CHAPTER XIX.

THE FIVE OTHER CEREMONIES, FALSELY CALLED SACRAMENTS, PROVED NOT TO BE SACRAMENTS; THEIR NATURE EXPLAINED.

The preceding discussion respecting the sacraments might satisfy persons of docile and sober minds, that they ought not to carry their curiosity any further, or without the sanction of the word of God, to receive any other sacraments beside those two which they know to have been instituted by the Lord. But as the opinion of seven sacraments has been so generally admitted in the common conversation of mankind, and pervaded the controversies of the schools, and the sermons of the pulpit,—as it has gathered strength from its antiquity, and still keeps its hold on the minds of men,—I have thought I should perform a useful service by entering into a closer and distinct examination of the five ceremonies, which are commonly numbered among the true and genuine sacraments of the Lord, by clearing away every fallacy, and exhibiting to the view of plain Christians the real nature of those ceremonies, and how falsely they have hitherto been considered as sacraments. Here, in the first place, I wish to declare to all believers, that I am not induced to enter on this controversy respecting the term, by the least desire of contention, but that I am urged by important reasons to resist the abuse of it. I am aware that Christians have power over names as well as things, and may therefore apply words to things at their own pleasure, provided they retain a pious meaning, even though there be some impropriety of expression. All this I admit, though it would be better for words to be subject to things, than for things to be subject to words. The case of the term _sacrament_, however, is different. For those who maintain seven sacraments, give them all the same definition—that they are visible forms of invisible grace; they make them all alike vessels of the Holy Spirit, instruments of communicating righteousness, causes of obtaining grace. And the Master of the Sentences, Lombard, denies that the sacraments of the Mosaic law are properly designated by this appellation; because they did not communicate that which they prefigured. Is it to be endured, that those symbols, which the Lord consecrated with his own mouth, and which he adorned with excellent promises, should not be acknowledged as sacraments; and, at the same time, that this honour should be transferred to those rites which are merely inventions of men, or, at least, are observed without any express command of God? Either, therefore, let them change their definition, or abstain from this abuse of the term, which afterwards generates false and absurd opinions. Extreme unction, they say, is a figure and cause of invisible grace, because it is a sacrament. If we ought by no means to admit their inference from the term, it certainly behoves us to lose no time in resisting their application of the term itself, that we may not be chargeable with giving any occasion to such an error. Again: to prove that ceremony to be a sacrament, they allege this reason—that it consists of the external sign and the word of God. If we find neither command nor promise respecting it, can we do otherwise than oppose it?

II. Now, it appears that we are not debating about the word, but raising a necessary and useful controversy respecting the thing itself. We must strenuously maintain, therefore, what we have already established by irrefragable argument that the power to institute sacraments belongs to God alone; for a sacrament ought to exhibit the certain promise of God, for the assurance and consolation of the consciences of believers; which could never receive such assurance and consolation from man. A sacrament ought to be a testimony to us of the good-will of God towards us—a testimony which no man or angel can ever give, as none has been “his counsellor.” It is he alone, therefore, who, with legitimate authority, testifies to us concerning himself by means of his word. A sacrament is a seal by which the testament or promise of God is sealed. But it could not be sealed by corporeal things and the elements of this world, unless they were marked out and appointed for this purpose by the power of God. Therefore man cannot institute a sacrament; because it is not in human power to cause such great and Divine mysteries to be concealed under such mean symbols. “The word of God must precede,” as is excellently remarked by Augustine, “in order to make a sacrament to be a sacrament.” Moreover, if we would avoid falling into many absurdities, it is requisite to preserve some distinction between a sacrament and other ceremonies. The apostles prayed on bended knees; shall we, therefore, never kneel without making it a sacrament? The early Christians are said to have turned their faces towards the east when they prayed; shall looking towards the east, then, be regarded as a sacrament? Paul says, “I will that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands,”[1366] and the prayers of the saints appear to have been often made with uplifted hands; shall elevation of hands also be made a sacrament? On this principle all the gestures of the saints would become sacraments. I would not insist on these things, however, if they were not connected with those greater inconveniences.

III. If they wish to press us with the authority of the ancient Church, I assert that this is a groundless pretence. For the number of seven sacraments can nowhere be found in the ecclesiastical writers, nor is it clear when it was introduced. I grant, indeed, that the fathers sometimes make too free a use of the word sacrament; but they use it indifferently to signify all ceremonies and external rites, and all exercises of piety. But, when they speak of those signs which we ought to regard as testimonies of the grace of God, they are content with these two, baptism and the eucharist. That this may not be supposed to be a false allegation, I shall here cite a few testimonies from Augustine. To Januarius he says, “First, I wish you to know what is the principal point of this controversy—that our Lord Jesus Christ, as he says in the gospel, has laid upon us an easy yoke and a light burden. And, therefore, he has linked together the society of the Christian Church by sacraments, very few in number, most easy to observe, and excellent in signification. Such are baptism, consecrated in the name of the Trinity, and the communion of the body and blood of the Lord, and if there be any other enjoined in the canonical Scriptures.” Again, in his treatise On the Christian Doctrine: “Since the resurrection of our Lord, our Lord himself, and the practice of his apostles, instead of many signs, have given us few, and those most easy in performance, most excellent in signification, and most pure in observance; such are baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord.” Why does he make no mention here of the sacred or septenary number? Is it probable that he would have omitted it, if it had then been instituted in the Church; especially as, in other cases, he was more curious in the observation of numbers than was at all necessary? And, when he names baptism and the Lord’s supper, and is silent respecting any others, does he not sufficiently indicate, that these two mysteries possess superior and peculiar dignity, and that all other ceremonies occupy an inferior station? Wherefore I affirm that these advocates for seven sacraments are not only unsupported by the word of the Lord, but also by the consent of the ancient Church, however they may boast of such consent. Let us now proceed to the particular ceremonies.

CONFIRMATION.

IV. It was an ancient custom in the Church for the children of Christians, after they were come to years of discretion, to be presented to the bishop in order to fulfil that duty which was required of adults who offered themselves to baptism. For such persons were placed among the catechumens, till, being duly instructed in the mysteries of Christianity, they were enabled to make a confession of their faith before the bishop and all the people. Therefore those who had been baptized in their infancy, because they had not then made such a confession of faith before the Church, at the close of childhood, or the commencement of adolescence, were again presented by their parents, and were examined by the bishop according to the form of the catechism which was then in common use. That this exercise, which deserved to be regarded as sacred and solemn, might have the greater dignity and reverence, they also practised the ceremony of imposition of hands. Thus the youth, after having given satisfaction respecting his faith, was dismissed with a solemn benediction. This custom is frequently mentioned by the ancient writers. Leo, the pope, says, “If any one be converted from heresy, let him not be baptized again; but let the influence of the Spirit, which he wanted among the heretics, be communicated to him by the imposition of the hands of the bishop.” Here our adversaries will exclaim that any ceremony, by which the Holy Spirit is conferred, is properly denominated a sacrament. But the meaning of Leo in these words is sufficiently unfolded by himself in another place: “Whoever is baptized among heretics, let him not be rebaptized; but let him be confirmed by imposition of hands with invocation of the Holy Spirit; because he has received the mere form of baptism, without the sanctification.” It is also mentioned by Jerome against the Luciferians. And though I confess that Jerome is not altogether correct in stating it to have been a custom of the apostles, yet he is very far from the absurdities now maintained by the Romanists; and he even corrects that very statement by adding, that this benediction was committed wholly to the bishops, “rather in honour of the priesthood than from necessity imposed by any law.” Such imposition of hands, therefore, as is simply connected with benediction, I highly approve, and wish it were now restored to its primitive use, uncorrupted by superstition.

