pronounces his decision against it, and gives his reasons. One of the most distinguished modern scholars, also, whose familiarity with the remains of early Patristic writers was unsurpassed in his day-the late Dr. Routhimmediately after his quotation of the note of Valesius, says: "I more incline to adopt their opinion who think "this to be said figuratively;" and, in a subsequent part of the same note, † he adds, that "the authority of Epiphanius "is not sufficient to gain assent in a thing of this sort. It "is manifest that he dreamt something about the priesthood

* Ad eorum sententiam amplectandam magis propendeo qui hoc tropice dici velint. Scilicet summo illi pontifici Judæorum, cui tale ornamentum ex legis præscripto in Exodi cap xxviii. comm. 36, 37, 38, posito gestare moris erat, confertur Joannes magnus Christi Apostolus ac sacerdos, dum innuit collatio ista præstantiam apostoli super illos qui postea memorantur, martyres et episcopos. Certe premunt alteram petali hujus interpretationem nonnullæ difficultates, quas urget Steph. Lemoynius in Notis ad Varia Sacra, pagg. 26 et 27. Reliquiæ Sacræ, ut sup. p. 28.

† Neque ea est auctoritas Epiphanii sæculo quarto labante scribentis, qui Jacobum fratrem Domini pontificalem laminam in fronte revera gestasse narrat, ut in re quidem hujusmodi assensum extorqueat. Ac somniasse aliquid de sacerdotio Jacobi tanquam ab Aarone oriundi Epiphanium, constat ex Hares lxxviii. c. 12 Cfr. Reliq. Sacræ, ut sup. p. 28.

The learned Jesuit Petavius also, in his edition of Epiphanius (Parisiis 1622) thus comments on Hæres xxix. N. iv.-in which we read:-ἔτι δὲ καὶ ἱεροτεύσαντα αυτόν—“ Illud vero non modo falsum ; sed et contra hypothesin est. Si Josephi filius est Jacobus, Josephus autem de stirpe David, non Levitica ac Sacerdotali fuit; qui tandem Sacerdos esse Jacobus potuit"? Tom. ii. pp. 52-3. And as to the statements of Epiphanius, αλλά και τὸ πέταλον ἐπὶ κεφαλῆς ἐξῆν ἀντῳ φέρειν (Hæres. xxix. Ν. iv.), and Οὗτος ὁ Ιάκωβος καὶ πέταλον ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς pógios (Hæres. lxxviii. N. xiv.), he says that "it seems to have been understood that he wore the mitre-plate of the High-Priest," but he immediately adds, "perperam id quidem."-Ib. p. 333. He reminds his readers also that Scaliger rejected the whole story about the priestly character of James :-"tanquam inanem fabulam respuit."Ib. p. 332. He yet further says that there is no excuse to be made for the unwarrantable assertion of Epiphanius that James was allowed to enter into the Holy of Holies, once every year, because he was a Nazarite, and was connected with the Priesthood.-Ib. p. 333.

"of James as if he were descended from Aaron." To cite these writers, therefore, as proving the practice of James and John is not only a piece of literary dishonesty, but an attempt to deceive the unlearned disciples of Christ upon the question of Sacerdotal ministrations in His Churches.

It would be disreputable in a professed scholar to be guilty of such a fraud; it is infamous in a professedly Christian Bishop.

I have not troubled myself to inquire into the accordance of the Bishop of Salisbury's doctrines with the formularies used by his sect, or with the teaching of its divines. It seemed a more useful procedure to show that, though large multitudes of our countrymen are content to accept them as true, they cannot command the assent of any one, who wishes to have a reason for the opinions he holds, until he surrender his judgment and conscience to the authority of Tradition. For one, heartily as I desire that Dr. Hamilton may soon be delivered from the vain conversation he has contentedly received by tradition from his fathers, I cannot regret the publication of his Charge. It was high time that he should avow his opinions, and urge what he could in their defence. The sooner his arguments are tested by our countrymen generally, the better for the cause of Evangelical doctrine, and for the abatement of such clerical assumptions. Were they sound, we should be required as honest men to seek readmission into the community which embodies the doctrine of Sac

