Sacramental Instruction

The Dispensation of the Sacraments must be considered as one of the most important parts of our Ministry. For its etficient administration however we need sound and Scriptural apprehensions of their nature and uses, of the privileges and obligations connected with them, and of the medium by which their grace is received

1 See an. interesting view of Confirmation, connected attendance at the Lord’s table in the memoir of Rev. G. T. Bedell, D.D. Philadelphia. On the admission of serious young persons to the sacrament. Comp. Fhilip ritnry’s Life, pp. 11, 84, 195, and also Scott’s Life, pp. 619. 6-20 — and an excellent Catechism by Rev. J. Bickersteth.

* This chapter is published separately in an enlarged form.

and applied. Our Homily well states their distinct character — ‘In prayer we beg at God’s hands all such things as otherwise we cannot obtain. In the Sacraments he embraceth, and offereth himself to be embraced of us.’^ In opening a more full discussion, we advert to their primary object; which is, to exhibit Christ in all the rich treasures of grace and salvation. For, ‘Christ being taken away,’ — as Bishop Davenant admirably observes — ’ there remains nothing in the Sacraments but an empty show.’^ In this view we cannot but acknowledge the full love of our God in these gracious ordinances — so fraught with encouragement to our faith, and so eminently conducive to our holiness. For while they bring our Great Redeemer vividly before our eyes, they at the same time, ’ serve as bonds of obedience to God, strict obligations to the mutual exercise of Christian charity, provocations to godliness, preservations from sin, memorials of the principal benefits of Christ.’^ It is indeed a melancholy instance of the perverseness of the human mind, that these enriching blessings should from their misuse or neglect be so unfruitful to the church — that these ordinances — intended to cement the body of Christ in one fellowship* — should be the matter of ceaseless controversy and division. For Hooker’s statement is beyond question, that ‘Sacraments, are more diversely interpreted and disputed of, than any other part of religion besides.’*

In order to arrive at some accurate view of the subject, we will expound the comprehensive definition of a Sacrament, which our Church has given for the instruction of her younger members. She explains it to be an ’ outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us; ordained by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive the same, and as a pledge to assure us thereof.’*

The Ordination of Christ himself — the Divine Head of the Church — is justly laid as the ground of this ordinance. Who besides has the prerogative to ordain? — “Go ye, and teach all nations, baptizing them — This do in remembrance of me“^ — here is his” image and superscription” stamj)ed broad and clear upon the Sacraments of the Church. And so sacred is their authority and entireness, that to add to their number, and to violate their integrity, is the high treason of altering the royal deal — the defilement of setting” up our threshold by God’s threshold, and our post by

Homily on Prayer and Sacraments. 2 On Col. ii. 11.

3 Hooker, Book v. lvii. 2. 1 Cor. x. 17. xii. 13. s 15, ut supra.

6 Catechism. “^ Matt, xxviii. 19. Luke xxii. 19,

God’s posts.”’ The Church indeed rightly claims the liberty of prescribing the mode and circumstantials of their celebration. But she never places her own requisitions upon a Divine basis. She maintains the strictest regard to the spirit of the Apostolic rules,^ and carefully preserves both the substance and form of the elements, and the representation of the inestimable blessings which they shadow forth.

Our definition next proceeds to the more distinct description of a Sacrament, considering it as a sign — a means — and a seal — of grace.

It is obviously a sign — ’ a sign of profession, and a mark ot difference, whereby men are discerned from others:’* ’ a mark of distinction, to separate God’s own from strangers.’^ Thus the sign of circumcision” distinguished the Jews from the Heathen around them; and the Christian Sacraments are the open ’ badges of Christian men’s profession’ before the world.’’ Thus also their outward parts are the signs of their inward and spiritual grace* — * visible signs of invisible grace.’’ Indeed they may be called ’ the visible words,’’” as representing to our eyes what the word speaks to our ears. ‘In the word we have the promises of God. In the Sacraments we see them.’”

Yet they are far from being empty signs, or naked representations. ‘It greatly offendeth’ — says our great writer — ’ that some, when they labour to show the use of the holy Sacraments, assign to them no end but merely to teach the mind by other sources that, which the word doth teach by hearing. For where the word of God may be heard, which teacheth with much more expedition and more full explication any thing we have to learn; if all the benefit we reap by Sacraments be instruction, they which at all times have opportunity of using the better means for that purpose, will surely hold the worst in less estimation. There is of Sacraments undoubtedly some other more excellent and heavenly use.’’^

This ’ more excellent and heavenly use’ our Church defines to be a ’ means, whereby we receive the grace given to usJ They are ‘visible signs, expressly conmianded in the New Testament,

Ez. xliii. 7. 2 Art. xx. 3 i Cor. xiv. 26, 40.

Art. xxvii. 5 Hooker, Book v. lvii. 2. * Rom. iv. II.

‘Art. XXV. Comp. Acts ii. 37 — 46. ‘^ Art. xx. xxv. xxvii. and Catechism.

9 Honuly on Prayer and Sacraments. Hooker v. 1.3. This is also the Definition of the Council of Trent. Sess. xiii. c. iii.

‘” Augustine calls them ‘verba visibilia.’ Hooker’s MSS. note v. lvii. 3. CKeble’s Edit.)

“Bishop Jevsrell on the Sacraments, Edit. iGll. p. 261.

