nity of our LORD JESUS CHRIST; and that there is wrought a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, which conversion the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation." Where this proposition, ("That in the Mass there is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory Sacrifice for the living and the dead,") having that other of the "substantial presence of the Body and Blood of CHRIST in the Eucharist," immediately annexed to it, the meaning of it must necessarily be this, that in the Eucharist the very Body and Blood of CHRIST are again offered up to God as a propitiatory Sacrifice for the sins of men. Which is an impious proposition, derogatory to the one full satisfaction of CHRIST made by His death on the Cross, and contrary to express Scripture, Heb. vii. 27; ix. 12. 25, 26. 28. and x. 12. 14. It is true the Eucharist is frequently called by the ancient fathers poσpopà, Ovσía, an "oblation," a "sacrifice." But it is to be remembered, that they say also it is Ovoía Xoyikỳ kai ȧvaíμaктoç, a “reasonable Sacrifice," a "Sacrifice without blood;" which, how can it be said to be, if therein the very Blood of CHRIST were offered up to God?

They held the Eucharist to be a commemorative Sacrifice, and so do we. This is the constant language of the ancient Liturgies, "We offer by way of commemoration;" according to our SAVIOUR'S words when He ordained this holy rite, " Do this in commemoration of me." In the Eucharist, then, CHRIST is offered, not hypostatically, as the Trent fathers have determined, (for so He was but once offered,) but commemoratively only; and this commemoration is made to GOD the FATHER, and is not a bare remembering, or putting ourselves in mind of Him. For every Sacrifice is directed to GOD, and the oblations therein made, whatsoever it be, hath Him for its object and not man. In the holy Eucharist, therefore, 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," (they are the very words of the Clementine Liturgy,) and plead to GOD the merit of His SoN'S Sacrifice once offered on the Cross for us sinners, and in this

Sacrament represented, beseeching Him for the sake thereof to bestow His heavenly blessings on us.

To conclude this matter: the ancients held the oblation of the Eucharist to be answerable in some respects to the legal Sacrifices; that is, they believed that our blessed SAVIOUR ordained the Sacrament of the Eucharist as a rite of prayer and praise to GOD, instead of the manifold and bloody Sacrifices of the law. That the legal Sacrifices were rites to invocate God by, is evident from many texts of Scripture, see especially 1 Sam. vii. 9; and xiii. 12; Ezra vi. 10; Prov. xv. 8. And that they were also rites for praising God for His mercies, appears from 2 Chron. xxix. 27. Instead, therefore, of slaying of beasts, and burning of incense, whereby they praised GOD, and called upon His name, under the Old Testament; the Fathers, I say, believed our SAVIOUR appointed this Sacrament of bread and wine, as a rite whereby to give thanks and make supplication to His FATHER in His name. This you may see fully cleared and proved by the learned Mr. Mede, in his treatise entitled, "The Christian Sacrifice." The Eucharistical Sacrifice, thus explained, is indeed Xoyɩký Ovoía, a “reasonable Sacrifice," widely different from that monstrous Sacrifice of the Mass taught in the Church of Rome.

The other branch of the article is concerning transubstantiation, wherein the ecclesiastic professeth upon his solemn oath his belief, that in the Eucharist "there is made a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood of CHRIST;" a proposition that bids defiance to all the reason and sense of mankind; nor (GOD be praised) hath it any ground or foundation in divine revelation. Nay, the text of Scripture, on which the Church of Rome builds this article, duly considered, utterly subverts and overthrows it. She grounds it upon the words of the institution of the holy Sacrament by our SAVIOUR, the same night wherein He was betrayed; when He took bread and brake it, and gave it to His disciples, saying, "This is my body," rò dicóueror, saith St. Luke, [xxii. 19.] tò kλwμevov, saith St. Paul, [1 Cor. xi. 24.] "which is given and broken for you." After the same manner

He took the cup and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink ye all of this, for this is my blood of the New Testament, τὸ ἐκχυνόμενον, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Now whatsoever our SAVIOUR said was undoubtedly true but these words could not be true in a proper sense; for our SAVIOUR's body was not then given or broken, but whole and inviolate; nor was there one drop of His blood yet shed. The words, therefore, must necessarily be understood in a figurative sense; and then, what becomes of the doctrine of transubstantiation? The meaning of our SAVIOUR is plainly this: What I now do, is a representation of My death and passion near approaching; and what I now do, do ye hereafter;-" do this in remembrance of Me;"-let this be a standing, perpetual ordinance in my Church, to the end of the world; let My death be thus commemorated and shown forth till I come to judgment. See 1 Cor. xi. 26.

