which He has purchased for us, as the body of the Lamb was commanded by GoD to be the remembrance of theirs. pp. 51, 52.

A third consequence of the corporeal presence of CHRIST in the holy Eucharist, is the Sacrifice of the Mass; in which we ought to proceed with all the caution such a point requires, as both makes up the chiefest part of the Popish worship, and is justly esteemed one of the greatest and most dangerous errors that offend us.

Monsieur de Meaux has represented it to us with so much tenderness, that, except perhaps it be his foundation of the corporeal presence, on which he builds, and his consequence, that this service is a true and real propitiatory Sacrifice, which his manner of expounding it we are persuaded will never bear, there is little in it besides, but what we could readily assent to.

We distinguish the two acts which he mentions, from one another. By the consecration, we apply the elements, before common, to a sacred use; by the manducation, we fulfil our SAVIOUR'S Command; we take, and eat, and do this in remembrance of Him."

This consecration, being separately made, of His Body broken, His Blood spilt for our redemption, we suppose represents to us our blessed LORD in the figure of His death, which these holy symbols were instituted to continue the memory of. And whilst thus with faith we represent to GOD the death of His Son, for the pardon of our sins; we are persuaded, that we incline His mercy the more readily to forgive them.

We do not, therefore, doubt, but that this presenting to GoD ALMIGHTY this Sacrifice of our blessed LORD, is a most effectual manner of applying His merits to us. Were this all the Church of Rome meant by her propitiatory Sacrifice, there is not certainly any Protestant that would oppose her in it.

Where is that Christian, that does not by faith unite himself to his SAVIOUR in this holy Communion?-that does not present Him to God as his only Sacrifice and propitiation ?-that does not protest that he has nothing to offer Him but JESUS CHRIST, and the merits of His death?-that consecrates not all his

prayers by this divine offering? and, whilst he thus presents to God the Sacrifice of His Son, does not learn thereby to present also himself a lively Sacrifice, holy, and acceptable in His sight?

This is, no doubt, a Sacrifice worthy a Christian, infinitely exceeding all the Sacrifices of the law; where the knife is the wood, the blood not shed but in a figure, nor is there any death but in representation; a Sacrifice so far from taking us off from that of the Cross, that it unites us the more closely to it, represents it to us, and derives all its virtue and efficacy

from it.

This is, if any other, truly the doctrine of the Catholic Church, and such as the Church of England has never refused; and except it be our doubt of the corporeal presence, Monsieur de Meaux had certainly reason to expect that there was nothing in this we could justly except against.—pp. 62—64.

JOHNSON, PRESBYTER.-Propitiatory Oblation in the Holy

Eucharist1.

The impartial reader will not entertain any prejudice against this treatise for coming abroad without a name, if he do but consider how dangerous it is for any man openly to plead on that side of the cause, for which I have declared in my title-page. A very learned divine has been sometimes slily pointed at, sometimes in words at length reproached, for being inclined to Popery, because he had freely declared his mind to this purpose. His adversary is not content to hint his suspicion once, or twice, but repeats it almost twenty times in one book, consisting of little more than two hundred pages; and I do not think it necessary to give opportunity to such men, to mark me out for destruction, by branding me with that infamous character. p. 1.

But the judicious reader will give me leave to observe, that the learned Bishop Taylor and the incomparable Mr. Mede could see no Popery in this doctrine, and those books of theirs wherein

1 Published anonymously.

2 [Dr. Hickes.]

....

they expressly assert it, have maintained their reputation to as high a degree as most others written in that age. . . . . And that this opinion is consistent with a very extraordinary degree of zeal against the Church of Rome, appears by the example of Mr. Mede, who was not more remarkable for his industry in asserting the Christian Sacrifice, than in his laborious proofs that the Church of Rome is the Anti-christian Church. And I think no divine has more distinguished himself on this subject, than this admirable man.

But that I may clear not only these great men, but the doctrine itself from all just imputation of Popery, I shall first show the erroneous judgment of the Church of Rome as to this particular, and then lay before the reader that doctrine concerning the oblation in the Eucharist, which I think deserves to be embraced and defended by all that have any regard to antiquity, or even the institution of CHRIST JESUS himself.