‘2 Hooker v. lvii. 1. See also his remarks on ’ the Christian Letter* Appended to Book V. ii. 703. (Keble’s Ed.)

whereunto is annexed the promise of free forgiveness of our sins, and of our holiness and joining in Clirist.’” Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession; but rather they be effectual signs of grace and of God’s good-will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in usJ^ This is in strict accordance with the Scripture testimony. In reference to one Sacrament — ‘We are born of water and of the Spirit — buried with Christ by baptism unto death. Christ sanctifieth and cleanseth his Church with the washing of water. God hath saved us by the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost. Baptism doth now save us.’^ In individual instances — the baptized Apostle was manifestly strengthened by the holy ordinance.^ The baptized eunuch — the jailor also — “went on his way rejoicing.”^ If the references to the other Sacrament are not equally full, they are not less decided. “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?’”* How largely the Pentecostal converts were refreshed by this communion, their brief history fully testifies.’’ We cannot, therefore, doubt that the Scripture designates ’ these heavenly ceremonies’^ as a means of rich and special grace. They exhibit the blessings of the Gospel to all. But to the faithful receiver they convey to his very bosom the blessings which they exhibit.

We complete our exposition of the Sacrament by setting it out, not only as a means of grace, but a jtledge to assure ns thereof. Thus “the sign of circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of the faith.“^ The corresponding Sacrament of baptism is also a seal of the remission of sin to the worthy recipient.” “This cup,” spake our I/ord at the sacred supper, “is i?iy blood of the New Testament” ’ representing his blood as shed to make way for the new covenant, and to ratify it as valid for their benefit’^^ — not making the covenant more valid in itself, but ’ certain sure witnesses, strengthening and confirming our faith’^ to apprehend and apply it. ‘God’s gift’ — as Archbishop Sandys excellently remarks

I Homily on Prayer and Sacraments. 2 rt. xxv.

3 John iii. 5. Rom. vi. 4. Eph. v. ‘iU. Tit. iii. 5. 1 Pet. iii. 21.

4 Acts ix. 18 — 20. Yet — as our Church accurately expressed it — ’ faith is confirmed and grace increased by virtue of prayer to God. Art. xxvii. Comp. verse 11. xxii. 16, also the Baptism of our Divine Mixster. Luke iii. 21,22. iv. i. Compare also Cyprian’s description of the comfort of his Baptism quoted by Mr. Faber. Primit. Doctr. of Regeneration, pp. 37 — 39.

5 lb. viii. 38, 3’J. xvi. 33, 31. 1 Cor. x. 16. 7 AcU ii. 42 — 47. 8 Hooker v. lvii. 3.” Rom. iv. 11.

1” Acts ii. 38; xxii. 16. Compare Nicene Creed, Art. xxvii.

II iMatt. xxvi. 28. Scott in loco. Compare Bishop Hopkins’ Works, ii. 440. 1* Art. liv. Hooker v. lvii. 2.

—’ without sealing is sure, as he himself is all one without changing. Yet to bear with our infirmity, and to make us more secure of his promise, to his writing and word he added these outward signs and seals, to establish our faith, and to certify us that his promise is most certain. ‘^

Thus far we have endeavoured to set out what, according to the definition of the Church and in strict harmony with Scripture, forms the sum and substance of a Sacrament, The statement of the Foreign Reformers, as embodied in their public confessions, or as they can be elicited from a careful study of their writings, seem to be marked with some variation; nor do the most sound of them, in the writer’s judgment, come up to the completeness of the Anglican exposition. 2

We next advert to the medium, by which sacramental grace is conveyed. Let it never be supposed, that there is any iimate grace in these holy ordiJiances. They are what they are, not by inherent efficacy, but by Divine institution. They are — as our Church most accurately defines them — means only, not sources of grace. The blessing is not iji them. But it flows through them from the Great Fountain Head. Nor let this be thought to be a mere verbal distinction. To make them — as some appear to do — sources of grace, is to put them in the place of Christ. To acknowledge them as means, is to depend on Christ in them, to look for his grace imparted by them, to honour his appointment in their diligent improvement, and thus to ensure his gracious acceptance. We ascribe nothing to the instruments: all belongs to him, who condescends to work by them. Eminently clear and ‘evangelical is the statement of Bishop Ridley — ‘Every sacrament hath grace

1 Sermons. Parker Society Ed. pp. 303, 304. — ‘Sweeter it is unto us than honey, where we are certified by this outward sacrament of the inward grace given unto us through his death, when in him we are assured of remission of sins and eternal life. Better food than this thy soul can never feed upon.’ Ibid. p. 89.

2 Zuingle’s views of the sacrament were far short of the truth. He speaks of them as ‘signs, by which the receiver gives to the Church a pledge of his fiith’ (Fol. Works ii. 198; also •2ll2. ‘204. See Bishop Hall’s judgment of his doctrine. Chfistian Moderation, Book ii. Rule viii.) Calvin’s systematic statement goes further, but not far enough, — ’ testimonies of Divine favour to us, confirmed by outward signs, combined with the pledge of our piety to him.’ (Instit. iv. xiv. 1.) In his free and later communications with his friends, however, he rises to a more full and enlarged view. He speaks of ‘agreeing with Luther, that the sacraments are not empty sign’s — that in baptism the power of the Spirit is present to wash and regenerate us; and that the sacred supper is a spiritual feast, in which we truly feed on the flesh and blood of Christ.’ Epist. p. 82. Buccr’s views of baptism appear to have been generally sound. (On Matt. xi.x. et De vi baptipmi in his ‘Scripta Anelicana.’) On the Lord’s Supper he exhibits spiritual apprehensions. (‘We are taught,’ he says, ‘that the body and blood of Christ are received by faith.’ Tetrapo!. Confess.) though his mind was much clouded by the Lutheran dogma. Bulliners Sermons on the Sacraments lately edited from his Decades, by the Norrisian Professor at Cambridge, have the general imprimatur of the Anglican Church. Luther’s views on Baptism are full, thoush of course their weight is somewhat weakened by his mystical and unscriptural theory of the other Sacicunent. See on Gal. iii. 21.

