加爾文基督教要義(85)卷四第十九章 論誤稱為聖禮的五種儀式及其性質

第十九章 論誤稱為聖禮的五種儀式及其性質
　　一至三、概論誤稱為聖禮的五種儀式——從略。
　　堅振禮
　　四、教會有一古風，使信徒家中及齡的兒女，在主教之前盡必有的本分，像成人受洗時所行的一樣。這些兒女原來被列入於慕道友中，直到他們學會了基督教的奧秘，並能當主教和眾人面前承認他們的信仰。那些在嬰孩時期受洗的人，既未在教會面前承認他們的信仰，所以於兒童期告終或成人期開始時，就再由父母帶到教會面前，由主教照著通用的學道問答受考問。他們為求使這個配看為莊嚴神聖的禮有更大的尊榮起見，同時也行按手禮。少年人既好好地承認了信仰，就領受祝福而退。這一個風俗，常有古代作者提到。教皇利歐說：「若有人從異端歸正，就不要再受洗，但要由主教按手，叫他領受異端派當中所缺乏的聖靈之感力。」這裡我們的對敵會堅持說，凡使人領受聖靈的儀式，都當稱為聖禮。但是利歐這些話的意思，由他自己在另一處充分說明：「凡從異端派歸正的，不要再受洗了；但要以按手禮，呼籲聖靈來堅固他的信心；因為他只受了洗禮的儀式，而未曾成聖。」耶柔米反對路西非派（Luciferians）,也曾提及此意。雖然耶柔米以為這是使徒們的風俗，我認為並不完全正確，然而他與現今羅馬教徒所持的謬見，卻是大不相同；他甚至補充說明，這祝福禮完全由主教執行：「乃是由於尊重神甫的職分，而不是由於規法的規定。」在祝福時舉行這種簡單的按手禮，我很表贊成，並願望它現在回復到其原始的用法，而不為迷信所敗壞。
　　五、後來的世代將古時的風習幾乎完全抹煞，將虛構的堅振禮當作一種聖禮來舉行。他們妄以為堅振禮的功效，乃是在乎賜下聖靈將恩典加給凡在洗禮中領受了稱義的人；又是在乎堅固那些在洗禮中重生了的人，加增他們爭戰的力量。舉行這堅振禮，是用塗油和下列的話：「我奉父，子，聖靈的名，用十字架的記號給你作記號，用救恩的聖油來堅固你。」這一切都是美麗好聽的。但是那裡有神應許聖靈降臨到這禮中的話呢？他們不能舉出一個字來為證。那麼，他們怎能向我們保證他們的聖油是傳授聖靈之具呢？我們看見那油是一種濃厚的液體，此外我們看不見什麼。奧古斯丁說：「象徵物加上主的話，便成為聖禮。」羅馬教徒若想要我們在聖油之外，再看到有什麼，最好是將主的話指明出來。倘若他們照他們所當行的表現自己真是奉行聖禮者，就用不著再爭辯了。但奉行聖禮者所當遵守的第一規律，乃是除非有主的命令，就不得奉行什麼。所以讓他們指出主關於此禮的命令來，我就對這題目不再多說一句話。倘若他們指不出主的命令來，他們這種褻瀆神的罪就是無可原諒的。根據同一原則，主曾詰問法利賽人說：「約翰的洗禮是從那裡來的，是從天上來的，是從人間來的呢？」（太21： 25）。若他們說，是從人間來的，他們就是承認約翰的洗是虛空無用的；若他們說是從天上來的，他們就不能不承認約翰的教訓。所以他們為避免太貶損約翰起見，就不敢承認是從人間來的。照樣，若堅振禮是「從人間來的」，它便顯然是虛空無用的；倘若他們要我們相信它是從天上來的，就讓他們提出證據來。
　　六、他們援用使徒的榜樣，替自己辯護，認為使徒作事，不會沒有充分理由的。這個想法是對的；倘若他們是效法使徒，也就不會被我們譴責。但是，使徒所行的是什麼呢？路加記載說：「使徒在耶路撒冷，聽見撒瑪利亞人領受了神的道，就打發彼得約翰往他們那裡去。兩個人到了，就為他們禱告，要叫他們受聖靈；因為聖靈還沒有降在他們一個人身上；他們只奉主耶穌的名受了洗。於是使徒按手在他們頭上，他們就受了聖靈」（徒8：14- 17）。這按手禮，由這位聖史家提過好幾次。我知道使徒所作的是什麼：他們乃是信實地奉行他們的牧養工作。主的旨意是要將聖靈看得見的和奇妙的恩賜，藉著使徒的按手禮來澆灌他的子民。我不認為按手禮藏有更高的奧秘，他們不過是用這儀式來將他們所按過手的人呈給上帝。倘若當日使徒所奉行的職分，今日仍然在教會中存在，按手禮便也當仍然保留；但這恩典既不再賜下，按手禮又有什麼用呢？誠然神的子民還有聖靈同在，其引導是教會所不可或缺的。因為我們有一個永遠不落空的應許，即基督所說：「人若渴了，可以到我這裡來，喝這活水」（約7：37，38）。但那些藉著按手禮所顯的奇妙能力和運行，如今已經停止了；它們只曾存留一個時期，乃是理所當然的。因為最初宣傳福音和基督的國，必須由聞所未聞，見所未見的神跡，來加以表彰顯大。這些神跡後來止息了，並非是表示主撇棄了他的教會，而不啻是主宣布說，他統治的莊嚴和他聖道的尊榮，都業已充分顯明了。這樣說來，這些騙子根據什麼，說他們是效法使徒呢？他們一用按手禮，聖靈的能力就當立刻表現出來。可是他們不能這樣作。那麼，他們為什麼誇口說，他們有施行按手禮的權柄呢？這按手禮，當然為使徒所施行，但完全是為著另一種目的。
　　七、這正好像有人將主叫使徒受聖靈所吹的一口氣，認為是聖禮一樣（約20： 22）。但是主雖然曾一次這樣作，然而他沒有指示我們也這樣作。同樣，在主垂聽使徒們的禱告，將聖靈的有形恩典賜給他們時，他們也行按手禮，這並不是要後來的人虛構一個空洞無用的記號，成為一種毫無實在的東西。此外，即使他們能證明，他們是效法使徒行按手禮——其實他們除荒謬的模擬外，毫無類似使徒的地方 ——他們所稱為救恩之油，又是從那裡得來的呢？誰曾教訓他們從油中去尋找救恩呢？誰曾教訓他們將油看為能灌輸靈力呢？豈是那叫我們脫離屬世之物，嚴厲指責我們拘守遺傳的保羅嗎？（參加4：9；西2：20）。我不憑著自己，卻憑著主，大膽宣布說，凡稱油為救恩之油的，乃是放棄在基督里的救恩，拒絕基督，與上帝的國無分。因為油是為肚腹，肚腹是為油；主要廢棄這兩樣。這一切無力的東西，「正用的時候，就都敗壞了」（西2：22）。它們與那屬靈的和永遠不滅的神之國，是無關的。他們要說，那麼，你若將這一原則應用到洗禮所用的水上，和聖餐中所用的餅和酒上，又怎樣呢？我回答說，在神所設立的聖禮中，我們當注意兩件事，即有形的象徵物，和那由神的話印在象徵物上，使聖禮發生效力的性質。所以我們在聖禮中所看見的餅，酒，和水，既存留著它們自然的本質，就如保羅所說：「食物是為肚腹，肚腹是為食物，但神要叫這兩樣都廢壞」（林前6：13）；因為它們都要同世界的樣子歸於消滅。但是它們既因神的話而成為聖禮，就不把我們限於肉體，卻將真實屬靈的教訓傳給我們。
　　八至十二、繼續駁斥羅馬教會以堅振禮為聖禮之非——從略。
　　十三、我渴望我們保留了古人在這所謂堅振禮尚未出現以前所有的辦法，有如我前面所說的。因為古時所行的，並非是羅馬教徒所偽稱那種有損於洗禮的堅振禮，而只是少年人在教會面前承認他們信仰的一種問答儀式而已。最好的問答方式教導，即是把普世教會信徒所當同意，而毫無爭端的信條，以通俗體裁條陳出來，使十歲的兒童也可以到教會面前，承認他的信仰，適當回答對他所提出的信條考問。倘若他對某信條尚不知道或不完全了解，就必再受教訓。這樣教會可以見到他承認教會的真實純一信仰，這信仰乃是全體信徒用來共同崇拜神的。今日若實行這種訓導，就必能激勵一些懈怠的父母，這些父母疏忽了自己兒女的教導，認為這是不關他們的事；但若有了那問答方法，他們若仍疏忽，就不免蒙羞。這樣作，也可以使信徒在信仰上更加和諧，使許多人不至暴露偌大的愚昧無知，而有些人也必不至如此易於被新奇的道理所擄去。總而言之，人人對於基督教的道理，就必都有合理的認識。
　　論告解禮
　　十四、其次他們又加上了告解禮；他們對這禮的論調是如此紛亂無序，以致叫人把握不著他們的教訓。在本書另一處，我們已經詳細說到，我們從聖經中關於悔改所能知道的是什麼，羅馬教徒對這題目所教訓的又是什麼。我們現在只要簡單地查問，他們根據什麼以此為聖禮，且使之在各處教會和學派中流行了一個很長的時期。首先我要簡略說到古教會的儀式，這儀式他們用為借口，來建立他們的捏造。古人對當眾認罪的辦法乃是這樣：在罪人照教會所吩咐的完成了補罪后，教牧就用嚴肅的按手禮使他們與教會和好。這乃是一種免罪的表記，叫罪人確知在神面前蒙了赦免，也勸會眾對他的過錯釋然忘懷，以寬仁再接納他。這種辦法，居普良常稱之為 「歸於和好」。為求增加這種動作的重要性，且使之更為人所推重起見，所以古人又規定，這儀式總須憑主教的權威來舉行。所以迦太基第二次會議的教令說：「長老不得在舉行彌撒時，當眾使懺悔者與教會和好。」亞勞修會議有另一教令說：「懺悔補贖者在補贖期間若將離開世界，便可以領受聖餐而不須先經和好的按手禮。倘若他康復了，仍須完畢補贖期，然後由主教行和好的按手禮。」迦太基第三次會議的教令說：「長老未經主教授權，不得叫補贖者與教會歸於和好。」這些教令的目的，都是為要保存這事的嚴格性。所以這些教令將此事交主教明斷，因為他的審問必更周詳。但是居普良說，給懺悔者按手的，不只是主教一人，而是所有教士都參加的。居氏如此說：「他們補贖一個定期，然後來領聖餐，由主教和教士行按手禮，使他們重新有領聖餐之權。」後來，這風氣逐漸敗壞了，他們將這按手禮用為私下赦罪，而無當眾悔罪的表示了。於是格拉典（Gratian）的著作中就有當眾和好與私下和好的分別。我認為居普良所提的古風，是聖潔的，也是有益於教會的，巴不得它能在今日重新恢復。至於這較近來的辦法，我雖不貿然譴責，或嚴加非難，但我認為是不必要的。然而我們認為悔改時所行的按手禮，乃是由人所定的儀式，而非神的設施，只能列於那無關重要的事和外表的儀式中，固不應受輕視，可是遠遜於神的話所吩咐我們的聖禮。
　　十五、羅馬教的神學家一向用錯解來敗壞一切，他們在這裡想方設法，要發現一個聖禮，而不可得。這並不足為奇，因為他們是在尋不到的地方去追求。他們盡其所能后，問題仍是困惑無定，眾論紛紜。他們說：外表的懺悔乃是一個聖禮，如其為然，它就當被視為一個內心懺悔的表記，即內心痛悔的表記，這痛悔乃是聖禮的實體。他們又說：這兩者共同構成一個聖禮，並不是兩個聖禮，而是一個完全的聖禮，不過外表的懺悔僅是聖禮，而那內心的痛悔才是聖禮和聖禮的實體；至於赦罪，乃僅是實體，而非聖禮。那些記得我們前面所提論聖禮定義的人，若用那定義來考驗這種捏造的聖禮，他們就要發現，它並不是由神所設立，用來堅固我們信心的外表儀式。倘若他們分辯說，我的定義並不是他們所必須服從的定律，就讓他們聽他們所最敬重的奧古斯丁的話。他說：「有形的聖禮是為著屬肉體的人設立的，叫他們藉著聖禮的步驟可以從看得見的東西，被領到只為心靈所了解的事物。」在他們所謂告解聖禮中，他們自己能看出什麼，或能向別人指出什麼，是與此相類似的地方嗎？奧氏在另一處又說：「聖禮之被稱為聖禮，乃是因為一件事是看得見的，而另一件事是包含在其中。看得見的事具有形體；所包含的事具有屬靈的果子。」奧氏所提的這些事，對於他們所捏造的告解聖禮都不適合，因為在此禮中，並無有形的體，來表明屬靈的果子。
　　十六、且站在他們自己的立場上來征服他們罷。倘若他們要在這裡找到聖禮的話，那麼，他們倒不如說，在這裡的聖禮是在乎神甫的宣赦，而不是在乎內心或外表的懺悔。因為這儀式顯然為的是使我們相信罪得赦免，且有他們所說天國鑰匙的應許：「凡你們在地上所捆綁的，在天上也要捆綁；凡你們在地上所釋放的，在天上也要釋放」（太18：18）。但是他們要提出反對來說，許多人由神甫宣赦，卻沒有從那宣赦得著這種益處，因為新律法的聖禮總是成就它們所表的。這種反對說法是可笑的。因為他們既說在聖餐禮中有兩種吃法——屬聖禮的吃法對好人和歹人都是一樣的，屬靈的吃法乃是特別為好人的 ——那麼他們為什麼不也可說有兩種宣赦呢？然而我從來就不懂得他們所謂新律法的聖禮必定有效的教理。當我們正式討論到這個題目時，就已經證明這乃是完全與神的真理不相符的。但這裡我只是要指明，他們不必存什麼顧慮心以至不稱神甫的宣赦為聖禮。因為他們很可以引用奧古斯丁以下的話：「使人成聖，有時是不需有形的聖禮的，而有形的聖禮有時並沒有內心的成聖相隨而至」；「聖禮只在選民身上才有效力，才能成就它們所表的」；「有些人披戴基督，是止於接受了外表的的聖禮，而有些人則直到成聖的地步」，前者是為好人與惡人所同有，後者則只是限於好人。他們真是庸人自憂，暴露自己的弱點甚於兒童，即在光天化日之下，也看不見如此顯明的一件事。
　　十七、他們不要奉承自己，因為不問他們把那一部分算為聖禮，我都否認它為聖禮。第一，因為它沒有神的任何特別應許，而那是那聖禮的惟一基礎；第二，因為這裡所有的一切儀式，都是人所捏造的，而前面已經證明，聖禮只能由神所設立。所以，他們所杜撰的告解聖禮，無非是虛妄和欺騙。這一個偽造的聖禮, 他們用一個合式的名稱來推崇它,稱之為「船破以後第二塊板子」；那就是說，若有人犯罪，將受洗時所領受的潔白衣裳染污了，就可以用告解禮來再洗滌它。他們說，這乃是耶柔米的話。不問這是誰的話，若照他們的觀點來解釋，顯然是不免於犯了不虔敬之罪。這好像是說，聖洗為罪所塗抹了，殊不知罪人一想到使罪得赦時，他當回想到洗禮，使心中得安慰，有勇氣，而且堅信洗禮時所應許給他的赦罪。耶柔米說，那些應受逐出教會處分的人，所離棄的洗禮，是由懺悔而恢復了，這種鹵莽失度的話，卻為這些人拿來維護他們的不敬虔。因此，我們很合適地可以稱洗禮為懺悔的聖禮，因為洗禮向悔改的人保證神的恩典並堅固他們的信仰。這個說法不可視為我們的捏造，因為它不僅和聖經上的話相符，而且也普遍地為古教會接受為毫無疑義的至理。因為在指為奧古斯丁給彼得所寫的論信仰一文中，曾稱洗禮為「信仰與悔改的聖禮」。我們又何必再依靠那些不確實的見證呢？什麼也不比各福音書所載更明顯的，即「約翰宣稱悔改的洗禮，使罪得赦」（太3：1-6；路 3：3）。
　　論臨終膏油禮
　　十八、第三個偽造的聖禮，乃是臨終膏油禮；這個禮只能由神甫在人最後一息時，用主教所祝聖過的油來舉行，說：「藉著這最聖潔的膏油禮，憑著神最仁慈的憐憫，願神赦免你耳，目，口，鼻和手所犯的一切罪。」他們假想這膏油禮有兩種效用，即赦罪，和身體得醫治，或靈魂得拯救。他們說，這一個聖禮是由使徒雅各設立的，因他說：「你們當中有病了的呢？他就該請教會的長老來，他們可以奉主的名用油抹他，為他禱告；出於信心的祈禱，要救那病人，主必叫他起來；他若犯了罪，也必蒙赦免」（雅5：14，15）。他們這種膏油禮，也正如我們業已駁斥的按手禮一樣，乃是一種捏造，毫無理由，毫無益處，妄想模仿使徒。馬可記載，使徒們第一次傳福音，照主所命令的，叫死人復活，趕鬼，潔凈患大麻瘋的，醫治病人，且在醫治病人上用了油。他說： 「他們用油抹了許多病人，治好他們」（可6：13）。當雅各吩咐人請長老來用油抹病人，他必是想到了這事。凡留心觀察的人，從主和使徒們在一切外表的事上都運用極大的自由，就可知道這種抹油醫病的儀式，並不含著什麼更大的奧秘。當主要叫瞎子能看見時，他用泥和唾沫；有的人，他用手一摸就醫好了，有的人，他說一句話就醫好了。同樣，使徒醫治人，或用一句話，或用手摸，或抹油。也許有人爭辯說，這種抹油禮和別的方法，並非是無端亂用的。我承認這一點，不過，他們並非用抹油作為治病的工具，而是只將它當作一種表記，使無知的人知道效能的由來，不至把讚美歸於使徒。聖靈和他的恩賜，在聖經上用油來表明，乃是極普通的事。但是醫病的恩賜只是在初傳福音的時候，為求使人永遠景仰起見，由主樂意在一個時期內顯明出來，然而現在它與其他神跡奇事一樣，已經停止了。所以即使我們完全認為膏油乃是藉使徒們之手所施行的那些能力的聖禮，但它與我們無關，因為我們並未受託，施行這種能力。
　　十九至二一、繼續駁斥教皇黨徒以膏油為聖禮之非——從略。
　　論教會的聖職禮
　　二十二、他們的第四種聖禮，乃是授職聖禮，但這一聖禮非常繁殖，已成為七個小聖禮。他們主張有七個聖禮。進而提出十三個聖禮來，實在是可笑的。他們關於聖職的所謂七個聖禮，也不能申辯說：因為它們都是同屬於一個神甫職，都不過是達到此職的許多步驟，所以它們只是一個聖禮。因為既然它們是不同的儀式，而且他們自己也稱之為七種不同的恩典，所以倘若我們接受他們的原則，它們就無疑地理當稱為七個聖禮。他們自己既然明顯稱之為七個聖禮，我們又何必以這為疑問來討論呢？首先，我們要將他們為求使我們接受他們的授職禮為聖禮所強加於我們的荒謬事，簡短提出來；其次，我們要問，教會所用以封立牧師的儀式，是否當稱為聖禮。他們提到教會的七種聖職或階級，並稱之為聖禮。這七個聖職乃是司閽，讀經員，祛邪者，贊禮員，副執事，執事，神甫。聖職有七，因為聖靈有七種恩賜，是凡晉陞聖職的人所應有的；而且隨他們階級的晉陞而更豐富地增添給他們。而且他們由於誤解聖經，就以這七的數目為神聖的數目：因為他們認為以賽亞書上提到了聖靈的七德；其實先知以賽亞只提到六德，而且並無意要在那段經文上，條舉聖靈的諸德，因為除他在那裡稱他為「智慧和聰明的靈，謀略和能力的靈，知識和敬畏耶和華的靈」（賽11：2）外，別的經文稱他為「生命的靈，聖善的靈，和擇選的靈」（羅1：4；8：15）。其他更機巧的人不將聖職定為七，而擴展為九，說是與得勝的教會的數目相符。他們中間的意見也並不一致，因為有人將剃度加入聖職者列為初級，將主教職列為最高級；有人不將前者列入，而將大主教職列入。依西多爾（Isidore）卻另用一種不同的方法來區分他們：他把唱詩員和讀經員分為兩種職務，指派前者專為讚頌，後者專讀聖經，以教導會眾。教條也是這樣區分。在這種錯綜紛雜中，他們要我們何去何從呢？我們可說有七種聖職么？語錄作者倫巴都乃是如此教導的；但是最明智的博士們另有所主張，而這些博士也彼此不同。而且那最神聖的教條又另有一種說法。這就是人在不按神之道來討論屬神題旨時所表現的和諧！
