XVIThe Sacraments

Section III. Of the sacraments of the church, as means through which divine grace is communicated to us. The sacraments are defined as follows :

« (1) A sacrament is a holy action which under a visible form communicates to the soul of the believer the invisible grace of God, an action which was established by our Lord, and by which every one of the believers receives divine grace.

"Consequently the nature of the sacraments the church assumes to consist in this, that there are sacramental actions which actually communicate divine grace to the behever, that they ' are not only signs of divine promises, but instruments which necessarily act through CTrace upon those who proceed toward them.' As essential qualities of each of the sacraments it regards : (a) the divine establishment of the sacrament, {h) some visible or sensual image, and (c) the communication of invisible grace by the sacrament to the soul of the believer." (p. 313.)

It is necessary to direct the attention to the definition of the nature of the sacraments and to the words "divine establishment of the sacraments," in order that we may later be able so much the more clearly to analyze the deception on which the Theology tries to estabhsh the dogma of the sacraments. Seven sacraments are counted out, and the heresies of all the other Christians, except of our hierarchy, are refuted. Here are the heresies :

"(1) Of the nature of the sacraments. According to

Luther, they are simple signs of divine promises for the sake of rousing our faith in Christ, who remits sins. According to Calvin and Zwingli, they are divine signs, by which the one who is chosen is confirmed in the faith into which he is received and in the divine promises, or, he still more confirms his church in his faith than he confirms himself. The Socinians and Arminians see in the sacraments mere external rites, by which the Christians differ from the Gentiles. The Anabaptists regard the sacraments as allegorical signs of spiritual life. The Swedenborgians regard them as symbols of a mutual union between God and man. The Quakers and our Dukhobors completely reject the visible side of the sacraments, and recognize them only as internal, spiritual actions of the heavenly light. All these and other similar conceptions about the sacraments, which are held by various Protestant sects, with all their differences, agree in this, that they equally reject the true conception about the sacraments as external sacramental actions, which actually communicate divine grace to the behevers, and through it regenerate, renovate, and sanctify man. (2) Of the number of sacraments. As though not satisfied with the mere rejection of the true conception about the nature and efficacy of the sacraments, Protestantism has extended its sacrilegious hand upon this, in that it has diminished the number of sacraments, and, although in the beginning the Protestants showed a great diversity of opinions in this matter, they have finally agreed, of course each sect in its own way, to recognize only two sacraments : baptism and the eucharist. Of-our dissenters, the so-called Popeless sectarians, though not denying that seven sacraments have been established, are satisfied with two only, saying, In need two of them are sufficient, baptism and repentance, and the others are not necessary.' (3) Of the conditions for the performance and actuality of sacraments. According to Luther's doctrine, no lawfully established priest or bishop is needed for the performance of the sacraments; the sacraments may be performed by any clergyman or layman, by either man or woman, and they preserve their power, no matter how they are performed, even without any intention of performing, and even with ridicule or mystically. A full half of our dissenters, who form the Popeless sect, permit laymen also to perform the sacraments; but the other half, under the name of the Popish sect, leave them to the clergy, but to clergymen who are either under the ban or even entirely unfrocked, and who have in any case run away from the Orthodox Church, and have renounced it for the sake of joining the dissenting sect. On the other hand, the ancient Donatists, in the twelfth century, and later the Waldenses and the Albigenses, and beginning with the fifteenth century, the Wycliffites, fell into the opposite extreme, asserting that for the performance and efficacy of the sacraments not only a legally established priest but even a virtuous priest was needed, and that the sacraments which were performed by a tainted servant of the altar had no significance whatever. Finally the Eeformers and Lutherans invented a doctrine that the efficacy of the sacraments depended not on the worth and inner disposition of the performer of the sacraments, but on the disposition and faith of the persons who received the sacraments, so that the sacrament is a sacrament and has power only during its acceptance and application together with faith, and that when it is not used, or when it is not accepted with faith, it is not a sacrament and remains sterile." (pp. 314-316.)

The Theology does not refute these heresies, but proceeds to expound its doctrine about the sacraments, each separately. I will analyze each one of these so-called sacraments, but first it is necessary to point out the deceit of the specious proof of the divine establishment of the sacraments, which alone and in one and the same form will be applied to all the sacraments. The deception consists in the following : in the definition of the sacrament it was said that it is an external action which communicates actual grace, that is, a special spiritual power, given to him who receives the sacrament as established by Christ, and then it is pointed out that Christ has prescribed to the believers and to his disciples (but only in the case of baptism) a certain external action, and from this the conclusion is drawn that Christ has established the sacraments, that is, such actions as, when they are performed by the hierarchy, communicate to the believers a special spiritual power. The deception consists in this, that the assertion is made that Christ established the sacrament, that is, an external action which communicates internal grace, or, to speak more correctly, that Christ established the dogma of the sacrament, that is, the teaching that the immersion into water or the eating of bread and drinking of wine communicates some especial power to him who is immersed, or who eats bread and drinks vidne. In order to prove the establishment of the Christian dogma of the sacraments, it is necessary to show that Christ ascribed to those external actions, to which the hierarchy points, calling them sacraments, those properties which the hierarchy ascribes to them, whereas there is not only no indication, but not even the slightest hint at such an understanding of the sacraments as practised by Christ. In asserting that Christ commanded men to bathe and sup in remembrance of him, the hierarchy has not the slightest foundation for the assertion that Christ established the sacraments of baptism and of the eucharist with all the meaning which the hierarchy ascribes to them, and about which there is, and there can be, no hint in Christ's teaching. Thus Art. 202 proves the divine origin of baptism as a sacrament by pointing out that Christ said to his disciples : "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you : and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world (Matt, xxviii. 18-20); he that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be damned (Mark xvi. 16)."

In the first place, Mark xvi, 16 is a later addition to the Gospel, like that other tempting addition that believers shall take up serpents and not be hurt by drinking deadly things. Even if the genuineness of this passage be admitted, neither from it, nor from Matt, xxviii. 19, does it follow that baptism communicates any special power to those who are baptized. In Matthew men are to be baptized and taught to observe whatever Christ has commanded; in Mark it is mentioned that he who believes and is baptized shall be saved. Where is there the estabhshment of the sacrament such as it is defined to be by the Theology ? All that may be said from these verses in Matthew and in Mark in favour of the rite of bathing is that Christ has selected, or, more correctly, has not rejected, the external sign of bathing, adopted by his predecessor John, for all the believers in his teaching.

