h 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 Presented by Mr. Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 Agnew Coll. on Baptism, No. 
 
 
^- 
 
A CATECHISM 
 
 ON THE 
 
 SEVEN SACRAMENTS. 
 
 BY THE REV. C. D. BRERETON, A.M. 
 
 RECTOR OF LITTLE MASSINGHAM, NORFOLK. 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 J. HATCHARD & SON, 187, PICCADILLY. 
 
 1834. 
 
LYNN: 
 
 PRINTED BY J. W. AIKIN, 
 HIGH STREET. 
 
fttC. APfi 188/ V 
 
 
 It may be necessary to inform the reader, that 
 the following Catechism was undertaken, in the 
 first instance, for the use and benefit of the 
 Author's children. Having been obliged, during 
 the past year, for the health of a member of his 
 family, to reside for some months in France ; 
 the services of the Roman Catholic Church, 
 naturally attracted the attention of children, and 
 induced them to put many questions respecting 
 the ceremonies and offices which they frequently 
 witnessed. This circumstance suggested the 
 idea of drawing up, for their use, a catechism, 
 which might give them a knowledge of the Ro- 
 man Catholic Religion, and of the value of their 
 own. 
 
 The subject of ceremonies, however, was so 
 extensive and diversified, and at the same time 
 calculated to give such trivial notions of Chris- 
 tianity, that it was found advisable to drop the 
 distinct consideration of them, and to confine 
 the attention to some more substantial parts of 
 the Roman Catholic system. For this purpose, 
 
IV 
 
 the Seven Sacraments, as developing the essen- 
 tials of that religion, seemed to present the most 
 complete and instructive subject for investiga- 
 tion. The Author had not proceeded far with 
 his object, when the interest and importance of 
 it convinced him, that it might be useful, not 
 only to children, but to many others at the pre- 
 sent time, to have a succinct and consistent 
 statement of the doctrines of the Roman Catho- 
 lics, as well as of the opinions of Protestants in 
 general, and of the Church of England in parti- 
 cular, on those topics fsome of them essential^ 
 to which the Seven Sacraments refer. Such is 
 the brief history of this book, and of the form 
 which it has assumed. 
 
 By essays, letters, or some other form, the 
 discussion of the Seven Sacraments might have 
 appeared less dogmatical and more interesting, 
 but these advantages have been sacrificed to the 
 deliberate conviction, that it may be a help and 
 satisfaction to many, to have some of the impor- 
 tant questions, which are now so freely pro- 
 pounded, set before them in the form in which 
 they actually occur, viz. of questions proposed 
 and answers given. Religious, and indeed all 
 
opinions, by means of the press, pass in a too 
 rapid succession before the minds of those, who 
 have only leisure to read or hear superficial and 
 occasional statements, and arranged collections 
 of sentiment on moral, religious, and civil ques- 
 tions are become desirable, and indeed necessary 
 antidotes to mischiefs, which must always arise 
 from delusive notions of knowledge on impor- 
 tant and difficult questions. It may be neces- 
 sary to introduce instruction of this sort (though 
 not always in the form which it has assumed 
 in this tract) into schools and seminaries of 
 learning, that young men when they are called 
 to mix in the world, may not be surprised by 
 bold assertions, but may be able (even if they 
 are not always willing) to give a sufficient reason 
 for the sentiments they entertain, and to which 
 they adhere. 
 
 Many individuals are to be found, who, 
 through the want of instruction on the most 
 important subjects, have picked up unconnected 
 and discordant opinions, that are painful to 
 themselves, and render them uncharitable in 
 their judgment of others, for it is ignorance and 
 not real knowledge that is the enemy of charity. 
 
VI 
 
 To such, the clear exhibition of the capital 
 truths and maxims of the Christian religion, and 
 of th^ principal duties of civil life, are more val- 
 uable than separate disquisitions on individual 
 points, which are more fitted for the gratification 
 of those v.'ho have learned leisure. At the same 
 time it must be observed, that, learning is now so 
 generally divulged, (however superficially it may 
 be understood) that it is not suliicient to put 
 forth elementary treatises, (as was formerly the 
 case) in which all disquisition shall be excluded. 
 In the following treatise, therefore, the more in- 
 teresting topics have been discussed with ^as 
 much freedom as the limits of question and an- 
 swer would allow ; and if a catechism shall not 
 be suited to the taste of general readers, the 
 Author will indulge the hope, that some may 
 derive instruction, and that others will share, 
 (even under this antiquated form) the pleasure 
 which he has derived from discovering the reli- 
 gious and moral truths which lie concealed under 
 the mysteries of the Seven Sacraments. 
 

 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 PART I. 
 
 Chapter I. On Baptism and Confirmation page 1 
 
 II. On the Lord's Supper 15 
 
 PART II. 
 
 On the rejected Sacraments. 
 
 Chapter I. On Penance ..;... 45 
 
 II. On extreme Unction 74 
 
 III. On Orders 137 
 
 IV. On Marriage 222 
 
In consequence of a distant residence from the press, some errors have 
 escaped uncorrected. The reader is requested to observe and excuse the fol- 
 lowing, as well as those in the punctuation. 
 
 4 
 
 for there are things read these are things 
 
 11 
 35 
 
 36 
 
 Stephanus 
 Christ's persons 
 word 
 
 Stephanas 
 
 person 
 
 words 
 
 49 
 
 is it 
 
 it is 
 
 62 
 
 enfores 
 
 enforces 
 
 161 
 
 by councils 
 
 by the councils 
 
 167 
 
 doctrines 
 
 doctrine 
 
 168 
 175 
 179 
 
 popes 
 to opus 
 overwhelmed it 
 
 pope 
 the opus 
 them 
 
 193 
 
 veracular 
 
 vernacular 
 
 224 
 
 Jews and Christians 
 
 Jews and Gentiles 
 
 238 
 
 at the same 
 
 at the same time 
 
 241 
 
 fornication 
 
 fornicator 
 
CATECHISM, 
 
 &c. 
 
 PART I. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 
 0:1 
 
 "Tli 
 
 
 ^TAr 
 
 #*¥*V1 
 
 " I mean an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given 
 unto us, ordained by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive the same, 
 and a pledge to assure us thereof." Catechism of the Church of England, 
 
 ^Hpti^m antr C^onfirmatiott* 
 
 Q. What is the name by which you are called ? 
 
 A. By my christian name, which I consider my 
 greatest honor and distinction. 
 
 Q. Why do you consider your christian name 
 an honor ? 
 
 A. Because it calls me to the greatest duties, 
 best consolations, and highest rewards of my ex- 
 istence. 
 
 Q. Why do you consider it your greatest dis- 
 tinction *? 
 
 A. Because it distinguishes me from the rest 
 of mankind, Jews and Pagans, and entitles me 
 to peculiar privileges here and hereafter. 
 
2 
 
 Q. How have you J)ecome a Christian ? 
 
 A. Through the grace of God, 1 am a Chris- 
 tian by my birth, baptism, and public profession. 
 
 Q. How are you a Christian by birth ? 
 
 A. Being born of christian parents, 1 am en- 
 titled, according to the promise of God, to the 
 privileges of the visible Church which my pa- 
 rents enjoyed. 
 
 Q. How are you a Christian by baptism ? 
 
 A. By my baptism I was formally admitted, 
 according to Christ's command, to the privileges 
 of the christian church, to which by my birth, • 
 and the promise of God, I was entitled. 
 
 Q. Are you entitled to the privileges of a Chirs- 
 tian, through the merits of your parents? 
 
 A. No, but by the grace and promise of God, 
 of which baptism under the christian covenant is 
 the divine sign and seal. 
 
 Q. Of what is baptism the sacramental sign 
 and seal ? 
 
 A. It is the sign and seal of God's promise of 
 the remission of sins through Christ, and of rege- 
 neration through the Spirit. 
 
 Q. Do you hence infer the general necessity 
 of Baptism ? 
 
 A. " Since all men are conceived and born in 
 sin," and it is hereby that they are " made mem- 
 bers of Christ, " I infer the necessity of bap- 
 tismal regeneration, the authorised means of 
 admission into Christ's kingdom for all mankind. 
 
Q. Does Christ command it universally ? 
 
 A. Yes, he asserts, that except a man be horm 
 of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into 
 the kingdom of heaven ; and he commands his 
 Apostles and their successors, " Go ye, make dis- 
 ciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name 
 of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
 Ghost." 
 
 Q. How did the Apostles execute this com- 
 mand to baptize ? 
 
 A. They baptized or authorised to be baptized 
 all, who, from among Jews or Heathens believed 
 in Christ, with their families. 
 
 Q. Why do you consider, that children in 
 christian countries ought to be baptized ? 
 
 A. Because they are included in the promise 
 and command of God, and because they are ca- 
 pable, from their infancy, of his acceptance and 
 the regeneration of the Spirit, which is the pro- 
 mise of the gospel to all the world. 
 
 Q. Does the doctrine of baptismal regenera- 
 tion invalidate the necessity of the continual aid 
 of the Holy Spirit ? 
 
 A, No, baptismal regeneration is but a part 
 of a whole, but it recognises the necessity for 
 "the daily renewing of the Holy Spirit, " and 
 seals the promise of it in the most solemn manner. 
 It is the germ or graft of the future tree, which, 
 according to the future culture, brings forth fruit 
 to perfection. 
 
 B 2 
 
Q. Is it necessary, that when those who are 
 baptized in their infancy come to years of discre- 
 tion, they should make a public profession of 
 their Repentance and Faith *? 
 
 A. Yes. A christian calling, without a chris- 
 tion life, is unavailing. Unbelief and final im^ 
 penitence will forfeit the blessings which God has 
 promised to us, whether in this Sacrament par- 
 ticularly, or in the Gospel generally. 
 
 Q. Is it then necessary, that you become a 
 christian by your own public profession and prac- 
 tice, as well as by your birth and baptism ? 
 
 A. Certainly. I am bound by solemn vows 
 and stipulations, to maintain a good conscience, 
 believing what God reveals, and obeying what 
 he commands, 
 
 Q. Is this public profession to be renewed by 
 a repetition of Baptism ? 
 
 A. "I believe one baptism for the remission 
 of sins," for if by baptism we are regenerate and 
 ingrafted into Christ's church, there are things 
 which can be no more repeated, than that a man 
 should enter into his mother's womb and be born 
 again. 
 
 Q. Do you consider the administration of 
 Baptism of essential importance to the world ? 
 
 A. Yes. I consider it of essential importance, 
 that the will of God in this, as in every respect, 
 should be obeyed ; but besides the positive autho- 
 rity for this institution, I believe that it was made 
 
for man, and has been one great means, by which 
 the conversion of the nations, has been and will 
 be confirmed; and by consequence the great 
 blessings of the Gospel conveyed to mankind. 
 
 Q. Do you consider it essential to the interests 
 of the Church of Christ? 
 
 A. Yes, I consider it essential, as a positive 
 institution of Christ, as a means of salvation and 
 of preserving the doctrines of Christianity pure 
 and undefiled. 
 
 Q. In what way do you consider that the 
 neglect of this institution would be injurious to the 
 christian cause *? 
 
 A. It would be injurious ; because, it can be 
 only neglected by a misinterpretation or unbelief 
 of the Christian Scriptures, and by a consequent 
 substitution of the will of man for the will of God. 
 Besides, the neglect of the Sacrament would re- 
 duce Christianity from a divine institution, to a 
 mere philosophical or sophistical sentiment, 
 which would deprive it of its popular and moral 
 effects. 
 
 Q. Do you consider it of importance, that the 
 Name which every one bears in a christian coun- 
 try, should be associated with the administration 
 of christian baptism *? 
 
 A. Yes, inasmuch as this sacramental associa- 
 tion consecrates the relations of society, and tends 
 to implant in the minds of all, a sacred obligation 
 to Christ, and an honorable affection to each 
 
 B 3 
 
6 
 
 other, as the members of his Church. 
 
 Q. Would the secular imposition and registra- 
 tion of a Name be equally beneficial ? 
 
 A. No ; such a procedure would not only 
 disturb society, and throw into disuse one of the 
 most ancient practices of revealed religion, but 
 AYould endanger many moral and social blessings 
 which a national Christianity secures ; such as, 
 the early religious instruction of youth, the duties 
 of parents and children, the sacredness of mar- 
 riage, and the universal recognition of a religious 
 responsibility to observe the reciprocal duties of 
 the gospel. In a country professing the Christian 
 name, it would impair both faith and practice, 
 as, in fact, the exclusion ot religious sanctions 
 from important civil acts has done in a neigh- 
 l)ouring country, where in a highly civilized soci- 
 ety, breaches have been made in morals and 
 social confidence, which neither the refinements 
 of legislation nor the substitutions of police, nor 
 any thing but a national and social religion, will 
 repair. 
 
 Q. Are there negligences in the administra- 
 tion of this Sacrament? 
 
 A. Yes, many, arising from the low conception 
 of its importance to the world, and which will be 
 most effectually removed by a pious recognition 
 of its authority in the Church. 
 
 Q. Was Baptism peculiar to Christianity ? 
 
 A. As a rite of ecclesiastical use it was not, as 
 
a Sacrament of divine institution it was. 
 
 Q, How was it used as an ecclesiastical rite 
 amons: the Jews and other nations ? 
 
 A. Baptisms or lustrations were frequent 
 among the Jews and other nations, but it was 
 performed in a peculiar manner in the initiation 
 of the Gentile converts into the Jewish Church. 
 
 Q. Was every proselyte to Judaism baptized ? 
 
 A . Yes, he was both circumcised and baptized . 
 
 Q, Was it the practice of the Jews to baptize 
 the children of proselytes ? 
 
 A. Yes, the children with their believing pa- 
 rents. 
 
 Q. Was the Baptism of John from heaven *? 
 
 A. Yes. John the Baptist, the promised Elias, 
 and harbinger of the Messiah, had a divine com- 
 mission to preach repentance, and to baptize all 
 who believed in the advent of Christ. 
 
 Q. Was John's baptism the same as the bap- 
 tism of Christ ? 
 
 A. No ; the outward sign was the same, but the 
 things signified were in many respects different. 
 
 Q. Did John preach the remission of sins, or 
 promise the Holy Ghost in his baptism "? 
 
 A. It does not appear that he did either, and 
 some who had been baptized only according to 
 John's baptism, did not know whether there were 
 any Holy Ghost. 
 
 Q. Was John's baptism freely administered, 
 and generally accepted *? 
 
 A. Yes : " then went out unto him Jerusalem, 
 
8 
 
 and all Judea, and all the region round about 
 Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan con- 
 fessing their sins." 
 
 Q. Did John, or Jesus, or the disciples of 
 either complain of or insinuate against this gene- 
 ral administration ? 
 
 A. They did not, nor do we find that the ad- 
 ministration of it, in any individual case, was 
 questioned. It was generally administered, and 
 the initiated were exhorted to bring forth the fruits 
 of repentance, while those who did not submit to 
 it themselves, or hindered others, were expressly 
 condemned. 
 
 Q. Did John acknowledge that his mission was 
 preliminary, and his baptism imperfect ? 
 
 A. Yes, he said publicly, " he that cometh af- 
 ter me, is greater than I ; whose shoes I am not 
 worthy to bear ; he shall baptize you with the 
 Holy Ghost and with fire." 
 
 Q. Do you suppose that our Lord imitated this 
 Jewish rite, which was provisionally authorized 
 under John the Baptist, in the institution of 
 Christian Baptism for the world ? 
 
 A. Yes, as he also graciously substituted the 
 Sacrament of the Lord's Supper for the Passover, 
 the Passover being the type, as the Lord's Sup- 
 per was the memorial of Christ's sacrifice and 
 death. 
 
 Q. What do you consider essential to the ad- 
 ministration of this Sacrament ? 
 
9 
 
 A. The outward and visible sign which is wa- 
 ter, with the words of consecration, " in the 
 name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
 Holy Ghost." 
 
 Q. Was water used by the Apostles and their 
 successors ? 
 
 A. Yes, the testimonies to this fact are deci- 
 sive. 
 
 Q. How is the water to be used ? 
 
 A. Water in baptism may be used by immer- 
 sion, or effusion, or aspersion. 
 
 Q. Have all these methods been employed in 
 the Church ? 
 
 A. Yes, all of them ; and all are equally suffi- 
 cient to signify the inward and spiritual grace. 
 
 Q. Do you consider that any of these methods 
 may be now used *? 
 
 A. To satisfy the conscience of any, immer- 
 sion, effusion, or aspersion may be adopted ; 
 but in this climate, and in the present state of 
 society, the last method appears to be the most 
 decent, convenient, and charitable. 
 
 Q. Why is it essential to baptize " in [or unto] 
 the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
 the Holy Ghost?" 
 
 A. Because Christ has so commanded it, and 
 because every baptized person must be discipled 
 to this essential doctrine and mystery of Chris- 
 tianity, without the belief of which no one is 
 really a christian, and built upon the rock. 
 
10 
 
 Q. Has it been the g^eneral practice of the 
 christian church to administer baptism before 
 christian witnesses, or sureties ? 
 
 A. Yes, for since Baptism is to be adminis- 
 tered in infancy, and only once, since a christian 
 state and title are required, to Christian com- 
 munion, and since it is always accompanied with 
 solemn stipulations and vows ; witnesses, or god- 
 fathers and godmothers, or sponsors of some 
 kind, have been considered (except in cases of 
 necessity) as formally requisite, when a candi- 
 date is presented in and by the church, for christ- 
 ian baptism. 
 
 Q. Does it not lessen the importance of bap- 
 tism, that Jesus Christ did not baptize himself ? 
 
 A. By no means. Jesus Christ did not baptize 
 himself, but (qui facit per alium facit per se,) 
 he ordained others to do it provisionally before 
 his crucifixion and he afterwards commissioned 
 the Apostles and their successors to'the end of the 
 world, to baptize sacramentally and universally. 
 Baptism, as a christian sacrament, was not insti- 
 tutedtill immediately before our Lord's ascension. 
 
 Q. Did the Apostles consider themselves as 
 commissioned to baptize as well as to preach ? 
 
 A. Yes. No sooner were they baptized with 
 the Holy Ghost and with fire, than they entered 
 upon their apostleship at Jerusalem, m.ade con- 
 verts or disciples, who were instantly command' 
 edto be baptized, and after baptism admitted to 
 
11 
 
 Christian fellowship and communion, in the 
 Lord's Supper. 
 
 Q. Does not St. Paul appear to slight the in- 
 stitution of Baptism, when he says, Christ sent 
 me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel, and 
 declares that he baptized only two eminent indi- 
 viduals, and one household at Corinth ? 
 
 A. No. St. Paul in this historical allusion, 
 plainly asserts, that he did baptize himself in his 
 career of fulfilling his apostleship to the Gentiles ; 
 his work brought him in contact with Crispus, 
 the leader of the synagogue. Gains his host, 
 and Stephanus the first fruits of Achaia, who 
 was also called to a christian office. These 
 eminent individuals he did baptize himself, but 
 the detail of catechizing and baptizing, he could 
 not possibly execute, without neglecting the great 
 work of converting the heathen, to which he was 
 called. That part of the ministry, therefore, he 
 deferred to others. St. Paul had also another 
 reason for not baptizing generally, lest with the 
 extraordinary success that attended his ministry, 
 and the constant propensity of mankind to attach 
 themselves to names and sects, any should sup- 
 pose that he baptized in his own name, or made 
 proselytes to his own fame. 
 
 Q. But did not St. Paul and the other Apostles 
 ordain others to administer this sacrament in the 
 church, and did they not confirm by the imposi- 
 tion of hands, those who were so baptized and 
 
12 
 
 admitted into christian fellowship ? 
 
 A. Yes. St. Paul and the other Apostles con- 
 firmed the discipleS;, and bestowed by the impo- 
 sition of hands the gifts of the Holy Ghost, on 
 such as were discipled and baptized. 
 
 Q. Have the extraordinary gifts of the Holy 
 Ghost ceased *? 
 
 A. Yes, they ceased with the Apostles, and 
 those on whom they conferred extraordinary 
 powers; and we expect now in the worship, sacra- 
 ments, and services of the Church, the ordinary 
 spiritual, and moral gifts and graces of the Spirit. 
 
 Q. Has not the practice of the Church, with 
 the exception of communicating extraordinary 
 powers, conformed to the apostolic example ever 
 since ? 
 
 A. Yes, the administration of Baptism with its 
 details, has usually been performed by the pres- 
 byters and deacons, on converts and the child- 
 ren of christian parents ; and these, when further 
 instructed, have been confirmed, on a public pro- 
 fession of their vows, in the presence of the 
 presbyters and the Church, by the bishops and 
 fathers of the Church, the successors of the 
 Apostles. 
 
 Q. Do you consider confirmation to be an 
 apostolic practice, and a christian usage, useful at 
 all times. 
 
 A. Yes, we have historical testimony to con- 
 vince us, that it was primitive, and continued to 
 
13 
 
 the time of the reformation, when the most emi- 
 nent reformers acknowledged its antiquity, and 
 commended its use, 
 
 Q. Do you consider confirmation to be a sa- 
 crament ? 
 
 A. No, the Romish Church has made it one of 
 the seven sacraments, but there is no authority, 
 scriptural or apostoHcal, for enforcing it as such, 
 now that the extraordinary gifts that accompa- 
 nied the apostolic practice of it have ceased. 
 
 Q. Does the Roman Catholic Church enforce 
 confirmation, as absolutely necessary to salvation 
 as Baptism ? 
 
 A. At the time of the reformation, it was held 
 in more veneration than baptism ; but now it is 
 held to be not so necessary. This admission, 
 with respect to the importance of this and some 
 others of the seven sacraments, would seem to 
 impeach ( considering the nature of such institu- 
 tions) their sacramental authority. 
 
 Q. How do the Roman Catholics give to con- 
 firmation the appearance of a sacrament ? 
 
 A. By using the Holy Cream, made of oil and 
 balm and consecrated by the Bishop on Holy 
 Thursday, as an outward and visible sign of an 
 inward spiritual grace. 
 
 Q. Is there any scriptural or apostolic autho- 
 ty for such a sacramental use of the chrism in 
 confirmation ? 
 
 A. No, and therefore confirmation, though an 
 
14 
 
 ecclesiastical rite of great use and antiquity, is 
 not a sacrament. 
 
 Q. What are the principal uses of confirma- 
 tion ? 
 
 A. It is of use in admitting to communion, 
 without reiteration of baptism, those whose bap- 
 tism has been doubtful or irregular. It is the 
 means of instructing and confirming youth in 
 christian principles, at the most critical period of 
 their lives ; while at the same time, it gives the 
 office of bishop an important and affectionate 
 influence among clergy and people, and brings 
 down, by prayer and blessing, the grace and favor 
 of heaven. 
 
CHAP. 11. 
 
 I mean an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto 
 us, ordained by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive the same, and a 
 pledge to assure us thereof.'' Catechism of the Church of Ent/land, 
 
 Uorti*^ Supper* 
 
 Q. Do you consider the Sacrament of the 
 Lord's Supper, to rest upon the same authority 
 as the Sacrament of Baptism, and to be equally 
 necessary ? 
 
 A. Yes, it is the second Sacrament generally 
 necessary to salvation. 
 
 Q. What is the outward visible sign in the 
 Lord's Supper ? 
 
 A. Bread and Wine, which the Lord has com- 
 manded to be received. 
 
 Q. Is this outward and visible sign necessary? 
 
 A. Yes, it is necessary, because Christ has 
 commanded it by express form and institution. 
 The outward and visible signs, or the elements 
 and material substances designated and conse- 
 crated for this especial purpose, are absolutely 
 necessary to the christian sacraments. Without 
 
16 
 
 this, tliey would be mere rites or vows, or pray- 
 ers, or thanksgiving, or spiritual services, but not 
 Sacraments of divine institution for the Catho- 
 lic Church. Those, therefore, who reject the 
 outward and visible sign, disuse the Sacrament 
 and disobey the commandment of Christ, who 
 has enjoined it to be perpetually observed. 
 
 Q. Is it an error so to spiritualize the Scrip- 
 tures, as to reject this Holy Sacrament ? 
 
 A. Yes, it is a great error, though held by few, 
 and held in charity, for though the spiritual know- 
 ledge of God, his attributes, and will, is the 
 highest attainment of the human soul, and will 
 constitute the perfection of heaven ; yet this is 
 no apology, for the neglect, in the present state 
 of imperfection, of baptism, the Lord's Supper, 
 public worship, the christian sabbath, which, 
 though positive duties, are the means of convey- 
 ing instruction and edification to man : nay more, 
 the injuctions to preach the gospel, and to believe 
 the gospel, are positive commandments, and yet, 
 no christian would say, that being the commands 
 of Christ, they are not of the highest moral obli- 
 gation. 
 
 Q. But are not these outward signs, weak 
 elements and inconsistent with the simplicity and 
 spirituality of the gospel ? 
 
 A. If Christ has ordained them in his Church 
 they cannot be weak, nor are they any where re- 
 presented as such in sacred scripture. When 
 
17 
 
 « 
 
 moreover, we consider, that in the present con- 
 dition of human nature, some visible signs are 
 necessary to build and preserve a visible Church, 
 to make the necessary outward distinction be- 
 tween those that believe, and those that do not, 
 and that as the christian symbols are designed to 
 abolish all types, and abrogate all sacrifices 
 throughout the world for ever, it does appear that 
 signs more simple than water, bread, and wine can 
 scarcely be imagined: signs so significant of 
 that washing and regeneration of the soul, that 
 strengthening of the spirit of man in virtue and 
 grace, that consolation of the heart, which the 
 gospel is intended to convey to all people. 
 
 Q. What is the thing signified by the Bread 
 and Wine, which the Lord has commanded to be 
 received ? 
 
 A. *' The body and blood of Christ, which are 
 verily and indeed taken and received by the 
 faithful in the Lord's Supper." 
 
 Q. What are the benefits whereof we are par- 
 takers thereby *? 
 
 A. " The strengthening and refreshing of our 
 souls by the body and blood of Christ, as our 
 bodies are by the bread and wine." 
 
 Q. Do not these answers appear mystical *? 
 
 A. Yes, we acknowledge that the Christian 
 sacraments contain mysteries, and that for the 
 right understanding of them, we must inquire dili- 
 gently into the design and nature of Christianity 
 
 c 
 
18 
 
 and into the meaning of the Scriptures. St. Paul 
 called this subject, the union and communion of 
 Christ and his Church, a great mystery. The 
 mysterious doctrines, however, and sacraments of 
 Christianity involving these doctrines, are not 
 to be considered unintelligilole in their design, 
 practice or efficacy, though the human mind may 
 not in speculation he able to scan and comprehend 
 entirely the purposes of the divine will. 
 
 Q. What is the design of this Sacrament ? 
 
 A. As Baptism was designed to initiate us into 
 the Church, and unite us to Christ, so the Sacra- 
 ment of the Lord's Supper is designed to strength- 
 en that union with Christ and his members. 
 
 Q. In what parts of Scripture do we find the 
 institution of this Sacrament ? 
 
 A. The principal passages are the following; 
 St. Matthew's account of the institution is thus 
 given — " And as they were eating, Jesus took 
 bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it 
 to his disciples, and said, Take, eat, this is my 
 body ; and he took the cup, and gave thanks, 
 and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it, 
 for this is my blood of the New Testament, which 
 is shed for many, for the remission of sins." 
 
 St. Mark's account is this — "And as they did 
 eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, 
 and gave to them, and said, Take, eat : this is 
 my body. And he took the cup, and when he 
 had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they 
 
19 
 
 all drank of it, and he said unto them, This is my 
 blood of the New Testament, which is shed for 
 many." St. Luke thus states the institution, "And 
 he took bread and gave thanks and brake it and 
 gave unto them saying, "this is my body, which 
 is given for you : this do in remembrance of me : 
 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying. This 
 cup is the new Testament in my blood which is 
 shed for you." St. Paul thus ; " I have received 
 of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, 
 that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he 
 was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given 
 thanks he brake it and said, Take eat, this is 
 my body, which is broken for you, this do in re- 
 membrance of me. After the same manner also 
 he took the cup, when he had supped saying. 
 This cup is the new Testament in my blood ; 
 this do ye as often as ye drink it in remem- 
 brance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread 
 and drink this cup ye do shew the Lord's death 
 till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this 
 bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily 
 shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." 
 Q. Does not the sixth chapter of St. John refer to 
 the institution of the sacrament of the last supper? 
 A. No : that chapter referred to the spiritual 
 fulfilment of the Jewish types, especially the dai- 
 ly manna in the person of Christ, and though the 
 doctrine is similar to the doctrine of the Sacra- 
 ment, it is not an exposition or a commentary 
 
 c2 
 
20 
 
 upon it, because the institution was not yet made 
 and Christ's hearers, of course, would have then 
 no knowledge or conception of it. If however this 
 discourse of Christ, be, as by a fair analogy it 
 may be, referred to this subject ; and we inter- 
 pret it, as Christ expressly commands, in the spirit 
 and not in the letter, it will in nowise alter the 
 decision of this question. 
 
 Q. What are the opinions which have been 
 entertained respecting the body and blood of 
 Christ in the Lord's Supper ? 
 
 A. There have been three, that of the Roman 
 Catholics or Transubstantiation ; of the Luthe- 
 rans or consubstantiation ; and that of the Church 
 of England & the Reformed Churches, sometimes 
 called Sacramentarians. 
 
 Q. Are not the doctrines of Transubstantiation 
 and Consubstantiation absurd, and unworthy of 
 consideration ? 
 
 A. We consider them to be unfounded and 
 erroneous in the extreme ; but they are held by 
 large bodies of our fellow Christians ; one by the 
 whole of the Romish Church, and the other by 
 the followers of the great reformer Luther. They 
 are not therefore to be dismissed without exami- 
 nation, lest we should appear to deny what we do 
 not understand or cannot refute. 
 
 Q. What is the doctrine of Transubstantiation 
 in the Eucharist as taught by the Church of Rome? 
 
 A. The Chm'ch of Rome teaches, that the 
 
21 
 
 Eucharist is the Sacrament, which contains really 
 and in truth, the body, blood, soul, and divinity 
 of our Saviour Jesus Christ, under the appear- 
 ance of the bread and wine — that Jesus Christ 
 in the institution, when he took the bread, and 
 said. This is my body, and the cup, saying, Drink 
 ye all of this, performed a wonderful miracle, 
 and changed these elements into his body and 
 blood — ^that when Christ said to his Apostles, Do 
 this in remembrance of me, he gave to the Apos- 
 tles, and through them to the Bishops and Priests 
 for ever, power to perform the same miracle — 
 that consequently, in the sacrifice of the Mass 
 when in the consecration the Priest uses the same 
 words, the same miracle is performed, the Tran- 
 substantiation takes place, the bread is no longer 
 bread, the wine is no longer wine, each of them, 
 and the smallest part of each of them, is the en- 
 tire person of Christ, body, blood, soul, and divi- 
 nity ; and that each communicant receives the 
 entire body of Christ, which was conceived in the 
 Virgin Mary, nailed to the cross, and is now in 
 heaven, being thus united to Christ, by actually 
 eating his sacred flesh, and drinking his precious 
 blood. Moreover, not only what is eaten is the 
 body and blood of Christ, but the whole Christ 
 is in each of the wafers which remain after par- 
 ticipation, and in every particle of them. 
 
 Q. What do we object to in the doctrine of 
 Transubstantiatiou ? 
 
22 
 
 A. Not to mention the enormous idea of the 
 power of working a miracle vested in and depen- 
 dent on the intention of all priests in all ages, 
 and under all circumstances, and that the power 
 of " making the body of Christ," (which we con- 
 sider a great imposture) we object to the specu- 
 lative error on which it is founded, and especially 
 to the superstitious and idolatrous practices with 
 which it is attended. 
 
 Q. What is the speculative error of the doc- 
 trine of Transubstantiation ? 
 
 A. It is an error respecting the real and cor- 
 poral presence of Jesus Christ, founded upon a 
 misconception of God in Christ, and Christ in 
 us. Christ being both God and Man we acknow- 
 ledge, that it is only through him, who is one 
 Christ, that there can be communion between 
 God and Man ; and that thus the grace of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the 
 communion of the Holy Ghost, can be with the 
 Church. On this communion, the Christian 
 Church is built, and of this communion the Sa- 
 crament is not only the sign, but the instrument 
 and seal. But the Church of Rome, by the doc- 
 trine of Transubstantiation, makes the participa- 
 tion of Christ's body and blood literal, and not 
 mystical or spiritual ; asserting, that in the Sa- 
 crament there is not only the real presence of 
 Christ, but the actual presence of that body with 
 which he died, rose again, and ascended into 
 
m 
 
 heaven. We admit that Christ, in his divinity, 
 is everywhere present, and that the human body 
 as well as soul is indissolubly united to his divine 
 person, through his incarnation by the Holy 
 Ghost ; yet the body itself being human and 
 finite, it is now no more filling all space, and per- 
 vading all being, or (what amounts to the same 
 thing) in any number of places, in any number of 
 wafers, or persons, at. any moment of time, than 
 it was when our Saviour was upon earth ; for if 
 the body of Christ were really thus capable of 
 omnipresence or omnipotence, and infinite multi- 
 plication, it could not be of the nature of man. 
 Though therefore the Church of Rome is gene- 
 rally orthodox, as to the fundamental doctrines of 
 the Trinity, the Person of Christ and of the Holy 
 Ghost, as maintained in the three creeds (par- 
 ticularly in the Athenasian) yet by the doc- 
 trine of Transubstantiation, it is guilty of a 
 great error in maintaining the corporal presence 
 of Christ, in every wafer, and in every communi- 
 cant, whenever and wherever the Sacrament is 
 administered, the Mass celebrated, the transub- 
 stantiated bread distributed and reserved, or the 
 host uplifted. 
 
 Q. What superstitious practices have arisen out 
 of this error ? 
 
 A. The sacrifice of the Mass, the feast of St. 
 Sacrament, the adoration of the Host, and the 
 Half Communion, and many others which render 
 
 1 
 
9A 
 
 the Church of Rome guilty of heresy, though 
 many of her children, not reflecting on these 
 things, may by faith and charity partake of the 
 blessed body and blood of Christ, and hold com- 
 munion with the head and members of the Chris- 
 tian Church. 
 
 Q. What is the sacrifice of the Mass *? 
 
 A. The Church of Rome maintains, that Christ 
 has not only given himself to us in the commu- 
 nion, but that he has instituted the Eucharist to of- 
 fer himself up continually as a victim and sacrifice 
 in the Mass — that the Mass is not only a memo- 
 rial of the sacrifice of the cross, but the same 
 sacrifice — that as on the cross Jesus Christ was 
 both the Priest and the Victim, so in the Mass, 
 Jesus Christ offers up himself by the Ministry of 
 the Priest, and is himself the Victim, and that 
 consequently the sacrifice of the Mass is propiti- 
 atory, and offered, not only for those who partake 
 of it, but for the living and the dead, for all man- 
 ner of sins, punishments, and satisfactions. 
 
 Q. Do Roman Catholics make no difference 
 between the sacrifice of the Mass and of the 
 Cross "^ 
 
 A. Yes, while they assert it is the same sacrifice, 
 they admit a difference in the manner in which 
 Christ is offered ; and the difference asserted is 
 this, that Jesus Christ offered himself upon the 
 Cross by the shedding of his blood, but that 
 Jesus Christ offers himself upon the Altar by the 
 
25 
 
 ministry of the Priest, without the eftusion of 
 blood 
 
 Q. Is not this explanation inconsistent with the 
 doctrine of transubstantiation, and with the more 
 early opinion of the mi-bloody sacrifice maintain- 
 ed in the ancient Church *? 
 
 A. This asserted difference is consistent with 
 neither ; for it is at variance with the idea of a 
 real transubstantiation of the elements into the 
 body and blood of Christ, and that by a sacrifice 
 similar to the typical sacrifice of the Jews ; and it 
 is inconsistent with the ancient opinion of the 
 sacrifice, ( in the Eucharist ) which was simply 
 this, that the whole service of the Church (of 
 which the Eucharist was always the chief part ) 
 was an oblation of charity, prayer, thanksgiving, 
 and self devotion, through the sacrifice of Christ 
 upon the Cross, by which God was already glori- 
 fied and reconciled. 
 
 Q. Does the Church of England reject alto- 
 gether the doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass ? 
 
 A. Expressly in her thirty-first Article, " The 
 offering of Christ once made is that perfect 
 redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all 
 the sins of the whole world, both original and 
 actual, and there is none other satisfaction for 
 sin but that alone : " and further in her Com- 
 munion Service throughout, where sheasserts 
 the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross, to be final 
 and complete, and where she admits no other but 
 
the moral and reasonable sa<^rifice of praise, gra- 
 titude, obedience, and self-devotion. 
 
 Q. Have not some learned men in the Church 
 of England held, that the Eucharist, is a repre- 
 sentative and commemorative sacrifice? 
 
 A. Yes, but (thoug'h the opinion as held by 
 these individuals, may have some color from the 
 language of St. Clement, St. Ignatius, and per- 
 haps of St. Peter himself,) the Church of England 
 is not responsible for it, as she has not adopted 
 it in her articles or formularies. Besides this 
 opinion of the representative or un-bloody sacri- 
 fice is perfectly abhorrent from the corruption of 
 the Church of Rome maintained in the sacrifice 
 of the Mass, that is, a real hypostatical oblation 
 of Christ himself, by the ministry of the Priest, 
 which is a blasphemous doctrine, held by no 
 writer of the Church of England. 
 
 Q. For what purpose was the feast of St. Sacra- 
 ment instituted in the Roman Catholic Church ? 
 
 A. To commemorate the institution of the 
 Sacrament, by a procession, which is intended as 
 a recompense and indemnification to Christ, for 
 the insults he receives in the Eucharist, from the 
 impious and from heretics. This procession all 
 good Catholics are required to follow, and to 
 give to the Host, in the street as in the Church, 
 the highest worship called Latria, which is due 
 to the true God only, for that on these occasions 
 Jesus Christ is in the wafer, and passing through 
 
27 
 
 the streets, doing good. 
 
 Q. In what light djo we regard this practice 
 and the adoration of the Host ? 
 
 A. We regard them as childish, superstitious, 
 and idolatrous, without any authority from Rea- 
 son, Scripture, or ancient Tradition ; we believe 
 them also to have been the cause of infidelity, 
 indifference, and impiety in those Christian 
 countries where they prevail. The Church of 
 England has publicly denounced them in these 
 words, " The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, 
 was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried 
 about, lifted up and worshipped." Such a profa- 
 nation is not openly practiced in this country, 
 and since the late revolution in France it has 
 been publicly suppressed, or confined to the 
 walls of Churches. 
 
 Q. Are there any other practices in the Church 
 of Rome connected with the heretical doctrine^ 
 of transubstantiation ? 
 
 A. Yes, private Masses and half communion, 
 in the former of which the Priest receives alone 
 for the living and the dead, and in the latter 
 (which is the universal practice whenever the 
 Eucharist is administered to the Laity) the bread 
 or wafer only is given, and the cup denied. 
 
 Q. What are private Masses ? 
 
 A. They are Masses which are performed for 
 the benefit of the living or the dead, in which 
 the Priest receives alone the sacred elements, 
 
28 
 
 and as the efficacy of the sacrifice of the Mass, 
 depends on the intention of the Priest, his good 
 will in these masses may he purchased at a cer- 
 tain price for the living and the dead. 
 
 Q. How do you refute this practice in the 
 Church of Rome *? 
 
 A. We think it unnecessary to refute it in any 
 other way than by denominating it a gross im- 
 position on the credulity of mankind, and a pro- 
 fane abuse of the Christian religion, but if private 
 masses were not prostituted, by sale and the dan- 
 gerous opinions attached to them, we should still 
 maintain that the communion of Christian bre- 
 thren is necessary to constitute a sacrament. The 
 Sacrament is the symbol of the union of Chris- 
 tians in one body and fraternity, and therefore 
 for the Priest to receive alone, for the congrega- 
 tion and for the dead, is a Priestcraft, inconsis- 
 •tent with the nature and design of the Eucharist. 
 " We being many are one bread and one body, for 
 we all are partakers of that one bread." 
 
 Q. Is it contrary to the intention of Christ to 
 refuse the cup to the laity in the Holy Commur 
 nion ? 
 
 A. It is inconsistent with the genius of the 
 gospel to make such an unauthorized reservation 
 in the administration of the most gracious ordi- 
 nance of the Christian Church — It has the 
 appearance of craft to make such distinctions 
 between the priest and the laity as are no way 
 
29 
 
 necessary to the execution of the ministerial 
 office, and moreover, Christ himself in the words 
 of consecration, (of which the Church of Rome 
 enjoins a literal interpretation) has seen good to 
 give a more universal and unlimited command 
 with respect to the cup, than to the bread ; " He 
 took the cup and gave thanks, and gave to them 
 saying, drink ye all of it, for this is my blood of 
 the New Testament which is shed for many for 
 the remission of sins." 
 
 Q. Is it likewise contrary to apostolic au- 
 thority ? 
 
 A. Yes. In St. Matthew the words are " Drink 
 ye all of it^" and in St. Mark *' they all di^ank 
 of it^^* and St. Paul after repeating the words of 
 Christ with respect to the institution of the cup 
 reasons thus, "For as often as ye eat this bread 
 and drink this cup ye do shew the Lord's death 
 till he come. Wherefore, whoever shall eat this 
 bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily y 
 shall be guilty of the body and blood of Christ." 
 