　　二十三、但是，更有一件超乎一切的愚妄之事，就是他們在每一級聖職中都把基督列為同僚。他們說，基督履行過司閽的職，因為他用繩子作成鞭子，將一切作買賣的驅逐出聖殿。當他說：「我是門」時，他也表明自己是一個司閻。他在會堂中讀以賽亞書時，他就表明自己是一個讀經員。他曾履行過驅邪職，用唾沫抹在那聾啞者的耳朵和舌頭上，使他能聽見能說話。他說：「凡跟隨我的，必不在黑暗裡行，」這乃是稱自己是一位贊禮員。他也曾履行副執事的職分，因為他曾用手巾束腰，為門徒洗腳。他在晚餐中將自己的身體和血分給人，便充任了執事的地位。他在十字架上將自己獻給天父，就履行了神甫職。聽了這些話，不能不使人發噱，他們寫下這些話，倘若他們還是人，，能不使自己發噱嗎？最奇怪的事，乃是他們關於贊禮員這名稱的妙論，他們稱之為持燭者；我想這是一種有魔術性的名稱，但是從不見之於任何國家或文字中，其實原來的希臘名字有跟隨者的意思。但是，倘若我認真來駁斥這種無足輕重的事，就不免要引人發笑了。
　　二十四、但是，為求阻止他們繼續以這些不合理的事來加於愚笨的婦女，所以我們應當進而暴露他們的虛妄。他們用豪華隆重的儀式來派立讀經員，唱詩者，司閽，贊禮員，以供奉職務，而所用來充當這些職務的，乃是童子或平信徒。因為那些燃燭，或從瓶中酌酒傾水的人，豈不大都是藉此謀生的童子或卑微的平信徒嗎？他們豈不也唱詩，並開關教堂的門嗎？誰在聖堂中看見過一個贊禮員或司閽履行他的職務呢？反倒一個人在作童子時，真履行了贊禮員的職務，一旦列為贊禮員，便不再充任此位分的職務了；他們似乎是故意在接受名稱時，就拋棄那名稱的職務。我們看出他們用聖禮來受職並接受聖靈，無非是使他們可以不作事。倘若他們申辯說，這是由於現今時代的人們悖逆，疏忽離棄職務而來，但同時他們也得承認，他們所極其推崇的聖職，對於今日的教會是無用無益的，而且他們整個的教會大受咒詛，因為這教會許侍童和平信徒來掌燭持瓶，而那些東西只有受了贊禮員職的人才配去接觸的；又因為這教會讓童子於禮拜時去頌讚，而這種頌讚只當出於奉獻了的口。但是他們按立祛邪者，有什麼目的呢？我知道古時猶太人有祛邪者，他們是由他們所行的祛邪術而得名。至於今日這些冒稱的祛邪者，誰曾聽到他們有過一件驅邪的事呢？他們假裝有能力按手在瘋狂和被鬼附的人，以及學道友身上；但他們卻不能使鬼信服他們具有這種能力，鬼不僅不聽從他們的命令，甚至也控制他們。他們十人當中難有一人，不受邪靈的影響。他們對他們這種可鄙的聖職所有可笑的託辭，都不過是由無知和虛妄所構成。關於古代的贊禮員，司閽，和讀經員，我們於討論教會的聖職時，已經談到了。如今我們只要打擊那以教職為一種七重聖禮的新奇捏造。這七重聖職，除在那些號稱聰明的神學家如巴黎神學院和教條派外，再不能從別的地方找到一個字。
　　二十五、現在讓我們來考驗他們所用的儀式。第一，他們用一種共同的記號，接納人加入教士的隊伍。他們將這些人的頭頂剃光，以錶王侯之尊，認為充任教職的人應當做君王，治理自己和別人，如聖彼得對他們所說的：「你們是被揀選的族類，是有君尊的祭司，是聖潔 的國度，是屬神的子民」（彼前2： 9）。但是他們將那賜予整個教會的專歸為己有，又以那從一切信徒偷來的尊稱傲然自榮，這乃是犯了褻瀆神的罪。彼得的話是對全教會說的，他們卻妄自把他的話援用於少數剃光頭頂的人身上，好像說，只有他們是聖潔的人，只有他們是為基督的寶血所救贖的人，只有他們是由基督立為君王和祭司的。他們更進而提出別的理由，說他們的頭頂剃光，是表示他們的心自由無礙地歸於上主，能夠敞著臉看神的榮耀；也可說是表示他們的口和眼所犯的罪，都理當剃去。又可說剃光頭頂，是表示他們放棄一切俗事，而頭頂邊緣上所留的發，乃是表示留下養生的產業。每一件事都具有象徵意味；因為殿中的幔子對他們尚未裂開。因此，他們以剃光頭頂來代表這樣的事，自以為他們完全盡了自己的本分，其實他們一件也未履行。他們用這種虛妄來欺騙我們，要到幾時呢？教士藉著剃去幾根頭髮，來表明他們放棄了世上的豐富產業，自由無礙地去默想神的榮耀，剋制了耳目所有的情慾，其實什麼人也不比他們更貪婪，更無知，更淫蕩。他們為何不真表現出聖潔來，而徒以虛妄欺騙的象徵來假裝聖潔呢？
　　二十六、他們說，教士剃度，乃導源於拿細耳人，這豈不是承認他們的聖禮乃出於猶太人的儀式，或說，不過是一種猶太教嗎？但當他們再申辯說，百基拉和亞居拉以及保羅本人，也於許願後用剃髮來自潔，那便更加暴露他們是完全無知了。因為無處曾提到百基拉剃度過，亞居拉是否剃度了，也還不確定，因為那上面所載剃髮一事，可指保羅而言，一如可指亞居拉而言一樣（徒18：18）。但是我們不能讓他們引保羅來作為剃度的借口。讀者都當注意，保羅並非是為著聖潔而剃髮，而只為適應軟弱的弟兄。我慣常稱這種願為愛心的願，而非宗教的願；那乃是說，這種願非為宗教而發，也不是崇拜神的行為，而是要擔當軟弱弟兄的愚昧，正如保羅自己說：「向猶太人我就作猶太人，為要得猶太人」（林前7：20）。因此保羅行了這事，乃是暫時的，只有一次，為要適應猶太人。如今這些人毫無理由地效法拿細耳人的自潔法，這豈不是妄自模仿那已作廢的習俗，興起一種新的猶太教嗎？這一種迷信也影響了教諭書信，使它根據保羅來禁止教士留長頭髮，吩咐他們將頭髮剃成一個圓圈形，好像保羅所提到宜於一切男人的事，是專指教士剃度而言一般。因此讀者對隨此而來的其他聖禮的尊榮和重要性，也就可想而知了。
　　二十七、教士剃度的起源，可以由奧古斯丁的著作看出。當那時代，男人不蓄長發，除非他是女性化，儀態嬌柔，缺乏男人氣質的人。所以教士蓄長發，便認為是不好的榜樣。所以命令教士剃去頭髮，好叫他們沒有女性的表現。後來剃髮如此流行，有些修道士想用一種與眾不同的事來表示他們優越的聖潔，於是乃蓄起長發來。後來，蓄長發的風氣又恢復了，並且有幾個國家，如法蘭西，日耳曼和英格蘭，一向習於蓄髮，皈依基督教后，各處教士乃剃髮，以避免以頭髮為裝飾的表現。後來到了腐敗的時代，一切古制都被曲解，或退化為迷信，他們對教士剃度一事，看不出什麼理由（因為他們沒有保留別的，只是愚昧地仿效前人而已），乃訴諸奧秘，這奧秘他們現在迷信地提出來作為維持他們所謂聖禮的一個證據。司閽於受職時領受教堂的鑰匙，以表明他們被委任看管教堂。讀經員受職時，領受一本聖經。祛邪者則領受各種驅邪的符式，以使用於學道友和瘋人身上。贊禮員領受燭和瓶。他們認為這些禮儀具有奧秘能力，不但是無形恩典的表記，而且是它的產生者。因為，按照他們的定義，他們既把這些禮儀列入聖禮，就必然如此假定。總之，我認為教條家和經院學派神學家，以聖禮的稱呼來加於他們自己所謂「次等職位」，乃是悖謬的；因為他們自己也承認，這些職位初期教會未之曾聞，在許多年後才捏造出來。既然聖禮須含有神的應許，就不能為人或天使所設立，而只能為神所設立，因為那應許惟有神才能賜給。
　　二十八、此外還有三種職位，他們稱之為高等職位。他們說，副執事在次等職位開始增加時，便轉到高等職位了，因他們以為從聖經可以證明這些職位，所以他們為增加它們的光榮，特別稱之為「聖職」。但是我們現在必須查考他們為達到自己的目的，是如何荒謬地濫用了神的命令。我們要從長老職或神甫職說起。他們用這兩個名稱來表示一件事，以之稱呼那些他們所謂有權將基督的身體和血獻在祭壇上，祈禱，並頌揚神的恩賜的人。因此他們受職時，接受聖餐杯和聖餐碟，是表明他們有權向神獻贖罪祭；而且用油抹他們的手，是表明他們有祝聖的權能。關於這些儀式，我們往後要提到。至於這事的本身，我認為沒有聖經的一個字作根據，他們敗壞神所設立的職分，沒有比這更甚的了。第一，從前章所論教皇的彌撒看來，我們就該知道，凡稱自己為祭司獻贖罪祭的，都是對基督大大有損的。因為基督乃是聖父起誓立的祭司，按照麥基洗德的等級，沒有盡頭，也沒有繼承者。他曾用一次獻了永遠贖罪與和好的祭；如今既已進入天上的聖所，就為我們代求。在基督里，我們都是祭司，但只是對神獻上讚美和感謝，總之，獻上我們自己，及我們所有的。用獻祭來止息神怒，使罪得赦，乃是屬於基督的職分。這些人擅將基督的祭司職分歸為己有，他們的祭司職豈不是該當不虔敬和褻瀆的罪嗎？他們敢以聖禮的名稱來尊榮它，真是暴露他們大膽無恥。給教會的真實長老和牧師行按手禮，使他們供聖職，我並不反對以此為一種聖禮；因為，第一，這儀式是從聖經中取來的，第二，保羅說，這並不是可輕忽的，而是屬靈恩典的真實象徵（提前4： 14）。我其所以未將它列為第三個聖禮，是因為它不是給與一切信徒的，而只是為個別職分所行的特別典禮。然而將這光榮歸於牧職，羅馬教的神甫並不能因此就驕傲起來，因為基督曾命令我們按立牧師，以傳揚福音，施行聖禮，卻並未立祭司來獻祭。他委任他們傳揚福音，餵養羊群，並沒有叫他們宰牲獻祭。他應許把聖靈賜給他們，只是為維持管理教會，並不是叫他們能夠贖罪。
　　二十九、主所立的禮儀，總是與所代表的事實完全相符合的。例如當主差遣門徒傳福音時，他「向他們吹一口氣」（約20： 22），表明他將聖靈的能力灌輸給了他們。這些自作聰明的神學家，也保留吹氣的舉動，好像聖靈是從他們的喉中吐出來的一般，對受按立的神甫喃喃說道：「你們受聖靈。」這樣，他們就不讓什麼能逃脫他們荒謬的模仿，而這種模仿並不是如同喜劇中丑腳的扮演舉措，不乏技巧和用意的，而是如同猿猴的做作，毫無計劃和風趣的。他們說，這是學主的榜樣。但是我們的主作了許多事，並非是給我們作榜樣的。他對門徒說：「你們受聖靈」。他對拉撒路說：「拉撒路出來」（約11： 43）。他對癱子說：「起來行走」（太9：5；約5：8）。他們為什麼不對一切死人和癱子同樣說呢？他對門徒吹一口氣，使他們充滿聖靈的恩典，這乃是他神能的一種表現。倘若他們想照樣去作，他們就是想與神競賽，向他挑戰；但他們一點不能產生同樣的效力，這種愚昧的模仿，只足以戲弄基督。他們誠然是無恥，膽敢說自己將聖靈授人；但事實證明，那些受按立為神甫的人，如同由馬變了驢，笨漢變了瘋子。我也不是因此而反對他們；我只指摘這儀式的本身，不當把基督所行特殊神跡的特別表記，來作為先例；他們效法基督的借口，並不足以證明他們所行的為合理。
　　三十、但是他們從誰領受了膏油禮呢？他們回答說，這是從亞倫的後裔領受的，他們的職分也是由此發源。可見他們總喜歡引用不適當的前例來維護自己，而不願意承認他們所行的，乃是由自己所捏造的；但同時他們卻不想到，他們自認為亞倫後裔的繼承者，便損害了基督的祭司職；這職乃是古代一切祭司職所描述所預表的。所以基督完成了終止了古時的一切祭司職分；它們都因他而停止了，這是我再三說過的，而且是希伯來書不假註釋所明白宣布的。倘若他們是如此喜歡摩西的儀式，他們為什麼不用公牛，牛犢，和羊羔來獻祭呢？他們誠然有大部分古時的儀式，和猶太人一切的崇拜；但他們的宗教所缺乏的，乃是他們不用動物來獻祭。誰不知道，這膏油的風俗較割禮更為有害，尤其是若把迷信和法利賽人一般的功德觀加上，它便是更為有害呢？猶太人靠行割禮來稱義；這些人卻靠膏油禮來得屬靈的恩典，因此，他們既想效法利未人，就背叛了基督，放棄了牧師的職分。
　　三十一、他們以為已奉獻成聖的油，有一種永不磨滅的特性；好像油不能用塵土和鹽洗除，或是黏得不能為肥皂所洗去。他們說，這特性是屬靈的。可是油與靈魂有什麼關係呢？他們所引奧古斯丁的話：倘若神的話和水分開了，那水就只是水，因神的話，水才成為聖禮，他們難道忘記了么？在他們的膏油禮中，他們能提出上帝的什麼話呢？他們難道將神叫摩西膏亞倫的兒子的吩咐提出來嗎？若是如此，還有關於亞倫穿著的外衣，禮服，祭帽的吩咐，以及關於亞倫兒子穿戴的外衣，腰帶和祭帽的吩咐。又有命令要宰一隻公牛，焚其脂膏，切開一牡羊而焚之，並以另一隻牡羊的血使他們的耳朵和外衣成為聖潔，以及其它種種禮儀，我驚奇他們為何都遺漏，而只採取了這膏油禮。倘若他們喜好灑油，為何不灑血呢？他們誠然是企圖作一件最巧妙的事，要從基督教，猶太教，和異教搜集各種成分來造成一個宗教。因此，他們的膏油禮乃是十分腐臭的，因為它缺少神的話來作鹽。還剩下有按手禮。我承認它在真實合法的授職典禮中，是一種聖禮，但我否認在他們喜劇般的虛妄中，有什麼聖禮，因為他們既不服從基督的命令，又不注重主的應許帶領我們所要達到的目的。倘若他們要有授職禮，他們就當將這禮專用於達到它原來的目的。
　　三十二、關於執事的職分，倘若它恢復到在使徒下或在教會較純潔時代所有原來的純潔地步，我同他們也無所爭辯。但是羅馬教徒中妄稱執事的人，與這有什麼相似之處呢？我並不是指個人而言，免得他們埋怨說，以個人的過失來評論他們的教義，乃是不公道的；但是姑就他們的教義本身所說明的執事來說，我認為他們拿使徒教會所委任的執事作護符，乃是荒謬的。他們說，他們的執事理當協助神甫舉行聖禮，即如協助舉行洗禮和膏油禮，又如預備聖餐的餅酒，陳列祭品於祭壇，預備並覆蓋主的餐桌，舉持十字架，對會眾吟誦福音書和使徒書信。在這一切中，那裡有一字提到古時執事的真職責呢？現在我們看執事如何受按立。按立執事時，只有主教一人按手；主教在他左肩上放一聖帶，表明他是已經負起了主輕省的軛，好使屬於左邊的一切事都敬畏主；又給他一本福音，表明他是宣揚福音的。這些事與執事有什麼相干呢？這不啻是有人妄想封立人為使徒，卻只派他們去燒香，裝飾神像，修剪蠟燭，打掃教堂，捉鼠，趕狗。誰能讓這種人稱為使徒，與基督的使徒相比呢？他們不過委派這種人在他們喜劇般的表演中，充當角色，所以不要再稱他們為執事了。他們的名稱也足以充分表明這職分的性質。因為他們稱執事為利未人，要從利未的後裔追溯其來源。他們這樣做，我並不反對，只要他們不冒稱為基督教。
　　三十三、論副執事——從略。
　　三十四、他們末了的一個聖禮乃是婚禮，這是人人都承認為神所設立的，但直至貴鉤利的時候，沒有人發現它是聖禮。那一個頭腦清醒的人，會認為這是聖禮呢？若說這乃是神所設立良善聖潔的禮，那麼，農業，建築，製鞋業，及其他許多事，也是神的良好設施，卻並不是聖禮。因為聖禮所必具的條件，不僅它必須是神的作為，而且它必須有神所設立的儀式，用來證實他的應許。婚禮中未曾具有這一條件，雖稚子也能辨識。但是他們說，婚姻乃是神聖的事的表記，即表明基督和教會屬靈的結合。倘若他們以「表記」是指上帝幫助我們的信仰所賜給我們的象徵，那麼他們就離開真理太遠了。倘若他們以表記只指一種類比而言，我就要揭露他們推論得多麼敏銳呀！保羅說：「這星和那星的榮光也有分別：死人復活也是這樣」（林前15：41，42）。那麼，這也是一個聖禮了。基督說：「天國好像一粒芥菜子。」這裡又是一個聖禮了。基督又說：「天國好像面酵」（太13：31，33）。這裡是第三個聖禮了。以賽亞說：「看哪，主必像牧人牧養自己的羊群」（賽40：10，11）。這裡是第四個聖禮了。他又說：「主必像勇士出去」（賽42：13）。這裡是第五個聖禮了。這樣，聖禮那裡有止境呢？根據這種說法，每一件事物都可說是一個聖禮了；在聖經上有多少比喻和類比，便將有多少聖禮了。即令是竊盜行為，也要成為一個聖禮了；因為經上記著說，「主的日子來到，好像夜間的賊一樣」（帖前5：2）。誰能忍受這些詭辯家的胡言呢？我承認，每當我們看見葡萄樹，就甚當想起基督的話說： 「我是葡萄樹，你們是枝子，我父是栽培的人」（約15：1，5）。每當我們遇見牧人和羊群時，就當記起主的另一句話：「我是好牧人，好牧人為羊捨命」（約 10：11）。但是若有人把這一切的比喻都列為聖禮，那就證明他是有神經病。
　　三十五、他們引證保羅的話，來說，他明明稱婚禮為聖禮：「丈夫愛妻子，便是愛自己。從來沒有人恨惡自己的身子，總是保護顧惜，正像基督待教會一樣；因我們是他身上的肢體，就是他的骨，他的肉。為這個緣故，人要離開父母，與妻子連合，二人成為一體。這是極大的奧秘（武加大譯本把奧秘譯為聖禮），但我是指著基督和教會說的。」（弗5：28-32）。但是，這樣解釋經文，不啻是把天地混亂起來。為要表明丈夫應當如何特別愛妻子，保羅乃提出基督來作為榜樣。正如基督將他的一切慈愛傾注於他所娶的教會，照樣使徒保羅希望人同樣愛妻子。所以經上說：「愛妻子，便是愛自己，正像基督愛教會一樣。」保羅為說明基督怎樣愛教會如同愛他自己一樣，並且怎樣使他自己與教會他的配偶成為一體，他乃引用摩西記述亞當所說的話來論基督。因為當夏娃被帶到亞當面前時，他知道她乃是由他的肋骨造成的，他說：「這是我骨中的骨，肉中的肉」（創2：23）。保羅從靈性上證明這一切都應驗在基督和我們的關係上，他說：「我們是他身上的肢體，就是他的骨，他的肉，」因此是和基督成為「一體」。最後他以贊歡來結束說：「這是極大的奧秘；」但為叫人不因語言模糊而受欺起見，他又明顯地說，這話不是指著男女的婚姻而言，而是指著基督和教會的屬靈婚姻而言。「但我是指著基督和教會說的。」這真是極大的奧秘，基督讓他的肋骨被拿去一根，好使我們得以造成，那就是說，他雖剛強，卻自願成為軟弱，好使我們因他的能力而剛強；所以「現在活著的，不再是我，乃是基督在我裡面活著」（加2：20）。
　　三十六、他們因武加大譯本稱婚姻為聖禮而受騙。但是整個教會因他們的無知而受罰，這是合理的嗎？其實保羅是稱婚姻為奧秘，而不是稱它為聖禮。那麼，讓他們叫罵語言學罷。其實他們因對這種學問愚昧無知，所以在這樣一件顯而易見的事上，竟可恥地受了很久的欺騙。他們為什麼在這一節經文上如此堅持「聖禮」一辭，在別的經文上卻把它放過毫不注意呢？因為那位拉丁文譯者在提摩太前書（3：9，16），以弗所書（3：9）上，又在經上凡用奧秘一辭的其他地方，都將奧秘譯為聖禮。然而這一個疏忽的錯誤，我們且饒了他們吧，但是騙子至少應當有好記憶力。因為他們既已尊重婚姻為聖禮，同時又指斥婚姻含有污穢不潔和肉體敗壞的性質，這是何等沒有頭腦的善變呀！將神甫擯除於這聖禮之外，這是如何荒唐呀！若是他們說他們不是禁止聖禮，只是禁止婚媾而已，我對於這種遁詞不能滿意。因為他們既諄諄訓誨說，婚媾乃為聖禮的一部分，因此它是以人的本性來代表我們與基督連合為一的；因為藉婚媾夫妻成為一體。在這裡他們當中有些人發現兩個聖禮：一個是當男女訂婚的時候，有上帝和心靈連合的聖禮；另一個是在夫妻的關係上，有基督與教會連合的聖禮。但是無論如何，照著他們的原則說，婚媾乃是一聖禮，所以對任何基督徒都不當加以禁止；除非基督徒的聖禮各不相融，不能並存。他們的教義還有一種荒謬之處，他們承認聖靈的恩典是在每一聖禮中賜給人的，且承認婚媾是一種聖禮；然而他們決不承認聖靈臨於男女的婚媾關係中。
　　三十七、從這錯謬觀點所產生的流弊——從略。

