Coming Down From Heaven ("Jesus' Carol") -- My Ninth Christmas Poem

[ source ]

This Christmas poem (my ninth) is the third of a trilogy of biblical "narrative" poems: the first being from Simeon's perspective and the second from Mary's. I determined last year that I would try to write a poem from the perspective of Jesus becoming incarnate -- becoming a man, and a baby -- yet remaining all the while God. It was quite a daunting challenge (writing as if one were God speaking!), but I tried to keep it relatively simple, for readers' sake and my own (those wishing to pursue theology proper and Christology -- the Incarnation and Two Natures of Christ -- more deeply, see my Holy Trinity web page). I hope you are edified and blessed by the poem and may God bless you and yours abundantly during this Advent / Christmas season.


Disclaimer for certain wary Protestants: if you don't like the "Mary / Catholic stuff"; just omit the second stanza in your reading. That will eliminate, I believe, any theological objection you may have, and the poem still works okay without it (as a five-stanza piece); but you'll be missing a crucial biblical and theological aspect of the Incarnation (including the Virgin Birth).


* * * * *

From all eternity, age to age; since the "beginning," I AM;
With My Father I created the universe: all things that are.
We decreed to save mankind by sacrifice of "God's Lamb";
Foretold in Isaiah 53: Messiah scorned, slain, and scarred.


My mother gave I the grace to be immaculate, without sin;
Fit vessel for God incarnate: ark of the new covenant pure.
Gabriel hailed New Eve "full of grace": redemption to begin;
Virgin with child by the Holy Spirit; man's salvation now sure.


In fullness of time I came down from glorious heaven above;
Clothed with human flesh: a baby-king (!) of Israel from birth.
Lying in a cave; a manger, in the world I had made and loved,
I was worshiped by shepherds and wise men filled with mirth.


Though seeing through infant eyes: helpless, innocent, meek;
I knew all things, possessed God's wisdom even in that hour.
As a baby, though King and Messiah, I cried and didn't speak;
But I sustained the entire universe by the Word of My power.


Even animals at My birth sensed the wonder prophesied of old;
Mary and Joseph were filled with thankful happiness and joy.
The three kings gave Me gifts: frankincense, myrhh, and gold;
Shepherds adored, fell before God: now present as a baby boy.


Mary held me close and rejoiced, under the star's shiny beam;
I was dependent on her as a son, though I was God all the while.
I contemplated the reason I was born, and how I would redeem.
But now all was contentment and peace, so I rested and smiled.


Written on 12 December 2009.

First Radio Interview Regarding My Book, The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton

[link to the book page for this volume]

I was interviewed by producer Matt Swaim on The Son Rise Morning Show, hosted on Sacred Heart Radio, out of Cincinnati (740 AM, with this show airing from 6-9 AM Monday through Friday). The interview actually took place on December 3rd, but it was aired on two dates: Thursday, 10 December, from 6:22-6:28 AM, and Tuesday, 15 December, from 7:16-7:22 AM.

You can hear the interview on one of two podcasts that are made for the entire show:

December 10th show (listen from the starting time of 22:40 through to 28:55 on the tape).

December 15th show (listen from 1:16:00 through to 1:22:23).

Unfortunately, both of them (at least when I listened) came through only one channel of my headphone: presumably this is because it is a mono AM broadcast. Nor is the quality of the sound all that great.

But hey, it's free, and listeners may discover once again why it is that I stick almost solely to writing. I thought I did "okay" (as I almost always do, in my opinion of my 15 or so radio appearances and a dozen or so other various small speaking engagements). I had fun, and the questions were great (Matt told me off the air that Chesterton was the primary cause of his own conversion).

In any event, public speaking is not a particularly notable gift of mine; never said it was, and this is why I confine myself mostly to writing, which I take is one of the abilities that God has decided to bless me with, since there appears to occasionally be some good fruit, by God's grace, as a result of my efforts along those lines. Writing and effective public speaking are very, very different things, and few folks are really good at both. They usually are far more talented in one area than the other, precisely because they are so different. As Chesterton himself wrote about his own writing:

Over and above the horrible rubbish-heap of the books I have written, now filling the pulping-machines or waste-paper baskets of the world, there are a vast number of books that I have never written, because a providential diversion interposed to protect the crowd of my fellow-creatures who could endure no more.

(As I Was Saying, London: Methuen & Co., 1936, chapter 1)

And:

I am staring blankly at this sheet of paper and I firmly believe that something more or less intelligible will happen soon.

(The Spice of Life and Other Essays, London: Darwen Finlayson, 1964; “On Fragments” [1906] )

Insofar as I do make these appearances, it is usually in my preferred dialogue format. Thus, an interview is perfectly to my liking, as I am (in both writing and talking) a conversationalist, not a lecturer or a "preacher."

Shortly, I will also be interviewed for the Spirit Morning Show out of Omaha, with Bruce and Kris McGregor. I'll post the details on that as I receive them. If I find out before it is broadcast, when the time will be (I didn't last time), then I'll post live streaming information. If not, then I'll have a link to an mp3 file, such as the ones above. Either way, anyone who wants to can listen for free.

For more of my (free) radio broadcasts, see my Radio Talks Page.

Antidote to John Calvin's Institutes (IV,19:34-37) [Holy Matrimony: the Fathers and the Bible / Calvin's Groundless Opposition to Celibacy]

See the introduction and links to all installments at the top of my John Calvin, Calvinism, and General Protestantism web page; also the online version of the Institutes. Calvin's words will be in blue throughout. All biblical citations (in my portions) will be from RSV unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *

Book IV

CHAPTER 19

OF THE FIVE SACRAMENTS, FALSELY SO CALLED. THEIR SPURIOUSNESS PROVED, AND THEIR TRUE CHARACTER EXPLAINED.

OF MARRIAGE.

34. Marriage not a sacrament.

The last of all is marriage, which, while all admit it to be an institution of God, no man ever saw to be a sacrament, until the time of Gregory.

This is untrue. St. Augustine (as I noted previously) referred to it as a sacrament:

Undoubtedly the substance of the sacrament is of this bond, so that when man and woman have been joined in marriage they must continue inseparably as long as they live, nor is it allowed for one spouse to be separated from the other except for cause of fornication. For this is preserved in the case of Christ and the Church, so that, as a living one with a living one, there is no divorce, no separation forever.

(Marriage and Concupiscence 1:10:11 [A.D. 419] )

In marriage, however, let the blessings of marriage be loved: offspring, fidelity, and the sacramental bond. Offspring, not so much because it may be born, but because it can be reborn; for it is born to punishment unless it be reborn to life. Fidelity, but not such as even the unbelievers have among themselves, ardent as they are for the flesh. . . . The sacramental bond, which they lose neither through separation nor through adultery, this the spouses should guard chastely and harmoniously.

(Ibid., 1:17:19)

So did St. Ambrose:

Scarcely less clear is the testimony of St. Ambrose. In his letter to Siricius (Ep. xlii, 3, in P.L., XVI, 1124), he states: "We also do not deny that marriage was sanctified by Christ"; and to Vigilius he writes (Ep. xix, 7, in P.L., XVI, 984): "Since the contracting of marriage must be sanctified by the veiling and the blessing of the priest, how can there be any mention of a marriage, when unity of faith is wanting?" Of what kind this sanctification is, the saint tells us clearly in his work "De Abraham" (I, vii, in P.L., XIV, 443): "We know that God is the Head and Protector, who does not permit that another's marriage-bed be defiled; and further that one guilty of such a crime sins against God, whose command he contravenes and whose bond of grace he loosens. Therefore, since he has sinned against God, he now loses his participation in the heavenly sacrament." According to Ambrose, therefore, Christian marriage is a heavenly sacrament, which binds one with God by the bonds of grace until these bonds are sundered by subsequent sin that is, it is a sacrament in the strict and complete sense of the word. The value of this testimony might be weakened only by supposing that Ambrose, in referring to the "participation in the heavenly sacrament" which he declares forfeited by adulterers, was really thinking of Holy Communion. But of the latter there is in the present instance not the slightest question; consequently, he must here mean the loss of all share in the grace of the Sacrament of Marriage.

(The Catholic Encyclopedia: "Sacrament of Marriage")

So did Pope Innocent I (d. 417):

This production of grace through marriage, and therefore its character as a perfect sacrament, was emphasized also by Innocent I in his letter to Probus (Ep. ix, in P.L., XX, 602). He declares a second marriage during the lifetime of the first partner invalid, and adds: "Supported by the Catholic Faith, we declare that the true marriage is that which is originally founded on Divine grace."

(Ibid.)

So did Tertullian (c. 160 - c. 225):

As early as the second century we have the valuable testimony of Tertullian. While still a Catholic, he writes ("Ad Uxorem"): "If therefore such a marriage is pleasing to God, wherefore should it not turn out happily, so that it will not be troubled by afflictions and needs and obstacles and contaminations, since it enjoys the protection of the Divine grace?" But if Divine grace and its protection are, as Tertullian asserts, given with marriage, we have therein the distinctive moment which constitutes a religious action (already known for other reasons as a sign of Divine grace) an efficacious sign of grace, that is, a true Sacrament of the New Dispensation. It is only on this hypothesis that we can rightly understand another passage from the same work of Tertullian (II, ix, in P.L., I, 1302): "How can we describe the happiness of those marriages which the Church ratifies, the sacrifice strengthens, the blessing seals, the angels publish, the Heavenly Father propitiously beholds?"

(Ibid.)

And would it ever have occurred to the mind of any sober man?

Apparently, Augustine and Ambrose and other prominent early Christian figures were quite the irrational drunks . . . I find it virtually self-evident to believe that marriage brings grace to the couple and helps them insofar as marriage is a picture of Christ and His Church.

It is a good and holy ordinance of God.

Then why wrangle over whether it is a sacrament? Baptists even call the Eucharist and baptism ordinances. Just because Protestants can't agree amongst themselves what a sacrament is and what it confers, doesn't mean that we all must be uncertain. This is why God ordained and set up His Church: to be our Guide.

And agriculture, architecture, shoemaking, and shaving, are lawful ordinances of God; but they are not sacraments. For in a sacrament, the thing required is not only that it be a work of God, but that it be an external ceremony appointed by God to confirm a promise. That there is nothing of the kind in marriage, even children can judge.

Is there not a marriage ceremony?

But it is a sign, they say, of a sacred thing, that is, of the spiritual union of Christ with the Church. If by the term sign they understand a symbol set before us by God to assure us of our faith, they wander widely from the mark. If they mean merely a sign because it has been employed as a similitude, I will show how acutely they reason. Paul says, “One star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead” (1 Cor. 15:41, 42). Here is one sacrament. Christ says, “The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard-seed” (Mt. 13:31). Here is another sacrament. Again, “The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven” (Mt. 13:33). Here is a third sacrament. Isaiah says, “He shall feed his flock like a shepherd” (Isaiah 40:11). Here is a fourth sacrament. In another passage he says, “The Lord shall go forth as a mighty man” (Isaiah 42:13). Here is a fifth sacrament. And where will be the end or limit? Everything in this way will be a sacrament.

No; only those seven things that the Church, under her divinely-protected mandate, determines to be so. It is not for Calvin to decide these things, but for the Church. But there is a more profound analogy, with far more realism, in marriage, than in these other instances, as will be shown below, from Holy Scripture.

All the parables and similitudes in Scripture will be so many sacraments. Nay, even theft will be a sacrament, seeing it is written, “The day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night” (1 Thess. 5:2). Who can tolerate the ignorant garrulity of these sophists?

Who can tolerate the revolutionary anti-traditional attitude of Calvin?

I admit, indeed, that whenever we see a vine, the best thing is to call to mind what our Saviour says, “I am the true vine, and my father is the husbandman.” “ I am the vine, ye are the branches” (John 15:1, 5). And whenever we meet a shepherd with his flock, it is good also to remember, “I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine” (John 10:14). But any man who would class such similitudes with sacraments should be sent to bedlam.

Indeed, but that is neither here nor there. It is merely a failed reductio ad absurdum. Matrimony, like most of the other sacraments, had a great deal of development. The Catholic Encyclopedia ("Sacrament of Marriage") explains this:

With regard to the several religious rites designated as "Sacraments of the New Law", there was always in the Church a profound conviction that they conferred interior Divine grace. But the grouping of them into one and the same category was left for a later period, when the dogmas of faith in general began to be scientifically examined and systematically arranged. Furthermore, that the seven sacraments should be grouped in one category was by no means self-evident. For, though it was accepted that each of these rites conferred interior grace, yet, in contrast to their common invisible effect, the difference in external ceremony and even in the immediate purpose of the production of grace was so great that, for a long time, it hindered a uniform classification. Thus, there is a radical difference between the external form under which baptism, confirmation, and orders, on the one hand are administered, and, on the other hand, those that characterize penance and marriage. For while marriage is in the nature of a contract, and penance in the nature of a judicial process, the three first-mentioned take the form of a religious consecration of the recipients.

In the proof of Apostolicity of the doctrine that marriage is a sacrament of the New Law, it will suffice to show that the Church has in fact always taught concerning marriage what belongs to the essence of a sacrament. The name sacrament cannot be cited as satisfactory evidence, since it did not acquire until a late period the exclusively technical meaning it has today; both in pre-Christian times and in the first centuries of the Christian Era it had a much broader and more indefinite signification. . . .

The love of Christian spouses for each other should be modelled on the love between Christ and the Church, because Christian marriage, as a copy and token of the union of Christ with the Church, is a great mystery or sacrament. It would not be a solemn, mysterious symbol of the union of Christ with the Church, which takes concrete form in the individual members of the Church, unless it efficaciously represented this union, i.e. not merely by signifying the supernatural life-union of Christ with the Church, but also by causing that union to be realized in the individual members; or, in other words, by conferring the supernatural life of grace. . . .

In fact, it would be entirely out of keeping with the economy of the New Testament if we possessed a sign of grace and salvation instituted by God which was only an empty sign, and not an efficacious one. Elsewhere (Galatians 4:9), St. Paul emphasizes in a most significant fashion the difference between the Old and the New Testament, when he calls the religious rites of the former "weak and needy elements" which could not of themselves confer true sanctity, the effect of true justice and sanctity being reserved for the New Testament and its religious rites. If, therefore, he terms Christian marriage, as a religious act, a great sacrament, he means not to reduce it to the low plane of the Old Testament rites, to the plane of a "weak and needy element", but rather to show its importance as a sign of the life of grace, and, like the other sacraments, an efficacious sign. St. Paul, then, does not speak of marriage as a true sacrament in explicit and immediately apparent fashion, but only in such wise that the doctrine must be deduced from his words. . . .

Weightier, if anything, than the testimony of the Fathers as to the sacramental character of Christian marriage is that of the liturgical books and sacramentaries of the different Churches, Eastern and Western, recording the liturgical prayers and rites handed down from the very earliest times. These, it is true, differ in many unimportant details, but their essential features must be traced back to Apostolic ordinances. In all these rituals and liturgical collections, marriage, contracted before the priest during the celebration of Mass, is accompanied by ceremonies and prayers similar to those used in connection with the other sacraments; in fact several of these rituals expressly call marriage a sacrament, and, because it is a "sacrament of the living", require contrition for sin and the reception of the Sacrament of Penance before marriage is contracted (cf. Martène, "De antiquis ecclesiæ ritibus", I, ix). But the venerable age, in fact the apostolicity, of the ecclesiastical tradition concerning marriage is still more clearly revealed by the circumstance that the rituals or liturgical books of the Oriental Churches and sects, even of those that separated from the Catholic Church in the first centuries, treat the contracting of marriage as a sacrament, and surround it with significant and impressive ceremonies and prayers. The Nestorians, Monophysites, Copts, Jacobites etc., all agree in this point (cf. J.S. Assemani, "Bibliotheca orientalis", III, i, 356; ii, 319 sqq.; Schelstrate, "Acta oriental. eccl.", I, 150 sqq.; Denzinger, "Ritus orientalium", I, 150 sqq.; II, 364 sqq.). The numerous prayers which are used throughout the ceremony refer to a special grace which is to be granted to the newly-married persons, and occasional commentaries show that this grace was regarded as sacramental. Thus, the Nestorian patriarch, Timotheus II, in his work "De septem causis sacramentorum" mentioned in Assemani (III, i, 579), deals with marriage among the other sacraments, and enumerates several religious ceremonies without which marriage is invalid. Evidently, therefore, he includes marriage among the sacraments, and considers the grace resulting from it a sacramental grace.

35. Nothing in Scripture to countenance the idea that marriage is a sacrament.

They adduce the words of Paul, by which they say that the name of a sacrament is given to marriage, “He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the Church: for we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the Church” (Eph. 5:28, 32).

How this has relevance to sacramentality has been explained above, and will to a greater extent below, as we proceed.

To treat Scripture thus is to confound heaven and earth. Paul, in order to show husbands how they ought to love their wives, sets Christ before them as an example. As he shed his bowels of affection for the Church, which he has espoused to himself, so he would have every one to feel affected toward his wife. Then he adds, “He that loveth his wife loveth himself,” “even as the Lord the Church.” Moreover, to show how Christ loved the Church as himself, nay, how he made himself one with his spouse the Church, he applies to her what Moses relates that Adam said of himself. For after Eve was brought into his presence, knowing that she had been formed out of his side, he exclaimed, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh” (Gen. 2:23). That all this was spiritually fulfilled in Christ, and in us, Paul declares, when he says, that we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones, and so one flesh with him. At length he breaks out into the exclamation, “This is a great mystery;”

The Latin word for "mystery" is sacramentum. So Paul makes a reference to this here, though no one argues that it was in as formulated a sense as the later developed doctrine exhibited.

and lest any one should be misled by the ambiguity, he says, that he is not speaking of the connection between husband and wife, but of the spiritual marriage of Christ and the Church. And truly it is a great mystery that Christ allowed a rib to be taken from himself, of which we might be formed; that is, that when he was strong, he was pleased to become weak, that we might be strengthened by his strength, and should no longer live ourselves, but he live in us (Gal. 2:20).

Certainly Calvin would not deny that salvation itself is conferred as a result of grace (for that is sola gratia). Scripture tells us that people can sometimes be saved as a direct result of their spouse:

1 Peter 3:1-2 Likewise you wives, be submissive to your husbands, so that some, though they do not obey the word, may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, [2] when they see your reverent and chaste behavior.

The Greek word for "won" is kerdaino (Strong's word #2770). It can and does have implications for the salvation of others, as in its use in the following passage:

1 Corinthians 9:19-22 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more. [20] To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the law -- though not being myself under the law -- that I might win those under the law. [21] To those outside the law I became as one outside the law -- not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ -- that I might win those outside the law. [22] To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

If even grace unto salvation is obtained within marriage, then what objection could there be to marriage as a sacrament, which is precisely a means to obtain grace? Likewise, St. Paul stated that women could be saved by bearing children (which can only properly occur in marriage):

1 Timothy 2:15 Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

Both of these passages suggest that grace is imparted through marriage itself, which is the essence of a sacrament. Even if one partner is an unbeliever, Paul says that they are "consecrated" by the believing partner; indeed, that may even be "saved" in this fashion:

1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy. [KJV: "sanctified"]

1 Corinthians 7:16 Wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband? Husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife?

"Consecrated" in 1 Corinthians 7:14 is hagiazo (Strong's word #37); often translated as "sanctify" or "sanctified" -- as in the KJV. This comes, of course, ultimately from God, but the wife or husband can be a vessel for that sanctification: and that is grace, and it is sacramental. Here are some other uses of hagiazo in Scripture:

John 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth.

Acts 20:32 And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.

Acts 26:18 . . . those who are sanctified by faith in me.

1 Corinthians 1:2 To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus . . .

1 Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Ephesians 5:24-26 As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands. [25] Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, [26] that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,

[Thus, the same word used by Paul -- hagiazo -- to refer to Jesus sanctifying the Church, in the context of a marriage and Church and Christ analogy, is used by him in reference to a husband or wife with regard to the sanctification or consecration of an unbelieving spouse. This shows the realism of the comparison that goes beyond just any biblical analogy: as Calvin had mocked above, using the example of "vines," etc. The same profound realism is exhibited in 5:29-30: "For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body." ]

1 Thessalonians 5:23 May the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly . . .

Hebrews 10:10 And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Hebrews 10:14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

Hebrews 13:12 So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood.

36. Origin of the notion that marriage is a sacrament.

The thing which misled them was the term sacrament. But, was it right that the whole Church should be punished for the ignorance of these men? Paul called it a mystery. When the Latin interpreter might have abandoned this mode of expression as uncommon to Latin ears, or converted it into “secret,” he preferred calling it sacramentum, but in no other sense than the Greek term μυστηπιον was used by Paul. Let them go now and clamour against skill in languages, their ignorance of which leads them most shamefully astray in a matter easy and obvious to every one. But why do they so strongly urge the term sacrament in this one passage, and in others pass it by with neglect? For both in the First Epistle to Timothy (1 Tim. 3:9, 16), and also in the Epistle to the Ephesians, it is used by the Vulgate interpreter, and in every instance, for mystery.

As I stated above, the Catholic Church does not claim much for Paul's mere use of "mystery" (Gk. mysterion / Lat., sacramentum). It is the way in which Paul and Peter described marriage as a means of sanctification and even salvation (thus of grace) -- as just shown above -- that is the far stronger scriptural argument than this one term, which can have various meanings. Thus, Calvin has concentrated on the lesser argument and ignored all the other biblical indications. He shows himself yet again relatively shallow in his biblical understanding.

