Part 24
namely, that the sacraments are instituted by God to teach us concerning some promise of his and to testify to his favor toward us.
"Who has been the Lord's counselor?"
—Isaiah 40:13; Romans 11:34
No one, therefore, can certainly promise us anything concerning God's favor, assure us what disposition he bears toward us, or declare what he wills to give and what he wills to deny. It follows that no one can ordain or institute a sign that testifies to any will or promise of God. God alone, by giving us a sign, can testify concerning himself toward us.
I shall state it more briefly and perhaps more bluntly, but also more plainly: there can never be a sacrament without a promise of salvation. All men assembled together could not of themselves promise us anything concerning our salvation. Therefore, they cannot by themselves ordain or establish any sacrament.
Let the Christian Church, then, be content with these two. Let it not only refuse to admit, approve, or acknowledge any other at present, but let it never desire or expect a third until the consummation of the age.
Various signs were indeed ordained for the Jews at different times, in addition to those they ordinarily possessed—such as the manna, the water flowing from the rock, the bronze serpent, and others like them. But this diversity was intended to warn them not to rest in such figures, whose condition was not permanent, but to expect from
God something better that would remain unchangeable and without end.
Our situation is entirely different, for Jesus Christ has been revealed and manifested to us:
"In him are hidden all the treasures of knowledge and wisdom."
—Colossians 2:3
These treasures are present in him with such abundance and fullness that to expect or demand any new addition to them would truly be to tempt God and provoke him to anger against us. We must hunger only for Jesus Christ, seek him, behold him, learn him, and hold fast to him until that great Day comes when our Lord will fully manifest the glory of his kingdom and openly reveal himself to us as he is.
For this reason, the time in which we live is designated in Scripture as "the last hour," "the last days," and "the last times," so that no one may be deceived by any vain expectation of some new doctrine or revelation.
"Having formerly spoken many times and in many ways through the Prophets, the Lord has spoken in these last days through his beloved Son."
—Hebrews 1:1–2
He alone can reveal the Father to us.
Now, just as men are forbidden to make or institute new sacraments in the Church of God, so it would be desirable that as little human invention as possible should be mingled with those sacraments instituted by God. For just as wine is weakened and loses its flavor when mixed with water, and the whole batch of dough is soured by leaven, so the purity of God's mysteries is only defiled and corrupted when man adds anything of his own.
Yet we see how greatly the sacraments, as practiced today, have degenerated from their original purity. Everywhere there is far more pomp, ceremony, and theatrical display than there ought to be, while no account or mention is made of the word of God, without which the sacraments themselves are not sacraments.
Even the ceremonies instituted by God cannot appear amid so great a multitude of others, but are oppressed and cast into the background. How little do we see in Baptism of that which alone ought to shine forth and appear—namely, Baptism itself! The Supper was entirely buried when it was transformed and converted into the Mass. It is seen in some measure only once a year, and then torn apart, cut up, separated, broken, divided, and wholly disfigured.
How much better it would be if, whenever anyone was to be baptized, he were presented before the congregation of believers; if the whole Church, witnessing, watching, and praying over him, offered him to God; if the confession of faith in which the person being received into the faith must be instructed were recited; if the promises contained in Baptism were set forth and declared; if he were then baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and if, finally, he were sent forth with prayers and thanksgiving.
In this way, nothing useful to Baptism would be omitted, and that one ceremony of which God is the author would shine forth most clearly without being obscured by any foreign corruptions.
As for whether the person being baptized is entirely immersed in water or whether water is merely poured upon him, this is a matter of no importance. According to the differing circumstances of various regions, it should remain within the liberty of the churches, for the sign is represented in either form. Nevertheless, the word "baptize" itself signifies complete immersion, and it is certain that the practice of entirely immersing the person was observed in the ancient Church.
As for the sacred Supper, it could be administered very fittingly if it were offered to the Church frequently, and at least once each week, in the following manner. First, the service should begin with public prayers, followed by the preaching of the word. Then, with bread and wine set upon the table, the minister should recite the institution of the Supper and afterward declare the promises left to us in it. At the same time, he should exclude from it all those who are barred by the Lord's prohibition.
Prayer should then be made that, just as our Lord in his kindness has granted us this sacred nourishment, so he would also be pleased to teach and prepare us to receive it rightly through faith and heartfelt gratitude; and that, since we are not worthy of such a banquet in ourselves, he would by his mercy make us worthy of it.
At this point, psalms should be sung or some portion of Scripture read. Then the believers should partake of this holy food in a fitting
and orderly manner, with the ministers breaking and distributing the bread and presenting the cup.
When the Supper has ended, there should be an exhortation to pure faith, a steadfast confession of it, love, and conduct worthy of Christians. Finally, thanksgiving should be rendered and praises sung to God.
When all these things had been completed, the Church and congregation should be dismissed in peace.
Whether believers take the bread into their own hands or not; whether they divide it among themselves or each one eats what has been given to him; whether they return the cup to the minister or pass it to the person beside them; whether the bread is leavened or unleavened; whether the wine is red or white—all this is immaterial and of no consequence. For these matters are indifferent and left to the liberty of the Church.
Nevertheless, it is certain that the practice of the ancient Church was for everyone to receive the bread into his own hand. And Jesus Christ said:
"Divide it among yourselves."
—Luke 22:17
It is evident from the histories that before the time of Alexander, Bishop of Rome, the bread used in the Supper was leavened bread of the ordinary kind commonly eaten. Alexander was the first to delight in using unleavened bread. I see no reason for this except that by a
novel spectacle he wished to draw the eyes of the common people into admiration rather than instruct their hearts in true religion.
