he proceeds to speak of St. Paul's abrupt and rapid manner of writing, and of his omitting many things for an interpreter to supply, (though before he would not allow him to omit a needless exception, which nobody almost could miss of,) and of his jumping to a conclusion, before he had sufficiently opened his premises. Could one desire a more sensible or more affecting token of the irresistible strength of the ancient and prevailing construction than this, that the acutest wit, joined with uncommon learning, can make no other sense of the place, but by taking such liberties with sacred Writ, as are by no means allowable upon any known rules of just and sober hermeneutics? I shall dwell no longer on this learned gentleman's speculations; which, I am willing to hope, are not the sentiments of all the Lutherans. They are confronted, in part, by the very learned Wolfius, as I observed above: and I am now going to take notice of the moderate sentiments of Baron Puffendorff (who was an able divine, as well as a consummate statesman) in his latest treatise, left behind him ready for the press, written in Latin, and printed in 1695. He first candidly represents the principles of the Reformed, and next passes a gentle censure. 'Some say [meaning some of the Reformed] that we must not believe the bread and wine to be a naked symbol, r Praecisam et concitatam esse multis in locis S. Pauli disputationem, et multa interdum ab eo omitti quae interpretis meditatione ac ingenio suppleri debent, quo perfectam demonstratio formam adipiscatur, neminem in scriptis istis versatum praeterit. Id hoc etiam in loco meminisse decet, quo divinus vir, sacro elatus fervore, et incredibili Corinthios emendandi studio accensus, ad demonstrationis conclusionem properat potius quam pergit, nec plura exprimit verbis quam postulat necessitas ad vim ejus capiendam. Quare qui rudiorum summa captui consulere, et universam argumentationem ejus nervis et partibus suis cohaerentem exhibere volunt, addere passim quaedam debent et interjicere, ad ea plane tollenda quae intelligentiam morari possunt.' Moshem. ibid. sJus feciale divinum: sive de Consensu et Dissensu Protestantium, exercitatio posthuma.' Lubecae, 1695. The Divine feudal Law: or Means for the uniting of Protestants. Translated from the original by Theophilus Dorrington, 1703. but a communication, or mean by which we come into participation of the body and blood of Christ, as St. Paul speaks, I Cor. x. 16. But of what sort that communion or communication is, whether physical or moral, may be very well gathered from that very place of St. Paul. By a physical communion, or participation, must be understood the conjunction of two bodies, as of water and wine, of meal and sugar: but by a moral one is meant, such as when anything partakes of the virtue and efficacy of another, and in that respect is accounted the same with the other, or is connected with it. As among the Jews, they who did eat of the flesh of the victim were made partakers of the altar; that is, of the Jewish worship, and of all the benefits which did accompany that worship. So also, they who did eat of things sacrificed to idols were partakers of devils; not for that they did eat the substance of the devils, but because they did derive upon themselves the guilt of idolatry. From all which things we may learn to understand the words of the institution in this sense-This bread eaten by the faithful, in the ceremony of this Supper, this wine also therein drank by such, shall have the same virtue and efficacy, as if you should eat the substance itself of my body, and drink the very substance of my blood. Or, this bread is put in the stead of the sacrificed flesh, this wine is in the stead of the sacrificed blood; whereby the covenant between God and men, having me for the mediator of it, is established. Nor indeed are such sort of expressions (importing an equivalence or substitution) uncommon, whether in holy Scripture or in profane writers. For example: "I have made God my hope t." Elijah was the "chariots of Israel, and the horsemen thereof u." 'Woman, behold, thy son; son, behold thy mother §.” "He that doth the will of my Father, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother y." It is said of the enemies of the cross of Christ, "that their belly is their god z." So in x John xix. 26, 27. t Job xxxi. 24. u 2 Kings ii. 12. y Matt. xii. 50. z Phil. iii. 19. Virgil we have the like phraseology, "Thou shalt be to me the great Apollo." 'But in articles of faith, it is safer to follow a naked simplicity, than to indulge the fancy in pursuit of subtilties. And it has been observed, that while the reins have been left too loose to human reason, in this article of the Lord's Supper, the other mysteries also of the Christian religion have been tampered with, so that by degrees Socinianism is at length sprung up. But if both sides would but sincerely profess, that in the Lord's Supper Christ's body and blood are verily and properly eaten and drank a, and that there is a participation of the benefits 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 everything 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 concentre (as often as they come to explain) in what I have mentioned. The Calvinists, for example, sometimes We say, 'Verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful.' b Puffendorf. Eng. edit. sect. lxiii. pp. 211, 212, 213. Lat. edit. sect. Ixiii. pp. 227, 228, 229. 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 adversaries. They disown assumption of the elements into the humanity of Christ d, as likewise augmentation, and impanation f; yea, and consubstantiation, and concomitancy h; 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 i. 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 • Vid. Albertin. pp. 230, 231. Pet. Martyr. in 1 Cor. xii. 12, 13. p. 178. d Vid. Pfaffius, Dissertat. de Consecrat. Eucharist. p. 449, &c. Buddaeus, Miscellan. Sacr. tom. ii. pp. 80, 81. • Pfaffius, p. 451, &c. Buddaeus, Miscellan. Sacr. tom. ii. pp. 81, 82. Pfaffius, p. 453. Buddaeus, ibid. p. 83. Deylingius, Observ. Miscell. p. 249. Bud- Pfaffius, p. 453, &c. daeus, ibid. p. 84. tatem habeat, ea et in sacra coena praesens est; singulari tamen et incomprehensibili ratione, quae omnes imperfectiones excludit.' Pfaffius, p. 462. 'Praesentiam realem profitemur, carnalem negamus.' Puffend. sect. 92. Unicus itaque saltem isque verus et genuinus praesentiae realis superest modus, unio sacramentalis; quae 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 inysterio sumamus, manducemus, et bibamus.' Buddaeus, ibid. pp. 86, 87. 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 k. But great allowances should be made for the prevailing prejudices of education, and for a customary way of speaking or thinking on any subject. CHAPTER 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 shew 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 1?' We read, that it is God |