and thence derived by the Apostle himself, in the Epistle to the Romans.

pp. 302–304.

Accordingly I am very apt to think that this is indeed the true original of the name of Eucharist as applied by the primitive Christians to this very Sacrament, that they intended thereby to signify, that this was, among them, to perform the office of a "Sacrifice of thanksgiving." The very name was thus commonly applied to the bread itself in the time of S. Justin Martyr. So he tells us expressly—καὶ ἡ τροφὴ αὕτη καλεῖται παρ' ἡμῖν εὐχαριστία. And this is indeed a more natural account than that which is there alluded to by that blessed person, as if it were called so from the Euxapioría, the thanksgiving and blessing that was used over it in the Office of Consecration.—pp. 305, 6.

Thus far the Christians might have been led into the substitution of the Eucharist as the proper evangelical Sacrifice, even from the popular received notions of the Hellenists concerning Sacrifices. But yet, in this reasoning from the Old Testament prefigurations even of evangelical Sacrifices, they might yet justify a further change from the common usages as designed by GOD Himself in that sacrifice which He intended should last for ever. Thus, having shown that CHRIST'S priesthood was not after the order of Aaron, but a new order, that of Melchisedec, to which perpetuity was expressly appointed by the Psalmist, the same reasoning would then hold for an alteration in the Sacrifice which is used expressly by the Apostle himself to prove an alteration of the Covenant. If there be any difference, it would rather be here that the reasoning proceeds more strongly in the former case. For the notion of Sacrifice is more intrinsically involved in the very notion of a priest, who has no other relation to a covenant than that of a mediator, nor mediates any otherwise than as the Covenant itself was entered into by such Sacrifices wherein it was his office to preside. As, therefore, his concernment in Sacrifice is fundamental to his concernment in the covenant, so also the change of the covenant must necessarily suppose a change in the Sacrifice as antecedent to it. And this would bring the reasoning yet more close to the materials of our Christian Sacrifice, as consisting of the very elements of bread and wine. For if our SAVIOUR'S Priesthood was to be of the

order of Melchisedec, then His Sacrifice must also be of the same kind as those of Melchisedec. And if we may again reason concerning the Sacrifice of Melchisedec from what is mentioned concerning it in the story, as the Apostle concludes his being without father, or mother, or genealogy, or beginning of days, or end of life, because the history of Genesis mentions neither his father, nor mother, nor genealogy, &c. then, for the same reason, we may conclude that he had no other Sacrifice but that of bread and wine, because no other is mentioned in that place. Which inference will the rather hold, because of the connexion of that action with the mention of his priesthood. So it is in the text, "Melchisedec, king of Salem, brought forth bread and wine; and he was the priest of the most high God." The vulgar reads it, erat enim, with a causal particle. And unless some such thing be understood, it will not be easy to give any tolerable account of the pertinency and connexion of the former part of the verse with the latter. For what relation could his bringing forth bread and wine have with his priesthood, if not as the proper Sacrifice which concerned him as a priest? Why should this mystical priesthood be mentioned as a precedent of a future priesthood, (as it was supposed to be by those who used this reasoning,) unless it were also known what Sacrifice was to be proper to him, seeing that, in the same reasoning, it was also granted that every priest ought to have something to offer ?—pp. 307-309.

It hence appears, how naturally this reasoning, so agreeable to the principles then granted by the Christians, does proceed on this supposition, that the Eucharist was their mystical Sacrifice. I might now proceed to show, that not only the reasoning, but the conclusion itself, was also owned by them, that they did own the continuance of sacrifices under the times of Christianity, and particularly that they took the Eucharist for the Sacrifice proper to those times, if this had not been a common place usually debated between us and the Romanists, where our writers, and our Church too, do usually grant as much as I am concerned for, that it is indeed an Eucharistical Sacrifice, and that this is the true sense of those passages of antiquity which are produced for this purpose. And I have shown that their principles of reason

ing were against the repetition of propitiatory Sacrifices, which is that which is denied by our writers. I am unwilling to enlarge on things already commonly observed, especially when what I am concerned for is already granted me on all hands, as it is here. I only observe now that this particular reasoning is the reasoning of St. Cyprian.... I mention this the more particularly, because St. Cyprian is our principal author in the whole argument from one priesthood and one altar, that the reader may see how accurately what is said concerning it, is agreeable to his mind. Now these things being put together, that this whole reasoning, both premises and conclusion too, were owned by them, and that they were withal taken up from such originals as could not fail them, it plainly follows, that the whole reasoning was solid, as urged against the ancient schismatics, at least as to this particular, that the Eucharist is a mystical Sacrifice.-pp. 311-313.

HICKES, BISHOP AND CONFESSOR.-The Christian Priesthood asserted.

