Christian Rites; yet the inconfiftency arises from their having one common nature, which, fpringing from contrary originals, destroys one another's effects. The reasoning ftands thus-Those who eat of the Sacrifice are partakers of the Altar; that is, are partakers of the benefits of the Sacrifice. Thefe Benefits, whether real or imaginary, were confirmed by a pact or convention between the Sacrificer and his God. They who eat in the feast on that Sacrifice are partakers of the fuppofed benefits of the Sacrifice, and, confequently, are Parties to the federal Rites which confirmed those benefits: fo that the fame Man could not, confiftently with himself, be Partaker of both tables, the Lord's table and that of Devils.

This argument, St. Paul urges to the Wife Men, whofe practice he is here expofing. And we fee, it turns altogether on the Poftulatum agreed on, "that the Laft Supper is of the nature of a feast upon Sacrifice,"

Now, if, instead of this idea, we fubftitute that other of the Socinians, That the

Laft

Laft Supper is a mere commemoration of a dead Benefactor, all the force of this reasoning difappears and vanishes. For, although a reafonable man cannot execute two federal conventions, which deftroy one another (the inconfiftency here charged upon the Corinthians), yet he might celebrate, without abfurdity, though not without impiety, a federal Rite in one religion, and a bare remembrance of a deceafed Benefactor in another.

Further, the fame Apoftle, in correcting another abufe in the celebration of the Lord's Supper, takes occafion, once again, to declare the NATURE of this holy Rite, -His Corinthians, as appears by the next Chapter, had been guilty of eating the bread and wine in a very indecent manner, confounding it with the convivial doings in their ordinary repafts; where charity and fobriety had been too often violated. This faulty behaviour, by fuch an indiscriminate celebration, the Apoftle calls the being guilty of the body and blood of Chrift: a charge immoderately exaggerated, were the Laft * 1 Cor. xi. 27.

Supper

Supper a mere commemoration of a dead Be-. nefactor. The Corinthians did not make a fit diftinction between their more ordinary food, and their eating and drinking in memory of a deceafed friend. This, without doubt, was a high indecorum; yet, to rank fuch delinquents with the Murderers of the Lord of life, is a feverity in which we can fee neither juftice in the sentence, nor propriety in the terms of it. But let us only fuppofe (what we have indeed proved), that St. Paul regarded the Laft Supper as a feaft upon Sacrifice, that is, a Rite in which the benefits of Chrift's death and paffion were, in a certain manner, conveyed, in a proper celebration, thus impiously abused; and then the charge is fairly and justly made out. The profanation of fuch a Rite was, indeed, aiding and affifting in the crime of his Murderers, as far forth as it rendered his death ineffectual to the Participants; and therefore properly compared to the prodigious enormity of that impious act.

Such then, I prefume, is the true nature of the LORD'S SUPPER. And were the ad

jufting

justing an exact notion of it a matter of mere fpeculation, I should have been much fhorter; and have left the difcuffion of it (under the fimple idea of a religious cuftom of Christian Antiquity) to the Eccle fiaftical Hiftorian.

But the Institution abounds with important confequences, in fupport of the Catholic Doctrine, which I here pretend to illuftrate and confirm. For, if the Laft Supper be a feaft upon Sacrifice, the unavoidable confequence is, that the death of Chrift was a real Sacrifice. It being the highest abfurdity to believe, that a Rite was inftituted on the fuppofition of a real Sacrifice, and to keep fuch Sacrifice in perpetual memory, and yet that no real Sacrifice, thus commemorated, ever had existence; but only the shadow of one, under a figure of Speech. And now it is high time to call again

upon

the SOCINIANS to examine and review this whole matter.

The Writers of the New Teftament unanimoufly and invariably call the Death of Chrift on the Cross, A SACRIFICE. To this, the SOCINIANS reply, "We confefs,

indeed,

indeed, that those Writers do thus uniformly qualify the Death of Chrift. But their Phraseology abounds with FIGURATIVE TERMS; and the word SACRIFICE is plainly and eminently of this number.When the death of Christ, so highly beneficial to mankind, was the subject of their difcourfe, they could not enforce the value of those Benefits fo intelligibly and strongly amongst Men, who had been taught to conceive that the highest benefits were conveyed by the tremendous Rite of SACRIFICE. But that this was all which those Writers meant, when they called Christ's death a SACRIFICE, appears from hence, that SACRIFICE, whatever original it had, foon became, in practice, a fuperftitious and an irrational Rite; and gloried in an efficacy which right reafon difavows, namely, a VICARIOUS ATONEMENT; brought, indeed, by Mofes, together with other pagan Rites, into the LAW, on account of the hardness of heart amongst those with whom their Leader had to deal." This, and a great deal more to the fame purpose, hath had its effect, to the difcredit of the doc