I appeal to all who are touched, however slightly, by any affection for godliness: Do they not plainly see how much more clearly God's glory shines forth in such a use of the sacraments, and how much greater sweetness and spiritual consolation believers receive from it, than from these foolish and empty theatrical displays? Such spectacles serve no purpose except to deceive the minds of the people, who marvel at them and are filled with dread.
They call this keeping the people in religion and the fear of God, when in fact the people, stupefied and made senseless by superstition, are led wherever these men please.
If anyone wishes to defend these inventions on the ground of antiquity, I am not ignorant of how ancient the use of chrism and breathing upon the candidate in Baptism is, nor how soon after the age of the Apostles the Supper of our Lord became, as it were, corroded by human inventions. But such is the rashness and folly of human presumption and audacity that it cannot restrain itself from playing with the mysteries of God.
We, on the contrary, must remember that God esteems obedience to his word so highly that he wills us to judge by it both his angels and the whole world.
--------------
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
Regarding the Five Other Ceremonies Falsely Called Sacraments: Confirmation, Penance, Extreme Unction, Ecclesiastical Orders, and
Marriage
The preceding discussion of the sacraments should have satisfied every sober and teachable person, preventing them from pressing further out of curiosity or receiving, apart from the word of God, any sacraments beyond the two they know to have been instituted by the Lord.
Nevertheless, because the belief in seven sacraments has always been so widespread among men and so frequently discussed in disputations and sermons that, through long usage, it has become rooted in their hearts and remains firmly fixed there even now, I have thought it profitable to consider separately and more closely the other five commonly numbered among the Lord's sacraments. Having exposed every falsehood, I intend to show the simple what these ceremonies truly are and how they have thus far been wrongly regarded as sacraments.
First, we must retain what we have already established by an invincible argument: that the power to institute sacraments belongs to God alone. For a sacrament must assure and comfort the consciences of believers by a certain promise of God, and they could never receive such assurance from any man.
A sacrament must be a testimony to us of God's favor toward us, of which neither man nor angel can bear witness from himself, since:
"Who has been the Lord's counselor?"
—Romans 11:34
God alone testifies to us concerning himself through his word.
A sacrament is a seal by which God's testament and promise are sealed. Yet that promise could not be sealed by bodily things and the elements of this world unless they had been marked and appointed for this purpose. Man, therefore, cannot institute a sacrament, since human power cannot cause such great mysteries of God to be concealed beneath such lowly things. The word of God must precede in order to make a sacrament a sacrament.
OF CONFIRMATION
Confirmation, as it is called, is the first sign that human presumption has devised of itself and put forward as a sacrament of God. Its inventors have claimed that its power is to confer the Holy Spirit for the increase of the grace that was given in Baptism unto innocence, and to strengthen for battle those who were regenerated unto life in Baptism.
This Confirmation is performed with anointing and the following form of words: "I mark you with the sign of the holy cross and confirm you with the anointing of salvation, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."
All this is beautiful and pleasing, but where is the word of God that promises the presence of the Holy Spirit here? They cannot show so much as a letter of it. How, then, will they assure us that their chrism is a vessel of the Holy Spirit? We see oil—a thick and greasy liquid— and nothing more.
"Let the word be added to the element," says Saint Augustine, "and it will become a sacrament." Let them therefore show us this word if they wish us to behold anything in the oil besides the oil itself.
If they acknowledged themselves, as they ought, to be ministers of the sacraments, there would be no need to dispute any further. The first rule of a minister is to attempt nothing without a command. Let them produce some command authorizing them to do this, and I shall say no more. If they have no command, they cannot excuse their deed from being an exceedingly outrageous presumption.
For the same reason, our Lord asked the Pharisees:
"Was the baptism of John from heaven or from men?"
—Luke 20:4
If they had answered, "From men," he would have established that it was empty and frivolous. If they had answered, "From heaven," they would have been compelled to receive John's doctrine. Therefore, lest they should too greatly dishonor John, they did not dare confess that his baptism was from men.
Likewise, if Confirmation is from men, it is settled that it is empty and frivolous. If they wish to persuade us that it is from heaven, let
them prove it.
They defend themselves by the example of the Apostles, whom they suppose to have done nothing without good reason. This is certainly true, and we would not reprove them if they could show themselves to be imitators of the Apostles. But what did the Apostles do? Saint Luke recounts in Acts:
"When the Apostles at Jerusalem heard that the country of Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. When they arrived, they prayed for the Samaritans that they might receive the Holy Spirit, for he had not yet descended upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of Jesus. Then, after praying, they laid their hands upon them, and through this laying on of hands the Samaritans received the Holy Spirit."
—Acts 8:14–17
Saint Luke also mentions this laying on of hands several other times.
I hear what the Apostles did: they faithfully discharged their office. The Lord willed that the visible and wondrous gifts of his Holy Spirit, which he was then pouring out upon his people, should be administered by the Apostles and distributed through this laying on of hands.
I imagine no profound mystery in this ceremony. Rather, I believe that the Apostles adopted it to signify that they commended to God and offered to him the person upon whom they laid their hands.
If the ministry then appointed to the Apostles still existed in the Church today, the laying on of hands should likewise be retained. But since such grace is no longer conferred, what purpose does the laying on of hands serve?
The Holy Spirit certainly still assists the people of God, for without his direction and guidance the Church cannot continue. We possess the unfailing promise by which Christ calls to himself those who thirst so that they may drink living water:
"If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink."
—John 7:37
But the wondrous powers and visible operations distributed through the laying on of hands have ceased and were intended to continue only for a time. For the new preaching of the gospel and the new kingdom of Christ had to be exalted and magnified by miracles such as had never before been seen or known.
When the Lord caused these miracles to cease, he did not therefore forsake his Church. Rather, he declared that the magnificence of his kingdom and the dignity of his word had already been sufficiently and gloriously manifested.
