ing the eating, or the meat, to be the nobler of the two, then the New Testament, one would think, has paid a proper respect to it, by denominating the whole from it more than once; though taking the liberty to pay some regard also to the other part, by denominating the whole from it once at least, if no more. The Apostle might have particular reasons for doing it here, because having mentioned washing just before, as belonging to one Sacrament, he might think that drinking would best answer to it in the other Sacrament, as water and wine are more analogous than water and bread. Or since the Apostle had signified Christian unity before, under the emblem of sacramental meat, he might choose the rather now to represent the same unity under the emblem of sacramental drink, being that there is as properly one cup, as there is one loaf.

2. Socinus and Volkelius farther plead, that had the Apostle intended to speak of the Lord's Supper, he would have used the word orgóμeda, to denote the time present, not έñoríσInμey, which refers to time past: for the Lord's Supper is what Christians continually partake of with repeated attendance, and so is never wholly past or done with, like Baptism, which is but once submitted toe.

Now, in answer to this reasoning, I shall not insist, as I

posed the cup, the drinking, to be the nobler part of the two, as being the finishing and perfecting part. See Salmasius de Transubstantiatione contr. Grot. p. 280-284.

c Conf. Hoornbeeck, Socin. Confut. tom. iii. p. 381.

d 1 Cor. x. 17.

• Si Paulus cœnam Dominicam intellexisset, non verbo præteriti temporis, potavimus, sed potamus præsentis usus fuisset: cum ea cœna non a quolibet Christiano homine plane et omnino jam manducata fuerit aliquando, sed identidem in posterum, ubi facultas detur, manducari debeat. Socinus de Bapt. Aqua, cap. viii. p. 88, 89.

Adde quod non potavimus, sed potamus dixisset, si de cœna Dominica locutus fuisset.- -Actiones quippe quas semel perfecisse satis est, præteriti potius quam præsentis temporis verbo exprimi solent: hæc vero, cum et in posterum, qualibet se offerente occasione peragenda sit, rectius et communi consuetudini loquendi convenientius præsentis temporis verbo effertur. Volkelius, lib. vi. cap. 14. p. 685. alias 836.

justly might, upon the known latitude of the aorists, which are indefinite as to time; nor upon any enallage of tenses, which is frequent in Scripture; but allowing that St. Paul is to be understood of the time past, in that instance, I say, it is no just objection against interpreting the text of the Eucharist. The Apostle is there speaking of the union of Christians as then actually subsisting, and therefore made before he spake of it; made by Baptism and the Lord's Supper, considered as previous to that union, and therefore past. He had nothing to do with future communions, so far as his argument was concerned: none but past communions could have any share in making or strengthening that union, which subsisted before he spake of it. Therefore it might be proper in both the instances, to make use of a verb of the preter tense, referring to time past. Communions, which are not, or only will be, or may be, unite nothing, effect nothing in the mean season, but would have been foreign to the Apostle's argument, which looked only to what had been done, and had had its effect already upon the union then subsisting. The Eucharist in that view was a thing past, as much as Baptism; and so the verbs in both instances were rightly chosen, and aptly answer to each otherf: We have been all baptized, and We have been all made to drinks, &c.

3. Socinus and Volkelius farther urge, (which looks the most like an argument of any thing they have,) that the Apostle, in that chapter, refers only to the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, and therefore cannot reasonably be understood either of Baptism or the Eucharist, which were common to all Christians, and not to the gifted only h.

f Conf. Hoornbeeck, tom. iii. p. 387. Maresius, Hydra, tom. iii. p. 836. 8 Πάντες εἰς ἓν σῶμα ἐβαπτίσθημεν πάντες εἰς ἓν πνεῦμα ἐποτίσθημεν. Ας to some few copies here reading répa for vuμa, I refer to Dr. Mill, who vindicates the present reading. But the sense might be the same either way, because the preceding words, by one Spirit, might be applied to both parts of the sentence.

h De donis spiritualibus; ut unicuique totum caput accurate legenti constare poterit. Socinus, cap. viii. p. 84. Paulus isto in loco de variis Spiritus Sancti donis disserit, quibus Deus per Filium suum primam illam Ecclesiam

