referring to this subject, and representing as most mischievous and most unscriptural the statement which I ventured to make, perhaps you will allow me room in your pages to reply to the arguments which have been advanced against it. It will be the best and fairest course to take, to remark on the observations of the editor in the order in which they occur. 1st. He sets out with saying, that he is "not acquainted with the members of our communion who scornfully repudiate a due regard to the apostolical succession." There is evidence enough in this very article to prove that the editor himself repudiates it; for he endeavours to shew that many who derive their orders by succession from the apostles are not ministers of Christ; and that many who cannot shew this derivation may, nevertheless, be his ministers. I cannot, therefore, see in what sense he holds it, or what regard he thinks is "due" to it. 2nd. The editor then proceeds to disprove the assertion, which he considers as implying a very undue regard to the apostolical succession-viz., that it is the only external mark of a Christian minister; and he contends that it may be disproved by the process of reductio ad absurdum in this way:-If they who possess this mark are ministers of Christ, then the priests of the church of Rome are ministers of Christ, but they are the ministers of antichrist, which is absurd. The editor thinks that, as a churchman, I must subscribe to the assertion that "the priests of Rome are the ministers of Antichrist," because many of the reformers (whom he inadvertently calls the founders of our church) represent the church of Rome as antichrist. To this I answer, that no churchman is bound by the private opinions of any of our great and justly-venerated reformers, any more than by those of any bishop of the present day; and further, that there is nothing in the formularies of the church which they drew up to bind us to this opinion. The editor quotes the 80th Irish article as declaring the pope to be the "man of sin foretold in scripture;" but he should know that no living minister of the church in England or Ireland ever subscribed the Irish articles,-that they were not drawn up by the reformers,—and that they were in force but a very short period, being introduced about 1615, and virtually set aside in 1634. The quotation from "the Homily on Obedience" as little serves his purpose; for, besides that ministers of the church do not pledge themselves to the verbal accuracy of every passage in the homilies, it is plain, I think, that the passage quoted makes no positive declaration on the point. It is as follows:-"He [the bishop of Rome] ought rather to be called Antichrist, and the successor of the Scribes and Pharisees, than Christ's vicar, or St. Peter's successor." I am ready to admit that it would be absurd to suppose that the priests of antichrist could be the ministers of Christ.

It is remarkable that in the first part of this very homily there is an inaccuracy of rather a serious nature, that of styling a passage out of the book of Wisdom “the infallible and undeceivable word of God.” Another occurs in the second part-viz., ascribing the death of Saul to the young Amalekite who brought the tidings of it to David. What would the Record say if any one was to assert that every clergyman of the church of England is compelled by an "authority before which he is bound reverently to bow," to receive the Apocryphal book of Wisdom as the infallible and undeceivable word of God, and to admit as true the false tale of this Amalekite?

The language here used is evidently comparative, and the title Antichrist is given, as I conceive, not in a restricted sense, as belonging solely to the "wicked one" described in prophecy, but in a more general sense, as applicable to any opposer of the truth, which use of the word seems to be sanctioned by the apostle John, 1st Epistle, ii. 18; and it is a well-known fact that the early Christians, and the reformers, after their example, gave this title to all those whom they considered enemies of the gospel. I am ready to admit that it would be absurd to suppose that "the priests of Antichrist" (strictly so called) could be ministers of Christ; and therefore 1 cannot suppose that the church of England regards the pope as such, for she allows any one ordained by him, on his renouncing the errors of popery, to minister in her communion; a permission not granted to any dissenter or presbyterian. She does not require the re-ordination of any priest of the church of Rome; a proof that she considers every such priest, however gross and lamentable his errors, a minister of Christ. Therefore the Record's reductio ad absurdum, resting on authority "before which I am bound reverently to bow," comes to nothing. The editor, however, and those who, like him, possess veneration for the authority of the church of England, cannot so easily escape from the absurd consequence to which they are led by maintaining that Rome is Antichrist. This is so forcibly stated by Mr. Maitland, that the mind must be fortified by a good deal of prejudice which is not, at least, somewhat moved by it: "A priest of the Romish church, on his joining the church of England, is not required to be re-ordained. It will be hard to account for this without granting that the bishop of Rome is a true Christian bishop. It is difficult to imagine that the church of England would admit any to serve at her altar because Antichrist had ordained him-because the son of perdition had laid hands on him-because the man of sin had given him holy orders," ("The Second Inquiry," p. 108.) Let the editor of the Record calmly consider this passage, and then judge whether his position or mine is, on church principles, more easily reduced to an absurdity.