The new Covenant is better than the old, and the house of CHRIST much more excellent than that of Moses, inasmuch as the Christian is the full improvement and perfection of the Mosaic religion and worship; and therefore it would be strange if either the Liturgical ministrations of the Christian worship for men should be less holy, or pertain less to God for them, than those of the Jewish Church; or the Christian Liturgs, or ministers, should either not at all be priests, or priests in a less proper sense than those of the Levitical order and institution, who were ministers by fire and immolation under the first Testament... For as there have been different churches and religions, so there have been different rites and services in them; and yet the ministers of those different holy rites and services for the people to their God, have all been counted priests, as agreeing in the common notion of priesthood, which is the function or office of a person separated or taken from men, and ordained πpos rò ἱερουργεῖν, οι θεουργεῖν, as human authors speak, to minister for the people in holy services pertaining to GOD.-pp. 25, 26.

....

And therefore. . . . it is far from being true that Bishops and Presbyters are not proper priests, upon supposition that the Christian religion hath neither altar nor Sacrifice of any sort, as the Jewish neither now hath, nor formerly in the captivity had.

I say, "upon supposition," which, for argument sake, I am willing to grant your "late writer," though in reality it hath both, as I now proceed to show, from the writings of the New Testament; and thereby prove that the ministers of CHRIST are so far from not being proper priests, that they are proper altar ministers, or sacrificing priests, τὰ ἱερὰ ἐργαζόμενοι, as the Apostle calls the Jewish priests. pp. 41, 2.

I will begin with the twenty-third and twenty-fourth verses of the fifth chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel: "If thou bring thy gift," &c. The original word for "gift," is a sacrificial term of a general signification, and denotes a material Sacrifice, or offering of any sort, as may be seen in the margin, [Lev. i. 2, 3; ii. 17, &c.] and therefore it is to be taken here in that sense in which it is to be understood in Matt. viii. 4. "Show thyself to the priest, and offer the GIFT (or oblation) that Moses commanded." So in chap. xxiii. 18. "Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing, but whosoever sweareth by the GIFT that is upon it, he is guilty."... And as the primitive Church conceived this precept of reconciliation to be intended for a Gospel precept, so they always applied it to the Eucharist, as the Gospel Sacrifice, or oblation, not thinking (as Mr. Mede well observes) that our LORD would make a new law, or, let me add, enforce an old one concerning legal Sacrifices, which he was presently to abolish, but that it had reference to that oblation which was to be instituted by Him for the Gospel dispensation, and to continue with and under it for ever. Thus, in the Apost. Const. . . . St. Clement... Irenæus. . . Tertullian. . . St. Cyprian... Eusebius ... Cyril of Jerusalem... St. Chrysostom... Jerome. . . . and Augustine... pp. 42, 43.

The next Scriptural proof which I shall produce in order, for the Eucharistical oblation of the bread and wine, is taken from the words of the institution, Matt. xxvi. 26. Mark xiv. 22. Luke xxii. 19. recited by the Apostle in these words: "The

LORD JESUS, in the same night that He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks, He brake it, and said, Take eat, this is my Body which is broken for you; this Do in remembrance of Me. After the same manner also He took the cup, when He had supped, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my Blood; this Do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me." That the ancients believed that our LORD made an oblation of the bread and wine at His institution of this Sacrament, and commanded His disciples so to do, is past all doubt, from the 63rd Epist. of St. Cyprian to Cecilius. . . . So in the Eucharistical Office, Const. Apost... The same may be proved from the testimony of Irenæus. . .—pp. 53—56.

It is plain from these testimonies, how the primitive Church. understood the words of the institution of the LORD's Supper, and what was their sense of them, which is very agreeable to the signification of the word Totiv, which in profane as well as sacred writers, signifies to "offer." . . . But more especially, it is so used in the Septuagint translation, which, all learned men know, is followed by the writers of the New Testament, even where they recite the words and speeches of our blessed SAVIOUR. In that translation of the Old Testament, Touiv signifies the same as iepomоitiv or iɛpovpyeiv, to "offer" or "sacrifice," as nwy does in the Hebrew, and FACERE in the Vulgar translation. So Exod. xxix. 36. καὶ τὸ μοσχάριον ΠΟΙΗΣΕΙΣ, &c.

-p. 58.

To these testimonies out of the Old Testament, to show that "do" signifies" offer," I think fit to add one more out of a Jewish Hellenistical writer, Baruch i. 10. . . . The verb Touɛiv, as I have elsewhere observed, is used for to "offer," in the New Testament, as Heb. xi. 28. Πίστει πεποίηκε τὸ πάσχα . . . So 1 Tim. ii. . . . Tоiolαι may very well be rendered "offered." "I exhort, therefore, that first of all prayers, &c. be offered for all men," as it is in the Syriac version.

The verb Toεiv is also used in the Hellenistical sense, to signify" offer," in the Greek writers of the Church, particularly where they have occasion to speak of the holy Eucharist. We find it so used in St. Clement's first Episile to the Corinthians, §. xi..... In the same sense Justin Martyr useth the word.... So in the Epistle which Cornelius, Bishop of