to Him, and the kingdom of heaven is opened to all believers. And thus faith in this gospel is professed more expressively and effectually in the Eucharist accompanied with prayer and praise, than it is by prayer and praise alone, or by any other religious service; and while we are so confessing sins, and pleading and showing in the manner commanded, and therefore acceptably, the same sacrifice which Christ in our behalf also pleads in heaven, believing communicants may confidently ask forgiveness of sins, and all other benefits of His Passion,' and pray for God's grace, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ,' by which He may write His laws in our hearts, and remember our sins no more,' and so, through Christ, fulfil the two great promises of the new covenant. 6 And, therefore, the Eucharist, combining confession of sin with prayer, and giving of thanks and profession of faith in Jesus Christ and Him crucified,' is justly called a 'spiritual sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving;' and it eminently fulfils its great end and design of being to the faithful a commemoration of Christ. 1 Phil. i. 19. 2 Heb. x. 16, 17. D CHAPTER V. ON 1 COR. X. 16 (CONTINUED).—THE EUCHARIST THE COM MUNION OF THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST CRUCIFIED. 'The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?' THE word xovwvía, communion,' occurs eighteen times in the New Testament, and the verb and substantive of corresponding meaning, and same derivation, occur as often. 6 6 In the authorised version the word is translated variously, as a communication,' or 'contribution,' or distribution,' all of which suit the idea of giving; and a fellowship,' which suits the corresponding idea of receiving-to which the Apostle refers immediately after, saying that the communicants are partakers of one bread,' and 'partakers of the Lord's table.'-It does not, however, ordinarily throw light upon an expression to multiply needlessly its meanings, and thus, from the two principal notions, we may conclude the Apostle's doctrine to be, that in the Lord's Supper there is a communication of the body and blood of Christ to the faithful, and a reciprocal reception or partaking of the same therein by them. We have next to enquire into the meaning of this communication and participation of the body and blood of Christ, which may be viewed under the twofold aspect, first, of the Communion of Christ's Crucified Body, to be considered in this chapter; and, secondly, of the Communion of Christ's Glorified Body, which may be the subject of the chapter following. That the Apostle here speaks exclusively of the communion of Christ's crucified body seems to be the opinion of many very eminent divines of the Anglican Church, of whom Hammond, Wake, Burnet, and Cudworth may be reasonably deemed a sufficient specimen. Thus, in his Commentary on the Church Catechism,' Archbishop Wake teaches, that the bread and wine become to the faithful communicant the body and blood of Christ, because the Sacrament entitles him to a part in the sacrifice of Christ's death, and to the benefits thereby procured;' and because such a communicant is as truly entitled to a part of Christ's sacrifice as any man is entitled to an estate, by receiving a deed of conveyance from one who had power to deliver it.' And again, the bread is bread in substance, and the body of Christ, by signification, by representation, and spiritual communication of His crucified body' to the faithful; and still more clearly, Christ has now a glorified body, whereas the body we receive is His crucified body-His body given for us, and His blood shed for us, which can never be verified in His present glorious body.'1 6 6 6 Hammond also, in his 'Practical Catechism,' teaches, respecting the cup, that the whole Eucharistical action, -expressed to be an action of the people as well as the presbyter by their drinking of it is the communication and a means by Christ ordained to make them partakers of the blood of Christ; not of the guilt of shedding it, but . . . of the benefits that are purchased by it;' and the whole Sacrament is a mutual confederation betwixt us and the crucified Saviour-on our parts, an acknowledging him for our God . . . and on His part, the making over to us all the benefits of His body and blood, i.e. His 1 1 Pp. 349, 350. death. He also teaches, that the phrase, This is my body,' interpreted by This taking and eating is my body,’ is further opened by the phrase. The bread which we break is the communion of the body of Christ,' viz. the whole action is the real communication of the body of Christ to me, 'the very giving Christ's body to me; that as verily as I eat the bread in my mouth, so verily God bestows on me, communicates to me, the body of the crucified Saviour' or, as he says afterwards, the body and blood of Christ, i.e. the crucified Saviour’—and consequently exhibits, and makes over, all the advantages that flow to us from the death of Christ.'1 So Bishop Burnet similarly says, that this communion is the conveyance of the blessings of our partnership in the effects of the death of Christ,' or is 'a share with other Christians in the effects and merits of His death.'2 But the most distinguished advocate of this view is Cudworth, in his elaborate and original treatise on 'The True Use and Nature of the Lord's Supper;' and, therefore, I shall give a brief account of an argument unfolded by him at much length, in an entire volume, but which seems to be sufficiently stated as follows : The Jews, in connection with their sacrifices, regularly celebrated a feast either on the victim or on an animal slain at the same time. Their sacrifices were threefold: first, sin or trespass-offerings; secondly, peace-offerings; and, thirdly, burnt-offerings. In the sin or trespass-offerings, part was consumed upon the altar, and part was eaten by the priests as representatives of the people. In the peaceofferings part also-as the blood-was offered to God upon the altar, and part was given to the priests, and part to the owners to feast on and in the burnt-offerings, although the whole victims were offered to God, and con 1 Pp. 350, 352. 2 Exposition of Thirty-nine Articles, pp. 267, 269. sumed upon the altar, there were regularly annexed to them peace-offerings; in order that the owners, as being now reconciled to God, might eat of the sacrifice as a federal rite of friendship between God and them. And thus a feast upon the sacrifice accompanied all three kinds of offerings; and sacrificing and religious feasting, in the case of the Jew as of the Gentile, were supposed to imply each other. Thus the Israelites were forbidden to sacrifice to the Gods of the Canaanite, and to eat of his sacrifice ;'1 and it is charged on them that the daughters of Moab 'called the people to the sacrifices of their Gods, and the people did eat and bowed down to their gods;'2 and that they joined themselves unto Baalpeor, and ate the sacrifices of the dead.' 3 4 At the dedication of the golden calf also, the people 'offered.burnt-offerings and brought peace-offerings; and sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play;' and so it is said of Samuel, 'the people will not eat till he come, because he is to bless the sacrifice;' and again, after calling Jesse and his sons to the sacrifice, Samuel commands him to send and fetch his youngest son,' for we will not sit down till he come hither;'5 and eating the sacrifice offered to Jehovah is called eating before the Lord,' while an idolater who hath eaten on the mountains' is supposed to have also sacrificed there." And similarly respecting both the Jewish and heathen usages of feasting on their sacrifices in New Testament times, St. Paul says in 1 Cor. x.-' Behold Israel after the flesh; are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers or communicants, xo1vwvol-of the altar ? and 'the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, not to God: and I would not that ye should be 1 Exod. xxxiv. 15. 4 Exod. xxxii. 6. 2 Num. xxv. 2. 5 1 Sam. ix. 13; xvi. 5, 11. 3 Ps. cvi. 28. |