Let us, however, pardon them this lapsus, though liars ought to have good memories.

How gracious of him., And we shall pardon him for his biblical illiteracy, or whatever it is that causes him to ignore wholesale, large portions of relevant Scripture: germane to any given topic. We have seen examples of this time and again, throughout this critique of The Institutes.

Marriage being thus recommended by the title of a sacrament, can it be anything but vertiginous levity afterwards to call it uncleanness, and pollution, and carnal defilement?

When, pray tell, do Catholics ever call sacramental marriage that?

How absurd is it to debar priests from a sacrament! If they say that they debar not from a sacrament but from carnal connection, they will not thus escape me. They say that this connection is part of the sacrament, and thereby figures the union which we have with Christ in conformity of nature, inasmuch as it is by this connection that husband and wife become one flesh; although some have here found two sacraments, the one of God and the soul, in bridegroom and bride, another of Christ and the Church, in husband and wife. Be this as it may, this connection is a sacrament from which no Christian can lawfully be debarred, unless, indeed, the sacraments of Christians accord so ill that they cannot stand together.

How is something (celibacy) absurd, if it is expressly sanctioned by Jesus and Paul?:

Matthew 19:10-12 The disciples said to him, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry." [11] But he said to them, "Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. [12] For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it."

1 Corinthians 7:8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do.

1 Corinthians 7:17 Only, let every one lead the life which the Lord has assigned to him, and in which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches.

1 Corinthians 7:20 Every one should remain in the state in which he was called.

1 Corinthians 7:24 So, brethren, in whatever state each was called, there let him remain with God.

1 Corinthians 7:32-35 I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; [33] but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, [34] and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. [35] I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord. Calvin's beef is not with Catholics, but with Jesus and Paul. So why isn't he honest enough to frame it in those terms? He disagrees with the express sanction of the Bible for celibacy, if one is called to it.

1 Corinthians 7:38 So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.

There is also another absurdity in these dogmas. They affirm that in a sacrament the gift of the Holy Spirit is conferred; this connection they hold to be a sacrament, and yet they deny that in it the Holy Spirit is ever present.

I have no idea what he is talking about here, so I can't offer any reply.

37. Practical abuses from this erroneous idea of marriage. Conclusion.

And, that they might not delude the Church in this matter merely, what a long series of errors, lies, frauds, and iniquities have they appended to one error?

As usual . . . what would Catholics be without all the lies and subterfuges we have willingly perpetrated on millions?

So that you may say they sought nothing but a hiding-place for abominations when they converted marriage into a sacrament.

What other possible rationale could we conceivable have?

When once they obtained this, they appropriated to themselves the cognisance of conjugal causes: as the thing was spiritual, it was not to be intermeddled with by profane judges.

What we see today is clearly a great improvement over the late medieval situation: free divorce (freely granted by the great majority of Protestant churches and even Orthodoxy) and rampant remarriages, and the broken homes and lives that go along with that. But Calvin must argue against sacramental, lifelong, indissoluble marriage, as if that were a horrendous thing.

Then they enacted laws by which they confirmed their tyranny,—laws partly impious toward God, partly fraught with injustice toward men; such as, that marriages contracted between minors, without the consent of their parents, should be valid; that no lawful marriages can be contracted between relations within the seventh degree, and that such marriages, if contracted, should be dissolved.

Annulment has scriptural warrant (as does the prohibition of divorce), and is even present in the civil laws of most countries.

Moreover, they frame degrees of kindred contrary to the laws of all nations, and even the polity of Moses, and enact that a husband who has repudiated an adulteress may not marry again—

It was virtually unanimous in the fathers and early Church, that marriage was indissoluble and remarriage thus impermissible.

that spiritual kindred cannot be joined in marriage—that marriage cannot be celebrated from Septuagesimo to the Octaves of Easter, three weeks before the nativity of John, nor from Advent to Epiphany, and innumerable others, which it were too tedious to mention.

The Church has the jurisdiction to preside over the application of sacraments.

We must now get out of their mire, in which our discourse has stuck longer than our inclination.

If anything has accurately described my own eight-month experience in giving answer to Calvin, it is this line: ironically the second-to-last that I have to deal with.

Methinks, however, that much has been gained if I have, in some measure, deprived these asses of their lion’s skin.

And this is the perfect line with which to end my critique. My thoughts exactly! I thank Calvin for all the food for thought: the stimulation to produce further biblical and patristic arguments (I was greatly blessed by discovering some heretofore unthought-of ones even in this very installment), and the opportunity to allow readers of all stripes to compare Catholicism and Calvinism and decide for themselves which is more biblical, in accordance with legitimate apostolic tradition and the Church fathers, the doctors of the Church, and in the final analysis more worthy of allegiance.

Happy 500th birthday to John Calvin. I hope and pray for his salvation, and that of his followers. I don't deny his (or his followers') sincerity or good intentions or desire to serve God, though I obviously and repeatedly question his reasoning, methods, and judgments. Thanks to all for reading.

* * *

[Note: Institutes, Book IV, chapter 20 is devoted to the question of civil government. As that is not a directly theological issue, I have decided to refrain from a critique; a Catholic might actually agree with much that Calvin says there, anyway. In that case, I am done with my critique of Book IV of the Institutes and this entire project. Now I shall put together an index of my replies and an abridged book, conveniently organizing answers by topic.]

Antidote to John Calvin's Institutes (IV,19:22-33) [Holy Orders: Exorcism / Tonsure / Anti-Miracles / Disparaging of the OT and the Law]

See the introduction and links to all installments at the top of my John Calvin, Calvinism, and General Protestantism web page; also the online version of the Institutes. Calvin's words will be in blue throughout. All biblical citations (in my portions) will be from RSV unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *

Book IV

CHAPTER 19

OF THE FIVE SACRAMENTS, FALSELY SO CALLED. THEIR SPURIOUSNESS PROVED, AND THEIR TRUE CHARACTER EXPLAINED.

OF ECCLESIASTICAL ORDERS.

22. Of ecclesiastical orders. Two points for discussion. Absurdities here introduced. Whether ecclesiastical order is a sacrament. Papists not agreed as to holy orders.

The fourth place in their catalogue is held by the sacrament of Orders, one so prolific, as to beget of itself seven lesser sacraments. It is very ridiculous that, after affirming that there are seven sacraments, when they begin to count, they make out thirteen. It cannot be alleged that they are one sacrament, because they all tend to one priesthood, and are a kind of steps to the same thing. For while it is certain that the ceremonies in each are different, and they themselves say that the graces are different, no man can doubt that if their dogmas are admitted, they ought to be called seven sacraments. And why debate it as a doubtful matter, when they themselves plainly and distinctly declare that they are seven?

Doubtless, Calvin has again missed crucial distinctions made by his Catholic counterparts. It's a constant in his analysis.

First, then, we shall glance at them in passing, and show to how many absurdities they introduce us when they would recommend their orders to us as sacraments; and, secondly, we shall see whether the ceremony which churches use in ordaining ministers ought at all to be called a sacrament. They make seven ecclesiastical orders, or degrees, which they distinguish by the title of a sacrament. These are Doorkeepers, Readers, Exorcists, Acolytes, Subdeacons, Deacons, and Priests. And they say that they are seven, because of the seven kinds of graces of the Holy Spirit with which those who are promoted to them ought to be endued.

God gives gifts commensurate with the offices He calls us to (Rom 11:29; 1 Cor 7:24; 12:4-11).

This grace is increased and more liberally accumulated on promotion. The mere number has been consecrated by a perversion of Scripture, because they think they read in Isaiah that there are seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, whereas truly not more than six are mentioned by Isaiah, who, however, meant not to include all in that passage. For, in other passages are mentioned the spirit of life, of sanctification, of the adoption of sons, as well as there, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge, and of the fear of the Lord. Although others who are more acute make not seven orders, but nine, in imitation, as they say, of the Church triumphant. But among these, also, there is a contest; because some insist that the clerical tonsure is the first order of all, and the episcopate the last; while others, excluding the tonsure, class the office of archbishop among the orders. Isiodorus distinguishes differently, for he makes Psalmists and Readers different. To the former, he gives the charge of chanting; to the latter, that of reading the Scriptures for the instruction of the common people. And this distinction is observed by the canons. In this great variety, what would they have us to follow or to avoid? Shall we say that there are seven orders? So the master of the school teaches, but the most illuminated doctors determine otherwise. On the other hand, they are at variance among themselves. Besides, the most sacred canons call us in a different direction. Such, indeed, is the concord of men when they discuss divine things apart from the word of God.

And Protestantism does better when it claims to be going by Scripture Alone and splits into many hundreds, even thousands, of competing denominations? There is an inherent absurdity and comic irony in a Protestant discussing (let alone criticizing) any disputes whatever within other Christian communions. I'll wait for Calvin's actual arguments (if he has any in this regard).

23. Insult to Christ in attempting to make him their colleague.

But the crowning folly of all is, that in each of these they make Christ their colleague. First, they say he performed the office of Doorkeeper when, with a whip of small cords, he drove the buyers and sellers from the temple. He intimates that he is a Doorkeeper when he says, “I am the door.” He assumed the office of Reader, when he read Isaiah in the synagogue. He performed the office of Exorcist when, touching the tongue and ears of the deaf and dumb man with spittle, he restored his hearing. He declared that he was an Acolyte by the words, “He that followeth me shall not walk in darkness.” He performed the office of Subdeacon, when, girding himself with a towel, he washed the feet of his disciples. He acted the part of a Deacon, when he distributed his body and blood in the Supper. He performed the part of a Priest, when, on the cross, he offered himself in sacrifice to the Father. As these things cannot be heard without laughter, I wonder how they could have been written without laughter, if, indeed, they were men who wrote them.

What is so funny about all that, pray tell?

But their most noteable subtlety is that in which they speculate on the name of Acolyte, calling him Ceroferarius—a magical term, I presume, one certainly unknown to all nations and tongues; ἀκόλουθος, in Greek, meaning simply attendant. Were I to stop and seriously refute these things, I might myself justly be laughed at, so frivolous are they and ludicrous.

No more so than Calvin's non-reply.

24. The greater part of these orders empty names implying no certain office. Popish exorcists.

Still, lest they should be able to impose on silly women, their vanity must be exposed in passing. With great pomp and solemnity they elect their readers, psalmists, doorkeepers, acolytes, to perform those services which they give in charge, either to boys, or at least to those whom they call laics. Who, for the most part, lights the tapers, who pours wine and water from the pitcher, but a boy or some mean person among laics, who gains his bread by so doing? Do not the same persons chant? Do they not open and shut the doors of Churches? Who ever saw, in their churches, either an acolyte or doorkeeper performing his office? Nay, when he who as a boy performed the office of acolyte, is admitted to the order of acolyte, he ceases to be the very thing he begins to be called, so that they seem professedly to wish to cast away the office when they assume the title. See why they hold it necessary to be consecrated by sacraments, and to receive the Holy Spirit! It is just to do nothing. If they pretend that this is the defect of the times, because they neglect and abandon their offices, let them, at the same time, confess that there is not in the Church, in the present day, any use or benefit of these sacred orders which they wondrously extol, and that their whole Church is full of anathema, since the tapers and flagons, which none are worthy to touch but those who have been consecrated acolytes, she allows to be handled by boys and profane persons; since her chants, which ought to be heard only from consecrated lips, she delegates to children.

There is scarcely any argument here, either. Calvin seems to sneer at children in a way that our Lord certainly did not:

Matthew 18:3 Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 19:13-14 Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people; [14] but Jesus said, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven."

Luke 18:17 Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.

And to what end, pray, do they consecrate exorcists? I hear that the Jews had their exorcists, but I see they were so called from the exorcisms which they practised (Acts 19:13). Who ever heard of those fictitious exorcists having given one specimen of their profession? It is pretended that power has been given them to lay their hands on energumens, catechumens, and demoniacs, but they cannot persuade demons that they are endued with such power, not only because demons do not submit to their orders, but even command themselves. Scarcely will you find one in ten who is not possessed by a wicked spirit. All, then, which they babble about their paltry orders is a compound of ignorant and stupid falsehoods.

There are plenty of biblical examples of exorcisms in the casting out of demons:

Matthew 4:24 . . . they brought him all the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, demoniacs, epileptics, and paralytics, and he healed them.

Matthew 8:16 That evening they brought to him many who were possessed with demons; and he cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were sick.

Matthew 10:1, 8 And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every infirmity. . . . Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons. . . .

Matthew 12:22 Then a blind and dumb demoniac was brought to him, and he healed him, so that the dumb man spoke and saw.

Mark 1:34 And he healed many who were sick with various diseases, and cast out many demons; . . .

Luke 8:2 and also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Mag'dalene, from whom seven demons had gone out,

Luke 9:42 While he was coming, the demon tore him and convulsed him. But Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit, and healed the boy, and gave him back to his father.

Acts 5:16 The people also gathered from the towns around Jerusalem, bringing the sick and those afflicted with unclean spirits, and they were all healed.

Acts 8:7 For unclean spirits came out of many who were possessed, crying with a loud voice; and many who were paralyzed or lame were healed.

According to Calvin, apparently we should all ignore these kinds of things as of no import or relevance. We have no need any longer to cast out a demon, like Jesus and the disciples did. That was only a valid concern in the first century, not the 21st, or 16th. Again, we see a surprising skepticism and almost "Enlightenment"-like excessive rationalism afoot in Calvin's thinking.

Of the ancient acolytes, doorkeepers, and readers, we have spoken when explaining the government of the Church. All that we here proposed was to combat that novel invention of a sevenfold sacrament in ecclesiastical orders of which we nowhere read except among silly raving Sorbonnists and Canonists.

More of the same sneering non-argument . . .

25. Absurdity of the tonsure.

Let us now attend to the ceremonies which they employ. And first, all whom they enroll among their militia they initiate into the clerical status by a common symbol. They shave them on the top of the head, that the crown may denote regal honour, because clergy ought to be kings in governing themselves and others. Peter thus speaks of them: “Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people” (1 Pet. 2:9). But it was sacrilege in them to arrogate to themselves alone what is given to the whole Church, and proudly to glory in a title of which they had robbed the faithful. Peter addresses the whole Church: these men wrest it to a few shaven crowns, as if it had been said to them alone, Be ye holy: as if they alone had been purchased by the blood of Christ: as if they alone had been made by Christ kings and priests unto God.

The priesthood is a separate office, just as it was in the Old Covenant (1 Peter 2;9 cites the Old Testament). The disciples were the original models for priests. Biblical indications of this are myriad. Here are some of the more important ones:

1) Special appointment by Jesus of those wholly devoted to God and a spiritual calling in ministry, with no turning back: Matthew 6:24; John 15:15-16; Luke 9:62.

2) A call to even leave one's families and possessions: Matthew 4:22; 19:27; Luke 14:26.

3) Acceptance of extraordinary hardships and self-denial: Matthew 8:19-20; 10:38.

4) Celibacy: Matthew 19:12; 1 Corinthians 7:7-9.

5) Presiding over the Mass: Luke 22:19.

6) Service to the Church: 1 Corinthians 3:5; 9:19; 2 Corinthians 4:5.

7) Dispensers of sacraments: 1 Corinthians 4:1; James 5:14, Matthew 28:19.

8) Spiritual fathers: 1 Corinthians 4:15; cf. Acts 7:2.

Then they assign other reasons (Sent. Lib. 4 Dist. 24). The top of the head is bared, that their mind may be shown to be free, with unveiled face, to behold the glory of God; or that they may be taught to cut off the vices of the eye and the lip. Or the shaving of the head is the laying aside of temporal things, while the circumference of the crown is the remnants of good which are retained for support. Everything is in figure, because forsooth, the veil of the temple is not yet rent.

Institutions are free to create the rules that they see fit to create. Calvin's Geneva was no stranger to stringent rules and regulations. This is the very last thing Calvin should be complaining or lecturing anyone else about.

Accordingly, persuaded that they have excellently performed their part because they have figured such things by their crown, they perform none of them in reality. How long will they delude us with such masks and impostures? The clergy, by shaving off some hair, intimate (Sent. loco cit.) that they have cast away abundance of temporal good—that they contemplate the glory of God—that they have mortified concupiscence of the ear and the eye: but no class of men is more rapacious, more stupid, more libidinous. Why do they not rather exhibit true sanctity, than give a hypocritical semblance of it in false and lying signs?

Where there was personal moral failure, it is right to pint out the hypocrisy. Whether one in 10,000 or so actually was a pious, good man, as Calvin thinks, is another question entirely.

26. The Judaizing nature of the tonsure. Why Paul shaved his head in consequence of a vow.

Moreover, when they say that the clerical crown has its origin and nature from the Nazarenes, what else do they say than that their mysteries are derived from Jewish ceremonies, or rather are mere Judaism?

How does development from prior Jewish observances equate to "mere Judaism"? This is absurd reasoning. Jesus said, "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them" (Matthew 5:17) and "till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished" (Matthew 5:18); yet Calvin objects to similarity of custom to the Nazarenes as "mere Judaism" as if this is 1) logical, or 2) indicative in the slightest degree of the high respect that the early apostles had for Judaism? Jesus even advised His followers to follow the instructions of the Pharisees (Matthew 23:2-3), and He did so independently of their own moral consistency ("they preach, but do not practice").

When they add that Priscilla, Aquila, and Paul himself, after they had taken a vow, shaved their head that they might be purified, they betray their gross ignorance. For we nowhere read this of Priscilla, while, with regard to Aquila, it is uncertain, since that tonsure may refer equally well to Paul as to Aquila (Acts 18:18).

The passage reads: "At Cen'chre-ae he cut his hair, for he had a vow." This is supposedly a profound argument against the tonsure? Why does Calvin wish to even argue against it? I submit that it is simply because he has to oppose Catholics at every turn: even in the most obvious areas where there is no solid objection to be made. If it was argued that Priscilla and Aquila also shaved their heads, then it was a deduction based on the association with Paul in Acts 18:18. But the fact remains that Paul did do so, and this is an adequate example of something not unlike the tonsure. Why, then, does Calvin not give up the argument? Why is it so supremely important to him to disagree with almost every jot and tittle of Catholicism?

But not to leave them in possession of what they ask—viz. that they have an example in Paul, it is to be observed, to the more simple, that Paul never shaved his head for any sanctification, but only in subservience to the weakness of brethren.

Whatever spin Calvin may wish to put on it, he still did it, and it stands as an example that could be emulated. After all, Paul said that we should imitate him (2 Thess 3:7, 9).

Vows of this kind I am accustomed to call vows of charity, not of piety; in other words, vows not undertaken for divine worship, but only in deference to the infirmity of the weak, as he himself says, that to the Jews he became a Jew (1 Cor. 9:20). This, therefore, he did, and that once and for a short time, that he might accommodate himself for a little to the Jews. When these men would, for no end, imitate the purifications of the Nazarenes (Num. 6:18), what else do they than set up a new, while they improperly affect to rival the ancient Judaism?

Self-purification is a common theme in the New Testament as well, seen especially in Paul. He writes, for example, shortly after Calvin's cited passage above:

1 Corinthians 9: 23-27 I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings. [24] Do you not know that in a race all the runners compete, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. [25] Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. [26] Well, I do not run aimlessly, I do not box as one beating the air; [27] but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

If St. Paul is a prominent New Covenant figure, and he urges us to imitate him, and he engages in all sorts of penitential activities, then none of this equates to merely "ancient Judaism."

In the same spirit the Decretal Epistle was composed, which enjoins the clergy, after the apostle, not to nourish their hair, but to shave it all round (Cap. Prohibitur, Dist. 24); as if the apostle, in showing what is comely for all men, had been solicitous for the spherical tonsure of the clergy. Hence, let my readers consider what kind of force or dignity there can be in the subsequent mysteries, to which this is the introduction.

We consider that Calvin cares not a whit about biblical example. When confronted with it, he plays sophistical games, in order to act as if it has no relevance, when it clearly does, and is completely non-objectionable as a model for Catholics to emulate. But hair is a material thing, and as we have seen again and again, Calvin seems to always have a (rather odd) problem with matter having anything to do with spirituality: a bizarre attitude, in light of the incarnation and Jesus' crucifixion.

27. Origin of this clerical tonsure as given by Augustine. Absurd ceremonies in consecrating Doorkeepers, Readers, Exorcists, and Acolytes.

Whence the clerical tonsure had its origin, is abundantly clear from Augustine alone (De Opera. Monach. et Retract). While in that age none wore long hair but the effeminate, and those who affected an unmanly beauty and elegance, it was thought to be of bad example to allow the clergy to do so. They were therefore enjoined either to cut or shave their hair, that they might not have the appearance of effeminate indulgence. And so common was the practice, that some monks, to appear more sanctimonious than others by a notable difference in dress, let their locks hang loose. But when hair returned to use, and some nations, which had always worn long hair, as France, Germany, and England, embraced Christianity, it is probable that the clergy everywhere shaved the head, that they might not seem to affect ornament.

And what is possibly wrong with that, if it is what they decided, and what the Church deemed proper? Calvin's progeny are just as "legalistic" (if that is what he thinks this is). In our time (well, in the late 60s and 70s), it is well-known how many fundamentalist Christians opposed long hair. In fact, I once went into a fundamentalist Baptist bookstore in the early 80s, when I was a Protestant, promoting fliers for a cult-watching group I was involved in. Here we were opposing the errors of anti-trinitarians like Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, and the lady at the cash register said they couldn't place them out because the men pictured on the flier had beards. That was their legalism. It was (by appearances) more important to them than contending for the Holy Trinity. But an institution can have a dress code, including hair, without this necessarily equating to legalism. Schools have dress codes, the military requires short hair, etc.

