CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Regarding the Five Other Ceremonies Falsely Called Sacraments: Confirmation, Penan (part 2 of 2)
Before any settled form of the Church had been established, our Lord commanded his Apostles to preach the gospel to every creature and to baptize all believers for the forgiveness of sins. Before this, he had commanded them to distribute, according to his example, the holy sacrament of his body and blood. Nowhere is there any mention of offering sacrifice.
This is the holy, inviolable, and perpetual ordinance given to all who succeed the Apostles: they are commanded to preach the gospel and administer the sacraments. Those, therefore, who do not devote themselves to preaching the gospel and administering the sacraments falsely assume the name of the Apostles. Likewise, those who offer sacrifices falsely boast that they share the Apostolic ministry.
There is, however, a difference between the Apostles and those who now govern the churches. First, they differ in name. Although, according to the meaning and origin of the word, both may be called apostles, since all alike are sent by God, our Lord specially chose the Twelve to proclaim the new preaching of the gospel throughout the world. He willed that they in particular should be called Apostles because it was necessary that their commission should be clearly known, since they brought something new and previously unknown.
Those who now govern the churches are more properly called presbyters and bishops.
Second, they differ in office. Although both are charged with administering the word and the sacraments, the twelve Apostles were commanded to spread the gospel throughout various regions without being confined within fixed boundaries. Those who now govern the churches, however, have their own particular churches assigned to them.
We do not deny that a person ordained to govern one church may assist others if some disturbance arises that requires his presence, or that he may benefit them through his writings while absent. We simply say that this order is necessary for preserving the peace of the Church: each person’s office should be clearly defined, so that they do not all interfere with one another, wander here and there without a calling, gather together in one place, or abandon the churches entrusted to them whenever they please.
Saint Paul establishes this distinction when he writes to Titus:
“I left you in Crete so that you might correct what was lacking and appoint pastors in every city.”
Saint Luke likewise demonstrates it in Acts when he recounts Saint Paul’s address to the elders of the Ephesian church:
“Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock over which the Holy Spirit has appointed you bishops, to govern the
Church of God, which he purchased with his own blood.”
For the same reason, Saint Paul mentions Archippus, bishop of the Colossians, and elsewhere the bishops of the Philippians.
When these things have been carefully considered, it will be easy to determine the office of presbyters, what kind of persons should be regarded as belonging to the presbyterial office, or rather, what the order of priesthood truly is.
Its office is to proclaim the gospel and administer the sacraments. I leave aside the holiness of life in which they must maintain themselves and their particular duty toward each person, since our purpose is not to enumerate all the qualities of a good pastor, but only to consider what profession is made by those who call themselves priests.
He is a bishop who, having been called to the ministry of the word and sacraments, faithfully executes his commission. I use the names presbyters and bishops interchangeably for the ministers of the Church. The order is this calling itself.
It is now necessary to show the manner of this calling, which consists of two things. First, we must understand by whom bishops or presbyters are to be appointed. Second, we must consider the ceremony by which they are to be ordained.
Regarding the first question—who ought to appoint bishops—we cannot derive certain instruction from the calling of the Apostles.
They did not wait to be called by men, but, being furnished solely with God’s command, immediately set themselves to the work.
Nor is it entirely clear what order the Apostles themselves observed when appointing others. We know only that Saint Paul says, in the passage recently cited, that he left Titus in Crete to appoint bishops in every city. Elsewhere, he warns Timothy not to lay hands hastily upon anyone. And Saint Luke recounts in Acts that Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in every church in Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch.
These passages are frequently cited by the mitered prelates, according to their custom of carefully noting everything that appears to serve their interests. From them they infer that the power to ordain and consecrate priests, as they call it, was given to them alone. And to make their consecration appear venerable to the ignorant through outward display, they have adorned it with a multitude of ceremonies.
But if they wish their consecration to conform to Saint Paul’s rule, they are mistaken in supposing that ordaining and consecrating mean anything other than appointing a bishop or pastor over a particular church. If they use these words otherwise, it is slanderous for them to twist these passages to suit their own imagination.
