initial commit of ebook 49115HEADmain

9 files changed, 9163 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6833f05
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.gitattributes
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+* text=auto
+*.txt text
+*.md text
diff --git a/49115-0.txt b/49115-0.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..42673f1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/49115-0.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,4129 @@
+The Project Gutenberg eBook, Eight Sermons on The Priesthood, Altar, and
+Sacrifice, by Mayow Wynell Mayow
+
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
+other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions 
+whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of
+the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at 
+www.gutenberg.org.  If you are not located in the United States, you'll have
+to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook.
+
+
+
+
+Title: Eight Sermons on The Priesthood, Altar, and Sacrifice
+
+
+Author: Mayow Wynell Mayow
+
+
+
+Release Date: June 2, 2015  [eBook #49115]
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: UTF-8
+
+
+***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK EIGHT SERMONS ON THE PRIESTHOOD,
+ALTAR, AND SACRIFICE***
+
+
+Transcribed from the 1867 James Parker and Co. edition by David Price,
+email ccx074@pglaf.org
+
+
+
+
+
+                              Eight Sermons
+                                    ON
+                        THE PRIESTHOOD, ALTAR, AND
+                                SACRIFICE.
+
+
+                                * * * * *
+
+                                    BY
+                        MAYOW WYNELL MAYOW, M.A.,
+
+         PERPETUAL CURATE OF ST. MARY’S, WEST BROMPTON, AND LATE
+                    STUDENT OF CHRIST CHURCH, OXFORD.
+
+                                * * * * *
+
+    “The principles of Christianity are now as freely questioned as the
+    most doubtful and controverted points; the grounds of faith are as
+    safely denied as the most unnecessary superstructions; that religion
+    hath the greatest advantage which appeareth in the newest dress, as
+    if we looked for another faith to be delivered to the saints: whereas
+    in Christianity there can be no concerning truth which is not
+    ancient, and whatsoever is truly new, is certainly false.”—(BP.
+    PEARSON ON THE CREED: _Epistle Dedicatory_.)
+
+                                * * * * *
+
+                            Oxford and London:
+                           JAMES PARKER AND CO.
+                                  1867.
+
+                                * * * * *
+
+                      [Picture: Decorative graphic]
+
+                                * * * * *
+
+                                  TO THE
+                        RIGHT REV. FATHER IN GOD,
+                               WALTER KERR,
+                        LORD BISHOP OF SALISBURY,
+             IN GRATEFUL REMEMBRANCE OF A CONNECTION WITH HIS
+                DIOCESE FOR NEARLY A QUARTER OF A CENTURY,
+          AS A TOKEN OF REVERENCE FOR HIS OFFICE, AND UNFEIGNED
+                        RESPECT FOR HIS CHARACTER,
+                  AS SOME LITTLE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF MANY
+                           KINDNESSES RECEIVED,
+                 AND AS A HUMBLE TRIBUTE TO HIS CONSTANCY
+                        IN DEFENDING THE FAITH IN
+                          THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND,
+
+                               This Volume
+
+                      IS (BY PERMISSION) INSCRIBED,
+          BY HIS LORDSHIP’S VERY FAITHFUL AND GRATEFUL SERVANT,
+
+                               M. W. MAYOW.
+
+
+
+
+ADVERTISEMENT.
+
+
+THE following Sermons were preached at St. Mary’s, West Brompton, in
+November and December, 1866.  They are now printed as a humble
+contribution towards the defence of the Catholic doctrine of the
+priesthood, the altar, and the sacrifice, in days when there seem no
+limits to assault upon it, when there prevails every conceivable
+confusion between what is Catholic and what is Roman, and when there is
+the widest misapprehension of the principles of our Reformation.  If this
+small volume should contribute in any way to a better understanding of
+those principles, and to the vindication of the loyalty to our own Church
+of such as, maintaining its Catholic character, desire equally to be
+loyal to the Church Universal, (and believe in truth that there is no
+antagonism between them,) it will not, I trust, be wholly useless.  If,
+further, it should lead any, in the spirit of candour and of prayer, to
+give more consideration to this doctrine than perhaps hitherto they have
+done, and especially to consult larger and more learned works upon the
+subject, I shall have great additional reason to be thankful.
+
+It is, I hope, hardly necessary to add that there is no intention or
+desire in anything here said to pass judgment upon individuals, either
+within or without our own communion.  It will be found stated in the
+following discourses how readily we believe that many receive the
+benefits of the Christian altar and sacrifice who are yet unconscious of
+them; whilst it is also willingly acknowledged, even as regards those who
+more directly deny Catholic doctrine, that the present divided state of
+Christendom, and the wide differences of teaching within our own
+communion, make it a very different thing to be unable to see, (or even
+to oppose,) the truth than would be the case if the Church were still
+united, as of old, in one harmonious voice and one external communion, or
+if there were a perfect unanimity among ourselves.  When, alas, even
+priests are found to repudiate their priesthood, it must be admitted,
+without reserve, that there is too much excuse for the laity being
+uncertain and perplexed.  Whilst this teaches us to award the largest
+measure of charitable construction to those who differ from us, it gives
+only the more urgent cause both to state and vindicate the ancient faith,
+and to shew that it was in God’s mercy preserved to us at the
+Reformation.
+
+I must not omit to say that I am indebted to Mr. Carter’s excellent
+treatise for many facts, suggestions, and illustrations, even beyond
+those which the references given explicitly acknowledge.
+
+                                                                  M. W. M.
+
+ST. MARY’S, WEST BROMPTON.
+         _February_ 7, 1867.
+
+
+
+
+CONTENTS.
+
+                               SERMON I.
+
+                                (p. 1.)
+
+ Treasure in Earthen Vessels.—Faith, not Sight, the Recogniser of the
+                              Priesthood.
+
+    “But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency
+        of the power may be of God, and not of us.”—2 _Cor._ iv. 7.
+                              SERMON II.
+
+                               (p. 23.)
+
+The Witness of the World, before Christ, to the Doctrine of Sacrifice.
+
+                  “Thus did Job continually.”—_Job_ i. 5.
+                              SERMON III.
+
+                               (p. 45.)
+
+    The Witness of the New Testament to the Doctrine of Sacrifice.
+
+        “Are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the
+                          altar?”—1 _Cor._ x. 18.
+                              SERMON IV.
+
+                               (p. 63.)
+
+ The Testimony of the Early Church to the Doctrine of the Priesthood.
+
+     “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.”—_Jer._ vi. 16.
+                               SERMON V.
+
+                               (p. 79.)
+
+  The Testimony of our Formularies to the Doctrine of the Priesthood.
+
+    “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.”—_St. John_ xx. 22, 23.
+                              SERMON VI.
+
+                               (p. 97.)
+
+                         The Christian Altar.
+
+                 “We have an altar.”—_Heb._ xiii. 10.
+                              SERMON VII.
+
+                               (p. 113.)
+
+                         The Christian Altar.
+
+                 “We have an altar.”—_Heb._ xiii. 10.
+                             SERMON VIII.
+
+                               (p. 135.)
+
+                 God Incarnate our Great High Priest.
+
+“In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”—_Coloss._
+                                ii. 3.
+
+
+
+
+
+SERMON I.
+Treasure in Earthen Vessels.—Faith, not Sight, the Recogniser of the
+Priesthood.
+
+
+                             2 CORINTHIANS iv. 7.
+    “But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of
+                   the power may be of God, and not of us.”
+
+THE words rendered “in earthen vessels,” are easy enough as to their
+general sense.   _Ἐν ὀστρακίνοις σκεύεσιν_, (the Apostle says,) where
+_σκεύος_ may stand for any kind of utensil or household stuff.  It is the
+word used in St. Matthew, “How can one enter a strong man’s house and
+spoil his _goods_;” {1} any of his household stuff or possessions; whilst
+_ὀστράκίνοιν_, (the same word which gave its name to the well-known
+Grecian _ostracism_, from the mode of voting,) signifying in its first
+sense that which is made of shell and therefore brittle, is often used in
+a derived sense for anything frail and liable to break, and when broken
+not to be re-joined.  Therefore, again, it represents anything poor and
+mean, as compared with other stronger or more precious material.  Thus,
+in his second Epistle to Timothy, St. Paul uses the very same word to
+denote those inferior vessels which are made for less honourable use:
+“But in a great house, there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but
+also of wood and of earth; _ὀστράκινα_;—and some to honour, and some to
+dishonour.” {2a}
+
+We cannot, then, err as to the general meaning of the text, if we take it
+to express the fact that great gifts of God—treasure—may be, and are,
+according to His will, and for good and wise reason, lodged in weak and
+frail tenements, giving little outward sign of that which is hid within:
+great riches enshrined in poor and mean caskets, even as the soul of man
+dwells in the earthy tabernacle, (that red earth or clay which gave its
+very name to Adam,) when “the Lord God formed man of the dust of the
+ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became
+a living soul.” {2b}
+
+But St. Paul’s application of the figure here is somewhat different from
+the illustration just used.  It is not life, or an immortal soul shrouded
+in a mortal body, of which he speaks, but some special gift or gifts of
+God for the use of His Church and people, which he declares had been
+entrusted to vessels of little “form or comeliness.”  And it will be of
+much interest and importance both to trace out what this treasure is, and
+what are the vessels in which it is placed, as well as to insist upon the
+fact that the treasure is not the less, because thus shrouded or
+obscured; and that it gives no cause to deny the existence of the
+treasure, that those who bear it seem either so like other men as they
+do, or so little worthy in themselves of what they bear.
+
+Now, to see what the treasure is, we need turn back but a little way.  In
+the preceding chapter, speaking of himself and others charged with the
+ministry of the Gospel, the Apostle says, deprecating all high thoughts
+in those so honoured: “Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think
+anything as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God, who also hath
+made us able ministers of the New Testament;” and then, after thus
+disclaiming all personal merit or glory, he goes on immediately to
+contrast the glory of the Gospel with the glories of the earlier
+dispensation.  “For if the ministration of death,” he says, “written and
+engraven in stones was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not
+stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance;
+which glory was to be done away: how shall not the ministration of the
+Spirit be rather glorious?  For if the ministration of condemnation be
+glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.”
+{3a}  Pursuing this thought a little further, and enlarging upon the
+glories of the ministration of the Spirit of the Lord which giveth life,
+he comes back; at the opening of the fourth chapter, more closely to the
+subject of his ministry, and says: “Therefore, as we have received this
+ministry, we faint not;” {3b} and after a word on the effect of the
+Gospel which he preached, that it led to the “renouncing the hidden
+things of dishonesty;” {4a} and another, as to its being sufficiently
+manifested to every willing heart, and so, if hidden, hidden only “to
+them that are lost, whom the God of this world hath blinded;” {4b} he
+returns once more to what it was which he preached, and declares how this
+great treasure,—“the unsearchable riches of Christ,” as he elsewhere
+describes it,—was entrusted to poor and weak instruments; “for we
+preach,” he says, “not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and
+ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake.  For God, who commanded the
+light to shine out of darkness,” (that is, in the natural world when He
+said, “Let there be light:”) “hath shined in our hearts,” (that is, in
+the new creation of the spiritual world,) “to give the light of the
+knowledge of the glory of God, in the face of Jesus Christ.” {4c}  And
+then, in the text, he seems to meet an objection, that if his call and
+ministry in the Gospel were of so glorious a nature, the instruments
+thereof would bear more or higher marks of glory themselves, he adds the
+words of our text: “But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that
+the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.” {4d}
+
+And now, brethren, again I ask, what is the treasure, and to whom
+committed?  Surely the ministry of the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ,
+entrusted to human stewardship!
+
+And who shall disparage this, or overlook it, or deny the gifts and
+treasure of and in those who bear it, though they be but as earthen
+vessels; though they look simply like other men; though they are “men of
+like passions;” though they have few or no high marks or tokens, to be
+discerned by man’s eye, of the greatness of the treasure which
+nevertheless they bear?
+
+This thought, this warning against denying God’s gifts when lodged in
+earthen vessels, and so speaking against them as actually to make a new
+Gospel totally unlike to that which has been from the beginning, is
+especially a danger of our day: a day when men live so much by sight,
+and, alas, so little by faith; when restless and free enquiry ranges over
+every subject, and men pride themselves upon their refusal to submit to
+any authority but their own reason, or their own mere opinion, or to
+receive anything beyond that of which they can understand the mode and
+assign the use.
+
+Not, perhaps, the most unfrequent of these attacks of the present time is
+directed against almost the very subject of our text: the reality of the
+treasure or gifts bestowed upon the ministers and stewards of Christ’s
+mysteries, because they are contained in earthen vessels.  Whereas St.
+Paul fully claims and asserts that there is this treasure, and gives as
+the sufficient reason for its being so lowlily enshrined, that thereby it
+would be seen indeed that “the excellency of the power is of God, and not
+of man;” {6} these objectors deny there can be any such treasure as it is
+asserted there is, because it is not to their eye exhibited in or by,
+glorious, or sufficiently distinctive, instruments.
+
+Take a case in illustration, very near indeed to the argument of the
+Apostle in this place.  If our Christianity in our beloved Church of
+England is, and is to be, the Christianity which has been from the
+beginning, it cannot be without a priesthood, and an altar, and a
+sacrifice.  I do not propose at this moment to go into the proofs of
+this, but rather to notice an objection which is sometimes triumphantly
+put forward, by modern infidelity or ignorance, as fatal to all such
+claims.  It is said, that if it were so that there is a priesthood,
+(which it is intended to deny;—O sad and fearful thought!  That any
+should be found to deny and refuse the chiefest means of applying to us
+the pardon of the Cross): but if it were so, then, it is said this
+priesthood must be seen to be such by some peculiar exhibition of its
+powers, by some glorious or distinctive appearance in the
+treasure-bearing vessels.  So it is said, Whatever there may be
+elsewhere, the Church of England at least has no priesthood, and no
+priests.  No!  Can any one believe (it is added) that they are priests
+who are young men, as others, one day; and are ordained, with so little
+outward difference, the next?  Can it be that prayers and a laying on of
+hands, even by bishops, can effect such a change when all looks so nearly
+the same?  No, truly!  If such there were, if such there be, if we are to
+believe in a power given of this kind, if the priest can consecrate, and
+offer upon the altar of God, let us see the difference.  Let the young,
+who are to fill such an office, be educated, not as other young men are,
+living with them in social life at our schools and Universities, but as
+set apart for this from their earliest days.  Let them be known of all as
+a separate kind or caste; let them have a distinctive dress; let them
+give up social life; let them, above all, renounce the married state, and
+give themselves up to pursue their avocation in the single life; and
+then, perhaps, we may be more inclined to believe in their sacrificial
+function; in their power to officiate sacerdotally at the altar; in the
+committal to them of the power of the keys, and all which is included in
+the idea of a distinct order and a priestly authority.  Now all this,
+brethren, is mere man’s wisdom, setting forth, in truth, not what it
+really desires to find as the mark of a priesthood, if it might have this
+in vessels of gold or silver, but simply, if it may not disparage and
+deny a priesthood of Christianity altogether, (which yet it desires to
+do), at least delighting to deny it to _us_; to raise a prejudice against
+it, and to drive from the Church of England (if it were possible) all
+those who cleave to the statements of our formularies as they are, and to
+the faith once for all delivered and handed down to us.
+
+But observe, brethren, what all this really amounts to.  I am not saying
+whether there should not be (unto the more edification), a more
+distinctive theological education for the future priesthood than very
+often there is among us.  I am not saying whether there might not, with
+advantage, be some greater distinction in outward appearance or dress,
+than we have among us generally, for those who minister in holy things.
+(Let it, however, here be remarked, that the greatest objection and
+hindrance as to this proceeds, as we well know, from the clamours of
+those who would first deny us all priestly character, and then reproach
+any who, claiming it, are anxious to mark it also by some outward
+difference.)  I am not, however, now dwelling upon these things, nor even
+on what are the advantages or disadvantages of a celibate clergy, but I
+say that to suppose the presence or absence of these outward signs or
+marks should affect the essence of the priesthood, and men being in
+reality and truth ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of
+God, in the full sense in which these words are understood in all the
+primitive writings and liturgies of the Church of Christ, shews, not only
+an ignorance of the very first principles of Christian worship, but a
+strange overlooking of the truth taught in the text, and confirmed to us
+in so many other places of Holy Scripture.  If St. Paul confessed that,
+even with him, his ministry was confided to an earthen vessel; if there
+were no need and no likelihood that any of the primitive stewards of
+God’s mysteries should be distinguished as by a star upon their breast,
+or any insignia of their rank in the Apostolic band, then it can amount
+to nothing as a disproof of the priesthood of the ministry of the Church
+of England, that those who serve at her altars have but the outward look
+and bearing of other men.
+
+We may even carry this argument further, if it may be so done with due
+reverence and humility.  We may take, not merely prophets and Apostles,
+but our blessed Lord Himself,—our King as well as our great High
+Priest,—and say of Him, that, although of course it is not objectively
+true that He had any of His gifts or powers in an earthen vessel, (save
+in the sense that He took upon Him man’s nature, and so being of Adam’s
+race—yet without sin—had His share of the earth of which Adam was
+created); but though, I say, except thus, He held not anything in an
+earthen vessel objectively, still, on the other hand, subjectively, to
+man’s sight and apprehension, He veiled His Godhead, He emptied Himself
+of His glory, He obscured His greatness, so that nearly throughout His
+life and ministry He was passed over as a common man, or His claims
+denied, and Himself treated as an impostor.  In spite of the holiness of
+His life, the tenderness of His compassion, the purity of His precepts,
+the marvels of His teaching, the abundance and power of His miracles, yet
+He was not received or accepted generally as other than a common man.
+The Jews were offended at Him.  He was to them “a stumbling block,” as He
+was to the Greeks “foolishness.”  He came in no outward manifestation of
+glory; He was not in kings’ courts; He had no armies or numerous
+followers; He won no carnal victories; He did nothing “to restore the
+kingdom to Israel,” in any sense which the Jewish nation could observe or
+recognise; nay, in His very priestly acts, and in that greatest of them
+in which He did in truth offer up the great sacrifice of all, He appeared
+to man’s eye in no such aspect.  Even as a victim, He was only considered
+as a malefactor put to death, whilst it may be well doubted whether even
+His own Apostles had the least insight at the time into the nature of the
+sacrifice He made; and none of them had a single thought or perception of
+the priesthood which He exercised.  So, indeed, He seemed to have “no
+form nor comeliness;” {10a} “His visage was so marred more than any man,
+and His form more than the sons of men.” {10b}  He seemed to have all He
+had in an earthen vessel, undistinguished and undistinguishable by the
+vulgar eye from others who were around Him, or who had preceded Him, with
+some pretensions to be teachers, or reformers of manners, but who had
+disappeared and left no trace behind them.  Is it, then, so certain that
+those who now “seek after a sign” before they admit any claim to “the
+office of a priest in the Church of God,” and who look for various marks
+and distinctions in outward show or appearance before they will entertain
+the doctrine as belonging to the Church of England; is it, I say, so
+certain that they would not have rejected Christ Himself, as not coming
+up to their mark and requirement, if they had seen Him in the days of His
+ministration upon earth?
+
+But let us pass on from the priesthood of our Lord and Saviour, and turn
+again for a moment to the Apostles and their fellow-labourers.  Observe,
+I am not engaged in proving now their priestly character, nor the truth
+of the sacrifices, or altars of the Christian religion; (we may come to
+this another day;) but I am merely meeting the preliminary objection that
+there can be no such things, at least, none such in the Church of
+England, because our priesthood is not more manifestly set forth in
+outward show to the eye of the world, by a more distinctive priestly
+education, or a more distinctive priestly dress, or a more distinctive
+(as is supposed) priestly life as separated from social life; and this
+particularly by the exhibition of an unmarried clergy.  As I have before
+said, I am not even giving an opinion on the advantages or disadvantages
+of some of these things; but I am asking the plain broad question, What
+right have we, from Scripture and Scriptural example, to say these
+differences are needful to the existence of a priesthood?  Be the
+priesthood and ministerial powers of St. Peter and St. Paul, and others
+their companions, what they may, did they shew them forth as in vessels
+of gold and silver, or were they not what we may call obscured,
+undistinguished, not (in many particulars at least) dissevered from
+social life, but just like other men; in short, with their treasure borne
+in earthen vessels, however really great and precious in itself?
+
+Carry your mind back, brethren, to Simon Peter with Andrew his brother,
+to James and John, the sons of Zebedee, fishing on the sea of Galilee.
+There is no reason, at I know of, to suppose that they wholly gave up
+this their occupation immediately upon their endowments at the day of
+Pentecost.  They certainly pursued them as long as their Lord was with
+them, and after the Crucifixion.  Nay, after the Resurrection; after
+Jesus had appeared unto the Eleven; after He had “breathed on them and
+said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost,” and conveyed to them, (if any thing
+could do so,) the priestly power, saying, “Whose soever sins ye remit,
+they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are
+retained,” {12} still Simon Peter said to the rest, “I go a fishing; and
+they said unto him, We also go with thee.” {13a}  Will any one dare to
+say, Had they been true priests of God, they must have pursued another
+mode of life, and borne the marks of their office more demonstratively
+and visibly before the eyes of men?  Will any say, We cannot receive it
+that the hands, engaged one day in casting a hook into the sea, or
+spreading or mending nets, can be those which exercise, the next, (or the
+same if so it be,) the Christian ministerial office,—in breaking of
+bread, and celebrating the most holy Christian mysteries?  Will any say
+that the lips which called to their partners for help, or in direction as
+to the safety or management of their boats and fishing, must therefore be
+incapable of preaching the glad tidings of the Gospel, or of exercising
+the commission given them of binding and loosing in the name of Christ?
+Or, think of St. Paul, with his fellow-helper and companion in labour,
+Aquila, working with their hands at their craft, “for by their occupation
+they were tent-makers;” {13b} aye, even “working night and day,” that
+they “might not be chargeable” to others: and will any say, Herein they
+shewed themselves too like to other men to put forward any pretence or
+claim to have or exercise any priestly or sacerdotal function.  Will any
+again call to mind that St. Peter was certainly a married man; (“Peter’s
+wife’s mother,” we read at one time, “was sick of a fever;”) as also
+certainly was Aquila the companion in labour of St. Paul, (for he came
+“with his wife Priscilla;”) or, once more, St. Paul’s own claim to the
+right (though he did not exercise it, but still the right) to marry if he
+thought fit; as he says, “Have we not power to eat and to drink?  Have we
+not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other Apostles, and
+as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?” {14} will any consider so much,
+and then say, you must needs have a celibate priesthood, if you are to
+have any priesthood at all in the Church of Christ; or, if there be one,
+it must be one so separated from all earthly pursuit as to be recognised
+at a glance as of a different order?
+
+Nay, my brethren, such things are surely no arguments of even a feather’s
+weight in the mouth of any man against a true priesthood in the Church of
+England; and one can hardly see how they can be supposed, by any
+sober-minded thinker, to be either contained in, or deduced from, Holy
+Scripture.  They are, in fact, objections merely playing with the
+prejudices of those who have already come to a foregone conclusion, and
+intended rather to point an unjust shaft at the Church of England,
+through a mock admiration of the Church of Rome, than to advance the
+cause of truth.  And this with no justice, even towards Rome herself,
+either in praise or blame; for Rome herself may have something to say in
+defence of her practice as to the distinctions with which she marks her
+priesthood, if looked on merely as matters of expediency and not of faith
+or doctrine; and at the same time, we certainly have no little reason to
+maintain that in many of these things, (and however there may be
+incidental disadvantages which we need not deny, on the ground of
+expediency also,) yet we come the nearer of the two to the following of
+the Apostles, in the not making too broad an outward distinction between
+priests and people, and in the not having laid a yoke hard to be borne,
+perhaps, as a wide and extended rule, too hard to be borne, upon our
+priesthood’s neck; and, in short, that we are at any rate close upon the
+very type and pattern which St. Paul mentions in our text, in that we too
+have our treasure in earthen vessels, and may, in one sense at least,
+rejoice that it is so, inasmuch as thereby it may be seen by all “that
+the excellency of the power is of God, and not of us.”
+
+Further, it needs surely no words to prove that such objections and such
+line of argument in denial of our priesthood, can have but one effect, if
+they have any, namely, to forward the interests of the Church of Rome.
+This, I presume, ought in consistency to be the last wish of those who
+use them.  But so it is, and in this way.  There is no more possibility
+of any one, who has the knowledge of what Christianity has been from the
+beginning, being moved by such assertions to disbelieve the great
+doctrines of the priesthood, the altar, and the sacrifice, as belonging,
+and necessarily belonging, to the Church Universal, than there is of the
+words of the objectors moving mountains or drying up seas.  We can no
+more unlearn the very first elements of the appointed mode of our
+applying to Christ for His intercession on high for us miserable
+sinners,—no more believe the Catholic truths which we have drunk in to be
+mere human figments and superstitious inventions,—than we could return to
+the system of Ptolemy, and believe the earth to be the centre round which
+the sun and the stars revolve.  Nothing, therefore, can be gained in this
+direction by those who propound such views.  But if it should be that
+any, who know what the Church Universal holds and has ever held on these
+points, should, by weakness or inadvertence, be shaken in their belief
+that the Church of England maintains these doctrines and preserves this
+sacerdotal order,—if any should come to think that perhaps after all she
+has not a priesthood, and an altar, and a sacrifice, then such would no
+doubt begin to fail in their allegiance to her, and be afraid longer to
+trust their souls to her teaching or her keeping.  No well-instructed,
+patient, humble-minded member of the Church of England can, I think, be
+deceived by so sophistical an argument as that which we have been
+considering; but, of course, all are not well instructed, nor, perchance,
+are all patient or humble minded, and hence it may be, there _is_ a
+danger.  But if there be this danger, or if any defections should follow
+upon such defamation of our Church, those who put forth the libel must
+have upon their conscience the weight of having aided the Church of Rome
+against their Mother Church of England.
+
+But to return; take but two brief illustrations further of our subject.
+You will remember the contention between St. Paul and St. Barnabas
+concerning “Mark, sister’s son to Barnabas,” whom “Paul thought not good
+to take with them,” and how it “was so sharp between them that they
+parted asunder one from the other.” {17a}  Again, you will recollect the
+occasion when at Antioch St. Paul (as he says), “withstood” St. Peter “to
+the face because he was to be blamed;” saying to him “before them all, If
+thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as do
+the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?”
+Consider that “the other Jews dissembled likewise with him, insomuch that
+Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation;” and to such a
+point did this reach, that St. Paul declares he “saw that they walked not
+uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel;” {17b} put all this
+together and then say whether, upon the grounds of the objection urged,
+any one might not far more plausibly have denied to the Apostles
+themselves any just power or fitness to rule or teach authoritatively in
+the Church of God, than any man can deny the priesthood of the Church of
+England because its power is not more demonstratively shewn among us.
+
+Or, for a second point, note this:—Does, or did ever, the admission to
+the Christian covenant, and the wondrous gift of God, the new birth of
+water and of the Spirit, by which, as the Apostle plainly teaches,
+Christians are made the temples of the Holy Ghost; does it, or did it
+ever, make such outward show of difference as will enable man to decide,
+immediately and infallibly, who are Christ’s, and who are forfeiting or
+have forfeited the gift bestowed?  Then, if there be not this palpable
+manifestation as to the Christian life in each, why should there be a
+more manifest and outward demonstration of the treasure of the
+priesthood?  If the grace of Baptism be not thus self-evident, and ever
+recognised by sight, why must the grace of Orders be so either?  Oh! when
+shall we learn to believe instead of to cavil; to use the blessings God
+gives us, not to dispute about them; to judge, not according to
+appearance, but to judge righteous judgment; to believe there is a
+treasure, even the treasure which the Church has ever believed and
+declared to be in her ministry and stewardship, though it be contained in
+earthen vessels?
+
+One word more, brethren, of most serious weight and import, as to such
+objections and I objectors.  Carry your mind back to the time of Christ,
+to the labours of Apostles and Evangelists, and the infancy of the
+Church, and see of what Spirit they are.  I am not speaking, remember, of
+all who may, from one cause or other, not be able to receive the doctrine
+of the Christian priesthood and altar, and who, we may well hope and
+believe, many of them receive the blessing of these gifts of Christ,
+though they know it not; but I speak of the particular objection with
+which I have all along been dealing,—that there cannot be a Priesthood,
+unless marked by striking outward differences visible by all.  And I ask,
+what would have been the part taken, if the framers of such a test, being
+consistent in their objection, had lived in the days of Christ on earth?
+Surely we should have heard them saying, aye, in spite of His mighty
+works and great High Priesthood, “Is not this the carpenter’s Son?  Is
+not His mother called Mary, and His brethren James, and Joses, and Simon,
+and Judas?  And His sisters, are they not all with us?” {19a}  What is He
+different from another?  Or what more likely than that expecting
+something different in show and demeanour in the great Apostle of the
+Gentiles, they would have joined in the reproach: “His bodily presence is
+weak and his speech contemptible!” {19b} and have rejected Him?
+
+If these things shew us the dangers of such a line of argument, let them
+keep us from any word said to countenance or support it.  It is a solemn
+thought that we cannot, by even the most careless word of levity, express
+approval of such assaults upon the ancient faith, or sympathy with those
+who make them, without becoming sharers in their responsibility.  For it
+is thus, by a few words here and a few there, that public opinion is
+formed or strengthened; and what can be more awful than to have helped to
+form it adversely to the truth of God, and in derogation of that
+“ministry of reconciliation,” and those means of grace, which He has
+appointed.  Surely the sin of such must be, like that of the sons of Eli,
+“very great before the Lord,” when a prejudice is raised by which men, if
+they do not “abhor,” are at least taught to deny and despise, “the
+offering of the Lord.”  At the same time, let us pray earnestly for them,
+for, we will hope and trust, “they know not what they do.”  Let us not
+wish that they went out from us, but let us hope and pray that they may
+be turned to better things.  Let us remember, too, as a ground of
+charity, that many fall into error here because too much, for many years,
+the teaching of the primitive Church and of Catholic antiquity has been
+overlooked as a guide to the due understanding of the Scriptures; and
+again, because the face of Christendom, alas, is not now so one and
+undivided as to present all truth in due form, and mode, and weight, to
+each man’s acceptance.  The glory of our Reformation is, indeed, that it
+appeals to antiquity, and carries us back to the early Church; but these
+later days have too much overlooked this great principle of the
+Reformation.  So it has happened, that what is, alas, the misfortune and
+the reproach of Christendom—I mean its divided state—may be, and we will
+hope is, some palliation before God for defect in those who wish to
+follow the truth, but are unable at the present moment to see or to
+accept it.  So let us above all pray to the one great Lord of all, that
+in His good time the Church may again be one, not only in its essence,
+which it must be, (we believe in but “one holy Catholic and Apostolic
+Church,”) but also in its life, and in a re-established communion of the
+Saints; that being indeed, if it may be so, once more one, our Lord’s own
+prayer for it may be fulfilled, and His promise accomplished, and “the
+world believe that God hath sent Him.” {21a}  And let us ourselves,
+brethren, ever remember that all we have in treasure is indeed in earthen
+vessels, and let us for ourselves be content to be reviled and threatened
+(yes, as the holy Apostle was, and his Lord and Master before him), for
+“the disciple is not above his Master, nor the servant above his Lord.”
+{21b}  Neither, indeed, let us count it a strange thing, “as though some
+strange thing happened unto us,” {21c} if we have to “go forth bearing
+the reproach of Christ” {22a} and His Apostles; nay, rather, “being
+reviled, let us bless; being persecuted” (if so it be), “let us suffer
+it; being defamed, let us intreat;” yea, let us be willing to be “made as
+the filth of the world, and the off-scouring of all things,” {22b} so
+that we may but do our Master’s work, and preserve His truth in the midst
+of a crooked and perverse generation, and win souls to Christ, and, if it
+may be so indeed, “finish our course with joy, and the ministry, which we
+have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the Gospel of the grace of
+God.” {22c}
+
+
+
+
+SERMON II.
+The Witness of the World, before Christ, to the Doctrine of Sacrifice.
+
+
+                                  JOB i. 5.
+                         “Thus did Job continually.”
+
+THAT which such a man as Job “did continually,” we shall naturally
+conclude was well-pleasing in the sight of God.  The Almighty’s own
+witness to his character is given in His Word addressed to Satan: “Hast
+thou considered My servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth,
+a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?”
+{23}  And when we couple this with the circumstances to which the text
+relates, and the tone of the whole narrative, we shall find, I think,
+more than a _prima facie_ probability that the act so mentioned was not
+only right in itself, but that it bore a significant import, not merely
+to those who lived near Job’s own time or in his own country, but to the
+world at large.
+
+What then is it to which the text alludes?
+
+Job, we read, was a man of great substance as well as great integrity,
+living in a very early time in the land of Uz.  Moreover, besides his
+great possessions, we are told that he had seven sons and three
+daughters.  And we find that his sons were used, “to feast in their
+houses, every one his day;” and that on these occasions it was their
+custom to “send and call for their three sisters to eat and to drink with
+them;” a token, (as a well-known commentator has fairly enough
+conjectured,) both of their harmonious family affection and of the good
+order and conduct which prevailed in their feastings, or so holy a man as
+Job would not have permitted his daughters to join in their festivity.
+But, nevertheless, we read that Job in his anxious care was mindful to
+intercede for them, even in case they might have erred or sinned in the
+fulness of their rejoicing, or in the exuberance of their mirth.  “And it
+was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent
+and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered
+burnt-offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may
+be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts.  Thus did
+Job continually.” {24}
+
+Here, then, we have no doubtful witness, not merely to the usage of
+sacrifice, but to its acceptableness also in the sight of God, as a part
+of worship and intercession.  And this is all the more, not merely
+curious, but important, when we reflect upon the very early date almost
+universally assigned to the events related in the Book of Job.  Whether
+the record itself may have been composed at a somewhat later period, as
+some have thought, yet all authorities are, I believe, agreed that the
+time of Job’s life was contemporaneous with even the earliest part of the
+life of Moses, and, therefore, that he did not derive his knowledge of
+God from the institutions of the Jews, or live under the Mosaic
+dispensation.  The consenting witness, both of the Jews themselves and of
+the early Christian writers accepting their testimony, is that Job is the
+same as Jobab, mentioned in the first book of Chronicles, who is there
+named as the third in descent from Esau; so that he, as well as Moses,
+was the fifth in descent from Abraham,—the one in the line of Esau, and
+the other in the line of Jacob.  Moreover, it would appear that this Job
+or Jobab was, if not absolutely what may be termed a king, yet a ruler
+and a prince in the land called Uz, or Ausitis, a country on the
+confines, probably, of Idumæa and Arabia.  If this be so, he would seem,
+from the summary given in the first book of Chronicles, to have succeeded
+Balaam in the sovereignty or chiefdom of that country.  “For,” (says that
+narrative,) “these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before
+any king reigned over the children of Israel; Bela the son of Beor,”
+(undoubtedly the same as Balaam); “and the name of his city was Dinhabah.
+And when Bela was dead, Jobab the son of Zerah of Bozrah reigned in his
+stead.” {26a}  Now we find in the book of Numbers, that Balaam the son of
+Beor was killed in battle, fighting on the side of Midian in the last
+year of the Israelites’ wandering in the wilderness, {26b} and supposing
+Job’s trial to have taken place (as some ancient writers assert) some few
+years after the Exodus, as he lived one hundred and forty years after
+those events, he may very well have succeeded to the chief place among
+the Idumæan or Uzzite people upon the death of Balaam.  The importance of
+this to our present purpose lies in the fact, that he is thus a witness
+to the antiquity and the use of sacrifice and burnt-offering, quite
+independently of the institutions and commands of the Mosaic law.  If Job
+were of man’s estate, and had sons and daughters of like estate also, (as
+the narrative unquestionably implies,) even before his sufferings, he
+must have been born not far in time from the birth of Moses, probably
+some little while before him; and what he “did continually” in his own
+country, and apart from Moses, is a witness to the practice and
+acceptableness of sacrifice, anterior to the enactments of the law from
+Sinai; and a witness, not merely, let us observe, to the use of
+sacrifice, but to sacrifice by burnt-offering, when the victim was killed
+and consumed upon the altar of God.
+
+Now this leads us back to consider what is the probable origin of
+sacrifice, and sacrifice of this kind, altogether; for it is thus
+evident, that it was adopted into, and not originated by, the peculiar
+institutions of the Jewish nation and law.
+
+Now, of course we see at once where we must turn for the first account of
+sacrifice.  The primal exercise of this mode of approach to God, is that
+recorded in the fourth chapter of the book of Genesis, which shews at
+once the need which the Fall had brought upon man of drawing nigh to God,
+not without a propitiation; and at the same time exhibits, in sad
+prominence, the first-fruits of that corruption of nature entailed by it,
+which provoked the eldest-born of the world, in malignant envy of heart,
+to slay his next born brother.
+
+Let us turn, then, to a brief consideration of those events, as
+illustrative of the origin and nature of sacrifice.
+
+Look first to St. John’s and St. Paul’s account of the cause of Cain’s
+quarrel against his brother Abel.  “And wherefore slew he him?” (says St.
+John), “Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous.”
+{27a}  And St. Paul tells us wherein Abel’s righteousness and superiority
+consisted: “By faith he offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than
+Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying
+of his gifts.” {27b}  The narrative in the Book of Genesis tells us the
+same thing as to the fact that Cain’s offering was rejected and Abel’s
+accepted; but without the Apostle’s comment we should not have precisely
+traced the cause of this rejection and acceptance: but we know now that
+it was _faith_ in the one and a _want of faith_ in the other, in which
+the distinction lay; and also that somehow this difference was exhibited
+in the gifts which they brought: “God” (of Abel) “testifying of his
+gifts.”  By this, too, St. Paul tells us, “He being dead still speaketh;”
+a statement which brings the whole matter home to ourselves.  The
+narrative then is this: “And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a
+tiller of the ground.  And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain
+brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord.  And Abel,
+he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof.
+And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering: but unto Cain and
+to his offering He had not respect.” {28}
+
+This takes us back to the origin of sacrifice; and the first remark which
+occurs is, that it would seem highly probable that its institution was a
+matter of revelation from God to Adam; for though mere reason and moral
+feeling might make the creature see the propriety of offering to the
+Creator something of that which His bounty had bestowed, and possibly
+might lead to the thought that it should be not mean, but good and
+precious, yet there are so many attendant circumstances in the
+institution, which it does not appear possible to account for upon the
+hypothesis of the mere dictates of reason and feeling, that we can hardly
+ascribe the practice to anything short of a communication of the divine
+will to man.  However, be this as it may, it is plain that both Cain and
+Abel were conscious of the duty of offering sacrifice or oblation in some
+kind to God.  And each brought of that which he had.  So far, it might be
+thought, Cain was not behind his brother.  “Abel was a keeper of sheep,
+but Cain was a tiller of the ground.”  Cain brought of the fruit of the
+ground, but Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock, and (it is
+added) “of the fat thereof.”  Now it may be we are intended to note a
+difference here,—that Abel’s offering, the firstlings and the fat,
+denotes the earliest and the best: as if he hastened to acknowledge, in
+all thankfulness and humility, that he was not worthy to touch or use
+anything he had, until he had sanctified it by first offering of it to
+God; and this, the first he had, and the best: whilst the more scanty
+narrative as to Cain, that he merely brought of the fruit of the ground,
+may mark that he took no heed to bring of the first, nor of the best.  He
+would offer _something_ as an acknowledgment of God’s power,—perhaps,
+too, of His goodness,—but not in that due spirit of unmeasured humility
+and thankfulness, which alone was becoming in a son of Adam.  But this,
+if it were so, does not seem to be all which is implied as to his lack of
+faith.  To understand wherein this lay, we must remember the promise made
+to our first parents after the Fall, of “the seed of the woman” who
+should “bruise the serpent’s head.” {30a}  Faith in this seed, the hope,
+the only hope of the world after Adam’s transgression, seems to be the
+thing intended; and if we suppose that God was pleased to reveal to our
+first parents some further particulars as to the mode of the atonement to
+be made by shedding of blood, by which this hope was to be fulfilled, and
+the victory to be obtained, we shall be furnished, not merely with a clue
+to the difference in the acceptableness of the offerings of the two, but
+also with a key to a large part of the Holy Scriptures, and an
+understanding what manner of faith should be in every one of us, as well
+as to much that is important as to the history and design of sacrifice.
+Let it be granted, then, as highly probable, that to Adam a revelation
+was given that in him, as the federal head of mankind, and by his
+transgression, as deteriorating the whole race to spring from him, were
+all men lost by nature, and further, that “without shedding of blood
+should be no remission;” {30b} but that by a worthy sacrifice and
+blood-shedding should the promised seed of the woman in due time effect a
+reconciliation for them and their descendants, and reverse the evil and
+the curse of their transgression.  Surely, then, from that time forward,
+a faith in the efficacy of a sacrifice by blood would be required, and
+would be acceptable to God.  Cain, then, would be evidently one who had
+not this faith, who denied, and disbelieved, and did not look forward to,
+this sacrifice, or cast himself upon this mercy.  By bringing of the
+fruits of the ground, he may be considered to have made acknowledgment of
+the power and goodness of God, in causing the seed to grow and the corn
+to ripen; he may have done as much as we do, when we merely confess that
+we must look to God for rain, and sunshine, and “fruitful seasons,
+filling our hearts with food and gladness;” (therefore, by the way, let
+us not think too highly of ourselves if we do confess so much; it is
+right, but it is a very small part of religion:) he may have meant to
+express thankfulness for blessing, but observe what he did not express.
+He made no acknowledgment of sin; he exhibited no sense of unworthiness;
+he confessed no shortcomings; he gave no sign of sorrow or repentance; he
+asked no mercy; above all, he turned to no one out of himself—no
+intercessor, no mediator between his God and him.  He shewed no sign of
+looking to a Saviour to make atonement, atonement by blood: he looked to
+no “Lamb of God to take away the sins of the world” in general, and his
+own sins in particular.  He ignored, then, the whole promise which was
+the sole hope of man.  He may have said, “God, I thank Thee,” but he
+shewed himself to be wholly without the feeling “God be merciful to me a
+sinner.”
+
+But, on the other hand, Abel brought of the sheep or goats which were of
+his flock.  He offered up not an unbloody sacrifice.  He laid the victim
+on the altar, and believing God, as well as feeling his need of a
+Saviour, he looked forward with the eye of faith to an expiation greater
+than that of kids, or lambs, or bulls, or goats, to take away sin.  Nay
+more, he shewed his sense of the need of an atonement out of and beyond
+himself; for the blood of the victim offered described at once the sense
+of his own blood being required as a penalty, if justice only held its
+course and no expiatory sacrifice were found, and represented also, in
+true type and figure, that better sacrifice, that more precious blood,
+which should be shed in the fulness of the time to make such an
+expiation, even that of “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of
+the world.”
+
+Now I have gone through this history with what I think is its probable
+and satisfactory explanation, because not merely does it serve to shew
+what the Apostle means when he tells us it was by faith that Abel pleased
+God, and that God testified of his gifts, but also because the very same
+remarks seem to apply to the whole history and intention of sacrifice, as
+either commanded or accepted, or both, by Almighty God from the
+beginning.  Take such to be the origin of propitiary sacrifice, and I
+think nothing can more fully agree with, or illustrate, or be illustrated
+by, the further progress both of the fact and doctrine as we find them,
+first in the Holy Scripture, and, secondly, in the world at large, even
+though by the world’s wickedness so fearfully perverted.  In perfect
+accordance with such beginning of acceptable sacrifice we have the same
+used and practised, and with the like acceptance, by Noah, Abraham,
+Melchizedek, Isaac, and Jacob, {33a} and, indeed, by all the patriarchs
+until the institution was embodied in the law of Moses.  As we know,
+also, it was practised by all the heathen nations of antiquity of whom we
+have any record, though with them its true meaning and intention were
+fearfully lost and perverted.  Nor does the difference in the instance of
+Abraham on one occasion, as to his being ready to offer a human sacrifice
+in the person of his son (which was of course a wholly exceptional case
+as regards the sacrifices of those knowing the true God), make any
+difference as to the witness of the acceptableness of sacrifice by blood,
+or the consuming the victim upon the altar.  It has, indeed, been
+disputed whether Abraham were not the more easily reconciled to the idea
+of sacrificing his son, or even incited to it, by the customary “fierce
+ritual” of the Syrians around him; but independently of the utter
+contradiction which this view would give to the account in Holy
+Scripture, by the attribution of any other motive for Abraham’s conduct
+than the command of God, received in all faith, and leading to all
+obedience, it may well be doubted whether a perverse misinterpretation of
+the sacrifice which Abraham was thus ready to make, and an utter
+inattention to the real circumstances of that case, may not have been,
+instead of in any way the _consequence_, rather the _cause_ of the
+nations around falling into the practice of human sacrifice.  But, be
+this as it may, we have the plain witness to the usage of sacrifice, and
+its efficacy when performed according to the will of God.  Also, that it
+prefigured the great sacrifice by the blood of a pure victim, as well as
+in itself taught the lesson that (as afterwards expressed by the Apostle
+to the Hebrews) “without shedding of blood is no remission.” {34}
+
+And all this we see consolidated and confirmed, as well as more fully
+expanded and defined, under the Law.  And especially there, a certain new
+element in its administration is introduced, in the appointment of a
+particular order for the performance of the service.  In all the earlier
+usage, it would seem that the head of the family or tribe acted as the
+ministering priest.  And there is no disproof of this, as far as I see,
+in the account of even the first sacrifice of all.  For there is nothing
+in the narrative in the Book of Genesis to shew that Cain and Abel were
+themselves the acting priests (if we may so term it) in the sacrifice.
