to him, or\nhow, but at his ordination, and in and by \u201cthe form and manner of\nordering priests,\u201d which we have before noted?  And, secondly, can any\nreasonable being believe that the Church could have drawn up such a\nservice, and put such words into the priest\u2019s mouth when dealing solemnly\nand truly with a sick or dying man, and yet believe that such power of\nabsolution, as a part of the priest\u2019s distinctive character and endowment\nby God, had not been conferred upon him? or maintain that she thought our\nBlessed Lord\u2019s commission extended no further than to its first\nrecipients, and died out with the Apostles themselves, when still she\nuses the words continually in her \u201cordering of priests?\u201d  If it be\nsaid,\u2014Well: still we cannot believe this, and can only say that we\nheartily desire to remove from our Prayer-book and Ordinal, as a\nblasphemous fable and a dangerous deceit, all traces of such authority\nbeing given,\u2014I can only reply that this argument is wholly beside our\npresent question.  I am not now arguing whether such an interpretation\nand use of Holy Scripture be the right interpretation and use, (though I\nhave given reasons before for feeling sure it is,) but I am shewing what\nis the mind and understanding herein of the Church of England.  I am\nsilencing, if I may, (and in the judgment of right reason I cannot\nconceive that I should fail in doing so,) the calumny that they who\nmaintain the doctrine of the priesthood are disloyal to the Church of\nEngland, or deviating from the principles of the Reformation.  For, not\nmerely according to what right reason must, I think, enforce to be the\nintention of those who drew up our formularies, but according to the\nsimple sense of those formularies, this doctrine and none other is the\nonly doctrine which can be made consistent with the documents themselves,\nor which they can justly be taken to enunciate.  We have at times heard\nnot a little of the dishonesty of those who, it is said, have taken our\nformularies in a non-natural sense, on the Catholic side, though in a\nsense which they deemed they would fairly bear.  If this argument be good\nfor anything, against whom can it so conclusively be brought as against\nsuch as will affirm that, when in the most solemn exercise of a bishop\u2019s\noffice, the bishop says, \u201cReceive the Holy Ghost for the office and work\nof a priest in the Church of God,\u201d the Church intends that there is no\ngift of the Holy Ghost bestowed, and no priest made at all?  Or, again,\nwhen he says, adopting Christ\u2019s own words of commission,\u2014\u201cWhose sins thou\ndost forgive they are forgiven unto them, and whose sins thou dost\nretain, they are retained;\u201d\u2014that in this there is no intention to teach\nthat the commission of Christ extended beyond the Apostles themselves,\nand that no power of binding or loosing is conferred by this solemn act?\nOr, yet again, who tell us that when the priest is instructed to exercise\nthis holy function of absolving penitents, either that they may come\n\u201cwith a full trust in God\u2019s mercy and with a quiet conscience\u201d to the\nHoly Eucharist, or, in the solemn moments of serious sickness, perhaps\nthe near prospect of death, (things and times surely beyond all others to\ndrive away the very notion of unreal or unmeaning words, which must also,\nif they be such, be to the poor penitent most deceitful and misleading\nwords also); that then the Church gives her instruction to use the word\nof absolution, and say, \u201cBy His authority committed unto me, I absolve\nthee from all thy sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of\nthe Holy Ghost,\u201d and yet means hereby only a mockery and a delusion; that\nthere is no such power, no such authority, no such absolving at all;\nsurely all this is not a mere non-natural sense which the words will\nbear, though it may not be the most obvious at first sight, but is a\nnon-natural sense so monstrous that they will not bear it at all.\n\nSo much I say in proof of the mind of the Church of England upon the\nsubject of the priesthood, as involved in the priestly function of\nabsolution.  It is but a small part of what might be said, but it is as\nmuch perhaps as our time will now permit, and I cannot understand it to\nbe less than sufficient (unless our Reformers in the sixteenth century,\nand the Revisers of our Book of Common Prayer and offices since, are to\nbe esteemed either as the most incompetent or the most impious of men,)\nto prove the point for which I have adduced the wording of our Ordinal,\nand the comment upon this given by other parts of the Prayer-book,\nnamely, that our Church unmistakably maintains the doctrine of the\nChristian priesthood, not merely the name but the thing, in the same\nreality and power in which the Church universal has ever claimed and ever\nmaintained it.\n\nAnd this remark may give us, if it please God, a wholesome thought with\nwhich to conclude this morning.  Let us ever strive and pray, that we may\nnever for a moment be severed in heart or hope, or even in thought, from\nthe universal Church.  Let us love it, and cleave to it, as we\ncontemplate it one and undivided of old, however, alas, now distracted by\nunhappy divisions.  Let us beware of encouraging a self-sufficient or\nself-reliant temper, as if we shewed our wisdom or independence, by\nisolating ourselves from that which has been the faith of the Church, not\nhere or there, but everywhere from the beginning.  If we can discover (as\nin most points of importance we may if we will,) what are the truths\nwhich have been held always, everywhere, and by all, (_semper_, _ubique_,\n_ad omnibus_, according to the well-known rule of St. Vincentius,) we may\nbe certain that we shall run into no serious error, nor perverted\ninterpretations of Holy Scripture dangerous to our souls.  Individuals,\nhowever gifted, may go astray.  Individual Churches may err, and have\nerred, even in matters of faith; but the whole Church at large, the\nChurch Catholic, we may be sure, has not done so, nor ever shall, or how\nshould it be, what St. Paul tells us \u201cthe Church of God\u201d is, \u201cthe pillar\nand ground of the truth,\u201d {95a} or how should be fulfilled our Blessed\nLord\u2019s word and promise,\u2014\u201cThe gates of hell shall not prevail against\nIt;\u201d {95b} and again, \u201cLo!  I am with you alway, even unto the end of the\nworld.\u201d {95c}  So, indeed, let us look upon Her with tender reverence as\nthe spouse of Christ.  \u201cOh! pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall\nprosper that love Thee.\u201d {95d}\n\n\n\n\nSERMON VI.\nThe Christian Altar.\n\n\n                              HEBREWS xiii. 10.\n                             \u201cWe have an Altar.\u201d\n\nI RESUME our subject: the priesthood, altar and sacrifice in the\nChristian Church, and the mind of the Church of England upon it.  On\nSunday last we treated of this in part, shewing in relation to it what\nwere the \u201cold paths,\u201d and pointing to the proof that our Church walks in\nthem, recognising and maintaining a true priesthood in those who minister\nat her altars, by the solemn committal to them of the power of\nabsolution, a thing which she would not do upon any other hypothesis than\nthat of their possessing a true sacerdotal character.  We had not time to\nsay much upon the altar or the sacrifice.  Our text, however, now leads\nus by no uncertain course to this portion of our subject, especially when\nplaced in connection with St. Paul\u2019s emphatic question in another place:\n\u201cAre not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?\u201d  You\nwill remember that we examined both those passages on a former occasion,\n{97} when we were regarding the scriptural testimony to the doctrine, and\nI need not repeat what I then said.  But they will lead us on now\nnaturally,\u2014after the remarks I made last week upon the Christian\npriesthood, as borne witness to by the primitive Church, and maintained\nin the Church of England,\u2014to some consideration of the sacrifice also, as\nborne witness to and maintained in like manner.\n\n\u201cWe have an altar,\u201d says the Apostle.  Of course it is in the celebration\nof the Holy Eucharist that this altar is used, and the sacrifice made;\nthe great commemorative sacrifice of the Christian Church, wherein we do\nnot repeat, or attempt to repeat, (God forbid,) the one sacrifice,\noblation, and satisfaction once for all made upon the Cross, but yet are\nallowed to present before God the Father, the memorial of that\never-blessed offering, by the Body and Blood of Christ really present,\n(though not after the manner of any \u201ccorporal presence of Christ\u2019s\nnatural flesh and blood,\u201d but) after a true though mystical and heavenly\nmanner; to present this, I say, according to His will and ordinance, by\nwhich it is granted us to apply to ourselves the merits of His death and\npassion, and to obtain His own prevailing intercession for us before the\nthrone of God; whereby, too, our souls and bodies, as we \u201ceat of the\nsacrifice are partakers of the altar,\u201d and gain heavenly nourishment and\nsustenance unto everlasting life.\n\nWe have seen already that such is the judgment and doctrine of the\nprimitive Church in its understanding of Holy Scripture, as shewn by the\nearly Christian writers, and by the ancient liturgies.  Also, that the\ndoctrine was maintained continuously for fifteen hundred years.  Our\nquestion now is, What has our own Church said and done in this matter at\nor since the Reformation?  Does she maintain, or does she reject, the\nprevious teaching of the Church Universal, and put something else in the\nplace of its doctrine, and its understanding of Holy Scripture upon the\nsubject?\n\nWe cannot here go into a minute history of all which was done at the\nReformation in this regard.  But I think we may, within reasonable\ncompass, arrive at a satisfactory general conclusion.  If we compare our\nChurch\u2019s Eucharistic Office with the ancient liturgies which have been\npreserved to us, we may see, I might almost say, at a glance, whether in\nprayer, in praise, in oblation, in general design and structure, we\nfollow in their steps, or make \u201csome new thing.\u201d  It cannot be disputed\nthat in design and structure those liturgies all proclaim the doctrine of\npriest, sacrifice, and altar.  This is interwoven with their whole\nsystem.  It was the one understanding of Christians in those days as to\nwhat their liturgies contained.  If, then, we find that the Church of\nEngland follows carefully in their steps, and maintains in her\nEucharistic Office the whole substance of those liturgies,\u2014at any rate,\nall the main points in which they agree together, even though it be with\nsome differences of arrangement, such as might naturally be\nexpected,\u2014surely we prove our point, and cannot doubt that our Reformers\nhad no design to break away from the ancient faith, though they would\ncast off Roman error and Roman usurpation, and therefore that our Church\nnot only does not condemn, but adopts and continues, (as in truth she\nnever dreamed of any other thing,) the doctrine of the Church Universal\nin this matter.\n\nTake, then, the following short account of the structure, form, and usage\nof the ancient liturgies.  I extract it from Mr. Carter\u2019s book, as I know\nof no better way to place it before you:\u2014\u201cThe following brief digest,\u201d he\nsays, \u201cmay give some idea of this system of devotion into which the mind\nof Christendom was habitually casting itself in its communion with God.\nIt will be readily seen how the outline corresponds with our own\nEucharistic Office.  One or more collects; lessons from Holy Scripture; a\nsermon, sometimes preceded by a hymn or anthem; prayers for the\ncatechumens, penitents, and others, who, with a benediction, were then\ndismissed; the creed, the offertory, with the oblations of bread and\nwine\u201d (observe, first offered by being placed upon the altar); then,\n\u201cthanksgivings and intercessions, with a commemoration of the dead in\nChrist.  