in Genesis, and the Ten Commandments. This is as much as he can teach in a year. But this is only making them scholars-and schoolmasters are wanted. Let then the clergyman, during the latter halfyear, teach through one of these young men, who must act as monitor to the others, changing them occasionally as monitors till he can form an opinion as to which of them seems to form his questions most regularly and readily; at the same time, in his choice of his schoolmaster, he must pay great attention to the regularity with which the young men have attended him; to their general steadiness when absent from, as well as when present with, him; and to their individual bend of mind as fitting them for the office and occupation of schoolmaster.

When the clergyman has made his choice, let the young man prepare for himself in his own school a class of eight or ten boys for monitors, by teaching them as he was taught; after which some of them may perhaps be able to teach others. By these means, in the course of a year and a half, a school of sixty scholars may be got into a train for working; and may then be gradually extended as may be desired.

Those who understand this matter will say, that I have soon made the schoolmaster; but I beg to say, that so far do I consider the master from being perfect, that I now consider him as only prepared, in a certain degree, so as to keep the school at work, and to receive daily, as opportunity offers, other instructions and habits necessary for a good teacher. But he can only acquire this information and these habits whilst he is at work in his own school, and they seem to me to include the properly giving rewards and inflicting punishments; the using right measures in enforcing obedience to lawful authority, and in obtaining regularity and industry; and the "informing the minds of his scholars in the knowledge of God and their duty, and, above all, in forming their lives and manners to religion and virtue." For it must be allowed by all that "the greatest and noblest work in the world, and an effect of the greatest prudence and care, is to rear and build up a man, and to form and fashion him to piety, justice, temperance, and all kinds of honest and worthy actions."

E. R.

PRIESTHOOD AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEC.

SIR,-When I took the liberty of sending you my remarks on "A. P. P.'s" letters respecting the offering of Melchisedec, I did not intend to have taken up my pen again on the subject. My only object was to express my doubts whether the line of defence for our Christian priesthood, adopted by your correspondent, was not calculated rather to have an injurious than a beneficial tendency, as giving an opportunity to the enemies of our church to disparage the arguments on which we found (as we so confidently may on so many, more obvious and convincing,) her, and by consequence our, claims to a true apostolical priesthood. By your doing me the favour to inVOL. VII.-Feb. 1835.

sert my remarks in your pages, I may venture to suppose that you did not think them altogether unworthy of some consideration; and I did not anticipate a reply in so offended a tone as prevails in "A. P. P.'s" last letter, in your number for this month. Allow me,

sir, to assure him that nothing could be farther from my intentions than to express myself in a manner offensive to him; and if I have so done, I most willingly ask his pardon, though I really do not discover the "flippancy," or "bitter censure," with which he charges me. However, if I have unwittingly hurt his feelings, I am sincerely sorry for it.

I must nevertheless beg leave to say, that my opinion as to the argument drawn from Melchisedec remains unchanged by his letter, of which, however, I freely admit the ability, and by no means assert, or did assert, that he is certainly mistaken in his view of the subject. I only say, it is not, to my mind, sufficiently obvious or certain for profitable use; nor is it, I think, wanted for the defence of our cause as an apostolical and divinely-appointed ministry; and, therefore, I conceive it may be injudicious to urge it with apparent confidence of its strength. The author of the epistle to the Hebrews was no doubt right in urging Melchisedec's priesthood on them, in order to exalt Christ as a priest above Aaron-a most important point in writing to Jews. But, as Christ's title is paramount with us, who have never been under Levitical institutions, I humbly suggest that the argument, as drawn from Melchisedec, is not requisite, and comparatively (so far as doctrine is concerned) unimportant to us; and as so much mystery hangs over the subject, and such idle and fanciful speculations have been indulged in respecting it, I would rather not seek defence from it, as against gainsayers, when such abundant arguments are elsewhere derivable. Pole, in his Synopsis, on Gen. xiv. 18, after mentioning a few interpretations, says, "sed de his consule Polemicos authores;' and, when a point is not essential to the truth, I do think the less we have to do with polemical controversy the better.