+They may each, for aught that appears to the contrary, have brought their
+offering to Adam, and it may have been by his hand that the different
+oblations were placed before God, and presented or devoted to Him.  Such
+as the office and privilege of the head or chief, would seem to have been
+the recognised right and duty of such persons throughout the patriarchal
+age; but as the rule of patriarchs in secular matters merged in that of
+kings, as nations grew out of families, so the office of chiefs as
+priests, however thus exercised by Noah, Abraham, Melchizedek, or Job,
+seems to have been afterwards restricted to a tribe, or family, or other
+persons, set apart for the special service, and denominated priests,
+ἱερεῖς, or _sacerdotes_; names implying their dedication to holy things,
+and their exclusive rights in many particulars to deal with them.  And
+this theory of worship, if we may so call it, was not merely reduced to a
+system by God’s law among the Jews, but also prevailed universally among
+the heathen world from the very earliest times of which any records are
+preserved.  Hesiod, Homer, Herodotus, bear witness to it, and the
+universal practice of all nations substantiates it, whether in the
+barbarian forms of the ancient Druidical or other worship in the ruder
+peoples of the world, or in the more refined practice of Greece and Rome,
+or in the grotesque or cruel rites of the eastern countries, or
+absolutely barbarian tribes.  They all have their altars, their priests,
+and their sacrifices, and in most, if not in all, the notion of
+propitiation by the blood of the victim has prevailed.
+
+It need hardly be added that in the provisions of the Mosaic Law all
+these principles were embodied, so that, with every safeguard introduced
+against the perversions, the sensuality, the materialism, and the
+cruelty, which pervaded all forms and systems of idol worship, yet the
+true worship of Jehovah, as established by Himself, embraced, and
+contained, and stereotyped under the mark of His own approval, nay, of
+His absolute command, the same three points, of an altar, a priesthood,
+and a sacrifice; yes, a sacrifice in the sense of more than a mere
+oblation or offering,—a sacrifice by blood of a victim slain, and
+consumed in the very act of the commanded worship.  For it ought never to
+be forgotten that amid all other offerings that were permitted,—nay, for
+certain purposes enjoined, as, for instance, for thank-offerings, or for
+mere legal purification,—yet, under the Jewish Law, the particular
+sacrifice which was appointed for expiation of any moral offence was the
+burnt-offering, where the victim, as I have said, was killed, and
+afterwards consumed by fire upon the altar; {36} and this appears to have
+no exception, unless it were in the case of the extremely poor, who might
+offer the tenth part of an ephah of meal; but even then, I believe, it is
+considered that this was placed upon a victim offered by others, or by
+the priest, for the sins of the people, and so may be deemed to have made
+a part of a sacrifice with blood.  So that, in truth, as St. Paul says to
+the Hebrews, “almost all things are by the law purged with blood, and
+without shedding of blood is no remission.”
+
+We might say much on this head, and more particularly upon the
+appointment of the Passover, and the light thrown by this institution
+upon the typical character of sacrifice generally, and its relation to
+the great sacrifice of all,—the Lamb slain, once for all upon the cross,
+for the sins of the world; but the outline already given of the doctrine
+taught by the sacrifice of Abel will readily suggest a key to the true
+intention of the ever-recurring sacrifices of the Jews, and to the manner
+in which they (although “the blood of bulls and of goats could never take
+away sin,” yet) pointed to, and prepared the way for, our understanding
+the nature of the sacrifice of Christ, and, indeed, were the great means
+to elicit and foster faith in Him who should come, and to teach all the
+world daily and continually to look to Him who alone is its salvation,
+without whom, and whose mercy, no flesh should be saved at all.
+
+We have brought, then, our statement, and I may say our argument, to this
+point; first, generally that the whole world, with one consent, bears
+witness to the usage of sacrifice.  The whole world from Adam to
+Christ,—Patriarchal, Jewish, Gentile, Barbarian, Civilized, North, South,
+East, and West, together (for the new world when discovered was found
+herein not to be divergent from the old),—testifies, I say, with one mind
+and one mouth, as to the Being of a God, so likewise to this usage of
+sacrifice.  And again, secondly, and more particularly, the witness
+agrees, that the sacrifice is made, (to speak generally,) not without
+blood, and made for the purpose of reconciliation, after sin committed,
+with the supernatural being or beings invoked, or for propitiation and
+intercession in cases of favour sought.  Even, still further is there
+accordant and consenting witness; that there will be, as necessary
+accompaniments to the sacrifice, an altar on which it is to be made, and
+a specially set apart order of men: priests (ίερεῖς, _sacerdotes_, or
+however particularly designated), by whom these sacrifices should be
+offered up, and intercessions made on behalf of the people.  So much the
+whole world testifies generally, in spite of certain differences of
+usage, and the fearful abominations which prevailed amongst those who did
+not retain the true God in their knowledge:—the cruelty, licentiousness,
+and abhorrent vice into which this worship, when it degenerated into idol
+worship, everywhere sunk; which, however, it is plain, is no more an
+argument against sacrifice, holily and obediently offered in accordance
+with God’s appointment, than the superstitions of heathen invocation are
+an argument against godly prayer and intercession.  And thus, too, we see
+that this very idea of sacrifice, (without the vicious accompaniments,)
+prevailed among God’s children from the first,—as with Abel, Noah,
+Melchisedek, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Job; whilst by God’s own sanction
+and special command, and, with what in human affairs we should call the
+most laborious care and pains, the whole system was, under Moses,
+recognised, enlarged, defined, and embodied in a whole code of laws, to
+be in their very minutest details carried out until the Mediator of a new
+covenant should come, when that which was old should be ready to vanish
+away.
+
+But it is well worthy of all our care in examination, to see whether it
+is the essence of this idea, and even mode, of worship which is done
+away, or only its ceremonial and local detail, as established in the
+Jewish Church and polity; whether—as all sacrifices before Christ were
+intended to look forward to Him, and His precious, inestimable,
+expiation, to be once made by blood and suffering upon the altar of the
+cross—whether, I say, so it has not been His will to continue an altar
+and a priesthood, and therewith and thereby a sacrifice
+commemorative—but, though commemorative, nevertheless perfectly real and
+true—by which the Christian Church may both look back to Him, then dying
+once for all, and ever plead afresh the merits of His death before the
+throne of God on high.  As Abraham looked forward, and “rejoiced to see
+His day, and saw it, and was glad;” {40a} what if, so likewise, the
+Christian Church is to look back on Him, and to rejoice; not merely to
+see Him and be glad, but to be allowed also, according to His own will
+and ordinance,—(aye, brethren, observe, of and by His own very
+appointment, whereby His very body and blood are truly offered up to
+God,)—allowed thus to plead, week by week and day by day, the very
+all-prevailing merits of that same sacrifice upon the cross; yea, and be
+the means of Himself graciously pleading it for His people ever afresh
+before the mercy-seat of His Father.  O, my brethren, if this be so, who
+can undervalue this great thing, or disparage it, or attempt to throw it
+off, or deny it, or trample it under foot, without a sacrilege fearful to
+think of?  But, again, if this be so, how is the Lamb of God, and His
+precious blood-shedding, made, more than in any other way which we can
+conceive, the centre towards which the whole world looks, from its
+earliest to its latest day; from the moment of the promise that the seed
+of the woman should bruise the serpent’s head, {40b} until that awful
+hour when that same seed of the woman, the Son of Man, shall come in the
+clouds of heaven with power and great glory?  I do not say, it is not
+conceivable that the whole system and machinery (so to call it), of
+priest, and altar, and sacrifice, might have fulfilled its purpose at the
+hour of the crucifixion, and nothing remain of it, or like it, in the
+Christian Church; nothing in the Christian ministry to answer to the
+previous priesthood; nothing in it, but a set of teachers or expounders
+of the Christian faith; a faith, however, be it remarked, in that case, a
+very different thing from that which the Church has ever supposed it to
+be, or (as I think) the Holy Scripture sets before us.  But even if all
+this be conceivable, I do say, and I think no unprejudiced person should
+dispute it, that the whole testimony and usage of all previous time in
+this matter, the whole of what holy men “did continually” in relation to
+it, not merely with God’s manifest approval, but even with His especial
+sanction, and by His positive command, raises a very strong _prima facie_
+presumption, that all this was not intended to be, and was not, thus
+abrogated and done away; and that, at the very least, we ought to have
+shewn us the most express and distinct proofs of its being thus
+abrogated, before we can accept its abrogation.  We have been accustomed
+to see, rather, that instead of being abrogated, the usage is changed and
+glorified; changed from the shadow to the image, from wood and stone to
+silver and gold, from a comparatively dead state to a glorious living
+one, from the ministration of death to the ministration of life; but, if
+this be not so, then, indeed, we may surely ask to see this reversal of
+all which the economy of God’s dealings would seem to lead us to,
+expressly promulgated and proved by the word of Christ or His Apostles;
+so plainly set down as to need no explanation further; or else, so
+explained by those who immediately followed them, and had the best means
+of understanding their sense and design, as to leave us no ground for
+reasonable doubt, or we must be excused if we cannot accept the mere
+assertion of so improbable a thing as true, or believe the unchangeable
+God to be so like a Man that He should thus repent.
+
+A fair examination into this question is most important, but we cannot
+enter upon it at the present moment.  We must necessarily defer it to
+another day.  I trust, with God’s help and guidance, to resume our
+subject on Sunday next, and endeavour further to see how the doctrine
+really stands, taking, briefly but carefully, into consideration these
+three points:—
+
+1.  What is the testimony of the Holy Scripture as to the doctrine of the
+Christian priesthood, altar, and sacrifice?
+
+2.  How this has been understood by the Church from the beginning? and,
+
+3.  How it has been received by our own branch of the Church Catholic,
+the Church of England?
+
+And I will only add now, whilst I pray that we may all strive simply to
+know the will of God that we may do it, that there can be no more
+practical matter than this to engage our thoughts and hearts.  For, if it
+be so, that Christ has left Him no priests now on earth to minister at
+His altars, and no sacrifice with which His people are concerned, a great
+part of what so many believe, I might say, of what the Church of God for
+eighteen hundred years and more has believed, to be of the essence of our
+faith, is a mere fable and superstition; whilst if, on the other hand,
+“it be truth, and the thing certain,” {43} that a Christian priesthood,
+ordained by Christ Himself, and these sacrificial powers, and altar and
+sacrifice, remain and must remain ever in His Church, what words shall
+describe the misery and sin of those who are endeavouring to rob a whole
+nation of their belief in such truth of God, and to pour more than slight
+and contempt upon the ordinances of Christ; so that, in fact, they would,
+if they could have their will and way, unchurch the Church of God in this
+land, deny the virtue of His mysteries, and starve the children of God
+who seek to receive at His altar the benefits of His sacrifice, humbly
+waiting on Him there, and partaking of the sacrifice and feast ordained
+by Him.
+
+Oh! let us pray indeed that we may come to the consideration of so
+weighty a matter, casting away all passion and prejudice and preconceived
+opinion, and whatsoever may hinder us from seeing the truth of God, to
+which may He of His mercy guide us.  And may He grant us also that we may
+not merely know the truth, but when we know it follow it, in our daily
+life and conversation, without turning aside to the right hand or to the
+left.
+
+
+
+
+SERMON III.
+Witness of the New Testament to the Doctrine of Sacrifice.
+
+
+                             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.
+
+We have seen already that such is the judgment and doctrine of the
+primitive Church in its understanding of Holy Scripture, as shewn by the
+early Christian writers, and by the ancient liturgies.  Also, that the
+doctrine was maintained continuously for fifteen hundred years.  Our
+question now is, What has our own Church said and done in this matter at
+or since the Reformation?  Does she maintain, or does she reject, the
+previous teaching of the Church Universal, and put something else in the
+place of its doctrine, and its understanding of Holy Scripture upon the
+subject?
+
+We cannot here go into a minute history of all which was done at the
+Reformation in this regard.  But I think we may, within reasonable
+compass, arrive at a satisfactory general conclusion.  If we compare our
+Church’s Eucharistic Office with the ancient liturgies which have been
+preserved to us, we may see, I might almost say, at a glance, whether in
+prayer, in praise, in oblation, in general design and structure, we
+follow in their steps, or make “some new thing.”  It cannot be disputed
+that in design and structure those liturgies all proclaim the doctrine of
+priest, sacrifice, and altar.  This is interwoven with their whole
+system.  It was the one understanding of Christians in those days as to
+what their liturgies contained.  If, then, we find that the Church of
+England follows carefully in their steps, and maintains in her
+Eucharistic Office the whole substance of those liturgies,—at any rate,
+all the main points in which they agree together, even though it be with
+some differences of arrangement, such as might naturally be
+expected,—surely we prove our point, and cannot doubt that our Reformers
+had no design to break away from the ancient faith, though they would
+cast off Roman error and Roman usurpation, and therefore that our Church
+not only does not condemn, but adopts and continues, (as in truth she
+never dreamed of any other thing,) the doctrine of the Church Universal
+in this matter.
+
+Take, then, the following short account of the structure, form, and usage
+of the ancient liturgies.  I extract it from Mr. Carter’s book, as I know
+of no better way to place it before you:—“The following brief digest,” he
+says, “may give some idea of this system of devotion into which the mind
+of Christendom was habitually casting itself in its communion with God.
+It will be readily seen how the outline corresponds with our own
+Eucharistic Office.  One or more collects; lessons from Holy Scripture; a
+sermon, sometimes preceded by a hymn or anthem; prayers for the
+catechumens, penitents, and others, who, with a benediction, were then
+dismissed; the creed, the offertory, with the oblations of bread and
+wine” (observe, first offered by being placed upon the altar); then,
+“thanksgivings and intercessions, with a commemoration of the dead in
+Christ.  Then, the more mystical portion of the Liturgy commenced, and in
+all cases with the very same words, _Sursum corda_, (‘Lift up your
+hearts’); a thanksgiving, closing with the _Ter sanctus_, (‘holy, holy,
+holy’); intercessory prayers; consecration of the elements, with the
+repetition of our Lord’s words of institution; a second oblation of the
+now consecrated elements, (this was not always expressed in
+words,—sometimes silently, and in act only); an invocation of the Holy
+Ghost.  This is not found in the Roman nor in the Gallican
+Liturgies;”—(so, observe, we do not forsake the doctrine of the sacrifice
+if we have it not, for no one will suspect the Roman Church, which was
+equally without it, of denying or disparaging that doctrine;)—then,
+“intercessory prayers for the whole Church, the dead as well as the
+living;”—(this, however, would be praying only for the dead in Christ,
+for none other would be considered as part of the Church after the time
+of probation is over: though in this world, and in the Church on earth,
+the good and evil, the wheat and tares grow together, it is not so in the
+Church beyond the grave:)—“the Lord’s Prayer; a benediction;
+administration or communion; thanksgiving; _Gloria in excelsis_; final
+benediction.” {101}
+
+Now will any one take this account of the liturgies and usage of the
+ancient Church, which on all hands confessedly is admitted to have held
+the doctrine for which we contend, and then, comparing these with the
+Eucharistic Service of our own Church, doubt for a moment that the Church
+of England at the Reformation intended to preserve, and did preserve, the
+ancient form and practice, and therefore the ancient faith, in this
+matter? {102}
+
+The Articles and Catechism of our Church are perfectly in accordance with
+this conclusion.  Although the former, as we well know, were drawn up
+rather to guard against current errors of that day than to state doctrine
+upon points not brought into controversy, {103} they indirectly confirm
+what has been said.  For instance, the Twenty-fifth Article, guarding
+against the notion of a gross carnal presence of Christ in the Holy
+Eucharist, expressed by the term ‘transubstantiation,’ might not be
+called upon, within its proper scope, to say anything in the way of dogma
+asserting the doctrine of sacrifice; but yet we find in it the statement
+that sacraments “be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s
+profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses and effectual signs
+of grace,”—that is, signs effecting what they signify, and therefore, in
+the case of the Holy Communion, effecting or procuring for sinners pardon
+through Christ’s body broken and blood shed, even as there, “as often as
+we eat that bread and drink that cup we do shew the Lord’s death till He
+come,” {104} all which is in perfect accordance and harmony with the
+doctrine of a true propitiatory commemorative sacrifice therein offered
+up to God.
+
+One point further in relation to the Articles I will notice, lest I seem
+to overlook an objection.  It is sometimes said, If the doctrine of a
+true and propitiatory sacrifice in the Holy Eucharist be admitted, there
+is a contradiction to the Thirty-first Article, which tells us that “the
+sacrifices of masses, in which it was commonly said that the priest did
+offer Christ for the quick and dead, to have remission of pain or guilt,
+were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits.”  It is assumed that any
+doctrine of a real and true sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ in
+the Holy Eucharist must come under this condemnation, and so it is
+sometimes thought that the whole question is thus decided.  But, not to
+notice other points not without importance, but which we can hardly spare
+time to go into now, one thing surely is evident,—that the whole Article
+must be read together if we would rightly understand it.  It is: “The
+offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation,
+and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and
+actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin but that alone.
+Wherefore the sacrifices of masses, in the which it was commonly said
+that the priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have
+remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous
+deceits.”  Now it is plain that the contrast here is between the one
+satisfaction for sin made by agony and blood upon the cross, and any
+supposed repetition of that painful and bloody sacrifice.  “There is none
+other but that alone;” wherefore, for which reason, such attempts at
+sacrifice as would repeat it, or such teaching as would imply that Christ
+repeats it and suffers again, “are blasphemous fables and dangerous
+deceits.”  If, then, in anything we say there were a doctrine of its
+repetition, if we did not absolutely and entirely disclaim (as we all
+along have done) any such attempt and any such view of the sacrifice of
+the Christian altar, there would be a condemnation by the Article of our
+teaching.  But certainly neither its terms nor its scope deal with any
+view of a merely unbloody commemorative sacrifice, appointed to be
+continually made in the Church of God so long as the world lasteth, by
+which the sacrifice upon the cross is never supposed to be repeated, but
+its sole merits applied to the believing and obedient heart, and the
+prevailing pleading and intercession of the Son of God presenting our
+prayers and praises, our penitence and offerings, before the throne of
+the heavenly grace are secured, and He Himself, our Advocate with the
+Father, is our propitiation.  This no more interferes with the one “full,
+perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the
+sins of the whole world, once offered” upon the cross, than His own
+continued intercession at the right hand of God (and certainly “He ever
+liveth to make intercession for us,”) {106} interferes with, or is
+inconsistent with, the same.
+
+So much I have thought it well to say on the Thirty-first Article,
+because it is sometimes misunderstood and misapplied.
+
+Next, I would say just a word as to the teaching of the Church Catechism,
+which it would not be right to pass over.  I think it throws a further
+light upon the doctrine of the sacrifice and the altar, for it not only
+tells us that “the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken
+and received by the faithful in the Lord’s Supper,” (that is, the
+baptized, Christian people, for so the word is always used in strict
+theological language,) and therefore certainly that there is a real
+presence of His Body and Blood; but it also says that that Holy Sacrament
+was ordained “for the continual remembrance of the sacrifice of the death
+of Christ, and of the benefits which we receive thereby,”—where, as in
+the Communion Office itself, the term ‘remembrance’ is also to be
+understood in its complete theological sense as the memorial, the
+continual memorial before God, which by the offering up of the sacrifice
+is made in the Holy Eucharist; all which is strictly accordant with the
+doctrine of the primitive Church and the ancient liturgies; for, to sum
+up with the words of the learned Mede, “They (the ancient Fathers)
+believed that our blessed Lord ordained the Sacrament of His Body and
+Blood as a rite to bless and invocate His Father by, instead of the
+manifold and bloody sacrifices of the Law, . . . the mystery of which
+rite they took to be this, that as Christ, by presenting His death and
+satisfaction to His Father, continually intercedes for us in heaven, so
+the Church semblably (i.e. in a like manner) approaches the throne of
+grace by representing Christ unto His Father in those holy mysteries of
+His death and passion.” {107}
+
+If further proof still be required of our Church’s mind from the
+Reformation downward, let it be noted how often this doctrine has been
+assailed, and yet how, on every occasion, the Church has refused to
+depart from the ancient rule and faith.  As one instance, take the fact,
+that at the last revision in 1662, when the real meaning of the Puritan
+objections was well and fully understood, and when the demand was
+absolutely made by their leaders, both that the absolution by the priest
+should plainly be made only declaratory, and that the word ‘priest’
+should be wholly omitted and ‘minister’ substituted, the Church refused
+both these demands: the bishops replying to the first, that the words as
+standing in the Visitation Service were far nearer to those of Christ
+Himself in the commission given, as these were, not, whose soever sins ye
+declare to be remitted, but, “whose soever sins ye remit,” and to the
+second, “It is not reasonable that the word ‘minister’ should be only
+used in the liturgy; for since some parts of the liturgy may be performed
+by a deacon, others by none under the order of a priest, viz. absolution
+and consecration, it is fit that some such word as ‘priest’ should be
+used for these offices, and not ‘minister,’ which signifies at large
+every one that ministers in that holy office, of what order soever he
+be;” {108} whilst yet again, it has been well noted, that the care of the
+Church was increased in this last revision to preserve the distinction
+and the doctrine dependent upon the word ‘priest,’ now that the
+objections to it were the better understood.  For it has been pointed out
+that the word ‘priest’ occurs ninety times in the first book of King
+Edward the Sixth; fifty-five times in the second book, when the Puritan
+influence of the foreign reformers obtained its height; whilst in our
+present Prayer-book it occurs eighty-eight times: and an examination in
+detail would shew that this restoration was made on principle, and that
+wherever the term ‘priest’ is employed, more or less of the sacerdotal,
+or strictly priestly character and authority is implied; whilst where the
+term ‘minister’ is used, it is either as to simply a ministerial, as
+distinguished from a sacerdotal act, or the meaning of the term is
+determined by the previous use of the word ‘priest.’ {109}  So that as to
+this whole ministration, we may well adopt the weighty and persuasive
+language of Dr. Hickes, where, summing up a detailed argument against
+Cudworth, who had invented the theory that the Holy Eucharist was only a
+feast upon a sacrifice, and not a sacrifice itself, he says: “I have said
+all this in defence of the old, against the Doctor’s new notion of the
+Holy Eucharist, much more out of love to that old truth than to prove
+Christian ministers to be proper priests.  For, it will follow even from
+this,” (that is, from Cudworth’s own view,) “that they must be proper
+priests, because, as none but a priest can offer a sacrifice, so none but
+a priest can preside and minister in such a sacrificial feast as he
+allows the Holy Sacrament to be.  Who but a priest can receive the
+elements from the people, set them upon the holy table, and offer up to
+God such solemn prayers, praises, and thanksgivings for the congregation,
+and make such solemn intercessions for them as are now, and ever were,
+offered and made in this Holy Sacrament?  Who but a priest can consecrate
+the elements and make them the mystical Body and Blood of Christ?  Who
+but a priest can stand in God’s stead at His table, and in His Name
+receive His guests?  Who but a priest hath power to break the Bread, and
+bless the Cup, and make a solemn memorial before God of His Son’s
+sufferings, and then deliver His sacramental Body and Blood to the
+faithful communicants, as tokens of His meritorious sufferings, and
+pledges of their salvation?  A man authorized thus to act ‘for men in
+things pertaining to God,’ and for God in things pertaining to men, must
+needs be a priest; and such holy ministrations must needs be sacerdotal,
+whether the holy table be an altar, or the Sacrament a sacrifice or not.”
+{110}
+
+To what conclusion, then, can we come but to that of the learned
+Archbishop Bramhall?  “He who saith, Take thou authority to exercise the
+office of a priest in the Church of God (as the Protestant consecrators
+do), doth intend all things requisite to the priestly function, and,
+among the rest, to offer a representative sacrifice, to commemorate and
+apply the sacrifice which Christ made upon the Cross:”{111a}—or to the
+brief but weighty saying of St. Jerome?  “Ecclesia non est, quæ non habet
+Sacerdotes.” {111b}
+
+Once more, brethren, we must pause, and as we do so, let us pray to Him
+from whom “cometh down every good and every perfect gift,” {111c} that He
+may give us His grace more and more to realize, and more and more to
+thank Him for the great privileges which He has vouchsafed to us in His
+“holy Catholic Church.”  “We have an altar” to which we may come, the
+same blessed feast, of which we may partake, the same blessed sacrifice,
+in which we may join, which has ever been in His Church from the
+beginning.  As the Israelites were taught to remember, as to their land
+flowing with milk and honey, that they “gat it not in possession through
+their own sword, neither was it their own arm that helped them;” {111d}
+Oh, so let us ever say with heart and voice, “Not unto us, O Lord, not
+unto us, but unto Thy Name give the praise, for Thy loving mercy, and for
+Thy truth’s sake.” {111e}
+
+
+
+
+SERMON VII.
+The Christian Altar.
+
+
+                              HEBREWS xiii. 10.
+                             “We have an Altar.”
+
+IT may be well, before we proceed with our general subject, to call your
+attention to one particular as to the course of our argument.  You may
+have observed that I have not, except here and there incidentally,
+entered into any examination of the nature of the Christian sacrifice
+itself, any more than I have into any details or particulars of the
+doctrine of absolution, such as its power and effect, or the necessary
+limitations to be understood in its application.  And this has been done
+advisedly, because I was not so much concerned, for instance, with the
+doctrine of absolution in itself, as with it in relation to, and as a
+proof of, the necessary existence of a sacerdotal power in those to whom
+it is entrusted; and therefore if I shewed that such authority is, in and
+by the Church of England, considered to be vested in those who minister
+at her altars, I inferred thence, I think justly, the existence of a
+priesthood in the mind of our Church.  This has been the object with
+which I have referred to that doctrine in illustration, and not to
+discuss the nature or define the powers of absolution itself.  As,
+however, I have here touched upon it again, I may add, lest any mistake
+or misconception arise, that no one pretends the efficient power to
+absolve, (any more than to offer sacrifice,) lies in the priest himself.
+He is but the instrument administering the grace of God.  The history of
+the cure of the lame man at the beautiful gate of the Temple (which we
+lately read) may well illustrate this.  Surely no one will deny that the
+power to heal him was vested in St. Peter and St. John, whilst it is
+clear also, beyond all dispute, that not by their “own power or holiness
+had they made that man to walk.” {114}  What, then, is there incredible
+in the affirmation that the power of the keys is vested in a priest as
+the instrument, though all the authority and absolving power is from God
+only; so that it is God and not man who pardons, and makes any man whole
+from sin.  “Who, indeed, can forgive sins but God only?”  But he who is
+invested with such authority, even instrumentally, is exactly what we
+term a ‘priest;’ and our argument has been (to recur to it thus for a
+moment) that the Church, which regards men as so endowed, regards them as
+priests of God.
+
+I return more generally to the declaration of the text, “We have an
+altar;” and I will adduce one further illustration of the mind of the
+Church of England hereon, by a reference to the foreign Reformation.
+Take the two systems of Luther and Calvin, and what do we find?  Luther
+was already a priest before he began the Reformation, and he had no
+design to cast off the priestly element and character in his Reformation.
+He and other priests who joined him did not cease to administer
+Sacraments, or to teach their efficacy.  The Confession of Augsburgh,
+which embodies the principles of the German Reformation, asserts
+regeneration in baptism, private confession to a priest, the grace of
+absolution, and the real presence in the Holy Eucharist.  It also fully
+recognises (as with this teaching we should expect it would) the
+priesthood in its true meaning.  Luther did not design or promulgate a
+change of system in any of these doctrines.  What he did declare, under
+the exigencies of his position, because no bishop joined him, was, that
+for the purposes of continuing the priesthood and its powers, no
+episcopacy was necessary, but that priests could make priests; as Mr.
+Carter observes, a perfectly new doctrine in the Church of God.  But the
+whole proceeding shewed that a sacramental system was maintained after
+the pattern of the Church, nay, with true priests to administer it for a
+time, but without the only ordained means of transmitting the same powers
+to the succeeding generation.  Now how great a testimony is this to the
+true doctrine, and how much light does it throw upon the acts of our own
+reformers at home, who, with a true episcopate and the power of
+succession unimpaired, were not likely to design a less perfect system
+than the German Reformer admitted and maintained in his theory, though he
+failed in the appointed means validly to carry it out.
+
+And Luther’s testimony is all the more weighty when we remember that he
+was one who had so little reverence for antiquity or authority, that at
+one time he rejected and denied the inspiration of the Epistle of St.
+James, because he could not make its teaching as to good works square
+with his own theory of justification; and, at another time, absolutely
+exhorted the elect to sin boldly and shamelessly that they might be fit
+objects for the mercy of God, and because no sin which they could commit
+could frustrate the grace of God toward them! and yet even such a man
+wholly received and enforced the ancient doctrine of the priesthood, and
+its accompaniments, the altar and the sacrifice.
+
+Glance for a moment at the teaching of Calvin, and you will find another
+theological aspect.  Calvin was not a priest; he had, therefore, no
+authority to administer Sacraments; so he took the bold line of rejecting
+the doctrine of a priesthood altogether.  He taught that Christ was the
+only Priest of the New Testament, and that Christian ministers were only,
+what such names as elders and pastors might denote, rulers and teachers
+that is, in the Church of Christ.  This is the first of those three
+functions which we spoke of in a former discourse, as connected with the
+priesthood, but is just that one which we then said lacked the
+distinctive character of the priesthood,—the power of absolution and of
+offering sacrifice.  So much Calvin allowed to his ministry, but all else
+he denied!
+
+Now, it is obvious, that besides his own defect in point of orders, (that
+he was not, like Luther, a priest,) his system was one to dispose him to
+reject this doctrine; for what need of a priesthood, or any external
+means of approaching God acceptably, when his theory and teaching was
+that of individual election and reprobation, determined from all
+eternity, according to the mere purpose of God?  How naturally would such
+a system dispense with the priesthood?  Aye, and there seems hardly room
+to doubt that it would equally well have dispensed with Sacraments.  But
+here both the testimony of Holy Scripture, and the whole usage of the
+Christian world, as to fact, were too strong for him.  He saw he could
+not actually reject Sacraments, although his system might well do without
+them.  It is true, there was evidence of the same kind, both in Scripture
+and in antiquity, for the priesthood also.  But it was much easier to
+discard the doctrine as a mere matter of opinion, (so he might call it,)
+than to set aside things so plainly presented to the sight, as the facts
+of the use of baptism, and the celebration of the Lord’s Supper,
+everywhere established.  The bodily eye could see those usages, but could
+not see the inner impress of the priesthood.  He could elude or deny the
+one, but he dared not, even if he wished it, displace the other.  To
+what, then, did he have recourse?  He kept the outward form and show of
+Sacraments, as we may say, but denuded them of all their truth, mystery,
+and power.  “He taught that they were bare signs; symbolizing, but not
+conveying grace; or rather, he separated the sign from the thing
+signified, making the one independent of the other.” {118}  Yet, as he
+wished to keep them, so he saw that he must teach that there was some
+good in them.  How did he contrive to give them this use in his system?
+Why, he invented and taught that the faith of the receiver, and not the
+act of consecration, is the cause of grace in Sacraments; not in the
+sense that Sacraments do not profit the unworthy (which is true), but
+that this subjective faith in the recipient is the sole cause of their
+having power or virtue, (which is not true).  Thus he, in effect,
+constituted every man his own priest, and led directly to the conclusion
+further, that unless in each individual case, the receiver were
+predestinated to life eternal, there was nothing in the Sacrament at all.
+And so, again, we see the Christian ministry became, in Calvin’s system,
+nothing but an organ of government and instruction, which the term
+‘elder’ or ‘presbyter’ might sufficiently describe.  And all this, with
+full deliberation and design on his part, because Calvin was far too
+learned and able a man not to know that, if there were an altar and a
+sacrifice, there must needs be a priesthood, which he had not, and was
+determined to do without.
+
+I should hardly have gone into this statement as to Calvin for its own
+sake, but I think it worthy of notice, for the sake of a practical lesson
+as to those who decry or deny the doctrine of the priesthood, call Christ
+our only Priest, and make every man, in fact, his own Priest.  Surely we
+may see that the root of all this is, not the teaching of the Church of
+England, but absolute Calvinism and the teaching of the Helvetic
+Confession, the embodiment of the views of the Swiss Reformers.  Those
+who accept this teaching may, or may not, adopt with it, the
+predestinarian part of Calvin’s scheme; but certainly they are adopting
+to the letter his denial of a Christian priesthood, which denial, equally
+certainly, the English Reformation did not accept.  “We,” then, “have an
+altar,” however it may be that others may have rejected and cast it off,
+and perhaps, alas, some among ourselves may be unconscious of it, or may
+disbelieve it.
+
+And this leads us to a few words further as to our position, when—I fear
+there is no denying or concealing it—when some of the priests themselves
+among us repudiate their priesthood, and thus follow the Swiss instead of
+the English Reformation!  What must we say as to the effect of such
+unbelief; first as to their ministrations and the effect upon their
+flocks, and, secondly, as to themselves?
+
+And, first, as to the first point.  Brethren, blessed be God, we do not,
+and we need not, think that, even on this account, they do not offer up
+the true sacrifice.  Turn, for your comfort, to the Twenty-sixth Article
+of our Church, and you will see why I say so.  It is headed, “Of the
+unworthiness of the ministers, which hinders not the effect of the
+Sacraments;” and it tells us of them, as to “their authority in
+ministration of the Word and Sacraments,” that “forasmuch as they do not
+the same in their own name, but in Christ’s, and do minister by His
+commission and authority, we may use their ministry, both in hearing the
+Word of God, and in receiving of the Sacraments.  Neither is the effect
+of Christ’s ordinance taken away . . . nor the grace of God diminished
+from such as by faith and rightly do receive the Sacraments ministered
+unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ’s institution and
+promise. . . .”
+
+Thus, even such have received the priesthood, and its indelible impress,
+the _χαρακτὴρ_, (as it is theologically termed,) which cannot be
+destroyed in them by any act or will of theirs.  Thus, their ministration
+at the altar (so long as it be according to the rule and order of the
+Church of England) is the offering a valid sacrifice, and their
+distribution of the consecrated elements is the giving to be “verily and
+indeed taken and received by the faithful, the Body and Blood of Christ.”
+However, therefore, we may mourn for them, however we may feel in
+addition to sorrow a godly shame on their account, yet we need not fear
+that the flock is deprived of the needful food, nor defrauded of the
+blessed intercession of the Lamb, pleading for His people at the right
+hand of God, as often as the oblation is made, and the dread and blessed
+sacrifice is (even thus) offered up.
+
+As to such themselves (our second anxious question) what shall we say?  I
+will say nothing of my own mind or thought, but rather adduce a weighty
+passage which I have found upon the matter in the work of the learned Dr.
+Hickes, whom I have mentioned more than once, as having so largely
+treated on our present subject.  Even in his day, more than a
+hundred-and-fifty years ago, these deniers of the grace given them, were
+not unknown; and he thus speaks of them, going, you will observe, not so
+much as I have done here, into the question of the effect of their
+misbelief upon their ministrations to their flocks, but more particularly
+into its effect upon themselves.  “I desire,” he says, “your late
+writer,” (the author whom, in his dissertation, he was answering,) “and
+such others as he, who have been led into their errors by these and other
+writers since the Reformation,” (Cudworth he means more particularly, and
+the novel theory propounded by him,) “to consider that, if the Holy
+Eucharist be a sacrifice, as the Catholic Church believed in all ages
+before that time, how far the defect of administering it only as a
+sacrament may affect the holy office and the administration of it; and
+whether the Communion administered by a priest, who neither believes
+himself to be such, nor the Sacrament to be an oblation or sacrifice, can
+be a Communion in or with the Catholic Church?  I say, I leave it to
+themselves to consider these things, and I think they deserve their
+consideration, and hope they will seriously and impartially ruminate upon
+them, lest they should not ‘rightly and duly administer that Holy
+Sacrament.’  The best of the Jewish writers tells us” (i.e. Maimonides),
+“that it was a profanation of a sacrifice, if the priest thought, when he
+offered up one sacrifice, that it was another; as if, when he offered a
+burnt-offering, he thought it was a peace-offering; or if, when he
+offered a peace-offering, he thought it was a burnt-offering.  Whether
+that obliquity of thought, when it happened, had such an effect or no, I
+shall not now enquire; but this I dare say, if a Jewish priest, who did
+not believe himself to be a proper priest, nor the Jewish altar a proper
+altar, nor the sacrifices of the Law true and proper sacrifices, had
+presumed to offer while he was in this unhappy error, that he had
+profaned the sacrifice, so far as he was concerned in it, and not offered
+it up _ὁσίως καὶ ἀμέμπτως_, (holily and unblameably,) according to the
+will of God, though according to all the appointed rites, nor in unity
+and conjunction with the Jewish Church.  For the Jewish Church would not
+have suffered such priests, if known, to minister among the sons of Aaron
+and Zadoc; nor would the ancient Catholic Church have endured bishops and
+presbyters without censure, who durst have taught that the Christian
+ministry was not a proper priesthood, the Holy Eucharist, not a proper
+sacrifice, or that Christian ministers were not proper priests.” {123a}
+
+Oh, my brethren, for those who may have fallen into such error (not
+knowing what they do), let us pray, in all tenderness and charity, that
+they may be forgiven and enlightened; and for us all, priests and people
+alike, let us make our petition that we may never fall into it; whilst,
+as to whatever truth or privilege or blessing God has shewn or given to
+us, let us “not be high-minded, but fear,” {123b} not being puffed up
+because of our advantages, but all the more careful, because we confess
+we have them, diligently to use them.
+
+And this brings us to the great practical question to which this whole
+enquiry leads.  “We have an altar.”  Do we, as we ought, use and profit
+by our great privilege?  Do we indeed, individually and one by one, value
+the altar, use the altar, bring our gift to the altar, join in the
+services of the altar, become partakers of the altar, and thereby have
+fellowship with the Lord?
+
+Such questions, seriously considered, may furnish us with a most
+important test as to our true state, particularly whether we believe the
+doctrine, and whether we so live day by day as to be meet to take our
+place and part in the altar worship.  Let me say a few words on these
+points before I conclude.
+
+First, do we really believe the doctrine?  If we do, surely we must
+frequent the sacrifice.  We must see in the altar service the highest act
+of our devotion.  We must perceive that here is the crown and completion
+of all other worship, the sum and substance of our praises and
+thanksgivings, the prevailing mode of petition for ourselves and of
+intercession for others, the greatest and highest means of applying to
+our individual wants and individual sins the mercies of God through the
+ever-availing sacrifice of Christ.  Such persuasion of their dignity and
+power has ever pervaded those who have believed in a priesthood, an
+altar, and a sacrifice.  Heathen testimony witnesses to this, even amidst
+all the corruption and debasement of idol worship.  The solemn, gorgeous,
+awful sacrifice has ever been the central act of all devotion, that to
+which all the people congregated, and to which, if they had any religion,
+they delighted to be called.  We cannot here, and we need not, go into
+the proofs of this from the poets or historians of antiquity.  We hardly
+need adduce any proofs further than we have done already from Holy
+Scripture to it.  We may, however, just recall the manner of the
+sacrifice offered by Samuel previous to the anointing of Saul to be king
+over Israel, when all the people would not eat until the Prophet came,
+“because he doth bless the sacrifice.” {125a}  And the majesty of the
+great feast and sacrifice at the dedication of Solomon’s temple; {125b}
+and again, the solemn renewal of the covenant and worship of God by
+Josiah, King of Judah, when he held the feast of the Passover unto the
+Lord, such as had not been “from the days of the judges that judged
+Israel, nor in all the days of the kings of Israel, nor of the kings of
+Judah.” {125c}  Let us remember, too, that the great Paschal sacrifice
+and feast, itself the type of the true Lamb of God, was ordained to be
+annually kept under the earlier dispensation, and was assuredly so great
+and central a scene and act of Jewish devotion that to it the whole
+nation was called, and called so stringently that he who observed it not
+was to be cut off from the people. {125d}  What an intimation that he who
+keeps not its far greater antitype, the Christian Passover in the
+Eucharistic Sacrifice and feast, is cutting himself off from the people
+of God under the new and better covenant!  Do we, then, all of us thus
+frequent and delight in the Christian altar? and if not, why not?  Do we
+suppose that holiness of life, less than that which may allow us to come
+worthily to the Holy Eucharist, will be sufficient to let us come to
+heaven?  Do we think that, though we are without the marriage garment
+which we feel is needful for us to go to the Supper of the Lord on earth,
+we can enter without it, to sit down at the great marriage of the Lamb in
+the courts of heaven?  Can we believe that a heart less devoted to God,
+and a love and obedience less perfect toward Christ than will permit us
+to join in the highest act of thanksgiving in this world, will allow us
+to join in the everlasting Hosannas of the world to come?  Or do we
+imagine that such a service as that of the Christian altar is not
+intended for us all, but is to be restricted to a certain few out of the
+whole body of the baptized?  Surely, however widely such may seem to be
+the practical belief (rather, I should say, unbelief) of our day, there
+is no support for any such notion in either the Holy Scripture, or the
+faith and usage of the Church Catholic, or in the principles of the
+Reformation.  Not only is the whole teaching of the Bible, of the
+primitive Church, and of our Articles, Canons, and Catechism against any
+such view, but our very Eucharistic Office itself speaks plainly against
+it also.  Not to mention more direct proofs in other ways, it is a great
+mistake to suppose that office to design any division in its midst where
+ordinary Christians have licence to depart, and a few select or chosen
+are bidden to remain.  The not unfrequent custom of using a collect and
+benediction after the sermon may perhaps, however well intended, have
+fostered an error here.  This may seem to make an authorized close to the
+service at that point, as if one service were now ended and another were
+to begin.  It has, therefore, enabled people the more easily to forget
+that we are then in the middle of the Office for Holy Communion, whilst
+the usage itself (as well as the custom of saying a collect and the
+Lord’s Prayer before the sermon) is certainly without authority, and
+rather against than according to the mind of our Church; and although we
+may perhaps not unreasonably, to avoid confusion, make a pause whilst
+children and those who may be unable, at any particular time, to remain
+for the celebration may leave, we are not to think that a certain
+barrenness or awkwardness felt by such as then depart is without its
+value in instruction.  If they who thus habitually absent themselves from
+the sacrifice and feast of the altar, may be led to reflect from this
+very feeling that the Church herself, by the gentle remonstrance of the
+structure of her service, reminds them that they are leaving before the
+service in which they are engaged is ended, this may surely give a
+wholesome lesson.  Oh, if any _one_ even may be thus led to think, Why do
+I depart? why need I go away? why do I refuse to join in the Christian
+sacrifice, the highest act of thanksgiving and praise? why do I turn my
+back upon my Saviour, present to pardon, to feed, and to save me?—if any
+feel this, until meditating upon the love and the command of Christ, he
+resolves, instead of departing, to come with his gift to the altar, and
+taste and see how gracious the Lord is, shall he not find reason to bless
+and praise God that He thus brings him to himself, and thankfully
+acknowledge the wisdom of our Church, which has not appointed even the
+semblance of a finished service in the middle of her holy Eucharistic
+Office?
