3. How it has been received by our own branch of the Church Catholic,
the Church of England?
And I will only add now, whilst I pray that we may all strive simply to
know the will of God that we may do it, that there can be no more
practical matter than this to engage our thoughts and hearts. For, if it
be so, that Christ has left Him no priests now on earth to minister at
His altars, and no sacrifice with which His people are concerned, a great
part of what so many believe, I might say, of what the Church of God for
eighteen hundred years and more has believed, to be of the essence of our
faith, is a mere fable and superstition; whilst if, on the other hand,
“it be truth, and the thing certain,” {43} that a Christian priesthood,
ordained by Christ Himself, and these sacrificial powers, and altar and
sacrifice, remain and must remain ever in His Church, what words shall
describe the misery and sin of those who are endeavouring to rob a whole
nation of their belief in such truth of God, and to pour more than slight
and contempt upon the ordinances of Christ; so that, in fact, they would,
if they could have their will and way, unchurch the Church of God in this
land, deny the virtue of His mysteries, and starve the children of God
who seek to receive at His altar the benefits of His sacrifice, humbly
waiting on Him there, and partaking of the sacrifice and feast ordained
by Him.
Oh! let us pray indeed that we may come to the consideration of so
weighty a matter, casting away all passion and prejudice and preconceived
opinion, and whatsoever may hinder us from seeing the truth of God, to
which may He of His mercy guide us. And may He grant us also that we may
not merely know the truth, but when we know it follow it, in our daily
life and conversation, without turning aside to the right hand or to the
left.
SERMON III.
Witness of the New Testament to the Doctrine of Sacrifice.
1 CORINTHIANS x. 18.
“Are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?”
I RESUME the subject upon which I have spoken on two previous Sundays—the
reality of the Christian priesthood, altar, and sacrifice.
I endeavoured to shew in the first of these discourses that it was no
argument against the truth of the priesthood that they who hold it have
“this treasure in earthen vessels,” that a priest is like and “of like
passions” with others, nay, is “weak as another man.” In the second, I
pointed out that sacrifice was an institution as old as the days of our
first parents, and in all probability appointed directly by the Almighty
upon man’s fall, with some revelation of its predictive significance;
that certainly it met with His approval when duly and religiously
performed; and that it was by faith that those who took part in it
“obtained the witness that they were righteous:” {45} whence we were led
to consider more particularly its relation to the sacrifice upon the
Cross of “the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world,” and
how from the beginning it looked forward, in its inner meaning, with a
preparing and expectant eye and heart, to that wonderful consummation.
We saw, too, that thus among God’s own chosen people, by special and
minute provision, this doctrine and usage of sacrifice were preserved
even as long as the elder dispensation lasted; whilst, though in terrible
and wicked perversion, both as to the object and the mode of worship,
they yet prevailed universally throughout the heathen world. Admitting
it to be conceivable that in the Almighty’s will it might be intended
that sacrifice should altogether cease when once the great sacrifice was
completed; that, although He had appointed foreshadowing and predictive
rites of that wonderful event, He did not intend that there should be any
reflective or commemorative sacrifice to carry us back to it, or to apply
its virtue, or to plead its merits ever afresh before the throne of God;
we yet saw great reason to think this to be highly unlikely, and reserved
the point more particularly for further examination. What is the
testimony which has been furnished to us upon it? You will remember that
I proposed to consider this testimony under the three heads: first, what
Holy Scripture tells us; secondly, what has been the understanding by the
Church from the beginning of the declarations of Holy Writ; and thirdly,
what is the mind of our own Church in this matter?
Before, however, coming to these particulars, let me premise that it can
be but a brief summary of such evidences which it is possible to give
here. The subject is so large, and the full testimony so extensive, that
it would require volumes to go through it. Those who would study it in a
more complete manner will find it elaborately discussed in the discourses
on “The Government of Churches and on Religious Assemblies,” of Dr.
Herbert Thorndike, Canon of Westminster, about the middle of the
seventeenth century, (a very learned theologian); and in the three octavo
volumes of “Treatises on the Christian Priesthood,” by Dr. Hickes, Dean
of Worcester, some fifty years later; whilst there is a very thoughtful
and condensed statement of the whole matter in a small book by the Rev.
T. T. Carter, called “The Doctrine of the Priesthood.”
Let us now turn to our own enquiry, as some help (if it please God) to
those who may not be so likely, possibly may not have leisure or
opportunity, to consult larger works, but may yet have a godly anxiety
amid the bold assertions, and I fear we must say, in no small measure,
the irreverent scoffing of a free and licentious time, to learn the will
of God herein, that they may neither think nor do anything but what is
pleasing and acceptable in His sight.
Our question is, Has God willed, and has He revealed to us His will, that
in His Church, since the death of His Blessed Son upon the cross, there
shall be no priesthood, no altar, and no sacrifice? And first, “What
saith the Scripture?” {48a} I must take but a few out of many passages.
1. We have, in our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, the following direction:
“If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy
brother hath aught against thee; leave there thy gift before the altar,
and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and
offer thy gift.” {48b} Now if this direction be intended to be a guide
of conduct for Christian people in the Christian Church, can it be denied
that our Lord speaks of an altar to be used, and an offering to be made
thereon; and that, speaking to those who were constantly accustomed to
altars and sacrifices, His words must have conveyed to them the meaning
that an altar and a sacrifice would remain for them whilst they should be
practising the precepts of His religion? If He did not intend so much by
this precept, the question surely arises, How shall we, with any
certainty, know what other portions of that or any of our Lord’s
discourses were designed for the instruction merely of the Jews who were
around Him, or should receive His teaching during the time that their
covenant lasted, but became immediately inapplicable and void in and
under the Christian dispensation? Will any say that the precepts
concerning purity, meekness, government of the tongue, charity, are thus
limited? as, “Whoso looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committed
adultery with her already in his heart;” or, “Whosoever is angry with his
brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment;” or, again,
“Let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay;” or, once more, “Resist
not evil; love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them
that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute
you.” {49} That these and other divine precepts of that same discourse
were injunctions to bind the Jews, to whom primarily they were spoken,
but require other proof or repetition before they can be conclusively
accepted as designed for Christians would seem strange indeed. If no one
will say so, surely we must confess to a strong presumption in favour of
the doctrine of an altar and a sacrifice remaining in the Christian
Church.
