or privileges of it. Since therefore the very nature of the act supposes it and implies it, (which is more than the nature of every other act, service, or duty does,) therefore there is some peculiar force, virtue, and efficacy annexed to the Eucharist, above what is ordinarily annexed to common duties. Duties, as such, are conditions only on our part, applications of men to God, and therefore are not properly instruments in the hand of God for conveying his graces: but sacraments are applications of God to men, and therefore are properly his instruments of conveyance, his appointed means or conduits, in and by which he confers his graces. Gospel duties are the conditional causes of spiritual blessings, while sacraments are properly the instrumental conveyances. Neither repentance, nor faith, nor even sacraments, considered merely as duties, or as acts of ours, are properly channels of grace, being, as I said, conditions only: but sacraments considered as applications of God to men are properly channels of spiritual benefits. This is a distinction which ought carefully to be, heeded, for the right understanding of the difference between sacraments and duties y.

Preaching of the word is most like to sacraments in the instrumental capacity; for by the word also God conveys his graces. But still inviting, exhorting, or calling men to be reconciled to God, comes not up to signing and sealing the reconciliation: neither is preparing men for the covenant the same thing with covenanting. The Eucharist, as hath been noted, is an actual communion, wherein God gives and man receives at that instant, or in the very act. Such being the nature and use of this eucharistical service, in Divine construction, and by Divine appointment, it is manifest from thence, that it carries in it the force of a promise, or contract, on God's part, that

y See above, p. 14, 15, &c.

Verbum Dei quidem comitatur etiam aliqua Spiritus Dei efficacia-Verum efficacia ista a Deo prorsus libere dispensatur, et absque ullo pacto et promissione Dei, qua Deus ad hos et illos, potius quam alios, ejusmodi gratia donandos, sese obstrinxerit. Cum Sacramentis autem, ex Dei pacto, con

fit qualifications supposed on our part, this service shall never fail of its effect, but shall be to every worthy receiver like a deed of conveyance, instrumentally investing him with the benefits of Christ's death, for the time being; and to the end also, if he perseveres to the end. "It is no "good argument to say, the graces of God are given to "believers out of the Sacrament, ergo, not by or in the "Sacrament: but rather thus; if God's grace overflows "sometimes, and goes without his own instruments, much "more shall he give it in the use of them. If God gives "pardon without the Sacrament, then rather also with the "Sacrament. For supposing the Sacraments, in their de“sign and institution, to be nothing but signs and ceremo"nies, yet they cannot hinder the work of God: and "therefore holiness in the reception of them will do more "than holiness alone; for God does nothing in vain. The "Sacraments do something in the hand of God: at least, "they are God's proper and accustomed time of grace: they are his seasons and our opportunity a"

66

And now if any one should ask for a catalogue of those spiritual privileges, which St. Paul in this place has omitted, our Lord himself may supply that omission by what he has said in John vi. For, since we have proved, that there is a spiritual manducation in the Eucharist, with all worthy receivers, it now follows of course, that what our Lord says in John vi. of spiritual manducation in the general, is all strictly applicable to this particular manner of spiritual feeding; and is the best explication we can any where have, of what it includes or contains. It contains, 1. A title to a happy resurrection: for such as spiritually

juncta est vis quædam divini Spiritus, per quam agunt infallibiliter in omnibus iis quibus debite administrantur, quique illa suscipiunt cum ea quam Deus in iis prærequirit, dispositione—Ex nullo pacto tenetur Deus verbum virtute sui Spiritus comitari: sacramentis autem ex certa Dei pactione, adest virtus divina, per quam gratium quandam salutarem communicant omnibus illis qui secundum ordinem a Deo positum illa participant. Le Blanc, Thes. p. 676,

feed on Christ, Christ will "raise up at the last day b." 2. A title to eternal life: for our Lord expressly says, "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath "eternal life." 3. A mystical union with Christ in his whole Person; or, more particularly, a presential union with him in his Divine nature: "He that eateth my flesh, "&c. dwelleth in me, and I in himd." 4. In these are implied (though not directly expressed by our Lord in that discourse) remission of sins, and sanctification of the Holy Spirit; of which I may say more in a proper place.