annexed to it inslrumentally. It hath not grace included in it; but to those that receive it well it is turned to grace. After that manner, water in baptism hath grace promised, and by that grace the Holy Spirit is given; not that grace is included in water, but that grace co’nieth by u’aterJ^ To the same purport writes the judicious Hooker — ‘Sacraments really exhibit, but for aught we can gather out of that which is written of them, they are not really, nor do they really contain iji themselves, that grace, which with them or by them it fleaseth God to bestoio.’”^

Bishop Ridley — let it be observed — limits the promise of grace in the sacrament to them that receive it well. And indeed, while our Church clearly” insists upon the unworthy administration as no bar,^ she clearly sets out a worthy reception as an indispensable mean, to the blessing, ‘The sacraments were ordained, that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome effect and operation. But they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as St. Paul saith.’< To presume that they would work alike when they are improved or profaned, is indeed the essence of Romish superstition; contravening the Divine rule expressly given to preserve the purity of worship — “Them that honour me I will honour, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed.”* ‘The real presence of Christ’s most precious body and blood’ — as Hooker most accurateh’ states — ’ is not therefore to be sought for in the Sacrament, but in the worthy receiver of the Sacrament — in the heart and soul of him which receiveth.’*

Our Church justly points out faith as the principle of a worthy reception, and the only medium through which the blessing is applied. To such alone, as ’ rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same,’ does she conceive the ordinance to be a real and spiritual participation.’’ And this is in strict harmony with Scripture. If we are ‘’buried with Christ in baptism,” we “are risen with him from this burial through the faith of the operation of God The “baptism that doth now save us,” is expressly stated to be — “710^ the putting away of the filth of the flesh,” the mere external ceremony — “but the answer of a good conscience toward God” — the act and profession of faiths The unworthy partaking of the

1 Works, Parker’s Society Ed. pp. 240, 2-11.

2 Book V. lxvii. 6. Compare lvii. 4. 3 Art. xxvi. 4 Art. xxv 5 1 Sam. ii. 30. Book v lxvii. 6. Compare Waterland, chap. v. T Art. xxvii. xxviii. Col. ii. 12.

9 1 Peter iii. 21. ‘It is not the water, but the faith,’ (saith good Bishop Hall, alluding to this text) ‘for “who takes baptism without a full fiiith,” — saith Jerome — “takes the water, takes not the Spirit.” Baptism therefore without faith cannot save a mail, and by faith does save him.’ — Ep. Dec. v. Ep. iv.

holy supper is — “not discerning the Lord’s body.”’ The due reception therefore must be in the exercise of that intelligent faith which discerns the great end, substance, and blessing of the ordinance.

Indeed we cannot but bless God for the singular wisdom, which guided the general statements of our Reformers on this important subject. They took up theii position in the true mean between Rationalism and Romanism. They expounded high and glowing views of sacramental grace. But they avoided the Patristic and Romish error, by grounding it on the promise of the covenant, and hnking it with the instrumental agency of faith. We need only refer to the Baptismal services, where the prayers are little more than the promises taken hold on by faith, and the exhortations encourage an undoubting confidence, grounded upon the manifested work and love of the Saviour. We are aware indeed, that statements have been produced from their writings, on the side of exaggerated views of the Sacraments. But we are persuaded that a careful comparison will exhibit these statements as connected with the grand principles of the Gospel, and with a more precise limitation than is often given to them. Nor must it be forgotten, that they are applied to the whole ordinance — not to the bare external ceremony — reminding us (with our Homily) ’ that faith is a necessary instrument in all these holy ceremonies, for that, as St. Paul saith, “without faith it is impossible to please God.’”^ Indeed to insist upon the efficacy of the Sacraments without this necessary mean, is ’ basely to bind ourselves to the elements and the creatures’3 — to make the ordinances matter of idolatrous dependence rather than of warranted scriptural improvement — as if the Sacrament itself gave and did every thing by its innate grace.

It seems necessary, in order to complete our view of this part of our Ministry, to advert, as briefly as possible, to some principal errors on the right hand and on the left. That there should be errors — diversified and important errors — connected with so much difference of judgment and corruption of heart, is no marvel. The ordinances themselves are holy. Yet man’s perverseness makes

1 1 Cor. xi. 29.

2 Homily on Sacrament, Part i. Take an example from Cranmer, who perhaps may be considered to have spoken most strongly on the subject of the Sacraments. Speaking of baptism — ‘Some will say, ‘How can water work such great thingsl’ To whom I answer — That it is not the water that doeth these things, but the almighty word of God (which is knit and joined to the water,) and faith, which receiveth God’s word and promise. For without the ward of God. water is water and not baptism.’ Catechism, 1548.