But perhaps it may be said, Not so: we accept those other precepts as
belonging to the Christian Church, because they are simply moral precepts
applying to the heart, but the former passage relates to a ceremonial
usage of the Jewish polity, and may well be taken to be a mere adaptation
of what was then in well-known use; to inculcate, not an act or mode of
worship, but figuratively a frame of mind that would be required in
Christians. So that, as the Jew would literally understand, he should go
his way from the temple and the altar, and be reconciled to any one to
whom he had done wrong, before he could there make his offering; so the
Christian in all time, though having no altar to which to come, and no
real offering or sacrifice in which to join, should yet learn to be in
peace and charity with all men, before he should esteem himself fit to
lift up his voice or heart in prayer to God; and that therefore our
Lord’s words, spoken “while as the first tabernacle was yet standing,”
{50} do not sufficiently prove any altar designed to exist in the
Christian Church. Well, let us allow the utmost weight to such an
argument, and grant that the words in and by themselves might possibly be
so explained, and yet bear just a tolerable though not, I think, at all a
likely interpretation in such sense; but then, let us yet turn and see
whether the other and more natural meaning be not corroborated elsewhere,
where this gloss will not avail. Remember the objection to the proof of
a Christian altar from those words is, that they were spoken whilst the
Jewish polity subsisted, and before the Christian Church was set up, and
therefore that it is only (as is asserted) by a figure, suitable enough
to Jewish ears, but not as really enunciating a truth or principle to
endure in the Christian Church, that they were uttered. But shall we not
find a witness in Holy Scripture to the existence of this altar in the
new dispensation, which is free from this exception or construction? I
turn to the Epistle to the Hebrews, and I find the Apostle writing, “We
have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the
tabernacle.” {51a} Was not this written to Christians? Does it not
speak to them expressly of their altar at which they are to eat? Was it
not set down for their guidance and instruction? Was it not written
after the great sacrifice upon the altar of the cross had been made, and
made once for all?
Was it not after the setting up of the Christian Church, and the
establishment of Christian worship? Nay, is it not in an Epistle, the
very whole drift and scope of which is to contrast the usages and
provisions and teaching of the elder covenant with those of the new, and
to shew the superiority in each respect of that which had been ordained,
not by angels, but in the hand of the Son of God Himself. {51b} And can
it therefore be that the inferior part or type in the one can lack the
corresponding superior part, or antitype, in the other with which it is
contrasted, and on which correspondency and contrast the whole argument
depends? Will any one say, Yes, but still the Jewish temple had not then
been destroyed; the Jews’ visible altar and worship still existed, and it
is only by (again) an adaptation, as a mode of speech particularly
intelligible to the Hebrews, and by a very natural economy, that such
terms were employed. But granting that the date of the Epistle is, with
all probability, rightly put some little time before the destruction of
Jerusalem, yet does not the very turn both of the argument and of the
expression of the Apostle shew that he is not making an application of a
figure, but a declaration of a fact? Addressing Hebrews, but most
evidently converted Hebrews, Christians, to keep them firm in the faith,
and to enlighten them to the more full understanding in it, he presses on
them this point, that they have an altar; and not only so, but one
distinguished from the altar of the Jew; one at which “they have no right
to eat which serve the tabernacle.” Take the whole passage together and
see its force: “We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which
serve the tabernacle. For the bodies of those beasts whose blood is
brought into the sanctuary by the High Priest for sin, are burned without
the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with
His own blood, suffered without the gate.” Where evidently the type, the
great day of atonement under the law, is contrasted with its antitype,
the great sacrifice of Christ upon the cross. So far it might be perhaps
thought that our altar is only the cross; but then he continues: “Let us
go forth, therefore, unto Him without the camp, bearing His reproach; for
here we have no continuing city, but we seek one to come. By Him,
therefore, let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that
is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name.” {53} Here it is
evident another sacrifice is to be made, even the sacrifice of praise
(which we must remember is the very phrase universally used in the
ancient Church for the Holy Eucharist). Let us therefore (surely we are
to understand) follow after Christ, being content to bear His reproach
even as we offer to Him, ourselves, our souls and bodies, in and by the
sacrifice of His own appointing, the Eucharistic Sacrifice in the supper
of the Lord, at the enduring Christian altar as well as table.
But perhaps some may still say, We are not convinced. The allusion to an
altar here may yet be figurative, or only adapting language to the mind
of the Jew, “while as the first tabernacle was yet standing;” and the
sacrifice of praise need not necessarily mean the Holy Eucharist, or, if
it do, may point to no altar or sacrifice by means of a priest, but
merely denote the lifting the heart in sincerity to God.
Now, although putting the whole argument together and reading the passage
by the light which the continuous belief of the Church throws upon it (as
we shall see presently), nothing, I think, can be more unlikely or
untenable than such an interpretation, still, for the moment, let us
allow it to throw a doubt upon the sense of the passage. Let us, then,
turn to yet another place, and see if the witness of the Apostle is not
unmistakeable as to the doctrine of which we speak.
Take that passage in the first Epistle to the Corinthians in which our
text occurs, and see if it be possible to understand it in any sense but
in that which speaks of a present altar and a continually recurring
sacrifice, in which Christians have an interest and bear a part: “Are not
they which eat of the sacrifice,” says he, “partakers of the altar?” {54}
and this especially in contrast as to the conduct of those engaged in
idol worship, and those in Christian worship. As truly, then, as the
idolater partook of his altar (though his idol be nothing), so, only much
more, does the Christian of the Christian altar. And this cannot be the
one offering on the cross alone, however deriving all its virtue and
power from it, because in that case the Christian could not be said to
eat of the sacrifice in any continuous or recurring act. The sacrifice
would be wholly past, and not present as the idol sacrifices were, and so
there would be no true parallel between the two things brought into
comparison. Mark the progress of the argument: “What say I then? that
the idol is anything, or that which is offered in sacrifice to the idol
is anything? But I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice,
they sacrifice to devils and not to God;” that is, under the symbol of
the senseless wood or stone there lurked an acknowledgment of demoniac
power, so that, in fact, in the heart of those worshippers there was a
homage paid to Satan and his angels, and this was something wickedly
real, even though the idol was nothing. For he immediately adds what
shews that this worship was not without its effect, an effect impressing
a character on those who shared in it; for he says, “And I would not that
ye should have fellowship with devils,” and why? because thus they would
lose all fellowship with God. “Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and
the cup of devils. Ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of
the table of devils.” {55} Let it make no difficulty that it is called a
table here, as an altar above. It is both, just as the other, the
heathen altar, was both, because in each case there was not merely a
sacrifice, but a feast upon a sacrifice. As truly, then, as the Apostle
says that there is a heathen idolatrous sacrifice which Christians can
never have to do with, because if they do they would have fellowship with
devils, so does he, by the very parallel he draws, and the whole scope of
his argument, imply that Christians have a sacrifice, at which they can
be, and are to be, continually present; in and by which they have
fellowship with the Lord, which also is offered continually in their
assemblies, and of which they eat. For as in the one there were the
heathen feasts upon the victims or offerings offered to devils; so in the
other there is the feast upon the Christian sacrifice, the offering made
in that continually recurring commemorative oblation to God of the body
and blood of Christ. If this be not to be offered up continually, since
the one sacrifice completed as the propitiation by blood made once for
all upon the cross, then there is no coherency or force in the Apostle’s
argument; for there would be nothing in the Christian dispensation like,
or answering to, those sacrifices to devils which the heathen used, and
in which they were forbidden to join. The teaching surely is, and must
be, as they who join in the heathen altar-worship are partakers of it,
and have fellowship thereby with those to whom it is really offered, so
they who join in the Christian sacrifice (not so made and passed in point
of time as to be incapable of continued and continual recurrence by
commemorative but real act) are thereby partakers in and of their feast
upon their sacrifice, and have therein fellowship with the Lord. So this
is the continual memorial of the one “sacrifice upon the cross, and of
the benefits which we receive thereby,” also the appointed means of our
receiving those benefits. And it would be absurd to think of the Apostle
describing the worship of idols as a real act of adoration and sacrifice
to devils, and as impressing a real character by a power upon them for
evil in those who join in such worship, and not to see that he must allow
an equal act of sacrifice, adoration, and homage in the sacrifice and the
altar which he speaks of as the Christian’s constant privilege to
frequent; and which is as much greater to impress a character for good
upon the Christian and to nourish him to life eternal, as the real
presence of the Body and Blood of Christ is greater than the idol, which
is nothing, or the things offered to idols, which are nothing.