66

To return to St. Paul's text, I shall here sum up the true and the full sense of it, mostly in Mr. Locke's words, with some few and slight alterations. "They who drink "of the cup of blessing, which we bless in the Lord's Supper, do they not thereby partake of the benefits pur"chased by Christ's blood shed for them upon the cross, "which they here symbolically drink? and they who eat "of the bread broken there, do they not partake in the "sacrifice of the body of Christ, and strengthen their union "with him, as members of him their head? For by eating "of that bread, we, though many in number, are all "united, and make but one body under Christ our head, "as many grains of corn are united into one loaf. See "how it is among the Jews, who are outwardly, accord

66

ing to the flesh, by circumcision the people of God. "Among them, they who eat of the sacrifice are partakers "of God's table, the altar, have fellowship with him, and "share in the benefit of the sacrifice, as if it were offered "for them f. Do not mistake me, as if I hereby said, that

b John vi. 54.

c John vi. 51, 54, 58.

• Locke's Commentary on the Text, p. 181.

d John vi. 56, 57.

f Dr. Pelling, in his Discourse of the Sacrament, (p. 116, 117, 118.) well illustrates the case of the Jews, as partaking of the altar. I shall cite a small part.

"There is an expression which will make this matter clear, in Levit. vii. 18. "neither shall it be imputed, &c. When those sacrificial feasts were regularly "celebrated, they were imputed to the guests for their good, they were reck"oned advantageous to them, they were favourably accepted at God's hand,

"the idols of the Gentiles are gods in reality, or that the "things offered to them change their nature, and are any 66 thing really different from what they were before, so as "to affect us in our use of them: no, but this I say, that "the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to "devils, and not to God, and I would not that you should "have fellowship with, and be under the influence of "devils, as they who by eating of things offered to them, "enter into covenant, alliance, and commerce with them. “You cannot eat and drink with God, as friends at his "table in the Eucharist, and entertain familiarity and friendship with devils, by eating with them, and.partak"ing of the sacrifices offered to them." Such appears to be the force of the whole argument. But as there is nothing so plain, but that it may be obscured by misconception, and darkened by artificial colourings, so we need not wonder if difficulties have been raised against the construction here given. And because it may sometimes happen, that very slight pretences on one side, if not particularly answered, may weigh more with some persons, than the strongest reasons on the other, I shall here be at the pains to bring together such objections as I have any where met with, and to consider them one by one,

Objections answered.

I. Dr. Whitby, whose comments upon this text, I am sorry to say, appear to be little else than laboured confusion, is pleased to object as here follows: "Neither can "the sense of the words be to this effect: The cup and "bread communicate to us the spiritual effects of Christ's "broken body, or his blood shed for us, though this be in "itself a certain truth; for these spiritual effects cannot

"in order to the ends for which the sacrifice was designed: they served to "make an atonement, they were effectual to their purposes, they were good "to all intents, they were available to the offerers, (as the Hebrew Doctors "expound the phrase.) This is the true meaning of being partakers of the “altar,” &c. p. 117. In the next page the learned author applies the whole very aptly to the Eucharist.

"be shared among believers, so that every one shall have a part of them only, but the same benefits are wholly "communicated to every due receiver. See note on ver. "16d." The learned author did well to call our doctrine a certain truth: but he had done better, if he had taken due care to preserve to this text that true sense, upon which chiefly that certain truth is founded. His objection against the spiritual effect being shared, appears to be of no weight: for how do we say they are shared? We do not say that Christ's death is divided into parcels, or is more than one death, or that his sacrifice is more than one sacrifice, or that it is shared like a loaf broken into parts, as the objection supposes: but the many sharers all partake of, and communicate in one undivided thing, the same death, the same sacrifice, the same atonement, the same Saviour, the same God and Lord: and here is no dividing or sharing any thing, but as the same common blessing diffuses itself among many divided persons. And what is there amiss or improper in this notion? The learned author himself is forced to allow c, that κοινωνία τῷ υἱοῦ αὐτῷ, communion of his Son f, and κοινωνία τῶν παθημάτων, communion of his sufferings, and κοινωνία μετὰ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ μετὰ τοῦ vioũ aŭtoũ, communion with the Father and the Sonh, are all so many proper phrases, to express the communion of many in one and the same thing, where the effects are common to those many. And he might have added xoνωνία τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, communion of the Holy Ghosti, and κοινωνία τοῦ μυστηρίου, communion of the mystery k, as two other parallel instances, wherein the same undivided blessings are supposed to be communicated to many, in such a sense as we suppose the undivided blessing, privilege, atonement of Christ's death to be vouchsafed to worthy communicants. And therefore there is no occasion for the low thought, that xowvwvía here, with respect to the Eucharist, must signify no more than the sharing out the