V. Succeeding times have almost obliterated that ancient practice, and introduced I know not what counterfeit confirmation as a sacrament of God. They have pretended that the virtue of confirmation is to give the Holy Spirit for the augmentation of grace, who in baptism is given for innocence; to strengthen for warfare those who in baptism had been regenerated to life. This confirmation is performed by unction and the following form of words: “I sign thee with the sign of the cross, and confirm thee with the chrism of salvation, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” All this sounds very beautifully and pleasantly. But where is the word of God which promises the presence of the Holy Spirit in this ceremony? They cannot allege a single iota. How, then, will they assure us that their chrism is the vessel of the Holy Spirit? We see oil, a thick and viscid liquid, and we see nothing besides. Augustine says, “Let the word be added to the element, and it will become a sacrament.” Let the Romanists produce this word, if they wish us to contemplate in the oil any thing beyond the oil itself. If they acknowledged themselves ministers of the sacraments, as they ought to do, there would be no need of any further contention. The first law of a minister is to undertake nothing without a command. Now, let them produce any command for this service, and I will not add another word on the subject. If they have no command, they can have no excuse for such sacrilegious audacity. On the same principle, our Lord interrogated the Pharisees: “The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven or of men?”[1367] If they had answered, From men, he would have extorted a confession that it was vain and frivolous; if, From heaven, they would be constrained to admit the doctrine of John. To avoid too great an injury to John, therefore, they did not dare to confess it was from men. So, if confirmation be “of men,” it is evinced to be vain and frivolous; if they wish to persuade us that it is from heaven, let them prove it.

VI. They defend themselves, indeed, by the example of the apostles, whom they consider as having done nothing without sufficient reason. This consideration is correct; nor would they receive any reprehension from us, if they showed themselves imitators of the apostles. But what was the practice of the apostles? Luke relates, that “when the apostles, which were at Jerusalem, heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John; who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost; for as yet he was fallen upon none of them; only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.”[1368] And this imposition of hands is mentioned by the sacred historian on several occasions. I perceive what the apostles did—that they faithfully executed their ministry. It was the Lord’s will, that those visible and wonderful graces of the Holy Spirit, which he then poured out upon his people, should be administered and distributed by his apostles with imposition of hands. Now, I do not conceive that the imposition of hands concealed any higher mystery, but am of opinion that this ceremony was employed by them as an external expression of their commending, and, as it were, presenting to God, the person upon whom they laid their hands. If the ministry which was then executed by the apostles were still continued in the Church, imposition of hands ought also to be still observed; but since such grace is no longer conferred, of what use is the imposition of hands? It is true that the people of God still enjoy the presence of the Holy Spirit, whose guidance and direction are indispensable to the existence of the Church. For we have the eternal promise, which can never fail, and in which Christ has said, “If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink living water.”[1369] But those miraculous powers and manifest operations, which were distributed by imposition of hands, have ceased; and it was right that they should continue but for a time. For it was necessary that the first preaching of the gospel, and the kingdom of Christ, at its commencement, should be illustrated and magnified by miracles never seen or heard before: the subsequent cessation of which does not argue the Lord’s desertion of his Church, but is equivalent to a declaration from him that the magnificence of his reign and the dignity of his word had been sufficiently manifested. In what respect, then, will these impostors affirm that they imitate the apostles? They should have effected, by imposition of hands, that the evident power of the Spirit might immediately show itself. This they do not practise. Why, then, do they boast that they are countenanced by the imposition of hands, which we find was used by the apostles, but for a totally different purpose.

VII. This is just as reasonable as it would be for any one to affirm the afflation, with which the Lord breathed upon his disciples, to be a sacrament by which the Holy Spirit is conferred.[1370] But though the Lord did this once, he has never directed it to be done by us. In the same manner, the apostles practised imposition of hands during that period in which the Lord was pleased to dispense the visible graces of the Holy Spirit in compliance with their prayers; not in order that persons in succeeding times might counterfeit a vain and useless sign, as a mere piece of mimicry destitute of any reality. Besides, even if they could prove themselves to imitate the apostles in the imposition of hands, in which they have nothing similar to the apostles, except this preposterous mimicry, whence do they derive their oil, which they call the oil of salvation? Who has taught them to seek salvation in oil? Who has taught them to attribute to it the property of imparting spiritual strength? Is it Paul, who calls us off from the elements of this world, and severely condemns an attachment to such observances?[1371] On the contrary, I fearlessly pronounce, not of myself, but from the Lord, that those who call oil the oil of salvation, abjure the salvation which is in Christ, reject Christ, and have no part in the kingdom of God. For oil is for the belly, and the belly for oil; the Lord shall destroy both; all these weak elements “which perish with the using,”[1372] have no connection with the kingdom of God, which is spiritual, and shall never perish. What, then, it will be said, do you apply the same rule to the water with which we are baptized, and to the bread and wine used in the Lord’s supper? I answer, that in sacraments of Divine appointment, two things are to be regarded—the substance of the corporeal symbol which is proposed to us, and the character impressed upon it by the word of God, in which consists all its virtue. Therefore, as the bread, and wine, and water, which are presented to our view in the sacraments, retain their natural substance, that observation of Paul is always applicable: “Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats; but God shall destroy both it and them;”[1373] for they pass and vanish away with the fashion of this world. But as they are sanctified by the word of God to be sacraments, they do not confine us to the flesh, but impart to us true and spiritual instruction.

VIII. Let us examine still more narrowly how many monsters are fostered by this oil. The dispensers of it say, that the Holy Spirit is given, in baptism for innocence, in confirmation for an augmentation of grace; that in baptism we are regenerated to life, and that by confirmation we are armed for warfare; and they have so far lost all shame, as to deny that baptism can be rightly performed without confirmation. What corruption! Are we not, then, “in baptism buried with Christ, planted together in the likeness of his death,” that we may be “also in the likeness of his resurrection?” Now this fellowship with the death and life of Christ, Paul explains to consist in the mortification of the flesh, and the vivification of the Spirit; “that our old man is crucified with him, that we should walk in newness of life.”[1374] What is it to be armed for the spiritual warfare, if this be not? If they deemed it of no importance to trample under foot the word of God, why did they not at least reverence the Church, to which they wish to appear so uniformly obsequious? But what can be produced more severe against this doctrine of theirs, than the following decree of the Council of Milevum? “Whoever asserts that baptism is only given for the remission of sins, and not for assistance of future grace, let him be accursed.” When Luke, in a passage which we have already cited, speaks of some as having been “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus,”[1375] who had not received the Holy Ghost, he does not absolutely deny that any gift of the Spirit had been imparted to those persons who had believed in Christ with the heart, and had confessed him with the mouth; he intends that gift of the Spirit which communicated his manifest powers and visible graces. So the apostles are said to have received the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost; though Christ had long before declared to them, “It is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father, which speaketh in you.”[1376] Let all who are of God, here observe the malicious and pestilent artifice of Satan. That which was truly given in baptism, he falsely asserts to be given in his confirmation, with the crafty design of seducing us unawares from baptism. Who can doubt, now, that this is the doctrine of Satan, which severs from baptism the promises which belong to that sacrament, and transfers them to something else? It is now discovered on what kind of a foundation this famous unction rests. The word of God is, that “as many as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ,”[1377] with his gifts. The word of these anointers is, That we have received no promise in baptism to arm us for the spiritual warfare. The word of God is the voice of truth; consequently the word of the anointers must be the voice of falsehood. I can, therefore, give a more correct definition of this confirmation than they have yet given of it; namely, that it is a manifest insult against baptism, obscuring and even abolishing its use; that it is a deceitful promise of the devil, seducing us from the truth of God; or, if the following be preferred, that it is oil polluted with the falsehood of the devil, to darken and deceive the minds of the simple.

IX. They further assert that all believers after baptism ought to receive the Holy Spirit by imposition of hands, that they may be found complete Christians; for that no one can be altogether a Christian who is never anointed with episcopal confirmation. These are their own words. But I thought that all things relating to Christianity had been comprehended and declared in the Scriptures. Now, it seems, the true form of religion is to be sought and learned from some other quarter. The wisdom of God, therefore, celestial truth, all the doctrine of Christ, only _begins_ to make Christians; oil _completes_ them. Such a sentiment condemns all the apostles, and a number of martyrs who, it is certain, had never received this unction. For the holy chrism, the perfusion of which would complete their Christianity, or rather make them Christians from being no Christians at all, had not then been manufactured. But these chrismatics abundantly confute themselves, without my saying a word. For how small a part of their people do they anoint after baptism? Why, then, do they suffer such semi-Christians in their own community, from an imperfection which they might easily remedy? Why do they, with such supine negligence, suffer them to omit that which cannot be omitted without great criminality? Why do they not more rigidly insist upon a thing so necessary and indispensable to salvation, unless any one be prevented by sudden death? Surely while they suffer it to be so easily despised, they tacitly confess it not to be of so much importance as they pretend it to be.