Nor is there any escape, that I can see, from the force of this argument
of St. Paul, unless any one will try to evade it by saying: “Look back a
moment, and see if the whole argument does not belong to the Jew, and not
to the Christian.” Will any one take this line and appeal to the words
immediately before the text? True, it is written, “Behold Israel after
the flesh. Are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the
altar?” But if this be urged, I say, go back a little further still, and
observe the flood of light thrown upon the whole passage, in connection
not merely generally with Christianity, but especially and particularly
with the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ, in this true
commemorative Sacrament, which is exactly where and how, we say, the
Christian sacrifice is offered by the Christian priests upon the
Christian altar. After exhortation against yielding to temptation, and
declaration of the ever-ready help of God for those who will use it, “who
will not suffer us to be tempted above that we are able, but will with
the temptation also make a way to escape, that we may be able to bear
it,” the Apostle adds: “Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.
I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.” (Oh, let us also be wise
to hear and learn! “Judge ye what I say.”) “The cup of blessing which
we bless, is it not the communion of the Blood of Christ? The bread
which we break, is it not the communion of the Body of Christ? For we,
being many, are one bread and one body: for we are all partakers of that
one bread.” {58} And then all but immediately he adds, “are not they
which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?” Can anything be
clearer than that, to the blessed Sacrament of the Body and Blood of
Christ, he attaches the teaching which follows so directly as to the
nature of the sacrifice and the altar? Ah! but, it is said, he
interpolates words that you have omitted which alter the
application:—“Behold Israel after the flesh;” he says, and then adds,
“are not they which eat of the sacrifice partakers of the altar?” Well,
and what do the parenthetical words mean? Surely they must mean merely
this,—that, as his readers would allow such was the case under the law,
and with Israel after the flesh; and that Israel, as well as the heathen,
had an altar and a sacrifice, so it is also with Christians: as if he had
said, We Christians, by this blessed sacramental bond, are one body, even
as we are all partakers of that one Bread; and as you will all allow, the
partaking of a common sacrifice (for instance, that of the Paschal Lamb,)
signified this under the law and with “Israel after the flesh,” so you
must be prepared to admit as much under the Gospel, and with the true
Israel born anew of the Spirit. Thus the interpolation does not for one
moment break the sequence or invalidate the force of the argument as to
the Christian sacrifice, but merely illustrates it by a parenthetical
allusion to what his hearers or readers would allow at once to have been
the case with Jewish rites, sacrifices, and altars: and the conclusion
from the whole is distinct and inevitable, that St. Paul,—speaking to the
Christians at Corinth as to men who would understand the whole force of
his argument, as being acquainted with Jewish customs, and living also in
the very midst of heathen idolatrous worship,—teaches as plainly that
Christians use a Christian altar, and offer up a Christian sacrifice, and
feast together upon it, and that this is undoubtedly the cup of blessing
which we bless, and the bread which we break, and that thereon follows
the blessedness of fellowship with the Lord; I say, teaches this as
plainly as he says there is, or has been, in Jewish worship a Jewish
altar and sacrifice, and as there is in heathen worship an altar and a
sacrifice to devils, and a partaking of the cup of devils, and of the
table of devils, and thereby the having fellowship with them. And, (what
is particularly to the purpose of my citing this passage), herein is the
proof that the sacrifice referred to cannot be the one meritorious,
painful, bloody sacrifice upon the cross, once made and never to be
repeated; both because this was not (no one can say it was) the literal
breaking of bread, and the blessing the cup in the Holy Eucharist, and
because also, if that one sacrifice had been intended, there would have
been no parallel at all between the heathen sacrifices to which the
people were often called, and that sacrifice to which Christians on this
supposition could never be called. Whereas if we do but allow, according
to the plain meaning of the words and of the argument, that there is a
true sacrifice to God, commemorative, but real, as ordained and appointed
by Christ Himself,—no repetition of blood or agony, but the presenting
afresh, and pleading afresh, yea, causing Christ Himself to plead afresh
for us in heaven, the merits of that one precious death,—then we have the
most manifest recognition and declaration of the very doctrine for which
we contend, and both many other passages of Holy Writ are made perfectly
clear,—(who will now doubt the sense of the other two Scriptures which we
examined?)—and the whole sense and usage of the Church from the beginning
is both explained and justified.
Our time has been so much taken up in examining what was, of course, the
most important question of all, the teaching of Holy Scripture upon this
point, that we have left ourselves no time to-day to consider the further
portion of our proposed subject, viz., what is the teaching of the Church
Catholic from the beginning, and its understanding of the written word on
this doctrine of sacrifice; and, yet again, what is the witness of our
own Church to her having most carefully preserved, held, and maintained
the same. To this we will recur, if God will, another day; in the
meanwhile commending ourselves ever to His mercy, and all we think or do
to His grace and guidance.
SERMON IV.
The Testimony of the Early Church to the Doctrine of the Priesthood.
JEREMIAH vi. 16.
“Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the
old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find
rest for your souls.”
THE next division of our enquiry is, the understanding of Holy Scripture
in the primitive Church as to the priesthood, the altar, and the
sacrifice, and its consequent doctrine thereupon. Before, however,
proceeding to this examination, let me briefly remind you of the point in
the argument from Holy Scripture at which we have arrived, for our time
on Sunday last hardly permitted me to sum up the remarks then made. The
last passage which we considered asks in the tone of unquestionable
affirmation, “Are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the
altar?” The parallel, as I then pointed out, lies between those on the
one hand, who, eating of the heathen sacrifices, are partakers of the
heathen altar, and thus have fellowship with devils; and those, on the
other hand, who, eating of the Christian sacrifice, are partakers of the
Christian altar, and thus have fellowship with God. For, I must repeat,
if St. Paul’s argument have not this meaning and significance, there is
no coherency in the things brought into juxtaposition, and nothing on the
one side to answer to the requirement of the other. Observe further,
before we pass on, how the Apostle’s whole reasoning, as it stands,
excludes, and must exclude, the sense of the Christian sacrifice being a
mere figurative expression, and that which is eaten in it a mere
subjective thing, dependent upon the mind of the recipient for its being
there at all; for, if it were so in the Christian sacrifice, it must be
so in the idol sacrifice also. But is it so in the latter? Is it that
what is there eaten is a mere nothing in itself, dependent upon the mind
of the eater? Is the partaking of the idol altar not an effect of an
actual eating? Is the consequent fellowship with devils not the result
of such actual feasting upon an actual objective sacrifice? And,
therefore, if the parallel has any force at all, must it not be that
there is a real objective presence of a sacrificial thing at the
Christian altar,—the _res sacramenti_, as in strict theological
phraseology it is termed,—by which he that eateth is partaker of the
altar, and the result of which is, his having fellowship with Christ and
God? From which our inference was plain and direct that in St. Paul’s
understanding there is a Christian altar and a Christian sacrifice. Such
was the conclusion from Holy Scripture at which we arrived.