But it is unfortunate for this objection, that the Apostle should so emphatically word it twice over, We have all, &c. as it were on purpose to prevent its being understood to relate to the gifted only. The universality of the Apostle's expression is a much stronger argument for interpreting him of the Sacraments, than any thing else in the context can be for understanding the words of the extraordinary gifts: for it is plain, and is on all hands confessed, that the extraordinary gifts were not common to all, or to many, but rather peculiar to a few only in comparison. But to answer more directly to the pretence drawn from the context, it may be observed, that the design of the Apostle in that chapter does not only well suit with the interpretation we contend for, but is better cleared upon that foot, than upon any other. His design was to prevent, as much as possible, any emulation between the gifted and ungifted brethren. How does he execute it? By representing how many things were common to all, and how far all of them participated of the Spirit, one way or other. 1. They all owned Christ Jesus for their Lord, which none could do "but by the Holy Ghosti;" therefore they were so far upon a level, with respect to the favour of the Holy Spirit. 2. Those extraordinary gifts, imparted to a few, were really intended for the common benefit of the whole body: they were given to every one of the gifted, to profit others withalk. The same Spirit was present to the whole Church, to all true members of it, in both Sacraments; so that they did not only reap the benefits of what the gifted men did, but they had themselves an immediate communion with the self-same Spirit, in as useful, though not altogether so glaring a way. 4. However pompous those shining gifts might appear, and be apt to dazzle, yet there were other gifts more excellent m by far than they, and common to all good Chris

mirum in modum locupletaverat. Volkelius, lib. vi. cap. 14. p. 675, alias

815.

i 1 Cor. xii. 3.

11 Cor. xii. 13.

k 1 Cor. xii. 7.

m 1 Cor. xii. 31.

tians; namely, the gifts of faith, hope, and charity", from the same Spirit °. Such appears to be the scope and connection of the Apostle's discourse in that chapter and the chapter following: and it is so far from proving that the text which we are now considering belongs not to the Sacraments, that, on the contrary, it very much confirms that construction P.

Enough, I presume, hath been said for the vindicating our construction of this text against the forced glosses and unnatural evasions of Socinus and his followers: though some of them, either more acute or more ingenuous than the rest, have not scrupled to give up the new construction, so far, as to understand the text of both Sacra

ments 9.

The construction of the text being thus far fixed and settled, it remains now that we draw the just conclusion from it, and so wind up our argument. If the drinking of the sacramental cup is drinking into one Spirit, the Spirit of God, then the Eucharist duly administered and duly received, is a medium by which we ordinarily partake of the same Spirit, and consequently of the sanctifying gifts or graces of the Spirit. By this we understand, how he that is joined unto Christ our Lord is one spirit with him: because that Spirit who is essentially one with him is sacramentally united with us. And as Christ dwelleth in all those who spiritually feed upon him, so are all such the temple of the Holy Ghost; and while they are so, they

r

n 1 Cor. xiii. 1-13.

• That appears to be insinuated by the Apostle there: but elsewhere he expressly teaches, that all such Christian virtues are the fruits of the Spirit. Gal. v. 22. Ephes. v. 9.

P Compare Clem. Alexandrin. Pædag. lib. i. cap. 11. p. 106, 107.

a Nec ausim multum ab iis dissentire, qui in istis verbis non ad Baptismum tantum, sed ad cœnam Domini quoque respici putant: utrumque enim institutum nos tam ad unitatem et communionem unius corporis Ecclesiæ accedere, quam in unitate corporis ejusdem manere testatur. Sum. Przipcovius in loc. p. 93.

1 Cor. iii, 16. vi. 19. 2 Cor. vi. 16. Ephes. ii. 21, 22. 1 Pet. ii. 5.

are sanctified both in body and soul. Such sanctification carries in it all that the Scripture reckons up among the fruits of the Spirit, as enriching the soul"; and likewise all that concerns the immortalizing of the body, and sealing the whole man to future glory y. All these blessings and privileges are conferred in the Eucharist, to them who receive worthily; because the Spirit is conferred in it, who is the fountain of them all, and whose gracious presence supposes them.

In confirmation of what hath been advanced upon Scripture principles, it may now be proper to descend to Fathers, who had the same Scriptures before them, and whose sentiments, if concurring, may be of use to give us the more abundant satisfaction in the present article. I have occasionally, in the course of these papers, cited several passages which speak expressly or implicitly of sanctification, as conferred in or by the Eucharist. I shall not here repeat the same at full length, but shall throw them together in a summary way, to serve as hints for recollection. What has been cited above from Ignatius, Justin, and Irenæus, of the beneficial nature of the Sacrament, necessarily infers or implies the graces of the Holy Spirit.

Clemens of Alexandria, upon another occasion, has been cited, expressly saying that they who receive the Eucharist with faith, are "sanctified both in body and soula.” Tertullian says, that the body is fed with the body and blood of Christ, that the "soul may be replenished, with “God.” In like manner, Origen asserts, that the Eucharist does sanctify them that "use it as they ought."

"Gal. v. 22. Ephes. v. 9.

y Ephes. i. 13, 14. iv. 30. 2 Cor. i. 22.

z See above, p. 114, 157-165.

* Rom. viii. 10, 11.

a Clem. Alex. Pædag. lib. ii. cap. 2. p. 178. See above cap. vii. p. 166. b Tertullian. de Resurr. Carn. cap. viii. p. 330. See above, cap. vii.

p. 170.

c Origen. in Matt. p. 254. contr. Cels. lib. viii. p. 766. See above cap. v. p. 96, 97.