402 Of the S acr am en t of Or d er s in those Things, in which there ought to be no E rror . It follows then, out of this Foundation he has laid for us , that the C hurch has from God, not only the Power of discerning God ’ s Word from that of Mens, (which he allows ) but also the Faculty of discerning betwixt divine and hum an S ense of S cripture . Otherwise , what should it avail the Church to kn ow, by God ’ s Teaching, the true S cripture from that which is false , if it could not distinguish between the false and true S ense of true S cripture ? Finally, it follows , by the same Reason , that God instructs his C hurch, even in Things which are not written ; lest it might, through E rrors , embrace false Things for true ones : For that is no less dangerous than that it might admit the Writings of Men , for the Words of God, or draw a false S ense out of the Word of God ; espec ially if it should take false S acraments for tr ue ones , and human Traditions for divine ; n ay, not only the Traditions of Men , but the Inventions of the D evil ; if the C hurch of C hr i st, should, as I n chan ter s do, place its Hope in feign ed and vain S igns of corporal Things . It appears , therefore, by I/u ther ’ s confessing the C hurch to have a Faculty of discerni ng the Words of God from the Words of Men , that it has no less Power to discern betwixt divine Institutions, and the Traditions of Men . For, otherwise , the E rror which we are to avoid, might as well arise from the one S ide, as from the other . A n d C hr i st ’ s C are , is not , that his C hurch m ay not err, after this or that M anner ; but that it may not err in any M anner whatsoever . B u t it could by no E rror commit a greater Injury to C hr i st, than in putting its Trust, which it ought to have in him alone, in S igns not supported by any Grace , but empty and void of all the A dvantages of Faith . Therefore, the C hurch cannot err about the S acraments of Faith ; no more , I say, than in admitting S cripture, ( in which
404 Ofthe S acr am en t of Or der s I/u ther confesses her infallible) which, if it were other wise , many A bsurdities should follow ; and especi ally this , that almost all Opinions of the C hurch, in M atters of Faith , established these many past A ges , may be dis p u ted after the Fancy of every new—fangled Heretic ; which were the most ridiculous Thing imaginable . For if Nothing must be certainly believed, but what is con firmed by S cripture ; and that ( as he says) by clear Testimonies of S cripture too ; we must not only, not assert the perpetual Virginity of the blessed Virgin Mar y, but also an inexhausted Mater i a will be fur n i shed for battering the C hurch, at the Pleasure of every one who is minded to stir up new S ects or renew the old one : For, there have been at an y Ti me few or no Heretics , who would not pretend to S cripture , every one disputing their new—broached Opinions to be confirmed by S cripture ; or, (however agreeable to S cripture, be cause the contrary was not therein defined) disputing, that what was alledged against their S ec ts, was other wise to be understood, than as the orthodox C hu r ch u n der stood it : A n d lest it might be clearly brought against them, they either forged another S ense, or preferred some other Passages of S cripture , which seemed con tr ary to the former ; troubling all Things in such M an ner , as to make them seem ambiguous . If the public Faith of the C hurch had not withstood A r ri u s, the Heretic, I know not if he should ever have wanted a S ubject of D ispute out of S cripture . Now, seeing we have proved, by Lu ther ’ s own Funda m en tal s, that the S acraments believed by the C hurch could not be instituted but by God himself, though Noth ing were read thereof in S cripture : Let us see whether S cripture makes not some Mention of this S acrament . A l l Men do unanimously confess, (Lu ther only ex c epted) that the A postles were by our S aviour ordained
D e S acr am en to Or di n i s 405 absu r diu s, quod pl er aqu e omnia fidei Christiana dog mata, tot stabilita sa c u l i s, ad su c cr esc en tiu m ha r eti corum l ibidi n em denn o r evoc ar en tu r in dubium . Nam si nihil haberi pro certo debet, nisi quod S cr iptu r i s et ii sdem , u t Lu ther u s ait, claris fir m atu m est, non solum n on asser em u s diva M aria vi rg in itatem perpetuam, sed et in exhau sta su gg er etu r fidei oppu g n an da materia, si cui u n qu am l ibeat aut novas exc itar e sectas , aut r essu s citare sepultas . Nam pau c i ssim i fu er u n t ba retici , qui n on r ec eper in t S cr iptu r as ; sed omnes fere ex eo sua statu eban t dogmata, quod aut ea con ten der en t esse fir mata S c r iptu r i s, aut, qu u m illis vider en tu r r ati on i con sen tan ea, c on tr ar i u m non defin i r i S cr iptu r i s : quoniam ea, qu a p r opon eban tu r adversus suam sectam, aliter con ten deban t in tel l ig i , quam or thodoxa i n tel l igebat E c cl esi a, et, n e clara dici possen t, aut alio excog itato sensu, aut p r ol ati s aliunde ex eadem S cr iptu r a locis, in spec i em valde c on tr ar ii s, omnia sic tu rbar u n t, u t vider en tu r ambigua . I taqu e adversus A r iu m , nisi pu b lica steti sset fides E cclesia , haud scio an defu i sset u n quam de S c r ip tu r i s di sp u tan di materia . Nunc, quoniam ex ip si u s Lu ther i fun damen to p r o bavim u s sacramenta, qu a credit E cclesia, non aliunde quam a D eo potu i sse c on stitui , eti am si nihil inde p r or su s in S cr ip tu r a l eg er etu r , videam u s an S c r iptu r a tam nul lam omn in o m en tion em fac i at hu j u s sacramenti . Omn es una voce faten tu r A postolos in C oen a D omini or din atos in sacerdotes . S olus i stu d Lutherns n egat,
406 Ofthe S acr am en t of Or der s Priests , at his last S upper ; where it plainly appears , that Power was given them to consecrate the B ody of C hr i st, which Power the Priest alone hath . ‘B u t, says I/u ther , it is not a S acrament , because there is no Grace promised therein . ’ B u t pray, how, or whence has he this Knowledge ? ‘B ecause ( says he) it is not read in S cripture ! ’ This is his usual C onsequence : ‘ It is not written i n the Gospels, therefore has it not been done by C hr ist . " Which Form of reasoning the E vangelist overthrows , when he says, Man y Thin g s wer e don e, whi ch ar e n ot wr i tten i n thi s B ook. * B u t let us touch I/uther yet a little closer . He confesses that the B uchar ist is a S acrament ; and he were mad, if he did not ; but where, pray, does he find in S cripture, that Grace is promised in that S acrament ? For he admits Nothing but S cripture, an d that clear S cripture too . Let him read the Passages that treat of our Lord ’ s S upper, and see if he can find in any of the E vangelists, that Grace is promised in the receiving of the B l essed S acr am en t. We read that C hr i st said, Thi s i s m y B l ood, whi ch shal l be shed for m an y, to the Remi ssi on ofS i n s t whereby he sign ified, that he should redeem Manki nd by his Passion upon the C ross . B u t when he said, Thi s do i n Rem em br an c e of m e gt He promises no Grace, or Re mission of S ins, to him that does this ; that is , to the consecrated Priests , or to him that receives the E ucharist . Nor doth the A postle , in his E pistle to the C or i n thi an s, when he threatens Judgment to them that unworthily receive, make Mention of any Grace to him that receives it worthily . If an y Thing in the 6th of S t. John promise Grace to him that receives the S acra ment of our Lord ’ s B ody an d B l ood ; yet can that make Nothing for L u ther , because he denies the whole C hap ter to have any Reference at all to the E ucharist : You *John xxu . 25. J (Matt. xxvi . 28 . 11 . C or . xi . 24.
408 Of the S acr am en t of Order s see here, very plainly, that he cannot maintain that Promise of Grace , which he so fairly promised us , in his whole Work, as the sole B asis of the S acrament, and in that only S acrament which he admits ; unless, besides the Words of S cripture, he has recourse ( as it is n ec es sary for him) to the Faith of the C hurch . Wherefore ; as it is sufficient for us to read in the Gospel , that the Power of consecrating the S acrament , was given them to whom the Priests succeed ; so is it likewise enough, that we read the C ouncil of the A postle to Tim othy, ‘That he impose not Hands rashly upon an y one . ’ Wh ich Passage plainly demonstrates, that the Ordination of Priests is not performed by the C onsent of the Laity, (by which alone I/u ther affir ms, that a Priest may be ordained, ) but by the Ordination of a B ishop only : and that by a certain Imposition of Hands ; in which God, through the exterior S ig n , should infuse an interior Grace . C oncerning which Grace, why should we not believe the C hurch of the Living God ? which is, as the A postle saith, The Gr ou n d an d Pil l ar of Tr u th for Lu ther him self must certainly be lieve her concerning the Grace promised in the B uchar ist ; as the Promise of that Grace, or the giving of it without any Promise , is kn own in this Faith of the C hurch . Indeed I admire that any one should be so distracted as to doubt, whether Grace is given by the S acrament of Orders to the Priest of the Gospel ; whereas we m ay read many Places , that seem to signify that Grace was conferred on the Priests of the old Law ; and that God saith, You shal l an oin t an d san ctify A aron an d hi s S on s, that they m ay exer ci se to m e the Office of P r i esthood t Otherwise, what should this exterior S an ctific ati on have sign ified for the Honour of God, if God had not likewise *I . T im . iii . 1 5 . J rE xod . xxviii . ‘ i .
