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, increasing, 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: this is the very doctrine of the Gospel, with the consent wholly of all the old ecclesiastical doctors t.' : 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. * Cranmer against Gardiner, p. 396. first edit. CHAPTER VIII. 1 Cor. x. 16, &c. explained, and vindicated from 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? 19. What say I then? that the idol is anything, or that what is offered in sacrifice to the idol is anything? 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 μeréxew and κowwveiv, (be they equivalent or otherwise ",) and partly for the better u In strictness, μetéxe signifies the taking a part or parcel of anything, with others, who have likewise their separate shares or parcels of it: but kouwveîv is the partaking with others, 'in commune,' of the same whole, undivided thing. Not expressing the three com withstanding, the words are sometimes used promiscuously. Chry. sostom, upon the place, takes notice of the distinction, and makes his use of it, for explaining the text, and doing justice to the subject. munions, 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: κοινωνοὺς τῶν δαιμονίων, V. 20. I use the phrase 'communicants of' to express the participating in common of anything: which perhaps is not altogether agreeable to the strict propriety of the English idiom. But I could not think of anything 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 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 idolaters,' says he, as were some of them w:' and a little lower, 'Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry. 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 w I Cor. x. 7. II Cor. x. 14. 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 argument 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 Y I Cor. x. 15. 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, |