the Spirit might immediately shew itself. This they do not practise. Why then do they boast that they are countenanced by the imposition of hands, which we find was used by the apostles, but for a totally different purpose.

VII. This is just as reasonable as it would be for any one to affirm the afflation, with which the Lord breathed upon his disciples, to be a sacrament by which the Holy Spirit is conferred. (n) But though the Lord did this once, he has never directed it to be done by us. In the same manner, the apostles practised imposition of hands during that period in which the Lord was pleased to dispense the visible graces of the Holy Spirit in compliance with their prayers: not in order that persons in succeeding times might counterfeit a vain and useless sign, as a mere piece of mimicry destitute of any reality, Besides, even if they could prove themselves to imitate the apostles in the imposition of hands, in which they have nothing similar to the apostles, except this preposterous mimicry, whence do they derive their oil, which they call the oil of salvation? Who has taught them to seek salvation in oil? Who has taught them to attribute to it the property of imparting spiritual strength? Is it Paul, who calls us off from the elements of this world, and sincerely condemns an attachment to such observances? (o) On the contrary, I fearlessly pronounce, not of myself, but from the Lord; that those who call oil, the oil of salvation, abjure the salvation which is in Christ, reject Christ, and have no part in the kingdom of God. For oil is for the belly, and the belly for oil; the Lord shall destroy both: all these weak elements "which perish with the using," (p) have no connection with the kingdom of God, which is spiritual, and shall never perish. What then, it will be said, do you apply the same rule to the water with which we are baptised, and to the bread and wine used in the Lord's supper? I answer, that in sacraments of divine appointment, two things are to be regarded; the substance of the corporeal symbol which is proposed to us, and the character impressed upon it by the word, in which consists all its virtue. Therefore, as the bread and wine and water, which are presented to our view in

(n) John xx. 22. (o) Gal. iv. 9. Col. ii. 20. (p) Col. ii. 22.

the sacraments, retain their natural substance, that observation of Paul is always applicable; "Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them:” (q) for they pass and vanish away with the fashion of this world. But as they are sanctified by the word to be sacraments, they do not confine us to the flesh, but impart to us true and spiritual instruction.

VIII. Let us examine still more narrowly how many monsters are fostered by this oil. The dispensers of it say, that the Holy Spirit is given, in baptism for innocence, in confirmation for an augmentation of grace: that in baptism we are regenerated to life, and that by confirmation we are armed for warfare: and they have so far lost all shame, as to deny that baptism can be rightly performed without confirmation. What corruption! Are we not then "in baptism buried with Christ, planted together in the likeness of his death,” that we may be "also in the likeness of his resurrection?" Now this fellowship with the death and life of Christ, Paul explains to consist in the mortification of the flesh, and the vivification of the Spirit: "that our old man is crucified with him, that we should walk in newness of life." (r) What is it to be armed for the spiritual warfare, if this be not? If they deemed it of no importance to trample under foot the word of God, why did they not at least reverence the Church, to which they wish to appear so uniformly obsequious? But what can be produced more severe against this doctrine of theirs, than the following decree of the council of Milevum? "Whoever asserts that baptism is only given for the remission of sins, and not for assistance of future grace, let him be accursed." When Luke, in a passage which we have already cited, speaks of some as having been "baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus," (s) who had not received the Holy Ghost, he does not absolutely deny that any gift of the Spirit had been imparted to those persons who had believed in Christ with the heart, and had confessed him with the mouth; he intends that gift of the Spirit which communicated his manifest powers and visible graces. So the apostles are said to have received the Holy

(9) 1 Cor. vi. 13.

(r) Rom. vi. 4-6.

(s) Acts xix. 5.

Spirit on the day of Pentecost; though Christ had long before declared to them; "It is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father, which speaketh in you." (†) Let all who are of God, here observe the malicious and pestilent artifice of Satan. That which was truly given in baptism, he falsely asserts to be given in his confirmation; with the crafty design of seducing us unawares from baptism. Who can doubt now that this is the doctrine of Satan, which severs from baptism the promises which belong to that sacrament, and transfers them to something else? It is now discovered on what kind of a foundation this famous unction rests. The word of God is, that "as many as have been baptised into Christ, have put on Christ," (u) with his gifts. The word of these anointers is, That we have received no promise in baptism to arm us for the spiritual warfare. The word of God is the voice of truth; consequently the word of the anointers must be the voice of falsehood. I can, therefore, give a more correct definition of this confirmation than they have yet given of it: namely, that it is a manifest insult against baptism, obscuring and even abolishing its use; that it is a deceitful promise of the devil, seducing us from the truth of God: or, if the following be preferred, that it is oil polluted with the falsehood of the devil, to darken and deceive the minds of the simple.

