[1] 2 St. Matt. xii. 29.[2a] 2 Tim. ii. 20.[2b] Gen. ii. 7.[3a] 2 Cor. iii. 5, 6–9.[3b] 2 Cor. iv. 1.[4a] 2 Cor. iv. 2.[4b] Ibid., 3, 4.[4c] Ibid., 5, 6.[4d] Ibid., 7.[6] 2 Cor. iv. 7.[10a] Isaiah liii. 2.[10b] Ibid. lii. 14.[12] St. John xx. 22, 23.[13a] St. John xxi. 3.[13b] Acts xviii. 3.[14] Cor. ix. 4, 5.[17a] Acts xv. 36, 39.[17b] Gal. ii. 11–14.[19a] St. Matt. xiii. 55.[19b] 2 Cor. x. 10.[21a] St. John xvii. 21.[21b] St. Matt x. 25.[21c] 1 Pet. iv. 12.[22a] Heb. xiii. 13.[22b] 1 Cor. iv. 12, 13.[22c] Acts xx. 24.[23] Job i. 8.[24] Job i. 5.[26a] 1 Chron. i. 43, 44.[26b] Numbers xxxi. 8.[27a] 1 John iii. 12.[27b] Heb. xi. 4.[28] Gen. iv. 2–4.[30a] Gen. iii. 15.[30b] Heb. ix. 22.[33a] Gen. viii. 20, xii. 8, xiii. 4, xiv. 18, xxii. 13, xxvi. 25, xxxiii. 20.[34] Heb. ix. 22.[36] Calmet, under the head ‘Sacrifice.’[40a] St. John viii. 56.[40b] Gen. iii. 15.[43] Deut. xiii. 14.[45] Heb. xi. 4.[48a] Rom. iv. 3.[48b] St. Matt. v. 23, 24.[49] St. Matt. v. 32, 37, 43, 44.[50] Heb. ix. 9.[51a] Heb. xiii. 10.[51b] Gal. iii. 19; Heb. ii. 2, 3.[53] Heb. xiii. 10–15.[54] 1 Cor. x. 18.[55] 1 Cor. x. 19–21.[58] 1 Cor. x. 13–17.[66a] Heb. v. 4.[66b] Carter on the Priesthood, p. 71.[66c] Ibid.[68] See Carter’s “Doctrine of the Priesthood,” p. 6.[70] Vitringa de Synagog vetere. Prolegomena, cap. 2, quoted Carter, pp. 54, 55[71] Palmer’s Origines LiturgicÆ. See Carter, p. 58.[72a] Palmer’s Origines LiturgicÆ. See Carter, p. 59.[72b] Carter, p. 60.[74a] St. John vi. 52.[74b] St. Luke xviii. 8.[75a] St. Matt. x. 25.[75b] Heb. x. 36.[75c] St. Luke xxi. 19.[75d] St. Matt x.[75e] 1 Tim. iv. 1.[75f] 2 Tim. iv. 3.[75g] 1 John i. 1.[75h] Ibid. ver. 3.[76] Jer. vi. 16.[77] Gal. i. 10.[80] Heb. vii. 1–3.[81a] Coloss. ii. 8.[81b] Job xxxviii. 2.[85a] Ordering of Deacons in the Church of England.[85b] Ordering of Priests.[85c] Ibid.[85d] Ibid.[86] St. John xx. 21.[87] St. John xx. 21–23.[89] Second Exhortation in Communion Office.[90] Office for Visitation of Sick.[95a] 1 Tim. iii. 15.[95b] St. Matt. xvi. 18.[95c] Ibid. xxviii. 20.[95d] Ps. cxxii. 6.[97] Sermon III.[101] Carter on the Priesthood, p. 61.[102] Some attempts have been lately made to throw doubt upon the authenticity of the copies of the ancient liturgies which have come down to us, as not certainly uninterpolated in places in later times. But whether there may be any ground at all for such suspicion or not, it is evident that the inferences drawn from the liturgies, both in this passage and in a former sermon, will not be affected. For the argument, as used in these sermons, is not dependent upon a phrase or a sentence here or there, which, it may be alleged, is open to question, but is based upon doctrine interwoven with their whole system, and pervading their whole structure, and is what moreover is borne witness to, as thus pervading them, by the whole mass of contemporary Christian writing. The liturgies, therefore, must not merely have been interpolated in places, but almost entirely re-written in another sense, and the great bulk of the writings of the Fathers forged to agree with this change, if the argument above is to be shaken by the question raised concerning them.

