gument in its just and full view, we must consider him as bearing in mind two distinct things which he had upon his hands to prove by one and the same argument: the first was, that eating of the idol-sacrifices (knowingly) was interpretatively consenting with the idolaters, or communicating with them, though they might mean nothing less; and the second was, that such consenting with the idolaters was interpretatively, or in effect, participating of devils. Such being the case, it could not but appear to be of very dangerous consequence, knowingly to eat of things offered to idols.

From this view of the Apostle's argument, I pass on to consider what we may hence infer with respect to his doctrine of the Eucharist, thus occasionally delivered as the true and well-known doctrine of Christ. His account of it is briefly expressed, in its being a communion of Christ's body and blood; that is to say, of the body considered as broken, and of the blood considered as shed; as is very plain from the terms of the institution: and it is not improbable that the Apostle here so distinctly mentioned both, to intimate that they were to be considered as divided and separate, which was the case at his crucifixion, and not after. By communion, the Apostle certainly intended a joint communion, or participating in common with others, as appears by the words immediately following; "We being many are one body," &c. Besides that his argument required it, as I have already hinted. For he was to convince the Corinthians, to whom he wrote, that eating of idol-meats was interpretatively consenting with idolaters, and of consequence partaking in common with them, of what they were supposed to partake of. And I presume, that it was with this particular view, and to make out his whole argument, consisting of two main points, that the Apostle threw in the words of verse the 17th. So then, we may thus far construe the Apostle's doctrine of the Eucharist to mean, that Christians feeding upon the consecrated symbols, in due manner, are supposed therein to be joint partakers of, or communicants in

Christ's body and blood, whatever that means, and also to be mystically united with each other. Now we come to the main point of all, namely, what that partaking, or that communion of our Lord's body and blood, strictly or precisely signifies. Moderns have been strangely divided about it, (though it was anciently a very plain thing,) and perhaps it may be thought a piece of respect due to them, to mention their several interpretations, though we must reject all but one, as late devices, and more or less foreign to the Apostle's argument.

1. To say that the communion of our Lord's body and blood means the receiving his natural flesh and blood into our mouths, under the forms, accidents, or appearances of bread and wine, is manifestly a forced and late interpretation; not heard of for eight hundred years or more, and, besides, absurd, contradictory, and impossible. If we may trust to our reason or to our senses, (and if we may not, what is there that we can trust to?) the bread and wine do remain, after consecration, the same in substance as before, changed only as to their uses, relations, or offices. Besides, Christ's body broken and blood shed 1700` years ago, are no more in that capacity, nor ever will be; and therefore it is absolutely impossible that they should be literally present in the Sacrament, or made food to the communicants. To all which may be added, that the elements, after consecration, are still expressly called bread and wine in this very place, and therefore supposed to be what they are called.

2. To say that the communion of our Lord's body and blood means the receiving his natural flesh and blood into our mouths, together with the symbols, would be running into the like absurdities with the former. Christ's body as crucified, and blood as spilled, are no more: his body glorified is as far distant as heaven and earth, and therefore not present in the Sacrament; or if it were, could not properly be eaten, nor be of use if it could, since the "flesh profiteth nothing". Besides, the text speaks not of two bodies, or bloods, as present in the Sacrament. The sym

66

:

bolical body and blood (bread and wine) are there present the rest is present only in a figure, or under certain construction. A mystical union of Christ's glorified body with our bodies is indeed intimated in the text, or may, by just consequence, be inferred from it; but the direct doctrine of the text relates only to the body as crucified, and to the blood as shed: and therefore here the proper distinctions should be made between the eating Christ's dead body, and the uniting with his living body, (as above 2,) as also between the express doctrine of the text, and the consequences deducible from it by the help of reason, and of other texts compared.

3. To say that the communion here signifies the eating Christ's glorified body by faith, or with the mind, is not a just interpretation: because whatever is corporeal cannot be literally the food of the soul; as also because what is represented and eaten in the Sacrament is not the body glorified, but the body crucified and blood shed, which are no more, and which therefore cannot be received either with mouth or mind, excepting only in a qualified and figurative sense. A mystical union indeed (as before said) with Christ's glorified body is strengthened or perfected in the Eucharist: though that is a doctrine rather insinuated, than expressed here; while certainly collected both from the nature of the thing, and from divers other texts of the New Testament.

