whether it be not most reasonable to understand it of the latter, since 'tis an oral manducation is here spoken of, and consequently the oblation must be such an one as is capable of being orally eaten; especially, since 'tis an oblation, or Sacrifice on an altar, and the most received signification of the word "altar," determines us to take it for the holy Table, on which this mystery is performed; and if the representative Sacrifice of CHRIST'S Body and Blood be here meant, there is, I suppose no occasion for me to repeat my former arguments, whereby to prove that it is propitiatory. pp. 45-50.

But before I pass to my third argument, I shall endeavour to wipe off those exceptions of our doctor against giving the name "altar" to the Communion table,-I mean, in a strict and proper sense. If it could not be proved that the holy Table on which we perform our mysteries, was ever called an Altar in Scripture, or antiquity, yet the holy Eucharist might be a proper oblation; for the board on which the shew-bread was placed, is never called an altar, always a "table;" yet it is certain, the "memorial" of the shew-bread offered upon that table, was as proper an oblation as any other; 'tis expressly called "an offering made by fire unto the LORD," Lev. xxiv. 7. But the Communion board is never called simply a " table," or "holy table" in the Scripture; but "the LORD's table," or (which is the same thing) an "altar." -p. 51.

The books of Ezekiel and Malachi are the only books in which we meet with this expression, "the table of the LORD," "the table of GOD;" and they, by this phrase, do, beyond all reasonable doubt, mean an altar. And from hence I form my

3rd argument for the propitiatory oblation in the holy Eucharist, which proceeds thus. If the holy board, on which the sacred mysteries are performed, be on that account an altar, then the Body and Blood of CHRIST there represented are an oblation ; but the holy board on which these mysteries are performed is an altar, and therefore the representative Body and Blood of CHRIST must be an oblation; and if an oblation, then certainly propitiatory and expiatory, because the principal was so in the most perfect manner. Now that the holy board is an

altar on account of the representation there made, appears from those words of St. Paul, "Ye cannot be partakers of the table of the LORD, and the table of devils," 1 Cor. x. 21. For it has already been showed that by "the LORD's table," or "God's table," we are always to understand an altar; for no other utensil, or thing, has that name given it in the holy Scripture; and we are to take the meaning of words in the Bible, not from our fancies, or from vulgar prejudices, but from the Bible itself; and since we find it has no other signification in any other place in the Old Testament, we must be extremely partial indeed, if we allow it any other in the New.-p. 56.

III. I proceed to show, That the primitive church did thus understand the Scriptures, and believe the holy Eucharist to be a propitiatory oblation.-p. 57.

1. The citations from antiquity which Mr. Mede gives us, do to a demonstration prove, that the primitive Church believed the bread and wine to be an oblation made to ALMIGHTY GOD.-P. 59.

2. I proceed to show, That they thought the Eucharist a propitiatory oblation; and to show that the ancient Liturgies give their evidence to this truth, I shall mention the Clementine, in which, after the last words before cited, viz. "We beseech Thee look graciously on these gifts laid before Thee," it presently adds "and be Thou well pleased with them for the honour of Thy CHRIST,... that so they who are partakers hereof, may be established in piety," &c. This is a form of full propitiation in behalf of the receivers: the remainder of the prayer is a propitiation for the Church, and all orders of men. . . . . And it is owned, that all the ancient Liturgies have forms to this effect, though not in the same words and it was for this reason, that the ancient Church used the Eucharist upon all extraordinary occasions, upon a marriage, or a death, I mean, just on the decease of any Christian, and upon any great calamity or affliction, it being supposed to be a proper means to avert the wrath of GOD, and conciliate His favour; and indeed to what other intent or purpose should it be offered to the Divine Majesty ? pp. 67, 8.

IV. I proceed to show, that our Church may very aptly be understood to mean the same. And,

1. I can see no reason to doubt, but that as the Bread and Wine are by the Rubric ordered to be placed on the table, just before the Prayer "for the whole state of CHRIST's Church," so those words, "accept our oblations," are to be referred to the Bread and Wine just before placed on the table. And what confirms me in this opinion is, that the Rubric and those words were inserted at the same time, and by the same hands; there was no Rubric ordering the Bread and Wine to be so placed, before the Restoration, and before that time there was no such word as "oblation" in the following Prayer; before that time the words were only these, "to accept our alms, and to receive our prayers." And lest any one should apply the word "oblations" to the offerings due to the minister, the Rubric relating to these offerings, which formerly stood just before this Prayer, is now put after the whole Communion Office. It is well known that the writings of Mr. Mede were greatly admired by most of our Clergy at the time of the Restoration; and he had publicly declared his judgment, that our Liturgy was defective in this particular, and many great men had shown themselves of the same mind, and therefore we might justly wonder if, upon a review of the Liturgy, nothing had been done to supply this defect. All this considered, I think it is in the highest degree probable, that by "oblations" there, we are to understand the bread and wine. And I think no one can reasonably doubt, but that they who added "oblations" in the Prayer "for the whole state of CHRIST'S Church," and the Rubric immediately going before, had the very words of Mr. Mede in their eye. pp. 82, 3.

