nothing of a sacerdotal character, and with which no covenanted privileges were connected, reappeared under the Gospel, literally and visibly, in the form of local Christian societies. It seems to follow that the temple services of Christianity, whatever they may be, belong not to visible churches as such, but to the mystical body of Christ, and, like that body, are spiritual, or removed from the sphere of sense.

Quite in accordance with the conclusion thus, by a variety of arguments, forced upon us is the circumstance already noticed, that the spiritual gifts of which the New Testament makes mention in connexion with the ministerial office have no bearing whatever upon sacerdotal functions: they all point to the homiletic services of the synagogue. These gifts are either a faculty of teaching, or an aptitude for governing, or conducting the affairs of a Christian society; which are exactly the duties which devolved upon the elders of the synagogue. The chief means of grace, the main function of Christian ministers, is, in St. Paul's view, "the ministry of the Word:" but, under a sacerdotal system, as, for instance, that of the Church of Rome, the teacher always, and necessarily, occupies, as compared with the priest and the sacrifice, a subordinate place. Under the law, it was no part of the priestly office to teach; no instructions upon that head are found in the 'portions of the Pentateuch which describe sacerdotal functions: it is well known, indeed, that the scribes, whose peculiar office it was to expound the law, belonged indiscriminately to all the tribes, though it is probable that the greater part of them were Levites. Sacrifice and intercession were the proper functions of the priest; teaching, admonishing, administering discipline, those of the Jewish elder it is needless to ask, to which of these offices does that of the Christian minister, as described by St. Paul, bear the greatest resemblance.

The relation which the synagogue bore to the temple might lead to several reflections on the nature of the Christian church, which this is not the place to pursue. For example, we hence learn that under the Gospel no connexion exists between any form of ecclesiastical polity and the grace of Christ's Spirit. For ecclesiastical polity corresponds with the arrangements of the synagogue, to which, as being of human institution, no blessings were, by covenant, attached: the lustrations, and propitiatory sacrifices, belonging to the temple ritual. So, under the Gospel, the forgiveness of sins, and sanctifying grace, flow not from union with a Christian synagogue,i. e. a visible church, but from incorporation in the

spiritual temple, -the body of Christ, to the members of which covenanted grace is conveyed through its glorified High Priest, Christ Jesus: a truth which, notwithstanding the ambiguity of his language, Augustin seems to have intended to express, when he says, "It is the rock, the dove, unity, that retains and remits sins. But this unity exists only in the good, whether they be advanced Christians, or only beginners in the spiritual life."*

The historical connexion between the church and the synagogue serves also to explain a circumstance which it is not uncommon to see urged in defence of the sacerdotal system,-viz. that the first Christians are found, apparently with the approbation, or permission, of the Apostles, frequenting the ordinances of the Jewish temple. Our information upon this point is too scanty to enable us to determine with certainty to what extent the Jewish converts conceived themselves bound by the legal enactments: admitting, however (and from various passages it seems the most probable supposition), that they professed obedience to the whole law, it by no means follows that this is a warrant for the introduction of a human priesthood under the Gospel. "Had there been more than this," a recent writer urges, "in the Jewish ritual, how could the Apostles have continued to observe it? Had it interfered with the work of Christ, it would not have been enough to leave it to die away under the light of the Gospel. It would not have been sufficient for St. Paul to teach men not to trust; he must have forbidden any to practise it." The reply at once suggests itself:-If the existence of the Jewish ritual was not incompatible with the principles of the Gospel, why was it suffered to die away at all? If a human priesthood and a visible sacrifice were to form constituent elements of the Christian, as they did of the Jewish, dispensation, why should not the ancient institutions have been continued? If Christian ministers are priests in the same sense in which the Jewish were, and the eucharist is as real a sacrifice as the paschal lamb, no necessity is apparent for the total abroga

De Bap. Cont. Don. L. iii. s. 23. If we may understand Augustin as affirming, not that "the dove," -i. e. the body of Christ - itself forgives sins, but that they who are in union with the dove have their sins forgiven, the sentiment is perfectly Scriptural.

