the famous Isidore of Seville, about the close of the sixth century, or beginning of the seventh. He defines sacrifice by a thing made sacred; which is rather the definition of a sacrament, as denoting an holy sign, or a thing, before common, consecrated into an holy symbol: and it will serve as aptly for the waters of Baptism, as for the elements of the Eucharist. It would be ridiculous to claim Isidore, as making the elements a sacrifice, in the old or true sense of that name: his sacrifice was verbal only, not real; a verbal sacrifice, a real sacrament. However, in process of time, this change of language, this misapplication of a name, might, very probably, become a snare to many; and might, with several other concurring circumstances, during the dark ages, help to bring in bread-sacrifice. When transubstantiation, or something like it, was creeping in, one argument pleaded for it ran thus: either the elements must be the real and natural body and blood, or else the Christian sacrifices will be meaner than the Jewish sacrifices werey. Which shows, that the bread-sacrifice, or elemental sacrifice, was then made a principle whereon to build, and therefore had gained some footing in the Church before that time. Then, that very consideration which should have made them look back, to correct their

* Sacrificium est omne quod Deo datur, aut dedicatur, aut consecratur. Sucrificium dictum, quasi sacrum factum : quia prece mystica consecratur in memoriam pro nobis Dominicæ passionis: unde hoc, eo jubente, corpus et sanguinem dicimus. Quod dum fit ex fructibus terræ, sanctificatur et fit Sacramentum, operante invisibiliter Spiritu Dei. Isidor. Hispalens. Orig. lib. vi. cap. 19. p. 142, 143.

This description, or definition, seems to have prevailed among the Irish Divines of the seventh and eighth centuries. See Usher's Relig. of ancient Irish, chap. iv.

Cangius, under the word sacrificium, in his Glossary, has brought no higher authorities for such use of the name than the seventh century; excepting Patricius, whose pretended writings are of suspected credit.

Rabanus of the ninth century, (De Instit. Cleric. lib. i. cap. 32.) Honorius of the twelfth, (Gemm. Anim. cap. 93.) and Alensis of the thirteenth, (tom. iv. p. 192.) seem to follow Isidore. As also do several of the elder Romanists of the sixteenth century: such as Fisher, Tonstall, &c.

y Paschas. Radbert de Corp. et Sangu. cap. ii. Opp. p. 1559. Algerus, p. 268.

А а 2

first error, served only, in the days of ignorance, to lead them on to more and greater. If an elemental sacrifice is meaner (as it really is) than a Jewish one, and they were sensible of it, they should have corrected that false principle by returning to spiritual sacrifice, and then all had been right they should have considered the elements as symbols of Christ's body, natural and mystical, and as instruments of a memorial-service, and so all had been well.

If it should here be objected, that in this way of distinguishing between the material symbol and spiritual service, even the Jewish sacrifices might all be distinguished off into services, and no room left for material sacrifices under the Law, any more than under the Gospel: I say, if this should be objected, it is obvious to reply, that the two cases are exceeding wide, and the circumstances extremely different: for,

1. Material things are frequently called sacrifices under the Law, and accepted as sweet odour; but the elements are never so called under the Gospel, nor accepted of, as sweet odours.

2. Under the Law, God considered the fat and the blood as his portion, to be separated from man's use; and he accepted them as entirely his *: no such thing is appointed with respect to the elements under the Gospel; neither does God accept them, or any part of them as his, or as exempt from man's use.

3. Legal and typical expiations (sure marks of a proper legal sacrifice) were annexed to the Jewish oblations: but no such typical and temporal expiations, distinct from the true expiation, is annexed to the oblation of the elements, to show them to be a sacrifice in themselvesy.

* See Review, vol. vii. p. 152. and compare Mede's Christian Sacrifice, p. 471. Cudworth on the Sacrament, chap. v. p. 89, 90. Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, part i. p. 238. part ii. p. 77, &c.

y Eusebius well observes, that God accepted of animal sacrifices, while as yet no better sacrifice of expiation could be had; that is, while the sacrifice of Christ, signified by the other, was yet future: but afterwards the case

4. Under the Law, there was need of extrinsic sacrifices, and extrinsic expiations, to signify, by such shadows, that men must be saved by an extrinsic sacrifice, to appear in due time; namely, the grand sacrifice: but under the Gospel, the true sacrifice is come, and so that great truth is no longer shadowed, or darkly insinuated, but openly and fully declared. And we have now direct immediate access to the true sacrifice, and to the true expiations: not kept at a distance, as before, by the intervention of typical sacrifices, or typical expiations: such is our Gospel privilege a

5. All sacrifices, properly expiatory, must be something extrinsic, for nothing ab intus can expiate, as before noted b. The extrinsic thing, in such a case, is demanded by way of price, or compensation, for the forfeited life of the man, or in lieu of it c. Therefore as the Jewish sacrifices were properly expiatory, (though in a legal and temporal way d,) they must of course be extrinsic to the persons, and they were so: but Christians owning no expiation at all, save only the true and heavenly expiation made upon the cross, cannot have any expiatory or atoning sacrifice besides that. They may have, and they have, intrinsic, gratulatory, and qualifying sacrifices; and those are their religious duties and services, and nothing else.

was altered, and all such sacrifices were superseded by the sacrifice of Christ. Vid. Euseb. Dem. Evang. lib. i. c. 10. p. 36.

z Spiritualis effectus est solutio a reatu interno, &c. quam sacrificia adumbrant, non præstant.- -Sed si sacrificia adumbrant ac significant ablationem reatus æterni, necesse est ut substernatur effectus temporalis, per quem spiritualis ille effectus repræsentetur: is vero est ablatio reatus, ratione pœnæ temporalis. Vossius ad Judic. Ravensp. p. 86. conf. p. 98.

a See Christian Sacrifice explained, above, p. 178, 179. Append. p. 197, 198.

b See above, p. 347.

e Vid. Euseb. Dem. Evang. lib. i. c. 10. p. 35.

d Hence arises another irresistible argument against the notion of the elements being expiatory sacrifices: for, if they were so, they should have a real and distinct expiation of their own, to adumbrate the true sacrifice as future still which would amount to declaring that Christ is not come, and so would be a flat contradiction to Christianity.

