ART. the other points that relate to it. They think that though XXV. marriage, as it is a mutual contract, fubfifts upon the law of nature, yet a divine virtue is put in it by the Gospel, expreffed in these words, This is a great Myftery, or Sacrament; fo the explaining these words determines this controverfy. The chief point in difpute at that time was, whether the Gentiles were to be received to equal priviJeges with the Jews, in the difpenfation of the Meffias. The Jews do not to this day deny, but that the Gentiles may be admitted to it; but ftill they think that they are to be confidered as a diftinct body, and in a lower order, the chief dignity being to be referved to the feed of Abraham. Now St. Paul had in that Epiftle, as well as in his other Epiftles, afferted, that all were equal in Chrift; that he had taken away the middle wall of partition; that he had abolished the ground of the enmity, which was Eph. ii. 15. the Mofaical Law, called the Law of Commandments con16, 20, 21. tained in ordinances; that he might make both Jew and Gentile one new man; one entire body of a Church; he being the chief corner-ftone, in whom the whole building was fitly framed together and fo became a holy habitation to God. Thus he made ufe of the figure of a body, and of a temple to illuftrate this matter; and to fhew how all Chriftians were to make up but one body, and one Church. So when he came to fpeak of the rules belonging to the feveral states of human life, he takes occafion to explain the duties of the married ftate, by comparing that to the relation that the Church has to Chrift: and when he had faid that the married couple make but one body and one flesh; which declares that, according to the first inftitution, every man was to have but one wife; he adds upon that, this is a great Myftery: that is, from hence another myftical argument might be brought, to fhew that Jew and Gentile muft make one body; for fince the Church was the spouse of Chrift, he muft, according to that figure, have but one wife; and by confequence the Church muft be one otherwife the figure will not be answered; unlefs we fuppofe Chrift to be in a state answering a polygamy, rather than a fingle marriage. Thus a clear account of these words is given, which does fully agree to them, and to what follows, but I speak concerning Chrift and the Church. This, which is all the foundation of making marriage a Sacrament, being thus cleared, there remains nothing to be faid on this head, but to examine one confequence, that has been drawn from the making it a Sacrament, which is, that the bond is indiffoluble; and that even adultery XXV. Matth. xix. 9. 18. adultery does not void it. The law of nature or of nations ART. feems very clear, that adultery, at least on the wife's part, should diffolve it: for the end of marriage being the afcertaining of the iffue, and the contract itfelf being a mutual transferring the right to one another's perfon, in order to that end; the breaking this contract and deftroying the end of marriage does very naturally infer the diffolution of the bond: and in this both the Attic and Roman laws were so severe, that a man was infamous who did not divorce upon adultery. Our Saviour, when he blamed the Jews for their frequent divorces, established this rule, that whofoever puts away his wife, except it be Matth. v. for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery. 32. Which feems to be a plain and full determination, that in the cafe of fornication, he may put her away and marry another. It is true, St. Mark and St. Luke repeat these Mark 1.11. words, without mentioning this exception; fo fome have Luke xvi. thought that we ought to bring St. Matthew to them, and not them to St. Matthew. But it is an universal rule of expounding Scriptures, that when a place is fully fet down by one infpired writer, and less fully by another, that the place which is lefs full is always to be expounded by that which is more full. So though St. Mark and St. Luke report our Saviour's words generally, without the exception, which is twice mentioned by St. Matthew, the other two are to be understood to fuppofe it; for a general propofition is true when it holds generally; and exceptions may be understood to belong to it, though they are not named. The Evangelift that does name them must be confidered to have reported the matter more particularly, than the others that do it not. Since then our Saviour has made the exception, and fince that exception is founded upon a natural equity, that the innocent party has against the guilty, there can be no reafon why an exception fo justly grounded, and fo clearly made, should not take place. Marcion. C. 34. Both Tertullian, Bafil, Chryfoftom, and Epiphanius, Tertull. lib. allow of a divorce in cafe of adultery; and in thofe days iv. cont. they had no other notion of a divorce, but that it was the diffolution of the bond; the late notion of a feparation, Bafil.Ep.ad the tie continuing, not being known till the Canonifts Amphil. brought it in. Such a divorce was allowed by the Coun-c: 9: cil of Elliberis. The Council of Arles did indeed recom-hom. 17. mend it to the husband, whose wife was guilty of adultery, in Matth. not to marry; which did plainly acknowledge that he Eph. Hæmight do it. It was, and ftill is the conftant practice of Cath.Cone. the Greek Church; and as both Pope Gregory and Pope Ellib. c. 65. cc 3 Zachary Ci..yfof. ref. 59. Conc. Arel. C. 10. ART. Zachary allowed the innocent perfon to marry, fo in a SyXXV. nod held at Rome in the tenth century, it was still allowed. When the Greeks were reconciled to the Latins in the Council of Florence, this matter was paffed over, and the care of it was only recommended by the Pope to the Emperor. It is true, Eugenius put it in his inftruction to the Armenians; but though that paffes generally for a part of the Council of Florence, yet the Council was over and up before that was given out. Conc. C. 102. Caufa 32. 