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.