+ The Jewish believers are described by St. James (Acts, xxi. 20.) as "zealous of the law," from which it is reasonable to suppose that they not only practised circumcision, but assisted at the legal sacrifices. Certain it is that the vow which St. Paul took upon himself (Acts, xviii. 18.) required for its completion the offering of sacrifices in the temple; which accounts for the Apostle's haste to be at Jerusalem in time for the feast. Compare Acts,

xxi. 26.

Wilberforce, Incarnation, &c. p. 383.

tion of the ancient economy. But not to press this:- the question is, not what compliances with the precepts of the law the Apostles may, in the case of Jewish converts, have either permitted, or sanctioned, but whether they ever tolerated the introduction of Jewish practices or institutions into Christianity as essential parts of the new dispensation? For nothing is easier to account for than the circumstance of which we are now speaking. The fact has been already noticed, as highly significant of the nature of the Gospel, that the first converts, the Apostles themselves included, were far from supposing that in becoming Christians they had ceased to be Jews, or were free to neglect the ordinances of the law. The visible separation of the two economies was effected by a slow and gradual process, which was not complete until the destruction of Jerusalem; and it was altogether foreign from the spirit in which the Apostles regulated the affairs of the church rudely to disturb old associations where they did not infringe any of the essential principles of the Gospel. The great Apostle of the Gentiles himself, to whom of all the inspired college was vouchsafed the clearest insight into the distinction between the Law and the Gospel, professed it to be his rule of action, where it was a question of expediency merely, unto the Jews to become as a Jew; took upon himself vows; and even circumcised Timothy his be loved son in the faith. If it be asked when did the Apostles consider that the observance of the Jewish rites was incompatible with a saving interest in Christ? the answer is, whenever such observance was made essential to salvation,- that is, was formally incorporated in the Christian scheme. Thus the same Apostle who, as a matter of expediency, circumcised Timothy denounced the Galatian notions upon that point as destructive of the integrity of the Gospel.

It is in this light we are to regard the observance of the Jewish ritual by the first converts. Viewed as a matter of expediency, or as a compliance with the regulations of a divine law which had not yet been abrogated, there was nothing in their practice as regards this point incompatible with the religion of Christ. Christianity tolerates many things-slavery for example, -which it does not acknowledge to be part and parcel of itself; tolerates them as long as they do not claim a place in the sanctu ary itself of the Gospel. The moment that a claim of this kind is advanced, the Gospel repels it, jealously guarding its own essential principles from foreign admixture. Everything turns upon the spirit, and intention, in which the Jewish converts frequented

the temple. As long as they did so merely because they believed themselves bound to obey the law, the Apostles might well permit a harmless error of this kind to be corrected by the course of Providential events: but the case, we may be sure, would have been very different had the first converts observed the Levitical ritual on the ground that it was essential to salvation, had they avowedly regarded it, as the Jew had hitherto rightly regarded it, as the covenanted means of access to God. Had any such notion as this been connected with the temple sacrifices, the Apostle who so severely denounced the Galatian error would, beyond all doubt, have equally pronounced this analogous one to be inconsistent with right apprehensions of the Gospel. The circumstance, then, that the Apostles permitted their converts to observe the law proves nothing, as regards the question before us: what should have been proved, or at least made probable, is, that they would, in like manner, have made no opposition to the formal introduction. of the Jewish sacerdotal system into the Gospel. The exclusive priesthood of Christ, and the perfection of His sacrifice, might well be compatible with the temporary observance of the Jewish ritual, which had waxed old, and was ready to vanish away; what remains to be proved is that they are also compatible with a Christian priesthood and sacrifice; a human priesthood, and a real sacrifice, regarded as part and parcel of Christianity itself. *

