This is confirmed by the ancient ordinals of the church ; for Morinus and others have shown, that they do not comprise the forms of delivering the instruments, which many of the schoolmen regarded as the essential rite of ordination, but only the laying on of hands and prayer b. II. The rite of ordination is not "a sacrament of the gospel," nor is it one of those "generally necessary to salvation ";" but since "the common description of a sacrament" is, "that it is a visible sign of an invisible grace;" and since "in a general acceptation the name of a sacrament may be attributed to anything whereby an holy thing is signified;" since God "of His divine providence hath appointed divers orders in His church;" since those who are ordained bishops and presbyters, are "by the Holy Ghost made overseers to feed the church of God" since God Himself gives to us such "pastors and teachers ";" since it is evident that the divine grace promotes those who are duly ordained to the office of the ministry; and since this divine grace or commission is believed to be only given perfectly to those lawfully ordained, when they are actually ordained; the rite of ordination is "a visible sign of an invisible grace," and thus may reasonably be considered as a sacrament of the church. In fact the homilies of the church of England style it a sacrament, even while establishing a distinction between it and the two great sacraments of the gospel. "Though the ordering of ministers hath this visible sign or promise, yet it lacks the promise of remission of sin, as all other sacraments besides the two above named do. Therefore neither it, nor any sacrament else, be such sacraments as baptism and the communion are i." Jerome, Augustine, Leo, Gregory, &c. style it a sacrament*, Calvin also regards it as a sacrament'. The apology of the confession of Augsburgh says that if "order be understood of the ministry of the word, we should without scruple have called it a sacrament. For the ministry of the word hath the commandment of God, and possesses glorious promises. If order be thus understood, we should not object to call the imposition of hands a sacrament The learned archdeacon Mason regarded order as in a certain sense a sacrament ". m " As bishop Taylor says, "it is none of the doctrine of the church of England that there are two sacraments only; but that of those rituals commanded in scripture, which the ecclesiastical use calls sacraments (by a word of art,) two only are generally necessary to salvation "." Archbishop Secker says, "as the word sacrament is not a scripture one, and hath at different times Apologia Confess. VII. De numero et usu sacrament. "Si sacramenti vocabulum ad quodvis externum signum a Deo institutum, cui divinæ gratiæ promissio annectitur, extendamus, sacrum ordinem dici posse una cum Sancto Augustino et aliis agnoscimus."-Mason, De Min. Angl. p. 48. ed 1638. "Superest impositio manuum, quam ut in veris legitimisque ordinationibus sacramentum esse concedo, ita nego ed. Cardwell. locum habere in hac fabula." • Taylor's Dissuasive, p. 240. been differently understood; our catechism doth not require it to be said absolutely, that the sacraments are two only; but two only necessary to salvation: leaving persons at liberty to comprehend more things under the name, if they please, provided they insist not on the necessity of them, and of dignifying them with this title "." And accordingly we find the homilies speaking of "the sacrament of matrimony," and acknowledging several other sacraments besides those of baptism and the eucharist . Cranmer, in his catechism, considers absolution a sacrament. The confession of Augsburgh and its Apology, hold the same view, and the latter adds matrimony". In short it is plain that the Reformation, in avoiding the error of arbitrarily defining the doctrine of seven sacraments, did not fall into the mistake of limiting the use of this term to two rites only, which would have ill accorded with the ancient custom of the church generally. 66 If it be objected that Romanists have abused the term sacrament as applied to ordination, and therefore that we ought not to employ it, I reply with Cyprian, Quid ergo? quia et honorem cathedræ sacerdotalis Novatianus usurpat, num idcirco nos cathedræ renunciare debemus? Aut quia Novatianus altare collocare, et sacrificia offerre contra jus nititur; ab altari et sacrificiis cessare nos oportet, ne paria et similia cum illo celebrare videamur?" CHAPTER IX. ON THE CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY. THIS subject involves two questions: first, the authority by which the law of celibacy was instituted; secondly, the extent of its obligation. I. It is conceded generally by Roman theologians, that the law of celibacy was not of divine but of ecclesiastical institution". The western churches, actuated by a pure and laudable desire that the ministers of Jesus Christ should "give themselves wholly" to their sacred office, required that none of their clergy should be engaged in the cares of the married state. This regulation was made by many councils in the fourth and following centuries, at Eliberis, Carthage, Toledo, Turin, Orange, Tours, &c. and by Siricius and other bishops of Rome. The eastern churches have a Field, Of the Church, b. v. c. 57. "Communis theologorum, quos longo ordine appellat Vasquez in tertiam partem disput. 248. c. 3. opinio, existimat lege dumtaxat ecclesiastica injunctam esse majoribus clericis perpetuam continentiam." Tournely, De Sacr. Ordinis, p. 676. "Quæritur I. An hæc obligatio cœlibatus sit de jure divino, ita ut Papa nequeat in ea dispensare. ... Dicendum cum communi doctorum (præciso voto), non esse de jure divino, sed tantum ecclesiastico, quod ministri ordinati in sacris obligentur ad castitatem." A. M. De Ligorio, Theologia Moralis lib. vi. tract. v. art. 807. b Thomassin. Vet. et Nov. Eccl. Discipl. t. i. lib. ii. c. 61. Tournely, De Ordin, p. 656, &c. always permitted priests and deacons to continue in the married state even to the present day, though they prohibit marriage after ordination, and enjoined celibacy on bishops in the council in Trullo, A. D. 692 c. From these facts it is plain, that the celibacy of the clergy was not imposed by any law of the universal church, and therefore that it may be lawfully dispensed with by particular churches. II. The western churches did not exceed their power in requiring their ministers to observe celibacy; for in case of marriage they only deprived them of the ministry, but did not declare their marriage invalid, or resort to any means of dissolving it. If any one undertook the sacred office, he knew the conditions on which it was given, and if he transgressed them he merely lost his ministry. This did not impose an unlawful burden on the conscience. The injunction and admonition of holy scripture, Διὰ δὲ τὰς πορνείας ἕκαστος τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα ἐχέτω ", and κρείσσον γάρ ἐστι γαμῆσαι, Tuρоvola, might still be followed. But in later ages, when the discipline of the western churches relaxed, and married clergy were found in numbers in Germany, England, Sweden, &c.; Gregory the seventh, and the following bishops of Rome, enforced again the celibacy of the clergy by regulations of an unjustifiable severity; for under their direction, the councils of Rheims and Lateran in 1148 and 1176, decreed that married clergy should be separated by force from their wives, and that such marriages should Ibid. c. 60. 63. Smith on the Greek Church, p. 91. The Greek custom of allowing married clergy has never formed any obstacle to their union with the Roman church.-Tournely, De Ordin. p. 649. e Ibid. 61. n. 2. Tournely, De Ordin. p. 665. d 1 Cor. vii. 2. |