have expected it to be alluded to by St. Paul, when he speaks so much of Melchisedek in his Epistle to the Hebrews ?

a

As to our Priesthood being that of Melchisedek, Scripture is directly opposed to the idea. Christ stands alone in His Priesthood. He is "of the order of Melchisedek" in being " Priest for ever." He inherited His Priesthood from none, and He transmitted it to none. He keeps it altogether in His own hands. Well says Theodoret, “Christ is a Priest for ever, not as offering sacrifices, for He once offered His Body, but as a Mediator, bringing believers to "God."

66

How opposed to each other are Theodoret and the Archdeacon! The one has no notion of a "continuous sacrifice" such as the other entertains. We cannot understand the expression, though the Bishop of Exeter uses it, as

* "Pastoral Letter, 1851." To make the Res Sacramenti the real Body, and the Eucharist a real Sacrifice, Christ must have not only given His Body to the Disciples, but have offered it to God, in the Sacrament. The Archdeacon does not hesitate to affirm, that He did this. He calls it a step" in the great Sacrifice. He calls the Crucifixion its " consummation." (p. 354.) The supposed continuity," then, precedes the Death on the Cross, as well as succeeds it. How fearfully does this view withdraw the mind from Christ Crucified! Waterland's language against" Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice" applies a

well as the Archdeacon. If literal, it contradicts the Apostle's representation of Christ's offering on the Cross, as contrasted with the unceasing offerings of the Jewish Priests. (Heb. x. 11, 12.) If figurative, it affords no sanction to the Sacrificial view of the Eucharist. No doubt, the virtue of that one Sacrifice extended back to the beginning of the world, and extends forward to the end of it; but the Archdeacon will not thank us for this admission. It is not the Virtus, but the Res, for which he contends.

We shall pass over his argument from Malachi i. 11, since it is but the Romish "crambe recocta." We may refer the reader to Payne's "Sacrifice of the Mass" in Bishop Gibson's "Preservative." Tertullian defines "the pure

fortiori to this view.

"This Sacrifice can never find rest, till it thrusts out the Sacrifice of the Cross . . . . If our "Eucharist is a sacrifice of the elements, so was our Lord's, or else ours and His will not tally. And He must have sacrificed Himself at the same time, or else other accounts will not answer. And if such was the case, the Sacrifice of the Cross was effectually precluded, since He was to make a Sacrifice of Himself but once. The Sacrifice of the Cross cannot in this way be considered as a continuation of the Sacrifice of the original Eucharist." (Waterl. viii. p. 279.)

The Archdeacon makes slight account of Johnson, (p. 108.), because he does not represent the Consecration by the Priest as producing the whole effect.

offering" of Malachi, "Simplex oratio de conscientiâ purâ." Stillingfleet affirms that not one of the Fathers applied it to a propitiatory offering.

The comparison of the Jewish Sacrifices with the supposed one in the Eucharist, may be dismissed on the same ground-that it is not new. "Our Lord suffered without the gate." This implied that the Gentiles were to partake of the benefit. The Apostle compares His sacrifice to that of the burnt-offering, without the gate. There was no part of that offering eaten. This shews, that in the Eucharist, Christ is not really present as a Sacrifice, because there we eat. But we will not pursue this subject further. It is enough to remember that the Eucharist is a Feast of Thanksgiving, as the word imports. The general adoption of this word by the Fathers shews what their mind was. It shews, that in spite of all their exaggerated language, they considered the Christian Passover as adopting only the Eucharistic part of the Jewish Passover, and not the Sacrificial.

§ 55. RESTORATION OF DAILY MASS.

It can be no matter of wonder, that one

who holds the Archdeacon's view, that there is a real Sacrifice of Christ performed in the Eucharist every time it is celebrated, should ardently desire to see the Daily Celebration restored. This brings us to the last thing we have to notice in his Book. His final Chapter contains his earnest pleading for this restoration. Unless he succeeds in obtaining it, we find a pretty plain intimation, that he will not know how he can stay among us.

If in the elements the very Body of Christ be given to the Communicants, and also offered to God, how can the Eucharist be too often celebrated? The Celebration should be hourly as well as daily. We ought to have many more thousands of Priests, entirely occupied in this work. We ought to rival Naples in this respect. We ought to adore, as well as to sacrifice.

The Archdeacon appeals to the Fathers of the early centuries, on the false principle that we are bound to coincide with them in every practice which was universal. Then why do we not give the Sacrament to Infants, as they universally did? Why do we not put it into the mouths of the dead, who have not had time to receive it? He speaks thus:

*

See Whiteside's Italy, Vol. iii. p. 83.

"The preceding Chapters have been addressed to "those who recognize the interpretive office of the Prim"itive Church, and suppose themselves to retain any fun"damental principle which she admitted. If there should "be any point of vital importance, anything which goes "beyond those variable questions of external regulation, "which may fairly be left to every age and nation, any"thing affecting the foundation of her faith and practice, "in which our Church has departed from the maxims of "Antiquity, her own principles demand that it should be "examined and amended." (p. 428.)

He then affirms that the Daily Celebration of the Eucharist was universal in the Primitive Church. He quotes Acts ii. 46. But the succeeding practice seems to have been that of a Weekly one, (Acts xx. 7. 1 Cor. xvi. 2.) And when Pliny wrote his celebrated Letter to Trajan, it is plain that this was the practice. Justin Martyr bears witness to the same fact. It is clear, therefore, that the Archdeacon has not established his practice or maxim, as one of primitive universality. The Archdeacon contends, that towards the close of the second Century, the Church "returned in great measure to the rule of primitive observance." (p. 431.) But surely, if she could innocently suspend it, we may do the same-we who see what evil consequences accompany the Daily Celebration in Roman Catholic countries.

His chief appeal, as before, is to the Fathers of the Fourth and succeeding Centuries.