At length, in a more corrupt age, when all ancient customs were either changed, or had degenerated into superstition, seeing no reason for the clerical tonsure (they had retained nothing but a foolish imitation), they betook themselves to mystery, and now superstitiously obtrude it upon us in support of their sacrament. The Doorkeepers, on consecration, receive the keys of the Church, by which it is understood that the custody of it is committed to them; the Readers receive the Holy Bible; the Exorcists, forms of exorcism which they use over the possessed and catechumens; the Acolytes, tapers and the flagon. Such are the ceremonies which, it would seem, possess so much secret virtue, that they cannot only be signs and badges, but even causes of invisible grace. For this, according to their definition, they demand, when they would have them to be classed among sacraments. But to despatch the matter in a few words, I say that it is absurd for schools and canons to make sacraments of those minor orders, since, even by the confession of those who do so, they were unknown to the primitive Church, and were devised many ages after.

Special consecrated offices were certainly known to the primitive church. To simply develop these later and have different secondary categorization is no corruption at all. True corruption has to be found in something like Calvin's enterprise. In this very chapter he is advocating the overthrow of five of the seven sacraments that had been in place for many hundreds of years before his time, and accepted by the likes even of St. Augustine (Calvin's favorite father, and supposedly one of "his own" -- which is not at all the case).

But sacraments as containing a divine promise ought not to be appointed, either by angels or men, but by God only, to whom alone it belongs to give the promise.

We have provided ample biblical support for all of our sacraments. Readers may wish to consult one or more of my papers:

Biblical Evidence For the Sacrament of Holy Orders (Ordination)

The Biblical Evidence for Priests

Apostles Can Become Bishops (Apostolic Succession)

Bishops in the New Testament and the Early Church

Biblical Evidence for a Visible (Not Invisible) Church

Dialogue With a Presbyterian Pastor Regarding Ordination, Priests, and Vocations For Everyone

The Visible, Hierarchical, Apostolic Church

28. Of the higher class of orders called Holy Orders. Insult offered to Christ when ministers are regarded as priests. Holy orders have nothing of the nature of a sacrament.

There remain the three orders which they call major. Of these, what they call the subdeaconate was transferred to this class, after the crowd of minor began to be prolific. But as they think they have authority for these from the word of God, they honour them specially with the name of Holy Orders. Let us see how they wrest the ordinances of God to their own ends. We begin with the order of presbyter or priest. To these two names they give one meaning, understanding by them, those to whom, as they say, it pertains to offer the sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood on the altar, to frame prayers, and bless the gifts of God. Hence, at ordination, they receive the patena with the host, as symbols of the power conferred upon them of offering sacrifices to appease God, and their hands are anointed, this symbol being intended to teach that they have received the power of consecrating. But of the ceremonies afterwards. Of the thing itself, I say that it is so far from having, as they pretend, one particle of support from the word of God, that they could not more wickedly corrupt the order which he has appointed.

I have provided plenty of biblical indication for the Sacrifice of the Mass in previous installments. Even Paul referred to himself as a priest.

And first, it ought to be held as confessed (this we maintained when treating of the Papal Mass), that all are injurious to Christ who call themselves priests in the sense of offering expiatory victims. He was constituted and consecrated Priest by the Father, with an oath, after the order of Melchisedek, without end and without successor (Psalm 110:4; Heb. 5:6; 7:3). He once offered a victim of eternal expiation and reconciliation, and now also having entered the sanctuary of heaven, he intercedes for us. In him we all are priests, but to offer praise and thanksgiving, in fine, ourselves, and all that is ours, to God. It was peculiar to him alone to appease God and expiate sins by his oblation. When these men usurp it to themselves, what follows, but that they have an impious and sacrilegious priesthood? It is certainly wicked over much to dare to distinguish it with the title of sacrament.

All dealt with before . . .

In regard to the true office of presbyter, which was recommended to us by the lips of Christ, I willingly give it that place. For in it there is a ceremony which, first, is taken from the Scriptures; and, secondly, is declared by Paul to be not empty or superfluous, but to be a faithful symbol of spiritual grace (1 Tim. 4:14). My reason for not giving a place to the third is, because it is not ordinary or common to all believers, but is a special rite for a certain function. But while this honour is attributed to the Christian ministry, Popish priests may not plume themselves upon it. Christ ordered dispensers of his gospel and his sacred mysteries to be ordained, not sacrificers to be inaugurated, and his command was to preach the gospel and feed the flock, not to immolate victims. He promised the gift of the Holy Spirit, not to make expiation for sins, but duly to undertake and maintain the government of the Church (Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15; John 21:15).

So he recognizes the notion ordination itself, but rules out priests as ordained by his prior anti-biblical, anti-historical antipathy to the Sacrifice of the Mass. Therefore, I need not offer arguments in support of ordination, since it is not disputed, nor regarding the Mass, since I already have done so at length.

29. Absurd imitation of our Saviour in breathing on his apostles.

With the reality the ceremonies perfectly agree. When our Lord commissioned the apostles to preach the gospel, he breathed upon them (John 20:22). By this symbol he represented the gift of the Holy Spirit which he bestowed upon them. This breathing these worthy men have retained; and, as they were bringing the Holy Spirit from their throat, mutter over their priestlings, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” Accordingly, they omit nothing which they do not preposterously mimic.

Why does such a thing have to be mocked in this fashion? Is it not praiseworthy to imitate our Lord, and with the same purpose He had in doing the thing that is imitated: to ordain men for special ministerial service to God?

I say not in the manner of players (who have art and meaning in their gestures), but like apes who imitate at random without selection.

A nice touch . . .

We observe, say they, the example of the Lord. But the Lord did many things which he did not intend to be examples to us. Our Lord said to his disciples, “Receive the Holy Spirit” (John 20:22). He said also to Lazarus, “Lazarus, come forth” (John 11:43). He said to the paralytic, “Rise, take up thy bed, and walk” (John 5:8).

Jesus certainly intended for these to be examples (there can be no possible argument on this point), since He said: "Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons. . . ." (Matthew 10:8). Calvin is again decisively proven wrong by Scripture. The disciples and apostles did all these things. Peter raised the dead (Acts 9:36-41: Tabitha); so did Paul (Acts 20:7-12). They prayed for others to receive the Holy Spirit, and they did (Acts 2:38; 8:15-17; 19:6).

They healed many people (Mk 6:13; 16:20; Lk 9:6; Acts 4:7-10; 5:15-16; 8:7; 9:34; 19:12; 28:8-9), and cast out demons (Mk 6:13; 16:17; Lk 10:17; Acts 5:16; 8:7; 19:12), exactly as the Lord had commanded them to do, since Holy Scripture informs us that "he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every infirmity" (Matthew 10:1).

Jesus had also said to them, "I have given you authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy; and nothing shall hurt you. Nevertheless do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you . . ." (Luke 10:19-20). And again, it is recorded that "he sent them out to preach the kingdom of God and to heal" (Luke 9:2). And yet again: "And he appointed twelve, to be with him, and to be sent out to preach
and have authority to cast out demons" (Mark 3:14-15).

In one of my papers I noted a book that documented many people raised from the dead from the early patristic period all the way up to Calvin's time and afterwards. These miracles were attested by St. Justin Martyr, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, the historian Sozomen, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Hilary of Poitiers, and St. Ambrose. St. Augustine recounted at least four such stories (one of them in City of God, Book XXII, chapter 8). St. Irenaeus casually assumed that these things still took place, and that it was folly for heretics to disbelieve it (Against Heresies, Book II, chapter 31, 2). They were far far believing (like Calvin, with no reason at all) that these miracles had ceased after the apostolic age.

St. Martin of Tours (316-397) was said to have raised three persons from the dead. Pope St. Gregory the Great tells the story of St. Benedict doing the same. St. Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153) is reported to have performed this miracle. Bernard himself testifies that his friend St. Malachy (1095-1148) had raised a woman from the dead. Others who were used by God to perform this extraordinary miracle are St. Patrick, St. Anthony of Padua (1195-1231), Blessed Margaret of Castello (1287-1320), St. Elizabeth of Hungary, St. Catherine of Sweden, St. Joan of Arc, St. Bernardine, St. Dominic, St. Ignatius Loyola, St. Francis Xavier, St. Philip Neri, St. John Bosco, St. Martin de Porres, St. Vincent Ferrer, and St. Padre Pio.

But now Calvin wants to come and "veto" express instructions from our Lord Jesus and pretend as if they were only intended for a few generations only, or one century only; and delude himself that this cessation is somewhere taught in the Bible?

St. Paul specifically lists a gift of healing along with other offices (1 Cor 12:9, 28, 30). There is not the slightest hint that this office was intended to cease. It's right along with the others, that obviously were intended in perpetuity. James (5:16) assumes that healing would occur for all time, because the "prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects."

Why do they not say the same to all the dead and paralytic? He gave a specimen of his divine power when, in breathing on the apostles, he filled them with the gift of the Holy Spirit. If they attempt to do the same, they rival God, and do all but challenge him to the contest.

Obviously, raising the dead was not to be a frequent occurrence. On the other hand, Jesus did tell His disciples they would be able to do so, and Peter and Paul did it in recorded instances in Scripture. The fathers bear witness of the miracle continuing long after the apostles, and it has occurred all along. But no one is saying it should be a routine thing. Miracles are not for the purpose of "magic" or being puffed up with power, or to titillate those who hunger after signs; they are to demonstrate God's glory and power, in particular circumstances.

But Calvin appears to not understand these elementary biblical themes. He can only mock healing and trivialize it, as if it is ruled out if it isn't on demand. This is spiritual kindergarten and shocking in a man so familiar with the Bible; one who clearly prides himself on his knowledge. My eight-year-old daughter could have told anyone much of this, and Calvin can't figure it out?

But they are very far from producing the effect, and only mock Christ by that absurd gesture.

Why does he assume that there should be some huge effect in the rite of ordination? What does he demand to see: tongues of fire? Tongues of unknown languages" Levitation? In effect, he demands signs and wonders, precisely as Jesus warned that an "evil and adulterous generation" would do (Matt 16:1-4; cf. 12:38-39; Mk 8:11-12; Lk 11:29; Jn 4:48).

Such, indeed, is the effrontery of some, that they dare to assert that the Holy Spirit is conferred by them; but what truth there is in this, we learn from experience, which cries aloud that all who are consecrated priests, of horses become asses, and of fools, madmen.

So the exaggeration in service of the heresy, extreme lack of charity, and the illogical assumption that sin somehow disproves a doctrine, is the best that Calvin can muster up?

And yet it is not here that I am contending against them; I am only condemning the ceremony itself, which ought not to be drawn into a precedent, since it was used as the special symbol of a miracle, so far is it from furnishing them with an example for imitation.

I see nothing wrong with it whatever. Calvin doesn't like the whole idea, and so he lowers himself to mock even the minutest particulars associated with it.

30. Absurdity of the anointing employed.

But from whom, pray, did they receive their unction? They answer, that they received it from the sons of Aaron, from whom also their order derived its origin (Sent. Lib. 4 Dist. 14, cap. 8, et in Canon. Dist. 21, cap. 1). Thus they constantly choose to defend themselves by perverse examples, rather than confess that any of their rash practices is of their own devising.

In other words, Calvin disapproves, seems to have an ongoing animus against Everything Jewish (as seen in his frequent disparaging remarks about the Old Testament, as if it were scarcely even necessary or worthwhile to the Christian), and so has to act as if Catholics have no rationale whatever for anything they do, unless it agrees 100% with him. We either have none, or if we offer one, Calvin immediately knocks it down by one of his by now patented sophistical subterfuges and verbal, logical sleight-of-hand techniques. Whether he was aware that he does these things constantly, I know not, and don't care, in charity, to speculate. But the fact that he does them (unaware or not, deliberate or not) quite often is beyond all dispute.

Meanwhile, they observe not that in professing to be the successors of the sons of Aaron, they are injurious to the priesthood of Christ, which alone was adumbrated and typified by all ancient priesthoods.

More either/or non sequiturs and utterly unnecessary false dichotomies . . .

In him, therefore, they were all concluded and completed, in him they ceased, as we have repeatedly said, and as the Epistle to the Hebrews, unaided by any gloss, declares. But if they are so much delighted with Mosaic ceremonies,

Here is the anti-Jewish sentiment again. Jesus sure showed none of this. St. Paul showed respect to the Jewish high priest even at his kangaroo court trial. Both worshiped in the Temple and synagogues and observed feasts and rituals, etc.

why do they not hurry oxen, calves, and lambs, to their sacrifices?

Because we don't have "sacrifices" -- we have the one Sacrifice of Christ made present at Mass.

They have, indeed, a great part of the ancient tabernacle, and of the whole Jewish worship.

Egads!!! What a horrible thing! How dare Christians draw from the ancient heritage of Jewish spirituality! What an outrageous, unconscionable thing to do . . . Imagine having any sense of history and respecting what came before (qualities that are often absent in Calvin's pontifical and revolutionary ravings) . . .

The only thing wanted to their religion is, that they do not sacrifice oxen and calves. Who sees not that this practice of unction is much more pernicious than circumcision, especially when to it is added superstition and a Pharisaical opinion of the merit of the work?

Ah; let's now use the "criticize ten things at once" approach. How prevalent that is among the anti-Catholics of today: and again we see that it probably was first learned at the feet of Calvin himself (who received it from Luther). After a while, these unworthy rhetorical shortcomings are simply taken in like mother's milk, without thinking. It becomes a way of life in fighting the Great Beast and Harlot.

The Jews placed their confidence of justification in circumcision,

This is not true. The consensus today, more and more, in scholarly circles of all stripes (even two anti-Catholic apologists recently stated this back to me), is to hold that the Jews also believed in salvation by God's grace, through faith, with these various works as signs of obedience. Calvin's misconception has been passed down in historic Protestantism almost to the present day, when the best scholars are finally seeing the injustice of these cynical perceptions of the ancient Jewish faith.

these men look for spiritual gifts in unction.

These men look to Jesus, which is what the Mass is all about.

Therefore, in desiring to be rivals of the Levites, they become apostates from Christ, and discard themselves from the pastoral office.

Right. The ridiculous conclusion, based on nothing . . . Calvin shows himself to be a master of that, which is not saying much.

31. Imposition of hands. Absurdity of, in Papistical ordination.

It is, if you please, the sacred oil which impresses an indelible character. As if oil could not be washed away by sand and salt,

Which is completely beside the point . . . The baptismal water is gone in a few minutes too.

or if it sticks the closer, with soap. But that character is spiritual. What has oil to do with the soul?

The same thing that the incarnation and virgin birth and the cross and resurrection and ascension have to do with the soul. God uses matter. This seems to be the most inexplicable thing to Calvin, but to me his profound ignorance (and/or rejection) of the sacramental principle everywhere evident in the Bible is far more inexplicable.

Have they forgotten what they quote from Augustine, that if the word be withdrawn from the water, there will be nothing but water, but that it is owing to the word that it is a sacrament?

No. No one is separating the Word from the ritual (except Calvin, who is often guilty of the opposite error: all Word and no mystery or ceremony or ritual or miracle at all).

What word can they show in their oil? Is it because Moses was commanded to anoint the sons of Aaron? (Exod. 30:30).

I've already highlighted the scriptural uses of oil in past installments.

But he there receives command concerning the tunic, the ephod, the breastplate, the mitre, the crown of holiness with which Aaron was to be adorned; and concerning the tunics, belts, and mitres which his sons were to wear. He receives command about sacrificing the calf, burning its fat, about cutting and burning rams, about sanctifying ear-rings and vestments with the blood of one of the rams, and innumerable other observances. Having passed over all these, I wonder why the unction of oil alone pleases them.

I wonder why Calvin is so obsessed with running down oil, as if it were as superfluous to biblical thinking as, say, sulfuric acid.

If they delight in being sprinkled, why are they sprinkled with oil rather than with blood?

Because oil represented being "anointed" in Scripture. That is perfectly appropriate in ordination, just as it was for David and the other Kings.

They are attempting, forsooth, an ingenious device; they are trying, by a kind of patchwork, to make one religion out of Christianity, Judaism, and Paganism.

No one who proclaims Christ and His crucifixion and redemption can be accused of Judaism Proper; however, Christianity has drawn virtually all of its truths from that religion, and has merely developed them further, by accepting Jesus as Messiah and Lord. The pagan charge makes no sense here, but I take it that Calvin's huge animus against matter used in any spiritual ceremonies is equated in his mind to paganism. He doesn't seem to be able to process it any other way. But it doesn't follow.

Their unction, therefore, is without savour; it wants salt, that is, the word of God. There remains the laying on of hands, which, though I admit it to be a sacrament in true and legitimate ordination,

Calvin agrees with something! Stop the presses!

I do deny to have any such place in this fable, where they neither obey the command of Christ, nor look to the end to which the promise ought to lead us. If they would not have the sign denied them, they must adapt it to the reality to which it is dedicated.

The usual cynical, non sequitur Calvin conclusion . . .

32. Ordination of deacons. Absurd forms of Papists.

As to the order of the diaconate, I would raise no dispute, if the office which existed under the apostles, and a purer Church, were restored to its integrity. But what resemblance to it do we see in their fictitious deacons?

Of course. So, once again, he has no essential dispute, except that Catholics have (as always) supposedly corrupted a good, defensible thing beyond all recognition.

I speak not of the men, lest they should complain that I am unjustly judging their doctrine by the vices of those who profess it;

Which he constantly does in his rhetoric . . .

but I contend that those whom their doctrine declares to us, derive no countenance from those deacons whom the apostolic Church appointed. They say that it belongs to their deacons to assist the priests, and minister at all the things which are done in the sacraments, as in baptism, in chrism, the patena, and chalice, to bring the offerings and lay them on the altar, to prepare and dress the table of the Lord, to carry the cross, announce and read out the gospel and epistle to the people (Sent. Lib. 4 Dist. 24, cap. 8; Item, Cap. Perlectis, Dist. 25). Is there here one word about the true office of deacon?

What in the world is wrong with those things? Is it because not every jot and tittle is described in Scripture?

Let us now attend to the appointment. The bishop alone lays hands on the deacon who is ordained; he places the prayer-book and stole upon his left shoulder, that he may understand that he has received the easy yoke of the Lord, in order that he may subject to the fear of the Lord every thing pertaining to the left side: he gives him a text of the gospel, to remind him that he is its herald. What have these things to do with deacons?

What possible objection could one have to them?

But they act just as if one were to say he was ordaining apostles, when he was only appointing persons to kindle the incense, clean the images, sweep the churches, set traps for mice, and put out dogs. Who can allow this class of men to be called apostles, and to be compared with the very apostles of Christ? After this, let them not pretend that those whom they appoint to mere stage-play are deacons. Nay, they even declare, by the very name, what the nature of the office is. For they call them Levites, and wish to trace their nature and origin to the sons of Levi. As far as I am concerned, they are welcome, provided they do not afterwards deck themselves in borrowed feathers.

That's about as complimentary as Calvin ever gets. This chapter becomes increasingly ludicrous as it goes on.

33. Of sub-deacons.

What use is there in speaking of subdeacons?

Here we go again . . .

For, whereas in fact they anciently had the charge of the poor, they attribute to them some kind of nugatory function, as carrying the chalice and patena, the pitcher with water, and the napkin to the altar, pouring out water for the hands, &c. Then, by the offerings which they are said to receive and bring in, they mean those which they swallow up, as if they had been destined to anathema. There is an admirable correspondence between the office and the mode of inducting to it—viz. receiving from the bishop the patena and chalice, and from the archdeacon the pitcher with water, the manual and trumpery of this kind. They call upon us to admit that the Holy Spirit is included in these frivolities. What pious man can be induced to grant this?

Well, millions of pious Catholic men, that's who!

But to have done at once,

What a blessing.

we may conclude the same of this as of the others,

That is, mindless opposition to Anything Catholic, using any conceivable sort of nonexistent, incoherent, sophistical, convoluted, discombobulated "reasoning" that can be brought to the table . . .

and there is no need to repeat at length what has been explained above.

Thank you Calvin! My dinner is soon ready! And I've had more than enough of Calvin's ubiquitous puerile inanities for one day.

To the modest and docile (it is such I have undertaken to instruct), it will be enough that there is no sacrament of God, unless where a ceremony is shown annexed to a promise, or rather where a promise is seen in a ceremony. Here there is not one syllable of a certain promise, and it is vain, therefore, to seek for a ceremony to confirm the promise. On the other hand, we read of no ceremony appointed by God in regard to those usages which they employ, and, therefore, there can be no sacrament.

Calvin has spoken; the case is therefore closed.

Antidote to John Calvin's Institutes (IV,19:14-21) [Sacraments of Penance and Anointing / Calvin's Anti-Supernaturalism and Lack of Faith]

See the introduction and links to all installments at the top of my John Calvin, Calvinism, and General Protestantism web page; also the online version of the Institutes. Calvin's words will be in blue throughout. All biblical citations (in my portions) will be from RSV unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *

Book IV

CHAPTER 19

OF THE FIVE SACRAMENTS, FALSELY SO CALLED. THEIR SPURIOUSNESS PROVED, AND THEIR TRUE CHARACTER EXPLAINED.