一至三、概論誤稱為聖禮的五種儀式——從略。

(Five alleged sacraments, not authorized by God's Word or used in the early church, 1-3)
1. It is not merely a matter of the term "sacrament"

The above discourse concerning the sacraments might have the effect, among the docile and sober-minded of preventing them from indulging their curiosity or from embracing without authority from the word, any other sacraments than those two which they know to have been instituted by the Lord. But since the idea of seven sacraments almost common in the mouths of all, and circulated in all schools and sermons, by mere antiquity, has struck its roots, and is even now seated in the minds of men, I thought it might be worth while to give a separate and closer consideration of the other five, which are vulgarly classed with the true and genuine sacraments of the Lord, and, after wiping away every gloss, to hold them up to the view of the simple, that they may see what their true nature is, and how falsely they have hitherto been regarded as sacraments.

Here, at the outset, I would declare to all the pious, that I engage not in this dispute about a word from a love of wrangling, but am induced, by weighty causes, to impugn the abuse of it. I am not unaware that Christians are the masters of words, as they are of all things, and that, therefore, they may at pleasure adapt words to things, provided a pious meaning is retained, though there should be some impropriety in the mode of expression. All this I concede, though it were better to make words subordinate to things than things to words. But in the name of sacrament, the case is different. For those who set down seven sacraments, at the same time give this definition to all, viz., that they are visible forms of invisible grace; and at the same time, make them all vehicles of the holy Spirit, instruments for conferring righteousness, causes of procuring grace.

Accordingly, the Master of Sentences himself denies that the sacraments of the Mosaic Law are properly called by this name, because they exhibited not what they figured. Is it tolerable, I ask, that the symbols which the Lord has consecrated with his own lips, which he has distinguished by excellent promises, should be regarded as no sacraments and that, meanwhile, this honour should be transferred to those rites which men have either devised of themselves, or at least observe without any express command from God? Therefore, let them either change the definition, or refrain from this use of the word, which may afterwards give rise to false and absurd opinions. Extreme unction, they say, is a figure and cause of invisible grace, because it is a sacrament. If we cannot possibly admit the inference, we must certainly meet them on the subject of the name, that we may not receive it on terms which may furnish occasion for such an error. On the other hand, when they prove it to be a sacrament, they add the reason, because it consists of the external sign and the word. If we find neither command nor promise, what else can we do than protest against it?

2. God alone can establish a sacrament

It now appears that we are not quarrelling about a word, but raising a not unnecessary discussion as to the reality. Accordingly, we most strenuously maintain what we formerly confirmed by invincible argument, that the power of instituting a sacrament belongs to God alone, since a sacrament ought by the sure promise of God, to raise up and comfort the consciences of believers, which could never receive this assurance from men. A sacrament ought to be a testimony of the good-will of God toward us. Of this no man or angel can be witness, since God has no counsellor, (Isa. 40: 13; Rom. 11: 34.) He himself alone, with legitimate authority, testifies of himself to us by his word. A sacrament is a seal of the attestation or promise of God. None, it could not be sealed by corporeal things or the elements of this world, unless they were confirmed and set apart for this purpose by the will of God. Man, therefore, cannot institute a sacrament, because it is not in the power of man to make such divine mysteries lurk under things so abject. The word of God must precede to make a sacrament to be a sacrament, as Augustine most admirably shows, (Hom. in Joann. 80.)

Moreover, it is useful to keep up some distinction between sacraments and other ceremonies, if we would not fall into many absurdities. The apostles prayed on their bended knees; therefore our knees may not be bent without a sacrament, (Acts 9: 20; 20: 36.) The disciples are said to have prayed toward the east; thus looking at the east is a sacrament. Paul would have men in every place to lift up pure hands, (1 Tim. 2: 8;) and it is repeatedly stated that the saints prayed with uplifted hands, let the out stretching, therefore, of hands also become a sacrament; in short, let all the gestures of saints pass into sacraments, though I should not greatly object to this, provided it was not connected with those greater inconveniences.

3. That the sacraments are seven in number was unknown in the ancient church

If they would press us with the authority of the ancient Church, I say that they are using a gloss. This number seven is nowhere found in ecclesiastical writers, nor is it well ascertained at what time it crept in. I confess, indeed, that they sometimes use freedom with the term sacraments but what do they mean by it? All ceremonies, external rites, and exercises of piety. But when they speak of those signs which ought to be testimonies of the divine favour toward us, they are contented with those two, Baptism and the Eucharist.

Lest any one suppose that this is falsely alleged by me, I will here give a few passages from Augustine. "First, I wish you to hold that the principal point in this discussion is that our Lord Jesus Christ (as he himself says in the gospel) has placed us under a yoke which is easy, and a burden which is light. Hence he has knit together the society of his new people by sacraments, very few in number, most easy of observance, and most excellent in meaning; such is baptisms consecrated by the name of the Trinity; such is the communion of the body and blood of the Lord, and any other, if recommended in the canonical Scriptures," (August. ad Januar. Ep. 118.) Again, "After the resurrection of our Lord, our Lord himself, and apostolic discipline, appointed, instead of many, a few signs, and these most easy of performance, most august in meaning, most chaste in practice; such is baptism and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord," (August. De Doct. Christ. Lib. 3 cap. 9.) Why does he here make no mention of the sacred number, I mean seven? Is it probable that he would have omitted it if it had then been established in the Church, especially seeing he is otherwise more curious in observing numbers than might be necessary? Nay, when he makes mention of Baptism and the Supper, and is silent as to others, does he not sufficiently intimate that these two ordinances excel in special dignity, and that other ceremonies sink down to an inferior place? Wherefore, I say, that those sacramentary doctors are not only unsupported by the word of God, but also by the consent of the early Church, however much they may plume themselves on the pretence that they have this consent. But let us now come to particulars.

