Part 24 (2/2)

The ministry of the Word makes the priest and the bishop

[Sidenote: Ordination, the Rite of Choosing Preachers]

Therefore one, young men, and do not enter upon this holy estate, unless you are determined to preach the Gospel, and are able to believe that you are not h this sacra, and to offer mass is to receive the sacrament[183] What then is there left to you that every layman does not have? Tonsure and vestments? A sorry priest, forsooth, who consists of tonsure and vesters? But every Christian is anointed and sanctified with the oil of the Holy Spirit, both in body and soul, and in ancient times touched the sacrament with his hands no less than the priests do now[184] But to-day our superstition counts it a great crime if the laity touch either the bare chalice or the _corporale_;[185] not even a nun who is a pure virgin would be permitted to wash the palls[186]

and sacred linens of the altar O God! how the sacrosanct sanctity of this sacrarown I anticipate that ere long the laity will not be permitted to touch the altar except when they offer their money I can scarce contain myself when I contemplate the wicked tyrannies of these desperate men, ith their farcical and childish fancies lory of the Christian religion

Let every one, therefore, who knows himself to be a Christian be assured of this, and apply it to himself,--that we are all priests, and there is no difference between us; that is to say, we have the same power in respect to the Word and all the sacraments However, no one may make use of this power except by the consent of the community or by the call of a superior For what is the coate to himself, unless he be called And therefore this sacra else than a certain rite whereby one is called to the ministry of the Church Further but the ministry of the Word, mark you, of the Word--not of the law, but of the Gospel And the diaconate is not thethe Gospel or the Epistle, as is the present practice, but thethe Church's alms to the poor, so that the priests ive themselves more freely to prayer and the Word For this was the purpose of the institution of the diaconate, as we read in Acts vi

[Acts 6:4] Whoever, therefore, does not know or preach the Gospel, is not only not a priest or bishop, but he is a plague of the Church, who under the false title of priest or bishop--in sheep's clothing, forsooth--oppresses the Gospel and plays the wolf in the Church

Therefore, unless those priests and bishops hom the Church is now filled work out their salvation in some other way, that is, realise that they are not priests or bishops and bemoan the act that they bear the name of an office whose duties they either do not know or cannot fulfil, and thus with prayers and tears lament their wretched hypocritical life--unless they do this, they are truly the people of eternal perdition, and the words of Isaiah are fulfilled in them: ”Therefore is e, and their nobles have perished with famine, and their multitude were dried up with thirst Therefore hath hell enlarged her soul and opened herones, and their people, and their high and generous ones shall go down into it” [Isa 5:13 f] What a dreadful word for our age, in which Christians are sucked down into so deep an abyss!

Since, therefore, e call the priesthood is a ministry, so far as we can learn from the Scriptures, I cannot understand why one who has been ain become a layman; for the sole difference between him and a layman is his ministry But to depose a man from the ministry is so far from iuilty priests; they are either suspended for a season or per ”indelible character” has long since beco-stock I admit that the pope i of it; and a priest who is consecrated with it beco servant and captive, not of Christ, but of the pope; as it is in our day Moreover, unless I areatly mistaken, if this sacrament and this life all, the papacy itself with its characters will scarcely survive; our joyous liberty will be restored to us; we shall realize that we are all equal by every right, and having cast of the yoke of tyranny, shall know that he who is a Christian has Christ, and that he who has Christ has all things that are Christ's and is able to do all things [Phil 4:13] Of this I rite ly, as soon as I perceive that the above has displeased my friends the papists[187]

THE SACRAMENT OF EXTREME UNCTION

[Sidenote: The Authority of Jaians have made two additions which are worthy of them; first, the call it a sacrament, and secondly, they make it the last sacrament So that it is now the sacrament of extreme unction, which may be ad such subtle dialecticians, perchance they have done this in order to relate it to the first unction of baptis unctions of confirmation and ordination But here they are able to cast in my teeth, that in the case of this sacrament there are, on the authority of Jan, which, as I have all along maintained, constitute a sacra you? Let hi in the priests of the church, and let the him with oil in the name of the Lord And the prayer of faith shall raise hiiven him” [Jaiveness of sins, and the sign of the oil

But I reply: If ever there was aof the act that many assert with much probability that this Epistle is not by James the Apostle,[188] nor worthy of an apostolic spirit, although, whoever be its author, it has come to be esteemed as authoritative But even if the Apostle Jaht on his own authority to institute a sacran attached; for this belongs to Christ alone Thus Paul says that he received from the Lord the sacrament of the Eucharist, and that he was not sent to baptise but to preach the Gospel [1 Cor 11:23; 1 Cor

1:17] And we read nowhere in the Gospel of this sacrament of extreme unction But let us also waive that point Let us examine the words of the Apostle, or whoever was the author of the Epistle, and we shall at once see how little heed these iven to them

[Sidenote: The Unction Not Extreme]

In the first place, then, if they believe the Apostle's words to be true and binding, by what right do they change and contradict them?