+
+The opposite conduct to that of those who depart without communicating, I
+mean that of such as remain without communicating, has, as we know, been
+the subject of no small controversy in the present day.  I do not desire
+here to enter into that dispute, but just so much I would observe: first,
+that if any desire to remain, having perhaps already communicated at an
+earlier service, or in a serious anxious wish to learn the will of God
+better as to the Christian sacrifice, with a view to the becoming a
+partaker of it; or, if any desire to join so far in it as to unite his
+heart and voice with those who offer it, being a communicant, though he
+may not design on that occasion to communicate, I do not conceive that
+the priest would have the wish, or if he had, would have any authority,
+to bid him depart.  Whilst, nevertheless, I deem it needful to observe,
+secondly, that I see no warrant to think they are in anything but a
+dangerous error who imagine (if, indeed, any do so) that the presence of
+any one as a gazer upon, or witness of, the holy mysteries, is in any way
+equivalent to communicating.  I do not see how such presence of one
+looking on, even joining in words of praise, but habitually and
+constantly doing no more; of one who is not a communicant, nor seeking to
+become a communicant; of one who does not eat of the sacrifice though
+present, perhaps often, at the offering of it, can be an act of worship
+or adoration well-pleasing to Almighty God; can, in any way, make up for
+his lack of understanding, or preparation, or obedience in that he does
+not “eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood,” without which,
+our Lord Himself has told us, we have “no life in us.” {129}  To be
+present in order to learn, and to learn in order to obey, we may indeed
+hope will be an acceptable service, so far as it goes; but to gaze
+constantly without obeying ever, and then to think nevertheless that we
+“are partakers of the altar,” seems to me nothing less than a dangerous
+self-deceit, and therefore certainly a practice not to be encouraged.
+
+I sum up our remarks then, brethren, in this conclusion, that we should
+all of us, with a depth of feeling beyond our words to express it, thank
+our merciful God for His tender care and providence over us in this our
+Church of England.  He has given us the treasure of the priesthood,
+though in earthen vessels, handed down from His very Apostles themselves
+by the laying on of hands, even according to the powers of their own
+commission from Christ Himself.  He has shewed us the witness to the
+doctrine of sacrifice, as exhibited in the world from Adam to Christ.  He
+has confirmed the doctrine and the usage of the sacrifice and altar in
+the Christian Church by His holy Word in the New Testament, and by the
+records preserved to us of the early Church, telling us unmistakeably how
+the Church, from the Apostles’ time downward, understood the Scriptures
+in this respect.  He has let us know the mind of the Church at large to
+have been one upon the doctrine for nearly sixteen hundred years; and,
+blessed be His name, He “so guided and governed the minds” of those in
+authority among us at the momentous period of our Reformation, and in all
+revisions since, that our Church has ever maintained, and does maintain,
+the doctrine of the Church Universal on the deep and mysterious, but, at
+the same time, most important practical subject of the priesthood, the
+altar, and the sacrifice.  Thus, in His mercy, our Church has made no
+“new thing,” nor departed from “the old paths.”  She is one with the
+Church of God in all times in this matter, and we need have no fears but
+that if we come, one by one “with true penitent hearts and lively faith,”
+to the altar of God and the table of the Lord among us, we may and do eat
+of the sacrifice, are partakers of the altar, and have fellowship with
+the Lord; that we have indeed preserved to us, in spite of the unbelief
+among us, and the strife of tongues around us, all that true and holy
+thing which the Church has ever had as Christ’s own appointed means for
+the pardon of our sins and the sustainment of our spiritual life, by the
+which we, with His “whole Church militant here on earth,” are allowed to
+offer up the never-ceasing, unbloody, commemorative, propitiatory
+sacrifice which the Church has ever offered, and by which she pleads
+before the throne of God the power of the one great sacrifice upon the
+cross for the pardon of sin, yea, even procures the pleading thereof for
+our individual sins and transgressions by the Son of God Himself, our
+“High Priest set on the right hand of the throne of the majesty in the
+heavens,” {131a} who “ever liveth to make intercession for us;” so that
+we thus, in common with the whole Church of God, fulfil the Prophet’s
+word, “From the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same,
+My name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense
+shall be offered unto My name, and a pure offering: for My name shall be
+great among the heathen, saith the Lord of Hosts.” {131b}
+
+And if God has been thus gracious to us in all straits and perils in time
+past, it would surely be a grievous want of faith not to put our trust in
+Him for the time to come.  Though we know that for sin persisted in the
+candlestick of a church may be removed, yet we will hope confidingly that
+where He has preserved His truth so long He will still watch over it and
+keep it; where, too, in the ordering of His providence, so great a door
+seems set open before us; where, by our power and extended empire, our
+vast colonial possessions and daily increasing colonial Church, (all His
+own gift,) we seem fitted to be the means of His “way being known upon
+earth, His saving health among all nations,” He will still cause the
+light of His countenance to shine upon us; where, again, thousands, as we
+verily believe, come before Him daily in humility, penitence, and prayer,
+(like Daniel, interceding for his country and his people,) “crying
+mightily unto Him” for support in all dangers, and aid in all
+adversities; I say, we will hope indeed that He “will hear their cry and
+will help them.”  Even in the day of thick darkness He can cause that “at
+evening time it shall be light.” {132}  Whatever be our trial we need
+not, on that account, deem ourselves forsaken.  Nay, unless we see it
+plainly written that for our sins He has turned His face wholly from us,
+we will not doubt, in all faith though in all humility, that He will
+allow us to hand on to our children’s children, and to the “generations
+which are yet for to come,” the same good deposit which we have ourselves
+received.  If ever we seem to be disheartened or ready to faint by the
+way, we will remember on whose word we rely and on whose arm we lean; we
+will call to mind His wonders of old time; we will ever with all faith
+and hopeful trust, knowing how with Him “all things are possible,” make
+the prayer of the Psalmist continually our own, saying, “Turn us again, O
+Lord God of Hosts: shew the light of Thy countenance, and we shall be
+whole.” {133}
+
+
+
+
+SERMON VIII. {135}
+(Preached on Christmas Day.)
+God Incarnate our Great High Priest.
+
+
+                              COLOSSIANS ii. 3.
+         “In Whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”
+
+THE preceding verses will tell us “of whom speaketh” the Apostle this.
+Having declared what great conflict he had for his converts at Colosse
+and “for them at Laodicea, and for as many as had not seen his face in
+the flesh,” he tells them that this his conflict and desire for them was,
+that their “hearts might be comforted; being knit together in love, and
+unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the
+acknowledgment of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ;
+in Whom,” he adds, “are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”
+
+As there is nothing on which men may not make a controversy, so there has
+been a question raised whether the meaning be, “in Whom,” viz. in Christ,
+or, “in which,” viz. in the mystery of God, and the Father, and Christ,
+“are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge?”  But we may well be
+excused if we do not desire on such a day as this to run into criticism
+of this kind; and I shall therefore take it at once for granted that the
+plain and natural sense of the words is the true one, and that we have
+here the Apostle’s declaration of and concerning Him of Whom he says just
+afterwards unmistakeably, that “in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the
+Godhead bodily,” {136} that He is the same “in Whom are hid all the
+treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”  And if they be so in Christ, as He
+is, at the right hand of God, (for He was there undoubtedly when the
+Apostle wrote this of Him,) so, being ever one and the same Eternal God,
+“the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever,” they were equally in Him
+in the days of His humiliation, “when for us men and for our salvation”
+He took upon Him man’s nature.  As the Second of our Articles of
+Religion, in the strictest theological language, expresses it: “The Son,
+which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father,
+the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took
+man’s nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that
+two whole and perfect Natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood,
+were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one
+Christ, very God and very Man;” whereof, too, be it well observed, the
+just and immediate consequence is, that He—“Who truly suffered, was
+crucified, dead and buried, to reconcile His Father to us, and to be a
+sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of
+men,”—was this same one Person, very God, and very Man.  So that we speak
+simple truth (though a mystery beyond even angelic powers fully to
+understand or appreciate) when we say that God Himself was born of the
+Virgin Mary; God Himself lay in that manger at Bethlehem; God Himself
+grew up from infancy to manhood before men’s eyes; God Himself shed His
+Blood, and died upon the Cross, to save the lost and guilty race of Adam,
+whom by His Incarnation He made His brethren: even as the Apostle
+declares to the disciples at Miletus, that God had “purchased His Church
+with His own Blood;” {137a} and again, tells the Ephesians, that through
+Christ “we have redemption through His Blood;” {137b} and again, the
+Hebrews, that “by His own Blood entered in once into the holy place,
+having obtained eternal redemption for us.” {137c}
+
+This perfect union for ever of the two Natures in the one Person of Jesus
+Christ our Lord it is of the highest importance for us to receive, or we
+shall have unworthy notions of God, and what He has done for us.  We
+shall, if we “divide the Substance,” making two Persons to be in Christ,
+be in danger of believing that a mere man died for us; or else, that the
+death of Christ was not, in a true sense, death at all; so that there
+would be either a propitiatory sacrifice made for the sins of the world
+by one less than God, or else no propitiatory sacrifice made at all.  In
+either case, a denial of “the Lord that bought us.” {138}  In the one,
+that He is the Lord; in the other, that He bought us.  For, as we see at
+once, God, as God only, cannot die; and man, as man only, cannot make
+propitiation for sin.  It is, of course, true that the Godhead,
+considered in itself, is incapable of suffering, and therefore, the Son
+of God, for this reason, (among many others, as we may well believe,)
+took upon Him man’s nature, which was capable of suffering and death.
+And not less true or less plain is it, that the Manhood, even in its best
+and most perfect state, could not make atonement to God for sin, or
+enable any man to “save his brother.”  But when God became Flesh, when
+the Son of God became also the Son of Man, when the two natures in their
+Perfection were thus joined in the Person of Jesus Christ: then God being
+man could die, and man being God could not only live but give life.  So
+Christ not only liveth ever, but He “giveth eternal life” {139a} to as
+many as are His.  “Thus,”—to use the words of the well-known commentator
+on our Articles, the present Bishop of Ely,—“thus we understand the
+Scripture when it says that men ‘crucified the Lord of Glory,’ {139b}
+when it says that ‘God purchased the Church with His own Blood,’ {139c}
+because though God in His Divine Nature cannot be crucified, and has no
+blood to shed; yet the Son of God, the Lord of Glory, took into His
+Person the nature of man, in which nature He could suffer, could shed His
+blood, could be crucified, could die.” {139d}  All this being done and
+suffered by that one Person—Christ Jesus, God and Man—it is no figure or
+fallacy but a simple truth, however wonderful, to say that God was born
+in Bethlehem and died upon the cross at Calvary.  Thus, too, He the one
+ever-blessed Son of the Highest, “in Whom were hid all the treasures of
+wisdom and knowledge,” could become unto us “wisdom and righteousness and
+sanctification and redemption;” our Prophet, Priest and King, our
+Sacrifice, our Mediator, our Intercessor, our ever-merciful and
+ever-enduring Saviour, Who sitteth at the right hand of God, until He
+shall come again with power and great glory to be also our Judge.
+
+So very far have modern times gone in forgetfulness of the ancient faith,
+that, I believe, it is sometimes considered a strange thing to give to
+the Blessed Virgin the title of “the Mother of God,” as if it were a
+novelty so to designate her.  Whereas, to deny her this title, and so in
+fact to make two Persons to be in Christ,—one, God, not born of her; and
+one, man, born of her,—is precisely the very and exact heresy of
+Nestorius condemned by the Third General Council held at Ephesus in the
+year 431, which decision was, and has ever since been, received by the
+whole Church.  So that it is not merely truth so to designate her, but it
+is absolutely heretical to maintain the contrary.  “Ever since the
+Council of Ephesus, the Church has consecrated the peculiar title of
+‘Theotokos’ (God’s parent, or Mother of God,) to denote the
+incommunicable privilege of the Blessed Virgin Mary, in that she became
+the mother of Immanuel, ‘God with us.’ . . .  For, though it is as man
+that Christ is of the substance of His Mother born in the world, yet,
+inasmuch as the Word took man’s nature in the womb of the Blessed Virgin
+of her substance, she may truly be styled ‘Mother of God,’ because ‘two
+whole and perfect natures—that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood—were
+joined in One Person never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God
+and very Man.’” {140}
+
+But let us turn back again for a moment to the thought of the text, that
+in Christ “are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”  There is
+surely an emphatic force in the words “are hid,”—“_εἰσὶν ἀπόκρυφοι_,” not
+merely ‘contained,’ but ‘laid up,’ ‘concealed,’—and if in a certain
+sense, even now they are hid, because Christ our Lord does not manifest
+Himself to the eye of sense in any visible form of glory, though He has
+all wisdom and all knowledge ever inherent in Him, it may be said that
+they were even more obscured, when, emptying Himself of His glory, “He
+took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men,
+and was found in fashion as a man.” {141}  Look upon Him as He was on
+this day eighteen hundred and three-score and more years ago!  Think of
+Him as a little infant, in the arms of His blessed Mother, or laid under
+her watchful eye upon some rude pillow in the manger, and then consider
+that _there_ was the God of all flesh, the great God of heaven and earth,
+God the Son, ever one with the Father and the Holy Ghost, all-powerful,
+all-knowing, all-creating, all-upholding, all-preserving, and say if
+these treasures were not indeed hid and obscured!
+
+But though obscured, the treasures were there nevertheless.  It were
+impious to doubt or deny it.  When, then, we hear it asked, as sometimes
+in these latter days of almost unlimited free enquiry it is, Are we to
+imagine that in that little infant was centred the knowledge of all
+history, all learning, all the secrets of nature as we term them, all the
+devices of art, all the developments of science?  I think we cannot doubt
+that the answer is, There was.  For what is there in any kind or
+department of knowledge or science, or of things past, present, or to
+come, which we can suppose the Almighty not to know?  This would be to
+deny His attribute of Omniscience; and, therefore, to deny it of Christ,
+God and Man, would be to deny His Godhead.  People think to escape this
+consequence by saying that it is merely His human nature which was
+ignorant,—that whilst as God He knew, yet as Man He did not know,—not
+seeing that thus immediately they must fall into that other error before
+mentioned.  For if they do not deny the Godhead, they must divide the
+Substance of the Son.  Perhaps in their defence they will urge such
+passages of Holy Scripture as that in which it is written, “Jesus
+increased in wisdom and stature;” {142a} or where He Himself said,
+concerning the Judgment, “Of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no,
+not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father,”
+{142b} of which it may be sufficient to remark to-day, that the first
+passage seems to imply no more than that His wisdom, as He grew in years,
+and of course appeared to acquire human knowledge, increased, in the
+sense of its being more manifested in the eyes of men, just as His bodily
+stature increased in visible presence before them: whilst of the other,
+(without going into all which may be said on a passage confessedly
+difficult,) it may be enough to point out that He does not say even of
+the Day of Judgment, that He, the God-Man, Christ Jesus, ever undivided
+in His divinity and humanity, did not know it: but that the Son (Who must
+be taken of course here to be the Son of Man), knoweth it not.  And if it
+be thought that this admission grants all that the objector asked, and is
+in fact but the enunciation of his own view, I should maintain that it is
+not so, and for this reason, that it is a very different thing to say of
+the One Person, Jesus Christ, that He, thus one and undivided, was
+ignorant of anything, and to _contemplate apart_ His Godhead and His
+Manhood, and so, in some sort, their attributes apart.  And I conceive
+that here our Blessed Lord using the term “the Son” (not ‘_I_ know not,’
+but _the Son_ knoweth not,) contemplates Himself as the Son of Man, and
+speaks of Himself as viewed in that relation.  What modern unbelief seems
+to delight to assert, is, that our Blessed Lord, as He stood and talked
+and reasoned with the people, was ignorant or mistaken.  What we affirm
+to be the really just and consistent sense of the passages adduced, is,
+that _if_ His human nature be contemplated apart from His Divine, it
+_might_ be taken to be thus ignorant; so, I would repeat, He is not thus
+proclaiming that He, the God-Man, the One Christ, is ignorant, nor yet
+dividing His Substance and becoming two, but merely contemplating apart
+the Divine and human natures, which may well be done; and we may even go
+so far as to say that _if_ we contemplate them as separated, then there
+would be things unknown to the one, though known to the other, and _if_
+they could be divided there would be a separate province of knowledge in
+each; but that, as we must believe the two natures have ever been united
+in one Person from the time of His taking our nature of the substance of
+the Blessed Virgin Mary, so no one can ever predicate of Him, the thus
+born Son of God and Son of Man; of Him “in Whom dwelleth all the fulness
+of the Godhead bodily;” of Him “in Whom are hid all the treasures of
+wisdom and knowledge;” of Him “Who is over all, God blessed for ever,”
+{144a} that it is possible there was, or is, or shall be anything,
+whether “of things in heaven, or things in earth, or things under the
+earth,” of which He was, or is, or shall be ignorant. {144b}
+
+Turn then again, brethren, to the stable at Bethlehem.  Cast away, at
+least on such a blessed day as this, the thoughts of controversy.  Come
+to the sight which is to be seen in that lowly habitation “where the
+stalled oxen feed.”  See the blessed Mother!  See the glorious Infant,
+glorious and divine in Himself, howbeit He may look like any other child
+of man, and with the eye of faith “behold thy God!”  Think of the wonders
+of love in the condescension that He should be found in such an humble
+guise and lowly place, only excelled by the marvel that He should abase
+Himself to become man at all!  And then think that all this is no barren
+spectacle, to be gazed upon indeed with wonder, but in which we have no
+practical interest.  No, it all belongs to us, and has to do with us, in
+matters of the very highest moment.  It is so important to us, that we
+might say all other things are mere bubbles and trifles compared with it.
+What should we be, and what would be our hope, if we had not the
+Christmas season, and all which it has brought, to gild our year, and
+gladden our hearts?  Think of what we are, and what are our prospects by
+nature!  The children of Adam in his fallen state, and therefore “born in
+sin and children of wrath.”  A degenerate race, from our very birth, with
+the sure seed of the first and second death implanted in us, with a
+corrupt nature, a depraved will, a heart estranged from God, exiles from
+Eden, unable to return to it.  Even if we had the heart to seek it, only
+doomed to find it barred against us, and “cherubims and a flaming sword
+turning every way to keep the way of the tree of life,” on account of
+both the original guilt and actual sins of men.  Thus, in ourselves with
+no access again to God.  Placed, it is true, in a world of wonders, a
+world adapted by Almighty wisdom to supply our wants and minister to our
+comfort and gratification, apparently capable of almost unlimited
+development in these things under the fertile mind and ever-busy hand of
+man, yielding thus much enjoyment for the time, if we give ourselves to
+enjoy it.  Even in more than such external things adapted to our
+constitution, as furnishing the food for absorbing pursuit and high aim
+in the acquisition of wealth or power, or in intellectual cultivation;
+nay, more and more widely still, meeting the cravings of our nature by
+supplying the field for sweet sympathies and home affections in the
+varied scenes of domestic life and mutual love; but yet, after all, not
+satisfying the yearnings of man’s heart or the aspirations of his being.
+A world, too, however framed with all these means of comfort or
+enjoyment, yet with much of pain, sorrow, sickness, bereavement, trial,
+fear, and weakness in the lot of every child of Adam.  All this without;
+and within, a conscience enough alive to make us uneasy, when we have
+yielded to temptation, and broken the law written in our hearts, though
+of no sufficient power to prevent our yielding to the one and breaking
+the other, joined with a certain consciousness, indeed, of God’s
+greatness and goodness, but not the heart to love Him.  So, with no light
+in ourselves to see our way clearly, nor in ourselves any strength to
+throw off our chains and turn to God; with dim forebodings of and even
+earnest yearnings after something higher, better, and more enduring than
+this world, and this earthly life and being, but with no apprehension to
+grasp it, and no power to attain to it.  And then, as life wanes, and
+death draws on, and conscience, it may be, pricks, and the evil one
+himself, perchance, mocks and triumphs, and no remedy, in either external
+things or in our own selves, is to be found,—how darkly and sadly does
+the night close in upon man in his mere natural condition!  Survey him in
+such aspect from his life’s beginning to its end, and what is there for
+him but either blank despair or reckless levity (often the direct fruit
+of despair), or a dark and corrupting superstition calling “evil good and
+good evil, saying Peace, peace, when there is no peace,” and resulting in
+the utmost dishonour to God, and the greatest licence of an unbridled
+sensuality, even under the plea of religion? or else, if not this, an
+utter unbelief, merely falling blindfold into judgment and eternity?
+Yes: for when once man was lost by the Fall, no one could save himself
+and no one could save his fellow.  As it is written, “No man may deliver
+his brother, or make agreement unto God for him; for it cost more to
+redeem their souls, so that He must let that alone for ever.” {147}
+
+But now, men and brethren, think of Christmas-tide, and all it tells and
+brings to us, and what a change is there!  On this appalling picture, on
+this “day of darkness and gloominess, of clouds and of thick darkness, as
+the morning spread upon the mountains,” {148a} “the Sun of righteousness
+hath arisen with healing in His wings;” {148b} “the day-spring from on
+high hath visited us; to give light to them that sit in darkness and in
+the shadow of death.” {148c}  As we raise our eyes to the Christmas
+morning the light dawns not merely on our eyes but on our hearts.  Here
+we find the “seed of the woman” who reverses our curse, and the curse
+upon the earth, by “bruising the serpent’s head.”  He comes, He comes,
+the Saviour of the world, bringing “life and immortality to light through
+the Gospel,” {148d} because He is God and Man.  “Unto us a Child is born,
+unto us a Son is given: the government is upon His shoulder: His Name is
+called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The
+Prince of Peace.” {148e}  What can more declare His Godhead?  But
+nevertheless He is “not ashamed to call us brethren;” {148f} nay, we are
+told, it even “behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren,” and this,
+that “He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things
+pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.”
+{148g}  Yes, and although He is such “a great High Priest, the Son of God
+passed into the heavens,” yet is He not one “which cannot be touched with
+the feeling of our infirmities, but was in all points tempted like as we
+are, yet without sin.” {149a}  What can more declare His Manhood?  Like
+unto us in all points, sin only excepted.  Like unto us, with perfect
+manhood, human body and soul taken into the Godhead, so to be unto us
+“both a sacrifice for sin, and also an ensample of godly life.”  As the
+new federal Head of the human race; as the one, and only one, of the
+descendants of Adam in whom sin found no place, and whose obedience was
+perfect, “He is able to save to the uttermost all them that come to God
+by Him.”  Thus is God Incarnate our great High Priest and only Saviour.
+“To this end was He born, and for this cause came He into the world,”
+{149b} and such is the mercy which we this day commemorate.  By this, the
+Incarnation of the Eternal Son, is the cloud of thick darkness rolled
+aside; by this, as the first manifested step (so to say) in our
+redemption, is the veil lifted; by this, is hope revived; by this, joy
+spread; by this, is Satan defied; by this, and by the consequences to
+which it led and leads, is he conquered; by this, is the sting taken from
+death, and victory wrested from the grave; this, is peace made for man
+with God, and peace brought to man within himself; by this, is he enabled
+to please God, for by the death of the Son made Man was the purchase and
+gift of the Spirit, whereby alone he can be sanctified.  By Him, then,
+(“the great God and our Saviour,” as St. Paul terms Him,) are “we
+reconciled, and have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ;” by
+Him, “being now justified by His Blood, we shall be saved from wrath
+through Him:” and so truly “we joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
+by Whom we have now received the Atonement.” {150}  He is the great High
+Priest, with power in Himself as none other has, or can have, to offer up
+the sacrifice and “make reconciliation for the sins of the people.”  He
+is the immaculate Victim, the one only meritorious Sacrifice, “once
+offered to bear the sins of many,” Whose “Blood speaketh better things
+than that of Abel.”  He is the true Paschal Lamb, “without blemish and
+without spot;” “the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world;”
+the Lamb “slain,” (in God’s design, and His own ever-merciful intention,)
+“from the foundation of the world,” but manifested for this purpose “in
+the fulness of the time.”  He is the great Physician, causing joy
+wherever He goeth, because He can heal all diseases; He is the great
+Lawgiver, proclaiming His will; He is the great Prophet, ordaining and
+promulgating His method of salvation; He is the great King, setting up
+His kingdom, marking out its boundaries, and ruling His subjects; He is
+the great Captain, ordering His armies, displaying His banners, giving
+out His weapons, going forth “conquering and to conquer;” He is the one
+Mediator, He is the availing Intercessor; He is the Way, the Truth, and
+the Life; He is the Sun and Centre of the whole mediatorial kingdom; He
+is the Lord of this world and of the world to come!—And all this, because
+He is (as He is and ever hath been) “God the Son: God of God, Light of
+Light, Very God of Very God; of one substance with the Father;” and
+because, in mercy to us, He became also the Son of Man, “conceived by the
+Holy Ghost, and born of the Virgin Mary.”
+
+Surely, then, this is a day “to be much observed unto the Lord,” a day in
+which we do well indeed “to make merry and be glad;” so only that our
+mirth be with sobriety, and our gladness with godliness.  If, indeed, He
+had not come, if we had no Christmastide, and Christmas memories, and
+Christmas teaching, and Christmas faith, where should we place our hope?
+Truly, we should be “of all men most miserable.”  Whether God could have
+forgiven man in any other way, without Himself becoming Flesh, and doing
+all which Christ has done, we know not.  But it seems to be unlikely,
+according to His attributes and will, inasmuch as St. Paul plainly says,
+“without shedding of blood is no remission,” and (as we know,) “the blood
+of bulls and of goats could never take away sin;” whilst again it is
+declared, that God set forth His Son “to be a propitiation through faith
+in His Blood, that He might be just, and the justifier of him which
+believeth in Jesus:” {152} from which it would seem that God’s attribute
+of justice could not be satisfied unless by the payment, by some one able
+to pay it, of the penalty due to man’s transgression.  But whether it
+could have been otherwise or not, otherwise it is not.  This is God’s
+way, and undeniably it tells us more of God’s love, Who gave His
+only-begotten Son; and of Christ’s tender compassion, Who shrunk not back
+from all which He undertook, than if we had been saved by a forgiveness,
+without an atoning sacrifice at all.  Therefore this mode, God’s mode of
+pardon, as it supplies us with greater proofs of His love, so it gives us
+higher motives for our own love and gratitude than any other mode which
+we can conceive.  Therefore this day calls upon us all the more for
+praise, adoration, thanksgiving, joy, and obedience.  Whatever else we
+do, or learn, or think, we can never think aright, unless—in praising and
+thanking God for all His mercies, and for the birth of Christ in human
+nature, as the source, if we may so term it, of the Gospel scheme of
+Redemption,—unless, I say, we attribute all we are in sanctification, and
+all we have in hope, and all we feel in peace, to God and Christ.
+Whatever be His way to bring us pardon, whatever laws He has set up in
+His Kingdom, whatever means He has appointed,—whether His Holy Word, or
+His Church, or His ministry of instruction or reconciliation,—all these
+are but His instruments, and He Himself is the only efficient cause of
+our salvation.  “Not unto us, not unto us, but unto His Name give the
+praise.”  No; even the fruits of the Spirit, wrought in us by Him,
+“albeit, indeed, they are the fruits of faith, and follow after
+justification, though they are acceptable and pleasing to God in Christ,
+yet can they not put away our sins, and endure the severity of God’s
+judgment.” {153a}  Nay, not faith itself can do this; for though, as the
+means and instrument to lay hold on eternal life, faith may be said to
+save us, yet, as the efficient cause of our salvation it would be heresy
+to say so.  For it is plain, we are not saved by anything of ours, even
+when wrought in us by God’s Spirit.  As one of our Articles says, they
+are in grievous error “who say that every man shall be saved by the law
+or sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life
+according to that law and the light of nature,” for that “Jesus Christ is
+the only Name whereby men must be saved;” {153b} so, truly, no one may
+affirm that we are saved, except instrumentally or conditionally, either
+by good works, (even if they were good, in the sense of being blameless,
+which none of ours are,) or by knowledge, or by the priesthood, or by
+sacraments, or by the Church, or by the Bible, or by prayer, or even by
+faith itself, for it is manifest that we are saved by Christ only, and by
+none else, either thing or person.  He may have set forth, as He has
+done, certain conditions of salvation; He may have appointed, as He has
+done, certain means of applying to Him for mercy, and of obtaining mercy
+from Him; He may have ordained, as He has done, certain channels of help
+by which His grace flows to us, and enables us to receive His favour, and
+the reconciliation with God, which He has purchased for us; but it is HE,
+and He only, Who is the sole meritorious cause of all we have, and all we
+are, and all we hope for.  So, truly, again we may repeat in the words of
+the Apostle, that it is “Christ Jesus, Who, of God, is made unto us
+Wisdom and Righteousness and Sanctification and Redemption;” not as if He
+could be this to us (God forbid the thought!) if we persist in sin, or in
+neglect of His way of life; but, as if (which is the truth), even if we
+had done all, we should be but unprofitable servants; as if (which is the
+truth) we are very far from having done all; as if (which is the truth)
+anything we have done to please God has been only of Him and through the
+purchased gift of His Spirit, and the communication to us of Himself.  So
+that, indeed, we owe all to Him, and without Him are and must be lost
+indeed.
+
+Brethren, as we think of these things, and of all we owe to Him in and
+for His abasement and humiliation in His Incarnation, should not “our
+hearts burn within us?”  Oh, let them do so, with a reverent, loving,
+grateful, joyful sense of His goodness; Who, “though He was rich, yet for
+our sakes became poor;” Who has gladdened and cheered this otherwise dark
+and gloomy World by His presence in it in human form and nature; Who,
+since He came to it thus, has (though absent so far as the eye of sense
+discerns) yet never left it to be as it was before, but, by the very
+means of His Incarnation, dwelleth in it still,—dwelleth, aye, in us, and
+we in Him, if we be His by the Spirit.  And all this, though He be so
+wonderful, high, and mighty—nay, because He is so,—the very and eternal
+God, born as on this day in the stable at Bethlehem!  In Whom, lying
+there, in all appearance, a mere helpless, unknowing, human babe, in Whom
+were still “hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge;” and “in
+Whom,” then as always, “dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”
+
+Oh, my brethren, believe that He sees and knows every one of us; and how
+we think of Him this day, and how we love and honour Him.  He loves and
+longs for every one of us.  He wills us to rejoice (and “again I say
+rejoice”) at the “good tidings of great joy which should be to all
+people” from that day at Bethlehem.  Let our joy be, then, such as He
+sanctions, such as leads us nearer and nearer to Him, both in the
+exercise of dear and holy home affections, and in love to Him Himself;
+and then we may hope we shall indeed bless Him, not only now but for
+ever, that He has again brought us to this great and happy day.
+
+When we gather, then, our families around us and see the aged, whom we
+love, still permitted to be with us, (though, it may be, now infirm and
+feeble,) let us rejoice in that hope, and the object of their faith,
+which gilds and cheers their old age.  When we meet our fellows and
+companions of our own time of life, knit with us in the tenderest bonds
+of human affection, and enjoy with them some of that good which God’s
+bounty allows us, let us rejoice in the thought that they and we have a
+mutual share in things better than all which this world has to give, and
+are heirs together of the same common salvation.  When we gather round us
+our little ones, and thank God for the blessing He has given us in them,
+and look forward not without anxious expectation to the future of their
+life, yet let us not forget to bless and praise His name that, by the
+Incarnation of His Son, He has permitted us to make our children His
+children, and has made sure to them all the privileges of their adoption
+and the promises of His covenant.  So may we, whichever way we look and
+whatever meets our eyes, ever overflow with thankful joy that unto us “is
+born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.”
+{156}
+
+                                * * * * *
+
+           Printed by James Parker and Co., Crown-yard, Oxford.
+
+
+
+
+FOOTNOTES.
+
+
+{1}  2 St. Matt. xii. 29.
+
+{2a}  2 Tim. ii. 20.
+
+{2b}  Gen. ii. 7.
+
+{3a}  2 Cor. iii. 5, 6–9.
+
+{3b}  2 Cor. iv. 1.
+
+{4a}  2 Cor. iv. 2.
+
+{4b}  Ibid., 3, 4.
+
+{4c}  Ibid., 5, 6.
+
+{4d}  Ibid., 7.
+
+{6}  2 Cor. iv. 7.
+
+{10a}  Isaiah liii. 2.
+
+{10b}  Ibid. lii. 14.
+
+{12}  St. John xx. 22, 23.
+
+{13a}  St. John xxi. 3.
+
+{13b}  Acts xviii. 3.
+
+{14}  Cor. ix. 4, 5.
+
+{17a}  Acts xv. 36, 39.
+
+{17b}  Gal. ii. 11–14.
+
+{19a}  St. Matt. xiii. 55.
+
+{19b}  2 Cor. x. 10.
+
+{21a}  St. John xvii. 21.
+
+{21b}  St. Matt x. 25.
+
+{21c}  1 Pet. iv. 12.
+
+{22a}  Heb. xiii. 13.
+
+{22b}  1 Cor. iv. 12, 13.
+
+{22c}  Acts xx. 24.
+
+{23}  Job i. 8.
+
+{24}  Job i. 5.
+
+{26a}  1 Chron. i. 43, 44.
+
+{26b}  Numbers xxxi. 8.
+
+{27a}  1 John iii. 12.
+
+{27b}  Heb. xi. 4.
+
+{28}  Gen. iv. 2–4.
+
+{30a}  Gen. iii. 15.
+
+{30b}  Heb. ix. 22.
+
+{33a}  Gen. viii. 20, xii. 8, xiii. 4, xiv. 18, xxii. 13, xxvi. 25,
+xxxiii. 20.
+
+{34}  Heb. ix. 22.
+
+{36}  Calmet, under the head ‘Sacrifice.’
+
+{40a}  St. John viii. 56.
+
+{40b}  Gen. iii. 15.
+
+{43}  Deut. xiii. 14.
+
+{45}  Heb. xi. 4.
+
+{48a}  Rom. iv. 3.
+
+{48b}  St. Matt. v. 23, 24.
+
+{49}  St. Matt. v. 32, 37, 43, 44.
+
+{50}  Heb. ix. 9.
+
+{51a}  Heb. xiii. 10.
+
+{51b}  Gal. iii. 19; Heb. ii. 2, 3.
+
+{53}  Heb. xiii. 10–15.
+
+{54}  1 Cor. x. 18.
+
+{55}  1 Cor. x. 19–21.
+
+{58}  1 Cor. x. 13–17.
+
+{66a}  Heb. v. 4.
+
+{66b}  Carter on the Priesthood, p. 71.
+
+{66c}  Ibid.
+
+{68}  See Carter’s “Doctrine of the Priesthood,” p. 6.
+
+{70}  _Vitringa de Synagogâ vetere_.  _Prolegomena_, cap. 2, quoted
+Carter, pp. 54, 55
+
+{71}  Palmer’s _Origines Liturgicæ_.  See Carter, p. 58.
+
+{72a}  Palmer’s _Origines Liturgicæ_.  See Carter, p. 59.
+
+{72b}  Carter, p. 60.
+
+{74a}  St. John vi. 52.
+
+{74b}  St. Luke xviii. 8.
+
+{75a}  St. Matt. x. 25.
+
+{75b}  Heb. x. 36.
+
+{75c}  St. Luke xxi. 19.
+
+{75d}  St. Matt x.
+
+{75e}  1 Tim. iv. 1.
+
+{75f}  2 Tim. iv. 3.
+
+{75g}  1 John i. 1.
+
+{75h}  Ibid. ver. 3.
+
+{76}  Jer. vi. 16.
+
+{77}  Gal. i. 10.
+
+{80}  Heb. vii. 1–3.
+
+{81a}  Coloss. ii. 8.
+
+{81b}  Job xxxviii. 2.
+
+{85a}  Ordering of Deacons in the Church of England.
+
+{85b}  Ordering of Priests.
+
+{85c}  Ibid.
+
+{85d}  Ibid.
+
+{86}  St. John xx. 21.
+
+{87}  St. John xx. 21–23.
+
+{89}  Second Exhortation in Communion Office.
+
+{90}  Office for Visitation of Sick.
+
+{95a}  1 Tim. iii. 15.
+
+{95b}  St. Matt. xvi. 18.
+
+{95c}  Ibid. xxviii. 20.
+
+{95d}  Ps. cxxii. 6.
+
+{97}  Sermon III.
+
+{101}  Carter on the Priesthood, p. 61.
+
+{102}  Some attempts have been lately made to throw doubt upon the
+authenticity of the copies of the ancient liturgies which have come down
+to us, as not certainly uninterpolated in places in later times.  But
+whether there may be any ground at all for such suspicion or not, it is
+evident that the inferences drawn from the liturgies, both in this
+passage and in a former sermon, will not be affected.  For the argument,
+as used in these sermons, is not dependent upon a phrase or a sentence
+here or there, which, it may be alleged, is open to question, but is
+based upon doctrine interwoven with their whole system, and pervading
+their whole structure, and is what moreover is borne witness to, as thus
+pervading them, by the whole mass of contemporary Christian writing.  The
+liturgies, therefore, must not merely have been interpolated in places,
+but almost entirely re-written in another sense, and the great bulk of
+the writings of the Fathers forged to agree with this change, if the
+argument above is to be shaken by the question raised concerning them.
+
+I find a passage in Hickes’s Treatise, “The Christian Priesthood
+Asserted,” which, though written more than a hundred and sixty years
+before Mr. Carter’s book, seems almost as if it were a comment upon the
+passage just cited, and the application which I have made of it.  He
+says, “I believe no man in the world that was of any religion where
+sacrifice was used, and that by chance should see the Sacrament of the
+Holy Eucharist administered among Christians, as it was administered in
+the primitive times, or as it is administered according to the order and
+usage of the Church of England, but would take the bread and wine for an
+offering or sacrifice, and the whole action for a sacrificial
+ministration; and the eating and drinking of the holy elements for a
+sacrificial entertainment of the congregation at the table of their God.
+To see bread and wine . . . so solemnly brought to the table, and then . . .
+brought by the deacon, in manner of an offering to the liturg or
+minister, which he also taking in his hands as an offering, sets them
+with all reverence on the table; and then, after solemn prayers of
+oblation and consecration, to see him take up the bread, and say, in a
+most solemn manner, ‘This is My Body,’ &c., and then the cup, saying as
+solemnly, ‘This is My Blood,’ &c., and then to hear him with all the
+powers of his soul offer up praises, and glory, and thanksgiving, and
+prayers to God the Father of all things, through the Name of His Son, and
+Holy Spirit, which they beseech Him to send down upon that bread and cup,
+and the people with the greatest harmony and acclamation saying aloud,
+‘Amen:’ after which also, to see the liturg, first eat of the bread and
+drink of the cup, and then the deacon to carry about the blessed bread
+and wine to be eaten and drunk by the people, as in a sacrificial feast;
+and, lastly, to see and hear all concluded with psalms and hymns of
+praise, and prayers of intercession to God with the highest pomp-like
+celebrity of words; I say, to see and hear all this would make an
+uninitiated heathen conclude that the bread and wine were an offering,
+the whole Eucharistic action a sacrificial mystery, the eating and
+drinking the sanctified elements a sacrificial banquet, and the liturg
+who administered a priest.”—_Hickes’s_ “_Priesthood Asserted_,” _Library
+of Anglo.-Cath. Theol._, _Oxford_, vol. ii. p. 105–7.
+
+{103}  The scantiness of statements in the Articles, as to the
+inspiration of Holy Scripture, may illustrate this.  Had it been possible
+to foresee the boldness of unbelief which these days have brought to
+light on this subject, or had our Reformers been now drawing up the
+Articles, we may feel very certain they would not have been content to
+leave that matter as it there stands.  But they were engaged with
+practical errors of their own day, and not in stating all dogmatic truth
+upon other points.  Many things were so fully assumed to be true as to
+need no assertion of their truth.
+
+{104}  1 Cor. xi. 26.
+
+{106}  Heb. vii. 25.
+
+{107}  Mede’s “Christian Sacrifice,” lib. ii. cap. 4, quoted in Carter,
+p. 65.
+
+{108}  Cardwell’s “Documentary Annals,” chap. vii, prop. 2.
+
+{109}  Carter, p. 25, note 1.
+
+{110}  Hickes’s Treatises, vol. ii. pp. 183, 184.
+
+{111a}  Bramhall’s “Protestant Ordination Vindicated.”  Discourse vii. 3.
+
+{111b}  St. Jerome, adv. Lucif. c. 8.  Carter, pp. 22, 23.
+
+{111c}  James i. 17.
+
+{111d}  Ps. xliv. 3.
+
+{111e}  Ps. cxv. 1.
+
+{114}  Acts iii. 12.
+
+{118}  Carter, p. 28.
+
+{123a}  Hickes’ “Christian Priesthood Asserted,” pp. 184, 185.
+
+{123b}  Rom. xi. 20.
+
+{125a}  1 Sam. ix. 11–13.
+
+{125b}  1 Kings viii. 62–66.
+
+{125c}  2 Kings xxiii. 22.
+
+{125d}  “But the man that is clean, and is not in a journey, and
+forbeareth to keep the passover, even the same soul shall be cut off from
+among his people: because he brought not the offering of the Lord in his
+appointed season, that man shall bear his sin.”  (Numb. ix. 13.)
+
+{129}  St. John vi. 53.
+
+{131a}  Heb. viii. 1.
+
+{131b}  Mal. i. 11.
+
+{132}  Zech. xiv. 7.
+
+{133}  Ps. lxxx. 19.
+
+{135}  The following sermon, although perhaps in strictness hardly one of
+this course, was preached almost immediately after the others, and, in
+some measure, as a sequel to them.  It is evidently not unconnected with
+their subject, inasmuch as the whole Doctrine of the Priesthood,—Christ
+our High Priest, through His Manhood “able to be touched with the feeling
+of our infirmities,” and the sacerdotal powers derived from Him to “the
+ministers and stewards of His mysteries,”—is intimately related to, and
+dependent upon, the doctrine of the Incarnation.
+
+{136}  Col. ii. 9.
+
+{137a}  Acts xx. 28.
+
+{137b}  Ephes. i. 7.
+
+{137c}  Heb. ix. 12.
+
+{138}  2 St. Peter ii. 1.
+
+{139a}  St. John xvii. 2.
+
+{139b}  1 Cor. ii. 8.
+
+{139c}  Acts xx. 28.
+
+{139d}  “Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles,” by E. Harold, Lord
+Bishop of Ely, Art. II. p. 69.
+
+{140}  Owen’s “Introduction to the Study of Dogmatic Theology,” pp. 265,
+266.  See also, “Pearson on the Creed,” Art. iii. § 3.
+
+{141}  Philip, ii. 7, 8.
+
+{142a}  St. Luke ii. 52.
+
+{142b}  St. Mark xiii. 32; St. Matt. xxiv. 36.
+
+{144a}  Rom. ix. 5.
+
+{144b}  It may be observed that the above explanation does not in any way
+impair the argument in our Lord’s reply to His disciples.  It furnishes
+quite a sufficient reason why such mysteries as “when shall these things
+be, and what shall be the sign of Thy coming, and of the end of the
+world?” should be unrevealed to flesh and blood, that they are unknown to
+be angels of heaven, and even to the Son of Man, if His humanity be
+contemplated apart from His Divinity.
+
+{147}  Ps. xlix. 7, 8.
+
+{148a}  Joel ii. 2.
+
+{148b}  Mal. iv. 2.
+
+{148c}  St. Luke i. 78, 79.
+
+{148d}  2 Tim. i. 10.
+
+{148e}  Isa. ix. 6.
+
+{148f}  Heb. ii. 11.
+
+{148g}  Ibid. 17.
+
+{149a}  Heb. iv. 14, 15.
+
+{149b}  St. John xviii. 37.
+
+{150}  Rom. v. 9, 11.
+
+{152}  Rom. iii. 25, 26.
+
+{153a}  Art. XII.
+
+{153b}  Art. XVIII.
+
+{156}  St. Luke ii. 11.
+
+
+
+
+***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK EIGHT SERMONS ON THE PRIESTHOOD,
+ALTAR, AND SACRIFICE***
+
+
+******* This file should be named 49115-0.txt or 49115-0.zip *******
+
+
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/4/9/1/1/49115
+
+
+Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will
+be renamed.
+
+Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
+law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
+so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
+States without permission and without paying copyright
+royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
+of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm
+concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
+and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive
+specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this
+eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook
+for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports,
+performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given
+away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks
+not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the
+trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.