 Q. Is it contrary to the practice of the primitive 
 Church? 
 
 A. It is contrary to the practice of the primitive 
 Church, of all Churches except the Church of 
 Rome, and even contrary to the practice of that 
 Church itself for a thousand years. 
 
 Q. How do the Roman Catholics justify this 
 practice *? 
 
 A. Chiefly by two reasons ; first they say, that 
 
30 
 
 after the Apostles had in the first institution re- 
 ceived the bread, our Saviour before he adminis- 
 tered the cup, ordained them and made them 
 priests in these words, " Do this " — and that 
 therefore, when Christ administered the cup, they 
 did not receive it as laymen or representatives of 
 the people, but as priests distinguished from the 
 laity. Secondly, they advert again to the doc- 
 trine of Transubstantiation, and say that the 
 whole Christ as he lived in the flesh, is under 
 the appearance of the bread, and under the ap- 
 pearance of the wine, and that consequently, 
 whoever receives the bread, receives the body and 
 blood of Christ, which is all that is necessary. 
 
 Q, What do you reply to these reasons ? 
 
 A. We reply, that they are gratuitous and have 
 neither force nor authority ; that Christ and his 
 Apostles, and the whole Catholic Church (except 
 the Roman Catholic Church, since the council of 
 Constance ) were either ignorant of them or 
 thought them unworthy of regard ; and moreover, 
 if this explication respecting the cup, be a neces- 
 sary inference from the doctrine of Transubstan- 
 tiation, it is a deductio ad absurdum, either against 
 that doctrine or the institution itself. 
 
 Q. Why do we contend so earnestly against 
 Transubstantiation, and the corruptions which 
 have been built upon it ? 
 
 A. Because in speculation we believe them to 
 propagate dangerous heresies ; and in practice 
 
31 
 
 (enforced as they are on pain of damnation} we 
 think them to have caused the most mischievous 
 schisms which have ever disgraced the cause of 
 christian truth. They have opened breaches by 
 which the christian temple has been profaned, 
 deserted, or attacked, and have gendered in the 
 minds of too many pious and sincere friends of 
 the gospel, an irreverence and a prejudice towards 
 the christian Sacraments themselves ; which have 
 impeded the propagation of the gospel, and the 
 unity of the lioly catholic Church. 
 
 Q. What is the doctrine of Consubstantiation P 
 
 A. While the Papists maintain that the ele- 
 ments are transubstantiated, and no longer remain 
 bread and wine, but in outward appearance, Lu- 
 ther and his followers assert, that the elements; 
 are not changed, but that the omnipotent body of 
 Christ is coexistent with the sanctified creatures 
 of bread and wine before participation. 
 
 Q. Is this doctrine liable to objection ? 
 
 A. Yes. While it avoids one glaring absurdity^ 
 the doctrine of Consubstantiation or impanation 
 is liable in speculation to the same objections as 
 Transubstantiation ; but in practice, the Luther- 
 ans do not enforce exclusive restrictions or impose 
 idolatrous superstitions, and therefore (though 
 under a lamentable, and as we think heretical 
 misconception) they hold the spiritual commu- 
 nion of the body and blood of Christ, without any 
 violations of essential charity. 
 
32 
 
 Q. Were Transubstantiation or Consubstantia- 
 tion maintained by the early christian fathers *? 
 A. Notvvithstandino: that the lanffuaire of the 
 
 o Or) 
 
 early fathers was eastern, and highly excited, par- 
 ticularly on this subject, there is no traditionary 
 authority for these doctrines before the fourth 
 century, and no public avowal of them till a much 
 later and darker period. 
 
 Q. Are these doctrines contained in, or can they 
 be fairly deduced from the sacred Sriptures ? 
 
 A. No, and this question will lead us to ex- 
 amine the real doctrine of the Sacrament ; for it 
 is not enough on a question of such importance, 
 to refute error, (though in this case it seems to lay 
 open the truth) we must also be prepared to vin- 
 dicate our own opinions and shew that they are 
 truth. 
 
 Q. Do all the Sacramentarians and the Church 
 of England in particular, reject the corporal 
 presence ? 
 
 A. Yes ; though there are shades of difference 
 in the statements of the reformed churches, yet 
 they all agree in denying the corporal presence 
 of Christ in a gross, strict, and literal sense. 
 
 Q. What is the doctrine of the Church of Eng- 
 land? 
 
 A. We believe that Christ's death upon the 
 cross was a real and final sacrifice for the sins of 
 the whole world ; that in this Sacrament that mo- 
 mentous fact is sealed and represented for ever ; 
 
33 
 
 and moreover, that in this feast, the inestimable 
 benefits of that sacrifice are conveyed to the faith- 
 ful ; and thus that our souls are refreshed after a 
 spwitual manner^ by the body and blood of Christ 
 (which are the things signified) as our bodies are 
 naturally by the bread and wine, which are the 
 outward and visible signs. 
 
 Q. Do you believe Christ's presence in the Sa- 
 crament ? 
 
 A. Yes, certainly. As it is the solemn and 
 perpetual commemoration of his death upon the 
 cross ordained by Christ himself, — as it is the re- 
 cognition of his full, perfect, and sufficient, obla- 
 tion, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole 
 world, — as it is the federal communion of the body 
 and blood of Christ in the Church, — and as he has 
 promised to be with the assembled members of his 
 body, — so we believe the real presence of Christ 
 with all true participants^ to strengthen and 
 refresh their souls, with his body broken, and his 
 blood shed, on the cross, of which this is the 
 communion till his coming again. 
 
 Q. Do the Roman Catholics consider that there 
 is any thing in this doctrine contrary to sense and 
 reason ? 
 
 A. They admit that neither human reason nor 
 common sense suffer the least violence in this 
 explanation, but they maintain, that it is con- 
 trary to the dogmas ot the Church of Rome, and 
 therefore damnable. When they descend to dis- 
 
34 
 
 cuss the matter in fair argument, they confess thai! 
 they are justified, and we condemned, by tlie lan- 
 guage of Christ himself, which admits (as they 
 say) of none but the literal interpretation. 
 
 Q. Is it not a strong presumption (to say the 
 least of this matter) against any doctrine to admit 
 that it is contrary to sense and reason, especially 
 in a matter where sense and reason seem to be 
 the proper guides ? 
 
 A. Yes, if we consider that the evidence for 
 the truth of the christian religion itself, depends 
 on the truth of the senses, that is, on the accuracy 
 of the Apostles, who as eyewitnesses relied for the 
 truth of their testimony on the certainty of their 
 senses, as to what Jesus did and said in their 
 presence. 
 
 Q. Do you consider that we are bound to inter- 
 pret the words of the institution literally ? 
 
 A. No ; we are no more bound to interpret 
 these words in a literal sense than any others ; we 
 are no where told by Christ or his Apostles, that 
 the literal is the only sense. If these words are 
 to be interpreted literally, why not the last words 
 of Christ on the cross, which are less figurative, 
 and equally solemn — " It is finished " and then 
 what becomes of the Sacrifice of the Mass ? or 
 the address of Christ to St. Peter, which is said 
 to contain an express institution, " Thou art Pe- 
 ,ter, and on this Rock — " yet whoever, even 
 among the most zealous Papists, ever maintained 
 
S5 
 
 that this metamorphosis literally took place. 
 
 Q. Is there any thing in the words *' this is 
 my body," if taken with the context " which is 
 is given for you, " or " this is my blood " taken 
 with the context, " which is shed for many for 
 the remission of sins," that requires a literal in- 
 terpretation, and no other ? 
 
 A. On the contrary, the words seem with the 
 context to be spiritual, and peculiarly symbolical. 
 Indeed, the Apostles would scarcely have under- 
 stood them literally, for at the time of the insti- 
 tution, the body of Christ was not given, and his 
 blood was not shed, and if it be replied, that they 
 were so by anticipation, then we rejoin that 
 when the body was give q and the blood was shed 
 upon the cross, the Apostles certainly understood 
 that literal sacrifice to have been for a spiritual 
 purpose, and ever referred to it as such. We are 
 therefore not bound to tie down the apprehensions 
 of mankind to an absurd idea, because a particu- 
 lar church has adopted and enforced it on pain 
 of damnation. 
 
 Q. Is the literal interpretation consistent with 
 the analogy of scripture '? 
 
 A. By no means, the scriptural expressions 
 applied to Christ's persons are metonymical ; I am 
 the Vi.e — I am the Door — That Rock was Christ 
 and many others ; and if it be asserted, that these 
 expressions are allegorical, and not sacramental 
 (which is no sufficient reply) we assert further, 
 
 d2 
 
S6 
 
 that the Scriptures call the sign the thing signi- 
 fied, and the contrary. Circumcision which an- 
 swers to Baptism, is called the covenant, of which 
 it was the sign. The Paschal Lamb was called the 
 Passover, and Christ was called both the Lamb 
 and the Passover, though he was literally neither, 
 but figuratively both. 
 
 Q. But if we take the word apart from the con- 
 text, and in the strictest independence of any anal- 
 ogy, by the scriptural use of the terms themselves, 
 are we obliged to arrive at the literal sense ? 
 
 A. On the contrary, there are no two words of 
 equal importance used in so great a latitude in the 
 sacred writings. For example, the body is used 
 to express the material part of man, the whole 
 man, the unrenewed part of man, the sensitive 
 powers and corrupt human nature ; the substance 
 of a shadow or ceremony ; the human nature of 
 Christ; the Church of Christ firmly united to 
 Christ, and among themselves, or Christ's mys- 
 tical body. We conclude, therefore, that there 
 is no harshness whatever in the interpretation 
 which we give of these words. " This is my body 
 which is given for you." This bread is a sign, 
 and is hereafter to be a memorial of my body, 
 and of my sufferings in it, as well as a seal and 
 pledge, whereby I make over to you all the be- 
 nefits I have purchased for you. 
 
 Q. Is the term blood generally used in a 
 figurative sense ? 
 
37 
 
 A. Yes, this term also is used in a still greater 
 latitude in the sacred scriptures. The blood 
 signifies the humour of the body, death, murder 
 and the punishment for shedding of blood, that 
 which is bought or purchased with blood — the 
 first man Adam — fallen nature — the guilt or pu- 
 nishment of sin — human reason — the juice of 
 grapes, — the death and sufferings of Christ — the 
 blood of the covenant, i. e. the blood of Christ, 
 whereby the new covenant was ratified, and 
 therefore we again conclude, that there is no 
 harshness whatever, but that the language of 
 scripture, if there were no absurdity in Transub- 
 stantiation, requires us to interpret the sacramen- 
 tal use of the fruit of the vine as symbolical. 
 "This (cup) is my blood of the New Testament 
 which is shed for many for the remission of sins," 
 as a very short time after the institution of the 
 Sacrament, Christ expresses again the thing sig- 
 nified by the sign " O my Father, if it be possible 
 let this cup pass from me.*' 
 
 Q. What is the communion of the Sacrament ? 
 
 A. Our eating of the bread and drinking of 
 the cup are religious actions, by which Christ 
 communicates himself and his gTace to us, and we 
 communicate our souls and the faculties of them 
 to his service. 
 
 Q. What is the communion of the Saints in 
 this Sacrament ? 
 
 A. The communion of the Saints is that fel- 
 D 3 
 
38 
 
 lowship which true christians have with Christ and 
 all his benefits, by faith, and among themselves 
 by a perfect charity, 
 
 Q, May it not be sufficient to consider the 
 Sacrament a memorial feast of Christ, as the 
 ffreat benefactor of mankind ? 
 
 A. The very phrase "the communion of the 
 body and blood of Christ," is sufficient to shew, 
 that such a feast, especially if it were performed 
 without a religious administration, and not as a 
 sacramental act, would be an * unworthy ' and 
 untrue representation of the christian Eucharist. 
 For in that Eucharist we commemorate the death 
 of our Redeemer for the sins of the whole world, 
 with a thankful remembrance, we use the sym- 
 bols which he has ordained, as signs of inward 
 and spiritual grace, and moreover as pledges that 
 his benefits are given to the faithful in that Sa- 
 crament. 
 
 Q. Was the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper 
 ordained for the exercise of the social principle 
 in matters of religion, or to graft the duties of 
 religion on the propensities of our nature, or to 
 be a badge of church membership in all the se- 
 parate communities into which the christian 
 Church is or may be unhappily divided ? 
 
 A. Some of these benefits and effects, result 
 from the administration of the Sacrament, but the 
 great design of it is not merely philosophical or 
 economical, but spiritual and catholic, to comme- 
 
39 
 
 morale Christ's death for the sins of the whole < 
 world, and to confirm the union of particulars with 
 Christ and with the Holy Church throughout all 
 the world. 
 
 Q. Is it unworthy of this great and simple in- 
 stitution to fetter the administration and enjoy- 
 ment of it, with the rules and regulations of a 
 club or friendly association ? 
 
 A. Yes, these impositions are inconsistent with 
 the spirit of the gospel, the design of the Sacra- 
 ment, the practice of the primitive and the use- 
 fulness of any catholic church. Such religious 
 associations may exist without the administration 
 of the Lord's Supper, and the Lord's Supper 
 may be duly and better administered without such 
 narrow feelings, and ti'ivial terms, 
 
 Q. Does it not tend to promote purity in the 
 administration of the Sacrament that individuals 
 should by writing or orally make a declaration of 
 their experience before the assembled Church or 
 some select members of it ? 
 
 A. We read of no such practices or distinc- 
 tions in the scriptures ; we believe that the gos- 
 pel requires the same rule of life and manners for 
 all christians, and that peculiar associations for 
 sanctity within the bosom of the church, have ten- 
 ded to engender pride, hypocrisy, and divisions, 
 in modern times ; as the same principles in for- 
 mer ages of the Church by the double doctrine of 
 precepts and counsels, that is precepts for all 
 
40 
 
 christians and counsels for a select few, tended 
 to produce all the pride and folly of ascetick in- 
 stitutions and practices. 
 
 Q. What discipline with respect to this Sacra- 
 ment seems to be the most pure and evangelical ? 
 
 A. A public discipline by law and ordinance 
 known and received of all men, which is not in- 
 quisitorial, and which can shock the modesty of 
 no virtuous individual. With this a voluntary 
 discipline of concience and confidence, either with 
 a christian minister or christian friend, — ^that 
 which confounds public and private discipline, 
 and is compulsory, either by auricular confession 
 to the priest, or an imposed social declaration of 
 private experience, seems to be the worst, and 
 the least calculated to promote sincerity, humili- 
 ty, or charity. 
 
 Q. To what do you ascribe the defects of dis- 
 cipline in the Church at the present time ? 
 
 A. To general ignorance of the capital princi- 
 ples of Christianity, to a laxity of morals arising 
 from luxurious and commercial habits, and espe- 
 cially to the proselyting spirit of the christian sects 
 which renders it as easy for a man who offends 
 or is offended with the discipline of his own com- 
 munion, to pass over to another as to pass from 
 room to room, or to change the fashion of his 
 dress. While underhand and officious envy and 
 strife, and a frivolous and frequent change of sect 
 and sentiment shall be so prevalent as they are, 
 
41 
 
 the efficacy of public discipline, and the tone of 
 pubHc morals, especially in the uninformed part 
 of the community, must be greatly impaired. 
 
 Q. Why do you regard the Sacraments of the 
 christian Church rather in a public than a social 
 point of view ? 
 
 A. Because, as ordinances of Christ, they are 
 designed like his religion itself, for the incorpo- 
 ration of all nations of the earth into the church 
 or family of God — ^because they are the appoint- 
 ed substitutes for all other sacrifices, symbolical 
 ceremonies, or badges of profession, Jewish or 
 Pagan. As baptism is the porch by which all 
 Jews or Gentiles must enter into the Christian 
 Temple, so the Eucharist is that altar at which 
 the disciples of Jesus must adore his name, com- 
 memorate his death, receive his spirit, and devote 
 themselves sacramentally as faithful soldiers to 
 his service. 
 
 Q. Why do you consider the Sacrament of 
 importance with reference to the conversion of 
 the Jews ? 
 
 A. At the first promulgation of the Gospel 
 the Christian sacraments contributed essentially 
 to bring over many of the Jews, from the syna- 
 gogue to the church. They saw in these the 
 milder symbols of the new covenant which was 
 established on better promises. These symbols, 
 to minds invcterately accustomed to carnal ordi- 
 nances, facilitated the apprehension of the great 
 
42 
 
 doctrine of the atonement of Christ's sacrifice, 
 which was the truth of all their types, and espe- 
 cially of the Paschal sacrifice. At the first 
 promulgation of the Gospel there was a large 
 conversion of the Jews, since that time there 
 have been scarcely any converts from that peo- 
 ple. They were then provoked by the conver- 
 sion of the nations, to consider the christian reli- 
 gion, and the sacraments aided their transition 
 from Moses to Christ. In our own times, when 
 that interesting people shall see as we anticipate, 
 a full harvest of the Gentiles, by the communion 
 of the Christian sacrifice, grafted into the Church, 
 they may be again provoked to acknowledge 
 that the Desire of the nations is come, that what 
 they vainly anticipate is already accomplished, 
 that tlie religion of Moses is complete in Christ, 
 that Christ the passover is sacrificed for us and 
 them ; and thus, the veil being taken from their 
 eyes, they may keep the feast, not with the old 
 leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the un- 
 leavened bread of sincerity and truth. 
 
 Q. Is this sacrament necessary and of great 
 use in confirming gentile converts ? 
 
 A. Yes, if to our minds, which have been fami- 
 liar with Christian verities from infancy, the 
 emblems of the body and blood of Christ, impress 
 our hearts through the medium of our senses, 
 and seem almost necessary to keep up the re- 
 membrance of Christ's death ; how much more 
 
43 
 
 requisite must the outward and visible signs be, 
 when the gospel is preached unto the Gentiles, 
 to enable them to apprehend its great mysteries ! 
 To minds accustomed to abstract ideas, and in- 
 tricate research, the Sacraments as means of 
 knowledge (though never as instruments of grace, 
 pledges of mercy and bonds of union) may be less 
 necessary ; but to those who have had no con- 
 ceptions of a supreme Being, but through a gross 
 and sensual idolatry ; who have had no religious 
 impressions, but through an image, a sacrifice, or 
 a ceremony, some outward and visible signs (and 
 those of Christianity are the simplest and most 
 expressive that can be conceived) are absolutely 
 necessary for their instruction in truth, and com- 
 fort in Christ, that being no more strangers and 
 foreigners, they may be made fellow citizens with 
 the saints and of the household of God. In a 
 country placed in the world by Providence as 
 Great Britain is in connection with all lands, be- 
 nevolence and charity no less than the command 
 of Him, who knew what was in man, charge it 
 upon our Church, its rulers, and members, to 
 hold in high estimation and holy use, the sacred 
 symbols of christian truth, and of man's rege- 
 neration and redemption. 
 
 Q. Is this Sacrament of great use in the chris- 
 tian Church when established ? 
 
 A. Yes, it is the communion of that favored 
 society where there is no distinction between men 
 of different nations or ranks of life, where there 
 
44 
 
 is neither Greek nor Jew, Barbarian, Scythian, 
 slave, nor free — where there is neither indepen- 
 dence nor inferiority, but all are in subjection to 
 Christ, and to their brethren. Happy would it be 
 for the Church and the world, if this communion 
 of charity and bond of perfectness, were better un- 
 derstood and regularly observed by the friends 
 of the gospel. Then might this ordinance of 
 Christ, controul the foolish conceits and angry 
 pretensions of many who seem neither to know 
 what they say, nor whereof they affirm ; and then 
 might men learn, through that consistency of sen- 
 timent and behaviour in true christians, which is 
 the ornament and security of the Church, that 
 the spirit of division for trivial reasons and per- 
 sonal caprice, is not the spirit of a true disciple 
 of Jesus Christ. 
 
 Q. Is this Sacrament calculated to promote as 
 well the virtue and happiness of individuals as 
 the honor of Christ and the unity of the Church ? 
 
 A. Yes, by recalling us from our errors to self- 
 examination ; to repentance for our trespassess 
 against God and our brethren ; to serious pur- 
 poses of amendment ; to lively faith in God's 
 mercy through Christ, and to a perfect charity 
 with all men ; it is effectual to calm our passions, 
 strengthen virtue, and cherish hope, amidst the 
 suff*erings and changing scenes of this sublunary 
 world, while at the same time, it is the earnest 
 and antepast of heaven. 
 
PART 11. 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 " No, No, these opinions have youth in their countenance, antiquity knew 
 them not, it never thought nor dreamed of them." Hooker. 
 
 (Bn J^enance* 
 
 Q. How many Sacraments has Christ ordained 
 in his Church ? 
 
 A. " Two only, as generally necessary to Sal- 
 vation, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of 
 the Lord." 
 
 Q. Why do you say there are only two ? 
 
 A. Because Christ himself has ordained no 
 more, with the material substance, form, institu- 
 tion, and spiritual grace. 
 
 Q. Does the Church of Rome maintain more 
 than two Sacraments ? 
 
 A. Yes, the Church of Rome teaches, that 
 there are seven, viz. Baptism, the Lord's supper, 
 Confirmation, Penance, extreme Unction, Orders, 
 
46 
 
 and Marriage. The three first have been con- 
 sidered and reasons have been assigned why we 
 reject Confirmation as a Sacrament, and retain it 
 as a christian ceremony and practice apostoHcal. 
 
 Q. Why do we reject the other four called 
 Sacraments by the Church of Rome ? 
 
 A. Because they want the conditions required 
 to make them Sacraments, being either not insti- 
 tuted by Christ himself, or not having the out- 
 ward signs, or since the times of the Apostles 
 and of miracles, being destitute of the things 
 signified, and generally as applied to supersti- 
 tious practices, which are inconsistent with the 
 truth of the gospel. 
 
 Q. Has Christ informed us that there are only 
 two Sacraments under the christian dispensation ? 
 
 A. Yes, by instituting no more, for though the 
 term Sacrament is never used by Christ or his 
 Apostles ( it being as is well known a Roman 
 military term adopted by the fathers) yet the two 
 great institutions, considered apart from this 
 adopted term, are the only two which will bear 
 the same definition and conditions. 
 
 Q. Did not the ancient fathers fi-equently use 
 the word in their writings ? 
 
 A. Yes, they not only used it to express Bap- 
 tism and the Lord's supper, but the Scripture, 
 the gospel, its institutions, and indeed all the arti- 
 cles of faith and duties of religion, both under the 
 old and new covenant, which flesh and blood, 
 
47 
 
 that is, sense and reason, could not reveal to us. 
 
 Q. Why have the Romanists fixed upon seven? 
 
 A. This number was not fixed till a thousand 
 years after Christ, and it was then chosen as beinj^ 
 the sacred number of the scripture ; but if tradi- 
 tion must be followed, and the sacred number 
 retained, the number of Sacraments might as 
 well be fixed at seven times, or seventy times 
 seven. 
 
 A. If they are not, accurately speaking, Sa- 
 craments, yet are they all as required by the 
 Church of Rome, divine, christian or apostolical 
 institutions ? 
 
 Q. Marriage is a divine institution, but not of 
 christian origin ; Confirmation and extreme 
 Unction were apostolical, of whicli the Church 
 of Rome has adopted a corrupt following : Or- 
 ders is a christian institution, yet not having the 
 like nature of Baptism and the Lord's Supper; 
 and Penance as a Sacrament is without any 
 authority from scripture, or early discipline : but 
 these we shall consider separately, and first 
 
 OF PENANCE. 
 
 Q. What is the Sacrament of Penance, as 
 taught by the Church of Rome ? 
 
 Q. The schoolmen have diff*ered much on al- 
 most every part of this Sacrament, as to the form, 
 sign, spiritual grace and absolution itself; and 
 even since the council of Trent, it is evident from 
 
48 
 
 the writings of Ronian Catholics, and the cate- 
 chisms of different countries, that the precise 
 nature, requirements and benefits of this Sacra- 
 ment are not infallibly defined. Penance, how- 
 ever, as taught by the Church of Rome generally, 
 is that Sacrament which is necessary to salvation 
 for all who have lost the grace of God, by the 
 commission of mortal sins after Baptism ; institu- 
 ted by Christ, when he said to his Apostles, 
 " Receive ye the Holy Ghost, Whosoever sins 
 ye remit, they are remitted, and whosoever sins 
 ye retain, they are retained ;" which power of 
 remitting and retaining sins, is vested in the 
 bishops and priests, who remit them by absolu- 
 tion, and retain them by denying or deferring 
 absolution. 
 
 Q. Is Penance a scriptural term *? 
 
 A. Not in the sacramental sense in which it is 
 interpreted as above described. The Romanists 
 certainly do render in their versions the original 
 Greek word, which we translate Repentance, by 
 the Latin term Penance, but since the exegetical 
 theology, and scriptural criticism, which were 
 introduced by Calvin, Beza, and other Reform- 
 ers, and which have been so perfectly studied in 
 Protestant Universities to the present time, have 
 ascertained, beyond the possibility of doubt, the 
 proper use of the word in the original and its 
 special use in the christian scriptures, it is im- 
 possible for any well informed Roman Catholic, 
 
49 
 
 to rest the Sacrament of Penance on the scriptu- 
 ral and critical meaning of the original term. 
 
 Q. Do then the Roman Catholics themselves 
 distinguish between the virtue of Repentance and 
 the sacrament of Penance ? 
 
 A. Yes; they say, that the grace of Repen- 
 tance is to be used by Jews, Heathens, and all 
 before Baptism ; but that sins after Baptism do 
 not obtain remission through Repentance as a 
 grace, but through Penance as a sacrament. 
 This difference they illustrate, by saying that St. 
 Peter exhorted the Jews, that were yet unbap- 
 tized to the grace of Repentance, and Simon 
 Magus after Baptism to seek remission through 
 the sacrament of Penance ; though here again the 
 identical term mars the illustration, destroys the 
 difference, trips up the argument, and leaves it a 
 naked or rather false assertion. 
 
 Q. What is then required in this Romish sa- 
 crament of Penance ? 
 
 A. It is required that there be these four 
 essential constituent parts, viz. contrition of 
 heart, confession of mouth, absolution of priest, 
 and satisfaction of works. 
 
 Q. What contrition is required ? 
 
 A. There are two kinds of contrition, perfect 
 and imperfect, which is also called attrition. 
 
 Q. What is perfect contrition *? 
 
 A. Perfect contrition is a true sorrow for hav- 
 ing offended God because he is infinitely good and 
 
 E 
 
50 
 
 hates sin ; and the Church of Rome teaches, that 
 by this perfect contrition all sins are effaced, 
 even before the absolution of the priest, and so far 
 at least, contrition which is a part of the virtue of 
 Repentance as well as of the sacrament of Pe- 
 nance, is available to remove sins after Baptism. 
 
 Q, How then is Penance necessary to salva- 
 tion for the perfectly contrite ? 
 
 A. They are not exempt, say they, from the 
 reception of that Sacrament, because as it is an 
 institution of Jesus Christ, there can be no 
 perfect contrition, without a resolution to obey 
 Christ's commandment. If therefore Penance 
 be not a sacrament of Christianity, but an eccle- 
 siastical discipline, contrition avails without it. 
 
 Q. What is Attrition ? 
 
 A. Attrition or imperfect contrition is a sor- 
 row for having offended, arising either from 
 shame, or fear, or secondary motives, which does 
 not efface sin, but prepares for the Sacrament, 
 and becomes effectual through the absolution of 
 the priest ; for the absolution itself creates that 
 quantity of the grace of contrition, which was 
 wanting in the penitent, and thus puts the im- 
 perfect on as good a ground as the perfect, who 
 was indeed absolved before absolution, and there- 
 fore is no better for it quoad the remission of 
 his sins. It is unnecessary to point out the im- 
 morality of such distinctions. 
 
 Q. What is the second thing required ? 
 
51 
 
 A. Confession with the mouth, by which the 
 penitent detects and accuses himself, makes pri- 
 vately and secretly into the ear of the priest 
 (whence it is called auricular) an avowal of all, 
 at least of all mortal, sins ; for the confession of 
 venial sins is recommended not commanded. 
 
 Q. Is the injunction respecting the confession 
 of mortal sins strict and peremptory ? 
 
 A. Yes, there must be nothing omitted, or the 
 absolution is void, at least as to the punishment 
 of purgatory, and the penitent contracts the guilt 
 of sacrilege which may, however, be remitted 
 on a subsequent confession. 
 
 Q. How do we regard this part of the sacra- 
 ment of Penance *? 
 
 A. As it is required by unmarried priests, 
 bound in one confederacy without respect to the 
 laws and institutions of particular countries, we 
 regard it as an usurpation inconsistent with the 
 liberties of mankind : as it is compulsory and not 
 voluntary, it is a tyranny over individuals, and 
 destroys confidence ; as it extends to all the 
 actions, desires, thoughts, with all their circum- 
 stances, of all persons, sexes, and ages, whatever 
 may be the state of their passions or the habits 
 of their lives, it is disgusting, mischievous, and 
 immoral. 
 
 Q. What is the absolution of the priest ? 
 
 A. It is the sentence by which, in the name of 
 Christ, and by his authority, the priest remits all 
 
 E 2 
 
52 
 
 the sins to the penitent, which he has confessed 
 and is the principal part of this sacrament. 
 
 Q. Why is Absolution the principal part of 
 this sacrament ? 
 
 A. Some have contended that the matter of 
 Penance consisted in the duties of the penitent, 
 while others have asserted that those acts were 
 only preparations, and that the Sacrament itself 
 was wholly in Absolution. Since the council of 
 Trent, the Church of Rome has held, that the 
 services of the penitent are the material cause, 
 the words of absolution the form, and to that ab- 
 solution, pronounced by the priests, the Roman- 
 ists universally ascribe, the chief force and efficacy 
 of the sacrament of Penance. Of course, there- 
 fore, the power to remit sins after Baptism, is the 
 priest's only ; for without his injunction, authori- 
 ty, and absolution, there is no Penance. Con- 
 trition, grief, confession, satisfaction, and resti- 
 tution, avail nothing but through his agency, and 
 without that agency and consent, there is no 
 remission of sins. 
 
 Q. Do we find any where in scripture such a 
 discipline as this enforced upon penitents, or such 
 an absolution pronounced upon individuals in the 
 history of the Acts of the Apostles, the practices 
 of the Churches founded by them, or their suc- 
 cessors for many generations ? 
 
 A. No, though no subject is more frequently 
 referred to than Repentance, or more frequently 
 
53 
 
 enjoined with all its attendant duties and circum- 
 stances, we cannot find a single case, in which the 
 conditions of this Romish sacrament are required. 
 Not a single case can be collected, from the 
 scriptures or the writings of the early fathers, in 
 which the Apostles or their successors discovered, 
 that sins could be remitted only by a priest, and 
 by a priest only, after auricular confession, by 
 sacramental absolution. For Baptism and the 
 Lord's Supper there are proofs and attestations 
 innumerable ; for the sacramental use of Confir- 
 mation, and extreme Unction, and Marriage, 
 there are some strong facts and allusions ; but 
 for Penance as a sacrament, distinguished from 
 personal Repentance and public discipline, 
 there is not a shadow of proof. And yet the 
 priesthood of the Church of Rome maintain that 
 they have power to alter the state of mens' souls, 
 to take away sin, to make men innocent, or to 
 retain them guilty, without bounds or limi- 
 tations with respect to God or Man. To this 
 priesthood of like passions with other men, and 
 without the social restraints of other men, all 
 christians are called upon on pain of damnation, 
 to open periodically the inmost recesses of the 
 heart, and the secret actions of their lives, and at 
 the same time to implore at the hands of a 
 man the absolution of their sins as necessary to 
 their salvation, with a solemn promise to do the 
 Penance which he enjoins, whether by acts of 
 E 3 
 
54 
 
 charity, or by corporal inflictions, and mortifica- 
 tions. We have not so learned Christ. 
 
 Q. What is meant by the satisfaction of works 
 in the sacrament of Penance ? 
 
 A. It is the reparation of the injury which our 
 sins have done to God, and the wrong which we 
 have done to our neif^hbours. This satisfaction 
 is necessary, because Jesus Christ will not apply 
 the merit of his satisfaction, but to those who join 
 their satisfaction to his. Satisfaction must be 
 fulfilled after absolution, for though absolution 
 effectually remits the eternal pains of hell, it 
 does not irreversibly remit the punishments of this 
 life or of purgatory. 
 
 Q. What objections lie against these doctrines? 
 
 A. We do not deny that satisfaction is due to 
 God and man, for our sins. God's law is, "the 
 soul that sinneth it shall die," and as by our sins 
 we have broken that law, its sentence, which is 
 eternal death, can only be averted by a satisfac- 
 tion for sin ; that satisfaction Christ has made 
 full and perfect for all who believe in his merits ; 
 it is an error, therefore, contrary to scripture and 
 that engenders pride, where humility alone is be- 
 coming, to say that our merits are to be joined to 
 the merits of Christ. It is also absurd to say 
 that a sinner must make satisfaction for his sins, 
 when a full and complete pardon is already grant- 
 ed. Nor is it enough to assert (and that without 
 any authority) that satisfaction is made for eter- 
 
55 
 
 nal bnt not for temporal punishment ; for if God 
 does not impute to us our sins, temporal suffer- 
 ings are not the punishments of our sins, but the 
 trials of our virtues, which work for us a far more 
 exceeding and eternal weight of glory. As to 
 the satisfaction which is due to man, by every 
 restitution and reparation in our power of injury 
 done to our neighbour's character, property or 
 happiness, the Church of Rome maintains, and 
 justly, that the Church can never dispense with it, 
 
 Q. Are there any other errors connected with 
 the doctrine of satisfaction of works *? 
 
 A. Yes. We admit the importance of prayer, 
 fasting, and alms deeds, when performed ( as 
 Christ commands with respect to all these duties) 
 secretly and sincerely to God, and not to be seen 
 of men, for then God is satisfied to see our duty 
 to himself, self denial, and benevolence to our 
 fellow creatures. But that a priest can deter- 
 mine the proportion which ought to exist between 
 sins and satisfaction ; that Christ's satisfaction is 
 partly for temporal and partly for eternal punish- 
 ments ; that our good works are meritorious, not 
 only in our own behalf, but for the benefit of 
 souls, which have departed this life in debt, and 
 are now in purgatory ; and that the treasure of 
 the accumulated supererrogated merit of Christ 
 and the Saints, is at the disposal of the Church and 
 may be distributed for indulgences, that is, the 
 remission of punishments due to sin for the living 
 
56 
 
 and the dead ; — these are idle and dangerous in- 
 ventions contrary to scriptui'e, reason, sound mo- 
 rals, and true repentance, and therefore, we 
 reject them, and wipe the disgrace and dishonour 
 of them from the christian name. 
 
 Q. When we thus reject the sacrament of Pe- 
 nance, auricular confession to a priest, and his 
 final absolution as necessary to salvation, do we 
 also reject the virtue of repentance, confession, 
 and remission of sins ? 
 
 A. No, while we refuse the evil, we must take 
 heed that we also choose the good. These cor- 
 ruptions which have overgrown in a systematic 
 form, the christian ministry, doctrine, and prac- 
 tice, must be removed, not with rustic and reck- 
 less ignorance, but with the tender zeal of the 
 antiquary, who expects to find beneath the rub- 
 bish, pearls, and coins, and precious things ; and 
 having found, knows how tc value them. Re- 
 pentance, confession, and absolution of sin, the 
 pleasure of God in the reconciliation of his chil- 
 dren ; his satisfaction in their restoration to peace 
 and happiness in this world, and their joy and 
 glory in the next, are the invaluable provisions of 
 Christianity, which it is the duty of the ministers 
 of the gospel, not only to rescue from the scorn 
 of fools, but to commend to the consciences of 
 the wise and good. That repentance, which the 
 Church of Rome allows to be necessary before 
 Baptism, we proclaim to be necessary for every 
 
57 
 
 sill we commit ; those satisfactions (so far as they 
 are reasonable) which they enjoin by the priest, 
 we say are the natural consequences of that con- 
 version from sin, by which the truth of our re- 
 pentance is known, as a good tree is known by its 
 good fruits ; this repentance without the absolu- 
 tion of a priest, either given or desired, " is a 
 recovery of the soul of man from deadly sickness, 
 a restitution of glorious light to his darkened 
 mind, a full restoration to the seat of grace and 
 throne of glory, a triumph over sin and saving 
 victory." 
 
 Q. Was confession required among the Jews, 
 both as a ceremonial and moral act ? 
 
 A. Yes, under the Jewish religion no repen- 
 tance was valid that was not accompanied by 
 confession. On the day of expiation, each Jew 
 confessed to God for himself, and the priest 
 for himself, the nation, his family and order. 
 They confessed on their conversion from any par- 
 ticular crime or sin. When a man was publicly 
 punished and executed for his crimes, he was 
 taught that his repentance was unavailing, with- 
 out confession of his sins. In the case of trans- 
 gressions between brethren, confession of wrong 
 done and restitution were always required. The 
 confession of the Jews, at the Baptism of John, 
 shews, that they were prepared by their religious 
 habits, to make a confession of sins, as a proof of 
 their repentance. 
 
58 
 
 Q. Now that the ceremonial law has ceased, 
 are contrition, confession, and restitution re- 
 quired as moral acts ? 
 
 A. Yes, these religious acts are required, and 
 peculiarly recommended by the gospel. It is, 
 moreover, probable that most of our Lord's dis- 
 ciples had been men of irregular lives, who had 
 been trained in the baptist's school to these duties. 
 
 Q. Is voluntary confession a part of Christian 
 Repentance ? 
 
 A. Yes, both private and public confession 
 to God and Man, are required by the Gospel. 
 
 Q. What do you understand by private con- 
 fession to God "? 
 
 A. It is so essentially the character of all 
 Men, that we " have sinned and come short of the 
 Glory of God," that it is impossible to conceive 
 that a Christian can humbly seek God's favor, 
 or thankfully acknowledge his mercies, without 
 a confession of his great unworthiness ; moreover 
 w^e are all so prone to offend in many things, 
 and through the force of our passions, love of 
 pleasure, forgetfulness of God and our duty, to 
 offend seriously ; that the private and contrite 
 confession, of our particular violations of God's 
 will, our own conscience, and other men's happi- 
 ness, must be a necessary, as it is a commanded 
 ingredient in true repentance, to which the re- 
 mission or absolution of sins is promised in the 
 gospel. 
 
59 
 
 Q. What is public confession of sins before 
 God? 
 
 A. Public confession is made in the Church, 
 when in her daily service the minister and con- 
 gregation, at the commencement of public wor- 
 ship confess their sins. This confession is also 
 made in the communion service with singular 
 tenderness and effect. After these confessions 
 the minister, according to the promise and com- 
 mand of the gospel, pronounces to " the people, 
 being penitent, the absolution and remission of 
 their sins, " in order that repentance may be 
 accompanied, with a lively faith in God's mercy, 
 through Christ, without which it is impossible to 
 please God in our devotions. That absolution 
 we believe God in heaven ratifies to the penitent 
 and faithful, and whosoever sins are thus remit- 
 ted on earth, will we doubt not be remitted in 
 heaven. 
 
