Chapter 19. Of the Five Falsely Named Sacraments, Where Is Declared That the Other Five Which Have Been Until Now Commonly Taken for Sacraments Are Not Sacraments, and Then Is Showed What Manner of Things They Be

Our former discourse concerning Sacraments might have obtained this with the sober and willing to learn, that they should not over-curiously proceed any further, nor should without the word of God embrace any other Sacraments beside those two which they knew to be ordained of the Lord. But inasmuch as that opinion of the seven Sacraments, being commonly used in all men's talk, having wandered through all schools and preachings, has by very antiquity gathered roots, and is yet still settled in the minds of men: I thought that I should do a thing worth the effort, if I should severally and more nearly search those other five that are commonly numbered among the true and natural Sacraments of the Lord, and wiping away all deceitful color, should set them forth to be seen of the simple such as they are, and how falsely they have been heretofore taken for Sacraments. First, I here protest to all the godly, that I do not take in hand this contention about the name for any desire of striving, but that I am by weighty causes led to fight against the abuse of it. I am not ignorant that Christians are lords, as of words, so of all things also, and therefore may at their will apply words to things, so that a godly sense be kept, although there be some impropriety in the speaking. All this I grant: although it were better that the words should be made subject to things, than things to the words. But in the name of Sacrament there is another consideration. For they which make seven Sacraments, do therewithal give to them all this definition, that they be visible forms of invisible grace: they make them altogether vessels of the Holy Spirit: instruments of giving of righteousness, causes of the obtaining of grace. Yes, and the Master of the Sentences himself denies that the Sacraments of the law of Moses are properly called by this name, because they did not deliver in deed the thing that they figured. Is it, I beseech you, to be suffered, that those signs which the Lord has hallowed with his own mouth, which he has garnished with excellent promises, should not be accounted for Sacraments: and in the meantime this honor should be conveyed away to those usages which men either have devised of themselves, or at least do observe without express commandment of God? Therefore either let them change the definition, or let them abstain from the wrongful using of this word, which does afterward engender false opinions and full of absurdity. Extreme anointing (say they) is a figure and cause of invisible grace, because it is a Sacrament. If we ought in no wise to grant that which they gather upon it, then truly we must resist them in the name itself, lest thereby we admit that it may give occasion to such an error. Again when they would prove it to be a Sacrament, they add this cause, for that it consists of the outward sign and the word. If we find neither commandment nor promise of it, what can we do else but cry out against them?

Now it appears that we brawl not about the word, but do move a controversy not superfluous concerning the thing itself. Therefore this we must strongly hold fast, which we have with invincible reason before confirmed, that the power to institute a Sacrament is in the hand of none but of God only. For a Sacrament ought with a certain promise to raise up and comfort the consciences of the faithful: which could never receive this certainty from man. A Sacrament ought to be to us a witnessing of the good will of God toward us, whereof none of all men or Angels can be witness, inasmuch as none has been of God's counsel. Therefore it is he alone which does with right authority testify of himself to us by his word. A Sacrament is a seal, wherewith the testament or promise of God is sealed. But it could not be sealed with bodily things and elements of this world, unless they be by the power of God framed and appointed to that. Therefore man cannot ordain a Sacrament, because this is not in the power of man, to make that so great mysteries of God should lie hidden under so base things. The word of God must go before, which may make a Sacrament to be a Sacrament, as Augustine very well teaches. Moreover it is profitable that there be kept some difference between the Sacraments and other ceremonies, unless we will fall into many absurdities. The Apostles prayed kneeling: therefore men shall not kneel without a Sacrament. It is said that the disciples prayed toward the East: therefore the looking into the East shall be a Sacrament. Paul instructs men in every place to lift up pure hands, and it is rehearsed that holy men oftentimes prayed with their hands lifted up: then let the lifting up of hands also be made a Sacrament. Finally let all the gestures of the holy ones turn into Sacraments. However I would not also much pass upon these things, if so that they were not joined with those other greater inconveniences.

If they will press us with the authority of the old Church, I say that they pretend a false color. For this number of seven is nowhere found among the Ecclesiastical writers: neither is it certain at what time it first crept in. I grant indeed that sometime they be very free in using the name of a sacrament: but what do they mean thereby? Even all ceremonies and outward rites, and all exercises of godliness. But when they speak of those signs, that ought to be witnesses of the grace of God toward us, they are contented with these two, Baptism, and the Supper. Lest any man should think that I falsely boast of this, I will here rehearse a few testimonies of Augustine. To Januarius he says: First I would have you hold fast that which is the chief point of this disputation, that our Lord Christ (as he himself says in the gospel) has made us subject to a light yoke and a light burden. Therefore he has bound together the fellowship of the new people with sacraments very few in number, very easy in observing, very excellent in signification. As are Baptism hallowed in the name of the Trinity, and the communicating of the body and blood of the Lord, and whatever else is set forth in the canonical Scriptures. Again, in his book of Christian doctrine. Since the Lord's resurrection, the Lord himself and the doctrine of the Apostles has delivered certain few signs instead of many, and those most easy to be done, most reverent in understanding, most pure in observing: as is Baptism, and the celebrating of the body and blood of the Lord. Why does he here make no mention of the holy number, that is, of the number of seven? Is it likely that he would have passed it over, if it had been at that time ordained in the Church, especially since he is otherwise in observing of numbers more curious than need was? Indeed, when he names Baptism and the Supper, and speaks nothing of the rest: does he not sufficiently signify, that these two mysteries do excel in singular dignity, and that the other ceremonies do rest beneath in a lower degree? Therefore I say that these Sacramentary doctors are destitute not only of the word of the Lord, but also of the consent of the old Church, however much they glory of this pretense? But now let us come down to the special things themselves.

Of Confirmation.

This was the manner in old times, that the children of Christians, when they were grown to age of discretion, should be brought before the Bishop: that they should fulfill that duty which was required of those that being grown in years did offer themselves to Baptism. For these sat among those that were to be catechized, till being fully instructed in the mysteries of the faith, they could make a confession of their faith before the bishop and the people. Therefore they that were baptized being infants, because they had not then made confession of their faith before the Church, were about the end of their childhood or in the beginning of their years of discretion presented again by their parents, and were examined of the Bishop according to the form of the Catechism, which they had then certain and common. And that this doing, which otherwise ought worthily to be grave and holy, might have the more reverence and dignity, there was added also the ceremony of laying on of hands. So that same child, his faith being allowed, was let go with solemn blessing. The old writers do oft make mention of this manner. Leo the Pope writes: If any return from heretics, let him not be baptized again: but (which he wanted among the heretics) let the virtue of the Spirit be given him by the Bishop's laying on of his hands. Here our adversaries will cry out, that it is rightfully called a Sacrament, in which the Holy Ghost is given, but Leo himself does in another place declare what he means by those words: Whoever (he says) is baptized among heretics, let him not be rebaptized, but with calling upon the Holy Ghost, let him be confirmed with laying on of hands: because he received only the form of Baptism without sanctifying. Hierome also makes mention of it, writing against the Luciferians. But although I do not deny that Hierome somewhat errs therein, for that he says that it is an observation of the Apostles: yet he is most far from these men's follies. And the very same also he qualifies, when he adds, that this blessing is given to the bishops only, rather in honor of their priesthood than by the necessity of law. Therefore such laying on of hands, which is done simply in stead of blessing, I praise and would that it were at this day restored to the pure use of it.

But the later age, having in a manner blotted out the thing itself, has set — I know not what — feigned confirmation for a Sacrament of God. They have feigned that the virtue of Confirmation is to give the Holy Ghost to the increase of Grace, which in Baptism was given to innocence: to strengthen them to battle, which in Baptism were newly begotten to life. This Confirmation is celebrated with anointing, and with this form of words: I sign you with the sign of the holy cross, and confirm you with the chrism of salvation, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. All this is gaily and trimly done. But where is the word of God, that may promise here the presence of the Holy Ghost? They cannot bring forth one tittle. Whereby then will they certify us that their chrism is the vessel of the Holy Ghost? We see oil, that is, a thick and fat liquid and nothing else. Let the word (says Augustine) be added to the element, and there shall be made a Sacrament. Let them (I say) bring forth this word, if they will have us in the oil to look upon anything but the oil. If they did acknowledge themselves ministers of the Sacraments, as they ought, we would need to strive no longer. This is the first law of a minister, that he do nothing without commandment. Go to, let them bring forth any commandment of this point of ministry, and I will not speak one word more. If they have no commandment, they cannot excuse their boldness full of sacrilege. After this manner the Lord asked the Pharisees, whether the Baptism of John were from heaven or from men: if they had answered, from men, then he had made them confess that it was trifling and vain: if from heaven, then were they compelled to acknowledge the doctrine of John. Therefore, lest they should too much slander John, they dared not confess that it was from men. If therefore Confirmation be from men, it is proved to be vain and trifling: if they will persuade us that it is from heaven, let them prove it.

They do indeed defend themselves with the example of the Apostles, whom they think to have done nothing rashly. That is well indeed: neither would we blame them, if they showed themselves followers of the Apostles. But what did the Apostles? Luke reports in the Acts, that the Apostles which were at Jerusalem, when they heard that Samaria had received the word of God, sent there Peter and John: they prayed for the Samaritans, that they might receive the Holy Ghost, which was not yet come into any of them, but they were baptized only in the name of Jesus: when they had prayed, they laid their hands upon them: by which laying on, the Samaritans received the Holy Ghost. And of this laying on of hands he diverse times makes mention. I hear what the Apostles did: that is, they faithfully executed their ministry. The Lord willed that those visible and wonderful graces of the Holy Ghost, which he then poured out upon his people, should be ministered and distributed by his Apostles by the laying on of hands. But under this laying on of hands I think there was not contained any higher mystery: but I expound it, that they adjoined such a ceremony, that by the very outward doing they might signify, that they commended and as it were offered to God him upon whom they laid their hands. If this ministry which the Apostles then executed, were yet still remaining in the Church, the laying on of hands also ought to be kept. But since that same grace has ceased to be given, what purpose does the laying on of hands serve? Truly the Holy Ghost is yet present with the people of God, without whom being guide and director, the Church of God cannot stand. For we have the eternal promise, and which shall ever stand in force, by which Christ calls to himself those that thirst, that they may drink living waters. But those miracles of powers, and manifest workings, which were distributed by the laying on of hands, have ceased, neither behooved it that they should be, but for a time. For it behooved that the preaching of the Gospel while it was new, should be gloriously set forth and magnified, with unheard of and unwonted miracles. From which when the Lord ceased, he did not by and by forsake his Church, but taught that the royalty of his kingdom, and the dignity of his word was excellently enough disclosed. In what point therefore will these stage-players say that they follow the Apostles? They should have done it with laying on of hands, that the evident power of the Holy Ghost might by and by show forth itself. This they bring not to pass: why therefore do they boast that the laying on of hands makes for them, which we read indeed that the Apostles used, but altogether to another end?

This has like reason as if a man should teach that that breathing with which the Lord breathed upon his disciples, is a Sacrament by which the Holy Ghost is given. But whereas the Lord did this once, he did not also will that we should do the same. After the same manner also the Apostles laid on their hands, during the time that it pleased the Lord that the visible graces of the Holy Ghost should be distributed at their prayers: not that they which come after, should only in a player-like manner and without the thing in deed counterfeit an empty and cold sign, as these apes do. But if they prove that in laying on of hands they follow the Apostles, (wherein they have no like thing with the Apostles, saving I know not what perverse wrongful counterfeiting) yet from where comes their oil which they call the oil of salvation? Who taught them to seek salvation in oil? Who taught them to give to it the power of strengthening? Did Paul, who draws us far away from the elements of this world, who condemns nothing more than the sticking to such petty observations? But this I boldly pronounce, not of myself, but from the Lord. Whoever calls oil the oil of salvation, they forswear the salvation which is in Christ, they deny Christ, they have no part in the kingdom of God. For oil is for the belly, and the belly for oil: the Lord shall destroy both. For all these weak elements, which decay with very use, belong nothing to the kingdom of God, which is spiritual and shall never decay. What then? Will some men say: do you measure with the same measure, the water with which we be baptized, and the bread and wine under which the Supper of the Lord is given? I answer that in Sacraments given of God, two things are to be looked to: the substance of the bodily thing which is set before us, and the form that is by the word of God printed in it, wherein lies the whole strength. In respect therefore that the bread, wine, and water that are in the Sacraments offered to our sight, do keep their own substance, this saying of Paul always has place: Meat for belly, and the belly for meats — God shall destroy them both. For they pass and vanish away with the fashion of this world. But in respect that they be sanctified by the word of God, that they may be Sacraments, they do not hold us in the flesh, but do truly and spiritually teach us.

But let us yet more nearly look into it, how many monsters this fat liquor fosters and feeds. These anointers say, that the Holy Ghost is given in Baptism, to innocence: in Confirmation, to increase of grace, that in Baptism, we are new begotten into life: in confirmation, we are prepared to battle. And they are so past shame, that they deny that Baptism can well be done without confirmation. O wickedness. Are we not therefore in Baptism buried together with Christ, being made partakers of his death, that we may be also partners of his resurrection? But this fellowship with the death and life of Christ Paul expounds to be the mortifying of our flesh, and quickening of our spirit: for that our old man is crucified, that we may walk in newness of life. What is to be armed to battle if this be not? If they [reconstructed: counted] it a matter of nothing, to tread under foot the word of God: why did they not yet at least reverence the Church, to whom they will in every point seem so obedient. But what can be brought forth more strong against their doctrine, than that decree of the Milevitan council? Whoever says that Baptism is given only for forgiveness of sins, and not for a help of grace to come, accursed be he. But whereas Luke, in the place which we have alleged, says that they were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, which had not received the Holy Ghost: he does not simply deny that they were endowed with any gift of the Holy Ghost, who believed in Christ with heart, and confessed him with mouth: but means of that receiving of the Holy Ghost, whereby the open powers and visible graces were received. So it is said that the Apostles received the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, whereas it had been long before said to them of Christ, It is not you that speak, but the Spirit of my Father which speaks in you. Behold all you that are of God, the malicious and poisonous deceit of Satan. That thing which was truly given in Baptism, he falsely says to be given in his confirmation, that he may by stealth lead you unaware from Baptism. Who now can doubt that this is the doctrine of Satan, which cutting away from Baptism the promises properly belonging to Baptism, does convey away and remove them to another thing? It is found (I say) upon what manner of foundation this godly anointing stands. The word of God is, that all they which are baptized in Christ, have put on Christ with his gifts. The word of the anointers is, that they received in Baptism no promise, by which they may be armed in battles. That is the voice of the truth, therefore this must be the voice of lying. Therefore I can more truly define this Confirmation than they have until now defined it: namely, that it is a notable slander of Baptism, which darkens, indeed abolishes the use thereof: that it is a false promise of the devil, which draws us away from the truth of God. Or, if you will, it is oil defiled with the lying of the devil, which as it were by overspreading of darkness, deceives the eyes of the simple.

