and

particular character, viz., pureness; the old sacrifice being declared impure, not in itself, nor in its essence, but by the disposition of those by whom it was offered. Hence God reproaches them by Isaiah: Incense is an abomination to me.' If we compare the sacrifices, ours alone has a right to be called pure. What St. Paul says of the difference between the law and grace is applicable here, since our sacrifice is offered not by the flesh and smoke of victims, but by the vivifying grace of the Holy Spirit." Speaking of the parable of the prodigal son, he says: Bring the fatted calf and kill him, that fatted calf who offers himself to the knife which kills him, who vivifies those who eat him; that fatted calf which rises up under the blows with which he is pierced, whose flesh sanctifies, and assures immortal happiness." As much as Jesus Christ is superior to Aaron, and the sacrifice of the new covenant to that of the old, so much is the Christian superior to the Jew, in the purity of his worship. It is not to the earth, but to a higher region, that the victim which is offered upon our altars, that the priest who immolates, and the sacrifice which is consumed, belong. Let us then be careful to deposite offerings worthy so august a sacrifice. After stating that in the Eucharist they retraced the innumerable benefits of creation, he continues, "What shall we say of his being crucified, of his shedding his blood for us, of his giving himself for our spiritual food and banquet. Let us return continual thanksgivings, let the hymn of gratitude begin all our discourses. Let us return thanks not only for ourselves, but for others. This feeling is the bond of charity. Such is the intent in which the priest immolating the holy victim offers it for all the world, for those who lived before us, who live with us, and shall come after us. Animated by this spirit, we are no longer on earth, we become the inhabitants of heaven, and associated with the nature of celestial spirits. The angels in heaven unite their voices to thank the Lord for the good which he has done us, saying, Glory be to God on high, and on earth peace, good-will to men.' Speaking about oaths used on trifling occasions, he says, "Is the Church formed to receive our oaths or our prayers ? Is the holy table decked to increase our iniquities rather than to expiate them? If you no longer respect any thing, at least, respect the holy book which you present to him you call upon to swear The sacred table shows him not less present to our eyes than his cradle did to the eyes of the Magi. His own body does not repose here less really clothed with the Spirit than under the linen in which he was wrapped. Those who are initiated into our mysteries understand what I say. The Magi could only adore him you, more happy, if you approach with a pure conscience, may receive him in your flesh. Come then, deposite at his feet your offering. Instead of Gold, offer him moderation and temperance; instead of Incense, the spiritual perfume of prayer and praise; instead of Myrrh, humility, obedience, charity."

Optatus, rebuking the Donatists, says, "We spread linen upon the altar for the celebration of the holy mysteries. The Eucharist does not touch the wood of the altar, but only the linen. Why then do you break, file, and burn, the wood of the altar? If impureness can be communicated through linen, cannot it also penetrate wood and even the earth ?""

The Donatists, like the heretical sect the Papists, refused burial to the dead of Catholics.

The author of the Constitutions advises "Christians to offer in the churches and cemeteries the antitype of the royal body of Christ, the acceptable Eucharist. He calls it the pure and unbloody sacrifice, the mystery of the new covenant which Christ instituted.

The deacons

are to be intent on the oblation of the Eucharist, ministering the body of the Lord with fear, and the people standing and praying secretly whilst the sacrifice is performed. You, therefore, O bishops, are the priests and Levites of your people, who minister in the sacred tabernacle of the Holy Catholic Church, and, standing at the altar of our Lord and God, offer to him rational and unbloody sacrifices, by the great high priest, Jesus Christ. He changed the baptism, sacrifice, priesthood, the local adoration; for the daily baptism he instituted one only; for the bloody sacrifice, the rational, unbloody, and mystic sacrifice which is celebrated in the death of the Lord through the symbol of his body and blood."

Tertullian says, the three offices of the priesthood are " to teach, baptize, and offer."

Irenæus and the other fathers do not speak, in these extracts, of those spiritual sacrifices of a contrite heart, of prayer, praise, thanksgiving, &c., which were common to every age and law, but of the new and external oblation of the new covenant, which he opposes to the external legal ones. It must be a material sacrifice that requires an altar. The state of mind of the offerer was clearly recognised by the proem of the Liturgies; the Clementine, for instance :-" Deacon: Let none of the catechumens, none of the hearers, none of the unbelievers, none of the heterodox, stay. You, who have prayed the former prayer, depart. Let no man have ought against any man. Let us stand upright to present unto the Lord our offerings with fear and trembling." And, before the Communion: "Holy things for holy persons."

"Behold," says the apostle, "Israel after the flesh!" then there is an Israel after the Spirit-a peculiar people. There is also one High Priest (Christ), and priests, (bishops and presbyters; for the priesthood is common to both, the governing power alone causing a difference. "Presbyters that rule well (or bishops) are worthy of double honour, especially if they labour in the word and doctrine," that is, if they teach also as priest,) "and Levites (deacons):" and a sacrifice in the Christian Church, which has superseded all those of the law. These positions T. S. cannot overthrow.