X. In the last place, they determine that this sacred unction ought to be held in greater reverence than baptism; because it is only dispensed by the hands of the greatest prelates, whereas baptism is commonly administered by all priests. Must they not be considered as evidently mad, who discover such fondness for their own inventions, that, in comparison with them, they presume to undervalue the sacred institutions of God? Sacrilegious mouth, dost thou dare to place an unction, which is only defiled with thy fetid breath, and enchanted by the muttering of a few words, on a level with the sacrament of Christ, and to compare it with water sanctified by the word of God? But this would not satisfy thy presumption; thou hast even given it the preference! These are the responses of the Holy See; they are the oracles of the apostolic tripod. But some of them have begun to moderate this infatuation, which even in their opinion was carried beyond all due limits. Confirmation is to be regarded, they say, with greater reverence than baptism; not, perhaps, for the greater virtue and advantage that it confers, but because it is dispensed by persons of superior dignity, and is applied to the nobler part of the body, that is, the forehead; or because it contributes a greater augmentation of virtues, though baptism is more available to remission. But in the first reason, do they not betray themselves to be Donatists, who estimate the virtue of the sacrament by the dignity or worthiness of the minister? I will grant, however, that confirmation be considered as more excellent from the dignity of episcopal hands. But if any one inquire of them how such a prerogative has been conferred on bishops, what reason will they assign but their own pleasure? They allege, that the apostles alone exercised that right, being the sole dispensers of the Holy Spirit. Are bishops the only apostles; or are they apostles at all? Let us, however, grant that also; why do they not on the same principle contend that none but bishops ought to touch the sacrament of the blood in the Lord’s supper; which they refuse to the laity, because the Lord, as they say, only gave it to the apostles? If our Lord gave it to the apostles alone, why do they not infer, Therefore it ought now to be given to bishops alone? But in this case they make the apostles simple presbyters; now, they are hurried away with an extravagant notion suddenly to create them bishops. Lastly, Ananias was not an apostle; yet to him Paul was sent, that he might receive his sight, be baptized, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.[1378] I will add one question more: If this was the peculiar office of bishops by a Divine right, why have they dared to transfer it to common presbyters, as we read in one of the epistles of Gregory?

XI. How frivolous and foolish is the second reason, That they call their confirmation more excellent than the baptism instituted by God, because in confirmation the forehead is anointed with oil, and in baptism the crown of the head; as though baptism were performed with oil, and not with water! I appeal to all believers, whether these deceivers do not direct all their efforts to this one object; to corrupt the purity of the sacraments by the leaven of their false doctrine. I have already remarked, in another part of this book, that in the sacraments it is scarcely possible to discern that which is of Divine institution among the multiplicity of human inventions. If any one did not give credit to that observation of mine, let him now at least believe his own masters. By their passing over the water without the least notice, it appears that the only thing to which they attribute much importance in baptism, is their own oil. We, therefore, on the contrary, affirm, that in baptism the forehead also is laved with water. In comparison with this, we esteem all their oil perfectly worthless, whether in baptism or in confirmation. If any one allege that it is sold for more, this accession of price would only corrupt the good, if it contained any; an imposture of the foulest kind can never be legalized by robbery. In the third reason, they expose their impiety, when they pretend that a greater augmentation of virtues is conferred in confirmation than in baptism. The apostles, by imposition of hands, dispensed the visible graces of the Spirit. In what respect does their unction appear to be productive of any advantage? Let us leave these moderators, therefore, who cover one sacrilege with a number of others. It is a Gordian knot, which it is better to cut asunder than to spend much labour to untie.

XII. Now, when they find themselves stripped of the word of God, and of every probable argument, they resort to their usual pretext, that it is a very ancient usage, and confirmed by the consent of many ages. Though this allegation were true, it would not at all serve their cause. A sacrament is not from earth, but from heaven; not of men, but of God alone. If they wish their confirmation to be regarded as a sacrament, they must prove God to be the Author of it. But why do they allege antiquity, seeing that the ancient fathers, whenever they mean to express themselves with strict propriety, nowhere enumerate more than two sacraments? If it were necessary to fortify our faith by the authority of men, we have an impregnable fortress, that those ceremonies, which our adversaries falsely pretend to be sacraments, were never acknowledged as sacraments by the ancients. The fathers speak of imposition of hands; but do they call it a sacrament? Augustine explicitly affirms that it is no other than prayer. Here let them not oppose me with their foolish distinctions, that Augustine applied this remark to imposition of hands, not as practised in confirmation, but as used for the purpose of healing, or of reconciliation. The book is extant, and is in many hands. If I pervert the passage to any meaning different from that of Augustine himself, I am content to submit to their severest censure and contempt. For he is speaking of schismatics, who returned to the unity of the Church; and denies that they have any need of the reiteration of baptism, for that imposition of hands was sufficient, in order that, by the bond of peace, the Lord might give them his Holy Spirit. And as it might appear unreasonable to repeat imposition of hands rather than baptism, he shows the difference. “For what,” he says, “is imposition of hands, but prayer over a man?” And that this was his meaning, is evident from another passage, where he says, “We lay hands upon reclaimed heretics, for the union of charity, which is the principal gift of the Holy Spirit, and without which whatever else may be holy in man is unavailing to salvation.”

XIII. I sincerely wish that we retained the custom, which I have stated was practised among the ancients before this abortive image of a sacrament made its appearance. For it was not such a confirmation as the Romanists pretend, which cannot be mentioned without injury to baptism; but a catechetical exercise, in which children or youths used to deliver an account of their faith in the presence of the Church. Now, it would be the best mode of catechetical instruction, if a formulary were written for this purpose, containing and stating, in a familiar manner, all the articles of our religion, in which the universal Church of believers ought to agree, without any controversy: a boy of ten years of age might present himself to make a confession of his faith; he might be questioned on all the articles, and might give suitable answers: if he were ignorant of any, or did not fully understand them, he should be taught. Thus the Church would witness his profession of the only true and pure faith, in which all the community of believers unanimously worship the one God. If this discipline were observed in the present day, it would certainly sharpen the inactivity of some parents, who carelessly neglect the instruction of their children as a thing in which they have no concern, but which, in that case, they could not omit without public disgrace; there would be more harmony of faith among Christian people, nor would many betray such great ignorance and want of information; some would not be so easily carried away with novel and strange tenets; in short, all would have a regular acquaintance with Christian doctrine.

PENANCE.

XIV. In the next place, they add penance; of which they treat in such a confused and disorderly manner, that the consciences of men can deduce no certain or solid conclusion respecting their doctrine. In another part of this treatise, we have stated at large what we learn from the Scriptures respecting repentance, and likewise what is inculcated on that subject by the Romanists. Our present business is only to inquire briefly into the reasons of those persons who promulgated the opinion which has prevailed for a long period in the churches and in the schools, that penance is a sacrament. In the first place, I will make a few remarks on the practice of the ancient Church, the pretence of which they have abused for the introduction and establishment of their foolish invention. The order observed by the ancients in public penitence was, that persons who had completed the satisfactions enjoined upon them, were reconciled to the Church by solemn imposition of hands. This was a sign of absolution, to encourage the sinner himself with an assurance of pardon before God, and to admonish the Church that they ought to obliterate the memory of his offence, and kindly to receive him into favour. This Cyprian often calls “giving peace.” To increase the importance of this act, and give it a greater recommendation among the people, it was ordained that it should always be done by the authority of a bishop. Hence that decree of the second Council of Carthage: “Let no presbyter be permitted to reconcile a penitent publicly at the mass.” And another decree of the Council of Arausium: “Let those who, during the period of their penitence, depart out of this life, be admitted to the communion without the reconciliatory imposition of hands. If they recover from their illness, let them complete the period of their penitence, and then let them receive from the bishop the reconciliatory imposition of hands.” Also the decree of the third Council of Carthage: “Let not a presbyter reconcile a penitent without the authority of the bishop.” The design of all these decrees was, to prevent the severity which they wished to preserve in this matter from falling into disuse. Therefore they committed it to the cognizance of the bishop, who was likely to be more circumspect in conducting the examination. But Cyprian states that it was not the bishop alone who laid hands on the penitent, but that all the clergy also united in this act. These are his words: “They do penance for a proper time, and then they come to the communion, and are restored to the right of communion by the imposition of the hands of the bishop and clergy.” Afterwards, in process of time, the custom was corrupted, so that they used this ceremony in private absolutions, without any public expression of penitence. Hence that distinction in Gratian, between public and private reconciliation. I consider that ancient custom, which is mentioned by Cyprian, to have been holy and useful to the Church, and could wish it were revived in the present day. This more recent one, though I venture not to condemn or censure it with severity, yet I consider less necessary. We see, however, that imposition of hands on repentance is a ceremony of human, not of Divine institution, and is to be placed among indifferent things and external exercises, such as are not to be despised, but ought to hold a station far below the sacraments, which are enjoined upon us by the word of God.

