Ghost." I need not say that not a vestige of this mummery is to be found in the New Testament. Confirmation is retained in the Church of England, but it is divested of these superstitious additions, and is not considered as a sacrament. At a certain period children who have learned the catechism, appear before the bishop, and renew their baptismal engagements; when the bishop prays, that God, who has regenerated them by water and the Holy Ghost, and given unto them the forgiveness of all their sins, would strengthen them, and increase in them the manifold gifts of his grace. He then lays his hands upon them, and offers up another prayer to the same effect. It may be justly objected, that the ceremony itself is superstitious, being entirely of human institution; that the qualifications are superficial, as any person may see by perusing the trifling catechism which the young people are required to learn; that it proceeds upon the supposition that they are all already the children of God; that while it assumes what in many cases is false, it is calculated to foster an ill-founded persuasion of the favour of God; and that, having been so grossly abused in the Church of Rome, it should have been entirely laid aside by a Protestant Church, as it has manifestly no claim to an apostolical origin. Únhappily, the Church of England thinks herself adorned, when she wears some of the rags of popery.

The second spurious sacrament, is penance or penitence. In the New Testament, Christians are commanded to "confess their faults one to another;" but not a word is said about confession to a priest. In the early ages of the church, a public confession of their sins was required from those who were guilty of great offences, particularly of apostasy; and this was a necessary step to their restoration to the fellowship of the church, from which they had been excluded. This practice being found inconvenient, private confession was introduced; and penitents were required to come to the bishop, or to a priest appointed for the purpose. It would be tedious to trace all the changes which took place in this part of ecclesiastical discipline; and to show how the penance enjoined upon offenders was made private, as well as their confessions; how instead of penance prayers were substituted, so many prayers for example, instead of so many days of fasting; and how the rich were permitted to purchase an exemption, by giving alms to the poor and the church. It is sufficient to observe, that in the Church of Rome auricular confession is established; that is, every member of that church is required to make confession to a priest at least once a year. In doing so, he is bound to act candidly and freely, to conceal nothing, but to make known to the confessor all the sins which he has committed since he last appeared before him, and even the secret thoughts of his heart. It is easy to see that this institution invests the clergy with an uncontrolled power over the laity; for nothing gives one man a firmer hold of another, than his knowledge of such parts of the conduct of the other as he should most anxiously wish to conceal. There is a security, indeed, provided in the secrecy which is enjoined upon confessors, who are forbidden under the severest penalty to reveal any thing which has been disclosed to them; but still the reflection that the penitent has deposited in the bosom of the priest matters upon which his honour, and perhaps his life, depends, must retain him in a state of absolute subjection to him. It is the business of the priest to ascertain whether the person is penitent; and here a distinction is made between contrition, or sorrow for sin arising from the love of God, and attrition, arising from an inferior cause, as the loss which he has sustained, the shame which he has incurred, or the danger to which he has exposed himself. To a man who takes the Scripture as his guide, it would seem that the latter was not repentance at all; but in the Church of Rome, either the one or the other is sufficient. There remains the satisfaction or penance enjoined upon the penitent, which * James v. 16. †Concil. Trident, Sessio xiv. De Penitentia, cap. iv.

VOL. II.-47.

Of

consists in fasting, but rendered as easy as possible; in repeating a number of prayers, which it seems Papists consider as a punishment; or in some other thing which may be performed without a single sentiment or feeling of piety The sacrament of penitence consists, like every other sacrament, of two parts the matter and the form. The matter is the confession of the penitent to the priest, his contrition, and his satisfaction. The form is in these words pronounced by the priest, "I absolve thee," &c.* You will observe to what a wretched shift Papists are driven to make out a sacrament. There is no visible sign in this sacrament, but words and feelings of the mind; and the performance of certain acts is, with palpable absurdity, converted into the matter of it. Prayer might be made the matter of a sacrament with equal propriety. The form is impious and blasphemous; and when a worthless priest presumes to give absolution, we may indignantly say, "Who can forgive sins but God?" The whole is comparatively a modern invention, and is no more entitled to be accounted an ordinance of Christ, than the feat of a mountebank, or the trick of a juggler. The third sacrament is called the sacrament of orders, because it relates to the consecration of the different orders of office-bearers in the church. those in the Roman hierarchy there are seven,-porters or door-keepers, readers, exorcists, acolytes, sub-deacons, deacons, and priests. To these some add an eighth, the order of bishops; but others consider it not as a distinct order, but as a higher degree of the priesthood. As Jesus Christ has appointed certain persons to perform the public offices of religion, so there is a prescribed form of setting them apart, which we learn from the practice of the Apostles. They ordained ministers and deacons by prayer, and the imposition of hands. This was the simple form used by them, and it continued for a long time to be observed without any superstitious addition. If, in the first age, the imposition of hands was accompanied with the communication of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, it simply denoted, after miracles had ceased, the designation of the person; and prayer was offered up for the divine blessing upon him and his labours. In this manner he was devoted to God, and received authority to preach the gospel and administer the sacraments, or to care for the poor and take part in the government of the church, according to the nature of the office with which he was invested. In process of time, when men began to corrupt the ordinances of the gospel, under the pretext of adorning them and rendering them more august, various ceremonies were introduced, by which the original simplicity of the form was destroyed. In the Church of Rome, the plan was adopted of delivering to a priest the sacred vessels, the paten and the chalice, or the plate and the cup, and accompanying this action with certain words empowering him to celebrate mass, and offer sacrifice to God; and thus they have contrived what they deem the essential parts of a sacrament. હૈ In the ordination of a priest, the matter is the vessels which are delivered to him, and the form is the pronouncing of these words, "Take thou authority to offer up sacrifices to God, and to celebrate masses both for the dead and for the living, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." You will observe that this sacrament is wholly a human invention; men have contrived both the matter and the form, for of neither is there the slightest vestige in the New Testament. It rests entirely upon the decrees of popes and popish councils, who have no more power to appoint new means of grace, and new seals of the covenant, than the first person whom we shall meet in the streets. There is nothing which bears any resemblance to a sacrament in the apostolical form of ordination. Prayer is a simple act of religious worship; and the imposition of hands is no more a sacramental action in this case, than it was in the performance of miracles, when it was occasionally, but not uniformly used.

