"stant Divines varied in their Language on this "Head; fome abiding by the old Definitions, upon "good Confideration; others too unwarily depart

ing from them. So now we are to confider "them as divided into two forts; and in Process "of Time fprung up a third fort, growing, as it "were out of the other two." Of each of these the Doctor proceeds to fay fomething, in their Order and Place; and what he fays thereon makes the most agreeable Part of the Treatise.

The laft he mentions of the Divines of the first Stamp, that is, of those who stedfaftly adhered to the old Definitions, is Dr. Brevint; concerning whom he says, "He was well read in the Eu

66

chariftic Sacrifice: no Man understood it better; "which may appear fufficiently from two Tracts of "his upon this Subject, fmall ones both, but ex"tremely fine. * He stood upon the ancient "Ground; looked upon Evangelical Duties as the "true Oblations and Sacrifices; refolved the Sa

crifice of the Eucharift, actively confidered, folely "into them; and explained the practical Ufes of "that Doctrine in fo clear, fo lively, and fo affect"ing a way, that one fhall fcarce meet with any

''

''

thing on the Subject that can be justly thought of "to exceed it, or even to come up to it. It is "worth the noting, how acutely Dr. Brevint diftinguished between the facramental Sacrifice of Chrift, and the real or actual Sacrifice of our"felves. We cannot properly facrifice Chrift; we can only do it in Signs and Figures, that is, improperly or commemoratively: But we may pro"perly offer up ourselves to God, and that is, in ftrict Propriety of Speech, our Sacrifice, our fpi. "ritual Sacrifice. Dr. Brevint rejected, with Difdain, any Thought of a material Sacrifice, a

66

* They are, the Depth and Mystery of the Roman Mass, and the Chriftian Sacrament and Sacrifice.

"Bread

"Bread-offering, or a Wine-offering; tartly ridiculing the Pretences commonly made for it.

66

At the Head of the fecond Clafs, viz. those who departed from the old Definitions, is placed the celebrated Mr. Hooker, who wrote in 1597, and who feared not, as the Doctor expreffes it, to fay, "that Sacrifice is no Part of the Church-Miniflry,

and that we have, properly, now no Sacrifice." Our Author prefumes, he meant by proper Sacrifice, propitiatory, according to the Senfe of the Trent Council, or of the new Definitions. In fuch a Senfe as that, he might justly say, that Sacrifice is no Part of the Church-Ministry, or that the Christian Church. has no Sacrifice. But then he commends not the Ufe of fuch new Language, be the Meaning ever fo right: The Fathers never used it.

The foremoft of the third Set of Divines is our excellent Dr. Mede, as our Author terms him, at the fame time that he cenfures him. In the Year 1635 he was Chief in this Scheme. The Aim was good, Dr. Waterland fays, to retrieve the Chriftian Sacrifice, which feemed to be almost finking; but the Measures were ill laid. He at large expofes the two fundamental Flaws in Dr. Mede's Syftem: One was, his endeavouring to fix the Notion or Definition of a Chriftian Sacrifice by the Rules of the Levitical, as if typical and true were the fame thing. The other, not being able to make out the Sacrifice he aimed at, by the very Rules which himfelf had fixed for it.

Towards the Close of this Difcourfe, our Author addreffes his Brethren, to whom he deliver'd it, in the following Strains: "I have pointed out to you (so far "as I have been able to judge, upon very serious and "diligent Inquiry) the original Ground and Source "of all the Confufion which has arifen in this "Argument of the Sacrifice of the Eucharift. "The changing the old Definitions for new ones

"has

"has perplexed us: And now again, the changing "the new ones for the old, may fet us right. Re"turn we but to the ancient Ideas of Spiritual Sa"crifices, and then all will be clear, just, and uni"form. We need not then be vainly fearching "for a Sacrifice (as the Romanists have been before "us) among Texts that fpeak nothing of one,

from Melchifedeck in Genefis down to Hebrews "the xiii. Our Proofs will be found to lie where "the fpiritual Services lie, and where they are called "Sacrifices. The Eucharift contains many of "them, and must therefore be a proper Sacrifice, "in the Strength of thofe Texts, and cannot be "otherwife. Here the primitive Fathers refted "that Matter; and here we may reft it, as upon "firm Ground. Let us not prefume to offer the "Almighty any dead Sacrifice, in the Eucharift; " he does not offer us empty Signs: But as he con"veys the choiceft of his Bleffings by thofe Signs, "fo by the fame Signs (not Sacrifices) ought we "to convey our choiceft Gifts, the Gospel-Services, "the true Sacrifices which he has commanded. "So will the federal League of Amity be mutually "kept up, and perfected. Our Sacrifices will then "be magnificent, and our Priesthood glorious; our "Altar high and heavenly, and our Eucharist a "conftant Leon of good Life; every way fitted "to draw down from above thofe ineftimable