+
+START: FULL LICENSE
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
+Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at
+www.gutenberg.org/license.
+
+Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+
+1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
+destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your
+possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
+Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
+by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the
+person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph
+1.E.8.
+
+1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
+paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this
+agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the
+Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
+of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual
+works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
+States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
+United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
+claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
+displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
+all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
+that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting
+free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm
+works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
+Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily
+comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
+same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when
+you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
+in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
+check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
+agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
+distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
+other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no
+representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
+country outside the United States.
+
+1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
+immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear
+prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work
+on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed,
+performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
+
+  This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
+  most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no
+  restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it
+  under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this
+  eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the
+  United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you
+  are located before using this ebook.
+
+1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is
+derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
+contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
+copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
+the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
+redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
+either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
+obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm
+trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
+additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
+will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works
+posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
+beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
+any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
+to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format
+other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official
+version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site
+(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
+to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
+of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain
+Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the
+full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+provided that
+
+* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+  the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+  you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
+  to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has
+  agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
+  Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
+  within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
+  legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
+  payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
+  Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
+  Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
+  Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+  you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+  does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+  License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
+  copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
+  all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm
+  works.
+
+* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
+  any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+  electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
+  receipt of the work.
+
+* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+  distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than
+are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
+from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The
+Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
+Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
+contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
+or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
+intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
+other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
+cannot be read by your equipment.
+
+1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
+with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
+with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
+lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
+or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
+opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
+the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
+without further opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO
+OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
+LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
+damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
+violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
+agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
+limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
+unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
+remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in
+accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
+production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
+including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
+the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
+or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or
+additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any
+Defect you cause.
+
+Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
+computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
+exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
+from people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future
+generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
+Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
+www.gutenberg.org 
+
+Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary 
+Archive Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
+U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the
+mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its
+volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous
+locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt
+Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to
+date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and
+official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
+
+For additional contact information:
+
+    Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+    Chief Executive and Director
+    gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
+DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular
+state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
+donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate
+
+Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be
+freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
+distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of
+volunteer support.
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
+the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
+necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
+edition.
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search
+facility: www.gutenberg.org
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
+
diff --git a/49115-0.zip b/49115-0.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4532aeb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/49115-0.zip
diff --git a/49115-h.zip b/49115-h.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..52d38e5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/49115-h.zip
diff --git a/49115-h/49115-h.htm b/49115-h/49115-h.htm
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7b1ee48
--- /dev/null
+++ b/49115-h/49115-h.htm
@@ -0,0 +1,5018 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html
+     PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+     "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII" />
+<title>Eight Sermons on The Priesthood, Altar, and Sacrifice, by Mayow Wynell Mayow</title>
+    <style type="text/css">
+/*<![CDATA[  XML blockout */
+<!--
+    P {  margin-top: .75em;
+         margin-bottom: .75em;
+         }
+    P.gutsumm { margin-left: 5%;}
+    P.poetry {margin-left: 3%; }
+    .GutSmall { font-size: 0.7em; }
+    H1, H2 {
+         text-align: center;
+		margin-top: 2em;
+		margin-bottom: 2em;
+         }
+    H3, H4, H5 {
+	text-align: center;
+	margin-top: 1em;
+	margin-bottom: 1em;
+	}
+    BODY{margin-left: 10%;
+         margin-right: 10%;
+        }
+ table { border-collapse: collapse; }
+table {margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto;}
+    td { vertical-align: top; border: 1px solid black;}
+    td p { margin: 0.2em; }
+    .blkquot  {margin-left: 4em; margin-right: 4em;} /* block indent */
+
+    .smcap    {font-variant: small-caps;}
+
+    .pagenum {position: absolute;
+               left: 92%;
+               font-size: small;
+               text-align: right;
+		font-weight: normal;
+               color: gray;
+               }
+    img { border: none; }
+    img.dc { float: left; width: 50px; height: 50px; }
+    p.gutindent { margin-left: 2em; }
+    div.gapspace { height: 0.8em; }
+    div.gapline { height: 0.8em; width: 100%; border-top: 1px solid;} 
+    div.gapmediumline { height: 0.3em; width: 40%; margin-left:30%;
+                  border-top: 1px solid; }
+    div.gapmediumdoubleline { height: 0.3em; width: 40%; margin-left:30%;
+		  border-top: 1px solid; border-bottom: 1px solid;}
+     div.gapshortdoubleline { height: 0.3em; width: 20%;
+                  margin-left: 40%; border-top: 1px solid;
+                  border-bottom: 1px solid; }
+    div.gapdoubleline { height: 0.3em; width: 50%;
+                  margin-left: 25%; border-top: 1px solid;
+                  border-bottom: 1px solid;}
+    div.gapshortline { height: 0.3em; width: 20%; margin-left:40%;
+		  border-top: 1px solid; }
+    .citation {vertical-align: super;
+               font-size: .5em;
+               text-decoration: none;}
+    img.floatleft { float: left;
+			margin-right: 1em;
+			margin-top: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; }
+    img.floatright { float: right;
+			margin-left: 1em; margin-top: 0.5em;
+			margin-bottom: 0.5em; }
+    img.clearcenter {display: block;
+			margin-left: auto;
+			margin-right: auto; margin-top: 0.5em;
+			margin-bottom: 0.5em}
+    -->
+    /* XML end  ]]>*/
+    </style>
+</head>
+<body>
+<pre>
+
+The Project Gutenberg eBook, Eight Sermons on The Priesthood, Altar, and
+Sacrifice, by Mayow Wynell Mayow
+
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
+other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions 
+whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of
+the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at 
+www.gutenberg.org.  If you are not located in the United States, you'll have
+to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook.
+
+
+
+
+Title: Eight Sermons on The Priesthood, Altar, and Sacrifice
+
+
+Author: Mayow Wynell Mayow
+
+
+
+Release Date: June 2, 2015  [eBook #49115]
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: ISO-646-US (US-ASCII)
+
+
+***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK EIGHT SERMONS ON THE PRIESTHOOD,
+ALTAR, AND SACRIFICE***
+</pre>
+<p>Transcribed from the 1867 James Parker and Co. edition by
+David Price, email ccx074@pglaf.org</p>
+<h1>Eight Sermons<br />
+<span class="GutSmall">ON</span><br />
+THE PRIESTHOOD, ALTAR, AND<br />
+SACRIFICE.</h1>
+
+<div class="gapspace">&nbsp;</div>
+<p style="text-align: center"><span class="GutSmall">BY</span><br
+/>
+MAYOW WYNELL MAYOW, M.A.,</p>
+<p style="text-align: center"><span class="GutSmall">PERPETUAL
+CURATE OF ST. MARY&rsquo;S, WEST BROMPTON, AND LATE</span><br />
+<span class="GutSmall">STUDENT OF CHRIST CHURCH,
+OXFORD.</span></p>
+
+<div class="gapshortline">&nbsp;</div>
+<blockquote><p>&ldquo;The principles of Christianity are now as
+freely questioned as the most doubtful and controverted points;
+the grounds of faith are as safely denied as the most unnecessary
+superstructions; that religion hath the greatest advantage which
+appeareth in the newest dress, as if we looked for another faith
+to be delivered to the saints: whereas in Christianity there can
+be no concerning truth which is not ancient, and whatsoever is
+truly new, is certainly false.&rdquo;&mdash;(<span
+class="smcap">Bp. Pearson on the Creed</span>: <i>Epistle
+Dedicatory</i>.)</p>
+</blockquote>
+
+<div class="gapshortline">&nbsp;</div>
+<p style="text-align: center"><b>Oxford and London</b>:<br />
+JAMES PARKER AND CO.<br />
+1867.</p>
+
+<div class="gapspace">&nbsp;</div>
+<p style="text-align: center">
+<a href="images/fpb.jpg">
+<img alt=
+"Decorative graphic"
+title=
+"Decorative graphic"
+ src="images/fps.jpg" />
+</a></p>
+
+<div class="gapspace">&nbsp;</div>
+<p style="text-align: center"><a name="pageiii"></a><span
+class="pagenum">p. iii</span><span class="GutSmall">TO
+THE</span><br />
+<span class="GutSmall">RIGHT REV. FATHER IN GOD,</span><br />
+WALTER KERR,<br />
+LORD BISHOP OF SALISBURY,<br />
+<span class="GutSmall">IN GRATEFUL REMEMBRANCE OF A CONNECTION
+WITH HIS</span><br />
+<span class="GutSmall">DIOCESE FOR NEARLY A QUARTER OF A
+CENTURY,</span><br />
+<span class="GutSmall">AS A TOKEN OF REVERENCE FOR HIS OFFICE,
+AND UNFEIGNED</span><br />
+<span class="GutSmall">RESPECT FOR HIS CHARACTER,</span><br />
+<span class="GutSmall">AS SOME LITTLE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF
+MANY</span><br />
+<span class="GutSmall">KINDNESSES RECEIVED,</span><br />
+<span class="GutSmall">AND AS A HUMBLE TRIBUTE TO HIS
+CONSTANCY</span><br />
+<span class="GutSmall">IN DEFENDING THE FAITH IN</span><br />
+<span class="GutSmall">THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND,</span></p>
+<p style="text-align: center"><b>This Volume</b></p>
+<p style="text-align: center"><span class="GutSmall">IS (BY
+PERMISSION) INSCRIBED,</span><br />
+<span class="GutSmall">BY HIS LORDSHIP&rsquo;S VERY FAITHFUL AND
+GRATEFUL SERVANT,</span></p>
+<p style="text-align: center">M. W. MAYOW.</p>
+<h2><a name="pagev"></a><span class="pagenum">p.
+v</span>ADVERTISEMENT.</h2>
+<p><span class="smcap">The</span> following Sermons were preached
+at St. Mary&rsquo;s, West Brompton, in November and December,
+1866.&nbsp; They are now printed as a humble contribution towards
+the defence of the Catholic doctrine of the priesthood, the
+altar, and the sacrifice, in days when there seem no limits to
+assault upon it, when there prevails every conceivable confusion
+between what is Catholic and what is Roman, and when there is the
+widest misapprehension of the principles of our
+Reformation.&nbsp; If this small volume should contribute in any
+way to a better understanding of those principles, and to the
+vindication of the loyalty to our own Church of such as,
+maintaining its Catholic character, desire equally to be loyal to
+the Church Universal, (and believe in truth that there is no
+antagonism between them,) it will not, I trust, be wholly
+useless.&nbsp; If, further, it should lead any, in the spirit of
+candour and of prayer, to give more consideration to this
+doctrine than perhaps hitherto they have done, and especially to
+consult larger and more learned works upon the subject, I shall
+have great additional reason to be thankful.</p>
+<p>It is, I hope, hardly necessary to add that there is no
+intention or desire in anything here said to pass judgment upon
+individuals, either within or without our own communion.&nbsp; It
+will be found <a name="pagevi"></a><span class="pagenum">p.
+vi</span>stated in the following discourses how readily we
+believe that many receive the benefits of the Christian altar and
+sacrifice who are yet unconscious of them; whilst it is also
+willingly acknowledged, even as regards those who more directly
+deny Catholic doctrine, that the present divided state of
+Christendom, and the wide differences of teaching within our own
+communion, make it a very different thing to be unable to see,
+(or even to oppose,) the truth than would be the case if the
+Church were still united, as of old, in one harmonious voice and
+one external communion, or if there were a perfect unanimity
+among ourselves.&nbsp; When, alas, even priests are found to
+repudiate their priesthood, it must be admitted, without reserve,
+that there is too much excuse for the laity being uncertain and
+perplexed.&nbsp; Whilst this teaches us to award the largest
+measure of charitable construction to those who differ from us,
+it gives only the more urgent cause both to state and vindicate
+the ancient faith, and to shew that it was in God&rsquo;s mercy
+preserved to us at the Reformation.</p>
+<p>I must not omit to say that I am indebted to Mr.
+Carter&rsquo;s excellent treatise for many facts, suggestions,
+and illustrations, even beyond those which the references given
+explicitly acknowledge.</p>
+<p style="text-align: right">M. W. M.</p>
+<p><span class="smcap">St. Mary&rsquo;s</span>, <span
+class="smcap">West Brompton</span>.<br />
+&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <i>February</i>
+7, 1867.</p>
+<h2><a name="pagevii"></a><span class="pagenum">p.
+vii</span>CONTENTS.</h2>
+<table>
+<tr>
+<td><p style="text-align: center">SERMON I.</p>
+<p style="text-align: center">(p. <span class="indexpageno"><a
+href="#page1">1</a></span>.)</p>
+<p style="text-align: center"><b>Treasure in Earthen
+Vessels.&mdash;Faith, not Sight, the Recogniser of the
+Priesthood.</b></p>
+<blockquote><p style="text-align: center">&ldquo;But we have this
+treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may
+be of God, and not of us.&rdquo;&mdash;2 <i>Cor.</i> iv. 7.</p>
+</blockquote>
+</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td><p style="text-align: center">SERMON II.</p>
+<p style="text-align: center">(p. <span class="indexpageno"><a
+href="#page23">23</a></span>.)</p>
+<p style="text-align: center"><b>The Witness of the World, before
+Christ, to the Doctrine of Sacrifice.</b></p>
+<blockquote><p style="text-align: center">&ldquo;Thus did Job
+continually.&rdquo;&mdash;<i>Job</i> i. 5.</p>
+</blockquote>
+</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td><p style="text-align: center">SERMON III.</p>
+<p style="text-align: center">(p. <span class="indexpageno"><a
+href="#page45">45</a></span>.)</p>
+<p style="text-align: center"><b>The Witness of the New Testament
+to the Doctrine of Sacrifice.</b></p>
+<blockquote><p style="text-align: center">&ldquo;Are not they
+which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the
+altar?&rdquo;&mdash;1 <i>Cor.</i> x. 18.</p>
+</blockquote>
+</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td><p style="text-align: center">SERMON IV.</p>
+<p style="text-align: center">(p. <span class="indexpageno"><a
+href="#page63">63</a></span>.)</p>
+<p style="text-align: center"><b>The Testimony of the Early
+Church to the Doctrine of the Priesthood.</b></p>
+<blockquote><p style="text-align: center">&ldquo;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.&rdquo;&mdash;<i>Jer.</i> vi. 16.</p>
+</blockquote>
+</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td><p style="text-align: center"><a name="pageviii"></a><span
+class="pagenum">p. viii</span>SERMON V.</p>
+<p style="text-align: center">(p. <span class="indexpageno"><a
+href="#page79">79</a></span>.)</p>
+<p style="text-align: center"><b>The Testimony of our Formularies
+to the Doctrine of the Priesthood.</b></p>
+<blockquote><p>&ldquo;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.&rdquo;&mdash;<i>St. John</i> xx.
+22, 23.</p>
+</blockquote>
+</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td><p style="text-align: center">SERMON VI.</p>
+<p style="text-align: center">(p. <span class="indexpageno"><a
+href="#page97">97</a></span>.)</p>
+<p style="text-align: center"><b>The Christian Altar.</b></p>
+<p style="text-align: center">&ldquo;We have an
+altar.&rdquo;&mdash;<i>Heb.</i> xiii. 10.</p>
+</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td><p style="text-align: center">SERMON VII.</p>
+<p style="text-align: center">(p. <span class="indexpageno"><a
+href="#page113">113</a></span>.)</p>
+<p style="text-align: center"><b>The Christian Altar.</b></p>
+<p style="text-align: center">&ldquo;We have an
+altar.&rdquo;&mdash;<i>Heb.</i> xiii. 10.</p>
+</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td><p style="text-align: center">SERMON VIII.</p>
+<p style="text-align: center">(p. <span class="indexpageno"><a
+href="#page135">135</a></span>.)</p>
+<p style="text-align: center"><b>God Incarnate our Great High
+Priest.</b></p>
+<p style="text-align: center">&ldquo;In whom are hid all the
+treasures of wisdom and knowledge.&rdquo;&mdash;<i>Coloss.</i>
+ii. 3.</p>
+</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+<h2><a name="page1"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 1</span>SERMON
+I.<br />
+Treasure in Earthen Vessels.&mdash;Faith, not Sight, the
+Recogniser of the Priesthood.</h2>
+<blockquote><p style="text-align: center">2 CORINTHIANS iv. 7.<br
+/>
+&ldquo;But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the
+excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.&rdquo;</p>
+</blockquote>
+<p><span class="smcap">The</span> words rendered &ldquo;in
+earthen vessels,&rdquo; are easy enough as to their general
+sense.&nbsp;&nbsp; <i>&#7960;&nu;
+&#8000;&sigma;&tau;&rho;&alpha;&kappa;&#8055;&nu;&omicron;&iota;&sigmaf;
+&sigma;&kappa;&epsilon;&#8059;&epsilon;&sigma;&iota;&nu;</i>,
+(the Apostle says,) where
+<i>&sigma;&kappa;&epsilon;&#8059;&omicron;&sigmaf;</i> may stand
+for any kind of utensil or household stuff.&nbsp; It is the word
+used in St. Matthew, &ldquo;How can one enter a strong
+man&rsquo;s house and spoil his <i>goods</i>;&rdquo; <a
+name="citation1"></a><a href="#footnote1"
+class="citation">[1]</a> any of his household stuff or
+possessions; whilst
+<i>&#8000;&sigma;&tau;&rho;&#8049;&kappa;&#8055;&nu;&omicron;&iota;&nu;</i>,
+(the same word which gave its name to the well-known Grecian
+<i>ostracism</i>, from the mode of voting,) signifying in its
+first sense that which is made of shell and therefore brittle, is
+often used in a derived sense for anything frail and liable to
+break, and when broken not to be re-joined.&nbsp; Therefore,
+again, it represents anything poor and mean, as compared with
+other stronger or more precious material.&nbsp; Thus, in his
+second Epistle to Timothy, St. Paul uses the very same word to
+denote those inferior vessels which are made for less honourable
+use: <a name="page2"></a><span class="pagenum">p.
+2</span>&ldquo;But in a great house, there are not only vessels
+of gold and silver, but also of wood and of earth;
+<i>&#8000;&sigma;&tau;&rho;&#940;&kappa;&iota;&nu;&alpha;</i>;&mdash;and
+some to honour, and some to dishonour.&rdquo; <a
+name="citation2a"></a><a href="#footnote2a"
+class="citation">[2a]</a></p>
+<p>We cannot, then, err as to the general meaning of the text, if
+we take it to express the fact that great gifts of
+God&mdash;treasure&mdash;may be, and are, according to His will,
+and for good and wise reason, lodged in weak and frail tenements,
+giving little outward sign of that which is hid within: great
+riches enshrined in poor and mean caskets, even as the soul of
+man dwells in the earthy tabernacle, (that red earth or clay
+which gave its very name to Adam,) when &ldquo;the Lord God
+formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his
+nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.&rdquo;
+<a name="citation2b"></a><a href="#footnote2b"
+class="citation">[2b]</a></p>
+<p>But St. Paul&rsquo;s application of the figure here is
+somewhat different from the illustration just used.&nbsp; It is
+not life, or an immortal soul shrouded in a mortal body, of which
+he speaks, but some special gift or gifts of God for the use of
+His Church and people, which he declares had been entrusted to
+vessels of little &ldquo;form or comeliness.&rdquo;&nbsp; And it
+will be of much interest and importance both to trace out what
+this treasure is, and what are the vessels in which it is placed,
+as well as to insist upon the fact that the treasure is not the
+less, because thus shrouded or obscured; and that it gives no
+cause to deny the existence of the treasure, that those who bear
+it seem either so <a name="page3"></a><span class="pagenum">p.
+3</span>like other men as they do, or so little worthy in
+themselves of what they bear.</p>
+<p>Now, to see what the treasure is, we need turn back but a
+little way.&nbsp; In the preceding chapter, speaking of himself
+and others charged with the ministry of the Gospel, the Apostle
+says, deprecating all high thoughts in those so honoured:
+&ldquo;Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think anything
+as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God, who also hath
+made us able ministers of the New Testament;&rdquo; and then,
+after thus disclaiming all personal merit or glory, he goes on
+immediately to contrast the glory of the Gospel with the glories
+of the earlier dispensation.&nbsp; &ldquo;For if the ministration
+of death,&rdquo; he says, &ldquo;written and engraven in stones
+was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly
+behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which
+glory was to be done away: how shall not the ministration of the
+Spirit be rather glorious?&nbsp; For if the ministration of
+condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of
+righteousness exceed in glory.&rdquo; <a name="citation3a"></a><a
+href="#footnote3a" class="citation">[3a]</a>&nbsp; Pursuing this
+thought a little further, and enlarging upon the glories of the
+ministration of the Spirit of the Lord which giveth life, he
+comes back; at the opening of the fourth chapter, more closely to
+the subject of his ministry, and says: &ldquo;Therefore, as we
+have received this ministry, we faint not;&rdquo; <a
+name="citation3b"></a><a href="#footnote3b"
+class="citation">[3b]</a> and after a word on the effect of the
+Gospel which he preached, that it <a name="page4"></a><span
+class="pagenum">p. 4</span>led to the &ldquo;renouncing the
+hidden things of dishonesty;&rdquo; <a name="citation4a"></a><a
+href="#footnote4a" class="citation">[4a]</a> and another, as to
+its being sufficiently manifested to every willing heart, and so,
+if hidden, hidden only &ldquo;to them that are lost, whom the God
+of this world hath blinded;&rdquo; <a name="citation4b"></a><a
+href="#footnote4b" class="citation">[4b]</a> he returns once more
+to what it was which he preached, and declares how this great
+treasure,&mdash;&ldquo;the unsearchable riches of Christ,&rdquo;
+as he elsewhere describes it,&mdash;was entrusted to poor and
+weak instruments; &ldquo;for we preach,&rdquo; he says,
+&ldquo;not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves
+your servants for Jesus&rsquo; sake.&nbsp; For God, who commanded
+the light to shine out of darkness,&rdquo; (that is, in the
+natural world when He said, &ldquo;Let there be light:&rdquo;)
+&ldquo;hath shined in our hearts,&rdquo; (that is, in the new
+creation of the spiritual world,) &ldquo;to give the light of the
+knowledge of the glory of God, in the face of Jesus
+Christ.&rdquo; <a name="citation4c"></a><a href="#footnote4c"
+class="citation">[4c]</a>&nbsp; And then, in the text, he seems
+to meet an objection, that if his call and ministry in the Gospel
+were of so glorious a nature, the instruments thereof would bear
+more or higher marks of glory themselves, he adds the words of
+our text: &ldquo;But we have this treasure in earthen vessels,
+that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of
+us.&rdquo; <a name="citation4d"></a><a href="#footnote4d"
+class="citation">[4d]</a></p>
+<p>And now, brethren, again I ask, what is the treasure, and to
+whom committed?&nbsp; Surely the ministry of the glorious Gospel
+of Jesus Christ, entrusted to human stewardship!</p>
+<p><a name="page5"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 5</span>And who
+shall disparage this, or overlook it, or deny the gifts and
+treasure of and in those who bear it, though they be but as
+earthen vessels; though they look simply like other men; though
+they are &ldquo;men of like passions;&rdquo; though they have few
+or no high marks or tokens, to be discerned by man&rsquo;s eye,
+of the greatness of the treasure which nevertheless they
+bear?</p>
+<p>This thought, this warning against denying God&rsquo;s gifts
+when lodged in earthen vessels, and so speaking against them as
+actually to make a new Gospel totally unlike to that which has
+been from the beginning, is especially a danger of our day: a day
+when men live so much by sight, and, alas, so little by faith;
+when restless and free enquiry ranges over every subject, and men
+pride themselves upon their refusal to submit to any authority
+but their own reason, or their own mere opinion, or to receive
+anything beyond that of which they can understand the mode and
+assign the use.</p>
+<p>Not, perhaps, the most unfrequent of these attacks of the
+present time is directed against almost the very subject of our
+text: the reality of the treasure or gifts bestowed upon the
+ministers and stewards of Christ&rsquo;s mysteries, because they
+are contained in earthen vessels.&nbsp; Whereas St. Paul fully
+claims and asserts that there is this treasure, and gives as the
+sufficient reason for its being so lowlily enshrined, that
+thereby it would be seen indeed that &ldquo;the excellency of the
+power <a name="page6"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 6</span>is of
+God, and not of man;&rdquo; <a name="citation6"></a><a
+href="#footnote6" class="citation">[6]</a> these objectors deny
+there can be any such treasure as it is asserted there is,
+because it is not to their eye exhibited in or by, glorious, or
+sufficiently distinctive, instruments.</p>
+<p>Take a case in illustration, very near indeed to the argument
+of the Apostle in this place.&nbsp; If our Christianity in our
+beloved Church of England is, and is to be, the Christianity
+which has been from the beginning, it cannot be without a
+priesthood, and an altar, and a sacrifice.&nbsp; I do not propose
+at this moment to go into the proofs of this, but rather to
+notice an objection which is sometimes triumphantly put forward,
+by modern infidelity or ignorance, as fatal to all such
+claims.&nbsp; It is said, that if it were so that there is a
+priesthood, (which it is intended to deny;&mdash;O sad and
+fearful thought!&nbsp; That any should be found to deny and
+refuse the chiefest means of applying to us the pardon of the
+Cross): but if it were so, then, it is said this priesthood must
+be seen to be such by some peculiar exhibition of its powers, by
+some glorious or distinctive appearance in the treasure-bearing
+vessels.&nbsp; So it is said, Whatever there may be elsewhere,
+the Church of England at least has no priesthood, and no
+priests.&nbsp; No!&nbsp; Can any one believe (it is added) that
+they are priests who are young men, as others, one day; and are
+ordained, with so little outward difference, the next?&nbsp; <a
+name="page7"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 7</span>Can it be that
+prayers and a laying on of hands, even by bishops, can effect
+such a change when all looks so nearly the same?&nbsp; No,
+truly!&nbsp; If such there were, if such there be, if we are to
+believe in a power given of this kind, if the priest can
+consecrate, and offer upon the altar of God, let us see the
+difference.&nbsp; Let the young, who are to fill such an office,
+be educated, not as other young men are, living with them in
+social life at our schools and Universities, but as set apart for
+this from their earliest days.&nbsp; Let them be known of all as
+a separate kind or caste; let them have a distinctive dress; let
+them give up social life; let them, above all, renounce the
+married state, and give themselves up to pursue their avocation
+in the single life; and then, perhaps, we may be more inclined to
+believe in their sacrificial function; in their power to
+officiate sacerdotally at the altar; in the committal to them of
+the power of the keys, and all which is included in the idea of a
+distinct order and a priestly authority.&nbsp; Now all this,
+brethren, is mere man&rsquo;s wisdom, setting forth, in truth,
+not what it really desires to find as the mark of a priesthood,
+if it might have this in vessels of gold or silver, but simply,
+if it may not disparage and deny a priesthood of Christianity
+altogether, (which yet it desires to do), at least delighting to
+deny it to <i>us</i>; to raise a prejudice against it, and to
+drive from the Church of England (if it were possible) all those
+who cleave to the statements of our formularies <a
+name="page8"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 8</span>as they are,
+and to the faith once for all delivered and handed down to
+us.</p>
+<p>But observe, brethren, what all this really amounts to.&nbsp;
+I am not saying whether there should not be (unto the more
+edification), a more distinctive theological education for the
+future priesthood than very often there is among us.&nbsp; I am
+not saying whether there might not, with advantage, be some
+greater distinction in outward appearance or dress, than we have
+among us generally, for those who minister in holy things.&nbsp;
+(Let it, however, here be remarked, that the greatest objection
+and hindrance as to this proceeds, as we well know, from the
+clamours of those who would first deny us all priestly character,
+and then reproach any who, claiming it, are anxious to mark it
+also by some outward difference.)&nbsp; I am not, however, now
+dwelling upon these things, nor even on what are the advantages
+or disadvantages of a celibate clergy, but I say that to suppose
+the presence or absence of these outward signs or marks should
+affect the essence of the priesthood, and men being in reality
+and truth ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of
+God, in the full sense in which these words are understood in all
+the primitive writings and liturgies of the Church of Christ,
+shews, not only an ignorance of the very first principles of
+Christian worship, but a strange overlooking of the truth taught
+in the text, and confirmed to us in so many other places of Holy
+<a name="page9"></a><span class="pagenum">p.
+9</span>Scripture.&nbsp; If St. Paul confessed that, even with
+him, his ministry was confided to an earthen vessel; if there
+were no need and no likelihood that any of the primitive stewards
+of God&rsquo;s mysteries should be distinguished as by a star
+upon their breast, or any insignia of their rank in the Apostolic
+band, then it can amount to nothing as a disproof of the
+priesthood of the ministry of the Church of England, that those
+who serve at her altars have but the outward look and bearing of
+other men.</p>
+<p>We may even carry this argument further, if it may be so done
+with due reverence and humility.&nbsp; We may take, not merely
+prophets and Apostles, but our blessed Lord Himself,&mdash;our
+King as well as our great High Priest,&mdash;and say of Him,
+that, although of course it is not objectively true that He had
+any of His gifts or powers in an earthen vessel, (save in the
+sense that He took upon Him man&rsquo;s nature, and so being of
+Adam&rsquo;s race&mdash;yet without sin&mdash;had His share of
+the earth of which Adam was created); but though, I say, except
+thus, He held not anything in an earthen vessel objectively,
+still, on the other hand, subjectively, to man&rsquo;s sight and
+apprehension, He veiled His Godhead, He emptied Himself of His
+glory, He obscured His greatness, so that nearly throughout His
+life and ministry He was passed over as a common man, or His
+claims denied, and Himself treated as an impostor.&nbsp; In spite
+of the <a name="page10"></a><span class="pagenum">p.
+10</span>holiness of His life, the tenderness of His compassion,
+the purity of His precepts, the marvels of His teaching, the
+abundance and power of His miracles, yet He was not received or
+accepted generally as other than a common man.&nbsp; The Jews
+were offended at Him.&nbsp; He was to them &ldquo;a stumbling
+block,&rdquo; as He was to the Greeks
+&ldquo;foolishness.&rdquo;&nbsp; He came in no outward
+manifestation of glory; He was not in kings&rsquo; courts; He had
+no armies or numerous followers; He won no carnal victories; He
+did nothing &ldquo;to restore the kingdom to Israel,&rdquo; in
+any sense which the Jewish nation could observe or recognise;
+nay, in His very priestly acts, and in that greatest of them in
+which He did in truth offer up the great sacrifice of all, He
+appeared to man&rsquo;s eye in no such aspect.&nbsp; Even as a
+victim, He was only considered as a malefactor put to death,
+whilst it may be well doubted whether even His own Apostles had
+the least insight at the time into the nature of the sacrifice He
+made; and none of them had a single thought or perception of the
+priesthood which He exercised.&nbsp; So, indeed, He seemed to
+have &ldquo;no form nor comeliness;&rdquo; <a
+name="citation10a"></a><a href="#footnote10a"
+class="citation">[10a]</a> &ldquo;His visage was so marred more
+than any man, and His form more than the sons of men.&rdquo; <a
+name="citation10b"></a><a href="#footnote10b"
+class="citation">[10b]</a>&nbsp; He seemed to have all He had in
+an earthen vessel, undistinguished and undistinguishable by the
+vulgar eye from others who were around Him, or who had preceded
+Him, <a name="page11"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 11</span>with
+some pretensions to be teachers, or reformers of manners, but who
+had disappeared and left no trace behind them.&nbsp; Is it, then,
+so certain that those who now &ldquo;seek after a sign&rdquo;
+before they admit any claim to &ldquo;the office of a priest in
+the Church of God,&rdquo; and who look for various marks and
+distinctions in outward show or appearance before they will
+entertain the doctrine as belonging to the Church of England; is
+it, I say, so certain that they would not have rejected Christ
+Himself, as not coming up to their mark and requirement, if they
+had seen Him in the days of His ministration upon earth?</p>
+<p>But let us pass on from the priesthood of our Lord and
+Saviour, and turn again for a moment to the Apostles and their
+fellow-labourers.&nbsp; Observe, I am not engaged in proving now
+their priestly character, nor the truth of the sacrifices, or
+altars of the Christian religion; (we may come to this another
+day;) but I am merely meeting the preliminary objection that
+there can be no such things, at least, none such in the Church of
+England, because our priesthood is not more manifestly set forth
+in outward show to the eye of the world, by a more distinctive
+priestly education, or a more distinctive priestly dress, or a
+more distinctive (as is supposed) priestly life as separated from
+social life; and this particularly by the exhibition of an
+unmarried clergy.&nbsp; As I have before said, I am not even
+giving an opinion on the advantages or disadvantages of <a
+name="page12"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 12</span>some of these
+things; but I am asking the plain broad question, What right have
+we, from Scripture and Scriptural example, to say these
+differences are needful to the existence of a priesthood?&nbsp;
+Be the priesthood and ministerial powers of St. Peter and St.
+Paul, and others their companions, what they may, did they shew
+them forth as in vessels of gold and silver, or were they not
+what we may call obscured, undistinguished, not (in many
+particulars at least) dissevered from social life, but just like
+other men; in short, with their treasure borne in earthen
+vessels, however really great and precious in itself?</p>
+<p>Carry your mind back, brethren, to Simon Peter with Andrew his
+brother, to James and John, the sons of Zebedee, fishing on the
+sea of Galilee.&nbsp; There is no reason, at I know of, to
+suppose that they wholly gave up this their occupation
+immediately upon their endowments at the day of Pentecost.&nbsp;
+They certainly pursued them as long as their Lord was with them,
+and after the Crucifixion.&nbsp; Nay, after the Resurrection;
+after Jesus had appeared unto the Eleven; after He had
+&ldquo;breathed on them and said, Receive ye the Holy
+Ghost,&rdquo; and conveyed to them, (if any thing could do so,)
+the priestly power, saying, &ldquo;Whose soever sins ye remit,
+they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain,
+they are retained,&rdquo; <a name="citation12"></a><a
+href="#footnote12" class="citation">[12]</a> still Simon Peter
+said to the rest, &ldquo;I go a fishing; and they said unto him,
+We also <a name="page13"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 13</span>go
+with thee.&rdquo; <a name="citation13a"></a><a
+href="#footnote13a" class="citation">[13a]</a>&nbsp; Will any one
+dare to say, Had they been true priests of God, they must have
+pursued another mode of life, and borne the marks of their office
+more demonstratively and visibly before the eyes of men?&nbsp;
+Will any say, We cannot receive it that the hands, engaged one
+day in casting a hook into the sea, or spreading or mending nets,
+can be those which exercise, the next, (or the same if so it be,)
+the Christian ministerial office,&mdash;in breaking of bread, and
+celebrating the most holy Christian mysteries?&nbsp; Will any say
+that the lips which called to their partners for help, or in
+direction as to the safety or management of their boats and
+fishing, must therefore be incapable of preaching the glad
+tidings of the Gospel, or of exercising the commission given them
+of binding and loosing in the name of Christ?&nbsp; Or, think of
+St. Paul, with his fellow-helper and companion in labour, Aquila,
+working with their hands at their craft, &ldquo;for by their
+occupation they were tent-makers;&rdquo; <a
+name="citation13b"></a><a href="#footnote13b"
+class="citation">[13b]</a> aye, even &ldquo;working night and
+day,&rdquo; that they &ldquo;might not be chargeable&rdquo; to
+others: and will any say, Herein they shewed themselves too like
+to other men to put forward any pretence or claim to have or
+exercise any priestly or sacerdotal function.&nbsp; Will any
+again call to mind that St. Peter was certainly a married man;
+(&ldquo;Peter&rsquo;s wife&rsquo;s mother,&rdquo; we read at one
+time, &ldquo;was sick of a fever;&rdquo;) as also certainly was
+Aquila the companion <a name="page14"></a><span
+class="pagenum">p. 14</span>in labour of St. Paul, (for he came
+&ldquo;with his wife Priscilla;&rdquo;) or, once more, St.
+Paul&rsquo;s own claim to the right (though he did not exercise
+it, but still the right) to marry if he thought fit; as he says,
+&ldquo;Have we not power to eat and to drink?&nbsp; Have we not
+power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other Apostles,
+and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?&rdquo; <a
+name="citation14"></a><a href="#footnote14"
+class="citation">[14]</a> will any consider so much, and then
+say, you must needs have a celibate priesthood, if you are to
+have any priesthood at all in the Church of Christ; or, if there
+be one, it must be one so separated from all earthly pursuit as
+to be recognised at a glance as of a different order?</p>
+<p>Nay, my brethren, such things are surely no arguments of even
+a feather&rsquo;s weight in the mouth of any man against a true
+priesthood in the Church of England; and one can hardly see how
+they can be supposed, by any sober-minded thinker, to be either
+contained in, or deduced from, Holy Scripture.&nbsp; They are, in
+fact, objections merely playing with the prejudices of those who
+have already come to a foregone conclusion, and intended rather
+to point an unjust shaft at the Church of England, through a mock
+admiration of the Church of Rome, than to advance the cause of
+truth.&nbsp; And this with no justice, even towards Rome herself,
+either in praise or blame; for Rome herself may have something to
+say in defence of her practice as to the distinctions <a
+name="page15"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 15</span>with which
+she marks her priesthood, if looked on merely as matters of
+expediency and not of faith or doctrine; and at the same time, we
+certainly have no little reason to maintain that in many of these
+things, (and however there may be incidental disadvantages which
+we need not deny, on the ground of expediency also,) yet we come
+the nearer of the two to the following of the Apostles, in the
+not making too broad an outward distinction between priests and
+people, and in the not having laid a yoke hard to be borne,
+perhaps, as a wide and extended rule, too hard to be borne, upon
+our priesthood&rsquo;s neck; and, in short, that we are at any
+rate close upon the very type and pattern which St. Paul mentions
+in our text, in that we too have our treasure in earthen vessels,
+and may, in one sense at least, rejoice that it is so, inasmuch
+as thereby it may be seen by all &ldquo;that the excellency of
+the power is of God, and not of us.&rdquo;</p>
+<p>Further, it needs surely no words to prove that such
+objections and such line of argument in denial of our priesthood,
+can have but one effect, if they have any, namely, to forward the
+interests of the Church of Rome.&nbsp; This, I presume, ought in
+consistency to be the last wish of those who use them.&nbsp; But
+so it is, and in this way.&nbsp; There is no more possibility of
+any one, who has the knowledge of what Christianity has been from
+the beginning, being moved by such assertions to disbelieve the
+great doctrines of the <a name="page16"></a><span
+class="pagenum">p. 16</span>priesthood, the altar, and the
+sacrifice, as belonging, and necessarily belonging, to the Church
+Universal, than there is of the words of the objectors moving
+mountains or drying up seas.&nbsp; We can no more unlearn the
+very first elements of the appointed mode of our applying to
+Christ for His intercession on high for us miserable
+sinners,&mdash;no more believe the Catholic truths which we have
+drunk in to be mere human figments and superstitious
+inventions,&mdash;than we could return to the system of Ptolemy,
+and believe the earth to be the centre round which the sun and
+the stars revolve.&nbsp; Nothing, therefore, can be gained in
+this direction by those who propound such views.&nbsp; But if it
+should be that any, who know what the Church Universal holds and
+has ever held on these points, should, by weakness or
+inadvertence, be shaken in their belief that the Church of
+England maintains these doctrines and preserves this sacerdotal
+order,&mdash;if any should come to think that perhaps after all
+she has not a priesthood, and an altar, and a sacrifice, then
+such would no doubt begin to fail in their allegiance to her, and
+be afraid longer to trust their souls to her teaching or her
+keeping.&nbsp; No well-instructed, patient, humble-minded member
+of the Church of England can, I think, be deceived by so
+sophistical an argument as that which we have been considering;
+but, of course, all are not well instructed, nor, perchance, are
+all patient or humble minded, and hence it may be, there
+<i>is</i> a danger.&nbsp; <a name="page17"></a><span
+class="pagenum">p. 17</span>But if there be this danger, or if
+any defections should follow upon such defamation of our Church,
+those who put forth the libel must have upon their conscience the
+weight of having aided the Church of Rome against their Mother
+Church of England.</p>
+<p>But to return; take but two brief illustrations further of our
+subject.&nbsp; You will remember the contention between St. Paul
+and St. Barnabas concerning &ldquo;Mark, sister&rsquo;s son to
+Barnabas,&rdquo; whom &ldquo;Paul thought not good to take with
+them,&rdquo; and how it &ldquo;was so sharp between them that
+they parted asunder one from the other.&rdquo; <a
+name="citation17a"></a><a href="#footnote17a"
+class="citation">[17a]</a>&nbsp; Again, you will recollect the
+occasion when at Antioch St. Paul (as he says),
+&ldquo;withstood&rdquo; St. Peter &ldquo;to the face because he
+was to be blamed;&rdquo; saying to him &ldquo;before them all, If
+thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and
+not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as
+do the Jews?&rdquo;&nbsp; Consider that &ldquo;the other Jews
+dissembled likewise with him, insomuch that Barnabas also was
+carried away with their dissimulation;&rdquo; and to such a point
+did this reach, that St. Paul declares he &ldquo;saw that they
+walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel;&rdquo;
+<a name="citation17b"></a><a href="#footnote17b"
+class="citation">[17b]</a> put all this together and then say
+whether, upon the grounds of the objection urged, any one might
+not far more plausibly have denied to the Apostles themselves any
+just power or fitness to rule or teach authoritatively <a
+name="page18"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 18</span>in the Church
+of God, than any man can deny the priesthood of the Church of
+England because its power is not more demonstratively shewn among
+us.</p>
+<p>Or, for a second point, note this:&mdash;Does, or did ever,
+the admission to the Christian covenant, and the wondrous gift of
+God, the new birth of water and of the Spirit, by which, as the
+Apostle plainly teaches, Christians are made the temples of the
+Holy Ghost; does it, or did it ever, make such outward show of
+difference as will enable man to decide, immediately and
+infallibly, who are Christ&rsquo;s, and who are forfeiting or
+have forfeited the gift bestowed?&nbsp; Then, if there be not
+this palpable manifestation as to the Christian life in each, why
+should there be a more manifest and outward demonstration of the
+treasure of the priesthood?&nbsp; If the grace of Baptism be not
+thus self-evident, and ever recognised by sight, why must the
+grace of Orders be so either?&nbsp; Oh! when shall we learn to
+believe instead of to cavil; to use the blessings God gives us,
+not to dispute about them; to judge, not according to appearance,
+but to judge righteous judgment; to believe there is a treasure,
+even the treasure which the Church has ever believed and declared
+to be in her ministry and stewardship, though it be contained in
+earthen vessels?</p>
+<p>One word more, brethren, of most serious weight and import, as
+to such objections and I objectors.&nbsp; Carry your mind back to
+the time <a name="page19"></a><span class="pagenum">p.
