ment 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 d; 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 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 d Rom. vi. 1, 2.

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 meanwhile, 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 e.

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 certain indulgence for all kinds of sins, were they ever so great; (as for instance, the crucifying of our Lord f;) and of any number, were they ever so many, or ever so often repeated, provided only they were sincerely repented of, and forsaken at the font they were from that instant remembered no more, either in God's account or the Church's. But as to sins committed after Baptism, if of a grievous kind, (as idolatry, murder, adultery,) or less grievous, but often repeated, or much aggravated by the circumstances, they were

judged too heinous to be pardoned in the Eucharist, and the men too vile to be admitted to communion ever after h Not that the church presumed to limit the mercies of God, who searches the hearts, and who could judge of the sincerity of the repentance of such persons: but Church governors of that time would not take upon them to promise such persons peace, upon any professions of repentance whatever, but left them to God only. In short, though they would have given Baptism to any the wickedest Pagans whatever, upon proper professions of repentance, yet they would not give the Eucharist to such as had sinned in like manner after Baptism which shews that they made some difference between baptismal remission and the eucharistical one, in respect of certainty and extent. When the severity of discipline afterwards relaxed a little, and communion was allowed to all penitents at the hour of death, if not sooner, yet they did not then pretend to be certain that God would absolve the persons, like as they judged with respect to baptismal absolution. Nevertheless, if we distinguish justly upon the two cases, it does not from hence follow, that they thought of any proper disparity between the two absolutions in themselves considered; but strictly speaking, the disparity was supposed to lie in the different malignity of sins committed before Baptism and after. The remedies might be conceived of equal force, other circumstances being equal; but the malady was not the same in both cases.

Another difference between baptismal and eucharistical remission was understood to lie here, that the one perfectly wiped out all past sins; the other, though it healed them, yet left some kind of blots or scars behind iti: on account whereof, many who were admitted to lay communion were yet considered as blemished in some measure, and not fit to

h See Bingham, book xviii. cap. 4. sect. 4.

1 See Bingham, book xviii. cap. 4. sect. 6. Compare Marshall, Penit. Discipl. p. 111.

Vid. Cyrill. Hieros. Catech. xviii. sect. 20. p. 295. ed. Bened. Athanas. ad Serap. Ep. iv. n. 13. p. 705. Gregor. Nazianz. Orat. xl. p. 641.

be admitted afterwards to the sacred offices k. No crimes whatever committed before Baptism, and left at the font, were thought any bar or blot for the time to come; Baptism washed all away: but the case was different with respect to sins of a scandalous nature committed after Baptism; for neither repentance nor the Eucharist was conceived to wash off all stain. Hence some made a distinction, upon Psalm xxxii. 1, between perfect remission of sin in Baptism, and the covering it by penance and absolution1; that is, by the Eucharist. And others seem to have thought that sins committed before Baptism were perfectly blotted out, as it were, from the book of God's remembrance, as if they had never been, but that sins of any grievous kind committed afterwards, though pardoned upon repentance, should yet be recited, or purged, at the great day m: a conjectural presumption, which I will not be bold to warrant.

However, in the whole, it may be admitted, upon the principles of reason, Scripture, and antiquity, that the remission in the Eucharist is not in every respect equal, or similar to the remission in Baptism, because of the different circumstances nevertheless it is certain, in the general, that there is ordinarily remission in both, as there is ordinarily an application of the merits of Christ's all-sufficient sacrifice in both.

I must now further add, that the objection made against repeated forgiveness, upon repeated repentance in the Eucharist, would have been of much greater force than it really now is, were it not that this holy Sacrament appears to have been appointed as the strongest security against those very abuses which men are prone to make of the Divine mercy. The two principal abuses are, first, the putting off repentance from day to day, fixing no time for it, as it is thought to be

Orig. contr. Cels. lib. iii. sect. 51. p. 482. ed. Bened.

1 Orig. in Psalm. xxxi. p. 645. Eusebius in Psal. xxxi. p. 120; in Psal. lxxxiv. p. 525.

S

m Vid. Clemens Alex. Strom. iv. num. 24. pp. 633, 634; Strom, vi. p. 795. Cyrill. Hierosol. Catech. xv. n. 23. pp. 236, 237.

left at large, and to be acceptable at any time; next, the resting content with a lame, partial, or unsincere repentance: against both which the appointment of this holy Sacrament is a kind of standing provision, the best, it may be, that the nature of the case would admit of. To those who are apt to procrastinate, or loiter, it is an awakening call, obliging them the more strongly to fix upon some certain and determinate time for repentance: and to the superficial penitents, it is a kind of solemn lecture of sincerity and carefulness, under pain of being found guilty of trampling under foot the body and blood of Christ. And while it promises forgiveness to all that worthily receive, and to none else, it becomes a strong incitement to break off sins without delay, and to be particularly watchful and careful for the time to come. So far is the doctrine of remission in the Eucharist (when justly stated) from being any encouragement to sin, that it is quite the reverse, being indeed one of the strongest encouragements to a good life. But I proceed.

3. Socinus and his followers appear much offended at the doctrine of remission in the Eucharist, (for fear, I presume, of admitting any merits of Christ's death,) and they labour all possible ways to run it down; sometimes misrepresenting it, sometimes ridiculing it, and sometimes putting on an air of grave reasoning. Socinus himself was content to throw a blunt censure upon it, as bordering upon idolatry". An injurious reflection, for which there was no colour; unless he first wilfully perverted the meaning, and falsely charged the Protestants with the opus operatum.

Smalcius plainly put that false construction upon it, and then took the handle to ridicule it, as if any remission could be extracted from the use of such common things as the bare

Plerique ipsorum in hisce quidem regionibus credunt se, illa digne obeunda, suorum peccatorum veniam et remissionem consequi: haud valde diversum ab eo

quod Papistae sentiunt, qui eam propterea in sacrificium pro vivis et mortuis transformarunt, et idolum quoddam ex ea fecerunt.' Socin. Quod. Regn. Polon. p. 701.