we use it immediately after the placing the elements upon the table, it is in all the ancient Liturgies, except in St. Mark's and the Ethiopian, deferred till after the Consecration.-p. 285.

[Of the Prayer of Consecration.]

And this [the repetition of the words of institution] is certainly a very essential part of the service. For during the repetition of these words, the priest performs to God the representative Sacrifice of the Death and Passion of His SON. By taking the bread into his hands, and breaking it, he makes a memorial to Him of our SAVIOUR's Body broken upon the Cross; and by exhibiting the wine, he reminds Him of His Blood there shed for the sins of the world; and by laying his hands upon each of them, at the same time that he repeats those words, "Take, eat, this is my Body," &c. and " Drink ye all of this," &c. he signifies and acknowledges that this commemoration of CHRIST'S Sacrifice so made to GOD, is a means instituted by CHRIST Himself to convey to the communicants the benefits of His Death and Passion, viz. the pardon of our sins, and God's grace and favour for the time to come. For this reason we find that it was always the practice of the ancients, in consecrating the Eucharist, to break the bread, (after our SAVIOUR's example,) to represent his Passion and Crucifixion. The Roman Church, indeed, instead of breaking the bread for the communicants to partake of it, only breaks a single wafer into three parts, (of which no one partakes,) for the sake of retaining a shadow at least of the ancient custom....

Verily judiciously, therefore, did our good Reformers (though they ordered" these words to be said, turning still to the Altar, without any elevation or showing the Sacrament to the people," yet) restore these other ceremonies to avoid superstition and yet this very restoration of them is charged as superstitious by Bucer; who, therefore, objects to them, and prevails for the leaving them all out. . . . The taking of the bread and the cup into the hands, have indeed since been restored, viz. first to the Scottish Liturgy, and then to our own, even at the request of the Presbyterians, at the last review. . . .

But besides this, our Liturgy at that time suffered a more material alteration; the Prayer of Oblation, which by the first book of King Edward was ordered to be used after the Prayer of Consecration, (and which has since been restored to the Scotch Common Prayer,) being half laid aside, and the rest of it thrown into an improper place; as being enjoined to be said by our present rubric, in that part of the office which is to be used after the people have communicated; whereas it was always the practice of the primitive Christians to use it during the act of Con secration. For the holy Eucharist was, from the very first institution, esteemed and received as a proper Sacrifice, and solemnly offered to GOD upon the altar, before it was received and partaken of by the communicants. In conformity whereunto, it was Bishop Overall's practice to use the first Prayer in the Post Communion Office between the Consecration and the administering, even when it was otherwise ordered by the public Liturgy. pp. 303–305.

RIDLEY (GLOCESTER), PRESBYTER.-The Christian Passover.

I design in this and some subsequent discourses, to lay before you the nature of the LORD's Supper, and show what place it holds in the Christian œconomy.

We learn from the institution, that it is a memorial of our blessed SAVIOUR: "This do," says our LORD Himself, "in remembrance of Me;" and St. Paul teaches us, what he received from CHRIST, that this was in remembrance of His death: "for as often as ye eat this bread," &c.; and in the same epistle, mentions the death of CHRIST, under the notion of a Sacrifice, "CHRIST Our Passover is sacrificed for us;" where we see the particular sacrifice singled out, to which the death of CHRIST answers, as the antitype to its type.

He then proceeds to exhort his Corinthians, to keep a commemorative feast in remembrance of it, analogous to the custom of feasting upon the Paschal Lamb; and to attend it with circumstances analogous to those which were observed in the Passover, "therefore let us keep the feast," &c.—pp. 1, 2.

And as the law held forth these types, the Gospel answers them with their antitypes. Did they sacrifice their Passover? "CHRIST Our Passover is sacrificed for us." Was theirs to them for a memorial? we also are to celebrate ours "in remembrance of" the Institutor. Was that Sacrifice a feast to them peculiar, of which the stranger and the foreigner were not to eat? "We" also "have an altar of which they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle."—p. 30.

... From which relation the following doctrines are easily deducible:

First. That the death of CHRIST is to be remembered by us under the notion of a Sacrifice.

Secondly. That the LORD's Supper, instituted in memory of it, is also a Sacrifice, as much as any of the Jewish sacrifices were. Thirdly. That the LORD's Supper is farther a covenanting

rite...

First, that the death of CHRIST is to be remembered by us under the notion of a sacrifice.

...