Indeed, their practice is altogether different. Those whom they consecrate they do not ordain as bishops but as priests. “In doing so,” they say, “we appoint them to the service of the Church.” But what do they regard as the service of the Church except the ministry of the word?
I know very well that they continually sing this refrain: that their priestly rabble are ministers of the Church. But they will never persuade any person of sound understanding to believe it. Indeed, they are convicted by the truth of Scripture, which recognizes no minister of the Church except the one who is a messenger of the word of God, called to govern the Church, and whom it sometimes calls a bishop, sometimes an elder, and sometimes a pastor.
If they reply that the canons forbid admitting anyone to orders without a title, I am not ignorant of this. But I do not accept as legitimate the titles they put forward. Are not most of their titles dignities, offices, provostships, canonries, prebends, chaplaincies, priories, and monasteries, derived partly from cathedral churches, partly from collegiate churches, partly from cloisters, and partly from ruined and abandoned houses?
I regard these seats as nothing but brothels of Satan, and I boldly affirm it. For to what occupation are all such people ordained except to sacrifice and immolate Jesus Christ? In short, they ordain no one except for the purpose of sacrificing, which is not to consecrate him to God but to dedicate him to devils.
The true and only ordination, on the contrary, is to call to the government of the Church a person whose life and doctrine have been thoroughly examined and to establish him in that office. In this sense we must understand the passages from Saint Paul cited above, although they include both the calling and its ceremony.
We shall speak of the ceremony later in its proper place. For now, let us consider the matter before us: by whom the ministers of the Church ought to be ordained—that is, established in their office.
What, then, shall we say? Did Saint Paul give Timothy and Titus the rights of appointment now claimed by the mitered princes? Certainly, nothing could be further from the truth.
Rather, having charged both of them to establish and order the churches of the provinces in which he had left them, he exhorted the one not to permit the churches to remain without pastors and warned the other to receive no one who had not been thoroughly examined.
Did Paul and Barnabas confer ecclesiastical possessions as metropolitans and archbishops do today? Certainly not. Moreover, I do not believe that they placed whomever they pleased over the churches without informing them and learning their wishes. Rather, I believe that, after consulting with those churches and hearing their judgment, they appointed those whom they knew to excel others in holiness of life and purity of doctrine.
This is indeed how it ought to have been done if those possessing power and preeminence wished to preserve the churches in their proper integrity. When a church was considering the election of a minister, before proceeding to the election it should have summoned from the surrounding region one or two bishops especially renowned for integrity of life and soundness of doctrine. Together with them, the church should have considered whom it would be best to appoint to that office.
No certain rule can be given as to whether it is better for a bishop to be elected by the whole assembly of Christians or according to the judgment of certain persons entrusted with this responsibility. The decision must be made according to the circumstances of the time, the character of the people, and other considerations.
Saint Cyprian strongly maintains that an election is not duly conducted unless it is made by the votes of the whole people. The histories show that this practice was observed in many regions during his time.
Yet since it scarcely ever happens that so many minds accomplish anything well by common consent, and since the proverb is almost always true that the common people divide into factions according to their unconsidered passions, it seems to me most expedient that the magistrate, the council, or certain of the elders should be entrusted with this responsibility. As I have said, they should first summon some neighboring bishops whose lives and doctrine possess a good reputation. But princes or other rulers who possess zeal for godliness may make better provision for this according to the demands of the circumstances.
Certainly, no person of sound judgment will deny that it belongs to the order of a lawful calling for bishops to be elected by men, since Scripture bears so many testimonies to this manner of election.
Saint Paul does not contradict this when he denies that he was sent from men or by man:
“Paul, an Apostle—not from men nor through man.”
The first point—not being sent from men—was common to him and to all good ministers of the word. We confess that this must be universally observed, since no one can rightly receive this office unless he has been called by God.
The second point, however—not being sent through man—was peculiar and particular to Saint Paul. By glorying that he had not been sent through men, he does not merely claim what belongs to every true and lawful pastor, but presents the marks of his Apostleship.
For there were some among the Galatians who, wishing to diminish his authority, represented him as an ordinary disciple appointed by the chief Apostles. Therefore, to preserve the dignity of his preaching, against which he saw such snares being laid, he needed to demonstrate that he was in no respect inferior to the other Apostles.