D e S acr am en to Ordin is 409 p r om i sit opere, n on potest in eo tueri sacramento, quod fere solum r el in qu it, nisi , quod necesse habet, pra ter S cr iptu r a verba r ecu r r at ad E cclesia fidem . Igitur qu em adm odu m satis est nobis quod in E van gelio legi mus c onfic i en di sacramenti potestatem com m i ssam his in quorum locum su ccedu n t sacerdotes, ita satis est quod ab A postolo l eg im u s consilium datum Timotheo, u t n em in i cito manum im pon er et : q u a loca plane signifi cant or din ati on em sac er dotum , n on consensu commun i tatis, qu o solo interveniente fier i sacer dotum posse Lu ther u s ait, sed sola or di n ation e episcopi , idqu e certa im position e m an u u m , in qua per exterius signum D eus in fu n der et in ter i or em g r ati am : de qua gratia quid obstat quominus cr edam u s E cclesia D ei vivi , qu a “ est, ” u t ait A postol u s, “ colu m n a et fir m am en tu m ver i tatis, ” quando eidem E cclesia necesse est ipse cr edat Luthern s de grati a pr om i ssa in sacramento E u char i stia . Nam in hac fide c og n osc itu r , aut il l iu s gratia p r om i ssio, au t certe sine promissione donatio . D em ir or p r ofecto tam vec or dem esse qu emqu am u t du bitet an sac er dotibu s evan g el ic i s in Ordine con fer atu r gratia, q u u m passim l eg an tu r plurima qu a sig n ificar e viden tu r etiam veter i s leg is sac er dotibu s g r ati am esse col l atam . Nam : “ A ar on , i n q u i t D eus, “ et fili os ej us u n g es ; san ctificabi s eos, u t sac er doti o fu n g an tu r m ihi . ” A l i oqu i enim, qui d p r ofu i sset exterior san ctific atio in cu l tu m D ei , nisi D eus pariter i n fu di sset g r ati am , qua san ctific ar en tu r interius ? atque id quoque per Chris tum, cujus venturi fides robur et vim potu it in didisse
41 0 Of the S acr am en t of Or der s infused Grace, by which they should be likewi se i n ter i or l y sanctified ; and that also through C hrist ; the Faith of whose coming, gave Force and S trength to precedent S acraments , even as it made the J ews capable of obtaining eternal S alvation ? B u t if an y one will not admit, that Grace was con ferred to the Priesthood of the Ol d Law ; yet has he no Reason to deny the Infusion of Grace into the Priests of the E vangelical L aw : B ecause now, through the Pas sion of C hrist the Fullness of Grace is come . In the A cts of the A postles, when S t . P au l and B ar nabas were set apart for that Work, to which the Holy Ghost has called them, * they were not sent away, before thev were first ordained by Imposition of Hands . B u t pray, why did the A postles l ay Hands on them ? Was it to touch their B odies in a vain M anner, without profiting their S ouls by spiritual Grace ? How then dares L u ther af firm, that this S acrament was unkn own to the C hurch of C hri st, which was used by the A postles ? ‘B u t ( says he) it was never called a S acrament by any of the antient D octors, except D yon i siu s ; for we read nothing at all in the other Fathers , of these S acraments , neither did they think on the Name of S acrament , whenever they spoke of these Things ; for the Invention of S acra ments is new, ’ ( says he . ) A n excellent Reason of Lu ther ’ s I must confess, yet altogether false ; and if it was true, yet could it avail nothing for his Purpose . For if the A ntients had not writ at all , of a Thing perhaps never disputed amon gst them ; or if, when they did write of it, they should signify it by its proper Name , and not by that common Name of S acrament ; should it then follow, as a necessary C onsequence, that there has been no Order at all , or that it was n ot a S acrament ? For if any B ody should call B aptism by the proper Name *Ac ts xiii .
4 1 2 Of the S acr am en t of Or der s of B aptism, and should not add the Word S acrament ; shall it be therefore said, that he does n ot think B ap ti sm to be a S acrament ? Moreover, if D yon i si us only, amongst all the holy Fathers, should write O rders to be a S acrament, that alone should be sufficient to destroy Lu ther ’ s Objection ; by which he intends to make People believe, that the Invention of S acraments is new ; for this Novelty is contradicted by his confessing it to be written by him, whom he ackn owledges to be antient : A n d this wou ld be true, though S t. D yon i si u s were such a Man , as sacrilegious Lu ther feign s him to be, saying, ‘That he had almost no solid Learning in him : That none of the Things he writ in his ecclesiastical Hier archy, are proved by A uthority, or Reason ; but that they are all his own Inventions , and much like D reams : That in his mystical D ivinity, which some ignorant D ivines ( says Lu ther ) so much extol] ; he i s pernicious ; more like a Platonist than a C hristian : In which ( says he) you will not only, not learn who is C hr i st; but if you had known it before , you should lose your B elief of him : I speak ( says he) by E xperience ; (By the E x p er im en t, I suppose , of losing C hr i st there A n d furthe r ; ‘Pr ay what performs he in hi s ec cl esi astic al Hierarchy, but only describes allegorically some ecclesiastical Rites ? ’ Finally, that he might shew in how light a Matter S t. D yon isiu s lost his Labour, ‘D o you think ( says he) it should be difficult for me to sport with A llegories in whatsoever is credited ? It shoul d not be an y hard Work for me to write a better Hierarchy than that of D yon i siu s is . ’ Who can patiently endure to see the pious Labours of the holy Man so much abused by this J angler, as if he were raging against some Heretic like himself ? For he calls him illiterate and foolish, and one that writes n ot only D reams , but also pernicious D octrines , destroyin g C hr i st! A l l which Re
D e S acr am en to Or dini s 41 3 P r a ter ea si solus ex an tiqu i s P atr ibu s D ionysius Or din em sc r iber et esse sacramentum, vel satis esset ad ever ten dam Lu ther i obj ection em , qua vider i v ult i n ven tion em sac r am en tor u m n ovam esse : r epu gn at enim esse novum quod ab illo fatetu r sc r ipti s c om pr ehen su m , quem fatetu r antiquum . A tque i stu d quidem verum esset eti am, si talis esset sacer D ionysius , q u al em eu m dep in g it sacr il egu s Luthern s, qui ferme nihil in eo dicit esse solida er u diti on i s, nihil eor u m qu a sc r ibit, aut au ctor i tate q u i cq u am , aut ratione p r obar i , sed omnia esse illin s meditata ac prope som n ii s sim il lim a q u a cum q u e in c oel esti scr ibit H i er ar chi a. “In Theol og i a m ysti c a, quam sic i n flan t, ” in q u i t, ign or an ti ssim i quidam theol og i sta , est, ” in qu it , “eti am per n ic i osi ssi m u s, plus p l aton i zan s, quam chr i sti an i zan s. In qua, ” in qu it, “C hr i stu m adeo non di sc es, u t, eti am si scias, am ittas. “E xp er tu s, in q u it, l oqu or : hoc est, u t Op in or , exper tu s est ibi se C hr i stu m per didi sse . “D e mum in ecclesiastica H i er ar chi a quid facit, ” i n qu it, “nisi quod ritus q u osdam eccl esi astic os desc r ibit, ludens al l egor iis ? ” D en iqu e u t osten der et in re quam levi divus D ionysius l u der et Operam : “A n mihi putas, quit , “difii cil e esse in q u al ibet re creata al l egor ii s l u der e ? M ihi non f u erit op er osu m m el i or em H i er ar chiam scr iber e quam D ion ysii sit . ” Quis patienter fer at in viri sancti pios labores sic debacchan tem rabulam, qu a vere m er itoq u e in sui sim il em bacchar etu r ha r eti cum ? Nam et i n doc tu m voc at, et l u dicr u m , et scr iben tem non tantum som n i a, sed etiam perniciosa, et C hris tu m destr u en ti a dogmata . Q u a tam en omnia c on vitia sanoto viro c edu n t in gloriam, cujus opera omnia vel hoe abunde dem on str at esse bona, quod Viro malo dis p l ic ean t. Nam q u a con sortia luci cum ten ebr i s, C hristo
41 4 Of the S acr am en t of Or der s pr oaches, are, notwithstanding, to the Glory of the holy Man , whose Works are all sufficiently demonstr ated to be good, by their displeasing only a M an so wicked as this . For what A greement can there be betwixt Light and D arkness, between C hr i st and B eli al ? His own wicked B rain was the C ause that he gained no Good by the pious B ooks of this holy Man : For H or ati u s writ truly —‘Unless the Vessel be sweet, whatsoever you pu t therein will become sour . ’ In as much as he says, ‘He could write a better Hierarchy, than that of S t. D yon i sin s , " pray let him brag of it when he has done it . In the mean while, he undertakes a Thing m uch more diffi cult , when he goes about to demolish that Hierarchy which is founded upon a solid Rock . The Indignation we have conceived at that impious Fel l ow ’ s casting such injurious Reproaches against the holy Man , has caused us somewhat to digress . B u t, as I begun to say, though S t. D yon i si u s had been the Man that had taught holy Orders to have been a S acrament ; yet that is, however , sufficient to convince Lu ther , when he asserts the Invention of the S acraments to be but a new Thing ; since he not only confesses D yon i si u s to be antient, but also that all the C hristian World honours him for a S aint. S o that L u ther ’ s A nger against him, is caused merely through M alice, which suffers him to brook nothing contrary to his wicked Heresies . B u t now, that his Vanity in every Place may the more plainly appear ; I will shew, that not only S t . D yon isi u s, but also S t. Gr eg or y, and S t . A u gu stin e, (whom he falsely calls his Patron,) take Orders for a S acrament . Moreover, this indefaceable C haracter (by him derided) though not called by that very Name ; yet S t. H i er om , in the S acrament of B aptism, writes plainly enough of the Thing itself, to which also S t. A u g u sti n e has had Regard , both in the S acraments of B aptism and Orders .
