crifice with the Jews. But, further, that this kind of Sacrifice only should remain, when all the rest should cease; this also is consonant to the tradition of the Jews, as Kimchi tells us. For, upon this saying of the Prophet, (Jer. xxiii. 11.) that there should be "heard again in Jerusalem the voice of joy, and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride, the voice of them that shall say, Praise the LORD of Hosts, for the LORD is good, for His mercy endureth for ever, [and] of them that shall bring [the Sacrifice of] praise [or thanks] into the house of the LORD:" he comments on the last words in this manner; "The Prophet says not that they shall bring sin-offerings, or trespass-offerings; because in that day there would be no wicked nor sinners among them: (for as he before told them) they should all know the LORD. And so have our Masters of blessed memory told us, that in the time to come all Sacrifices should cease, except the Sacrifice of thanksgiving."

This saying of the Masters of Israel is a great truth, and better understood by Christians, who... know that the Sacrifices for sin are not ceased by the ceasing of sin, but superseded by the Sacrifice made for them by their LORD and High Priest; and that the "Sacrifice of thanksgiving," they are thenceforth to make, is the commemoration their LORD has instituted for that their most gracious redemption. This is the Sacrifice of that New Covenant of which the Prophet there speaks, and which the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews from him alleges. And to this Sacrifice the same author, I suppose, refers, when he says, "We have an Altar, whereof they have no right to eat, who serve the tabernacle;" for they eat not of the oblation made for their sins, as we do of our blessed SAVIOUR; "by whom [by whose Body, and in whose Name] we offer the Sacrifice of praise [thanksgiving] to GoD continually, that is, the fruit [or oblation] of our lips, [or, which our lips have vowed to return, as well as what we do return with our lips,] ceasing not to do good, and to distribute both out of our oblations, and the rest of our substance, for with such sacrifices [such offerings of our praise and goods in the general, and at the Eucharist in particular] GOD is well pleased."-pp. 248, 9.

DODWELL, CONFESSOR.-Discourse concerning the one Altar, and one Priesthood.

The unity of the Catholic Church, in opposition to the separate conventicles of schismatics, is (in the language of the most ancient and accurate writers against schism, especially Ignatius and St. Cyprian, from whom later antiquity has received the same terms) expressed as grounded on the unity of the priest and the altar. In which way of reasoning they conclude, that they who partake at the same altar, and of the same mystical Sacrifices offered thereon, and receive their portions of this sacrificial feast from the ministry of the same priest, whose office it is to offer those mystical Sacrifices on that same altar, that they, and they alone, are to be judged to belong to the same society, confederated by those Sacrifices. pp. 1, 2.

First, therefore, I observe, that this way of reasoning for unity from one altar and one priest, was not first taken up in the later ages of the Church, but deduced from the nearest and freshest memory of the Apostles. p. 14

Even these very terms are mystically applied to Christianity by authors of Ignatius's age, who, notwithstanding, wrote before him; and particularly so applied when they had occasion to reason from the Levitical patterns to deduce obligations under the Christian religion. Thus Clemens Romanus reasons to the Corinthians....

Yet not St. Clemens only. . . but the Apostle himself allows and observes the same reasoning, and in the very same instances for which I am at present concerned, of priest and altar. So he argues for the right of maintenance, that "they who minister about holy things, live of the things of the temple; and they which wait at the altar, are partakers with the altar:" that even so hath the LORD ordained, that they which preach the Gospel, should live of the Gospel." Plainly supposing that our clergy answers the Levitical priesthood, our Churches their temple, our Communion table their altar and that what was

66

...

thought equal in their case in the provisions of the Old Testament, is for that very reason to be taken for ordained in the case of the Gospel ministry. . . . But... the Apostle . . . allows a higher obligation to this way of arguing from the precedent of the Levitical priesthood. He reasons from the Aaronical to the Melchizedechian priesthood, from the priesthood of mortal men to the immortal priesthood of the Son of GOD. "No man took the honour" of the Levitical priesthood "unto himself, but he that was called of God, as was Aaron. So also CHRIST glorified not Himself to be made an High Priest," &c. " And "every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and Sacrifices. Wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer." And as none had right to eat of the Jewish altar but Israelites, so when he is to prove that literal Israelitism is not the Israelitism that can challenge privileges, he does it by this argument, that "we have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle."

Thus customary it was, in those earlier times, to reason from Levitical precedents in these very instances. pp. 21–24.