But everything which is understood by the hierarchy under the invisible action of baptism has been established by that hierarchy, and by no means by Christ. That may be seen from the subsequent exposition of the article, in which there is a detailed account of the visible and the invisible side of the sacrament, for which no indication can be found in Holy Scripture.

203. The visible side of baptism. There is a detailed exposition of the sacrament about what to bathe in, how many times to immerse, who is to do the bathing, and what is to be said during the act. The proof is given that those who do differently are heretics, and that grace does not operate if there is any deviation from these rules.

204. The invisible actions of the sacrament of baptism and its unrepeatedness. Here it is said that at the same time "that the catechumen is visibly immersed in the waters of baptism, with the words, ' The slave of God is recognized... in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost,' divine grace invisibly operates on the whole being of the one who is baptized and (1) regenerates or re-creates him; (2) purifies him from all sin, and justifies and sanctifies him; (3) makes him a child of God and a member of Christ's body; (4) saves him from eternal punishment for sins and makes him an inheritor of eternal life." All that has not the slightest foundation in Christ's teaching.

205. The necessity of baptism for all. The baptism of babes. Baptism by blood. The proof is given that it is necessary to baptize infants because they are cursed by the original sin, and if an unbaptized child dies, it goes to hell, whereas if it is baptized it goes to heaven. All that is proved from Holy Scripture.

206. Who may perform baptism, and what is demanded of those who are baptized. It is proved that priests ought to baptize, but deacons may sometimes, and sometimes even simple people may. All that is proved from Holy Scripture. To be baptized, one needs faith, the same that was spoken of in the article about grace and repentance. When infants are baptized,, the sponsors must guarantee their faith, that is, pronounce the words of the creed and renounce the devil.

It is evident that all that has been established, not by Christ, but by one of the many diverging hierarchies. After baptism follows unction with chrism.

207. Connection with what precedes; the place of the sacrament of unction with chrism in the series of the rest; the conception about this sacrament, and its name. "Through baptism we are born into spiritual life, and pure from all sin, justified, and sanctified do we enter into

Christ's kingdom of grace. But as a natural living man, the moment he is born, has need of air, light, and the other external assistances and powers for the support of his existence, for his gradual strengthening, and for his growth, even so it is in spiritual life : immediately after man's birth from above, he has need of the grace-giving powers of the Holy Ghost, which may serve for him as spiritual air and light, and with the aid of which he may not only support his new life, but also constantly strengthen himself and grow. It is these divine powers which pertain unto life and godliness (2 Peter i. 3) that are given to each who is reborn in baptism, through another sacrament of the church, through the sacrament of unction with chrism." (pp. 345 and 346.)

It is proved that the sacrament of unction with chrism was established by Christ. Here are the proofs :

"(1) Gospel history proves that Christ the Saviour had intended and promised to give the Holy Ghost to those who believed in him. In the last day, that great day of the feast, says St. John the Divine, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified) (John vii. 37-39). Here, evidently, mention is made of gifts of the Holy Ghost, which are offered to and consequently are necessary for all believers in our Lord Jesus, and not of extraordinary gifts, which are communicated only to a few believers for special purposes (1 Cor. xii. 29, and so forth), though it does not say by what visible mediation the necessary gifts of the Holy Ghost are to be transmitted to all believers. (2) The Book of the Apostohc Acts tells us that after Jesus Christ was glorified, the apostles actually gave the Holy Ghost to those who believed in him, and that they did by the laying on of hands. Such, for example, is the following case : Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John : who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost : (for as yet he was fallen upon none of them : only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus). Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost (Acts viii. 14-17). From this it is quite clear : (a) that the Holy Ghost was communicated by the apostles, not through baptism (in which the believers are only regenerated or re-created by the Holy Ghost suddenly, without receiving him for ever), but by the laying on of hands on the one who is baptized; (b) that by this laying on of hands the apostles communicated to the believers the gifts of the Holy Ghost, which are necessary for all who have received baptism, but not extraordinary gifts, which are communicated only to the few; (c) that this laying on of hands, united with a prayer to God about sending the Holy Ghost down on those who are baptized, should form a special sacrament, distinct from baptism, and (d) finally, that this sacrament, distinct from baptism, has a divine origin, because the apostles in all their words and acts, in spreading the Gospel teaching, were inspired by the Holy Ghost, who taught them every truth, and brought to their remembrance all the things which the Lord Jesus had commanded them (John xiv. 26; xvi. 13)." (pp. 347 and 348.)

The deception which the hierarchy has appropriated to itself for the purpose of assuring the flock that Christ has established the sacraments consists, as we have seen, in taking the slightest hint given by Christ or the apostles in regard to some external action and ascribing to it the improper meaning of a sacrament, and of asserting that Christ has established that sacrament. But this de- ception has some plausibility only in the case of baptism; in the other cases there is not even any cause for deception, and the hierarchy has to invent the cause itself, as it has done in the present case. Because Christ has said, "He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water," it follows that all have to be anointed with oil, and that Christ promises a special advantage from it. Then follows the exposition of the dogma.

209. The visible side of the sacrament of unction with chrism. The visible side consists in this, that the anointing is done in the form of a cross and certain words are pronounced. Proofs from Holy Scripture.

210. The invisible side of unction with chrism, and its unrepeatedness. The invisible action consists in this, that the Holy Ghost enters into him who is being anointed, and there enters grace, (1) which enlightens in the truth of faith, (2) confirms in godliness. Mention is made that in former days they began to prophesy and speak in various tongues after it, but now that does not happen, — the Holy Ghost merely enters.

211. To whom the sacrament of unction with chrism belongs, and when it is to be performed. A priest, and not the bishop only, may anoint with chrism, and so the Catholics are wrong, and that is proved at great length.

212. Connection with the preceding. Conception of the sacrament of the eucharist. Its superiority and different appellations.

"Through the sacrament of baptism we enter Christ's kingdom of grace pure, justified, regenerated for spiritual life. In the sacrament of unction with chrism we receive in ourselves the powers of grace, which are necessary for our strengthening and growth in the spiritual life. Finally, in the sacrament of the eucharist we are made worthy for the same high purpose of partaking of the food and drink which gives salvation, — the pure flesh and blood of our Lord Jesus, and most sincerely unite with the very fountain of life (Psalm xxxvi. 9)." (pp. 866 and 367.)