41 6 Of the S acr am en t of Or d er s I will therefore begin with S t. H i er om , of the C har acter of B aptism, that the C haracter of Orders may more evidently appear ; which for its I n debil ity, both S t. A u gustin e and S t . Gr eg or y compare with the S acra ment of Orders . S t . H i er om , therefore, on these Words of S t. P au l to the E phesi an s, (D o n ot con tr i state the holy S p i r it of God, i n whi ch you wer e sig n ed i n the D ay of writes thus , ‘B u t we have been signed with the H oly Ghost, that our S pirit and S oul m ay be sealed with the S ign et of God, and that we may receive that Image and S imilitude , after which we were first created . This S eal of the H oly Ghost, according to the Words of our S aviour, is stamped by God himself : For, says he This has God the Father signed A n d a little after , He is therefore sign ed, that he m ay keep the S eal ; and that he m ay, in the D ay of Redemption, shew it pure , sincere , and unchanged ; that therefore he m ay receive his Reward with those who are redeemed . ’ A mongst all those , who have ever writ of the C haracter of S acraments , none could have more plainly expressed the C haracter, whereby God A lmighty signs the S oul through the S acraments, than S t . H i er om has done in these Words ; not by human Fiction ( as Lu ther , that execrable S cof er of S acraments, feign s, ) but by solid Testimonies of holy S criptures . For a C haracter is that Quality of the S oul , which God A lmighty, (best known to himself, and to u s in scrutable , ) doth impress as a S eal , whereby to know his own Flock from S trangers : Which C haracter, though they stain it with Vices, and turn it from White to B lack, from Perfect to Imperfect, from most Pure to Impure ; yet can they never so raze it out, but that in the D ay of Judgment , those therewith signed , will be known to all the World, to be of his Flock, who has marked *E phes . i v. 30. ‘ (John v i . 27 .
D e S acr am en to Or di n i s 41 7 I n cipi am igitur a H i er on ym o de char ac ter e B aptis matis, u t app ar eat m an ifestiu s character Ordinis , quem et A ugustinus, et Gregorius ob in del ebil em char acter em cum B aptismo comparant . Igitur super illa Pauli verba ad E phesios : “Noli te c on tr i star i S p i r i tu m san ctu m D ei , in g u o sig n ati esti s i n di em r edempti on is, Hieronymus in hu n c sc r ibit modum : “S ign ati autem su m u s S piritu D ei san cto, u t et spiritus noster, et anima imprimatur signaculo D ei , et il l am r ec ip i am u s imaginem et simili tu din em , ad quam in exordio conditi su m u s. Hoc sig n ac u l u m sancti S piritus juxta el oqu iu m S al vator i s D eo imprimente signatur : H u n c en i m , ” ait, “sig n avi t Pater D eu s. ” E t paulo post : “I dci r c o signatur, ” i n quit, “u t servet sig n acu l u m , et osten dat il l u d in die r e dem ption i s purum, atque S in c er u m , et nulla ex parte m u til atu m , et ob id r em u n er ar i val eat cum his qui r e dem pti sunt . ” Q u ic u m qu e sc r ipser e de sac r am en tor u m char acter e n u ll i s u n qu am verbis ap er tiu s expressers char ac ter em , quem anima per sacramenta im p r im it D eus , quam verbis his beatus exp r essi t Hieronymus , non humano figm en to, u t Lu ther u s fin g it sac r am en tor u m ex secr an du s irrisor , sed sol idi s S cr iptu r a sacra testi m on ii s. C haracter enim est illa q u al itas anima , quam D eus sibi notam, nobis i n c og itabil em im pr im i t in signa c u l u m , quo suum g r eg em di sc er n it ab al i en i s, quod sig n ac u l u m , eti am si vi tiis maculent , et e candido red dan t atr u m , ex integro m u til u m , e purissimo r eddan t im pu r u m , nun quam tam en ita poter u n t er ader e, quin illo char acter i s impressi signaculo, in cujus g r eg em sig n ati sint , orbi toti m an ean t in judicii die cog n osc i biles . Nec alia ratione tam con stan te r obser vat E cclesi a , u t q u u m alia sacramenta toties iter et (quod in E ucha ristia sum pti on e facit ac Pa n iten ti a, C on j u g i o, et Un c tione l ang u en tium ) , B apti sm a, C onfir m ation em atque O r din em nunq uam iter ar i permittat . In ii s enim sacra
41 8 Of the S acr am en t of Or der s them with that S ignet : Which is the only Reason, why the C hurch so constantly observes ; that, whereas she renews so often other S acraments, as the E u char i st, Pen an ce, Mar r iag e, E xtr em e Un cti on ; yet never suf ers B ap ti sm , C on fir m ati on , and H oly Or der s to be renewed ; having learned from the Holy Ghost, that the S eal of the C haracter is imprinted in these S acraments, so that it cannot be defaced, therefore ought not to be iterated . B u t that it may more evidently appear , that Orders are, in this C ase, like to B aptism ; let us hear S t . Gr eg or y, ‘ It is ( says he) a ridiculous Thing to say, that he who has rece ived Holy Orders , ought to receive them again ; for, as he who has once been baptized , ought not to be baptized again ; so he , who has been once c on se crated, ought not again to be consecrated in the same D egree of Orders . ’ You see that the C hurch suf ers not the S acrament of Orders to be iterated, an y more than that of B aptism, by Reason of its indelible C haracter . B u t to shut Lu ther ’ s Mout h, who calls that C haracte r a feig n ed Thi n g , an d that S t. D yon i siu s was the on l y Man , ofal l the an ti en t F ather s, that cal l ed H ol y Or d er s a S ac r am en t: we will, as we have promised, give you S t. A u g usti n e ’ s Words ; who, in treating of B aptism and Holy Orders, speaks thus ; ‘They are both S acraments, and given to Man after certain C onsecration ; the one at his B aptism, the other when he receives Holy Orders Therefore it is not lawful in the Holy C atholic C hurch to iterate either of them . For when any heretical Min ister is r e ceived into the C hurch , for the Good of Peace ; if, after the E rror of S chism is corrected, it should seem necessary, he should exercise the same Office, which he had before : Yet is he not to be ordained again ; for , as B aptism remains intire in them, so Orders also ; be cause the Vice consisted in the S eparation, not in the S acraments, which are the same, where - ever they are : ’
420 Of the S ac ram en t of Order s A n d a little after, ‘ Injury must be done to neither of the two S acraments . ’ A n d of the S acrament of Orders , he adds, ‘That, as he that breaks off from Unity, has it not rightly, yet has it ; so likewise he does not rightly give it , yet gives it A n d returning again to both , ‘ It hinders them not ( say s he ) from being the S acraments of C hrist and his C hurch ; because H er eti cks and wicked Persons use them unlawfully ; but these Men are to be corrected , and punished, and the S acraments to be acknowledged and venerated . ’ You see how void of Truth it is , what L u ther so boldly boasts , viz . That the S acr am en t ofH ol y Or der s was u n kn own to the C hu r ch of C hr i st: That C har acter i s an idl e F i cti on ; That the I n ven ti on of S acr am en ts i s a n ew Thin g : That H oly Or d er s wer e n o S acr am en t am on g the A n ti en ts. You see Nothing of what he has said , but has been rejected by the Testi mony of such Persons, as he cannot separate from the C hurch of C hrist ; for they were illustrious therein by D octrine of Faith and exemplary Lives ; nor can he reckon them among the Moderns, if a thousand Years be not with him as one D ay . * Notwithstanding this , he opposes himself against all the Reasons , A uthority, and Faith of all , by this one A rgument : We are all Priests ( says he) according to that of S t . P eter . Ye ar e al l a r oyal Pr i esthood , an d p r i estly Ki n gdom n “bu t as on e can n ot be m or e a Man than an other ; so on e can be n o m or e a P r i est than an other : Those, ther efor e, who ar e call ed P r i ests, ar e n o other bu t Lay - m en , chosen by the on ly C on sen t ofthe P eop l e, or el ec ted by the B i shop , n ot wi thou t the P eop l e : F or to p r each an d or dai n , ar e Nothi n g bu t m er e Mi n i str y, wi thou t an y Thi n g ofS ac r am en t. We have not only faithfully repeated his A rgu ment, but also freely set down whatever may support him : A n d yet who would not laugh at this doltish *Ps . lxxxi x. 4. 11 . Pet. 1 1 . 9 .