He

Third. His next observation respects the analogy said to exist between the Levitical priesthood and the Christian ministry, on which I founded an argument in support of the apostolic succession. asserts that this analogy "is no true analogy for the purpose to which it is applied," and he regards it as a symptom of "a return to popery" when much stress is laid on it. Now, passing over the authority of those fathers of the church, and of later Christian writers, who adopt this analogy, and attach much importance to it, and who, from the period in which they lived, or the opinions which they entertained, could have no connexion with popery, let us see whether we have not the higher authority of scripture to rest on. The following particulars may be sufficient to prove that a striking analogy does exist between the office of the Levitical priests and that of the Christian ministry: They are both appointed to minister in holy things, (Exod. xxviii. 1; compare 1 Cor. iv. 1.) They are both chosen to their office by God himself, (Deut. xxi. 5; compare Acts, xx. 20.) They are both separated from the congregation, and set in authority over them, (Num. VOL. XIII.-Feb. 1838.

Y

xvi. 9; compare Heb. xiii. 17.) They have both to fulfil the pastoral duty of instructing the people, (Malachi, ii. 7; compare 2 Tim. ii, 2.) They are both, by divine appointment, entitled to maintenance on account of their service, (1 Cor. ix. 13; compare ver. 14.) Now, if they resemble each other in such important particulars as these-in the sacredness of their office, in their divine appointment to it, in the duties and privileges which belong to it-how can it be asserted that no true analogy exists between them? Nay, does not the apostle in the last cited passage assume that this analogy exists? and if it do, is not the inference deduced from it a natural and obvious one ?—viz., that as God was pleased to give an external mark to certify the one, he would be graciously pleased to give a mark equally plain and palpable to certify the other. The editor of the Record would set aside this inference, by endeavouring to prove that "there is a more striking analogy between the prophetical and ministerial, than the priestly and ministerial, office."" He enters at large on this topic, but the sum of what he says in support of his opinion is this:-"The great work and stated duty of the priests was, as types of Christ, to offer up the typical sacrifices which prefigured the only great and available sacrifice." Now the ministers of the Christian church, he contends, have no such service to perform. On the other hand, the prophets were appointed "to instruct the people in the will of God in a dark age, and amidst an imperfect revelation;" and this, he asserts, is the same as the ministers of Christ have to do "amidst the full light of revelation." There are, I conceive, two or three important errors involved in these statements. 1st. It is not the fact that all the sacrifices, which the Jewish priests had to offer, were merely typical, some of them were eucharistical; and others, such as the passover, were commemorative as well as typical, and therefore it is not correct to say that our ministrations bear no resemblance to theirs; for do we not offer an eucharistical and commemorative sacrifice when we celebrate the Lord's supper? 2nd. It is erroneous to state that it was exclusively the office of the prophet to instruct the people. This was a main part of the priest's office likewise, (see Mal. ii. 7; Lev. x. 11; Deut. xxxiii. 10; 2 Chron. xvii. 9;) the difference between the two being thisthe priests were the fixed, stated, and regular instructors of the Lord's people, directed to instruct them in truths already revealed; whereas, the prophet was but an occasional messenger, sent upon an extraordinary mission, accredited by miraculous signs, and commissioned to reveal new truths. It is therefore evident that the office of a priest bears a much closer resemblance than that of a prophet to the office of a minister of the gospel.

These considerations, I hope, are sufficient to shew that the analogy, from which I drew my inference, is not affected by the objections which the Record has brought against it, and, consequently, the inference itself not yet disproved. The Record, indeed, asserts that the scripture gives a very different mark from that of the apostolic succession to distinguish the ministers of Christ; but I feel that I have already trespassed too far on your pages. If, however, you think it desirable that the subject should be entered on, and will again allow me

to occupy some room in your Magazine, I would hope to bring it under the consideration of your readers in the next number. I have but one observation more to make. It is painful to see this subject represented, as it continually is in the pages of the Record, and elsewhere, as a mere question about rites and ceremonies. It is, surely, in the highest degree, a practical question; for what minister does not feel that the power with which we exhort-the authority with which we rebukethe fervour with which we bless in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, depend on the degree of rational assurance which we have that we are his ministers ?

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

B.

THE FIFTH OF NOVEMBER SERVICE.

