ries. They disown assumption of the elements into the humanity of Christ, as likewise augmentation, and impanation1; yea, and consubstantiations, and concomitancy1: 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 (hoc 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. 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. 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 paste," 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 66 - -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." Again: "You, being dead in your "sins-hath he quickened, having forgiven you all tres 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 absolute, (for both are absolute in their kind, being founded in absolute grants,) but in one case, the party may live long enough to need a new grant; in the other, he is set beyond all danger or doubtfulness. Present justification amounts to a present right or claim to heaven upon Gospel terms, and presupposes the performance of every thing stipulated so far, and is therefore absolute for the time being'. As to future perseverance, because it is future, it comes not into present account, and so is out of the question, as to present justification m, or present stipulation. Perseverance is conditionally stipulated, that is to say, upon the supposition or condition that we live longer: but the question concerning our present claim to heaven upon the Gospel terms, turns only upon what is present, and what serves for the time being. A present right is not therefore no right, or not certain for the present, because of its being liable to forfeiture, on such and such suppositions, afterwards. This I observe here, to remove the prejudices which some may possibly conceive against the very notion of present remission, (either in the Sacraments or out of them,) only because it is not absolute in every view, and upon every supposition, but upon the present view only, or in the circumstances now present. Indeed, remission of sins is a kind of continued act of God towards good men, often repeated in this life, and more and more confirmed the more they improve; ascertained to them, against all future chances, at their departure hence, but not finally, or in the most solemn form conferred, before the day of judgment. 1 Hic dico, quod notandum est, quemvis justificatum præstitisse integram fœderis Evangelici conditionem, pro statu in quo est. Quisquis fide in Christum di' ¿yáæns ivegyovμívḥ præditus est, is eo momento præstitit integram fœderis Evangelici conditionem quæ, in statu in quo est, ab ipso requiritur, etiamsi jugis et pia operatio adhuc desit: proinde ex fœdere illo justificatur, atque ad omnia fœderis ejusdem beneficia jus habet. Bull. Resp. ad Animad. iii. sect. vi. p. 539. Hæc conditio jugis operationis in evangelico fœdere non absolute requiritur, sed ex hypothesi; nempe si Deus vitam largitus fuerit. Bull, ibid. |