ral duty, it would be beneficial to us, and the omission hurtful. If this were a natural duty, it would be beneficial by its own natural tendency, not otherwise. Now our author denies it to be a natural duty, under his four first propositions, and yet page 154 tells us, that in its natural and reasonable tendency we ought to found our main expectations' of the benefits which he enumerates, p. 155. These sentiments are very inconsistent, but then they lie at the distance of a hundred and fifty-three pages from each other; and what occasion for connexion or consistence between principles so remote? there are leaves enough between to keep the peace, though they were ever so strongly disposed to jar.

If our author had not ascribed these benefits to the sacrament, though in opposition to the principles he set out upon, some one perhaps might have asked, Where is the good of such a rite? Why did Christ institute what is of no use to us? If in answer to these questions, which he could not but foresee, he had said, that Christ has annexed scriptural benefits to it, which by its own nature it could not convey, being merely positive, he had contradicted the tenor of his whole book, and particularly the very beginning of the same paragraph, see p. 154, where he speaks of these benefits. This had been too palpable; so he chose rather to let his answer to these questions give the lie to his very fundamental principle, hoping that the reader would not so easily perceive it.

Since then this answer of his can never satisfy, and since no natural benefits are to be expected from an institution purely positive, other than what our own reflections could have derived from the action itself, though it had never been instituted, it follows, that it must either be a useless right, an empty and idle ceremony, or else there must be some spiritual benefits preternaturally annexed to it, and conveyed by it to a worthy communicant. To eat bread and drink wine can never tend, by their own nature, to any moral improvement of our minds; not even when they are applied to the memory of Christ, if, according to our author, there is no other preparation necessary than barely to remember. The most that can be said of this sacrament upon his principles is, that it is a useful hint to our thoughts, as applied by Christ, if seriously received.

Had our Saviour intended no more than this by it, what occasion was there for all the solemnity with which it is so often treated in Scripture? If he had designed it only for a mere memorandum of his death, he would not have said this bread is my body, nor this wine is my blood; but, this bread and wine shall put you in mind of my body and blood.

But our author tells us, that whatever benefits we are to expect from this institution, they are only such as are the common effects of all Christian duties, and not peculiarly annexed to this single duty. If this be so, then this sacrament can be of no use, unless all other Christian duties be performed as well as it, which is directly contrary to what the author labours under in his 16th proposition, the sum of which is to shew, that this sacrament may be worthily received, though other duties should be ever so much neglected. He that doubles and goes far about for arguments, is extremely apt at one time to cross and thwart what he maintained at another. But no more of this now. I shall have an opportunity of speaking more fully on this subject under the next proposition.

The author of the Plain Account endeavours to prove that there is no grace nor divine assistance communicated in the sacrament of the Lord's supper. To know whether this be so or not, we must first consider, what is to be understood by the word grace, and then, whether there is any grounds in Scripture to hope for that grace in the worthy participation of this holy institution.

By grace is sometimes meant the Divine favour, or God's good disposition to protect and succour his servants: in this sense it signifies the cause. But it more usually implies the effect of God's goodness towards us, and signifies the actual assistances of his Holy Spirit, working in the ordinary way, with our weak endeavours to subdue our passions, resist temptations, and strengthen our resolutions against the trials we are to encounter.

Grace, taken in this latter sense, must be supposed to be communicated in the Lord's supper, if we will not charge our Saviour with speaking words without meaning, or running into tautology; for in what other sense can eat my body and drink my blood be taken? Besides, if there be any similitude implied in these words (and except we sup

pose a similitude they must be utterly unmeaning), they can be interpreted in no other sense, than that of refreshing and feeding our souls, as ordinary bread and wine do our bodies.

Christ, in the sixth of St. John's Gospel, gives them this very interpretation; he calls his flesh and blood the food of eternal life, but shews us in the close of his discourse that we are not to expect life from the flesh itself, but from the spirit represented by it, and conveyed with it. The body and blood of Christ in the holy communion, represent his Divine Person to us, as may appear from those expressions where our Saviour speaks of eating him personally. 'I am the bread of life; he that eateth me even he shall live by me.' Now there was in the person of Christ not only a body to be rent, and blood to be spilt for us in order to remission of sins, but also a holy and lively spirit, by which he uttered his most excellent revelation, in order to the amendment of our lives. As therefore in this sacred ordinance we commemorate his sufferings for us, by spiritually eating his body and drinking his blood, so we must also be supposed to receive his Holy Spirit, which is to write his law in our hearts, because without that, his flesh profiteth not, though ever so duly commemorated; without that we eat not Christ, Christ dwelleth not in us, nor we in Christ; we rather crucify him anew by those sins that hinder us from participating of his spirit, and like persons a sinking, instead of assisting ourselves by his infallible directions, only desperately cling to his body, as if we rather intended to drown him with us, than save ourselves. '