XV. Now, the Romish theologians and schoolmen, who are in the habit of corrupting every thing by misinterpretation, take very great pains here to discover a sacrament, but to no purpose. Nor ought this to be wondered at, for they seek it where it is not to be found. When they have done their best, they leave the subject perplexed, doubtful, uncertain, and confounded with a variety of opinions. They say, then, that external penitence is a sacrament, and if it be so, that it ought to be considered as a sign of internal penitence, that is, of contrition of heart, which is the substance of the sacrament; or that both together constitute the sacrament, not two sacraments, but one complete one; but that external penitence is merely the sacrament; while that which is internal is both the sacrament and the substance of the sacrament; and remission of sins is the substance only, and not the sacrament. Let those who bear in mind the definition of a sacrament which we have already given, apply it to the examination of this pretended sacrament, and they will find that it is not an external ceremony instituted by God for the confirmation of our faith. If they plead that my definition is not a law which they are bound to obey, let them hear Augustine, whom they profess to regard with the greatest reverence. He says, “Visible sacraments are instituted for carnal persons, that by the steps of the sacraments they may be led from those things which are visible to the eye, to those which are intelligible to the mind.” What resemblance to this do they themselves see, or are they able to point out to others, in that which they call the sacrament of penance? The same writer says in another place, “It is therefore called a sacrament, because one thing is seen, another is understood in it. That which is seen has corporeal form; that which is understood has spiritual fruit.” These things are not at all applicable to the sacrament of penance, which they have invented, in which there is no corporeal form to represent any spiritual fruit.

XVI. And to vanquish these champions on their own ground, if any sacrament be sought for here, would it not be far more plausible to say that the sacrament consists in the absolution of the priest, rather than in penitence, either internal or external? For it would be easy to say, that this is a ceremony appointed for the confirmation of our faith in the remission of sins, and has what they call the promise of the keys: “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.”[1379] But some would have objected, that many who are absolved by priests, derive no such benefits from their absolution; whereas, upon their principle, the sacraments of the new law actually accomplish that which they represent. To this it might be replied, that, as in the eucharist there is a twofold eating,—sacramental, which is equally common to the good and the wicked; and spiritual, which is peculiar to the good—why might they not also imagine the reception of a twofold absolution? Yet I have never yet been able to comprehend what they intended by that principle of theirs, respecting the efficacious virtue of the sacraments of the new law; which we have proved to be altogether at variance with the truth of God, when we professedly discussed that subject. Here I only mean to show that this difficulty is no objection to their calling sacerdotal absolution a sacrament. For they might answer, in the language of Augustine, “That sanctification is sometimes without the visible sacrament, and that the visible sacrament is sometimes unaccompanied by internal sanctification.” Again: “That the sacraments effect that which they represent in the elect alone.” Again: “That some persons put on Christ as far as the reception of the sacrament, and others even to sanctification;” that the former is equally the case with the good and evil; and the latter with none but the good. Surely they have betrayed more than the weakness of children, and shown themselves blind to the broad day, who, in the midst of such difficulty and perplexity, have not discovered a thing so plain and obvious to every one.

XVII. Yet let them not flatter themselves, for in whatever part they place their sacrament, I deny that it ought to be considered as a sacrament at all; first, because it is not accompanied with any special promise of God, which is the only foundation of a sacrament; secondly, because all the ceremony exhibited here is the mere invention of men; whereas it has been already ascertained that sacramental ceremonies cannot be instituted, except by God himself. All that they have fabricated, therefore, respecting the sacrament of penance, is nothing but falsehood and imposture. This counterfeit sacrament they have adorned with a suitable title, calling it “a second plank after a shipwreck;” for that, if any one by sin has soiled the garment of innocence received in baptism, he may purify it by penance. But this, they say, is the language of Jerome. Whose language soever it may be, it cannot be exculpated from manifest impiety, if it be explained according to their notion of it. As if baptism were effaced by sin, and ought not rather to be recalled to the memory of the sinner whenever he thinks of remission of sins, that it may serve to comfort his mind, inspire him with courage, and confirm his confidence of obtaining the remission of sins, which was promised to him in baptism. But that which Jerome has expressed with some degree of harshness and impropriety, that baptism, from which those who deserve to be excommunicated from the Church have fallen away, is repaired by penitence, these admirable expositors apply to their impiety. We shall speak with the greatest propriety, therefore, if we call baptism the sacrament of penitence; since it is given for a confirmation of grace, and seal of confidence, to those who meditate repentance. And this must not be considered as an invention of ours, for, beside its conformity to the language of Scripture, it appears to have been generally received in the ancient Church as an indubitable axiom. For in the treatise on Faith addressed to Peter, which is attributed to Augustine, it is called “the sacrament of faith and repentance.” And why do we resort to uncertain testimonies? Nothing can be required more explicit than what is recited by the evangelists, that “John did preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.”[1380]

EXTREME UNCTION.

XVIII. The third counterfeit sacrament is extreme unction; which is never performed but by a priest, and that in the last moments of life, with oil consecrated by a bishop, and the following form of words: “By this holy unction, and by his most tender mercy, may God pardon thee whatever sin thou hast committed by sight, by hearing, by smell, by taste, and by touch.” They pretend that it has two virtues—remission of sins, and relief from bodily disease, if that be expedient, or otherwise the salvation of the soul. They say that the institution of it is established by James, who says, “Is any sick 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 shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.”[1381] This unction of theirs is of the same kind as we have already proved their imposition of hands to be: it is a mere hypocritical farce, by which, without any reason, and without any advantage, they affect to mimic the apostles. It is related by Mark, that the apostles, at their first mission, according to the command which they had received from the Lord, raised the dead, ejected demons, cleansed lepers, healed the sick, and that in the cure of the sick they made use of oil. “They anointed with oil,” he says, “many that were sick, and healed them.”[1382] James had this in view when he directed the elders of the Church to be sent for to anoint the sick. That such ceremonies concealed no higher mystery, will easily be concluded by any attentive observers of the great liberty used by our Lord and his apostles in external things. When our Lord was about to restore sight to a blind man, he made clay of dust and spittle; some he healed with a touch, others with a word. In the same manner, the apostles cured some maladies with a mere word, others with a touch, others with unction. But it may be alleged that it is probable that this unction, like the other methods, was not employed without reason. This I confess; not, however, that they used it as an instrument of cure, but merely as a sign, to instruct the ignorance of the simple whence such virtue proceeded, that they might not ascribe the praise of it to the apostles. Now, it is very common in the Scriptures for the Holy Spirit and his gifts to be signified by oil. But that grace of healing has disappeared, like all the other miraculous powers, which the Lord was pleased to exhibit for a time, that he might render the preaching of the gospel, which was then new, the object of admiration for ever. Even though we should fully grant, therefore, that unction was a sacrament of the powers which were administered by the instrumentality of the apostles, it has nothing to do with us, to whom the administration of those powers has not been committed.

XIX. And what greater reason have they to make a sacrament of this unction than of all the other signs or symbols which are mentioned in the Scriptures? Why do not they appoint some pool of Siloam, in which the sick may bathe themselves at certain seasons?[1383] That, they say, would be a vain attempt. Surely not more in vain than unction. Why do they not “fall upon and embrace” the dead, because Paul resuscitated a deceased young man by such means?[1384] Why is not clay, composed of spittle and dust, converted into a sacrament? All the others, they say, were single examples, but the use of unction is commanded by James. I reply, that James was speaking in reference to that period in which this benediction of God was still enjoyed by the Church. They affirm, indeed, that there is even now the same virtue in their unction; but we find it to be otherwise by experience. Let no one now wonder how they have so confidently deluded souls, whom they know to be stupid and blind when deprived of the word of God, which is their life and light, since they are not at all ashamed to attempt to deceive the living and observing senses of the body. They make themselves ridiculous, therefore, when they boast that they are endued with the gift of healing. The Lord is undoubtedly present with his people to assist them in all ages; and, whenever it is necessary, he heals their diseases as much as he did in ancient times; but he does not display those visible powers, or dispense miracles by the hands of apostles; because that gift was only of temporary duration, and was soon lost, in some measure, by the ingratitude of men.