OF PENITENCE.

14. Of Penitence. Confused and absurd language of the Popish doctors. Imposition of hands in ancient times. This made by the Papists a kind of foundation of the sacrament of Penance.

The next place they give to Penitence, of which they discourse so confusedly and unmethodically, that consciences cannot derive anything certain or solid from their doctrine. In another place (Book 3 chap. 3 and 4), we have explained at length, first, what the Scriptures teach concerning repentance, and, secondly, what these men teach concerning it. All we have now to advert to is the grounds of that opinion of it as a sacrament which has long prevailed in schools and churches. First, however, I will speak briefly of the rite of the early Church, which those men have used as a pretext for establishing their fiction.

We shall see what is the true "fiction" -- in light of the Bible and the early Church.

By the order observed in public repentance, those who had performed the satisfactions imposed upon them were reconciled by the formal laying on of hands. This was the symbol of absolution by which the sinner himself regained his confidence of pardon before God, and the Church was admonished to lay aside the remembrance of the offence, and kindly receive him into favour. This Cyprian often terms to give peace. In order that the act might have more weight and estimation with the people, it was appointed that the authority of the bishop should always be interposed. Hence the decree of the second Council of Carthage, “No presbyter may publicly at mass reconcile a penitent;” and another, of the Council of Arausica, “Let those who are departing this life, at the time of penitence, be admitted to communion without the reconciliatory laying on of hands; if they recover from the disease, let them stand in the order of penitents, and after they have fulfilled their time, receive the reconciliatory laying on of hands from the bishop.” Again, in the third Council of Carthage, “A presbyter may not reconcile a penitent without the authority of the bishop.” The object of all these enactments was to prevent the strictness, which they wished to be observed in that matter, from being lost by excessive laxity. Accordingly, they wished cognisance to be taken by the bishop, who, it was probable, would be more circumspect in examining. Although Cyprian somewhere says that not the bishop only laid hands, but also the whole clergy. For he thus speaks, “They do penitence for a proper time; next they come to communion, and receive the right of communion by the laying on of the hands of the bishop and clergy” (Lib. 3 Ep 14). Afterwards, in process of time, the matter came to this, that they used the ceremony in private absolutions also without public penitence. Hence the distinction in Gratian (Decret. 26, Quæst. 6) between public and private reconciliation. I consider that ancient observance of which Cyprian speaks to have been holy and salutary to the Church, and I could wish it restored in the present day. The more modern form, though I dare not disapprove, or at least strongly condemn, I deem to be less necessary.

Why? We can be thankful, however, that Calvin retains some remote notion of formal penance and absolution.

Be this as it may, we see that the laying on of hands in penitence was a ceremony ordained by men, not by God, and is to be ranked among indifferent things, and external exercises, which indeed are not to be despised, but occupy an inferior place to those which have been recommended to us by the word of the Lord.

The aspect of laying on of hands is not essential to the sacrament. Apparently (if we take Calvin's word) this was a practice in the early Church: making penance outwardly similar to confirmation. Be that as it may, there is indeed scriptural warrant for forgiveness of sins being associated with laying on of hands: at least insofar as anointing takes place (the same biblical proof that the Catholic produces regarding the sacrament of anointing):

James 5:14-15 Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; [15] and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.

Also, indirectly, Ananias laying his hands on St. Paul could be interpreted as Paul being forgiven for his sins of persecuting Christians, as well as receiving the Holy Spirit:

Acts 9:10-17 Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Anani'as. The Lord said to him in a vision, "Anani'as." And he said, "Here I am, Lord." [11] And the Lord said to him, "Rise and go to the street called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for a man of Tarsus named Saul; for behold, he is praying, [12] and he has seen a man named Anani'as come in and lay his hands on him so that he might regain his sight." [13] But Anani'as answered, "Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much evil he has done to thy saints at Jerusalem; [14] and here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call upon thy name." [15] But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; [16] for I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name." [17] So Anani'as departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came, has sent me that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit."

Baptism is another instance of the "touch -- forgiveness" dynamic. The person is anointed and touched by the baptismal waters and forgiveness and regeneration take place. Moreover, as a non-sacramental but analogous example of touch being associated with forgiveness, we have the father of the prodigal son (15:20: "embraced"):

Luke 15:18-24 I will arise and go to my father, and I will say to him, "Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; [19] I am no longer worthy to be called your son; treat me as one of your hired servants."' [20] And he arose and came to his father. But while he was yet at a distance, his father saw him and had compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him. [21] And the son said to him, `Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.' [22] But the father said to his servants, `Bring quickly the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet; [23] and bring the fatted calf and kill it, and let us eat and make merry; [24] for this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.' And they began to make merry.

15. Disagreement among Papists themselves, as to the grounds on which penance is regarded as a sacrament.

The Romanists and Schoolmen, whose wont it is to corrupt all things by erroneous interpretation,

How charitable . . .

anxiously labour to find a sacrament here, and it cannot seem wonderful, for they seek a thing where it is not. At best, they leave the matter involved, undecided, uncertain, confused, and confounded by the variety of opinions. Accordingly, they say (Sent. Lib. 4 Dist. 22, cap. 3), either that external penitence is a sacrament, and, if so, ought to be regarded as a sign of internal penitence; i. e., contrition of heart, which will be the matter of the sacrament, or that both together make a sacrament, not two, but one complete; but that the external is the sacrament merely, the internal, the matter, and the sacrament, whereas the forgiveness of sins is the matter only, and not the sacrament. Let those who remember the definition of a sacrament, which we have given above, test by it that which they say is a sacrament, and it will be found that it is not an external ceremony appointed by God for the confirmation of our faith. But if they allege that my definition is not a law which they are necessarily bound to obey, let them hear Augustine, whom they pretend to regard as a saint. “Visible sacraments were instituted for the sake of carnal men, that by the ladder of sacraments they may be conveyed from those things which are seen by the eye, to those which are perceived by the understanding” (August. Quæst. Vet. Test. Lib. 3). Do they themselves see, or can they show to others, anything like this in that which they call the sacrament of penance? In another passage, he says, “It is called a sacrament, because in it one thing is seen, another thing is understood. What is seen has bodily appearance, what is understood has spiritual fruit” (Serm. de Bapt. Infant). These things in no way apply to the sacrament of penance, as they feign it; there, there is no bodily form to represent spiritual fruit.

Whether he classifies it as a sacrament or not, St. Augustine accepts the entire notion of repentance, confession, absolution, and penance, as has already been shown, and has in more depth elsewhere. Sacraments, like Church offices, were more fluid in the early Church, and we can and should expect them to have taken a while to develop and crystallize. But if the essential teaching is present, that is sufficient. The Church has the power to forgive sins. That is established on direct biblical authority.

16. More plausibility in calling the absolution of the priest, than in calling penance a sacrament.

And (to despatch these beasts in their own arena) if any sacrament is sought here, would it not have been much more plausible to maintain that the absolution of the priest is a sacrament, than penitence either external or internal?

Indeed, we deem that as part of the sacrament, in terms of the process of it.

For it might obviously have been said that it is a ceremony to confirm our faith in the forgiveness of sins, and that it has the promise of the keys, as they describe them: “Whatsoever ye shall bind or loose on earth, shall be bound or loosed in heaven.” But some one will object that to most of those who are absolved by priests nothing of the kind is given by the absolution, whereas, according to their dogma, the sacraments of the new dispensation ought to effect what they figure. This is ridiculous. As in the eucharist, they make out a twofold eating—a sacramental, which is common to the good and bad alike, and a spiritual, which is proper only to the good; why should they not also pretend that absolution is given in two ways? And yet I have never been able to understand what they meant by their dogma. How much it is at variance with the truth of God, we showed when we formally discussed that subject.

Fine; let's take a brief look at that, to see what arguments were made:

When they contend that judgment cannot be given unless the case is known, the answer is easy, that they usurp the right of judging, being only self-created judges. And it is strange, how confidently they lay down principles, which no man of sound mind will admit. They give out, that the office of binding and loosing has been committed to them, as a kind of jurisdiction annexed to the right of inquiry. That the jurisdiction was unknown to the Apostles their whole doctrine proclaims. Nor does it belong to the priest to know for certainty whether or not a sinner is loosed, but to Him from whom acquittal is asked; since he who only hears can ever know whether or not the enumeration is full and complete. Thus there would be no absolution, without restricting it to the words of him who is to be judged. We may add, that the whole system of loosing depends on faith and repentance, two things which no man can know of another, so as to pronounce sentence. It follows, therefore, that the certainty of binding and loosing is not subjected to the will of an earthly judge, because the minister of the word, when he duly executes his office, can only acquit conditionally, when, for the sake of the sinner, he repeats the words, “Whose soever sins ye remit;” lest he should doubt of the pardon, which, by the command and voice of God, is promised to be ratified in heaven.

(Inst., III, 4:18)

The basic rationale for absolution are the following passages:

Matthew 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Matthew 18:18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

John 20:21-23 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

Calvin basically rationalizes these by saying that all is occurring is a ratification of what has already taken place in heaven. He always seems to have to gut an act of its essence and power and make it merely symbolic. He also argues that since human beings cannot know the hearty of another person (whether he has truly repented); therefore they cannot absolve what is not known for certain. Calvin goes on:

But in pretending that he who has already obtained pardon before God is acquitted in the face of the Church, they unseasonably apply to the special use of every individual, that which we have already said was designed for common discipline when the offense of a more heinous and notorious transgression was to be removed. Shortly after they pervert and destroy their previous moderation, by adding that there is another mode of remission, namely, by the infliction of penalty and satisfaction, in which they arrogate to their priests the right of dividing what God has every where promised to us entire. While He simply requires repentance and faith, their division or exception is altogether blasphemous. For it is just as if the priest, assuming the office of tribune, were to interfere with God, and try to prevent him from admitting to his favor by his mere liberality any one who had not previously lain prostrate at the tribunicial bench, and there been punished.

(Inst., III, 4:23)

So, let us review the heart of what Calvin is saying:

Nor does it belong to the priest to know for certainty whether or not a sinner is loosed, . . . the certainty of binding and loosing is not subjected to the will of an earthly judge, . . .

. . . they pervert and destroy their previous moderation, by adding that there is another mode of remission, namely, by the infliction of penalty and satisfaction, in which they arrogate to their priests the right of dividing what God has every where promised to us entire. While He simply requires repentance and faith, their division or exception is altogether blasphemous. For it is just as if the priest, assuming the office of tribune, were to interfere with God, . . .

It would be very odd and strange -- granting that Calvin is correct for a moment -- that St. Paul himself has no inkling at all of such a teaching, and contradicts it at every turn. Calvin says only God can bind and loose with certainty. But Paul does it himself with a great deal of authority and seeming certainty. Calvin says that priests cannot declare penalties and satisfaction, but Paul does both. Why? Is he so much dumber than Calvin, that he doesn't comprehend, as he states below, "a matter so plain and obvious to every man"? For St. Paul issued a binding decree of penance:

1 Corinthians 5:1-5 It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans; for a man is living with his father's wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you. For though absent in body I am present in spirit, and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing. When you are assembled, and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Later, he issued a loosing decree, or virtually what is now known as an "indulgence" (relaxation or abolition of temporal penalty for sin):

2 Corinthians 2:6-11 For such a one this punishment by the majority is enough; so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him. For this is why I wrote, that I might test you and know whether you are obedient in everything. Any one whom you forgive, I also forgive. What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ, to keep Satan from gaining the advantage over us; for we are not ignorant of his designs.

I prefer to go with the judgment of the Apostle Paul, if it clashes with Calvin's. Calvin again plays games with the fathers. Generally speaking, he will claim that his system is closer to theirs than the Catholic system is (hence, his notion of himself as a "reformer" who is bringing the Church back to its former purer state). Yet when it comes to particulars he will admit otherwise. Hence, in this case, he finds that "almost all" fathers have "erred," according to his rock-solid judgment, but not, alas, to a degree anywhere near that of the dreaded papists:

I am little moved by the numerous passages in the writings of the Fathers relating to satisfaction. I see indeed that some (I will frankly say almost all whose books are extant) have either erred in this matter, or spoken too roughly and harshly; but I cannot admit that they were so rude and unskillful as to write these passages in the sense in which they are read by our new satisfactionaries.

(Inst., III, 4:38)

I know that ancient writers sometimes speak harshly; nor do I deny, as I lately said, that they have perhaps erred; but dogmas, which were tainted with a few blemishes now that they have fallen into the unwashed hands of those men, are altogether defiled.

(Inst., III, 4:39)

Here I only wish to show that no scruple should prevent them from giving the name of a sacrament to the absolution of the priest. For they might have answered by the mouth of Augustine, that there is a sanctification without a visible sacrament, and a visible sacrament without internal sanctification. Again, that in the elect alone sacraments effect what they figure. Again, that some put on Christ so far as the receiving of the sacrament, and others so far as sanctification; that the former is done equally by the good and the bad, the latter by the good only. Surely they were more deluded than children, and blind in the full light of the sun when they toiled with so much difficulty, and perceived not a matter so plain and obvious to every man.

There are several false Protestant premises here that have been dealt with previously, so I'll let this pass.

17. Penance not truly a sacrament. Baptism the sacrament of penitence.

Lest they become elated, however, whatever be the part in which they place the sacrament, I deny that it can justly be regarded as a sacrament; first, because there exists not to this effect any special promise of God, which is the only ground of a sacrament; and, secondly, because whatever ceremony is here used is a mere invention of man; whereas, as has already been shown, the ceremonies of sacraments can only be appointed by God.

Ceremonies are not of the essence of a sacrament, but rather, the understanding of what it is and what it does, in and through the ceremony which my differ somewhat. The essence of this sacrament is clearly laid out in Holy Scripture.

Their fiction of the sacrament of penance, therefore, was falsehood and imposture. This fictitious sacrament they adorned with the befitting eulogium, that it was the second plank in the case of shipwreck, because if any one had, by sin, injured the garment of innocence received in baptism, he might repair it by penitence. This was a saying of Jerome. Let it be whose it may, as it is plainly impious, it cannot be excused if understood in this sense; as if baptism were effaced by sin, and were not rather to be recalled to the mind of the sinner whenever he thinks of the forgiveness of sins, that he may thereby recollect himself, regain courage, and be confirmed in the belief that he shall obtain the forgiveness of sins which was promised him in baptism. What Jerome said harshly and improperly—viz. that baptism, which is fallen from by those who deserve to be excommunicated from the Church, is repaired by penitence, these worthy expositors wrest to their own impiety. You will speak most correctly, therefore, if you call baptism the sacrament of penitence, seeing it is given to those who aim at repentance to confirm their faith and seal their confidence. But lest you should think this our invention, it appears, that besides being conformable to the words of Scripture, it was generally regarded in the early Church as an indubitable axiom. For in the short Treatise on Faith addressed to Peter, and bearing the name of Augustine, it is called, The sacrament of faith and repentance. But why have recourse to doubtful writings, as if anything can be required more distinct than the statement of the Evangelist, that John preached “the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins”? (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3).

So says Calvin. But this is a major problem of his whole approach. He appoints himself as Judge of the entire history of the Church, of the fathers and doctors, and of Holy Mother Church herself, and her Sacred Tradition. He appeals to Holy Scripture but arbitrarily makes himself its final interpreter, no matter how many or how eminent the persons who disagree with him. Hence he freely admits above that there is much in the fathers about penance, that he deems to be in error, but to him that is irrelevant in the end. He simply dismisses it and adds that Catholics of his time do far worse than the fathers who were already wrong.

But what authority does Calvin have? Why should anyone believe him, if he dissents from so much prior Christian doctrinal history? This he never answers satisfactorily; he simply assumes it. And that is unacceptable and a major flaw in the entire edifice he attempts to construct in his Institutes. It's built on a foundation of sand, consisting of his various false premises and his groundless and absurd presumption of authority.

OF EXTREME UNCTION, SO CALLED.

18. Extreme Unction described. No foundation for it in the words of James.

The third fictitious sacrament is Extreme Unction, which is performed only by a priest, and, as they express it, in extremis, with oil consecrated by the bishop, and with this form of words, “By this holy unction, and his most tender mercy, may God forgive you whatever sin you have committed, by the eye, the ear, the smell, the touch, the taste” (see Calv. Epist. de Fugiend. Illicit. Sac.). They pretend that there are two virtues in it—the forgiveness of sins, and relief of bodily disease, if so expedient; if not expedient, the salvation of the soul. For they say, that the institution was set down by James, whose words are, “Is any sick among you? let him send for the elders of the Church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up: and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him” (James 5:14).

That would seem to be a reasonable and sufficient scriptural proof, would it not?

The same account is here to be given of this unction as we lately gave of the laying on of hands; in other words, it is mere hypocritical stage-play, by which, without reason or result, they would resemble the apostles. Mark relates that the apostles, on their first mission, agreeably to the command which they had received of the Lord, raised the dead, cast out devils, cleansed lepers, healed the sick, and, in healing, used oil. He says, they “anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them” (Mark 6:13).

A second plain biblical proof. Calvin either argues that there is no express biblical proof (as he erroneously fancies regarding penance) or if there is clear proof, then he tries to explain it away or rationalize it as of no import. But here he will take a third course: deny that the miraculous happens anymore.

To this James referred when he ordered the presbyters of the Church to be called to anoint the sick. That no deeper mystery lay under this ceremony will easily be perceived by those who consider how great liberty both our Lord and his apostles used in those external things. Our Lord, when about to give sight to the blind man, spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle; some he cured by a touch, others by a word. In like manner the apostles cured some diseases by word only, others by touch, others by anointing.

Yes, the sacramental principle and use of matter to convey grace is a common biblical motif.

But it is probable that neither this anointing nor any of the other things were used at random. I admit this; not, however, that they were instruments of the cure, but only symbols to remind the ignorant whence this great virtue proceeded, and prevent them from ascribing the praise to the apostles.

Of course. Here is the lack of faith and antipathy to matter, and the silly pitting of matter against spirit. Calvin can't admit that anything actually happens because of matter!

To designate the Holy Spirit and his gifts by oil is trite and common (Ps. 45:8).

It is not so if this is the biblical model and teaching.

But the gift of hearing disappeared with the other miraculous powers which the Lord was pleased to give for a time, that it might render the new preaching of the gospel for ever wonderful. Therefore, even were we to grant that anointing was a sacrament of those powers which were then administered by the hands of the apostles, it pertains not to us, to whom no such powers have been committed.

Thus, in one fell swoop, Calvin dismisses the clear biblical proofs by this ridiculous notion that all such powers have now ceased: an idea that (quite ironically, given Calvin's professed allegiance to sola Scriptura) has not the slightest shred of biblical proof anywhere. If he takes out an entire huge category, with no reason whatever, then anything that is included within it is also eliminated. But there is no argument for the removal. It is completely arbitrary and groundless: not seen in the Bible at all.

19. No better ground for making this unction a sacrament, than any of the other symbols mentioned in Scripture.

And what better reason have they for making a sacrament of this unction, than of any of the other symbols which are mentioned in Scripture? Why do they not dedicate some pool of Siloam, into which, at certain seasons the sick may plunge themselves? That, they say, were done in vain. Certainly not more in vain than unction. Why do they not lay themselves on the dead, seeing that Paul, in raising up the dead youth, lay upon him? Why is not clay made of dust and spittle a sacrament?

Most of these sorts of things we would regard as sacramentals. What is determined to be a sacrament is, in the end, determined by the Church, based on Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. But Calvin rejects that methodology (for no good reason, let alone scriptural one).

The other cases were special, but this is commanded by James. In other words, James spake agreeably to the time when the Church still enjoyed this blessing from God. They affirm, indeed, that there is still the same virtue in their unction, but we experience differently. Let no man now wonder that they have with so much confidence deluded souls which they knew to be stupid and blind, because deprived of the word of God, that is, of his light and life, seeing they blush not to attempt to deceive the bodily perceptions of those who are alive, and have all their senses about them. They make themselves ridiculous, therefore, by pretending that they are endued with the gift of healing. The Lord, doubtless, is present with his people in all ages, and cures their sicknesses as often as there is need, not less than formerly; and yet he does not exert those manifest powers, nor dispense miracles by the hands of apostles, because that gift was temporary, and owing, in some measure, to the ingratitude of men, immediately ceased.

So now Calvin switches tactics and admits that yes, perhaps healings still occur, but then he has to drive a wedge between God as the sole agent, and men as the instrument, as if men were not used precisely as the instruments of healing all the time in Holy Scripture. It's all completely arbitrary and circular reasoning. It's no surprise that no Bible passages are adduced in alleged proof.

20. Insult offered by this unction to the Holy Spirit. It cannot be a sacrament, as it was not instituted by Christ, and has no promise annexed to it.

Wherefore, as the apostles, not without cause, openly declared, by the symbol of oil, that the gift of healing committed to them was not their own, but the power of the Holy Spirit; so, on the other hand, these men insult the Holy Spirit by making his power consist in a filthy oil of no efficacy.

More classic false dichotomies. Calvin seems literally unable to comprehend that God uses the oil as a means of the power to heal that comes solely through Him. All men add is faith and obedience. The use of the adjective "filthy" oil gives away his irrational prejudices.

It is just as if one were to say that all oil is the power of the Holy Spirit, because it is called by that name in Scripture, and that every dove is the Holy Spirit, because he appeared in that form.

