ters, but it was, in just construction, partaking of devils. 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. Bencd.

1

adds nothing to the representation, but must either signify our receiving something spiritual under that corporeal symbol, or signify nothing. And it would appear very strange, if the feeding itself should not be symbolical, some way or other, as well as the rest; especially considering that other places of Scripture (particularly John vi.) do insist very much upon spiritual feeding, and that the quantity of meat and drink in the Eucharist has all along been so small, that it might be difficult to say what use it could be of as a banquet, unless allowed to be significative or symbolical of some spiritual entertainment received by the communicants c. Upon the whole, this fourth interpretation must be rejected, as being altogether low and lame, or rather totally repugnant to all the circumstances of text and context.

5. Others therefore, perceiving that there must be both a sign and a thing signified, (or in other words, a corporal manducation, and a spiritual one also,) and yet being unwilling to admit of any present benefits in the Eucharist; have contrived this turn, that the sacramental feeding shall signify spiritual feeding, yea, and spiritual communion with Christ, before, and in, and after the Sacrament, but that this spiritual feeding shall mean only the receiving Christ's doctrine and promises; or that the Eucharist shall not import any thing then received, (more than at other times,) but shall be declarative only of what was received before, or is to be received then, or after. The design of all which is to evade any pretence of receiving graces from above, in or by this Sacrament: and this is the scheme which the Socinians commonly take intod.

• Διὰ τῦτο γὰρ οὔτε πολὺ λαμβάνομεν, ἀλλ ̓ ὀλίγον, ἵνα γνῶμεν ὅτι οὐκ εἰς πλησμovùv, ùλλ' eis åyaoμóv. Concil. Nicæn. in Gelas. Cyzicen. Labb. et Cossart. tom. ii. p. 234.

d Hinc vero patet usum panis et calicis non ideo Christi corporis et sanguinis communionem dici, quod per istum usum demum communio ista fiat; sed quod per eum communio ac societas ista, quæ jam est, et esse debet, significetur et declaretur. Crellius in loc. p. 307. Conf. Socin. Quod Re. Polon. p. 701.

Hoc ritu testamur nos corpus Christi pro nobis crucifixum habere pro

Yea, they sometimes scruple not to own, that under spiritual feeding is contained remission of sins, and present right to life eternal: but still they will not have it said, that God conveys or confers these benefits in or by the Sacrament, but that we in the Sacrament do declare and testify that we are partakers of those benefits, having brought them with us, not receiving them there, more than elsewhere.

But these fine-spun notions, being only the inventions of men, can never be able to stand against the truth of God. St. Paul does not say, that the Eucharist is a declaration of communion, but a communion: nor does he say, communion with Christ our head, (though that indeed is a remote consequence of the other,) but communion of the body and blood of Christ. In the parallel instances, eating of idol-meats was not a declaration of what had been done before, nor a declaration of what was to be done after, (perhaps it was the first time, and might be the last,) but that single action was taking part with idolaters, and that amounted to partaking of devils. It was so with respect to the Jewish sacrifices, the partaking of them was not merely declaring their participation of the altar, but it was actual participating at that very time,

spirituali animæ nostræ cibo, et sanguinem ejus fusum pro salutari potu, nosque communionem illius habere, et sic ad novum fœdus pertinere, &c. quæ omnia fidem per charitatem efficacem postulant. Racov. Cat. p. 242.