* Concil. Trident. Sess. xiv. cap. iii.

The fourth spurious sacrament is marriage. It may excite surprise that any person, possessed of common sense, should have ever thought of giving this name and office to a civil contract; for in this light it may surely be considered, although it was instituted by God himself. Civil government is also his institution, but we do not therefore look upon it as a religious ordinance. The celebration of marriage in this country, by the ministers of religion, does not alter its nature. This is an accidental circumstance, not at all necessary to its validity; and the union would be as firm and as holy, if the law, to which it belongs to regulate the form, should appoint marriage to be celebrated by the magistrate. You may also be curious to know how Papists have contrived to make a sacrament out of marriage, as it does not readily occur to us that it furnishes the essential parts. This business has caused no little perplexity to them; but they have finally rested in this determination, that the matter of the sacrament is the consent of the parties, and the form, the words or sign by which their consent is expressed. Here, then, is a sacrament, in which something that cannot be seen or felt or heard, is the matter, namely, the inward consent of the mind; and consequently an external sign, which is indispensable to every sacrament, is wanting. With respect to the form, it consists in words, as in the other sacraments; but, whereas in those they are pronounced by the priest, in this they are pronounced by the parties. Marriage is therefore an anomalous sacrament, for it is made and celebrated exclusively by the persons who receive it. It is impossible to conceive a more complete mass of absurdity. That cannot be a sacrament which is not even an ordinance of religion, and is not peculiar to the members of the church. It was originally instituted for the human race in general, and all men have an equal right to it. The marriages of Jews, and Heathens, and Mahometans, are as valid as those of Christians. Papists plead that the Scripture calls marriage a sacrament; for, where Paul, speaking of it, says, This is a great mystery, ,"* the Vulgate reads, "This is a great sacrament." But I have accounted for this translation, by showing you, that anciently sacramentum was used as equivalent to μvornpiov. It is evident that nothing more can be inferred from the passage, than that marriage is an emblem of the union between our Saviour and his followers; and perhaps not even so much is intended, for the Apostle seems to confine the words to this union alone, and to put us on our guard against thinking that he is speaking of marriage, when he immediately adds, "But I speak of Christ and the church." The mystery is the mystical union.

66

The last spurious sacrament of the Church of Rome is extreme unction. It is called unction, because the person who receives this sacrament is anointed with oil; and extreme unction, because it is administered in articulo mortis, when he is understood to be at the point of death. The matter is olive oil, which has been blessed by a bishop; and the form consists in the application of this oil to the five senses, with these words: "By this sacred unction, and his most tender mercy, may God pardon every sin which thou hast committed, by seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and touching." The oil is put upon the different parts of the body, as the name of each is enunciated. The person is understood to receive the remission of his sins, and to be prepared to enter into heaven, after having undergone a complete purification in purgatory. If extreme unction were, indeed, an institution of Christ, it would be invaluable as a sure passport to immortality; but if it be a human device, what can we say, but that, to those who depend upon it, it must prove a passport to the place of darkness and sorrow? For this sacrament, as well as for marriage, Papists plead Scripture, but with equal want of success. The passage to which they appeal, is in the Epistle of James: "Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him * Ephes. v. 32. † Concil. Trident. Sessio xiv. de Extrema Unctione, cap. i

with oil in the name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save the sick."* Those who imagine that these words favour the sacrament of extreme unction, allow themselves to be carried away by a sound without any regard to the sense. It is obvious that the two things are totally different. The anointing of James was miraculous, or a sign accompanying a miracle, which, from the following words concerning the twelve disciples when they were sent forth by our Lord, seems to have been frequently used in the apostolic age: "And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them." But, although the Church of Rome still claims the power of working miracles, we know that the pretension is absolutely false; and besides, it is not alleged that there is any miracle in the present case. The design of anointing a sick person in the days of the Apostles, was to restore him to health; the design of the popish anointing, is to prepare him for death. The one, when accompanied with faith, saved the sick; but the other is not administered till all hope of recovery is gone. It is certain that, although oil was used after the days of the Apostles on various occasions, and was, in particular, applied to the sick, it was not till a late period that the sacrament of extreme unction was devised by the Schoolmen, and the Council of Trent established it by law: "If any man shall say that extreme unction is not truly and properly a sacrament, instituted by Christ our Lord, and promulgated by the blessed Apostle James, but is only a rite received from the Fathers, or a human figment; let him be accursed."