In what respect, then, do these charlatans imitate the Apostles? The laying on of hands ought immediately to produce a visible manifestation of the Holy Spirit's power. They accomplish nothing of the kind. Why, then, do they appeal to the laying on of hands in their defense? We certainly confess that it was practiced by the Apostles, but for an entirely different purpose.
Their argument is as frivolous as if someone were to say that the Lord's breathing upon his disciples was a sacrament by which the Holy Spirit is given.
But although the Lord did this once, he did not will that we should do the same. In this manner the Apostles used the laying on of hands for as long as it pleased the Lord, in answer to their prayers, to bestow the gifts of the Holy Spirit. He did not intend those who came afterward to counterfeit this empty and fruitless sign, as these apes do.
Moreover, even if they could show that in laying on hands they imitate the Apostles—although they have nothing in common with them except a foolish and perverse mimicry—where did they obtain the oil they call the oil of salvation? Who taught them to seek salvation in oil and to attribute to it the power of imparting spiritual strength?
Was it Saint Paul, who draws us so far away from the elements of this world and condemns nothing more strongly than bondage to such observances?
On the contrary, I boldly declare—not from myself, but from God— that those who call oil the oil of salvation renounce the salvation that is in Christ, reject Christ, and have no part in the kingdom of God. For oil is for the stomach and the stomach for oil, and the Lord will destroy them both. That is, all these weak elements that perish through use have no place in the kingdom of God, which is spiritual and everlasting.
Someone may say to me here: "What, then? Will you apply this same rule to the water with which we are baptized and to the bread and wine under which the Lord's body and blood are presented to us in the Supper?"
I answer that two things must be considered in the sacraments: the substance of the bodily thing presented to us and the mark impressed upon it by the word of God, in which its entire power consists.
Insofar as the bread, wine, and water presented to our eyes in the sacraments retain their natural substance, Saint Paul's statement applies:
"Food is for the stomach, and the stomach for food; but the Lord will destroy them both."
—1 Corinthians 6:13
For such substances pass away and vanish with the form of this world. But insofar as these things are sanctified by the word of God to become sacraments, they do not detain us in the flesh but instruct us spiritually.
Nevertheless, let us examine still more closely how many monstrosities this oil nourishes. These anointers say that the Holy Spirit is given in Baptism for innocence and in Confirmation for the increase of grace.
They say that in Baptism we are regenerated, while in Confirmation we are armed for battle. So shameless are they that they deny
Baptism is fully complete without Confirmation. O perversity!
Are we not buried with Christ so that we may be made participants in his resurrection? Saint Paul interprets this participation in the death and life of Jesus Christ as the mortification of our flesh and the vivification of the good Spirit:
"Our old man was crucified with him, so that we might walk in newness of life."
—Romans 6:4, 6
Could anyone be better armed for battle against the Devil?
As for Saint Luke's statement in the passage we cited—that the Samaritans had been baptized in the name of Jesus but had not received the Holy Spirit—he does not simply deny that they had received any gift of the Spirit, since they believed in Jesus Christ with the heart and confessed him with the mouth. Rather, he means that they had not received that gift of the Spirit by which manifest powers and visible graces were conferred.
For the same reason, it is said that the Apostles received the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, although long before they had been told:
"It is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you."
—Matthew 10:20
All you who belong to God, behold here the malicious and pestilent subtlety of Satan. What was truly given in Baptism, he causes to be
given in his Confirmation, so that he may cunningly draw us away from Baptism.
Who can now doubt that this doctrine is from Satan, since it cuts away from Baptism the promises that properly belong to it and transfers them elsewhere? We see again, I say, the foundation upon which this notable anointing rests.
The word of God says:
"All who have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ,"
—Galatians 3:27
together with his gifts. The word of the anointers says that in Baptism we received no promise that arms us for battle against the Devil. The first voice is the voice of truth; the second must therefore be the voice of falsehood.
I can therefore define this Confirmation more truthfully than they have done thus far: it is a direct insult against Baptism that obscures and abolishes its proper use; or it is a false promise of the Devil intended to draw us away from the truth of God; or, if one prefers, it is oil polluted by the Devil's falsehood, used to deceive the simple and unwary.
Moreover, these anointers add that all believers must receive the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands after Baptism so that they may be found complete Christians, for no one is a complete Christian unless he has been anointed with episcopal chrism. These are their very words.
But I had thought that everything belonging to Christianity was contained and declared in Scripture. Now, as I see, the true rule of religion must be sought outside it. Thus the wisdom of God, heavenly truth, and the whole doctrine of Christ can only begin to make Christians; oil must perfect them.
By this doctrine all the Apostles and so many martyrs are condemned, for it is certain that they were never anointed with oil. That holy chrism did not yet exist by which their Christianity might be completed—or rather, by which they might be made Christians, since they were not Christians before receiving it.
But even if I remain silent, these chrism-mongers thoroughly refute themselves. What proportion of their people do they anoint after Baptism? Not a fourth part—not even a hundredth. Why, then, do they tolerate so many half-Christians within their flock when their imperfection could so easily be remedied?
Why do they so negligently permit their subjects to omit something that, according to them, cannot lawfully be omitted without grievous sin? Why do they not compel them more strongly to receive something so necessary and without which, as they say, salvation cannot be obtained, unless one is prevented by sudden death?
Certainly, by allowing it to be treated with such indifference, they tacitly confess that it is not of such great value as they pretend.
Finally, they determine that this sacred anointing must be held in greater reverence than Baptism because it is conferred only by the hands of great prelates, whereas Baptism is commonly administered by all priests.
