are prone to display their ingenuity, in putting sweet for bitter, and bitter for sweet. In some or all of the particulars just now enumerated, we can trace the origin, and the virulence, and the stubbornness of theological hatred. But surely it well becomes us to consider, that upon no subjects whatsoever is self-conceit so dangerous, and self-love so deceitful, as upon those speculative questions which are left in obscurity by the wise and the righteous appointment of the Deity; and which, in consequence of such obscurity, were probably intended to exercise at once our diligence, our humility, and the best of our social affections. Most assuredly the real interests of religion, as a rule of life, never were promoted eventually by the fierceness and the intolerance of religious Teachers; and if they were to examine what passes in their own minds when they are treated with insolence and harshness, which they think unmerited, they must instantly see that the same treatment must act as strong impediments against the adoption of those truths which they are themselves unfeignedly desirous to disseminate, for the spiritual welfare of their fellow-creatures. Thus inquiries into the nature and end of the Sacrament seem, from the acknowledged importance of the subject, to exact the greatest moderation; and both the variety and the pertinacity of men's opinions furnish a strong presumption that all parties are solicitous to know the real meaning of the institution, and to perform worthily the devotional services by which it is observed. On the other hand, invectives may inflame, but cannot edify our well-wishers-they exasperate, but do not convince well-informed and well-meaning dissentients. They always aggravate the mischiefs of error, and always sully the lustre of truth itself. Rarely do they forward the speculative belief of the Gospel, and in practice they never promote the influence of its benevolent spirit. They may gratify the pride or the spleen of the controversialist; but they impede the progress of mankind in those virtuous habits and principles upon the usefulness of which there is no room for scepticism, and the cultivation of which is manifestly recommended by the authority of religion, both natural and revealed. Wishing to act, as well as to exhort, and therefore endeavouring to avoid every appearance of resemblance to the dictatorial polemic and the virulent accuser, I shall now more immediately enter upon the explanation of the three terms which, as I told you, are closely connected with our subject. Believing that all my hearers feel great reverence for the Sacrament itself, and knowing that many of you receive it from the very best intentions, I shall convey to you some useful instruction by full explanation of the word itself. That word is supposed to be borrowed from the military language of the Romans, and applied to the religious worship of Christians. The Roman soldier took an oath of fidelity and obedience to his general, and this oath was signified by the word sacrament, a word, which by classical writers in the Latin language is not used to denote any other kind of oath, however solemn. Christians are supposed, when taking what we call the Sacrament, to bind themselves to their Master, Christ: and the term is much illustrated by allusion to another ceremony, which by the Romans, as I told you, was considered as of high importance. But as the word Sacrament, even among earlier and later Christians, bears various significations, and has given rise to various disputes, I think it proper to lay before you some of the senses, in which it has been occasionally employed. You will find great latitude in the application of it by different writers to different subjects. Lactantius, a most learned and eloquent father of the Church, is peculiar in his use of the term to signify some sacred mystery. In book ii. cap. 19, he mentions the Sacrament of Man, or human nature, by which he means, the wonderful structure of man in his moral and in his rational powers. Again, he says, "He who would be wise and happy, let him hear the word of God, let him learn justice, let him know the Sacrament or mystery of nativity, i. e. know the being by whose will he was born and created." Tertullian, whose eloquence, though not polished, is most animated, employs the word sacrament with extraordinary variety. "Waging war," says he, "in defence of this oath of fidelity to Christ, I am chal * Quicumque igitur sacramentum hominis tueri, rationemque naturæ, suæ nititur obtinere, ipse se ab humo suscitet, et erectâ mente oculos suos tendat in cœlum, Lactantius, l. ii. c. 19. ↑ Cap. xxx. book iii. De falsa sapientia Philosophorum. lenged by his enemies." (p. 490.) In this passage Tertullian alludes to the military sense of the word among the Romans, which I just now mentioned. He calls dreams sacraments (p. 270); and by the expression affixes to them a kind of sanctity, as did the Greeks, of whom the oldest writer tells us that a dream is from Jove.* He calls the interpretations of dreams sacraments. (p. 548.) Paul, says he, understands all the sacraments; by which he means Paul understands all mysteries, or Christian doctrines, which were not known before the Christian Declaration. (p. 339.) He speaks of the Jewish sacrament (p. 18), and he means their sacred ceremonies, to none of which, in the ordinary language of Christians, it is applied. He three times speaks of the sacrament of water (pp. 26, 229, 224), by which he means the water used in baptism. He mentions the sacraments of water, oil, and bread (p. 39); and the word oil is used by the Romanists for their sacrament of unction: as by water he means water employed in baptism, and by bread he means the consecrated bread at the Lord's Supper. "Satan," says he, "affects the Sacraments," i. e. the holy doctrines of God. (p. 524.) He speaks of the Sacraments of the Paschal Lamb. (p. 457.) And yet the Old Testament does not describe the Passover as a Sacrament. He speaks of the Sacrament of the Christian Religion. (p. 414.) * Καὶ γάρ τ' ὄναρ ἐκ Διός ἐστι. Ι. He again mentions the Sacrament of Unction (p. 517): and this, as I told you just now, is the language of the Church of Rome, not of our own. He calls monogamy a Sacrament. (p. 531.) He mentions the Sacrament of the Resurrection. (p. 337.) He speaks of the Sacrament of the Salvation of Mankind, i. e. the sacred docrine of the salvation of mankind. (p. 396.) He speaks of the Sacrament of Allegory (p. 465), which surely is a far fetched sense of the term. He speaks of the Sacrament of Faith. (pp. 229 and 264.) He speaks of the Sacrament of the Body of Christ. (p. 408.) He speaks of the Sacrament of the Name of Christ. (p. 401.) He speaks of the Sacrament of the Cross. (pp. 196 and 406.) He calls a parable a Sacrament. (pp. 561 and 562.) When Christ forbad us to throw pearls before swine, he spake," says Tertullian, “openly and without any intimation of a hidden Sacrament. The imagination of Tertullian was vivid, his piety. was ardent, and hence it was, that to objects which he conceived to be of high importance, whether they were doctrines, or ceremonies, or facts, he applied, what appeared to him the very significant term Sacrament. Let us turn to Jerome, a Christian father, whose learning was greater than Tertullian's, and whose enthusiasm was less extravagant. |