They add furthermore, that all the faithful ought after Baptism to receive the Holy Ghost by laying on of hands, that they may be found full Christians: because he shall never be a Christian, that is not chrismated with the Bishop's Confirmation. These are their own sayings word for word. But I had thought that whatever things pertained to Christianity, were all set forth in writing and comprehended in Scriptures. Now, as I perceive, the true form of religion is to be sought and learned from elsewhere than out of the Scriptures. Therefore the whole wisdom of God, the heavenly truth, the whole doctrine of Christ, does but begin Christians, and oil makes them perfect. By this sentence are condemned all the Apostles, and so many Martyrs, whom it is most certain to have never been [reconstructed: chrismated]: forasmuch as the oil was not yet made, which being poured upon them, they might fulfill all the parts of Christianity, or rather might be made Christians which yet were none. But, though I hold my peace, they do largely confute themselves. For, how many of the number of their own people do they anoint after Baptism? Why therefore do they suffer such half-Christians in their flock, whose imperfection might easily be helped? Why do they with so careless negligence suffer them to omit that which was not lawful to be omitted without grievous offense? Why do they not more severely call upon the keeping of a thing so necessary, and without which salvation cannot be obtained, unless perhaps some be prevented by death? Verily when they so freely suffer it to be despised, they secretly confess that it is not of so great value as they boast it.

Last of all they determine that this holy anointing is to be had in greater reverence than Baptism: because this anointing is peculiarly ministered by the hands of the chief Bishops, but Baptism is commonly distributed by every priest. What may a man here say, but that they are utterly mad, which so flatter their own inventions, that in comparison of them they carelessly despise the holy ordinances of God? O mouth that robs God, do you dare set a fat liquor only defiled with the stink of your own breath, and enchanted with murmuring sound of words, against the Sacrament of Christ, and to compare it with water hallowed with the word of God? But your wickedness accounted this but a small matter, unless you did also prefer it above the same. These are the answers of the Holy see, these are the Oracles of the Apostolic trestle. But some of them, even in their own opinion, began somewhat to qualify this unbridled madness. It is (say they) to be worshipped with greater reverence: perhaps not for the greater virtue and profit that it gives: but because it is given by the worthier men, and is made in the worthier part of the body, that is, in the forehead: or because it brings a greater increase of virtues, although Baptism avails more to forgiveness. But in the first reason do they not betray themselves to be Donatists, which measure the force of the Sacrament by the worthiness of the minister. But I will admit, that Confirmation be called the worthier by reason of the worthiness of the Bishop's hand. But if a man ask of them, from where so great prerogative has been given to Bishops, what reason will they bring beside their own lust? The Apostles alone used that power, which alone distributed the Holy Ghost? Are the Bishops alone Apostles? Indeed, are they Apostles at all? But let us also grant them that: why do they not by the same argument affirm, that Bishops alone ought to touch the Sacrament of the blood in the Supper of the Lord: which they therefore deny to lay men, because the Lord gave it to the Apostles alone? If to the Apostles alone, why do they not conclude: therefore to the Bishops alone? But in that place they make the Apostles simple priests: but now the giddiness of their head carries them another way, suddenly to create them Bishops. Finally Ananias was no Apostle, to whom yet Paul was sent, that he should receive his sight, be baptized, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. I will add this also to the heap: If by the law of God this was the proper office of Bishops, why have they been so bold to give it away to common priests? as we read in a certain epistle of Gregory.

As for their other reason, how trifling, fond, and foolish is it, to call their Confirmation worthier than the Baptism of God, because in it the forehead is anointed with oil, and in Baptism the hinder part of the head, as though Baptism were done with the oil and not with the water? I call all the godly to witness, whether these rascals do not endeavor themselves to this only end, to corrupt the pureness of the Sacraments with their leaven. I have already spoken this in another place, that in the Sacraments, that which is of God scarcely glimmers through at holes, among the rout of the inventions of men. If any man did not believe me therein, let him now at least believe his own masters. Look, passing over the water, and making no account of it, they highly esteem the only oil in Baptism. We therefore on the contrary side do say, that in Baptism the forehead also is dipped in water. In comparison of this, we esteem not your oil worth one piece of dung, whether it be in Baptism or in confirmation. If any allege that it is sold for more: by this adding of price, the goodness (if any were in it) is corrupted: so much less may they commend a most filthy deceit by theft. In the third reason they betray their own ungodliness, while they prattle that in confirmation is given a greater increase of virtues than in Baptism. By the laying on of hands the Apostles distributed the visible graces of the Spirit. In what thing does these men's fat liquor show itself fruitful? But away with these qualifiers, that cover one sacrilege with many sacrileges. It is like the Gordian knot: which it is better to break asunder, than to labor so much in undoing it.

But now when they see themselves destitute of the word of God and probable reason, they pretend as they are wont, that it is a most ancient observation and established by consent of many ages. Although that were true, yet they win nothing thereby. A Sacrament is not from the earth, but from heaven: not from men, but from God alone. They must prove God to be the author of their confirmation if they will have it taken for a Sacrament. But why do they object antiquity, whereas the old writers, when they mind to speak properly, do nowhere reckon more Sacraments than two? If a fortress of our faith were to be sought from men, we have an invincible tower, that the old fathers never acknowledged those for Sacraments which these men do lyingly feign to be Sacraments. The old writers speak of the laying on of hands: but do they call it a Sacrament? Augustine plainly affirms that it is no other thing than prayer. Neither let them here bark against me with their stinking distinctions, that Augustine meant that not of the laying on of hands used to confirmation, but which was used to healing or reconciliation. The book remains and is abroad in the hands of men. If I wrest it to any other sense than Augustine himself wrote it, I give them leave after their ordinary manner to oppress me not only with railing, but also with spitting at me. For he speaks of them that returned from Schism to the unity of the Church. He denies that they needed to be newly baptized: for he says, that the laying on of hands suffices, that by the bond of peace the Lord may give them the Holy Ghost. But for as much as it might seem an absurdity, that the laying on of hands should be done anew rather than Baptism: he shows a difference. For (says he) what other thing is the laying of hands, than prayer upon a man? And that this is his meaning, appears by another place, where he says: Hand is laid upon heretics amended, for the coupling of charity, which is the greatest gift of the Holy Ghost, without which whatever holy things are in man they avail not to salvation.

But I would to God we did keep still the manner which I have said to have been in the old time, before that this untimely delivered image of a Sacrament was born: not that it should be such a confirmation as they feign, which cannot once be named without injury to Baptism: but a catechizing, whereby children or they that were near to the age of discretion did declare an account of their faith before the Church. But it should be the best manner of catechizing, if a form were written to that use, containing and familiarly setting out a sum in a manner of all the articles of our religion, in which the whole Church of the faithful ought without controversy to agree: that a child being ten years old should offer himself to the Church to declare a confession of his faith, should be examined of every article, and answer to every one: if he were ignorant of anything, or did not understand it he might be taught. So should he, before the Church witnessing and beholding it, profess the only, true, and pure faith, with which the people of the faithful does with one mind worship the one God. If this discipline were at this day in force, truly the slothfulness of some parents would be whetted, who do carelessly neglect instruction of their children as a thing nothing belonging to them, which then without open shame they could not omit: there should be among Christian people a greater consent of faith, and not so great ignorance and rudeness of many: some should not be so rashly carried away with new and strange doctrines: finally all should have as it were a certain orderly instruction of Christian learning.

Of Penance.

In the next place they set Penance, of which they treat so confusedly and disorderly, that consciences can bear away no sure or sound thing of their doctrine. We have already in another place declared at large, what we had learned out of the Scriptures concerning repentance, and then what they also teach of it. Now we have this only to touch, what reason they had that raised up the opinion, which has heretofore reigned in Churches and schools, that it is a Sacrament. But first I will briefly say somewhat of the usage of the old Church, the pretense of which they have abused to establish their feigned invention. This order they kept in public penance, that they who had fully done the satisfactions enjoined them, were reconciled with solemn laying on of hands. That was the sign of absolution, whereby both the sinner himself was raised up before God with trust of pardon, and the Church was admonished gently to receive him into favor, putting away the remembrance of his offense. This Cyprian oftentimes calls, to give peace. That this doing might be of greater dignity, and have more commendation among the people, it was ordained that the Bishop's authority should always be used for the means herein. From hence came that decree of the second council at Carthage: It is not lawful for a priest at the Mass publicly to reconcile a penitent. And another decree of the council at Orange: Let those, who in time of their penance depart out of this life, be admitted to the Communion without the laying on of hands used in reconciling: if they recover of their sickness let them stand in the degree of penitents, and when the time is fully expired, let them receive of the Bishop the laying on of hands used in reconciling. Again the decree of the third council at Carthage: Let not the priest without the authority of the Bishop, reconcile a penitent. All these tended to this end, that the severity which they would have to be used in that behalf, should not with too much leniency grow in decay. Therefore they willed the Bishop to be judge of it, which was likely that he would be more circumspect in the examination thereof. However Cyprian in a certain place shows, that not only the Bishop, but also the whole clergy laid their hands on him. For thus he says: At the full time they do penance, then they come to the Communion, and by the laying on of hands of the Bishop and the clergy, they receive power to partake of the Communion. Afterward by process of time it came to this point, that beside public penance they used this ceremony also in private absolutions. Hereupon came that distinction in Gratian between public and private reconciliation. I judge that same old usage of which Cyprian makes mention, to have been holy and healthful for the Church, and I would that it were at this day restored. As for this later, although I dare not disallow it, or at least speak more sharply against it, yet I think it to be less necessary. However it be, yet we see that the laying on of hands in penance is a ceremony ordained of men, not of God, which is to be set among mean things and outward exercises: and those truly which are not to be despised, but which ought to be in a lower degree, than those that are commended to us by the word of the Lord.

But the Romanists and the schoolmen, (who have an ordinary custom to corrupt all things with wrong expounding them) do here very carefully travail in finding out a Sacrament. Neither ought it to seem any marvel, for they seek a knot in a rush. But where they have it best, they leave a thing entangled, in suspense, uncertain, and confounded and troubled with diversity of opinions. They say therefore either that the outward penance is a Sacrament, and if it be so, that it ought to be taken for a sign of the inward penance, that is, of the contrition of heart, which shall be the thing of the Sacrament: or that they both together are a Sacrament, not two Sacraments, but one full one. But, that the outward penance is only the Sacrament: the inward is both the thing and the Sacrament: and that the forgiveness of sins is the thing and not the Sacrament. Let them who keep in remembrance the definition of a Sacrament which we have above set, examine thereby that which these men call a Sacrament, and they shall find that it is not an outward ceremony ordained of the Lord for the confirming of our faith. If they cavil that my definition is not a law which they need to obey: let them hear Augustine, whom they feign that they esteem as most holy — visible Sacraments (says he) were ordained for carnal men's sake, that by degrees of Sacraments they may be conveyed from those things that are seen with eyes to those things that are understood. What like thing do either they themselves see, or can they show to others in that which they call the Sacrament of Penance? The same Augustine says in another place: It is therefore called a Sacrament, because in it one thing is seen, and another thing is understood. That which is seen, has a bodily form: that which is understood, has a spiritual fruit. Neither do these things in any way agree with the Sacrament of penance, such as they feign it, where there is no bodily form that may represent a spiritual fruit.

And, to kill these beasts upon their own fighting place, if there be any Sacrament here to be sought, may it not be much more colorably said that the absolution of the priest is a Sacrament, than penance either inward or outward? For it might readily be said, that it is a ceremony to assure our faith of the forgiveness of sins, and has a promise of the keys as they call it, Whatever you shall bind or loose upon earth, shall be bound or loosed in heaven. But some man would have objected, that the most part of them that are absolved of the priests, obtain no such thing by such absolution: whereas by their doctrine the Sacraments of the new law ought to work indeed that which they figure. This were but to be laughed at. For, as in the Supper, they make a double eating, a Sacramental eating which is equally common to good and to evil, and a spiritual eating which is only proper to the good: why might they not also feign the absolution is received two ways? Yet could I not hitherto understand what they meant with this their doctrine, which we have already taught how far it disagrees from the truth of God, when we purposely treated of that argument. Here my mind is only to show, that this doubt withstands not, but that they may call the absolution of the priest a Sacrament. For they might answer by the mouth of Augustine, that sanctification is without the visible Sacrament, and the visible Sacrament without inward sanctification. Again, that the Sacraments do work in the only elect that which they figure. Again, that some do put on Christ so far as to the partaking of the Sacrament, other some to sanctification: the one, the good and evil equally do: this other, the good only. Truly they have more than childishly erred and are blind in the clear sun, who, laboring with great difficulty, yet failed to notice a thing so plain and open to every man.

Yet lest they should grow too proud, in whatever part they set the Sacrament, I deny that it ought rightly to be taken for a Sacrament. First, because there is no special promise to it, which is the only substance of a Sacrament. Again, because whatever ceremony is here shown forth, it is the mere invention of men: whereas we have already proved that the ceremonies of Sacraments cannot be ordained but of God. Therefore it was a lie and a deceit which they have invented of the Sacrament of penance. This feigned Sacrament they have garnished with a fitting commendation, calling it a second plank after shipwreck: because if a man has by sinning marred the garment of innocence which he received in Baptism, he may by penance repair it. But it is the saying of Jerome, Whoever it be, it cannot be excused but that it is utterly wicked, if it be expounded after their meaning. As though Baptism be blotted out by sin, and is not rather to be called to remembrance of every sinner, so often as he thinks of the forgiveness of sin, that he may thereby gather himself up, and recover courage, and strengthen his faith, that he shall obtain the forgiveness of sins which is promised him in Baptism. But that which Jerome has spoken harshly and improperly, that by penance Baptism is repaired (from which they fall away that deserve to be excommunicated from the Church) these good expositors draw to their wickedness. Therefore you shall most fittingly speak, if you call Baptism the Sacrament of penance, since it is given for a confirmation of grace, and seal of confidence, to them that purpose repentance. And lest you should think this to be our device, beside this that it agrees with the words of the Scripture, it appears that it was in the old Church commonly spoken like a most certain principle. For in the book of Faith to Peter, which is said to be Augustine's, it is called the Sacrament of Faith and of penance. And why do we flee to uncertain sayings? As though we could require anything more plain, than that which the Evangelist recites: that John preached the Baptism of repentance to forgiveness of sins?

Of Extreme Unction as They Call It.

