of sin; for there are others under the Christian dispensation, viz. Baptism, the LORD's Supper, and priestly absolution, by Divine appointment. But the true sense of " there is none other satisfaction," is, that there is nothing but the death of CHRIST that has any real intrinsic value in itself, adequate to the righteous demands of Infinite Justice, to take away sin; for which reason the Church makes use of the word " satisfaction," to express the inestimable, self-sufficient merit of that price, which was of full and perfect value, and, therefore, fit and exactly proper for the Divine wisdom and justice to accept of for the redemption of sinners.

And 'tis only for this reason that the Article condemns the Sacrifices of Masses, for "blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits," because the Romanists pretended that CHRIST is again really offered to GOD in those Sacrifices; that His very Body and Blood are substantially (and not representatively) then present at their altars, and offered to God daily by the priests for the sins of the world; making thereby these their pretended Sacrifices of CHRIST's real Body and Blood, equal in worth and value to His own oblation of Himself, which He offered but once upon the altar of the Cross. This is blasphemy with a witness; but what has all this to do with the doctrine of that Sacrament, of real bread and wine, which has been lately revived, and convincingly taught, and proved, by the excellent writers of our Church? Do they teach that this Sacrifice is "that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world," &c. which the Article speaks of? or, do they say, that it is "another satisfaction" for sin, besides that one" perfect satisfaction" which CHRIST made once upon the Cross to Divine Justice; as the Church of Rome says their Sacrifice of the Mass is? No, my lord, our writers have taught no such doctrine, but the direct contrary, viz. that the Christian Sacrifice of bread and wine has no real intrinsic worth or excellency in itself; that it is only a Sacrifice representative of CHRIST's one meritorious Sacrifice of Himself, as the Jewish Sacrifices were only types thereof, and not proper satisfaction in themselves to propitiate the Divine nature; that its whole worth and value is owing only

to Divine institution, as that of the Jewish Sacrifices was; and that it is only a Sacrifice, or offering, made to GOD to put Him in mind (as it were) of the all-sufficient Sacrifice of His Son; to beseech Him, for the sake thereof, and of that only, to be propitious and merciful to us; and to express our unfeigned thankfulness and gratitude for the infinite benefit of our redemption, purchased by the Sacrifice of the death of CHRIST. This directly overthrows the Popish pretended Sacrifice of CHRIST's real Body and Blood in the Mass; the very nature of it is such, that it highly agrees with, and constantly expresses the sense of our 31st Article, that "there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone" which was made by the death of CHRIST, once upon the Cross; because this Sacrifice of bread and wine is only a representation (not the reality) of that satisfaction which the Article speaks of, and, therefore, is no ways inconsistent with that Article of our Church.-pp. 13—18.

LAW, PRESBYTER AND CONFESSOR.-Demonstration', &c.

The plain truth is this: the institution consists of those two essential parts just mentioned; that is, in offering, presenting, and pleading before God, by faith the atonement of CHRIST'S Body and Blood, and in owning Him to be a principle of life to us, by our eating His Body and Blood; this is the entire, whole institution. ...

And yet this poor man 2 (for so I must call one so miserably insensible of the greatness of the subject he is upon) can find nothing in the institution, but, first, bread and wine, not placed and offered before God, as first signifying and pleading the atonement of His Son's Body and Blood, and then eaten and drunk in signification of having our life from Him; but bread and wine set upon a table, to put the people that see it in mind, that by and by they are to exercise an act of the memory ;—and then,

1 Demonstration of the gross and fundamental errors of a late book, called “A pla'n Account of the Nature and End of the Sacrament of the LORD's Supper," &c.

2 [The Author of the "Plain Account."]

secondly, this same bread and wine afterwards brought to every one in particular, not for them to know or believe that they are receiving any thing of CHRIST, or partaking of any thing from Him; but only to let them know, that the very instant they take the bread and wine into their mouth, is the very time for them actually to excite that act of the memory, for the exciting of which bread and wine had been set upon a table.-pp. 94, 5.

Now here it may be proper for you to observe, that whatever names or titles this institution is signified to you by, whether it be called a Sacrifice propitiatory or commemorative, whether it be called an holy oblation, the Eucharist, the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of CHRIST, the Sacrament of the LORD's Supper, the heavenly banquet, the food of immortality, or the Holy Communion, and the like, matters not much. For all these words or names are right and good, and there is nothing wrong in them, but the striving and contention about them.

For they all express something that is true of the Sacrament, and therefore are, every one of them, in a good sense, rightly applicable to it; but all of them are far short of expressing the whole nature of the Sacrament, and therefore the help of all of them is wanted.

