Jesus.' Which words contain the substance of what was anciently the appendage to the memorial. There was besides, in most of the old Liturgies 9, a particular petition added, that the angels might carry up our prayers to the high altar in heaven; and this also was inserted in King Edward's first Liturgy, but struck out at the first review. As to the altar in heaven, I shall have occasion to say more in a chapter below, and therefore pass it over here. As to the notion of angels conveying the prayers of the supplicants to the throne above, I know not whether it had any better grounds than the authority of the apocryphal book of Tobit, as Bucer observed s. It seems to have been originally a Jewish notion t; though a late learned writer chooses rather to derive it from the Platonic philosophy u: I think, improperly; for it will be hard to prove, that Plato was before Tobit, or before the book bearing his name. Besides that, the Pagans were more likely to borrow such things from Jews, than the Jews from them. But be that as it will, since the notion has no certain warrant in canonical Scripture, it was prudent to strike it out of our Church Offices. Upon the whole, though all human compositions must have their defects, more or less, I am persuaded, that our Communion Service, as it now stands, is as grave, and solemn, and as judicious, as any other that can be named, be it ancient or modern. It may want some things which were well inserted in other Offices; but then it has well left out several other things, which most Liturgies are rather burdened with, than benefited. But I return. As to the main point now in

hand, it is very plain from

Cp. Testamentum Levi, in Grab. Spicileg. tom. i. p. 159. a Elsner. in Graec. Testam. tom. ii. p. 117.

Of Tobit, see Prideaux's Connection, part i. p. 39. fol. edit. Fabric. Bibl. Graec. lib. iii. cap. 29. Dupin, Can. of the Old Test. p. 89.

all liturgies, and from all kinds of ancient testimonies, that the Christian world has all along believed, that the Spirit of God is invisibly present, and operates effectually in both Sacraments; as well to confer a relative holiness upon the outward symbols, as to convey the grace of sanctification to the faithful recipients. Therefore the Socinians stand condemned as to this article, by all churches, ancient or modern, as well as by Scripture itself, and the plainest reason: neither have they any plea to offer on that side, which carries so much as the face of a direct argument. I am aware, that they may have something to plead obliquely, while arguing against the existence, or personality, or divinity of the Holy Ghost, or against any ordinary operations from above upon the minds of men, to enlighten or sanctify them: and whatever they may have to plead in respect to those previous points, will remotely affect the present question. But it is not my business here, to run out into those preliminary inquiries, almost foreign to the particular subject I am upon, and fitter to make distinct and separate treatises, than to be brought in here. As to direct arguments, I can think of few or none at present, unless we may reckon that for one which charges our doctrine in this particular, as making the Sacraments charms and spells; an objection built upon manifest calumny or misconception, and looking more like buffoonery than serious argument, especially as worded by some of that side. One of them writes thus: "When St. Austin defined a sacrament to be the outward visible sign of an inward invisible grace or energy, the good Father should have considered, that this is a definition of a charm, not of a Gospel Sacrament: for a charm is a bare outward visible sign, that which has no natural or real agreement with the

The argument drawn against present benefits from the word remembrance has been obviated above, ch. iv. pp. 79, 80. I shall only hint further, that remembering, in this case, is not opposed to a

X

thing's being present, but to its being forgot, as spiritual and invisible benefits easily may, though near at hand all the time. Vid. Nourrii Apparat. tom. i. p. 411.

We attribute

effect. . . . They have turned the Gospel Sacraments into charms and spells z.' The same trifling impertinence might as justly be urged against Naaman's being healed of his leprosy by washing in Jordana; or against Hezekiah's being cured by a lump of figs b; or against the blind man's receiving sight by the means of clay and spittle and washing in the pool of Siloam c. We place no more virtue in the naked symbols, than in the meanest instruments whatever, which God may at any time please to make use of, and to let sanctify to high and holy purposes. Those instruments in -nottuj themselves do nothing: it is God that does all, in and through the appointed use of them. He that blasphemes or derides the certain workings of God, or of the Spirit of God, upon the souls or bodies of men, under the names of charms, spells, enchantments, or the like, (as the Jews derided our Lord's miracles,) seems to forget the reverence due to Divine Majesty, and the respect which we owe to high and holy things. But to put the kindest and most favourable construction we can upon the objection as here worded, it is charging St. Austin and all the primitive churches, and their followers, with what they are notoriously known, not only never to have taught, but constantly to have disclaimed. They never do attribute to the bare elements the works of grace, but constantly ascribe them to the powerful hand of God, working in or with the elements. If that be working by charms or spells, let any man tell us, what supernatural or preternatural works of God are not as justly liable to the same imputation.