He therefore affirms that he was not chosen by human judgment according to the customary manner of ecclesiastical pastors, but was appointed by the Lord’s own word and an open revelation.
Even though the Lord chose Saint Paul by his own word through a singular privilege, he nevertheless also employed the discipline and order of an ecclesiastical calling. For Saint Luke recounts that while the Apostles were fasting and praying, the Holy Spirit said:
“Set apart for me Paul and Barnabas for the work to which I have appointed them.”
What purpose did this separation and laying on of hands serve after the Holy Spirit had testified to Paul’s election, except that ecclesiastical discipline should be observed by ordaining ministers through men?
The Lord could not have approved this order by a more remarkable example. Although he had already declared that he had appointed Paul as Apostle to the Gentiles, he nevertheless willed that Paul should be established by the Church.
The same thing may be seen in the election of Matthias. Because the Apostolic office was of such importance that the Apostles did not dare appoint anyone to their company by their own judgment, they placed two men before the assembly upon one of whom the lot might fall. In this way the election would possess clear testimony from heaven, while ecclesiastical order would nevertheless not be neglected.
Certainly, our horned prelates have utterly perverted the good order that ought to prevail through their rights of collation, presentation, representation, patronage, nomination, and other forms of tyrannical domination.
“But,” they say, “the wickedness of the times required it. Since the common people were influenced more by favor or hatred in electing bishops than they were governed by sound judgment, this power had to be transferred to certain chief prelates.”
Even if we grant that this was the remedy for a desperate disease, now that the medicine is known to be more harmful than the disease, why is no provision made against this new evil?
They answer that the canons strictly forbid bishops to abuse their power to the detriment of the Church. Yet, if we are willing to confess the truth, the canons are more like torches kindled to burn the whole world than sound rules for preserving orderly discipline. But I leave that matter aside for the present.
Why do they cite the canons to me when their own authors treat them as pure mockery whenever they please?
Can we doubt that in ancient times the people understood themselves to be bound by most holy laws when they saw the rule for electing bishops set before them in the word of God? For this one voice of God ought rightly to have been esteemed beyond comparison more highly than a hundred million canons.
Nevertheless, when the people were corrupted by wicked passions, they paid no regard to either reason or law. In the same manner, although good laws are written today, they remain hidden and buried on paper.
Meanwhile, the accepted and established custom is to ordain as pastors of churches none but barbers, cooks, cupbearers, muleteers, bastards, and every similar kind of person. Yet I have still not said enough. Bishoprics and parishes are also bestowed as rewards for pimping and sexual immorality. When they are given to huntsmen and thieves, matters are regarded as proceeding very well.
It is absurd to defend such an abomination by appealing to the canons.
I say again that the people formerly possessed an excellent canon when the word of God taught them:
“A bishop must be blameless, sound in doctrine, not quarrelsome, and not greedy.”
Why, then, was the responsibility of electing a minister transferred from the people to these prelates? They can give no answer except that the word of God could no longer be heard amid the people’s disputes and factions.
Why, then, should this power not now be taken from the bishops, who not only violate every law but shamelessly and without embarrassment confound heaven and earth through their greed, ambition, and unrestrained lust?
Is it even tolerable to hear men called pastors of churches who have never seen a single sheep of their flock; who have taken possession of their church by force and violence as though it were a conquered territory; who have obtained it through litigation; who have purchased it with ready money; who have gained it through degrading services; or who entered it as little children, as though it were their inheritance and family estate?
Did the audacity of the people, corrupt and inconsiderate though it may have been, ever proceed to such lengths?
Those who behold the present condition of the Church without being deeply grieved are cruel and inhuman. Those who possess the power to set it in order but show no concern surpass all inhumanity.
We must now address the second point concerning the calling of pastors: by what ceremony they ought to be introduced into their office.
When our Lord sent his Apostles to preach the gospel, he breathed upon them. By this sign he represented the power of the Holy Spirit that he was placing within them.
These worthy gentlemen have retained this breathing. As though they were vomiting the Holy Spirit from their throats, they mutter over the priests they are ordaining:
“Receive the Holy Spirit.”
