will be just, though the premises may be faulty; and they who see no faultiness in those premises are evidently bounden to regulate their actions in conformity to the conclusions. As to the word paradox, it is ambiguous: sometimes, it signifies a proposition, which though at first view improbable, is in reality true; and sometimes it signifies a specious and singular appearance of truth in that which is false. I know not which of these two meanings were in the mind of Bishop Taylor when he wrote the passage which I just now quoted to you; nor would any advantage arise from the determination of the question. It is enough for us to say with our Church, that Christ has ordained two Sacraments only as necessary to salvation; and to leave our Christian brethren to their own faith about the five other Sacraments, upon which our Protestant forefathers have not propounded to us any decisions, nor indeed intimation, even in a catechism, which was evidently prepared to draw strong lines of distinction between ourselves and the Romanists. They, who hold two Sacraments only, and they who hold seven, have a common, a serious, a sincere belief in the same Almighty God, as their Creator and Preserver-in the same ever blessed Son of God, as their Redeemer-in the same holy Spirit, as their Sanctifier-in the same future state of rewards and punishments, and in every Sacrament, which they think obligatory, they have the same common desire to discharge their duty and to secure their salvation.

It pains me to remember the reproachful lan

guage, which Romanists and Protestants hold concerning each other upon their religious observances.

Reginaldus, Bishop Taylor says very truly, has this position-" A worshipper satisfies the Church by the external deed, nor does the Church require any thing else." Tolet says, the Bishop adds, that "the precept of hearing mass (i. e. the sacramental mass) is not to intend the words, but to be present at the sacrifice, though the words be not so much as heard, and they that think the contrary, think so without any probable reason."*

But whatsoever may have been the extravagance of particular doctors, the vigilance and perhaps hostility of Christian writers have not furnished them with any decree to this effect, sanctioned by the authority of General Councils, or Popes, or National Churches; and would it be consistent, my brethren, with common justice, or common sense, to make the Church of England answerable for all the irrational, all the unscriptural, all the fanatical, all the superstitious opinions, which may have been broached by zealots and dogmatists among the members of that Church?

Has it not been objected more than once to some English theologians, that they talk mystically when they maintain that there is an immediate, actual, special forgiveness of sins granted to the faithful communicants, and an immediate, actual infusion of Divine grace, such as is peculiar to this rite, and internally felt by the worshipper? But have these

* See Bp. Taylor's Dissuasive from Popery, p. 110.

members of our Church always been successful in their reasoning from Scripture, that such forgiveness has been promised, or in their appeal to experience, that such grace has been secretly but sensibly infused?

Among other benefits of Christ's Passion, the Church has certainly not specified any such communication of grace as some of our brethren would ascribe to the holy Communion; it gives no assurance that our sins are then and there pardoned, nor supplies any proof that our minds are then and there perceptibly more illuminated with grace than we find them to be in other seasons of inward meditation or external worship. Upon subjects so important to our spiritual improvement and future welfare, we must require much stronger evidence than the far-fetched refinements of any theologian, or the peremptory decision of any council. To me then, I confess, they who hold the opinion just now mentioned upon the peculiar grants of pardon, and the peculiar gifts of the spirit, fall into mysticism, for which the Church does not appear to me responsible. What is the language of the Church in our Communion Service? We desire God in his fatherly goodness to accept our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; we beseech him to grant, that we and all other believers may obtain the remission of our sins, not through the celebration of the Lord's Supper, but by the merits and death of Jesus Christ, and through faith in his blood. But no mention is made of remission of sins then obtained. We farther beseech him, that all who are partakers of the

may

Holy Communion be filled with his grace and heavenly benediction; but we are not told that the grace and the benediction are, at the moment, the appointed privileges of devout communicants, though in point of fact we by this, as well as every other exercise of piety, make more or less progress in Christian virtues. Most particularly, by giving thanks when we commemorate the death of Christ, our minds are more prepared to be thankful for all the other blessings of God, whether physical or not; we strengthen the general habit of gratitude; we feel it to be, not only a bounden, but a delightful duty.

Again, the supplications which the Church prescribes for grace and pardon have no alloy of mysticism, and they evidently imply that the increase or continuance of the one are future as well as present, and that the final attainment of the other is future only.

But the communication of Grace is a subject which deserves to be pursued, in order to check the extravagant notions of visionaries, and to show the real tenets of the English Church.

In the twenty-fifth article of the Church of England, it is said-" Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession; but rather, they be certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace, and God's good will towards us, by which he doth work invisibly in us, and by which he doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our faith in him.”

I allow that by the Sacrament, God doth work

invisibly in us, and doth both quicken and confirm our faith in him; yet this effect is not peculiar to the Sacrament; the same effect, in a greater or less degree, accompanies all good works, which, as we read in the twelfth Article, "spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith," and which are performed with a direct consciousness of intention to obey God. It accompanies all our acts of private and public devotion, when the heart is sincerely and warmly moved in common with those acts, the Sacrament is, so far, a sure witness and effectual sign of God's good will towards us, as to convince us at the moment, and after reflection, that we have been endeavouring to do what is pleasing in the sight of God, and that our endeavours will be approved by him.

In the Sacrament, and in all deeds of piety, God works within us invisibly, and we infer that he so works from the motives and goodly influence of the deeds themselves. I grant therefore the salutary efficacy of the Sacrament; but I am bounden to observe that such efficacy is not exclusively confined to such Sacrament, and that our warrant for believing such efficacy is to be found in experience and analogy, rather than in any specific and express testimony of the Scripture, that the Sacrament will bring with it such important advantage. They cannot be valued too highly- they cannot be desired too earnestly-they cannot be sought too frequently -they cannot be received too gratefully-they cannot be contemplated too seriously-they cannot be improved too diligently.