towards the church than Burnet and his friends had advised previous to 1710. The subjects for consideration were (in addition to some of those already specified in former licenses) the preparing a form for consecrating churches and chapels, the better settling the qualifications of candidates for orders, the enforcing discipline on the clergy, the providing more effectually for curates whose incumbents were non-residents, and the improving the catechetical instruction given prior to confirmation. But the career of the convocation was close on its termination. It soon came into collision with the ruling powers, on the subject of Hoadley's doctrines, and though truth was on the side of the clergy, the interest of the government was against them, and it was easy to see which way the contest would terminate. As early as 1705, the lower house had ventured to attack a sermon of Hoadley's, as "containing positions contrary to the doctrine of the church, expressed in the first and second parts of the homily against disobedience or wilful rebellion;" but the upper house suffered the matter to drop. In 1715-16, Hoadley was made Bishop of Bangor; and, in the course of the following year, published his "Preservative" and Sermon, which gave rise to the famous Bangorian controversy. These writings were at once brought before the lower house of convocation, who made a representation of them to the bishops, on the grounds of their "tendency, first, to subvert all government and discipline in the church of Christ;" next, " to impugn and impeach the authority of the legislature to enforce obedience in matters of religion by civil sanctions." Before this representation could be taken into consideration by the upper house, a special order came from the king for the prorogation of the convocation; from which time to this, it has only existed as a formal appendage to the first meetings of parliament.

(To be continued.)

IRISH CLERGY.

SIR,-The extreme importance, at the present crisis, of diffusing accurate information respecting the circumstances and property of the protestant church established in Ireland, induces me to hope that you will allow me to call the attention of your readers to a few considerations with reference to that subject.

Every body knows how frequently the ministers of that church have been assailed with the imputation, that they are supported and maintained by the Roman catholics; and it was but a few weeks ago that Mr. O'Connell, the man who has taken his oath that he would never use his influence, as a member of parliament, to weaken or disturb the protestant establishment-asserted, in a public letter, in words of no dubious import, "that every denomination of Christians ought to support their own spiritual instruction, or (taken negatively) that no one Christian should be compelled to maintain the spiritual guide of another." Now, sir, every one who is at all adequately informed VOL. VII.-Jan. 1835.

G

respecting the peculiar nature of the revenues of the established clergy, (and I should think no one can be better informed on such a topic than Mr. O'C. himself,) knows perfectly well, that what he has here advanced cannot, by possibility, apply to them. Tithes are

not (as this astute person would have the people regard them) a tax or assessment which has been recently imposed by authority of the legislation, and which might possibly, therefore, involve some degree of hardship to those on whom the payment of it has unexpectedly fallen. They constitute, in their very nature, a distinct species of property-they have existed, both in England and Ireland, from the earliest times they rest upon an older title, a more ancient prescription, than a very large proportion of the landed property of the country -they are permanently and indefensibly attached to it, (so far at least as any species of property is indefensible,) as the inseparable condition of its tenure. I do not deny that the state might, in the exercise of its plenary powers-in the indulgence of extreme folly, and of a senseless passion for confiscation, lay violent hands upon tithes; but, as Lord Plunkett, and many other lawyers of still greater eminence and of still higher authority, have justly observed, "private property stands in the same predicament." If church property may be seized for the exigencies of the state, so also may that of individuals. True, indeed, it is, (and Mr. O'Connell makes the most of this fact,) that, although originally a burthen upon landed property, tithes are now actually paid by the occupants of land, whether proprietors or not, and that without regard being had to the religious sect or denomination to which they may happen to belong. But, without pausing to remark that the case is similar with respect to all other descriptions of property, let me inquire, how has the payment of tithes happened to devolve upon these occupants? Simply by virtue of an agreement or contract, to which they themselves have been parties. There is not a single individual in Ireland who brings his 2d., or 4d., or 9d., as tithecomposition, who has not virtually assented to do so. If he be cultivating his own land, he received it, whether by bequest, or inheritance, or purchase, subject to this burthen. If he be holding under a landlord, it was part of the contract which he made with that landlord, that he should discharge the claim of the tithe-owner. In either case, then, (and I am not aware that any other case can exist,) injustice and hardship are out of the question-there is, there can be none in compelling a man to fulfil his own engagement-to pay that which he voluntarily stipulated that he would pay.

