you see the bread and wine set upon God's table by him that ministers in this divine service. . . . Then it is offered to God.... And if you observe the time when this bread and wine is ordered to be placed there.... you will see it is intended by our church to be a thankful oblation to God of the fruits of the earth." I really feel very thankful to "E. B." for obliging me to cite, at length, testimonies so clear and strong for the doctrine which I have ventured to attempt to support-namely, that, in the celebration of the holy eucharist, our church performs, and intends to perform, an act of priesthood, in offering a material oblation.

As to the objections which "E. B." has brought against what I have advanced, I am at a loss to understand the force of them; nor do I clearly see against what they are aimed. It seems to me that he is fighting (and that carelessly) about words, while he agrees with me about things. For he desires not to be supposed to impugn the doctrine of the oblation in the Lord's Supper (p. 658), and joins with me in regretting (P. S. p. 658) the removal of the prayer for it. If he admits that we do really make an offering or oblation to God in that holy service, then he must admit that we are really priests, according to St. Paul's definition of one, as "ordained by men to offer gifts and sacrifices to God."

This were enough for the purpose of my former paper, which was to shew "that the Christian ministers of the first and second orders are truly priests, and do really offer sacrifice." But I will proceed further if we are truly priests, then (I suppose) we must be priests after some order; but the Scriptures make mention of only two orders of priesthood, one after Aaron and the other after Melchisedek, But we cannot be priests after the order of Aaron, for St. Paul, himself, says, that "the priesthood is changed;" it remains therefore that we must be priests after the order of Melchisedek. Or, I will put it thus, If we are priests by virtue of making offerings to God, that priestly offering which our great high Priest, our blessed Master, first made himself, and then ordained his apostles after him to make, till he come, then we must be priests after the same order of which he was; but he was, and is, an high priest after the order of Melchisedek; it follows, then, that we also are priests after that order.

It will be seen that the position I have endeavoured to maintain is, so far from resting upon a "forced" passage of scripture (as "E. B." considers-Gen. xiv. 18), that it is wholly independent of it, and, except incidentally, has no reference to it. But yet, as "E, B." has objected to the application of that passage, let us consider his objection, which is founded on St. Paul's silence; for which he is at a loss to account, if the passage were applicable to the subject under discussion. If the primitive application of the passage be not at variance with the rest of the Scriptures, which it assuredly is not, "E. B." has no right to call upon one who maintains it to account for St. Paul's silence respecting it; for that, in such a case, is wholly immaterial. But, as "E. B." has objected to it, my answer is-because the agreement between Melchisedek's offering and our Lord's was too

obvious to require pointing out. The deep and hidden resemblances which Melchisedek bore to Christ, "things hard to be uttered," because hard to be understood, except by "those who, by reason of use, have their senses exercised," he did declare-"E. B." says he did not. But how does the passage in Hebrews run? - Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, (then, after endeavouring, by reproach, to quicken the apprehension of those to whom he was writing,) therefore, leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, (the first simple truths of Christianity) let us go on unto perfection (to the deeper and sublimer truths). And this will we do, if God permit. (Then, after one of his usual parenthetical digressions,) For this Melchisedek, King of Salem, priest of the most high God, &c., and then he points out those "hard to be uttered" points of resemblance between Melchisedek and Christ, which, but for the inspiration of the apostle, one might be tempted to term far-fetched and fanciful-I mean the eternal priesthood of our Lord, being pre-figured by the mere absence of record of the birth, or parentage, or death of Melchisedek; the type afforded by the meaning of his name, and by the meaning of the name of the city of which he was king. These "hard to be uttered" features of resemblance it was, indeed, necessary for the voice of inspiration to point out, as being very unlikely, otherwise, to be discerned; but, with respect to the sacrifice, when the Hebrew Christians, to whom the apostle was writing, knew that the only rite which the priest Melchisedek was recorded to have performed was that he brought forth bread and wine, and blessed him that fed upon that sacrifice, and that the only rite which Christ, the high priest after his order, was recorded to have performed, was that he took bread and wine, and blessed them that fed upon that sacrifice, what possible need could there be for the apostle to declare a resemblance, when those to whom he was writing must see an identity?

Nor can I allow that "E. B." has even the solitary support of Tertullian, in rejecting this application of the passage; though, even if it were so, as exceptio probat regulam, I would venture to maintain that, if reference is to be made to the fathers at all, the "cautious" use of them is when we avail ourselves of the clear and concurrent testimony · of the vast mass of them, in support of an interpretation of a text which is in harmony with the rest of the Scriptures, which is the course I have adopted; and not when we make use of a mistaken acceptation of any isolated passage of a single individual, which tends to destroy that harmony, which is the course " E. B." has preferred.

And now, one word upon Bishop Patrick's objection. That learned prelate, in his comment on the passage-" Brought forth bread and wine," says, "This he did as a king;" (who ever doubted or denied this?) but, he adds, "not as a priest; for it was not an act of religion, but of hospitality." Surely there never was a more gratuitous or groundless assumption. Nay, is it not certain, from the usages of all primitive worship, that if it was a solemn feast (and what more solemn feast can be conceived than when "the priest of the most high God" entertained "the friend of God," and blessed him that had the pro

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 summi, 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, " Út 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 accomplished that which he deemed "impossible;" and "proved my application 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."