It appears, from Chrysostom, that the sacrifice preceded the love-feast, and not followed after, as I have stated. The mention of the altar by St. Barnabas alludes to the heavenly one. "Let us penetrate into the sanctuary of the divinity," is the paraphrase of the Jesuit, M. Genoude, to which I accede. If I am a Papist, even that is better than to be an evangelical, for the Gnostics of the second century (see Irenæus) held their views on regeneration, election, good works, and indefectible grace. Yours respectfully, WM. PINCKARD.

It is with Christians as with burning coals: if they be separated from one another they may be easily extinguished; but, if united, their fire is maintained by the contact, and it often happens that the dry wood that is near them inflames in its turn.

THE "CHURCHMAN" AND THE OXFORD TRACTS.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE EPISCOPAL MAGAZINE.

SIR, It was not till lately that I was aware of the honour you have done me by noticing my pamphlet in your September number, owing to absence from London; and owing to the same cause I shall probably not be able to transmit this letter for insertion in time for its appearance sooner than in your February number; but that you will be good enough to insert it, I have no doubt, according to your private written promise.

In the first place then, I have to remark that a great part of your comment is taken up with observations on the marks in pencil, and interlinings, in the copy which I transmitted to you. As this can in no wise interest the public, as it has no material bearing on the question, and as I have done the same thing to at least fifty other persons to whom I have sent the pamphlet, I shall make no other remark upon it than to say that, if you are inclined to ridicule me on that account, it is to me a matter of the most perfect indifference. With respect to the 73rd Tract and 29th page, I certainly am ready to repeat my conviction that the doctrine contained in the heading thereof is in utter and hopeless contradiction to the doctrines of the Church of England Homilies, and that the person who shall succeed in making them even appear to harmonize must have a peculiar art in the construction of a quidlibet ex quolibet.'

The

1 After the extraordinary care which the "Churchman" took to excite our horror, and also, as it now appears, that of above fifty other persons, against the Oxford Tracts, to have overlooked his pencillings would have been in singularly bad taste. "Churchman," having raised a wind-mill by merely quoting the page-title of the 73rd Tract, then proceeds to attack it, and to denounce the "writer" as bringing forward a startling assertion," or, in other words, "heresy." "Why," says the 66 Churchman," ," "one should have thought that our redemption from eternal misery must be, to us at least, the centre of all our hopes, our chief and main stay. What ad. vantage, for instance, would it be for us to know that there are three persons in one God, unless we were first informed that he hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, and from everlasting destruction?" p. 28. (The italics are his own.)

The Atonement is the be-all and the end-all of the Calvinistic scheme of theology; it is the centre which swallows up all the other doctrines of the Gospel. It is something like their doctrine of imputed righteousness, and they imagine that Christ's atonement for the sins of the whole world conveys a plenary pardon to every Calvinist in particular. The "Churchman" very unfairly omits to inform his readers that the writer of the 73rd Tract is arguing against Erskine's Calvinistic view of the Atonement, who says, as there quoted,-" All other doctrines radiate from this as from a centre. In subservience to it, the distinction in the unity in the Godhead has been revealed. It is described as the everlasting theme of praise and song amongst the blessed who surround the throne of God." (The italics are not ours.) On the page containing the above quotation, and in opposition to it, the writer of the 73rd Tract places the running title," the Atonement not the centre doctrine of the Gospel;" and, in the page itself, says, "Now that the doctrine of the Atonement is so essential a doctrine that none other is more so, (true as it is) does not at all hinder other doctrines in their own place being so essential that they may not be moved one inch from it, or made to converge towards that doctrine ever so little, beyond the sanction of Scripture. There is surely a difference between being prominent and being paramount. To take the illustration of the human body, the brain is the noblest organ; but have not the heart and the lungs their own essential rights (so to express myself), their own inde

But, Sir, I have to complain that you have in two instances misrepresented, and in another actually, though, doubtless, perfectly unintentionally, made me say what I never said. You inform your readers, and you refer to the first page of my pamphlet, that I class myself among the brightest ornaments of our reformed Church. I shall merely make one remark upon this. How extremely surprised any reader of your "Episcopal Magazine" would be, if by chance he were to take up my pamphlet, and, expecting to find your assertion verified, were to search, and search as he would in vain, in the first page for any mention of, or the slightest reference whatever to, myself, either directly or indirectly!!! Next, you accuse me of being an Erastian. It is peculiarly unfortunate that you should have omitted to quote the last half of the first line, and the second and third lines, of the eighth page, which would effectually have nullified the charge of Erastianism, because I there say that they cannot be accounted the doctrines of the reformed Episcopal Church, inasmuch as they want the SANCTION OF THE CONVOCATION.2 Indeed, if there is one thing that I dislike more than another, it is Erastianism, as I think you will admit when you peruse another pamphlet, which I herein send you;3 and I have also published another, wherein I have actually advocated the separation of the church from the state, if bad appointments to bishoprics and divinity professorships continue to be made by the ministers of the crown. If I can find a copy of this last I will transmit it to you. Next, I have to remark that, when referring to the note at the foot, page 16, you quote me as acknowledging that they do CONDEMN the Roman idolatry as a great practical offence and a serious

