he is but following out the original design of Tractarianism. The Resolutions entered into at Oxford in 1833, and published since by the late Mr. Perceval, describe the principalcomparatively the single-function of the Priesthood, thus:

"I. That the participation of the Body and Blood of Christ "is essential to the maintenance of Christian life, and hope, in each individual.

II. That it is conveyed to individual Christians only "by the hands of the successors of the Apostles, and their delegates.

"III. That the Successors of the Apostles are those "who are descended in a direct line from them by the imposition of hands, and that the delegates of these "are the respective presbyters whom each has commis"sioned."

Here we see the conveyance of the Body of Christ by the hands of the Priests, mentioned as the one thing, which characterizes the ordained Minister. This then, in the eyes of the Tractarians, is the chief end of Ordinationthis is the great gift accompanying the Apostolic Succession. In this point, as in so many others, they agree with the Church of Rome. For what says the Catechism of Trent concerning Ordination ?

The power conferred by Almighty God on his Church 'is two-fold, of Jurisdiction, and of Orders. The power ' of Orders has reference to the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ

"in the Holy Eucharist. That of Jurisdiction to the Go"vernment of his Spiritual Kingdom." (Cat. Trident.)

In accordance with this definition of Orders, the Romish Bishop, when he lays his hands on the Priest's head, says "Receive thou the power of offering the Sacrifice." On this account, the Priests in the Church of Rome are entitled Missarii,-" Mass Priests," as we find them generally termed by our ancestors. The word Missa is the ancient one for the Eucharistic Service. Against Priests ordained to "offer sacrifice for the quick and dead," it was, that Luther wrote his Treatise " De Privatá Missa"-that treatise in which he relates his contest with the Devil, who spoke to him, he says, in his heart, and reproached him with his former sin in offering private masses, and bade him imitate Judas by destroying himself. Bossuet laid hold of this relation, and by leaving out the words " in my heart,"-though he was aware of their existence in the original German written by Luther, from which the Latin translation was made (in which unfortunately they were omitted), he made it appear as if Luther confessed, that the Devil was his instructor in religion! In this Treatise, Luther denied that the Romish Priests had a valid Commission, because they were ordained

to do that which Christ never instituted. Christ, he said, instituted the Communion, but not private masses. His argument is, indeed, directed against private masses alone; but if we believe that Christ never instituted the Eucharist as a Sacrifice, in the Romish sense of the word, it extends to the Romish Ordination altogether, and proves it invalid. Leaving this question, however, it is enough for us to have drawn attention to the fact, that the Christian Priesthood, according to the received Tractarian notion, is identified with the Celebration of the Eucharist. Tract 10, one of the earliest "Tracts for the Times," says to the Laity,

Then," (i. e. when new views are entertained) “ will you honour us with a purer honour,-as those who are "entrusted with the awful and mysterious gift of making "the bread and wine the Body and Blood of Christ." (Tracts for the Times, 1st Ed. 1833.) *

We see then what awaits us, if Tractarianism should yet finally triumph, and the Archdeacon, its present Coryphæus, should be suc

* It is contended by the Tractarians, or many of them at least, that our 31st Article on Masses" is not directed against the Sacrifice of the Mass," but against the sacrifice of " Masses private and solitary, involving certain opinions and practices at that time well known, and which our Church repudiated." This is the view of Tract 90.

cessful in gaining a general approval of his scheme. The Clergy will become "Mass Priests." The public worship will be wholly, or almost wholly, Sacramental. It will be assimilated to what we behold in the Romish Churches on the Continent. This assimilation, far from being an objection in the Archdeacon's eyes, is a recommendation of his

scheme.

What prevents," he says, the attempt at present, among those who believe that the claims of the Church of "England depend upon the maintenance of her Catholic cha. racter?" [Is not this somewhat of a threat?] Why

66

should she not return to that custom of Daily Communion "which was authorized by the Apostles and the Primitive "Church, and which has on its side the judgment of all other "bodies which call themselves Catholic in Christendom?" 443.)

(p.

Is not the tendency of this perfectly clear? Does not the darling project of a re-union. "loom in the distance?"

66

Individual Clergymen are exhorted to begin the change immediately in their churches. Any Priest who could induce the people "to give its due prominence to the Euchar"istic office, might at once resume the Ancient Usage." (p. 443.) But this may be too bold. a step. The Archdeacon therefore propounds a safer one.

"If it were thought presumptuous in a priest to take such a step on his own authority, it might plainly be "done by any Bishop. For each Diocese is an integral por"tion of the Universal Church," (here is a specimen of what Mr. Hallam ascribes to the Tractarians, 'Republican Popery,') "and every Bishop, therefore, would possess "full authority to reform an abuse which does not depend upon law." (p. 444.)

God forbid that any Bishop, or any number of Presbyters, should obey this undisguised call to restore the Daily Celebration! Let it be remembered, that the Celebration is to be independent of the presence of any Congregation-this point is distinctly intimated by the Archdeacon, and the nature of the case makes the preliminary intimation almost superfluous; for no one could expect the laily attendance of a body of communicants, except in a few particular cases. It is also to be independent of those persons communicating who may happen to be present-it will be sufficient for them to look on. Now who can doubt, that if the people of England should learn to like this scenic and theatrical religion,-this easy service, where the Priest does all,—and they, even if they are not present, may consider themselves benefited by it ;-the way will be paved for the restoration of Romanism? Why then advocate what is likely to lead to such a