Minifter, and a Type of Chrift, who is both King, and Priest of his Church. To this purpose speaks St. Clement in his Epiftle to the Corinthians, Cap. lviii. Now God (faith he) the Seer of all things, the Father and Ruler of all Spirits, and Lord of all Flesh, who hath elected our Lord Jefus Chrift, and us by bim, to be his peculiar People, grant to every Soul, that calleth upon his glorious, boly Name, Faith, Fear, Peace, Patience, Long-fuffering, Continence, Purity, and Wifdom unto all well pleafing of him thro' our HighPrieft, and Prefed Jefus Christ, to whom be Glory, Majefty, Dominion, and Honour now, and for ever. Amen. Wherefore the Church by its Constitution having fuch a Governour, to whom Glory, and Majefty, and Dominion, and Honour belongeth, that is, who is a King, as well as an High Prieft, the Government of it must be a Kingly Priesthood, or a Prieftly Kingdom under his Adminiftration, of whom it is written, Thou art a Prieft for ever after the Order of Melchifedeck. So faith St. Hierom, Et ipfe Rex

Sacerdos nobis utrumque donaverit, ut fimus Genus Regale, & Sacerdotale, & quafi angularis La pis parietem utrumque conjunxerit, & de duobus gregibus bonus paftor unum effecerit gregem: He al fo, (fpeaking of Chrift, as the Antitype of Melchifedeck) being King, and Prieft, gave us both (Honours) that we should be a Regal, and Sacerdotal fort (of People) and be as the Corner-ftone hath united both the Walls, and as the good Shepherd of two Flocks bath made one.

Thus much, Sir, have I said of the Chriftian Sacrifice to prove, that Chriftian Minifters are proper Priefts. But as Men byaffed by Preconceptions are apt to object; fo fuch Men as your late Writer,

* Παρὰ Θεῷ ἔκλεκτον, ο Tim. xi. 4. λίθον ἀκροζωναῖον ἔκε λεκτον, ibid. ν. 6.

Epift ad Evagrium, Vol. III. Edit. Bafil.

and

and his Second, taking the Notion of a Sacrifice from Dr. Outram, who is a great Author with them, object his Definition of a Sacritice to the facrificial Notion of the Holy Eucharift, which they truly fay do not agree together. And therefore I muft acknowledge, that either he is mistaken in his Definition, or that the ancient Church hath erred in the facrificial Conception they had of the Holy Eucharift, which muft be falfe, if the Doctor's Definition, or Defcription' of a Sacrifice be true. Wherefore, Sir, before Is proceed to my other Proofs of the Christian Pricft hood, you must give me leave to examine Dri Que tram's Definition of a Sacrifice, which they oppofe. to the facrificial Idea the Ancients had of the Holy Mystery, and I here give it you in his own Words, which you'll find in the 82 Page of his BookA) Sacrifice, faith be, may be thus defined, Ut fit wego poeg rite confumpta, feu ut paulo explicatiust dicam, SACRIFICIUM apud populum Hebræum, ejuf modi erat facrum, quod cum Deo oblatum erat, tum, rite confectum & confumptum. That is in English, A Sacrifice is an Oblation rightly confumed. Or that I may speak more plainly, a Sacrifice among the Hebrews, was fuch a holy thing, as was both offered to God, and rightly deftroyed, and confumed. Now, fay they, this Definition of a Jewish Sacrifice is not applicable to the Holy Eucharift, in which there is nothing confumed, nor poured out either upon the Lord's Table, or at the bottom of it, as was ufual for the Blood to be poured upon the Altar, in order to make an Atonement for Sin, or to be fprinkled round about upon the Altar; nor is there any Wine poured out on the Lord's Table, or upon the Bread, as it was formerly upon the Sacrifice; nor are there any Remainders of our Bleffed Lord's natural Body, who was facrificed, to be taken by the Commu

S

1

Or Ritely, in es according to the holy Rites appointed by God,
F

Licants:

nicants: How therefore the Sacrament fhould come under the Notion of a Sacrifice (faith the Objector) I cannot conceive.

