not healed by it, it was of use to the interests of the soul. Hence it was applied to the various organs of the body, derived from the original custom of applying it to the diseased part. In the twelfth century, the pardon of sin, which had formerly been prayed for, as preparatory to the patient's recovery, was retained in the offices, and considered as the principal part of it. At last it was decreed to be a sacrament by Pope Eugenius, and finally established in Trent.

III. The Article declares the use of the sacraments.

This declaration consists of two parts: the first is negative, that "the sacraments were not "ordained of Christ to be gazed upon or car"ried about, but that we should duly use them." This is evident from the words of the institution; that of baptism, is, "Go, preach and baptize," and that of the Eucharist; " take, eat, and drink ye all of it." Now the consecratory words, "this is my body, and this is my blood," are given as the reason for the institution. It is plain, therefore, that the Eucharist is consecrated only that it may be used.

The second part of this paragraph is positive; that "to such only as worthily receive the sacraments, they have a wholesome effect." This has been already discussed in the first part of the exposition of this Article.

ARTICLE XXVI.

OF THE UNWORTHINESS OF THE MINISTERS WHICH HINDERS NOT THE EFFECT OF THE SACRAMENTS.

ALTHOUGH IN THE VISIBLE CHURCH, THE EVIL BE EVER MINGLED WITH THE GOOD, AND SOMETIMES THE EVIL HAVE CHIEF AUTHORITY IN THE MINISTRATION OF THE WORD AND SACRAMENTS, YET FORASMUCH AS THEY DO NOT THE SAME IN THEIR OWN NAME, BUT IN CHRIST'S, AND DO MINISTER BY HIS COMMISSION AND AUTHORITY, WE MAY USE THEIR MINISTRY BOTH IN HEARING THE WORD OF GOD AND IN RECEIVING THE SACRAMENTS. NEITHER IS THE EFFECT OF CHRIST'S ORDINANCE TAKEN AWAY BY THEIR WICKEDNESS, NOR THE GRACE OF GOD'S GIFTS DIMINISHED FROM SUCH AS BY FAITH AND RIGHTLY DO RECEIVE THE SACRAMENTS MINISTERED UNTO THEM, WHICH BE EFFECTUAL BECAUSE OF CHRIST'S INSTITUTION AND PROMISE, ALTHOUGH THEY BE MINISTERED BY EVIL MEN.

NEVERTHELESS, IT APPERTAINETH TO THE DISCIPLINE

OF THE CHURCH, THAT ENQUIRY BE MADE OF EVIL
MINISTERS, AND THAT THEY BE ACCUSED BY THOSE
THAT HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THEIR OFFENCES, AND
FINALLY, BEING FOUND GUILTY BY JUST JUDGMENT BE
DEPOSED.

THIS Article consists of two parts: I. It asserts that the effect of the sacraments on the receiver is independent of the character of the minister; and, II. It declares the discipline of the Church with respect to the conduct of ministers.

I. It asserts that the effect of the sacraments is independent of the character of the minister.

a

This assertion is opposed to an opinion held by some persons at the beginning of the Reformation, who being offended at the public scandal caused by the enormous vices of the Roman clergy, revived the conceit of the Donatists, and asserted that not only heresy and schism, but even personal sins, invalidated the sacred functions. This doctrine appears to have been favoured by St. Cyprian, but the Donatists and their defenders carried it still farther. They considered the effect of the sacraments as the answer to prayers, and since the prayers of the wicked

a The sect here alluded to are most probably the Anabaptists, who held this opinion.-See Bullinger adv. Anab. p. 101. and Rogers on the Articles.

The origin of this sect was as follows: Cæcilianus had been elected bishop of Carthage in the year 311, without the concurrence of the Numidian bishops, and they being exasperated at the neglect, deposed Cæcilianus, on the ground, that one of the bishops who had consecrated him had denied the faith in time of persecution. Donatus being the most active among those who opposed Cæcilianus, the sect derived their name from him.-See Mosheim's Hist. v. i. cent. iv. par. ii. c. v. sec. ii. and Lardner's Works, v. 4. p. 96.

are an abomination to the Lord, they thought the virtue of these actions consequently depended on the character of him that officiated. St. Augustine, however, opposed this doctrine with his usual energy and success.

The sacraments, rightly considered, are the public acts of the Church, and though the effect of them, as to the receiver, depends upon the frame and temper of his mind, yet it cannot be imagined that the validity of them, or the blessings that attend them, can depend upon the secret state of him that officiates. Even in the case of public scandal, though it create an aversion to the rite thus administered, still we must distinguish between the acts of the ministers of the Church, as they are public officers, and as they are private Christians. In the latter character, their prayers can only be received by God, in consequence of the sincerity with which they are offered, but their public functions are the appointments of Christ, which cannot be altered for the better or the worse by any act of theirs. The truth of this explanation appears, 1. from Scripture. Our Saviour declares, that there shall be many in the last day, who may address him thus: "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy

66

66

name, and in thy name cast out devils, and in thy

name done many wonderful works;" to whom he will nevertheless reply, "I never knew you, depart from me ye that work iniquity.” (Matt. vii.

22.) Now if miraculous virtues may reside in evil men, the same conclusion may, with much greater probability, be drawn respecting those settled appointments that are to continue in the Church.

2. This is confirmed by the consequences that follow from the contrary opinion. For no distinction can be made between public scandals and secret sins; if the one invalidate the sacraments, the other must do so likewise. For if the effect of the sacraments is supposed to be derived from them, as an answer to prayer; then, since the prayers of hypocrites are as unacceptable to God as those of the openly vicious, it follows, that if the sacraments administered by the latter are unattended with any good effect, those administered by the former are also of no effect. Since, then, such an opinion must give rise to endless and perplexing scruples, it ought to be rejected.

The Church of Rome a hold an opinion on this subject, which is also liable to great objections. They teach, that the intention of him that gives the sacrament is necessary to the essence of it, and though the council of Trent explains this to be only " an intention of doing what the Church intends to do," still it is agreed, that if the priest have a secret intention not to administer a sacrament, no sacrament is administered,

66

a See Conc. Trid. sess. 7, can. 11.