This sacrament, in which we most sincerely unite with God, surpasses all the others :

"(1) By its superabundance of mysteriousness and incomprehensibility. In all the other sacraments the incomprehensibility consists in this, that under a certain visible form divine grace is invisibly operating upon man, but the substance of the sacraments itself, for example, in baptism, the water, in unction with chrism, the chrism, remain unchangeable. Here, on the contrary, the substance itself changes : the bread and the wine, which keep their form, are miraculously changed into the true body and blood of our Lord, and only then, when they have been received by the believers, do they invisibly produce in them their actions of grace. (2) By the superabundance of the Lord's love for us, and by the extraordinary grandeur of the gift, which is communicated to us in this sacrament. In the other sacraments the Lord Jesus communicates to those who believe in him such or such particular gifts of saving grace, in conformity with the substance of each sacrament, — gifts which he acquired for men by his death on the cross. But here he offers as food for his believers his own self, his own body and blood, and the believers, directly uniting with their Lord and Saviour, are in this manner united with the very fountain of saving grace. (3) Finally, by this, that all the other sacraments are only sacraments which act savingly upon man, but the eucharist is not only the most incomprehensible and the most saving of the sacraments, but at the same time is a sacrifice to God, a sacrifice which is brought to him for all the living and all the dead, and gains his favour." (pp. 367 and 368.)

The doctrine about this sacrament indeed differs from all the others. It differs first of all in that it completely departs from the former definition of the sacrament. This sacrament, according to the Theology : (1) not only gives power to him who receives it, but also represents a constantly repeated miracle; (2) gives us God to be eaten up; (3) is a sacrifice which God himself brings for himself, — all kinds of phenomena which do not enter into the first definition. According to the definition of this sacrament, it not only communicates grace to those who receive it, but is also a transmutation of a substance, a conversion of God into food for men, and a sacrifice of God, brought by God himself. But that does not disturb the Theology. It goes on to prove that this especial sacrament was established by Christ.

213. The divine promise of the sacrament of the eucharist, and its very establishment. To prove that this sacrament was established by Christ, there is adduced from the Gospel the sixth chapter of John, the words from the holy supper, and the Epistle to the Corinthians. In looking through the chapter of John, it is easy to see that, avoiding all interpretation and sticking to the literal meaning, he, his flesh and blood, is the bread of life, that he gives that bread of life to men, and that he who will not eat that bread will not have life. Christ promises to give to men the bread of life, which he calls his flesh and blood and, without saying what is to be understood by his flesh and blood, commands men to eat that bread. The only conclusion which can be drawn from that is that men must eat the bread which Christ has called his flesh and blood, that this bread exists and must exist, and that therefore men must seek that bread, as he told them to do, but in no way is it possible to draw the conclusion which the church draws, namely, that that bread is the baked leavened bread and grape wine, not every kind of bread and every Mdne, but that of which we shall be told that Christ has commanded us to partake of.

The other place on which is based the sacrament of the eucharist is the passage from the Gospel and from the Epistle to the Corinthians, where it says that Christ, bidding his disciples farewell, said to them : "Here I break bread and give you wine. This is my blood and my body, which is given to save you from sin. Eat and drink all of you ! "Christ before his death said to his disciples, as he broke bread and handed them the cup : "This wine and this bread are my flesh and my blood. Drink now and then do it in remembrance of me ! "From these words it may be concluded that Christ, bidding his disciples farewell, told them that he was dying for men and that he commanded them to do likewise, that is, like him to give their body and blood for men; it is possible to conclude that as he broke bread and gave them the wine he commanded them to think of him; it is possible to stick to the most literal meaning about the flesh and blood and conclude that he did a miracle before his disciples and gave them, in the form of bread and wine, liis own body to eat and his blood to drink; it is even possible to conclude that he commanded his disciples to perform the same miracle, that is, out of bread and wine to make the body and blood of each particular disciple; if you wish, it is possible even to conclude the most far-fetched proposition, that he commanded them to perform a miracle, which was, to make Christ's blood and flesh out of bread and wine, — but under no consideration is it possible to conclude what the church concludes from it, namely, that not only the disciples, whom he addressed, but certain men at a certain time and under certain conditions must produce something similar to that miracle, and must believe and assure others^ that the bread and wine which they offer is the very body and blood of Christ; that, in receiving this bread and wine with the assurance that they are Christ's body and blood, men are saved. This conclusion, which our hierarchy makes, is absolutely impossible, the more so since the hierarchy asserts that many perform this miracle irregularly. It is impossible to tell when this miracle is performed and when not, for there are no other signs of that miracle but faith in the fact that it is being performed. However, it is superfluous to prove the irrationalness and arbitrariness of this sacrament; it is sufficient to follow out the conclusions to which the Theology leads in this matter, having accepted that conception of it, in order that the absurdity of this sacrament and its blasphemy may become manifest.

214. The visible side of the sacrament of the eucharist. The visible side of the sacrament consists : (1) of the substance employed; (2) of the sacramental action, and (3) of words pronounced. The bread used in it must be of wheat, pure and leavened. There are five pages of proof that the bread must be leavened. The wine must be made from grapes. There are described all the manipulations which the priest must perform during it : the offertory, the liturgy, and the words which are to be pronounced. It also mentions which words are the most important of all.

215. The invisible essence of the sacrament of the eucharist; the actuality of the presence of Jesus Christ in that sacrament. The invisible action consists in this, that not symbolically (tvttlkws), as some say, not with a superabundance of grace, as others say, not essentially (woo-raTiKcus), not through the penetration of the bread (KaTivapriafxov), "but truly and actually, so that after the sanctitication of the bread and wine, the bread is transformed, transubstantiated, transmuted into the true body of Christ, which was born in Bethlehem of the Evervirgin, was baptized in the Jordan, suffered, was buried, was raised from the dead, ascended to heaven, sits on the right of God the Father, is to appear in the clouds of heaven."

Precisely thus must we believe.

There follows a controversy. All are wrong, but :

"The doctrine of the Orthodox Church about the actuahty of the presence of Jesus Christ in the sacrament of the eucharist has imperturbable foundations in Holy Scripture, as well as in Holy Tradition." (p. 386.)

