THE NATURE OF THE Chriftian Sacraments CONSIDERED. I HAVE read over and confider'd Pamphlet, intituled, An Answer to the Remarks upon Dr. Clarke's Expofition of the Church-Catechism, printed for Mr. Knapton. The Author has fuperficially touch'd upon the several Matters contain'd in my Remarks, and I may very probably return him a diftinct Reply, as foon as I have any Reafon to believe, that nothing more confiderable is to be expected from other Hands. But there is one Particular above the reft, which the Author feems most to triumph in, calling upon me with fome Earneftness, once and again, to give him Satisfaction. I fhall endeavour to do so, in the following Sheets, and at the fame Time to fatisfy fome very worthy Perfons, who, having no Diflike to what I afferted * • Page 78, 81 B in in the Remarks, of the comparative Value of the Sacraments in refpect to moral Duties, but intirely approving the fame, do yet wish to see fo important a Matter more diftinctly drawn out, and more minutely guarded against all Cavil and Exception. This therefore is what, with God's Affiftance, I fhall here undertake for the Honour and Service of inftituted Religion, in general, and for the preserving the Dignity of the two Christian Sacraments in particular. CHAP. I. Dr. Clarke's Sentiments on this Head diftinctly open'd, and afcertain'd. A S the Difpute arifes from what Dr. Clarke has laid down in the Expofition, so it will be proper, in the first Place, to produce his Words, and to fix their precife Meaning. Speaking of our Lord's Command for receiving the Holy Communion, he fays thus: * "Since the "Command of Chrift is express and univerfal, "it becomes all pious Perfons to remove, as foon as poffible, the Ground or Occafion of the Scru"ple, whatever it be, and prepare themselves to (i comply with the Command of their Lord. In "the doing of which, they are still always to "remember, that This and all other pofitive Infti"tutions * Expofition, p. 281, 282 tutions have the Nature only of Means to an "End, and that therefore they are never to be "compared with moral Virtues, nor can ever be "of any Ufe or Benefit without them, nor can "be in any Degree Equivalents for the Want of "them." THESE are his Words; and that Part which I found fault with in my Remarks, is here printed in Italick. His Manner of Expreffion is not exact, being indeed elliptical; but his Sense will be easily ascertained. He makes a Comparison between pofitive Inftitutions and moral Virtues; which is not accurately exprefs'd, because the Oppofition, thus worded, is not plain and direct. Pofitive Inftitutions fhould be opposed to moral Inftitutions; and moral Virtues, by which he really means moral Duties, fhould be opposed to pofitive Duties, to make the Comparison exact. But in a quick Succeffion of Thought, it is easy to run Ideas into one another, skipping over the intermediate Terms which should keep them diftinct. To represent this Matter to the Eye, let the refpective Oppofitions appear thus: Now, in Strictnefs, the learned Doctor fhould have faid pofitive Duties and moral Duties, to make the Comparison clear, and the Oppofition B 2 exact, exact, and to express diftinctly what he really means. In his Evidences of Natural and Reveal'd Religion, he has much the fame Thought as here, but a little more clearly exprefs'd: Even thofe pofitive and external Obfervances, the two Sacraments, which are inftituted in the Chrif tian Religion as Means and Affiftances to keep Men fedfaft in the Practice of thofe great and moral Duties, which are the weightier Matters of the Law; even thofe pofitive Inftitutions, I say, are, &c. Here he rightly has pofitive Obfervan ces in the firft Line, and those he opposes to moral Duties; which is juftly exprefs'd. Moral Virtues often fignify the internal Habits of the Mind only, abstracting from the outward Acts, as when we speak of Benevolence, Juftice, Charity, and the like. But moral Duties fignify both the inward Habits and outward Acts, or the inward Habits exerting themselves in outward Acts; as when we speak of feeding the Hungry, cloathing the Naked, relieving the Oppreffed, or any Thing of the like kind. Now the Reader may please to obferve, that when Dr. Clarke op poses pofitive to moral Duties (for fo he must be fuppofed to mean) he could never intend to oppofe the external Part only of pofitive Duties, to the internal Part of Moral: For if that were his Meaning, he might as well have oppos'd the external Part of any moral Duty to the internal Part of the fame Duty, (outward Almfgiving, for Inftance, to inward Mercy) which would have been * Page 227. Edit. 4. |