As the body and blood of Christ can be rationally called so in no sense but this, so this, if it be well considered, will appear to be founded on a most strong and beautiful similitude. By bread and wine our bodies are nourished and our lives are preserved; by the spiritual or sacramental food our virtue is fed and strengthened, and eternal life secured. Bread and wine rather enfeeble our bodies and endanger our lives, than support the one by nourishing the other, if our stomachs be distempered, or our constitutions already infected; in like manner the sacramental food is rather baneful than nutritious to our souls, if they are not

properly prepared for its reception, Bread and wine cannot begin health or produce life, but they can renew and revive both; the grace communicated in the sacrament, as it does not prevent, but attend that ordinance, cannot inspire virtue where there was none before, nor plant eternal life in the midst of dead works and sins, but it can feed a virtuous disposition, it can perfect good works, it can cherish the principles of eternal life, and bring them to maturity. Bread is the strength of man's heart, and the staff of his life; grace is the support of the conscience, and the vital principle of eternal salvation. Wine maketh a glad heart, and a glad heart, like a medicine, prolongs our days; so the grace of God infuses comfortable hopes into the soul, by which eternal life is assured to us, for we are saved by faith improved into hope.

Our author denies that in the nature of the sacrament there is any communion with God necessarily implied; and yet, according to him, the nature of the sacrament consists in a thankful remembrance of Christ's death. Now, is not thanksgiving an act of worship? And is there not some communion or intercourse with God in every act of worship? But he will say there is no extraordinary or peculiar communion with the divine nature, farther than what is common to all other acts of worship. Here every rational and candid interpreter of Scripture must differ from him. We have but just now proved that some participation of God's grace must be supposed in this institution. Now is there no communion, when on the one side grace is imparted, and on the other the most grateful acknowledgments rendered? When God assists his servants, and they at the same time gratefully bless their good and bountiful Benefactor, is there no intercourse to be supposed?

Does not Christ invite us to approach, and unite ourselves to his divine nature, when he bids us eat his body and drink his blood? There is communion among those who only eat together; shall there be none between him that affords himself for our nourishment, and us who feed on him? Our Saviour tells us in the sixth of St. John, that he who eateth his flesh and drinketh his blood dwelleth in him, and that he reciprocally dwelleth in that person. They that dwell together are said to have fellowship and com

munion with each other, and shall there be no communion supposed between those who dwell mutually in one another? Now it is in the holy sacrament of the Lord's supper that Christ and the faithful soul partake each other, and spiritually enter upon this joint-indwelling, as appears from the words of institution, as well as from Christ's express declarations in the aforesaid chapter of St. John.

Well, but then the author of the Plain Account will say, if Christ and the communicant unite so closely in the celebration of this rite, how can it be in any sense commemorative? If Christ be present to us, how can we be said to remember him? I answer, that the bread and wine in the sacrament represent to us Christ's body torn, and his blood spilt; that they are therefore memorials of his death which is past, and of his real body and blood that are now in heaven; and that notwithstanding this, they are the pledges and vehicles of his favour and grace to all worthy communicators. Is it impossible that the same thing should serve to convey a bounty and also preserve the memory of our Benefactor? He that holds an estate by the last will and testament of his father, can make use of the deed both to secure possession, and perpetuate in him a grateful sense of his father's goodness. This instance does not come fully up to the case in hand, but it serves to shew that there is no inconsistency in making the same thing both a means of communicating a favour, and at the same time a standing token and remembrancer of him to whom we owe it. I think it cannot be denied but that we may remember Christ absent in the flesh, though at the same time we feel him present in spirit, and communicate with him by thanksgivings on our part, and spiritual benefits on his. Why may we not by one and the same act commemorate those sufferings by which remission of our sins was procured, and obtain assistance to resist temptations?

Our author denies likewise that the Lord's supper is either a renewal of our baptismal vow, or a seal of the Christian covenant. Before we can determine upon the merits of this doctrine, we must consider the nature of our covenant with God, and of the parties contracting. Whosoever is baptized into the Christian religion, solemnly promises or vows to God, that he will conform to the arti