 Q. What is the public confession of sins before 
 the Church ? 
 
 A. It would require more reference to ecclesi- 
 astical history, than is compatible with our design, 
 to explain fully the occasion of this species of con- 
 fession. It may be sufficient to observe, that during 
 the great persecutions which took place before the 
 reign of Constantine many professing Christians 
 ( as might be expected ) lapsed into idolatry, and 
 to avoid persecution and death, libelled Christian- 
 ity itself, and were guilty of apparent if not real 
 
«p«VN<ttoy rtrt«M* IVuptixm. As llus wunji \io1»(iou 
 ottluMr «luty io n»ns(, mUo hus (;»n}.vh( us, (hut 
 ** whtVHoovt^r Mill stwo his hTo shall los<^ i(. n\u\ 
 xvhosoovti >mII Kvho his lilo fwr m\ s.ik*^ n\u\ i\\v 
 ^>sii\>t>W i\\^^ }M\\\o shall Nuvo »(.'* (ho »hns(i;u» 
 Ohutvhos o»tl«inc^»l. tha( uo h)|>sSO() ohrisOMU 
 shouUl ho »vooiYc^«l into oon\nu\uio\i without n 
 fM^hho ooutVssiou !*(' his l'aul(. auil (ho »vu»issu>u 
 or »Ksnhititvu oV th«> Ui9^h\>|^s uud jmstoi^ oCtho 
 i'hvuvh* 
 
 ij. P\il |>v\\;\(o ooutVssiou l>ot'o\v tho {unost 
 anso o\>( o( (h»s jucuMioo V 
 
 A. Vos. whou (.'hnstirtuity o\(o\\»UhI o\<m- (ho 
 >vt\ston\ o\\\j>i»v. inu\ ooiupi-x^houtUnl \ujutv Ivu^lm- 
 vxMW «iu^ iV»>vss\y i|^*uor.n\( uaCious. k Ihs\-u\\o 
 inn>\vssihh> to out\MVo this *U?^Mpliu<c>. ai\il (hr 
 pmotioo of private ooulVvssiou tt>npi>oiiit«Hl priovsts 
 Wtts AuKs(\(uto<\ IW it^ This was Sih>u }»ir:\iu 
 oo\TU\>(«tsl. t»U hy <lo4»nvos ^ u» (ho ajj^^s which 
 m*y U^ tnUy oaUo«l ilark ) tho |M«otioo or«urir^b> 
 lwM>tMit\\^o»\ (v> (ho priost, «t K^st ouor « Y<H\r, 
 \v»5k tWlaivt^ ««H''<\ssttry t\> »>ht<uu tho ahsolution 
 t^t^tho l''hu»vh autlot'tu>»l )\in»sv^lt'. 
 
 i^\ IVh-'s (ho Clwuvh ot' Kuiilauvl wsjuiiv (ho 
 ^Mihlio i>xxut'ossiou ot'i^nwss oriuios i 
 
 A \ OS, lH>th iho <HvWi«stio«l «»u\ oivU /^imns 
 ^xi' Um<H>«utry »v<(«i4v t\\<> K\\i\(<^\w\ of w4\m**m* 
 ^mhlio i^ourtuoo, wml satistuotiow tor puhlio s%^aiw 
 <lals auJ sUmloi's, It must l>o ooutVss<\U that ihs- 
 C4|>llWo iit praotioo. is uo( what iu thtSMV (ho 
 
( Mmirli f»i pri Imps jiiiMir viihio, rrfjiiiirq if 
 hIkmiM 1)1-. 'riiis vi not, liownvrr, fi (lillirully (rli 
 only l»y Hn- ( 'lnmli ol' l''np;lMiul. Aiirirulnr ron- 
 (oHMioii iiiiil |Miriliiiiii'nl <li»('i|)liiir linv<' not Im(mi 
 iiKjfo MurroHHriii. Till- ( 'liurrli ol lOnf^lniKJ, ron- 
 liidrriii^; i\w miinl»<'rvj williiii Iht |>nl«\ is us JVin 
 from (lisj/rncrriil roiniiiiiiiictiulK, ii« mruilhn' Boric- 
 fio«. It imml hIho ]u^ iMumidonMl, flint wm nvr»w 
 Mild iimtiiydiir pnii«'i|»i'- nf pt ticlirr (liiii II iiiinm* 
 Id imi'il n(.( net. I'roin priviito opinion or mirr^t 
 slnndnr, Imt tVoin tlir rvidiMUMMil' t'Hrt», ronl'ossion 
 ol'iniilt or «l«'rision or«'«»iirt«4. I lo innst not nmko 
 liimH'ir iicrnwcr, jnry »ind jn(l|/i\ nnd RrpMiuto 
 without tliii HMfirtion ol* tlio ordiniiry or «MM*l»^«i»m- 
 ticjil courts, on lii*4 own rrsponsiliility, liom llir 
 (•oiiiiriMiiKin or<Ilnisl, " IVInny lluTo fin^ rrr-lnini* 
 v(\ (14 l'rl«r; nifiny us .Indus, known well rnon^rli 
 and t(d(<nit<-.d ; ninny wincli trnist ronuiin nndis- 
 rov<T^d till tlir duy (»t' liis iipprhrunrc, l»y whom 
 th«- Mivn'-t r.orniTs oT durknrss will h«- hronjrht 
 
 into open lirrlil . " 
 
 (yK |)o«'R th«- (ylnirrlidf I'wijrhinrI nvotrnn^nd 
 tho disciplino (»!' ronsiirnrc nnd privnt^ ronlV'^ 
 «ion V 
 
 A. Shr exhorts nil to «xnirniw' nnd pid^^i 
 fln"niH«'.lvr««, thnt th«y l»r not pid^-;**! mT tiw I.omI. 
 Am to privnt<i r.ofd'c>*«ion of f'nultM, tho (ylnncli 
 n-fpiircs it, nnd with it restitution nnd r'pnrntion 
 of wron^. The prrc.ept ol'C'hrist is hindni^ on 
 ulU find to there own Master all will Mlnnd or tall. 
 
62 
 
 " If thou bring thy gift to the Altar, and there 
 rememberest, that thy brother hath ought against 
 thee, leave there thy gift before the Altar, and go 
 thy ways, first be reconciled to thy brother and 
 then come and offer thy gift." The absolution 
 of sin and the benefits of the Eucharist are 
 conditional on our " love and charity to our 
 neighbour " and if for their railing many would 
 render to the Church their blessing, for slander 
 love, and for causeless separation, unity, the dis- 
 cipline of concience and of charity, would be far 
 more effectual than any which human laws, civil, 
 ecclesiastical, or regimental, can secure. 
 
 Q. Does the Church of England enforce pri- 
 vate confession to the priest and private absolu- 
 tion in all cases before the communion and before 
 death ? 
 
 A. No, she never enforces private confession, 
 or private absolution in any case, she recom- 
 mends it to none, but when the penitent in order 
 to his reconciliation to the Church, desires it, 
 cannot satisfy his concience without it, or is like- 
 ly to die with a heavy burden on his soul. Here 
 the Church uses the authority of the Church, 
 releases the sinner tied and bound with the chain 
 of his sins, unties the heavy burden, and lets the 
 oppressed go free. This, however, is only ac- 
 cording to the " power and commandment " given 
 to the minister of the gospel, as we shall ex- 
 plain, when we come to speak of the sacrament 
 
63 
 
 of extreme Unction, and the visitation of the 
 sick. 
 
 Q. Are there any illustrations in the gospel 
 history of contrition, confession, absolution, res- 
 titution and excommunication ? 
 
 A. Yes, many very remarkable, highly inter- 
 esting to humanity aud explanatory of this entire 
 subject. 
 
 CASE I. 
 
 Q. In the personal ministry of our Lord do 
 we read of any instance of contrition of heart, 
 without a verbal avowal of acts and absolution 
 without penance, through faith ? 
 
 A. Yes, that of Mary Magdalen, who though 
 a great sinner was absolved by our Lord, on her 
 repentance and faith. The story is related with 
 inimitable simplicity and pathos by the Evange- 
 list St. Luke, and is unrivalled in its kind. 
 " And behold, a woman in the city, who was a 
 sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in 
 the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box 
 of ointment, and stood at his feet behind him, 
 iveeping, and began to ivash his feet with her 
 tears^ and did ivipe them ivith the hairs of her 
 head, ajid kissed his feet, and anointed them 
 with the ointment. Now when the Pharisee 
 which had bidden him saw it, he spake within 
 himself, saying. This man, if he were a Prophet, 
 would have known who and what manner of wo- 
 man this is that toucheth him : for she is a sin- 
 
64 
 
 new And Jesus answering said unto him, Simon, 
 I have somewhat to say unto thee. And he 
 saith, Master, say on. There was a certain cre- 
 ditor which had two dehtors : the one owed five 
 hundred pence and the other fifty. And when 
 they had nothing to pay, he frankli/ forgave 
 them both. Tell me, therefore, which of them 
 will love him most *? Simon answered and said, 
 I suppose that he, to whom he forgave the most. 
 And he said unto him, Thou hast rightly judged. 
 And he turned to the woman, and said unto 
 Simon, Seest thou this woman'? I entered into 
 thine house, thou gavest me no water for my 
 feet : but she hath washed my feet with tears, 
 and Miped them with the hairs of her head. 
 Thou gavest me no kiss ; but this woman since 
 the time I came in, hath not ceased to kiss my 
 feet. ]My head with oil thou didst not anoint ; 
 but this woman hath anointed my feet with oint- 
 ment. Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, 
 which are many are forgiven^ for she loved 
 much, for to whom little is forgiven the same 
 loveth little. And he said unto her, Thy sins 
 are forgiven. And they that sat at meat with 
 him began to say within themselves. Vv'ho is 
 this that forgiveth sins also "? And he said to the 
 Woman, Thy faith hath saved thee, go in 
 peace." 
 
 CASE II. 
 
 Do Me find any instance, in the Evangelical 
 
65 
 
 history, of public confession of guilt, where satis- 
 faction could not be made, and which will justify 
 the Church, in offering the mercy and sacrament 
 of the gospel to persons on their death bed, and 
 even to condemned criminals on their repentance 
 and faith?" 
 
 A. Yes, the following. "And one of the ma- 
 lefactors, which were hanged, railed on him 
 saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. 
 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, 
 Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the 
 same condemnation? And loe indeed justly^ 
 for we receive the due reward of our deeds, but 
 this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said 
 unto Jesus, Lord remember me when thou com- 
 est into thy Kingdom. And Jesus said unto 
 him. Verily I say unto thee to day shalt thou 
 he with me in Paradise.'' 
 
 CASE III. 
 
 Q. Do we find in the gospel history any case 
 of repentance, confession without avowal of acts, 
 with voluntary restitution and almsdeeds, followed 
 by absolution, without any express form ? 
 
 A. Yes, the case of Zaccheus the publican. 
 " And behold there was a man named Zaccheus, 
 which was the chief among the publicans, and he 
 was rich. And he sought to see Jesus who he was, 
 and he could not for the press, because he was 
 little of stature. And he ran before, and climbed 
 up into a sycamore tree, to sec him ; for he was 
 
 F 
 
66 
 
 to pass that way. And when Jesus came to the 
 place, he looked up, and saw him, and said unto 
 him, Zaccheus, make haste and come down, for 
 to-day I must abide at thy house. And he made 
 haste and came down and received him joyfully. 
 And when they saw it, they all murmured, say- 
 ing, That he was gone to be guest with a man 
 that was a sinner. And Zaccheus stood forth 
 and said unto the Lord ; Behold, Lord, the 
 half of my goods I give to the poor, and if I 
 have taken any thing from any man by false 
 accusations, 1 7'estore him fourfold. And Jesus 
 said unto him, This day is salvation come to this 
 house, forasmuch as he also is a son of Abra- 
 ham. For the Son of Man is come to seek and 
 to save that which was lost." 
 
 CASE IV. 
 
 Q. Do we find any example in the gospel of 
 attrition, confession of deeds, and unavailing res- 
 titution made not to the injured party, or from 
 true repentance, but from the horrors of a guilty 
 conscience, to the partners of his crime ? 
 
 A. Yes, one wretch, Judas Iscariot, who by a 
 course of deceit, pretended virtue, hypocrisy, and 
 love of money, prepared his soul for that diabol- 
 ical act of treachery by which he sold his master 
 for thirty pieces of silver. The history of this 
 horrid transaction is thus graphically recorded 
 by the Evangelists — ** Then one of the tw elve 
 called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests, 
 
67 
 
 and saitl unto them, What will ye give me, and 
 I will deliver him unto you ? And they cove- 
 nanted with him for thirty pieces of silver. And 
 from that time he sought opportunity to betray 
 him. Now when even was come, Jesus sat down 
 with the twelve. And as they did eat, he said, 
 Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall be- 
 tray me. And they were exceeding sorrowful 
 and began every one of them to say unto him, 
 Lord is it I ? And he answered and said, he 
 that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the 
 same shall betray me. Then Judas, which be- 
 trayed him, answered him and said, Master, is 
 it I? He said unto him, thou hast said. And 
 afterwards, while Jesus spake (to his disciples in 
 the garden) Behold a multitude, and he that 
 was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before 
 them, and drew near unto Jesus to kiss him. But 
 Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the 
 Son of Man with a kiss ? Then took they him, 
 and lead him, and brought him unto the high 
 priest's house. Then Judas that had betrayed 
 him, when he saw that he was condemned, re- 
 pented himself^ and brought again the thirty 
 pieces of silver to the chief priest, and elders, 
 saying, / hcwe sinned in that I have betrayed 
 innocent blood. And they said, what is that to 
 us, see thou to that. And he cast doion the 
 pieces of silver in the temple^ and departed and 
 went and hanged himself." 
 
 f2 
 
68 
 
 Q. What do vve learn from these scriptural 
 cases ? 
 
 A, We learn that a confession of our offences 
 is necessary, when we are convinced that we have 
 offended God or man ; that in such confession it 
 is not necessary to detail publicly or into the ear 
 of a priest, all the cirumstances of our crimes ; 
 that works meet for repentance, chastity, restitu- 
 tion, charity and almsdeeds should accompany it ; 
 and that the absolution of sins, may be expressed 
 by the minister of the gospel, with or without a 
 particular form. 
 
 CASE V. 
 
 EXCOMMUNICATION. 
 
 Q. Do we find that Jesus Christ has vested in 
 the Church any power of discipline for the sup- 
 pression of divisions and heresies, or for the cor- 
 rection of scandalous offenders. 
 
 A. Yes, Jesus Christ has told us that such 
 cases are to be settled and corrected if possible, 
 by private conference and admonition, that where 
 that fails they must be examined by two or three 
 witnesses — and that on the evidence of such wit- 
 nesses the matter is to be heard and decided by 
 the Church. " If he shall neglect to hear them 
 (the witnesses) tell it unto the Church, but if he 
 neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee 
 
69 
 
 as a heathen man and a pnbUcan." To this pub- 
 lic discipline of the Church, and not to auricular 
 confession, Christ adjudges an ultimate and su- 
 preme authority of excommunication and absolu- 
 tion. In the case of the Apostles who were 
 infallible in their ministry, the sentences passed 
 under their authority were infallible : but we can- 
 not conceive, that, sentences (though they may 
 be presumed just when founded on due course 
 of law and evidence) are now without error, 
 cither through false witnesses, or the fallibility of 
 all human judgments, when not directed by divine 
 inspiration. The words of Christ, therefore, 
 which when applied to the Apostles may be taken 
 strictly, when applied to the Church in other 
 ao'es, must be taken with a due allowance for hu- 
 man frailties. " Verily I say unto you, whatsover 
 ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, 
 and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be 
 loosed in heaven." 
 
 Q. Was the authority which was given to St. 
 Peter the same as that which was ti'iven to the 
 rest of the Apostles and to the Churches, under 
 their direction ? 
 
 A. When St. Peter expressed the true faith of 
 the divinity and Messiahship of Christ on which 
 the Church is built, our Lord gave to him indivi- 
 dually, the same power as he gave to the Apostles 
 generally, and which was exercised by them in 
 the Churches " Thou art Peter, and on this Rock 
 
 F 3 
 
70 
 
 will I build my Church, aud the jj'ates of hell shall 
 not prevail against it, and I will give unto thee the 
 keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever 
 thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, 
 and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be 
 loosed in heaven." In other words, thou shalt 
 have a plenary, infallible apostolic authority to 
 preach the gospel, and to direct the establishment 
 and discipline of the infant Churches. 
 
 Q. Were extraordinary powers vested in the 
 Apostles for directing the establishment and 
 government of the first Churches ? 
 
 A. It is evident that the Apostles were autho- 
 rized to defend the discipline and purity of the 
 Church with miraculous power. This power 
 was exercised by St. Peter, in a case of disci- 
 pline, by the infliction of death on Ananias and 
 Sapphira, when the gates of hell were opened 
 against the infant Church, and the faith and 
 purity of the first Christians, as well as the Chris- 
 tian cause itself, were endangered by lying and 
 fraud. The same power was exercised by St. 
 Paul on Elymas the sorcerer, who was stricken 
 blind for blasphemy and impugning the Christian 
 doctrine — on Hymenoeus and Alexander for apos- 
 tacy and blasphemy, and on the Corinthian ex- 
 comunicate, for illicit marriage and incest — in 
 which case the sentence (or as the word implies, 
 die piniishment established by law, i. e. the law 
 of Christ, or the lawful authorised punishment of 
 
71 
 
 excommunication ) was reversed on the repen- 
 tance of the criminal, who was again restored to 
 the communion of the Church. This guilty per- 
 son, by a public sentence of excommunication, 
 given to St. Paul by the Spirit ( as in the case of 
 the discipline of the Sacrament ) and confirmed 
 by the power of Christ, had been delivered to 
 Satan, i. e. cut off from the Christian body and 
 treated as a Heathen man. It is probable also, 
 that the sentence was accompanied with a per- 
 sonal chastisement, inflicted by the miraculous 
 power, as a mark of the justice of the excommu- 
 nication, and of the sinfulness of his crime. 
 
 Q. Do these cases justify the Church of Rome 
 in assuming to herself the apostolical and mira- 
 culous powers of the keys, the infallible right 
 of excommunicatinii' and anathematiziu"' all 
 christian kings, nations, and Churches, that may 
 not adopt her doctrines, practices, and man- 
 dates ? 
 
 A. The Church of Rome has no more power 
 to anathematize all other Christians, as she has 
 done in the decisions of the council of Trent, 
 than she has power to strike men blind, or sick, 
 or dead — By such anathemas she has adopted 
 schism and made it incurable. The Apostles 
 used their powers but seldom ; they left no 
 orders respecting them, because they were not to 
 be permanent functions of the Church. They 
 did not teach the Church of Antioch to excom- 
 
72 
 
 iiUHiicate the Church of Corinth, or the Church 
 of Jerusalem to anathematize the Church of 
 Rome ; nor did they teach Churches to anathe- 
 matize individuals for not worshipping images, 
 the souls of Saints, the Mass-god, and the like ; 
 They instructed each Church, and all Churches, 
 to correct scandalous offenders, in extreme cases, 
 for gross crimes, and that with a view to their 
 edification. 
 
 Q. What does the doctrine of Christ himself, 
 with respect to the authority of the Church, con- 
 sidered apart fi'om the infallible authority of the 
 Apostles, teach us ? 
 
 A. It teaches that in all divisions respecting 
 faith and practice, the decisions of the Church, 
 if they be according to scripture, are to be res- 
 pected — that in matters of discipline and order, 
 her decisions, if they be not opposed to scripture, 
 or justice, or charity, are to be obeyed — that for 
 open apostacy, blasphemy and impugning of 
 Christianity, as well as for incest, illicit marriage, 
 and gross vices, offenders are to be, on evidence 
 of facts and witnesses, excommunicate ; but that 
 such, on repentance, may receive absolution, and 
 be again restored to communion by proper au- 
 thority. It is for the interest of the laity that 
 they should sanction cordially, as they have 
 legislatively, the order and discipline of the 
 Church — That discipline, however, can never be 
 brought about by unseasonable and indiscreet 
 
73 
 
 zeal, or by the affectation of infallible power, 
 which would destroy the moral as well as the 
 disciplinarian restraints of the Church, as it has 
 done^in those countries where, by confounding in 
 trifles positive and moral obligation, it has been 
 attempted. After all that can be done, the tares 
 will grow with the wheat, and if we attempt too 
 rigidly or prematurely to pluck up the one, we 
 shall probably root out the other. The Church 
 of England, therefore, has done wisely in confin- 
 ing its canons of excommunication to gross 
 offenders, on conviction of witnesses, and in pro- 
 viding for the absolution and restoration of such 
 on their repentance, by proper authorities — 
 while it still maintains the right of the Church 
 to excommunicate according to the authority of 
 Christ; *' That person which by open denuncia- 
 tion of the Church, is rightly cut off from the com- 
 munion of the Church, and excommunicate, ought 
 to be taken of the whole multitude of the faithful 
 as a heathen or a publican : until he be openly 
 reconciled by penance and be received unto the 
 Church by a Judge that hath authority there- 
 unto." Art. 33. 
 
CHAPTER IL 
 
 " Id vero perspicuum fiet, si verba quibus Sanctus Jacobus Apostolus hujus 
 Sacrameoti legem promulgavU attendamus. " 
 
 Catechismus ConcUii Tridentini. 
 
 lExtumc Mmtion* 
 
 Q. What is the next Romish Sacrament which 
 we reject ? 
 
 A. The sacrament of extreme unction, which 
 comes naturally to be considered in connexion 
 with the sacrament of penance. For as penance 
 requires contrition, confession, and absolution for 
 all Christians during life and health, so in the sa- 
 crament of extreme unction, the same conditions 
 ( if possible ) are required, with the superadded 
 unction and prayers of the Priest, who thus gives 
 the final pardon of all remaining sin, and all ne- 
 cessary assistance in the last agony, whence it is 
 sometimes called the sacrament of the dying. 
 
 Q. Does the Church of Rome teack, that the 
 anointing the sick and dying with oil, is a sacra- 
 ment instituted by Jesus Christ ? 
 
 A. Yes. They teach that the sacrament of 
 
75 
 
 extreme unction was instituted l)y Jesus Christ 
 for the spiritual and bodily relief of the sick, that 
 it consists in the unction, which the Priest makes 
 with the holy oil consecrated by the Bishop on 
 holy Thursday, accompanied with his prayers. 
 This unction is applied to the five senses of the 
 sick person in these or similar words, '* Per banc 
 sacram unctionem et suam piissimam miserecor- 
 diam, indulgeat tibi Deus, quicquid peccasti per 
 visum, auditum, olfactum, gustum et tactum," the 
 proper word being repeated, as the organ of each 
 sense is anointed. 
 
 Q. Did Jesus Christ institute any sacrament 
 expressly for the sick and dying, with an out- 
 ward and visible sign, a form of sacramental 
 words, and the promise of a spiritual and cor- 
 poral blessing ? 
 
 A. He did not; He gave to his Apostles 
 miraculous powers, and amongst them the power 
 of healing the sick. This power may also have 
 been extended to others during the Apostolic 
 age, but in all cases, in which it was employed, 
 it was a gift and not a sacrament, exercised in 
 the name and by the power of Jesus Christ, 
 without a particular form of words, or the con- 
 stant use of a sign to produce the promised 
 effect. 
 
 Q. But if the Sacrament was not instituted by 
 Jesus Christ himself, do we not find that the 
 Apostles had in their practice converted this 
 
76 
 
 gift, by the use of holy oil, into a Sacrament ? 
 
 A. Thoiio'h this Sacrament had not been insti- 
 tuted by Christ himself, or not completely sanc- 
 tioned as one of the seven till the council of Trent ; 
 yet if we could be assured, that it had the autho- 
 rity of the Apostles as such, we should not (ad- 
 mitting a distinction of divine and apostolical) be 
 desirous to dispute its sacramental efficacy ui the 
 hands of those who had miraculous powers, 
 Calvin maintained or allowed that Confirmation 
 and extreme Unction were sacraments apostolical. 
 With respect to the former he contended, that 
 though it has ceased to be apostolical, in its proper 
 sense, with respect to the dispensation of miracu- 
 lous gifts, yet, that it was a rite handed down from 
 the Apostles, of great use, and accompanied with 
 great blessings, and as such he defended, and 
 warmly recommended the practice of it in the 
 Church. The sacrament of extreme Unction, 
 however, he rejected altogether for reasons which 
 arc amply sufficient, to reftite what we call the 
 ** corrupt following " and Calvin " the aping" 
 of the Apostles pretended by the Papists. 
 
 Q. Admitting that extreme Unction was a 
 sacrament apostolical, M'hy do we conclude that 
 it was not intended to be permanent ? 
 
 A. An outward sign, which is not the seal or 
 pledge, or instrument to convey the grace, bless- 
 ing, or promise signified, is not a sacrament, but 
 a ceremony, and if used as a sacrament, a mis- 
 
77 
 
 chicvous deception. Circumcision was a sacra- 
 ment, but it has ceased to be so, and if christians 
 should employ it now, they would be guiltly of 
 presumption, and a dangerous heresy. Admitting 
 that extreme Unction was a sacrament apostoli- 
 cal (and we make the admission merely for the 
 sake of argument) yet all the world knows, that 
 the gift of healing and other miraculous powers 
 (whatever fanatics may pretend) were not per- 
 petual or of long continuance. By these signs 
 and wonders God was pleased to confirm the first 
 preaching of the gospel, and to establish it in the 
 world ; nor can we conceive, that it could have 
 been established, on the ruins of philosophy and 
 superstition and Judaism, by such men as the 
 Apostles, without a divine power, and a manifes- 
 tation of that power ; nor can we conceive that 
 such men as the Apostles would unanimously 
 have undertaken such a work and persisted in 
 it to their lives' end, if they had not been per- 
 fectly persuaded that it had been and was attest- 
 ed by the 7nanifestation of miraculous power. 
 It is ridiculous, however, and worse than ridicu- 
 lous to boast of the power of healing, or to use the 
 outward symbols with reference to such a gift, 
 which is never given or expected. When the 
 Apostles anointed they healed the sick, but the 
 Roman Catholics defer the unction till all hope 
 and even all sense and reason are past. If St. 
 James intended this sacrament to be perpetual 
 
78 
 
 for all sick persons, and for their recovery, why 
 do the Priests, if they believe that grace and 
 power are contained in this sacrament, and that 
 the dispensation of it rests with them, confine and 
 defer it to dangerous and fatal sickness ? 
 
 Q. If the Apostles did actually use the 
 anointing with oil, would this unction consti- 
 tute a sacrament accompanied with a healing 
 power ? 
 
 A. No ; it might still be no more a sacrament 
 than the pool of Siloam, or than the action of 
 St. Paul falling on the dead youth ( as Elijah 
 did ) and restoring him, or than Christ's making 
 clay with his spittle was a sacrament for restoring 
 the sight. Such outward signs, unless they are 
 accompanied with the institution of Christ him- 
 self in express and unalterable terms, and accom- 
 panied with a promised and inseparable blessing, 
 are not sacraments of the Christian Church. 
 
 Q. But if the gifts of healing have ceased, do 
 we not read in the Epistle of St. James of the 
 particular use of this ceremony, by the elders of 
 the Church, who might not have been Apostles 
 and which will justify us now, in retaining the 
 custom of holy unction? 
 
 A. We contend that if the gift of healing the 
 sick miraculously has ceased, the outward cere- 
 mony ought in all reason to cease also, even if it 
 were not applied to superstitious and delusive 
 purposes. But as the mistaken assumption or 
 
79 
 
 imitation of these powers and gifts, which were 
 confined to the Apostolic ages, has contributed 
 so largely to superstition on the one hand, and 
 fanatical conceit and enthusiasm on the other, we 
 will examine minutely this passage in the Epistle 
 of St. James. Though it was our intention to 
 avoid as much as possible all minute criticism, and 
 to found the opinions expressed in this treatise on 
 a reference to plain Scripture, known authority, or 
 common sense ; yet as it is impossible to examine 
 the sacrament of extreme unction without a re- 
 ference to this passage of Scripture, we proceed 
 to investigate it in its various parts. We have 
 hitherto kept patiently along our road, nor have 
 we turned aside to ramble over the wild hills or 
 picturesque glens and vallies that have in this 
 romantic country crossed our path ; but as this 
 resting place may be found safe and convenient 
 for future travellers, we will here stop awhile and 
 sketch the scene and objects around us, and the 
 rather, because we think, they have not been 
 observed as they deserve to be. 
 
 Q» What is the passage in St. James's Epistle 
 on which this sacrament and auricular confession 
 are founded ? 
 
 A. It is contained in the 5th chapter, beginning 
 at the 14th verse, and as we consider the whole 
 passage from that verse to the end of the chap- 
 ter, which is the end of the Epistle, to apply to 
 one particular subject, and that neither extreme 
 
80 
 
 unction for the sick and dying, nor auricular 
 confession, nor the recital of experience, we will 
 catechise it in its various parts. 
 
 Q. What is the 14th verse ? 
 
 A. *' Is any sick* among you ? Let him call 
 for the elders of the Church and let them pray 
 over him, anointing him with oil in the Name 
 of the Lord. " The sickness here mentioned 
 cannot mean all kinds of sickness, for then no 
 one would have died, nor can it mean cases of 
 fatal sickness, for the prescription is for cases of 
 recovery ; we must therefore conclude that it was 
 some particular kind of sickness that was not 
 always unto death. The sickness was similar to 
 that which fell upon many of the Corinthiansf for 
 their abuse of the Sacrament, and particularly 
 on one member of that Church, for his inces- 
 tuous marriage or concubinage ; similar also to 
 the case supposed by St. John of a brother sin- 
 ning a sin not unto death ; all of them cases of 
 discipline falling within the canon, laid down by 
 our Lord, for the government of his Church, and 
 applied extraordinarily in the age of the first 
 propagation of the Gospel. 
 
 Q. What is that rule of Christ ? 
 
 A. It is contained in the 18th chapter of St. 
 Matthew, which from the beginning to the end, 
 refers to cases of scandal, and offences arisins", 
 whether from the private passions of individuals 
 
81 
 
 ( illustrated by the parable of the offending mem- 
 bers) against their own souls; or from lapses 
 from the doctrine and discipline of the Church, 
 ( illustrated by the parable of the lost sheep ) or 
 from irreconcilable disputes among brethren, 
 in which the guilt of parties was ascertained on 
 the evidence of witnesses, or generally from a 
 rejection of the authority of the Church. " If he 
 neglect to hear the Church ( says Christ ) let 
 him be unto thee as a heathen man and a pub- 
 lican. Verily I say unto thee, Whatsoever ye 
 shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven," 
 
 Q. In the Apostolic age, did the ban of the 
 Church and the scourge of heaven fall upon such 
 as vitiated the purity or violated the discipline 
 of the Church? 
 
 A. It is evident, as we have before observed, 
 th^-t the Apostles had the power of preserving 
 the purity and discipline of the Church by"super- 
 natural means. That power which was given 
 by our Lord to the Apostles generally, and to St. 
 Peter personally, was also given, expressly by 
 divine direction, to St. Paul as to one " born out 
 of due time. " This power he executed, by ex- 
 press revelation, on the Corinthian excommuni- 
 cate, for his salvation and the edification of the 
 Church. As, therefore, this is a point asserted 
 by our Lord and all the Apostles, whose writings 
 have come down to us, we conclude, that there 
 did exist in the first age of the Church, the power 
 
 G 
 
82 
 
 of excommunication, accompanied with bodily 
 chastisements, as marks of the divine displeasure. 
 It is, however, of great importance to distinguish 
 between these powers which ceased with the 
 Apostles and their immediate communications, 
 and those which are transmissive from as:e to ag-e. 
 Q. Does our Saviour's law provide for the 
 reconciliation, as well as the punishment, of such 
 offending members, and was prayer a means 
 ordained in this transaction ? 
 
 A. Christ says " whatsoever ye shall loose on 
 earth shall be loosed in heaven," and he instructs 
 his Apostles that the removal of excommunication 
 should be effected by unanimous prayer. " Again 
 ( that is in continuation of this subject ) I say 
 unto you, that if two of you shall agree on earth, 
 touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall 
 be done for them by my Father which is in hea- 
 ven, for where two or three are gathered together 
 in my name there am I in the inidst of them. *' 
 The universal application of this promise to pri- 
 vate Christians in all circumstances, without 
 limitation, would be enthusiastic, but its refer- 
 ence to the particular case before us, is natural 
 and free from question — Besides our Saviour 
 says,not only that the prayer shall be answered, 
 but that, as if some special transaction Avere 
 referred to, he would he in the midst of them. 
 — St. John, alluding to this promise, directs 
 prayers to be made for him who had sinned the 
 
83 
 
 sin not unto death ; and St. James, in this text, 
 applies the absolution generally ordained by 
 Christ for excommunicants, to the case of those 
 who were under a. judicial sickness^ which pre- 
 vented them from making their public co7ifessioji 
 and penance before the Church — These were 
 permitted to send for the elders of the Church to 
 their oivn houses, that by prayer in the name of 
 the Lord (which was the form both of excommu- 
 nication and absolution ) the offending brother, 
 whose sickness, through repentance, was not unto 
 death, might be saved and healed. 
 
 Q. Who were the elders of the Church ? 
 
 A. They were the chosen and ordained officers 
 and ministers of the Churches, appointed to go- 
 vern them, when they were first formed, under 
 the authority of the Apostles, and afterwards 
 under the Bishops, as Titus and Timothy, who 
 were ordained by the Apostles with power to 
 ordain others. They did not set the Church in 
 order, but maintained the order of the Apostles, 
 to whom they referred for counsel in all impor- 
 tant matters of discipline, as is evident from a re- 
 ference to those passages in the New Testament, 
 in which the Presbyters are described in their 
 office, or in synod. (Acts xi. 30. xiv. 23. xv. 2. 
 4.6.22.23. xvi.4. xx. ]7. xxi. 18. 1st Timothy 
 V. 17. Titus i. 5. James v. 14. 1st Peter v. 1. ) 
 
 Q. When the elders were assembled at the 
 sick man's house, is it necessary so suppose that 
 
 G 2 
 
84 
 
 they were invested with the same powers as the 
 Apostles, or that they ^vaited till they had a par- 
 ticular impresdon to work a miracle ■? 
 
 A. On the supposition that the sickness spoken 
 of was any kind of sickness, one of these hypo- 
 theses would be necessary, but if it were a case 
 o^ judicial sickness, it is only necessary to sup- 
 pose that Christ was in the midst of them. All 
 cases of judicial sickness were not inflicted by 
 express sentence. St. Paul and the other Apos- 
 tles intimate, that there were many inflicted by 
 the providential government of Christ. In the 
 case of St. Paul, the judgment was inflicted by 
 Christ himself, but as his sin was against the 
 Church, he was directed to seek his cure from 
 Ananias, who was the presiding elder in the 
 persecuted Church at Damascus. In this case, 
 both the judgment and the cure were miracu- 
 lous ; the latter by the intervention of human 
 agency, and the former without it. In other 
 cases we may suppose that this method was re- 
 versed, and where the judgment was through 
 man, the healing was through Christ; and again 
 in other cases, where both the judgment and 
 the cure were from providence, but the cure 
 effected through the prayers of the Church. 
 Moreover, in the case supposed by St. James^ 
 and in that stated by St. Paul, the cure may not 
 have been instantaneous but progressive ; so that 
 the difficulty which occurs to many in explaining 
 
85 
 
 this text is removed, and no actual instigation 
 to work a miracle may have been necessary. It 
 was sufficient for the elders to know that in all 
 cases of judicial sickness ( though not in all cases 
 of sickness ) that on repentance, the penitent 
 should be absolved, with a sure and certain hope 
 that his sickness should not be unto death. 
 The rule, therefore, might be applicable to all 
 Churches at that time, whether there were mira- 
 culous powers in the particular elders or not. 
 This opinion does not impeach the truth of the 
 miracles wrought in the Apostolic age, both 
 in attestation of the Christian doctrine and in 
 vindication of the authority of the Church — for 
 it is clear that our Saviour's promise was literally 
 fulfilled in the case of the Apostles, and in the 
 various dispensation of gifts to those that believ- 
 ed, " And these signs shall follow them that be- 
 lieve ; In my name shall they cast out devils, 
 they shall speak with new tongues, they shall 
 take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly 
 thing, it shall not hurt them ; they shall lay hands 
 on the sick and they shall recover. " 
 
 Q. Was the anointing with oil commanded by 
 Christ to be used in healing the sick ? 
 
 A. It was neither commanded nor forbidden 
 by Christ, but it was a custom among the Jews, 
 which the Apostles sometimes used and some- 
 times omitted. Unction with oil was used for 
 civil and religious purposes as well as medicinally 
 
 G 3 
 
86 
 
 In that warm climate it was used to preserve 
 as well as to restore health, for ornament, and 
 comfort. Oil was enjoined in the use of offer- 
 ings, to encourage the cultivation of the olive 
 which was a source of wealth to Palestine, and 
 a means of attaching the Israelites to their coun- 
 try. When used in sacred things it was gene- 
 rally symbolical, and especially of the Spirit, 
 whence Jesus was called Christ because he was 
 anointed with the oil of gladness above his fel- 
 lows. It is not necessary, therefore, to suppose 
 that the oil was used medicinally, much less 
 sacramentally, to imply an infallible cure through 
 that as an instrument and means. We rather 
 understand the use of the oil to have been in a 
 general symbolical sense. " Is any excommuni- 
 cate sick among you and pining in despair ? let 
 him send for the elders of the Church — let them 
 pray over him for his forgiveness and his cure — 
 let them anoint him as a guest and a stranger at 
 their table, or rather as a friend and a brother 
 on his return — let that emblem of the Spirit's 
 unction and return to his body as a temple, and 
 of the good and pleasant unity of brethren, 
 cheer his desponding soul, make him of a cheer- 
 ful countenance, encourage faith, and thus pre- 
 pare him for his absolution and his cure." 
 
 Q. What is the 15th verse ? 
 
 A. " And the prayer of faith shall save the 
 sick and the Lord shall raise him up and if he 
 
87 
 
 have committed sins they shall be forgiven him." 
 Q. Was it necessary that the prayer of the 
 sick should be added to the prayer of the elders ? 
 A. Yes ; when our Saviour healed the sick, 
 he said it was their faith that saved them, that 
 is, their faith had its proper place in the cure. 
 So the prayer of faith in this verse applies to the 
 sick penitent and not to the elders. The copu- 
 lative conjunction* does not necessarily imply 
 that the same agency is supposed in this verse as 
 in the preceeding, it is rather an addition of 
 another part of the same transaction, and per- 
 haps, as referring to the efficacy of faith in the 
 sick, when healing was to be performed, may 
 have a hortatory force. At any rate the expres- 
 sion is entirely changed. The prayer of faithf 
 that is the vow of the Nazarite, made in the 
 hope or enjoyment of any deliverance from im- 
 minent peril or grievous sickness. The word is 
 only used in two other passages of the New Tes- 
 tament, and in both for the Nazarite vow, once 
 in the case of St. Paul himself at Cenchrea, 
 having made the Nazarite vow after his escape 
 and deliverance at Corinth ; and again when he 
 joined himself to four others in the temple, who 
 were under the same vow ; by the direction of 
 this Apostle, St. James, who presided over the 
 Jewish Converts, maintained many Jewish cus- 
 
 * Kcit. •\' 'H (vxTj TTjs nisfcos- 
 
88 
 
 toms, and wrote this Epistle to the twelve tribes 
 scattered abroad.* 
 
 Q. What is the meaning of the next expres- 
 sion, " The Lord will raise him up V 
 
 A. It seems to imply that the deliverance was 
 to be effected, not by the miraculous power of 
 the elders, but by the power of Christ, who would 
 be "m the tnidst of them. " Though the sick 
 man were sinkingf under a burthen too heavy 
 for him to bear, yet the Lord will revive both 
 body and soul, and restore him again to his pro- 
 per state and place. § 
 
 Q. What is the meaning of the next expres- 
 sion, " and if he have committed sins, they shall 
 be forgiven him ?" 
 
 A. St Paul, describing the very individual who 
 had sinned, says, that man who has done this 
 deed,;}; but St. James, speaking hypothetically, 
 says, II although he be one of those who have 
 committed sins worthy of death, and that are 
 judicially visited, yet thus repenting, confessing, 
 and praying in faith, through the intercession of 
 the Church,and the power of the Lord Jesus, his 
 absolution and cure shall be certain, as it were 
 
 * The word is used for the Nazarite vow by the Septuagint, 
 which is the version used in the New Testament, Numbers, vi. 
 
 2. 'Avtjp t) yvVT} OS av fieyaXas ev^rjrai ivxT^v, ) 
 
 f Toy Ka/ivoi/To, the picture of a man labouring in conscience, 
 and languishing in body. 
 
 § Eyepet. * 6 ro fpyovTOVTOTioiijcras^ \\ Kav afiaprias 7 TTfTTOirjKus. 
 
89 
 
 by a physical that is, a miraculous power ;* but 
 as the word which expresses this is impersonal 
 and future, we conclude that the Apostle has not 
 yet described the whole case, and that something 
 more remains to be done before it is completed. 
 
 Q. What is the next verse connecting this 
 description ? 
 
 A. " Confess your faults one to another and 
 pray one for another, that ye may be healed. f 
 The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man 
 availeth much.§ The expressions "may be heal- 
 ed " and " availeth much " naturally refer to 
 the case of sickness, and cannot without violence 
 
 * 'A(}>€6^(T€Tai. This word is used with great latitude, but in 
 the Ixx, it is used with reference to a curse or ban, threatened or 
 inflicted, as in the case of Job's friends, when God as a judge, 
 absolved the guilty, and in the case of Cain, who by the murder 
 of his brother had sinned the sin unto death. With respect to 
 this sin, Cain exclaims Mei^av fj diria fiov tov dcfjedfjvai fie, my sin 
 is too great, ever to be remitted to me. It was a sin worthy of 
 death ; but as no one but his near relations could have executed 
 it, God set a mark, or some bodily judgment on Cain, which was 
 probably to be incurable, and terminate in death. So in the xxii 
 Isaiah, 14 v. The sin of the Jews unto death, is declared by this 
 
 word, m the Ixx. 6vk dipedrjcrfTai vjjuv avrq fj afxapTia ecos I'lv arroda- 
 
 j/jjre, which Grotius translates " per totam vitam eos qui haec fece- 
 runtpaense sequentur," a sense which Vitringa admits to be literal 
 and true. In this text the use of the precise term would intimate 
 that St. James had that sort of sin in his view, which if not remit- 
 ted in the prescribed manner, would have been followed with 
 divine punishments unto death. 
 