XX. As the apostles, therefore, had sufficient cause for using the symbol of oil as an evident testimony that the gift of healing, which had been committed to them, was not a power of their own, but of the Holy Spirit, so, on the other hand, they do a great injury to the Holy Spirit who represent a fetid oil, destitute of all efficacy, as his power. This is just as if any one were to affirm, that all oil is the power of the Holy Spirit, because it is called by that name in the Scripture; or that every dove is the Holy Spirit, because he appeared under that form. But let them look to these things. For us, it is sufficient, at present, that we see beyond all doubt that their unction is not a sacrament, being a ceremony which is neither of God’s institution, nor accompanied with any promise from him. For when we require these two things in a sacrament, that it be a ceremony instituted by God, and that it have some promise of God, we at the same time require that the ceremony be enjoined upon us, and that the promise have reference to us. For no one contends that circumcision is now a sacrament of the Christian Church, notwithstanding it was instituted by God, and had a promise annexed to it; because it is not enjoined upon us, nor is the promise which was subjoined to it given to us on that condition. That the promise which they presumptuously boast of in their unction is not given to us, we have clearly proved, and they themselves declare by experience. The ceremony ought not to have been used, except by those who were endued with the gift of healing; and not by these butchers, who are more capable of killing and murdering than of healing.

XXI. Even if they had established, what they are very far from having established, that the injunction of James respecting unction is applicable to the present age, still they would have made but little progress in defending their unction with which they have hitherto besmeared us. James directs that all sick persons be anointed; these men bedaub with their unguent not sick persons, but half-dead corpses, when their souls are at the point of departing from them. If in their sacrament they have a present medicine, by which they can either alleviate the anguish of disease, or at least communicate some consolation to the soul, they are cruel never to apply the remedy in time. James directs, that the sick person be anointed by the elders of the Church; these men admit no anointer but a priest. Their explanation that the term _elders_ denotes priests, and the plural number is used for the sake of dignity, is frivolous in the extreme; as though the Churches in that age abounded with priests, to be able to march in a long procession, carrying their box of consecrated oil. When James simply commands that sick persons be anointed, he appears to me to intend no other unction than of common oil; nor is any other mentioned in the narrative of Mark. These men deign to use no oil which has not been consecrated by the bishop; that is, warmed with his breath, enchanted by his muttering, and nine times saluted by him on bended knees; three times, _Hail, holy oil_; three times, _Hail, holy chrism_; three times, _Hail, holy balm_. From whom have they derived such incantations? James says, that when the elders shall have prayed over the sick person, anointing him with oil, if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him; that, being absolved from guilt, he may obtain relief from pain; not meaning that sins are effaced by unction, but that the prayers of the believers, by which the afflicted brother shall have been commended to God, shall not be in vain. These men impiously pretend, that sins are remitted by their holy, or, to speak more properly, abominable unction. See what lengths they will go, when they shall be allowed to abuse that passage of James by their absurd interpretation. And we need not labour any longer in the proof; even their own histories relieve us from this difficulty. For they relate, that Pope Innocent, who presided over the Church of Rome in the time of Augustine, decreed that not only elders, but also all Christians, should use oil, in case of illness, for the purpose of anointing themselves or their friends.

ECCLESIASTICAL ORDERS.

XXII. The fourth place in their catalogue is occupied by the sacrament of orders; but this is so fertile that it is the parent of seven little sacraments which arise out of it. Now, it is truly ridiculous for them to affirm, that there are _seven_ sacraments, and when they proceed to specify them, to enumerate _thirteen_. Nor can they plead, that the seven sacraments of orders are only one sacrament, because they all belong to one priesthood, and form, as it were, so many steps to it. For, as it appears that in all of them there are different ceremonies, and they themselves say that there are different graces, no person can doubt that, if their principles be admitted, they ought to be called seven sacraments. And why do we controvert it as a doubtful thing, when they themselves plainly and distinctly declare that there are seven? In the first place, we will briefly suggest by the way what numerous and great absurdities they obtrude upon us, when they wish us to receive their orders as sacraments; and then we will inquire, whether the ceremony which the churches use in ordaining ministers ought to be called a sacrament at all. They mention seven ecclesiastical orders or degrees, which they dignify with the name of sacrament. They are—beadles, readers, exorcists, acolothists, subdeacons, deacons, priests. And they are seven, it is said, on account of the sevenfold grace of the Holy Spirit, with which those who are promoted to them ought to be endued; but it is increased, and more abundantly communicated to them, in their promotion. Now, the number itself is consecrated by a perverse interpretation of the Scripture; because they think they have read in Isaiah of seven virtues of the Holy Spirit; though, in truth, that prophet mentions only six, and had no intention of enumerating them all in that passage; for in other passages of Scripture, he is called “the Spirit of life, of holiness, and of adoption,” as he is there called “the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge, and of the fear of the Lord.”[1385] Other persons of greater subtlety limit not the orders to seven, but extend them to nine, in resemblance, they say, of the church triumphant. And they are not agreed among themselves; for some represent the clerical tonsure to be the first order of all, and the episcopate the last: others exclude the tonsure, and place the archiepiscopal office among the orders. Isidore distinguishes them in a different way; for he makes psalmists and readers two separate orders, appointing the former to the chantings, and the latter to the reading of the Scriptures, for the instruction of the people. And this distinction is observed in the canons. In such a diversity, what do they wish us to pursue or to avoid? Shall we say that there are seven orders? So teaches the master of the sentences, Lombard; but the most illuminated doctors determine otherwise; and these doctors differ among themselves. Moreover, the most sacred canons call us another way. This is the harmony exhibited by men, when they discuss Divine subjects without the word of God.

XXIII. But this surpasses all folly, that in every one of their orders they make Christ a colleague with them. First, they say, he executed the office of beadle, when he made a whip of small cords, and drove all the buyers and sellers out of the temple. He showed himself to be a beadle, when he said, “I am the door.” He assumed the place of a reader, when he read a passage of Isaiah in the synagogue. He discharged the function of an exorcist, when, applying spittle to the ears and tongue of a man who was deaf and dumb, he restored his hearing and speech. He declared himself to be an acolothist in these words: “He that followeth me shall not walk in darkness.” He discharged the duty of a subdeacon, when he girded himself with a towel, and washed the feet of his disciples. He sustained the character of a deacon, when he distributed his body and blood in the supper. He acted the part of a priest, when he offered himself on the cross a sacrifice to the Father. It is impossible to hear these things without laughing, so that I wonder they were written without laughing; at least, if those who wrote them were men. But the most remarkable of all is, the subtlety with which they reason on the word _acolothist_, which they call _ceroferarius_, a taper-bearer; a term of magic, I suppose, certainly unknown in any nation or language; whereas the Greek word ακολουθος, _acolothist_, simply signifies a _follower_ or _attendant_. But I should justly incur ridicule myself, if I were to dwell on a serious refutation of such things, they are so frivolous and ludicrous.