D e S acr am en to Or di ni s 421 r ec edit, sed tam en habe t, sic etiam non recte dat qui ab u n itate r ec edit, et tam en dat . ” E t r u r su s ad u tr u m q u e r ever su s adj ec it : “Non ergo ideo non sunt sacramenta C hri sti et E cclesia , quia eis illicite u tu n tu r non modo ha r etic i , sed etiam omnes im p ii ; sed illi corrigendi sunt et pu n i en di , illa autem sunt ag n osc en da et vene randa . ” Videti s nunc quam verum sit il l u d, quod Lu ther u s tanta jactavit audacia, sacramentum Ordinis E ccl esi am C hristi n esc i r e, char acter em inane figm en tu m esse, sac r am en tor u m in ven ti on em n ovam esse , Or din em veter i bus non habitu m p r o sacramento . Quorum omnium nihil dixit, quod non Videti s c orum testimonio reproba tum , quos neque de C hristi E cclesia potest exim er e ( u tpote quam illi et doctrina fide i , et exemplo Virtutis il l u str ar u n t) , neque inter novos numerare , nisi talis sit, u t ei m il l e si n t an n i , tan q u am di es u n u s. S ed ille tam en adversus omnes omnium rationes, au ctor itatem , fidem , uno se tu etu r argumento . Omnes, ” in q u it, “su m u s sacerdotes secundum il l u d Petri : Vos estis r egal e sacer dotiu m c i sacer dotal e r eg n u m . S ed alius alio non potest magis esse sacerdos, qu em adm odu m alius alio non potest magis esse homo . Igitur sacerdotes qui voc an tu r , nihil sunt aliud , quam laici quidam, solo vel consensu populi , vel episcopi voc ati on e, non absque populo del ec ti ad c on c ion an du m , et Ordo nihil est aliud , quam merum sine sacramento ministerium . ” Rec en su i mus ej u s argum entum non solum fidel iter , sed etiam liber al iter adj ic i en te s quod fu l c i at : et tam en cui non exc u ti at risum tam hebes theol og an ti s arg u ti a Nam si
422 Ofthe S acr am en t of Or der s D ivine ? F or , if the Order of Priesthood is therefore Nothing, because every C hristian is a Priest ; by the same Reason it will follow, that C hr i st had Nothing above S au l : For D avid said of S au l , P eccavi tan g en s C hr i stu m D om in i ; I have sinned in touching (C hr i s tu m ) the A nointed of our Lord : Or that C hrist had Nothing above them, of whom it is said , Noli te tan g er e C hr i stos m eos ; T ou ch n ot m in e an oin ted : Finally, that God had Nothing above all those of whom he said by the Prophet, I have said ye ar e Gods, an d ar e al l the S on s of the m ost H igh. In a Word, all C hristians are Kings in the same Manner that they are Priests : For it is n ot only said, Ye ar e a r oyal P r i esthood; but also, a p r i estly Ki n g dom . Let us diligently observe what the S erpent designs, who, I suppose, is more crafty than to think this A rgu ment of an y C onsequence, but only licks, that he may afterwards bite : He extols the Laity to the Priesthood, for this only Reason, that he may reduce Priests to the Rank of the Laity ; denying Priesthood to be a S acrament, but only a C ustom of electing a Preacher ; and saying, ‘That he who preaches , is no more a Priest , than the other ; nay, no more a Priest, than a painted Man , is a Man C ontrary to S t . P au l , who, writing to Tim othy, says , The Pr i ests that r u l e wel l , ar e wor thy of dou bl e H on ou r , esp ecial l y su ch as l abou r i n the Wor d an d D octr i n e . * The A postle, by this, evidently teaches, That though those are most worthy of double Honour, who, being Priests, do labour in the Word and D octrine : Yet those who perform not This, bu t can only govern well , are also Priests ; and merit double Honour . Otherwise, he would not have said, E sp ecially those who l abou r i n the Wor d an d D oc tr i n e ; but only such as labour therein . Furthermore, that Lu ther m ay n ot be able to hold what he says, viz . ‘That the Priest ’ s Office i s nothing “ 1 . Tim . v . 1 7 .
424 Ofthe S acr am en t of Order s but to preach to the PeOp l e : For to say Mass ( says he) is nothing but to receive the C ommunion for himself I say, that it may appear how false this is ; let us again hear the A postle ’ s Words , ‘E very Priest ( says he) that is taken out from amongst Men , is constituted for Men , in the Things which belong to God, that he may offer Gifts and S acrifices for their S ins D oes not this plainly shew us that a Priest ’ s D uty requires from him, to offer S acrifices to God for Men ? Though writing to the H ebr ews, (yet n ot willing, that C hristian s should be an y Thing Jewish , ) it is evident that it i s spoken of the Priesthood of both Laws ; so that L u ther is twice pressed by this Testimony : For he also teaches M ass to be a S acrifice , and to be of ered for the People : S eeing the C hurch of ers no other ; and he teacheth, that the D uty of of ering it , is the chief Part of the Priest ’ s C harge . A n d truly if I/u the r ’ s Words were not false , how easily may you see it to follow ; that since none but a Priest can consecrate our Lord ’ s B ody : of so many Thousand Priests, that have not the Gift of Preaching, if they were not trul y Priests , but only equivocally so called, as a painted Man is called a Man ; then would almost all the C hristian World have no other God , or People but Idolators, adoring B read for C hrist, and bending their Knees to B aal . In the Right of electing , as he calls it, he attributes the chief Power to the People ; for though in one Place ; he seems to give this Rite promiscuously to the B ishop and People, (when he says, ‘That although it is certain all Christians are equally Priests, and that they have a like Power in all the S acraments : Yet that none can l awfully exercise this Power, without the C onsent of the C ongregation, or the Vocation of a S uperior . ’ Yet , in another Place, he gives the greatest Right to the People *H eb . v . 1 .
D e S acr am en to Or din is 425 care : nam Missas, in qu it c an er e nihil est aliud , quam com m u n i c ar e seipsu m , hoc, in qu am , u t appar eat quam falsum sit, r u r su s au di am u s A p ostol u m : “ Om n i s, ” in qu it, pon tifex ea; hom i n ibus assu m p tu s p r o kom i n ibu s c on sti tu i tu r i n hi s q u te su n t ad D eu m , u t ofer at don a et sacr ificia pr o p eccati s. ” A nnon A pos tolus aperte decl ar at etiam pon tific i s offic ium i stu d pos cere, u t pro hom in ibu s offer at sac r ific iu m D eo ? Quod q u u m scr ibat, quamquam H ebr a i s, tam en C hr i sti an i s, quos n ol it ju dai zar e, c l ar um est l oqu i de pon tific e legis utriusque, atque ideo bis Lu ther u m suo premere testi m onio . Nam et Missam doc et esse sacr ifici u m , et offer r i pro populo, qu u m E cclesia nullum of er at aliud, et doest offer en di offici u m p r a c ipu am partem esse m u n er i s pon tifieii . E t certe, nisi falsum esset quod dicit Lutherns , facile Videti s c on seq u i u t q u u m nemo nisi sacerdos p ossit consecrare corpus D omini , si e tot sac er dotu m m il l ibu s, qui c on ci on ar i n esc iu n t, nullus vere sacerdos est, sed tantum voc atu r a q u ivoc e, q u em adm odu m homo pictus voc atu r homo, totu s C hristianus orbis clerum popu l u m qu e ferme non habet alium quam idol ol atr as, panem pro C hristo c ol en tes, et genua su a cu r van tes ante B aal . In el ig en di , u t vocat, ritu, pr a cipu u m jus tr ibu it populo . Nam licet uno loco tr ibu er e videatur episcopo aut populo jus pr om i sc u u m , q u u m dicit quod quamquam c er tu m sit omn es C hristianos a q u al i ter esse sacerdotes, et eam dem in verbo et sacramento q u ocu m q u e habere potestatem, non licere tamem qu em q u am hac ipsa uti , nisi consensu c om m un itati s aut voc ati on e maj oris, alio tam en loco, superiores partes tr ibu it populo, qu u m de sac er dotibu s dicit : “Qui si c og er en tu r adm itter e nos omnes a q u al iter esse sacerdotes, qu otqu ot baptizati
426 Ofthe S acr am en t of Or der s when, speaking of Priests , he says, ‘who, if they were compelled to admit all of us, who have been baptized equall y to be Priests , as indeed we are ; and that the Mini stry is only given to them by our C onsent ; they should know also, that they have no Right of ruling over us, but what we admit them of our own free Will . ’ Which two Places being compared together, shews his Opinion to be, ‘That the People, without the B ishop , but not the B ishop without the People, can ordain Priests as appears by his saying, ‘That the Ministry only is permitted to the Priests, and that not without the C onsent of the People Which if true, a Priest cann ot be ordained, without the People ’ s C onsent ; by which alone, he says , ‘That B ishops were formerly made Rulers of the C hurch . ’ ‘ It cannot be den yed, ( says he) that the true C hurches were formerly governed by E lders, without the Ordi nations and C onsecrations ; being chosen to this, by Reason of their A g e and long E xperience in Things of that Kind . ’ Pray let him shew us where he finds these Things ? For my Part, I do not think them to be true . For, if every Layman hath equal Power over an y of the S acraments, with a Priest ; and if the Order of Priest hood stands for Nothing, why writes the A postle thus to Tim othy, ‘Neglect n ot the Grace which i s in thee, and which has been given thee by Prophesy, by the Imposi tion of the Hands of the Presbytery and in another Place, to the same, ‘ I admonish thee, that thou stir up the Grace of God that is in thee, by the Imposition of m y Hands ft A gain, ‘ Impose Hands suddenly on no Man , n either be thou Partakers of other Men ’ s S in s. ’ t Finally, these are the Words of the A postle to Ti tu s ; ‘For this C au se left I thee in Cr ete, that thou shouldest correct the Thing s that are wanting ; and constitute *1 . Tim . i v . 14 . 11 1 . Tim . i . 6 . 11 . Tim . v. 22 .