90 
 
 and harshness be separated from it, or applied 
 to any other case. The term " confess "* was 
 
 *E^ofjioXoy€Lade, As the Roman Catholic writers have seized upon 
 this verse, to justify the practice of auricular confession, the German 
 protestant critics have laboured much, to shew that the term 
 translated confess, has nothing peculiar in it, that the preposition 
 in composition is expletive, and the term not a scriptural but a 
 common term. Eisner has quoted a number of passages to shew 
 that it was used by other Greek writers, but they were all subse- 
 quent to the Christian ^ra, and wrote at periods when the religion 
 and customs of Jews and Christians were well known to the phi- 
 losophers and scoffers among the heathen, such as Plutarch and 
 Lucian. Krebsius has quoted many passages from Josephus also, 
 to shew that the word was used by the Jewish writers, who under- 
 stood the Greek language ; but all this seems to prove little more 
 than that this word, which was used by the Jews and Christians, 
 was adopted by subsequent writers, and that too generally to ex- 
 press the confession of a fact concealed, or a public avowal. 
 This is certainly the sense in which it is used in the Ixx, in the 
 case of Daniel, when with windows open in his chamber towards 
 Jerusalem, he prayed and gave thanks, or made his public con- 
 fession, before his God. So by the Jews who were baptized of 
 John in Jordan, confessing their sins, before that great assembled 
 multitude. So also in the case of those in the Acts of the Apostles, 
 who confessed and declared their deeds, and burnt their books. 
 In all these cases, the term has undoubtedly the pecuHar and eccle- 
 siastical sense of public confession of sins, a sense sufficiently 
 removed from the Roman Catholic doctrine, though the word be 
 interpreted with the full force of the preposition. If the preposi- 
 tion were without emphasis, we should expect that the simple 
 verb were obsolete or of rare use, or that the preposition was used 
 with great latitude, and that the article was not used between the 
 preposition and the verb — but in this case none of these supposi- 
 tions are true. We may, therefore, without any apprehension of 
 the Romanists, allow the preposition in composition here, its full 
 
91 
 
 applied by the Jews, who studied the Greek lan- 
 guage, to express the public confession of sin 
 which their religion required, and on the other 
 hand, it was used by those Greek writers only, 
 who, after the translation of the Septnagint, and 
 especially after the publication of the Christian 
 Scriptures, became acquainted wdth Jewish and 
 Christian affairs, and used the term to express 
 the public avowal of facts that had been con- 
 cealed. In the Christian Church it was a forensic 
 ecclesiastical term, used to express the confes- 
 sion of penitents made befo7^e the Chmxh, on 
 their readmission to communion, after a lapse or 
 public scandal. In the case of the judicially 
 sick, this confession was allowed to be made 
 before the elders of the Church m pr-ivate houses, 
 and their absolution was also then declared. In 
 the case of St. Paul, one elder \va.s directed to go 
 to the house where he lay sick, blind, and praying, 
 to declare his absolution and his cure. Our 
 Lord asserts ( St. Matthew, chapter xviii.,) and 
 St. James here seems to intimate, that scandals 
 would generally arise from injuries and quarrels 
 among brethren. In all cases of excommunica- 
 tion, which were made on the evidence of wit- 
 force — that the confession implies a recital of the whole in its 
 several parts, that it is the removal of the knowledge of facts from 
 one party to other parties — but after all, this confession is a public 
 not a private whispering act, and such was the public confession 
 ( e^oiioXoyrjais ) of penitents in the Church. 
 
92 
 
 nesses, there would remain some lurking ani- 
 mosities and root of bitterness, which must be 
 entirely removed — In almost all cases there 
 would be the injured and innocent, as well as the 
 guilty party, for it was sins against the brethren 
 or the Church, and not secret sins against God, 
 that were punished by judicial sickness, Christ, 
 therefore, and his Apostles, required that there 
 should be confession of faults ( mutual where 
 more than one guilty party were concerned ) and 
 deprecation of judgment by the righteous or 
 innocent many for the penitent sufferer, called 
 •by St. James, the deprecation accomplished^* 
 
 * ber](TLs 8i<aiov ^rvepyoviiivq. derjais in the New Testament, 
 is generally used to express intercession or deprecation. Had 
 the Apostle intended to express the deprecation or prayers of 
 the elders, the church, or a community, he would scarcely have 
 said 8iKaiov. His closing the entire account of the prescribed disci- 
 pline with 'evepyovfiepT], implies that it was tl>e accomplishment of 
 the rule. Luther following the interpretation of the Vulgate, renders 
 it "fervent " which is certainly loose. Our translators have im- 
 proved it by an additional epithet effectual fervent, and this might 
 perhaps be again improved by a transpostion fervent effectual. 
 But after all, it may be fairly questioned whether the passive or mid- 
 dle voice of this verb is used in an active sense in the New Testament, 
 certainly it will bear a passive or reciprocal construction, in most, 
 if not all places where it is used. The passive sense seems more 
 applicable here, and in the 2 Cor. i. 6. where St. Paul exactly ex- 
 presses that which is wrought in one party, to be common to, and 
 effectual, and effected, in another party, ElVf Se 6\i^6fie6a, xmkp Tfjs 
 
 v(j.aiv TrapaKXrjaecos /cat a'coTTjpLas, ttJs evepyovpeirqs iv vTrofiovrj rSy 
 avTuiv iradrjpaTcov, ap Koi impels rracrxopfv. And so ivepyovpivrf here 
 may be considered as a deprecation brought about aitd effected in 
 
93 
 
 and which when brought about and effected by 
 the elders of the Church, according to the law 
 of Christ and the Apostles, immediately (without 
 any thing future or left undone } availeth much. 
 The prayer of the elders, and the vow of the 
 sick, would be unavailing, or at least the absolu- 
 tion and the cure would be suspended, till this 
 part of the process should be cordially and legi- 
 timately executed. 
 
 Q. Do you suppose that St. James had in 
 view a case of this confession and humiliation of 
 the guilty party, and of the successful depreca- 
 tion of the 7'ighteous man *? 
 
 A. St. James, throughout his Epistle, enriches 
 his practical instructions with apposite images 
 and striking illustrations, drawn from the man- 
 ners and examples of the ancient Jews. He 
 concludes his Epistle with directions to the 
 afflicted in general, and to the judicially sick in 
 particular. He exhorts the Churches to take 
 for their example the prophets, and of these 
 prophets, he selects Job and Elijah, and in this 
 
 the innocent party to the help and assistance of the sufferer." As 
 
 the Apostles again in the 2 Cor. iv. 12, uses this verb in its pas- 
 sive sense, and in relation both to himself and other parties for 
 
 their benefit. "Qje 6 fiev Qdvaro^ eV f]fuv ivepyfirai, rj 8e (cot] iv 
 
 Ifxiv. The word is again used to express an effect communicated 
 from one party and accomplished in and to the benefit of another 
 ^Ayavi^ofiepos Kararijvepipyeiav avTou TTjv (vepyoviJ-ti'ijv iv ip.o\ iv 
 bovap.(U Col. i. 29. 
 
94 
 
 passage seems to refer to the history of both 
 these illustrious saints for instances of successful 
 deprecation. 
 
 Q. What was the reference to Job ? 
 
 A. It seems probable that the Apostle does 
 not lose sight of this example of Job from the 
 first mention of it in the eleventh verse, for the 
 exhortation, clothed in the language of Christ, 
 asrainst cursins; and svvearino;, which seems to 
 occur so abruptly in the twelfth verse, may refer 
 to the most remarkable part of the history of Job ; 
 that righteous man when under the heaviest 
 calamities permitted of God, and under the most 
 unjust and cruel provocations from his friends, 
 and even when stimulated by his wife to curse 
 God and die, kept himself ( from that which is 
 the most common temptation under such circum- 
 stances ) and swore not at all — The most patient 
 man, however, like the meekest man on earth, 
 spake unadvisedly with his lips, repined and 
 found fault with God's providence and govern- 
 ment — Hence his remarkable confession . '" Then 
 Job answered the Lord and said, I know that 
 thou canst do every thing, and that no thought 
 can be withholden from thee. Who is he that 
 hideth counsel without knowledge *? therefore 
 have I uttered that I understood not^ thi7igs too 
 wonderful for me ivhich I knew not. Hear I 
 beseech thee and I will speak ; I will demand 
 of thee, and declare thou unto me. I have heard 
 
of thee by the hearing- of the ear but now mine 
 eye seeth thee. TVherefoi^e I abhor myself and 
 repent in dust and ashes." 
 
 Q. On this confession, was Job's chastisement 
 removed, and was he restored to his former hap- 
 piness ? 
 
 A. Not immediately. The absolution and 
 blessing seem to have been suspended, even with 
 respect to Job himself, till his reconciliation was 
 completed with his friends, and till he had pray- 
 ed for them who had judged him so uncharitably, 
 and treated him so despitefuUy in his calamity. 
 These friends were commanded with sacrifice to 
 God to confess their faults and humble them- 
 selves before Job, and Job was instructed to in- 
 tercede for them, and deprecate their ignominy 
 and destruction. It is the most striking instance 
 of the prevailing deprecation of the righteous 
 man recorded in the Scriptures. To avert their 
 just punishment Eliphaz and his two ft'iends 
 were directed to go to Job, to take their sacri- 
 fice to him, with this assurance " My servant 
 Job (this is the Septuagint version) shall pray for 
 you, for him will I accept, and but on his account 
 I would destroy you, for ye have not spoken truly 
 in your controversy against my servant Job. So 
 Eliphaz the Temanite and Bildad the Shuhite, and 
 Zophar the Naamathite, went, and did according 
 as the Lord commanded them ; and the Lord re- 
 
96 
 
 mitted their sins to them on Job's account. And 
 the Lord magnified Job, and when also he prayed 
 for his friends the Lord remitted* to them their 
 sin." Here therefore was in an example of the 
 Prophets, a striking illustration of the Christian 
 rule of mutual reconciliation, and of the absolute 
 necessity of applying it by the confession and 
 humiliation of the guilty party, and the depreca- 
 tion of the righteous man. The deprecation' 
 here clearly refers to a case of justice between 
 Job and his friends, and in the case of St. James 
 between the offender and his brethren or the 
 Church. The intercession availed for the remis- 
 sion of a temporal judgment whether threatened 
 or inflicted, for the intercession of no man could 
 prevail for the remission of the eternal punish- 
 ments of sin. Indeed the doctrine here laid 
 down of temporal visible judgments for parti- 
 cular sins is peculiar to these cases, for the 
 general doctrine of the Gospel is opposed to it. 
 This rule, our Saviour has illustrated negatively 
 in the parable of the cruel servant ( Matt, xviii.) 
 He was frankly forgiven all his eyiormous deht^ 
 but on his refusing to forgive his fellow servant, 
 who owed him a few pence, he was delivered by 
 his Lord to the tormentors, till he should pay all 
 that was due unto him. Our Saviour concludes 
 this whole subject of the discipline of forgiveness 
 with these intense expressions, " So likewise 
 
 * a(j}rJK€v 
 
97 
 
 shall my heavenly Father do also unto you if ye 
 from your hearts forgive not every one his bro- 
 ther their trespasses." Who then will say that 
 ecclesiastical discipline is not useful, charitable, 
 and moral, to the highest degree ? Jesus Christ 
 has promulgated to the world two laws, which 
 though imperfectly observed by Christians, have 
 done more to civilize and bless mankind than 
 any two that were ever enacted. I mean, the 
 law of Christian forgiveness, in opposition to the 
 strong passions of resentment and revenge ; and 
 the law of marriage to abrogate polygamy, check 
 adultery, and regulate divorce.* 
 
 But why does St. James refer to the history of 
 the prophet Elijah in illustration of this subject, 
 and particularly to the case of the rain withheld 
 and the rain vouchsafed ? 
 
 A. The illustration is important. If St James 
 
 * If this law of forgiveness were carried into full effect, it 
 would be impossible that duelling should exist in Christian coun- 
 tries. It would not be necessary to have recourse to Dr. Paley's 
 fiction of a Court of honor established by law. It is undoubtedly 
 true that life without honor is worthless, and that a man had better 
 part with his life than his character, but as no one will justify 
 duelling on any other principle than this, and no one will justify it 
 for the gratification of passion and revenge — we contend that no 
 one ought to hesitate to submit his honor or his pride to the deci- 
 sion of disinterested christian friends or witnesses, and that friends 
 should be called in not to arrange a decision by battle, but by jus- 
 tice and charity ; and to such a decision, every christian ought to 
 submit (even if he be not convinced of its justice) as an officer 
 would submit to a court martial. 
 
 II 
 
98 
 
 had intended in this passage of Scripture to pro- 
 mulgate the law of the sacrament of extreme unc- 
 tion or of auricular confession he would have refer- 
 red to another case in the history of Elijah which 
 affords remarkable illustrations of both, he would 
 have referred to the widow of Zarephath.* But 
 for unction in extremis the widow's son was re- 
 markably applicable, " It came to pass after these 
 things, that the son of the woman the mistress of 
 the house fell sick, and his sickness was so sore 
 that there was no breath left iji him," but by the 
 prayer and cry of Elijah in this extremity he was 
 healed. A case more in point, therefore, could 
 not have been chosen by the Apostle, and his 
 omission of it, is as strong a negative proof against 
 any institution of a sacrament for the sick and 
 dying as can be conceived. The exclamation of 
 the widow, too, was illustrative of auricular con- 
 fession to the priest. " O thou man of God, art 
 thou come unto me to call my sin to remem- 
 brance ?" yet this also St. James has left unno- 
 ticed in the history and example of Elijah. But 
 the case adduced by St. James is one strictly in 
 point as illustrative of the case of the judicially 
 
 * Bellarmine asserts that the expression applied to the sick is 
 precisely *' de mortuo " and argues hence the propriety of extreme 
 unction in articulo mortis, but then according to the phraseology of 
 scripture in such cases, the reading would not have been t6v KOfi- 
 vovra but TOP Koiixavra, as St. Paul expresses himself — Aia rovro 
 
 (V vixlv TToXXoi aa-Oeveis Koi appcosoi, Kcii KOificovrai iKavoi, I Cor. XU 30. 
 
99 
 
 sick. It was the case of a hail injlicted for a 
 similar crime, and removed under similar cir- 
 cumstances by similar means, and consequently 
 both an example and a proof in poifit, 
 
 Q. What was the case of Elijah referred to by 
 the Apostle ? 
 
 A. It was a case of judgment inflicted on Ahab 
 and the Jewish nation, for their rebellion against 
 God, his Church and Prophet divinely commis- 
 sioned. The apostasy of Jeroboam the son of 
 Nebat was great, but it was " a light thing " in 
 comparison of the abominations of Ahab. Ahab 
 reared an altar, built a temple, made a grove to 
 Baal and served and worshipped him. "Ahab did 
 more to provoke the Lord God of Israel to anger 
 than all the kings of Israel that were before him." 
 It was in this apostasy and blasphemy when all 
 restraint was gone, and Elijah's mission, though 
 sanctioned by the Almighty, was frustrate, that 
 Elijah said to Ahab " As the Lord God of Israel 
 liveth, before whom I stand, there shall not be 
 dew nor rain these years, but according to my 
 word."* The judgment, therefore, was inflicted 
 for the same sin as that which those committed 
 in the Apostolic Churches, who with the signs 
 and wonders before their eyes, rebelled against the 
 authority of the Church, and it was inflicted for 
 the same object, viz. to bring back the rebellious 
 to acknowledge their sin and the authority of the 
 
 * 1 Kings, xvii. 1. 
 
 h2 
 
100 
 
 doctrine and discipline of the Church. At the 
 end of three years and six months, the rebellious 
 Jews were willing to hear the voice of Elijah, and 
 he therefore returned among them. When they 
 saw the miracle which he wrought before them ; 
 all the people " fell upon their faces and they 
 said the Lord he is God ; the Lord, he is God." 
 After this public confession, Elijah, having slain 
 the apostate priests who had sinned the sin unto 
 death, proceeded to intercede for the removal of 
 the sentence from those who by repentance, had 
 not sinned the sin unto death. "And he prayed 
 again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth 
 brought forth her fruit," A more striking pa- 
 rallel can scarcely be conceived, and it is of itself 
 sufficient to convince us, that St. James in this 
 passage was referring to the cases of the judicially 
 sick in the Apostolic Churches, when the open 
 manifestation of divine power ^ rendered those 
 who impugned or resisted it, liable to a punish- 
 ment inflicted by the same poiver ; but here is no 
 vestige of extreme unction for venial sins, or of 
 auricular confession. They exist not in the chris- 
 tian scriptures. 
 
 Q. How are the concluding verses connected 
 with this subject ? 
 
 A. " Brethren, if any of you,* (any member 
 of the christian community) do err from the truth 
 and one convert him : let him know that he which 
 
 * Tis eV Vfjup, 
 
101 
 
 converteth a sinner from the error of his way shall 
 save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude 
 of sins." St. James evidently refers to the para- 
 ble of the lost sheep, by which our Lord illustrates 
 the case of offending and erring brethren, their 
 recovery and the joy of the Church on their return. 
 (St. Matt, xviii.) If any one will compare this 
 text in St. James with that parable, especially in 
 the original Greek, he will see that the following 
 paraphrase is legitimate, and explains the true 
 design of charitable discipline, whether ordinary 
 or extraordinary. If any among you as a sheep 
 from among the flock, shall err and go astray, 
 from the truth (i.e. the Gospel of which the 
 Church is the pillar and ground ) and one 
 Christian friend or pastor, with zeal and charity, 
 shall search for the wanderer, and induce him to 
 return to the fold, and seek again the care of 
 the shepherd, and the communion of the flock, 
 without which every sheep must pine and die, 
 and be lost ; let him rejoice to know that he 
 which causeth an offending brother to return* 
 shall save his life from destruction, (from the sin 
 unto death) and by love and reconciliation shall 
 cover and bury in eternal oblivion a multitude of 
 sins. The Church thus repealing the temporary 
 sentence of discipline, with the everlasting law 
 of wisdom and charity, " Hatred stirreth up 
 strifes, but love covereth all sins." 
 
 * 6 fTTispi'i'as anaprmKov fK n\aur)s ofiov nvrov^ 
 
 h3 
 
102 
 
 Q. Are the Roman Catholics guilty of great 
 error, in maintaining the spurious Sacraments, 
 urging them upon mankind, as necessary to sal- 
 vation, and especially in applying a flattering 
 and delusive unction to the soul in death ? 
 
 A. We think it a great heresy to add such 
 inventions to the Gospel of Christ, to maintain 
 that Christians cannot die in safety without them, 
 or to assert their infallible efficacy. It is not 
 necessary to refer to the abuses of this abuse for 
 its refutation. It has no authority from Christ, 
 or any inspired Apostle. In this passage of St. 
 James, which is the " primo " in the arguments 
 of the council of Trent, and on which the merits 
 of the question turn, we contend that there is 
 not the slightest foundation for extreme unction 
 as a Sacrament, or as a custom of any use or 
 decency, for all the sick and dying, or even for 
 any case of sickness or death, in the absence of 
 n.iraculous power. We regret these supersti- 
 tous practices, but at the same time we sincerely 
 acknowledge that many pious Roman Catholic 
 priests display in their visitation of the sick and 
 dying, and in administering the offices of their 
 religion, a zeal and humanity, which are worthy 
 of praise and imitation. Among the death-bed 
 scenes or rather scenes of death, which will be 
 annexed to this chapter, one of great interest is 
 selected from the annals of the Roman Catholic 
 Church. It is the well known case of Bossuet 
 
103 
 
 and the Princess Henrietta Anne. Here the faith 
 and patience of the sufferer, the pious zeal of 
 the minister of the Gospel, and the affection of 
 the christian friend, are found in perfect contrast 
 with the rigid injunctions, and histrionic actions 
 of a mere confessor. Such virtue must be ad- 
 mired wherever it is found, whether in an ancient 
 heathen or modern christian, but love of virtue 
 must not cancel our love of truth. We sincerely 
 deplore that the Roman Catholics root and im- 
 bed some of their most dangerous errors on the 
 best and strongest feelings of humanity, and 
 especially we lament that they substitute in the 
 time of sickness and in the hour of death, their 
 will worship, spurious viaticum, and spurious Sa- 
 crament for the truth, hope and Sacrament of the 
 Gospel. The Roman Catholics often triumph 
 over us, because, as they say, we have not a 
 Sacrament for the dying. We certainly have not 
 theirs, but we have that which is far better, the 
 Sacrament of Jesus Christ, which he instituted 
 and communicated on the eve of his own death. 
 
 Q. Is it not remarkable that we do not find in 
 the Gospel frequent exhortations, to visit the 
 sick, and general instructions given to the minis- 
 ters of the Gospel, respecting the fulfilment of 
 this duty "? 
 
 A. The absence of such exhortations and in- 
 structions to this duty ( under a religion which 
 makes our acceptance or condemnation, at the 
 
104 
 
 judgment day to depend upon the performance 
 of it ) is a proof that it is not only the duty of 
 the ministers of religion, but of all who bear the 
 christian name ; it is a proof that it is a duty not 
 of a doubtful nature, or that needs a specific law 
 from heaven to establish it, but one that must be 
 known and admitted of all Christians, without 
 any revealed regulations. The precise regula- 
 tions laid down by St. James, for the direction 
 of the Church in particular cases of sickness, 
 being the only rules which are prescribed in the 
 New Testament, clearly manifest that in all ordi- 
 nary cases divine rules are not required, but that 
 such as are convenient may be used. Certainly 
 it would be both a great injury to humanity, and 
 a great injustice to Christianity to confine these 
 offices of love and charity to the officers of the 
 church. All will stand before the judgment seat 
 of Christ, and all, whether laity or clergy, who 
 have not visited the sick, administered alms, 
 or certified charity, will appear at that great 
 inquest with confusion. 
 
 Q. But do we not infer from the instructions 
 of St. James, some particular and important 
 duties which belong to the Church and its 
 Ministers ? 
 
 A. Yes ; though it is absurd to pretend to 
 heal the sick, except by proper medicines, with- 
 out a special and divine commission to do so ; 
 yet we admit from this passage of Scripture that 
 
105 
 
 it is the bounden duty of the ministers of the 
 Gospel, to visit the sick at their own houses, 
 especially Avhen they are sent for — that it is 
 lawful in such cases when the sick desire it, 
 and are not able to reach the Church, to 
 administer in private houses the ordinances of 
 the Church, to receive their confession, reconcile 
 them to their enemies, absolve in cases of excom- 
 munication, and administer the consolations and 
 Sacrament of the Gospel. 
 
 Q. In what cases does the Church recommend 
 especially confession and reconciliation ? 
 
 A. Before the communion in the Church, and 
 before the communion when administered to the 
 sick and dying. Before the Eucharist in the 
 Church all Christians are required to compose 
 their quarrels and reconcile themselves to their 
 brethren, that they may be in love and charity 
 with all men, when they approach the table of 
 the Lord, who makes love the true and necessary 
 badge of discipleship, and that without which we 
 cannot expect the forgiveness and blessing of 
 God. Again the Church considers that all per- 
 sons who habitually abstain from the communion, 
 whether from carelessness or scruple ipso facto 
 excommunicate themselves. Such as separate 
 themselves from ignorance and scruple are direct- 
 ed to seek the counsel of the Minister, who is to 
 remove their doubts by the word of God, and 
 absolve them without any express form of words 
 
106 
 
 from their virtual excommunication and admit 
 them to communion. The same absolution is 
 permitted for those who through carelessness 
 have lived like heathens in neglect of their 
 Christian duties, but who desire to repent and 
 amend their lives in this particular. Such is the 
 advice, not the command of the Church. " If 
 there be any that cannot by other means quiet 
 his own consience but requireth comfort or 
 counsel^ let him go to some discreet and learned 
 minister of God's word and open his grief: that 
 by the ministry of God's holy word he may re- 
 ceive the benefit of absolution, together with 
 ghostly counsel and advice, to the quieting of 
 his conscience and avoiding all scruple and 
 doubtfulness." 
 
 Q. Do all foreign protestant Churches recom- 
 mend this private and voluntary confession in 
 such cases ? 
 
 A. Yes, all the foreign Churches recommend 
 it, the Bohemian brethren, the Dutch and French 
 Churches, and particularly the Lutheran Church. 
 Calvin is supposed to have been the most lax of 
 the reformers in these respects. He confesses 
 himself, that he had not been sufficiently careful 
 in this matter, and regretted that he had it not 
 in his power to correct his error, by inserting the 
 form of absolution which he had omitted in his 
 service. Calvin thus expresses himself respecting 
 confession, " Let every faithful Christian (says he) 
 
10? 
 
 remember, that when he is burdened and afflicted 
 with the sense of his sins, that he cannot quiet him- 
 self without the help of others, it is then his duty 
 not to neglect that remedy which the Lord hath 
 prescribed to him, viz. that for the easing of his 
 conscience, he resort to private confession with 
 his pastor : and that for the gaining comfort to 
 himself, he fetch in the assistance of him, whose 
 office it is, both privately and publicly, to com- 
 fort the people of God by the doctrine of the 
 Gospel. But yet this moderation is always to be 
 used, that where God hath not laid impositions, 
 w^e should not lay impositions on our own con- 
 sciences. Hence it follows that this private 
 confession ought to be free, and should not be 
 required of all, but only recommended to those 
 who find they have need of it. " 
 
 Q. Does the Church recommend with this 
 confession reconciliation, restitution, and mutual 
 forgiveness, after the rule of St. James ? 
 
 A. Yes, the rubric enjoins and enforces this 
 point more earnestly than any other. It is to be 
 the great object of the curate that no one comes 
 to the Sacrament who has been openly injurious 
 to his neighbour, till " he has recompensed the 
 parties to whom he has done the wrong. " The 
 same rule is prescribed where " malice and ha- 
 tred reign, " and it would be well for the church 
 and society if these rules were more strictly ob- 
 served, but for their observation the evidence 
 
108 
 
 of the laity and the sanction of ecclesiastical 
 authorities are necessary. In the visitation 
 of the sick and the discipline of the sick, the case 
 is materially altered, for there the matters in 
 question being entirely voluntary and discretion- 
 ary, the Curate, as no injury is done to fame or 
 character, may act definitively, and execute him- 
 self, with the consent of the sick man, the rule 
 and order of the Church. Nothing can be more 
 open than the discipline of the Church of England 
 is upon this much misrepresented point. In the 
 first place it is at the discretion of the sick man 
 to send or not for the minister. In the next 
 place it is, I conceive, at the discretion of the 
 minister to use the service ])rescribed by the 
 Church, or any other that may seem more suited 
 to the case of the sick man, provided only that 
 the sacrament be administered according to the 
 rules prescribed. At the time of the reformation, 
 partly from the want of competent and well in- 
 structed clergy, and partly from the poverty of 
 many of the benefices, there was a distinction 
 observed between the unpreaching clergy and 
 licensed preachers. Licensed preachers were 
 allowed to expound and perform important duties 
 according to their own discretion, which others 
 were permitted to perform only according to 
 certain prescribed rules. This distinction is es- 
 pecially observed with respect to unpreaching 
 ministers and preachers in the visitation of the 
 
109 
 
 sick. " When any person is dangerously sick 
 in any parish ; the minister or curate having 
 knowledge thereof shall resort unto liim or her 
 ( if the disease be not known or probably sus- 
 pected to be infectious,) to instruct and comfort 
 them in their distress according to the order of 
 the Communion book, if he be no Preacher^ or if 
 he be a Preacher the7i as he shall think most 
 fieedful and convenient." There is in fact no 
 part of the service of the Church of England, 
 which is left so open as this, and very justly, for 
 it is the discretionary and special application of 
 the discipline of the Church to extreme and 
 special cases. 
 
 Q. In the visitation of the sick and dying what 
 are to be the great objects of the minister ? 
 
 A. To clear and settle the conscience of the 
 sufferer, and then to administer the consolations 
 and sacrament of the Gospel. The main point 
 of Christian discipline is to root out malice and 
 to establish, beyond the possibility of self decep- 
 tion, forgiveness and perfect charity. *' Then 
 shall the minister (having ascertained his Chris- 
 tian faith ) examine whether he repent him truly 
 of his sins and be in charity with all the world : 
 exhorting him to for'give fi'om the bottom of his 
 heart all persons that have offended him^ and if 
 he have offended any other to ask their forgive- 
 ness : and when he hath done injury or ivrong 
 to any man that he rnake amends to the utter- 
 
110 
 
 most of his poiver." (1st James v. 16.) 
 
 Q. Does it sometimes happen that men who 
 have been guilty of very gross sins, which press 
 heavily upon the conscience in the prospect of 
 death, desire to confess them ; and are there cases 
 also of persons who for great offences have been 
 excommunicated and cast off from the communion 
 of the Church, that desire reconciliation before 
 they die ? 
 
 A. Yes; such cases occur, and if discipline 
 were better observed such cases would be more 
 frequent than they are. In such cases of con- 
 science and offence, the minister has the power, 
 acting in this extremity, to receive the voluntary 
 confession of the offender and to reconcile him 
 on his own authority to the Church. " Here 
 shall the sick person be moved " (this is evidently 
 a special case, for the general case has been dis- 
 posed of in the foregoing paragraph ) " to make 
 a special confession of his sins if he feel his 
 conscience troubled with any weighty matte7\ " 
 After which confession, the minister shall absolve 
 him fif he humbly and heartily desire it J with 
 the express form provided for such cases. 
 
 Q. In what sense is this absolution given ? 
 
 A. It is given as an ecclesiastical act. It is 
 not sacramental, final, or irreversible, it is made 
 on the presumption of the faith and sincerity of 
 the penitent, and it is charitable and without 
 doubt relying on the disciplinarian instruction of 
 
Ill 
 
 Christ, " whatsoever ye shall loose on earth 
 shall be loosed in heaven." In the case of a per- 
 son suspended and excommunicate by the disci- 
 pline of the Church, and when the authority of 
 the Church cannot be procured without delay, 
 the minister as officer of the Church, is instruct- 
 ed to unloose the bonds of discipline, and in cases 
 of danger and repentance to restore " such an 
 one " as has been "' a heathen man and a pub- 
 lican " to the privileges of a brother and member 
 of Christ — To remove or continue sin is not in 
 the power of a priest. So far as the remission of 
 sins before God is concerned, absolution is but a 
 declaration of the remission promised and grant- 
 ed by the Gospel. It is but the application to 
 particular cases of the alternatives of the Gospel^ 
 which as they are declared on earth by Christ's 
 command will be ratified in heaven. " Who- 
 soever sins ye remit they are remitted, whosoever 
 sins ye retain they are retained, he that bclieveth 
 and is baptised shall be saved and he that be- 
 lie veth not shall be damned." A minister can 
 declm^e neither the one nor the other of these 
 texts, but by authority of heaven. " Let it 
 suffice thus far to have shewed how God alone 
 doth truly give, the virtue of repentance alone 
 procure, and private ministerial absolution, but 
 declare remission of sins." 
 
 Q. But is it not inconsistent with the design of 
 the christian eucharist, to administer it in private 
 
\\2 
 
 houses, and is it not popish to make these regula- 
 tions for the sick and dying *? 
 
 A. We conceive that the Sacrament of the 
 Lord's supper is an institution to be observed 
 publicly in the Church, and the Church of Eng- 
 land expressly forbids, except in cases of neces- 
 sity, its administration in private houses. " No 
 minister shall administer the holy communion 
 in any private house, except it be in times 
 of necessity, when any being either so impotent 
 that he cannot go to the Churchy or very dan- 
 gerously sick, are desirous to he partakers of 
 that holy Sacrament" and when it is adminis- 
 tered in houses, it must be with christian breth- 
 ren assembled. It is difficult to conceive that 
 the Church could have more exactly consulted 
 in this respect the dictates of humanity, and the 
 scriptural rule of bringing the Church and its 
 ojffices to the Chi^istian, where the Christian 
 cannot approach the Church — Yet this is one 
 of the offices for which the Church of England 
 is denounced as vicious, popish, and unscriptural. 
 The administration of the Sacrament to the sick 
 is one of the unscriptural scandals of the present 
 day. We maintain however that the office of 
 the sick, in all its parts, is one of the most scrip- 
 tural services (considering the occasion) which 
 is to be found in the discipline of any Church. 
 So far from making it a subject of defence, we 
 regard it, when left open and voluntary, as a 
 
113 
 
 theme for panegyric. Christ has not intrusted 
 the Gospel and its ordinances to the Church 
 with injunctions like these, " Go ye into all the 
 world and preach and administer my gospel ; 
 but remember, that you are particularly re- 
 strained from applying its ordinances to the 
 sick and dying" : Go, and proclaim the great 
 amnesty of heaven, but remember, that you give 
 the bread to the full, and refuse it to the hungry ; 
 give the waters to him who can drink abundantly 
 of the stream, but not a drop to him who is too 
 feeble to reach the bank ; throw out the rope of 
 safety to him who braves the waves and feels con- 
 fident he can reach the shore; but remember, 
 that it must lie coiled and forbidden to him who 
 is sinking in weakness and despair." 
 
 Q. But considering the prejudices that exist 
 against this discipline, and the administration of 
 the Sacrament to the sick, would it not be better 
 to remove these things, in order to render the 
 Church more popular and less liable to exception ? 
 
 A. This discipline is scriptural, and far more 
 moral and humane than what is called a popular 
 discipline might prove to be. These practices 
 in substance are according to the gospel and the 
 apostolic practice, and were held sacred in the 
 ancient Church long before popery was thought 
 of. They resemble the case stated by St. James, 
 as far as ordinary law and discipline can or ought 
 to imitate that which is extraordinary. If these 
 
 I 
 
114 
 
 thiiiiJ's were removed, the Churfoh of England 
 would be less scriptural, less apostolical, and less 
 cliaritablc, and suited to all cases, than she now is. 
 So tar from considering them abuses, they serve 
 to shew that the Anglican Bishops who effected 
 the Reformation of the Clmrch of England, were 
 men of learning and sound discretion, who avoid- 
 ed many weak resiliencies into which many re- 
 formers of that and subsequent periods have 
 fallen. When we consider, too, the practices 
 (many of them lawful and charitable ) of other 
 great divisions of the Catholic Church ; the ex- 
 tensive jurisdiction of the Church of England in 
 all her fleets, colonies and armies ; the extraordi- 
 nary lives of many men ; the peculiar feelings of 
 many dying men, with respect to these christian 
 duties, who can have no other spiritual guide but 
 a chaplain of our own communion ; surely these 
 sacred things are not to be igmorantly swept 
 away, without much better evidence than we 
 have yet had, that any evil and no benefits result 
 from them, merely to satisfy scruples which may 
 be unfomided, and prejudices that may be remov- 
 ed, more especially as the use of them is perfect- 
 ly discretionary, and consequently no personal 
 grievance can possibly exist. The visitation 
 of the sick never yet made a dissenter, and the 
 removal of this christian discipline, will never 
 make a churchman. It may make many papists, 
 as the idle and unhallowed disregard of the in- 
 
115 
 
 firmities of human nature often has done. 
 
 Q. But in the jjresent general circulation of 
 the scriptures, and the common preaching of the 
 doctrines of the gospel, are not such services fit- 
 ted only to the superstitious and ignorant, and 
 are they not useless ? 
 
 A. It is to be feared that the circulation of the 
 scriptures is sometimes substituted for the use of 
 them, and the preaching of the doctrines of the 
 gospel, for the knowledge and application of them 
 to mankind. But christian symbols, sacraments, 
 and offices, are not vanities ; they are not mere 
 officious ceremonies, not transient acts of peni- 
 tence to avert the terrors of superstition, but means 
 by which many apj^rehend the promises^ and 
 hopes of the gospel. They minister (we speak 
 from observation) to the peace and comfort of 
 many a dying man, and the disuse of them de- 
 prives many, in the hour of death, of consolation 
 which they might derive through them. In the 
 perturbations of life, the comforts of religion are 
 not always communicated by a theological dis- 
 quisition, but more frequently by sympathy, 
 communion, and the public ministrations of the 
 Church : " Incorporated minds" says our great 
 moralist, " will always feel some inclination to- 
 wards exterior acts and ritual observances. Ideas 
 not re[)rescnted by sensible objects are fleeting, 
 variable, evanescent. We are not able to judge 
 of the degree of conviction 'which operated at 
 
 I 2 
 
IIG 
 
 any particular time upon our own thoughts, but as 
 it is recorded by some certain and definite effect." 
 Those know little of death bed scenes, who imagine 
 that at such times the intellect is all vigour, the 
 imagination all energy, and the heart all peace. 
 Conscience is often at such moments the secret 
 intruder that absorbs all the powers and faculties 
 of the soul. And even when this great monitor is 
 tranquil, how feeble often is the hold which the 
 soul can then take of its dearest interests ! How 
 often is a friend, who could not have been recalled 
 by an effort of the memory to recollection, at 
 such a moment when present, valued, loved, and 
 cherished ! The sight of an affectionate wife, 
 or husband, and of dutiful children, revive and 
 reanimate the dying embers of the heart ; and so 
 the memorial of a Saviour's mercy, the tokens of 
 his presence, and the pledges of his favour, re- 
 assure the fainting soul of its hope full of im- 
 mortality, even in agony and death. But it will 
 be said, that though the ministrations of religion, 
 are desirable for the sick, and the christian sa- 
 crament seems applicable to the circumstances of 
 the dying, yet most men die with faculties much 
 enfeebled, or with sanguine imaginations strongly 
 excited by the prospect of death, and therefore 
 the whole subject must be left a matter of opinion^ 
 If it must be a matter of opinion, let it be so ; 
 but it is too interesting to be left as a question of 
 opinion undecided. Let it be put upon its trial 
 
117 
 
 and submitted to tlie evidence of facts. As these 
 facts are interesting" to every philanthropist, as 
 well as to every christian, we will relate a few, 
 of the great number, that might be adduced. 
 They shall be cases in which the intellect was 
 undoubted, the faculties unimpaired, and the 
 approach of death distinctly marked and known. 
 These cases, also shall be selected with a view to 
 illustrate the various points of this discussion. 
 CASE I. 
 Bossuet and the Pi^incess Henrietta Ann. 
 "Henrietta Ann was the daughter of our Charles 
 the first, and wife of the duke of Orleans. On 
 the 29th of June 1 670, after drinking a glass of 
 cold water, in her apartment at St. Cloud, she 
 was seized with a shivering, succeeded by a burn- 
 ing heat, which threw her into the most excruci- 
 ating torments. She cried out that she was 
 poisoned : the physicians were sent for ; when 
 they saw her, they were struck with horror, at 
 her livid appearance — pronounced her beyond 
 medical aid, and advised her to receive, without 
 delay, the last sacraments of the Church. The 
 princess heard them pronounce her fate with 
 firmness ; and, recollecting the manner in which 
 Bossuet had attended her mother, the queen 
 dowager of England, she desired that an instant 
 should not be lost in sending for him. Three 
 couriers were successively despatched to him ; and 
 he arrived between eleven and twelve at night at 
 
 i3 
 
lis 
 
 St, Cloud. Ill the interval, she suffered the most 
 dreadful pains, and, her immediate dissolution 
 being apprehended, she made a general confes- 
 sion of her sins to the abbe Feuillet, a person 
 generally esteemed, but of a harsh character. 
 When her confession was finished, her attendants 
 were called in : the whole scene was afflicting and 
 horrible. The account which we have of the 
 conduct of the confessor makes us, perhaps un- 
 reasonably, blame his merciless austerity. Her 
 lamentable shrieks, he treated as acts of rebellion 
 against the divine will, and told her, that her 
 sins were not punished as they deserved. In the 
 midst of her convulsions, she received his re- 
 proofs Avith mildness, but often enquired of 
 Madame de la Fayette, (who was at her bedside) 
 if Bossuet were not yet come. Before he came, 
 she received extreme unction from the abbe 
 Feuillet. Having exclaimed in an agony of pain, 
 "Will these torments never end*?" "Don't 
 forget yourself in this manner," said the austere 
 abbe, " you ought to be better disposed for suf- 
 fering ; but I must tell you, that your torments 
 loill soon end." At length, Bossuet arrived : as 
 soon as the princess saw him, she made him pro- 
 mise not to quit her till she breathed her last. 
 He knelt down, dissolved in tears, leaning on her 
 bed, and holding a crucifix in his hand. With a 
 tremoulous voice, often interrupted by his own 
 feelings, he invited her to join him, as far as her 
 
119 
 
 sufferings allowed, in the reflections, prayers, and 
 acts of contrition, faith, hope, and charity, which 
 he should address to God, for her, in her name. 
 He was exceedingly moved, and every person 
 present sympathized in the scene. Nothing 
 could exceed the tender and affecting sentiments 
 of devotion and piety, which Bossuet suggested 
 to her ; he finally subdued by them, in a great 
 measure, the sense of the cruel sufferings she en- 
 dured. The princess heard him with mild and 
 composed constancy ; if he stopped for a moment, 
 she gently entreated him to continue, assuring 
 him, that his words were of inestimable value 
 to her. He then read over to her, the recom- 
 mendation of the soul, in the liturgy, explained 
 it to her, made her gently repeat with him its 
 soothing prayers, and softly instilled into her 
 the sentiments, which they are intended to con- 
 vey ; filled her soul with faith, with compunction, 
 with calm, with resignation, and above all, with 
 divine love to him, into whose hands she was so 
 soon to yield her soul. She herself, at last, felt a 
 consciousness of her serene triumph over pain ; 
 " Oh ! my God," she exclaimed, " why did T not 
 always adhere to thee ! " She recollected that 
 the crucifix, which Bossuet had in his hands, was 
 the same which he had given to her mother the 
 queen dowager of England, to hold in her agony. 
 She took it from him, and kept it in her hands, 
 till she l)rcathed her last." 
 
120 
 
 CASE II. 
 
 Serapion, who was excommunicate^ and on 
 his death-bed absolved and received by com- 
 munion i?ito the Church. 
 
 " The case of Serapion was this. He was a 
 faithful, aged person, and always of a very up- 
 right life, till fear of persecution in the end 
 caused him to fall back. After long sorrow for 
 his scandalous offence, and suit oftentimes made 
 to be pardoned of the Church, Serapion fell at 
 length into a grievous sickness, and being ready 
 to yield up the ghost, was then more instant than 
 before to receive the sacrament ; which sacra- 
 ment was necessary in this case, not that Serapion 
 would have been deprived of everlasting life 
 without it, but that his end was thereby made to 
 him the more comfortable." 
 
 CASE III. 
 
 Private Confession. 
 