XXIV. To prevent them, however, from continuing their impositions on silly women, it is necessary, as we proceed, to expose their vanity. They create with great pomp and solemnity their readers, psalmists, beadles, acolothists, to discharge those offices in which they employ either boys, or at least those whom they call laymen. For who, in most cases, lights the wax tapers, who pours wine and water out of the flagon, but a boy, or some mean layman, who gets his livelihood by it? Do not the same persons chant? Do they not open and shut the doors of the churches? For who ever saw in their temples an acolothist or beadle performing his office? On the contrary, he who, when a boy, discharged the duty of an acolothist, as soon as he is admitted into that order, ceases to be what he begins to be called; so that it should seem to be their deliberate intention to discard the office when they assume the title. We see what need they have to be consecrated by sacraments, and to receive the Holy Spirit; it is, that they may do nothing. If they allege, that this arises from the perverseness of the present age, that men desert and neglect their official duties, let them at the same time confess, that their holy orders, which they so wonderfully extol, are of no use or benefit to the Church in the present day, and that their whole Church is filled with a curse, since it permits boys and laymen to handle the tapers and flagons, which none are worthy of touching except those who have been consecrated as acolothists; and since it leaves boys to chant those services, which ought never to be heard but from a consecrated mouth. But for what purpose do they consecrate their exorcists? I know that the Jews had their exorcists; but I find that they derived their name from the exorcisms which they practised. Respecting these counterfeit exorcists, who ever heard of their exhibiting one specimen of their profession? It is pretended that they are invested with power to lay hands upon maniacs, demoniacs, and catechumens; but they cannot persuade the demons that they are endued with such power; not only because the demons do not submit to their commands, but because they even exercise dominion over them. For scarcely one in ten can be found among them who is not influenced by an evil spirit. Whatever ridiculous pretensions they may set up respecting their contemptible orders, are the mere compositions of ignorance and falsehood. Of the ancient acolothists, beadles, and readers, we have spoken already, when we discussed the order of the Church. Our present design is only to combat that novel invention of a sevenfold sacrament in ecclesiastical orders; on which not a syllable is any where to be found, except among those sapient theologues, the Sorbonists and Canonists.

XXV. Let us now examine the ceremonies which they employ. In the first place, all whom they enrol in their army they initiate into the rank of clergy by a common sign. They shave them on the crown of the head, that the crown may denote regal dignity; because ecclesiastics ought to be kings, to rule themselves and others, according to the language in which Peter addresses them: “Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people.” But it was sacrilege for them to arrogate exclusively to themselves that which is attributed to the whole Church, and proudly to glory in the title which they had stolen from the believers. Peter addresses the whole Church; they misapply his words to a few shavelings, as if they were the only holy persons, as if they alone had been redeemed by the blood of Christ, as if they alone had been made by him kings and priests unto God. They proceed to assign other reasons; that the top of their head is laid bare, to show that their mind is free to the Lord, and can with open face contemplate the glory of God; or to indicate that the faults of their mouth and eyes ought to be cut off. Or the tonsure of the crown signifies the relinquishment and renunciation of temporal things; and the hair left round the crown denotes the relics of property which are reserved for their sustenance. Every thing is symbolical; because, with respect to them, the veil of the temple has not yet been rent asunder. Therefore, having persuaded themselves that they have completely discharged their duties, when they have represented such things by their shaven crown, they, in reality, fulfil none of them. How long will they impose upon us with such deceptions and falsehoods? Ecclesiastics, by shaving off a few hairs, signify that they have relinquished an abundance of temporal possessions, to be at liberty to contemplate the glory of God, and that they have mortified the inordinate propensities of their ears and eyes; but there is no class of men more rapacious, ignorant, or libidinous. Why do they not make an actual exhibition of sanctity, rather than counterfeit the appearance of it by false and delusive symbols?

XXVI. When they say that their clerical tonsure derives its origin and reason from the Nazarites, what is this but declaring that their mysteries have sprung from Jewish ceremonies, or, rather, are mere Judaism? But when they add, that Priscilla, Aquila, and Paul himself, after having made a vow, shaved their heads in order to purify themselves, they betray their gross ignorance. For this is nowhere said of Priscilla; and there is some uncertainty even respecting Aquila; for that tonsure may as well be referred to Paul as to Aquila.[1386] But not to leave them what they require, that they have an example of this tonsure in Paul, it ought to be observed by the plain reader, that Paul never shaved his head with a view to any sanctity, but merely to accommodate himself to the weakness of his brethren. I am accustomed to call vows of this kind vows of charity, and not of piety; that is to say, they were not made for any purpose of religion, or as acts of service to God, but in order to bear the ignorance of weak brethren; as the apostle himself says: “Unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews.”[1387] Therefore he did this act, and that once, and for a short period, that he might accommodate himself to the Jews. When these men desire, without any cause, to imitate the purifications of the Nazarites, what is this but raising up a new Judaism by a culpable affectation of emulating that which is abolished? The same superstition dictated that decretal epistle which prohibits ecclesiastics, according to the apostle, to let their hair grow, but enjoins them to shave in a circular form; as though the apostle, when he mentioned what is becoming to all men, were concerned about the circular tonsure of the clergy. Hence the readers may form some opinion of the importance and dignity of other succeeding mysteries, to which there is such an introduction.

XXVII. The true origin of the clerical tonsure is very evident from the testimony of Augustine. As, in that age, no persons suffered their hair to grow long, but such as were effeminate, and affected an elegance and delicacy not sufficiently manly, it was thought that it would be a bad example to permit this custom in the clergy. They were, therefore, commanded to shave their heads, that they might exhibit no appearance of effeminate ornament. The tonsure then became so common, that some monks, to display their superior sanctity by something remarkable and distinguished from others, left their hair to grow very long. Afterwards, when the custom of wearing long hair was revived, and several nations were converted to Christianity, who had always been accustomed to wear their hair, as France, Germany, and England, it is probable that ecclesiastics every where shaved their heads, that they might not appear to be fond of the ornament of hair. At length, in a more corrupt age, when all the ancient institutions were either perverted or degenerated into superstition, because they saw no reason in the clerical tonsure (for they had retained nothing but a foolish imitation of their predecessors,) they had recourse to a mystery, which they now superstitiously obtrude upon us as a proof of their sacrament. Beadles, at their consecration, receive the keys of the Church, as a sign that the custody of it is committed to them. Readers are presented with the Holy Bible. To exorcists are given the forms of exorcisms to be used over catechumens and maniacs. Acolothists receive their tapers and flagons. These are the ceremonies which, if we believe them, contain such secret virtue as to be, not only signs and tokens, but even causes, of an invisible grace. For, according to their definition, all this is assumed when they insist on their being numbered among the sacraments. But, to conclude in a few words, I maintain it to be absurd for canonists and scholastic theologues to give the title of sacraments to these, which they themselves call _lesser orders_; since, even according to their own confession, they were unknown to the primitive Church, and were invented many years after. But, as sacraments contain some promises of God, they cannot be instituted by men or angels, but by God alone, whose prerogative it is to give the promise.

XXVIII. There remain three orders, which they call _greater orders_; of which sub-deaconry, they say, was transferred to this class after the number of the lesser orders began to increase. As they think that they have a testimony for these from the word of God, they peculiarly denominate them, for the sake of honour, _holy orders_. But we must now examine how perversely they abuse the Divine appointments of God in their own vindication. We will begin with the order of presbyters, or priests. For by these two names they signify one thing; and these are the appellations which they apply to those whose office, they say, it is, to offer the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ upon the altar, to say prayers and to pronounce benedictions on the gifts of God. Therefore, at their ordination, they receive a chalice, with the patine and host, as symbols of the power committed to them to offer expiatory sacrifices to God; and their hands are anointed with oil, as a symbol to show that they are invested with power to consecrate. The ceremonies we shall notice hereafter. Of the thing itself, I affirm, that it is so far from having a syllable of the Divine word to support it, that it was impossible for them to have introduced a viler corruption of the order instituted by God. In the first place, it ought to be taken for granted, as we have shown in the preceding chapter, on the Papal Mass, that great injury is done to Christ by all those who call themselves priests to offer sacrifices of expiation. He was constituted and consecrated by the Father, with an oath, a priest after the order of Melchisedec, without end, and without a successor. He once offered a sacrifice of eternal expiation and reconciliation; and now, having entered into the sanctuary of heaven, intercedes for us. In him we are all priests; but it is only to offer to God praises and thanksgivings, in short, ourselves and all that belongs to us. It was his province alone, by his oblation, to appease God and expiate sins. When these men usurp that office to themselves, what follows, but that their priesthood is chargeable with impiety and sacrilege? They certainly betray the greatest effrontery when they dare to dignify it with the title of a sacrament. The imposition of hands, which is used at the introduction of the true presbyters and ministers of the Church into their office, I have no objection to consider as a sacrament; for, in the first place, that ceremony is taken from the Scripture, and, in the next place, it is declared by Paul to be not unnecessary or useless, but a faithful symbol of spiritual grace.[1388] I have not enumerated it as the third among the sacraments, because it is not ordinary or common to all believers, but a special rite for a particular office. The ascription of this honour to the Christian ministry, however, furnishes no reason for the pride of Romish priests; for Christ has commanded the ordination of ministers to dispense his gospel and his mysteries, not the inauguration of priests to offer sacrifices. He has commissioned them to preach the gospel and to feed his flock, and not to immolate victims. He has promised them the grace of the Holy Spirit, not in order to effect an expiation for sins, but rightly to sustain and conduct the government of the Church.

