The English Church, at the Reformation, retained this feature of the Eucharist in her Liturgy. In the First Prayer Book of King Edward VI., the language is :

"Wherefore, O Lord, and Heavenly Father, according to the Institution of Thy dearly beloved Son, our Saviour Jesus Christ, we, Thy humble servants, do celebrate and make here, before Thy divine Majesty, with these Thy Holy Gifts, the Memorial which Thy Son hath willed us to make."

In arranging this Eucharistic Office, the Reformers had before them, as their guide, the most Ancient Liturgies. The principle of Oblation to God was clearly recognized. The old Reformer, Ridley, says :

"The whole substance of our Sacrifice, which is frequented of the Church in the Lord's Supper, consisteth in Prayers, Praise and giving of thanks, and in remembering and showing forth of that Sacrifice upon the Altar of the Cross, that the same might continually be had in reverence by mystery, which, once only and no more, was offered as the price of our redemption." "The Priest doth offer an It is called

unbloody Sacrifice, if it be rightly understood. unbloody, and is offered after a certain manner, and in a mystery, and as a representation of that bloody Sacrifice." Parker Society Publications, pp. 211, 250.

The same doctrine is preserved in the Scotch Liturgy. Unfortunately, however, in the Second Liturgy of Edward VI., the influence of John Calvin and his disciples, Martin Bucer, and Peter Martyr, was strong enough in the English Church to expunge it; and, as Whateley says, "the most Ancient Forms and primitive Rites were forced to give way to modern fancies." The better Class of English Churchmen contend that it is not a serious, certainly not a fatal omission, inasmuch as the Prayer of Oblation, (or rather what is left of it,) is transferred to the Post-Communion Service, where it is still used after the elements have been already distributed and consumed! If they are satisfied with such an explanation, we surely will not complain. But we esteem it a special mercy to the American Church, and one fully recompensing for the long delay in gaining the Episcopate, that we derived not only our Ministerial Orders, but our Liturgy also, in this its great and most marked feature, from the Primitive and Catholic

Ritual of the Scotch Church, which, in this respect, is in full harmony with Scriptural and Apostolic times. Thus, in our Prayer Book, the Offering of the Elements to God is called an Oblation, or Sacrifice. The language of the Office is,

"Wherefore, O Lord and heavenly Father, according to the institu. tion of Thy dearly beloved Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, we Thy humble servants, do celebrate and make here before Thy Divine Majesty, with these Thy holy gifts, which we now offer unto Thee, the memorial Thy Son hath commanded us to make."

In our Office for the Institution of Ministers, the Priestly character of the Christian Ministry is taught as plainly as it can be. The Bishop's Letter of Institution says:

"We do fully confide our license and authority, to perform the Of fice of a Priest in the Parish [or Church of E. And also do hereby institute you into said Parish, [or Church,] possessed of full power to perform every act of Sacerdotal function among the people of the same."

So also, it is said, "The Lord hath ordained that they who serve at the Altar should live of the things belonging to the Altar." The expressions "Sacerdotal function," "Sacerdotal relation," "standing on the right and left of the Altar," are used. And among the Prayers to be offered by the Institutor, is the following :

"O Holy Jesus, who hast purchased to Thyself an universal Church, and hast promised to be with the Ministers of Apostolic succession to the end of the world; be graciously pleased to bless the ministry and service of him who is now appointed to offer the Sacrifices of prayer and praise to Thee in this house which is called by Thy Name."

That the doctrine of Priest, Altar and Sacrifice is therefore the doctrine of the American Church, admits of no dispute. What the nature is of this Priesthood, Altar and Sacrifice, we think enough has been said to show. Archbishop Bramhall, in his defence of the English Reformed Church against the Romish Bishop of Chalcedon, thus clearly defines this doctrine:

"We acknowledge an Ecclesiastical Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; a commemorative Sacrifice, or a memorial of the Sacrifice of the Cross; a representative Sacrifice, or a representation of the Passion of Christ before the eyes of His Heavenly Father; an impetrative Sacrifice, or an impetration of the fruit and benefit of His Passion, by

way of real prayer; and, lastly, an applicative Sacrifice, or an application of His merits unto our souls.'

We reach, now, another important point in this examination. At what precise period in the history of the Church the true conception of Sacrifice in the Holy Eucharist was lost sight of, we shall not inquire. It is with the fact itself that we are now concerned, that the primitive doctrine of a Memorial Commemorative Sacrifice offered to God, with the Prayer that it may be made a Sacrament to us, gave place to the doctrine of the Offering of Christ's Body and Blood really upon the Altar, as a Propitiatory Sacrifice for the quick and dead; a doctrine, as Bingham says, "no ancient author or Ritual ever mentions. Then, at length, came the doctrine of Transubstantiation; and, at last, that culmination of error and blasphemy, the Canons of the Council of Trent.