3 Homily ut supra. Bishop Hopkins gives very valuable views of the necessity of faith, as the mean of spiritual efficacy in the use of the Sacraments. Works, 11. pp. 434. — 445.

them the occasion of sin and fearful provocation even in the profession of a sound faith.’ Who needs not the warning — “Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall?”-

Archbishop Iicighton admirably remarks upon the two extremes of Sacramental error — ‘First, of those that ascribe too much to Sacraments, as if they wrought by a natural inherent virtue, and carried grace in them inseparably. Secondly, of those who ascribe too little to them — making them only signs and badges of our profession.’^

To the first of these errors of excess we have already adverted. Others not lqus momentous we would briefly notice — such aa making the Sacraments the casual ground of our justification, which the Apostle distinctly states to be subverting the foundations of the Gospel* — connecting the grace inseparably with the sign, repugnant to the testimony of Scripture — of the Churche and of fact — making these ordinances the exclusive means of grace, when the Scripture sets forth the preaching of the word as the grand instrument of salvation’’ — insisting upon them as absolutely — and not as our Church — only ‘generally necessary’^ — to salvation. These are errors of no small magnitude, which change the character, obscure the glory, and paralyse the influence, of the Gospel of the grace of God. They are characteristic of “another Gospel,”^ not worthy of the name.

Yet we must not forget to guard against errors of defect, whlch. work every way to the deterioration of our Ministry. Bishop Hoadley’s Sacramental views were in consistency with the heretical school, to which he unhappily belonged. We should however deeply regret to mark any tendencies to his Rationalistic Theory connected with a sounder creed. Those symbols, which are employed to represent and to convey such inestimable blessings, are far beyond naked signs. They claim our reverence, and they should exercise our faith. Animated as they are with life, let us honour them as a means, by which our gracious God ’ doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our faith in him.’“» Unbelief is no less dishonourable to God, and paralyzing to hia work, than formal superstition.” If the Sacraments are means of grace, ought we not to be looking for grace through them? And may not their barrenness be too often explained — “Ye have not, because ye ask not?”* To call to mind the rich and free promises

1 Cor. X. 1 — 5. 2 lb. verse 12. 3 On 1 Peter iii. 21.

4 Gal. V. 2 — 4. 5 Comp. Rom. ii. 28, 29.

Which hmits the blessing to the wortny recipient. Art. xxv.

T 1 Cor. i. 21. 8 Catechism. Gal. i. 6, 7.

“Art. xxv.” Matt, liii. 58. xvii. 19, 20. Mark vi. 5. Jamea !▼. 3.

here sealed to us, to lay hold of them by faith — to consider the seals as the earnests of the blessings to be applied in God’s best time — this would establish a confidence fraught with life and energy, hope and joy to our Christian profession. ‘Where they are not either through contempt unreceived, or received with contempt, we are not to doubt, but that they really give what they promise, and are what they signify. For we take not baptism, nor the eucharist for bare resemblance or memorials of things absent neither for naked signs and testimonies, assuring us of grace re ceived before; but (as they are indeed and in verity) for means effectual, whereby God, when we take the Sacraments, delivereth into our hands that grace available unto eternal life, which grace the sacraments represent or signify.’’

The great importance of this subject, as a component part of the Christian Ministry, has appeared to the Writer to demand this extended discussion upon the general question of the Sacraments. We now proceed to advert to the specific character, privileges, and obligations connected with each of them separately.

I. — BAPTISM.

“What mean ye by this service” — might be asked of us by many, who bring their children to baptism only as an ecclesiastical rite — the custom of the place — and the ordinary mode of giving them their name. Baptismal instruction is therefore — as Bishop Burnet reminds us- — most important. Our people need for the most part, very full and clear expositions of the nature of this Sacrament, in the three-fold definition which our Church has given — as a sign — a seal — a meajis — of grace. As a sign, it marks our original guilt and impurity; and our cleansing by the blood of Christ, and the regenerating influence of his Spirit. As a means — it encourages the prayer of faith for the communication of his favour and grace. As a seal of the covenant of grace, by which we are mutually engaged to God, and God to us — it assures our faith of the manifested favour of God to His believipg people and their seed.

That there should be any controversy as to the subjects of Baptism, is a matter of some marvel. There was none in the Apostolic, or in the Primitive Church. The circumcision of infants, and the substantial identity of circumcision with baptism’ — the

Hooker, book v. Iv-u. 5. 2 Past. Care, ch. viii. CoL iL 11, 13.

covenant piomises of God extending to the believer’s seed’ — the clear encouragement of the Saviour in admitting children into his kingdom* — the unfettered baptismal commission extending to “all nations“’ — to infants therefore as a corporate part of nations — in conformity with this command, the Apostolical records of the baptism of whole households* — the acknowledged practice of the early-Christians — these particulars combine to strengthen and confirm the declaration of our Church, that ’ the baptism of young children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.” If we are called upon for a plain command, we are ready to adduce it. God charged his people upon the strictest penalty, to bring their children into covenant with himself — and that by the seal of the GospelJ Until therefore the repeal of the statute, and the sentence of their exclusion be produced, we will thankfully hold to the judgment of Bishop Hall — ’ children are the blessing of parents; and baptism is the blessing of children and parents.*’

The Divine institution of this Sacrament of admission sufficiently attests its spiritual character. Its privileges are therefore accordant with this character — an investiture Vv’ith all the blessings of the Christian covenant.^ The grace connected with this ordinance is “a death unto sin. and a new birth unto righteousness” ‘• — a real, not a relative change.

