we are repeatedly taught in the New Testament； that as soon as Christ
was sacrificed for our sins on the cross； there was no more sacrifice
needed； and that after His one offering of Himself there was no need of
other offering for sin （Heb。 10：14…18）。 To attempt to offer up Christ
again is an act of ignorance akin to blasphemy。 The Prayer Book never
once calls the Lord's Supper a sacrifice。 The 〃oblations〃 it speaks of
in one place are the offering of money in the offertory。 The only
〃sacrifice〃 it mentions is that of 〃praise and thanksgiving；〃 and the
only offering it mentions is that of 〃ourselves； souls and bodies；〃 to
be a 〃reasonable； holy； and lively sacrifice〃 unto God。 Those who call
the sacrament a sacrifice cannot possibly prove what they say。
20。 Is the minister who consecrates the bread and wine in the Lord's
Supper a priest？
He is a priest no doubt； if by the word 〃priest〃 we only mean a
presbyter； or one in the second order of the ministry； and in this
sense only he is called a priest in the Prayer Book。 But he is
certainly not a priest； if we mean by that word one who offers up a
sacrifice。 He cannot be； because he has no sacrifice to offer； and a
priest without a sacrifice is an unmeaning title。 He cannot be； because
Christian ministers are never once called 〃priests〃 in the New
Testament。 The Jewish priests in the Old Testament had to offer
sacrifices daily； and were types and figures of the great High Priest
who was to e。 But when Christ offered up Himself on the cross； a
sacerdotal ministry was at once done away for ever。 All believers are
now 〃kings and priests；〃 because they 〃present their bodies a living
sacrifice to God〃 （Rom。 12：1）。 But Christian ministers are not
sacrificing priests； and cannot be。 They are Christ's ambassadors；
messengers； witnesses； watchmen； shepherds； and stewards of the
mysteries of God； but nothing more； whatever dress they may wear； and
whatever title they may assume。 Christians have only one Priest； even
Him who is 〃passed into the heavens； Jesus； the Son of God〃 （Heb。
4：14）。
21。 Is the table in the Lord's Supper rightly called an altar？
Most certainly not。 It is never once called an altar in the New
Testament。 The text in （Hebrews 13：10）； 〃We have an altar；〃 has nothing
whatever to do with the Lord's Supper。 That learned divine； Dr。
Waterland； says； 〃That altar is Christ our Lord； who is Altar； Priest；
and Sacrifice all in one〃 （Waterland's Works； vol。 v。 p。 268； Oxford
ed。）。：Not once is the Lord's Table called an 〃altar〃 in the English
Prayer Book。 The Reformers of our Church ordered altars everywhere to
be pulled down and removed； and wooden tables to be set up。 Those
Churchmen who carelessly call the Lord's Table an 〃altar；〃 and talk of
〃altar services；〃 and brides being 〃led to the altar〃 at weddings； are
doing immense harm； ignorantly borrowing the language of the corrupt
Church of Rome； and countenancing a mischievous error。 If St。 Paul rose
from the grave； and was shown an 〃altar 〃 in a Christian Church； he
would not understand what it meant。
22。 Is there anything sinful or wrong 〃in having the Lord's Supper in
the evening？ Most certainly not。 It cannot possibly be sinful to follow
the example of Christ and His Apostles。 Every reader of the New
Testament must know that the institution of the Lord's Supper took
place in the evening。 It is certain that no special hour is remended
to us in the Acts or Epistles。 It is equally certain that the Prayer
Book leaves the matter to the discretion of every clergyman； and allows
him to do what is best for his congregation； and wisely lays down no
hard and fast rule about the time。 To forbid evening munions would
pletely shut out many persons in large town parishes from the Lord's
Table。 The mothers of many families among the working classes cannot
possibly leave home in the morning。 The very name 〃Supper〃 seems to
point to the evening of a day rather than the morning。 In the face of
these facts； to denounce evening munion as irreverent and profane is
neither reasonable nor wise。
23。 Is it needful； advantageous； and desirable to receive the Lord's
Supper fasting？
It is certainly not necessary； because the practice is neither
manded nor remended in Scripture。 Moreover； it is perfectly clear
that at the first institution of the sacrament； the Apostles could not
have received the elements fasting； because they had just eaten the
passover。 There cannot； therefore； be anything very important in this
point； and every believer may use his liberty； and do what he finds
edifying to himself without condemning others。 But it may be feared
that there lies in the minds of many who attach immense value to
fasting munion； a vague belief that the consecrated bread and wine
which we receive are in some mysterious way not real bread and wine；
and ought not therefore to be mixed with other food in our bodies！ Such
a belief cannot be praised。 Those who teach that fasting munion is a
rule obligatory on all take up a position which is not only
unscriptural； but cruel。 To go fasting to an early morning munion is
likely to cause the death of delicate persons。
24。 Is it necessary； or desirable； or useful for municants to
confess their sins privately to a minister； and to receive absolution；
before they e to the Lord's Supper？
Necessary it cannot be。 There is not a single verse in the New
Testament to show that the Apostles remended such confession； or
that the first Christians practised it。 Desirable or useful it
certainly is not。 The habit of private or auricular confession to a
minister； under any circumstances； is one of the most mischievous and
dangerous inventions of the corrupt Church of Rome； and has been the
cause of enormous immorality and wickedness。 Moreover； it is so
expressly condemned in the 〃 Homily of Repentance；〃 that no minister of
the Church of England has any right to remend； encourage； or permit
it； if he is honest； and faithful to his ordination VOWS。
25。 But is not private confession before munion sanctioned by that
passage in the munion Service of our Prayer Book； in which the
minister says； 〃If any of you cannot quiet his own conscience； but
requireth further fort or counsel； let him e to me or some other
discreet and learned minister of God's Holy Word； and open his grief；
that by the ministry of God's Word he may receive the benefit of
absolution〃？
It is impossible； with any fairness； to extract auricular confession
and sacramental absolution out of this passage。 The simple meaning is；
that people who are troubled in mind with some special difficulties of
conscience； are advised to go to some minister and talk privately with
him about them； and to get them cleared up and resolved by texts of
Scripture； that is；〃 by the ministry of God's Word。〃 This is exactly
what every wise minister in the present day does with those who seek
private interviews with him； or wait for an after…meeting at the end of
a sermon。 But it is as utterly unlike the mischievous practice of
habitual confession before munion； as wholesome medicine is unlike
opium…eating； and water is unlike poison。
26。 Does a minister do anything wicked or wrong if he pronounces the
words of administration； once in giving the bread and wine to a number
of municants altogether； and not to each one separately he certainly
does nothing wrong according to Scripture。 he does exactly what our
Lord Jesus Christ did when He first instituted the Lord's Supper。 In
each of the four accounts given in the New Testament； He used the
plural number and not the singular。 In each He pronounced the words
once； and only once； and then gave the bread and wine to the whole
pany of the Apostles。 In the face of our Lord's own example； to
blame and condemn ministers who find it necessary to do the same； is
surely