Here is a sample of the proofs why this action is to be understood as the church understands it : "In establishing the eucharist, the Lord established the greatest sacrament of the New Testament, which he commanded to be performed at all times (Luke xxii. 19, 20). But the importance of the sacrament necessary for our salvation, and the nature of the promise, and the nature of the commandment demanded ahke that the clearest and most definite language be used, so that it might not lead to any misunderstandings in so important a matter."

216. The manner and consequences of the presence of Jesus Christ in the sacrament of the eucharist. "(1) If this presence consists, as we have seen, in this, that after the sanctification of the holy gifts, there are present in the eucharist and are communicated to the believers not the bread and wine, but the real body and the real blood of the Lord, — that does not mean that he is present in the sacrament, that he, as it were, penetrates (according to the Lutheran heresy) the bread and wine, which remain intact, and only coexists with them (in, cum, sub pane) with his body and blood, but that the bread and wine are transformed, transubstantiated, transmuted into the very body and blood of the Lord. (2) Although the bread and wine in the sacrament of the eucharist are transformed properly into the body and blood of the Lord, he is present in this sacrament, not with^ his body and blood alone, but with his whole soul, which is inseparably connected with this body, and with his very divinity, which is hypostatically and inseparably connected with his humanity. (3) Although the Lord's body and blood are broken in the sacrament of the communion and are divided up, that happens only with the forms of the bread and wine, in which Christ's body and blood may be seen and felt; in themselves they are completely integral and indivisible. (4) Similarly, although the sacrament of the eucharist is performed in endless places of the world, Christ's body is always and everywhere one, and Christ's blood is always and everywhere one, and everywhere one and the same Christ, complete God and complete man, integrally takes part in it. (5) If the bread and wine through the sacramental sanctification is transubstantiated into the real body and blood of Christ the Saviour, that means that from the time of the sanctification of the holy gifts he is constantly present in the sacrament, that is, he is present not only in the application and reception of the sacrament by the believers, as the Lutherans assert, but even before the reception, for the bread and wine, having been transubstantiated into Christ's body and blood, no longer change back into their former substances, but remain the body and blood of the Lord for ever, independently of whether they will be used by the believers or not. (6) If the bread and wine in the holy, life-giving sacraments are the real body and the real blood of our Lord Jesus, then these sacraments ought to receive the same honour and divine worship which we owe to our Lord Jesus himself." (pp. 396-402.)

217. Who may perform the sacraments of the eucharist. Who may receive the communion, and wherein the preparation for it is to consist.

The power to perform this sacrament belongs to the bishop. The bishops transfer the power to the presbyters, but deacons may not perform it; nor can laymen. But all, even babes, may receive the communion. There is a controversy about that.

218. The necessity of the communion of the eucharist, by all means under two kinds, and the fruits of the sacrament

All must receive the communion. Proofs. Men must be communed over bread and wine, and not over bread alone. Again controversy and proofs. For this controversy Hus was burnt and his followers were tortured. I mention only in words the controversy and the proofs. But, O Lord, what a terrible book would be that history of theology, which should tell about all the violence, deceptions, tortures, murders, which have taken place because of each of these controversies ! As one now reads about these controversies, all that seems so unimportant and ludicrous, but how much wrong they have done in the world !

219. The eucharist as a sacrifice: (a) the verity or actuahty of this sacrifice. "In believing and confessing that the most holy eucharist is a true sacrament, the Orthodox Church believes also and confesses, in spite of the aberrations of the Protestants, that the eucharist is at the same time a true and real sacrifice, that is, that in the eucharist is the body and blood of our Saviour, which on the one hand are offered as food to men, and on the other are brought as a sacrifice to God." (p. 414.)

220. (h) Eelation of this sacrifice to the sacrifice on the cross, and its properties. "The sacrifice which is brought by God in the sacrament of the eucharist is precisely the same as the sacrifice on the cross."

Further on it says that this sacrifice has the property of propitiating God, and so it is necessary immediately after it, and as soon as possible to remember men. That will cause God to help men.

"Since a bloodless sacrifice has the power of propitiating and inclining God toward us, it naturally has the power to gain for us various benefits from God, and, being propitiatory, it is at the same time precatory and intercessory. For this reason the holy church, in bringing a bloodless offering, not only prays God to remit sins and save the living and the dead, but also asks God for all kinds of gifts, spiritual and bodily, which are necessary for human life."

That ends the exposition of the sacrament of the eucharist. It took up eighty pages. Everything which has been expounded here, the whole blasphemous delirium, all that was founded by Christ. The fall is taking place with terrible celerity, the fall from the height of questions into the bog of most incomprehensible superstitions. The first fall happened when it was asserted that God redeemed us in a visible manner, and now the last, when there are described the actions of that grace. There is no place to go any lower. What is the difference between a Chuvash, who smears his God with cream, and an Orthodox, who eats a small piece of his God, or who is hastening to offer five kopeks, that his name may be mentioned in a certain place and at a certain time ? Then follows the sacrament of repentance.

221. Connection with the preceding; conception of the sacrament of repentance and its various appellations. "In the three saving sacraments of the church, heretofore discussed by us, there is imparted to man the whole abundance of spiritual gifts, which are necessary for him to become a Christian and, having become one, to abide in Christian godliness and attain everlasting happiness. Baptism purifies sinful man from all of his sins, both the original and the voluntary, and introduces him into Christ's kingdom of grace. Unction with chrism communicates to him divine powers for his strengthening and growth in the life of grace. The eucharist furnishes him with divine food and unites him with the fountain of life and of grace. But since, having become completely cleansed from all sin in the bath of baptism, man is not freed from the consequences of original sin and inherited corruption, such as, in the soul, the propensity to do evil, and in the body, diseases and death (Arts. 91-93), since even after baptism, being a Christian, he may sin.

and even very often (1 John i. 8, 10), and be subject to diseases, sometimes very serious ones, which bring him to the grave, — it has pleased the all-good God to establish in his church two other sacraments, as two saving remedies for his ailing members : the sacrament of repentance, which remedies our spiritual ailments, and the sacrament of unction with oil, which extends its saving action over the bodily ailments."

