Burnet on Article XXV: Of the Sacraments

THERE is a great Diversity between the Form of this Article, as it is now settled, and that published by King Edward, which begun in these Words, Our Lord Iesus Christ gathered his People into a Society by Sacraments, very few in number, most easily to be kept, and of most excellent Signification; that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord. There is nothing in that Edition, instead of the Paragraph concerning the other five pretended Sacraments. Next comes the Paragraph which is here the last, only with the Addition of these Words, after Operation, Not as some say, ex opere operato, which Terms as they are strange and utterly unknown to the Holy Scripture, so do they yield a Sense which savoureth of little Piety, but of much Superstition: And in conclusion, the Paragraph comes, with which the Article does now begin; so that in all this Diversity there is no real difference: For the Virtue of the Sacraments being put in the worthy receiving, excludes the Doctrine of Opus operatum, as formally as if it had expresly been condemned; and the naming the Two Sacraments instituted by Christ, is upon the Matter the rejecting of all the rest.

It was most natural to begin this Article with a Description of Sacraments in General. This difference is to be put between Sacraments, and other Ritual Actions; that whereas other Rites are Badges and Distinctions by which the Christians are known, a Sacrament is more than a bare matter of Form; and as in the Old Testament, Circumcision and Propitiatory Sacrifices were things of a different Nature and Order, from all the other Ritual Precepts concerning their Cleansings, the Distinctions of Days, Places, and Meats. These were indeed Precepts given them of God, but they were not federal Acts of renewing the Covenant, or reconciling themselves to God. By Circumcision they received the Seal of the Covenant, and were brought under the Obligation of the whole Law; they were by it made Debtors to it, and when by their Sins they had provoked God’s Wrath, they were reconciled to him by their Sacrifices, with which Atonement was made, and so their Sins were forgiven them: The Nature and End of those, was to be federal Acts, in the offering of which, the Iews kept to their part of the Covenant, and in the accepting of which, God maintained it on his part, so we see a plain difference between these and a meer Rite, which though commanded, yet must pass only for the Badge of a Profession, as the doing of it is an Act of Obedience to a Divine Law. Now, in the new Dispensation, though our Saviour has eased us of that Law of Ordinances, that grievous Yoke, and those beggarly Elements which were laid upon the Iews; yet, since we are still in the Body, subject to our Senses, and to sensible things, he has appointed some federal Actions, to be both the visible Stipulations and Professions of our Christianity, and the conveyances to us of the Blessings of the Gospel.

There are two Extremes to be avoided in this Matter. The one is of the Church of Rome, that teaches, That as some Sacraments imprint a Character upon the Soul, which they define to be a Physical Quality, that is, Supernatural and Spiritual, so they do all carry along with them such a Divine Virtue, that by the very receiving them (the Opus operatum) it is conveyed to the Souls of those to whom they are applied; unless they themselves put a Bar in the way of it by some mortal Sin. In consequence of this, they reckon that by the Sacraments given to a Man in his Agonies, though he is very near past all Sense, and so cannot joyn any lively Acts of his Mind with the Sacraments, yet he is justified; not to mention the common practice of giving Extreme Unction in the last Agony, when no appearance of any Sense is left. This we reckon a Doctrine that is not only without all Foundation in Scripture, but that tends to destroy all Religion, and to make Men live on securely in Sin, trusting to this, that the Sacraments may be given them when they die. The Conditions of the New Covenant, are Repentance, Faith, and Obedience; and we look on this as the corrupting the Vitals of this Religion, when any such means are proposed, by which the main Design of the Gospel is quite overthrown. The business of a Character is an unintelligible Notion. We acknowledge Baptism is not to be repeated, but that is not by virtue of a Character imprinted in it, but because it being a Dedication of the Person to God in the Christian Religion, what is once so done, is to be understood to continue still in that State, till such a Person falls into an open Apostacy. In case of the Repentance of such a Person, we finding that the Primitive Church did reconcile, but not rebaptize Apostates, do imitate that their Practice; but not because of this late and unexplicable Notion of a Character. We look on all Sacramental Actions as acceptable to God only with regard to the Temper, and the inward Acts of the Person to whom they are applied, and cannot consider them as Medicines or Charms, which work by a Virtue of their own, whether the Person to whom they are applied co-operates with them or not. Baptism is said by St. Peter to save us, not as it is an Action that washes us; Not the putting away the filth of the flesh, ¹ but the answer of a good conscience towards God. And therefore Baptism without this Profession, is no Baptism, but seems to be used as a Charm; unless it is said, that this Answer or Profession is implied, whensoever Baptism is desired. When a Person of Age desires Baptism, he must make those Answers and Sponsions, otherwise he is not truly Baptized; and though his outward making of them being all that can fall under Human Cognizance, he who does that must be held to be truly baptized, and all the outward Priviledges of a baptized Person must belong to him; yet as to the effect of Baptism on the Soul of him that is baptized, without doubt that depends upon the sincerity of the Professions and Vows made by him. The Wills of Infants are by the Law of Nature and Nations in their Parents, and are transferred by them to their Sureties; the Sponsions that are made on their behalf are considered as made by themselves; but there the outward Act is sufficient; for the inward Acts of one Person cannot be supposed necessary to give the Sacrament its Virtue in another.

²In the Eucharist, by our shewing forth our Lord’s Death till he comes, we are admitted to the Communion of his Body and Blood: To a share in Partnership with other Christians in the Effects and Merits of his Death. But the unworthy Receiver is guilty of his Body and Blood, and brings thereby down Judgments upon himself; so that to fancy a Virtue in Sacraments that works on the Person to whom they are applied without any inward Acts accompanying it, and upon his being only Passive, is a Doctrine of which we find nothing in the Scriptures; which teach us that every thing we do is only accepted of God, with regard to the Disposition of Mind that he knows us to be in when we go about it. Our Prayers and Sacrifices are so far from being accepted of God, that they are Abomination to him, if they come from wicked and defiled Hearts. The making Men believe that Sacraments may be effectual to them when they are next to a State of Passivity, not capable of any sensible thoughts of their own, is a sure way to raise the Credit of the Clergy, and of the Sacrament; but at the same time it will most certainly dispose Men to live in Sin, hoping that a few Rites which may be easily procured at their Death, will clear all at last. And thus we reject, not without great Zeal against the fatal Effects of this Error, all that is said of the Opus operatum; the very doing of the Sacrament: we think it looks liker the Incantations of Heathenism, than the Purity and Simplicity of the Christian Religion.

But the other Extream that we likewise avoid, is that of sinking the Sacraments so low, as to be meer Rites and Ceremonies. St. Peter says, Baptism saves us. St. Paul calls it, The laver of Regeneration; to which he joyns the renewing of the Holy Ghost. ³ Our Saviour saith, He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved; and except ye are born again of Water, and of the Spirit, ye cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. These Words have a Sense and Signification, that rises far above a meer Ceremony done to keep up Order, and to maintain a settled Form. The Phrase Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, is above the Nature of an Anniversary or Memorial Feast: This Opinion we think is very unsuitable to those high Expressions; and we do not doubt but that Christ, who instituted those Sacraments, does still accompany them with a particular Presence in them, and a Blessing upon them; so that we coming to them with Minds well prepared, with pure Affections and holy Resolutions, do certainly receive in and with them particular largesses of the Favour and Bounty of God. They are not bare and naked Remembrances and Tokens, but are actuated and animated by a Divine Blessing that attends upon them. This is what we believe on this Head, and these are the Grounds upon which we found it.

A Sacrament is an Institution of Christ, in which some material thing is sanctified, by the use of some Form or Words, in and by which, federal Acts of this Religion do pass on both sides; on ours by Stipulations, Professions, or Vows; and on God’s by his secret Assistances: by these we are also united to the Body of Christ, which is the Church. It must be Instituted by Christ, for though Ritual Matters that are only the Expressions of our Duty, may be appointed by the Church; yet federal Acts, to which a conveyance of Divine Grace is tied, can only be instituted by him who is the Author and Mediator of this New Covenant, and who lays down the Rules or Conditions of it, and derives the Blessings of it by what Methods and in what Channels he thinks fit. Whatsoever his Apostles settled, was by Authority and Commission from him; therefore it is not to be denied, but that if they had appointed any Sacramental Action, that must be reckoned to be of the same Authority, and is to be esteemed Christ’s Institution, as much as if he himself, when on Earth had appointed it.

Matter is of the Essence of a Sacrament; for Words without some material thing, to which they belong, may be of the Nature of Prayers or Vows, but they cannot be Sacraments: Receiving a Sacrament is on our part our Faith plighted to God in the use of some material Substance or other; for in this consists the difference between Sacraments, and other Acts of Worship. The latter are only Acts of the Mind declared by Words or Gesture, whereas Sacraments are the Application of a material Sign, joyned with Acts of the Mind, Words, and Gestures: With the Matter there must be a Form, that is, such Words joyned with it as do appropriate the Matter to such an use, and separate it from all other uses, at least in the Act of the Sacrament. For in any piece of Matter alone, there cannot be a proper suitableness to such an end, as seems to be designed by Sacraments, and therefore a Form must determine and apply it; and it is highly suitable to the nature of Things, to believe that our Saviour, who has Instituted the Sacrament, has also either Instituted the Form of it, or given us such hints as to lead us very near it. The end of Sacraments is double; the one is by a Solemn Federal Action both to unite us to Christ, and also to derive a secret Blessing from him to us: And the other is to joyn and unite us by this publick Profession, and the joynt partaking of it, with his Body, which is the Church. This is in general, an Account of a Sacrament: This, it is true, is none of those Words that are made use of in Scripture, so that it has no determined Signification given to it in the Word of God; yet it was very early applied by Pliny to those Vows by which the Christians tied themselves to their Religion,⁴ taken from the Oaths by which the Soldiery among the Romans, were sworn to their Colours or Officers; and from that time this Term has been used in a Sense consecrated to the Federal Rites of Religion. Yet if any will dispute about Words, we know how much St. Paul condemns all those curious and vain Questions, which have in them the Subtilties and Oppositions of Science falsly so called. If any will call every Rite used in Holy Things, a Sacrament,⁵ we enter into no such Contentions.

The Rites therefore that we understand when we speak of Sacraments, are the constant Federal Rites of Christians, which are accompanied by a Divine Grace and Benediction, being instituted by Christ to unite us to him, and to his Church; and of such we own that there are Two, Baptism, and the Supper of our Lord. In Baptism there is Matter, Water; there is a Form, the Person Dipped or Washed, with words, I baptize thee in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. ⁶ There is an Institution, Go preach and baptize; there is a Federal Sponsion,⁷ The answer of a good Conscience; there is a Blessing conveyed with it, Baptism save us; there is one baptism, as there is one body and one spirit; we are all baptized into one body. So that here all the constituent and necessary Parts of a Sacrament are found in Baptism. In the Lord’s Supper, there is Bread and Wine for the Matter. The giving it to be Eat and Drunk, with the Words that our Saviour used in the first Supper, are the Form: Do this in remembrance of me, is the Institution. Ye shew forth the Lord’s death till he come again, ⁸ is the Declaration of the Federal Act of our part: It is also the Communion of the body, and of the blood of Christ, that is, the conveyance of the Blessings of our Partnership in the Effects of the Death of Christ.⁹ And we being many, are one Bread and one Body, for we are all partakers of that one Bread; this shews the Union of the Church in this Sacrament. Here then we have in these two Sacraments, both Matter, Form, Institution, Federal Acts, Blessings conveyed, and the Union of the Body in them. All the Characters which belong to a Sacrament agree fully to them.