428 Of the S acr am en t of Or der s Priests in the C ities, even as I have appointed Now Reader, you have, in a few Words, seen some Passages of the A postle, by comparing of which , you m ay easily discover, that whatsoever Lu ther has thus disorderly vented against Order, are mere Fictions an d Lyes : For what he says , ‘ is done by the People ’ s C on sent , ’ S t . P au l shews to be done by the B ishop , while he says , ‘He has left him (Ti tu s) at C r ete, to that E n d that he should ordain Priests in the C ities, and that not rashly, but as he himself, when present, had appointed . ’ You see, by this , that Priests are made by Imposition of Hands . A n d that it m ay not be doubted that Grace is also given at the same Time ; you see , that it is con ferred by Imposition of Hands : ‘ S tir up ( says he, ) the Grace of God which has been given thee by the Imposi tion of m y H an ds z ’ t A n d this also, ‘Neglect not the Grace which is in thee, and which has been given thee through Prophesy, by Imposition of the Hands of the Pr esbyter y ’ f Take Notice of these Things I ad mire that I/u ther is not ashamed to deny the S acrament of Holy Orders, as he is not ign orant that the \Vor ds of S t. Pau l are in every M an ’ s Hands ; which teach , that a Priest cannot be ordained but by a B ishop , and not without C onsecration : In which both the corporeal S ign is adhibited, and so much spiritual Grace infused , that he who is consecrated , not only receives the Holy Ghost for himself, but also the Power of impartin g it to others . C an that which the A postle has writ be new, though it is so affirmed by Lu ther ? H ow can it be unknown to the C hurch, which is, and has at al l Times been , read through the universal C hurch of C hrist ? By these Things, it is manifest , that of all that L u ther has railed out so confidently against Holy Orders, not one S yllable is true, but all the mere lying Inventions of his Malice . ”Tit . i . 5 . HI . Tim . i . 6 . II . Tim . iV . 14, 15 .
D e S acr am en to Or din is 429 Habes nunc, lector , semel sub oc u l i s A postoli pauca loca, et non multa verba, quibus inter se c oll ati s facile potes dep r ehen de r e falsa fictaqu e esse omnia quibus tam inordinate Luthern s debac chatu r in Or din em . Nam quos dicit populi consensu fier i , Paulus osten dit fier i ab episcopo, quem in hoc ait se r el iqu isse C reta , u t oppi datim pr esbyt er os c on sti tu er et, nec tam en temere, sed si c u t ipse pr a sen s di sposu er at. Vides im positi s mani bus fier i sac er dotem . E t n o du bitar i p ossit simul con ferri g r ati am , vides ill am mann um im position e colla tam . “Ressuscita, ” i n qu it, “ g r atiam q u a data est tibi p er i m p ositi on em man n u m m ear u m . E t il l u d quoque Noli n eg lig er e g r ati am q ua i n te est, q ua data est tibi p er p r ephe tiam cu m i m p osi ti on e m an u u m p r esbyter ii ; i n i ts te exer ce . Mir or igitur non pudere Lu ther u m , qu um n eg at sacramentum Ordinis : haud ig n ar u s in m an ibu s omnium ver sar i verba Pauli , qu a doc ean t non nisi a sacerdote fier i sac er dotem , nec sine c on secr ation e fier i , in qua e t signum adhibeatu r c or por eu m , et tantum Sp i r i tal i s i n fu n datu r gratia , u t is, qui c on secr atu r , non solum acc ip i at ipse S p i r itu m sanctum, sed etiam potes tatem c on fer en di al ii s. Novum vero qui potest esse, qu an qu am id Lu ther u s ait, de q u o scr ibit A postol u s ? Quomodo ig n or atu m E cclesia , quod in omnibus C hristi l eg itu r , et nunquam non l eg ebatu r E ccl esii s ? Quibus ex rebus m an ifestu m est e tam multis q u a tanta cum confiden ti a pro c om per ti ssim i s Lu ther u s debl ater avit in Or din em n e unam quidem syl l abam fuisse ver am , sed per m al i ti am ficta fal saqu e omni a .
C HA P . XIII wt the Sacrament of lErtreme " (auction I N this S acrament of E xtreme Unction ; that I/u ther mi ght be twice derided himself, he twice scoffs the C hurch : First, because D i vi n es, ( says he) do call this Unction a S acrament ; ( as if those he calls D ivines, were the only Men who call it a S acrament . ) A gain, because they call it E xtreme ; to which, as to the second , he himself objects, after a j oking M anner, what he can never answer in earnest : For it m ay be rightly called E xtreme, as being the last of four . A fterwards, to shew that it is no S acrament, himself first objects, what he foresees every B ody will object against him, vi z . the Words of S t . J am es the A postle, ‘ If any be sick amongst you, let him send for the Priests of the C hurch, and let them pray over him, anointing him with O il , in the Name of our Lord : A n d the Prayers of the Faithful will save the S ick, and our Lord will raise him up ; and if he be in S ins , they shall be forgiven These Words, (which , according to his own D efin ition, most apparently testify E xtreme Unction to be a S acrament , as wanting neither a visible S ign, nor Promise of Grace ) he immediately begins , with most impudent C on fiden c e, to deride ; as if they were of no M anner of Force . ‘For my Part, ( says he) I say, that if ever there was Folly acted, it is especially in this Place . ’ A n d I , again on the C ontrary do affirm, that if ever Lu ther was mad at any Time, ( as indeed his Madness appears almost in every Place , ) he is certainly dis *Jas. v. 14, 15.
432 Ofthe S acr amen t of E xtr em e Un cti on treated here, in the S acrament of E xtreme Unction , to an extreme Height of M adness . ‘ I omit ( says he) say ing that many do probably assert this n ot to be the E pistle of the A postle S t. Jam es, nor worthy an apos tolic S pirit, though by C ustom, whosoever it be, it has obtained A uthority : Yet if it were certainly written by the A postle S t . Jam es I should say that it is not lawful for an A postle to i nstitute a S acrament by his own A uthority ; that is , to give a divine Promise, with a S ign j oined thereunto : This belongs to C hrist alone . S o that S t . P au l says that he received from our Lord the S acrament of the E ucharist ; and that he was sent, not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel : B u t of the S acra ment of E xtreme Unction we read no where in the Gospel . ’ You see how he endeavours here, two Ways , to weaken the Words of the A postle . First , he will n ot have the E pistle to have been writ by the A postle. S ec on dly, though it was by him written ; yet will he not have the A postle to have A uthority of instituting S acra ments . A lthough he has proposed these two Things in a few Words, and passes hastily on to some other ; yet are they the chief W' eapons , by which he intends to destroy this S acrament ; for what else he says, are but Trifles , whereby he takes Occasion to laugh , as if the C hurch did not well in observing this S acrament . B u t these two do come both to the same Thing : For if the E pistle had not been writ by the A postle , or is not worthy an apostolica] S pirit ; or if, for the A postle ’ s giving this Unction for a S acrament , it be not the more approved to be one : Yet it should follow plainly, that nothing could be ef ected by these Words . If he had said , that it was formerly doubted whose E pistle this was , he had said truly ; for the C hurch admits Nothing rashly, it discusses every Thing diligently : A n d this it doth , that every Thing it receives, may be had for greater C er
D e S acr . E xtr ema - Un cti on is 433 apostoli Jacobi , dicer em n on licere apostol um sua auc tor itate sacramentum i n stitu er e, id est divin am promis sion em cum adj u n cto signo dare ; hoc ad C hr i stu m solum p er tin ebat . S ic Paulus sese accep i sse a D omino dicit sacramentum E u char i stia , et m i ssu m , n on u t bap tizet, sed u t evan g elizet . Nu squ am autem l eg itu r in evangelio Un c tion is istiu s extrema sacramentum . ” H i s verbis videti s u t apostoli verba du obu s modis enervare c on atu r , primum, quod epistola non sit apos toli , dein de quod, eti am si sit apostoli , temen apostol u s au c tor itatem non habeat in stitu en di sacramenta . H a c du o q u an qu am pr opon at paucis, ac statim ad alia transi liat, tam en p r a cipu a tela sunt, quibus in stitu it hoc sacramentum per im er e . Nam c a ter a qu a dicit omnia, n u g am en ta sunt, r iden di oc c asion em c aptan ti a, tanquam E cclesia non recte sacramentum obser vet. S ed ha c duo vivum tan gu n t . Nam si epistola non apostoli sit, nec apostolico spiritu digna, aut si apostolo tradente Un c ti on em hanc pro sacramento, tam en n ihil om ag is probe tur sacramentum, c on sequ er etu r om n in o u t ha c verba nihil efii c er en t . S i dixi sset olim fuisse du bitatum cujus illa fuerit epistola, dixi sset vere : neque enim temere q u icqu am r ec ep it E cclesia ; onm i a dil ig en ter exc u ssit, idqu e ipsum facit , u t c er tior a deber en t haberi omn ia, q u a r ec eper it, eti am si du n taxat humana prudentia r eg er etu r E cclesia .