No sane, conscious person would say that. But it makes a wonderful straw man, doesn't it?

Let them see to this: it is sufficient for us that we perceive, with absolute certainty, that their unction is no sacrament, as it is neither a ceremony appointed by God, nor has any promise.

Despite the Scripture we have already seen: that Calvin himself cited . . .

For when we require, in a sacrament, these two things, that it be a ceremony appointed by God, and have a promise from God, we at the same time demand that that ceremony be delivered to us, and that that promise have reference to us.

What Calvin demands and what biblical, traditional, developed Christianity requires are two different things.

No man contends that circumcision is now a sacrament of the Christian Church, although it was both an ordinance of God, and had his promise annexed to it, because it was neither commanded to us, nor was the promise annexed to it given us on the same condition.

It was the Church that decided that, in a binding decision (Jerusalem Council of Acts 15): this is precisely the sort of authority that Calvin does not have, to pronounce against a sacrament.

The promise of which they vaunt so much in unction, as we have clearly demonstrated, and they themselves show by experience, has not been given to us. The ceremony behoved to be used only by those who had been endued with the gift of healing, not by those murderers, who do more by slaying and butchering than by curing.

All Calvin can do is deny that no one could ever be healed or helped in their salvation by anointing in this sacrament. He has no proof of that. It is "demolition by arbitrary proclamation of a prior [unproven] impossibility." This is exactly how atheists argue against Christianity: "miracles can't possibly happen [premise], therefore they don't in fact occur, no matter what the claims may be, or how reliable the eyewitnesses." Categories of thought and possibility are constructed, and then the person subject to those tries to force actual reality into the predetermined categories.

21. No correspondence between the unction enjoined by James and the anointing of the Papists.

Even were it granted that this precept of unction, which has nothing to do with the present age,

It doesn't? Says who?

were perfectly adapted to it, they will not even thus have advanced much in support of their unction, with which they have hitherto besmeared us. James would have all the sick to be anointed: these men besmear, with their oil, not the sick, but half-dead carcasses, when life is quivering on the lips, or, as they say, in extremis. If they have a present cure in their sacrament, with which they can either alleviate the bitterness of disease, or at least give some solace to the soul, they are cruel in never curing in time.

It is more important in the case of a dying man, so that he can be saved, and that might account for an over-emphasis on such cases in the past. But if so, that is only a just criticism of an abuse, that doesn't undermine the sacrament itself or its rationale. The Church now emphasizes a wider application of this sacrament.

James would have the sick man to be anointed by the elders of the Church. They admit no anointer but a priestling. When they interpret the elders of James to be priests, and allege that the plural number is used for honour, the thing is absurd; as if the Church had at that time abounded with swarms of priests, so that they could set out in long procession, bearing a dish of sacred oil. James, in ordering simply that the sick be anointed, seems to me to mean no other anointing than that of common oil, nor is any other mentioned in the narrative of Mark. These men deign not to use any oil but that which has been consecrated by a bishop, that is warmed with much breath, charmed by much muttering, and saluted nine times on bended knee, Thrice Hail, holy oil! thrice Hail, holy chrism! thrice Hail, holy balsam!

Not every jot and tittle of everything need be in Scripture (that is not itself a biblical teaching, but rather, a tradition of men). So none of this objection to doctrinal development is of any relevance or force.

From whom did they derive these exorcisms? James says, that when the sick man shall have been anointed with oil, and prayer shall have been made over him, if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him—viz. that his guilt being forgiven, he shall obtain a mitigation of the punishment, not meaning that sins are effaced by oil, but that the prayers by which believers commended their afflicted brother to God would not be in vain.

It's a distinction without a difference. If the command is anoint and pray, and the result is healing and/or salvation or setting the person on the right course of salvation, at any rate, then how is it different (in result) to say that the oil had nothing to do with it? The oil was commanded for a reason. If it had no place whatever in the chain of causation, then why would God even bother to include it? In another sense, it is beside the point whether it was the actual instrument or not, since the fact remains that it is part of the process, as commanded in Scripture. If we are obedient to that, we do it, wholly apart from philosophical speculations as to cause and effect. Calvin, like the Pharisees, is hung up on the lesser details and thus misses the essence of the practice. He can't see the forest for the trees.

These men are impiously false in saying that sins are forgiven by their sacred, that is, abominable unction.

The Bible says they are. That is sufficient. The Bible is authoritative and inspired revelation. Calvin's writing has neither quality.

See how little they gain, even when they are allowed to abuse the passage of James as they list.

How do we do that? It's simple enough: we pray for men and use anointing oil.

And to save us the trouble of a laborious proof, their own annals relieve us from all difficulty; for they relate that Pope Innocent, who presided over the church of Rome in the age of Augustine, ordained, that not elders only, but all Christians, should use oil in anointing, in their own necessity, or in that of their friends. Our authority for this is Sigebert, in his Chronicles.

That is an example of something that can legitimately be altered by the Church. In this case, the current canonical law is more in conformity with the Bible, since it was the original disciples (who represent priests) and "elders" who perform the rite.

Catholic "Traditionalists" Continue to Bash Venerable John Paul II No Matter What the Church Decrees

Pope Benedict XVI has declared both Pope John Paul II and Pope Pius XII "Venerable": the first step on the road to sainthood (see the news story). As fully expected, Catholic "traditionalists" (especially those of the quasi-schismatic "radtrad" persuasion) who never have cared much for the late great pope, continue to bash him, as if nothing has happened. They go right on misunderstanding (or not comprehending at all) the Mind of the Church, and manifest their fundamentally disobedient attitude and Protestant-like private judgment mentality. One commenter, "quirinus," made the obvious, relevant observation (similar to what I just wrote above):

I can't believe how certain self-appointed guardians of tradition never fail to reveal how their approach is the exact same of modernists, the same "hermeneutic of rupture", the same megalomaniac pride that puts themselves over the Pope. They are their own popes and there is no way a Successor of Peter can please them unless he decides to govern the Church according to their delusions about what the Church is and has been.

I wonder how many of these types will lose the faith the day John Paul II is canonized (if he is canonized) and how many will instead humbly admit that maybe just maybe there is something they need to re-examine about their understanding of the Church. Now even Pius XII was not good enough.

(12-19-09)

Here are some examples:

Paul Haley [link]

How is it that a man who appointed Annibale Bugnini to a powerful position dealing with the Liturgy and a man who kissed the Koran, had a mark of a pagan deity placed on his forehead and welcomed heretics and non believers to Assisi are now beatified? Egads, methinks we are living in unbelievable times. Why can't they just leave well enough alone? Yes, they did some good things but beatified? Aaaaarrrrrgh.

(12-19-09)

P. K. T. P.

It is deplorable that John Paul the Small is declared to be Venerable and more so that he is now associated with good Pope Pius XII. The result of John Paul II's pontificate was a massive decline for the Church in every category measurable by man, albeit at a slower rate than the decline under Paul VI. While he certainly did do some good things and his pontificate was likely helpful in reversing (or preparing to reverse) the earlier disaster, that's hardly cause for wild celebration.

(12-19-09)

What I have been claiming is that, in my view, John Paul II is not a model pope. He's not even in the same league as, say, Benedict XV or Pius XI. This promotion of his cause is a reaction to popular pressure from Poles, from neo-cons, and from the twits who went to those appalling world youth days.

(12-19-09)

Anonymous

Catholics have to use their reason and conscience, especially when imitating many actions of John Paul II can put your soul in danger.

(12-19-09)

"tradpriest"

Just another scandal from the Vatican...eventually they'll both be beatified...count on it. Pope Pius XII I can understand but John Paul II, possibly the worst pope in the history of the Church...inconceivable! It was no different than with John XXIII and Pius IX...same thing, although John XXIII was a hundred times better than JPII. Something for the Trads, something for the Neo-Catholics and moderates...keep moving people, nothing to see here...

(12-19-09)

Bernadette [link]

Classic Pope Benedict XVI...a phony move by a so called "tradition-friendly" pope...appease the modernists while charming the traditionalists. It is clearly a politically correct, tolerant, modernist move.

(12-20-09)

Alexander [link]

Terrible news indeed about the Holy Father John Paul II.

JPII was a mix. Rightly so there are many things worthy of imitation and heroic instances. However mixed in are scandals against the faith which went uncorrected.

We see how he brought down the infamous Dutch Catechism, helped fight communism, gave us a great example of suffering and wrote good things on many topics.

Mixed in we see scandal and confusion. Kissing the Qur'an (which people have died rather than do as one condition of giving up their faith), erroneously declared that those outside of the Church in schismatic communities could become martyrs (even with no external manifestation of witnessing for the Catholic faith - the very definition of a martyr), kissed the ring of Rowan Williams, had immodestly dressed women appear before him multiple times (circus performers for example), asked St. John the Baptist to protect Islam (according to the prayer on the Vatican’s website at least), allowed pagans to worship their gods, which Scripture calls demons, on Sacred Church ground, and the ambiguous ecumenical activities where no (as far as I know) explicit indication of the need to convert to Catholicism was made apparent to non-Catholics. Then there is the problem of allowing strange occurrences during Papal Masses.

These are the reasons why, not counting the Traditionalist ones, that he shouldn’t be canonized or even beatified in the future.

One cannot ignore the bad and say “oh well, all Saints make mistakes.” The difference here is that these mistakes directly affect the faith, they were public, they were sometimes large events, and of course they were never corrected. In addition he was in the highest earthly position to give a good example to all Catholics being the Pope.

This doesn’t mean he isn’t in heaven or that he wasn’t a pious guy. I think he was a sincere and pious man. It’s just that, faced with these very large and disturbing instances he simply shouldn’t even be considered for anything. It doesn’t make any sense.

(12-20-09)

Darryl [link]

I think it's more of the same from modernist Rome. We'll make JPII a Saint and throw you trads a bone too.

(12-19-09)

Wow, so a picture of a waffle with JP2's supposed image in it is inappropriate? That's just incredible.

(12-20-09)

"joe17"

The Sacred and the Profane. Total opposites. What else can one expect from the usurpers.

(12-19-09)

Baskerville

Blessed Pius XII and JPII total opposites? Thats an understatement. I wonder what the Chances were of seing Blessed Pius at a Vatican rock concert. Or wearing tie dyed vestments and watching a bunch of clowns perform. Then going and kissing a koran. Probably not much.

(12-20-09)

QuisUtDeus

He gave honor to the Muslims and the Koran both of whom deny the Divinity of Christ. . . . Let me guess, glgas, you're of the opinion we should only talk about the good stuff JP2 did and completely ignore the nonsense he engaged in and the fact that he did nothing to correct the insanity that has taken place in the last 30 years. You've been watching too much EWTN. Stop drinking the JP2 Kool-Aid.

(12-20-09)

* * *

Antidote to John Calvin's Institutes (IV,19:4-13) [Confirmation: in the Fathers and in Biblical Proofs / Laying on of Hands / Anointing Oil]

See the introduction and links to all installments at the top of my John Calvin, Calvinism, and General Protestantism web page; also the online version of the Institutes. Calvin's words will be in blue throughout. All biblical citations (in my portions) will be from RSV unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *

Book IV

CHAPTER 19

OF THE FIVE SACRAMENTS, FALSELY SO CALLED. THEIR SPURIOUSNESS PROVED, AND THEIR TRUE CHARACTER EXPLAINED.

OF CONFIRMATION.

4. Nature of confirmation in ancient times. The laying on of hands.

It was anciently customary for the children of Christians, after they had grown up, to appear before the bishop to fulfil that duty which was required of such adults as presented themselves for baptism. These sat among the catechumens until they were duly instructed in the mysteries of the faith, and could make a confession of it before bishop and people. The infants, therefore, who had been initiated by baptism, not having then given a confession of faith to the Church, were again, toward the end of their boyhood, or on adolescence, brought forward by their parents, and were examined by the bishop in terms of the Catechism which was then in common use. In order that this act, which otherwise justly required to be grave and holy, might have more reverence and dignity, the ceremony of laying on of hands was also used. Thus the boy, on his faith being approved, was dismissed with a solemn blessing. Ancient writers often make mention of this custom. Pope Leo says (Ep. 39), “If any one returns from heretics, let him not be baptised again, but let that which was there wanting to him—viz. the virtue of the Spirit, be conferred by the laying on of the hands of the bishop.” Our opponents will here exclaim, that the name of sacrament is justly given to that by which the Holy Spirit is conferred. But Leo elsewhere explains what he means by these words (Ep. 77); “Let not him who was baptised by heretics be rebaptised, but be confirmed by the laying on of hands with the invocation of the Holy Spirit, because he received only the form of baptism without sanctification.”

It may be granted that Pope St. Leo the Great was talking about the special case of the Donatists, not all Catholics.

Jerome also mentions it (Contra Luciferian). Now though I deny not that Jerome is somewhat under delusion when he says that the observance is apostolical, he is, however, very far from the follies of these men. And he softens the expression when he adds, that this benediction is given to bishops only, more in honour of the priesthood than from any necessity of law.

Here is what St. Jerome wrote (it's always good to read a thing rather than a mere report of a thing: especially from a hostile party):

Don't you know that the laying on of hands after baptism and then the invocation of the Holy Spirit is a custom of the Churches? Do you demand Scripture proof? You may find it in the Acts of the Apostles. And even if it did not rest on the authority of Scripture the consensus of the whole world in this respect would have the force of a command. For many other observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law, as for instance the practice of dipping the head three times in the layer, and then, after leaving the water, of tasting mingled milk and honey in representation of infancy; and, again, the practices of standing up in worship on the Lord's day, and ceasing from fasting every Pentecost; and there are many other unwritten practices which have won their place through reason and custom. So you see we follow the practice of the Church, although it may be clear that a person was baptized before the Spirit was invoked.

(Against the Luciferians, 8 [A.D. 379] )

We have already seen (including the previous installment) the opinions of four Church fathers on confirmation. Here are several more:

Pope Cornelius

And when he was healed of his sickness he did not receive the other things which it is necessary to have according to the canon of the Church, even the being sealed by the bishop. And as he did not receive this, how could he receive the Holy Spirit?

(Fabius; fragment in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History 6, 43:14 [A.D. 251] )

St. Cyril of Jerusalem

After you had come up from the pool of the sacred streams, there was given chrism, the antitype of that with which Christ was anointed, and this is the Holy Spirit. But beware of supposing that this is ordinary ointment. For just as the bread of the Eucharist after the invocation of the Holy Spirit is simple bread no longer, but the body of Christ, so also this ointment is no longer plain ointment, nor, so to speak, common, after the invocation. Further, it is the gracious gift of Christ, and it is made fit for the imparting of his Godhead by the coming of the Holy Spirit. This ointment is symbolically applied to your forehead and to your other senses; while your body is anointed with the visible ointment, your soul is sanctified by the holy and life-giving Spirit. Just as Christ, after his baptism, and the coming upon him of the Holy Spirit, went forth and defeated the adversary, so also with you after holy baptism and the mystical chrism, having put on the panoply of the Holy Spirit, you are to withstand the power of the adversary and defeat him, saying, ‘I am able to do all things in Christ, who strengthens me’.

(Catechetical Lectures, 21:1, 3–4 [A.D. 350] )

Serapion

[Prayer for blessing the holy chrism:] ‘God of powers, aid of every soul that turns to you and comes under your powerful hand in your only-begotten. We beseech you, that through your divine and invisible power of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, you may effect in this chrism a divine and heavenly operation, so that those baptized and anointed in the tracing with it of the sign of the saving cross of the only-begotten . . . as if reborn and renewed through the bath of regeneration, may be made participants in the gift of the Holy Spirit and, confirmed by this seal, may remain firm and immovable, unharmed and inviolate. . . .’

(The Sacramentary of Serapion 25:1 [A.D. 350] )

St. Ephraem

[T]he oil is the sweet unguent with which those who are baptized are signed, being clothed in the armaments of the Holy Spirit.

(On Joel 2:24 [ante A.D. 373] )

Pacian

He would likewise be permitting this to the Apostles alone? Were that the case, He would likewise be permitting them alone to baptize, them alone to baptize, them alone to Confer the Holy Spirit . . . If, then, the power both of Baptism and Confirmation, greater by far the charisms, is passed on to the bishops.

(Epistle to Sympronian, 1:6 [A.D. 392] )

Pope Innocent I

That this power of a bishop,however,is due to the bishops alone,so that they either sign or give the Paraclete the Spirit . . . For to presbyters it is permitted to anoint the baptized with chrism whenever they baptize . . . but (with chrism) that has been consecrated by a bishop; nevertheless (it is) not (allowed) to sign the forehead with the same oil; that is due to the bishops alone when they bestow the Spirit, the Paraclete.

(To Decentius, 3 [A.D. 416] )

This laying on of hands, which is done simply by way of benediction, I commend, and would like to see restored to its pure use in the present day.

That's a start. There is plenty of biblical support for it (as there is for all the elements of confirmation).

5. This kind of confirmation afterwards introduced. It is falsely called a sacrament.

A later age having almost obliterated the reality, introduced a kind of fictitious confirmation as a divine sacrament. They

"They" being at least ten Church fathers, including St. Augustine, as I have documented . . .

feigned that the virtue of confirmation consisted in conferring the Holy Spirit, for increase of grace, on him who had been prepared in baptism for righteousness, and in confirming for contest those who in baptism were regenerated to life. This confirmation is performed by unction, and the following form of words: “I sign thee with the sign of the holy cross, and confirm thee with the chrism of salvation, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” All fair and venerable. But where is the word of God which promises the presence of the Holy Spirit here? Not one iota can they allege.

Really? That's odd that Calvin could think that. I guess he doesn't know his Bible very well:

1 Samuel 16:13 Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brothers; and the Spirit of the LORD came mightily upon David from that day forward.

Acts 8:17-20 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money, saying, "Give me also this power, that any one on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit." But Peter said to him, "Your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money!

Acts 9:17 So Anani'as departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came, has sent me that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit."

Acts 13:2-4 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off. So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleu'cia; and from there they sailed to Cyprus.

Acts 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them;

How will they assure us that their chrism is a vehicle of the Holy Spirit?

Just as it was for Samuel, when he anointed David. Anointing with oil is often associated with some sacred purpose in Holy Scripture (Ex 28:41; Lev 16:32; 1 Sam 10:1; Is 61:1; Lk 4:18; Acts 10:38).

We see oil, that is, a thick and greasy liquid, but nothing more.

That's the problem: Calvin too often denies the supernatural power of God and the power of physical things to convey grace. It is a Docetic tendency (the antipathy to matter as a means of grace).

“Let the word be added to the element,” says Augustine, “and it will become a sacrament.” Let them, I say, produce this word if they would have us to see anything more in the oil than oil. But if they would show themselves to be ministers of the sacraments as they ought, there would be no room for further dispute. The first duty of a minister is not to do anything without a command. Come, then, and let them produce some command for this ministry, and I will not add a word. If they have no command they cannot excuse their sacrilegious audacity.

All the elements of confirmation are amply supported by Scripture, as I have shown in a long paper. Here is a summary of what Scripture supports:

1) The Holy Spirit can "descend" upon persons.

2) The Holy Spirit can be "given" as a "gift" to persons by God the Father.

3) The Holy Spirit can be "received" by persons.

4) The Holy Spirit can be "poured out" to persons.

5) The Holy Spirit can "fall on" persons.

6) A person can be "baptized" with the Holy Spirit.

7) A person can be "filled" by the Holy Spirit.

8) A person can "receive" or be "filled with" the Holy Spirit by means of the human
instrumentality of laying on of hands.

9) A person can be "sealed for the day of redemption" by the Holy Spirit, as a "guarantee of our inheritance."

10) A person can be anointed with oil in order to be commissioned or set apart or consecrated.

11) A person can be anointed with oil in order for the "Spirit of the Lord" to come "mightily upon" them.

12) Authoritative persons (popes, apostles, prophets) preside over this giving and receiving of the Holy Spirit.

13) And these authoritative persons in the Church do this by the laying on of hands (Peter, John, Paul).

14) And they do this by anointing with oil (Samuel and David).

15) We know from other evidences in Scripture that bishops are the successors of the apostles.

For this reason our Saviour interogated the Pharisees as to the baptism of John, “Was it from heaven, or of men?” (Mt. 21:25). If they had answered, Of men, he held them confessed that it was frivolous and vain; if Of heaven, they were forced to acknowledge the doctrine of John. Accordingly, not to be too contumelious to John, they did not venture to say that it was of men. Therefore, if confirmation is of men, it is proved to be frivolous and vain; if they would persuade us that it is of heaven, let them prove it.

I have done so. The Church has long since done so. But since when is Church authority or the authority of the Church fathers of any use to Calvin if only he disagrees with anything he sees from either source?

6. Popish argument for confirmation answered.

They indeed defend themselves by the example of the apostles, who, they presume, did nothing rashly. In this they are right, nor would they be blamed by us if they showed themselves to be imitators of the apostles. But what did the apostles do? Luke narrates (Acts 8:15, 17), that the apostles who were at Jerusalem, when they heard that Samaria had received the word of God, sent thither Peter and John, that Peter and John prayed for the Samaritans, that they might receive the Holy Spirit, who had not yet come upon any of them, they having only been baptised in the name of Jesus; that after prayer they laid their hands upon them, and that by this laying on of hands the Samaritans received the Holy Spirit.