IX. They further assert that all the faithful after baptism ought to receive the Holy Spirit by imposition of hands, that they may be found complete Christians; for that no one can be altogether a Christian who is never anointed with episcopal confirmation. These are their own words. But I thought that all things relating to Christianity had been comprehended and declared in the Scriptures. Now, it seems, the true form of religion is to be sought and learned from some other quarter. The wisdom of God, therefore, celestial truth, all the doctrine of Christ, only begins to make Christians; oil completes them. Such a sentiment condemns all the apostles, and a number of martyrs, who, it is certain, had never received this unction. For the holy chrism, the perfusion of which would complete their Christianity, or rather make them Christians from being no Christians at all, had not then been manu

(t) Acts ii, 4, &c. Matt. x. 20.

(18) Gal. iii. 27.

factured. But these chrismatics abundantly confute themselves, without saying a word. For what number of their people do they anoint after baptism? Why then do they suffer such semi-christians in their own community, from an imperfection which they might easily remedy? Why do they, with such supine negligence, suffer them to omit that which cannot be omitted without great criminality? Why do they not more rigidly insist upon a thing so necessary and indispensable to salvation; unless any one be prevented by sudden death? Surely while they suffer it to be so easily despised, they tacitly confess it not to be of so much importance as they pretend it to be.

X. In the last place, they determine that this sacred unction ought to be held in greater reverence than baptism: because it is only dispensed by the hands of the greatest prelates, whereas baptism is commonly administered by all priests. Must they not be considered as evidently mad, who discover such fondness for their own inventions, that in comparison with them they presume to undervalue the sacred institutions of God? Sacrilegious mouth, dost thou dare to place an unction, which is only defiled with thy fetid breath, and enchanted by the muttering of a few words, on a level with the sacrament of Christ, and to compare it with water sanctified by the word of God? But this would not satisfy thy presumption; thou hast even given it the preference! These are the responses of the holy see: they are the oracles of the apostolic tripod. But some of them have begun to moderate this infatuation, which even in their opinion was carried beyond all due limits. Confirmation is to be regarded, they say, with greater reverence than baptism; not perhaps for the greater virtue and advantage that it confers; but because it is dispensed by persons of superior dignity, and is applied to the nobler part of the body, that is, the forehead: or because it contributes a greater augmentation of virtue, though baptism is more available to remission. But in the first reason, do they not betray themselves to be Donatists, who estimate the virtue of the sacrament by the dignity or worthiness of the minister? I will grant, however, that confirmation be considered as more excellent from the dignity of episcopal hands.

But if any one inquire of them how such a prerogative has been conferred on bishops, what reason will they assign but their own pleasure? They allege, that the apostles alone exercised that right, being the sole dispensers of the Holy Spirit. Are bishops the only apostles; or are they apostles at all? Let us, however, grant that also: why do they not on the same principle contend that none but bishops ought to touch the sacrament of the blood in the Lord's supper; which they refuse to the laity, because the Lord, as they say, only gave it to the apostles? If our Lord gave it to the apostles alone, why do they not infer, Therefore it ought now to be given to bishops alone? But in this case they make the apostles simple presbyters; now they are hurried away with an extravagant notion suddenly to create them bishops. Lastly, Ananias was not an apostle; yet to him Paul was sent, that he might receive his sight, be baptised, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. (x) I will add one question more: If this was the peculiar office of bishops by a divine right, why have they dared to transfer it to common presbyters; as we read in one of the epistles of Gre gory?

XI. How frivolous and foolish is the second reason, That they call their confirmation more excellent than the baptism instituted by God, because in confirmation the forehead is anointed with oil, and in baptism the crown of the head: as though baptism were performed with oil, and not with water! I appeal to all the faithful, whether these deceivers do not direct all their efforts to this one object; to corrupt the purity of the sacraments by the leaven of their false doctrine. I have already remarked, in another part of this Book, that in the sacraments it is scarcely possible to discern that which is of divine institution among the multiplicity of human inventions. If any one did not give credit to that observation of mine, let him now at least believe his own masters. By their passing over the water without the least notice, it appears that the only thing to which they attribute much importance in baptism, is their own oil. We therefore on the contrary affirm, that in baptism the forehead also is laved with water. In comparison