Then, the more mystical portion of the Liturgy commenced, and in\nall cases with the very same words, _Sursum corda_, (\u2018Lift up your\nhearts\u2019); a thanksgiving, closing with the _Ter sanctus_, (\u2018holy, holy,\nholy\u2019); intercessory prayers; consecration of the elements, with the\nrepetition of our Lord\u2019s words of institution; a second oblation of the\nnow consecrated elements, (this was not always expressed in\nwords,\u2014sometimes silently, and in act only); an invocation of the Holy\nGhost.  This is not found in the Roman nor in the Gallican\nLiturgies;\u201d\u2014(so, observe, we do not forsake the doctrine of the sacrifice\nif we have it not, for no one will suspect the Roman Church, which was\nequally without it, of denying or disparaging that doctrine;)\u2014then,\n\u201cintercessory prayers for the whole Church, the dead as well as the\nliving;\u201d\u2014(this, however, would be praying only for the dead in Christ,\nfor none other would be considered as part of the Church after the time\nof probation is over: though in this world, and in the Church on earth,\nthe good and evil, the wheat and tares grow together, it is not so in the\nChurch beyond the grave:)\u2014\u201cthe Lord\u2019s Prayer; a benediction;\nadministration or communion; thanksgiving; _Gloria in excelsis_; final\nbenediction.\u201d {101}\n\nNow will any one take this account of the liturgies and usage of the\nancient Church, which on all hands confessedly is admitted to have held\nthe doctrine for which we contend, and then, comparing these with the\nEucharistic Service of our own Church, doubt for a moment that the Church\nof England at the Reformation intended to preserve, and did preserve, the\nancient form and practice, and therefore the ancient faith, in this\nmatter? {102}\n\nThe Articles and Catechism of our Church are perfectly in accordance with\nthis conclusion.  Although the former, as we well know, were drawn up\nrather to guard against current errors of that day than to state doctrine\nupon points not brought into controversy, {103} they indirectly confirm\nwhat has been said.  For instance, the Twenty-fifth Article, guarding\nagainst the notion of a gross carnal presence of Christ in the Holy\nEucharist, expressed by the term \u2018transubstantiation,\u2019 might not be\ncalled upon, within its proper scope, to say anything in the way of dogma\nasserting the doctrine of sacrifice; but yet we find in it the statement\nthat sacraments \u201cbe not only badges or tokens of Christian men\u2019s\nprofession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses and effectual signs\nof grace,\u201d\u2014that is, signs effecting what they signify, and therefore, in\nthe case of the Holy Communion, effecting or procuring for sinners pardon\nthrough Christ\u2019s body broken and blood shed, even as there, \u201cas often as\nwe eat that bread and drink that cup we do shew the Lord\u2019s death till He\ncome,\u201d {104} all which is in perfect accordance and harmony with the\ndoctrine of a true propitiatory commemorative sacrifice therein offered\nup to God.\n\nOne point further in relation to the Articles I will notice, lest I seem\nto overlook an objection.  It is sometimes said, If the doctrine of a\ntrue and propitiatory sacrifice in the Holy Eucharist be admitted, there\nis a contradiction to the Thirty-first Article, which tells us that \u201cthe\nsacrifices of masses, in which it was commonly said that the priest did\noffer Christ for the quick and dead, to have remission of pain or guilt,\nwere blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits.\u201d  It is assumed that any\ndoctrine of a real and true sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ in\nthe Holy Eucharist must come under this condemnation, and so it is\nsometimes thought that the whole question is thus decided.  But, not to\nnotice other points not without importance, but which we can hardly spare\ntime to go into now, one thing surely is evident,\u2014that the whole Article\nmust be read together if we would rightly understand it.  It is: \u201cThe\noffering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation,\nand satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and\nactual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin but that alone.\nWherefore the sacrifices of masses, in the which it was commonly said\nthat the priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have\nremission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous\ndeceits.\u201d  Now it is plain that the contrast here is between the one\nsatisfaction for sin made by agony and blood upon the cross, and any\nsupposed repetition of that painful and bloody sacrifice.  \u201cThere is none\nother but that alone;\u201d wherefore, for which reason, such attempts at\nsacrifice as would repeat it, or such teaching as would imply that Christ\nrepeats it and suffers again, \u201care blasphemous fables and dangerous\ndeceits.\u201d  If, then, in anything we say there were a doctrine of its\nrepetition, if we did not absolutely and entirely disclaim (as we all\nalong have done) any such attempt and any such view of the sacrifice of\nthe Christian altar, there would be a condemnation by the Article of our\nteaching.  But certainly neither its terms nor its scope deal with any\nview of a merely unbloody commemorative sacrifice, appointed to be\ncontinually made in the Church of God so long as the world lasteth, by\nwhich the sacrifice upon the cross is never supposed to be repeated, but\nits sole merits applied to the believing and obedient heart, and the\nprevailing pleading and intercession of the Son of God presenting our\nprayers and praises, our penitence and offerings, before the throne of\nthe heavenly grace are secured, and He Himself, our Advocate with the\nFather, is our propitiation.  This no more interferes with the one \u201cfull,\nperfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the\nsins of the whole world, once offered\u201d upon the cross, than His own\ncontinued intercession at the right hand of God (and certainly \u201cHe ever\nliveth to make intercession for us,\u201d) {106} interferes with, or is\ninconsistent with, the same.\n\nSo much I have thought it well to say on the Thirty-first Article,\nbecause it is sometimes misunderstood and misapplied.\n\nNext, I would say just a word as to the teaching of the Church Catechism,\nwhich it would not be right to pass over.  I think it throws a further\nlight upon the doctrine of the sacrifice and the altar, for it not only\ntells us that \u201cthe Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken\nand received by the faithful in the Lord\u2019s Supper,\u201d (that is, the\nbaptized, Christian people, for so the word is always used in strict\ntheological language,) and therefore certainly that there is a real\npresence of His Body and Blood; but it also says that that Holy Sacrament\nwas ordained \u201cfor the continual remembrance of the sacrifice of the death\nof Christ, and of the benefits which we receive thereby,\u201d\u2014where, as in\nthe Communion Office itself, the term \u2018remembrance\u2019 is also to be\nunderstood in its complete theological sense as the memorial, the\ncontinual memorial before God, which by the offering up of the sacrifice\nis made in the Holy Eucharist; all which is strictly accordant with the\ndoctrine of the primitive Church and the ancient liturgies; for, to sum\nup with the words of the learned Mede, \u201cThey (the ancient Fathers)\nbelieved that our blessed Lord ordained the Sacrament of His Body and\nBlood as a rite to bless and invocate His Father by, instead of the\nmanifold and bloody sacrifices of the Law, . . . the mystery of which\nrite they took to be this, that as Christ, by presenting His death and\nsatisfaction to His Father, continually intercedes for us in heaven, so\nthe Church semblably (i.e. in a like manner) approaches the throne of\ngrace by representing Christ unto His Father in those holy mysteries of\nHis death and passion.\u201d {107}\n\nIf further proof still be required of our Church\u2019s mind from the\nReformation downward, let it be noted how often this doctrine has been\nassailed, and yet how, on every occasion, the Church has refused to\ndepart from the ancient rule and faith.  As one instance, take the fact,\nthat at the last revision in 1662, when the real meaning of the Puritan\nobjections was well and fully understood, and when the demand was\nabsolutely made by their leaders, both that the absolution by the priest\nshould plainly be made only declaratory, and that the word \u2018priest\u2019\nshould be wholly omitted and \u2018minister\u2019 substituted, the Church refused\nboth these demands: the bishops replying to the first, that the words as\nstanding in the Visitation Service were far nearer to those of Christ\nHimself in the commission given, as these were, not, whose soever sins ye\ndeclare to be remitted, but, \u201cwhose soever sins ye remit,\u201d and to the\nsecond, \u201cIt is not reasonable that the word \u2018minister\u2019 should be only\nused in the liturgy; for since some parts of the liturgy may be performed\nby a deacon, others by none under the order of a priest, viz. absolution\nand consecration, it is fit that some such word as \u2018priest\u2019 should be\nused for these offices, and not \u2018minister,\u2019 which signifies at large\nevery one that ministers in that holy office, of what order soever he\nbe;\u201d {108} whilst yet again, it has been well noted, that the care of the\nChurch was increased in this last revision to preserve the distinction\nand the doctrine dependent upon the word \u2018priest,\u2019 now that the\nobjections to it were the better understood.  For it has been pointed out\nthat the word \u2018priest\u2019 occurs ninety times in the first book of King\nEdward the Sixth; fifty-five times in the second book, when the Puritan\ninfluence of the foreign reformers obtained its height; whilst in our\npresent Prayer-book it occurs eighty-eight times: and an examination in\ndetail would shew that this restoration was made on principle, and that\nwherever the term \u2018priest\u2019 is employed, more or less of the sacerdotal,\nor strictly priestly character and authority is implied; whilst where the\nterm \u2018minister\u2019 is used, it is either as to simply a ministerial, as\ndistinguished from a sacerdotal act, or the meaning of the term is\ndetermined by the previous use of the word \u2018priest.\u2019 {109}  So that as to\nthis whole ministration, we may well adopt the weighty and persuasive\nlanguage of Dr. Hickes, where, summing up a detailed argument against\nCudworth, who had invented the theory that the Holy Eucharist was only a\nfeast upon a sacrifice, and not a sacrifice itself, he says: \u201cI have said\nall this in defence of the old, against the Doctor\u2019s new notion of the\nHoly Eucharist, much more out of love to that old truth than to prove\nChristian ministers to be proper priests.  For, it will follow even from\nthis,\u201d (that is, from Cudworth\u2019s own view,) \u201cthat they must be proper\npriests, because, as none but a priest can offer a sacrifice, so none but\na priest can preside and minister in such a sacrificial feast as he\nallows the Holy Sacrament to be.  Who but a priest can receive the\nelements from the people, set them upon the holy table, and offer up to\nGod such solemn prayers, praises, and thanksgivings for the congregation,\nand make such solemn intercessions for them as are now, and ever were,\noffered and made in this Holy Sacrament?  Who but a priest can consecrate\nthe elements and make them the mystical Body and Blood of Christ?  Who\nbut a priest can stand in God\u2019s stead at His table, and in His Name\nreceive His guests?  Who but a priest hath power to break the Bread, and\nbless the Cup, and make a solemn memorial before God of His Son\u2019s\nsufferings, and then deliver His sacramental Body and Blood to the\nfaithful communicants, as tokens of His meritorious sufferings, and\npledges of their salvation?  A man authorized thus to act \u2018for men in\nthings pertaining to God,\u2019 and for God in things pertaining to men, must\nneeds be a priest; and such holy ministrations must needs be sacerdotal,\nwhether the holy table be an altar, or the Sacrament a sacrifice or not.