in vain expect to begin, carry on, or complete the great work of our salvation. So just is the account given of the Lord's Supper in the twenty-fifth article of our Church-" that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is not only a badge or token of a Christian man's profession, but rather a certain and sure witness and effectual sign of Grace, and God's good will towards us; by which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken but also strengthen and confirm our faith in him." I shall now proceed, (as I wish to meet the whole of the argument before I finish the chapter,) to reply in a more formal manner to the several objections advanced against the notion of the Lord's Supper being a feast on a sacrifice, some of which I have already incidentally answered in the foregoing remarks. Since the hypothe verse interpreters of Scripture that ever yet appeared, cannot but acknowledge that the Apostle's meaning is, that we have drunk of the spirit, and that in this particular they agree with St. Chrysostom, while St. Jerome expresses it by Potionati Spiritu.” sis of Cudworth has been attacked not only by the Socinians, but even by those who may otherwise be esteemed as the zealous asserters of orthodoxy in religion. Collecting then these objections from all quarters, and if their weight equalled their number they might be reckoned formidable indeed, I shall reduce them to the following heads, which may be said to include the whole of the rest. The first objection I shall lay before my readers, and which I think does not admit of much discussion, is this:-" That it is highly improper to call the Eucharist a sacrificial feast, when our Lord partook of it with his disciples; since, if Christ made what is denominated a feast upon a sacrifice, he himself would not have eaten of the bread, or drank of the cup*." In this passage, it is incontrovertibly implied, that our Lord was a communicant with his disciples. I am aware that, with many, * See the Naked Truth, or a Reply to that learned Divine, Dr. Cudworth, on his book, called a True Notion of the Lord's Supper, by I. G. Lond. 1671, p. 18, 19. this is looked upon as an established position; but there are many weighty reasons which should incline us to a directly contrary supposition. In the first place, not a shadow of proof can be brought from Scripture to substantiate this opinion. We read, indeed, that Christ ate of the Passover with his disciples, and, when the Jewish paschal supper was over, he instituted this solemnity. It is the concurrent testimony of St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. Paul, that he took bread into his hands, that he blessed it, that he brake it, and then gave it to his disciples, commanding them to take and eat; moreover, that he took the cup into his hands, likewise, that he gave thanks over it, and that then he gave it to his disciples that they should drink of it. But in the whole of the transaction, there is not the slightest mention made of his own eating of the bread, or drinking of the cup. Nor was there any occasion for him so to do. As a Jew he was bound to the observance of the Mosaic law, and, consequently, to the partaking of the Passover. But this was a federal rite of his own, having a reference not to the Hebrew, but to the Christian church, the use and design of which was, that his church might partake of him, and of his spirit, and receive all the blessings of the new covenant. Is it likely then that he should communicate of his own body and blood? The very reverse may be confidently affirmed. It was not possible, that he, who was without sin, should eat and drink for the remission of sins; and, therefore, it is not in the least probable that he did partake of the sacramental bread and wine with his disciples. The next objection that I shall produce, and which seems founded upon the palpably absurd and extravagant assumption of its favouring the Lutheran notion of a real and local presence, is, “ that * it cannot be said that the Eucharist is a feast on a sacrifice, unless it be allowed either that the bare elements are a sacrifice, or else that they are transubstantiated into the * See Dr. Wise's Answer (London, 1716, p. 34) to Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, part ii. p. 4, and likewise the Naked Truth, p. 24. real body." But the sacrificial feast, which I am here contending for, is not a feast of the mouth, but of the mind-a spiritual manducation-that is, a feast upon the symbols of the great sacrifice, made for the sins of mankind, as commemorative of that sacrifice. 66 It is, however, again asked by the writer just referred to, how, by any reasonable figure, can Christ's crucified body and blood shed, which are now no more, be considered our food or our drink, and therefore, what relation have they to a feast upon a sacrifice?" To this it may be answered-That though the crucified body, as such, is not, and though the blood shed is not, yet the benefits of that feast are of perpetual efficacy, and will continue to operate till the consummation of all things. This then is a feast of the highest and noblest nature that ever was. Here we feed on the Son of God himself, Christ our Passover, that was sacrificed for us, whose flesh is meat indeed, and whose blood is drink indeed. Here we are brought into a close alliance with him who was of |