our oblation of bread and wine to Him, as a memorial to put Him in mind of the Sacrifice of His Son, which there by Divine institution is fully and perfectly represented, and there to receive them from Him again, as the representative Body and Blood of CHRIST, conveying to us all the benefits of His meritorious Death and Passion, we can have no good grounds to hope that ever we shall partake of any of those benefits; and if we do not, what will become of us? . . . Let us then never neglect this so beneficial a service, but as often as we have opportunity, let us make our oblation to GOD of the memorial of CHRIST's Sacrifice, that by receiving it from Him again, we may therewith receive the pardon of our sins, reconciliation with God, the increase of strengthening grace, and become so firmly united to CHRIST, that nothing may ever be able to dissolve the union; but being begun here in grace, it may be consummated in glory, through the merits and mediation of the same JESUS CHRIST our LORD; to whom with the FATHER and the HOLY GHOST be ascribed, as most due is, all honour and glory, now, and for evermore. Amen.-pp. 25-40.

ID. True Scripture Account, &c.

I shall only further observe, that our Church shows that she understands the words "do this," to signify "offer this," and therefore orders the bread and wine not to be placed on the LORD's table by any other than the priest, and requires him to place them there as oblations; for at the time that she restored that old Rubric which orders the priest to place the bread and wine upon the table, she also ordered him, at the beginning of the Prayer immediately following, to beseech God to accept our oblations. Which word "oblations" being not in that Prayer (but the word "alms" only) before the restoration of that Rubric, shows that the Church by adding that word to the word "alms" which was before in the Prayer, at the very time that she restored that Rubric, intended the priest should solemnly offer them there, and esteemed the priest's placing them there to be the making them "oblations," which they cannot properly be called when placed there by any other than a priest. For Mr. Johnson, in his

"unbloody Sacrifice," p. 4. Part I. having examined the several definitions which learned men have given of a Sacrifice, does from thence give this as a full description of it, viz. "Sacrifice is some material thing, either animate or inanimate, offered to GOD," &c. ... [Vid. sup. p. 320.] And he observes, p. 14. that "If we inquire into these rites, which were peculiar to Sacrifice, we shall find them to be no other but the very actions of offering them. I will not," says he," pretend to say, that there never were any ceremonies esteemed necessary by some particular people, for some particular Sacrifices; but what I affirm is, that no rite is essential to Sacrifice in general, but only the very act or acts of oblation. For if it were otherwise, the Levitical Sacrifices were in reality null; for no rites were necessary in offering them, but sprinkling the blood, and burning the whole or part of the Sacrifice." (He might have added "heaving" or "waving" part of what was offered for a heave-offering or wave-offering.) "And I suppose it needs no proof, that these were the very rites by which the sacerdotal oblation was performed; by the sprinkling the blood the whole Sacrifice was consecrated to GoD, and the atonement made; and by burning a part or the whole upon the altar, God had what He required actually yielded to Him; so that these ritual actions were indeed no other but what were used as vocal signs, with which the Sacrifice was presented to GOD. The priest was not directed to use any words, but the actions were significant, and spake the thoughts of him that performed the office. Nor can I, upon the best inquiry I am able to make, find any (one) ceremony generally thought necessary for offering a Sacrifice, but only the actions whereby the Sacrifice was presented." And I conceive the priest's solemnly placing the bread and wine upon the altar, is as proper a rite as sprinkling the blood, or heaving or waving the Sacrifice or a part of it, or as burning it in whole or in part, or any other rite used by the Levitical priests. pp. 84-86.

And if it be offered, as our Church directs, it has all the parts requisite to a complete Sacrifice. For there is first the material thing, bread and wine; secondly, an acknowledgment of the dominion and other attributes of GoD in the prayers and praises

which accompany it, as likewise a desire to procure Divine blessings, especially remission of sins, which, as Christians, we expect and ask only through the merits and for the sake of JESUS CHRIST who bore our sins in His Body on the tree, and shed His Blood for the remission of them, and dignified these gifts which we offer, with the name of His Body and Blood, and has made them truly His Body and Blood in power and effect. Thirdly, they are offered on a proper altar, the LORD's table, a table set apart entirely for this service. Fourthly, they are offered by a proper officer, a priest regularly ordained to this office, and with an agreeable rite, a solemn placing them on the LORD's table or altar. And lastly, they are consumed by eating and drinking in such manner as our LORD JESUS CHRIST, the Author of the Sacrifice, has appointed. Thus the Church of England has taken care that the holy Eucharist may be duly celebrated as an oblation or Sacrifice, by directing the ministration of it to be performed in such manner that it may want nothing necessary to a true Sacrifice. If any of her priests wilfully maim it in a principal part, and do not himself solemnly and devoutly place them on the LORD's table or altar, the fault is wholly in them and not in the Church, whose plain rule and precept they have no regard to.-p. 88.