In the next place we must, by these Characters, examine the other pretended Sacraments. It is no wonder, if the word Sacrament being of a large extent, there should be some Passages in Ancient Writers, that call other Actions so besides Baptism and the Lord’s Supper; for in a larger Sense every Holy Rite may be so called. But it is no small prejudice against the number of Seven Sacraments, that Peter Lombard, a Writer in the Twelfth Century, is the first that reckons Seven of them: From that Mystical Expression of the Seven Spirits of God, there came a conceit of the sevenfold Operation of the Spirit;¹⁰ and it looked like a good Illustration of that to assert Seven Sacraments. This, Pope Eugenius put in his Instruction to the Armenians, which is published with the Council of Florence; and all was finally settled at Trent. Now there might have been so many fine Allusions made on the number Seven, and some of the Ancients were so much set on such Allusions, that since we hear nothing of that kind from any of them; we may well conclude that this is more than an ordinary Negative Argument against their having believed, that there were Seven Sacraments. To go on in order with them:

The first that we reject, which is reckoned by them the second, is Confirmation. But to explain this, we must consider in what respect our Church receives Confirmation, and upon what reasons it is that she does not acknowledge it to be a Sacrament. We find that after Philip, the Deacon and Evangelist, had converted and baptized some in Samaria; Peter and Iohn were sent thither by the Apostles,¹¹ who laid their hands on such as were baptized, and prayed that they might receive the Holy Ghost; upon which it is said, that they received the Holy Ghost. Now though ordinary Functions, when performed by the Apostles, such as their laying on of Hands in those whom they Ordained or Confirmed, had extraordinary Effects accompanying them; but when the extraordinary Effects ceased, the end for which these were at first given being accomplished, the Gospel having been fully attested to the World, yet the Functions were still continued of Confirmation as well as Ordination: And as the laying on of Hands, ¹² that is reckoned among the Principles of the Christian Doctrine, after Repentance, and Faith, and subsequent to Baptism, seems very probably to belong to this; so from these Warrants, we find in the earliest Writings of Christianity, mention of a Confirmation after Baptism, which for the greater Solemnity and Awe of the Action, and from the precedent of St. Peter and St. Iohn, was reserved to the Bishop, to be done only by him.

Upon these Reasons we think it is in the Power of the Church to require all such as have been baptized, to come before the Bishop and renew their Baptismal Vow, and pray for God’s Holy Spirit to enable them to keep their Vow; and upon their doing this, the Bishop may solemnly pray over them, with that ancient and almost natural Ceremony, of laying his Hands upon them, which is only a Designation of the Persons so prayed over, and blest, that God may seal and defend them with his Holy Spirit; in which, according to the nature of the New Covenant, we are sure that such as do thus Vow and Pray, do also receive the Holy Spirit, according to the Promise that our Saviour has made us. In this Action there is nothing but what is in the Power of the Church to do, even without any other Warrant or Precedent. The doing all things to Order, and to Edifying, will authorize a Church to all this; especially, since the now universal Practice of Infant Baptism, makes this more necessary than it was in the first times, when chiefly the Adult were baptized. It is highly reasonable that they who gave no actual Consent of their own, should come, and by their own express Act make the Stipulations of Baptism. It may give greater impressions of awe and respect, when this is restrained to the highest Order in the Church. Upon the sincere Vows and earnest Prayers of Persons thus Confirmed, we have reason to believe that a proportioned degree of God’s Grace and Spirit will be poured out upon them. And in all this we are much confirmed when we see such warrants for it in Scripture. A thing so good in it self, that has at least a probable Authority for it, and was certainly a practice of the first Ages, is upon very just grounds continued in our Church. Would to God it were as seriously gone about, as it is lawfully established.

But after all this, here is no Sacrament, no express Institution, neither by Christ nor his Apostles; no Rule given to practise it, and which is the most essential, there is no matter here; for the laying on of Hands is only a gesture in Prayer; nor are there any federal Rites declared to belong to it; it being indeed rather a Ratifying and Confirming the Baptism, than any new Stipulation. To supply all this, the Church of Rome has appointed Matter for it. The Chrism, which is a mixture of Oil, Olive, and Balm, (Opobalsamum) the Oil signifying the clearness of a good Conscience, and the Balm the savour of a good Reputation. This must be peculiarly blessed by the Bishop, who is the only Minister of that Function. The Form of this Sacrament is the applying the Chrism to the Forehead, with these words, Signo te signo crucis, & confirmo te chrismate salutis, in Nomine Patris, Filii, & Spiritus Sancti: I sign thee with the sign of the Cross, and confirm thee with the Chrism of Salvation, in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. They pretend Christ did Institute this; but they say the Holy Ghost which he breathed on his Disciples, being a thing that transcended all Sacraments, he settled no determined Matter nor Form to it: And that the succeeding Ages appropriated this Matter to it.

We do not deny, but that the Christians began very early to use Oil in Holy Functions. The Climates they lived in making it necessary to use Oil much, for stopping the Perspiration, that might dispose them the more to use Oil in their Sacred Rites. It is not to be denied, but that both Theophilus and Tertullian, in the end of the Second,¹³ and the beginning of the Third Century, do mention it. The frequent mention of Oil, and of Anointing in the Scripture, might incline them to this: It was Prophesied of Christ, That he was to be anointed with the oil of joy and gladness above his fellows: And the Names of Messias and Christ do also import this; but yet we hold all that to be Mystical, and that it is to be meant of that fulness of the Spirit which he received without measure. Upon the same account we do understand those words of St. Paul, in the same mystical Sense, he that establisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts: ¹⁴ As also those words of St. Iohn, but ye have an Vnction from the holy one, and ye know all things. The anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you; and ye need not that any man teach you, but as the same anointing teacheth you all things. These words do clearly relate to somewhat that the Christians received immediately from God; and so must be understood figuratively: For we do not see the least hint of the Apostles using of Oil, except to the sick; of which afterwards. So that if this Use of Oil is considered only as a Ceremony of a natural Signification, that was brought into the Rituals of the Church, it is a thing of another Nature: But if a Sacrament is made of it, and a divine Vertue is joined to that, we can admit of no such thing, without an express Institution and Declaration in Scripture.

The Invention that was afterwards found out, by which the Bishop was held to be the only Minister of Confirmation, ¹⁵ even tho’ Presbyters were suffered to Confirm, was a piece of Superstition without any colour from Scripture. It was settled, that the Bishop only might consecrate the Chrism; and tho’ he was the ordinary Minister of Confirmation, yet Presbyters were also suffered to do it, the Chrism being consecrated by the Bishop: Presbyters thus Confirming, was thought like the Deacons giving the Sacrament, tho’ Priests only might consecrate the Eucharist. In the Latin Church Ierom tells us,¹⁶ that in his Time the Bishop only Confirmed; and tho’ he makes the Reason of this, to be rather for doing an Honour to them, than from any necessity of the Law, yet he positively says the Bishops went round praying for the Holy Ghost on those whom they Confirmed. It is said by Hilary, that in Egypt the Presbyters did Confirm in the Bishops absence: So that custom joined with the distinction between the Consecration,¹⁷ and the applying of the Chrism, grew to be the universal Practice of the Greek Church. The greatness of Diocesses with the increasing Numbers of the Christians, made that both in France, in the Councils of Orange; and in Spain, in the Council of Toledo, the same Rule was laid down that the Greeks had begun. In Spain some Priests did consecrate the Chrism, but that was severely forbid in one of the Councils of Toledo: Yet at Rome the ancient Custom was observed, of appropriating the whole business of Confirmation to the Bishop;¹⁸ even in Gregory the Great’s time: Therefore he reproved the Clergy of Sardinia, because among them the Priests did Confirm, and he appointed it to be reserved to the Bishop: But when he understood that some of them were offended at this, he writ to the Bishop of Carali, that tho’ his former Order was made according to the ancient Practice of the Church of Rome, yet he consented that for the future the Priests might Confirm in the Bishops absence. But Pope Nicholas in the IX. Century pressed this with more rigor: For the Bulgarians being then converted to the Christian Religion, and their Priests having both Baptized and Confirmed the new Converts, Pope Nicholas sent Bishops among them with Orders to Confirm even those who had already been Confirmed by Priests: Upon which the contest being then on foot, between Rome and Constantinople, Photius got it to be decreed in a Synod at Constantinople. That theChrism being hallowed by a Bishop, it might be administred by Presbyters: And Photius affirmed that a Presbyter might do this, as well as Baptize or Offer at the Altar. But Pope Nicholas with the confidence that was often assumed by that See upon as bad grounds, did affirm, that this had never been allowed of. And upon this many of the Latins did in the Progress of their Disputes with the Greeks, say, that they had no Confirmation. This has been more enlarged on, than was necessary by the designed shortness of this Work, because all those of [?]he Roman Communion among us, have now no Confirmation,¹⁹ unless a Bishop happens to come amongst them. And therefore it is now a commonDoctrine among them, that tho’ Confirmation is a Sacrament, yet it is not necessary.

About this there were fierce Disputes among them, about Sixty years ago, whether it was necessary for them to have a Bishop here to Confirm according to the ancient Custom or not? The Jesuites, who had no mind to be under any Authority but their own, opposed it; for the Bishop being by Pope Eugenius declared to be the ordinary Minister of it, from thence it was inferred, that a Bishop was not simply necessary. This was much censured by some of the Gallican Church. If Confirmation were considered only as an Ecclesiastical Rite, we could not dispute the power of the Church about it; but we cannot allow that a Sacrament should be thus within the power of the Church; or that a new Function of Consecrating Oil, without applying it, distinct from Confirmation, and yet necessary to the very essence of it, could have been set up by the power of the Church; for if Sacraments are federal conveyances of Grace, they must be continued according to their first Institution. The Grace of God being only tied to the Actions with which it is promised.

We go next to the Second of the Sacraments here rejected, which is Penance, that is reckoned the Fourth in order among them. Penance, or Penitence, is formed from the Latin Translation of a Greek word that signifies a change, or renovation of Mind; which Christ has made a necessary condition of the New Covenant. It consists in several acts, all which, when joined together, and producing this real change, we become then true Penitents, and have a right to the Remission of Sins, which is in the New Testament often joined with Repentance, and is its certain consequent. The first act of this Repentance is Confession to God, before whom we must humble our selves, and confess our Sins to him; upon which we believe that he is faithful, and true to his Promises, and just to forgive us our sins; and if we have wronged others,²⁰ or have given publick offence to the Body or Church, to which we belong, we ought to confess our faults to them likewise; and as a mean to quiet Mens Consciences,²¹ to direct them to compleat their Repentance, and to make them more humble and ashamed of their Sins, we advise them to use secret Confession, to their Priest, or to any other Minister of God’s Word; leaving this matter wholly to their discretion.