What can be said here except that they are utterly mad? They are so enamored of their own inventions that, by comparison, they dare to despise God's holy institutions. O sacrilegious tongue! Do you dare set against Christ's sacrament grease infected only by the stench of your breath and bewitched by the muttering of a few words? Do you dare compare it with water sanctified by the word of God? But even this was too little for your audacity, since you have actually preferred it. Behold the decrees of the holy Apostolic See!
Some of them have attempted to moderate this fury with an opinion that is itself exceedingly outrageous. They have said that the oil of Confirmation should be held in greater reverence than Baptism, perhaps not because it confers greater power and benefit, but because it is administered by more dignified persons, because it is applied to a more dignified part of the body—namely, the forehead— or because it grants a greater increase of power, although Baptism is of greater value for forgiveness.
But by their first argument, do they not show themselves to be Donatists, estimating the power of the sacrament according to the dignity of its minister?
Nevertheless, let us grant them that Confirmation is called more dignified because of the dignity of the episcopal hand. But if someone asks them from what source such a prerogative was granted to bishops, what reason can they produce except their own dreams?
"The Apostles alone," they say, "exercised this right, since they alone distributed the Holy Spirit." But are bishops alone Apostles? Indeed, are they Apostles at all?
Nevertheless, let us grant them this also. Why do they not argue on the same grounds that bishops alone should touch the sacrament of the blood in our Lord's Supper, which they deny to the laity because, as they say, our Lord gave it only to the Apostles? If he gave it only to the Apostles, why do they not conclude that he therefore gave it only to bishops? But in that passage they make the Apostles mere priests; here they suddenly create them bishops.
Finally, Ananias was not an Apostle, yet he was sent to Saint Paul to restore his sight, baptize him, and fill him with the Holy Spirit.
For good measure, I shall add this also: If this office belonged exclusively to bishops by divine right, why have they dared communicate it to ordinary priests, as we read in one of Gregory's letters?
How frivolous, inept, and foolish is their other argument: that their Confirmation is more dignified than God's Baptism because in Confirmation the forehead is smeared with oil, whereas in Baptism only the crown of the head is wetted—as though Baptism were performed with oil rather than water!
I call all who fear God to witness whether these deceivers are not striving to corrupt the purity of the sacraments with the leaven of their false doctrine. I have said elsewhere that amid the multitude of human inventions one can scarcely perceive in the sacraments what truly comes from God. If anyone did not believe me then, let him at least now believe his own teachers.
Behold, the water—which is God's sign—is despised and defiled, while in Baptism they magnify only their oil. We, on the contrary, say
that in Baptism the forehead is wetted with water, in comparison with which we do not value all their oil as so much as dung, whether in Baptism or Confirmation.
If anyone objects that their oil is sold at a higher price, the answer is easy: their sale is fraud, wickedness, and theft.
By their third argument they reveal their impiety, teaching that a greater increase of power is conferred in Confirmation than in Baptism. The Apostles administered the visible gifts of the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands. But what benefit is manifested by the grease of these deceivers?
Let us leave these moderators, who cover one blasphemy with many others. It is an insoluble knot, which is better cut apart altogether than laboriously untied.
When they see themselves deprived of the word of God and of every plausible argument, they resort to their customary claim: that this observance is very ancient and has been confirmed by the consent of many ages. Even if this were true, they would still accomplish nothing. A sacrament is not from earth but from heaven, not from men but from God alone. Let them prove that God is the author of their Confirmation if they wish it to be regarded as a sacrament.
But why do they appeal to antiquity when the Ancients nowhere recognize more than two sacraments? If we had to derive the assurance of our faith from men, we would possess an impregnable fortress in the fact that the Ancients never recognized as sacraments those things that these men falsely call sacraments.
The Ancients speak of the laying on of hands, but do they call it a sacrament? Saint Augustine plainly writes that it is nothing other than prayer. Let them not come here to obscure Saint Augustine's meaning with their foolish distinctions, claiming that his words should not be understood of the laying on of hands for Confirmation, but of that used for healing or reconciliation. His book is publicly available. If I twist his words into any sense other than that in which Saint Augustine wrote them, let them spit in my face.
I would desire us to retain the practice that I believe existed among the Ancients before this abortive fiction of a sacrament arose. It was not a Confirmation, which cannot even be named without doing injury to Baptism, but a Christian instruction by which children, or those who had passed beyond childhood, were required to give an account of their faith before the Church.
This would be an excellent method of instruction if there were a form specifically prepared for this purpose, containing and explaining in familiar language all the articles of our religion in which the universal Church of believers must agree without dispute.
A child of about ten years of age should present himself before the Church to declare the confession of his faith. He should be questioned upon each article and required to answer. If he were ignorant of anything or did not understand it properly, he should be instructed, so that in the presence and witness of the Church he might confess the true, one, and pure faith in which all believers worship God with one accord.
Certainly, if this discipline were practiced, the negligence of some fathers and mothers would be corrected. They could not then neglect
the instruction of their children without great shame, though at present they care little about it. There would be greater unity of faith among the Christian people, and many would not remain so ignorant and untaught. Some would not be so easily carried away by new doctrines. In sum, everyone would possess a clear guide to Christian doctrine.
OF PENANCE
Immediately after Confirmation they place Penance, of which they speak so confusedly and disorderly that nothing firm or certain can be gathered from their doctrine.
We have already explained at length elsewhere, first, what Scripture teaches us concerning repentance, and then what they teach concerning it. Now we need only touch upon how slight—or rather, how utterly nonexistent—the reason is by which they have made it a sacrament.
They labor greatly to find a sacrament in it, and no wonder, for they are seeking what does not exist. In the end, even the best explanation they can devise leaves everything suspended, uncertain, and confused through a diversity of opinions.
