usque ad ipsius animæ exitum semper in peccatis fuit: sed tamen in ipsa hora suæ expirationis, quia sua mala confessus est, et culpam clamavit, misericordiam invenit: et Tecum in ipso die in paradiso fuit." 30

CHAPTER IX.

ET me now proceed, in this chapter, to of fer some general considerations,--which, although they may not be singly or alone of sufficient weight to determine the question which we have been discussing, are yet, as it seems to me, not altogether valueless in confirmation of what, I trust, has been shewn to be the teaching of the church of England upon absolution. We all know how satisfactory it often is to find that arguments from other sources support doctrines and statements which we are already prepared to receive; or, on the other hand to find, if difficulties may be suggested against one opinion, that they are less and fewer in number than may be produced against another opinion which we may be called upon to accept instead.

It is said that sacerdotal absolution is not necessary as a means of grace for the remission of sins, because remission is to be received in the sacrament of the Blessed Eucharist. As to its necessity, all through this work from time to time I have repeated my firm conviction that such absolution is not necessary

for remission of sins; in other words, that it is not necessary to our salvation. But, if I am asked to explain to what extent in individual cases it is not necessary, I should refuse to reply. It cannot but be the duty of every minister in the church of England to leave, as she has herself left, that question unanswered.

The Church in her ordinal speaking to those who are being admitted into "the holy office of priesthood," into that "high dignity and weighty charge," gives them power to forgive and to retain sins; - in her ritual she appoints a form of absolution, which, after hearing the confession of the penitent, they are to use; -she desires them to "move" the sick man to make a special confession, if he feel his conscience troubled ; --she invites all who have unquiet consciences to go to her ministers, and at their hands to receive by the ministry of God's holy word the benefit of absolution. Who then among us will attempt to distinguish, by laying down general rules, when men ought and when men ought not to avail themselves of this great privilege and means of grace which God and His Church offer them? Who among us will venture to nullify the exhortations which we are commanded to make, and the warnings which it is our duty constantly to press, by limiting the necessity of sacerdotal absolution? Our people have full liberty to resort to absolution or not; and, so far as the Church can say generally to each, with a safe conscience. On the other hand they are all invited, they are exhorted, they are to be moved, to confess in order to receive absolution. There the

Church of England, with most wise moderation, leaves the matter; there, as it seems to me, all her ministers should leave it also.

I cannot enter into any enquiry which could possibly do justice to the subject, how far the blessed eucharist is rightly to be regarded as conveying remission of sins to the truly repentant. It is obvious that, at least, it must not be so looked upon, as to do away with altogether, or even to interfere with, the due exercise and proper effects of the ordinance of absolution. The eucharist and absolution cannot both be "for the remission of sins," in such a sense as to clash, the one with the other. Nor do I remember that there is evidence that the church of England teaches us that the sacrament of the Lord's Supper was especially instituted for such a purpose. Let me not be misunderstood: I believe that in some most mysterious way, as a seal, a consummation, a perfecting, the holy eucharist is a cleansing of the soul; an assurance of remission; a confirmation of complete and full forgiveness. None can think otherwise who remember Whose that Body is, and Whose that Blood, Which then the penitent receives: but I shrink from a vain trying to ascertain by what means and in what manner, all this is so.1

It is not to be forgotten that the great commentators

1 The reader will recollect how the sacrament of baptism has been often spoken of in like man

ner, if I may say so, as being a partaking of the Body and the Blood of Christ.

-

from the first ages to the sixteenth century, S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, S. Jerome, S. Chrysostom, or Theophylact or again, in later days, de Lyra, and Hugo S. Charo, -do not connect the text in S. Matt. ch. xxvj. v. 28, with remission of sins in the sacrament of the eucharist. Nor, a circumstance perhaps which may have its peculiar weight with some persons, does Erasmus in his paraphrase; a work, at one time extensively circulated, under the sanction of high authority, among the people of the English church.

This last author says of the institution of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, commenting upon the verse alluded to; "Wherein the Lorde Jesus, deliuering his body wyllynly vnto death, and shedynge his bloude, went aboute to clense the synnes of the whole worlde, reconcylynge vnto God all men frely, whosoeuer wold professe this leage of the newe testamente. . . . But leaste so greate a benefyte myghte go out of mennes myndes, or leaste they myght forget the holy leage once entred, and the authoure of theyr healthe also, he dyd institute and ordayne that with often communion of the holy breade, and of the cup, the memory shuld be renewed amonge the professoures of the euangelicall lawe."

And, if it be enquired, what then is the object and effect of the eucharist, we shall not be at a loss to answer. Although an assurance of remission were, as it ought not to be, altogether put away from our thoughts, in connexion with that great sacrament, yet how manifold are the blessings of which it is the efficient