\u201d\n{110}\n\nTo what conclusion, then, can we come but to that of the learned\nArchbishop Bramhall?  \u201cHe who saith, Take thou authority to exercise the\noffice of a priest in the Church of God (as the Protestant consecrators\ndo), doth intend all things requisite to the priestly function, and,\namong the rest, to offer a representative sacrifice, to commemorate and\napply the sacrifice which Christ made upon the Cross:\u201d{111a}\u2014or to the\nbrief but weighty saying of St. Jerome?  \u201cEcclesia non est, qu\u00e6 non habet\nSacerdotes.\u201d {111b}\n\nOnce more, brethren, we must pause, and as we do so, let us pray to Him\nfrom whom \u201ccometh down every good and every perfect gift,\u201d {111c} that He\nmay give us His grace more and more to realize, and more and more to\nthank Him for the great privileges which He has vouchsafed to us in His\n\u201choly Catholic Church.\u201d  \u201cWe have an altar\u201d to which we may come, the\nsame blessed feast, of which we may partake, the same blessed sacrifice,\nin which we may join, which has ever been in His Church from the\nbeginning.  As the Israelites were taught to remember, as to their land\nflowing with milk and honey, that they \u201cgat it not in possession through\ntheir own sword, neither was it their own arm that helped them;\u201d {111d}\nOh, so let us ever say with heart and voice, \u201cNot unto us, O Lord, not\nunto us, but unto Thy Name give the praise, for Thy loving mercy, and for\nThy truth\u2019s sake.\u201d {111e}\n\n\n\n\nSERMON VII.\nThe Christian Altar.\n\n\n                              HEBREWS xiii. 10.\n                             \u201cWe have an Altar.\u201d\n\nIT may be well, before we proceed with our general subject, to call your\nattention to one particular as to the course of our argument.  You may\nhave observed that I have not, except here and there incidentally,\nentered into any examination of the nature of the Christian sacrifice\nitself, any more than I have into any details or particulars of the\ndoctrine of absolution, such as its power and effect, or the necessary\nlimitations to be understood in its application.  And this has been done\nadvisedly, because I was not so much concerned, for instance, with the\ndoctrine of absolution in itself, as with it in relation to, and as a\nproof of, the necessary existence of a sacerdotal power in those to whom\nit is entrusted; and therefore if I shewed that such authority is, in and\nby the Church of England, considered to be vested in those who minister\nat her altars, I inferred thence, I think justly, the existence of a\npriesthood in the mind of our Church.  This has been the object with\nwhich I have referred to that doctrine in illustration, and not to\ndiscuss the nature or define the powers of absolution itself.  As,\nhowever, I have here touched upon it again, I may add, lest any mistake\nor misconception arise, that no one pretends the efficient power to\nabsolve, (any more than to offer sacrifice,) lies in the priest himself.\nHe is but the instrument administering the grace of God.  The history of\nthe cure of the lame man at the beautiful gate of the Temple (which we\nlately read) may well illustrate this.  Surely no one will deny that the\npower to heal him was vested in St. Peter and St. John, whilst it is\nclear also, beyond all dispute, that not by their \u201cown power or holiness\nhad they made that man to walk.\u201d {114}  What, then, is there incredible\nin the affirmation that the power of the keys is vested in a priest as\nthe instrument, though all the authority and absolving power is from God\nonly; so that it is God and not man who pardons, and makes any man whole\nfrom sin.  \u201cWho, indeed, can forgive sins but God only?\u201d  But he who is\ninvested with such authority, even instrumentally, is exactly what we\nterm a \u2018priest;\u2019 and our argument has been (to recur to it thus for a\nmoment) that the Church, which regards men as so endowed, regards them as\npriests of God.\n\nI return more generally to the declaration of the text, \u201cWe have an\naltar;\u201d and I will adduce one further illustration of the mind of the\nChurch of England hereon, by a reference to the foreign Reformation.\nTake the two systems of Luther and Calvin, and what do we find?  Luther\nwas already a priest before he began the Reformation, and he had no\ndesign to cast off the priestly element and character in his Reformation.\nHe and other priests who joined him did not cease to administer\nSacraments, or to teach their efficacy.  The Confession of Augsburgh,\nwhich embodies the principles of the German Reformation, asserts\nregeneration in baptism, private confession to a priest, the grace of\nabsolution, and the real presence in the Holy Eucharist.  It also fully\nrecognises (as with this teaching we should expect it would) the\npriesthood in its true meaning.  Luther did not design or promulgate a\nchange of system in any of these doctrines.  What he did declare, under\nthe exigencies of his position, because no bishop joined him, was, that\nfor the purposes of continuing the priesthood and its powers, no\nepiscopacy was necessary, but that priests could make priests; as Mr.\nCarter observes, a perfectly new doctrine in the Church of God.  But the\nwhole proceeding shewed that a sacramental system was maintained after\nthe pattern of the Church, nay, with true priests to administer it for a\ntime, but without the only ordained means of transmitting the same powers\nto the succeeding generation.  Now how great a testimony is this to the\ntrue doctrine, and how much light does it throw upon the acts of our own\nreformers at home, who, with a true episcopate and the power of\nsuccession unimpaired, were not likely to design a less perfect system\nthan the German Reformer admitted and maintained in his theory, though he\nfailed in the appointed means validly to carry it out.\n\nAnd Luther\u2019s testimony is all the more weighty when we remember that he\nwas one who had so little reverence for antiquity or authority, that at\none time he rejected and denied the inspiration of the Epistle of St.\nJames, because he could not make its teaching as to good works square\nwith his own theory of justification; and, at another time, absolutely\nexhorted the elect to sin boldly and shamelessly that they might be fit\nobjects for the mercy of God, and because no sin which they could commit\ncould frustrate the grace of God toward them! and yet even such a man\nwholly received and enforced the ancient doctrine of the priesthood, and\nits accompaniments, the altar and the sacrifice.\n\nGlance for a moment at the teaching of Calvin, and you will find another\ntheological aspect.  Calvin was not a priest; he had, therefore, no\nauthority to administer Sacraments; so he took the bold line of rejecting\nthe doctrine of a priesthood altogether.  He taught that Christ was the\nonly Priest of the New Testament, and that Christian ministers were only,\nwhat such names as elders and pastors might denote, rulers and teachers\nthat is, in the Church of Christ.  This is the first of those three\nfunctions which we spoke of in a former discourse, as connected with the\npriesthood, but is just that one which we then said lacked the\ndistinctive character of the priesthood,\u2014the power of absolution and of\noffering sacrifice.  So much Calvin allowed to his ministry, but all else\nhe denied!\n\nNow, it is obvious, that besides his own defect in point of orders, (that\nhe was not, like Luther, a priest,) his system was one to dispose him to\nreject this doctrine; for what need of a priesthood, or any external\nmeans of approaching God acceptably, when his theory and teaching was\nthat of individual election and reprobation, determined from all\neternity, according to the mere purpose of God?  How naturally would such\na system dispense with the priesthood?  Aye, and there seems hardly room\nto doubt that it would equally well have dispensed with Sacraments.  But\nhere both the testimony of Holy Scripture, and the whole usage of the\nChristian world, as to fact, were too strong for him.  He saw he could\nnot actually reject Sacraments, although his system might well do without\nthem.  It is true, there was evidence of the same kind, both in Scripture\nand in antiquity, for the priesthood also.  But it was much easier to\ndiscard the doctrine as a mere matter of opinion, (so he might call it,)\nthan to set aside things so plainly presented to the sight, as the facts\nof the use of baptism, and the celebration of the Lord\u2019s Supper,\neverywhere established.  The bodily eye could see those usages, but could\nnot see the inner impress of the priesthood.  He could elude or deny the\none, but he dared not, even if he wished it, displace the other.  To\nwhat, then, did he have recourse?  He kept the outward form and show of\nSacraments, as we may say, but denuded them of all their truth, mystery,\nand power.  \u201cHe taught that they were bare signs; symbolizing, but not\nconveying grace; or rather, he separated the sign from the thing\nsignified, making the one independent of the other.\u201d {118}  Yet, as he\nwished to keep them, so he saw that he must teach that there was some\ngood in them.  How did he contrive to give them this use in his system?\nWhy, he invented and taught that the faith of the receiver, and not the\nact of consecration, is the cause of grace in Sacraments; not in the\nsense that Sacraments do not profit the unworthy (which is true), but\nthat this subjective faith in the recipient is the sole cause of their\nhaving power or virtue, (which is not true).  Thus he, in effect,\nconstituted every man his own priest, and led directly to the conclusion\nfurther, that unless in each individual case, the receiver were\npredestinated to life eternal, there was nothing in the Sacrament at all.\nAnd so, again, we see the Christian ministry became, in Calvin\u2019s system,\nnothing but an organ of government and instruction, which the term\n\u2018elder\u2019 or \u2018presbyter\u2019 might sufficiently describe.  And all this, with\nfull deliberation and design on his part, because Calvin was far too\nlearned and able a man not to know that, if there were an altar and a\nsacrifice, there must needs be a priesthood, which he had not, and was\ndetermined to do without.\n\nI should hardly have gone into this statement as to Calvin for its own\nsake, but I think it worthy of notice, for the sake of a practical lesson\nas to those who decry or deny the doctrine of the priesthood, call Christ\nour only Priest, and make every man, in fact, his own Priest.  Surely we\nmay see that the root of all this is, not the teaching of the Church of\nEngland, but absolute Calvinism and the teaching of the Helvetic\nConfession, the embodiment of the views of the Swiss Reformers.  Those\nwho accept this teaching may, or may not, adopt with it, the\npredestinarian part of Calvin\u2019s scheme; but certainly they are adopting\nto the letter his denial of a Christian priesthood, which denial, equally\ncertainly, the English Reformation did not accept.  \u201cWe,\u201d then, \u201chave an\naltar,\u201d however it may be that others may have rejected and cast it off,\nand perhaps, alas, some among ourselves may be unconscious of it, or may\ndisbelieve it.\n\nAnd this leads us to a few words further as to our position, when\u2014I fear\nthere is no denying or concealing it\u2014when some of the priests themselves\namong us repudiate their priesthood, and thus follow the Swiss instead of\nthe English Reformation!  What must we say as to the effect of such\nunbelief; first as to their ministrations and the effect upon their\nflocks, and, secondly, as to themselves?\n\nAnd, first, as to the first point.  Brethren, blessed be God, we do not,\nand we need not, think that, even on this account, they do not offer up\nthe true sacrifice.  Turn, for your comfort, to the Twenty-sixth Article\nof our Church, and you will see why I say so.  It is headed, \u201cOf the\nunworthiness of the ministers, which hinders not the effect of the\nSacraments;\u201d and it tells us of them, as to \u201ctheir authority in\nministration of the Word and Sacraments,\u201d that \u201cforasmuch as they do not\nthe same in their own name, but in Christ\u2019s, and do minister by His\ncommission and authority, we may use their ministry, both in hearing the\nWord of God, and in receiving of the Sacraments.  