They say, then, that outward penance is a sacrament and that, if this is so, it must be regarded as the sign of inward repentance—that is, of contrition of heart—which, according to this reasoning, would be the substance of the sacrament. Or else they say that both are sacraments—not two sacraments, but one complete sacrament—and that the outward penance is the sacrament alone, while inward repentance is both the sacrament and its substance, and the
forgiveness of sins is the substance of the sacrament but not the sacrament itself.
In answer to all this, let those who remember the definition of a sacrament given above compare with it everything these men call a sacrament, and they will find no correspondence. For they will discover that penance is not an outward ceremony instituted by the Lord for the confirmation of our faith.
If they reply that my definition is not a law they are necessarily bound to obey, let them listen to Saint Augustine, for whom they pretend to possess an inviolable reverence. He says: "The sacraments were visibly instituted for carnal people so that, through the successive steps of the sacraments, they might be carried from those things visible to the eye to those comprehended by the understanding."
What do they see, or what can they show to others, that resembles this in what they call the sacrament of penance?
Saint Augustine says elsewhere: "A sacrament is so called because in it one thing is seen and another understood. What is seen has a bodily form; what is understood bears spiritual fruit."
But to defeat them even within their own boundaries, I ask: If there were any sacrament here, would it not be more plausible to say that the priest's absolution was the sacrament rather than either inward or outward penance? For it would have been easy to say that absolution is a ceremony ordained to confirm our faith in the forgiveness of sins and that it possesses the promise of the keys, as they call it, namely—
"Whatever you bind or loose on earth shall be bound or loosed in heaven."
—Matthew 16:19
But someone might object that many are absolved by priests for whom such absolution profits nothing, whereas, according to their doctrine, the sacraments of the New Law must effectually accomplish what they signify.
The answer is ready at hand. Just as there is a twofold eating in the Lord's Supper—one sacramental, which is common alike to the good and the wicked, and another specially belonging to the good—so they might also claim that absolution is received in two ways.
Nevertheless, I have never yet been able to comprehend what they mean when they say that the sacraments of the New Law possess such powerful efficacy. When I treated this subject in its proper place, I showed that this doctrine does not agree in any way with the truth of God.
I have wished only to show here that this difficulty would not prevent them from calling the priest's absolution a sacrament. For they could answer in Saint Augustine's words that sanctification is sometimes a visible sacrament, and that the visible sacrament sometimes exists without inward sanctification; likewise, that the sacraments accomplish what they signify only in the elect; and again, that some put on Christ only so far as receiving the sacrament, while others put him on unto sanctification. The first occurs alike in the good and the wicked; the second occurs only in the good.
Certainly, they have deceived themselves most childishly and have been blind in the full light of the sun, since amid such perplexity and difficulty they failed to recognize something so simple and familiar.
Nevertheless, lest they become proud regardless of where they place their sacrament, I deny that it ought to be regarded as a sacrament.
First, it has no promise from God, which is the sole foundation of a sacrament. For, as we have sufficiently explained above, the promise of the keys does not establish any particular form of absolution but pertains only to the preaching of the gospel, whether it is addressed to many or to one person, without distinction. That is, by this promise our Lord does not establish a special absolution pronounced individually to each person, but the absolution proclaimed indiscriminately to all sinners without particular address.
Second, whatever ceremony may be produced here is purely a human invention, whereas it has already been established that sacramental ceremonies can be ordained by God alone. Everything they have devised and persuaded people to believe concerning the sacrament of Penance is therefore falsehood and deception.
Moreover, they have adorned this counterfeit sacrament with a title fitting its nature, calling it "a second plank after shipwreck." For if anyone has stained through sin the garment of innocence received in Baptism, they say that he can wash it through Penance.
"But," they say, "this is Saint Jerome's expression." Whoever may have said it, the statement cannot be excused from being thoroughly pernicious. It speaks as though Baptism were erased by sin, rather than teaching sinners to recall it whenever they seek forgiveness of
sin, so that by remembering it they may be comforted, take courage, and strengthen their confidence that they will obtain the forgiveness promised to them in Baptism.
Therefore, whoever calls Baptism the sacrament of repentance will speak most properly, since it was given as consolation to those who strive to repent.
Lest anyone suppose this to be a dream of my own invention, it is evident that this was the common and settled judgment of the ancient Church. For in the book entitled On Faith, attributed to Saint Augustine, Baptism is called the sacrament of faith and repentance.
But why should we resort to uncertain testimonies, as though anything clearer could be required than what the Evangelist recounts?
"John preached the baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins."
—Luke 3:3
OF EXTREME UNCTION
The third counterfeit sacrament is Extreme Unction, which is administered only by a priest, only at the end of life, and only with oil consecrated by a bishop, accompanied by this form of words: "Through this holy anointing and his mercy, may God forgive whatever sins you have committed through hearing, sight, smell, touch, and taste."
They pretend that this sacrament possesses two powers: the forgiveness of sins and the relief of bodily illness, if this is expedient, or else the health of the soul.
They say that its institution is found in Saint 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 he shall recover his health, and if he has committed sins, they shall be forgiven him."
—James 5:14–15
This anointing belongs to the same class as the laying on of hands discussed above: it is a theatrical display and mimicry by which they attempt, without reason or benefit, to counterfeit the Apostles.
Saint Mark recounts that on their first mission the Apostles, according to the command they had received from the Lord, raised the dead, cast out devils, cleansed lepers, and healed the sick. He adds that in healing the sick they used oil:
"They anointed many sick people with oil and healed them."
—Mark 6:13
Saint James had this in view when he commanded that the elders be called to anoint the sick person.
But those who consider the liberty with which our Lord and his Apostles conducted themselves in these outward matters will easily
judge that no profound mystery was concealed beneath such ceremonies. When our Lord wished to restore sight to the blind man, he made clay from dust and saliva. He healed some by touch and others by his word. Likewise, the Apostles healed some diseases by words alone, others by touch, and still others by anointing.
