in the Sacrament 4. And let us be so civil to them as at least for the present to yield that understanding it in a due sense we do acknowledge the Real Presence But it does not at all follow from thence that we must hold that that very Body of Christ that hung upon the Cross and whose Bloud was there shed is really present in the Sacrament but that our Church speaking conformably to Christ's Discourse on this Matter in the sixth of Iohn and to the ancient primitive Fathers whose expressions do plainly allude to that Discourse of our Saviour's in the sixth of S. Iohn doth assert both a Real Presence of the Body and Bloud of Christ to be received by the faithful in the Eucharist and also a Real Absence of that Body and Bloud that was crucified and shed on the Cross. And this seems to be the express Doctrine of our Saviour in the above mentioned Chapter of S. Iohn where the Eternal Word incarnate speaks thus John 6. v. 51. I am the living Bread which came down from Heaven viz. the Manna which the Psalmist calls the Food of Angels also if any eat of this Bread he shall live for ever viz. of this true Manna of which the Manna in the Wilderness was but a Type and the Bread that I will give is my flesh which therefore still is that immortalizing Manna the true Bread from Heaven which I will give for the life of the World that the whole Intellectual Creation may live thereby it being their vivifick Food For as you may gather by vers 62 63. he does not understand his flesh that hung on the Cross. And it was the ignorance of the Iews that they thought he did and therefore they cryed out on him saying v. 52. How can this man give us his flesh to eat And that is because they took him to be a mere man or an ordinary man not the incarnate Logos Which Logos Clemens Alexandrinus calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the impassible man and Trismegistus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that one man the Son of God born of him which he says is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Author of Regeneration as having the Life in him the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iohn 1. v. 4. and this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Life the Divine or Spiritual Body one necessary Element of Regeneration which mystery we cannot here insist upon But in the mean time let us observe our Saviour's Answer to this Scruple of the Iews he is so far from receding from what he said that he with all earnestness and vehemency asserts the same again Then Iesus said unto them Verily verily I say unto you except you eat the flesh of the Son of man that is of the Messias or the Word Incarnate and drink his bloud you have no life in you Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath Eternal Life and I will raise him up at the last day For my flesh is meat indeed and my bloud is drink indeed He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father so he that eateth me viz. that eateth his flesh and drinketh his bloud even he shall live by me This is that bread that came down from Heaven not as your Fathers did eat Manna and are dead he that eateth of this Bread shall live for ever 5. This is that earnest lofty and sublime discourse of our Saviour touching his real Flesh and Blood that the scandal given to the Jews could not drive him off from and persisting in it he gave also offence to his Disciples that muttered and said This is an hard saying who can hear it Wherefore I must confess ingenuously that it seems to me incredible that under so lofty mysterious a Style and earnest asseveration of what he affirms though to the scandal of both the Iews and his own Disciples there should not be couched some most weighty and profound Truth concerning some real Flesh and Blood of his touching which this vehement and sublime Discourse is framed which is a piece of that part of the Christian Philosophy as some of the Antients call Christianity which Origen terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Object of this eating and drinking is the Flesh and Blood of Christ But to rectifie the errour of his Disciples he plainly affirms that he doth not mean what he said of the Flesh and Blood he then bore about with him In v. 61 62 63. Does this offend you saith he to them what and if you shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before then my particular natural Body will be far enough removed from you and your selves then from so gross a conceit as to think I understand this of my natural particular Body or Flesh No says he the flesh profiteth nothing it is the spirit that quickens the words that I speak unto you they are spirit and they are life that is to say they are concerning that spiritual Body and Life or Spirit that accompanies it That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the spirit is spirit the both seed and nourishment of those that are Regenerate the Principles of their Regeneration and the Divine Food for their Nutrition whereby they grow up to their due stature in Christ. 6. And where or where so fully is this Divine Food to be had as in that most solemn and most devotional approaching God in the Celebration of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ where we both testifie and advance thereby our spiritual union with him according as he has declared in Iohn ch 6. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him Upon which our Communion-Service thus glosses That if with a true penitent heart and lively faith we receive this Holy Sacrament we then spiritually eat the Flesh of Christ and drink his Blood we dwell in Christ and Christ in us we are one with Christ and Christ with us And whereas the Adversaries of our Church object We cannot eat the Flesh of Christ and drink his Blood in the Celebration of the Lords Supper unless his Flesh and Blood be really present we do acknowledge that that Flesh and Blood which our Saviour discourses of in S t Iohn and which our Liturgie alludes to as also those notable sayings of the Fathers above-cited out of the Homily touching the worthy receiving the Lord's Supper is really present in the Eucharist And that there is that which Christ calls his Flesh and Blood distinct from that which he then bore about with him and was Crucified on the Cross he does most manifestly declare in that discourse in S t Iohn as I have already proved So manifest is it that the Real Presence does not imply any Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. CHAP. II. 1.
his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Life or Spirit as I have noted in my Analytical account of the fore-part of the first Chapter of St. Iohn's Gospel See my Scholia at the end of my Enchiridium Ethicum 3. And it is marvellously applicable to our purpose what Philo says on that Passage of Deuteronomy Chap. 32. v. 5. He made him to suck honey out of the Rock and Oyl out of the flinty Rock in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where he says the Rock signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The solid steady and infrangible Wisdom of God implying the Immutableness and Unalterableness of the Natures Properties and Respects of the Ideas of things in the Divine Intellect The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to be changed or violated for any superstitious purposes whatsoever as I have intimated before Wherefore as S t Paul calls Christ who is the Eternal Logos a Rock so does Philo by saying that Rock Moses mentions in his Song is the steady solid and infrangible Wisdom of God Which therefore is that Essential Wisdom the same that the Divine Logos or second Hypostasis of the Trinity And not many lines after in the same Treatise the Lawgiver says he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 calls this Rock Manna the Divine Logos that was before all beings and without whom nothing was made that was made as S t Iohn testifies And in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of Israel which he would have signifie one that sees God He says he lifting up his Eyes to Heaven sees and thence receives 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Manna the Divine Logos the Heavenly incorruptible food of the Soul devoted to Holy Speculation Which Passages I could not forbear to produce they having so great an Affinity with that which our Saviour professes of himself that he is this Bread from Heaven the true Manna and incorruptible Food of the Soul whereby she is nourished to Eternal Life Iohn 6. Out of all which may be more easily understood how the Fathers did all eat the same Spiritual Meat and drink the same Spiritual Drink which cannot well be conceived but of such a Divine Body and Bloud of Christ as is universal not restrained to his particular humane Nature but belonging to him as he is the Eternal Logos in whom is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Life or Spirit which goeth along with the Divine Body of this Life or Spirit of Christ and consequently is rightly called his Body Which being the necessary Principles of Regeneration for ex eisdem nutrimur ex quibus constamus and there being no Salvation without Regeneration and no Regeneration continued and advanced without congenerous Food we must necessarily conclude with S t Paul that The Fathers all ate the same Spiritual Meat and drank all the same Spiritual Drink Water Honey Oyl out of the same Rock Christ the Eternal Word or Logos And certainly that Body and Blood of Christ out of which the Fathers were Regenerate and by which they were fed cannot be the very Body and Bloud of Christ which hung on the Cross and whose Bloud was there let out by the Lance of the Souldier that pierced his side and therefore there was a Body and Bloud of Christ before he was incarnate for the Regenerate Souls of the antient People of the Iews to feed upon belonging to him as he is the Eternal Logos in whom is the Life and that Spirit of which it is said That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit Which things are more fully treated of in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a Philosophical Hypothesis touching the great Mystery of Regeneration 4. Wherefore there is all the Reason in the World if not plain Necessity to admit what we cited out of Gratian that famous Canonist of the Church of Rome That we are to understand that there is a two-fold Flesh and Bloud of Christ either that Spiritual and Divine Flesh of which he himself says My Flesh is Meat indeed and my Bloud is Drink indeed and Unless you eat my Flesh and drink my Bloud ye shall not have Everlasting Life Or that Flesh which was crucified and that Bloud that was let out of his side by the Lance of the Souldier which we shall now endeavour briefly to demonstrate out of that Discourse of our Saviour in the sixth of S t Iohn 5. First then That the Flesh of Christ that hung once on the Cross and into which the Bread of the Romanists is supposed to be Transubstantiated in the Sacrament of our Lord's Supper is not the Flesh here meant is plain from what is said thereof in this sixth Chapter of S t Iohn v. 54. Whoso eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Bloud