SECTION VIII.

That the prefent Benefits of the Eucharift are Grace and Pardon, is a Conclufion that must follow from admitting that the Sixth Chapter of St. John relates to it :additional Reafons for thinking that the Expreffions of this Chapter, already mentioned, mean much more than DOCTRINES and PRECEPTS.

UR's is a far different task from that of

OUR'S

our predeceffors. We have not to combat with the errors of popery: we have not to display the abfurdity of tranfubflantiation, consubstantiation, impanation, and concomitancy; fcholaftic terms and ideas, which, under the direction of politicians, were called in to aid and fupport the errors of the prevailing theo logy. We have to contend with those who, fo far from maintaining that there is any thing of corporeal prefence and divinity in the Sacrament, feem inclined

to infinuate that there is nothing at all in it.

And here it is impoffible not to obferve, as we proceed, the wonderful propenfity of the human mind to extremes, ftrikingly exhibited in the prefent cafe. It is but a fhort time ago, when almoft the whole Chriftian world profeffed to believe that the bread and wine of the Sacrament was converted into the real body and blood of our Saviour; and now divines of high repute endeavour to teach the people, that the whole rite has no fignificancy but as a memorial, and that it is attended with no peculiar benefits to the receiver of the bread and wine, but fuch as must attend every other act of obedience.

. Our Church, indeed, teaches that our fouls receive strength and refreshment from a worthy participation of the Eucharift; great effects, and most devoutly to be fought for by all who feel the imbecillity and wretchedness of unaffifted human nature; and our Church is justified in this doctrine, from many paffages in Scripture, but more particularly by those already

already mentioned, in the fixth chapter of St. John's Gofpel. But the degraders of the Sacrament either omit thefe paffages entirely in their confideration of the fubject, or pretend to prove that they mean no more than the doctrines and precepts of the Chriftian Religion in general. Flesh and biood, according to them, are fynonimous with theological tenets and moral maxims; and the eating of our Saviour's body, the victim. facrificed for us, is no more than the receiving of his Gospel, the hiftory of his life and death narrated by the four Evangelifts, together with the Epiftles of the Apoftles, who are faid by fome of the degraders, more adventurous than others, not always to reafon conclufively, but to talk nonfenfe.

It is true indeed that the very remarkable expreffions of the chapter in question have been the fubject of much difpute among our forefathers; and it must not be concealed that many of them denied their facramental construction: but it is eafy, on a candid retrofpect of the controverfies which agitated the Chriftian world, to fee

D 4

fee the principal reafons for the denial. The Roman Catholics denied their application to the Eucharift, because they feared left it might render it neceffary to give the cup as well as the bread to the laity. The Proteftants, on the other hand, were apprehenfive that the Roman Catholics might take advantage of the declaration," my flesh is meat indeed, and "my blood is drink indeed," to derive countenance to the doctrine of transubitantiation.

Both thefe caufes of mifapprehenfion operating but little at prefent, a careful and unprejudiced examiner will fee reason to conclude without doubt, that the paffages of this chapter refer to the Eucharift, afterwards more expressly inftituted; and that our Saviour intended (by words intelligible enough after his afcenfion) to inftruct his hearers in the BENEFITS of that myfterious rite.

The opponents contend, that the phrafes, eating our Saviour's flesh and drinking his blood, mean no more than believing his doctrine or receiving his inftructions: but

is it to be conceived, that expreffions fo fingular should be adopted for fuch a purpofe? Unless fome parallel expreffion can be found, what can prove that the reception of a teacher's doctrine was ever defcribed before, as eating the flesh and blood of the TEACHER; does not common fense fuggeft that expreffions fo fingular fhould be interpreted by fimilar expreffions, if any occur in any other part of the evangelical or apoftolical writings? And as fimilar, or rather the fame expreffions ac-; tually do occur, in St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. Paul, which are univerfally allowed to mean the Sacrament, ought not thefe, of the fixth chapter of St. John, in fair conftruction, to be ad.: mitted to mean the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, thus announced in a predictive intimation of its nature and efficacy? The opinion that these words relate to the Eucharift and mean a fpiritual manducation (as it is called), removes alb the difficulty which arifes from fuppofing our Saviour intended by fuch extraordinary words

D 5