The third feigned Sacrament is extreme unction, which is not done but by the Priest, and that in extremes (so they term it), and with oil consecrated by the Bishop, and with this form: By this holy anointing, and by his most kind mercy, God pardon you whatever you have offended by seeing, by hearing, by smelling, feeling, tasting. They feign that there be two virtues of it, the forgiveness of sins, and ease of bodily sickness if it be so expedient: if not, the salvation of the soul. They say that the institution of it is stated by James, whose words are these: Is any sick among you? Let him bring in 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 man, and the Lord shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him (James 5:14). Of the same sort is this anointing, of which we have above showed that the other laying on of hands is, namely a play-like hypocrisy, whereby without reason and without fruit they would resemble the Apostles. Mark rehearses that the Apostles at their first sending, according to the commandment which they had received of the Lord, raised up dead men, cast out devils, cleansed leprous men, healed the sick, and that in healing of the sick they used oil (Mark 6:13). They anointed (says he) many sick men with oil, and they were healed. For this reason James had respect, when he commanded the Elders to be called together to anoint the sick man. That under such ceremonies is contained no higher mystery, they shall easily judge who note how great liberty the Lord and his Apostles used in these outward things. The Lord going about to restore sight to the blind man, made clay of dust and spittle, some he healed with touching, other some with his word (John 9:6; Matthew 9:29; Luke 18:42; Acts 3:6; Acts 5:16; Acts 19:12; Psalms 45:8). After the same manner the Apostles healed some diseases with the word only, some with touching, other some with anointing. But it is likely that this anointing was not (as all other things also were not) causelessly put in use. I grant: yet not that it should be a means of healing, but only a sign, that the dullness of the unskilled might be put in mind from where such great power proceeded, to this end that they should not give the praise of it to the Apostles. And, that the Holy Ghost and his gifts are signified by oil is a common and usual thing. But that same grace of healings has vanished away, like as also the other miracles, which the Lord willed to be shown for a time, by which he might make the new preaching of the Gospel marvelous forever. Therefore though we grant never so much, that anointing was a Sacrament of those powers which were then ministered by the hands of the Apostles, it now pertains nothing to us to whom the ministration of such powers is not committed.

And by what greater reason do they make a Sacrament of this anointing, than of all other signs that are rehearsed to us in the Scripture? Why do they not appoint some Siloam to swim in, into which at certain ordinary recourses of times sick men may plunge themselves? That (say they) should be done in vain. Truly no more in vain than anointing. Why do they not lie along upon dead men, because Paul raised up a dead child with lying upon him (John 9:7; Acts 20:10)? Why is not clay made of spittle and dust a Sacrament? But the other were but singular examples: but this is given by James for a commandment. Truly James spoke for the same time, when the Church yet still enjoyed such blessing of God. They affirm indeed that there is yet still the same force in their anointing, but we find it otherwise by experience. Let no man now marvel how they have with such boldness mocked souls, which they know to be senseless and blind when they are spoiled of the word of God, that is, of their life and light: since they are nothing ashamed to go about to mock the living and feeling senses of the body. Therefore they make themselves worthy to be scorned, while they boast that they are endued with the grace of healings. The Lord truly is present with his in all ages, and so often as need is he helps their sicknesses no less than in old time: but he does not so utter those manifest powers, nor distributes miracles by the hands of the Apostles: because this gift both was but for a time, and also is partly fallen away by the unthankfulness of men.

Therefore as not without cause the Apostles have by the sign of oil openly testified, that the grace of healings committed to them was not their own power, but the power of the Holy Ghost: so on the other side they are wrongdoers to the Holy Ghost, who make a stinking oil and of no force, to be his power. This is altogether like as if one would say that all oil is the power of the Holy Ghost, because it is called by that name in Scripture: that every dove is the Holy Ghost, because he appeared in that form (Matthew 3:16; John 1:32). But these things, let them look to. So much as for this present is enough for us, we do most certainly perceive that their anointing is no Sacrament: which is neither a ceremony ordained of God, nor has any promise. For when we require these two things in a Sacrament, that it be a ceremony ordained of God, and that it have a promise of God, we do therewith also require that the same ceremony be given to us, and that the promise belong to us. For no man does affirm that Circumcision is now a Sacrament of the Christian Church, although it both was an ordinance of God, and had a promise knit to it: because it was neither commanded to us, nor the promise which was adjoined to it was given to us with the same condition. That the promise which they proudly boast of in their anointing, is not given to us, we have evidently showed, and they themselves declare by experience. The ceremony ought not to have been used, but of them that were endued with the grace of healings, not of these butchers that can more skill of slaying and murdering than of healing.

Howbeit although they obtain this, that that which James commands concerning anointing agrees with this age (which they are most far from) yet even so they shall not have much prevailed in proving of their unction wherewith they have hitherto anointed us. James wills that all sick men be anointed: these men infect with their fat liquor, not sick men, but corpses half dead, when the life lies already laboring at the top of their lips, or (as they themselves term it) in extremes. If they have in their Sacrament a present medicine, whereby they may either ease the sharpness of diseases, or at the least may bring some comfort to the soul, they are too cruel that do never heal in time. James wills that the sick man be anointed of the Elders of the Church: these men allow no anointer but the petty sacrificing Priest. Whereas they expound in James 'presbyteros' the Elders to be Priests, and fondly say that the plural number is there set for comeliness's sake: that is but trifling: as though the Churches at that time abounded with swarms of sacrificing Priests, that they might go in a long pompous show to carry a pageant of holy oil. When James simply bids that sick men be anointed, I understand by it none other anointing but of common oil: and none other is found in Mark's rehearsal. These men vouchsafe to have none other oil, but that which is hallowed of the Bishop, that is to say, warmed with much breathing on it, enchanted with much mumbling, and with the knee bowed nine times saluted in this manner: three times, Hail holy oil: three times, Hail holy chrism: three times, Hail holy balm. Out of whom have they sucked such conjurations? James says: that when the sick man is anointed with oil, and prayer has been pronounced over him, if he be in sins they shall be forgiven him: namely, that the guiltiness being taken away, they may obtain release of the pain: not meaning that sins are put away with fat liquor, but that the prayers of the faithful whereby the afflicted brother is commended to God, shall not be vain. These men do wickedly lie, that by their holy, that is to say, abominable anointing, sins are forgiven. See how gaily they shall prevail, when they have been at large suffered to abuse the testimony of James at their pleasure. And lest we should need to travail long in proof hereof, their own chronicles do discharge us of this hardness. For they report that Pope Innocentius, which in Augustine's time governed the Church of Rome, ordained that not only Priests, but also all Christians should use oil to anoint for their own necessity and others. Author hereof is Sigebert in his Chronicles.

Of Ecclesiastical Orders.

The fourth place in their register has the Sacrament of Order: but the same so fruitful, that it breeds out of itself seven little Sacraments. But this is very worthy to be laughed at, that whereas they affirm that there be seven Sacraments, when they go about to recount them they reckon up thirteen. Neither can they allege for themselves, that they are but one Sacrament, because they tend all to one Priesthood, and are as it were certain degrees to it. For since it is evident that in every one of them are several Ceremonies, and they themselves say that there be diverse graces: no man can doubt but that they ought to be called seven Sacraments, if their opinions be received. And why strive we about it as though it were a thing doubtful, since they themselves do plainly and severally declare seven? But first we will briefly knit up by the way, how many and how unfavory absurdities they thrust in to us, when they go about to commend to us their Orders instead of Sacraments: and then we will see whether the Ceremony which Churches use in ordering of ministers, ought to be called a Sacrament at all. They make therefore seven ecclesiastical Orders or degrees, which they garnish with the name of a Sacrament. Those be, doorkeepers, Readers, Exorcists, Acolytes or followers, Subdeacons, Deacons, Priests. And seven they say that they be, for the sevenfold grace of the Holy Ghost, wherewith they ought to be endued that are promoted to them. But it is increased and more largely heaped to them in their promotion. Now the number itself is hallowed with a wrongful expounding of Scripture. When they think that they have read in Isaiah seven virtues of the Holy Ghost, whereas both indeed Isaiah there rehearses but six, and also the prophet meant not to comprehend them all in that place: for he is elsewhere as well called the Spirit of life, of sanctification, of adoption of the children, as he is in the place called the Spirit of wisdom, of understanding, of counsel, of strength, of knowledge, and of the fear of the Lord. However some subtler men make not seven orders, but nine, after the likeness (as they say) of the Church triumphant. But among them also there is strife: because some would have the shaving of the clergy to be the first order of all, and Bishopric the last: other some excluding shaving altogether, reckon Archbishopric among the orders. Isidore otherwise divides them? For he makes Psalmists and Readers to be diverse: he appoints the Psalmists for songs, and the Readers to the reading of the Scriptures, whereby the people may be instructed. And this distinction is kept by the canons. In so great diversity what will they have us to follow or flee? Shall we say that there be seven orders? So teaches the master of the school: but the most illuminated doctors do otherwise determine. Again they also disagree among themselves. Moreover the most sacred canons call us another way. Thus indeed do men agree, when they dispute of godly matters without the word of God.

But this exceeds all folly, that in every one of these they make Christ fellow with them. First (say they) he executed the office of doorkeeper, when he did with a whip made of cords, drive the buyers and sellers out of the temple. He signifies himself to be a doorkeeper, when he says: I am the door. He took upon him the office of Reader, when he read Isaiah in the Synagogue. He did the office of an Exorcist, when touching the tongue and ears of the deaf and dumb man, he restored to him his hearing. He testified himself to be an Acolyte or follower in these words, He that follows me, walks not in darkness. He executed the office of Subdeacon, when being girded with a linen cloth he washed the disciples' feet. He did bear the person of a Deacon, when he distributed his body and blood in the Supper. He fulfilled the office of Priest, when he offered himself upon the cross a sacrifice to his Father. These things cannot so be heard without laughing, that I marvel that they were written without laughing, if yet they were men that wrote them. But most notable is their subtlety with which they play the philosophers about the name of Acolyte, calling him a Ceroferar, a taper bearer with a word (as I think) of sorcery, truly such a one as was never heard of in all nations and languages, whereas Acolouthos in Greek simply signifies a follower. However, if I should earnestly tarry in confuting these men, I should myself also worthily be laughed at, they are so trifling and very mockeries.

But that they may not be able yet still with false colors to deceive even very silly women, their vanity is by the way to be uttered. They create with great pomp and solemnity their Readers, Psalmists, Doorkeepers, Acolytes, to execute those offices, to which they appoint very children, or those whom they call laymen. For who for the most part lights the candles, who pours wine and water into the cruet, but a child or some base fellow of the laity, that makes his gain thereof? Do not the same men sing? Do they not shut and open the Church doors? For who ever saw in their temples an Acolyte, or a Doorkeeper executing his office? But rather he that when he was a boy did the office of an Acolyte, when he is once admitted into the order of Acolytes, ceases to be that which he begins to be called, that they may seem to will of purpose to cast off the office when they take upon them the title. Behold why they have need to be consecrated by Sacraments, and to receive the Holy Ghost, namely, that they may do nothing. If they allege for exercise, that this is the frowardness of times, that they forsake and neglect their ministries: let them therewith confess that there is at this day in the Church not use nor fruit of their holy Orders, which they marvelously advance, and that their whole Church is full of curse: because it suffers tapers and cruets to be handled by children and profane men, which none are worthy to touch but they that are consecrated Acolytes: and because it commits the songs to children, which ought not to be heard but of a hallowed mouth. As for their Exorcists, to what end do they consecrate them? I hear that the Jews had their Exorcists: but I see that they were so called of the exorcisms or conjurations which they used. Of these counterfeit exorcists who ever heard it spoken, that they showed any example of their profession? It is feigned that they have power given them to lay their hands upon madmen, them that are to be catechized, and men possessed with devils: but they cannot persuade the devils that they have such power, because the devils do not only not yield to their commandments, but also use commanding authority over them. For a man can scarcely find every tenth of them, that is not led with an evil spirit. Therefore whatever things they babble concerning their [reconstructed: petty] Orders, are patched together of foolish and unsavory lies. Of the old Acolytes, and Doorkeepers, and Readers, we have spoken in another place, when we declared the order of the Church. Our purpose here is only to fight against that new found invention of the sevenfold Sacrament in ecclesiastical orders. Of which there is nowhere anything read, but among these foolish praters the Sorbonists and Canonists.

Now let us consider of the ceremonies which they use about it. First, whoever they receive into their order of soldiers, they do with one common sign enter them into Clergy. For they shave them in the crown, that the crown may betoken kingly dignity, because Clerks ought to be kings, that they may rule themselves and others. For Peter speaks thus of them, You are a chosen kind, a kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a people of purchase. But it was sacrilege to take to themselves alone that which is given to the whole Church, and proudly to glory in the title which they had taken from the faithful. Peter speaks to the whole Church: these fellows wrest it to a few shaven men: as though it were said to them alone, be holy: as though they alone were purchased by the blood of Christ: as though they alone were by Christ made a kingdom and priesthood to God. Then they assign also other reasons: the top of their head is made bare, that their mind may be declared to be free to the Lord, which with open face may behold the glory of God. Or that they may be taught that the faults of their mouth and their eyes must be cut off. Or the shaving of their head is the putting away of temporal things, and the hairy compass about the crown are the remnants of goods that are retained for their sustenance. All in signs: because forsooth the [reconstructed: veil] of the temple is not yet cut in sunder. Therefore being persuaded that they have gaily discharged their duties, because they have figured such things by their crown, of the very things in deed they perform nothing at all. How long will they mock us with such false colors and deceits? The clergy by shearing of a few hairs do signify that they have cast away the abundance of temporal goods, that they behold the glory of God, that they have mortified the lust of the ears and eyes: but there is no kind of men more ravening, more senselessly dull, more lustful? Why do they not rather truly perform holiness, than with false and lying signs counterfeit a show of it?

Moreover when they say that the crown of the Clergy has the beginning and reason from the Nazarites: what other thing do they allege, than that their mysteries are sprung out of the Jewish Ceremonies, or rather that they are mere Jewishness? But whereas they further say, that Priscilla, Aquila, and Paul himself, taking a vow upon them did shear their heads, that they might be purified: they betray their gross ignorance. For it is nowhere read of Priscilla: and of Aquila also it is doubtful: for that same shearing may as well be referred to Paul as to Aquila. But, that we may not leave to them that which they require, that they have an example of Paul: the simpler must note, that Paul did never shear his head for any sanctification, but only to serve the weakness of his brethren. I am accustomed to call such vows the vows of charity not of godliness: that is to say, not taken in hand for any service of God, but to bear with the rudeness of the weak: as he himself says, that he was made a Jew to the Jews, etc. Therefore he did this, and the same but once, and for a short time, that he might for a time fashion himself to the Jews. These men, when they will without any use counterfeit the purifyings of the Nazarites, what do they else but raise up another Jewishness, when they wrongfully covet to follow the old Jewishness? With the same religiousness was that decretal Epistle made, which, according to the Apostle, forbids clerks that they should not suffer their hair to grow, but shear it round like a bowl. As though the Apostle, when he teaches what is comely for all men, were careful for the round shearing of the Clergy. Hereby let the readers consider, of what force and worthiness are those other mysteries that follow, into which there is such an entry.