But why only over the ailments ? Did we not hear before that the redemption freed men from diseases and death, and that this redemption becomes operative through the sacrament of unction with oil ? Consequently unction with oil destroys diseases and death. But laws are not vvritten for the Theology. Unction with oil, as will be seen later, operates against diseases and death, but only a tiny little bit.

"Eepentance, taken in the sense of a sacrament, is a sacramental action in which the pastor of the church, by strength of the Holy Ghost, absolves the repentant Christian from all sins committed by him after his baptism, so that the Christian again becomes innocent and sanctified, such as he came out of the waters of baptism." (pp. 425 and 426.)

From the standpoint of the church, what is important in this sacrament is not the humility with which the repentant man approaches it, not that verification of himself, but only that purification from sin which the hierarchy dispenses by force of an imaginary power. I even wonder why the church does not entirely abolish this sacrament, substituting for it that remissory prayer, which it has introduced and which is said over the dead : "I, unworthy man, by force of the power given to me, remit your sins." The church sees only this external imaginary purification and cares only for it, that is, it sees only the external action to which it ascribes a curative significance. What is taking place in the soul of the repentant sinner is of no consequence to it. Though there are added certain reflections about how the repentant sinner is to approach the sacrament, they are given only en passant and are no important condition under which the imaginary purification takes place. The whole matter is in the imaginary purification over which the hierarchy has the power. The proof is given, as in the case of all the other sacraments, that it was established by Christ, but, as in all sacraments, there is not the slightest proof that Christ uttered the words which he spoke, no matter how we may understand them, having the sacraments in view.

222. The divine establishment and the efficacy of the sacrament of repentance. To prove this imaginary power, there are adduced the words of Matthew (xviii. 17, 18), which are explained in this sense, that the pastors have always enjoyed the divinely given right to bind and loose. The hierarchy understands these words to mean that it has the right to remit sins, and everything is based on that conversation : And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church : but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Yerily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven : and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven (Matt. xviii. 17, 18).

Here is the whole passage : "If thy brother shall trespass against thee (these words the hierarchy omits in order to introduce its own interpretation), go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone : if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained a brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church : but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven : and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven (Matt, xviii. 15-18)."

This clear place, which is given as an instruction for all men, is expounded topsyturvy only because here is used the word iKKXrja-La, assembly, which later has received a different meaning, and is represented as a confirmation of an imaginary power of the hierarchy, which is that of remitting sins.

But, let us assume, contrary to the text and to common sense, that these words were addressed by Christ not to all men, but exclusively to his disciples; let us assume that he gave them the power to remit sins, — in what way does from that result the sacrament of repentance, which makes each who receives it an innocent man ? Again there is the old trick: a sacrament, which was established after Christ, and of which no one in his time could have had any conception, is ascribed to Christ. Then follows the exposition of the rules of that sacrament.

223. Who may perform the sacrament of repentance, and who receives it. This sacrament, that is, the remission of sins, may be performed only by the priests.

224. What is demanded of those who approach the sacrament of repentance ? Approaching repentance it is necessary to have : (1) contrition for sins. There is even a description of the character of that contrition : "As regards the nature of the contrition respecting the sins, it is necessary to see to it that it does not result merely from the fear of punishment for the sins, not from the conceptions in general of the deleterious consequences for us arising from them in the present and in the future life, but mainly from love for God, whose will we have violated, and from a living consciousness that with our sins we have offended our greatest benefactor and Father, have appeared ungrateful before him, and have become unworthy of him;" (2) an intention of not sinning again;

(3) an oral confession of our sins, and then the priest says : "Our Lord and God Jesus Christ, with the grace and gifts of his philanthropy, may forgive thee, my child, all thy trespasses, and I, unworthy priest, by the power given me forgive and loose thee from all thy sins, in the name of the Father and the Holy Ghost. Amen." (p. 437.)

And then the man is purified. It is very useful and necessary that the guiltiness of the sins should be loosed by the priest's prayer before the last day. But it does not say what will happen if there is not that contrition which is demanded, when there is not the firm and determined intention not to sin again, while the priest gives the remission of sins; but we know that there never is that contrition which is demanded, nor that intention not to sin and to believe. Thus from the whole description of this sacrament of the church, which considers all its essence to consist in the power of remitting sins through its hierarchy, we get a kind of a toy, something ridiculous, or, at least, a senseless action.

225. The visible side of the sacrament of repentance; its invisible actions, and its extent.

Here it is proved that there is no sin that could not be forgiven by the hierarchy, except the sin of not believing in what the hierarchy teaches.

226. Penances, their origin and use in the church. "Under the name of penances (ImTiixia) are meant prohibitions or punishments (2 Cor. ii. 6), which, according to the church rules, the minister of the church, as a spiritual physician, determines in the case of certain penitent Christians for the sake of curing their moral ailments."

This power the hierarchy has received from God.

227. The. significance of the penances.

228. The incorrectness of the doctrine of the Catholic Church about the indulgences. For twenty-two pages we get an extended controversy with the Catholics about penances and indulgences. Penances are correctionary punishments, and not punishments of revenge. All that is proved by Holy Scripture against the Cathohcs, who prove the opposite from the same Holy Scripture. In regard to the indulgences, the question stands as follows : Christ has redeemed the whole world with a profit, — a surplus is left; besides, the priests by their good lives have increased this surplus so that there is now a big pile of goodness. All these profits are at the service of the church. With these profits, which are hard to dispose of, the church, ah the time guided by the Holy Ghost, pays God for the sins of its members, and the members pay to it not with something mysterious, but simply with cash. Now this doctrine is not so much objected to, as it is corrected. Our hierarchy agrees to the fact that the church has complete charge of this capital and with this capital pays for the sins of men, remitting the sins to these men in the sacrament of repentance; but the controversy is as to whether the church or its head may arbitrarily forgive these sins without the penitence of the sinner, himself. The Catholics say that it can, our men say that it cannot. Of course, there is no sense in either assertion, just as there is no human sense in the question itself; but in this case, as in many other controversies with the Catholics and Protestants, our hierarchy, if it has any distinguishing feature at all, is characterized by stupidity and by an absolute inability to express itself in conformity with the laws of logic. Precisely the same happens in this controversy. The Catholics are logically more correct. If the church can remit sins by dint of its power, and the church is always holy, why should it not pardon robbers, as indeed all the churches do? After that follows the sacrament of unction with oil.