pendent claims upon the regard of the physician? Will not he be justly called a theorist who resolves all diseases into one, and refers general healthiness to one organ as its seat and cause?" (The italics are ours.) Now, whether or not we can construct a quidlibet ex quolibet, we leave others to judge; but one thing is evident, that the "Churchman" was more intent on making a case of heresy than of fair criticism. But, if he read the tract which he has so furiously denounced, he himself must be an adept at that construction. And an excellent opportunity occurs for the exercise of his art, where the Psalmist repeats the words of the fool-" there is no God,”— and where our Lord says in the Gospel-" hang all the law and the prophets."-Ed. 1 The inference which we drew was perfectly fair; because he exalted a diminishing section in the church, who follow the standard of their own private opinions as judges of orthodoxy. His words are,-"A series of writings entitled Tracts for the Times,' by ministers of the University of Oxford, has of late years appeared before the public, which in the opinion of many of the soundest theologians and brightest ornaments of our reformed church, have done more to create schism, and to scatter far and wide the seeds of religious discord, than the publications even of avowed adversaries." Here our author gives a judgment, not of discretion but of authority, and therefore it was a legitimate conclusion at which we arrived.- ED.

2 We shall now, therefore, quote the whole sentence, beginning at the middle of the next to the last line of the 7th page:-" Neither the one nor the other is the national religion, for they have not the sanction of the crown or the parliament; neither the one nor the other is the religion of the reformed Episcopal Church, for they have not received the sanction of the Convocation-they are both the mere unauthorized effusions of individuals; but it is nevertheless a matter of grave consideration and of gloomy foreboding, when 'Protestant Catholic presbyters' are transformed into grievous wolves, and openly come forward as the advocates of one of the very worst of all the papal corruptions." It was his requiring the sanction of the crown and parliament which we have accounted Erastianism.-ED.

3 The pamphlet is good, and we concur with the author in some of his opinions. We shall take an early opportunity of noticing it.

evil. Here again I must take the liberty of observing that it is especially to be regretted you did not quote the note itself, and especially the concluding part of it; for, if you had done this, you would have found that so far from condemning these idolatrous addresses, they expressly admit and assert that much may be said towards their justification, although there are other and more flagrantly idolatrous addresses in the Roman Breviary, which they do condemn, and which, (as you well know) I fully admit in this very page, that they do condemn.1

So much for your criticism of my pamphlet. All I desire is, that an unprejudiced person should read the second part of the Church of England Homily on Prayer, not forgetting, while so doing, the 35th article of the same church; that they will then carefully peruse the 71st and 75th of the Tracts, noting my references in page 16, and accurately distinguishing those Popish addresses which are condemned in Tract 75, from those regarding which it is allowed" that more may be said towards their justification;" and then to say whether the doctrine in this Tract can, by any reasonable rules of interpretation, be reconciled with the Anglican Homily, which, if I can "understand my mother-tongue rightly," declares that nothing can be said towards the justification of any such idolatrous addresses, but that it is utterly unlawful and inadmissable to implore any aid or favour whatever from any invisible being, save only from Jehovah.

Next, I have deliberately to repeat my accusation against these writers for speaking in precisely the same ambiguous, and sometimes contradictory, manner respecting Romish image worship, insomuch that it is difficult to know what it is they really mean to advance, and for declaring, in contradiction to the Homilies, that the Romish honour paid to images, instead of being unlawful in the case of all, is only dangerous in the case of the uneducated.

In conclusion, I have only to add, I am surprised that, when commenting upon my pamphlet, you should have omitted all notice of that striking proof of the lengths to which some members of this party are inclined to go, which is to be found in the letter which I have transcribed from the Morning Post, in my 5th and 6th pages; and, as for your not noticing the last page of my pamphlet, I can easily account for that, by the not improbable supposition that you were influenced by the often convenient maxim, "prudens prætereo."

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

The Author of "a few remarks on the idolatrous tendency of some parts of the Oxford Tracts."

1 We have not seen the 75th Tract; but the words, as quoted, appear to us to "admit and assert" that one species of superstition may be a greater practical offence and a more serious evil than another. One however is constrained to suspect that a man who could so misrepresent the 73rd Tract, might make equally free with the 75th. We here beg to express our abhorrence of every species of idolatry, whether in the heart, as covetousness, and inordinate affection, or in the open bowing of the knee to virgins, crucifixes, or invisible created beings of any sort.

2 We did not overlook the last page of the pamphlet upon the maxim of prudently passing over what is there said; but our attention was so especially directed to other parts that we had neither time nor space left. The author of the letter in the Morning Post convicts our "Churchman" of misquoting the 22nd article. We fear this habit is inveterate, and therefore his attempt in his last page to raise a cla