From where the shearing of Clerks took beginning, appears sufficiently even by Augustine alone. Whereas at that time none suffered their hair to grow, but nice men, and such as coveted a smoothness and trimness not meet enough for men: it seemed to be a point of no good example, if that were permitted to the clergy. Therefore Clerks were commanded either to shear their head or to shave it, that they should not bear any show of womanlike trimming. But this was so common, that certain monks, that they might the more set out their own holiness with notable and separate attire from other men, did let their hair grow long. But afterward when the fashion turned to wearing of hair, and certain nations were added to Christendom which always used to wear long hair, as France, Germany, and England: it is likely that clerks did everywhere shear their heads, lest they should seem to covet the gayness of hair. At the last in a more corrupt age, when all old ordinances were either perverted or gone out of kind into superstition, because they saw no cause in the shearing of the clergy (for they had retained nothing but a foolish counterfeiting) they fled to a mystery, which now they superstitiously thrust in to us for the approving of their Sacrament. The doorkeepers at their consecration receive the keys of the Church, whereby they may understand that the keeping of it is committed to them. The readers receive the holy Bible. The exorcists receive the forms of exorcisms, which they should use over the mad and them that are to be catechized. The Acolytes receive the tapers and cruet. Lo, these are the ceremonies, wherein (if God will) there is so much secret power, that they may be not only signs and tokens, but also causes of invisible grace. For this they require by their definition, when they will have them taken among the Sacraments. But to make an end in few words, I say it is an absurdity that in their schools and canons they make these lesser orders Sacraments: whereas even by their own confession that teach this, they were unknown to the primitive Church, and devised many years after. For Sacraments, since they contain the promise of God, can not be ordained of angels, nor of men, but of God alone, whose office alone it is to give promise.

There remain three orders, which they call the greater. Of which, Subdeanery (as they call it) was removed into that number, since the group of the smaller ones began to grow. But because they seem to have a testimony for these out of the word of God, they do peculiarly for honor's sake call them holy orders. But now it is to be seen how crookedly they abuse the ordinances of God to their pretense. We will begin at the order of Priesthood or the sacrificer's office. For by these two names they signify one thing, and so they call them to whom they say that it pertains to offer upon the altar the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, to pronounce prayers, and to bless the gifts of God. Therefore at their consecration they receive the paten with the hosts, for tokens of power given to them, to offer acceptable sacrifices to God. And their hands are anointed, by which sign they are taught that they have power given them to consecrate. But of the ceremonies we shall speak hereafter. Of the thing itself I say: it has no title of the word of God which they pretend, so that they could not more wickedly corrupt the order set by God. First, truly this ought to stand for a thing confessed (which we have affirmed in treating of the Popish mass) that they are all wrongdoers to Christ, who call themselves sacrificing priests, to offer a sacrifice of appeasement. He was appointed and consecrated of the Father a priest with an oath, according to the order of Melchizedek, without any end, without any successor. He once offered a sacrifice of eternal, satisfactory cleansing and reconciliation, and now also being entered into the sanctuary of heaven, he makes intercession for us. In him we are all sacrificing priests, but to praises and givings of thanks, finally to offer ourselves and ours to God. It was his singular office alone, with his offering to appease God and to purge sins. When these men take that upon them, what remains but that their sacrificing Priesthood is ungodly and full of sacrilege? Truly they are too wicked when they dare garnish it with the name of a Sacrament. As touching the true office of Priesthood, which is commended to us by the mouth of Christ, I willingly account it in that degree. For therein is a ceremony, first taken out of the Scriptures, then such a one as Paul testifies not to be vain nor superfluous, but a faithful sign of spiritual grace. But whereas I have not set it for a third in the number of Sacraments, I did it because it is not ordinary and common among all the faithful, but a special rite for one certain office. But since this honor is given to the Christian ministry, there is no cause therefore why the Popish sacrificers should be proud. For Christ commanded distributors of his Gospel and mysteries to be ordained, not sacrificers to be consecrated. He gave them commandment to preach the Gospel and to feed the flock, not to offer sacrifices. He promised them the grace of the Holy Spirit, not to make satisfactory purging of sins, but rightly to execute and to maintain the government of the Church.

The ceremonies agree very well with the thing itself. Our Lord when he sent forth the Apostles to preach the Gospel, did blow upon them. By which sign he represented the power of the Holy Spirit which he gave to them. This blowing these good men have retained, and as though they did put forth the Holy Spirit out at their throat, they whisper over their sorry priests that they make, Receive the Holy Spirit. So they leave nothing which they do not perversely counterfeit: I will not say like players (which use their gestures neither without art nor without signification) but like apes, which counterfeit every thing wantonly and without any choice. We keep (say they) the example of the Lord. But the Lord did many things which he willed not to be examples to us. The Lord said to the disciples, Receive the Holy Spirit. He said also to Lazarus, Lazarus come forth. He said to the man sick of the palsy, Rise and walk. Why do not they say the same to all dead men and sick of the palsy? He showed a proof of his divine power, when in blowing upon the Apostles he filled them with the grace of the Holy Spirit. If they go about to do the same thing, they enviously counterfeit God, and do in a manner challenge him to strive with them: but they are far from the effect, and do nothing with this foolish gesturing but mock Christ. Truly they are so shameless, that they dare affirm that they give the Holy Spirit. But how true that is, experience teaches, which cries out that so many as be consecrated priests are of horses made asses, of fools made madmen. Neither yet do I strive with them for that: only I condemn the ceremony itself, which ought not to have been drawn to be an example, for as much as it was used of Christ for a singular sign of one miracle: so far is it off, that the excuse of following his example ought to defend them.

But of whom received they the anointing? They answer that they received it of the sons of Aaron, from whom their order also took beginning. Therefore they had rather always to defend themselves with wrongful examples, than to confess that themselves have devised that which they use without cause. But in the meantime they consider not, that while they profess themselves the successors of the sons of Aaron, they are wrongdoers to the Priesthood of Christ, which alone was shadowed and figured by all the old sacrificing priesthoods. In him therefore they were all contained and fulfilled, in him they ceased, as we have sometimes already repeated, and the Epistle to the Hebrews without help of any glosses testifies. But if they be so much delighted with the ceremonies of Moses, why do they not hastily take oxen, calves, and lambs to make sacrifices? They have indeed a good part of the old tabernacle and of the whole Jewish manner of worshipping: but yet this is wanting in their religion, that they do not sacrifice calves and oxen. Who cannot see, that this observation of anointing is much more hurtful than Circumcision, specially when there is adjoined superstition and Pharisaical opinion of the worthiness of the work? For the Jews did set in Circumcision, trust of righteousness: these men do set in anointing, spiritual graces. Therefore while they covet to be counterfeits of the Levites, they are made apostates from Christ, and do put themselves from the office of Pastors.

This is (if God will) the holy oil that prints the mark that cannot be erased. As though oil could not be wiped away with dust and salt, or if it sticks faster, with soap. But this mark is spiritual. What has oil to do with the soul? Have they forgotten that which they often chant to us out of Augustine, that if the word be taken from the water, it shall be nothing but water, and that it has this from the word that it is a Sacrament? What word will they show in their fat liquor? Will they show the commandment that was given to Moses, concerning the anointing of the sons of Aaron? But there is also commandment given, of the [reconstructed: coat], the ephod, the hat, the crown of holiness, with which Aaron was to be adorned, and of the coats, girdles, and miters, with which the sons of Aaron were to be clothed. There is commandment given to kill a calf, and burn the fat of him for incense, to cut rams and burn them, to sanctify their ears and garments with the blood of another ram, and innumerable other observations, which being passed over, I marvel why the only anointing of oil pleases them. But if they love to be sprinkled, why are they rather sprinkled with oil than with blood? Forsooth they go about a witty thing, to make one religion of Christianity, Jewishness, and Paganism, as it were of patches sewn together. Therefore their anointing stinks which is without the salt, that is, the word of God. There remains laying on of hands, which as I grant in true and lawful orderings to be a Sacrament, so I deny that it has any part in this play, where they neither obey the commandment of Christ, nor have respect to the end to which the promise ought to lead us. If they will not have the sign denied them, they must apply it to the thing itself, to which it is appointed (Exodus 30:30).

About the order also of Deacons I would not strive with them, if that same ministry which was in the Apostles' time and in the purer Church were restored to the uncorrupted state thereof. But what like thing have they whom those men feign to be deacons? I speak not of the men (lest they should complain that the doctrine is wrongfully weighed by the faults of the men) but I affirm that for those whom they deliver us by their doctrine, they unworthily fetch testimony from the example of them whom the Apostolic Church ordained Deacons. They say that it pertains to their deacons to stand by the priests, to minister in all things that are done in the Sacraments, namely in Baptism, in the chrism, in the paten, in the chalice: to bring in the offerings and lay them upon the altar, to make ready the Lord's table, and to cover it: to carry the Cross, to pronounce and sing the Gospel and Epistle to the people. Is here any one word of the true ministry of Deacons? Now let us hear the instituting of them. Upon the Deacon that is ordained, the Bishop alone lays his hand. He lays a prayer book and a Stole upon his left shoulder, that he may understand that he has received the light yoke of the Lord, whereby he may subdue to the fear of God those things that pertain to the left side. He gives him the text of the Gospel, that he may perceive himself to be a publisher of it. And what belong these things to Deacons? They do even like as if a man would say that he ordained them Apostles whom he appointed only to burn frankincense, to trim the images, to sweep the Churches, to catch mice, to drive away dogs. Who could suffer such kind of men to be called Apostles, and to be compared with the very Apostles of Christ? Therefore let them not hereafter lyingly say that those be Deacons, whom they institute only for their interlude-like plays. Indeed and by the very name itself they sufficiently declare what manner of office they have. For they call them Levites, and will have their order and beginning referred to the children of Levi. Which I give them leave to do so that they do not afterward adorn them with the feathers of others.

Of Subdeacons to what purpose is it to speak? For whereas in fact they were in old time appointed for care of the poor, they assign to them I know not what trifling business, as to bring the chalice and the paten, the little cruet with water, and the towel to the altar, to pour water to wash hands, etc. Now whereas they speak of receiving and bringing in of offerings, they mean those which they devour as abandoned to their holy use. With this office very well agrees the form of their consecrating. That he receive of the Bishop, the paten and the chalice: of the Archdeacon, the cruet with water, the manual, and such other baggage. Within these trifles they require to have us confess that the Holy Ghost is enclosed. What godly man can abide to grant this? But, to make an end, we may determine the same of them that we do of the rest. Neither need we to repeat further those things that are above declared. This may be enough to teach the sober and willing to learn (whom I have taken in hand to instruct) that there is no Sacrament of God but where is shown a ceremony joined with a promise: or rather verily but where is a promise seen in a ceremony. Here is not found one syllable of any certain promise: therefore it were in vain to seek a ceremony to confirm the promise. Again of those ceremonies that they use, it is not read that any one is instituted of God. Therefore here can be no Sacrament.

Of Matrimony.

The last is matrimony, which as all men confess to be ordained of God, so no man until the time of Gregory ever saw that it was given for a sacrament. And what sober man would ever have thought it? It is a good and a holy ordinance of God: so tillage, carpentry, the shoemaker's craft, the barber's craft, are lawful ordinances of God, and yet they are no sacraments. For there is not only this required in a sacrament, that it be the work of God, but that it be an outward ceremony appointed of God to confirm a promise. That there is no such thing in matrimony, very children also can judge. But (say they) it is a sign of a holy thing, that is, of the spiritual joining of Christ with the Church. If by this word sign, they understand a token set before us of God, to this end to raise up the assuredness of our faith, they are far beside the truth. If they simply take a sign for that which is brought to express a similitude, I will show how wittily they reason. Paul says, As one star differs from another star in brightness, so shall be the resurrection of the dead. Lo here is one sacrament. Christ says, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed. Lo here is another. Again, The kingdom of heaven is like to leaven. Lo here is the third. Isaiah says, Behold, the Lord shall feed his flock as a shepherd. Lo here is the fourth. In another place, The Lord shall go forth as a giant. Lo here is the fifth. Finally what end or measure shall there be? There is nothing but by this means it shall be a sacrament. How many parables and similitudes are in the Scripture, so many sacraments there shall be. Indeed, and theft shall be a sacrament, because it is written, the day of the Lord is like a thief. Who can abide these sophists prattling so foolishly? I grant indeed that so often as we see a vine, it is very good to call to remembrance that which Christ says, I am a vine, you are the branches, my father is the vinedresser. So often as a shepherd with his flock comes toward us, it is good also that this come to our mind, I am a good shepherd, my sheep hear my voice. But if any man adds such similitudes to the number of sacraments, he is fit to be sent to Anticyra.

But they still lay forth the words of Paul, in which he gives to matrimony the name of a sacrament: he that loves his wife, loves himself. No man ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes it and cherishes it, even as Christ does the Church: because we are members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones. For this, a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two into one flesh. This is a great sacrament: but I say in Christ and the Church. But so to handle the Scriptures, is to mingle heaven and earth together. Paul, to show to married men, what singular love they ought to bear to their wives, sets forth Christ to them for an example. For as he poured forth the bowels of his kindness upon the Church which he had espoused to himself: so ought every man to be disposed toward his own wife. It follows after, He that loves his wife, loves himself: as Christ loved the Church. Now, to teach how Christ loved the Church as himself, indeed how he made himself one with his spouse the Church, he applies to him those things which Moses reports that Adam spoke of himself. For when Eve was brought into his sight, whom he knew to have been shaped out of his side: This woman (says he) is a bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh. Paul testifies that all this was spiritually fulfilled in Christ and us, when he says that we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones, indeed and one flesh with him. At length he adds a concluding sentence, This is a great mystery. And lest any man should be deceived with the double signifying of the words, he expresses that he speaks not of the fleshly joining of man and woman, but of the spiritual marriage of Christ and the Church. And truly it is indeed a great mystery, that Christ suffered a rib to be taken from himself, from which we might be shaped: that is to say, when he was strong, he willed to be weak, that we might be strengthened with his strength: that now we may not ourselves live, but he may live in us.