434 Of the S acr am en t of E xtr em e Un c ti on tainty though it were only directed by human Policy . B u t when he says , ‘That many do assert this E pistle , not only, not to be of the A postle ’ s Writing ; but also, u n worthy of an apostolical S pirit ; and that they not only assert , but probably assert this it is more than prob able , he cannot prove what he says ; otherwise let him name some of these many Persons ; who if they be of the C hurch, I suppose they are not so many, nor of so g reat A uthority, as to be able to stand ou t against the whole C hurch . B u t as yet he has produced none : I will therefore bring one who may suffice against his many, to wit , S t. H i er om ; who, in holy S criptures , was the most learned of his Time, and has as exactly distin g u i shed betwee n dubious and real Things, as could be possible . This great Man , after he had for some Time remained doubtful , of the E pistle of S t . Pau l , (and that onl y at such Time as it was not confirmed by a full C on sent of the whole C hurch . ) Yet he pronoun ces the E pistle of S t . J am es to be undoubtedly of his own Writing : His Words are these , ‘ S t . J am es, S t . P eter , S t . Ju de, an d S t . J ohn , have published seven E pistles, as mystical , as they are succin ct and short ; yea, likewise long ; short in Words , and long in S entences , so that there are not many, who would not be blinded in the reading them . ’ The same S t . H i er om , speals thus of the seven canonical E pistles, ‘The first of them is one of S t . J am es ’ s, the second, of S t. P e ter ’ s , three of S t . John ’ s, one of S t. Ju de ’ s You see how this Father h as the same Opinion of S t . Jam es ’ s E pistle that he has of S t . P eter ’ s ; nor does he think it unworthy an apos tol i c al S pirit : Truly if I/u ther had brought u s any Reasons why this E pistle must not be accoun ted S t. Jam es ’ s, ( though of some other Person, who should speak in the same S pirit, ) yet should he be in some S ort tolerable . B u t now he says, ‘ It is not probable it should
436 Of the S acr am en t of E xtr em e Un cti on be S t. Jam es ’ s , because it is unworthy an apostolical S pirit In which Thing, I will bring no Objections , but Lu ther ’ s own against I/u ther ; for none did ever more frequently and strongly contradict himself, than Lu ther . In the S acrament of holy Order , he says, ‘The C hurch has Power given her to discern the Word of God, from the Words of Men . ’— How then does he say, that this E pistle is unworthy an apostolical S pirit, which the C hurch whose Judgment ( as himself con fesses) cannot err in this, has judged it to be full of apostolical S pirit ? Wherefore, he has now, by his own Wisdom, so hemmed himself in on all S ides, that he must necessarily consent that this E pistle belongs to the A postle, contrary to what he has affirmed to be probable ; or, that the C hurch can err in distinguishing S cripture, which before he den yed . If he says that the C hurch has approved, as worthy of an apostolical S pirit, what is unworthy , then is he a B lasphemer against the C hurch If he hold that the A postle has writ what is unworthy an A postle , then is he a B lasphemer against the A postle . We have therefore sufficiently confuted this : Indeed he has sufficiently confuted himself, in denying the E pistle to belong to the A postle , or to be worthy an apostolical S pirit . Now come we to that , in which, like a valiant Man , he openly sets upon the A postle himself, saying, ‘That though it was of the A postle ’ s Writing, yet it is not lawful for an A postle to institute a S acra ment by his own A uthority ; that is, To give a divine Promise, with a S ign thereunto adj oined : For this ( says he) belongs to C hrist alone . ’ 0 this happy A g e ! in which I/u ther , this new D octor of the Gentiles , is risen , who will seem himself to follow the E xample of S t . Pau l , by resisting an A postle to his Face, * as not going the right Way to the Gospel of Christ, but (which is *Gal . ii . 1 1—14.
D e S acr . E xtr ema —Un eti on is 437 n eque enim Luthero qu i squ am au t sa p i u s ferme contra dicit, aut val idiu s, quam Lutherns . Is igitur in sacra mento Ordinis ait E c cl esi am hoc habere datum, u t possit di scernere verba D ei a verbis hom in u m . Quomodo ergo nun c dicit epistola apostolico spiritu indig n am esse, quam E cclesia, cujus judicium, u t ait , hac in re falli non potest, apostolico spiritu j u dic avit p l en am ? Qua m obr em nunc ita se sua sapientia c on str i n xit u n diq u e, u t aut necessario c om p r obet ep i stol am esse apostoli (cujus c on tr ar i um dixit esse probabile) aut dic at E ccle si am in S c r iptu r a sacra posse diju di c an da falli , quod eam posse n eg aver at . Quod si dic at vel u t apostolico dig n u m spiritu c om p r obasse, quod apostolico spiritu sit in dig n um , bl asphem u s est in E ccl esi am . S i fatetu r apostol u m sc r ipsi sse quod apostolo sit i n dign u m , blas phem u s est in apostol u m . S atis igitur il l u d c on fu tavim u s, imo semet satis con fu tavit ipse, quod epi stol am n eg avit aut esse apostoli , aut dign am apostolico spiritu . Ven i am u s nunc ad id in quo, u t fortem Virum dec et, aperte oppu g n at apostol u m , dic en s, eti am si sit apostoli Jacobi , tam en non licere apostolo sua au ctor i tate sacramentum i n stitu er e, id est , di vi n am p r om i ssi on em cum adj u n cto signo dare . Hoc enim p e r tin et, ” in q u it, “ad solum C hr i stu m . ” O nostri sa on li mag h am fel i c itatem , quo novus iste Gentium doctor exor tu s est Lutherns , qui hoc sibi ar r og an s, tan quam Pa u li seq u er etu r exemplum, in fac i em r esi stat apostolo, quod non recta via in g r edi atu r ad evangelium C hristi , sed, quod plus est, quam si gentes doc eat j u dai zar e, ar r og et sibi facu l tatem pr omi tten di g r ati am , et sacramenta c on den di , hoc est, quod u su r pet sibi potes
438 Of the S acr am en t of E xtr em e Un cti on more than if he should teach the Gentiles to Ju daize ) arrogating to himself the Power of promising Grace , and instituting S acraments ; usurping in that the Power of Christ ; like the proud and traitorous A ngel , who said, ‘ I will establish my Throne in the Nor th, and be like to the most The Pope has no great C ause of being vexed at his Reproaches, who charges such enor mous C rimes upon the A postle himself : For, since it is certain this E pistle belongs to the A postle ; what else does he then, but manifestly accuse the A postle of hav ing (wi thout A uthority, and against all Right) in sti tu ted this S acrament Nay, when he denies the E pistle to belong to the A postle ( lest he should leave of his C alumn y, ) he professes, that he would say as much, if it were of the A postle ’ s own Writing ! Indeed, though some think , that the A postle received Power of insti tuting S acraments , (not without the Power of the Holy Ghost, which God sent them at Pentec ost , and of which C hrist had foretold, ‘The Holy Ghost which I will send unto you, He shall teach you all Yet shall not I dispute it at this Time , whether an A postle has such Power or no, because it is now not necessary to dispute it . B u t seeing it is evident, that the A postle gives us this Unction as a S acrament, I do not doubt, but it is really a S acrament ; and that the A postle was not so impiously arrogant, as to give the People, for a S acrament , what was in Reality no such Thing . B u t if the A postle had n ot the Power of instituting this S acra ment himself, then has he delivered it to the People in these Words, as he received it from C hrist, who, as he would notify to the World some Things by St . Matthew, some by S t. L u ke, some by S t. J ohn , and some by the A postle S t . P au l ; why is it not possible he should be *I sai . xiv. 13, 1 4. J {John xi v. 26.