He therefore that contends for one name, as the only proper one, in exclusion of the rest, is in the same mistake, as he that should contend for one name and character of our SAVIOUR, as the only proper one, in exclusion of all the rest.—pp. 122, 3.

Do you, therefore, reject this author's wisdom of words which he proposes to you, and be content to be devout without it. Be glad to know, that as the nature, office, and condition of our SAVIOUR, could not be made known to us, but by a variety of different names and titles ascribed to Him, so the nature and end and effects of this Holy Sacrament could not be made known to us, but by a variety of different names and titles ascribed to it; that in one respect it is a "propitiatory" Sacrifice, in another a "commemorative" Sacrifice; in one respect it is the seal and renewal of the covenant between GoD and man, in another the "food of immortality," the "life of the soul," the "bread" that

66

came down from heaven, the "tree of life;" that in one respect it is the Holy Eucharist," in another the Holy "Communion." And be assured, that he who tries to set these expressions at variance with each other, and would persuade you that, if one is a true account of the Sacrament, the others cannot be so, is as vain a" disputer of this world," as he that would persuade you that, if our SAVIOUR be the "seed of the woman," He cannot be essentially" the Son of GOD;" or that if He be the "Lamb" of GOD, He cannot be the "bread of life."

The reason why this Sacrament is said in one respect to be a "propitiatory," or "commemorative" Sacrifice, is only this: because you there offer, present, and plead before God, such things as are, by CHRIST Himself, said to be His "Body" and “ Blood given for you :" but if that which is thus offered, presented, and pleaded before GOD, is offered, presented, and pleaded before Him only for this reason, because it signifies and represents, both to GOD, and angels, and men, the great Sacrifice for all the world, is there not sufficient reason to consider this service as truly a Sacrifice? Or even supposing that the calling this service a Sacrifice is no more, according to a certain literal exactness of some critics, than when our SAVIOUR says of Himself, "I am the resurrection and the life," or that a quibbler in words may be able to object as much against it, as against our SAVIOUR'S saying of Himself," I am the resurrection and the life," have you any reason to dislike it on that account, or to wish that such little critics might find more of their empty, superficial, worthless niceties, in the language of the Church, than in the language of Scripture?-pp. 126-128.

WHEATLY, PRESBYTER.-Illustration of the Common Prayer.

"And if there be a Communion, the Priest" is then also to "place upon the Table so much Bread and Wine as he shall think sufficient." Which rubric being added to our own Liturgy at the same time with the "oblations," in the Prayer following, (i. e. at the last review), it is clearly evident, as Bishop Patrick has

observed, that by that word are to be understood the elements of bread and wine, which the Priest is to offer solemnly to God, as an acknowledgment of His sovereignty over His creatures, and that from henceforth they might become properly and peculiarly His. For in all the Jewish Sacrifices, of which the people were partakers, the viands or materials of the feast were first made GOD's by a solemn oblation, and then afterwards eaten by the communicants, not as man's but as God's provision; who, by thus entertaining them at His own table, declared Himself reconciled and again in covenant with them. And therefore our ble ssed SAVIOUR, when He instituted the new Sacrifice of His own Body and Blood, first "gave thanks and blessed" the eleme nts," i. e. offered them up to GOD as LORD of the creatures, as the most ancient fathers expound that passage; who, for that reason, whenever they celebrated the holy Eucharist, always offered the bread and wine for the Communion to GoD, upon the altar, by this, or some such short ejaculation, "LORD, we offer Thee Thy own, out of what Thou hast bountifully given us.' After which they received them, as it were, from Him again, in order to convert them into the sacred banquet of the Body and Blood of His dear SoN.—p. 280.

The alms, and devotions, and oblations of the people being now presented to GoD, and placed before Him upon the holy table, it is a proper time to proceed to the exercise of another branch of our charity, I men that of intercession. Our alms perhaps are confined to a few indigent neighbours; but our prayers may extend to all mankind, by recommending them all to the mercies of GOD, who is able to supply and relieve them all. Nor can we at any time hope to intercede more effectually for the whole Church of GoD, than just when we are about to represent and show forth to the divine Majesty that meritorious Sacrifice, by virtue whereof our great High Priest did once redeem us, and for ever continues to intercede for us in heaven. For which reason we find that the ancient and primitive Christians, whenever they celebrated these holy mysteries, used a form of intercession for the whole Catholic Church. But there is this difference between our practice and theirs, that, whereas