The name of Sacrament deceived them. But was it rightful that the whole Church should suffer the punishment of their ignorance? Paul said Mystery: which word when the translator might have left being not unused with Latin ears, or might have translated it a Secret: he chose rather to put in the word Sacrament, yet in no other sense than Paul had in Greek called it Mystery. Now let them go and with crying out rail against the skill of tongues, by ignorance of which they have so long most foully been blind in an easy matter, and such as offers itself to be perceived by every man. But why do they in this one place so earnestly stick upon this little word Sacrament, and some other times do pass it over unregarded? For also in the first Epistle to Timothy the translator has used it, and in the same Epistle to the Ephesians: in every place for Mystery. But let this slipping be pardoned them: at least the liars ought to have had a good remembrance. For, when they have once set out Matrimony with title of a Sacrament, afterward to call it uncleanness, defiling, and fleshly filthiness, how giddy lightness is this? How great an absurdity is it to debar priests from a Sacrament? If they deny that they debar them from the Sacrament, but from the lust of copulation: they escape not so away from me. For they teach that the copulation itself is a part of that Sacrament, and that by it alone is figured the uniting that we have with Christ in conformity of nature: because man and woman are not made one but by carnal copulation. However some of them have here found two Sacraments: the one of God and the soul, in the betrothed man and woman: the other of Christ and the Church, in the husband and the wife. However it be, yet copulation is a Sacrament, from which it was unlawful that any Christian should be debarred: unless perhaps the Sacraments of Christians do so ill agree, that they can not stand together. There is also another absurdity in their doctrines. They affirm that in the Sacrament is given the grace of the Holy Ghost: they teach that copulation is a Sacrament: and they deny that at copulation the Holy Ghost is at any time present.

And, because they would not simply mock the Church, how long a row of errors, lies, deceits, and wickednesses have they knit to one error? So that a man may say, that they did nothing but seek a den of abominations, when they made of matrimony a Sacrament. For when they once obtained this, they drew to themselves the hearing of causes of matrimony: for it was a spiritual matter, which profane judges might not meddle with. Then they made laws, whereby they established their tyranny, but those partly manifestly wicked against God, and partly most unjust toward men. As are these: That marriages made between young persons without consent of their parents, should remain of force and established. That the marriages be not lawful between kinsfolk to the seventh degree: and if any such be made, that they be divorced. And the very degrees they feign against the laws of all nations, and against the civil government of Moses. That it be not lawful for a man that has put away an adulteress, to marry another. That spiritual kinsfolk may not be coupled in marriage. That there be no marriages celebrated, from Septuagesima to the octave of Easter, in three weeks before Midsummer, nor from Advent to Twelfth-tide. And innumerable other like, which it were long to recount. At length we must creep out of their mire, in which our talk has now tarried longer than I would. Yet I think I have somewhat profited, that I have partly plucked the lion's skins from these asses.

Our earlier discussion of sacraments might well have satisfied the sober and teachable, so that they would not go further and embrace any sacraments besides the two they know to have been ordained by the Lord. But since the opinion of seven sacraments has been passed around in common speech, spread through every school and pulpit, and over time taken root through sheer repetition — and is still firmly settled in people's minds — I thought it worth the effort to examine separately and more closely each of the other five that are commonly counted among the true and proper sacraments of the Lord. My aim is to strip away all misleading appearances, and set them plainly before simple readers for what they are, and to show how wrongly they have been treated as sacraments. First, I declare to all godly people that I am not entering this dispute over the word out of any love of arguing. I am compelled by serious reasons to fight against the abuse of it. I know that Christians are, in a sense, masters of words as they are of all things, and may therefore apply words to things as they see fit, as long as a sound meaning is maintained, even if the expression is not entirely precise. I grant all of this — although it is better to make words conform to things than things to words. But the word 'sacrament' raises a different concern. Those who make seven sacraments attach to all of them this definition: that they are visible forms of invisible grace. They make them all vessels of the Holy Spirit, instruments through which righteousness is given, and causes of obtaining grace. Indeed, the Master of the Sentences himself denies that the sacraments of the law of Moses are properly called by this name, because they did not actually deliver the thing they represented. Is it to be tolerated that the signs which the Lord sanctified with His own mouth and adorned with excellent promises should not be counted as sacraments — while at the same time this honor is transferred to practices that people have either invented themselves or observe without any clear command of God? Therefore let them either change their definition, or stop misusing this word — which gives rise to false and absurd opinions. 'Extreme anointing,' they say, 'is a figure and cause of invisible grace, because it is a sacrament.' If we cannot grant what they conclude from this, then we must resist them on the word itself, so that it gives no occasion for such error. Again, when they seek to prove it is a sacrament, they add this reason: that it consists of an outward sign and the word. But if we find neither command nor promise attached to it, what can we do but protest?

It is now clear that our dispute is not merely about words but is a genuinely important controversy about the substance of the matter. We must therefore hold firmly to what we have already established by unassailable argument: the power to institute a sacrament belongs to God alone. For a sacrament must lift up and comfort the consciences of the faithful with a certain promise — a certainty that no human being could ever provide. A sacrament must be for us a testimony of God's goodwill toward us — and no person or angel can serve as that witness, since none has been God's counselor. Therefore God alone has the authority to testify of Himself to us through His word. A sacrament is a seal by which God's covenant or promise is confirmed. But it could not be sealed with physical things and earthly elements unless God by His power has shaped and appointed them for that purpose. Therefore no human being can ordain a sacrament — for it is not within human power to cause the great mysteries of God to lie hidden under such lowly things. The word of God must come first and make a sacrament to be a sacrament, as Augustine rightly teaches. Furthermore, it is important to maintain some distinction between the sacraments and other religious ceremonies, unless we want to fall into many absurdities. The apostles prayed on their knees — so by this logic, kneeling must constitute a sacrament. The disciples are said to have prayed facing east — so looking eastward must be a sacrament. Paul instructs people everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, and holy people are recorded as frequently praying with hands raised — so let the raising of hands be a sacrament as well. In the end, every gesture of the saints becomes a sacrament. I would not be very troubled by these particular absurdities on their own — except that they are connected to other far more serious errors.

If they press us with the authority of the early church, I say they are misrepresenting it. For the number seven is nowhere found among the ecclesiastical writers, nor is it known when it first crept in. I grant that the early writers sometimes use the word 'sacrament' quite freely — but what do they mean by it? Simply all ceremonies, outward rites, and religious exercises. But when they speak of the signs that should serve as testimonies of God's grace toward us, they are content with two: baptism and the Supper. Lest anyone think I am making a false boast about this, I will cite a few testimonies from Augustine. To Januarius he writes: 'First I want you to hold firmly to the chief point of this discussion — that our Lord Christ, as He Himself says in the Gospel, has placed us under a light yoke and a light burden. Therefore He has bound together the fellowship of the new people with sacraments that are few in number, easy to observe, and excellent in meaning — such as baptism consecrated in the name of the Trinity, the communion of the body and blood of the Lord, and whatever else is set forth in the canonical Scriptures.' Again, in his book on Christian doctrine: 'Since the Lord's resurrection, the Lord Himself and the teaching of the apostles have delivered a few signs in place of the many — very easy to perform, very reverent in meaning, very pure in observance — such as baptism and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord.' Why does he make no mention here of the sacred number — that is, the number seven? Is it likely he would have passed over it in silence if it had by then been established in the church — especially since he is elsewhere more curious about numbers than necessary? And when he names baptism and the Supper and says nothing about the rest — does he not sufficiently indicate that these two mysteries stand out in unique dignity, while the other ceremonies occupy a lower rank? Therefore I say that these sacrament-doctors lack not only the word of the Lord but also the agreement of the early church — however much they boast of that pretense. But now let us turn to the specific practices themselves.

Confirmation.

In ancient times the custom was this: when the children of Christians came to the age of reason, they were brought before the bishop to fulfill the duty that was required of adults who presented themselves for baptism. For adults sat among the catechumens until they had been fully instructed in the mysteries of the faith and could make a confession of faith before the bishop and the people. Therefore those who had been baptized as infants — since they had not then made their confession of faith before the church — were presented again by their parents toward the end of childhood or the beginning of the age of discretion. They were examined by the bishop according to the standard catechism that was common at the time. And so that this act — which in itself ought to be solemn and holy — might carry even greater reverence and dignity, the ceremony of the laying on of hands was added. So the child, having his faith approved, was sent away with a solemn blessing. The ancient writers often mention this practice. Pope Leo writes: 'If anyone returns from heretics, let him not be rebaptized. But let him receive what he lacked among the heretics — the power of the Spirit given by the bishop's laying on of hands.' Our opponents will cry out that something in which the Holy Spirit is given is rightly called a sacrament. But Leo himself explains what he means by those words in another place: 'Whoever has been baptized among heretics, let him not be rebaptized, but confirmed with the laying on of hands and the invocation of the Holy Spirit — for he received only the outward form of baptism without the sanctifying of it.' Jerome also mentions it in his writing against the Luciferians. Although I do not deny that Jerome errs somewhat here — in saying that this is an apostolic practice — he is nevertheless far from the absurdities these men promote. He himself also qualifies the point when he adds that this blessing belongs to bishops alone, more in honor of their office than out of any requirement of law. Therefore this kind of laying on of hands — performed simply in place of a blessing — I commend, and I would very much like to see it restored to its proper and pure use today.

But a later age, having in effect abandoned the original practice, invented in its place some kind of fabricated confirmation and called it a sacrament of God. They invented the idea that the power of confirmation is to give the Holy Spirit for the increase of grace — grace which was given in baptism for innocence — and to strengthen for battle those who were newly born to life in baptism. This confirmation is performed with anointing and with these words: 'I sign you with the sign of the holy cross and confirm you with the chrism of salvation, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.' All of this is done with great ceremony and flair. But where is the word of God promising the presence of the Holy Spirit here? They cannot produce a single word of it. By what means then will they assure us that their chrism is the vessel of the Holy Spirit? We see oil — a thick, greasy liquid — and nothing more. 'Let the word be added to the element,' says Augustine, 'and there shall be a sacrament.' Let them, I say, produce this word — if they want us to see anything in the oil besides oil. If they acknowledged themselves to be ministers of the sacraments, as they should, we would need to argue no further. The first rule for any minister is that he do nothing without a command. Come then — let them produce any command for this ministerial act, and I will not say another word. If they have no command, they cannot excuse their sacrilegious boldness. In this same way the Lord asked the Pharisees whether John's baptism was from heaven or from human beings. If they had answered 'from human beings,' He would have made them confess it was worthless and empty. If they said 'from heaven,' they were compelled to acknowledge John's teaching. Therefore, rather than slander John, they dared not confess it was from human beings. If confirmation is from human beings, then it is proven to be worthless and empty. If they want to persuade us it is from heaven, let them prove it.

They defend themselves with the example of the apostles, whom they believe acted with full divine authority. Very well — nor would we blame them if they were truly following the apostles' example. But what did the apostles actually do? Luke reports in Acts that the apostles at Jerusalem, when they heard that Samaria had received the word of God, sent Peter and John there. They prayed for the Samaritans that they might receive the Holy Spirit, who had not yet come upon any of them — they had only been baptized in the name of Jesus. When they had prayed, they laid their hands on them, and through this laying on of hands the Samaritans received the Holy Spirit. Luke mentions this laying on of hands several times. I hear what the apostles did — they faithfully carried out their ministry. The Lord willed that the visible and extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit which He then poured out on His people should be administered and distributed through the apostles' laying on of hands. But I do not think any deeper mystery was contained in this laying on of hands. My explanation is that they added this ceremony as an outward act signifying that they were commending to God — and as it were offering to Him — the person upon whom they laid their hands. If this ministry which the apostles then exercised were still present in the church, the laying on of hands ought also to be maintained. But since that same gift has ceased to be given, what purpose does the laying on of hands serve? The Holy Spirit is indeed still present with the people of God — without His guidance and direction the church of God cannot stand. For we have the eternal and ever-standing promise by which Christ calls to Himself all who thirst, to come and drink living water. But those miraculous powers and visible workings that were distributed through the laying on of hands have ceased — and rightly so, for they were intended only for a time. It was fitting that the preaching of the Gospel, when it was new, should be gloriously confirmed and magnified by unheard-of miracles. When the Lord stopped these miracles, He did not abandon His church — He showed that the majesty of His kingdom and the authority of His word had been sufficiently and splendidly displayed. In what respect, then, will these performers claim to be following the apostles? If they truly followed them, they should be laying on hands in such a way that the evident power of the Holy Spirit immediately manifested itself. They do not produce this. Why then do they boast that the laying on of hands supports their practice — a practice the apostles did indeed use, but for an entirely different purpose?

This is comparable to someone who would teach that the breath with which the Lord breathed on His disciples is a sacrament by which the Holy Spirit is given. But since the Lord did this once, He did not also intend for us to repeat it. In the same way the apostles laid on hands during the time when it pleased the Lord that the visible gifts of the Holy Spirit should be distributed through their prayers — not so that those who came after should merely imitate an empty and cold sign in a theatrical performance, without the reality, as these imitators do. But even if they could prove that they are following the apostles in the laying on of hands — in which they have nothing in common with the apostles except some perverse and distorted counterfeit — where does their oil come from, the oil they call the oil of salvation? Who taught them to look for salvation in oil? Who taught them to assign to it the power of strengthening? Was it Paul — who pulls us far away from the elementary principles of this world, who condemns nothing more strongly than clinging to such petty outward observances? But I say this boldly — not on my own authority, but from the Lord. Whoever calls oil the 'oil of salvation' forsakes the salvation that is in Christ. They deny Christ. They have no part in the kingdom of God. For 'food is for the stomach and the stomach for food, but God will destroy both.' All these perishable earthly elements, which decay through very use, have nothing to do with the kingdom of God, which is spiritual and will never decay. But then, someone will say: are you measuring with the same standard the water in which we are baptized and the bread and wine through which the Lord's Supper is given? I answer that in sacraments given by God, two things are to be considered: the substance of the physical element set before us, and the form which the word of God has stamped upon it — and in that word lies all the power. So with regard to the bread, wine, and water offered to our senses in the sacraments — insofar as they retain their own substance — Paul's words always apply: 'Food for the stomach and the stomach for food — God will destroy both.' For they pass away with the fashion of this world. But insofar as they are sanctified by the word of God to serve as sacraments, they do not hold us to earthly things but truly and spiritually instruct us.

But let us look more closely at the monsters this greasy liquid nourishes and sustains. These anointers say that the Holy Spirit is given in baptism for innocence, and in confirmation for the increase of grace — that in baptism we are newly born to life, and in confirmation we are prepared for battle. And they are so shameless as to claim that baptism cannot properly be administered without confirmation. What wickedness! Are we not in baptism buried together with Christ, made partakers of His death, so that we may also share in His resurrection? But Paul explains this fellowship with the death and life of Christ as the mortifying of our flesh and the quickening of our spirit — so that our old self is crucified and we may walk in newness of life. If this is not being armed for battle, then what is? If they counted it nothing to trample the word of God underfoot, why did they not at least show respect for the church, to whom they wish in every way to appear so obedient? And what stronger evidence could be brought against their doctrine than the decree of the Council of Milevis? 'Whoever says that baptism is given only for the forgiveness of sins and not as a help for grace to come — let him be accursed.' Now when Luke, in the passage we have cited, says that those baptized in the name of Jesus Christ had not received the Holy Spirit — he does not simply mean they had received none of the Spirit's gifts at all, since they believed in Christ with their hearts and confessed Him with their mouths. He means that specific receiving of the Spirit by which visible and extraordinary powers were given. So it is said that the apostles received the Spirit on the day of Pentecost — even though Christ had already told them, 'It is not you who speak, but the Spirit of my Father speaking through you.' Behold, all who are God's people — the malicious and poisonous deceit of Satan. What was truly given in baptism, he falsely claims is given in his confirmation, so that he may stealthily lead you away from baptism without your noticing. Who can now doubt that this is the doctrine of Satan — which cuts the promises properly belonging to baptism away from baptism and transfers them to something else? It is now plain on what foundation this pious anointing rests. The word of God is: all who have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ with His gifts. The word of the anointers is: they received in baptism no promise by which they may be armed for battle. The one is the voice of truth — therefore the other must be the voice of lying. I can therefore define this confirmation more accurately than they have ever defined it: it is a notorious slander of baptism that obscures and abolishes its proper use. It is a false promise of the devil that draws us away from the truth of God. Or if you prefer: it is oil defiled by the devil's lies, which — like a spreading darkness — deceives the eyes of the simple.