How is that a disproof of confirmation? It is exactly the same thing: laying on of hands in order for a person to receive the Holy Spirit. The state of life of a young person coming of age is analogous in this instance to a new convert.

Luke repeatedly mentions this laying on of hands. I hear what the apostles did, that is, they faithfully executed their ministry. It pleased the Lord that those visible and admirable gifts of the Holy Spirit, which he then poured out upon his people, should be administered and distributed by his apostles by the laying on of hands. I think that there was no deeper mystery under this laying on of hands, but I interpret that this kind of ceremony was used by them to intimate, by the outward act, that they commended to God, and, as it were, offered him on whom they laid hands.

As usual, Calvin wishes to water down the power and essence of the physical act and means, just as he does with the Eucharist and baptism.

Did this ministry, which the apostles then performed, still remain in the Church, it would also behove us to observe the laying on of hands: but since that gift has ceased to be conferred, to what end is the laying on of hands?

For confirmation and extreme unction and ordination.

Assuredly the Holy Spirit is still present with the people of God; without his guidance and direction the Church of God cannot subsist. For we have a promise of perpetual duration, by which Christ invites the thirsty to come to him, that they may drink living water (John 7:37). But those miraculous powers and manifest operations, which were distributed by the laying on of hands, have ceased.

According to whom? Certainly not the Bible. If Calvin thinks that the laying on of hands no longer conveys the Spirit or ordination or healing, then he has a huge problem with the Bible, and a lack of faith. The problem is altogether his, not ours. Here again, he rather spectacularly exhibits his radical lack of faith in the miraculous.

They were only for a time.

Scripture nowhere states that they were to cease. When folks try to come up with some, any biblical rationale for this notion, it is some of the worst eisegesis imaginable.

For it was right that the new preaching of the gospel, the new kingdom of Christ, should be signalised and magnified by unwonted and unheard-of miracles.

Indeed; they were greater then for this purpose, but they did not cease.

When the Lord ceased from these,

How do we know that He did? Calvin assumes what he needs to prove. He argues against the miraculous as atheists do today.

he did not forthwith abandon his Church, but intimated that the magnificence of his kingdom, and the dignity of his word, had been sufficiently manifested. In what respect then can these stage-players say that they imitate the apostles?

In every respect or aspect or element that confirmation involves.

The object of the laying on of hands was, that the evident power of the Holy Spirit might be immediately exerted. This they effect not.

Not every passage of the reception of the Holy Spirit indicates spectacular manifestations. The Day of Pentecost itself was a very specific, one-time occasion: the point after which all Christians were to be filled with the Holy Spirit. St. Paul's own case (Acts 9:17-18) was not spectacular. In Acts 8:17-18, some sign is perhaps implied by Simon's reaction, but nothing is explicitly stated.

Nor must we conclude that because this primitive sort of confirmation was often accompanied by tongues in the apostolic period, that it must always be at all times. We may believe that miracles were more manifest in apostolic times without having to necessarily discount the essence of the rites and ceremonies with which they were associated. The signs and wonders are (quite arguably) not essential to the rite.

Why then do they claim to themselves the laying on of hands, which is indeed said to have been used by the apostles, but altogether to a different end?

It's not an altogether "different end": the goal in both cases was reciving the Holy Spirit. Calvin's arguments are often proportionately weak, to the degree that he has an innate hostility to the thing he is critiquing. His arguments on this score lack basic logic and cogency.

7. Argument confirmed by the example of Christ. Absurdity and impiety of Papists in calling their oil the oil of salvation.

The same account is to be given were any one to insist that the breathing of our Lord upon his disciples (John 20:22) is a sacrament by which the Holy Spirit is conferred. But the Lord did this once for all, and did not also wish us to do it.

Catholics don't disagree with that, which is why we don't imitate the practice.

In the same way, also, the apostles laid their hands, agreeably to that time at which it pleased the Lord that the visible gifts of the Spirit should be dispensed in answer to their prayers; not that posterity might, as those apes do, mimic the empty and useless sign without the reality.

It is Calvin who absurdly claims that the practice is an "empty and useless sign." Just because he lacks faith in what is demonstrated by biblical example, and in God's power, doesn't mean that everyone has to be so faithless. Why should we have to suffer from his limitations and shortcomings?

But if they prove that they imitate the apostles in the laying on of hands (though in this they have no resemblance to the apostles, except it be in manifesting some absurd false zeal),

Laying on of hands has all sorts of biblical and apostolic warrant. We've seen passages above regarding the Holy Spirit. The same applies to ordination (Acts 6:1-6; 13:1-4; 1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6). I have no idea what argument Calvin thinks he is making here.

where did they get their oil which they call the oil of salvation? Who taught them to seek salvation in oil?

1 Samuel 16:13, with Samuel and David, would be a clear example of something like that. Anointing and salvation are sometimes conjoined. For example:

Habakkuk 3:13 Thou wentest forth for the salvation of thy people, for the salvation of thy anointed. . . .

Preists in the Old Covenant were anointed for the purpose of consecration (Ex 28:41; 40:15; Lev 4:3, 5, 16; 6:22; 8:12; 16:32; Num 3:3; 35:25). Even the tabernacle and the altar were anointed (Lev 8:10-11; Num 7:1, 10, 84, 88). The righteous (by strong implication, the saved) are anointed in some sense by God (Ps 45:7; Heb 1:9; 1 Jn 2:20), as are God's "servants" (Ps 89:20). Prophets (pretty holy people; certainly among the saved) are described in the same way (Ps 105:15). Jesus Himself was described as "anointed . . . with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 10:38). So there is a definite correlation there.

Who taught them to attribute to it the power of strengthening?

The Bible writers. Unfortunately, that seems insufficient for Calvin.

Was it Paul, who draws us far away from the elements of this world,

He does?

and condemns nothing more than clinging to such observances?

Where?

This I boldly declare, not of myself, but from the Lord: Those who call oil the oil of salvation abjure the salvation which is in Christ, deny Christ, and have no part in the kingdom of God.

This doesn't follow. Scripture calls baptism the water of salvation (Jn 3:5; Acts 2:38-41; Titus 3:5; 1 Pet 3:21; cf. Mk 16:16). What's the huge difference?

Oil for the belly, and the belly for oil, but the Lord will destroy both. For all these weak elements, which perish even in the using, have nothing to do with the kingdom of God, which is spiritual, and will never perish.

More antipathy to matter . . . Christ's blood was matter. In Romans 5:9 St. Paul said that "we are now justified by his blood." In Romans 3:25 he refers to "an expiation by his blood." Ephesians 2:13 is similar: " in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near in the blood of Christ." In Hebrews 9:14 it states that "the blood of Christ" will "purify your conscience from dead works." Also, 1 Peter 1:18-19:

You know that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your fathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, [19] but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.

The incarnation involved matter. What does Calvin have against it? He is reviving remnants of the ancient heresy of gnosticism. Where does he get off saying that spirituality is all about spirit and not about matter, as if the latter is inherently a bad thing and can never be mixed with the former? His thought is radically unbiblical.

What, then, some one will say, do you apply the same rule to the water by which we are baptised, and the bread and wine under which the Lord’s Supper is exhibited?

Calvin does, because for him, neither is salvific, even though Scripture says that both are. He would rather place his own arbitrary tradition above Scripture and Sacred, Apostolic Tradition.

I answer, that in the sacraments of divine appointment, two things are to be considered: the substance of the corporeal thing which is set before us, and the form which has been impressed upon it by the word of God, and in which its whole force lies. In as far, then, as the bread, wine, and water, which are presented to our view in the sacraments, retain their substance, Paul’s declaration applies, “meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them” (l Cor. 6:13). For they pass and vanish away with the fashion of this world. But in as far as they are sanctified by the word of God to be sacraments, they do not confine us to the flesh, but teach truly and spiritually.

This is clear (and convincing) as mud, like most of Calvin's sacramental thinking . . .

8. Papistical argument, that Baptism cannot be complete without Confirmation. Answered.

But let us make a still closer inspection, and see how many monsters this greasy oil fosters and nourishes. Those anointers say that the Holy Spirit is given in baptism for righteousness, and in confirmation, for increase of grace, that in baptism we are regenerated for life, and in confirmation, equipped for contest. And, accordingly, they are not ashamed to deny that baptism can be duly completed without confirmation.

Salvation being a lifelong process, and one of growth of sanctification, we would fully expect this. One doesn't simply rest on baptism, as if it were like a Protestant one-time altar call, which saves for eternity.

How nefarious! Are we not, then, buried with Christ by baptism, and made partakers of his death, that we may also be partners of his resurrection?

Yes, but relationship with God has to grow and be maintained, as indicated in many passages, especially from St. Paul.

This fellowship with the life and death of Christ, Paul interprets to mean the mortification of our flesh, and the quickening of the Spirit, our old man being crucified in order that we may walk in newness of life (Rom 6:6).

Then why does Paul continue to talk of an ongoing suffering for Christ?:

Romans 8:17 (KJV) And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

2 Corinthians 1:5-7 For as the sufferings of Christ abound in us, so our consolation also aboundeth by Christ. [6] And whether we be afflicted, it is for your consolation and salvation, which is effectual in the enduring of the same sufferings which we also suffer: or whether we be comforted, it is for your consolation and salvation. [7] And our hope of you is stedfast, knowing, that as ye are partakers of the sufferings, so shall ye be also of the consolation.

2 Corinthians 4:10-11 Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. [11] For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh.

Galatians 6:17 From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.

Philippians 3:10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;

Colossians 1:24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:

2 Timothy 4:6 For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand.

What is it to be equipped for contest, if this is not? But if they deemed it as nothing to trample on the word of God, why did they not at least reverence the Church, to which they would be thought to be in everything so obedient?

Calvin talking about respect for Church tradition is about like a shark counseling respect for a dead fish that he is about to devour.

What heavier charge can be brought against their doctrine than the decree of the Council of Melita? “Let him who says that baptism is given for the remission of sins only, and not in aid of future grace, be anathema.”

We don't deny that it imparts ongoing graces, so this is a non sequitur.

When Luke, in the passage which we have quoted, says, that the Samaritans were only “baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 8:16), but had not received the Holy Spirit, he does not say absolutely that those who believed in Christ with the heart, and confessed him with the mouth, were not endued with any gift of the Spirit. He means that receiving of the Spirit by which miraculous power and visible graces were received.

This is eisegesis. The text doesn't inform us of this little detail that Calvin dreams up.

Thus the apostles are said to have received the Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:4), whereas Christ had long before said to them, “It is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you” (Mt. 10:20).

The disciples are obviously in a different category than a group of Samaritans. So Calvin's attempted analogy doesn't fly. In any event, the disciples acted very differently afdter the Day of Pentecost. They went from a disorganized, demoralized, cowardly group, to bold proclaimers of the Gospel, who turned the world upside down and (save John) died for their faith as martyrs.

Ye who are of God see the malignant and pestiferous wile of Satan. What was truly given in baptism, is falsely said to be given in the confirmation of it, that he may stealthily lead away the unwary from baptism.

More illogical "either/or" thinking and gross caricature of Catholic doctrine . . .

Who can now doubt that this doctrine, which dissevers the proper promises of baptism from baptism, and transfers them elsewhere, is a doctrine of Satan?

Anyone who can read a Bible minus Calvin's jaded, heretical interpretive lens . . .

We have discovered on what foundation this famous unction rests. The word of God says, that as many as have been baptised into Christ, have put on Christ with his gifts (Gal. 3:27).

That''s right. That is regeneration. But Calvin denies that. So who is he to lecture us about the benefits of baptism. We believe there are far more than he believes himself. No one could fail to be amazed by the inner contradictions and lack of cogency in his views on baptism and all the sacraments.

The word of the anointers says that they received no promise in baptism to equip them for contest (De Consecr. Dist. 5, cap. Spir. Sanct). The former is the word of truth, the latter must be the word of falsehood. I can define this baptism more truly than they themselves have hitherto defined it— viz. that it is a noted insult to baptism, the use of which it obscures—nay, abolishes: that it is a false suggestion of the devil, which draws us away from the truth of God; or, if you prefer it, that it is oil polluted with a lie of the devil, deceiving the minds of the simple by shrouding them, as it were, in darkness.

It is the stated lack of faith in God's power and the miraculous (as Calvin has expressly stated) that leads men into darkness, not confirmation, which gives them a fuller measure of the Holy Spirit.

9. Argument, that without confirmation we cannot be fully Christians. Answer.

They add, moreover, that all believers ought, after baptism, to receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands, that they may become complete Christians, inasmuch as there never can be a Christian who has not been chrismed by episcopal confirmation. These are their exact words. I thought that everything pertaining to Christianity was prescribed and contained in Scripture.

Why would he think that? We believe that all Catholic doctrines can be verified by Scripture either directly or indirectly, or by deduction (material sufficiency), and that no Catholic doctrine is out of harmony with Scripture, or contradicts it, but we don't believe that all things are explicitly laid out in Scripture (as Protestants habitually do, in their belief in sola Scriptura). And we believe this because Scripture itself teaches us this:

John 20:30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;

John 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

1 Corinthians 11:2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.

Philippians 4:9 What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do; and the God of peace will be with you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

2 Timothy 1:13-14 Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; [14] guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.

2 Timothy 2:2 and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

Now I see that the true form of religion must be sought and learned elsewhere than in Scripture.

No; it must be in conformity with Scripture. The Church is the interpreter of Christian doctrine, in line with Sacred Tradition and apostolic succession. It is Calvin who has consistently failed to offer biblical support for his novelties, and failed to grapple with Catholic support for our theology. Not far above, for example, we saw how Calvin stated that miracles have ceased. certainly such a notion is nowhere found in Scripture. There is no indication whatever that miracles were to cease altogether or in large part.

Yet Calvin believes this, with no biblical warrant. With confirmation, to the contrary, there is a great deal of biblical support, of all its particulars and elements. They don't have to all be together in one place to be believed. Even the biblical proof for the Holy Trinity is not of such an explicit nature, that it can be found all in one place, wrapped up in a neat little package. Deductions and much deeper study have to be made.

Divine wisdom, heavenly truth, the whole doctrine of Christ, only begins the Christian; it is the oil that perfects him. By this sentence are condemned all the apostles and the many martyrs who, it is absolutely certain, were never chrismed, the oil not yet being made, besmeared with which, they might fulfil all the parts of Christianity, or rather become Christians, which, as yet, they were not.

It is blatantly obvious that Calvin has no inkling of the place of sacramentalism in the Christian life. He only begrudgingly accepts baptism and the Eucharist as sacraments, but even then, only in a gutted, redefined sense. So obviously, he will fail to grasp confirmation and the other four sacraments. He pits matter against spirit, so these rites make no sense to him, and he can only put them down. What he retains is made only an empty symbolic gesture.

Though I were silent, they abundantly refute themselves. How small the proportion of the people whom they anoint after baptism! Why, then, do they allow among their flock so many half Christians, whose imperfection they might easily remedy?

Corruptions in practice do not disprove the doctrine itself.

Why, with such supine negligence, do they allow them to omit what cannot be omitted without grave offence? Why do they not more rigidly insist on a matter so necessary, that, without it, salvation cannot be obtained unless, perhaps, when the act has been anticipated by sudden death? When they allow it to be thus licentiously despised, they tacitly confess that it is not of the importance which they pretend.

Because (insofar as real and not exaggerated abuses occurred) men are sinners. This is why we need grace and the sacraments in the first place: to aid us poor sinners and help us to be saved and to get to heaven. God thought more than just preaching was required to do this. Supernatural power was also necessary.

10. Argument, that the Unction in confirmation is more excellent than Baptism. Answer.

Lastly, they conclude that this sacred unction is to be held in greater veneration than baptism, because the former is specially administered by the higher order of priests, whereas the latter is dispensed in common by all priests whatever (Distinct. 5, De his vero). What can you here say, but that they are plainly mad in thus pluming themselves on their own inventions, while, in comparison with these, they carelessly contemn the sacred ordinances of God? Sacrilegious mouth! dare you oppose oil merely polluted with your fetid breath, and charmed by your muttered words, to the sacrament of Christ, and compare it with water sanctified by the word of God?

How eloquent. Calvin could at least condemn all the fathers who agree with the Church, if he insists on demonizing confirmation. But that would be too honest; too real, and would go against his pretensions of having the fathers always on his side. Before we go further, however, let us look at an official Catholic declaration on confirmation, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, rather than going by Calvin's nonsense and vain imagination of what he falsely believes the sacrament to be:

1303 From this fact, Confirmation brings an increase and deepening of baptismal grace:

- it roots us more deeply in the divine filiation which makes us cry, "Abba! Father!";
- it unites us more firmly to Christ;
- it increases the gifts of the Holy Spirit in us;
- it renders our bond with the Church more perfect;
- it gives us a special strength of the Holy Spirit to spread and defend the faith by word and action as true witnesses of Christ, to confess the name of Christ boldly, and never to be ashamed of the Cross:

Recall then that you have received the spiritual seal, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of right judgment and courage, the spirit of knowledge and reverence, the spirit of holy fear in God's presence. Guard what you have received. God the Father has marked you with his sign; Christ the Lord has confirmed you and has placed his pledge, the Spirit, in your hearts.[St. Ambrose, De myst. 7, 42]

What terrible, sacrilegious beliefs! Has anyone ever observed such outrageous impiety?! About baptismal graces, the same source states:

VII. THE GRACE OF BAPTISM

1262 The different effects of Baptism are signified by the perceptible elements of the sacramental rite. Immersion in water symbolizes not only death and purification, but also regeneration and renewal. Thus the two principal effects are purification from sins and new birth in the Holy Spirit.⁶⁵

For the forgiveness of sins . . .

1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin.⁶⁶ In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam's sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.

1264 Yet certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence, or metaphorically, "the tinder for sin" (fomes peccati); since concupiscence "is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ."⁶⁷ Indeed, "an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules."⁶⁸

"A new creature"

1265 Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte "a new creature," an adopted son of God, who has become a "partaker of the divine nature,"⁶⁹ member of Christ and co-heir with him,⁷⁰ and a temple of the Holy Spirit.⁷¹

1266 The Most Holy Trinity gives the baptized sanctifying grace, the grace of justification:
- enabling them to believe in God, to hope in him, and to love him through the theological virtues;
- giving them the power to live and act under the prompting of the Holy Spirit through the gifts of the Holy Spirit;
- allowing them to grow in goodness through the moral virtues.
Thus the whole organism of the Christian's supernatural life has its roots in Baptism.

Incorporated into the Church, the Body of Christ

1267 Baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ: "Therefore . . . we are members one of another."⁷² Baptism incorporates us into the Church. From the baptismal fonts is born the one People of God of the New Covenant, which transcends all the natural or human limits of nations, cultures, races, and sexes: "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body."⁷³

65 Cf. Acts 2:38; Jn 3:5.
66 Cf. Council of Florence (1439): DS 1316.
67 Council of Trent (1546): DS 1515.
68 2 Tim 2:5.
69 2 Cor 5:17; 2 Pet 1:4; cf. Gal 4:5-7.
70 Cf. 1 Cor 6:15; 12:27; Rom 8:17.
71 Cf. 1 Cor 6:19.
72 Eph 4:25.
73 1 Cor 12:13.

Thus it can readily be observed that Catholicism is not denigrating baptism in any way, shape, or form, over against confirmation. We feel no need so absurdly pit one thing against another, as Calvin so often has a great need to do, for some odd and inexplicable reason. Confirmation (so the Church teaches) is not even strictly necessary for salvation; nor is baptism incomplete without it. Hence the Catechism states in #1306: " without Confirmation and Eucharist, Baptism is certainly valid and efficacious . . ." Once again, then, we see how Calvin has distorted what Catholics believe. He wouldn't be Calvin if he didn't do so, and anti-Catholicism would not be the irrational, slanderous thing that it is.

But even this was not enough for your improbity: you must also prefer it. Such are the responses of the holy see, such the oracles of the apostolic tripod.

I don't see any documentation. Would it put Calvin out to provide that once in a blue moon?

But some of them have begun to moderate this madness,

Nothing is more "madness" than falsehoods, because the devil is the father of lies. How often he is ultimately behind Calvin's thought has been undeniably evident throughout this critique. But I don't accuse him of the knowing, deliberate deception that he constantly accuses Catholics of.

which, even in their own opinion, was carried too far (Lombard. Sent. Lib. 4 Dist. 7, c. 2).

Lombard taught that there are seven sacraments. If indeed he thought there were excesses in confirmation, then that could only be in practice, since he accepted it in and of itself, and since in this same section he stated that it was instituted by the Holy Spirit through the instrument of the apostles (see, Catholic Encyclopedia, "Confirmation"). That hardly bolsters Calvin's antipathy to the sacrament.

It is to be held in greater veneration, they say, not perhaps because of the greater virtue and utility which it confers, but because it is given by more dignified persons, and in a more dignified part of the body, the forehead; or because it gives a greater increase of virtue, though baptism is more effectual for forgiveness. But do they not, by their first reason, prove themselves to be Donatists, who estimate the value of the sacrament by the dignity of the minister?

No, because Catholic statements of this sort are invariably nuanced and meant in a specific sense. Those who neither accept nor understand Catholic thought often then misinterpret what is being stated. No doubt that is what is occurring presently.

Grant, however, that confirmation may be called more dignified from the dignity of the bishop’s hand, still should any one ask how this great prerogative was conferred on the bishops, what reason can they give but their own caprice?

