ART. this principle is once admitted; that a man is not bound by XXV. 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 open to perfidy and treachery, that the world can be no longer safe while it is allowed; hereby lewd and vicious persons may entangle 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 privileges with the Jews, in the dispensation of the Messias. The Jews 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, which was Eph. ii. 15, the Mosaical law, called 'the law of commandments contained 16, 20, 21. 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

6

Jew and Gentile must make one body; for since the church ART. was the spouse of Christ, he must, according to that figure, XXV 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.'

Matt, xix

9.

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 itself being a mutual transferring the right to one another's 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 Attic and Roman laws were so severe, that a man was infamous who did not divorce upon adultery. Our Saviour, when he blamed the Jews for their frequent divorces, established this rule, that whosoever puts away his wife, except it be for Matt. v. fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery.' 32. 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 Mark x.11 mentioning this exception; so some have thought that we Luke xvi. 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 though 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 inade 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.

18.

Both Tertullian, Basil, Chrysostom, and Epiphanius, allow Tertull.lib. of a divorce in case of adultery; and in those days they had iv. cont. no other notion of a divorce, but that it was the dissolution of Marcion.

c. 34.

XXV.

c. 9.

Chrysos. Hom. 17,

in Matt.

Hæres. 59.

ART. the bond; the late notion of a separation, the tie continuing, not being known till the canonists brought it in. Such a Basil. Ep. divorce was allowed by the council of Elliberis. The council ad Amphil. 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 Epiph. Gregory and pope Zachary allowed the innocent person to Cath. marry, so in a synod held at Rome in the tenth century, it Conc. was still allowed. When the Greeks were reconciled to the Ellib.c.65. Latins in the council of Florence, this matter was passed over, c.10. Conc. and the care of it was only recommended by the pope to the emperor. It is true, Eugenius put it in his instruction to the 69. Causa Armenians; but though that passes generally for a part of the council of Florence, yet the council was over and that was given out.

Conc. Arel.

Afric. c.

32. q. 7. In decr.

Eug. in

Conc. Flor.
Erasm. in

Cor. vii.

c. 9.

Cor. vii. 1.

up

before

into

This doctrine of the indissolubleness of marriage, even for 1 Ep. ad adultery, was never settled in any council before that of Trent. The canonists and schoolmen had indeed generally gone Cajetan. in that opinion; but not only Erasmus, but both Cajetan and Matt. xix. Catherinus declared themselves for the lawfulness of it: CaCathar. in jetan indeed used a salvo, in case the church had otherwise 1 Ep. ad defined, which did not then appear to him. So that this 5. Annot. 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.

is

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 Unction.* In the commission that Christ gave his

* The council of Trent having made this sacrament, thus describes its virtue:

'De effectu hujus sacramenti.

'Res porro, et effectus hujus sacramenti illis verbis explicatur: et oratio fidei salvabit infirmum; et alleviabit eum Dominus; et, si in peccatis sit, dimittentur ei: Res etenim hæc gratia est Spiritus Sancti: cujus unctio delicta, si quæ sint adhuc expianda, ac peccati reliquias abstergit; et ægroti animam alleviat, et confirmat, magnam in eo divinæ misericordiæ fiduciam excitando; qua infirmus sublevatus; et morbi incommoda ac labores levius fert; et tentationibus dæmonis calcaneo insidiantis facilius resistit; et sanitatem corporis interdum, ubi saluti animæ expedierit, consequitur.' Sessio xiv. cap. 2.

In the following chapter, 'De ministro hujus sacramenti, et tempore quo dari de: Declaratur beat,' the council states the reason of the name extreme unction etiam, esse hanc unctionem infirmis adhibendam, illis vero præsertim qui tam periculose decumbunt, ut in exitu vitæ constituti videantur: unde et sacramentum exeuntium nuncupatur.'

In another place of the same session the council thus enforces her new article: Canon 1.- Si quis dixerit, extremum unctionem non esse vere et proprie sacramentum a Christo Domino nostro institutum, et a beato Jacobo apostolo promulgatum; sed ritum tantum acceptum a patribus, aut figmentum humanum: anathema

sit.

Mark vi.

apostles, among the other powers that were given them ART. to confirm it, one was to cure diseases and heal the sick; pur- XXV. suant to which St. Mark tells, that they anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them.' The prophets used 13. 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 precedent, 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. James's words, 'Is James. any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; 14, 15. and let them 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 bye, 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 nobody 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. James, 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

sit.'-Canon 2. Si quis dixerit, sacram infirmorum unctionem non conferre gratiam, nec remittere peccata, nec alleviare infirmos; sed jam cessasse, quasi olim tantum fuerit gratia curationum: anathema sit.'-[ED.]

XXV.

ART. 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.

21.

2.

6

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 miMatt. xxi. racles, of which Christ said, 'If ye have faith as a grain of mustard-seed, ye shall say to this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place, and nothing shall be impossible unto you.' 1 Cor. xiii. 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 John xiv. healed. Christ had promised that 'whatsoever they should ask in his name, he would do it.' His name must be restrained to his authority, or pursuant to such secret motions as they shall receive from him. This is the prayer of faith here mentioned by St. James: 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 person's having committed sins, which is added, shews that sometimes this virtue 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. John 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

13.