"would but sincerely profess, that in the Lord's Supper "Christ's body and blood are verily and properly eaten "and drank, and that there is a participation of the be66 nefits by him purchased, all the controversy remaining "is only about the manner of eating and drinking, and of "the presence of Christ's body and blood, which both "sides confess to be above the reach of human capacity; " and so they make use of reasonings, where is no room "for reason b." So far this very judicious writer, a moderate Lutheran, and a person of admirable sagacity. I shall hereupon take the liberty to observe, that if the supposed corporal presence were but softened into corporal union, and that union understood to be of the mystical or moral kind, (like to that of man and wife making one flesh, or all true Christians, at any distance, making one body,) and if this union were reckoned among the fruits of Christ's death, received by the faithful in the Eucharist, then would every thing of moment be secured on all sides: and the doctrine of the Eucharist, so stated, would be found to be altogether intelligible, rational, and scriptural, and confirmed by the united verdict of all antiquity. As to Lutherans and Calvinists, however widely they may appear to differ in words and in names, yet their ideas seem all to concenter (as often as they come to explain) in what I have mentioned. The Calvinists, for example, sometimes speak of eating Christ's body and blood by faith, or by the mind; and yet they seem to understand nothing more than a kind of moral, virtual, spiritual, or mystical union, (such as bodies at a distance may have,) though perhaps they do not always explain it so happily as might be wished. On the other hand, the Lutherans when pressed to speak plainly, deny every article almost which they are commonly charged with by their adversa We say, "Verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful." b Puffendorf. Eng. edit. sect. lxiii. p. 211, 212, 213. Lat. edit. sect. lxiii. p. 227, 228, 229. • Vid. Albertin. p. 230, 231. Pet. Martyr. in 1 Cor. xii. 12, 13. p. 178. ries. They disown assumption of the elements into the humanity of Christ, as likewise augmentation, and impanationf; yea, and consubstantiations, and concomitancy: and, if it be asked, at length, what they admit and abide by, it is a sacramental unioni; not a corporal presence, but as a body may be present spiritually k. And now, what is a sacramental union, with a body spiritually present, while corporally absent? Or what ideas can any one really have under these terms, more than that of a mystical or moral union, (such as Baron Puffendorf speaks of,) an union as to virtue and efficacy, and to all saving intents and purposes? So far both parties are agreed, and the remaining difference may seem to lie chiefly in words and names, rather than in ideas, or real things'. But great allowances Vid. Pfaffius, Dissertat. de Consecrat. Eucharist. p. 449, &c. Buddæus, Miscellan. Sacr. tom. ii. p. 80, 81. e Pfaffius, p. 451, &c. Buddæus, Miscellan. Sacr. tom. ii. p. 81, 82. f Pfaffius, p. 453. Buddæus, ibid. p. 83. Deylingius, Observ. Miscell. p. 249. & Pfaffius, p. 453, &c. h Pfaffius, ibid. p. 459. i Pfaffius, p. 461, &c. Buddæus, ibid. p. 84. Deylingius, ibid. * Quinimo et corporalis præsentia negatur, quæ tamen ea ratione adstruitur, ut corpus Christi vere, licet spiritualiter præsens esse credatur. Cæterum cum corpus Christi ubique junctam divinitatem habeat, ea et in sacra cœna præsens est; singulari tamen et incomprehensibili ratione, quæ omnes imperfectiones excludit. Pfaffius, p. 462. Præsentiam realem profitemur, carnalem negamus. Puffend. sect. 92. Unicus itaque saltem isque verus et genuinus præsentiæ realis superest modus, unio sacramentalis; quæ ita comparata est, ut, juxta ipsius Servatoris nostri institutionem, pani benedicto tanquam medio divinitus ordinato corpus, et vino benedicto tanquam medio divinitus ordinato sanguis Christi (modo quem ratio comprehendere nequit) uniatur: ut cum illo pane corpus Christi una manducatione sacramentali, et cum illo vino sanguinem Christi una bibitione sacramentali, in sublimi mysterio sumamus, manducemus, et bibamus. Buddæus, ibid. p. 86, 87. 1 Testatur Zanchius, se audivisse quendam non vulgarem Lutheranum dicentem, se et alios suos non ita dicere corpus Christi a nobis corporaliter manducari, quasi illud Christi corpus os et corpus nostrum attingat (học enim falsum esse) sed tantum propter sacramentalem unionem, qua id quod proprie competit pani, attribuitur etiam quodammodo ipsi corpori Christi. In hisce ergo convenimus. Sam. Ward. Theolog. Determinat. p. 113. should be made for the prevailing prejudices of education, and for a customary way of speaking or thinking on any subject. CHAP. IX. Of Remission of Sins conferred in the EUCHARIST. THIS is an article which has been hitherto touched upon only as it fell in my way, but will now require a particular discussion: and that it may be done the more distinctly and clearly, it will be proper to take in two or three previous propositions, which may be of use to prevent misconceptions of what we mean, and to open the way to what we intend to prove. The previous propositions are: 1. That it is God alone who properly confers remission. 