I proceed now to shew further, that this, the natural and, as I think,
the necessary sense of that passage (supported by numerous other passages
of Holy Writ, some of which we have noticed, though many others we have
not had time particularly to examine), is the sense in which the Church
Catholic has ever understood the doctrine of the Scripture upon this
subject, and which our own Church carefully guarded and preserved at her
Reformation; thus maintaining, on so essential a point, her connection
with the Church from the beginning and in all times.
But yet, before we go into the proof of this, let it be remarked (for it
is very important in order to our seeing the full weight and bearing of
the facts and records to which we are about to refer) that these three
things—the priesthood, the altar, and the sacrifice—are what we may call
correlatives, and reciprocally imply one another. As the word parent
implies a child, or brother, brother or sister; so, if there be an altar,
there will be a sacrifice, for the altar would be unmeaning without it,
would miss its aim and be purposeless if there were nothing to be offered
on it; and in like manner, if there be a sacrifice there will be an
altar, for it is contrary to the whole sense and usage of the word to
make such sacrificial offering to God, and not withal to sanctify some
special place and mode of oblation. Again, if there be an altar and a
sacrifice, there will be a priesthood; unless the voice of the whole
world (over and above the constraining teaching of the Scripture) be in
error, and any man that pleases may “take this honour unto himself,”
{66a} and offer up “gifts and sacrifices” acceptably to God.
Premising, then, thus much, I proceed to call attention to the fact, that
the whole literature of Christianity from the beginning either states or
implies the doctrine of the priesthood, the altar, and the sacrifice,
which we have deduced also from Holy Scripture. It is true that in the
very scanty writings which remain to us from the first century, we may
not find the word ‘priest’ applied to the Christian ministry. But, as
Mr. Carter has well observed, “the real question is not whether the name,
but whether the idea, of priesthood is found to exist in the extant
writings of the Apostolic Fathers;” {66b} whilst for the absence of the
name it is not hard to assign satisfactory reasons. In the first place,
the extant writings of that century are too few to let a negative
conclusion be built upon them. They amount, I believe, in all, (if we
exclude the “Shepherd of Hermas,” a confessedly mere allegorical work,)
to not more than what would make about thirty pages of an octavo volume.
{66c} Over and above this paucity of material on which to found an
argument, other reasons may readily be given for the term ‘priest’ not
occurring. It may be sufficient here just to touch upon two. First,
there might be great cause why the earliest Christian writers should not
designate those who ministered at their altars by a term which might have
been understood to imply that they claimed for them a descent from the
house of Aaron according to the flesh; which claim the Jews around them
would know in many instances to be unfounded, and which, therefore, to be
supposed to make, would lay them open to a charge of imposture; whilst
again, secondly, they might equally desire to keep clear of all mistake
as to their being confounded with the priesthood of the Gentiles, or
heathen world, so likely to involve them in the charge of offering up
bloody sacrifices like them; a charge which in fact we know, as it was,
they did not wholly escape; a wonderful and most unsuspicious witness by
the way (for it comes from those who had no thought to forward any
interests of Christianity), that Christians claimed to make a true
sacrifice in the Eucharist, for it is evidently this, perverted and
mistaken by the persecuting heathen, (as if, when they offered the Body
and Blood of Christ, they confessed to offering a human victim,) which
led to the accusation; a great evidence surely to the doctrine of the
real presence of Christ therein, for who could mistake the Eucharistic
doctrine of a large portion of modern Christianity for anything open to
such a charge, under which we know, upon the testimony of heathen
writers, the early Christians suffered reproach?
These two reasons, then, may suffice as to the term ‘priest’ not being so
early applied to the Christian ministry, and indeed we need no defence
upon the subject, because the whole idea of the priesthood prevails in
those early writings whether the word ‘priest’ be used or not, inasmuch
as there is constant mention of the sacrifice and the altar as in use in
the Christian Church.
As we proceed with the stream of Christian writing there is ample proof
of the universal holding and teaching of this doctrine.
I cannot, of course, pretend here to go through this evidence in detail.
We must rather look for a summary which may give the result of a fair
examination into the records left us, than make a series of extracts from
them. We shall perhaps hardly find a more unexceptionable witness than
the learned writer Vitringa, cited by Mr. Carter in his work already
mentioned. Speaking of the age shortly succeeding the Apostles, Mr.
Carter says: “As to the usage of this period there can be no surer
authority than that of Vitringa. His extensive learning, directed
assiduously to this very point, and his zeal as a partizan, make his
testimony to be peculiarly conclusive.” {68} His zeal as a partizan, be
it observed, was not in favour of the Catholic sense of the writings, nor
of any priesthood or altar, for Vitringa was a Dutch Presbyterian, who
lived about the middle of the last century, and wrote expressly to
explain away the evidence which nevertheless he adduces. He acknowledges
that his own views are opposed to the unvarying testimony and belief of
the Catholic Church for sixteen hundred years. His theory excludes all
idea of priesthood and equally of bishops, (not the name only, but also
the office,) chancels, altars, and oblations, and, indeed, any stated
ministry. In fact, he regards the whole subject as a staunch
Presbyterian, and it is, therefore, certainly not with any bias in favour
of the doctrine which we are considering that he thus sums up the results
of his enquiries into the writings of those early centuries:—
“That Tertullian, in the beginning of the third century, calls the bishop
‘chief priest,’ (_summus sacerdos_); that before his time, in the second
century, Irenæus calls the gifts made at the Holy Eucharist, ‘oblations,’
(_oblata_,) and when consecrated by the prayer of the bishop, ‘a
sacrifice,’ (_sacrificium_); and that in Justin Martyr, a still more
ancient writer, the gifts are called ‘offerings,’ (_προσφοραὶ_); are
facts so certainly known to the learned, that it is needless to speak of
them at greater length. In the subsequent writings of the Fathers, the
terms ‘priesthood,’ ‘Priest,’ ‘Levites,’ ‘altars,’ ‘offertories,’
‘sacrifices,’ ‘oblations,’ used in reference to the Church of the New
Testament, are so obvious and frequent that it can escape no one who has
even cursorily examined their writings. In Eusebius, moreover, and the
rest of the ecclesiastical historians, and the canons of Councils, such
frequent mention occurs of these phrases, that it is evident they must
have struck deep root into the minds of men in those ages.” {70} So much
is the testimony of a very learned man, and a most unsuspicious witness.