They further add that all the faithful must receive the Holy Spirit after baptism through the laying on of hands, so that they may be counted as complete Christians — for, they say, no one will ever truly be a Christian who has not been anointed with the bishop's confirmation. These are their own words verbatim. But I had thought that everything belonging to Christianity was set down in writing and contained in Scripture. Now, as I can see, the true form of religion must be sought and learned from somewhere other than Scripture. So the whole wisdom of God, the heavenly truth, and the complete doctrine of Christ only make a person begin as a Christian — and oil makes him perfect. By this sentence all the apostles are condemned, and all the martyrs as well — people we know with certainty were never anointed, since the oil that would have completed them or made them Christians had not yet been made. But even if I say nothing, they refute themselves thoroughly. For how many people in their own flocks have they anointed after baptism? Why then do they allow so many half-Christians to remain in their care, when this deficiency could easily be remedied? Why do they so carelessly permit them to skip something that cannot be omitted without grave offense? Why do they not press more urgently the keeping of something so necessary — without which, by their own account, salvation cannot be obtained, unless one is perhaps overtaken by death? Truly, when they so freely allow it to be neglected, they are quietly admitting that it is not worth as much as they claim.

Finally they determine that this holy anointing deserves greater reverence than baptism — because this anointing is administered exclusively by the hands of the chief bishops, whereas baptism is commonly distributed by every priest. What can one say here except that they have lost their minds entirely, so flattering their own inventions that in comparison they carelessly despise the holy ordinances of God? O mouth that robs God — do you dare set a greasy liquid, defiled only with the stench of your own breath and enchanted by the murmuring of words, against the sacrament of Christ and compare it with water consecrated by the word of God? But your wickedness counted even this too small unless you also placed it above baptism itself. These are the pronouncements of the Holy See — these are the oracles of the apostolic throne. But some of them, even by their own reckoning, have begun to moderate this unbridled madness somewhat. 'It is to be held in greater reverence,' they say — 'perhaps not because of greater virtue or benefit it confers, but because it is given by worthier men and applied to the worthier part of the body, namely the forehead. Or because it brings a greater increase of virtues, even though baptism is more effective for forgiveness.' But in the first argument, do they not expose themselves as Donatists — measuring the power of a sacrament by the worthiness of the minister? Very well, I will grant that confirmation may be called worthier by reason of the bishop's dignity. But if someone asks them where this great privilege of the bishops comes from, what reason will they offer besides their own desire? Did the apostles alone exercise the power that alone distributed the Holy Spirit? Are the bishops alone apostles? Indeed, are they apostles at all? But grant even that. Why do they not by the same argument conclude that bishops alone should handle the sacrament of the blood in the Lord's Supper — which they deny to lay people on the grounds that the Lord gave it to the apostles alone? If it was given to the apostles alone, why do they not conclude: therefore to bishops alone? But in that case they treat the apostles as simple priests — while here their inconsistency suddenly promotes them to bishops. Finally, Ananias was no apostle, yet Paul was sent to him to receive his sight, be baptized, and be filled with the Holy Spirit. I will add this to the pile as well: if by God's law this was the proper office of bishops, why were they so bold as to hand it over to common priests — as we read in a certain letter of Gregory?

As for their other argument — how trivial, foolish, and ridiculous it is to call their confirmation worthier than God's baptism because the forehead is anointed with oil, while in baptism it is the back of the head — as though baptism were done with oil and not with water. I call all godly people to witness whether these men aim at nothing but corrupting the purity of the sacraments with their leaven. I have already said elsewhere that in the sacraments, the things that are from God barely shine through the gaps left by the crowd of human inventions. If anyone did not believe me then, let him at least now believe his own teachers. Look — setting aside the water and counting it as nothing, they hold the oil in baptism in the highest esteem. We, on the contrary, say that in baptism the forehead is also touched with water. Compared to this, we count your oil — whether in baptism or in confirmation — not worth a piece of dung. If anyone argues that it is sold for a higher price — the addition of a price corrupts whatever goodness it might have had, and a filthy deception stolen at a high price is all the more shameful. In their third argument they expose their own ungodliness, babbling that confirmation gives a greater increase of virtues than baptism. The apostles distributed the visible gifts of the Spirit through the laying on of hands. In what way does their greasy liquid show any such fruitfulness? But away with these would-be moderators who cover one sacrilege with many sacrileges. It is like the Gordian knot — better cut apart than laboriously untied.

But now, when they find themselves lacking both the word of God and sound reason, they fall back — as usual — on claiming that this is a very ancient practice established by the consensus of many centuries. Even if that were true, it would gain them nothing. A sacrament is not from the earth but from heaven — not from human beings but from God alone. They must prove God to be the author of their confirmation if they want it received as a sacrament. But why do they appeal to antiquity when the ancient writers, whenever they speak precisely, never number more than two sacraments? If the defense of our faith were to be drawn from human sources, we have an unconquerable stronghold: the ancient fathers never acknowledged as sacraments what these men falsely claim to be sacraments. The ancient writers do speak of the laying on of hands — but do they ever call it a sacrament? Augustine plainly states that it is nothing other than prayer. Let them not try to argue against me here with their stale distinctions — that Augustine meant this not of the laying on of hands used in confirmation but of that used in healing or reconciliation. The book remains and is available for anyone to read. If I twist its meaning to anything different from what Augustine himself wrote, I give them full leave to attack me in their usual manner — not just with insults but with contempt. For he is speaking of those who returned from schism to the unity of the church. He denies that they needed to be rebaptized, saying that the laying on of hands is sufficient — that through the bond of peace the Lord may give them the Holy Spirit. But since it might seem strange that the laying on of hands should be renewed rather than baptism, he explains the difference. 'For what else,' he says, 'is the laying on of hands but prayer over a person?' That this is his meaning is confirmed by another passage where he writes: 'A hand is laid on amended heretics for the joining of charity — which is the greatest gift of the Holy Spirit — without which, whatever holy things a person possesses avail nothing for salvation.'

I wish to God we still observed the custom I described as belonging to earlier times — before this prematurely born imitation of a sacrament was invented. Not the confirmation they have fabricated, which cannot even be named without injury to baptism — but rather a catechetical examination, in which children or those approaching the age of reason would give an account of their faith before the church. The best form of catechism would be a written summary, laying out clearly and accessibly the substance of all the articles of our religion — articles about which the whole church of the faithful ought to be in complete agreement. A child of about ten years old would present himself to the church to make his confession of faith. He would be examined on every article and required to answer each one. If he was ignorant of anything or did not understand it, he could be taught. He would then profess before the church — with the congregation watching and witnessing — the one, true, and pure faith in which the people of God worship the one God with one mind. If this discipline were still in force today, the laziness of some parents — who carelessly neglect their children's instruction as though it were no concern of theirs — would be sharpened, since they could not then omit it without open shame. There would be greater unity of faith among the Christian people, and less of the deep ignorance and crudeness so widespread today. Fewer people would be so rashly swept away by new and unfamiliar doctrines. And everyone would have, as it were, a structured grounding in Christian learning.

Penance.

In the next place they set penance, which they treat so confusedly and disorderly that no one can take away from their doctrine anything certain or sound. We have already elsewhere given a thorough account of what Scripture teaches about repentance and what they also teach about it. Here we need only to touch on the reason they have had for elevating penance to the status of a sacrament — an opinion that has long held sway in churches and schools. But first I will say briefly something about the practice of the early church, which they have misappropriated to establish their fabricated invention. The order they kept in public penance was this: those who had completed the penances assigned to them were reconciled with a solemn laying on of hands. This was the sign of absolution — by which the sinner himself was lifted up before God with confidence of pardon, and the church was gently reminded to receive him back into fellowship and forget his offense. Cyprian often calls this 'giving peace.' To give this act greater dignity and make it more respected by the people, it was ordained that the bishop's authority should always be involved. From this came the decree of the second Council of Carthage: 'It is not lawful for a priest to reconcile a penitent publicly at the Mass.' And another decree of the Council of Orange: 'Let those who depart this life during the time of their penance be admitted to communion without the laying on of hands used in reconciliation. If they recover from illness, let them stand in the rank of penitents, and when the time is fully completed, let them receive from the bishop the laying on of hands used in reconciliation.' Again the decree of the third Council of Carthage: 'Let no priest reconcile a penitent without the bishop's authority.' All these measures aimed at ensuring that the seriousness with which they wanted this matter handled would not be weakened by too much leniency. They therefore wanted the bishop to serve as judge in this — a person more likely to examine the matter with care. Yet Cyprian shows in one place that not only the bishop but the entire clergy laid their hands on the person. For he says: 'When the time of their penance is completed, they come to receive communion, and through the laying on of hands by the bishop and the clergy they receive the right to participate in communion.' Over time this ceremony was also used in private absolutions alongside public penance. From this came the distinction in Gratian between public and private reconciliation. I regard that ancient practice which Cyprian describes as holy and beneficial for the church, and I would like to see it restored today. As for the later practice, while I would not presume to condemn it outright or speak against it too harshly, I think it is less necessary. Whatever may be said of it, the laying on of hands in penance is a ceremony of human — not divine — institution. It belongs among the secondary and outward practices of the church, which are not to be despised, but which should occupy a lower rank than those commended to us by the word of the Lord.

But the Romanists and the scholastics — who habitually corrupt everything by misinterpreting it — are very industrious in finding a sacrament here. This should not surprise us, since they look for knots in rushes. But even at their best, they leave the matter tangled, uncertain, and thrown into confusion by conflicting opinions. They say either that outward penance is a sacrament — and if so, it should be taken as the sign of inward penance, that is, contrition of heart, which would then be the 'thing' of the sacrament — or that both together form one sacrament, not two, but one complete one. Or again: that outward penance is the sacrament only; that inward penance is both the thing and the sacrament; and that forgiveness of sins is the thing but not the sacrament. Let anyone who remembers the definition of a sacrament we have already set out test by that definition what these men call a sacrament — and they will find it is not an outward ceremony ordained by the Lord for the confirming of our faith. If they object that my definition is not a law they are bound to obey, let them hear Augustine, whom they profess to hold in the highest honor. He says: 'Visible sacraments were ordained for the sake of people of the flesh, so that by the steps of sacraments they might be led from what is seen by the eyes to what is understood by the mind.' What do they themselves see — or what can they show to others — in what they call the sacrament of penance? Augustine also says in another place: 'It is therefore called a sacrament because in it one thing is seen and another thing is understood. What is seen has a bodily form; what is understood has a spiritual fruit.' None of this applies in any way to the sacrament of penance as they have invented it, where there is no bodily form that can represent a spiritual fruit.

And to fight them on their own ground — if a sacrament is to be found anywhere here, could it not be said with far more plausibility that the priest's absolution is a sacrament than that inward or outward penance is? For one could readily argue that absolution is a ceremony assuring our faith of the forgiveness of sins, and that it has the promise of the keys — as they call it — 'Whatever you bind or loose on earth shall be bound or loosed in heaven.' But someone might object that most of those absolved by priests receive no such thing from the absolution — whereas by their own doctrine the sacraments of the new covenant must actually accomplish what they signify. But this is only worth laughing at. For just as in the Supper they posit a double eating — sacramental eating common to both the good and the wicked, and spiritual eating belonging only to the good — why could they not also claim that absolution is received in two ways? But I have never been able to understand what they meant by this doctrine, which we have already shown at length to be at odds with the truth of God when we addressed that argument directly. My only point here is to show that this difficulty does not prevent them from calling the priest's absolution a sacrament. For they could answer, drawing on Augustine, that sanctification exists without the visible sacrament, and the visible sacrament without inward sanctification. Again, that the sacraments work what they signify only in the elect. Again, that some put on Christ only to the extent of partaking in the sacrament, others to the extent of sanctification — the first, both good and wicked do equally; the second, only the good do. Truly they have erred in a more than childish way, and are blind in the full light of day, when with all their laboring they have failed to notice something so plain and obvious to everyone.

Yet lest they become too proud, wherever they locate the sacrament, I deny that penance ought rightly to be counted as a sacrament at all. First, because there is no specific promise attached to it — and the promise is the only substance of a sacrament. Second, because whatever ceremony is displayed here is a pure invention of human beings, whereas we have already proven that the ceremonies of sacraments can only be ordained by God. Therefore the sacrament of penance which they invented is a lie and a deception. They have adorned this fabricated sacrament with a fitting title, calling it 'a second plank after shipwreck' — meaning that if someone has ruined the garment of innocence received in baptism through sin, he may repair it through penance. This saying comes from Jerome, and whoever wrote it cannot be excused — it is utterly wrong if interpreted in their sense. As though baptism were erased by sin, rather than called to mind by every sinner, each time he thinks of the forgiveness of sins, so that he may rally himself, recover confidence, and strengthen his faith that the forgiveness promised him in baptism will be obtained. But what Jerome said harshly and loosely — that by penance baptism is repaired (meaning the baptism from which those fall away who deserve excommunication from the church) — these fine interpreters twist to their own wickedness. Therefore you will speak most accurately if you call baptism the sacrament of repentance, since it is given as a confirmation of grace and a seal of assurance to those who purpose repentance. And lest you think this is our own invention — besides agreeing with the words of Scripture, it clearly appears to have been commonly stated as an unquestioned principle in the early church. For in the book Faith for Peter, attributed to Augustine, baptism is called 'the sacrament of faith and of repentance.' But why do we reach for uncertain sayings? As though we could require anything plainer than what the evangelist records — that John preached the baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

Extreme Unction, as They Call It.