八至十二、繼續駁斥羅馬教會以堅振禮為聖禮之非——從略。
8. Confirmation as the devaluation of baptism

But let us make a still closer inspection, and see how many monsters this greasy oil fosters and nourishes. Those anointers say that the Holy Spirit is given in baptism for righteousness, and in confirmation, for increase of grace, that in baptism we are regenerated for life, and in confirmation, equipped for contest. And, accordingly, they are not ashamed to deny that baptism can be duly completed without confirmation. How nefarious! Are we not, then, buried with Christ by baptism, and made partakers of his death, that we may also be partners of his resurrection (Rom. 6:4-5)? This fellowship with the life and death of Christ, Paul interprets to mean the mortification of our flesh, and the quickening of the Spirit, our old man being crucified in order that we may walk in newness of life, (Rom. 6: 6.) What is it to be equipped for contest, if this is not?

But if they deemed it as nothing to trample on the word of God, why did they not at least reverence the Church, to which they would be thought to be in everything so obedient? What heavier charge can be brought against their doctrine than the decree of the Council of Melita? "Let him who says that baptism is given for the remission of sins only, and not in aid of future grace, be anathema."

When Luke, in the passage which we have quoted, says, that the Samaritans were only "baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus," (Acts 8: 16,) but had not received the Holy Spirit, he does not say absolutely that those who believed in Christ with the heart, and confessed him with the mouth, were not endued with any gift of the Spirit. He means that receiving of the Spirit by which miraculous power and visible graces were received. Thus the apostles are said to have received the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, (Acts 2: 4,) whereas Christ had long before said to them, "It is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you," (Matth. 10: 20.) Ye who are of God see the malignant and pestiferous wile of Satan. What was truly given in baptism, is falsely said to be given in the confirmation of it, that he may stealthily lead away the unwary from baptism. Who can now doubt that this doctrine, which dissevers the proper promises of baptism from baptism, and transfers them elsewhere, is a doctrine of Satan? We have discovered on what foundation this famous unction rests. The word of God says, that as many as have been baptised into Christ, have put on Christ with his gifts, (Gal. 3: 27.) The word of the anointers says that they received no promise in baptism to equip them for contest, (De Consecr. Dist. 5, cap. Spit. Sanct.) The former is the word of truth, the latter must be the word of falsehood. I can define this baptism more truly than they themselves have hitherto defined it, viz., that it is a noted insult to baptism, the use of which it obscures, nay abolishes: that it is a false suggestion of the devil, which draws us away from the truth of God; or, if you prefer it, that it is oil polluted with a lie of the devil, deceiving the minds of the simple by shrouding them, as it were, in darkness.

9. The doctrine of the necessity of confirmation for salvation is nonsense

They adds moreover, that all believers ought, after baptism, to receive the holy Spirit by the laying on of hands, that they may become complete Christians, inasmuch as there never can be a Christians who has not been chrismed by episcopal confirmation. These are their exact words. I thought that everything pertaining to Christianity was prescribed and contained in Scripture. Now I see that the true form of religion must be sought and learned elsewhere than in Scripture. Divine wisdom, heavenly truth, the whole doctrine of Christ, only begins the Christian; it is the oil that perfects him. By this sentence are condemned all the apostles and the many martyrs who, it is absolutely certain, were never chrismed, the oil not yet being made, besmeared with which, they might fulfil all the parts of Christianity, or rather become Christians, which, as yet, they were not.

Though I were silent, they abundantly refute themselves. How small the proportion of the people whom they anoint after baptism? Why, then, do they allow among their flock so many half Christians, whose imperfection they might easily remedy? Why, with such supine negligence, do they allow them to omit what cannot be omitted without grave offence? Why do they not more rigidly insist on a matter so necessary, that, without it, salvation cannot be obtained unless, perhaps, when the act has been anticipated by sudden death? When they allow it to be thus licentiously despised they tacitly confess that it is not of the importance which they pretend.

10. The papists would put confirmation above baptism

Lastly, they conclude that this sacred unction is to be held in greater veneration than baptism, because the former is specially administered by the higher order of priests, whereas the latter is dispensed in common by all priests whatever, (Distinct. 5, De his vero.) What can you here say, but that they are plainly mad in thus pluming themselves on their own inventions, while, in comparison with these, they carelessly condemn the sacred ordinances of God? Sacrilegious mouth! dare you oppose oil merely polluted with your fetid breath, and charmed by your muttered words, to the sacrament of Christ, and compare it with water sanctified by the word of God? But even this was not enough for your improbity: you must also prefer it. Such are the responses of the holy see, such the oracles of the apostolic tripod.

But some of them have begun to moderate this madness, which, even in their own opinion, was carried too far, (Lombard. Sent. Lib. 4 Dist. 7, c. 2.) It is to be held in greater veneration, they say, not, perhaps, because of the greater virtue and utility which it confers, but because it is given by more dignified persons, and in a more dignified part of the body, the forehead; or because it gives a greater increase of virtue, though baptism is more effectual for forgiveness.

But do they not, by their first reason, prove themselves to be Donatists, who estimate the value of the sacrament by the dignity of the minister? Grant, however, that confirmation may be called more dignified from the dignity of the bishop's hand, still should any one ask how this great prerogative was conferred on the bishops, what reason can they give but their own caprice? The right was used only by the apostles, who alone dispensed the Holy spirit. Are bishops alone apostles? Are they apostles at all? However, let us grant this also; why do they not, on the same grounds, maintain that the sacrament of blood in the Lord's Supper is to be touched only by bishops? Their reason for refusing it to take is that it was given by our Lord to the apostles only. If to the apostles only, why not infer then to bishops only? But in that place, they make the apostles simple Presbyters whereas here another vertigo seizes them, and they suddenly elect them bishops. Lastly, Ananias was not an apostle, and yet Paul was sent to him to receive his sight, to be baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit, (Acts 9: 17.) I will add, though cumulatively, if, by divine right, this office was peculiar to bishops, why have they dared to transfer it to plebeian Presbyters, as we read in one of the Epistles of Gregory? (Dist. 95, cap. Pervenis.)

11. Frivolous arguments for esteeming confirmation above baptism

How frivolous, inept, and stolid the other reasons that their confirmation is worthier than the baptism of God, because in confirmation it is the forehead that is besmeared with oil, and in baptism the cranium. As if baptism were performed with oil, and not with water. I take all the pious to witness whether it be not the one aim of these miscreants to adulterate the purity of the sacraments by their leaven. I have said elsewhere, that what is of God in the sacraments, can scarcely be got a glimpse of among the crowd of human inventions. If any did not then give me credit for the fact, let them now give it to their own teachers. Here, passing over water, and making it of no estimation, they set a great value on oil alone in baptism. We maintain, against them that in baptism also the forehead is sprinkled with water, in comparison with which, we do not value your oil one straw, whether in baptism or in confirmation. But if any one alleges that oil is sold for more, I answer, that by this accession of value any good which might otherwise be in it is vitiated, so far is it from being lawful fraudulently to vend this most vile imposture.

They betray their impiety by the third reason, when they pretend that a greater increase of virtue is conferred in confirmation than in baptism. By the laying on of hands the apostles dispensed the visible gifts of the Spirit. In what respect does the oil of these men prove its fecundity? But have done with these guides, who cover one sacrilege with many acts of sacrilege. It is a Gordian knot, which it is better to cut than to lose so much labour in untying.

12. Confirmation cannot be upheld by the practice of the ancient church

When they see that the word of God, and every thing like plausible argument, fail them, they pretend, as usual, that the observance is of the highest antiquity, and is confirmed by the consent of many ages. Even were this true, they gain nothing by it. A sacrament is not of earth, but of heaven; not of men, but of God only. They must prove God to be the author of their confirmation, if they would have it to be regarded as a sacrament.

But why obtrude antiquity, seeing that ancient writers, whenever they would speak precisely, nowhere mention more than two sacraments? Were the bulwark of our faith to be sought from men, we have an impregnable citadel in this, that the fictitious sacraments of these men were never recognised as sacraments by ancient writers. They speak of the laying on of hands, but do they call it a sacrament? Augustine distinctly affirms that it is nothing, but prayer, (De Bapt. cont. Donat. Lib. 3 cap. 16.) Let them not here yelp out one of their vile distinctions, that the laying on of hands to which Augustine referred was not the confirmatory, but the curative or reconciliatory. His book is extant and in men's hands; if I wrest it to any meaning different from that which Augustine himself wrote it, they are welcome not only to load me with reproaches after their wonted manner, but to spit upon me. He is speaking of those who returned from schism to the amity of the Church. He says that they have no need of a repetition of baptism, for the laying on of hands is sufficient, that the Lord may bestow the Holy Spirit upon them by the bond of peace. But as it might seem absurd to repeat laying on of hands more than baptism, he shows the difference. - "What," he asks, "is the laying on of hands but prayer over the man?" That this is his meaning is apparent from another passages where he says, "Because of the bond of charity, which is the greatest gift of the Holy Spirit, without which all the other holy qualities which a man may possess are ineffectual for salvation, the hand is laid on reformed heretics," (Lib. 5 cap. 23.)

十九至二一、繼續駁斥教皇黨徒以膏油為聖禮之非——從略。

19. Extreme unction is no sacrament

And what better reason have they for making a sacrament of this unction, than of any of the other symbols which are mentioned in Scripture? Why do they not dedicate some pool of Siloam, into which, at certain seasons, the sick may plunge themselves? That, they say, were done in vain. Certainly not more in vain than unction Why do they not lay themselves on the dead, seeing that Paul, in raising up the dead youth, lay upon him? Why is not clay made of dust and spittle a sacrament? The other cases were special, but this is commanded by James. In other words, James spake agreeably to the time when the Church still enjoyed this blessing from God. They affirm, indeed, that there is still the same virtue in their unction, but we experience differently. Let no man now wonder that they have with so much confidence deluded souls, which they knew to be stupid and blind, because deprived of the word of God, that is, of his light and life, seeing they blush not to attempt to deceive the bodily perceptions of those who are alive, and have all their senses about them. They make themselves ridiculous, therefore, by pretending that they are endued with the gift of healing. The Lord, doubtless, is present with his people in all ages, and cures their sicknesses as often as there is need, not less than formerly; and yet he does not exert those manifest powers, nor dispense miracles by the hands of apostles, because that gift was temporary, and owing, in some measure, to the ingratitude of men, immediately ceased.

20. Unction has no divine authorization or promise

Wherefore, as the apostles, not without cause, openly declared, by the symbol of oil, that the gift of healing committed to them was not their own, but the power of the Holy Spirit; so, on the other hand, these men insult the Holy Spirit by making his power consist in a filthy oil of no efficacy. It is just as if one were to say that all oil is the power of the Holy Spirit, because it is called by that name in Scripture, and that every dove is the Holy Spirit, because he appeared in that form. Let them see to this: it is sufficient for us that we perceive, with absolute certainty, that their unction is no sacrament, as it is neither a ceremony appointed by God, nor has any promise. For when we require, in a sacrament, these two things, that it be a ceremony appointed by God, and have a promise from God, we at the same time demand that that ceremony be delivered to us, and that that promise have reference to us. No man contends that circumcision is now a sacrament of the Christian Church, although it was both an ordinance of God, and had his promise annexed to it, because it was neither commanded to us, nor was the promise annexed to it given us on the same condition. The promise of which they vaunt so much in unction, as we have clearly demonstrated, and they themselves show by experience, has not been given to us. The ceremony behaved to be used only by those who had been endued with the gift of healing, not by those murderers who do more by slaying and butchering than by curing.

21. The papists do not proceed at all according to James's "words of institution"

Even were it granted that this precept of unction, which has nothing to do with the present age, were perfectly adapted to it, they will not even thus have advanced much in support of their unction, with which they have hitherto besmeared us. James would have all the sick to be anointed: these men besmear, with their oil, not the sick, but half-dead carcasses, when life is quivering on the lips, or, as they say, in extremis. If they have a present cure in their sacrament, with which they can either alleviate the bitterness of disease, or at least give some solace to the soul, they are cruel in never curing in time. James would have the sick man to be anointed by the elders of the Church. They admit no anointer but a priestling. When they interpret the elders of James to be priests, and allege that the plural number is used for honour, the thing is absurd; as if the Church had at that time abounded with swarms of priests, so that they could set out in long procession, bearing a dish of sacred oil. James, in ordering simply that the sick be anointed, seems to me to mean no other anointing than that of common oil, nor is any other mentioned in the narrative of Mark. These men deign not to use any oil but that which has been consecrated by a bishop, that is warmed with much breath, charmed by much muttering, and saluted nine times on bended knee, Thrice Hail, holy oil! thrice Hail, holy chrism! thrice Hail, holy balsam! From whom did they derive these exorcisms? James says, that when the sick man shall have been anointed with oil, and prayer shall have been made over him if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him, viz., that his guilt being forgiven, he shall obtain a mitigation of the punishment, not meaning that sins are effaced by oil, but that the prayers by which believers commended their afflicted brother to God would not be in vain. These men are impiously false in saying that sins are forgiven by their sacred, that is, abominable unction. See how little they gain, even when they are allowed to abuse the passage of James as they list. And to save us the trouble of a laborious proof, their own annals relieve us from all difficulty; for they relate that Pope Innocent, who presided over the church of Rome in the age of Augustine, ordained, that not elders only but all Christians, should use oil in anointing, in their own necessity, or in that of their friends. Our authority for this is Sigebert, in his Chronicles.

三十三、論副執事——從略。

33. Subdeacons

What use is there in speaking of subdeacons? For, whereas in fact they anciently had the charge of the poor, they attribute to them some kind of nugatory function, as carrying the chalice and patena, the pitcher with water, and the napkin to the altar, pouring out water for the hands, &c. Then, by the offerings which they are said to receive and bring in, they mean those which they swallow up, as if they had been destined to anathema.

There is an admirable correspondence between the office and the mode of inducting to it, viz., receiving from the bishop the patena and chalice, and from the archdeacon the pitcher with water, the manual and trumpery of this kind. They call upon us to admit that the Holy Spirit is included in these frivolities. What pious man could be induced to grant this? But to have done at once, we may conclude the same of this as of the others and there is no need to repeat at length what has been explained above.

To the modest and docile (it is such I have undertaken to instruct,) it will be enough that there is no sacrament of God, unless where a ceremony is shown annexed to a promise, or rather where a promise is seen in a ceremony. Here there is not one syllable of a certain promise, and it is vain, therefore, to seek for a ceremony to confirm the promise. On the other hand, we read of no ceremony appointed by God in regard to those usages which they employ, and, therefore, there can be no sacrament.

三十七、從這錯謬觀點所產生的流弊——從略。

37. Oppressive consequences of the Roman doctrine

And, that they might not delude the Church in this matter merely, what a long series of errors, lies, frauds, and iniquities have they appended to one error? So that you may say they sought nothing, but a hiding-place for abominations when they converted marriage into a sacrament. When once they obtained this they appropriated to themselves the cognisance of conjugal causes: as the thing was spiritual, it was not to be intermeddled with by profane judges. Then they enacted laws by which they confirmed their tyranny, - laws partly impious toward God, partly fraught with injustice toward men; such as, that marriages contracted between minors, without the consent of their parents, should be valid; that no lawful marriages can be contracted between relations within the seventh degree, and that such marriages if contracted, should be dissolved. Moreover, they frame degrees of kindred contrary to the laws of all nations and even the polity of Moses, and enact that a husband who has repudiated an adulteress may not marry again - that spiritual kindred cannot be joined in marriage - that marriage cannot be celebrated from Septuagesimo to the Octaves of Easter, three weeks before the nativity of John, nor from Advent to Epiphany, and innumerable others which it were too tedious to mention. We must now get out of their mire, in which our discourse has stuck longer than our inclination. Methinks, however, that much has been gained if I have, in some measure, deprived these asses of their lion's skin.

Chapter 19.

19. OF THE FIVE SACRAMENTS, FALSELY SO CALLED. THEIR SPURIOUSNESS PROVED, AND THEIR TRUE CHARACTER EXPLAINED.
There are two divisions of this chapter, -
I. A general discussion of these five sacraments, sec. 1-3.
II. A special consideration of each.
Of Confirmation, sec. 4-13.
Of Penance, sec. 14-17.
Of Extreme Unction, sec. 18-21.
Of Order, in which the seven so-called sacraments have originated, sec. 22-33.
Of Marriage, sec. 34-37.


Sections.