When these acts of sorrow have had their due effect, in reforming the natures and lives of Sinners, then their Sins are forgiven them: In order to which, we do teach them to Pray much, to give Alms according to their Capacity, and to fast as often as their Health and Circumstances will admit of; and most indispensably to restore or repair, as they find they have sinned against others. And as we teach them thus to look back on what is past, with a deep and hearty sorrow, and a profound shame, so we charge them to look chiefly forward, not thinking that any acts with relation to what is past, can, as it were, by an account or compensation free us from the guilt of our former Sins, unless we amend our Lives and change our Tempers for the future. The great design of Repentance being to make us like God, Pure and Holy as he is. Upon such a Repentance sincerely begun, and honestly pursued, we do in general, as the Heralds of God’s Mercy, and the Ministers of his Gospel, pronounce to our People daily, the offers that are made us of Mercy and Pardon by Christ Jesus. This we do in our daily Service, and in a more peculiar manner before we go to the Holy Communion. We do also, as we are a Body that may be offended with the sins of others, forgive the Scandals committed against the Church; and that such as we think die in a state of Repentance, may die in the full Peace of the Church, we join both Absolutions in one; in the last Office likewise praying to our Saviour that he would forgive them, and then we, as the Officers of the Church, authorised for that end, do forgive all the Offences and Scandals committed by them against the whole Body. This is our Doctrine concerning Repentance; in all which we find no Characters of a Sacrament, no more than there is in Prayer or Devotion. Here is no Matter, no application of that Matter by a peculiar Form, no Institution, and no peculiar federal acts. The Scene here is the Mind, the acts are Internal, the effect is such also; and therefore we do not reckon it a Sacrament, not finding in it any of the Characters of a Sacrament.

The matter that is assigned in the Church of Rome, are the acts of the Penitent; his Confession by his Mouth to the Priest, the Contrition of his Heart, and the satisfaction of his Work, in doing the enjoined Penance. The Aggregate of all these is the Matter; and the Form, are the words, Ego te Absolvo. Now besides what we have to say upon every one of these particulars, the Matter of a Sacrament must be some visible Sign applied to him that receives it.²² It is therefore a very absurd thing to imagine that a Man’s own Thoughts, Words, or Actions, can be the Matter of a Sacrament: How can this be sanctified or applied to him? It will be a thing no less absurd to make the Form of a Sacrament to be a practice not much elder than Four hundred Year; since no Ritual can be produced, nor Author cited for this Form, for above a Thousand Years after Christ. All the ancient Forms of receiving Penitents, having been by a Blessing in the Form of a Prayer, or a Declaration; but none of them in these positive words, I Absolve thee. We think this want of Matter, and this new invented Form, being without any Institution in Scripture, and different from so long a practice of the whole Church, are such reasons that we are fully justified in denying Penance to be a Sacrament. But because the Doctrine of Repentance is a point of the highest importance, there arise several things here that ought to be very carefully examined.

As to Confession, we find in the Scriptures, that such as desired St. Iohn’s Baptism,²³ came confessing their sins, but that was previous to Baptism. We find also that scandalous Persons were to be openly rebuked before all, and so to be put to shame,²⁴ in which, no doubt, there was a Confession, and a publication of the Sin; but that was a matter of the Discipline and Order of the Church; which made it necessary to note such persons as walked disorderly, ²⁵ and to have no fellowship with them, sometimes not so much as to eat with them, who being Christians, and such as were called Brothers, were a reproach to their Profession: But besides the Power given to the Apostles of binding and loosing, which as was said on another Head, belonged to other matters; we find that when our Saviour breathed on his Apostles and gave them the Holy Ghost, he with that told them, That whose soever sins they remitted, ²⁶ they were remitted; and whose soever sins they retained, they were retained. Since a Power of remitting or retaining sin was thus given to them, they infer that it seems reasonable, that in order to their dispensing it with a due caution, the knowledge of all sins ought to be laid open to them.

Some have thought that this was a Personal thing given to the Apostles with that Miraculous effusion of the Holy Ghost; with which such a discerning of Spirits was communicated to them, that they could discern the sincerity or hypocrisy of those that came before them; by this St. Peter discovered the sin of Ananias and Saphira;²⁷ and he also saw that Simon of Samaria was in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity: So they conclude that this was a part of that extraordinary and miraculous Authority which was given to the Apostles, and to them only.²⁸ But others, who distinguish between the full extent of this Power, and the Ministerial Authority that is still to be continued in the Church, do believe that these Words may in a lower and more limited Sense belong to the Successors of the Apostles; but they argue very strongly, that if these Words are to be understood in their full extent as they lie, a Priest has by them an absolute and unlimited Power in this Matter, not restrained to Conditions or Rules; so that if he does Pardon or retain sins, whether in that he does right or wrong, the sins must be pardoned or retained accordingly: He may indeed sin in using it wrong, for which he must answer to God; but he seems by the literal meaning of these Words, to be cloathed with such a Plenipotentiary Authority, that his Act must be valid, though he may be punished for imploying it amiss.

An Ambassador that has full Powers, though limited by secret Instructions, does bind him that so empowered him, by every Act that he does, pursuant to his Powers, how much soever it may go beyond his Instructions, for how obnoxious soever that may render him to his Master, it does not at all lessen the Authority of what he has done, nor the Obligation that arises out of it. So these words of Christ’s, if applied to all Priests, must belong to them in their full extent, and if so, the Salvation, or the Damnation of Mankind is put absolutely in the Priest’s Power. Nor can it be answered, That the Conditions of the Pardon of sin that are expressed in the other parts of the Gospel, are here to be understood, though they are not expressed. As we are said to be saved if we believe, which does not imply that a single Act of believing the Gospel, without any thing else puts us in a state of Salvation.

In Opposition to this, we Answer, That the Gospel having so described Faith to us, as the Root of all other Graces and Virtues, as that which produces them, and which is known by them, all that is promised upon our Faith, must be understood of a Faith so qualified, as the Gospel represents it; and therefore that cannot be applied to this Case, where an unlimited Authority is so particularly exprest; that no Condition seems to be implied in it. If any Conditions are elsewhere laid upon us, in order to our Salvation, then according to their Doctrine, we may say that of them, which they say of Contrition upon this occasion, That they are necessary when we cannot procure the Priest’s Pardon; but that by it the want of them all may be supplied, and that the Obligation to them all is superseded by it: And if any Conditions are to be understood as limits upon this Power, why are not all the Conditions of the Gospel, Faith, Hope, and Charity, Contrition and New Obedience made necessary, in order to the lawful dispensing of it, as well as Confession, Attrition, and the doing the Penance enjoyned? Therefore since no Condition is here named as a restraint upon this General Power, that is pretended to be given to Priests by those words of our Saviour, they must either be understood as simple and unconditional, or they must be limited to all the Conditions that are expressed in the Gospel. For there is not the colour of a reason to restrain them to some of them, and to leave out the rest: And thus we think we are fully justified by saying, that by these Words, our Saviour did indeed fully empower the Apostles to publish his Gospel to the World, and to declare the Terms of Salvation, and of obtaining the Pardon of Sin, in which they were to be infallibly assisted, so that they could not err in discharging their Commission; and the Terms of the Covenant of Grace being thus settled by them, all who were to succeed them, were also empowered to go on with the Publication of this Pardon, and of those glad Tidings to the World: So that whatsoever they declared in the Name of God, conform to the Tenor of that which the Apostles were to settle, should be always made good. We do also acknowledge, that the Pastors of the Church have in the way of Censure and Government, a Ministerial Authority to remit, or to retain Sins, as they are Matters of Scandal or Offence; tho’ that indeed does not seem to be the meaning of those Words of our Saviour; and therefore we think that the power of pardoning and retaining is only declaratory, so that all the exercises of it are are then only effectual, when the Declarations of the Pardon are made conform to the Conditions of the Gospel. This Doctrine of ours how much soever decried of late in the Roman Church, as striking at the Root of the Priestly Authority, yet has been maintained by some of their best Authors, and some of the greatest of their School-men.

Thus we have seen upon what reason it is, that we do not conclude from hence, that Auricular Confession is necessary; in which we think that we are fully confirmed by the Practice of many of the Ages of theChristian Church, which did not understand these words as containing anObligation to Secret Confession. It is certain that the Practice and Tradition of the Church must be relied on here, if in any thing, since there was nothing that both Clergy and Laity were more concerned both to know, and to deliver down faithfully than this, on which the Authority of the one, and the Salvation of the other, depended so much. Such a Point as this could never have been forgot or mistaken; many and clear Rules must have been given about it. It is a thing to which Humane Nature has so much repugnancy, that it must in the first forming of Churches have been infused into them, as absolutely necessary in order to Pardon and Salvation.

A Church could not now be formed, according to the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome, without very full and particular Instructions, both to Priests and People concerning Confession and Absolution. It is the most intricate Part of their Divinity, and that which the Clergy must be most ready at. In Opposition to all this let it be considered, that though there is a great deal said in the New Testament concerning Sorrow for Sin, Repentance and Remission of Sins, yet there is not a Word said, nor a Rule given concerning Confession to be made to a Priest, and Absolution to be given by him. There is indeed a Passage in St. Iames’s Epistle relating to Confession; but it is to one another, not restrained to the Priest;²⁹ as the Word rendred Faults seems to signify those Offences, by which others are wronged, in which case Confession is a degree of Reparation, and so is sometimes necessary; but whatever may be in this, it is certain, that the Confession which is there appointed to be made, is a thing that was to be mutual among Christians; and it is not commanded in order to Absolution, but in order to the procuring the Intercessions of other good Men; and therefore it is added, and Pray for one another. By the words that follow, that ye may be healed, joyned with those that went before concerning the Sick, it seems the Direction given by St. Iames belongs principally to Sick Persons; and the conclusion of the whole Period shews, That it relates only to the private Prayers of good Men for one another, The effectual fervent Prayer of a righteous man availeth much. So that this place does not at all belong to Auricular Confession or Absolution.

Nor does there any Prints appear, before the Apostacies that happened in the Persecution of Decius, of the Practice even of confessing such heinous Sins as had been publickly committed. Then arose the famous contests with the Novatians, concerning the receiving the lapsed into the Communion of the Church again. It was concluded not to exclude them from the hopes of Mercy, or of Reconciliation; yet it was resolved not to do that, till they had been kept at a distance for some time from the Holy Communion; at last they were admitted to make their Confession, and so they were received to the Communion of the Church. This time was shortned, and many things were past over, to such as shewed a deep and sincere Repentance; and one of the Characters of a true Repentance upon which they were always treated with a great distinction of Favour, was, if they came and first accused themselves. This shewed that they were deeply affected with the Sense of their Sins, when they would not bear the load of them, but became their own Accusers, and discovered their Sins. There are several Canons that make a difference in the degrees and time of the Penance, between those who had accused themselves, and those against whom their Sins were proved. A great deal of this strain occurs often in the Writings of the Fathers, which plainly shews that they did not look on the necessity of an Enumeration of all their Sins as commanded by God. Otherwise it would have been enforced with Considerations of another nature, than that of shortning their Penance.