1. The Papists hold, That, in the sacrifice of the Mass, the whole CHRIST, GOD and Man, is offered up hypostatically to the FATHER in the Eucharist, and is to be worshipped there by men under the species of bread and wine. This doctrine is utterly renounced by all Protestants; by those who assert the Eucharistical oblation, as well as those who deny it.

2. The Papists assert the substantial presence of CHRIST's body and blood, under the species of bread and wine in the Holy Eucharist; and that the Sacrifice of the Cross and Altar are substantially the same. But this is peremptorily denied by those who declare for the oblation of the Eucharist in the Church of England.

3. The Papists do maintain, That the sacrifice of the Mass is available for remission of sins to the dead, as well as to the living. And as this is not asserted by any of our Church, so it is heartily detested by the Author of this Treatise.

4. The Papists have private masses, in which the Priest pretends to make the oblation without distributing either the Body or Blood to the people; nay, without any people attending and they have many hundred such masses to one communion, and all this is expressly justified by the Council of Trent, Sess. xxii.

c. vi., though it be contrary to Scripture, and the practice of the primitive Church, and to several expressions even in their own Mass Book, which suppose the people to be present. All this is condemned by those who defend the Eucharistical Oblation here in England.

I need not tell the learned reader, that the opinions here renounced, are they which make the Mass a Sacrifice so odious in the sight of GOD, and of all well-informed Christians. On the other side it will appear by the following discourse.

1. That not the divinity and human soul of CHRIST JESUS, but his Body and Blood only, are offered in the Eucharist.

2. That not his substantial, but sacramental Body and Blood are there offered.

3. That the oblation of the Eucharist is a representer of that of the Cross, and therefore can be only for the sins of the living; for the representer cannot have a greater efficacy than the principal.

4. That the Eucharist is a Feast as well as a Sacrifice, and that the symbols are to be eaten and drunk, as well as offered to GOD; and this is what needs no other proof, but the words of institution, "Take, eat, this is my body," and "Drink ye all of this."

As what is here laid down makes a wide difference between the sacrifice of the Mass, and the primitive Oblation, which I am now defending; so I cannot but say, that the approbation of this doctrine is so far from being for the interest or service of Popery, that it may be a very proper means to bring over the more sensible and judicious part of the Papists to the Communion of our Church. For the Eucharistical oblation is so clearly to be demonstrated from the most primitive antiquity, and so well grounded on Scripture, that men who have senses exercised, and are capable of perusing the ancient records of Christianity, cannot but discern it, and are therefore averse from communion with that church, which is by some unwarily represented as an enemy to this doctrine. pp. 4-6.

I shall explain and defend this notion,

I. By showing, that propitiation was of old made by offering other material things besides animals.

II. I shall give some proofs from Scripture, that the Eucharist was intended to be such a propitiatory oblation.

III. That the primitive Church did understand the Eucharist to be a propitiatory oblation.

IV. And that our Church may very aptly be understood to mean the same.

V. I shall answer the objections against this doctrine.

1. Propitiation was of old made by other material things, as well as animals. By propitiation, I do not only mean pardon of sin; but in general, rendering the Divine Majesty more propitious to us. CAL

1. That sin might be expiated by other material things, under the law, besides animals, appears from Numb. xvi. 46, 47, where Aaron at Moses's command makes an atonement for the sins of the people with incense only; and the table for incense is always called an altar, Exod. xl. 5. and all the parallel texts. Philo (De Victim. offerend.) does not only prefer the altar of incense to the altar of burnt-offering, but even the oblation of incense before that of bloody sacrifices...

2. Oblations were made, not only for the expiation of sin, but in general, to make the Divine Majesty more propitious.... The shew-bread was a continual mincha, though renewed every week. It was to "be set in order before the LORD continually by an everlasting covenant, by a perpetual statute." Lev. xxiv. 8, 9... ...They were to be placed before the LORD, and not before the Israelites. And further, the memorial was made by burning the frankincense, which was put upon them "for an offering made by fire unto the LORD." Lev. xxiv. 7. And it would be strange indeed, if the priests should burn incense, and make offerings to the people. And here I may very seasonably desire the reader to observe the use and nature of a 66 memorial." The Greeks render it here 'Aváμvnois, which is the very same word that our SAVIOUR was pleased to use in the institution of His Supper. Whenever a mincha was offered, some part of it was burnt, and this part was called the " memorial," as Lev. ii. 2, 9, 16.... -pp. 11-18.

I proceed to show,