I find a passage in Hickes’s Treatise, “The Christian Priesthood Asserted,” which, though written more than a hundred and sixty years before Mr. Carter’s book, seems almost as if it were a comment upon the passage just cited, and the application which I have made of it. He says, “I believe no man in the world that was of any religion where sacrifice was used, and that by chance should see the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist administered among Christians, as it was administered in the primitive times, or as it is administered according to the order and usage of the Church of England, but would take the bread and wine for an offering or sacrifice, and the whole action for a sacrificial ministration; and the eating and drinking of the holy elements for a sacrificial entertainment of the congregation at the table of their God. To see bread and wine . . . so solemnly brought to the table, and then . . . brought by the deacon, in manner of an offering to the liturg or minister, which he also taking in his hands as an offering, sets them with all reverence on the table; and then, after solemn prayers of oblation and consecration, to see him take up the bread, and say, in a most solemn manner, ‘This is My Body,’ &c., and then the cup, saying as solemnly, ‘This is My Blood,’ &c., and then to hear him with all the powers of his soul offer up praises, and glory, and thanksgiving, and prayers to God the Father of all things, through the Name of His Son, and Holy Spirit, which they beseech Him to send down upon that bread and cup, and the people with the greatest harmony and acclamation saying aloud, ‘Amen:’ after which also, to see the liturg, first eat of the bread and drink of the cup, and then the deacon to carry about the blessed bread and wine to be eaten and drunk by the people, as in a sacrificial feast; and, lastly, to see and hear all concluded with psalms and hymns of praise, and prayers of intercession to God with the highest pomp-like celebrity of words; I say, to see and hear all this would make an uninitiated heathen conclude that the bread and wine were an offering, the whole Eucharistic action a sacrificial mystery, the eating and drinking the sanctified elements a sacrificial banquet, and the liturg who administered a priest.”—Hickes’s “Priesthood Asserted,” Library of Anglo.-Cath. Theol., Oxford, vol. ii. p. 105–7.[103] The scantiness of statements in the Articles, as to the inspiration of Holy Scripture, may illustrate this. Had it been possible to foresee the boldness of unbelief which these days have brought to light on this subject, or had our Reformers been now drawing up the Articles, we may feel very certain they would not have been content to leave that matter as it there stands. But they were engaged with practical errors of their own day, and not in stating all dogmatic truth upon other points. Many things were so fully assumed to be true as to need no assertion of their truth.[104] 1 Cor. xi. 26.[106] Heb. vii. 25.[107] Mede’s “Christian Sacrifice,” lib. ii. cap. 4, quoted in Carter, p. 65.[108] Cardwell’s “Documentary Annals,” chap. vii, prop. 2.[109] Carter, p. 25, note 1.[110] Hickes’s Treatises, vol. ii. pp. 183, 184.[111a] Bramhall’s “Protestant Ordination Vindicated.” Discourse vii. 3.[111b] St. Jerome, adv. Lucif. c. 8. Carter, pp. 22, 23.[111c] James i. 17.[111d] Ps. xliv. 3.[111e] Ps. cxv. 1.[114] Acts iii. 12.[118] Carter, p. 28.[123a] Hickes’ “Christian Priesthood Asserted,” pp. 184, 185.[123b] Rom. xi. 20.[125a] 1 Sam. ix. 11–13.[125b] 1 Kings viii. 62–66.[125c] 2 Kings xxiii. 22.[125d] “But the man that is clean, and is not in a journey, and forbeareth to keep the passover, even the same soul shall be cut off from among his people: because he brought not the offering of the Lord in his appointed season, that man shall bear his sin.” (Numb. ix. 13.)[129] St. John vi. 53.[131a] Heb. viii. 1.[131b] Mal. i. 11.[132] Zech. xiv. 7.[133] Ps. lxxx. 19.[135] The following sermon, although perhaps in strictness hardly one of this course, was preached almost immediately after the others, and, in some measure, as a sequel to them. It is evidently not unconnected with their subject, inasmuch as the whole Doctrine of the Priesthood,—Christ our High Priest, through His Manhood “able to be touched with the feeling of our infirmities,” and the sacerdotal powers derived from Him to “the ministers and stewards of His mysteries,”—is intimately related to, and dependent upon, the doctrine of the Incarnation.[136] Col. ii. 9.[137a] Acts xx. 28.[137b] Ephes. i. 7.[137c] Heb. ix. 12.[138] 2 St. Peter ii. 1.[139a] St. John xvii. 2.[139b] 1 Cor. ii. 8.[139c] Acts xx. 28.[139d] “Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles,” by E. Harold, Lord Bishop of Ely, Art. II. p. 69.[140] Owen’s “Introduction to the Study of Dogmatic Theology,” pp. 265, 266. See also, “Pearson on the Creed,” Art. iii. § 3.[141] Philip, ii. 7, 8.[142a] St. Luke ii. 52.[142b] St. Mark xiii. 32; St. Matt. xxiv. 36.[144a] Rom. ix. 5.[144b] It may be observed that the above explanation does not in any way impair the argument in our Lord’s reply to His disciples. It furnishes quite a sufficient reason why such mysteries as “when shall these things be, and what shall be the sign of Thy coming, and of the end of the world?” should be unrevealed to flesh and blood, that they are unknown to be angels of heaven, and even to the Son of Man, if His humanity be contemplated apart from His Divinity.[147] Ps. xlix. 7, 8.[148a] Joel ii. 2.[148b] Mal. iv. 2.[148c] St. Luke i. 78, 79.[148d] 2 Tim. i. 10.[148e] Isa. ix. 6.[148f] Heb. ii. 11.[148g] Ibid. 17.[149a] Heb. iv. 14, 15.[149b] St. John xviii. 37.[150] Rom. v. 9, 11.[152] Rom. iii. 25, 26.[153a] Art. XII.[153b] Art. XVIII.[156] St. Luke ii. 11.