of their consecration to God's service, and the spiritual affections of the communicant himself, requisite to render him a meet partaker of those holy mysteries, and to obtain for him those benefits which the Sacrament is intended to convey. To Dr. Brett's opinion, on discerning our Lord's Body in the holy Communion, he also objected, on similar grounds; maintaining, with Cranmer, that when it is said,

66

66

that the body of Christ is present in them that "worthily receive the sacrament," the meaning is, "that the force, the grace, the virtue, and benefit " of Christ's body that was crucified for us, and of "his blood that was shed for us, be really and effectually present with all them that duly receive the "sacraments: but all this is to be understood of his spiritual presence; and no more truly is He cor"porally or really present in the due ministration of "the Lord's Supper, than He is in the due ministra"tion of Baptism." These topics are touched with great effect, in a series of observations, remarkably acute and powerful; but in a manner somewhat more caustic, perhaps, than if they had been intended for the public eye.

Thus prepared, by long continued habits of considering this important branch of Christian theology; and perceiving that something was still wanting to settle the minds of less informed readers, and to enable them to rest their opinions upon some solid and substantial grounds; our author seems to have formed his determination, very soon after the publication of Bishop Hoadley's treatise, to undertake an enlarged and comprehensive inquiry into the whole subject; for the purpose of forming a didactic, rather than a

polemical dissertation, comprising every part that essentially belonged to it.

Bishop Hoadley's Plain Account was published in 1735. Dr. Waterland's Review followed early in 1737; no long interval of time for so extensive and elaborate a performance; a work of established reputation both here and abroad, for which he had been collecting materials during a considerable portion of his life.

66

66

66

66

The general design is briefly stated in the Introduction. It was to guard the doctrine of the Sacrament against a superstitious abuse of it, on the one hand, and against profane neglect of it, on the other. Hooker's observation, that the holy Communion is • instrumentally a cause of the real participation of Christ, and of life in his body and blood,” is adopted by our author, as comprising the substance of the whole doctrine;-that which, as Hooker remarks, “ all approve and acknowledge to be most true; having nothing in it but that which the words of "Christ are on all sides confessed to enforce; nothing "but that which the Church of God hath always "thought necessary; nothing but that which alone " is sufficient for every Christian man to believe con"cerning the use and force of this sacrament; nothing but that wherewith the writings of all antiquity are consonant, and all Christian confessions "agreeable." The observation of Hooker is, indeed, well worthy of commendation. It contains both a correct definition of the Sacrament, and an effectual guard against a misapprehension of it. The Sacrament is but instrumentally the cause, yet it is the cause, of the real participation of Christ, and of life

66

in his body and blood; that is, it instrumentally conveys to us pardon and sanctification: pardon, through the atonement made by the death of Christ;-sanctification, through the Holy Spirit which Christ obtained for us. The sign and the thing signified, the efficient and the instrumental cause of the bene. fits communicated, are thus accurately distinguished from each other; so as to ascribe to the Sacrament its full value and importance, without investing it with such characters as belong only to the one great sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction; of which, in itself, it is nothing more than a figurative and commemorative representation.

After some further introductory observations on the danger of underrating this ordinance, and on the prejudice done to the sacraments by regarding them merely as positive duties, rather than as sacred rites, in which God himself bears a part, or as covenants, solemn transactions between God and man; Dr. Waterland conducts his inquiry in the following order.

First, he gives a brief historical account of the most considerable names by which this sacrament has been called; a matter by no means unimportant; some of these being expressive simply of the external form of the institution; others, of its origin; others, of its purpose and design; others, of its distinguishing characteristics as a religious service; others, of the effects resulting from it. The titles enumerated are ten in number; breaking of bread, communion, Lord's supper, oblation, sacrament, eucharist, sacrifice, memorial, passover, mass; every one of which, excepting the last, has evidently some

appropriate meaning, suitable to the nature of the ordinance. A full and adequate conception of it, however, is rather to be obtained by combining the force and meaning of these several appellations, than by adopting any one of them, to the exclusion of the

rest.

Upon the institution of this sacrament, but few important questions arise. The chief are those which relate to its having succeeded in the place of the Jewish passover; and to the points in which these two ordinances resemble each other. By the resemblance between them, (which is here very satisfactorily traced,) much light is thrown upon the subject. The type and the antitype so fully and minutely correspond with each other, that it is scarcely possible to overlook the analogy between the temporal and the spiritual deliverance to which they respectively refer; and thus a view is presented of this sacred mystery, which the most simple as well as the most profound inquirer may contemplate with much edification.

The next subject of inquiry is "concerning the "commemoration of Christ in the holy Communion. "The Greek words, eis Tyv éu áváμrow," Dr. W. observes, “may bear three several renderings: 1. In re"membrance of me. 2. In commemoration of me. "3. For a memorial of me, or, for my memorial. They differ not much in sense; but yet as they do differ, they may deserve a distinct consideration. "The second includes the first; and the third in"cludes both the former; not vice versa. So they "rise, as it were, in sense, and are so many distinct gradations."

66

66

66

The Socinians make the bare remembrance of Christ the only end and use of the Sacrament; not distinguishing between the mere act itself, and the purpose intended by it; nor do they include in their notion of it a full and complete view of our Lord himself. All parties are agreed that we ought to remember Him in this sacrament, but are not agreed as to who he really was, or what he really did and suffered for us. It is not sufficient to remember Him merely as a great and good man, a wise instructor, and an admirable teacher, a prophet, an ambassador from heaven; nor only as our Lord and Master, the founder of our religion, whose disciples we are; nor even as higher than the angels: but we must also remember Him, to the full extent of his personal dignity, declared in holy writ, as our divine Lord and Master, the Creator and Lord of all, the object of universal adoration. Unless our remembrance and acknowledgment of Him correspond with these declarations, we fall short of what is required of us in this solemn act of devotion.

66

But commemoration advances a step further than this. To a bare remembrance "it superadds the "notion of extolling, honouring, celebrating, col'lecting all into one complex idea." It includes both an inward remembrance, and an outward expression of it in praise and thanksgiving. And this commemoration also extends, as the remembrance does, to every point of our Lord's dignity and character, and of what he did and suffered in that character, to his Divinity, his incarnation, his atonement, his merits, every quality and perfection belonging to Him as our Saviour and Redeemer.