But there is a separate line of evidence to be drawn from another and
perhaps even still more convincing source: I mean the ancient liturgies
of the Church which have come down to us, and tell us in what way the
early Christians worshipped God; the place which they assigned to the
Holy Eucharist, and the light in which they regarded it in connection
with sacrifice, altar, and priesthood. There are four liturgies, (and we
are to remember, the word in all ancient writings means merely and simply
the Eucharistic service,) which have been shewn to have been reduced to
writing in the course of the fourth century, and one of them in the
earliest part of it. They bear their witness to the Church’s faith and
hope and teaching in those days, and even earlier, because it is
generally conceded that they were in use long before they were put into
writing, the days of persecution rendering it unsafe for the Christians
to have documents which might be seized, and turned against them; or
perhaps still more, the desire to preserve the mysteries of their faith,
and especially of the Holy Eucharist, from the inquisition of heathen
scoffing, indisposing them to keep any records which could be thus
profanely used. Of course, after the Empire became Christian, under
Constantine, this reason ceased, and it was only what was natural that
the services which had been orally in use for years should now be reduced
to writing. Now, these four liturgies were used at the four great
central sees of Christendom, and their subordinate branches, and so
pervaded the whole Catholic world. “The first,” to use the words of a
learned writer, Mr. Palmer, the author of the _Origines Liturgicæ_, “is
the great Oriental liturgy, as it seems to have prevailed in all the
Christian Churches, from the Euphrates to the Hellespont, and from the
Hellespont to the southern extremity of Greece; the second was the
Alexandrian, which from time immemorial has been the liturgy of Egypt,
Abyssinia, and the country extending along the Mediterranean Sea to the
West; the third was the Roman, which prevailed throughout the whole of
Italy, Sicily, and great part of Africa; the fourth was the Gallican,
which was used throughout Gaul and Spain, and probably in the exarchate
of Ephesus, until the fourth century.” {71}
Now, the especially important bearing of these liturgies upon our subject
is this, that in spite of enough of difference to shew that they are
independent witnesses, they yet correspond most closely with one another
in all main features, and particularly in their witness to the
sacrificial doctrine, and the priestly office, in relation to the Holy
Eucharist. And (as Mr. Palmer has pointed out), with regard to the one
first named, the Oriental, existing documents enable us to trace this
liturgy to a very remote period indeed, almost or quite to the Apostolic
age; for he reminds us that in the time of Justin Martyr, whose writings
are the “existing documents” of which he speaks, the Christian Church was
“only removed by one link from the Apostles themselves.” {72a} Nor even
is this all; for there is yet a fifth liturgy, of a date still earlier
than these four already named, called the Clementine, and what is
particularly remarkable in it is, that it agrees with those four great
liturgies in all points where they agree with each other, as well as in
their general structure.
“Now, in all these liturgies alike,” says Mr. Carter, “the ancient
sacerdotal terms in question are ordinarily used. In reading them, we
open upon a scene which represents a priesthood of different degrees,
with a complete ritual, ministering before God on behalf of the people,
offering sacrifices, and communicating heavenly gifts and benedictions.”
{72b}
I must forbear both any quotations to shew this, as well as defer any
further remarks upon the progress of events, or (which also is part of
our subject) on the careful attention, by our own Reformers and Revisers,
to preserve the teaching of the primitive Church in this matter. If it
please God, yet once more we may return to the subject, and see how this
stands, as well as make some little practical application of the doctrine
to ourselves at this day, to some of our dangers and temptations in an
age so free-thinking and free-handling as the present. Without
anticipating these things in any detail, let me yet just remind you that
the mere fashion, or usage, or clamour, or forgetfulness, or unbelief of
any age or time can make no difference in the truth of God, or in the
doctrine which has been from the beginning, or in the mysteries of His
kingdom. That men should try to bring all things, however divine and
holy, however deep and mysterious, to the level of their own
understanding, and discard all which they may be unable to explain, need
be to us no matter of surprise. The very same temper which in one
induces a disbelief in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, because the
doctrine is beyond the human understanding to fathom,—or leads another to
reject the mystery of the Incarnation, because it is ineffable and above
his comprehension,—or another to deny the regenerating gift and efficacy
of holy baptism, saying, “How can these things be?”—may readily bring
others to that hard state of scepticism which robs the Holy Eucharist at
once of its deep mysteriousness and of its hidden virtue; which therefore
rejects, and too often ridicules, the very idea of a priesthood and an
availing sacrifice, saying, “How should man have power with God?” or,
“How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?” {74a} even though the
priestly power be derived from Christ’s own commission, and the
mysterious virtue assured by His own Word of Truth. That there should be
some who, leaning too much to their own understanding, forsake the old
ways, and dislike and accuse those who desire to cleave to them; that
they should frame worldly arguments for worldly men, and even deceive
some who in heart and wish are not worldly, but rather unwary, or led
away by the mere voice of the multitude, or swayed by prejudice, or
betrayed through an ignorance of what has been from the beginning; that
_some_ should scoff when they cannot reason, and ridicule that which they
have not the heart to understand,—all this, I repeat, need not fill us
with either surprise or dismay, though perchance it may make us (not
wholly unwarrantably) deem that the latter days are come, or close
coming, upon us. I say all this need not surprise us, for have not our
Lord and His Apostles warned us that such things must be? “When the Son
of Man cometh,” He said Himself, “shall He find faith on the earth?”
{74b} as though it would exist but in a remnant. And again, “If they
have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they
call them of his household?” {75a} Why, then, should we expect to escape
such things? But I said, also, we need not be dismayed at them. Is
there not the exhortation, “Ye have need of patience?” {75b} and again
the encouragement, “In your patience possess ye your souls?” {75c} and
again the gracious promise, “He that endureth to the end shall be saved?”
{75d} What though in the latter times some shall depart from the faith?
{75e} What though “the time will come when men will not endure sound
doctrine.” {75f} Shall this make any difference in our faith, or cast
any gloom upon our hope? No! Brethren, let us ever remember that what
we have to rely upon is, not “man’s wisdom,” nor “an arm of flesh:” what
we have to cleave to with all constancy is “that which was from the
beginning;” {75g} for it is this which gives us “fellowship with the
Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.” {75h}
And surely here we may see and bless the goodness of God towards us in
this our Church of England that He put it into the hearts of our
Reformers not for one moment to think of making a new religion or a new
Church, but only (throwing off errors and corruptions) to go back to the
teaching of the early ages, and embrace the doctrine of the Church
universal. If the Church of England had _begun_ at the Reformation, (as
sometimes men speak,) no man, who knew anything of the essentials of
Christianity could belong to her for a moment. But, blessed be God, He
put it into the heart and minds of those who, in His providence, guided
the course of the English Reformation, to make it a maxim, _Stare super
antiquas vias_, to give heed to the injunction of the prophet: “Thus
saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths
where is the good way; and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your
souls.” {76} It is this which has been, under God, our safeguard. From
time to time assaults have been made to destroy our true Catholic
character and our bond of union with primitive Christianity; but God has,
of His mercy, hitherto, ever kept it in the heart of the rulers in our
Church to “ask for the old ways, and to walk in them.” That our Church
has kept to the old ways is manifest from this, that the very persons who
disbelieve and desire to drive us from the ancient faith, are the same
who, as the means of doing so, are striving to new model our formularies
and alter our Prayer-book. They feel no less than we that, whilst we
retain these, we cleave to the doctrine which has been of old; and they,
desiring to deprive us of the doctrine, are as anxious to alter our
formularies as we are to keep them unchanged. And many of them would
perhaps, even more openly than they do, advocate extensive measures of
liturgical revision, in a doctrinal sense, but for the consciousness that
to shew too great anxiety on the point is too like a confession of how
much the Prayer-book is against them. Surely these things are of great
weight when we would know what doctrine is most according to the mind of
the Church of England. “I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.”