The first occasion that was given to the Church to exercise thisDiscipline, was from the frequent Apostacies, into which many had lapsed during the Persecutions, and when these went off, another sort of Disorders began to break in upon the Church, and to defile it. Great numbers followed the Example of their Princes, and became Christians; but a mixed Multitude came among them, so that there were many Scandals amongst that Body which had been formerly remarkable for the purity of their Morals, and the strictness of their Lives. It was the chief business of all those Councils that met in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries, to settle many Rules concerning the degrees and time of Penance, the Censures both of the Clergy and Laity, the Orders of the Penitents, and the Methods of receiving them to the Communion of the Church. In some of those Councils they denied Reconciliation after some sins, even to the last, though the general Practice was to receive all at their Death;³⁰ but while they were in a good state of Health, they kept them long in Penance, in a publick Separation from the Common Priviledges of Christians, and chiefly from the Holy Sacrament, and under severe Rules, and that for several Years, more or fewer, according to the Nature of their Sins, and the Characters of their Repentance; of which a free and unextorted Confession being one of the chief, this made many prevent that, and come in of their own accord to confess their sins, which was much encouraged and magnified.

Confession was at first made publickly, but the Inconveniences of that appearing, and particularly many of those sins being Capital, instead of a publick there was a private Confession practised. The Bishops either attended upon these themselves, or they appointed a Penitentiary Priest to receive them: All was in order to the executing the Canons, and for keeping up the Discipline of the Church. Bishops were warranted by the Council of Nice to excuse the severity of the Canons, as the occasion should require. The Penitents went through the Penance imposed, which was done publickly; the Separation and Penance being visible, even when the sin was kept secret; and when the time of the Penance was finished, they received the Penitents by Prayer and Imposition of Hands, into the Communion of the Church, and so they were received. This was all the Absolution that was known during the first Six Centuries.

Penitents were enjoyned to publish such of their secret Sins, as the Penitentiary Priest did prescribe. This happened to give great Scandal at Constantinople, ³¹ when Nectarius was Bishop there; for a Woman being in a Course of Penance, confessed publickly that she had been guilty of Adultery, committed with a Deacon in the Church. It seems by the Relation that the Historian gives of this matter, that she went beyond the Injunctions given her; but whether the fault was in her, or in the Penitentiary Priest, this gave such offence,³² that Nectarius broke that Custom. And Chrysostom, who came soon after him to that See, speaks very fully against secret Confession, and advises Christians to confess only to God, yet the practice of secret Confession was kept up elsewhere; but it appears by a vast number of Citations from the Fathers, both in different Ages, and in the different Corners of the Church, that though they pressed Confession much, and magnified the value of it highly, yet they never urged it as necessary to the Pardon of Sin, or as a Sacrament; they only prest it as a mean to compleat the Repentance, and to give the Sinner an Interest in the Prayers of the Church. This may be positively affirmed concerning all the Quotations that are brought in this matter, to prove that Auricular Confession is necessary in order to the Priest’s Pardon, and that it is founded on those Words of Christ, Whose sins ye remit, &c. that they prove quite the contrary; that the Fathers had not the sense of it, but considered it, either as a mean to help to the compleating of Repentance, or as a mean to maintain the Purity of the Christian Church, and the Rigour of Discipline.

In the Fifth Century, a Practice begun, which was no small step to the ruin of the Order of the Church. Penitents were suffered instead of the Publick Penance, that had been formerly enjoyned, to do it secretly in some Monastery, or in any other private place, in the presence of a few good Men, and that at the discretion of the Bishop, or the Confessor, at the end of which, Absolution was given in secret. This was done to draw what Professions of Repentance they could from such Persons who would not submit to settled Rules: This Temper was found neither to lose them quite, nor to let their Sins pass without any Censure. But in the Seventh Century, all Publick Penance for secret Sins was taken quite away. Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury, is reckoned the first of all the Bishops of the Western Church, that did quite take away all publick Penance for secret Sins.

Another piece of the ancient Severity was also slackned, for they had never allowed Penance to Men that had relapsed into any sin; tho’ they did not cut them off from all hope of the Mercy of God, yet they never gave a second Absolution to the Relapse. This the Church of Rome has still kept up in one Point, which is Heresy; a Relapse being delivered to the Secular Arm, without admitting him to Penance. The Ancients did indeed admit such to Penance, but they never reconciled them. Yet in the decay of Discipline, Absolution came to be granted to the Relapse, as well as to him that had sinned but once.

About the end of the Eighth Century, the Commutation of Penance began; and instead of the ancient Severities, Vocal Prayers came to be all that was enjoyned; so many Paters stood for so many Days of fasting, and the rich were admitted to buy off their Penance under the decenter Name of giving Alms. The getting many Masses to be said, was thought a Devotion by which God was so much honoured, that the Commuting Penance for Masses, was much practised. Pilgrimages and Wars came on afterwards; and in the Twelfth Century, the Trade was set up of selling Indulgences. By this it appears, that Confession came by several steps into the Church; that in the first Ages it was not heard of; that the Apostacies in time of Persecution gave the first rise to it, all which demonstrates that the Primitive Church did not consider it as a thing appointed by Christ to be the Matter of a Sacrament.

It may be in the Power of the Church to propose Confession, as a mean to direct Men in their Repentance, to humble them deeper for their Sins, and to oblige them to a greater strictness. But to enjoyn it as necessary to obtain the Pardon of Sin, and to make it an indispensable Condition, and indeed the most indispensable of all the parts of Repentance, is beyond the Power of the Church; for since Christ is the Mediator of this New Covenant, he alone must fix the necessary Conditions of it. In this more than in any thing else, we must conclude that the Gospel is express and clear; and therefore so hard a Condition as this is, cannot be imposed by any other Authority. The Obligation to Auricular Confession, is a thing to which Mankind is naturally so little disposed to submit, and it may have such consequences on the Peace and Order of the World, that we have reason to believe, that if Christ had intended to have made it a necessary part of Repentance, he would have declared it in express Words, and not have left it so much in the dark, that those who assert it, must draw it by Inferences from those Words, Whose Sins ye remit, &c. Some things are of such a nature that we may justly conclude, that either they are not at all required, or that they are commanded in plain terms.

As for the good or evil Effects that may follow on the obliging Men to a strictness in Confession, that does not belong to this matter: If it is acknowledged to be only a Law of the Church, other considerations are to be examined about it; but if it is pretended to be a Law of God, and a part of a Sacrament, we must have a Divine Institution for it; otherwise all the advantages that can possibly be imagined in it, without that, are only so many Arguments to perswade us, that there is somewhat that is highly necessary to the Purity of Christians, of which Christ has not said a Word, and concerning which his Apostles have given us no Directions. We do not deny, but it may be a mean to strike Terror in People, to keep them under awe and obedience; it may when the management of it is in good hands, be made a mean to keep the World in Order, and to guide those of weaker Judgments more steadily and safely, than could be well done any other way. In the use of Confession, when proposed as our Church does, as matter of Advice, and not of Obligation, we are very sensible many good ends may be attained; but while we consider those, we must likewise reflect on the mischief that may arise out of it; especially supposing the greater part both of the Clergy and Laity to be what they ever were, and ever will be, depraved and corrupted. The People will grow to think that the Priest is in God’s stead to them; that their telling their sins to him, is as if they confessed them to God; they will expect to be easily discharged for a gentle Penance, with a speedy Absolution; and this will make them as secure, as if their Consciences were clear, and their Sins pardoned; so the remedy being easy and always at hand, they will be encouraged to venture the more boldly on Sin. It is no difficult matter to gain a Priest, especially if he himself is a bad Man, to use them tenderly upon those occasions. On the other hand, corrupt Priests will find their account in the dispensing this great Power, so as to serve their own ends. They will know all Peoples Tempers and Secrets, and how strict soever they may make the Seal of Confession, to draw the World to trust to it, yet in Bodies so knit together, as Communities and Orders are, it is not possible to know what use they may make of this. Still they know all themselves, and see into the weakness, the passions, and appetites of their People. This must often be a great snare to them, especially in the supposition that cannot be denied to hold generally true, of their being bad Men themselves: Great advantages are hereby given to infuse fears and scruples into Peoples minds, who being then in their tenderest Minutes, will be very much swayed and wrought on by them. A bad Priest knows by this whom he may tempt to any sort of Sin: And thus the good and the evil of Confession, as it is a general Law upon allMens Consciences, being weighed one against the other; and it being certain that the far greater part of Mankind is always bad, we must conclude that the evil does so far preponderate the good, that they bear no comparison nor proportion to one another. The matter at present under debate is only, Whether it is one of the Laws of God or not? And it is enough for the present purpose to shew, that it is no Law of God; upon which we do also see very good reason why it ought not to be made a Law of the Church; both because it is beyond her Authority, which can only go to matters of Order and Discipline, as also because of the vast inconveniences that are like to arise out of it.

The next part of Repentance is Contrition, which is a sorrow for Sin upon the motives of the Love of God, and the hatred of Sin, joined with a renovation of Heart. This is that which we acknowledge to be necessary to compleat our Repentance; but this consisting in the temper of a Man’s Mind, and his inward acts, it seems a very absurd thing to make this the matter of a Sacrament, since it is of a Spiritual and Invisible nature. But this is not all that belongs to this head.

The Casuists of the Church of Rome have made a distinction between a perfect and an imperfect Contrition; the imperfect they call Attrition; which is any sorrow for Sin, tho’ upon an inferior motive, such as may be particular to one act of Sin, as when it rises from the loss or shame it has brought with it, together with an act formed in detestation of it, without a resolution to sin any more. Such a sorrow as this is they teach, does make the Sacrament effectual, and puts a Man in a state of Justification, tho’ they acknowledge that without the Sacrament, it is not sufficient to Justify him.

³³This was setled by the Council of Trent. We think it strikes at the root of all Religion and Vertue, and is a reversing of the design for which Sacraments were Instituted, which was to raise our Minds to a high pitch of Piety, and to exalt and purify our Acts. We think the Sacraments are profaned when we do not raise our Thoughts as high as we can, in them; To teach Men how low they may go, and how small a measure will serve turn, especially when the great and chief Commandment, the consideration of the Love of God is left out, seems to be one of the greatest corruptions in practice, of which any Church can be guilty: A slackness in Doctrine, especially in so great a Point as this, in which human nature is under so fatal a biass, will always bring with it a much greater corruption in practice. This will indeed make many run to the Sacrament, and raise its value, but it will rise upon the ruins of true Piety and Holiness. There are few Men that can go long on in very great sins, without feeling great remorses; these are to them rather a Burthen that they cannot shake off, than a Vertue. Sorrow lying long upon their thoughts may be the beginning of a happy change, and so prove a great blessing to them; all which is destroyed by this Doctrine: For if under such uneasy thoughts they go to Confession, and are Attrite, the Sacrament is valid, and they are Justified: Then the uneasiness goes off, and is turned into joy, without their being any thing the better by it. They return to their Sins with a new calm and security, because they are taught that their Sins are pardoned, and that all Scores are cleared. Therefore we conclude that this Doctrine wounds Religion in its Vitals; and we are confirmed in all this by what appears in Practice: And what the best Writers that have lived in that Communion have said of the abuses that follow on the Methods in which this Sacrament is managed among them, which do arise mainly out of this Part of their Doctrine concerning Attrition. All that they teach concerning those Acts of Attrition or even Contrition, is also liable to great abuse in Practice; for as a Man may bring forth those Acts in Words and not be the better for them: So he may force himself to think them, which is nothing but the framing an inward Discourse within himself, upon them; and yet these not arising genuinely from a new Nature, or a change of Temper, such Acts can be of no value in the sight of God: Yet the whole Practice of their Church runs upon these Acts, as if a Man’s going through them, and making himself think them, could be of great Value in the sight of God.

