own Supper as a commemorative, eucharistical, material Sacrifice, a Sacrifice of impetration, as well as gratulatory, showing forth our SAVIOUR's death, presenting it before God as our allsufficient propitiation, and so being an especial means of obtaining the benefits of it for us; and, in a word, that it is propitiatory. pp. 5. 8—10.

ID.-The Christian Altar and Sacrifice. A Sermon.
[On Heb. xiii. 10.]

Dr. Heylin long ago, and of late Dr. Hickes, and the learned author of the "Propitiatory Oblation," have proved this to be the plain doctrine of this Church, contained in her Liturgy. And Dr. Heylin has showed that it was a doctrine freely owned by our best divines, even in their controversial writings against the Church of Rome, such as Archbishop Cranmer, Bishop Andrews, and Bishop Morton, and that it was acknowledged by those blessed martyrs of this Church, Fryth, Lambert, Philpot, Latymer, and Ridley, even at the time when they were called upon to give their testimony to the truth for which they suffered.

The reverend and learned Dr. Hickes has since showed it to have been the professed and declared opinion of Bishop Overal, Bishop Taylor, Archbishop Laud, Mr. Mede, the Compilers of the Scotch Liturgy, &c. and even of Mr. Baxter himself.— Preface, pp. x. xi.

But now the old question may be asked, cui bono? What signifies it to us, whether we believe the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist to be a Sacrifice or not? What need any disputes about it? All parties are agreed that it is an holy ordinance, instituted by CHRIST Himself, and that every good Christian ought to partake of it.

But we may ask again, if it be not convenient, nay necessary, that all those who partake of this holy Sacrament, should understand and know what it is they do. Ought they not to be instructed in the nature and design of it, lest "they eat and drink

unworthily, not discerning the LORD's Body?" And how shall they" discern the LORD's Body," if they are not taught that "the LORD'S Body" is there present?....

The next question then is, how is the LORD's Body there to be discerned? It cannot be meant of the literal, natural Body of the LORD, as the Church of Rome blasphemously teaches; for St. Paul himself calls it "bread" and "wine," even at the very time it is to be eaten and drunk. "Let a man examine himself," says he," and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup." How then can " the LORD's Body" be there discerned otherwise than by representation? . . .

In the last place, then, we are to inquire, how the Body and Blood of CHRIST is there represented? And it is evident from the Scriptures, that it is not the whole CHRIST, body, soul, and divinity, hypostatically united, as the Papists also blasphemously teach; and from thence as blasphemously infer, that it is to be worshipped. That which is represented in the Eucharist is neit her the divinity nor the human soul of CHRIST, but only His Body and Blood separated from both and from one another. The Blood is not represented by the element of wine, as in the body, but as shed and separated from it; which is utterly irreconcileable with, and plainly contradictory to the Popish doctrine of the mass. Our SAVIOUR, at His institution of this Sacrament, gave the bread and wine as representing His Body broken, and His Blood shed, or poured out from it. "This is my body which is broken for you, this is my Blood which is shed for many." And when CHRIST's real Body was broken, and His Blood shed, it was then separated, not from His divinity only, but from His human soul also, and died and was buried. The bread and wine, therefore, representing CHRIST'S Body as broken, and His Blood as shed and poured out from it, can by no means represent, much less really be, the very individual glorified Body of CHRIST now in heaven, and personally united, not only to the human soul, but also to the divine nature. But it plainly represents CHRIST'S Body as given, that is, offered or sacrificed for us, for so our LORD Himself appointed it to do, saying, "This is my Body which is given," or offered "for you." It is evident, therefore,

VOL. IV.

-81.

сс

from the very institution, that the bread and wine in the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, represent CHRIST's Body and Blood as given, offered, or sacrificed for us; and are so full and perfect representatives thereof, that our LORD Himself thought fit to give to the bread and wine, the name of His Body and Blood. The consequence of all this is, that the bread and wine, in the holy Eucharist, do by the very institution represent the Sacrifice of CHRIST'S Body broken, and His Blood shed; and that if we do not know and understand this, we cannot rightly "discern the LORD'S Body."-pp. xii-xv.

