fit qualifications supposed on our part, this service shall never fail of its effect, but shall be to every worthy receiver like a deed of conveyance, instrumentally investing him with the benefits of Christ's death, for the time being; and to the end also, if he perseveres to the end. "It is no "good argument to say, the graces of God are given to "believers out of the Sacrament, ergo, not by or in the "Sacrament: but rather thus; if God's grace overflows "sometimes, and goes without his own instruments, much "more shall he give it in the use of them. If God gives 66 pardon without the Sacrament, then rather also with the “Sacrament. For supposing the Sacraments, in their de"sign and institution, to be nothing but signs and ceremo"nies, yet they cannot hinder the work of God: and "therefore holiness in the reception of them will do more "than holiness alone; for God does nothing in vain. The "Sacraments do something in the hand of God: at least, "they are God's proper and accustomed time of grace: they "are his seasons and our opportunity a"

And now if any one should ask for a catalogue of those spiritual privileges, which St. Paul in this place has omitted, our Lord himself may supply that omission by what he has said in John vi. For, since we have proved, that there is a spiritual manducation in the Eucharist, with all worthy receivers, it now follows of course, that what our Lord says in John vi. of spiritual manducation in the general, is all strictly applicable to this particular manner of spiritual feeding; and is the best explication we can any where have, of what it includes or contains. It contains, 1. A title to a happy resurrection: for such as spiritually

juncta est vis quædam divini Spiritus, per quam agunt infallibiliter in omnibus iis quibus debite administrantur, quique illa suscipiunt cum ea quam Deus in iis prærequirit, dispositione-Ex nullo pacto tenetur Deus verbum virtute sui Spiritus comitari: sacramentis autem ex certa Dei pactione, adest virtus divina, per quam gratium quandam salutarem communicant omnibus illis qui secundum ordinem a Deo positum illa participant. Le Blanc, Thes. p. 676,

feed on Christ, Christ will "raise up at the last day b." 2. A title to eternal life: for our Lord expressly says, "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath "eternal life." 3. A mystical union with Christ in his whole Person; or, more particularly, a presential union with him in his Divine nature: "He that eateth my flesh, "&c. dwelleth in me, and I in him d." 4. In these are implied (though not directly expressed by our Lord in that discourse) remission of sins, and sanctification of the Holy Spirit; of which I may say more in a proper place.

66

To return to St. Paul's text, I shall here sum up the true and the full sense of it, mostly in Mr. Locke's words, with some few and slight alterations. "They who drink "of the cup of blessing, which we bless in the Lord's Supper, do they not thereby partake of the benefits pur"chased by Christ's blood shed for them upon the cross, "which they here symbolically drink? and they who eat "of the bread broken there, do they not partake in the "sacrifice of the body of Christ, and strengthen their union "with him, as members of him their head? For by eating "of that bread, we, though many in number, are all "united, and make but one body under Christ our head, "as many grains of corn are united into one loaf. See "how it is among the Jews, who are outwardly, according to the flesh, by circumcision the people of God. "Among them, they who eat of the sacrifice are partakers " of God's table, the altar, have fellowship with him, and "share in the benefit of the sacrifice, as if it were offered "for them f. Do not mistake me, as if I hereby said, that

66

b John vi. 54.

John vi. 51, 54, 58.

• Locke's Commentary on the Text, p. 181.

d John vi. 56, 57.

f Dr. Pelling, in his Discourse of the Sacrament, (p. 116, 117, 118.) well illustrates the case of the Jews, as partaking of the altar. I shall cite a

small part.

"There is an expression which will make this matter clear, in Levit. vii. 18. neither shall it be imputed, &c. When those sacrificial feasts were regularly "celebrated, they were imputed to the guests for their good, they were reck"oned advantageous to them, they were favourably accepted at God's hand,

"the idols of the Gentiles are gods in reality, or that the "things offered to them change their nature, and are any "thing really different from what they were before, so as "to affect us in our use of them: no, but this I say, that "the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to "devils, and not to God, and I would not that you should have fellowship with, and be under the influence of devils, as they who by eating of things offered to them, enter into covenant, alliance, and commerce with them. "You cannot eat and drink with God, as friends at his "table in the Eucharist, and entertain familiarity and "" friendship with devils, by eating with them, and partak"ing of the sacrifices offered to them." Such appears to be the force of the whole argument. But as there is nothing so plain, but that it may be obscured by misconception, and darkened by artificial colourings, so we need not wonder if difficulties have been raised against the construction here given. And because it may sometimes happen, that very slight pretences on one side, if not particularly answered, may weigh more with some persons, than the strongest reasons on the other, I shall here be at the pains to bring together such objections as I have any where met with, and to consider them one by one.