Neither is the effect\nof Christ\u2019s ordinance taken away . . . nor the grace of God diminished\nfrom such as by faith and rightly do receive the Sacraments ministered\nunto them; which be effectual, because of Christ\u2019s institution and\npromise. . . .\u201d\n\nThus, even such have received the priesthood, and its indelible impress,\nthe _\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1_, (as it is theologically termed,) which cannot be\ndestroyed in them by any act or will of theirs.  Thus, their ministration\nat the altar (so long as it be according to the rule and order of the\nChurch of England) is the offering a valid sacrifice, and their\ndistribution of the consecrated elements is the giving to be \u201cverily and\nindeed taken and received by the faithful, the Body and Blood of Christ.\u201d\nHowever, therefore, we may mourn for them, however we may feel in\naddition to sorrow a godly shame on their account, yet we need not fear\nthat the flock is deprived of the needful food, nor defrauded of the\nblessed intercession of the Lamb, pleading for His people at the right\nhand of God, as often as the oblation is made, and the dread and blessed\nsacrifice is (even thus) offered up.\n\nAs to such themselves (our second anxious question) what shall we say?  I\nwill say nothing of my own mind or thought, but rather adduce a weighty\npassage which I have found upon the matter in the work of the learned Dr.\nHickes, whom I have mentioned more than once, as having so largely\ntreated on our present subject.  Even in his day, more than a\nhundred-and-fifty years ago, these deniers of the grace given them, were\nnot unknown; and he thus speaks of them, going, you will observe, not so\nmuch as I have done here, into the question of the effect of their\nmisbelief upon their ministrations to their flocks, but more particularly\ninto its effect upon themselves.  \u201cI desire,\u201d he says, \u201cyour late\nwriter,\u201d (the author whom, in his dissertation, he was answering,) \u201cand\nsuch others as he, who have been led into their errors by these and other\nwriters since the Reformation,\u201d (Cudworth he means more particularly, and\nthe novel theory propounded by him,) \u201cto consider that, if the Holy\nEucharist be a sacrifice, as the Catholic Church believed in all ages\nbefore that time, how far the defect of administering it only as a\nsacrament may affect the holy office and the administration of it; and\nwhether the Communion administered by a priest, who neither believes\nhimself to be such, nor the Sacrament to be an oblation or sacrifice, can\nbe a Communion in or with the Catholic Church?  I say, I leave it to\nthemselves to consider these things, and I think they deserve their\nconsideration, and hope they will seriously and impartially ruminate upon\nthem, lest they should not \u2018rightly and duly administer that Holy\nSacrament.\u2019  The best of the Jewish writers tells us\u201d (i.e. Maimonides),\n\u201cthat it was a profanation of a sacrifice, if the priest thought, when he\noffered up one sacrifice, that it was another; as if, when he offered a\nburnt-offering, he thought it was a peace-offering; or if, when he\noffered a peace-offering, he thought it was a burnt-offering.  Whether\nthat obliquity of thought, when it happened, had such an effect or no, I\nshall not now enquire; but this I dare say, if a Jewish priest, who did\nnot believe himself to be a proper priest, nor the Jewish altar a proper\naltar, nor the sacrifices of the Law true and proper sacrifices, had\npresumed to offer while he was in this unhappy error, that he had\nprofaned the sacrifice, so far as he was concerned in it, and not offered\nit up _\u1f41\u03c3\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bc\u03ad\u03bc\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2_, (holily and unblameably,) according to the\nwill of God, though according to all the appointed rites, nor in unity\nand conjunction with the Jewish Church.  For the Jewish Church would not\nhave suffered such priests, if known, to minister among the sons of Aaron\nand Zadoc; nor would the ancient Catholic Church have endured bishops and\npresbyters without censure, who durst have taught that the Christian\nministry was not a proper priesthood, the Holy Eucharist, not a proper\nsacrifice, or that Christian ministers were not proper priests.\u201d {123a}\n\nOh, my brethren, for those who may have fallen into such error (not\nknowing what they do), let us pray, in all tenderness and charity, that\nthey may be forgiven and enlightened; and for us all, priests and people\nalike, let us make our petition that we may never fall into it; whilst,\nas to whatever truth or privilege or blessing God has shewn or given to\nus, let us \u201cnot be high-minded, but fear,\u201d {123b} not being puffed up\nbecause of our advantages, but all the more careful, because we confess\nwe have them, diligently to use them.\n\nAnd this brings us to the great practical question to which this whole\nenquiry leads.  \u201cWe have an altar.\u201d  Do we, as we ought, use and profit\nby our great privilege?  Do we indeed, individually and one by one, value\nthe altar, use the altar, bring our gift to the altar, join in the\nservices of the altar, become partakers of the altar, and thereby have\nfellowship with the Lord?\n\nSuch questions, seriously considered, may furnish us with a most\nimportant test as to our true state, particularly whether we believe the\ndoctrine, and whether we so live day by day as to be meet to take our\nplace and part in the altar worship.  Let me say a few words on these\npoints before I conclude.\n\nFirst, do we really believe the doctrine?  If we do, surely we must\nfrequent the sacrifice.  We must see in the altar service the highest act\nof our devotion.  We must perceive that here is the crown and completion\nof all other worship, the sum and substance of our praises and\nthanksgivings, the prevailing mode of petition for ourselves and of\nintercession for others, the greatest and highest means of applying to\nour individual wants and individual sins the mercies of God through the\never-availing sacrifice of Christ.  Such persuasion of their dignity and\npower has ever pervaded those who have believed in a priesthood, an\naltar, and a sacrifice.  Heathen testimony witnesses to this, even amidst\nall the corruption and debasement of idol worship.  The solemn, gorgeous,\nawful sacrifice has ever been the central act of all devotion, that to\nwhich all the people congregated, and to which, if they had any religion,\nthey delighted to be called.  We cannot here, and we need not, go into\nthe proofs of this from the poets or historians of antiquity.  We hardly\nneed adduce any proofs further than we have done already from Holy\nScripture to it.  We may, however, just recall the manner of the\nsacrifice offered by Samuel previous to the anointing of Saul to be king\nover Israel, when all the people would not eat until the Prophet came,\n\u201cbecause he doth bless the sacrifice.\u201d {125a}  And the majesty of the\ngreat feast and sacrifice at the dedication of Solomon\u2019s temple; {125b}\nand again, the solemn renewal of the covenant and worship of God by\nJosiah, King of Judah, when he held the feast of the Passover unto the\nLord, such as had not been \u201cfrom the days of the judges that judged\nIsrael, nor in all the days of the kings of Israel, nor of the kings of\nJudah.\u201d {125c}  Let us remember, too, that the great Paschal sacrifice\nand feast, itself the type of the true Lamb of God, was ordained to be\nannually kept under the earlier dispensation, and was assuredly so great\nand central a scene and act of Jewish devotion that to it the whole\nnation was called, and called so stringently that he who observed it not\nwas to be cut off from the people. {125d}  What an intimation that he who\nkeeps not its far greater antitype, the Christian Passover in the\nEucharistic Sacrifice and feast, is cutting himself off from the people\nof God under the new and better covenant!  Do we, then, all of us thus\nfrequent and delight in the Christian altar? and if not, why not?  Do we\nsuppose that holiness of life, less than that which may allow us to come\nworthily to the Holy Eucharist, will be sufficient to let us come to\nheaven?  Do we think that, though we are without the marriage garment\nwhich we feel is needful for us to go to the Supper of the Lord on earth,\nwe can enter without it, to sit down at the great marriage of the Lamb in\nthe courts of heaven?  Can we believe that a heart less devoted to God,\nand a love and obedience less perfect toward Christ than will permit us\nto join in the highest act of thanksgiving in this world, will allow us\nto join in the everlasting Hosannas of the world to come?  Or do we\nimagine that such a service as that of the Christian altar is not\nintended for us all, but is to be restricted to a certain few out of the\nwhole body of the baptized?  Surely, however widely such may seem to be\nthe practical belief (rather, I should say, unbelief) of our day, there\nis no support for any such notion in either the Holy Scripture, or the\nfaith and usage of the Church Catholic, or in the principles of the\nReformation.  Not only is the whole teaching of the Bible, of the\nprimitive Church, and of our Articles, Canons, and Catechism against any\nsuch view, but our very Eucharistic Office itself speaks plainly against\nit also.  Not to mention more direct proofs in other ways, it is a great\nmistake to suppose that office to design any division in its midst where\nordinary Christians have licence to depart, and a few select or chosen\nare bidden to remain.  The not unfrequent custom of using a collect and\nbenediction after the sermon may perhaps, however well intended, have\nfostered an error here.  This may seem to make an authorized close to the\nservice at that point, as if one service were now ended and another were\nto begin.  It has, therefore, enabled people the more easily to forget\nthat we are then in the middle of the Office for Holy Communion, whilst\nthe usage itself (as well as the custom of saying a collect and the\nLord\u2019s Prayer before the sermon) is certainly without authority, and\nrather against than according to the mind of our Church; and although we\nmay perhaps not unreasonably, to avoid confusion, make a pause whilst\nchildren and those who may be unable, at any particular time, to remain\nfor the celebration may leave, we are not to think that a certain\nbarrenness or awkwardness felt by such as then depart is without its\nvalue in instruction.  If they who thus habitually absent themselves from\nthe sacrifice and feast of the altar, may be led to reflect from this\nvery feeling that the Church herself, by the gentle remonstrance of the\nstructure of her service, reminds them that they are leaving before the\nservice in which they are engaged is ended, this may surely give a\nwholesome lesson.  Oh, if any _one_ even may be thus led to think, Why do\nI depart? why need I go away? why do I refuse to join in the Christian\nsacrifice, the highest act of thanksgiving and praise? why do I turn my\nback upon my Saviour, present to pardon, to feed, and to save me?\u2014if any\nfeel this, until meditating upon the love and the command of Christ, he\nresolves, instead of departing, to come with his gift to the altar, and\ntaste and see how gracious the Lord is, shall he not find reason to bless\nand praise God that He thus brings him to himself, and thankfully\nacknowledge the wisdom of our Church, which has not appointed even the\nsemblance of a finished service in the middle of her holy Eucharistic\nOffice?\n\nThe opposite conduct to that of those who depart without communicating, I\nmean that of such as remain without communicating, has, as we know, been\nthe subject of no small controversy in the present day.  