229. Connection with the preceding; conception of unction with oil, and its appellations. "The sacrament of repentance, as a healing of grace, is intended for all Christians, but only for curing their spiritual ailments. The sacrament of unction with oil is another healing of salvation, which is intended for Christians who are infirm of body, and has for its purpose the healing of not only their spiritual, but also their bodily infirmities." (p. 464.)

Here is precisely a case which confirms what I have more than once said about the characteristic feature of our church, — its stupidity. It was said before that repentance heals the soul of sins, and that unction with oil heals the body of diseases and death. It would, therefore, be necessary to explain why unction with oil cures neither diseases nor death. It cannot be concealed that there is no such cure. About the soul it is possible to say what you please, but here that cannot be done : the matter is too obvious; it is necessary either not to say anything about its ability to cure death, or to invent something. The Catholics are bound by logic, and so they have decided that this sacrament is imparted as a farewell ceremony over such patients as are sick unto death, and call it the extreme unction. But our church does not refute its power to cure, and has not invented anything to conceal the matter, but, as always, gets out of the difficulty by saying : "It does cure, but only in part, a tiny little bit, and at certain times." Then follow proofs of the divine origin of the sacrament.

230. The divine origin of the sacrament of unction with oil and its efficacy. There is not even a single hint in the Gospels as to the establishment of this sacrament by Jesus Christ, but that does not keep the Theology from asserting that it has been established by God :

"Of the sacrament of unction with oil distinct mention is made in Holy Scripture by Apostle James, when he instructs the Christians : Is any among you afflicted ? let him pray. Is any merry ? let him sing psalms, and immediately adds : Is any sick among you ? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and 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 v. 14, 15). From these words there are disclosed to us at once the divine origin and its efficacy, as a sacrament. (1) The divine origin: for on the one hand it is evident from the context that the apostle does not speak of unction with oil, as of something new, which the Christians did not know before, but points out to them this means of healing, as something which has existed before and which was universally known to them, and which he commands them to use in case of sickness. On the other hand, it is evident that the apostles never preached anything of themselves (Gal. i. 11, 12), but taught only what they had been commanded by our Lord Jesus (Matt, xxviii. 20), and what the Divine Spirit inspired them with (John xvi. 13); and it is known that they called themselves the servants of Christ, and stewards, and not establishers, of divine sacraments (1 Cor. iv. 1). Consequently unction with oil, which is commanded to the Christians by St. James, as a sacramental healing of diseases, both bodily and spiritual, was commanded by our Lord Jesus Christ himself and by the Divine Spirit. We do not find any statement in Scripture at what particular time our Lord established this sacrament, for many things which he taught and did on earth are not transmitted in writing (John xxi. 25). But it is most natural to think that this sacrament, like two others (baptism and repentance), through which remission of sins is granted, was established by our Lord after his resurrection, when all power was given unto him in heaven and in earth (Matt, xxviii. 18), and when he showed himself to the apostles for forty days and spoke to them of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God (Acts i. 3), that is, of the establishment of his church, an essential part of which is formed by the sacraments." (pp.465, 466.)

There are no other proofs. What is striking is that not only are there no foundations for any sacrament, but there is not even the slightest cause for this particular sacrament; none the less it is proved that this, too, was founded by God.

231. To whom and by whom the sacrament of unction with oil may be communicated. We are told that all the sick, and not merely the dying, as with the Catholics, may be anointed, and that the anointing may be done by priests, still better, by bishops. Best of all it is if seven priests do the anointing, but even three, or one, may do it.

232. The visible side of the sacrament of unction with oil, and its invisible actions of salvation.

The visible side consists in anointing and saying prayers, and the invisible side, — what do you suppose it is ? The invisible side is the healing of bodily infirmities.

"The sacrament of unction with oil is established more particularly for those who are sick in body : consequently the healing of bodily ailments forms the very first saving fruit of this sacrament." (p. 472.)

The healing is classed with the invisible side, because, of course, unction v^th oil does not produce it. The Theology is not embarrassed, but says outright that there is a cure, but it is invisible.

"This action does not always follow on unction with oil. That is true. But: (a) at times it actually takes place and the patient slowly gets well and rises from his sick-bed. More frequently, (b) the dangerously sick man receives, at least, temporary relief from disease or is strengthened or aroused to bear it, and that is also one of the aims of unction with oil, for the verb iyeipo) signifies not only ^ raise up,' but also Ho rouse, to encourage, to strengthen.' At times, however, (c) those who receive the sacrament of unction with oil do not receive from it a healing of ailments, perhaps for the same reason that those who receive the sacrament of the eucharist, instead of saving fruits, only eat and drink damnation for themselves (1 Cor. xi. 29), that is, on account of their unworthiness, on account of an absence of a living faith in our Lord Jesus, or on account of hard-heartedness. Finally, (d) to wish or to demand that each time when a man is receiving unction with oil he should be cured of his diseases would be the same thing as demanding that he should never die; but that is contrary to the very plan of our regeneration, according to which it is necessary for us to depose this sinful, mortal body, in order to clothe ourselves in proper time, beyond the grave, in an immortal body. For this reason every man who approaches the sacrament of unction with oil, every sick person, ought entirely to abandon himself to the will of God, who knows better than we, to whom it is more useful to send down a cure and prolong his life, and whose life is to be cut short before its time." (pp. 472 and 473.)

What use was there then of talking about the cure of diseases and of death ? And so the first invisible action is the non-existing cure of diseases; the second is the cure of spiritual infirmities.

After that there is a refutal of the doctrine of the Catholics, which ascribed at least some meaning to the sacrament; what is refuted is that this sacrament is meant as a farewell action before death. Then follows the sixth sacrament, established by God.

233. Connection with what precedes. Marriage as a divine institution, and its aim; the conception of marriage as a sacrament, and its appellations. *' Three sacraments of the Orthodox Church, baptism, unction with chrism, communion, are inteuded for all men, so that all may become Christians and then abide in Christian godliness and obtain everlasting salvation. Two other sacraments, repentance and unction with oil, are intended for all

Christians as two saving remedies, one, in case of spiritual infirmities, and the other, in case of bodily and, at the same time, spiritual ailments. But there are two more sacraments, established by God, which, even though they are not predetermined and necessary for all men and though they are not necessary directly for each of the members of the church, are necessary for the purposes of the cliurch in general, for its existence and flourishing condition. Those are : (a) the sacrament of marriage, which communicates to certain persons grace for the natural procreation of children, the future members of the church, and (b) the sacrament of priesthood, which communicates to special persons the grace for the supernatural procreation of the children of the church and for their education for the eternal life." (pp. 475 and 476.)