Objections answered.

I. Dr. Whitby, whose comments upon this text, I am sorry to say, appear to be little else than laboured confusion, is pleased to object as here follows: "Neither can "the sense of the words be to this effect: The cup and "bread communicate to us the spiritual effects of Christ's "broken body, or his blood shed for us, though this be in "itself a certain truth; for these spiritual effects cannot

"in order to the ends for which the sacrifice was designed: they served to "make an atonement, they were effectual to their purposes, they were good "to all intents, they were available to the offerers, (as the Hebrew Doctors expound the phrase.) This is the true meaning of being partakers of the "altar," &c. p. 117. In the next page the learned author applies the whole very aptly to the Eucharist.

66

"be shared among believers, so that every one shall have "a part of them only, but the same benefits are wholly "communicated to every due receiver. See note on ver. "16d." The learned author did well to call our doctrine a certain truth: but he had done better, if he had taken due care to preserve to this text that true sense, upon which chiefly that certain truth is founded. His objection against the spiritual effect being shared, appears to be of no weight: for how do we say they are shared? We do not say that Christ's death is divided into parcels, or is more than one death, or that his sacrifice is more than one sacrifice, or that it is shared like a loaf broken into parts, as the objection supposes: but the many sharers all partake of, and communicate in one undivided thing, the same death, the same sacrifice, the same atonement, the same Saviour, the same God and Lord: and here is no dividing or sharing any thing, but as the same common blessing diffuses itself among many divided persons. And what is there amiss or improper in this notion? The learned author himself is forced to allow e, that κοινωνία τῷ υἱοῦ αὐτῷ, communion of his Sonf, and κοινωνία τῶν παθημάτων, communion of his sufferings 5, and κοινωνία μετὰ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ μετὰ τοῦ vioữ autoũ, communion with the Father and the Son h, are all so many proper phrases, to express the communion of many in one and the same thing, where the effects are common to those many. And he might have added xoνωνία τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, communion of the Holy Ghosti, and κοινωνία τοῦ μυστηρίου, communion of the mystery k, as two other parallel instances, wherein the same undivided blessings are supposed to be communicated to many, in such a sense as we suppose the undivided blessing, privilege, atonement of Christ's death to be vouchsafed to worthy communicants. And therefore there is no occasion for the low thought, that xowwvia here, with respect to the Eucharist, must signify no more than the sharing out the

consecrated bread and wine among the communicants: which is resolving all into sign, and dropping the thing signified; and is sinking the Apostle's admirable sense into jejune, insipid tautology; as I have before observed. The Socinians themselves deal more justly and ingenuously with St. Paul's text in this place; as may sufficiently appear by what I have quoted from them in this chapter.

66

II. The same learned man makes a further attempt to defeat the true sense of this passage, first, by interpreting the partaking of the altar, to mean only having communion with God, or owning him as that God from whom they had received mercies; and next, by interpreting the par taking of devils so as to exclude any spiritual influence from devils. To all which I shall make answer in the excellent words of Bp. Burnet m. "If the meaning of their being partakers with devils [he should have said of de"vils] imports only their joining themselves in acts of fellowship with idolaters, then the sin of this would have "easily appeared, without such a reinforcing of the mat"ter.-St. Paul seems to carry the argument farther :"since those idols were the instruments, by which the "devil kept the world in subjection to him, all such as "did partake in their sacrifices might come under the "effects of that magic, that might be exerted about their "temples or sacrifices;-and might justly fear being "brought into a partnership of those magical possessions "or temptations that might be suffered to fall upon such "Christians as should associate themselves in so detest"able a service". In the same sense it was also said, that

Sec Whitby on the place, p. 174, 175.

n Burnet on the 28th Article, p. 428.

n The true meaning of partaking of devils, or of coming under the influence of devils, is very aptly illustrated by the following lines of Tertullian. Nemo in castra hostium transit, nisi projectis armis suis, nisi destitutis signis et sacramentis principis sui, nisi pactus simul perire-Quale est enim de Ecclesia Dei, in diaboli ecclesiam tendere? de cœlo, quod aiunt, in cœnum? -Cur ergo non hujusmodi etiam dæmoniis penetrabiles fiant? nam et exemplum accidit, Domino teste, ejus mulieris quæ theatrum adiit, et