mises"?) it must have been a sacrifice also? in other words, that which the Bishop has so clearly shewn the eucharist to be-a feast upon a sacrifice? It would have been wholly repugnant to the ancient customs, to say nothing of the character of the individual, to have commenced the feast until it had been first consecrated to God, by offering either the whole or a part of the food of which it was composed, upon God's altar, that he might bless them who were partakers. And here, this remarkable difference is to be noticed, that while Abraham, and Manoah, and others, when they would entertain strangers, brought forth a calf or a kid, Melchisedek, (after whose order Christ was to be a priest,) dispensing with the blood of bulls and of goats, brought forth only bread and wine, the substance of the mincha, or pure offering of the law-the substance of the eucharist, or pure offering of the gospel. This view of the case, that it was a feast upon a sacrifice, wholly recovers the difficulty which led Bishop Patrick into the error into which he has fallen. The act of Melchisedek was unquestionably an act of hospitality, but it was therefore, of necessity, also an act of religion. It was a feast given by him as a king, but it was a feast upon a sacrifice, consecrated by him, as priest; combining both offices in one person. This view also shews the harmony between the two passages of Tertullian, one of which the Bishop has cited against the application of the text, which I am seeking to maintain, while he omits the other, which is as clearly in favour of it. Tertullian asks, concerning Melchisedek, "Unde Melchisedek, sacerdos Dei summi nuncupatus, si non ante Leviticæ legis sacerdotium Levitæ fuerunt, qui sacrificia Deo offerebant?" and adds, in the next section, "Denique sequenter Patriarchæ, incircumcisi fuerunt, ut Melchisedek, qui ipsi Abrahæ jam circumciso, revertenti de prælio, panem et vinum obtulit incircumcisus." If it was a feast upon a sacrifice the passages agree, but if it was only a feast, or only a sacrifice, they do not. I cannot dismiss this point without expressing my suspicion (if I do him injustice, I ask his pardon,) that "E. B." is not aware to what part of St. Cyprian's works the prelates of our church, who drew up and

• Does not this view throw light upon that expression of St. John (Rev. i. 5, 6), that "Jesus Christ hath made us kings and priests unto God, and his Father." One of the functions of our combined office being that, as kings, we set forth a feast, which, as priests, we have consecrated to God in sacrifice. Or, will "E. B." peremptorily set aside the force of this passage of Scripture also, by the summary process of saying that it "touches on the vexata questio of the Millennium ?" If so, then the Millennium had begun before St. John had left the isle of Patmos, seeing that the words in question form part of his own salutation to the seven churches! When "E. B." says that these passages "describe Christians generally" (p. 657), by which, I suppose, he would have us infer that they are not applicable to the clergy in particular, does he forget that the self-same terms as St. Peter uses were used by Moses, to describe the Israelites generally? (Exod. xix. 6.) Which, I conclude, was for a like reason in both cases namely, that the priests then made their offering of blood (superadded to the mincha) for expiation, as we do our pure offering for thanksgiving, not for themselves only, but also for the people. The private Christians (icorns, 1 Cor. xiv. 16,) assisting and taking part in the priestly office, by “saying Amen at the giving of thanks."

sanctioned the book of homilies, refer, when, after having said, "Before all things, this we must be sure of especially, that this supper be in such wise done and ministered as our Lord and Saviour did, and commanded to be done, as his holy apostle used it, and the good fathers of the primitive church frequented it;" they presently add, "Let us, in these matters, follow the advice of Cyprian, in the like cases; that is, cleave fast to the first beginning, hold fast the Lord's tradition, do that in the Lord's commemoration which he himself did he himself commanded, and his apostle confirmed." For the work of Cyprian's from which this advice is taken is his 63rd epistle "Ad Cæcilium de sacramento dominici calicis;" in which he sets forth the application of the Melchisedekian sacrifice, to the sacrifice of the eucharist. "Item, in sacerdote Melchisedech sacrificii, sacramentum præfiguratum videmus, secundum quod scriptura divina testatur, et dicit; et Melchisedech, rex Salem, protulit panem et vinum. Fuit autem sacerdos, Dei summi, et benedixit Abraham. Quod autem Melchisedech typum Christi portaret, declarat in psalmis Spiritus sanctus ex personâ Patris ad Filium dicens, ante luciferum genui te. Tu es sacerdos in æternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech. Qui ordo utique hic est de sacrificio illo veniens et inde descendens; quod Melchisedech sacerdos Dei summi fuit, quod panem et vinum obtulit, quod Abraham benedixit. Nam quis magis sacerdos Dei sunimi, quam Dominus nostri Jesus Christus, qui sacrificium Deo patri obtulit, et obtulit hoc idem, quod Melchisedech obtulerat, id est, panem et vinum, suum scilicet corpus et sanguinem." And again, “ Ut ergo in Genesi per Melchisedech sacerdotem benedictio circa Abraham posset rite celebrari, præcedit ante imago sacrificii Christi, in pane et vino scilicet constituta; quam rem perficiens et adimplens Dominus, panem et calicem mixtum vino obtulit."

