for a sacrament ought to exhibit the certain promise of God, for the assurance and consolation of the consciences of the faithful; which could never receive such assurance and consolation from man. A sacrament ought to be a testimony to us of the good-will of God towards us; a testimony which no man or angel can ever give, as none has been "his counsellor." It is he alone, therefore, who, with legitimate authority, testifies to us concerning himself by means of his word. A sacrament is a seal by which the testament or promise of God is sealed. But it could not be sealed by corporeal things and the elements of this world, unless they were marked out and appointed for this purpose by the power of God. Therefore man cannot institute a sacrament; because it is not in human power to cause such great and divine mysteries to be concealed under such mean symbols. "The word of God must precede," as is excellently remarked by Augustine, " in order to make a sacrament to be a sacrament." Moreover, if we would avoid falling into many absurdities, it is requisite to preserve some distinction between a sacrament and other ceremonies. The apostles prayed on bended knees: shall we, therefore, never kneel without making it a sacrament? The early Christians are said to have turned their faces towards the east when they prayed: shall looking towards the east, then, be regarded as a sacrament? Paul says, "I will that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands," (k) and the prayers of the saints appear to have been often made with uplifted hands: shall elevation of hands also be made a sacrament? On this principle all the gestures of the saints would become sacraments. I would not insist on these things, however, if they were not connected with those greater inconveniencies.

III. If they wish to press us with the authority of the ancient Church, I assert that this is a groundless pretence. For the number of seven sacraments can no where be found in the ecclesiastical writers, nor is it clear when it was introduced. I grant, indeed, that the Fathers sometimes make too free a use of the word sacrament; but they use it indifferently to signify all ceremonies and external rites, and all exercises of piety.

(*) 1 Tim. ii. 8.

But when they speak of those signs which we ought to regard as testimonies of the grace of God, they are content with these two, baptism and the eucharist. That this may not be supposed to be a false allegation, I shall here cite a few testimonies from Augustine. To Januarius he says; "First, I wish you to know, what is the principal point of this controversy, that our Lord Jesus Christ, as he says in the gospel, has laid upon us an easy yoke, and a light burden. And, therefore, he has linked together the society of the Christian Church by sacraments, very few in number, most easy to observe, and excellent in signification. Such are, baptism, consecrated in the name of the Trinity, and the communion of the body and blood of the Lord, and if there be any other enjoined in the canonical Scriptures." Again, in his treatise On the Christian Doctrine; "Since the resurrection of our Lord, our Lord himself, and the practice of his apostles, instead of many signs, have given us few, and those most easy in performance, most excellent in signification, and most pure in observance: these are baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord." Why does he make no mention here of the sacred, or septenary number? Is it probable that he would have omitted it, if it had then been instituted in the Church; especially as, in other cases, he was more curious in the observation of numbers than was at all necessary? And, when he names baptism and the Lord's supper, and is silent respecting any others, does he not sufficiently indicate, that these two mysteries possess superior and peculiar dignity, and that all other ceremonies occupy an inferior station? Wherefore, I affirm that these advocates for seven sacraments are not only unsupported by the word of the Lord, but also by the consent of the ancient Church, however they may boast of such consent. Let us now proceed to the particular ceremonies.

CONFIRMATION.

IV. It was an ancient custom in the Church for the children of Christians, after they were come to years of discretion, to be presented to the bishop, in order to fulfil that duty which was required of adults who offered themselves to bapVOL. III. 3 P