Regardless of the fulminations of the antichristian church, we reject all these sacraments as the devices of impious men; and adhering to the word of God as the sole rule of our faith and practice, we receive only the two sacraments which our Lord and Saviour has instituted, Baptism and the Holy Supper.

LECTURE LXXXVIII.

ON THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM.

Baptism, the Rite of Admission to the Church.-Difference between the Baptisms of John and Christ.-Application of Water Necessary.-Certain Popish additions to the Rite.Mode of Applying the Symbol.-Immersion not Necessary.-Who may be Baptised.— Baptism of Infants Vindicated.

I Now proceed to consider the two sacraments of the Christian Church, which alone are worthy of attention and have a claim to be observed with devout reverence, because they alone are of Divine institution. I begin with Baptism, by which we are initiated into the fellowship of the Church, and which, in the order of dispensation, precedes the Lord's Supper; none having & right to the holy table but those who have been previously purified by the washing of water and by the word.

It has pleased God, under both dispensations, to institute an external sign of admission into the church, and of the participation of the blessings of the covenant. From the days of Abraham to the coming of Christ, the sign was circumcision; but as it implied an obligation to obey the law of Moses, which is now repealed, it is laid aside, and baptism is substituted in its room. After his resurrection, Jesus gave the following commission to his disciples: "Go * James v. 14. † Mark vi. 13. Sessio xiv. de Extrema Unctione, can. i.

"John

ye therefore, and teach" or make disciples of "all nations-uantevoate-Havta Ta Ovn-baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you and lo! I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world."* Baptism had been previously administered to those who acknowledged him as the Messiah, and desired to be admitted into the number of his followers; not, however, by himself, but by his disciples, as we learn from this passage in John: "When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,) he left Judea, and departed again into Galilee."t We cannot, therefore, consider the ordinance as new, when he gave a commission to the Apostles prior to his ascension; but it then received a more exten. sive application, as they were authorized to administer it to men of every nation. Baptism was administered also by John his forerunner; and that which is now practised is commonly accounted a continuation of it. But although they resemble each other in the external sign, and the mode of applying it, there are some respects in which they materially differ. baptized his disciples into the faith of the Messiah as to come; we are baptized into the faith of him as actually come. The baptism of John was evidently designed to serve a temporary purpose, in common with all the other parts of his ministry; the baptism of Christ is to continue to the end of the world. The one did not properly belong to the Christian dispensation, but was preparatory to it; the other is an ordinance given by our Saviour to his church, to supply the place of circumcision. Christian baptism is administered in the name of the persons of the Trinity; whereas we have no evidence that the Divine Persons were explicitly recognized in the baptism of John. From these considerations, it appears that the two ordinances differ so much in their form, in their design, and in their relation to the present dispensation, that they may be regarded as perfectly distinct, and consequently, that a person who had been baptized by John might have been baptized again by an Apostle." If this reasoning is just, we are at no loss to understand a passage in the Acts, which has caused no small perplexity to commentators, and about which they have been much divided in sentiment. Speaking of some men who had received only the baptism of John, it says, that when they were more fully instructed by Paul, "they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." It seems unquestionable that they were rebaptized, and the reason was, that the baptism of John, and that of Christ, were different ordinances.

It is an opinion adopted by not a few, that our Lord borrowed this rite from the Jews, among whom it was customary to baptize proselytes, whether male or female, by immersing the whole body in water. Men view subjects in different lights, according to their habits of thinking; but I confess, that to me it seems highly improbable that he would adopt one of the most solemn ordinances of his religion from the corrupt church of Judea, and found it upon a practice manifestly superstitious, which they had added without authority to the commandment of God. It is altogether incredible that, while he condemned their vain traditions and observances, he would embody one of these in his own institute, and thus counteract the effect of his reproofs. No mention is made of the baptism of proselytes in the works of Philo and Josephus, and the first notice of it is found in the Mishna and Gemara; of which the one was composed at the earliest date in the second century, although learned men in general bring it much farther down, and the latter is so late as the seventh. There is no evidence that the practice existed in the time of our Saviour, and

Matth. xxviii. 19, 20.

* Dick's Lectures on the Acts, p. 406. 2d Edit.

† John iv. 1-3.

§ Acts xix. 5.