we are member of his body, of his flesh, and of his "bones P."

4. To the Zuinglian Sacramentarians, old Anabaptists, Socinians, and Remonstrants, who will not admit of any medium between local corporal presence, and no presence at all as to beneficial effects, no medium between the natural body itself, and mere signs and figures; to them we rejoin, that there is no necessity of falling in with either extreme; because there is a medium, a very just one, and where indeed the truth lies. For though there is no corporal presence, yet there is a spiritual one, exhibitive of Divine blessings and graces: and though we eat not Christ's natural glorified body in the Sacrament, or out of it, yet our mystical union with that very body is strengthened and perfected in and through the Sacrament, by the operation of the Holy Spirit. This appears to be both sense and truth; and shall be more largely made out in the sequel.

5. To those who admit not that the natural body of Christ is in any sense received at all, but imagine that the elements, as impregnated or animated with the Spirit, are the only body received, and are made our Lord's body by such union with the Spirit 9; I say, to those we make answer, that the union of the Spirit with the elements (rather than with the persons) appears to be a gross notion, and groundless: and if it were admitted, yet could it not make the elements, in any just sense, our Lord's body, but the notion would resolve into a kind of impanation of the Spirit, for the time. Besides that the consequence would be, that the Lord's body is received by all communicants, worthy or unworthy, which is not the truth of

P Ephes. v. 30.

This seems to be Mr. Johnson's notion, in the Unbloody Sacrifice, &c. part i. p. 247. And it is very near akin, so far, to that of the modern Greek Church, as represented by Mr. Claude in his Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist, part i. book iii. c. 13. p. 218.

If the elements are supposed to be united to, or enriched with the Spi

the case. Wherefore to avoid all such needless suppositions and needless perplexities, let us be content to teach only this plain doctrine; that we eat Christ crucified in this Sacrament, as we partake of the merits of his death: and if we thus have part in his crucified body, we are thereby ipso facto made partakers of the body glorified; that is, we receive our Lord's body into a closer union than before, and become his members by repeated and stronger ties; provided we come worthily to the holy table, and that there is no just obstacle, on our part, to stop the current of Divine graces.

I may shut up this account with the excellent words of Archbishop Cranmer, as follows, only put into the modern spelling:

"The first Catholic Christian faith is most plain, clear, "and comfortable, without any difficulty, scruple, or "doubt: that is to say, that our Saviour Christ, although "he be sitting in heaven, in equality with his Father, is "our life, strength, food, and sustenance; who by his "death delivered us from death, and daily nourishes and "increases us to eternal life. And in token hereof, he "hath prepared bread to be eaten, and wine to be drunk "of us in his holy Supper, to put us in remembrance of his "said death, and of the celestial feeding, nourishing, in"creasing, and of all the benefits which we have thereby : "which benefits, through faith and the Holy Ghost, are "exhibited and given unto all that worthily receive the "said holy Supper. This the husbandman at his plough, "the weaver at his loom, and the wife at her rock, can "remember, and give thanks unto God for the same:

rit, all that receive must of course receive the Spirit, and be sanctified by him. For the presence of the Spirit, in this case, is not to be understood merely of the essential presence extending equally to all creatures, but of a gracious presence: and if such gracious presence is vouchsafed to the unworthy as well as worthy, then the benefits must be common to all, and none can eat and drink their own damnation. The fundamental error of this hypothesis (as also of the Lutheran and the Romish) is the connecting the grace of the Sacrament with the elements, instead of looking for it in the persons only.

"this is the very doctrine of the Gospel, with the consent "wholly of all the old ecclesiastical doctors s."

My readers, I hope, will excuse it, if in the course of this chapter I have been obliged sometimes to suppose some things, which are hereafter to be proved: I could not avoid it, without rendering the whole intricate and obscure. What relates to spiritual graces in particular, as conveyed in the Eucharist, shall be distinctly considered in its place, and the proofs produced at large: but there was no explaining what sacramental or symbolical feeding means, (which was the design of this chapter,) without taking some previous and general notice of the spiritual graces, which are the food conveyed from heaven, by and under the symbols of bread and wine in the Eucharist.