440 Of the S acr am en t of E xtr em e Un ction pleased to make known some Things unto u s, by the A postle S t. Jam es. Lu ther having thus strenuously behaved himself against the A postle, begins now altogether to turn him self against the C hurch : ‘Which (as he says) abu seth the Words of the A postle, in not adm i n i str in g this Un c tion to the S ick, but when at the Point of D eath Whereas S t . Jam es says , ‘ If any be sick, n ot if any be dying. ’ A s if the C hurch sin ned in n ot exhibiting i h considerately, in every light Fever, ( contracted, per haps , by too much D rinking) so great a Thing as a S acrament ; or, in not attributing to herself a Miracle in healin g such D isease, as either S leep, or A bstinen ce can cure ; that it may n ot be doubted, though the A postle writes sick, that yet he did not mean a Man in every light S ickness , but troubled with such S ickn ess, as, if cured, may shew to be taken away by Virtue of the S acrament ; and that this S acrament i s n ot to be ad hibited, but in great S ickness ; appears by all the Prayers which are said over the sick Person , which, n o D oubt, are very antient, and not of the new In ven tion of those he calls D ivines . A n d though they do n ot promise an assured Health of the B ody, yet do they n ot despair of Health ; n or do they ( as L uther says,) come to such only, as are sure undoubtedly to di e ; for it should be in vain to pray for hi s Health, if they were sure of his D eath . Therefore the C hurch ’ s In tention, is, n ot (as he im pertin ently cavils) that this should be the last S acra ment, although it i s so called, but on the C ontrary, an d that the sick Person may recover his Health ; which, if God is n ot pleased he should ; yet that is n o Prejudice to the Force and Virtue of the S acramen t, which tends more to the curing of the S oul , than to the Health of the B ody .
D e S acr . E xtr em a - Un eti on is 441 Lu ther u s postqu am se tam strenue quam videtis g essit adversus apostol um , j am totum se convertit ad r iden dum E ccl esi am , qu a verbis apostoli , u t dicit Luthern s, abuti tu r , quod n on m in i str et nisi ad mortem usque a g r otan ti , qu u m Jacobu s dic at : ' S i qu i s i nfir m atu r , ” n on si quis m or iatu r : quasi ideo pecc et E cclesia, quod rem tantam, quanta est sacramentum, non adhibeat temere in quali bet levi febricula, quam al iq u i s n im iu m for tasse potando con tr axer it, neque in eo morbo, qui vel dor m i en do pau l u l u m , vel abstin en do curari possit, E cclesia per sac ramentum vel it efil ag itar e m i r acu l u m ! Ne dubitar i possit, eti am si du n taxat in fir m u m scr ipser it Jacobu s, sen si sse tam en haud a g r otan tem leviter, sed eo morbo vexatum , cujus depu l si o posset ostendere, si san ar etu r , san atu m sacramento, or ati on es omnes qu a dicu n tu r super infir m u m ( quas nemo du bitat esse vetu sti ssim as, n on novum in ven tu m eor um , quos iste vocat theologos) , osten du n t n on adhiben du m hoc sacramentum, n isi i n laboran te graviter : et tam en u t non pr om ittu n t certam sal u tem corporis, ita non desp er an t sal u tem , n ee veni u n t, quod Luthern s ait, tanquam ad eos, qui j am tu m sint omn in o morituri . Frustra enim tot or ation i bus or ar en t sal u tem , si certo sibi spon der en t mortem . Non igitur id agit E cclesia, quod inepte c avil l atu r iste, u t sit E xtrema- Un c ti o, licet voc etu r extrema, sed agit u t non sit extrema, sed c on val esc at a g r otu s. Quod si n ol it cum D eus con val esc er e, id tam en n on evacu at vim ac vi r tu tem sacramenti , cujus p r a c ipu a cura n on in corpus fer tu r , sed animam .
442 Of the S acr am en t of E xtr em e Un c ti on A s for L uther ’ s Reason, con cern ing the Efficacy of the S ign, it is altogether without Reason or E fficacy ' ‘ If that Unction be ( says he) a S acrament, it ought, without D oubt , to be an ef ectual S ign of what it prom i ses ; bu t it promises the Health and Recovery of the S ick, as appears by the Words, The Prayers of the Faithful shall save the S ick, and our Lord will raise him up : Yet who sees not but this Promise is fu lfilled in very few ? Wh at shall we say then ? ( says he) , F or either the A postle speaks false in this Promi se, or else this Unction i s no S acrament ; for a sacramental Prom ise i s cer tain, but this, for the most Part, fails . ’ It ap pears by this only A rgu ment , that Lu ther cares not much how open his C alumnies are , so that he can but , un der some Pretext of Truth, impose upon the Unwary : F or he shames not to object against the D ivines , (as said by them, ) what they never spoke : A ‘ S acrament ( says he) is, according to their S ayings , an ef ectual S ign of what it p r om i seth ; but this S acrament gives not the Health of the B ody, which it pr om i seth . ’ B u t D ivines say no such Thing ; they say it is an effectual S ign of Grace , defining it thus , ‘A S acrament is a visible S ign of invisible Grace " They do not speak of the Health of the B ody, which may be given without Grace . S o that when he says, ‘That if Unction be a S acrament, the A postle should lye it is I/u ther himself that l yeth For the S acrament , in as much as it is a S acrament pr om i seth not the Health of the B ody, but of the S oul , by a corporeal S ign . Nevertheless, Lu ther comprehends, un der the same Lye, not only the A postle, but C hrist himself, though Unction were no S acrament : For the Words and Promise ought to be true also, without the S acrament . Therefore , when the A postle says , ‘The S ick shall be healed by Unction and Prayers ; ’ A n d when C hrist says, ‘These S igns shall follow those that
444 Of the S acr am en t of E xtr em e Un cti on believe in him, to wit, that they should lay Hands on the S ick, and they should be healed who sees not that sometimes these Things are performed, but n ot always ? Neither yet are they false who promised them : F or , in whatsoever Words they promised corporeal Things ; yet every B ody knows , they never promised them to be per petu al , when the B ody, in which they are to be done , cannot last always . B u t spiritual Things are here to be understood, because the S pirit is to live for ever . For L u ther ’ s S entence (which exacts from the D ivines, that, if Unction is a S acrament, it may always cure, that may not be an inef ectual S ign) un dertakes to prove that it cannot be a S acrament, if it renders not the B ody im mortal : Which, nevertheless, he himself promises to be done by the Prayers of good Men , without the least stag gering i n Faith : For, ( says he) ‘There is no D oubt, but at this D ay, as many as we please may be cured Which, if true, such a Faith as this m ay preserve Man immortal : For , seeing this m ay be done by Faith , not only S ometimes, but, as he affirms , alway s , if Faith be stable and undoubtful ; it is probable indeed , if any one ever meet with such a Faith : A n d doubtless L u ther was a M an of such Faith, (having so much thereof, that in Favour of it , in many Places, he almost bids D efiance to good Works ; being likewise one to whom God has r e vealed so many, and so great Mysteries , and who erects a new C hurch , for which M iracles are absolutely n ec es sary) it is therefore likely that L u ther can perform abundantly whatever can be done by Faith . If this be true, I wonder he cures not every dying Person ! We look for News daily from Ger m an y of his raising the D ead : Yet, for all this , we hear that not only none are cured by him, but that many good and innocent Priests are killed, (by his A dherents ) and cruelly murthered *Mk . xvi . 1 7 . 18.
