Sacral Almsgiving: Presence & Sacrifice

Historically speaking, alms-giving remained – and has remained – a pivotal duty of English Churchmen after the Reformation. For instance, the Canons of 1604 required the construction of an alms-box to be housed in a convenient place in the church and to remain in the custody of the wardens to be used by the priest “to the intent the Parishioners may put into it their Alms for their Poor Neighbors.” (LXXXIV) Likewise, the Articles of Religion state that “the second Book of Homilies… doth contain a godly and wholesome Doctrine, and necessary for these times… and therefore we judge them to be read in Churches by the ministers, diligently and distinctly, that they may be understood of the people.” (Article XXXV) Among the homilies contained in the second book is the Homily Of Alms Deeds. According to the Formularies of the post-Reformational Church of England, the clergy were required to preach on the necessity and significance of giving alms as the Homily outlines in grave detail. In addition, according to the reforming efforts of King Edward VI, the Clerks – what we typically know now as “acolytes” – were to travel the parish to collect alms for the poor and later to record the names of benefactors in the parish to be included in the private intercessions of the people. In medieval times, the Clerks were to travel door to door providing Holy Water in exchange for donations to the parish, but now were bid to do so without the water and on behalf of the poor – this is by no means insignificant! Similarly, the foot-washing of the great-maundy was lost in ordinary English parish settings, but the custom of the “Maundy Money” or “Royal Maundy” – the ceremonial distribution of money to the poor – was retained in the royal household and is continued today.^[1] It appears then that almsgiving was so significant in the minds of the English Divines, that it ensured the retention of at least two medieval rituals – the house-to-house visits of the Clerk and the Maundy Money – which would have likely been discarded otherwise had not almsgiving been an essential component. This demonstrates that almsgiving was not only a sentiment left-over from Medieval English Religion, but rather continued as a significant part of English piety after the Reformation. What emerges through this continuity is a thoroughly Anglican understanding of the act of almsgiving distinguishable from a “treasury of merit” found in many Medieval explanations. For instance, the aforementioned Homily – as just one of many examples touching the subject – lays out a robust Evangelical theology for almsgiving which is rooted – as one would expect – within the Holy Scriptures. This same Evangelical doctrine of almsgiving is precisely the theology of the Offertory Sentences provided later in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. These Sentences span nearly three pages of quotations from the Bible, all demonstrating the Christian promises attached to alms. Together the Homilies, Prayer Book, Canons, and Royal Injunctions provide a solid (and consistent) theology for later Divines to exposit more fully.

Building upon the biblical foundation provided by the English Church’s formularies, several of our prominent theologians clearly develop the Church’s expectation to give alms in a spiritual and sacramental direction. For instance, the Rev. Richard Allestree (1621-1681) adds his own voice to the sacramental tapestry:

A seasonable Alms leaves a greater exultation and transport in the Giver, than it can ordinarily raise in the Receiver; so exemplifying the Maxim of our Blessed Lord, that “it is a more blessed thing to give then to receive” (Acts 20:35). This indeed is a way to elude the severe denunciation of the Apostle (1 Timothy 5:6). A widow that liveth in this pleasure, is not dead whilst she liveth; but on the contrary, shall live when she dies; when she resigns her Breath, shall improve her being; the Prayers of the Poor, like a benign gale, shall assist her flight to the Region of Bliss; and she who has here cherished the afflicted Members, shall there be indissolubly united to their Glorious Head.^[2]

Or as the Non-Juring William Law (1686-1761) – who almost writes identically in his famous A Serious Call to Devout and Holy Life – put it:

And if, as our Saviour has assured us, “it be more blessed to give than to receive,” we ought to look upon those that ask our alms, as so many friends and benefactors, that come to do us a greater good than they can receive, that come to exalt our virtue, to be witnesses of our charity, to be monuments of our love, to be our advocates with God, to be to us in Christ’s stead, to appear for us in the day of judgment, and to help us to a blessedness greater than our alms can bestow on them.^[3]

According to Fr. Allestree and Fr. Law, there is something that is received by the one who gives – “greater exultation and transport in the Giver” – which is above and beyond what is received by the one in need. There is a spiritual reception of something which takes place. Along with them, the Rt. Rev. Thomas Wilson (1663-1755) – Bishop of Sodor and Man – offers the following advice to his priests:

And if to these exhortations a clergyman adds his alms, or procures the charity of such as are more able than himself, he will discharge a very material part of his duty, and he will have the prayers of those who have the freest access to the throne of grace.^[4]

With Allestree and Law, Bishop Wilson teaches that the poor are powerful advocates before Almighty God and that their intercessions ought to be secured especially through the giving of alms. The Good bishop’s point is simply that if the grace that they may procure for their benefactors was truly perceived, one would quickly and often run about so as to offer alms in order to receive it. Yet what Bishop Wilson, Fr. Allestree, and Fr. Law do not provide is an explanation of how or why. What makes these prayers and petitions of the poor so potent? What precisely is received that is better than the gift given?

To answer this question, we must examine the deeper theology of sacral almsgiving discernible throughout the length of Anglican Theology which is enshrined in both the Formularies and our most eminent Divines. When looking throughout the history of Anglican writing on the subject – both those before and after the Oxford Movement – it becomes clear that there is a coherent explanation. There arises chiefly two very interesting methods of speaking of charity to the poor: a language of “identification” or “presence,” and the language of “sacrifice” or “oblation.” Together, they weave a very beautiful sacramental understanding of the Church’s relationship to the poor.

Real Presence

It was no secret to post-Reformational Divines that the Book of Tobit promised that those who gave alms should be forgiven of their sins. Surely this was strange to the ears of a theological tradition which was impacted in no small way by the blood and fire of the Reformation! One would think that the belief that sins could be forgiven through monetary provision would have been frowned upon by those who had suffered through upheavals due in no small part to Papal Indulgences and their abuses. Such theologians would have had every reason to read the following with skepticism: “for almsgiving saves from death, and purges all sin” (Tobit 12:9) – and yet, the English Divines and the articulation of their theology as codified in the Formularies of the Church of England do not react to such passages as one would expect. Rather, the Book of Homilies writes approvingly:

He [Tobit] teacheth them, that to be merciful and charitable in helping the poor, is the means to keep the soul pure and clean in the sight of God. We are taught therefore by this, that merciful alms-dealing, is profitable to purge the soul from the infection and filthy spots or sin.^[5]

Similarly, the Book of Tobit is included in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer’s lengthy list of Offertory Sentences mentioned above. Strange! Once again, the sale of absolution and the papal abuse of wealth was a driving force for the separation of several national churches in both the British Isles and the Continent from the Church of Rome. How could a Reformed Church eagerly accept Tobit’s words? Why would the Book of Homilies cite him so approvingly? The explanation has to do with what we have become accustomed to referring to as the “real presence.” The Homilies, for instance, recall that Christ has said: “Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.” (Matthew 25:40) The same Homily also reminds the reader that this identification on the part of Christ with the poor is in no way a New Testament idiosyncrasy, but is a clear continuation of the same identification found in the Old Testament: “Whoever is generous to the poor lends to the Lord.” (Proverbs 19:17) It is the Lord who receives almsgiving from the faithful. Whether in the New Testament through God Incarnate or through the identification of Yahweh with the recipient of almsgiving in the Old, it is clear that there is a Divine identification with the poor. Such identification is interesting indeed! It is this identification on the part of the Divine with the Poor that allows for a sacramental reading of forgiveness offered in almsgiving as opposed to merely a gross transactional view. This is a terrific expression of what the Rev. Dr. Francis J. Hall has termed the “mystery of identification.” For Fr. Hall, the sacramental “identification” is essential to any conversation of sacramental “presence”; it logically precedes it. Taking the Eucharist as an example, he writes:

We ought carefully to note that our Lord did not reveal the Eucharistic mystery in terms of presence, but in those of identification. He did not say “My body is present in this,” but “This is My body”; and that the consecrated bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ is the revealed premise of catholic theology in re.^[6]

It is because Christ has “identified” Himself with the elements in the Holy Communion that there can arise the Church’s universal belief in a sacramental presence. In the same way, if the Lord has identified Himself with the poor, then it is entirely possible to speak of this identification in sacramental terms. There is a “real presence” of Christ in the almsgiving.