+19</span>of Christ, to the labours of Apostles and Evangelists,
+and the infancy of the Church, and see of what Spirit they
+are.&nbsp; I am not speaking, remember, of all who may, from one
+cause or other, not be able to receive the doctrine of the
+Christian priesthood and altar, and who, we may well hope and
+believe, many of them receive the blessing of these gifts of
+Christ, though they know it not; but I speak of the particular
+objection with which I have all along been dealing,&mdash;that
+there cannot be a Priesthood, unless marked by striking outward
+differences visible by all.&nbsp; And I ask, what would have been
+the part taken, if the framers of such a test, being consistent
+in their objection, had lived in the days of Christ on
+earth?&nbsp; Surely we should have heard them saying, aye, in
+spite of His mighty works and great High Priesthood, &ldquo;Is
+not this the carpenter&rsquo;s Son?&nbsp; Is not His mother
+called Mary, and His brethren James, and Joses, and Simon, and
+Judas?&nbsp; And His sisters, are they not all with us?&rdquo; <a
+name="citation19a"></a><a href="#footnote19a"
+class="citation">[19a]</a>&nbsp; What is He different from
+another?&nbsp; Or what more likely than that expecting something
+different in show and demeanour in the great Apostle of the
+Gentiles, they would have joined in the reproach: &ldquo;His
+bodily presence is weak and his speech contemptible!&rdquo; <a
+name="citation19b"></a><a href="#footnote19b"
+class="citation">[19b]</a> and have rejected Him?</p>
+<p>If these things shew us the dangers of such a line of
+argument, let them keep us from any <a name="page20"></a><span
+class="pagenum">p. 20</span>word said to countenance or support
+it.&nbsp; It is a solemn thought that we cannot, by even the most
+careless word of levity, express approval of such assaults upon
+the ancient faith, or sympathy with those who make them, without
+becoming sharers in their responsibility.&nbsp; For it is thus,
+by a few words here and a few there, that public opinion is
+formed or strengthened; and what can be more awful than to have
+helped to form it adversely to the truth of God, and in
+derogation of that &ldquo;ministry of reconciliation,&rdquo; and
+those means of grace, which He has appointed.&nbsp; Surely the
+sin of such must be, like that of the sons of Eli, &ldquo;very
+great before the Lord,&rdquo; when a prejudice is raised by which
+men, if they do not &ldquo;abhor,&rdquo; are at least taught to
+deny and despise, &ldquo;the offering of the Lord.&rdquo;&nbsp;
+At the same time, let us pray earnestly for them, for, we will
+hope and trust, &ldquo;they know not what they do.&rdquo;&nbsp;
+Let us not wish that they went out from us, but let us hope and
+pray that they may be turned to better things.&nbsp; Let us
+remember, too, as a ground of charity, that many fall into error
+here because too much, for many years, the teaching of the
+primitive Church and of Catholic antiquity has been overlooked as
+a guide to the due understanding of the Scriptures; and again,
+because the face of Christendom, alas, is not now so one and
+undivided as to present all truth in due form, and mode, and
+weight, to each man&rsquo;s acceptance.&nbsp; The glory <a
+name="page21"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 21</span>of our
+Reformation is, indeed, that it appeals to antiquity, and carries
+us back to the early Church; but these later days have too much
+overlooked this great principle of the Reformation.&nbsp; So it
+has happened, that what is, alas, the misfortune and the reproach
+of Christendom&mdash;I mean its divided state&mdash;may be, and
+we will hope is, some palliation before God for defect in those
+who wish to follow the truth, but are unable at the present
+moment to see or to accept it.&nbsp; So let us above all pray to
+the one great Lord of all, that in His good time the Church may
+again be one, not only in its essence, which it must be, (we
+believe in but &ldquo;one holy Catholic and Apostolic
+Church,&rdquo;) but also in its life, and in a re-established
+communion of the Saints; that being indeed, if it may be so, once
+more one, our Lord&rsquo;s own prayer for it may be fulfilled,
+and His promise accomplished, and &ldquo;the world believe that
+God hath sent Him.&rdquo; <a name="citation21a"></a><a
+href="#footnote21a" class="citation">[21a]</a>&nbsp; And let us
+ourselves, brethren, ever remember that all we have in treasure
+is indeed in earthen vessels, and let us for ourselves be content
+to be reviled and threatened (yes, as the holy Apostle was, and
+his Lord and Master before him), for &ldquo;the disciple is not
+above his Master, nor the servant above his Lord.&rdquo; <a
+name="citation21b"></a><a href="#footnote21b"
+class="citation">[21b]</a>&nbsp; Neither, indeed, let us count it
+a strange thing, &ldquo;as though some strange thing happened
+unto us,&rdquo; <a name="citation21c"></a><a href="#footnote21c"
+class="citation">[21c]</a> if we have to &ldquo;go forth bearing
+<a name="page22"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 22</span>the
+reproach of Christ&rdquo; <a name="citation22a"></a><a
+href="#footnote22a" class="citation">[22a]</a> and His Apostles;
+nay, rather, &ldquo;being reviled, let us bless; being
+persecuted&rdquo; (if so it be), &ldquo;let us suffer it; being
+defamed, let us intreat;&rdquo; yea, let us be willing to be
+&ldquo;made as the filth of the world, and the off-scouring of
+all things,&rdquo; <a name="citation22b"></a><a
+href="#footnote22b" class="citation">[22b]</a> so that we may but
+do our Master&rsquo;s work, and preserve His truth in the midst
+of a crooked and perverse generation, and win souls to Christ,
+and, if it may be so indeed, &ldquo;finish our course with joy,
+and the ministry, which we have received of the Lord Jesus, to
+testify the Gospel of the grace of God.&rdquo; <a
+name="citation22c"></a><a href="#footnote22c"
+class="citation">[22c]</a></p>
+<h2><a name="page23"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 23</span>SERMON
+II.<br />
+The Witness of the World, before Christ, to the Doctrine of
+Sacrifice.</h2>
+<blockquote><p style="text-align: center">JOB i. 5.<br />
+&ldquo;Thus did Job continually.&rdquo;</p>
+</blockquote>
+<p><span class="smcap">That</span> which such a man as Job
+&ldquo;did continually,&rdquo; we shall naturally conclude was
+well-pleasing in the sight of God.&nbsp; The Almighty&rsquo;s own
+witness to his character is given in His Word addressed to Satan:
+&ldquo;Hast thou considered My servant Job, that there is none
+like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that
+feareth God, and escheweth evil?&rdquo; <a
+name="citation23"></a><a href="#footnote23"
+class="citation">[23]</a>&nbsp; And when we couple this with the
+circumstances to which the text relates, and the tone of the
+whole narrative, we shall find, I think, more than a <i>prima
+facie</i> probability that the act so mentioned was not only
+right in itself, but that it bore a significant import, not
+merely to those who lived near Job&rsquo;s own time or in his own
+country, but to the world at large.</p>
+<p>What then is it to which the text alludes?</p>
+<p>Job, we read, was a man of great substance as well as great
+integrity, living in a very early time <a name="page24"></a><span
+class="pagenum">p. 24</span>in the land of Uz.&nbsp; Moreover,
+besides his great possessions, we are told that he had seven sons
+and three daughters.&nbsp; And we find that his sons were used,
+&ldquo;to feast in their houses, every one his day;&rdquo; and
+that on these occasions it was their custom to &ldquo;send and
+call for their three sisters to eat and to drink with
+them;&rdquo; a token, (as a well-known commentator has fairly
+enough conjectured,) both of their harmonious family affection
+and of the good order and conduct which prevailed in their
+feastings, or so holy a man as Job would not have permitted his
+daughters to join in their festivity.&nbsp; But, nevertheless, we
+read that Job in his anxious care was mindful to intercede for
+them, even in case they might have erred or sinned in the fulness
+of their rejoicing, or in the exuberance of their mirth.&nbsp;
+&ldquo;And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone
+about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in
+the morning, and offered burnt-offerings according to the number
+of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned,
+and cursed God in their hearts.&nbsp; Thus did Job
+continually.&rdquo; <a name="citation24"></a><a
+href="#footnote24" class="citation">[24]</a></p>
+<p>Here, then, we have no doubtful witness, not merely to the
+usage of sacrifice, but to its acceptableness also in the sight
+of God, as a part of worship and intercession.&nbsp; And this is
+all the more, not merely curious, but important, when we reflect
+upon the very early date almost universally <a
+name="page25"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 25</span>assigned to
+the events related in the Book of Job.&nbsp; Whether the record
+itself may have been composed at a somewhat later period, as some
+have thought, yet all authorities are, I believe, agreed that the
+time of Job&rsquo;s life was contemporaneous with even the
+earliest part of the life of Moses, and, therefore, that he did
+not derive his knowledge of God from the institutions of the
+Jews, or live under the Mosaic dispensation.&nbsp; The consenting
+witness, both of the Jews themselves and of the early Christian
+writers accepting their testimony, is that Job is the same as
+Jobab, mentioned in the first book of Chronicles, who is there
+named as the third in descent from Esau; so that he, as well as
+Moses, was the fifth in descent from Abraham,&mdash;the one in
+the line of Esau, and the other in the line of Jacob.&nbsp;
+Moreover, it would appear that this Job or Jobab was, if not
+absolutely what may be termed a king, yet a ruler and a prince in
+the land called Uz, or Ausitis, a country on the confines,
+probably, of Idum&aelig;a and Arabia.&nbsp; If this be so, he
+would seem, from the summary given in the first book of
+Chronicles, to have succeeded Balaam in the sovereignty or
+chiefdom of that country.&nbsp; &ldquo;For,&rdquo; (says that
+narrative,) &ldquo;these are the kings that reigned in the land
+of Edom, before any king reigned over the children of Israel;
+Bela the son of Beor,&rdquo; (undoubtedly the same as Balaam);
+&ldquo;and the name of his city was Dinhabah.&nbsp; And when Bela
+was dead, Jobab the son <a name="page26"></a><span
+class="pagenum">p. 26</span>of Zerah of Bozrah reigned in his
+stead.&rdquo; <a name="citation26a"></a><a href="#footnote26a"
+class="citation">[26a]</a>&nbsp; Now we find in the book of
+Numbers, that Balaam the son of Beor was killed in battle,
+fighting on the side of Midian in the last year of the
+Israelites&rsquo; wandering in the wilderness, <a
+name="citation26b"></a><a href="#footnote26b"
+class="citation">[26b]</a> and supposing Job&rsquo;s trial to
+have taken place (as some ancient writers assert) some few years
+after the Exodus, as he lived one hundred and forty years after
+those events, he may very well have succeeded to the chief place
+among the Idum&aelig;an or Uzzite people upon the death of
+Balaam.&nbsp; The importance of this to our present purpose lies
+in the fact, that he is thus a witness to the antiquity and the
+use of sacrifice and burnt-offering, quite independently of the
+institutions and commands of the Mosaic law.&nbsp; If Job were of
+man&rsquo;s estate, and had sons and daughters of like estate
+also, (as the narrative unquestionably implies,) even before his
+sufferings, he must have been born not far in time from the birth
+of Moses, probably some little while before him; and what he
+&ldquo;did continually&rdquo; in his own country, and apart from
+Moses, is a witness to the practice and acceptableness of
+sacrifice, anterior to the enactments of the law from Sinai; and
+a witness, not merely, let us observe, to the use of sacrifice,
+but to sacrifice by burnt-offering, when the victim was killed
+and consumed upon the altar of God.</p>
+<p>Now this leads us back to consider what is the probable origin
+of sacrifice, and sacrifice of this <a name="page27"></a><span
+class="pagenum">p. 27</span>kind, altogether; for it is thus
+evident, that it was adopted into, and not originated by, the
+peculiar institutions of the Jewish nation and law.</p>
+<p>Now, of course we see at once where we must turn for the first
+account of sacrifice.&nbsp; The primal exercise of this mode of
+approach to God, is that recorded in the fourth chapter of the
+book of Genesis, which shews at once the need which the Fall had
+brought upon man of drawing nigh to God, not without a
+propitiation; and at the same time exhibits, in sad prominence,
+the first-fruits of that corruption of nature entailed by it,
+which provoked the eldest-born of the world, in malignant envy of
+heart, to slay his next born brother.</p>
+<p>Let us turn, then, to a brief consideration of those events,
+as illustrative of the origin and nature of sacrifice.</p>
+<p>Look first to St. John&rsquo;s and St. Paul&rsquo;s account of
+the cause of Cain&rsquo;s quarrel against his brother Abel.&nbsp;
+&ldquo;And wherefore slew he him?&rdquo; (says St. John),
+&ldquo;Because his own works were evil, and his brother&rsquo;s
+righteous.&rdquo; <a name="citation27a"></a><a
+href="#footnote27a" class="citation">[27a]</a>&nbsp; And St. Paul
+tells us wherein Abel&rsquo;s righteousness and superiority
+consisted: &ldquo;By faith he offered unto God a more excellent
+sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was
+righteous, God testifying of his gifts.&rdquo; <a
+name="citation27b"></a><a href="#footnote27b"
+class="citation">[27b]</a>&nbsp; The narrative in the Book of
+Genesis tells us the same thing as to the fact that Cain&rsquo;s
+offering was rejected and Abel&rsquo;s accepted; <a
+name="page28"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 28</span>but without
+the Apostle&rsquo;s comment we should not have precisely traced
+the cause of this rejection and acceptance: but we know now that
+it was <i>faith</i> in the one and a <i>want of faith</i> in the
+other, in which the distinction lay; and also that somehow this
+difference was exhibited in the gifts which they brought:
+&ldquo;God&rdquo; (of Abel) &ldquo;testifying of his
+gifts.&rdquo;&nbsp; By this, too, St. Paul tells us, &ldquo;He
+being dead still speaketh;&rdquo; a statement which brings the
+whole matter home to ourselves.&nbsp; The narrative then is this:
+&ldquo;And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of
+the ground.&nbsp; And in process of time it came to pass, that
+Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the
+Lord.&nbsp; And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his
+flock and of the fat thereof.&nbsp; And the Lord had respect unto
+Abel and to his offering: but unto Cain and to his offering He
+had not respect.&rdquo; <a name="citation28"></a><a
+href="#footnote28" class="citation">[28]</a></p>
+<p>This takes us back to the origin of sacrifice; and the first
+remark which occurs is, that it would seem highly probable that
+its institution was a matter of revelation from God to Adam; for
+though mere reason and moral feeling might make the creature see
+the propriety of offering to the Creator something of that which
+His bounty had bestowed, and possibly might lead to the thought
+that it should be not mean, but good and precious, yet there are
+so many attendant circumstances in the institution, which it does
+not <a name="page29"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 29</span>appear
+possible to account for upon the hypothesis of the mere dictates
+of reason and feeling, that we can hardly ascribe the practice to
+anything short of a communication of the divine will to
+man.&nbsp; However, be this as it may, it is plain that both Cain
+and Abel were conscious of the duty of offering sacrifice or
+oblation in some kind to God.&nbsp; And each brought of that
+which he had.&nbsp; So far, it might be thought, Cain was not
+behind his brother.&nbsp; &ldquo;Abel was a keeper of sheep, but
+Cain was a tiller of the ground.&rdquo;&nbsp; Cain brought of the
+fruit of the ground, but Abel brought of the firstlings of his
+flock, and (it is added) &ldquo;of the fat thereof.&rdquo;&nbsp;
+Now it may be we are intended to note a difference
+here,&mdash;that Abel&rsquo;s offering, the firstlings and the
+fat, denotes the earliest and the best: as if he hastened to
+acknowledge, in all thankfulness and humility, that he was not
+worthy to touch or use anything he had, until he had sanctified
+it by first offering of it to God; and this, the first he had,
+and the best: whilst the more scanty narrative as to Cain, that
+he merely brought of the fruit of the ground, may mark that he
+took no heed to bring of the first, nor of the best.&nbsp; He
+would offer <i>something</i> as an acknowledgment of God&rsquo;s
+power,&mdash;perhaps, too, of His goodness,&mdash;but not in that
+due spirit of unmeasured humility and thankfulness, which alone
+was becoming in a son of Adam.&nbsp; But this, if it were so,
+does not seem to be all which is implied as to his lack of
+faith.&nbsp; To understand <a name="page30"></a><span
+class="pagenum">p. 30</span>wherein this lay, we must remember
+the promise made to our first parents after the Fall, of
+&ldquo;the seed of the woman&rdquo; who should &ldquo;bruise the
+serpent&rsquo;s head.&rdquo; <a name="citation30a"></a><a
+href="#footnote30a" class="citation">[30a]</a>&nbsp; Faith in
+this seed, the hope, the only hope of the world after
+Adam&rsquo;s transgression, seems to be the thing intended; and
+if we suppose that God was pleased to reveal to our first parents
+some further particulars as to the mode of the atonement to be
+made by shedding of blood, by which this hope was to be
+fulfilled, and the victory to be obtained, we shall be furnished,
+not merely with a clue to the difference in the acceptableness of
+the offerings of the two, but also with a key to a large part of
+the Holy Scriptures, and an understanding what manner of faith
+should be in every one of us, as well as to much that is
+important as to the history and design of sacrifice.&nbsp; Let it
+be granted, then, as highly probable, that to Adam a revelation
+was given that in him, as the federal head of mankind, and by his
+transgression, as deteriorating the whole race to spring from
+him, were all men lost by nature, and further, that
+&ldquo;without shedding of blood should be no remission;&rdquo;
+<a name="citation30b"></a><a href="#footnote30b"
+class="citation">[30b]</a> but that by a worthy sacrifice and
+blood-shedding should the promised seed of the woman in due time
+effect a reconciliation for them and their descendants, and
+reverse the evil and the curse of their transgression.&nbsp;
+Surely, then, from that time <a name="page31"></a><span
+class="pagenum">p. 31</span>forward, a faith in the efficacy of a
+sacrifice by blood would be required, and would be acceptable to
+God.&nbsp; Cain, then, would be evidently one who had not this
+faith, who denied, and disbelieved, and did not look forward to,
+this sacrifice, or cast himself upon this mercy.&nbsp; By
+bringing of the fruits of the ground, he may be considered to
+have made acknowledgment of the power and goodness of God, in
+causing the seed to grow and the corn to ripen; he may have done
+as much as we do, when we merely confess that we must look to God
+for rain, and sunshine, and &ldquo;fruitful seasons, filling our
+hearts with food and gladness;&rdquo; (therefore, by the way, let
+us not think too highly of ourselves if we do confess so much; it
+is right, but it is a very small part of religion:) he may have
+meant to express thankfulness for blessing, but observe what he
+did not express.&nbsp; He made no acknowledgment of sin; he
+exhibited no sense of unworthiness; he confessed no shortcomings;
+he gave no sign of sorrow or repentance; he asked no mercy; above
+all, he turned to no one out of himself&mdash;no intercessor, no
+mediator between his God and him.&nbsp; He shewed no sign of
+looking to a Saviour to make atonement, atonement by blood: he
+looked to no &ldquo;Lamb of God to take away the sins of the
+world&rdquo; in general, and his own sins in particular.&nbsp; He
+ignored, then, the whole promise which was the sole hope of
+man.&nbsp; He may have said, &ldquo;God, I thank Thee,&rdquo; but
+he shewed <a name="page32"></a><span class="pagenum">p.
+32</span>himself to be wholly without the feeling &ldquo;God be
+merciful to me a sinner.&rdquo;</p>
+<p>But, on the other hand, Abel brought of the sheep or goats
+which were of his flock.&nbsp; He offered up not an unbloody
+sacrifice.&nbsp; He laid the victim on the altar, and believing
+God, as well as feeling his need of a Saviour, he looked forward
+with the eye of faith to an expiation greater than that of kids,
+or lambs, or bulls, or goats, to take away sin.&nbsp; Nay more,
+he shewed his sense of the need of an atonement out of and beyond
+himself; for the blood of the victim offered described at once
+the sense of his own blood being required as a penalty, if
+justice only held its course and no expiatory sacrifice were
+found, and represented also, in true type and figure, that better
+sacrifice, that more precious blood, which should be shed in the
+fulness of the time to make such an expiation, even that of
+&ldquo;the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the
+world.&rdquo;</p>
+<p>Now I have gone through this history with what I think is its
+probable and satisfactory explanation, because not merely does it
+serve to shew what the Apostle means when he tells us it was by
+faith that Abel pleased God, and that God testified of his gifts,
+but also because the very same remarks seem to apply to the whole
+history and intention of sacrifice, as either commanded or
+accepted, or both, by Almighty God from the beginning.&nbsp; Take
+such to be the origin of propitiary sacrifice, and I think
+nothing can <a name="page33"></a><span class="pagenum">p.
+33</span>more fully agree with, or illustrate, or be illustrated
+by, the further progress both of the fact and doctrine as we find
+them, first in the Holy Scripture, and, secondly, in the world at
+large, even though by the world&rsquo;s wickedness so fearfully
+perverted.&nbsp; In perfect accordance with such beginning of
+acceptable sacrifice we have the same used and practised, and
+with the like acceptance, by Noah, Abraham, Melchizedek, Isaac,
+and Jacob, <a name="citation33a"></a><a href="#footnote33a"
+class="citation">[33a]</a> and, indeed, by all the patriarchs
+until the institution was embodied in the law of Moses.&nbsp; As
+we know, also, it was practised by all the heathen nations of
+antiquity of whom we have any record, though with them its true
+meaning and intention were fearfully lost and perverted.&nbsp;
+Nor does the difference in the instance of Abraham on one
+occasion, as to his being ready to offer a human sacrifice in the
+person of his son (which was of course a wholly exceptional case
+as regards the sacrifices of those knowing the true God), make
+any difference as to the witness of the acceptableness of
+sacrifice by blood, or the consuming the victim upon the
+altar.&nbsp; It has, indeed, been disputed whether Abraham were
+not the more easily reconciled to the idea of sacrificing his
+son, or even incited to it, by the customary &ldquo;fierce
+ritual&rdquo; of the Syrians around him; but independently of the
+utter contradiction which this view would give to the account in
+Holy <a name="page34"></a><span class="pagenum">p.
+34</span>Scripture, by the attribution of any other motive for
+Abraham&rsquo;s conduct than the command of God, received in all
+faith, and leading to all obedience, it may well be doubted
+whether a perverse misinterpretation of the sacrifice which
+Abraham was thus ready to make, and an utter inattention to the
+real circumstances of that case, may not have been, instead of in
+any way the <i>consequence</i>, rather the <i>cause</i> of the
+nations around falling into the practice of human
+sacrifice.&nbsp; But, be this as it may, we have the plain
+witness to the usage of sacrifice, and its efficacy when
+performed according to the will of God.&nbsp; Also, that it
+prefigured the great sacrifice by the blood of a pure victim, as
+well as in itself taught the lesson that (as afterwards expressed
+by the Apostle to the Hebrews) &ldquo;without shedding of blood
+is no remission.&rdquo; <a name="citation34"></a><a
+href="#footnote34" class="citation">[34]</a></p>
+<p>And all this we see consolidated and confirmed, as well as
+more fully expanded and defined, under the Law.&nbsp; And
+especially there, a certain new element in its administration is
+introduced, in the appointment of a particular order for the
+performance of the service.&nbsp; In all the earlier usage, it
+would seem that the head of the family or tribe acted as the
+ministering priest.&nbsp; And there is no disproof of this, as
+far as I see, in the account of even the first sacrifice of
+all.&nbsp; For there is nothing in the narrative in the Book of
+Genesis to shew that Cain and Abel were themselves the <a
+name="page35"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 35</span>acting
+priests (if we may so term it) in the sacrifice.&nbsp; They may
+each, for aught that appears to the contrary, have brought their
+offering to Adam, and it may have been by his hand that the
+different oblations were placed before God, and presented or
+devoted to Him.&nbsp; Such as the office and privilege of the
+head or chief, would seem to have been the recognised right and
+duty of such persons throughout the patriarchal age; but as the
+rule of patriarchs in secular matters merged in that of kings, as
+nations grew out of families, so the office of chiefs as priests,
+however thus exercised by Noah, Abraham, Melchizedek, or Job,
+seems to have been afterwards restricted to a tribe, or family,
+or other persons, set apart for the special service, and
+denominated priests,
+&#7985;&epsilon;&rho;&epsilon;&#8150;&sigmaf;, or
+<i>sacerdotes</i>; names implying their dedication to holy
+things, and their exclusive rights in many particulars to deal
+with them.&nbsp; And this theory of worship, if we may so call
+it, was not merely reduced to a system by God&rsquo;s law among
+the Jews, but also prevailed universally among the heathen world
+from the very earliest times of which any records are
+preserved.&nbsp; Hesiod, Homer, Herodotus, bear witness to it,
+and the universal practice of all nations substantiates it,
+whether in the barbarian forms of the ancient Druidical or other
+worship in the ruder peoples of the world, or in the more refined
+practice of Greece and Rome, or in the grotesque or cruel rites
+of the eastern countries, or absolutely barbarian tribes.&nbsp;
+<a name="page36"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 36</span>They all
+have their altars, their priests, and their sacrifices, and in
+most, if not in all, the notion of propitiation by the blood of
+the victim has prevailed.</p>
+<p>It need hardly be added that in the provisions of the Mosaic
+Law all these principles were embodied, so that, with every
+safeguard introduced against the perversions, the sensuality, the
+materialism, and the cruelty, which pervaded all forms and
+systems of idol worship, yet the true worship of Jehovah, as
+established by Himself, embraced, and contained, and stereotyped
+under the mark of His own approval, nay, of His absolute command,
+the same three points, of an altar, a priesthood, and a
+sacrifice; yes, a sacrifice in the sense of more than a mere
+oblation or offering,&mdash;a sacrifice by blood of a victim
+slain, and consumed in the very act of the commanded
+worship.&nbsp; For it ought never to be forgotten that amid all
+other offerings that were permitted,&mdash;nay, for certain
+purposes enjoined, as, for instance, for thank-offerings, or for
+mere legal purification,&mdash;yet, under the Jewish Law, the
+particular sacrifice which was appointed for expiation of any
+moral offence was the burnt-offering, where the victim, as I have
+said, was killed, and afterwards consumed by fire upon the altar;
+<a name="citation36"></a><a href="#footnote36"
+class="citation">[36]</a> and this appears to have no exception,
+unless it were in the case of the extremely poor, who might offer
+the tenth part of an ephah of meal; but even then, I believe, it
+is considered <a name="page37"></a><span class="pagenum">p.
+37</span>that this was placed upon a victim offered by others, or
+by the priest, for the sins of the people, and so may be deemed
+to have made a part of a sacrifice with blood.&nbsp; So that, in
+truth, as St. Paul says to the Hebrews, &ldquo;almost all things
+are by the law purged with blood, and without shedding of blood
+is no remission.&rdquo;</p>
+<p>We might say much on this head, and more particularly upon the
+appointment of the Passover, and the light thrown by this
+institution upon the typical character of sacrifice generally,
+and its relation to the great sacrifice of all,&mdash;the Lamb
+slain, once for all upon the cross, for the sins of the world;
+but the outline already given of the doctrine taught by the
+sacrifice of Abel will readily suggest a key to the true
+intention of the ever-recurring sacrifices of the Jews, and to
+the manner in which they (although &ldquo;the blood of bulls and
+of goats could never take away sin,&rdquo; yet) pointed to, and
+prepared the way for, our understanding the nature of the
+sacrifice of Christ, and, indeed, were the great means to elicit
+and foster faith in Him who should come, and to teach all the
+world daily and continually to look to Him who alone is its
+salvation, without whom, and whose mercy, no flesh should be
+saved at all.</p>
+<p>We have brought, then, our statement, and I may say our
+argument, to this point; first, generally that the whole world,
+with one consent, bears witness to the usage of sacrifice.&nbsp;
+The <a name="page38"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 38</span>whole
+world from Adam to Christ,&mdash;Patriarchal, Jewish, Gentile,
+Barbarian, Civilized, North, South, East, and West, together (for
+the new world when discovered was found herein not to be
+divergent from the old),&mdash;testifies, I say, with one mind
+and one mouth, as to the Being of a God, so likewise to this
+usage of sacrifice.&nbsp; And again, secondly, and more
+particularly, the witness agrees, that the sacrifice is made, (to
+speak generally,) not without blood, and made for the purpose of
+reconciliation, after sin committed, with the supernatural being
+or beings invoked, or for propitiation and intercession in cases
+of favour sought.&nbsp; Even, still further is there accordant
+and consenting witness; that there will be, as necessary
+accompaniments to the sacrifice, an altar on which it is to be
+made, and a specially set apart order of men: priests
+(&#8055;&epsilon;&rho;&epsilon;&#8150;&sigmaf;,
+<i>sacerdotes</i>, or however particularly designated), by whom
+these sacrifices should be offered up, and intercessions made on
+behalf of the people.&nbsp; So much the whole world testifies
+generally, in spite of certain differences of usage, and the
+fearful abominations which prevailed amongst those who did not
+retain the true God in their knowledge:&mdash;the cruelty,
+licentiousness, and abhorrent vice into which this worship, when
+it degenerated into idol worship, everywhere sunk; which,
+however, it is plain, is no more an argument against sacrifice,
+holily and obediently offered in accordance with God&rsquo;s
+appointment, than the superstitions of heathen <a
+name="page39"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 39</span>invocation
+are an argument against godly prayer and intercession.&nbsp; And
+thus, too, we see that this very idea of sacrifice, (without the
+vicious accompaniments,) prevailed among God&rsquo;s children
+from the first,&mdash;as with Abel, Noah, Melchisedek, Abraham,
+Isaac, Jacob, and Job; whilst by God&rsquo;s own sanction and
+special command, and, with what in human affairs we should call
+the most laborious care and pains, the whole system was, under
+Moses, recognised, enlarged, defined, and embodied in a whole
+code of laws, to be in their very minutest details carried out
+until the Mediator of a new covenant should come, when that which
+was old should be ready to vanish away.</p>
+<p>But it is well worthy of all our care in examination, to see
+whether it is the essence of this idea, and even mode, of worship
+which is done away, or only its ceremonial and local detail, as
+established in the Jewish Church and polity; whether&mdash;as all
+sacrifices before Christ were intended to look forward to Him,
+and His precious, inestimable, expiation, to be once made by
+blood and suffering upon the altar of the cross&mdash;whether, I
+say, so it has not been His will to continue an altar and a
+priesthood, and therewith and thereby a sacrifice
+commemorative&mdash;but, though commemorative, nevertheless
+perfectly real and true&mdash;by which the Christian Church may
+both look back to Him, then dying once for all, and ever plead
+afresh the merits of <a name="page40"></a><span
+class="pagenum">p. 40</span>His death before the throne of God on
+high.&nbsp; As Abraham looked forward, and &ldquo;rejoiced to see
+His day, and saw it, and was glad;&rdquo; <a
+name="citation40a"></a><a href="#footnote40a"
+class="citation">[40a]</a> what if, so likewise, the Christian
+Church is to look back on Him, and to rejoice; not merely to see
+Him and be glad, but to be allowed also, according to His own
+will and ordinance,&mdash;(aye, brethren, observe, of and by His
+own very appointment, whereby His very body and blood are truly
+offered up to God,)&mdash;allowed thus to plead, week by week and
+day by day, the very all-prevailing merits of that same sacrifice
+upon the cross; yea, and be the means of Himself graciously
+pleading it for His people ever afresh before the mercy-seat of
+His Father.&nbsp; O, my brethren, if this be so, who can
+undervalue this great thing, or disparage it, or attempt to throw
+it off, or deny it, or trample it under foot, without a sacrilege
+fearful to think of?&nbsp; But, again, if this be so, how is the
+Lamb of God, and His precious blood-shedding, made, more than in
+any other way which we can conceive, the centre towards which the
+whole world looks, from its earliest to its latest day; from the
+moment of the promise that the seed of the woman should bruise
+the serpent&rsquo;s head, <a name="citation40b"></a><a
+href="#footnote40b" class="citation">[40b]</a> until that awful
+hour when that same seed of the woman, the Son of Man, shall come
+in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory?&nbsp; I do
+not say, it is not conceivable that <a name="page41"></a><span
+class="pagenum">p. 41</span>the whole system and machinery (so to
+call it), of priest, and altar, and sacrifice, might have
+fulfilled its purpose at the hour of the crucifixion, and nothing
+remain of it, or like it, in the Christian Church; nothing in the
+Christian ministry to answer to the previous priesthood; nothing
+in it, but a set of teachers or expounders of the Christian
+faith; a faith, however, be it remarked, in that case, a very
+different thing from that which the Church has ever supposed it
+to be, or (as I think) the Holy Scripture sets before us.&nbsp;
+But even if all this be conceivable, I do say, and I think no
+unprejudiced person should dispute it, that the whole testimony
+and usage of all previous time in this matter, the whole of what
+holy men &ldquo;did continually&rdquo; in relation to it, not
+merely with God&rsquo;s manifest approval, but even with His
+especial sanction, and by His positive command, raises a very
+strong <i>prima facie</i> presumption, that all this was not
+intended to be, and was not, thus abrogated and done away; and
+that, at the very least, we ought to have shewn us the most
+express and distinct proofs of its being thus abrogated, before
+we can accept its abrogation.&nbsp; We have been accustomed to
+see, rather, that instead of being abrogated, the usage is
+changed and glorified; changed from the shadow to the image, from
+wood and stone to silver and gold, from a comparatively dead
+state to a glorious living one, from the ministration of death to
+the ministration of life; but, if this be not so, then, indeed,
+<a name="page42"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 42</span>we may
+surely ask to see this reversal of all which the economy of
+God&rsquo;s dealings would seem to lead us to, expressly
+promulgated and proved by the word of Christ or His Apostles; so
+plainly set down as to need no explanation further; or else, so
+explained by those who immediately followed them, and had the
+best means of understanding their sense and design, as to leave
+us no ground for reasonable doubt, or we must be excused if we
+cannot accept the mere assertion of so improbable a thing as
+true, or believe the unchangeable God to be so like a Man that He
+should thus repent.</p>
+<p>A fair examination into this question is most important, but
+we cannot enter upon it at the present moment.&nbsp; We must
+necessarily defer it to another day.&nbsp; I trust, with
+God&rsquo;s help and guidance, to resume our subject on Sunday
+next, and endeavour further to see how the doctrine really
+stands, taking, briefly but carefully, into consideration these
+three points:&mdash;</p>
+<p>1.&nbsp; What is the testimony of the Holy Scripture as to the
+doctrine of the Christian priesthood, altar, and sacrifice?</p>
+<p>2.&nbsp; How this has been understood by the Church from the
+beginning? and,</p>
+<p>3.&nbsp; How it has been received by our own branch of the
+Church Catholic, the Church of England?</p>
+<p>And I will only add now, whilst I pray that we may all strive
+simply to know the will of God <a name="page43"></a><span
+class="pagenum">p. 43</span>that we may do it, that there can be
+no more practical matter than this to engage our thoughts and
+hearts.&nbsp; 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, &ldquo;it be truth, and the thing certain,&rdquo; <a
+name="citation43"></a><a href="#footnote43"
+class="citation">[43]</a> 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.</p>
+<p>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 <a
+name="page44"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 44</span>seeing the
+truth of God, to which may He of His mercy guide us.&nbsp; 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.</p>
+<h2><a name="page45"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 45</span>SERMON
+III.<br />
+Witness of the New Testament to the Doctrine of Sacrifice.</h2>
+<blockquote><p style="text-align: center">1 CORINTHIANS x. 18.<br
+/>
+&ldquo;Are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the
+altar?&rdquo;</p>
+</blockquote>
+<p>I <span class="smcap">resume</span> the subject upon which I
+have spoken on two previous Sundays&mdash;the reality of the
+Christian priesthood, altar, and sacrifice.</p>
+<p>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 &ldquo;this treasure in earthen vessels,&rdquo; that
+a priest is like and &ldquo;of like passions&rdquo; with others,
+nay, is &ldquo;weak as another man.&rdquo;&nbsp; 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&rsquo;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 &ldquo;obtained the witness
+that they were righteous:&rdquo; <a name="citation45"></a><a
+href="#footnote45" class="citation">[45]</a> whence we were led
+to consider <a name="page46"></a><span class="pagenum">p.
+46</span>more particularly its relation to the sacrifice upon the
+Cross of &ldquo;the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the
+world,&rdquo; and how from the beginning it looked forward, in
+its inner meaning, with a preparing and expectant eye and heart,
+to that wonderful consummation.&nbsp; We saw, too, that thus
+among God&rsquo;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.&nbsp; Admitting it to be conceivable that in the
+Almighty&rsquo;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.&nbsp; What is the testimony
+which has been furnished to us upon it?&nbsp; 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, <a
+name="page47"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 47</span>what is the
+mind of our own Church in this matter?</p>
+<p>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.&nbsp; The subject is so large, and the
+full testimony so extensive, that it would require volumes to go
+through it.&nbsp; Those who would study it in a more complete
+manner will find it elaborately discussed in the discourses on
+&ldquo;The Government of Churches and on Religious
+Assemblies,&rdquo; 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
+&ldquo;Treatises on the Christian Priesthood,&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;The
+Doctrine of the Priesthood.&rdquo;</p>
+<p>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.</p>
+<p>Our question is, Has God willed, and has He <a
+name="page48"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 48</span>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?&nbsp; And first, &ldquo;What saith the
+Scripture?&rdquo; <a name="citation48a"></a><a
+href="#footnote48a" class="citation">[48a]</a>&nbsp; I must take
+but a few out of many passages.</p>
+<p>1.&nbsp; We have, in our Lord&rsquo;s Sermon on the Mount, the
+following direction: &ldquo;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.&rdquo; <a name="citation48b"></a><a href="#footnote48b"
+class="citation">[48b]</a>&nbsp; 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?&nbsp; 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&rsquo;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?&nbsp; Will any say that the <a
+name="page49"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 49</span>precepts
+concerning purity, meekness, government of the tongue, charity,
+are thus limited? as, &ldquo;Whoso looketh on a woman to lust
+after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his
+heart;&rdquo; or, &ldquo;Whosoever is angry with his brother
+without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment;&rdquo; or,
+again, &ldquo;Let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay,
+nay;&rdquo; or, once more, &ldquo;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.&rdquo; <a name="citation49"></a><a href="#footnote49"
+class="citation">[49]</a>&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.</p>
+<p>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.&nbsp; So that, as the Jew would literally <a
+name="page50"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 50</span>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&rsquo;s words, spoken &ldquo;while as the first tabernacle
+was yet standing,&rdquo; <a name="citation50"></a><a
+href="#footnote50" class="citation">[50]</a> do not sufficiently
+prove any altar designed to exist in the Christian Church.&nbsp;
+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.&nbsp;
+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.&nbsp; But shall we not find a witness in Holy Scripture
+to the existence of this altar in the new dispensation, which <a
+name="page51"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 51</span>is free from
+this exception or construction?&nbsp; I turn to the Epistle to
+the Hebrews, and I find the Apostle writing, &ldquo;We have an
+altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the
+tabernacle.&rdquo; <a name="citation51a"></a><a
+href="#footnote51a" class="citation">[51a]</a>&nbsp; Was not this
+written to Christians?&nbsp; Does it not speak to them expressly
+of their altar at which they are to eat?&nbsp; Was it not set
+down for their guidance and instruction?&nbsp; Was it not written
+after the great sacrifice upon the altar of the cross had been
+made, and made once for all?</p>
+<p>Was it not after the setting up of the Christian Church, and
+the establishment of Christian worship?&nbsp; 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. <a
+name="citation51b"></a><a href="#footnote51b"
+class="citation">[51b]</a>&nbsp; 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?&nbsp; Will any one say, Yes, but still the
+Jewish temple had not then been destroyed; the Jews&rsquo;
+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.&nbsp; But granting that the date of <a
+name="page52"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 52</span>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?&nbsp; 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
+&ldquo;they have no right to eat which serve the
+tabernacle.&rdquo;&nbsp; Take the whole passage together and see
+its force: &ldquo;We have an altar, whereof they have no right to
+eat which serve the tabernacle.&nbsp; For the bodies of those
+beasts whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the High
+Priest for sin, are burned without the camp.&nbsp; Wherefore
+Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood,
+suffered without the gate.&rdquo;&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; So
+far it might be perhaps thought that our altar is only the cross;
+but then he continues: &ldquo;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.&nbsp; By Him,
+therefore, let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God
+continually, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His
+<a name="page53"></a><span class="pagenum">p.
+53</span>name.&rdquo; <a name="citation53"></a><a
+href="#footnote53" class="citation">[53]</a>&nbsp; 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).&nbsp; 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.</p>
+<p>But perhaps some may still say, We are not convinced.&nbsp;
+The allusion to an altar here may yet be figurative, or only
+adapting language to the mind of the Jew, &ldquo;while as the
+first tabernacle was yet standing;&rdquo; 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.</p>
+<p>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.&nbsp; 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.</p>
+<p><a name="page54"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 54</span>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: &ldquo;Are not they which eat of the
+sacrifice,&rdquo; says he, &ldquo;partakers of the altar?&rdquo;
+<a name="citation54"></a><a href="#footnote54"
+class="citation">[54]</a> and this especially in contrast as to
+the conduct of those engaged in idol worship, and those in
+Christian worship.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Mark the progress of the argument: &ldquo;What
+say I then? that the idol is anything, or that which is offered
+in sacrifice to the idol is anything?&nbsp; But I say that the
+things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils and
+not to God;&rdquo; 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 <a
+name="page55"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 55</span>wickedly
+real, even though the idol was nothing.&nbsp; 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, &ldquo;And I would not that ye should have fellowship with
+devils,&rdquo; and why? because thus they would lose all
+fellowship with God.&nbsp; &ldquo;Ye cannot drink the cup of the
+Lord, and the cup of devils.&nbsp; Ye cannot be partakers of the
+Lord&rsquo;s table, and of the table of devils.&rdquo; <a
+name="citation55"></a><a href="#footnote55"
+class="citation">[55]</a>&nbsp; Let it make no difficulty that it
+is called a table here, as an altar above.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; If this <a name="page56"></a><span
+class="pagenum">p. 56</span>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&rsquo;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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; So this is the
+continual memorial of the one &ldquo;sacrifice upon the cross,
+and of the benefits which we receive thereby,&rdquo; also the
+appointed means of our receiving those benefits.&nbsp; 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&rsquo;s
+constant privilege to frequent; and which is as much greater to
+impress a character for good upon the Christian and to nourish <a
+name="page57"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 57</span>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.</p>
+<p>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: &ldquo;Look back a moment, and see if the whole argument
+does not belong to the Jew, and not to the
+Christian.&rdquo;&nbsp; Will any one take this line and appeal to
+the words immediately before the text?&nbsp; True, it is written,
+&ldquo;Behold Israel after the flesh.&nbsp; Are not they which
+eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?&rdquo;&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; After exhortation against
+yielding to temptation, and declaration of the ever-ready help of
+God for those who will use it, &ldquo;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,&rdquo;
+the Apostle adds: &ldquo;Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from
+idolatry.&nbsp; I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I
+say.&rdquo;&nbsp; (Oh, let us also be wise to hear and <a
+name="page58"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 58</span>learn!&nbsp;
+&ldquo;Judge ye what I say.&rdquo;)&nbsp; &ldquo;The cup of
+blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the Blood of
+Christ?&nbsp; The bread which we break, is it not the communion
+of the Body of Christ?&nbsp; For we, being many, are one bread
+and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.&rdquo;
+<a name="citation58"></a><a href="#footnote58"
+class="citation">[58]</a>&nbsp; And then all but immediately he
+adds, &ldquo;are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers
+of the altar?&rdquo;&nbsp; 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?&nbsp; Ah! but, it is said, he
+interpolates words that you have omitted which alter the
+application:&mdash;&ldquo;Behold Israel after the flesh;&rdquo;
+he says, and then adds, &ldquo;are not they which eat of the
+sacrifice partakers of the altar?&rdquo;&nbsp; Well, and what do
+the parenthetical words mean?&nbsp; Surely they must mean merely
+this,&mdash;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
+&ldquo;Israel after the flesh,&rdquo; so you must be prepared to
+admit as <a name="page59"></a><span class="pagenum">p.
+59</span>much under the Gospel, and with the true Israel born
+anew of the Spirit.&nbsp; 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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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.&nbsp; 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 <a
+name="page60"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 60</span>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.&nbsp; 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,&mdash;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,&mdash;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,&mdash;(who will now doubt the sense of the
+other two Scriptures which we examined?)&mdash;and the whole
+sense and usage of the Church from the beginning is both
+explained and justified.</p>
+<p>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 <a
+name="page61"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 61</span>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.&nbsp; 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.</p>
+<h2><a name="page63"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 63</span>SERMON
+IV.<br />
+The Testimony of the Early Church to the Doctrine of the
+Priesthood.</h2>
+<blockquote><p style="text-align: center">JEREMIAH vi. 16.<br />
+&ldquo;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.&rdquo;</p>
+</blockquote>
+<p><span class="smcap">The</span> 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; The last passage which we considered asks in the
+tone of unquestionable affirmation, &ldquo;Are not they which eat
+of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?&rdquo;&nbsp; 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 <a
+name="page64"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 64</span>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.&nbsp; For, I must repeat, if St.
+Paul&rsquo;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.&nbsp; Observe further, before we pass on, how the
+Apostle&rsquo;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.&nbsp; But is
+it so in the latter?&nbsp; Is it that what is there eaten is a
+mere nothing in itself, dependent upon the mind of the
+eater?&nbsp; Is the partaking of the idol altar not an effect of
+an actual eating?&nbsp; Is the consequent fellowship with devils
+not the result of such actual feasting upon an actual objective
+sacrifice?&nbsp; 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,&mdash;the <i>res
+sacramenti</i>, as in strict theological phraseology it is
+termed,&mdash;by which he that eateth is partaker of the altar,
+and the result of which is, his having fellowship with Christ and
+God?&nbsp; From which our inference <a name="page65"></a><span
+class="pagenum">p. 65</span>was plain and direct that in St.