Panem illum edendo atque ex poculo bibendo palam testamur, et profitemur nos corpus Christi fractum ac crucifixum pro animæ cibo, sanguinem pro potu habere, quo ad vitam spiritualem et sempiternam proinde alamur et confirmemur, ac cibo potuque corpora nostra ad vitam terrenam et corporalem sustentantur: non quidem quod in hac tantum actione, Christi carnem et sanguinem spiritualiter edamus et bibamus-sed quod pia mortis Christi meditatione, et vera in eum fide id perficiatur, ac porro etiam extra hunc ritum a nobis fiat, quam diu meditatio illa ac fides inde concepta in animis nostris viget. Volkelius, p. 310. alias 687. Conf. Schlicting. cont. Meisner. p. 751, 788, 789.

e Hac ceremonia profitemur nos, ea qua dictum est ratione, corpus Christi edere, et sanguinem ejus bibere, et sic eorum bonorum quæ morte sua cruenta Christus nobis peperit (h. e, remissionis peccatorum, et vitæ sempiternæ, quam spe certa in hoc sæculo veluti præcipimus) esse participes. Volkelius, p. 311. alias p. 688.

and by that very act. St. Paul's words are express,

66

partakers of the altar,” (not proclaimers of it,) and his argument requires that sense f. Had the Corinthians suspected that the Apostle was talking of declarations only, virtual declarations, they would soon have replied, that they were ready to declare to all the world, that they intended no such thing as communicating with idolaters, or of devils, by their eating of the idol-meats, and that such express counter-declarations would more than balance any other. But that would have been protestation against fact, and would have availed nothing: for St. Paul had plainly told them what the nature of the action was; viz. communicating with idolaters, and not only so, but partaking of devils. Therefore, by analogy and parity of reason, the nature of our eucharistical service is an actual partaking of the death of Christ, with the fruits thereof.

If there were need of any farther arguing in so plain a case, I might add, that such kind of declaring as they speak of, (declaring their spiritual eating,) appears not so modest, or so reverent, as one might wish, if we consider what they mean by spiritual meat. They commonly intend by it the whole faith and practice of a Christian, together with pardon of sins and a right to life eternal consequent upon it. So then, their coming to the Lord's table to declare their spiritual feeding, what is it but proclaiming, before God and man, how righteous, how holy, and how perfect they are, and what claims they make on that score: which would be much more like to the boasting of a Pharisee, than to the proper penitent behaviour of an humble Christian, appearing before God. It may be thought, perhaps, that such declarations are of great use, because men will be cautious of telling a solemn lie in the presence of God, and will of course take care to be as good as they declare themselves to be 5. But it might

f Compare Johnson's Unbloody Sacrifice, in answer to the same pretence about declaring, &c. part i. p. 172. alias 175, &c.

* Ideo simul etiam cogitandum est tibi, ut talis sis qualem te in hoc ritu

be rather suspected, that the effect would be quite contrary, and such a method of ostentation would be much more likely to harden men in their sins.

However, to soften the matter, they sometimes so explain this their declaration, as to amount only to a good resolution, or promise, for the time to come, or a protestation that they look upon a good life as the proper food of their souls. This indeed is more modest, but then it is going still farther off from the text of St. Paul than before: for, in this view, the receiving the Sacrament is neither eating any thing spiritual, nor so much as a declaration of eating, but it is a declaration only of their own judgment concerning it. Let them therefore turn this matter which way they please, they will never come up to the true meaning or force of St. Paul's words. In the mean while, we readily accept, what they are pleased to allow, that pardon of sins, and present right to life eternal, ought to be looked upon as part of the spiritual food: and we think it decent and modest, as well as just, to believe, that we receive our spiritual food at the altar, from the hands of Christ, and do not bring it thither ourselves; especially considering that Christ himself delivered the corporal food to the disciples, which was the symbol of spiritual. And though we ought to take care to come properly qualified to the holy Communion, yet we come not to declare how rich we were before, but to deplore our poverty, and to beg fresh relief, and new supplies, from above.

6. Some think it sufficient to say, that the Eucharist imports our holding communion or fellowship with Christ our head. But this interpretation is low and insufficient, expressing a truth, but not the whole truth. The Apostle's expression is very strong, communion of, not communion with, and of Christ's body and blood, not simply

profiteris; nec Deo et Christo mentiaris. Quod si talis nondum sis, id saltem omnino constituendum, ut talis quam primum evadas, nec committendum ut irritum postea sit hoc animi tui decretum. Racov. Catech. p. 242,

243.