us. Because they may easily prove from the institution of this Sacrament by CHRIST, from this and divers other texts of Scripture, and from the primitive Fathers of the Church, that it is a Sacrifice; and forasmuch as our Church declares, that "this LORD's Supper is in such wise to be done and ministered as our LORD and SAVIOUR commanded it to be done, as the holy Apostles used it, and the good Fathers in the primitive Church frequented it" (Hom. of the Sacrament); they will easily show, that if we do not believe the Eucharist to be a Sacrifice, we do not hold to this rule and declaration of our Church, and confute us from our own principles.

And when they have thus confuted us, and clearly proved the Eucharist to be a Sacrifice, and we have not instructed our people in the nature of this Sacrifice, what a mighty advantage do we give them to draw our people from us? For when they have thus convinced them of our error in so material a point, how easy may it be to persuade them that all our doctrines are erroneous also! But when we show our people the true nature of this Sacrifice, that it is not the very individual Sacrifice of CHRIST Himself, (for that was offered "once for all,") but only the memorial or representation of that Sacrifice, they will see clearly that the Popish Sacrifice of the Mass', wherein they pretend to offer CHRIST "for the quick and the dead," has no foundation either in the Scripture or the ancient Fathers, but is clearly opposite to them; forasmuch as the picture cannot be the man whose picture it is, nor the representative the person he represents. And therefore many of our best divines, in their controversial writings against the Church of Rome, have acknowledged it as the doctrine of our Church, that this "Sacrament is a Sacrifice which does represent the Sacrifice which CHRIST once offered; wherein 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; an unbloody Sacrifice instituted by GOD, instead of the many bloody Sacrifices of the law:" and thereby have clearly confuted the doctrine of transubstantiation and of the Mass. For how can this be an unbloody Sacrifice, or a Sacrifice without blood, if therein the very Blood of CHRIST

was offered up to GOD? There cannot, therefore, be a better or more effectual preservative from Popery, as it has relation to the holy Sacrament of the altar, than this doctrine of the Eucharist being a true, proper, commemorative, representative and unbloody Sacrifice. pp. 19-23.

Secondly, If the holy Eucharist is a Sacrifice which, by our SAVIOUR'S institution, fully and perfectly represents the one great and meritorious Sacrifice of CHRIST upon the Cross, then it is much more excellent than any of the old legal Sacrifices: not more excellent in its own nature, (for bread and wine have nothing in the nature of them more worthy than the blood of bulls and of goats, than the libations of wine, or the oblations of fine flour, than shew-bread or incense,) but by virtue of the institution. For indeed there can be no natural virtue in any creature to make atonement for sin; nothing can satisfy for sin but the very Body and Blood of CHRIST Himself. And the legal Sacrifices, under the Mosaical dispensation, were propitiatory, only as they were appointed by divine institution to be so, and as they were types or shadows of that just and truly meritorious Sacrifice of CHRIST.... And so, by this divine appointment, the Sacrifice of the Eucharist being offered according to the institution, becomes propitiatory, that is, renders GOD good and gracious to us, and procures His pardon and favour.

In this respect, then, that is, by virtue of the divine institution, the Sacrifice of the holy Eucharist far exceeds all the Sacrifices of the law, and is far more excellent. For the Sacrifices of the law were, by their institution, but imperfect types of the great Sacrifice on the Cross. They were appointed to render GoD propitious or gracious, but in some cases and on some occasions, not in all. There was no Sacrifice that could make an atonement for murder, and some other heinous offences; but the Eucharistical Sacrifice, rightly and duly ministered and received, is an atonement for the greatest sins, and, by virtue of the divine institution, procures pardon for them, and renders GoD propitious and gracious to us being truly faithful and penitent, notwithstanding the foulest crimes. This Sacrifice is not an imperfect type, as the Jewish Sacrifices were, even by their