When the Council of Trent proclaimed definitively on the sacrament of confirmation, it did not appear to make it superior to baptism at all. It offered just three canons on the question, but provided fourteen on baptism.

The right was used only by the apostles, who alone dispensed the Holy Spirit. Are bishops alone apostles? Are they apostles at all?

Bishops are the successors of the apostles, as can be shown from the Bible itself.

However, let us grant this also; why do they not, on the same grounds, maintain that the sacrament of blood in the Lord’s Supper is to be touched only by bishops? Their reason for refusing it to laics is, that it was given by our Lord to the apostles only. If to the apostles only, why not infer then to bishops only? But in that place, they make the apostles simple Presbyters, whereas here another vertigo seizes them, and they suddenly elect them bishops.

I would suspect that it is because of the one-time solemnity of confirmation as a re-dedication of one's life to God, and because of the uniqueness of receiving the Holy Spirit in fuller measure. Bishops use the ceremony of laying on of hands to ordain priests (the power of ordination), so perhaps that is the rationale here: the laying on of hands by a bishop is also the means of the sacrament of confirmation, where one receives further power from the Holy Spirit.

Lastly, Ananias was not an apostle, and yet Paul was sent to him to receive his sight, to be baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17).

And to have his sins remitted (Acts 22:16: a fact that Calvin conveniently omits). Doctrines develop. We wouldn't expect to see every particular later adopted by the Church to be explicitly present in the Bible itself. If that is true even for Christology and the theology of the Trinity, how much more should we expect it to be the case for sacramental rites? We see Church authority and Sacred Tradition and bishops in Scripture. We see the "right" of the Church to set policy, in the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15). This is all that is necessary for the Church to later determine that bishops alone administer this sacrament (unless they delegate the responsibility to a priest).

I will add, though cumulatively, if, by divine right, this office was peculiar to bishops, why have they dared to transfer it to plebeian Presbyters, as we read in one of the Epistles of Gregory? (Dist. 95, cap. Pervenis).

Because that is within their power and prerogative, just as Jesus delegated His authority to His apostles and said, "he who receives you receives me" (Matt 10:40; cf. Jn 13:20). If even Jesus can delegate His authority through representatives, certainly bishops can do the same, as they have far less authority than Jesus in the first place. But by analogy and Jesus' own example, they can do so.

11. Answer continued. Argument, that confirmation has greater virtue.

How frivolous, inept, and stolid the other reason, that their confirmation is worthier than the baptism of God,

I deny the premise; Calvin has not sufficiently established that the Church even teaches this. I have provided strong indications that it does not at all.

because in confirmation it is the forehead that is besmeared with oil, and in baptism the cranium. As if baptism were performed with oil, and not with water! I take all the pious to witness, whether it be not the one aim of these miscreants to adulterate the purity of the sacraments by their leaven. I have said elsewhere, that what is of God in the sacraments, can scarcely be got a glimpse of among the crowd of human inventions. If any did not then give me credit for the fact, let them now give it to their own teachers. Here, passing over water, and making it of no estimation, they set a great value on oil alone in baptism. We maintain, against them, that in baptism also the forehead is sprinkled with water, in comparison with which, we do not value your oil one straw, whether in baptism or in confirmation.

So now Calvin denigrates oil, as if somehow it has less worth or value in and of itself than water? I suppose it is as silly and expected as any of his other numerous false dichotomies.

But if any one alleges that oil is sold for more, I answer, that by this accession of value any good which might otherwise be in it is vitiated, so far is it from being lawful fraudulently to vend this most vile imposture. They betray their impiety by the third reason, when they pretend that a greater increase of virtue is conferred in confirmation than in baptism. By the laying on of hands the apostles dispensed the visible gifts of the Spirit. In what respect does the oil of these men prove its fecundity?

By scriptural testimony.

But have done with these guides, who cover one sacrilege with many acts of sacrilege. It is a Gordian knot, which it is better to cut than to lose so much labour in untying.

In other words, split off from whatever we disagree with, causing schism. That is Calvin's and Luther's and Zwingli's and the Anabaptists and the English "Reformers'" solution, as if such a thing can be sanctioned to the slightest degree from Holy Scripture, which everywhere condemns division and schism.

12. Argument from the practice of antiquity. Augustine’s view of confirmation.

When they see that the word of God, and everything like plausible argument, fail them, they pretend, as usual, that the observance is of the highest antiquity, and is confirmed by the consent of many ages.

This, in fact, is true, as has been shown.

Even were this true,

It is true (which is probably why Calvin expends little energy trying to refute the patristic evidence: he knows it is a hopeless endeavor).

they gain nothing by it.

This is great sophistry: knowing something is the case (so that no argument can be made against it), one simply acts as if it doesn't matter, anyway, if it is true.

A sacrament is not of earth, but of heaven; not of men, but of God only. They must prove God to be the author of their confirmation, if they would have it to be regarded as a sacrament.

That is easily done by Scripture, where all of the essential components of confirmation are evident. Since God is the ultimate author of Scripture, this shows that it is in compliance with His will.

But why obtrude antiquity, seeing that ancient writers, whenever they would speak precisely, nowhere mention more than two sacraments?

This is an extraordinary claim, since it is easily refuted. The claim is that only baptism and the Eucharist are referred to as sacraments by the fathers. St. Augustine refutes this himself (if we must get legalistic about use of the actual word "sacrament"):

. . . there remains in the ordained persons the Sacrament of Ordination; and if, for any fault, any be removed from his office, he will not be without the Sacrament of the Lord once for all set upon him, albeit continuing unto condemnation.

(On the Good of Marriage, 24:32 [A.D. 401] )

He uses the word also of Holy Matrimony:

Undoubtedly the substance of the sacrament is of this bond, so that when man and woman have been joined in marriage they must continue inseparably as long as they live, . . .

(Marriage and Concupiscence 1:10:11 [A.D. 419] )

In marriage, however, let the blessings of marriage be loved: offspring, fidelity, and the sacramental bond. . . . The sacramental bond, which they lose neither through separation nor through adultery, this the spouses should guard chastely and harmoniously.

(Ibid., 1:17:19)

Perhaps St. Augustine was given to imprecision. In any event, Calvin got his facts wrong. His own favorite Church father puts the lie to his claim.

Were the bulwark of our faith to be sought from men, we have an impregnable citadel in this, that the fictitious sacraments of these men were never recognised as sacraments by ancient writers.

We have seen quite otherwise. The proof's in the pudding.

They speak of the laying on of hands, but do they call it a sacrament? Augustine distinctly affirms that it is nothing but prayer (De Bapt. cont. Donat. Lib. 3 cap. 16).

In this section, Augustine uses the word "sacrament" in a broader sense; nevertheless, in context, he agrees exactly with what Catholics mean by the sacrament of confirmation (all its essential components):

1) The Holy Spirit is "given."

2) The Holy Spirit is received by the laying on of hands.

3) This reception occurs in the Catholic Church only.

4) The reception need not be accompanied by miracles.

Here is the complete section 16 from the Schaff (Protestant) translation of the Church fathers:

But when it is said that "the Holy Spirit is given by the imposition of hands in the Catholic Church only, I suppose that our ancestors meant that we should understand thereby what the apostle says, "Because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us." For this is that very love which is wanting in all who are cut off from the communion of the Catholic Church; and for lack of this, "though they speak with the tongues of men and of angels, though they understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though they have the gift of prophecy, and all faith, so that they could remove mountains, and though they bestow all their goods to feed the poor, and though they give their bodies to be burned, it profiteth them nothing." But those are wanting in God’s love who do not care for the unity of the Church; and consequently we are right in understanding that the Holy Spirit may be said not to be received except in the Catholic Church. For the Holy Spirit is not only given by the laying on of hands amid the testimony of temporal sensible miracles, as He was given in former days to be the credentials of a rudimentary faith, and for the extension of the first beginnings of the Church. For who expects in these days that those on whom hands are laid that they may receive the Holy Spirit should forthwith begin to speak with tongues? but it is understood that invisibly and imperceptibly, on account of the bond of peace, divine love is breathed into their hearts, so that they may be able to say, "Because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us." But there are many operations of the Holy Spirit, which the same apostle commemorates in a certain passage at such length as he thinks sufficient, and then concludes: "But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as He will." Since, then, the sacrament is one thing, which even Simon Magus could have; and the operation of the Spirit is another thing, which is even often found in wicked men, as Saul had the gift of prophecy; and that operation of the same Spirit is a third thing, which only the good can have, as "the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:" whatever, therefore, may be received by heretics and schismatics, the charity which covereth the multitude of sins is the especial gift of Catholic unity and peace; nor is it found in all that are within that bond, since not all that are within it are of it, as we shall see in the proper place. At any rate, outside the bond that love cannot exist, without which all the other requisites, even if they can be recognized and approved, cannot profit or release from sin. But the laying on of hands in reconciliation to the Church is not, like baptism, incapable of repetition; for what is it more than a prayer offered over a man?

Let them not here yelp out one of their vile distinctions, that the laying on of hands to which Augustine referred was not the confirmatory, but the curative or reconciliatory. His book is extant and in men’s hands; if I wrest it to any meaning different from that which Augustine himself wrote it, they are welcome not only to load me with reproaches after their wonted manner, but to spit upon me.

Spitting is unnecessary; all I need do is ask readers to see if the above contradicts my summation of it.

He is speaking of those who returned from schism to the unity of the Church. He says that they have no need of a repetition of baptism, for the laying on of hands is sufficient, that the Lord may bestow the Holy Spirit upon them by the bond of peace. But as it might seem absurd to repeat laying on of hands more than baptism, he shows the difference: “What,” he asks, “is the laying on of hands but prayer over the man?”

Indeed it is; so what? He is teaching that the Spirit is received in a special sense in this manner. I don't see Calvin retaining any such ceremony or sacrament. So why does he think Augustine (who believed in all seven sacraments) supports his case?

That this is his meaning is apparent from another passage, where he says, “Because of the bond of charity, which is the greatest gift of the Holy Spirit, without which all the other holy qualities which a man may possess are ineffectual for salvation, the hand is laid on reformed heretics” (Lib. 5 cap. 23).

That doesn't overcome what has been established above. It may not be confirmation as we know it in every minute particular, but it is similar enough to be seen as corroborating evidence for the general principle. That is the case (in fact, usually the case) for many doctrines in the fathers; it is nothing by any means unique to confirmation. St. Augustine, in this additional section of On Baptism; Against the Donatists, that Calvin refers to, makes reference to a letter from St. Cyprian (to Pompeius).

The editor (probably Philip Schaff) even mentions in a footnote: "Cyprian, in the laying on of hands, appears to refer to confirmation." So even though the same editor doubts, like Calvin, that St. Augustine refers to confirmation in this portion, he contends that another father over a hundred years earlier, did do so. Yet Calvin insists that it was a nonexistent rite in the early Church.

St. Cyprian's letter referred to (Epistle LXXIII: to Pompey) provides (more than once) an explicit sanction of something altogether like confirmation:

Or if they attribute the effect of baptism to the majesty of the name, so that they who are baptized anywhere and anyhow, in the name of Jesus Christ, are judged to be renewed and sanctified; wherefore, in the name of the same Christ, are not hands laid upon the baptized persons among them, for the reception of the Holy Spirit? Why does not the same majesty of the same name avail in the imposition of hands, which, they contend, availed in the sanctification of baptism? For if any one born out of the Church can become God’s temple, why cannot the Holy Spirit also be poured out upon the temple? For he who has been sanctified, his sins being put away in baptism, and has been spiritually reformed into a new man, has become fitted for receiving the Holy Spirit; since the apostle says, “As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” He who, having been baptized among the heretics, is able to put on Christ, may much more receive the Holy Spirit whom Christ sent. Otherwise He who is sent will be greater than Him who sends; so that one baptized without may begin indeed to put on Christ, but not to be able to receive the Holy Spirit, as if Christ could either be put on without the Spirit, or the Spirit be separated from Christ. (5)

But further, one is not born by the imposition of hands when he receives the Holy Ghost, but in baptism, that so, being already born, he may receive the Holy Spirit, even as it happened in the first man Adam. For first God formed him, and then breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. For the Spirit cannot be received, unless he who receives first have an existence. But as the birth of Christians is in baptism, while the generation and sanctification of baptism are with the spouse of Christ alone, who is able spiritually to conceive and to bear sons to God, where and of whom and to whom is he born, who is not a son of the Church, so as that he should have God as his Father, before he has had the Church for his Mother? (7)

13. The ancient confirmation very praiseworthy. Should be restored in churches in the present day.

I wish we could retain the custom, which, as I have observed, existed in the early Church, before this abortive mask of a sacrament appeared. It would not be such a confirmation as they pretend, one which cannot even be named without injury to baptism, but catechising by which those in boyhood, or immediately beyond it, would give an account of their faith in the face of the Church. And the best method of catechising would be, if a form were drawn up for this purpose, containing, and briefly explaining, the substance of almost all the heads of our religion, in which the whole body of the faithful ought to concur without controversy.

Catholics (and Lutherans) are known for their catechisms, not Calvinists. But of course, the entire confirmation process is of this nature, too, insofar as there is usually a great deal of instruction associated with it.

A boy of ten years of age would present himself to the Church, to make a profession of faith, would be questioned on each head, and give answers to each. If he was ignorant of any point, or did not well understand it, he would be taught. Thus, while the whole Church looked on and witnessed, he would profess the one true sincere faith with which the body of the faithful, with one accord, worship one God.

In other words, Calvin, typically, can comprehend only verbal, rational instruction. He is lost to mystery, sacrament, and the supernatural. Everything is in his head only. So we have the instruction and the power and miracle of the Holy Spirit coming in fuller power, whereas Calvin wants to have only the former and not the latter. In so doing he takes away the very power that will help the budding disciple carry out his resolve and walk with God, learned in classes of systematic theology.

Were this discipline in force in the present day, it would undoubtedly whet the sluggishness of certain parents, who carelessly neglect the instruction of their children, as if it did not at all belong to them, but who could not then omit it without public disgrace; there would be greater agreement in faith among the Christian people, and not so much ignorance and rudeness; some persons would not be so readily carried away by new and strange dogmas; in fine, it would furnish all with a methodical arrangement of Christian doctrine.

That's all fine and dandy, but it is not the essence of confirmation, which is the coming in greater power of the Holy Spirit, equipping the saints for ministry.

Exchange With Protestant Apologist Jason Engwer on the Scriptural Relationship of Faith, Works, and Judgment

Jesus and the Rich Young Ruler

This came about in a related discussion concerning the Judaizers -- in the combox of a post about whether Francis Beckwith, prominent Catholic convert, is saved (a discussion I also wrote about here). Jason's words will be in blue.

* * * * *

We believe in sola gratia as you do, but reject sola fide as an unbiblical innovation. The fact remains that works are profoundly involved in the salvation (ultimately by grace) in some sense:

St. Paul's Teaching on the Organic Relationship of Grace / Faith and Works / Action / Obedience (Collection of 50 Pauline Passages)

More "Catholic Verses" and Biblical Defenses of Catholicism: On Sanctification as Part of Salvation, and Merit and "Doing Something For Salvation"

They are even central to the criteria of how God will decide who is saved and who isn't, as I have proven from no less than 50 Bible passages:

Final Judgment in Scripture is Always Associated With Works And Never With Faith Alone

We interpret all this in a non-Pelagian fashion. We incorporate all of Scripture, not just our favorite pet verses. You guys simply ignore this data or act as if it is only in the realm of sanctification and has nothing whatever to do with salvation, which is absurdly simplistic and unrealistic in the face of the overwhelming data showing otherwise.

Paul's focus in Galatians is on the means by which justification is attained (Galatians 3:2), not whether justification is attributed to grace. The idea that one can seek justification through a combination between faith and works, as long as the process is attributed to grace, is a contradiction of what Paul taught. If works are absent from Genesis 15:6, Acts 10:44-46, Galatians 3:2, and other relevant passages, then saying that the works are preceded by and accompanied by grace doesn't make sense. There are no works for grace to accompany in such passages. To make this a matter of whether the works are attributed to grace is to get the gospel fundamentally wrong. There's no need to discuss whether non-existent works are works of grace or graceless works. The gospel shuts us up to faith, not to a combination between faith and gracious works (Galatians 3:21-25).

Then why are works always central in every discussion of the final judgment that I could find in Scripture (50 passages: linked to above)?

The final judgment involves more than the means by which the justified attained that justification. It also involves the means by which the unregenerate are condemned, the vindication of the justified, and the non-justificatory rewarding of those individuals. I wouldn't expect the final judgment to not involve works. In the post you're responding to, I cited some examples of passages that are about how we attain justification. They don't just exclude graceless works. They exclude works of any type. Many other such passages could be cited, as I discuss here and here.

Why is this the case if God is supposedly wanting to completely separate any notion of works or acts from salvation itself?

We wouldn't have to know why works are excluded in order to know that they're excluded. But it's a good question, and I addressed it in a post last year.

I agree with what C. S. Lewis said: asking one to choose between faith and works is as senseless as saying which blade of a pair of scissors is more important.

It's an organic relationship. Actually, Catholics and Protestants, rightly understood, are not far apart on this in the final analysis. It's mostly mutual misunderstandings and unfortunate semantic confusion.

I wouldn't expect the final judgment to not involve works.

Good. That's part of the common ground I alluded to.

But then my question would be: why is the aspect of faith (let alone faith alone so glaringly absent in these 50 accounts of judgment (I think only one mentioned it at all, in my list), if in fact it is the central, fundamental consideration, according to Protestantism?

It's just not plausible. The Bible doesn't at all read as it should, were Protestant soteriology true, and Catholic soteriology false. I contend that it would read much differently indeed. As it is, it appears to overwhelmingly favor the Catholic positions.

Central to what? All that the judgment involves? No. The unjustified are condemned for their sins, so works are relevant to their judgment. And the justified are reconciled to God through faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9) for good works (Ephesians 2:10). The works evidence the faith (vindication), and the works determine non-justificatory rewards. Mentioning works is an effective way of summarizing the judgment, since it brings together so many of the relevant themes. Even when a passage only mentions works with regard to the judgment, we have to keep the nearby context in mind. The original authors (or speakers) didn't expect their audience to take their comments in isolation, ignoring the context. Those who hear Jesus speak of works in Matthew 25:31-46 know that He was carrying out a ministry in which He forgave, pronounced peace, and healed people upon their coming to faith (see here). Those who heard Jesus speak of works in John 5:29 would also have known that He spoke of reconciliation through faith and avoidance of condemnation as a result of that faith in John 5:24. Those who believe are assured of the future resurrection of life (John 11:25-26). When Paul says that men will be judged by his gospel (Romans 2:16), he doesn't expect his audience to ignore everything he said about justification through faith and think only of works. Works are relevant, for reasons explained in my last paragraph, but nobody reading Paul in context would think that summarizing statements that only mention works are meant to exclude what Paul said about faith. To ignore the role of faith in his gospel would cause a major distortion of his message. Paul speaks of deliverance from future wrath through Jesus' blood (Romans 5:9) after having said that the deliverance through that blood was received through faith (Romans 5:1). Etc. And I point out, again, that citing passages on the final judgment doesn't explain the line of evidence I mentioned earlier. As we see over and over again in Jesus' ministry and Paul's, people are justified through faith alone, as illustrated in the paradigm case of Abraham in Genesis 15:6. There is no issue of whether the works involved are works of grace or graceless works, since works of both types are absent.

Thanks very much for your reply, and especially for sticking directly to the issues. I think you have answered well from within your own paradigm, and it is interesting to learn how you answer the question I asked. I truly do appreciate it.

I disagree, of course, but as I said, I didn't come here to debate. Let me conclude, if I may, by briefly clarifying that the Catholic position is not saying to ignore faith or grace (the content of your entire long second paragraph). Our position is that salvation is by grace alone, through faith, which is not alone, and includes works by its very nature.

So all your warnings about "ignoring" faith are non sequiturs, as far as Catholicism is concerned, and a rather large straw man, if you are intending to target Catholic soteriology there.

The point of my paper and question about it is not to stake out some "works alone" position (which would, of course, be a Pelagianism that Catholics totally reject as heresy), but to note that it is rather striking that only works are mentioned in the judgment passages, and never faith alone (and faith at all only once out of 50).

I realize that the Catholic view involves grace and faith as well, which is why I previously referred to faith rather than "a combination between faith and gracious works" in reference to Galatians 3:21-25, for example. The second paragraph in the post you're responding to was meant to be an explanation of the intention of the Biblical authors, not a response to Catholicism.

In another paper I mentioned here I cite 50 passages from Paul that exhibit the threefold scenario of grace-faith-works.

We also get accused of believing in "sola ecclesia" when in fact our position on authority is the "three-legged stool" of Scripture-Tradition-Church. It's simply Protestant either/or thinking applied to us.

Thanks again, and I will record your complete reply in a post I'll make on the topic. You or anyone else is always welcome to comment on my site about anything.

Merry Christmas to you and yours.

* * *

I don't see how some of the passages I mentioned in my last post, such as John 11:25-26 and Romans 5:1-9, can be exempted from an examination of judgment passages. When people are assured of a future in Heaven, the resurrection of life, the avoidance of God's wrath in the future, etc. on the basis of faith, why wouldn't such passages be relevant to the subject you're addressing?

They are thematically related insofar as they are also soteriological, but my 50 passages had specifically to do with final judgment, God's wrath, and eschatological salvation.