XXIX. There is an excellent correspondence between the ceremonies and the thing itself. Our Lord, when he sent forth his disciples to preach the gospel, “breathed upon them;”[1389] by that symbol representing the power of the Holy Spirit which he imparted to them. These sapient theologues retain the _breathing_, and, as if they disgorged the Holy Spirit from their throats, they mutter over the priests whom they ordain, _Receive ye the Holy Ghost_. Thus they leave nothing that they do not preposterously counterfeit, I do not say like comedians, whose gesticulations are not without art and meaning, but like apes, who imitate every thing without any taste or design. We observe, they say, the example of our Lord. But our Lord did many things which he never intended to be examples to us. He said to his disciples, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost.” He said to Lazarus, “Lazarus, Come forth.”[1390] He said to the paralytic, “Arise and walk.”[1391] Why do not they say the same to all deceased persons and paralytics? When he breathed upon his apostles, and filled them with the grace of the Holy Spirit, he exhibited a specimen of his Divine power. If they attempt to do the same, they emulate God, and, as it were, challenge him to contend with them; but they are very far from producing a similar effect, and the foolish mimicry is a mere mockery of Christ. They have the effrontery, indeed, to dare to assert, that they confer the Holy Ghost; but how far this is true is shown by experience, which proves, that those who are consecrated priests, from being horses become asses, and are changed from fools to madmen. Nor do I contend with them on this account; I only condemn the ceremony itself, which ought not to be made a precedent, since it was used by Christ as a special sign of a particular miracle; so far is their pretence of imitating him from justifying their conduct.

XXX. But from whom have they received the unction? Their answer is, that they have received it from the sons of Aaron, from whom also their order derived its origin. Thus they always prefer defending themselves by improper examples, to confessing that which they practise without just reason to be their own invention; but at the same time, they do not consider that, in professing themselves successors of the sons of Aaron, they do an injury to the priesthood of Christ; which was the only thing adumbrated and prefigured by all the ancient priesthoods. In him, therefore, they were all accomplished and concluded; in him they ceased, as we have more than once already stated, and the Epistle to the Hebrews declares without the help of any comment. But, if they are so highly delighted with the Mosaic ceremonies, why do they not take oxen, and calves, and lambs, and offer them as sacrifices? They have, indeed, a great part of the ancient tabernacle, and of all the Jewish worship; but their religion is still deficient in that they do not sacrifice animal victims. Who does not see that this custom of anointing is far more pernicious than circumcision; especially when it is attended with superstition and a pharisaical opinion of the merit of the act? The Jews placed a confidence of righteousness in circumcision; in unction these men place spiritual graces. Therefore, while they desire to be imitators of the Levites, they become apostates from Christ, and renounce the office of pastors.

XXXI. This is their consecrated oil, which, it is pretended, impresses a character never to be effaced; as though oil could not be cleansed away with dust and salt, or, if it be more adhesive, with soap. But this character, they say, is spiritual. What connection has oil with the soul? Have they forgotten an observation, which they often quote to us from Augustine—That, if the word be separated from the water, it will be nothing but water, and that it is the word which makes it a sacrament? What word will they show in their unction? Will they produce the command which was given to Moses to anoint the sons of Aaron? But in that case there was also a command given respecting the coat, the ephod, the mitre, the holy crown, with which Aaron was to be adorned; and respecting the coats, girdles, and mitres, with which his sons were to be invested. It was commanded to kill a bullock, to burn his fat, to cut one ram asunder and burn it, to sanctify their ears and garments with the blood of another ram; and numerous other observances, which I wonder how it is that they have entirely omitted, and taken only the anointing oil. But if they are fond of being sprinkled, why are they sprinkled with oil rather than with blood? They attempt, indeed, a most ingenious thing; to frame one religion out of a number of fragments collected together from Christianity, Judaism, and Paganism. Their unction, therefore, is quite fetid, for want of the salt, the word of God. There remains imposition of hands, which I confess to be a sacrament in true and legitimate ordinations, but I deny that it has any place in this farce, in which they neither obey the command of Christ, nor regard the end to which the promise ought to lead us. If they wish the sign not to be refused to them, they must apply it to the very object to which it was dedicated.

XXXII. Respecting the order of deacons, also, I should have no controversy with them, if that office were restored to its primitive purity, as it existed under the apostles, and in the purer times of the Church. But what resemblance to it is to be found among those whom the Romanists pretend to be deacons? I speak not of the persons, lest they should complain that it is unjust to estimate their doctrine by the faults of individuals; but I contend that, taking their deacons exactly as their doctrine describes them to us, it is absurd to fetch any testimony in their favour from the examples of those who were appointed deacons by the apostolic Church. They say that it belongs to their deacons to assist the priests, to minister in every thing that is done in the sacraments, as in baptism, in chrism, to pour the wine into the chalice, to place the bread in the patine; to lay and dispose the oblations upon the altar, to prepare and cover the table of the Lord, to bear the cross, to read and chant the gospel and epistle to the people. Is there in all this a single word of the true duty of deacons? Now, let us hear how they are inaugurated. On the deacon who is ordained the bishop alone lays his hand; on his left shoulder he places a stole, to teach him that he has taken upon him the light yoke of the Lord, to subject to the fear of God every thing belonging to the left side. He gives him the text of the gospel, that he may know himself to be a herald of it. And what have these things to do with deacons? It is no better than if any one pretended to ordain apostles, while he only appointed them to burn incense, to adorn the images, to trim the lamps, to sweep the Churches, to catch mice, and to drive out dogs. Who could suffer such persons to be called apostles, and to be compared with the apostles of Christ? Let them never again falsely represent those as deacons, whom they merely appoint to act a part in their farcical exhibitions. The very name which they bear sufficiently declares the nature of their office. For they call them Levites, and wish to deduce their origin from the sons of Levi. This I have no objection to their doing, provided they drop their pretensions to Christianity.

XXXIII. Of what use is it to say any thing respecting sub-deacons? In ancient times they actually had the care of the poor. The Romanists attribute to them I know not what nugatory functions; as to bring the chalice and patine, the flagon with water, and the towel to the altar, to pour out water for washing the hands of the priests, and similar services. When they speak of the sub-deacons receiving and bringing oblations, they mean those which they devour as consecrated to their use. With this office the ceremony of their initiation perfectly corresponds: they receive from the bishop the patine and chalice, from the archdeacon the flagon with water, the manual, and similar trumpery. They require us to confess the Holy Ghost to be contained in these fooleries. What pious person can bear to admit this? But to come to an end, we may draw the same conclusion respecting them as respecting the rest; nor is it necessary to repeat any more of what we have already stated. This will be sufficient for persons of modest and docile minds, to whom this book is addressed; that there is no sacrament of God, which does not exhibit a ceremony annexed to a promise, or rather which does not present a promise in a ceremony. In this case not a syllable is to be found of any certain promise; and, therefore, it is in vain to seek for a ceremony to confirm the promise. And of all the ceremonies which they use, not one appears to have been instituted by God; therefore there can be no sacrament.

MATRIMONY.

