altar*" from intrusion into the ministry of the blood of the New Testament, committed no less solemnly than that of the

66

the priest's office had every ground and reason to render it excusable, if not acceptable. In the same manner Uzziah, as St. Jerome (tom. iii, 115, Ep. Damaso) tells us, was a righteous man, and did right in the sight of the Lord, building the temple, and offering vessels; and for this merit overcoming his adversaries, and, what is a great evidence of piety, having many prophets in his kingdom. While Zacharias lived, he pleased God, and entered His temple with all veneration; but after the death of Zacharias, willing to offer oblations by himself, he invaded audaciously the office of the priestly order, and immediately leprosy was spread upon his face (2 Chron. xxvi.), according to the words of the prophet, 'cover their faces with ignominy. The sin of Korah and of Uzziah was not intentional profaneness or impiety, but a presumptuous desire to perform, for themselves and the people who followed them in their usurpation, the priestly offices of religion. Their zeal and popular favour induced them to believe that God would accept at their own hands their oblations: they presumed also upon their high offices, and the marks of Divine favour and acceptance they had already received; so that the judgments they suffered plainly express the Divine prohibition against assuming the priest's office, with any motives or intentions, or under any circumstances whatever.

The jealousy of the Lord in maintaining the priestly office is also strongly exemplified in the heavy penalty inflicted upon Saul for offering a burnt offering under circumstances when he thought he was doing an act of necessity and of piety. He was attacked

by a great army of the Philistines "All the people followed

him trembling. He tarried seven days according to the set time that Samuel had appointed, but Samuel came not, and the people were scattered from him." In this emergency he said, "The Philistines will come down now upon me, and I have not made supplication unto the Lord." He forced himself therefore, and offered a burnt offering. If any case of emergency or necessity could justify or excuse the performance of a ministerial act by any save the Priesthood, it would have done so in the instance of Saul, who, in the absence of the Prophet, and supposing that the immense host of the enemy, with thirty thousand chariots, was about to fall upon him and his six hundred followers, ventured to make supplication unto the Lord. But the circumstances of the case are disregarded; the violation of the commandment is alone considered; and the kingdom is taken away from Saul, as the penalty for performing an act belonging to the priest's office. It is to be observed that Saul did not commit the sin of usurping the office of Priest, like Korah, but only performed a single sacrifice when he thought the exigency of the case required it. And it would seem that Saul was not conscious of his sin; for he went out to meet Samuel to salute him, rejoicing at his approach. (1 Sam. xiii.)

*This is an expression of St. Ignatius showing what was the language of the Church in the age of the Apostles, "He that is within the Altar is pure: that is, he who does aught apart from the Bishop, and Presbytery, and Deacon, he is not clean in conscience." Ignat. Ep. to the Trallians, s, 7.

first to a sacred and successive Priesthood. Those whose desire it is in humility to partake of the Lord's spiritual graces, and continue in the unity of his body, will dread to depart from his institutions while even a ray of hope remains of their continuance in the Church; much less will they dare, without a shadow of authority, to take upon themselves so awful a ministration conferred by our Lord upon the office of Apostles, presuming without reason that that office and ministration have ceased: they will rather confide in the Lord's promise of perpetual presence with the Apostolic ministry, and will tremble at the fearful judgments with which he is sure sooner or later to vindicate his own institutions.

43. THE PERPETUAL GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH CONFERRED UPON THE APOSTLES.

"I appoint unto you a Kingdom, as my father hath appointed unto me; that ye may eat and drink at my Table in my Kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel."* (Luke xxii. 29.) This passage of Scrip

*"It is evident that 'sitting on thrones,' and 'judging the twelve tribes,' means simply obtaining eternal salvation, and the distinguishing privileges of the Kingdom of Glory, by those who continued faithful to Christ in his sufferings and death."-Adam Clarke on Matt. xix. 28.

This, which was evident to the learned Dr. Clarke, was differently understood by Matthew Henry. In his time even dissenters had not learned to disclaim Apostolic succession of the ministry. The following is his interpretation of Luke xxii. 29. "Understand, First, of what should be done for them in this world, God gave his Son a Kingdom among men, the Gospel Church, of which He is the living, quickening, ruling Head. This Kingdom He appointed to His Apostles, and THEIR SUCCESSORS in the Ministry of the Gospel, that they should enjoy the comforts and privileges of the Gospel, help to communicate them to others by Gospel ordinances, sit on thrones as officers of the Church, not only declaratively, but as exhortatively judging the tribes of Israel that persist in their infidelity, and denouncing the wrath of God against them, and ruling the Gospel Israel, the Spiritual Israel, by the instituted discipline of the Church, administered with gentleness and love." This note is an example of the pious sincerity of the writer whose own conduct it condemns; but men's pride in his time had got only so far as to disobey, not to deny the truth. Still there is even here evidence ⚫ of the inclination upon the judgment. What have Gospel privileges to do with holding a Kingdom and ruling the Church? Is the appointment of a Kingdom in the same manner as our Lord had been appointed to it by his Father to convey no other authority than declarative and exhortative, helping to communicate Gospel privileges by Gospel ordinances? No language can equal the sacred authority conferred by our Lord's simple words, "I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me." How