It is quite obvious to every one who has paid any attention to this subject, that tithes are virtually a burthen attached, not to the occupation of land, but to the property in it. Now, it follows from this, that, if Mr. O'Connell's principle were a sound one (which I only suppose for the sake of argument), i. e., if it were right and imperative that the tithe-payers should be of the same religious persuasion with the tithereceivers, the state-provision should be assigned to the support and maintenance of the religion which is professed, not by the occupants, but by the proprietors of land, they being the party upon whom the payment virtually falls.

In order to satisfy your readers what is the religion professed by the vast majority of the proprietors of Ireland, and what is the amount contributed towards the support of the national church by the different religious denominations, I beg to subjoin the following table, which was presented by the Rev. Dr. Martin, at the meeting of the Protestant Conservative Society at Dublin, on Tuesday last, the 11th instant. It exhibits the returns made from 241 parishes, which are all that had then been received.

Number of acres British, of which the chief landlord

ACRES. R.

P.

With what truth

I feel that this table needs no further comment. can it be asserted that the Roman catholics pay or maintain the established clergy? I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

A. B. C.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY TRULY A PRIESTHOOD AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEK.

MY DEAR, I must trespass upon your pages to vindicate myself from the imputation of making a false reference, which I imagine to be intended by the last note to "E. B.'s" letter, in the December number, which is as follows-" I see, on referring to " A. P. P.'s" concluding passage, he quotes Bishop Patrick in his support. As regards Melchisedek's offering, he is pointedly against him." In reply, I would observe that my reference to Patrick was for the same purpose as that for which I referred to all the rest-namely, simply, to use my own words, "Confirmations of the doctrine of the Christian sacrifice in the Eucharist, and to shew how uniformly they designate it as the pure offering, or unbloody sacrifice, and not as a sacrament only. That I am warranted in this reference to Patrick, "E. B." will find, by consulting his work entitled, "The Christian Sacrifice," in which, while proving that the holy eucharist is not a feast only, but a feast upon a sacrifice, he cites (p. 50, of the edition 1687,) the passage in the Hebrews, "We have an altar (i. e., he says, a sacrifice,) whereof they had no right to eat that served the tabernacle;" and specifying more particularly the act of priesthood performed by the offering of the material elements upon God's altar-he speaks thus-" It is certain that it was not common bread and wine which the ancient Christians prayed might become the body and blood of Christ to them, but bread and wine first sanctified by being offered to God with thanksgiving, and presented to him with due acknowledgments that he was Lord and giver of all things." This, he says, "is to be understood (why is it not expressed?) when

you see the bread and wine set upon God's table by him that ministers in this divine service. . . . Then it is offered to God.... And if you observe the time when this bread and wine is ordered to be placed there. ... you will see it is intended by our church to be a thankful oblation to God of the fruits of the earth." I really feel very thankful to "E. B." for obliging me to cite, at length, testimonies so clear and strong for the doctrine which I have ventured to attempt to support-namely, that, in the celebration of the holy eucharist, our church performs, and intends to perform, an act of priesthood, in offering a material oblation.

As to the objections which "E. B." has brought against what I have advanced, I am at a loss to understand the force of them; nor do I clearly see against what they are aimed. It seems to me that he is fighting (and that carelessly) about words, while he agrees with me about things. For he desires not to be supposed to impugn the doctrine of the oblation in the Lord's Supper (p. 658), and joins with me in regretting (P. S. p. 658) the removal of the prayer for it. If he admits that we do really make an offering or oblation to God in that holy service, then he must admit that we are really priests, according to St. Paul's definition of one, as "ordained by men to offer gifts and sacrifices to God."