institution, of the meritorious Sacrifice on the Cross; but it is, by virtue of the institution, the full and perfect representative of it, so as to convey to us all the benefits and blessings purchased by the original. Whatsoever sins CHRIST's meritorious death and Passion made satisfaction for, whatsoever sins are cleansed by His Blood; the pardon of them is conveyed to every worthy receiver, in the holy Eucharist or Sacrifice of His representative Body and Blood. Now there are no sins but what CHRIST made a satisfaction for; the Scripture expressly teaching that "the Blood of JESUS CHRIST cleanseth us from all sin." "And He is the propitiation for our sins," whatsoever they be, "and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." And He appointed this Eucharistical Sacrifice to convey to every particular person that should receive it, all the benefits of His Death and Passion. He appointed it to be such a perfect complete representative of His very Body which was broken, and of His very Blood which was shed for us, that He thought convenient to give it the name of His Body and Blood, saying, "Take, eat, this is my Body"-" Drink ye all of it; for this is my Blood." Therefore, as St. Paul says, "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the Blood of CHRIST? the bread which we break, is it not the communion of the Body of CHRIST?" That is, Are not all the blessings purchased for us by the Sacrifice of CHRIST'S Body and Blood, communicated or conveyed to us by this Eucharistical Sacrifice of bread and wine? Undoubtedly they are. Since, then, by CHRIST'S Body broken, and His Blood shed, there is a satisfaction made, and a pardon obtained for all sins, it is manifest that this pardon is conveyed to every penitent and faithful receiver of the Eucharist; for that, the Scripture teaches, is the communion of the Body and Blood of CHRIST, the means by which He has appointed that the merits of His death shall be communicated to us: that is, the pardon and remission of all sins, of all transgressions. Since, therefore, the Sacrifices of the law could procure pardon for some sins only, not for all, and the Sacrifice of the Eucharist is appointed to procure and convey the pardon of all sins, of all transgressions, the Eucharist is manifestly a more worthy and acceptable Sacri

fice, by virtue of the institution, than all the Sacrifices of the law.

Thirdly, Forasmuch as the Eucharist is a Sacrifice, it is certain that none can administer it but a priest, one particularly called and appointed by GoD to that office, as was Aaron. . . .

...

Fourthly, Since the Eucharist is a Sacrifice, an oblation appointed by God Himself, to render Him propitious and gracious, and has no intrinsic virtue in itself to procure pardon and grace, but all its worth and virtue is derived only from its institution, whereby it perfectly represents and conveys to us all the benefits purchased by the truly meritorious Sacrifice of CHRIST, let us be very careful to minister and partake of it as it was ministered by CHRIST, and received by His disciples. Let the priest, who represents CHRIST Himself on this occasion, in a more particular manner, as the steward or dispenser of His mysteries, be especially careful to perform every part of the oblation Himself as CHRIST did; not permitting the oblation to be made by any other hand, as is too commonly practised.' I speak with regard to the placing the bread and wine on the altar. This is too frequently done by the clerk or sexton before the Office begins: a thing contrary to the nature of an oblation and the express directions of our Rubric, and by no means agreeable to CHRIST's institution. For He Himself took the bread and the cup, and made an oblation of them to God, before He consecrated them, or declared them to be His Body and Blood. For " He took bread, and when He had given thanks, He brake it." By taking the bread, and giving of thanks, He plainly made an oblation of it to God, before He brake it, and pronounced it to be His Body. We ought, therefore, as He did, to make an oblation of the elements to GOD, before we consecrate, or pronounce them to be the Body and Blood of CHRIST. Now the placing the elements on the altar, or the LORD's table, makes them an oblation to GOD, and separates them from all common use; and to make an oblation or Sacrifice, is, as I have showed you, the proper office of the priest; and it is the highest presumption, and a great offence to GoD, for any one else to undertake it therefore it is necessary that the priest place the

elements on the table; for thereby it is that he makes them an oblation; he presents them to GOD, and having so presented or offered them, he then, as our Church also directs, blesses them, beseeching God to accept them, together with our alms; which are also by him placed there at the same time, saying, "We humbly beseech Thee most mercifully to accept our alms and oblations." Then, after some other prayers, suitable to the occasion, he consecrates, or declares them, in our SAVIOUR's own words, to be the Body and Blood of CHRIST. But if the priest does not make an oblation of the elements before the consecration, he does not minister this Sacrament as CHRIST ministered it, and fails in a very material part, and consecrates what he has not first offered to GOD; which CHRIST did not do.

And as the priest ought to minister this holy Sacrament, as it was ministered by CHRIST Himself, so ought the people to receive it, as it was received by His disciples; that is, they ought to receive the whole Sacrament, not a part of it only. Therefore the Church of Rome, which permits not the people to receive the Cup of the LORD, but the Bread only, is guilty of a sacrilegious sin, and a most high profanation of this Sacrifice. For when a Sacrifice or oblation is made to GOD, that which is so offered is then to be disposed of as God has appointed, and no otherwise; because God has a more particular, peculiar right in our oblations than in other things. . . . Therefore, when we have made an oblation of bread and wine at the LORD's table, if we do not dispose of that bread and wine as He has directed, we are guilty of sacrilege. Now, when CHRIST instituted this holy Sacrifice and Sacrament, He gave the wine as well as the bread to all His disciples, saying, "Drink ye all of this." For this reason, if the wine as well as the bread be not given to all the communicants, then is not this oblation entirely disposed of according as God has directed, consequently there is a sacrilege committed. And the Church of Rome is guilty of this great abomination, in denying the cup to all but him that ministers, when CHRIST Himself communicated it to all that were present, and gave express command that we should do as He did.

Fifthly, since the holy Eucharist is a Sacrifice perfectly repre