Sir, I have given you the Words of the Obje Etion, as I received them, and I fhall lay feveral Anfwers to it before you, and leave you to judge whether they are fatisfactory, or not. First, then I pray you to confider, that the ancient Writers of the Church knew the Nature of Sacrifices both Jewish, and Gentile, as well as any Chriftian Writers fince the Reformation; and yet, as I have often obferved, and sufficiently thew'd, they were fo far from apprehending any Inconfiftency between the Notion of a Sacrifice, and the Nature of the Holy Eucharift, that they believed, and thought it to be a pure commemorative Sacrifice, foretold by the Prophets, and folemnly offered it as fuch. Secondly, I muft intreat you to confider, that Dr. Outram's Definition of a Sacrifice, is, as he faith, of a Jewish Sacrifice, and doth it follow, from his Definition, that every thing that belongs to a Jewish Sacrifice, or the Definition of it, muft belong to the one material Chriftian Sacrifice, or else that it cannot be fuch? The Law is changed, and the Priesthood is changed, as the Apostle obferves in his Epistle to the Hebrews; and with them the Sacrifice is changed too, as St. Cyprian faith in the Words I cited before in the Margin, God hath not rejected Oblations, but as they had Oblations, fo have we; there were Sacrifices among that People, and there are Sacrifices in the Church, the Species, or kind of Sacrifices being only changed. Wherefore fince the Chriftian Religion is another fort of Religion different in fo many things from the Jewith, is it reasonable to try and examine the

Petrus de Murca de Sacrificio miffa: Hoc eft novum Chrifliane legis externum Sacrificium, ut fummo confenfu docent omnes antiqui Patres, nemine dempto, qui hanc effe Oblationem mundam, quæ toto orbe offerenda erat à Malachia prænuntiata teftantur.

one

one material Sacrifice of that Religion fo nicely and Strictly by that Definition of a Jewish Sacrifice? or to reject it as a Sacrifice, becaufe it doth not in every point agree with that Teft? Wherefore fuppofing the formal Reafon of a Sacrifice in the Jewish Church confifted in the Deftruction, and Confump tion of the Oblation, muft it of neceffity be fo in the Christian Religion, which hath changed the Rites, and retrenched the number of Sacrifices to one, and alter'd the whole Jewith Worthip, which Dr. Ou tram hath defcribed? For the fame Reafon, as I obferved upon another occafion, they may deny our Churches to be Temples, becaufe Ben. Mai mon's, or the Doctor's Defcription of the Jewish Temple is not applicable to them; or that the true Notion of divine Worfhip belongs to our way of worshiping God, becaufe it is fo different from that of the Jews. There were many other Rites belonging to Jewish Sacrifices befides Deftruction, and Confumption in whole, or in part at the Altar, as heave ing, and waving in the Therumahs, and Thenuphas, and eating or Participation of the things facrificed, either by the Priefts alone, as in the Sin offerings; and Trefpafs offerings, or by the Offerers as well as the Priests, as in the Peace.offerings, and by confequence from this Objection brought againft the Chriftian Sacrifice, the Objectors may alfo, if they please, fay that the Holy Eucharift cannot be fuch, becaufe it is not held up to Heaven, or waved towards the four Corners of it, as well as because it is not in whole, or in part confumed upon the Altar. It hath many other facrificial Rites belonging to it; for it is brought to the Chriftian Temple, and Altar, and delivered to the Chriftian Cohen, or Minifter, who ftands on God's part to receive it of the People; and on the Peoples part to offer it up for them to God; and when the Offering is finished, both Pricf and People together participate of it, at God's

ble, which fignifies, as it did in the Jewish Religion, that the Communicants are in a state of Favour, and Friendship with God. I would fain ask thefe Gentlemen, if these three holy Rites without others, and efpecially without Deftruction, and Confumption in the Jewish manner, are not by God's Appointment, who is the Arbiter of religious Rites, and Ceremonies, fufficient to make a Sacrifice? If they will fay, they are not fufficient, let them give their reafons for it. But if they will acknowledge they are, then let them no more deny the Holy Eucharift to be a true, and proper Sacrifice, because Dr. Outram's Definition of a Jewish Sacrifice is not applicable to it.

But, Sir, in the third place a good reafon may be given from the Jewish Law of Sacrifices, why neither the Bread, nor Wine of the Holy Eucharift, nor any part of them is fo confumed; and that is, because the Chriftian Church hath no proper Altar, as the Jewish had for the Confumption of Offerings. That Altar was the great Altar without the Houfe of the Temple in the inner Court thereof; and therefore the Chriftians having no fuch Altar for the Confumption of Offerings, their Offerings are not to be fo confumed.

I might add in the fourth place, in answer to this Objection, that by reafon of the ftraight myftical Union, and Conjunction between the facramental, and natural Body, and Blood of Chrift, or between the reprefented, and reprefentative Sacrifice, the Wine of the Holy Sacrament, which is the myftical, and putative Blood of fprinkling, "was, and always

"De Marca de Sacrificio miffa. Neceffe non eft, ut rationem cujufque facrificii in villime ma&tatione, vel interitu hoflia conftituamus, cum jufficiat jola vei fenfibilis ad honorem Divini Numinis ipfius decret oblara dicatio, qua illi a miniftro publico dicatur. Quamvis in Sacrificio Euchariflice ron decft quoque fuo modo myfticus vidima inte ritus, fi quis jam quoque condipionem in facrificii veri ratione defideret,