Eucharist. Some learned persons, ancient and modern, have reasonably conceived three several parts or views of one continued oblation of Christ our Lord" but then they have conceived it in quite another sense, and upon very different principles, nothing at all akin to the notion of the bread-sacrifice. They might, in their way, consistently maintain one continued oblation; which others cannot, for the reasons just mentioned. Therefore, though it is a very great error to reject the sacrifice of the cross, yet since it is but the necessary consequence of the principle before mentioned, and is no more than arguing right from wrong premises; it seems that the first or greatest fault lies in retaining the principle, after it is clearly seen what company it must go with, and what precipices it leads to. I forbear to press these matters further, and should have been glad to have had no occasion for pressing them so far. May God give a blessing to what is sincerely intended for the service of truth and godliness: and may that Divine Spirit which accompanies the word and sacraments, and dwells in all the faithful, grant us a sound judgment and a right understanding in all things.

u See Review, above, p. 372.

DISTINCTIONS OF SACRIFICE

SET FORTH IN

A CHARGE

DELIVERED IN PART TO

THE CLERGY OF MIDDLESEX,

At the Easter Visitation, 1740.

Nos panem et vinum, in usu sacrae Coenae, sanctificari concedimus : sacrificari nunquam dabimus. Mason. de Minister. Anglican. p. 575.

REVEREND Brethren,

THOUGH I have dwelt some time upon the Christian sacrifice, perhaps even to a degree of tediousness; yet considering the great importance of the subject, I am not willing to dismiss it, while I see room left for throwing in any further light upon it. This may be done, as I conceive, by a more minute consideration of the several distinctions, or names of distinction, which sacrifice, of one kind or other, has passed under, in Church writers; those especially of the earlier times, not neglecting others of later date.

My design therefore, at present, is to bring together into one summary view the most noted distinctions, or names of distinction; and to explain them one by one, taking in the authorities proper to illustrate their meaning, or to signify their use.

I.

The first and most comprehensive division, or distinction of sacrifice, is into four several kinds, denominated from so many several kinds of religion; Patriarchal, Pagan, Mosaic, and Christian.

1. The Patriarchal sacrifices commenced, very probably, soon after the fall, and consisted of slain beasts, prefiguring Christ to be slain, pursuant to some Divine appointment 1. Certain it is, that Cain and Abel offered sacrifices, and that very early; one, of the fruits of the earth; and the other,

This hath been probably collected from Gen. iii. 21. See Patrick and other commentators.

b See my first Charge of 1731, Works, vol. v. p. 20. Cp. Euse

bius, Demonstr. Evang. lib. i. cap. 10. p. 35.

c A.M. 130. Bedford's Scripture Chronol. p. 126.

of cattled. Such were the patriarchal sacrifices strictly so called, of the material and extrinsic kind. No doubt but the good Patriarchs offered spiritual sacrifices besides: but those were Gospel sacrifices, (as the Gospel, in some sense, obtained even from the time of the falle,) and therefore I reckon not them as purely patriarchal.

2. The second branch of this division concerns the Pagan sacrifices; which appear to have been little else but the patriarchal, variously corrupted, at different times, and in different degrees, by superstitious additions or mutilationsf.

3. The Mosaical sacrifices were the patriarchal augmented, regulated, and very minutely diversified, by Divine authority.

4. The Christian sacrifices are what both the patriarchal and Mosaical, strictly so called, pointed to: they are the things signified, the truth, the substance, the antitypes or archetypes of those types, signs, figures, shadows. Christians have a sacrifice of which they participate, and whereupon they feast, which is no other than the grand sacrifice itself, whereof the patriarchal and Jewish sacrifices were types, or prefigurations and Christians have sacrifices, which they devoutly offer up as presents to the Divine Majesty: those are their spiritual sacrifices, (all reducible to one, namely, self-sacrifice,) whereof the patriarchal sacrifices were signs or symbols h. So much, in the general, of the first distinction,

:

d Gen. iv. 3, 4.

See my Review, above, p. 310.

Tantum interest inter sacrificia Paganorum et Hebraeorum, quantum interest inter imitationem errantem, et praefigurationem praenuntiantem.' Augustin. contr. Faust. lib. xxi. cap. 21. p. 348. Cp. lib. xxii. cap. 17. p. 370. ed. Bened.

Note, That the two oldest names of sacrifice are mincha' (Gen. iv. 3) and corban' (Levit. i. 2), both signifying a gift, or present; and in that case, a gift

to God. This observation may be of use to cut off all fruitless speculations upon the critical meaning of the younger name Ovoía, in the Greek, and to vindicate the propriety of the appellation, as to spiritual services, the noblest of all presents to a spiritual Being.

hOf the difference between a type and a symbol, see Outram de Sacrificiis, p. 203. A type, strictly, is an image or figure of things future but a symbol is an image or figure of things at large, whether past, present, or to come.