per just to make mention of him here, as falling within the same time, and being a great master of ecclesiastical antiquity.

Some time after, (A. D. 1709.) Ittigius, a learned Lutheran, took occasion to pass some strictures upon Dr. Grabe in that articled: then Deylingiuse and Zornius f, learned Lutherans, and all still pursuing the same mistake which Buddæus had fallen into.

But in the year 1715, the acute and candid Pfaffius (a Lutheran also) took care to do justice to Dr. Grabe's sentiments, (though not altogether approving them,) being so fair as to own, that Dr. Grabe's notion of the eucharistical sacrifice was nothing akin to the sacrifice of the mass 8. Nevertheless others still went on in the first mistake and among the rest, the celebrated Le Clerc h, and a greater man than he, Campegius Vitringai; and another fine writer k, later than both; all of them condemning the doctrine, wrongfully, as popish. But it may be proper here to take notice, that the learned Deylingius, who had formerly charged Dr. Grabe too hastily, has, upon better information, retracted that censure, in a book lately published' and the complaint now is, not that Dr. Grabe asserted the sacrifice of the mass, (which he heartily abhorred,) but that he rejected the real, local, or corporal presencem, such as the Papists or Lutherans contend for: in which most certainly he judged right.

But before I close this brief historical view of that controversy, it may not be improper to observe how far the learned Pfaffius was inclinable to concur with Dr. Grabe in this article. He allows that the ancients, by oblation

с

a Ittigius, Histor. Eccles. primi Sæc. p. 204.

Deylingius, Observat. Sacr. tom. i. n. 54, p. 262.

f Zornius, Opuscul. Sacr. tom. i. p. 732.

Pfaffius, Irenæi Fragm. Anecdot. p. 106, &c. 499.

h Clerici Histor. Eccl. p. 772.

i Vitringa in Isa. tom. ii. p. 951.

k Moshem. A. D. 1733. in Præfat. ad Cudworth de Cœna.

1 Deylingius, Observat. Miscel. p. 103. A. D. 1736.

m Vid. Deylingius, ibid. p. 77.

and sacrifice, meant more than prayer, and that it is even ludicrous to pretend the contrary n. He acknowledges that they speak of an oblation of bread and wine, and that the Eucharist is a sacrifice of praise P, and propitiatory also in a qualified sober sense 9. In short, he seems almost to yield up every thing that Dr. Grabe had contended for, excepting only the point of a proper or material sacrifice: and he looked upon that as resolving at length into a kind of logomachy, a difference in words or names, arising chiefly from the difficulty of determining what a sacrifice properly means, and from the almost insuperable perplexities among learned men, about the ascertaining any precise definition of it. I am persuaded there is a good deal of truth in what that learned gentleman has said, and that a great part of the debate, so warmly carried on a few years ago, was more about names than things.

As the question arises chiefly out of what was taught by the ancient Fathers, it will be proper to inquire what they really meant by the word sacrifice, and in what sense they applied that name to the Eucharist, in whole or in part. St. Austin, who well understood both what the Scripture and the Christian writers before him had taught, defines or describes a true sacrifice, in the general, as follows: "A true sacrifice is any work done to keep up our "league of amity with God, referred to him as our sove"reign good, in whom we may enjoy true felicitys." I follow his sense, rather than the strict letter, to make it the clearer to an English reader. St. Austin here judged it necessary for every such good work to be performed with a view to God, to be referred to his glory; otherwise it could not with any propriety be called a sacrifice to him: therefore even works of mercy done to man, out of

Verum sacrificium est, omne opus quod agitur ut sancta societate inhæreamus Deo, relatum scilicet ad illum finem boni, quo veraciter beati esse possimus. Augustin. de Civit. Dei, lib. x. cap. 6. p. 242.

compassion, tenderness, or humanity, though true sacrifices if considered as done with a view to God, would be no sacrifice at all, if they wanted that circumstance to recommend them t. From hence we may see what that Father's general notion of a true sacrifice was. He takes notice farther, that what had been commonly called sacrifice, is really nothing more than an outward sign, token, or symbol of true sacrifice". The distinction here made may afford great light as to the meaning of the ancients, where they denominate the Eucharist a sacrifice, or a true and perfect sacrifice. They meant, for the most part, that it was true and evangelical service, as opposed to legal: in that sense, the eucharistical service was itself true sacrifice, and properly our sacrifice. And if, over and above, the elements themselves, unconsecrated, were ever called a sacrifice, or sacrifices, the meaning still was, that the service was the sacrifice: but when the consecrated elements had that name, it was only a metonymy of the sign for the thing signified, as they represent, and in effect exhibit the grand sacrifice of the cross.

