be administered to such adults alone as, by a credible profession of faith, appear to be the people of God. But it is necessary to proceed farther, and to state that a credible profession gives a right to the sacraments only in the judgment of the Church; and that, in the sight of God, none have a right to them but believers and holy persons. Hence, the members of the Church are exhorted to examine themselves, to ascertain their state and character before they go to the holy table, "lest, coming unworthily, they eat and drink judgment to themselves."* As the sacraments of the new covenant ought not to be administered to any person who may not be presumed to be a saint; so, however, favourable the appearances are, if he who receives them is not a genuine Christian, he is an usurper of privileges to which he has no title. In all such cases, the sacraments are like seals affixed to a blank. Their declared meaning is unaltered; but in their present application they signify nothing. They do not, and cannot, confirm the blessings of salvation to the man who does not believe. What have they to do with the securities that the promises shall be performed, by whom the promises have not been embraced? What have they to do with the pledges of our Saviour's love, and of eternal redemption, whose affections are engaged by the pleasures of sin, and whose days are spent in the pursuits of the world?

Lastly, The efficacy of sacraments depends solely upon the Divine blessing, whether we consider them as channels in which grace is conveyed, or as means appointed to confirm the faith and promote the consolation of the people of God. This concluding observation relates to the Christian sacraments, with respect to which strange notions are maintained by the Church of Rome, in direct contradiction to the proposition now laid down. There are two opinions to which it is opposed; that the sacraments, when rightly administered, are effectual in themselves; and that, to the right administration, the intention of the administrator is necessary. Thus the Council of Trent has decreed: "If any man shall say, that the sacraments of the new law do not contain the grace which they signify, or do not confer grace upon those who do not oppose an obstacle to it, as if they were only external signs of grace or righteousness received by faith: let him be accursed." Again, "If any man shall say, that grace is not conferred by the sacraments of the new law themselves, ex opere operato, but that faith alone in the Divine promise is sufficient to obtain grace: let him be accursed." This barbarous phrase, opus operatum, which is utterly unintelligible without an explanation, signifies the external celebration of the sacraments. It has been defined by Popish writers to be the performance of the external work, without any internal motion; and sacraments have been said to confer grace ex opere operato, because, besides the exhibition and application of the sign, no good motion is necessary in the receiver. All that is required is, that no obstacle shall be opposed to the reception of grace, and the only obstacle is mortal sin. But as sins of this class are reduced by the Roman casuists to a very small number,—all others being accounted venial,-the exceptions to the efficacy of the sacraments which are made by this negative qualification, are quite inconsiderable. Thus the sacraments are converted into a species of magical charms, which work in some mysterious way, without the concurrence of the patient; and the exercise of the intellect and the will, of the rational and moral faculties of man, is excluded. I should think that, according to this doctrine, they would do as much good to the receiver when he is asleep as when he is awake. It is vain to ask any proof of this doctrine from Scripture, for none is to be found. It is vain to ask how its abettors can reconcile to philosophy and common sense the idea, that a material substance, by a particular mode of application, shal produce a spiritual effect upon the soul. It is one of the mysteries of the

1 Cor. xi, 29. †Sessio vii. De Sacramentis in genere, Canon vi. + Ibid. Canon viii

church which she cannot explain. If it shall be said, that God has so connected his grace with the sacraments, that it shall be infallibly communicated when they are administered; we have a right to demand some more proof than an assertion, that he has in this instance divested himself of his sovereign power over his own gifts, and committed the absolute disposal of them to the ministers of religion; or, that he has introduced into this part of religion a mechanical process, instead of the moral economy which prevails in all the other parts of it. The Gospel does not produce its effects ex opere operato, or by the mere sound of the words in our ears, but by the power of the Spirit opening the understanding and heart to receive it. What ground is there for supposing that the mode of operation is different in the sacraments? or, that here alone these words are not true, "Neither is he that planteth any thing, nor he that watereth, but God that giveth the increase?"* In opposition to this absurd and impious tenet, we maintain that sacraments do not work grace physically, as if they possessed some intrinsic energy; but morally and hyper-physically, as signs and seals which God accompanies with his blessing. The doctrine of our Church, as declared in its standards, is, that "the grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them," but "by the blessing of Christ, and the working of his Spirit."t

