Part 5

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}