 D M had been for many years a 
 
 soldier in the English army, into which he had 
 entered when a young man, and in which he had 
 served in Spain, Italy, and Sicily. At the time 
 of the general peace, he had obtained his dis- 
 charge, married and settled in one of our large 
 cities. He was, however, an unhappy man, and 
 after some years, partly from disease contracted 
 in a warm climate, but principally from anxiety 
 of mind, his strength gave way, and he sent for 
 the minister of the parish to visit him, on his sick 
 
121 
 
 bed, which proved his death bed. He was found 
 in a small garret, and in great apparent poverty, 
 but there was an unusual degree of submission to 
 his misfortunes, and indeed a manifest indiffer- 
 ence to them except as they occasioned fatigue 
 and anxiety to his wife. Any observation with re- 
 spect to his wants, he received thankfully but with 
 an indifference that was remarkable. He listened 
 to religious instruction with interest, but for two 
 or three visits with unbroken reserve. At last, 
 when the minister one day read to him the exhor- 
 tation to the sick, he became distressed in his 
 mind, though he never lost his self possession. 
 He begged his wife to go to some short distance 
 for some object which he mentioned to her, and 
 then finding himself alone with the minister, he 
 desired to make a confession of his guilt, which 
 lay like an intolerable burden on his heart. He 
 was told that it might be sufficient to confess to 
 God secretly and honestly ; when he replied that 
 he knew God saw all that was in his heart, and 
 that for years he had confessed his sins, but that 
 the recollection of a horrible crime of which he 
 had been guilty was so intolerable to him, that he 
 begged that he might unburden his mind, and by 
 God's blessing, be better prepared to meet his 
 death, which he knew was not far distant. He 
 was again reminded, that he might disclose his 
 heart to God, and that with further instruction 
 he might find tj^at peace which he sought ; when 
 
122 
 
 he again replied, that his mind was so weighed 
 down by the pressure of his guilt, that though he 
 knew full well the promises of the gospel, he 
 could not apply them to himself, and find that 
 rest which be earnestly desired to find before he 
 died. When the minister assented to hear him, 
 he mentioned the vices of his life, and afterwards, 
 Avith a compunction that was overwhelming, de- 
 tailed the horrid crime, which he had committed 
 when his regiment was in Sicily, and which had 
 for many years filled his mind with the deepest 
 remorse. He was not ignorant ; he knew that 
 no sin, much less his great and enormous crime, 
 could be blotted out but by the merits and atone- 
 ment of Jesus Christ. But he declared, that he 
 never could have applied to himself the promises 
 of the gospel, unless assisted by some singular in- 
 terposition of Providence, and such he considered 
 the offices of the Chur<;h, the counsel of the mi- 
 nister and the opportunity of a full confession of 
 his guilt. Life had no charms ; death had no ter- 
 rors but that which the consciousness of this 
 horrid deed presented to his troubled soul. He 
 could not confess to his wife, for that would have 
 embittered her sorrovv and her life ever after. He 
 had no friend to M^hom he could declare his grief, 
 but through the offices and administrations of the 
 Church, he found that help, and those pledges of 
 grace which composed his soul in death. 
 
123 
 
 CASE IV. 
 KING CHARLES THE FIRST AND LORD STRAFFORD. 
 
 Public confessson of injustice to others and 
 forgiveness of iyijuries. 
 
 The impeachment, trials, and executions of 
 these two illustrious men, distinguished by birth, 
 talents, private worth, and political martyrdom, 
 are confessed to rank among the most interesting- 
 annals of our history. Romance and history, 
 law and politics, loyalty and dissaffection, have 
 ransacked these transactions with the most eager 
 attention. We refer to these vivid and dismal 
 tragedies, however, as illustrations of the great 
 principles of religion. If in the case of Lord 
 Strafford the law was defined and defended by a 
 reputed criminal, and (so far as that law was con- 
 cerned) an innocent sufferer, certainly, both in 
 the case of the royal master and his faithful ser- 
 vant, the principles of religion were developed 
 in an eminent degree, by those who were then its 
 reputed enemies. These illustrious persons were 
 not only public characters and politicians, they 
 were christians ; and we adduce them as remark- 
 able instances, the one of public confession of his 
 guilt and just punishment, though by an unjust sen- 
 tence for an act of injustice to his friend and ser- 
 vant ; and both, of forgiveness of injuries, whether 
 inflicted by untoward conjuncture of circumstan- 
 
ces or malicious dcsii^n. It is well known that 
 King Charles, when he dismissed Lord Strafford 
 from his service, gave his honor, as a king, that 
 he should not suffer in life, honor, or fortune, and 
 that he afterwards, not without great anxiety of 
 mind and struggle of concience, consented to his 
 death. It is said that the king never could sup- 
 press his grief and remorse for this unrighteous 
 act. Upon the scaffold he referred to it in the 
 most solemn manner. After declarint>: his inno- 
 cence of the crime for which he suffered, and ex- 
 cusing the Parliament, as far as he could, of the 
 guilt of his death, he referred to the death of 
 Lord Strafford with the following confession — 
 " Yet for all this, God forbid I should be so ill a 
 christian, as not to say that God's judgments are 
 just upon me ; many times he does pay justice by 
 an imjust sentence, that is ordinary, I will only 
 say this. That an unjust sentence that I suffered 
 to take effect, is punished noiv by an unjust sen- 
 tence upon me." — and again, shewing himself a 
 christian, forgiving others, as he hoped for for- 
 giveness himself. " I hope there is a good man, 
 { pointing to Bishop Juxon) that will bear me 
 witness, that I have forgiven all the world, and 
 even those in particular that have been the chief 
 causes of my death : who they are God knows, I 
 do not desire to know ; I j)ray God forgive them. 
 But this is not all, my charity must go further, 
 I wish that they may repent ; for indeed they 
 
125 
 
 have committed a great sin in that particular ; I 
 pray God with Stephen, that this 1x5 not laid to 
 their charge." 
 
 The generosity and christian forgiveness of 
 Lord Strafford, were still more remarkable. He 
 was a man of the most eminent talents and capa- 
 city, and had a mind (as his immortal defence 
 shewed) capable of estimating the iniquity of his 
 sentence, the malice of his enemies, and the dis- 
 honourable weakness of the king. He was placed 
 under circumstances that must have been galling 
 to his pride ; and under which it must have been 
 extremely difficult for the wisest and the best of 
 men not to have felt and expressed his contempt 
 for his friends and his enemies. But to both he 
 shewed the most christian dispositions, during his 
 confinement, at his trial and before his execution.^ 
 His soul seemed to have been trained to the hio-h- 
 est elevation by the true principles of a gentle- 
 man, and a christian ; and his letter to the king,, 
 (though it has been construed into an artifice) is 
 so in keeping with his whole conduct, that it seems 
 difficult to doubt either the genuineness of the let- 
 ter or his expressions. In his last letter to his son 
 he strictly enjoins him, "to avoid as much as you 
 can to enquire after those that have been sharp 
 in their judgments towards me,, and I charge you 
 never to suffer thought of revenge to enter your 
 heart." There can be no doubt that this noble 
 conduct proceeded from his christian principles. 
 
126 
 
 It is well known that Lord Strafford prepared for 
 his death, like a christian, and suffered at the 
 last with the greatest fortitude and composure. 
 The iniquity of Lord Strafford's sentence was ge- 
 nerally felt after his death, and his enemies to 
 blacken his memory, and reconcile that puritani- 
 cal age to their villainy, charged him with disso- 
 lute habits. His vindication by Sir George 
 Radcliffe supplies us with an instance of true 
 and christian friendship, w here mutual confession 
 soothes and purifies the heart ; with it we shall 
 conclude these instances of confession and for- 
 giveness in these illustrious persons. " He was 
 defamed," says Sir George, " for incontinence, 
 wherein I have reason to believe that he was ex- 
 ceedingly much wronged. I had occasion of some 
 speech with him about the state of his soul, seve- 
 ral times, but twice especially, when* I verily 
 believe he did lay open unto me the very bottom 
 of his heart : once, when he was in very great 
 affliction upon the death of his second wife ; and 
 then for some days and nights I was very few 
 minutes out of his company. The other time 
 was at Dublin on a Good Friday (his birthday) 
 when he was preparing himself to receive the 
 blessed Sacrament, on Easterday following. At 
 both these times, I received such satisfaction, as 
 left no scruple with me at all, but much assurance 
 of his chastity. I knew his ways long and inti- 
 mately ; and though I cannot clear him from all 
 
12? 
 
 frailties, (for who can justify the most innocent 
 man) yet I must give him the testimony of con- 
 scientiousness in his ways, that he kept himself 
 from gross sin, and endeavoured to approve him- 
 self rather unto God than unto man, to be reli- 
 gious inwardly and in truth, rather than out- 
 wardly and in shew." 
 
 CASE V. 
 
 Sir Mattkew Hale. 
 
 " He was attended on, in his sickness, by a; 
 pious and worthy divine, Mr. Evan Griffith,, 
 minister of the parish, and it was observed in all 
 the extremities of his pain, whenever he prayed 
 by him, he forbore all complaints or groans, but 
 with his hands and eyes lifted up was fixed in his 
 devotion ; not long before his death, the minister 
 told him, " there was to be a Sacrament next 
 Sunday at Church, but he believed he could not 
 come to partake with the rest ; therefore he would 
 give it to him in his own house," but he answered 
 " No, his heavenly Father had prepared a feast 
 for him, and he would go to his Father's house to 
 partake of it." So he made himself carried thi- 
 ther in his chair, where he received the Sacra- 
 ment on his knees with great devotion, which it 
 may be supposed was the greater because he ap- 
 prehended it was to be his last, so he took it as 
 his viaticum and provision for his journey." 
 
\2S 
 
 CASE VI. 
 
 irorrf William Russell. 
 
 Ill the last week of Lord Russell's life after his 
 condemnation, and before his execution, he was 
 much with Dr. Burnet, and the dean of Canter- 
 bury, Dr. Tillotson. When alone with Dr. Bur- 
 net he spoke with the greatest seriousness ; he 
 said, that as for death, he thanked God, that as 
 a man, he never was afraid of it ; and did not 
 consider it with so much apprehension as the 
 drawing of a tooth. But he said, he found that 
 the courage of a man, that could venture in the 
 heat of blood, was very different from the cou- 
 rage of a dying christian, and dying in cold blood. 
 That must come from an inward peace of con- 
 science and an assurance of the mercy of God ; 
 and he had that to such a degree, that though 
 from the first day of his imprisonment, he reck- 
 oned he was a dead man, it had never given him 
 any sort of trouble. He added, that though he 
 had been guilty of many defects and failings 
 f among which he reckoned the seldom 7'eceivi7ig 
 the Sacrament J yet he thanked God he had a 
 clear conscience. 
 
 He asked Dr. Burnet, if the scorn he had of 
 some ill men, particularly the Lord Howard, was 
 inconsistent with a perfect forgiveness ; he said, 
 he heartily prayed God to touch his heart, and 
 was sure that if it was in his power, he would do 
 him no hurt, but good. But he could not forbear 
 
129 
 
 thinking very ill of him, and despising him. Dr. 
 Burnet satisfied him on this head by shewing him 
 from the 15th psalm, that a part of the character 
 of one that shall dwell on God's holy hill, is he in 
 whose eyes a vile person is despised." 
 
 In his letter to the king, which he wrote to be 
 presented after his death, he says, " My chief 
 business is humbly to ask your pardon for any 
 thing that I have either said or done, that might 
 look like want of respect to your majesty, or duty 
 to your government; in which though I do to 
 the last moment aquit myself of all design against 
 your person^ or of altering the government, and 
 protest 1 know of no design, now on foot, 
 against either, yet I do not deny but I have heard 
 many things, and said some things contrary to my 
 duty, for which, as I have asked God's pardon, 
 so I humbly beg your majesty's." 
 
 Friday being the day he fixed for receiving 
 the Sacrament^ he determined to pass the day, 
 as he would have done the Sunday, had he lived 
 so long. The Sacrament was given him early 
 in the morning, (his servant receiving it with 
 him) by the dean of Canterbury (Tillotson). After 
 he had received it, the dean asked him if he be- 
 lieved all the articles of the christian religion, as 
 taught by the Church of England ? He answered, 
 "yes, truly." Then he asked him if he forgave 
 all persons ? That he said he did from his heart. 
 Then the dean told him he hoped he would dis- 
 
 K 
 
t30 
 
 charge his conscience in fall and free confession. 
 He said that he had done it. 
 
 Dr. Burnet and Dr. Tillotson accompanied him 
 to his execution. Just as they were entering Lin- 
 coln's Inn Fields he said, " This has been to me 
 a place of sinning, and God now makes it the place 
 of my punishment." 
 
 On the scaffold he said, " In the words of a 
 dying man, I profess I know no plot, either against 
 the king's life, or the government ; — but I have 
 now done with this world, and I am going to a 
 better. I forgive all the world, heartily ; and I 
 wish all slnce7'e profesta7its may love one another^ 
 and not make way for popery hy their animosi- 
 ties. I pray God forgive them, and continue 
 the protestant religion amongst them, that it 
 may flourish so long as the sun and moon endm'e. 
 I am now more satisfied to die than ever I have 
 been.'' 
 
 CASE VII. 
 
 Reverend Thomas Scott, 
 
 AUTHOR OF THE COMMENTARY ON THE BIBLE. 
 
 In the biography which has been published of 
 this venerable and laborious Commentator on the 
 scripture, there is a very remarkable account of 
 his last illness and death. It appears, that in his 
 last moments, his mind was oppressed with an 
 extraordinary degree of conflict, and even gloom, 
 at the prospect of dissolution. It might have 
 
131 
 
 been expected, that a man, who had thought so 
 intensely on the subject of rehgion, would, with 
 his strong mind, have felt the awfulness of death. 
 We are informed of Dr. Johnson, that before his 
 death, his foreboding dread subsided into a pious 
 trust and humble hope of mercy at the throne 
 of grace. But in his decline and last illness, his 
 mind was continually agitated by the thought of 
 death. For a long time, when he was not en- 
 gaged in conversation, he was heard repeating 
 from Shakspeare : 
 
 ** Ay, but to die, and go we know not where ; 
 To lie in cold obstruction and to rot ; 
 This sensible warm motion to become 
 A kneaded clod ; and the delighted spirit 
 To bathe in fiery floods " 
 
 It is not uncommon for strong and upright 
 minds to have the fear of death in a great degree ; 
 but considering the pious and laborious life of 
 Mr. Scott, his clear views of the mercy of the 
 gospel, there was certainly something remarkable 
 in the gloom and agony of his death bed. His 
 case, however, is adduced to shew the efficacy of 
 divine signs, and seals, and pledges of divine love, 
 to an agitated and sinking mind. It is well 
 known, that this good man had not been supposed 
 to entertain any superstitious veneration for the 
 Sacraments. He had taken a part in controver- 
 sy which might seem to indicate a laxity, of sen- 
 timent with respect to these divine institutions. 
 
 K 2 
 
132 
 
 His commentary on the 5th chapter of St James, 
 ^vith reference to the visitation of the sick, and 
 the administration of the sacrament to the dying 
 is cold and suspicious. He had, however, a mind 
 too just, and a knowledge of the scripture and of 
 the human heart too sincere, ever to have enter- 
 tained a regardless opinion of the sacrament. 
 Still we should have expected m his death, that 
 he would have derived his consolation rather 
 from the doctrines than the symbols of the gospel. 
 But what says his affectionate biographer. After 
 a scene of gloom and distress, that was painful to 
 witness, he observes, *' His first clear consolation 
 was, after receiving the Lord's Supper, he had 
 previously observed an undue stress is by some 
 laid upon this ordinance, as administered to the 
 sick, and I think others of us are in danger of 
 undervaluing it. It is a means of grace and 
 may prove God's instrument of conveying to me 
 the comfort I am seeking. The scene was in- 
 describable, and can never be forgotten by any 
 who witnessed it. His fervour, his humility, the 
 way in which he raised his emaciated hands to 
 heaven, his pallid, dying countenance, so full of 
 love and expression of every thing heavenly and 
 holy, the tears and sobs of those present altoge- 
 ther were most overpowering. Surely God was 
 with him in a peculiar manner. Shortly after 
 the service was concluded he said, " Now, Lord, 
 lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, for mine 
 
133 
 
 eyes have seen thy salvation. Throu<>;h the re- 
 mainder of the day, though much exhausted, and 
 during the night, he continued in a very happy 
 state of mind. To his son-in-law, who came in 
 the evening and regretted his absence when the 
 sacrament was administered, he said, " It was 
 beneficial to me. I received Christ, and he re- 
 ceived me. I feel a composure which I did not 
 last night ; I have not a triumphant assurance, 
 but something which is more calm and satisfac- 
 tory, I bless God for it." And then after quoting 
 many beautiful passages of scripture, he frequent- 
 ly repeated Perfect Peace. 
 
 CASE VIII. 
 
 Richaj'd Hooker. 
 
 AUTHOR OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY AND THE 
 JUDICIOUS DEFENDER OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 
 
 The following narrative of the death of this 
 immortal man, is thus exquisitely described by 
 his admirable biographer. It is a death bed 
 scene the most pure, peaceful, and heavenly, that 
 can be conceived, affording an irresistible testi- 
 mony to the sincerity and efficacy of his opinions, 
 and to that practice, and discipline of the Church 
 of England, which he had so judiciously and zea- 
 lously advocated and defended. 
 
 " About one day before his death. Dr. Saravia, 
 who knew the very secrets of his soul (for they 
 
 k3 
 
134 
 
 were supposed to be confessors to each other) came 
 to him, and after a conference of the beneftt, the 
 necessity, and safety of the Church's absolution, 
 it was resolved that the Doctor should give him 
 both that and the sacrament the day following. 
 To which end the Doctor came, and after a short 
 retirement and privacy, they returned to the com- 
 pany ; and then the Doctor gave him and some 
 of those friends that were with him, the blessed 
 sacrament of the body and blood of our Lord 
 Jesus; which being performed, the Doctor 
 thought he saw a reverend gaiety and joy in his 
 face, but it lasted not long, for his bodily infir- 
 mities did return suddenly, and became more 
 visible ; insomuch that the Doctor apprehended 
 death ready to sieze him, yet after some amend- 
 ment left him at night, with a promise to return 
 early the day following ; which he did, and then 
 found him better in appearance, deep in contem- 
 plation, and not inclinable to discourse ; which 
 gave the Doctor occasion to require his present 
 thoughts : to which he replied, "That he was me- 
 ditating the number and nature of angels, and 
 their blessed obedience and order, without which 
 peace could not be in heaven ; and Oh ! that it 
 might be so on earth!" After which words he 
 said, " I have lived to see this world is made up 
 of perturbations, and I have been long preparing 
 to leave it, and gathering comfort for the dread- 
 ful hour of making my account with God, which 
 
135 
 
 I now apprehend to be near; and though 1 have by 
 his grace loved him in my youth, and feared him 
 in mine age, and laboured to have a conscience 
 void of offence to him and to all men ; yet if thou, 
 O Lord, be extreme to mark what I have done 
 amiss, who can abide it ? and therefore, where I 
 have failed. Lord shew mercy to me, for I plead 
 not my righteousness, but the forgiveness of my 
 unrighteousness, for his merits who died to pur- 
 chase a pardon for penitent sinners. And since I 
 owe thee a death, Lord, let it not be terrible ; and 
 then take thine own time, I submit to it. Let not 
 mine, O Lord, but let thy will be done." With 
 which expression he fell into a dangerous slumber, 
 dangerous as to his recovery ; yet recover he did, 
 but it was to speak only these few words; "Good 
 Doctor, God hath heard my daily petitions, for I 
 am at peace with all men, and he is at peace 
 with me, and from which blessed assurance, I feel 
 that inward joy, which the world can neither give 
 nor take from me." More he would have spoken, 
 but his spirits failed him ; and after a short con- 
 flict betwixt nature and death, a quiet sigh put 
 a period to his last breath, and so he fell asleep." 
 And here (continues Isaac Walton and every 
 disciple of this master in Israel will join his 
 reflections and prayers) I draw his entrain, till 
 with the most glorious company of the partri- 
 archs and apostles, the most noble army of mar- 
 tyrs and confessors, this most learned, most 
 
136 
 
 humble, holy man, shall also awake, to receive 
 an eternal tranquillity, and with a greater degree 
 of glory than common christians shall be made 
 partakers of. In the mean time, bless, O Lord^ 
 Lord, bless his brethren, the clergy of this na- 
 tion, with ardent desires, and effectual endea- 
 vours to attain, if not to his great learning, yet 
 to his 7'emarkable meekness, his godly simplicity 
 and his christiaji moderation ; for these are 
 pj^aiseworthy, these bring peace at the last ; 
 and let the labours of his life, his most excellent 
 writings, be blest with what he designed when 
 he u7ide7'took them, which ivas glory to thee, 
 O God, on high, peace ifi thy Chu7xh, and 
 goodivill to mankind. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 Jampridem equidem nos vera rerum vocabula amislmus. 
 
 Q. What do you understand by the Church of 
 Christ, in which holy orders are ordained ? 
 
 A. The Church has been taken by many (and 
 among these by the Roman CathoHcs) for all in- 
 telligent beings angels as well as men who worship 
 God. It has also been considered, as including 
 the dead as well as the living, all who have be- 
 lieved in God from the foundation of the world. 
 Whatever relation may subsist between men and 
 invisible spirits, and however sentiment, sympa- 
 thy, and communion may range into invisible 
 regions of thought or imagination, certainly this 
 intercourse is not subject to any known rules, nor 
 can it fall within the limits of the discipline and 
 orders of the visible Church. At that day when 
 Christ shall present unto himself a glorious 
 Church, holy, and without blemish, all the saints 
 at whatever age of the world they may have lived 
 or died, will form one holy Catholic Church, re- 
 deemed by Christ out of all nations. But by the 
 Christian Church oii earth, in which Christ has 
 
338 
 
 instituted doctrines, discipline, and orders, we 
 understand not those who lived under other dis- 
 pensations ; or angels whose nature and condition 
 the christian dispensation, so far as we know is 
 not designed to change or affect, whatever offices 
 in the secret of God's providence they may fulfil. 
 By the Christian Church we understand that 
 which was founded by Christ himself, and which 
 after the day of Pentecost, was extended by St. 
 Peter, (according to our Saviour's promise) when 
 three thousand souls were added to the hundred 
 and twenty disciples, and so the Church of Jeru- 
 salem was the mother of all other Churches. 
 Here was the first Church consisting of the Apos- 
 tles who governed, the presbyters who ministered, 
 and the faithful disciples who repented, believed, 
 were baptized, received the Sacraments adminis- 
 tered, joined in prayer, and lived in charity. This 
 Church was one under the government of the 
 Apostles. But those persons who composed 
 that Church came from different countries, and 
 as the gospel was to be preached not only at 
 Jerusalem, but throughout all the world, and as 
 the Apostles were to go into all the world to 
 preach it, so we find that the Church was settled 
 under one bishop, at Jerusalem, with presbyters, 
 and deacons, and became the model of all other 
 Christian Churches. After this we read of other 
 Chui'ches, as the Churches of God, of the Saints, 
 ofGalatia, of Asia, and others. But again, these 
 
139 
 
 Churches, though many in different districts, are 
 called one in those districts, as the Churches in 
 Judea are called the Church of Jerusalem. Again, 
 all these different Churches, in different cities and 
 countries, divided, with respect to their lan- 
 guage, habits, civil customs, and jurisdiction were 
 all one in Christ, who is the supreme governor 
 and bishop of souls. By the Christian Church, 
 therefore, we understand ( as it is expressed in 
 our canonical prayer) " the whole congregation 
 of Christian people dispersed throughout the 
 world." Not the Church of England and its 
 professors, or the Church of Russia, or Abyssi- 
 nia or the Greek Church, or the Roman Church 
 and its professors, but all Christian Churches 
 throughout the world, that are derived from the 
 same source, hold the same faith, receive the same 
 sacraments, and maintain subtantially that order 
 and discipline by which Christ governs in the 
 Church. These Churches have existed from the 
 times of the Apostles to the present day, and we 
 believe they will continue and increase, till all 
 the kingdoms of the world shall become the king- 
 doms of our Lord and of his Christ. 
 
 Q. Did Jesus Christ establish his Church, to 
 be a perpetual institution in the world, for the 
 instruction and salvation of mankind ? 
 
 A. Jesus Christ has founded his Church upon a 
 rock, against which the gates of hell shall not pre- 
 vail. It is built upon the foundation of the Apostles 
 
140 
 
 and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chieF 
 corner stone." Had Christianity been merely an 
 opinion or a system of opinions, it would never 
 have extended itself in the world, or if it had been 
 partially received for a time, it would long ago 
 have been buried in the same obscurity, with the 
 systems of Pythagoras, Plato and other Philoso- 
 phers, Had not the christian religion been esta- 
 blished with a written word that was to be 
 preached, and permanent sacraments that were 
 to be administered by a permanent ministry, it 
 would long ago have expired, and we should not 
 now be called upon to discuss any questions res- 
 pecting the Church, for no Church would have 
 existed. It is a wonder to the world that the 
 Jews have continued for so many ages a distinct 
 people. Philosophers, or those who call them- 
 selves such, viewing revealed religion merely as a 
 system of opinions, and overlooking its divine 
 institutions, written word, sacraments, and minis- 
 try, have been puzzled to account for this strange 
 phenomenon in the moral and political history of 
 mankind. It is impossible to account for their 
 long dispersion and distinct condition, but on the 
 supposition of an overruling and righteous pro- 
 vidence. There are, however, circumstances in 
 their history, that are more influential than many 
 imagine, for, though they have lost their country, 
 their independence, their temple, and system of 
 sacrifice : they have preserved their written word, 
 
141 
 
 their sacraments and the administration of them, 
 and these, under God's providence, have preser- 
 ved the Jews a distinct people. 
 
 Q. If the administration and goverment of the 
 Church be so important and necessary, both for 
 its existence and usefuhiess, did Christ ordain any 
 permanent system for its regulation ? 
 
 A. The government of the Church and the ad- 
 ministration of its offices and functions,-are quite 
 as important as the rules for the private duties of 
 individuals, and Christ has given us such direc- 
 tions as are sufficient to guide our judgment in 
 this important particular. There are many 
 things in matters of discipline, which may and 
 must change with the natural course of human 
 affairs, but there are others, which can never be 
 changed without a departure from the foundation 
 of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ him- 
 self being the chief corner stone ; and such per- 
 manent institutions are the word or doctrine, the 
 sacraments and orders of the Church. It is diffi- 
 cult to conceive,, how any considerate man, who 
 examines the bible, and the application of its 
 doctrines to the world, should imagine a Christi- 
 anity without a Church, or a Church without a 
 regular ministry. One would imagine, that such 
 a conceit could be entertained only by the igno- 
 rant, fanatics or philosophers falsely so called. 
 From whatever motives men may act ( and of 
 these we are not the judges) they are not the 
 
142 
 
 friends of the Christian cause who affect to re- 
 gard its poUtical usefuhiess or awful alternatives, 
 as independent of the mode and form of its ad- 
 ministration in the world. The administration 
 itself derives its importance from the infinite 
 value of Christianity to mankind, but mankind 
 would never have enjoyed or continue to enjoy 
 that religion, without the administration and 
 functions, w^hich God has commanded for its 
 communication and transmission from age to age. 
 It is the importance of the religion, which ren- 
 ders the question of its administration and its 
 orders so essential, and consequently the admin- 
 istration and the orders can never be opposed to 
 the substance of Christianity itself. 
 
 Q. Does the Church of Rome maintain the 
 doctrine of the Church, its sacraments and 
 orders *? 
 
 A. The Church of Rome and its ablest writers 
 have maintained the divine institution of Christi- 
 anity with great ability. The Church of Rome 
 itself, within its proper limits, is a Christian 
 Church, in which the word, sacraments, and 
 orders have been preserved and transmitted from 
 age to age, mixed and overlaid as we contend 
 with horrid superstitions, a word that is not true, 
 sacraments that are spurious, and orders that are 
 vain, unchristian, and tyrannical. No sincere 
 protestant, I suppose, certainly no member of the 
 Church of England would wish to see the Church 
 
143 
 
 of Rome, or the bishop of Rome exterminated. 
 Our war with the Pope, has not been for his ex- 
 termination or injury, but for the gospel, and for 
 our own rights and independence. All that the 
 Church of England desires, is, that the Church of 
 Rome may do what she herself has done, cast off 
 vain and antichristian superstitions, and that the 
 bishop of Rome may confine himself to his pro- 
 per place, without attempting to usurp a juris- 
 diction, to which he has no divine, apostolical,, 
 or reasonable claim over other Churches and 
 bishops of independent christian nations. 
 
 Q. Does the Church of Rome regard orders or 
 order as a Sacrament ? 
 
 A. Yes, order is regarded as a Sacrament, and 
 of the highest importance, because the other 
 sacraments cannot be performed or administered 
 without it. This sacrament is considered of the 
 greatest dignity, because they say that the bis- 
 hops and priest hold the power and divinity of the 
 immortal God amongst men, especially, the pow- 
 er of making and offering the body of Christ, 
 and forgiving the sins of men, which exceeds all 
 reason and understanding (as indeed it does) to 
 such a degree that nothing on earth can be equal 
 to it. That as God, the Father, sent Christ, and 
 Christ the Apostles, so now the priests have the 
 Apostles' power and authority for the edification 
 of the Church ; that all Christians are to be sub- 
 ject to the various orders of the Church, as an 
 
144 
 
 army is subject to its officers, whether prefects, 
 centurions, or generals ; that the essential part of 
 order, is the consecration and administration of 
 the body of Christ in the Eucharist, and all that 
 relates to the sacrifice of the mass, but that juris- 
 diction extends over the mystical body of Christ, 
 and all its members in their various duties and 
 callings ; that order is a sacrament because by an 
 external consecration, grace is given to those 
 who are ordained. These positions have been in 
 part examined, but they will fall again under con- 
 sideration, as we proceed to investigate the differ- 
 ent orders of the Romish Church. 
 
 Q. Is orders a Sacrament ? 
 
 A. We believe it to be an institution as settled 
 by Christ and the Apostles in the Church, and 
 we continue it therefore as such, with the degrees 
 which were ordained in the apostolic Churches, 
 but we deny it to be a Sacrament. All who are 
 called to any holy office ought to be dedicated, 
 after they are examined by the imposition of 
 hands and prayer (which was the Apostolic prac- 
 tice) to fulfil it ; but as there is no matter or 
 institution of matter and form, and as it is not 
 generally necessary, but only for a particular 
 office, we conclude that it is not a Sacrament. 
 In the ordination of the different orders, as we 
 shall see, the Roman Catholic Church has intro- 
 duced many outward forms and signs, on account 
 of which they make out orders to be a Sacrament. 
 
145 
 
 but as we consider many of these forms and the 
 offices to which they relate, not to be apostoUcal 
 or necessary, these ceremonies of course do not 
 convince us that orders is a Sacrament of the 
 like nature v\dth baptism and the Lord's Supper. 
 
 Q. Do the Romanists maintain different de- 
 grees of order, and how many ? 
 
 A. There are various degrees, and they are so 
 arranged that all who are stamped with the cle- 
 rical tonsure may ascend through the lower to 
 the higher degrees. The orders are of two kinds, 
 the greater and the inferior. The higher orders, 
 (according to the peculiar view of the Latin 
 Church) which are also called holy, are priest, 
 deacon, and sub-deacon. The inferior, in a de- 
 scending scale, are acolythist, exorcist, lector or 
 reader, and ostiarius or porter. As, therefore, 
 there are seven sacraments, so there are seven 
 orders, all of which are said to be necessary to per- 
 form rightly the sacrifice of the mass, for transub- 
 stantiation and the sacrifice of the mass, arc the 
 essential points of the Roman Catholic Religion, 
 to which orders are chiefly referred. 
 
 Q. What is the clerical tonsure with which 
 orders must begin ? 
 
 A. The tonsure is the preparation for orders 
 as exorcism is for baptism, and espousals for ma- 
 trimony. The tonsure is made on the head in 
 the form of a crown, which must be perpetually 
 preserved and the radius of the orb must increase 
 
 L 
 
146 
 
 witli the increasing rank of the order. The ton- 
 sure is derived as they say from Apostolic tradi- 
 tion, and (not from the vestal virgins, for they 
 were so vain as to let the hair grovy again) but 
 from the grave father Dionysius the Areopa- 
 gite, ( that is the author who wrote under that 
 name ) who was followed by other grave fathers. 
 The form of the crown is said to have been in- 
 troduced by the prince of the Apostles, to com- 
 memorate the crown of thorns, but it is also an 
 imitation of a royal crown, because priests are 
 kings, and also of the circle, the most perfect 
 mathematical figure, to represent the perfection 
 of the priests and their office. 
 
 Q. Are these practices with respect to the cle- 
 rical tonsure of any real authority, in the Church, 
 and is it necessary and advisable to make these 
 distinctions in the person, dress, and habit of the 
 clergy ? 
 
 A. The tonsure has no authority as a mystical 
 rite. So far from being commanded by the an- 
 cient fathers, it was condemned and prohibited. 
 St. Jerome interpreting Ezekiel xliv. 20. says, 
 " This evidently demonstrates that we ought nei- 
 ther to have our heads shaved as the priests and 
 votaries of Isis and Serapis, but that our priests 
 should appear with a venerable and grave coun- 
 tenance ; neither are they to make themselves 
 bald with a razor, nor poll their heads so close 
 that they may look as if they were shaven, but 
 
147 
 
 they are to let their hah' grow so long that it may 
 cover their skin." This practice of the clerical 
 tonsure has tended to render the priesthood in 
 many countries, especially in France, ridiculous 
 and we may here observe with respect to prac- 
 tices that relate to habit and dress, that nothing 
 is required of the clergy, but that their manner 
 and dress be decent, and becoming their profes- 
 sion. The dress which they use (whether acade- 
 mical or ecclesiastical ) is for the purpose (as in 
 other professions) of shewing to all persons who 
 might not otherwise distinguish or respect the 
 office, that the individuals so habited, are author- 
 ized to perform, or are in the act of performing 
 the public of offices of the Church. 
 
 Q. What are the duties of the inferior orders, 
 and on what authority do they rest ? 
 
 A. They have various duties but are all infe- 
 rior to the sacred administration of the holy altar. 
 The ostiarii are the porters or doorkeepers, who 
 have the keys of the Church which at their ordi- 
 nation they receive from the bishop with a certain 
 form of words. The reader is appointed and con- 
 secrated to read parts of the scripture, and ex- 
 plain the rudiments of the Catholic religion. He 
 receives his ordination from the bishop with a 
 book (delivered with a certain form of words) 
 that contains the rules of his duty. The exorcist 
 is appointed to the office of calling on evil spirits 
 in the name of the Lord, which is absurdly ap- 
 
 l2 • 
 
148 
 
 plied especially to children in baptism. He re- 
 ceives his ordination from the bishop, with the 
 book of exorcism, and the power of laying hands 
 on the energumens (that is persons possessed or 
 supposed to be possessed with devils) whether 
 l)aptizcd or catechumens. The fourth and last 
 inferior order is the acolythist whose duty it is 
 to assist the deacon and subdeacon in the admin- 
 istration of the altar, and especially to bear the 
 candles whence they are called ceroferarii. Their 
 consecration is made in the following manner, the 
 bishop giving them the candles (we mention it as 
 one of the forms which constitute the inferior 
 orders) says, " Receive ye the candlestick with the 
 taper, and know, that you are devoted to light the 
 lamps of the Church in the name of the Lord," 
 and then giving the pitchers. in which the water 
 and wine are served in the sacrifice of the mass, 
 the bishop says, " Take the pitchers to bear the 
 wine and water for the Eucharist of Christ's, 
 blood in the name of the Lord." 
 
 Q. What is the order of sub-deacon ? 
 
 A. Candidates must pass through the inferior to 
 the higher and holy orders of which the sub-dea- 
 con, in the Latin Church, is the first and lowest 
 degree. His office is to serve the deacon at the 
 altar, and to prepare the linen vessels, bread and 
 wine for the sacrifice of the mass. The epistle 
 which was formerly read by the deacon is read by 
 the sub-deacon. He takes the vow of perpetual 
 
149 
 
 celibacy at his ordination, which is made hy the 
 bishop, without the imposition of hands. He 
 receives the chaUce and paten from the bishop, 
 and the pitchers, filled with wine and water from 
 the archdeacon, when the bishop, after an admo- 
 nition in a particular form, invests him with the 
 sacred vestments, and concludes by giving him 
 the book of the epistles addressing him in these 
 words, " Receive the book of the Epistles and 
 have authority to read them in the holy Church 
 of God as well for the living as the dead." 
 This order, which was originally one of the infe- 
 rior orders, we reject, because it has no Scrip- 
 tural authority. It has no Apostolical sanction 
 and was not known to be in use till the third 
 century. Most of the functions ascribed to it 
 are services and offices which may be performed 
 by laymen, and those which appear of a sacred 
 character, properly belong to the office of deacon. 
 However this order may be necessary for the 
 celebration of the sacrifice of the mass, it has no 
 place in the Church of England, which renoun- 
 ces the sacrifice of the mass as human and idola- 
 trous. Many of the French Catholic writers, 
 who have not received absolutely the decrees of 
 the Tridentine fathers, confess that these inferior 
 orders, are merely ecclesiastical institutions, and 
 recommend that they should be expunged from 
 the catalogue of the sacrament. They have no 
 authority in the Christian scriptures, were not 
 
 l3 
 
150 
 
 known during the lifetime of the apostles, had 
 their beginning in the third century, were not 
 originally fixed in number or introduced into all 
 Churches at the same time, and depend for their 
 authority as orders upon spurious writings. On 
 these grounds, as well as because superstitions 
 and ridiculous attributes are added to them, we 
 reject all the inferior orders of the Roman Cath- 
 olic Church. 
 
 Q. What is the order of Deacon in the Roman 
 Catholic Church ? 
 
 A. The office of Deacon is the second of the 
 Holy Orders, and his office is, to attend on the 
 bishop when preaching, to be present or ready 
 when the bishop or priest celebrates the mass 
 or other sacraments, to read the gospel, to excite 
 the faithful to attend the services of the church, 
 formerly to administer the cup, to vvatch the 
 conduct of the faithful and report to the bishop, 
 to prepare the list of catechumens and candidates 
 for orders, and in the absence of the bishop and 
 priest to expound the gospel, but not from the 
 altar. 
 
 Q. Do we admit the order of deacons to be 
 one of the holy orders. 
 
 A. Yes, it is the first of the seven of which we 
 find any mention in the Sacred Scriptures and 
 we therefore admit it. The term deacon is 
 sometimes used in a large sense to express any 
 one who ministers in the service of God, in which 
 
151 
 
 sense apostles, bishops, and presbyters are some- 
 times called deacons. ( Acts i. 25. 2 Cor. vi. 4. 
 2 Tim. iv. 5.) We generally consider it in a 
 more peculiar sense, for (according to our reck- 
 oning ) the third or lowest order in the Church. 
 It is the first degree to which ministers are called 
 and is by no means to be considered a lay office. 
 Deacons were evidently considered a part of the 
 sacred ministry in the Scriptures, and all anti" 
 quity unites in ascribing to them sacred orders. 
 They are represented by the apostolic fathers 
 as " ministers of the mysteries of Christ," not 
 only *' ministers of meats and drinks, but of the 
 Church of God," as *' those to whom is commit- 
 ted the ministry of Jesus Christ "as " ministers 
 of episcopacy and the Church." They were not 
 however, of equal degree with presbyters. They 
 were ordained with a different form, they had 
 separate and subordinate duties to perform, they 
 read the gospel, ministered but did not consecrate 
 the bread and wine, they were alloAved to baptize 
 and with the bishop's licence to preach ; they 
 also performed some other ministerial services 
 of discipline. This office has not, perhaps, been 
 confined or extended strictly to its original func- 
 tions, but yet the powers and limitations of this 
 order are marked with considerable precision. It 
 may however be considered, whether this office 
 might not be made more subsidiary to the higher 
 orders, whether all persons ordained under a cer- 
 
152 
 
 tain age or with certain defects of qualification 
 might not be required to remain longer in it, and 
 whether it might not contribute with certain 
 licences from the bishop, to insure a greater 
 degree of unity in discipline and practice, and 
 extend the influence of the Church amongst all 
 classes of the laity, especially in large towns. 
 
 Q. What is the office of Presbyter or Priest 
 in the Latin Church ? 
 
 A. It is the third and highest of the holy 
 orders. The Romanists assert very properly that 
 the ancient term, which signifies literally an elder, 
 does not imply that all persons who filled this 
 office were always far advanced in years, but 
 that they were persons of experience, and cor- 
 rect in their morals. The term priests was used 
 to signify that they ministered in holy things, 
 but is employed by the Romanists to signify that 
 they are appointed to administer the sacraments, 
 and especially the sacrifice of the mass, which is 
 held to be a propitiatory sacrifice, similar to 
 that of the Jews. The priest is therefore or- 
 dained by the bishop with imposition of his 
 hands and of all the presbyters present, with these 
 words, " Receive the power of offering the sacri- 
 fice to God, and of celebrating the mass, both 
 for the living and the dead." With these words 
 the vessels are delivered, which are considered 
 to be the matter, and the words the form of 
 the sacrament. He is thus constituted (as they 
 
153 
 
 suppose) the intercessor and mediator between 
 God and man, which is esteemed the chief func- 
 tion of a priest. Tiiis is considered the power 
 of consecrating, that part of tlie ordination which 
 follows, refers to the power of absolving. The 
 Bishop again imposing his hands alone, says 
 "receive the Holy Ghost, whosoever sins ye remit, 
 they are remitted, and whosoever sins ye retain, 
 they are retained." Thus they assert that the 
 same power is given, not only that was given 
 to the Apostles, but that our Lord Jesus Christ 
 himself had to remit or retain sins. 
 