+Paul&rsquo;s understanding there is a Christian altar and a
+Christian sacrifice.&nbsp; Such was the conclusion from Holy
+Scripture at which we arrived.</p>
+<p>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.</p>
+<p>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&mdash;the priesthood, the
+altar, and the sacrifice&mdash;are what we may call correlatives,
+and reciprocally imply one another.&nbsp; 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
+<a name="page66"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 66</span>offering
+to God, and not withal to sanctify some special place and mode of
+oblation.&nbsp; 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 &ldquo;take this honour unto
+himself,&rdquo; <a name="citation66a"></a><a href="#footnote66a"
+class="citation">[66a]</a> and offer up &ldquo;gifts and
+sacrifices&rdquo; acceptably to God.</p>
+<p>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.&nbsp; It is true that in the very
+scanty writings which remain to us from the first century, we may
+not find the word &lsquo;priest&rsquo; applied to the Christian
+ministry.&nbsp; But, as Mr. Carter has well observed, &ldquo;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;&rdquo; <a name="citation66b"></a><a
+href="#footnote66b" class="citation">[66b]</a> whilst for the
+absence of the name it is not hard to assign satisfactory
+reasons.&nbsp; In the first place, the extant writings of that
+century are too few to let a negative conclusion be built upon
+them.&nbsp; They amount, I believe, in all, (if we exclude the
+&ldquo;Shepherd of Hermas,&rdquo; a confessedly mere allegorical
+work,) to not more than what would make about thirty pages of an
+octavo volume. <a name="citation66c"></a><a href="#footnote66c"
+class="citation">[66c]</a>&nbsp; Over and above this paucity of
+material on which to found an argument, other reasons <a
+name="page67"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 67</span>may readily
+be given for the term &lsquo;priest&rsquo; not occurring.&nbsp;
+It may be sufficient here just to touch upon two.&nbsp; 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, <a name="page68"></a><span class="pagenum">p.
+68</span>upon the testimony of heathen writers, the early
+Christians suffered reproach?</p>
+<p>These two reasons, then, may suffice as to the term
+&lsquo;priest&rsquo; 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 &lsquo;priest&rsquo; be used or not, inasmuch as
+there is constant mention of the sacrifice and the altar as in
+use in the Christian Church.</p>
+<p>As we proceed with the stream of Christian writing there is
+ample proof of the universal holding and teaching of this
+doctrine.</p>
+<p>I cannot, of course, pretend here to go through this evidence
+in detail.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; We shall perhaps
+hardly find a more unexceptionable witness than the learned
+writer Vitringa, cited by Mr. Carter in his work already
+mentioned.&nbsp; Speaking of the age shortly succeeding the
+Apostles, Mr. Carter says: &ldquo;As to the usage of this period
+there can be no surer authority than that of Vitringa.&nbsp; His
+extensive learning, directed assiduously to this very point, and
+his zeal as a partizan, make his testimony to be peculiarly
+conclusive.&rdquo; <a name="citation68"></a><a href="#footnote68"
+class="citation">[68]</a>&nbsp; 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 <a name="page69"></a><span class="pagenum">p.
+69</span>Presbyterian, who lived about the middle of the last
+century, and wrote expressly to explain away the evidence which
+nevertheless he adduces.&nbsp; He acknowledges that his own views
+are opposed to the unvarying testimony and belief of the Catholic
+Church for sixteen hundred years.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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:&mdash;</p>
+<p>&ldquo;That Tertullian, in the beginning of the third century,
+calls the bishop &lsquo;chief priest,&rsquo; (<i>summus
+sacerdos</i>); that before his time, in the second century,
+Iren&aelig;us calls the gifts made at the Holy Eucharist,
+&lsquo;oblations,&rsquo; (<i>oblata</i>,) and when consecrated by
+the prayer of the bishop, &lsquo;a sacrifice,&rsquo;
+(<i>sacrificium</i>); and that in Justin Martyr, a still more
+ancient writer, the gifts are called &lsquo;offerings,&rsquo;
+(<i>&pi;&rho;&omicron;&sigma;&phi;&omicron;&rho;&alpha;&#8054;</i>);
+are facts so certainly known to the learned, that it is needless
+to speak of them at greater length.&nbsp; In the subsequent
+writings of the Fathers, the terms &lsquo;priesthood,&rsquo;
+&lsquo;Priest,&rsquo; &lsquo;Levites,&rsquo;
+&lsquo;altars,&rsquo; &lsquo;offertories,&rsquo;
+&lsquo;sacrifices,&rsquo; &lsquo;oblations,&rsquo; used in
+reference to the Church of the New Testament, are so obvious and
+frequent that it can escape no one who has even <a
+name="page70"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 70</span>cursorily
+examined their writings.&nbsp; 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.&rdquo; <a name="citation70"></a><a
+href="#footnote70" class="citation">[70]</a>&nbsp; So much is the
+testimony of a very learned man, and a most unsuspicious
+witness.</p>
+<p>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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; They bear their
+witness to the Church&rsquo;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, <a name="page71"></a><span class="pagenum">p.
+71</span>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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; &ldquo;The first,&rdquo; to use the
+words of a learned writer, Mr. Palmer, the author of the
+<i>Origines Liturgic&aelig;</i>, &ldquo;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.&rdquo; <a name="citation71"></a><a
+href="#footnote71" class="citation">[71]</a></p>
+<p>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 <a name="page72"></a><span
+class="pagenum">p. 72</span>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.&nbsp; 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 &ldquo;existing documents&rdquo; of which he
+speaks, the Christian Church was &ldquo;only removed by one link
+from the Apostles themselves.&rdquo; <a name="citation72a"></a><a
+href="#footnote72a" class="citation">[72a]</a>&nbsp; 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.</p>
+<p>&ldquo;Now, in all these liturgies alike,&rdquo; says Mr.
+Carter, &ldquo;the ancient sacerdotal terms in question are
+ordinarily used.&nbsp; 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.&rdquo; <a name="citation72b"></a><a
+href="#footnote72b" class="citation">[72b]</a></p>
+<p>I must forbear both any quotations to shew this, as well as
+defer any further remarks upon <a name="page73"></a><span
+class="pagenum">p. 73</span>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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp;
+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.&nbsp;
+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.&nbsp; 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,&mdash;or leads another to reject the
+mystery of the Incarnation, because it is ineffable and above his
+comprehension,&mdash;or another to deny the regenerating gift and
+efficacy of holy baptism, saying, &ldquo;How can these things
+be?&rdquo;&mdash;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 <a name="page74"></a><span
+class="pagenum">p. 74</span>virtue; which therefore rejects, and
+too often ridicules, the very idea of a priesthood and an
+availing sacrifice, saying, &ldquo;How should man have power with
+God?&rdquo; or, &ldquo;How can this Man give us His flesh to
+eat?&rdquo; <a name="citation74a"></a><a href="#footnote74a"
+class="citation">[74a]</a> even though the priestly power be
+derived from Christ&rsquo;s own commission, and the mysterious
+virtue assured by His own Word of Truth.&nbsp; 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 <i>some</i>
+should scoff when they cannot reason, and ridicule that which
+they have not the heart to understand,&mdash;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.&nbsp; I say all this
+need not surprise us, for have not our Lord and His Apostles
+warned us that such things must be?&nbsp; &ldquo;When the Son of
+Man cometh,&rdquo; He said Himself, &ldquo;shall He find faith on
+the earth?&rdquo; <a name="citation74b"></a><a
+href="#footnote74b" class="citation">[74b]</a> as though it would
+exist but in a remnant.&nbsp; And again, &ldquo;If they have
+called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall
+they call <a name="page75"></a><span class="pagenum">p.
+75</span>them of his household?&rdquo; <a
+name="citation75a"></a><a href="#footnote75a"
+class="citation">[75a]</a>&nbsp; Why, then, should we expect to
+escape such things?&nbsp; But I said, also, we need not be
+dismayed at them.&nbsp; Is there not the exhortation, &ldquo;Ye
+have need of patience?&rdquo; <a name="citation75b"></a><a
+href="#footnote75b" class="citation">[75b]</a> and again the
+encouragement, &ldquo;In your patience possess ye your
+souls?&rdquo; <a name="citation75c"></a><a href="#footnote75c"
+class="citation">[75c]</a> and again the gracious promise,
+&ldquo;He that endureth to the end shall be saved?&rdquo; <a
+name="citation75d"></a><a href="#footnote75d"
+class="citation">[75d]</a>&nbsp; What though in the latter times
+some shall depart from the faith? <a name="citation75e"></a><a
+href="#footnote75e" class="citation">[75e]</a>&nbsp; What though
+&ldquo;the time will come when men will not endure sound
+doctrine.&rdquo; <a name="citation75f"></a><a href="#footnote75f"
+class="citation">[75f]</a>&nbsp; Shall this make any difference
+in our faith, or cast any gloom upon our hope?&nbsp; No!&nbsp;
+Brethren, let us ever remember that what we have to rely upon is,
+not &ldquo;man&rsquo;s wisdom,&rdquo; nor &ldquo;an arm of
+flesh:&rdquo; what we have to cleave to with all constancy is
+&ldquo;that which was from the beginning;&rdquo; <a
+name="citation75g"></a><a href="#footnote75g"
+class="citation">[75g]</a> for it is this which gives us
+&ldquo;fellowship with the Father, and with His Son Jesus
+Christ.&rdquo; <a name="citation75h"></a><a href="#footnote75h"
+class="citation">[75h]</a></p>
+<p>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.&nbsp; If the Church
+of England had <i>begun</i> at the Reformation, (as sometimes <a
+name="page76"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 76</span>men speak,)
+no man, who knew anything of the essentials of Christianity could
+belong to her for a moment.&nbsp; 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,
+<i>Stare super antiquas vias</i>, to give heed to the injunction
+of the prophet: &ldquo;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.&rdquo; <a
+name="citation76"></a><a href="#footnote76"
+class="citation">[76]</a>&nbsp; It is this which has been, under
+God, our safeguard.&nbsp; 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
+&ldquo;ask for the old ways, and to walk in them.&rdquo;&nbsp;
+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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp;
+And many of them would perhaps, even more openly than they do,
+advocate extensive measures of liturgical revision, <a
+name="page77"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 77</span>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.&nbsp; Surely these things are of
+great weight when we would know what doctrine is most according
+to the mind of the Church of England.&nbsp; &ldquo;I speak as to
+wise men; judge ye what I say.&rdquo;&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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 &ldquo;if he
+pleased men, he should not be the servant of Christ.&rdquo; <a
+name="citation77"></a><a href="#footnote77"
+class="citation">[77]</a></p>
+<p>And, brethren, let us all pray for an humble, meek, gentle,
+teachable, believing heart, that we may not despise or refuse, or
+disbelieve God&rsquo;s mighty works, though His treasure be
+placed in earthen vessels; nor turn our back upon His mysteries,
+<a name="page78"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 78</span>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,&mdash;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.&nbsp; If
+this, indeed, we are enabled to do, we may well &ldquo;thank God
+and take courage.&rdquo;</p>
+<h2><a name="page79"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 79</span>SERMON
+V.<br />
+The Testimony of our Formularies to the Doctrine of the
+Priesthood.</h2>
+<blockquote><p style="text-align: center">ST. JOHN xx. 22, 23.<br
+/>
+&ldquo;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.&rdquo;</p>
+</blockquote>
+<p><span class="smcap">In</span> 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&rsquo;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 <a
+name="page80"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 80</span>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
+&ldquo;called an High Priest for ever after the order of
+Melchizedek;&rdquo; of Him who, fulfilling that royal type, was
+&ldquo;King of Righteousness,&rdquo; and after that also
+&ldquo;King of Salem, which is King of Peace,&rdquo; and yet,
+again, in like manner, &ldquo;priest of the Most High God,&rdquo;
+and who &ldquo;abideth a priest continually.&rdquo; <a
+name="citation80"></a><a href="#footnote80"
+class="citation">[80]</a></p>
+<p>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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Whether,
+as is affirmed by such objectors, this universal belief <a
+name="page81"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 81</span>were a mark
+of the corruption and ignorance of &ldquo;the dark ages,&rdquo;
+as the self-complacent pride of later times has designated them,
+(when perchance in God&rsquo;s judgment they may be as light
+itself compared with much of the &ldquo;philosophy and vain
+deceit&rdquo; <a name="citation81a"></a><a href="#footnote81a"
+class="citation">[81a]</a> of this free-handling nineteenth
+century, which so often &ldquo;darkens counsel by words without
+knowledge&rdquo; <a name="citation81b"></a><a href="#footnote81b"
+class="citation">[81b]</a>); 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, &ldquo;even to the end of the
+world,&rdquo; is another question.&nbsp; 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.</p>
+<p>Thus we are brought to the immediate subject of our further
+enquiry.&nbsp; 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?</p>
+<p><a name="page82"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 82</span>You
+will hardly expect me to go through all the evidence.&nbsp;
+But&mdash;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;&mdash;the altar; the sacrifice and the
+priest;&mdash;the sacrifice; the priest and the altar;)&mdash;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.</p>
+<p>Now, observe, the three great offices embraced in the idea of
+a priest are these:&mdash;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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp;
+To see how this stands with us, who are ministers and stewards of
+God&rsquo;s mysteries in this our Church of England, we must turn
+to our service-books, and especially to the Service for Ordaining
+<a name="page83"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 83</span>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.</p>
+<p>Turn first, then, for a moment to the Preface, to &ldquo;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.&rdquo;&nbsp; We find it
+there said: &ldquo;It is evident unto all men diligently reading
+the Holy Scripture and ancient authors, that from the
+Apostles&rsquo; time there have been these Orders of Ministers in
+Christ&rsquo;s Church; Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&rdquo;</p>
+<p><a name="page84"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 84</span>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.</p>
+<p>We therefore find the authority and commission, in each case,
+given by the laying on of a bishop or bishops&rsquo; 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.&nbsp; Still it is evident that these, without
+the bishop, are not esteemed competent to convey the gift of Holy
+Orders.</p>
+<p>But, next, what is the commission given?&nbsp; 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.</p>
+<p>To the deacon it is said, with the laying on of hands:
+&ldquo;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;&rdquo; and then, further:
+&ldquo;Take thou authority to read the Gospel in the Church of
+God, and to preach <a name="page85"></a><span class="pagenum">p.
+85</span>the same if thou be thereto licensed by the bishop
+himself.&rdquo; <a name="citation85a"></a><a href="#footnote85a"
+class="citation">[85a]</a></p>
+<p>But to the priest the corresponding, but far higher
+commission, is: &ldquo;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.&rdquo; <a name="citation85b"></a><a
+href="#footnote85b" class="citation">[85b]</a></p>
+<p>Yes, it may be said, but what work?&nbsp; We grant there is
+the use of the word &lsquo;priest,&rsquo; but the whole question
+turns upon the sense in which it is used.&nbsp; Oh, brethren,
+listen with simple hearts of reverence, loving and seeking only
+the truth, to the solemn and awful words which follow:
+&ldquo;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.&nbsp;
+Amen.&rdquo; <a name="citation85c"></a><a href="#footnote85c"
+class="citation">[85c]</a></p>
+<p>And then, further, delivering the Bible into the hand of each:
+&ldquo;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.&rdquo; <a
+name="citation85d"></a><a href="#footnote85d"
+class="citation">[85d]</a></p>
+<p>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 <a
+name="page86"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 86</span>priestly
+office as we have all along explained and taken those terms.</p>
+<p>And the words settle, as it seems to me, beyond dispute,
+another question,&mdash;which yet is not another, though it may
+bear a separate word of comment in our argument,&mdash;namely,
+whether the Church of England considers our Lord&rsquo;s
+ministerial commission to His Apostles to have been confined to
+them, or whether it was His will, by virtue of His words,
+&ldquo;As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you,&rdquo; <a
+name="citation86"></a><a href="#footnote86"
+class="citation">[86]</a> that they should again transmit the
+powers of the priesthood on to others after them?&nbsp; For
+observe particularly what words they are which are used by the
+bishop to give this commission to the priest.&nbsp;
+&ldquo;Receive,&rdquo; he says, &ldquo;the Holy Ghost for the
+office of a priest, in the Church of God;&rdquo; and then,
+&ldquo;Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose
+sins thou dost retain, they are retained.&rdquo;&nbsp; Now from
+whence do these words come?&nbsp; Who used them before, and to
+whom did they then give a commission?&nbsp; Let us turn to the
+twentieth chapter of St. John&rsquo;s Gospel, and we shall find
+the Divine record: &ldquo;Then said Jesus to them again,&rdquo;
+(viz. to the Apostles,) &ldquo;Peace be unto you; as My Father
+hath sent Me, even so send I you.&nbsp; And when He had said
+this, He breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the
+Holy Ghost: whose soever <a name="page87"></a><span
+class="pagenum">p. 87</span>sins ye remit, they are remitted unto
+them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.&rdquo;
+<a name="citation87"></a><a href="#footnote87"
+class="citation">[87]</a></p>
+<p>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?&nbsp; I suppose not.&nbsp; It would be wholly to
+explain away and contradict His word to say so.&nbsp; It would be
+to prevent any one relying upon the plainest meaning of anything
+to say so.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp;
+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?&nbsp; Surely her meaning here <a
+name="page88"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 88</span>can no more
+be questioned as to those to whom she applies them, than our
+Blessed Lord&rsquo;s intention can be questioned as to those to
+whom He addressed them.&nbsp; 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?&nbsp; &ldquo;I speak as to wise men; judge ye
+what I say.&rdquo;&nbsp; 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?&nbsp; 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?&nbsp; 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?</p>
+<p>But further, we are not even left to such proof that our
+Church intends no such mockery.&nbsp; Turn to the work of the
+priest on this very point of absolution, and what is the light
+thrown by this <a name="page89"></a><span class="pagenum">p.
+89</span>upon the words of ordination?&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; But I ask you to turn to two other
+places&mdash;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.</p>
+<p>In the former place, after explanation of the preparation,
+&ldquo;the way and means&rdquo; to come worthily to that Holy
+Sacrament, we find the following: &ldquo;And because it is
+requisite, that no man should come to the Holy Communion but with
+a full trust in God&rsquo;s mercy, and with a quiet conscience;
+therefore if there be any of you, who by this means&rdquo;
+(namely, his own private examination of his life) &ldquo;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&rsquo;s Word, and open his grief; that by
+the ministry of God&rsquo;s holy Word, he may receive the benefit
+of absolution,&rdquo; (What is the benefit if there be no power
+to absolve?) &ldquo;together with ghostly counsel and advice, to
+the quieting of his conscience, and avoiding all scruple and
+doubtfulness.&rdquo; <a name="citation89"></a><a
+href="#footnote89" class="citation">[89]</a></p>
+<p>Here then, surely, he who has been ordained a priest, and
+received the Holy Ghost that he may <a name="page90"></a><span
+class="pagenum">p. 90</span>remit or retain sins, is to exercise
+his ministry in the absolution of the penitent soul.</p>
+<p>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.&nbsp;
+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 &ldquo;moved to make a special confession of
+his sins, if he feel his conscience troubled with any weighty
+matter.&nbsp; After which confession, the priest shall absolve
+him (if he humbly and heartily desire it) after this
+sort.&rdquo;&nbsp; And the words are: &ldquo;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;&rdquo; (so far we have the declaration of
+the power left to the Church, and either, it may be said,
+declaratory or precatory words, &ldquo;forgive thee.&rdquo;&nbsp;
+But this is not all; immediately it is added), &ldquo;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.&nbsp; Amen.&rdquo; <a name="citation90"></a><a
+href="#footnote90" class="citation">[90]</a></p>
+<p><a name="page91"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 91</span>Now,
+brethren, I do not desire to say much in comment on such words as
+these.&nbsp; 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
+&ldquo;the form and manner of ordering priests,&rdquo; which we
+have before noted?&nbsp; And, secondly, can any reasonable being
+believe that the Church could have drawn up such a service, and
+put such words into the priest&rsquo;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&rsquo;s
+distinctive character and endowment by God, had not been
+conferred upon him? or maintain that she thought our Blessed
+Lord&rsquo;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 &ldquo;ordering of
+priests?&rdquo;&nbsp; If it be said,&mdash;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,&mdash;I can only reply that this argument is wholly beside
+our present question.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; I am <a
+name="page92"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 92</span>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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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&rsquo;s
+office, the bishop says, &ldquo;Receive the Holy Ghost for the
+office and work of a priest in the Church of God,&rdquo; the
+Church intends that there is no gift of the Holy Ghost bestowed,
+and no priest made at all?&nbsp; Or, again, when he says,
+adopting Christ&rsquo;s own words of
+commission,&mdash;&ldquo;Whose sins thou dost forgive they are
+forgiven unto them, and whose sins thou dost retain, they are
+retained;&rdquo;&mdash;that in this there is no intention to
+teach that the commission of Christ extended beyond the Apostles
+themselves, and that no <a name="page93"></a><span
+class="pagenum">p. 93</span>power of binding or loosing is
+conferred by this solemn act?&nbsp; 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 &ldquo;with a
+full trust in God&rsquo;s mercy and with a quiet
+conscience&rdquo; 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, &ldquo;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,&rdquo; 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.</p>
+<p>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.&nbsp; 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 <a name="page94"></a><span
+class="pagenum">p. 94</span>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.</p>
+<p>And this remark may give us, if it please God, a wholesome
+thought with which to conclude this morning.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Let us love it, and cleave to it, as we contemplate
+it one and undivided of old, however, alas, now distracted by
+unhappy divisions.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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,
+(<i>semper</i>, <i>ubique</i>, <i>ad omnibus</i>, 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.&nbsp; <a
+name="page95"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 95</span>Individuals,
+however gifted, may go astray.&nbsp; 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
+&ldquo;the Church of God&rdquo; is, &ldquo;the pillar and ground
+of the truth,&rdquo; <a name="citation95a"></a><a
+href="#footnote95a" class="citation">[95a]</a> or how should be
+fulfilled our Blessed Lord&rsquo;s word and
+promise,&mdash;&ldquo;The gates of hell shall not prevail against
+It;&rdquo; <a name="citation95b"></a><a href="#footnote95b"
+class="citation">[95b]</a> and again, &ldquo;Lo!&nbsp; I am with
+you alway, even unto the end of the world.&rdquo; <a
+name="citation95c"></a><a href="#footnote95c"
+class="citation">[95c]</a>&nbsp; So, indeed, let us look upon Her
+with tender reverence as the spouse of Christ.&nbsp; &ldquo;Oh!
+pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall prosper that love
+Thee.&rdquo; <a name="citation95d"></a><a href="#footnote95d"
+class="citation">[95d]</a></p>
+<h2><a name="page97"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 97</span>SERMON
+VI.<br />
+The Christian Altar.</h2>
+<blockquote><p style="text-align: center">HEBREWS xiii. 10.<br />
+&ldquo;We have an Altar.&rdquo;</p>
+</blockquote>
+<p>I <span class="smcap">resume</span> our subject: the
+priesthood, altar and sacrifice in the Christian Church, and the
+mind of the Church of England upon it.&nbsp; On Sunday last we
+treated of this in part, shewing in relation to it what were the
+&ldquo;old paths,&rdquo; 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.&nbsp; We had not time to
+say much upon the altar or the sacrifice.&nbsp; Our text,
+however, now leads us by no uncertain course to this portion of
+our subject, especially when placed in connection with St.
+Paul&rsquo;s emphatic question in another place: &ldquo;Are not
+they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the
+altar?&rdquo;&nbsp; You will remember that we examined both those
+passages on a former occasion, <a name="citation97"></a><a
+href="#footnote97" class="citation">[97]</a> when we were
+regarding the scriptural <a name="page98"></a><span
+class="pagenum">p. 98</span>testimony to the doctrine, and I need
+not repeat what I then said.&nbsp; But they will lead us on now
+naturally,&mdash;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,&mdash;to some
+consideration of the sacrifice also, as borne witness to and
+maintained in like manner.</p>
+<p>&ldquo;We have an altar,&rdquo; says the Apostle.&nbsp; 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 &ldquo;corporal
+presence of Christ&rsquo;s natural flesh and blood,&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;eat of the sacrifice are partakers of the altar,&rdquo;
+and gain heavenly nourishment and sustenance unto everlasting
+life.</p>
+<p>We have seen already that such is the judgment <a
+name="page99"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 99</span>and doctrine
+of the primitive Church in its understanding of Holy Scripture,
+as shewn by the early Christian writers, and by the ancient
+liturgies.&nbsp; Also, that the doctrine was maintained
+continuously for fifteen hundred years.&nbsp; Our question now
+is, What has our own Church said and done in this matter at or
+since the Reformation?&nbsp; Does she maintain, or does she
+reject, the previous teaching of the Church Universal, and put
+something else in the place of its doctrine, and its
+understanding of Holy Scripture upon the subject?</p>
+<p>We cannot here go into a minute history of all which was done
+at the Reformation in this regard.&nbsp; But I think we may,
+within reasonable compass, arrive at a satisfactory general
+conclusion.&nbsp; If we compare our Church&rsquo;s Eucharistic
+Office with the ancient liturgies which have been preserved to
+us, we may see, I might almost say, at a glance, whether in
+prayer, in praise, in oblation, in general design and structure,
+we follow in their steps, or make &ldquo;some new
+thing.&rdquo;&nbsp; It cannot be disputed that in design and
+structure those liturgies all proclaim the doctrine of priest,
+sacrifice, and altar.&nbsp; This is interwoven with their whole
+system.&nbsp; It was the one understanding of Christians in those
+days as to what their liturgies contained.&nbsp; If, then, we
+find that the Church of England follows carefully in their steps,
+and maintains in her Eucharistic Office the whole substance of
+those liturgies,&mdash;at <a name="page100"></a><span
+class="pagenum">p. 100</span>any rate, all the main points in
+which they agree together, even though it be with some
+differences of arrangement, such as might naturally be
+expected,&mdash;surely we prove our point, and cannot doubt that
+our Reformers had no design to break away from the ancient faith,
+though they would cast off Roman error and Roman usurpation, and
+therefore that our Church not only does not condemn, but adopts
+and continues, (as in truth she never dreamed of any other
+thing,) the doctrine of the Church Universal in this matter.</p>
+<p>Take, then, the following short account of the structure,
+form, and usage of the ancient liturgies.&nbsp; I extract it from
+Mr. Carter&rsquo;s book, as I know of no better way to place it
+before you:&mdash;&ldquo;The following brief digest,&rdquo; he
+says, &ldquo;may give some idea of this system of devotion into
+which the mind of Christendom was habitually casting itself in
+its communion with God.&nbsp; It will be readily seen how the
+outline corresponds with our own Eucharistic Office.&nbsp; One or
+more collects; lessons from Holy Scripture; a sermon, sometimes
+preceded by a hymn or anthem; prayers for the catechumens,
+penitents, and others, who, with a benediction, were then
+dismissed; the creed, the offertory, with the oblations of bread
+and wine&rdquo; (observe, first offered by being placed upon the
+altar); then, &ldquo;thanksgivings and intercessions, with a
+commemoration of the dead in Christ.&nbsp; Then, the more
+mystical portion of the <a name="page101"></a><span
+class="pagenum">p. 101</span>Liturgy commenced, and in all cases
+with the very same words, <i>Sursum corda</i>, (&lsquo;Lift up
+your hearts&rsquo;); a thanksgiving, closing with the <i>Ter
+sanctus</i>, (&lsquo;holy, holy, holy&rsquo;); intercessory
+prayers; consecration of the elements, with the repetition of our
+Lord&rsquo;s words of institution; a second oblation of the now
+consecrated elements, (this was not always expressed in
+words,&mdash;sometimes silently, and in act only); an invocation
+of the Holy Ghost.&nbsp; This is not found in the Roman nor in
+the Gallican Liturgies;&rdquo;&mdash;(so, observe, we do not
+forsake the doctrine of the sacrifice if we have it not, for no
+one will suspect the Roman Church, which was equally without it,
+of denying or disparaging that doctrine;)&mdash;then,
+&ldquo;intercessory prayers for the whole Church, the dead as
+well as the living;&rdquo;&mdash;(this, however, would be praying
+only for the dead in Christ, for none other would be considered
+as part of the Church after the time of probation is over: though
+in this world, and in the Church on earth, the good and evil, the
+wheat and tares grow together, it is not so in the Church beyond
+the grave:)&mdash;&ldquo;the Lord&rsquo;s Prayer; a benediction;
+administration or communion; thanksgiving; <i>Gloria in
+excelsis</i>; final benediction.&rdquo; <a
+name="citation101"></a><a href="#footnote101"
+class="citation">[101]</a></p>
+<p>Now will any one take this account of the liturgies and usage
+of the ancient Church, which on all hands confessedly is admitted
+to have held the doctrine for which we contend, and then,
+comparing <a name="page102"></a><span class="pagenum">p.
+102</span>these with the Eucharistic Service of our own Church,
+doubt for a moment that the Church of England at the Reformation
+intended to preserve, and did preserve, the ancient form and
+practice, and therefore the ancient faith, in this matter? <a
+name="citation102"></a><a href="#footnote102"
+class="citation">[102]</a></p>
+<p><a name="page103"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 103</span>The
+Articles and Catechism of our Church are perfectly in accordance
+with this conclusion.&nbsp; Although the former, as we well know,
+were drawn up rather to guard against current errors of that day
+than to state doctrine upon points not brought into controversy,
+<a name="citation103"></a><a href="#footnote103"
+class="citation">[103]</a> they indirectly confirm <a
+name="page104"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 104</span>what has
+been said.&nbsp; For instance, the Twenty-fifth Article, guarding
+against the notion of a gross carnal presence of Christ in the
+Holy Eucharist, expressed by the term
+&lsquo;transubstantiation,&rsquo; might not be called upon,
+within its proper scope, to say anything in the way of dogma
+asserting the doctrine of sacrifice; but yet we find in it the
+statement that sacraments &ldquo;be not only badges or tokens of
+Christian men&rsquo;s profession, but rather they be certain sure
+witnesses and effectual signs of grace,&rdquo;&mdash;that is,
+signs effecting what they signify, and therefore, in the case of
+the Holy Communion, effecting or procuring for sinners pardon
+through Christ&rsquo;s body broken and blood shed, even as there,
+&ldquo;as often as we eat that bread and drink that cup we do
+shew the Lord&rsquo;s death till He come,&rdquo; <a
+name="citation104"></a><a href="#footnote104"
+class="citation">[104]</a> all which is in perfect accordance and
+harmony with the doctrine of a true propitiatory commemorative
+sacrifice therein offered up to God.</p>
+<p>One point further in relation to the Articles I will notice,
+lest I seem to overlook an objection.&nbsp; It is sometimes said,
+If the doctrine of a true and propitiatory sacrifice in the Holy
+Eucharist be admitted, there is a contradiction to the
+Thirty-first Article, which tells us that &ldquo;the sacrifices
+of masses, in which it was commonly said that the <a
+name="page105"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 105</span>priest did
+offer Christ for the quick and dead, to have remission of pain or
+guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous
+deceits.&rdquo;&nbsp; It is assumed that any doctrine of a real
+and true sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy
+Eucharist must come under this condemnation, and so it is
+sometimes thought that the whole question is thus decided.&nbsp;
+But, not to notice other points not without importance, but which
+we can hardly spare time to go into now, one thing surely is
+evident,&mdash;that the whole Article must be read together if we
+would rightly understand it.&nbsp; It is: &ldquo;The offering of
+Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and
+satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original
+and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin but that
+alone.&nbsp; Wherefore the sacrifices of masses, in the which it
+was commonly said that the priest did offer Christ for the quick
+and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were
+blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits.&rdquo;&nbsp; Now it is
+plain that the contrast here is between the one satisfaction for
+sin made by agony and blood upon the cross, and any supposed
+repetition of that painful and bloody sacrifice.&nbsp;
+&ldquo;There is none other but that alone;&rdquo; wherefore, for
+which reason, such attempts at sacrifice as would repeat it, or
+such teaching as would imply that Christ repeats it and suffers
+again, &ldquo;are blasphemous fables and dangerous
+deceits.&rdquo;&nbsp; If, then, in anything we say there were a
+doctrine of its repetition, if we did not absolutely and entirely
+<a name="page106"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 106</span>disclaim
+(as we all along have done) any such attempt and any such view of
+the sacrifice of the Christian altar, there would be a
+condemnation by the Article of our teaching.&nbsp; But certainly
+neither its terms nor its scope deal with any view of a merely
+unbloody commemorative sacrifice, appointed to be continually
+made in the Church of God so long as the world lasteth, by which
+the sacrifice upon the cross is never supposed to be repeated,
+but its sole merits applied to the believing and obedient heart,
+and the prevailing pleading and intercession of the Son of God
+presenting our prayers and praises, our penitence and offerings,
+before the throne of the heavenly grace are secured, and He
+Himself, our Advocate with the Father, is our propitiation.&nbsp;
+This no more interferes with the one &ldquo;full, perfect, and
+sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of
+the whole world, once offered&rdquo; upon the cross, than His own
+continued intercession at the right hand of God (and certainly
+&ldquo;He ever liveth to make intercession for us,&rdquo;) <a
+name="citation106"></a><a href="#footnote106"
+class="citation">[106]</a> interferes with, or is inconsistent
+with, the same.</p>
+<p>So much I have thought it well to say on the Thirty-first
+Article, because it is sometimes misunderstood and
+misapplied.</p>
+<p>Next, I would say just a word as to the teaching of the Church
+Catechism, which it would not be right to pass over.&nbsp; I
+think it throws a further light upon the doctrine of the
+sacrifice and the <a name="page107"></a><span class="pagenum">p.
+107</span>altar, for it not only tells us that &ldquo;the Body
+and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by
+the faithful in the Lord&rsquo;s Supper,&rdquo; (that is, the
+baptized, Christian people, for so the word is always used in
+strict theological language,) and therefore certainly that there
+is a real presence of His Body and Blood; but it also says that
+that Holy Sacrament was ordained &ldquo;for the continual
+remembrance of the sacrifice of the death of Christ, and of the
+benefits which we receive thereby,&rdquo;&mdash;where, as in the
+Communion Office itself, the term &lsquo;remembrance&rsquo; is
+also to be understood in its complete theological sense as the
+memorial, the continual memorial before God, which by the
+offering up of the sacrifice is made in the Holy Eucharist; all
+which is strictly accordant with the doctrine of the primitive
+Church and the ancient liturgies; for, to sum up with the words
+of the learned Mede, &ldquo;They (the ancient Fathers) believed
+that our blessed Lord ordained the Sacrament of His Body and
+Blood as a rite to bless and invocate His Father by, instead of
+the manifold and bloody sacrifices of the Law, . . . the mystery
+of which rite they took to be this, that as Christ, by presenting
+His death and satisfaction to His Father, continually intercedes
+for us in heaven, so the Church semblably (i.e. in a like manner)
+approaches the throne of grace by representing Christ unto His
+Father in those holy mysteries of His death and passion.&rdquo;
+<a name="citation107"></a><a href="#footnote107"
+class="citation">[107]</a></p>
+<p><a name="page108"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 108</span>If
+further proof still be required of our Church&rsquo;s mind from
+the Reformation downward, let it be noted how often this doctrine
+has been assailed, and yet how, on every occasion, the Church has
+refused to depart from the ancient rule and faith.&nbsp; As one
+instance, take the fact, that at the last revision in 1662, when
+the real meaning of the Puritan objections was well and fully
+understood, and when the demand was absolutely made by their
+leaders, both that the absolution by the priest should plainly be
+made only declaratory, and that the word &lsquo;priest&rsquo;
+should be wholly omitted and &lsquo;minister&rsquo; substituted,
+the Church refused both these demands: the bishops replying to
+the first, that the words as standing in the Visitation Service
+were far nearer to those of Christ Himself in the commission
+given, as these were, not, whose soever sins ye declare to be
+remitted, but, &ldquo;whose soever sins ye remit,&rdquo; and to
+the second, &ldquo;It is not reasonable that the word
+&lsquo;minister&rsquo; should be only used in the liturgy; for
+since some parts of the liturgy may be performed by a deacon,
+others by none under the order of a priest, viz. absolution and
+consecration, it is fit that some such word as
+&lsquo;priest&rsquo; should be used for these offices, and not
+&lsquo;minister,&rsquo; which signifies at large every one that
+ministers in that holy office, of what order soever he be;&rdquo;
+<a name="citation108"></a><a href="#footnote108"
+class="citation">[108]</a> whilst yet again, it has been well
+noted, that the care of the Church was increased in this last
+revision to preserve the distinction and the doctrine dependent
+<a name="page109"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 109</span>upon the
+word &lsquo;priest,&rsquo; now that the objections to it were the
+better understood.&nbsp; For it has been pointed out that the
+word &lsquo;priest&rsquo; occurs ninety times in the first book
+of King Edward the Sixth; fifty-five times in the second book,
+when the Puritan influence of the foreign reformers obtained its
+height; whilst in our present Prayer-book it occurs eighty-eight
+times: and an examination in detail would shew that this
+restoration was made on principle, and that wherever the term
+&lsquo;priest&rsquo; is employed, more or less of the sacerdotal,
+or strictly priestly character and authority is implied; whilst
+where the term &lsquo;minister&rsquo; is used, it is either as to
+simply a ministerial, as distinguished from a sacerdotal act, or
+the meaning of the term is determined by the previous use of the
+word &lsquo;priest.&rsquo; <a name="citation109"></a><a
+href="#footnote109" class="citation">[109]</a>&nbsp; So that as
+to this whole ministration, we may well adopt the weighty and
+persuasive language of Dr. Hickes, where, summing up a detailed
+argument against Cudworth, who had invented the theory that the
+Holy Eucharist was only a feast upon a sacrifice, and not a
+sacrifice itself, he says: &ldquo;I have said all this in defence
+of the old, against the Doctor&rsquo;s new notion of the Holy
+Eucharist, much more out of love to that old truth than to prove
+Christian ministers to be proper priests.&nbsp; For, it will
+follow even from this,&rdquo; (that is, from Cudworth&rsquo;s own
+view,) &ldquo;that they must be proper priests, because, as none
+but a priest can offer a sacrifice, <a name="page110"></a><span
+class="pagenum">p. 110</span>so none but a priest can preside and
+minister in such a sacrificial feast as he allows the Holy
+Sacrament to be.&nbsp; Who but a priest can receive the elements
+from the people, set them upon the holy table, and offer up to
+God such solemn prayers, praises, and thanksgivings for the
+congregation, and make such solemn intercessions for them as are
+now, and ever were, offered and made in this Holy
+Sacrament?&nbsp; Who but a priest can consecrate the elements and
+make them the mystical Body and Blood of Christ?&nbsp; Who but a
+priest can stand in God&rsquo;s stead at His table, and in His
+Name receive His guests?&nbsp; Who but a priest hath power to
+break the Bread, and bless the Cup, and make a solemn memorial
+before God of His Son&rsquo;s sufferings, and then deliver His
+sacramental Body and Blood to the faithful communicants, as
+tokens of His meritorious sufferings, and pledges of their
+salvation?&nbsp; A man authorized thus to act &lsquo;for men in
+things pertaining to God,&rsquo; and for God in things pertaining
+to men, must needs be a priest; and such holy ministrations must
+needs be sacerdotal, whether the holy table be an altar, or the
+Sacrament a sacrifice or not.&rdquo; <a name="citation110"></a><a
+href="#footnote110" class="citation">[110]</a></p>
+<p>To what conclusion, then, can we come but to that of the
+learned Archbishop Bramhall?&nbsp; &ldquo;He who saith, Take thou
+authority to exercise the office of a priest in the Church of God
+(as the Protestant consecrators do), doth intend all things <a
+name="page111"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 111</span>requisite
+to the priestly function, and, among the rest, to offer a
+representative sacrifice, to commemorate and apply the sacrifice
+which Christ made upon the Cross:&rdquo;<a
+name="citation111a"></a><a href="#footnote111a"
+class="citation">[111a]</a>&mdash;or to the brief but weighty
+saying of St. Jerome?&nbsp; &ldquo;Ecclesia non est, qu&aelig;
+non habet Sacerdotes.&rdquo; <a name="citation111b"></a><a
+href="#footnote111b" class="citation">[111b]</a></p>
+<p>Once more, brethren, we must pause, and as we do so, let us
+pray to Him from whom &ldquo;cometh down every good and every
+perfect gift,&rdquo; <a name="citation111c"></a><a
+href="#footnote111c" class="citation">[111c]</a> that He may give
+us His grace more and more to realize, and more and more to thank
+Him for the great privileges which He has vouchsafed to us in His
+&ldquo;holy Catholic Church.&rdquo;&nbsp; &ldquo;We have an
+altar&rdquo; to which we may come, the same blessed feast, of
+which we may partake, the same blessed sacrifice, in which we may
+join, which has ever been in His Church from the beginning.&nbsp;
+As the Israelites were taught to remember, as to their land
+flowing with milk and honey, that they &ldquo;gat it not in
+possession through their own sword, neither was it their own arm
+that helped them;&rdquo; <a name="citation111d"></a><a
+href="#footnote111d" class="citation">[111d]</a> Oh, so let us
+ever say with heart and voice, &ldquo;Not unto us, O Lord, not
+unto us, but unto Thy Name give the praise, for Thy loving mercy,
+and for Thy truth&rsquo;s sake.&rdquo; <a
+name="citation111e"></a><a href="#footnote111e"
+class="citation">[111e]</a></p>
+<h2><a name="page113"></a><span class="pagenum">p.