hath Eternal Life But every one that eateth the Bread transubstantiated into the Body of Christ that once hung upon the Cross in the Roman Communion has not Eternal Life in him Nay if that Souldier that pierced our Saviour's side and let out his Bloud with his Lance had drunk also thereof and cut some piece of his flesh from his Body and eaten it is any one so fond as to think that he thereby would have been made Partaker of Eternal Life But if Christ meant that Body or Flesh of his and not some other that is rightly also called his Flesh or Body it would follow that that Souldier by doing that savage and inhumane act would have obtained Everlasting Life Wherefore it is plain from hence that there is another Body or Flesh of Christ and another Blood distinct from that Blood that was shed on the Cross and from that Body that hung there which our Saviour aims at in his Discourse 6. Secondly It is plain that our Saviour's Discourse in that Chapter he passing from that temporal Food which he had lately procured for the multitude to a Spiritual and Eternal has for its Object or Subject not the Manner or Way of receiving his Body and Blood as if it were meant of that very Flesh and Blood on the Cross but that it was to be received in a Spiritual Manner which Interpreters several of them drive at but the Object of his Discourse is his very Flesh and Blood it self to be taken as the Fish and Loaves were wherewith he lately fed them or it is himself in reference to this Flesh and Blood which belongs to him as he is the Eternal Word and in this sense he says He is the Bread of God that cometh down from Heaven and giveth Life to the World v. 33. And v. 48. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am the Bread of Life and speaking of the Manna he presently adds Your Fathers ate Manna and yet died viz. the natural Death the natural Manna being no Preservative against the natural Death And v. 51. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as before he called himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For in him is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iohn 1. or Life
and Spirit and this Spirit or Life in the Divine Body I am the living Bread coming down from Heaven as the Manna is said to do and to which Philo compares the Divine Logos if any one eat of this Bread he shall live for ever He speaks not of the manner of eating of it but of the Bread it self to be eaten and yet immediately thereupon he calls this Bread his Flesh which he says he will give for the Life of the World that is to the end that they may be enlivened thereby he thus communicating to them his Divine Body and Spirit together And then presently upon the Iews striving amongst themselves and saying How can this man give us his flesh to eat the reason whereof was because they took him to be a meer man and thought that Christ himself understood it of his humane Flesh he affirms with greater earnestness and vehemency Verily verily I say unto you unless ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man viz. of the Messias who is the Logos incarnate and drink his Bloud ye have no Life in you Whoso eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Bloud hath Eternal Life and I will raise him up at the last day For my Flesh is meat indeed and my Bloud is drink indeed And so all along to the very end of his Discourse he speaks of a really eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood not of the Manner of eating as if it never came nigh them but only they thought of Flesh and Blood God knows how far distant from them and so ate the humane Flesh of Christ by meer thinking of it and drank his Bloud after the same imaginary Manner which would I think be a very dilute and frigid sense of such high and fervid Asseverations of our Saviour if the Mystery reached no farther than so 7. But thirdly and lastly That it does reach further than so is exceeding evident from what our Saviour utters upon his Disciples being scandalized at this strange Discourse of his v. 61. When Iesus knew in himself that his Disciples murmured at it He said unto them Does this offend you What if you shall see the Son of man ascending where he was before which he must needs understand of his particular visible Body which he bore about with him and which his humane Soul did actuate and which was appropriated to his humane nature which is finite and circumscribed It is an Elliptical speech of his but thus naturally to be supplyed as I have also noted above as if he suppressed by an Aposiopesis this objurgatory sense insinuated thereby Will you then imagine so grosly as if I understood it of this very Flesh I bear about with me when as this particular body of mine after my Ascension into Heaven will be removed at a vast distance from you I tell you this Flesh of mine as to this purpose I have all this time driven at profiteth nothing you cannot feed of it at such a distance if it were to be fed on The Text runs thus v. 63. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is that quickening spirit I aim at in my discourse that Divine or Spiritual Body of mine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Flesh which you understand and are so scandalized at the eating thereof profiteth nothing as to this purpose nor the Blood taken in your sense has any thing to do here The words that I speak unto you they are spirit and they are life The Object of those words spoken is my Spiritual Body and Blood not as I am a Man but the Eternal Word the Divine Logos which contains in it the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Spirit and my Divine Body universal that belongs to that my Life or Spirit This is the true Mystery of the Matter for by these two things asserted by our Saviour 1. That we are to eat his Flesh and drink his Blood as we hope ever to have Eternal Life 2. And his declaring his Flesh profiteth nothing it is manifest that that distinction of Gratian is true which he seems to have taken out of St. Hierom or some other ancient Father who tells us the Flesh and Blood of Christ is twofold the one natural and which he bore about with him and hung once on the Cross the other Spiritual and Divine which we may really eat and drink that is really receive and draw in at the Celebrating the Holy Eucharist by a sincere fervid and devotional Faith And consequently there is a Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in partaking of the Lord's Supper whereby our Souls are nourished to Eternal Life And in that he says his natural Flesh profiteth nothing to this purpose for it cannot be said that it profiteth nothing at all since in vertue of the Crucifixion of that Flesh and Effusion of that Blood on the Cross we have the remission of our Sins Christ plainly infers that he has which cannot be well understood but as he is the Eternal Logos another Flesh viz. that Spiritual and Divine Flesh which is mainly profitable for this purpose for the maintaining perfecting and renewing the inward man that he may attain to his due growth in Christ. And lastly How can Christ say his Flesh that was Crucified on the Cross profiteth nothing when by being meditated upon at the solemnity of the Holy Eucharist and also at other times it may serve to kindle and inflame our Love and Devotion towards him and so urge us to greater degrees of Repentance and Mortification and serious Holiness it therefore being useful and profitable for all this I say why does he then affirm it profiteth nothing but that he does on purpose advertise us that it profiteth nothing as to the present case he has spoke to all this while viz. to be the real meat and food of the inward man and to be really received into him to maintain and increase those Divine Principles in him out of which he is regenerated This his particular Flesh and Blood that hung on the Cross cannot be profitable for nor can be come at at such a distance to be taken in and received which therefore plainly implies those other which were mentioned above out of Gratian the Divine or Spiritual Flesh and Blood of Christ only to be properly useful to this purpose 8. And for this Divine and Spiritual Flesh and Blood of our Saviour distinguished from his natural besides St. Hierome you have also the suffrage of Clemens Alexandrinus in his Paedagogus lib. 2. cap. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Blood of our Lord is twofold the one carnal by which we are redeemed from corruption the other Spiritual wherewith we are anointed and by vertue of drinking thereof we attain to incorruption 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And as he makes the Blood of our Lord twofold so we may be sure he makes his Body or Flesh because his Mystical Body and Blood go together According to that which M r Pelling in his Pious and
Learned Discourse of the Sacrament quotes out of S t Ambrose who says he speaking of that Body which is received in the Eucharist calls it the spiritual Body of Christ the Body of a Divine Spirit and he does confidently affirm of all the Antients who have either purposely interpreted or occasionally quoted the Words of Christ in the sixth of S t Iohn touching the eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood that they all understand him to speak of a Spiritual Flesh and Blood distinct not only from the Substance of the Holy Elements but also from that natural Body of Christ which he took of the Substance of the Holy Virgin pag. 233. So little Novelty is there in this distinction of the Body and Blood of Christ into natural and Spiritual or Divine CHAP. VII 1. An Apology for being thus operose and copious in inculcating the present point from the usefulness thereof 2. The first usefulness in that it defeats Monsieur de Meaux his Stratagem to reduce us to Transubstantiation as if no Real Presence without it 3. The second usefulness for the rectifying the Notion of Consubstantiation 4. The third for more fully understanding the Mystery of the Eucharist with Applications of it to several Passages in our Communion-Service 5. The fourth for a very easie and natural Interpretation of certain Passages in our Church-Catechism 6. The priviledge of the faithful Receiver and of what great noment the Celebration of the Eucharist is 7. The last usefulness in solidly reconciling the Rubrick at the end of the Communion-Service with that noted Passage in our Church-Catechism 1. THE Reader may haply think I have been over operose and copious in inculcating this Distinction of Gratian's touching the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist But the great usefulness thereof I hope may apologize for this my extraordinary diligence and industry For the Notion being both true and unexceptionable and not at all clashing so far as I can discern with either the Holy Scripture or right Reason and solid Philosophy to say nothing of the Suffrage of the Primitive Fathers but rather very agreeable and consentaneous to them all and also having as I said its weighty usefulness it was a point I thought that was worth my so seriously insisting upon and as I have hitherto endeavoured faithfully to set out the Truth thereof