Why do they make an extreme and a particular kind of unction of that which the Apostle wished to be general? For he did not desire it to be an extre; but he says quite generally: ”If any ” I care not what learned discussions Dionysius has on this point in his _Ecclesiastical Hierarchy_;[189] the Apostle's words are clear enough, on which words he as well as they rely, without, however, following them It is evident, therefore, that they have arbitrarily and without any authority made a sacrament and an extreme unction out of the misunderstood words of the Apostle, to the detriment of all other sick persons, whom they have deprived of the benefit of the unction which the Apostle enjoined

[Sidenote: The Unction Medicinal]

But what follows is still better The Apostle's promise expressly declares that the prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and the Lord shall raise him up The Apostle commands us to anoint the sick man and to pray, in order that he may be healed and raised up; that is, that he may not die, and that it may not be an extreme unction

This is proved also by the prayers which are said, during the anointing, or the recovery of the one who is sick But they say, on the contrary, that the unction ; that is, that they may not be healed and raised up If it were not so serious aat this beautiful, apt and sound exposition of the Apostle's words? Is not the folly of the sophists here shown in its true colors? As here, so in many other places, they affirm what the Scriptures deny, and deny what they affiristers of ours?[190] I therefore spoke truth when I said they never conceived a crazier notion than this[191]

Furthermore, if this unction is a sacran[192] of that which it signifies and promises Now it promises health and recovery to the sick, as the words plainly say: ”The prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and the Lord shall raise him up” But who does not see that this promise is seldom if ever fulfilled? Scarce one in a thousand is restored to health, and when one is restored nobody believes that it ca of nature or the medicine; or to the sacrament they ascribe the opposite power What shall we say then? Either the Apostle lies inthis promise or else this unction is no sacrament For the sacramental promise is certain; but this promise deceives in the nize the shrewdness and foresight of these theologians--for this very reason they would have it to be extreme unction, that the promise should not stand; in other words, that the sacrament should be no sacraives way to the disease; but if it heals, it cannot be extreisters, James is shown to have contradicted himself, and to have instituted a sacrament in order not to institute one; for they must have an extreme unction just toof the sick If that is not madness, pray what is?

[Sidenote: Priests and Elders]

These people exe to be teachers of the law, understanding neither the things they say, nor whereof they affirs without judghtlessness they have also found auricular confession in our Apostle's words,--”Confess your sins one to another” [James 5:16] But they do not observe the command of the Apostle, that the priests of the church be called, and prayer beis sent nowadays, although the Apostle would have many present, not because of the unction but of the prayer Wherefore he says: ”The prayer of faith shall save the sick man,” etc I have my doubts, however, whether he would have us understand priests when he says presbyters, that is, elders For one who is an elder is not therefore a priest or minister; so that the suspicion is justified that the Apostle desired the older and graver men in the Church to visit the sick; these should perform a work of mercy and pray in faith and thus heal him Still it cannot be denied that the ancient churches were ruled by elders, chosen for this purpose, without these ordinations and consecrations, solely on account of their age and their long experience

Therefore, I take it, this unction is the same as that which the Apostles practised, in Mark vi, ”They anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them” [Mark 6:13] It was a cerehtsince ceased; even as Christ, in the last chapter of Mark, gave them that believe the power to take up serpents, to lay hands on the sick, etc [Mark 16:17] It is a wonder that they have not s; for they have the same power and promise as the words of James Therefore, this extreme--that is, this fictitious--unction is not a sacrament, but a counsel of James, which whoever will may use, and it is derived from Mark vi, as I have shown

I do not believe it was a counsel given to all sick persons, for the Church's infirain [Roiven only to such as ht bear their sickness impatiently and with little faith These the Lord allowed to remain in the Church, in order that ht be manifest in them

[Sidenote: Prayer the Chief Part of Unction]

For this very contingency Ja the proiveness of sins not to the unction, but to the prayer of faith For he says: ”And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and the Lord shall raise hiiven him” A sacrament does not demand prayer or faith on the part of the minister, since even a wicked person may baptise and consecrate without prayer; a sacrament depends solely on the promise and institution of God, and requires faith on the part of him who receives it But where is the prayer of faith in our present use of extreme unction? Who prays over the sick one in such faith as not to doubt that he will recover? Such a prayer of faith Ja of his Epistle: ”But let hi” [James 1:6]

And Christ says of it: ”Whatsoever you ask, believe that you shall receive; and it shall be done unto you” [Mark 11:24]