Yet experience and observation too plainly prove, that its priv-

1 Gen. xvii. 7. Acts ii. 39. See Calvin Instit. iv. 16 ult. 2 Mark x. 13 — IG.

3 Matt, xxviii. 19. .4 Acts xvi. 15, 33. 1 Cor. i. 10. 5 Art. xxvii.

6 Gen. xvii. 9 — 14. Rom. iv. 11. s Epist. Dec. v. 4.

9 Comp. Rom. ix. 4, 5. These privileges belonged to the Lord’s visible people — not as converted (for the contrary was their palpable character, verses 3, 6.) but as circumcised. Comp. Deut. xiv. 1. Thus our Lord gave the same investiture to those, who had manifestly no true and personal interest in the blessings (Luke xv. 2.31). Our Church therefore, upon the assumed identity of circumcision and baptism, not doubting that the privi* leges under a more enlarged dispensation were at least equally full — iletails the Jewish privileges as the substantial appendage of Christian baptism (Catechism). The title in both cases was the admission into covenant with Goil; though, unless when it was pleaded and brought out in faith, it was virtually a title without possession. We may observe also in connexion with this subject, the distributive individuality with which the Apostle invested the several members of the visible Church with baptismal privileges — “as many of you’’ (not some — or as elsewhere (Phil. i. 7.) all, en ma.9se,) “as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ,” (Gal. iii. 27). Would the Apostle have hesitated in making this investiture a matter of thanksgiving 1 Wherein would this di(Ter from the thanksgiving severally pronounced in our service respecting baptized infants] If this were warranted in the case of Judaizing, backsliding professors (iv. 19, 20. v. 4, 15) much more is it in the case of infants, where no open ground of exclusion can be shown. We conceive this fully to justify the letter of our service, as applied to the visible church. TTie spirit of the service, as applied to the true church, is to be explained upon the general consistent principle of spiritual and acceptable worship. But we cannot forbear to admire the precise Scriptural accuracy of our Liturgical service. The difficulties, which after all may remain upon some minds, belong not so much to the church as to the Scripture, to an imperfect apprehension of the popular language and statements of tho inspired writers.

•” Catechiam. ilege and grace are not necessarily and in all cases connected “with the external administration. We surely can only expect the blessing where God is honoured in the improvement of the ordinance, and where the ends for which he appointed it are duly regarded. The design is, that the child of Abraham — the only true member of the Church — may here plead and make good his children’s interest jointly with his own in the favour and grace of God. It is not merely a dedicatory — but chiefly a covoianting- service’ — pleading and embracing for his child the promises of grace. In affixing therefore the seal of God’s own covenant in his appointed ordinance, we give thanks, as in duty hound, for the child’s interest in this large expanse of mercy. For whether the grace be vouchsafed at the moment, or at some future period; as confirmed to our faith by God’s own seal, it is alike in both cases a just ground of present confidence, ajid therefore of grateful acknowledgment.

In reply to the difficulty, which here meets us, arising from the indiscrimination of baptism, we reply — We are Ministers by Divine appointment in a mixed Church.^ Yet we can only administer spiritual ordinances in a spiritual frame. To conceive of acceptable ordinances for hypocrites and unbelievers is an anomaly — To accommodate the service of the Church to the temperament of “the mixed nndtitude,” would be to rob the true Christian of his warranted and enlarged confidence in “the promises of God” applied “by us,”^ — and to approach God with a worship that could not be pleasing to him.* If therefore the ordinance be profaned, as doubtless it is most fearfully — on whom lies the responsibihty? Not on us, who — as the Ministers of Christ — can only administer ordinances suited to his own spiritual Church and Service, but on those who make his spiritual service a mockery. Doubtless it is the duty of unbelievers, now as under the old dispensation, to present their children to God in solemn worship and professed covenanting.* But it is their sin that they perform this bounden duty in an ungodly and unacceptable manner.

In conformity therefore with the general character of accqjtable worship, our Baptismal service is framed — not, as some would hare it, upon the principle of charity, hut of faith. The ordinance is “the seal of the righteousness of the faith“^ —” that is, of God s way of acceptance pleaded and applied by faith. The seal therefore only confirms the promise in the exercise of faith. In the

’ 1 Sam. i. 26 — 28. Gen. xvii. 9, 10.

3 Matt. xiii. 30, 47. ixv. 1. 2. * 2 Cor. i. 20.

* See Heb. xi. G. Hooker v. lxiv. 5. Rom. ir. 11.

case of the adult, personal faith is the indispensable requisite. In the case of the infant, faith on its behalf, such as was honoured in similar cases of helplessness’ — will here be equally encouraged.^ The child thus ^’■brought to Christ” will be counted as if he ‘• came to him” — a welcome subject of his heavenly kingdom.

Hence it is obvious that a doubting spirit, or positive unbelief substitutes uncertainty and suspicion in the place of the appropriate act and thanksgiving of faith. And can this be honourable tO’ God? Does it not of itself, according to the rule of his kingdom,* nullify the desired blessing? So far as “faith is made void, the promise is made of none effect.”^ On the other hand a Christian, bringing his child to the font for the sign and seal of spiritual regeneration, in the assurance of his joint interest in the promises of the covenant: the sponsor at the same time, in dependence on the promises, engaging in the child’s name to renounce the service of his enemies, ’ to believe in God, and to serve him,’ and joining in prayer for the confirmation of those privileges to the child; such a sight exhibits a clear and animating warrant of faith, most honourable to the sacred ordinance. God honours his own name — his sovereignty in the gift of faith — his faithfulness in the acceptance of his own gift.

