to augment and advance the facrificial. And now the Scheme appeared with a better Face.

5. Nevertheless, if our Lord in the original Eucharift did not facrifice the Elements, it could not reasonably be fuppofed that we do it now, and fo Things would not tally: Therefore it was found neceffary to affert, that he also facrificed the Elements, as his facramental Body; and thereupon Reafons and Authorities were to be fearched out for that Purpose.

6. Still there was a weighty Objection remaining, viz. that Scripture fpeaks often of Chrift's offering Himfelf, but never once of his offering in Sacrifice the Symbols: To remove which Difficulty, it was thought beft to fay, that he offered Himself in the Eucharist, but by and with the Symbols. An After-thought, and not well comporting with former Parts of the Scheme.

7. But there was ftill another Difficulty, a it: obfat. 97. very great one; namely, that our Lord, according to the Accounts of the New Testament, facrificed himself but once? Therefore, either he did it not in the Eucharift, or not upon the Crofs. To remove this Difficulty, it feems to have been refolved, to give up the Sacrifice of the Cross, and to retain only the Sacrifice of the Eucharift: And fo the Scheme was compleat.

Having thus given a Sketch of the Syftem in the Analytical way, it may now be eafy to throw it into the Synthetick, thus:

1. Christ our Lord made a perfonal Sacrifice of himself once; either in the Eucharift, or on the Crofs.

2. It

2. It cannot be proved to have been on the Cross, but there are divers Reasons against the Suppofition; therefore it must have been in the Eucharift.

3. He facrificed himself in the Eucharift, under Symbols, facrificing the Symbols together with Himself: Otherwife we could have no Pretence now for facrificing the fame Symbols.

4. The Christian Church, after his Example, facrifices the Symbols, but not Him.

5. Therefore the Church has a material Sacrifice.

6. Therefore the Church offers a proper Sacrifice.

7. Therefore the Gofpel-minifters are proper Priefts, facrificing Priefts: which was to be proved.

Now, my humble Opinion upon the Whole is, that if the learned Author had taken fpiritual Sacrifice for his Medium, instead of Material, he might not only have avoided many Perplexities, and no fmall Number of Mistakes, but might alfo have come at his main Point justly and regularly, in conformity with Scripture and Antiquity. He might have proved that Chriftian Minifters are Priests in as high and as proper a Senfe as any before them have been (Christ only excepted) authorized to stand and minifter between God and his People, and to blefs in God's Name, and to execute all other Jacerdotal Functions, but in a more spiritual and beavenly

G4

heavenly way than other Priests had done: Which detracts not at all from the Propriety of the Christian Priesthood, but adds very much to its Value and Excellency, and fhews it to be of fuperior Dignity to any real or pretended Priesthood, either of Jews, or Pagans,

A diftinét

A diftinct fummary View of the feveral OBLATIONS in the Eucharift, previous to CONSECRATION, or fubfequent.

What is Previous, goes under the Name of AnteOblation: What is Subfequent, falls under the Name of Poft-Oblation,

Τ'

I. Of the Ante-Oblation.

HE Ante-Oblation has three Parts, or
three Views, as here follows:

1. There is a prefenting to God Alms for the Poor, and Oblations for the Ufe of the Church. The material Things are Gifts to Men: The benevolent Act, or Work, is a Gift, or Sacrifice unto God. St. Paul points out this Distinction, where he teaches: To do good, and to communicate, are fuch Sacrifices as God is wellpleafed with a. The benevolent Services are the Sacrifice; not the material Money, or Goods. This Diftinction is further confirmed by the common Custom of Speech; which fhews what the common Ideas are. Alms (that is Alms

deeds)

↑ Hebr. xiii. 16. The like distinction is clearly laid down in thin martyr. Apol. 1. 1.19.

διότι ἐκείνῳ εἰς διαττόνων γινόμενα, ο πυρί δαπανών AUTOTS Lear TOIS & LOuevos 500géger, the ye de tvisss BVTas, dia May's HOMOS deal bure's Arpinew..

deeds) make an Atonement for Sin: A true and a proper Expreffion, understanding Atonement in a qualified Senfe. But who would fay, that Money makes an Atonement? By Bounty and Charity God is appealed: The Propofition is true, and the Expreffion proper. But can we fay, that by Silver and Gold God is арpeased? No certainly. And why cannot we? Because it would be confounding Ideas: For, even in common Language, expreffive of the common Ideas, the Service is the Gift to God, not the material Thing.

2. There is in the Eucharift, a prefenting to God (virtually at leaft) an Acknowledgment of God's being Creator and Giver of all good Things; as Irenæus intimates b. Tertullian extends it to Both Sacraments; inafmuch as the religious Ufe of Water in Baptifm, carries in it a tacite Acknowledgment that Water is a Creature of God.

3. There is alfo a presenting of the Elements to God, for Confecration: Which is common to Both Sacraments. For, in Baptifm, the Waters are fo prefented, and for the fame or like fpiritual Purposes.

II. Of the Poft-Oblation.

The Poft-Oblation, otherwife called Commemoration, may likewife be confidered under three Views, or as containing three Parts.

Iren. L. iv. c. xviii. p. 251.

• Tertull. contr. Marc. L. i. c. xiv. xxiii.

I. The