I do not desire\nhere to enter into that dispute, but just so much I would observe: first,\nthat if any desire to remain, having perhaps already communicated at an\nearlier service, or in a serious anxious wish to learn the will of God\nbetter as to the Christian sacrifice, with a view to the becoming a\npartaker of it; or, if any desire to join so far in it as to unite his\nheart and voice with those who offer it, being a communicant, though he\nmay not design on that occasion to communicate, I do not conceive that\nthe priest would have the wish, or if he had, would have any authority,\nto bid him depart.  Whilst, nevertheless, I deem it needful to observe,\nsecondly, that I see no warrant to think they are in anything but a\ndangerous error who imagine (if, indeed, any do so) that the presence of\nany one as a gazer upon, or witness of, the holy mysteries, is in any way\nequivalent to communicating.  I do not see how such presence of one\nlooking on, even joining in words of praise, but habitually and\nconstantly doing no more; of one who is not a communicant, nor seeking to\nbecome a communicant; of one who does not eat of the sacrifice though\npresent, perhaps often, at the offering of it, can be an act of worship\nor adoration well-pleasing to Almighty God; can, in any way, make up for\nhis lack of understanding, or preparation, or obedience in that he does\nnot \u201ceat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood,\u201d without which,\nour Lord Himself has told us, we have \u201cno life in us.\u201d {129}  To be\npresent in order to learn, and to learn in order to obey, we may indeed\nhope will be an acceptable service, so far as it goes; but to gaze\nconstantly without obeying ever, and then to think nevertheless that we\n\u201care partakers of the altar,\u201d seems to me nothing less than a dangerous\nself-deceit, and therefore certainly a practice not to be encouraged.\n\nI sum up our remarks then, brethren, in this conclusion, that we should\nall of us, with a depth of feeling beyond our words to express it, thank\nour merciful God for His tender care and providence over us in this our\nChurch of England.  He has given us the treasure of the priesthood,\nthough in earthen vessels, handed down from His very Apostles themselves\nby the laying on of hands, even according to the powers of their own\ncommission from Christ Himself.  He has shewed us the witness to the\ndoctrine of sacrifice, as exhibited in the world from Adam to Christ.  He\nhas confirmed the doctrine and the usage of the sacrifice and altar in\nthe Christian Church by His holy Word in the New Testament, and by the\nrecords preserved to us of the early Church, telling us unmistakeably how\nthe Church, from the Apostles\u2019 time downward, understood the Scriptures\nin this respect.  He has let us know the mind of the Church at large to\nhave been one upon the doctrine for nearly sixteen hundred years; and,\nblessed be His name, He \u201cso guided and governed the minds\u201d of those in\nauthority among us at the momentous period of our Reformation, and in all\nrevisions since, that our Church has ever maintained, and does maintain,\nthe doctrine of the Church Universal on the deep and mysterious, but, at\nthe same time, most important practical subject of the priesthood, the\naltar, and the sacrifice.  Thus, in His mercy, our Church has made no\n\u201cnew thing,\u201d nor departed from \u201cthe old paths.\u201d  She is one with the\nChurch of God in all times in this matter, and we need have no fears but\nthat if we come, one by one \u201cwith true penitent hearts and lively faith,\u201d\nto the altar of God and the table of the Lord among us, we may and do eat\nof the sacrifice, are partakers of the altar, and have fellowship with\nthe Lord; that we have indeed preserved to us, in spite of the unbelief\namong us, and the strife of tongues around us, all that true and holy\nthing which the Church has ever had as Christ\u2019s own appointed means for\nthe pardon of our sins and the sustainment of our spiritual life, by the\nwhich we, with His \u201cwhole Church militant here on earth,\u201d are allowed to\noffer up the never-ceasing, unbloody, commemorative, propitiatory\nsacrifice which the Church has ever offered, and by which she pleads\nbefore the throne of God the power of the one great sacrifice upon the\ncross for the pardon of sin, yea, even procures the pleading thereof for\nour individual sins and transgressions by the Son of God Himself, our\n\u201cHigh Priest set on the right hand of the throne of the majesty in the\nheavens,\u201d {131a} who \u201cever liveth to make intercession for us;\u201d so that\nwe thus, in common with the whole Church of God, fulfil the Prophet\u2019s\nword, \u201cFrom the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same,\nMy name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense\nshall be offered unto My name, and a pure offering: for My name shall be\ngreat among the heathen, saith the Lord of Hosts.\u201d {131b}\n\nAnd if God has been thus gracious to us in all straits and perils in time\npast, it would surely be a grievous want of faith not to put our trust in\nHim for the time to come.  Though we know that for sin persisted in the\ncandlestick of a church may be removed, yet we will hope confidingly that\nwhere He has preserved His truth so long He will still watch over it and\nkeep it; where, too, in the ordering of His providence, so great a door\nseems set open before us; where, by our power and extended empire, our\nvast colonial possessions and daily increasing colonial Church, (all His\nown gift,) we seem fitted to be the means of His \u201cway being known upon\nearth, His saving health among all nations,\u201d He will still cause the\nlight of His countenance to shine upon us; where, again, thousands, as we\nverily believe, come before Him daily in humility, penitence, and prayer,\n(like Daniel, interceding for his country and his people,) \u201ccrying\nmightily unto Him\u201d for support in all dangers, and aid in all\nadversities; I say, we will hope indeed that He \u201cwill hear their cry and\nwill help them.\u201d  Even in the day of thick darkness He can cause that \u201cat\nevening time it shall be light.\u201d {132}  Whatever be our trial we need\nnot, on that account, deem ourselves forsaken.  Nay, unless we see it\nplainly written that for our sins He has turned His face wholly from us,\nwe will not doubt, in all faith though in all humility, that He will\nallow us to hand on to our children\u2019s children, and to the \u201cgenerations\nwhich are yet for to come,\u201d the same good deposit which we have ourselves\nreceived.  If ever we seem to be disheartened or ready to faint by the\nway, we will remember on whose word we rely and on whose arm we lean; we\nwill call to mind His wonders of old time; we will ever with all faith\nand hopeful trust, knowing how with Him \u201call things are possible,\u201d make\nthe prayer of the Psalmist continually our own, saying, \u201cTurn us again, O\nLord God of Hosts: shew the light of Thy countenance, and we shall be\nwhole.\u201d {133}\n\n\n\n\nSERMON VIII. {135}\n(Preached on Christmas Day.)\nGod Incarnate our Great High Priest.\n\n\n                              COLOSSIANS ii. 3.\n         \u201cIn Whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.\u201d\n\nTHE preceding verses will tell us \u201cof whom speaketh\u201d the Apostle this.\nHaving declared what great conflict he had for his converts at Colosse\nand \u201cfor them at Laodicea, and for as many as had not seen his face in\nthe flesh,\u201d he tells them that this his conflict and desire for them was,\nthat their \u201chearts might be comforted; being knit together in love, and\nunto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the\nacknowledgment of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ;\nin Whom,\u201d he adds, \u201care hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.\u201d\n\nAs there is nothing on which men may not make a controversy, so there has\nbeen a question raised whether the meaning be, \u201cin Whom,\u201d viz. in Christ,\nor, \u201cin which,\u201d viz. in the mystery of God, and the Father, and Christ,\n\u201care hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge?\u201d  But we may well be\nexcused if we do not desire on such a day as this to run into criticism\nof this kind; and I shall therefore take it at once for granted that the\nplain and natural sense of the words is the true one, and that we have\nhere the Apostle\u2019s declaration of and concerning Him of Whom he says just\nafterwards unmistakeably, that \u201cin Him dwelleth all the fulness of the\nGodhead bodily,\u201d {136} that He is the same \u201cin Whom are hid all the\ntreasures of wisdom and knowledge.\u201d  And if they be so in Christ, as He\nis, at the right hand of God, (for He was there undoubtedly when the\nApostle wrote this of Him,) so, being ever one and the same Eternal God,\n\u201cthe same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever,\u201d they were equally in Him\nin the days of His humiliation, \u201cwhen for us men and for our salvation\u201d\nHe took upon Him man\u2019s nature.  As the Second of our Articles of\nReligion, in the strictest theological language, expresses it: \u201cThe Son,\nwhich is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father,\nthe very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took\nman\u2019s nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that\ntwo whole and perfect Natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood,\nwere joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one\nChrist, very God and very Man;\u201d whereof, too, be it well observed, the\njust and immediate consequence is, that He\u2014\u201cWho truly suffered, was\ncrucified, dead and buried, to reconcile His Father to us, and to be a\nsacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of\nmen,\u201d\u2014was this same one Person, very God, and very Man.  So that we speak\nsimple truth (though a mystery beyond even angelic powers fully to\nunderstand or appreciate) when we say that God Himself was born of the\nVirgin Mary; God Himself lay in that manger at Bethlehem; God Himself\ngrew up from infancy to manhood before men\u2019s eyes; God Himself shed His\nBlood, and died upon the Cross, to save the lost and guilty race of Adam,\nwhom by His Incarnation He made His brethren: even as the Apostle\ndeclares to the disciples at Miletus, that God had \u201cpurchased His Church\nwith His own Blood;\u201d {137a} and again, tells the Ephesians, that through\nChrist \u201cwe have redemption through His Blood;\u201d {137b} and again, the\nHebrews, that \u201cby His own Blood entered in once into the holy place,\nhaving obtained eternal redemption for us.\u201d {137c}\n\nThis perfect union for ever of the two Natures in the one Person of Jesus\nChrist our Lord it is of the highest importance for us to receive, or we\nshall have unworthy notions of God, and what He has done for us.  We\nshall, if we \u201cdivide the Substance,\u201d making two Persons to be in Christ,\nbe in danger of believing that a mere man died for us; or else, that the\ndeath of Christ was not, in a true sense, death at all; so that there\nwould be either a propitiatory sacrifice made for the sins of the world\nby one less than God, or else no propitiatory sacrifice made at all.  In\neither case, a denial of \u201cthe Lord that bought us.\u201d {138}  In the one,\nthat He is the Lord; in the other, that He bought us.  For, as we see at\nonce, God, as God only, cannot die; and man, as man only, cannot make\npropitiation for sin.  It is, of course, true that the Godhead,\nconsidered in itself, is incapable of suffering, and therefore, the Son\nof God, for this reason, (among many others, as we may well believe,)\ntook upon Him man\u2019s nature, which was capable of suffering and death.\nAnd not less true or less plain is it, that the Manhood, even in its best\nand most perfect state, could not make atonement to God for sin, or\nenable any man to \u201csave his brother.\u201d  But when God became Flesh, when\nthe Son of God became also the Son of Man, when the two natures in their\nPerfection were thus joined in the Person of Jesus Christ: then God being\nman could die, and man being God could not only live but give life.  So\nChrist not only liveth ever, but He \u201cgiveth eternal life\u201d {139a} to as\nmany as are His.  \u201cThus,\u201d\u2014to use the words of the well-known commentator\non our Articles, the present Bishop of Ely,\u2014\u201cthus we understand the\nScripture when it says that men \u2018crucified the Lord of Glory,\u2019 {139b}\nwhen it says that \u2018God purchased the Church with His own Blood,\u2019 {139c}\nbecause though God in His Divine Nature cannot be crucified, and has no\nblood to shed; yet the Son of God, the Lord of Glory, took into His\nPerson the nature of man, in which nature He could suffer, could shed His\nblood, could be crucified, could die.\u201d {139d}  All this being done and\nsuffered by that one Person\u2014Christ Jesus, God and Man\u2014it is no figure or\nfallacy but a simple truth, however wonderful, to say that God was born\nin Bethlehem and died upon the cross at Calvary.  Thus, too, He the one\never-blessed Son of the Highest, \u201cin Whom were hid all the treasures of\nwisdom and knowledge,\u201d could become unto us \u201cwisdom and righteousness and\nsanctification and redemption;\u201d our Prophet, Priest and King, our\nSacrifice, our Mediator, our Intercessor, our ever-merciful and\never-enduring Saviour, Who sitteth at the right hand of God, until He\nshall come again with power and great glory to be also our Judge.\n\nSo very far have modern times gone in forgetfulness of the ancient faith,\nthat, I believe, it is sometimes considered a strange thing to give to\nthe Blessed Virgin the title of \u201cthe Mother of God,\u201d as if it were a\nnovelty so to designate her.  Whereas, to deny her this title, and so in\nfact to make two Persons to be in Christ,\u2014one, God, not born of her; and\none, man, born of her,\u2014is precisely the very and exact heresy of\nNestorius condemned by the Third General Council held at Ephesus in the\nyear 431, which decision was, and has ever since been, received by the\nwhole Church.  So that it is not merely truth so to designate her, but it\nis absolutely heretical to maintain the contrary.  \u201cEver since the\nCouncil of Ephesus, the Church has consecrated the peculiar title of\n\u2018Theotokos\u2019 (God\u2019s parent, or Mother of God,) to denote the\nincommunicable privilege of the Blessed Virgin Mary, in that she became\nthe mother of Immanuel, \u2018God with us.\u2019 . . .  For, though it is as man\nthat Christ is of the substance of His Mother born in the world, yet,\ninasmuch as the Word took man\u2019s nature in the womb of the Blessed Virgin\nof her substance, she may truly be styled \u2018Mother of God,\u2019 because \u2018two\nwhole and perfect natures\u2014that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood\u2014were\njoined in One Person never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God\nand very Man.\u2019\u201d {140}\n\nBut let us turn back again for a moment to the thought of the text, that\nin Christ \u201care hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.\u201d  There is\nsurely an emphatic force in the words \u201care hid,\u201d\u2014\u201c_\u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9_,\u201d not\nmerely \u2018contained,\u2019 but \u2018laid up,\u2019 \u2018concealed,\u2019\u2014and if in a certain\nsense, even now they are hid, because Christ our Lord does not manifest\nHimself to the eye of sense in any visible form of glory, though He has\nall wisdom and all knowledge ever inherent in Him, it may be said that\nthey were even more obscured, when, emptying Himself of His glory, \u201cHe\ntook upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men,\nand was found in fashion as a man.\u201d {141}  Look upon Him as He was on\nthis day eighteen hundred and three-score and more years ago!  Think of\nHim as a little infant, in the arms of His blessed Mother, or laid under\nher watchful eye upon some rude pillow in the manger, and then consider\nthat _there_ was the God of all flesh, the great God of heaven and earth,\nGod the Son, ever one with the Father and the Holy Ghost, all-powerful,\nall-knowing, all-creating, all-upholding, all-preserving, and say if\nthese treasures were not indeed hid and obscured!\n\nBut though obscured, the treasures were there nevertheless.  It were\nimpious to doubt or deny it.  When, then, we hear it asked, as sometimes\nin these latter days of almost unlimited free enquiry it is, Are we to\nimagine that in that little infant was centred the knowledge of all\nhistory, all learning, all the secrets of nature as we term them, all the\ndevices of art, all the developments of science?  I think we cannot doubt\nthat the answer is, There was.  For what is there in any kind or\ndepartment of knowledge or science, or of things past, present, or to\ncome, which we can suppose the Almighty not to know?  This would be to\ndeny His attribute of Omniscience; and, therefore, to deny it of Christ,\nGod and Man, would be to deny His Godhead.  People think to escape this\nconsequence by saying that it is merely His human nature which was\nignorant,\u2014that whilst as God He knew, yet as Man He did not know,\u2014not\nseeing that thus immediately they must fall into that other error before\nmentioned.  For if they do not deny the Godhead, they must divide the\nSubstance of the Son.  Perhaps in their defence they will urge such\npassages of Holy Scripture as that in which it is written, \u201cJesus\nincreased in wisdom and stature;\u201d {142a} or where He Himself said,\nconcerning the Judgment, \u201cOf that day and that hour knoweth no man, no,\nnot the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father,\u201d\n{142b} of which it may be sufficient to remark to-day, that the first\npassage seems to imply no more than that His wisdom, as He grew in years,\nand of course appeared to acquire human knowledge, increased, in the\nsense of its being more manifested in the eyes of men, just as His bodily\nstature increased in visible presence before them: whilst of the other,\n(without going into all which may be said on a passage confessedly\ndifficult,) it may be enough to point out that He does not say even of\nthe Day of Judgment, that He, the God-Man, Christ Jesus, ever undivided\nin His divinity and humanity, did not know it: but that the Son (Who must\nbe taken of course here to be the Son of Man), knoweth it not.  And if it\nbe thought that this admission grants all that the objector asked, and is\nin fact but the enunciation of his own view, I should maintain that it is\nnot so, and for this reason, that it is a very different thing to say of\nthe One Person, Jesus Christ, that He, thus one and undivided, was\nignorant of anything, and to _contemplate apart_ His Godhead and His\nManhood, and so, in some sort, their attributes apart.  And I conceive\nthat here our Blessed Lord using the term \u201cthe Son\u201d (not \u2018_I_ know not,\u2019\nbut _the Son_ knoweth not,) contemplates Himself as the Son of Man, and\nspeaks of Himself as viewed in that relation.  What modern unbelief seems\nto delight to assert, is, that our Blessed Lord, as He stood and talked\nand reasoned with the people, was ignorant or mistaken.  What we affirm\nto be the really just and consistent sense of the passages adduced, is,\nthat _if_ His human nature be contemplated apart from His Divine, it\n_might_ be taken to be thus ignorant; so, I would repeat, He is not thus\nproclaiming that He, the God-Man, the One Christ, is ignorant, nor yet\ndividing His Substance and becoming two, but merely contemplating apart\nthe Divine and human natures, which may well be done; and we may even go\nso far as to say that _if_ we contemplate them as separated, then there\nwould be things unknown to the one, though known to the other, and _if_\nthey could be divided there would be a separate province of knowledge in\neach; but that, as we must believe the two natures have ever been united\nin one Person from the time of His taking our nature of the substance of\nthe Blessed Virgin Mary, so no one can ever predicate of Him, the thus\nborn Son of God and Son of Man; of Him \u201cin Whom dwelleth all the fulness\nof the Godhead bodily;\u201d of Him \u201cin Whom are hid all the treasures of\nwisdom and knowledge;\u201d of Him \u201cWho is over all, God blessed for ever,\u201d\n{144a} that it is possible there was, or is, or shall be anything,\nwhether \u201cof things in heaven, or things in earth, or things under the\nearth,\u201d of which He was, or is, or shall be ignorant. {144b}\n\nTurn then again, brethren, to the stable at Bethlehem.  Cast away, at\nleast on such a blessed day as this, the thoughts of controversy.  Come\nto the sight which is to be seen in that lowly habitation \u201cwhere the\nstalled oxen feed.\u201d  See the blessed Mother!  See the glorious Infant,\nglorious and divine in Himself, howbeit He may look like any other child\nof man, and with the eye of faith \u201cbehold thy God!\u201d  Think of the wonders\nof love in the condescension that He should be found in such an humble\nguise and lowly place, only excelled by the marvel that He should abase\nHimself to become man at all!  And then think that all this is no barren\nspectacle, to be gazed upon indeed with wonder, but in which we have no\npractical interest.  No, it all belongs to us, and has to do with us, in\nmatters of the very highest moment.  It is so important to us, that we\nmight say all other things are mere bubbles and trifles compared with it.\nWhat should we be, and what would be our hope, if we had not the\nChristmas season, and all which it has brought, to gild our year, and\ngladden our hearts?  Think of what we are, and what are our prospects by\nnature!  The children of Adam in his fallen state, and therefore \u201cborn in\nsin and children of wrath.\u201d  A degenerate race, from our very birth, with\nthe sure seed of the first and second death implanted in us, with a\ncorrupt nature, a depraved will, a heart estranged from God, exiles from\nEden, unable to return to it.  Even if we had the heart to seek it, only\ndoomed to find it barred against us, and \u201ccherubims and a flaming sword\nturning every way to keep the way of the tree of life,\u201d on account of\nboth the original guilt and actual sins of men.  Thus, in ourselves with\nno access again to God.  Placed, it is true, in a world of wonders, a\nworld adapted by Almighty wisdom to supply our wants and minister to our\ncomfort and gratification, apparently capable of almost unlimited\ndevelopment in these things under the fertile mind and ever-busy hand of\nman, yielding thus much enjoyment for the time, if we give ourselves to\nenjoy it.  Even in more than such external things adapted to our\nconstitution, as furnishing the food for absorbing pursuit and high aim\nin the acquisition of wealth or power, or in intellectual cultivation;\nnay, more and more widely still, meeting the cravings of our nature by\nsupplying the field for sweet sympathies and home affections in the\nvaried scenes of domestic life and mutual love; but yet, after all, not\nsatisfying the yearnings of man\u2019s heart or the aspirations of his being.\nA world, too, however framed with all these means of comfort or\nenjoyment, yet with much of pain, sorrow, sickness, bereavement, trial,\nfear, and weakness in the lot of every child of Adam.  All this without;\nand within, a conscience enough alive to make us uneasy, when we have\nyielded to temptation, and broken the law written in our hearts, though\nof no sufficient power to prevent our yielding to the one and breaking\nthe other, joined with a certain consciousness, indeed, of God\u2019s\ngreatness and goodness, but not the heart to love Him.  So, with no light\nin ourselves to see our way clearly, nor in ourselves any strength to\nthrow off our chains and turn to God; with dim forebodings of and even\nearnest yearnings after something higher, better, and more enduring than\nthis world, and this earthly life and being, but with no apprehension to\ngrasp it, and no power to attain to it.  And then, as life wanes, and\ndeath draws on, and conscience, it may be, pricks, and the evil one\nhimself, perchance, mocks and triumphs, and no remedy, in either external\nthings or in our own selves, is to be found,\u2014how darkly and sadly does\nthe night close in upon man in his mere natural condition!  