How enlivening and practical is the constraitit of this Sacrament! The child in his first dawning intellig-ence finds ’ his name put into the gospel grant’* — himself therefore a dedicated child — taken out of the evil world, and pledged to the service of God. To encourage his faithfulness, he feels himself surrounded with the special guardianship of a covenant-keeping God, introduced into his family, commended to the prayer and sympathies of every member of the household, brought under the blessing of all the means of grace — specially under the teaching of “the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make him wise unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ Jesus. “^ But he must not sleep insensible of his obligations. His responsibilities are now commenced. ‘The sign of the cross’ on his forehead will never be effaced from the eye of God; nor the day of his Baptismal consecration blotted out of his book. In the obligations and privileges of the covenant into which he has entered, are contained all the quickening motives to personal devotedness. And therefore his unfaithfulness will not be judged as the heathen, who “knew not his Lord’s will,” but as ‘• the servant,

1 See Matt. viii. 6. 10. ix. 2. iv. 22 — 28. Mark ix. 23 — 27. s Compare Matt. xxi. 22. James i. 6, 7. 3 Mark x. 13, 14.

Matt. ix. 29. s Rom. iv. 14 — 17.

Matthew Henry’s Treatise on Baptism, p. 120. ’ 2 Tim. iii. 15. who knew his Lord’s will, neither did according to his will, and who shall be beaten with many stripes.”’

The office of Syonsors — though in the letter an human ordinance — yet in the spirit of it, seems an essential appendage-Baptism is not merely an office of dedication, but of covenanting with God. If therefore the infant be a party in the contract, he must appear by his Surety, who may represent in his own person the child’s fidelity to his engagements. Hence the canons require communicants for this office, as the accredited pledge of sincerity. Nor is this Christian standard less necessary as respects the child. We must here “know no man after the flesh” — no consideration of convenience, relationship, or worldly advantage. The one principle of our choice is — ‘Who will be most helpful in training the child for God V The difficulty of obtaining satisfactory Sponsors may often delay baptism, sometimes even remove the children wholly from us. Yet the very difficulty often brings conviction of an unchristian life, which makes Christian interference uncongenial and nugatory. We would, however, invite our communicants to step in, where needful, for this office of love, diligence, sympathy, prayer and helpfulness. We would explain the difficulties which hinder their engagement in this sacred proxy; as if it involved them in the wilful responsibiUty of the child; or this misconception being removed, as if it were only an empty and fruitless vow. We must not expect the ordinances of the church to change-It is much more important to maintain their due tone and dignity by a Scriptural discipline, than to draw a promiscuous multitude within our external pale, at the expense of all the sacredness of the sacraments, and to the serious injury of religion.

We must remind Parents and Sponsors that the dedication of a child to God, though an acceptable, is a most solemn and responsible service. How awful the profanation of “offering the blind for sacrifice!”* Let them understand what they do — binding them-

1 Luke xii. 47, 48. Thus P. Henry ’ in dealing with his children about their spiritual state, took hold of them very much by the handle of their infant baptism; and frequently inculcated upon them, that they were born in God’s house, and were betimes dedicated and given up to him, and theretbre were obliged to be his servants.’ Life, p. 83. Compare Psalm cxvi. IG. Thus his son bears his personal testimony to the value of this ordinance. ‘I cannot but take occasion’ (said he) ’ to express my gratitude to God for ray infant baptism; not only, as it was an early admission into the visible body of Christ; but as it furnished my pious parents with a good argument (and as I trust through grace a prevailing argument) for an early dedication of my own self to God in my childhood. If God has wrought any good work upon my soul, I desire with humble thankfulness to acknowledge the moral influence of my infant baptism upon it.’ Treatise on Baptism, p. 118. ‘As to the real influence of baptism,’ — he adds, however, in another place — ’ when the children grow up, we are sure that their baptismal regeneration, without something else, will not bring them to heaven: and yet it may be urged in praying to God to give them grace, and in persuading them to submit to it.’ Matthew Henry on Baptism, pp. 130, iBl. 2 Mai. i. 8.

selves and their children to the service of God — and why they do it — in conformity to the appointment of God, and to the terms of the covenant, which is the ground of this Baptismal dedication Let them know, that bj this sacred act they profess their personal consecration to his service, (for who can give his child freely and sincerely, except he had “first given his own self, to the Lord?”) and give their pledge, that their children shall be the Lord’s for ever — trained for his service and glory. Let them be reminded of the great honour of this most responsible trust, and of the fearful guilt of neglecting it. Where it is practicable, no sponsors or parents should present themselves at the font without previous Ministerial instruction ]^ that they may, under the Lord’s blessing, attend upon this ordinance with a penitent, upright, believing, and thankful spirit — presenting an “^ holy, and acceptable,” as well as a “reasonable service.”

Nor should we forget to inculcate the ijnprovement of the baptismal engagements. Much use may be made of them as a restraint from sin** — an excitement to duty — a support to faith — and an encouragement to prayer; while the remembrance of the investiture of privileges may animate to press for a real participation of them; as living members of a living Head — in spiritual communion with a spiritual church.’

II. — THE LORD’S SUPPER.

Our course of instruction naturally passes from the initial sacrament to that, which marks the complete privilege of Church membership — the one marking the commencement, the other the support of, the spiritual life.

This sacrament connects itself with the great doctrines of the Gospel. Man as a sinner was condemned under the everlasting curse of the broken law. God accepts the vicarious death of his

1 Address to Parents and Sponsors on Baptism, by the Rev. P. Booth, B. D., Norwich. For a full view of the whole subject, the writer refers to a ‘Treatise on Baptism,’ by bis friend and brother the Rev. E. Bickersteth — a work fraught with useful information and sound practical instruction.

2 Luther mentions a Christian woman — ‘Quao quoties tentabatur, non nisi baptismo suo repugnabai — dicens brevissime — Christiana sum.’ ‘Intellcxit enim hostis’ — adds Luther — ‘statim virtutem baptismi, et Jidei, qua in terltate proinittentis pendebat, et Jugit ab to?