"But," they may say, "this anointing was no more adopted rashly by the Apostles than were the other means." I grant this, though not that they adopted it as an instrument of healing. It was merely a sign intended to teach the simple from whom such power proceeded, lest they should attribute its praise to the Apostles. It is common and customary in Scripture for the Holy Spirit and his gifts to be signified by oil.
But the gift of healing the sick no longer exists, any more than the other miracles that the Lord willed to be performed for a time so that the new preaching of the gospel might remain forever worthy of wonder. Even if we granted, therefore, that anointing had been a sacrament of the miraculous powers then administered through the hands of the Apostles, it would have no relevance to us now, since the administration of those powers has not been entrusted to us.
And for what greater reason do they make a sacrament of this anointing than of all the other signs or symbols mentioned in Scripture? Why do they not appoint some pool of Siloam in which the sick may bathe at certain times?
"That would be done in vain," they say. Certainly no more vainly than their anointing.
Why do they not lie down upon the dead, since Saint Paul raised a dead youth by stretching himself over him? Why do they not make a sacrament of clay composed of saliva and dust?
"All the other examples," they say, "were particular cases, whereas anointing was commanded by Saint James."
Yes, but Saint James spoke for the time when the Church enjoyed the gift we have described. They would indeed have us believe that the same power still resides in their anointing, but experience proves the contrary.
No one should now marvel that they have so boldly deceived souls they saw to be stupefied and blinded because they had stripped them of the word of God—that is, of their life and light—since they are not ashamed to attempt to deceive the living and perceptive senses of the body.
They therefore make themselves worthy of ridicule when they boast of possessing the gift of healing. Our Lord certainly attends his own in every age and relieves their illnesses when necessary no less than he did in former times. But he no longer manifests those visible powers or the miracles he dispensed through the hands of the Apostles.
Therefore, just as the Apostles had good reason to represent by oil the grace entrusted to them, thereby showing that it was the power of the Holy Spirit and not their own, so, on the contrary, these men grievously insult the Holy Spirit when they claim that foul-smelling and ineffectual oil is his power.
It is just as though someone were to say that every kind of oil is the power of the Holy Spirit because Scripture uses oil as a name for his power, or that every dove is the Holy Spirit because he once appeared in that form.
But let them consider what they are doing. As for us—and this is sufficient for the present—we know with complete certainty that their Unction is not a sacrament, since it is neither a ceremony instituted by God nor accompanied by any promise from him.
For when we require these two things in a sacrament—that it be a ceremony ordained by God and that a promise be joined to it—we likewise require that the ceremony was ordained for us and that the promise belongs to us.
No one now contends that circumcision is a sacrament of the Christian Church, although it was an ordinance of God accompanied by a promise, because it was not commanded to us and its promise was not given to us.
We have already clearly shown that the promise they claim for their Unction does not concern us, and they themselves demonstrate this by experience. The ceremony ought to be employed only by those possessing the gift of healing, not by these executioners, who are more powerful to kill and wound than to heal.
Even if they succeeded in proving that what Saint James says about anointing applies to our time—which they are very far from doing— they would still have accomplished little toward establishing the Unction with which they have hitherto smeared us.
Saint James commands that all the sick be anointed. These men defile with their grease not the sick, but bodies already half dead, when the soul is ready to depart—or, as they say, at the final extremity. If their sacrament contains a ready remedy either to lessen the severity of the illness or to bring some relief to the soul, they are exceedingly cruel never to administer it in time.
Saint James intends the sick person to be anointed by the elders of the Church. These men admit no anointer except a priest. Their interpretation that the "elders" in Saint James means priests, and that the plural number was used for greater dignity, is altogether frivolous—as though the churches of that time had possessed such an abundance of priests that they could carry their box of oil in long processions.
When Saint James simply commands that the sick be anointed, I understand no anointing except one performed with ordinary oil. No other kind of oil is mentioned in Saint Mark's account.
These men consider no oil acceptable unless it has been consecrated by the bishop—that is, thoroughly warmed by his breath, bewitched by his muttering, and greeted nine times upon the knees: three times with, "Hail, holy oil"; three times with, "Hail, holy chrism"; and three times with, "Hail, holy balm." Such is their solemn ceremony. From whom did they learn such incantations?
Saint James says that when the sick person has been anointed with oil and prayed over, if he has committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. He does not mean that sins are erased by grease, but that the prayers of believers, by which their afflicted brother is commended to God, will not be in vain.
These men wickedly pretend that sins are forgiven through their sacred—that is, abominable—Unction. Behold how much they will have accomplished even if they are permitted to abuse Saint James's testimony according to their foolish imagination.
OF ECCLESIASTICAL ORDERS
The sacrament of Orders is placed fourth in their list, but it is so fertile that it gives birth to seven little sacraments of its own. It is truly ridiculous that, after declaring that there are seven sacraments, they count thirteen when they attempt to enumerate them.
They cannot excuse this by saying that the seven sacraments of Orders are one sacrament because they all lead to a single priesthood and are like steps by which one ascends to it. For since it is evident that each possesses different ceremonies, and since they say that each confers different graces, no one can doubt that, according to their own doctrine, seven sacraments must be acknowledged.
And why should we dispute this as though it were doubtful when they themselves openly confess that there are seven? They call them the seven ecclesiastical orders or degrees: doorkeepers, readers, exorcists, acolytes, subdeacons, deacons, and priests.
There are seven, they say, because the grace of the Holy Spirit possesses seven forms, with which those promoted to these orders must be filled, and which is increased and more abundantly bestowed upon them in their promotion.
