declaratory of his pardon, or supplicatory in a prayer to him ART. for pardon.

XXV.

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 these 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 public a city as Paris. But some schoolmen began 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 Rituale passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, the merits of the blessed Vir- Romanum gin and all the saints, and all the good that thou hast done, and de sacr. the evil that thou hast suffered, be to thee for the remission of pœnitent. 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 settled 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

ART. imposition of hands, and by prayer. These were the only rites XXV. 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 blessed and dedicated to the holy ministry by imposition of hands and prayer; and that then they are received according to the order and practice settled 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 function 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.

Haberti pontif.

Græcum.

Ordinat.

sacris.

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 Morinus de prayers in their office of Ordination, 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 looked 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 though 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 though both prayer and imposition of hands are used in the office, yet they are not joined together. In the conclusion of the office, a new benediction was added ever since

XXV.

the twelfth century. The bishop alone lays on his hands, ART. 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 suit 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 of 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 first 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 and 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

XXV.

ART. 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 reckon 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 transubstantiation, they seem to think that no order can be above that which qualifies a man for so great a performance.

32.

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 Ephes. v. sacrament, from the translation of a passage in St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians, 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 ART 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, 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 complete, or rather to make the marriage, such persons do live only in a state of concubinage.

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. Men's 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

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 Summa 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 Lyons, anno 1669.

XXV.