Thus, they leave nothing that they do not perversely counterfeit. I do not say that they behave like performers and actors, who possess some skill and method in their gestures, but like apes eager to imitate everything without reason or judgment.
“We follow our Lord’s example,” they say. But our Lord did many things that he did not intend us to imitate. He said to his disciples, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” He also said:
“Lazarus, come forth.”
And to the paralytic:
“Rise and walk.”
Why do they not say the same to every dead person and paralytic?
Our Lord displayed the work of his divine power when, by breathing upon his Apostles, he filled them with the grace of the Holy Spirit. If these men attempt to do the same, they encroach upon God and virtually challenge him to battle. But they are very far from producing the same effect and accomplish nothing by their foolish mimicry except to mock Christ.
It is true that they are so shameless as to dare claim that the Holy Spirit is conferred through them. But experience demonstrates how true this is, for it plainly shows us that all who are consecrated as priests are changed from horses into asses and from fools into madmen.
Nevertheless, I do not dispute that point with them. I reprove only this ceremony, which should not have been drawn into a general practice, since Christ employed it as a special sign of the miracle he was performing. So far is their excuse of imitating Christ from helping their cause.
Moreover, from whom did they derive their anointing? They answer that they derived it from the sons of Aaron, from whom their order originally descended. Thus, they prefer to defend themselves with misapplied examples rather than confess that what they rashly practice is their own invention.
They fail to consider that by claiming to be successors of the sons of Aaron they dishonor the priesthood of Jesus Christ, which alone was prefigured by the Levitical priesthoods. All those priesthoods were therefore fulfilled and brought to an end in his. In him they ceased, as we have already said several times, and as the Epistle to the Hebrews testifies without need of a thousand glosses.
If they take such delight in the Mosaic ceremonies, why do they not still sacrifice oxen, calves, and lambs? They certainly retain a large part of the Tabernacle and the whole Jewish religion. Yet they lack this one thing: they do not sacrifice calves and oxen.
Who does not see that this observance of anointing is far more dangerous and pernicious than circumcision, especially when joined with superstition and a Pharisaical opinion concerning the merit of the work? The Jews placed confidence in their righteousness through circumcision; these men place spiritual graces in their anointing.
For they say that this sacred oil impresses a character that cannot be erased, which they call indelible—as though the oil could not be removed and cleansed with dust and salt, or, if it were too deeply stained, with soap.
“But this character is spiritual.” What fellowship does oil have with the soul?
Have they forgotten what they cite from Saint Augustine: that if the word is separated from the water, nothing remains but water, since it is by the word that the water becomes a sacrament? What word will they produce for their grease?
Will it be the command given to Moses to anoint the sons of Aaron? But Moses was likewise commanded concerning all the priestly garments and other ornaments with which Aaron was to be clothed, and the vestments with which his sons were to be adorned. He was further commanded to kill a calf and burn its blood, to slaughter and burn rams, and to consecrate the ears and garments of Aaron and his sons with the blood of one of the rams, together with innumerable other ceremonies.
I marvel that they have omitted all these while fastening upon the anointing alone. And if they delight in being sprinkled, why do they prefer oil to blood?
They are certainly devising something ingenious: a separate religion composed of Christianity, Judaism, and paganism, as though sewn together from many pieces. Their anointing therefore stinks because it lacks salt—that is, the word of God.
There remains the laying on of hands, which the Apostles plainly observed whenever they ordained someone to the ministry of the Church. Thus Saint Paul calls the appointment by which Timothy was established as bishop the laying on of hands of the presbytery.
I am not unaware that some understand “presbytery” here to mean the assembly of elders. In my judgment, however, we should understand it more simply as referring to the ministry, since elsewhere Saint Paul mentions only himself without speaking of several persons:
“I exhort you to stir up the gift that you received through the laying on of my hands.”
I believe that this practice arose from the custom of the Hebrews, who, by laying on hands, presented to God whatever they wished to be sanctified and blessed. Thus Jacob, wishing to bless Ephraim and Manasseh, laid his hands upon their heads. In the same sense, it seems to me, the Jews laid their hands upon their sacrifices according to the commandment of the law.
Therefore, by laying on hands, the Apostles signified that they offered and dedicated to God the person upon whom they laid their hands.