First, their number is invented through a perverse gloss and interpretation of Scripture, because they imagine they have read in
Isaiah of seven powers of the Holy Spirit. In truth, however, the Prophet mentions no more than six in that passage:
"The Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord."
—Isaiah 11:2
Nor did he intend there to enumerate all the gifts of the Holy Spirit. For elsewhere in Scripture he is also called the Spirit of life, sanctification, and adoption as children of God.
Others, who consider themselves subtler, recognize not merely seven orders but nine, corresponding, as they claim, to the Church triumphant. Yet even among them there is conflict. Some make the clerical tonsure the first order and the episcopate the last. Others exclude the tonsure and include the archiepiscopate among the orders.
Isidore distinguishes them differently, making psalmists and readers separate orders. He appoints the former to lead the singing and the latter to read Scripture for the instruction of the people—a distinction observed by the canons.
Amid such diversity, what are we to reject or follow? Shall we say that there are seven orders? The Master of the Sentences teaches so, but the most enlightened Doctors determine otherwise. Then again, these Doctors disagree among themselves. Moreover, the sacred canons show us still another path.
Behold the agreement that exists among men when they dispute divine things without the word of God!
Furthermore, when they speak of the origin of their orders, how ridiculous they make themselves, even before little children! "Clerics," they say, "derive their name from lot, because they have fallen to God's lot, because they have been chosen by God, or because they possess God as their portion."
But it was sacrilege for them to appropriate exclusively a name belonging to the whole Church. For the word signifies an inheritance, and the Church is Christ's inheritance, given to him by the Father. Saint Peter does not call a few shaven men the clergy, as they have falsely glossed his words, but gives this title to the whole people of God.
Their records next say that clerics are shaved upon the crown of the head so that the circular tonsure may signify royal excellence, since clerics ought to be kings who govern both themselves and others, as Saint Peter tells them:
"You are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession."
—1 Peter 2:9
Here once again I hold them convicted of falsehood. Saint Peter speaks to the whole Church, but they twist his statement to apply to some priestly rabble, as though it had been said to them alone: "Be holy." It is as though they alone had been purchased by Christ's blood and they alone had been made a kingdom and priesthood to
God, rather than all believers without distinction, as Scripture testifies.
They then assign other reasons for their tonsure. The crown of their head is left bare to show that their minds ought to contemplate the glory of God face to face without hindrance; or to show that the vices belonging to the eyes and the head must be cut away; or to signify the forsaking and renunciation of temporal possessions, while the ring of hair that remains represents the portion of goods they retain for sustaining their lives.
All this exists only in figure, because the veil of the Temple has apparently not yet been torn. Thus, persuading themselves that they have fully discharged their duty when they have represented such things by their tonsure, they accomplish none of them in reality.
How long will they deceive us with such falsehoods and illusions? By clipping away a tuft of hair, clerics show that they have renounced the abundance of earthly possessions, that they contemplate God's glory free from every hindrance, and that they have mortified the lusts of their eyes and ears. Yet there is no class of men more filled with greed, ignorance, and sexual immorality. Why do they not demonstrate their holiness in reality rather than represent its figure by false and deceitful signs?
Finally, when they say that their tonsure derives its origin and meaning from the Nazirites, what do they prove except that their mysteries have descended from Jewish ceremonies—or rather, that they are pure Judaism?
When they add that Priscilla, Aquila, and Saint Paul, having taken a vow, cut their hair to be purified, they display great ignorance. Nothing of the kind is said concerning Priscilla, and it is said of only one of the other two, though it is uncertain which. For the cutting of the hair mentioned by Saint Luke may refer as readily to Saint Paul as to Aquila.
And lest we grant them even what they ask—namely, that they have taken Saint Paul as their example—the simple should note that Saint Paul never shaved his head for any sanctification, but only to accommodate himself to the weakness of his neighbors.
I customarily call such vows vows of love, not of piety. That is, they were undertaken not as an act of religion or service to God, but to bear with the weakness of the infirm, as Saint Paul says:
"To the Jews I became as a Jew."
—1 Corinthians 9:20
Thus, he did this temporarily to accommodate himself to the Jews. But when these men seek to imitate the purifications of the Nazirites without any benefit, what are they doing except erecting a new Judaism?
The decretal epistle was composed with the same careful wisdom. It forbids clerics, according to the Apostle, to let their hair grow, commanding them instead to shave it in a circle in the form of a sphere—as though the Apostle, when teaching what is honorable for all men, had been greatly concerned with the circular tonsure of their clerics.
Let readers judge from these beginnings what the other orders must be like when their entrance is of such a kind.
But this surpasses every folly: in each of their orders they make Christ their colleague.
First, they say, he exercised the office of doorkeeper when he drove the buyers and sellers from the Temple; and he shows that he is a doorkeeper when he says:
"I am the door."
—John 10:9
He assumed the office of reader when he read Isaiah in the midst of the synagogue. He performed the office of exorcist when, touching the ears and tongue of the deaf and mute man with his saliva, he restored his hearing and speech.
He testified that he was an acolyte by these words:
"Whoever follows me shall not walk in darkness."
—John 8:12
He performed the office of subdeacon when, girded with a towel, he washed the feet of his Apostles. He acted as a deacon when he distributed his body and blood to the Apostles at the Supper. He fulfilled the office of a priest when he offered himself upon the cross as a sacrifice to the Father.
These things are so impossible to hear without laughter that I marvel they could have been written without laughter—at least if those who wrote them were human.
But the subtlety with which they reason concerning the name "acolyte" is especially worthy of consideration. They interpret it as candle-bearer, using a word that I take to be magical, since it is certainly unknown to every language and nation. Yet the Greek word akolouthos means one who follows and accompanies, whereas by their term they mean someone who carries a candle.