CHAP. VIII.

r Cor. x. 16. &c. explained, and vindicated from Misconstructions.

ST. PAUL'S doctrine concerning the Eucharist, in the tenth chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, though but occasionally delivered, will yet deserve a distinct chapter by itself, as it is of great moment, and much depends upon a true and faithful construction of it. It will be proper, in the first place, to produce the whole passage, but correctly rendered, as near as may be to the Greek original.

Verse 16. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of the blood of Christ? the bread which we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ?

17. For since the bread is one, we, being many, are one body for we are all partakers of that one bread.

:

18, Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they who eat of the sacrifices communicants of the altar?

s Cranmer against Gardiner, p. 396. first edit.

19. What What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that what is offered in sacrifice to the idol is any thing?

20. But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not have you become communicants of devils.

21. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: you cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.

I have varied a little from the common rendering, partly for better answering the difference of phrase in the Greek, between μeréxe and xovwvev, (be they equivalent or otherwise,) and partly for the better expressing the three communions, here brought in as corresponding to each other in the analogy; namely, that of Christ's body and blood in the first place, next, that of the Jewish altar, and lastly, of devils. Our translation has, in some measure, obscured the analogy, by choosing, in one place, the word partakers (though it means the same thing) instead of communicants, and in another place, by saying communion with devils, instead of saying of devils: xowvwvoùs tāv Samovíar, v. 20. I use the phrase communicants of, to express the participating in common of any thing: which perhaps is not altogether agreeable to the strict propriety of the English idiom. But I could not think of any thing better, that would answer the purpose in other respects; and since I have now intimated what I mean by it, the phrase, I suppose, may be borne with. But let us come to the business in hand.

Before we can make a just use of St. Paul's doctrine in this place, as concerning the holy Communion, it will be necessary to understand the argument which he was then

In strictness, prix signifies the taking a part or parcel of any thing, with others, who have likewise their separate shares or parcels of it: but Rowave is the partaking with others, in commune, of the same whole, undivided thing. Notwithstanding, the words are sometimes used promiscuously. Chrysostom, upon the place, takes notice of the distinction, and makes his use of it, for explaining the text, and doing justice to the subject.

upon, with the occasion of it. The Christians of Corinth, to whom the Apostle writes, were encompassed with Pagan idolaters, and were in great danger of being insidiously drawn in, by specious pretences, to eat of meats which had been offered up, in the way of sacrifice, to their idols. Such eating (if Christians were aware that the meat had been so offered) was, in just construction, participating in common with the Pagan idolaters, of devils, to whom those idols, or statues, belonged. Whereupon St. Paul exhorts his new converts, to beware of such dangerous practice, reminding them of the grievous judgments of God, which formerly came upon their forefathers the Israelites, for the sin of idolatry. "Neither be ye idola

ters," says he, as were some of them ":" and a little lower, "Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idola"try." But because they seemed not yet fully sensible, that such practice of theirs was really idolatry, but they had several artificial evasions to shift off the charge, (as that an idol was nothing in itself, and that they had no design by eating of such meats, to signify any consent of theirs with idolaters, or to give any countenance to them,) I say, because the new converts were not readily convinced of the sin and danger of such practice, the Apostle undertakes to argue the case with them, in a very friendly, but strong and pressing manner, both upon Jewish and Christian principles, prefacing what he had to urge with this handsome compliment to them: "I speak as to wise "men," (I appeal to your own good sense and sagacity,) judge ye what I say "." Then he proceeds to argue in the way of parallel, or by parity of reason, from the case of the Christian Eucharist, and the Jewish feasts upon peace-offerings, in order to infer from both, that as the Eucharist is interpretatively a participating of Christ's body and blood, and as the Jewish feasts were participating of the altar; so the eating of idol-meats was interpretatively a participating of devils. To take the Apostle's ar

1 Cor. x. 7.

* 1 Cor. x. 14.

y 1 Cor. x. 15.