conveyed in the Eucharist, along with the other spiritual blessings, which suppose and imply it, and cannot be understood without it, upon Scripture principles.

3. A farther argument may be drawn from the known. analogy there is between the two Sacraments, taken together with those several texts which speak directly of the sanctification of the Spirit conferred in Baptism m; or an argument may be drawn a fortiori, in this manner if the putting on Christ (which is done in Baptism) carries with it a conveyance of the Holy Spirit; much more does the eating or drinking Christ, which is done in the Eucharist.

4. But to argue yet more directly, (though indirect arguments, where the connection is clear and certain, as in this case, are not the less conclusive,) we may next draw a proof of the same doctrine from the express words of St. Paul, where he says, "By one Spirit are we all bap"tized into one body—and have been all made to drink "into one Spirit "." That is to say, by one and the same Spirit before spoken of°, we Christians (as many of us as are so more than in name) are in Baptism made one mystical body of Christ, and have been all made to drink of the sacramental cup in the Eucharist; whereby the same Spirit hath again united us, yet more perfectly, to Christ our head, in the same mystical body. Such appears to be the natural and obvious sense of the place: which accordingly has been so understood by judicious interpreters, ancient P and modern. I shall not dissemble it, that several ancient interpreters, as well as some moderns, have understood the whole text of Baptism only; interpreting the former part of the outward washing, and the latter part of the Spirit accompanying it. But, it seems, they

John iii. 5. 1 Cor. vi. 11. Ephes. v. 26. Tit. iii. 5.

1 Cor. xii. 13.

• 1 Cor. xii. 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11.

▸ Chrysostom. in loc. tom. v. p. 324. ed. Paris. Damascen. in loc. Calvin, Beza, Peter Martyr, Gerhard, Grotius, Gataker, Hammond,

Locke, Wells. Vitringa, Observ. Sacr. lib. v. cap. 7. p. 109, 114.

· Pelagius, under the name of Jerome; and Hilary the deacon, under the

name of Ambrose as likewise Theophylact in loc. and perhaps more.

:

did not well consider, that the concurrence of the Spirit in Baptism had been sufficiently insinuated before, in the former part of the verse; "By one Spirit are we all bap"tized," &c. And therefore to interpret Spirit again of the same Sacrament, appears to border too nearly upon tautology: neither did they sufficiently reflect, how harsh a figure that of drinking is, if applied to Baptism; when putting on the Spirit (as is elsewhere said of Christ, with respect to that Sacrament $) might have been much more proper. They may seem also to have forgot, or not to have considered, how suitable and pertinent it was to the Apostle's argument, to refer to both Sacraments in that place, as I shall now make appear.

It might be highly proper, and much to the purpose, when the Apostle was mentioning Baptism, as one bond of mystical union, to take notice also of the Eucharist, as another; which it certainly was, according to his own doctrine in the same Epistlet. Indeed, it might be thought a kind of omission, and in some measure diminishing the force of his argument, in this place, had he referred but to one Sacrament, when there was just occasion, or the like occasion, for referring to both. His design was to set forth the inviolable union of Christians, and to represent the several ties by which they were bound together. He knew that the Eucharist was a strong cement of that mystical union, as well as the other Sacrament; for he had himself declared as much, by saying elsewhere, "We being many "are one body, being all partakers of that one bread." It was therefore very natural here again to take notice of the Eucharist, when he was enumerating the bonds of union, and amongst them particularly the Sacrament of Baptism, which would obviously lead to the mentioning this other Sacrament. Accordingly, he has briefly and elegantly made mention of this other, in the words, "made to drink "into one Spirit." Where made to drink, but in the Eucharist? He had formerly signified the mystical union

under the emblem of one loaf: and now he chooses to signify the same again under the emblem of one cup, (an emblem, wherein Ignatius, within fifty years after, seems to have followed him ",) both belonging to one and the same Eucharist, both referring to one and the same mystical head. Dr. Claget well argues against the Romanists, from this text, as follows: "St. Paul thought the "observation of the two institutions of our Saviour (viz. "Baptism and the Communion of the holy table) was a "sufficient proof that believers were one body: and we "have reason to believe, that if he had known there were "other Sacraments-he would not have omitted the men❝tion of them here, where he proves the unity of the "Church by Baptism and communion of the body and "blood of Christ. It is something to our purpose, that "St. Paul owns no more than these, where he industri"ously proves that Christians are one body by thesex." If this reasoning be just, as it appears to be, and if St. Paul knew (as he certainly did know) that the Eucharist has some share in making Christians one body, as well as the other Sacrament, it manifestly follows, that he could not well omit the mention of it in this place. I should take notice, that our very judicious Archbishop Sharpe has pressed the same argument, in a fuller and still stronger manner, from the same text y; and that the Protestants in general have made the like use of the text in their disputes with the Romanists, against multiplying Sacraments, or against mutilating the Sacrament of the Eucharist by taking away the cup from it. So that besides commentators, in great numbers, thus interpreting

* Ἓν ποτήριον εἰς ἕνωσιν τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ. Ignat. ad Philadelph. cap. 4. Claget, vol. i. Serm. x. p. 263.

y Sharpe, vol. vii. Serm. v. vi. p. 106, &c. Serm. x. p. 230.

z Nihil obstat quo minus synecdochice hoc loco potionis ac poculi nomine explicetur Eucharistia, (quod Protestantes omnes merito ex hoc loco pertendunt, contra substractionem calicis in Communione Romana,) ac alibi per solam panis fractionem designatur. Acts xi. 42, 46. xx. 7. Maresius, Hydra Socinianismi, tom. iii. p. 835.

this text, there is the concurring judgment of many or most Protestant Divines confirming the same construction.

Nevertheless Socinus, having formed a project to throw off water-baptism, laboured extremely to elude the interpretation before mentioned. He considered, that if the latter part of it were interpreted of the external service of the Eucharist, then the former part must of course be understood of external Baptism: besides that he was not willing to allow that any inward grace went along with either Sacrament. Such were his motives for eluding the true meaning of this text: his pretexts, or colourings, were as here follow:

1. He pleaded, that partaking of the Eucharist is never once represented in the New Testament by that particular part of it, the drinking. He acknowledges that the whole Service is sometimes signified by the other part, (the nobler part, in his judgment,) viz. the eating, or breaking bread; but that it should be signified by drinking only, the meaner part of the Sacrament, he could not be persuaded to allow a

But he seems to me to have been over delicate in this matter, and more scrupulous than need required. For, since the whole Service (as he is forced to confess) may be signified by one part, while the other is understood; why not by the drinking, as well as by the eating? Or why must the eating be looked upon as the nobler and better part of the two, in this instance especially, when the blood of Christ (the most precious blood of Christ, so much spoken of in the New Testament) is the thing signified b? But suppos

a Cur quæso Paulus cœnam Dominicam cum Baptismo collaturus potionis tantum mentionem fecisset, non etiam comestionis, sive cibi, quæ præcipua ex duabus quodammodo cœnæ illius partibus censenda est, et cujus solius nomine alicubi tota cœna intelligitur, ut 1 Cor. xi. 33.--Frequentissime in Sacris Literis solius cibi, aut etiam panis mentione facta, ipse quoque potus intelligitur: id quod, saltem in cœna Domini, nunquam potionis solius nomine fieri contingit. Socin. de Bapt. Aquæ, cap. viii. Conf. Volkel. de Ver. Relig. lib. vi. cap. 14. p. 684. alias 835.

b It may be noted, that the ancients, when they made any distinction, sup

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 befored, 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 Torigóμeda, to denote the time present, not norio nuev, 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.

e 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. Aquæ, 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.