ture affords strong reason to believe that the perpetual government of the Church was vested in the Apostolic office, and it will therefore require to be fully considered. Our Lord had just eaten of the Eucharist with his Apostles, and was sitting at the table when he spoke these words. This explains the meaning of "eating and drinking at his Table in his Kingdom," to be the administration of the Eucharist in his Church; and to this correspond the words of St. Paul, which teach us that the Eucharist was called the Lord's Table, "Ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's Table," &c. (1 Cor. x. 21.) The Apostles had just then been eating and drinking his holy Eucharist at his Table; and his words must have conveyed to them the impression that the eating and drinking at his Table in his Kingdom referred to repeating the holy repast of which they had just partaken. He had said to them, "that he would not drink of the fruit of the vine until he should drink it new with them in his Father's Kingdom, until the Kingdom of God had come. (Compare Luke xx. 18, with Matt. xxvi. 29.) Accordingly this was the last repast he partook of with them until after his resurrection, when he "did eat and drink with them." (Acts x. 41.) For so St. Luke informs us (xxiv. 30): "And it came to pass as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them, and their eyes were opened, and they knew him.' Here is an example of the Apostles eating and drinking at the Lord's Table in his Kingdom. He had himself declared that his Kingdom, the Kingdom of God, would come before he should again eat and drink with them. The eating and drinking is also shown by this passage to mean the administration of the Eucharist; for our Lord is reported to have acted on this occasion in the same manner as at the institution of the Eucharist,-after supper taking bread, blessing it, and distributing it to his Apostles, by which action they recognised him, so that no doubt can remain that our Lord's promise to his Apostles of their sitting at his Table, eating and drinking in his Kingdom, meant their administration of the Eucharist in his Church, after his resurrection, when he should have been glorified, and have ascended to his Father. (John xx. 17.) Our Lord's own words thus teach us

dreadful is the blindness of that rational spirit in religion which can so pervert these words of our Lord as to state that they only mean obtaining eternal salvation! What truth in Scripture can resist such a mode of interpretation?

that his Kingdom would come at the period of his resurrection (compare Matt. xxvi. 29, with Luke xxiv. 30), and that eating and drinking at his Table meant the celebration of the Eucharist,-the eating and drinking of the bread of life at the Table of the Lord of Life.

We can have no doubt, after thus ascertaining, on our Lord's own authority, the period of the coming of his Kingdom, in determining the nature of that Kingdom to which he appointed the Apostles; for we cannot suppose him to have meant, in the 29th verse, when he speaks of the Kingdom appointed him by his Father, any other Kingdom than that the coming of which he had spoken of in the 18th verse. It was then the Kingdom of Christ established at his resurrection which he appointed to his Apostles,-the Church of Christ, then fully established in the triumph of its Lord ascending to be its heavenly head, having left to his Apostles its government upon earth. The Lord's appointment directs them to administer the Eucharist in his Kingdom; the Eucharist to be continued as showing forth his death till he come. This perpetual ministration must have a perpetual ministry. The command of sitting at the Lord's sacramental table in his Kingdom given to the Apostles, implies their performance of the command as long as the sacrament shall continue to be administered. The office to.which this high privilege is attached cannot be supposed to be discontinued while the privilege endures. None save the Apostles had our Lord's direct authority to eat and drink at his Table; and if their office has ceased, there is no valid reason for continuing the sacrament, which they alone were divinely authorised to administer. Unless, then, the office of the Apostles be transmitted in the Church, there is no secure ground for administering the Eucharist. If the Apostles have ceased to eat and drink, sitting at the Lord's Table, and have not left their office to their successors, with satisfactory evidence of the transmission of our Lord's commission, we are exposed to uncertainty and doubt whether the sacrament of the Eucharist has also ceased; for there is no security for its continuance without evidence of Christ's commission and authority, if the office to which its administration was attached be supposed extinct.

44. THE KEYS OF THE KINGDOM COMMITTED TO the APOSTLES.

The appointment of his Kingdom by our Lord to his Apostles may be explained by referring to the several branches of their government, which he elsewhere specifies,

and which, combined, will furnish us with a full conception of the power committed to them.

We find, in Matt. xvi. 19, our Lord addressing to St. Peter, and in him to all the Apostles, these words*: “I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven." A passage in the Prophet Isaiah (ch. xxii. 21, 22) will give us the meaning of this expression, "And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah, and the Key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder: so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open." This prophecy is thus applied to our Lord (Rev. iii. 7): "And to the Angel of the Church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the Key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth, and shutteth, and no man openeth." We learn from these passages that "the laying the Key of David upon his shoulder," was a committal of the government of David into his hand; and in our Lord's conferring upon his Apostles the Keys of his Kingdom, with the power of binding and loosing, we find an exact coincidence with his appointing to them the Kingdom, as His Father had appointed it to him. His Father had committed the government into his hand, and had appointed to him the Key of David, to open and to shut; and he appoints to his Apostles the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to bind and to loose. This is a striking example of the minute and exact harmony of Scripture; and it establishes the proposition, that our Lord appointed the Apostles to the Kingdom to which he had been appointed by his Father in the plenitude of his powert, and that the power expressed by the

* "Though it were said to Peter alone, 'I will give unto thee the keys,' yet they were given to all the Apostles."-Theopylact. in locum. "Our Lord appointing the honour of the Bishop, and the constitution of his Church, speaks in the Gospel, and saith to Peter, 'I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and I will give thee the keys; and what thou shalt bind,' &c.; from thence through the courses of ages, and of successions, the ordination of Bishops and constitution of the Church flows on, that the Church may be constituted upon the Bishops, and every act of the Church may be governed by them."-Cypriani Ep. 27.

+"Of his plenitude have we all received, and grace for grace;