On referring to Pole, I find much to countenance my opinion as to the spirituality of the Christian offerings being principally intended in the other passage of Scripture to which I had adverted (Mal. i. 11), and so Bishop Lowth, in his Commentary, appears clearly, if not exclusively, to understand it; though he mentions Mr. Mede's belief that "the word (mincha) is used here to denote the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, which may be properly called a commemorative sacrifice." And Pole (in loc), after the passage beginning with "Vetustissimi patres," as mentioned by "A. P. P.," adds, "per suffitum et mincha designatur hoc loco cultus spiritualis Dei in evangelio;" and he remarks, "hoc autem mincha purum dicitur, vel, 1, quod purè et spiritualiter offertur per preces, &c., non autem modo corporali, ut vetera sacrificia; vel, 2, a purâ offerentis conscientiâ." I had not overlooked, as “A. P. P." conjectures, that material incense is offered,

Waterland remarks, (vol. viii. p. 201, ed. 1823,) "The fathers of the two first centuries and a half say nothing expressly of his offering to God anything (whether in a spiritual way or otherwise) but only of his feasting Abraham and his family."

as well as a material mincha, in a large portion of Christendom at the present day. But I do not think that this at all affects my argument. Malachi says, "From the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering." It seems to me that the two are inseparable by the plain terms of the prophecy. But they are separated in all protestant churches, if the prophecy be understood literally; they are nowhere separated, where there are "true worshippers, in spirit and in truth," if understood

figuratively.

With respect to the passage from Cyprian, quoted by "A. P. P." (and with which I freely admit that I was not acquainted,) I will only say, that it is not at all necessary to follow his interpretation of the offering of Melchisedec, (at least, in my humble estimation,) because the compilers of our homilies quote his advice as to the manner of commemorating our Lord's sacrifice of himself; which advice they recommend as a general rule for observance "in the like cases.' And it seems to me that the writer of the homily where the words in question occur, (15th of Book 2, "On the worthy receiving, &c.) had nothing beyond this in view, when urging, as is here done on us, the practice of the primitive church. The passage commences:"But before all other 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 apostles used it, and the good fathers in the primitive church frequented it. For (as that worthy man, St. Ambrose, saith,) he is unworthy of the Lord that otherwise doth celebrate that mystery, than it was delivered by him," &c.. With Cyprian's judgment as to Melchisedec, (be he right in his view or not,) I do not think we are here in any way concerned.

I will only trespass on you further, sir, to say, that I had no intention of using the words which have so shocked "A. P. P." (" giving occasion, &c.") in the sense which he seems to suppose. I suspect that there has been a typographical error here, for I certainly meant to write, "God and our church," and not "God and Christ," and in my rough draft did so; and all I meant was, to intimate my apprehension of giving the many enemies of religion in general, and of our church in particular, occasion, xaopnμeiv, “slanderously to report us," (Rom. iii. 8,) if we ventured, on grounds so wrapt in mystery, to defend our claims to an apostolical priesthood. However, I regret having so expressed myself as to be misunderstood by "A. P. P.," and hope he will acquit me of any offensive intention.

And here, sir, I beg to close a subject which I never contemplated would have assumed a personal character. I cordially abhor polemics, as much as I love and venerate our church. May the spirit of the former less and less prevail; and may we all, in our respective stations, (only without compromise of any essential principle,) "follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another." (Rom. xiv. 19.)

Jan. 7th, 1835.

I remain, Sir, your most obedient servant, E. B.

REMARKS ON ACTS xxi. AND GAL. ii.

SIR,-Having read with much pleasure a letter from your correspondent "H." (No. xxxii. p. 164), I should feel much obliged by your insertion of the following remarks on the same subject, hoping that H. may thereby be induced to write a little more at length on the same subject.

To judge aright of the conduct of St. Paul at Antioch and at Jerusalem, it is necessary in the first place to state the facts of the case, which are simply these:-At Jerusalem Paul was recommended by St. James to prove to the Jews that he "walked orderly and kept the law." To do this he joined himself to four men, who had a vow, he purified himself, and was willing to have "a sacrifice offered for every one of them." In a word, he complied with the requirements of the Mosaic law. St. Peter at Antioch went a step farther. "He withdrew and separated himself" from communion with the Gentiles; and this for the purpose of "compelling the Gentiles to live as do the Jews." He was therefore guilty, 1st, of obeying the traditions of the Pharisees, for the law of Moses nowhere forbids the Jews to hold communion or eat with Gentiles not idolaters. This separation is a purely rabbinic invention, and in this Peter was particularly guilty, for he had had a vision teaching him to call no man common or unclean. 2ndly, Peter, in compelling the Gentiles to live as do the Jews, subverted the fundamental principles of the Gospel dispensation, that "in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything nor uncircumcision, but a new creature ;" and again, that "a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ." (Gal. ii. 16.) There is therefore a wide difference between the conduct of St. Paul at Jerusalem and St. Peter at Antioch; and this simple view of the facts justifies the former from the charge of inconsistency. He never was guilty of that conduct which he had blamed in Peter. He never withdrew from the Gentiles, nor taught in word or deed that they must keep the law.

