From a close and impartial attention to their arguments, I am fully convinced, that the Eucharist is a feast after a sacrifice; a feast after the great sacrifice of all, even Jesus Christ upon the cross; in which all other sacrifices, however various in their kind and modes, from the rising to the setting of the sun, were ordained to terminate.

But the idea of the Sacrament as a feast on, or after, a sacrifice, may not be obvious to the apprehension of the unlearned, who are no less deeply concerned in it than the best informed; and it should therefore be explained to them, in order to satisfy their minds, and facilitate its general adoption.

The death of Christ was a sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, a sacrifice that comprehended in it, not only the commemorative oblation of the Paschal Lamb, but the other Jewish sacrifices, the sin offering and the peace offering. Like them it was to have a feast on, or after, it, and that feast is the Lord's Supper. The Heathens, as well as the Jews, had a feast after their sacrifices, and the partakers of the feast in both cases were to be partakers of the benefits supposed to redound from the sacrifice. "Are not they which eat of the sacrifice," says Saint Paul, "partakers of the altar?" What then were the benefits of the Jewish sacrifices? the benefit of the sin offering, was forgiveness of sins; of the peace offering, acceptance with

God. The sacrifice of Christ on the cross conveys, therefore, to those who partake in its benefits, by partaking of the feast instituted upon it, pardon of their sins and acceptance with God; which must infer sanctification of their souls, or, as the church expresses it, an inward and spiritual grace.

I proceed to mention, in a cursory manner sufficient for my purpose, the Pagan sacrifices. The rites of the Pagan theology were derived from the Jews, though corrupted and distorted, and their original purpose lost and forgotten in the lapse of time. But the Pagans retained the practice of feasting after a sacrifice, that is, of eating a part of the victim offered, in order to partake of the propitiation supposed to be effected by the sacrifice.

It would be tedious to recite passages from the ancient writers to confirm this assertion. The first book of Homer affords a proof of it. But the fact is well known, even to school-boys, and wants not any confirmation in this place.

Here then are three kinds of sacrifices, the Jewish, the Gentile, and the Christian; not comparable indeed in their dignity, but parallel, in the circumstance of a feast after each, and in the general purpose of propitiating the Deity. The eating of the oblation, after the Jewish and the Gentile sacrifice, rendered (in the opinion of the sacrificers) the partakers of the repast partakers of the benefits of the sacrifice. The partaking of the feast, after

B

the grand Christian sacrifice, is also a participation in the one great sacrifice, and confers all its advantages. The Eucharist is this feast, (this epulum sacrificiale;) to be repeated, while the world endures, after the sacrifice; which itself is never to be repeated, but the benefits of which are to flow by means of the feast upon it, as from a perennial fountain, till time shall be no more.

It is very important that the Eucharist should be considered, as it appears really to be, a feast, on, or after a sacrifice; for this idea comprehends in it a right notion of our Saviour's death upon the cross; that sacrifice which gave rise to the feast, without which, according to analogy, the sacrifice itself would be incomplete. It teaches, that our Saviour himself declared his death to be a sacrifice. The sacrifice, however, is nothing to us till we partake in the feast upon it. standers, or uninterested spectators, till we eat of those symbols which are appointed to be in the place of the slaughtered victim, once offered; a view of the subject this, which should make every professed Christian shudder at the idea of wilfully and entirely neglecting, through life, the Holy Communion.

We are but idle by

The sacrifice, without participants in the feast on, or after it, is nothing more than a violent death inflicted on the Holy Person commemorated; and ceases, indeed, to be a sacrifice at all, or to confer

any benefits, so far as non-participants in the feast are concerned. They therefore can have no advantage from Christianity, but by the extraordinary interposition of divine mercy.

The plainest and most rational account of the Sacrament, that I know of, is that which thus describes it as a feast after a sacrifice. The eating of the body, and drinking of the blood of the victim, are expressions, when the general nature of sacrifices is once explained, perfectly intelligible; and the feast on the oblation is well emblematized by the bread and wine. The real victim could not in this case, without the horrid practice of canibalism, even for once have afforded a real feast, much less a feast to be frequently repeated all over Christendom, by all Christians, till the second advent of the Redeemer; when all signs, symbols, and shadows, shall be superseded by a personal presence, by a substantial form, by a body glorified, not only beyond all description, but imagina

tion.

From the doctrine, that we cannot enjoy the be. nefits of the sacrifice, without being participants of the feast after it, we may understand the awful words of our Saviour: "Verily, verily," (a most solemn asseveration,) "I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye can have no life in you;" John vi. that is, I positively declare to you, that unless you

partake of the sacrifice of myself, by partaking of the feast that I shall institute upon it, ye cannot share the benefits which that sacrifice was intended

to confer; even life, spiritual life, and life eternal.' "Except you eat of this bread and drink of this wine, ye have no life in you." Words too strong and too alarming to be lightly passed over by those who are sincere in their profession of Christianity; and yet words of comfort to those who understand them of the eucharistical bread and wine.

SECTION V.

Though the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper be strictly a Feast on, or after, a Sacrifice; yet in popular Language,-it has been, and may still be, called, a Sacrifice.

DIFFERENT names may be given, without absurdity, to the same thing, according to its dif. ferent properties and effects. Convenience, indeed, may require, that the same religious institution should be commonly called by the same name, but if it has various properties and effects, several names may be applied to it at different times and places, which, however diversified, may have their significancy and use. One name may have to encounter fewer prejudices than another; and for that