This is why [Saint] William Augustus Muhlenberg can write:

When the spirit of the Offertory is acted out, and almsgiving is regarded as a test and means of Communion with Christ; when the rich and poor man come together in the church; when those whom God hath blessed in their basket and store, have their poor neighbors whom their alms are to relieve kneeling at their side; and when Christians see the minister of God taking their gifts and on bended knees humbly laying them as an offering on the altar of the redeemer, they will not then be sparing of their bounty. It will not then be mere human pity that will make them generous; but a divine faith that to minister to the poor in Christ is to minister to Christ himself, will stir their hearts; and a holy shame save them from sending a scanty pittance to be offered as their alms and oblations on the altar of the Divine Majesty.”^[7]

Here, Fr. Muhlenberg is explicit in drawing from the theological basis of the Formularies – “when the spirit of the Offertory is acted out” – which causes him to state clearly that almsgiving is a “means” of Communion with Christ. For Fr. Muhlenberg, almsgiving is not merely a Christian duty imposed upon laity, but rather a spiritual means of union with the Lord. Those who are familiar with the biography of this saintly Divine are well aware that this sentiment ranks high in his theological priorities.

Together with Fr. Muhlenberg, it is a strong theology of “presence” built upon the mystery of identification with the poor which undergirds the powerful words of Bishop [and Saint] Frank Weston (1871-1924):

You have got your Mass, you have got your Altar, you have begun to get your Tabernacle. Now go out into the highways and hedges where not even the Bishops will try to hinder you. Go out and look for Jesus in the ragged, in the naked, in the oppressed and sweated, in those who have lost hope, in those who are struggling to make good. Look for Jesus. And when you see him, gird yourselves with his towel and try to wash their feet.^[8]

These moving words from an archetypal “Anglo-Catholic” bishop are clearly in keeping with the whole of the Tradition as expressed by the homilies, sentences, canons, and theologians such as holy Dr. Muhlenberg! Just as there is a “Eucharistic” presence which must be spoken of regarding the consecrated elements, and an “Ecclesial” presence spoken of regarding the People of God and the Visible Church, in the poor we must acknowledge a kind of “Kenotic” presence of Christ. By virtue of this presence, the poor become a means of grace themselves through the act of almsgiving. For Bishop Weston, this “Kenotic Presence” in the poor is essential to rightly understanding the “sacramental” Christ in the Holy Communion. He says plainly: “if you say that the Anglo-Catholic has a right to hold his peace while his fellow citizens are living in hovels below the levels of the streets, this I say to you, that you do not yet know the Lord Jesus in his Sacrament. You have begun with the Christ of Bethlehem, you have gone on to know something of the Christ of Calvary but the Christ of the Sacrament, not yet.” According to Bishop Weston, sacral almsgiving is not like the sacraments, it ensures the sacraments. Here Bishop Weston is clearly drawing on the saying often attributed to St. Chrysostom, that “one will not find Christ in the chalice if they do not find Him in the beggar.” He paraphrases to suit a Ritualist context: “You cannot claim to worship Jesus in the Tabernacle if you do not pity Jesus in the slum.” – Both the quote attributed to St. Chrysostom and the quote taken from Bishop Weston teach the same thing: almsgiving is so necessary, that without it one does not receive the benefit of the Blessed Sacrament; the poor ensure the efficacy of the Supper. This also reflects Fr. Muhlenberg’s words above that almsgiving is not only a “means” of communion with Christ, but also a “test” of that communion. These three Saintly Divines are merely echoing the teaching of St. Paul, that when the poor are abused “it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat.” (1 Corinthians 11:20)

Bishop Weston continues: “If you are Christians,” he writes, “then your Jesus is one and the same: Jesus on the Throne of his glory, Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, Jesus received into your hearts in Communion, Jesus with you mystically as you pray, and Jesus enthroned in the hearts and bodies of his brothers and sisters up and down this country.” The discernment of Christ present in the poor is so essential to the Rev. Charles Wellington Furse, that he can say that there “is no almsgiving but in the spirit of Christ’s word, ‘Inasmuch as he have done it unto Me:’ that is, the recognition of Christ’s presence in men and women around us, devotion to our Blessed Lord as present in every member of his Body…”^[9] For Fr. Furse, there is no such thing as almsgiving apart from the recognition of Christ present and the Christian’s adoration of Him in the poor. Merely giving to the needy in the humanitarian sense is good, but it cannot be confused with the Church’s teaching regarding alms. It is Jesus who is encountered in the poor. Because the benefactor comes into contact with Christ Himself in the giving of alms, then of course there is the assurance of forgiveness of sins: “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Mark 2:7) If Christ is present, then so is the promise of absolution, and thereby Tobit’s strong assertions are unquestionably justified.^[10]