Therefore the reason is plain, why the Jewish sacrifices cannot be distinguished off, or advanced into spiritual services, nor the Christian sacrifices sunk into material and extrinsic oblations. But I return.

4. To the same head, of nominal and real, belongs the distinction of commemorative and real: which is an old distinction. Chrysostom observes, that we do not offer, as the Jews formerly did, one lamb one day, and the next day another, and so on; but that we every day offer the same Lamb, which Lamb is Christ, and consequently the same sacrifice; or rather, as he adds, correcting the expression, a commemoration of a sacrificee. Thus he distinguishes a commemorative sacrifice from a real one, or a commemoration of a sacrifice from the sacrifice itself. That he here understood an expiatory sacrifice is plain, because he interprets it of Christ himself, our only sacrifice of propitiation. It may be suggested, that a commemoration of a sacrifice, though it is not that sacrifice, may yet be a sacrifice, or another sacrifice notwithstanding: and it may be said, that a symbol of a sacrifice may itself also be a distinct sacrifice. Both parts are true: for a memorial service is a sacrifice f, while it is also a comme

• Τί οὖν ; ἡμεῖς καθ ̓ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν οὐ προσφέρομεν ; προσφέρομεν μὲν, ἀλλ' ἀνάμ νησιν ποιούμενοι τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ. τὸν γὰρ αὐτὸν ἀεὶ προσφέρομεν, οὐ νῦν μὲν ἕτερον πρόβατον, αὔριον δὲ ἕτερον, ἀλλ' ἀεὶ τὸ αὐτὸ, ὥστε μία ἐστιν ἡ θυσία. -είς πανταχοῦ ὁ Χριστὸς—πολλαχοῦ προσφερόμενος, ἓν σῶμα ἐστι, καὶ οὐ πολλὰ σώ

ματα, οὕτω καὶ μία θυσία. οὐκ ἄλλην θυσίαν καθάπερ ὁ ̓Αρχιερεὺς τότε, ἀλλὰ

τὴν αὐτὴν ἀεὶ ποιοῦμεν· μᾶλλον δὲ ἀνάμνησιν ἐργαζόμεθα θυσίας. Chrysost. in Hebr. x. Hom. xvii. p. 168, 169. tom. xii. edit. Bened. Other authorities to the same purpose are referred to in Review, vol. vii. p. 40. and more might be added.

f Eusebius observes, that our Lord has ordered us a memorial, instead of a sacrifice ; μνήμην καὶ ἡμῖν παραδοὺς, ἀντὶ θυσίας, τῷ Θεῷ διηνεκῶς προσφέρειν. Demonstr. lib. i. c. 10. p. 38. One would think by this, that he had excluded a memorial from being a sacrifice. But he does not: for he presently after explains what he means by, instead of a sacrifice, adding ¿vrì tây ráha, dvciãy xaì óλonavtwμárwv, instead of the ancient sacrifices and burnt offerings. Ibid. p. 38. But as to the memorial services, he does as plainly call them sacrifices, in the next page, as words can do it.

Τὰ σεμνὰ τῆς Χριστοῦ τραπέζης θύματα, δι' ὧν καλλιεροῦντες, τὰς ἀναίμους καὶ λογικὰς, αὐτῷ τε προσηνεῖς θυσίας προσφέρειν Θεῷ, &c. p. 39. Where I under

moration of the grand sacrifice; and the Jewish sacrifices were sacrifices in themselves, while types of Christ's sacrifice, and symbols also of ours. But then, let it be observed, that when Chrysostom here speaks of the real sacrifice in the Eucharist, he does not mean the signs, but the thing signified by them, namely, Christ himself, the one sacrifice, as he expressly mentions: besides, had he intended the elements, he could not have said, that we have one sacrifice, or always the same sacrifice; for he very well knew, that we offer one day one loaf, and another day another loaf, and so that would have amounted to the same with one day one sheep, and another day another; and the very objection which he was there answering, would have returned upon him with all its force.

But will not the same objection lie against offering any sacrifices at all, even spiritual sacrifices, so many distinct acts, and therefore one day one sacrifice, and another day another, and so on? No: for Chrysostom was there speaking only of expiatory sacrifices, or sin offerings; as the chapter, which he was commenting upon, led him to do: and there is really no sin offering, or expiatory sacrifice, under the Gospel, but Christ alone; who is not properly offered in a sacrificial way, but commemorated only, in the Eucharist. There may be in the Eucharist gratulatory sacrifices, consistently with what is here said by Chrysostom: but whether the elements or the service, properly, are such gratulatory sacrifices, he has not determined in this place, not entering into that question: though he has sufficiently determined it elsewhere, by what he constantly teaches with respect to self-sacrifice, intrinsic sacrifice, and all spiritual services; which he callstand by ovà Júμara the symbols, metonymically called victims, as body and blood and Eusebius takes notice, that by them (that is, by them as symbols and instruments) we offer, we perform our unbloody and rational sacrifices. He had said before, Τούτου δῆτα θύματος τὴν μνήμην ἐπὶ τραπέζης inredeïv dià ovμßóλwy, &c. That is, the memorial of the victim, Christ crucified, is performed by those symbols; by consecrating, by breaking, distributing, pouring, eating, and drinking them with devout hearts, prayers, praises, &c.