There is another error opposed to the proposition, that the efficacy of sacraments depends upon the blessing of God, which makes their efficacy and validity depend upon the intention of the administrator. The Church of Rome pronounces a curse upon any man who shall say, that "there is not required in the ministers who celebrate them, an intention to do what the church does." Now, the church not only goes through the external forms of the sacraments, but means that they should be true sacraments and should communicate grace to the receivers. If a priest have not this intention, the form only of a sacrament exists; the essence is wanting. Great disputes have arisen in the Church of Rome with respect to this intention; whether it should be an actual intention; formally arising in the mind at the time; whether a habitual intention will not suffice; or, whether it is not enough that it is virtual, that is, that the priest have formerly had this intention, and is disposed to have it, although from some cause he has it not actually at present. In one thing all are agreed, that, if the intention is wholly wanting, if the priest positively intends that the sacrament which he is celebrating shall not be a sacrament, it has no validity,-is a mere sign without the substance. In this case the child is not regenerated in baptism, as Papists suppose all children rightly baptized to be; and the bread and wine in the Eucharist are not converted into the body and blood of Christ, but continue what they were. It is not necessary that I should point out the gross impiety of a doctrine which subjects Divine institutions to the arbitrary pleasure of men, who have power to defeat the design of Jesus Christ in giving them to the church, and are constituted the sovereign dispensers of his grace. The priests of Rome have an absolute control over Omnipotence, and can exert it in the miracle of transubstantiation, or restrain it, according to their perverse inclinations. It was never pretended that the intention of the preacher is necessary to give efficacy to the word; and it is altogether arbitrary to suppose it to be necessary to the efficacy of the sacraments. As the latter were instituted by God and not by men, nothing besides his blessing can rationally be conceived to be requisite to accomplish their design, but the administration of them according to the prescribed form. The intention of the administrator has as little to do with the effect, as the intention of the physician has with the success of the medicine which he gives to his patient, or the intention of the husbandman 1 Cor. iii. 7. +Conf. xxvii. 3. Sh. Cat. Q. 91. + Con. Trid. Ses. vii. de Sac. in gen. can. xi. 2 H

VOL. II.-46.

with the fertility of the soil. God has not suspended our salvation upon the precarious volition of other men, over whom we have no power.

The consequences of this doctrine are perplexing and alarming in the highest degree to the members of the Church of Rome. As it is impossible to know the intention of their priests, they can never be certain that they have received any of the sacraments. It is possible that they have not been baptized and therefore cannot be saved. If an unbaptized person is made a priest, all his actions in that character are invalid; all the sacraments which he administers are vain ceremony. If he is a bishop, those whom he ordains are not priests; and if he is Pope, the bishops whom he consecrates have no more power than laymen. No Papist can tell whether the elements in the Eucharist have been transubstantiated or not; and, for aught that he knows, they are simple bread and wine, and in adoring them, he is upon his own principle guilty of idolatry. In short, according to the doctrine of intention, the Church of Rome may be no Church, and the Pope, the bishops, and the priests, may all be usurpers of offices to which they have no title. Let them relieve themselves

from this difficulty as they can; they have made the snare in which they are caught. We believe that the efficacy of a sacrament does not depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it, but upon the work of the Spirit and the word of institution."

LECTURE LXXXVII.

ON THE SACRAMENTS.

Consequences of the Popish Doctrine concerning the Intention of the Priest in Sacraments.The Sacraments of the Mosaic Dispensation.-Circumcision, its Origin, From and Import. -The passover, Proof that it was a Sacrament; its Form and Significancy.-The Jewish Superseded by the Christian Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper.-The Five Spurious Sacraments of the Church of Rome.

In the last lecture, I explained the nature of sacraments, and made some general observations upon them. My last observation was, that the efficacy of sacraments depends upon the blessing of God, and it was opposed to two errors of the Church of Rome, that sacraments communicate grace ex opere operato, or by the mere administration of them, without any exercise of mind on the part of the receiver, if he is not in mortal sin; and that the intention of the priest to do what the church does, is indispensably necessary to give them validity. We have seen, that as the latter opinion is unscriptural and impious, so it involves its abettors in the most painful uncertainty, and is an engine powerful enough to overturn the whole fabric of their church. It is possible that, from the want of intention in their present priests, they have no sacraments; and that, from the same want in a former race of them, their present priests are not priests, their bishops are not bishops, their pope is not the vicar of Christ. Their religious offices may be performed by men who have not been baptized, and therefore are not Christians; and they may be daily guilty of the grossest idolatry in worshipping bread and wine, which they suppose to be the body and blood of our Saviour. If it should be said that it is altogether incredible, that a whole generation of priests should conspire to defeat the design of the sacraments, still, the uncertainty remains with respect to in* Conf. xxvii. 3.

dividual cases. How does any man know, that the priest who baptized him had the proper intention, or that the priest had it, by whom that priest was baptized? If there was a single failure in the line of succession, from the Apostles down to the present time, all that followed were unchristianized. Men of different characters may be supposed to have existed in that succession, and if some were upright, others were wicked. There may have belonged to it such priests as Luther met with at Rome before he appeared as a reformer; men who made a jest of sacred things, and annulled the sacraments with a deliberate design. He tells us that, in celebrating the Lord's Supper, some of them, instead of repeating the words of institution, hoc est corpus meum, by which transubstantiation is supposed to be effected, said with a low voice, Panis es, et panis eris. Bread thou art, and bread thou shalt be.