Thirdly, therefore, as this way of reasoning from Jewish precedents is solid in general, and solid in these very instances of priest and altar; so it holds particularly in such inferences as these are, for which they are produced by the ancients concerning unity:-That, as the one priest and the one altar were the characterisms of unity in the Jewish constitution, so that priesthood and altar among the Christians, which was shadowed by the Jewish priesthood and altar, ought now also, by the same parity of reason, to be taken for the characters of Christian unity.— pp. 28, 9.

For as it was not to be doubted, that Gop designed unity for the mystical as well as the literal Israel, so He would, certainly, have been more express in the signification of His mind, if He had intended any change in the principles of this unity. But seeing there appears not the least intimation of such a design, seeing He was pleased to continue a mystical priesthood, and a mystical altar, in the mystical as well as the literal Israel, who would not thence conclude, that He intended the mystical priest

hood and altar should still be the principles of unity to the mystical Israel, as the literal priesthood and altar had formerly been to the literal? And seeing the very terms of " priest" and "altar" were not the proper languge of the New Testament, why should they be used at all, but only to signify that they were equivalent, under the New Testament, with those things which had properly borne their names under the Old, and were to perform the same office?-pp. 35, 6.

But that which more nearly concerns the design of this present way of reasoning is, that these Sacrifices and this high priesthood of the Gospel were mystical; and so mystical as not only to signify, but also to perform what was, according to the sense of those times, to be expected from mysteries. . . . And this also they did believe, and had not reason to believe themselves mistaken in believing so, that the Eucharist was the mystical Sacrifice, performing the same thing under the Gospel as the external bloody Sacrifices under the law; . . . And therefore, the public Sacrifices being... designed as ceremonies of admission to a league and covenant and intimate union with GoD, such a kind of Sacrifice was requisite to be asserted to our mystical Israelitism, as might engage GOD in covenant with us, and admit us to a mystical union with Him.

This therefore being granted, it was also further plain that this mystical Sacrifice was to be expected by positive prescription of GOD Himself, and therefore must be found among the positive prescriptions of the Gospel. For no external rites could either oblige God, or unite the worshippers to Him by any natural efficacy of the things themselves, and therefore what efficacy soever they were conceived to have, must wholly be derived from the divine pleasure and appointment, which it is withal impossible for us to know without positive and express revelation.-pp. 296 -299.

If, therefore, we can only expect these mystical evangelical Sacrifices among the positive institutions of the Gospel, the inquiry then cannot be difficult. There are but two institutions of this kind pretended, and whether of these was more probably intended to supply the office of Sacrifices will easily be known

by the analogy they bear to the Sacrifices then received. That which came nearest them was, in all likelihood, intended by GoD Himself to supply their use in this new institution. And this will then be best known, if we first remember what kind of Sacrifices were granted by the Christians to be really useful, and therefore, of eternal obligation, even under the state of mystical Israelitism. It is certain they thought some Sacrifices designed by God Himself as temporary; and what they thought so, they could not think themselves obliged to continue. Now, what they thought so, will best appear by these reasonings against the Jews on this very subject concerning Sacrifices. Therein they show, that it was "impossible that the blood of bulls and goats" could be available for "the expiation of sin ;" which reasoning does indeed proceed against expiatory Sacrifices, such of them especially as were to be of the blood of brutes, and needed repetition; which the Apostle makes an argument of the imperfection, not only of such Sacrifices themselves, but of the dispensation also which was provided of no better Sacrifices; and for that reason concludes them not agreeable to the dignity of the Gospel. But in Eucharistical Sacrifices no expiation was pretended to be made, but only a return of acknowledgments for favours received, and among them was the Liba, the meat offering and the drink offering, which indeed seems to have been most proper to such Sacrifices, almost exactly answering our Eucharist. These are the Sacrifices which are there approved where the other Sacrifices are rejected, the Ovoía aivéoews in Psalm 1. 14. In these, no sins. were commemorated, and therefore they must needs have been thought most agreeable with a state of perfect expiation. These are common to a perfect as well as an imperfect condition, and, therefore, more likely to be of eternal use, and not antiquated with the temporary shadows of the law. And, which comes more exactly home to my design, these were, according to the customs of all nations who admitted any Sacrifices, used on such occasions, when good news were brought them, they did OvELV Tà Evayyéλia, and therefore extremely suitable to the very title of the Gospel as an evayyéλov, the very word taken up by the Christians from the Hellenistical version of the Old Testament,