It is this same principle, too, of preserving the one faith once
delivered, which makes it so important to examine, as we are attempting
to do, the sense of Holy Scripture as attested by the consent of the
Church from the beginning, and as accepted by our own Church, upon so
grave and practical a subject as the priesthood, the altar, and the
sacrifice. May God give us His illumination to see His truth as He has
seen fit to reveal it to us, and grace that where we see it, we may
boldly confess it; so shall we pass in safety the waves of this
troublesome world, so may we, perchance, be delivered from the strife of
tongues; or, if not, yet shall we learn not to fear man, nor be troubled
even if we cannot please men, remembering the witness of St. Paul, that
“if he pleased men, he should not be the servant of Christ.” {77}
And, brethren, let us all pray for an humble, meek, gentle, teachable,
believing heart, that we may not despise or refuse, or disbelieve God’s
mighty works, though His treasure be placed in earthen vessels; nor turn
our back upon His mysteries, though they transcend our utmost powers of
conception, nor neglect His call, be it what it may; to go forth, if it
be so, like Abraham, we know not whither; or, like him, to sacrifice our
dearest hope, if God demand it; or, like Daniel, to be cast even into the
den of lions; or, like the Apostles, to be made the very refuse of the
earth and the offscouring of all things,—so that we may but hold fast the
faith, and yet hand on again to those who shall come after the good
deposit committed to our charge. If this, indeed, we are enabled to do,
we may well “thank God and take courage.”
SERMON V.
The Testimony of our Formularies to the Doctrine of the Priesthood.
ST. JOHN xx. 22, 23.
“And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and saith unto them,
Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose soever sins ye remit, they are
remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are
retained.”
IN the brief outline which I have submitted in these discourses of the
evidences for the doctrine of the Christian priesthood, altar, and
sacrifice, I first met the objection sometimes made to there being any
such treasure (in our Church at any rate) because lodged in earthen
vessels; secondly, I traced, at least in part, the witness of the whole
world before Christ’s coming to the belief in, and usage of, sacrifice
and altar, with the necessarily attendant priesthood; and thirdly, I
adduced some very small portion of the proofs both from Holy Scripture
and from the universal consent of the early Church in its interpretation
of Scripture, that priesthood, altar, and sacrifice did not expire with
the law, but were intended to be continued, and were continued in and
under the Christian dispensation, in and under Him who was and is a High
Priest of surpassing power and dignity, not after the pattern or lineage
of the priests of the sons of Aaron, but “called an High Priest for ever
after the order of Melchizedek;” of Him who, fulfilling that royal type,
was “King of Righteousness,” and after that also “King of Salem, which is
King of Peace,” and yet, again, in like manner, “priest of the Most High
God,” and who “abideth a priest continually.” {80}
We brought our examination of this evidence to the fourth century of the
Christian era by, as I think it must be allowed, the summary of an
unexceptionable witness to the substance of the early Christian writings
upon that point, and by a reference to the five most ancient liturgies of
the Christian Church. It is unnecessary to say a word as to the same
doctrine being the universally received doctrine of the Church from the
fourth century to the sixteenth, because its very opponents adduce the
teaching of that thousand or twelve hundred years, in this among other
things, as proving the great darkness and corruption which had then
fallen upon the Church, and obscured, in their view, the simplicity of
the Gospel. So that, whatever may be thought of its orthodoxy, the fact
is not disputed, that for such period the whole of Christendom, with the
most insignificant exceptions, believed in the doctrine which we are
considering. Whether, as is affirmed by such objectors, this universal
belief were a mark of the corruption and ignorance of “the dark ages,” as
the self-complacent pride of later times has designated them, (when
perchance in God’s judgment they may be as light itself compared with
much of the “philosophy and vain deceit” {81a} of this free-handling
nineteenth century, which so often “darkens counsel by words without
knowledge” {81b}); or whether such consent, following the track of the
earliest ages, be not rather the mark of a true understanding of the mind
of the Spirit pervading that body with which Christ has promised to be,
“even to the end of the world,” is another question. It is one which I
need not now pursue, as what we have to say of the course taken and the
doctrine maintained by the Church of England at her Reformation will
throw a light upon the whole matter, which ought, I think, to be
sufficient for any understanding and faithful member of our Church.
Thus we are brought to the immediate subject of our further enquiry. It
being admitted, as I think I have shewn it must be, that this doctrine of
the priesthood, altar, and sacrifice, is a doctrine founded upon, and
supported by, Holy Scripture; so understood by the Church at large from
the earliest times, so maintained with no faltering lips to at least the
sixteenth century; what, we ask next, is the evidence of the mind of our
own Church at the Reformation and since, as to her preserving or
rejecting it?
You will hardly expect me to go through all the evidence.
But—remembering what we said on Sunday last, that these three things are
correlatives, reciprocally implying each other, or each one the other
two, (the priest; the altar and the sacrifice;—the altar; the sacrifice
and the priest;—the sacrifice; the priest and the altar;)—let us turn to
some portion of the proof that our Church has fully intended and intends,
has accounted and accounts, those who in her carry on the services of the
sanctuary to be priests of God.
Now, observe, the three great offices embraced in the idea of a priest
are these:—first, that he is one who has commission to rule and teach;
secondly, one who has power to absolve; thirdly, one who has authority to
offer up sacrifice. The first of these functions, though belonging to
the priesthood, is hardly to be called distinctive of it (as we may see
more clearly presently); the other two are of its essence, that is,
pertaining to none else; so that, on the one hand, he who has them both,
or even he who has, if it were so, either of them, is necessarily in a
true sense a priest; and, on the other, he who is a priest will have one
or other, or both of these powers, not indeed of himself, but committed
to him. To see how this stands with us, who are ministers and stewards
of God’s mysteries in this our Church of England, we must turn to our
service-books, and especially to the Service for Ordaining Priests, to
see what is the commission given to each, and what we learn from this to
be the mind of the Church concerning them who are admitted to that holy
function.
Turn first, then, for a moment to the Preface, to “The Form and Manner of
making, ordaining, and consecrating of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons,
according to the order of the United Church of England and Ireland.” We
find it there said: “It is evident unto all men diligently reading the
Holy Scripture and ancient authors, that from the Apostles’ time there
have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ’s Church; Bishops, Priests,
and Deacons. Which offices were evermore had in such reverend
estimation, that no man might presume to execute any of them, except he
were first called, tried, examined, and known to have such qualities as
are requisite for the same; and also by public prayer, with imposition of
hands, were approved and admitted thereunto by lawful authority. And
therefore, to the intent that these Orders may be continued, and
reverently used and esteemed, in the United Church of England and
Ireland; no man shall be accounted or taken to be a lawful Bishop,
Priest, or Deacon, in the United Church of England and Ireland, or
suffered to execute any of the said functions, except he be called,
tried, examined, and admitted thereunto, according to the form hereafter
following, or hath had formerly episcopal consecration, or ordination.”
Now this shews, I think, beyond dispute, that the Church of England holds
that no one, according to her mind and rule, is to be accounted or taken
to be a lawful bishop, priest, or deacon, without episcopal ordination or
consecration; for those who are ordained or consecrated according to the
forms which follow, unquestionably have it; and those who are or have
been admitted by any others, are not to be accounted lawfully admitted to
those Orders unless they have at some time been episcopally ordained.