From the whole, then, we may learn,

First, If the holy Eucharist, as I trust has been sufficiently proved, be a visible material Sacrifice, representative of the one, true, and only meritorious and all-sufficient Sacrifice of CHRIST, of the same nature with, though of greater worth and dignity than the Jewish Sacrifices; it follows, that this cannot be the real and true Sacrifice of CHRIST Himself, as the Church of Rome most wickedly and absurdly teaches; to support which vain notion, she has invented the unintelligible doctrine of transubstantiation. For the representative cannot be the person represented; the thing signifying cannot be the thing signified; for the very notion of a representative implies something distinct from that which is represented by it. Those therefore who charge the doctrine of the Eucharistical Sacrifice as savouring of Popery, either know not what Popery is, or have no right notion of the Eucharist itself; for nothing can be more directly opposite to the doctrine of transubstantiation, or to "the Sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said that the priests did offer CHRIST for the quick and the dead," than this doctrine of the representative Sacrifice of the Eucharist. . ... This doctrine, therefore, of a true and proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist, representing the one great and truly meritorious Sacrifice of CHRIST, is so far from savouring of Popery, that nothing can be more opposite to Popery than this is, nor can any other doctrine be so effectual to root out all Popish notions, relating to the blessed Sacrament of the altar, as this is. For if we deny the Eucharist to be a real and proper Sacrifice, we give the Papists a great advantage over

us. Because they may easily prove from the institution of this Sacrament by CHRIST, from this and divers other texts of Scripture, and from the primitive Fathers of the Church, that it is a Sacrifice; and forasmuch as our Church declares, that "this LORD's Supper is in such wise to be done and ministered as our LORD and SAVIOUR commanded it to be done, as the holy Apostles used it, and the good Fathers in the primitive Church frequented it" (Hom. of the Sacrament); they will easily show, that if we do not believe the Eucharist to be a Sacrifice, we do not hold to this rule and declaration of our Church, and confute us from our own principles.

And when they have thus confuted us, and clearly proved the Eucharist to be a Sacrifice, and we have not instructed our people in the nature of this Sacrifice, what a mighty advantage do we give them to draw our people from us? For when they have thus convinced them of our error in so material a point, how easy may it be to persuade them that all our doctrines are erroneous also! But when we show our people the true nature of this Sacrifice, that it is not the very individual Sacrifice of CHRIST Himself, (for that was offered "once for all,”) but only the memorial or representation of that Sacrifice, they will see clearly that the Popish Sacrifice of the Mass, wherein they pretend to offer CHRIST " for the quick and the dead," has no foundation either in the Scripture or the ancient Fathers, but is clearly opposite to them; forasmuch as the picture cannot be the man whose picture it is, nor the representative the person he represents. And therefore many of our best divines, in their controversial writings against the Church of Rome, have acknowledged it as the doctrine of our Church, that this "Sacrament is a Sacrifice which does represent the Sacrifice which CHRIST once offered; wherein we set before God the bread and wine as figures or images of the precious Blood of CHRIST shed for us, and of His precious Body; an unbloody Sacrifice instituted by GOD, instead of the many bloody Sacrifices of the law" and thereby have clearly confuted the doctrine of transubstantiation and of the Mass. For how can this be an unbloody Sacrifice, or a Sacrifice without blood, if therein the very Blood of CHRIST

was offered up to GOD? There cannot, therefore, be a better or more effectual preservative from Popery, as it has relation to the holy Sacrament of the altar, than this doctrine of the Eucharist being a true, proper, commemorative, representative, and unbloody Sacrifice. pp. 19-23.

Secondly, If the holy Eucharist is a Sacrifice which, by our SAVIOUR'S institution, fully and perfectly represents the one great and meritorious Sacrifice of CHRIST upon the Cross, then it is much more excellent than any of the old legal Sacrifices: not more excellent in its own nature, (for bread and wine have nothing in the nature of them more worthy than the blood of bulls and of goats, than the libations of wine, or the oblations of fine flour, than shew-bread or incense,) but by virtue of the institution. For indeed there can be no natural virtue in any creature to make atonement for sin; nothing can satisfy for sin but the very Body and Blood of CHRIST Himself. And the legal Sacrifices, under the Mosaical dispensation, were propitiatory, only as they were appointed by divine institution to be so, and as they were types or shadows of that just and truly meritorious Sacrifice of CHRIST. . . . And so, by this divine appointment, the Sacrifice of the Eucharist being offered according to the institution, becomes propitiatory, that is, renders GoD good and gracious to us, and procures His pardon and favour.

In this respect, then, that is, by virtue of the divine institution, the Sacrifice of the holy Eucharist far exceeds all the Sacrifices of the law, and is far more excellent. For the Sacrifices of the law were, by their institution, but imperfect types of the great Sacrifice on the Cross. They were appointed to render GOD propitious or gracious, but in some cases and on some occasions, not in all. There was no Sacrifice that could make an atonement for murder, and some other heinous offences; but the Eucharistical Sacrifice, rightly and duly ministered and received, is an atonement for the greatest sins, and, by virtue of the divine institution, procures pardon for them, and renders GOD propitious and gracious to us, being truly faithful and penitent, notwithstanding the foulest crimes. This Sacrifice is not an imperfect type, as the Jewish Sacrifices were, even by their