 Q. Do we object to this mode of ordination in 
 the Latin Church ? 
 
 A. We believe that priests and other minis- 
 ters, according to the example of Christ and 
 his Apostles, ought to be dedicated to their 
 offices, after due examination, by imposition 
 of hands, and by prayer — that these were the 
 only rites preserved by the Apostles — that those 
 who are thus consecrated, have authority to per- 
 form the sacred functions in the Church, to 
 preach the word, and administer the sacraments 
 for the comfort and edification of Christians, 
 and that persons without a consecration, cannot 
 lawfully minister in these holy things. Orders 
 not being a sacrament, the forms, both in the 
 eastern and western Churches, have been fre- 
 quently changed ; but the ceremony of giving 
 the vessels, which was introduced in the tenth 
 
11)4 
 
 or eleventh century, and is applied to the mis- 
 chievous doctrines oj* tninsuhstantiation, and the 
 sacrifice oi" the mass, we reject, as also the mate- 
 rial unction. Rejectin<»; the idea of a priest hav- 
 ing the same power to remit or retain sins, as 
 Jesus Christ himsell harl, or that he can remi(^ 
 them at all, in the strict sense of the term, per- 
 sonally and individually, excej)t l)y the declara- 
 tion of the promise, mercy, and <i;rant of tlie 
 Gospel, we have retained the latter form of ordi- 
 nation, as being that which was used hy our 
 Saviour himself, in his ordination of the Apostles. 
 Since, ther(;fore, the forms have chan<^ed, and 
 no stress can be placed upon them, on the j^round 
 of anticpiity, either orders is no sacrament, or 
 the Latin Church for ten centuries had no law- 
 ful orders. 
 
 Q. But is it not a i^reat prcsum|)tion and folly 
 in episcopal ordination for the Hisliop, who can- 
 not properly give the Holy Ohost, to say to the 
 persons ordained, " Receive the Holy Ghost?" 
 
 A. We think this form in the sense in which 
 it is used, proper to the occasion, and both just- 
 ifiable and scriptural. If the Bishop should 
 imitate the action of our Lord, and breathe on 
 the candidate, to imply that he ( and not the 
 Holy Ghost ) could convey from his own inherent 
 virtue or power, a spiritual character to another, 
 and that the communication of it depended on 
 his own intention, we should say that it was an 
 
155 
 
 error niid presumption, ll" iUc, Bisliop sliould 
 prctotid to coiitroul and dispense the person of 
 the Holy Ghost, in order, 5is the priests pretend, 
 to nink(^ and dispense tlie person of Christ in the 
 Kueharist, we should admit it to he a |)resump- 
 tion, lolly, and impiety. Il'tln^ hishop or eandi- 
 date, pretended that they were under an ini'allihh; 
 and sensihh" imprt^ssion and instigation, to <!;ive 
 and receive miraculous powers, to speak with 
 new tongues, to heal the sick without medicine, 
 we should allow that the use of" this form to sig- 
 nify such thin<i;s, was ianatieal, vain, and super- 
 stitious. But we use these words in another 
 sense, and that we think in good part the sense 
 in which our Saviour himself used them. Wc 
 profess to Indieve that orders are a divin(^ 
 and Christian institution, and that the hishop 
 mider the Christian disptnisation, is the proper 
 officer, in the stead of Christ and his apostles, to 
 dispense the ghostly j)ower of orders which 
 Christ has ordained in his church, and that the 
 power is such as ** neither prince nor potentate, 
 king nor C;rsar can give," that this power is 
 spiritual, and that in the giving, receiving, and 
 exercise of it, wc pray for, and helieve spiritual 
 aid and hlessing. When the apostle asked tlu; 
 disciples "Have ye rece/ycYi the Holy (i host," 
 he did not mean to enipiire whether they had 
 received his person, hut his gilts and graci^s — 
 graces at that time evidenced in some cases with 
 
156 
 
 supenvatural gifts — These manifest gifts have 
 ceased, and in receiving' the Holy Ghost we now 
 expect his grace and assistance. When our Lord 
 used tlie words himself, and breathed on the 
 apostles, to show his own divinity and power, he 
 did not communicate the person of the spirit, or 
 even the extraordinary gifts of the spirit, ( for 
 they were not given till the day of Pentecost ) 
 but he gave that which in a subordinate degree 
 the bishops are empowered to give, a ghostly 
 power to preach repentance and remission of 
 sins in his name among all nations. In this sub- 
 ordinate sense of a commission, and ordination, 
 and spiritual power to minister the gospel, we 
 see a greater propriety in these words than we 
 should in paraphrastical sophistries, substituted 
 for them. The bishops are but the ambassadors 
 fi'om Christ, but by the imposition of their hands 
 the persons ordained derive an authority to per- 
 form the functions of the Christian ministry, 
 which it would be a presumption to perform with- 
 out this spiritual power and a reliance on the 
 influence of the holy spirit, both in the ministers 
 and flock of Christ. Since the ascension of our 
 Lord our creed is, that the church is under the 
 guidance of the spirit, and there tore the article 
 of the Holy Catholic Church, is placed after that 
 of the Holy Ghost. It is certain that the apostles 
 ministered the gospel and received the full power 
 of their commission through the same authority 
 
1:57 
 
 and agency. They refer all administrations anr? 
 graces in the Church to the same person. They 
 speak of the Holy Ghost setting apart and 
 authorising the ministers of the gospel, and they 
 address the ministers who had neither infallibility 
 nor special inspiration, as those whom the Holy 
 Ghost had made, through the imposition of their 
 hands, the overseers of the Christian flock. The 
 ordination therefore and the power to administer 
 the Gospel, both in the language of Christ and 
 the apostles, -were always referred to " the Holy 
 Ghost." It is no inconsiderable presumption in- 
 favor of the form adopted by our Lord, that no' 
 other was preserved in the apostolic ChurcheSo. 
 Certainly learned men, with all their diligence 
 and anxiety, have not been able to discover the 
 early and certain record of any other. The lan- 
 guage of the apostles, however, seems always to 
 refer to the same principle, and so far as we can 
 judge, to the recognition of the Holy Ghost as 
 the acknowledged agent in all ordinations. We 
 think therefore that our reformers, in the absence 
 of all authority for any other form, acted con- 
 sistently with their own principle of referring 
 only to scripture in matters of such importance,, 
 and that they have by this form, defended the 
 Church from many heretical and sophistical opin- 
 ions, that might otherwise be introduced amongst 
 us. We maintain not by this form the infalibil- 
 ity of the minister or his immediate inspiration ; 
 
158 
 
 we farther distinguish the qualifications of the 
 function from the qualities of the person, and we 
 believe that the influence of the Holy Spirit, and 
 the blessed eff"ects of the Gospel and its sacra- 
 ments, may accompany their administration in 
 the Church, though the minister himself at the 
 hazard of his own salvation, be unworthy of his 
 high calling, for that, as miracles have ceased, 
 and no new revelation is to be made, the holy 
 spirit may accompany the function where in indi- 
 vidual cases he has forsaken the functionary, 
 who, though he cannot be detected and punished 
 by the Church, is responsible to God. 
 
 Q. Does the Roman Catholic Church main- 
 tain any higher orders than the priesthood ? 
 
 A. No. It does not teach that there are more 
 orders, but more degrees of the same order. 
 Besides the simple priest, whose office has been 
 considered, there are four other dignities of the 
 same order, viz. bishops, archbishops, patriarchs, 
 and popes. The bishops are those priests who 
 preside in the different dioceses over both the 
 priests and laity. The Roman Catholic Church 
 teaches that the administration of orders belongs 
 to bishops by authority of the sacred scriptures, 
 the most certain tradition, the testimony of all the 
 fathers, the decrees of councils and the practice 
 of the Church uninterrupted; that this is the 
 peculiar and undoubted office of the bishops, to 
 whom alone, and no one else, it belongs to admit 
 
159 
 
 to holy orders ; and that the bishops, by immemo- 
 rial usage from the times of the Apostles, have 
 been consecrated by three bishops. The arch- 
 bishops or metropolitans, preside over the bishops 
 in different countries or provinces, and have a 
 superior power, though they differ nothing in or- 
 der from bishops. The patriarchs are the fourth 
 class. They are the chief fathers. Besides the 
 bishop of Rome, there are four partriarchs. Of Je- 
 rusalem, where James the brother (or kinsman) of 
 our Lord, presided ; of Antioch, where the chris- 
 tian name was first assumed among the gentiles : 
 of Alexandria founded by St. Mark the evangelist,^ 
 and of Constantinople the last, founded on the di- 
 vision of the empire. The last asserted order is 
 that of popes. The bishop of Rome is asserted 
 to be the priest of priests, the archbishop of 
 bishops, and archbishops, the patriarch of patri- 
 archs, the spiritual monarch, who sits in St. 
 Peter's chair, receives his authority not from acts 
 of synods, but from heaven, who presides over 
 all priests and all christians, whatever be their 
 rank or order, as the successor of St. Peter, and 
 the vicar of Christ upon earth. 
 
 Q. What opinions do we entertain of the degree 
 of episcopacy, asserted by the Church of Rome ? 
 A. We agree generally with the Church of 
 Rome, respecting the office and functions of 
 bishops, because for the reasons assigned by 
 that Church, we believe them to be a scriptural 
 
160 
 
 and indisputable institution. Those functions 
 and powers constitute them a separate Apostoli- 
 cal order, though we admit that it is not a 
 material point whether episcopacy be a distinct 
 order or a different degree of the same order. 
 We agree also that archbishops differ nothing in 
 order from bishops, but that they preside over 
 the bishops in different countries and provinces, 
 that they may secure the regular appointment of 
 bishops, publish the civil and ecclesiastical laws 
 in the churches under the direction of the civil 
 power, correct abuses, hear appeals, and register 
 ordinations, and thus in different countries pre- 
 serve unity and subordination in the church. Me- 
 tropolitans existed before patriarchs, and popes ; 
 and bishop Usher and others assert on the 
 authority of Eusebius and Chrysostom that they 
 were apostolical ; that Titus exercised a similar 
 authority over the bishops in Crete, and Timothy 
 over the whole region or province of Asia. It is 
 certain that the Cyprian bishops in the council 
 of Ephesus pleaded the privileges of their metro- 
 politan to be as ancient as the apostles, and that 
 their plea was admitted. It is clear, therefore, 
 that the dignity originated at a very early period, 
 if not with the apostles themselves. It was 
 adopted and preserved in consequence of that 
 respect which the other bishops were disposed to 
 pay the bishop of the civil metropolis, and of the 
 necessity which always existed for the unity of 
 
161 
 
 the church, both for its edification and defence. 
 This office was certainly in existence before the 
 council of Nice and before patriarchs and popes 
 were recognized. In their essential character, 
 however, primates are bishops, and in this view 
 v,^e regard them with respect to holy orders, 
 thoughtheirdignity and jurisdiction in this coun- 
 try is of the greatest importance for the domestic 
 peace and independence of the national church. 
 
 Q. What was the dignity of patriarchs ? 
 
 A. Patriarchs was a human institution erected 
 by the prudence and policy of princes, and of 
 great use during some ages of the church. They 
 were the exarchs of the dioceses of the Roman 
 empire. The five patriarchs were absolute and 
 independent of each other. They had not all 
 the same powers and privileges. Their dio- 
 ceses were fixed according to the geographical 
 division of the Roman empire. In some respects 
 their customary jurisdiction was restrained by 
 the decisions of councils held under the authority 
 of the emperors, and even their jurisdiction al- 
 tered, as when the bishop of Jerusalem was made 
 subject to the bishop of Csesarea. They were 
 first regulated by the council of Constantinople, 
 in the year 381, and afterwards by councils of 
 Ephesus andChalcedon. The patriarch of Con- 
 stantinople had the title of oecumenical or uni- 
 versal patriarch, on account of the great extent 
 of his jurisdiction, and that a century before 
 
 M 
 
162 
 
 the time of Gregory the great.* Constantinople 
 was also declared by the rescripts of Justinian 
 to be the head of all the churches, that is, the 
 patriarchs of Constantinople had the precedency 
 of honor because Constantinople was the capital 
 city of the empire. In like manner the bishops of 
 Rome had a precedency among the bishops of 
 the west, because Rome was the capital city of 
 the west. We might as well suppose, that the 
 
 * Gregory the I. writing to the Bishop of Constantinople, who 
 had admitted the title of universal bishop, or patriarch, thus ad- 
 dresses hira, " What wilt thou say to Christ, the head of the 
 universal church, in the trial of the last judgment, who by the 
 appellation of universal dost endeavour to subject all his members 
 to thee ? Whom, I pray, dost thou mean to imitate, in so perverse 
 a word, but him, who despising the legions of angels, constituted in 
 fellowship with hira, did venture to break forth unto the top of 
 singularity, that he might both be subject to none, and alone be over 
 all ? Who also said I will ascend into heaven, and will exalt my 
 throne above the stars — for what are thy brethren, all the bishops 
 of the universal church, but the stars of heaven ; to whom while 
 by this haughty word thou desirest to prefer thyself, and to tram- 
 ple on their name in comparison to thee, what dost thou say, but 
 I will climb into heaven?" Again, in another epistle to the 
 bishops of Alexandria and Antioch, (reproving the same patriarch 
 for assuming this title) he complains, " That he attempteth to 
 ascribe all things to himself, and studieth by the elation of pom- 
 pous speech,tosubjecttohiraself all the members of Christ, which 
 do cohere to one sole head, viz. to Christ." Again, " I confi- 
 dently say, that whoever doth call himself universal bishop, or 
 desireth to be so called, doth in his elation, forerun Antichrist, 
 because he pridingly doth set himself before all others*" 
 
163 
 
 empire was standing, that the dioceses and provin- 
 ces were sempiternal, and that all Europe, Asia, 
 and indeed all the world were to be governed by 
 civil laws and imperial edicts, as that the patri- 
 archs were to maintain an everlasting and abso- 
 lute supremacy, over all the independent nations 
 and churches. During the time of the empire, 
 and the patriarchal power, there were metropoli- 
 tans independent of the patriarchs, as the metro- 
 politans of Cyprus and Iberia who were declared 
 independent of the patriarch of Antioch by the 
 council of Ephesus. The same was the case with 
 the Armenian Churches, which were independent 
 of the patriarch of Constantinople. The same 
 was the case with the Britannic Churches, before 
 the coming of Austin, which were subject to the 
 archbishop of Caerleon and St. David's and ac- 
 knowledged no other spiritual superior, as the 
 abbot of Bangor told Austin in the name of all the 
 Britannic Churches " That they owed no other 
 obedience to the pope of Rome than they did 
 to every godly Christian, to love every one in 
 his degree in perfect charity ; other obedience 
 than this they knew none, due to him whom he 
 named Pope. But they were under the govern- 
 ment of the Bishop of Caerleon upon Uske, who 
 was their overseer under God." The Romanists 
 have attempted to dispute the authority of this 
 declaration, but without effect. It is certain, 
 that for six hundred years, the Bishop of Rome 
 
 m2 
 
164 
 
 had no jurisdiction in this country, and that the 
 Scotch and English bishops for a long time resis- 
 ted his usurpation, and for it were held excom- 
 municate by the tools of the Pope. Whether 
 the English Churches were founded by St. Paul 
 or Simon Zelotes, or some apostolic evangelist, 
 it is certain that Christianity did not originate 
 with the Pope, and from the question, of the time 
 of Easter, it is probable that there was some 
 connexion with the oriental Churches, before 
 one was formed with the western. 
 
 Q. Of what nature do you consider the patri- 
 archal dignity and power to have been ? 
 
 A. We think it to have been of human, not 
 divine or apostolic authority, and that whether 
 we consider the occasion of its origin, or the 
 reason of its existence, it must be to a great 
 extent obsolete and impracticable. The apostles 
 indeed, in the first propagation of the gospel, 
 seem to have followed the civil form of govern- 
 ment ; as each city of importance in the empire 
 had its senate and president, so each Church had 
 its presbyters and bishop. According to this 
 model St. Paul directs Titus to ordain elders in 
 Crete * in every city. The division of the Roman 
 empire into provinces was coeval with Christian- 
 ity, and each province was under a Praetor or 
 Proconsul ; about the time of Constantine these 
 provinces were consolidated into dioceses, the 
 
 * Kara rroXiv. 
 
165 
 
 governors of which, residing in the metropolis, 
 were called eparchs or vicars. The Church, 
 following the civil government, had in each 
 province a metropolitan, and in each diocese a 
 patriarch. The patriarchal authority, therefore, 
 was geographical, and arose out of the political 
 state of the world at that time. When the em- 
 pire ceased, and Europe was formed into separate 
 and independent kingdoms, the patriarchal and 
 geographical authority of the patriarchs ceased 
 also, and the Church in all reason ought again 
 to conform in its external form to the civil 
 o'overnments. As the Russian Church is now 
 independent of the patriarch of Constantinople, 
 so all the independent nations of Europe, have a 
 right to their own national Christianity. That 
 which is predicated and justly of bishops, can 
 never be affirmed of patriarchs, that they derive 
 their authority from the sacred scriptures, the most 
 certain tradition, the testimony of all the Fathers, 
 the decrees of all councils, and the practice of the 
 Church uninterrupted. The patriarchal power of 
 the bishop of Rome was constantly repudiated 
 by the African Churches, and those of Britain 
 and Milan, and it is probable that the patriar- 
 chal authority of the bishop of Rome, properly 
 speaking, extended no farther than the civil 
 authority of the civil vicar of the city, which was 
 the suburbical Churches of the ten provinces. 
 Dupin, a Romanist, exempts on the best histor- 
 
 m3 
 
166 
 
 ical evidence, Germany, Spain, France, Britain, 
 Africa, Illyricum, and seven Italian provinces, 
 from the jm'isdiction of the Pope in the primitive 
 ages. The spiritual monarchists are angry with 
 this assertion, but they have never been able to 
 refiite it, and if they had, we should never 
 be convinced or cajoled to believe that a power 
 raised on a political or geographical basis which 
 no longer exists, is binding on the independent 
 nations of Christendom. 
 
 Q. What is the dignity and authority assumed 
 by the popes *? 
 
 A. It is difficult to describe the authority and 
 jurisdiction claimed by the popes, even according 
 to the authentic documents of the Roman Cath- 
 olic Church. It certainly was the opinion of 
 Baronius, Bellarmine, the council of Lateran, and 
 the council of Trent, so far at least as it sanc- 
 tioned the other councils of the Church, that the 
 bishop of Rome had a supremacy in temporals 
 as well as spirituals. It is certain that the 
 popes affected to exercise this universal monar- 
 chy over many kings, princes, and kingdoms.* 
 
 * The following is an extract from the Bull of Pope Pius v. 
 against Queen Elizabeth, " He that reigneth on high, to whom is 
 given all power in heaven and earth, hath committed the one 
 Holy Catholic and Apostolical Church, out of which there is no 
 salvation, to one alone on earth, namely to Peter, prince of the 
 Apostles, and to the Roman Pontiff, successor of Peter, to be 
 governed xoith a plenitude of power : This one he hath consti- 
 tuted prince over all nations, and all kingdoms, that he might 
 
167 
 
 The assumption of such a power is so impudent, 
 on the confession of its ablest advocates, so 
 novel, and by the judgment of many Roman 
 Catholics, so entirely condemned, that the tem- 
 poral jurisdiction of the pope is not now directly 
 and openly asserted by the popes or their advo- 
 cates. It has not, however, been authoritatively 
 renounced, and it is to be feared that there are 
 many, especially among the Jesuits, who hold the 
 universal supremacy of the pope in its extreme 
 sense, though they are ashamed or afraid to own 
 it. The universal spiritual supremacy, is, how- 
 ever, acknowledged by all Catholics, though in 
 different senses, and with different limitations. 
 The French Church, the doctors of Sorbonne, 
 and some German Catholics, have held the 
 pope's supremacy very lightly,and the popes from 
 necessity, have tolerated the liberties of the 
 Oallican and other Churches ; though they have 
 never acknowledged their principles. These 
 Catholics have been looked upon as mongrels 
 and semi-romanists, and the true doctrines of the 
 Church, court, and popes of Rome, is, the pope's 
 
 pluck up, destroy, dissipate, ruinate, plant, and build." And 
 again, " He thereby deprives the Queen of her pretended right 
 to the Kingdom, and of all dominion, dignity, and privileo-e what- 
 soever ; and absolves all the nobles, subjects, and people of the 
 kingdom, and whoever else have sworn to her, from their oath, 
 and all duty whatsoever, in regard of dominion, fidelity, and 
 obedience." Barrow on the Pope's Supremacy, from which treatise 
 the few facts relating to this point are chiefly selected. 
 
168 
 
 absolute sovereignty, that he is the universal 
 pastor of all Christians by God's appointment, 
 indefectibly and unalterably. The authority of 
 bishops is referred to scripture, history, councils, 
 and practice uninterrupted, but the supremacy 
 or universal primacy of the popes rests upon 
 peculiar grounds, and indeed abstractions. The 
 argument for it has been thus stated. That St. 
 Peter had a primacy over the apostles, that this 
 primacy, with its prerogatives, was derivable to 
 his successors the bishops of Rome — that St. Peter 
 was bishop of Rome and continued so till his 
 death — That the bishops of Rome, by original 
 right derived from him, have an universal supre- 
 macy and jurisdiction over the Christian Church, 
 that they have always enjoyed and exercised 
 this sovereign power, and that that power is in- 
 defectible. 
 
 Q. What do we think of this universal supre- 
 macy and spiritual monarchy assumed by the 
 popes and acknowledged by his adherents ? 
 
 A. We think it an arrogant impiety ; the most 
 impudent and indefensible fraud that ever was 
 practiced on the world, and that it has been " the 
 pest of Christendom." With respect to St. Peter, 
 we admit that he was probably the oldest, and 
 the first ordained, or rather called, of the apos- 
 tles ; that he had great worth and excellence ; 
 that his confession and conduct showed his sin- 
 cerity ; that his age, experience, and superior 
 
169 
 
 talents, gave him a precedency in action on 
 many occasions that was perfectly natural, but 
 that though in many respects on these accounts 
 he appeared to take the lead in the early pro- 
 ceedings of the Church, he had no superiority 
 defined, and no personal prerogative given above 
 the other Apostles. On the contrary that the 
 idea of such a superiority and personal primacy 
 is excluded by the few following, amongst a host 
 of facts and reasons, in bar of such an authority. 
 Such an authority could not be claimed, but by 
 an express commission, granted in terms which 
 admit of no doubt, and which are so clearly re- 
 vealed that the world may understand them. It 
 must be as clearly revealed that St. Peter was 
 appointed primate and monarch of the Apostles, 
 as that our Lord appointed twelve Apostles, 
 and it must as clearly appear in the acts of the 
 Apostles, that St. Peter claimed, and that the 
 Apostles acknowledged this superiority, as that 
 the Apostles asserted their apostolic authority. 
 But nowhere in the evangelical or apostolic his- 
 tory, can we find this institution, or the current 
 recognition of it, as we do the institution and 
 authority of the Apostles. We find that during 
 the life-time of our Lord, and even at the last 
 supper, that the twelve disputed which should 
 be the greatest, which they would hardly have 
 done if Christ had already determined that Peter 
 was their prince and king. When our Lord de- 
 
170 
 
 cided their question, he did Dot determine Peter 
 or any other to be the chief, he pronounced them 
 equal ; he placed a little child in the midst of 
 them, and told them that whoever should in 
 innocence, simplicity, and submission, most re- 
 semble that infant, should be morally the great- 
 est. St. Luke tells us, that after a most patient 
 enquiry among the Apostles, he had acquired a 
 perfect understanding of all things of importance 
 believed among Christians, and he wrote his 
 book of the acts of the Apostles, to explain the 
 manner in which the Apostles at the first execu- 
 ted their commission ; but neither in the gospel, 
 nor in the acts of the Apostles, do we find a 
 single word of Peter's supremacy. The scrip- 
 tures on which the Romanists found their impos- 
 ture, were not so understood, asserted, explained, 
 or alluded to, by Peter or any other Apostle. 
 What Apostle ever understood that by the me- 
 taphor of a rock, was intend ed an universal bishop? 
 When did St. Peter so understand it ? What man 
 of common sense can so understand it ? Of all 
 the thousand interpretations, which have been 
 given of that metaphor, where is one of equal ab- 
 surdity with this to be found ? If the power of 
 the keys gave to St. Peter an independent and 
 plenary authority as Apostle to found and estab- 
 lish christian churches, that same authority had 
 Paul and all the other Apostles. So far as that 
 authority, in a subordinate sense is derivative, 
 
171 
 
 so far as it is proper and reasonable, it is exer- 
 cised not only by the bishop of Rome, but by 
 every church in which the word and sacraments 
 are rightly administered, and which exercises a 
 christian discipline over its members. Who in his 
 senses can believe that by the power of the keys 
 was meant the papal tyranny ? What scripture, 
 what early fathers, councils or synods teach us to 
 believe that those keys are exclusively deposited 
 with the bishop of Rome ? It is indeed asserted 
 by the Papists, that St. Peter left them by will, 
 but that testament has never been found, no 
 certificate of it has ever been proved. What 
 Apostle, Father, Council, what man of common 
 sense, that is not deluded or wishes to cajole 
 others, ever imagined that our Lord's admonition 
 to St. Peter after his fall "Feed my sheep," " feed 
 my lambs," conveyed to him (any more than his 
 look did when Peter denied him) a supremacy 
 over the other Apostles, and to his successors a 
 supreme monarchy over the church ? St. Peter's 
 epistles indicate a modesty, affection, and sym- 
 pathy with human infirmities that are in perfect 
 accordance with our Lord's parting injunction, 
 but who ever found the pope's supremacy in 
 those epistles, in which less authority is assumed 
 than in any other inspired document *? St. Peter 
 does assert the king's supremacy " under God" 
 " Fear God honour the king;" but there is 
 not a word of his own supremacy, or his succes- 
 
172 
 
 sors for ever. St. Paul's assertion of his inde- 
 pendence and equality is also as clear a proof as 
 can be wished that no such superiority or infallible 
 jurisdiction existed and this indeed is confessed by 
 the most learned advocate of the papacy to be 
 " a history hard to be understood, a stone of 
 offence, a rock of scandal, a rugged place which 
 St. Austin himself, under favour could not pass 
 over without stumbling." 
 
 St. Peter therefore had no primacy, but admit- 
 ting for the sake of argument, that he had, 
 whatever it was, it was personal. St. Peter was 
 an eye-witness of all our Lord did or suffered — he 
 had a plenary inspiration, and miraculous power 
 — he could instruct the nations, and govern the 
 Churches; but these were powers granted by a 
 special commission for the establishment of the 
 christian Church, and such as no one now 
 can assert without imposture and hypocrisy. 
 With respect to the assertion, that St. Peter 
 was bishop of Rome (which, if true, would 
 not amount to much ) as it has never been 
 proved, so it may be fairly denied, and for these 
 among other reasons. He was an Apostle and 
 fulfilled the genet'al duties of an Apostle, and 
 therefore it was neither necessary, nor probable 
 that he should assume the stated, local and infe- 
 rior office of bishop. His particular designation 
 to be the Apostle of the circumcision, would not 
 harmonize with such an appointment, especially 
 
173 
 
 as the emperor had at that time banished all the 
 Jews from Rome. If he were bishop of Rome, 
 he must have been non-resident, for all the histo- 
 ries we have of him, represent him as performing 
 the duties of an Apostle, in distant and various 
 countries. He must have been frequently absent 
 from Rome, for St Paul in his epistles to the Ro- 
 mans, and in his epistles written from Rome, 
 makes no particular mention of St. Peter. That 
 St. Peter was at Rome as well as St. Paul, it is 
 not necessary to deny, but who made him bishop 
 there, or whether he appointed himself no one 
 knows. The fact, is, however, that he appointed 
 other bishops, Linus and Clement at Rome as he 
 did St. Mark at Alexandria, and others. If all 
 these things, however, were true of St. Peter ; if 
 his primacy among the Apostles, and his episco- 
 pacy at Rome, were matters of certainty, how 
 does the divine institution of an universal bishop 
 and the indefectibility of the pope's authority 
 follow *? Is it not strange, that such an impor- 
 tant fact is unattested by scripture ? that practice 
 for centuries, that ancient creeds, councils, and 
 synods, that heretics, pagan historians, kings and 
 emperors, who might have been jealous; that all 
 the ancient writers mostly relied upon by the 
 Romanists ; the apostolical canons ; Ignatius, 
 Cyprian, and many popes themselves, are posi- 
 tively and absolutely silent respecting the supre- 
 macy ? In all the writings of the ancient fathers, 
 
174 
 
 who discuss the most trivial matters, this is un- 
 defined and overlooked. For a long period the 
 christian Church was governed by patriarchs, 
 whose authority was equal and independent, and 
 during that time, the popes themselves protested 
 against the title and authority of an universal 
 bishop. Surely these facts are decisive against 
 any, much less an universal and indefectible, su- 
 premacy in the bishop of Rome. The pretended 
 succession has often failed, and been extremely 
 doubtful. For seventy years the popes were 
 popes of Avignon and not of Rome ; and no more 
 bishops of Rome than the bishop of London is 
 bishop of Jerusalem. During the invasion of the 
 Goths, there were no bishops of Rome ; at va- 
 rious times there have been heretics, atheists, 
 and two or three usurpers at the same time. These 
 things might not in any degree affect the general 
 doctrine of an apostolical episcopacy, but they 
 are absolutely destructive of an indefectible uni- 
 versal monarchy over the christian Church exer- 
 cised by the bishop of Rome. 
 
 Q. What is the doctrine of infallibility, asser- 
 ted by the Church of Rome ? 
 
 A. The Romanists dispute among themselves 
 whether the infallibility is vested in the pope, or 
 in the Church. The Jesuits maintain that the 
 pope is infallible, that he is the only source of 
 that universal and unlimited power which Christ 
 has granted to his Church, that the Bishops and 
 
175 
 
 subordinate ministers derive from him alone their 
 authority and jurisdiction, that he is the supreme 
 lawffiver of the Church, and that his edicts and 
 commands cannot be disobeyed without grievous 
 sin. On the other hand, there are Romanists 
 that maintain that the pope is liable to error — 
 that his authority is inferior to that of general 
 councils — that he is bound to obey councils 
 which represent the Church — that councils may 
 deprive him of the papal chair, and that in conse- 
 quence of these principles, the bishops derive 
 their authority not from the Roman pontiff, but 
 from Christ himself. Such contradictions are a 
 sufficient reply to the barbarous doctrine of in- 
 fallibility. But there are other contradictions. 
 The Romanists dispute all the doctrines of grace 
 and have maintained the opposite extremes of 
 Arminianism and Calvanism. No disputants 
 have subtleized religious controversies as they 
 have done. They dispute to opus operatum of 
 the sacraments, and especially of penance and 
 the eucharist — the extent and prerogatives of the 
 Church itself — the doctrines of morality, and 
 rules of practice. They differ also about the 
 question of instruction, some maintaining that 
 children are to be instructed in the doctrines and 
 duties of the Christian religion, and others that 
 a devout ignorance, and blind and implicit obe- 
 dience to the Church, are quite sufficient. Vain 
 therefore and foolish, is the argument of Bossuet 
 
176 
 
 against protestants, derived from the variety 
 of their opinions and confessions of faith. His 
 own exposition of the Roman Catholic faith 
 was condemned by one pope and approved by 
 another — censured by the Sorbonne in one cen- 
 tury, and declared by the doctors of the same 
 society, a true exposition of the Catholic faith, 
 in the next. Surely the popes cut a poor figure 
 with their infallibility, if we may believe the hor- 
 ror which some Catholics now express at certain 
 doctrines. They must have greatly erred who 
 allowed it lawful to murder persons who were ex- 
 communicate, who pretended to dispense king- 
 doms, depose princes, and absolve subjects, from 
 their allegiance ; who asserted the perfection of 
 scripture, and the communion of infants, and who 
 condemned communion in one kind, the wor- 
 ship of images and the title of universal bishop. 
 What are we to think of the infallibility of a 
 Church which will declare the man who shall 
 read the new Testament accursed ; and pronounce 
 to every one who shall read the revelations of 
 St. Bridget ten times, a plenary indulgence of all 
 sin ; if a woman with child, safe deliverance ; and 
 whether man or woman, escape from purgatory 
 themselves, and a rescue for their father and mo- 
 ther if they are tormented in those flames. We 
 have our own reasons also for rejecting this pre- 
 tended infallibility. We think that every man 
 and every church is fallible, but that the scriptures 
 
17T 
 
 are an infallible rule. The christian religion is 
 in no way unreasonable, but commends itself to 
 mankind. There may be many things which 
 natural reason could not have discovered, but 
 which when discovered are perfectly plain. We 
 may not be fully able to comprehend all that is 
 revealed to us, or to remove all the difficulties 
 that attend revealed religion, (and who would 
 expect to do so ^) but reason has done more to re- 
 move difficulties and vindicate truth, than ever 
 infallibility did. In all ordinary and necessary 
 points of doctrine and morals, a wayfaring man 
 will not materially err, who takes the scriptures in 
 their plain sense as his guide, and in many points 
 in which he would err, those who know better 
 can put him right. But it is treating men 
 like brutes and irrational creatures, to say that 
 God has made a revelation to them, but that they 
 are forbidden to examine it. Man is not infal- 
 lible, nor ought we to allow any human being to 
 exercise that authority over us, which such an 
 infallibility assumes. The judgment of wise and 
 good men is to be respected, and we must be slow 
 to set up our judgment against that of the Church 
 or its teachers, but we are not tied and bound to 
 the opinions of others. The right use of reason and 
 the advantages of it in elevating our sentiments 
 and enjoyments have been too happily illus- 
 trated in the history of our country, to allow such 
 an imposition to gain ground amongst us. Many 
 
 N 
 
178 
 
 of the most valuable blessings, which the common 
 instinct of humanity prompts us to hope, and 
 which religion instructs us to believe, reason and 
 grace, applying the true principles of science to 
 the investigation of moral truth, have taught us 
 to knoio to be true. By the right use of reason, 
 we have discovered that many things in religion 
 and morals, which an impious infallibility taught, 
 and a stupid credulity believed to be true, were 
 mere impostures ; and that many moral truths 
 and doctrines of the christian religion, which the 
 same infallibility and credulity taught and be- 
 lieved to be false, are verities of the greatest con- 
 sequence, to the independence and wellbeing of 
 mankind in this life, and for their preparation for 
 happiness in the next. 
 
 Q. But where was the Church before the Re- 
 formation and the Protestant Religion ? 
 
 A. We also ask one question, where was the 
 true Philosophy before Sir Isaac Newton ? till 
 he discovered and settled the true theory of the 
 earth and the heavens, men were under the most 
 palpable mistakes and errors ; but still they man- 
 aged to plant and sow, and enjoy the comforts 
 of life, though they supposed that the earth stood 
 still. Who will therefore say that the discove- 
 ries of that great man, who drew the veil from 
 the mysteries of nature, were not of infinite im- 
 portance to science and to humanity ? It argues 
 no love of truth to start such questions as these, 
 
J 79 
 
 and to attempt to strangle the truth by means of 
 them. We mig;ht as well ask, where was salvation 
 before the Roman Catholic Church had its uni- 
 versal monarchy, since there is now no salvation 
 out of it ? Where was the Jewish Church, during 
 many of its great apostacies ? It was then among 
 the Jews, though not visibly. When a prophet 
 thought there was only one saint and himself that 
 one, God saw and knew thousands. The Ro- 
 man Catholic Church made a great and flagrant 
 apostacy, but the Church of Christ and the light 
 of the gospel were never wholly extinguished in 
 the greatest darkness, that through the infallibi- 
 lity of the universal monarch, overwhelmed it. 
 The seven thousand in Israel were not separated 
 into another visible church, but during the great 
 apostacy maintained their .integrity among the 
 nation of the Jews, who were still, in a certain 
 sense, the church and people of God. Where 
 was the true Church in the time of Manasseh, 
 when the ten tribes were carried away, and only 
 the tribes of Judah and Benjamin left, and they 
 «o wholly given to idolatry, that even the altar of 
 God in the temple was destroyed, and in its place 
 were erected altars to Baal, the sun, the moon, 
 and the host of heaven ? God had then a Church 
 though not visibly distinguished from the rest of 
 the nation, as is apparent from the fact that when 
 Josiah began to reign at eight years of age, there 
 was a party of true Israelites, who with their young 
 
 N 2 
 
180 
 
 king effected a thorough religious reformation. 
 There Avas true gold mixed Avith the alloy in the 
 Roman Catholic Church before Luther, and when 
 Luther appeared, that true gold appeared in Ger- 
 many, There was true gold in the Church of 
 England, before the Reformation, for there were 
 many thousands and tens of thousands, who, like 
 Wickliffe lived and died in the Roman Catho- 
 lic Church, abhorring its abominations ; and 
 when the Reformation was effected and drew^ the 
 veil from the mysteries of grace, the visible and 
 true Church of Christ appeared. 
 
 Q. Are there any other orders in the Roman 
 Catholic Church *? 
 
 A. Yes, the monastic orders and religious so- 
 cieties, always considered as the principal support 
 of the Papacy. The Reformation swept away 
 from protestant countries a shoal of Franciscans, 
 Dominicans, and other orders, and the Church of 
 Rome, therefore, found it necessary to erect a 
 new order, which should be particularly devoted 
 to the Roman See, and could act with or with- 
 out religious establishments. This was the -ori- 
 gin of the famous religious fraternity of the 
 Jesuits, composed from the ruins of the other 
 orders and zealots in all countries, who were 
 the abettors of the unlimited supremacy of the 
 pope. Ignatius Loyala was the fortuitous head 
 of this conspiracy. The whole order is divided 
 into three classes. The professed members who. 
 
181 
 
 where they arc tolerated, live in professed houses, 
 and beside other oaths, take a vow of unUmited 
 obedience to the pope : the scholars, who are 
 wealthy, and instruct the youth in colleges and 
 schools ; and the novices who live in houses of 
 probation. Tiie professed members are the gen 
 nine Jesuits, men of the world, acquainted with 
 all the transactions of life, commerce, law, and 
 politics. The companions and assistants of this 
 order, who are not professed members, are very 
 numerous. The secrets of the society are not 
 revealed, even to all the professed members. 
 Those who are intrusted with the grand myste- 
 ries, and set apart to transact their affairs, em- 
 ploy, at their pleasure, the dangerous doctrines 
 of philosophical probability, and mental reserva- 
 tion to carry on their desperate projects. They 
 endeavour to secure the high places of authority 
 in the Roman Catholic Church. In former times, 
 especially in France, they were attacked and 
 exposed by Catholic writers, and for the sake of 
 humanity, we would hope that their enemies must 
 have aggravated their crimes and wickedness ; but 
 now, when they are not restrained by the tempo- 
 ral power, and where the inquisition is abolished, 
 they are ascendant among Catholics. They are 
 the connecting power between the regulars and 
 the secular clergy, and where the latter, from 
 their intercourse with their flocks and the world, 
 are disposed to shew a more social disposition, 
 
 N.S 
 
\S2 
 
 patriotic spirit, or religious and pious temper than 
 is convenient for political purposes, then the 
 great leading Jesuits issue the threat of letting 
 loose the regulars upon the seculars, to supplant 
 them. It M^as this domineering spirit that ren-. 
 dered the Jesuits so odious to many pious Catho- 
 lic bishops, and parochial clergy, who have 
 often been disposed to make considerable refor- 
 mations in their Church. The Jesuits are the 
 agents, not only of religious, but political move- 
 ments, in favor of the papal superstition.* They 
 
 * The character and spirit of the Jesuits is thus described in 
 a Sermon preached in DubHn by Dr. George Brown, archbishop 
 of Dublin, 155 1. " But there are a new fraternity of late sprung 
 up, who call themselves Jesuits, which will deceive many, who 
 are much after the Scribes and Pharisees' manner. Amongst the 
 Jews they shall strive to abolish the truth, and shall come very 
 near to do it. For these sorts will turn themselves into several 
 forms ; with the heathens a heathenist, with the atheists an atheist, 
 with the Jews a Jew, with the reformers a reformer, purposely 
 to know your intentions, your minds, your hearts, and your incli- 
 nations, and thereby bring you at last to be like the fool that ' said 
 in his heart that there was no God.' These shall spread over the 
 whole world, shall be admitted into the councils of princes, and 
 they never the wiser ; charming of them, yea making your 
 princes reveal their hearts, and the secrets therein, and yet they 
 not perceive it, which will happen from falling from the law of 
 God, by neglect of fulfilling the law of God, and by winking at 
 their sins ; yet in the end, God, to justify his law, shall suddenly 
 cut off this society, even by the hands of those who have most 
 succoured them, and made use of them, so that at the end, they 
 shall become odious to all nations. They shall be worse than Jews, 
 having no resting place upon earth, and then shall a Jew have 
 more favour than a Jesuit." Harleian Miscellany. 
 
intrig'ue in courts, take advantage of all divi- 
 sions and political struggles in protestant coun- 
 tries, and endeavour to obtain, by the squeeze of 
 parties, a political influence over the civil and 
 ecclesiastical authorities. Where they have the 
 opportunity, they denounce the institutions, the 
 clergy, the judges, the legislature, the executive 
 authorities, and even the king and his peroga- 
 tive in protestant countries. Where denuncia- 
 tion is not likely to succeed, they have recourse 
 to artifice ; where controversies and discussions 
 are likely to turn to their account, they will em- 
 ploy them ; where they are likely to fail, then little 
 stress is to be laid on matters of controversy — 
 things that were formerly looked upon as import- 
 ant, are no longer so, and all Christians are to 
 live in brotherly charity. Another method is 
 to set protestants to dispute with each other, to 
 suggest occasions of quarrel, one while praising 
 one set of combatants, and the next moment 
 their opponents, with a view of exposing the 
 frailties of both. When their case is desperate, 
 then they will encourage infidelity and indiffer- 
 ence to all religion, (the most horrible thing 
 where they are ascendant ) and if the govern- 
 ment be free or protestant, then republicanism 
 is the best form of government for the liberties 
 of mankind ; though in other cases republicanism 
 is worse than death. By these, and various 
 other means, they pursue their grand object, the 
 
18* 
 
 supremacy of the pope, and the extension of his 
 jurisdiction over the world. On these accounts 
 their estabhshments have been suppressed in 
 different countries. On various occasions they 
 have been banished from our own country, from 
 Russia, from Portugal, and from France. At the 
 late revolution in France, of which they were 
 the chief cause, their establishments were sup- 
 pressed, and many of them have been removed 
 to England. In France, by the mad pursuit of 
 their tyranny, they have destroyed the principle 
 of legitamacy, as they did in England, and have 
 hurled Charles the tenth, as they did James the 
 second from the throne. Intelligent men in 
 France are determined to have a constitutional 
 government; they are endeavouring to encourage 
 the study of greek literature, and the moral sci- 
 ences, which have been miserably neglected ; 
 they are beginning to circulate the new Testa- 
 ment, the greatest instrument of moral order and 
 social happiness, but they will never secure their 
 liberty against foreign intrigue and domestic 
 faction, till they have a national Church, with a 
 social and well-instructed clergy, that may har- 
 monize with all their other institutions. 
 