3 In some of the American churches the baptized children are assembled periodically ill the church, with their natural and spiritual (guardians, and addressed by their pastor upon the obligation of their vow. We could wish that similar ecclesiastical assemblies might be transferred into our Establisheil system; or at least, that the spirit of this interestmg ceremony would imbue our ordinary Ministrations with a more frequent and affectionate enforcement of baptismal responsibilities.

own Son as his surety. The great Sufferer himself upon the eve of his death appointed this ordinance as a perpetual memorial of his acceptable sacrifice, and as a seal of the covenanted blessings, which it obtained for his Church.

This memorial eminently illustrates the spiritual character of the ordinance. ‘The remembrance which is thus ordained’ (to use the beautiful language of Bishop Ridley) — ’ as the author thereof is Christ — both God and man; so by the Almighty power of God it far passeth all kinds of remembrances that any other man is able to make, either of himself, or of any other thing. For whosoever receiveth this holy sacrament thus ordained in remembrance of Christ, he receiveth therewith either death or life.^^ Cherishing this spiritual remembrance, we shall be preserved from the snare — ’ lest of the memory, it be made a sacrifice; lest of a communion, a private eating; lest of two parts, we have but one — instead of a heavenly refection, a gross carnal feeding.’’^

The distinctness and singular value of this ordinance is, that it appears to combine much of the real blessing of the other means. If preaching is to represent Christ crucified, to “do this in remembrance of him” is to “show forth his death till he come.”^ ‘Thus also, (as Dean Comber justly remarks) ’ that which is more compendiously expressed in the conclusion of our prayers through Jesus Christ our Lord — is more fully and more vigorously set out in this most holy sacrament; wherein we intercede on earth in imitation of, and in conjunction with, the great intercession of our High Priest in heaven — pleading here in the virtue and merits of the same sacrifice, which he doeth there for us.’<

The sacramental table is therefore equally precious and honourable as a command to be obeyed, and a privilege to be enjoyed. It is an exercise of faith — a remembrance of love — a covenant of dedication. Here our Divine Master’s real and spiritual presence is specially vouchsafed. ‘His body and blood are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful.’’ And in this participation their souls are strengthened and refreshed, and their acceptance visibly sealed and established.” Here also we enjoy fellowship with the Lord’s people as members of the same body, and partakers of the same privilege.^ The sacramental graces (repentance and faith, hungering and thirsting for Christ, thanksgiving and brotherly love’’)

‘Brief Declaration of the Lord’s Supper. Works, Parker Society’s Ed. p. 8.

2 Homily on Sacrament, Part I. 3 Gal. iii. 1. with Luke xxii. 19. 1 Cor. xL 26.

* Introd. to Communion Service.

5 Catechism and Communion Service — Prayer in Post-Communion.

1 Cor. X. 17. Communion service throughout.

are excited by the contemplation of the Great Author of the ordinance in the wondrous act of his dying love.

We insist upon these graces as qualifications for communion, and the profession of them is an intelligent and credible, though not always a satisfactory, profession of faith. We can warn hypocrites, but we cannot exclude them. The king’s eye only can infallibly see the unwelcome guest, and he will not fail to put him to shame’’ Our duty is to set out the awful guilt of this profana- ^ion,2 connected as it often is — not only with utter ignorance and hardness — but with a formal or self-righteous customary attendance, and with the neglect of the exercise of these graces, which alone can realize an acceptable or profitable improvement of the ordinance.

Generally speaking — our instruction should be directed by Philip Henry’s admirable rule — so ’ to manage it, that the weak may not be discouraged, and yet that the ordinance might not be profaned;’^ neither raising the standard too high for the humble, contrite, or even scrupulous; nor lowering it to the generality of a formal profession; using only the alluring compulsion of evangelical motive.^

Our instruction must obviously vary according to the character of the recipient. To the ignorant, the spiritual character and the solemn obligations, of the ordinance; the hypocrisy of uniting in the deep-toned abasement and elevated exercises of our mode of administration; and most of all, the awful condemnation of unworthy participation, are subjects of direct and awakening conviction. For how affecting is the consideration, that the “table” of the Lord (to accommodate the prophetic imprecation) will “become a snare before them, and that, which should have been for their welfare, will become a trap!”• To those who tcish to commence their attendance in this unsatisfactory state, we should strongly recommend delay, with much self-enquiry and earnest prayer for Christian sincerity and Divine illumination. Many persons in a state of conviction regard this ordinance as an end — rather than as a means to an end — they put it in the place of Christ, instead of using it as a means of coming to Christ. They have a strong impulse to come to the ordinance, but without any intelligent perception of its meaning. They must be taught, that the sacrament is not life, but food to support life; food, which nourishes the living,

1 Matt. xxii. 11 — 13. 2 1 Cor. xi. 27 — 29. 3 Life, p. 43.

Luke xiv. 23. The exclusion of the ungodly, under every form, from this ordinance, ieems to be directly iinpUed, if not commanded — Ezek. xliv, 6 — 9. Coinp. 1 Cor. x. 16 — 21, also Ex. xii 43, 48. s Psahn Jxix. 22.

but cannot quicken the dead. Christ — not the ordinance — is life. Faith in him — not in the means — will ensure acceptance. To the sincere, hut scrupulous, we must shew, that there is the sin of unbelief as well as of presumption — sin in refusing to come, as well as in coming unworthily — the guilt of disobedience to the dying command of our best and dearest friend — the neglect of the privilege of a heavenly feast, of an open confession of the cross, and of brotherly communion with the followers of Christ. The early stage of awakened tenderness and concern needs special instruction and encouragement. The weakest disciple has an equal right to this ordinance with the most established. Perfect assurance is not required; rather the want of it is supposed. The seal is given in confirmation of what was before a matter of doubt. Let the solemnity of the ordinance enforce preparation, and its simplicity, encourage faith; and so let him come with humility and reverence; and who can doubt of his acceptance ?*