But, according to its definition, a sacrament is a holy action which under a visible form communicates to the soul of the believer the invisible grace of God. But the procreation of children is not an invisible grace. Besides, in defining a sacrament, it was said : "For the performance of a sacrament three things are needed : a proper substance, such as water is in baptism, bread and wine in the eucharist, oil, and other substances according to the sacrament." (p. 314.)

Here no substance is needed. Marriage apparently does not fit in with the definition of a sacrament, and in general differs from all the other sacraments by this essential feature, that in all the other sacraments (including priesthood) by sacrament are understood external actions, which are performed over something which is supposed to take place, which is not connected with anything real, and which is entirely useless, whereas here by sacrament are meant certain external actions, which are performed over something real, and one of the most important acts in human life. The Theology says:

"Marriage may be considered from two sides : as a law of Nature, or as a divine institution, and as a sacrament of the New Testament church, which now, after the fall of man, sanctifies this law." (p. 476.)

The sanctifying sacrament consists in this : "In order to sanctify, upHft, and strengthen the law of matrimony, which is holy and pure in itself as to its origin from God and as to its purposes, but which because of the disturbance of human nature has fallen under the harmful influence of sin and has in many ways been distorted by men who have abandoned themselves to sensuality, our Lord Jesus has been pleased to establish in his church a special sacrament, that of marriage. Under the name of this sacrament is understood a sacred action in which to the contracting parties, who before the church make a promise of mutual conjugal fidelity, there is communicated from above, through the blessing of the servant of the church, divine grace, which sanctifies their conjugal union, elevates it to an image of Christ's spiritual union with the church, and then cooperates with them in the blessed acquisition of all the purposes of marriage." (pp. 478 and 479.)

That is, in connection with the law of marriage, which in itself is holy, the hierarchy finds it necessary to sanctify again.

234. A divine origin of the sacrament of marriage, as a sacrament, apparently does not, and cannot, exist in the Gospels, nor is there anything in them to hitch on to, and so the place is chosen in the Gospel where the word "marriage "is used. That place about the marriage in Cana of Galilee, which has nothing in common with the establishment of marriage, not even with its blessing and approval, is taken as a basis. The Theology itself feels, as in the case of the unction with oil, that there is nothing to hitch on to, and so it says :

"Of when and how the Lord established the sacrament of marriage, whether when he was present at the marriage in Cana of Galilee (John ii. 1-11), or when, in consequence of the well-known question of the Pharisees, he disclosed the true conception about marriage, and said, What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder (Matt. xix. 3-12), or after his resurrection, when for fortydays he appeared to his disciples, and spoke to them of the things pertaining to the kingdom of heaven, that is, of what had reference to the establishment of his church (Acts i. 3), the Gospel does not say anything : for there are many other things, which Jesus did, which are not written in these books (John xx. 30; xxi. 25)." (p. 479.) But that is the very reason why it is considered proved.

235. The visible side of marriage, and invisible actions. The visible side of marriage is this, that groom and bride promise to be husband and wife, and the priest pronounces certain words. The invisible side: (1) grace sanctifies the union, as of Christ with the church; (2) strengthens, as Christ with the church; (3) cooperates in the performances of the obligations, as Christ with the church. Suddenly there is for some reason introduced the comparison of Christ and the church with husband and wife, and in that the invisible side of the sacrament is supposed to lie.

236. Who may perform the sacrament of marriage, and what is demanded of those who proceed to this sacrament. Popes may unite in marriage; the Orthodox (or at least one of the contracting parties an Orthodox) may marry. All others do not marry, but only cohabit.

237. The properties of Christian marriage, sanctified by the sacrament. One may marry only one woman, and divorce is granted only in the case of adultery. All that is regarded as a sacrament founded by God himself.

Of the sacrament of priesthood.

238. Connection with the preceding; the priesthood, as a special divinely established ministration in the church (hierarchy), and its three degrees; conception about priesthood as a sacrament.

"In expounding the doctrine of the sacraments, we have heretofore remarked in the case of each of them that it may be performed and communicated to the believers only by the pastors of the church, by bishops and presbyters. But in order that men may become pastors of Christ's church and receive the power to perform the sacraments, the Lord has established a special sacrament, the sacrament of priesthood." (p. 490.)

Indeed, leaving out of consideration the fact that of all the sacraments not one has been established by Christ as a sacrament, and that in reference to four of them, to unction with chrism, repentance, unction with oil, and marriage, not even the slightest reference has been discovered, — all the sacraments, even according to the definition of the church, become sacraments only when they are performed by pastors of the church, that is, by true pastors, and so all the preceding sacraments are based on this sacrament of priesthood. If this is not a sacrament, and its origin cannot be proved, all the other sacraments fall of themselves, even though their efficacy may be proved. Farther on it says :

"Priesthood is understood in two senses, as a special class of men, a special ministration in the church, known under the name of hierarchy, and as special sacerdotal action, by which men are consecrated and ordained for this ministration. In the first case, we have already discussed the priesthood, and we have seen that the Lord himself established the hierarchy, or the order of pastors, whom alone he has empowered to be teachers in the church, performers of sacraments, and spiritual stewards, and that he has by no means permitted all the believers to assume all that." (p. 490.)

The sacraments may be performed only by priests, but, in order to be a priest, it is necessary that the sacrament of priesthood be performed on him. In the preceding articles it was said that every sacrament is inefficacious, if it is not performed by real priests. In the explanations much was said about the heretical teachings which have a false priesthood. Consequently the whole strength, not only of this sacrament of priesthood, but of all other as well, lies in the clear proofs that the priesthood was established by Christ, that the transmission of this priesthood was established by him, and that among the many existing usurpating priesthoods the one under discussion is the only true one. And so we get :

239. The divine establishment and efficacy of the sacrament of priesthood. The proof is given that this sacrament is from God. Not only are there no proofs of the establishment of this sacrament, but, as in the case of the sacraments of unction with chrism and with oil, there is not the shghtest reference to this sacrament in the Gospels. Here are the proofs :

"The divine establishment of the sacrament of priesthood is to be seen from the actions of the holy apostles, who themselves, by the instruction from the Holy Ghost who reminded them of everything which the Lord Jesus commanded them (John xiv. 26), performed this sacrament, and by the laying on of hands raised to the three degrees of the hierarchy." (p. 491.)

