“union and communion with the glorified body m, and that our "partaking of it and union with it is effected by the mysterious "and ineffable operation of the Holy Spirit..

"Now though it be easy, as I said before, to conceive how a "natural substance may be said to be really received, though not locally present, it is not so easy to conceive it really present, "when at the same time it is locally absent. Therefore the "Church of England has wisely forborne to use the term of real "presence, in all the books that are set forth by her authority. "We neither find it recommended in the Liturgy, nor the "Articles, nor the Homilies, nor the Church's, nor Nowell's "Catechism.So that if any Church of England man use it, "he does more than the Church directs him: if any reject it, he "has the Church's example to warrant him.Yet it must "not be denied but the term may be safely used among scholars, "and seems to be grounded upon Scripture itself ".

66

"So much for the use of the word; which when we of the "Church of England use, we mean thus: A thing may be said "to be really received, which is so consigned to us, that we can really employ it to all those purposes for which it is useful in itself, and we have occasion to use it. And a thing thus really "received may be said to be really present, two ways, either "physically or morally, to which we reduce sacramentally."In the holy Eucharist, the Sacrament is physically, the res "sacramenti morally present; the elements antecedently and locally; the very body consequentially and virtually, but both really present. When we say that Christ is presentin "the Sacrament, we do not mean in the elements, but in the "celebration.- -This doctrine is sufficiently removed from what "the pamphlet calls Zuinglianism, (how truly, I will not now "inquire,) for we do not hold that we barely receive the effects "and benefits of Christ's body, but we hold it really present in as "much as it is really received, and we actually put in possession "of it, though locally absent from us "."

66

I have transcribed thus much, because the account is just, and because the pamphlet and defence of it are not, it may be, commonly known. The sum of all is, that sacramental or symbolical feeding in the Eucharist is feeding upon the body broken and blood shed, under the signs and symbols of bread and wine:

m How this is to be understood, see above, p. 541, 542.

n Here the author refers to several texts, Matt. xviii. 20. xxviii. 20.

I Cor. v. 3.

o Dr. Aldrich's Reply to Two Discourses, p. 13-18.

the result of such feeding, is the strengthening or perfecting our mystical union with the body glorified; and so, properly speaking, we feed upon the body as dead, and we receive it into closer union as living, and both in the Eucharist when duly celebrated.

Nothing now remains, before I close up this chapter, but to hint very briefly the use of the foregoing principles for the clearing off difficulties, and for the removing the objections raised by contending parties of various kinds.

1. To the Romanists, who plead warmly for the very body and blood in the Eucharist, we make answer, that we do receive the very body and blood in it, and through it, as properly as a man receives an estate, and becomes possessed of an inheritance by any deeds or conveyances: and what would they have more? Will nothing satisfy, except the wax and parchments be transubstantiated into terra firma, or every instrument converted into arable? Surely, that is pushing points too far, and turning things most serious into perfect ridicule.

2. To the Lutherans, who seem to contend for a mixture of the visible elements with the body invisible, we have this to reply, that we readily admit of a symbolical delivery, or conveyance, of one by the other; which effectually answers every good end and purpose, as it suits also extremely well with the Scripture phraseology in those cases. And though we admit not, that our Lord's body is locally present in the Sacrament, or any where so present but in heaven; yet so long as it is really united in one mystical body with ours, or rather is considered as the head with the members, we think, that may suffice; and we need not desire any closer alliance, on this side heaven, than such an union amounts to.

3. To the Calvinists of the ancient stamp, (if any such remained now,) we might reply, that though we eat not Christ's glorified body in the Eucharist, yet we really receive it, while we receive it into closer mystical union than before: and, though we know nothing of the diffusion of any virtue of Christ's flesh, (which would not profit,) yet we have the power and presence of his Godhead with us, and, at the same time, a virtual or mystical union with his body, sufficient to make us, in Divine construction and Divine acceptance, one with him: “For we are members of "his body, of his flesh, and of his bones P."

4. To the Zuinglian Sacramentarians, old Anabaptists, Soci

P Ephes. v. 30.

nians, and Remonstrants, who will not admit of any medium between local corporal presence, and no presence at all as to beneficial effects, no medium between the natural body itself, and mere signs and figures; to them we rejoin, that there is no necessity of falling in with either extreme; because there is a medium, a very just one, and where indeed the truth lies. For though there is no corporal presence, yet there is a spiritual one, exhibitive of Divine blessings and graces: and though we eat not Christ's natural glorified body in the Sacrament, or out of it, yet our mystical union with that very body is strengthened and perfected in and through the Sacrament, by the operation of the Holy Spirit. This appears to be both sense and truth; and shall be more largely made out in the sequel.

5. To those who admit not that the natural body of Christ is in any sense received at all, but imagine that the elements, as impregnated or animated with the Spirit, are the only body received, and are made our Lord's body by such union with the Spirit; I say, to those we make answer, that the union of the Spirit with the elements (rather than with the persons) appears to be a gross notion, and groundless: and if it were admitted, yet could it not make the elements, in any just sense, our Lord's body, but the notion would resolve into a kind of impanation of the Spirit, for the time. Besides that the consequence would be, that the Lord's body is received by all communicants, worthy or unworthy, which is not the truth of the case. Wherefore

to avoid all such needless suppositions and needless perplexities, let us be content to teach only this plain doctrine; that we eat Christ crucified in this Sacrament, as we partake of the merits of his death and if we thus have part in his crucified body, we are thereby ipso facto made partakers of the body glorified; that is, we receive our Lord's body into a closer union than before, and become his members by repeated and stronger ties; pro

This seems to be Mr. Johnson's notion, in the Unbloody Sacrifice, &c. part i. p. 247. And it is very near akin, so far, to that of the modern Greek Church, as represented by Mr. Claude in his Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist, part i. book iii. c. 13. P. 218.

If the elements are supposed to be united to, or enriched with the Spirit, all that receive must of course receive the Spirit, and be sanctified by him. For the presence of the Spirit, in this case, is not to be under

VOL. IV.

stood merely of the essential presence extending equally to all creatures, but of a gracious presence: and if such gracious presence is vouchsafed to the unworthy as well as worthy, then the benefits must be common to all, and none can eat and drink their own damnation. The fundamental error of this hypothesis, (as also of the Lutheran and the Romish) is the connecting the grace of the Sacrament with the elements, instead of looking for it in the persons only.

Rr

vided 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, increas"ing, 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.”

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.

CHAP. VIII.

1 Cor. x. 16. &c. explained, and vindicated from Misconstructions. 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

s Craniner against Gardiner, p. 396. first edit.

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 any thing, or that what is offered in sacrifice to the idol is any thing?

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 μετέχειν and κοινωνεῖν, (be they equivalent or otherwise, and partly for the better expressing the three communions, 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: Kouwvovs Tŵv dayovíwv, v. 20. I use the phrase communicants of, to express the participating in common of any thing: which perhaps is not altogether agreeable to the strict propriety of the English idiom. But I could not think of any thing 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

In strictness, μeréxew signifies the taking a part or parcel of any thing, with others, who have likewise their separate shares or parcels of it: but KOLVOVeiv is the partaking with others, in commune, of the same whole, undirided thing. Notwithstanding, the

words are sometimes used promiscuously. Chrysostom, upon the place, takes notice of the distinction, and makes his use of it, for explaining the text, and doing justice to the subject.