"Our Saviour had told Nicodemus that he must be born again; Nicodemus replies to the impossibility of the thing, in the obvious and literal sense of the words. Jesus in answer, with peculiar solemnity and claim to attention, points out the possibility and the means of being born again, as well as the necessity of such regeneration: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, except a man be born of wa ter and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." To which, still remarking on the want of apprehension of Nicodemus, he adds, "If I have told you earthly things, and you believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things."

"In the sixth chapter Jesus had said, “The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." The Jews again answering, as Nicodemus had done before, to the impossibility of the thing, in its literal sense, said, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" To which our Lord returns an answer, corresponding to that given to Nicodemus, even to the very turn of the sentence: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." The purport of which words is repeated and confirmed in the three next verses, to which he adds, still remarking on their want of apprehension, " Doth this offend you? What, and if ye shall see the Son

of Man ascend up where he was before?" A reply so exactly parallel to that with which he had concluded his conversation with this Master in Israel, that the bare juxta-position of these sentences will render each the comment upon the other. From which analogy, I cannot but think, that whoever will observe the style, manner, and connection of these two discourses, will be of opinion, that St. John took pains industriously to shew, that the two institutions, which were to distinguish this Religion, made part of our Saviour's plan long before. they were actually enjoined. What confirms this notion is, that the only miracle which St. John relates after the other Evangelists, is this, of the miraculous increase of bread, a circumstance in itself highly remarkable, as the reason of it is obvious, because it gave an easy opportunity of introducing and explaining the nature of this Sacrament, as the occurrence relating to Nicodemus Bad afforded an opportunity of explaining the other. To which I must add, that he is the only Evangelist who insists upon the sacramental importance of either institution; and that his attention, in this instance, is perfectly consonant with the general design of his history, which was written in aid of the other Evangelists, to supply such doctrines as he judged might be most usefully added, and at the same time, to correct the misrepresentations of some already received."

The learned Bishop proceeds to answer other objections in a manner equally able. He concludes a most convincing discourse, with saying, " If we are justified in interpreting the words of this chapter, "He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him," directly of this Sacrament, this passage will have an important influence on forming our opinion respecting the peculiar benefits arising from this institution, and we have only to inquire into the meaning of the words, "dwelleth in me and I in him," to determine what these benefits precisely are.

"To dwell in Christ, therefore, is to live according to his commandments; to have Christ dwelling in us, is to enjoy the influence of his Holy Spirit.

"Thus St. John: "Hereby we know that he abideth in us by the Spirit that he hath given us :" again," hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit."

"If then we rightly interpret the text, the assistances of the Spirit are directly annexed to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. But the sanctification of the Spirit supposes Redemption and Pardon ; which, therefore, might else from this chapter be proved a benefit consequent upon this ordinance. But as these truths may be more obviously and simply deduced from the words of the institution, and from the nature of the rite itself, I shall not insist at large upon the argument, but content myself

with having shewn, in opposition to those who have interpreted the eating and drinking Christ's body and blood to be no more than keeping his commandments, that it alluded to something more analogous to the literal sense of the words; in opposition to those who interpret it only of the thing signified in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, that it includes the signs also; without which the notion of spiritual manducation is unfounded, and the passage, both to Jew and Christian, inexplicable; in opposition to those who consider the Lord's Supper simply as a remembrance of his death, that it is a commemoration of the sacrifice for sin made by his death, and a symbolical feast upon a sacrifice; and is therefore a pledge and means of communicating to us all the benefits of that sacrifice."

Such is the opinion of this excellent writer on these passages of St. John, and such also is, and was always, mine. But though it is certainly proper to confute the erroneous interpretations of controversialists, who, from motives of party, have denied the reference of this chapter to the Sacrament, yet I cannot help observing, that scarcely any reader of common sense can doubt that the words, concerning eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ, are to be applied to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. I venture to affirm, that they are now so understood by all who have not been

misled by the perusal of partial commentators, or leaders in the field of controversy; and, I think, the decisions of common sense, in matters, of which it is competent to judge, are often more to be depended upon, as criterions of truth, than the refined speculations of men accustomed to dispute for the palm of victory.

I shall again have occasion briefly to consider the reference of the sixth chapter of St. John to the Sacrament, when I proceed more particularly to review the benefits annexed to the worthy reception of it.

SECTION IV.

The Lord's Supper considered as a Feast on, or after, a Sacrifice.

THAT the Lord's Supper is a Feast on, or after a Sacrifice, is an explication of it, which has been adopted by the ablest and most learned men. Dr. Cudworth, a great and venerable name, first suggested it in this country; and it has been firmly supported by the ingenious arguments of succeeding Divines. They have indeed given additional confirmation to it; but the honour of the original idea, should, I think, be assigned to him alone..