ning of the world, have eaten and drank Christ's flesh and blood, have participated of the benefits of his passion; and in that they yet live and stand, and not in any works or merits of their own. This I take to be the doctrine of John vi. which, out of figure, comes plainly to this, that there is no salvation given unto men but in and through the satisfaction of Christ. The Exposition proceeds (p. 312.) to explain the BENEFITS of the worthy receiving the Lord's Supper, thus expressed in the Catechism: THE

STRENGTHENING AND REFRESHING OF OUR SOULS

BY THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST, AS OUR BODIES ARE BY THE BREAD AND WINE. The comment hereupon is," As impenitency is the death, and sins are "the diseases of the soul, so a habit of virtue is its health "and life, and religious acts are its food and nourish"ment." True in a certain sense, but not very well fitted to our present purpose: for the Catechism is here speaking, not of the efficacy of habits of virtue to salvation, (which after all are conditions only, and have no proper efficacy,) but of the force and power of the great atonement. The Expositor therefore should rather have said. thus: "As the being excluded from having a part in the "merits of Christ's passion is the death, and the neglect "of the means of grace is the disease of the soul; so the "participating of the merits of Christ's passion is its "health and life, and the use of the proper means is its 'food and nourishment." And thus we come to the use of worthy receiving, the means instituted, and one of the most effectual and most direct of any. It supposes, or takes in virtue, moral virtue, with it, and goes far beyond it, uniting us to Christ, which moral virtue alone never can do; for it is by faith, by grace, that we are saved.

66

I wish the author had here spoken a little more plainly of the divine graces going along with the worthy reception of the holy Communion, that so persons coming to it might have the more suitable idea of it, and veneration for it. He speaks of religious acts having the " promise of "procuring blessing and assistance from God;" which is

too dry and general. Our 25th Article, speaking of both the Sacraments, says, THEY ARE EFFECTUAL SIGNS OF GRACE, AND GOD'S GOOD WILL TOWARDS US, BY THE WHICH HE DOTH WORK INVISIBLY IN US, AND DOTH NOT ONLY QUICKEN, BUT ALSO STRENGTHEN AND CONFIRM OUR FAITH IN HIM. The author of the Exposition justly condemns those, who think "that at the "receiving of the Sacrament their sins are in course par"doned, to the commission of which they return regu"larly again." But such as these are unworthy receivers, not receiving with a true penitent heart or lively faith. Something should have been added about the real remission of sins conveyed and sealed to the worthy receiver, notwithstanding. For though the grant be revocable, in this case, upon the person's returning to his old sins, yet it is a real and a present grant; like as the lord, in the Gospel, really forgave his servant all his debt, but revoked the grant upon that servant's new misbehaviour. The author also justly condemns the "unintelligible notion of a "certain grace or virtue annexed to the material elements, "or to the mere external participation of them, rather after "the nature of a charm, than of a religious action." But then, to avoid or obviate another as dangerous an extreme, something should have been inserted to signify that when the recipient is fitly qualified, and duly disposed, there is a salutary life-giving virtue annexed to the Sacrament; which in one of our Church's Homilies is thus expressed : "In the Supper of the Lord there is no vain ceremony, no "bare sign, no untrue figure of a thing absent; but as "the Scripture saith, the table of the Lord, the bread and "cup of the Lord, the memory of Christ, the annuncia❝tion of his death; yea, the communion of the body and "blood of the Lord, in a marvellous incorporation, which

by the operation of the Holy Ghost, (the very bond of "our conjunction with Christ,) is through faith wrought "in the souls of the faithful; whereby not only their "souls live to eternal life, but they surely trust to win