If I am to be censured by "E. B." for "hazardous reliance" "injurious to the cause of religion in general, and of the church of England in particular," for "treading on insecure ground," for "venturing upon debateable positions, the consequencces of which may be to unsettle the faith of many," and "to give occasion to the enemies of God and Christ to blaspheme," (gracious God! that an endeavour to shew that all God's faithful servants, in all ages, have held communion by being united together, not only in the same faith, but in the same acts of religious worship, should be impugned by a Christian, as calculated to unsettle the faith of many, and to give occasion to the enemies of God and Christ to blaspheme!) and practising on "a principle always pernicious," and from which "much mischief has arisen," at least let the fathers of our Reformation bear their share of the blame, who, in their authorized instructions, (which all our clergy recognise as containing wholesome doctrine,) and in their canons, have led me to the ground on which I have been treading, to the position on which I have ventured, and to the principle which I have adopted. But if "E. B." acquits them of blame, as I conclude he must, then let him openly acknowledge that the censure which his incautious pen has recorded against me is as unmerited as it is excessive.

With regard to his objection to what I said concerning the prophecy of Malachi,* I am still more at a loss to understand the drift of his observations; nor can I see what difference exists between us. I never considered a prophecy as a command, nor argued that because Malachi had predicted our pure offering, therefore we ought to make it; but I said that the pure offering which we make in the holy eucharist in fulfilment of our Lord's injunction, was also a fulfilment of Malachi's prophecy. And is it not so? Must not "E. B." admit it to be so? for he allows that there is an oblation in the eucharist. Well, what is the nature of that oblation? Is it, or is it not, a literal mincha? Let us compare the law of Moses with the rubric of our Common Prayer Book, and receive the answer. What saith the law?" When any will offer a meat offering unto the Lord, his offering (mincha) shall be of fine flour," (Lev. ii. 1.) "And the drink offering shall be of wine, the fourth part of an hin," (Lev. xxiii. 13.) I am not aware that the omission of the oil in the meat offering destroys the nature of the mincha. Now what says our rubric? "The priest shall then place upon the table so much bread and wine as he shall think sufficient;" and again, to make the identity still more conspicuous, it is said it shall be "the best and purest wheat bread that conveniently may be gotten." I assert, then, that when we celebrate the holy eucharist (by "E. B.'s" own admission, and the testimony of the ritual itself,) we do offer a material mincha, we do literally fulfil the prophecy of Malachi; and I hope he will admit that I have thus easily accom plished that which he deemed "impossible;" and "proved my appli. cation on sufficient, i. e., undoubted, authority." For if the testimony of the law and of the rubric, and the evidence of our own senses, be not "sufficient," "E. B." must be hard to satisfy.

Nor is there, to my mind, the slightest force in what he says concerning the other half of Malachi's sentence which respects "incense." For this essential difference exists as to our obligation to do that which might fulfil either part of the prophecy-namely, that while our Lord has commanded us to offer that which, in point of fact, is a material mincha, he has not commanded us to offer material incense. And yet it does so happen (which seems to have been overlooked by "E. B.") that, in point of fact, the former part of the sentence is literally fulfilled, as well as the latter, seeing that, with the single exception of the protestant section of Christendom, from the rising to the setting sun," in every place" material " incense is offered to God's name, and a' material “mincha." But this by the way.

The only question which there seems to me to be between "E.B." and myself is, whether the Holy Spirit, when he uttered the prophecy by the mouth of Malachi, contemplated that there would be a material, as well as a spiritual, fulfilment of it? It seems, to my mind,

It is rather too much for "E. B." to take upon himself to speak so flippantly as he has thought fit to do, of an application of a text which "Vetustissimi patres magno consensu" (as Pole observes, on this passage) have agreed to make. Some respect, surely, is due to the united opinion of men who are "invaluable as witnesses to the practices and opinions of the early church."

If

more in accordance with the reverence which is due to the Holy Spirit, who "searcheth all things, even the deep things of God," to suppose that the literal fulfilment was not hidden from him. "E. B." thinks otherwise, I will not enter into argument with him, not having the confidence to pronounce him "unquestionably mistaken when he endeavours to ascertain the mind of the Spirit. But if the Holy Spirit, when he uttered that prophecy, foresaw the "material" fulfilment of it which has taken place, then who shall dare to say that the application of the prophecy to the material fulfilment, which He contemplated when he uttered it, is "treading on insecure ground."

