Part 6

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.