The Third Branch of the Matter of this Sacrament, is the Satisfaction or the doing the Penance; which by the constant Practice of the Church for above Twelve Centuries was to be performed, before Absolution could be given; except in extraordinary Cases, such as Death or Martyrdom: But in these latter Ages, in which the necessity of Confession is carried higher, the obligation to Satisfaction, or the doing of Penance, is let fall lower. A distinction is invented, by which Confession and Contrition, Attrition at least, are made essential Parts of the Sacrament, without which there is no Sacrament; as Soul and Body are essential to the being of a Man: And Satisfaction is considered only as an integral Part; such as an Eye or a Limb in a Man which is necessary to the Order of it, but not to its being: If Satisfaction is considered as that which destroys the Habits of Sin, and introduces the Habits of Virtue: If it is Purgative and Medicinal, and changes a Man’s Principles and Nature, then it ought to be reckoned the Principal and least Dispensable thing of all Repentance. For our confessing past Sins, and sorrowing for them, is only enjoined us as a mean to reform and purify our Nature. If we imagine that our Acts of Repentance are a Discounting with God, by so many pious Thoughts which are to be set against so many bad ones, this will introduce a sort of a Mechanical Religion; which will both corrupt our Ideas of God, and of the Nature of Good and Evil.

The true and generous Notion of Religion, is, that it is a System of many Truths, which are of such Efficacy, that if we receive them into our Minds, and are governed by them, they will rectify our Thoughts, and purify our Natures: And by making us like God here, they will put us in a sure Way to enjoy him eternally hereafter. Sorrow for past Sins, and all Reflections upon them, are enjoined us as means to make the Sense of them go so deep in our Minds, as to free us from all those bad Habits that Sin leaves in us, and from those ill Inclinations that are in our Nature: If we therefore set up a sorrowing for Sin as a Merchandize with God, by so many Acts of one kind to take off the Acts of another, here the true Design of our Sorrow is turned into a trafficking, by which how much soever Priests may gain, or the value of Sacraments may seem to rise, Religion will certainly lose in its main Design; which is the planting a new Nature in us, and the making us become like God. Confession and Contrition are previous Acts, that lead to this Reformation, which, as they teach, is wrought by the Satisfaction; therefore we must needs condemn that Doctrine which makes it less necessary and more dispensable than the other. In the case of Death we confess all the Rights of the Church with relation to a Man’s Scandals, and his Obligations to make publick Penance, may and ought to be then forgiven him: But we think it one of the most fatal Errors that can creep into any Church, to encourage Men to rely on a Death-bed Repentance. The Nature of Man leans so much this way, that it is necessary to bend the Point as strong as may be to the other Hand.

The Promises of the Gospel run all upon the Condition of Repentance; which imports a Renovation of the inner Man and a Purity of Life: So that no Repentance can be esteemed True, but as we perceive that it has purified our Hearts, and changed our Course of Life. What God may do with Death-bed Penitents, in the Infinite Extent and Absoluteness of his Mercy, becomes not us to Define; but we are sure he has given no Promises to such Persons in his Gospel, and since the Function of Clergy Men is the dispensing of that, we cannot go beyond the Limits set us in it: So there is no reason to make this part of Repentance less necessary or obligatory than the other, but very much to the contrary. Another exception that we have to the allowed Practice of that Church, is the giving Absolution before the Satisfaction is made; upon its being enjoined, and accepted by the Penitent. This is so contrary to all ancient Rules, that it were a needless Labour to go to prove it: The thing being confessed by all. And yet the Practice is so totally changed among them, that such as have blamed it, and have attempted to revive the ancient Method, have been censured as guilty of an Innovation, savouring of Heresy: Because they condemn so general a Practice, that it would render the Infallibility of the Church very doubtful, if it should be pretended to have erred in so Universal a Practice.

Hasty Absolutions, contrary both to the whole design of the Gospel, and to the constant Practice of the Church, for at least Twelve Centuries, are now the avowed Methods of that Church; to which in a great Measure all that Corruption of Morals that is among them, owes its rise and continuance: For who can be supposed to set himself against those Inclinations to Sin, that are deeply rooted in his Nature, and are powerfully recommended by the Pleasure and Gain that arises out of vitious Practices, if the Way to Pardon is cast so wide open, that a Man may Sin as long and as securely as he will, and yet all at once upon a few Acts that he makes himself go through, he may get into a State of Grace, and be pardoned and justified. The power that is left to the Priest to appoint the Penance, is a Trust of a high Nature, which yet is known to be universally ill applied; so that Absolution is generally prostituted among them.

The true Penance enjoined by the Gospel is the forsaking of Sin, and the doing Acts of Vertue. Fasting, Prayers and Alms-giving are Acts that are very proper Means to raise us to this Temper. If Fasting is joined with Prayer, and if Prayer arises out of an inward Devotion of Mind, and [?]s serious and fervent, then we know that it has great Efficacy; as being one of the chief Acts of our Religious service of God, to which the greatest Promises are made, and upon which the best Blessings do descend upon us. Alms-giving is also a main Part of Charity: Which when done from a right Principle of loving God and our Neighbour, is of great Value in his Sight. But if Fasting is only an exercise of the Body, of abstaining so long, and from such things, this may perhaps trouble and pain the Body, but bodily Exercise profiteth nothing; so not to mention the Mockery of Fasting, when it is only a delay of eating, after which all Liberties are taken, or an abstinence which is made up with other delicious and inflaming Nutritives, these are of no Value, being only Inventions to deceive Men, and to expose Religion to Mockery: But even severe and afflicting Fasting, if done only as a Punishment, which when it is over, the Penance is believed to be compleated, gives such a low Idea of God and Religion, that from thence Men are led to think very slightly of Sin; when they know at what price they can carry it off. Such a continuance in Fasting in order to Prayer, as humbles and depresses Nature, and raises the Mind, is a great mean to reform the World; but Fasting as a prescribed Task to expiate our Sins, is a scorn put upon Religion.

Prayer, when it arises from a serious Heart that is earnest in it, and when it becomes habitual, is certainly a most effectual mean to reform the World, and to fetch down Divine Assistances: But to appoint so many vocal Prayers to be gone through as a Task, and then to tell the World that the running through these with few or no inward Acts accompanying them, is Contrition or Attrition, this is liker a Design to root out all the Impressions of Religion, and all sense of that Repentance which the Gospel requires, than to promote it. This may be a Task fit to accustom Children to, but it is contrary to the true Genius of Religion, to teach Men instead of that reasonable Service that we ought to offer up to God, to give him only the Labour of the Lips, which is the Sacrifice of Fools. Prayers gone through as a Task can be of no value, and can find no acceptation in the sight of God. And as St. Paul said, that if he gave all his goods to the poor, and had not Charity, he was nothing: ³⁴ So the greatest profusion of Alms-giving when done in a mercenary Way, to buy off and to purchase a Pardon, is the turning of God’s House from being a house of prayer, to be a den of thieves.

Upon all these Reasons we except to the whole Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome, as to the Satisfaction made by doing Penance. And in the last place we except to the Form of Absolution in these Words, I Absolve thee: We of this Church, who use it only to such as are thought to be near Death, cannot be meant to understand any thing by it, but the full Peace and Pardon of the Church: For if we meant a Pardon with relation to God, we ought to use it upon many other occasions. The Pardon that we give in the Name of God, is only declaratory of his Pardon, or supplicatory in a Prayer to him for Pardon.

In this we have the whole Practice of the Church till the Twelfth Century universally of our side. All the Fathers, all the ancient Liturgies, all that have writ upon the Offices, and the first Schoolmen are so express in this Matter, that the thing in Fact cannot be denied. Morinus has published so many of their old Rituals, that he has put an end to all doubting about it. In the Twelfth Century some few began to use the Words I Absolve thee: Yet to soften this Expression that seemed New and Bold, some tempered it with these Words, in so far as it is granted to my frailty; and others with those Words, as far as the accusation comes from thee, and as the pardon is in me. Yet this Form was but little practised: So that William Bishop of Paris speaks of the Form of Absolution as given only in a Prayer, and not as given in these Words, I Absolve thee. He lived in the beginning of the Fourteenth Century; so that this Practice though begun in other Places before that Time, yet was not known long after in so publick a City as Paris. But some Schoolmen begun to defend it, as implying only a declaration of the Pardon pronounced by the Priest: And this having an air of more Authority, and being once justified by Learned Men, did so universally prevail, that in little more than sixty Years time, it became the universal Practice of the whole Latin Church. So sure a thing is Tradition, and so impossible to be changed as they pretend, when within the compass of one Age, the new Form, I Absolve thee, was not so much as generally known, and before the end of it the old Form of doing it in a Prayer with Imposition of Hands, was quite worn out. The Idea that arises naturally out of these words, is that the Priest pardons Sins; and since that is subject to such abuses, and has let in so much corruption upon that Church, we think we have reason not only to deny that Penance is a Sacrament, but likewise to affirm, that they have corrupted this great and important Doctrine of Repentance, in all the Parts and Branches of it: Nor is the matter mended with that Prayer that follows the Absolution. The Passion of our Lord Iesus Christ, ³⁵ the Merits of the Blessed Virgin and all the Saints, and all the good that thou hast done, and the evil that thou hast suffered, be to thee for the remission of Sins, the increase of Grace, and the reward of eternal Life.

The third Sacrament rejected by this Article, is Orders; which is reckoned the sixth by the Church of Rome. We affirm that Christ appointed a Succession of Pastors in different Ranks to be continued in his Church for the Work of the Gospel, and the Care of Souls; and that as the Apostles setled the Churches they appointed different Orders of Bishops, Priests and Deacons: And we believe that all who are dedicated to serve in these Ministries, after they are examined and judged worthy of them, ought to be separated to them by the Imposition of Hands and by Prayer. These were the only Rites that we find practised by the Apostles. For many Ages the Church of God used no other; therefore we acknowledge that Bishops, Priests and Deacons, ought to be blest and dedicated to the HolyMinistry by Imposition of Hands and Prayer: And that then they are received according to the Order and Practice setled by the Apostles to serve in their respective Degrees. Men thus separated, have thereby Authority to perfect the Saints or Christians, that is, to perform the Sacred Functions among them, to minister to them, and to build them up in their most Holy Faith. And we think no other Persons without such a Separation and Consecration can lawfully touch the Holy Things. In all which we separate the Qualifications of the Functions from the inward Qualities of the Person; the one not at all depending on the other: The one relating only to the Order and the good Government of the Society, and the other relating indeed to the Salvation of him that Officiates, but not at all to the Validity of his Office or Service.

