might as well be pleaded, that St. Paul must be present in person at every consecration; for ordinarily, when a man says we, he includes himself in the number. It must be owned, that it depends upon the disposition of every communicant, to render the previous consecration either salutary or noxious to himself: and if any man has a mind to call a worthy reception of the elements, a consecration of them to himself, a secondary consecration, he mayi; for it would not be worth while to hold a dispute about words. But strictly speaking, it is not within the power or choice of a communicant, either to consecrate or to desecrate the symbols, to make the sacrament a common meal, or otherwise: it is a religious and sacred meal even to the most unworthy; and that is the reason why such are liable to the judgment of God for abusing it : for if it were really a common meal to them, it would do them no more hurt, than any other ordinary entertainment. Holy things are fit for holy persons, and will turn to their nutriment and increase: but to the unholy and profane, if they presume to come near, the sanctified instruments do as certainly turn to their detriment and condemnation. There are proofs of this, in great abundance, quite through the Old Testament, and I need not point out to the reader what he may every where find.

One thing more I may note here in passing, for the preventing cavils or mistakes. When we speak of human benedictions, and their efficacy, we mean not that they have any real virtue or efficacy in themselves, or under any consideration but as founded in Divine promise or contract, and as coming from God by man. If the prayer of faith saved the sick, it was not properly the human prayer that did it, but God did it by or upon such prayer,

i Igitur non sacrificia sanctificant hominem, non enim indiget sacrificio Deus: sed conscientia ejus qui offert, sanctificat sacrificium, pura existens, &c. Iren. lib. iv. c. 18. p. 250.

N. B. Here, sanctifying means rendering salutary: not that that alone does it, but it is a condition sine qua non.

k James v. 15.

pursuant to his promise. In like manner, whatever consecration, or benediction, or sanctification is imparted in the Sacrament to things or persons, it is all God's doing; and the ground of all stands in the Divine warrant authorizing men to administer the holy Communion, in the Divine word intimating the effect of it, and in the Divine promise and covenant, tacit or express1, to send his blessing along with it.

3. The third and most material article of inquiry is, what the consecration of the elements really amounts to, or what the effect of it is? To which we answer, thus much at least is certain, that the bread and wine being "sancti"fied by the word of God and prayer m," (according to the Apostle's general rule, applicable in an eminent manner to this particular case,) do thereby contract a relative holiness, or sanctification, in some degree or other. What the degree is, is no where precisely determined; but the measures of it may be competently taken from the ends and uses of the service, from the near relation it bears to our Lord's person, (a Person of infinite dignity,) and from the judgments denounced against irreverent offenders, and perhaps from some other considerations to be mentioned as we go along.

For the clearer conception of this matter, we may take a brief survey of what relative holiness meant under the Old Testament, and of the various degrees of it. I shall say nothing of the relative holiness of persons, but of what belonged to inanimate things, which is most to our present purpose. The court of the temple was holy n, the

1 I say, tacit or express: because our Lord's declaring, and St. Paul's declaring what is done in the Eucharist, do amount to a tacit promise of what shall be done always. Wherefore the Socinians do but trifle with us, when they call for an express promise. Are not the words, "this is my body," &c. and " is it not the communion," &c. tantamount to a Divine promise of every thing we contend for? But this is not the place to explain that whole matter: thus much is evident, that what the word of prayer did once make the sacramental bread and wine to be, that it will always make it.

m 1 Tim. iv. 5.

n 1 Kings viii. 64.

temple itself more holy, and the sanctuary, or holy of holies, was still more so°: but the ark of God, laid up in the sanctuary, appears to have been yet holier than all. The holiness of the ark was so great, and so tremendous, that many were struck dead at once, only for presuming to look into it with eyes impure P: and Uzzah but for touching it (though with a pious intent to preserve it from falling) was instantly smitten of God, and died upon the spot 9. Whatever God is once pleased to sanctify by his more peculiar presence, or to claim a more special property in, or to separate to sacred uses, that is relatively holy, as having a nearer relation to God; and it must of course be treated with a reverence and awe suitable. Be

the thing what it will, be it otherwise ever so mean and contemptible in itself, yet as soon as God gives it a sacred relation, and, as it were, seals it with his own signet, it must then be looked upon with an eye of reverence, and treated with an awful respect, for fear of trespassing against the Divine majesty, in making that common which God has sanctified.