I shall now though more briefly intimate its Usefulness 2. And the first Usefulness is this Whereas that Reverend Prelate the Bishop of Meaux tugs so hard to pull back again the Reformed Churches to the Communion of the Church of Rome by this Concession or rather Profession of theirs that there is a Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ at the Celebration of the Eucharist to be received by the faithful and that therefore they must return to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation as if there were no other Mode of a Real Presence to be conceived but it the force of this Inference is plainly taken away by this Distinction that Gratian one of their own Church hath luckily hit upon or rather taken out of some antient Father and is more fully made out in this Discourse that there is a Spiritual and Divine Body of Christ distinct from that particular Body of his that hung on the Cross which the faithful partake of in the Lord's Supper Whence it is plain there is no need of Transubstantiation which is incumbred with such abundance of Impossibilities and Contradictions 3. Secondly This Notion of ours is hugely serviceable for the rectifying of the Doctrine of Consubstantiation in the Lutheran Church who are for an Ubiquity of the particular Body of Christ that hung on the Cross which assuredly is a grand Mistake But I believe in the Authors thereof there was a kind of Parturiency and more confused Divination of that Truth which we have so much insisted upon and their Mistake consists only in this that they attributed to the particular Body of Christ which belongs to his restrained and circumscribed humane Nature that which truly and only belongs to his Divine Body as he is the Eternal Logos in whom is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Life or Spirit of the Logos to which Spirit of his this Body belongs and therefore is rightly called his Body as appertaining to his Spirit For this Body this Divine and Spiritual Flesh as Gratian calls it is every where present though not to be received as the Food of the Inward man but only by the Faithful and Regenerate so that according to this Notion there may be a Consubstantiation rightly interpreted that is a Compresentiation or rather Compresentiality of both the Real Bread and Wine and the Real Body and Blood of Christ at once so that they both may be really and indeed received by all true Believers And Lutheranism in this point thus candidly interpreted will prove a sound and unexceptionable Doctrine And I charitably believe the first Authors of it if they had fully understood their own meaning meant no more than so And I wish I had as much reason to believe that the Pontificians meant no more by their Transubstantiation but a firm and fast hold of the Real Presence I hope the most ingenuous of them at this time of the day mean no more than so viz. That they are as well assured of the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ to be received in the Celebration of the Eucharist as if the very Bread was turned into his Body and the Wine into his Blood by a miraculous Transubstantiation 4. Thirdly It is from this Notion or Distinction of the antient Fathers as I hinted above of the Body and Blood of Christ into Natural and Spiritual or Divine that we have ever been well appointed to give a more full and distinct account of the nature of the Solemnity of the Eucharist as it is celebrated in our Church it plainly comprizing these two things The first the Commemoration of the Death of Christ of the breaking his Body or Flesh viz. the wounding thereof with Nails and Spears The other The partaking of the Divine Body and Blood of Christ by which our Inward Man is nourished to Eternal Life which our eating the Bread and drinking the Wine are Symbols of Both which in our Communion-Service are plainly pointed at The first fully in the Exhortation to Communicants where it is said And above all things you must give most humble and hearty thanks to God the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost for the Redemption of the World by the Death and Passion of our Saviour Christ both God and Man who did humble himself even to the Death upon the Cross for us miseable sinners And to the end we should always remember the exceeding great love of our Master and only Saviour Jesus Christ thus dying for us and the innumerable benefits which by his precious Blood-shedding he hath obtained to us he has instituted and ordained Holy
Mysteries as pledges of his Love and for a continual remembrance of his Death And in the Prayer of Consecration the Celebration of the Eucharist is again said to be a continued or perpetuated Commemoration of Christ's precious Death till his coming again But now for our receiving the Spiritual and Divine Body and Blood of Christ such passages as these seem to intimate it In the Exhortation to the Communicants it is there said if with a true penitent heart and lively faith we receive this Holy Sacrament then we spiritually eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood then we dwell in Christ and Christ in us we are one with Christ and Christ with us This passage plainly points to our Saviour's Discourse Iohn 5. v. 56. where he says He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him And he thus dwelling in us he enlivens us we becoming one with Christ in a manner as the Soul and Body makes one as it followeth in the next verse As the living father has sent me and I live by the father so he that eateth me shall live by me and so we become one with Christ and Christ with us we living by Christ as he by his Father that is to say as Christ lives by his Father so we live by the Spirit of Christ dwelling in us Rom. 8. 