The third fabricated sacrament is extreme unction — performed only by a priest, and only at the point of death (as they call it), with oil consecrated by a bishop, and with these words: 'By this holy anointing and by His most tender mercy, may God pardon you whatever you have sinned through sight, hearing, smell, touch, and taste.' They claim it has two powers: the forgiveness of sins and the relief of bodily sickness if appropriate — and if not, the salvation of the soul. They say its institution is stated by James, whose words are: 'Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him' (James 5:14). This anointing belongs in the same category as the laying on of hands we discussed earlier — it is a theatrical pretense by which they imitate the apostles without reason and without result. Mark records that the apostles, at their first sending out, healed the sick by the command they had received from the Lord — and that in healing the sick they used oil (Mark 6:13). 'They anointed many sick people with oil,' he says, 'and they were healed.' This is what James had in view when he commanded the elders to be called together to anoint the sick person. That no higher mystery is contained in such ceremonies will be easily judged by those who observe how great liberty the Lord and His apostles used in outward things. When restoring sight to the blind, the Lord made clay from dust and spittle; He healed others by touching them; others with only His word (John 9:6; Matthew 9:29; Luke 18:42; Acts 3:6; Acts 5:16; Acts 19:12; Psalm 45:8). In the same way, the apostles healed some diseases by word alone, others by touch, and others by anointing. It is reasonable to suppose that this anointing was not employed without purpose, like other things too. I grant that — yet not as a means of healing, but only as a sign, so that those of slower understanding might be reminded where such great power was coming from, so they would not give credit to the apostles themselves. And it is a common and well-established thing that oil signifies the Holy Spirit and His gifts. But that same gift of healing has vanished, just as the other miracles have — miracles the Lord willed to be displayed for a time in order to magnify the new preaching of the Gospel permanently. Therefore, even granting all we can grant, that anointing was a sacrament of those healing powers ministered through the apostles' hands at that time — it now has nothing to do with us, to whom the ministry of such powers has not been committed.

And by what stronger argument do they make a sacrament of this anointing than of all the other signs described to us in Scripture? Why do they not designate a pool of Siloam for sick people to bathe in at regular intervals? 'That would be done in vain,' they say. Truly, no more in vain than anointing. Why do they not lie down on top of dead people, since Paul raised a dead child by lying upon him (Acts 20:10)? Why is clay made from spittle and dust not a sacrament? But the others, they say, were only singular examples — this one was given by James as a command. Truly James spoke for that time, when the church still enjoyed such blessings from God. They claim that the same power is still present in their anointing — but experience shows us otherwise. Let no one marvel now that they have dared with such boldness to mock souls — souls they know are senseless and blind when robbed of the word of God, that is, of their life and light — since they are not even ashamed to try to mock the living and feeling bodily senses. They make themselves worthy of ridicule when they boast of being endowed with the grace of healing. Truly the Lord is present with His people in every age, and as often as need arises He aids their sicknesses no less than He did in ancient times. But He no longer displays those visible powers or distributes miracles through the hands of apostles — because that gift was both temporary and has in part been lost through human ingratitude.

Therefore, just as the apostles had good reason to testify openly, through the sign of oil, that the grace of healing given to them was not their own power but the power of the Holy Spirit — so on the other side, those who make a foul and powerless oil to be the Holy Spirit's power do wrong to the Holy Spirit. This is entirely like saying that all oil is the power of the Holy Spirit because oil is used in Scripture with that meaning, or that every dove is the Holy Spirit because He appeared in that form (Matthew 3:16; John 1:32). But let them deal with these matters themselves. For our present purposes, this much is sufficient: we see with complete certainty that their anointing is no sacrament — for it is neither a ceremony ordained by God nor does it have a promise from God. For when we require these two things in a sacrament — that it be a ceremony ordained by God and that it have a promise of God — we also require that the same ceremony be given to us and that the promise belong to us. No one claims that circumcision is now a sacrament of the Christian church, even though it was both an ordinance of God and had a promise attached to it — because it was neither commanded to us, nor was the promise attached to it given to us under the same conditions. That the promise they proudly boast of in their anointing is not given to us, we have clearly shown — and they demonstrate it themselves through experience. The ceremony should only have been used by those endowed with the gift of healing — not by these butchers, who are more skilled at killing and destroying than at healing.

But even if they were to establish that what James commands about anointing applies to our age — which they are very far from doing — even then they would have little success in proving the unction they have practiced on us. James says all sick people should be anointed. These men smear their greasy oil not on sick people but on half-dead bodies at the point of death, when life is already laboring at their very lips — or, as they themselves say, 'in extremis.' If their sacrament contains a remedy that can ease the severity of illness or at least bring some comfort to the soul, they are very cruel in never administering it in time. James says the sick person should be anointed by the elders of the church. These men allow no one to anoint but the sacrificing priest. They interpret the Greek word presbyteros in James as meaning priests, and foolishly claim the plural number is used merely for stylistic reasons — as though the churches at that time were swarming with troops of sacrificing priests who could walk in long solemn processions carrying a pageant of holy oil. When James simply says sick people should be anointed, I understand nothing other than common oil to be meant — and that is all that appears in Mark's account. These men will use no oil except what has been consecrated by a bishop — that is, warmed by much breathing upon it, enchanted with much mumbling, and greeted nine times with kneeling in this fashion: three times, 'Hail, holy oil'; three times, 'Hail, holy chrism'; three times, 'Hail, holy balm.' From whom did they suck in such conjuring? James says: when the sick person has been anointed with oil and prayer has been offered over him, if he has committed sins they will be forgiven him — meaning that with guilt removed they may be released from punishment. Not that sins are washed away with grease, but that the prayers of the faithful, by which the suffering brother is commended to God, will not be in vain. These men lie wickedly that through their holy — that is, their abominable — anointing sins are forgiven. See how well they will succeed when they have been freely allowed to abuse the testimony of James at their pleasure. And so that we do not need to labor long to prove this, their own chronicles relieve us of the difficulty. For they report that Pope Innocent, who governed the church of Rome in Augustine's time, decreed that not only priests but all Christians should use oil to anoint themselves and others when needed. Sigebert records this in his Chronicles.

Ecclesiastical Orders.

The fourth place in their catalog is held by the sacrament of order — itself so fruitful that it produces from itself seven little sacraments. It is quite laughable that while they insist there are seven sacraments, when they actually count them out they arrive at thirteen. They cannot excuse this by saying these are all one sacrament because they all lead to the priesthood and are merely steps toward it. For since it is evident that each one has its own separate ceremony, and they themselves say that each confers different graces, no one can doubt they should be called seven distinct sacraments if their position is accepted. Why argue about it as though it were uncertain, since they themselves clearly and separately declare seven? But first we will briefly gather up along the way the many disagreeable absurdities they press on us when they commend their orders to us as sacraments. Then we will examine whether the ceremony churches use in ordaining ministers ought to be called a sacrament at all. They therefore make seven ecclesiastical orders or ranks, which they honor with the name of a sacrament. These are: doorkeepers, readers, exorcists, acolytes, subdeacons, deacons, and priests. Seven, they say, corresponding to the sevenfold grace of the Holy Spirit — which those promoted to these ranks ought to receive and which is given more abundantly at their ordination. This number is consecrated through a distorted reading of Scripture. They think they have read seven gifts of the Holy Spirit in Isaiah — whereas Isaiah actually lists only six, and the prophet was not intending to give a complete list, since the Spirit is elsewhere also called the Spirit of life, of sanctification, and of adoption, in addition to the Spirit of wisdom, understanding, counsel, strength, knowledge, and the fear of the Lord. Some more subtle thinkers make not seven orders but nine, after the likeness — as they say — of the triumphant church in heaven. But even among them there is disagreement: some want the tonsure of the clergy to be the first order of all, and the bishopric the last; others leave out the tonsure entirely and count the archbishopric among the orders. Isidore divides them differently, making psalmists and readers into separate offices — psalmists for singing and readers for reading Scripture to instruct the people. The canons maintain this same distinction. In such great diversity, what are we to follow or avoid? Should we say there are seven orders? The schoolmaster teaches this — but the most enlightened doctors determine otherwise. And even they disagree among themselves. Moreover, the most sacred canons point in yet another direction. This is what happens when people dispute about matters of religion without the word of God.

But this surpasses all foolishness — the claim that in every one of these orders Christ joins His example to theirs. He exercised the office of doorkeeper, they say, when He drove the buyers and sellers out of the temple with a whip made of cords. He showed Himself to be a doorkeeper when He said: 'I am the door.' He took on the office of reader when He read from Isaiah in the synagogue. He performed the office of exorcist when, touching the tongue and ears of the deaf-mute, He restored his hearing. He showed Himself to be an acolyte in these words: 'Whoever follows me does not walk in darkness.' He carried out the office of subdeacon when, girded with a linen cloth, He washed the disciples' feet. He played the part of a deacon when He distributed His body and blood in the Supper. He fulfilled the office of priest when He offered Himself as a sacrifice to His Father on the cross. These things can hardly be heard without laughing — I am amazed that they could have been written without laughing, if indeed those who wrote them were human beings. Most notable is the subtlety with which they philosophize about the name 'acolyte,' calling him a 'ceroferar' — a candle-bearer — with a word apparently invented by sorcery, a word utterly unknown in any nation or language, whereas the Greek akolouthos simply means 'follower.' However, if I were to spend serious time refuting these men, I myself would rightly deserve to be laughed at — such nonsense and mockery it all is.

But so that they may not continue to deceive even simple people with false appearances, their vanity must be briefly exposed. They ordain readers, psalmists, doorkeepers, and acolytes with great pomp and ceremony — for offices which they then assign to children or to those they call laymen. For who for the most part lights the candles, who pours wine and water into the cruet, but a child or some ordinary lay person making his living by it? Do not these same people sing? Do they not open and close the church doors? For who has ever seen an acolyte or doorkeeper in their churches actually performing his office? Rather, the boy who performed the acolyte's duties when he was young — once he is admitted to the order of acolytes, ceases to do the very thing he now claims the title of, so that they seem deliberately to shed the office the moment they take on the name. Behold why they need to be consecrated by sacraments and receive the Holy Spirit — namely, so that they may do nothing. If they appeal to the disorder of the times — arguing that this is the waywardness of the age, causing men to abandon and neglect their ministries — then let them also confess that today there is no use or fruit of their holy orders in the church, which they praise so extravagantly. Let them confess that their whole church is under a curse: because it allows candles and cruets to be handled by children and laypeople, when none but consecrated acolytes are worthy to touch them; and because it assigns the singing to children, when only a consecrated mouth should be heard. As for their exorcists — to what purpose do they consecrate them? I know the Jews had their exorcists — but they were so called because of the exorcisms and incantations they actually used. Who has ever heard of these counterfeit exorcists actually giving any demonstration of their supposed calling? They are said to have been given power to lay their hands on the deranged, on catechumens, and on the demon-possessed — but they cannot convince the demons that they have any such power, because the demons not only refuse to obey their commands but actually exercise authority over them. For you can hardly find one in ten of these exorcists who is not himself led by an evil spirit. Therefore everything they babble about their petty orders is patched together from foolish and tasteless lies. We have spoken elsewhere about the ancient acolytes, doorkeepers, and readers when we described the order of the church. Our purpose here is only to fight against this newly devised invention of the sevenfold sacrament in ecclesiastical orders — of which nothing is to be read anywhere except among these foolish chatterers, the Sorbonists and canonists.

Now let us consider the ceremonies they use in connection with these orders. First, all those they receive into their clerical ranks are admitted by one common ceremony: the shaving of the crown of the head. They shave the crown, they say, so that it may signify kingly dignity, because the clergy ought to be kings — ruling themselves and others. For Peter says of them: 'You are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's possession.' But it was sacrilege to claim for themselves alone what was given to the whole church, and to boast proudly in a title they had stolen from the faithful. Peter speaks to the whole church — these men twist it to apply to a few shaved men, as though it were said to them alone: be holy; as though they alone were purchased by the blood of Christ; as though they alone were made by Christ into a kingdom and priesthood for God. Then they assign further reasons: the top of the head is left bare so that it may show that the mind is free for the Lord, who may behold the glory of God with uncovered face. Or so that they may learn that the sins of their eyes and mouths must be cut away. Or the shaving of the head represents the putting away of earthly things, while the ring of hair left around the crown represents the goods retained for their support. All of it in signs — because, of course, the veil of the temple has not yet been torn in two. So, satisfied that they have fully performed their duty by representing all these things through their tonsure, they perform none of those things in actual fact. How long will they mock us with such false appearances and deceits? The clergy, by the shearing of a few hairs, signify that they have cast away the abundance of earthly goods, that they behold the glory of God, and that they have put to death the lusts of ears and eyes — yet no class of people is more greedy, more dull and senseless, or more given to lust. Why do they not rather truly practice holiness, instead of counterfeiting its appearance with lying signs?

Moreover, when they say that the clergy's tonsure originates from the Nazirites, what are they claiming except that their practices are derived from Jewish ceremonies — or rather that they are nothing but Jewish ritual? And when they further say that Priscilla, Aquila, and Paul himself, having made a vow, shaved their heads for purification — they reveal their own gross ignorance. Priscilla is not mentioned anywhere in Scripture as having shaved her head. Aquila's case is also doubtful, since the shaving described in Acts may just as well be attributed to Paul alone. But so that we may not deprive them of the example of Paul which they claim, let simpler readers note this: Paul never shaved his head for any act of sanctification, but only to accommodate the weakness of his brothers. I am accustomed to call such vows vows of charity rather than of godliness — that is, not undertaken as service to God, but to bear with the frailty of the weak — as Paul himself says, that he became a Jew to the Jews. Therefore he did this just once, and for a brief time, simply to conform himself temporarily to the Jews. When these men imitate the purifications of the Nazirites without any purpose, what are they doing but creating a new Judaism — while wrongly striving to follow the old one? With the same kind of religious logic was composed that decretal letter which, appealing to the apostle, forbids the clergy from letting their hair grow and requires them to cut it round like a bowl. As though the apostle, in teaching what is becoming for all people, had the round haircut of the clergy in mind. From this, let readers judge the value and quality of those other mysteries that follow, for which this serves as the entrance.

Where the clergy's tonsure actually originated can be seen clearly enough from Augustine alone. In his day, only vain and effeminate men who desired an excessively groomed and polished appearance let their hair grow. It seemed poor example to allow the clergy to do the same. Therefore, clergy were commanded either to cut or shave their heads so as to show no trace of womanish vanity. But this became so widespread that certain monks, wishing to distinguish their holiness by a notably different appearance from other people, allowed their hair to grow long. Later, when the fashion shifted to wearing long hair — and certain nations were added to Christendom where long hair had always been customary, such as France, Germany, and England — it is likely that clergy everywhere shaved their heads to avoid appearing to seek a fashionable appearance. Finally, in a more corrupt age, when all ancient practices had either been distorted or degenerated into superstition — and since no one could see any reason for the clergy's shaving (for nothing remained but a pointless imitation) — they searched for a mystical meaning and now superstitiously press this upon us to justify their sacrament. At the consecration of doorkeepers, they receive the keys of the church — to signify that its keeping is committed to them. Readers receive the holy Bible. Exorcists receive the formulas of exorcism to use over the deranged and those to be catechized. Acolytes receive the candles and the cruet. Behold — these are the ceremonies in which, so God wills, there resides such hidden power that they are not only signs and tokens but also causes of invisible grace. This is what their definition demands of them, if they are to be counted among the sacraments. But to conclude briefly: it is an absurdity that they make these minor orders sacraments in their schools and canons — when even by the admission of those who teach this, these orders were unknown to the primitive church and devised many centuries later. For sacraments, since they contain a promise of God, cannot be ordained by angels or human beings but by God alone, whose exclusive office it is to make promises.