+113</span>SERMON VII.<br />
+The Christian Altar.</h2>
+<blockquote><p style="text-align: center">HEBREWS xiii. 10.<br />
+&ldquo;We have an Altar.&rdquo;</p>
+</blockquote>
+<p><span class="smcap">It</span> may be well, before we proceed
+with our general subject, to call your attention to one
+particular as to the course of our argument.&nbsp; You may have
+observed that I have not, except here and there incidentally,
+entered into any examination of the nature of the Christian
+sacrifice itself, any more than I have into any details or
+particulars of the doctrine of absolution, such as its power and
+effect, or the necessary limitations to be understood in its
+application.&nbsp; And this has been done advisedly, because I
+was not so much concerned, for instance, with the doctrine of
+absolution in itself, as with it in relation to, and as a proof
+of, the necessary existence of a sacerdotal power in those to
+whom it is entrusted; and therefore if I shewed that such
+authority is, in and by the Church of England, considered to be
+vested in those who minister at her altars, I inferred thence, I
+think justly, the existence of a priesthood in the mind of our
+Church.&nbsp; This has been the object with which I have referred
+<a name="page114"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 114</span>to that
+doctrine in illustration, and not to discuss the nature or define
+the powers of absolution itself.&nbsp; As, however, I have here
+touched upon it again, I may add, lest any mistake or
+misconception arise, that no one pretends the efficient power to
+absolve, (any more than to offer sacrifice,) lies in the priest
+himself.&nbsp; He is but the instrument administering the grace
+of God.&nbsp; The history of the cure of the lame man at the
+beautiful gate of the Temple (which we lately read) may well
+illustrate this.&nbsp; Surely no one will deny that the power to
+heal him was vested in St. Peter and St. John, whilst it is clear
+also, beyond all dispute, that not by their &ldquo;own power or
+holiness had they made that man to walk.&rdquo; <a
+name="citation114"></a><a href="#footnote114"
+class="citation">[114]</a>&nbsp; What, then, is there incredible
+in the affirmation that the power of the keys is vested in a
+priest as the instrument, though all the authority and absolving
+power is from God only; so that it is God and not man who
+pardons, and makes any man whole from sin.&nbsp; &ldquo;Who,
+indeed, can forgive sins but God only?&rdquo;&nbsp; But he who is
+invested with such authority, even instrumentally, is exactly
+what we term a &lsquo;priest;&rsquo; and our argument has been
+(to recur to it thus for a moment) that the Church, which regards
+men as so endowed, regards them as priests of God.</p>
+<p>I return more generally to the declaration of the text,
+&ldquo;We have an altar;&rdquo; and I will adduce one further
+illustration of the mind of the Church <a
+name="page115"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 115</span>of England
+hereon, by a reference to the foreign Reformation.&nbsp; Take the
+two systems of Luther and Calvin, and what do we find?&nbsp;
+Luther was already a priest before he began the Reformation, and
+he had no design to cast off the priestly element and character
+in his Reformation.&nbsp; He and other priests who joined him did
+not cease to administer Sacraments, or to teach their
+efficacy.&nbsp; The Confession of Augsburgh, which embodies the
+principles of the German Reformation, asserts regeneration in
+baptism, private confession to a priest, the grace of absolution,
+and the real presence in the Holy Eucharist.&nbsp; It also fully
+recognises (as with this teaching we should expect it would) the
+priesthood in its true meaning.&nbsp; Luther did not design or
+promulgate a change of system in any of these doctrines.&nbsp;
+What he did declare, under the exigencies of his position,
+because no bishop joined him, was, that for the purposes of
+continuing the priesthood and its powers, no episcopacy was
+necessary, but that priests could make priests; as Mr. Carter
+observes, a perfectly new doctrine in the Church of God.&nbsp;
+But the whole proceeding shewed that a sacramental system was
+maintained after the pattern of the Church, nay, with true
+priests to administer it for a time, but without the only
+ordained means of transmitting the same powers to the succeeding
+generation.&nbsp; Now how great a testimony is this to the true
+doctrine, and how much light does it throw upon the acts of our
+<a name="page116"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 116</span>own
+reformers at home, who, with a true episcopate and the power of
+succession unimpaired, were not likely to design a less perfect
+system than the German Reformer admitted and maintained in his
+theory, though he failed in the appointed means validly to carry
+it out.</p>
+<p>And Luther&rsquo;s testimony is all the more weighty when we
+remember that he was one who had so little reverence for
+antiquity or authority, that at one time he rejected and denied
+the inspiration of the Epistle of St. James, because he could not
+make its teaching as to good works square with his own theory of
+justification; and, at another time, absolutely exhorted the
+elect to sin boldly and shamelessly that they might be fit
+objects for the mercy of God, and because no sin which they could
+commit could frustrate the grace of God toward them! and yet even
+such a man wholly received and enforced the ancient doctrine of
+the priesthood, and its accompaniments, the altar and the
+sacrifice.</p>
+<p>Glance for a moment at the teaching of Calvin, and you will
+find another theological aspect.&nbsp; Calvin was not a priest;
+he had, therefore, no authority to administer Sacraments; so he
+took the bold line of rejecting the doctrine of a priesthood
+altogether.&nbsp; He taught that Christ was the only Priest of
+the New Testament, and that Christian ministers were only, what
+such names as elders and pastors might denote, rulers and
+teachers that is, in the Church of Christ.&nbsp; This <a
+name="page117"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 117</span>is the
+first of those three functions which we spoke of in a former
+discourse, as connected with the priesthood, but is just that one
+which we then said lacked the distinctive character of the
+priesthood,&mdash;the power of absolution and of offering
+sacrifice.&nbsp; So much Calvin allowed to his ministry, but all
+else he denied!</p>
+<p>Now, it is obvious, that besides his own defect in point of
+orders, (that he was not, like Luther, a priest,) his system was
+one to dispose him to reject this doctrine; for what need of a
+priesthood, or any external means of approaching God acceptably,
+when his theory and teaching was that of individual election and
+reprobation, determined from all eternity, according to the mere
+purpose of God?&nbsp; How naturally would such a system dispense
+with the priesthood?&nbsp; Aye, and there seems hardly room to
+doubt that it would equally well have dispensed with
+Sacraments.&nbsp; But here both the testimony of Holy Scripture,
+and the whole usage of the Christian world, as to fact, were too
+strong for him.&nbsp; He saw he could not actually reject
+Sacraments, although his system might well do without them.&nbsp;
+It is true, there was evidence of the same kind, both in
+Scripture and in antiquity, for the priesthood also.&nbsp; But it
+was much easier to discard the doctrine as a mere matter of
+opinion, (so he might call it,) than to set aside things so
+plainly presented to the sight, as the facts of the use of
+baptism, and the celebration of the Lord&rsquo;s <a
+name="page118"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 118</span>Supper,
+everywhere established.&nbsp; The bodily eye could see those
+usages, but could not see the inner impress of the
+priesthood.&nbsp; He could elude or deny the one, but he dared
+not, even if he wished it, displace the other.&nbsp; To what,
+then, did he have recourse?&nbsp; He kept the outward form and
+show of Sacraments, as we may say, but denuded them of all their
+truth, mystery, and power.&nbsp; &ldquo;He taught that they were
+bare signs; symbolizing, but not conveying grace; or rather, he
+separated the sign from the thing signified, making the one
+independent of the other.&rdquo; <a name="citation118"></a><a
+href="#footnote118" class="citation">[118]</a>&nbsp; Yet, as he
+wished to keep them, so he saw that he must teach that there was
+some good in them.&nbsp; How did he contrive to give them this
+use in his system?&nbsp; Why, he invented and taught that the
+faith of the receiver, and not the act of consecration, is the
+cause of grace in Sacraments; not in the sense that Sacraments do
+not profit the unworthy (which is true), but that this subjective
+faith in the recipient is the sole cause of their having power or
+virtue, (which is not true).&nbsp; Thus he, in effect,
+constituted every man his own priest, and led directly to the
+conclusion further, that unless in each individual case, the
+receiver were predestinated to life eternal, there was nothing in
+the Sacrament at all.&nbsp; And so, again, we see the Christian
+ministry became, in Calvin&rsquo;s system, nothing but an organ
+of government and instruction, which the term &lsquo;elder&rsquo;
+or &lsquo;presbyter&rsquo; might <a name="page119"></a><span
+class="pagenum">p. 119</span>sufficiently describe.&nbsp; And all
+this, with full deliberation and design on his part, because
+Calvin was far too learned and able a man not to know that, if
+there were an altar and a sacrifice, there must needs be a
+priesthood, which he had not, and was determined to do
+without.</p>
+<p>I should hardly have gone into this statement as to Calvin for
+its own sake, but I think it worthy of notice, for the sake of a
+practical lesson as to those who decry or deny the doctrine of
+the priesthood, call Christ our only Priest, and make every man,
+in fact, his own Priest.&nbsp; Surely we may see that the root of
+all this is, not the teaching of the Church of England, but
+absolute Calvinism and the teaching of the Helvetic Confession,
+the embodiment of the views of the Swiss Reformers.&nbsp; Those
+who accept this teaching may, or may not, adopt with it, the
+predestinarian part of Calvin&rsquo;s scheme; but certainly they
+are adopting to the letter his denial of a Christian priesthood,
+which denial, equally certainly, the English Reformation did not
+accept.&nbsp; &ldquo;We,&rdquo; then, &ldquo;have an
+altar,&rdquo; however it may be that others may have rejected and
+cast it off, and perhaps, alas, some among ourselves may be
+unconscious of it, or may disbelieve it.</p>
+<p>And this leads us to a few words further as to our position,
+when&mdash;I fear there is no denying or concealing it&mdash;when
+some of the priests themselves among us repudiate their
+priesthood, and thus follow the Swiss instead of the English <a
+name="page120"></a><span class="pagenum">p.
+120</span>Reformation!&nbsp; What must we say as to the effect of
+such unbelief; first as to their ministrations and the effect
+upon their flocks, and, secondly, as to themselves?</p>
+<p>And, first, as to the first point.&nbsp; Brethren, blessed be
+God, we do not, and we need not, think that, even on this
+account, they do not offer up the true sacrifice.&nbsp; Turn, for
+your comfort, to the Twenty-sixth Article of our Church, and you
+will see why I say so.&nbsp; It is headed, &ldquo;Of the
+unworthiness of the ministers, which hinders not the effect of
+the Sacraments;&rdquo; and it tells us of them, as to
+&ldquo;their authority in ministration of the Word and
+Sacraments,&rdquo; that &ldquo;forasmuch as they do not the same
+in their own name, but in Christ&rsquo;s, and do minister by His
+commission and authority, we may use their ministry, both in
+hearing the Word of God, and in receiving of the
+Sacraments.&nbsp; Neither is the effect of Christ&rsquo;s
+ordinance taken away . . . nor the grace of God diminished from
+such as by faith and rightly do receive the Sacraments ministered
+unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ&rsquo;s
+institution and promise. . . .&rdquo;</p>
+<p>Thus, even such have received the priesthood, and its
+indelible impress, the
+<i>&chi;&alpha;&rho;&alpha;&kappa;&tau;&#8052;&rho;</i>, (as it
+is theologically termed,) which cannot be destroyed in them by
+any act or will of theirs.&nbsp; Thus, their ministration at the
+altar (so long as it be according to the rule and order of the
+Church of England) is the offering a valid sacrifice, <a
+name="page121"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 121</span>and their
+distribution of the consecrated elements is the giving to be
+&ldquo;verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful, the
+Body and Blood of Christ.&rdquo;&nbsp; However, therefore, we may
+mourn for them, however we may feel in addition to sorrow a godly
+shame on their account, yet we need not fear that the flock is
+deprived of the needful food, nor defrauded of the blessed
+intercession of the Lamb, pleading for His people at the right
+hand of God, as often as the oblation is made, and the dread and
+blessed sacrifice is (even thus) offered up.</p>
+<p>As to such themselves (our second anxious question) what shall
+we say?&nbsp; I will say nothing of my own mind or thought, but
+rather adduce a weighty passage which I have found upon the
+matter in the work of the learned Dr. Hickes, whom I have
+mentioned more than once, as having so largely treated on our
+present subject.&nbsp; Even in his day, more than a
+hundred-and-fifty years ago, these deniers of the grace given
+them, were not unknown; and he thus speaks of them, going, you
+will observe, not so much as I have done here, into the question
+of the effect of their misbelief upon their ministrations to
+their flocks, but more particularly into its effect upon
+themselves.&nbsp; &ldquo;I desire,&rdquo; he says, &ldquo;your
+late writer,&rdquo; (the author whom, in his dissertation, he was
+answering,) &ldquo;and such others as he, who have been led into
+their errors by these and other writers since the
+Reformation,&rdquo; (Cudworth he <a name="page122"></a><span
+class="pagenum">p. 122</span>means more particularly, and the
+novel theory propounded by him,) &ldquo;to consider that, if the
+Holy Eucharist be a sacrifice, as the Catholic Church believed in
+all ages before that time, how far the defect of administering it
+only as a sacrament may affect the holy office and the
+administration of it; and whether the Communion administered by a
+priest, who neither believes himself to be such, nor the
+Sacrament to be an oblation or sacrifice, can be a Communion in
+or with the Catholic Church?&nbsp; I say, I leave it to
+themselves to consider these things, and I think they deserve
+their consideration, and hope they will seriously and impartially
+ruminate upon them, lest they should not &lsquo;rightly and duly
+administer that Holy Sacrament.&rsquo;&nbsp; The best of the
+Jewish writers tells us&rdquo; (i.e. Maimonides), &ldquo;that it
+was a profanation of a sacrifice, if the priest thought, when he
+offered up one sacrifice, that it was another; as if, when he
+offered a burnt-offering, he thought it was a peace-offering; or
+if, when he offered a peace-offering, he thought it was a
+burnt-offering.&nbsp; Whether that obliquity of thought, when it
+happened, had such an effect or no, I shall not now enquire; but
+this I dare say, if a Jewish priest, who did not believe himself
+to be a proper priest, nor the Jewish altar a proper altar, nor
+the sacrifices of the Law true and proper sacrifices, had
+presumed to offer while he was in this unhappy error, that he had
+profaned the sacrifice, so far as he was concerned in it, and not
+<a name="page123"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 123</span>offered
+it up <i>&#8001;&sigma;&#8055;&omega;&sigmaf;
+&kappa;&alpha;&#8054;
+&#7936;&mu;&#8051;&mu;&pi;&tau;&omega;&sigmaf;</i>, (holily and
+unblameably,) according to the will of God, though according to
+all the appointed rites, nor in unity and conjunction with the
+Jewish Church.&nbsp; For the Jewish Church would not have
+suffered such priests, if known, to minister among the sons of
+Aaron and Zadoc; nor would the ancient Catholic Church have
+endured bishops and presbyters without censure, who durst have
+taught that the Christian ministry was not a proper priesthood,
+the Holy Eucharist, not a proper sacrifice, or that Christian
+ministers were not proper priests.&rdquo; <a
+name="citation123a"></a><a href="#footnote123a"
+class="citation">[123a]</a></p>
+<p>Oh, my brethren, for those who may have fallen into such error
+(not knowing what they do), let us pray, in all tenderness and
+charity, that they may be forgiven and enlightened; and for us
+all, priests and people alike, let us make our petition that we
+may never fall into it; whilst, as to whatever truth or privilege
+or blessing God has shewn or given to us, let us &ldquo;not be
+high-minded, but fear,&rdquo; <a name="citation123b"></a><a
+href="#footnote123b" class="citation">[123b]</a> not being puffed
+up because of our advantages, but all the more careful, because
+we confess we have them, diligently to use them.</p>
+<p>And this brings us to the great practical question to which
+this whole enquiry leads.&nbsp; &ldquo;We have an
+altar.&rdquo;&nbsp; Do we, as we ought, use and profit by our
+great privilege?&nbsp; Do we indeed, individually and one by one,
+value the altar, use the altar, bring our gift to the altar, join
+in the services <a name="page124"></a><span class="pagenum">p.
+124</span>of the altar, become partakers of the altar, and
+thereby have fellowship with the Lord?</p>
+<p>Such questions, seriously considered, may furnish us with a
+most important test as to our true state, particularly whether we
+believe the doctrine, and whether we so live day by day as to be
+meet to take our place and part in the altar worship.&nbsp; Let
+me say a few words on these points before I conclude.</p>
+<p>First, do we really believe the doctrine?&nbsp; If we do,
+surely we must frequent the sacrifice.&nbsp; We must see in the
+altar service the highest act of our devotion.&nbsp; We must
+perceive that here is the crown and completion of all other
+worship, the sum and substance of our praises and thanksgivings,
+the prevailing mode of petition for ourselves and of intercession
+for others, the greatest and highest means of applying to our
+individual wants and individual sins the mercies of God through
+the ever-availing sacrifice of Christ.&nbsp; Such persuasion of
+their dignity and power has ever pervaded those who have believed
+in a priesthood, an altar, and a sacrifice.&nbsp; Heathen
+testimony witnesses to this, even amidst all the corruption and
+debasement of idol worship.&nbsp; The solemn, gorgeous, awful
+sacrifice has ever been the central act of all devotion, that to
+which all the people congregated, and to which, if they had any
+religion, they delighted to be called.&nbsp; We cannot here, and
+we need not, go into the proofs of this from the poets or
+historians of antiquity.&nbsp; <a name="page125"></a><span
+class="pagenum">p. 125</span>We hardly need adduce any proofs
+further than we have done already from Holy Scripture to
+it.&nbsp; We may, however, just recall the manner of the
+sacrifice offered by Samuel previous to the anointing of Saul to
+be king over Israel, when all the people would not eat until the
+Prophet came, &ldquo;because he doth bless the sacrifice.&rdquo;
+<a name="citation125a"></a><a href="#footnote125a"
+class="citation">[125a]</a>&nbsp; And the majesty of the great
+feast and sacrifice at the dedication of Solomon&rsquo;s temple;
+<a name="citation125b"></a><a href="#footnote125b"
+class="citation">[125b]</a> and again, the solemn renewal of the
+covenant and worship of God by Josiah, King of Judah, when he
+held the feast of the Passover unto the Lord, such as had not
+been &ldquo;from the days of the judges that judged Israel, nor
+in all the days of the kings of Israel, nor of the kings of
+Judah.&rdquo; <a name="citation125c"></a><a href="#footnote125c"
+class="citation">[125c]</a>&nbsp; Let us remember, too, that the
+great Paschal sacrifice and feast, itself the type of the true
+Lamb of God, was ordained to be annually kept under the earlier
+dispensation, and was assuredly so great and central a scene and
+act of Jewish devotion that to it the whole nation was called,
+and called so stringently that he who observed it not was to be
+cut off from the people. <a name="citation125d"></a><a
+href="#footnote125d" class="citation">[125d]</a>&nbsp; What an
+intimation that he who keeps not its far greater antitype, the
+Christian Passover in the Eucharistic Sacrifice and feast, is <a
+name="page126"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 126</span>cutting
+himself off from the people of God under the new and better
+covenant!&nbsp; Do we, then, all of us thus frequent and delight
+in the Christian altar? and if not, why not?&nbsp; Do we suppose
+that holiness of life, less than that which may allow us to come
+worthily to the Holy Eucharist, will be sufficient to let us come
+to heaven?&nbsp; Do we think that, though we are without the
+marriage garment which we feel is needful for us to go to the
+Supper of the Lord on earth, we can enter without it, to sit down
+at the great marriage of the Lamb in the courts of heaven?&nbsp;
+Can we believe that a heart less devoted to God, and a love and
+obedience less perfect toward Christ than will permit us to join
+in the highest act of thanksgiving in this world, will allow us
+to join in the everlasting Hosannas of the world to come?&nbsp;
+Or do we imagine that such a service as that of the Christian
+altar is not intended for us all, but is to be restricted to a
+certain few out of the whole body of the baptized?&nbsp; Surely,
+however widely such may seem to be the practical belief (rather,
+I should say, unbelief) of our day, there is no support for any
+such notion in either the Holy Scripture, or the faith and usage
+of the Church Catholic, or in the principles of the
+Reformation.&nbsp; Not only is the whole teaching of the Bible,
+of the primitive Church, and of our Articles, Canons, and
+Catechism against any such view, but our very Eucharistic Office
+itself speaks plainly against it also.&nbsp; Not to mention more
+<a name="page127"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 127</span>direct
+proofs in other ways, it is a great mistake to suppose that
+office to design any division in its midst where ordinary
+Christians have licence to depart, and a few select or chosen are
+bidden to remain.&nbsp; The not unfrequent custom of using a
+collect and benediction after the sermon may perhaps, however
+well intended, have fostered an error here.&nbsp; This may seem
+to make an authorized close to the service at that point, as if
+one service were now ended and another were to begin.&nbsp; It
+has, therefore, enabled people the more easily to forget that we
+are then in the middle of the Office for Holy Communion, whilst
+the usage itself (as well as the custom of saying a collect and
+the Lord&rsquo;s Prayer before the sermon) is certainly without
+authority, and rather against than according to the mind of our
+Church; and although we may perhaps not unreasonably, to avoid
+confusion, make a pause whilst children and those who may be
+unable, at any particular time, to remain for the celebration may
+leave, we are not to think that a certain barrenness or
+awkwardness felt by such as then depart is without its value in
+instruction.&nbsp; If they who thus habitually absent themselves
+from the sacrifice and feast of the altar, may be led to reflect
+from this very feeling that the Church herself, by the gentle
+remonstrance of the structure of her service, reminds them that
+they are leaving before the service in which they are engaged is
+ended, this may surely give a wholesome lesson.&nbsp; Oh, <a
+name="page128"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 128</span>if any
+<i>one</i> even may be thus led to think, Why do I depart? why
+need I go away? why do I refuse to join in the Christian
+sacrifice, the highest act of thanksgiving and praise? why do I
+turn my back upon my Saviour, present to pardon, to feed, and to
+save me?&mdash;if any feel this, until meditating upon the love
+and the command of Christ, he resolves, instead of departing, to
+come with his gift to the altar, and taste and see how gracious
+the Lord is, shall he not find reason to bless and praise God
+that He thus brings him to himself, and thankfully acknowledge
+the wisdom of our Church, which has not appointed even the
+semblance of a finished service in the middle of her holy
+Eucharistic Office?</p>
+<p>The opposite conduct to that of those who depart without
+communicating, I mean that of such as remain without
+communicating, has, as we know, been the subject of no small
+controversy in the present day.&nbsp; I do not desire here to
+enter into that dispute, but just so much I would observe: first,
+that if any desire to remain, having perhaps already communicated
+at an earlier service, or in a serious anxious wish to learn the
+will of God better as to the Christian sacrifice, with a view to
+the becoming a partaker of it; or, if any desire to join so far
+in it as to unite his heart and voice with those who offer it,
+being a communicant, though he may not design on that occasion to
+communicate, I do not conceive that the priest would have the
+wish, or if he had, would have <a name="page129"></a><span
+class="pagenum">p. 129</span>any authority, to bid him
+depart.&nbsp; Whilst, nevertheless, I deem it needful to observe,
+secondly, that I see no warrant to think they are in anything but
+a dangerous error who imagine (if, indeed, any do so) that the
+presence of any one as a gazer upon, or witness of, the holy
+mysteries, is in any way equivalent to communicating.&nbsp; I do
+not see how such presence of one looking on, even joining in
+words of praise, but habitually and constantly doing no more; of
+one who is not a communicant, nor seeking to become a
+communicant; of one who does not eat of the sacrifice though
+present, perhaps often, at the offering of it, can be an act of
+worship or adoration well-pleasing to Almighty God; can, in any
+way, make up for his lack of understanding, or preparation, or
+obedience in that he does not &ldquo;eat the flesh of the Son of
+Man and drink His blood,&rdquo; without which, our Lord Himself
+has told us, we have &ldquo;no life in us.&rdquo; <a
+name="citation129"></a><a href="#footnote129"
+class="citation">[129]</a>&nbsp; To be present in order to learn,
+and to learn in order to obey, we may indeed hope will be an
+acceptable service, so far as it goes; but to gaze constantly
+without obeying ever, and then to think nevertheless that we
+&ldquo;are partakers of the altar,&rdquo; seems to me nothing
+less than a dangerous self-deceit, and therefore certainly a
+practice not to be encouraged.</p>
+<p>I sum up our remarks then, brethren, in this conclusion, that
+we should all of us, with a depth of feeling beyond our words to
+express it, thank <a name="page130"></a><span class="pagenum">p.
+130</span>our merciful God for His tender care and providence
+over us in this our Church of England.&nbsp; He has given us the
+treasure of the priesthood, though in earthen vessels, handed
+down from His very Apostles themselves by the laying on of hands,
+even according to the powers of their own commission from Christ
+Himself.&nbsp; He has shewed us the witness to the doctrine of
+sacrifice, as exhibited in the world from Adam to Christ.&nbsp;
+He has confirmed the doctrine and the usage of the sacrifice and
+altar in the Christian Church by His holy Word in the New
+Testament, and by the records preserved to us of the early
+Church, telling us unmistakeably how the Church, from the
+Apostles&rsquo; time downward, understood the Scriptures in this
+respect.&nbsp; He has let us know the mind of the Church at large
+to have been one upon the doctrine for nearly sixteen hundred
+years; and, blessed be His name, He &ldquo;so guided and governed
+the minds&rdquo; of those in authority among us at the momentous
+period of our Reformation, and in all revisions since, that our
+Church has ever maintained, and does maintain, the doctrine of
+the Church Universal on the deep and mysterious, but, at the same
+time, most important practical subject of the priesthood, the
+altar, and the sacrifice.&nbsp; Thus, in His mercy, our Church
+has made no &ldquo;new thing,&rdquo; nor departed from &ldquo;the
+old paths.&rdquo;&nbsp; She is one with the Church of God in all
+times in this matter, and we need have no fears but that if we
+come, one by one &ldquo;with <a name="page131"></a><span
+class="pagenum">p. 131</span>true penitent hearts and lively
+faith,&rdquo; to the altar of God and the table of the Lord among
+us, we may and do eat of the sacrifice, are partakers of the
+altar, and have fellowship with the Lord; that we have indeed
+preserved to us, in spite of the unbelief among us, and the
+strife of tongues around us, all that true and holy thing which
+the Church has ever had as Christ&rsquo;s own appointed means for
+the pardon of our sins and the sustainment of our spiritual life,
+by the which we, with His &ldquo;whole Church militant here on
+earth,&rdquo; are allowed to offer up the never-ceasing,
+unbloody, commemorative, propitiatory sacrifice which the Church
+has ever offered, and by which she pleads before the throne of
+God the power of the one great sacrifice upon the cross for the
+pardon of sin, yea, even procures the pleading thereof for our
+individual sins and transgressions by the Son of God Himself, our
+&ldquo;High Priest set on the right hand of the throne of the
+majesty in the heavens,&rdquo; <a name="citation131a"></a><a
+href="#footnote131a" class="citation">[131a]</a> who &ldquo;ever
+liveth to make intercession for us;&rdquo; so that we thus, in
+common with the whole Church of God, fulfil the Prophet&rsquo;s
+word, &ldquo;From the rising of the sun even unto the going down
+of the same, My name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in
+every place incense shall be offered unto My name, and a pure
+offering: for My name shall be great among the heathen, saith the
+Lord of Hosts.&rdquo; <a name="citation131b"></a><a
+href="#footnote131b" class="citation">[131b]</a></p>
+<p>And if God has been thus gracious to us in all straits and
+perils in time past, it would surely be <a
+name="page132"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 132</span>a grievous
+want of faith not to put our trust in Him for the time to
+come.&nbsp; Though we know that for sin persisted in the
+candlestick of a church may be removed, yet we will hope
+confidingly that where He has preserved His truth so long He will
+still watch over it and keep it; where, too, in the ordering of
+His providence, so great a door seems set open before us; where,
+by our power and extended empire, our vast colonial possessions
+and daily increasing colonial Church, (all His own gift,) we seem
+fitted to be the means of His &ldquo;way being known upon earth,
+His saving health among all nations,&rdquo; He will still cause
+the light of His countenance to shine upon us; where, again,
+thousands, as we verily believe, come before Him daily in
+humility, penitence, and prayer, (like Daniel, interceding for
+his country and his people,) &ldquo;crying mightily unto
+Him&rdquo; for support in all dangers, and aid in all
+adversities; I say, we will hope indeed that He &ldquo;will hear
+their cry and will help them.&rdquo;&nbsp; Even in the day of
+thick darkness He can cause that &ldquo;at evening time it shall
+be light.&rdquo; <a name="citation132"></a><a href="#footnote132"
+class="citation">[132]</a>&nbsp; Whatever be our trial we need
+not, on that account, deem ourselves forsaken.&nbsp; Nay, unless
+we see it plainly written that for our sins He has turned His
+face wholly from us, we will not doubt, in all faith though in
+all humility, that He will allow us to hand on to our
+children&rsquo;s children, and to the &ldquo;generations which
+are yet for to come,&rdquo; the same good deposit which we <a
+name="page133"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 133</span>have
+ourselves received.&nbsp; If ever we seem to be disheartened or
+ready to faint by the way, we will remember on whose word we rely
+and on whose arm we lean; we will call to mind His wonders of old
+time; we will ever with all faith and hopeful trust, knowing how
+with Him &ldquo;all things are possible,&rdquo; make the prayer
+of the Psalmist continually our own, saying, &ldquo;Turn us
+again, O Lord God of Hosts: shew the light of Thy countenance,
+and we shall be whole.&rdquo; <a name="citation133"></a><a
+href="#footnote133" class="citation">[133]</a></p>
+<h2><a name="page135"></a><span class="pagenum">p.
+135</span>SERMON VIII. <a name="citation135"></a><a
+href="#footnote135" class="citation">[135]</a><br />
+<span class="GutSmall">(Preached on Christmas Day.)</span><br />
+God Incarnate our Great High Priest.</h2>
+<blockquote><p style="text-align: center">COLOSSIANS ii. 3.<br />
+&ldquo;In Whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and
+knowledge.&rdquo;</p>
+</blockquote>
+<p><span class="smcap">The</span> preceding verses will tell us
+&ldquo;of whom speaketh&rdquo; the Apostle this.&nbsp; Having
+declared what great conflict he had for his converts at Colosse
+and &ldquo;for them at Laodicea, and for as many as had not seen
+his face in the flesh,&rdquo; he tells them that this his
+conflict and desire for them was, that their &ldquo;hearts might
+be comforted; being knit together in love, and unto all riches of
+the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgment of the
+mystery of God, and of <a name="page136"></a><span
+class="pagenum">p. 136</span>the Father, and of Christ; in
+Whom,&rdquo; he adds, &ldquo;are hid all the treasures of wisdom
+and knowledge.&rdquo;</p>
+<p>As there is nothing on which men may not make a controversy,
+so there has been a question raised whether the meaning be,
+&ldquo;in Whom,&rdquo; viz. in Christ, or, &ldquo;in
+which,&rdquo; viz. in the mystery of God, and the Father, and
+Christ, &ldquo;are hid all the treasures of wisdom and
+knowledge?&rdquo;&nbsp; But we may well be excused if we do not
+desire on such a day as this to run into criticism of this kind;
+and I shall therefore take it at once for granted that the plain
+and natural sense of the words is the true one, and that we have
+here the Apostle&rsquo;s declaration of and concerning Him of
+Whom he says just afterwards unmistakeably, that &ldquo;in Him
+dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,&rdquo; <a
+name="citation136"></a><a href="#footnote136"
+class="citation">[136]</a> that He is the same &ldquo;in Whom are
+hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.&rdquo;&nbsp; And
+if they be so in Christ, as He is, at the right hand of God, (for
+He was there undoubtedly when the Apostle wrote this of Him,) so,
+being ever one and the same Eternal God, &ldquo;the same
+yesterday, and to-day, and for ever,&rdquo; they were equally in
+Him in the days of His humiliation, &ldquo;when for us men and
+for our salvation&rdquo; He took upon Him man&rsquo;s
+nature.&nbsp; As the Second of our Articles of Religion, in the
+strictest theological language, expresses it: &ldquo;The Son,
+which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the
+Father, <a name="page137"></a><span class="pagenum">p.
+137</span>the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the
+Father, took man&rsquo;s nature in the womb of the blessed
+Virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect Natures,
+that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in
+one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God
+and very Man;&rdquo; whereof, too, be it well observed, the just
+and immediate consequence is, that He&mdash;&ldquo;Who truly
+suffered, was crucified, dead and buried, to reconcile His Father
+to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but
+also for all actual sins of men,&rdquo;&mdash;was this same one
+Person, very God, and very Man.&nbsp; So that we speak simple
+truth (though a mystery beyond even angelic powers fully to
+understand or appreciate) when we say that God Himself was born
+of the Virgin Mary; God Himself lay in that manger at Bethlehem;
+God Himself grew up from infancy to manhood before men&rsquo;s
+eyes; God Himself shed His Blood, and died upon the Cross, to
+save the lost and guilty race of Adam, whom by His Incarnation He
+made His brethren: even as the Apostle declares to the disciples
+at Miletus, that God had &ldquo;purchased His Church with His own
+Blood;&rdquo; <a name="citation137a"></a><a href="#footnote137a"
+class="citation">[137a]</a> and again, tells the Ephesians, that
+through Christ &ldquo;we have redemption through His
+Blood;&rdquo; <a name="citation137b"></a><a href="#footnote137b"
+class="citation">[137b]</a> and again, the Hebrews, that
+&ldquo;by His own Blood entered in once into the holy place,
+having obtained eternal redemption for us.&rdquo; <a
+name="citation137c"></a><a href="#footnote137c"
+class="citation">[137c]</a></p>
+<p><a name="page138"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 138</span>This
+perfect union for ever of the two Natures in the one Person of
+Jesus Christ our Lord it is of the highest importance for us to
+receive, or we shall have unworthy notions of God, and what He
+has done for us.&nbsp; We shall, if we &ldquo;divide the
+Substance,&rdquo; making two Persons to be in Christ, be in
+danger of believing that a mere man died for us; or else, that
+the death of Christ was not, in a true sense, death at all; so
+that there would be either a propitiatory sacrifice made for the
+sins of the world by one less than God, or else no propitiatory
+sacrifice made at all.&nbsp; In either case, a denial of
+&ldquo;the Lord that bought us.&rdquo; <a
+name="citation138"></a><a href="#footnote138"
+class="citation">[138]</a>&nbsp; In the one, that He is the Lord;
+in the other, that He bought us.&nbsp; For, as we see at once,
+God, as God only, cannot die; and man, as man only, cannot make
+propitiation for sin.&nbsp; It is, of course, true that the
+Godhead, considered in itself, is incapable of suffering, and
+therefore, the Son of God, for this reason, (among many others,
+as we may well believe,) took upon Him man&rsquo;s nature, which
+was capable of suffering and death.&nbsp; And not less true or
+less plain is it, that the Manhood, even in its best and most
+perfect state, could not make atonement to God for sin, or enable
+any man to &ldquo;save his brother.&rdquo;&nbsp; But when God
+became Flesh, when the Son of God became also the Son of Man,
+when the two natures in their Perfection were thus joined in the
+Person of Jesus Christ: then God being man could die, and man <a
+name="page139"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 139</span>being God
+could not only live but give life.&nbsp; So Christ not only
+liveth ever, but He &ldquo;giveth eternal life&rdquo; <a
+name="citation139a"></a><a href="#footnote139a"
+class="citation">[139a]</a> to as many as are His.&nbsp;
+&ldquo;Thus,&rdquo;&mdash;to use the words of the well-known
+commentator on our Articles, the present Bishop of
+Ely,&mdash;&ldquo;thus we understand the Scripture when it says
+that men &lsquo;crucified the Lord of Glory,&rsquo; <a
+name="citation139b"></a><a href="#footnote139b"
+class="citation">[139b]</a> when it says that &lsquo;God
+purchased the Church with His own Blood,&rsquo; <a
+name="citation139c"></a><a href="#footnote139c"
+class="citation">[139c]</a> because though God in His Divine
+Nature cannot be crucified, and has no blood to shed; yet the Son
+of God, the Lord of Glory, took into His Person the nature of
+man, in which nature He could suffer, could shed His blood, could
+be crucified, could die.&rdquo; <a name="citation139d"></a><a
+href="#footnote139d" class="citation">[139d]</a>&nbsp; All this
+being done and suffered by that one Person&mdash;Christ Jesus,
+God and Man&mdash;it is no figure or fallacy but a simple truth,
+however wonderful, to say that God was born in Bethlehem and died
+upon the cross at Calvary.&nbsp; Thus, too, He the one
+ever-blessed Son of the Highest, &ldquo;in Whom were hid all the
+treasures of wisdom and knowledge,&rdquo; could become unto us
+&ldquo;wisdom and righteousness and sanctification and
+redemption;&rdquo; our Prophet, Priest and King, our Sacrifice,
+our Mediator, our Intercessor, our ever-merciful and
+ever-enduring Saviour, Who sitteth at the right hand of God,
+until He shall come again with power and great glory to be also
+our Judge.</p>
+<p><a name="page140"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 140</span>So
+very far have modern times gone in forgetfulness of the ancient
+faith, that, I believe, it is sometimes considered a strange
+thing to give to the Blessed Virgin the title of &ldquo;the
+Mother of God,&rdquo; as if it were a novelty so to designate
+her.&nbsp; Whereas, to deny her this title, and so in fact to
+make two Persons to be in Christ,&mdash;one, God, not born of
+her; and one, man, born of her,&mdash;is precisely the very and
+exact heresy of Nestorius condemned by the Third General Council
+held at Ephesus in the year 431, which decision was, and has ever
+since been, received by the whole Church.&nbsp; So that it is not
+merely truth so to designate her, but it is absolutely heretical
+to maintain the contrary.&nbsp; &ldquo;Ever since the Council of
+Ephesus, the Church has consecrated the peculiar title of
+&lsquo;Theotokos&rsquo; (God&rsquo;s parent, or Mother of God,)
+to denote the incommunicable privilege of the Blessed Virgin
+Mary, in that she became the mother of Immanuel, &lsquo;God with
+us.&rsquo; . . .&nbsp; For, though it is as man that Christ is of
+the substance of His Mother born in the world, yet, inasmuch as
+the Word took man&rsquo;s nature in the womb of the Blessed
+Virgin of her substance, she may truly be styled &lsquo;Mother of
+God,&rsquo; because &lsquo;two whole and perfect
+natures&mdash;that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood&mdash;were
+joined in One Person never to be divided, whereof is one Christ,
+very God and very Man.&rsquo;&rdquo; <a name="citation140"></a><a
+href="#footnote140" class="citation">[140]</a></p>
+<p><a name="page141"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 141</span>But
+let us turn back again for a moment to the thought of the text,
+that in Christ &ldquo;are hid all the treasures of wisdom and
+knowledge.&rdquo;&nbsp; There is surely an emphatic force in the
+words &ldquo;are
+hid,&rdquo;&mdash;&ldquo;<i>&epsilon;&#7984;&sigma;&#8054;&nu;
+&#7936;&pi;&#8057;&kappa;&rho;&upsilon;&phi;&omicron;&iota;</i>,&rdquo;
+not merely &lsquo;contained,&rsquo; but &lsquo;laid up,&rsquo;
+&lsquo;concealed,&rsquo;&mdash;and if in a certain sense, even
+now they are hid, because Christ our Lord does not manifest
+Himself to the eye of sense in any visible form of glory, though
+He has all wisdom and all knowledge ever inherent in Him, it may
+be said that they were even more obscured, when, emptying Himself
+of His glory, &ldquo;He took upon Him the form of a servant, and
+was made in the likeness of men, and was found in fashion as a
+man.&rdquo; <a name="citation141"></a><a href="#footnote141"
+class="citation">[141]</a>&nbsp; Look upon Him as He was on this
+day eighteen hundred and three-score and more years ago!&nbsp;
+Think of Him as a little infant, in the arms of His blessed
+Mother, or laid under her watchful eye upon some rude pillow in
+the manger, and then consider that <i>there</i> was the God of
+all flesh, the great God of heaven and earth, God the Son, ever
+one with the Father and the Holy Ghost, all-powerful,
+all-knowing, all-creating, all-upholding, all-preserving, and say
+if these treasures were not indeed hid and obscured!</p>
+<p>But though obscured, the treasures were there
+nevertheless.&nbsp; It were impious to doubt or deny it.&nbsp;
+When, then, we hear it asked, as sometimes in these latter days
+of almost unlimited free enquiry it is, Are we to imagine that in
+that little <a name="page142"></a><span class="pagenum">p.
+142</span>infant was centred the knowledge of all history, all
+learning, all the secrets of nature as we term them, all the
+devices of art, all the developments of science?&nbsp; I think we
+cannot doubt that the answer is, There was.&nbsp; For what is
+there in any kind or department of knowledge or science, or of
+things past, present, or to come, which we can suppose the
+Almighty not to know?&nbsp; This would be to deny His attribute
+of Omniscience; and, therefore, to deny it of Christ, God and
+Man, would be to deny His Godhead.&nbsp; People think to escape
+this consequence by saying that it is merely His human nature
+which was ignorant,&mdash;that whilst as God He knew, yet as Man
+He did not know,&mdash;not seeing that thus immediately they must
+fall into that other error before mentioned.&nbsp; For if they do
+not deny the Godhead, they must divide the Substance of the
+Son.&nbsp; Perhaps in their defence they will urge such passages
+of Holy Scripture as that in which it is written, &ldquo;Jesus
+increased in wisdom and stature;&rdquo; <a
+name="citation142a"></a><a href="#footnote142a"
+class="citation">[142a]</a> or where He Himself said, concerning
+the Judgment, &ldquo;Of that day and that hour knoweth no man,
+no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the
+Father,&rdquo; <a name="citation142b"></a><a href="#footnote142b"
+class="citation">[142b]</a> of which it may be sufficient to
+remark to-day, that the first passage seems to imply no more than
+that His wisdom, as He grew in years, and of course appeared to
+acquire human knowledge, increased, in the sense of its being
+more manifested in <a name="page143"></a><span class="pagenum">p.