The abundance and cogency of the foregoing general presumptions against the proper priesthood of Christian ministers make it the less necessary to discuss at any length the passages of Scripture on which the sacerdotal theory is made to rest. To omit all

- can never

While, for the reasons given in the text, we must protest against the transformation of the Christian ministry into a priesthood, and of Christian worship into a system of symbolism such as that of the Jewish ritual, we may regret that in some of the reformed churches the contrary extreme was fallen into, and not only was the application of art to Christian purposes pronounced unlawful, but the preaching of the Word assumed the same place which in the Romish Church the mass occupies, viz. one of disproportionate importance. Hence the custom of celebrating the Eucharist only twice or thrice in the year. A system of symbolism - such as portioning out the parts of a cathedrel to represent particular facts in the economy of grace, or setting apart one part of it as more holy than another be rendered compatible with the principles of the Gospel, for it implies that He in whom grace and truth reside is not yet manifested: the Jewish ritual was necessarily a symbolical one because Christ was not yet come. Now that He has come, shadow and symbol have disappeared. This, however, is a very different thing from the application of art to the pur. poses of Christian worship, which is not only allowable, but laudable. So as regards the Eucharist; the reaction from Romanism has led to an undue depreciation of this holy ordiHow much is it to be wished that the celebration of it in our own church, instead of being thrust into a corner at the end of a liturgy, in itself too lengthened, and after the great mass of the congregation has retired, should form a service by itself, and take place, if possible weekly, before the assembled people.

nance.

notice of them, however, would be to leave the present inquiry incomplete, and might be considered as a tacit acknowledgement that they do not, on protestant principles, admit of a satisfactory interpretation.

To the question, When were the Apostles, the first link in the chain of ministerial succession, consecrated priests; the Romish formularies, by way of reply, remind us that at the last supper Christ delivered to them the bread and wine, saying "Do this in remembrance of me;"* by which act, and words, of our Lord, it is said, they became invested with a sacerdotal character, which has descended to their successors. Where this conclusion is not at once drawn, our attention is nevertheless directed to the fact that Christ, in instituting this holy ordinance, committed the celebration of it, not to the whole body of believers but, to the Apostles only. The same restriction, it is observed, applies to the baptismal commission, Matt. xxviii. 19, 20. The inferences are, first, that, while they lived, none but the Apostles, or they to whom the Apostles gave authority, had a right to administer the sacraments; secondly, that none but the successors of the Apostles, or those commissioned by them, possess a similar right now; and, thirdly, that where this rule is violated, the sin of Korah is committed, and the sacraments fail to convey covenanted grace to the receivers. In confirmation of the theory we are referred to 1 Cor. iv. 1., where Christian ministers are described as "stewards of the mysteries of God," dispensers, as the passage is interpreted, of the Sacraments.

For the power of absolution, the remaining sacerdotal function, the well-known passages are cited in which our Lord delivered the "keys of the kingdom of heaven," with power to bind and loose, first to Peter singly, and then to all the Apostles; and especially that in which He is recorded, after His resurrection, to have imparted the Holy Ghost to the eleven, with power to remit and retain sins. (Matt. xvi. 19. and xviii. 18.; John, xx. 21-23.)

Whether these passages are sufficient to sustain the vast superstructure which is raised upon them may be left to the decision

It is painful to see a writer like Bishop Taylor using this argument to establish a quasi human priesthood under the Gospel. "Hoc facite, this do in remembrance of me. This cannot but relate to 'accepit, gratias egit, fregit, distribuit; hoc facite.' Here was no manducation expressed, and therefore hoc facite' concerns the Apostles in the capacity of ministers; not as receivers, but as consecrators and givers" &c. Divine Institution of the Office Ministerial, s. 5, 4. It is hard to say which has been productive of greater damage to the cause of truth, the opposition of dissent to the Church of England, or the reaction on the part of the church produced by that opposition.