VIII. 16. was instituted by Christ, and practised by the Apostles?" But HENRY Luther objects, that none of the ancients, excepting Dionysius, call orders a sacrament. The king answers, "supposing this were true, Luther could not find his account in the allegation. For since the Fathers allowed the thing, the omission of the term signifies nothing." The king endeavours to prove orders a sacrament, by the Church's condemning reordination. "Gregory The Fathers alleged for the Great speaks first: As a person baptized,' says he, this purpose. 'ought not to be re-baptized, so neither ought he that is consecrated be re-ordained.' Thus you see," continues the king, "that orders ought no more to be repeated than baptism: from whence we may infer the sacramental nature of this first distinction." His majesty's next testimony is St. Austin, whom he quotes in these words: "Both baptism and orders are sacraments, and conveyed by holy ceremonies ;" and therefore neither of them are to be given more than once. And therefore when schismatics were admitted to the Church's communion, their orders no less than their baptism were reckoned Further proof from valid. The king continues to disprove Luther's assertion from the New the New Testament. St. Paul, in his epistle to Timothy, has Testament. these words: "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy 1 Tim. v. of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine." From hence the king argues, that notwithstanding those elders who labour in the word and doctrine deserve a preference of regard, yet those who do not do this, are allowed by the Apostle, not only to be priests, but likewise capable of ruling well, and have a just claim to double honour. For by saying, "especially those who labour in the word and doctrine," he supposes, that others who fell short in that branch of their function, had still a title to regard. And whence could this be, but upon the score of their character? To Luther's assertion, that preaching was of the essence of priesthood, the king answers in a text to the Hebrews, "Every high-priest Heb. v. taken from among men is ordained in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sin." "Is not this," continues his majesty, "an evident declaration, that sacrificing is a branch of priesthood? Now since the Apostle wrote to the converted Hebrews, whose continuance in Judaism he by no means allows: is it not plain, I say, from this remark, that the Apostle comprehends the Evangelical no less than the Mosaic priesthood? From hence we have a double inference 17. НАМ, against Luther: First. That the mass, or holy eucharist, Abp. Cant. implies a sacrifice for the people. And secondly. That the offering this sacrifice is a principal branch of the sacerdotal office." 1 Tim. iv. 14. The king argues farther from St. Paul's exhortation to St. Timothy," Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the 2 Tim. i. 6. presbytery." And in his second epistle to St. Timothy, the words are these: "Stir up the gift of God which is in thee, by the putting on of my hands." And elsewhere in the former epistle, "Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins." And the same Apostle in his epistle to Titus, writes thus, "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee." 1 Tim. v. 25. The king endeavours to prove extreme unction a "These few texts," says the king, "are sufficient to overthrow Luther's assertions: for those he pretends were made priests by the people's consent, received their character from a bishop left in Crete for that purpose. And lest the conveyance of supernatural assistance might be made a question, we see this blessing is conferred by imposition of hands: 'Stir up,' says the Apostle, the gift or grace of God (rò xápioμa tov tou), which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.' I wonder therefore Luther has the assurance to throw out the sacrament of orders, since St. Paul's epistles are so express for the point for here we are plainly told, that bishops and priests must be made by a bishop: here likewise we meet with the ceremony of consecration: here we have both the outward sign and the inward spiritual grace: and this latter in such a measure too, that the consecrated person not only receives the Holy Ghost himself, but has likewise a power of communicating it to others." Of Extreme Unction. Lastly, the king proceeds to defend extreme unction. "To prove this application no sacrament, Luther endeavours to shew the text in St. James not sufficient for this purpose: sacrament the words are these, 'Is any sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the Church, and let them pray over him, St. James v. anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him from a text in St. James. 14, 15. 23. VIII. against up, and if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him.' HENRY These words have both external ceremony and a promise of grace; and yet Luther is so hardy as to reject the proof: he says there is nothing of sacramental force in them. But if Luther ever argued upon the verge of distraction, he does so with a witness in this place; however, let us hear him. First, says he, 'It is the opinion of a great many persons, that this epistle is not St. James's, nor becoming an apostolical spirit: however, I confess, whoever wrote it, it has gained authority by custom. But,' as Luther continues, if it were written by the Apostle St. James, I should make no difficulty to affirm, that it is above the commission of an Apostle to institute a sacrament. To do this is the sole prerogative of our blessed Saviour. Thus, with reference to the holy eucharist, St. Paul tells the Corinthians, "I have received of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you." These are Luther's main objec- 1 Cor. xi. tions. To the first of them, That a great many persons Luther thought this epistle none of St. James's, and that it had not at the the marks of an apostolical production:' here," says the king, canonical"he pretends the countenance of a great many writers, but epistle, and alleges not so much as a single testimony. But I shall give unworthy pretends it him an authority sufficient to determine the question, and that the apostoli is St. Jerome. This Father is well known to be a great critic in this part of learning