Survey him in\nsuch aspect from his life\u2019s beginning to its end, and what is there for\nhim but either blank despair or reckless levity (often the direct fruit\nof despair), or a dark and corrupting superstition calling \u201cevil good and\ngood evil, saying Peace, peace, when there is no peace,\u201d and resulting in\nthe utmost dishonour to God, and the greatest licence of an unbridled\nsensuality, even under the plea of religion? or else, if not this, an\nutter unbelief, merely falling blindfold into judgment and eternity?\nYes: for when once man was lost by the Fall, no one could save himself\nand no one could save his fellow.  As it is written, \u201cNo man may deliver\nhis brother, or make agreement unto God for him; for it cost more to\nredeem their souls, so that He must let that alone for ever.\u201d {147}\n\nBut now, men and brethren, think of Christmas-tide, and all it tells and\nbrings to us, and what a change is there!  On this appalling picture, on\nthis \u201cday of darkness and gloominess, of clouds and of thick darkness, as\nthe morning spread upon the mountains,\u201d {148a} \u201cthe Sun of righteousness\nhath arisen with healing in His wings;\u201d {148b} \u201cthe day-spring from on\nhigh hath visited us; to give light to them that sit in darkness and in\nthe shadow of death.\u201d {148c}  As we raise our eyes to the Christmas\nmorning the light dawns not merely on our eyes but on our hearts.  Here\nwe find the \u201cseed of the woman\u201d who reverses our curse, and the curse\nupon the earth, by \u201cbruising the serpent\u2019s head.\u201d  He comes, He comes,\nthe Saviour of the world, bringing \u201clife and immortality to light through\nthe Gospel,\u201d {148d} because He is God and Man.  \u201cUnto us a Child is born,\nunto us a Son is given: the government is upon His shoulder: His Name is\ncalled Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The\nPrince of Peace.\u201d {148e}  What can more declare His Godhead?  But\nnevertheless He is \u201cnot ashamed to call us brethren;\u201d {148f} nay, we are\ntold, it even \u201cbehoved Him to be made like unto His brethren,\u201d and this,\nthat \u201cHe might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things\npertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.\u201d\n{148g}  Yes, and although He is such \u201ca great High Priest, the Son of God\npassed into the heavens,\u201d yet is He not one \u201cwhich cannot be touched with\nthe feeling of our infirmities, but was in all points tempted like as we\nare, yet without sin.\u201d {149a}  What can more declare His Manhood?  Like\nunto us in all points, sin only excepted.  Like unto us, with perfect\nmanhood, human body and soul taken into the Godhead, so to be unto us\n\u201cboth a sacrifice for sin, and also an ensample of godly life.\u201d  As the\nnew federal Head of the human race; as the one, and only one, of the\ndescendants of Adam in whom sin found no place, and whose obedience was\nperfect, \u201cHe is able to save to the uttermost all them that come to God\nby Him.\u201d  Thus is God Incarnate our great High Priest and only Saviour.\n\u201cTo this end was He born, and for this cause came He into the world,\u201d\n{149b} and such is the mercy which we this day commemorate.  By this, the\nIncarnation of the Eternal Son, is the cloud of thick darkness rolled\naside; by this, as the first manifested step (so to say) in our\nredemption, is the veil lifted; by this, is hope revived; by this, joy\nspread; by this, is Satan defied; by this, and by the consequences to\nwhich it led and leads, is he conquered; by this, is the sting taken from\ndeath, and victory wrested from the grave; this, is peace made for man\nwith God, and peace brought to man within himself; by this, is he enabled\nto please God, for by the death of the Son made Man was the purchase and\ngift of the Spirit, whereby alone he can be sanctified.  By Him, then,\n(\u201cthe great God and our Saviour,\u201d as St. Paul terms Him,) are \u201cwe\nreconciled, and have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ;\u201d by\nHim, \u201cbeing now justified by His Blood, we shall be saved from wrath\nthrough Him:\u201d and so truly \u201cwe joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ,\nby Whom we have now received the Atonement.\u201d {150}  He is the great High\nPriest, with power in Himself as none other has, or can have, to offer up\nthe sacrifice and \u201cmake reconciliation for the sins of the people.\u201d  He\nis the immaculate Victim, the one only meritorious Sacrifice, \u201conce\noffered to bear the sins of many,\u201d Whose \u201cBlood speaketh better things\nthan that of Abel.\u201d  He is the true Paschal Lamb, \u201cwithout blemish and\nwithout spot;\u201d \u201cthe Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world;\u201d\nthe Lamb \u201cslain,\u201d (in God\u2019s design, and His own ever-merciful intention,)\n\u201cfrom the foundation of the world,\u201d but manifested for this purpose \u201cin\nthe fulness of the time.\u201d  He is the great Physician, causing joy\nwherever He goeth, because He can heal all diseases; He is the great\nLawgiver, proclaiming His will; He is the great Prophet, ordaining and\npromulgating His method of salvation; He is the great King, setting up\nHis kingdom, marking out its boundaries, and ruling His subjects; He is\nthe great Captain, ordering His armies, displaying His banners, giving\nout His weapons, going forth \u201cconquering and to conquer;\u201d He is the one\nMediator, He is the availing Intercessor; He is the Way, the Truth, and\nthe Life; He is the Sun and Centre of the whole mediatorial kingdom; He\nis the Lord of this world and of the world to come!\u2014And all this, because\nHe is (as He is and ever hath been) \u201cGod the Son: God of God, Light of\nLight, Very God of Very God; of one substance with the Father;\u201d and\nbecause, in mercy to us, He became also the Son of Man, \u201cconceived by the\nHoly Ghost, and born of the Virgin Mary.\u201d\n\nSurely, then, this is a day \u201cto be much observed unto the Lord,\u201d a day in\nwhich we do well indeed \u201cto make merry and be glad;\u201d so only that our\nmirth be with sobriety, and our gladness with godliness.  If, indeed, He\nhad not come, if we had no Christmastide, and Christmas memories, and\nChristmas teaching, and Christmas faith, where should we place our hope?\nTruly, we should be \u201cof all men most miserable.\u201d  Whether God could have\nforgiven man in any other way, without Himself becoming Flesh, and doing\nall which Christ has done, we know not.  But it seems to be unlikely,\naccording to His attributes and will, inasmuch as St. Paul plainly says,\n\u201cwithout shedding of blood is no remission,\u201d and (as we know,) \u201cthe blood\nof bulls and of goats could never take away sin;\u201d whilst again it is\ndeclared, that God set forth His Son \u201cto be a propitiation through faith\nin His Blood, that He might be just, and the justifier of him which\nbelieveth in Jesus:\u201d {152} from which it would seem that God\u2019s attribute\nof justice could not be satisfied unless by the payment, by some one able\nto pay it, of the penalty due to man\u2019s transgression.  But whether it\ncould have been otherwise or not, otherwise it is not.  This is God\u2019s\nway, and undeniably it tells us more of God\u2019s love, Who gave His\nonly-begotten Son; and of Christ\u2019s tender compassion, Who shrunk not back\nfrom all which He undertook, than if we had been saved by a forgiveness,\nwithout an atoning sacrifice at all.  Therefore this mode, God\u2019s mode of\npardon, as it supplies us with greater proofs of His love, so it gives us\nhigher motives for our own love and gratitude than any other mode which\nwe can conceive.  Therefore this day calls upon us all the more for\npraise, adoration, thanksgiving, joy, and obedience.  Whatever else we\ndo, or learn, or think, we can never think aright, unless\u2014in praising and\nthanking God for all His mercies, and for the birth of Christ in human\nnature, as the source, if we may so term it, of the Gospel scheme of\nRedemption,\u2014unless, I say, we attribute all we are in sanctification, and\nall we have in hope, and all we feel in peace, to God and Christ.\nWhatever be His way to bring us pardon, whatever laws He has set up in\nHis Kingdom, whatever means He has appointed,\u2014whether His Holy Word, or\nHis Church, or His ministry of instruction or reconciliation,\u2014all these\nare but His instruments, and He Himself is the only efficient cause of\nour salvation.  \u201cNot unto us, not unto us, but unto His Name give the\npraise.\u201d  No; even the fruits of the Spirit, wrought in us by Him,\n\u201calbeit, indeed, they are the fruits of faith, and follow after\njustification, though they are acceptable and pleasing to God in Christ,\nyet can they not put away our sins, and endure the severity of God\u2019s\njudgment.\u201d {153a}  Nay, not faith itself can do this; for though, as the\nmeans and instrument to lay hold on eternal life, faith may be said to\nsave us, yet, as the efficient cause of our salvation it would be heresy\nto say so.  For it is plain, we are not saved by anything of ours, even\nwhen wrought in us by God\u2019s Spirit.  As one of our Articles says, they\nare in grievous error \u201cwho say that every man shall be saved by the law\nor sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life\naccording to that law and the light of nature,\u201d for that \u201cJesus Christ is\nthe only Name whereby men must be saved;\u201d {153b} so, truly, no one may\naffirm that we are saved, except instrumentally or conditionally, either\nby good works, (even if they were good, in the sense of being blameless,\nwhich none of ours are,) or by knowledge, or by the priesthood, or by\nsacraments, or by the Church, or by the Bible, or by prayer, or even by\nfaith itself, for it is manifest that we are saved by Christ only, and by\nnone else, either thing or person.  He may have set forth, as He has\ndone, certain conditions of salvation; He may have appointed, as He has\ndone, certain means of applying to Him for mercy, and of obtaining mercy\nfrom Him; He may have ordained, as He has done, certain channels of help\nby which His grace flows to us, and enables us to receive His favour, and\nthe reconciliation with God, which He has purchased for us; but it is HE,\nand He only, Who is the sole meritorious cause of all we have, and all we\nare, and all we hope for.  So, truly, again we may repeat in the words of\nthe Apostle, that it is \u201cChrist Jesus, Who, of God, is made unto us\nWisdom and Righteousness and Sanctification and Redemption;\u201d not as if He\ncould be this to us (God forbid the thought!) if we persist in sin, or in\nneglect of His way of life; but, as if (which is the truth), even if we\nhad done all, we should be but unprofitable servants; as if (which is the\ntruth) we are very far from having done all; as if (which is the truth)\nanything we have done to please God has been only of Him and through the\npurchased gift of His Spirit, and the communication to us of Himself.  So\nthat, indeed, we owe all to Him, and without Him are and must be lost\nindeed.\n\nBrethren, as we think of these things, and of all we owe to Him in and\nfor His abasement and humiliation in His Incarnation, should not \u201cour\nhearts burn within us?\u201d  Oh, let them do so, with a reverent, loving,\ngrateful, joyful sense of His goodness; Who, \u201cthough He was rich, yet for\nour sakes became poor;\u201d Who has gladdened and cheered this otherwise dark\nand gloomy World by His presence in it in human form and nature; Who,\nsince He came to it thus, has (though absent so far as the eye of sense\ndiscerns) yet never left it to be as it was before, but, by the very\nmeans of His Incarnation, dwelleth in it still,\u2014dwelleth, aye, in us, and\nwe in Him, if we be His by the Spirit.  And all this, though He be so\nwonderful, high, and mighty\u2014nay, because He is so,\u2014the very and eternal\nGod, born as on this day in the stable at Bethlehem!  In Whom, lying\nthere, in all appearance, a mere helpless, unknowing, human babe, in Whom\nwere still \u201chid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge;\u201d and \u201cin\nWhom,\u201d then as always, \u201cdwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.