"The Priesthood and the Sabbath were the two most striking and characteristic features of the Mosaic system, penetrating the whole national life; and while there was danger to be apprehended from Jewish ideas becoming attached to the new system, from mere confusion, or from the appearance of antagonism, the Jewish terms were suspended, though the ideas of Priesthood and Sabbath passed into the Christian System, and when this danger no longer existed, and the separation of the two systems was complete, the terms themselves were again freely used."-P. 123.

So when S. John was in the Spirit on the LORD's Day, and saw the door opened in heaven and the Lamb within the throne, around Him in the heavenly temple he saw the four and twenty Presbyters accompanied with all the insignia of the temple service. What are we to learn from this respecting those to whom that name was given? Surely it is implied that they had entered upon their office as representatives of the four and twenty who ministered around the high priest in the ancient worship of the temple. The idea that the office of a Christian Priest is borrowed from the worship of the Synagogue is entirely modern, having been started by Grotius in the 17th century, and maintained afterwards by another Dutch Presbyterian Vitringa; but besides that the elder of the Synagogue was an ecclesiastical judge rather than a teacher of religion, (p. 4,) so that the ministerial function in the Christian assembly was altogether different in object and extent, how strangely out of place does such a character appear in this symbolical vision! We are forced to believe that those four and twenty are rather the counterpart of the temple ministry, (p. 79.)

It should further be remembered that if the name of "priest" is not applied to the Christian ministry in the New Testament, so also the names which are applied to it are used in very varying import. Apostle and elder and deacon are all used with considerable laxity, and frequently applied to the same persons, (p. 118.) This confusion of terms is of itself remarkable, considering how plain is the distinction of the orders signified by them. It would almost seem as if the HOLY GHOST intimated hereby that the time, for some reason or other, was not come when they could rightly receive their fixed appellations. That reasons can be readily suggested for defining the assumption of the priestly title has been already shown, the avoidance, namely, of confusion and antagonism.

"Christianity arose not as the antagonist of the Mosaic system, but as its inner life, gradually developed under the covering of its external forms."-P. 120.

This probably was the chief among several reasons for declining to adopt the word while the sacrifices were still being carried on within the temple at Jerusalem, but there was a special object gained, in recoining the name of elder to designate the Christian minister.

"While the characteristic features of the Mosaic system were being discarded, rites which had prevailed in patriarchal times and remained only in a subordinate position under the law were brought prominently forward, and became distinctive marks of Christianity. Baptism, a custom derived from the earliest ages, becomes the outward form of the initiating sacrament and instrument of regeneration. The patriarchal sign of laying on of hands is raised to be a part of the foundations of Christianity. It is only according to this same principle that the term elder which has descended likewise from patriarchal times as an ever honoured designation of paternal rule is selected to be the appellation of the minister who in CHRIST has power to beget sons unto God, and to feed them with the bread of immortality."-P. 124.

The Priesthood was not destroyed but "changed" from the Order of Aaron to the Order of Melchizedek, and with this change there came a change of name until the accidents of the decaying lineage were passed away. The name of the ancient elder embodied all the ideas of sacerdotal ministry, and although a return was made to the previous Latin and Greek titles, yet are many modern languages without any word to express this idea except what has been derived from the New Testament designation of the ministry, (p. 14.) The word "elder" gathered thus around itself all the essentials of the sacerdotal character, and just as cohen, which at first probably signified "a prophet," (p. 12,) and iɛpeus which implied "one engaged in holy things," so "priest," the name expressive of patriarchal authority came to designate one who bore a commission to mediate in public functions between his fellow men and GOD. Words are but the "counters" of thought, (p. 10,) and must be explained not by a bare etymological examination, but by the intention of the persons who use them.

