"who were prefent at the inftitution, no punishment whatever will be incurred "by him for omitting to celebrate it "under this perfuafion." This declaration, pronounced with the decifion of a legiflator, becomes not a weak mortal, when speaking of rewards and punishments to be bestowed by the Almighty: and I do not think it right to fuggeft to the common people, to whom his little pamphlet is addreffed, excufes for neglecting the Sacrament, which without any affiftance, they are ready enough to fabricate. I venture to fay that fcarcely one in a thousand, among the unlearned, would ever have thought, without fuch suggestions, that the command to celebrate the Sacrament could have been confined to the Apostles who heard it.

The fimplicity of the doctrine that the Eucharift is but an act of memory, and the facility of performing that act may cause the depreciating accounts of the Sacrament to be well received in the bufy world, where men think they have fomething else to do than to bestow much

time and thought on the weightier concerns of Religion. Thofe who are deeply immersed in the cares of ambition, avarice, or pleasure, may, without any great felf-denial, fpare a few moments to perform a duty fo cafy, as eating bread and drinking wine in an act of commemoration. The most thoughtlefs of mankind may stop a few moments to pick up ftraws from the furface of the ftream, while thofe only, who are convinced that there is a pearl in the waters, will have refolution to dive to the bottom.

But men, who are. fo far deluded as to acquiefce in the ftraws on the furface, while gold and jewels are attainable by a deeper refearch, will regret their delufion when they feel themselves, at fome future period, totally deftitute of the riches of grace. They will have to deplore their confidence in those teachers, who led them to believe that the Eucharift is nothing more than a commemorative rite, requiring no preparation, and followed with no present and appropriate advantage.

If the Holy Communion be a memorial only, then every man, who, without partaking of the bread and wine from the hand of the authorized minister, feriously and devoutly remembers our Saviour's death, in any place, or at any time, may excufe himfelf from coming to the table in the church, even on the most solemn occafions, as from a work of superftition and fuperfluity. Or, if in compliance with a decorous custom, (in what he thinks matter of indifference,) he should fometimes attend it, he will go without reverence, and return without confolation.

Is it neceffary (the lukewarm and the bufy may fay) to go to church to eat bread and drink wine, in order to call to remembrance a fact of univerfal notoriety? Who forgets the death of Cæfar? The death of Chrift can never fall from the memory of a man who has read the Gofpel, or who lives in a land where Chriftianity is the eftablished Religion. The Sacrament, thus lowered from a beneficial mystery to a mere memorial, will fcarcely be confidered in any other light than a relique of popery.

с

popery. Among the mafs of the people it is already neglected; but if the doctrine taught by distinguished divines, that it is but a ceremony without benefits, fhould prevail; the neglect of worthy receiving will not be apologized for, as the effect of thoughtleffness; but boldly defended, as difplaying a mind, fuperior to idle and fuperftitious formality.

This degrading opinion has already been ably confuted; and, in this place, I fhall add only one or two confiderations on its abfurdity; fuggefted by the learned. author of the Divine Legation. He is an accurate reafoner; and I prefer his teftimony, on the prefent occafion, because he was fingularly adverfe to every thing that bordered on fanaticifm. He would not have maintained the myfterious dignity of the Eucharift, and the beneficial effects. which attend it, unlefs he had been convinced of them by arguments of irresistible force.

The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is allowed to be a COMMUNION of the Par-. ticipants, from the words which follow:

"We

"We being many are one bread and "one body, for we are all partakers of that "one bread*." It is therefore, in being a Communion of the Participants, fomething more than mere remembrance of a benefactor. It makes the receivers (as we here read) " of many to become one body." But if it be merely a Commemoration of a departed benefactor, the receivers are not made by it one body, but remain, as they were, feparate profeffors of one common faith. They were connected in the circumftance of a common profeffion of faith, before they partook of the bread, and are not at all the more affimilated by an act of me-mory, which each of them might separately perform, whether in folitude or in company. But by their "communion of the body and "blood" of Chrift they become myftically UNITED to each other and to HIM.

If the Sacrament had been the mere remembrance of a Benefactor, how could the crime of the Corinthians have been fo great, as to render them "guilty of the body and blood of Jefus Christ† ;”