\u201d\n\nOh, my brethren, believe that He sees and knows every one of us; and how\nwe think of Him this day, and how we love and honour Him.  He loves and\nlongs for every one of us.  He wills us to rejoice (and \u201cagain I say\nrejoice\u201d) at the \u201cgood tidings of great joy which should be to all\npeople\u201d from that day at Bethlehem.  Let our joy be, then, such as He\nsanctions, such as leads us nearer and nearer to Him, both in the\nexercise of dear and holy home affections, and in love to Him Himself;\nand then we may hope we shall indeed bless Him, not only now but for\never, that He has again brought us to this great and happy day.\n\nWhen we gather, then, our families around us and see the aged, whom we\nlove, still permitted to be with us, (though, it may be, now infirm and\nfeeble,) let us rejoice in that hope, and the object of their faith,\nwhich gilds and cheers their old age.  When we meet our fellows and\ncompanions of our own time of life, knit with us in the tenderest bonds\nof human affection, and enjoy with them some of that good which God\u2019s\nbounty allows us, let us rejoice in the thought that they and we have a\nmutual share in things better than all which this world has to give, and\nare heirs together of the same common salvation.  When we gather round us\nour little ones, and thank God for the blessing He has given us in them,\nand look forward not without anxious expectation to the future of their\nlife, yet let us not forget to bless and praise His name that, by the\nIncarnation of His Son, He has permitted us to make our children His\nchildren, and has made sure to them all the privileges of their adoption\nand the promises of His covenant.  So may we, whichever way we look and\nwhatever meets our eyes, ever overflow with thankful joy that unto us \u201cis\nborn this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.\u201d\n{156}\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n           Printed by James Parker and Co., Crown-yard, Oxford.\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES.\n\n\n{1}  2 St. Matt. xii. 29.\n\n{2a}  2 Tim. ii. 20.\n\n{2b}  Gen. ii. 7.\n\n{3a}  2 Cor. iii. 5, 6\u20139.\n\n{3b}  2 Cor. iv. 1.\n\n{4a}  2 Cor. iv. 2.\n\n{4b}  Ibid., 3, 4.\n\n{4c}  Ibid., 5, 6.\n\n{4d}  Ibid., 7.\n\n{6}  2 Cor. iv. 7.\n\n{10a}  Isaiah liii. 2.\n\n{10b}  Ibid. lii. 14.\n\n{12}  St. John xx. 22, 23.\n\n{13a}  St. John xxi. 3.\n\n{13b}  Acts xviii. 3.\n\n{14}  Cor. ix. 4, 5.\n\n{17a}  Acts xv. 36, 39.\n\n{17b}  Gal. ii. 11\u201314.\n\n{19a}  St. Matt. xiii. 55.\n\n{19b}  2 Cor. x. 10.\n\n{21a}  St. John xvii. 21.\n\n{21b}  St. Matt x. 25.\n\n{21c}  1 Pet. iv. 12.\n\n{22a}  Heb. xiii. 13.\n\n{22b}  1 Cor. iv. 12, 13.\n\n{22c}  Acts xx. 24.\n\n{23}  Job i. 8.\n\n{24}  Job i. 5.\n\n{26a}  1 Chron. i. 43, 44.\n\n{26b}  Numbers xxxi. 8.\n\n{27a}  1 John iii. 12.\n\n{27b}  Heb. xi. 4.\n\n{28}  Gen. iv. 2\u20134.\n\n{30a}  Gen. iii. 15.\n\n{30b}  Heb. ix. 22.\n\n{33a}  Gen. viii. 20, xii. 8, xiii. 4, xiv. 18, xxii. 13, xxvi. 25,\nxxxiii. 20.\n\n{34}  Heb. ix. 22.\n\n{36}  Calmet, under the head \u2018Sacrifice.\u2019\n\n{40a}  St. John viii. 56.\n\n{40b}  Gen. iii. 15.\n\n{43}  Deut. xiii. 14.\n\n{45}  Heb. xi. 4.\n\n{48a}  Rom. iv. 3.\n\n{48b}  St. Matt. v. 23, 24.\n\n{49}  St. Matt. v. 32, 37, 43, 44.\n\n{50}  Heb. ix. 9.\n\n{51a}  Heb. xiii. 10.\n\n{51b}  Gal. iii. 19; Heb. ii. 2, 3.\n\n{53}  Heb. xiii. 10\u201315.\n\n{54}  1 Cor. x. 18.\n\n{55}  1 Cor. x. 19\u201321.\n\n{58}  1 Cor. x. 13\u201317.\n\n{66a}  Heb. v. 4.\n\n{66b}  Carter on the Priesthood, p. 71.\n\n{66c}  Ibid.\n\n{68}  See Carter\u2019s \u201cDoctrine of the Priesthood,\u201d p. 6.\n\n{70}  _Vitringa de Synagog\u00e2 vetere_.  _Prolegomena_, cap. 2, quoted\nCarter, pp. 54, 55\n\n{71}  Palmer\u2019s _Origines Liturgic\u00e6_.  See Carter, p. 58.\n\n{72a}  Palmer\u2019s _Origines Liturgic\u00e6_.  See Carter, p. 59.\n\n{72b}  Carter, p. 60.\n\n{74a}  St. John vi. 52.\n\n{74b}  St. Luke xviii. 8.\n\n{75a}  St. Matt. x. 25.\n\n{75b}  Heb. x. 36.\n\n{75c}  St. Luke xxi. 19.\n\n{75d}  St. Matt x.\n\n{75e}  1 Tim. iv. 1.\n\n{75f}  2 Tim. iv. 3.\n\n{75g}  1 John i. 1.\n\n{75h}  Ibid. ver. 3.\n\n{76}  Jer. vi. 16.\n\n{77}  Gal. i. 10.\n\n{80}  Heb. vii. 1\u20133.\n\n{81a}  Coloss. ii. 8.\n\n{81b}  Job xxxviii. 2.\n\n{85a}  Ordering of Deacons in the Church of England.\n\n{85b}  Ordering of Priests.\n\n{85c}  Ibid.\n\n{85d}  Ibid.\n\n{86}  St. John xx. 21.\n\n{87}  St. John xx. 21\u201323.\n\n{89}  Second Exhortation in Communion Office.\n\n{90}  Office for Visitation of Sick.\n\n{95a}  1 Tim. iii. 15.\n\n{95b}  St. Matt. xvi. 18.\n\n{95c}  Ibid. xxviii. 20.\n\n{95d}  Ps. cxxii. 6.\n\n{97}  Sermon III.\n\n{101}  Carter on the Priesthood, p. 61.\n\n{102}  Some attempts have been lately made to throw doubt upon the\nauthenticity of the copies of the ancient liturgies which have come down\nto us, as not certainly uninterpolated in places in later times.  But\nwhether there may be any ground at all for such suspicion or not, it is\nevident that the inferences drawn from the liturgies, both in this\npassage and in a former sermon, will not be affected.  For the argument,\nas used in these sermons, is not dependent upon a phrase or a sentence\nhere or there, which, it may be alleged, is open to question, but is\nbased upon doctrine interwoven with their whole system, and pervading\ntheir whole structure, and is what moreover is borne witness to, as thus\npervading them, by the whole mass of contemporary Christian writing.  The\nliturgies, therefore, must not merely have been interpolated in places,\nbut almost entirely re-written in another sense, and the great bulk of\nthe writings of the Fathers forged to agree with this change, if the\nargument above is to be shaken by the question raised concerning them.\n\nI find a passage in Hickes\u2019s Treatise, \u201cThe Christian Priesthood\nAsserted,\u201d which, though written more than a hundred and sixty years\nbefore Mr. Carter\u2019s book, seems almost as if it were a comment upon the\npassage just cited, and the application which I have made of it.  He\nsays, \u201cI believe no man in the world that was of any religion where\nsacrifice was used, and that by chance should see the Sacrament of the\nHoly Eucharist administered among Christians, as it was administered in\nthe primitive times, or as it is administered according to the order and\nusage of the Church of England, but would take the bread and wine for an\noffering or sacrifice, and the whole action for a sacrificial\nministration; and the eating and drinking of the holy elements for a\nsacrificial entertainment of the congregation at the table of their God.\nTo see bread and wine . . . so solemnly brought to the table, and then . . .\nbrought by the deacon, in manner of an offering to the liturg or\nminister, which he also taking in his hands as an offering, sets them\nwith all reverence on the table; and then, after solemn prayers of\noblation and consecration, to see him take up the bread, and say, in a\nmost solemn manner, \u2018This is My Body,\u2019 &c., and then the cup, saying as\nsolemnly, \u2018This is My Blood,\u2019 &c., and then to hear him with all the\npowers of his soul offer up praises, and glory, and thanksgiving, and\nprayers to God the Father of all things, through the Name of His Son, and\nHoly Spirit, which they beseech Him to send down upon that bread and cup,\nand the people with the greatest harmony and acclamation saying aloud,\n\u2018Amen:\u2019 after which also, to see the liturg, first eat of the bread and\ndrink of the cup, and then the deacon to carry about the blessed bread\nand wine to be eaten and drunk by the people, as in a sacrificial feast;\nand, lastly, to see and hear all concluded with psalms and hymns of\npraise, and prayers of intercession to God with the highest pomp-like\ncelebrity of words; I say, to see and hear all this would make an\nuninitiated heathen conclude that the bread and wine were an offering,\nthe whole Eucharistic action a sacrificial mystery, the eating and\ndrinking the sanctified elements a sacrificial banquet, and the liturg\nwho administered a priest.\u201d\u2014_Hickes\u2019s_ \u201c_Priesthood Asserted_,\u201d _Library\nof Anglo.-Cath. Theol._, _Oxford_, vol. ii. p. 105\u20137.\n\n{103}  The scantiness of statements in the Articles, as to the\ninspiration of Holy Scripture, may illustrate this.  Had it been possible\nto foresee the boldness of unbelief which these days have brought to\nlight on this subject, or had our Reformers been now drawing up the\nArticles, we may feel very certain they would not have been content to\nleave that matter as it there stands.  But they were engaged with\npractical errors of their own day, and not in stating all dogmatic truth\nupon other points.  Many things were so fully assumed to be true as to\nneed no assertion of their truth.\n\n{104}  1 Cor. xi. 26.\n\n{106}  Heb. vii. 25.\n\n{107}  Mede\u2019s \u201cChristian Sacrifice,\u201d lib. ii. cap. 4, quoted in Carter,\np. 65.\n\n{108}  Cardwell\u2019s \u201cDocumentary Annals,\u201d chap. vii, prop. 2.\n\n{109}  Carter, p. 25, note 1.\n\n{110}  Hickes\u2019s Treatises, vol. ii. pp. 183, 184.\n\n{111a}  Bramhall\u2019s \u201cProtestant Ordination Vindicated.\u201d  Discourse vii. 3.\n\n{111b}  St. Jerome, adv. Lucif. c. 8.  Carter, pp. 22, 23.\n\n{111c}  James i. 17.\n\n{111d}  Ps. xliv. 3.\n\n{111e}  Ps. cxv. 1.\n\n{114}  Acts iii. 12.\n\n{118}  Carter, p. 28.\n\n{123a}  Hickes\u2019 \u201cChristian Priesthood Asserted,\u201d pp. 184, 185.\n\n{123b}  Rom. xi. 20.\n\n{125a}  1 Sam. ix. 11\u201313.\n\n{125b}  1 Kings viii. 62\u201366.\n\n{125c}  2 Kings xxiii. 22.\n\n{125d}  \u201cBut the man that is clean, and is not in a journey, and\nforbeareth to keep the passover, even the same soul shall be cut off from\namong his people: because he brought not the offering of the Lord in his\nappointed season, that man shall bear his sin.\u201d  (Numb. ix. 13.)\n\n{129}  St. John vi. 53.\n\n{131a}  Heb. viii. 1.\n\n{131b}  Mal. i. 11.\n\n{132}  Zech. xiv. 7.\n\n{133}  Ps. lxxx. 19.\n\n{135}  The following sermon, although perhaps in strictness hardly one of\nthis course, was preached almost immediately after the others, and, in\nsome measure, as a sequel to them.  It is evidently not unconnected with\ntheir subject, inasmuch as the whole Doctrine of the Priesthood,\u2014Christ\nour High Priest, through His Manhood \u201cable to be touched with the feeling\nof our infirmities,\u201d and the sacerdotal powers derived from Him to \u201cthe\nministers and stewards of His mysteries,\u201d\u2014is intimately related to, and\ndependent upon, the doctrine of the Incarnation.\n\n{136}  Col. ii. 9.\n\n{137a}  Acts xx. 28.\n\n{137b}  Ephes. i. 7.\n\n{137c}  Heb. ix. 12.\n\n{138}  2 St. Peter ii. 1.\n\n{139a}  St. John xvii. 2.\n\n{139b}  1 Cor. ii. 8.\n\n{139c}  Acts xx. 28.\n\n{139d}  \u201cExposition of the Thirty-nine Articles,\u201d by E. Harold, Lord\nBishop of Ely, Art. II. p. 69.\n\n{140}  Owen\u2019s \u201cIntroduction to the Study of Dogmatic Theology,\u201d pp. 265,\n266.  See also, \u201cPearson on the Creed,\u201d Art. iii. \u00a7 3.\n\n{141}  Philip, ii. 7, 8.\n\n{142a}  St. Luke ii. 52.\n\n{142b}  St. Mark xiii. 32; St. Matt. xxiv. 36.\n\n{144a}  Rom. ix. 5.\n\n{144b}  It may be observed that the above explanation does not in any way\nimpair the argument in our Lord\u2019s reply to His disciples.  It furnishes\nquite a sufficient reason why such mysteries as \u201cwhen shall these things\nbe, and what shall be the sign of Thy coming, and of the end of the\nworld?\u201d should be unrevealed to flesh and blood, that they are unknown to\nbe angels of heaven, and even to the Son of Man, if His humanity be\ncontemplated apart from His Divinity.\n\n{147}  Ps. xlix. 7, 8.\n\n{148a}  Joel ii. 2.\n\n{148b}  Mal. iv. 2.\n\n{148c}  St. Luke i. 78, 79.\n\n{148d}  2 Tim. i. 10.\n\n{148e}  Isa. ix. 6.\n\n{148f}  Heb. ii. 11.\n\n{148g}  Ibid. 17.\n\n{149a}  Heb. iv. 14, 15.\n\n{149b}  St. John xviii. 37.\n\n{150}  Rom. v. 9, 11.\n\n{152}  Rom. iii. 25, 26.\n\n{153a}  Art. XII.\n\n{153b}  Art. XVIII.\n\n{156}  St. Luke ii. 11.","title":"Eight Sermons on the Priesthood, Altar, and Sacrifice","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":39658}