In the first part of the Homily, on the worthy receiving of the sacrament, it is said that to acknowledge Christ as one's own personal Saviour, &c., is to make Christ one's own, &c. 'Herein thou needest no other man's help, no other sacrifice or oblation, no sacrificing-priest, no mass, no means established by man's invention." If words prove anything, they prove that, in the interpretation of the Church of England, the "minister" or "priest" in the Holy Communion is no "sacrificing-priest."

The view of this learned divine may fairly be received as the view of the Church in that age, from the standpoint of one whom all schools and parties delight to honour. His reasoning is conclusive as to the fact that the word priest, like presbyter, cannot convey any sacrificial meaning. "Touching the ministry of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the whole body of the Church being divided into laity and clergy, the clergy are either presbyters or deacons. I rather term the one sort presbyters than priests, because, in a matter of so small moment, I would not willingly offend their ears to whom the name of priesthood is odious, though without cause. For as things are distinguished one from another by true essential forms . . . so if they that first do impose names did always understand exactly the nature of that which they nominate, it may be that then by hearing. the terms of vulgar speech, we should still be taught what the things themselves are." But, as he proceeds to show, words have so many different senses that it is difficult to determine the precise idea that is attached by each man to them in common use. Generally, however, names have regard to "that which is naturally most proper," or to "that which is sensibly most eminent in the thing signified," or, as is the case in the word priest, to the thing personified. In its proper ecclesiastical sense, a priest is one whose "mere

function or charge is the service of God."

66

"Howbeit,

because the most eminent part, both of heathenish and Jewish service, did consist in sacrifice, when learned men declare what the word Priest doth properly signify, according to the mind of the first imposer of that name, their ordinary scholies do well expound it to imply sacrifice. Seeing, then, that sacrifice is now no part of the Church ministry, how should the name of priesthood be thereunto rightly applied?" Because, he replies, even as St. Paul applied the name flesh" to the substance of fishes, "although it be in nature another thing," so the Fathers of the Church called "the ministry of the Gospel priesthood in regard of that which the Gospel hath proportionable to ancient sacrifices, namely, the communion of the blessed body and blood of Christ, although it have properly now no sacrifice. As for the people, when they hear the name, it draweth no more their minds to any cogitation of sacrifice than the name of senator or alderman causeth them to think upon old age, or to imagine that every one so termed must needs be ancient."-Hooker, Ecc. Pol., V., p. 78.

Hooker's reasoning here is most remarkable. The force of a name is entirely dependent on the thing that it represents. It is evil or good because of the idea that it embodies to the mind. Now, the word priest—which in itself is a perfectly harmless, nay, most scriptural, term, being etymologically a contraction of Presbyter-merely implies one whose function or duty is the service of God. But inasmuch as in the Roman Church the chief function of the priest is the offering of sacrifice, in that Church, and indeed largely, the term has set forth the idea of a sacrificer. But where there is no offering of sacrifice, the word priest cannot possibly denote the person of the sacrificer. Now, in the Church of England, there is no sacrifice. "Sacrifice is now

no part of the Church ministry." "The Communion hath

properly no sacrifice." Therefore, the term priest cannot possibly denote "a sacrificing-priest." Most remarkable reasoning, truly. If for nothing else, remarkable for the proof it offers of the absolute difference between the views of those who now speak of "the great act of eucharistic sacrifice"- -see Pusey's " Real Presence," p. 312-and the views of such a representative High Churchman of the Elizabethan age as Richard Hooker.

To proceed. If, then, it is proved that there is no such thing as a sacrificing-priest in the Church of England ast reformed in the sixteenth century, the form, "Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a priest in the Church of God," is stripped at once of a blemish that otherwise would be most damaging to the Protestantism of the Church. But with the Masses, and altar, and crucifixes, the Church of England abolished also the sacrificing-priest; or, as the Thirtieth Canon declares, the Church of England has abolished Popery. Therefore, it is conclusive that, whatsoever difficulty there may be experienced in the interpretation of this sentence, it was never intended to perpetuate Popery. Whether or not it be advisable to substitute another expression, is another question altogether. But that this form was neither drawn up by the willing slaves of Popery, nor intended for the perpetuation of Popery, nor could, without dislocation, be construed into an auxiliary of Popery, is evident from the meaning of the words, and the known views of the Reformers. Doubtless it has been made the justification for all the practices of priestcraft in the Church of England, and the fountainsource of all the assumptions of sacerdotalism by her clergy.* But offences come from the abuse of hard sayings

* See Appendix. The doctrine of Apostolical Succession in the Church of England, p. 237

of the Scriptures as well as from the Prayer Book, and, in my opinion, men who would get their warrant for the particular practice of auricular confession from the very general and scriptural statements of the Ordination Service, would not be restrained, were those words obliterated, from introducing it upon the authority of their own private interpretation of our blessed Lord's words in the twenty-third verse of the twentieth chapter of St. John.

CHAPTER X.

RECAPITULATION AND CONCLUSION.

WE E have now traced, chapter by chapter, the various details of the Prayer Book which establish, one by one, its Protestant character. It only remains for us, in this concluding chapter, to gather up in a brief summary the arguments brought forth, and present the several points in a general review.

We have seen, in the first place, that the Protestantism of the Prayer Book is established by several positive features, which exhibit very strongly its contrast to the Roman and pre-Reformation Anglican services. It is in the vulgar tongue; the Roman services were in an unknown tongue. It is common prayer; the ancient services, Roman and Sarum, were unintelligible to the people, and participated in almost exclusively by the learned. It is scriptural; the Romish Mass, and other services, were largely "fond things vainly invented" by the traditions of men. It is primitive, apostolic, catholic; the Romish Mass is medieval, traditional, occidental, and novel. The difference between the Church of England Book of Common Prayer and the missal of the Church of Rome is absolute, essential, irreconcilable; the difference between midnight and mid-day.

Great, however, as are these positive contrasts presented by a comparison with services more purely Romish, they are still less suggestive than the contrasts (which we next pointed out) between the semi-reformed Prayer Book of 1549 and the Liturgies which preceded and succeeded it. These are, beyond all controversy, the most positive evidences of the anti-Romish and anti-Ritualistic character of the Liturgy, and present, in their number, a three-fold cord not easily broken.