SIR,-Your correspondent " Alpha" has requested me to state my authority for saying, that the convocation altered the service for the fifth of November in 1689. My authority was the same which satisfied you, that of Bishop Gibson. I mentioned it, however, as a mere chronological event, and did not rest upon it any part of my argument. I must beg leave to differ from you, in thinking the meaning of the passage ambiguous. "The office was revised by convocation in the year 1662. In which form some few additions and alterations were made upon a new revisal in the second year of King William and Queen Mary." If this new revisal were not made by the same body which prepared the first, Bishop Gibson's work is not written with the accuracy for which he has always been noted. I know not how to ascertain the real state of the case, and I do not think it of any consequence to the present question. Your answer to "Alpha's" letter has my cordial assent; and I only beg leave to add an inquiry, whether "Alpha" would decline, or whether he did decline, to read the service for a particular fast or thanksgiving? Many such days were observed during the last war. On those days there was "the ordinary service, sanctioned by convocation, the parliament, and the crown;" yet I never heard an instance of a refusal to read the Occasional Service; and how much inferior is its authority to that of the service for the fifth of November! I am, Sir, your faithful servant, C. R. ELRINGTON.*

As the Editor has had no private communication with Dr. Elrington since the article on the Fifth of November Service appeared, this letter is exceedingly gratifying to him. Alpha, it is only right to say, thinks the last article far worse than the first; and, indeed, so very dangerous, that he has written a paper of great learning, and great length, against it. The paper is, in truth, so very long, that it is impossible to give it this month. But as some, at least, of the mischievous propositions-which "Alpha" conceives to be fair inferences from what is said in last month's Number -are such that they could not well be held by any one but a person who had taken leave of his senses, no danger to any body or thing, but the poor writer's reputation for sanity, can arise; and "Alpha" will, therefore, kindly excuse the want of the formal disclaimer of them, which he wishes for, till next month. The Editor does most sincerely regret the necessity entailed upon him of saying so much about his own opinions and views as he is compelled to do in reply to " Alpha's" letter; and assures his readers that, in order to avoid their undergoing many similar inflictions,

EDINBURGH REVIEW-CHURCH RATES.

SIR,-Your attention has probably been already directed to the article in the last number of the Edinburgh Review on Church Rates, but if not, allow me to point it out to your notice. It is almost impossible to suppose that some of the representations there made have been made even in ignorance of the real state of the case. For instance, observe the representation made respecting the important constitution of 1153, in pages 315, 316, where, by the omission of those words which make it an evidence of the rector's liability for the repair of the church being then limited to the "chancel," it is so quoted as to make it appear that it represents him as liable for the repair of the whole church. It is a most important evidence in our favour as it stands, because it carries our proofs beyond the time of Richard I. If there is any difficulty in referring to this document, it will be found quoted in full at page 37 of the second edition of the " History of Church Rates," by the Rev. W. Goode.

Observe, also, the misrepresentation in pages 314, 315, where it is said, "To former lists.... Peter de Quivil made considerable additions," when it is distinctly stated by him, (see History of Church Rates, p. 52,) "Onera omnium ornamentorum prædictorum parochiani sicut hactenus, ita de cætero supportabunt."

Observe, also, the misrepresentations as to the nature of the canons of Walter de Gray (a. 1250) and Peckham, (a. 1280,) as if they imposed new obligations on the parishioners, when it is evident from their phraseology that they only followed old customs.

I have written these hasty remarks in the hope of drawing your attention to the article, if it had not been so directed previously, as it appears to me very important that the public should know what is the truth in this matter; and never was an article more calculated to mislead than the one to which I have alluded.

he will be extremely cautious in future how he takes the liberty of giving his opinion on any thing but dry matters of fact. It certainly is not a very wise act in an Editor of a periodical ever to follow another course, as he stands on perfectly different ground from any other individual. If Mr. A. publishes a book which Mr. B. thinks bad, still, before he falls upon it, he has to revolve the trouble of arranging for a publication, letters innumerable to the bookseller, perhaps a journey to London, postage and revision of proofs, trouble and expense endless; or again, if in a periodical Senex says something wrong, and Juvenis, next month, assails him right and left, the real Senex may give himself no more trouble about the matter, if he is tired of it, or sees no occasion, as no one knows who he is, and he can consequently lose no credit. But the unlucky Editor is at everybody's service for a fight. Though people may neither know nor care about his name, still if he is assaulted and reprobated as Editor, he has no choice. Whoever likes to call upon him, he must rouse and turn out. And then, whoever chooses to amuse himself by so doing, has no trouble about publication, or booksellers. He calls for, and has the use of the miserable Editor's compositors, pressmen, types, paper, and ink; so that he can say exultingly, in the words of the immortal Eton Grammar-" Suo sibi gladio hunc jugulo”—an achievement so marvellously disagreeable to the patient, that his only wise course is to give no occasion forats being performed.-ED.