What, then? Someone may ask whether they were clinging to the shadows of the law. Certainly not. Rather, without superstition, they employed this sign whenever it was useful.
They laid their hands upon those for whom they asked God to give the Holy Spirit. They administered him through this sign to signify and make known that he did not proceed from them but descended from above. In sum, through this sign they commended to God the person upon whom they asked that the grace of the Holy Spirit should be conferred, which it pleased God at that time to distribute through their ministry.
But whatever the purpose of the ceremony may have been, does it immediately follow that it must be a sacrament?
The Apostles prayed upon their knees. Can no one, then, bend the knee without performing a sacrament? It is recounted that the Apostles turned toward the east to pray. Must facing east become a sacrament for us?
Saint Paul commands:
“Let men everywhere lift up holy hands to
God.”
And it is frequently related that the saints prayed with uplifted hands. Must this gesture also become a sacrament?
In short, must all the practices of the saints be turned into sacraments?
Leaving aside every dispute, then, we shall briefly explain what use may presently be made of this ceremony. If we used it, as the Apostles did, for the purpose of conferring the gifts of the Holy Spirit, it would be a mockery. For neither this commission nor this sign has been appointed to us by God.
Yet this is what the Pope and his followers continually endeavor to do: to persuade people that through such signs they confer the gifts of the Holy Spirit, as we have discussed more fully when considering their Confirmation.
But suppose that the person received as bishop is placed in the midst of the assembly of believers, instructed concerning his office, and prayed over while the elders lay their hands upon his head—not because of any other mystery, but so that he may understand that he is being offered and dedicated to God to serve him in this office, and so that the Church may be moved to commend him to God through its united prayers. Such a laying on of hands will not be condemned by anyone of sound judgment.
Although the word “deacon” possesses a broad meaning, Scripture particularly calls those men deacons whom the Church appoints as stewards and administrators to distribute alms from the common fund for the poor. Saint Luke records their origin, institution, and office in Acts.
When the Apostles heard the complaint of the Greeks that their widows were being neglected in the distribution to the poor, they explained that they could not adequately discharge both responsibilities—the preaching of the word and the care of the poor. They therefore asked the congregation to choose from among themselves seven men of good character to whom this responsibility might be entrusted.
This, then, is the office of deacons: to care for the poor and administer what they need. Their name is derived from this office, for “deacon” signifies “minister.”
Saint Luke then recounts their appointment:
“They presented the men whom they had chosen before the Apostles, who prayed and laid their hands upon them.”
I would desire the Church today to possess such deacons and to appoint them with the same ceremony—namely, the laying on of hands—concerning which we have said what seemed sufficient.
Saint Paul likewise speaks of deacons, requiring that they be dignified, not double-tongued, not given to wine, not seeking dishonest gain, well instructed in the faith, husbands of one wife, and governing their children and households well.
But what resemblance do the deacons these men fabricate bear to such ministers? I say nothing about the persons themselves, lest they complain that we wrong them by judging their doctrine according to the vices of particular men. But I maintain that they act unreasonably when they appeal to the deacons appointed by the Apostolic Church as support for the kind of deacons they portray in their doctrine.
They say that it belongs to their deacons to assist the priests and serve in everything required for the sacraments, such as Baptism and chrism; to pour the wine into the chalice and place the bread upon the paten; to arrange the altar properly; to carry the cross; and to read the Gospel and Epistle to the people. Is there in all this a single word concerning the true office of deacons?
Now let us hear how they ordain them. The bishop alone lays his hand upon the deacon whom he ordains. He places the stole over his left shoulder so that he may understand that he has taken upon himself the easy yoke of God, in order to subject everything belonging to the left side to the fear of God. He gives him a book of the Gospels so that he may know himself to be their herald.
What do any of these things have to do with deacons? They act as though someone, wishing to ordain Apostles, appointed them to burn incense, adorn images, light candles, sweep churches, set mousetraps, and chase away dogs. Who would tolerate such people being called Apostles and compared with the Apostles of Christ?
Henceforth, then, let them not pretend that those whom they ordain only for their farces and theatrical displays are deacons.