11. which Spirit or Life of Christ always implies the Divine Body As he that is joined unto the Lord in this Body is one Spirit 1 Cor. 6. 17. Now this Exhortation so plainly alluding to this passage of our Saviour's Discourse which speaks not of his particular natural Flesh but of that which is his Spiritual or Divine Flesh it is plain that the genuine sense of the Exhortation in this place is that we really though spiritually that is by a fervent and devotional Faith eat or receive the real Body and Blood of Christ viz. that Divine and Spiritual Body and Blood of his above-mentioned And this passage of our Saviour's Discourse is again alluded to in the Prayer immediately before the Prayer of Consecration in these words Grant us therefore Gracious Lord so to eat the Flesh of thy Dear Son Jesus Christ and to drink his Blood that our sinful Bodies may be made clean by his Body and our Souls washed through his most precious Blood and that we may evermore dwell in him and he in us John 6. 56. And these two places so plainly alluding to our Saviour's Discourse in the sixth of S t Iohn it is very easie and natural to conceive that what occurs in the Thanksgiving after our receiving the Sacrament does sound to the same purpose Almighty and everlasting God we most heartily thank thee for that thou dost vouchsafe to feed us who have duly received these Holy Mysteries with the Spiritual Food of the most Precious Body and Blood of thy Son and our Saviour Jesus Christ The words even of themselves do very naturally point at a real though spiritual partaking or receiving into us the Body and Blood of Christ namely of that Flesh and Blood which our Saviour discourses of Iohn 6. And therefore we may be much more assured that they do so if we take notice the sense is so back'd and strengthned by the other two Passages which do plainly relate to the Body or Flesh and Blood Christ discourses of in the sixth of S t Iohn's Gospel I will only add one Consideration more and that is from the Title of our Communion-Service Can there be any more likely reason why the Lord's Supper is called THE HOLY COMMUNION than that it refers to that of S t Paul 1 Cor. 10. 16. The Cup of Blessing which we bless is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ Because there is one Bread we being many are one Body For we are all partakers of that one Bread Which is that Bread from Heaven which our Saviour discourses of in the sixth of S t Iohn But the Words I have chiefly my Eye upon are those The Cup being called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Communion of the Blood and the Bread 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Communion of the Body of Christ and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in all likely hood having the same sense that it had 2 Pet. 1. 4. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where we are said to be called to the Participation of the Divine Nature Communion here in S t Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians must naturally imply our real receiving or partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ in the celebrating of this Holy Communion and that by thus partaking of that one Divine Body and Blood of his signified by the eating and drinking the Bread and Wine we though many become one Body not in a Political Sense only but if I may so speak Divinely natural we being made all Members of that one Universal Divine Body of Christ as he is the Eternal Logos and so becoming 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Pet. 1. 4. Wherefore That Passage in S t Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians does marvelous-fully set out the Nature of that part of the Lord's Supper that is distinguished from the Commemoration of his Death and gives the most genuine Reason of its being called the Holy Communion it implying the real Communication of that one Divine Body of Christ to the faithful and their real Union thereby with Christ and with one another which is a full and perfect Holy Communion indeed 5. Fourthly This Notion of the Fathers touching the Spiritual or Divine Body and Blood of Christ affords us a very easie and natural Interpretation of that Passage in our Church-Catechism touching the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper where to the Question What is the inward part or thing signified It is answered The Body and Blood of Christ which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper In the Answer to a former Question Why was the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper ordained it is answered For a continual Remembrance of the Sacrifice of the Death of Christ and the Benefits received thereby One eminent benefit whereof is the Remission of our sins through the Bloud of Christ shed on the Cross for without blood there is no Remission the other is the feeding of the Regenerate Soul or Inward man by the Real but Spiritual or Divine Body and Blood of Christ which contains in it our through Sanctification which is also a fruit or benefit of the Sacrifice of the Death of Christ forasmuch as we had not been capable of Regeneration and of growth and degrees of Sanctification by the feeding on and really receiving the Spiritual and Divine Body of Christ without our Reconciliation by his Blood shed on the Cross which our Church here calls the Sacrifice of the Death of Christ. Now as in this Answer there is contained