Connection of the present discussion with that concerning Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Impiety of the Popish teachers in attributing, more to human rites than to the ordinances of God.
Men cannot institute sacraments. Necessary to keep up a distinction between sacraments and other ceremonies.
Seven sacraments not to be found in ecclesiastical writers. Augustine, who may represent all the others, acknowledged two Sacraments only.
Nature of confirmation in ancient times. The laying on of hands.
This kind of confirmation afterwards introduced. It is falsely called a sacrament.
Popish argument for confirmation answered.
Argument confirmed by the example of Christ. Absurdity and impiety of Papists in calling their oil the oil of salvation.
Papistical argument, that Baptism cannot be complete without conformation. Answered.
Argument, that without confirmation we cannot be fully Christians. Answer.
Argument, that the Unction in confirmation is more excellent than Baptism. Answer.
Answer continued. Argument, that confirmation has greater virtue.
Argument from the practice of antiquity. Augustine's view of conformation.
The ancient confirmation very praiseworthy. Should be restored in churches in the present day.
Of Penitence. Confused and absurd language of the Popish doctors. Impositions of hands in ancient times. This made by the Papists a kind of foundation of the sacrament of Penance.
Disagreement among Papists themselves, as to the grounds on which penance is regarded as a sacrament.
More plausibility in calling the absolution of the priest, than in calling penance a sacrament.
Penance not truly a sacrament. Baptism the sacrament of penitence.
Extreme Unction described. No foundation for it in the words of James.
No better ground for making this unction a sacrament, than any of the other symbols mentioned in Scripture.
Insult offered by this unction to the Holy Spirit. It cannot be a sacrament, as it was not instituted by Christ, and has no promise annexed to it.
No correspondence between the unction enjoined by James and the anointing of the Papists.
Of ecclesiastical orders. Two points for discussion. Absurdities here introduced. Whether ecclesiastical order is a sacrament. Papists not agreed as to holy orders.
Insult to Christ in attempting to make him their colleague.
The greater part of these orders empty names implying no certain office. Popish exorcists.
Absurdity of the tonsure.
The Judaizing nature of the tonsure. Why Paul shaved his head in consequence of a vow.
Origin of this clerical tonsure as given by Augustine. Absurd ceremonies in consecrating Doorkeepers, Readers, Exorcists, and Acolytes.
Of the higher class of orders called Holy Orders. Insult offered to Christ when ministers are regarded as priests. Holy orders have nothing of the nature of a sacrament.
Absurd imitation of our Saviour in breathing on his apostles.
Absurdity of the anointing employed.
Imposition of hands. Absurdity of, in Papistical ordination.
Ordination of deacons. Absurd forms of Papists.
Of sub-deacons.
Marriage not a sacrament.
Nothing in Scripture to countenance the idea that marriage is a sacrament.
Origin of the notion that marriage is a sacrament.
Practical abuses from this erroneous idea of marriage. Conclusion.
(Five alleged sacraments, not authorized by God's Word or used in the early church, 1-3)
1. It is not merely a matter of the term "sacrament"

The above discourse concerning the sacraments might have the effect, among the docile and sober-minded of preventing them from indulging their curiosity or from embracing without authority from the word, any other sacraments than those two which they know to have been instituted by the Lord. But since the idea of seven sacraments almost common in the mouths of all, and circulated in all schools and sermons, by mere antiquity, has struck its roots, and is even now seated in the minds of men, I thought it might be worth while to give a separate and closer consideration of the other five, which are vulgarly classed with the true and genuine sacraments of the Lord, and, after wiping away every gloss, to hold them up to the view of the simple, that they may see what their true nature is, and how falsely they have hitherto been regarded as sacraments.

Here, at the outset, I would declare to all the pious, that I engage not in this dispute about a word from a love of wrangling, but am induced, by weighty causes, to impugn the abuse of it. I am not unaware that Christians are the masters of words, as they are of all things, and that, therefore, they may at pleasure adapt words to things, provided a pious meaning is retained, though there should be some impropriety in the mode of expression. All this I concede, though it were better to make words subordinate to things than things to words. But in the name of sacrament, the case is different. For those who set down seven sacraments, at the same time give this definition to all, viz., that they are visible forms of invisible grace; and at the same time, make them all vehicles of the holy Spirit, instruments for conferring righteousness, causes of procuring grace.

Accordingly, the Master of Sentences himself denies that the sacraments of the Mosaic Law are properly called by this name, because they exhibited not what they figured. Is it tolerable, I ask, that the symbols which the Lord has consecrated with his own lips, which he has distinguished by excellent promises, should be regarded as no sacraments and that, meanwhile, this honour should be transferred to those rites which men have either devised of themselves, or at least observe without any express command from God? Therefore, let them either change the definition, or refrain from this use of the word, which may afterwards give rise to false and absurd opinions. Extreme unction, they say, is a figure and cause of invisible grace, because it is a sacrament. If we cannot possibly admit the inference, we must certainly meet them on the subject of the name, that we may not receive it on terms which may furnish occasion for such an error. On the other hand, when they prove it to be a sacrament, they add the reason, because it consists of the external sign and the word. If we find neither command nor promise, what else can we do than protest against it?

2. God alone can establish a sacrament

It now appears that we are not quarrelling about a word, but raising a not unnecessary discussion as to the reality. Accordingly, we most strenuously maintain what we formerly confirmed by invincible argument, that the power of instituting a sacrament belongs to God alone, since a sacrament ought by the sure promise of God, to raise up and comfort the consciences of believers, which could never receive this assurance from men. A sacrament ought to be a testimony of the good-will of God toward us. Of this no man or angel can be witness, since God has no counsellor, (Isa. 40: 13; Rom. 11: 34.) He himself alone, with legitimate authority, testifies of himself to us by his word. A sacrament is a seal of the attestation or promise of God. None, it could not be sealed by corporeal things or the elements of this world, unless they were confirmed and set apart for this purpose by the will of God. Man, therefore, cannot institute a sacrament, because it is not in the power of man to make such divine mysteries lurk under things so abject. The word of God must precede to make a sacrament to be a sacrament, as Augustine most admirably shows, (Hom. in Joann. 80.)

Moreover, it is useful to keep up some distinction between sacraments and other ceremonies, if we would not fall into many absurdities. The apostles prayed on their bended knees; therefore our knees may not be bent without a sacrament, (Acts 9: 20; 20: 36.) The disciples are said to have prayed toward the east; thus looking at the east is a sacrament. Paul would have men in every place to lift up pure hands, (1 Tim. 2: 8;) and it is repeatedly stated that the saints prayed with uplifted hands, let the out stretching, therefore, of hands also become a sacrament; in short, let all the gestures of saints pass into sacraments, though I should not greatly object to this, provided it was not connected with those greater inconveniences.

3. That the sacraments are seven in number was unknown in the ancient church

If they would press us with the authority of the ancient Church, I say that they are using a gloss. This number seven is nowhere found in ecclesiastical writers, nor is it well ascertained at what time it crept in. I confess, indeed, that they sometimes use freedom with the term sacraments but what do they mean by it? All ceremonies, external rites, and exercises of piety. But when they speak of those signs which ought to be testimonies of the divine favour toward us, they are contented with those two, Baptism and the Eucharist.

Lest any one suppose that this is falsely alleged by me, I will here give a few passages from Augustine. "First, I wish you to hold that the principal point in this discussion is that our Lord Jesus Christ (as he himself says in the gospel) has placed us under a yoke which is easy, and a burden which is light. Hence he has knit together the society of his new people by sacraments, very few in number, most easy of observance, and most excellent in meaning; such is baptisms consecrated by the name of the Trinity; such is the communion of the body and blood of the Lord, and any other, if recommended in the canonical Scriptures," (August. ad Januar. Ep. 118.) Again, "After the resurrection of our Lord, our Lord himself, and apostolic discipline, appointed, instead of many, a few signs, and these most easy of performance, most august in meaning, most chaste in practice; such is baptism and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord," (August. De Doct. Christ. Lib. 3 cap. 9.) Why does he here make no mention of the sacred number, I mean seven? Is it probable that he would have omitted it if it had then been established in the Church, especially seeing he is otherwise more curious in observing numbers than might be necessary? Nay, when he makes mention of Baptism and the Supper, and is silent as to others, does he not sufficiently intimate that these two ordinances excel in special dignity, and that other ceremonies sink down to an inferior place? Wherefore, I say, that those sacramentary doctors are not only unsupported by the word of God, but also by the consent of the early Church, however much they may plume themselves on the pretence that they have this consent. But let us now come to particulars.


Of Confirmation.
(Confirmation not a sacrament: early practice of reception after instruction should be restored, 4-13)
4. Custom of the ancient church

It was anciently customary for the children of Christians, after they have grown up, to appear before the bishop to fulfil that duty which was required of such adults as presented themselves for baptism. These sat among the catechumens until they were duly instructed in the mysteries of the faith, and could make a confession of it before bishop and people. The infants, therefore, who had been initiated by baptism, not having then given a confession of faith to the Church, were again, toward the end of their boyhood, or on adolescence, brought forward by their parents, and were examined by the bishop in terms of the Catechism which was then in common use. In order that this act, which otherwise justly required to be grave and holy, might have more reverence and dignity, the ceremony of laying on of hands was also used. Thus the boy, on his faith being approved, was dismissed with a solemn blessing.

Ancient writers often made mention of this custom. Pope Leo says, (Ep 39,) "If any one returns from heretics, let him not be baptised again, but let that which was there wanting to him, viz., the virtue of the Spirit, be conferred by the laying on of the hands of the bishop." Our opponents will here exclaim, that the name of sacrament is justly given to that by which the Holy Spirit is conferred. But Leo elsewhere explains what he means by these words, (Ep 77 j) "Let not him who was baptised by heretics be rebaptised, but be confirmed by the laying on of hands with the invocation of the Holy Spirit, because he received only the form of baptism without sanctification." Jerome also mentions it, (Contra Luciferan) Now, though I deny not that Jerome is somewhat under delusion when he says that the observance is apostolical, he is, however, very far from the follies of these men. And he softens the expression when he adds, that this benediction is given to bishops only, more in honour of the priesthood than from any necessity of law. This laying on of hands, which is done simply by way of benediction, I commend, and would like to see restored to its pure use in the present day.

5. Full development and meaning of confirmation according to Romanist teaching

A later age having almost obliterated the reality, introduced a kind of fictitious confirmation as a divine sacrament. They feigned that the virtue of confirmation consisted in conferring the Holy Spirit, for increase of grace, on him who had been prepared in baptism for righteousness, and in confirming for contest those who in baptism were regenerated to life. This confirmation is performed by unction, and the following form of words: - "I sign thee with the sign of the holy 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 fair and venerable. But where is the word of God which promises the presence of the Holy Spirit here? Not one iota can they allege. How will they assure us thus their chrism is a vehicle of the Holy Spirit? We see oil, that is, a thick and greasy liquid, but nothing more. "Let the word be added to the element," says Augustine, "and it will become a sacrament." Let them, I say, produce this word if they would have us to see any thing more in the oil than oil. But if they would show themselves to be ministers of the sacraments as they ought, there would be no room for further dispute. The first duty of a minister is not to do anything without a command. Come, then, and let them produce some command for this ministry, and I will not add a word. If they have no command, they cannot excuse their sacrilegious audacity. For this reason cur Saviour interrogated the Pharisees as to the baptism of John, "Was it from heavens or of men?" (Matth. 21: 25.) If they had answered, Of men, he held them confessed that it was frivolous and vain; if of heaven, they were forced to acknowledge the doctrine of John. Accordingly, not to be too contumelious to John, they did not venture to say that it was of men. Therefore, if confirmation is of men, it is proved to be frivolous and vain; if they would persuade us that it is of heaven, let them prove it.

6. Appeal to apostolic laying on of hands is unfounded

They indeed defend themselves by the example of the apostles, who, they presume, did nothing rashly. In this they are right, nor would they be blamed by us if they showed themselves to be imitators of the apostles. But what did the apostles do? Luke narrates, (Acts 8: 15, 17,) that the apostles who were at Jerusalem, when they heard that Samaria had received the word of God, sent thither Peter and John, that Peter and John prayed for the Samaritans, that they might receive the Holy Spirit, who had not yet come upon any of them, they having only been baptised in the name of Jesus; that after prayer they laid their hands upon them, and that by this laying on of hands the Samaritans received the Holy Spirit. Luke repeatedly mentions this laying on of hands.

I hear what the apostles did, that is, they faithfully executed their ministry. It pleased the Lord that those visible and admirable gifts of the Holy Spirit, which he then poured out upon his people, should be administered and distributed by his apostles by the laying on of hands. I think that there was no deeper mystery under this laying on of hands, but I interpret that this kind of ceremony was used by them to intimate, by the outward acts that they commended to God, and, as it were, offered him on whom they laid hands.

Did this ministry which the apostles then performed, still remain in the Church, it would also behave us to observe the laying on of hands; but since that gift has ceased to be conferred, to what end is the laying on of hands? Assuredly the Holy Spirit is still present with the people of God; without his guidance and direction the Church of God cannot subsist. For we have a promise of perpetual duration, by which Christ invites the thirsty to come to him, that they may drink living water, (John 7: 37.) But those miraculous powers and manifest operations, which were distributed by the laying on of hands, have ceased. They were only for a time. For it was right that the new preaching of the gospel, the new kingdom of Christ, should be signalised and magnified by unwonted and unheard-of miracles. When the Lord ceased from these, he did not forthwith abandon his Church but intimated that the magnificence of his kingdom, and the dignity of his word, had been sufficiently manifested. In what respect then can these stage-players say that they imitate the apostles? The object of the laying on of hands was, that the evident power of the Holy Spirit might be immediately exerted. This they effect not. Why then do they claim to themselves the laying on of hands, which is indeed said to have been used by the apostles, but altogether to a different end?

7. Anointing with oil is a counterfeit sacrament

The same account is to be given were any one to insist that the breathing of our Lord upon his disciples (John 20: 22) is a sacrament by which the Holy Spirit is conferred. But the Lord did this once for all, and did not also wish us to do it. In the same way, also, the apostles laid their hands, agreeably to that time at which it pleased the Lord that the visible gifts of the Spirit should be dispensed in answer to their prayers; not that posterity might, as those apes do, mimic the empty and useless sign without the reality.

But if they prove that they imitate the apostles in the laying on of hands, (though in this they have no resemblance to the apostles, except it be in manifesting some absurd false zeal,) where did they get their oil which they call the oil of salvation? Who taught them to seek salvation in oil? Who taught them to attribute to it the power of strengthening? Was it Paul, who draws us far away from the elements of this world, and condemns nothing more than clinging to such observances? This I boldly declare, not of myself but from the Lord: Those who call oil the oil of salvation abjure the salvation which is in Christ, deny Christ, and have no part in the kingdom of God. Oil for the belly, and the belly for oil, but the Lord will destroy both. For all these weak elements, which perish even in the using, have nothing to do with the kingdom of God, which is spiritual, and will never perish. What, then, some one will say, do you apply the same rule to the water by which we are baptised, and the bread and wine under which the Lord's Supper is exhibited? I answer, that in the sacraments of divine appointment, two things are to be considered: the substance of the corporeal thing which is set before us, and the form which has been impressed upon it by the word of God, and in which its whole force lies. In as far, then, as the bread, wine, and water, which are presented to our view in the sacraments, retain their substance, Paul's declaration applies, "meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them," (1 Cor. 6: 13.) For they pass and vanish away with the fashion at this world. But in as far as they are sanctified by the word of God to be sacraments, they do not confine us to the flesh, but teach truly and spiritually.

8. Confirmation as the devaluation of baptism

But let us make a still closer inspection, and see how many monsters this greasy oil fosters and nourishes. Those anointers say that the Holy Spirit is given in baptism for righteousness, and in confirmation, for increase of grace, that in baptism we are regenerated for life, and in confirmation, equipped for contest. And, accordingly, they are not ashamed to deny that baptism can be duly completed without confirmation. How nefarious! Are we not, then, buried with Christ by baptism, and made partakers of his death, that we may also be partners of his resurrection (Rom. 6:4-5)? This fellowship with the life and death of Christ, Paul interprets to mean the mortification of our flesh, and the quickening of the Spirit, our old man being crucified in order that we may walk in newness of life, (Rom. 6: 6.) What is it to be equipped for contest, if this is not?