But though Paul cannot be charged with inconsistency, the question still remains as to the right or wrong of his and St. James's conduct at Jerusalem. I agree with your correspondent H. that the usual view of the abrogation of the law is "a great error, and if such, not an unimportant one;" but cannot agree with him that after the institution of the Lord's Supper, "the Christian Jews did, from thenceforth, offer no sacrifice nor partake of any as such" (p.169.) The very passage before us, not now to mention sacrifice as the great peculiarity of the temple-worship in which Christian Jews joined,-this passage, I say, proves the contrary. In Acts xxi. we have the following facts to explain, 1st, that four Christian Jews voluntarily took upon themselves a vow, which necessarily terminated in a Mosaic sacrificeActs xxi. 23, and Numb. vi. 10, 14; and, 2ndly, that St. James and "all the elders" of the church at Jerusalem knew of the fact, and instead of condemning them, advised St. Paul to become a party in the transaction; 3rdly, that St. Paul expressed no difficulty, but immediately acquiesced-" Then Paul took the men; and the next day purifying himself with them, entered into the temple, to signify

the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.'

Besides these facts, we must also explain the avowed purpose for which this conduct was recommended and adopted-" that all may know, that those things whereof they were informed concerning thee are nothing, but that thou thyself also walkest orderly and keepest the laws." St. Paul was by this conduct to disprove certain charges: "They are informed of thee that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs"-and besides this, to prove that he himself kept the law. The common theory, that St. Paul became a Jew to the Jews, may explain the facts of the case, but will not solve the difficulties involved in the purpose. This theory, which supposes that Paul's conduct was contrary to his doctrine-that he did not keep the law, and yet tried to persuade the zealots at Jerusalem of the contrary, is plainly untenable. The theory of H., "that the body of the law and customs was not done away either by Christ on his mission, or by the apostles, but only by the sword of the Lord and of Titus" goes farther; but it does not account for the sacrifices here mentioned. Rhenferd, in his Dissert. de fictis Judæorum hæresibus, § 82, in which he treats this very passage, appears to me to take the right view of the subject. He says, § 87, "Christus fidem et virtutem sive opera bona exigit, et quotquot (Gentiles) secundum hunc canonem incedunt, illis pax erit et misericordia, et Israeli Dei, qui nomine et re sunt Judæi vel Israelitæ Rom. xi. 28, 29. Quamobrem quemadmodum Gentiles non fuerunt cogendi Iovdaεw more Judæorum vivere ita neque Judæi credentes cogendi sunt Enviε more vivere Gentilium." This simple principle-that the Christian church consists of two great branches, the Jews and the Gentiles, from both of whom God requires faith and good works, without destroying their distinctive peculiarities-solves all the difficulties. The fact that the Christian church admits Gentiles as well as Jews shews that in one sense the Mosaic law has been abrogated. When originally given, and up to the coming of Christ, it sustained two offices-it was a dispensation for the church of God, and also the national law of Israel. So long as its former office continued, the Gentiles were excluded, for no one could become a member of the church without being admitted by the family covenant of circumcision. When Christ commanded the apostles to make disciples of all nations by baptism, the Mosaic law ceased to be a dispensation for the church of God, for then men of all nations could become members of the church without becoming Jews. Nay, a Jew himself is not a member of the church until he be baptized. In this sense, therefore, the Mosaic law is abrogated. Christ "hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us, having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances." But it does not follow that the law of Moses has also been abrogated as to its other office, as the national law of Israel. H. has shewn the contrary for the body of the law and the customs, and I would extend this principle to the sacrifices also.

In this view the law was binding on the Jews as Jews. The