+143</span>the eyes of men, just as His bodily stature increased
+in visible presence before them: whilst of the other, (without
+going into all which may be said on a passage confessedly
+difficult,) it may be enough to point out that He does not say
+even of the Day of Judgment, that He, the God-Man, Christ Jesus,
+ever undivided in His divinity and humanity, did not know it: but
+that the Son (Who must be taken of course here to be the Son of
+Man), knoweth it not.&nbsp; And if it be thought that this
+admission grants all that the objector asked, and is in fact but
+the enunciation of his own view, I should maintain that it is not
+so, and for this reason, that it is a very different thing to say
+of the One Person, Jesus Christ, that He, thus one and undivided,
+was ignorant of anything, and to <i>contemplate apart</i> His
+Godhead and His Manhood, and so, in some sort, their attributes
+apart.&nbsp; And I conceive that here our Blessed Lord using the
+term &ldquo;the Son&rdquo; (not &lsquo;<i>I</i> know not,&rsquo;
+but <i>the Son</i> knoweth not,) contemplates Himself as the Son
+of Man, and speaks of Himself as viewed in that relation.&nbsp;
+What modern unbelief seems to delight to assert, is, that our
+Blessed Lord, as He stood and talked and reasoned with the
+people, was ignorant or mistaken.&nbsp; What we affirm to be the
+really just and consistent sense of the passages adduced, is,
+that <i>if</i> His human nature be contemplated apart from His
+Divine, it <i>might</i> be taken to be thus ignorant; so, I would
+repeat, He is not thus proclaiming <a name="page144"></a><span
+class="pagenum">p. 144</span>that He, the God-Man, the One
+Christ, is ignorant, nor yet dividing His Substance and becoming
+two, but merely contemplating apart the Divine and human natures,
+which may well be done; and we may even go so far as to say that
+<i>if</i> we contemplate them as separated, then there would be
+things unknown to the one, though known to the other, and
+<i>if</i> they could be divided there would be a separate
+province of knowledge in each; but that, as we must believe the
+two natures have ever been united in one Person from the time of
+His taking our nature of the substance of the Blessed Virgin
+Mary, so no one can ever predicate of Him, the thus born Son of
+God and Son of Man; of Him &ldquo;in Whom dwelleth all the
+fulness of the Godhead bodily;&rdquo; of Him &ldquo;in Whom are
+hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge;&rdquo; of Him
+&ldquo;Who is over all, God blessed for ever,&rdquo; <a
+name="citation144a"></a><a href="#footnote144a"
+class="citation">[144a]</a> that it is possible there was, or is,
+or shall be anything, whether &ldquo;of things in heaven, or
+things in earth, or things under the earth,&rdquo; of which He
+was, or is, or shall be ignorant. <a name="citation144b"></a><a
+href="#footnote144b" class="citation">[144b]</a></p>
+<p>Turn then again, brethren, to the stable at Bethlehem.&nbsp;
+Cast away, at least on such a blessed <a name="page145"></a><span
+class="pagenum">p. 145</span>day as this, the thoughts of
+controversy.&nbsp; Come to the sight which is to be seen in that
+lowly habitation &ldquo;where the stalled oxen feed.&rdquo;&nbsp;
+See the blessed Mother!&nbsp; See the glorious Infant, glorious
+and divine in Himself, howbeit He may look like any other child
+of man, and with the eye of faith &ldquo;behold thy
+God!&rdquo;&nbsp; Think of the wonders of love in the
+condescension that He should be found in such an humble guise and
+lowly place, only excelled by the marvel that He should abase
+Himself to become man at all!&nbsp; And then think that all this
+is no barren spectacle, to be gazed upon indeed with wonder, but
+in which we have no practical interest.&nbsp; No, it all belongs
+to us, and has to do with us, in matters of the very highest
+moment.&nbsp; It is so important to us, that we might say all
+other things are mere bubbles and trifles compared with it.&nbsp;
+What should we be, and what would be our hope, if we had not the
+Christmas season, and all which it has brought, to gild our year,
+and gladden our hearts?&nbsp; Think of what we are, and what are
+our prospects by nature!&nbsp; The children of Adam in his fallen
+state, and therefore &ldquo;born in sin and children of
+wrath.&rdquo;&nbsp; A degenerate race, from our very birth, with
+the sure seed of the first and second death implanted in us, with
+a corrupt nature, a depraved will, a heart estranged from God,
+exiles from Eden, unable to return to it.&nbsp; Even if we had
+the heart to seek it, only doomed to find it barred against us,
+and &ldquo;cherubims and <a name="page146"></a><span
+class="pagenum">p. 146</span>a flaming sword turning every way to
+keep the way of the tree of life,&rdquo; on account of both the
+original guilt and actual sins of men.&nbsp; Thus, in ourselves
+with no access again to God.&nbsp; Placed, it is true, in a world
+of wonders, a world adapted by Almighty wisdom to supply our
+wants and minister to our comfort and gratification, apparently
+capable of almost unlimited development in these things under the
+fertile mind and ever-busy hand of man, yielding thus much
+enjoyment for the time, if we give ourselves to enjoy it.&nbsp;
+Even in more than such external things adapted to our
+constitution, as furnishing the food for absorbing pursuit and
+high aim in the acquisition of wealth or power, or in
+intellectual cultivation; nay, more and more widely still,
+meeting the cravings of our nature by supplying the field for
+sweet sympathies and home affections in the varied scenes of
+domestic life and mutual love; but yet, after all, not satisfying
+the yearnings of man&rsquo;s heart or the aspirations of his
+being.&nbsp; A world, too, however framed with all these means of
+comfort or enjoyment, yet with much of pain, sorrow, sickness,
+bereavement, trial, fear, and weakness in the lot of every child
+of Adam.&nbsp; All this without; and within, a conscience enough
+alive to make us uneasy, when we have yielded to temptation, and
+broken the law written in our hearts, though of no sufficient
+power to prevent our yielding to the one and breaking the other,
+joined with a certain consciousness, indeed, <a
+name="page147"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 147</span>of
+God&rsquo;s greatness and goodness, but not the heart to love
+Him.&nbsp; So, with no light in ourselves to see our way clearly,
+nor in ourselves any strength to throw off our chains and turn to
+God; with dim forebodings of and even earnest yearnings after
+something higher, better, and more enduring than this world, and
+this earthly life and being, but with no apprehension to grasp
+it, and no power to attain to it.&nbsp; And then, as life wanes,
+and death draws on, and conscience, it may be, pricks, and the
+evil one himself, perchance, mocks and triumphs, and no remedy,
+in either external things or in our own selves, is to be
+found,&mdash;how darkly and sadly does the night close in upon
+man in his mere natural condition!&nbsp; Survey him in such
+aspect from his life&rsquo;s beginning to its end, and what is
+there for him but either blank despair or reckless levity (often
+the direct fruit of despair), or a dark and corrupting
+superstition calling &ldquo;evil good and good evil, saying
+Peace, peace, when there is no peace,&rdquo; and resulting in the
+utmost dishonour to God, and the greatest licence of an unbridled
+sensuality, even under the plea of religion? or else, if not
+this, an utter unbelief, merely falling blindfold into judgment
+and eternity?&nbsp; Yes: for when once man was lost by the Fall,
+no one could save himself and no one could save his fellow.&nbsp;
+As it is written, &ldquo;No man may deliver his brother, or make
+agreement unto God for him; for it cost more to redeem their
+souls, so that He must let that alone for ever.&rdquo; <a
+name="citation147"></a><a href="#footnote147"
+class="citation">[147]</a></p>
+<p><a name="page148"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 148</span>But
+now, men and brethren, think of Christmas-tide, and all it tells
+and brings to us, and what a change is there!&nbsp; On this
+appalling picture, on this &ldquo;day of darkness and gloominess,
+of clouds and of thick darkness, as the morning spread upon the
+mountains,&rdquo; <a name="citation148a"></a><a
+href="#footnote148a" class="citation">[148a]</a> &ldquo;the Sun
+of righteousness hath arisen with healing in His wings;&rdquo; <a
+name="citation148b"></a><a href="#footnote148b"
+class="citation">[148b]</a> &ldquo;the day-spring from on high
+hath visited us; to give light to them that sit in darkness and
+in the shadow of death.&rdquo; <a name="citation148c"></a><a
+href="#footnote148c" class="citation">[148c]</a>&nbsp; As we
+raise our eyes to the Christmas morning the light dawns not
+merely on our eyes but on our hearts.&nbsp; Here we find the
+&ldquo;seed of the woman&rdquo; who reverses our curse, and the
+curse upon the earth, by &ldquo;bruising the serpent&rsquo;s
+head.&rdquo;&nbsp; He comes, He comes, the Saviour of the world,
+bringing &ldquo;life and immortality to light through the
+Gospel,&rdquo; <a name="citation148d"></a><a href="#footnote148d"
+class="citation">[148d]</a> because He is God and Man.&nbsp;
+&ldquo;Unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given: the
+government is upon His shoulder: His Name is called Wonderful,
+Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of
+Peace.&rdquo; <a name="citation148e"></a><a href="#footnote148e"
+class="citation">[148e]</a>&nbsp; What can more declare His
+Godhead?&nbsp; But nevertheless He is &ldquo;not ashamed to call
+us brethren;&rdquo; <a name="citation148f"></a><a
+href="#footnote148f" class="citation">[148f]</a> nay, we are
+told, it even &ldquo;behoved Him to be made like unto His
+brethren,&rdquo; and this, that &ldquo;He might be a merciful and
+faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make
+reconciliation for the sins of the people.&rdquo; <a
+name="citation148g"></a><a href="#footnote148g"
+class="citation">[148g]</a>&nbsp; Yes, and although He is such <a
+name="page149"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 149</span>&ldquo;a
+great High Priest, the Son of God passed into the heavens,&rdquo;
+yet is He not one &ldquo;which cannot be touched with the feeling
+of our infirmities, but was in all points tempted like as we are,
+yet without sin.&rdquo; <a name="citation149a"></a><a
+href="#footnote149a" class="citation">[149a]</a>&nbsp; What can
+more declare His Manhood?&nbsp; Like unto us in all points, sin
+only excepted.&nbsp; Like unto us, with perfect manhood, human
+body and soul taken into the Godhead, so to be unto us
+&ldquo;both a sacrifice for sin, and also an ensample of godly
+life.&rdquo;&nbsp; As the new federal Head of the human race; as
+the one, and only one, of the descendants of Adam in whom sin
+found no place, and whose obedience was perfect, &ldquo;He is
+able to save to the uttermost all them that come to God by
+Him.&rdquo;&nbsp; Thus is God Incarnate our great High Priest and
+only Saviour.&nbsp; &ldquo;To this end was He born, and for this
+cause came He into the world,&rdquo; <a
+name="citation149b"></a><a href="#footnote149b"
+class="citation">[149b]</a> and such is the mercy which we this
+day commemorate.&nbsp; By this, the Incarnation of the Eternal
+Son, is the cloud of thick darkness rolled aside; by this, as the
+first manifested step (so to say) in our redemption, is the veil
+lifted; by this, is hope revived; by this, joy spread; by this,
+is Satan defied; by this, and by the consequences to which it led
+and leads, is he conquered; by this, is the sting taken from
+death, and victory wrested from the grave; this, is peace made
+for man with God, and peace brought to man within himself; by
+this, is he enabled to please God, for by the death of the Son
+made Man was the purchase and gift of the <a
+name="page150"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 150</span>Spirit,
+whereby alone he can be sanctified.&nbsp; By Him, then,
+(&ldquo;the great God and our Saviour,&rdquo; as St. Paul terms
+Him,) are &ldquo;we reconciled, and have peace with God through
+our Lord Jesus Christ;&rdquo; by Him, &ldquo;being now justified
+by His Blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him:&rdquo;
+and so truly &ldquo;we joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
+by Whom we have now received the Atonement.&rdquo; <a
+name="citation150"></a><a href="#footnote150"
+class="citation">[150]</a>&nbsp; He is the great High Priest,
+with power in Himself as none other has, or can have, to offer up
+the sacrifice and &ldquo;make reconciliation for the sins of the
+people.&rdquo;&nbsp; He is the immaculate Victim, the one only
+meritorious Sacrifice, &ldquo;once offered to bear the sins of
+many,&rdquo; Whose &ldquo;Blood speaketh better things than that
+of Abel.&rdquo;&nbsp; He is the true Paschal Lamb, &ldquo;without
+blemish and without spot;&rdquo; &ldquo;the Lamb of God that
+taketh away the sins of the world;&rdquo; the Lamb
+&ldquo;slain,&rdquo; (in God&rsquo;s design, and His own
+ever-merciful intention,) &ldquo;from the foundation of the
+world,&rdquo; but manifested for this purpose &ldquo;in the
+fulness of the time.&rdquo;&nbsp; He is the great Physician,
+causing joy wherever He goeth, because He can heal all diseases;
+He is the great Lawgiver, proclaiming His will; He is the great
+Prophet, ordaining and promulgating His method of salvation; He
+is the great King, setting up His kingdom, marking out its
+boundaries, and ruling His subjects; He is the great Captain,
+ordering His armies, displaying His banners, giving out His
+weapons, going forth &ldquo;conquering and to <a
+name="page151"></a><span class="pagenum">p.
+151</span>conquer;&rdquo; He is the one Mediator, He is the
+availing Intercessor; He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life; He
+is the Sun and Centre of the whole mediatorial kingdom; He is the
+Lord of this world and of the world to come!&mdash;And all this,
+because He is (as He is and ever hath been) &ldquo;God the Son:
+God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God; of one
+substance with the Father;&rdquo; and because, in mercy to us, He
+became also the Son of Man, &ldquo;conceived by the Holy Ghost,
+and born of the Virgin Mary.&rdquo;</p>
+<p>Surely, then, this is a day &ldquo;to be much observed unto
+the Lord,&rdquo; a day in which we do well indeed &ldquo;to make
+merry and be glad;&rdquo; so only that our mirth be with
+sobriety, and our gladness with godliness.&nbsp; If, indeed, He
+had not come, if we had no Christmastide, and Christmas memories,
+and Christmas teaching, and Christmas faith, where should we
+place our hope?&nbsp; Truly, we should be &ldquo;of all men most
+miserable.&rdquo;&nbsp; Whether God could have forgiven man in
+any other way, without Himself becoming Flesh, and doing all
+which Christ has done, we know not.&nbsp; But it seems to be
+unlikely, according to His attributes and will, inasmuch as St.
+Paul plainly says, &ldquo;without shedding of blood is no
+remission,&rdquo; and (as we know,) &ldquo;the blood of bulls and
+of goats could never take away sin;&rdquo; whilst again it is
+declared, that God set forth His Son &ldquo;to be a propitiation
+through faith in His Blood, that He might be just, and the
+justifier of him which <a name="page152"></a><span
+class="pagenum">p. 152</span>believeth in Jesus:&rdquo; <a
+name="citation152"></a><a href="#footnote152"
+class="citation">[152]</a> from which it would seem that
+God&rsquo;s attribute of justice could not be satisfied unless by
+the payment, by some one able to pay it, of the penalty due to
+man&rsquo;s transgression.&nbsp; But whether it could have been
+otherwise or not, otherwise it is not.&nbsp; This is God&rsquo;s
+way, and undeniably it tells us more of God&rsquo;s love, Who
+gave His only-begotten Son; and of Christ&rsquo;s tender
+compassion, Who shrunk not back from all which He undertook, than
+if we had been saved by a forgiveness, without an atoning
+sacrifice at all.&nbsp; Therefore this mode, God&rsquo;s mode of
+pardon, as it supplies us with greater proofs of His love, so it
+gives us higher motives for our own love and gratitude than any
+other mode which we can conceive.&nbsp; Therefore this day calls
+upon us all the more for praise, adoration, thanksgiving, joy,
+and obedience.&nbsp; Whatever else we do, or learn, or think, we
+can never think aright, unless&mdash;in praising and thanking God
+for all His mercies, and for the birth of Christ in human nature,
+as the source, if we may so term it, of the Gospel scheme of
+Redemption,&mdash;unless, I say, we attribute all we are in
+sanctification, and all we have in hope, and all we feel in
+peace, to God and Christ.&nbsp; Whatever be His way to bring us
+pardon, whatever laws He has set up in His Kingdom, whatever
+means He has appointed,&mdash;whether His Holy Word, or His
+Church, or His ministry of instruction or
+reconciliation,&mdash;all <a name="page153"></a><span
+class="pagenum">p. 153</span>these are but His instruments, and
+He Himself is the only efficient cause of our salvation.&nbsp;
+&ldquo;Not unto us, not unto us, but unto His Name give the
+praise.&rdquo;&nbsp; No; even the fruits of the Spirit, wrought
+in us by Him, &ldquo;albeit, indeed, they are the fruits of
+faith, and follow after justification, though they are acceptable
+and pleasing to God in Christ, yet can they not put away our
+sins, and endure the severity of God&rsquo;s judgment.&rdquo; <a
+name="citation153a"></a><a href="#footnote153a"
+class="citation">[153a]</a>&nbsp; Nay, not faith itself can do
+this; for though, as the means and instrument to lay hold on
+eternal life, faith may be said to save us, yet, as the efficient
+cause of our salvation it would be heresy to say so.&nbsp; For it
+is plain, we are not saved by anything of ours, even when wrought
+in us by God&rsquo;s Spirit.&nbsp; As one of our Articles says,
+they are in grievous error &ldquo;who say that every man shall be
+saved by the law or sect which he professeth, so that he be
+diligent to frame his life according to that law and the light of
+nature,&rdquo; for that &ldquo;Jesus Christ is the only Name
+whereby men must be saved;&rdquo; <a name="citation153b"></a><a
+href="#footnote153b" class="citation">[153b]</a> so, truly, no
+one may affirm that we are saved, except instrumentally or
+conditionally, either by good works, (even if they were good, in
+the sense of being blameless, which none of ours are,) or by
+knowledge, or by the priesthood, or by sacraments, or by the
+Church, or by the Bible, or by prayer, or even by faith itself,
+for it is manifest that we are saved by Christ only, and by none
+else, either thing or person.&nbsp; He may have set forth, as He
+has done, <a name="page154"></a><span class="pagenum">p.
+154</span>certain conditions of salvation; He may have appointed,
+as He has done, certain means of applying to Him for mercy, and
+of obtaining mercy from Him; He may have ordained, as He has
+done, certain channels of help by which His grace flows to us,
+and enables us to receive His favour, and the reconciliation with
+God, which He has purchased for us; but it is <span
+class="smcap">He</span>, and He only, Who is the sole meritorious
+cause of all we have, and all we are, and all we hope for.&nbsp;
+So, truly, again we may repeat in the words of the Apostle, that
+it is &ldquo;Christ Jesus, Who, of God, is made unto us Wisdom
+and Righteousness and Sanctification and Redemption;&rdquo; not
+as if He could be this to us (God forbid the thought!) if we
+persist in sin, or in neglect of His way of life; but, as if
+(which is the truth), even if we had done all, we should be but
+unprofitable servants; as if (which is the truth) we are very far
+from having done all; as if (which is the truth) anything we have
+done to please God has been only of Him and through the purchased
+gift of His Spirit, and the communication to us of Himself.&nbsp;
+So that, indeed, we owe all to Him, and without Him are and must
+be lost indeed.</p>
+<p>Brethren, as we think of these things, and of all we owe to
+Him in and for His abasement and humiliation in His Incarnation,
+should not &ldquo;our hearts burn within us?&rdquo;&nbsp; Oh, let
+them do so, with a reverent, loving, grateful, joyful sense of
+His goodness; Who, &ldquo;though He was rich, yet for our sakes
+became poor;&rdquo; Who has gladdened <a name="page155"></a><span
+class="pagenum">p. 155</span>and cheered this otherwise dark and
+gloomy World by His presence in it in human form and nature; Who,
+since He came to it thus, has (though absent so far as the eye of
+sense discerns) yet never left it to be as it was before, but, by
+the very means of His Incarnation, dwelleth in it
+still,&mdash;dwelleth, aye, in us, and we in Him, if we be His by
+the Spirit.&nbsp; And all this, though He be so wonderful, high,
+and mighty&mdash;nay, because He is so,&mdash;the very and
+eternal God, born as on this day in the stable at
+Bethlehem!&nbsp; In Whom, lying there, in all appearance, a mere
+helpless, unknowing, human babe, in Whom were still &ldquo;hid
+all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge;&rdquo; and &ldquo;in
+Whom,&rdquo; then as always, &ldquo;dwelt all the fulness of the
+Godhead bodily.&rdquo;</p>
+<p>Oh, my brethren, believe that He sees and knows every one of
+us; and how we think of Him this day, and how we love and honour
+Him.&nbsp; He loves and longs for every one of us.&nbsp; He wills
+us to rejoice (and &ldquo;again I say rejoice&rdquo;) at the
+&ldquo;good tidings of great joy which should be to all
+people&rdquo; from that day at Bethlehem.&nbsp; Let our joy be,
+then, such as He sanctions, such as leads us nearer and nearer to
+Him, both in the exercise of dear and holy home affections, and
+in love to Him Himself; and then we may hope we shall indeed
+bless Him, not only now but for ever, that He has again brought
+us to this great and happy day.</p>
+<p>When we gather, then, our families around us <a
+name="page156"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 156</span>and see the
+aged, whom we love, still permitted to be with us, (though, it
+may be, now infirm and feeble,) let us rejoice in that hope, and
+the object of their faith, which gilds and cheers their old
+age.&nbsp; When we meet our fellows and companions of our own
+time of life, knit with us in the tenderest bonds of human
+affection, and enjoy with them some of that good which
+God&rsquo;s bounty allows us, let us rejoice in the thought that
+they and we have a mutual share in things better than all which
+this world has to give, and are heirs together of the same common
+salvation.&nbsp; When we gather round us our little ones, and
+thank God for the blessing He has given us in them, and look
+forward not without anxious expectation to the future of their
+life, yet let us not forget to bless and praise His name that, by
+the Incarnation of His Son, He has permitted us to make our
+children His children, and has made sure to them all the
+privileges of their adoption and the promises of His
+covenant.&nbsp; So may we, whichever way we look and whatever
+meets our eyes, ever overflow with thankful joy that unto us
+&ldquo;is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is
+Christ the Lord.&rdquo; <a name="citation156"></a><a
+href="#footnote156" class="citation">[156]</a></p>
+
+<div class="gapspace">&nbsp;</div>
+<p style="text-align: center"><span class="GutSmall"><b>Printed
+by James Parker and Co., Crown-yard, Oxford.</b></span></p>
+<h2>FOOTNOTES.</h2>
+<p><a name="footnote1"></a><a href="#citation1"
+class="footnote">[1]</a>&nbsp; 2 St. Matt. xii. 29.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote2a"></a><a href="#citation2a"
+class="footnote">[2a]</a>&nbsp; 2 Tim. ii. 20.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote2b"></a><a href="#citation2b"
+class="footnote">[2b]</a>&nbsp; Gen. ii. 7.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote3a"></a><a href="#citation3a"
+class="footnote">[3a]</a>&nbsp; 2 Cor. iii. 5, 6&ndash;9.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote3b"></a><a href="#citation3b"
+class="footnote">[3b]</a>&nbsp; 2 Cor. iv. 1.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote4a"></a><a href="#citation4a"
+class="footnote">[4a]</a>&nbsp; 2 Cor. iv. 2.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote4b"></a><a href="#citation4b"
+class="footnote">[4b]</a>&nbsp; Ibid., 3, 4.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote4c"></a><a href="#citation4c"
+class="footnote">[4c]</a>&nbsp; Ibid., 5, 6.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote4d"></a><a href="#citation4d"
+class="footnote">[4d]</a>&nbsp; Ibid., 7.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote6"></a><a href="#citation6"
+class="footnote">[6]</a>&nbsp; 2 Cor. iv. 7.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote10a"></a><a href="#citation10a"
+class="footnote">[10a]</a>&nbsp; Isaiah liii. 2.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote10b"></a><a href="#citation10b"
+class="footnote">[10b]</a>&nbsp; Ibid. lii. 14.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote12"></a><a href="#citation12"
+class="footnote">[12]</a>&nbsp; St. John xx. 22, 23.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote13a"></a><a href="#citation13a"
+class="footnote">[13a]</a>&nbsp; St. John xxi. 3.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote13b"></a><a href="#citation13b"
+class="footnote">[13b]</a>&nbsp; Acts xviii. 3.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote14"></a><a href="#citation14"
+class="footnote">[14]</a>&nbsp; Cor. ix. 4, 5.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote17a"></a><a href="#citation17a"
+class="footnote">[17a]</a>&nbsp; Acts xv. 36, 39.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote17b"></a><a href="#citation17b"
+class="footnote">[17b]</a>&nbsp; Gal. ii. 11&ndash;14.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote19a"></a><a href="#citation19a"
+class="footnote">[19a]</a>&nbsp; St. Matt. xiii. 55.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote19b"></a><a href="#citation19b"
+class="footnote">[19b]</a>&nbsp; 2 Cor. x. 10.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote21a"></a><a href="#citation21a"
+class="footnote">[21a]</a>&nbsp; St. John xvii. 21.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote21b"></a><a href="#citation21b"
+class="footnote">[21b]</a>&nbsp; St. Matt x. 25.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote21c"></a><a href="#citation21c"
+class="footnote">[21c]</a>&nbsp; 1 Pet. iv. 12.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote22a"></a><a href="#citation22a"
+class="footnote">[22a]</a>&nbsp; Heb. xiii. 13.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote22b"></a><a href="#citation22b"
+class="footnote">[22b]</a>&nbsp; 1 Cor. iv. 12, 13.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote22c"></a><a href="#citation22c"
+class="footnote">[22c]</a>&nbsp; Acts xx. 24.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote23"></a><a href="#citation23"
+class="footnote">[23]</a>&nbsp; Job i. 8.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote24"></a><a href="#citation24"
+class="footnote">[24]</a>&nbsp; Job i. 5.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote26a"></a><a href="#citation26a"
+class="footnote">[26a]</a>&nbsp; 1 Chron. i. 43, 44.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote26b"></a><a href="#citation26b"
+class="footnote">[26b]</a>&nbsp; Numbers xxxi. 8.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote27a"></a><a href="#citation27a"
+class="footnote">[27a]</a>&nbsp; 1 John iii. 12.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote27b"></a><a href="#citation27b"
+class="footnote">[27b]</a>&nbsp; Heb. xi. 4.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote28"></a><a href="#citation28"
+class="footnote">[28]</a>&nbsp; Gen. iv. 2&ndash;4.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote30a"></a><a href="#citation30a"
+class="footnote">[30a]</a>&nbsp; Gen. iii. 15.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote30b"></a><a href="#citation30b"
+class="footnote">[30b]</a>&nbsp; Heb. ix. 22.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote33a"></a><a href="#citation33a"
+class="footnote">[33a]</a>&nbsp; Gen. viii. 20, xii. 8, xiii. 4,
+xiv. 18, xxii. 13, xxvi. 25, xxxiii. 20.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote34"></a><a href="#citation34"
+class="footnote">[34]</a>&nbsp; Heb. ix. 22.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote36"></a><a href="#citation36"
+class="footnote">[36]</a>&nbsp; Calmet, under the head
+&lsquo;Sacrifice.&rsquo;</p>
+<p><a name="footnote40a"></a><a href="#citation40a"
+class="footnote">[40a]</a>&nbsp; St. John viii. 56.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote40b"></a><a href="#citation40b"
+class="footnote">[40b]</a>&nbsp; Gen. iii. 15.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote43"></a><a href="#citation43"
+class="footnote">[43]</a>&nbsp; Deut. xiii. 14.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote45"></a><a href="#citation45"
+class="footnote">[45]</a>&nbsp; Heb. xi. 4.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote48a"></a><a href="#citation48a"
+class="footnote">[48a]</a>&nbsp; Rom. iv. 3.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote48b"></a><a href="#citation48b"
+class="footnote">[48b]</a>&nbsp; St. Matt. v. 23, 24.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote49"></a><a href="#citation49"
+class="footnote">[49]</a>&nbsp; St. Matt. v. 32, 37, 43, 44.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote50"></a><a href="#citation50"
+class="footnote">[50]</a>&nbsp; Heb. ix. 9.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote51a"></a><a href="#citation51a"
+class="footnote">[51a]</a>&nbsp; Heb. xiii. 10.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote51b"></a><a href="#citation51b"
+class="footnote">[51b]</a>&nbsp; Gal. iii. 19; Heb. ii. 2, 3.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote53"></a><a href="#citation53"
+class="footnote">[53]</a>&nbsp; Heb. xiii. 10&ndash;15.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote54"></a><a href="#citation54"
+class="footnote">[54]</a>&nbsp; 1 Cor. x. 18.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote55"></a><a href="#citation55"
+class="footnote">[55]</a>&nbsp; 1 Cor. x. 19&ndash;21.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote58"></a><a href="#citation58"
+class="footnote">[58]</a>&nbsp; 1 Cor. x. 13&ndash;17.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote66a"></a><a href="#citation66a"
+class="footnote">[66a]</a>&nbsp; Heb. v. 4.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote66b"></a><a href="#citation66b"
+class="footnote">[66b]</a>&nbsp; Carter on the Priesthood, p.
+71.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote66c"></a><a href="#citation66c"
+class="footnote">[66c]</a>&nbsp; Ibid.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote68"></a><a href="#citation68"
+class="footnote">[68]</a>&nbsp; See Carter&rsquo;s
+&ldquo;Doctrine of the Priesthood,&rdquo; p. 6.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote70"></a><a href="#citation70"
+class="footnote">[70]</a>&nbsp; <i>Vitringa de Synagog&acirc;
+vetere</i>.&nbsp; <i>Prolegomena</i>, cap. 2, quoted Carter, pp.
+54, 55</p>
+<p><a name="footnote71"></a><a href="#citation71"
+class="footnote">[71]</a>&nbsp; Palmer&rsquo;s <i>Origines
+Liturgic&aelig;</i>.&nbsp; See Carter, p. 58.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote72a"></a><a href="#citation72a"
+class="footnote">[72a]</a>&nbsp; Palmer&rsquo;s <i>Origines
+Liturgic&aelig;</i>.&nbsp; See Carter, p. 59.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote72b"></a><a href="#citation72b"
+class="footnote">[72b]</a>&nbsp; Carter, p. 60.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote74a"></a><a href="#citation74a"
+class="footnote">[74a]</a>&nbsp; St. John vi. 52.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote74b"></a><a href="#citation74b"
+class="footnote">[74b]</a>&nbsp; St. Luke xviii. 8.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote75a"></a><a href="#citation75a"
+class="footnote">[75a]</a>&nbsp; St. Matt. x. 25.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote75b"></a><a href="#citation75b"
+class="footnote">[75b]</a>&nbsp; Heb. x. 36.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote75c"></a><a href="#citation75c"
+class="footnote">[75c]</a>&nbsp; St. Luke xxi. 19.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote75d"></a><a href="#citation75d"
+class="footnote">[75d]</a>&nbsp; St. Matt x.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote75e"></a><a href="#citation75e"
+class="footnote">[75e]</a>&nbsp; 1 Tim. iv. 1.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote75f"></a><a href="#citation75f"
+class="footnote">[75f]</a>&nbsp; 2 Tim. iv. 3.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote75g"></a><a href="#citation75g"
+class="footnote">[75g]</a>&nbsp; 1 John i. 1.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote75h"></a><a href="#citation75h"
+class="footnote">[75h]</a>&nbsp; Ibid. ver. 3.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote76"></a><a href="#citation76"
+class="footnote">[76]</a>&nbsp; Jer. vi. 16.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote77"></a><a href="#citation77"
+class="footnote">[77]</a>&nbsp; Gal. i. 10.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote80"></a><a href="#citation80"
+class="footnote">[80]</a>&nbsp; Heb. vii. 1&ndash;3.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote81a"></a><a href="#citation81a"
+class="footnote">[81a]</a>&nbsp; Coloss. ii. 8.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote81b"></a><a href="#citation81b"
+class="footnote">[81b]</a>&nbsp; Job xxxviii. 2.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote85a"></a><a href="#citation85a"
+class="footnote">[85a]</a>&nbsp; Ordering of Deacons in the
+Church of England.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote85b"></a><a href="#citation85b"
+class="footnote">[85b]</a>&nbsp; Ordering of Priests.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote85c"></a><a href="#citation85c"
+class="footnote">[85c]</a>&nbsp; Ibid.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote85d"></a><a href="#citation85d"
+class="footnote">[85d]</a>&nbsp; Ibid.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote86"></a><a href="#citation86"
+class="footnote">[86]</a>&nbsp; St. John xx. 21.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote87"></a><a href="#citation87"
+class="footnote">[87]</a>&nbsp; St. John xx. 21&ndash;23.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote89"></a><a href="#citation89"
+class="footnote">[89]</a>&nbsp; Second Exhortation in Communion
+Office.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote90"></a><a href="#citation90"
+class="footnote">[90]</a>&nbsp; Office for Visitation of
+Sick.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote95a"></a><a href="#citation95a"
+class="footnote">[95a]</a>&nbsp; 1 Tim. iii. 15.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote95b"></a><a href="#citation95b"
+class="footnote">[95b]</a>&nbsp; St. Matt. xvi. 18.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote95c"></a><a href="#citation95c"
+class="footnote">[95c]</a>&nbsp; Ibid. xxviii. 20.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote95d"></a><a href="#citation95d"
+class="footnote">[95d]</a>&nbsp; Ps. cxxii. 6.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote97"></a><a href="#citation97"
+class="footnote">[97]</a>&nbsp; Sermon III.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote101"></a><a href="#citation101"
+class="footnote">[101]</a>&nbsp; Carter on the Priesthood, p.
+61.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote102"></a><a href="#citation102"
+class="footnote">[102]</a>&nbsp; Some attempts have been lately
+made to throw doubt upon the authenticity of the copies of the
+ancient liturgies which have come down to us, as not certainly
+uninterpolated in places in later times.&nbsp; But whether there
+may be any ground at all for such suspicion or not, it is evident
+that the inferences drawn from the liturgies, both in this
+passage and in a former sermon, will not be affected.&nbsp; For
+the argument, as used in these sermons, is not dependent upon a
+phrase or a sentence here or there, which, it may be alleged, is
+open to question, but is based upon doctrine interwoven with
+their whole system, and pervading their whole structure, and is
+what moreover is borne witness to, as thus pervading them, by the
+whole mass of contemporary Christian writing.&nbsp; The
+liturgies, therefore, must not merely have been interpolated in
+places, but almost entirely re-written in another sense, and the
+great bulk of the writings of the Fathers forged to agree with
+this change, if the argument above is to be shaken by the
+question raised concerning them.</p>
+<p>I find a passage in Hickes&rsquo;s Treatise, &ldquo;The
+Christian Priesthood Asserted,&rdquo; which, though written more
+than a hundred and sixty years before Mr. Carter&rsquo;s book,
+seems almost as if it were a comment upon the passage just cited,
+and the application which I have made of it.&nbsp; He says,
+&ldquo;I believe no man in the world that was of any religion
+where sacrifice was used, and that by chance should see the
+Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist administered among Christians, as
+it was administered in the primitive times, or as it is
+administered according to the order and usage of the Church of
+England, but would take the bread and wine for an offering or
+sacrifice, and the whole action for a sacrificial ministration;
+and the eating and drinking of the holy elements for a
+sacrificial entertainment of the congregation at the table of
+their God.&nbsp; To see bread and wine . . . so solemnly brought
+to the table, and then . . . brought by the deacon, in manner of
+an offering to the liturg or minister, which he also taking in
+his hands as an offering, sets them with all reverence on the
+table; and then, after solemn prayers of oblation and
+consecration, to see him take up the bread, and say, in a most
+solemn manner, &lsquo;This is My Body,&rsquo; &amp;c., and then
+the cup, saying as solemnly, &lsquo;This is My Blood,&rsquo;
+&amp;c., and then to hear him with all the powers of his soul
+offer up praises, and glory, and thanksgiving, and prayers to God
+the Father of all things, through the Name of His Son, and Holy
+Spirit, which they beseech Him to send down upon that bread and
+cup, and the people with the greatest harmony and acclamation
+saying aloud, &lsquo;Amen:&rsquo; after which also, to see the
+liturg, first eat of the bread and drink of the cup, and then the
+deacon to carry about the blessed bread and wine to be eaten and
+drunk by the people, as in a sacrificial feast; and, lastly, to
+see and hear all concluded with psalms and hymns of praise, and
+prayers of intercession to God with the highest pomp-like
+celebrity of words; I say, to see and hear all this would make an
+uninitiated heathen conclude that the bread and wine were an
+offering, the whole Eucharistic action a sacrificial mystery, the
+eating and drinking the sanctified elements a sacrificial
+banquet, and the liturg who administered a
+priest.&rdquo;&mdash;<i>Hickes&rsquo;s</i> &ldquo;<i>Priesthood
+Asserted</i>,&rdquo; <i>Library of Anglo.-Cath. Theol.</i>,
+<i>Oxford</i>, vol. ii. p. 105&ndash;7.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote103"></a><a href="#citation103"
+class="footnote">[103]</a>&nbsp; The scantiness of statements in
+the Articles, as to the inspiration of Holy Scripture, may
+illustrate this.&nbsp; Had it been possible to foresee the
+boldness of unbelief which these days have brought to light on
+this subject, or had our Reformers been now drawing up the
+Articles, we may feel very certain they would not have been
+content to leave that matter as it there stands.&nbsp; But they
+were engaged with practical errors of their own day, and not in
+stating all dogmatic truth upon other points.&nbsp; Many things
+were so fully assumed to be true as to need no assertion of their
+truth.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote104"></a><a href="#citation104"
+class="footnote">[104]</a>&nbsp; 1 Cor. xi. 26.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote106"></a><a href="#citation106"
+class="footnote">[106]</a>&nbsp; Heb. vii. 25.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote107"></a><a href="#citation107"
+class="footnote">[107]</a>&nbsp; Mede&rsquo;s &ldquo;Christian
+Sacrifice,&rdquo; lib. ii. cap. 4, quoted in Carter, p. 65.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote108"></a><a href="#citation108"
+class="footnote">[108]</a>&nbsp; Cardwell&rsquo;s
+&ldquo;Documentary Annals,&rdquo; chap. vii, prop. 2.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote109"></a><a href="#citation109"
+class="footnote">[109]</a>&nbsp; Carter, p. 25, note 1.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote110"></a><a href="#citation110"
+class="footnote">[110]</a>&nbsp; Hickes&rsquo;s Treatises, vol.
+ii. pp. 183, 184.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote111a"></a><a href="#citation111a"
+class="footnote">[111a]</a>&nbsp; Bramhall&rsquo;s
+&ldquo;Protestant Ordination Vindicated.&rdquo;&nbsp; Discourse
+vii. 3.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote111b"></a><a href="#citation111b"
+class="footnote">[111b]</a>&nbsp; St. Jerome, adv. Lucif. c.
+8.&nbsp; Carter, pp. 22, 23.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote111c"></a><a href="#citation111c"
+class="footnote">[111c]</a>&nbsp; James i. 17.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote111d"></a><a href="#citation111d"
+class="footnote">[111d]</a>&nbsp; Ps. xliv. 3.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote111e"></a><a href="#citation111e"
+class="footnote">[111e]</a>&nbsp; Ps. cxv. 1.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote114"></a><a href="#citation114"
+class="footnote">[114]</a>&nbsp; Acts iii. 12.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote118"></a><a href="#citation118"
+class="footnote">[118]</a>&nbsp; Carter, p. 28.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote123a"></a><a href="#citation123a"
+class="footnote">[123a]</a>&nbsp; Hickes&rsquo; &ldquo;Christian
+Priesthood Asserted,&rdquo; pp. 184, 185.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote123b"></a><a href="#citation123b"
+class="footnote">[123b]</a>&nbsp; Rom. xi. 20.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote125a"></a><a href="#citation125a"
+class="footnote">[125a]</a>&nbsp; 1 Sam. ix. 11&ndash;13.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote125b"></a><a href="#citation125b"
+class="footnote">[125b]</a>&nbsp; 1 Kings viii. 62&ndash;66.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote125c"></a><a href="#citation125c"
+class="footnote">[125c]</a>&nbsp; 2 Kings xxiii. 22.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote125d"></a><a href="#citation125d"
+class="footnote">[125d]</a>&nbsp; &ldquo;But the man that is
+clean, and is not in a journey, and forbeareth to keep the
+passover, even the same soul shall be cut off from among his
+people: because he brought not the offering of the Lord in his
+appointed season, that man shall bear his sin.&rdquo;&nbsp;
+(Numb. ix. 13.)</p>
+<p><a name="footnote129"></a><a href="#citation129"
+class="footnote">[129]</a>&nbsp; St. John vi. 53.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote131a"></a><a href="#citation131a"
+class="footnote">[131a]</a>&nbsp; Heb. viii. 1.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote131b"></a><a href="#citation131b"
+class="footnote">[131b]</a>&nbsp; Mal. i. 11.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote132"></a><a href="#citation132"
+class="footnote">[132]</a>&nbsp; Zech. xiv. 7.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote133"></a><a href="#citation133"
+class="footnote">[133]</a>&nbsp; Ps. lxxx. 19.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote135"></a><a href="#citation135"
+class="footnote">[135]</a>&nbsp; The following sermon, although
+perhaps in strictness hardly one of this course, was preached
+almost immediately after the others, and, in some measure, as a
+sequel to them.&nbsp; It is evidently not unconnected with their
+subject, inasmuch as the whole Doctrine of the
+Priesthood,&mdash;Christ our High Priest, through His Manhood
+&ldquo;able to be touched with the feeling of our
+infirmities,&rdquo; and the sacerdotal powers derived from Him to
+&ldquo;the ministers and stewards of His
+mysteries,&rdquo;&mdash;is intimately related to, and dependent
+upon, the doctrine of the Incarnation.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote136"></a><a href="#citation136"
+class="footnote">[136]</a>&nbsp; Col. ii. 9.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote137a"></a><a href="#citation137a"
+class="footnote">[137a]</a>&nbsp; Acts xx. 28.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote137b"></a><a href="#citation137b"
+class="footnote">[137b]</a>&nbsp; Ephes. i. 7.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote137c"></a><a href="#citation137c"
+class="footnote">[137c]</a>&nbsp; Heb. ix. 12.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote138"></a><a href="#citation138"
+class="footnote">[138]</a>&nbsp; 2 St. Peter ii. 1.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote139a"></a><a href="#citation139a"
+class="footnote">[139a]</a>&nbsp; St. John xvii. 2.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote139b"></a><a href="#citation139b"
+class="footnote">[139b]</a>&nbsp; 1 Cor. ii. 8.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote139c"></a><a href="#citation139c"
+class="footnote">[139c]</a>&nbsp; Acts xx. 28.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote139d"></a><a href="#citation139d"
+class="footnote">[139d]</a>&nbsp; &ldquo;Exposition of the
+Thirty-nine Articles,&rdquo; by E. Harold, Lord Bishop of Ely,
+Art. II. p. 69.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote140"></a><a href="#citation140"
+class="footnote">[140]</a>&nbsp; Owen&rsquo;s &ldquo;Introduction
+to the Study of Dogmatic Theology,&rdquo; pp. 265, 266.&nbsp; See
+also, &ldquo;Pearson on the Creed,&rdquo; Art. iii. &sect; 3.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote141"></a><a href="#citation141"
+class="footnote">[141]</a>&nbsp; Philip, ii. 7, 8.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote142a"></a><a href="#citation142a"
+class="footnote">[142a]</a>&nbsp; St. Luke ii. 52.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote142b"></a><a href="#citation142b"
+class="footnote">[142b]</a>&nbsp; St. Mark xiii. 32; St. Matt.
+xxiv. 36.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote144a"></a><a href="#citation144a"
+class="footnote">[144a]</a>&nbsp; Rom. ix. 5.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote144b"></a><a href="#citation144b"
+class="footnote">[144b]</a>&nbsp; It may be observed that the
+above explanation does not in any way impair the argument in our
+Lord&rsquo;s reply to His disciples.&nbsp; It furnishes quite a
+sufficient reason why such mysteries as &ldquo;when shall these
+things be, and what shall be the sign of Thy coming, and of the
+end of the world?&rdquo; should be unrevealed to flesh and blood,
+that they are unknown to be angels of heaven, and even to the Son
+of Man, if His humanity be contemplated apart from His
+Divinity.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote147"></a><a href="#citation147"
+class="footnote">[147]</a>&nbsp; Ps. xlix. 7, 8.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote148a"></a><a href="#citation148a"
+class="footnote">[148a]</a>&nbsp; Joel ii. 2.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote148b"></a><a href="#citation148b"
+class="footnote">[148b]</a>&nbsp; Mal. iv. 2.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote148c"></a><a href="#citation148c"
+class="footnote">[148c]</a>&nbsp; St. Luke i. 78, 79.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote148d"></a><a href="#citation148d"
+class="footnote">[148d]</a>&nbsp; 2 Tim. i. 10.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote148e"></a><a href="#citation148e"
+class="footnote">[148e]</a>&nbsp; Isa. ix. 6.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote148f"></a><a href="#citation148f"
+class="footnote">[148f]</a>&nbsp; Heb. ii. 11.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote148g"></a><a href="#citation148g"
+class="footnote">[148g]</a>&nbsp; Ibid. 17.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote149a"></a><a href="#citation149a"
+class="footnote">[149a]</a>&nbsp; Heb. iv. 14, 15.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote149b"></a><a href="#citation149b"
+class="footnote">[149b]</a>&nbsp; St. John xviii. 37.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote150"></a><a href="#citation150"
+class="footnote">[150]</a>&nbsp; Rom. v. 9, 11.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote152"></a><a href="#citation152"
+class="footnote">[152]</a>&nbsp; Rom. iii. 25, 26.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote153a"></a><a href="#citation153a"
+class="footnote">[153a]</a>&nbsp; Art. XII.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote153b"></a><a href="#citation153b"
+class="footnote">[153b]</a>&nbsp; Art. XVIII.</p>
+<p><a name="footnote156"></a><a href="#citation156"
+class="footnote">[156]</a>&nbsp; St. Luke ii. 11.</p>
+<p>***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK EIGHT SERMONS ON THE PRIESTHOOD,
+ALTAR, AND SACRIFICE***</p>
+<pre>
+
+
+***** This file should be named 49115-h.htm or 49115-h.zip******
+
+
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/4/9/1/1/49115
+
+
+Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will
+be renamed.
+
+Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
+law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
+so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
+States without permission and without paying copyright
+royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
+of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm
+concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
+and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive
+specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this
+eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook
+for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports,
+performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given
+away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks
+not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the
+trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.
+
+START: FULL LICENSE
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
+Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at
+www.gutenberg.org/license.
+
+Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+
+1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
+destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your
+possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
+Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
+by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the
+person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph
+1.E.8.
+
+1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
+paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this
+agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the
+Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
+of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual
+works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
+States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
+United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
+claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
+displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
+all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
+that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting
+free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm
+works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
+Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily
+comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
+same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when
+you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
+in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
+check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
+agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
+distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
+other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no
+representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
+country outside the United States.
+
+1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
+immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear
+prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work
+on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed,
+performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
+
+  This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
+  most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no
+  restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it
+  under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this
+  eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the
+  United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you
+  are located before using this ebook.
+
+1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is
+derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
+contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
+copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
+the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
+redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
+either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
+obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm
+trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
+additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
+will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works
+posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
+beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
+any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
+to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format
+other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official
+version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site
+(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
+to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
+of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain
+Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the
+full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+provided that
+
+* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+  the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+  you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
+  to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has
+  agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
+  Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
+  within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
+  legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
+  payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
+  Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
+  Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
+  Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+  you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+  does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+  License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
+  copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
+  all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm
+  works.
+
+* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
+  any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+  electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
+  receipt of the work.
+
+* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+  distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than
+are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
+from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The
+Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
+Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
+contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
+or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
+intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
+other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
+cannot be read by your equipment.
+
+1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
+with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
+with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
+lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
+or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
+opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
+the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
+without further opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO
+OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
+LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
+damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
+violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
+agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
+limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
+unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
+remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in
+accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
+production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
+including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
+the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
+or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or
+additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any
+Defect you cause.
+
+Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
+computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
+exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
+from people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future
+generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
+Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
+www.gutenberg.org 
+
+Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary 
+Archive Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
+U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the
+mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its
+volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous
+locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt
+Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to
+date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and
+official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
+
+For additional contact information:
+
+    Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+    Chief Executive and Director
+    gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
+DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular
+state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
+donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate
+
+Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be
+freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
+distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of
+volunteer support.
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
+the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
+necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
+edition.
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search
+facility: www.gutenberg.org
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
+
+</pre></body>
+</html>
diff --git a/49115-h/images/fpb.jpg b/49115-h/images/fpb.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b104245
--- /dev/null
+++ b/49115-h/images/fpb.jpg
diff --git a/49115-h/images/fps.jpg b/49115-h/images/fps.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2dfaa45
--- /dev/null
+++ b/49115-h/images/fps.jpg
diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6312041
--- /dev/null
+++ b/LICENSE.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements,
+metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be
+in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES.
+
+Procedures for determining public domain status are described in
+the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org.
+
+No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in
+jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize
+this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright
+status under the laws that apply to them.
diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c33e60d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/README.md
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for
+eBook #49115 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/49115)