APPENDIX TO SERMON XI.

THERE has been no period since the apostolic age in which the truth enforced in this sermon has not been needed by the Christian church in practice. But in theory it would not commonly be disputed in any country where the Scriptures were studied; and it is only the recent revival of the doctrines of the nonjurors of the last century, which makes it proper to add some further explanation of it.

There are three characters which have belonged, either separately or jointly, to the ministers of religion; the characters of teacher, of governor, and of priest. Of these, one or other of the two first is essential to a minister of the Christian religion, and both together are perfectly legitimate; the third is absolutely inconsistent with his office, and cannot be assumed without profaneness.

We understand readily enough what is meant by a "teacher" and by a "governor;" but what is meant by

a priest," many perhaps would find it difficult to explain. And this is natural; for the notion having originated mostly in falsehood and delusion, is full of vagueness, and has from time to time sheltered itself under the clear and well understood notions of teaching and government, with which it has no necessary connexion. But it is important, if possible, to develop it. The assumption on which a priesthood proceeds is

66

the perpetual superiority, in a religious point of view, of some men over others, so that the inferior require the mediation of the superior before they can offer to God any acceptable worship. I lay the stress on the epithet 'perpetual," for in this consists the essential falsehood and evil of the system. It may well happen that some men have the knowledge of God, while others have it not. But here is the difference between a ministry and a priesthood; that while a minister of religion labours to destroy his own superiority over his neighbours, by communicating to them all his own knowledge, a priest wishes it to be perpetual, and therefore keeps his knowledge to himself. Accordingly, wherever a priesthood has been based on a real superiority of knowledge, the utmost pains have been taken to prevent this knowledge from being fully enjoyed by the people at large; it has been sometimes communicated in part, but certain esoteric doctrines or mysteries have been kept in reserve, on purpose to ensure to the priest's superiority a perpetual duration.

This has been the practice of those priesthoods, which, not being hereditary, have grounded their superiority on their superior knowledge. In the hereditary or caste priesthoods, the superiority being grounded on birth and race, generally on an alleged descent from, or connexion with, the God who was the object of worship, was by its very nature perpetual, so long as the blood of the race was preserved pure. Here there was no occasion for any superiority of knowledge; it was only necessary to prevent a mixture of races, and the distinction between priest and people would be kept up for

ever.

The Jewish priesthood stands alone, as being neither

grounded on a superiority of knowledge, nor, though strictly hereditary, on any superiority of descent. Like others of the Jewish institutions, that of the cities of refuge for example, it was ordained partly as an accommodation to the notions and feelings of the age, and partly as typical of the real and perfect Priest who was to come. Religion without an earthly priesthood was a notion utterly strange to a people that had so long sojourned in Egypt; religion without a true and heavenly priest is incompatible with the corrupted state of man's nature. Besides, the typical sacrifices of the law were to be offered by a typical priesthood, and that priesthood, to meet the universal feeling of the East, was to be hereditary. But at the same time, the common evils of a priesthood were prevented by the provision of a constant succession of prophets; that is, of ministers of religion, whether as teachers or governors, with no distinction of race nor superiority of order, but with an influence in the concerns of life, and in all of religion, but its ceremonial, far greater than was enjoyed by the priesthood.

A priesthood, we have seen, may be grounded on superiority of knowledge or superiority of race, and it assumes in both cases that the superiority is perpetual. But mere superiority of knowledge will not justify the claim, unless a superiority of birth or race, an inherent natural superiority, be assumed as subsisting also. The man who has obtained a higher degree of knowledge, says to his ignorant neighbours,-" I must pray to God for you, for you know not how to pray for yourselves; I must perform the rites of religion for you, for you know not how to perform them properly." But then comes the natural answer, which the minister of religion

so gladly welcomes-which the priest dreads and evades: "Teach us to pray also, teach us how to worship God acceptably." The priest repels this request by saying,

"It is not right to communicate these mysteries to the vulgar:" that is, he assumes a natural difference between himself and other men, not growing out of their different degrees of knowledge, but antecedent to them, justifying them, and perpetuating them. Thus, strictly speaking, the claim of a priesthood rests only on a supposed essential and permanent difference between man and man. If there be no such difference, if all men be of one race and of one intellectual and moral nature, then the claim in any mere man is founded on falsehood; and a merely human priesthood, except in the single instance of the typical priesthood of the Jews, is an institution contrary to truth, and therefore contrary to true religion.

Now let us observe what has taken place actually in Christianity. If superiority of language were of itself sufficient to justify a priesthood, never were any men better entitled to become priests than the Apostles of our Lord. They were the sole depositaries of that knowledge of God, without which none could be saved. They were endowed over and above with certain extraordinary powers, fitting them not only for teaching, but for government. Accordingly, they were the teachers and governors of the Christian Church, to the full extent of the terms: and because their teaching, by being embodied in books, was capable of being made perpetual, they are still our teachers: all that we know of Christianity we learn from their writings only, and all that they have told us concerning it, we receive at once on their authority. They would also be our governors, if