1. Though the death of CHRIST bore no relation to the Passover in particular, yet as the original design of sacrifices in general was to prefigure the satisfaction of CHRIST's death, and the atonement of His Blood . . . . then the death of CHRIST must be looked upon as a sacrifice in the strictest sense; nay, in comparison of which, all other sacrifices were but as shadows to the substance. This preference the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews gives it, when he says, "Ye are come.... to the blood of sprinkling" (meaning the sacrificial Blood of CHRIST) “which speaketh better things than that of Abel;" i. e. the blood which Abel sprinkled in sacrifice, could not speak that peace to the conscience, which the Blood of CHRIST does, that being but a figure and shadow of this real atonement.

2. Though sacrifices in general had not been divinely instituted to prefigure the death of CHRIST, yet as this is the antitype of the Passover, it must be considered as a Sacrifice: for that the Passover was a Sacrifice is evident . . . It is so called expressly by GOD Himself; "It is the Sacrifice of the LORD's Passover:" the blood of the lamb was sprinkled upon the door-posts, in the first

celebration, and by the Priests afterwards; which was undoubtedly a sacrificial rite; for we know that "the blood was given to be an atonement for the soul:" and that the death of CHRIST corresponds hereto, the Apostle directly affirms in the text, "CHRIST Our Passover is sacrificed for us."-pp. 39-41.

... But, this point secured, it may be objected, that since the LORD's Supper was instituted in remembrance of the Sacrifice of CHRIST, it cannot be itself a Sacrifice, only a memorial. This leads me to show,

Secondly, That the LORD's Supper instituted in memory of CHRIST's death, was itself a Sacrifice, as much as any of the Jewish sacrifices were.

1. It is no argument against it to say it is a memorial, and therefore no sacrifice; for amongst the Jews we find that the most consecrated part of the Sacrifice is called a "Memorial;" I mean that part of the meat-offering which was burnt upon the altar, as God's appropriate share.. This objection rather helps us; for it proves at least, that the LORD's Supper is nevertheless a SACRIFICE for being a MEMORIAL.

2. The Passover itself was appointed, amongst other reasons, as a memorial; and yet it is expressly called, "The Sacrifice of the LORD's Passover:" the rite therefore, which succeeds in the place of that, and is, like that, appointed for a "Memorial," is, like that, to be considered as a Sacrifice also.

3. I contend for its being a Sacrifice, as much, and no more than the Jewish Sacrifices were, because the death of CHRIST was the one, only, real Sacrifice, which could be offered but in one instant of time and yet, as the benefits thereby procured were the greatest comfort, and only support to a burthened conscience, it was therefore necessary that they should be often present to the mind, in all ages of the world. For this reason types were instituted to prefigure the Sacrifice of CHRIST before He suffered; and for the same reason a memorial instituted to commemorate it after He suffered; both of them appointed for the same purpose, to represent the death of CHRIST: they are equally memorials, and equally sacrifices, differing from one another, only as the morning and evening shadow.

VOL. IV. 81.

ве

4. St. Paul understood the LORD's Supper as a Sacrifice, as appears in this epistle from whence the text is taken: he exhorts the Corinthians who communicated at it, not to eat of the meats sacrificed to idols; for, says he, "You cannot be partakers of the LORD's table, and the table of devils;" so that table signifies the same thing in both places, only appointed for different services. But the table of devils means the altar, and the meat upon it the Sacrifices offered thereon . . . . and as the table of the LORD is opposed to these, it must be opposed under the notion of an altar, and the cup of blessing, and bread partook of there, under the notion of a Sacrifice. This passage leads me to show

Thirdly. That the LORD's Supper is, further, a covenanting rite; and this appears because it is a feast upon a Sacrifice, and all such feasts were covenanting rites... Whence

1. Sacrifices, as religious feasts, were in testimony of friendship betwixt the Deity and the sacrificers, who had eaten their respective portions. . . .

2. In the Jewish oeconomy they were always accounted as such....

3. As sacrifices in general, so the Passover in particular, was a covenanting rite, by which the LORD engaged to be their GoD. .... No person was permitted to partake of this Sacrifice, and thereby renew their covenant, who had not before entered into covenant by the rite of circumcision. Wherefore the LORD'S Supper, succeeding in the place of the Passover, and being itself a Sacrifice, ought to be looked upon (not as the making a new and fresh covenant with GoD) but as repeating and confirming one already made, namely that at our Baptism; and accordingly "the cup" is called by our SAVIOUR, "the new covenant in His Blood."-pp. 46–52.

JONES, PRESBYTER.-The Churchman's Catechism.

Q. When are alms more particularly required by the Church? A. In the Communion Service; when, with the holy oblation of CHRIST'S Body and Blood, it is right we should offer ourselves and our worldly substance to be consecrated with the offering of