"As I HAVE BEEN TAUGHT FROM MY EARLIEST YOUTH TO YIELD 66 OBEDIENCE TO THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, AS REPRESENTING A GREAT AND NECESSARY ECCLESIASTICAL PRINCIPLE, I am most "jealously anxious to ascertain with all honesty what her real "teaching is, and so to satisfy myself that her claims upon my "allegiance ON OTHER GROUNDS do not clash with the claims of God's "Revelation." P. 87. No wonder that having been taught from his boyhood to yield obedience to such a representative of an Ecclesiastical Principle, he should arrive at false conclusions on all matters in which he has followed Ecclesiastical guidance to the neglect of the obvious teaching of the Holy Scriptures.

ramental efficacy; but, being false, we are bound, as the disciples of Christ, and therefore as Baptists who know no other Lord than He-in steadfast nonconformity to such a system, to uphold the truth of God. Let us continue to observe the ordinances of the New Testament, as they have been delivered to us; and let us at the same time point men everywhere to "the Lamb of God which taketh away "the sin of the world", so as to guard them against those teachers of error who put Sacraments in the place of Christ. May He Who is our Master and Lord enable us, by His grace, to be faithful witnesses unto His truth and love, and guide by His good Spirit, into the way of truth, all those who have, in any degree, erred from His commandments!

Yates & Alexander, Printers, 7, 8, 9, Church Passage, Chancery Lane.

remember His words;

"He that cometh to me shall never hunger, and he that believeth on me shall never thirst, . . . He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him :" and we "keep the "feast" to show forth our Lord's death until He come.

66

66

...

But it is said by the Bishop that the word translated "remembrance" (áváμvnois) † "is also a sacrificial word, "and signifies the offering of a uvnμóovvov." He acknowledges that, however useful a μvnμóσvvov may be to man, "it does not, at first sight, seem to have any place in our worship of God;" yet he contends that God condescends "to place Himself, even in this respect, on the level with man," and declares "the testimony of the Word of God [to be] most distinct on this matter. Thus, he says, “the " rainbow was not only a sign to man of God's covenant "of mercy with Noah, but ... was His uvnμóovvov according to His own revelation; circumcision was "the sign and token of the covenant with Abraham; and "the blood of sacrifice was the great instrument of the "Mosaic covenant, the sign not only to man but also to God, the remembrance of its benefits, and obligations to "both parties of the covenant. And with such a revelation "of God's condescension towards His people, surely, instead "of our being surprised at being told that God is willing "to be reminded of what His Son has done for us men and "for our salvation-[as if He could not be reminded thereof save by the use of outward symbols, when every believer reminds Him of it as often as he pleads the sacrifice of Christ for his pardon, or as the condition upon which he hopes in God's mercy according to his needs!]—" it should "seem to us to be only according to [Scriptural teaching? No! but according to] "the analogy of faith that our Lord should, in His own person, ever present the sacrifice "—that which was, once for all, offered up to God as a "sacrifice for ever, and that His representatives here on

66

"earth should also plead, in a way appointed by Himself, "that same sacrifice which the Great Mediator evermore "pleadeth in Heaven." Then, let us look at this so-called analogy of faith." Did God, or does God set His bow in the cloud that He might remember His covenant, or to show man that He does remember it, and that He intends to observe it in time to come? Every one can see at once that the rainbow is not caused for the sake of becoming a reminder to God of His covenant, but to assure man that He has not forgotten it. So far, then, "the analogy of faith does not sustain the Bishop's interpretation of our Lord's words-"Do this in remembrance of Me." The case of circumcision is set aside by the fact that it was performed once for all, and was not to be repeated from time to time. It is not, therefore, parallel with the Lord's Supper, which is to be used frequently until Jesus come again. The blood of the sacrifices under the Mosaic covenant seems to be more in point, but is really not admissible in this argument; because the sacrifices appointed under the Law were not intended to remind God of a sacrifice that had been presented and already accepted by Him, but were severally designed to express the convictions or emotions of those who offered them, and their desire to be accepted of God by means of His appointed offerings. So that "the analogy “of faith,” as he styled it, utterly fails the Prelate. Yet, if the word used by our Lord is only "a sacrificial word, and signifies" the offering of a μvnμóσvvov," we are bound to acknowledge its true meaning, and to abide by it in our exposition of the purposes of the Lord's Supper. What, then, are the facts as to its usage "in Alexandrine Greek?" I quote the five instances in which it is found in the LXX.*

Lev. xxiv. 7.-And thou shalt put pure frankincense upon each row [of the cakes], that it may be on the bread for a memorial

It is found as a various reading for uvnμóovvov, in Ps. vi. 5 and cxxxiv. 13; as also in Hos. xii. 5; xiv. 8.