They also call them Levites and derive their origin from the sons of Levi. I shall grant them this if they will also confess what is true: that by renouncing Jesus Christ they return to the Levitical ceremonies and the shadows of the Mosaic law.
Let us now conclude generally what judgment must be made concerning the sacrament of Orders. To bring the matter to an end without repeating from the beginning what has already been explained, the following should satisfy those who are willing to be teachable and modest, for whom this book is intended.
There is no sacrament except where a ceremony appears joined to a promise—or rather, where the promise shines forth in the ceremony. Here we do not find a single syllable of any special promise. It would therefore be vain to seek a ceremony intended to confirm the promise. Moreover, no ceremony ordained by God is found here. There can therefore be no sacrament.
OF MARRIAGE
The final sacrament they count is Marriage. Everyone confesses that it was instituted by God, but no one perceived it to be a sacrament until the time of Pope Gregory. And what person of sound judgment would ever have imagined it?
It is certainly a good and holy ordinance of God. So too are the occupations of farmers, masons, shoemakers, and barbers, yet these are not sacraments. For a sacrament requires not merely that something be a work of God, but that it be an outward ceremony ordained by God to confirm some promise. Even children can judge that there is nothing of this kind in Marriage.
“But,” they say, “it is a sign of a sacred thing—namely, the spiritual union of Christ with the Church.”
If by the word “sign” they mean a mark or token presented to us by God to sustain our faith, they come nowhere near the mark. If they mean merely a sign produced by way of comparison, I shall demonstrate the subtlety of their reasoning.
Saint Paul says:
“As one star differs from another in brightness, so shall it be in the resurrection of the dead.”
Behold one sacrament.
Christ says:
“The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed.”
Behold another.
Again:
“The kingdom of heaven is like leaven.”
Behold a third.
Isaiah says:
“The Lord will lead his flock like a shepherd.”
Behold the fourth. In another passage:
"The Lord shall go forth like a mighty man."
Behold the fifth. And where would it end? According to this reasoning, there would be nothing that was not a sacrament. There would be as many sacraments as there are comparisons and parables in Scripture.
Indeed, theft itself would become a sacrament, since it is written:
"The day of the Lord shall come like a thief."
Who could endure these Sophists babbling so foolishly?
I readily confess that whenever we see a vine, it is very good to recall our Lord's words:
"I am the vine; you are the branches; my Father is the husbandman."
—John 15:1, 5
When a shepherd appears before us, it is good to remember Christ's words:
"I am the good Shepherd. My sheep hear my voice."
—John 10:11, 27
But if anyone were to make sacraments of such comparisons, he ought to be sent to a physician.
Nevertheless, they appeal to Saint Paul's words, in which they say the name "sacrament" is attributed to Marriage:
"He who loves his wife loves himself. No one has ever hated..."
Behold the fourth. In another passage:
“The Lord shall go forth like a mighty man.”
Behold the fifth. And where would it end? According to this reasoning, there would be nothing that was not a sacrament. There would be as many sacraments as there are comparisons and parables in Scripture.
Indeed, theft itself would become a sacrament, since it is written:
“The day of the Lord shall come like a thief.”
Who could endure these Sophists babbling so foolishly?
I readily confess that whenever we see a vine, it is very good to recall our Lord’s words:
“I am the vine; you are the branches; my Father is the husbandman.”
—John 15:1, 5
When a shepherd appears before us, it is good to remember Christ’s words:
“I am the good Shepherd. My sheep hear my voice.”
—John 10:11, 27
But if anyone were to make sacraments of such comparisons, he ought to be sent to a physician.
Nevertheless, they appeal to Saint Paul’s words, in which they say the name “sacrament” is attributed to Marriage:
“He who loves his wife loves himself. No one has ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the Church. For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. This is a great mystery; I speak concerning Christ and his Church.”
But to handle Scripture in this manner is to confound heaven and earth. Saint Paul, wishing to show husbands the singular love they owe their wives, sets Christ before them as their example. For just as Christ poured out all the treasures of his tenderness upon the Church to which he had joined himself, so every man must maintain the same affection toward his wife.
He then says, “He who loves his wife loves himself, just as Christ loved the Church.” To explain how Christ loved the Church as himself—or rather, how he made himself one with the Church, his bride—he applies to Christ what Moses recounts that Adam said.