If then, as is indisputable, there was existent at the time of the Reformation the idea of a sacerdotal office, and the word 'Priest' was the popular expression for that idea, what did the Church of England mean by retaining it in her service-books? There is the less difficulty in answering this question, because the keeping of this word was a matter of great controversy. There were at the same time other bodies of Christians, who refused any longer to use the word, because they had cast aside the idea. They were in such a position as to exercise much influence upon the Ecclesiastical authorities in England. There was every tendency on the part of Englishmen to concede every point that could be given up in order to conciliate. Again and again were efforts made to get the word discarded. Why was it so pertinaciously retained? The answer is, simply because it expressed an idea which was essential. The Calvinists had not the idea at all, and the word was at once rejected from their religious nomenclature with abomination. (P. 28.) The Lutherans had the idea as a great foundation of their system, but from loss of authority in their ordinal, there was no power to

perpetuate the Divine Commission on which it must rest. The history of the word amongst them is interesting as compared with its future triumph amongst ourselves. They had the idea in their Confession of Faith, but soon ceased to have the reality in their ministrations. They then, whose ministry had ceased to be a Divinely authorized Priesthood, soon ceased to speak of their ministers as being Priests. The Lutheran ministers are now for the most part called pastors. (P. 29.) In England it was quite otherwise. The name was for some time opposed, but it held its ground as expressing an idea essential in itself, although from circumstances it was considered expedient to let it fall somewhat into the background, and, consequently, the cognate word 'altar' was removed. (P. 17.) As, however, the reality was in existence, and this reality was the thing really fought against, it grew all the stronger for the varied attacks of gainsayers. Not even in Edward's Second Prayer Book was it lost. But besides those who hated the idea, there were others who were anxious to prove that we had not got the reality. The Puritan opposed because the word Priest remained. The Romanists jeered because they said we had no longer a true priesthood remaining. (P. 18.) In order then to make our assertion of the reality of our orders more explicit, in reply to the Romanist, an addition was made in 1662 to the form of commission, as it had stood hitherto, "Receive the HOLY GHOST," namely of the purport of the gift, "for the office and work of a Priest, now committed to thee by the imposition of my hands." (P. 22.) And when the Nonconformists, at the Savoy Conference, asked to have the word Priest expunged from the Prayer Book, they were told that absolution and consecration were priestly acts, and could be performed by none but a priest, and that therefore the name must reasonably remain. In fact, the word pastor was thrown out of the Litany, and the word priest substituted as the more appropriate and authoritative appellation, (p. 24.) It was no antiquated expression, or doubtful metaphor, which those Divines resolved to maintain, at a most terrible cost. The Nonconformists also, on their part, knew well that the sacerdotal system against which they were struggling was a great whole, and that the word Priest, which they could not get abolished, was the legitimate indication of its claims.

It is important then, if possible, to determine what are the exact functions in which the Church of England considers the priestly idea to be realized. We shall gather this from that which is the most natural place, namely, the express terms of the commission. (P. 32.) "The office and work of a Priest," for the exercise of which it is necessary to "receive the HOLY GHOST by the imposition of hands," is thus described in detail. "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." Here we have three points, namely, authoritative power—

1. To absolve.

2. To teach.

3. To administer Sacraments.

It must be remembered, however, that the Deacon may have a delegated power to teach by licence from the Bishop. And again, that Confirmation and Orders are not amongst those Sacraments which the second order of the ministry can dispense. An examination of the Prayer Book will show that those offices are retained in the hands of the Priest alone, where there is any act of a benedictory character. It is thus with marriage, and the churching of women (for this "includes an offering,") and the burial of the dead, (for this "implies the last blessing of the Church on the departed members of CHRIST's Body,") and it is only in cases of urgency, when the Priest is absent, that the Deacon is permitted to baptize. This "ministry of blessing" points us to the "ministry of Sacrifice." (P. 46.) All blessing flows from the Sacrifice of CHRIST, and no one can give authoritative benediction who has not authority to plead the Sacrifice. These minor acts therefore point us to the Eucharistic Sacrifice as the great radical idea, and special function of the priestly character.

