that it becomes every communicant to think humbly of himself, leaning to the modest side; it is very proper to refer the whole to God's clemency, entreating him to accept of us as meet partakers, and thereupon to grant us the remission we came for. For though it is an undoubted truth, that the Eucharist confers remission to the faithful communicant, yet it is right to leave the determination of our faithfulness to God the searcher of hearts, and in the mean while to beg forgiveness at his hands. Add to this, that were we ever so certain that we are actually pardoned upon receiving the Eucharist, yet as remission is a continued act, and always progressive, (which I before noted,) it can never be improper to go on with our petitions for it, any more than to make use of the Lord's Prayer every hour of our lives. It was so used anciently, just after plenary remission: and in like manner we now make use of it, immediately after our having received the Communion; without the least apprehension that such usage interferes at all with the principle which I have been maintaining, as indeed it does not. Nothing is more frequent in the ancient Liturgies, than to ask forgiveness immediately after receiving, though the doctrine of present remission is fully expressed and inculcated in the same Liturgies °.

n Jerome's remark upon this case, when Baptism and the Eucharist went together, and perfect remission was supposed to have been just granted, is worth noting.

De Baptismatis fonte surgentes, et regenerati in Dominum Salvatoremstatim in prima communione corporis Christi dicunt: et dimitte nobis debita nostra, quæ illis fuerant in Christi confessione dimissa.- -Quamvis sit hominum perfecta conversio, et post vitia atque peccata virtutum plena possessio; numquid possunt sic esse sine vitio, quomodo illi qui statim de Christi fonte procedunt? Et tamen jubentur dicere, dimitte nobis debita nostra, &c. Non humilitatis mendacio, ut tu interpretaris; sed pavore fragilitatis humanæ, suam conscientiam formidantis. Hieronym. Dialog, adv. Pelag. lib. iii. p. 543.

• See the Clementine Liturgy quoted above, and compare Fabricius's ColJection, p. 120, 333. Renaudot's, vol. i. p. 51. vol. ii. p. 42, 152, 174, 212, 233, 253, 269, 447, 634. Mabillon's in Mus. Ital. vol. i. p. 281. Missal. Gall. p. 331. Liturg. Gallic. p. 300.

Enough hath been said to show, that our Communion Office supposes remission of sins to be conferred in the Eucharist. The same thing is directly and clearly asserted in our Homilies. "As to the number of Sacraments, "if they should be considered according to the exact sig"nification of a Sacrament, namely, for visible signs ex"pressly commanded in the New Testament, whereunto ❝is annexed the promise of free forgiveness of sins, and of、 ❝our holiness, and joining in Christ, there be but two,

namely, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord P." Here it is not only supposed that remission is conferred in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, but that it could not in strictness be reputed a Sacrament, if it were not so: so great a stress is there laid on this principle. Accordingly, afterwards in the same Homily, absolution is rejected as no Sacrament, having no such promise of remission annexed and tied to the visible sign: and Orders also is rejected, because it "lacks the promise of remission of sin." In another Homily, where the Lord's Supper is particularly treated of, it is observed, that therein "the favourable " mercies of God are sealed, the satisfaction by Christ "towards us confirmed, and the remission of sins esta"blished 9."

After these public, authentic evidences of the doctrine of our Church in this particular, it will be needless to add the concurring sentiments of our eminent Divines, all along from that time. But because the point has been sometimes contested, both abroad and at home, and diffi

P Homily ix. of Common Prayer and Sacraments, p. 299. Compare Cranmer, p. 46.

Homily on the worthy receiving, &c. part i. p. 378. The Reformatio Legum, of the same time, says thus: Eucharistia Sacramentum est, in quo cibum ex pane sumunt, et potum ex vino, qui convivæ sedent in sacra Domini mensa: cujus panis, inter illos, et vini communicatione, obsignatur gratia Spiritus Sancti, veniaque peccatorum, ad quam ex eo perveniunt, quod fide comprehendunt et percipiunt Christi sacrosanctum corpus, respectu nostræ salutis ad crucem fixum, et cruorem pro tollendis fusum nostris peccatis, ut Dei promissa palam ipsa loquuntur. De Sacrament. tit. v. c. 4. p. 29.

culties have been raised, it will be but fair and just to the reader, to set before him the utmost that has been pleaded on the contrary side, and to suggest, as briefly as may be, the proper solutions of the appearing difficulties.

Objections removed.