The Sacrificial character and efficacy of this Ordinance — though supported by some names of note, have in the writer’s judgment no warrant from Scripture, which often calls the death of Christ a sacrifice — nowhere the memorial of his death. Indeed the contrast drawn between the one offering of Calvary, and the continual remembrance and offering of the Jewish sacrifices seems clearly to contravene this view.’-^ The studied substitution of the table for altar in the Sacramental service shews the judgment of our Reformers; and though they have retained the name of Priest, yet it evidently is in reference to its etymological derivation (Presbyter) which has no connection with sacrificial institution. Her language is in perfect accordance with the original command’ — ’ a perpetual Tnemory of that his most precious death.’ It is this memorial and representation of the sacrifice, that constitutes its profitable use as a means in the exercise of faith of receiving its inestimable blessings. We commemorate (as Waterland justly observes) the grand sacrifice, but do not reiterate it — no, 7iot so much as under syjnhols. ‘The whole substance of our Sacrifice, which is frequented of the Church in the Lord’s Supper, consisteth in prayer, praise, and in giving of thanks, and in remembering and

‘Mr. Robinson, on one occasion in his early Ministry, being surprised by the ardent and determined wish of a stranger to attend his sacrament, and having in vain recommended delay, at length asked him — ‘Do you cordially grieve for sinl Is your dependence simply upon Christl Is your mind fully bent upon serving God in hoUness’?’ The man answering satisfactorily, was desired to listen to the service, to look for Divine direction, and if his heart were still inclined, to come with assurance of welcome. Strength and consolation were given; and he went on his way rejoicing.’ Life, pp. 45 — 47.

’ 1 Cor. xi. 25, 26, with Exhortation in the Communion Service.

shewing forth of that Sacrifice offered upon ‘^. altar of the cross.’” Any other view is a retrograde move’ it to the bondage of Judaism.

It is important also to view this sacrament in conformity with the true spirit of the dispensation as — Augustine well reminds us — to ’ venerate these ordinances, not with carnal bondage, but with spiritual liberty.’^ To invest the holy table, as some appear to do, with a cloud of awful mystery, is as if we were living under “the covenant that gendereth unto bondage.”’ Whereas we are not come to the dark gloom of the Mount that burned with fire, affrighting the heart even of the holy mediator. We are come to the Mount of light and love — to the joy of communion with our God. Instead of being debarred — as of old — from a near approach, we ‘• have boldness to enter into the holiest.“* Deeply let us cherish the godly reverence in his service — remembering that” even our God is a consuming fire.“* But never let us forget that the holy ordinance is a means of acceptance to a rejoicing heart. And if under the dispensation of shadows, much more we, under the sunshine of the joyous gospel should” go unto the altar of God, unto God our exceeding joy To cloud our sunshine is to cramp our privilege, and to palsy our strength.

It is also most important to connect this sacrament with all its high practical obligations — both to our wine Master, and to his church — to our Lord — as the pub’’ profession of his name’^ — as the soldier’s oath of fidelity and aevotedness — to his Church, as uniting us in holy brotherhood* — one with the body, ready to join in every helpful exercise of love, in all the offices of spiritual relationship’ — meeting in “his banquetting house,” with “the banner of love over us,“‘” — the spirit of this union shedding all its radiance over our daily profession.

Much profitable use may be made of the ordinance previous to express and immediate invitation. Under an early impression, it presents the most full and simple view of the blessed atonement. The palpable exhibition of the sufferings of the Lord is well calculated to deepen spiritual sensibilities, to lead the young Christian to contemplate a positive obligation, to count the cost of the consequent engagements, and to anticipate the enjoyment of its attendant privileges. Sacramental meetings preparatory to the ordinance, form a most interesting Ministry to the Church. The familiar

1 Works vii. 378. Bishop Ridley’s Works ut supra, p. 211.

2 De Doctr. Christ, c. iii. 9. 3 Gal. iv. 2^1 — 2(3. Heb. xii. 18 — 34, with X, 19. 5 lb. xii. 28, 29. Ps. xliii. 4. 1 Cor. xi. 26.

8 lb. X. 16, 17. 9 lb. xii. 25. i” Can. ii. 4.

exposition of the institution, or of subjects connected with it,* makes these meetings specially valuable for Catechumens, as a medium of conveying intelligent as well as tender impressions, and thus removing much perplexing hindrance to “the discerning of the Lord’s body.” Individual instruction also is of great service in restoring the sacrament to its high dignity among Christian ordinances, and thus of instrumentally “adding to the Church such as should be saved.”

The more deeply we consider the Sacramental Ministry, the stronger is our conviction of its great moment upon our whole work. A full, free, and Scriptural exposition conduces much to the fruitfulness and estabhshment of our people. But divest our system of its pure simplicity — it loses its Christian character and solid usefulness. It ministers to self-righteousness, not to self-abasement — “to bodily exercise” — not to evangelical godliness. It exalts ordinances — not Christ; the Church — not his glorious Head. There can be no life in our Ministrations, if Christ be not the Sun of our system. The dim cloudy glimpse of light which we catch through the reflection of the Church is but a feeble compensation for the loss of the invigorating glow of his direct rays. Let us honour our Divine Saviour fully, and largely will he honour us.