Sacrifice

Like the “Kenotic Presence” discussed above, the notion of almsgiving as “sacrifice” or “oblation” is deeply rooted in the Scriptures: “Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.” (Hebrews 13:16) This and other texts drawn from the Bible are cited abundantly in the Homily of Alms Deeds as well as the Offertory Sentences in the Prayer Book – both already mentioned. Likely through this Evangelical insistence witnessed by the Formularies, Anglican Divines pick up on the notion of “sacrifice” and emphasize it emphatically. The Rt. Rev. Hugh Latimer (1487-1555) – one of the Oxford Martyrs – writes distinctly:

Reconciling is as much to say as to restore thy neighbor unto charity, which by thy words or deeds is moved against thee: then, if so be it that thou hast spoken to or by thy neighbor, whereby he is moved to ire or wrath, thou must lay down thy oblation [alms].^[11]

Here Bishop Latimer is clearly drawing on Christ’s prohibition to offer a sacrifice to God if there is disunity with one’s neighbor. The Lord says: “leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.” (Matthew 5:24) By applying this passage to almsgiving, Bishop Latimer is equating the alms offered with the sacrifice of the altar that Jesus mentions; the alms are a sacrifice and must be treated as such. Our martyred bishop here reflects an ancient conviction: to give to the Church is a privilege; no one is entitled to give and the ministers are not free to receive tithes and alms from just anyone.^[12]

Likewise, in order to highlight the connection between the alms basin and the altar, the Rt. Rev. Lancelot Andrewes (1555-1626) would have the laity give their alms while kneeling at the altar^[13] – a dignity that was reserved for royalty in medieval times. The Rt. Rev. John Williams (1582-1650) –the Bishop of Lincoln – explains in a letter to Archbishop William Laud:

[I]t is no honor to the minister to have their people to come so near the holy table … for the people to be permitted to approach so nigh. It was in former times the special privilege of kings and princes.^[14]

To kneel at the altar rail was a supreme dignity reserved for those of royal birth, one which [St.] Lancelot Andrewes extended not only to the receiving the sacrifice of Holy Communion by the laity, but also to offering the sacrifice of alms. If these alms were not given solemnly at the rail, they were otherwise placed in the alms box immediately after communing at the rail, still highlighting thereby the same sacrificial nature of alms via their connection between the giving and the altar. Andrewes likewise believed that the priest too should place his own money in the plate during the offertory. This highlighted to all present that it was not merely an obligation of the laity to give, but even the priests and clerks offer to God the same oblation. Here Andrewes is not doing anything novel, but merely extrapolating liturgically what was already present within Anglican custom. For instance, those who are familiar with the depictions of post-Reformation chancels will immediately recognize the large alms basin placed decoratively on the altar. These basins on the altar already highlighted the connection between the giving of the people and its sacrificial nature. Still, like Latimer, Bishop Andrewes writes explicitly that almsgiving is indeed a sacrifice:

And these three, to offer to God our 1. soul by prayer, 2. our body by abstinence, 3. our goods by alms-deeds, hath been ever counted the tergemina hostia, “the triple or threefold Christian holocaust or whole burnt offering.”^[15]

According to Bishop Andrewes, almsgiving is one of three oblations offered to God. What’s more, this collection of several Christian oblations is not some idiosyncrasy belonging to Andrewes. In almost identical terms, the Rt. Rev. Thomas Ken (1637-1711) reminds his reader that in Lent, the Council of Nicæa exhorted the faithful that a “pure oblation might be offered up to God, namely of Prayers and Fasting and Alms, and Tears, which might produce a comfortable Communion at the following Easter.”^[16] For Saintly Bishop Ken, of almsgiving’s sacrificial nature there is no doubt.