It may surprise us that the Church of Rome should have adopted an opinion clogged with such difficulties, and leading to such consequences; and it may be thought that she has been drawn into it inadvertently. But whether or not the matter was well considered when it was first made an article of faith, it was not re-enacted by the Council of Trent without opposition. Yet, although the inferences deducible from it were represented to the fathers, they passed the decree formerly quoted, not choosing to acknowledge the fallibility of the church, by revoking one of its dogmas, nor to abandon a tenet so well calculated to increase the power and influence of the clergy. This is probably the origin of the doctrine of intention, and is certainly the, reason why it is retained. The great object of the Church of Rome is, to create a sacred reverence for its ministers, and to establish their uncontrolled dominion over the people; and nothing can be conceived more effectual for this purpose, than the belief that they can make or not make sacraments at their pleasure; that they can communicate or withhold the grace of God; that, in short, the salvation of the people is subject to their disposal. Join the two opinions which we have considered together, and you will perceive in both an artful but wicked contrivance, to reduce the minds of men to a state of spiritual slavery under their yoke. The sacraments are effectual ex opere operato, or, by simple application convey grace to the receiver; and the priest can make them sacraments or empty ceremonies as he chooses. How august, in the eyes of the ignorant and superstitious, must those men appear, who can open or shut the treasury of heaven; who have power to turn material substances into the body, blood, and divinity of Christ, by a few words, muttered like a magical incantation!

In the preceding lecture, I gave a short account of the signs or sacraments appointed to confirm the covenants which God has made with men. I then mentioned those of the Old Testament, which have been superseded by the seals of the Christian dispensation. The brief notice which was taken of them was sufficient at that time; but it will be now proper to attend to them more particularly.

The first in order is circumcision, which is called the token or sign of the covenant with Abraham.* It was then first instituted, or at least it then first became significant, and it was enjoined upon the Israelites as a rite to be observed in all their generations. Hence our Lord said to the Jews, "Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision, not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers." Herodotus affirms that the Colchians, and Egyptians, and Ethiopians, alone of all men practise circumcision. The Phenicians and Syrians in Palestine acknowledge that they learned it from the Egyptians. It is not surprising, that infidels should eagerly lay hold of this account to contradict the relation of Moses; but it is surprising, that persons, professing to be Christians should have discovered a disposition to give credit to the profane, + Herodot. lib. ii. c. 104.

* Gen. xvii. 11.

+ John vii. 22.

in preference to the inspired historian. The account of Herodotus is mani festly false; for, first, he asserts that the Phenicians practised circumcision, contrary to a well known fact, that all the inhabitants of Palestine except the Jews were uncircumcised; and secondly, he says that they owned that they had received it from the Egyptians, whereas it is certain, that the Jews never acknowledged any such thing. Laying aside the divine authority of the history of Moses, it is astonishing that any man should have ever lent an ear to Herodotus on this subject. For what, I ask, did he know about the matter? Nothing but some idle tales, which he had heard from persons as ignorant as `himself. It should be remembered, that Herodotus wrote about fourteen hundred years after the institution of circumcision according to the Scriptures, and was therefore totally incompetent to decide concerning its origin.

The circumcision of a child took place on the eighth day after his birth, and was performed by the father of the family, or by any other person whom he chose to employ. While it constituted a visible proof that the person was one of the descendants of Abraham, and consequently was comprehended in the covenant which God had made with that patriarch and his seed, it was significant of certain spiritual blessings, to which those who, like him, believed in God, were admitted. To Abraham, it was "a seal of the righteousness of faith which he had, yet being uncircumcised."* Before this rite was instituted, Abraham had "believed in God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness;" and circumcision was a confirmation of the righteousness which he had obtained by faith, or of his justified state, and of the blessings and privileges connected with it. God had promised the Messiah to him and his seed, and, along with the Messiah, not only temporal, but spiritual and heavenly blessings; and Abraham, embracing this promise, had engaged to walk before God, and to be perfect. Of this covenant, the sign and seal was circumcision; a declaration to his believing descendants, as well as to himself, that to them the promises belonged, while it implied a profession on their part of their trust in the illustrious seed, in whom all the families of the earth should be blessed; and hence to them, as well as to him, it was a seal of the righteousness of faith. We could not conceive the Most High to have enjoined this rite solely for the purpose of displaying his authority. We may not be able to explain satisfactorily why he fixed upon it in preference to any other; but we must believe that something more was intended than merely to set a mark upon the Israelites. Like all his other signs, it was significant, if not by its own nature, yet in consequence of his institution.

I proceed to observe, that as it was a seal of the righteousness of faith, so it was also a sign of the renovation of the heart. This is evident, on the one hand, from those passages which speak of the "circumcision of the heart" as the work of God, and as necessary to our loving him; and, on the other hand, from those which call depravity the "foreskin of the heart," and represent the wicked as "uncircumcised in heart." In these passages, we have examples of what is called sacramental language, according to which the sign is put for the thing signified, and the thing signified, for the sign. The expressions quoted would have been unintelligible, if circumcision had been simply a mark on the body, to distinguish one nation from another. It is plain that it was instituted for another purpose, and that the Israelites understood that a spiritual meaning was couched under it. There was an internal circumcision necessary to render them the seed of Abraham according to the promise, and full heirs of the blessings of the covenant. The New Testament confirms this view of the rite, when describing believers in Christ as having undergone the change which it signified, it says, "In whom also," that is, in Christ, "ye are cir+ Gen. xv. 6. Acts, vii. 51.

* Rom. iv. 11.

+ Lev, xxvi. 41. Deut. x. 16. xxx. 6. Jer, iv. 4.