We therefore find the authority and commission, in each case, given by
the laying on of a bishop or bishops’ hands, though, according to the
Scriptural warrant, accompanied also, in the ordination of priests, by
the laying on of the hands of the priests present. Still it is evident
that these, without the bishop, are not esteemed competent to convey the
gift of Holy Orders.
But, next, what is the commission given? Observe the difference between
that to deacons and to priests, and you will see the more clearly what is
of the essence of the priesthood.
To the deacon it is said, with the laying on of hands: “Take thou
authority to execute the office of a deacon in the Church of God
committed unto thee; in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Ghost;” and then, further: “Take thou authority to read the
Gospel in the Church of God, and to preach the same if thou be thereto
licensed by the bishop himself.” {85a}
But to the priest the corresponding, but far higher commission, is:
“Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a priest in the Church
of God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of my hands.” {85b}
Yes, it may be said, but what work? We grant there is the use of the
word ‘priest,’ but the whole question turns upon the sense in which it is
used. Oh, brethren, listen with simple hearts of reverence, loving and
seeking only the truth, to the solemn and awful words which follow:
“Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou
dost retain, they are retained; and be thou a faithful dispenser of the
Word of God, and of His holy Sacraments: in the Name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.” {85c}
And then, further, delivering the Bible into the hand of each: “Take thou
authority to preach the Word of God, and to minister the Holy Sacraments
in the congregation where thou shalt be lawfully appointed thereunto.”
{85d}
Now, not only is there evidently in all this a general superior
commission given, but there is the particular and specific difference
which I affirm can only be accounted for by the intentional full
recognition of the priestly idea and priestly office as we have all along
explained and taken those terms.
And the words settle, as it seems to me, beyond dispute, another
question,—which yet is not another, though it may bear a separate word of
comment in our argument,—namely, whether the Church of England considers
our Lord’s ministerial commission to His Apostles to have been confined
to them, or whether it was His will, by virtue of His words, “As My
Father hath sent Me, even so send I you,” {86} that they should again
transmit the powers of the priesthood on to others after them? For
observe particularly what words they are which are used by the bishop to
give this commission to the priest. “Receive,” he says, “the Holy Ghost
for the office of a priest, in the Church of God;” and then, “Whose sins
thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain,
they are retained.” Now from whence do these words come? Who used them
before, and to whom did they then give a commission? Let us turn to the
twentieth chapter of St. John’s Gospel, and we shall find the Divine
record: “Then said Jesus to them again,” (viz. to the Apostles,) “Peace
be unto you; as My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you. And when He
had said this, He breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the
Holy Ghost: whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and
whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.” {87}
Now is there any one who denies that our Blessed Lord thus gave such
power to those to whom He then spoke, and on whom He then breathed? I
suppose not. It would be wholly to explain away and contradict His word
to say so. It would be to prevent any one relying upon the plainest
meaning of anything to say so. It would be to make every injunction He
ever gave, and every truth He ever uttered, without sense or force, so to
read such a passage, as that it gave no commission even to the Apostles.
If His Apostles did not receive from that commission a power to bind and
loose, to remit and retain sins, it must, I think, be hopeless for any
one to imagine any duties can be proved or any doctrines declared in
Scripture, or, we might add, by any words anywhere set down. But then it
is said, We do not deny the commission as a personal thing to the
Apostles, but we say that it extended no further. We say that if any
imagine such a power and authority to have been intended to be
transmitted further, or to be capable of being thus transmitted, he is in
a grievous error and mistake. Now I am not arguing this question,
whether mine be the right understanding of the Scripture, but I say, is
it not as plain as the sun at noon-day that, right or wrong, it is the
understanding of the Church of England? Surely her meaning here can no
more be questioned as to those to whom she applies them, than our Blessed
Lord’s intention can be questioned as to those to whom He addressed them.
What possible explanation is there of her appointing those words to be
solemnly used in her Ordinal at the time of, and in the ordaining a man
to be a priest, but that she believed the powers of the priesthood, as to
absolution, to be then and thereby given to that man according to the
will of God and Christ? “I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.”
Would it not shew either an ignorance of the force of words which is
inconceivable, not merely in eminent theologians, which assuredly many of
our Reformers were, but in any one of sane mind, if the words appointed
to be so solemnly used, yet mean absolutely nothing? Or, if not this,
must it not argue an impiety amounting to blasphemy for the Church of any
country to draw up for use a service such as this, and, playing
unmeaningly or deceitfully with such holy words, not to suppose any gift
of the Holy Ghost, or any power of absolution, to be conveyed to those to
whom they are addressed? What could we esteem such a barren equivocation
with the holiest of things, if there were such design, but impious
mockery towards God and deceit towards man?
But further, we are not even left to such proof that our Church intends
no such mockery. Turn to the work of the priest on this very point of
absolution, and what is the light thrown by this upon the words of
ordination? I will pass over the Absolution both in our Morning and
Evening Prayers and in the Office of Holy Communion, as, though in each
case specifically limited to being given by the priest, they may be
thought to be capable of a sense chiefly or only declaratory, or
precatory. But I ask you to turn to two other places—1. to the end of
the second Exhortation, as to the coming to Holy Communion; and, 2. to
the Office for the Visitation of the Sick.
In the former place, after explanation of the preparation, “the way and
means” to come worthily to that Holy Sacrament, we find the following:
“And because it is requisite, that no man should come to the Holy
Communion but with a full trust in God’s mercy, and with a quiet
conscience; therefore if there be any of you, who by this means” (namely,
his own private examination of his life) “cannot quiet his own conscience
herein, but requireth further comfort or counsel, let him come to me, or
to some other discreet and learned minister of God’s Word, and open his
grief; that by the ministry of God’s holy Word, he may receive the
benefit of absolution,” (What is the benefit if there be no power to
absolve?) “together with ghostly counsel and advice, to the quieting of
his conscience, and avoiding all scruple and doubtfulness.” {89}
Here then, surely, he who has been ordained a priest, and received the
Holy Ghost that he may remit or retain sins, is to exercise his ministry
in the absolution of the penitent soul.