and none of the ancients distinguished the canon from the Apocrypha with better judgment. And though he questioned the authority of one of St. Paul's epistles for some time, that is, when the Church had not every where brews. The king received it notwithstanding this uncertainty for some time, proves the Epistle he never questioned the epistle of St. James. This he ranges St. James's in the canon without the least scruple. Now if Luther, when by the testimony of he denied St. James being the author of this epistle, had St. Jerome. reckoned it to some other apostolical person, his objection had been more tolerable. But to reject it because it is written below an apostolical spirit, is strangely unaccountable. But Luther is by no means happy in being consistent, and therefore for once I shall make him confute himself. ness of this cal spirit. Epistle to the He an inference "Now Luther, in the sacrament of orders, lays it down for a This farther truth, that the Church has a discerning faculty given from proved by above, by virtue of which she is enabled to distinguish the from Lu ther's prinword of God from human writings. How then can he pre- ciples." tend this epistle unbecoming an apostolical spirit, when the WAR НАМ, Church, whom he allows infallible in this matter, has deterAbp. Cant. mined the contrary? He has therefore plainly entangled himself in his own principles; and must either confess the epistle written by St. James, or else deny the infallibility of the Church in settling the canon." The institution of the above the 17. The king's reply to this objection. His majesty goes on to Luther's second objection, and that sacrament is, supposing the epistle was St. James's, yet it exceeds the commission commission of an Apostle to institute a sacrament. "Here,” of an apostle. says the king, "Luther is so hardy as to outrage the Apostle : he does in effect charge him with usurpation upon his Master, as if he had an ambition to encroach upon his authority, and affect an equality with him as if he resembled the apostate angel in his presumption, who said, 'I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.' What can be more contumelious upon the Apostle, than such an assertion as this? As to the matter in hand, I shall not dispute whether the institution of a sacrament was within the Apostle's ordinary commission: it is enough for my purpose to prove that St. James has delivered it as such. From hence we may safely conclude the Apostle was not so presumptuous as to publish that to the Church for a sacrament, which was really no such thing: and therefore if the institution of a sacrament exceeded his authority, we may conclude he delivered no more than our Saviour's instructions: our Saviour, I say, who has been pleased to reveal some things to us by St. Matthew, others by St. Luke, and given us still farther discoveries by St. John and St. Paul. Since the case stands thus, why may we not reasonably suppose, he has likewise instructed us in something new, by the Apostle St. James? "Luther," continues the king, "after this bold attack upon the Apostle, proceeds to rally the Church. He pretends the text of St. James is misapplied in extreme unction. His reason is, because it is only given to dying persons." The king replies by denying the matter of fact: he grants this anointing is not used in a slight distemper. But then he proves from the office, the patient is not supposed to be given over. For if they despaired of life, why should they put up so many prayers for the restoring of health? And therefore, though it is called extreme unction, we are not to strain upon the letter. For it is plain the Church acts upon the hope of the patient's recovery. But if Providence has otherwise disposed of the sick VIII. person, the force of the sacrament is not disproved by this HENRY event for the efficacy of the sacrament reaches farther, and has its principal effect upon the soul. And therefore, Luther affirms too much by saying that unless extreme unction is an infallible cure, the external sign signifies nothing, and by consequence it is no sacrament. Now what is this but to assert, that it can be no sacrament, unless it makes a man immortal? And yet this privilege, as strange as it is, Luther pretends may be gained by the strength of prayer, provided there is nothing of doubt or distrust in the application. upon Lu against St. James's Now," says the king, "I have sometimes wondered, what A conjecture made Luther disrelish St. James's epistle: but upon reading this ther's except portion of holy Scripture, I find the reason of his dislike plaint enough. For the apostle seems to write with a prophetic spirit, calness of as if he foresaw the character and conditions of Luther. Luther Epistle. is a great contemner of good works in comparison of faith: now St. James disputes strongly against this heterodoxy: the apostle proves both from reason and Scripture, that faith without works is dead: he likewise checks the intemperance of Luther's language very remarkably in these words, ‘If any man amongst you seems to be religious, and bridles not his tongue, but deceives his own heart, this man's religion is vain.' And elsewhere, the tongue is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison." The king cites other texts in this chapter St. James i. against turbulency of temper, and a spirit of division, which he conceives bear hard upon Luther. And now we are at an end of the argument, the close and haranguing part of the book I shall pass over. As to the performance, the king seems to have the better of the controversy; and generally speaking to be much the sounder divine. Generally speaking, I say, his principles are more catholic, and his proofs more cogent. He seems superior to his adversary in the vigour and propriety of his style, in the force of his reasoning, and the learning of his citations. But then with due regard to his memory, it must be said his manner is not altogether unexceptionable: he leans too much upon his character, argues in his garter robes, and writes as it were with his sceptre. He gives rough language sometimes, treats Luther with contempt, and drives his invective pretty strong upon him. But Luther was too warm to take this usage from the greatest mortal. He thought the cause would bear him out in any |