9.7. c. 9. Cathar. in 1 Ep. ad This doctrine of the indiffolubleness of marriage, even for adultery, was never fettled in any Council before that of Trent. The Canonifts and Schoolmen had indeed geneCajetan. in rally gone into that opinion; but not only Erafmus, but Matth. xix. both Cajetan and Catherinus declared themselves for the lawfulness of it: Cajetan indeed ufed a falvo, in cate the Church had otherwife defined, which did not then appear Cor. vii. 1.5. to him. So that this is a doctrine very lately fettled in the Church of Rome. Our Reformers here had prepared a title in the new body of the Canon Law, which they had digested, allowing marriage to the innocent party; and upon a great occafion then in debate, they declared it to be lawful by the law of God: and if the opinion, that marriage is a Sacrament, falls, tl.e conceit of the abfolute indiffolubleness of marriage will fall with it. Annot. Mark vi. 13. The laft Sacrament which is rejected by this Article, that is, the fifth, as they are reckoned up in the Church of Rome, is Extreme Unction. In the commiffion that Chrift gave his Apoftles, among the other powers that were given them to confirm it, one was to cure diseases and heal the fick; pursuant to which St. Mark tells, that they anointed with oil many that were fick, and healed them. The Prophets used fome fymbolical actions when they wrought miracles; fo Mofes ufed his rod often; Elifha ufed Elijah's mantle; our Saviour put his finger into the deaf man's ear, and made clay for the blind man; and oil being upon almoft all occafions used in the Eastern parts, the Apostles made use of it: but no hint is given that this was a facramental action. It was plainly a miraculous virtue that healed the fick, in which oil was made use of as a symbol accompanying it. It was not prescribed by our Saviour, for any thing that appears, as it was not blamed by him neither. It was no wonder, if, upon fuch a precedent, those who had that extraordinary gift, did apply it with the ufe of oil; not as if oil was the facramental conveyance; it was only ufed with it. The end of it was miraculous; it was in order to the recovery of the fick, and had no relation to their fouls, though with the cure wrought James V. 14, 15. wrought on the body, there might fometimes be joined ART. an operation upon the foul; and this appears clearly from XXV. St. James's words, Is any fick 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: and the prayer of faith fhall fave the fick, and the Lord fhall raife him up. All hitherto is one period, which is here closed. The following words contain new matter quite of a different kind; and if he have committed fins, they fhall be forgiven him. It appears clearly that this was intended for the recovery of the fick perfon, which is the thing that is pofitively promised; the other concerning the pardon of fins, comes in on the bye, and feems to be added only as an acceffary to the other, which is the principal thing defigned by this whole matter. Therefore fince anointing was in order to healing, either we must say that the gift of healing is ftill depofited with the Elders of the Church, which no body affirms; or this oil was only to be used by those who had that fpecial gift; and therefore if there are none now who pretend to have it, and if the Church pretends not to have it lodged with her, then the anointing with oil cannot be used any more; and therefore those who use it not in order to the recovery of the perfon, delaying it till there is little or no hope left, use not that unction mentioned by St. James, but another of their own devifing, which they call the Sacrament of the dying. It is a vain thing to fay, that because faving and raifing up are fometimes ufed in a fpiritual fenfe, that therefore the faving the fick here, and that of the Lord's ruifing him up, are to be fo meant. For the forgiveness of fin, which is the fpiritual bleffing, comes afterwards, upon fuppofition that the fick perfon had committed fins. The faving and raifing up muft ftand in oppofition to the ficknefs: fo fince all acknowledge that the one is literal, the other must be fo too. The fuppofition of fin is added, because fome perfons, upon whom this miracle might have been wrought, might be eminently pious; and if at any time it was to be applied to ill men who had committed fome notorious fins, perhaps fuch fins as had brought their fickness upon them, these were also to be forgiven. In the use of miraculous powers, thofe to whom that gift was given, were not empowered to use it at pleasure; they were to feel an inward impulfe exciting them to it, and they were obliged upon that firmly to believe, that God, who had given them the impulfe, would not be wanting to them in the execution of it. This confidence CC 4 in 21. 1 Cor. xiii. 2. 13. ART. in God was the faith of miracles, of which Chrift faid, XXV. If ye have faith as a grain of muftard-feed, ye shall fay to this mountain, remove hence to yonder place, and nothing Matth. xxi. fhall be impoffible unto you. Of this alfo St. Paul meant, when he faid, If I have all faith. So from this we may gather the meaning of the prayer of faith, and the anointing with oil; that if the Elders of the Church, or fuch others with whom this power was lodged, felt an inward impulfe moving them to call upon God, in order to a miraculous cure of a fick perfon, then they were to anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord: that is, by the authority that they had from Chrift, to heal all manner of difeafes and they were to pray, believing firmly, that God would make good that inward motion which he had given them to work this miracle; and in that cafe the effect was certain, the fick perfon would certainly recover, for that is abfolutely promifed. Every one that was fick was not to be anointed, unlefs an authority and motion from Chrift had been fecretly given for doing it; but every one that was anointed was certainly healed. Chrift John xiv. had promised that whatsoever they should ask in his name, he would do it. His name must be reftrained to his authority, or pursuant to fuch fecret motions as they fhall receive from him. This is the prayer of faith here mentioned by St. James; it being an earneft application to God to join his omnipotent power to perform a wonderful work, to which a perfon fo divinely qualified felt himself inwardly moved by the fpirit of Chrift. The fuppofition of the fick perfon's having committed fins, which is added, fhews that fometimes this virtue was applied to perfons of that eminent piety, that though all men are guilty in the fight of God, yet they could not be faid to have committed fins, in the fenfe in which St. John uses the phrafe; fignifying by it, either that they had lived in the habits of fin, or that they had committed fome notorious fin; but if fome should happen to be fick, who had been eminent finners, and those fins had drawn down the judgments of God upon them, which feems to be the natural meaning of thefe words, if ye have committed fins ; then, with his bodily health, he was to receive a much greater bleffing, even the pardon of his fins. And thus the anointing mentioned by St. James was in order to a miraculous cure, and the cure did conftantly follow it: fo that it can be no precedent for an extreme unction, that is never given till the recovery of the perfon is defpaired of, and by which it is not pretended that any cure is wrought. |