For when our Lord brought Eve before Adam, whom Adam knew had been formed from his side, he said:
“This is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.”
Saint Paul testifies that all this was fulfilled in Christ and in us when he calls us members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones—or rather, one flesh with him.
Finally, he concludes with an exclamation: “This is a great mystery.” And lest anyone be misled by the ambiguity, he expressly adds that he is not speaking of the bodily union of a man and woman, but of the spiritual marriage of Christ and his Church.
It is indeed a great secret and mystery that Christ permitted a rib to be taken from himself from which we might be formed. That is, although he was strong, he willed to become weak so that we might be strengthened by his power, with the result that we do not merely live, but he lives in us.
They were deceived by the word “sacrament” used in the common translation. But was it right that the whole Church should suffer because of their ignorance?
Saint Paul used the word “mystery,” which signifies a secret. Although the translator could have rendered it “secret,” or simply retained the word “mystery,” since it was already sufficiently familiar among Latin speakers, he preferred to translate it as “sacrament.” Yet he intended no other meaning than Saint Paul conveyed by the Greek word “mystery.”
Let them now cry out against the knowledge of languages, through ignorance of which they deceive themselves in so simple and manifest a matter.
But why do they fasten so firmly upon the word “sacrament” in this passage while elsewhere, whenever it suits them, they pass over it carelessly and without notice? For the translator also used it in the First Epistle to Timothy and several times in this same Epistle to the Ephesians, everywhere with no other meaning than “mystery.”
Even if this error were forgiven them, they should at least have possessed a good enough memory to remain consistent in their falsehood and not contradict themselves.
After adorning Marriage with the title of sacrament, they now call it uncleanness, pollution, and carnal defilement. What inconsistency and fickleness is this? How absurd is it to forbid priests a sacrament?
If they deny that they forbid priests the sacrament itself, but only the pleasure of the carnal act, they still do not escape. For they teach that the carnal act is a sacrament and that it represents the union we have with Christ through conformity of nature, since man and woman do not become one flesh except through bodily union.
Some of them, however, have discovered two sacraments here: one representing God and the soul in the bridegroom and bride, and the other representing Christ and the Church in the husband and wife.
Whatever the case, according to their teaching, the carnal act is a sacrament from which no Christian ought lawfully to be excluded—unless they wish to say that Christian sacraments agree so poorly with one another that they cannot coexist.
There is yet another absurdity in their doctrine. They affirm that the grace of the Holy Spirit is conferred in a sacrament, and they confess that the carnal act is a sacrament; yet they deny that the Holy Spirit is present in it.
And lest they should deceive the Church in only one matter, what a multitude of errors, falsehoods, deceptions, and wickednesses have they joined to this error! One might say that in making Marriage a sacrament they did nothing but seek a hiding place for every abomination.
For once they had secured this point, they drew to themselves jurisdiction over matrimonial causes, claiming that Marriage was a sacred matter with which lay judges ought not to interfere.
Moreover, they enacted laws to establish their tyranny, some wicked and contrary to God, and others unjust toward men, such as the following.
Marriages contracted between young persons who remain under their parents’ authority, without the consent of those parents, are nevertheless to remain firm and irrevocable.
Marriage may not be contracted between cousins related within the seventh degree—for what is truly the fourth degree according to the proper understanding of the law is counted by them as the seventh—and marriages already contracted within these degrees must be annulled and dissolved.
Moreover, they fabricate degrees of relationship according to their own pleasure, contrary to the laws of all nations and even to the ordinance of Moses.
A man who has put away an adulterous wife may not take another.
Those who are spiritually related may not contract marriage with one another.
No weddings may be celebrated from Septuagesima until the octave of Easter, nor during the three weeks preceding the Nativity of Saint John, for which they now substitute the week of Pentecost and the two preceding weeks.
Nor may weddings be celebrated from Advent until Epiphany, together with innumerable other prohibitions that it would take too long to recount.
In sum, we must escape from their mire, in which we have remained longer than I would have wished. Nevertheless, I believe I have accomplished something by exposing, at least in part, the stupidity of these asses.