Three orders remain, which they call the major orders. Subdiaconate — as they call it — was moved into that number after the group of lesser orders began to grow. Because they believe they have scriptural testimony for these, they honor them with the special title of holy orders. But now we must see how badly they abuse the ordinances of God to serve their purpose. We will begin with the order of the priesthood — or the sacrificial office, as they also call it. By these two names they mean one thing: those to whom belongs the offering of the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ on the altar, the pronouncing of prayers, and the blessing of the gifts of God. Therefore at their consecration they receive the paten and the host as tokens signifying the power given them to offer acceptable sacrifices to God. Their hands are anointed, by which sign they are taught that they have been given power to consecrate. We will speak of the ceremonies later. Concerning the substance of the matter, I say this: it has no claim in the word of God — which they pretend to follow — and they could not have more wickedly corrupted the order God established. This must be accepted as settled — as we affirmed when treating of the papal Mass — that all who call themselves sacrificing priests to offer a sacrifice of appeasement do wrong to Christ. He was appointed and consecrated by the Father as priest with an oath, according to the order of Melchizedek, without end and without successor. He once offered a sacrifice of eternal, atoning cleansing and reconciliation, and now — having entered the heavenly sanctuary — He makes intercession for us. In Him we are all sacrificing priests — but for praises and thanksgivings, to offer ourselves and all we have to God. It was His singular and exclusive office to appease God and purge sins through His one offering. When these men take this upon themselves, what can be said of their sacrificing priesthood except that it is ungodly and full of sacrilege? Truly they are too wicked in daring to honor it with the name of a sacrament. As for the true office of ministry, which is commended to us by the mouth of Christ — I willingly count that among the sacraments. For it involves a ceremony drawn first from Scripture, and one that Paul testifies is not empty or superfluous but is a faithful sign of spiritual grace. The reason I have not listed it as a third sacrament alongside the other two is that it is not universal and common to all the faithful but is a special rite for a particular office. But whatever honor is given to the Christian ministry, this gives no grounds for pride to the papal sacrificers. For Christ commanded that distributors of His Gospel and mysteries should be ordained — not sacrificers consecrated. He gave them the command to preach the Gospel and feed the flock — not to offer sacrifices. He promised them the grace of the Holy Spirit not to make atoning purification for sin, but to rightly execute and maintain the government of the church.

The ceremonies fit the substance very well. When our Lord sent out the apostles to preach the Gospel, He breathed on them. By this sign He represented the power of the Holy Spirit which He was giving them. These men have retained this breathing — and as though they were pushing the Holy Spirit out through their throats, they whisper over the sorry priests they make: 'Receive the Holy Spirit.' They leave nothing unperversely imitated — not like actors, who use their gestures with both art and meaning, but like apes, who mimic everything carelessly and without discernment. 'We are following the Lord's example,' they say. But the Lord did many things He did not intend as examples for us to follow. The Lord said to His disciples: 'Receive the Holy Spirit.' He also said to Lazarus: 'Lazarus, come forth.' He said to the paralyzed man: 'Rise and walk.' Why do they not say the same to every dead person and every paralyzed person? He demonstrated a proof of His divine power when He breathed on the apostles and filled them with the grace of the Holy Spirit. If they attempt to do the same thing, they are enviously presuming to rival God and practically challenging Him to a contest — yet they fall far short of the effect, and with this foolish gesture do nothing but mock Christ. Truly they are so shameless as to claim they give the Holy Spirit. How true that is, experience declares loudly — so many as are consecrated priests are turned from horses into donkeys, from fools into madmen. Yet I am not arguing with them about that. My only point is to condemn the ceremony itself, which should never have been adopted as a pattern to follow, since Christ used it as a singular sign for one unique miracle — so far is it from excusing them to claim they are following His example.

But from whom did they receive the anointing? They answer that they received it from the sons of Aaron, from whom their order also took its origin. They would always rather defend themselves with wrongful examples than confess that they have invented what they practice without any warrant. But in the meantime they fail to see that by claiming to be successors of the sons of Aaron, they are doing wrong to the priesthood of Christ — the priesthood that all the ancient sacrificial offices merely foreshadowed and prefigured. In Him, therefore, they were all contained and fulfilled; in Him they came to an end — as we have repeatedly said, and as the letter to the Hebrews plainly testifies without needing any commentary. But if they are so delighted with the ceremonies of Moses, why do they not also quickly bring oxen, calves, and lambs to offer as sacrifices? They have indeed retained a large portion of the ancient tabernacle ritual and the whole Jewish manner of worship — yet what is missing from their religion is that they do not sacrifice calves and oxen. Who cannot see that this practice of anointing is far more harmful than circumcision ever was — especially when joined with the superstitious Pharisaic notion that the outward act itself earns merit? The Jews placed their confidence of righteousness in circumcision; these men place spiritual graces in anointing. Therefore, in their desire to counterfeit the Levites, they become apostates from Christ and disqualify themselves from the office of pastor.

This is, if you will, the holy oil that imprints an indelible mark. As though oil could not be wiped off with dust and salt — or if it has soaked in more deeply, with soap. But, they say, this mark is spiritual. What does oil have to do with the soul? Have they forgotten what they so often quote to us from Augustine — that if the word is taken away from the water, it is nothing but water, and that it is from the word that it becomes a sacrament? What word will they point to in their greasy liquid? Will they show the command given to Moses concerning the anointing of the sons of Aaron? But there is also a command given about the coat, the ephod, the turban, the crown of holiness with which Aaron was to be adorned, and the coats, sashes, and caps with which the sons of Aaron were to be clothed. There is a command to kill a calf and burn its fat as incense, to cut up rams and burn them, to consecrate their ears and garments with the blood of another ram — along with countless other requirements. Having passed over all of these, I am amazed that only the anointing with oil pleases them. But if they love being sprinkled, why do they prefer oil to blood? Truly they are cleverly constructing a single religion out of Christianity, Judaism, and paganism — stitching patches together. Therefore their anointing is without worth, lacking the salt — that is, the word of God. The laying on of hands remains. While I grant that in true and lawful ordinations it is a sacrament, I deny that it has any part in this theater, where they neither obey the command of Christ nor look to the purpose to which the promise ought to lead us. If they will not be denied the sign, they must apply it to the thing itself for which it was appointed (Exodus 30:30).

About the order of deacons I would not argue with them, if the ministry that existed in apostolic times and in the purer church were restored to its uncorrupted form. But what resemblance is there between that and those whom these men present to us as deacons? I am not speaking of the men themselves — lest they complain that the doctrine is being judged unfairly by the faults of individuals. I am saying that as a matter of doctrine they wrongly appeal to the example of deacons ordained by the apostolic church for those whom they present to us. They say it belongs to their deacons to stand beside the priests and assist in all the sacramental acts — in baptism, in the chrism, with the paten and the chalice; to bring in the offerings and place them on the altar; to prepare and cover the Lord's table; to carry the cross; and to proclaim and sing the Gospel and Epistle to the people. Is there a single word here of the true ministry of deacons? Now let us hear how they are instituted. At the ordination of a deacon, the bishop alone lays on his hand. He places a prayer book and a stole on his left shoulder, to signify that he has received the light yoke of the Lord, by which he may subject to the fear of God all things that belong to the left side. He gives him the text of the Gospel, that he may understand himself to be a proclaimer of it. And what do any of these things have to do with deacons? It is as if someone said he was ordaining apostles — but appointed them only to burn incense, clean statues, sweep churches, catch mice, and drive out dogs. Who could tolerate such people being called apostles and compared with the actual apostles of Christ? Therefore let them stop falsely calling deacons those whom they ordain only for their theatrical performances. Indeed, even by the very name they use, they make clear what kind of office they have in mind — for they call them Levites and trace their order and origin back to the children of Levi. I am happy to grant them this, so long as they do not afterward dress them in borrowed plumage.

What purpose is there in speaking of subdeacons? Whereas in ancient times they were actually appointed to care for the poor, these men assign to them I know not what trivial tasks — to bring the chalice and paten, the little cruet of water, and the towel to the altar; to pour water for handwashing; and the like. When they speak of receiving and presenting offerings, they mean those they devour as set apart for their holy use. The form of their consecration fits this office very well: the subdeacon receives from the bishop the paten and the chalice; from the archdeacon, the cruet of water, the hand cloth, and such other paraphernalia. Within these trifles they demand that we acknowledge the Holy Spirit to be enclosed. What godly person could bring themselves to grant this? But to conclude — we may determine the same of these as of the rest, and need not repeat what has already been said. This should be enough to teach the sober and teachable, whom I have undertaken to instruct: there is no sacrament of God except where a ceremony is joined to a promise — or rather, where a promise is seen in a ceremony. Here not a single syllable of any definite promise is to be found. Therefore it is pointless to look for a ceremony to confirm the promise. Furthermore, not one of the ceremonies they use is found to have been instituted by God. Therefore there can be no sacrament here.

Matrimony.

The last is matrimony, which everyone acknowledges to have been ordained by God — yet no one until the time of Gregory ever regarded it as a sacrament. And what sober person would ever have thought so? It is a good and holy ordinance of God — but so are farming, carpentry, shoemaking, and barbering, which are all lawful ordinances of God, yet no one calls them sacraments. For a sacrament requires not only that it be a work of God, but that it be an outward ceremony appointed by God to confirm a promise. That nothing of the kind is present in matrimony, even children can judge. But, they say, matrimony is a sign of a holy thing — namely, of the spiritual union of Christ with the church. If by the word 'sign' they mean a token set before us by God to raise up the assurance of our faith, they are far from the truth. If they simply use 'sign' to mean something that expresses a resemblance, I will show how clever their reasoning is. Paul says: 'As one star differs from another star in glory, so shall it be in the resurrection of the dead.' There is one sacrament. Christ says: 'The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed.' There is another. And again: 'The kingdom of heaven is like leaven.' There is a third. Isaiah says: 'Behold, the Lord will feed His flock like a shepherd.' There is a fourth. And in another place: 'The Lord will go forth like a mighty man.' There is a fifth. Where will this end? By this logic, anything can be a sacrament. There are as many sacraments in Scripture as there are parables and comparisons. Indeed, theft itself would be a sacrament, since it is written that the day of the Lord comes like a thief. Who can bear such foolish prattling from these sophists? I grant that whenever we see a vine, it is very good to call to mind what Christ says: 'I am the vine, you are the branches, my Father is the vinedresser.' And whenever a shepherd comes toward us with his flock, it is good to recall: 'I am the good shepherd; my sheep hear my voice.' But if anyone adds such comparisons to the number of sacraments, he needs to be sent to a madhouse.

But they press further with the words of Paul, in which they claim he gives the name 'sacrament' to matrimony: 'He who loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church — because we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. This is a great mystery, but I am speaking of Christ and the church.' But to handle the Scriptures this way is to mix heaven and earth together. Paul, in order to show married men what exceptional love they ought to bear toward their wives, sets Christ before them as an example — for as He poured out the fullness of His compassion on the church which He had betrothed to Himself, so every man ought to be disposed toward his own wife. It follows: 'He who loves his wife loves himself, as Christ loved the church.' Now, to show how Christ loved the church as Himself — indeed, how He made Himself one with His bride the church — Paul applies to Christ what Moses records Adam said of himself. When Eve was brought before him, shaped from his side, Adam said: 'This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.' Paul testifies that all of this was spiritually fulfilled in Christ and in us when he says we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones — indeed, one flesh with Him. Finally Paul adds his conclusion: 'This is a great mystery.' And so that no one would be confused by the double meaning of his words, he makes clear that he is not speaking of the physical union of man and woman, but of the spiritual marriage of Christ and the church. And truly it is a great mystery indeed — that Christ allowed a rib to be taken from Himself from which we might be formed; that is, when He was strong He chose to become weak so that we might be strengthened with His strength, and that we might no longer live for ourselves but He might live in us.

The word "sacrament" deceived them. But was it right for the whole church to suffer the penalty of their ignorance? Paul said "mystery." The translator could have left the Greek word as it was, since Latin readers were familiar with it, or could have translated it as "secret." Instead, he chose to use the word "sacrament" -- but in no other sense than Paul had called it a "mystery" in Greek. Now let them go and rail against the knowledge of languages, through ignorance of which they were so terribly blind for so long in such an easy matter that anyone could have seen through it. But why do they cling so stubbornly to the word "sacrament" in this one passage while ignoring it elsewhere? The translator used it in the first Epistle to Timothy and in the same Epistle to the Ephesians -- in every case for "mystery." But let that slip be forgiven them. At the very least, liars should have a good memory. Once they have dressed up marriage with the title of a sacrament, they then turn around and call it uncleanness, defilement, and fleshly filthiness. How dizzyingly inconsistent is that? How absurd it is to bar priests from a sacrament! If they deny that they bar them from the sacrament and claim they only bar them from the act of sexual union, they still do not escape. They teach that the physical union itself is part of the sacrament, and that by it alone the union we have with Christ in our shared nature is represented -- because a man and woman become one only through physical union. However, some of them have found two sacraments here: one of God and the soul (in the betrothed couple), and another of Christ and the church (in husband and wife). In any case, the physical union is part of the sacrament. No Christian should be barred from it -- unless perhaps the sacraments of Christians are so incompatible that they cannot coexist. There is also another contradiction in their teaching. They claim that grace of the Holy Spirit is given in every sacrament. They teach that marriage is a sacrament. Yet they deny that the Holy Spirit is ever present in the act of marriage.

And because they would not simply mock the church, consider what a long chain of errors, lies, deceptions, and abuses they have linked to this one error! A person might well say they did nothing but build a den of wickedness when they turned marriage into a sacrament. Once they achieved this, they took over the hearing of marriage cases. It was a spiritual matter, they said, that secular judges had no right to handle. Then they made laws to establish their tyranny -- laws that were partly openly wicked against God and partly deeply unjust toward people. For example: marriages made between young people without their parents' consent should remain in force. Marriages between relatives up to the seventh degree of kinship are not lawful, and any such marriages must be dissolved. They fabricated these degrees in contradiction to the laws of all nations and Moses' civil laws. A man who has divorced an adulteress may not remarry. People related through spiritual kinship (such as godparents) may not marry each other. No marriages may be performed from Septuagesima to the octave of Easter, for three weeks before Midsummer, or from Advent to Epiphany. And countless other such rules that would take too long to list. At last, we must climb out of this mud, where our discussion has lingered longer than I would have liked. Yet I think I have accomplished something by partly stripping the lion's skins from these donkeys.