The three constructions hitherto mentioned have been all owing to too strict and servile an adherence to the letter, without reason, and against reason, and not countenanced by the ancients rightly understood. There are some other constructions which are faulty in the contrary extreme, receding too far from the letter, and degrading the Sacrament into a kind of empty or fruitless ceremony. There is the less excuse for so doing, considering how highly the Apostle speaks of the Sacrament, both in this and the next chapter: for though necessity will justify

See above, p. 187, &c.

our receding from the letter, as far as such necessity extends, yet reason requires that we adhere to it as closely as we may, and extremes are always bad. But I proceed to take notice of some misconstructions in this way of under-commenting.

4. Some interpret communion here to mean no more than a joint partaking of the outward signs, symbols, or memorials of Christ's body and blood. But St. Paul must undoubtedly mean a great deal more, by his emphatical expressions; and his argument also requires it, as shall be shown in due place. He does not say, that the Service is a commemoration of Christ's body and blood, but a partaking or communion of thema. So likewise, with respect to the Jews, he does not say that they commemorated the altar, but they were partakers of the altar: and the idolaters whom he speaks of did not barely commemorate devils, (if they did it at all,) but they were partakers of devils. Besides, to interpret the communion of a joint partaking of the symbols, or memorials, is inventing a sense too flat and jejune to be fathered upon the Apostle; for indeed it is mere tautology. It is no more than saying, that partaking of the bread and wine is partaking of the bread and wine. There is good sense in saying, that the partaking of one thing is, in just construction, the partaking of some other thing: but to make all sign, and nothing signified, or to reckon the outward signs twice over, dropping the inward things signified, is unsuitable to the turn of the whole passage, and entirely defeats the Apostle's argument. The eating of the sacrifices was not again mere eating of sacrifices, but it was, by interpretation, communicating with idolaters: and communicating with idolaters was not again communicating with idola

a S. Apostolus refragatur penitus glossæ Socini, quandoquidem panem et poculum eucharisticum dicat esse communicationem corporis et sanguinis Christi. Ubi subjecti loco,—panem et poculum benedictionis constituit, in prædicato vero, non commemorationem, aut memoriale corporis aut sanguinis Christi, sed communicationem ejusdem ponit. Calovius de Eucharist. p. 279.

ters, but it was, in just construction, partaking of devils b. Thus we find strong and admirable sense in the Apostle's discourse: but in the other way all is dull and insipid. Take we the next parallel instance: the joint partaking of the Jewish sacrifices was not again the joint partaking of the same sacrifices; but it was partaking of the altar, whatever that means: in like manner, a joint partaking of the symbols or memorials of bread and wine is not again a joint partaking of the same symbols or memorials, but of something else (by the Apostle's argument) which they represent, and call to our mind, and which in just construction, or in effect, they are. Had St. Paul meant only, that the bread which we break is the joint eating of the bread, and the cup which we bless is the joint drinking of the cup, why should he have changed the terms bread and cup into other terms, body and blood, instead of using the same over again? Or if body and blood mean only bread and cup, then see what sense can be made of chap. xi. 27. which must run thus: Whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the bread and cup of the Lord. It is not using an inspired Apostle with any proper respect, to put such an odd (not to say ridiculous) sense upon him. The case is plain, that the four terms, bread, wine, body, and blood, have severally their respective meanings, and that the two first express the signs, to which the other two answer as things signified, and so all is right. Add to this, that the eating and drinking in the Eucharist, upon the foot of the other construction, would be rendered insignificant: for the breaking of the bread, and the pouring out of the wine, would be sufficient for a bare representation or memorial of our Lord's death: the feeding thereupon

The commentaries under the name of Jerome, supposed to be Pelagius's, well express the sense of the Apostle :

Panis idololatriæ, dæmonum participatio esse monstratur:-si cum idololatris de uno pane comedimus, unum cum illis corpus efficimur.-Non potestis et Dei et dæmonum esse participes. Hieronym. Opp. tom. v. p.995. ed. Bened.