we

there any thing in the peculiar Notion of an Altar, that can be thought neceffary to the doing thefe Actions, in remembrance of fuch past Facts. The Actions themfelves, it is plain, are Actions belonging properly to a Table. And it is upon this Account only that a Table is at all used, because it was, and is, the Custom of most Countries to ufe a Table at their Meals, and Feafts. If this had not been the Cuftom at Jerufalem, and at Corinth; fhould not have heard a Word even of a Table in this Rite: nor could the celebrated Dispute have ever arifen between Table, and Altar. And I prefume, No one of Common Understanding will say that, in thofe Countries where all are known to eat their Meals, upon the Floor, or a Carpet spread upon it, the Lord's Supper would not be duly celebrated, without either Table, or Altar; or the least resemblance of either of them.

The only thing in the Christian Difpenfation which answers to any of the Legal Sacrifices, but indeed, is far more Excellent, in its nature and defign, than them All, is the Death of Chrift; that Sacrifice which He voluntarily made of His own Life, to E 3

his

his own, and His Father's, Love of Mankind. The only Person who answers to any Jewish Priest, confider'd as a Sacrificer, is Jefus Christ himself, who offer'd himself up. The only thing which answers to the Altar upon which the Sacrifices were offered, is that very Cross upon which Chrift died. Now the Lord's Supper was instituted, not to offer up to God, in future times, what then was offered up; and what could not at that time, or at any other, be offered up, but by Chrift Himself, who alone had power to do it: but to call to Remembrance a Sacrifice already offered; and the Sacrificer, who offered it Himfelf; and, by confequence, the Altar (if We will call the Cross fo) upon which it was offered. This being fo; and the very Effence of this Inftitution being Remembrance of a past Transaction; and this Remembrance neceffarily excluding the Corporal prefence of what is remember'd: it follows that, as the only Sacrifice, and the only Sacrificer in the Chriftian Difpenfation, are remember'd, and therefore not present in the Lord's Supper; fo the only Christian Altar, (the Cross upon which Chrift fuffer'd) being also by confequence to be remember'd, it cannot be present in this Rite, because that prefence

prefence would deftroy the very Notion of this Remembrance.

Nor is the figure of an Altar more proper; not only because the figure of an Altar, is no more a real Altar, than a Table is; but because the Lord's Supper was not inftituted, as a Stage-Play, to act over our Saviour's Death; (which is an unworthy thought ;) but as a Rite, for the Remembrance of his Death once paft, and not to be repeated: And also, because, if it had been instituted for fo low a purpose; the exact figure and posture of his very Cross, and not of an Altar, (with many Circumftances not fit to be named,) would have had a juft Claim to make a part in the Reprefentation.

Agreeably to all this, many of the Greek Fathers and Commentators, who lived fome hundreds of years after the Inftitution of the Lord's Supper, when by degrees the language had been altered; tho' Themselves, amongst Other high Words, often called this Rite a Sacrifice; yet They could not forbear sometimes to correct this Expreffion; and to declare, They did not mean a Sacrifice, properly speaking, but only the Remembrance of a Sacrifice. Particularly St Chryfoftom E 4 Hom.

"

Hom. xvii. in Ep. ad Hebr, after He had faid, θυσίαν ποιμεν, He adds, μᾶλλον δὲ ἀνάμ νησιν ἐργαζόμεθα θυσίας : which is in effed to say, "I call it a Sacrifice; but indeed, It is not a Sacrifice, but the Remembrance "of a Sacrifice" And confequently, No Altar can be neceffary, or proper. For where there is no Sacrifice, but only the Remembrance of a Sacrifice; which fupposes the Sacrifice to be past at another place: there can be no Altar; but only the Remembrance of that very Altar, upon which that past Sacrifice was offer'd.

This plain Argument, taken from the Notion of Remembrance, is very strong against the Doctrine of an Altar maintain'd by thofe of the Romish Church. "The Sacrifice of Chrift's Body; the Sacrificer, and "the Altar upon which it was offer'd, are "all to be remember'd in this Rite: and "therefore, fuppofed to be abfent; not pre

¢

se

fent." But whilft They think of their Priefts as Sacrificers, and as offering the Sacrifice (properly fo called) of the very fame Body and Bloud of Chrift, which He offered upon his Cross: Whilft, I fay, they maintain this abfurdity, contrary to the Notion of a Memorial, as well as to the Nature of

things;

things; no wonder that They speak so much of a Real Altar for this Real Sacrifice. And indeed, let a Popish abfurdity be never fo monftrous; yet it must be acknowledged that it is generally, in its several parts, felf-confiftent, and all of a piece. But for Those who have difavowed the Abfurdity, which alone could be the Ground of any Notion of an Altar, in this Rite, ftill to be fond of the Notion, after They have parted with the Ground of it; is very hardly to be accounted for.

I shall only add That, (in perfect agreement with what I have now faid,) throughout the Established Rules and Authentick Rubrics of our Church, whenever there is Occafion to speak upon this Subject, the Name conftantly made ufe of, is the CommunionTable; or fimply, The Table; never Altar: which latter Name is carefully banish'd from every Declaration of our Governors, in the laft Settlements of this Church. To return,

2

From this Paffage [I Cor. x. 16----21.] thus explained, the following Propofition may be drawn,

XI. Chriftians