But if it be said, There is no minute description or account of the mode
of absolution, it may still be but declaratory or precatory; I say, then,
turn once again to another place, and see if the form and method of the
absolution be not there actually all which we can suppose even an Apostle
himself could use. In the Office for the Visitation of the Sick, when
the sick man is in the full contemplation of death, and perhaps death
very near at hand, the priest being solemnly engaged in his office of
preparing him for it, the distinct direction is given that the sick
person shall be “moved to make a special confession of his sins, if he
feel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter. After which
confession, the priest shall absolve him (if he humbly and heartily
desire it) after this sort.” And the words are: “Our Lord Jesus Christ,
who hath left power to His Church to absolve all sinners who truly repent
and believe in Him, of His great mercy forgive thee thine offences;” (so
far we have the declaration of the power left to the Church, and either,
it may be said, declaratory or precatory words, “forgive thee.” But this
is not all; immediately it is added), “And by His authority committed to
me, I absolve thee from all thy sins; in the name of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.” {90}
Now, brethren, I do not desire to say much in comment on such words as
these. But I do say, and I know not how to avoid saying, first, if such
authority was committed to the priest, when was it committed to him, or
how, but at his ordination, and in and by “the form and manner of
ordering priests,” which we have before noted? And, secondly, can any
reasonable being believe that the Church could have drawn up such a
service, and put such words into the priest’s mouth when dealing solemnly
and truly with a sick or dying man, and yet believe that such power of
absolution, as a part of the priest’s distinctive character and endowment
by God, had not been conferred upon him? or maintain that she thought our
Blessed Lord’s commission extended no further than to its first
recipients, and died out with the Apostles themselves, when still she
uses the words continually in her “ordering of priests?” If it be
said,—Well: still we cannot believe this, and can only say that we
heartily desire to remove from our Prayer-book and Ordinal, as a
blasphemous fable and a dangerous deceit, all traces of such authority
being given,—I can only reply that this argument is wholly beside our
present question. I am not now arguing whether such an interpretation
and use of Holy Scripture be the right interpretation and use, (though I
have given reasons before for feeling sure it is,) but I am shewing what
is the mind and understanding herein of the Church of England. I am
silencing, if I may, (and in the judgment of right reason I cannot
conceive that I should fail in doing so,) the calumny that they who
maintain the doctrine of the priesthood are disloyal to the Church of
England, or deviating from the principles of the Reformation. For, not
merely according to what right reason must, I think, enforce to be the
intention of those who drew up our formularies, but according to the
simple sense of those formularies, this doctrine and none other is the
only doctrine which can be made consistent with the documents themselves,
or which they can justly be taken to enunciate. We have at times heard
not a little of the dishonesty of those who, it is said, have taken our
formularies in a non-natural sense, on the Catholic side, though in a
sense which they deemed they would fairly bear. If this argument be good
for anything, against whom can it so conclusively be brought as against
such as will affirm that, when in the most solemn exercise of a bishop’s
office, the bishop says, “Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work
of a priest in the Church of God,” the Church intends that there is no
gift of the Holy Ghost bestowed, and no priest made at all? Or, again,
when he says, adopting Christ’s own words of commission,—“Whose sins thou
dost forgive they are forgiven unto them, and whose sins thou dost
retain, they are retained;”—that in this there is no intention to teach
that the commission of Christ extended beyond the Apostles themselves,
and that no power of binding or loosing is conferred by this solemn act?
Or, yet again, who tell us that when the priest is instructed to exercise
this holy function of absolving penitents, either that they may come
“with a full trust in God’s mercy and with a quiet conscience” to the
Holy Eucharist, or, in the solemn moments of serious sickness, perhaps
the near prospect of death, (things and times surely beyond all others to
drive away the very notion of unreal or unmeaning words, which must also,
if they be such, be to the poor penitent most deceitful and misleading
words also); that then the Church gives her instruction to use the word
of absolution, and say, “By His authority committed unto me, I absolve
thee from all thy sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Ghost,” and yet means hereby only a mockery and a delusion; that
there is no such power, no such authority, no such absolving at all;
surely all this is not a mere non-natural sense which the words will
bear, though it may not be the most obvious at first sight, but is a
non-natural sense so monstrous that they will not bear it at all.
So much I say in proof of the mind of the Church of England upon the
subject of the priesthood, as involved in the priestly function of
absolution. It is but a small part of what might be said, but it is as
much perhaps as our time will now permit, and I cannot understand it to
be less than sufficient (unless our Reformers in the sixteenth century,
and the Revisers of our Book of Common Prayer and offices since, are to
be esteemed either as the most incompetent or the most impious of men,)
to prove the point for which I have adduced the wording of our Ordinal,
and the comment upon this given by other parts of the Prayer-book,
namely, that our Church unmistakably maintains the doctrine of the
Christian priesthood, not merely the name but the thing, in the same
reality and power in which the Church universal has ever claimed and ever
maintained it.
And this remark may give us, if it please God, a wholesome thought with
which to conclude this morning. Let us ever strive and pray, that we may
never for a moment be severed in heart or hope, or even in thought, from
the universal Church. Let us love it, and cleave to it, as we
contemplate it one and undivided of old, however, alas, now distracted by
unhappy divisions. Let us beware of encouraging a self-sufficient or
self-reliant temper, as if we shewed our wisdom or independence, by
isolating ourselves from that which has been the faith of the Church, not
here or there, but everywhere from the beginning. If we can discover (as
in most points of importance we may if we will,) what are the truths
which have been held always, everywhere, and by all, (_semper_, _ubique_,
_ad omnibus_, according to the well-known rule of St. Vincentius,) we may
be certain that we shall run into no serious error, nor perverted
interpretations of Holy Scripture dangerous to our souls. Individuals,
however gifted, may go astray. Individual Churches may err, and have
erred, even in matters of faith; but the whole Church at large, the
Church Catholic, we may be sure, has not done so, nor ever shall, or how
should it be, what St. Paul tells us “the Church of God” is, “the pillar
and ground of the truth,” {95a} or how should be fulfilled our Blessed
Lord’s word and promise,—“The gates of hell shall not prevail against
It;” {95b} and again, “Lo! I am with you alway, even unto the end of the
world.” {95c} So, indeed, let us look upon Her with tender reverence as
the spouse of Christ. “Oh! pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall
prosper that love Thee.” {95d}
SERMON VI.
The Christian Altar.
HEBREWS xiii. 10.
“We have an Altar.”
I RESUME our subject: the priesthood, altar and sacrifice in the
Christian Church, and the mind of the Church of England upon it. On
Sunday last we treated of this in part, shewing in relation to it what
were the “old paths,” and pointing to the proof that our Church walks in
them, recognising and maintaining a true priesthood in those who minister
at her altars, by the solemn committal to them of the power of
absolution, a thing which she would not do upon any other hypothesis than
that of their possessing a true sacerdotal character. We had not time to
say much upon the altar or the sacrifice. Our text, however, now leads
us by no uncertain course to this portion of our subject, especially when
placed in connection with St. Paul’s emphatic question in another place:
“Are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?” You
will remember that we examined both those passages on a former occasion,
{97} when we were regarding the scriptural testimony to the doctrine, and
I need not repeat what I then said. But they will lead us on now
naturally,—after the remarks I made last week upon the Christian
priesthood, as borne witness to by the primitive Church, and maintained
in the Church of England,—to some consideration of the sacrifice also, as
borne witness to and maintained in like manner.
“We have an altar,” says the Apostle. Of course it is in the celebration
of the Holy Eucharist that this altar is used, and the sacrifice made;
the great commemorative sacrifice of the Christian Church, wherein we do
not repeat, or attempt to repeat, (God forbid,) the one sacrifice,
oblation, and satisfaction once for all made upon the Cross, but yet are
allowed to present before God the Father, the memorial of that
ever-blessed offering, by the Body and Blood of Christ really present,
(though not after the manner of any “corporal presence of Christ’s
natural flesh and blood,” but) after a true though mystical and heavenly
manner; to present this, I say, according to His will and ordinance, by
which it is granted us to apply to ourselves the merits of His death and
passion, and to obtain His own prevailing intercession for us before the
throne of God; whereby, too, our souls and bodies, as we “eat of the
sacrifice are partakers of the altar,” and gain heavenly nourishment and
sustenance unto everlasting life.