"Promontary, or Cape Hone, as it is now called) "to Tabarca, to be near 1000 Miles; a greater "Error than that of Sanfon's: And Ptolemy, who

placeth the Cafarienfis between the Malva and "Ampfaga (or Great River) i. e. from Long. 11° " 10', to 26' 15', extendeth that Province alone "(by allowing, as above, 48 Miles and a half to "a Degree) upwards of 700 Miles; a Mistake "ftill greater than that in the Itinerary.

"Neither must we omit another Error of this "Author in placing his Great Promontary in N. "Lat. 35°, and the Ampfaga in 310, 45, and fo "in proportion of the interjacent Places; whereby "this Part of the Coaft is laid down nearly in an "E. S. E. Direction: whereas, in failing from the "Mullooia to Nakkos, we are to keep almoft a "N. E. Course; after which, to the Ras Acconnatter,

and fo on to the Mers'el Fahm, the Shore in"clines a little to the Northward; the feveral re"markable Head-lands continuing afterwards to

lie in the fame Parallel. In fhort, there is fo "great a Difference in the whole, that thofe Places "which Ptolemy hath fixed in a Southern Inclina

66

tion, fhould have had a Northern one; and the "Great Promontary, which he placeth 3°, 15', to "the Northward of his Ampfaga, will be found to "lie 1o, 37, to the Southward of it: not to mention other Places in his Tables, that are put five Degrees, or 300 Miles farther to the Southward than they are found to be by Observation.

66

By these several Specimens, a Reader, that perufes them with any Attention, may conceive an Idea of the Geographical Part of this Work; and clearly perceive in what Manner the Author has handled that Branch of his Subject.

ARTICLE II.

The Chriftian Sacrifice explained, in a Charge delivered in Part to the Middlesex Clergy at St. Clement's Danes, April 20, 1738. To which is added an Appendix. By DANIEL WATERLAND, D. D. Archdeacon of Middlefex, and Chaplain in Ordinary to his Majefty. London; Printed for W. Innys and R. Manby, at the Weft-End of St. Paul's. 1738. Octavo. Pages 47 and 61.

UR Author in the Entrance of his Difcourfe obferves, that there ftill appears to be fome Debate amongst us, with regard to the facrificial Part of the Eucharift: He adds, "As it is a fede"ral Rite between God and Man, so it must be fuppofed to carry in it fomething that God gives "to us, and fomething also that we give, or prefent to God. Thefe are, as it were, the two integral Parts of that holy Ceremony: The former "may properly be called the facramental Part, and "the latter the facrificial. Any great Mistake "concerning either may be of very ill Confequence "to the main Thing; for if we either mistake the "Nature of God's Engagements towards us, or the "Nature of our Engagements towards God, in that "facred Solemnity, we fo far defeat the great Ends "and Ufes of it, and prejudice ourselves in fo doing.

A Question was unhappily raised among us, about an hundred Years ago, the Doctor fays, Whether the material Elements of the Eucharift were properly the Chriftian Sacrifice. This Difpute lafted not very long, nor fpread very far. But, at the Beginning of this prefent Century, the fame Question was

again brought up, and the Debate revived with fome Warmth; and it is not altogether extinct even at this Day.

Thofe, the Doctor fays, who fhall look narrowly into that Difpute, may fee Reafon to judge, that a great Part of it arose from fome Confufion of Ideas, or Ambiguity of Terms; more particularly from the Want of fettling the Definitions of Sacrifice by certain Rules, fuch as might fatisfy reasonable Men on both Sides. How that Confufion firft fprung up he here diftinctly shews: He points out the Source of all the Subtilties and thorny Perplexities which have darken'd the Subject ever fince; and which must, he conceives, be thrown off (together with the new and falfe Definitions which came up with them) if ever we hope to clear the Subject effectually, and to fet it upon its true and ancient Bafis. This is the Task he applies himself to in the Sequel of his Charge, and for which he employs a Variety of Confiderations: He particularly examines what Bellarmine has objected to Proteftant Sacrifices confidered in the active Senfe (paffing over, as trifling, what he excepts to them in the paffive) and inquires by what kind of Logic he attempted to dif card all Spiritual Sacrifices, under the Notion of improper, metaphorical, nominal Sacrifices; in fhort, no Sacrifices. He evinces, that by this Procedure the Cardinal reduced himself to a very grofs Dilemma; and was under a Neceffity of giving up all he advanced against the Reality of Spiritual Sacrifices, or of denying our Lord's giving up his Life upon the Crofs to be a proper one.