Still, if I were seriously to occupy myself with refuting these follies, I would deserve to be mocked as well, so empty and frivolous are they.
Nevertheless, so that they may no longer deceive even women, we must expose their falsehoods a little further.
With great pomp and solemnity they create their readers, psalmists, doorkeepers, and acolytes to perform duties that they actually assign and entrust to little children or to those they call laymen.
For who most often lights the candles or pours the water and wine except some child or poor layman who earns his living by doing so? Do not these same people sing and open and close the church doors? For who has ever seen an acolyte or doorkeeper performing his office in their temples?
Rather, the person who performed the duties of an acolyte during childhood ceases, once ordained to that office, to be what he is called. It appears that they deliberately abandon the duties belonging to their office as soon as they receive its title.
Behold why they must be ordained through such sacraments and receive the Holy Spirit: namely, so that they may do nothing.
If they allege that this is merely the perversity of the present age, in which they forsake and despise their duty, they must likewise confess that their sacred Orders, which they so wonderfully exalt, have no fruit or use in the Church today. They must also confess that their whole Church is filled with accursed disorder, since it permits laymen and children to handle the candles and cruets, though no one is worthy to touch them except one consecrated as an acolyte, and since it entrusts the singing to children, though it ought to proceed only from consecrated lips.
For what purpose do they consecrate exorcists? I understand that the Jews had their exorcists, but I also see that they derived their name from the exorcisms they actually performed. But who has ever heard that these counterfeit exorcists accomplished even one feat belonging to their profession?
They pretend to possess the power to lay hands upon the deranged, unbelievers, and demoniacs. But they cannot persuade the devils that they possess such power—not only because the devils do not submit to their commands, but also because the devils exercise power over them. For scarcely one in ten of them could be found who is not himself driven by an evil spirit.
Everything they babble concerning their minor orders, therefore, whether they number five or six, is fabricated from falsehood and ignorance. Among these I include the degree of subdeacon, although it was transferred to the major orders after this multitude of minor orders had been produced.
It is plainly evident that they must not be regarded as sacraments, since, by their own confession, they were unknown to the primitive Church and were invented many years afterward. Since sacraments must possess a promise from God, they can be instituted neither by angels nor by men, but by God alone, to whom alone it belongs to give the promise.
They appear to possess testimony from the word of God for the remaining two, and therefore, by a peculiar prerogative, they call them specifically holy orders. But we must see how perversely they abuse Scripture for this purpose.
We shall begin with the order of priesthood. I use this name according to its customary meaning in French—that is, to signify what the Latins call sacerdotium.
They call those men priests to whom, they say, it belongs to offer upon the altar the sacrifice of Christ's body and blood, to recite prayers, and to bless the gifts of God. Therefore, at their ordination they receive a chalice with the paten and Host as a sign that they possess the power to offer sacrifices of reconciliation to God. Their hands are also anointed to signify that they possess the power to consecrate.
Not only do they have no support for any of this in the word of God, but they could scarcely have corrupted his order and ordinances more wickedly.
First, what we established in the preceding chapter must be regarded as conclusive: all who call themselves priests for the purpose of offering a sacrifice of reconciliation injure Christ. He was ordained
and consecrated by the Father with an oath as Priest according to the order of Melchizedek, without end and without successor.
He is the one who once offered the sacrifice of eternal cleansing and reconciliation and who, having now entered the sanctuary of heaven, intercedes for us.
In him we are indeed all priests, but only to offer praise and thanksgiving—in sum, to offer ourselves and everything belonging to us to God. It was Christ's unique preeminence to appease God and purge sins by his offering. What remains, then, except that their priesthood is a damnable sacrilege?
But since they are not ashamed to boast that they are the successors of the Apostles, we must consider how they discharge the Apostolic office. Yet they ought at least to agree among themselves if they wish their claims to be believed.
At present, the bishops, mendicant friars, and priests are engaged in mortal conflict concerning the succession of the Apostles. The bishops maintain that twelve were chosen for the office of Apostle by a unique prerogative, and they claim to occupy their place because they possess preeminence over the others. They say that ordinary priests occupy the place of the seventy disciples afterward appointed by our Lord.
But their argument is too weak to require a lengthy refutation, since it is destroyed by the very acts recorded in their own registers, where it is written: "Before the diabolical division entered the Church, so that one said, 'I belong to Cephas,' and another, 'I belong to Apollos,' there was no difference between priest and bishop."
The judgment of those who believe this distinction was borrowed from the Gentiles is therefore better, since the Gentiles possessed many kinds of priests distinguished by honor and rank.
The mendicant friars wish to pass themselves off as vicars of the Apostles solely because of one resemblance in which they are actually very unlike them: they wander here and there and live upon the property of others.
The Apostles did not travel rashly from place to place as these wandering vagrants do. They went wherever God called them in order to make the gospel fruitful. Nor did they idly fill their bellies with the possessions of others. Rather, according to the liberty granted them by God, they received the generosity of those whom they instructed in the word.
There was no need for the friars to adorn themselves with borrowed feathers, as though they lacked testimony concerning their true character, since Saint Paul describes them very well:
"We hear that some among you walk disorderly, doing no work, but meddling in the affairs of others."
—2 Thessalonians 3:11
And elsewhere he says:
"Among them are those who enter from house to house and take captive women burdened with sins, always learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth."
—2 Timothy 3:6–7
Since they may rightfully claim these descriptions for themselves, let them leave the Apostolic office to others, from which they are as far removed as earth is from heaven.
Leaving these matters aside, let us consider generally how well their order of priesthood agrees with the office of the Apostles.
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."
—Titus 1:5
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."
—Acts 20:28
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."
—Galatians 1:1
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.