1. It has been objected, that "the Sacrament of the "Lord's Supper is not itself like Baptism, a rite appoint"ed for the remission of sins; but it is a commemoration "only of the all-sufficient sacrifice, which was once offer"ed for an eternal expiation ." To which I answer, 1. That supposing this Sacrament were not appointed at all for remission, it does not follow that it must be appointed only for commemoration; because it might be (as it certainly is) appointed in part, for sanctification also. 2. Supposing farther, that it is not completely equal to Baptism in point of remission, yet it does not follow that it may not confer remission in some measure, or to an inferior degree. 3. It is untruly suggested, that the Eucharist is only a commemoration of the all-sufficient sacrifice, since it most certainly is, as hath been proved, an application of that sacrifice to every worthy receiver: and since remission of sins is one of the fruits of that sacrifice, it must, it cannot but be allowed, that the Eucharist carries remission in it, more or less, and to some degree or other.

2. A second objection runs thus: "To imagine that "the Lord's Supper, which is to be repeated perpetually, "has such a promise annexed to it of taking away all "past sins, as Baptism had, which was to be administer"ed but once, is a dangerous and fatal error, because "such an opinion would be plainly an encouragement for

men to continue in sin, that the grace of forgiveness "might be perpetually repeated and abounds." In answer hereto, let but the reader put repentance instead of

r Dr. Clarke's Posth. Sermons, vol. iv. serm. vi. • Dr. Clarke, ibid. p. 134.

p. 133.

Lord's Supper, and then traverse the objection over again in his mind, if it be only to see whether the very same objection does not plead as strongly against repeated forgiveness upon repeated repentance, as against the same forgiveness upon repeated communion: for we never suppose any new forgiveness granted in the communion, but upon new repentance. What then have we to trust to, if the plain and comfortable Gospel doctrine of forgiveness (toties quoties) upon true repentance, shall be represented as a dangerous and fatal error, and an encouragement to continue in sins, that grace may abound? It may be true, that such merciful doctrine of forgiveness may carry some appearance of encouragement to sin: so do some other Gospel doctrines; or else St. Paul would have had no need to caution us against " continuing in sin, that grace "may abound:" but nevertheless, it would not only be great presumption, but a fatal error, to draw any such inference from the doctrine of repeated forgiveness upon repeated repentance. For what would have been the consequence, supposing that the rule had run, that if a man sins once, or twice, or a hundred, or a thousand times, and repent as often, he shall be forgiven? Would not many have been tempted to sin on, till they come very near to the utmost verge of forgiveness, before they would think of repenting to purpose? And what scruples might they not raise about the number of sins, or of repentance? And if any man should once go beyond the limits now supposed to be assigned, what would then remain but black despair, and a hardened resolution to continue in sin? Therefore Divine wisdom has mercifully fixed this matter upon a much better foot, namely, upon one plain rule, that as often as men sin, and truly repent, (without limitation, or number,) so often they shall be forgiven. When evil habits have much and long prevailed, repentance, however sincere, will hardly be completed at once but the ordinary method is, to repent again and

Rom. vi. 1, 2.

again, after every relapse, till by degrees a man gains the entire mastery over his appetites and passions. In this way, his relapses will grow less frequent, and evil habits less prevalent, and every new repentance will be stronger and stronger, till at length by God's grace, and his own hearty endeavours, he gets the victory, and becomes confirmed in all virtue and godliness. By this we may perceive the use and benefit of frequent forgiveness upon frequent repentances, in a degree suitable and proportionate; that sinners may never want encouragement to go on repenting more and more, after their relapses, and as often sealing their sincere repentances in the blessed Sacrament, to make them the more solemn and the more enduring. But, in the mean while, let sinners beware how they tempt the Divine goodness too far, by relapsing: for even repentance, as depending on Divine grace, is so far in God's hands, as well as pardon: and they who presume to sin often, because they may be often forgiven, are in a likely way to come to an end of forgiveness, before they make an end of sinning, and to be taken, at length, in their own snare ".

Notwithstanding what I have here said, with respect to eucharistical absolution, I would not be construed to mean, that there is no difference at all, in point of remission, between Baptism and the Eucharist: for I am aware that there is some difference, and perhaps considerable. I shall here draw from the ancients, and shall endeavour to point out the difference as clearly and exactly as I can. It was understood to lie in three things chiefly; the extent of the remission, and the certainty, and the perfection of it.

Baptism was conceived to amount to a plenary and cer

"Absit ut aliquis ita interpretetur, quasi eo sibi etiam nunc pateat ad delinquendum, quia patet ad pœnitendum; et redundantia clementiæ cœlestis libidinem faciat humanæ temeritatis: nemo idcirco deterior sit quia Deus melior est, totiens delinquendo quotiens ignoscitur. Cæterum, Finem evadendi habebit, cum offendendi non habebit. Tertullian. de Pœnit. c. vii. p. 126.