But if they deemed it as nothing to trample on the word of God, why did they not at least reverence the Church, to which they would be thought to be in everything so obedient? What heavier charge can be brought against their doctrine than the decree of the Council of Melita? "Let him who says that baptism is given for the remission of sins only, and not in aid of future grace, be anathema."

When Luke, in the passage which we have quoted, says, that the Samaritans were only "baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus," (Acts 8: 16,) but had not received the Holy Spirit, he does not say absolutely that those who believed in Christ with the heart, and confessed him with the mouth, were not endued with any gift of the Spirit. He means that receiving of the Spirit by which miraculous power and visible graces were received. Thus the apostles are said to have received the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, (Acts 2: 4,) whereas Christ had long before said to them, "It is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you," (Matth. 10: 20.) Ye who are of God see the malignant and pestiferous wile of Satan. What was truly given in baptism, is falsely said to be given in the confirmation of it, that he may stealthily lead away the unwary from baptism. Who can now doubt that this doctrine, which dissevers the proper promises of baptism from baptism, and transfers them elsewhere, is a doctrine of Satan? We have discovered on what foundation this famous unction rests. The word of God says, that as many as have been baptised into Christ, have put on Christ with his gifts, (Gal. 3: 27.) The word of the anointers says that they received no promise in baptism to equip them for contest, (De Consecr. Dist. 5, cap. Spit. Sanct.) The former is the word of truth, the latter must be the word of falsehood. I can define this baptism more truly than they themselves have hitherto defined it, viz., that it is a noted insult to baptism, the use of which it obscures, nay abolishes: that it is a false suggestion of the devil, which draws us away from the truth of God; or, if you prefer it, that it is oil polluted with a lie of the devil, deceiving the minds of the simple by shrouding them, as it were, in darkness.

9. The doctrine of the necessity of confirmation for salvation is nonsense

They adds moreover, that all believers ought, after baptism, to receive the holy Spirit by the laying on of hands, that they may become complete Christians, inasmuch as there never can be a Christians who has not been chrismed by episcopal confirmation. These are their exact words. I thought that everything pertaining to Christianity was prescribed and contained in Scripture. Now I see that the true form of religion must be sought and learned elsewhere than in Scripture. Divine wisdom, heavenly truth, the whole doctrine of Christ, only begins the Christian; it is the oil that perfects him. By this sentence are condemned all the apostles and the many martyrs who, it is absolutely certain, were never chrismed, the oil not yet being made, besmeared with which, they might fulfil all the parts of Christianity, or rather become Christians, which, as yet, they were not.

Though I were silent, they abundantly refute themselves. How small the proportion of the people whom they anoint after baptism? Why, then, do they allow among their flock so many half Christians, whose imperfection they might easily remedy? Why, with such supine negligence, do they allow them to omit what cannot be omitted without grave offence? Why do they not more rigidly insist on a matter so necessary, that, without it, salvation cannot be obtained unless, perhaps, when the act has been anticipated by sudden death? When they allow it to be thus licentiously despised they tacitly confess that it is not of the importance which they pretend.

10. The papists would put confirmation above baptism

Lastly, they conclude that this sacred unction is to be held in greater veneration than baptism, because the former is specially administered by the higher order of priests, whereas the latter is dispensed in common by all priests whatever, (Distinct. 5, De his vero.) What can you here say, but that they are plainly mad in thus pluming themselves on their own inventions, while, in comparison with these, they carelessly condemn the sacred ordinances of God? Sacrilegious mouth! dare you oppose oil merely polluted with your fetid breath, and charmed by your muttered words, to the sacrament of Christ, and compare it with water sanctified by the word of God? But even this was not enough for your improbity: you must also prefer it. Such are the responses of the holy see, such the oracles of the apostolic tripod.

But some of them have begun to moderate this madness, which, even in their own opinion, was carried too far, (Lombard. Sent. Lib. 4 Dist. 7, c. 2.) It is to be held in greater veneration, they say, not, perhaps, because of the greater virtue and utility which it confers, but because it is given by more dignified persons, and in a more dignified part of the body, the forehead; or because it gives a greater increase of virtue, though baptism is more effectual for forgiveness.

But do they not, by their first reason, prove themselves to be Donatists, who estimate the value of the sacrament by the dignity of the minister? Grant, however, that confirmation may be called more dignified from the dignity of the bishop's hand, still should any one ask how this great prerogative was conferred on the bishops, what reason can they give but their own caprice? The right was used only by the apostles, who alone dispensed the Holy spirit. Are bishops alone apostles? Are they apostles at all? However, let us grant this also; why do they not, on the same grounds, maintain that the sacrament of blood in the Lord's Supper is to be touched only by bishops? Their reason for refusing it to take is that it was given by our Lord to the apostles only. If to the apostles only, why not infer then to bishops only? But in that place, they make the apostles simple Presbyters whereas here another vertigo seizes them, and they suddenly elect them bishops. Lastly, Ananias was not an apostle, and yet Paul was sent to him to receive his sight, to be baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit, (Acts 9: 17.) I will add, though cumulatively, if, by divine right, this office was peculiar to bishops, why have they dared to transfer it to plebeian Presbyters, as we read in one of the Epistles of Gregory? (Dist. 95, cap. Pervenis.)

11. Frivolous arguments for esteeming confirmation above baptism

How frivolous, inept, and stolid the other reasons that their confirmation is worthier than the baptism of God, because in confirmation it is the forehead that is besmeared with oil, and in baptism the cranium. As if baptism were performed with oil, and not with water. I take all the pious to witness whether it be not the one aim of these miscreants to adulterate the purity of the sacraments by their leaven. I have said elsewhere, that what is of God in the sacraments, can scarcely be got a glimpse of among the crowd of human inventions. If any did not then give me credit for the fact, let them now give it to their own teachers. Here, passing over water, and making it of no estimation, they set a great value on oil alone in baptism. We maintain, against them that in baptism also the forehead is sprinkled with water, in comparison with which, we do not value your oil one straw, whether in baptism or in confirmation. But if any one alleges that oil is sold for more, I answer, that by this accession of value any good which might otherwise be in it is vitiated, so far is it from being lawful fraudulently to vend this most vile imposture.

They betray their impiety by the third reason, when they pretend that a greater increase of virtue is conferred in confirmation than in baptism. By the laying on of hands the apostles dispensed the visible gifts of the Spirit. In what respect does the oil of these men prove its fecundity? But have done with these guides, who cover one sacrilege with many acts of sacrilege. It is a Gordian knot, which it is better to cut than to lose so much labour in untying.

12. Confirmation cannot be upheld by the practice of the ancient church

When they see that the word of God, and every thing like plausible argument, fail them, they pretend, as usual, that the observance is of the highest antiquity, and is confirmed by the consent of many ages. Even were this true, they gain nothing by it. A sacrament is not of earth, but of heaven; not of men, but of God only. They must prove God to be the author of their confirmation, if they would have it to be regarded as a sacrament.

But why obtrude antiquity, seeing that ancient writers, whenever they would speak precisely, nowhere mention more than two sacraments? Were the bulwark of our faith to be sought from men, we have an impregnable citadel in this, that the fictitious sacraments of these men were never recognised as sacraments by ancient writers. They speak of the laying on of hands, but do they call it a sacrament? Augustine distinctly affirms that it is nothing, but prayer, (De Bapt. cont. Donat. Lib. 3 cap. 16.) Let them not here yelp out one of their vile distinctions, that the laying on of hands to which Augustine referred was not the confirmatory, but the curative or reconciliatory. His book is extant and in men's hands; if I wrest it to any meaning different from that which Augustine himself wrote it, they are welcome not only to load me with reproaches after their wonted manner, but to spit upon me. He is speaking of those who returned from schism to the amity of the Church. He says that they have no need of a repetition of baptism, for the laying on of hands is sufficient, that the Lord may bestow the Holy Spirit upon them by the bond of peace. But as it might seem absurd to repeat laying on of hands more than baptism, he shows the difference. - "What," he asks, "is the laying on of hands but prayer over the man?" That this is his meaning is apparent from another passages where he says, "Because of the bond of charity, which is the greatest gift of the Holy Spirit, without which all the other holy qualities which a man may possess are ineffectual for salvation, the hand is laid on reformed heretics," (Lib. 5 cap. 23.)

13. True confirmation

I wish we could retain the custom, which as I have observed, existed in the early Church, before this abortive mask of a sacrament appeared. It would not be such a confirmation as they pretend, one which cannot even be named without injury to baptism, but catechising by which those in boyhood, or immediately beyond it, would give an account of their faith in the face of the Church. And the best method of catechising would be, if a form were drawn up for this purpose, containing, and briefly explaining, the substance of almost all the heads of our religion, in which the whole body of the faithful ought to concur without controversy. A boy of ten years of age would present himself to the Church, to make a profession of faith, would be questioned on each head, and give answers to each. If he was ignorant of any point, or did not well understand it, he would be taught. Thus while the whole Church looked on and witnessed, he would profess the one true sincere faith with which the body of the faithful, with one accord, worship one God.

Were this discipline in force in the present day, it would undoubtedly whet the sluggishness of certain parents, who carelessly neglect the instruction of their children, as if it did not at all belong to them, but who could not then omit it without public disgrace; there would be greater agreement in faith among the Christian people, and not so much ignorance and rudeness; some persons would not be so readily carried away by new and strange dogmas; in fine, it would furnish all with a methodical arrangement of Christian doctrine.


Of Penance.
(Penance fails to answer the definition of a sacrament, 14-17)
14. The practice of penance in the ancient church

The next place they give to Penitence of which they discourse so confusedly and unmethodically, that consciences cannot derive anything certain or solid from their doctrine. In another place, (Book 3 chap. 3 and 4) we have explained at length, first, what the Scriptures teach concerning repentance, and, secondly, what these men teach concerning it. All we leave now to advert to is the grounds of that opinion of it as a sacrament which has long prevailed in schools and churches.

First, however, I will speak briefly of the rite of the early Church, which those men have used as a pretext for establishing their fiction. By the order observed in public repentance, those who had performed the satisfactions imposed upon them were reconciled by the formal laying on of hands. This was the symbol of absolution by which the sinner himself regained his confidence of pardon before God, and the Church was admonished to lay aside the remembrance of the offence, and kindly receive him into favour. This Cyprian often terms "to give peace". In order that the act might have more weight and estimation with the people, it was appointed that the authority of the bishop should always be interposed. Hence the decree of the second Council of Carthage, "No presbyter may publicly at mass reconcile a penitent;" and another, of the Council of Arausica, "Let those who are departing this life, at the time of penitence, be admitted to communion without the reconciliatory laying on of hands; if they recover from the disease, let them stand in the order of penitents, and after they have fulfilled their time, receive the reconciliatory laying on of hands from the bishop." Again, in the third Council of Carthage, "A presbyter may not reconcile a penitent without the authority of the bishop." The object of all these enactments was to prevent the strictness, which they wished to be observed in that matter, from being lost by excessive laxity. Accordingly, they wished cognisance to be taken by the bishop, who, it was probable, would be more circumspect in examining. Although Cyprian somewhere says that not the bishop only laid hands, but also the whole clergy. For he thus speaks, "They do penitence for a proper time; next they come to communion, and receive the right of communion by the laving on of the hands of the bishop and clergy," (Lib. 3 Ep. 14.)

Afterwards in process of time, the matter came to this, that they used the ceremony in private absolutions also without public penitence. Hence the distinction in Gratian (Decret. 26, Quest. 6) between public and private reconciliation.

I consider that ancient observance of which Cyprian speaks to have been holy and salutary to the Church, and I could wish it restored in the present day. The more modern form, though I dare not disapprove, or at least strongly condemn, I deem to be less necessary. Be this as it may, we see that the laying on of hands in penitence was a ceremony ordained by men, not by God, and is to be ranked among indifferent things, and external exercises, which indeed are not to be despised, but occupy an inferior place to those which have been recommended to us by the word of the Lord.

15. Penance is no sacrament

The Romanists and Schoolmen, whose wont it is to corrupt all things by erroneous interpretation, anxiously labour to find a sacrament here, and it cannot seem wonderful, for they seek a thing where it is not. At best, they leave the matter involved, undecided, uncertain, confused, and confounded by the variety of opinions. Accordingly, they say, (Sent. Lib. 4 Dist. 22, cap. 3,) either that external penitence is a sacrament, and, if so, ought to he regarded as a sign of internal penitence; i. e., contrition of heart, which will be the matter of the sacrament, or that both together make a sacrament, not two, but one complete; but that the external is the sacrament merely, the internal, the matter, and the sacrament, whereas the forgiveness of sins is the matter only, and not the sacrament.

Let those who remember the definition of a sacrament, which we have given above, test by it that which they say is a sacrament, and it will be found that it is not an external ceremony appointed by God for the confirmation of our faith. But if they allege that my definition is not a law which they are necessarily bound to obey, let them hear Augustine whom they pretend to regard as a saint. "Visible sacraments were instituted for the sake of carnal men, that by the ladder of sacraments they may be conveyed from those things which are seen by the eye, to those which are perceived by the understanding," (August. Quaest. Vet. Test. Lib. 3.) Do they themselves see, or can they show to others, any thing like this in that which they call the sacrament of penance? In another passage, he says, "It is called a sacrament, because in it one thing is seen, another thing is understood. What is seen has bodily appearance, what is understood has spiritual fruit," (Serm. de Bapt. Infant.) These things in no way apply to the sacrament of penance, as they feign it; there, there is no bodily form to represent spiritual fruit.

16. Why not make absolution the sacrament?

And (to despatch these beasts in their own arena) if any sacrament is sought here, would it not have been much more plausible to maintain that the absolution of the priest is a sacrament, than penitence either external or internal? For it might obviously have been said that it is a ceremony to confirm our faith in the forgiveness of sins, and that it has the promise of the keys, as they describe them; "Whatsoever ye shall bind or loose on earth, shall be bound or loosed in heaven." But some one will object that to most of those who are absolved by priests, nothing of the kind is given by the absolution, whereas according to their dogma, the sacraments of the new dispensation ought to effect what they figure. This is ridiculous. As in the eucharist, they make out a twofold eating, a sacramental, which is common to the good and the bad alike, and a spiritual, which is proper only to the good, why should they not also pretend that absolution is given in two ways? And yet I have never been able to understand what they meant by their dogma. How much it is at variance with the truth of God, we showed when we formally discussed that subject. Here I only wish to show that no scruple should prevent them from giving the name of a sacrament to the absolution of the priest. For they might have answered by the mouth of Augustine, that there is a sanctification without a visible sacrament, and a visible sacrament without internal sanctification. Again, that in the elect alone, sacraments effect what they figure. Again, that some put on Christ so far as the receiving of the sacrament, and others so far as sanctification; that the former is done equally by the good and the bad, the latter by the good only. Surely they were more deluded than children, and blind in the full light of the sun, when they toiled with so much difficulty, and perceived not a matter so plain and obvious to every man.

17. Baptism the sacrament of repentance

Lest they become elated, however, whatever be the part in which they place the sacrament, I deny that it can justly be regarded as a sacrament; first, because there exists not to this effect any special promise of God, which is the only ground of a sacrament; and, secondly, because whatever ceremony is here used is a mere intention of man; whereas, as has already been shown, the ceremonies of sacraments can only be appointed by God. Their fiction of the sacrament of penance, therefore, was falsehood and imposture.

This fictitious sacrament they adorned with the befitting eulogium, that it was the second plank in the case of shipwreck, because, if any one had, by sin, injured the garment of innocence received in baptism, he might repair it by penitence. This was a saying of Jerome. Let it be whose it may, as it is plainly impious, it cannot be excused if understood in this sense; as if baptism were effaced by sin, and were not rather to be recalled to the mind of the sinner whenever he thinks of the forgiveness of sins, that he may thereby recollect himself, regain courage, and be confirmed in the belief that he shall obtain the forgiveness of sins which was promised him in baptism. What Jerome said harshly and improperly, viz., that baptism, which is fallen from by those who deserve to be excommunicated from the Church, is repaired by penitence, these worthy expositors wrest to their own impiety.

You will speak most correctly, therefore, if you call baptism the sacrament of penitence, seeing it is given to those who aim at repentance to confirm their faith and seal their confidence. But lest you should think this our invention, it appears that besides being conformable to the words of Scripture, it was generally regarded in the early Church as an indubitable axiom. For in the short Treatise on Faith addressed to Peter, and bearing the name of Augustine, it is called, The sacrament of faith and repentance. But why have recourse to doubtful writings, as if any thing can be required more distinct than the statement of the Evangelist, that John preached "the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins?" (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3.)