This notion of relative holiness is a very easy and intelligible notion or if it wanted any further illustration, might be illustrated from familiar examples in a lower kind, of relative sacredness accruing to inanimate things by the relation they bear to earthly majesty. The thrones, or scepters, or crowns, or presence-rooms of princes are, in this lower sense, relatively sacred: and an offence may be committed against the majesty of the sovereign, by an irreverence offered to what so peculiarly belong to him. If any one should ask, what is conveyed to the respective things to make them holy, or sacred? we might ask, in our turn, what was conveyed to the ground which Moses once stood upon, to make it holy ground? or what was

• The Rabbins reckon up ten degrees of such relative holiness. Vid. Deylingius, Observat. Miscellan. p. 546.

P1 Sam. vi. 19.

12 Sam. vi. 7. 1 Chron. xiii. 9, 10. r Exod. iii. 5.

conveyed to the gold which the temple was said to sanctifys, or what to the gift when the altar sanctified itt? But to answer more directly, as to things common becoming holy or sacred, I say, a holy or sacred relation is conveyed to them by their appropriation or use; and that suffices. The things are in themselves just what they before were " but now they are considered by reasonable creatures as coming under new and sacred relations, which have their moral effect; insomuch that now the honour of the Divine majesty in one case, or of royal in the other case, becomes deeply interested in them.

Let us next apply these general principles to the particular instance of relative holiness supposed to be conveyed to the symbols of bread and wine by their consecration. They are now no more common bread and wine, (at least not during this their sacred application,) but the communicants are to consider the relation which they bear, and the uses which they serve to. I do not here say what, because I have no mind to anticipate what more properly belongs to another head, or to a distinct chapter hereafter but in the general I observe, that they contract a relative holiness w by their consecration, and that is the effect. Hence it is, that some kinds of irreverence towards these sacred symbols amount to being "guilty "of the body and blood of the Lord," the Lord of glory; and hence also it was that many of the Corinthians, in the apostolical age, were punished as severely

• Matt. xxiii. 17.

t Matt. xxiii. 19.

u "When certain things are said to be holy or sacred, no moral quality "of holiness inheres in the things, only an obligation is laid upon men, to "treat them in such a particular manner: and when that obligation ceases, they are supposed to fall again into promiscuous and ordinary use.” Puffendorf, Law of Nature, ch. i. concerning moral entities.

66

w The ancients therefore frequently gave the title of holy, holy of the Lord, or even holy of holies, and the like, to the sacred elements. Testimonies are collected by Suicer, tom. i. p. 56, 62. Albertin. p. 345, 346, 376. Grabe, Spicil. tom. i. p. 343.

* 1 Cor. xi. 27.

for offering contempt to this holy solemnity, as others formerly were for their irreverence towards the ark of God: that is to say, they were smitten of God with diseases and deathy.

Enough hath been said for the explaining the general nature or notion of relative holiness: or if the reader desires more, he may consult Mr. Mede, who professedly considers the subject more at large. Such a relative holiness does undoubtedly belong to the elements once consecrated. The ancient Fathers are still more particular in expounding the sacerdotal consecration, and the Divine sanctification consequent thereupon. Their several sentiments have been carefully collected, and useful remarks added, by the learned Pfaffius a. It may be proper here to give some brief account of their way of explaining this matter, and to consider what judgment it may be reasonable to make of it. Mr. Aubertine has judiciously reduced their sentiments of consecration to three heads, as follows b: 1. The power of Christ and the Holy Spirit, as the principal, or properly efficient cause. 2. Prayers, thanksgivings, benedictions, as the conditional cause, or instrumental. 3. The words of our Lord, "This is my "body, this is my blood," as declarative of what then was, promissory of what should be always. I shall throw in a few remarks upon the several heads in their order.

1. As to the power of Christ and the Holy Spirit, (in conjunction with God the Father,) I suppose, the ancients might infer their joint operations in the Sacraments, partly from the general doctrine of Scripture relating to their joint concurrence in promoting man's salvation,

1 Cor. xi. 30.

› Mede's Works, p. 399, &c. and 823. Dissertationum Triga. Lond. A. D. 1653.

Pfaffius, Dissert. de Consecratione veterum Eucharistica, p. 355. Compare l'Arroque, Hist. of the Eucharist, part i. ch. 8. p. 65, &c.

b Albertin. de Eucharist. lib. i. c. 7. p. 34.

Matt. xxviii. 18, 19. John xiv. 16, 26. Rom. v. 5, 6. 1 Cor. xii. 4, 5, 6.

2 Cor.