 Q. What are the holy orders which are retain- 
 ed in the Church of England *? 
 
 A. There are three, bishops, presbyters, and 
 deacons. In the Scriptures we find frequent 
 mention of these three orders. Before our Lord's 
 
185 
 
 ascension, he ordained twelve apostles and 
 seventy disciples, who ministered, after the day 
 of Pentecost, in the church of Jerusalem. We 
 do not read of the apostolical ordination of pres- 
 byters in the church of Jerusalem, because they, 
 who first ministered there, had been ordained by 
 Christ himself. We do read of the ordination of 
 deacons in consequence of the increase of the 
 church and the duties of the ministry. In other 
 churches we read of presbyters and deacons 
 ordained by the hands of the apostles. Apostles 
 therefore, and presbyters, and deacons, were the 
 three degrees of power in the apostolic churches. 
 When the apostles were permanently removed 
 by absence or death from the churches, bishops 
 or presiding presbyters, raised to this specific 
 office, performed those apostolical functions 
 which were intended to be permanent for the 
 order and edification of the church, and as suc- 
 cessors of the apostles, ordained presbyters and 
 deacons, by the imposition of hands, as the apos- 
 tles whom they succeeded, and by whom they 
 were authorized, had done. 
 
 Q. Do we not read of other spiritual persons 
 in the early Churches '? 
 
 A. Yes, we read of evangelists, prophets and 
 other spiritual persons, and great confusion and 
 mistakes have arisen from confounding these per- 
 sons, who in the apostolic age had peculiar gifts, 
 with the regular and permanent orders of the 
 
186 
 
 Church. These gifts were evidently contined to 
 the period between the day of pentecost and the 
 general establishment of Christianity. Many of 
 the duties, performed by these persons, were offi- 
 ces and services that might be performed by per- 
 sons not in regular orders. There were also in after 
 ages many who, though they had not these gifts, 
 yet as catechists and teachers, performed many 
 pious and useful services. But in the ancient 
 fathers, as in the Scriptures, we read of three 
 regular orders, bishops, presbyters, and deacons. 
 " When your Captains, (says TertuUian) that is 
 to say, the deacons, presbyters, and bishops fly, 
 who shall teach the laity that they must be con- 
 stant?" The primitive fathers clearly speak of 
 three orders, deacons as the first, presbyters the 
 second, and bishops the third and highest order. 
 We think, therefore, that we have now in the 
 Church of England, the three orders which had 
 their beginning with the Apostles themselves. 
 
 Q. Has episcopacy been long established in 
 England, and has it been invariably preserved ? 
 
 A. Yes, there is some probability that it might 
 have been established by some of the Apostles, 
 or by apostolic Evangelists in the lifetime of the 
 Apostles. Before the end of the second century, 
 there were christians in England under the go- 
 vernment of their bishops. At the council of 
 Ariminum A. D. 359, the English had their 
 bishops. When the Saxons who were pagans 
 
187 
 
 conquered the country, tlie English retired into 
 Wales under the government of their bishops. 
 When Austin the monk, sent by Gregory the 
 Great about 600 years after Christ, came to con- 
 vert the Saxons, he found the ancient Britons 
 under the government of their bishops. Under 
 this form Christianity remained till the Norman 
 conquest, and from the Norman conquest to the 
 present time, the kings of England have sworn to 
 preserve the Church of England under that form. 
 For more than 1600 years episcopacy has existed 
 in England, and, for more than 1200 years, there 
 have been archbishops of Canterbury appointed 
 with the consent of the kings of England. While 
 England shall remain an independent nation, she 
 will, we doubt not, have her own clergy, under 
 the ancient episcopal form of goverment, which 
 has been preserved by God for the unity and edi- 
 fication of the Church, and the happiness and 
 wellbeing of the nation. 
 
 Q. Were not presbyters called bishops in the 
 scripture, and were not all ministers on an equal- 
 ity? 
 
 A. The presbyters are called bishops, and so 
 are the Apostles called presbyters, and sometimes 
 deacons and disciples. There is certainly a pro- 
 miscuous use of these terms, when they are allud- 
 ed to in an occasional manner; but who would con- 
 clude from this that every disciple was a deacon, 
 every deacon a presbyter, and every presbyter an 
 
188 
 
 apostle, or that disciples, deacons, presbyters and 
 apostles were all the same and on an equality ? 
 The term bishop is a greek term, alluded to by 
 some latin writers, and the derivation of the word 
 would lead us to conclude, that it expresses a 
 distinct office of inspection, visitation and juris- 
 diction. But the actual use of the word is more 
 important, and, whether we trace it downward 
 from the Apostles to the present day, or backward 
 from our own time to the commencement of Chris- 
 tianity, we shall clearly find that it was attributed 
 to those, who not only administered the word 
 and sacraments (which is the office of all pres- 
 byters) but had a distinct power of order and 
 jurisdiction over the clergy and their flocks. The 
 apostles exercised a general jurisdiction over all 
 Churches, during the first propagation of the 
 gospel, but when the Churches were settled or 
 the time of their departure was at hand, then 
 bishops were appointed in the several Churches, 
 as St. James at Jerusalem, Titus in Crete, Tim- 
 othy in Ephesus, Polycarp in Smyrna, Ignatius 
 in Antioch, Linus and Clement in Rome, and so 
 in all the Churches of Europe, Asia, and Africa, 
 the bishops as St. Jerome says "were the succes- 
 sors of the apostles." 
 
 Q. But when St. Paul wrote to Timothy and 
 Titus expressly respecting order and discipline, 
 did he not speak of presbyters and deacons and 
 not of bishops ? 
 
189 
 
 A. When he wrote to Timothy and Titus he 
 wrote to bishops who had received their authori- 
 ty and commision from himself. It was not ne- 
 cessary, therefore, to instruct them respecting the 
 ordination of bishops, and probably while the 
 Apostles were living they generally retained that 
 power in their own hands. Those Churches over 
 which Titus and Timothy presided, were then 
 filled with these Officers. He did, however, in- 
 instruct them to ordain presbyters and deacons, 
 whom the Apostles had ordained when they were 
 present, and who were the officers that the con- 
 stant increase of disciples rendered it necessary 
 for them to ordain. Timothy and Titus had not 
 the miraculous powers which the Apostles had 
 for censure and discipline, and yet they were evi- 
 dently ordained with espiscopal function to pre- 
 side over others and ordain others, as the Apos- 
 tles had done. To Timothy St. Paul writes as to 
 one in a superior office " Against a presbyter re- 
 ceive not an accusation, but before two or three 
 witnesses." And again to Titus, writing by in- 
 spiration, he says, " For this cause left I thee in 
 Crete, that thou shouldst put in order the things 
 that remain (jurisdiction), and shouldst ordain 
 (ordination) presbyters in every city (a diocese) 
 as I appointed thee." Surely this is decisive 
 against an equality, and for a presidency. The 
 titles of the epistles to the seven Churches are 
 very important, because they were written at the 
 
190 
 
 close of the apostolic age, when the Churches 
 were uniformly settled. There were manifestly 
 in those Churches, and the adjacent conntry many 
 congregations, ministers, and a considerable laity. 
 Yet the epistles are not directed to the Churches 
 or presbyters and deacons, because they were not 
 intended to convey a new revelation of doctrine, 
 but exhortations to preserve the unity and purity 
 of the Churches. These letters, therefore, are 
 addressed to the angels or bishops of those 
 Churches. Surely if there had been no angels or 
 presiding bishops, or if Christ had laid down the 
 law of equality, these letters must have been es- 
 teemed as spurious, if not addressed to the congre- 
 gation meeting in such a city, not to the ministers 
 or consistories of those Churches, but to one pre- 
 siding, contrary to the supposed law of equality, 
 with authority and jurisdiction over others, both 
 laity and clergy. 
 
 Q. But since it is evident that there were 
 bishops in the apostolic Churches, may we not 
 still suppose that episcopacy was not a divine or 
 apostolical institution but human, adopted by the 
 Churches themselves, in consequence of the di- 
 visions that arose, expedient at that time, but not 
 universally or at all times necessary ? 
 
 A. This, or something like this, is the opinion 
 of Bulinger, Calvin, and some others. But is it 
 possible to suppose, that episcopacy, which pres- 
 byterians themselves confess to have been so 
 
191 
 
 ancient and so catholic, should have been merely 
 human? Beza, indeed, supposes three kinds of 
 episcopacy, divine, human, and satanic, but these 
 suppositions are absurd, as the foundations of an 
 argument in such a matter. Can we suppose 
 that this office should have been appointed in 
 the apostolic Churches, if the Churches had not 
 known it to have been sanctioned by the scrip- 
 ture or the apostles themselves ? Could the 
 disciples and friends of the Apostles, who were 
 the first bishops, have been ignorant of their in- 
 tentions respecting the order and discipline of the 
 Church *? or would they have adopted an order 
 contrary to their known intentions ? If episco- 
 pacy rested on no higher authority than that al- 
 lowed by the presbyterian writers (and a lower it 
 cannot have) it is an institution not unworthy of re- 
 spect, and we may suppose not less expedient now 
 than it was formerly. Are there no divisions among 
 christians now *? Are there no propensities in 
 human nature to vanity, caprice, and distraction, 
 at the present moment ? Did Calvin's discipline 
 succeed in his own case "? Is there no necessity for 
 leading men to be placed in permanent offices in 
 the Church of Scotland at the present moment ? 
 Would not eminent individuals, (of whom there are 
 many) placed in prominent stations in the Church 
 of that country, render that Church more secure, 
 more eminent, and influential over all classes ? It 
 is unreasonable to suppose, that such an insti- 
 
192 
 
 tution should have arisen, in the manner in which 
 it is manifest it did arise, by human authority. 
 There can be no more doubt of bishops in the 
 apostoHc Churches, than of consuls and senators 
 in ancient Rome. It is also certain that those 
 bishops who filled the first apostolic sees, were 
 almost without exception martyrs, not only to the 
 christian cause, but, to the episcopal office. In ev- 
 ery christian Church they were the first to suffer. 
 The office was perilous and attended with no 
 worldly honor. It exposed its possessors to cer- 
 tain persecution and death. It is asserted, that 
 more than thirty of the first bishops of Rome, with 
 one exception, suffered martyrdom. Now, if it 
 was a mere human institution, and not necessary 
 or divine, can w^e suppose that the early chris- 
 tians would have elected their chosen friends and 
 pastors to such an office, and to certain destruc- 
 tion ? Can we suppose that they would always 
 have avowed an unbroken determination to exer- 
 cise their functions, or that they would have died, 
 not only as christians, but as bishops, if they had 
 not believed, as they professed, that their office 
 was divine and apostolical *? These suppositions 
 are incredible, and they are the only suppositions 
 by which an apostolical episcopacy can with any 
 face be evaded. 
 
 Q. What do you conceive were the real mo- 
 tives that induced Calvin to adopt the Presbyte- 
 rian form of o;overment ? 
 
193 
 
 A. There is the greatest reason to suppose that 
 he did not adopt it from conviction or choice, but 
 that he elected and defended it from what he 
 conceived to be an overruling necessity. In this 
 he was probably mistaken, for if he had adopted 
 a moderate episcopacy it is highly probable 
 that with his transcendent talents, he would 
 have carried the reformation not only in Swit- 
 zerland but in France, and perhaps in Italy 
 and in Spain. He certainly had many friends 
 and adherents in all these countries. Had the 
 protestants of France adopted a moderate episco- 
 pacy, that is a form of government adapted to a 
 monarchy, the edict of Nantes would probably 
 have never been passed or revoked, for the kings 
 and nobility of France would have adopted the 
 protestant faith. At this moment, if the bishops 
 and clergy of France were to declare a Refor- 
 mation, their independence of the pope, the mar- 
 riage of the clergy, the abolition of the supersti- 
 tious ceremonies and the confessional, the liturgy 
 in the veracular tongue and the sole authority of 
 scripture in matters of faith and practice, the 
 French nation and the best and wisest part of it 
 would follow such a reformation. The French 
 do not reject Christianity, but in the form and 
 manner in which it has been presented to them 
 by the Jesuits who have represented Jesuitism and 
 Christianity as synonimous, and who have thrown 
 that thoughtless and sensitive nation into appa- 
 
 o 
 
194 
 
 rent infidelity and atheism. Had not the dis- 
 gusting ambition of the Jesuits, in the courts 
 of France, attempted to carry their tyranny 
 with a reckless disregard of the rights of con- 
 science and of thought, there never would have 
 been a Voltaire, certainly not such a Voltaire as 
 there was. The influence of Voltaire, as a 
 scoffer, is not now what it has been, and if reli- 
 gion were presented to the people, in a moderate, 
 decent, and rational form, they would recover 
 from their apparent atheism, and flippant scof- 
 fing would soon be obsolete. The protestants of 
 France, with the fairest prospects of success, have 
 not made any progress, for consistories are neither 
 fitted for enterprise nor suited to monarchical 
 institutions. Presbyterianism was not established 
 in France by consistories but by Calvin, and in 
 Scotland by Knox. In Scotland the Church has 
 been united with the State, and has proved a 
 great blessing to that country. But the history 
 of the reformed Church in France shews, that a 
 body politic erected in the bosom of a State, and 
 unallied to the supreme authority, must be sus- 
 pected, precarious, and limited in its usefulness. 
 Calvin did not begin the reformation in France 
 or Switzerland. In the latter country he was pre- 
 ceded by Zuingle and CEcolampadius who had 
 used every possible means and entreaty with 
 the bishops of their country to sanction their 
 orders. When ( notwithstanding all their in- 
 
195 
 
 treaties, concessions, and promises) they failed 
 of obtaining the sanction of the Roman Hier- 
 archy, who were now urged and threatened by 
 the popes, they thought it expedient to place at 
 their head a perpetual superintendent. Calvin, 
 however, was not a man to be foiled by those 
 whom he despised. That he did not reject 
 episcopacy, that he believed it under some inter- 
 pretation to be apostolical is manifest from his 
 institutes, his treatise on the true reformation of 
 religion, his voluntary subscription to the confes- 
 sion of St. Austin, of which episcopacy was an 
 article, and his correspondence with Archbishop 
 Cranmer and other learned men. His disciple 
 John Knox, proposed to place presbyterianism 
 in Scotland under ten permanent superintendents 
 (that is bishops under another name) but the 
 spoilers were over the prey, and he failed. When 
 Calvin determined that a Church irregular in 
 discipline was to be preferred to one false in doc- 
 trine and idolatrous in practice, he made the best 
 of his case. He saw that presbyters at the first, 
 under the episcopacy of the Apostles, were equal ; 
 that the Bohemian brethren held episcopacy 
 without the name ; that the Church of Rome held 
 bishops and presbyters to l)e of the same order, 
 and that the bishops of Rome, for avaricious 
 purposes, had sometimes invested presbyters with 
 the power of orders and confirmation, and he 
 therefore declared the Church of Geneva a sepa- 
 
 o2 
 
196 
 
 rate body and introduced that form of ecclesiasti- 
 cal government called presby terianism. In France, 
 the Huguenots had as nearly as possible resem- 
 bled the Lollards in England. They had been chief- 
 ly remarkable for their hostility to the corruptions 
 and usurpations of the see of Rome, but the refor- 
 mation of Calvin produced a remarkable eifect on 
 these Churches, and about the middle of the 1 6th 
 century they entered into the communion of the 
 Church of Geneva. The principles of ecpiality were 
 thus introduced into France, and as they were 
 never controlled by an union with the supreme au- 
 thority of the state, and coming in contact with the 
 principles of Jesuitism which led directly to athe- 
 ism, they spread the seeds of that anarchy and in- 
 fidelity which have desolated France, though the 
 Jesuits may be the last to acknowledge, or the 
 protestants to have wished, such consequences. 
 
 Q. What were the opinions of Luther, with 
 respect to orders *? 
 
 A. Luther seems to have been too much occu- 
 pied with the pope to have been sufficiently pre- 
 cise in this matter. It is evident, however, that 
 he had no wish to disturb the orders of the 
 Church, or to subvert episcopal ordination and 
 o'overnment. The Lutheran Church, as it has 
 existed since the time of Luther, is held by its 
 Doctors, to be a lawful and complete hierarchy, 
 independent of the laws and jurisdiction of the 
 Roman Pontif, in consequence of the treaty of 
 
197 
 
 Passau. The main principle of the Lutheran 
 Church is the same as that of all the reformed 
 Churches, that the holy scriptures are the only 
 source from whence we are to derive our reli- 
 gious sentiments. They have authorized formu- 
 laries and confessions of faith . They have adopted 
 litanies for public worship, rites and ceremonies. 
 In every independent state the supreme civil ruler 
 performs the functions of supremacy in the 
 Church. In some Churches the government is 
 episcopal as in Sweden, where there is one Arch- 
 bishop, and in Denmark, by superintendents, with 
 episcopal powers. In other states the government 
 is by consistories, but in all cases, they admit 
 that subordination and diversity of rank are not 
 only highly useful, but absolutely necessary to 
 preserve the unity and communion of the Church. 
 
 Q. Do you not consider that it has been a 
 great advantage to the Church of England, that 
 it is not founded on the acts and opinions of any 
 individual ? 
 
 A. It has certainly been a misfortune to the 
 Lutheran and Reformed Churches in general, 
 that they have been founded too much upon the 
 acts and opinions of individuals. Luther's par- 
 ticular opinion respecting the Eucharist, and the 
 various illustrations which he gave of it, have 
 led in many cases to fanaticism, and a bigoted 
 communion. The extreme opinions of Calvin, 
 respecting the decrees of God, and the doctrine 
 
 o3 
 
198 
 
 of St. Augustin, have led to violent controversies 
 and reactions of opinion. Both Churches having 
 missed the true spirit of moderation, have fallen 
 too much into the modern neology, so prevalent 
 in Germany and France. The Church of Eng- 
 land we think has been happily preserved from 
 these extremes. In throwing off the usurpation 
 and superstitions of the Church of Rome, she 
 had no new system of government to erect. She 
 maintained the ancient government of the Church, 
 and effected her separation from Romish idola- 
 try, with the greatest moderation. She has not 
 been tied down to the opinions or interpretations 
 of any individual, however illustrious. Dr. Bur- 
 net observes that it is difficult to know who were 
 the authors of any particular articles. At the 
 precise period of the Reformation, the articles 
 of religion were drawn up to oppose the decrees 
 of the council of Trent ; they were submitted to 
 the learned and leading men of the time ; the 
 peculiar phraseology and dogmas of individuals 
 were as much as possible avoided, and the dis- 
 cretion, ability, and pacific spirit, with which 
 these articles of peace and unity were framed, 
 are sufficiently manifest in the fact, that all the 
 nonconformists, all the methodists and calvinists 
 of the present day, refer and appeal to those 
 articles of the Church of England, which are 
 articles of faith and practice, as decisive in mat- 
 ters of controversy, and the best authority next 
 
199 
 
 to scripture for their opinions. So far as the 
 Lutheran or any other Church holds the scrip 
 ture to be the sole rule of faith and practice we 
 hold communion with them ; so far as the Roman 
 Catholic Church, or any other Church, holds the 
 fundamental doctrines, we hold communion with 
 them ; but we have avowed the written word of 
 God as our supreme law, and we cannot allow 
 any Church to legislate any other rule over us. 
 As a national Church, of an independent nation, 
 we have chosen such rites and ceremonies, as suit 
 our country and habits ; such as promote order, 
 decency, and edification among us; and which we 
 anxiously cherish as " the leaves that preserve 
 the fruit, the shell that preserves the kernel 
 of religion from contempt." The Church of 
 England exists with her endowments, which 
 secure a learned and liberal education for the 
 clergy, which renders them independent of the 
 highest, and able to promote the comfort and 
 edification of the poorest. The Church and its 
 possessions are the patrimony of the laboring 
 classes, and of the middle ranks of society, while 
 at the same time they are a rock of defence to 
 the aristocracy and the throne. The christian 
 ministry is one of the honorable professions by 
 which the children of persons, even in humble 
 circumstances, may and do often open to them- 
 selves a road to fame and christian usefulness ; 
 it is a profession in which all ranks meet on an 
 
200 
 
 equality. The Church has enabled this country 
 to preserve its internal tranquillity, almost with- 
 out a police, affectionately supported, it will 
 continue to do so; it has contributed essenti- 
 ally to preserve our national independence from 
 foreign intrigue, with a less standing army 
 than any other country in the world, in pro- 
 portion to its dignity, population, and power, 
 and that in defiance of the world, sometimes 
 in league against us. It has been blessed 
 with bishops and learned men, whose memo- 
 ries are in all the churches, whose writings are 
 the models of our language and the records 
 of our noblest sentiments, who have defended the 
 liberties of their country, been eminent for learn- 
 ing, piety, and charity, and have carried the 
 cultivation of the moral sciences and of christian 
 morality as a science, to a higher degree of ex- 
 cellence than was ever known in the history of 
 any christian nation. 
 
 Q. What is the king's supremacy in England ? 
 
 A. It is expressed in the following oath.* 
 " That the king's majesty, under God, is the only 
 supreme governor of the realm, and of all other 
 his hio-hness's dominions and countries, as well 
 in all spiritual and ecclesiastical things or causes, 
 as temporal, and that no foreign prince, person, 
 prelate, state, or potentate, hath, or ought to 
 
 * We assume the old canonical oath as the best text for explain- 
 ing this subject. 
 
201 
 
 have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, preem- 
 inence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, 
 within his majesty's said realms, dominions, and 
 countries." This oath we will consider first in its 
 defensive and negative assertions ; and secondly 
 in its positive declarations and affirmations. 
 
 Q. What does this oath solemnly deny ? 
 
 A. It denies " that any foreign prince, person, 
 prelate, state, or potentate, hath or ought to have 
 any jurisdiction, power, superiority, preemi- 
 nence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, 
 within his majesty's said realms, dominions, and 
 countries." The power expressed in this clause, 
 the pope claimed in this country by his legates 
 and commissioners, and this power he exercised 
 with the most impudent and tyrannical usurpa- 
 tions in defiance of the remonstrances of the 
 king, parliament, clergy, and people of Eng- 
 land. The whole nation, therefore, determined 
 to cast it off once and for ever. And it is worthy 
 of remark, that this was virtually done before the 
 Reformation . The usurpation of the pope was 
 boldly attacked by Wickliffe, and those who em- 
 braced his opinions. His principles and the cir- 
 culation of the New Testament in English, 
 produced a great change among all classes. Many 
 who did not follow the whole of Wickliffe 's creed, 
 and indeed those, who persecuted the Lollards as 
 a sect, denied the pope's supremacy and juris- 
 diction in England. Before the Reformation, 
 
202 
 
 (though indeed it was the great pubHc step to- 
 wards it) the national synods, the universities, 
 the king and parUament, and the people of Eng- 
 land and Ireland, declared and resolved (as the 
 only way of shaking off his disgusting usurpation) 
 that the bishop of Rome had no greater jurisdic- 
 tion within England, conferred upon him, by 
 God, in scripture, than any other foreign bishop. 
 For this, the pope excommunicated the king 
 and whole Church of England, before the refor- 
 mation made by protestants. It is true the Ro- 
 man Catholics did not deny the primacy of the 
 pope's order, but his supremacy and power, and 
 if the bishop of Rome had been contented with 
 his title of honor, he might perhaps have had it 
 to this day. It is absurd, therefore, to say, that 
 the protestant clergy (as a new race of invaders) 
 drove out the real possessors of the Church, its 
 functions, and endowments, and made a new 
 Church. It was the same Church of England 
 after the excommunication of the pope, that it 
 was before ; such a thing as that could make no 
 possible alteration in it. When Elizabeth, (after 
 the desolations in queen Mary's reign) passed 
 the act which separated for ever (we hope) the 
 nation and Church of England, from the odious 
 papal tyranny, so completely had the spirit of 
 disgust and independence spread among the 
 clergy and their flocks, that of 9400 ecclesias- 
 tical persons, but 177, and those chiefly cathedral 
 
203 
 
 and conventual clergy, officially connected with 
 the see of Rome, left their livings to continue 
 "in their Romish idolatry." We might with 
 more reason say, that a new Church was made 
 at the revolution, when probably there were 
 more non-jurors (and those the flower of the 
 English clergy) to the supremacy of king Wil- 
 liam, than there had been recusants to the 
 supremacy of queen Elizabeth. 
 
 Q. Is this defensive oath now absolutely ne- 
 cessary ? 
 
 A. Yes, it is more necessary than ever to know 
 who are the true friends of the religion and con- 
 stitution of their country. The Roman Catholics 
 acknowledge, and their clergy swear that they 
 acknowledge, that there "is a foreign prince, 
 prelate, potentate, who hath and ought to have a 
 jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, 
 and authority ecclesiastical and spiritual within his 
 Majesty's said realms, dominions and countries," 
 — that is, that they " will ever henceforth be faith- 
 ful and obedient to the blessed Apostle St. Peter, 
 and to the Holy Roman Church, and to our* holy 
 Father the Pope and his canonical successors. 
 
 * In the oath set forth in the Roman Pontifical by the order of 
 Pope Clement VIII. instead of our Holy Father the Pope the 
 expression is and " to our Lord." In the oath taken by the French 
 bishops some other clauses are omitted, as " Heretics, schismatics 
 and rebels to our said Lord, or his aforesaid successors, I will 
 to ray power persecute and oppose." 
 
204 
 
 That any counsel which they may intrust to them 
 by themselves, their messengers or letters they 
 will not knowingly reveal to any to their preju- 
 dice ; that they will aid them, saving their order, 
 to preserve and defend the Roman See and the 
 sovereign rights of St. Peter^ that they will 
 treat with honor, the legate of the Apostolic See 
 on his journeys, and assist him in his necessities ; 
 That they will endeavour to presej've, defend^ 
 increase, and advance the rights, honors, pri- 
 vileges, and authorities of the holy Roman 
 Church, of our holy Father the Pope and his 
 successors." Besides this, the various orders and 
 congregations take separate vows and oaths, and 
 the Jesuits take again an especial oath of unre- 
 served obedience to the pope, to go wherever he 
 may direct them, to promote and advance the 
 universal dominion of the universal monarch. It 
 is therefore the grossest hypocrisy on the part of 
 the members of that Church, in which the swear- 
 ing of obedience to the pope is an article of their 
 creed, and which has commanded more vows and 
 secret oaths, than all other Churches in the world ,- 
 to pretend such sympathy with tender consciences 
 and a dislike to oaths of a particular kind. The 
 sacramentum is the strongest bulwark of human 
 institutions ; it is the end of strife and the begin- 
 ning of safety, None are better convinced of 
 this than many persons who, while they propose 
 the repeal of all oaths which are to defend the 
 
205 
 
 religion, and with it the monarchy and institu- 
 tions of their country from usurpation, are them- 
 selves, perhaps, under secret and solemn vows 
 and oaths to promote that usurpation to the ut- 
 most of their power. Since the repeal of the 
 test and corporation acts, (the worst possible kind 
 of test, and which nothing but absolute necessity 
 could justify) it is more than ever necessary to 
 preserve those bulwarks which impose no penal- 
 ty, and which only require allegiance and fidelity 
 distinct, open and avowed to a protestant king 
 and coastitution. The time is come not only to 
 defend these with oaths but with great vigilance, 
 against the spiritual militia, the Janizaries and 
 factors of the pope. Had not the constitution of 
 the country been defended with oaths, and among 
 others with the oath of supremacy, it had been 
 betrayed long ago into the hands of its enemies. 
 Oaths have an influence on those who are not 
 restrained by other obligations. Oaths may be 
 painful to skilful interpreters of oaths, but they 
 restrain even such casuists, if not for conscience, 
 yet for credit's sake.* 
 
 * Philosophical probability will carry those who profess it to 
 great lengths. We know that the order of Bishops has been the 
 great means of preserving the Protestant Religion in England. 
 The order of Bishops in the English Church and the supremacy of 
 the King are the two great bulwarks which have defied the Pa- 
 pists, and how they regard them, particularly the former, history 
 sufficiently attests ; witness the murderous hate with which they 
 
^06 
 
 Q. What are the positive affirmations of this 
 oath? 
 
 A. *' That the king's majesty, under God, is 
 the only supreme governor of this realm, and of 
 all other his highness' dominions and coun- 
 tries, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical 
 things or causes as temporal." This is an oath 
 which not only every churchman, but every wise 
 
 seized and slaughtered Hooper, Ridley, Latimer, and Cranmer, on 
 their recovery of power ; witness the Cain-like malignity with 
 which the Jesuits, when they thought they had secured power 
 under King James, seized the seven patriotic Bishops ; witness 
 the pleasure with which the suppression of the twelve Irish Bish- 
 opricks was received an " odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice accept- 
 able, well-pleasing;" witness the confession of one of their advocates 
 at the time of the reformation " I could be contented there were no 
 Priests ( i. e. Popish Priests) in England, so there were no Bishops 
 there ". Yet it is now doing no injury to the Church of England 
 to endeavour to deprive the Bishops of their titles which they enjoy 
 according to law, while at the same time the same titles are revived 
 to those who hold them contrary to law. It would be no injury 
 to vote unanimously the suppression of all the cathedral estabHsh- 
 ments in England from the Church of England, and to buy them 
 up, or vote them for the Church of Rome. All this is no violation 
 of an oath, under an interpretation or dispensation. We know 
 however the value of episcopal ordination, and our country we 
 sincerely believe will draw to it more and more. What the Ro- 
 man Catholics think of the king's supremacy is evident from 
 Bossuet's assertion that it is the only thing among the Protestants 
 in England that has not changed, and no sophistry will make it 
 mutable, notwithstanding the authorised system of another su- 
 preme head, " to pluck up, destroy, dissipate, ruinate, plant, and 
 build." 
 
207 
 
 and conscientious protestant ought to take. 
 There are many that object to this oath, who 
 probably never read it, much less considered 
 why and for what important objects it was 
 required. There are those who object to the 
 prerogative, which the laws have vested in the 
 crown, and who maintain that the separation of 
 Church and state ought to be personal and per- 
 petual. We think there are many persons who 
 do not understand the alliance which the oath 
 affirms, and consequently misrepresent the case 
 altogether. In the abstract we admit as willingly 
 as those persons do a distinction between the 
 Church and the state. They are not necessarily 
 the same, but that is not a reason why they should 
 always be separate, and in the present state of 
 Christendom, and the relations of this country, 
 there are the highest reasons why they should 
 be legally and firmly miited. The direction of 
 every community is by power, and if that power 
 be left undefined by law, it will still exist, and 
 sooner or later become absolute. The exercise 
 of the christian religion is a power, and the direc- 
 tion of the exercise of the christian religion is 
 a power and authority, and if left undefined, 
 it will still rest somewhere^ and though for a 
 short time the secret may not be discovered, the 
 tyranny of an undefined power, will soon declare 
 itself. Those who direct the state, must have a 
 perception of the powers within the state. They 
 
208 
 
 will soon perceive the powers ecclesiastical, and 
 the powers ecclesiastical, whatever they may pre- 
 tend, will soon see the value of the civil power 
 and the royal power, and to obtain their support 
 will enter into league and covenant with them. 
 It is therefore of the greatest consequence that 
 that alliance or league should not be secret but 
 known ; not only personal, but legal ; not vague 
 and undefined, but limited and invariable ; and 
 that on oath ; not between fellow-citizens and 
 foreign potentates, but between the king and his 
 people. The investment of the supreme power 
 ecclesiastical, as well as civil, in the crown, so 
 long as the crown shall remain protestant, has, 
 " under God," preserved the gospel light, the 
 civil and religious principles of this country, 
 the exclusion of foreign intrigue and usurpation ; 
 and the true spirit of independence has turned 
 upon it. It is in vain to argue with those persons 
 who object to oaths, because they do not wish to 
 be tied to any principles, or with those who wish to 
 choose what oaths shall be administered to them by 
 the state. But there are virtuous and conscientious 
 individuals, who scruple to sanction this oath, 
 though they admit that the protection which it 
 designs to secure is necessary. To such persons 
 we sincerely say we mean as they do, by a Church, 
 a society united in a public form of government, 
 and distinguished from all other societies by the 
 exercise of the christian religion, the profession 
 
209 
 
 of the gospel, the administration of the word and 
 sacraments and union and communion under law- 
 ful pastors; we mean as explicitly as they do, that 
 no king can ordain those pastors, administer 
 those sacraments, alter that word, or destroy that 
 union. If the Church existed under a Pagan 
 government, we will allow that no union could 
 take place, and moreover, that to avoid an alli- 
 ance with idolatry, the Church and its professors 
 must be prepared to suffer persecution unto death. 
 The Roman Emperors persecuted the christians 
 not because they maintained their own religion, 
 but because they would not admit the principle of 
 Roman policy, the freedom and intercommunity 
 of all religions which the philosophers of that day 
 (professing themselves wise and becoming fools) 
 considered necessary to the public utility. The 
 government under which christians then lived, 
 was not christian, and consequently they could 
 not join with the state, and persecution and not 
 toleration, under the principles of comprehension 
 and intercommunity, was the consequence. But 
 when the state became christian, the case changed 
 naturally, and of itself. A christian nation is 
 distinguished by the exercise and profession of 
 the christian religion. Why, then, should not 
 the princes, nobles, clergy, and people, where all 
 are christians, exercise the christian religion as a 
 nation without violating scripture, or conscience, 
 or the laws of Jesus Christ ? If the members of 
 
 p 
 
210 
 
 the state be christians, and if the christian reli- 
 gion be divine and benevolent, and if the Church 
 be in no way by foreign jurisdiction and allegi- 
 ance alienated from the state, one would suppose 
 that in proportion as the union became legal and 
 cordial, the influence of the christian religion 
 and the happiness of the people would be in- 
 creased. So far from the excellence and purity 
 and moral efficacy of the christian religion being 
 an argument against the alliance it is the strong- 
 est argument for it, if not in the eyes of particular 
 individuals with particular feelings, certainly in 
 the judgment of wise and christian legislators. If 
 conscience be as clearly a part of human nature 
 as the appetites, and if the state (as all expe- 
 rience shews) must have the support of religious 
 sanctions on the conscience, the more harmoni- 
 ously religion is combined with the state, without 
 imparing its truth, the happier that state must 
 be. The State and the Church, considered in 
 the abstract, are not the same thing. There are 
 differences in their nature and administration, (as 
 there are between mind and matter, though 
 these differences do not prevent their union) and 
 the real difference between civil and spiritual 
 functions must be preserved. Orders therefore 
 are preserved in the Church, and when the 
 Church is allied to the state, those orders for the 
 preservation of this distinction, must be represen- 
 ted in the state. The supremacy of kings in 
 
^211 
 
 their dominions is reasonable in itself. It is ne- 
 cessary that no foreign power, prelate or poten- 
 tate, may have or presume to have any authority 
 over them or their subjects. It is necessary also 
 that no domestic faction may form " an imperium 
 in imperio" and disturb the peace of society. 
 Upon every principle of reason, civil liberty, and 
 christian charity, all persecution for religious 
 opinions is hateful and unjustifiable ; but the 
 christian religion ought not to be exercised in such 
 a manner as to disturb civil society or endanger 
 the christian religion itself, which is a part and par- 
 cel of the law of the land, and necessary to secure 
 the enjoyments and happiness of a christian peo- 
 ple. However men may talk against the protec- 
 tion of the christian religion, by the law of the 
 land or the supremacy of the king in things spi- 
 ritual as well as temporal, they find practically 
 that they cannot live as christians in the enjoy- 
 ment of their rights and conscience without an 
 appeal to these shocking principles. The most 
 pure congregation that ever derived their religion 
 (as they say) not from men or angels, but from the 
 throne of God, must if they have any rules, any 
 common consent, any deed of trust, and especially 
 any endowments^ acknowledge the supremacy of 
 the king. When any disputes arise respecting 
 these endowments and the due admimsirati07i 
 of the christian religion in chapels as well 
 as churches, the most religious dissenters refer 
 
 p2 
 
212 
 
 matters of pure relig-ioii, their solemn deeds, 
 abstract faith, versions of the scriptures, and cate- 
 chisms, to ungodly counsellors, judges, and our 
 most religious king as supreme. However against 
 conscience the examination may be, pastors, dea- 
 cons, and flocks must submit, and in their religious 
 disputes and controversies, (especially on the sub- 
 ject of endowments) do imllingly acknowledge 
 the king's supremacy. They cannot refer to the 
 court of heaven, they will not refer to the court 
 of Rome, they must do as the naughty Church 
 of England does, refer to the law and to the 
 king. So that however against conscience it 
 may be, whether the verdict be given for the 
 presbyterian or the independent, it is after all 
 the chHstian religion according to law. The 
 king does exercise a supreme authority accord- 
 ing to the laws of the congregation, whatever 
 they may be, provided they be not blasphemous 
 or do not contravene the law of the land, and just 
 so the king exercises his authority over the exter- 
 nal affairs of the Church, according to the laws 
 of that Church, which cannot contravene the laws 
 of the land, because they are happily a part and 
 parcel of them, and perfectly known and under- 
 stood.* There never was a religion connected 
 
 * The decree of deprivation and the conge d'elire issued by Sir 
 Launcelot Shadwell, or Lord Brougham, eminent lawyers holding 
 commissions or patents under the crown, are painful exercises of 
 the supremacy to the Babylon that is fallen, but to the Zion deliv- 
 
213 
 
 with a community of mortals, that could exist 
 without some form, authorities, means of admin- 
 istration, financial, economical, and political. 
 Men may have entertained abstract notions in 
 their brains, and so long as they are confined to 
 these regions, no law, or king, can exercise any 
 jurisdiction, and so far they are not of this world. 
 But no sooner do these pious imaginations find 
 citizens to advocate and espouse them, make 
 laws and regulations for their agreement, lay a 
 foundation stone with an oration, than they be- 
 come, in case those who are not of this world 
 should dispute, subject to the equitable and 
 supreme jurisdiction of the laws and the king. 
 If the civil power under some malignant influ- 
 ence, should condemn not only bishops, but min- 
 ters and members of other congregations, who 
 
 ered are a conscientious delight, a captivity turned, a very dream 
 of joy. This subject might be traced out still further in its details, 
 but we forbear 
 
 " motos proestat componere fluctus." 
 
 we will observe with respect to the nomination of the bishops 
 being vested in the crown, that it must rest somewhere and we 
 know not where it could rest with more advantage to the Church 
 or the Nation. An eminent foreign writer has observed with great 
 justice that this power " corrected many corruptions and abuses 
 that prevailed every where when every Church chose its bishop. 
 The right of christian communities to choose their leaders cannot 
 be exercised by such large bodies without confusion and many 
 inconveniencies. The subject by intrusting the sovereign with 
 the government of the state invests him ipso facto with an autho- 
 rity of preserving peace and giving protection over the Church 
 which is a part of the state and its noblest part." 
 
214 
 
 would not renounce their faith, to be burnt, and 
 the civil power so instigated should carry such 
 an iniquity into execution, the prelate, and the 
 minister and the lay-brothers must be turned into 
 ashes together. All, however, have been oppo- 
 sed to this sort of supremacy, and partly to keep 
 out persecution and foreign tyranny, and partly 
 to secure the blessings of a national and social 
 religion, and partly to secure to all societies of 
 christians a toleration with the legal enjoy- 
 ment of their laws and endowments, the nation 
 has legalized the ancient national church with 
 its laws, institutions and endowments. No king, 
 no faction, no foreign power hath or ought to 
 have any right to interfere with the dissenter in 
 his legal privileges, and no king, faction, or fo- 
 reign power, ought to interfere with the Church 
 with her legal privileges, for the king and the law 
 are supreme to protect us both. 
 