Of Extreme Unction, so called.
(Extreme unction rests upon a misuse of James 5:14-15 and is no sacrament, 18-21)
18. Alleged Scripture on extreme unction rejected

The third fictitious sacrament is Extreme Unction, which is performed only by a priest, and, as they express it, in extremis, with oil consecrated by the bishop, and with this form of words, "By this holy unction, and his most tender mercy, may God forgive you whatever sin you have committed, by the eye, the ear, the smell, the touch, the taste," (see Calv. Epist. de Fugiend. Illicit. Sac.) They pretend that there are two virtues in it - the forgiveness of sins, and relief of bodily disease, if so expedient; if not expedient, the salvation of the soul.

For they say, that the institution was set down by James, whose words are, "Is any sick among you? let him send 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" (James 5: 14.) The same account is here to be given of this unction as we lately gave of the laying on of hands; in other words it is mere hypocritical stage-play, by which, without reason or result, they would resemble the apostles.

Mark relates that the apostles, on their first mission, agreeably to the command which they had received of the Lord, raised the dead, cast out devils, cleansed lepers, healed the sick, and, in healing, used oil. He says, they "anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them," (Mark 6: 13.) To this James referred when he ordered the presbyters of the Church to be called to anoint the sick.

That no deeper mystery lay under this ceremony will easily be perceived by those who consider how great liberty both our Lord and his apostles used in those external things. Our Lord, when about to give sight to the blind man, spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle; some he cured by a touch, others by a word. In like manner the apostles cured some diseases by word only, others by touch, others by anointing.

But it is probable that neither this anointing nor any of the other things were used at random. I admit this; not, however, that they were instruments of the cure, but only symbols to remind the ignorant whence this great virtue proceeded, and prevent them from ascribing the praise to the apostles. To designate the Holy Spirit and his gifts by oil is trite and common, (Ps. 45:7.)

But the gift of healing disappeared with the other miraculous powers which the Lord was pleased to give for a time, that it might render the new preaching of the gospel for ever wonderful. Therefore, even were we to grant that anointing was a sacrament of those powers which were then administered by the hands of the apostles, it pertains not to us, to whom no such powers have been committed.

19. Extreme unction is no sacrament

And what better reason have they for making a sacrament of this unction, than of any of the other symbols which are mentioned in Scripture? Why do they not dedicate some pool of Siloam, into which, at certain seasons, the sick may plunge themselves? That, they say, were done in vain. Certainly not more in vain than unction Why do they not lay themselves on the dead, seeing that Paul, in raising up the dead youth, lay upon him? Why is not clay made of dust and spittle a sacrament? The other cases were special, but this is commanded by James. In other words, James spake agreeably to the time when the Church still enjoyed this blessing from God. They affirm, indeed, that there is still the same virtue in their unction, but we experience differently. Let no man now wonder that they have with so much confidence deluded souls, which they knew to be stupid and blind, because deprived of the word of God, that is, of his light and life, seeing they blush not to attempt to deceive the bodily perceptions of those who are alive, and have all their senses about them. They make themselves ridiculous, therefore, by pretending that they are endued with the gift of healing. The Lord, doubtless, is present with his people in all ages, and cures their sicknesses as often as there is need, not less than formerly; and yet he does not exert those manifest powers, nor dispense miracles by the hands of apostles, because that gift was temporary, and owing, in some measure, to the ingratitude of men, immediately ceased.

20. Unction has no divine authorization or promise

Wherefore, as the apostles, not without cause, openly declared, by the symbol of oil, that the gift of healing committed to them was not their own, but the power of the Holy Spirit; so, on the other hand, these men insult the Holy Spirit by making his power consist in a filthy oil of no efficacy. It is just as if one were to say that all oil is the power of the Holy Spirit, because it is called by that name in Scripture, and that every dove is the Holy Spirit, because he appeared in that form. Let them see to this: it is sufficient for us that we perceive, with absolute certainty, that their unction is no sacrament, as it is neither a ceremony appointed by God, nor has any promise. For when we require, in a sacrament, these two things, that it be a ceremony appointed by God, and have a promise from God, we at the same time demand that that ceremony be delivered to us, and that that promise have reference to us. No man contends that circumcision is now a sacrament of the Christian Church, although it was both an ordinance of God, and had his promise annexed to it, because it was neither commanded to us, nor was the promise annexed to it given us on the same condition. The promise of which they vaunt so much in unction, as we have clearly demonstrated, and they themselves show by experience, has not been given to us. The ceremony behaved to be used only by those who had been endued with the gift of healing, not by those murderers who do more by slaying and butchering than by curing.

21. The papists do not proceed at all according to James's "words of institution"

Even were it granted that this precept of unction, which has nothing to do with the present age, were perfectly adapted to it, they will not even thus have advanced much in support of their unction, with which they have hitherto besmeared us. James would have all the sick to be anointed: these men besmear, with their oil, not the sick, but half-dead carcasses, when life is quivering on the lips, or, as they say, in extremis. If they have a present cure in their sacrament, with which they can either alleviate the bitterness of disease, or at least give some solace to the soul, they are cruel in never curing in time. James would have the sick man to be anointed by the elders of the Church. They admit no anointer but a priestling. When they interpret the elders of James to be priests, and allege that the plural number is used for honour, the thing is absurd; as if the Church had at that time abounded with swarms of priests, so that they could set out in long procession, bearing a dish of sacred oil. James, in ordering simply that the sick be anointed, seems to me to mean no other anointing than that of common oil, nor is any other mentioned in the narrative of Mark. These men deign not to use any oil but that which has been consecrated by a bishop, that is warmed with much breath, charmed by much muttering, and saluted nine times on bended knee, Thrice Hail, holy oil! thrice Hail, holy chrism! thrice Hail, holy balsam! From whom did they derive these exorcisms? James says, that when the sick man shall have been anointed with oil, and prayer shall have been made over him if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him, viz., that his guilt being forgiven, he shall obtain a mitigation of the punishment, not meaning that sins are effaced by oil, but that the prayers by which believers commended their afflicted brother to God would not be in vain. These men are impiously false in saying that sins are forgiven by their sacred, that is, abominable unction. See how little they gain, even when they are allowed to abuse the passage of James as they list. And to save us the trouble of a laborious proof, their own annals relieve us from all difficulty; for they relate that Pope Innocent, who presided over the church of Rome in the age of Augustine, ordained, that not elders only but all Christians, should use oil in anointing, in their own necessity, or in that of their friends. Our authority for this is Sigebert, in his Chronicles.


Of Ecclesiastical Orders.
(The alleged sacrament of holy orders complicated by the seven ranks of clergy; the ceremonies of institution and functions of these criticized, 22-33)
22. One sacrament - or seven?

The fourth place in their catalogue is held by the sacrament of Orders, one so prolific, as to beget of itself seven lesser sacraments. It is very ridiculous that after affirming that there are seven sacraments, when they begin to count, they make out thirteen. It cannot be alleged that they are one sacrament, because they all tend to one priesthood, and are a kind of steps to the same thing. For while it is certain that the ceremonies in each are different, and they themselves say that the graces are different, no man can doubt that if their dogmas are admitted, they ought to be called seven sacraments. And why debate it as a doubtful matter, when they themselves plainly and distinctly declare that they are seven?

First, then we shall glance at them in passing, and show to how many absurdities they introduce us when they would recommend their orders to us as sacraments; and, secondly, we shall see whether the ceremony which churches use in ordaining ministers ought at all to be called a sacrament.

They make seven ecclesiastical orders, or degrees, which they distinguish by the title of a sacrament. These are, Doorkeepers, Readers, Exorcists, Acolytes, Subdeacons, Deacons, and Priests. And they say that they are seven, because of the seven kinds of graces of the Holy Spirit with which those who are promoted to them ought to be endued. This grace is increased and more liberally accumulated on promotion.

The mere number has been consecrated by a perversion of Scripture, because they think they read in Isaiah that there are seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, whereas truly not more than six are mentioned by Isaiah who, however, meant not to include all in that passage. For, in other passages are mentioned the spirit of life, of sanctification, of the adoption of sons, as well as there, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge, and of the fear of the Lord.

Although others who are more acute make not seven orders, but nine, in imitation, as they say, of the Church triumphant. But among theses also, there is a contest; because some insist that the clerical tonsure is the first order of all, and the episcopates the last; while others, excluding the tonsure, class the office of archbishop among the orders. Isiodorus distinguishes differently, for he makes Psalmists and Readers different. To the former, he gives the charge of chanting, to the latter, that of reading the Scriptures for the instruction of the common people. And this distinction is observed by the canons.

In this great variety, what would they have us to follow or to avoid? Shall we, say that there are seven orders? So the master of the school teaches, but the most illuminated doctors determine otherwise. On the other hand, they are at variance among themselves. Besides, the most sacred canons call us in a different direction. Such, indeed, is the concord of men when they discuss divine things apart from the word of God.

23. Christ must have occupied all seven offices

But the crowning folly of all is, that in each of these they make Christ their colleague. First, they say, he performed the office of Doorkeeper when, with a whip of small cords he drove the buyers and sellers from the temple. He intimates that he is a Doorkeeper when he says, "I am the door." He assumed the office of Reader, when he read Isaiah in the synagogue. He performed the office of Exorcist when, touching the tongue and ears of the deaf and dumb man with spittle, he restored his hearing. He declared that he was an Acolyte by the words, "He that followeth me shall not walk in darkness." He performed the office of Subdeacon, when, girding himself with a towel, he washed the feet of his disciples. He acted the part of a Deacon, when he distributed his body and blood in the Supper. He performed the part of a Priest, when, on the cross, he offered himself in sacrifice to the Father. As these things cannot be heard without laughter, I wonder how they could have been written without laughter, if, indeed, they were men who wrote them. But their most notable subtlety is that in which they speculate on the name of Acolyte, calling him Ceroferarius, a magical term, I presume, one certainly unknown to all nations and tongues; "akolouthos", in Greek, meaning simply attendant. Were I to stop and seriously refute these things, I might myself justly be laughed at, so frivolous are they and ludicrous.

24. The holders of the lower orders do not practice their office at all

Still, lest they should be able to impose on silly women, their vanity must be exposed in passing. With great pomp and solemnity they elect their readers, psalmists, doorkeepers, acolytes, to perform those services which they give in charge, either to boys, or at least to those whom they call laics. Who, for the most part, lights the tapers, who pours wine and water from the pitcher, but a boy or some mean person among laics, who gains his bread by so doing? Do not the same persons chant? Do they not open and shut the doors of churches? Who ever saw, in their churches, either an acolyte or doorkeeper performing his office? Nay, when he who as a boy performed the office of acolyte, is admitted to the order of acolyte, he ceases to be the very thing he begins to be called, so that they seem professedly to wish to cast away the office when they assume the title. See why they hold it necessary to be consecrated by sacraments, and to receive the Holy Spirit! It is just to do nothing.

If they pretend that this is the defect of the times, because they neglect and abandon their offices, let them, at the same time, confess that there is not in the Church, in the present day, any use or benefit of these sacred orders which they wondrously extol, and that their whole Church is full of anathema, since the tapers and flagons, which none are worthy to touch but those who have been consecrated acolytes, she allows to be handled by boys and profane persons; since her chants, which ought to be heard only from consecrated lips, she delegates to children.

And to what end, pray, do they consecrate exorcists? I hear that the Jews had their exorcists, but I see they were so called from the exorcisms which they practised, (Acts 19: 13.) Who ever heard of those fictitious exorcists having given one specimen of their profession? It is pretended that power has been given them to lay their hands on energumens, catechumens, and demoniacs, but they cannot persuade demons that they are endued with such power, not only because demons do not submit to their orders, but even command themselves. Scarcely will you find one in ten who is not possessed by a wicked spirit. All, then, which they babble about their paltry orders is a compound of ignorant and stupid falsehoods. Of the ancient acolytes, doorkeepers, and readers, we have spoken when explaining the government of the Church. All that we here proposed was to combat that novel invention of a sevenfold sacrament in ecclesiastical orders, of which we nowhere read except among silly raving Sorbonnists and Canonists.

25. The ceremonies of consecration, especially the tonsure

Let us now attend to the ceremonies which they employ. And first, all whom they enrol among their militia they initiate into the clerical status by a common symbol. They shave them on the top of the head, that the crown may denote regal honour, because clergy ought to be kings in governing themselves and others. Peter thus speaks of them: "Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people," (1 Pet. 2: 9.) But it was sacrilege in them to arrogate to themselves alone what is given to the whole Church, and proudly to glory in a title of which they had robbed the faithful. Peter addresses the whole Church: these men wrest it to a few shaven crowns, as if it had been said to them alone, Be ye holy: as if they alone had been purchased by the blood of Christ: as if they alone had been made by Christ kings and priests unto God. Then they assign other reasons, (Sent. Lib. 4 Dist. 24.) The top of the head is bared, that their mind may be shown to be free, with unveiled face, to behold the glory of God; or that they may be taught to cut off the vices of the eye and the lip. Or the shaving of the head is the laying aside of temporal things, while the circumference of the crown is the remnants of good which are retained for support. Everything is in figure, because, forsooth, the veil of the temple is not yet rent. Accordingly, persuaded that they have excellently performed their part because they have figured such things by their crown, they perform none of them in reality. How long will they delude us with such masks and impostures? The clergy, by shaving off some hair, intimate (Sent. loco cit.) that they have cast away abundance of temporal good - that they contemplate the glory of God - that they have mortified the concupiscence of the ear and the eye: but no class of men is more rapacious, more stupid, more libidinous. Why do they not rather exhibit true sanctity, than give a hypocritical semblance of it in false and lying signs?

26. To cite the Nazarites and Paul is beside the point

Moreover, when they say that the clerical crown has its origin and nature from the Nazarene, what else do they say than that their mysteries are derived from Jewish ceremonies, or rather are mere Judaism?

When they add that Priscilla, Aquila, and Paul himself, after they had taken a vow, shaved their head that they might be purified, they betray their gross ignorance. For we nowhere read this of Priscilla, While, with regard to Aquila, it is uncertain, since that tonsure may refer equally well to Paul as to Aquila, (Acts 18: 18.) But not to leave them in possession of what they ask, viz., that they have an example in Paul, it is to be observed, to the more simple, that Paul never shaved his head for any sanctification, but only in subservience to the weakness of brethren. Vows of this kind I am accustomed to call vows of charity not of piety: in other words, vows not undertaken for divine worship, but only in deference to the infirmity of the weak, as he himself says, that to the Jews he became a Jew, (1 Cor. 9: 20.) This therefore, he did, and that once and for a short time, that he might accommodate himself for a little to the Jews. When these men would, for no end, imitate the purifications of the Nazarene, (Num. 6: 18,) what else do they than set up a new, while they improperly affect to rival the ancient Judaism?

In the same spirit the Decretal Epistle was composed, which enjoins the clergy, after the apostle, not to nourish their hair, but to shave it all round, (Cap. Prohibitur, Dist. 24;) as if the apostle, in showing what is comely for all men, had been solicitous for the spherical tonsure of the clergy. Hence, let my readers consider what kind of force or dignity there can be in the subsequent mysteries, to which this is the introduction.

27. Historical interpretation of the tonsure

Whence the clerical tonsure had its origin, is abundantly clear from Augustine alone, (De Opera. Monaco. et Retract.) While in that age none wore long hair but the effeminate and those who affected an unmanly beauty and elegance, it was thought to be of bad example to allow the clergy to do so. They were therefore enjoined either to cut or shave their hair, that they might not have the appearance of effeminate indulgence. And so common was the practice, that some monks, to appear more sanctimonious than others by a notable difference in dress, let their locks hang loose. But when hair returned to use, and some nations, which had always worn long hair, as France, Germany and England, embraced Christianity, it is probable that the clergy everywhere shaved the head, that they might not seem to affect ornament. At length, in a more corrupt age, when all ancient customs were either changed, or had degenerated into superstition, seeing no reason for the clerical tonsure, (they had retained nothing but a foolish imitation,) they retook themselves to mystery, and now superstitiously obtrude it upon us in support of their sacrament.