The essence of this Sacrament, therefore, consists not, as he pretends it does, barely in the remembrance of CHRIST, and expressing that remembrance by partaking of bread and wine as memorials of His Body and Blood, but likewise in the doing or offering them in the same manner He did. This necessarily requires a particular person to execute this priestly office, who may do or offer as CHRIST did in the institution, and requires to be done by us till He come. A priest, therefore, is necessary and essential to the due administration of this Sacrament. He, as CHRIST did, and whose Person he on this occasion represents, must take bread and give thanks, and bless it, and break it, "the Body of CHRIST,"

and give it to those that are present, as before they can partake of it. "In like manner, he must take the cup, and having" eucharistized it, or "blessed it with thanksgiving, he must give it to them" as the "New Testament in

the Blood of CHRIST, shed for many for the remission of sins," that they may "all drink of it." And if the LORD's Supper be not celebrated in this manner by a priest, then it is not celebrated in the manner CHRIST has appointed it to be done.p. 132.

We cannot, therefore, celebrate the LORD's Supper except we have a priest standing in the place of CHRIST and representing Him, who may take the bread, and having given or offered it to GOD by devoutly placing it on His holy table, may then bless it by prayer and thanksgiving, and break it and give it to the communicants as the representative Body of CHRIST, and in remembrance of Him, of all that He did for us, and more especially His dying for us. The difference between the oblation which CHRIST made at His last Supper, and what we now make when we rightly and duly celebrate the LORD's Supper, is only this-He offered bread and wine as representatives of His Body and Blood, in order that He might suffer and bear our sins in His Body on the Cross: we offer the same in remembrance that He did suffer and bear our sins there. p. 135.

BENNET, PRESBYTER.-Rights of the Clergy.

St. Clement of Rome, who wrote in the Apostles' times, plainly speaks of the Bishops presiding in the celebration of the LORD'S Supper. For nothing else can be meant by their "offering the gifts;" especially if we consider, that the Eucharistical elements are called a "gift" by St. Ignatius himself; and that this language is used by innumerable other writers, particularly those that are the most ancient and 'tis notorious, that poopéĢEL signifies to offer a Sacrifice, such as all antiquity thought the Holy Eucharist to be; and that this word is particularly applied to the Holy Eucharist by Justin Martyr, and all antiquity.—p. 52.

I have already shown from St. Clement of Rome, who wrote in the Apostles' own times, and knew what method ought to be taken in the celebration of this ordinance, that the elements were consecrated by the Clergy; who consequently did something more than merely receive them after the same manner as the Laity did.

And 'tis notorious, that all along in the following centuries this practice was constantly observed. So that we must not now reverse an established order by new fangled notions, or pretend to a better understanding of Christian mysteries, than those very persons who learnt from the Apostles' own mouths, and were taught by them how to administer the Eucharist. The Jewish laity received the meat of their offerings, and applied it to an holy use, as much as the priest, who in some cases had his portion thereof; the laity also joined in the same ceremony of sacrificing, by being publicly present as the parties concerned, and bearing a share in the solemnity. And yet no man in his wits will conclude from hence, that the Jewish laity did properly sacrifice, or that it was not necessary for the priest in particular to do his office with respect to it. Even so in the Holy Eucharist, though the people do what the Clergy do, as far as relates to the reception and use of the elements; yet the Clergy must first consecrate the elements by prayer, before they become CHRIST'S mystical Body and Blood to either the Clergy or the laity.-pp. 308, 9.

Nothing now remains, but that I consider an argument which is drawn from the practice of the Jewish Church. 'Tis pretended that the Christian Baptism succeeds the Jewish circumcision; that the Christian LORD's Supper succeeds the Jewish Passover; and that the Christian preaching succeeds the Jewish teaching in Synagogues. And consequently, since circumcision and the Passover were administered by the laity amongst the Jews, and since the Jewish laity were permitted to teach in their synagogues; there is the same reason, why the Christian laity should also administer such Gospel ordinances, as succeed in the room of those Jewish observations . . .

1. With respect to circumcision, 'tis said that the Jewish laity did perform it, and that the Christian Baptism succeeds in the room of it. These two particulars I freely grant. For as the Jews were initiated by circumcision, so are Christians initiated by baptism. And we are assured, that Zipporah circumcised her son. Exod. iv. 25. Nor is it ever said, that the Jewish Priests did circumcise the children of that nation. Nor do the Jews to this