 Q. But if the establishment of religion by law 
 is reasonable, is it not unscriptural ? 
 
 A. In matters of this sort we think that reason 
 and scripture are not often opposed. They 
 are not opposed in this case if the religion 
 established by law recognizes the scripture. If 
 the religion established by law rejects the 
 scripture, then it is not the Christian religion 
 which is established, and the Christian dissenter 
 cannot urge his conscientious objections. But 
 scripture is scripture, and if the scripture forbid 
 the establishment of the christian religion by 
 
215 
 
 law, it must say so in plain and express terms. 
 If any persons in this country think this point 
 clearly proved (as we certainly do not) out of 
 the scripture, then they have the full liberty to 
 exercise their own religion in their own way, 
 make their own endowments, establish their own 
 schools and colleges, build their own churches, 
 sit under their own vine and their own fig tree, 
 none making them afraid ; but all these enjoy- 
 ments are still under the supremacy of the king 
 and according to law. It seems hard, however, 
 that while they have the exclusive enjoyment of 
 their privileges, the church, because she simply 
 acknowledges a legal fact, the supremacy of the 
 king, should not have the exclusive enjoyment 
 of her vineyard. The church does not interfere 
 with dissenters in the enjoyment of their rights 
 and endowments, does not covet a share in their 
 colleges, schools of learning or chapel patronage, 
 provided they do not interfere with the rights 
 and property of the Church, and then the Church 
 appeals against the dissenter as the dissenter 
 does against his brother dissenter to the law and 
 to the king. Why are the dissenters (those who 
 use such language,) if they are really convinced 
 that their principles are more pure, less mundane, 
 more elevated than ours — that purity, holiness, 
 and learning, are on their side, and vanity, 
 ambition, and ignorance on ours, not contented 
 with the calm and dignified consciousness of 
 
216 
 
 their own superiority ? But further, witli regard 
 to the authority of scripture, we think as revela- 
 tion does not assert that christian kings should 
 not have a supremacy in ecclesiastical causes, as 
 well as civil, and as " the blessed Apostle, St. 
 Peter " does assert generally without exceptions, 
 the authority of kings over their people, that 
 this supremacy may be fairly inferred. If scrip- 
 ture is silent, then reason and philosophy must 
 be our guides. The will of God may be learnt 
 in many things, and those very important things, 
 even where the scripture is silent. The scrip- 
 ture supposes that reason and natural religion 
 will teach us many important lessons without 
 the aid of revelation, or at least in subserviency 
 to it. If God has established Christianity, and de- 
 clares that it is for all nations^ is it unreasonable 
 or unscriptural for all nations, and every nation^ 
 (as well as all individuals) to accept and recog- 
 nize it ? If christian states, consulting the unity 
 and wellbeing of their members, knowing that 
 morality cannot be secured by laws, or enforced 
 by police, choose the christian religion as the 
 most intelligible and the best, and that religion 
 secures the bonds and alliances, which preserve 
 and bless society, then we contend that God by 
 these means declares, in the course of his provi- 
 dence, that the maintenance of the christian reli- 
 gion is according to his will, and that a moral 
 obligation ensues to kings and legislators, to 
 
2\7 
 
 defend and preserve it. All christians profess 
 to believe that the Church is providentially 
 not miraculously preserved in the world, and 
 can we suppose that the Church can be better 
 preserved in its external state, than by those 
 christian princes and christian laws, by which 
 God preserves society itself? When the pres- 
 byterians were in power, they called upon 
 the parliament to perform its religious duties. 
 Scripture then spoke as expressly for religion 
 established by law, as it does now against 
 it, and the parliament religiously legalized the 
 directory. When the independents acquired 
 a share in the political power of the state, 
 they also quoted scripture to the same effect, 
 acknowledged the protector as supreme, refer- 
 red to king David and king Solomon, and 
 called upon their godly governors to defend 
 and support their godly discipline, with that 
 power with which the Almighty had invested 
 them.* Of the bulls, legates, and commissioners 
 
 ♦ What would the dissenters think of a dean of Christ's Church 
 who should in the present day quote Ovid and Horace and talk 
 Latin in the following style ? " Et sane ad veternum nobis excu- 
 tiendum, nunquam post natum in orbe christianum nomen, donis, 
 quibus veritatis divinse cultores liberaliter instruxit pater Clemen- 
 tissimus, magis opus est. Quam enim, Deus bone ! detestanda 
 turma, quam foeda hoereticorum, fanaticorum, et enthusiastarum 
 coUuvies sponsara Christi sub ipsis sponsi sanctissimis oculis poene 
 rapit, stupiatque ? In earn scilicet puram, castam, undique turba 
 
218 
 
 of the pope, and of their religious use of the civil 
 power, it is unnecessary to speak, though we are 
 now told that his kingdom is not of this world. 
 It is not, however, supremacy of this sort of 
 which we speak, we do not commend a supre- 
 macy of caprice, but of law, defined within cer- 
 tain known bounds and limitations. However, 
 therefore, men may pretend that Churches must 
 be governed by spiritual means, that religious 
 decisions must be made as those at the council 
 of Jerusalem were made ( that is by persons di- 
 vinely inspired) that a christian man's liberty 
 is lost, if laws are passed for the government of 
 the Church ; to all these and the like assertions 
 (which imply no less than an apostolical and 
 plenary power) we reply that the advocates of 
 them do not themselves trust to them ; that 
 human laws, in all external regulations, whether 
 ecclesiastical or civil, will be necessary, so long 
 as men are liable to passions and interest, unless 
 God shall make a particular revelation to every 
 
 ruunt luxuriosa proci. Quin igitur. 
 
 Ut jugulent homines, surgunt de nocte latrones : 
 Ut teipsum serves, non expergisceris ? 
 
 Et quod ad cumulum addit, satis nequiter proventum est ? quo 
 enim quisque ab orani solida doctiina imparatior est, eo majori 
 cum supercilio, et confidentius de gravissimis quaestionibus judi- 
 cium sibi arrogat. Proveniunt oratores novi, stulti, adolescentuli, 
 qui nee eruditi sunt, nee se non esse erudites sentiunt." 
 
 Dr. Owen^s oration when Cromwellian Vice Chancellor 
 of Oxford, and Dean of Christ's Church. 
 
219 
 
 congregation, and every individual, on every 
 occasion, determine who is right and who is 
 WTong, and add to that revelation a power to 
 enforce it. Moreover, we affirm that since God 
 has made known to us that all men must live in 
 families and nations, and in their social relations 
 and christian communion, must live decent- 
 ly according to laMS, we are in conscience 
 bound to obey human laws, which do not oppose 
 the law of God, revealed to us in scripture. If 
 we live under a tyranny, we must take the conse- 
 quence and suffer persecution, till that tyranny 
 be removed, but if we enjoy a rational liberty, we 
 must endeavour to preserve it. By maintain- 
 ing in England the principle of law in Church 
 and state ; by sanctioning the constitution of the 
 christian religion, in its discipline and doctrines ; 
 doctrines which reveal the great principles of 
 moral truth, and discipline consecrated to its 
 administration, the best interests of all classes 
 have been consulted, the doctrines of Christianity 
 have been rescued from superstition, and disci- 
 pline freed from enthusiasm and tyranny, has 
 been executed with moderation and charity. 
 For these reasons, as well as in opposition to 
 foreign usurpation and domestic faction, our 
 motto is religion and law. 
 
 Q. If your opinions are so decided in favor of 
 one system, do you not condemn all who differ 
 from it ? 
 
220 
 
 A. In a certain sense all opposing sentiments, 
 especially on subjects of importance, must con- 
 demn each other, but this is no reason why the 
 investigation of truth should not lead to conclu- 
 sions, or why an honest man should not be guided 
 by his convictions. As for judging the motives 
 or eternal salvation of other men, that is not the 
 province and ought not to be the inclination of 
 any candid inquirer. Differences of opinion 
 respecting systems of faith do sometimes inter- 
 fere with the cordiality of private intercourse, 
 but this is a frailty and defect which never tends 
 to promote the cause of truth. The assertion 
 cannot be too often reiterated, that social and 
 christian virtues are not confined to sect, or par- 
 ty. We allow to the Roman Catholic all the 
 advantage he can desire from the bigoted quib- 
 ble that there is salvation out of our Church, 
 and not out of his. We allow to the dissenters, 
 that while we are persuaded that our doctrine 
 and discipline are scriptural, apostolical, highly 
 expedient, and need not seriously offend the con- 
 sciences of any, we have also another persuasion, 
 that the kingdom of heaven is open to all be- 
 lievers ; that no church can alter the terms of 
 repentance and faith, and that every man will be 
 judged by his conscientious and predominant love 
 of truth. Many things that are laudable, are not 
 absolutely necessary, and great defects and even 
 unsightly deformities in religion, may not destroy 
 
221 
 
 the Christianity of a church, or an individual. 
 Still human nature is what it always has been, 
 and these charitable convictions are not to shut 
 our eyes to the merits and demerits of various 
 schemes, which design or weakness may from 
 time to time suggest. One of these schemes 
 is the comprehension and intercommunity of 
 all religious persuasions in one fixed society. 
 Experience has shewn, that this imagination is 
 impracticable, and that many who praise it, have 
 no intention to apply it to themselves. Intercom- 
 munity, when not only opinions, but sentiments 
 and the strongest feelings and habits are opposed, 
 can only end (such is human nature) in mutual 
 hostility and triumphant persecution. Respect 
 for others, and respect for ourselves, without pre- 
 tending on our part or expecting of others, a 
 compromise of genuine sentiments, is the practi- 
 cal point at which all conscientious men must 
 aim, and at which they must rest. Within this 
 limit, differences may be reconciled, and causes 
 of division removed ; but if mistaken candour 
 attempt to step beyond this boundary, mutual 
 respect, justice, and charity, by which alone the 
 true spirit and wholesome practice of entire tole- 
 ration can be preserved, will infallibly be en- 
 dangered. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 " By thee 
 Founded in reason, loyal, just, and pure, 
 Relations dear, and all the charities 
 Of father, son, and brother, first were known. 
 Far be it, that I should write thee sin or blame, 
 Or think thee unbefitting hoUest place." 
 
 Q. What is the doctrine of the Church of 
 Rome respecting marriage ? 
 
 A. The Tridentine fathers have determined 
 the points relating to marriage with great pre- 
 cision. With respect to the contract itself they 
 declare, that it is the mamage union, within 
 lawful degrees, of man and woman, which binds 
 them to live in constant unity and love. To this 
 contract are required, the inward consent of both 
 parties, outward agreement expressed, the obli- 
 gation and bond which is effected by that agree- 
 ment, and the consummation of wedlock. They 
 enact, that marriage is of two kinds, natural and 
 sacramental ; that natural marriage is not an iu- 
 vention of men, but coeval with our nature, and 
 
223 
 
 instituted of God immediately after the creation 
 of Eve, when he said, " Be fruitful and multiply, 
 and replenish the earth," and again, " Therefore 
 shall a man leave his father and his mother, and 
 shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one 
 flesh." They further teach, that this divine insti- 
 tution was recognized by Christ, and declared by 
 him to be indissoluble, though the indissoluble 
 nature of marriage is to be chiefly referred to its 
 sacramental character, in which view marriage 
 is of greater excellence, and to be referred to 
 nobler ends. For as natural marriage favors the 
 propagation of the human race, and educates 
 children as servants of their Creator, so sacra- 
 mental marriage raises up true worshippers of 
 our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and extends 
 the true religion. The religious sentiment of 
 this statement we respect, whilst we object to its 
 main position. 
 
 Q. What are declared to be the matter, form, 
 institution and effects of sacramental marriage ? 
 
 A. The matter assigned by the Roman doctors, 
 is the inward assent of both parties, and the form 
 consists in the words or signs by which it is ex- 
 pressed. The institution, as a sacrament, is as- 
 serted to be in the words of St. Paul (Ep. v. 23.) 
 where according to the Latin version, he says, 
 " This is a great sacrament." Marriage, there- 
 fore, though as a mutual contract it rests upon 
 the law of nature, yet, as it is a great sacrament. 
 
224 
 
 contains an inherent divine virtue, which sancti- 
 fies the lawful union of man and woman ; gives 
 grace to the married pair, to perform the duties 
 and support the trials of this estate in a christian 
 manner, and renders the union indissoluble. All 
 who are not married by their own pastor, are 
 declared to live in disobedience to the Church, 
 and in a continual state of sin. 
 
 Q. Does the scripture quoted, or do these fic- 
 tions of the Romish doctors prove marriage to 
 be a sacrament ? 
 
 A. The translation of the vulgate is " This is 
 a great sacrament," but if we turn to the original 
 we find the text to be as we translate it, " This 
 is a great mystery." A sacrament is a mystery, 
 but in this case, as in numberless others, terms 
 are not convertible. The interpretation, there- 
 fore, is not legitimate, and moreover, the con- 
 text shews it to be unfounded. The apostle is 
 merely employing a mystical argument or illus- 
 tration, to confirm the duties of husbands and 
 wives, and to explain the union and communion 
 of Christ and the Church. When speaking of 
 the christian Church, the apostle shews that it is 
 one body, the mosaic law being abolished, and 
 Jews and Christians being one in Christ. This 
 Church is Christ's spouse, and just as Christ 
 loves the Church, and the Church is obedient 
 to Christ, so the husband is to love the wife, and 
 the wife to reverence the husband. Just as a 
 
225 
 
 man, who should have more than one wife, would 
 not live in lawful marriage, so there would be an 
 unchaste impropriety in calling the Church the 
 spouse of Christ, if all the members of it, Jews 
 and Gentiles, did not constitute one body. Here 
 is a double argument for unity and love, both in 
 the Church, and between husband and wives, but 
 both the text and context shew that there can be 
 no institution of a sacrament. Besides it is a 
 curious thing to make thoughts the matter, and 
 words the form of a sacrament ; for according to 
 such a definition, every contract or promise might 
 be called a sacrament. Such a definition also is 
 absurd, and calculated to encourage scruple and 
 fraud. Parties often marry against their inward 
 intention and desire, and according to this sacra- 
 mental doctrine, if the inward consent of either 
 party fail, the marriage may be null and void, 
 and all persons who are in that situation, may 
 ever live in uncertainty about the lawfulness of 
 their marriage. Lewd and vicious men too, may 
 entangle others, and yet, by secret reservation 
 of giving their consent, may keep themselves free, 
 and where the fallacious doctrines of intention 
 and reservation prevail, as it is to be feared they 
 often do, a door is open to every species of perfidy 
 and treachery. 
 
 Q. Does not Jesus Christ declare marriage to be 
 indissoluble, and is it not therefore, a sacrament ? 
 
 A. Jesus Christ instructs us to consider mar- 
 Q 
 
226 
 
 riage both as a natural and divine institution ; that 
 the human race began by a pair, and that they 
 were made by God's ordinance man and wife ; 
 that divorce was sinful, and contrary to the will 
 of God, who had ordained this union of one man 
 and woman in constant wedlock. "What God hath 
 joined together let no man put asunder." At 
 the same time, however, that our Lord condemn- 
 ed polygamy and extrajudicial divorce, he ex- 
 pressly declared, that fornication (a general term 
 for unchastity) did dissolve the marriage con- 
 tract, and that a man was justified in this case, 
 (as indeed reason and experience testify) in put- 
 ting away his wife. The exception, therefore, 
 which Christ expressly makes to the indissolubi- 
 lity of marriage, is a proof that it is not a sacra- 
 ment however convenient it may be to popish 
 policy to make it such. 
 
 Q. Does the Roman Catholic Church forbid 
 marriage, and recommend the disuse of it, decla- 
 ring celibacy and virginity to be higher states of 
 perfection than the holy estate of matrimony ? 
 
 A. The Romanists teach, that though at the 
 beginning God commanded marriage, yet now, 
 that the world is peopled, the command is not 
 binding on all. On the contrary, they say, that 
 both Christ and St. Paul recommended celibacy 
 and virginity as a higher state of perfection. 
 Celibacy is recommended to all, as a high attain- 
 ment, but to the priests it is absolutely enjoined. 
 
227 
 
 Marriage in their case is the greatest sin. Virgins 
 too are taught to believe that they live in a more 
 holy state, and that, while married women cannot 
 be saved without a purification in purgatory, a 
 virgin and a nun will, after death, pass immedi- 
 ately into paradise. 
 
 Q. Are these interdictions and injunctions con- 
 trary to scriptvu'e ? 
 
 A. Yes, there is no command in scripture to 
 forbid the marriage of any whether clergy or 
 laity, men or women. In the New Testament 
 marriage is declared to be honorable in all, and 
 the younger women are advised to marry ; and 
 though under certain circumstances, (as those 
 under which the Christians were placed to whom 
 St. Paul wrote) marriage may be imprudence, 
 yet the Apostle no where forbids marriage. On 
 the contrary he teaches us to regard such prohi- 
 bitions and the practices that have accompanied 
 them, as the decided marks and proofs of the 
 heretical apostacy of the visible Church. 
 
 Q. Where does St. Paul teach us to consider 
 these practices in that light *? 
 
 A. Particularly in the I Tim. iv. 1, 2. "Now 
 the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter 
 times some shall depart from the faith, giving 
 heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, 
 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their con- 
 science seared with a hot iron, forbidding to 
 marry and commanding to abstain from meats." 
 
 Q 2 
 
2^8 
 
 Here the Apostle tells us that the spirit speaks 
 not obscurely but expressly, the truth word for 
 word. The prophesy is remarkable, and so is 
 the fulfilment. The apostacy here spoken of 
 is under the visible Church, and it consisted in 
 giving heed to eroneous doctrines particularly the 
 doctrines of demons or soul- worship, which was the 
 popular religion of the gentiles, and which St. Paul 
 frequently condemns. Two kinds of demons were 
 worshipped by the gentiles, those who never dwelt 
 in bodies answering to angels, and those had lived 
 on earth or canonized mortals. These spirits were 
 supposed to be the intercessors and agents be- 
 tween gods and men, and to carry, from earth to 
 heaven, and from heaven to earth, prayers, sup- 
 plications, rewaros, and gifts. They were wor- 
 shipped in images, relicks, and shrines, for the 
 temples of the heathen were the sepulchers of 
 dead men, in which they were worshipped as 
 present. This idolatrous theology of demons or 
 soul-worship has been for many centuries prac- 
 tised in the Roman Church in the worshipping 
 of saints, angels, and the Virgin Mary ; in 
 acknowledging them as mediators and interces- 
 sors, in addressing prayers to them and bowing 
 down to their images ; and in worshipping other 
 objects such as the host, crosses, relicks, and 
 shrines. This species of idolatry is not only in- 
 consistent with the simplicity and purity of the 
 christian religion, and opens the door to gross 
 
229 
 
 superstition but, above all other errors and acci- 
 dental heresies, determines the manifest charac- 
 teristics of the <^reat apostacy which the spirit 
 by St. Paul foretold. This is still more evident 
 if we consider the manner and persons by whom 
 it has been introduced and supported, viz. by 
 those who forbad marriage and commanded to 
 abstain from meats. It was monkery with its 
 vows, and trade in images, relicks and lying mi- 
 racles that introduced and propagated the gentile 
 idolatry under christian forms and sanctions. And 
 though both charity and the language of St. Paul 
 induce us to consider the apostacy heretical and 
 not total, yet the forbidding to marry, and the 
 interdicting the use of meats and regular food, as 
 maintained by the Church of Rome in all the 
 monastic professions, (of which these are the 
 essential characteristics,) as well as with respect 
 to all the regular and secular clergy, nuns and 
 consecrated virgins, are plain and decided 
 marks of the departure of that Church from the 
 simplicity and purity of the christian faith and 
 worship. 
 
 Q. Has not experience proved that the ex- 
 treme doctrines of the Church of Rome, are 
 detrimental to morals and public virtue ? 
 
 A. Common sense would iead us to expect 
 mischievous results. The sacramental doctrine, 
 the dependance of marriage on intention and its 
 indissolubility, connected with the forced celibacy 
 
 Q 3 
 
230 
 
 of the clergy and monastic orders, have propaga- 
 ted adultery in Roman Catholic countries. The 
 indissolubility of marriage is so evidently a 
 policy in favor of those who have no wives, and 
 who have every advantage for making use of 
 those of other men, that we cannot be surprised 
 to find, that adultery is prevalent in Roman 
 Catholic countries, and especially in the holy 
 city itself. Such laws are so evidently opposed 
 to nature and reason, that it is no wonder they 
 should be worse than vain. The appearance of 
 hardship provokes resistance, and sin taking 
 occasion by the commandment becomes exceed- 
 ing sinful. The statutes and canons in force 
 prior to the reformation, and the lawful marriage 
 of the clergy, clearly shew that concubinage 
 was connived at. It was provided that priests 
 should not keep their concubines puhllcly in their 
 houses, nor elsewhere with scandal^ nor bequeath 
 property to them ; that none should let houses 
 to priests that kept concubines, and that a severer 
 punishment should be inflicted for the sin of 
 marriao;e than concubinasre. Laws are not made 
 for righteous men, but for the lawless and disobe- 
 dient, and if we consider that great facilities 
 existed, by monastic institutions, for vicious in- 
 dulgences, we must conclude that the whole 
 system of the Church of Rome, w ith respect to 
 marriages, contravenes morality, as it does na- 
 ture, reason, and scripture. While we condemn 
 
231 
 
 a system which has often rendered marriages in 
 christian countries what they were in Rome in 
 the time of Tacitus and Suetonius, a "concubitus 
 promiscuus," we must be far from judging in- 
 dividuals in the Roman CathoKc priesthood, 
 amongst whom there have been and are chari- 
 table men, confidential friends, and excellent 
 christians. 
 
 Q. Have some countries gone into a contrary 
 extreme, and declared marriage to be a civil con- 
 tract without any reference to religion *? 
 
 A. When the errors and abuses of the papacy 
 were exposed, those evils which arose out of the 
 doctrine of the Church respecting marriage, its 
 indissolubility to the laity and its interdiction 
 to the clergy, attracted particular attention. To 
 avoid these evils some had recourse to the 
 remedy of declaring marriage a civil contract 
 and nothing more. Abstracted from the decla- 
 ration of the Jewish and Christian scriptures, 
 and indeed from the sacramental doctrine of the 
 Church of Rome, marriage may be regarded as 
 a civil contract, which undoubtedly it is. In 
 many countries where marriage could only be 
 solemnized as a sacrament, the enacting it to be 
 a civil contract was a manifest relief. It may, 
 however be questioned whether this extreme has 
 not been detrimental to morals. In France the 
 system has been adopted, but it does not appear 
 to have contributed to a very high degree of 
 
232 
 
 morality or social happiness in that country. 
 Some public documents * would lead us to con- 
 clude that when matrimonial en2:aa:ements are 
 guaranteed only by civil acts, little regard is paid 
 to the confirmation of the contract, or the faith- 
 ful observation of it when contracted. In Paris, 
 (if we take into the account intrigue and adultery) 
 promiscuous intercouse must be dreadfully pre- 
 valent. In such habits adultery must be a venial 
 gallantry, which husbands and wives may or must 
 overlook. The French, who are alive to the 
 sense of honour, and are great duellists, seldom 
 retaliate a wrong of this sort, but pass it over 
 
 * Mouvement de la population de la ville de Paris, pendant 
 I'annee 1831, fourni par la Prefecture du Departement. 
 
 en mariage 
 
 S gar9ons9430 
 I filles 9055 
 
 7 
 
 18485 
 
 hors mariage 
 
 C gar^ons 2554 
 1 filles 2400 
 
 ; 
 
 ' 
 
 4954 
 
 en mariage 
 
 \ gardens 320 
 I filles 347 
 
 \ 
 
 667 
 
 hors mariage 
 
 ( gar9ons2812 
 I filles 2612 
 
 
 5424 
 
 Total 29530 
 
 Total hors mariage 10378 
 
 Legitimations d'enfans naturel posterieure- 1 i OQQ 
 meat a leur naissance / 
 
 Total 11477 
 
 It must be remembered, that this is not a criterion of fornication 
 in Stews but of promiscuous concubinage in the place of mar- 
 riao'e, and also that infanticide and other crimes and vices not to 
 be named are extremely common. 
 
233 
 
 with the greatest composure, a tact which might 
 be illustrated by many well known stories. The 
 absence of religious sanctions, at least such as 
 are reasonable and practicable, and the substitu- 
 tion of those which are unreasonable and imprac- 
 ticable, seem to conduct to the same immoral 
 results. Under such a system of morality, where 
 the legitimacy of children born in wedlock must 
 be extremely doubtful, we cannot be surprised to 
 find, a corresponding disregard of the law of suc- 
 cession, hereditary rights and the reciprocal 
 duties of parents and children ; that the disre- 
 spect of the young to their superiors should be 
 notorious, and that the law should find it neces- 
 sary to protect children from the partiality and 
 jealousy of their parents. It must be confessed 
 that a certain description of fornication and con- 
 cubinage has increased in England, but this must 
 be ascribed to a mischievous law which contra- 
 venes, as applied, all reason and decency. Adul- 
 tery, however, is extremely rare among the 
 peasantry, and when once marriage is contracted, 
 or as it is usually expressed, the parties "go to 
 Church," fidelity is the consequence, and that in 
 cases where it could be scarcely expected. A 
 fair comparison of domestic virtue in England 
 and France, would lead us to conclude that reli- 
 gion gives the greatest firmness to morals, and 
 that without it, other defences to virtue, are 
 weak and untenable. Where the law proclaims 
 
234 
 
 marriage to be a civil contract, and provides no 
 religious sanctions or solemnization, the inference 
 with vulgar minds is direct and certain, that the 
 agreement of the sexes alone is sufficient to con- 
 stitute a legitimate union. 
 
 Q. In what light has marriage been considered 
 by theologians, moralists, and statesmen in Eng- 
 land ? 
 
 A. It has been considered, that marriage, 
 though not a sacrament, is in part a religious and 
 in part a civil contract. Our civil law considers 
 (and perhaps can consider) marriage in no other 
 light than a civil contract, and the law regarding 
 marriage as it does all other contracts, must treat 
 unlawful marriage and breaches of marriage, not 
 as sins, but civil inconveniences. The law, how- 
 ever, considers no marriage as lawful, even 
 where the parties are willing and able to contract, 
 and actually do contract, unless it be confirmed 
 by the religious vows and solemn forms which 
 the law prescribes. Our legislators and states- 
 men seem to have been aware, that this is one of 
 those things in which " you cannot dishonour the 
 sanctity of religion, without disordering the har- 
 mony of civil life" for this is precisely one of 
 those cases in which religion is, not only the orna- 
 ment, but the support of civil society. The law 
 of the land, therefore, has sanctioned the reli- 
 gious solemnization of matrimony ; and the due 
 publication of marriage, the religious and deco- 
 
235 
 
 rous espousals, and the solemnization before 
 God and the Church, have contributed to pre- 
 serve the domestic virtue and confidential inter- 
 course, which characterize the people of England. 
 We should suppose, that this is a system, against 
 which few plaintiffs, on mature deliberation, could 
 be found. Ceremonies are of great consequence 
 and legislators and governors, and honest peo- 
 ple too, ought to be well aware what rites and 
 ceremonies, employed in the solemnization of 
 marriage, receive the legislative authority. If it 
 should be allowed for any number of individuals 
 to form immoral associations, and the solemniza- 
 tion of marriage become one of the social acts 
 which licentious and ignorant men may attempt 
 to regulate ; if for instance a St. Simonian sect, 
 should open the door to anew species of political 
 fanaticism, which may at the same time let loose 
 the most violent passions, we have not even a 
 correctional police to restrain them. In fact, it 
 is absurd to suppose, that the system of registra- 
 tion, which prevails from necessity in France, 
 could be applied to the habits of English society, 
 without the greatest offence to the feelings of the 
 people, as well as hazard to their morals. Licen- 
 tious rites and ceremonies would more than any 
 other instruments of mischief, undermine and 
 sweep away those mounds and sluices, which our 
 fathers have erected against the tide of lawless, 
 immoral, and indecent practices. 
 
236 
 
 Q. Did Moses provide a religious ceremony 
 for marriages among" the Jews ? 
 
 A. Moses did not provide any religious ritual 
 or ceremonies for the celebration of marriage, 
 and this circumstance is certainly worthy of ob- 
 servation. We are not, however, hastily to infer 
 that he was indifferent to it, either as a legislator 
 or a moralist. It may be worth while to examine 
 this point. Moses certainly did not institute any 
 formality of a religious nature for the celebration 
 of marriage, and it is probable, that the priest or 
 minister of religion was not particularly concerned 
 in the consecration of the marriage. It is also 
 true, that in all civilized societies there must be 
 some fixed form by which marriage is authorized, 
 and by which it may be precisely distinguished 
 from concubinage. The difficulty is, therefore, 
 that Moses did not provide any religious or any 
 civil form of celebration. How is this omission 
 to be accounted for *? If Moses had instituted 
 any form of celebration of marriage, we must 
 infer from the analogy of his whole system, that 
 it would have been a religious one. He was not 
 indifferent to the importance of marriage, as the 
 keystone of every social system ; he guarded 
 chastity in women, before marriage, during their 
 espousals, and after marriage, by the strictest 
 laws, severe guarantees, and the most solemn 
 religious sanctions which were accompanied with 
 religious ceremonies, and oaths administered by 
 
237 
 
 the priests in the temple. Moses, therefore, did 
 not consider marriage merely a civil contract, 
 but one that was to be recognized by appeals 
 (the most solemn of any to be found in his system) 
 to conscience and to heaven. Why then did he 
 omit the consecration of religion (applied to so 
 many affairs of infinitely less moment and applied 
 in other respects to marriage itself) in the so- 
 lemnization of marriage ? There appears to be 
 only one reasonable explanation for this omission, 
 and a clue to it we have in the reason, which our 
 Lord has assigned, for Moses' connivance at poly- 
 gamy and divorce. He says it was because of the 
 hardness of their hearts. The Jews certainly disco- 
 vered, under his government, attested as it was, 
 a rebellious spirit, and we may well suppose that, 
 as polygamy and divorce were common in all the 
 world at that time, and as the Jews who came 
 out of Egypt lived in the practice of them to a 
 very great extent, (as is evident from the census 
 of the people, and the number of the first-born) 
 it would have been a moral impossibility to have 
 annihilated those practices. As a moralist, how- 
 ever, and as the inspired historian of the creation, 
 he must have known, that those practices were 
 contrary to the divine institution of marriage. 
 As a civil magistrate, and as a philanthropist, he 
 was obliged (as many governors are) to tolerate 
 evils which he could not remove without convul- 
 sion and inhumanity. As a moralist, and a 
 
238 
 
 divine lawgiver, he could not, and he did not, 
 apply the sanctions of religion to the solemniza- 
 tion of marriage, because those sanctions would 
 have authorised and perpetuated what was only 
 from necessity permitted — would have given the 
 highest moral sanction to immoral contracts, and 
 dissolutions of contracts. There were consuetudi- 
 nary ceremonies for the celebration of marriage, 
 which Moses left in force. It is probable also, 
 from the distinctions drawn between wives and 
 concubines, that in lawful marriage there was a 
 known solemnity. We may fairly suppose that 
 religion was introduced, by the father of the fam- 
 ily in some partriarchal form, and that these 
 customs were on the side of virtue and morality. 
 Those cases in which the morality was clear, as 
 seduction and the proofs of chastity, he did autho- 
 rize and regulate. Where vice was to be tried 
 and convicted, he appointed oaths and religious 
 formularies, but where under a system of divorce 
 and polygamy, he could not have enacted oaths 
 and religious sanctions for the marriage of one 
 wife, which was a moral act, without at the 
 same sanctionino* the marriao;e of more than one 
 wife, which w'as an immoral act and contrary to 
 the design of the Creator, he applied no religious 
 ritual of the altar, but provided by other indirect 
 laws to secure, as much as possible, the virtue of 
 society, and to restrain those customs and habits 
 which endangered both virtue and happiness. 
 
239 
 
 The Mosaic system, therefore, when thoroughly 
 examined, comes out as peculiar, but each pecu- 
 liarity shews the divine legation of TVloses. This 
 omission is a strong argument against polygamy 
 and divorce, from which the highest moral sanc- 
 tions were withheld, and vindicates the morality 
 ot the character and system of Moses. It not 
 only leaves the general arguments, which have 
 prevailed with wise and good men, for the appli- 
 cation of the most solemn sanctions to marriage, 
 unimpaired, but we think also further confirmed 
 by the strongest facts and implications. 
 
 Q. Did Jesus Christ provide any religious 
 ritual for marriage ? 
 
 A. It was not to be expected that he would 
 provide a religious ritual for marriage or any 
 other service. Moses was a civil lea;islator and 
 magistrate for one nation, and therefore, it was 
 to have been expected that he would have ap- 
 plied the sanctions of religion (which he applied 
 to less important contracts) to the consummation 
 of the most important of all civil contracts. He 
 approached this point of legislation, by a great 
 variety of laws, but we have seen why he stopped 
 short, and did not apply a precise religious sanc- 
 tion to this contract, in a state of society, where 
 polygamy prevailed. Jesus Christ did not ap- 
 pear as the civil lawgiver or king of the Jews, 
 but as the Saviour, Prophet and Moralist of all 
 nations. In this last character Christ prescribed 
 
240 
 
 a moral law, and not a civil contract, but a 
 moral law that was to effect the greatest change 
 in that contract. Christ did that as a moralist, 
 which Moses as a civil magistrate, and which 
 (speaking after the manner of men) Christ him- 
 self as a civil legislator could not have done. 
 Had Christ enacted laws in detail for the polity 
 of the christian Church, they never could have 
 been carried into effect over heathen nations^ 
 without a miraculous conquest of the world. 
 Moses was opposed by the obduracy of one nation 
 that generally acknowledged his divine mission, 
 but Christianity was to be spread over the world by 
 the servants of Christ, and what the moral state of 
 the world was, under the Roman emperors, is well 
 known. Christianity for its morality and ministry 
 was persecuted with a vengeance that is unparal- 
 leled in the history of mankind ; and what must 
 have been the consequence if Christ had made 
 positive laws, for instance, edicts for the celebra- 
 tion of marriage and the suppression of polygamy 
 and divorce ? If the virtuous Pliny or the generous 
 Trajan had discovered such edicts, what must 
 have been the consequence ? What must have 
 been the fate of such positive laws in a state of 
 society, where marriage was neglected to such a 
 decree that there was an aversion to the female 
 sex, and where infamous vices (which always 
 prevail in proportion as marriage is lightly 
 regarded ) demoralized the people to the lowest 
 
241 
 
 degree, and depopulated the country ? The 
 Apostles were perfectly aware of the state of 
 morals among the heathen, and especially among 
 the enlightened Romans under the emperors. 
 St. Paul has given, in his first chapter of his 
 epistle to the Romans, a masterly description 
 (restrained as it was by a sense of delicacy ) of 
 the infamous vices that prevailed. He has also 
 given us an account, in his first epistle to the 
 Corinthians, of the discreet and decided manner 
 in which the Christian marriage law was enforced 
 on Christians, and on Christians only. In the 
 case of the incestuous marriage in the church of 
 Corinth there were two parties, the man a chris- 
 tian and the woman a heathen. In the case of 
 adultery, Moses applied the law of purgation 
 which Michael is justly considers one of the strong- 
 est proofs of his divine legation, and in the case 
 of the incestuous marriage, St. Paul, by an ap- 
 peal, in the name of Christ, to a special Provi- 
 dence (the strongest proof of the divine mission 
 of Christ) applied a similar discipline to the 
 Corinthian fornication, but of the heathen woman 
 he expressly says, " What have I to do to judge 
 them that are without !<?" Christ, therefore, and 
 his apostles applied the principles of the christian 
 morality to Christians and not to the heathen. 
 Moses was a civil le»:islator and inao:istrate, and 
 therefore did not enact an impracticable law, 
 but Christ and his Apostles confining christian 
 
 R 
 
242 
 
 morality to christians and enforcing marriage not 
 as a civil but as a religious cojit7'act, were ena- 
 bled to uphold the true principles of morality in 
 the midst of the greatest vices. It is religion, 
 therefore, and the christian religion alone that is 
 the support of christian marriage. It is the chris- 
 tian religion that ameliorates men's hearts and 
 renders christian laws practicable. The wonder is, 
 that Christianity by the force of its morals, effect- 
 ed the regeneration, which it did effect in this par- 
 ticular, among the christian converts at the first, 
 and on the conversion of the empire, among 
 whole nations. The force of christian morals 
 effected in whole nations the law of monogamy, 
 without the permission of extrajudicial divorce, 
 in defiance of the strongest passions and the most 
 vicious habits and practices of mankind. Christ, 
 therefore, did not enact a civil contract, but revi- 
 ved the moral law that has effected, what neither 
 heathen legislators nor Moses himself could 
 effect, the recognition of a pure moral principle 
 by civil law, or the civil contract of marriage on 
 divine and christian principles. It is, therefore, 
 both absurd and ungenerous, to speak of christian 
 marriage as a mere civil contract. Polygamy 
 and extrajudicial divorce, or what is almost the 
 same thing, promiscuous concubinage, never were 
 and never will be restrained without the sanc- 
 tions of Christianity. One husband and one wife 
 is the peculiarity of Christian countries, and it is 
 
243 
 
 an excellency and blessing which we owe not to 
 the wisdom of legislators and civilians, (who are 
 too much disposed to lean to the hardness of 
 men's hearts) but to the influence of the christian 
 religion. If that influence be scouted, and a 
 change be effected in the sentiments and feelings 
 of the community, we must expect a hardness 
 of heart, and a corruption of practice, (not con- 
 fined to the higher orders) that will defy legisla- 
 tors and civilians, though they were as wise as 
 Moses. Let us hope, however, that truth and 
 reflection will have their due weight, and that 
 no such change will be predestinated in the mo- 
 ral feelings of our country, a change which every 
 honest man and virtuous woman must sincerely 
 deprecate. The law of the creation, the morali- 
 ty of the gospel, and the law of the land are now 
 in perfect harmony. Whatever errors there may 
 be in men's opinions or practices, the religious 
 celebration of marriage, as a vow and covenant 
 before God and the christian church, does not 
 imply the application of solemn sanctions to im- 
 moral principles. On the contrary, religious 
 solemnization prevents error, negligence and 
 clandestine marriage, and strengthens conscience 
 and principle in the contracting parties.* When 
 
 * Though we differ with Roman Catholics, respecting their 
 doctrines and regulations on this subject, we agree with them in 
 their religious sentiment, that marriage ought to be a contract of 
 the altar. This is, in fact, not merely the sentiment of Christianity, 
 
 r2 
 
S44 
 
 the civil contract has been tried, it has tended to 
 demoralize, as in France where the christian 
 Church is degraded, and during the usurpation 
 in England, when marriages were allowed to be 
 contracted before a justice of the peace, for no 
 other reason (as Dr. Paley observes) but to de- 
 grade the clergy. Whatever was the motive 
 immorality was the consequence — an immorality, 
 which nothing but the virtuous principles inculca- 
 ted by the clergy (commonly called the moral or 
 latitudinarian writers) under God, restrained. 
 There is nothing more liable to absurdity and 
 abuse than religious ceremonies applied to mar- 
 riage. It is evident, that the greatest mischiefs 
 must arise from abstract legislation applied to 
 tenets, opinions, ceremonies, and ministrations 
 unknown. As laws cannot quadrate with the 
 wishes or interests of all, reasonable and well dis- 
 
 but of all men when they express their best and strongest feelings. 
 
 Dum queror, et divos, quanquam nil testibus illis 
 Profeci, extrema moriens tamen alloquor hora. 
 
 The vow and covenant in Christian marriage is, however, 
 a peculiar protection to females, as might be illustrated in a great 
 number of examples. When a man treats his wife with injury, 
 he is commonly reminded of his vow to protect. At the last 
 county assizes for Norfolk, there was a case of this kind, and the 
 learned judge in endeavouring to convince the criminal of his sin, 
 expressed a sentiment which was in accordance with the feelings 
 of every christian present ; "The object upon whom your malicious 
 and abominable design was intended, was her whom you had led 
 to the altar of God and there vowed to protect and support." 
 
245 
 
 posed christians, will, on reflection, be content 
 with those consuetudinary practices, which have 
 obtained a wholesome controul over the senti- 
 ments and feelings of a christian country. There 
 may be theoretical difficulties, and practical in- 
 conveniences, but they will yield to great and 
 common advantages. This is certainly one of 
 the most delicate subjects of human policy, and 
 that on which, it is the fundamental duty of the 
 legislature to legislate only for the morals of the 
 country. Gratitude and truth demand the ac- 
 knowledgment that christian marriage is partly 
 a religious and partly a civil contract, and that 
 Christianity has made the contract what it now is. 
 Sound policy must avow, that the best means of 
 preserving christian marriage, as it now exists, 
 is by the application of religious sanctions, and 
 that when religion and law combine to conse- 
 crate that contract, which is the fountain head of 
 the relations of life, marriage is most likely to be 
 both morally and legally observed, as it has 
 generally been in this country to the happiness 
 and honour of the community. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
 Lynn ; Printed by J. W. Aikin, High Stre«t.