"their bodies a resurrection to immortality z." The author of the Exposition has taken a commendable care in recommending virtuous dispositions as qualifications proper for the receiving the Sacrament; but then he seems to have been too sparing in setting forth the spiritual advantages and blessings coming down from above through this channel of grace and pardon, upon the worthy receiver. He says, (p. 314,) that thereby we renew our part in the Christian covenant, we strengthen our faith, we increase our hope, we enlarge the bond of universal love and all this he seems to account for in a natural way, according to what he had observed, p. 312. of religious acts, that they "naturally improve and establish men in virtuous "practice:" as if virtuous practice were all, and the Sacraments were to be considered only as a means to that end. But in reality the Sacraments are additional improvements upon virtuous practices, and are of nearer and more immediate efficacy for the uniting us to God and Christ. They supply where the other falls short; they relieve where the other cannot; they finish what the other but begins, our justification and salvation. I know not how to approve what the Exposition says, p. 182. of the two Sacraments, in common with other positive institutions, that "they have the nature only of means to an end, and that "therefore they are never to be compared with moral "virtues." I cannot understand why positive institutions, such as the two Sacraments especially, should be so slightly spoken of. Moral virtues are rather to be considered as a means to an end, because they are previous qualifications for the Sacraments, and have no proper efficacy towards procuring salvation, till they are improved and rendered acceptable by these Christian performances. By moral virtues only we shall never ordinarily come at Christ, nor at heaven, nor to the presence of God: but by the help of the Sacraments superadded, to crown and finish the other,

Homily on the Sacrament, part i.

we may arrive to Christian perfection, that then we "dwell in Christ and Christ in us; we are one with "Christ and Christ with us;" as our Church Offices express it. And what can be meant by saying, or intimating, that the worthy receiving of the holy Communion is "never to be compared with moral virtues ?" What is the exercise of moral virtue, but the exercise of obedience to some law, suppose of charity or justice? But the worthy receiving of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is at once an exercise of obedience to the law of Christ, and of faith, of worship, and of repentance, and carries in it the strongest incitement, not only to all moral virtues, but all Christian graces. Besides, I see but very little reason for slighting positive institutions in the general, in comparison of moral virtue. It was the breaking a positive precept that turned the first man out of Paradise, and entailed mortality upon the whole kind. Abraham was a man of great moral virtues, and yet they were not the things that he was chiefly celebrated for. One instance of his obedience to a positive command has made his name more famous both in heaven and on earth, than all his moral virtues put together. The truth of the case, as I conceive, lies here: the love of God is the first and great commandment: and obedience to his positive institutions is an exercise of that love; and it is sometimes the noblest and best exercise of it, showing the greater affection and prompter resignation to the Divine will. He is a proud and a saucy servant that will never obey his master, but where he sees the reason of the command. It is reason enough for obeying, to every modest and humble servant, that his Lord, so much wiser than he, and to whom he owes all his service, has commanded it. On this account there may be, in some cases, greater excellency and more real virtue in obeying positive precepts, than in any moral virtue. In short, if the love of God be moral virtue, such obedience, being an act of love, is an act of moral virtue, and then there is no ground for the distinction: but if there must be a distinction made, then let one be called moral virtue, and the other Christian

perfection, and let any man judge which should have the preference. Indeed they should not be opposed, since both are necessary, and are perfective of each other. But if they must be opposed and compared, I say, moral virtue is but the handmaid leading to the door of salvation, which the use of the Sacraments at length opens, and lets us in. Thus much I have thought proper to plead in behalf of the two venerable Sacraments of our most holy religion; and shall only add, that any contempt of them will be as much a bar to salvation as the contempt of moral virtues, and may, for any thing I know, be more provoking to God, as carrying greater defiance in it, and having less temptation to it. The Exposition observes justly enough, that the Sacraments are of "no use or be"nefit without moral virtues, nor can be in any degree

equivalent for the want of them." Which is a proper caution to such as are weak enough (if any such there be) to trust to the outward performance, to unworthy receiving. But there is another sort of persons, who valuing themselves, as being in the main good moral men, are apt to slight and disesteem this positive institution, this most sublime ordinance, this most excellent worship, and hold themselves safe without frequent communion, or perhaps without ever communicating. And they should be told, that their moral virtues, be they real or otherwise, can be of no use or benefit without this Sacrament, nor in any degree equivalents for the want of it. But to pass on.

It is but a very obscure and insufficient account which the Exposition gives of a famous text, I Cor. x. 16. THE BREAD WHICH WE BREAK, IS IT NOT THE COMMU

NION OF THE BODY OF CHRIST, the communion of all the members of Christ's body one with another? So stand the text and comment in the Exposition. But then what shall we make of the words immediately preceding, "The "cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the commu"nion of the blood of Christ?" The plain meaning is, that there is in the Eucharist a real communication or participation of Christ's broken body, and blood shed,