2. That he often does it in this life present, as seems good unto him, on certain occasions, and in sundry degrees. 3. That he does it particularly in Baptism, in a very eminent degree. These several points being premised and proved, it will be the easier afterwards to show that he does it also in the Eucharist, as likewise to explain the nature and extent of the remission there conferred. 1. I begin with premising, that God alone properly confers remission of sins: whatever secondary means or instruments may be made use of in it, yet it is God that does it. "Who can forgive sins but God only t?" We read, that." it is God that justifieth"." Justification of sinners comes to the same with remission: it is receiving them as just; which amounts to acquitting, or absolving them, in the court of heaven. For proof of this, I refer the reader to Bishop Bull's Harmonia Apostolica, that I may not be tedious in a very plain case. The use I intend of the observation, with respect to our present subject, is, that if we are said to eat or drink, in the Eucharist, the benefits of Christ's passion, (among which remission of sins is one,) or if we are said to apply those benefits, and of consequence that remission, to ourselves, by faith, &c. all this is to be understood only of our receiving such remission, and partaking of those benefits, while it is God that grants and confers, and who also, properly speaking, applies every benefit of that kind to the faithful communicant. And whether he does it by his word or by his ordinances, and by the hands of his ministers, he does it however: and when such absolution, or remission, is real and true, it is not an human absolution, but a divine grant, transmitted to us by the hands of men administering the ordinances of God. God has sometimes sent his extraordinary grants of that kind by prophets and other officers extraordinary y: and he may do the like in a fixed and standing method, by his ordinary officers or ministers duly commissioned thereunto2. But whoever he be that brings the pardon, or who pursuant to commission notifies it to the party in solemn form, yet the pardon, if true, is the gift of God, and it is God alone, or the Spirit of God, that applies it to the soul, and converts it to spiritual nutriment and increase. This, I presume, may be looked upon as a ruled point, and needs not more words to prove it. 2. The next thing I have to premise is, that God often confers remission, or justification, for the time being, in this life present, with certain and immediate effect, according to the degree or extent of it. All remission is not final, nor suspended upon what may come after: but there is such a thing as present remission, distinct from the final one, and which may or may not continue to the end, but is valid for the time being, and is in its own nature (no cross circumstances intervening) irrevocable. Let us come to particulars, in proof of the position. Jesus said unto the sick of the palsy, "Son, thy sins are forgiven y 2 Sam. xii. 13. Compare Ecclus. xlvii. 11. z Matt. xvi. 19. xviii. 16, 17, 18. John xx. 22, 23. Acts xxii. 16. "theea." There was present remission of some kind or other, to some certain degree, antecedent to the day of judgment, and of force for the time being. So again, our Lord's words, "Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted b," &c. do plainly suppose and imply a present remission to some degree or other, antecedently to the great day, and during this present life. "All that believe," (viz. with a faith working by love)" are justified c," &c. The text speaks plainly of a present justification, or remission: for both amount to the same, as I have hinted before. St. Paul speaks of sincere converts, as "being justified freely by God's grace, through "the redemption that is in Jesus Christ d;" and soon after mentions "remission of sins past," meaning remission then present; as indeed he could not mean any thing else. In another place, he speaks of justification as then actually received, or obtained: "Being justified by faith, we "have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ -by whom we have now received the atonementf." Elsewhere he says, "Ye are washed, ye are sanctified, ye "are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the "Spirit of our God 5." Again: "You, being dead in your "sins hath he quickened, having forgiven you all tres 66 passes h." I shall take notice but of one text more: "I "write unto you, little children, because your sins are "forgiven youi." So then, present remission, in some cases or circumstances, may be justly looked upon as a clear point. Nevertheless, we are to understand it in a sense consistent with what St. Paul teaches elsewhere: "We are made partakers of Christ, (finally,) if we hold "the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end k." There is a distinction to be made between present and final justification: not that one is conditional and the other |