According to these prestigious Divines, the offering of alms to the poor is an “oblation” or “sacrifice” to God. What will most likely be a shock to many, the Evangelical theology of the Formularies as exemplified in the Homilies and the Offertory Sentences does not shy away from boldly and clearly declaring the sacrificial nature of almsgiving. As the Homily says “to give alms, and to succor the poor and needy” is an “acceptable thing, and an high sacrifice to God.” In addition, it is abundantly clear that the theology of these documents foundational to Anglican Theology are far from being a dead letter. Their teaching can be traced clearly throughout the writings of eminent theologians spanning the width and breadth of the Anglican Tradition; from Bishop Latimer to Bishop Ken, the same theology is upheld! When taken together, it is evident that almsgiving as sacrifice is an ordinary element of classical Anglican theology.

The Work of the Deacon

These two theologies of “presence” and “sacrifice” are held intimately together in Anglican Theology. For instance, the Canons of 1604 unite the two notions, stating: “they [the people] ought at this time to be much more ready to help the Poor and Needy, knowing that to relieve the Poor, is a Sacrifice which pleaseth God: And that also whatsoever is given for their Comfort is given to Christ himself, and is so accepted of him, that he will mercifully reward the same.” This is significant. These are not two approaches to the nature of almsgiving, just as “presence” and “sacrifice” are not two separate approaches to the Eucharist. They rather together give a glimpse of the sacral character of the rite. The canon is an early witness to how the two notions are enshrined together in the post-reformational English Tradition. They are a single act; a single ministry.

What is even more fascinating is how these two notions may inform our perception of the ministry of the Deacon within the Anglican context. Generally, the means of grace have an ordinary minister. Almsgiving is no exception to this rule! Within the Anglican context, the ordinary minister of this kind of work in the Church is the Deacon. The exhortation to the work of the diaconate as found in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer makes this explicit:

And furthermore, it is his office [the Deacon], where provision is so made, to search for the sick, poor, and impotent people of the Parish, to intimate their estates, names, and places where they dwell, unto the Curate, that by his exhortation they may be relieved with the alms of the Parishioners, or others.

All subsequent prayer books within the Tradition have retained this injunction.^[17] This is clearly a theological explanation of the deacon’s ministry which has become enshrined within global Anglicanism. The theology of almsgiving as understood by Anglican Divines is gathered up together and centered in the work and office of the Diaconate.

This colors the diaconate in a unique way; there is an interesting parallel between the office and ministry of the priest and the deacon which emerges. Because the “presence” and “sacrifice” of Almsgiving parallels the Holy Communion, there is a strange yet beautiful mirroring between the ministry of the Priest and the Deacon. Whereas the Priest offers a sacrifice to God in the Eucharist and it is then distributed to the people, the deacon distributes to the people and it is also accounted as a sacrifice to God! This is a scandalous assertion if the Deacon is compared to his Old Testament type. In Anglican theology, it is commonly asserted that the Deacon corresponds to the Levite^[18] in the Tabernacle and Jerusalem Temples. Under the Old administration, only the priests were permitted to offer sacrifice. The marvelous and bewildering expansion of the type by the antetype – Christ and His Gospel ministry – is that now even the Christian Levites – the Deacons – may offer sacrifices to God; it is a more inclusive covenant! Both Priests and Deacons may be considered ministers of “presence” and “sacrifice,” each according to his vocation.

Conclusion

In conclusion, there is a thread running through the spans of Anglican Theology of sacral almsgiving. This thread spans from the English Scriptures to the Homilies, Prayer Book, and Canons, through to the English Divines; from Latimer to Muhlenberg. Together, they provide a coherent Anglican Theology of Almsgiving. This theology can be described simultaneously as a theology of “identification” or “presence” and a theology of “sacrifice” or “oblation.” Fr. Muhlenberg, Bishop Weston, et al. emphasize Christ’s identification with the poor and the real presence of the Lord found in Almsgiving. Alternatively, Bishops Latimer, Andrewes, Ken, and others all speak of the sacrificial nature of almsgiving. These two aspects are found clearly in the Formularies and are united explicitly in the canons of 1604. Almsgiving is a means of grace within the Church’s life, and as all means of grace, possess an ordination minister; it is centered in the ministry of the Diaconate. Due to this, the unique ministry of the Deacon beautifully parallels the Priestly ministry in a powerful way: the priestly sacrifice of the Eucharist finds its counterpart in the Diaconal sacrifice of almsgiving.