The Doorkeepers, on consecration, receive the keys of the Church, by which it is understood that the custody of it is committed to them; the readers receive the Holy Bible; the Exorcists, forms of exorcism which they use over the possessed and catechumens; the Acolytes, tapers and the flagon. Such are the ceremonies which, it would seem, possess so much secret virtue, that they cannot only be signs and badges, but even causes of invisible grace. For this, according to their definition, they demand, when they would have them to be classed among sacraments.

But to dispatch the matter in a few words, I say that it is absurd for schools and canons to make sacraments of those minor orders, since, even by the confession of those who do so, they were unknown to the primitive Church, and were devised many ages after. But sacraments as containing a divine promise ought not to be appointed, either by angels or men, but by God only, to whom alone it belongs to give the promise.

28. &quotriest" and "presbyter"

There remain the three orders which they call "major". Of these, what they call the subdeacon ate was transferred to this class, after the crowd of minor began to be prolific. But as they think they have authority for these from the word of God, they honour them specially with the name of Holy Orders. Let us see how they wrest the ordinances of God to their own ends.

We begin with the order of presbyter or priest. To these two names they give one meaning, understanding by them, those to whom as they say, it pertains to offer the sacrifice of Christ's body and blood on the altar, to frame prayers, and bless the gifts of God. Hence, at ordination, they receive the patena with the host, as symbols of the power conferred upon them of offering sacrifices to appease God, and their hands are anointed, this symbol being intended to teach that they have received the power of consecrating. But of the ceremonies afterwards. Of the thing itself, I say that it is so far from having, as they pretend, one particle of support from the word of God, that they could not more wickedly corrupt the order which he has appointed.

And first, it ought to be held as confessed, (this we maintained when treating of the Papal Mass,) that all are injurious to Christ who call themselves priests in the sense of offering expiatory victims. He was constituted and consecrated Priest by the Father, with an oath, after the order of Melchizedek, without end and without successor, (Psalm 110: 4; Heb. 5: 6; 7: 3.) He once offered a victim of eternal expiation and reconciliation, and now also having entered the sanctuary of heaven, he intercedes for us. In him we all are priests, but to offer praise and thanksgiving, in fine, ourselves, and all that is ours to God. It was peculiar to him alone to appease God and expiate sins by his oblation. When these men usurp it to themselves, what follows, but that they have an impious and sacrilegious priesthood? It is certainly wicked overmuch to dare to distinguish it with the title of sacrament.

In regard to the true office of presbyter, which was recommended to us by the lips of Christ, I willingly give it that place. For in it there is a ceremony which, first, is taken from the Scriptures; and, secondly, is declared by Paul to be not empty or superfluous, but to be a faithful symbol of spiritual grace, (1 Tim. 4: 14.) My reason for not giving a place to the third is, because it is not ordinary or common to all believers, but is a special rite for a certain function. But while this honour is attributed to the Christian ministry, Popish priests may not plume themselves upon it. Christ ordered dispensers of his gospel and his sacred mysteries to be ordained, not sacrificers to be inaugurated, and his command was to preach the gospel and feed the flock, not to immolate victims. He promised the gift of the Holy Spirit, not to make expiation for sins, but duly to undertake and maintain the government of the Church, (Matth. 28: 19; Mark 16: 15; John 21: 15.)

29. The ceremonies in ordaining priests

With the reality the ceremonies perfectly agree. When our Lord commissioned the apostles to preach the gospel, he breathed upon them, (John 20: 22.) By this symbol he represented the gift of the Holy Spirit which he bestowed upon them. This breathing these worthy men have retained; and, as if they were bringing the Holy Spirit from their throat, mutter over their priestlings, "Receive the Holy Spirit." Accordingly, they omit nothing which they do not preposterously mimic. I say not in the manner of players, (who have art and meaning in their gestures,) but like apes who imitate at random without selection. We observe, say they, the example of the Lord. But the Lord did many things which he did not intend to be examples to us. Our Lord said to his disciples, "Receive the Holy Spirit," (John 20: 22.) He said also to Lazarus, "Lazarus, come forth," (John 11: 43.) He said to the paralytic, "Rise, take up thy bed, and walk," (John 5: 8.) Why do they not say the same to all the dead and paralytic? He gave a specimen of his divine power when, in breathing on the apostles, he filled them with the gift of the Holy Spirit. If they attempt to do the same, they rival God, and do all but challenge him to the contest. But they are very far from producing the effect, and only mock Christ by that absurd gesture. Such, indeed, is the effrontery of some, that they dare to assert that the Holy Spirit is conferred by them; but what truth there is in this, we learn from experience, which cries aloud that all who are consecrated priests, of horses become asses, and of fools madmen. And yet it is not here that I am contending against them; I am only condemning the ceremony itself, which ought not to be drawn into a precedent, since it was used as the special symbol of a miracle, so far is it from furnishing them with an example for imitation.

30. Christ's priesthood supersedes that of Aaron

But from whom, pray, did they receive their unction? They answer, that they received it from the sons of Aaron, from whom also their order derived its origin, (Sent. Lib. 4 Dist. 14, cap. 8, et in Canon. Dist. 21, cap. 1.) Thus they constantly choose to defend themselves by perverse examples, rather then confess that any of their rash practices is of their own devising. Meanwhile, they observe not that in professing to be the successors of the sons of Aaron, they are injurious to the priesthood of Christ, which alone was adumbrated and typified by all ancient priesthoods. In him, therefore, they were all concluded and completed, in him they ceased, as we have repeatedly said, and as the Epistle to the Hebrews, unaided by any gloss, declares. But if they are so much delighted with Mosaic ceremonies, why do they not hurry oxen, calves, and lambs, to their sacrifices? They have, indeed, a great part of the ancient tabernacle, and of the whole Jewish worship. The only thing wanted to their religion is, that they do not sacrifice oxen and calves. Who sees not that this practice of unction is much more pernicious than circumcision, especially when to it is added superstition and a Pharisaical opinion of the ment of the work? The Jews placed their confidence of justification in circumcision, these men look for spiritual gifts in unction. Therefore, in desiring to be rivals of the Levites, they become apostates from Christ, and discard themselves from the pastoral office.

31. Anointing belongs with the outworn ceremonies

It is, if you please, the sacred oil which impresses an indelible character. As if oil could not be washed away by sand and salt, or if it sticks the closer, with soap. But that character is spiritual. What has oil to do with the soul? Have they forgotten what they quote from Augustine, that if the word be withdrawn from the water, there will be nothing but water, but that it is owing to the word that it is a sacrament? What word can they show in their oil? Is it because Moses was commanded to anoint the sons of Aaron? (Exod. 30: 30.) But he there receives command concerning the tunic, the ephod, the breastsplate, the mitre, the crown of holiness with which Aaron was to be adorned; and concerning the tunics, belts, and mitres which his sons were to wear. He receives command about sacrificing the calf, burning its fat, about cutting and burning rams about sanctifying earrings and vestments with the blood of one of the rams, and innumerable other observances. Having passed over all these, I wonder why the unction of oil a!one pleases them. If they delight in being sprillkled, why are they sprinkled with oil rather than with blood? They are attempting, forsooth, an ingenious device; they are trying, by a kind of patchwork, to make one religion out of Christianity, Judaism, and Paganism. Their unction, therefore, is without savor; it wants salt, that is, the word of God.(Leviticus 8).

There remains the laying on of hands which, though I admit it to be a sacrament in true and legitimate ordination, I do deny to have any such place in this fable, where they neither obey the command of Christ, nor look to the end to which the promise ought to lead us. If they would not have the sign denied them, they must adapt it to the reality to which it is dedicated.

32. The deacons

As to the order of the diaconate, I would raise no dispute, if the office which existed under the apostles, and a purer Church, were restored to its integrity. But what resemblance to it do we see in their fictitious deacons? I speak not of the men, lest they should complain that I am unjustly judging their doctrine by the vices of those who profess it; but I contend that those whom their doctrine declares to us, derive no countenance from those deacons whom the apostolic Church appointed. They say that it belongs to their deacons to assist the priests, and minister at all the things which are done in the sacraments, as in baptism, in chrism, the patena, and chalice, to bring the offerings and lay them on the altar, to prepare and dress the table of the Lord, to carry the cross, announce and read out the gospel and epistle to the people, (Sent. Lib. 4 Dist. 24, cap. 8; Item, Cap. Perlectis,Dist. 25.) Is there here one word about the true office of deacon?

Let us now attend to the appointment. The bishop alone lays hands on the deacon who is ordained; he places the prayer book and stole upon his left shoulder, that he may understand that he has received the easy yoke of the Lord, in order that he may subject to the fear of the Lord every thing pertaining to the left side: he gives him a text of the gospel, to remind him that he is its herald. What have these things to do with deacons? But they act just as if one were to say he was ordaining apostles, when he was only appointing persons to kindle the incense, clean the images, sweep the churches, set traps for mice, and put out dogs. Who can allow this class of men to be called apostles, and to be compared with the very apostles of Christ? After this, let them not pretend that those whom they appoint to mere stage-play are deacons. Nay, they even declare, by the very name, what the nature of the office is. For they call them Levites, and wish to trace their nature and origin to the sons of Levi. As far as I am concerned, they are welcome, provided they do not afterwards deck themselves in borrowed feathers.

33. Subdeacons

What use is there in speaking of subdeacons? For, whereas in fact they anciently had the charge of the poor, they attribute to them some kind of nugatory function, as carrying the chalice and patena, the pitcher with water, and the napkin to the altar, pouring out water for the hands, &c. Then, by the offerings which they are said to receive and bring in, they mean those which they swallow up, as if they had been destined to anathema.

There is an admirable correspondence between the office and the mode of inducting to it, viz., receiving from the bishop the patena and chalice, and from the archdeacon the pitcher with water, the manual and trumpery of this kind. They call upon us to admit that the Holy Spirit is included in these frivolities. What pious man could be induced to grant this? But to have done at once, we may conclude the same of this as of the others and there is no need to repeat at length what has been explained above.

To the modest and docile (it is such I have undertaken to instruct,) it will be enough that there is no sacrament of God, unless where a ceremony is shown annexed to a promise, or rather where a promise is seen in a ceremony. Here there is not one syllable of a certain promise, and it is vain, therefore, to seek for a ceremony to confirm the promise. On the other hand, we read of no ceremony appointed by God in regard to those usages which they employ, and, therefore, there can be no sacrament.


Of Marriage.
(Erroneous claim that marriage is a sacrament from misunderstanding of Eph. 5:28 and other passages: abuses connected with marriage, 34-37)
34. Marriage is no sacrament

The last of all is Marriage, which, while all admit it to be an institution of God (Gen. 2:21-24; Matt. 19:4), no man ever saw to be a sacrament, until the time of Gregory. And would it ever have occurred to the mind of any sober man? It is a good and holy ordinance of God. And agriculture, architecture, shoemaking, and shaving, are lawful ordinances of God; but they are not sacraments. For in a sacrament, the thing required is not only that it be a work of God, but that it be an external ceremony appointed by God to confirm a promise. That there is nothing of the kind in marriage, even children can judge.

But it is a sign, they say, of a sacred thing, that is, of the spiritual union of Christ with the Church. If by the term sign they understand a symbol set before us by God to assure us of our faith, they wander widely from the mark. If they mean merely a sign because it has been employed 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," (1 Cor. 15: 41, 42.) Here is one sacrament. Christ says, "The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard-seed," (Matth. 13: 31.) Here is another sacrament. Again, "The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven," (Matth. 13: 33.) Here is a third sacrament. Isaiah says, "He shall feed his flock like a shepherd," (Isaiah 40: 11.) Here is a fourth sacrament. In another passage he says, "The Lord shall go forth as a mighty man," (Isaiah 42: 13.) Here is a fifth sacrament. And where will be the end or limit? Every thing in this way will be a sacrament. All the parables and similitudes in Scripture will be so many sacraments. Nay, even theft will be a sacrament, seeing it is written, "The day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night," (1 Thess. 5: 2.) Who can tolerate the ignorant garrulity of these sophists?

I admit, indeed, that whenever we see a vine, the best thing is to call to mind what our Saviour says, " I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman." "I am the vine, ye are the branches," (John 15: 1, 6.) And whenever we meet a shepherd with his flock, it is good also to remember, "I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine," (John 10: 14.) But any man who would class such similitudes with sacraments should be sent to bedlam.

35. They misapply Eph. 5:28

They adduce the words of Paul, by which they say that the name of a sacrament is given to marriage, "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 of 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: but I speak concerning Christ and the Church," (Eph. 5: 28, 32.) To treat Scripture thus is to confound heaven and earth. Paul, in order to show husbands how they ought to love their wives, sets Christ before them as an example. As he shed his bowels of affection for the Church, which he had espoused to himself, so he would have every one to feel affected toward his wife. Then he adds, "He that loveth his wife loveth himself," "even as the Lord the Church." Moreover, to show how Christ loved the Church as himself, nay, how he made himself one with his spouse the Church, he applies to her what Moses relates that Adam said of himself. For after Eve was brought into his presence, knowing that she had been formed out of his side, he exclaimed, "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh," (Gen. 2: 23.) That all this was spiritually fulfilled in Christ, and in us, Paul declares when he says, that we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones, and so one flesh with him. At length he breaks out into the exclamation, "This is a great mystery;" and lest any one should be misled by the ambiguity, he says that he is not speaking of the connection between husband and wife, but of the spiritual marriage of Christ and the Church. And truly it is a great mystery that Christ allowed a rib to be taken from himself, of which we might be formed; that is that when he was strong, he was pleased to become weak, that we might be strengthened by his strength, and should no longer live ourselves, but he live in us, (Gal. 2: 20.)

36. This confusion arises from the translation of "mystery" and their low view of marriage

The thing which misled them was the term sacrament. But, was it right that the whole Church should be punished for the ignorance of these men? Paul called it a mystery. When the Latin interpreter might have abandoned this mode of expression as uncommon to Latin ears, or converted it into "secret," he preferred calling it sacramentum, but in no other sense than the Greek term "musterion" was used by Paul. Let them go now and clamour against skill in languages, their ignorance of which leads them most shamefully astray in a matter easy and obvious to every one. But why do they so strongly urge the term sacrament in this one passage, and in others pass it by with neglect? For both in the First Epistle to Timothy, (1 Tim. 3: 9, 16,) and also in the Epistle to the Ephesians, it is used by the Vulgate interpreter, and in every instance, for mystery. Let us, however, pardon them this lapses, though liars ought to have good memories.

Marriage being thus recommended by the title of a sacrament, can it be anything but vertiginous levity afterwards to call it uncleanness, and pollution, and carnal defilement? How absurd is it to debar priests from a sacrament? If they say that they debar not from a sacrament but from carnal connection, they will not thus escape me. They say that this connection is part of the sacrament, and thereby figures the union which we have with Christ in conformity of nature, inasmuch as it is by this connection that husband and wife become one flesh; although some have here found two sacraments, the one of God and the souls in bridegroom and bride, another of Christ and the Church, in husband and wife. Be this as it may, this connection is a sacrament from which no Christian can lawfully be debarred, unless, indeed, the sacraments of Christians accord so ill that they cannot stand together. There is also another absurdity in these dogmas. They affirm that in a sacrament the gift of the Holy Spirit is conferred; this connection they hold to be a sacrament, and yet they deny that in it the Holy Spirit is ever present.

37. Oppressive consequences of the Roman doctrine

And, that they might not delude the Church in this matter merely, what a long series of errors, lies, frauds, and iniquities have they appended to one error? So that you may say they sought nothing, but a hiding-place for abominations when they converted marriage into a sacrament. When once they obtained this they appropriated to themselves the cognisance of conjugal causes: as the thing was spiritual, it was not to be intermeddled with by profane judges. Then they enacted laws by which they confirmed their tyranny, - laws partly impious toward God, partly fraught with injustice toward men; such as, that marriages contracted between minors, without the consent of their parents, should be valid; that no lawful marriages can be contracted between relations within the seventh degree, and that such marriages if contracted, should be dissolved. Moreover, they frame degrees of kindred contrary to the laws of all nations and even the polity of Moses, and enact that a husband who has repudiated an adulteress may not marry again - that spiritual kindred cannot be joined in marriage - that marriage cannot be celebrated from Septuagesimo to the Octaves of Easter, three weeks before the nativity of John, nor from Advent to Epiphany, and innumerable others which it were too tedious to mention. We must now get out of their mire, in which our discourse has stuck longer than our inclination. Methinks, however, that much has been gained if I have, in some measure, deprived these asses of their lion's skin.