Mr. Carter shows that all benedictions originate in the Eucharistic oblation, but he makes the exercise of benediction a particular branch of power. We are inclined rather to let it be absorbed in that from which it emanates. So that we arrive at two great functions of Priesthood,-Absolution and Eucharist, the ministry of pardon, and the ministry of access to Gov, the one being the work of the HOLY GHOST in the Holy Catholic Church, for maintaining the communion of saints, the other for the remission of sins.

The Eucharistic Sacrifice is exactly analogous in its details to the sacrifices which were offered before CHRIST came, so that if the name of Priest was proper of old, it is proper now, conveying the idea of authoritative, although delegated, mediation. Mr. Carter divides "the specially sacerdotal part" of the Eucharistic Offices into the following parts.

1. The Offertory, comprising both alms and oblations, money, and bread, and wine. The one is for the sustenance of CHRIST'S Body Mystical; the other is for the increment of His Body Sacramental. Or again, the one is for the material, the other for the sacramental, sustenance of CHRIST'S Mystical Body. "The oblations which are to become the materials of a Sacrifice, must first be offered; for every sacrifice supposes a previous offering of the thing to be sacrificed." (P. 36.)

2. The Consecration, which does not mean "setting apart or dedicating to GOD; for this has been already done" in the Offertory. "The object now is .... through the power of the HOLY GHOST to connect the inward, invisible grace' with the 'outward and visible sign,' and thus make the Sacrament." (P. 38.)

3. The oblation of CHRIST thus present in the Sacrament. "This oblation is involved in the very nature of the institution." (P. 41.) We are to do that which our LORD did in the upper chamber and it is important to remember that "the words translated 'Do this in remembrance of Me,' had in the ears of a Jew a fixed meaning long hallowed in the usage of the people as connected with sacrifice. Do (TOIETTE) this,' in the language of the LXX means, as it meant among heathen writers, to offer a sacrifice.' So also the term in remembrance of Me,' (eis Thy éμǹv áváμvyoiv) or rather for a memorial of Me,' is sacrificial; the memorial in a sacrifice being that portion of the Victim which is laid on the altar and offered to GOD, in order to bring the whole oblation in remembrance before Him. (See Levit. ii. 2, 9.)" (P. 84.) "This oblation which is made in act only at the time of consecration, is specified in words in the prayer known among ritualists as 'the prayer of oblation,' where we pray that this our Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving' may be accepted, and these words are the ordinary phrase used by the Fathers to denote the sacramental offering of the Body and Blood of CHRIST."" (P. 43.)

6

4. The communion: which is "the consummation of the sacrifice:" for, as in the types of the old covenant, the sacrifice was partaken of and consumed in token that it had been accepted, and the worshipper reconciled to GOD;" so in this holy liturgy is CHRIST'S Body and Blood, which was "once for all sacrificed" upon the cross, and "is now perpetually presented before the FATHER,' communicated to us as "a source of pure, supernatural, and endless life." (P. 45.)

5. The oblation of "ourselves, our souls and bodies," as now through union with CHRIST "a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice" unto God.

6. The final benediction.

To celebrate the Holy Eucharist, and thus "bring out into act and effect the all-availing power" (p. 44) of the cross, is the great work of the priesthood; and our Church judges that a priesthood is necessary for this purpose, in accordance with the witness of early ages. As in spite of opposition the English Reformed Church chose to call her ministers priests rather than elders, so did the Early Church, as soon as circumstances were changed, prefer to go back to the old name of priest rather than to rest in the name of elder, which was sanctioned for a temporary purpose in the New Testament. The tendency of converts would have been to obliterate all sacrificial tokens in their worship, if they had not retained the idea, and they had the more reason for giving up the sacrificial name, as they were in violent opposition to the heathen around them; but they did not suppose that they had lost a sacrificial liturgy. They maintained that the heathen priests were false priests, and that their own were true ones. (P. 56.)