Notes

1. Westminster Abbey, “Office for the Royal Maundy,” Project Canterbury, accessed March 5, 2023, http://anglicanhistory.org/england/misc/maundy1948.pdf. ↑
2. Richard Allestree, “The Ladies Calling,” Project Canterbury, accessed April 4, 2023, http://anglicanhistory.org/women/calling/widows.html. ↑
3. William Law, A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life Adapted to the State and Condition of All Orders of Christians. by William Law, … a New Edition. to Which Is Added, the Life of the Author, and Three Letters, Not Included in His Works (London: W. Baynes, 1797), 60. ↑
4. Thomas Wilson, “The Works of the Right Reverend Father in God, Thomas Wilson, D.D., Lord Bishop of Sodor and Man: Concerning the Poor,” Project Canterbury, accessed April 4, 2023, http://anglicanhistory.org/lact/wilson/v7/38.html. ↑
5. The Church of England, “An Homily of Alms Deeds, and Mercifulness Toward the Poor and Needy,” Project Canterbury, accessed April 4, 2023, http://www.anglicanlibrary.org/homilies/bk2hom11.htm. ↑
6. Francis J. Hall, The Sacraments, vol. 7, 9 vols. (Pelham Manor, NY: American Church Union, 1969), 102. ↑
7. William Augustus Muhlenberg, “Address by the Rev. Dr. Muhlenberg at the Laying of the Corner Stone of the Church of the Holy Communion.,” Project Canterbury, accessed April 4, 2023, http://anglicanhistory.org/usa/muhlenberg/corner_stone1844.html. ↑
8. Frank Weston, “Our Present Duty: Concluding Address, Anglo-Catholic Congress, 1923,” Project Canterbury, accessed April 4, 2023, http://anglicanhistory.org/weston/weston2.html. ↑
9. Rev. Charles Wellington Furse, Helps to Holiness; or, Rules of Fasting, Almsgiving and Prayer, 49. ↑
10. Interestingly, Alms and Forgiveness of Sins are so united that St. Augustine can say: “For to forgive a man who seeks forgiveness is indeed to give alms.” (Handbook of Faith, Hope, and Love, Ch. XIX) ↑
11. Hugh Latimer, “Second Sermon on the Card: Another Sermon Concerning the Same Matter,” Project Canterbury, accessed June 4, 2023, http://anglicanhistory.org/reformation/latimer/sermons/card2.html. ↑
12. The Rt. Rev. R.C. Mortimer (1902-1976) – Lord Bishop of Exeter – reminds us in his accessible little book Western Canon Law that the Statuta Ecclesiæ Antiqua (AD 442-506) states clearly that “Offerings to the Church from unworthy persons are to be refused.” ↑
13. Douglas Macleane, Lancelot Andrewes and the Reaction, (George Allen, 1910) 196. ↑
14. William Laud, and Oxford University. 1847. The Works of … William Laud. 7 Vols. [in 9pt.]. Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/workswilliamlau02laudgoog/page/n154/mode/2up?q=rails&view=theater. ↑
15. http://anglicanhistory.org/lact/andrewes/v1/wednesday5.html ↑
16. Thomas Ken, “A Pastoral Letter From the Bishop of Bath and Wells to His Clergy, Concerning Their Behavior During Lent,” Project Canterbury, accessed April 4, 2023, http://anglicanhistory.org/ken/lent1688.html. ↑
17. Furthermore, you are to interpret to the Church the needs, concerns, and hopes of the world. It is the Deacon’s office to encourage and equip the household of God to care for the stranger, to embrace the poor and helpless, and to seek them out, so that they may be relieved.” (BCP 2019, 478.) ↑
18. Bishop William Ingraham Kip writes: “We find that, in the Jewish Church, God Himself instituted a priesthood, consisted of the three orders, viz., The High Priest, the Ordinary Priests, and the Levites. These, through all ages, were the only authorized teachers of the nation – the only ones permitted to offer sacrifices on behalf of the people. Should we not then naturally expect, that when the Christian ministry took the place of the priesthood, it would be, like everything else, conformed in some degree to the ancient model?” (The Double Witness of the Church, 37) ↑