As little foundation hath this doctrine of transubstantiation in the ancient Church, as appears sufficiently from what hath been already said, concerning the notion then universally received of the Eucharistical Sacrifice. It was then believed to be an áváμvnois, or "commemoration," by the symbols of bread and ἀνάμνησις, wine, of the Body and Blood of CHRIST, once offered up to GoD on the Cross for our redemption; it could not, therefore, be then thought an offering up again to GOD of the very Body and Blood of CHRIST, substantially present under the appearance of bread and wine; for these two notions are inconsistent, and cannot stand together. The ancient doctors, yea, and Liturgies of the Church, affirm the Eucharist to be incruentum sacrificium, "a Sacrifice without blood;" which it cannot be said to be, if the very blood of CHRIST were therein present and offered up to GoD. In the Clementine Liturgy, the bread and wine in the Eucharist are said to be antitypa, "correspondent types," figures and images of the precious Body and Blood of CHRIST. And divers others of the fathers speak in the same plain language. Vid. Greg. Naz. Apol. Orat. 1. tom. 1. Cyril. Hierosol. 5. Cat. Myst. Ambros. de Sacrament. lib. iv. cap. 4.-Vol. ii. p. 250—255.

STILLINGFLEET, BISHOP.-Conferences concerning the Idolatry of the Church of Rome.

P. D.... We have all the reason in the world to commemorate, with great thankfulness and devotion, that invaluable Sacrifice of the Cross; and if you will call the whole Eucharistical office a commemorative Sacrifice, as the ancients did, I shall never quarrel with you about it. But how the Sacrifice of the Mass comes to be propitiatory, as the Sacrifice on the Cross was, I understand not. . .

...

R. P. But what makes Dr. Stillingfleet so bitter against the Sacrifice of the Altar, since the most true and genuine sons of the Church of England do allow it? as Mr. Thorndike, Dr. Heylin, and Bishop Andrews? And doth not this rather look like betraying the Church of England than defending it?

P. D. 1. Mr. Thorndike, as I have showed already, declares against the "true proper Sacrifice" defined by the Council of Trent, as an innovation and contradiction. And that which he pleads for is, "that the Eucharist is a commemorative and representative Sacrifice," about which Dr. Stillingfleet would never contend with him or any one else; and immediately after the words cited by T. G. he adds these; "It is therefore, enough, that the Eucharist is the Sacrifice of CHRIST on the Cross, as the Sacrifice of CHRIST on the Cross is represented, renewed, revived, and restored by it, and as every representation is said to be the same thing with that which it representeth."

2. Peter Heylin's words are expressly only for a "commemorative Sacrifice," as T. G. himself produces them, and, therefore, I wonder what T. G. meant in citing them at large; for he quotes the English Liturgy for the "Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; and St. Chrysostom calling it "the remembrance of a Sacrifice;" and many of our learned writers, "a commemorative Sacrifice." What is there in all this in the least repugnant to what Dr. Stillingfleet had delivered?

R. P. But he quotes Bishop Andrews, saying, "Take from the

Mass your transubstantiation, and we will have no difference with you about the Sacrifice."

P. D. Bishop Andrews calls the Eucharist a "commemorative Sacrifice," and he saith, "it was properly Eucharistical, or of the nature of peace-offerings, concerning which the law was, that he that offered should partake of them ;" and a little after follow those words you mention; to which he adds, "We yield you that there is a remembrance of CHRIST's Sacrifice; but we shall never yield that your CHRIST being made of bread is there sacrificed." Which is the very thing that T. G. is so angry with Dr. Stillingfleet about. And have not you bravely proved that Dr. Stillingfleet hath herein gone against the sense of the genuine sons of the Church of England ?-Works, vol. vi. pp. 176. 179.

SMITH, PRESBYTER AND CONFESSOR.-Sermon on frequent

Communion.

They [the Fathers] did not, under a pretence of exalting the mystery, destroy the nature of a Sacrament, as now is done in the Roman Church. It must now, no longer, be a representative, but a "real propitiatory Sacrifice, for the living and for the dead." And CHRIST'S natural Body must be brought down from heaven upon a thousand altars at once, and there really broken and offered up again to GOD the FATHER, and His Blood actually spilt a thousand times every day, and mixing itself with ours.p. 19.

Beveridge, BISHOP.-Private Thoughts upon Religion.

And, as Baptism thus comes in the place of the Jews' Circumcision, so doth our LORD's Supper answer to their Passover. Their Paschal Lamb represented our SAVIOUR CHRIST, and the sacrificing of it, the shedding of His Blood upon the Cross, and as the Passover was the memorial of the Israelites' redemption from Egypt's bondage, Ex. xii. 14. so is the LORD's Supper the memorial of our redemption from the slavery of sin, and assertion