Then follow the proofs of the fathers and of the councils, so that it is even more obvious than in the case of the previous sacraments, that this sacrament was invented by the hierarchy independently of the teaching of Christ. Then follows an exposition of the sacrament.

240. The visible side of the sacrament; its invisible action and unrepeatedness. The visible side of the sacrament consists in the laying on of hands on the head, and in the saying certain words.

"The invisible action of the sacrament of priesthood consists in this, that by it, after the prayer, there is actually imparted to him who is being ordained divine grace to correspond to his future ministration, — the grace of priesthood." (p. 495.)

The importance of the sacrament is as follows :

"If any one will reflect how important it is for a man, while he is still burdened with flesh and blood, to be present near the blessed and immortal essence, he will see clearly what honour the grace of the Spirit has bestowed on the priests. By them the sacrifices are offered and all the other high ministrations are performed, which have reference to our dignity and salvation. They still live and move about upon earth, and they have received the power which God has granted neither to the angels, nor to the archangels." (p. 495.) "The grace of priesthood, which is imparted through the laying on of hands, though in various degrees, upon deacons, presbyters, and bishops, and which vests them with a certain measure of spiritual power, abides in the soul of each of them unchangeably, for which reason neither a bishop, nor a presbyter, nor a deacon is a second time ordained for the same dignity, and the sacrament of priesthood is regarded as being unrepeatable." (p. 496.) Controversies about it.

241. Who may perform the sacrament of priesthood, and what is demanded of those who receive it.

"According to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, the power to lay on hands for an order of priesthood belongs only to the immediate successors of the apostles, the bishops."

Then follow long controversies about when this laying on of hands is efficacious, and when oaot. Priests must be : "(1) Orthodox Christians; (2) men experienced in the word of faith and in life, according to the righteous word; (3) if they are chosen to the dignity of bishop, they must be free from the bonds of marriage; but if they are chosen to the rank of presbyter or deacon, they may, if they so wish, live in a condition of matrimony." (p. 500.)

Then there comes a controversy about celibacy, but the question as to how it is proved that our hierarchy is the true successor of the apostles, and not one of the other hierarchies, which regard themselves as such, is not even mooted, so that of all the sacraments the one on which all the others are based not only fails to be proved or determined, but is also introduced quite arbitrarily and without the least sign by which it may be distinguished from anything resembling it. After that follows a division which is called Division VIII. General remarks on the sacraments. In these general remarks we find an exposition :

243. Of the nature of the sacraments. "The sacraments are not only signs of divine promises for the purpose of rousing faith in men, not merely simple rites, which distinguish Christians from Gentiles, not only symbols of spiritual life and so forth, as the heretics wrongly think (Art. 200), but sacramental actions, which under some visible form really impart to the believers an invisible grace of God; they are instruments which of necessity operate as grace on those who approach unto them." (p. 505.)

244. On the septenary number of the sacraments. It is proved that there are precisely seven sacraments. From these proofs the very opposite is clearly demonstrated.

"After that we must not be misled by the fact that some ancient teachers, as the need arose, or in conformity with the purpose chosen by them, or for some other reasons, speak in their writings now of two, now of three, and now of four sacraments, without mentioning the rest. It is quite wrong to conclude from that, as the Protestants have concluded, that the ancient church recognized only two sacraments (why not three or four ?), baptism and the eucharist, for it is known that other teachers of the church at the same time or even earlier mentioned also all the rest; for it is known that the same teachers, mentioning baptism and the eucharist by name, at times point also to other similar sacraments and in various passages of their writings clearly speak separately of each of the seven sacraments." (pp. 611 and 512.)

Any one who has read church history knows that there were seven sacraments, precisely seven, because there are seven gifts of the Holy Ghost, seven candelabra, seven seals, and so forth.

245. On the conditions for the performance and efficacy of the sacraments. For the performance of the sacraments, that is, for the communication of grace to the believers, are needed : "(1) A legally ordained presbyter or bishop; (2) a legal (that is, according to the divine ordainment) sacramental action of the sacraments." (pp. 513 and 514.)

"But, on the other hand, many heretics have wrongly thought : (a) that for the performance and efficacy of the sacraments is needed not only a legally ordained minister of the church, but also a pious servant, so that the sacraments performed by tainted servants of the altar have no significance, or (b) that the actuality and efficacy of each sacrament depends on the faith of the persons receiving it, so that it is a sacrament and has its full power only during the time of its reception or use with faith, and that when not used, or in case of acceptance without faith, it is not a sacrament and remains sterile (Art. 200). (1) The first is wrong, for the power of grace of the sacraments depends really on the deserts and the will of Christ the Saviour, who himself performs them invisibly, and the pastors of the church are only his servants and visible instruments,, through whom he imparts the sacraments to men. (2) Wrong is also the second opinion, which assumes that the power and actuality of the sacraments is in complete dependence on the faith and disposition of the persons who receive the sacraments." (pp. 514-517.)

That is clear. The sacraments are purely external ac- tions, like incantations against the toothache which act upon people, and there is no sense of speaking or thinking of anj spiritual side either on the part of the one who pronounces the incantation, or on the part of those who are being cured. It is necessary to make certain motions with the hands and feet, and grace will come down.

246. Moral application of the dogma. The application of the dogma concludes the section about the sacraments. The only obvious application is to have recourse to the hierarchy for sanctification by means of sacraments. The whole doctrine about the sacraments, after it has been analyzed, is reduced to the following: among the number of senseless, discordant followers of Christ there are some who consider themselves to be ordained by those men who themselves have been ordained by the laying on of hands, who, finally, were ordained by the apostles. These people give no signs of their right of succession, but they assert that the grace of the Holy Ghost has come down to them, and that, in consequence of it, they know seven actions through which the grace of the Holy Ghost descends upon people, and this grace, though it is not determined by anything visible, they are able to bring down on people. The communication of this invisible grace by these men is in reality the doctrine about the sacraments.