Bleffings which we so justly expect from it. Let "but the Work or Service be esteemed the Sacri"fice, rather than the material Elements, and then "there will be no Pretence or Colour left for ab"furdly fuppofing, that any Sacrifice of ours can "be expiatory, or more valuable than ourselves ; "or that our Hopes of Pardon, Grace, and Sal"vation, can depend upon any Sacrifice extrinfick, "fave only the All-fufficient Sacrifice of Chrift. "When once thofe foreign Fictions, or Fancies,

"of

"of other extrinfick Sin-Offerings, or Expiations, "are removed, there will be no Error in afferting "a proper Euchariftick Sacrifice; but many good practical Ufes will be ferved by it."

66

Í have now faid what I think is fufficient for giving the Reader a Notion of this Charge. The Author has added to it an Appendix, exceeding it in Length, wherein he advances a Variety of Inftances, to prove what he had hinted in the foregoing Tract, of the ftrange Lengths which have been run, and of the unwarrantable Exceffes which fome late Systems of the Euchariftick Sacrifice manifeftly abound with. This is a Tafk which he enters upon with Reluctancy, but he fhews us the Reasonableness and even Neceffity of this Undertaking, Mr. Johnson, who wrote the unbloody Sacrifice, and his Admirer and Vindicator Dr. Brett, furnish our Author almost entirely with this Part of his Subject; the Exorbitances of the firft of these Gentlemen are in particular the Objects of his Cenfure. He intended to digeft them under the fix following Heads, which were feverally to furnish out fo many diftinct Chapters: 1. In depreciating fpiritual Sacrifices beyond what was decent, or juft. 2. In overvaluing material Sacrifices. 3. In overftraining many Things relating to our Lord's fuppofed Sacrifice in the Eucharift. 4. In overturning, or undermining the Sacrifice of the Crofs. 5. In the wrong Stating our Sacrifice in the Eucharift. 6. In giving erroneous Accounts of the Evangelical, or Chriftian Priefthood.

For want of Room the Doctor has gone no further than the fourth of thefe Heads; and hopes his Readers will excufe his stopping fhort of his Defign, and faving both himself and them the Trouble (perhaps unneceffary Trouble) of two more. Inftead of them we have a brief Analyfis of Mr. Johnson's System, fhewing what it is, and by what Steps he might be

led

led into it. And a distinct fummary View of the feveral OBLATIONS in the Eucharift, previous to CONSECRATION, or fubfequent.

ARTICLE III.

Lettres fur la Religion effentielle a L'Homme, diftinguée de ce qui n'en eft que l'acceffoire. Premiere Partie, i. e. Letters concerning the Religion effential to Man, in Contradiftinction to that which is only acceffary. In two Parts. London: Printed for John Nourfe at the Lamb without Temple-Bar, 1738. Duodecimo. Pages 184 and 206, befide divers Appendages.

HE Author of these Pieces has himself given

THE

us an Account of them, under the Form of an Epistle to the Editors. They were, as he there tells us, occafioned, by what feveral Perfons had urged to him, concerning fome Inferences, highly prejudicial to Religion, that were fuppofed naturally to proceed from the Principle of a felf-fufficient Being, which he had established in the Introduction of a former Work. It was faid to him, that from that very Principle, the Free-thinkers took an Authority to fap the Foundations of Religion, and even to destroy Morality, or at least to indulge themfelves in fuch an Excefs of Liberty, as degenerates into downright Licentioufnefs. He fets before us these pretended Confequences, which, he owns, have at first Sight fomething in them fpecious, and feem evidently to follow from the aforefaid Principle; but he makes it appear, that on a closer Examination, there refult from it Confequences directly oppofite That the Existence of an independent, felf-fufficient Being, far from undermining Religion,

or