But in all this we see nothing like a Sacrament: Here is neither Matter, Form nor Institution; here is only Prayer: The laying on of Hands is only a gesture in Prayer that imports the Designation of the Person so prayed over. In the Greek Church there is indeed a different Form, for though there are Prayers in their Office of Ordination,³⁶ yet the words that do accompany the Imposition of Hands are only Declaratory, The Grace of God that perfects the feeble, and heals the weak, promotes this Man to be a Deacon, a Priest or a Bishop; let us therefore pray for him: By which they pretend only to judge of a divine Vocation: All the ancient Rituals, and all those that treat of them for the first Seven Centuries, speak of nothing as Essential to Orders but Prayer and Imposition of Hands. It is true, many Rites came to be added, and many Prayers were used that went far beyond the first Simplicity. But in the Tenth or Eleventh Century a new Form was brought in, of delivering the Vessels, in ordaining Priests; and Words were joined with that, giving them Power to offer Sacrifices to God and to celebrate Masses, and then the Orders were believed to be given by this Rite. The delivering of the Vessels look’d like a Matter, and these Words were thought the Form of the Sacrament; and the Prayer that was formerly used with the Imposition of Hands, was indeed still used, but only as a Part of the Office; no Hands were laid on when it was used: And tho’ the Form of laying on of Hands was still continued, the Bishop with other Priests laying their Hands on those they Ordained, yet it is now a dumb Ceremony, not a word of a Prayer being said while they lay on their Hands. So that tho’ both Prayer and Imposition of Hands are used in the Office, yet they are not joined together. In the conclusion of the Ofsice a new Benediction was added ever since the Twelfth Century. The Bishop alone lays on his Hands, saying, Receive the Holy Ghost; whose sins ye remit, they are remitted, and whose sins ye retain, they are retained. The number Seven was thought to sute the Sacraments best, so Orders were made one of them, and of these, only Priesthood; where the Vessels were declared to be the Matter, and the Form was the delivering them with the words, Take thou Authority to offer up Sacrifices to God, and to Celebrate Masses both for the Living and the Dead; In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

The Schoolmen have taken a new way of explaining this whole matter, borrowed from the Eucharist, that is made up of Two parts, the Consecration of the Bread and of the Wine; both so necessary, that without the one, the other becomes void: So they teach that a Priest has Two Powers of Consecrating and of Absolving; and that he is Ordained to the one by the delivery of the Vessels, and to the other by the Bishop’s laying on of Hands, with the words, Receive the Holy Ghost; and they make the Bishop and the Priest’s laying on Hands jointly, to be only their declaring, as by a Suffrage, that such a Person ought to be Ordained: So totally have they departed from the Primitive Forms.

If this is a Sacrament, and if the Sacrament consists in this Matter and Form by them assigned, then since all the Rituals of the Latin Church for the sirst Ten Centuries had no such Form of Ordaining Priests, this cannot be the Matter and Form of a Sacrament; otherwise the Church had in a course of so many Ages no true Orders, nor any Sacrament in them. Nor will it serve in answer to this to say, that Christ Instituted no special Matter nor Form here, but has left the specifying those among the other Powers that he has given to his Church: For a Sacrament being an Institution of applying a Matter designed by God, by a particular Form likewise appointed; to say that Christ appointed here neither Matter nor Form, is plainly to confess that this is no Sacrament. In the first Nine or Ten Ages there was no Matter at all used, nothing but an Imposition of Hands with Prayer: So that by this Doctrine the Church of God was all that while without true Orders, since there was nothing used that can be called the Matter of a Sacrament.

Therefore though we continue this Institution of Christ, as he [?]nd his Apostles settled it in the Church, yet we deny it to be a Sacrament; we also deny all the inferior Orders to be Sacred, below that of Deacon. The other Orders we do not deny might be well, and on good reasons, appointed by the Church as steps through which Clerks might be made to pass, in order to a stricter examination and trial of them; like Degrees in Universities: But the making them, at least the Subdiaconate, Sacred, as it is reckoned by Pope Eugenius, is, we think, beyond the Power of the Church; for here a Degree of Orders is made a Sacrament, and yet that Degree is not named in the Scripture, nor in the first Ages. It is true, it came to be soon used with the other Inferior Orders; but it cannot be pretended to be a Sacrament, since no Divine Institution can be brought for it. And we cannot but observe, that in the definition that Eugenius has given of the Sacraments, which is an Authentical piece in the Roman Church, where he reckons Priests, Deacons, and Subdeacons, as belonging to the Sacrament of Orders, he does not Name Bishops, though their being of Divine Institution is not questioned in that Church. Perhaps the Spirit with which they acted at that time in Basil, offended him so much, that he was more set on depressing than on raising them. In the Council of Trent, in which so much Zeal appeared for recovering the Dignity of the Episcopal Order, at that time so much eclipsed by the Papal Usurpations, when the Sacrament of Orders was Treated of, they reckoned Seven Degrees of them, the highest of which is that of Priest. So that though they Decreed that a Bishop was by the Divine Institution above a Priest, yet they did not Decree, that the Office was an Order, or a Sacrament. And the Schoolmen do generally explain Episcopate, as being a higher Degree or Extension of Priesthood, rather than a new Order, or a Sacrament; the main thing in their Thoughts being that which, if true, is the greatest of all Miracles, the wonderful Conversion made in Transubstantion, they seem to think that no Order can be above that which qualifies a Man for so great a Performance.

I say nothing in this place concerning the power of Offering Sacrifices, pretended to be given in Orders, for that belongs to another Article.

The Fourth Sacrament here rejected is Marriage; which is reckoned the last by the Roman Account. In the Point of Argument there is less to say here than in any of the other; but there seems to be a very express warrant for calling it a Sacrament, from the Translation of a passage in St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, ³⁷ in which he makes an allusion while he treats of Marriage, to the mutual relation that is between Christ and his Church, from that state of Life, and says, There is a great Mystery here; the Vulgar has Translated the word Mystery by Sacrament. So though the words immediately following seem to turn the matter another way, but I speak concerning Christ and the Church; yet from the promiscuous use of those two words, and because Sacraments were called the Mysteries of the Christian Religion, the Translator it seems thought that all Mysteries might be called Sacraments. But it is so very hard here to find Matter, Form, a Minister, and a Sacramental Effect, that though Pope Eugenius in that famous Decree of his, is very punctual in assigning these, when he explains the other Sacraments; yet he wisely passed them all over when he came to this, and only makes a true consent necessary to the making the Sacrament.

We do not deny Marriage to be an Ordinance of God; but we think that as it was at first made in the state of Innocence, so it is still founded on the Law of Nature; and though the Gospel gives Rules concerning the Duties belonging to this state of Life, as it does concerning the Duties of Parents and Children, which is another Relation founded on the same Law of Nature, yet we cannot call it a Sacrament; for we find neither Matter, Form, Institution, nor Federal Acts, nor Effects assigned to it in the Gospel, to make us esteem it a Sacrament.

The Matter assigned by the Roman Doctors is the inward Consent, by which both Parties do mutually give themselves to one another; the Form they make to be the Words or Signs, by which this is expressed. Now it seems a strange thing to make the secret Thoughts of Men the Matter, ³⁸ and their Words the Form of a Sacrament; all Mutual Compacts being as much Sacraments as this, there being no visible material things applied to the Parties who receive them; which is necessary to the being of a Sacrament. It is also a very absurd Opinion, which may have very fatal Consequences, and raise very afflicting Scruples, if any should imagine that the Inward Consent is the Matter of this Sacrament; here is a Foundation laid down for voiding every Marriage. The Parties may, and often do, Marry against their Wills; and though they profess an outward Consent, they do inwardly Repine against what they are doing. If after this they grow to like their Marriage, Scruples must arise, since they know they have not the Sacrament; because it is a Doctrine in that Church, that as Intention is necessary in every Sacrament, so here that goes further, the Intention being the only Matter of this Sacrament; so that without it there is no Marriage, and yet since they cannot be married again to compleat, or rather to make the Marriage; such Persons does live only in a State of Concubinate.

On the other hand, here is a Foundation laid down for breaking Marriages as often as the Parties, or either of them will solemnly Swear that they gave no Inward Consent, which is often practised at Rome. All Contracts are sacred things; but of them all, Marriage is the most Sacred, since so much depends upon it. Mens Words confirmed by Oaths, and other solemn Acts, must either be binding according to the plain and acknowledged Sense of them, or all the Security and Confidence of Mankind is destroyed. No Man can be safe if this principle is once admitted; that a Man is not bound by his Promises and Oaths, unless his Inward Consent went along with them; and if such a fraudulent thing may be applied to Marriages, in which so many Persons are concerned, and upon which the Order of the World does so much depend, it may be very justly applied to all other Contracts whatsoever, so that they may be voided at pleasure. A Man’s Words and Oaths bind him by the Eternal Laws of Fidelity and Truth, and it is a just prejudice against any Religion whatsoever, if it should teach a Doctrine in which by the secret reserves of not giving an Inward Consent, the Faith which is solemnly given may be broken. Here such a Door is opened to Perfidy and Treachery, that the World can be no longer safe while it is allowed; hereby lewd and vitious Persons may intangle others, and in the mean while order their own Thoughts so, that they shall be all the while free.

Next to Matter and Form, we must see for the Institution of this Sacrament. The Church of Rome think that is strong here, though they feel it to be hardly defensible in the other Points that relate to it. They think that though Marriage as it is a Mutual Contract subsists upon the Law of Nature, yet a Divine Virtue is put in it by the Gospel, expressed in these Words, This is a great Mystery or Sacrament; so the explaining these Words determines this Controversy. The chief Point in dispute at that time was, Whether the Gentiles were to be received to equal Priviledges with the Iews, in the dispensation of the Messias. The Iews do not to this day deny, but that the Gentiles may be admitted to it, but still they think that they are to be considered as a distinct Body, and in a lower Order, the chief Dignity being to be reserved to the Seed of Abraham. Now St. Paul had in that Epistle, as well as in his other Epistles, asserted, that all were equal in Christ: That he had taken away the middle wall of partition, that he had abolished the Ground of the Enmity,³⁹ which was the Mosaical Law, called the Law of Commandments contained in Ordinances; that he might make both Jew and Gentile one new Man; one entire Body of a Church: He being the chief corner Stone in whom the whole building was fitly framed together: And so became a holy habitation to God. Thus he made use of the Figure of a Body, and of a Temple, to illustrate this Matter; and to shew how all Christians were to make up but one Body, and one Church. So when he came to speak of the Rules belonging to the several States of Human Life, he takes occasion to explain the Duties of the married State; by comparing that to the Relation that the Church has to Christ: And when he had said that the married Couple make but one Body and one Flesh; which declares that according to the first Institution every Man was to have but one Wife: He adds upon that, this is a great Mystery: That is, from hence another Mystical Argument might be brought, to shew that Iew and Gentile must make one Body; for since the Church was the Spouse of Christ, he must according to that Figure have but one Wife; and by consequence the Church must be One: Otherwise the Figure will not be answered; unless we suppose Christ to be in a State answering a Polygamy, rather than a single Marriage. Thus a clear Account of these Words is given, which does fully agree to them, and to what follows, But I speak concerning Christ and the Church.