It is worth observing, that in Scripture style, whatever exhibits any advantage or blessing in larger measure, or in a more eminent degree, is denominated true, in opposition to other things which only appear to do the like, or do it but defectively. In such a sense as that, the Gospel services are the true sacrifices, called also under the Law, sacrifices of righteousnessy. I know not how it comes to

+ Misericordia verum sacrificium est.- -Ipsa misericordia qua homini subvenitur, si propter Deum non fit, non est sacrificium.— -Sacrificium res divina est, &c. Augustin. ibid.

u Illud quod ab omnibus appellatur sacrificium, signum est veri sacrificii. Augustin. ibid. Nec quod ab antiquis patribus talia sacrificia facta sunt in victimis pecorum (quod nunc Dei populus legit, non facit) aliud intelligendum est, nisi rebus illis eas res fuisse significatas quæ aguntur in nobis, in hoc ut adhæreamus Deo, et ad eundem finem proximo consulamus. Sacrificium ergo visibile, invisibilis sacrificii sacramentum, id est, sacrum signum est. Ibid. cap. 5.

* See John i. 4, 9, 17. vi. 32. ix. 23, 24. xv. 1. Luke xvi. 11. Heb. viii. 2. ix. 11, 24.

y Vera sacrificia sunt ejusmodi sacrificia, quæ vere id habent quod cætera

pass, that moderns generally have reckoned all the spiritual sacrifices among the nominal, improper, metaphorical sacrifices; whereas the ancients judged them to be the truest sacrifices of any, yea, and infinitely more excellent than the other. If it be said, that external, material, symbolical sacrifices had all along engrossed the name of sacrifices, and therefore were the only sacrifices properly so called, as the custom of language is the rule of propriety; it may be replied, on the other hand, that spiritual sacrifices really carry in them all that the other signify or point to, and so, upon the general reason of all sacrifice, have a just, or a more eminent title to that name: and this may be thought as good a rule of propriety, as the custom of language can be. Suppose, for instance, that sacrifice, in its general nature, means the making a present to the Divine Majesty, as Plato defines it; is not the presenting him with our prayers, praises, and good works, as properly making him a present, as the other? Therefore if the general reason or definition of sacrifice suits as properly (yea, and eminently) with spiritual sacrifices as with any other, I see not why they should not be esteemed proper sacrifices, as well as the other. However, since this would amount only to a strife about words, it is of no great moment, whether spiritual sacrifices be called proper or improper sacrifices, so long as they are allowed to be true and excellent, and as much to be preferred before the other, as substance before shadow, and truth before sign or figure. The ancients, I think, looked upon the spiritual sacrifices as true and proper sacrifices, and are so to be understood, whenever they apply the name of sacrifice to the service of the Eucharist. But to make it a material sacrifice would, in their account, have been degrading and vili

habere videntur. Dicuntur illa, eodem loquendi modo, sacrificia justitiæ, id est, dvoíaι àλndwaì, sacrificia vera. Intelligitur autem hac phrasi totus cultus Novi Testamenti. Vitringa de vet. Synag. p. 65. Conf. ejusd. Observat. Sacr. tom. ii. p. 499. et in Isa. tom. ii. p. 56, 733, 829.

2. Οὐκοῦν τὸ θύειν, δωρεῖσθαί ἐσι τοῖς θεοῖς. Plato in Euthyphron. p. 10.

fying it, reducing it to a legal ceremony, instead of a Gospel service.

The service therefore of the Eucharist, on the foot of ancient Church language, is both a true and a proper sacrifice, (as I shall show presently,) and the noblest that we are capable of offering, when considered as comprehending under it many true and evangelical sacrifices: 1. The sacrifice of alms to the poor, and oblations to the Church; which when religiously intended, and offered through Christ, is a Gospel sacrifice a. Not that the material offering is a sacrifice to God, for it goes entirely to the use of man; but the service is what God accepts. 2. The sacrifice of prayer, from a pure heart, is evangelical incense b. 3. The sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving to God the Father, through Christ Jesus our Lord, is another Gospel sacrifice. 4. The sacrifice of a penitent and contrite heart, even under the Law, (and now much more under the Gospel, when explicitly offered through Christ,) was a sacrifice of the new covenant d: for the new covenant commenced from the time of the fall, and obtained under the Law, but couched under shadows and figures. 5. The sacrifice of ourselves, our souls and bodies, is another Gospel sacrificee. 6. The offering up the mystical body of Christ, that is, his Church, is another Gospel sacrificef: or rather, it is coincident with the former; excepting that there persons are considered in their single capacity, and here collectively in a body. I take the thought from St. Austin, who grounds it chiefly on 1 Cor. x. 17. and the texts belonging to the former article. 7. The offering up of true

a Phil. iv. 18.

b Revel. v. 8.

Hebrews xiii. 16. Compare Acts x. 4. Ecclus. xxxv. 2. viii. 3, 4. Compare Psalm cxli. 2. Malach. i. 11. iii. 4, 5.

Hos. xiv. 2. Acts x. 4. Ecclus. xxxv. 2.

c Hebr. xiii. 15. 1 Pet. ii. 5, 9. Compare Ps. 1. 14, 15. cxvi. 17. lxix. 31. Psal. li. 17. iv. 5. Isa. i. 16. lvii. 15.

e Rom. xii. 1. vi. 13. Phil. ii. 17. 2 Tim. iv. 6.

f 1 Cor x. 17.

8 Augustin. de Civit. Dei, lib. x. cap. 6. p. 243. Cap. xx. p. 256. Epist. lix. alias cxlix. p. 509. ed. Bened.