This were enough for the purpose of my former paper,

:

which was

to shew that the Christian ministers of the first and second orders are truly priests, and do really offer sacrifice." But I will proceed further if we are truly priests, then (I suppose) we must be priests after some order; but the Scriptures make mention of only two orders of priesthood, one after Aaron and the other after Melchisedek. But we cannot be priests after the order of Aaron, for St. Paul, himself, says, that "the priesthood is changed;" it remains therefore that we must be priests after the order of Melchisedek. Or, I will put it thus, If we are priests by virtue of making offerings to God, that priestly offering which our great high Priest, our blessed Master, first made himself, and then ordained his apostles after him to make, till he come, then we must be priests after the same order of which he was; but he was, and is, an high priest after the order of Melchisedek; it follows, then, that we also are priests after that order.

It will be seen that the position I have endeavoured to maintain is, so far from resting upon a "forced" passage of scripture (as " E. B." considers-Gen. xiv. 18), that it is wholly independent of it, and, except incidentally, has no reference to it. But yet, as "E. B." has objected to the application of that passage, let us consider his objection, which is founded on St. Paul's silence; for which he is at a loss to account, if the passage were applicable to the subject under discussion. If the primitive application of the passage be not at variance with the rest of the Scriptures, which it assuredly is not, "E. B." has no right to call upon one who maintains it to account for St. Paul's silence respecting it; for that, in such a case, is wholly immaterial. But, as "E. B." has objected to it, my answer is--because the agreement between Melchisedek's offering and our Lord's was too

obvious to require pointing out. The deep and hidden resemblances which Melchisedek bore to Christ, "things hard to be uttered," because hard to be understood, except by "those who, by reason of use, have their senses exercised," he did declare "E. B." says he did not. But how does the passage in Hebrews run? Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, (then, after endeavouring, by reproach, to quicken the apprehension of those to whom he was writing,) therefore, leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, (the first simple truths of Christianity) let us go on unto perfection (to the deeper and sublimer truths). And this will we do, if God permit. (Then, after one of his usual parenthetical digressions,) For this Melchisedek, King of Salem, priest of the most high God, &c., and then he points out those "hard to be uttered" points of resemblance between Melchisedek and Christ, which, but for the inspiration of the apostle, one might be tempted to term far-fetched and fanciful-I mean the eternal priesthood of our Lord, being pre-figured by the mere absence of record of the birth, or parentage, or death of Melchisedek; the type afforded by the meaning of his name, and by the meaning of the name of the city of which he was king. These "hard to be uttered" features of resemblance it was, indeed, necessary for the voice of inspiration to point out, as being very unlikely, otherwise, to be discerned; but, with respect to the sacrifice, when the Hebrew Christians, to whom the apostle was writing, knew that the only rite which the priest Melchisedek was recorded to have performed was that he brought forth bread and wine, and blessed him that fed upon that sacrifice, and that the only rite which Christ, the high priest after his order, was recorded to have performed, was that he took bread and wine, and blessed them that fed upon that sacrifice, what possible need could there be for the apostle to declare a resemblance, when those to whom he was writing must see an identity?

Nor can I allow that "E. B." has even the solitary support of Tertullian, in rejecting this application of the passage; though, even if it were so, as exceptio probat regulam, I would venture to maintain that, if reference is to be made to the fathers at all, the " cautious" use of them is when we avail ourselves of the clear and concurrent testimony of the vast mass of them, in support of an interpretation of a text which is in harmony with the rest of the Scriptures, which is the course I have adopted; and not when we make use of a mistaken acceptation of any isolated passage of a single individual, which tends to destroy that harmony, which is the course "E. B." has preferred.

And now, one word upon Bishop Patrick's objection. That learned prelate, in his comment on the passage" Brought forth bread and wine," says, "This he did as a king;" (who ever doubted or denied this?) but, he adds, "not as a priest; for it was not an act of religion, but of hospitality." Surely there never was a more gratuitous or groundless assumption. Nay, is it not certain, from the usages of all primitive worship, that if it was a solemn feast (and what more solemn feast can be conceived than when "the priest of the most high God" entertained "the friend of God," and blessed him that had the pro