XXXIV. The last of their sacraments is matrimony, which all confess to have been instituted by God, but which no one, till the time of Gregory, ever discovered to have been enjoined as a sacrament. And what man, in his sober senses, would ever have taken it into his head? It is alleged to be a good and holy ordinance of God; and so agriculture, architecture, shoemaking, and many other things, are legitimate ordinances of God, and yet they are not sacraments. For it is required in a sacrament, not only that it be a work of God, but that it be an external ceremony appointed by God for the confirmation of a promise. That there is nothing of this kind in matrimony even children can judge. But, they say, it is a sign of a sacred thing, that is, of the spiritual union of Christ with the Church. If by the word _sign_, they mean a symbol presented to us by God to support our faith, they are very far from the truth. If by a sign they merely understand that which is adduced as a similitude, I will show how acutely they reason. Paul says, “One star differeth from another star in glory: so also is the resurrection of the dead.”[1392] Here is one sacrament. Christ says, “The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed.” Here is another. Again: “The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven.”[1393] Here is a third. Isaiah says, “Behold, the Lord shall feed his flock like a shepherd.”[1394] Here is a fourth. Again: “The Lord shall go forth as a mighty man.”[1395] Here is a fifth. And what end will there be? Upon this principle, every thing will be a sacrament; as many parables and similitudes as there are in the Scripture, there will be so many sacraments. Even theft will be a sacrament; because it is written, “The day of the Lord cometh as a thief.”[1396] Who can bear the foolish babblings of these sophists? I confess indeed, that, whenever we see a vine, it is very desirable to recall to remembrance the language of Christ: “I am the vine, ye are the branches, and my Father is the husbandman.”[1397] Whenever we meet a shepherd with his flock, it is good for us to remember another declaration of our Lord: “I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.”[1398] But if any one should class such similitudes among the sacraments, it would argue a want of mental sanity.

XXXV. They obtrude upon us the language of Paul, in which, they say, he expressly calls matrimony a sacrament. “He that loveth his wife, loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the Church; for we are members of his body, of his flesh, and his bones; for this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery (or _sacrament_, as the word is rendered in the Vulgate;) but I speak concerning Christ and the Church.”[1399] But to treat the Scriptures in this manner, is to confound heaven and earth together. To show to husbands what peculiar affection they ought to bear to their wives, Paul proposes Christ to them as an example. For as he has poured forth all the treasures of his kindness upon the Church, which he had espoused to himself, so the apostle would have every man to evince a similar affection towards his wife. It follows, “He that loveth his wife, loveth himself; even as the Lord the Church.” Now, to declare how Christ has loved the Church, even as himself, and how he has made himself one with the Church his spouse, Paul applies to him what Moses relates Adam to have spoken of himself. For when Eve was brought into his presence, knowing her to have been formed out of his side, he said, “This is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh.”[1400] Paul testifies that all this has been spiritually fulfilled in Christ and us, when he says, “We are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones,” and consequently “one flesh” with him. At length he concludes with an exclamation, “This is a great mystery;” and, that no one might be deceived by an ambiguity of language, he expressly states, that he intends not the conjugal union of man and woman, but the spiritual marriage of Christ and his Church: “I speak concerning Christ and the Church.” And, indeed, it is a great mystery that Christ has suffered a rib to be taken from him, of which we might be formed: that is to say, though he was strong, he voluntarily became weak, that we might be strengthened with his might; so that now we “live, yet not” we, “but Christ liveth in” us.[1401]

XXXVI. They have been deceived by the word _sacrament_ in the Vulgate version. But was it reasonable that the whole Church should suffer the punishment of their ignorance? Paul has used the word μυστηριον, _mystery_—a word which the translator might have retained, _mysterium_ being not unfamiliar to Latin ears, or he might have rendered it _arcanum_, secret; he preferred, however, to use the word _sacramentum_, sacrament, but in the same sense in which Paul has used the Greek word μυστηριον, _mystery_. Now, let them go and clamorously rail against the critical knowledge of languages, through ignorance of which they have so long been most shamefully deceived in a thing so easy and obvious to every one. But why do they so strenuously insist on the word _sacrament_ in this one passage, and pass it over in so many others without the least notice? For that translator has used it twice in the First Epistle to Timothy,[1402] and in another place in this Epistle to the Ephesians,[1403] and in every other case where the word _mystery_ occurs. Let this oversight, however, be forgiven them; liars ought, at least, to have good memories. For, after having dignified matrimony with the title of a sacrament, what brainless versatility is it for them to stigmatize it with the characters of impurity, pollution, and carnal defilement! What an absurdity is it to exclude priests from a sacrament! If they deny that they are interdicted from the sacrament, but only from the conjugal intercourse, I shall not be satisfied with this evasion. For they inculcate that the conjugal intercourse itself is part of the sacrament, and that it represents the union which we have with Christ in conformity of nature; because it is by that intercourse that a husband and wife become one flesh. Here some of them have found two sacraments; one, of God and the soul, in the man and woman when betrothed; the other, of Christ and the Church, in the husband and wife. The conjugal intercourse, upon their principles, however, is a sacrament, from which no Christian ought to be prohibited; unless the sacraments of Christians are so incompatible, that they cannot consist together. There is also another absurdity in their doctrine. They affirm that the grace of the Holy Spirit is conferred in every sacrament; they acknowledge that the conjugal intercourse is a sacrament; yet they deny that the Holy Spirit is ever present in that intercourse.

XXXVII. And, not to deceive the Church in one thing only, what a long series of errors, falsehoods, frauds, and iniquities, have they joined to that false principle! It may truly be affirmed that, when they made matrimony into a sacrament, they only sought a den of all abominations. For, when they had once established this notion, they assumed to themselves the cognizance of matrimonial causes; for matrimony was a spiritual thing, and not to be meddled with before lay judges. Then they made laws for the confirmation of their tyranny; and some of them manifestly impious towards God, and others most unjust towards men. Such as, that marriages contracted between young persons subject to the authority of parents, without the consent of their parents, remain valid and permanent; that no marriages be lawful between persons related, even to the seventh degree; and that, if any such be contracted, they be dissolved, (and the degrees themselves they state in opposition to the laws of all nations, and to the institution of Moses, so that what they call the fourth degree is, in reality, the seventh;) that it be unlawful for a man, who has repudiated his wife for adultery, to marry another; that spiritual relatives be not united in marriage; that no marriages be celebrated from Septuagesima, or the third Sunday before Lent, to the octaves of Easter, or eight days after that festival; for three weeks before the nativity of John the Baptist, or Midsummer-day, instead of which three weeks they now substitute the Whitsun week, and the two weeks which precede it; or from Advent to the Epiphany; and innumerable other regulations, which it would be tedious to enumerate. We must now quit their corruptions, in which we have been detained longer than I could wish: but I think I have gained some advantage by stripping these asses, in some measure, of the lion’s skin, and so far unmasking their principles, and exposing them to the world in their true colours.

Footnote 1366:

1 Tim. ii. 8.

Footnote 1367:

Matt. xxi. 25.

Footnote 1368:

Acts viii. 14-17.

Footnote 1369:

John vii. 37, 38.

Footnote 1370:

John xx. 22.

Footnote 1371:

Gal. iv. 9. Col. ii. 20.

Footnote 1372:

Col. ii. 22.

Footnote 1373:

1 Cor. vi. 13.

Footnote 1374:

Rom. vi. 4-6.

Footnote 1375:

Acts viii. 16. xix. 5.

Footnote 1376:

Acts ii. 4, &c. Matt. x. 20.

Footnote 1377:

Gal. iii. 27.

Footnote 1378:

Acts ix. 17, 18.

Footnote 1379:

Matt. xviii. 18.

Footnote 1380:

Matt. iii. 1-6. Luke iii. 3.

Footnote 1381:

James v. 14, 15.

Footnote 1382:

Mark vi. 13.

Footnote 1383:

John ix. 7.

Footnote 1384:

Acts xx. 10.

Footnote 1385:

Ezek. i. 20. Rom. i. 4; viii. 15. Isaiah xi. 2, 3.

Footnote 1386:

Acts xviii. 18.

Footnote 1387:

1 Cor. ix. 20.

Footnote 1388:

1 Tim. iv. 14.

Footnote 1389:

John xx. 22.

Footnote 1390:

John xi. 43.

Footnote 1391:

Matt. ix. 5. John v. 8.

Footnote 1392:

1 Cor. xv. 41, 42.

Footnote 1393:

Matt. xiii. 31, 33.

Footnote 1394:

Isaiah xl. 10, 11.

Footnote 1395:

Isaiah xlii. 13.

Footnote 1396:

1 Thess. v. 2.

Footnote 1397:

John xv. 1, 5.

Footnote 1398:

John x. 11.

Footnote 1399:

Ephes. v. 28-32.

Footnote 1400:

Gen. ii. 23.

Footnote 1401:

Gal. ii. 20.

Footnote 1402:

1 Tim. iii. 9, 16.

Footnote 1403:

Ephes. iii. 9.