If the purport of the objection be to reject all such Divine operations as we here suppose upon moral agents, as not consistent with human liberty; that is a more general question, previous to what we are now upon, and therefore in a great measure foreign to the point in hand. It is sufficient

Trinitarian Scheme of Religion, pp. 24, 25, printed in the year 1692.

a 2 Kings v. 14.

b

2 Kings xx. 7. Is. xxxviii. 21. • John ix. 7.

to say, that the general doctrine of grace is so fully established in the New Testament, that no Christian can consistently reject it. As to the manner of it, it is not for us to presume to explain it but we are certain it is wrought in a moral way, in a way consistent with moral agency and human liberty. We know the fact: we need no more. If any man will undertake to demonstrate a priori, that there can be no medium between irresistible impressions and none at all, or that God cannot sanctify, or purify, or enlighten the soul of man, in any degree, without making him a machine, he may perhaps deserve to be heard; but in the mean while Scripture, express Scripture, will deserve our attention, and will command the faith of every true disciple of Christ.

Some perhaps may think it an objection to what has been here pleaded, that grace is also promised, sometimes to prayer, sometimes to faith, and sometimes to hearing, and therefore is not peculiar to the Sacraments: for it has been suggested, that the spiritual eating of Christ is common to all places, as well as to the Lord's table d.' This I have touched upon before, and shall only add here, that we do not confine God's grace to the Sacraments; neither do we assert any peculiar grace, as appropriate to them only: but what we assert is, some peculiar degree of the same graces, or some peculiar certainty, or constancy, as to the effect, in the due use of those means f. And if the Divine graces, more or less, go along with all the Divine ordinances, well may they be supposed to go along with those, which are the most solemn and most exalted of any, and have also more of a federal nature in them; as has been hinted above 5, and will be proved at large in the chapter here following.

d Hales's Tracts, p. 57. See above, p. 210, &c.

Verbum et Sacramenta in eo conveniunt, quod ambo gratiam regenerationis offerant et exhibeant: sed quod nonnunquam

Sacramentis peculiariter adscribi videtur, id inde est, quod fides, in Sacramentis, hanc gratiam videat clarius, apprehendat fortius, teneat certius.'. Voss. de Sacram. p. 251. See above, p. 212.

CHAPTER XI.

Of the federal or covenanting Nature of the Holy Eucharist.

Ir is the prevailing doctrine of Divines, that the Service of the holy Communion carries in it something of a federal nature, is a kind of covenanting or stipulating act; not making a new covenant, but covenanting anew, confirming or renewing the stipulation before entered into at our Baptism. For the clearing of this important point, it will be proper, 1. To premise something of covenants in general between God and man. 2. To specify the ancient forms or methods of contracting under the Old Testament. 3. Το descend to the latter forms of doing the same thing under the New Testament, by the Sacraments thereunto belonging, Baptism and the Lord's Supper.

1. The Divine goodness and condescension is such, in all his dealings with mankind, that he considers always what is best for them, and may most help their infirmities. With these gracious views (while he is absolute Lord over them, and might issue out his sovereign commands to all, without admitting any mortal to contract for rewards, or to strike any league with him) he is pleased to enter into covenants with men, giving and taking assurances, and, as it were, binding both himself and them, in order to draw them the more strongly to him, and to engage them to look after their own everlasting happiness. Not that God thereby divests himself of his right over them, or that men have a right to refuse the covenant proposed to them, or would not be justly punishable for such refusal h: for indeed they are under a previous indispensable obligation to comply; and the refusing it would deserve very severe punishmenti. But

h See Puffendorf, Jus feciale Divinum, sect. xx. p. 92, &c. Lat. edit. p. 87. Engl. edit. Abp. Potter

on Ch. Gov. p. 12, &c.

i Matt. x. 14, 15; xxii. 7. Luke xiv. 21-24.