tism. For such persons were placed among the catechumens, till, being duly instructed in the mysteries of Christianity, they were enabled to make a confession of their faith before the bishop and all the people. Therefore, those who had been baptised in their infancy, because they had not then made such a confession of faith before the Church, at the close of childhood, or the commencement of adolescence, were again presented by their parents, and were examined by the bishop according to the form of the catechism which was then in common use. That this exercise, which deserved to be regarded as sacred and solemn, might have the greater dignity and reverence, they also practised the ceremony of imposition of hands. Thus the youth, after having given satisfaction respecting his faith, was dismissed with a solemn benediction. This custom is frequently mentioned by the ancient writers. Leo, the Pope, says; "If any one be converted from heresy, let him not be baptised again; but let the influence of the Spirit, which he wanted among the heretics, be communicated to him by the imposition of the hands of the bishop." Here our adversaries will exclaim that any ceremony, by which the Holy Spirit is conferred, is properly denominated a sacrament. But the meaning of Leo in these words is sufficiently unfolded by himself in another place: "Whoever is baptised among heretics, let him not be re-baptised; but let him be confirmed by imposition of hands with invocation of the Holy Spirit; because he has received the mere form of baptism without the sanctification." It is also mentioned by Jerome against the Luciferians. And though, I confess, that Jerome is not altogether correct in stating it to have been a custom of the apostles, yet he is very far from the absurdities now maintained by the Romanists: and he even corrects that very statement by adding, that this benediction was committed wholly to the bishops, "rather in honour of the priesthood than from necessity imposed by any law." Such imposition of hands, therefore, as is simply connected with benediction, I highly approve, and wish it were now restored to its primitive use, uncorrupted by superstition.

V. Succeeding times have almost obliterated that ancient practice, and introduced I know not what counterfeit confir

mation as a sacrament of God. They have pretended that the virtue of confirmation is to give the Holy Spirit for the augmentation of grace, who in baptism is given for innocence; to strengthen for warfare those who in baptism had been regene-. rated to life. This confirmation is performed by unction and the following form of words: "I sign thee with the sign of the cross, and confirm thee with the chrism of salvation, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." All this sounds very beautifully and pleasantly. But where is the word of God which promises the presence of the Holy Spirit in this ceremony? They cannot allege a single iota. How then will they assure us that their chrism is the vessel of the Holy Spirit? We see oil, a thick and viscid liquid, and we see nothing besides. Augustine says: "Let the word be added to the element, and it will become a sacrament." Let the Romanists produce this word, if they wish us to contemplate in the oil any thing beyond the oil itself. If they acknowledged themselves ministers of the sacraments, as they ought to do, there would be no need of any further contention. The first law of a minister is to undertake nothing without a command. Now let them produce any command for this service, and I will not add another word on the subject. If they have no command, they can have no excuse for such sacrilegious audacity. On the same principle, our Lord interrogated the pharisees; "The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men?" (k) If they had answered, From men; he would have extorted a con fession that it was vain and frivolous: if From heaven, they would be constrained to admit the doctrine of John. To avoid too great an injury to John, therefore, they did not dare to confess it was from men. So, if confirmation be "of men," it is evinced to be vain and frivolous: if they wish to persuade us that it is from heaven, let them prove it.

VI. They defend themselves, indeed, by the example of the apostles, whom they consider as having done nothing without sufficient reason. This consideration is correct: nor would they receive any reprehension from us, if they shewed them. selves imitators of the apostles. But what was the practice .of the apostles? Luke relates, that "when the apostles, which

(k) Matt. xxi. 25

were at Jerusalem, heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John; who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: for as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost."(1) And this imposition of hands is mentioned by the sacred historian on several occasions. I perceive what the apostles did; that they faithfully executed their ministry. It was the Lord's will, that those visible and wonderful graces of the Holy Spirit, which he then poured out upon his people, should be administered and distributed by his apostles with imposition of hands. Now, I do not conceive that the imposition of hands concealed any higher mystery, but am of opinion that this ceremony was employed by them as an external expression of their commending, and, as it were, presenting to God the person upon whom they laid their hands. If the ministry which was then executed by the apostles were still continued in the Church, imposition of hands ought also to be still observed: but since such grace is no longer conferred, of what use is the imposition of hands? It is true that the people of God still enjoy the presence of the Holy Spirit, whose guidance and direction are indispensable to the existence of the Church. For we have the eternal promise, which can never fail, and in which Christ has said; "If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink living water." (m) But those miraculous powers, and manifest operations, which were distributed by imposition of hands, have ceased: nor was it right that they should continue but for a time. For it was necessary that the first preaching of the gospel, and the kingdom of Christ, at its commencement should be illustrated and magnified by miracles never seen or heard before: the subsequent cessation of which does not argue the Lord's desertion of his Church, but is equivalent to a declaration from him that the magnificence of his reign and the dignity of his word had been sufficiently manifested. In what respect, then, will these impostors affirm that they imitate the apostles? They should have done it by imposition of hands, that the evident power of

(2) Acts viii. 14-17.

(m) John vii. 37, 38.