I will only add, that I have endeavoured to adjust what I have said concerning the sacrifice of the holy eucharist, according to the standards which the church has appointed for the guidance of her ministers-namely, first, "not so to expound one place of Scripture that it be repugnant to another," (Art. 20.) and, secondly, so to teach the doctrine of that sacrament, as "the good fathers of the primitive church frequented it." (Homily on the worthy receiving, &c.) Or, as it is more generally expressed, in the canons of 1571, "not to teach anything but what is," first," agreeable to the doctrine of the Old or New Testament, and," secondly, "which the catholic fathers and ancient bishops have collected from that same doctrine." And, notwithstanding " E. B.'s" observations, I am willing to hope that I have succeeded; having supported the position I advanced by the concurrent testimony of all antiquity, and defying "E. B.," or any other (as I believe I safely may do), to adduce even a single witness from the primitive ages against it; while the position itself is so far from being repugnant to Holy Writ, that it sets forth, in a striking manner, the wonderful harmony that subsists through all the dispensations of God's providence, and exemplifies the communion of saints, by shewing the uniformity, or rather unity, of their worship, all testifying their one and the same faith in the one and the same great sacrifice, by the use of one and the same type or figure of a pure and holy offering.

If my doctrine be not in accordance with the standard which the church has appointed, let "E. B." shew where I have failed, and I will acknowledge my error, and thank him too for pointing it out; but if otherwise, then let him withdraw his bitter censure of me, and acknowledge it to be unmerited.

But if, departing from the church's guidance, "E. B." prefers a less "hazardous" standard than she has recognised and appointed, he will, I trust, excuse me if I refuse to follow his steps, and prefer abiding by the counsels of that mother, "whose ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace." Ever, my dear , yours most truly,

A. P. P.

P.S. It gives me great pleasure to inform "E. B." that his conclusion respecting the general disuse of the Scottish liturgy is mistaken, and that the custom of substituting a less perfect office of another church for the more perfect one of their own is still uncountenanced by the majority of the Scotch episcopalians. I write on the authority of one of the venerable prelates of that church, whom I have the VOL. VII.-Jan. 1835.

Н

privilege to call my friend, and to whom I wrote immediately on seeing "E. B.'s" postscript. He informs me that the Scottish form is still used in a majority (not very considerable) of their places of worship; in a proportion, as regards his own diocese, of eight to one. He has kindly, also, pointed out the canon of their church upon the subject, in which (the 25th) it is declared that it "hath been justly considered, and is hereby considered, as the authorized service of the episcopal church in the administration of that sacrament," and "in respect to the authority which sanctioned the Scotch liturgy, and for other sufficient reasons, it is hereby enacted that the Scotch communion office shall be used in all consecrations of bishops, and that every bishop, when consecrated, shall give his full assent to it, as being sound in itself, and of primary authority in Scotland."

SUGGESTIONS ON THE PLACE AND MANNER OF CONDEMNING DISSENT ON INSUFFICIENT GROUNDS.

NO. II.

SIR,-I lately addressed you a letter on condemning Dissent made on careless or insufficient grounds, in which I rested the duty of so doing, on the obligation of every minister to preach the word, both "in season and out of season," and not only to protest against those sins and errors which are on all hands admitted to be such, but also against those which, according to the fashion of the day, may happen to be regarded as points of indifference, or of too venial a character to require serious notice. I ventured to suggest, further, the propriety of occasional notice of this subject from the pulpit, in some of its several branches.

This is the point on which I wish at present to add a few remarks, the object of which will be to shew why it is advisable, and even requisite for the sake of the congregation, to make the pulpit the place from which this subject should be brought forward.

The former letter was rather to inquire whether it was not a matter of duty in the clergyman, for his own sake, to declare himself somehow or other among his flock on the difference between the church and dissenters as a body, without entering there upon the question of place or manner. Here I proceed to suggest whether, in duty to his congregation, and on their accounts, this should not be done in the church, because it can be done there most impressively and most appropriately. I shall not trench at all upon the consideration which was waived in my former letter,-viz., whether an anxiety for the souls of his flock should lead a clergyman to discuss this subject ;but in saying "in duty to his congregation, and on their account," thus much only is meant that every congregation has a right to expect from its regularly appointed teacher an assertion and explanation of all the doctrines which are held as essentials by the church to which he and they belong, and which appeal for their scriptural foundation and origin to the Gospel, in which they mutually profess a belief. I will not go so far as to say that silence on any such doc