This, which is all the Foundation of making Marriage a Sacrament being thus cleared, there remains nothing to be said on this Head, but to Examine one Consequence, that has been drawn from the making it a Sacrament, which is, that the Bond is Indissoluble: And that even Adultery does not void it. The Law of Nature, or of Nations, seems very clear, that Adultery, at least on the Wife’s part, should dissolve it: For the end of Marriage being the ascertaining of the Issue, and the Contract it self being a mutual transferring the Right to one anothers Person, in order to that End; the breaking this Contract and destroying the End of Marriage, does very naturally infer the Dissolution of the Bond: And in this both the Attick and Roman Laws were so severe, that a Man was Infamous who did not Divorce upon Adultery. Our Saviour when he blamed the Iews for their frequent Divorces,⁴⁰ established this Rule, that whosoever puts away his Wife, except it be for Fornication, and shall marry another, committeth Adultery. Which seems to be a plain and full Determination, that in the Case of Fornication, he may put her away and Marry another. It is True, St. Mark and St. Luke repeat these Words, without mentioning this Exception; so some have thought that we ought to bring St. Matthew to them, and not them to St. Matthew: But it is an universal Rule of expounding Scriptures, that when a Place is fully set down by one inspired Writer, and less fully by another, that the Place which is less full is always to be expounded by that which is more full. So tho’ St. Mark and St. Luke report our Saviour’s Words generally, without the Exception, which is twice mentioned by St. Matthew, the other two are to be understood to suppose it; for a general Proposition is true when it holds generally; and Exceptions may be understood to belong to it, though they are not named. The Evangelist that does name them must be considered to have reported the matter more particularly, than the others that do it not. Since then our Saviour has made the Exception, and since that Exception is founded upon a natural equity, that the Innocent Party has against the Guilty, there can be no reason why an Exception so justly grounded, and so clearly made, should not take place.

Both Tertullian, Basil, Chrysostom, and Epiphanius, allow of a Divorce in case of Adultery;⁴¹ and in those days they had no other Notion of a Divorce, but that it was the Dissolution of the Bond; the late Notion of a Separation the Tie continuing, not being known, till the Canonists brought it in. Such a Divorce was allowed by the Council of Elliberis. The Council of Arles did indeed recommend it to the Husband, whose Wife was guilty of Adultery, not to Marry; which did plainly acknowledge, that he might do it. It was, and still is the constant practice of the Greek Church; and as both Pope Gregory, and Pope Zachary allowed the Innocent Person to Marry; so in a Synod held at Rome in the Tenth Century, it was still allowed. When the Greeks were reconciled to the Latins in the Council of Florence, this matter was past over, and the care of it was only recommended by the Pope to the Emperor. It is true Eugenius put it in hisInstruction to the Armenians, but tho’ that passes generally for a part of the Council of Florence, yet the Council was over & up before that was given out.

This Doctrine of the Indissolubleness of Marriage, even for Adultery, was never settled in any Council before that of Trent. The Canonists and Schoolmen had indeed generally gone into that Opinion, but not only Erasmus, but both Cajetan and Catharinus declared themselves for the Lawfulness of it: Cajetan indeed used a Salvo, in case the Church had otherwise Defined, which did not then appear to him. So that this is a Doctrine very lately settled in the Church of Rome. Our Reformers here had prepared a Title in the new Body of the Canon Law, which they had Digested, allowing Marriage to the Innocent Party: And upon a great occasion then in Debate, they declared it to be Lawful by the Law of God: And if the Opinion that Marriage is a Sacrament, falls, the conceit of the absolute Indissolubleness of Marriage will fall with it.

The last Sacrament which is rejected by this Article, that is, the Fifth as they are reckoned up in the Church of Rome, is Extreme Vnction. In the Commission that Christ gave his Apostles, among the other Powers that were given them to confirm it, one was to cure diseases and heal the sick; pursuant to which St. Mark tells,⁴² that they anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them. The Prophets used some Symbolical actions when they wrought Miracles; so Moses used his Rod often; Elisha used Elijah’s Mantle; our Saviour put his Finger into the deaf Man’s Ear, and made Clay for the blind Man; and Oil being upon almost all occasions used in the Eastern Parts, the Apostles made use of it: But no hint is given that this was a Sacramental Action. It was plainly a Miraculous Virtue that healed the Sick, in which Oil was made use of as a Symbol accompanying it. It was not prescribed by our Saviour for any thing that appears, as it was not blamed by him neither: It was no wonder if upon such a president, those who had that extraordinary Gift did apply it with the use of Oil; not as if Oil was the Sacramental Conveyance; it was only used with it. The end of it was Miraculous, it was in order to the recovery of the sick; and had no relation to their Souls, though with the cure wrought on the Body, there might sometimes be joined an operation upon the Soul; and this appears clearly from St. Iames’s words,⁴³ Is any sick among you, let him call for the elders of the church; and let him pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up. All hitherto is one Period, which is here closed. The following words contain new matter quite of a different kind; and if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him. It appears clearly that this was intended for the recovery of the sick Person, which is the thing that is positively promised; the other concerning the pardon of Sins, comes in on the by, and seems to be added only as an accessary to the other, which is the principal thing designed by this whole matter. Therefore since Anointing was in order to healing, either we must say that the Gift of healing is still deposited with the Elders of the Church, which no body affirms, or this Oil was only to be used by those who had that special Gift; and therefore if there are none now who pretend to have it, and if the Church pretends not to have it lodged with her, then the Anointing with Oil cannot be used any more; and therefore those who use it not in order to the recovery of the Person, delaying it till there is little or no hope left, use not that Unction mentioned by St. Iames, but another of their own devising, which they call the Sacrament of the dying. It is a vain thing to say, that because saving and raising up are sometimes used in a Spiritual sense, that therefore the saving the sick here, and that of the Lord’s raising him up, are to be so meant. For the forgiveness of sin, which is the Spiritual Blessing, comes afterwards, upon supposition that the sick Person had committed sins. The saving and raising up must stand in opposition to the sickness; so since all acknowledge that the one is Literal, the other must be so too. The supposition of sin is added, because some Persons upon whom this Miracle might have been wrought might be eminently Pious; and if at any time it was to be applied to ill Men who had committed some notorious sins, perhaps such sins as had brought their sickness upon them, these were also to be forgiven.

In the use of miraculous Powers, those to whom that Gift was given, were not empowered to use it at pleasure; they were to feel an inward Impulse exciting them to it, and they were obliged upon that firmly to believe, that God who had given them the Impulse, would not be wanting to them in the execution of it. This confidence in God was the faith of Miracles, ⁴⁴ of which Christ said, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard-se[?]d, ye shall say to this mountain, remove hence to yonder place, and nothing shall be impossible unto you. ⁴⁵ Of this also St. Paul meant when he said, If I have all faith. So from this we may gather the meaning of the prayer of faith and the anointing with Oil; that if the Elders of the Church, or such others with whom this Power was lodged, felt an inward Impulse moving them to call upon God in order to a miraculous Cure of a sick Person, then they were to anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord: That is, by the Authority that they had from Christ, to heal all manner of Diseases: And they were to Pray believing firmly, that God would make good that inward motion which he had given them to work this Miracle; and in that case the effect was certain, the sick Person would certainly recover, for that is absolutely promised. Every one that was sick was not to be Anointed, unless an Authority and Motion from Christ had been secretly given for doing it, but every one that was Anointed was certainly healed. Christ had promised that whatsoever they should ask in his name, ⁴⁶ he would do it. His Name must be restrained to his Authority, or pursuant to such secret Motions as they should receive from him. This is the Prayer of Faith here mentioned by St. Iames; it being an earnest application to God to join his Omnipotent Power to perform a wonderful Work to which a Person so divinely qualified felt himself inwardly moved by the Spirit of Christ. The supposition of the sick Persons having committed sins, which is added, shews that sometime this vertue was applied to Persons of that eminent Piety, that though all Men are guilty in the sight of God, yet they could not be said to have committed sins in the sense in which St. Iohn uses the phrase; signifying by it either that they had lived in the habits of sin, or that they had committed some notorious sin: But if some should happen to be sick, who had been eminent Sinners, and those sins had drawn down the Judgments of God upon them, which seems to be the natural meaning of these words, if he have committed sins; then with his bodily Health, he was to receive a much greater Blessing, even the Pardon of his Sins. And thus the Anointing mentioned by St. Iames was in order to a miraculous Cure, and the Cure did constantly follow it: so that it can be no president for an Extreme Unction, that is never given till the recovery of the Person is despaired of, and by which it is not pretended that any Cure is wrought.

The Matter of it is Oil Olive Blessed by the Bishop, the Form is the applying it to the Five Senses with these words, Per hanc Sacram Vnctionem, ⁴⁷ & suam piissimam Misericordiam Indulgeat tibi Deus quicquid peccasti, per visum, auditum, olfactum, gustum, & tactum. The proper word to every Sense being repeated as the Organ of that Sense is Anointed. It is Administred by a Priest, and gives the final Pardon, with all necessary assistances in the last Agony. Here is then an Institution, that if warranted, is matter of great Comfort, and if not warranted, is matter of as great Presumption.⁴⁸ In the first Ages we find mention is made frequently of Persons that were Cured by an Anointing with Oil: Oil was then much used in all their Rituals, the Catechumens being Anointed with Oil before they were Baptized, besides the Chrism that was given after it. Oil grew also to be used in Ordinations, and the dead were Anointed in order to their Burial: So that the ordinary use of Oil on other occasions brought it to be very frequently used in their Sacred Rites; yet how customary soever the practice of Anointing grew to be, we find no mention of any Unction of the sick before the beginning of the Fifth Century. This plainly shews that they understood St. Iames’s words as relating to a miraculous Power, and not to a Function that was to continue in the Church, and to be esteemed a Sacrament.

That earliest mention of it by Pope Innocent the First,⁴⁹ how much soever it is insisted on, is really an Argument that proves against it, and not for it. For not to enlarge on the many idle things that are in that Epistle, which have made some think that it could not be genuine; and that do very much sink the credit both of the Testimony and of the Man, for it seems to be well proved to be his: The passage relating to this matter is in answer to a demand that was made to him by the Bishop of Eugubium, Whether the Sick might be Anointed with the Oil of the Chrism? And whether the Bishop might Anoint with it? To these he answers, That no doubt is to be made but that St. Iames’s words are to be understood of the Faithful that were sick, who may be Anointed by the Chrism; which may be used not only by the Priests, but by all Christians, not only in their own necessities. but in the necessities of any of their Friends; and he adds, that it was a needless doubt that was made, whether a Bishop might do it? For Presbyters are only mentioned, because the Bishop could not go to all the Sick; but certainly he who made the Chrism it self, might Anoint with it. A Bishop asking these Questions of another, and the answers which the other gives him, do plainly shew that this was no Sacrament practised from the beginnings of Christianity; for no Bishop could be ignorant of those. It was therefore some newly begun Custom, in which the World was not yet sufficiently instructed. And so it was indeed, for the subject of these questions was not pure Oil, such as now they make to be the matter of Extreme Unction: But the Oil of Chrism which was made and kept for other occasions; and it seems very clear that the miraculous power of Healing having ceased, and none being any more Anointed in order to that; some begun to get a Portion of the Oil of Chrism, which the Laity, as well as the Priests, applied both to themselves and to their Friends, hoping that they might be Cured by it. Nothing else can be meant by all this, but a superstitious using the Chrism, which might have arisen out of the memory that remained of those who had been cured by Oil, as the use of Bread in the Eucharist brought in the Holy Bread, that was sent from one Church to another; and as from the use of Water in Baptism sprung the use of Holy Water. This then being the clear meaning of those words, it is plain that they prove quite the contrary of that for which they are brought; and though in that Epistle the Pope calls Chrism a kind of a Sacrament, that turns likewise against them; to shew that he did not think it was a Sacrament, strictly speaking: Besides that the Ancients used that word very largely, both for every mysterious Doctrine, and for every holy Rite that they used. In this very Epistle when he gives directions for the carrying about that Bread, which they Blessed and sent about as an Emblem of their Communion with other Churches; he orders them to be sent about only to the Churches within the City, because he conceived the Sacraments were not to be carried a great way off; so these Loaves are called by him not only a kind of Sacrament, but are simply reckoned to be Sacraments.