D e S acr . E xtr em a - Un cti on is 445 tam en falsos esse qui pr om i ser in t, qu u m eos nemo dubi tet c or por al i a, qu ibu sc u m qu e verbis p r om i ser in t, nun quam p r om i sisse perpetua, qu u m corpus in qu o fier i deber en t perpetuum esse n on possit. S pi r ital i a vero, quia sua natura spiritus a ter n u m victu r u s est , perpetua c on sec u tu r a pol li cen tu r . Nam Lu ther i sententia, qu a a theol og i s exig it u t, si sacramentum sit Un ctio, semper sanet, n e sit sign um i n effic ax, eo tendit u t sacramentum esse n on possit, nisi reddat corpus immortale, quod ipse tam en fier i posse pr om itti t per or ati on em factam a bonis viris nihil ha si tante fide . Nam pr or su s dubium non esse dicit, hodie quoque, sic sanari posse q u otq u ot vel l em u s. H oc si dicit verum , talis fides qu ali s est il li u s, hominem servare potest im m or tal em . Nam q u u m ista fier i possin t per fidem , non solum i n ter du m , sed, quod Lutherns ait, perpetuo, modo sit fides i n du bi a, q u a nihil ha sitet, credibile est fidem istam, si c u iqu am alteri , poti ssim u m con tig i sse Luthero, bomini sic in fidem propenso, u t, fidei favore, bonis op er ibu s multis in locis p r opem odu m in di c at bellum . H om i n i pr a ter ea, cui nunc tot et tanta m y ster i a r evel avit D eus, et qui n ovam condit E ccl esi am , quam in rem opus est et m i r ac u l i s. Igitur verisimile est, quicquid fier i per fidem potest, abunde Lu ther u m facere. D em i r or igitur, si vera dicit, ipsum non curare qu oscu m qu e m or i en tes. E t quotidie au sc u l tam u s rumores e Germania, qui r efer an t r essu scitatos etiam sepu l tos, qu u m interim semper au dim u s non modo sana tum nullum, sed etiam per il l i u s q u osdam satellites , occisos et c r u deli ter tr u c idatos, eju s causa , bonos et innocentes sacerdotes , u t exemplo doc er et O r din em nihil esse, figm en tu m esse char acter em , m eticu l osu m
446 Of the S acr am en t of E xtr em e Un c ti on for his S ake ; that, by his E xample, he may teac h , ‘That Holy Order is nothing : That C haracter is a Fiction : That D avid was timorous for repenting himself to have touched the Lord ’ s These are L u ther ’ s C ures, wrought by his great Faith, without good Works . For, seeing he kills, and cures not ; it appears plainly, ( as he says, ‘That Prayers are to be made not only by Faith, but also by good that Lu ther , not being a good Man , can therefore cur e no B ody himself . ‘This Unction , he says , is no S acra ment, because it does not always heal the B ody B u t himself is a holy Man , by whom, as it is reported, the B ody is killed, and certainly S ouls are killed . S t . J am es writes nothing worthy an ap ostol i ck S pirit ; but L u ther writes every Thing worthy such S pirit , and discerns Things unworthy thereof, and that against the whole C hurch : which, as he acknowledges, cannot be deceived in discerning such S cripture . In which Thing, when I had read S t. Jam es ’ s E pistle, and saw so many Things worthy an apostolic S p i r i t therein, ( as the Joy in over coming Temptations, Patience in A dversity, Wisdom to be begged from God, Hopes to be placed in God without staggering, with many such like ; all which are read in the A postle) I much wonder what Reason Lu ther had to think them un worthy to have been writ by an A postle . B u t perhaps Lu ther would that the A postle had writ such Things as these, to wit, ‘That M ass i s not profitable to the People, that Order i s a vain Fiction and such like, as himself writes ; which are all Things worthy an apostolic S pirit . B u t though, as I said , I adm ired why I/u ther should be so much displeased at S t. Jam es ’ s E pistle ; yet , hav *I . Ks . xxvi . 1 1 , 23.
448 Of the S acr am en t of E xtr em e Un c ti on ing read it more attentively, I wonder n ot at all : For, by the A postle ’ s Writings, I find that he so narrowly touches I/u ther every- where, as if, by hi s pr Ophetic S pirit , he had plainly foreseen him . For, when Lu ther under the Pretext of Faith, despises good Works ; S t. Jam es, on the other S ide, disputes, by Reason, S crip ture, and E xample, ‘ that Faith without Works , is dead Nor is it in on e Place alone, that by bitter Words , he resists that prattling Petulancy of L u ther : ‘ If an y one ( says he) esteem himself religious, n ot bridling his Tongue , but seducing his own Heart, his Religion is B esides Lu ther frets at this , which ‘ he sees very fitly may be applied to his own Tongue . ’ The Tongue is a restless Evil , full of deadly Poi son q L Finally, he perceives that what the Apostle has writ against con tentions Persons, is truly spoken against his own Opin ions : ‘F or ( says the A postle) who is wise and well disciplined among you ? Le t him shew forth his Works by a good C onversation , in the Meekness of Wisdom ; because, if you have the Zeal of S ouls , and C ontentions be in your Hearts , do not glory, being Lyars against the Truth . For this is not Wisdom descending fr om , above, from the Father of Lights, but an earthly, beastly, and di abolical Wisdom : For where Zeal is j oined with C on tention, there also is Inconstancy, and every naughty Work . B u t the Wisdom which is from above, is first of al l shamefaced, then peaceable , modest, c om p l yabl e, agreeing with good Things , full of Mercy and good Works, judging wi th D issimulation : A n d the Fruit of Justice is sown in Peace to the Workers of Peac eff These, gentle Reader , are the Words which move I/u ther to Wrath against the A postle : These , I say, are the Words whereby the A postle as openly touches Lu the r ’ s Petulancy , Railings , wicked and contentious *Jas. i . 26. tJas. iii . 8 . fJas . iii . 1 3 fol ,
D e S acr . E xtr ema - Un cti on is 449 Nam ea sc r ibit apostol u s, u t plane vider i possit p r o pheti co spiritu pr a n ovi sse Lu ther um : ita virum u n dique pu n g it ad vivu m . Nam qu u m Lu ther u s fidei pr a textu c on tem n at opera, Jacobus e diverso di spu tat, r a tione, S c r iptu r i s, exem pl i s fidem sine oper ibu s mortuam esse . P r a ter ea g ar r u l am istam Lu ther i petu l an ti am n on u n o loco verbis in vadit ac er r im i s. “ S i qu i s, ” quit, “ p u tat se r elig i osu m esse, n on r efr en an s li n g u am su am , sed sedu c ens cor su um , hu j u s van a est r elig i o. A c c edit ad ha c quod in suam lingn am Lu ther u s apti s sime videt comp etere, quod illi fr en dit legens : “ I/in gu a i n q u ietam m alu m , p l en a ven en o m or tifer o. ” D en iqu e sentit in sua dogmata verissime dici qu a de con ten tiosi s hu n c in modum sc r ibi t pluribus ibi verbis apostol u s Q u i s sapi en s et di sciplin atu s i n ter vos ? Osten dat ex bon a c on ver sati on e op er ati on em su am in m an su etu din e sap i en ti a . Q u od si ze lu m am ar u m habeti s, et c on tea ti en es si n t i n c or di bu s vestr is, n oli te g l or i ar i , et m en dac es esse adver su s ver i tatem . Non est en im i sta sa p i en ti a desu r su m d esc en den s a P atr e l u m in u m , sed ter r en a, an im alis, diaboli ca. Ubi en im zel as et con ten ti e, ibi i n c on stan tia, et om n e Opu s p r avu m . Q ua au tem desu r su m est sap i en tia, p r im u m qu idem pu di ca est, dein de paeifiea, m odesta, suadi bilis, bon i s con sen ti en s, p l en a m i ser i c or di a, et fr u ctibus bon i s, n on ju di can s, si n e sim u l ati on e . F r u c tu s au tem ju sti tia i n pac e sem inatu r faci en tibus p acem . ” H a c sunt, lector, qua Lu ther u m c omm oven t u t c i n on placcat apostol u s. H a c , in qu am , sunt, quibus apostol u s aperte Lu ther u m ac Lu ther i p etu l an ti am , m al edic en tiam, im p i a et con ten tiosa dogm ata, non secus ac si vidi sset virum, et verba l eg i sset, attin g it. C ujus epis
450 Of the S acr am en t of E xtr em e Un cti o Opinions ; even as if he had seen him, and read hi s Words . I question n ot but his E pistle , though never so much despised by L u ther , will sufficiently prove to all C hristians the S acrament of E xtreme - Unction ; nor shall Lu ther be ever so powerful , as to be able to abolish any S acrament, which, for the S alvation of the Faithful , has been received by the C hurch, against which the Gates of Hell shall never prevail ; much less this single B rother , who is but a sooty Wicket of Hell . WE have in this little B ook, courteous Reader, clearly demonstrated, I hope , how absurdly and impiously Lu ther has handled the Holy S acraments : For , though we have not touched all Things contained in his B ook ; yet so far as was necessary to defend the S acr aments , (which only was our design ) I suppose I have treated, though not so sufficiently as might have been done, yet more than is even necessary ; insomuch that it behoves me not to insist an y lon ger thereupon ; else were it no hard Matter to enrich this D iscourse with more plentiful A rguments, Laws, and S entences of the Holy Fathers , and S cripture itself, if it were not in vain, upon L u ther ’ s A ccount, and for others more than necessary ; for it is as easy for the E thi op ian to change his colour, or the Leopard his spots, as for L u ther to be converted by teaching . B u t that others may understand how false and wicked his D octrine is, lest they might be so far deceived as to have a good Opinion of him ; I doubt not but in all Parts there are very learned Men , though I had said Nothing at all of this M atter , who have much more clearly discovered the same, than can be shewn by me . A n d if there be any who desire to know this strange “l ork of his, I think I have sufficiently made it apparent to them . For, seeing by what has been said, it i s evident to all Men what sacrilegious Opin ions he has of the S acrament of ou r Lord ’ s B ody, ( from which the S anc