human traditions and sanctions are to be judged of; that the only true God is the object of all religious worship, and that the least show of devotion is not to be paid to angels, or saints, to crosses, or reliques, or to any images of wood, or stone, or the like. Both sides place all their hope of pardon and salvation in Christ alone; in his merits, and promises. Both agree, that the benefits purchased by Christ, and consequently eternal salvation, are not to be obtained but by faith and repentance, and that not by a dead faith, but such as works by love, and by repentance, that is sincere, and demonstrated by a life of good works. Both solemnize the sacraments of baptism, and the Lord's supper, according to the command of Christ, without those many inventions of men, by which these holy mysteries have been greatly abused and corrupted; and so conform themselves to the wholesome institution of Christ, by which his love is ratified to us. Both acknowledge, that prayers and praises, thanksgivings and almsdeeds, our bodies, and even our whole selves, are the true offerings and sacrifices which we are to present unto God, and renounce that unbloody sacrifice, which others have added, as impious and absurd. Both believe, that there are but two ends of all men, eternal glory and eternal misery, and reject that middle state of purgatory, which some, contrary to the Word of God, have devised merely to support their avarice and superstition. And in short, all the principles of the christian

faith, without exception, are received in common on both sides, together with an abhorrence of the errors and superstitions of popery. Nor, indeed, can it be imagined how persons, who seriously consider these things, and are suitably affected, with the importance of them, can be satisfied to break the bond of fellowship, and refrain from worshipping God together, upon account of some few and trivial differences about things that are obscure.

Such is their agreement; in comparison of which, as is now evident, and may easily be proved, their disagreement is small and inconsiderable. We shall not stay here, to take notice of some small differences in ritual matters, as about the use of tapers, images, confession, and exorcism in baptism, which are not the same every where, and ought to be no obstacle to a hearty union; for every church may enjoy its own particular usages, and the observation of these things be left at liberty, and not be obliged to a constant invariable form herein, as is acknowledged in the confessions of both sides; nor shall we touch upon some less differences in matters of opinion, which are either disputes about words only, or peculiar tenets of private divines rather than of whole churches; or, it may be, only consequences drawn from some principles, which are by no means to be charged on the churches themselves. All these things we shall pass over for the present, and briefly give our judgment, and that with freedom

and a desire to promote peace, concerning three principal controversies only, which seem to be all that are of any moment, and which alone use to be regarded in this matter.

The first question, therefore, is, Whether the body of Christ be truly and substantially present in the eucharist?

Though this at first sight may seem to be a controversy of very great moment, yet, if we look more narrowly into it, and consider what is granted on both sides, we shall have different apprehensions of it; for both sides grant, that the bread and wine are truly present, and continue all the time of the celebration; and, therefore, are not converted or transubstantiated into the body of Christ. On the other hand, both sides agree that Christ is truly present, yea, that his body and blood are truly exhibited, and are so far present as the nature of a sacrament requires. They both agree, that the body and blood of Christ are not present in a gross and sensible manner, so as to be included in that place; that they are not present after the manner of bodies, but after the manner of spirits, or in a spiritual manner; yea, are no more nor less present than as the nature and end of a sacrament require, and therefore only in a sacramental manner, which is an expression admitted and used on both sides. Further, both sides equally condemn the abuses and superstitions of the Church of Rome, as transubstantiation, the

sacrifice of the mass, withholding the cup from the laity, the procession, elevation, and adoration of the host. Finally, both sides are fully satisfied that bodily eating, such as is performed by good and bad men alike, does not avail us to salvation, but only that which is performed by faith. To which purpose one might bring a plain testimony from Luther,* and a no less remarkable one from Brentius ;† which, for brevity's sake, we omit. What difference does now remain? Not any concerning the presence itself; for both sides confess, if we would speak accurately, that the body of Christ is only so far present as the nature and end of the sacrament require. All the difference, therefore, is concerning the manner of his presence, one side contenting themselves with believing such a sort of presence as is plain and easy to be conceived, and agreeable to the style of scripture, the other imagining that Christ is present in some wonderful and incomprehensible manner, which to the former seems to be of no manner of use, and attended with unsurmountable difficulties, and therefore they cannot admit of it. This is the whole subject of difference; and what there is in this that affects the foundation of faith in the least, we cannot see, or what should hinder such persons from bearing with one another, till God

* In Catechismo minori.

+ In Syngrammate Suevorum; tum in exegesi in Joannem.

grant greater light to those who are under a mistake in the matter.

Neither is there any greater weight in that other question, which arises out of the former, concerning the person of Christ, Whether the divine perfections, such as omnipresence, omnipotence, and the like, are communicated to his human nature? For each side owns all, that is important in this matter, namely, the two natures of Christ, and the union of both, to be without any change, or division, or mixture of either; that the properties of both natures are ascribed to Christ; and, finally, that this mystery of godliness, concerning "God manifest in the flesh," is a thing very sublime, far above the comprehension of men. Other things, which remain doubtful, are so obscure in themselves, and come to little more than a debate about words, that it must be a very hard case, as that excellent man and divine, John Lewis Fabricius,* has observed, and proceed from great want of charity, if persons, who do not exactly agree in such things, cannot regard each other as brethren notwithstanding.

There remains a third controversy, concerning predestination; a matter that was never brought into dispute in Luther's time, nor many years after, but seems to have broke out first in the quarrel between Zanchy and Marbachius, about the year 1561. However, Zanchy did not deny a general will in God

* In Meditatione circa Personam Christi.