or,

Having overthrown the Batteries which this ableft Champion of the Romish Caufe had levelled against the Proteftant Doctrine of Spiritual Sacrifices, "We may, the Doctor fays, with the greatest Assurance "maintain, that the old Definitions, which included "them, were true and juft; and that the new ones, "arbi

66

C 3

"arbitrarily introduced, in the Decline of the fix"teenth Century, are falfe and wrong; fuch as one "would expect from Men zealous for a Party "Caufe, and difpofed to fupport manifeft Errors "and Abfurdities at any rate whatsoever.

And now, after having pointed out the Rife of the new Definitions, the Doctor goes on to obferve what their Progrefs was, and what the Refult and Iffue of them. "It muft, he fays, be owned, that our Romish Adverfaries were but too fuccefsful in fpreading Mifts and Darkness all over the Sub"ject, in opening a new and wide Field of Dif"pute, thereby drawing the Protestants, more or lefs, out of their fafe Intrenchments; dividing them alfo, if not as to their main Sentiments, yet "at least as to their Modes of Expreffion, and their Modes of Defence."-The Reality of this unhappy Influence he endeavours to prove by a brief Hiftorical Detail of the Controverfy relating to this Point; which he prefaces by the following general Preamble: "How this Affair had been fixed amongst us, fays he, but a few Years before the Time above" mentioned, may be collected from Archbishop Sandys's judicious Definition of Sacrifice, pub"lished in 1585, and contrived to take in Sacri"fices both of the material and spiritual kind. Sa

crificing, he tells us, is a voluntary Action where"by we worship God, offering him somewhat in token "that we acknowledge him to be the Lord, and our

felves his Servants.* Dr. Bilfon alfo (afterwards "Bishop) published his Book of Christian Sacrifice "the fame Year; wherein he took Occafion to af

fert, that the Eucharift is a Sacrifice, yea and a "true Sacrifice, but understanding it to be of the fpiritual kind. This kind of Language (the uni"form Language of Antiquity, and of the whole

66

65

Reformation for fixty or feventy Years) began to vary in fome meafure from Bellarmine's Time, " and more and more fo, both here and abroad. "Some indeed ftood by the old Definitions and an"cient Language concerning the Eucharift: more "went from it; and fo Proteftants became divided, "in Sounds at leaft, whilft they differed not much in "Senfe. Many finding that they were fufficiently "able to maintain their Ground againft the Ro"manists, even upon the Foot of the Romish Defi"nitions, never troubled themfelves further to examine how just they were: It was enough, they thought, that the Romanifts could not prove the Eucharift a true and proper Sacrifice, in their "own way of defining; and the reft feemed to "be only contending about Words and Names. "Nevertheless, the more thoughtful and confide"rate Men faw what Advantage the Adverfariés "might make by afperfing the Proteftants as having no Sacrifice, properly fo called, nor pretending to any. Befides that, the Dignity of a venerable Sacrament would probably fuffer much by "it; and the ancient Fathers, who were very wife "Men, had never confented (tho' as much pro"voked to it by the Pagan Objectors) to leffen "the Dignity of their true and real Sacrifices "by the low and diminutive Names of improper, "or metaphorical. They always stood to it, that they had Sacrifices, yea and true Sacrifices, (of the fpiritual kind) the nobleft and divineft that "could be offered; while all other pretended Sa

crifices, all material Sacrifices, were mean, poor, " contemptible Things in comparison. Such, I hum"bly conceive, ought to have been our conftant,

ftanding Reply to the Romanists, with refpect "to this Article; for we have certainly as just a "Plea for it in our Cafe, as the ancient Fathers had "in theirs. However, as I before hinted, Prote"ftant

C 4