We hear no more of Anointing the Sick with the Chrism, among all the Ancients; which shews that as that practice was newly begun, so it did not spread far, nor continue long. No mention is made of this neither in the first Three Ages, nor in the Fourth Age, though the Writers, and particularly the Councils of the Fourth Age, are very copious in Rules concerning the Sacraments. Nor in all their penitentiary Canons, when they define what Sins are to be forgiven, and what not, when Men were in their last Extremities, is there so much as a hint given concerning the last Unction. The Constitutions, and the pretended Dionisius, say not a word of it, though they are very full upon all the Rituals of that time in which those Works were Forged, in the Fourth or Fifth Century. In none of the Lives of the Saints before the Ninth Century, is there any mention made of their having Extreme Unction; tho’ their deaths are sometimes very particularly related, and their receiving the Eucharist is oft mentioned. Nor was there any question made in all that time concerning the Persons, the Time, and the other Circumstances relating to this Unction; which could not have been omitted, especially when almost all that was thought on or writ of in the Eighth and Ninth Century relates to the Sacraments and the other Rituals of the Church.

It is true, from the Seventh Century on to the Twelfth, they began to use an Anointing of the Sick,⁵⁰ according to that mentioned by Pope Innocent, and a peculiar Office was made for it, but the Prayers that were used in it, shew plainly that it was all intended only in order to their recovery.

Of this anointing many Passages are found in Bede, and in the other Writers and Councils of the Eighth and Ninth Century. But all these do clearly express the Use of it, not as a Sacrament for the Good of the Soul,⁵¹ but as a Rite that carried with it Health to the Body, and so it is still used in the Greek Church. No doubt they supported the Credit of this with many reports, of which some might be true, of Persons that had been recovered upon using it. But because that failed so often that the Credit of this Rite might suffer much in the Esteem of the World, they began in the Tenth Century to say, That it did Good to the Soul, even when the Body was not healed by it, and they applied it to the several Parts of the Body. This begun from the Custom of applying it at first to the diseased Parts. This was carried on in the Eleventh Century. And then in the Twelfth, those Prayees that had been formerly made for the Souls of the Sick, though only as a Part of the Office,⁵² the Pardon of Sin being considered as Preparatory to their Recovery, came to be considered as the main and most essential Part of it: Then the Schoolmen brought it into shape, and so it was decreed to be a Sacrament, by Pope Eugenius, and finally established at Trent.

The Argument that they draw from a parity in reason, that because there is a Sacrament for such as come into the World, there should be also One for those that go out of it, is very trifling; for Christ has either Instituted this to be a Sacrament, or it is not One: If he has not Instituted it, this pretended fitness, is only an Argument that he ought to have done somewhat, that he has not done. The Eucharist was considered by the Ancients as the only Viaticum of Christians, in their last Passage: With them we give that and no more.

Thus it appears upon what Reason we reject those Five Sacraments, though we allow both of Confirmation and Orders as Holy Functions, derived to us down from the Apostles; and because there is a visible Action in these, though in strictness that cannot be called a Sacrament, yet so the thing be rightly understood, we will not dispute about the Extent of a Word that is not used in Scripture. Marriage is in no respect to be called a Sacrament of the Christian Religion; tho’ it being a State of such Importance to Mankind, we hold it very proper both for the Solemnity of it, and for Imploring the Blessing of God upon it, that it be done with Prayers and other Acts of Religious Worship: But a great difference is to be made, between a pious Custom begun and continued by publick Authority, and a Sacrament appointed by Christ. We acknowledge true Repentance to be One of the great Conditions of the New Covenant; but we see nothing of the Nature of a Sacrament in it: And for Extreme Unction, we do not pretend to have the Gift of Healing among us; and therefore we will not deceive the World, by an Office that shall offer at that, which we acknowledge we cannot do: Nor will we make a Sacrament for the Good of the Soul, out of that which is mentioned in Scripture, only as a Rite that accompanied the curing the Diseases of the Body.

The last Part of this Article, concerning the Use of the Sacraments, consists of Two Parts, the First is Negative, that they are not ordained to be gazed on, or to be carried about, but to be used: And this is so Express in the Scripture, that little Question can be made about it. The Institution of Baptism is go preach and baptize: And the Institution of the Eucharist, is take, eat, and drink ye all of it: Which Words being set down before those in which the Consecrating them is believed to be made, This is my body: And this is my blood; and the Consecratory Words being delivered as the Reason of the Command, take, eat, and drink; nothing can be more clearly exprest than this that the Eucharist is consecrated only, that it may be used; that it may be eat and drunk.

The Second Part of this Period is, that the Effect of the Sacraments comes only upon the Worthy receiving of them; of this so much was already said, upon the first Paragraph of this Article, that it is not necessary to add any more here. The pretending that Sacraments have their Effect any other way, is the bringing in the Doctrine and Practice of Charms into the Christian Religion: And it tends to dissolve all Obligations, to Piety and Devotion, to a Holiness of Life or a Purity of Temper: When the being in a Passive and perhaps Insensible State, while the Sacraments are applied, is thought a Disposition sufficient to give them their Vertue. Sacraments are federal Acts, and those visible Actions are intended to quicken us, so that in the use of them we may raise our inward Acts to the highest Degrees possible; but not to supply their Defects or Imperfections. Our Opinion in this Point represents them as means to raise our Minds, and to kindle our Devotion, whereas the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, represents them as so many Charms which may heighten indeed the Authority of him that Administers them, but do extinguish and deaden all true Piety, when such helps are offered, by which the worst Men, living and dying in a bad State, may by a few faint Acts, and perhaps by none at all of their own, be well enough taken care of and secured. But as we have not so learned Christ, so neither dare we corrupt his Doctrine, in its most vital and essential Parts.

Footnotes

1. 1 Pet. 3.21. ↩

2. 1 Cor. 10.1[?]. ↩

3. Tit. 3.5. Mark 16.16. John 3.3, 5. ↩

4. Lib. 10. Ep. 97. ↩

5. 1 Tim. 6.20. ↩

6. Matth. 28.19. ↩

7. 1 Pet. 3.21. Matth. 26.26, 27. ↩

8. 1 Cor. 11.23, to 27. ↩

9. 1 Cor. 10.16, 17. ↩

10. Lib. 3. Dist. 2. ↩

11. Acts 8.12, 14, 15, 16, 17. ↩

12. Heb. 6.2. ↩

13. Theophil. l. 1. ad Autolyc. Tert. de Bapt. c. 7, 8. de Resur. ca[?]. c. 8. Cypr. Ep. 70. ↩

14. 2 Cor. 1.21, 22. 1 John 2.20, 27. ↩

15. Con. Araus. c. 1, 2. Cod. Affr. Can. 6. Con. Tol. c. 20. ↩

16. Hieron. ad. Lucifer. ↩

17. Hilar. in cap. 4. ad. Ephes. ut Supra. ↩

18. Greg. Ep. l. 3. Ep. 9. ↩

19. In decr. Con. Florent. ↩

20. 1 John 1.9. ↩

21. James 5.16. ↩

22. Innoc. 3. in 4. later. Can. 21, 22. Conc. Trid. Sess. 14. c. 5. ↩

23. Matt. 3.6. ↩

24. 1 Tim. 5.10. ↩

25. 2 Thess. 3.14. 1 Cor. 5.11. ↩

26. John 20.23. ↩

27. Acts 5.3, 9. ↩

28. Acts 8.23. ↩

29. James 5.16. ↩

30. Dallaeus de Confessione. Morinus de Poenitentia. ↩

31. Socr. Hist. l. 5. c. 19. ↩

32. Thirteen Passages out of him cited and explained by Daille de Conf. l. 4. c. 25. ↩

33. Trid. Sess. 14. c. 4. ↩

34. 1 Cor. 13. 1, 2. ↩

35. Rituale Romanum de sacr. poeniten. ↩

36. Haberti pontif. Graecum. Morinus de Ordinat. Sac[?]is. ↩

37. Ephes. 5.32. ↩

38. Upon the whole Doctrine of the Church of Rome, concerning the Sacraments, as it is explained by the Schoolmen, I have followed the Account given by Honoratus Fabri, in his Summula Theologica, who is dead within these Ten Years. I knew him at Rome, Anno 1685. He was a true Philosopher, beyond the Liberties allowed by his Order, and studied to reduce their School-Divinity to as clear Ideas as it was capable of. So that in following him, I have given the best, and not the worst Face of their Doctrine. His Book was Printed at Lions, Anno 1669. ↩

39. Eph. 2.15, 16, 20, 21. ↩

40. Matth. 5.32. Matth. 19.9. Mark 10.11. Luke 16.18. ↩

41. Tertul. lib. 4. cont. Marcion. c. 34. Basil. Ep. ad Amphil. c. 9. Chrysos. hom. 17. in Matth. Epiph. haeres. 59. Cath. Conc. Elib. c. 65. Conc. Arel. c. 10. Conc. Affric. c. 102. Causa 32. q. 7. In decr. Eug. in Conc. Flor. Erasm. in 1. Ep. ad Cor. 7. Cajetan in Matth. 19. c. 9. Cathar. in 1. Ep. ad. Cor. 7. l. 5. Annot. ↩

42. Mark 6.13. ↩

43. James 5.14, 15. ↩

44. Matth. 21.21. ↩

45. 1 Cor. 13.2. ↩

46. [?]oh[?] 14.1[?]. ↩

47. Rituale Rom. Con. Trid. Se[?]s. 14. ↩

48. Cons. Apost. l. 3. c. 16. l. 7. cap. 42, 44. Tertul. de bapt. c. 10. Cypr. Ep. 70. [?]lem. Alex. paedag. l. 11. c. 8. Dionys. Areop. de Eccles. hier. c. 7, 8. ↩

49. Innocent. Ep. 1. ad Decent. ↩

50. Lib. Sacram. Gregor. Menardi Nota. ↩

51. Bede. Hist. Ang. l. 3. c. 15. Euchol. Gra. p. 408 ↩

52. Decr. Eug. in Con. Flor. Con. Trid. Sess, 14. ↩