Some think that the oblation of the Eucharistical Bread is lessened by being placed after that of the alms-money; whereas, if they be looked upon as several oblations, I rather suppose that the climax rises than falls; I mean, that we proceed upwards, first offer the alms, next the Eucharistical elements, and last of all exhibit them to GoD, as representatives of the great Sacrifice; and indeed the thing speaks for itself, we must begin with the lowest, because we end with the highest.-pp. 84, 5.

There are two considerable points determined by this Rubric, which before were uncertain, viz.

1. Who shall place the Bread and Wine on the holy Table? And this office is assigned to the Priest; and why to the Priest, unless it were to show that the placing them there was a very solemn action, not to be performed by any common person? And I suppose there can no reason be given, why this should be done by the priest, rather than any one else, but only this, that he is the only person authorized to tender an oblation to the ALMIGHTY.

2. The other point determined by this Rubric, is, when the elements shall be there placed? And that is, when he "humbly presents the alms ;" and, therefore, to be offered together with them.... The Bread and Wine were ordered to be provided by an old Rubric, and sure neither Priest nor clerk need be told, that when there is a Communion, Bread and Wine must be placed on the Holy Table: but the question was, when, and by whom? and upon this much depended; and these questions are answered by this Rubric in favour of the Christian oblation.

And after all, if this Rubric be not so express, in words at length, as some honest men might desire, yet it is sufficient that there is enough said, as to the first oblation, to justify any man that doth take these words as an actual tendering and presenting the elements to GOD. They who reviewed the Liturgy had reason to be on the reserve, considering how many they had to please, how many severe critical eyes were to censure it, before it could be established by a national authority. And for this reason they did not go so far as Mr. Mede desired; for he, after the words just before cited, would have "the congregation stand up, and show some sign of due and lowly reverence," while the minister offered the elements. The adding of a new ceremony, in which the people were to be concerned, was not thought advisable at that season.

2. Afterwards, all, or part of this Bread and Wine, thus offered, is by the Priest, in the words, and by the authority of CHRIST JESUS, declared to be His Body given or sacrificed, His Blood shed for our sins.

And here we have another question of moment determined in favour of the "propitiatory oblation." For one main matter of dispute under this head, is whether the Sacrifice of CHRIST's death is represented to GOD, or whether only to the people? and the Consecration Prayer clearly decides this dispute; for no one can doubt whether that Prayer be directed to GoD: and the words of institution are by our Church made a part of that Prayer, and therefore, to a demonstration, directed to GoD, as well as the rest of that Prayer and to what end do we represent the Sacrifice of CHRIST to GOD, if not in order to procure from God the effects and purchase of that Sacrifice? And if this representation of a Sacrifice be made to GOD, and in order to obtain these blessings, then I need add no more words to prove it a "propitiatory oblation."

3. Another argument may be drawn from those solemn words of propitiation, in behalf of every single communicant, "The Body of our LORD JESUS CHRIST, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul to eternal life;" and the same is said mutatis mutandis, at the delivery of the cup: and how can this Body and Blood preserve us to eternal life, but by preserving us from sin and punishment, from guilt, and from falling under temptations? So that no words can be more propitiatory; and it is to be observed, that, while they are spoken, the Minister is holding the consecrated elements in his hand, tendering them at the same time to GOD, and to the communicants. pp. 86-88.

After all have communicated, it is presumed by the Rubric that some of the consecrated "elements remain," which the priest is commanded "reverently" to "place" on the table, and, after the LORD's Prayer, to say that which in the Scotch Liturgy is placed between the consecration and administration, and I think may properly be called the Prayer of Oblation; in which God is desired "mercifully to accept this our Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving;" which words, as they may be understood of the whole service, so they may likewise be referred to the Eucharistical elements, part of which, as was observed, are supposed still to remain and stand on the table. As for my part, I cannot but take "this Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving," in its most