"Canon I-If any shall say that in the Mass there is not offered to God a true and proper Sacrifice, or that what is offered is nothing else than that Christ is given us to eat, let him be accursed."

"Canon 11.—If any shall say that the Sacrifice of the Mass is only one of praise and thanksgiving, or a bare commemoration of the Sacrifice which was made upon the Cross, but not propitiatory; or, that it only profits him who receives it, and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, pains, and satisfactions, and other necessities, let him be accursed."

"Canon V.-If any shall say that to celebrate Masses in honor of the saints, and to obtain their intercession with God, as the Church intends, is an imposture, let him be accursed."‡.

The effect of this change, as to the nature of the Holy Eucharist, words cannot measure or describe. It destroys the Sacrament. It changes the whole character of the Christian Priesthood. It robs Christ of His honor, and His Cross of its efficacy. It contradicts the plainest testimony of Holy Scripture; wherein we are taught that Christ "entered in once into the Holy Place;" (Heb. ix. 12.) "Now, once in the end of the world, hath He appeared to put away sin by the Sacrifice of Himself." (Heb. ix. 26.) "We are sanctified through the

Offering of the Body of Jesus Christ once for all." (Heb. x. 10.) "After He had offered one Sacrifice for sins, forever sat down at the right hand of God." (Heb. x. 12.) "There is no more Offering for sin." (Heb. x. 18.)

The effect of this corrupting the Faith, in so vital a principle, on the law of individual Christian life and growth, is equally disastrous. It sinks the Eucharistic Sacrifice into a mummery, a show. It loses sight of the voluntariness of love, and faith, and obedience. With its opus operatum theory of the Sacrifice of the Mass, on which Christians are to gaze, rather than to receive the Sacrament in penitence, faith and love, it does not, and cannot develop, elevate and strengthen the inner life of the believer. Our XXXI Article defines the true doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Cross, and characterizes the Romish corruption of that doctrine, as follows:

"The Offering of Christ once made, is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin but that alone. Wherefore the Sacrifice of Masses, in which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits."

We take no note, now, of Socinian cavils, or Infidel sneers, or the subterfuges of the modern School of critics; all of whom wrestle perpetually against that great doctrine which is the death-blow to human pride, Man's Fall in Adam, and his recovery in Christ. Here is the true secret of the ceaseless hostility of this School of Critics, ancient and modern, to Miracles, Inspiration, and especially to the Mosaic record. It is not because such a man as Colenso is a scholar, that he quarrels with the story of the Fall of Man, and with Messianic Prophecy, for he has shown himself as wanting in sound scholarship, as he is in conscientious regard for his own solemn oaths, and in that manly honesty which even the world has a right to look for in a standard-bearer of any sort. No. No. The real difficulty does not lie in Geological strata, and the "discrepances" of the inspired page. It lies in the obdurate Pride and stubborn conceited Self-Will of the human heart; which will believe everything, however silly and ridiculous, which will

suffer everything, however bitter and painful, which will do everything, however toilsome, rather than humble itself, and bow like a little child at the foot of the Cross, and receive mercy as a sinner. Socinianism, which denies all Atonement, and Romanism, which dares try to make an Atonement for itself, are only different phases of the same thing. The two Systems are not greatly unlike; as their mutual sympathies and common hatreds so often show. And hence, in Boston and elsewhere, conversions from one of these to the other, are far more readily made than to the Church.

The point now distinctly before us is, that there was that in the Sacrifice on the Cross, by which, in its very nature, it stands, and will forever stand, alone. It admits of no degree, no supplement, no perpetuation, no repetition. For it, all that preceded was but typical, indicative, preparatory. All that succeeded, was, and is, but to distribute its blessings, and secure its trophied ends. The Cross, nothing but the Cross, is the one symbol of Man's Redemption. When the Blessed Saviour said, "for this cause came I unto this hour;" when He prayed, "Father, if Thou be willing, remove this Cup from Me;" when, "being in an agony, He prayed more earnestly, and His sweat was as it were great drops of blood, falling down to the ground;" when He cried with a loud voice "IT IS FINISHED," and bowed His head in death; then, there, and thus, it was that “He hath appeared to put away sin by the Sacrifice of Himself." Then and there was paid the price of what He calls "THE NEW TESTAMENT IN MY BLOOD." We do not mean that Christ's Incarnation, His life, His Resurrection, His Ascension, His perpetual Intercession, the gifts of the Holy Ghost, are not all essential parts of one great scheme; but we do mean, that the Cross is a Central, Cardinal, vitalizing feature of the Gospel, equally removed from the speculations of Rationalism and Humanitarianism on the one hand, and from the equally impious presumption of Romanism on the other; both which rob the Cross of its power and glory.

The Church, the true Church, leads her child personally and directly to the Cross. She bids him, in penitence and faith, behold the LAMB OF GOD bleeding and dying upon it to take