any power. To hurt others, they must know, would be to injure their own souls, and to forfeit their pardon and their grace,

CONCLUSION.

I HAVE thus attempted to vindicate the Eucharist, from the contempt and neglect into which it appears to have fallen among many, through a thoughtless profaneness; through a rustic stupidity; through a barbarous and Heathenish habit of irreligion, contracted by immersion in sensuality and worldly cares; through a false philosophy and an erroneous theology. In this endeavour, I have sought the support of scripture; of the best divines of various ages, and of the opinions and practices of high antiquity. If I have erred, I have erred with a majority of the learned and good; and my error, I think, cannot be injurious to the cause of true religion and virtue.

It is better, as Dr. Waterland observes, to err on that side which ascribes too much to the Sacrament, than on that which ascribes too little; because it is erring on the side of the precepts; for Scripture gives express cautions against paying too little regard to this holy institution, but none at all against the contrary extreme. The error, if it be

one, is on the side of humility, modesty, and piety. Supposing us to be deceived, all that follows is, that we may be led to frequent the Sacrament so much the oftener; to come to it with the greater reverence, and to repeat our solemn vows for the leading of a good life by the assistance of divine grace, with the more serious and devout affections. No divines that I know of, teach that the use of the outward sacrament is of any avail, without inward faith and repentance, or entire obedience. The reception of the Sacrament is not a single duty, but a system of duties. The outward part is the least and the lowest part; and, separate from a good heart, it is no duty at all. Such are Dr. Waterland's sentiments, though not exactly his words, and I adopt them cordially; but I will cite his words in the following paragraph, as they are applicable to my humble essay.

"What I have endeavoured, has been to maintain the dignity of a venerable Sacrament, by the light of reason, Scripture, and antiquity, against unreasonable attempts to depreciate or undervalue it. The common methods of subversion begin with lessening the work of preparation, and then go on to sink the benefits: the next step in the progress, is to reduce the whole to a bare memorial, a memorial of an absent friend, a master, or chief martyr; passing over the Divine perfections of our Lord, and the all-sufficient merits of what he has

done and suffered for us. Now, in order to build up again as others pull down, the buisness of these papers has been to shew, that the Sacramental memorial, is a memorial of Christ, God and man, who died a willing sacrifice for the sins of mankind; and that it is not a bare memorial or representation of something once done and suffered, but a real and present exhibition of those graces, comforts, or blessings accruing therefrom to every worthy receiver ; that therefore, proper acknowledgments and engagements are expedient from us, and these require suitable preparations and qualifications, and a deportment thereto corresponding; in a word, selfexamination, and self-approbation beforehand, serious resolutions of amendment at the time, and a conscientious care afterwards to persevere in welldoing to our lives' end."

Since the Eucharist is thus beneficial, and, besides its mysterious effects of drawing down grace and pardon, conduces in a high degree to promote virtue, and render the conduct of life prudent, sedate, innocent, and useful, I cannot doubt but an attempt to revive a due degree of attention to it is to serve society, especially in times so singularly unfavourable to religion as our own. It is not the querulous language of common place declamation to assert, that the present times are singularly unfavourable to the prevalence of the Christian religion.

As to the manners of the times, it is certain that commerce, amidst its many advantages, has introduced a general spirit of selfishness and avarice ; so that the devotional regard which, in days of comparative poverty and virtuous simplicity, religion was wont to excite, is paid to money; that idol of the heart, on whose altar, truth, virtue, freedom, are daily sacrificed, with all the enthusiasm of the blindest bigotry. Self-aggrandizement, and worldly affluence and honours, are become the chief good; and those who seek it not, or relinquish it for the "things which are not seen," are accounted in the world's estimate, fools or insane.

As to principles, the heart of man, be it remembered, can scarcely admit of two strong attachments at the same time. When the world has seized the affections, the unseen Deity, and all the duties which result from an acknowledged relation to him, will be viewed with indifference, and more than indifference, even with disgust, because they will often appear repugnant to the favourite pursuit. In this state of the public mind, the voice of Infidelity will be heard with eagerness, while religious discourses and addresses are treated with neglect, if they haply escape scorn. The affairs of the world, the great prizes which glitter in the eyes of pride, avarice, and selfish pleasure, will alone be considered as worthy the anxious care, the ardent pursuit of a man of sense.

But it may be worth while to reflect a moment, how nearly such a state approaches to Atheism. The name shocks us, and is abhorred; but the reality is insensibly cherished by all who pay no worship to the Deity. The reluctance which men feel to admit the appellation, is, however, a proof that there are seeds of religious sentiments still remaining in them, which might be fostered by care, till, in time, they might vegetate and bear fruit in abundance. Without care, they may perish, and the mind become a barren, dreary, dismal waste, uncheared by the sunshine of hope.

If religion comprehend the worship and obedience due from men to God, and all the duties which they are bound to perform, either with the prospect of obtaining his favour, or the fear of incurring his displeasure; then they who do not worship God; they who do not obey him; they who do not act with the hope of his favour, or the apprehension of his displeasure, whatever their professions may be, or whatever name they may bear, are without religion, and consequently in practice, if not in theory, Atheists. The difference between practical and speculative Atheism, is in effect small; they are both productive of wickedness, and terminate in misery. A man of this character must consider himself as the supreme and unaccountable judge of his own conduct, and as the sole arbiter of his own happiness. His selfishness will, perhaps,