drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day*.

In the discussion of this celebrated passage my chief object will be to shew, that the Lord's Supper is indeed probably alluded to in it; the consequences, on that supposition resulting from it, in confirmation or extension of our previous inferences, will be, I trust, too obvious to require any special developement.

I am indeed well aware, that in undertaking to shew, that in the chapter in question our Lord does at all allude to the sacrament of the Eucharist, I shall be opposed to many names of great and deserved authority in the church; and to many eminent writers of our own communion. Yet I should hope that their number is not so great, nor the influence of their names so overpowering, but that the question still lies open to investigation, without danger of incurring the reproach (for such I should esteem it) of endeavouring to revive, or give countex John vi. 53, 54.

nance to an exploded or untenable hypothesis. Some brief remarks upon the state of the question, so far as authorities are concerned, may perhaps be a not unfit introduction to the proposed examination of the passage.

With respect to the testimony of the early Fathers, (I speak of those commonly called apostolical,) Ignatius is the only one, with respect to whom a doubt can arise; and the supposed reference to this chapter, in his Epistle to the Romans, though strongly urged by Johnson and Brett, is much too obscure and uncertain, to enable us to determine any thing from it, as to the application of the words in debate to the Eucharist. With regard to those of a later date, Johnson' claims them for, Waterland" against, and Lampe, though himself hostile

y Ignat. ad Rom. cap. vii. p. 40. edit. T. Smith, Oxon. 1709. Whether Ignatius here refers to the Eucharist at all is doubtful; much more so, whether he so refers in connection with John vi.

Unbloody Sacrifice, Part I. chap. ii. §. 5.

a Review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist, chap. vi. b Comment. Evang. secundum Joann. cap. vi. 51. not. f. p. 256. vol. II. Lampe says, "Negari nequit, Pa

to the application of the passage to the Sacrament, inclines to allow the Fathers to be in favour of it.

The Romanists are divided; but the main inducement of those, who deny its application to the Lord's Supper, seems to be, the strong testimony it would bear to the necessity of a communion in both kinds: as, on the other hand, the chief reason for rejecting it, among foreign protestants at least, seems to have been the dread of exalting too highly the external rite, and of falling into the papistical error of the opus operatum.

Among our own writers, indeed, this latter motive has had an extensive influence, especially with the more early ones. And in the beginning and middle of the last century, to this was added a certain desire of rationalizing the Christian doctrine, which may be observed, not only among professed Socinians, but among those, who in most points were far removed from the suspicion of favouring Socinian tenets.

"trum maximum numerum nostrum locum de sacramen"tali manducatione intellexisse."

T

On the other hand, there has been not a little difference of opinion among those, who agreed in the general idea, that the words in question might fairly be considered as referring, in some sense, to the sacrament of the Eucharist.

Many, for instance, seem to have thought, that though the real intent of our Saviour, throughout the chapter, was only to impress upon his hearers the necessity of embracing with firm faith the doctrine, of which the efficacy of his death and bloodshedding formed a part; yet that he might, though without distinct or purposed allusion, haye had in his thoughts the celebration of that then future rite, by which believers were afterwards openly and visibly to testify their adherence to him.

Others again have gone so far as to allow, that the passage may indeed be applied to the illustration of the doctrine of the Eucharist; although they have been unwilling to admit, that in its delivery by our Saviour, there was any intention of such an application of his words. These have laid much stress on the circumstance of the Sacrament

not being at that time instituted; and from this fact have drawn two inferences of very unequal solidity: the one, not easily impeachable, that the words of our Lord could not have been understood of the holy Communion by those to whom they were addressed; the other, scarcely tenable, that, because not then so understood, they could not consistently, at any future time, be applied to the direct interpretation of the instituted rite.

And, lastly, there have been others, who, admitting that the allusion was unintelligible at the time, have nevertheless not hesitated to consider the words uttered by our Lord, as originally intended by him to refer primarily and most directly to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper; in the allusion to a subsequent appointment perceiving no other difficulty, than may be found in many similar declarations of our Lord recorded by the same Evangelist.

With none of these will the view of the passage about to be proposed exactly coincide. My own idea is, that in the words, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and