That came about because I was asked in debate with Matt Slick (the big cheese at CARM) what I would say if I got to heaven and God asked me why I should be let in. I replied that we had biblical data as to what God would actually say at such a time, and it was all about works, not faith alone at all. And I found that quite striking (after studying it in greater depth), though it never surprises me to find profound biblical support for Catholicism. I always do whenever I study the Bible.

Romans 5:9 does mention God's wrath, but it is a generalized, proverbial-like statement (such as often found in, e.g., 1 John), rather than particularistic and eschatological, which is what I was talking about in my paper.

John 11:25-26 is of the same nature, and moreover, if we look at it closely, we see that the Greek for "believe" is pistuo, which is considered the counterpart of "does not obey" (apitheo) in John 3:36. 1 Peter 2:7 also opposes the two same Greek words. In other words, "believe" in the biblical sense already includes within it the concept of obedience (i.e., works). Hence, "little Kittel" observes:

pisteuo as "to obey." Heb. 11 stresses that to believe is to obey, as in the OT. Paul in Rom. 1:8; 1 Th. 1:8 (cf. Rom. 15:18; 16:19) shows, too, that believing means obeying. He speaks about the obedience of faith in Rom. 1:5, and cf. 10:3; 2 Cor. 9:13.

(p. 854)

Jesus joins faith ("belief" / pistuo) and works together, too, when He states:

John 14:12 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father.

So even if one grants that these passages have to do directly with judgment and eschatological salvation (as I do not), it is still the case that the "belief" mentioned in them is (through cross-referencing) seen to include obeying and works, and we're back to the Catholic organic relationship between the two, rather than the Protestant ultra-abstraction of the two into the justification and sanctification categories.

"Faith alone" is tough to verify from Scripture once everything is taken into account and not just the garden-variety Protestant passages that are always utilized.

* * *

In other words, 'believe' in the biblical sense already includes within it the concept of obedience (i.e., works).

I agree that faith is obedience, but it can be obedience without being work in any relevant sense. That's why we're told that people can believe without working (Romans 4:5-6), that justifying belief occurs in the heart (Acts 15:7-11, Romans 10:10), that works demonstrate faith (James 2:14-26), etc. Different terms are used to refer to faith and works, because they're different concepts. They can have obedience in common without having some other things in common.

A reference to faith can't be assumed to include outward action, much less a specific outward action like baptism. That's why we often see baptism and faith distinguished, for example (Acts 8:12-13, 18:8, etc.). The fact that faith is obedience wouldn't lead us to the conclusion that other forms of obedience can be included in references to faith.

The term "faith" and its synonyms aren't all that are relevant here. When we read of a paralytic being lowered into a house, a man visiting a Jewish temple, a crucified man, or a man listening to the gospel being preached, we don't define what that person is doing solely by a term like "faith". Rather, we also take into account the evidence provided by the surrounding context. It would make no sense to conclude that a paralyzed man being lowered into a house or a man visiting a Jewish temple was being baptized simultaneously or that a man nailed to a cross or a man listening to Peter preach the gospel was giving money to the poor at the same time. We judge how these individuals were justified partially through the surrounding context, not just a reference to faith or some related term. Part of the problem with the Catholic gospel is that not only do so many of the relevant passages mention faith without mentioning works, but the surrounding context gives us further reason to believe that the relevant works aren't involved.

So even if one grants that these passages have to do directly with judgment and eschatological salvation (as I do not)

How can a passage about resurrection life and never dying (John 11:25-26) not be directly relevant? Passages of a similar nature use other phrases that are likewise relevant to future judgment and salvation, such as "on the last day" in John 6:40. Your article includes John 5:26-29, so I don't see a problem with including verse 24 as well. Themes of resurrection and judgment are already being discussed in verses 21-22. Yet, your article only cites verses 26-29.

Similarly, Romans 5:1-9 repeatedly brings up themes of hope for the future and deliverance from future wrath.

And I want to remind the readers of something I said earlier. The coming judgment is primarily a judgment of works even from the perspective of justification through faith alone. The unregenerate are condemned by their works, and the regenerate are justified in order to do (Ephesians 2:10), vindicated by, and rewarded for their works. The emphasis on works in judgment passages doesn't tell us, though, whether works are a means of justification. The dispute isn't about whether works are relevant to the judgment, but rather the type of relevance they have.

Thanks for the continuing excellent discussion. Just one point:

the regenerate are justified in order to do (Ephesians 2:10), [be] vindicated by, and rewarded for their works. The emphasis on works in judgment passages doesn't tell us, though, whether works are a means of justification.

This is classic Protestantism, of course: works are relegated to post-justification status, as part of a separate sanctification and the realm of differential rewards of those already saved. I used to believe the exact same thing, so I'm very familiar with it.

The problem is that Scripture doesn't teach such a view. The disproofs are already in my paper, in many passages that directly connect or associate salvation with the works that one does: therefore, works are not unrelated to either justification or eschatological salvation, as you claim they are:

Matthew 25:34-36 (RSV) Then the King will say to those at his right hand, `Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; FOR I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.'

The "for" shows the causal relationship: "you are saved because you did all these works." That's what the text actually asserts, before false Protestant presuppositions and eisegesis are applied to it in the effort to make sure works never have to do directly with salvation (no matter how much faith and grace is there with them, so that we're not talking about Pelagianism).

If Protestantism were true, the Bible should have had a passage something like this (RPV):

But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. Then He will also say to those on His left, "Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; for you did not believe in Me with Faith Alone." These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous who believed with Faith Alone into eternal life.

But alas, it doesn't read like that, does it?

John 5:28-29 . . . the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.

A direct correlation: the ones who do good works are saved; the ones who do evil are damned.

Romans 2:6-8, 13 For he will render to every man according to his works: To those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. . . . For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

Again, works are directly tied to eternal life and justification; they are not portrayed as merely acts of gratefulness that will lead to differential rewards for the saved; no, the differential reward is either salvation or damnation. Paul totally agrees with Jesus.

2 Thessalonians 1:7-9 . . . when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance upon those who do not know God and upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might,

Note that simply believing the gospel and knowing God is not enough for salvation. One has to also "obey the gospel" (and that involves works).

Revelation 2:5 Remember then from what you have fallen, repent and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.

If we don't do the works, we can lose our salvation; therefore works have to do with salvation; they are not separated from that by abstracting them into a separate category of sanctification, that is always distinguished from justification. That ain't biblical teaching. That is the eisegesis and false premises of Melanchthon and Calvin and Zwingli.

Revelation 20:11-13 Then I saw a great white throne and him who sat upon it; from his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, by what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead in them, and all were judged by what they had done.

Same thing again. Obviously, St. John, St. Paul, and our Lord Jesus need to attend a good Calvinist or evangelical seminary and get up to speed on their soteriology. They don't get it. The passage should have been written something like the following:

. . . and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to whether they had Faith Alone. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to whether they had Faith Alone.

Perhaps we should get together a council and rewrite the Bible so that it doesn't have so many "Romish" errors throughout its pages . . . :-) The King James White version or sumpin' . . . :-)

* * *

Part of the problem with the Catholic gospel is that not only do so many of the relevant passages mention faith without mentioning works, but the surrounding context gives us further reason to believe that the relevant works aren't involved.

I can easily flip that around, based on the biblical data I have been highlighting:

"Part of the problem with the Protestant gospel is that not only do so many of the relevant passages mention works without mentioning faith (and especially not faith alone), but also the surrounding context gives us further reason to believe that faith alone isn't involved."

Since the Catholic believes in the triumvirate of GRACE--->faith--->works as the criteria for salvation, passages dealing with faith pose no problem. The more the merrier. We are saying that faith alone is the unbiblical doctrine, not faith. We're not against faith at all, but rather, a false definition of faith, that restricts and confines it in a way that the Bible doesn't do.

But since your position is faith alone (in terms of salvation itself), you have to explain away or rationalize all passages suggesting an important place of works in the equation, in a way that we're not required to do (given our position) with all the passages about faith that you produce.

So you claimed, for example, that "The emphasis on works in judgment passages doesn't tell us, though, whether works are a means of justification." I have now produced six, plain, clear passages that do do just that. And that has to be explained from your paradigm.

I'm sure you will attempt some sort of explanation for your own sake (if even just in your own mind), because if you fail to do so, you would be forced to give up Protestant soteriology. The stakes are high.

But in any event, bringing out ten, twenty, fifty passages that mention faith does nothing against our position, because we don't reject faith as part of the whole thing.

The problem for your side remains: how to interpret the centrality of works in the judgment / salvation passages like the six I dealt with in my last two postings, in a way that preserves the "faith alone" doctrine.

I contend that it is impossible. To do so does violence to the Bible and what it teaches. We must base our teaching squarely on biblical theology and not the arbitrary, self-contradictory traditions of men (folks like Calvin), who eisegete Holy Scripture and substitute for biblical thought, their own traditions.

Sometimes it's easy to confuse those traditions with biblical teaching itself. But by examining Holy Scripture more deeply and over time, I think anyone can eventually see that it supports the Catholic positions every time.

That's why we continue to see folks who study the issues deeply moving from Protestantism to Catholicism (such as Francis Beckwith: the original subject of this post).

our article includes John 5:26-29, so I don't see a problem with including verse 24 as well. Themes of resurrection and judgment are already being discussed in verses 21-22. Yet, your article only cites verses 26-29.

Fair point. I love discussions of context. Protestants too often ignore context, but you don't, and I respect that and commend you for it. I have explained my criterion for inclusion in my article on final judgment and works: it depends on how exactly one decides to categorize; how one determines which is a directly eschatological passage or one having to do with judgment. Reasonable folks can differ on that, as there is a subjective element. Not every systematic theologian cuts off the passages they employ at the same exact point.

But as I have been saying, a consideration also of the larger context of John 5 does nothing to harm the Catholic case. You wrote:

many of the relevant passages mention faith without mentioning works, . . . the surrounding context gives us further reason to believe that the relevant works aren't involved.

Using John 5 as an example (since you brought it up), we see that this doesn't apply. You say 5:21-22 mentions resurrection and judgment. Fine; indeed it does But what it doesn't do is give the criteria for these judgments and who is resurrected. That has to come by reading on (further context). You want to highlight 5:24:

. . . he who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life."

I have explained that this is a generalized statement: one could perhaps paraphrase it as "Christian believers have eternal life" or (to bring it down to a Sunday School nursery level): "all good Christians go to heaven."

It doesn't follow from a general statement like this that no Christian can ever fall away (though Calvinism requires this, over against many biblical passages to the contrary), or that works have nothing to do with it. We need to look at the deeper meaning of "believe" (as I have already done).

As we read on (the same discourse from Jesus) we get to 5:29:

. . . those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment."

Now, you want to highlight 5:24 and de-emphasize 5:29. I can gladly consider both of them in the entire equation. It's once again the Catholic (Hebraic) "both/and" vs. the Protestant (and more Greek) "either/or". Scripture is asserting two truths:

5:24 "he who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life"

5:29 "those who have done good, to the resurrection of life,"

Faith and works. For us, the two passages are entirely compatible and in harmony with our Catholic theology: one is saved by grace through faith, in believing in Jesus, and this belief entails and inherently includes good works.

But you guys can't do that, because you wrongly conclude that any presence of good works in the equation of both justification and salvation itself is somehow "anti-faith" or antithetical to grace alone; and is Pelagianism. This doesn't follow.

But because you believe this (the false, unbiblical premise), you have to explain 5:29 as merely differential rewards for the saved (who are saved by faith alone); whereas the actual text does not teach that. It teaches a direct correlation between good works and eternal life. It explains 5:24 in greater depth; just as I noted earlier that Jesus Himself places works and faith in direct relationship:

John 14:12 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do . . .

That's why we often see baptism and faith distinguished, for example (Acts 8:12-13, 18:8, etc.).

Ah, but baptism (odd that you should bring up that example) is also equated with regeneration and entrance into the kingdom, so this is hardly an example amenable overall to your position:

Acts 2:38, 41 And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” . . . So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

The order is not:

1) faith
2) forgiveness
3) indwelling Holy Spirit
4) baptism

but rather,

1) faith
2) baptism
3) forgiveness (directly because of baptism)
4) indwelling Holy Spirit (directly because of baptism)

Because of the baptism, souls were added to the kingdom. They weren't already in the kingdom, and then decided to be baptized out of obedience. Therefore, the work of baptism directly ties into both justification and final salvation.

Galatians 3:26-27 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Colossians 2:12 and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Faith and baptism are virtually equivalent in their importance. One is "in" Jesus both through faith and through baptism. Both/and.

Baptism is not a separate, optional work. It is part and parcel of the process. Insofar as it, too, is regarded as a "work" then here we have again the Catholic grace-faith-works (and efficacious sacraments) paradigm.

* * *

Jason gave further answers in a three-part reply (one / two / three). I then wrote in conclusion:

Hi Jason,

We could go round and round on this forever, and keep trying to poke holes in each other's arguments. Again, I think you have answered very well from within your paradigm. You can have the last word.

Thanks for sticking entirely to theology and avoiding any hint of personal attack. How refreshing, and a model to be emulated.

Merry Christmas to you and yours and all here.

My New Chesterton Quotes Book (Published on 14 December 2009)

I'm really excited about this. The title is, The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton. I selected all the quotations, and they are all single sentences. The material is copiously categorized and indexed in various ways, for ease of access.

I have a books page about it, which includes the Introduction, back cover text, table of contents, and excerpts. It's published by Saint Benedict Press (recently merged with TAN Books). Saint Benedict has a book page for it and so does TAN Books. Or you can order it from amazon. If you're a fan of Chesterton, please spread the word!

Anyone interested in this book may also enjoy my extensive G. K. Chesterton and C. S. Lewis web pages (many hundreds of links); also my links-pages devoted to Malcolm Muggeridge, Cardinal Newman, and Romantic and Imaginative Theology. The latter gets into J. R. R. Tolkien, Charles Williams, George MacDonald, and related writers and ideas.

It's all a labor of love for me. I wouldn't trade my occupation / vocation for anything. I'm delighted to have the privilege of playing any part at all in spreading an awareness and appreciation for the great, inimitable G. K. Chesterton. I first discovered him as an evangelical Protestant in the early 1980s, when I read Orthodoxy. I thought he was a font of wisdom then, and I have had no reason to change my opinion in the 25 or so years since. It's a joy and great honor to be able to function as an editor for the purpose of making his thought more widely known. When we love a great author, we always want to "spread the message" so that others can share our pleasure in reading his or her work.

The mark of wisdom, I think (as also in the case of great art and music), is a certain timelessness or what might be called a perpetual relevance. What Chesterton wrote in 1905 or 1925 is quite often as relevant today as anything written in the leading journals or other avenues of opinion in the last month. This is because truth is truth, and doesn't change according to fashion or the spirit of the age (zeitgeist).

So, for instance, to use an example of a topic that is always a matter of concern: abstinence; he observes:

Everybody has always known about birth-control, even if it took the wild and unthinkable form of self-control.

That is every bit as true now as it was in 1928 when it was written (and even more relevant, given the Sexual Revolution), because human beings remain the same.

Another example of a thing that never changes, are the pretensions and follies of the intelligentsia, or (a disproportionately large portion of) academia, or the self-defined "smart people." Chesterton is unflinchingly honest and right on target here, as always:

But when learned men begin to use their reason, then I generally discover that they haven’t got any.

Why is it that for the last two or three centuries the educated have been generally wrong and the uneducated relatively right?

Anyhow, it is in this intellectual world, with its many fools and few wits and fewer wise men, that there goes on perpetually a sort of ferment of fashionable revolt and negation.

It would be wrong, however, to conclude from these sorts of sentiments that Chesterton was a cynic. Quite the contrary: in dashing the pretentiousness of the cynical and the prideful, he is precisely being the idealistic and ultimately optimistic Christian that he is. In fact, part of that profoundly deep, spiritual Catholic vision is a rare, oft-observed " innocence" that shows itself in, for example, his great love for children:

One of the profound philosophical truths which are almost confined to infants is this love of things, not for their use or origin, but for their own inherent characteristics, the child's love of the toughness of wood, the wetness of water, the magnificent soapiness of soap.

If anybody chooses to say that I have founded all my social philosophy on the antics of a baby, I am quite satisfied to bow and smile.

Chesterton is as relentlessly humorous and witty as he is wise, but always in a playful way; with a "smile," as it were:

Shakespeare is quite himself; it is only some of his critics who have discovered that he was somebody else.

It is an almost invariable rule that the man with whom I don’t agree thinks I am making a fool of myself, and the man with whom I do agree thinks I am making a fool of him.

The Bible must be referring to wallpapers, I think, when it says, "Use not vain repetitions, as the Gentiles do."

A man's friend likes him but leaves him as he is: his wife loves him and is always trying to turn him into somebody else.

Over and above the horrible rubbish-heap of the books I have written, now filling the pulping-machines or waste-paper baskets of the world, there are a vast number of books that I have never written, because a providential diversion interposed to protect the crowd of my fellow-creatures who could endure no more.

The citations presented herein cover the whole gamut of human experience and thought: from religion and morality (as we would expect of an unapologetic apologist), to the romance and wonder of childhood, the arts, literature, science, philosophy, economic and social observations, agnosticism, education, history, the follies and foibles of the intelligentsia, the wealthy, and politicians, incessant media bias, everyday life, the family, and gender differences: all offered with astounding insight, playful wit, and a sort of childlike innocence that Chesterton seemed to have never lost.

If one wishes to discover and explore the deep wellsprings of the distinctive Christian worldview, there are few better places to start than the voluminous writings of G. K. Chesterton.

My Son Paul Armstrong's "Bible and Pro-Life" Book: Defending Life

Front cover photo by Samuel Rosa of Paris [ link ]

Needless to say, we are very proud parents. Paul is all of eighteen years old and already has written a book.

My son Michael (16) has also authored two fantasy novels (a la Lord of the Rings, etc.) that are extraordinarily good (he hopes to get them "officially" published in due course: I wish him the best, knowing how hard that will surely be, but knowing also how very talented and gifted he is), and is at work on a third in the series. Paul is working on a book of that sort, too. I didn't write anything of any theological significance (or any other) until I was 23, and even then it wasn't very good at first.

Paul and Michael are both very active in Catholic youth groups and teaching catechism and supervising younger children at various youth group activities and sports teams and events. My wife Judy home-schools all of our four children (we also have a 13 year-old son and 8 year-old daughter). This is what one "gets" for that effort. It pays priceless dividends. We wouldn't trade it for anything. The good fruit is palpable and undeniable. We've observed it many times in other home-schooled children.

Pro-life has been extremely important to me since 1982, when I switched my position from an ignorant "pro-choice" or "agnostic" on the issue to an informed and active pro-life stance. I suppose some of that (by God's grace) has rubbed off onto my children. It played a key role in moving me towards the Catholic Church, too. After examining the related issue of contraception, it became (in 1990) the first major subject (before my conversion) where I changed my mind and was persuaded of a specifically Catholic position.


Back cover photo by Melbia of Austria [ link ]

Now, since I am an author, some may wonder how much I "helped" Paul with this book. I had nothing whatever to do with its inception or initial draft. In fact, I've always urged all my kids not to be writers, because of all that I have had to go through. I'm not at all the type of father who tries to force his children to do optional, open-ended things (careers, or sports or whatever), according to his wishes. They have their own God-given talents and desires (as the Holy Spirit distributes), and that's fine with me. But sure enough, here they are, writing anyway. Maybe it's a gene that is passed down . . .

My wife Judy and I helped Paul last night in selecting photographs for the front and back covers, and designing the colors and fonts, and putting together the text on the back. It was a true group effort, but Paul had the final say. I did do the formatting of the book (in the same way I set up all my Lulu books), and light editing. I've had my own books or articles edited far more heavily than I edited Paul's book. I know what that is like, as an author myself (we often have a sort of "love/hate" relationship with editors: though I have been truly blessed with mine), so I wanted to respect his feelings. He seems to be very pleased with the minor changes I made, which is great.

Mainly I modified sentences where the "person" changed or went into first or second person, to make it consistent and more "objective"-sounding. I made a few word or phrase changes here and there and contributed an occasional added clarifying sentence. But that's it. It really wasn't much. I wanted to make this clear, so there is no confusion about it. It is altogether his book, and (if I do say so): a very good one, on a crucial topic.

It features over 300 Bible passages on the subject of the sanctity of life. It was completed (quite significantly, I think) on 8 December 2009, on the Feast Day of the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

The book is available for purchase as a paperback (116 pages) for $11.95 at Lulu; also as a PDF file for only $3.00. Just follow the icon below:

Once on the Lulu web page for the book, you can view a large photograph of the cover by clicking on "preview" to the left, just under the book photograph. By repeatedly selecting the right arrow on the top right, you can read the Prologue, Acknowledgments, Table of Contents, and also see the back cover with its text, and another photograph.

Paul in November 2007 (then sixteen)

Thanks for reading, on Paul's behalf, and please spread the pro-life "Word" to all and sundry. Lives depend on it, and entire civilizations have been relegated to the dust-heap of history because of sins far less grave than this abominable holocaust of childkilling. This book can be very useful for anyone who wishes to provide the biblical rationale for the pro-life position, and it can be particularly good for young people to read, because of the age (18) of the person who wrote it.

To communicate directly with Paul (he would enjoy receiving any feedback or discussing the issue with anyone: especially young people), feel free write to his e-mail address, at:

pauldja.enigma@gmail.com